# Creationists



## cbirch2

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.


----------



## Baron

You should do not believe liberals!

Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.

Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1msS71xL00&feature=related]Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## cbirch2

Baron said:


> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube



LMAO WITH A HERMAN CAIN BANNER FOR HIS SIGNATURE!!!! LMAO!!! 

that was the most ridiculous video ive ever watched. your very simple.


----------



## pinqy

Baron said:


> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube



Well, I didn't have to watch much.  When his first thing on how to determine the age of the earth he says "we go to the Bible."  Why?  Why not look at the physical evidence first?  

And next he starts talking about "Evolutionists say the age of the earth is..." and "...the Big Bang theory, according to Evolution..."   Neither is part of the Theory of Evolution.  The first real theory of Evolution was Lamarkism, who published in 1800, 60 years before Darwin.  But even before that, geologists and Naturalists figured out the Earth was much older than 6,000 years, going back to Nicholas Steno in the late 1600s.


----------



## cbirch2

pinqy said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I didn't have to watch much.  When his first thing on how to determine the age of the earth he says "we go to the Bible."  Why?  Why not look at the physical evidence first?
> 
> And next he starts talking about "Evolutionists say the age of the earth is..." and "...the Big Bang theory, according to Evolution..."   Neither is part of the Theory of Evolution.  The first real theory of Evolution was Lamarkism, who published in 1800, 60 years before Darwin.  But even before that, geologists and Naturalists figured out the Earth was much older than 6,000 years, going back to Nicholas Steno in the late 1600s.
Click to expand...


He understood only a very small part of that


----------



## geauxtohell

Baron said:


> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube



Who is John Morris Pendleton?

This is quite the CV, let me tell you........



> - In the year 2000, he has answered and mailed free creationist materials in Spanish to almost 120 individuals from 13 countries. These were letters and emails in response to the Spanish radio broadcasts of Back to Genesis of the Institute for Creation Research.
> - At present, he is dedicating his efforts to Zacatecas, Mexico to bring the message of creation into the public schools and the community, and to equip the local churches with teachings and materials to do the same.
> - Founder and director of the Grupo Internacional de Científicos Creacionistas -- G.I.C.C. -- The International Group of Creation Scientists and their group of associate members.
> - Presented the creationist conferences in Cuba in March and December of 1999, with plans to tour all of Cuba in 15 days in July or August of 2001.
> - Was one of the main speakers in the First and Second National Creationist Congress in Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico in May, 1998 and August, 2000.
> - His creationists conferences in video (Spanish and English) are now in the U.S.A., 15 Latin American countries, Spain, Zimbabwe, Africa and India.
> *- Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from the University of Wisconin in Madison, U.S.A.
> - Automotive technician for 10 years. *
> - Worked in cancer research for 1 1/2 years.
> - Made creationist conferences for Christian television in El Paso, Midland-Odessa and San Antonio, Texas.
> - Part of the team that won the debate on CREATION AND EVOLUTION at the University of Morelos in Cuernavaca, Mexico in 1994.
> - Translated and published in Spanish 15,000 copies of the powerful booklet by Ken Ham -- DINOSAURS AND THE BIBLE.
> - Interviewed on various radio and t-v stations in the U.S.A., Mexico, Venezuela and Paraguay.
> - For television, made 40 half-hour programs about science, the Bible, the creation, evolution, dinosaurs and the flood.





The guy's got a bachelor's degree and worked as a mechanic and thinks he can slap a labcoat on and have instant credibility.

Hilarious.

At least, unlike Kent Hovind, he didn't buy a Ph.D. at a Diploma Mill.


----------



## cbirch2

"you should do not believe liberals"


----------



## pinqy

cbirch2 said:


> "you should do not believe liberals"



The Catholic Church, which accepts the old earth and most of evolution (seperate creation of the soul) is liberal?


----------



## cbirch2

pinqy said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you should do not believe liberals"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church, which accepts the old earth and most of evolution (seperate creation of the soul) is liberal?
Click to expand...


That was me quoting the second poster and his horrible grammar. Nothing to do with the actual argument.


----------



## pinqy

cbirch2 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you should do not believe liberals"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church, which accepts the old earth and most of evolution (seperate creation of the soul) is liberal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was me quoting the second poster and his horrible grammar. Nothing to do with the actual argument.
Click to expand...


Oh, I knew...I was just trying to reinforce your point.


----------



## konradv

pinqy said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you should do not believe liberals"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Church, which accepts the old earth and most of evolution (seperate creation of the soul) is liberal?
Click to expand...


Liberal, yes, on points like the death penalty and torture.  Not so liberal on things like gay marriage and abortion.  It's really not valid to make a blanket statement like that from either side.


----------



## geauxtohell

cbirch2 said:


> "you should do not believe liberals"



"You should not believe auto-mechanics who claim to be "chemists" because they got a bachelor's in chemistry on an issue of biological science."


----------



## Obamerican

Baron said:


> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube


It seems your "chemist" is a newbie with his head up his ass.


----------



## HUGGY

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



Babies toys from China with lead paint on them.


----------



## Sophist

Creationists based their beliefs on a book 3000 years old... Darwin had his theories at around the mid 1800's. Millions of the smartest people in the world advocate the fact that the world is at least older than 6000. I don't know but given the facts I vote for the scientists.

Creationists then say: But it's highly unlikely the world was created from a simultaneous explosion into what it is today...

My reply: Well it is highly unlikely that the single specific sperm cell that fertilized the egg within your mother's womb was able to make the creature that you call yourself today yet it happened didn't it?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



Here are some reasons.

Evidence for a Young World - Answers in Genesis


http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/


Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis


Young Earth Creationism - Conservapedia


This video destroy's evolutionist timeline and makes a very strong argument for the global flood,and a young earth.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some reasons.
> 
> Evidence for a Young World - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/
> 
> 
> Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> Young Earth Creationism - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> This video destroy's evolutionist timeline and makes a very strong argument for the global flood,and a young earth.
> 
> 101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV
Click to expand...

Literally the most retarded, intellectually dishonest arguments ever.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some reasons.
> 
> Evidence for a Young World - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/
> 
> 
> Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> Young Earth Creationism - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> This video destroy's evolutionist timeline and makes a very strong argument for the global flood,and a young earth.
> 
> 101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Literally the most retarded, intellectually dishonest arguments ever.
Click to expand...


Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some reasons.
> 
> Evidence for a Young World - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/
> 
> 
> Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> Young Earth Creationism - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> This video destroy's evolutionist timeline and makes a very strong argument for the global flood,and a young earth.
> 
> 101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV
> 
> 
> 
> Literally the most retarded, intellectually dishonest arguments ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.
Click to expand...


You yourself on another thread said there was a 9,000+ year old tree, now you're on here defending those who say the Earth is 6,000 years old.

At least pick one psychotic idea and stick to it.

Or did God create that tree, use it as a toothpick, then later create the Earth and he planted it?


----------



## Photonic

I'll go ahead and repost my partial review on this video (I need to freaking finish this thing already).



> Angular momentum can still be conserved in the big bang, this point made by him makes mention of a rotating singularity that consitutes the earliest moment of the planck epoch (Planck epoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
> By extrapolating from Hawkings & Susskind's assessments of quantum singularity properties, given that the universe at 0-time was a proper quantum singularity (what allows this to be constituted as a singularity is in fact the same properties we assign a black hole are accounted for in the properties of the early universe) there are two theories that can be worked from this.
> (Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) The first is that there is no frame of reference, so conservation of angular moment isn't possible because it simply cannot be applied. The second and equally plasuable explaination is that the early universe was rotating from 0-time during the planck epoch which is a very clear possibility of a singularity, especially one like this. The second is more consistent with a multiverse theory of reality, given that the singularity formed was an event in a "parent" universe.
> 
> Moving on, he makes mention of movement in a particular direction, and given this the opposite direction is improbable because of the frame of reference (conservation of angular momentum). What he makes no mention of is that these events ARE quite improbable but mathematically likely to happen given the inclination of energy conservation in proper or retrograde rotation. Successive inclinations of retrograde directive energetic stimulus could easily explain these admittedly extremely rare events.
> 
> My assessment of his knowledge of gravity is that he lacks the basic understanding to make assertions about the coelescing of the early hydrogen gas in the universe under gravitational influences in sufficient quantities to ignite stars. He argues that this is unlikely but we know today that gravity has no limits on it's capability to interact from a long distance. We are being affected by gravity from other galaxies and just because it is not noticable to us personally it's quite observable. A quick glance at the galactic clusters that permeate our universe leave us with little option but to accept this simple notion.
> For those who are mathematically inclined I am including the equations that will allow you to calculate the gravitationally binding energy of a system. (Gravitational binding energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
> 
> I am going to pause at this point in the assessment of this video to say he seems to favor an incredibly simplified and almost derisive inclination to state evolution as bluntly and unfavorably as possible while still attempting to maintain neutrality. I do not find this becoming of someone claiming to be attempting to give people the facts and allowing them to decide themselves. Anyways, onward.
> 
> On the subject of radiometric dating, he fails to mention that more than a single "clock" is used in a sample for dating in billions of years. Uranium-235 and Lead-206. (Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
> He mentions non-chrystalized igneous rock is undatable, but he also fails to mention that once it crystalizes it is easily dated almost to the moment. This is due to the inability to obtain a sufficient amount of crystalized (formed atomic structures) isotopes in the material.
> His sand analogy doesn't really apply given the instruments used to measure. This is why there is a variable answer given to every dating. (Example: between 250-265,000 years) This is because samples used to date are taken from different geologic areas that are within a given distance and can provide accurate results.
> 
> His reference to relativity is unimagintive and lacking and INCREDIBLY insulting. He goes so far as to say it didn't need mentioning. This is not the attitude of someone who is attempting to give people equal footing in both to determine what is true.
> Because he made no rational arguments against relativity, and simply relegated it to non-application which, in the context of his own argument, is impossible to do. He proceeds to do it anyways.
> 
> At this point in the movie he goes into evolution, which is not my speciality. I am educated on the topic but my opinions are not that of an evolutionary biologist but as someone well versed in evolution.
> 
> He begins this section with geological evolution, that is, the formation of the earths crust over time.
> 
> 
> Unconformity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you wish to educate yourself as this man clearly avoided doing on this topic (among others) this is enough material to explain just about any inconsistent argument he brings up.
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of this film I get very heavy impression he is simply pandering to a Christian crowd with pseudoscientific evidence. I don't appreciate his obvious derision of science in general.
> 
> Issues with some "world-wide" flood; there is 3 times less than the required volume of water on Earth to produce such a flood, given that Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on earth. This would mean, in no uncertain terms, that there would be a shell of water with the bottom 2/3 volume MISSING! Empty air!
> His little flatness theory is interesting, completely explainable by simply saying that sediments act similarly in air as well.
> 
> This poses a number of issues mathematically but I will stop there so I can continue watching.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some reasons.
> 
> Evidence for a Young World - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/
> 
> 
> Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> Young Earth Creationism - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> This video destroy's evolutionist timeline and makes a very strong argument for the global flood,and a young earth.
> 
> 101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV
> 
> 
> 
> Literally the most retarded, intellectually dishonest arguments ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.
Click to expand...

Substance eh?

Four links to denials of reality, and this Walter Veith guy who is just a douche, are substantial enough to require a substantial reply?

Come on, don't pretend you were being serious.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some reasons.
> 
> Evidence for a Young World - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/
> 
> 
> Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> Young Earth Creationism - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> This video destroy's evolutionist timeline and makes a very strong argument for the global flood,and a young earth.
> 
> 101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV
> 
> 
> 
> Literally the most retarded, intellectually dishonest arguments ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.
Click to expand...


A logical fallacy.  It would apply if you were advocating something that at least at a shred of credibility.  "Answers in Genesis"?  

As it stands, I don't have to write a thesis on crap to know crap when I see it.  

That was crap.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Literally the most retarded, intellectually dishonest arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You yourself on another thread said there was a 9,000+ year old tree, now you're on here defending those who say the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> At least pick one psychotic idea and stick to it.
> 
> Or did God create that tree, use it as a toothpick, then later create the Earth and he planted it?
Click to expand...


Look i'm not sure you're being disengenuous or you forgot. But i used that as a reference that your side couldn't find any tree older then that knowing trees can live a very long time. No i don't believe that tree is that old and i have made myself clear that i do not trust dating methods and i gave many reasons why i don't trust them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Literally the most retarded, intellectually dishonest arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A logical fallacy.  It would apply if you were advocating something that at least at a shred of credibility.  "Answers in Genesis"?
> 
> As it stands, I don't have to write a thesis on crap to know crap when I see it.
> 
> That was crap.
Click to expand...


Really,you're more qualified then many of the scientist that hold docterate degrees that support what  is written in the scriptures that openly claim to be creationist including myself ?

Evidently by your beliefs you wouldn't know pooh if it was placed right under your nose.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Literally the most retarded, intellectually dishonest arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Substance eh?
> 
> Four links to denials of reality, and this Walter Veith guy who is just a douche, are substantial enough to require a substantial reply?
> 
> Come on, don't pretend you were being serious.
Click to expand...


Of course i was being serious. I have many years in science not just schooling actually working in the fields.

Seeing the evidence is believing my friend.


----------



## AmericanFirst

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.


Fools are easily baffled.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



Why don't you go find someone who actually believes that and ask them.

My apologies, there is at least one idiot that believes that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Baron said:


> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube



There is nothing in the Bible that indicates a timeline for when the Earth was created.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Quantum Windbag said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Bible that indicates a timeline for when the Earth was created.
Click to expand...


Yes there is ,they traced the chronology of the bible it's not exact but it's around 6,000 years since man has been on the planet.

No one knows how long each day of creation was so the earth can be older then 6,000 years.

It say's a thousand years is but a day to God so was creation by God's timeline or mans i'm not sure. If each day od creation took 1,000 years you would have 6,000 years of creation and 6,000 years man has been on the earth. So the earth would be 12,000 years old.

I will say what I Always say,I don't know for sure, but it seems the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000 years old.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Bible that indicates a timeline for when the Earth was created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is ,they traced the chronology of the bible it's not exact but it's around 6,000 years since man has been on the planet.
> 
> No one knows how long each day of creation was so the earth can be older then 6,000 years.
> 
> It say's a thousand years is but a day to God so was creation by God's timeline or mans i'm not sure. If each day od creation took 1,000 years you would have 6,000 years of creation and 6,000 years man has been on the earth. So the earth would be 12,000 years old.
> 
> I will say what I Always say,I don't know for sure, but it seems the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000 years old.
Click to expand...


A mind is a terrible thing to waste!


----------



## ItsMe

The Big Bang Theory states that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, not 20 billion, as this Chemist states.  Just one fact I'd like to point out that if he was doing ACTUAL research, he would have known this.  

Carry on.


----------



## rdean

pinqy said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I didn't have to watch much.  When his first thing on how to determine the age of the earth he says "we go to the Bible."  Why?  Why not look at the physical evidence first?
> 
> And next he starts talking about "Evolutionists say the age of the earth is..." and "...the Big Bang theory, according to Evolution..."   Neither is part of the Theory of Evolution.  The first real theory of Evolution was Lamarkism, who published in 1800, 60 years before Darwin.  But even before that, geologists and Naturalists figured out the Earth was much older than 6,000 years, going back to Nicholas Steno in the late 1600s.
Click to expand...


For the right wingnuts, the Bible, written by bronze age people who didn't know to wash after wiping, IS physical evidence.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Youwerecreated said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Bible that indicates a timeline for when the Earth was created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is ,they traced the chronology of the bible it's not exact but it's around 6,000 years since man has been on the planet.
> 
> No one knows how long each day of creation was so the earth can be older then 6,000 years.
> 
> It say's a thousand years is but a day to God so was creation by God's timeline or mans i'm not sure. If each day od creation took 1,000 years you would have 6,000 years of creation and 6,000 years man has been on the earth. So the earth would be 12,000 years old.
> 
> I will say what I Always say,I don't know for sure, but it seems the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000 years old.
Click to expand...


They did not trace the chronology of the Bible, if they had they would have seen it does not work because there are obvious gaps in it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Quantum Windbag said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Bible that indicates a timeline for when the Earth was created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is ,they traced the chronology of the bible it's not exact but it's around 6,000 years since man has been on the planet.
> 
> No one knows how long each day of creation was so the earth can be older then 6,000 years.
> 
> It say's a thousand years is but a day to God so was creation by God's timeline or mans i'm not sure. If each day od creation took 1,000 years you would have 6,000 years of creation and 6,000 years man has been on the earth. So the earth would be 12,000 years old.
> 
> I will say what I Always say,I don't know for sure, but it seems the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did not trace the chronology of the Bible, if they had they would have seen it does not work because there are obvious gaps in it.
Click to expand...


Maybe I should have been clearer.

This age is determined by counting the generations of biblical figures recorded throughout the Bible, starting with Adam in the Garden of Eden.

I will say I can't say for sure how long the earth and universe has existed but i do believe man has been on earth for 6,000 years.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.
> 
> 
> 
> Substance eh?
> 
> Four links to denials of reality, and this Walter Veith guy who is just a douche, are substantial enough to require a substantial reply?
> 
> Come on, don't pretend you were being serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course i was being serious. I have many years in science not just schooling actually working in the fields.
> 
> Seeing the evidence is believing my friend.
Click to expand...


Yes, definitely you have show me all the evidence I need and hopefully everyone else too.


----------



## koshergrl

I wonder if people who claim to know definitively that the age of the earth is something other than what some other group claims it is, know how incredibly close minded and ignorant they sound?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.
> 
> 
> 
> Substance eh?
> 
> Four links to denials of reality, and this Walter Veith guy who is just a douche, are substantial enough to require a substantial reply?
> 
> Come on, don't pretend you were being serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course i was being serious. I have many years in science not just schooling actually working in the fields.
Click to expand...

Meaningless.



Youwerecreated said:


> Seeing the evidence is believing my friend.


I agree, but what you provided argues "believing is seeing." Science is believing what you see, these creationists and Walter Veith, see what they believe.


----------



## koshergrl

As do those who claim the earth is older.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> As do those who claim the earth is older.


Evidence of the retarded belief paradigm of the superstitious.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You yourself on another thread said there was a 9,000+ year old tree, now you're on here defending those who say the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> At least pick one psychotic idea and stick to it.
> 
> Or did God create that tree, use it as a toothpick, then later create the Earth and he planted it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look i'm not sure you're being disengenuous or you forgot. But i used that as a reference that your side couldn't find any tree older then that knowing trees can live a very long time. No i don't believe that tree is that old and i have made myself clear that i do not trust dating methods and i gave many reasons why i don't trust them.
Click to expand...


You were saying since there's no trees older than 9,000 years old that's proof of a worldwide flood.  Now you're changing your argument by saying it could be 12,000 years old even though the biblical timeline doesn't say that.

Again, pick one crazy thought, and stick to it for consistiencies sake.

My first choice is you take science and math seriously, but i've given up on that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Substance eh?
> 
> Four links to denials of reality, and this Walter Veith guy who is just a douche, are substantial enough to require a substantial reply?
> 
> Come on, don't pretend you were being serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i was being serious. I have many years in science not just schooling actually working in the fields.
> 
> Seeing the evidence is believing my friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, definitely you have show me all the evidence I need and hopefully everyone else too.
Click to expand...


Well the bible i have no reason to doubt. There is evidence to support a much younger earth then some scientist believe.

There is plenty of evidence for dinosaurs existing for a while alongside man.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Substance eh?
> 
> Four links to denials of reality, and this Walter Veith guy who is just a douche, are substantial enough to require a substantial reply?
> 
> Come on, don't pretend you were being serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i was being serious. I have many years in science not just schooling actually working in the fields.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing the evidence is believing my friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree, but what you provided argues "believing is seeing." Science is believing what you see, these creationists and Walter Veith, see what they believe.
Click to expand...


Same could be said for both sides.

Human nature to interpret evidence to support our presuppositions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> You yourself on another thread said there was a 9,000+ year old tree, now you're on here defending those who say the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> At least pick one psychotic idea and stick to it.
> 
> Or did God create that tree, use it as a toothpick, then later create the Earth and he planted it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look i'm not sure you're being disengenuous or you forgot. But i used that as a reference that your side couldn't find any tree older then that knowing trees can live a very long time. No i don't believe that tree is that old and i have made myself clear that i do not trust dating methods and i gave many reasons why i don't trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were saying since there's no trees older than 9,000 years old that's proof of a worldwide flood.  Now you're changing your argument by saying it could be 12,000 years old even though the biblical timeline doesn't say that.
> 
> Again, pick one crazy thought, and stick to it for consistiencies sake.
> 
> My first choice is you take science and math seriously, but i've given up on that.
Click to expand...


The lack of evidence for old earth gets refuted by such evidence. It is evidence that the flood did exactly as the bible stated.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> You yourself on another thread said there was a 9,000+ year old tree, now you're on here defending those who say the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> At least pick one psychotic idea and stick to it.
> 
> Or did God create that tree, use it as a toothpick, then later create the Earth and he planted it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look i'm not sure you're being disengenuous or you forgot. But i used that as a reference that your side couldn't find any tree older then that knowing trees can live a very long time. No i don't believe that tree is that old and i have made myself clear that i do not trust dating methods and i gave many reasons why i don't trust them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were saying since there's no trees older than 9,000 years old that's proof of a worldwide flood.  Now you're changing your argument by saying it could be 12,000 years old even though the biblical timeline doesn't say that.
> 
> Again, pick one crazy thought, and stick to it for consistiencies sake.
> 
> My first choice is you take science and math seriously, but i've given up on that.
Click to expand...


You deny math and science that don't fall on your side of the theory.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look i'm not sure you're being disengenuous or you forgot. But i used that as a reference that your side couldn't find any tree older then that knowing trees can live a very long time. No i don't believe that tree is that old and i have made myself clear that i do not trust dating methods and i gave many reasons why i don't trust them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were saying since there's no trees older than 9,000 years old that's proof of a worldwide flood.  Now you're changing your argument by saying it could be 12,000 years old even though the biblical timeline doesn't say that.
> 
> Again, pick one crazy thought, and stick to it for consistiencies sake.
> 
> My first choice is you take science and math seriously, but i've given up on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You deny math and science that don't fall on your side of the theory.
Click to expand...


Well I have scientific theories with math and science on my side.

You don't, you have dogma that's it.

I have no issue with you believing in a god(s), but when you use that as an excuse to deny math and science i'll take issue with it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were saying since there's no trees older than 9,000 years old that's proof of a worldwide flood.  Now you're changing your argument by saying it could be 12,000 years old even though the biblical timeline doesn't say that.
> 
> Again, pick one crazy thought, and stick to it for consistiencies sake.
> 
> My first choice is you take science and math seriously, but i've given up on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You deny math and science that don't fall on your side of the theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I have scientific theories with math and science on my side.
> 
> You don't, you have dogma that's it.
> 
> I have no issue with you believing in a god(s), but when you use that as an excuse to deny math and science i'll take issue with it.
Click to expand...


What math and science is on your side be specific ?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You deny math and science that don't fall on your side of the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I have scientific theories with math and science on my side.
> 
> You don't, you have dogma that's it.
> 
> I have no issue with you believing in a god(s), but when you use that as an excuse to deny math and science i'll take issue with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What math and science is on your side be specific ?
Click to expand...


Evolution, math and engineering that says the Ark story is impossible, plate tectonics, age of the Earth, I can't keep up with all the math and science you deny.  I've heard you deny far more scientitic and mathematical facts than accept.

But I'm not going to get into this debate, I'm sure you'll provide religious blogs to "prove" all those things wrong and this time I'm just going to ignore them.  It's no longer entertaining watching you spit on facts like it was when we first had convos on here.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I have scientific theories with math and science on my side.
> 
> You don't, you have dogma that's it.
> 
> I have no issue with you believing in a god(s), but when you use that as an excuse to deny math and science i'll take issue with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What math and science is on your side be specific ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution, math and engineering that says the Ark story is impossible, plate tectonics, age of the Earth, I can't keep up with all the math and science you deny.  I've heard you deny far more scientitic and mathematical facts than accept.
> 
> But I'm not going to get into this debate, I'm sure you'll provide religious blogs to "prove" all those things wrong and this time I'm just going to ignore them.  It's no longer entertaining watching you spit on facts like it was when we first had convos on here.
Click to expand...


Math rebuttal.

How Big Was Noah's Ark

Who said on the creationist side plate tectonics did not occur ?

How do you prove the age of the earth again ?


----------



## skipper

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You deny math and science that don't fall on your side of the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I have scientific theories with math and science on my side.
> 
> You don't, you have dogma that's it.
> 
> I have no issue with you believing in a god(s), but when you use that as an excuse to deny math and science i'll take issue with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What math and science is on your side be specific ?
Click to expand...


How about the advent of radiometric dating of minerals within rocks using isotopic ratios.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course i was being serious. I have many years in science not just schooling actually working in the fields.
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing the evidence is believing my friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree, but what you provided argues "believing is seeing." Science is believing what you see, these creationists and Walter Veith, see what they believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same could be said for both sides.
Click to expand...

Of course it could be said ... and it would be an error of fact.



Youwerecreated said:


> Human nature to interpret evidence to support our presuppositions.


Reasonably rational human beings are not so afflicted with that disability so symptomatic of faith.

More precisely, it is the nature of superstitious retards to interpret evidence to support their presuppositions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

skipper said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I have scientific theories with math and science on my side.
> 
> You don't, you have dogma that's it.
> 
> I have no issue with you believing in a god(s), but when you use that as an excuse to deny math and science i'll take issue with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What math and science is on your side be specific ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about the advent of radiometric dating of minerals within rocks using isotopic ratios.
Click to expand...


Don't trust any dating method because pressuppositions are needed ,in other words they are biased because of ones view before the process begins.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless.
> 
> I agree, but what you provided argues "believing is seeing." Science is believing what you see, these creationists and Walter Veith, see what they believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same could be said for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it could be said ... and it would be an error of fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human nature to interpret evidence to support our presuppositions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reasonably rational human beings are not so afflicted with that disability so symptomatic of faith.
> 
> More precisely, it is the nature of superstitious retards to interpret evidence to support their presuppositions.
Click to expand...


Wrong, I don't care who or what you're we are affected by our nature. Horse is an animal of flight what do they do when they see an object they are not familliar with ?

You can see the same results when you support a political party you can't see the good on the other side why ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same could be said for both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it could be said ... and it would be an error of fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human nature to interpret evidence to support our presuppositions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reasonably rational human beings are not so afflicted with that disability so symptomatic of faith.
> 
> More precisely, it is the nature of superstitious retards to interpret evidence to support their presuppositions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm clearly correct; just watch ...
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I don't care who or what you're we are affected by our nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just guessing at what his mess is supposed to mean; but you're wrong to assume that just because it's in the nature of some people to be dedicated to being superstitious retards, then all people are dedicated to being superstitious retards.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horse is an animal of flight what do they do when they see an object they are not familliar with ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose your answer is that people and horses make shit up and then pretend it's real, denying all contradictory evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> My answer would be that why and what horses do what they do, is pretty irrelevant to why and what people do what they do.
> 
> And just because you think your Invisible Magic Stallion from Great Pasture In The Sky made you jumpy around snakes because they sell bad apples, it just does not follow that all of your fellow human beings share in your retarded superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can see the same results when you support a political party you can't see the good on the other side why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's clear that the questions you direct at me are just loaded with the kind of retarded presumptions that arise from the same cognitive defect that marks the superstitious--the certainty of knowledge, without verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support that certainty: i.e. faith.
Click to expand...


----------



## pinqy

Youwerecreated said:


> Don't trust any dating method because pressuppositions are needed ,in other words they are biased because of ones view before the process begins.



But the different dating measures match each other (within known margins of error/discrepencies).  Of course certain assumptions are made, but methods are adjusted when the assumptions prove wrong.  Even the simplest of dating methods...that the digger you deep the older the layers are...show a much older earth than 6,000 years even without setting dates.  And layers "out of order" are accounted for and can be detected.

The 6,000 year old earth theory was disproven well before Darwin.


----------



## koshergrl

No, it hasn't.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> No, it hasn't.


Well look at you coming correct! BRAVO! 

The age of the earth has certainly not been "proven" to be older than 6000 years to the degree of certainty that the creationist faithful have in the age of 'their young earth.'

The evidence of an old earth is very clear; technically though, that patently verifiable evidence doesn't disprove any assertion that the earth was created to appear older than 6000 years. So the superstitious retards still have an out--irrational as it is.

Of course these young earth beliefs lack the verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to convince anyone (except of course, those who already believe in the first place) that the earth is not older than 6000 years.

Only the faithful--the special and favored recipients of divinely bestowed (pre)knowledge--hold the standard of certainty that defines "proof" as that which agrees with their presumptions and prejudices that are unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; and are validated by their stoic denial of verifiable evidence and valid logic.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless.
> 
> I agree, but what you provided argues "believing is seeing." Science is believing what you see, these creationists and Walter Veith, see what they believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same could be said for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it could be said ... and it would be an error of fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human nature to interpret evidence to support our presuppositions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reasonably rational human beings are not so afflicted with that disability so symptomatic of faith.
> 
> More precisely, it is the nature of superstitious retards to interpret evidence to support their presuppositions.
Click to expand...


It takes faith for both sides to believe as they do when you can't prove what you believe that is faith.

To use the term retards is very revealing about you.

Your side interprets evidence the same way but because they call it science you believe it.

It's not real science if faith is required to believe such silly things.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it could be said ... and it would be an error of fact.
> 
> Reasonably rational human beings are not so afflicted with that disability so symptomatic of faith.
> 
> More precisely, it is the nature of superstitious retards to interpret evidence to support their presuppositions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm clearly correct; just watch ...
> 
> I'm just guessing at what his mess is supposed to mean; but you're wrong to assume that just because it's in the nature of some people to be dedicated to being superstitious retards, then all people are dedicated to being superstitious retards.
> 
> I suppose your answer is that people and horses make shit up and then pretend it's real, denying all contradictory evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> My answer would be that why and what horses do what they do, is pretty irrelevant to why and what people do what they do.
> 
> And just because you think your Invisible Magic Stallion from Great Pasture In The Sky made you jumpy around snakes because they sell bad apples, it just does not follow that all of your fellow human beings share in your retarded superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can see the same results when you support a political party you can't see the good on the other side why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's clear that the questions you direct at me are just loaded with the kind of retarded presumptions that arise from the same cognitive defect that marks the superstitious--the certainty of knowledge, without verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support that certainty: i.e. faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok I no longer take you serious ,it is very revealing when you use the term retard.
> 
> I gave you the answer to the horse and you still couldn't grasp the relevance.
> 
> Why did you avoid the questions that was put to you ?
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

pinqy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't trust any dating method because pressuppositions are needed ,in other words they are biased because of ones view before the process begins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the different dating measures match each other (within known margins of error/discrepencies).  Of course certain assumptions are made, but methods are adjusted when the assumptions prove wrong.  Even the simplest of dating methods...that the digger you deep the older the layers are...show a much older earth than 6,000 years even without setting dates.  And layers "out of order" are accounted for and can be detected.
> 
> The 6,000 year old earth theory was disproven well before Darwin.
Click to expand...


Still not worthy to bet my life on it.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Ok I no longer take you serious ,it is very revealing when you use the term retard.


Why? Did I use the term incorrectly? If so, then correct me. If not, then I fail to see how my correct usage reveals anything about me such that I can't be taken seriously. 

Unless of course, correct usage is the reason you won't take me seriously.

That would reveal a great deal about you.



Youwerecreated said:


> I gave you the answer to the horse and you still couldn't grasp the relevance.


Just because you have no idea what you're talking about, it does not follow that I have no idea what you're talking about. I grasped the relevance of your horse analogy just fine.



Youwerecreated said:


> Why did you avoid the questions that was put to you ?


I didn't avoid them in the least; I just refused to validate the invalid and irrelevant presumptions your questions were founded upon.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> It takes faith for both sides to believe as they do when you can't prove what you believe that is faith.


Nonsense. Only for the faithful does "prove" require "proof" that is absolute and not to be questioned.

Only the intellectually disingenuous insist that if you don't possess the absolutely complete knowledge of everything, then you cannot make any claim of any degree of certainty in the knowledge of anything.



Youwerecreated said:


> To use the term retards is very revealing about you.


I'm sure it does. I am just as sure that what you think it reveals about me, reveals a great deal about you.



Youwerecreated said:


> Your side interprets evidence the same way but because they call it science you believe it.


This misrepresentation of fact should be considered a lie, if it is intentional.

Which, if you have any notion of what you're talking about, is necessarily true.

But, if you are so dissociated from understanding the real world that you have no idea what you're talking about, then perhaps you're a little retarded.

Maybe you just misspoke. Care to try again?



Youwerecreated said:


> It's not real science if faith is required to believe such silly things.


Quite correct. Which is the precise point I'm making regarding the "science" involved in creationism.


----------



## pinqy

Youwerecreated said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't trust any dating method because pressuppositions are needed ,in other words they are biased because of ones view before the process begins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the different dating measures match each other (within known margins of error/discrepencies).  Of course certain assumptions are made, but methods are adjusted when the assumptions prove wrong.  Even the simplest of dating methods...that the digger you deep the older the layers are...show a much older earth than 6,000 years even without setting dates.  And layers "out of order" are accounted for and can be detected.
> 
> The 6,000 year old earth theory was disproven well before Darwin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still not worthy to bet my life on it.
Click to expand...


What evidence, exactly, would you accept?


----------



## Dr.Drock

pinqy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the different dating measures match each other (within known margins of error/discrepencies).  Of course certain assumptions are made, but methods are adjusted when the assumptions prove wrong.  Even the simplest of dating methods...that the digger you deep the older the layers are...show a much older earth than 6,000 years even without setting dates.  And layers "out of order" are accounted for and can be detected.
> 
> The 6,000 year old earth theory was disproven well before Darwin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not worthy to bet my life on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence, exactly, would you accept?
Click to expand...


Having a dream where a man with a white beard falls from the sky and just says a number.


----------



## Youwerecreated

pinqy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the different dating measures match each other (within known margins of error/discrepencies).  Of course certain assumptions are made, but methods are adjusted when the assumptions prove wrong.  Even the simplest of dating methods...that the digger you deep the older the layers are...show a much older earth than 6,000 years even without setting dates.  And layers "out of order" are accounted for and can be detected.
> 
> The 6,000 year old earth theory was disproven well before Darwin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not worthy to bet my life on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence, exactly, would you accept?
Click to expand...


There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.


----------



## pinqy

Youwerecreated said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not worthy to bet my life on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence, exactly, would you accept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.
Click to expand...


Why not?


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not worthy to bet my life on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence, exactly, would you accept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.
Click to expand...


I wasn't there for the birth of the tree, but when I cut it down I knew EXACTLY how old it was.  Nice try, but absolutes have a way of making one look foolish!


----------



## koshergrl

No, you don't know EXACTLY how old it was. You know APPROXIMATELY how old it was.

And rock and earth aren't trees. The accuracy becomes less and less accurate the older things are.


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> No, you don't know EXACTLY how old it was. You know APPROXIMATELY how old it was.
> 
> And rock and earth aren't trees. The accuracy becomes less and less accurate the older things are.



We have agreement, it is less accurate that's why you see a larger range of years the older you get when science determines the age of things.


----------



## koshergrl

No shit. To cover your ass when you're wildly inaccurate.


----------



## cbirch2

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence, exactly, would you accept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't there for the birth of the tree, but when I cut it down I knew EXACTLY how old it was.  Nice try, but absolutes have a way of making one look foolish!
Click to expand...


Its ok, ive already had an extensive discussion with YWC about the topic of radiometric dating.

We've come to the conclusion that, in order for YWC to be correct, the laws of physics governing the structure of an atom must be radically different yet stable, something no one believes is possible. 

Radiometric dates are controlled by the decay rates of certain isotopes, which are dependent on the forces within the nucleus of the atom, which of course are the basic constituents of everything we know.

To deny radiometric dating is to assume that the particles of the standard model had somehow acted differently in the past, which of course would prevent the formation of atoms. Ridiculous.


----------



## cbirch2

koshergrl said:


> No shit. To cover your ass when you're wildly inaccurate.



Why does every creationist do this???

You think, for some reason, that because you caught him in a technical blunder about the difference between knowing for sure and having an estimation that somehow the entirety of modern science is wrong. 

Funny creationist.


----------



## cbirch2

YWC, someone really needs to educate you on radiometric dating. Your statement about assumptions makes no sense in reference to most types of radioactive dating. 

Potassium-argon dating only assumes that no argon is present in the initial sample, a perfectly reasonable assumption considering argon gas isnt going to be present in either rock strata or animal remains at the time of the samples formation. In other words, all argon _must_ have originated from the potassium, and their amounts must be proportional. 

The same can be said of lead dating. 

Anyone that would deny the perfect overlap of several different dating methods that rely on very different assumptions is a ideological fool.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> i do not trust dating methods and i gave many reasons why i don't trust them.


Is it because you're a loon?



Youwerecreated said:


> Seeing the evidence is believing my friend.


This is funny coming from someone who refuses to acknowledge or remember any evidence on any scientific topic, to instead believe something that has no verifiable evidence whatsoever. If seeing is believing, I can't begin to imagine the kinds of visual hallucinations you must be having to believe the things you do. 



Youwerecreated said:


> This age is determined by counting the generations of biblical figures recorded throughout the Bible, starting with Adam in the Garden of Eden.


I see. So we know how long each generation lived for, correct?  And this is still accurate even though our own lifespans have dramatically changed in the last 200 years?




Youwerecreated said:


> Same could be said for both sides.
> 
> Human nature to interpret evidence to support our presuppositions.


That's true, it is human bias.  That's precisely why we have the scientific method: to remove such biases by creating blinding and other methods.  If you were actually a scientist in any capacity, you would have known that though.  But this isn't the first topic you've been completely clueless about yet decided to add your opinion to. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Don't trust any dating method because pressuppositions are needed ,in other words they are biased because of ones view before the process begins.


No, you don't trust any dating method because it goes against your religion and you need to maintain your blind opinions. We've gone over why dating is valid and verifiable.  Multiple times.  You always continue to conveniently forget.



Youwerecreated said:


> Ok I no longer take you serious ,it is very revealing when you use the term retard.


I think by "retard" he meant "guy with stroke who can't form new memories and frequently responds to the same post three times saying the same thing" so don't take it personally.



Youwerecreated said:


> There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.


Really?  I didn't know what was true.  So if I saw a baby, it could really be a 40 year old dude trying to work the system?  And if I cut down a tree the rings have no way whatsoever in giving me an approximate age?  Why do doctors use that thing called bone age?  How do forensic people determine time of death of bodies?  How do we know how often to cut the grass if we can't tell time with respect to regular predictable natural properties?!

Good thing they  have a "Sell By" date on your milk.  You wouldn't know if it was still fresh and young if no one recorded it for you.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

koshergrl said:


> I wonder if people who claim to know definitively that the age of the earth is something other than what some other group claims it is, know how incredibly close minded and ignorant they sound?


Yeah, changing one's worldview to adapt to expanding reproducible evidence to create the most logical and verifiable conclusion is closed minded.  If only I can be open minded and non-ignorant like you, whereas I can ignore all evidence on a topic to just believe what I want, regardless of conflicting information. 



koshergrl said:


> No, you don't know EXACTLY how old it was. You know APPROXIMATELY how old it was.
> 
> And rock and earth aren't trees. The accuracy becomes less and less accurate the older things are.


I see. If something is 1,000,000 years old but I'm off by a year or two, that's important in your world. Accuracy up to 0.00001% of the real value isn't good enough for you, thus we should completely abandon the idea that we can date anything!  Yeah that makes sense.  Totally open minded reasoning there.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> i do not trust dating methods and i gave many reasons why i don't trust them.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it because you're a loon?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing the evidence is believing my friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is funny coming from someone who refuses to acknowledge or remember any evidence on any scientific topic, to instead believe something that has no verifiable evidence whatsoever. If seeing is believing, I can't begin to imagine the kinds of visual hallucinations you must be having to believe the things you do.
> 
> 
> I see. So we know how long each generation lived for, correct?  And this is still accurate even though our own lifespans have dramatically changed in the last 200 years?
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, it is human bias.  That's precisely why we have the scientific method: to remove such biases by creating blinding and other methods.  If you were actually a scientist in any capacity, you would have known that though.  But this isn't the first topic you've been completely clueless about yet decided to add your opinion to.
> 
> 
> No, you don't trust any dating method because it goes against your religion and you need to maintain your blind opinions. We've gone over why dating is valid and verifiable.  Multiple times.  You always continue to conveniently forget.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok I no longer take you serious ,it is very revealing when you use the term retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think by "retard" he meant "guy with stroke who can't form new memories and frequently responds to the same post three times saying the same thing" so don't take it personally.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  I didn't know what was true.  So if I saw a baby, it could really be a 40 year old dude trying to work the system?  And if I cut down a tree the rings have no way whatsoever in giving me an approximate age?  Why do doctors use that thing called bone age?  How do forensic people determine time of death of bodies?  How do we know how often to cut the grass if we can't tell time with respect to regular predictable natural properties?!
> 
> Good thing they  have a "Sell By" date on your milk.  You wouldn't know if it was still fresh and young if no one recorded it for you.
Click to expand...


You compare a newborn child to the universe and call me a loon 

So historians carry little weight with you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> i do not trust dating methods and i gave many reasons why i don't trust them.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it because you're a loon?
Click to expand...


Lets look at all the problems with your so called accurate dating methods. By someone that is not as biased as I am against them.

Bet you won't read it and learn something.

The Radiometric Dating Game


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> YWC, someone really needs to educate you on radiometric dating. Your statement about assumptions makes no sense in reference to most types of radioactive dating.
> 
> Potassium-argon dating only assumes that no argon is present in the initial sample, a perfectly reasonable assumption considering argon gas isnt going to be present in either rock strata or animal remains at the time of the samples formation. In other words, all argon _must_ have originated from the potassium, and their amounts must be proportional.
> 
> The same can be said of lead dating.
> 
> Anyone that would deny the perfect overlap of several different dating methods that rely on very different assumptions is a ideological fool.



I have a link just for you.

The Radiometric Dating Game


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> No shit. To cover your ass when you're wildly inaccurate.



Link to the science being "wildly innaccurate"?


And like with YWC I remind you a link to a Bible blog is a waste of time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit. To cover your ass when you're wildly inaccurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to the science being "wildly innaccurate"?
> 
> 
> And like with YWC I remind you a link to a Bible blog is a waste of time.
Click to expand...


Just admit it you are willing to listen to the educated on your side but you're not willing to listen to the educated on the other side.

You guy's keep trying to argue how accurate your dating methods are and I am a loon for not trusting them. I offer you an explanation why and a site that points out the problems with them and you won't address the problems that are presented so you just close your eyes to the truth, it only hurts you.

But don't try and tell me how accurate the dating methods are it's been documented many times how inaccurate they are and why ?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit. To cover your ass when you're wildly inaccurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to the science being "wildly innaccurate"?
> 
> 
> And like with YWC I remind you a link to a Bible blog is a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just admit it you are willing to listen to the educated on your side but you're not willing to listen to the educated on the other side.
> 
> You guy's keep trying to argue how accurate your dating methods are and I am a loon for not trusting them. I offer you an explanation why and a site that points out the problems with them and you won't address the problems that are presented so you just close your eyes to the truth, it only hurts you.
> 
> But don't try and tell me how accurate the dating methods are it's been documented many times how inaccurate they are and why ?
Click to expand...


Nope I'm not picky, you can pick any scientific website.  Doesn't have to be one of my choosing.

Anything but biased Bible blogs.  You can give me a link to a science website, a link to a college's science department, your choice.


----------



## konradv

koshergrl said:


> No, you don't know EXACTLY how old it was. You know APPROXIMATELY how old it was.
> 
> And rock and earth aren't trees. The accuracy becomes less and less accurate the older things are.



Now you're just playing with words.  Did you expect the age down to the nanosecond?  Sure, when things get older the spread of readings may get larger, but in that case you're usually concerned with how many millions of years, not how many years.  The percentage error doesn't vary that much, so within the constraints of a particular test they ARE very accurate.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to the science being "wildly innaccurate"?
> 
> 
> And like with YWC I remind you a link to a Bible blog is a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just admit it you are willing to listen to the educated on your side but you're not willing to listen to the educated on the other side.
> 
> You guy's keep trying to argue how accurate your dating methods are and I am a loon for not trusting them. I offer you an explanation why and a site that points out the problems with them and you won't address the problems that are presented so you just close your eyes to the truth, it only hurts you.
> 
> But don't try and tell me how accurate the dating methods are it's been documented many times how inaccurate they are and why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope I'm not picky, you can pick any scientific website.  Doesn't have to be one of my choosing.
> 
> Anything but biased Bible blogs.  You can give me a link to a science website, a link to a college's science department, your choice.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't know EXACTLY how old it was. You know APPROXIMATELY how old it was.
> 
> And rock and earth aren't trees. The accuracy becomes less and less accurate the older things are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just playing with words.  Did you expect the age down to the nanosecond?  Sure, when things get older the spread of readings may get larger, but in that case you're usually concerned with how many millions of years, not how many years.  The percentage error doesn't vary that much, so within the constraints of a particular test they ARE very accurate.
Click to expand...


When you are off you are off period. It's like firing a projectile the further the projectile travels the further it is off by the time it reaches the target area. And to say you're close and just off a little is baloney you have no idea how far off you're if the age is wrong.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't know EXACTLY how old it was. You know APPROXIMATELY how old it was.
> 
> And rock and earth aren't trees. The accuracy becomes less and less accurate the older things are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just playing with words.  Did you expect the age down to the nanosecond?  Sure, when things get older the spread of readings may get larger, but in that case you're usually concerned with how many millions of years, not how many years.  The percentage error doesn't vary that much, so within the constraints of a particular test they ARE very accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you are off you are off period. It's like firing a projectile the further the projectile travels the further it is off by the time it reaches the target area. And to say you're close and just off a little is baloney you have no idea how far off you're if the age is wrong.
Click to expand...


You don't know exactly, but you should have a spread of data that clusters around a mean from which you can determine a standard deviation, giving you an estimate of how far you could be off.  The absolute numbers aren't as important as the precentage, however.  If you're talking billions of years +/- a million or two doesn't mean much.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just admit it you are willing to listen to the educated on your side but you're not willing to listen to the educated on the other side.
> 
> You guy's keep trying to argue how accurate your dating methods are and I am a loon for not trusting them. I offer you an explanation why and a site that points out the problems with them and you won't address the problems that are presented so you just close your eyes to the truth, it only hurts you.
> 
> But don't try and tell me how accurate the dating methods are it's been documented many times how inaccurate they are and why ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I'm not picky, you can pick any scientific website.  Doesn't have to be one of my choosing.
> 
> Anything but biased Bible blogs.  You can give me a link to a science website, a link to a college's science department, your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I can understand why you'd wave the white flag.

But don't worry I'm not holding you to a certain time or date, anytime you can provide a science website to back your claims I'll be ready to read and react.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just playing with words.  Did you expect the age down to the nanosecond?  Sure, when things get older the spread of readings may get larger, but in that case you're usually concerned with how many millions of years, not how many years.  The percentage error doesn't vary that much, so within the constraints of a particular test they ARE very accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you are off you are off period. It's like firing a projectile the further the projectile travels the further it is off by the time it reaches the target area. And to say you're close and just off a little is baloney you have no idea how far off you're if the age is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know exactly, but you should have a spread of data that clusters around a mean from which you can determine a standard deviation, giving you an estimate of how far you could be off.  The absolute numbers aren't as important as the precentage, however.  If you're talking billions of years +/- a million or two doesn't mean much.
Click to expand...



If you say so, but I posted a site that covers all the dating methods and the problems with the dating methods used.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I'm not picky, you can pick any scientific website.  Doesn't have to be one of my choosing.
> 
> Anything but biased Bible blogs.  You can give me a link to a science website, a link to a college's science department, your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can understand why you'd wave the white flag.
> 
> But don't worry I'm not holding you to a certain time or date, anytime you can provide a science website to back your claims I'll be ready to read and react.
Click to expand...


Any scientist that argues again'st your side is considered is shunned and even are threatened with their job for going again'st the establishment. That is a fact.

So not too many on your side will speak out about the problems because of the shunning and threats of losing their job.

So well educated creationist do speak out because it is the right thing to do. So if you don't mind being lead astray go ahead and continue believing the unbelievable.

To say creationist views are not based in science just shows your ignorance on the subject.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you are off you are off period. It's like firing a projectile the further the projectile travels the further it is off by the time it reaches the target area. And to say you're close and just off a little is baloney you have no idea how far off you're if the age is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know exactly, but you should have a spread of data that clusters around a mean from which you can determine a standard deviation, giving you an estimate of how far you could be off.  The absolute numbers aren't as important as the precentage, however.  If you're talking billions of years +/- a million or two doesn't mean much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so, but I posted a site that covers all the dating methods and the problems with the dating methods used.
Click to expand...


That's right, *ONE SIDE*.  Upon reading it and without going into detail, it would only impress the scientifically unsophisticated or uninitiated.  It's full of more holes than the tests you're bashing.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why you'd wave the white flag.
> 
> But don't worry I'm not holding you to a certain time or date, anytime you can provide a science website to back your claims I'll be ready to read and react.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any scientist that argues again'st your side is considered is shunned and even are threatened with their job for going again'st the establishment. That is a fact.
> 
> So not too many on your side will speak out about the problems because of the shunning and threats of losing their job.
> 
> So well educated creationist do speak out because it is the right thing to do. So if you don't mind being lead astray go ahead and continue believing the unbelievable.
> 
> To say creationist views are not based in science just shows your ignorance on the subject.
Click to expand...


So no science link? 

Alright, I'll stop waiting for one.  Thanks for letting me know.


----------



## koshergrl

E Theo Agard, medical physics (In Six Days)

"
Dr. Agard is a former director of medical physics at Flower Hospital Oncology Center, Ohio. He holds a B.S. (Hons) first class in physics from the University of London, an M.S. in physics from the Middlesex Hospital Medical School at the University of London, and a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Toronto. In 1993 Dr. Agard was elected to the national board of directors of the Health Physics Society."

"
My belief in the supernatural creation of this world in six days is summarized largely in the following points: the theory of evolution is not as scientifically sound as many people believe. In particular, the problem of the origin of life is well stated by the question, &#8220;Which came first, the chicken or the egg?&#8221; Every egg anyone has ever seen was laid by a chicken and every chicken was hatched from an egg. Hence, the first chicken or first egg which appeared on the scene in any other way would be unnatural, to say the least. The natural laws under which scientists work are adequate for explaining how the world functions, but are inadequate to explain its origin, just as the tools which service an automobile are inadequate for its manufacture.
From my reading I understand that the fossil record has failed to produce the intermediate forms of life required by evolution as transitions between the species.
Another problem, as I see it, for the noncreationist is the first law of thermodynamics which affirms the natural process of energy conservation. Energy cannot be created or destroyed by natural processes, but can only be converted from one form to another. Since matter is a form of energy (E=mc2 as stated by Einstein), natural sciences cannot account for the total energy, including matter, in the universe. This law consequently implies a role for the supernatural in the origin of the total energy in the universe.
Furthermore, any effort to validate evolution scientifically must involve extrapolation, since current observations must be used to deduce the course of events which occurred several millennia ago (even thousands or millions of millennia). While extrapolation is a valid scientific procedure, it is pertinent to be aware of its limitations. Where there is a sound scientific basis for its use, confidence in the accuracy of an extrapolated result is dependent on the proximity of the point or region of interest to the region of observations."


----------



## koshergrl

Jumping ship

"
We asked him how he now viewed the supposed evidence for evolution. He said:
&#8216;I began to look more critically at the assumptions underlying some of those things that seemed so logical. For example, I came to see that resemblances between taxonomic families, orders, classes, etc. are due to the work of a creator, not common ancestry.&#8217;​Jim Allan says that previously, when people brought up creationist interpretations of the evidence he would say, &#8216;Why bring that nonsense to me?&#8212;it&#8217;s not science.&#8217;
But in the last decade or so, as he has considered a number of these, he has found that they are perfectly reasonable and intellectually acceptable. He now finds it sad that anyone should insist on evolutionary interpretations, which are &#8216;unproven and unprovable.&#8217; &#8216;Science,&#8217; he says:
&#8216;becomes much more meaningful and satisfying in the light of Scripture, rather than in rejecting it. And I certainly believe it is only as we consider together with legitimate science, the truth learned from Scripture, that we can ever really understand and appreciate the physical universe in which we live.&#8217;​


----------



## koshergrl

*Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.*

*Creationist Geology Professor (USA)*

*Education*


B.S. (Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970
M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979
Dr Steven A Austin

"
The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St Helens, Washington. Porphyritic dacite which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986 gives a whole rock K-Ar &#8216;age&#8217; of 0.35 ± 0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral concentrates from the dacite which formed in 1986 give K-Ar &#8216;ages&#8217; from 0.34 ± 0.06 Ma (feldspar-glass concentrate) to 2.8 ± 0.6 Ma (pyroxene concentrate). These &#8216;ages&#8217; are, of course, preposterous. The fundamental dating assumption (&#8216;no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed&#8217 is questioned by these data. Instead, data from this Mount St Helens dacite argue that significant &#8216;excess argon&#8217; was present when the lava solidified in 1986. Phenocrysts of orthopyroxene, hornblende and plagioclase are interpreted to have occluded argon within their mineral structures deep in the magma chamber and to have retained this argon after emplacement and solidification of the dacite. The amount of argon occluded is probably a function of the argon pressure when mineral crystallization occurred at depth and/or the tightness of the mineral structure. Orthopyroxene retains the most argon, followed by hornblende, and finally, plagioclase. The lava dome at Mount St Helens dates very much older than its true age because phenocryst minerals inherit argon from the magma. The study of this Mount St Helens dacite causes the more fundamental question to be asked&#8212;how accurate are K-Ar &#8216;ages&#8217; from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows worldwide?"

Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> Jumping ship
> 
> "
> We asked him how he now viewed the supposed evidence for evolution. He said:
> I began to look more critically at the assumptions underlying some of those things that seemed so logical. For example, I came to see that resemblances between taxonomic families, orders, classes, etc. are due to the work of a creator, not common ancestry.​Jim Allan says that previously, when people brought up creationist interpretations of the evidence he would say, Why bring that nonsense to me?its not science.
> But in the last decade or so, as he has considered a number of these, he has found that they are perfectly reasonable and intellectually acceptable. He now finds it sad that anyone should insist on evolutionary interpretations, which are unproven and unprovable. Science, he says:
> becomes much more meaningful and satisfying in the light of Scripture, rather than in rejecting it. And I certainly believe it is only as we consider together with legitimate science, the truth learned from Scripture, that we can ever really understand and appreciate the physical universe in which we live.​



As you see in the article, no scientific observation or experiment caused him to change what he thinks.  A preacher reading a book to him did.

So sure dogma and superstition can cause someone to change their view of scientific facts, but the scientific facts themselves don't change.


----------



## koshergrl

Again, you're just painfully, wincingly, stupid.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why you'd wave the white flag.
> 
> But don't worry I'm not holding you to a certain time or date, anytime you can provide a science website to back your claims I'll be ready to read and react.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any scientist that argues again'st your side is considered is shunned and even are threatened with their job for going again'st the establishment. That is a fact.
Click to expand...

It sure is, but it's not a fact of reality.



Youwerecreated said:


> So not too many on your side will speak out about the problems because of the shunning and threats of losing their job.


This is certainly true in the realm of superstition where faith, rather than reason, is the basis of beliefs.



Youwerecreated said:


> So well educated creationist do speak out because it is the right thing to do.


You mean the "well indoctrinated creationist do speak out because spreading creationist disinformation is the destructive thing to do."

There, fixed.



Youwerecreated said:


> So if you don't mind being lead astray go ahead and continue believing the unbelievable.


Whatever you say Mr. Ravioli.



Youwerecreated said:


> To say creationist views are not based in science just shows your ignorance on the subject.


When a creationists say their views are based in science, they're lying--every single time. Creationist views are based on a stoic denial of reality, and that denial of reality is manifested in their obtuse denial of verifiable evidence, valid logic and scientific method. That is an actual, and verifiable, fact of reality.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Creationist views are faith, not science, based, and should be discussed in liberal arts, humantities, philosophy, and comparitive religion classes.

Never in a science class room.


----------



## koshergrl

The "science" that the idiots in these threads jabber about is not science, it's faith as well....


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> Again, you're just painfully, wincingly, stupid.



My apologies again I must have missed it in the article, what experiment did he conduct or scientific evidence did he examine to come to his new conclusion?


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> The "science" that the idiots in these threads jabber about is not science, it's faith as well....



That is why ignorance such as the above is not permitted in the science classroom.


----------



## koshergrl

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're just painfully, wincingly, stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies again I must have missed it in the article, what experiment did he conduct or scientific evidence did he examine to come to his new conclusion?
Click to expand...

 
What scientific evidence did you examine? What experiment did you conduct?

Again. Wince.


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're just painfully, wincingly, stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies again I must have missed it in the article, what experiment did he conduct or scientific evidence did he examine to come to his new conclusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What scientific evidence did you examine? What experiment did you conduct?
> 
> Again. Wince.
Click to expand...


I'm not a scientist, I rely on the scientific efforts of said scientists.


So there was no scientific evidence or experiments that caused him to come to a new conclusion, correct?  Just book reading from a preacher right?


----------



## koshergrl

I rely on scientists too..

For example, the premier genetecist in the world, who believes in God.

Premier geologists, medical physicists, et al, who believe the earth is 6000 years old.

Kindly set aside your ridiculous posturing and pick up a book.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're just painfully, wincingly, stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies again I must have missed it in the article, what experiment did he conduct or scientific evidence did he examine to come to his new conclusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What scientific evidence did you examine? What experiment did you conduct?  Again. Wince.
Click to expand...


Thank you for admitting that you are wincing, koshergirl, at your silly statements.  Either you answer questions clearly, or keep giving your 'faith' answers, and remain a laughing stock.  End of story.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Creationist views are faith, not science, based, and should be discussed in liberal arts, humantities, philosophy, and comparitive religion classes.
> 
> Never in a science class room.



Exactly the same as Global Warmists, huh?


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> I rely on scientists too..
> 
> For example, the premier genetecist in the world, who believes in God.
> 
> Premier geologists, medical physicists, et al, who believe the earth is 6000 years old.
> 
> Kindly set aside your ridiculous posturing and pick up a book.



Which ones do you agree with?  The 99.99999999999999% of them or the .00000000000000001%?


And someone can believe in a god and still not be a science denier, that's something you and YWC struggle with.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist views are faith, not science, based, and should be discussed in liberal arts, humantities, philosophy, and comparitive religion classes.
> 
> Never in a science class room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly the same as Global Warmists, huh?
Click to expand...


Thank for revealing you have nothing on the subject.  The comparison is irrelevant and has nothing to do with Creationism as science.  Hint: it's not.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Most traditional, rational Christians believe in the principles of the Origins of Species.  Many of the evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, heretics for the most part, do not.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Thank for revealing you have nothing on the subject.



Thanks for revealing that you're a mindless hack.



> The comparison is irrelevant and has nothing to do with Creationism as science.



Actually, it's right on the nose, stupid.

Dogmatic beliefs based purely on faith. 



> Hint: it's not.



Hint: The irony of YOU criticizing others for blind faith is overwhelming, Fakey Jake....


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Most traditional, rational Christians believe in the principles of the Origins of Species.  Many of the evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, heretics for the most part, do not.



So failure to accept Charles Darwin is "heresy?"

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA

Is it even possible for you to be more stupid?

Keep huffing paint or whatever it is that keeps your IQ below 12, I just can't buy entertainment of the level your stupidity offers....


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored is so illiterate, ignorant, and amazingly, appalling silly.

Evangelical and traditionalist heresies do not include not believing Darwinism.

They are rooted in a poor understanding of Christian scripture.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored is so illiterate, ignorant, and amazingly, appalling silly.
> 
> Evangelical and traditionalist heresies do not include not believing Darwinism.
> 
> They are rooted in a poor understanding of Christian scripture.



Hey, Fakey Jake;

So "Christians" accept the "Origin of the Species" and those who don't are heretics?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What fucking moron...

Don't ever change, huff some more Krylon!


----------



## JakeStarkey

I said Darwinism was not the issue, Uncensored, so you are showing you can't read clearly.

Evangelical/fundamentalist heresies are rooted in a poor understanding of scriptures.


----------



## koshergrl

this is funny.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> I said Darwinism was not the issue, Uncensored,



The issue is idiocy.



> so you are showing you can't read clearly.
> 
> Evangelical/fundamentalist heresies are rooted in a poor understanding of scriptures.



Due to not accepting the "Origin of the Species" as scripture?

ROFL

Sorry Jake, that will live forever as one of, if not THE stupidest post in USMB history.


----------



## Uncensored2008

koshergrl said:


> this is funny.



Yeah, I'm literally rolling....


----------



## koshergrl

So am I. But then, on these topics with the morons who like to pretend they're all scientific and shit...I always do.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I rely on scientists too..
> 
> For example, the premier genetecist in the world, who believes in God.
> 
> Premier geologists, medical physicists, et al, who believe the earth is 6000 years old.
> 
> Kindly set aside your ridiculous posturing and pick up a book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones do you agree with?  The 99.99999999999999% of them or the .00000000000000001%?
> 
> 
> And someone can believe in a god and still not be a science denier, that's something you and YWC struggle with.
Click to expand...


We don't deny science we deny Your Ideology.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist views are faith, not science, based, and should be discussed in liberal arts, humantities, philosophy, and comparitive religion classes.
> 
> Never in a science class room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly the same as Global Warmists, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank for revealing you have nothing on the subject.  The comparison is irrelevant and has nothing to do with Creationism as science.  Hint: it's not.
Click to expand...


Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II) 

by Duane Gish, Ph.D. 


This impact pamphlet was written by a scientist, and a science educator, and reviewed by an attorney, to provide a brief summary of the scientific evidence supporting creation. The text materials and references listed at the end together give a more thorough discussion of this scientific evidence.

Introduction

Public schools in many localities are teaching two scientific models - the creation model and the evolution model of the origin of the universe, of life, and of man. There is apparent scientific evidence for creation, which is summarized in this pamphlet, just as there is apparent scientific evidence for evolution. The purpose of this pamphlet is to summarize the evidence that shows that:





"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."



This scientific evidence for both models can be taught in public schools without any mention of religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto. There are text materials and teacher handbooks that have been prepared for a fair presentation of both models, creation and evolution. There are also seminars and audiovisuals for training teachers to offer both models of origins.





"This scientific evidence both for creation and for evolution can and must be taught without any religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto." 
"Creation-science proponents want public schools to teach all the scientific data, censoring none, but do not want any religious doctrine to be brought into science classrooms."



Definitions of the Creation Model and the Evolution Model

The scientific model of creation, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a sudden creation of complex and diversified kinds of life, with systematic gaps persisting between different kinds and with genetic variation occurring within each kind since that time. The scientific model of evolution, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a gradual emergence of present life kinds over aeons of time, with emergence of complex and diversified kinds of life from simpler kinds and ultimately from nonliving matter. The creation model questions vertical evolution, which is the emergence of complex from simple and change between kinds, but it does not challenge what is often called horizontal evolution or microevolution, which creationists call genetic variation or species or subspecies formation within created kinds. The following chart lists seven aspects of the scientific model of creation and of the scientific model of evolution:





The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:

The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:



I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.

I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.



II. Life was suddenly created.

II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.



III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.

III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.



IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.

IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.



V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.

V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.



VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).

VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).



VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.

VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.



I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyles steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.

II. Life Was Suddenly Created.

Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record,2 and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds.3 These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell;4 such cells apparently were created. The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable.5 The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate.





"One example of the scientific evidence for creation is the sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record. The most rational inference from this evidence seemingly is that life was created and did not evolve."



III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.

Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.6 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.7 While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).

IV. Mutation and Natural Selection Are Insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Living Kinds from a Simple Primordial Organism.

The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years.8 Thus mutation and natural selection apparently could not have brought about evolution of present living kinds from a simple first organism. Mutations are always harmful or at least nearly always harmful in an organism's natural environment.9 Thus the mutation process apparently could not have provided the postulated millions of beneficial mutations required for progressive evolution in the supposed five billion years from the origin of the earth until now, and in fact would have produced an overwhelming genetic load over hundreds of millions of years that would have caused degeneration and extinction. Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explanation of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.10

V. Man and Apes Have a Separate Ancestry.

Although highly imaginative "transitional forms" between man and ape-like creatures have been constructed by evolutionists based on very fragmentary evidence, the fossil record actually documents the separate origin of primates in general,11 monkeys,12 apes,13 and men. In fact, Lord Zuckerman (not a creationist) states that there are no "fossil traces" of a transformation from an ape-like creature to man.14 The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these "primitive" features are now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human.15 Ramapithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like.16 Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not intermediate between ape and man and did not walk upright.17 The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus).18

VI. The Earth's Geologic Features Were Fashioned Largely by Rapid, Catastrophic Processes that Affected the Earth on a Global and Regional Scale (Catastrophism).

Catastrophic events have characterized the earth's history. Huge floods, massive asteroid collisions, large volcanic eruptions, devastating landslides, and intense earthquakes have left their marks on the earth. Catastrophic events appear to explain the formation of mountain ranges, deposition of thick sequences of sedimentary rocks with fossils, initiation of the glacial age, and extinction of dinosaurs and other animals. Catastrophism (catastrophic changes), rather than uniformitarianism (gradual changes), appears to be the best interpretation of a major portion of the earth's geology. Geologic data reflect catastrophic flooding. Evidences of rapid catastrophic water deposition include fossilized tree trunks that penetrate numerous sedimentary layers (such as at Joggins, Nova Scotia), widespread pebble and boulder layers (such as the Shinarump Conglomerate of the southwestern United States), fossilized logs in a single layer covering extensive areas (such as Petrified Forest National Park), and whole closed clams that were buried alive in mass graveyards in extensive sedimentary layers (such as at Glen Rose, Texas). Uniform processes such as normal river sedimentation, small volcanoes, slow erosion, and small earthquakes appear insufficient to explain large portions of the geologic record. Even the conventional uniformitarian geologists are beginning to yield to evidences of rapid and catastrophic processes.19

VII. The Inception of the Earth and of Living Kinds May Have Been Relatively Recent.

Radiometric dating methods (such as the uranium-lead and potassium-argon methods) depend on three assumptions: (a) that no decay product (lead or argon) was present initially or that the initial quantities can be accurately estimated, (b) that the decay system was closed through the years (so that radioactive material or product did not move in or out of the rock), and (c) that the decay rate was constant over time.20 Each of these assumptions may be questionable: (a) some nonradiogenic lead or argon was perhaps present initially;21 (b) the radioactive isotope (uranium or potassium isotopes) can perhaps migrate out of, and the decay product (lead or argon) can migrate into, many rocks over the years;22 and (c) the decay rate can perhaps change by neutrino bombardment and other causes.23 Numerous radiometric estimates have been hundreds of millions of years in excess of the true age. Thus ages estimated by the radiometric dating methods may very well be grossly in error. Alternate dating methods suggest much younger ages for the earth and life. Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the atmosphere from radioactive decay, the age of the earth appears to be about 10,000 years, even allowing for moderate helium escape. Based on the present rate of the earth's cooling, the time required for the earth to have reached its present thermal structure seems to be only several tens of millions of years, even assuming that the earth was initially molten.24 Extrapolating the observed rate of apparently exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field, the age of the earth or life seemingly could not exceed 20,000 years.25 Thus the inception of the earth and the inception of life may have been relatively recent when all the evidence is considered.26



"There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."
 "There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model."


Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly the same as Global Warmists, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank for revealing you have nothing on the subject.  The comparison is irrelevant and has nothing to do with Creationism as science.  Hint: it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)
> 
> by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
> 
> 
> This impact pamphlet was written by a scientist, and a science educator, and reviewed by an attorney, to provide a brief summary of the scientific evidence supporting creation. The text materials and references listed at the end together give a more thorough discussion of this scientific evidence.
> 
> Introduction
> 
> Public schools in many localities are teaching two scientific models - the creation model and the evolution model of the origin of the universe, of life, and of man. There is apparent scientific evidence for creation, which is summarized in this pamphlet, just as there is apparent scientific evidence for evolution. The purpose of this pamphlet is to summarize the evidence that shows that:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."
> 
> 
> 
> This scientific evidence for both models can be taught in public schools without any mention of religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto. There are text materials and teacher handbooks that have been prepared for a fair presentation of both models, creation and evolution. There are also seminars and audiovisuals for training teachers to offer both models of origins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This scientific evidence both for creation and for evolution can and must be taught without any religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto."
> "Creation-science proponents want public schools to teach all the scientific data, censoring none, but do not want any religious doctrine to be brought into science classrooms."
> 
> 
> 
> Definitions of the Creation Model and the Evolution Model
> 
> The scientific model of creation, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a sudden creation of complex and diversified kinds of life, with systematic gaps persisting between different kinds and with genetic variation occurring within each kind since that time. The scientific model of evolution, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a gradual emergence of present life kinds over aeons of time, with emergence of complex and diversified kinds of life from simpler kinds and ultimately from nonliving matter. The creation model questions vertical evolution, which is the emergence of complex from simple and change between kinds, but it does not challenge what is often called horizontal evolution or microevolution, which creationists call genetic variation or species or subspecies formation within created kinds. The following chart lists seven aspects of the scientific model of creation and of the scientific model of evolution:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:
> 
> The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:
> 
> 
> 
> I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.
> 
> I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.
> 
> 
> 
> II. Life was suddenly created.
> 
> II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.
> 
> 
> 
> III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.
> 
> III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.
> 
> 
> 
> IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.
> 
> IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.
> 
> 
> 
> V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.
> 
> V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).
> 
> VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).
> 
> 
> 
> VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.
> 
> VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.
> 
> The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyles steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.
> 
> II. Life Was Suddenly Created.
> 
> Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record,2 and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds.3 These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell;4 such cells apparently were created. The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable.5 The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "One example of the scientific evidence for creation is the sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record. The most rational inference from this evidence seemingly is that life was created and did not evolve."
> 
> 
> 
> III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.
> 
> Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.6 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.7 While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).
> 
> IV. Mutation and Natural Selection Are Insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Living Kinds from a Simple Primordial Organism.
> 
> The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years.8 Thus mutation and natural selection apparently could not have brought about evolution of present living kinds from a simple first organism. Mutations are always harmful or at least nearly always harmful in an organism's natural environment.9 Thus the mutation process apparently could not have provided the postulated millions of beneficial mutations required for progressive evolution in the supposed five billion years from the origin of the earth until now, and in fact would have produced an overwhelming genetic load over hundreds of millions of years that would have caused degeneration and extinction. Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explanation of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.10
> 
> V. Man and Apes Have a Separate Ancestry.
> 
> Although highly imaginative "transitional forms" between man and ape-like creatures have been constructed by evolutionists based on very fragmentary evidence, the fossil record actually documents the separate origin of primates in general,11 monkeys,12 apes,13 and men. In fact, Lord Zuckerman (not a creationist) states that there are no "fossil traces" of a transformation from an ape-like creature to man.14 The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these "primitive" features are now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human.15 Ramapithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like.16 Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not intermediate between ape and man and did not walk upright.17 The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus).18
> 
> VI. The Earth's Geologic Features Were Fashioned Largely by Rapid, Catastrophic Processes that Affected the Earth on a Global and Regional Scale (Catastrophism).
> 
> Catastrophic events have characterized the earth's history. Huge floods, massive asteroid collisions, large volcanic eruptions, devastating landslides, and intense earthquakes have left their marks on the earth. Catastrophic events appear to explain the formation of mountain ranges, deposition of thick sequences of sedimentary rocks with fossils, initiation of the glacial age, and extinction of dinosaurs and other animals. Catastrophism (catastrophic changes), rather than uniformitarianism (gradual changes), appears to be the best interpretation of a major portion of the earth's geology. Geologic data reflect catastrophic flooding. Evidences of rapid catastrophic water deposition include fossilized tree trunks that penetrate numerous sedimentary layers (such as at Joggins, Nova Scotia), widespread pebble and boulder layers (such as the Shinarump Conglomerate of the southwestern United States), fossilized logs in a single layer covering extensive areas (such as Petrified Forest National Park), and whole closed clams that were buried alive in mass graveyards in extensive sedimentary layers (such as at Glen Rose, Texas). Uniform processes such as normal river sedimentation, small volcanoes, slow erosion, and small earthquakes appear insufficient to explain large portions of the geologic record. Even the conventional uniformitarian geologists are beginning to yield to evidences of rapid and catastrophic processes.19
> 
> VII. The Inception of the Earth and of Living Kinds May Have Been Relatively Recent.
> 
> Radiometric dating methods (such as the uranium-lead and potassium-argon methods) depend on three assumptions: (a) that no decay product (lead or argon) was present initially or that the initial quantities can be accurately estimated, (b) that the decay system was closed through the years (so that radioactive material or product did not move in or out of the rock), and (c) that the decay rate was constant over time.20 Each of these assumptions may be questionable: (a) some nonradiogenic lead or argon was perhaps present initially;21 (b) the radioactive isotope (uranium or potassium isotopes) can perhaps migrate out of, and the decay product (lead or argon) can migrate into, many rocks over the years;22 and (c) the decay rate can perhaps change by neutrino bombardment and other causes.23 Numerous radiometric estimates have been hundreds of millions of years in excess of the true age. Thus ages estimated by the radiometric dating methods may very well be grossly in error. Alternate dating methods suggest much younger ages for the earth and life. Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the atmosphere from radioactive decay, the age of the earth appears to be about 10,000 years, even allowing for moderate helium escape. Based on the present rate of the earth's cooling, the time required for the earth to have reached its present thermal structure seems to be only several tens of millions of years, even assuming that the earth was initially molten.24 Extrapolating the observed rate of apparently exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field, the age of the earth or life seemingly could not exceed 20,000 years.25 Thus the inception of the earth and the inception of life may have been relatively recent when all the evidence is considered.26
> 
> 
> 
> "There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."
> "There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model."
> 
> 
> Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)
Click to expand...

Since there is no scientific evidence of the existence of a creator, there is no scientific evidence for creation.


----------



## koshergrl

Uh, no.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Uh, no.


Bring it. Be the very first one.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I rely on scientists too..
> 
> For example, the premier genetecist in the world, who believes in God.
> 
> Premier geologists, medical physicists, et al, who believe the earth is 6000 years old.
> 
> Kindly set aside your ridiculous posturing and pick up a book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones do you agree with?  The 99.99999999999999% of them or the .00000000000000001%?
> 
> 
> And someone can believe in a god and still not be a science denier, that's something you and YWC struggle with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't deny science we deny Your Ideology.
Click to expand...


Actually it's not an idealogy, it's called science/math.

I've already shredded your "interpretations" of the Bible.  I'm actually doing you a favor by talking about how someone could read the Bible and interpret what it's saying to go along with the basic fact of evolution.  

So one doesn't have to deny evolution to be a christian, like you seem to think.

However the one thing I can't help with is when people say the word "day" doesn't mean "day" in the Bible.  So the loony idea that the Earth is a 6,000 years old roughly is something the Bible clearly states.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said Darwinism was not the issue, Uncensored,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you are showing you can't read clearly.
> 
> Evangelical/fundamentalist heresies are rooted in a poor understanding of scriptures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Due to not accepting the "Origin of the Species" as scripture?
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Sorry Jake, that will live forever as one of, if not THE stupidest post in USMB history.
Click to expand...


You simply can't read.  I said "Evangelical/fundamentalist heresies are rooted in a poor understanding of scriptures."

You can't understand scripture, Uncensored.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Creationism is an ideology, a faith path, it is not a science based field, like evolution, gang.

Your silly arguments are why we have a separation of church and state.

The nice thing about this discussions is that is about fun, not reality, for you wiill never, ever win this battle about creationism as anything more than dogma of a small, unimportant sect.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones do you agree with?  The 99.99999999999999% of them or the .00000000000000001%?
> 
> 
> And someone can believe in a god and still not be a science denier, that's something you and YWC struggle with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't deny science we deny Your Ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it's not an idealogy, it's called science/math.
> 
> I've already shredded your "interpretations" of the Bible.  I'm actually doing you a favor by talking about how someone could read the Bible and interpret what it's saying to go along with the basic fact of evolution.
> 
> So one doesn't have to deny evolution to be a christian, like you seem to think.
> 
> However the one thing I can't help with is when people say the word "day" doesn't mean "day" in the Bible.  So the loony idea that the Earth is a 6,000 years old roughly is something the Bible clearly states.
Click to expand...


You're a dreamer,the bible is clear kinds reresent your term for today species. The word seed represents genes.

Please explain how you shredded those verses ?

You still have not answered the question as usual.

Do animals and humans reproduce offspring that are of the same species ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said Darwinism was not the issue, Uncensored,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you are showing you can't read clearly.
> 
> Evangelical/fundamentalist heresies are rooted in a poor understanding of scriptures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Due to not accepting the "Origin of the Species" as scripture?
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Sorry Jake, that will live forever as one of, if not THE stupidest post in USMB history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply can't read.  I said "Evangelical/fundamentalist heresies are rooted in a poor understanding of scriptures."
> 
> You can't understand scripture, Uncensored.
Click to expand...


Anyone who denies the accuracy of the bible concerning science does not understand the bible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Creationism is an ideology, a faith path, it is not a science based field, like evolution, gang.
> 
> Your silly arguments are why we have a separation of church and state.
> 
> The nice thing about this discussions is that is about fun, not reality, for you wiill never, ever win this battle about creationism as anything more than dogma of a small, unimportant sect.



Did you just read my post that compared the evolution's model to the the creationism model ? Look pretty similar to me.


----------



## AmericanFirst

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> Due to not accepting the "Origin of the Species" as scripture?
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Sorry Jake, that will live forever as one of, if not THE stupidest post in USMB history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You simply can't read.  I said "Evangelical/fundamentalist heresies are rooted in a poor understanding of scriptures."
> 
> You can't understand scripture, Uncensored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who denies the accuracy of the bible concerning science does not understand the bible.
Click to expand...

Like you understand the Bible? Give me a break.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Creationism is an ideology, a faith path, it is not a science based field, like evolution, gang.
> 
> Your silly arguments are why we have a separation of church and state.
> 
> The nice thing about this discussions is that is about fun, not reality, for you wiill never, ever win this battle about creationism as anything more than dogma of a small, unimportant sect.



Did you not see the comparisons of both sides?

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II) 

by Duane Gish, Ph.D. 


This impact pamphlet was written by a scientist, and a science educator, and reviewed by an attorney, to provide a brief summary of the scientific evidence supporting creation. The text materials and references listed at the end together give a more thorough discussion of this scientific evidence.

Introduction

Public schools in many localities are teaching two scientific models - the creation model and the evolution model of the origin of the universe, of life, and of man. There is apparent scientific evidence for creation, which is summarized in this pamphlet, just as there is apparent scientific evidence for evolution. The purpose of this pamphlet is to summarize the evidence that shows that:





"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."



This scientific evidence for both models can be taught in public schools without any mention of religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto. There are text materials and teacher handbooks that have been prepared for a fair presentation of both models, creation and evolution. There are also seminars and audiovisuals for training teachers to offer both models of origins.





"This scientific evidence both for creation and for evolution can and must be taught without any religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto." 
"Creation-science proponents want public schools to teach all the scientific data, censoring none, but do not want any religious doctrine to be brought into science classrooms."



Definitions of the Creation Model and the Evolution Model

The scientific model of creation, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a sudden creation of complex and diversified kinds of life, with systematic gaps persisting between different kinds and with genetic variation occurring within each kind since that time. The scientific model of evolution, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a gradual emergence of present life kinds over aeons of time, with emergence of complex and diversified kinds of life from simpler kinds and ultimately from nonliving matter. The creation model questions vertical evolution, which is the emergence of complex from simple and change between kinds, but it does not challenge what is often called horizontal evolution or microevolution, which creationists call genetic variation or species or subspecies formation within created kinds. The following chart lists seven aspects of the scientific model of creation and of the scientific model of evolution:





The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:

The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:



I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.

I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.



II. Life was suddenly created.

II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.



III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.

III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.



IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.

IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.



V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.

V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.



VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).

VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).



VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.

VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.



I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyles steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.

II. Life Was Suddenly Created.

Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record,2 and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds.3 These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell;4 such cells apparently were created. The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable.5 The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate.





"One example of the scientific evidence for creation is the sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record. The most rational inference from this evidence seemingly is that life was created and did not evolve."



III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.

Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.6 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.7 While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).

IV. Mutation and Natural Selection Are Insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Living Kinds from a Simple Primordial Organism.

The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years.8 Thus mutation and natural selection apparently could not have brought about evolution of present living kinds from a simple first organism. Mutations are always harmful or at least nearly always harmful in an organism's natural environment.9 Thus the mutation process apparently could not have provided the postulated millions of beneficial mutations required for progressive evolution in the supposed five billion years from the origin of the earth until now, and in fact would have produced an overwhelming genetic load over hundreds of millions of years that would have caused degeneration and extinction. Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explanation of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.10

V. Man and Apes Have a Separate Ancestry.

Although highly imaginative "transitional forms" between man and ape-like creatures have been constructed by evolutionists based on very fragmentary evidence, the fossil record actually documents the separate origin of primates in general,11 monkeys,12 apes,13 and men. In fact, Lord Zuckerman (not a creationist) states that there are no "fossil traces" of a transformation from an ape-like creature to man.14 The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these "primitive" features are now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human.15 Ramapithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like.16 Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not intermediate between ape and man and did not walk upright.17 The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus).18

VI. The Earth's Geologic Features Were Fashioned Largely by Rapid, Catastrophic Processes that Affected the Earth on a Global and Regional Scale (Catastrophism).

Catastrophic events have characterized the earth's history. Huge floods, massive asteroid collisions, large volcanic eruptions, devastating landslides, and intense earthquakes have left their marks on the earth. Catastrophic events appear to explain the formation of mountain ranges, deposition of thick sequences of sedimentary rocks with fossils, initiation of the glacial age, and extinction of dinosaurs and other animals. Catastrophism (catastrophic changes), rather than uniformitarianism (gradual changes), appears to be the best interpretation of a major portion of the earth's geology. Geologic data reflect catastrophic flooding. Evidences of rapid catastrophic water deposition include fossilized tree trunks that penetrate numerous sedimentary layers (such as at Joggins, Nova Scotia), widespread pebble and boulder layers (such as the Shinarump Conglomerate of the southwestern United States), fossilized logs in a single layer covering extensive areas (such as Petrified Forest National Park), and whole closed clams that were buried alive in mass graveyards in extensive sedimentary layers (such as at Glen Rose, Texas). Uniform processes such as normal river sedimentation, small volcanoes, slow erosion, and small earthquakes appear insufficient to explain large portions of the geologic record. Even the conventional uniformitarian geologists are beginning to yield to evidences of rapid and catastrophic processes.19

VII. The Inception of the Earth and of Living Kinds May Have Been Relatively Recent.

Radiometric dating methods (such as the uranium-lead and potassium-argon methods) depend on three assumptions: (a) that no decay product (lead or argon) was present initially or that the initial quantities can be accurately estimated, (b) that the decay system was closed through the years (so that radioactive material or product did not move in or out of the rock), and (c) that the decay rate was constant over time.20 Each of these assumptions may be questionable: (a) some nonradiogenic lead or argon was perhaps present initially;21 (b) the radioactive isotope (uranium or potassium isotopes) can perhaps migrate out of, and the decay product (lead or argon) can migrate into, many rocks over the years;22 and (c) the decay rate can perhaps change by neutrino bombardment and other causes.23 Numerous radiometric estimates have been hundreds of millions of years in excess of the true age. Thus ages estimated by the radiometric dating methods may very well be grossly in error. Alternate dating methods suggest much younger ages for the earth and life. Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the atmosphere from radioactive decay, the age of the earth appears to be about 10,000 years, even allowing for moderate helium escape. Based on the present rate of the earth's cooling, the time required for the earth to have reached its present thermal structure seems to be only several tens of millions of years, even assuming that the earth was initially molten.24 Extrapolating the observed rate of apparently exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field, the age of the earth or life seemingly could not exceed 20,000 years.25 Thus the inception of the earth and the inception of life may have been relatively recent when all the evidence is considered.26



"There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."
"There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model."


Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't deny science we deny Your Ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's not an idealogy, it's called science/math.
> 
> I've already shredded your "interpretations" of the Bible.  I'm actually doing you a favor by talking about how someone could read the Bible and interpret what it's saying to go along with the basic fact of evolution.
> 
> So one doesn't have to deny evolution to be a christian, like you seem to think.
> 
> However the one thing I can't help with is when people say the word "day" doesn't mean "day" in the Bible.  So the loony idea that the Earth is a 6,000 years old roughly is something the Bible clearly states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a dreamer,the bible is clear kinds reresent your term for today species. The word seed represents genes.
> 
> Please explain how you shredded those verses ?
> 
> You still have not answered the question as usual.
> 
> Do animals and humans reproduce offspring that are of the same species ?
Click to expand...


And I've already showed how the word genes in the scripture would still work fine for evolution.  I shredded your interpretation of the verses, not the verses.  

I've answered every question you've posed, quite easily.

Yes, evolution in most species takes a great deal of time.  One different species doesn't magically pop out of his or her mother, like you're trying to pretend evolution says.


----------



## Youwerecreated

AmericanFirst said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply can't read.  I said "Evangelical/fundamentalist heresies are rooted in a poor understanding of scriptures."
> 
> You can't understand scripture, Uncensored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who denies the accuracy of the bible concerning science does not understand the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like you understand the Bible? Give me a break.
Click to expand...


I have studied the bible for forty years, I think by now it would begin sinking in.

Have you studied the bible as many years and have a better understanding of it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's not an idealogy, it's called science/math.
> 
> I've already shredded your "interpretations" of the Bible.  I'm actually doing you a favor by talking about how someone could read the Bible and interpret what it's saying to go along with the basic fact of evolution.
> 
> So one doesn't have to deny evolution to be a christian, like you seem to think.
> 
> However the one thing I can't help with is when people say the word "day" doesn't mean "day" in the Bible.  So the loony idea that the Earth is a 6,000 years old roughly is something the Bible clearly states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a dreamer,the bible is clear kinds reresent your term for today species. The word seed represents genes.
> 
> Please explain how you shredded those verses ?
> 
> You still have not answered the question as usual.
> 
> Do animals and humans reproduce offspring that are of the same species ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I've already showed how the word genes in the scripture would still work fine for evolution.  I shredded your interpretation of the verses, not the verses.
> 
> I've answered every question you've posed, quite easily.
> 
> Yes, evolution in most species takes a great deal of time.  One different species doesn't magically pop out of his or her mother, like you're trying to pretend evolution says.
Click to expand...


The only evolution it would support is at the micro-adaptations level not your macro-evolution level.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a dreamer,the bible is clear kinds reresent your term for today species. The word seed represents genes.
> 
> Please explain how you shredded those verses ?
> 
> You still have not answered the question as usual.
> 
> Do animals and humans reproduce offspring that are of the same species ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I've already showed how the word genes in the scripture would still work fine for evolution.  I shredded your interpretation of the verses, not the verses.
> 
> I've answered every question you've posed, quite easily.
> 
> Yes, evolution in most species takes a great deal of time.  One different species doesn't magically pop out of his or her mother, like you're trying to pretend evolution says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only evolution it would support is at the micro-adaptations level not your macro-evolution level.
Click to expand...


Already shredded that mindset when I showed how someone could interpret those passages and still go along with scientific facts.

I have no reason to take your interpretation over mine.  None.  Just the opposite actually.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who denies the accuracy of the bible concerning science does not understand the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Like you understand the Bible? Give me a break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have studied the bible for forty years, I think by now it would begin sinking in.
> 
> Have you studied the bible as many years and have a better understanding of it ?
Click to expand...


Longer, and, of course.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank for revealing you have nothing on the subject.  The comparison is irrelevant and has nothing to do with Creationism as science.  Hint: it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)
> 
> by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
> 
> 
> This impact pamphlet was written by a scientist, and a science educator, and reviewed by an attorney, to provide a brief summary of the scientific evidence supporting creation. The text materials and references listed at the end together give a more thorough discussion of this scientific evidence.
> 
> Introduction
> 
> Public schools in many localities are teaching two scientific models - the creation model and the evolution model of the origin of the universe, of life, and of man. There is apparent scientific evidence for creation, which is summarized in this pamphlet, just as there is apparent scientific evidence for evolution. The purpose of this pamphlet is to summarize the evidence that shows that:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."
> 
> 
> 
> This scientific evidence for both models can be taught in public schools without any mention of religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto. There are text materials and teacher handbooks that have been prepared for a fair presentation of both models, creation and evolution. There are also seminars and audiovisuals for training teachers to offer both models of origins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This scientific evidence both for creation and for evolution can and must be taught without any religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto."
> "Creation-science proponents want public schools to teach all the scientific data, censoring none, but do not want any religious doctrine to be brought into science classrooms."
> 
> 
> 
> Definitions of the Creation Model and the Evolution Model
> 
> The scientific model of creation, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a sudden creation of complex and diversified kinds of life, with systematic gaps persisting between different kinds and with genetic variation occurring within each kind since that time. The scientific model of evolution, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a gradual emergence of present life kinds over aeons of time, with emergence of complex and diversified kinds of life from simpler kinds and ultimately from nonliving matter. The creation model questions vertical evolution, which is the emergence of complex from simple and change between kinds, but it does not challenge what is often called horizontal evolution or microevolution, which creationists call genetic variation or species or subspecies formation within created kinds. The following chart lists seven aspects of the scientific model of creation and of the scientific model of evolution:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:
> 
> The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:
> 
> 
> 
> I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.
> 
> I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.
> 
> 
> 
> II. Life was suddenly created.
> 
> II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.
> 
> 
> 
> III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.
> 
> III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.
> 
> 
> 
> IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.
> 
> IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.
> 
> 
> 
> V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.
> 
> V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).
> 
> VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).
> 
> 
> 
> VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.
> 
> VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.
> 
> The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyles steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.
> 
> II. Life Was Suddenly Created.
> 
> Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record,2 and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds.3 These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell;4 such cells apparently were created. The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable.5 The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "One example of the scientific evidence for creation is the sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record. The most rational inference from this evidence seemingly is that life was created and did not evolve."
> 
> 
> 
> III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.
> 
> Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.6 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.7 While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).
> 
> IV. Mutation and Natural Selection Are Insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Living Kinds from a Simple Primordial Organism.
> 
> The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years.8 Thus mutation and natural selection apparently could not have brought about evolution of present living kinds from a simple first organism. Mutations are always harmful or at least nearly always harmful in an organism's natural environment.9 Thus the mutation process apparently could not have provided the postulated millions of beneficial mutations required for progressive evolution in the supposed five billion years from the origin of the earth until now, and in fact would have produced an overwhelming genetic load over hundreds of millions of years that would have caused degeneration and extinction. Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explanation of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.10
> 
> V. Man and Apes Have a Separate Ancestry.
> 
> Although highly imaginative "transitional forms" between man and ape-like creatures have been constructed by evolutionists based on very fragmentary evidence, the fossil record actually documents the separate origin of primates in general,11 monkeys,12 apes,13 and men. In fact, Lord Zuckerman (not a creationist) states that there are no "fossil traces" of a transformation from an ape-like creature to man.14 The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these "primitive" features are now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human.15 Ramapithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like.16 Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not intermediate between ape and man and did not walk upright.17 The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus).18
> 
> VI. The Earth's Geologic Features Were Fashioned Largely by Rapid, Catastrophic Processes that Affected the Earth on a Global and Regional Scale (Catastrophism).
> 
> Catastrophic events have characterized the earth's history. Huge floods, massive asteroid collisions, large volcanic eruptions, devastating landslides, and intense earthquakes have left their marks on the earth. Catastrophic events appear to explain the formation of mountain ranges, deposition of thick sequences of sedimentary rocks with fossils, initiation of the glacial age, and extinction of dinosaurs and other animals. Catastrophism (catastrophic changes), rather than uniformitarianism (gradual changes), appears to be the best interpretation of a major portion of the earth's geology. Geologic data reflect catastrophic flooding. Evidences of rapid catastrophic water deposition include fossilized tree trunks that penetrate numerous sedimentary layers (such as at Joggins, Nova Scotia), widespread pebble and boulder layers (such as the Shinarump Conglomerate of the southwestern United States), fossilized logs in a single layer covering extensive areas (such as Petrified Forest National Park), and whole closed clams that were buried alive in mass graveyards in extensive sedimentary layers (such as at Glen Rose, Texas). Uniform processes such as normal river sedimentation, small volcanoes, slow erosion, and small earthquakes appear insufficient to explain large portions of the geologic record. Even the conventional uniformitarian geologists are beginning to yield to evidences of rapid and catastrophic processes.19
> 
> VII. The Inception of the Earth and of Living Kinds May Have Been Relatively Recent.
> 
> Radiometric dating methods (such as the uranium-lead and potassium-argon methods) depend on three assumptions: (a) that no decay product (lead or argon) was present initially or that the initial quantities can be accurately estimated, (b) that the decay system was closed through the years (so that radioactive material or product did not move in or out of the rock), and (c) that the decay rate was constant over time.20 Each of these assumptions may be questionable: (a) some nonradiogenic lead or argon was perhaps present initially;21 (b) the radioactive isotope (uranium or potassium isotopes) can perhaps migrate out of, and the decay product (lead or argon) can migrate into, many rocks over the years;22 and (c) the decay rate can perhaps change by neutrino bombardment and other causes.23 Numerous radiometric estimates have been hundreds of millions of years in excess of the true age. Thus ages estimated by the radiometric dating methods may very well be grossly in error. Alternate dating methods suggest much younger ages for the earth and life. Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the atmosphere from radioactive decay, the age of the earth appears to be about 10,000 years, even allowing for moderate helium escape. Based on the present rate of the earth's cooling, the time required for the earth to have reached its present thermal structure seems to be only several tens of millions of years, even assuming that the earth was initially molten.24 Extrapolating the observed rate of apparently exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field, the age of the earth or life seemingly could not exceed 20,000 years.25 Thus the inception of the earth and the inception of life may have been relatively recent when all the evidence is considered.26
> 
> 
> 
> "There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."
> "There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model."
> 
> 
> Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since there is no scientific evidence of the existence of a creator, there is no scientific evidence for creation.
Click to expand...


Since there is no evidence of the big bang it is Pseudoscience.

Since there is no accurate age of the earth it is Pseudoscience.

Since there is no evidence for macro-evolution it is Pseudoscience.

These are beliefs based on faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I've already showed how the word genes in the scripture would still work fine for evolution.  I shredded your interpretation of the verses, not the verses.
> 
> I've answered every question you've posed, quite easily.
> 
> Yes, evolution in most species takes a great deal of time.  One different species doesn't magically pop out of his or her mother, like you're trying to pretend evolution says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only evolution it would support is at the micro-adaptations level not your macro-evolution level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already shredded that mindset when I showed how someone could interpret those passages and still go along with scientific facts.
> 
> I have no reason to take your interpretation over mine.  None.  Just the opposite actually.
Click to expand...


Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like you understand the Bible? Give me a break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have studied the bible for forty years, I think by now it would begin sinking in.
> 
> Have you studied the bible as many years and have a better understanding of it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Longer, and, of course.
Click to expand...


Then show me how I am wrong in my views.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only evolution it would support is at the micro-adaptations level not your macro-evolution level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already shredded that mindset when I showed how someone could interpret those passages and still go along with scientific facts.
> 
> I have no reason to take your interpretation over mine.  None.  Just the opposite actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution ?
Click to expand...


Do I?  Yes.  Do you?  No.


The passage could easily be interpretted to go along with macroevolution.  Again, you prefer the loony science denying interpretation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already shredded that mindset when I showed how someone could interpret those passages and still go along with scientific facts.
> 
> I have no reason to take your interpretation over mine.  None.  Just the opposite actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I?  Yes.  Do you?  No.
> 
> 
> The passage could easily be interpretted to go along with macroevolution.  Again, you prefer the loony science denying interpretation.
Click to expand...


Tell me the difference briefly if you can ?

Then answer does the parents genes determine what the offspring will be ?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I?  Yes.  Do you?  No.
> 
> 
> The passage could easily be interpretted to go along with macroevolution.  Again, you prefer the loony science denying interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me the difference briefly if you can ?
> 
> Then answer does the parents genes determine what the offspring will be ?
Click to expand...


Not getting into this again.  Cuz i know it'll be 20 pages and after you've been so overwhelmed with facts you'll just tell me the devil is behind it again.  Crown yourself victor if you so desire.

All my points stand in terms of an interpretation going along with evolution and your interpretation not being superior to others.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution ?


Yes. We've gone over this.  The former is actual evolution, whereby changes in the genes occur over time to create differences within and between species. The latter is a term you made up to pretend that the former doesn't really count.  Because in your mind taking 5 steps in changing genes is possible, but 6 is completely outside the realm of plausible belief. 



Youwerecreated said:


> You compare a newborn child to the universe and call me a loon .


No, not at all.  We haven't seen this poor tactic of yours of completely making things up about the person you just quoted in a long time.  You must be getting desperate.  Or I could return to the idea of you hallucinating again. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Lets look at all the problems with your so called accurate dating methods. By someone that is not as biased as I am against them.
> 
> Bet you won't read it and learn something.


I try to learn things from verifiable sources and scientific study, not the sloppy personal webpage of someone expressing an unsupported belief. But we've gone over that before too, and in your usual fashion, you've conveniently forgotten.  But again, these are your tactics: ignoring verified peer-reviewed scientific evidence with a system of checks and balances to instead just go for whatever nut happens to agree with you. These are the best underhanded methods in your arsenal. How sad. 



Youwerecreated said:


> When you are off you are off period. It's like firing a projectile the further the projectile travels the further it is off by the time it reaches the target area. And to say you're close and just off a little is baloney you have no idea how far off you're if the age is wrong.


Actually we know exactly how far we can be off by, and then we recheck it against other forms of dating to ensure they all agree. If I'm trying to shoot a target and I consistently either hit the bulls-eye or come within 2cm of it on the target, the accuracy is still high. But again, I can't expect you to understand a complex concept like known and expected deviation. In your mind the world is black or white, not bell curves of averages. 




Youwerecreated said:


> You're a dreamer,the bible is clear kinds reresent your term for today species. The word seed represents genes.


I love crappy guesses as people try to coerce biblical words into modern technological knowledge.  So when we say every human cell has 3 billion genes, you really think that means there are 3 billion SEEDS in every cell?  Maybe you don't understand what the word SEED means............  



Youwerecreated said:


> Then answer does the parents genes determine what the offspring will be ?


Not always.  This is another topic you've conveniently forgotten. Yay!

I expect you to quote this entire post, and then ignore 99% of the content that completely tears down everything you say, to instead focus on more misdirection, because you are incapable of producing the type of intelligence or integrity to honestly discuss a topic.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

koshergrl said:


> I rely on scientists too..
> 
> For example, the premier genetecist in the world, who believes in God.


And this is why you are perceived as a moron.  A "premier" scientist publishes a widely reliable and verifiable peer reviewed topic on genetics, and then the next week admits that he really believes in ghosts or living dinosaurs in his kitchen, or God, or anything else. A smart person would say "well he has some crazy unsupported beliefs, but the scientific paper he published is actually verifiable and shown to be correct. I'm still going to accept the scientific work and reject his other odd beliefs unless he can similarly provide verifiable evidence for it like he did in genetics."  The moron would say "because he said something smart in genetics, EVERYTHING he believes must be true!"  

This is precisely why creationists record PhDs in completely unrelated topics talking about evolution or physics despite absolutely no education or training in them. At first it was just random priests.  Then they got smart and got PhDs in theology.  Then people started seeing through that so they had to reach to get people with PhD in some unrelated science. 

Meanwhile, the entirety of the scientific community basically ridicules those people.  And the religious nuts go on agreeing with the 0.01% because they "know" they are right. 

You think you agree with scientists?  No no, dear, you agree with the cherry picked people who you want to agree with.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Since there is no evidence of the big bang it is Pseudoscience.


Yet, there is evidence of the big bang. The big bang theory is not pseudoscience.

Denial of reality is the hallmark of faith, which is the foundation of superstition.



Youwerecreated said:


> Since there is no accurate age of the earth it is Pseudoscience.


Yet, there is evidence of the earth. The earth is not pseudoscience.

Denial of reality is the hallmark of faith, which is the foundation of superstition.



Youwerecreated said:


> Since there is no evidence for macro-evolution it is Pseudoscience.


Yet, there is evidence of macro-evolution. The theory of evolution is not pseudoscience.

Denial of reality is the hallmark of faith, which is the foundation of superstition.



Youwerecreated said:


> These are beliefs based on faith.


Nonsense.

The big bang, the earth, and evolution are supported by evidence and valid logic--unlike any assertions that require first faith in the existence of a creator.


----------



## koshergrl

What complete garbage.

You just saying it doesn't make it so, skippy.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> What complete garbage.
> 
> You just saying it doesn't make it so, skippy.


Factually baseless and logically fallacious denials are even less effective at making them not so, cupcake.


----------



## koshergrl

You are making the assertations, you get to prove them, or we'll just go along continuing to think you're full of shit.

Which of course, you are, cupcake.


----------



## Dr.Drock

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What complete garbage.
> 
> You just saying it doesn't make it so, skippy.
> 
> 
> 
> Factually baseless and logically fallacious denials are even less effective at making them not so, cupcake.
Click to expand...


She's right, no offense but you saying so doesn't make it so.  It's scientists saying so that makes it important.

But scientists saying something makes it even less valid to kosher.


----------



## LOki

Dr.Drock said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What complete garbage.
> 
> You just saying it doesn't make it so, skippy.
> 
> 
> 
> Factually baseless and logically fallacious denials are even less effective at making them not so, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's right, no offense but you saying so doesn't make it so.  It's scientists saying so that makes it important.
> 
> But scientists saying something makes it even less valid to kosher.
Click to expand...

Well Drock, you only need to read my reply to her, and follow the response she was replying to, to figure out I wasn't saying she was wrong.

Thanks for being sort-of in the game though.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> You are making the assertations, you get to prove them, or we'll just go along continuing to think you're full of shit.
> 
> Which of course, you are, cupcake.


Well cupcake, isn't it just convenient for you that you just refuse to see that the douche making the assertions was actually Youwerecreated.

Now I know that intellectually dishonest deniers of reality like yourself always demand that your denials of reality are really just assertions of self-evident fact--so you'll blow off leveling this same challenge to the retarded champion of superstitions that you favor. Until you find the intellectual integrity to come around proper, you'll find the times I do such favors for you will only be those times that it suits me.


----------



## koshergrl

You haven't proven it's *reality*. And until you do, all your fist waving and foot stomping just makes you look lame and sad.

And very un-scientific.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I?  Yes.  Do you?  No.
> 
> 
> The passage could easily be interpretted to go along with macroevolution.  Again, you prefer the loony science denying interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me the difference briefly if you can ?
> 
> Then answer does the parents genes determine what the offspring will be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not getting into this again.  Cuz i know it'll be 20 pages and after you've been so overwhelmed with facts you'll just tell me the devil is behind it again.  Crown yourself victor if you so desire.
> 
> All my points stand in terms of an interpretation going along with evolution and your interpretation not being superior to others.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We've gone over this.  The former is actual evolution, whereby changes in the genes occur over time to create differences within and between species. The latter is a term you made up to pretend that the former doesn't really count.  Because in your mind taking 5 steps in changing genes is possible, but 6 is completely outside the realm of plausible belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You compare a newborn child to the universe and call me a loon .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, not at all.  We haven't seen this poor tactic of yours of completely making things up about the person you just quoted in a long time.  You must be getting desperate.  Or I could return to the idea of you hallucinating again.
> 
> 
> I try to learn things from verifiable sources and scientific study, not the sloppy personal webpage of someone expressing an unsupported belief. But we've gone over that before too, and in your usual fashion, you've conveniently forgotten.  But again, these are your tactics: ignoring verified peer-reviewed scientific evidence with a system of checks and balances to instead just go for whatever nut happens to agree with you. These are the best underhanded methods in your arsenal. How sad.
> 
> 
> Actually we know exactly how far we can be off by, and then we recheck it against other forms of dating to ensure they all agree. If I'm trying to shoot a target and I consistently either hit the bulls-eye or come within 2cm of it on the target, the accuracy is still high. But again, I can't expect you to understand a complex concept like known and expected deviation. In your mind the world is black or white, not bell curves of averages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a dreamer,the bible is clear kinds reresent your term for today species. The word seed represents genes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love crappy guesses as people try to coerce biblical words into modern technological knowledge.  So when we say every human cell has 3 billion genes, you really think that means there are 3 billion SEEDS in every cell?  Maybe you don't understand what the word SEED means............
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then answer does the parents genes determine what the offspring will be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not always.  This is another topic you've conveniently forgotten. Yay!
> 
> I expect you to quote this entire post, and then ignore 99% of the content that completely tears down everything you say, to instead focus on more misdirection, because you are incapable of producing the type of intelligence or integrity to honestly discuss a topic.
Click to expand...


Rhetoric tears down my thoughts 

Not one response is worthy of a reply.

What besides genes determine what the offspring will be ?

Where do the genes of the offspring come from ?

How do the genes get delivered to the offspring ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I rely on scientists too..
> 
> For example, the premier genetecist in the world, who believes in God.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why you are perceived as a moron.  A "premier" scientist publishes a widely reliable and verifiable peer reviewed topic on genetics, and then the next week admits that he really believes in ghosts or living dinosaurs in his kitchen, or God, or anything else. A smart person would say "well he has some crazy unsupported beliefs, but the scientific paper he published is actually verifiable and shown to be correct. I'm still going to accept the scientific work and reject his other odd beliefs unless he can similarly provide verifiable evidence for it like he did in genetics."  The moron would say "because he said something smart in genetics, EVERYTHING he believes must be true!"
> 
> This is precisely why creationists record PhDs in completely unrelated topics talking about evolution or physics despite absolutely no education or training in them. At first it was just random priests.  Then they got smart and got PhDs in theology.  Then people started seeing through that so they had to reach to get people with PhD in some unrelated science.
> 
> Meanwhile, the entirety of the scientific community basically ridicules those people.  And the religious nuts go on agreeing with the 0.01% because they "know" they are right.
> 
> You think you agree with scientists?  No no, dear, you agree with the cherry picked people who you want to agree with.
Click to expand...


Are you saying a scientist can't write an article and it's peer reviewed and then admit he believes in God and creation ?

No son, many brilliant people of science believe in God and creation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no evidence of the big bang it is Pseudoscience.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, there is evidence of the big bang. The big bang theory is not pseudoscience.
> 
> Denial of reality is the hallmark of faith, which is the foundation of superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no accurate age of the earth it is Pseudoscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, there is evidence of the earth. The earth is not pseudoscience.
> 
> Denial of reality is the hallmark of faith, which is the foundation of superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no evidence for macro-evolution it is Pseudoscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, there is evidence of macro-evolution. The theory of evolution is not pseudoscience.
> 
> Denial of reality is the hallmark of faith, which is the foundation of superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are beliefs based on faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The big bang, the earth, and evolution are supported by evidence and valid logic--unlike any assertions that require first faith in the existence of a creator.
Click to expand...


No, there is evidence of an expanding universe and many have said it's speeding up how can that be if it was an explosion ?over time it should be slowing.

What reality am I denying ?

What is your evidence of macro-evolution please don't give me examples of micro-adaptations or micro-evolution and call it macro-evolution. Micro-evolution and micro-adaptations are factual there is no arguing that.


----------



## koshergrl

We don't know what reality you're denying because they haven't provided any evidence of the alleged "reality". 

They just say "what you say flies in the face of science!" but then refuse to produce any evidence.

Because it doesn't exist. And they're so stupid, I don't think they even know it. They go off half-cocked and don't bother to do the research...they don't think they need to, they THINK they're standing on the shoulders of giants.

It's just smoke and mirrors. Their own faith is so great, they don't bother with actually looking into it, and they think that should be enough for EVERYBODY, because they attach the word "science" to it. Except it's not science, and what they claim doesn't even exist.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only evolution it would support is at the micro-adaptations level not your macro-evolution level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already shredded that mindset when I showed how someone could interpret those passages and still go along with scientific facts.
> 
> I have no reason to take your interpretation over mine.  None.  Just the opposite actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between *micro-adaptations and macro-evolution *?
Click to expand...


They are adaptations that you can't and can see, respectively.  Other that that, there's no real difference, except as a creationist quibbling point.


----------



## koshergrl

Lol....


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have studied the bible for forty years, I think by now it would begin sinking in.
> 
> Have you studied the bible as many years and have a better understanding of it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Longer, and, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then show me how I am wrong in my views.
Click to expand...


Because you can show yourself right in your views.  The proof is not there for a literalist intepretation.  You cannot do it textually, linguistically, hermeneutically, etc.  But you can go for it.  I will read your comments.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already shredded that mindset when I showed how someone could interpret those passages and still go along with scientific facts.
> 
> I have no reason to take your interpretation over mine.  None.  Just the opposite actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between *micro-adaptations and macro-evolution *?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are adaptations that you can't and can see, respectively.  Other that that, there's no real difference, except as a creationist quibbling point.
Click to expand...




Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Longer, and, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then show me how I am wrong in my views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you can show yourself right in your views.  The proof is not there for a literalist intepretation.  You cannot do it textually, linguistically, hermeneutically, etc.  But you can go for it.  I will read your comments.
Click to expand...


With a thourough study, the bible only has one message on each subject you study.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Bible has a message for sure, but you have not gotten it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> The Bible has a message for sure, but you have not gotten it.



Feel free to point out what i'm missing otherwise move on because your posts are pointless.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You feel free to point out what the rest of us are missing.

You state opinions, expect them in return.

If you have credible, objective evidence, go for it.  Hint: your witness does not count.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> No, there is evidence of an expanding universe ...


Which, of course strongly suggests a singularity in the distant past--consistent with the big bang theory.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... and many have said it's speeding up how can that be if it was an explosion ?over time it should be slowing.


Unless of course, the "explosion" is still in progress.



Youwerecreated said:


> What reality am I denying ?


It's as if you just selectively pay attention.



Youwerecreated said:


> What is your evidence of macro-evolution please don't give me examples of micro-adaptations or micro-evolution and call it macro-evolution. Micro-evolution and micro-adaptations are factual there is no arguing that.


If micro-evolution is unarguable fact, the so is macro-evolution--the distinction is a fabrication to deny the reality of the role that genetic differentiation has in speciation.


----------



## Mutantone

DO you really think that one of Gods days is as long as ours?
Then where did the Fossilizes of bone become bedded in solid rock"
How long did it take Human evolution (as there) is the evolutionary history of the genus Homo, including the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species and as a unique category of hominids ("great apes") and mammals. The study of human evolution uses many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, linguistics and genetics.[1]

The term "human" in the context of human evolution refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominids, such as the Australopithecines, from which the genus Homo had diverged by about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago in Africa.[2][3] Scientists have estimated that humans branched off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees about 57 million years ago. Several species and subspecies of Homo evolved and are now extinct, introgressed or extant. Examples include Homo erectus (which inhabited Asia, Africa, and Europe) and Neanderthals (either Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) (which inhabited Europe and Asia). Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.

One view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the hypothesis known as "Out of Africa", recent African origin of modern humans, ROAM, or recent African origin hypothesis,[4][5][6] which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Neanderthals in Europe.

Scientists supporting an alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago. Evidence suggests that an X-linked haplotype of the Neanderthal origin is present among all non-African populations, and Neanderthals and other hominids, such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to modern 

en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is evidence of an expanding universe ...
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course strongly suggests a singularity in the distant past--consistent with the big bang theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and many have said it's speeding up how can that be if it was an explosion ?over time it should be slowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless of course, the "explosion" is still in progress.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What reality am I denying ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's as if you just selectively pay attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence of macro-evolution please don't give me examples of micro-adaptations or micro-evolution and call it macro-evolution. Micro-evolution and micro-adaptations are factual there is no arguing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If micro-evolution is unarguable fact, the so is macro-evolution--the distinction is a fabrication to deny the reality of the role that genetic differentiation has in speciation.
Click to expand...


No,because an explosion debris would go all different directions but that is not what is seen.

Everything is flowing on planes uniformly,and to defy logic we have planets and stars spinning the opposite direction as to most planets and stars.

How can you prove the explosion is still going on after 20 billion years ? and that does not answer the question why it's speeding up ?

I selectively pay attention ok


----------



## Youwerecreated

Mutantone said:


> DO you really think that one of Gods days is as long as ours?
> Then where did the Fossilizes of bone become bedded in solid rock"
> How long did it take Human evolution (as there) is the evolutionary history of the genus Homo, including the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species and as a unique category of hominids ("great apes") and mammals. The study of human evolution uses many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, linguistics and genetics.[1]
> 
> The term "human" in the context of human evolution refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominids, such as the Australopithecines, from which the genus Homo had diverged by about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago in Africa.[2][3] Scientists have estimated that humans branched off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees about 57 million years ago. Several species and subspecies of Homo evolved and are now extinct, introgressed or extant. Examples include Homo erectus (which inhabited Asia, Africa, and Europe) and Neanderthals (either Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) (which inhabited Europe and Asia). Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.
> 
> One view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the hypothesis known as "Out of Africa", recent African origin of modern humans, ROAM, or recent African origin hypothesis,[4][5][6] which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Neanderthals in Europe.
> 
> Scientists supporting an alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago. Evidence suggests that an X-linked haplotype of the Neanderthal origin is present among all non-African populations, and Neanderthals and other hominids, such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to modern
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



Uh oh wiki as an authority.

Son, you're not telling me anything I have not seen personally. I have taken many classes in geology and have a degree in molecular biology and I use to believe the same crud you do,then I grew up. I worked in the field and saw it for myself the way things are interpreted from your side. At all cost it is to discredit any evidence that contradicts the main theory.

There are so many holes in the theory it's just a matter of time before many honest genuine scientists start speaking against the theory.

The more evidence we discover the less credibility the theory has. The theory is on life support.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between *micro-adaptations and macro-evolution *?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are adaptations that you can't and can see, respectively.  Other that that, there's no real difference, except as a creationist quibbling point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.
Click to expand...


The only difference is in your own mind.  Micro leads to the macro.  It's a major reason creationists are derided, they hang their hats on concepts that don't exist.  Evolution is a continuum.  It can be hard to tell sometimes when one species can be said to have evolved into another, but mere difficulty isn't proof of anything, regardless of what creationists may say.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are adaptations that you can't and can see, respectively.  Other that that, there's no real difference, except as a creationist quibbling point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only difference is in your own mind.  Micro leads to the macro.  It's a major reason creationists are derided, they hang their hats on concepts that don't exist.  Evolution is a continuum.  It can be hard to tell sometimes when one species can be said to have evolved into another, but mere difficulty isn't proof of anything, regardless of what creationists may say.
Click to expand...


What is your proof ?

Really,what would you call animals growing longer hair when it's cold ?

Why must a diver come back to the surface slowly ?

Why is it rough for teams from a lower altitude to play in a higher atltitude ?

Does adapting lead to Macro-evolution see how rediculous your comment is ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is evidence of an expanding universe ...
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course strongly suggests a singularity in the distant past--consistent with the big bang theory.
> 
> Unless of course, the "explosion" is still in progress.
> 
> It's as if you just selectively pay attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence of macro-evolution please don't give me examples of micro-adaptations or micro-evolution and call it macro-evolution. Micro-evolution and micro-adaptations are factual there is no arguing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If micro-evolution is unarguable fact, the so is macro-evolution--the distinction is a fabrication to deny the reality of the role that genetic differentiation has in speciation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,because an explosion debris would go all different directions but that is not what is seen.
Click to expand...

Really? Hmmm. Not that I keep current on the latest versions of the cosmological models, but last I looked it was still held that--generally speaking--everything *is* moving in all different directions, rather than in one general direction.

So, what direction is everything moving together in?



Youwerecreated said:


> Everything is flowing on planes uniformly,and to defy logic we have planets and stars spinning the opposite direction as to most planets and stars.










Youwerecreated said:


> How can you prove the explosion is still going on after 20 billion years ?


How do claim that I said "prove?" 



Youwerecreated said:


> ... and that does not answer the question why it's speeding up ?


You don't do physics much, eh? If the force of energy of the "explosion" is still in action on everything (rather than everything just coasting on conservation of momentum), then that would mean objects influenced by that force would be accelerating. Yes?



Youwerecreated said:


> I selectively pay attention ok


Yeah, you do.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course strongly suggests a singularity in the distant past--consistent with the big bang theory.
> 
> Unless of course, the "explosion" is still in progress.
> 
> It's as if you just selectively pay attention.
> 
> If micro-evolution is unarguable fact, the so is macro-evolution--the distinction is a fabrication to deny the reality of the role that genetic differentiation has in speciation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,because an explosion debris would go all different directions but that is not what is seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Hmmm. Not that I keep current on the latest versions of the cosmological models, but last I looked it was still held that--generally speaking--everything *is* moving in all different directions, rather than in one general direction.
> 
> So, what direction is everything moving together in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do claim that I said "prove?"
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and that does not answer the question why it's speeding up ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't do physics much, eh? If the force of energy of the "explosion" is still in action on everything (rather than everything just coasting on conservation of momentum), then that would mean objects influenced by that force would be accelerating. Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I selectively pay attention ok
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, you do.
Click to expand...


Here let's drive this point home about the geologic time scale.

Geological column - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Well this is it for the day have a great weekend.

Everything is going in different directions ?

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...vKIndiALI5KTtCg&sqi=2&ved=0CEwQ9QEwAA&dur=120


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference is in your own mind.  Micro leads to the macro.  It's a major reason creationists are derided, they hang their hats on concepts that don't exist.  Evolution is a continuum.  It can be hard to tell sometimes when one species can be said to have evolved into another, but mere difficulty isn't proof of anything, regardless of what creationists may say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your proof ?
> 
> Really,what would you call animals growing longer hair when it's cold ?
> 
> Why must a diver come back to the surface slowly ?
> 
> Why is it rough for teams from a lower altitude to play in a higher atltitude ?
> 
> Does adapting lead to Macro-evolution see how rediculous your comment is ?
Click to expand...


Which comment would that be?  I don't see where your questions have a bearing on the issue.  They seem to show exactly what I'm saying, i.e. that evolution is a continuum. Think about it.  Your questions should be.

Why do some animals have denser hair than others?

Why can some divers hold their breath longer than others?

Why do some people find it harder to exercise at high altitudes than others?

The answer is, because evolution is a continuum and it's still going on.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,because an explosion debris would go all different directions but that is not what is seen.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Hmmm. Not that I keep current on the latest versions of the cosmological models, but last I looked it was still held that--generally speaking--everything *is* moving in all different directions, rather than in one general direction.
> 
> So, what direction is everything moving together in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do claim that I said "prove?"
> 
> You don't do physics much, eh? If the force of energy of the "explosion" is still in action on everything (rather than everything just coasting on conservation of momentum), then that would mean objects influenced by that force would be accelerating. Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I selectively pay attention ok
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here let's drive this point home about the geologic time scale.
> 
> Geological column - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> Well this is it for the day have a great weekend.
> 
> Everything is going in different directions ?
> 
> Redirect Notice
Click to expand...


Sorry but that cite leaves a lot to be desired with regard to referencing of sources.  Blanket staements are made without back up.  Why is that, if creationism is so scientific and true?!?!  You'd think that stuff would be trumpeted to the mountaintops instead of hidden!!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference is in your own mind.  Micro leads to the macro.  It's a major reason creationists are derided, they hang their hats on concepts that don't exist.  Evolution is a continuum.  It can be hard to tell sometimes when one species can be said to have evolved into another, but mere difficulty isn't proof of anything, regardless of what creationists may say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof ?
> 
> Really,what would you call animals growing longer hair when it's cold ?
> 
> Why must a diver come back to the surface slowly ?
> 
> Why is it rough for teams from a lower altitude to play in a higher atltitude ?
> 
> Does adapting lead to Macro-evolution see how rediculous your comment is ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which comment would that be?  I don't see where your questions have a bearing on the issue.  They seem to show exactly what I'm saying, i.e. that evolution is a continuum. Think about it.  Your questions should be.
> 
> Why do some animals have denser hair than others?
> 
> Why can some divers hold their breath longer than others?
> 
> Why do some people find it harder to exercise at high altitudes than others?
> 
> The answer is, because evolution is a continuum and it's still going on.
Click to expand...


Nice evolution  animals grow longer hair when it's cold and they shed it when it's warm how is that evolution ?

That is adapting to your enviornment.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof ?
> 
> Really,what would you call animals growing longer hair when it's cold ?
> 
> Why must a diver come back to the surface slowly ?
> 
> Why is it rough for teams from a lower altitude to play in a higher atltitude ?
> 
> Does adapting lead to Macro-evolution see how rediculous your comment is ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which comment would that be?  I don't see where your questions have a bearing on the issue.  They seem to show exactly what I'm saying, i.e. that evolution is a continuum. Think about it.  Your questions should be.
> 
> Why do some animals have denser hair than others?
> 
> Why can some divers hold their breath longer than others?
> 
> Why do some people find it harder to exercise at high altitudes than others?
> 
> The answer is, because evolution is a continuum and it's still going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice evolution  animals grow longer hair when it's cold and they shed it when it's warm how is that evolution ?
> 
> That is adapting to your enviornment.
Click to expand...


Adaptation is part of evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which comment would that be?  I don't see where your questions have a bearing on the issue.  They seem to show exactly what I'm saying, i.e. that evolution is a continuum. Think about it.  Your questions should be.
> 
> Why do some animals have denser hair than others?
> 
> Why can some divers hold their breath longer than others?
> 
> Why do some people find it harder to exercise at high altitudes than others?
> 
> The answer is, because evolution is a continuum and it's still going on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice evolution  animals grow longer hair when it's cold and they shed it when it's warm how is that evolution ?
> 
> That is adapting to your enviornment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adaptation is part of evolution.
Click to expand...


Prove it ?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice evolution  animals grow longer hair when it's cold and they shed it when it's warm how is that evolution ?
> 
> That is adapting to your enviornment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adaptation is part of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it ?
Click to expand...


Adaptation is a part of the theory of evolution, look it up yourself.

Amazing that someone takes such a hardcore stance against something that he's COMPLETELY clueless about.


----------



## Dragon

We should distinguish between the _idea_ of evolution and the _theory_ of evolution properly so called. The idea of evolution (which is supported by empirical evidence that is very, very strong) is the idea that over generations, living organisms evolve new characteristics and eventually give rise to new species. The theory of evolution is a model in biology about exactly how that happens. The original theory of evolution as published by Darwin involved a single concept, natural selection, which is still a key part of today's evolution models, but they also include some other processes such as mutation and genetic drift of which Darwin knew nothing.

The evidence in favor of the idea of evolution is mostly found in the fossil record. The great majority of species of animal and plant that have ever lived on earth are extinct today. Also, the species of living thing that live today, were not around in the past. So we have one set of species living at one time and another set of species living at a later time. By one means or another, the species mix on the planet has changed over time. This is a fact, and any idea of how life emerged in the forms it has must accommodate that fact. The idea of evolution is an explanation of why life is different today than it was once, and the theory of evolution is a model of how evolution takes place.

That the species of life inhabiting the Earth have changed is a fact. That this means evolution happens (by whatever mechanism) is an extremely-likely hypothesis explaining this fact. The theory of evolution in current biology is a good, solid model of how evolution has happened. Here we have a hierarchy of certainty with regard to ideas associated with evolution: change of species over time (certain), evolution (virtually certain), the theory of evolution (somewhat certain although likely itself to evolve further).

If one is committed to a creationist model of how life emerged, that fact of the change of species on earth must still be accommodated. _This fact is completely incompatible with a single, one-time creation_. It is a fact that we do not have the same species of living thing on this planet that we once did; old species are gone, new ones are here. There is simply no way that this observed result could happen from a single creation.

The fact may be compatible with an ongoing creative process, in which creation is not a one-time event but something that is still happening. Such an explanation would still be inferior to evolution in that it is less economical, requiring more unprovable assumptions; moreover, it would probably not be acceptable to most creationists, whose agenda is to support the Biblical account of the creation, literally interpreted.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Here let's drive this point home about the geologic time scale.
> 
> Geological column - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science


This thing is terribly misnamed. Let me fix it: Geological column - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation superstition

Unsurprisingly, it doesn't go very far before it engages in the intellectual dishonesty so characteristic of the superstitious:





			
				Superstitious Retards said:
			
		

> In other words, uniformitarianism basically assumes that catastrophic events like the global flood never happened. Therefore uniformitarianism interprets all geologic features according to processes observed in the post-flood world, while assuming that no flood took place. This principle informs everything that any evolutionary geologist has ever written.



This page is usless for the purposes of having an accurately informed notion of what geological & paleontological sciences are actually about--but if you like to point and laugh at the intellectually disingenuous antics of retards, it's just ripe with material.



Youwerecreated said:


> Well this is it for the day have a great weekend.
> 
> Everything is going in different directions ?
> 
> Redirect Notice


In time? No.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What complete garbage.
> 
> You just saying it doesn't make it so, skippy.
> 
> 
> 
> Factually baseless and logically fallacious denials are even less effective at making them not so, cupcake.
Click to expand...

Zing!  



Youwerecreated said:


> Are you saying a scientist can't write an article and it's peer reviewed and then admit he believes in God and creation ?
> 
> No son, many brilliant people of science believe in God and creation.


Oh I see what you did there.  Here, let me try using your ridiculous argument techniques: "Are you saying the gravity doesn't exist because it's only a theory!?"  Huh, producing straw man arguments in question form really lacks integrity. 

But let's face it, you and I both know that's not what I said, and you're just misdirecting in your usual underhanded and morally bankrupt methods. And yes, many scientists believe in God.  But few biologists believe in evolution.  There are a rare handful of outliers, but the people who have actually studied the topic, especially if they don't have strong religious beliefs, always agree with it.  Why do you suppose that is, when so many other bad concepts that happen to contradict the bible can be rejected?

I look forward to you answering that question with another question, most likely straw man misdirection.



koshergrl said:


> We don't know what reality you're denying because they haven't provided any evidence of the alleged "reality".
> 
> They just say "what you say flies in the face of science!" but then refuse to produce any evidence.
> 
> Because it doesn't exist. And they're so stupid, I don't think they even know it. They go off half-cocked and don't bother to do the research...they don't think they need to, they THINK they're standing on the shoulders of giants.
> 
> It's just smoke and mirrors. Their own faith is so great, they don't bother with actually looking into it, and they think that should be enough for EVERYBODY, because they attach the word "science" to it. Except it's not science, and what they claim doesn't even exist.


You should probably stop using words you don't understand.  Like "science."  Or "research." 



Youwerecreated said:


> Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.


Yeah the problem with that is that all major biology books and the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific papers don't actually differentiate between micro and macro evolution.  Only religious nuts do. Who don't understand the topic.  But still claim other people should read.

Let's return to another related topic that made you squirm for a while previously: Since you readily admit that a small number of mutations can occur via your proposed micro-evolution, how many mutations need occur before your macroevolution occurs? Give me a number for the cutoff.  Is 100 mutations ok but 101 impossible?  You tell me the actual defining line between the two.  Not in "kinds" or "stuff" or "types" or even species, but by a number of mutations.


----------



## koshergrl

Nothing is more laughable than retards with not a modicom of scientific understanding or training, who strut around pretending they have some secret knowledge of the creation of the world.

*zing*. What a joke. Like most pseudo intellectuals, you are easily dazzled by the use of words you don't quite understand, used primarily to hide the fact that the user has no real information at his fingertips.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

uh oh. looks like i hurt someone's feelings.  i find it interesting that you respond to people by saying their remarks are unsubstantiated, when you yourself, ironically, are making unsubstantiated retorts.  or do you think you have any understanding of my scientific background or training despite claiming I have none?


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> Nothing is more laughable than retards with not a modicom of scientific understanding or training, who strut around pretending they have some secret knowledge of the creation of the world.
> 
> *zing*. What a joke. Like most pseudo intellectuals, you are easily dazzled by the use of words you don't quite understand, used primarily to hide the fact that the user has no real information at his fingertips.



You have described yourself to a T, koshergirl.  

Many, like you here, push their inner problems onto others; it's called projecting.

Literalism, creationism, and evolution are not salvation issues.


----------



## koshergrl

Right.

So show me the irrefutable evidence that proves the earth is whatever age.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> Right.
> 
> So show me the irrefutable evidence that proves the earth is whatever age.



There is no such thing as "irrefutable" evidence of anything, unless you first establish some ground rules. For example, presented with evidence of the age of the earth (the fossil record, models of how long it would take for the sun to form, carbon dating for organic materials, etc.), some on this thread would "refute" that evidence by reference to Biblical passages.

The evidence that the earth is old is easily available, but can always be "refuted" by anyone willing to discard it on a non-scientific basis.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

sure. after you show me that a dog can really read people's minds. 

What?  That's not what you were arguing?  Then why did I ask for it, I wonder?

Oh that's right: because it's an immature straw man challenge to do what you just did. I have no interest discussing dating methods to someone who believes that a 0.000001% deviation in dead on correct is too much to give us any accurate dating method. It was never my initial argument and you clearly don't understand it when discussing it with others. 

I will, however, comment on the other part of your little challenge: irrefutable evidence.  You see in the eyes of a scientist, the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from.  If the BEST evidence is too irregular, or has too large a deviation making it closer to chance chance, which is usually set at around 5%, not 0.000001%, THEN it is thrown out.  But otherwise the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from.  That's how scientists think. 

How religious loons think, on the other hand, is that it must be 100% perfect indisputable evidence, most notably in the form of jesus descending from deep space 9 to personally tell you what to think. And seeing as that hasn't happened EVER, it leaves loons such as yourself just not thinking at all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergirl, you will find your answer in dragon and smarter's comments.  You cannot demonstrate scientifically your view of the age of the earth from your faith belief.  Simply impossible.

Once again, can you tell me how evolution, creationism, and biblical literalism are salvation issues.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are adaptations that you can't and can see, respectively.  Other that that, there's no real difference, except as a creationist quibbling point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only difference is in your own mind.  Micro leads to the macro.  It's a major reason creationists are derided, they hang their hats on concepts that don't exist.  Evolution is a continuum.  It can be hard to tell sometimes when one species can be said to have evolved into another, but mere difficulty isn't proof of anything, regardless of what creationists may say.
Click to expand...


Look if you're gonna make a claim like this that micro-evolution leads to Macro-evolution the burden of proof is on you, and there is no such evidence proving what you said it is assumed through faulty reasoning.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adaptation is part of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adaptation is a part of the theory of evolution, look it up yourself.
> 
> Amazing that someone takes such a hardcore stance against something that he's COMPLETELY clueless about.
Click to expand...


Because it is part of the theory that is what proves it ? come on you can do better then this.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What complete garbage.
> 
> You just saying it doesn't make it so, skippy.
> 
> 
> 
> Factually baseless and logically fallacious denials are even less effective at making them not so, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zing!
> 
> 
> Oh I see what you did there.  Here, let me try using your ridiculous argument techniques: "Are you saying the gravity doesn't exist because it's only a theory!?"  Huh, producing straw man arguments in question form really lacks integrity.
> 
> But let's face it, you and I both know that's not what I said, and you're just misdirecting in your usual underhanded and morally bankrupt methods. And yes, many scientists believe in God.  But few biologists believe in evolution.  There are a rare handful of outliers, but the people who have actually studied the topic, especially if they don't have strong religious beliefs, always agree with it.  Why do you suppose that is, when so many other bad concepts that happen to contradict the bible can be rejected?
> 
> I look forward to you answering that question with another question, most likely straw man misdirection.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know what reality you're denying because they haven't provided any evidence of the alleged "reality".
> 
> They just say "what you say flies in the face of science!" but then refuse to produce any evidence.
> 
> Because it doesn't exist. And they're so stupid, I don't think they even know it. They go off half-cocked and don't bother to do the research...they don't think they need to, they THINK they're standing on the shoulders of giants.
> 
> It's just smoke and mirrors. Their own faith is so great, they don't bother with actually looking into it, and they think that should be enough for EVERYBODY, because they attach the word "science" to it. Except it's not science, and what they claim doesn't even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should probably stop using words you don't understand.  Like "science."  Or "research."
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah the problem with that is that all major biology books and the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific papers don't actually differentiate between micro and macro evolution.  Only religious nuts do. Who don't understand the topic.  But still claim other people should read.
> 
> Let's return to another related topic that made you squirm for a while previously: Since you readily admit that a small number of mutations can occur via your proposed micro-evolution, how many mutations need occur before your macroevolution occurs? Give me a number for the cutoff.  Is 100 mutations ok but 101 impossible?  You tell me the actual defining line between the two.  Not in "kinds" or "stuff" or "types" or even species, but by a number of mutations.
Click to expand...


Well depends which animal you're speaking of and what it is evolving to.

There is atleast a 5% difference in the DNA between a chimp and human and I am being generous in giving you 5% difference.


That means the difference between human and chimp DNA base pairs are 150,000,000 DNA base pairs. That is a lot of beneficial mutations that would have to be solidfied in the gene pool for your theory to actually happen. See argument just below to see the probability of it happenibg once let alone for every living organism that supposedly evolved in to someting new.

Click the link.

Unmasking Evolution - Free Literature


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> uh oh. looks like i hurt someone's feelings.  i find it interesting that you respond to people by saying their remarks are unsubstantiated, when you yourself, ironically, are making unsubstantiated retorts.  or do you think you have any understanding of my scientific background or training despite claiming I have none?



Looks like you have nothing more then rhetoric as your evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> sure. after you show me that a dog can really read people's minds.
> 
> What?  That's not what you were arguing?  Then why did I ask for it, I wonder?
> 
> Oh that's right: because it's an immature straw man challenge to do what you just did. I have no interest discussing dating methods to someone who believes that a 0.000001% deviation in dead on correct is too much to give us any accurate dating method. It was never my initial argument and you clearly don't understand it when discussing it with others.
> 
> I will, however, comment on the other part of your little challenge: irrefutable evidence.  You see in the eyes of a scientist, the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from.  If the BEST evidence is too irregular, or has too large a deviation making it closer to chance chance, which is usually set at around 5%, not 0.000001%, THEN it is thrown out.  But otherwise the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from.  That's how scientists think.
> 
> How religious loons think, on the other hand, is that it must be 100% perfect indisputable evidence, most notably in the form of jesus descending from deep space 9 to personally tell you what to think. And seeing as that hasn't happened EVER, it leaves loons such as yourself just not thinking at all.



Yes,thank you for admitting there is no proof of your theory so quit insulting others because you are going a faith not science.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Look if you're gonna make a claim like this that micro-evolution leads to Macro-evolution the burden of proof is on you, and there is no such evidence proving what you said it is assumed through faulty reasoning.


Actually, that is your claim.  You see actual scientists don't make such arbitrary distinctions.  You not only made the claim that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution, without even being able to genetically define the difference, but you've given absolutely no proof whatsoever to support your claim that there is a difference. Now you want to claim it's really the burden of someone else to provide proof to YOUR claim?  

It's this type of underhanded reasoning that makes federal judges see you religious loons as morally bankrupt and rule in favor of science and legitimate reasoning every single time. 



Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Factually baseless and logically fallacious denials are even less effective at making them not so, cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> Zing!
> 
> 
> Oh I see what you did there.  Here, let me try using your ridiculous argument techniques: "Are you saying the gravity doesn't exist because it's only a theory!?"  Huh, producing straw man arguments in question form really lacks integrity.
> 
> But let's face it, you and I both know that's not what I said, and you're just misdirecting in your usual underhanded and morally bankrupt methods. And yes, many scientists believe in God.  But few biologists believe in evolution.  There are a rare handful of outliers, but the people who have actually studied the topic, especially if they don't have strong religious beliefs, always agree with it.  Why do you suppose that is, when so many other bad concepts that happen to contradict the bible can be rejected?
> 
> I look forward to you answering that question with another question, most likely straw man misdirection.
> 
> 
> You should probably stop using words you don't understand.  Like "science."  Or "research."
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah the problem with that is that all major biology books and the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific papers don't actually differentiate between micro and macro evolution.  Only religious nuts do. Who don't understand the topic.  But still claim other people should read.
> 
> Let's return to another related topic that made you squirm for a while previously: Since you readily admit that a small number of mutations can occur via your proposed micro-evolution, how many mutations need occur before your macroevolution occurs? Give me a number for the cutoff.  Is 100 mutations ok but 101 impossible?  You tell me the actual defining line between the two.  Not in "kinds" or "stuff" or "types" or even species, but by a number of mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well depends which animal you're speaking of and what it is evolving to.
> 
> There is atleast a 5% difference in the DNA between a chimp and human and I am being generous in giving you 5% difference.
Click to expand...

All peer reviewed scientific publications on the topic show we have less than 3% genetic difference from the nearest organism. Where you are "generous" in fabricating your 5% is most likely a misunderstanding of the 5% cutoff I used regarding scientific studies as they relate to chance, which you clearly also don't understand. But please, link me to some random person's blog with no research whatsoever that claims 5% is really the number.  I enjoy your desperation in using fabricated information to make false points. 



Youwerecreated said:


> That means the difference between human and chimp DNA base pairs are 150,000,000 DNA base pairs. That is a lot of beneficial mutations that would have to be solidfied in the gene pool for your theory to actually happen.


Actually, it's not. Once again, you show your lack of understanding of the topic you condemn, and in response to this deficiency, completely fabricate information to suit you needs. Science: truth. Religious nut: fabrication. 

As I've stated previously: mutations, or genetic changes, in no way mandate beneficial changes. In fact, the majority of the differences between humans and our closest relative are silent mutations, meaning the genetic change produces no physical change anywhere in the organism. But, you never understand these concepts. You don't even understand what a beneficial mutation is. How could I expect you to know something simpler?

By the way, have you conceded yet that evolution is a distinct process from the start of the universe or life?  Or are you continuing to avoid this question for fear that it may exorcise you?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure. after you show me that a dog can really read people's minds.
> 
> What?  That's not what you were arguing?  Then why did I ask for it, I wonder?
> 
> Oh that's right: because it's an immature straw man challenge to do what you just did. I have no interest discussing dating methods to someone who believes that a 0.000001% deviation in dead on correct is too much to give us any accurate dating method. It was never my initial argument and you clearly don't understand it when discussing it with others.
> 
> I will, however, comment on the other part of your little challenge: irrefutable evidence.  You see in the eyes of a scientist, the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from.  If the BEST evidence is too irregular, or has too large a deviation making it closer to chance chance, which is usually set at around 5%, not 0.000001%, THEN it is thrown out.  But otherwise the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from.  That's how scientists think.
> 
> How religious loons think, on the other hand, is that it must be 100% perfect indisputable evidence, most notably in the form of jesus descending from deep space 9 to personally tell you what to think. And seeing as that hasn't happened EVER, it leaves loons such as yourself just not thinking at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,thank you for admitting there is no proof of your theory so quit insulting others because you are going a faith not science.
Click to expand...


Is that what I admitted?  Hold on let me reread that. 

Oops!  Looks like you're wrong again.  Sorry, I shouldn't say that.  "Wrong" implies you were innocently mistaken, it does not refer to purposely twisting information because you can't actually make a legitimate point otherwise.  But, I enjoy your desperation and failure in your attempt anyway.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Right.
> 
> So show me the irrefutable evidence that proves the earth is whatever age.


Demanded as if she required irrefutable evidence that proves anything she believes, let alone this creator of hers.

Demanded as if she accepts the same standard of fatuous "proof" upon which her beliefs were established, as the standard of "proof" to refute them. 

Just laughably disingenuous.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure. after you show me that a dog can really read people's minds.
> 
> What?  That's not what you were arguing?  Then why did I ask for it, I wonder?
> 
> Oh that's right: because it's an immature straw man challenge to do what you just did. I have no interest discussing dating methods to someone who believes that a 0.000001% deviation in dead on correct is too much to give us any accurate dating method. It was never my initial argument and you clearly don't understand it when discussing it with others.
> 
> I will, however, comment on the other part of your little challenge: irrefutable evidence.  You see in the eyes of a scientist, the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from.  If the BEST evidence is too irregular, or has too large a deviation making it closer to chance chance, which is usually set at around 5%, not 0.000001%, THEN it is thrown out.  But otherwise the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from.  That's how scientists think.
> 
> How religious loons think, on the other hand, is that it must be 100% perfect indisputable evidence, most notably in the form of jesus descending from deep space 9 to personally tell you what to think. And seeing as that hasn't happened EVER, it leaves loons such as yourself just not thinking at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,thank you for admitting there is no proof of your theory so quit insulting others because you are going a faith not science.
Click to expand...

The superstitious (not to mention dishonest) such as yourself, have no valid business discussing science, or declaring what constitutes science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look if you're gonna make a claim like this that micro-evolution leads to Macro-evolution the burden of proof is on you, and there is no such evidence proving what you said it is assumed through faulty reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that is your claim.  You see actual scientists don't make such arbitrary distinctions.  You not only made the claim that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution, without even being able to genetically define the difference, but you've given absolutely no proof whatsoever to support your claim that there is a difference. Now you want to claim it's really the burden of someone else to provide proof to YOUR claim?
> 
> It's this type of underhanded reasoning that makes federal judges see you religious loons as morally bankrupt and rule in favor of science and legitimate reasoning every single time.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well depends which animal you're speaking of and what it is evolving to.
> 
> There is atleast a 5% difference in the DNA between a chimp and human and I am being generous in giving you 5% difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All peer reviewed scientific publications on the topic show we have less than 3% genetic difference from the nearest organism. Where you are "generous" in fabricating your 5% is most likely a misunderstanding of the 5% cutoff I used regarding scientific studies as they relate to chance, which you clearly also don't understand. But please, link me to some random person's blog with no research whatsoever that claims 5% is really the number.  I enjoy your desperation in using fabricated information to make false points.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That means the difference between human and chimp DNA base pairs are 150,000,000 DNA base pairs. That is a lot of beneficial mutations that would have to be solidfied in the gene pool for your theory to actually happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it's not. Once again, you show your lack of understanding of the topic you condemn, and in response to this deficiency, completely fabricate information to suit you needs. Science: truth. Religious nut: fabrication.
> 
> As I've stated previously: mutations, or genetic changes, in no way mandate beneficial changes. In fact, the majority of the differences between humans and our closest relative are silent mutations, meaning the genetic change produces no physical change anywhere in the organism. But, you never understand these concepts. You don't even understand what a beneficial mutation is. How could I expect you to know something simpler?
> 
> By the way, have you conceded yet that evolution is a distinct process from the start of the universe or life?  Or are you continuing to avoid this question for fear that it may exorcise you?
Click to expand...


First off he made the claim that microevolution leads to macroevolution the burden of proof is on him and whoever believes this rubbish.

The difference is microevolution are small changes within a group. Macroevolution are large scale changes above the species level. Meaning a destinctly new species but not within the same family or group a new family grooup.

What peered review states the difference between a human and chimp DNA ?be careful because there are many things your side has not figured into their figure of 98% or what ever figure your side believes. Your side can't seem to agree on this. I have seen 99%,98%,97% and 96% similarity. Which one is it ? 

How many base pairs of DNA are in a human ? you take the percentage of difference that is how you arrive at 150,000,000 base pairs that is if it is only a 5% difference.

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

For almost 30 years, researchers have asserted that the DNA of humans and chimps is at least 98.5% identical. Now research reported here last week at the American Society for Human Genetics meeting suggests that the two primate genomes might not be quite as similar after all. A closer look has uncovered nips and tucks of homologous sections of DNA that werent noticed in previous studies (298:719, emp. added).

Genomicists Kelly Frazer and David Cox of Perlegen Sciences in Mountain View, California, along with geneticists Evan Eichler and Devin Locke of Case Western University in Cleveland, Ohio, compared human and chimp DNA, and discovered a wide range of insertions and deletions (anywhere from between 200 bases to 10,000 bases). Cox commented: The implications could be profound, because such genetic hiccups could disable entire genes, possibly explaining why our closest cousin seems so distant (as quoted in Pennisi, 298:721).

Britten analyzed chimp and human genomes with a customized computer program. To quote Pennisis article:

He compared 779,000 bases of chimp DNA with the sequences of the human genome, both found in the public repository GenBank. Single-base changes accounted for 1.4% of the differences between the human and chimp genomes, and insertions and deletions accounted for an additional 3.4%, he reported in the 15 October [2002] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Lockes and Frazers groups didnt commit to any new estimates of the similarity between the species, but both agree that the previously accepted 98.5% mark is too high (298:721, emp. added).

While Lockes and Frazers team was unwilling to commit to any new estimate of the similarity between chimps and humans, Britten was not. In fact, he titled his article in the October 15, 2002 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Divergence between Samples of Chimpanzee and Human DNA Sequences is 5% (Britten, 99:13633-13635). In the abstract accompanying the article, he wrote: The conclusion is that the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA (99:13633, emp. added). The news service at NewScientist.com reported the event as follows:

It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps. 
The new value came to light when Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology became suspicious about the 98.5 per cent figure. Ironically, that number was originally derived from a technique that Britten himself developed decades ago at Caltech with colleague Dave Kohne. By measuring the temperature at which matching DNA of two species comes apart, you can work out how different they are.

 But the technique only picks up a particular type of variation, called a single base substitution. These occur whenever a single letter differs in corresponding strands of DNA from the two species.

 But there are two other major types of variation that the previous analyses ignored. Insertions occur whenever a whole section of DNA appears in one species but not in the corresponding strand of the other. Likewise, deletions mean that a piece of DNA is missing from one species.

 Together, they are termed indels, and Britten seized his chance to evaluate the true variation between the two species when stretches of chimp DNA were recently published on the internet by teams from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and from the University of Oklahoma.

 When Britten compared five stretches of chimp DNA with the corresponding pieces of human DNA, he found that single base substitutions accounted for a difference of 1.4 per cent, very close to the expected figure.

 But he also found that the DNA of both species was littered with indels. His comparisons revealed that they add around another 4.0 per cent to the genetic differences (see Coghlan, 2002, emp. added).

It seems that, as time passes and scientific studies increase, humans appear to be less like chimps after all. In a separate study, Barbulescu and colleagues also uncovered another major difference in the genomes of primates and humans. In their article A HERV-K Provirus in Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Gorillas, but not Humans, the authors wrote: These observations provide very strong evidence that, for some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than they are to humans (2001, 11:779, emp. added). The data from these results go squarely against what evolutionists have contended for decadesthat chimpanzees are closer genetically to humans than they are to gorillas. Another study using interspecies representational difference analysis (RDA) between humans and gorillas revealed gorilla-specific DNA sequences (Toder, et al., 2001)that is, gorillas possess sequences of DNA that are not found in humans. The authors of this study suggested that sequences found in gorillas but not humans could represent either ancient sequences that got lost in other species, such as human and orang-utan, or, more likely, recent sequences which evolved or originated specifically in the gorilla genome (9:431).

The differences between chimpanzees and humans are not limited to genomic variances. In 1998, a structural difference between the cell surfaces of humans and apes was detected. After studying tissues and blood samples from the great apes, and sixty humans from various ethnic groups, Muchmore and colleagues discovered that human cells are missing a particular form of sialic acid (a type of sugar) found in all other mammals (1998, 107[2]:187). This sialic acid molecule is found on the surface of every cell in the body, and is thought to carry out multiple cellular tasks. This seemingly miniscule difference can have far-reaching effects, and might explain why surgeons were unable to transplant chimp organs into humans in the 1960s. With this in mind, we never should declare, with a simple wave of the hand, chimps are almost identical to us simply because of a large genetic overlap.


CONCLUSION

Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:

The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the pentadactyl [five boneBH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whaleand this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).

Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differencesdifferences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.

Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapienswise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

They were making these similarity claims long before a human genome was mapped kinda convenient don't you think ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure. after you show me that a dog can really read people's minds.
> 
> What?  That's not what you were arguing?  Then why did I ask for it, I wonder?
> 
> Oh that's right: because it's an immature straw man challenge to do what you just did. I have no interest discussing dating methods to someone who believes that a 0.000001% deviation in dead on correct is too much to give us any accurate dating method. It was never my initial argument and you clearly don't understand it when discussing it with others.
> 
> I will, however, comment on the other part of your little challenge: irrefutable evidence.  You see in the eyes of a scientist, the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from.  If the BEST evidence is too irregular, or has too large a deviation making it closer to chance chance, which is usually set at around 5%, not 0.000001%, THEN it is thrown out.  But otherwise the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from.  That's how scientists think.
> 
> How religious loons think, on the other hand, is that it must be 100% perfect indisputable evidence, most notably in the form of jesus descending from deep space 9 to personally tell you what to think. And seeing as that hasn't happened EVER, it leaves loons such as yourself just not thinking at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,thank you for admitting there is no proof of your theory so quit insulting others because you are going a faith not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what I admitted?  Hold on let me reread that.
> 
> Oops!  Looks like you're wrong again.  Sorry, I shouldn't say that.  "Wrong" implies you were innocently mistaken, it does not refer to purposely twisting information because you can't actually make a legitimate point otherwise.  But, I enjoy your desperation and failure in your attempt anyway.
Click to expand...


Needing 100% proof to believe your theory is correct.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure. after you show me that a dog can really read people's minds.
> 
> What?  That's not what you were arguing?  Then why did I ask for it, I wonder?
> 
> Oh that's right: because it's an immature straw man challenge to do what you just did. I have no interest discussing dating methods to someone who believes that a 0.000001% deviation in dead on correct is too much to give us any accurate dating method. It was never my initial argument and you clearly don't understand it when discussing it with others.
> 
> I will, however, comment on the other part of your little challenge: irrefutable evidence.  You see in the eyes of a scientist, the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from.  If the BEST evidence is too irregular, or has too large a deviation making it closer to chance chance, which is usually set at around 5%, not 0.000001%, THEN it is thrown out.  But otherwise the BEST evidence is what conclusions are drawn from.  That's how scientists think.
> 
> How religious loons think, on the other hand, is that it must be 100% perfect indisputable evidence, most notably in the form of jesus descending from deep space 9 to personally tell you what to think. And seeing as that hasn't happened EVER, it leaves loons such as yourself just not thinking at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,thank you for admitting there is no proof of your theory so quit insulting others because you are going a faith not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The superstitious (not to mention dishonest) such as yourself, have no valid business discussing science, or declaring what constitutes science.
Click to expand...


You have made so many erroneous comments on the subjects discussed ,that you should remain silent so hick doesn't have to rescue you from your own ignorance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look if you're gonna make a claim like this that micro-evolution leads to Macro-evolution the burden of proof is on you, and there is no such evidence proving what you said it is assumed through faulty reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that is your claim.  You see actual scientists don't make such arbitrary distinctions.  You not only made the claim that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution, without even being able to genetically define the difference, but you've given absolutely no proof whatsoever to support your claim that there is a difference. Now you want to claim it's really the burden of someone else to provide proof to YOUR claim?
> 
> It's this type of underhanded reasoning that makes federal judges see you religious loons as morally bankrupt and rule in favor of science and legitimate reasoning every single time.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well depends which animal you're speaking of and what it is evolving to.
> 
> There is atleast a 5% difference in the DNA between a chimp and human and I am being generous in giving you 5% difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All peer reviewed scientific publications on the topic show we have less than 3% genetic difference from the nearest organism. Where you are "generous" in fabricating your 5% is most likely a misunderstanding of the 5% cutoff I used regarding scientific studies as they relate to chance, which you clearly also don't understand. But please, link me to some random person's blog with no research whatsoever that claims 5% is really the number.  I enjoy your desperation in using fabricated information to make false points.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That means the difference between human and chimp DNA base pairs are 150,000,000 DNA base pairs. That is a lot of beneficial mutations that would have to be solidfied in the gene pool for your theory to actually happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it's not. Once again, you show your lack of understanding of the topic you condemn, and in response to this deficiency, completely fabricate information to suit you needs. Science: truth. Religious nut: fabrication.
> 
> As I've stated previously: mutations, or genetic changes, in no way mandate beneficial changes. In fact, the majority of the differences between humans and our closest relative are silent mutations, meaning the genetic change produces no physical change anywhere in the organism. But, you never understand these concepts. You don't even understand what a beneficial mutation is. How could I expect you to know something simpler?
> 
> By the way, have you conceded yet that evolution is a distinct process from the start of the universe or life?  Or are you continuing to avoid this question for fear that it may exorcise you?
Click to expand...


Your side don't make a very good argument for the numbers you think the similarity is now do they.

To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat. On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans.

The researchers discovered that a few classes of genes are changing unusually quickly in both humans and chimpanzees compared with other mammals. These classes include genes involved in perception of sound, transmission of nerve signals, production of sperm and cellular transport of electrically charged molecules called ions. Researchers suspect the rapid evolution of these genes may have contributed to the special characteristics of primates, but further studies are needed to explore the possibilities.

The genomic analyses also showed that humans and chimps appear to have accumulated more potentially deleterious mutations in their genomes over the course of evolution than have mice, rats and other rodents. While such mutations can cause diseases that may erode a species' overall fitness, they may have also made primates more adaptable to rapid environmental changes and enabled them to achieve unique evolutionary adaptations, researchers said.

Despite the many similarities found between human and chimp genomes, the researchers emphasized that important differences exist between the two species. About 35 million DNA base pairs differ between the shared portions of the two genomes, each of which, like most mammalian genomes, contains about 3 billion base pairs. In addition, there are another 5 million sites that differ because of an insertion or deletion in one of the lineages, along with a much smaller number of chromosomal rearrangements. Most of these differences lie in what is believed to be DNA of little or no function. However, as many as 3 million of the differences may lie in crucial protein-coding genes or other functional areas of the genome.

"As the sequences of other mammals and primates emerge in the next couple of years, we will be able to determine what DNA sequence changes are specific to the human lineage. The genetic changes that distinguish humans from chimps will likely be a very small fraction of this set," said the study's lead author, Tarjei S. Mikkelsen of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. Among the genetic changes that researchers will be looking for are those that may be related to the human-specific features of walking upright on two feet, a greatly enlarged brain and complex language skills.

Although the statistical signals are relatively weak, a few classes of genes appear to be evolving more rapidly in humans than in chimps. The single strongest outlier involves genes that code for transcription factors, which are molecules that regulate the activity of other genes and that play key roles in embryonic development.

A small number of other genes have undergone even more dramatic changes. More than 50 genes present in the human genome are missing or partially deleted from the chimp genome. The corresponding number of gene deletions in the human genome is not yet precisely known. For genes with known functions, potential implications of these changes can already be discerned.

For example, the researchers found that three key genes involved in inflammation appear to be deleted in the chimp genome, possibly explaining some of the known differences between chimps and humans in respect to immune and inflammatory response. On the other hand, humans appear to have lost the function of the caspase-12 gene, which produces an enzyme that may help protect other animals against Alzheimer's disease. 

"This represents just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to exploring the genomic roots of our biological differences," said one of the study's co-authors LaDeana W. Hillier of the Genome Sequencing Center at Washington University School of Medicine. "As more is learned about other functional elements of the genome, we anticipate that other important differences outside of the protein-coding genes will emerge


Genome.gov | 2005 Release: New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at DNA Level

Actually they were not deleted they were never there.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look if you're gonna make a claim like this that micro-evolution leads to Macro-evolution the burden of proof is on you, and there is no such evidence proving what you said it is assumed through faulty reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that is your claim.  You see actual scientists don't make such arbitrary distinctions.  You not only made the claim that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution, without even being able to genetically define the difference, but you've given absolutely no proof whatsoever to support your claim that there is a difference. Now you want to claim it's really the burden of someone else to provide proof to YOUR claim?
> 
> It's this type of underhanded reasoning that makes federal judges see you religious loons as morally bankrupt and rule in favor of science and legitimate reasoning every single time.
> 
> 
> All peer reviewed scientific publications on the topic show we have less than 3% genetic difference from the nearest organism. Where you are "generous" in fabricating your 5% is most likely a misunderstanding of the 5% cutoff I used regarding scientific studies as they relate to chance, which you clearly also don't understand. But please, link me to some random person's blog with no research whatsoever that claims 5% is really the number.  I enjoy your desperation in using fabricated information to make false points.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That means the difference between human and chimp DNA base pairs are 150,000,000 DNA base pairs. That is a lot of beneficial mutations that would have to be solidfied in the gene pool for your theory to actually happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it's not. Once again, you show your lack of understanding of the topic you condemn, and in response to this deficiency, completely fabricate information to suit you needs. Science: truth. Religious nut: fabrication.
> 
> As I've stated previously: mutations, or genetic changes, in no way mandate beneficial changes. In fact, the majority of the differences between humans and our closest relative are silent mutations, meaning the genetic change produces no physical change anywhere in the organism. But, you never understand these concepts. You don't even understand what a beneficial mutation is. How could I expect you to know something simpler?
> 
> By the way, have you conceded yet that evolution is a distinct process from the start of the universe or life?  Or are you continuing to avoid this question for fear that it may exorcise you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off he made the claim that microevolution leads to macroevolution the burden of proof is on him and whoever believes this rubbish.
> 
> The difference is microevolution are small changes within a group. Macroevolution are large scale changes above the species level. Meaning a destinctly new species but not within the same family or group a new family grooup.
> 
> What peered review states the difference between a human and chimp DNA ?be careful because there are many things your side has not figured into their figure of 98% or what ever figure your side believes. Your side can't seem to agree on this. I have seen 99%,98%,97% and 96% similarity. Which one is it ?
> 
> How many base pairs of DNA are in a human ? you take the percentage of difference that is how you arrive at 150,000,000 base pairs that is if it is only a 5% difference.
> 
> Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
> 
> For almost 30 years, researchers have asserted that the DNA of humans and chimps is at least 98.5% identical. Now research reported here last week at the American Society for Human Genetics meeting suggests that the two primate genomes might not be quite as similar after all. A closer look has uncovered nips and tucks of homologous sections of DNA that werent noticed in previous studies (298:719, emp. added).
> 
> Genomicists Kelly Frazer and David Cox of Perlegen Sciences in Mountain View, California, along with geneticists Evan Eichler and Devin Locke of Case Western University in Cleveland, Ohio, compared human and chimp DNA, and discovered a wide range of insertions and deletions (anywhere from between 200 bases to 10,000 bases). Cox commented: The implications could be profound, because such genetic hiccups could disable entire genes, possibly explaining why our closest cousin seems so distant (as quoted in Pennisi, 298:721).
> 
> Britten analyzed chimp and human genomes with a customized computer program. To quote Pennisis article:
> 
> He compared 779,000 bases of chimp DNA with the sequences of the human genome, both found in the public repository GenBank. Single-base changes accounted for 1.4% of the differences between the human and chimp genomes, and insertions and deletions accounted for an additional 3.4%, he reported in the 15 October [2002] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Lockes and Frazers groups didnt commit to any new estimates of the similarity between the species, but both agree that the previously accepted 98.5% mark is too high (298:721, emp. added).
> 
> While Lockes and Frazers team was unwilling to commit to any new estimate of the similarity between chimps and humans, Britten was not. In fact, he titled his article in the October 15, 2002 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Divergence between Samples of Chimpanzee and Human DNA Sequences is 5% (Britten, 99:13633-13635). In the abstract accompanying the article, he wrote: The conclusion is that the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA (99:13633, emp. added). The news service at NewScientist.com reported the event as follows:
> 
> It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps.
> The new value came to light when Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology became suspicious about the 98.5 per cent figure. Ironically, that number was originally derived from a technique that Britten himself developed decades ago at Caltech with colleague Dave Kohne. By measuring the temperature at which matching DNA of two species comes apart, you can work out how different they are.
> 
> But the technique only picks up a particular type of variation, called a single base substitution. These occur whenever a single letter differs in corresponding strands of DNA from the two species.
> 
> But there are two other major types of variation that the previous analyses ignored. Insertions occur whenever a whole section of DNA appears in one species but not in the corresponding strand of the other. Likewise, deletions mean that a piece of DNA is missing from one species.
> 
> Together, they are termed indels, and Britten seized his chance to evaluate the true variation between the two species when stretches of chimp DNA were recently published on the internet by teams from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and from the University of Oklahoma.
> 
> When Britten compared five stretches of chimp DNA with the corresponding pieces of human DNA, he found that single base substitutions accounted for a difference of 1.4 per cent, very close to the expected figure.
> 
> But he also found that the DNA of both species was littered with indels. His comparisons revealed that they add around another 4.0 per cent to the genetic differences (see Coghlan, 2002, emp. added).
> 
> It seems that, as time passes and scientific studies increase, humans appear to be less like chimps after all. In a separate study, Barbulescu and colleagues also uncovered another major difference in the genomes of primates and humans. In their article A HERV-K Provirus in Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Gorillas, but not Humans, the authors wrote: These observations provide very strong evidence that, for some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than they are to humans (2001, 11:779, emp. added). The data from these results go squarely against what evolutionists have contended for decadesthat chimpanzees are closer genetically to humans than they are to gorillas. Another study using interspecies representational difference analysis (RDA) between humans and gorillas revealed gorilla-specific DNA sequences (Toder, et al., 2001)that is, gorillas possess sequences of DNA that are not found in humans. The authors of this study suggested that sequences found in gorillas but not humans could represent either ancient sequences that got lost in other species, such as human and orang-utan, or, more likely, recent sequences which evolved or originated specifically in the gorilla genome (9:431).
> 
> The differences between chimpanzees and humans are not limited to genomic variances. In 1998, a structural difference between the cell surfaces of humans and apes was detected. After studying tissues and blood samples from the great apes, and sixty humans from various ethnic groups, Muchmore and colleagues discovered that human cells are missing a particular form of sialic acid (a type of sugar) found in all other mammals (1998, 107[2]:187). This sialic acid molecule is found on the surface of every cell in the body, and is thought to carry out multiple cellular tasks. This seemingly miniscule difference can have far-reaching effects, and might explain why surgeons were unable to transplant chimp organs into humans in the 1960s. With this in mind, we never should declare, with a simple wave of the hand, chimps are almost identical to us simply because of a large genetic overlap.
> 
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:
> 
> The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the pentadactyl [five boneBH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whaleand this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).
> 
> Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differencesdifferences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.
> 
> Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapienswise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18
> 
> Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
> 
> They were making these similarity claims long before a human genome was mapped kinda convenient don't you think ?
Click to expand...

Still copying and pasting other people's unsupported malarcky from their blogs and expecting anyone to read it?  I've proven you wrong about what is and is not in the process of evolution countless times now.  Is copying and pasting fabrication really the best thing you can do?  Can't make a single legitimate claim of your own? 

I will respond to your usual arbitrarily poorly defined distinction between micro and macro evolution.  You seem to always claim one deals with "kinds" or "groups" or "families" and yet you seem incapable of stating what a "kind" is exactly.  Interesting that you fail to provide such simple definitions.  While we're on the topic, have you figured out the number of mutations that creates the differences between micro and macro evolution?  Have you finally conceded that the process of evolution has nothing to do with the start of the universe or life?  

Aha! More basic definition questions you continue to avoid because you know you are wrong on both accounts!  Now I get to look forward to your usual response of asking an unrelated misdirected question about large concepts you similarly won't define, to claim it is an equivalent question as the the definitions you continually ignore.  



Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,thank you for admitting there is no proof of your theory so quit insulting others because you are going a faith not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what I admitted?  Hold on let me reread that.
> 
> Oops!  Looks like you're wrong again.  Sorry, I shouldn't say that.  "Wrong" implies you were innocently mistaken, it does not refer to purposely twisting information because you can't actually make a legitimate point otherwise.  But, I enjoy your desperation and failure in your attempt anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Needing 100% proof to believe your theory is correct.
Click to expand...

Once again proving you don't understand scientific reasoning.  Let's set this up and have you avoid it again:
If one set of evidence agrees with Conclusion A 99%, and another set of evidence disagrees to point to Conclusion B but it's 40%, and a third set of evidence has 0% verifiable evidence but concludes option C is the best, which is the smartest conclusion to follow?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,thank you for admitting there is no proof of your theory so quit insulting others because you are going a faith not science.
> 
> 
> 
> The superstitious (not to mention dishonest) such as yourself, have no valid business discussing science, or declaring what constitutes science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have made so many erroneous comments on the subjects discussed ,that you should remain silent so hick doesn't have to rescue you from your own ignorance.
Click to expand...

You can't even point out one. Not one.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,thank you for admitting there is no proof of your theory so quit insulting others because you are going a faith not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what I admitted?  Hold on let me reread that.
> 
> Oops!  Looks like you're wrong again.  Sorry, I shouldn't say that.  "Wrong" implies you were innocently mistaken, it does not refer to purposely twisting information because you can't actually make a legitimate point otherwise.  But, I enjoy your desperation and failure in your attempt anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Needing 100% proof to believe your theory is correct.
Click to expand...


Would you require 100% proof by your standards that Jesus is indeed the Risen Messiah?

There is none, and that's fine because we are discussing faith here, not science.

And that is why your comments on evolution are silly.  You don't accept scientific standards of the academic community, thus your comments are uninformed and from the non-academy.


----------



## Gordy

We all know what a powerful roll religion has had on human beings. If you are religious or not. Its almost like sience is being manipulated in the same way. This cant be new to history. But its got to be new to be able to be done in such a powerful way. Does anybody know if science has ever been used for manipulation on any where near the scale it is today. Everything I remember in the history books is 1 guy trying to convice the masses his science is good. Not everybody trying to convince the masses that 1 guys science is good.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> You have made so many erroneous comments on the subjects discussed ,that you should remain silent so hick doesn't have to rescue you from your own ignorance.



A sample of your own erroneous comments, and comments that reveal your own ignorance:


Youwerecreated said:


> This video destroy's evolutionist timeline and makes a very strong argument for the global flood,and a young earth.
> 
> 101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV





Youwerecreated said:


> ... it seems the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000 years old.





Youwerecreated said:


> There is plenty of evidence for dinosaurs existing for a while alongside man.





Youwerecreated said:


> The lack of evidence for old earth gets refuted by such evidence. It is evidence that the flood did exactly as the bible stated.





Youwerecreated said:


> You deny math and science that don't fall on your side of the theory.





Youwerecreated said:


> [Scientific dating methods] are biased because of ones view before the process begins.





Youwerecreated said:


> It takes faith for both sides to believe as they do when you can't prove what you believe that is faith.





Youwerecreated said:


> Your side interprets evidence the same way but because they call it science you believe it.





Youwerecreated said:


> There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.





Youwerecreated said:


> ... you are willing to listen to the educated on your side but you're not willing to listen to the educated on the other side.





Youwerecreated said:


> You guy's keep trying to argue how accurate your dating methods are...





Youwerecreated said:


> I offer you an explanation why and a site that points out the problems with them and you won't address the problems that are presented  ...





Youwerecreated said:


> When you are off you are off period. It's like firing a projectile the further the projectile travels the further it is off by the time it reaches the target area. And to say you're close and just off a little is baloney you have no idea how far off you're if the age is wrong.





Youwerecreated said:


> Any scientist that argues again'st your side is considered is shunned and even are threatened with their job for going again'st the establishment. That is a fact.





Youwerecreated said:


> So not too many on your side will speak out about the problems because of the shunning and threats of losing their job.





Youwerecreated said:


> So well educated creationist do speak out because it is the right thing to do.





Youwerecreated said:


> To say creationist views are not based in science just shows your ignorance on the subject.





Youwerecreated said:


> We don't deny science ...





Youwerecreated said:


> ... the bible is clear kinds reresent your term for today species. The word seed represents genes.





Youwerecreated said:


> Anyone who denies the accuracy of the bible concerning science does not understand the bible.





Youwerecreated said:


> The only evolution it would support is at the micro-adaptations level not your macro-evolution level.





Youwerecreated said:


> Since there is no evidence of the big bang it is Pseudoscience.
> 
> Since there is no accurate age of the earth it is Pseudoscience.
> 
> Since there is no evidence for macro-evolution it is Pseudoscience.
> 
> These are beliefs based on faith.





Youwerecreated said:


> First off he made the claim that microevolution leads to macroevolution the burden of proof is on him and whoever believes this rubbish.





Youwerecreated said:


> The difference is microevolution are small changes within a group. Macroevolution are large scale changes above the species level. Meaning a destinctly new species but not within the same family or group a new family grooup.





Youwerecreated said:


> You have made so many erroneous comments on the subjects discussed ,that you should remain silent so hick doesn't have to rescue you from your own ignorance.


----------



## koshergrl

And yet..you still haven't proven your own claims.

At least we admit our belief begins with faith. The problem with the Christian bashers is they're dishonest from the word go. Since that dishonesty is a biblical truth as well, you actually bolster our faith when you go on and on ridiculing Christians and setting forth a lying, alternate reality.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> And yet..you still haven't proven your own claims.


Oh, I certainly have. And you're helping by validating those claims.



koshergrl said:


> At least we admit our belief begins with faith.


But you demand that faith is a more valid foundation for your certainty about the reality of things than verifiable evidence and valid logic. Admitting you're intellectually dishonest doesn't mitigate your intellectual dishonesty.



koshergrl said:


> The problem with the Christian bashers is they're dishonest from the word go.


This true of some, true; but not me--at least not in your experience of me. It is true of all of the faithful, surely; of every superstitious retard, absolutely; of you, certainly.



koshergrl said:


> Since that dishonesty is a biblical truth as well, you actually bolster our faith when you go on and on ridiculing Christians and setting forth a lying, alternate reality.


Your Biblical "truth" is rife with lies that assert the reality of an alternate reality that is validated only by the faith of so-called "Christians."


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adaptation is a part of the theory of evolution, look it up yourself.
> 
> Amazing that someone takes such a hardcore stance against something that he's COMPLETELY clueless about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it is part of the theory that is what proves it ? come on you can do better then this.
Click to expand...


I didn't say that, one of the these days you'll stop being so obsessed with strawmen.

You denied evolution by accrediting something to adaptation, and in doing so revealed you're ignorant of the fact that adaptation is a part of evolution.  

You already have your mind made up that the devil is the reason why the fact of evolution gets taught, but at least for your own sake know what evolution is before you get into these discussions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The superstitious (not to mention dishonest) such as yourself, have no valid business discussing science, or declaring what constitutes science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have made so many erroneous comments on the subjects discussed ,that you should remain silent so hick doesn't have to rescue you from your own ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't even point out one. Not one.
Click to expand...


Well off the top of my head you said that it was disengenuous to suggest fossils have been found in the wrong strata. Then you said each strata does not represent a timeframe and i showed you otherwise on both accounts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that is your claim.  You see actual scientists don't make such arbitrary distinctions.  You not only made the claim that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution, without even being able to genetically define the difference, but you've given absolutely no proof whatsoever to support your claim that there is a difference. Now you want to claim it's really the burden of someone else to provide proof to YOUR claim?
> 
> It's this type of underhanded reasoning that makes federal judges see you religious loons as morally bankrupt and rule in favor of science and legitimate reasoning every single time.
> 
> 
> All peer reviewed scientific publications on the topic show we have less than 3% genetic difference from the nearest organism. Where you are "generous" in fabricating your 5% is most likely a misunderstanding of the 5% cutoff I used regarding scientific studies as they relate to chance, which you clearly also don't understand. But please, link me to some random person's blog with no research whatsoever that claims 5% is really the number.  I enjoy your desperation in using fabricated information to make false points.
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not. Once again, you show your lack of understanding of the topic you condemn, and in response to this deficiency, completely fabricate information to suit you needs. Science: truth. Religious nut: fabrication.
> 
> As I've stated previously: mutations, or genetic changes, in no way mandate beneficial changes. In fact, the majority of the differences between humans and our closest relative are silent mutations, meaning the genetic change produces no physical change anywhere in the organism. But, you never understand these concepts. You don't even understand what a beneficial mutation is. How could I expect you to know something simpler?
> 
> By the way, have you conceded yet that evolution is a distinct process from the start of the universe or life?  Or are you continuing to avoid this question for fear that it may exorcise you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off he made the claim that microevolution leads to macroevolution the burden of proof is on him and whoever believes this rubbish.
> 
> The difference is microevolution are small changes within a group. Macroevolution are large scale changes above the species level. Meaning a destinctly new species but not within the same family or group a new family grooup.
> 
> What peered review states the difference between a human and chimp DNA ?be careful because there are many things your side has not figured into their figure of 98% or what ever figure your side believes. Your side can't seem to agree on this. I have seen 99%,98%,97% and 96% similarity. Which one is it ?
> 
> How many base pairs of DNA are in a human ? you take the percentage of difference that is how you arrive at 150,000,000 base pairs that is if it is only a 5% difference.
> 
> Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
> 
> For almost 30 years, researchers have asserted that the DNA of humans and chimps is at least 98.5% identical. Now research reported here last week at the American Society for Human Genetics meeting suggests that the two primate genomes might not be quite as similar after all. A closer look has uncovered nips and tucks of homologous sections of DNA that weren&#8217;t noticed in previous studies (298:719, emp. added).
> 
> Genomicists Kelly Frazer and David Cox of Perlegen Sciences in Mountain View, California, along with geneticists Evan Eichler and Devin Locke of Case Western University in Cleveland, Ohio, compared human and chimp DNA, and discovered a wide range of insertions and deletions (anywhere from between 200 bases to 10,000 bases). Cox commented: &#8220;The implications could be profound, because such genetic hiccups could disable entire genes, possibly explaining why our closest cousin seems so distant&#8221; (as quoted in Pennisi, 298:721).
> 
> Britten analyzed chimp and human genomes with a customized computer program. To quote Pennisi&#8217;s article:
> 
> He compared 779,000 bases of chimp DNA with the sequences of the human genome, both found in the public repository GenBank. Single-base changes accounted for 1.4% of the differences between the human and chimp genomes, and insertions and deletions accounted for an additional 3.4%, he reported in the 15 October [2002] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Locke&#8217;s and Frazer&#8217;s groups didn&#8217;t commit to any new estimates of the similarity between the species, but both agree that the previously accepted 98.5% mark is too high (298:721, emp. added).
> 
> While Locke&#8217;s and Frazer&#8217;s team was unwilling to commit to any new estimate of the similarity between chimps and humans, Britten was not. In fact, he titled his article in the October 15, 2002 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, &#8220;Divergence between Samples of Chimpanzee and Human DNA Sequences is 5%&#8221; (Britten, 99:13633-13635). In the abstract accompanying the article, he wrote: &#8220;The conclusion is that the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA&#8221; (99:13633, emp. added). The news service at NewScientist.com reported the event as follows:
> 
> It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps.
> The new value came to light when Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology became suspicious about the 98.5 per cent figure. Ironically, that number was originally derived from a technique that Britten himself developed decades ago at Caltech with colleague Dave Kohne. By measuring the temperature at which matching DNA of two species comes apart, you can work out how different they are.
> 
> But the technique only picks up a particular type of variation, called a single base substitution. These occur whenever a single &#8220;letter&#8221; differs in corresponding strands of DNA from the two species.
> 
> But there are two other major types of variation that the previous analyses ignored. &#8220;Insertions&#8221; occur whenever a whole section of DNA appears in one species but not in the corresponding strand of the other. Likewise, &#8220;deletions&#8221; mean that a piece of DNA is missing from one species.
> 
> Together, they are termed &#8220;indels,&#8221; and Britten seized his chance to evaluate the true variation between the two species when stretches of chimp DNA were recently published on the internet by teams from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and from the University of Oklahoma.
> 
> When Britten compared five stretches of chimp DNA with the corresponding pieces of human DNA, he found that single base substitutions accounted for a difference of 1.4 per cent, very close to the expected figure.
> 
> But he also found that the DNA of both species was littered with indels. His comparisons revealed that they add around another 4.0 per cent to the genetic differences (see Coghlan, 2002, emp. added).
> 
> It seems that, as time passes and scientific studies increase, humans appear to be less like chimps after all. In a separate study, Barbulescu and colleagues also uncovered another major difference in the genomes of primates and humans. In their article &#8220;A HERV-K Provirus in Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Gorillas, but not Humans,&#8221; the authors wrote: &#8220;These observations provide very strong evidence that, for some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than they are to humans&#8221; (2001, 11:779, emp. added). The data from these results go squarely against what evolutionists have contended for decades&#8212;that chimpanzees are closer genetically to humans than they are to gorillas. Another study using interspecies representational difference analysis (RDA) between humans and gorillas revealed gorilla-specific DNA sequences (Toder, et al., 2001)&#8212;that is, gorillas possess sequences of DNA that are not found in humans. The authors of this study suggested that sequences found in gorillas but not humans &#8220;could represent either ancient sequences that got lost in other species, such as human and orang-utan, or, more likely, recent sequences which evolved or originated specifically in the gorilla genome&#8221; (9:431).
> 
> The differences between chimpanzees and humans are not limited to genomic variances. In 1998, a structural difference between the cell surfaces of humans and apes was detected. After studying tissues and blood samples from the great apes, and sixty humans from various ethnic groups, Muchmore and colleagues discovered that human cells are missing a particular form of sialic acid (a type of sugar) found in all other mammals (1998, 107[2]:187). This sialic acid molecule is found on the surface of every cell in the body, and is thought to carry out multiple cellular tasks. This seemingly &#8220;miniscule&#8221; difference can have far-reaching effects, and might explain why surgeons were unable to transplant chimp organs into humans in the 1960s. With this in mind, we never should declare, with a simple wave of the hand, &#8220;chimps are almost identical to us&#8221; simply because of a large genetic overlap.
> 
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see &#8220;A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution&#8221. Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:
> 
> The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the &#8220;pentadactyl&#8221; [five bone&#8212;BH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale&#8212;and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).
> 
> Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differences&#8212;differences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.
> 
> Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapiens&#8212;wise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18
> 
> Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
> 
> They were making these similarity claims long before a human genome was mapped kinda convenient don't you think ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still copying and pasting other people's unsupported malarcky from their blogs and expecting anyone to read it?  I've proven you wrong about what is and is not in the process of evolution countless times now.  Is copying and pasting fabrication really the best thing you can do?  Can't make a single legitimate claim of your own?
> 
> I will respond to your usual arbitrarily poorly defined distinction between micro and macro evolution.  You seem to always claim one deals with "kinds" or "groups" or "families" and yet you seem incapable of stating what a "kind" is exactly.  Interesting that you fail to provide such simple definitions.  While we're on the topic, have you figured out the number of mutations that creates the differences between micro and macro evolution?  Have you finally conceded that the process of evolution has nothing to do with the start of the universe or life?
> 
> Aha! More basic definition questions you continue to avoid because you know you are wrong on both accounts!  Now I get to look forward to your usual response of asking an unrelated misdirected question about large concepts you similarly won't define, to claim it is an equivalent question as the the definitions you continually ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what I admitted?  Hold on let me reread that.
> 
> Oops!  Looks like you're wrong again.  Sorry, I shouldn't say that.  "Wrong" implies you were innocently mistaken, it does not refer to purposely twisting information because you can't actually make a legitimate point otherwise.  But, I enjoy your desperation and failure in your attempt anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Needing 100% proof to believe your theory is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again proving you don't understand scientific reasoning.  Let's set this up and have you avoid it again:
> If one set of evidence agrees with Conclusion A 99%, and another set of evidence disagrees to point to Conclusion B but it's 40%, and a third set of evidence has 0% verifiable evidence but concludes option C is the best, which is the smartest conclusion to follow?
Click to expand...


Don't you just hate it when I post articles from people who are superior educated to yourself and you can't put up an argument again'st what they state ?

I have clearly defined kind or kinds, kind can represent a breed within a family. Kinds represent the family itself do you ever really read what i post.

Maybe the 100 % comment was over the top, but it's simple your side builds a case for your theory through a very vivid imagination just because you can see clearly that animals and humans have the ability to adapt.

So you take a step forward and a really big step and say because animals and humans can adapt they can adapt to a point to become a destinctly new organism. And there is no evidence to suggest such a thing could happen.

I notice you avoid the Doctors points as usual. Your evidence only agrees because they are made to agree. Or will you elighten us about this evidence that agrees 99.9 % of the time?


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what I admitted?  Hold on let me reread that.
> 
> Oops!  Looks like you're wrong again.  Sorry, I shouldn't say that.  "Wrong" implies you were innocently mistaken, it does not refer to purposely twisting information because you can't actually make a legitimate point otherwise.  But, I enjoy your desperation and failure in your attempt anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Needing 100% proof to believe your theory is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you require 100% proof by your standards that Jesus is indeed the Risen Messiah?
> 
> There is none, and that's fine because we are discussing faith here, not science.
> 
> And that is why your comments on evolution are silly.  You don't accept scientific standards of the academic community, thus your comments are uninformed and from the non-academy.
Click to expand...


No because my views are based in faith and I trust the bible. The problem is your side don't understand to believe parts of your theory of evolution you have to use faith as well .but you won't admit to it. There are many things about the the theory that has no evidence  to back it, zero. This theory was built on faulty assumptions lacking evidence.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Needing 100% proof to believe your theory is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you require 100% proof by your standards that Jesus is indeed the Risen Messiah?
> 
> There is none, and that's fine because we are discussing faith here, not science.
> 
> And that is why your comments on evolution are silly.  You don't accept scientific standards of the academic community, thus your comments are uninformed and from the non-academy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No because my views are based in faith and I trust the bible. The problem is your side don't understand to believe parts of your theory of evolution you have to use faith as well .but you won't admit to it. There are many things about the the theory that has no evidence  to back it, zero. This theory was built on faulty assumptions lacking evidence.
Click to expand...


You're being inaccurate.  What you're calling "faith" on the part of evolutionists is actually LOGIC.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you require 100% proof by your standards that Jesus is indeed the Risen Messiah?
> 
> There is none, and that's fine because we are discussing faith here, not science.
> 
> And that is why your comments on evolution are silly.  You don't accept scientific standards of the academic community, thus your comments are uninformed and from the non-academy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No because my views are based in faith and I trust the bible. The problem is your side don't understand to believe parts of your theory of evolution you have to use faith as well .but you won't admit to it. There are many things about the the theory that has no evidence  to back it, zero. This theory was built on faulty assumptions lacking evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being inaccurate.  What you're calling "faith" on the part of evolutionists is actually LOGIC.
Click to expand...



What is logical about believing eventually humans will evolve into a destinctly new species ?

You don't even have a mechanism as to how this can happen.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet..you still haven't proven your own claims.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I certainly have. And you're helping by validating those claims.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least we admit our belief begins with faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you demand that faith is a more valid foundation for your certainty about the reality of things than verifiable evidence and valid logic. Admitting you're intellectually dishonest doesn't mitigate your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the Christian bashers is they're dishonest from the word go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This true of some, true; but not me--at least not in your experience of me. It is true of all of the faithful, surely; of every superstitious retard, absolutely; of you, certainly.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since that dishonesty is a biblical truth as well, you actually bolster our faith when you go on and on ridiculing Christians and setting forth a lying, alternate reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Biblical "truth" is rife with lies that assert the reality of an alternate reality that is validated only by the faith of so-called "Christians."
Click to expand...


The bible is riffled with lies  you mean like this mind these things were written long before the science of man knew any of these things.

101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge 

        Psalm 19:1-3  The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. 
Jeremiah 10:12  He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.

Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. 

Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts. That book is the Bible.
This booklet presents 101 scientific facts found in the Scriptures. Many of these facts were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece to the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator. How does this affect you? The last several pages provide the answer  you need to read them carefully.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  1.
The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.

Visit:
Modern Science In An Ancient (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.
Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Visit:
All About Atoms (Jefferson Lab)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.
The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.

Visit:
The Arks perfect dimensions (Answers In Genesis)
Safety investigation of Noahs Ark in a seaway (Answers In Genesis)
Noahs Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.
When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.

Visit:
-Why do I need to wash my hands? 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.
Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.
Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

Visit:
Springs of the Ocean (ICR)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.
There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

Visit:
Numerical Simulations Of Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8.
Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creators presence  in Your presence is fullness of joy (Psalm 16:11).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9.
Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.

Visit:
Life in the Blood (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.
The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe  namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.

Visit:
Things You May Not Know About Evolution (ICR)
Creation - Evolution (ICR)
Evolution and the Bible (ICR)
The Fossil Record: Intermediate Links (ChristianAnswers.net)
Archaeopteryx A Feathered Reptile? (ChristianAnswers.net)
The Ape-Man: Missing Link (ChristianAnswers.net)
Biological Evolution Darwin's Finches (ChristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11.
Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwins theory of the survival of the fittest.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12.
Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.

Visit:
What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg? (ICR)
The Egg/Chicken Conundrum (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13.
Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

Visit:
Things that are Made (ICR)
Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality (ICR)
Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories (ICR)
The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14.
Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.

Visit:
The elements of the periodic table sorted by their presence in human body. (Lenntech)
The Bible is a Textbook of Science (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.
The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16.
The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)Then God said, Let there be light (energy). No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17.
The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18.
The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.

Visit:
Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth 
Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19.
Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20.
Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow in the cloud as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets  which act as a prism  separating white light into its color spectrum.

Visit:
What causes a rainbow? (CristianAnswers.net)
The Rainbow And The Cloud (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago  God declared this four millennia ago!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22.
Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the paths of the seas. In the 19th century Matthew Maury  the father of oceanography  after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maurys data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23.
Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body, and that those who commit homosexual sin would receive in themselves the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.

Visit
Sex Habits Linked to Early Death, Disability (Fox News)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24.
Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25.
Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars  thats a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26.
The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along  He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27.
The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28.
Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.

Visit:
Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality (ICR)
Is Creation One of the Traditional Values? (ICR)
Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism (ICR)
Would China Benefit from Christianity? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29.
The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was Gods judgment on mans wickedness.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30.
Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.

Visit:
The Origin of Coal (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31.
The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent  just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

32.
Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the fountains of the great deep were broken up. This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.

Visit:
Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

33.
Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often  By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.

Visit:
Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

34.
Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

Visit:
Is the unborn human less than human? (CristianAnswers.net)
Cloning: Redefining When Life Begins Exposing Flaws in the Preembryo-Embryo Distinction (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

35.
God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an intricate unity in the womb.

Visit:
Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

36.
DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Visit:
Curiously Wrought (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

37.
God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

Visit:
One Blood: The biblical answer to racism (CristianAnswers.net) 
Where Did The Races Come From? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

38.
Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Visit:
Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR) 
On the Origin of Language (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39.
Origin of the different races explained (Genesis 11). As Noahs descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

Visit:
Where did the human races come from? (CristianAnswers.net)
Evolution and Modern Racism (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

40.
God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along  there are healing compounds found in plants.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

41.
Healthy dietary laws (Leviticus 11:9-12). Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales. We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

42.
The Bible warns against eating birds of prey (Leviticus 11:13-19). Scientists now recognize that those birds which eat carrion (putrefying flesh), often spread disease.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

43.
Avoid swine (Deuteronomy 14:8). Not so long ago, science learned that eating undercooked pork causes an infection of parasites called trichinosis. Now consider this: the Bible forbid the eating of swine more than 3,000 years before we learned how to cook pork safely.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. (NCBI)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44.
Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, Gods Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as Mother and naturalism is enshrined.

Visit:
Earth Day, Environmentalism, and the Bible (ICR)
The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
The Hyper-Environmentalists (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

45.
Black holes and dark matter anticipated (Matthew 25:30; Jude 1:13; Isaiah 50:3). Cosmologists now speculate that over 98% of the known universe is comprised of dark matter, with dark energy and black holes. A black holes gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls outer darkness or the blackness of darkness forever.

Visit:
The Outer Darkness (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

46.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God  resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is grow(ing) old like a garment (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ChrisitanAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

47.
Cains wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry  therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.

Visit:
Where did Cain get his wife? (CristianAnswers.net)
Cain's Wife: It Really Does Matter! (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48.
Incest laws established (Leviticus 18:6). To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common. Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice. The reason is simple  the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses day the genetic errors had swelled. Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed.

Visit:
The Blind Gunman (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

49.
Genetic mixing of different seeds forbidden (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9). The Bible warns against mixing seeds  as this will result in an inferior or dangerous crop. There is now growing evidence that unnatural, genetically engineered crops may be harmful.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

50.
Hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Jeremiah 10:13; Amos 9:6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man (Job 36:27-28). The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

51.
The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity  the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit  just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

52.
Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Visit:
Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day (Apologetics Press)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

53.
God has given us just the right amount of water to sustain life (Isaiah 40:12). We now recognize that if there was significantly more or less water, the earth would not support life as we know it.

Visit:
The Anthropic Principle: Is the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life? (ChristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

54.
The earth was designed for biological life (Isaiah 45:18). Scientists have discovered that the most fundamental characteristics of our earth and cosmos are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist. This is called the Anthropic Principle and it agrees with the Bible which states that God formed the earth to be inhabited.

Visit:
The Earth: Unique in All the Universe (ICR)
Design in Nature: The Anthropic Principle (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

55.
The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Eisntein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago  the universe is expanding!

Visit:
The Battle for the Cosmic Center (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

56.
Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, Gods life, created all life.

Visit:
Chemical Evolution: Spontaneous generation; Stanley Miller Experiment (ChristianAnswers.net)
Evolution is Biologically Impossible (ICR)
The Myth Of Chemical Evolution (ICR)
Virgil's Aeneid, by Chance Alone? (ICR)
The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

57.
Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).

Visit:
How did bad things come about? (CristianAnswers.net)
Extinction (ICR)
Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

58.
Light travels in a path (Job 38:19). Light is said to have a way [Hebrew: derek, literally a traveled path or road]. Until the 17th century it was believed that light was transmitted instantaneously. We now know that light is a form of energy that travels at ~186,000 miles per second in a straight line. Indeed, there is a way of light.

Visit:
Light travels in a path was foretold in the Bible hundreds of years before scientists discovered it (creationists.org)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

59.
Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established a weight for the wind. In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

60.
Jet stream anticipated (Ecclesiastes 1:6). At a time when it was thought that winds blew straight, the Bible declares The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit. King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago. Now consider this: it was not until World War II that airmen discovered the jet stream circuit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

61.
Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

62.
Each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the advent of the telescope, the Bible declared what only God and the angels knew  each star varies in size and intensity!

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

63.
The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing  electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send lightnings which indeed speak when they arrive.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

64.
Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, A merry heart does good, like medicine. For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.

Visit:
Benefits of Laughter (Personal-Development.com)
Humor and Laughter: Health Benefits and Online Sources (helpguide.org)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

65.
Intense sorrow or stress is harmful to your health (Proverbs 18:14; Mark 14:34). Researchers have studied individuals with no prior medical problems who showed symptoms of stress cardiomyopathy including chest pain, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, and even heart failure  following a stressful incident.

Visit:
The Physical Dangers of Stress (Fitness Article)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

66.
Microorganisms anticipated (Exodus 22:31). The Bible warns Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the LORD (Leviticus 22:8). Today we understand that a decaying carcass is full of disease causing germs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

67.
The Bible cautions against consuming fat (Leviticus 7:23). Only in recent decades has the medical community determined that fat clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

68.
Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:12). A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood. However, the Creator repeatedly told His people to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:20; 21:25). Of course, modern science reveals that consuming raw blood is dangerous.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

69.
The Bible describes dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24). In 1842, Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosaur, meaning terrible lizard, after discovering large reptilian-like fossils. However in the Book of Job, written 4,000 years earlier, God describes the behemoth as: the largest of all land creatures, plant eating (herbivore), with great strength in its hips and legs, powerful stomach muscles, a tail like a cedar tree, and bones like bars of iron. This is an accurate description of sauropods  the largest known dinosaur family.

Visit:
The Great Dinosaur Mystery (CristianAnswers.net)
How Do The Dinosaurs Fit In? (ICR)
Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood? (ICR)
Dragons in Paradise (ICR)
Leviathan (ICR)
Dinosaurs And The Bible (ICR)
Dinosaur Mania and Our Children (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

70.
Pleasure explained (Psalm 36:8). Evolution cannot explain pleasure  even the most complex chemicals do not experience bliss. However, the Bible states that God gives us richly all things to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17). Pleasure is a gift from God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

71.
Life is more than matter and energy (Genesis 2:7; Job 12:7-10). We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Even though its body may be perfectly intact, and air and energy are reintroduced to spark life, the body remains dead. Scripture agrees with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. Life cannot be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone  as evolutionists would lead us to believe.

Visit:
Breath And Spirit (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

72.
Origin of music explained (Psalm 40:3). Evolution cannot explain the origin of music. The Bible says that every good gift comes from God (James 1:17). This includes joyful melodies. God has given both man and angels the gift of music-making (Genesis 4:21; Ezekiel 28:13). Singing is intended to express rejoicing in and worship of the Lord (Job 38:7; Psalm 95:1-2).

Visit:
Music or Evolution
Musicevidence of creation (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

73.
Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with Gods Word.

Visit:
Ancient civilizations and modern man (Answers In Genesis)
The mystery of ancient man (Answers In Genesis)
Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

74.
Cavemen described in the Bible (Job 30:1-8). Four thousand years ago, Job describes certain vile men who were driven from society to forage among the bushes for survival and who live in the clefts of the valleys, (and) in caves of the earth and the rocks. Therefore cavemen were simply outcasts and vagabounds  not our primitive ancestors as evolutionists speculate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

75.
Environmental devastation of the planet foreseen (Revelation 11:18). Though evolution imagines that things should be getting better, the Bible foresaw what is really occurring today: pollution, destruction and corrupt dominion.

Visit:
Creation and the Environment (ICR)
The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

76.
The seed of a plant contains its life (Genesis 1:11; 29). As stated in the Book of Genesis, we now recognize that inside the humble seed is life itself. Within the seed is a tiny factory of amazing complexity. No scientist can build a synthetic seed and no seed is simple!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

77.
A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells give their lives to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

78.
The order of creation agrees with true science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v. 6), then soil (v. 9), and then He created plant life (v. 11).

Visit:
What is the order of events in the biblical Creation? (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

79.
God created lights in the heavens for signs and seasons, and for days and years (Genesis 1:14-16). We now know that a year is the time required for the earth to travel once around the sun. The seasons are caused by the changing position of the earth in relation to the sun. The moons phases follow one another in clock-like precision  constituting the lunar calendar Evolution teaches that the cosmos evolved by random chance, yet the Bible agrees with the observable evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

80.
The Bible speaks of heaven and the highest heavens (Deuteronomy 10:14). Long before the Hubble Space Telescope, Scripture spoke of the heaven of heavens and the third heaven (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Corinthians 12:2). We now know that the heavens consist of our immediate atmosphere and the vast reaches of outer space  as well as Gods wonderful abode.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

81.
Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him  pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

82.
Man is fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). We are only beginning to probe the complexity of the DNA molecule, the eye, the brain, and all the intricate components of life. No human invention compares to the marvelous wonders of Gods creation.

Visit:
Mankind- The Pinnacle of God's Creation (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

83.
Beauty understood (Genesis 1:31; 2:9; Job 40:10; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Matthew 6:28-30). Beauty surrounds us: radiant sunsets, majestic mountains, brightly colored flowers, glowing gems, soothing foliage, brilliantly adorned birds, etc. Beauty is a mystery to the evolutionist. However, Scripture reveals that God creates beautiful things for our benefit and His glory.

Visit:
Beauty (oldpaths.com)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

84.
Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Physicists do not understand what binds the atoms nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that all things consist  or are held together by the Creator  Jesus Christ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

85.
Atomic fission anticipated (2 Peter 3:10-12). Scripture states that the elements will melt with fervent heat when the earth and the heavens are dissolved by fire. Today we understand that if the elements of the atom are loosed, there would be an enormous release of heat and energy (radiation).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

86.
The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

87.
Safe drinking water (Leviticus 11:33-36). God forbade drinking from vessels or stagnant water that had been contaminated by coming into contact with a dead animal. It is only in the last 100 years that medical science has learned that contaminated water can cause typhoid and cholera.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

88.
Pest control (Leviticus 25:1-24). Farmers are plagued today with insects. Yet God gave a sure-fire remedy to control pests centuries ago. Moses commanded Israel to set aside one year in seven when no crops were raised. Insects winter in the stalks of last years harvest, hatch in the spring, and are perpetuated by laying eggs in the new crop. If the crop is denied one year in seven, the pests have nothing to subsist upon, and are thereby controlled.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

89.
Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if Gods commands were followed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

90.
Animal instincts understood (Job 39; Proverbs 30:24-28; Jeremiah 8:7). A newly hatched spider weaves an intricate web without being taught. A recently emerged butterfly somehow knows to navigate a 2,500-mile migration route without a guide. God explains that He has endowed each creature with specific knowledge. Scripture, not evolution, explains animal instincts.

Visit:
Instinct, Wise Behavior, Unlearned Knowledge And Abilities (oldpaths.com)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

91.
Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in Gods image.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

92.
Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science). True science agrees with the Creators Word.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

93.
Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews  which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.

Visit:
DNA Evidence And The Book Of Mormon (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

94.
Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

95.
Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, Gods Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.

Visit:
Is Man a "Higher" Animal? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

96.
The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donors character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

97.
The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted  introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98.
Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die  The soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of Gods Law. To see if you will die, please review Gods Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then youre an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creators name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy  and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99.
Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death  which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100.
Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person  free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

101.
The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away (Revelation 21:4).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bible is inspired by the Creator. Therefore it is no surprise that lifes ultimate questions are answered within its pages. The Bible reveals the purpose of our existence. Scripture alone explains where our conscience came from. And no other source explains the root cause of death. Seeing that all die, wouldnt it be wise to search for the remedy in the only book that proves it was inspired by God? The Bible offers the only remedy for sin, suffering, and death. Gods Word presents the only perfect, sinless Savior  one who died for our sins and rose from the dead. Jesus is the Creator (John 1; Colossians 1). He said I and My Father are one (John 10:30). He said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:6). And He promises His followers: I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish (John 10:28). Your eternal destiny will be determined by your choice. There is only one provision for sin. Jesus died in your place. Only by faith in Christs finished work will you be saved. This is Gods free gift offered to all. Please do not let pride, religion, opinions, or love for sin separate you from God. No sin is worth an eternity in hell. Please heed Jesus words  Repent, and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15). If you do, you will live in heaven with our awesome Creator forever!

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No because my views are based in faith and I trust the bible. The problem is your side don't understand to believe parts of your theory of evolution you have to use faith as well .but you won't admit to it. There are many things about the the theory that has no evidence  to back it, zero. This theory was built on faulty assumptions lacking evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being inaccurate.  What you're calling "faith" on the part of evolutionists is actually LOGIC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is logical about believing eventually humans will evolve into a destinctly new species ?
> 
> You don't even have a mechanism as to how this can happen.
Click to expand...


The same mechanisms as all other evolution.   You may not believe them, but to say there aren't theories for how it happened, is disingenuous.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adaptation is a part of the theory of evolution, look it up yourself.
> 
> Amazing that someone takes such a hardcore stance against something that he's COMPLETELY clueless about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is part of the theory that is what proves it ? come on you can do better then this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that, one of the these days you'll stop being so obsessed with strawmen.
> 
> You denied evolution by accrediting something to adaptation, and in doing so revealed you're ignorant of the fact that adaptation is a part of evolution.
> 
> You already have your mind made up that the devil is the reason why the fact of evolution gets taught, but at least for your own sake know what evolution is before you get into these discussions.
Click to expand...


Only because some how you believe a beneficial mutation can survive and spead through  a genepool to a point it would completely change the group of organisms into something new and through survival of the organisms that beneficial mutation would survive.

Do you realize mutations are errors ? Do you realize how many of these beneficial mutations it would take to some how survive in a gene pool and spread through the population for a group of organisms to change to something destinctly new ? Do you realize how rare and few beneficial mutations are in reality ?

So you believe by random chance that errors makes things better ?


----------



## konradv

_Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin&#8217;s theory of the survival of the fittest._

That's to preserve their blood line.  It's not at odds with Darwin, but part of the grand scheme.  It's disingenuous to cherry-pick one aspect, survival of the fittest, and claim it's the only part of the theory that matters.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is part of the theory that is what proves it ? come on you can do better then this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that, one of the these days you'll stop being so obsessed with strawmen.
> 
> You denied evolution by accrediting something to adaptation, and in doing so revealed you're ignorant of the fact that adaptation is a part of evolution.
> 
> You already have your mind made up that the devil is the reason why the fact of evolution gets taught, but at least for your own sake know what evolution is before you get into these discussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only because some how you believe a beneficial mutation can survive and spead through  a genepool to a point it would completely change the group of organisms into something and through survival of the organisms that beneficial mutation would survive.
> 
> Do you realize mutations are errors ? Do you realize how many of these beneficial mutations it would take to some how survive in a gene pool and spread through the population for a group of organisms to change to something destinctly new ? Do you realize how rare and few beneficial mutations are in reality ?
> 
> So you believe by random chance that errors makes things better ?
Click to expand...


Do you realize we're talking about a long, long time?  Things that would seem unlikely, become much more likely when you're talking about millions of years.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're being inaccurate.  What you're calling "faith" on the part of evolutionists is actually LOGIC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is logical about believing eventually humans will evolve into a destinctly new species ?
> 
> You don't even have a mechanism as to how this can happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same mechanisms as all other evolution.   You may not believe them, but to say there aren't theories for how it happened, is disingenuous.
Click to expand...


Give me your mechanism for evolution ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> _Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwins theory of the survival of the fittest._
> 
> That's to preserve their blood line.  It's not at odds with Darwin, but part of the grand scheme.  It's disingenuous to cherry-pick one aspect, survival of the fittest, and claim it's the only part of the theory that matters.



Can you be more specific ? Have no clue what your point is.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that, one of the these days you'll stop being so obsessed with strawmen.
> 
> You denied evolution by accrediting something to adaptation, and in doing so revealed you're ignorant of the fact that adaptation is a part of evolution.
> 
> You already have your mind made up that the devil is the reason why the fact of evolution gets taught, but at least for your own sake know what evolution is before you get into these discussions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because some how you believe a beneficial mutation can survive and spead through  a genepool to a point it would completely change the group of organisms into something and through survival of the organisms that beneficial mutation would survive.
> 
> Do you realize mutations are errors ? Do you realize how many of these beneficial mutations it would take to some how survive in a gene pool and spread through the population for a group of organisms to change to something destinctly new ? Do you realize how rare and few beneficial mutations are in reality ?
> 
> So you believe by random chance that errors makes things better ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize we're talking about a long, long time?  Things that would seem unlikely, become much more likely when you're talking about millions of years.
Click to expand...


Do you realize the math has been done on the matter no way would you have enough time for it to happen like evolutionists say.

They are gonna have to eventually move the goalposts to say man diverged over 10 billion years ago.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No because my views are based in faith and I trust the bible. The problem is your side don't understand to believe parts of your theory of evolution you have to use faith as well .but you won't admit to it. There are many things about the the theory that has no evidence  to back it, zero. This theory was built on faulty assumptions lacking evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being inaccurate.  What you're calling "faith" on the part of evolutionists is actually LOGIC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is logical about believing eventually humans will evolve into a destinctly new species ?
> 
> You don't even have a mechanism as to how this can happen.
Click to expand...


One, Bible is based on faith, which cannot be empircally verified.

Two, evolution is based on science, no matter how faulty, and which can be queried empiraclly.

Third, evolution and biblical literalism are not salvation issues.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwins theory of the survival of the fittest._
> 
> That's to preserve their blood line.  It's not at odds with Darwin, but part of the grand scheme.  It's disingenuous to cherry-pick one aspect, survival of the fittest, and claim it's the only part of the theory that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you be more specific ? Have no clue what your point is.
Click to expand...


Then you need to study up.  I don't have time to fill in the gaps in your education.  "Survival of the fittest" may be the most well known part of evolutionary theory, but it certainly isn't the only principle.  My point is that "altruism" isn't at odds with Darwin.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin&#8217;s theory of the survival of the fittest._
> 
> That's to preserve their blood line.  It's not at odds with Darwin, but part of the grand scheme.  It's disingenuous to cherry-pick one aspect, survival of the fittest, and claim it's the only part of the theory that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you be more specific ? Have no clue what your point is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you need to study up.  I don't have time to fill in the gaps in your education.  "Survival of the fittest" may be the most well known part of evolutionary theory, but it certainly isn't the only principle.  My point is that "altruism" isn't at odds with Darwin.
Click to expand...


If you're gonna debate an issue it is not I that needs to be educated I have already been educated in the field. But why debate something you can't explain or won't explain. If you have seen my previous posts I have already answered my question to you. But I am asking you to be specific of the mechanism and providing evidence that it is even possible. I have already stated that mathematically It is impossible to happen what Neo darwinist say's happened.

If you guys continue to ignore the reality of what mutations really do then you are blindly believing something against the odds. Your views are based in faith not scientific facts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're being inaccurate.  What you're calling "faith" on the part of evolutionists is actually LOGIC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is logical about believing eventually humans will evolve into a destinctly new species ?
> 
> You don't even have a mechanism as to how this can happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One, Bible is based on faith, which cannot be empircally verified.
> 
> Two, evolution is based on science, no matter how faulty, and which can be queried empiraclly.
> 
> Third, evolution and biblical literalism are not salvation issues.
Click to expand...


Bible based that can be confirmed through science see my post above.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bible based cannot be confirmed empirically.  Check all the literature on the issue.

Faith is for religion, science is for empirical data.

End of story.


----------



## koshergrl

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you require 100% proof by your standards that Jesus is indeed the Risen Messiah?
> 
> There is none, and that's fine because we are discussing faith here, not science.
> 
> And that is why your comments on evolution are silly. You don't accept scientific standards of the academic community, thus your comments are uninformed and from the non-academy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No because my views are based in faith and I trust the bible. The problem is your side don't understand to believe parts of your theory of evolution you have to use faith as well .but you won't admit to it. There are many things about the the theory that has no evidence to back it, zero. This theory was built on faulty assumptions lacking evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being inaccurate. What you're calling "faith" on the part of evolutionists is actually LOGIC.
Click to expand...

 
And faith on the part of Christians is logical as well.


----------



## JakeStarkey

But not empirical.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> But not empirical.



I gave you 101 things from the bible thats proven by empircal evidence.

Here are a few ,remember the bible was written long before science new these things.


The earth free-floats in space Job 26:7, affected only by gravity.

Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes Hebrews 11:3. 

When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water Leviticus 15:13. 

Oceans contain springs Job 38:16. 

There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor Jonah 2:5-6

Last but not least.

Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground Genesis 2:7; 3:19. Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.

These are not lucky guesses,these writers were inspired by a superior being to any scientist.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not empirical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you 101 things from the bible thats proven by empircal evidence.
> 
> Here are a few ,remember the bible was written long before science new these things.
> 
> 
> The earth free-floats in space Job 26:7, affected only by gravity.
> 
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes Hebrews 11:3.
> 
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water Leviticus 15:13.
> 
> Oceans contain springs Job 38:16.
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor Jonah 2:5-6
> 
> Last but not least.
> 
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground Genesis 2:7; 3:19. Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> These are not lucky guesses,these writers were inspired by a superior being to any scientist.
Click to expand...


Some of the passages you quote are entirely up to interpretation.

For example, Hebrews 11:3 says 'Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.', or something similar depending on the translation.  You can assume this means things too small to see with the naked eye, but it could just as easily mean of the spirit world.

Leviticus 15:13 says either to wash for 7 days, or to wait 7 days and THEN wash, again dependent on translation.

Jonah 2:6 says he went to the base or roots of the mountains.  Seems to be saying that mountains on land continue beneath the water.

My point is that many of the examples you have posted are vague at best and certainly not obviously saying what you claim.  Perhaps that was because of the ignorance of people the bible was meant to speak to at the time, perhaps it's a matter of you trying to shoehorn current scientific knowledge into scripture.  Whatever the case may be, your examples are not all clear-cut by any stretch.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not empirical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you 101 things from the bible thats proven by empircal evidence.
> 
> Here are a few ,remember the bible was written long before science new these things.
> 
> 
> The earth free-floats in space Job 26:7, affected only by gravity.
> 
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes Hebrews 11:3.
> 
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water Leviticus 15:13.
> 
> Oceans contain springs Job 38:16.
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor Jonah 2:5-6
> 
> Last but not least.
> 
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground Genesis 2:7; 3:19. Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> These are not lucky guesses,these writers were inspired by a superior being to any scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the passages you quote are entirely up to interpretation.
> 
> For example, Hebrews 11:3 says 'Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.', or something similar depending on the translation.  You can assume this means things too small to see with the naked eye, but it could just as easily mean of the spirit world.
> 
> Leviticus 15:13 says either to wash for 7 days, or to wait 7 days and THEN wash, again dependent on translation.
> 
> Jonah 2:6 says he went to the base or roots of the mountains.  Seems to be saying that mountains on land continue beneath the water.
> 
> My point is that many of the examples you have posted are vague at best and certainly not obviously saying what you claim.  Perhaps that was because of the ignorance of people the bible was meant to speak to at the time, perhaps it's a matter of you trying to shoehorn current scientific knowledge into scripture.  Whatever the case may be, your examples are not all clear-cut by any stretch.
Click to expand...


The word was Jesus and he is the one who created all things. He created us of things unseen to the eye.

Now this part read it in context he is clearly talking about how to deal with someone who has a skin issue and is contagious.

Lev 15:1  And Jehovah spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, 
Lev 15:2  Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, When any man has an issue from his flesh; he is unclean because of his issue. 
Lev 15:3  And this shall be his uncleanness in his issue. His flesh has run with his issue, or his flesh is ceased from his issue, it is his uncleanness. 
Lev 15:4  Every bed on which he who issues lies is unclean. And everything on which he sits shall be unclean. 
Lev 15:5  And whoever touches his bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. 
Lev 15:6  And he that sits on any thing on which he who issues sat shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. 
Lev 15:7  And he that touches the flesh of him who issues shall wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. 
Lev 15:8  And if he who issues spits on him that is clean, then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. 
Lev 15:9  And whatever saddle he who issues rides on shall be unclean. 
Lev 15:10  And whoever touches anything that was under him shall be unclean until the evening. And he that carries any of those things shall wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. 
Lev 15:11  And whomever he who issues touches, and has not rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. 
Lev 15:12  And the earthen vessel that he who issues touches shall be broken. And every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water. 
Lev 15:13  And when he who issues is cleansed of his issue, then he shall number seven days to himself for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean. 

Read it in context again jonah was in the belly of the fish the fish took him to the bottom of the mountains which was at the bottom of the ocean.

Jon 2:1  And Jonah prayed to Jehovah his God out of the fish's belly, 
Jon 2:2  and he said, I cried to Jehovah from my distress. And He answered me. Out of the belly of Sheol I cried for help, and You heard my voice. 
Jon 2:3  For You cast me into the depths of the seas, and the current surrounded me. All Your breakers and Your waves passed over me. 
Jon 2:4  Then I said, I am cast off from Your eyes, yet I will look again toward Your holy temple. 
Jon 2:5  Waters encompassed me, even to the soul; the depth closed around me; the seaweed was bound to my head. 
Jon 2:6  I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was around me forever; yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Jehovah my God. 


One more verse to drive the point home they're not vague at all.

Gen 8:2  Also the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and rain from heaven was restrained. 

They know now there are fountains and springs at the bottom of the ocean.

Gen 8:2  Also the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and rain from heaven was restrained. 

Pro 8:28  when He set the clouds above; when He made the strong fountains of the deep; 

These are not vague and how would man know such things 3,500 years ago.

Springs of the Ocean 

by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D. 







A CHALLENGE

One of the most profound and moving experiences in the life of the Old Testament patriarch Job must have been his encounter with a whirlwind. At a time when Job's undeserved suffering led him to a point of despair, God questioned Job from the whirlwind concerning his knowledge of Creation (see Job, Chapter 38). God confirmed his sovereignty and justice by giving what must rank as the greatest science test of all time.

Among the most thought provoking of God's questions to Job was, "Have you entered into the springs of the sea?" (Job 38:16a). The word for "springs" is NEBEK (transliterated from Hebrew), an unusual word referring to the places where water issues or bursts out of the earth. Job must have pondered this question with amazement, for although he had seen many springs on the land, he had no experience with undersea springs. Today we know why. The ocean is very deep; almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness; the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea."

Other Old Testament passages refer to springs of the sea. Genesis 7:11 describes the cause of Noah's Flood and says that the "fountains of the great deep were broken up and the floodgates of heaven were opened." In the phrase "fountains of the great deep," the word "fountains" is MAYANOTH in the Hebrew and refers to "springs" or something similar in many other passages in the Old Testament. The phrase also mentions the "deep." The "deep" is the Hebrew TEHOM that is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, where God's Spirit brooded upon the face of the "waters," or the "deep."

Psalm 33:6-9 describes springs in the ocean relating them to their creation. The Psalmist says, "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host. He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the Lord, let all the habitants of the world stand in awe before Him; for He spoke and it was done, He commanded and it stood fast." So, from the beginning of the creation, this passage is saying that the waters of the sea were heaped together. In characteristic Hebrew style this is rephrased in Psalm 33:7b as, "He lays up the deeps in storehouses." So, there is some vessel which is containing a portion of the deeps from the original creation.

Proverbs 8 contains an interesting personification of wisdom, where Wisdom speaks. Beginning at verse 22 we read, "When there were no depths, I (Wisdom) was brought forth; when there were no springs abounding with water, before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I was brought forth." Then verse 28 of Proverbs 8 says, "When he made firm the skies above, and the springs of the deep became fixed." Here is another direct reference to springs being in the ocean.

There are four main points in this matter that the Old Testament affirms. First, the Old Testament asserts positively that springs do exist in the ocean. The source of this knowledge claims omniscience and is allowing that omniscience to be tested by scientific investigation of the ocean floor. Second, the undersea springs are said to have been established at the earth's creation. Third, the Flood of Noah is claimed to have been caused, at least in part, by an unusual activity of ocean floor springs. Finally, springs are mentioned so we can marvel at the wisdom and power of God.

THE DISCOVERY

The discovery of ocean floor springs represents a great milestone in the scientific investigation of the earth. Before 1930 little was known about the ocean floor. Volcanoes were observed to break the sea surface and this provided evidence of undersea volcanism. Because modern volcanoes on land emit steam, scientists suggested that water might be coming out of volcanoes on the ocean floor.

The deep sea dives of William Beebe's bathysphere in the 1930's provided a close look at the ocean floor, but no springs were observed. In the 1940's mapping of undersea topography was under way using the echo sounder. Thousands of undersea volcanoes called "seamounts" and "guyots" were recognized and speculation about undersea springs increased. In the 1960's metal-rich, hot brines were discovered using sonar in the bottom of the Red Sea. This brine was an indirect evidence of water coming out of the ocean floor. Aided by reports from Mexican abalone divers, scientists using scuba equipment located shallow-water hot springs along the coast of Baja California in the late 1960s.








Vent in the seafloor where hot water
 issues from the earth into the ocean.


Deep diving research submarines have been constructed to withstand the three-tons-per-square-inch pressure at the ocean floor. These submarines have carried scientists into the deep. The first direct observations of deepsea springs, or their mineralized vents, appear to have been made on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge by Project FAMOUS in 1973. Spectacular hot springs were then discovered on the Galapagos Rift in the Pacific Ocean by the 23-foot long submersible Alvin in 1977. Alvin also explored, photographed and sampled hot springs on the East Pacific Rise just south of the Gulf of California in 1979. The research continues.

Several nontechnical magazine reports present photographs and descriptions of these recently discovered seafloor springs. The Galapagos Rift springs are described in the November 1979 issue of National Geographic. The article is titled "Incredible World of the Deep-sea Rifts" and bears the caption: "Scientists explore rifts in the seafloor where hot springs spew minerals and startling life exists in a strange world without sun.

The East Pacific Rise springs are shown in Science News, January 12, 1980. This article is titled, "Smokers, Red Worms, and Deep Sea Plumbing" and is followed by the caption; "Sea floor oases of mineral-rich springs and amazing creatures fulfill oceanographers' dreams." The discovery of these deep ocean springs is said to be the "most significant oceanographic find since the discovery of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge."

The hot springs have been called "black smokers." The "smoke" is the dark, mineral-laden, hot (up to 400'C) water spewing from "chimneys" up to 15-feet tall atop mounds of minerals up to 60-feet high. The minerals coating the vents are largely sulfides of copper, iron and zinc precipitated instantly as the hot geysers contact the cold seawater. The vents provide the habitat for the first community of animals to be discovered which does not obtain energy by way of photosynthesis. Animals collected include red-tipped tube worms, giant clams, mussels, sea worms, crabs, and limpets. The Science News article describes the East Pacific Rise springs:  the researchers found about two dozen hot springs stretched along 6 km of the half-kilometer wide spreading center. But next to these angry-looking, superheated geyserscalled "smokers"the Galapagos Rift vents looked like tepid sprinklers. Not only was the gushing water about 300'C hotter (the first attempt to measure the water temperature melted Alvin's heat probe), but around the chimneys lay mounds of minerals including copper, iron, zinc and sulfur with lesser amounts of cobalt, lead, silver and cadmium. Like the Galapagos, however, the same animals, with the exception of the mussels, were clustered in fields near the vents.

Although scientists have examined only a small portion of ocean floor, seafloor springs appear to be common along the 40,000-mile Mid-Oceanic Ridge system. Dr. John M. Edmond of M.I.T. suggests that water circulation through oceanic springs is a major geologic process; he estimates that 40 cubic miles of water flow out of earth's oceanic springs each year. If this is so, then mineralization must be an important process on the sea floor, and study of ocean springs may promote understanding and location of ore deposits. Ocean springs are also a vast, untapped source of geothermal energy, which, unfortunately, is located far from the major population and energy demand areas.

The discovery of ocean springs ranks as one of the foremost scientific accomplishments of the last ten years. Let us remember, however, that their existence was known thousands of years ago. Surely, God spoke through men by means of His Holy Spirit.


Springs of the Ocean


----------



## Montrovant

As I said, what translation you use is important, as is how you interpret.

If the fountains of the deep is so clear, can you tell me what the windows of heaven are that were stopped?

This has nothing to do with your belief being right or wrong.  I am only commenting on the impression you give that these interpretations of scripture are obvious and clear.  They may be clear to you because of your belief, but to someone who doesn't already have those beliefs they are not.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not empirical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you 101 things from the bible thats proven by empircal evidence.
> 
> Here are a few ,remember the bible was written long before science new these things.
> 
> 
> The earth free-floats in space Job 26:7, affected only by gravity.
> 
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes Hebrews 11:3.
> 
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water Leviticus 15:13.
> 
> Oceans contain springs Job 38:16.
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor Jonah 2:5-6
> 
> Last but not least.
> 
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground Genesis 2:7; 3:19. Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> These are not lucky guesses,these writers were inspired by a superior being to any scientist.
Click to expand...


But then things like the order in which things were created or the notion that there was a worldwide flood, that are definitely not scientific.  It's a mixed bag that should be read for moral lesssons, NOT science.


----------



## koshergrl

Of course it's scientific. Scientists are still trying to figure it out. Every culture in the world has some sort of oral or written tradition of a world wide flood, and the fossil record bears it out.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not empirical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you 101 things from the bible thats proven by empircal evidence.
> 
> Here are a few ,remember the bible was written long before science new these things.
> 
> 
> The earth free-floats in space Job 26:7, affected only by gravity.
> 
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes Hebrews 11:3.
> 
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water Leviticus 15:13.
> 
> Oceans contain springs Job 38:16.
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor Jonah 2:5-6
> 
> Last but not least.
> 
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground Genesis 2:7; 3:19. Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> These are not lucky guesses,these writers were inspired by a superior being to any scientist.
Click to expand...


What you gave me were some basic statements that had nothing to do with empirical proof of creation.

ID and creationism should be taught, of course; just never in the science classroom, because it can never be empircally verified in terms of creationsims or origins of life or origins of species.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet..you still haven't proven your own claims.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I certainly have. And you're helping by validating those claims.
> 
> But you demand that faith is a more valid foundation for your certainty about the reality of things than verifiable evidence and valid logic. Admitting you're intellectually dishonest doesn't mitigate your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> This true of some, true; but not me--at least not in your experience of me. It is true of all of the faithful, surely; of every superstitious retard, absolutely; of you, certainly.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since that dishonesty is a biblical truth as well, you actually bolster our faith when you go on and on ridiculing Christians and setting forth a lying, alternate reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Biblical "truth" is rife with lies that assert the reality of an alternate reality that is validated only by the faith of so-called "Christians."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible is riffled with lies  you mean like this mind these things were written long before the science of man knew any of these things.
> 
> 101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge
> 
> Psalm 19:1-3  The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.
> Jeremiah 10:12  He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.
> 
> Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
> 
> Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts. That book is the Bible.
> This booklet presents 101 scientific facts found in the Scriptures. Many of these facts were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece to the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator. How does this affect you? The last several pages provide the answer  you need to read them carefully.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Science In An Ancient (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 2.
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.
> 
> Visit:
> All About Atoms (Jefferson Lab)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 3.
> The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.
> 
> Visit:
> The Arks perfect dimensions (Answers In Genesis)
> Safety investigation of Noahs Ark in a seaway (Answers In Genesis)
> Noahs Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 4.
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.
> 
> Visit:
> -Why do I need to wash my hands?
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 5.
> Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6.
> Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!
> 
> Visit:
> Springs of the Ocean (ICR)
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 7.
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
> 
> Visit:
> Numerical Simulations Of Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 8.
> Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creators presence  in Your presence is fullness of joy (Psalm 16:11).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 9.
> Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.
> 
> Visit:
> Life in the Blood (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 10.
> The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe  namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.
> 
> Visit:
> Things You May Not Know About Evolution (ICR)
> Creation - Evolution (ICR)
> Evolution and the Bible (ICR)
> The Fossil Record: Intermediate Links (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Archaeopteryx A Feathered Reptile? (ChristianAnswers.net)
> The Ape-Man: Missing Link (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Biological Evolution Darwin's Finches (ChristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 11.
> Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwins theory of the survival of the fittest.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 12.
> Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.
> 
> Visit:
> What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg? (ICR)
> The Egg/Chicken Conundrum (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 13.
> Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.
> 
> Visit:
> Things that are Made (ICR)
> Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality (ICR)
> Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories (ICR)
> The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 14.
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> Visit:
> The elements of the periodic table sorted by their presence in human body. (Lenntech)
> The Bible is a Textbook of Science (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 15.
> The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 16.
> The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)Then God said, Let there be light (energy). No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 17.
> The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 18.
> The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.
> 
> Visit:
> Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth
> Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 19.
> Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 20.
> Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow in the cloud as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets  which act as a prism  separating white light into its color spectrum.
> 
> Visit:
> What causes a rainbow? (CristianAnswers.net)
> The Rainbow And The Cloud (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 21.
> Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago  God declared this four millennia ago!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 22.
> Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the paths of the seas. In the 19th century Matthew Maury  the father of oceanography  after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maurys data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 23.
> Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body, and that those who commit homosexual sin would receive in themselves the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.
> 
> Visit
> Sex Habits Linked to Early Death, Disability (Fox News)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 24.
> Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 25.
> Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars  thats a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 26.
> The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along  He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 27.
> The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 28.
> Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.
> 
> Visit:
> Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality (ICR)
> Is Creation One of the Traditional Values? (ICR)
> Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism (ICR)
> Would China Benefit from Christianity? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 29.
> The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was Gods judgment on mans wickedness.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 30.
> Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.
> 
> Visit:
> The Origin of Coal (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 31.
> The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent  just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 32.
> Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the fountains of the great deep were broken up. This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.
> 
> Visit:
> Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
> Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 33.
> Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often  By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.
> 
> Visit:
> Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
> Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
> The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 34.
> Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.
> 
> Visit:
> Is the unborn human less than human? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Cloning: Redefining When Life Begins Exposing Flaws in the Preembryo-Embryo Distinction (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 35.
> God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an intricate unity in the womb.
> 
> Visit:
> Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 36.
> DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
> 
> Visit:
> Curiously Wrought (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 37.
> God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)
> 
> Visit:
> One Blood: The biblical answer to racism (CristianAnswers.net)
> Where Did The Races Come From? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 38.
> Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.
> 
> Visit:
> Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)
> On the Origin of Language (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 39.
> Origin of the different races explained (Genesis 11). As Noahs descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.
> 
> Visit:
> Where did the human races come from? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Evolution and Modern Racism (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 40.
> God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along  there are healing compounds found in plants.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 41.
> Healthy dietary laws (Leviticus 11:9-12). Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales. We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 42.
> The Bible warns against eating birds of prey (Leviticus 11:13-19). Scientists now recognize that those birds which eat carrion (putrefying flesh), often spread disease.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 43.
> Avoid swine (Deuteronomy 14:8). Not so long ago, science learned that eating undercooked pork causes an infection of parasites called trichinosis. Now consider this: the Bible forbid the eating of swine more than 3,000 years before we learned how to cook pork safely.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. (NCBI)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 44.
> Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, Gods Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as Mother and naturalism is enshrined.
> 
> Visit:
> Earth Day, Environmentalism, and the Bible (ICR)
> The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
> The Hyper-Environmentalists (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 45.
> Black holes and dark matter anticipated (Matthew 25:30; Jude 1:13; Isaiah 50:3). Cosmologists now speculate that over 98% of the known universe is comprised of dark matter, with dark energy and black holes. A black holes gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls outer darkness or the blackness of darkness forever.
> 
> Visit:
> The Outer Darkness (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 46.
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God  resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is grow(ing) old like a garment (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ChrisitanAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 47.
> Cains wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry  therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.
> 
> Visit:
> Where did Cain get his wife? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Cain's Wife: It Really Does Matter! (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 48.
> Incest laws established (Leviticus 18:6). To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common. Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice. The reason is simple  the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses day the genetic errors had swelled. Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed.
> 
> Visit:
> The Blind Gunman (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 49.
> Genetic mixing of different seeds forbidden (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9). The Bible warns against mixing seeds  as this will result in an inferior or dangerous crop. There is now growing evidence that unnatural, genetically engineered crops may be harmful.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 50.
> Hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Jeremiah 10:13; Amos 9:6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man (Job 36:27-28). The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 51.
> The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity  the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit  just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 52.
> Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!
> 
> Visit:
> Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day (Apologetics Press)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 53.
> God has given us just the right amount of water to sustain life (Isaiah 40:12). We now recognize that if there was significantly more or less water, the earth would not support life as we know it.
> 
> Visit:
> The Anthropic Principle: Is the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life? (ChristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 54.
> The earth was designed for biological life (Isaiah 45:18). Scientists have discovered that the most fundamental characteristics of our earth and cosmos are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist. This is called the Anthropic Principle and it agrees with the Bible which states that God formed the earth to be inhabited.
> 
> Visit:
> The Earth: Unique in All the Universe (ICR)
> Design in Nature: The Anthropic Principle (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 55.
> The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Eisntein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago  the universe is expanding!
> 
> Visit:
> The Battle for the Cosmic Center (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 56.
> Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, Gods life, created all life.
> 
> Visit:
> Chemical Evolution: Spontaneous generation; Stanley Miller Experiment (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Evolution is Biologically Impossible (ICR)
> The Myth Of Chemical Evolution (ICR)
> Virgil's Aeneid, by Chance Alone? (ICR)
> The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 57.
> Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).
> 
> Visit:
> How did bad things come about? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Extinction (ICR)
> Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 58.
> Light travels in a path (Job 38:19). Light is said to have a way [Hebrew: derek, literally a traveled path or road]. Until the 17th century it was believed that light was transmitted instantaneously. We now know that light is a form of energy that travels at ~186,000 miles per second in a straight line. Indeed, there is a way of light.
> 
> Visit:
> Light travels in a path was foretold in the Bible hundreds of years before scientists discovered it (creationists.org)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 59.
> Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established a weight for the wind. In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 60.
> Jet stream anticipated (Ecclesiastes 1:6). At a time when it was thought that winds blew straight, the Bible declares The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit. King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago. Now consider this: it was not until World War II that airmen discovered the jet stream circuit.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 61.
> Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 62.
> Each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the advent of the telescope, the Bible declared what only God and the angels knew  each star varies in size and intensity!
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 63.
> The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing  electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send lightnings which indeed speak when they arrive.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 64.
> Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, A merry heart does good, like medicine. For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.
> 
> Visit:
> Benefits of Laughter (Personal-Development.com)
> Humor and Laughter: Health Benefits and Online Sources (helpguide.org)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 65.
> Intense sorrow or stress is harmful to your health (Proverbs 18:14; Mark 14:34). Researchers have studied individuals with no prior medical problems who showed symptoms of stress cardiomyopathy including chest pain, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, and even heart failure  following a stressful incident.
> 
> Visit:
> The Physical Dangers of Stress (Fitness Article)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 66.
> Microorganisms anticipated (Exodus 22:31). The Bible warns Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the LORD (Leviticus 22:8). Today we understand that a decaying carcass is full of disease causing germs.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 67.
> The Bible cautions against consuming fat (Leviticus 7:23). Only in recent decades has the medical community determined that fat clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 68.
> Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:12). A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood. However, the Creator repeatedly told His people to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:20; 21:25). Of course, modern science reveals that consuming raw blood is dangerous.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 69.
> The Bible describes dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24). In 1842, Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosaur, meaning terrible lizard, after discovering large reptilian-like fossils. However in the Book of Job, written 4,000 years earlier, God describes the behemoth as: the largest of all land creatures, plant eating (herbivore), with great strength in its hips and legs, powerful stomach muscles, a tail like a cedar tree, and bones like bars of iron. This is an accurate description of sauropods  the largest known dinosaur family.
> 
> Visit:
> The Great Dinosaur Mystery (CristianAnswers.net)
> How Do The Dinosaurs Fit In? (ICR)
> Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood? (ICR)
> Dragons in Paradise (ICR)
> Leviathan (ICR)
> Dinosaurs And The Bible (ICR)
> Dinosaur Mania and Our Children (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 70.
> Pleasure explained (Psalm 36:8). Evolution cannot explain pleasure  even the most complex chemicals do not experience bliss. However, the Bible states that God gives us richly all things to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17). Pleasure is a gift from God.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 71.
> Life is more than matter and energy (Genesis 2:7; Job 12:7-10). We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Even though its body may be perfectly intact, and air and energy are reintroduced to spark life, the body remains dead. Scripture agrees with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. Life cannot be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone  as evolutionists would lead us to believe.
> 
> Visit:
> Breath And Spirit (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 72.
> Origin of music explained (Psalm 40:3). Evolution cannot explain the origin of music. The Bible says that every good gift comes from God (James 1:17). This includes joyful melodies. God has given both man and angels the gift of music-making (Genesis 4:21; Ezekiel 28:13). Singing is intended to express rejoicing in and worship of the Lord (Job 38:7; Psalm 95:1-2).
> 
> Visit:
> Music or Evolution
> Musicevidence of creation (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 73.
> Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with Gods Word.
> 
> Visit:
> Ancient civilizations and modern man (Answers In Genesis)
> The mystery of ancient man (Answers In Genesis)
> Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 74.
> Cavemen described in the Bible (Job 30:1-8). Four thousand years ago, Job describes certain vile men who were driven from society to forage among the bushes for survival and who live in the clefts of the valleys, (and) in caves of the earth and the rocks. Therefore cavemen were simply outcasts and vagabounds  not our primitive ancestors as evolutionists speculate.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 75.
> Environmental devastation of the planet foreseen (Revelation 11:18). Though evolution imagines that things should be getting better, the Bible foresaw what is really occurring today: pollution, destruction and corrupt dominion.
> 
> Visit:
> Creation and the Environment (ICR)
> The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 76.
> The seed of a plant contains its life (Genesis 1:11; 29). As stated in the Book of Genesis, we now recognize that inside the humble seed is life itself. Within the seed is a tiny factory of amazing complexity. No scientist can build a synthetic seed and no seed is simple!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 77.
> A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells give their lives to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 78.
> The order of creation agrees with true science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v. 6), then soil (v. 9), and then He created plant life (v. 11).
> 
> Visit:
> What is the order of events in the biblical Creation? (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 79.
> God created lights in the heavens for signs and seasons, and for days and years (Genesis 1:14-16). We now know that a year is the time required for the earth to travel once around the sun. The seasons are caused by the changing position of the earth in relation to the sun. The moons phases follow one another in clock-like precision  constituting the lunar calendar Evolution teaches that the cosmos evolved by random chance, yet the Bible agrees with the observable evidence.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 80.
> The Bible speaks of heaven and the highest heavens (Deuteronomy 10:14). Long before the Hubble Space Telescope, Scripture spoke of the heaven of heavens and the third heaven (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Corinthians 12:2). We now know that the heavens consist of our immediate atmosphere and the vast reaches of outer space  as well as Gods wonderful abode.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 81.
> Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him  pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 82.
> Man is fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). We are only beginning to probe the complexity of the DNA molecule, the eye, the brain, and all the intricate components of life. No human invention compares to the marvelous wonders of Gods creation.
> 
> Visit:
> Mankind- The Pinnacle of God's Creation (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 83.
> Beauty understood (Genesis 1:31; 2:9; Job 40:10; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Matthew 6:28-30). Beauty surrounds us: radiant sunsets, majestic mountains, brightly colored flowers, glowing gems, soothing foliage, brilliantly adorned birds, etc. Beauty is a mystery to the evolutionist. However, Scripture reveals that God creates beautiful things for our benefit and His glory.
> 
> Visit:
> Beauty (oldpaths.com)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 84.
> Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Physicists do not understand what binds the atoms nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that all things consist  or are held together by the Creator  Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 85.
> Atomic fission anticipated (2 Peter 3:10-12). Scripture states that the elements will melt with fervent heat when the earth and the heavens are dissolved by fire. Today we understand that if the elements of the atom are loosed, there would be an enormous release of heat and energy (radiation).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 86.
> The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 87.
> Safe drinking water (Leviticus 11:33-36). God forbade drinking from vessels or stagnant water that had been contaminated by coming into contact with a dead animal. It is only in the last 100 years that medical science has learned that contaminated water can cause typhoid and cholera.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 88.
> Pest control (Leviticus 25:1-24). Farmers are plagued today with insects. Yet God gave a sure-fire remedy to control pests centuries ago. Moses commanded Israel to set aside one year in seven when no crops were raised. Insects winter in the stalks of last years harvest, hatch in the spring, and are perpetuated by laying eggs in the new crop. If the crop is denied one year in seven, the pests have nothing to subsist upon, and are thereby controlled.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 89.
> Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if Gods commands were followed.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 90.
> Animal instincts understood (Job 39; Proverbs 30:24-28; Jeremiah 8:7). A newly hatched spider weaves an intricate web without being taught. A recently emerged butterfly somehow knows to navigate a 2,500-mile migration route without a guide. God explains that He has endowed each creature with specific knowledge. Scripture, not evolution, explains animal instincts.
> 
> Visit:
> Instinct, Wise Behavior, Unlearned Knowledge And Abilities (oldpaths.com)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 91.
> Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in Gods image.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 92.
> Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science). True science agrees with the Creators Word.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 93.
> Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews  which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.
> 
> Visit:
> DNA Evidence And The Book Of Mormon (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 94.
> Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 95.
> Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, Gods Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.
> 
> Visit:
> Is Man a "Higher" Animal? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 96.
> The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donors character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 97.
> The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted  introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 98.
> Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die  The soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of Gods Law. To see if you will die, please review Gods Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then youre an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creators name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy  and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 99.
> Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death  which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 100.
> Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person  free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 101.
> The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away (Revelation 21:4).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The Bible is inspired by the Creator. Therefore it is no surprise that lifes ultimate questions are answered within its pages. The Bible reveals the purpose of our existence. Scripture alone explains where our conscience came from. And no other source explains the root cause of death. Seeing that all die, wouldnt it be wise to search for the remedy in the only book that proves it was inspired by God? The Bible offers the only remedy for sin, suffering, and death. Gods Word presents the only perfect, sinless Savior  one who died for our sins and rose from the dead. Jesus is the Creator (John 1; Colossians 1). He said I and My Father are one (John 10:30). He said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:6). And He promises His followers: I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish (John 10:28). Your eternal destiny will be determined by your choice. There is only one provision for sin. Jesus died in your place. Only by faith in Christs finished work will you be saved. This is Gods free gift offered to all. Please do not let pride, religion, opinions, or love for sin separate you from God. No sin is worth an eternity in hell. Please heed Jesus words  Repent, and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15). If you do, you will live in heaven with our awesome Creator forever!
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Click to expand...


I'll politely ask again, can you please provide a science based website that agrees with those assessments?  No Bible blogs please.


Thanks


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> As I said, what translation you use is important, as is how you interpret.
> 
> If the fountains of the deep is so clear, can you tell me what the windows of heaven are that were stopped?
> 
> This has nothing to do with your belief being right or wrong.  I am only commenting on the impression you give that these interpretations of scripture are obvious and clear.  They may be clear to you because of your belief, but to someone who doesn't already have those beliefs they are not.



Really ? because I use many different versions and they all wind up saying the same thing maybe a little different but the meaning remains the same.

I know you can read and comprehend so tell me what is being said by your interpretation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not empirical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you 101 things from the bible thats proven by empircal evidence.
> 
> Here are a few ,remember the bible was written long before science new these things.
> 
> 
> The earth free-floats in space Job 26:7, affected only by gravity.
> 
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes Hebrews 11:3.
> 
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water Leviticus 15:13.
> 
> Oceans contain springs Job 38:16.
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor Jonah 2:5-6
> 
> Last but not least.
> 
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground Genesis 2:7; 3:19. Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> These are not lucky guesses,these writers were inspired by a superior being to any scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then things like the order in which things were created or the notion that there was a worldwide flood, that are definitely not scientific.  It's a mixed bag that should be read for moral lesssons, NOT science.
Click to expand...


There is plenty of evidence of of a global flood. I will post some videos that have already been posted by MarcATL  that make a convincing argument for the flood. 6These videos are a little long but very convincing.

Part one.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

Part two.

102 - A Universal Flood - Amazing Discoveries TV


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not empirical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you 101 things from the bible thats proven by empircal evidence.
> 
> Here are a few ,remember the bible was written long before science new these things.
> 
> 
> The earth free-floats in space Job 26:7, affected only by gravity.
> 
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes Hebrews 11:3.
> 
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water Leviticus 15:13.
> 
> Oceans contain springs Job 38:16.
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor Jonah 2:5-6
> 
> Last but not least.
> 
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground Genesis 2:7; 3:19. Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> These are not lucky guesses,these writers were inspired by a superior being to any scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you gave me were some basic statements that had nothing to do with empirical proof of creation.
> 
> ID and creationism should be taught, of course; just never in the science classroom, because it can never be empircally verified in terms of creationsims or origins of life or origins of species.
Click to expand...


Wrong They can all be confirmed by science. Do you know anything about science and empirical evidence ?

Because it's clear you don't by your response.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I certainly have. And you're helping by validating those claims.
> 
> But you demand that faith is a more valid foundation for your certainty about the reality of things than verifiable evidence and valid logic. Admitting you're intellectually dishonest doesn't mitigate your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> This true of some, true; but not me--at least not in your experience of me. It is true of all of the faithful, surely; of every superstitious retard, absolutely; of you, certainly.
> 
> Your Biblical "truth" is rife with lies that assert the reality of an alternate reality that is validated only by the faith of so-called "Christians."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible is riffled with lies  you mean like this mind these things were written long before the science of man knew any of these things.
> 
> 101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge
> 
> Psalm 19:1-3  The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.
> Jeremiah 10:12  He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.
> 
> Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
> 
> Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts. That book is the Bible.
> This booklet presents 101 scientific facts found in the Scriptures. Many of these facts were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece to the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator. How does this affect you? The last several pages provide the answer  you need to read them carefully.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Science In An Ancient (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 2.
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.
> 
> Visit:
> All About Atoms (Jefferson Lab)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 3.
> The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.
> 
> Visit:
> The Arks perfect dimensions (Answers In Genesis)
> Safety investigation of Noahs Ark in a seaway (Answers In Genesis)
> Noahs Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 4.
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.
> 
> Visit:
> -Why do I need to wash my hands?
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 5.
> Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6.
> Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!
> 
> Visit:
> Springs of the Ocean (ICR)
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 7.
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
> 
> Visit:
> Numerical Simulations Of Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 8.
> Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creators presence  in Your presence is fullness of joy (Psalm 16:11).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 9.
> Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.
> 
> Visit:
> Life in the Blood (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 10.
> The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe  namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.
> 
> Visit:
> Things You May Not Know About Evolution (ICR)
> Creation - Evolution (ICR)
> Evolution and the Bible (ICR)
> The Fossil Record: Intermediate Links (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Archaeopteryx A Feathered Reptile? (ChristianAnswers.net)
> The Ape-Man: Missing Link (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Biological Evolution Darwin's Finches (ChristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 11.
> Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwins theory of the survival of the fittest.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 12.
> Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.
> 
> Visit:
> What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg? (ICR)
> The Egg/Chicken Conundrum (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 13.
> Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.
> 
> Visit:
> Things that are Made (ICR)
> Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality (ICR)
> Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories (ICR)
> The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 14.
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> Visit:
> The elements of the periodic table sorted by their presence in human body. (Lenntech)
> The Bible is a Textbook of Science (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 15.
> The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 16.
> The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)Then God said, Let there be light (energy). No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 17.
> The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 18.
> The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.
> 
> Visit:
> Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth
> Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 19.
> Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 20.
> Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow in the cloud as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets  which act as a prism  separating white light into its color spectrum.
> 
> Visit:
> What causes a rainbow? (CristianAnswers.net)
> The Rainbow And The Cloud (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 21.
> Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago  God declared this four millennia ago!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 22.
> Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the paths of the seas. In the 19th century Matthew Maury  the father of oceanography  after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maurys data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 23.
> Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body, and that those who commit homosexual sin would receive in themselves the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.
> 
> Visit
> Sex Habits Linked to Early Death, Disability (Fox News)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 24.
> Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 25.
> Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars  thats a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 26.
> The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along  He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 27.
> The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 28.
> Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.
> 
> Visit:
> Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality (ICR)
> Is Creation One of the Traditional Values? (ICR)
> Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism (ICR)
> Would China Benefit from Christianity? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 29.
> The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was Gods judgment on mans wickedness.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 30.
> Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.
> 
> Visit:
> The Origin of Coal (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 31.
> The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent  just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 32.
> Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the fountains of the great deep were broken up. This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.
> 
> Visit:
> Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
> Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 33.
> Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often  By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.
> 
> Visit:
> Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
> Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
> The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 34.
> Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.
> 
> Visit:
> Is the unborn human less than human? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Cloning: Redefining When Life Begins Exposing Flaws in the Preembryo-Embryo Distinction (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 35.
> God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an intricate unity in the womb.
> 
> Visit:
> Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 36.
> DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
> 
> Visit:
> Curiously Wrought (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 37.
> God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)
> 
> Visit:
> One Blood: The biblical answer to racism (CristianAnswers.net)
> Where Did The Races Come From? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 38.
> Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.
> 
> Visit:
> Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)
> On the Origin of Language (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 39.
> Origin of the different races explained (Genesis 11). As Noahs descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.
> 
> Visit:
> Where did the human races come from? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Evolution and Modern Racism (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 40.
> God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along  there are healing compounds found in plants.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 41.
> Healthy dietary laws (Leviticus 11:9-12). Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales. We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 42.
> The Bible warns against eating birds of prey (Leviticus 11:13-19). Scientists now recognize that those birds which eat carrion (putrefying flesh), often spread disease.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 43.
> Avoid swine (Deuteronomy 14:8). Not so long ago, science learned that eating undercooked pork causes an infection of parasites called trichinosis. Now consider this: the Bible forbid the eating of swine more than 3,000 years before we learned how to cook pork safely.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. (NCBI)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 44.
> Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, Gods Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as Mother and naturalism is enshrined.
> 
> Visit:
> Earth Day, Environmentalism, and the Bible (ICR)
> The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
> The Hyper-Environmentalists (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 45.
> Black holes and dark matter anticipated (Matthew 25:30; Jude 1:13; Isaiah 50:3). Cosmologists now speculate that over 98% of the known universe is comprised of dark matter, with dark energy and black holes. A black holes gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls outer darkness or the blackness of darkness forever.
> 
> Visit:
> The Outer Darkness (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 46.
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God  resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is grow(ing) old like a garment (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ChrisitanAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 47.
> Cains wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry  therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.
> 
> Visit:
> Where did Cain get his wife? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Cain's Wife: It Really Does Matter! (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 48.
> Incest laws established (Leviticus 18:6). To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common. Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice. The reason is simple  the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses day the genetic errors had swelled. Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed.
> 
> Visit:
> The Blind Gunman (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 49.
> Genetic mixing of different seeds forbidden (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9). The Bible warns against mixing seeds  as this will result in an inferior or dangerous crop. There is now growing evidence that unnatural, genetically engineered crops may be harmful.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 50.
> Hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Jeremiah 10:13; Amos 9:6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man (Job 36:27-28). The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 51.
> The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity  the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit  just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 52.
> Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!
> 
> Visit:
> Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day (Apologetics Press)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 53.
> God has given us just the right amount of water to sustain life (Isaiah 40:12). We now recognize that if there was significantly more or less water, the earth would not support life as we know it.
> 
> Visit:
> The Anthropic Principle: Is the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life? (ChristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 54.
> The earth was designed for biological life (Isaiah 45:18). Scientists have discovered that the most fundamental characteristics of our earth and cosmos are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist. This is called the Anthropic Principle and it agrees with the Bible which states that God formed the earth to be inhabited.
> 
> Visit:
> The Earth: Unique in All the Universe (ICR)
> Design in Nature: The Anthropic Principle (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 55.
> The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Eisntein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago  the universe is expanding!
> 
> Visit:
> The Battle for the Cosmic Center (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 56.
> Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, Gods life, created all life.
> 
> Visit:
> Chemical Evolution: Spontaneous generation; Stanley Miller Experiment (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Evolution is Biologically Impossible (ICR)
> The Myth Of Chemical Evolution (ICR)
> Virgil's Aeneid, by Chance Alone? (ICR)
> The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 57.
> Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).
> 
> Visit:
> How did bad things come about? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Extinction (ICR)
> Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 58.
> Light travels in a path (Job 38:19). Light is said to have a way [Hebrew: derek, literally a traveled path or road]. Until the 17th century it was believed that light was transmitted instantaneously. We now know that light is a form of energy that travels at ~186,000 miles per second in a straight line. Indeed, there is a way of light.
> 
> Visit:
> Light travels in a path was foretold in the Bible hundreds of years before scientists discovered it (creationists.org)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 59.
> Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established a weight for the wind. In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 60.
> Jet stream anticipated (Ecclesiastes 1:6). At a time when it was thought that winds blew straight, the Bible declares The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit. King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago. Now consider this: it was not until World War II that airmen discovered the jet stream circuit.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 61.
> Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 62.
> Each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the advent of the telescope, the Bible declared what only God and the angels knew  each star varies in size and intensity!
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 63.
> The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing  electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send lightnings which indeed speak when they arrive.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 64.
> Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, A merry heart does good, like medicine. For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.
> 
> Visit:
> Benefits of Laughter (Personal-Development.com)
> Humor and Laughter: Health Benefits and Online Sources (helpguide.org)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 65.
> Intense sorrow or stress is harmful to your health (Proverbs 18:14; Mark 14:34). Researchers have studied individuals with no prior medical problems who showed symptoms of stress cardiomyopathy including chest pain, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, and even heart failure  following a stressful incident.
> 
> Visit:
> The Physical Dangers of Stress (Fitness Article)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 66.
> Microorganisms anticipated (Exodus 22:31). The Bible warns Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the LORD (Leviticus 22:8). Today we understand that a decaying carcass is full of disease causing germs.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 67.
> The Bible cautions against consuming fat (Leviticus 7:23). Only in recent decades has the medical community determined that fat clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 68.
> Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:12). A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood. However, the Creator repeatedly told His people to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:20; 21:25). Of course, modern science reveals that consuming raw blood is dangerous.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 69.
> The Bible describes dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24). In 1842, Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosaur, meaning terrible lizard, after discovering large reptilian-like fossils. However in the Book of Job, written 4,000 years earlier, God describes the behemoth as: the largest of all land creatures, plant eating (herbivore), with great strength in its hips and legs, powerful stomach muscles, a tail like a cedar tree, and bones like bars of iron. This is an accurate description of sauropods  the largest known dinosaur family.
> 
> Visit:
> The Great Dinosaur Mystery (CristianAnswers.net)
> How Do The Dinosaurs Fit In? (ICR)
> Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood? (ICR)
> Dragons in Paradise (ICR)
> Leviathan (ICR)
> Dinosaurs And The Bible (ICR)
> Dinosaur Mania and Our Children (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 70.
> Pleasure explained (Psalm 36:8). Evolution cannot explain pleasure  even the most complex chemicals do not experience bliss. However, the Bible states that God gives us richly all things to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17). Pleasure is a gift from God.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 71.
> Life is more than matter and energy (Genesis 2:7; Job 12:7-10). We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Even though its body may be perfectly intact, and air and energy are reintroduced to spark life, the body remains dead. Scripture agrees with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. Life cannot be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone  as evolutionists would lead us to believe.
> 
> Visit:
> Breath And Spirit (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 72.
> Origin of music explained (Psalm 40:3). Evolution cannot explain the origin of music. The Bible says that every good gift comes from God (James 1:17). This includes joyful melodies. God has given both man and angels the gift of music-making (Genesis 4:21; Ezekiel 28:13). Singing is intended to express rejoicing in and worship of the Lord (Job 38:7; Psalm 95:1-2).
> 
> Visit:
> Music or Evolution
> Musicevidence of creation (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 73.
> Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with Gods Word.
> 
> Visit:
> Ancient civilizations and modern man (Answers In Genesis)
> The mystery of ancient man (Answers In Genesis)
> Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 74.
> Cavemen described in the Bible (Job 30:1-8). Four thousand years ago, Job describes certain vile men who were driven from society to forage among the bushes for survival and who live in the clefts of the valleys, (and) in caves of the earth and the rocks. Therefore cavemen were simply outcasts and vagabounds  not our primitive ancestors as evolutionists speculate.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 75.
> Environmental devastation of the planet foreseen (Revelation 11:18). Though evolution imagines that things should be getting better, the Bible foresaw what is really occurring today: pollution, destruction and corrupt dominion.
> 
> Visit:
> Creation and the Environment (ICR)
> The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 76.
> The seed of a plant contains its life (Genesis 1:11; 29). As stated in the Book of Genesis, we now recognize that inside the humble seed is life itself. Within the seed is a tiny factory of amazing complexity. No scientist can build a synthetic seed and no seed is simple!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 77.
> A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells give their lives to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 78.
> The order of creation agrees with true science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v. 6), then soil (v. 9), and then He created plant life (v. 11).
> 
> Visit:
> What is the order of events in the biblical Creation? (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 79.
> God created lights in the heavens for signs and seasons, and for days and years (Genesis 1:14-16). We now know that a year is the time required for the earth to travel once around the sun. The seasons are caused by the changing position of the earth in relation to the sun. The moons phases follow one another in clock-like precision  constituting the lunar calendar Evolution teaches that the cosmos evolved by random chance, yet the Bible agrees with the observable evidence.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 80.
> The Bible speaks of heaven and the highest heavens (Deuteronomy 10:14). Long before the Hubble Space Telescope, Scripture spoke of the heaven of heavens and the third heaven (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Corinthians 12:2). We now know that the heavens consist of our immediate atmosphere and the vast reaches of outer space  as well as Gods wonderful abode.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 81.
> Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him  pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 82.
> Man is fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). We are only beginning to probe the complexity of the DNA molecule, the eye, the brain, and all the intricate components of life. No human invention compares to the marvelous wonders of Gods creation.
> 
> Visit:
> Mankind- The Pinnacle of God's Creation (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 83.
> Beauty understood (Genesis 1:31; 2:9; Job 40:10; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Matthew 6:28-30). Beauty surrounds us: radiant sunsets, majestic mountains, brightly colored flowers, glowing gems, soothing foliage, brilliantly adorned birds, etc. Beauty is a mystery to the evolutionist. However, Scripture reveals that God creates beautiful things for our benefit and His glory.
> 
> Visit:
> Beauty (oldpaths.com)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 84.
> Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Physicists do not understand what binds the atoms nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that all things consist  or are held together by the Creator  Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 85.
> Atomic fission anticipated (2 Peter 3:10-12). Scripture states that the elements will melt with fervent heat when the earth and the heavens are dissolved by fire. Today we understand that if the elements of the atom are loosed, there would be an enormous release of heat and energy (radiation).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 86.
> The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 87.
> Safe drinking water (Leviticus 11:33-36). God forbade drinking from vessels or stagnant water that had been contaminated by coming into contact with a dead animal. It is only in the last 100 years that medical science has learned that contaminated water can cause typhoid and cholera.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 88.
> Pest control (Leviticus 25:1-24). Farmers are plagued today with insects. Yet God gave a sure-fire remedy to control pests centuries ago. Moses commanded Israel to set aside one year in seven when no crops were raised. Insects winter in the stalks of last years harvest, hatch in the spring, and are perpetuated by laying eggs in the new crop. If the crop is denied one year in seven, the pests have nothing to subsist upon, and are thereby controlled.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 89.
> Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if Gods commands were followed.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 90.
> Animal instincts understood (Job 39; Proverbs 30:24-28; Jeremiah 8:7). A newly hatched spider weaves an intricate web without being taught. A recently emerged butterfly somehow knows to navigate a 2,500-mile migration route without a guide. God explains that He has endowed each creature with specific knowledge. Scripture, not evolution, explains animal instincts.
> 
> Visit:
> Instinct, Wise Behavior, Unlearned Knowledge And Abilities (oldpaths.com)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 91.
> Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in Gods image.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 92.
> Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science). True science agrees with the Creators Word.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 93.
> Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews  which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.
> 
> Visit:
> DNA Evidence And The Book Of Mormon (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 94.
> Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 95.
> Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, Gods Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.
> 
> Visit:
> Is Man a "Higher" Animal? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 96.
> The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donors character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 97.
> The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted  introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 98.
> Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die  The soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of Gods Law. To see if you will die, please review Gods Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then youre an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creators name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy  and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 99.
> Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death  which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 100.
> Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person  free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 101.
> The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away (Revelation 21:4).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The Bible is inspired by the Creator. Therefore it is no surprise that lifes ultimate questions are answered within its pages. The Bible reveals the purpose of our existence. Scripture alone explains where our conscience came from. And no other source explains the root cause of death. Seeing that all die, wouldnt it be wise to search for the remedy in the only book that proves it was inspired by God? The Bible offers the only remedy for sin, suffering, and death. Gods Word presents the only perfect, sinless Savior  one who died for our sins and rose from the dead. Jesus is the Creator (John 1; Colossians 1). He said I and My Father are one (John 10:30). He said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:6). And He promises His followers: I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish (John 10:28). Your eternal destiny will be determined by your choice. There is only one provision for sin. Jesus died in your place. Only by faith in Christs finished work will you be saved. This is Gods free gift offered to all. Please do not let pride, religion, opinions, or love for sin separate you from God. No sin is worth an eternity in hell. Please heed Jesus words  Repent, and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15). If you do, you will live in heaven with our awesome Creator forever!
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll politely ask again, can you please provide a science based website that agrees with those assessments?  No Bible blogs please.
> 
> 
> Thanks
Click to expand...


Look in a post I took a few of them that science has confirmed you prove otherwise.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible is riffled with lies  you mean like this mind these things were written long before the science of man knew any of these things.
> 
> 101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge
> 
> Psalm 19:1-3  The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.
> Jeremiah 10:12  He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.
> 
> Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
> 
> Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts. That book is the Bible.
> This booklet presents 101 scientific facts found in the Scriptures. Many of these facts were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece to the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator. How does this affect you? The last several pages provide the answer  you need to read them carefully.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Science In An Ancient (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 2.
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.
> 
> Visit:
> All About Atoms (Jefferson Lab)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 3.
> The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.
> 
> Visit:
> The Arks perfect dimensions (Answers In Genesis)
> Safety investigation of Noahs Ark in a seaway (Answers In Genesis)
> Noahs Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 4.
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.
> 
> Visit:
> -Why do I need to wash my hands?
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 5.
> Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6.
> Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!
> 
> Visit:
> Springs of the Ocean (ICR)
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 7.
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
> 
> Visit:
> Numerical Simulations Of Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 8.
> Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creators presence  in Your presence is fullness of joy (Psalm 16:11).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 9.
> Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.
> 
> Visit:
> Life in the Blood (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 10.
> The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe  namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.
> 
> Visit:
> Things You May Not Know About Evolution (ICR)
> Creation - Evolution (ICR)
> Evolution and the Bible (ICR)
> The Fossil Record: Intermediate Links (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Archaeopteryx A Feathered Reptile? (ChristianAnswers.net)
> The Ape-Man: Missing Link (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Biological Evolution Darwin's Finches (ChristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 11.
> Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwins theory of the survival of the fittest.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 12.
> Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.
> 
> Visit:
> What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg? (ICR)
> The Egg/Chicken Conundrum (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 13.
> Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.
> 
> Visit:
> Things that are Made (ICR)
> Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality (ICR)
> Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories (ICR)
> The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 14.
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> Visit:
> The elements of the periodic table sorted by their presence in human body. (Lenntech)
> The Bible is a Textbook of Science (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 15.
> The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 16.
> The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)Then God said, Let there be light (energy). No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 17.
> The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 18.
> The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.
> 
> Visit:
> Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth
> Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 19.
> Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 20.
> Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow in the cloud as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets  which act as a prism  separating white light into its color spectrum.
> 
> Visit:
> What causes a rainbow? (CristianAnswers.net)
> The Rainbow And The Cloud (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 21.
> Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago  God declared this four millennia ago!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 22.
> Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the paths of the seas. In the 19th century Matthew Maury  the father of oceanography  after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maurys data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 23.
> Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body, and that those who commit homosexual sin would receive in themselves the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.
> 
> Visit
> Sex Habits Linked to Early Death, Disability (Fox News)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 24.
> Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 25.
> Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars  thats a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 26.
> The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along  He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 27.
> The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 28.
> Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.
> 
> Visit:
> Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality (ICR)
> Is Creation One of the Traditional Values? (ICR)
> Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism (ICR)
> Would China Benefit from Christianity? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 29.
> The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was Gods judgment on mans wickedness.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 30.
> Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.
> 
> Visit:
> The Origin of Coal (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 31.
> The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent  just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 32.
> Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the fountains of the great deep were broken up. This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.
> 
> Visit:
> Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
> Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 33.
> Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often  By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.
> 
> Visit:
> Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
> Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
> The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 34.
> Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.
> 
> Visit:
> Is the unborn human less than human? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Cloning: Redefining When Life Begins Exposing Flaws in the Preembryo-Embryo Distinction (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 35.
> God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an intricate unity in the womb.
> 
> Visit:
> Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 36.
> DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
> 
> Visit:
> Curiously Wrought (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 37.
> God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)
> 
> Visit:
> One Blood: The biblical answer to racism (CristianAnswers.net)
> Where Did The Races Come From? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 38.
> Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.
> 
> Visit:
> Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)
> On the Origin of Language (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 39.
> Origin of the different races explained (Genesis 11). As Noahs descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.
> 
> Visit:
> Where did the human races come from? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Evolution and Modern Racism (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 40.
> God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along  there are healing compounds found in plants.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 41.
> Healthy dietary laws (Leviticus 11:9-12). Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales. We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 42.
> The Bible warns against eating birds of prey (Leviticus 11:13-19). Scientists now recognize that those birds which eat carrion (putrefying flesh), often spread disease.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 43.
> Avoid swine (Deuteronomy 14:8). Not so long ago, science learned that eating undercooked pork causes an infection of parasites called trichinosis. Now consider this: the Bible forbid the eating of swine more than 3,000 years before we learned how to cook pork safely.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. (NCBI)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 44.
> Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, Gods Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as Mother and naturalism is enshrined.
> 
> Visit:
> Earth Day, Environmentalism, and the Bible (ICR)
> The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
> The Hyper-Environmentalists (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 45.
> Black holes and dark matter anticipated (Matthew 25:30; Jude 1:13; Isaiah 50:3). Cosmologists now speculate that over 98% of the known universe is comprised of dark matter, with dark energy and black holes. A black holes gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls outer darkness or the blackness of darkness forever.
> 
> Visit:
> The Outer Darkness (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 46.
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God  resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is grow(ing) old like a garment (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ChrisitanAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 47.
> Cains wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry  therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.
> 
> Visit:
> Where did Cain get his wife? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Cain's Wife: It Really Does Matter! (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 48.
> Incest laws established (Leviticus 18:6). To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common. Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice. The reason is simple  the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses day the genetic errors had swelled. Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed.
> 
> Visit:
> The Blind Gunman (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 49.
> Genetic mixing of different seeds forbidden (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9). The Bible warns against mixing seeds  as this will result in an inferior or dangerous crop. There is now growing evidence that unnatural, genetically engineered crops may be harmful.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 50.
> Hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Jeremiah 10:13; Amos 9:6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man (Job 36:27-28). The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 51.
> The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity  the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit  just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 52.
> Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!
> 
> Visit:
> Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day (Apologetics Press)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 53.
> God has given us just the right amount of water to sustain life (Isaiah 40:12). We now recognize that if there was significantly more or less water, the earth would not support life as we know it.
> 
> Visit:
> The Anthropic Principle: Is the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life? (ChristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 54.
> The earth was designed for biological life (Isaiah 45:18). Scientists have discovered that the most fundamental characteristics of our earth and cosmos are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist. This is called the Anthropic Principle and it agrees with the Bible which states that God formed the earth to be inhabited.
> 
> Visit:
> The Earth: Unique in All the Universe (ICR)
> Design in Nature: The Anthropic Principle (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 55.
> The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Eisntein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago  the universe is expanding!
> 
> Visit:
> The Battle for the Cosmic Center (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 56.
> Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, Gods life, created all life.
> 
> Visit:
> Chemical Evolution: Spontaneous generation; Stanley Miller Experiment (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Evolution is Biologically Impossible (ICR)
> The Myth Of Chemical Evolution (ICR)
> Virgil's Aeneid, by Chance Alone? (ICR)
> The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 57.
> Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).
> 
> Visit:
> How did bad things come about? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Extinction (ICR)
> Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 58.
> Light travels in a path (Job 38:19). Light is said to have a way [Hebrew: derek, literally a traveled path or road]. Until the 17th century it was believed that light was transmitted instantaneously. We now know that light is a form of energy that travels at ~186,000 miles per second in a straight line. Indeed, there is a way of light.
> 
> Visit:
> Light travels in a path was foretold in the Bible hundreds of years before scientists discovered it (creationists.org)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 59.
> Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established a weight for the wind. In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 60.
> Jet stream anticipated (Ecclesiastes 1:6). At a time when it was thought that winds blew straight, the Bible declares The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit. King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago. Now consider this: it was not until World War II that airmen discovered the jet stream circuit.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 61.
> Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 62.
> Each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the advent of the telescope, the Bible declared what only God and the angels knew  each star varies in size and intensity!
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 63.
> The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing  electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send lightnings which indeed speak when they arrive.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 64.
> Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, A merry heart does good, like medicine. For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.
> 
> Visit:
> Benefits of Laughter (Personal-Development.com)
> Humor and Laughter: Health Benefits and Online Sources (helpguide.org)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 65.
> Intense sorrow or stress is harmful to your health (Proverbs 18:14; Mark 14:34). Researchers have studied individuals with no prior medical problems who showed symptoms of stress cardiomyopathy including chest pain, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, and even heart failure  following a stressful incident.
> 
> Visit:
> The Physical Dangers of Stress (Fitness Article)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 66.
> Microorganisms anticipated (Exodus 22:31). The Bible warns Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the LORD (Leviticus 22:8). Today we understand that a decaying carcass is full of disease causing germs.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 67.
> The Bible cautions against consuming fat (Leviticus 7:23). Only in recent decades has the medical community determined that fat clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 68.
> Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:12). A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood. However, the Creator repeatedly told His people to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:20; 21:25). Of course, modern science reveals that consuming raw blood is dangerous.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 69.
> The Bible describes dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24). In 1842, Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosaur, meaning terrible lizard, after discovering large reptilian-like fossils. However in the Book of Job, written 4,000 years earlier, God describes the behemoth as: the largest of all land creatures, plant eating (herbivore), with great strength in its hips and legs, powerful stomach muscles, a tail like a cedar tree, and bones like bars of iron. This is an accurate description of sauropods  the largest known dinosaur family.
> 
> Visit:
> The Great Dinosaur Mystery (CristianAnswers.net)
> How Do The Dinosaurs Fit In? (ICR)
> Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood? (ICR)
> Dragons in Paradise (ICR)
> Leviathan (ICR)
> Dinosaurs And The Bible (ICR)
> Dinosaur Mania and Our Children (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 70.
> Pleasure explained (Psalm 36:8). Evolution cannot explain pleasure  even the most complex chemicals do not experience bliss. However, the Bible states that God gives us richly all things to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17). Pleasure is a gift from God.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 71.
> Life is more than matter and energy (Genesis 2:7; Job 12:7-10). We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Even though its body may be perfectly intact, and air and energy are reintroduced to spark life, the body remains dead. Scripture agrees with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. Life cannot be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone  as evolutionists would lead us to believe.
> 
> Visit:
> Breath And Spirit (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 72.
> Origin of music explained (Psalm 40:3). Evolution cannot explain the origin of music. The Bible says that every good gift comes from God (James 1:17). This includes joyful melodies. God has given both man and angels the gift of music-making (Genesis 4:21; Ezekiel 28:13). Singing is intended to express rejoicing in and worship of the Lord (Job 38:7; Psalm 95:1-2).
> 
> Visit:
> Music or Evolution
> Musicevidence of creation (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 73.
> Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with Gods Word.
> 
> Visit:
> Ancient civilizations and modern man (Answers In Genesis)
> The mystery of ancient man (Answers In Genesis)
> Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 74.
> Cavemen described in the Bible (Job 30:1-8). Four thousand years ago, Job describes certain vile men who were driven from society to forage among the bushes for survival and who live in the clefts of the valleys, (and) in caves of the earth and the rocks. Therefore cavemen were simply outcasts and vagabounds  not our primitive ancestors as evolutionists speculate.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 75.
> Environmental devastation of the planet foreseen (Revelation 11:18). Though evolution imagines that things should be getting better, the Bible foresaw what is really occurring today: pollution, destruction and corrupt dominion.
> 
> Visit:
> Creation and the Environment (ICR)
> The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 76.
> The seed of a plant contains its life (Genesis 1:11; 29). As stated in the Book of Genesis, we now recognize that inside the humble seed is life itself. Within the seed is a tiny factory of amazing complexity. No scientist can build a synthetic seed and no seed is simple!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 77.
> A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells give their lives to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 78.
> The order of creation agrees with true science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v. 6), then soil (v. 9), and then He created plant life (v. 11).
> 
> Visit:
> What is the order of events in the biblical Creation? (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 79.
> God created lights in the heavens for signs and seasons, and for days and years (Genesis 1:14-16). We now know that a year is the time required for the earth to travel once around the sun. The seasons are caused by the changing position of the earth in relation to the sun. The moons phases follow one another in clock-like precision  constituting the lunar calendar Evolution teaches that the cosmos evolved by random chance, yet the Bible agrees with the observable evidence.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 80.
> The Bible speaks of heaven and the highest heavens (Deuteronomy 10:14). Long before the Hubble Space Telescope, Scripture spoke of the heaven of heavens and the third heaven (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Corinthians 12:2). We now know that the heavens consist of our immediate atmosphere and the vast reaches of outer space  as well as Gods wonderful abode.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 81.
> Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him  pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 82.
> Man is fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). We are only beginning to probe the complexity of the DNA molecule, the eye, the brain, and all the intricate components of life. No human invention compares to the marvelous wonders of Gods creation.
> 
> Visit:
> Mankind- The Pinnacle of God's Creation (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 83.
> Beauty understood (Genesis 1:31; 2:9; Job 40:10; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Matthew 6:28-30). Beauty surrounds us: radiant sunsets, majestic mountains, brightly colored flowers, glowing gems, soothing foliage, brilliantly adorned birds, etc. Beauty is a mystery to the evolutionist. However, Scripture reveals that God creates beautiful things for our benefit and His glory.
> 
> Visit:
> Beauty (oldpaths.com)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 84.
> Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Physicists do not understand what binds the atoms nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that all things consist  or are held together by the Creator  Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 85.
> Atomic fission anticipated (2 Peter 3:10-12). Scripture states that the elements will melt with fervent heat when the earth and the heavens are dissolved by fire. Today we understand that if the elements of the atom are loosed, there would be an enormous release of heat and energy (radiation).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 86.
> The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 87.
> Safe drinking water (Leviticus 11:33-36). God forbade drinking from vessels or stagnant water that had been contaminated by coming into contact with a dead animal. It is only in the last 100 years that medical science has learned that contaminated water can cause typhoid and cholera.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 88.
> Pest control (Leviticus 25:1-24). Farmers are plagued today with insects. Yet God gave a sure-fire remedy to control pests centuries ago. Moses commanded Israel to set aside one year in seven when no crops were raised. Insects winter in the stalks of last years harvest, hatch in the spring, and are perpetuated by laying eggs in the new crop. If the crop is denied one year in seven, the pests have nothing to subsist upon, and are thereby controlled.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 89.
> Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if Gods commands were followed.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 90.
> Animal instincts understood (Job 39; Proverbs 30:24-28; Jeremiah 8:7). A newly hatched spider weaves an intricate web without being taught. A recently emerged butterfly somehow knows to navigate a 2,500-mile migration route without a guide. God explains that He has endowed each creature with specific knowledge. Scripture, not evolution, explains animal instincts.
> 
> Visit:
> Instinct, Wise Behavior, Unlearned Knowledge And Abilities (oldpaths.com)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 91.
> Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in Gods image.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 92.
> Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science). True science agrees with the Creators Word.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 93.
> Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews  which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.
> 
> Visit:
> DNA Evidence And The Book Of Mormon (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 94.
> Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 95.
> Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, Gods Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.
> 
> Visit:
> Is Man a "Higher" Animal? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 96.
> The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donors character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 97.
> The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted  introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 98.
> Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die  The soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of Gods Law. To see if you will die, please review Gods Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then youre an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creators name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy  and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 99.
> Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death  which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 100.
> Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person  free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 101.
> The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away (Revelation 21:4).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The Bible is inspired by the Creator. Therefore it is no surprise that lifes ultimate questions are answered within its pages. The Bible reveals the purpose of our existence. Scripture alone explains where our conscience came from. And no other source explains the root cause of death. Seeing that all die, wouldnt it be wise to search for the remedy in the only book that proves it was inspired by God? The Bible offers the only remedy for sin, suffering, and death. Gods Word presents the only perfect, sinless Savior  one who died for our sins and rose from the dead. Jesus is the Creator (John 1; Colossians 1). He said I and My Father are one (John 10:30). He said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:6). And He promises His followers: I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish (John 10:28). Your eternal destiny will be determined by your choice. There is only one provision for sin. Jesus died in your place. Only by faith in Christs finished work will you be saved. This is Gods free gift offered to all. Please do not let pride, religion, opinions, or love for sin separate you from God. No sin is worth an eternity in hell. Please heed Jesus words  Repent, and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15). If you do, you will live in heaven with our awesome Creator forever!
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll politely ask again, can you please provide a science based website that agrees with those assessments?  No Bible blogs please.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look in a post I took a few of them that science has confirmed you prove otherwise.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to prove wrong what you haven't proven to be right.

If you can't provide a science website that confirms what you're saying about science, please just say so.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I certainly have. And you're helping by validating those claims.
> 
> But you demand that faith is a more valid foundation for your certainty about the reality of things than verifiable evidence and valid logic. Admitting you're intellectually dishonest doesn't mitigate your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> This true of some, true; but not me--at least not in your experience of me. It is true of all of the faithful, surely; of every superstitious retard, absolutely; of you, certainly.
> 
> Your Biblical "truth" is rife with lies that assert the reality of an alternate reality that is validated only by the faith of so-called "Christians."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible is riffled with lies  you mean like this mind these things were written long before the science of man knew any of these things.
> 
> 101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge
> 
> Psalm 19:1-3  The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.
> Jeremiah 10:12  He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.
> 
> Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
> 
> Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts. That book is the Bible.
> This booklet presents 101 scientific facts found in the Scriptures. Many of these facts were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece to the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator. How does this affect you? The last several pages provide the answer  you need to read them carefully.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Science In An Ancient (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 2.
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.
> 
> Visit:
> All About Atoms (Jefferson Lab)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 3.
> The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.
> 
> Visit:
> The Arks perfect dimensions (Answers In Genesis)
> Safety investigation of Noahs Ark in a seaway (Answers In Genesis)
> Noahs Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 4.
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.
> 
> Visit:
> -Why do I need to wash my hands?
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 5.
> Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6.
> Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!
> 
> Visit:
> Springs of the Ocean (ICR)
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 7.
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
> 
> Visit:
> Numerical Simulations Of Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 8.
> Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creators presence  in Your presence is fullness of joy (Psalm 16:11).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 9.
> Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.
> 
> Visit:
> Life in the Blood (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 10.
> The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe  namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.
> 
> Visit:
> Things You May Not Know About Evolution (ICR)
> Creation - Evolution (ICR)
> Evolution and the Bible (ICR)
> The Fossil Record: Intermediate Links (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Archaeopteryx A Feathered Reptile? (ChristianAnswers.net)
> The Ape-Man: Missing Link (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Biological Evolution Darwin's Finches (ChristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 11.
> Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwins theory of the survival of the fittest.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 12.
> Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.
> 
> Visit:
> What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg? (ICR)
> The Egg/Chicken Conundrum (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 13.
> Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.
> 
> Visit:
> Things that are Made (ICR)
> Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality (ICR)
> Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories (ICR)
> The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 14.
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> Visit:
> The elements of the periodic table sorted by their presence in human body. (Lenntech)
> The Bible is a Textbook of Science (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 15.
> The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 16.
> The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)Then God said, Let there be light (energy). No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 17.
> The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 18.
> The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.
> 
> Visit:
> Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth
> Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 19.
> Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 20.
> Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow in the cloud as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets  which act as a prism  separating white light into its color spectrum.
> 
> Visit:
> What causes a rainbow? (CristianAnswers.net)
> The Rainbow And The Cloud (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 21.
> Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago  God declared this four millennia ago!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 22.
> Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the paths of the seas. In the 19th century Matthew Maury  the father of oceanography  after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maurys data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 23.
> Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body, and that those who commit homosexual sin would receive in themselves the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.
> 
> Visit
> Sex Habits Linked to Early Death, Disability (Fox News)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 24.
> Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 25.
> Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars  thats a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 26.
> The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along  He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 27.
> The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 28.
> Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.
> 
> Visit:
> Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality (ICR)
> Is Creation One of the Traditional Values? (ICR)
> Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism (ICR)
> Would China Benefit from Christianity? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 29.
> The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was Gods judgment on mans wickedness.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 30.
> Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.
> 
> Visit:
> The Origin of Coal (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 31.
> The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent  just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 32.
> Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the fountains of the great deep were broken up. This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.
> 
> Visit:
> Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
> Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 33.
> Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often  By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.
> 
> Visit:
> Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
> Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
> The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 34.
> Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.
> 
> Visit:
> Is the unborn human less than human? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Cloning: Redefining When Life Begins Exposing Flaws in the Preembryo-Embryo Distinction (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 35.
> God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an intricate unity in the womb.
> 
> Visit:
> Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 36.
> DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
> 
> Visit:
> Curiously Wrought (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 37.
> God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)
> 
> Visit:
> One Blood: The biblical answer to racism (CristianAnswers.net)
> Where Did The Races Come From? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 38.
> Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.
> 
> Visit:
> Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)
> On the Origin of Language (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 39.
> Origin of the different races explained (Genesis 11). As Noahs descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.
> 
> Visit:
> Where did the human races come from? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Evolution and Modern Racism (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 40.
> God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along  there are healing compounds found in plants.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 41.
> Healthy dietary laws (Leviticus 11:9-12). Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales. We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 42.
> The Bible warns against eating birds of prey (Leviticus 11:13-19). Scientists now recognize that those birds which eat carrion (putrefying flesh), often spread disease.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 43.
> Avoid swine (Deuteronomy 14:8). Not so long ago, science learned that eating undercooked pork causes an infection of parasites called trichinosis. Now consider this: the Bible forbid the eating of swine more than 3,000 years before we learned how to cook pork safely.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. (NCBI)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 44.
> Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, Gods Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as Mother and naturalism is enshrined.
> 
> Visit:
> Earth Day, Environmentalism, and the Bible (ICR)
> The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
> The Hyper-Environmentalists (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 45.
> Black holes and dark matter anticipated (Matthew 25:30; Jude 1:13; Isaiah 50:3). Cosmologists now speculate that over 98% of the known universe is comprised of dark matter, with dark energy and black holes. A black holes gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls outer darkness or the blackness of darkness forever.
> 
> Visit:
> The Outer Darkness (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 46.
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God  resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is grow(ing) old like a garment (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ChrisitanAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 47.
> Cains wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry  therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.
> 
> Visit:
> Where did Cain get his wife? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Cain's Wife: It Really Does Matter! (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 48.
> Incest laws established (Leviticus 18:6). To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common. Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice. The reason is simple  the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses day the genetic errors had swelled. Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed.
> 
> Visit:
> The Blind Gunman (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 49.
> Genetic mixing of different seeds forbidden (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9). The Bible warns against mixing seeds  as this will result in an inferior or dangerous crop. There is now growing evidence that unnatural, genetically engineered crops may be harmful.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 50.
> Hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Jeremiah 10:13; Amos 9:6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man (Job 36:27-28). The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 51.
> The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity  the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit  just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 52.
> Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!
> 
> Visit:
> Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day (Apologetics Press)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 53.
> God has given us just the right amount of water to sustain life (Isaiah 40:12). We now recognize that if there was significantly more or less water, the earth would not support life as we know it.
> 
> Visit:
> The Anthropic Principle: Is the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life? (ChristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 54.
> The earth was designed for biological life (Isaiah 45:18). Scientists have discovered that the most fundamental characteristics of our earth and cosmos are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist. This is called the Anthropic Principle and it agrees with the Bible which states that God formed the earth to be inhabited.
> 
> Visit:
> The Earth: Unique in All the Universe (ICR)
> Design in Nature: The Anthropic Principle (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 55.
> The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Eisntein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago  the universe is expanding!
> 
> Visit:
> The Battle for the Cosmic Center (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 56.
> Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, Gods life, created all life.
> 
> Visit:
> Chemical Evolution: Spontaneous generation; Stanley Miller Experiment (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Evolution is Biologically Impossible (ICR)
> The Myth Of Chemical Evolution (ICR)
> Virgil's Aeneid, by Chance Alone? (ICR)
> The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 57.
> Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).
> 
> Visit:
> How did bad things come about? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Extinction (ICR)
> Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 58.
> Light travels in a path (Job 38:19). Light is said to have a way [Hebrew: derek, literally a traveled path or road]. Until the 17th century it was believed that light was transmitted instantaneously. We now know that light is a form of energy that travels at ~186,000 miles per second in a straight line. Indeed, there is a way of light.
> 
> Visit:
> Light travels in a path was foretold in the Bible hundreds of years before scientists discovered it (creationists.org)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 59.
> Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established a weight for the wind. In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 60.
> Jet stream anticipated (Ecclesiastes 1:6). At a time when it was thought that winds blew straight, the Bible declares The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit. King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago. Now consider this: it was not until World War II that airmen discovered the jet stream circuit.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 61.
> Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 62.
> Each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the advent of the telescope, the Bible declared what only God and the angels knew  each star varies in size and intensity!
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 63.
> The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing  electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send lightnings which indeed speak when they arrive.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 64.
> Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, A merry heart does good, like medicine. For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.
> 
> Visit:
> Benefits of Laughter (Personal-Development.com)
> Humor and Laughter: Health Benefits and Online Sources (helpguide.org)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 65.
> Intense sorrow or stress is harmful to your health (Proverbs 18:14; Mark 14:34). Researchers have studied individuals with no prior medical problems who showed symptoms of stress cardiomyopathy including chest pain, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, and even heart failure  following a stressful incident.
> 
> Visit:
> The Physical Dangers of Stress (Fitness Article)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 66.
> Microorganisms anticipated (Exodus 22:31). The Bible warns Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the LORD (Leviticus 22:8). Today we understand that a decaying carcass is full of disease causing germs.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 67.
> The Bible cautions against consuming fat (Leviticus 7:23). Only in recent decades has the medical community determined that fat clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 68.
> Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:12). A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood. However, the Creator repeatedly told His people to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:20; 21:25). Of course, modern science reveals that consuming raw blood is dangerous.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 69.
> The Bible describes dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24). In 1842, Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosaur, meaning terrible lizard, after discovering large reptilian-like fossils. However in the Book of Job, written 4,000 years earlier, God describes the behemoth as: the largest of all land creatures, plant eating (herbivore), with great strength in its hips and legs, powerful stomach muscles, a tail like a cedar tree, and bones like bars of iron. This is an accurate description of sauropods  the largest known dinosaur family.
> 
> Visit:
> The Great Dinosaur Mystery (CristianAnswers.net)
> How Do The Dinosaurs Fit In? (ICR)
> Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood? (ICR)
> Dragons in Paradise (ICR)
> Leviathan (ICR)
> Dinosaurs And The Bible (ICR)
> Dinosaur Mania and Our Children (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 70.
> Pleasure explained (Psalm 36:8). Evolution cannot explain pleasure  even the most complex chemicals do not experience bliss. However, the Bible states that God gives us richly all things to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17). Pleasure is a gift from God.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 71.
> Life is more than matter and energy (Genesis 2:7; Job 12:7-10). We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Even though its body may be perfectly intact, and air and energy are reintroduced to spark life, the body remains dead. Scripture agrees with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. Life cannot be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone  as evolutionists would lead us to believe.
> 
> Visit:
> Breath And Spirit (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 72.
> Origin of music explained (Psalm 40:3). Evolution cannot explain the origin of music. The Bible says that every good gift comes from God (James 1:17). This includes joyful melodies. God has given both man and angels the gift of music-making (Genesis 4:21; Ezekiel 28:13). Singing is intended to express rejoicing in and worship of the Lord (Job 38:7; Psalm 95:1-2).
> 
> Visit:
> Music or Evolution
> Musicevidence of creation (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 73.
> Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with Gods Word.
> 
> Visit:
> Ancient civilizations and modern man (Answers In Genesis)
> The mystery of ancient man (Answers In Genesis)
> Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 74.
> Cavemen described in the Bible (Job 30:1-8). Four thousand years ago, Job describes certain vile men who were driven from society to forage among the bushes for survival and who live in the clefts of the valleys, (and) in caves of the earth and the rocks. Therefore cavemen were simply outcasts and vagabounds  not our primitive ancestors as evolutionists speculate.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 75.
> Environmental devastation of the planet foreseen (Revelation 11:18). Though evolution imagines that things should be getting better, the Bible foresaw what is really occurring today: pollution, destruction and corrupt dominion.
> 
> Visit:
> Creation and the Environment (ICR)
> The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 76.
> The seed of a plant contains its life (Genesis 1:11; 29). As stated in the Book of Genesis, we now recognize that inside the humble seed is life itself. Within the seed is a tiny factory of amazing complexity. No scientist can build a synthetic seed and no seed is simple!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 77.
> A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells give their lives to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 78.
> The order of creation agrees with true science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v. 6), then soil (v. 9), and then He created plant life (v. 11).
> 
> Visit:
> What is the order of events in the biblical Creation? (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 79.
> God created lights in the heavens for signs and seasons, and for days and years (Genesis 1:14-16). We now know that a year is the time required for the earth to travel once around the sun. The seasons are caused by the changing position of the earth in relation to the sun. The moons phases follow one another in clock-like precision  constituting the lunar calendar Evolution teaches that the cosmos evolved by random chance, yet the Bible agrees with the observable evidence.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 80.
> The Bible speaks of heaven and the highest heavens (Deuteronomy 10:14). Long before the Hubble Space Telescope, Scripture spoke of the heaven of heavens and the third heaven (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Corinthians 12:2). We now know that the heavens consist of our immediate atmosphere and the vast reaches of outer space  as well as Gods wonderful abode.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 81.
> Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him  pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 82.
> Man is fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). We are only beginning to probe the complexity of the DNA molecule, the eye, the brain, and all the intricate components of life. No human invention compares to the marvelous wonders of Gods creation.
> 
> Visit:
> Mankind- The Pinnacle of God's Creation (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 83.
> Beauty understood (Genesis 1:31; 2:9; Job 40:10; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Matthew 6:28-30). Beauty surrounds us: radiant sunsets, majestic mountains, brightly colored flowers, glowing gems, soothing foliage, brilliantly adorned birds, etc. Beauty is a mystery to the evolutionist. However, Scripture reveals that God creates beautiful things for our benefit and His glory.
> 
> Visit:
> Beauty (oldpaths.com)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 84.
> Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Physicists do not understand what binds the atoms nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that all things consist  or are held together by the Creator  Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 85.
> Atomic fission anticipated (2 Peter 3:10-12). Scripture states that the elements will melt with fervent heat when the earth and the heavens are dissolved by fire. Today we understand that if the elements of the atom are loosed, there would be an enormous release of heat and energy (radiation).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 86.
> The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 87.
> Safe drinking water (Leviticus 11:33-36). God forbade drinking from vessels or stagnant water that had been contaminated by coming into contact with a dead animal. It is only in the last 100 years that medical science has learned that contaminated water can cause typhoid and cholera.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 88.
> Pest control (Leviticus 25:1-24). Farmers are plagued today with insects. Yet God gave a sure-fire remedy to control pests centuries ago. Moses commanded Israel to set aside one year in seven when no crops were raised. Insects winter in the stalks of last years harvest, hatch in the spring, and are perpetuated by laying eggs in the new crop. If the crop is denied one year in seven, the pests have nothing to subsist upon, and are thereby controlled.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 89.
> Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if Gods commands were followed.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 90.
> Animal instincts understood (Job 39; Proverbs 30:24-28; Jeremiah 8:7). A newly hatched spider weaves an intricate web without being taught. A recently emerged butterfly somehow knows to navigate a 2,500-mile migration route without a guide. God explains that He has endowed each creature with specific knowledge. Scripture, not evolution, explains animal instincts.
> 
> Visit:
> Instinct, Wise Behavior, Unlearned Knowledge And Abilities (oldpaths.com)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 91.
> Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in Gods image.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 92.
> Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science). True science agrees with the Creators Word.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 93.
> Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews  which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.
> 
> Visit:
> DNA Evidence And The Book Of Mormon (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 94.
> Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 95.
> Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, Gods Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.
> 
> Visit:
> Is Man a "Higher" Animal? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 96.
> The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donors character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 97.
> The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted  introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 98.
> Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die  The soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of Gods Law. To see if you will die, please review Gods Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then youre an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creators name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy  and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 99.
> Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death  which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 100.
> Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person  free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 101.
> The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away (Revelation 21:4).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The Bible is inspired by the Creator. Therefore it is no surprise that lifes ultimate questions are answered within its pages. The Bible reveals the purpose of our existence. Scripture alone explains where our conscience came from. And no other source explains the root cause of death. Seeing that all die, wouldnt it be wise to search for the remedy in the only book that proves it was inspired by God? The Bible offers the only remedy for sin, suffering, and death. Gods Word presents the only perfect, sinless Savior  one who died for our sins and rose from the dead. Jesus is the Creator (John 1; Colossians 1). He said I and My Father are one (John 10:30). He said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:6). And He promises His followers: I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish (John 10:28). Your eternal destiny will be determined by your choice. There is only one provision for sin. Jesus died in your place. Only by faith in Christs finished work will you be saved. This is Gods free gift offered to all. Please do not let pride, religion, opinions, or love for sin separate you from God. No sin is worth an eternity in hell. Please heed Jesus words  Repent, and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15). If you do, you will live in heaven with our awesome Creator forever!
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll politely ask again, can you please provide a science based website that agrees with those assessments?  No Bible blogs please.
> 
> 
> Thanks
Click to expand...


Here are some of the things that have been confirmed through science do you deny these facts ?

I gave you 101 things from the bible thats proven by empircal evidence.

Here are a few ,remember the bible was written long before science new these things.


The earth free-floats in space Job 26:7, affected only by gravity.

Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes Hebrews 11:3. 

When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water Leviticus 15:13. 

Oceans contain springs Job 38:16. 

There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor Jonah 2:5-6

Last but not least.

Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground Genesis 2:7; 3:19. Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements all of which are found in the earth.

These are not lucky guesses,these writers were inspired by a superior being to any scientist.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible is riffled with lies  you mean like this mind these things were written long before the science of man knew any of these things.
> 
> 101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge
> 
> Psalm 19:1-3  The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.
> Jeremiah 10:12  He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.
> 
> Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
> 
> Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts. That book is the Bible.
> This booklet presents 101 scientific facts found in the Scriptures. Many of these facts were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece to the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator. How does this affect you? The last several pages provide the answer  you need to read them carefully.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Science In An Ancient (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 2.
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.
> 
> Visit:
> All About Atoms (Jefferson Lab)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 3.
> The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.
> 
> Visit:
> The Arks perfect dimensions (Answers In Genesis)
> Safety investigation of Noahs Ark in a seaway (Answers In Genesis)
> Noahs Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 4.
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.
> 
> Visit:
> -Why do I need to wash my hands?
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 5.
> Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6.
> Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!
> 
> Visit:
> Springs of the Ocean (ICR)
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 7.
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
> 
> Visit:
> Numerical Simulations Of Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 8.
> Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creators presence  in Your presence is fullness of joy (Psalm 16:11).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 9.
> Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.
> 
> Visit:
> Life in the Blood (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 10.
> The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe  namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.
> 
> Visit:
> Things You May Not Know About Evolution (ICR)
> Creation - Evolution (ICR)
> Evolution and the Bible (ICR)
> The Fossil Record: Intermediate Links (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Archaeopteryx A Feathered Reptile? (ChristianAnswers.net)
> The Ape-Man: Missing Link (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Biological Evolution Darwin's Finches (ChristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 11.
> Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwins theory of the survival of the fittest.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 12.
> Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.
> 
> Visit:
> What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg? (ICR)
> The Egg/Chicken Conundrum (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 13.
> Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.
> 
> Visit:
> Things that are Made (ICR)
> Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality (ICR)
> Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories (ICR)
> The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 14.
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> Visit:
> The elements of the periodic table sorted by their presence in human body. (Lenntech)
> The Bible is a Textbook of Science (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 15.
> The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 16.
> The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)Then God said, Let there be light (energy). No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 17.
> The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 18.
> The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.
> 
> Visit:
> Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth
> Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 19.
> Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 20.
> Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow in the cloud as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets  which act as a prism  separating white light into its color spectrum.
> 
> Visit:
> What causes a rainbow? (CristianAnswers.net)
> The Rainbow And The Cloud (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 21.
> Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago  God declared this four millennia ago!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 22.
> Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the paths of the seas. In the 19th century Matthew Maury  the father of oceanography  after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maurys data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 23.
> Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body, and that those who commit homosexual sin would receive in themselves the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.
> 
> Visit
> Sex Habits Linked to Early Death, Disability (Fox News)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 24.
> Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 25.
> Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars  thats a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 26.
> The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along  He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 27.
> The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 28.
> Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.
> 
> Visit:
> Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality (ICR)
> Is Creation One of the Traditional Values? (ICR)
> Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism (ICR)
> Would China Benefit from Christianity? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 29.
> The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was Gods judgment on mans wickedness.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 30.
> Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.
> 
> Visit:
> The Origin of Coal (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 31.
> The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent  just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 32.
> Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the fountains of the great deep were broken up. This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.
> 
> Visit:
> Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
> Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 33.
> Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often  By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.
> 
> Visit:
> Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
> Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
> The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 34.
> Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.
> 
> Visit:
> Is the unborn human less than human? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Cloning: Redefining When Life Begins Exposing Flaws in the Preembryo-Embryo Distinction (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 35.
> God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an intricate unity in the womb.
> 
> Visit:
> Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 36.
> DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
> 
> Visit:
> Curiously Wrought (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 37.
> God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)
> 
> Visit:
> One Blood: The biblical answer to racism (CristianAnswers.net)
> Where Did The Races Come From? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 38.
> Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.
> 
> Visit:
> Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)
> On the Origin of Language (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 39.
> Origin of the different races explained (Genesis 11). As Noahs descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.
> 
> Visit:
> Where did the human races come from? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Evolution and Modern Racism (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 40.
> God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along  there are healing compounds found in plants.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 41.
> Healthy dietary laws (Leviticus 11:9-12). Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales. We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 42.
> The Bible warns against eating birds of prey (Leviticus 11:13-19). Scientists now recognize that those birds which eat carrion (putrefying flesh), often spread disease.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 43.
> Avoid swine (Deuteronomy 14:8). Not so long ago, science learned that eating undercooked pork causes an infection of parasites called trichinosis. Now consider this: the Bible forbid the eating of swine more than 3,000 years before we learned how to cook pork safely.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. (NCBI)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 44.
> Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, Gods Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as Mother and naturalism is enshrined.
> 
> Visit:
> Earth Day, Environmentalism, and the Bible (ICR)
> The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
> The Hyper-Environmentalists (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 45.
> Black holes and dark matter anticipated (Matthew 25:30; Jude 1:13; Isaiah 50:3). Cosmologists now speculate that over 98% of the known universe is comprised of dark matter, with dark energy and black holes. A black holes gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls outer darkness or the blackness of darkness forever.
> 
> Visit:
> The Outer Darkness (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 46.
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God  resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is grow(ing) old like a garment (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ChrisitanAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 47.
> Cains wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry  therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.
> 
> Visit:
> Where did Cain get his wife? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Cain's Wife: It Really Does Matter! (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 48.
> Incest laws established (Leviticus 18:6). To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common. Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice. The reason is simple  the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses day the genetic errors had swelled. Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed.
> 
> Visit:
> The Blind Gunman (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 49.
> Genetic mixing of different seeds forbidden (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9). The Bible warns against mixing seeds  as this will result in an inferior or dangerous crop. There is now growing evidence that unnatural, genetically engineered crops may be harmful.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 50.
> Hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Jeremiah 10:13; Amos 9:6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man (Job 36:27-28). The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 51.
> The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity  the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit  just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 52.
> Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!
> 
> Visit:
> Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day (Apologetics Press)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 53.
> God has given us just the right amount of water to sustain life (Isaiah 40:12). We now recognize that if there was significantly more or less water, the earth would not support life as we know it.
> 
> Visit:
> The Anthropic Principle: Is the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life? (ChristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 54.
> The earth was designed for biological life (Isaiah 45:18). Scientists have discovered that the most fundamental characteristics of our earth and cosmos are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist. This is called the Anthropic Principle and it agrees with the Bible which states that God formed the earth to be inhabited.
> 
> Visit:
> The Earth: Unique in All the Universe (ICR)
> Design in Nature: The Anthropic Principle (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 55.
> The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Eisntein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago  the universe is expanding!
> 
> Visit:
> The Battle for the Cosmic Center (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 56.
> Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, Gods life, created all life.
> 
> Visit:
> Chemical Evolution: Spontaneous generation; Stanley Miller Experiment (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Evolution is Biologically Impossible (ICR)
> The Myth Of Chemical Evolution (ICR)
> Virgil's Aeneid, by Chance Alone? (ICR)
> The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 57.
> Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).
> 
> Visit:
> How did bad things come about? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Extinction (ICR)
> Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 58.
> Light travels in a path (Job 38:19). Light is said to have a way [Hebrew: derek, literally a traveled path or road]. Until the 17th century it was believed that light was transmitted instantaneously. We now know that light is a form of energy that travels at ~186,000 miles per second in a straight line. Indeed, there is a way of light.
> 
> Visit:
> Light travels in a path was foretold in the Bible hundreds of years before scientists discovered it (creationists.org)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 59.
> Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established a weight for the wind. In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 60.
> Jet stream anticipated (Ecclesiastes 1:6). At a time when it was thought that winds blew straight, the Bible declares The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit. King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago. Now consider this: it was not until World War II that airmen discovered the jet stream circuit.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 61.
> Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 62.
> Each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the advent of the telescope, the Bible declared what only God and the angels knew  each star varies in size and intensity!
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 63.
> The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing  electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send lightnings which indeed speak when they arrive.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 64.
> Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, A merry heart does good, like medicine. For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.
> 
> Visit:
> Benefits of Laughter (Personal-Development.com)
> Humor and Laughter: Health Benefits and Online Sources (helpguide.org)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 65.
> Intense sorrow or stress is harmful to your health (Proverbs 18:14; Mark 14:34). Researchers have studied individuals with no prior medical problems who showed symptoms of stress cardiomyopathy including chest pain, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, and even heart failure  following a stressful incident.
> 
> Visit:
> The Physical Dangers of Stress (Fitness Article)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 66.
> Microorganisms anticipated (Exodus 22:31). The Bible warns Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the LORD (Leviticus 22:8). Today we understand that a decaying carcass is full of disease causing germs.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 67.
> The Bible cautions against consuming fat (Leviticus 7:23). Only in recent decades has the medical community determined that fat clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 68.
> Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:12). A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood. However, the Creator repeatedly told His people to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:20; 21:25). Of course, modern science reveals that consuming raw blood is dangerous.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 69.
> The Bible describes dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24). In 1842, Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosaur, meaning terrible lizard, after discovering large reptilian-like fossils. However in the Book of Job, written 4,000 years earlier, God describes the behemoth as: the largest of all land creatures, plant eating (herbivore), with great strength in its hips and legs, powerful stomach muscles, a tail like a cedar tree, and bones like bars of iron. This is an accurate description of sauropods  the largest known dinosaur family.
> 
> Visit:
> The Great Dinosaur Mystery (CristianAnswers.net)
> How Do The Dinosaurs Fit In? (ICR)
> Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood? (ICR)
> Dragons in Paradise (ICR)
> Leviathan (ICR)
> Dinosaurs And The Bible (ICR)
> Dinosaur Mania and Our Children (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 70.
> Pleasure explained (Psalm 36:8). Evolution cannot explain pleasure  even the most complex chemicals do not experience bliss. However, the Bible states that God gives us richly all things to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17). Pleasure is a gift from God.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 71.
> Life is more than matter and energy (Genesis 2:7; Job 12:7-10). We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Even though its body may be perfectly intact, and air and energy are reintroduced to spark life, the body remains dead. Scripture agrees with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. Life cannot be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone  as evolutionists would lead us to believe.
> 
> Visit:
> Breath And Spirit (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 72.
> Origin of music explained (Psalm 40:3). Evolution cannot explain the origin of music. The Bible says that every good gift comes from God (James 1:17). This includes joyful melodies. God has given both man and angels the gift of music-making (Genesis 4:21; Ezekiel 28:13). Singing is intended to express rejoicing in and worship of the Lord (Job 38:7; Psalm 95:1-2).
> 
> Visit:
> Music or Evolution
> Musicevidence of creation (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 73.
> Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with Gods Word.
> 
> Visit:
> Ancient civilizations and modern man (Answers In Genesis)
> The mystery of ancient man (Answers In Genesis)
> Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 74.
> Cavemen described in the Bible (Job 30:1-8). Four thousand years ago, Job describes certain vile men who were driven from society to forage among the bushes for survival and who live in the clefts of the valleys, (and) in caves of the earth and the rocks. Therefore cavemen were simply outcasts and vagabounds  not our primitive ancestors as evolutionists speculate.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 75.
> Environmental devastation of the planet foreseen (Revelation 11:18). Though evolution imagines that things should be getting better, the Bible foresaw what is really occurring today: pollution, destruction and corrupt dominion.
> 
> Visit:
> Creation and the Environment (ICR)
> The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 76.
> The seed of a plant contains its life (Genesis 1:11; 29). As stated in the Book of Genesis, we now recognize that inside the humble seed is life itself. Within the seed is a tiny factory of amazing complexity. No scientist can build a synthetic seed and no seed is simple!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 77.
> A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells give their lives to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 78.
> The order of creation agrees with true science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v. 6), then soil (v. 9), and then He created plant life (v. 11).
> 
> Visit:
> What is the order of events in the biblical Creation? (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 79.
> God created lights in the heavens for signs and seasons, and for days and years (Genesis 1:14-16). We now know that a year is the time required for the earth to travel once around the sun. The seasons are caused by the changing position of the earth in relation to the sun. The moons phases follow one another in clock-like precision  constituting the lunar calendar Evolution teaches that the cosmos evolved by random chance, yet the Bible agrees with the observable evidence.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 80.
> The Bible speaks of heaven and the highest heavens (Deuteronomy 10:14). Long before the Hubble Space Telescope, Scripture spoke of the heaven of heavens and the third heaven (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Corinthians 12:2). We now know that the heavens consist of our immediate atmosphere and the vast reaches of outer space  as well as Gods wonderful abode.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 81.
> Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him  pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 82.
> Man is fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). We are only beginning to probe the complexity of the DNA molecule, the eye, the brain, and all the intricate components of life. No human invention compares to the marvelous wonders of Gods creation.
> 
> Visit:
> Mankind- The Pinnacle of God's Creation (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 83.
> Beauty understood (Genesis 1:31; 2:9; Job 40:10; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Matthew 6:28-30). Beauty surrounds us: radiant sunsets, majestic mountains, brightly colored flowers, glowing gems, soothing foliage, brilliantly adorned birds, etc. Beauty is a mystery to the evolutionist. However, Scripture reveals that God creates beautiful things for our benefit and His glory.
> 
> Visit:
> Beauty (oldpaths.com)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 84.
> Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Physicists do not understand what binds the atoms nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that all things consist  or are held together by the Creator  Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 85.
> Atomic fission anticipated (2 Peter 3:10-12). Scripture states that the elements will melt with fervent heat when the earth and the heavens are dissolved by fire. Today we understand that if the elements of the atom are loosed, there would be an enormous release of heat and energy (radiation).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 86.
> The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 87.
> Safe drinking water (Leviticus 11:33-36). God forbade drinking from vessels or stagnant water that had been contaminated by coming into contact with a dead animal. It is only in the last 100 years that medical science has learned that contaminated water can cause typhoid and cholera.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 88.
> Pest control (Leviticus 25:1-24). Farmers are plagued today with insects. Yet God gave a sure-fire remedy to control pests centuries ago. Moses commanded Israel to set aside one year in seven when no crops were raised. Insects winter in the stalks of last years harvest, hatch in the spring, and are perpetuated by laying eggs in the new crop. If the crop is denied one year in seven, the pests have nothing to subsist upon, and are thereby controlled.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 89.
> Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if Gods commands were followed.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 90.
> Animal instincts understood (Job 39; Proverbs 30:24-28; Jeremiah 8:7). A newly hatched spider weaves an intricate web without being taught. A recently emerged butterfly somehow knows to navigate a 2,500-mile migration route without a guide. God explains that He has endowed each creature with specific knowledge. Scripture, not evolution, explains animal instincts.
> 
> Visit:
> Instinct, Wise Behavior, Unlearned Knowledge And Abilities (oldpaths.com)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 91.
> Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in Gods image.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 92.
> Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science). True science agrees with the Creators Word.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 93.
> Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews  which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.
> 
> Visit:
> DNA Evidence And The Book Of Mormon (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 94.
> Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 95.
> Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, Gods Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.
> 
> Visit:
> Is Man a "Higher" Animal? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 96.
> The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donors character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 97.
> The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted  introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 98.
> Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die  The soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of Gods Law. To see if you will die, please review Gods Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then youre an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creators name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy  and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 99.
> Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death  which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 100.
> Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person  free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 101.
> The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away (Revelation 21:4).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The Bible is inspired by the Creator. Therefore it is no surprise that lifes ultimate questions are answered within its pages. The Bible reveals the purpose of our existence. Scripture alone explains where our conscience came from. And no other source explains the root cause of death. Seeing that all die, wouldnt it be wise to search for the remedy in the only book that proves it was inspired by God? The Bible offers the only remedy for sin, suffering, and death. Gods Word presents the only perfect, sinless Savior  one who died for our sins and rose from the dead. Jesus is the Creator (John 1; Colossians 1). He said I and My Father are one (John 10:30). He said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:6). And He promises His followers: I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish (John 10:28). Your eternal destiny will be determined by your choice. There is only one provision for sin. Jesus died in your place. Only by faith in Christs finished work will you be saved. This is Gods free gift offered to all. Please do not let pride, religion, opinions, or love for sin separate you from God. No sin is worth an eternity in hell. Please heed Jesus words  Repent, and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15). If you do, you will live in heaven with our awesome Creator forever!
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll politely ask again, can you please provide a science based website that agrees with those assessments?  No Bible blogs please.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are some of the things that have been confirmed through science do you deny these facts ?
> 
> I gave you 101 things from the bible thats proven by empircal evidence.
> 
> Here are a few ,remember the bible was written long before science new these things.
> 
> 
> The earth free-floats in space Job 26:7, affected only by gravity.
> 
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes Hebrews 11:3.
> 
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water Leviticus 15:13.
> 
> Oceans contain springs Job 38:16.
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor Jonah 2:5-6
> 
> Last but not least.
> 
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground Genesis 2:7; 3:19. Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> These are not lucky guesses,these writers were inspired by a superior being to any scientist.
Click to expand...


Science based website please.

Thank you


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll politely ask again, can you please provide a science based website that agrees with those assessments?  No Bible blogs please.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look in a post I took a few of them that science has confirmed you prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to prove wrong what you haven't proven to be right.
> 
> If you can't provide a science website that confirms what you're saying about science, please just say so.
Click to expand...


You don't believe people with disease should be quarantined ?

You don't believe there are mountains on the bottom of the ocean ?

You don't believe there are springs in the ocean ?

You don't believe man is made up of elements of the earth ?

There was one more that I plucked out that I can't remember. But these are things man did not have the ability to know at the time of the writings of the scriptures if they did then they were pretty smart and ahead of modern science


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look in a post I took a few of them that science has confirmed you prove otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to prove wrong what you haven't proven to be right.
> 
> If you can't provide a science website that confirms what you're saying about science, please just say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't believe people with disease should be quarantined ?
> 
> You don't believe there are mountains on the bottom of the ocean ?
> 
> You don't believe there are springs in the ocean ?
> 
> You don't believe man is made up of elements of the earth ?
> 
> There was one more that I plucked out that I can't remember. But these are things man did not have the ability to know at the time of the writings of the scriptures if they did then they were pretty smart and ahead of modern science
Click to expand...


I've proven in the past that there's Bible verses that could mean the opposite of how you interpret them, so I'm not taking your interpretation as the be all end all like you do.

Please give me a science based website that agrees what your Bible blog is saying and accredits the Bible for scientific discoveries.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll politely ask again, can you please provide a science based website that agrees with those assessments?  No Bible blogs please.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some of the things that have been confirmed through science do you deny these facts ?
> 
> I gave you 101 things from the bible thats proven by empircal evidence.
> 
> Here are a few ,remember the bible was written long before science new these things.
> 
> 
> The earth free-floats in space Job 26:7, affected only by gravity.
> 
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes Hebrews 11:3.
> 
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water Leviticus 15:13.
> 
> Oceans contain springs Job 38:16.
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor Jonah 2:5-6
> 
> Last but not least.
> 
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground Genesis 2:7; 3:19. Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> These are not lucky guesses,these writers were inspired by a superior being to any scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science based website please.
> 
> Thank you
Click to expand...


The human body.

Elements in the Human Body

Mountains in the oceans.

Oceans Alive! | The Water Planet | Physical Features of the Ocean

Springs in the oceans.

New deep-sea hot springs discovered in Atlantic: Hydrothermal vents may contribute more to oceans' thermal budget

Quartine people with contagious diseases.

Be Prepared - Quarantine & Isolation ~ Cities Readiness Initiative ~ Butler Harvey Sedgwick Sumner Cowley Marion Reno Kansas Emergency Preparedness


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to prove wrong what you haven't proven to be right.
> 
> If you can't provide a science website that confirms what you're saying about science, please just say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe people with disease should be quarantined ?
> 
> You don't believe there are mountains on the bottom of the ocean ?
> 
> You don't believe there are springs in the ocean ?
> 
> You don't believe man is made up of elements of the earth ?
> 
> There was one more that I plucked out that I can't remember. But these are things man did not have the ability to know at the time of the writings of the scriptures if they did then they were pretty smart and ahead of modern science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've proven in the past that there's Bible verses that could mean the opposite of how you interpret them, so I'm not taking your interpretation as the be all end all like you do.
> 
> Please give me a science based website that agrees what your Bible blog is saying and accredits the Bible for scientific discoveries.
Click to expand...


Moving the goalposts as usual are you. look at previous post.


----------



## bodecea

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some reasons.
> 
> Evidence for a Young World - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/
> 
> 
> Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> Young Earth Creationism - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> This video destroy's evolutionist timeline and makes a very strong argument for the global flood,and a young earth.
> 
> 101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV
Click to expand...


  *snort


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some of the things that have been confirmed through science do you deny these facts ?
> 
> I gave you 101 things from the bible thats proven by empircal evidence.
> 
> Here are a few ,remember the bible was written long before science new these things.
> 
> 
> The earth free-floats in space Job 26:7, affected only by gravity.
> 
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes Hebrews 11:3.
> 
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water Leviticus 15:13.
> 
> Oceans contain springs Job 38:16.
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor Jonah 2:5-6
> 
> Last but not least.
> 
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground Genesis 2:7; 3:19. Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> These are not lucky guesses,these writers were inspired by a superior being to any scientist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science based website please.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The human body.
> 
> Elements in the Human Body
> 
> Mountains in the oceans.
> 
> Oceans Alive! | The Water Planet | Physical Features of the Ocean
> 
> Springs in the oceans.
> 
> New deep-sea hot springs discovered in Atlantic: Hydrothermal vents may contribute more to oceans' thermal budget
> 
> Quartine people with contagious diseases.
> 
> Be Prepared - Quarantine & Isolation ~ Cities Readiness Initiative ~ Butler Harvey Sedgwick Sumner Cowley Marion Reno Kansas Emergency Preparedness
Click to expand...


I didn't see anything in there about the Bible.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe people with disease should be quarantined ?
> 
> You don't believe there are mountains on the bottom of the ocean ?
> 
> You don't believe there are springs in the ocean ?
> 
> You don't believe man is made up of elements of the earth ?
> 
> There was one more that I plucked out that I can't remember. But these are things man did not have the ability to know at the time of the writings of the scriptures if they did then they were pretty smart and ahead of modern science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've proven in the past that there's Bible verses that could mean the opposite of how you interpret them, so I'm not taking your interpretation as the be all end all like you do.
> 
> Please give me a science based website that agrees what your Bible blog is saying and accredits the Bible for scientific discoveries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moving the goalposts as usual are you. look at previous post.
Click to expand...


How am I moving the goalposts?  YOU'RE saying the Bible should be credited with scientific discoveries, all I'm asking for is ONE science based website that says that.


----------



## konradv

koshergrl said:


> Of course it's scientific. Scientists are still trying to figure it out. Every culture in the world has some sort of oral or written tradition of a world wide flood, and the fossil record bears it out.



There are stories of floods, but how do you know they're all the same flood?  Don't tell me the fossil record bears out the flood story, because it definitely does not.  It's also the height of hypocrisy to cherry-pick what you want from the fossil record, but then refuse to acknowledge the obvious signs of evolution shown there.


----------



## Dr.Drock

konradv said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's scientific. Scientists are still trying to figure it out. Every culture in the world has some sort of oral or written tradition of a world wide flood, and the fossil record bears it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are stories of floods, but how do you know they're all the same flood?  Don't tell me the fossil record bears out the flood story, because it definitely does not.  It's also the height of hypocrisy to cherry-pick what you want from the fossil record, but then refuse to acknowledge the obvious signs of evolution shown there.
Click to expand...


Lol was koshergirl just pretending that she takes fossil records seriously?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science based website please.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The human body.
> 
> Elements in the Human Body
> 
> Mountains in the oceans.
> 
> Oceans Alive! | The Water Planet | Physical Features of the Ocean
> 
> Springs in the oceans.
> 
> New deep-sea hot springs discovered in Atlantic: Hydrothermal vents may contribute more to oceans' thermal budget
> 
> Quartine people with contagious diseases.
> 
> Be Prepared - Quarantine & Isolation ~ Cities Readiness Initiative ~ Butler Harvey Sedgwick Sumner Cowley Marion Reno Kansas Emergency Preparedness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't see anything in there about the Bible.
Click to expand...


Do you not get it,the bible came before the discovery.

Look I have done all I can do to open eyes in this forum. If you and the other deniers want to deny the evidence and continue in this state of ignorance until God does what he say's he is gonna do, so be it.

God said they would hate the truth in the last days and that is exactly what I see.

So I will let it go because it is clear many hear reject the truth so have a great life doc and everyone else.

I will peek in from time to time to get a good laugh but I will no longer use my time this way.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's scientific. Scientists are still trying to figure it out. Every culture in the world has some sort of oral or written tradition of a world wide flood, and the fossil record bears it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are stories of floods, but how do you know they're all the same flood?  Don't tell me the fossil record bears out the flood story, because it definitely does not.  It's also the height of hypocrisy to cherry-pick what you want from the fossil record, but then refuse to acknowledge the obvious signs of evolution shown there.
Click to expand...


There are several videos posted by MarcATL that make a pretty good argument for the global flood.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated, you have demonstrated that you don't grasp that the Bible is not a primer for biological theory, much less evolution.

Stop it before you embarass yourself further.

But do answer this before you leave the thread: do you think evolution is a salvation issue for Christians?


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Youwerecreated, you have demonstrated that you don't grasp that the Bible is not a primer for biological theory, much less evolution.
> 
> Stop it before you embarass yourself further.
> 
> But do answer this before you leave the thread: do you think evolution is a salvation issue for Christians?



Do you not get it,the bible came before the discovery.

Look I have done all I can do to open eyes in this forum. If you and the other deniers want to deny the evidence and continue in this state of ignorance until God does what he say's he is gonna do, so be it.

God said they would hate the truth in the last days and that is exactly what I see.

So I will let it go because it is clear many hear reject the truth so have a great life doc and everyone else.

I will peek in from time to time to get a good laugh but I will no longer use my time this way. 
__________________


----------



## Youwerecreated

My last post in closing.

2Pe 3:1  Beloved, I now write this second letter to you, in which I stir up your pure mind by reminder 
2Pe 3:2  to remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of the Lord and Savior by us, the apostles. 
2Pe 3:3  First, knowing this, that there will come in the last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts 
2Pe 3:4  and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. 
2Pe 3:5  For this is hidden from them by their willing it, that the heavens were of old, and the earth out of the water, and through water, being held together by the Word of God, 
2Pe 3:6  through which the world that then was, being flooded by water, perished. 
2Pe 3:7  But the present heavens and the earth being kept in store by the same Word, are being kept for fire until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 
2Pe 3:8  But, beloved, let not this one thing be hidden from you, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 
2Pe 3:9  The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness, but is long-suffering toward us, not purposing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 
2Pe 3:10  But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a rushing noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat. And the earth and the works in it will be burned up. 
2Pe 3:11  Then, all these things being about to be dissolved, what sort ought you to be in holy behavior and godliness, 
2Pe 3:12  looking for and rushing the coming of the Day of God, on account of which the heavens, being on fire, will melt away, and the elements will melt, burning with heat? 
2Pe 3:13  But according to His promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. 
2Pe 3:14  Therefore, beloved, looking for these things, be diligent, spotless, and without blemish, to be found by Him in peace. 
2Pe 3:15  And think of the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation (as our beloved brother Paul also has written to you according to the wisdom given to him 
2Pe 3:16  as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable pervert, as also they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction). 
2Pe 3:17  Therefore, beloved, knowing beforehand, beware lest being led away with the error of the lawless, you fall from your own steadfastness. 
2Pe 3:18  But grow in grace and in knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human body.
> 
> Elements in the Human Body
> 
> Mountains in the oceans.
> 
> Oceans Alive! | The Water Planet | Physical Features of the Ocean
> 
> Springs in the oceans.
> 
> New deep-sea hot springs discovered in Atlantic: Hydrothermal vents may contribute more to oceans' thermal budget
> 
> Quartine people with contagious diseases.
> 
> Be Prepared - Quarantine & Isolation ~ Cities Readiness Initiative ~ Butler Harvey Sedgwick Sumner Cowley Marion Reno Kansas Emergency Preparedness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see anything in there about the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not get it,the bible came before the discovery.
> 
> Look I have done all I can do to open eyes in this forum. If you and the other deniers want to deny the evidence and continue in this state of ignorance until God does what he say's he is gonna do, so be it.
> 
> God said they would hate the truth in the last days and that is exactly what I see.
> 
> So I will let it go because it is clear many hear reject the truth so have a great life doc and everyone else.
> 
> I will peek in from time to time to get a good laugh but I will no longer use my time this way.
Click to expand...


The overwhelming majority of humans haven't been christian now and in the past, so your psychotic line of denying the christian god showing the last days is pure lunacy.

So no science based website that accredits the Bible to scientific discoveries?  Not a single one?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated, you have demonstrated that you don't grasp that the Bible is not a primer for biological theory, much less evolution.
> 
> Stop it before you embarass yourself further.
> 
> But do answer this before you leave the thread: do you think evolution is a salvation issue for Christians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not get it,the bible came before the discovery.
> 
> Look I have done all I can do to open eyes in this forum. If you and the other deniers want to deny the evidence and continue in this state of ignorance until God does what he say's he is gonna do, so be it.
> 
> God said they would hate the truth in the last days and that is exactly what I see.
> 
> So I will let it go because it is clear many hear reject the truth so have a great life doc and everyone else.
> 
> I will peek in from time to time to get a good laugh but I will no longer use my time this way.
> __________________
Click to expand...


You don't get it.  The proof systems are different: faith vs. empirical.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated said:


> My last post in closing.
> 
> 2Pe 3:1  Beloved, I now write this second letter to you, in which I stir up your pure mind by reminder
> 2Pe 3:2  to remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of the Lord and Savior by us, the apostles.
> 2Pe 3:3  First, knowing this, that there will come in the last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts
> 2Pe 3:4  and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.
> 2Pe 3:5  For this is hidden from them by their willing it, that the heavens were of old, and the earth out of the water, and through water, being held together by the Word of God,
> 2Pe 3:6  through which the world that then was, being flooded by water, perished.
> 2Pe 3:7  But the present heavens and the earth being kept in store by the same Word, are being kept for fire until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
> 2Pe 3:8  But, beloved, let not this one thing be hidden from you, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
> 2Pe 3:9  The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness, but is long-suffering toward us, not purposing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
> 2Pe 3:10  But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a rushing noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat. And the earth and the works in it will be burned up.
> 2Pe 3:11  Then, all these things being about to be dissolved, what sort ought you to be in holy behavior and godliness,
> 2Pe 3:12  looking for and rushing the coming of the Day of God, on account of which the heavens, being on fire, will melt away, and the elements will melt, burning with heat?
> 2Pe 3:13  But according to His promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
> 2Pe 3:14  Therefore, beloved, looking for these things, be diligent, spotless, and without blemish, to be found by Him in peace.
> 2Pe 3:15  And think of the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation (as our beloved brother Paul also has written to you according to the wisdom given to him
> 2Pe 3:16  as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable pervert, as also they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction).
> 2Pe 3:17  Therefore, beloved, knowing beforehand, beware lest being led away with the error of the lawless, you fall from your own steadfastness.
> 2Pe 3:18  But grow in grace and in knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.



Peter would gladly you take you aside and tell you that you can believe in Jesus Christ and evolution.  They are not contradictory.  I wish you the best on your journey of discovery.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> The bible is riffled with lies  you mean like this mind these things were written long before the science of man knew any of these things.
> 
> 101 [More Things Youwerecreated copy/pasted in whole because he doesn't have a thought in his head]
> 
> --SNIPPED--
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge


101 ways the "Biblical science" claims in the list provided above are false.

1. No mention of gravity in Job 26:7, what-so-ever. This is just Job affirming his superstition.

But to be fair, the bible is consistent in that the Earth is not hanging on anything; it rests (because of gravity I suppose) on foundations.

2. No mention of particles or specific descriptions of atoms in Hebrews 11:3--this is about faith; about seeing what you believe in, rather than believing what you see.

3. Woefully incomplete, dishonestly overstated, utterly retarded.

4. Entirely ignores the reality of bathing in the pathogens living in running water.

5. I am entirely surprised that these douche-bags didn't also claim that there were no shovels before this verse.

6. LOL. Despite the known existence of other spring-fed bodies of water, it was only recently that anyone considered the possibility that underground springs might feed into the ocean. So fucking dumbass.

7. No mention mountains under the ocean here.

8. LOLsome.
(n.b.: You're going to see much more links to google searches like this. The assholes from the site YWC provided have a retarded proclivity for making categorical statements like, "Evolution cannot explain [whatever]" as if such statements were self-evidently true. They are not, and the purpose of providing you with google searches is not to endorse some particular explanation, but rather to point out that such explanations in fact exist in direct contradiction to the dishonest assertions of the retards who compiled this list (as well as the dishonest retard who submitted it as valid) and that discovering those explanations is ridiculously easy.)​
9. Christians still believe that bathing in the blood of Christ is the means to forgiveness.

10. "Kind" in this context, is entirely meaningless ... even to Christians. (Seriously, get one to define the term.)

11. False. It is intellectually and morally wrong to equate sacrifices to investments. Investments inherently have the expectations (if not the actual realizations) of greater returns--of rewards; sacrifices are about taking losses without rewards, or without rewards greater than the loss accepted.  Human sacrifice is not noble--it is the precise opposite.

12. False. The answer is: egg.

13. Superstition.

14. We are 44 billion year old stardust.

15. Nonsense. No mention of the constant quantity of matter and energy in the universe, or that "finished" means such.

In fact, Gen 1:1 says God added earth, light, and everything else to the 
(apparently) already existing matter of the universe, which (apparently) was entirely water.

16. On that basis, neither does this account, considering how there's no observable evidence that God exists, other than that which can only be observed (as evidence of God's existence) if you already believe God exists. Believing is seeing for these retards.

17. It doesn't require science to prove that a broken clock is right twice a day.

18. Nope. Circles are flat.

19. No mention of night at all--I doubt the reference was about sleep.

20. No mention of this different environment that prevented sunlight from striking raindrops.

21. Just the way retards get adaptation and mutation confused, they also get diffusion and refraction confused.

22. Ocean navigators were apparently oblivious to ocean currents before Matthew Maury pointed them out.

23. Fidelity in marriage is not proof against disease--even STD.

24. Nothing here.

25. No mention of the exact number though. It appears that this number is just as incaluable for God as it is for the retards who invented Him. Not surprising.

26. You can say just about anything about an imaginary friend! What an awesome imaginary friend!

27. Oh. So we managed to figured out some kind of idea of the number then. Ok.

28. What Creator? What evidence?

29. There is no fossil evidence proving that a flood covered the earth--the fossil evidence contradicts such claims.

30. Not all together in one layer-like you'd expect if they were all caught up in this massively catastrophic event.

31. Waaaaaay back before Genesis, 6 - 10k years ago.

32. Right. That same cataclysmic event apparently also isolated the Americas and Australia from being populated by human beings and any land animals.

33. There is no mention of ice-ages here. Certainly not one of cataclysmic proportion like Snowball Earth. I mean seriously, there's evidence of glaciers all over the planet ... every catastrophic geologist knows that such evidence is undeniable proof of such a catastrophe, and all opposition is just dogmatic adherence to established ideology.

34. He also _"sees you when you're sleeping; he knows when you're awake; he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake!"_

35. There's no talk of embryos or embryonic development here.

36. No mention or specific description of DNA here. No mention of a double helical structure, base pairing,  nucleotide sequences, etc.... nothing.

37. These superstitious retards have all kinds of justifications for the incest that has given rise to their metal disabilities.

38. "Evolution ... offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today."

Retards.

39. There is literally no mention of how "each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation." None at all.

40. There is no "rediscovery" happening at all. Continuing discovery is what is actually happening.

41.First I find it rather interesting that this God who allegedly "created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind... [and] saw that [it was] good." (Gen 1:21) Now what was "good" is now "unclean."

I also find the Bible's scientific truths about bats and hares to rather illuminating.

42. This Bible is so much "smarter" than "science." Scientists haven't yet discovered that bats are birds.

43. Of course, Leviticus says nothing about it being ok to eat properly cooked pork. Bacon and pulled pork bbq is still unclean no matter how it's cooked according to the Bible.

44.This makes no such claim at all. In fact, it more closely indicts those who believe that the words in the Bible take precedence over the Word of God.

45. There is zero mention or specific description of black hole or dark matter. This is just more superstitious wishful thinking.

46. The theory of evolution simply does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And it never has. Ever.

Creationists are persistent liars on this account.

47. Again, the faithful rationalizing their penchant for incest.

48. Theres no mention of a curse being the cause of genetic mutation. There's no discussion of genetic mutation ... PERIOD.

Creationist deny that this is possible anyway; otherwise they'd be validating one means by which genetic differentiation occurs; genetic differentiation is the means by which evolutionary theory describes how differentiation of species occurs and is expressed.

49. Cotton/polyester blends are out too.

50. _"The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin."_

They got them from the book of Genesis.

51. According to the Bible, the sun must circuit a fixed Earth.1 Chron 16:30 Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5

52. No because he knew not a single thing about clotting factors, but more likely was not denying the evidence of greater bleeding when infants were circumcised earlier.

53. This doesn't make any claims regarding the amount of water He created, or that the amount He measured has any specific importance to life. In fact, this claim literally means that God's "creation" is subject to the rules of reality rather than God's will.

Getting the amount "just right" is meaningless to any being who allegedly decides what "just right" is.

54. God being created according to the Strong Anthropic Principle, is the perspective from which this assertion makes sense. Weak Anthropic Principles do not assert any kind of "fine tuning" is in play. 

55. The Biblical "heavens" refers to a static dome (or vault) which God formed (or stretched) over the Earth. The Bible make no reference to, or specifically describes an expanding universe.

56. Any argument for God's uncaused nature, is an argument that can be applied (far more honestly BTW) to the uncaused nature of the universe.

Creationists literally demand that life came from non-life, and they insist upon denying the very reality they assert--such is the necessary nature of faith.

57. There is no mention of extinctions here, and (as predicted by evolutionary theory) the arrival of new species has actually been observed.

58. This mentions nothing about light traveling along a path. This explicitly describes the notion of one taking a path to the place where light resides.

59. This makes no reference to the mass of the atmosphere, or the pressure that mass exerts upon the surface of the planet; it appropriately speaks to the force of the wind.

60. No one but an idiot who had never been in the wind would assert that the wind only blew straight. Ecclesiastes 1:6 says not one thing about the Jet Stream; otherwise, rather than South to North (and South again to make it's circuit), it would have described that reality (that God would certainly be aware of) of the Jet Stream's west to East circuit.

61. This is just an indictment of superstitious retards who refuse to make the connection between exposure to people with a sickness and becoming one of the people with that sickness, based solely on the verifiable evidence and applying valid logic to the problem.

I'm all good with supporting the religious in their refusals to allow vaccinations and blood transfusions for their dumbass participants. There's a strong argument for not protecting these morons like they're an endangered species.

62. Well, God and the angels, ... and everybody else who was able to discern the different sizes and colors of stars when they looked at them.

63. There's no talk about light being sent as speech here. There's no reference to radio or EMF. It's talking literaly about lightning--the atmospheric phenomenon. It's a challenge regarding sending lightning to specific points such that one's intention to do so is unambiguous.

Superstitious faithies just make whatever claims they want and expect that they should all be regarded as valid.

64. Seriously now. Let's just accept for the purposes of discussion this 6k year old history of humanity. Solomon writes about 3000 years of anecdotal evidence for the correlation between "a merry heart" and goodness of health, and then 3000 years later scientific study affirms the validity of these observations.

What is being asserted by recognizing this? Not some amazing property of the Bible, that's for sure.

65. Seriously? Again?

66. Not a single mention of microbes. Not one.

Entirely unsurprising that these fabricators of fictions should assert that microbes were even suggested.

67. This is entirely about not eating potentially rancid fat or the fat meant for God, and nothing at all about any connection between eating fat and coronary/cardiac disease.

68. Drinking the blood of a truly innocent human being is fine though.

Modern science say's that's dangerous too.

69. Contemporary superstitious types like to assert this (behemoth) as a description of a dinosaur, while traditional superstitious types assert this to be a description of an elephant or, more likely, a hippo.

70. There is no explanation for pleasure here; it just a description of having it.

Evolutionary explanation for pleasure

71. Life may be more than just matter and energy, but it certainly is not derived solely from the imagination, as the observable evidence indicates where notions of existence of God came from.

What the observable evidence also indicates is that life actually can be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone-&#8211;just as evolutionists would lead us to believe--even if that explanation is not completely satisfying.

Scientists can (and do) admit that the current explanations based upon verifiable evidence and valid logic require more evidence and greater understanding to achieve confidence in certainty. This fact is validation of the argument such explanations are intellectually and morally superior to superstitious creation stories.

72. This is no explanation for music.

Evolutionary theory for music

73. The theory of evolution is well supported by the archeological record, and the archeological record conclusively refutes this assertion made that "Our ancestors were not primitive."

74. This speaks nothing to refuting the evidence that our ancestors were primitive, and speaks entirely (and only) to some contemporaries of Job.

75. This speaks to some pretty bad weather, rather than "environmental devastation." (Though this interpretation these asshats offer fails to explain how often skeptics of AGW science also avoid having AGW faith.)

Also worth noting; evolution science has no imaginings and makes no assertions about how "things [regarding the environment] should be getting better." 

76. This just says that the various plants carry their own seeds.

The reality that these asshats ignore in their assertion is, that rather than the plant carrying its life in its seed, the seed carries the life of a separate plant.

And just to cut off the predictable assertion that is so likely: there's nothing the least bit amazing about how contemporary scientists observe the exact same objective reality that our superstitious ancestors observed. (What actually _is_ amazing is how superstitious perceptions of reality are held to be objectively valid (by the superstitious, of course) when such perceptions are so grossly at odds with verifiable evidence and valid logic.)

77. This is just a denial of the scientifically validated assertion that dead seeds do not germinate to produce living plants.

There is no biological principle which asserts that "A grain must die to produce more grain."

It's difficult to avoid making the accusation that these asshats are frankly, just lying at every opportunity.

78. Genesis 1:1 states that air and water was created first--there was no (dry) earth--then light, and then (dry) earth.

And this is different from the series events that are typically attributed to the scientific description which goes: light (from the sun), earth, atmosphere, and then water.

79. The observable evidence makes no claims that the sun and moon were created after the earth. The observable evidence most certainly disagrees with the Creationist's claim (based upon the Bible) that the existence of plants proceeded the existence of the sun and moon.

80.  Deu 10:14 speaks of the (solid; literally solid, so that a window could be put in it) material dome of the sky which God stretched over the (flat) circle of the Earth, and some additional dome for God to hang out under.

That's no accurate description of "vast reaches of outer space."

The same thing is going on in 1 Kings 8:27.

As for this "third heaven" in 2 Corinthians 12:2--it's a little town on the island of Atlantis, where Santa's toy factory really is located (the observable evidence agrees with science that Santa's toy factory is not, as alleged, at the North Pole.)

81. Today, what we actually know is that anyone who treats wounds with a bandage  soaked in olive oil and wine is someone not competent to treat wounds.

This is not to say that I disagree with the practice--particularly if its practiced on those superstitious retards who's notions of moral purity make them suspicious of clean dressings and competently prepared antibiotics.

But to be fair (to a bunch of retards who are not), wine does have some antiseptic properties, but it's not really from the alcohols; and a little olive oil applied to a coarse dressing might help prevent the dressing from pulling the scab (provided you don't believe that lacking faith in the original dressing will nullify the  healing magic).

82. When the superstitious describe themselves as "fearfully and wonderfully made," the rest of us hear "clownshoes."

83. These are claims of beauty, not understanding or explanations of it.

84. Another claim fabricated out of their disingenuous imaginations. Not a single mention of atoms, or their nuclear structure. Certainly no explanation for strong and weak nuclear forces--which BTW, these asshats wouldn't have thought to mention if not for the work of scientists who have "no explanations" for them.

85. No mention of atoms, or the fission of atoms.

I anticipate some more disingenuous fabrications from the imagination of these retards.

86. There's no mention of gravity here.

Also, as they stupidly fail to realize they revealed, the Orion cluster is presumed by this verse of the Bible to be bound, rather than unbound.

87. Again, these asshats confuse the issue. There's nothing the least bit amazing about how contemporary scientists observe the exact same objective reality that our superstitious ancestors observed.

There's an important distinction to be made however, between the validation science offers of these descriptions, and pretending that the Bible offers these descriptions with the understanding of the validations presented by science.

88. This pest control rationalization is just more imaginary crap.

Resting the soil, of course, is not; that's what the verse speaks to. But the pest control business ... imaginary.

89. No mention of soil conservation what-so-ever. None.

At least this time they thought to mention the actual point, but as a secondary consideration to the imaginary point they assigned to the verse.

90. There is literally no explanation to be found here for understanding animal instincts what-so-ever.

It is just another opportunity to make the baseless assertion that evolution has no explanation for something.

91. This verse speaks nothing to the subject of conscience.

Evolution speaks to it though.

92. The theory of evolution is consistent with the observable evidence, because it seeks consistency with the Word of God. Creationism is inconsistent with observable evidence because Creationism attempts to maintain consistency with the Bible; which is without argument an attempt to maintain consistency with the words of men.

93. Science refutes the superstitious claims of the Bible in many ways. The Bible is a weak construct of man, and science repeatedly demonstrates the Bible's inadequacy in explaining the Word of God.

94. This demonstrates no understanding of human conscience what-so-ever. It just asserts its existence.

Evolution speaks to it though.

95. This demonstrates no understanding of love what-so-ever. It just demands love.

Evolutionary explanation for love.

96. "The real you is spirit." So what?

"Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donor&#8217;s character." Would the same thing be true for a brain transplant? Does what we know from (scientific study of) brain injuries agree with this claim that "personality is non-physical?"

97. There's no doubt that the god of Creationists is a complete douche; his record is unambiguous--it's the reason that good and rational folks reject the Creationist's vain, sadistic, and blood-thirsty God of torture, suffering and human misery.

We value fairness and forgiveness, so that's why we let you propagate your crap amongst the retarded who subscribe to your demented superstitions--but we're not stupid, and that's why we have rules to keep your bullshit separate from government, and prevent superstitions from being taught as fact of reality to school-children.

98. There is no explanation of death offered here. These only assert its existence and it's application as punishment.

Evolutionary explanation for death.

99. There's no explanation of understanding for justice found here.

And I fail to see how any of this relates to what "science" or "evolution" allegedly offers on the topic.

100. Eternal life? ok. I fail to see how any of this relates to what "science" or "evolution" allegedly offers on the topic.

101. I fail to see how any of this relates to what "science" or "evolution" allegedly offers on the topic.

I will say this though, the rationalizations for faith in the Bible is not the same as the valid reasoning appurtenant to scientific inquiry and conclusion--nor does it enjoy the same intellectual or moral validity.

If the premise of your paradigm is that the Genesis stories are consistent with the assertions that In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. That all things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. Then I'd tell you that you truth about this Creation you believe in is going to be discovered in the direct product of the Word, rather than faith in the ignorant artifices of the Bible.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No because my views are based in faith and I trust the bible. The problem is your side don't understand to believe parts of your theory of evolution you have to use faith as well .but you won't admit to it. There are many things about the the theory that has no evidence to back it, zero. This theory was built on faulty assumptions lacking evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being inaccurate. What you're calling "faith" on the part of evolutionists is actually LOGIC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And faith on the part of Christians is logical as well.
Click to expand...

Yes. Faulty logic. Invalid logic.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not empirical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you 101 things from the bible thats proven by empircal evidence.
> 
> Here are a few ,remember the bible was written long before science new these things.
> 
> 
> The earth free-floats in space Job 26:7, affected only by gravity.
> 
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes Hebrews 11:3.
> 
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water Leviticus 15:13.
> 
> Oceans contain springs Job 38:16.
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor Jonah 2:5-6
> 
> Last but not least.
> 
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground Genesis 2:7; 3:19. Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> These are not lucky guesses,these writers were inspired by a superior being to any scientist.
Click to expand...

 This is entirely crap.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Of course it's scientific.


Nonsense.



koshergrl said:


> Scientists are still trying to figure it out.


And they've established the world wide flood to ba as factually valid as any other fable.



koshergrl said:


> Every culture in the world has some sort of oral or written tradition of a world wide flood,...


This is not true.



koshergrl said:


> ...and the fossil record bears it out.


And this is a denial of the evidence the fossil record provides.

Which only means that your certainty in the reality of the global deluge is held all the more validly in faith.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you 101 things from the bible thats proven by empircal evidence.
> 
> Here are a few ,remember the bible was written long before science new these things.
> 
> 
> The earth free-floats in space Job 26:7, affected only by gravity.
> 
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes Hebrews 11:3.
> 
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water Leviticus 15:13.
> 
> Oceans contain springs Job 38:16.
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor Jonah 2:5-6
> 
> Last but not least.
> 
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground Genesis 2:7; 3:19. Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> These are not lucky guesses,these writers were inspired by a superior being to any scientist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then things like the order in which things were created or the notion that there was a worldwide flood, that are definitely not scientific.  It's a mixed bag that should be read for moral lesssons, NOT science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence of of a global flood. I will post some videos that have already been posted by MarcATL  that make a convincing argument for the flood. 6These videos are a little long but very convincing.
> 
> Part one.
> 
> 101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV
> 
> Part two.
> 
> 102 - A Universal Flood - Amazing Discoveries TV
Click to expand...

These are entirely unconvincing travesties of intellectual dishonesty and intentional disinformation.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Remember that atheism is even more faulty than theism, requiring more faith.


----------



## LOki

JakeStarkey said:


> Remember that atheism is even more faulty than theism, requiring more faith.


This really isn't true. Certainly not of the agnostic flavor of atheism.

As far as those atheists who believe God does not exist ... well, there's a stepping stone of logical fallacy in there, but it's nowhere near a egregious in the breadth and magnitude of fallacies that theists must apply.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I disagree with your second statement completely.  Why?  It's about faith, not logic or fallacy.

I have honest admiration for the agnostic who is willing to say, "I really don't or can't know."


----------



## LOki

JakeStarkey said:


> I disagree with your second statement completely.  Why?  It's about faith, not logic or fallacy.
> 
> I have honest admiration for the agnostic who is willing to say, "I really don't or can't know."


Lack of verifiable evidence or logical necessity is the foundation of faith, and denial of verifiable evidence and/or the application of logical fallacy validates faith.

Atheists who assert that God does not exist base their belief upon the logical fallacy that the absence of evidence is proof of absence. Then the problems with their position pretty much stop, because they do not go on to invent a whole bunch of nonsense to rationalize that belief.

Theists OTOH, serve up the whole enchilada of bullshit. 

Here's a test. Grant to a Creationist that existence was created. Then have them explain the evidence and valid logic that demonstrates only one creator, and that one creator is the one they subscribe to.


----------



## JakeStarkey

LOki said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with your second statement completely.  Why?  It's about faith, not logic or fallacy.
> 
> I have honest admiration for the agnostic who is willing to say, "I really don't or can't know."
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of verifiable evidence or logical necessity is the foundation of faith, and denial of verifiable evidence and/or the application of logical fallacy validates faith.
> 
> Atheists who assert that God does not exist base their belief upon the logical fallacy that the absence of evidence is proof of absence. Then the problems with their position pretty much stop, because they do not go on to invent a whole bunch of nonsense to rationalize that belief.
> 
> Theists OTOH, serve up the whole enchilada of bullshit.
> 
> Here's a test. Grant to a Creationist that existence was created. Then have them explain the evidence and valid logic that demonstrates only one creator, and that one creator is the one they subscribe to.
Click to expand...


I hope you have faith in your opinion, because your logic is fallacious.


----------



## FurthurBB

koshergrl said:


> As do those who claim the earth is older.



This is actually not the case at all.  In science you see something and follow the evidence where ever it may lead you to the most likely cause.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> skipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What math and science is on your side be specific ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the advent of radiometric dating of minerals within rocks using isotopic ratios.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't trust any dating method because pressuppositions are needed ,in other words they are biased because of ones view before the process begins.
Click to expand...


#5:  The way science works, when designing experiments you have to set parameters or there would be no meaningful results.

Oh, isn't high school science fun.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not worthy to bet my life on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence, exactly, would you accept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.
Click to expand...


You must know that this hasn't proven to be exactly accurate either.


----------



## FurthurBB

koshergrl said:


> No shit. To cover your ass when you're wildly inaccurate.



No one needs to cover their ass because science is always falsifiable.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why you'd wave the white flag.
> 
> But don't worry I'm not holding you to a certain time or date, anytime you can provide a science website to back your claims I'll be ready to read and react.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any scientist that argues again'st your side is considered is shunned and even are threatened with their job for going again'st the establishment. That is a fact.
> 
> So not too many on your side will speak out about the problems because of the shunning and threats of losing their job.
> 
> So well educated creationist do speak out because it is the right thing to do. So if you don't mind being lead astray go ahead and continue believing the unbelievable.
> 
> To say creationist views are not based in science just shows your ignorance on the subject.
Click to expand...


This is just a fabrication.


----------



## FurthurBB

koshergrl said:


> E Theo Agard, medical physics (In Six Days)
> 
> "
> Dr. Agard is a former director of medical physics at Flower Hospital Oncology Center, Ohio. He holds a B.S. (Hons) first class in physics from the University of London, an M.S. in physics from the Middlesex Hospital Medical School at the University of London, and a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Toronto. In 1993 Dr. Agard was elected to the national board of directors of the Health Physics Society."
> 
> "
> My belief in the supernatural creation of this world in six days is summarized largely in the following points: the theory of evolution is not as scientifically sound as many people believe. In particular, the problem of the origin of life is well stated by the question, Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Every egg anyone has ever seen was laid by a chicken and every chicken was hatched from an egg. Hence, the first chicken or first egg which appeared on the scene in any other way would be unnatural, to say the least. The natural laws under which scientists work are adequate for explaining how the world functions, but are inadequate to explain its origin, just as the tools which service an automobile are inadequate for its manufacture.
> From my reading I understand that the fossil record has failed to produce the intermediate forms of life required by evolution as transitions between the species.
> Another problem, as I see it, for the noncreationist is the first law of thermodynamics which affirms the natural process of energy conservation. Energy cannot be created or destroyed by natural processes, but can only be converted from one form to another. Since matter is a form of energy (E=mc2 as stated by Einstein), natural sciences cannot account for the total energy, including matter, in the universe. This law consequently implies a role for the supernatural in the origin of the total energy in the universe.
> Furthermore, any effort to validate evolution scientifically must involve extrapolation, since current observations must be used to deduce the course of events which occurred several millennia ago (even thousands or millions of millennia). While extrapolation is a valid scientific procedure, it is pertinent to be aware of its limitations. Where there is a sound scientific basis for its use, confidence in the accuracy of an extrapolated result is dependent on the proximity of the point or region of interest to the region of observations."



The second paragraph starts with a misunderstand of the subject.  That is the really frustrating thing.  Most the time people do not understand what they are talking about not matter how educated.  I hate listening to doctors try to tell me how pills work and it is almost always at least in part inaccurate.  How did they forget what they learned before medical school?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see anything in there about the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not get it,the bible came before the discovery.
> 
> Look I have done all I can do to open eyes in this forum. If you and the other deniers want to deny the evidence and continue in this state of ignorance until God does what he say's he is gonna do, so be it.
> 
> God said they would hate the truth in the last days and that is exactly what I see.
> 
> So I will let it go because it is clear many hear reject the truth so have a great life doc and everyone else.
> 
> I will peek in from time to time to get a good laugh but I will no longer use my time this way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of humans haven't been christian now and in the past, so your psychotic line of denying the christian god showing the last days is pure lunacy.
> 
> So no science based website that accredits the Bible to scientific discoveries?  Not a single one?
Click to expand...


I did point out science based sites that admitted to the discoveries that confirmed what the bible stated.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated, you have demonstrated that you don't grasp that the Bible is not a primer for biological theory, much less evolution.
> 
> Stop it before you embarass yourself further.
> 
> But do answer this before you leave the thread: do you think evolution is a salvation issue for Christians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not get it,the bible came before the discovery.
> 
> Look I have done all I can do to open eyes in this forum. If you and the other deniers want to deny the evidence and continue in this state of ignorance until God does what he say's he is gonna do, so be it.
> 
> God said they would hate the truth in the last days and that is exactly what I see.
> 
> So I will let it go because it is clear many hear reject the truth so have a great life doc and everyone else.
> 
> I will peek in from time to time to get a good laugh but I will no longer use my time this way.
> __________________
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get it.  The proof systems are different: faith vs. empirical.
Click to expand...


If the bible makes a statement and science confirms it through empirical evidence what's the problem ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My last post in closing.
> 
> 2Pe 3:1  Beloved, I now write this second letter to you, in which I stir up your pure mind by reminder
> 2Pe 3:2  to remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of the Lord and Savior by us, the apostles.
> 2Pe 3:3  First, knowing this, that there will come in the last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts
> 2Pe 3:4  and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.
> 2Pe 3:5  For this is hidden from them by their willing it, that the heavens were of old, and the earth out of the water, and through water, being held together by the Word of God,
> 2Pe 3:6  through which the world that then was, being flooded by water, perished.
> 2Pe 3:7  But the present heavens and the earth being kept in store by the same Word, are being kept for fire until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
> 2Pe 3:8  But, beloved, let not this one thing be hidden from you, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
> 2Pe 3:9  The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness, but is long-suffering toward us, not purposing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
> 2Pe 3:10  But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a rushing noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat. And the earth and the works in it will be burned up.
> 2Pe 3:11  Then, all these things being about to be dissolved, what sort ought you to be in holy behavior and godliness,
> 2Pe 3:12  looking for and rushing the coming of the Day of God, on account of which the heavens, being on fire, will melt away, and the elements will melt, burning with heat?
> 2Pe 3:13  But according to His promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
> 2Pe 3:14  Therefore, beloved, looking for these things, be diligent, spotless, and without blemish, to be found by Him in peace.
> 2Pe 3:15  And think of the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation (as our beloved brother Paul also has written to you according to the wisdom given to him
> 2Pe 3:16  as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable pervert, as also they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction).
> 2Pe 3:17  Therefore, beloved, knowing beforehand, beware lest being led away with the error of the lawless, you fall from your own steadfastness.
> 2Pe 3:18  But grow in grace and in knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter would gladly you take you aside and tell you that you can believe in Jesus Christ and evolution.  They are not contradictory.  I wish you the best on your journey of discovery.
Click to expand...


Your theory most certainly contradicts what God said.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're being inaccurate. What you're calling "faith" on the part of evolutionists is actually LOGIC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And faith on the part of Christians is logical as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Faulty logic. Invalid logic.
Click to expand...


You want to bring up logic let's test your logic and honesty.

Is it more logical to believe that life creates life or non-living matter could create life even though scientist admit ignorance on the origins of life ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not empirical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you 101 things from the bible thats proven by empircal evidence.
> 
> Here are a few ,remember the bible was written long before science new these things.
> 
> 
> The earth free-floats in space Job 26:7, affected only by gravity.
> 
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes Hebrews 11:3.
> 
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water Leviticus 15:13.
> 
> Oceans contain springs Job 38:16.
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor Jonah 2:5-6
> 
> Last but not least.
> 
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground Genesis 2:7; 3:19. Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> These are not lucky guesses,these writers were inspired by a superior being to any scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is entirely crap.
Click to expand...


More rhetoric, is that all you have ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's scientific.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists are still trying to figure it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they've established the world wide flood to ba as factually valid as any other fable.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every culture in the world has some sort of oral or written tradition of a world wide flood,...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and the fossil record bears it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this is a denial of the evidence the fossil record provides.
> 
> Which only means that your certainty in the reality of the global deluge is held all the more validly in faith.
Click to expand...


Wrong again oh brilliant one.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then things like the order in which things were created or the notion that there was a worldwide flood, that are definitely not scientific.  It's a mixed bag that should be read for moral lesssons, NOT science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence of of a global flood. I will post some videos that have already been posted by MarcATL  that make a convincing argument for the flood. 6These videos are a little long but very convincing.
> 
> Part one.
> 
> 101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV
> 
> Part two.
> 
> 102 - A Universal Flood - Amazing Discoveries TV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These are entirely unconvincing travesties of intellectual dishonesty and intentional disinformation.
Click to expand...


That is true, but it comes from your side.


----------



## foreversunshine

There's a decent God discussion here Crap, the Name Escapes Me - Home if your're interested. Check it out.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> As do those who claim the earth is older.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually not the case at all.  In science you see something and follow the evidence where ever it may lead you to the most likely cause.
Click to expand...


No, you follow your assumptions and test your assumptions agains't the evidence. But there is one major problem, there is no evidence for macroevolution.

Where there is plenty of evidence of a global flood if you have been following this thread or the others.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated works a priori, not from epirical evidence, both in his faith belief and his criticism of evolution.

He can be ignored.

Unsubscribe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Youwerecreated works a priori, not from epirical evidence, both in his faith belief and his criticism of evolution.
> 
> He can be ignored.
> 
> Unsubscribe.



Yeah don't you just hate it when you can't refute anything I say.

Because I use the evidence and my science background again'st you.  You can run but you can't hide.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Resubscribe.   I knew you would fall for it, kiddo.

You have used no science, only unrelated concidences that you cannot empiraclly link.

No one thinks you have any idea of what yoiu talk.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Resubscribe.   I knew you would fall for it, kiddo.
> 
> You have used no science, only unrelated concidences that you cannot empiraclly link.
> 
> No one thinks you have any idea of what yoiu talk.



Well would you like to explain how life came in to existence from lifeless matter ?

Would you like to move this discussion to genetics and mutations and then we can see who really knows what he is talking about.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resubscribe.   I knew you would fall for it, kiddo.
> 
> You have used no science, only unrelated concidences that you cannot empiraclly link.
> 
> No one thinks you have any idea of what yoiu talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well would you like to explain how life came in to existence from lifeless matter ?
> 
> Would you like to move this discussion to genetics and mutations and then we can see who really knows what he is talking about.
Click to expand...


You've already proven to be clueless on those subjects.  We don't need to devote another 20 pages to it.  If we want to be entertained by you posting Bible blogs that try to talk their way around science with superstition, we can just look in the other threads you've done that on this board.


----------



## LOki

JakeStarkey said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with your second statement completely.  Why?  It's about faith, not logic or fallacy.
> 
> I have honest admiration for the agnostic who is willing to say, "I really don't or can't know."
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of verifiable evidence or logical necessity is the foundation of faith, and denial of verifiable evidence and/or the application of logical fallacy validates faith.
> 
> Atheists who assert that God does not exist base their belief upon the logical fallacy that the absence of evidence is proof of absence. Then the problems with their position pretty much stop, because they do not go on to invent a whole bunch of nonsense to rationalize that belief.
> 
> Theists OTOH, serve up the whole enchilada of bullshit.
> 
> Here's a test. Grant to a Creationist that existence was created. Then have them explain the evidence and valid logic that demonstrates only one creator, and that one creator is the one they subscribe to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you have faith in your opinion, because your logic is fallacious.
Click to expand...

Demonstrate.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you 101 things from the bible thats proven by empircal evidence.
> 
> Here are a few ,remember the bible was written long before science new these things.
> 
> 
> The earth free-floats in space Job 26:7, affected only by gravity.
> 
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes Hebrews 11:3.
> 
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water Leviticus 15:13.
> 
> Oceans contain springs Job 38:16.
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor Jonah 2:5-6
> 
> Last but not least.
> 
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground Genesis 2:7; 3:19. Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> These are not lucky guesses,these writers were inspired by a superior being to any scientist.
> 
> 
> 
> This is entirely crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More rhetoric, is that all you have ?
Click to expand...

"Rhetoric" is a term well above your intellectual pay grade. Make sure you don't fling it wildly as an accusation at others while you're the greater offender.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's scientific.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> And they've established the world wide flood to ba as factually valid as any other fable.
> 
> This is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and the fossil record bears it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this is a denial of the evidence the fossil record provides.
> 
> Which only means that your certainty in the reality of the global deluge is held all the more validly in faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again oh brilliant one.
Click to expand...

Demonstrate.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence of of a global flood. I will post some videos that have already been posted by MarcATL  that make a convincing argument for the flood. 6These videos are a little long but very convincing.
> 
> Part one.
> 
> 101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV
> 
> Part two.
> 
> 102 - A Universal Flood - Amazing Discoveries TV
> 
> 
> 
> These are entirely unconvincing travesties of intellectual dishonesty and intentional disinformation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true, but it comes from your side.
Click to expand...

Correct. "My side" (whatever the fuck that might mean) clearly demonstrates those presentations to be the entirely unconvincing travesties of intellectual dishonesty and intentional disinformation that they are.

Thanks for finally leveling up and coming around proper.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> As do those who claim the earth is older.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually not the case at all.  In science you see something and follow the evidence where ever it may lead you to the most likely cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you follow your assumptions and test your assumptions agains't the evidence. But there is one major problem, there is no evidence for macroevolution.
Click to expand...

Sure there is. The defenders of superstition call it "micro-evolution."



Youwerecreated said:


> Where there is plenty of evidence of a global flood if you have been following this thread or the others.


There is literally no evidence of a global flood. Literally none.

You, nor MarcATL, nor Veith has produced any evidence of a global flood. All that has been presented is evidence of local floods to rationalize faith in the global flood fairy tale.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resubscribe.   I knew you would fall for it, kiddo.
> 
> You have used no science, only unrelated concidences that you cannot empiraclly link.
> 
> No one thinks you have any idea of what yoiu talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well would you like to explain how life came in to existence from lifeless matter ?
Click to expand...

Why don't you explain this?

I know you reject the scientific hypothesis, so why not trot out your explanation of ow life came in to existence from lifeless matter?



Youwerecreated said:


> Would you like to move this discussion to genetics and mutations and then we can see who really knows what he is talking about.


I don't know about Jake, but I'd like to see that happen.


----------



## JakeStarkey

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resubscribe.   I knew you would fall for it, kiddo.
> 
> You have used no science, only unrelated concidences that you cannot empiraclly link.
> 
> No one thinks you have any idea of what yoiu talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well would you like to explain how life came in to existence from lifeless matter ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you explain this?
> 
> I know you reject the scientific hypothesis, so why not trot out your explanation of ow life came in to existence from lifeless matter?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to move this discussion to genetics and mutations and then we can see who really knows what he is talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about Jake, but I'd like to see that happen.
Click to expand...


We are talking about creationism, not scientific first causes.

They are different, and neither should be taught in the other's classroom, because they are separate subjects unlinked by empirical data.

If you wish to debate Loki about molecular biology, go for it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resubscribe.   I knew you would fall for it, kiddo.
> 
> You have used no science, only unrelated concidences that you cannot empiraclly link.
> 
> No one thinks you have any idea of what yoiu talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well would you like to explain how life came in to existence from lifeless matter ?
> 
> Would you like to move this discussion to genetics and mutations and then we can see who really knows what he is talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've already proven to be clueless on those subjects.  We don't need to devote another 20 pages to it.  If we want to be entertained by you posting Bible blogs that try to talk their way around science with superstition, we can just look in the other threads you've done that on this board.
Click to expand...


You are not educated enough to have that conversation with is that what you're saying ?

Wave the white flag.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youuwerecreated, I asked you twice if you believed evolution to be a salvation issue.

You did not answer the question.

IAW the doctrine of affirmative silence, I can believe unequivocably that you do believe that evolution is an issue in one's salvation.  I will save this post # for further discussion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is entirely crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More rhetoric, is that all you have ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Rhetoric" is a term well above your intellectual pay grade. Make sure you don't fling it wildly as an accusation at others while you're the greater offender.
Click to expand...


How can that be when I have identified it everytime you type ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Youuwerecreated, I asked you twice if you believed evolution to be a salvation issue.
> 
> You did not answer the question.
> 
> IAW the doctrine of affirmative silence, I can believe unequivocably that you do believe that evolution is an issue in one's salvation.  I will save this post # for further discussion.



No,because I don't believe in Macroevolution. Now if you put mans theories above Gods words and they contradict what God say's yes your salvation can be affected by those views.

God is first in everything sorry that is how it goes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> And they've established the world wide flood to ba as factually valid as any other fable.
> 
> This is not true.
> 
> And this is a denial of the evidence the fossil record provides.
> 
> Which only means that your certainty in the reality of the global deluge is held all the more validly in faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again oh brilliant one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Demonstrate.
Click to expand...


How many times must I answer this question look through the thread I answered it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resubscribe.   I knew you would fall for it, kiddo.
> 
> You have used no science, only unrelated concidences that you cannot empiraclly link.
> 
> No one thinks you have any idea of what yoiu talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well would you like to explain how life came in to existence from lifeless matter ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you explain this?
> 
> I know you reject the scientific hypothesis, so why not trot out your explanation of ow life came in to existence from lifeless matter?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to move this discussion to genetics and mutations and then we can see who really knows what he is talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about Jake, but I'd like to see that happen.
Click to expand...


Life creates life,can you refute this ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well would you like to explain how life came in to existence from lifeless matter ?
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you explain this?
> 
> I know you reject the scientific hypothesis, so why not trot out your explanation of ow life came in to existence from lifeless matter?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to move this discussion to genetics and mutations and then we can see who really knows what he is talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about Jake, but I'd like to see that happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking about creationism, not scientific first causes.
> 
> They are different, and neither should be taught in the other's classroom, because they are separate subjects unlinked by empirical data.
> 
> If you wish to debate Loki about molecular biology, go for it.
Click to expand...


Well if you guy's wish to insult me I'll prove it how clueless you're in thius area.

If you don't understand genetics and mutations you can't even argue this subject because that is what your theory depends on.


----------



## JakeStarkey

But you are not God's prophet, Youwerecreated, so I am not concerned about your opinion.  God says nothing about "how", only "why".  This is why you are fail here.  You try to mix the sacred and profane, so no wonder you fail.

Yes, you think evolution is a salvation issue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> But you are not God's prophet, Youwerecreated, so I am not concerned about your opinion.  God says nothing about "how", only "why".  This is why you are fail here.  You try to mix the sacred and profane, so no wonder you fail.
> 
> Yes, you think evolution is a salvation issue.



It is because it contradicts Gods word.

Please tell me which thread we can all meet in. I am growing tired of jumping from thread to thread.


----------



## koshergrl

I'm  not sure evolution contradicts God's word.

I know surmising of how creation came about based on what little we know of evolution and using faulty aging techniques is bad science, however, and I'm confident that will be shown in time...


----------



## koshergrl

JakeStarkey said:


> But you are not God's prophet, Youwerecreated, so I am not concerned about your opinion. God says nothing about "how", only "why". This is why you are fail here. You try to mix the sacred and profane, so no wonder you fail.
> 
> Yes, you think evolution is a salvation issue.


 
Thank goodness you're around to tell him what he thinks.


And I find it interesting that you're only interested in the opinions of prophets. And here I thought you were a scoffer!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Koshergirl, he did not want to share his underpinning belief, so I simply gave him an affirmative silence question to pin him down.  I am not interested in anyone's prophets at all today.  The Bible is not a literal document to me, but a metaphorical and spiritual one of immense power.  So when someone tells me I have to believe like him, my reaction is one of "horsecrap, son, clean that mess up."  I have no problem at all personally believing in a dead man sat up in a tomb 2,000 years ago, but I am not foolish enough to say that incident or supposed biblical 'facts' are scientifically verifiable.


----------



## koshergrl

You must be reading a different page than I am, because I don't see anyone telling you what to believe.

In fact, quite the opposite.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That's fine, koshergirl, you are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## koshergrl

:d


----------



## JakeStarkey

:d:


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well would you like to explain how life came in to existence from lifeless matter ?
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you explain this?
> 
> I know you reject the scientific hypothesis, so why not trot out your explanation of ow life came in to existence from lifeless matter?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to move this discussion to genetics and mutations and then we can see who really knows what he is talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about Jake, but I'd like to see that happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life creates life,can you refute this ?
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur much?

Let's try this again.

I know you reject the scientific hypothesis (of abiogenesis), so why not trot out your explanation of how life came in to existence from lifeless matter?


----------



## koshergrl

God created it.

Really, it's not that difficult.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> God created it.
> 
> Really, it's not that difficult.



I believe you, but we cannot empircally prove it.  That is why it is a faith issue.

On the other hand, Loki cannot empirically prove that God does not exists.

That is why evolution and creationism are taught in different class rooms, because they operate on different "proof" systems.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> But you are not God's prophet, Youwerecreated, so I am not concerned about your opinion.  God says nothing about "how", only "why".  This is why you are fail here.  You try to mix the sacred and profane, so no wonder you fail.
> 
> Yes, you think evolution is a salvation issue.



Never said I was did I ?

I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.

For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.

God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.

God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God. 

Gen 1:26  And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.


----------



## bodecea

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you are not God's prophet, Youwerecreated, so I am not concerned about your opinion.  God says nothing about "how", only "why".  This is why you are fail here.  You try to mix the sacred and profane, so no wonder you fail.
> 
> Yes, you think evolution is a salvation issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I was did I ?
> 
> I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.
> 
> For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.
> 
> God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.
> 
> God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God.
> 
> Gen 1:26  And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.
Click to expand...


So, god is man-like in appearance with two arms, two legs, etc.?

Does your god have DNA?


----------



## Youwerecreated

bodecea said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you are not God's prophet, Youwerecreated, so I am not concerned about your opinion.  God says nothing about "how", only "why".  This is why you are fail here.  You try to mix the sacred and profane, so no wonder you fail.
> 
> Yes, you think evolution is a salvation issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I was did I ?
> 
> I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.
> 
> For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.
> 
> God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.
> 
> God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God.
> 
> Gen 1:26  And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, god is man-like in appearance with two arms, two legs, etc.?
> 
> Does your god have DNA?
Click to expand...


Angels have taken the form of man but are spirits. God has taken the form of a man but is a spirit. DNA I don't know but I suppose they do when they take the form of a man.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you are not God's prophet, Youwerecreated, so I am not concerned about your opinion.  God says nothing about "how", only "why".  This is why you are fail here.  You try to mix the sacred and profane, so no wonder you fail.
> 
> Yes, you think evolution is a salvation issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I was did I ?
> 
> I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.
> 
> For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.
> 
> God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.
> 
> God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God.
> 
> Gen 1:26  And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.
Click to expand...


So you are a Literalist.  Yes, you are only giving your opinions on what you believe God said in the Bible.  That's fine.  You are not qualified to decide how macroevolution and God's creation intersect.  Why?  You confuse your faith understanding with empirical inquiry and scientific theory.  That's fine, but what you believe is for you only, no one else.


----------



## koshergrl

And you are a card carrying member of the scientific community? Because if you aren't, then your dismissal of the information provided by him applies to yourself as well.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you are not God's prophet, Youwerecreated, so I am not concerned about your opinion.  God says nothing about "how", only "why".  This is why you are fail here.  You try to mix the sacred and profane, so no wonder you fail.
> 
> Yes, you think evolution is a salvation issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I was did I ?
> 
> I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.
> 
> For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.
> 
> God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.
> 
> God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God.
> 
> Gen 1:26  And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are a Literalist.  Yes, you are only giving your opinions on what you believe God said in the Bible.  That's fine.  You are not qualified to decide how macroevolution and God's creation intersect.  Why?  You confuse your faith understanding with empirical inquiry and scientific theory.  That's fine, but what you believe is for you only, no one else.
Click to expand...


No I am not a literalist,the bible is full of things that should not be taken literally but you would only understand that with a thourough study of the scriptures.

Thats kinda like some here trying to argue macroevolution when they can't even explain what it is.

Having forty years in studying the scriptures and having a degree in molecular biology and all the other sciences I have been educated in, allows me to speak on the issue probably more qualified then anyone here in this thread sorry if I come off as arrogant.


----------



## koshergrl

What he is saying is that Christians have no credibility, because they believe in God. It's a form of bigotry, like saying blacks are unintelligent.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I was did I ?
> 
> I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.
> 
> For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.
> 
> God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.
> 
> God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God.
> 
> Gen 1:26  And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, god is man-like in appearance with two arms, two legs, etc.?
> 
> Does your god have DNA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Angels have taken the form of man but are spirits. God has taken the form of a man but is a spirit. DNA I don't know but I suppose they do when they take the form of a man.
Click to expand...


That's not really answering the question.  Does god look like a man?  Not can he when he chooses to, but does he normally?  
Could man being made in god's image be talking about us having a soul (or something along those lines) rather than physical appearance?


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> What he is saying is that Christians have no credibility, because they believe in God. It's a form of bigotry, like saying blacks are unintelligent.



Wow, that was an amazing interpretation of the posts!


----------



## koshergrl

People who can't follow probably would be better served to keep quiet. Though I doubt you have the intelligence to be embarassed by your display of ignorance.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you are not God's prophet, Youwerecreated, so I am not concerned about your opinion.  God says nothing about "how", only "why".  This is why you are fail here.  You try to mix the sacred and profane, so no wonder you fail.
> 
> Yes, you think evolution is a salvation issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I was did I ?
> 
> I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.
> 
> For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.
> 
> God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.
> 
> God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God.
> 
> Gen 1:26  And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.
Click to expand...


Are you saying nothing died before sin entered the earth, or just man didn't die?


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> People who can't follow probably would be better served to keep quiet. Though I doubt you have the intelligence to be embarassed by your display of ignorance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, god is man-like in appearance with two arms, two legs, etc.?
> 
> Does your god have DNA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angels have taken the form of man but are spirits. God has taken the form of a man but is a spirit. DNA I don't know but I suppose they do when they take the form of a man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not really answering the question.  Does god look like a man?  Not can he when he chooses to, but does he normally?
> Could man being made in god's image be talking about us having a soul (or something along those lines) rather than physical appearance?
Click to expand...


A spirit is unseen to the eyes unless they materialize.

I don't believe the soul is what many denominations teach.

Biblical Word of the Month - Soul
By: Jeff A. Benner



What is the soul? Webster' Dictionary gives the following definition. "The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state." In most cases people will understand the soul through this definition. But, as I have so often stated, our interpretation of Biblical words should be from a Hebraic perspective, not a modern western perspective such as English.


The Hebrew word translated as "soul" is the word nephesh (Strong's #5315). If we look at the various ways in which this word is translated in an English translation, such as the KJV, we will see a wide variation in its interpretation. Some of these translations include; soul, life, person, mind, heart, creature, body, dead, desire, man, appetite, lust, thing, self, beast, pleasure, ghost, breath and will. What exactly does this word mean?


I had always assumed that only humans had a soul but, it was during a study of the word "soul" that I discovered that translations often influence how we interpret Biblical concepts. In Genesis 2:7 we find that man is a "living soul" and in Genesis 1:21 we find that animals are "living creatures". When I first started using a concordance to look up the original Hebrew words I was amazed to find out that these two phrases were the identical Hebrew phrases - nephesh chayah. Why would the translators translate nephesh chayah as "living soul" in one place and "living creatures" in another? It was this discovery that prompted me to learn the Hebrew language.


In the Hebrew mind we are composed of three entities; body, breath and mind. In future issues we will examine each of these but for now let us simply make some general definitions for them. The body is the flesh, bones and blood, the vessel. The mind is ones thoughts and emotions. The breath is ones character, what makes a person who they are.


The soul is the whole of the person, the unity of the body, breath and mind. It is not some immaterial spiritual entity it is you, all of you, your whole being or self.



Biblical Hebrew E-Magazine


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you are not God's prophet, Youwerecreated, so I am not concerned about your opinion.  God says nothing about "how", only "why".  This is why you are fail here.  You try to mix the sacred and profane, so no wonder you fail.
> 
> Yes, you think evolution is a salvation issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I was did I ?
> 
> I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.
> 
> For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.
> 
> God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.
> 
> God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God.
> 
> Gen 1:26  And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying nothing died before sin entered the earth, or just man didn't die?
Click to expand...


Don't know for sure because death did not enter until sin entered.

But if man was once an ape did they die before adam sinned according to your theory ?

Gen 2:17  but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. 

That does not mean once adam sinned he died he lived on but eventually died and so has every living creature since that time.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I was did I ?
> 
> I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.
> 
> For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.
> 
> God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.
> 
> God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God.
> 
> Gen 1:26  And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying nothing died before sin entered the earth, or just man didn't die?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know for sure because death did not enter until sin entered.
> 
> But if man was once an ape did they die before adam sinned according to your theory ?
> 
> Gen 2:17  but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
> 
> That does not mean once adam sinned he died he lived on but eventually died and so has every living creature since that time.
Click to expand...


Science doesn't include the story of Adam.


----------



## koshergrl

Of course it does.

The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life: Scientific American

'Most Recent Common Ancestor' Of All Living Humans Surprisingly Recent

It has been established that we all have a common ancestor. We have one every so often, so it certainly hasn't been ruled out that we all descend from a single man. In fact, it's a given.


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> Of course it does.
> 
> The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life: Scientific American
> 
> 'Most Recent Common Ancestor' Of All Living Humans Surprisingly Recent
> 
> It has been established that we all have a common ancestor. We have one every so often, so it certainly hasn't been ruled out that we all descend from a single man. In fact, it's a given.



*Theobald also notes that the support for a universal common ancestor does not rule out the idea that life emerged independently more than once. *

Does the story of Adam say the above?  That's from your first link.

*Those precise mathematical results showed that in a world obeying the simplified assumptions, the most recent common ancestor would have lived less than 1,000 years ago.*

Your 2nd link isn't even science, it's math, so I'd like to see a scientific source that agrees that humans all have a common ancestor from 1,000 years ago.  Which is an even crazier suggestion than you fundies have made.

Thank you


----------



## koshergrl

And we will be the most recent common ancestors of people 2000 years from now.

My point is, science absolutely does support it, and it's stupid to say "science doesn't include the Adam story" because it implies that it has been disproven. It hasn't, and genetecists and biologists are the first to say so.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I was did I ?
> 
> I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.
> 
> For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.
> 
> God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.
> 
> God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God.
> 
> Gen 1:26  And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying nothing died before sin entered the earth, or just man didn't die?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know for sure because death did not enter until sin entered.
> 
> But if man was once an ape did they die before adam sinned according to your theory ?
> 
> Gen 2:17  but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
> 
> That does not mean once adam sinned he died he lived on but eventually died and so has every living creature since that time.
Click to expand...


I ask because if nothing died before sin, it seems that would mean that nothing could eat, either.  If you meant only humanity did not die, or just that nothing died of age, that would be a different story.  

If I were to have a theory, it would not include the biblical story of Adam, so your question makes no sense.


----------



## koshergrl

Since God told Adam and eve they could eat of anything in the garden except the tree of life, one assumes they ate.

Why? You realize this is silly, right?


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> And we will be the most recent common ancestors of people 2000 years from now.
> 
> My point is, science absolutely does support it, and it's stupid to say "science doesn't include the Adam story" because it implies that it has been disproven. It hasn't, and genetecists and biologists are the first to say so.



Is the idea of a common ancestor the same as the biblical story of Adam?  Perhaps the implication you mention is wrong, but so, I think, is the idea that science 'absolutely does' support the story of Adam.


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> Since God told Adam and eve they could eat of anything in the garden except the tree of life, one assumes they ate.
> 
> Why? You realize this is silly, right?



Of course it's silly.  That's why I'm trying to clarify what YWC is saying; I find it hard to believe he really meant nothing died before sin entered the world, but in his previous post he stated, "God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth".  That sounds to me as though he WAS saying nothing ever died.  It would make a lot more sense if what he meant was nothing died of old age, which is why I brought that possibility up.


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> And we will be the most recent common ancestors of people 2000 years from now.
> 
> My point is, science absolutely does support it, and it's stupid to say "science doesn't include the Adam story" because it implies that it has been disproven. It hasn't, and genetecists and biologists are the first to say so.



Oh ok, that's your definition of common ancestors, a vague line like that.  A line like that goes along with evolution than and I just go with science when i say our common ancestors are the species we evolved from.


It's stupid to say science implies a story about eating fruit from a forbidden tree with a Satan-possessed snake in it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does.
> 
> The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life: Scientific American
> 
> 'Most Recent Common Ancestor' Of All Living Humans Surprisingly Recent
> 
> It has been established that we all have a common ancestor. We have one every so often, so it certainly hasn't been ruled out that we all descend from a single man. In fact, it's a given.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Theobald also notes that the support for a universal common ancestor does not rule out the idea that life emerged independently more than once. *
> 
> Does the story of Adam say the above?  That's from your first link.
> 
> *Those precise mathematical results showed that in a world obeying the simplified assumptions, the most recent common ancestor would have lived less than 1,000 years ago.*
> 
> Your 2nd link isn't even science, it's math, so I'd like to see a scientific source that agrees that humans all have a common ancestor from 1,000 years ago.  Which is an even crazier suggestion than you fundies have made.
> 
> Thank you
Click to expand...


Theobald is no different then dawkins,they're both Idelogues. And notice his admittence is half way he acknowledges a recent common ancestor but always has to add that but. Typical of your side


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since God told Adam and eve they could eat of anything in the garden except the tree of life, one assumes they ate.
> 
> Why? You realize this is silly, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's silly.  That's why I'm trying to clarify what YWC is saying; I find it hard to believe he really meant nothing died before sin entered the world, but in his previous post he stated, "God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth".  That sounds to me as though he WAS saying nothing ever died.  It would make a lot more sense if what he meant was nothing died of old age, which is why I brought that possibility up.
Click to expand...


 Sorry I was right to begin with I always believed that adam and eve were vegetarians . Sorry I trusted the KJV. I went to my Hebrew translation and indeed there was no death until after the fall of adam.

Genesis chapter one.

28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. "   &#1499;&#1495;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1489;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1498;&#1456; &#1488;&#1465;&#1514;&#1464;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1500;&#1464;&#1492;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1512;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1512;&#1456;&#1489;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1460;&#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1493;&#1468; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1456;&#1499;&#1460;&#1489;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1467;&#1492;&#1464; &#1493;&#1468;&#1512;&#1456;&#1491;&#1493;&#1468; &#1489;&#1468;&#1460;&#1491;&#1456;&#1490;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1492;&#1464;&#1512;&#1465;&#1502;&#1462;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1514; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509;: 
29. And God said, "Behold, I have given you every seed bearing herb, which is upon the surface of the entire earth, and every tree that has seed bearing fruit; it will be yours for food.   &#1499;&#1496;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1492;&#1460;&#1504;&#1468;&#1461;&#1492; &#1504;&#1464;&#1514;&#1463;&#1514;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1500;&#1464;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1506;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1489; &#1494;&#1465;&#1512;&#1461;&#1506;&#1463; &#1494;&#1462;&#1512;&#1463;&#1506; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1461;&#1497; &#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1506;&#1461;&#1509; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1489;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465; &#1508;&#1456;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497; &#1506;&#1461;&#1509; &#1494;&#1465;&#1512;&#1461;&#1506;&#1463; &#1494;&#1464;&#1512;&#1463;&#1506; &#1500;&#1464;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1497;&#1460;&#1492;&#1456;&#1497;&#1462;&#1492; &#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1464;&#1499;&#1456;&#1500;&#1464;&#1492;: 
30. And to all the beasts of the earth and to all the fowl of the heavens, and to everything that moves upon the earth, in which there is a living spirit, every green herb to eat," and it was so.   &#1500;. &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1499;&#1465;&#1500; &#1512;&#1493;&#1465;&#1502;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1489;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465; &#1504;&#1462;&#1508;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1497;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1511; &#1506;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1489; &#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1464;&#1499;&#1456;&#1500;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1499;&#1461;&#1503;: 
31. And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good, and it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day. 

Man was not given the right to eat animals until the covenant he made with Noah and his sons.

Genesis chapter 9

1. And God blessed Noah and his sons, and He said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.   &#1488;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1489;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1498;&#1456; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1504;&#1465;&#1495;&#1463; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1504;&#1464;&#1497;&#1493; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1500;&#1464;&#1492;&#1462;&#1501; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1512;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1512;&#1456;&#1489;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1460;&#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1493;&#1468; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509;: 
2. And your fear and your dread shall be upon all the beasts of the earth and upon all the fowl of the heaven; upon everything that creeps upon the ground and upon all the fish of the sea, [for] they have been given into your hand.   &#1489;. &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1493;&#1465;&#1512;&#1463;&#1488;&#1458;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1493;&#1456;&#1495;&#1460;&#1514;&#1468;&#1456;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1497;&#1460;&#1492;&#1456;&#1497;&#1462;&#1492; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1456;&#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1499;&#1465;&#1500; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1514;&#1468;&#1460;&#1512;&#1456;&#1502;&#1465;&#1513;&#1474; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1458;&#1491;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1491;&#1468;&#1456;&#1490;&#1461;&#1497; &#1492;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1497;&#1462;&#1491;&#1456;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1504;&#1460;&#1514;&#1468;&#1464;&#1504;&#1493;&#1468;: 
3. Every moving thing that lives shall be yours to eat; like the green vegetation, I have given you everything.   &#1490;. &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1512;&#1462;&#1502;&#1462;&#1513;&#1474; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1492;&#1493;&#1468;&#1488; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497; &#1500;&#1464;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1497;&#1460;&#1492;&#1456;&#1497;&#1462;&#1492; &#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1464;&#1499;&#1456;&#1500;&#1464;&#1492; &#1499;&#1468;&#1456;&#1497;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1511; &#1506;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1489; &#1504;&#1464;&#1514;&#1463;&#1514;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1500;&#1464;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1465;&#1500;: 
4. But, flesh with its soul, its blood, you shall not eat.   &#1491;. &#1488;&#1463;&#1498;&#1456; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1513;&#1474;&#1464;&#1512; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1463;&#1508;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1493;&#1465; &#1491;&#1464;&#1502;&#1493;&#1465; &#1500;&#1465;&#1488; &#1514;&#1465;&#1488;&#1499;&#1461;&#1500;&#1493;&#1468;: 
5. But your blood, of your souls, I will demand [an account]; from the hand of every beast I will demand it, and from the hand of man, from the hand of each man, his brother, I will demand the soul of man.   &#1492;. &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1463;&#1498;&#1456; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1491;&#1468;&#1460;&#1502;&#1456;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1500;&#1456;&#1504;&#1463;&#1508;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1465;&#1514;&#1461;&#1497;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1491;&#1456;&#1512;&#1465;&#1513;&#1473; &#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1491; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1491;&#1456;&#1512;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1504;&#1468;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1491; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1491; &#1488;&#1460;&#1497;&#1513;&#1473; &#1488;&#1464;&#1495;&#1460;&#1497;&#1493; &#1488;&#1462;&#1491;&#1456;&#1512;&#1465;&#1513;&#1473; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1504;&#1462;&#1508;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501;: 
6. Whoever sheds the blood of man through man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man.   &#1493;. &#1513;&#1473;&#1465;&#1508;&#1461;&#1498;&#1456; &#1491;&#1468;&#1463;&#1501; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1491;&#1468;&#1464;&#1502;&#1493;&#1465; &#1497;&#1460;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1508;&#1461;&#1498;&#1456; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1510;&#1462;&#1500;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1506;&#1464;&#1513;&#1474;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501;: 
7. And you, be fruitful and multiply; swarm upon the earth


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we will be the most recent common ancestors of people 2000 years from now.
> 
> My point is, science absolutely does support it, and it's stupid to say "science doesn't include the Adam story" because it implies that it has been disproven. It hasn't, and genetecists and biologists are the first to say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ok, that's your definition of common ancestors, a vague line like that.  A line like that goes along with evolution than and I just go with science when i say our common ancestors are the species we evolved from.
> 
> 
> It's stupid to say science implies a story about eating fruit from a forbidden tree with a Satan-possessed snake in it.
Click to expand...


Ok but you don't know what we supposedly evolved from


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I was did I ?
> 
> I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.
> 
> For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.
> 
> God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.
> 
> God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God.
> 
> Gen 1:26  And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are a Literalist.  Yes, you are only giving your opinions on what you believe God said in the Bible.  That's fine.  You are not qualified to decide how macroevolution and God's creation intersect.  Why?  You confuse your faith understanding with empirical inquiry and scientific theory.  That's fine, but what you believe is for you only, no one else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I am not a literalist,the bible is full of things that should not be taken literally but you would only understand that with a thourough study of the scriptures.
> 
> Thats kinda like some here trying to argue macroevolution when they can't even explain what it is.
> 
> Having forty years in studying the scriptures and having a degree in molecular biology and all the other sciences I have been educated in, allows me to speak on the issue probably more qualified then anyone here in this thread sorry if I come off as arrogant.
Click to expand...


A degree in molecular biology no more qualifies you in faith matters than a degree in divinity qualifies you in science matters.  Then add to the fact that you are in the vast minority of microbiologists in this area of evolution, I can deduce that, yes, you are arrogant as well as unqualified.

I will now step out of this and leave you to the buffetings of Satan!


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> And you are a card carrying member of the scientific community? Because if you aren't, then your dismissal of the information provided by him applies to yourself as well.



The issue is philosophical in terms of proof systems, koshergirl, which he is deliberately misrepresenting, so, yes, it was a fair correction, and one you don't understand.  I get that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we will be the most recent common ancestors of people 2000 years from now.
> 
> My point is, science absolutely does support it, and it's stupid to say "science doesn't include the Adam story" because it implies that it has been disproven. It hasn't, and genetecists and biologists are the first to say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ok, that's your definition of common ancestors, a vague line like that.  A line like that goes along with evolution than and I just go with science when i say our common ancestors are the species we evolved from.
> 
> 
> It's stupid to say science implies a story about eating fruit from a forbidden tree with a Satan-possessed snake in it.
Click to expand...


According to you and many others since you think the chimp is so closely related to humans by your reasoning our nearest ancestor must be the chimp.

But real scientist know we are to far apart in our DNA comparison for it to happen. So what was between the chimp and human ?

Why is the chimps DNA closer in similarity to an ape then a human ? oops

You see similarity proves nothing,but if you're gonna believe this nonsense you must come up with the nearest ancestor so far the closest ancestor is adam.

Those ignorant goat herders


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are a Literalist.  Yes, you are only giving your opinions on what you believe God said in the Bible.  That's fine.  You are not qualified to decide how macroevolution and God's creation intersect.  Why?  You confuse your faith understanding with empirical inquiry and scientific theory.  That's fine, but what you believe is for you only, no one else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I am not a literalist,the bible is full of things that should not be taken literally but you would only understand that with a thourough study of the scriptures.
> 
> Thats kinda like some here trying to argue macroevolution when they can't even explain what it is.
> 
> Having forty years in studying the scriptures and having a degree in molecular biology and all the other sciences I have been educated in, allows me to speak on the issue probably more qualified then anyone here in this thread sorry if I come off as arrogant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A degree in molecular biology no more qualifies you in faith matters than a degree in divinity qualifies you in science matters.  Then add to the fact that you are in the vast minority of microbiologists in this area of evolution, I can deduce that, yes, you are arrogant as well as unqualified.
> 
> I will now step out of this and leave you to the buffetings of Satan!
Click to expand...


I guess you don't take into account the 40+ years studying the bible.

But have it your way, Goodluck to you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a card carrying member of the scientific community? Because if you aren't, then your dismissal of the information provided by him applies to yourself as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is philosophical in terms of proof systems, koshergirl, which he is deliberately misrepresenting, so, yes, it was a fair correction, and one you don't understand.  I get that.
Click to expand...


I believe in both the bible and science,but real science, not so called science built on a vivid imagination.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since God told Adam and eve they could eat of anything in the garden except the tree of life, one assumes they ate.
> 
> Why? You realize this is silly, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's silly.  That's why I'm trying to clarify what YWC is saying; I find it hard to believe he really meant nothing died before sin entered the world, but in his previous post he stated, "God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth".  That sounds to me as though he WAS saying nothing ever died.  It would make a lot more sense if what he meant was nothing died of old age, which is why I brought that possibility up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I was right to begin with I always believed that adam and eve were vegetarians . Sorry I trusted the KJV. I went to my Hebrew translation and indeed there was no death until after the fall of adam.
> 
> Genesis chapter one.
> 
> 28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. "   &#1499;&#1495;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1489;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1498;&#1456; &#1488;&#1465;&#1514;&#1464;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1500;&#1464;&#1492;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1512;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1512;&#1456;&#1489;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1460;&#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1493;&#1468; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1456;&#1499;&#1460;&#1489;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1467;&#1492;&#1464; &#1493;&#1468;&#1512;&#1456;&#1491;&#1493;&#1468; &#1489;&#1468;&#1460;&#1491;&#1456;&#1490;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1492;&#1464;&#1512;&#1465;&#1502;&#1462;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1514; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509;:
> 29. And God said, "Behold, I have given you every seed bearing herb, which is upon the surface of the entire earth, and every tree that has seed bearing fruit; it will be yours for food.   &#1499;&#1496;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1492;&#1460;&#1504;&#1468;&#1461;&#1492; &#1504;&#1464;&#1514;&#1463;&#1514;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1500;&#1464;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1506;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1489; &#1494;&#1465;&#1512;&#1461;&#1506;&#1463; &#1494;&#1462;&#1512;&#1463;&#1506; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1461;&#1497; &#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1506;&#1461;&#1509; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1489;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465; &#1508;&#1456;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497; &#1506;&#1461;&#1509; &#1494;&#1465;&#1512;&#1461;&#1506;&#1463; &#1494;&#1464;&#1512;&#1463;&#1506; &#1500;&#1464;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1497;&#1460;&#1492;&#1456;&#1497;&#1462;&#1492; &#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1464;&#1499;&#1456;&#1500;&#1464;&#1492;:
> 30. And to all the beasts of the earth and to all the fowl of the heavens, and to everything that moves upon the earth, in which there is a living spirit, every green herb to eat," and it was so.   &#1500;. &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1499;&#1465;&#1500; &#1512;&#1493;&#1465;&#1502;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1489;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465; &#1504;&#1462;&#1508;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1497;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1511; &#1506;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1489; &#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1464;&#1499;&#1456;&#1500;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1499;&#1461;&#1503;:
> 31. And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good, and it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day.
> 
> Man was not given the right to eat animals until the covenant he made with Noah and his sons.
> 
> Genesis chapter 9
> 
> 1. And God blessed Noah and his sons, and He said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.   &#1488;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1489;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1498;&#1456; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1504;&#1465;&#1495;&#1463; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1504;&#1464;&#1497;&#1493; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1500;&#1464;&#1492;&#1462;&#1501; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1512;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1512;&#1456;&#1489;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1460;&#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1493;&#1468; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509;:
> 2. And your fear and your dread shall be upon all the beasts of the earth and upon all the fowl of the heaven; upon everything that creeps upon the ground and upon all the fish of the sea, [for] they have been given into your hand.   &#1489;. &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1493;&#1465;&#1512;&#1463;&#1488;&#1458;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1493;&#1456;&#1495;&#1460;&#1514;&#1468;&#1456;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1497;&#1460;&#1492;&#1456;&#1497;&#1462;&#1492; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1456;&#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1499;&#1465;&#1500; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1514;&#1468;&#1460;&#1512;&#1456;&#1502;&#1465;&#1513;&#1474; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1458;&#1491;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1491;&#1468;&#1456;&#1490;&#1461;&#1497; &#1492;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1497;&#1462;&#1491;&#1456;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1504;&#1460;&#1514;&#1468;&#1464;&#1504;&#1493;&#1468;:
> 3. Every moving thing that lives shall be yours to eat; like the green vegetation, I have given you everything.   &#1490;. &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1512;&#1462;&#1502;&#1462;&#1513;&#1474; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1492;&#1493;&#1468;&#1488; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497; &#1500;&#1464;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1497;&#1460;&#1492;&#1456;&#1497;&#1462;&#1492; &#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1464;&#1499;&#1456;&#1500;&#1464;&#1492; &#1499;&#1468;&#1456;&#1497;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1511; &#1506;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1489; &#1504;&#1464;&#1514;&#1463;&#1514;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1500;&#1464;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1465;&#1500;:
> 4. But, flesh with its soul, its blood, you shall not eat.   &#1491;. &#1488;&#1463;&#1498;&#1456; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1513;&#1474;&#1464;&#1512; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1463;&#1508;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1493;&#1465; &#1491;&#1464;&#1502;&#1493;&#1465; &#1500;&#1465;&#1488; &#1514;&#1465;&#1488;&#1499;&#1461;&#1500;&#1493;&#1468;:
> 5. But your blood, of your souls, I will demand [an account]; from the hand of every beast I will demand it, and from the hand of man, from the hand of each man, his brother, I will demand the soul of man.   &#1492;. &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1463;&#1498;&#1456; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1491;&#1468;&#1460;&#1502;&#1456;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1500;&#1456;&#1504;&#1463;&#1508;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1465;&#1514;&#1461;&#1497;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1491;&#1456;&#1512;&#1465;&#1513;&#1473; &#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1491; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1491;&#1456;&#1512;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1504;&#1468;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1491; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1491; &#1488;&#1460;&#1497;&#1513;&#1473; &#1488;&#1464;&#1495;&#1460;&#1497;&#1493; &#1488;&#1462;&#1491;&#1456;&#1512;&#1465;&#1513;&#1473; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1504;&#1462;&#1508;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501;:
> 6. Whoever sheds the blood of man through man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man.   &#1493;. &#1513;&#1473;&#1465;&#1508;&#1461;&#1498;&#1456; &#1491;&#1468;&#1463;&#1501; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1491;&#1468;&#1464;&#1502;&#1493;&#1465; &#1497;&#1460;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1508;&#1461;&#1498;&#1456; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1510;&#1462;&#1500;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1506;&#1464;&#1513;&#1474;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501;:
> 7. And you, be fruitful and multiply; swarm upon the earth
Click to expand...



Again, I'm trying to make sure I've got this clear.  There was no death of animals/humans before sin?  But plant death was fine?  Does that mean that there were no predators, only herbivores?  Did god create more animals after sin was introduced?

Your responses have been somewhat confusing.  Also, I can only assume that there is no need to consider how this ecosystem might have functioned, since it was eden and god could make it work however he wished.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a card carrying member of the scientific community? Because if you aren't, then your dismissal of the information provided by him applies to yourself as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is philosophical in terms of proof systems, koshergirl, which he is deliberately misrepresenting, so, yes, it was a fair correction, and one you don't understand.  I get that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in both the bible and science,but real science, not so called science built on a vivid imagination.
Click to expand...


I think it would be more accurate to say you believe in the bible and science that doesn't contradict any of your bible-based beliefs.


----------



## koshergrl

I have yet to see any true science that contradicts my bible based beliefs. 

And the #1 genetecist of the world and the #1 mathematician likewise have never seen anything that contradicts their faith.


----------



## FurthurBB

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most traditional, rational Christians believe in the principles of the Origins of Species.  Many of the evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, heretics for the most part, do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So failure to accept Charles Darwin is "heresy?"
> 
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Is it even possible for you to be more stupid?
> 
> Keep huffing paint or whatever it is that keeps your IQ below 12, I just can't buy entertainment of the level your stupidity offers....
Click to expand...


No, but why are you so obsessed with the man and what do you want to accept about him?  He is dead so, I am hoping you do not want to marry him.


----------



## FurthurBB

koshergrl said:


> So am I. But then, on these topics with the morons who like to pretend they're all scientific and shit...I always do.



Although I am sure ball-n-cup would suffice to amuse you.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism is an ideology, a faith path, it is not a science based field, like evolution, gang.
> 
> Your silly arguments are why we have a separation of church and state.
> 
> The nice thing about this discussions is that is about fun, not reality, for you wiill never, ever win this battle about creationism as anything more than dogma of a small, unimportant sect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just read my post that compared the evolution's model to the the creationism model ? Look pretty similar to me.
Click to expand...


Well, I can sympathize with your problem, but a basic elementary school science education should clear a few things up for you.


----------



## FurthurBB

Dr.Drock said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What complete garbage.
> 
> You just saying it doesn't make it so, skippy.
> 
> 
> 
> Factually baseless and logically fallacious denials are even less effective at making them not so, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's right, no offense but you saying so doesn't make it so.  It's scientists saying so that makes it important.
> 
> But scientists saying something makes it even less valid to kosher.
Click to expand...


Aww, you should not make fun of the poor thing.  There is obviously something really wrong with that one.


----------



## koshergrl

Bullshit. Many, many of those who occupy the upper echelons of the scientific world have absolute faith in God and God's creation. So quit pretending only *stupid* people believe in God. It's a stale and untrue logical fallacy.


----------



## koshergrl

Yeah, I actually read.

Do you know who teh #1 genetecist of the world is? Or the brothers Chudnovski?

Do you know of their beliefs?


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between *micro-adaptations and macro-evolution *?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are adaptations that you can't and can see, respectively.  Other that that, there's no real difference, except as a creationist quibbling point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.
Click to expand...


Since there is no difference, coming from someone who actually took a science class in my life, you are the one that needs to hit the elementary school books.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> As do those who claim the earth is older.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually not the case at all.  In science you see something and follow the evidence where ever it may lead you to the most likely cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you follow your assumptions and test your assumptions agains't the evidence. But there is one major problem, there is no evidence for macroevolution.
> 
> Where there is plenty of evidence of a global flood if you have been following this thread or the others.
Click to expand...


As lost as usual I see.


----------



## FurthurBB

koshergrl said:


> People who can't follow probably would be better served to keep quiet. Though I doubt you have the intelligence to be embarassed by your display of ignorance.



Are you looking in the mirror and typing?  I am impressed.


----------



## FurthurBB

JakeStarkey said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are a Literalist.  Yes, you are only giving your opinions on what you believe God said in the Bible.  That's fine.  You are not qualified to decide how macroevolution and God's creation intersect.  Why?  You confuse your faith understanding with empirical inquiry and scientific theory.  That's fine, but what you believe is for you only, no one else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I am not a literalist,the bible is full of things that should not be taken literally but you would only understand that with a thourough study of the scriptures.
> 
> Thats kinda like some here trying to argue macroevolution when they can't even explain what it is.
> 
> Having forty years in studying the scriptures and having a degree in molecular biology and all the other sciences I have been educated in, allows me to speak on the issue probably more qualified then anyone here in this thread sorry if I come off as arrogant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A degree in molecular biology no more qualifies you in faith matters than a degree in divinity qualifies you in science matters.  Then add to the fact that you are in the vast minority of microbiologists in this area of evolution, I can deduce that, yes, you are arrogant as well as unqualified.
> 
> I will now step out of this and leave you to the buffetings of Satan!
Click to expand...


No one with a degree in molecular biology knows less than a middle school student about biology.  I just do not believe our education system could be that bad.


----------



## koshergrl

Do you have anything really to add to the conversation? Because just to say "yore stoopid" over and over isn't an argument. Talk about grade school education.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we will be the most recent common ancestors of people 2000 years from now.
> 
> My point is, science absolutely does support it, and it's stupid to say "science doesn't include the Adam story" because it implies that it has been disproven. It hasn't, and genetecists and biologists are the first to say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ok, that's your definition of common ancestors, a vague line like that.  A line like that goes along with evolution than and I just go with science when i say our common ancestors are the species we evolved from.
> 
> 
> It's stupid to say science implies a story about eating fruit from a forbidden tree with a Satan-possessed snake in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to you and many others since you think the chimp is so closely related to humans by your reasoning our nearest ancestor must be the chimp.
> 
> But real scientist know we are to far apart in our DNA comparison for it to happen. So what was between the chimp and human ?
> 
> Why is the chimps DNA closer in similarity to an ape then a human ? oops
> 
> You see similarity proves nothing,but if you're gonna believe this nonsense you must come up with the nearest ancestor so far the closest ancestor is adam.
> 
> Those ignorant goat herders
Click to expand...


Please tell me any member of the non-science and math denying group on this board or any scientist who says our nearest ancestor is the chimp.

If I were as clueless on evolution as you are I would be an evolution denier myself.  If evolution actually said chimps evolved into humans or adaptations aren't a part of evolution like you think I'd be searching for Bible bloggers to tell me how science works too.

However since evolution doesn't say half or more of the things you attribute to it, I can thankfully avoid taking sides with lunatics.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The fact remains that born-again Christians can accept evolution without any concern about their salvation.  Those who argue against this wish usurp the Savior, his personality, and his authority.  Those who do this are in great peril.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's silly.  That's why I'm trying to clarify what YWC is saying; I find it hard to believe he really meant nothing died before sin entered the world, but in his previous post he stated, "God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth".  That sounds to me as though he WAS saying nothing ever died.  It would make a lot more sense if what he meant was nothing died of old age, which is why I brought that possibility up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I was right to begin with I always believed that adam and eve were vegetarians . Sorry I trusted the KJV. I went to my Hebrew translation and indeed there was no death until after the fall of adam.
> 
> Genesis chapter one.
> 
> 28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. "   &#1499;&#1495;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1489;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1498;&#1456; &#1488;&#1465;&#1514;&#1464;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1500;&#1464;&#1492;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1512;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1512;&#1456;&#1489;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1460;&#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1493;&#1468; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1456;&#1499;&#1460;&#1489;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1467;&#1492;&#1464; &#1493;&#1468;&#1512;&#1456;&#1491;&#1493;&#1468; &#1489;&#1468;&#1460;&#1491;&#1456;&#1490;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1492;&#1464;&#1512;&#1465;&#1502;&#1462;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1514; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509;:
> 29. And God said, "Behold, I have given you every seed bearing herb, which is upon the surface of the entire earth, and every tree that has seed bearing fruit; it will be yours for food.   &#1499;&#1496;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1492;&#1460;&#1504;&#1468;&#1461;&#1492; &#1504;&#1464;&#1514;&#1463;&#1514;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1500;&#1464;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1506;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1489; &#1494;&#1465;&#1512;&#1461;&#1506;&#1463; &#1494;&#1462;&#1512;&#1463;&#1506; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1461;&#1497; &#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1506;&#1461;&#1509; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1489;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465; &#1508;&#1456;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497; &#1506;&#1461;&#1509; &#1494;&#1465;&#1512;&#1461;&#1506;&#1463; &#1494;&#1464;&#1512;&#1463;&#1506; &#1500;&#1464;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1497;&#1460;&#1492;&#1456;&#1497;&#1462;&#1492; &#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1464;&#1499;&#1456;&#1500;&#1464;&#1492;:
> 30. And to all the beasts of the earth and to all the fowl of the heavens, and to everything that moves upon the earth, in which there is a living spirit, every green herb to eat," and it was so.   &#1500;. &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1499;&#1465;&#1500; &#1512;&#1493;&#1465;&#1502;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1489;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465; &#1504;&#1462;&#1508;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1497;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1511; &#1506;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1489; &#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1464;&#1499;&#1456;&#1500;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1499;&#1461;&#1503;:
> 31. And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good, and it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day.
> 
> Man was not given the right to eat animals until the covenant he made with Noah and his sons.
> 
> Genesis chapter 9
> 
> 1. And God blessed Noah and his sons, and He said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.   &#1488;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1489;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1498;&#1456; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1504;&#1465;&#1495;&#1463; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1504;&#1464;&#1497;&#1493; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1500;&#1464;&#1492;&#1462;&#1501; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1512;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1512;&#1456;&#1489;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1460;&#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1493;&#1468; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509;:
> 2. And your fear and your dread shall be upon all the beasts of the earth and upon all the fowl of the heaven; upon everything that creeps upon the ground and upon all the fish of the sea, [for] they have been given into your hand.   &#1489;. &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1493;&#1465;&#1512;&#1463;&#1488;&#1458;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1493;&#1456;&#1495;&#1460;&#1514;&#1468;&#1456;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1497;&#1460;&#1492;&#1456;&#1497;&#1462;&#1492; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1456;&#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1499;&#1465;&#1500; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1514;&#1468;&#1460;&#1512;&#1456;&#1502;&#1465;&#1513;&#1474; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1458;&#1491;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1491;&#1468;&#1456;&#1490;&#1461;&#1497; &#1492;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1497;&#1462;&#1491;&#1456;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1504;&#1460;&#1514;&#1468;&#1464;&#1504;&#1493;&#1468;:
> 3. Every moving thing that lives shall be yours to eat; like the green vegetation, I have given you everything.   &#1490;. &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1512;&#1462;&#1502;&#1462;&#1513;&#1474; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1492;&#1493;&#1468;&#1488; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497; &#1500;&#1464;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1497;&#1460;&#1492;&#1456;&#1497;&#1462;&#1492; &#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1464;&#1499;&#1456;&#1500;&#1464;&#1492; &#1499;&#1468;&#1456;&#1497;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1511; &#1506;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1489; &#1504;&#1464;&#1514;&#1463;&#1514;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1500;&#1464;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1465;&#1500;:
> 4. But, flesh with its soul, its blood, you shall not eat.   &#1491;. &#1488;&#1463;&#1498;&#1456; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1513;&#1474;&#1464;&#1512; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1463;&#1508;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1493;&#1465; &#1491;&#1464;&#1502;&#1493;&#1465; &#1500;&#1465;&#1488; &#1514;&#1465;&#1488;&#1499;&#1461;&#1500;&#1493;&#1468;:
> 5. But your blood, of your souls, I will demand [an account]; from the hand of every beast I will demand it, and from the hand of man, from the hand of each man, his brother, I will demand the soul of man.   &#1492;. &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1463;&#1498;&#1456; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1491;&#1468;&#1460;&#1502;&#1456;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1500;&#1456;&#1504;&#1463;&#1508;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1465;&#1514;&#1461;&#1497;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1491;&#1456;&#1512;&#1465;&#1513;&#1473; &#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1491; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1491;&#1456;&#1512;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1504;&#1468;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1491; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1491; &#1488;&#1460;&#1497;&#1513;&#1473; &#1488;&#1464;&#1495;&#1460;&#1497;&#1493; &#1488;&#1462;&#1491;&#1456;&#1512;&#1465;&#1513;&#1473; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1504;&#1462;&#1508;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501;:
> 6. Whoever sheds the blood of man through man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man.   &#1493;. &#1513;&#1473;&#1465;&#1508;&#1461;&#1498;&#1456; &#1491;&#1468;&#1463;&#1501; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1491;&#1468;&#1464;&#1502;&#1493;&#1465; &#1497;&#1460;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1508;&#1461;&#1498;&#1456; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1510;&#1462;&#1500;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1506;&#1464;&#1513;&#1474;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501;:
> 7. And you, be fruitful and multiply; swarm upon the earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'm trying to make sure I've got this clear.  There was no death of animals/humans before sin?  But plant death was fine?  Does that mean that there were no predators, only herbivores?  Did god create more animals after sin was introduced?
> 
> Your responses have been somewhat confusing.  Also, I can only assume that there is no need to consider how this ecosystem might have functioned, since it was eden and god could make it work however he wished.
Click to expand...



I guess if you see plants as our ancestors that would seem like death to you. Yes animals and humans were at peace with each other.

This is what it will be like in the future like it was at the time of adam.

Isaiah chapter 11

4. And he shall judge the poor justly, and he shall chastise with equity the humble of the earth, and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth and with the breath of his lips he shall put the wicked to death.   &#1491;.  
5. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faith the girdle of his loins.   &#1492;.  
6. And a wolf shall live with a lamb, and a leopard shall lie with a kid; and a calf and a lion cub and a fatling [shall lie] together, and a small child shall lead them.   &#1493;.  
7. And a cow and a bear shall graze together, their children shall lie; and a lion, like cattle, shall eat straw.   &#1494;.  
8. And an infant shall play over the hole of an old snake and over the eyeball of an adder, a weaned child shall stretch forth his hand.   &#1495;.  
9. They shall neither harm nor destroy on all My holy mount, for the land shall be full of knowledge of the Lord as water covers the sea bed.   &#1496;.  
10. And it shall come to pass on that day, that the root of Jesse, which stands as a banner for peoples, to him shall the nations inquire, and his peace shall be [with] honor.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is philosophical in terms of proof systems, koshergirl, which he is deliberately misrepresenting, so, yes, it was a fair correction, and one you don't understand.  I get that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in both the bible and science,but real science, not so called science built on a vivid imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it would be more accurate to say you believe in the bible and science that doesn't contradict any of your bible-based beliefs.
Click to expand...


No,because I have not seen any real science contradict the bible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism is an ideology, a faith path, it is not a science based field, like evolution, gang.
> 
> Your silly arguments are why we have a separation of church and state.
> 
> The nice thing about this discussions is that is about fun, not reality, for you wiill never, ever win this battle about creationism as anything more than dogma of a small, unimportant sect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just read my post that compared the evolution's model to the the creationism model ? Look pretty similar to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I can sympathize with your problem, but a basic elementary school science education should clear a few things up for you.
Click to expand...


My degree at the University of Arizona in molecular biology cleared up many things for me it just took a while for it to sink in.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Factually baseless and logically fallacious denials are even less effective at making them not so, cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's right, no offense but you saying so doesn't make it so.  It's scientists saying so that makes it important.
> 
> But scientists saying something makes it even less valid to kosher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww, you should not make fun of the poor thing.  There is obviously something really wrong with that one.
Click to expand...


Only biased scientist that have an agenda do I not trust and there are many of them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergirl, lack of critical thinking skills is a fact of the 6,000-year school of biblical studies.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are adaptations that you can't and can see, respectively.  Other that that, there's no real difference, except as a creationist quibbling point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since there is no difference, coming from someone who actually took a science class in my life, you are the one that needs to hit the elementary school books.
Click to expand...


Really explain the differences maybe I was sleeping through my many classes in genetics.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just read my post that compared the evolution's model to the the creationism model ? Look pretty similar to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can sympathize with your problem, but a basic elementary school science education should clear a few things up for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My degree at the University of Arizona in molecular biology cleared up many things for me it just took a while for it to sink in.
Click to expand...


I'll ask again, why do you brag about your degree from Arizona when Arizona teaches the exact opposite of your views?


Wouldn't it be better to brag about how many science denying Bible blogs you've read?  At least they agree with you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ok, that's your definition of common ancestors, a vague line like that.  A line like that goes along with evolution than and I just go with science when i say our common ancestors are the species we evolved from.
> 
> 
> It's stupid to say science implies a story about eating fruit from a forbidden tree with a Satan-possessed snake in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to you and many others since you think the chimp is so closely related to humans by your reasoning our nearest ancestor must be the chimp.
> 
> But real scientist know we are to far apart in our DNA comparison for it to happen. So what was between the chimp and human ?
> 
> Why is the chimps DNA closer in similarity to an ape then a human ? oops
> 
> You see similarity proves nothing,but if you're gonna believe this nonsense you must come up with the nearest ancestor so far the closest ancestor is adam.
> 
> Those ignorant goat herders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please tell me any member of the non-science and math denying group on this board or any scientist who says our nearest ancestor is the chimp.
> 
> If I were as clueless on evolution as you are I would be an evolution denier myself.  If evolution actually said chimps evolved into humans or adaptations aren't a part of evolution like you think I'd be searching for Bible bloggers to tell me how science works too.
> 
> However since evolution doesn't say half or more of the things you attribute to it, I can thankfully avoid taking sides with lunatics.
Click to expand...


So you're admitting the chimp is not our nearest ancestor then what is ?

Mind you I know they don't say the chimp is our nearest ancestor,just trying to pin you down for an answer.

Why does your side use the chimp DNA similarity as an argument ? Why is a chimps DNA more similar to an ape ?

Sorry I am just using your own beliefs again'st you,it is not I that say's similarity proves ancestry.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> The fact remains that born-again Christians can accept evolution without any concern about their salvation.  Those who argue against this wish usurp the Savior, his personality, and his authority.  Those who do this are in great peril.



Then I would ask ,whats the point of being a born again Christian and ignore the scriptures ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can sympathize with your problem, but a basic elementary school science education should clear a few things up for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My degree at the University of Arizona in molecular biology cleared up many things for me it just took a while for it to sink in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll ask again, why do you brag about your degree from Arizona when Arizona teaches the exact opposite of your views?
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to brag about how many science denying Bible blogs you've read?  At least they agree with you.
Click to expand...


Well it's not bragging just stating a fact. You guys continue to insult because I reject the nonsense and acting like I don't have a clue about your theory.

I was educated in a secular school not a school of faith. But the way you speak to me it seems I must remind you and the others.

I have also worked in the field and saw the evidence first hand and how they arrive at their conclusions. Very disengenuous for many of them but I find it refreshing the ones that teach the rubbish but admit it is impossible. Oh yeah I had a few of those teachers like that at the university level.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to you and many others since you think the chimp is so closely related to humans by your reasoning our nearest ancestor must be the chimp.
> 
> But real scientist know we are to far apart in our DNA comparison for it to happen. So what was between the chimp and human ?
> 
> Why is the chimps DNA closer in similarity to an ape then a human ? oops
> 
> You see similarity proves nothing,but if you're gonna believe this nonsense you must come up with the nearest ancestor so far the closest ancestor is adam.
> 
> Those ignorant goat herders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me any member of the non-science and math denying group on this board or any scientist who says our nearest ancestor is the chimp.
> 
> If I were as clueless on evolution as you are I would be an evolution denier myself.  If evolution actually said chimps evolved into humans or adaptations aren't a part of evolution like you think I'd be searching for Bible bloggers to tell me how science works too.
> 
> However since evolution doesn't say half or more of the things you attribute to it, I can thankfully avoid taking sides with lunatics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're admitting the chimp is not our nearest ancestor then what is ?
> 
> Why does your side use the chimp DNA similarity as an argument ?
> 
> Sorry I am just using your own beliefs again'st you,it is not I that say's similarity proves ancestry.
Click to expand...


Of course I'm admitting the chimp isn't our nearest ancestor, no one who takes science seriously says they are.  I'm assuming you read that in one of your Bible blogs.

If you care to educate yourself on what science actually says about human evolution and our ancestors analyze this website.  And don't lazily look at it and give me the wikipedia cop out, all their sources are clearly referenced if you take issue with any of their information.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if you actually want to educate yourself on what science says about humans and chimps DNA, read here.

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

No you aren't using my beliefs against me.  You're using strawmen Bible blog arguments against me, which is exactly why when we debate and I ask you for proof of something you give me a science website rather than a Bible blog.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My degree at the University of Arizona in molecular biology cleared up many things for me it just took a while for it to sink in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again, why do you brag about your degree from Arizona when Arizona teaches the exact opposite of your views?
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to brag about how many science denying Bible blogs you've read?  At least they agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's not bragging just stating a fact. You guys continue to insult because I reject the nonsense and acting like I don't have a clue about your theory.
> 
> I was educated in a secular school not a school of faith. But the way you speak to me it seems I must remind you and the others.
> 
> I have also worked in the field and saw the evidence first hand and how they arrive at their conclusions. Very disengenuous for many of them but I find it refreshing the ones that teach the rubbish but admit it is impossible. Oh yeah I had a few of those teachers like that at the university level.
Click to expand...


Right but obviously you don't give a damn what the science department at Arizona teaches, so why brag about being taught by the science department at Arizona?  You say the devil is the reason certain scientific facts are taught, why brag about having been taught things the devil is behind?

And no I don't believe that you've worked in any field having to do with evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can sympathize with your problem, but a basic elementary school science education should clear a few things up for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My degree at the University of Arizona in molecular biology cleared up many things for me it just took a while for it to sink in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll ask again, why do you brag about your degree from Arizona when Arizona teaches the exact opposite of your views?
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to brag about how many science denying Bible blogs you've read?  At least they agree with you.
Click to expand...


Wait just a second do you believe that the science classes I took only focused on the faulty theory of macroevolution ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me any member of the non-science and math denying group on this board or any scientist who says our nearest ancestor is the chimp.
> 
> If I were as clueless on evolution as you are I would be an evolution denier myself.  If evolution actually said chimps evolved into humans or adaptations aren't a part of evolution like you think I'd be searching for Bible bloggers to tell me how science works too.
> 
> However since evolution doesn't say half or more of the things you attribute to it, I can thankfully avoid taking sides with lunatics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're admitting the chimp is not our nearest ancestor then what is ?
> 
> Why does your side use the chimp DNA similarity as an argument ?
> 
> Sorry I am just using your own beliefs again'st you,it is not I that say's similarity proves ancestry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I'm admitting the chimp isn't our nearest ancestor, no one who takes science seriously says they are.  I'm assuming you read that in one of your Bible blogs.
> 
> If you care to educate yourself on what science actually says about human evolution and our ancestors analyze this website.  And don't lazily look at it and give me the wikipedia cop out, all their sources are clearly referenced if you take issue with any of their information.
> 
> Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And if you actually want to educate yourself on what science says about humans and chimps DNA, read here.
> 
> Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
> 
> No you aren't using my beliefs against me.  You're using strawmen Bible blog arguments against me, which is exactly why when we debate and I ask you for proof of something you give me a science website rather than a Bible blog.
Click to expand...


Sorry pal, I know your theory well,I can't help it you can't detect sarcasm. 

You need to lighten up and have fun with this, but most importantly learn something.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My degree at the University of Arizona in molecular biology cleared up many things for me it just took a while for it to sink in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again, why do you brag about your degree from Arizona when Arizona teaches the exact opposite of your views?
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to brag about how many science denying Bible blogs you've read?  At least they agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait just a second do you believe that the science classes I took only focused on the faulty theory of macroevolution ?
Click to expand...


No I don't, and I didn't say anything remotely similar to that.  But you're bragging about a degree from a university that you think does the devil's work in teaching evolution.

Very odd.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're admitting the chimp is not our nearest ancestor then what is ?
> 
> Why does your side use the chimp DNA similarity as an argument ?
> 
> Sorry I am just using your own beliefs again'st you,it is not I that say's similarity proves ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I'm admitting the chimp isn't our nearest ancestor, no one who takes science seriously says they are.  I'm assuming you read that in one of your Bible blogs.
> 
> If you care to educate yourself on what science actually says about human evolution and our ancestors analyze this website.  And don't lazily look at it and give me the wikipedia cop out, all their sources are clearly referenced if you take issue with any of their information.
> 
> Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And if you actually want to educate yourself on what science says about humans and chimps DNA, read here.
> 
> Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
> 
> No you aren't using my beliefs against me.  You're using strawmen Bible blog arguments against me, which is exactly why when we debate and I ask you for proof of something you give me a science website rather than a Bible blog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry pal, I know your theory well,I can't help it you can't detect sarcasm.
> 
> You need to lighten up and have fun with this, but most importantly learn something.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you were being sarcastic when you repeatedly state that scientists say chimps are our nearest ancestor, you should take the commandment about lying more seriously.

Believe me I do have fun with it.  In the real world people don't say T-Rex mooed and ate grass and that a pair of elephants can fit in a shoebox.  I only get that from you.


----------



## koshergrl

JakeStarkey said:


> koshergirl, lack of critical thinking skills is a fact of the 6,000-year school of biblical studies.


 
I got As in college biology, anthropology and in critical thinking.

You were saying?


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> So you're admitting the chimp is not our nearest ancestor then what is ?



Homo erectus

This species is extinct now, but is believed to be our nearest ancestor.


----------



## koshergrl

"Believed".

It's all about faith.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> "Believed".



As in, when I look up and the sky is full of dark clouds, and the wind is blowing hard, I might say, "I believe it's going to rain."

As in, when election day approached in 2008, and I looked at the polls for the candidates, I said, "I believe Obama's going to win."

As in, the similarity in phenotype between the species _H. erectus_ and _H. sapiens_, combined with the dating of the emergence and extinction of _erectus_, show that it was very likely to have been the immediate evolutionary ancestor of _H. sapiens_. But this is not _absolutely_ certain, so "is believed to be" is more appropriate language than simply "is."



> It's all about faith.



No, it's all about not claiming 100% certainty when one is only 99% certain.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Believed".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in, when I look up and the sky is full of dark clouds, and the wind is blowing hard, I might say, "I believe it's going to rain."
> 
> As in, when election day approached in 2008, and I looked at the polls for the candidates, I said, "I believe Obama's going to win."
> 
> As in, the similarity in phenotype between the species _H. erectus_ and _H. sapiens_, combined with the dating of the emergence and extinction of _erectus_, show that it was very likely to have been the immediate evolutionary ancestor of _H. sapiens_. But this is not _absolutely_ certain, so "is believed to be" is more appropriate language than simply "is."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all about faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's all about not claiming 100% certainty when one is only 99% certain.
Click to expand...


You explained that perfectly, well done.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Believed".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in, when I look up and the sky is full of dark clouds, and the wind is blowing hard, I might say, "I believe it's going to rain."
> 
> As in, when election day approached in 2008, and I looked at the polls for the candidates, I said, "I believe Obama's going to win."
> 
> As in, the similarity in phenotype between the species _H. erectus_ and _H. sapiens_, combined with the dating of the emergence and extinction of _erectus_, show that it was very likely to have been the immediate evolutionary ancestor of _H. sapiens_. But this is not _absolutely_ certain, so "is believed to be" is more appropriate language than simply "is."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all about faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's all about not claiming 100% certainty when one is only 99% certain.
Click to expand...

 
No, I'm 100 percent certain.

You aren't, and that's fine. But kindly refrain from pretending or trying to convince me that since you're not 100 percent committed to your premise, I, likewise, cannot possibly be committed to my premise. Or that because I AM 100 percent committed to my premise, that somehow makes me stupid or my premise less valid than your own.

That's just arrogance. Combined with ignorance.


----------



## InDoctriNation

koshergrl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Believed".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in, when I look up and the sky is full of dark clouds, and the wind is blowing hard, I might say, "I believe it's going to rain."
> 
> As in, when election day approached in 2008, and I looked at the polls for the candidates, I said, "I believe Obama's going to win."
> 
> As in, the similarity in phenotype between the species _H. erectus_ and _H. sapiens_, combined with the dating of the emergence and extinction of _erectus_, show that it was very likely to have been the immediate evolutionary ancestor of _H. sapiens_. But this is not _absolutely_ certain, so "is believed to be" is more appropriate language than simply "is."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all about faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's all about not claiming 100% certainty when one is only 99% certain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm 100 percent certain.
> 
> You aren't, and that's fine. But kindly refrain from pretending or trying to convince me that since you're not 100 percent committed to your premise, I, likewise, cannot possibly be committed to my premise. Or that because I AM 100 percent committed to my premise, that somehow makes me stupid or my premise less valid than your own.
> 
> That's just arrogance. Combined with ignorance.
Click to expand...


What the hell are you talking about? Being 100% committed to your belief is different from being 100% certain of its veracity. So which is it? If you claim 100% certainty, then you are being disingenuous. I'll admit I just jumped into this thread, but you've compelled me to comment on your nonsensical drivel.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> No, I'm 100 percent certain.



Right. And that claim is based on neither science nor faith, but merely on dogmatism.



> But kindly refrain from pretending or trying to convince me that since you're not 100 percent committed to your premise, I, likewise, cannot possibly be committed to my premise. Or that because I AM 100 percent committed to my premise, that somehow makes me stupid or my premise less valid than your own.



Well, my belief that _H. erectus_ was the immediate ancestor of _H. sapiens_, although I can't hold it with 100% confidence, has a lot more evidence behind it than your belief in a divine creation. There's enough evidence for me to be 99% certain about that ancestry and so this is what I claim; but there is literally ZERO evidence in favor of a one-time divine creation and the entire fossil record argues against it, which means the evidence goes deeply into the negative -- and yet you believe it one hundred percent despite this.

It's really not the 100% part that makes your position less valid. It's that you give such nonsense any credence at all.


----------



## koshergrl

InDoctriNation said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> As in, when I look up and the sky is full of dark clouds, and the wind is blowing hard, I might say, "I believe it's going to rain."
> 
> As in, when election day approached in 2008, and I looked at the polls for the candidates, I said, "I believe Obama's going to win."
> 
> As in, the similarity in phenotype between the species _H. erectus_ and _H. sapiens_, combined with the dating of the emergence and extinction of _erectus_, show that it was very likely to have been the immediate evolutionary ancestor of _H. sapiens_. But this is not _absolutely_ certain, so "is believed to be" is more appropriate language than simply "is."
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's all about not claiming 100% certainty when one is only 99% certain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm 100 percent certain.
> 
> You aren't, and that's fine. But kindly refrain from pretending or trying to convince me that since you're not 100 percent committed to your premise, I, likewise, cannot possibly be committed to my premise. Or that because I AM 100 percent committed to my premise, that somehow makes me stupid or my premise less valid than your own.
> 
> That's just arrogance. Combined with ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about? Being 100% committed to your belief is different from being 100% certain of its veracity. So which is it? If you claim 100% certainty, then you are being disingenuous. I'll admit I just jumped into this thread, but you've compelled me to comment on your nonsensical drivel.
Click to expand...

 
I'm pretty sure I said which it was, you nitwit. Talk about nonsensical drivel.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm 100 percent certain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. And that claim is based on neither science nor faith, but merely on dogmatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But kindly refrain from pretending or trying to convince me that since you're not 100 percent committed to your premise, I, likewise, cannot possibly be committed to my premise. Or that because I AM 100 percent committed to my premise, that somehow makes me stupid or my premise less valid than your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, my belief that _H. erectus_ was the immediate ancestor of _H. sapiens_, although I can't hold it with 100% confidence, has a lot more evidence behind it than your belief in a divine creation. There's enough evidence for me to be 99% certain about that ancestry and so this is what I claim; but there is literally ZERO evidence in favor of a one-time divine creation and the entire fossil record argues against it, which means the evidence goes deeply into the negative -- and yet you believe it one hundred percent despite this.
> 
> It's really not the 100% part that makes your position less valid. It's that you give such nonsense any credence at all.
Click to expand...

 
I feel the same about you, believe me.


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Believed".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in, when I look up and the sky is full of dark clouds, and the wind is blowing hard, I might say, "I believe it's going to rain."
> 
> As in, when election day approached in 2008, and I looked at the polls for the candidates, I said, "I believe Obama's going to win."
> 
> As in, the similarity in phenotype between the species _H. erectus_ and _H. sapiens_, combined with the dating of the emergence and extinction of _erectus_, show that it was very likely to have been the immediate evolutionary ancestor of _H. sapiens_. But this is not _absolutely_ certain, so "is believed to be" is more appropriate language than simply "is."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all about faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's all about not claiming 100% certainty when one is only 99% certain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm 100 percent certain.
> 
> You aren't, and that's fine. But kindly refrain from pretending or trying to convince me that since you're not 100 percent committed to your premise, I, likewise, cannot possibly be committed to my premise. Or that because I AM 100 percent committed to my premise, that somehow makes me stupid or my premise less valid than your own.
> 
> That's just arrogance. Combined with ignorance.
Click to expand...


It's fine if she's 100% certain, it's just not based on anything having to do with science.


----------



## koshergrl

Of course it is. Science supports every single one of my beliefs.

I don't know why you guys worry so much about the faith system of others. You have your own, why don't you just stick to it and mind your own business? Why do you feel compelled to label anyone who doesn't have faith in the same things you do as "stupid" or "uneducated" or whatever, particularly when they aren't stupid or uneducated? Is it because you doubt your own beliefs and it somehow makes them seem more valid if you can ridicule those who don't hold them?


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> Of course it is. Science supports every single one of my beliefs.
> 
> I don't know why you guys worry so much about the faith system of others. You have your own, why don't you just stick to it and mind your own business? Why do you feel compelled to label anyone who doesn't have faith in the same things you do as "stupid" or "uneducated" or whatever, particularly when they aren't stupid or uneducated? Is it because you doubt your own beliefs and it somehow makes them seem more valid if you can ridicule those who don't hold them?



I don't think you're stupid or uneducated.

I do find it intersting though that you say science supports all your beliefs, let's explore that.

Does science support that a man can part a sea with his hands?

Does science support that a man can live inside a whale?

Does science support that a snake can talk?

Does science support that a man can die, be dead for days, and come back to life later?

I'm sure there's dozens more I could ask, but let's start with those.


----------



## koshergrl

Yes. And what hasn't already been proven, will be.

Anything else?


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> Yes. And what hasn't already been proven, will be.
> 
> Anything else?



That's fine, but your predictions aren't based on science is what I'm saying.


Saying "later on science will prove a snake can talk" isn't based on current science.


I'm not mocking you for your beliefs, just saying you have many that aren't backed by science and in fact are the opposite of science.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> koshergirl, lack of critical thinking skills is a fact of the 6,000-year school of biblical studies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got As in college biology, anthropology and in critical thinking.
> 
> You were saying?
Click to expand...


Then I am saying you are not applying them.


----------



## koshergrl

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. And what hasn't already been proven, will be.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine, but your predictions aren't based no science is what I'm saying.
> 
> 
> Saying "later on science will prove a snake can talk" isn't based on current science.
> 
> 
> I'm not mocking you for your beliefs, just saying you have many that aren't backed by science and in fact are the opposite of science.
Click to expand...

 
And how would you know that? Can you read my mind? Do you hold all scientific knowledge?

No, you can't..and you don't. So why is it you feel compelled to tell me what I believe?


----------



## koshergrl

JakeStarkey said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> koshergirl, lack of critical thinking skills is a fact of the 6,000-year school of biblical studies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got As in college biology, anthropology and in critical thinking.
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I am saying you are not applying them.
Click to expand...

 
And I am saying you are wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And that's fine, but that is only opinion, which is all you have on the major premise of the thread.  Your faith beliefs cannot be scientifically confirmed concerning either creation or evolution.  The data does not confirm your opinions.


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. And what hasn't already been proven, will be.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine, but your predictions aren't based no science is what I'm saying.
> 
> 
> Saying "later on science will prove a snake can talk" isn't based on current science.
> 
> 
> I'm not mocking you for your beliefs, just saying you have many that aren't backed by science and in fact are the opposite of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how would you know that? Can you read my mind? Do you hold all scientific knowledge?
> 
> No, you can't..and you don't. So why is it you feel compelled to tell me what I believe?
Click to expand...


Please correct me if the beliefs I stated you have are incorrect.  

Are there things in the Bible that you don't believe happened?


----------



## koshergrl

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. And what hasn't already been proven, will be.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine, but your predictions aren't based on science is what I'm saying.
> 
> 
> Saying "later on science will prove a snake can talk" isn't based on current science.
> 
> 
> I'm not mocking you for your beliefs, just saying you have many that aren't backed by science and in fact are the opposite of science.
Click to expand...

 

Lol..so now we're only using CURRENT science? Is it your position that science is a static thing that stops right here and now?

Or that truth that hasn't been revealed yet isn't really truth UNTIL it's revealed? 

The science of a couple hundred years ago told a far different story about things than the science of today tells us. So do you hold that it was still correct because that was all it revealed back then? Has the truth changed?


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergirl cannot elucidate a cogent, coherent argument based on the proof criteria inherent in science for either creationism or anti-evolutionism.

tis what tis.


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. And what hasn't already been proven, will be.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine, but your predictions aren't based on science is what I'm saying.
> 
> 
> Saying "later on science will prove a snake can talk" isn't based on current science.
> 
> 
> I'm not mocking you for your beliefs, just saying you have many that aren't backed by science and in fact are the opposite of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol..so now we're only using CURRENT science? Is it your position that science is a static thing that stops right here and now?
> 
> Or that truth that hasn't been revealed yet isn't really truth UNTIL it's revealed?
> 
> The science of a couple hundred years ago told a far different story about things than the science of today tells us. So do you hold that it was still correct because that was all it revealed back then? Has the truth changed?
Click to expand...


No, but you can't predict what future science will be and then call it science like you're doing.

There's nothing in science that would lead someone to think that later on science will prove that a snake can talk, a man can live in a whale, a man can separate sea with his hands etc etc.

And that's perfectly fine, you believe in a supernatural being (God) who's powers are outside that of which science can measure.  So you have beliefs in the supernatural, that is outside the natural science world.


----------



## koshergrl

You ignore the facts and lie about the rest, so really, what is the point? I haven't seen one person, ever, provide evidence that proves that the creation of the world did not occur exactly as the bible says.

Likewise, I haven't seen a shred of evidence that proves that we are descended from anything other than men, or that we mutated from some other creature.

When you get those duckies in a row, bring them to the party. Until then, I'll continue to hold you up as an example of someone who thinks "It's smart when I make assumptions about creation based upon nothing, but when you do it, you're stupid" is some sort of scientific proof that the bible is wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That is your opinion unsubstantiated by any empirical data, critical thinking, or other valid criteria, koshergirl.

Just because you believe as you do does not make it fact.


----------



## koshergrl

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine, but your predictions aren't based on science is what I'm saying.
> 
> 
> Saying "later on science will prove a snake can talk" isn't based on current science.
> 
> 
> I'm not mocking you for your beliefs, just saying you have many that aren't backed by science and in fact are the opposite of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol..so now we're only using CURRENT science? Is it your position that science is a static thing that stops right here and now?
> 
> Or that truth that hasn't been revealed yet isn't really truth UNTIL it's revealed?
> 
> The science of a couple hundred years ago told a far different story about things than the science of today tells us. So do you hold that it was still correct because that was all it revealed back then? Has the truth changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but you can't predict what future science will be and then call it science like you're doing.
> 
> There's nothing in science that would lead someone to think that later on science will prove that a snake can talk, a man can live in a whale, a man can separate sea with his hands etc etc.
> 
> And that's perfectly fine, you believe in a supernatural being (God) who's powers are outside that of which science can measure. So you have beliefs in the supernatural, that is outside the natural science world.
Click to expand...

 
See, this is where you fail. Of course I can "predict". That's what a HYPOTHESIS is. A prediction based upon current information.

And there's plenty in science that would lead someone to think that the stories of the bible are true. Of course, you need to actually know the bible and the accurate translations (serpent, not snake. Big fish, not whale, and God separated the sea, not Moses....) As long as you continue to lie about what the bible says, and to lie about what I believe, you won't get a serious, committed response from me. I have to wonder why people feel like they need to lie, though, if they are so certain they're correct. It seems to me that if you are right, you wouldn't need to lie about the opposition in order to make your point.

But I know you aren't right, and I know you lie, and I know the motivation behind you isn't to speak or find the truth, it's to obfuscate, to ridicule, and to discredit. Not because you're correct, but because you hate. And that hatred comes straight from satan. 

Why don't you read the story of the Fall with that in your mind? Satan is the great liar..you know how the serpent got Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge? He lied to her. He told her #1, it wouldn't kill her (he was lying) and #2, if she ate it, she would be as powerful as God.

So why do you lie to and about believers in order to get them to set aside their faith?


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> You ignore the facts and lie about the rest, so really, what is the point? I haven't seen one person, ever, provide evidence that proves that the creation of the world did not occur exactly as the bible says.
> 
> Likewise, I haven't seen a shred of evidence that proves that we are descended from anything other than men, or that we mutated from some other creature.
> 
> When you get those duckies in a row, bring them to the party. Until then, I'll continue to hold you up as an example of someone who thinks "It's smart when I make assumptions about creation based upon nothing, but when you do it, you're stupid" is some sort of scientific proof that the bible is wrong.



That's better, pretend we aren't talking about your beliefs not being backed by science and turn your attacks back on science.

You have good timing.  I think you know many of your beliefs go against science and that's fine, I just don't know why you're too insecure to admit it.

YWC is the same way.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> I *feel *the same about you, believe me.



And that's the difference between us. On a subject that calls for thinking, you, instead, feel.


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol..so now we're only using CURRENT science? Is it your position that science is a static thing that stops right here and now?
> 
> Or that truth that hasn't been revealed yet isn't really truth UNTIL it's revealed?
> 
> The science of a couple hundred years ago told a far different story about things than the science of today tells us. So do you hold that it was still correct because that was all it revealed back then? Has the truth changed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you can't predict what future science will be and then call it science like you're doing.
> 
> There's nothing in science that would lead someone to think that later on science will prove that a snake can talk, a man can live in a whale, a man can separate sea with his hands etc etc.
> 
> And that's perfectly fine, you believe in a supernatural being (God) who's powers are outside that of which science can measure. So you have beliefs in the supernatural, that is outside the natural science world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, this is where you fail. Of course I can "predict". That's what a HYPOTHESIS is. A prediction based upon current information.
> 
> And there's plenty in science that would lead someone to think that the stories of the bible are true. Of course, you need to actually know the bible and the accurate translations (serpent, not snake. Big fish, not whale, and God separated the sea, not Moses....) As long as you continue to lie about what the bible says, and to lie about what I believe, you won't get a serious, committed response from me. I have to wonder why people feel like they need to lie, though, if they are so certain they're correct. It seems to me that if you are right, you wouldn't need to lie about the opposition in order to make your point.
> 
> But I know you aren't right, and I know you lie, and I know the motivation behind you isn't to speak or find the truth, it's to obfuscate, to ridicule, and to discredit. Not because you're correct, but because you hate. And that hatred comes straight from satan.
> 
> Why don't you read the story of the Fall with that in your mind? Satan is the great liar..you know how the serpent got Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge? He lied to her. He told her #1, it wouldn't kill her (he was lying) and #2, if she ate it, she would be as powerful as God.
> 
> So why do you lie to and about believers in order to get them to set aside their faith?
Click to expand...


Serpent and snake are the same thing.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_(Bible)

Which again I'm sure you knew that, but it would be better to childishly insult me and make personal attacks rather than come to agreement with me about your beliefs not being based on science.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I *feel *the same about you, believe me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's the difference between us. On a subject that calls for thinking, you, instead, feel.
Click to expand...

 
Lol, another lie.

I notice you didn't include the statement I was responding to. A statement of belief. I was responding in kind to a comment that had nothing to do with fact, but was instead just an opinion.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> I haven't seen one person, ever, provide evidence that proves that the creation of the world did not occur exactly as the bible says.
> 
> Likewise, I haven't seen a shred of evidence that proves that we are descended from anything other than men, or that we mutated from some other creature.



Yes, you have. I have presented evidence for both of those. So have others. You are simply choosing to ignore that evidence.

To repeat: the fossil record shows that the species of plant and animal on earth have changed dramatically over the millions of years that life has existed on this planet. This completely contradicts the account of creation that occurred in the Bible. Even if we do not interpret the word "day" literally, so that (for example) the creation of animals could have occurred millions of years after the creation of plants, it remains the case that the plants and animals we have today are _different_ from the plants and animals that once lived on this planet. So if we have a divine creation, it has to be an ongoing divine creation that happened continuously for millions of years and is still ongoing, and that conflicts with any reasonable interpretation of Genesis.

As for man, the same fossil record shows a progression of increasingly human-life species of primate that separated from the apes several million years ago, with the strongly human-like species _H. erectus_ immediately preceding our own species. This, along with the support for the general idea of evolution, is strong evidence that our species, like all others, evolved from closely related but not identical antecedents.

You may try to pick holes in this evidence if you wish, but to state as you did that there is NO evidence is simply disingenuous.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> Lol, another lie.
> 
> I notice you didn't include the statement I was responding to. A statement of belief. I was responding in kind to a comment that had nothing to do with fact, but was instead just an opinion.



No, you were responding to a statement of fact, that you chose to twist into a statement of belief through a deliberate misinterpretation of a single word.

I am not the liar here.


----------



## koshergrl

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you can't predict what future science will be and then call it science like you're doing.
> 
> There's nothing in science that would lead someone to think that later on science will prove that a snake can talk, a man can live in a whale, a man can separate sea with his hands etc etc.
> 
> And that's perfectly fine, you believe in a supernatural being (God) who's powers are outside that of which science can measure. So you have beliefs in the supernatural, that is outside the natural science world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is where you fail. Of course I can "predict". That's what a HYPOTHESIS is. A prediction based upon current information.
> 
> And there's plenty in science that would lead someone to think that the stories of the bible are true. Of course, you need to actually know the bible and the accurate translations (serpent, not snake. Big fish, not whale, and God separated the sea, not Moses....) As long as you continue to lie about what the bible says, and to lie about what I believe, you won't get a serious, committed response from me. I have to wonder why people feel like they need to lie, though, if they are so certain they're correct. It seems to me that if you are right, you wouldn't need to lie about the opposition in order to make your point.
> 
> But I know you aren't right, and I know you lie, and I know the motivation behind you isn't to speak or find the truth, it's to obfuscate, to ridicule, and to discredit. Not because you're correct, but because you hate. And that hatred comes straight from satan.
> 
> Why don't you read the story of the Fall with that in your mind? Satan is the great liar..you know how the serpent got Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge? He lied to her. He told her #1, it wouldn't kill her (he was lying) and #2, if she ate it, she would be as powerful as God.
> 
> So why do you lie to and about believers in order to get them to set aside their faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Serpent and snake are the same thing.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_(Bible)
> 
> Which again I'm sure you knew that, but it would be better to childishly insult me and make personal attacks rather than come to agreement with me about your beliefs not being based on science.
Click to expand...

 
You know, if you are going to take the intellectual high road, you might want to use something besides wiki.

"

The word in the text which we, following the Septuagint, translate serpent, is &#1504;&#1495;&#1513; nachash; and, according to Buxtorf and others, has three meanings in Scripture. 
1. It signifies to view or observe attentively, to divine or use enchantments, because in them the augurs viewed attentively the flight of birds, the entrails of beasts, the course of the clouds, etc.; and under this head it signifies to acquire knowledge by experience. 
2. It signifies brass, brazen, and is translated in our Bible, not only brass, but chains, fetters, fetters of brass, and in several places steel; see 2 Samuel 22:35; Job 20:24; Psalm 18:34; and in one place, at least filthiness or fornication, Ezekiel 16:36. 
3. It signifies a serpent, but of what kind is not determined. In Job 26:13, it seems to mean the whale or hippopotamus: By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens, his hand hath formed the crooked serpent, &#1504;&#1495;&#1513; &#1489;&#1512;&#1495; nachash bariach: as &#1489;&#1512;&#1495; barach signifies to pass on or pass through, and &#1489;&#1512;&#1497;&#1495; beriach is used for a bar of a gate or door that passed through rings, etc., the idea of straightness rather than crookedness should be attached to it here; and it is likely that the hippopotamus or sea-horse is intended by it. 
In Ecclesiastes 10:11, the creature called nachash, of whatever sort, is compared to the babbler: Surely the serpent (&#1504;&#1495;&#1513; nachash) will bite without enchantment; and a babbler is no better. 
In Isaiah 27:1, the crocodile or alligator seems particularly meant by the original: In that day the Lord - shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, etc. And in Isaiah 65:25, the same creature is meant as in Genesis 3:1, for in the words, And dust shall be the serpent's meat, there is an evident allusion to the text of Moses. In Amos 9:3, the crocodile is evidently intended: Though they be hid in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, (&#1492;&#1504;&#1495;&#1513; hannachash) and he shall bite them. No person can suppose that any of the snake or serpent kind can be intended here; and we see from the various acceptations of the word, and the different senses which it bears in various places in the sacred writings, that it appears to be a sort of general term confined to no one sense. Hence it will be necessary to examine the root accurately, to see if its ideal meaning will enable us to ascertain the animal intended in the text. We have already seen that &#1504;&#1495;&#1513; nachash signifies to view attentively, to acquire knowledge or experience by attentive observation; so &#1504;&#1495;&#1513;&#1514;&#1497; nichashti, Genesis 30:27 : I have learned by experience; and this seems to be its most general meaning in the Bible. The original word is by the Septuagint translated &#959;&#966;&#953;&#962;, a serpent, not because this was its fixed determinate meaning in the sacred writings, but because it was the best that occurred to the translators: and they do not seem to have given themselves much trouble to understand the meaning of the original, for they have rendered the word as variously as our translators have done, or rather our translators have followed them, as they give nearly the same significations found in the Septuagint: hence we find that &#959;&#966;&#953;&#962; is as frequently used by them as serpent, its supposed literal meaning, is used in our version. And the New Testament writers, who seldom quote the Old Testament but from the Septuagint translation, and often do not change even a word in their quotations, copy this version in the use of this word. From the Septuagint therefore we can expect no light, nor indeed from any other of the ancient versions, which are all subsequent to the Septuagint, and some of them actually made from it. In all this uncertainty it is natural for a serious inquirer after truth to look everywhere for information. And in such an inquiry the Arabic may be expected to afford some help, from its great similarity to the Hebrew. A root in this language, very nearly similar to that in the text, seems to cast considerable light on the subject. Chanas or khanasa signifies he departed, drew off, lay hid, seduced, slunk away; from this root come akhnas, khanasa, and khanoos, which all signify an ape, or satyrus, or any creature of the simia or ape genus. It is very remarkable also that from the same root comes khanas, the Devil, which appellative he bears from that meaning of khanasa, he drew off, seduced, etc., because he draws men off from righteousness, seduces them from their obedience to God, etc., etc. See Golius, sub voce. Is it not strange that the devil and the ape should have the same name, derived from the same root, and that root so very similar to the word in the text? But let us return and consider what is said of the creature in question. Now the nachash was more subtle, &#1506;&#1512;&#1493;&#1501; arum, more wise, cunning, or prudent, than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. In this account we find, 
1. That whatever this nachash was, he stood at the head of all inferior animals for wisdom and understanding. 
2. That he walked erect, for this is necessarily implied in his punishment - on thy belly (i.e., on all fours) shalt thou go. 
3. That he was endued with the gift of speech, for a conversation is here related between him and the woman. 
4. That he was also endued with the gift of reason, for we find him reasoning and disputing with Eve. 
5. That these things were common to this creature, the woman no doubt having often seen him walk erect, talk, and reason, and therefore she testifies no kind of surprise when he accosts her in the language related in the text; and indeed from the manner in which this is introduced it appears to be only a part of a conversation that had passed between them on the occasion: Yea, hath God said, etc. 
Had this creature never been known to speak before his addressing the woman at this time and on this subject, it could not have failed to excite her surprise, and to have filled her with caution, though from the purity and innocence of her nature she might have been incapable of being affected with fear. Now I apprehend that none of these things can be spoken of a serpent of any species. 1. None of them ever did or ever can walk erect. The tales we have had of two-footed and four-footed serpents are justly exploded by every judicious naturalist, and are utterly unworthy of credit. The very name serpent comes from serpo, to creep, and therefore to such it could be neither curse nor punishment to go on their bellies, i.e., to creep on, as they had done from their creation, and must do while their race endures."

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"


----------



## koshergrl

The parting of the Red Sea...perfectly reasonable:

"scientists have developed a computer simulation that offers an alternative, less miraculous explanation. Experts at the National Center for Atmospheric Research are hypothesizing that seven hours of 60 mph winds could have exposed miles of mud flats in the Red Sea, allowing the Chosen Ones to escape. "

Did Moses really part the Red Sea? - The Week

God works the way God works. Ultimately, it just comes down to whether or not you think everything is random . What a remarkable coincidence that a group of people who believed they had God in their midst, who were being pursued by a superior army, should benefit from *strong winds* that allowed them to escape and resulted in the conquest of the hostile troops...but hey, that's where your faith leads you. Mine takes me a different route. I believe the Bible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again, why do you brag about your degree from Arizona when Arizona teaches the exact opposite of your views?
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to brag about how many science denying Bible blogs you've read?  At least they agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait just a second do you believe that the science classes I took only focused on the faulty theory of macroevolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't, and I didn't say anything remotely similar to that.  But you're bragging about a degree from a university that you think does the devil's work in teaching evolution.
> 
> Very odd.
Click to expand...


Devils work yes he is using religion as well but I don't hate religous people. I reject bad religion just as much as I reject bad science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I'm admitting the chimp isn't our nearest ancestor, no one who takes science seriously says they are.  I'm assuming you read that in one of your Bible blogs.
> 
> If you care to educate yourself on what science actually says about human evolution and our ancestors analyze this website.  And don't lazily look at it and give me the wikipedia cop out, all their sources are clearly referenced if you take issue with any of their information.
> 
> Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And if you actually want to educate yourself on what science says about humans and chimps DNA, read here.
> 
> Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
> 
> No you aren't using my beliefs against me.  You're using strawmen Bible blog arguments against me, which is exactly why when we debate and I ask you for proof of something you give me a science website rather than a Bible blog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry pal, I know your theory well,I can't help it you can't detect sarcasm.
> 
> You need to lighten up and have fun with this, but most importantly learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you were being sarcastic when you repeatedly state that scientists say chimps are our nearest ancestor, you should take the commandment about lying more seriously.
> 
> Believe me I do have fun with it.  In the real world people don't say T-Rex mooed and ate grass and that a pair of elephants can fit in a shoebox.  I only get that from you.
Click to expand...


They say we are related to chimps because of DNA similarity,how many times must I say this before you understand whats being said ? I am asking you what did humans evolve from their DNA must be much closer then the chimp by your reasoning.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry pal, I know your theory well,I can't help it you can't detect sarcasm.
> 
> You need to lighten up and have fun with this, but most importantly learn something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you were being sarcastic when you repeatedly state that scientists say chimps are our nearest ancestor, you should take the commandment about lying more seriously.
> 
> Believe me I do have fun with it.  In the real world people don't say T-Rex mooed and ate grass and that a pair of elephants can fit in a shoebox.  I only get that from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They say we are related to chimps because of DNA similarity,how many times must I say this before you understand whats being said ? I am asking you what did humans evolve from their DNA must be much closer then the chimp by your reasoning.
Click to expand...


Another lie, you said science says chimps are our ancestors, which is either flat out ignorance or a lie.  I think it's ignorance.

I've given you links, and you ignored them.  So please stop asking me for links.  The links I provide have the scientific answers, so if you actually want a scientific answer to your question (which you don't) go back and read the links.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're admitting the chimp is not our nearest ancestor then what is ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homo erectus
> 
> This species is extinct now, but is believed to be our nearest ancestor.
Click to expand...


How do you know this ? can you perform a DNA test on this creature ?

Is this creature human or an apelike creature ?

Or is it both human and ape ?


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> The parting of the Red Sea...perfectly reasonable:
> 
> "scientists have developed a computer simulation that offers an alternative, less miraculous explanation. Experts at the National Center for Atmospheric Research are hypothesizing that seven hours of 60 mph winds could have exposed miles of mud flats in the Red Sea, allowing the Chosen Ones to escape. "
> 
> Did Moses really part the Red Sea? - The Week
> 
> God works the way God works. Ultimately, it just comes down to whether or not you think everything is random . What a remarkable coincidence that a group of people who believed they had God in their midst, who were being pursued by a superior army, should benefit from *strong winds* that allowed them to escape and resulted in the conquest of the hostile troops...but hey, that's where your faith leads you. Mine takes me a different route. I believe the Bible.



You said your God separated the sea, that's not what your link says.

Which story are you going with?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> As in, when I look up and the sky is full of dark clouds, and the wind is blowing hard, I might say, "I believe it's going to rain."
> 
> As in, when election day approached in 2008, and I looked at the polls for the candidates, I said, "I believe Obama's going to win."
> 
> As in, the similarity in phenotype between the species _H. erectus_ and _H. sapiens_, combined with the dating of the emergence and extinction of _erectus_, show that it was very likely to have been the immediate evolutionary ancestor of _H. sapiens_. But this is not _absolutely_ certain, so "is believed to be" is more appropriate language than simply "is."
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's all about not claiming 100% certainty when one is only 99% certain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm 100 percent certain.
> 
> You aren't, and that's fine. But kindly refrain from pretending or trying to convince me that since you're not 100 percent committed to your premise, I, likewise, cannot possibly be committed to my premise. Or that because I AM 100 percent committed to my premise, that somehow makes me stupid or my premise less valid than your own.
> 
> That's just arrogance. Combined with ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fine if she's 100% certain, it's just not based on anything having to do with science.
Click to expand...


So what is the evidence that makes you believe homo erectus is what humans evolved from ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got As in college biology, anthropology and in critical thinking.
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I am saying you are not applying them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am saying you are wrong.
Click to expand...


They have never gotten it,that creationist have a model just like evolutionist.

What they refuse to believe that men of science believe in God and creation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine, but your predictions aren't based no science is what I'm saying.
> 
> 
> Saying "later on science will prove a snake can talk" isn't based on current science.
> 
> 
> I'm not mocking you for your beliefs, just saying you have many that aren't backed by science and in fact are the opposite of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how would you know that? Can you read my mind? Do you hold all scientific knowledge?
> 
> No, you can't..and you don't. So why is it you feel compelled to tell me what I believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please correct me if the beliefs I stated you have are incorrect.
> 
> Are there things in the Bible that you don't believe happened?
Click to expand...


Should I start listing all the things you believe that requires faith to believe because it's not backed by evidence ?

Have you not learned yet ?


----------



## koshergrl

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I am saying you are not applying them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I am saying you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have never gotten it,that creationist have a model just like evolutionist.
> 
> What they refuse to believe that men of science believe in God and creation.
Click to expand...

 
Oh they believe and know that men of science believe in God. But they LIE about it because it doesn't fit with the lies they tell about believers...i.e., they're stupid, they don't have a firm grasp of *science*, they're uneducated, etc. and so on.

How many times has it been pointed out and proven just in this thread that giants of the scientific world have faith in God and the Bible?

And yet how many times have the retards re-iterated that only uneducated fools believe in God and/or the Bible?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how would you know that? Can you read my mind? Do you hold all scientific knowledge?
> 
> No, you can't..and you don't. So why is it you feel compelled to tell me what I believe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please correct me if the beliefs I stated you have are incorrect.
> 
> Are there things in the Bible that you don't believe happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should I start listing all the things you believe that requires faith to believe because it's not backed by evidence ?
> 
> Have you not learned yet ?
Click to expand...


None of my scientific views require faith.  You can repeat over and over again that they do, but you'll still be wrong each time you repeat it.

No I learn by science, not by those who repeat the talking points of Bible bloggers.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ignore the facts and lie about the rest, so really, what is the point? I haven't seen one person, ever, provide evidence that proves that the creation of the world did not occur exactly as the bible says.
> 
> Likewise, I haven't seen a shred of evidence that proves that we are descended from anything other than men, or that we mutated from some other creature.
> 
> When you get those duckies in a row, bring them to the party. Until then, I'll continue to hold you up as an example of someone who thinks "It's smart when I make assumptions about creation based upon nothing, but when you do it, you're stupid" is some sort of scientific proof that the bible is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's better, pretend we aren't talking about your beliefs not being backed by science and turn your attacks back on science.
> 
> You have good timing.  I think you know many of your beliefs go against science and that's fine, I just don't know why you're too insecure to admit it.
> 
> YWC is the same way.
Click to expand...


You continue to avoid many of my questions and you attempt to change the subject all the time as to discredit believers., because you can't answer my questions it took someone else to provide an answer as to the nearest ancestor. But I am still waiting for the evidence to prove it so that neither of you have presented.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I *feel *the same about you, believe me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's the difference between us. On a subject that calls for thinking, you, instead, feel.
Click to expand...


We don't think


----------



## koshergrl

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parting of the Red Sea...perfectly reasonable:
> 
> "scientists have developed a computer simulation that offers an alternative, less miraculous explanation. Experts at the National Center for Atmospheric Research are hypothesizing that seven hours of 60 mph winds could have exposed miles of mud flats in the Red Sea, allowing the Chosen Ones to escape. "
> 
> Did Moses really part the Red Sea? - The Week
> 
> God works the way God works. Ultimately, it just comes down to whether or not you think everything is random . What a remarkable coincidence that a group of people who believed they had God in their midst, who were being pursued by a superior army, should benefit from *strong winds* that allowed them to escape and resulted in the conquest of the hostile troops...but hey, that's where your faith leads you. Mine takes me a different route. I believe the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said your God separated the sea, that's not what your link says.
> 
> Which story are you going with?
Click to expand...

 
God did separate the Red Sea.

God controls the winds.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you can't predict what future science will be and then call it science like you're doing.
> 
> There's nothing in science that would lead someone to think that later on science will prove that a snake can talk, a man can live in a whale, a man can separate sea with his hands etc etc.
> 
> And that's perfectly fine, you believe in a supernatural being (God) who's powers are outside that of which science can measure. So you have beliefs in the supernatural, that is outside the natural science world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is where you fail. Of course I can "predict". That's what a HYPOTHESIS is. A prediction based upon current information.
> 
> And there's plenty in science that would lead someone to think that the stories of the bible are true. Of course, you need to actually know the bible and the accurate translations (serpent, not snake. Big fish, not whale, and God separated the sea, not Moses....) As long as you continue to lie about what the bible says, and to lie about what I believe, you won't get a serious, committed response from me. I have to wonder why people feel like they need to lie, though, if they are so certain they're correct. It seems to me that if you are right, you wouldn't need to lie about the opposition in order to make your point.
> 
> But I know you aren't right, and I know you lie, and I know the motivation behind you isn't to speak or find the truth, it's to obfuscate, to ridicule, and to discredit. Not because you're correct, but because you hate. And that hatred comes straight from satan.
> 
> Why don't you read the story of the Fall with that in your mind? Satan is the great liar..you know how the serpent got Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge? He lied to her. He told her #1, it wouldn't kill her (he was lying) and #2, if she ate it, she would be as powerful as God.
> 
> So why do you lie to and about believers in order to get them to set aside their faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Serpent and snake are the same thing.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_(Bible)
> 
> Which again I'm sure you knew that, but it would be better to childishly insult me and make personal attacks rather than come to agreement with me about your beliefs not being based on science.
Click to expand...


Did a snake have legs ?


----------



## koshergrl

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please correct me if the beliefs I stated you have are incorrect.
> 
> Are there things in the Bible that you don't believe happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should I start listing all the things you believe that requires faith to believe because it's not backed by evidence ?
> 
> Have you not learned yet ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of my scientific views require faith. You can repeat over and over again that they do, but you'll still be wrong each time you repeat it.
> 
> No I learn by science, not by those who repeat the talking points of Bible bloggers.
Click to expand...

 
All of your scientific views that fly in the face of the Bible require faith.

The scientific view that we have descended from some animal that is not human, for example. There's no evidence of that. But you believe it. That's faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you were being sarcastic when you repeatedly state that scientists say chimps are our nearest ancestor, you should take the commandment about lying more seriously.
> 
> Believe me I do have fun with it.  In the real world people don't say T-Rex mooed and ate grass and that a pair of elephants can fit in a shoebox.  I only get that from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They say we are related to chimps because of DNA similarity,how many times must I say this before you understand whats being said ? I am asking you what did humans evolve from their DNA must be much closer then the chimp by your reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie, you said science says chimps are our ancestors, which is either flat out ignorance or a lie.  I think it's ignorance.
> 
> I've given you links, and you ignored them.  So please stop asking me for links.  The links I provide have the scientific answers, so if you actually want a scientific answer to your question (which you don't) go back and read the links.
Click to expand...


If we are related to chimps since they came first are they our ancestors ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parting of the Red Sea...perfectly reasonable:
> 
> "scientists have developed a computer simulation that offers an alternative, less miraculous explanation. Experts at the National Center for Atmospheric Research are hypothesizing that seven hours of 60 mph winds could have exposed miles of mud flats in the Red Sea, allowing the Chosen Ones to escape. "
> 
> Did Moses really part the Red Sea? - The Week
> 
> God works the way God works. Ultimately, it just comes down to whether or not you think everything is random . What a remarkable coincidence that a group of people who believed they had God in their midst, who were being pursued by a superior army, should benefit from *strong winds* that allowed them to escape and resulted in the conquest of the hostile troops...but hey, that's where your faith leads you. Mine takes me a different route. I believe the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said your God separated the sea, that's not what your link says.
> 
> Which story are you going with?
Click to expand...


You fault us for having faith but not yourself,hmm what do we call people who do such things ?


----------



## koshergrl

I said God separated the sea, with intent, specifically at Moses' command. I haven't changed my story. I don't know what you think I mean when I say God did it, I didn't say he came down and waved a wand...Moses is the one who used his staff, and God obliged.

The information I provided was to prove that scientifically, it's certainly feasible it happened.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please correct me if the beliefs I stated you have are incorrect.
> 
> Are there things in the Bible that you don't believe happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should I start listing all the things you believe that requires faith to believe because it's not backed by evidence ?
> 
> Have you not learned yet ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of my scientific views require faith.  You can repeat over and over again that they do, but you'll still be wrong each time you repeat it.
> 
> No I learn by science, not by those who repeat the talking points of Bible bloggers.
Click to expand...


Lets keep it simple,if there is no creator how did life begin ?

Does the evidence confirm life creates life ?

Is there any evidence that supports life began naturally ?

You seem to keep mocking the thought of creation so if you avoid this question it seems your view is based off of faith.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ignore the facts and lie about the rest, so really, what is the point? I haven't seen one person, ever, provide evidence that proves that the creation of the world did not occur exactly as the bible says.
> 
> Likewise, I haven't seen a shred of evidence that proves that we are descended from anything other than men, or that we mutated from some other creature.
> 
> When you get those duckies in a row, bring them to the party. Until then, I'll continue to hold you up as an example of someone who thinks "It's smart when I make assumptions about creation based upon nothing, but when you do it, you're stupid" is some sort of scientific proof that the bible is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's better, pretend we aren't talking about your beliefs not being backed by science and turn your attacks back on science.
> 
> You have good timing.  I think you know many of your beliefs go against science and that's fine, I just don't know why you're too insecure to admit it.
> 
> YWC is the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to avoid many of my questions and you attempt to change the subject all the time as to discredit believers., because you can't answer my questions it took someone else to provide an answer as to the nearest ancestor. But I am still waiting for the evidence to prove it so that neither of you have presented.
Click to expand...


I've answered your questions a dozen times on this board with links, then you ignore the links.  

So I'm done wasting my time finding links, reading them and posting them when you don't read them.  Don't pretend like you want an answer.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say we are related to chimps because of DNA similarity,how many times must I say this before you understand whats being said ? I am asking you what did humans evolve from their DNA must be much closer then the chimp by your reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie, you said science says chimps are our ancestors, which is either flat out ignorance or a lie.  I think it's ignorance.
> 
> I've given you links, and you ignored them.  So please stop asking me for links.  The links I provide have the scientific answers, so if you actually want a scientific answer to your question (which you don't) go back and read the links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we are related to chimps since they came first are they our ancestors ?
Click to expand...


No, that's not how it works at all.


----------



## koshergrl

I haven't seen your dozens of links.

Another lie?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Men believe in science, God, and the Bible, yet do not believe in creationism and do believe in evolution.  You droids want to insist that your beliefs somehow validate creationism and invalidate evolution.

Why is this so hard for you to accept that others believe in Jesus Christ and His Word as passionately as you do but not in your pseudo-science and pseueo-biblical beliefs?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you were being sarcastic when you repeatedly state that scientists say chimps are our nearest ancestor, you should take the commandment about lying more seriously.
> 
> Believe me I do have fun with it.  In the real world people don't say T-Rex mooed and ate grass and that a pair of elephants can fit in a shoebox.  I only get that from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They say we are related to chimps because of DNA similarity,how many times must I say this before you understand whats being said ? I am asking you what did humans evolve from their DNA must be much closer then the chimp by your reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie, you said science says chimps are our ancestors, which is either flat out ignorance or a lie.  I think it's ignorance.
> 
> I've given you links, and you ignored them.  So please stop asking me for links.  The links I provide have the scientific answers, so if you actually want a scientific answer to your question (which you don't) go back and read the links.
Click to expand...


Who are you calling a liar ? Who is ignorant ?

published in early 2007 challenges this notion.

Published in PLoS Genetics, the article suggests that the human-chimpanzee split may have been about four million years ago, around the time when Lucy, a bipedal relative of humans, was running around. Just last year, another paper described evidence of interbreeding between proto-humans and proto-chimpanzees more recently than 5.4 million years ago, an event that would not be uncommon when two populations are slowly splitting into two distinct species.


â&#8364;&#339;Someone told me that human beings have been around for only 60 thousand years. This is shorter than I thought. Is this true? Where did we come from?â&#8364; » Scienceline

Why don't you educate yourself before you call people liars.


----------



## koshergrl

JakeStarkey said:


> That is your opinion unsubstantiated by any empirical data, critical thinking, or other valid criteria, koshergirl.
> 
> Just because you believe as you do does not make it fact.


 
Another lie. I never said my belief makes anything fact.

I said what I believe in IS true, and it is. Truth can exist even before it's "proven". For example, germs and viruses have always caused illness...even when the accepted *science* supported another theory.

The earth has always been a globe (a round thing, as it is described in the bible), despite what the *science* supported.

So you see, the truth exists regardless of the *science*. Sometimes it takes the science a little bit to catch up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's better, pretend we aren't talking about your beliefs not being backed by science and turn your attacks back on science.
> 
> You have good timing.  I think you know many of your beliefs go against science and that's fine, I just don't know why you're too insecure to admit it.
> 
> YWC is the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to avoid many of my questions and you attempt to change the subject all the time as to discredit believers., because you can't answer my questions it took someone else to provide an answer as to the nearest ancestor. But I am still waiting for the evidence to prove it so that neither of you have presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered your questions a dozen times on this board with links, then you ignore the links.
> 
> So I'm done wasting my time finding links, reading them and posting them when you don't read them.  Don't pretend like you want an answer.
Click to expand...


----------



## koshergrl

JakeStarkey said:


> Men believe in science, God, and the Bible, yet do not believe in creationism and do believe in evolution. You droids want to insist that your beliefs somehow validate creationism and invalidate evolution.
> 
> Why is this so hard for you to accept that others believe in Jesus Christ and His Word as passionately as you do but not in your pseudo-science and pseueo-biblical beliefs?


 
Why do you lie about what we believe? I haven't heard anyone say they don't accept that others can't believe in Christ and science...can you link that?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say we are related to chimps because of DNA similarity,how many times must I say this before you understand whats being said ? I am asking you what did humans evolve from their DNA must be much closer then the chimp by your reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie, you said science says chimps are our ancestors, which is either flat out ignorance or a lie.  I think it's ignorance.
> 
> I've given you links, and you ignored them.  So please stop asking me for links.  The links I provide have the scientific answers, so if you actually want a scientific answer to your question (which you don't) go back and read the links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you calling a liar ? Who is ignorant ?
> 
> published in early 2007 challenges this notion.
> 
> Published in PLoS Genetics, the article suggests that the human-chimpanzee split may have been about four million years ago, around the time when Lucy, a bipedal relative of humans, was running around. Just last year, another paper described evidence of interbreeding between proto-humans and proto-chimpanzees more recently than 5.4 million years ago, an event that would not be uncommon when two populations are slowly splitting into two distinct species.
> 
> 
> âSomeone told me that human beings have been around for only 60 thousand years. This is shorter than I thought. Is this true? Where did we come from?â » Scienceline
> 
> Why don't you educate yourself before you call people liars.
Click to expand...


A species being around longer doesn't mean they're ancestors, you liar.

I provided a link that already shows the family tree and which species of ancestors of which, but of course you ignored it.  Hence why I'm done providing links for you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie, you said science says chimps are our ancestors, which is either flat out ignorance or a lie.  I think it's ignorance.
> 
> I've given you links, and you ignored them.  So please stop asking me for links.  The links I provide have the scientific answers, so if you actually want a scientific answer to your question (which you don't) go back and read the links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you calling a liar ? Who is ignorant ?
> 
> published in early 2007 challenges this notion.
> 
> Published in PLoS Genetics, the article suggests that the human-chimpanzee split may have been about four million years ago, around the time when Lucy, a bipedal relative of humans, was running around. Just last year, another paper described evidence of interbreeding between proto-humans and proto-chimpanzees more recently than 5.4 million years ago, an event that would not be uncommon when two populations are slowly splitting into two distinct species.
> 
> 
> âSomeone told me that human beings have been around for only 60 thousand years. This is shorter than I thought. Is this true? Where did we come from?â » Scienceline
> 
> Why don't you educate yourself before you call people liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A species being around longer doesn't mean they're ancestors, you liar.
> 
> I provided a link that already shows the family tree and which species of ancestors of which, but of course you ignored it.  Hence why I'm done providing links for you.
Click to expand...


Did you read the article moron ?

You wanted something from a noncreationist site.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Koshergirl then does believe that "Men [can] believe in science, God, and the Bible, yet do not believe in creationism and do believe in evolution."  If you do not deny it or refuse to answer it, then the doctrine of affirmative silence confirms your belief.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie, you said science says chimps are our ancestors, which is either flat out ignorance or a lie.  I think it's ignorance.
> 
> I've given you links, and you ignored them.  So please stop asking me for links.  The links I provide have the scientific answers, so if you actually want a scientific answer to your question (which you don't) go back and read the links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you calling a liar ? Who is ignorant ?
> 
> published in early 2007 challenges this notion.
> 
> Published in PLoS Genetics, the article suggests that the human-chimpanzee split may have been about four million years ago, around the time when Lucy, a bipedal relative of humans, was running around. Just last year, another paper described evidence of interbreeding between proto-humans and proto-chimpanzees more recently than 5.4 million years ago, an event that would not be uncommon when two populations are slowly splitting into two distinct species.
> 
> 
> âSomeone told me that human beings have been around for only 60 thousand years. This is shorter than I thought. Is this true? Where did we come from?â » Scienceline
> 
> Why don't you educate yourself before you call people liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A species being around longer doesn't mean they're ancestors, you liar.
> 
> I provided a link that already shows the family tree and which species of ancestors of which, but of course you ignored it.  Hence why I'm done providing links for you.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry but I have to do this dummy, your side can't agree I guess that is expecting too much of you to admit it.


----------



## koshergrl

You know, don't bullshit me. I have said repeatedly I believe in science, and that science has never disproved anything I believe. I have said over and over and OVER that I don't challenge evolution on it's face...I know how creatures evolve, I've bred animals, I get it. 

But the SCIENCE has not yet proven that evolution in any way explains our existence on earth, nor has it ever proven that we spontaneously change from one species to another. That is a FACT, jack, and don't try to pretend it's not. THAT'S where the dishonesty comes in. The existence of inherited traits and mutation does NOT prove that we descend from ape like creatures, NOR does it disprove the veracity of the bible. They are two completely separate things.

And that's how your so-called "scientific mind" fails you. Scientists, real ones, recognize this. Lay people who have an axe to grind and who want to control the belief systems of others, don't.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you calling a liar ? Who is ignorant ?
> 
> published in early 2007 challenges this notion.
> 
> Published in PLoS Genetics, the article suggests that the human-chimpanzee split may have been about four million years ago, around the time when Lucy, a bipedal relative of humans, was running around. Just last year, another paper described evidence of interbreeding between proto-humans and proto-chimpanzees more recently than 5.4 million years ago, an event that would not be uncommon when two populations are slowly splitting into two distinct species.
> 
> 
> â&#8364;&#339;Someone told me that human beings have been around for only 60 thousand years. This is shorter than I thought. Is this true? Where did we come from?â&#8364; » Scienceline
> 
> Why don't you educate yourself before you call people liars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A species being around longer doesn't mean they're ancestors, you liar.
> 
> I provided a link that already shows the family tree and which species of ancestors of which, but of course you ignored it.  Hence why I'm done providing links for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but I have to do this dummy, your side can't agree I guess that is expecting too much of you to admit it.
Click to expand...


From your link:

"Modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, evolved from a now extinct African ancestor about 130-thousand years ago."

I ask AGAIN, please find me ONE scientist or person on this board who isn't an evolution denier who says humans evolved from chimps.

Not 20, or 10 or 5, show me ONE.

Thanks


----------



## InDoctriNation

koshergrl said:


> You know, don't bullshit me. I have said repeatedly I believe in science, and that science has never disproved anything I believe. I have said over and over and OVER that I don't challenge evolution on it's face...I know how creatures evolve, I've bred animals, I get it.
> 
> But the SCIENCE has not yet proven that evolution in any way explains our existence on earth, nor has it ever proven that we spontaneously change from one species to another. That is a FACT, jack, and don't try to pretend it's not. THAT'S where the dishonesty comes in. The existence of inherited traits and mutation does NOT prove that we descend from ape like creatures, NOR does it disprove the veracity of the bible. They are two completely separate things.
> 
> And that's how your so-called "scientific mind" fails you. Scientists, real ones, recognize this. Lay people who have an axe to grind and who want to control the belief systems of others, don't.



You don't understand how science functions. Science is unable to prove anything, as it is an inductive process. I wouldn't expect science to ever prove (offer evidence) that we spontaneously change from one species to another, as that would disprove the theory of evolution. Yes, the existence of inherited traits and mutation does not prove that we descended from ape like creatures, but it is evidence of this common descent. And when findings in genetics are combined with findings in other scientific fields, the theory becomes stronger. The goal of science is not to prove anything, get that through your thick skull.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you calling a liar ? Who is ignorant ?
> 
> published in early 2007 challenges this notion.
> 
> Published in PLoS Genetics, the article suggests that the human-chimpanzee split may have been about four million years ago, around the time when Lucy, a bipedal relative of humans, was running around. Just last year, another paper described evidence of interbreeding between proto-humans and proto-chimpanzees more recently than 5.4 million years ago, an event that would not be uncommon when two populations are slowly splitting into two distinct species.
> 
> 
> âSomeone told me that human beings have been around for only 60 thousand years. This is shorter than I thought. Is this true? Where did we come from?â » Scienceline
> 
> Why don't you educate yourself before you call people liars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A species being around longer doesn't mean they're ancestors, you liar.
> 
> I provided a link that already shows the family tree and which species of ancestors of which, but of course you ignored it.  Hence why I'm done providing links for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the article moron ?
> 
> You wanted something from a noncreationist site.
Click to expand...


From your link again.  

"The last living common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans, or the point of divergence between the two species, is estimated to have lived between five and seven million years ago, although a new study published in early 2007 challenges this notion."

Who can't read?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> A species being around longer doesn't mean they're ancestors, you liar.
> 
> I provided a link that already shows the family tree and which species of ancestors of which, but of course you ignored it.  Hence why I'm done providing links for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but I have to do this dummy, your side can't agree I guess that is expecting too much of you to admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> "Modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, evolved from a now extinct African ancestor about 130-thousand years ago."
> 
> I ask AGAIN, please find me ONE scientist or person on this board who isn't an evolution denier who says humans evolved from chimps.
> 
> Not 20, or 10 or 5, show me ONE.
> 
> Thanks
Click to expand...


I never said that humans divereged from chimps but chimps were in the line of the evolution tree according to your side.

published in early 2007 challenges this notion.

Published in PLoS Genetics, the article suggests that the human-chimpanzee split may have been about four million years ago, around the time when Lucy, a bipedal relative of humans, was running around. Just last year, another paper described evidence of interbreeding between proto-humans and proto-chimpanzees more recently than 5.4 million years ago, an event that would not be uncommon when two populations are slowly splitting into two distinct species.

Human chimpanzee split did we evolve before them or after them ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> You know, don't bullshit me. I have said repeatedly I believe in science, and that science has never disproved anything I believe. I have said over and over and OVER that I don't challenge evolution on it's face...I know how creatures evolve, I've bred animals, I get it.
> 
> But the SCIENCE has not yet proven that evolution in any way explains our existence on earth, nor has it ever proven that we spontaneously change from one species to another. That is a FACT, jack, and don't try to pretend it's not. THAT'S where the dishonesty comes in. The existence of inherited traits and mutation does NOT prove that we descend from ape like creatures, NOR does it disprove the veracity of the bible. They are two completely separate things.
> 
> And that's how your so-called "scientific mind" fails you. Scientists, real ones, recognize this. Lay people who have an axe to grind and who want to control the belief systems of others, don't.



Koshergirl then does believe that "Men [can] believe in science, God, and the Bible, yet do not believe in creationism and do believe in evolution." Her lack of denial affirms her belief.

Believe on, then, koshergirl, although I think your belief about evolution and evolution is silly.


----------



## Youwerecreated

So what is the evidence that we evolved from homo erectus ?

Did they test their DNA ?

Was this a half human half apelike creature ?

Was this creature human or ape ?


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should I start listing all the things you believe that requires faith to believe because it's not backed by evidence ?
> 
> Have you not learned yet ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of my scientific views require faith. You can repeat over and over again that they do, but you'll still be wrong each time you repeat it.
> 
> No I learn by science, not by those who repeat the talking points of Bible bloggers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *All of your scientific views that fly in the face of the Bible require faith.*
> 
> The scientific view that we have descended from some animal that is not human, for example. There's no evidence of that. But you believe it. That's faith.
Click to expand...


What if someone holds a scientific view that flies in the face of another religion's holy texts?

Or is it that, since you believe the bible to be truth, you assume anything which contradicts it must be false; so whether or not the science is good is immaterial to your opinion of it, if it contradicts a biblical belief, it is wrong and requires faith to believe?

I realize this is just a small thing in one post, but the fact that you made the bolded sentence the first part of the post, and then said anything about evidence, seems telling.  If you are in fact assuming any science is wrong if it contradicts the bible before you ever look at the possible evidence, then it is not a matter of others needing faith for their belief in whatever scientific theory, but rather a matter of your faith preventing you from accepting any possibility of it being reasonable.

Sorry if I'm reading too much into this, and I may be thinking more of YWC than you.


----------



## InDoctriNation

Youwerecreated said:


> So what is the evidence that we evolved from homo erectus ?
> 
> Did they test their DNA ?
> 
> Was this a half human half apelike creature ?
> 
> Was this creature human or ape ?



Who is claiming that we evolved from homo erectus?

I don't know if they (whoever you mean by that) tested their DNA. I'm sure you could find out the answer to this question with a cursory search if you are so inclined.

What do you mean by half human half apelike creature? Seems like a dishonest, oversimplified question to me, and thus not worth anyone's consideration.

How do you explain the existence of creatures like homo erectus in light of the Bible? Were they taken onto the arc? Were neanderthals and australopithecus there as well? What happened to them and why does the Bible make no mention of their existence?


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I am saying you are not applying them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I am saying you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have never gotten it,that creationist have a model just like evolutionist.
> 
> What they refuse to believe that men of science believe in God and creation.
Click to expand...


In case you included me in the 'they' of your post : I have never said nor thought that scientists cannot believe in god or creation.  However, you say it as though there are only 2 beliefs, yours and those who disagree.  There are many different beliefs about god and creation, not only among the many religions but within various religions.

Do you think that most scientists who believe in god share your beliefs?  Do you think most scientists who believe god created the world/life share your beliefs?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> So what is the evidence that we evolved from homo erectus ?
> 
> Did they test their DNA ?
> 
> Was this a half human half apelike creature ?
> 
> Was this creature human or ape ?



I'll just keep providing the same link over and over again, and you can keep pretending to read people's answers over and over again when clearly you don't.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with H. sapiens circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (after H. sapiens moved out from Africa, but before they separated into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).*


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> So what is the evidence that we evolved from homo erectus ?
> 
> Did they test their DNA ?



I don't know if that's been done or not. If not, the best evidence is the clear phenotypic similarity between the two species, together with the general evidence for evolution (which shows that _H. sapiens_ must have evolved from something and _H. erectus_ is by far the most likely candidate), and the time that _H. erectus_ was alive.



> Was this a half human half apelike creature ?
> 
> Was this creature human or ape ?



Of course it wasn't "half human half apelike." We are not descended from apes. Apes and humans share a common ancestor but it's quite far back. Chimpanzees are, if you like, our cousins; they are not our parents or grandparents or anything like that.

_H. erectus_ was certainly not an ape. Whether it was "human" or not depends on how strictly you define that term. If only modern human beings are "human," then it was neither human nor ape, but much closer to being human than to being ape. If we use a somewhat broader definition that includes the whole hominid line, or at least the genus _Homo_, then it was human.


----------



## koshergrl

InDoctriNation said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, don't bullshit me. I have said repeatedly I believe in science, and that science has never disproved anything I believe. I have said over and over and OVER that I don't challenge evolution on it's face...I know how creatures evolve, I've bred animals, I get it.
> 
> But the SCIENCE has not yet proven that evolution in any way explains our existence on earth, nor has it ever proven that we spontaneously change from one species to another. That is a FACT, jack, and don't try to pretend it's not. THAT'S where the dishonesty comes in. The existence of inherited traits and mutation does NOT prove that we descend from ape like creatures, NOR does it disprove the veracity of the bible. They are two completely separate things.
> 
> And that's how your so-called "scientific mind" fails you. Scientists, real ones, recognize this. Lay people who have an axe to grind and who want to control the belief systems of others, don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand how science functions. Science is unable to prove anything, as it is an inductive process. I wouldn't expect science to ever prove (offer evidence) that we spontaneously change from one species to another, as that would disprove the theory of evolution. Yes, the existence of inherited traits and mutation does not prove that we descended from ape like creatures, but it is evidence of this common descent. And when findings in genetics are combined with findings in other scientific fields, the theory becomes stronger. The goal of science is not to prove anything, get that through your thick skull.
Click to expand...

 
Common descent, no shit.

Wow. Where have I heard that before?

And please find where I said the goal of science was anything, or even referenced it. I guess English is your second...or third...language. You seem to have as much difficulty understanding it as you do in putting it down.


----------



## InDoctriNation

koshergrl said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, don't bullshit me. I have said repeatedly I believe in science, and that science has never disproved anything I believe. I have said over and over and OVER that I don't challenge evolution on it's face...I know how creatures evolve, I've bred animals, I get it.
> 
> But the SCIENCE has not yet proven that evolution in any way explains our existence on earth, nor has it ever proven that we spontaneously change from one species to another. That is a FACT, jack, and don't try to pretend it's not. THAT'S where the dishonesty comes in. The existence of inherited traits and mutation does NOT prove that we descend from ape like creatures, NOR does it disprove the veracity of the bible. They are two completely separate things.
> 
> And that's how your so-called "scientific mind" fails you. Scientists, real ones, recognize this. Lay people who have an axe to grind and who want to control the belief systems of others, don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand how science functions. Science is unable to prove anything, as it is an inductive process. I wouldn't expect science to ever prove (offer evidence) that we spontaneously change from one species to another, as that would disprove the theory of evolution. Yes, the existence of inherited traits and mutation does not prove that we descended from ape like creatures, but it is evidence of this common descent. And when findings in genetics are combined with findings in other scientific fields, the theory becomes stronger. The goal of science is not to prove anything, get that through your thick skull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common descent, no shit.
> 
> Wow. Where have I heard that before?
> 
> And please find where I said the goal of science was anything, or even referenced it. I guess English is your second...or third...language. You seem to have as much difficulty understanding it as you do in putting it down.
Click to expand...


You're playing a game of semantics, while missing the main thrust of my post. You keep talking about how science hasn't proven evolution, and I simply said that the goal of science isn't to prove anything, since it is and inductive process and thus unable to prove anything. The very fact that you seem to believe that science should be able to prove anything shows that you either have a profound lack of understanding of the scientific method, or you are a deceitful little troll. It seems to me that while English may be your first language, your ability to comprehend an argument and focus on the the main drive of said argument is akin to the ability of an adolescent child. Now go run along and play with your toys, you condescending twit.


----------



## koshergrl

No, fucktard, I'm responding to your post, specifically. Find where I stated the goal of science is anything.

And then come back and tell me all about missing the point.


----------



## InDoctriNation

koshergrl said:


> No, fucktard, I'm responding to your post, specifically. Find where I stated the goal of science is anything.
> 
> And then come back and tell me all about missing the point.



Your words: "But the SCIENCE has not yet proven that evolution..."

When you say that science has not yet proven a theory, you imply that the goal of science is to prove that theory. Get it? Again, this game of semantics avoids the real issue that I am addressing, which is your warped and stupid idea that science, a fucking inductive process, should be able to prove anything. You care to address your apparent stupidity involving the scientific method, or are you going to avoid the issue again with senseless bullshit? I know where I've got my money...


----------



## koshergrl

Semantics indeed.

Why do you always illustrate the thing you're bitching about?


----------



## InDoctriNation

koshergrl said:


> Semantics indeed.
> 
> Why do you always illustrate the thing you're bitching about?



Nice try, but your belief that science should be able to prove something is not just an error in semantics, but on your part a fundamental misunderstanding of what science can and should be able to demonstrate. Now would you care to address your ignorance on the scientific method, or are you going to deflect again?


----------



## koshergrl

Semantics. I show you lie, and you piss and moan about whether I understand the term "science".

I do. And I used it correctly. Science is knowledge gained by observation, and it is by this that things are proven.

So when I say "the science proves" or "the science does not prove" I mean that what has been observed either verifies or doesn't.

So please tell me, why is it that you complain so loudly about "semantics" and "deflection" while you are, in the same breath, engaged in an argument over semantics and deflecting for all you're worth?

Meanwhile, lest we forget...your only other contribution to the conversation are..well, lies. 

Oh I get it, you're trying to cover that up.


----------



## InDoctriNation

No, you unfortunately don't understand what science or the scientific method is if you think anything can be proven through science. Inductive reasoning, the basis of the scientific method, cannot conclusively prove anything.

Show me where I have lied in this thread. You seem to be obsessed with pointing out that people have been lying, while I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you must just be ignorant. Why do you assume the worst in people?


----------



## Youwerecreated

InDoctriNation said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the evidence that we evolved from homo erectus ?
> 
> Did they test their DNA ?
> 
> Was this a half human half apelike creature ?
> 
> Was this creature human or ape ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is claiming that we evolved from homo erectus?
> 
> I don't know if they (whoever you mean by that) tested their DNA. I'm sure you could find out the answer to this question with a cursory search if you are so inclined.
> 
> What do you mean by half human half apelike creature? Seems like a dishonest, oversimplified question to me, and thus not worth anyone's consideration.
> 
> How do you explain the existence of creatures like homo erectus in light of the Bible? Were they taken onto the arc? Were neanderthals and australopithecus there as well? What happened to them and why does the Bible make no mention of their existence?
Click to expand...


Earlier drock and I am not sure who else made the claim that was the common ancestor between humans and chimps. The answer is no they did not test their dna.just comparing bone structures will not prove such a thing. Neanderthals were humans not sure if they were destroyed in the flood or whether they were humans with poor genetics and eventually interbred to the point of extinction. I would say they were people that were outcasts and destroyed in the flood.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Earlier drock and I am not sure who else made the claim that was the common ancestor between humans and chimps.



No, that would be much further back. _H. erectus_ is probably the _immediate_ ancestor of modern humanity on the hominid line.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie, you said science says chimps are our ancestors, which is either flat out ignorance or a lie.  I think it's ignorance.
> 
> I've given you links, and you ignored them.  So please stop asking me for links.  The links I provide have the scientific answers, so if you actually want a scientific answer to your question (which you don't) go back and read the links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you calling a liar ? Who is ignorant ?
> 
> published in early 2007 challenges this notion.
> 
> Published in PLoS Genetics, the article suggests that the human-chimpanzee split may have been about four million years ago, around the time when Lucy, a bipedal relative of humans, was running around. Just last year, another paper described evidence of interbreeding between proto-humans and proto-chimpanzees more recently than 5.4 million years ago, an event that would not be uncommon when two populations are slowly splitting into two distinct species.
> 
> 
> â&#8364;&#339;Someone told me that human beings have been around for only 60 thousand years. This is shorter than I thought. Is this true? Where did we come from?â&#8364; » Scienceline
> 
> Why don't you educate yourself before you call people liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A species being around longer doesn't mean they're ancestors, you liar.
> 
> I provided a link that already shows the family tree and which species of ancestors of which, but of course you ignored it.  Hence why I'm done providing links for you.
Click to expand...


so much for the evolutionary tree ?  how can an animal that we are supposedly related to and was around longer then us not be an ancestor?


----------



## InDoctriNation

Youwerecreated said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the evidence that we evolved from homo erectus ?
> 
> Did they test their DNA ?
> 
> Was this a half human half apelike creature ?
> 
> Was this creature human or ape ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is claiming that we evolved from homo erectus?
> 
> I don't know if they (whoever you mean by that) tested their DNA. I'm sure you could find out the answer to this question with a cursory search if you are so inclined.
> 
> What do you mean by half human half apelike creature? Seems like a dishonest, oversimplified question to me, and thus not worth anyone's consideration.
> 
> How do you explain the existence of creatures like homo erectus in light of the Bible? Were they taken onto the arc? Were neanderthals and australopithecus there as well? What happened to them and why does the Bible make no mention of their existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earlier drock and I am not sure who else made the claim that was the common ancestor between humans and chimps. The answer is no they did not test their dna.just comparing bone structures will not prove such a thing. Neanderthals were humans not sure if they were destroyed in the flood or whether they were humans with poor genetics and eventually interbred to the point of extinction. I would say they were people that were outcasts and destroyed in the flood.
Click to expand...


What about all the other early hominid species? Were they all humans as well? The evolution of the location of the foramen magnum in early hominoid species, which is the large opening where the spinal column connects with the skull, would suggest that these other "humans" may not have walked as upright as we do. This is not a trivial skeletal difference. What happened to these creatures? Were they all allowed to perish in the flood?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the evidence that we evolved from homo erectus ?
> 
> Did they test their DNA ?
> 
> Was this a half human half apelike creature ?
> 
> Was this creature human or ape ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just keep providing the same link over and over again, and you can keep pretending to read people's answers over and over again when clearly you don't.
> 
> Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with H. sapiens circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (after H. sapiens moved out from Africa, but before they separated into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).*
Click to expand...

Rubbish,they can't prove Neanderthals interbred with any apelike creature. It is clear apes chimps or monkeys cant interbreed with humans that is a stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Youwerecreated

InDoctriNation said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is claiming that we evolved from homo erectus?
> 
> I don't know if they (whoever you mean by that) tested their DNA. I'm sure you could find out the answer to this question with a cursory search if you are so inclined.
> 
> What do you mean by half human half apelike creature? Seems like a dishonest, oversimplified question to me, and thus not worth anyone's consideration.
> 
> How do you explain the existence of creatures like homo erectus in light of the Bible? Were they taken onto the arc? Were neanderthals and australopithecus there as well? What happened to them and why does the Bible make no mention of their existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier drock and I am not sure who else made the claim that was the common ancestor between humans and chimps. The answer is no they did not test their dna.just comparing bone structures will not prove such a thing. Neanderthals were humans not sure if they were destroyed in the flood or whether they were humans with poor genetics and eventually interbred to the point of extinction. I would say they were people that were outcasts and destroyed in the flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about all the other early hominid species? Were they all humans as well? The evolution of the location of the foramen magnum in early hominoid species, which is the large opening where the spinal column connects with the skull, would suggest that these other "humans" may not have walked as upright as we do. This is not a trivial skeletal difference. What happened to these creatures? Were they all allowed to perish in the flood?
Click to expand...


The only humans named were Noah his wife and three sons and their wives. I think evolutionist make a big deal over deformed humans and a bunch of interbreeding monkeys.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with H. sapiens circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (after H. sapiens moved out from Africa, but before they separated into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).*
> 
> 
> 
> Rubbish,they can't prove Neanderthals interbred with any apelike creature. It is clear apes chimps or monkeys cant interbreed with humans that is a stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...


Umm . . . _H. sapiens_ is OUR species. It is not an "apelike creature" -- well, actually I guess that's debatable. But anyway, it's us.

That's who Neanderthals are believed to have interbred with. Not chimps or monkeys.


----------



## koshergrl

"Believed".That's what SOME believe, and, as you are fond of pointing out...BELIEF DOESN'T MAKE IT SO.

Belief requires faith.

Is this sinking in?


----------



## InDoctriNation

Youwerecreated said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier drock and I am not sure who else made the claim that was the common ancestor between humans and chimps. The answer is no they did not test their dna.just comparing bone structures will not prove such a thing. Neanderthals were humans not sure if they were destroyed in the flood or whether they were humans with poor genetics and eventually interbred to the point of extinction. I would say they were people that were outcasts and destroyed in the flood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about all the other early hominid species? Were they all humans as well? The evolution of the location of the foramen magnum in early hominoid species, which is the large opening where the spinal column connects with the skull, would suggest that these other "humans" may not have walked as upright as we do. This is not a trivial skeletal difference. What happened to these creatures? Were they all allowed to perish in the flood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only humans named were Noah his wife and three sons and their wives. I think evolutions make a big deal over deformed humans and a bunch of interbreeding monkeys.
Click to expand...


So hominid fossils we have discovered that have a different placement of the foramen magnum in the skull are just deformed humans? Interesting that the deformity seems to follow a gradual trend in the fossil record of hominid species. I've never heard of such a deformity occurring naturally in humans, and at such incremental levels of severity. Can you explain that?


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> "Believed".That's what SOME believe, and, as you are fond of pointing out...BELIEF DOESN'T MAKE IT SO.
> 
> Belief requires faith.
> 
> Is this sinking in?



I explained that already, KG. No, belief doesn't require "faith," it just requires uncertainty. I will continue to say "I believe that" or "it is believed that" when the evidence isn't 100% conclusive, or when I haven't personally studied it well enough for my own perfect satisfaction (which is the case here, with respect to Neanderthals interbreeding with modern humans).

I may say "it is believed" when there is a great deal of evidence in favor of what I'm saying. In no way, shape or form does this imply, as it does with your own beliefs, that there is NO evidence in favor of what I'm saying.

Is THAT sinking in?


----------



## koshergrl

Well we've come full circle.

What started with unmitigated crap ends with it. Thanks for playing. You're dismissed.


----------



## koshergrl

*be·lief/bi&#712;l&#275;f/ 
*

Noun:

An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
/f&#257;TH/ 
Noun:

Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> Well we've come full circle.
> 
> What started with unmitigated crap ends with it. Thanks for playing. You're dismissed.



What incredible arrogance.

You can't dismiss me, little girl. You can only dismiss yourself. Feel free to do THAT if you want.


----------



## koshergrl

No thank you, I'm dismissing you. All you can do is pontificate, lie, argue semantics and quibble over minute variances in the meanings of words. There's really no more to be said.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> No thank you, I'm dismissing you. All you can do is pontificate, lie, argue semantics and quibble over minute variances in the meanings of words. There's really no more to be said.



Actually, the only truth in that is that YOU have no more to say. And everything you say about me in this post is actually true of you. For example, every time I use the word "believe" in any post, despite the fact that what I mean by it has been made clear, you trot out the same invalid argument that I'm presenting a faith-based position, merely because of the pure meaningless coincidence of that one word.

You know perfectly well that this is a false argument. You have no excuse for doing it. You are simply lying. And you are lying in this post as well.

You are really a very bitter, nasty little person, you know.


----------



## koshergrl

My only point, and the one point you avoid, is that faith is required of your belief, just as it is of mine, and neither is more valid. Having faith in God does not make me any less intelligent than a person who has faith that we descended from some other species. Not believing that the earth is millions of years old makes me no more ignorant than the person who stupidly proclaims we know without a doubt how old the earth is and how it was formed.

You avoid those points, and instead bounce all over the place, quibbling over nuances in word definitions and claiming to know what others believe.

It's garbage. Pseudo intellectuals always pull this crap, then pat themselves on the back for being more *logical* when in reality all they do is spin a web of logical fallacy, lies and fake science they've picked up off their journeys through wiki, late night tv and a couple of the more rabid lefty talk shows.

That's not science, and it's not worthy of discussion.


----------



## InDoctriNation

koshergrl said:


> My only point, and the one point you avoid, is that faith is required of your belief, just as it is of mine, and neither is more valid. Having faith in God does not make me any less intelligent than a person who has faith that we descended from some other species. Not believing that the earth is millions of years old makes me no more ignorant than the person who stupidly proclaims we know without a doubt how old the earth is and how it was formed.
> 
> You avoid those points, and instead bounce all over the place, quibbling over nuances in word definitions and claiming to know what others believe.
> 
> It's garbage. Pseudo intellectuals always pull this crap, then pat themselves on the back for being more *logical* when in reality all they do is spin a web of logical fallacy, lies and fake science they've picked up off their journeys through wiki, late night tv and a couple of the more rabid lefty talk shows.
> 
> That's not science, and it's not worthy of discussion.



So radiometric dating methods that have converged on an age of 4.4 billion years for this planet are not within the realm of science, and basically amount to a leftist conspiracy? Are you high?


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> My only point, and the one point you avoid, is that faith is required of your belief, just as it is of mine, and neither is more valid.



That is simply untrue. In fact, faith is not required for either your belief or mine. What is required for mine is an honest appraisal of the evidence, and what is required for yours is rigid adherence to dogma despite the evidence. Neither of those is faith.



> Having faith in God does not make me any less intelligent than a person who has faith that we descended from some other species. Not believing that the earth is millions of years old makes me no more ignorant than the person who stupidly proclaims we know without a doubt how old the earth is and how it was formed.



The first sentence is true only because you used an incorrect word, "intelligent." Irrational beliefs are not a sign of low intelligence; that's true. (In fact, if they're particularly creative, they may be a sign of high intelligence.)

Your second sentence, however, is false, because you used the correct word: ignorant. Yes, that makes you more ignorant. The evidence that the world is billions of years old is overwhelming. The evidence that it is only a few thousand years old is nonexistent. Belief that the world is billions of years old requires only a willingness to hold opinions provisionally, based on available evidence, knowing that more evidence may show them to be false (although in this case, what more evidence is likely to show is only that the date isn't EXACTLY right, but still in the ballpark).

To believe that the world is only a few thousand years old, however, requires setting aside all available scientific evidence and adhering to words written down by savages who knew nothing about the subject, interpreted much later by semi-savages to indicate something the original savages didn't even intend (since a genealogy is hardly meant as a history of the entire creation).

These beliefs are not equivalent. The first is solidly based on the best evidence available, and uncertain only to the degree that all reality-based opinions are uncertain no matter what. The second is based on nothing, must ignore mountains of evidence that it is not true, and is really completely without foundation.



> That's not science, and it's not worthy of discussion.



Then stop discussing it. But forget about making ME go away. You're stuck with me, unless you leave, which is of course always your right. Like I said, you can't dismiss me. You can only dismiss yourself -- if that's what you want to do.


----------



## koshergrl

I can and have dismissed you.

I think you're confused about what you can control and what you *know*.

You don't *know* what I think, any more than you *know* what Christ thinks, or thought.

You can't control whether or not I dismiss you. Of course, you can proclaim your relevance to the world ad nauseum..but it won't make you any more relevant, and it won't stop me from dismissing you.

Class is over for now, carry on.


----------



## koshergrl

InDoctriNation said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> My only point, and the one point you avoid, is that faith is required of your belief, just as it is of mine, and neither is more valid. Having faith in God does not make me any less intelligent than a person who has faith that we descended from some other species. Not believing that the earth is millions of years old makes me no more ignorant than the person who stupidly proclaims we know without a doubt how old the earth is and how it was formed.
> 
> You avoid those points, and instead bounce all over the place, quibbling over nuances in word definitions and claiming to know what others believe.
> 
> It's garbage. Pseudo intellectuals always pull this crap, then pat themselves on the back for being more *logical* when in reality all they do is spin a web of logical fallacy, lies and fake science they've picked up off their journeys through wiki, late night tv and a couple of the more rabid lefty talk shows.
> 
> That's not science, and it's not worthy of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So radiometric dating methods that have converged on an age of 4.4 billion years for this planet are not within the realm of science, and basically amount to a leftist conspiracy? Are you high?
Click to expand...

Where did I say that?

Oh, right. I didn't.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> I can and have dismissed you.



Ya got serious delusions o' grandeur there, missy.



> You don't *know* what I think, any more than you *know* what Christ thinks, or thought.



In the case of Christ, I must rely on recordings of oral traditions. In your case, I can rely on what you tell me yourself. So actually, I know what you think rather better than I do what he thought. The Gospels could have gotten it all wrong.



> You can't control whether or not I dismiss you.



I can't control whether you flap your arms and fly like a birdie, either. I remain confident, however, that you aren't going to do it. And you aren't going to dismiss me for the same reason: you can't.


----------



## koshergrl

Again, it comes down to your weak understanding of the language.

I can dismiss you, and have.

If I am doing the dismissing, the action is mine. And you have no control over it.

And you aren't astute enough to read my mind. You have trouble comprehending what I've written; if you can misunderstand and confuse what is actually written, in black and white, there is no way you can grasp the thought behind it.


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl and Dragon, don't make me put you two in a time out!


----------



## koshergrl

You can't put me in a time out!

bwahahaha....

I hope you catch the nuance there...you can't PUT ME anywhere.

But I can DISMISS because that is my action, not dragon's...


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> Again, it comes down to your weak understanding of the language.
> 
> I can dismiss you, and have.
> 
> If I am doing the dismissing, the action is mine. And you have no control over it.



If the dismissed is still around, and you are standing their stomping your foot and looking foolish, what have you accomplished?

You can only dismiss what leaves on command. I don't. Thus, you can't.

Anyway, all of that is nothing but a face-saving way of admitting you can't answer the arguments I raised earlier, which you shouldn't be ashamed of as you are trying to defend the indefensible. It would be astonishing if you could manage to do it.


----------



## InDoctriNation

koshergrl said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> My only point, and the one point you avoid, is that faith is required of your belief, just as it is of mine, and neither is more valid. Having faith in God does not make me any less intelligent than a person who has faith that we descended from some other species. Not believing that the earth is millions of years old makes me no more ignorant than the person who stupidly proclaims we know without a doubt how old the earth is and how it was formed.
> 
> You avoid those points, and instead bounce all over the place, quibbling over nuances in word definitions and claiming to know what others believe.
> 
> It's garbage. Pseudo intellectuals always pull this crap, then pat themselves on the back for being more *logical* when in reality all they do is spin a web of logical fallacy, lies and fake science they've picked up off their journeys through wiki, late night tv and a couple of the more rabid lefty talk shows.
> 
> That's not science, and it's not worthy of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So radiometric dating methods that have converged on an age of 4.4 billion years for this planet are not within the realm of science, and basically amount to a leftist conspiracy? Are you high?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I say that?
> 
> Oh, right. I didn't.
Click to expand...


Let me rephrase the question then. Do you consider the scientific evidence (radiometric dating) that shows the earth to be four and a half billion years old pseudoscience? If you don't see it as pseudoscience, then why do you reject it?


----------



## koshergrl

I see it as questionable, and inaccurate. I do not worship at the foot of the science altar. I believe that when we obtain knowledge correctly and accurately, it reflects the works of God. I believe when we  guess and estimate, and those guesses and estimations show us something that is contrary to God's word, that our guesses and estimations are incorrect.

The *science* of years ago led the scientists of the day to conclude that the earth was flat.  That is contradictory to the bible, and has since been proven wrong. I believe we are likewise incorrect in many of the assumptions we make today, based upon current understanding and application of knowledge. Well, I'm not incorrect, because I don't make those assumptions..but you know what I mean.


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> I see it as questionable, and inaccurate. I do not worship at the foot of the science altar. I believe that when we obtain knowledge correctly and accurately, it reflects the works of God. I believe when we  guess and estimate, and those guesses and estimations show us something that is contrary to God's word, that our guesses and estimations are incorrect.
> 
> The *science* of years ago led the scientists of the day to conclude that the earth was flat.  That is contradictory to the bible, and has since been proven wrong. I believe we are likewise incorrect in many of the assumptions we make today, based upon current understanding and application of knowledge. Well, I'm not incorrect, because I don't make those assumptions..but you know what I mean.



Wouldn't it be more along the lines of when we guess and estimate, and those guesses and estimations show us something in line with god's word, they are correct, but when they show us something contrary, they are incorrect?  You seem to be saying that not only is science wrong if it contradicts god's word, but that the methods used to reach those incorrect conclusions was different.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it comes down to your weak understanding of the language.
> 
> I can dismiss you, and have.
> 
> If I am doing the dismissing, the action is mine. And you have no control over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the dismissed is still around, and you are standing their stomping your foot and looking foolish, what have you accomplished?
> 
> You can only dismiss what leaves on command. I don't. Thus, you can't.
> 
> Anyway, all of that is nothing but a face-saving way of admitting you can't answer the arguments I raised earlier, which you shouldn't be ashamed of as you are trying to defend the indefensible. It would be astonishing if you could manage to do it.
Click to expand...

 
Your inability to grasp this simple concept explains why you have nothing but logical fallacies when it comes to discussion.

I dismiss. You don't have to leave. But I dismiss. If you don't leave, it doesn't mean I didn't dismiss. 

Are you really this uneducated? How old are you?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with H. sapiens circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (after H. sapiens moved out from Africa, but before they separated into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).*
> 
> 
> 
> Rubbish,they can't prove Neanderthals interbred with any apelike creature. It is clear apes chimps or monkeys cant interbreed with humans that is a stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm . . . _H. sapiens_ is OUR species. It is not an "apelike creature" -- well, actually I guess that's debatable. But anyway, it's us.
> 
> That's who Neanderthals are believed to have interbred with. Not chimps or monkeys.
Click to expand...


I responded to the article I posted and the one drock posted.


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> "Believed".That's what SOME believe, and, as you are fond of pointing out...BELIEF DOESN'T MAKE IT SO.
> 
> Belief requires faith.
> 
> Is this sinking in?



Belief is absent of proof,this is faith,not sure why they don't understand it. I guess they have different rules when they apply the term science to their belief.


----------



## Youwerecreated

InDoctriNation said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about all the other early hominid species? Were they all humans as well? The evolution of the location of the foramen magnum in early hominoid species, which is the large opening where the spinal column connects with the skull, would suggest that these other "humans" may not have walked as upright as we do. This is not a trivial skeletal difference. What happened to these creatures? Were they all allowed to perish in the flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only humans named were Noah his wife and three sons and their wives. I think evolutions make a big deal over deformed humans and a bunch of interbreeding monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So hominid fossils we have discovered that have a different placement of the foramen magnum in the skull are just deformed humans? Interesting that the deformity seems to follow a gradual trend in the fossil record of hominid species. I've never heard of such a deformity occurring naturally in humans, and at such incremental levels of severity. Can you explain that?
Click to expand...


Why do you say that ? there are no transitional fossils. Gradualism does not show up in the fossil record and that is why eldredge and gould came up with the theory of punctuated eqilibrium.

You take a room full of fossils and you try to build a chain of who and what came first that is circular reasoning the very thing you guys complain about.

The only way to prove ancestry is DNA unfortunately for your side the DNA between a human and chimp are to far apart but yet they claim it is our cousin.

DNA similarity proves nothing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Believed".That's what SOME believe, and, as you are fond of pointing out...BELIEF DOESN'T MAKE IT SO.
> 
> Belief requires faith.
> 
> Is this sinking in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explained that already, KG. No, belief doesn't require "faith," it just requires uncertainty. I will continue to say "I believe that" or "it is believed that" when the evidence isn't 100% conclusive, or when I haven't personally studied it well enough for my own perfect satisfaction (which is the case here, with respect to Neanderthals interbreeding with modern humans).
> 
> I may say "it is believed" when there is a great deal of evidence in favor of what I'm saying. In no way, shape or form does this imply, as it does with your own beliefs, that there is NO evidence in favor of what I'm saying.
> 
> Is THAT sinking in?
Click to expand...


Your presuppositions are not figured in to the evidence ?

Can your presuppositions take you down the wrong path ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> My only point, and the one point you avoid, is that faith is required of your belief, just as it is of mine, and neither is more valid. Having faith in God does not make me any less intelligent than a person who has faith that we descended from some other species. Not believing that the earth is millions of years old makes me no more ignorant than the person who stupidly proclaims we know without a doubt how old the earth is and how it was formed.
> 
> You avoid those points, and instead bounce all over the place, quibbling over nuances in word definitions and claiming to know what others believe.
> 
> It's garbage. Pseudo intellectuals always pull this crap, then pat themselves on the back for being more *logical* when in reality all they do is spin a web of logical fallacy, lies and fake science they've picked up off their journeys through wiki, late night tv and a couple of the more rabid lefty talk shows.
> 
> That's not science, and it's not worthy of discussion.



Well said.


----------



## Youwerecreated

InDoctriNation said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> My only point, and the one point you avoid, is that faith is required of your belief, just as it is of mine, and neither is more valid. Having faith in God does not make me any less intelligent than a person who has faith that we descended from some other species. Not believing that the earth is millions of years old makes me no more ignorant than the person who stupidly proclaims we know without a doubt how old the earth is and how it was formed.
> 
> You avoid those points, and instead bounce all over the place, quibbling over nuances in word definitions and claiming to know what others believe.
> 
> It's garbage. Pseudo intellectuals always pull this crap, then pat themselves on the back for being more *logical* when in reality all they do is spin a web of logical fallacy, lies and fake science they've picked up off their journeys through wiki, late night tv and a couple of the more rabid lefty talk shows.
> 
> That's not science, and it's not worthy of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So radiometric dating methods that have converged on an age of 4.4 billion years for this planet are not within the realm of science, and basically amount to a leftist conspiracy? Are you high?
Click to expand...


Mans dating methods are unreliable has been proven many times but believe as you wish.


----------



## Youwerecreated

InDoctriNation said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> So radiometric dating methods that have converged on an age of 4.4 billion years for this planet are not within the realm of science, and basically amount to a leftist conspiracy? Are you high?
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say that?
> 
> Oh, right. I didn't.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me rephrase the question then. Do you consider the scientific evidence (radiometric dating) that shows the earth to be four and a half billion years old pseudoscience? If you don't see it as pseudoscience, then why do you reject it?
Click to expand...


pseudoscience should be rejected and that is the category dating methods and macroevolution fall in.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see it as questionable, and inaccurate. I do not worship at the foot of the science altar. I believe that when we obtain knowledge correctly and accurately, it reflects the works of God. I believe when we  guess and estimate, and those guesses and estimations show us something that is contrary to God's word, that our guesses and estimations are incorrect.
> 
> The *science* of years ago led the scientists of the day to conclude that the earth was flat.  That is contradictory to the bible, and has since been proven wrong. I believe we are likewise incorrect in many of the assumptions we make today, based upon current understanding and application of knowledge. Well, I'm not incorrect, because I don't make those assumptions..but you know what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be more along the lines of when we guess and estimate, and those guesses and estimations show us something in line with god's word, they are correct, but when they show us something contrary, they are incorrect?  You seem to be saying that not only is science wrong if it contradicts god's word, but that the methods used to reach those incorrect conclusions was different.
Click to expand...


All evidence is inferred through the persons thought pattern,if you believe everything evolved that is how you are gonna interpret evidence.

If you believe something is very old that is how you interpret evidence.

Perfect example and I hate it when I keep repeating myself, but the cambrian explosion was a problem for darwinist so they had to create the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Instead of saying wait this evidence contradicts our theory we believed for so long they create a new theory to stay on the path they want to be on.

You say it's the scientific method but it is only circular reasoning which I don't have a problem with. But it is a belief system not real science.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Mans dating methods are unreliable has been proven many times but believe as you wish.



No, that has not been "proven many times."

All you are doing here is saying "I'm going to believe what I choose to believe and ignore all evidence to the contrary."


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again oh brilliant one.
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times must I answer this question ....
Click to expand...

Once.



Youwerecreated said:


> ...look through the thread I answered it.


Then link to it.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well would you like to explain how life came in to existence from lifeless matter ?
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you explain this?
> 
> I know you reject the scientific hypothesis, so why not trot out your explanation of ow life came in to existence from lifeless matter?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to move this discussion to genetics and mutations and then we can see who really knows what he is talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about Jake, but I'd like to see that happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life creates life,can you refute this ?
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur much?


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> God created it.
> 
> Really, it's not that difficult.


Really? Your God is the sufficient cause of His own life?

Explain it then.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> According to you and many others since you think the chimp is so closely related to humans by your reasoning our nearest ancestor must be the chimp.


Deliberate misrepresentation. A lie, in fact.

Closest genetic relationship does NOT mean "ancestor." If you were actually a legitimate microbiologist, you would know this.



Youwerecreated said:


> But real scientist know we are to far apart in our DNA comparison for it to happen. So what was between the chimp and human ?


Strawman.



Youwerecreated said:


> Why is the chimps DNA closer in similarity to an ape then a human ?


Chimps *ARE *apes, retard.



Youwerecreated said:


> You see similarity proves nothing,...


Your fatuous book of fairy tales is less helpful.



Youwerecreated said:


> ...but if you're gonna believe this nonsense you must come up with the nearest ancestor so far the closest ancestor is adam.


I'm not entirely sure anyone but you has ever suggested that Adam did not belong to the species homo sapiens. Interesting.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Lets keep it simple,if there is no creator how did life begin ?


The evidence suggests some series of successive organic chemical reactions.



Youwerecreated said:


> Does the evidence confirm life creates life ?


The evidence doesn't contradict this assertion.



Youwerecreated said:


> Is there any evidence that supports life began naturally ?


Yes. And there's no evidence it began unnaturally.



Youwerecreated said:


> You seem to keep mocking the thought of creation so if you avoid this question it seems your view is based off of faith.


Speaking only for myself, I'm going to continue to mock you for asserting your fairy tale as valid in verifiable evidence and valid logic for as long as you present it so.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mans dating methods are unreliable has been proven many times but believe as you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that has not been "proven many times."
> 
> All you are doing here is saying "I'm going to believe what I choose to believe and ignore all evidence to the contrary."
Click to expand...


There has been rocks tested that came up with a different ages each time. There has been things tested with the known age tested that came up much older then it was known to be.

I guess they don't put tests in youir textbooks that would cause the average person to question the theory that they're being taught.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times must I answer this question ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...look through the thread I answered it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then link to it.
Click to expand...


Don't waste my time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you explain this?
> 
> I know you reject the scientific hypothesis, so why not trot out your explanation of ow life came in to existence from lifeless matter?
> 
> I don't know about Jake, but I'd like to see that happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life creates life,can you refute this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-sequitur much?
Click to expand...


God a supernatual being more intelligent then any human designed and put together each and every living organism.

They could have not just of happened by chance  to put all the things together to form a bacteria or cell, organs,brains, breath needed for life.

Only an ignorant person can think chance created life and made it better as long as life  has been around .That is not rational thinking.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created it.
> 
> Really, it's not that difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Your God is the sufficient cause of His own life?
> 
> Explain it then.
Click to expand...


He has no beginning and no end,hard to rationalize that, but I have no reason to doubt the scriptures.

Surely a being responsible for the universe and everything in it is worthy of my worship.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to you and many others since you think the chimp is so closely related to humans by your reasoning our nearest ancestor must be the chimp.
> 
> 
> 
> Deliberate misrepresentation. A lie, in fact.
> 
> Closest genetic relationship does NOT mean "ancestor." If you were actually a legitimate microbiologist, you would know this.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But real scientist know we are to far apart in our DNA comparison for it to happen. So what was between the chimp and human ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> Chimps *ARE *apes, retard.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see similarity proves nothing,...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fatuous book of fairy tales is less helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but if you're gonna believe this nonsense you must come up with the nearest ancestor so far the closest ancestor is adam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not entirely sure anyone but you has ever suggested that Adam did not belong to the species homo sapiens. Interesting.
Click to expand...


Look the chimp is our closest realtive that has been around longer then humans that would make the chimp our ancestor. You have a real problem saying that hybrid humans and chimps interbred when we our DNA are incompatible. To believe otherwise is the lie.

I am a realist when it comes to science,I have to be able to observe and prove it to myself to accept it as belief.

Just like for me the bible has passed with flying colors. There is no reason to reject not to mention all the evidence that confirms the early writings.

Problems for your theory.

1. No mechsnism to how life could come from non-living matter.

2. The faulty dating methods.

3. The fossil record shows no gradualism.

4. The fossil record shows fossils in the wrong strata.

5. Your side teaches it takes millions of years for things to fossilze not even close to true.

6. They teach it took millions of years for layers of strata to form not true either. It's been demonstrated that strata can for in a short time span.

7. They have no mechanism has to how evolution can occur,mutations are a dead end road.

8. The cambrian explosion contradicts gradualism and the evolutionists theory.

9. Eldrege and gould saw the problem the cambrian explosion caused for the theory and came up with punctuated equilibrium. Now I would like to know how all this compleity of life forms just spontaneously showed up ? please explain. Sounds like creation to me.

10. planets seem to be where they were meant to be. What would to life and this planet without the sun or moon ?

These are just a few of the problems with your beliefs and the best explanation to these problems for a rational thinker is God the creator,not by chance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets keep it simple,if there is no creator how did life begin ?
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence suggests some series of successive organic chemical reactions.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the evidence confirm life creates life ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evidence doesn't contradict this assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any evidence that supports life began naturally ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. And there's no evidence it began unnaturally.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to keep mocking the thought of creation so if you avoid this question it seems your view is based off of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking only for myself, I'm going to continue to mock you for asserting your fairy tale as valid in verifiable evidence and valid logic for as long as you present it so.
Click to expand...


Your mocking shows ignorance.

Only living organisms can produce life there is overwhelming evidence of this.

No there is no evidence a chemical reaction could cause life.

As far as humans go you need a male and female,sperm and egg to create life.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Look the chimp is our closest realtive that has been around longer then humans that would make the chimp our ancestor.



False. To translate this into simple human terms for you, suppose that your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. are all dead. You have no brothers or sisters, but you do have a cousin. That cousin is your closest relative, but he/she is NOT an ancestor. Your ancestors are all dead.

That's a good analogy to the state of affairs for our species. Our ancestor species are all extinct. The chimpanzee is our closest living relative, but it is a cousin, not an ancestor.



> Problems for your theory.
> 
> 1. No mechsnism to how life could come from non-living matter.



Irrelevant to evolution, which is not concerned with the origin of life.



> 2. The faulty dating methods.



You have not shown the dating methods to be "faulty."



> 3. The fossil record shows no gradualism.



False. It does show gradualism.



> 4. The fossil record shows fossils in the wrong strata.



This is not a problem. Given geological activity, it is to be expected from time to time; however, there is no evidence along these lines that would call evolution into question.



> 5. Your side teaches it takes millions of years for things to fossilze



False.



> 6. They teach it took millions of years for layers of strata to form



False.



> 7. They have no mechanism has to how evolution can occur



False.



> mutations are a dead end road.



False.



> 8. The cambrian explosion contradicts gradualism



False.



> 10. planets seem to be where they were meant to be. What would to life and this planet without the sun or moon ?



Irrelevant.



> These are just a few of the problems with your beliefs



None of these are problems, and most of them are false statements by you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look the chimp is our closest realtive that has been around longer then humans that would make the chimp our ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. To translate this into simple human terms for you, suppose that your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. are all dead. You have no brothers or sisters, but you do have a cousin. That cousin is your closest relative, but he/she is NOT an ancestor. Your ancestors are all dead.
> 
> That's a good analogy to the state of affairs for our species. Our ancestor species are all extinct. The chimpanzee is our closest living relative, but it is a cousin, not an ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problems for your theory.
> 
> 1. No mechsnism to how life could come from non-living matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant to evolution, which is not concerned with the origin of life.
> 
> 
> 
> You have not shown the dating methods to be "faulty."
> 
> 
> 
> False. It does show gradualism.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a problem. Given geological activity, it is to be expected from time to time; however, there is no evidence along these lines that would call evolution into question.
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. planets seem to be where they were meant to be. What would to life and this planet without the sun or moon ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are just a few of the problems with your beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of these are problems, and most of them are false statements by you.
Click to expand...


Have you not read the artricles claiming human divergence from the chimp ?

No It's not if you believe life happened through a natural process and that natural process is evolution.

Google problems with dating methods you will find many problems with the dating methods.

No The fossil record does not show gradualism if it did there would be no need for the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Yes there would there is evidence of strata forming rapidly and fossils are found in the wrong strata. Tha most certainly is a problem for evolutionist.

The way the planets are aligined is irrelavant to life on this planet 

Ok how long does your side say it takes for fossils to form ? I will concede millions of years. That was an exaggeration on my part.

And I don't know what all you said false to because you didn't quote me.

Do you understand gradualism ? Explain how life could have exploded in the cambrian ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times must I answer this question ....
> 
> 
> 
> Once.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...look through the thread I answered it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then link to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't waste my time.
Click to expand...

And there you have it. An admission that looking for even one instance where you demonstrated that the beliefs I hold are faith is a waste of time--coming from you, it is proof that no such instance exists.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life creates life,can you refute this ?
> 
> 
> 
> Non-sequitur much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God a supernatual being more intelligent then any human designed and put together each and every living organism.
Click to expand...

What God? Valid, verifiable evidence please.



Youwerecreated said:


> They could have not just of happened by chance  to put all the things together to form a bacteria or cell, organs,brains, breath needed for life.


It literally appears that you are wrong.



Youwerecreated said:


> Only an ignorant person can think chance created life and made it better as long as life  has been around .That is not rational thinking.


Only the superstitious deny the verifiable evidence, and instead embrace logical fallacy and the denial of reality to rationalize validity for the existence of their imaginary friend(s).


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Have you not read the artricles claiming human divergence from the chimp ?



Since humans are not descended from chimpanzees, all such arguments are irrelevant.



> No It's not if you believe life happened through a natural process and that natural process is evolution.



But that isn't true. Evolution describes how life changed and diversified AFTER it already existed. It has nothing to do with the origin of life.



> Google problems with dating methods you will find many problems with the dating methods.



Trivial ones, perhaps. Limitations on the precision of the methods, and also the fact that the most commonly-used one (carbon-14 dating) is only useful for organic matter or fossils, but nothing that would invalidate the dating methods.



> No The fossil record does not show gradualism if it did there would be no need for the theory of punctuated equilibrium.



This is untrue. Punctuated equilibrium is only the idea that evolution does not proceed at a constant speed and that there are times when it accelerates rapidly, coinciding with mass extinction events. Evolution continues during the slow times and may be observed in the fossil record.



> Yes there would there is evidence of strata forming rapidly and fossils are found in the wrong strata. Tha most certainly is a problem for evolutionist.



Incorrect. That strata may form rapidly, as in a major depository event such as a volcanic eruption and mudslide, doesn't change the fact that we may reliably date the deposits over most of the world. This is no problem at all.



> The way the planets are aligined is irrelavant to life on this planet



It's irrelevant to the theory of evolution. That's part and parcel of evolution not being concerned with the origin of life. Obviously the placement of the earth in its orbit is important to the existence of life, and that's one planet at least -- if the earth were much closer to or further away from the sun it would have no liquid water, which is a prerequisite for life as we know it. However, again, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, so even that is completely irrelevant here.



> Ok how long does your side say it takes for fossils to form ? I will concede millions of years. That was an exaggeration on my part.



A few decades, given the right conditions. We saw fossilization after the Mount St. Helens eruption, for example.



> And I don't know what all you said false to because you didn't quote me.



Yes, I did. Look again.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created it.
> 
> Really, it's not that difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Your God is the sufficient cause of His own life?
> 
> Explain it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He has no beginning and no end,hard to rationalize that, ...
Click to expand...

That's clearly a rationalization.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... but I have no reason to doubt the scriptures.


A denial of every error of fact they contain.



Youwerecreated said:


> Surely a being responsible for the universe and everything in it is worthy of my worship.


You can make all sorts of claims about your imaginary friend, but none of those claims make Him any less imaginary, or objectively worthy of worship.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non-sequitur much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God a supernatual being more intelligent then any human designed and put together each and every living organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What God? Valid, verifiable evidence please.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They could have not just of happened by chance  to put all the things together to form a bacteria or cell, organs,brains, breath needed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It literally appears that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only an ignorant person can think chance created life and made it better as long as life  has been around .That is not rational thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the superstitious deny the verifiable evidence, and instead embrace logical fallacy and the denial of reality to rationalize validity for the existence of their imaginary friend(s).
Click to expand...


My view of creation is built on faith and rational thought.

You let me know when life can spontaneously generate itself through a natural process.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you not read the artricles claiming human divergence from the chimp ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since humans are not descended from chimpanzees, all such arguments are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No It's not if you believe life happened through a natural process and that natural process is evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that isn't true. Evolution describes how life changed and diversified AFTER it already existed. It has nothing to do with the origin of life.
> 
> 
> 
> Trivial ones, perhaps. Limitations on the precision of the methods, and also the fact that the most commonly-used one (carbon-14 dating) is only useful for organic matter or fossils, but nothing that would invalidate the dating methods.
> 
> 
> 
> This is untrue. Punctuated equilibrium is only the idea that evolution does not proceed at a constant speed and that there are times when it accelerates rapidly, coinciding with mass extinction events. Evolution continues during the slow times and may be observed in the fossil record.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. That strata may form rapidly, as in a major depository event such as a volcanic eruption and mudslide, doesn't change the fact that we may reliably date the deposits over most of the world. This is no problem at all.
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrelevant to the theory of evolution. That's part and parcel of evolution not being concerned with the origin of life. Obviously the placement of the earth in its orbit is important to the existence of life, and that's one planet at least -- if the earth were much closer to or further away from the sun it would have no liquid water, which is a prerequisite for life as we know it. However, again, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, so even that is completely irrelevant here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok how long does your side say it takes for fossils to form ? I will concede millions of years. That was an exaggeration on my part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A few decades, given the right conditions. We saw fossilization after the Mount St. Helens eruption, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't know what all you said false to because you didn't quote me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I did. Look again.
Click to expand...


Thank you for the admissions they were wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Your God is the sufficient cause of His own life?
> 
> Explain it then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has no beginning and no end,hard to rationalize that, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's clearly a rationalization.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but I have no reason to doubt the scriptures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A denial of every error of fact they contain.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely a being responsible for the universe and everything in it is worthy of my worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can make all sorts of claims about your imaginary friend, but none of those claims make Him any less imaginary, or objectively worthy of worship.
Click to expand...


Only according to people who deny the possibility of a creator.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Thank you for the admissions they were wrong.



LOL I have not admitted anything of the sort and you are growing really desperate. Why not just admit that you can't answer the arguments? Not as much is riding on it as you think.

I know where you're coming from here; you are of the misguided opinion that if evolution holds up and you can't believe in an immediate one-time divine creation, then you can't believe in God. But that's not true. The evidence for God's existence is never _out there_, it's always _in here_. God is in your heart, not in the fossil record. And besides, there's no real conflict between evolution and divine creation, only between evolution and a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis.

You don't need to do this.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the admissions they were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL I have not admitted anything of the sort and you are growing really desperate. Why not just admit that you can't answer the arguments? Not as much is riding on it as you think.
> 
> I know where you're coming from here; you are of the misguided opinion that if evolution holds up and you can't believe in an immediate one-time divine creation, then you can't believe in God. But that's not true. The evidence for God's existence is never _out there_, it's always _in here_. God is in your heart, not in the fossil record. And besides, there's no real conflict between evolution and divine creation, only between evolution and a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis.
> 
> You don't need to do this.
Click to expand...


I have to go but again I will show why your theory conflicts with Gods word when I have time.


----------



## FurthurBB

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can sympathize with your problem, but a basic elementary school science education should clear a few things up for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My degree at the University of Arizona in molecular biology cleared up many things for me it just took a while for it to sink in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll ask again, why do you brag about your degree from Arizona when Arizona teaches the exact opposite of your views?
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to brag about how many science denying Bible blogs you've read?  At least they agree with you.
Click to expand...


They must think that making up a degree in science makes them seem more informed on the matter.  It is really quite insulting.


----------



## FurthurBB

koshergrl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> koshergirl, lack of critical thinking skills is a fact of the 6,000-year school of biblical studies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got As in college biology, anthropology and in critical thinking.
> 
> You were saying?
Click to expand...


Yes, my mum is the queen of England.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're admitting the chimp is not our nearest ancestor then what is ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homo erectus
> 
> This species is extinct now, but is believed to be our nearest ancestor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know this ? can you perform a DNA test on this creature ?
> 
> Is this creature human or an apelike creature ?
> 
> Or is it both human and ape ?
Click to expand...



Sure, I own a lab that does just that.  Bring me a sample and I will run a DNA test on it.  When you have the sample I will give you an address you can send it to.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say we are related to chimps because of DNA similarity,how many times must I say this before you understand whats being said ? I am asking you what did humans evolve from their DNA must be much closer then the chimp by your reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie, you said science says chimps are our ancestors, which is either flat out ignorance or a lie.  I think it's ignorance.
> 
> I've given you links, and you ignored them.  So please stop asking me for links.  The links I provide have the scientific answers, so if you actually want a scientific answer to your question (which you don't) go back and read the links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we are related to chimps since they came first are they our ancestors ?
Click to expand...


Here is an 6-8 grade lesson plan that might help you to understand the basic principals, if that does not help maybe I can find something more level appropriate. http://www.discoveryeducation.com/teachers/free-lesson-plans/apes-to-man.cfm


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you calling a liar ? Who is ignorant ?
> 
> published in early 2007 challenges this notion.
> 
> Published in PLoS Genetics, the article suggests that the human-chimpanzee split may have been about four million years ago, around the time when Lucy, a bipedal relative of humans, was running around. Just last year, another paper described evidence of interbreeding between proto-humans and proto-chimpanzees more recently than 5.4 million years ago, an event that would not be uncommon when two populations are slowly splitting into two distinct species.
> 
> 
> âSomeone told me that human beings have been around for only 60 thousand years. This is shorter than I thought. Is this true? Where did we come from?â » Scienceline
> 
> Why don't you educate yourself before you call people liars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A species being around longer doesn't mean they're ancestors, you liar.
> 
> I provided a link that already shows the family tree and which species of ancestors of which, but of course you ignored it.  Hence why I'm done providing links for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so much for the evolutionary tree ?  how can an animal that we are supposedly related to and was around longer then us not be an ancestor?
Click to expand...


If your aunt has a child that is twice your age that makes that child your relative, but not your ancestor.  I cannot believe I had to explain that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homo erectus
> 
> This species is extinct now, but is believed to be our nearest ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know this ? can you perform a DNA test on this creature ?
> 
> Is this creature human or an apelike creature ?
> 
> Or is it both human and ape ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I own a lab that does just that.  Bring me a sample and I will run a DNA test on it.  When you have the sample I will give you an address you can send it to.
Click to expand...


How long does biological DNA survive ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> A species being around longer doesn't mean they're ancestors, you liar.
> 
> I provided a link that already shows the family tree and which species of ancestors of which, but of course you ignored it.  Hence why I'm done providing links for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so much for the evolutionary tree ?  how can an animal that we are supposedly related to and was around longer then us not be an ancestor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your aunt has a child that is twice your age that makes that child your relative, but not your ancestor.  I cannot believe I had to explain that.
Click to expand...


How do you prove it's our cousin ?

Again we are back to DNA similarity.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> How do you prove it's our cousin ?
> 
> Again we are back to DNA similarity.



Yes, but this invalidates your argument that we could not have descended from chimpanzees in the time required, which was the only use YOU made of that DNA similarity.

The DNA similarity does indeed show that we are closely related to chimpanzees.

However, we are NOT descended from chimpanzees or any other apes, which means that any arguments that we could not be are meaningless. Note that I'm setting aside whether in fact that argument is factually accurate, i.e. whether chimpanzee genes could have changed enough in the amount of time.

Just for accuracy, though, the great apes including chimpanzees go back about 20 million years. So if we were in fact descended from chimps (which we're not), the process would have had about 20 million years to complete.

This would only be an intellectual exercise, though. There is no evidence that chimpanzees are our evolutionary ancestors. They are evolutionary cousins, no more.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know this ? can you perform a DNA test on this creature ?
> 
> Is this creature human or an apelike creature ?
> 
> Or is it both human and ape ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I own a lab that does just that.  Bring me a sample and I will run a DNA test on it.  When you have the sample I will give you an address you can send it to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long does biological DNA survive ?
Click to expand...


It depends, it is possible to find bone marrow many 1000s of years after death.  It depends on the conditions of the location where the bones were found.  Sometimes teeth can also provide information after many years, it just depends.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life creates life,can you refute this ?
> 
> 
> 
> Non-sequitur much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God a supernatual being more intelligent then any human designed and put together each and every living organism.
> 
> They could have not just of happened by chance  to put all the things together to form a bacteria or cell, organs,brains, breath needed for life.
> 
> Only an ignorant person can think chance created life and made it better as long as life  has been around .That is not rational thinking.
Click to expand...


That is merely your opinion, for which you can offer no convincing scientific evidence, much less any that says God did not do it by evolution.

Don't let your dogma get in the way of your faith, please.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you prove it's our cousin ?
> 
> Again we are back to DNA similarity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but this invalidates your argument that we could not have descended from chimpanzees in the time required, which was the only use YOU made of that DNA similarity.
> 
> The DNA similarity does indeed show that we are closely related to chimpanzees.
> 
> However, we are NOT descended from chimpanzees or any other apes, which means that any arguments that we could not be are meaningless. Note that I'm setting aside whether in fact that argument is factually accurate, i.e. whether chimpanzee genes could have changed enough in the amount of time.
> 
> Just for accuracy, though, the great apes including chimpanzees go back about 20 million years. So if we were in fact descended from chimps (which we're not), the process would have had about 20 million years to complete.
> 
> This would only be an intellectual exercise, though. There is no evidence that chimpanzees are our evolutionary ancestors. They are evolutionary cousins, no more.
Click to expand...


So other organisms that have DNA similarity to humans does that prove by your reasoning they are to related to humans ?

Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals

Humans, animals share more DNA than previously thought / Santa Cruz study shows common 'junk' fragments


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I own a lab that does just that.  Bring me a sample and I will run a DNA test on it.  When you have the sample I will give you an address you can send it to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long does biological DNA survive ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends, it is possible to find bone marrow many 1000s of years after death.  It depends on the conditions of the location where the bones were found.  Sometimes teeth can also provide information after many years, it just depends.
Click to expand...


In other words it does not survive very long it gets easily contaminated so again I ask you how can you prove we are related ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non-sequitur much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God a supernatual being more intelligent then any human designed and put together each and every living organism.
> 
> They could have not just of happened by chance  to put all the things together to form a bacteria or cell, organs,brains, breath needed for life.
> 
> Only an ignorant person can think chance created life and made it better as long as life  has been around .That is not rational thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is merely your opinion, for which you can offer no convincing scientific evidence, much less any that says God did not do it by evolution.
> 
> Don't let your dogma get in the way of your faith, please.
Click to expand...


No, I have not observed any evidence that shows macroevolution is possible I have seen more evidence against the belief,not faith but science.

Practice what you preach.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> So other organisms that have DNA similarity to humans does that prove by your reasoning they are to related to humans ?



Yes, although I found your sources to be factually inaccurate; for example the similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA is 94%, not 96-98%.

However, all living things on this planet are related, at least distantly. Humans are most closely related to other primates, more closely related to other mammals than to non-mammal animals, and more closely related to all animals than we are to plants. However, we are at least somewhat related to all living organisms on this planet, unless we are being visited by extraterrestrial aliens.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Look the chimp is our closest realtive that has been around longer then humans that would make the chimp our ancestor.


Just because Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of H. Sapiens Sapiens, it does not follow that the H. Sapiens is necessarily the direct descendant of Pan troglodytes.

And you know it.



Youwerecreated said:


> You have a real problem saying that hybrid humans and chimps interbred when we our DNA are incompatible.


This gibberish is indecipherable. You should consider the usefulness of punctuation.



Youwerecreated said:


> To believe otherwise is the lie.


Really ... who the fuck but you knows what you're talking about?



Youwerecreated said:


> I am a realist when it comes to science,I have to be able to observe and prove it to myself to accept it as belief.


But when it comes to superstitions, al you need to do is believe it's true, and PRESTO! you have a belief more valid than those based upon verifiable evidence and valid logic.



Youwerecreated said:


> Just like for me the bible has passed with flying colors.


Right. Because for you, it's not subject to validation by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic ... it need only meet the criteria that you believe that it's valid.

That's just the inherent nature of faith and superstition.



Youwerecreated said:


> There is no reason to reject not to mention all the evidence that confirms the early writings.


Really. Try out punctuation.



Youwerecreated said:


> Problems for your theory.
> 
> 1. No mechsnism to how life could come from non-living matter.


This is just another one of your lies.



Youwerecreated said:


> 2. The faulty dating methods.


The dating metods are not faulty at all. They are sufficiently accurate and precise for the purposes they are used for, and their precision and accuracy are demonstrably improving with the expansion and cross referencing of data sets.



Youwerecreated said:


> 3. The fossil record shows no gradualism.


Nonsense. As long as disingenuous asshats like yourself are willing to apply Zeno's Paradox to the evidence of incremental changes  found in the fossil record, there will be no satisfying you retards on this point.



Youwerecreated said:


> 4. The fossil record shows fossils in the wrong strata.


No it doesn't. Not even your petrified forests support your accusations.



Youwerecreated said:


> 5. Your side teaches it takes millions of years for things to fossilze not even close to true.


Intentional misrepresentation. A lie. A lie you repeat often.



Youwerecreated said:


> 6. They teach it took millions of years for layers of strata to form not true either.


Intentional misrepresentation. They literally do not say this at all.



Youwerecreated said:


> It's been demonstrated that strata can for in a short time span.


Consistent with the (actual, rather than the strawman you attack) theory you're opposed to.



Youwerecreated said:


> 7. They have no mechanism has to how evolution can occur,mutations are a dead end road.


This is also a lie. Particularly considering your claims about yourself.



Youwerecreated said:


> 8. The cambrian explosion contradicts gradualism and the evolutionists theory.


Intentional misrepresentation. The "Cambrian explosion" is fully compatible with evolutionary theory.



Youwerecreated said:


> 9. Eldrege and gould saw the problem the cambrian explosion caused for the theory and came up with punctuated equilibrium. Now I would like to know how all this compleity of life forms just spontaneously showed up ? please explain. Sounds like creation to me.


Straw-man challenge.



Youwerecreated said:


> 10. planets seem to be where they were meant to be. What would to life and this planet without the sun or moon ?


Straw-man challenge.



Youwerecreated said:


> These are just a few of the problems with your beliefs and the best explanation to these problems for a rational thinker is God the creator,not by chance.


Every one of your "problems" is a problem you or another of you superstitious invented--and no valid criticism of evolution is ignored by science as you asshats all keep claiming, while you try to assert your patently invalid assertion that "the boogeyman did it."


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Your mocking shows ignorance.


Hardly.



Youwerecreated said:


> Only living organisms can produce life there is overwhelming evidence of this.


The evidence that living organisms beget life is not in dispute.



Youwerecreated said:


> No there is no evidence a chemical reaction could cause life.


Sure there is. There's just no proof it can. Superstitious retards cannot parse the distinction.



Youwerecreated said:


> As far as humans go you need a male and female,sperm and egg to create life.


Not in dispute.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God a supernatual being more intelligent then any human designed and put together each and every living organism.
> 
> 
> 
> What God? Valid, verifiable evidence please.
> 
> It literally appears that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only an ignorant person can think chance created life and made it better as long as life  has been around .That is not rational thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the superstitious deny the verifiable evidence, and instead embrace logical fallacy and the denial of reality to rationalize validity for the existence of their imaginary friend(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My view of creation is built on faith and rational thought.
Click to expand...

This is a self contradictory statement. Faith is entirely irrational. It's arguably anti-rational.



Youwerecreated said:


> You let me know when life can spontaneously generate itself through a natural process.


When the conditions are right for it.

Now you explain to me how life magicked itself into your Creator.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has no beginning and no end,hard to rationalize that, ...
> 
> 
> 
> That's clearly a rationalization.
> 
> A denial of every error of fact they contain.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely a being responsible for the universe and everything in it is worthy of my worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can make all sorts of claims about your imaginary friend, but none of those claims make Him any less imaginary, or objectively worthy of worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only according to people who deny the possibility of a creator.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I don't deny the possibility of a creator.


----------



## Dragon

Doctrinaire theists and self-described atheists represent a symbiosis that latch onto each other in a self-perpetuating fixation on dogmatic ideas of God. It's like a game. I once tried to participate in a religious-discussion forum dominated by these two groups of individuals. I attempted to introduce other religious or spiritual ideas into the discussion (as I consider both of those positions to be nonsensical and narrow-minded), but it was made clear to me that nobody on that site was interested in pursuing anything other than the verbal dance between religious believers and atheists.

This thread is about evolution and creationism, which has only the most tangential relationship to ideas of God -- all on the creationist side, too. Evolution has nothing to do with that subject. It stands on its own merits according to empirical evidence, which is extremely strong in its favor. But there is no conflict between evolution and belief in God, or even belief in a divine creator, although there is such a conflict between evolution and a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragon said:


> Doctrinaire theists and self-described atheists represent a symbiosis that latch onto each other in a self-perpetuating fixation on dogmatic ideas of God. It's like a game. I once tried to participate in a religious-discussion forum dominated by these two groups of individuals. I attempted to introduce other religious or spiritual ideas into the discussion (as I consider both of those positions to be nonsensical and narrow-minded), but it was made clear to me that nobody on that site was interested in pursuing anything other than the verbal dance between religious believers and atheists.
> 
> This thread is about evolution and creationism, which has only the most tangential relationship to ideas of God -- all on the creationist side, too. Evolution has nothing to do with that subject. It stands on its own merits according to empirical evidence, which is extremely strong in its favor. But there is no conflict between evolution and belief in God, or even belief in a divine creator, although there is such a conflict between evolution and a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.


 
Tell me, did you use "The Mists of Avalon" as your handbook while trying to enlighten the dumb people?

So why would you join a discussion group manned by people you look down on and think are ignorant of "the truth"?

I think we have here a typical anti-Christian, pseudo intellectual whacko who spends a lot of time reading novels and fantasizing about how brilliant he is in comparison to the the rest of the world.

The problem is, you don't have superior understanding, you aren't all that smart (as your inability to understand the written word demonstrates) and you can't form a workable argument to save your life. As I've already pointed out, all you have is long-winded posturing and logical fallacy. The gaps in your understanding and education are matched only by your compulsive pontificating and self satisfied brand of arrogance.

You aren't that special, in other words. Your ridiculous posts are laughable, despite the stilted and painful language you use to try to make yourself look like you actually know what you are talking about (you don't). Just come out and say it instead of hiding behind a mask of pretend knowledge...you don't like Christians and you think you're smarter than they are.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What God? Valid, verifiable evidence please.
> 
> It literally appears that you are wrong.
> 
> Only the superstitious deny the verifiable evidence, and instead embrace logical fallacy and the denial of reality to rationalize validity for the existence of their imaginary friend(s).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My view of creation is built on faith and rational thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a self contradictory statement. Faith is entirely irrational. It's arguably anti-rational.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You let me know when life can spontaneously generate itself through a natural process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the conditions are right for it.
> 
> Now you explain to me how life magicked itself into your Creator.
Click to expand...


I can't answer that or how he has always existed,that is something you might want to ask him when you meet him.


Bible and science provide faith and truth.

Not lies and propaganda.

I'll see you in the other thread.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My view of creation is built on faith and rational thought.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a self contradictory statement. Faith is entirely irrational. It's arguably anti-rational.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You let me know when life can spontaneously generate itself through a natural process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the conditions are right for it.
> 
> Now you explain to me how life magicked itself into your Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't answer that or how he has always existed,that is something you might want to ask him when you meet him.
> 
> 
> Bible and science provide faith and truth.
> 
> Not lies and propaganda.
> 
> I'll see you in the other thread.
Click to expand...

I accept your intellectual surrender.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> [snip personal attacks and empty rhetoric devoid of cognitive content]



Nothing there at all, KG. When you have something real to say, and are not simply working out your personal obsession with me, let me know.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God a supernatual being more intelligent then any human designed and put together each and every living organism.
> 
> They could have not just of happened by chance  to put all the things together to form a bacteria or cell, organs,brains, breath needed for life.
> 
> Only an ignorant person can think chance created life and made it better as long as life  has been around .That is not rational thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is merely your opinion, for which you can offer no convincing scientific evidence, much less any that says God did not do it by evolution.
> 
> Don't let your dogma get in the way of your faith, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I have not observed any evidence that shows macroevolution is possible I have seen more evidence against the belief,not faith but science.
> 
> Practice what you preach.
Click to expand...


You have fail on your arguments in this thread.  Your stubborness has become immoral and a thorn to those who would believe.  Physician, heal thyself.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier drock and I am not sure who else made the claim that was the common ancestor between humans and chimps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that would be much further back. _H. erectus_ is probably the _immediate_ ancestor of modern humanity on the hominid line.
Click to expand...


Yeah i never said that was our common ancestor, YWC is lying like always.  

I said that was one of human's ancestors, he's the one who keeps trying to make it seem like science says chimps and humans are closer in every way than what science actually says.


----------



## Dragon

Dr.Drock said:


> I said that was one of human's ancestors, he's the one who keeps trying to make it seem like science says chimps and humans are closer in every way than what science actually says.



I know. It's a pretty standard straw-man tactic. It's possible to prove that humans aren't descended from chimpanzees, so if he can claim that evolution theory claims humans ARE descended from chimpanzees, he thinks he can disprove evolution.

Only trouble with that, of course, is that evolution theory DOESN'T claim humans descend from chimps. But as recognizing that would blow his whole argument, and he is desperate to maintain that argument, he dare not hear the truth.

YWC's problem isn't faith, as Loki would say. It's a lack of faith, a belief in God so frail and fragile that it is dependent on counter-scientific claims of fact. Creationists remind me of the children's hymn:

Jesus loves me, this I know
'Cause the Bible tells me so

To which my reaction has always been that if you need the Bible to tell you that, you aren't in tune with the divine love at all, and your faith is a weak, desperate thing. Which I believe describes creationists to a T.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a self contradictory statement. Faith is entirely irrational. It's arguably anti-rational.
> 
> When the conditions are right for it.
> 
> Now you explain to me how life magicked itself into your Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't answer that or how he has always existed,that is something you might want to ask him when you meet him.
> 
> 
> Bible and science provide faith and truth.
> 
> Not lies and propaganda.
> 
> I'll see you in the other thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accept your intellectual surrender.
Click to expand...


Surrender hardly, I still feel from the evdence that it is more logical to accept creation over a natural process undirected by intelligence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is merely your opinion, for which you can offer no convincing scientific evidence, much less any that says God did not do it by evolution.
> 
> Don't let your dogma get in the way of your faith, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I have not observed any evidence that shows macroevolution is possible I have seen more evidence against the belief,not faith but science.
> 
> Practice what you preach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have fail on your arguments in this thread.  Your stubborness has become immoral and a thorn to those who would believe.  Physician, heal thyself.
Click to expand...


What does macroevolution have to do with creating medicine ?

What is your strongest argument for macroevolution ?


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> What is your strongest argument for macroevolution ?



The fossil record, of course, which shows that the species of plant and animal now alive did not exist millions of years ago, and that living things have changed over the generations. This requires, as an explanation, either evolution or an ongoing creation _ex nihilo_. As we have observed evolution taking place, and have not observed creation _ex nihilo_, evolution is the preferred explanation.

In any case, the mere fact that life has changed over the generations conclusively disproves a one-time creation such as that described in Genesis.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your strongest argument for macroevolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record, of course, which shows that the species of plant and animal now alive did not exist millions of years ago, and that living things have changed over the generations. This requires, as an explanation, either evolution or an ongoing creation _ex nihilo_. As we have observed evolution taking place, and have not observed creation _ex nihilo_, evolution is the preferred explanation.
> 
> In any case, the mere fact that life has changed over the generations conclusively disproves a one-time creation such as that described in Genesis.
Click to expand...


Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.

A dog will produce a dog humans produce humans.

The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your strongest argument for macroevolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record, of course, which shows that the species of plant and animal now alive did not exist millions of years ago, and that living things have changed over the generations. This requires, as an explanation, either evolution or an ongoing creation _ex nihilo_. As we have observed evolution taking place, and have not observed creation _ex nihilo_, evolution is the preferred explanation.
> 
> In any case, the mere fact that life has changed over the generations conclusively disproves a one-time creation such as that described in Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.
> 
> A dog will produce a dog humans produce humans.
> 
> The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.
Click to expand...


*"deformed humans"*

Now that's a new one.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier drock and I am not sure who else made the claim that was the common ancestor between humans and chimps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that would be much further back. _H. erectus_ is probably the _immediate_ ancestor of modern humanity on the hominid line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah i never said that was our common ancestor, YWC is lying like always.
> 
> I said that was one of human's ancestors, he's the one who keeps trying to make it seem like science says chimps and humans are closer in every way than what science actually says.
Click to expand...


No that is your side claiming chimps are our cousins some saying we diverged from the chimp.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record, of course, which shows that the species of plant and animal now alive did not exist millions of years ago, and that living things have changed over the generations. This requires, as an explanation, either evolution or an ongoing creation _ex nihilo_. As we have observed evolution taking place, and have not observed creation _ex nihilo_, evolution is the preferred explanation.
> 
> In any case, the mere fact that life has changed over the generations conclusively disproves a one-time creation such as that described in Genesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.
> 
> A dog will produce a dog humans produce humans.
> 
> The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"deformed humans"*
> 
> Now that's a new one.
Click to expand...


Yes neanderthals look like deformed humans.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.



No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.



> A dog will produce a dog humans produce humans.



Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.



> The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.



This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record, of course, which shows that the species of plant and animal now alive did not exist millions of years ago, and that living things have changed over the generations. This requires, as an explanation, either evolution or an ongoing creation _ex nihilo_. As we have observed evolution taking place, and have not observed creation _ex nihilo_, evolution is the preferred explanation.
> 
> In any case, the mere fact that life has changed over the generations conclusively disproves a one-time creation such as that described in Genesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.
> 
> A dog will produce a dog humans produce humans.
> 
> The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"deformed humans"*
> 
> Now that's a new one.
Click to expand...


Look drock, if we shared a common ancestor with a chimp how did we share them ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A dog will produce a dog humans produce humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?
Click to expand...


If we shared a common ancestor with a chimp how did we share this common ancestor ?


----------



## koshergrl

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A dog will produce a dog humans produce humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?
Click to expand...

 
Logical fallacy.

Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.

Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.

So the parallel between them is a false parallel.


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.
> 
> 
> 
> Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logical fallacy.
> 
> Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> So the parallel between them is a false parallel.
Click to expand...


Uh oh you just caught them, now they have to explain how chimps and humans could breed and produce offspring.


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cross breeding and innerbreeding is the perfect explanation not macroevolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.
> 
> 
> 
> Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is made up of extinct animals, animals that show know change,a bunch of innerbreeding animals and deformed humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logical fallacy.
> 
> Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> So the parallel between them is a false parallel.
Click to expand...


Did you notice how they totally ignored the DNA similarity between mice and worms with humans and the many other animals I posted. By their reasoning you would have to say they are our relatives to and that presents a problem for their evolutionary tree.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that would be much further back. _H. erectus_ is probably the _immediate_ ancestor of modern humanity on the hominid line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah i never said that was our common ancestor, YWC is lying like always.
> 
> I said that was one of human's ancestors, he's the one who keeps trying to make it seem like science says chimps and humans are closer in every way than what science actually says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No that is your side claiming chimps are our cousins some saying we diverged from the chimp.
Click to expand...


I'll ask for the 50th time, please point out the scientist and/or poster whos says we diverged from chimps.  

The answer to your other question, I'll supply the same link again.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.
> 
> 
> 
> Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logical fallacy.
> 
> Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> So the parallel between them is a false parallel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why people deny the fact of evolution is becoming more and more obvious with this thread.
> 
> Kosher thinks evolution says apes and humans bred.
> 
> YWC thinks evolution says chimps and humans bred.
> 
> If evolution actually said that, I'd be right on side of you science and math denying fundamentalists.
Click to expand...


How did they share a common ancestor ?

How come you exclude other animals that's DNA is similar to humans  from being realtives to humans ?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.
> 
> 
> 
> Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logical fallacy.
> 
> Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> So the parallel between them is a false parallel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you notice how they totally ignored the DNA similarity between mice and worms with humans and the many other animals I posted. By their reasoning you would have to say they are our relatives to and that presents a problem for their evolutionary tree.
Click to expand...


It should be ignored, mouse DNA isn't near as close to human DNA as chimp DNA is.

Which only further shows more obvious evidence of evolution.


----------



## koshergrl

I never said we descended from chimps. But if one is going to point out the dog/wolf relationship as some sort of parallel to the human/chimp relationship , then they must be comparable. They're not.

Incidentally, re: 94-96% vs. 99%...the person who said humans and chimps had 99% gene similarity was correct.

"According to this analysis, chimpanzees and humans occupy sister branches on a family tree, with 99.4% genetic similarity. "
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Chimps genetically close to humans


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> So the parallel between them is a false parallel.



You are right about dogs and wolves; however, the fact that apes and humans cannot interbreed invalidates YWC's argument, not mine. He is the one asserting that what we see in the fossil record is the result of interbreeding rather than evolution.



> I never said we descended from chimps.



Neither did anyone else. Perhaps you should point that out to YWC.



> But if one is going to point out the dog/wolf relationship as some sort of parallel to the human/chimp relationship



No one has done that.



> Incidentally, re: 94-96% vs. 99%...the person who said humans and chimps had 99% gene similarity was correct.



That's obsolete data. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n1/dna


----------



## koshergrl

There is absolutely no evidence of a common ancestor with chimps. It's just a fantasy.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> So the parallel between them is a false parallel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right about dogs and wolves; however, the fact that apes and humans cannot interbreed invalidates YWC's argument, not mine. He is the one asserting that what we see in the fossil record is the result of interbreeding rather than evolution.
Click to expand...

 
I don't care about that, and it still invalidates yours, as it proves you are using logical fallacy instead of intelligent argument and fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah i never said that was our common ancestor, YWC is lying like always.
> 
> I said that was one of human's ancestors, he's the one who keeps trying to make it seem like science says chimps and humans are closer in every way than what science actually says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that is your side claiming chimps are our cousins some saying we diverged from the chimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll ask for the 50th time, please point out the scientist and/or poster whos says we diverged from chimps.
> 
> The answer to your other question, I'll supply the same link again.
> 
> Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


When humans and chimps split - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com

Human/chimpanzee divergence

Sign in to read: Did humans and chimps once interbreed? - life - 17 May 2006 - New Scientist


----------



## koshergrl

Jean Auel (clan of the cavebear) hypothesised that humans interbred with non-human neandertals or cro-magnons, whatever they were. And offered exactly zero insight on how the two separate species came into being.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No that is your side claiming chimps are our cousins some saying we diverged from the chimp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask for the 50th time, please point out the scientist and/or poster whos says we diverged from chimps.
> 
> The answer to your other question, I'll supply the same link again.
> 
> Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When humans and chimps split - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
> 
> Human/chimpanzee divergence
> 
> Sign in to read: Did humans and chimps once interbreed? - life - 17 May 2006 - New Scientist
Click to expand...


"We can conclude that humans and chimpanzees probably last shared a common ancestor between five and seven million years ago," said research team member Blair Hedges, an astrobiologist at Penn State. Knowing the timescale of human evolution, and how we changed through time in relation to our environment, could provide valuable clues for understandingin a more general sensethe evolution of intelligent life." 

That's better, see that's what happens when we actually read what science says rather than going by what Bible blogs try to say science says.

Chimps and Humans sharing a common ancestor is what I've been trying to get through to you for pages, you aren't learning anything about science but at least I'm helping you become a better listener.


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> Jean Auel (clan of the cavebear) hypothesised that humans interbred with non-human neandertals or cro-magnons, whatever they were. And offered exactly zero insight on how the two separate species came into being.



Evolutionist hated it when neanderthals were declared human.


----------



## koshergrl

Lol...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask for the 50th time, please point out the scientist and/or poster whos says we diverged from chimps.
> 
> The answer to your other question, I'll supply the same link again.
> 
> Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When humans and chimps split - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
> 
> Human/chimpanzee divergence
> 
> Sign in to read: Did humans and chimps once interbreed? - life - 17 May 2006 - New Scientist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "We can conclude that humans and chimpanzees probably last shared a common ancestor between five and seven million years ago," said research team member Blair Hedges, an astrobiologist at Penn State. Knowing the timescale of human evolution, and how we changed through time in relation to our environment, could provide valuable clues for understandingin a more general sensethe evolution of intelligent life."
> 
> That's better, see that's what happens when we actually read what science says rather than going by what Bible blogs try to say science says.
> 
> Chimps and Humans sharing a common ancestor is what I've been trying to get through to you for pages, you aren't learning anything about science but at least I'm helping you become a better listener.
Click to expand...


I have conceded that chimps shared a common ancestor according to your side. So why do they say they diverged ?

Now they need to explain how a chimp and human shared a common ancestor,explain ?


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> How did they share a common ancestor ?



Ancestry of both humans and apes is determined from examination of the fossils of extinct primate species, and seeing how a primitive primate had descendants some of whom were apes, and others were hominids, from the latter of whom humans are descended. It's like putting together the pieces of a puzzle.

Old-world monkeys branched into both apes and hominids.



> How come you exclude other animals that's DNA is similar to humans  from being realtives to humans ?



All animals and plants are related to humans, however distantly.

These questions have already been answered. You are repeating yourself.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> Jean Auel (clan of the cavebear) hypothesised that humans interbred with non-human neandertals or cro-magnons, whatever they were. And offered exactly zero insight on how the two separate species came into being.



You do know that _Clan of the Cave Bear_ and its sequels are fiction, right?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did they share a common ancestor ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ancestry of both humans and apes is determined from examination of the fossils of extinct primate species, and seeing how a primitive primate had descendants some of whom were apes, and others were hominids, from the latter of whom humans are descended. It's like putting together the pieces of a puzzle.
> 
> Old-world monkeys branched into both apes and hominids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come you exclude other animals that's DNA is similar to humans  from being realtives to humans ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All animals and plants are related to humans, however distantly.
> 
> These questions have already been answered. You are repeating yourself.
Click to expand...


They are all related but put on separate family trees now that made sense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jean Auel (clan of the cavebear) hypothesised that humans interbred with non-human neandertals or cro-magnons, whatever they were. And offered exactly zero insight on how the two separate species came into being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that _Clan of the Cave Bear_ and its sequels are fiction, right?
Click to expand...


How bout this for a theory, God created all living organisms from ingredients of the earth and that is why we see DNA similarity ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't answer that or how he has always existed,that is something you might want to ask him when you meet him.
> 
> 
> Bible and science provide faith and truth.
> 
> Not lies and propaganda.
> 
> I'll see you in the other thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I accept your intellectual surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surrender hardly, I still feel from the evdence that it is more logical to accept creation over a natural process undirected by intelligence.
Click to expand...


What you "feel" does not matter.  The empirical data dictates the conclusion.  That you don't accept it is your problem, no one else's.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did they share a common ancestor ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ancestry of both humans and apes is determined from examination of the fossils of extinct primate species, and seeing how a primitive primate had descendants some of whom were apes, and others were hominids, from the latter of whom humans are descended. It's like putting together the pieces of a puzzle.
> 
> Old-world monkeys branched into both apes and hominids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come you exclude other animals that's DNA is similar to humans  from being realtives to humans ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All animals and plants are related to humans, however distantly.
> 
> These questions have already been answered. You are repeating yourself.
Click to expand...


Thank you, stated perfectly.


----------



## koshergrl

What a shame there's no actual proof of that.

Of course one could argue, of course we're all related, God is the father of all....


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jean Auel (clan of the cavebear) hypothesised that humans interbred with non-human neandertals or cro-magnons, whatever they were. And offered exactly zero insight on how the two separate species came into being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that _Clan of the Cave Bear_ and its sequels are fiction, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How bout this for a theory, God created all living organisms from ingredients of the earth and that is why we see DNA similarity ?
Click to expand...


That's fine, I take no issue with people saying it's God's guiding hand behind evolution.


----------



## koshergrl

So long as you don't say we all evolved from the same creature. There's no evidence for that. Or attribute solid timelines that contradict biblical accounts of creation, and pretend they're unquestionable. There's no proof of that, either.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that _Clan of the Cave Bear_ and its sequels are fiction, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How bout this for a theory, God created all living organisms from ingredients of the earth and that is why we see DNA similarity ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fine, I take no issue with people saying it's God's guiding hand behind evolution.
Click to expand...


Not what I said.


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> So long as you don't say we all evolved from the same creature. There's no evidence for that. Or attribute solid timelines that contradict biblical accounts of creation, and pretend they're unquestionable. There's no proof of that, either.



You can continue to pretend there's no proof at your own detriment, that's fine.




As long as you're not a teacher, you can go against scientific evidence all you like.


----------



## koshergrl

What specific evidence proves we have the same ancestor?

Remember to leave out those pesky terms "theorize" and "believe".


----------



## koshergrl

If I'm not mistaken, that's the whole mystery behind the "missing link". Which is, after all, still missing.

Meanwhile, I took college biology for a year, and genetics for a term, and I don't remember my professor ever once speaking in absolutes when it comes to the history of mankind.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How bout this for a theory, God created all living organisms from ingredients of the earth and that is why we see DNA similarity ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine, I take no issue with people saying it's God's guiding hand behind evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what I said.
Click to expand...


Believe me, I have no idea what your stances are, they change daily.

One day you're a full blown science denier.

The next day you admit to parts of evolution being fact.

The next day you completely buy into microevolution.

Then the 4th day you're back to saying Satan is behind science.


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> What specific evidence proves we have the same ancestor?
> 
> Remember to leave out those pesky terms "theorize" and "believe".



There's unlimited amounts of specific evidence, DNA, fossils, etc.




I have a feeling you deny all those, correct?


----------



## koshergrl

I deny that they prove a specific timetable, and I deny that they disprove anything in the bible.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Denials of amateurs like koshergirl or Youwerecreated or me mean nothing.

Only empirical data on matters of nature count, not our faith beliefs or emotional feelings.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> What specific evidence proves we have the same ancestor?
> 
> Remember to leave out those pesky terms "theorize" and "believe".



Before I present the evidence, I'm going to point out that your request to leave out those two words betrays a failure to understand one of the key points of science: that we can never know anything for certain, beyond any possibility of doubt. Certainty beyond the possibility of doubt is the arena of dogma, not science. In fact, I submit that this is precisely why religious doctrine strays further from the evidence than science: it is believed with such arbitrary certainty that checking the facts is never done.

When you ask "what evidence shows we have the same ancestor?" it's also important to include the context of the question. If one accepts the model of evolution for the divergence of species, then the question means, "What evidence shows that humans and chimpanzees have the same ancestor, as opposed to humans being descended from chimps, or humans being off the primate tree altogether?" If not, then the question means, "What evidence shows that humans and chimpanzees have the same ancestor, as opposed to humans and chimps being separate creations?"

It's better to present evidence for evolution in general rather than in specific; that is, evolution is simply the only non-nonsensical explanation for the temporal divergence in the fossil record generally. The evidence that humans and chimps are not separate creations is that the emergence of the two species in the past is separated by about twenty million years. _Pan troglodytes_ is about twenty million years old, while _Homo sapiens_ emerged only 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. And of course, similar observations may be made about other species of life. So unless we have a creation that keeps happening, with new species being created all the time over hundreds of millions of years (which differs sharply from the Genesis account), creation is a model not consistent with the observed facts.

For this reason, I'm going to present answers that assume evolution, and explain why humans and chimpanzees probably share a common ancestor rather than one being descended from the other or hominids representing a completely distinct, non-primate line of animal life.

Evidence for humans and apes sharing a common ancestry is partly genetic and partly from the fossil record. You can find both here: The Evolution Evidence Page.

Details on the genetic similarities among humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans can be found from that link by clicking on the "chromosomal evidence for common ancestry of apes and humans" on the frames on the left. Roughly stated, we have strong congruence of many of the human chromosomes, in one, two, or all three of the ape species, and greater genetic similarity than we find in other animals. (Which, given the phenotypic similarity, is what we should expect.)

Talk.origins, despite your ad-hom dismissal of that source, actually has a very good rundown on the fossil evidence for ancestral hominid species. Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution. Here is a timeline on the process: Hominid Species. The _Australopithecus_ genus is where the two lines appear to have branched, well before the _Homo_ genus emerged. Note the characteristics listed in the key: small or large brains, small or large teeth, quadrupedalism or bipedalism.

Hominid Species The species _Sahelanthropus tchadensis_ is the best candidate so far.


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> I deny that they prove a specific timetable, and I deny that they disprove anything in the bible.



If ppl interpret the Bible to say it's god's guiding hand behind evolution also ambiogenesis, I take no issue with that.


----------



## koshergrl

JakeStarkey said:


> Denials of amateurs like koshergirl or Youwerecreated or me mean nothing.
> 
> Only empirical data on matters of nature count, not our faith beliefs or emotional feelings.


 
Precisely.

And the empirical data hasn't shown where, when or how our species came into being.

Thank you.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> I deny that they prove a specific timetable, and I deny that they disprove anything in the bible.



Well, they do prove a specific timetable, so you're wrong about that.

As for disproving what's in the Bible, note that I've been careful to speak of "a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis." That creation story goes into more specifics than simply saying "God created life." It has God creating the waters, the dry land, the sun, plants, animals, and man on different "days," each with its own separate one-time creation. If this is interpreted with complete literality, so that one has a literal six-day creation, well, that's easy to show as false. If we allow that "day" may be a metaphor for a longer and not-strictly-defined length of time, as some do, we still run into the problem that many plant species emerged long after the first animals, and the most recent known animal species are actually younger than man.

It is of course possible to take the creation story in Genesis as a metaphor or spiritual tale, and take away from it in terms of literal statement only divine guidance of the emergence of life. That, it is true evolution does not disprove.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What specific evidence proves we have the same ancestor?
> 
> Remember to leave out those pesky terms "theorize" and "believe".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before I present the evidence, I'm going to point out that your request to leave out those two words betrays a failure to understand one of the key points of science: that we can never know anything for certain, beyond any possibility of doubt. Certainty beyond the possibility of doubt is the arena of dogma, not science. In fact, I submit that this is precisely why religious doctrine strays further from the evidence than science: it is believed with such arbitrary certainty that checking the facts is never done.
> 
> When you ask "what evidence shows we have the same ancestor?" it's also important to include the context of the question. If one accepts the model of evolution for the divergence of species, then the question means, "What evidence shows that humans and chimpanzees have the same ancestor, as opposed to humans being descended from chimps, or humans being off the primate tree altogether?" If not, then the question means, "What evidence shows that humans and chimpanzees have the same ancestor, as opposed to humans and chimps being separate creations?"
> 
> It's better to present evidence for evolution in general rather than in specific; that is, evolution is simply the only non-nonsensical explanation for the temporal divergence in the fossil record generally. The evidence that humans and chimps are not separate creations is that the emergence of the two species in the past is separated by about twenty million years. _Pan troglodytes_ is about twenty million years old, while _Homo sapiens_ emerged only 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. And of course, similar observations may be made about other species of life. So unless we have a creation that keeps happening, with new species being created all the time over hundreds of millions of years (which differs sharply from the Genesis account), creation is a model not consistent with the observed facts.
> 
> For this reason, I'm going to present answers that assume evolution, and explain why humans and chimpanzees probably share a common ancestor rather than one being descended from the other or hominids representing a completely distinct, non-primate line of animal life.
> 
> Evidence for humans and apes sharing a common ancestry is partly genetic and partly from the fossil record. You can find both here: The Evolution Evidence Page.
> 
> Details on the genetic similarities among humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans can be found from that link by clicking on the "chromosomal evidence for common ancestry of apes and humans" on the frames on the left. Roughly stated, we have strong congruence of many of the human chromosomes, in one, two, or all three of the ape species, and greater genetic similarity than we find in other animals. (Which, given the phenotypic similarity, is what we should expect.)
> 
> Talk.origins, despite your ad-hom dismissal of that source, actually has a very good rundown on the fossil evidence for ancestral hominid species. Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution. Here is a timeline on the process: Hominid Species. The _Australopithecus_ genus is where the two lines appear to have branched, well before the _Homo_ genus emerged. Note the characteristics listed in the key: small or large brains, small or large teeth, quadrupedalism or bipedalism.
> 
> Hominid Species The species _Sahelanthropus tchadensis_ is the best candidate so far.
Click to expand...

 
Thank you. "Bla bla bla bla blah" and "We don't know".

Exactly what I said.


----------



## koshergrl

"The basic issue is this: Despite the fact that human/ape genetic similarities are often overstated, YES, in many instances it is true that humans and chimps have very high levels of genetic similarity. Does this functional genetic similarity bolster neo-Darwinian evolution and human/ape common ancestry? Not at all. In fact, we could have predicted these similarities without any knowledge of Darwinian evolution simply by observing that humans have similar body plans to apes. If similar morphology implies similar genetics, then we could predict these high levels of similarities without even thinking about considerations pertaining to common ancestry.

But there's another important point to consider: Functional morphological and genetic similarities between humans and apes could be the result of common design just as much as common descent. That's a good principle to keep in mind as you investigate this issue: *functional biological similarity is explained by common design just as well as it's explained by common descent.* (In fact, in some cases--such as extreme convergent evolution--such similarity is explained much better by common design.)"

Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence - Evolution News & Views


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine, I take no issue with people saying it's God's guiding hand behind evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe me, I have no idea what your stances are, they change daily.
> 
> One day you're a full blown science denier.
> 
> The next day you admit to parts of evolution being fact.
> 
> The next day you completely buy into microevolution.
> 
> Then the 4th day you're back to saying Satan is behind science.
Click to expand...


You're avoiding my questions again.

I have never denied real science.

I have never denied micro-evolution or in other words micro-adaptations.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> Thank you. "Bla bla bla bla blah" and "We don't know".
> 
> Exactly what I said.



We come a LOT closer to knowing than you do, though. And yet, you think you do.



> But there's another important point to consider: Functional morphological and genetic similarities between humans and apes could be the result of common design just as much as common descent.



Yes, and it also COULD be the result of aliens who separately planted the two species using a common pool of genetic material because they employed the same contractor.

The difference is that there is actual evidence in favor of evolution, and none in favor of creation. So the fact that either is a plausible explanation for this one datum of genetic similarity does not make them equally appropriate.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. "Bla bla bla bla blah" and "We don't know".
> 
> Exactly what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We come a LOT closer to knowing than you do, though. And yet, you think you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there's another important point to consider: Functional morphological and genetic similarities between humans and apes could be the result of common design just as much as common descent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and it also COULD be the result of aliens who separately planted the two species using a common pool of genetic material because they employed the same contractor.
> 
> The difference is that there is actual evidence in favor of evolution, and none in favor of creation. So the fact that either is a plausible explanation for this one datum of genetic similarity does not make them equally appropriate.
Click to expand...


Briefly what is the engine that drives macro-evolution ?

If the term engine throws you what is the mechanism let's see if you agree with BB that posted in this thread.

And let's look at the reality of this engine.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Denials of amateurs like koshergirl or Youwerecreated or me mean nothing.
> 
> Only empirical data on matters of nature count, not our faith beliefs or emotional feelings.



Speak for yourself.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Briefly what is the engine that drives macro-evolution ?



Mutation plus natural selection.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. "Bla bla bla bla blah" and "We don't know".
> 
> Exactly what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We come a LOT closer to knowing than you do, though. And yet, you think you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there's another important point to consider: Functional morphological and genetic similarities between humans and apes could be the result of common design just as much as common descent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and it also COULD be the result of aliens who separately planted the two species using a common pool of genetic material because they employed the same contractor.
> 
> The difference is that there is actual evidence in favor of evolution, and none in favor of creation. So the fact that either is a plausible explanation for this one datum of genetic similarity does not make them equally appropriate.
Click to expand...

 
You do realize how incredibly stupid you sound, right?

"We're a lot closer to knowing". 

LOL! That's certainly...."scientific".

Still waiting for the evidence. 

Oh, wait, there isn't any. You just THINK you're closer.

Too funny.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Briefly what is the engine that drives macro-evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutation plus natural selection.
Click to expand...

 
Straight out of the mouths of 6th graders.
 Thanks for that stunning and ridiculous explanation.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, I have no idea what your stances are, they change daily.
> 
> One day you're a full blown science denier.
> 
> The next day you admit to parts of evolution being fact.
> 
> The next day you completely buy into microevolution.
> 
> Then the 4th day you're back to saying Satan is behind science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're avoiding my questions again.
> 
> I have never denied real science.
> 
> I have never denied micro-evolution or in other words micro-adaptations.
Click to expand...


You didn't ask a question.  And yes you have denied micro-evolution, your view on micro-evolution changes with the wind.  Out of one side of your mouth you admit to new species being about to form through evolution, but jump into super denial science hater mode  when that same aspect of science is used when discussing humankind.

Which question have you asked that I haven't already answered a half dozen or more times?


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Briefly what is the engine that drives macro-evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutation plus natural selection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straight out of the mouths of 6th graders.
> Thanks for that stunning and ridiculous explanation.
Click to expand...


No offense, but you science deniers sound like you have a worse idea of what science is and says than the average 6th grader.


So that's why you'll hear those type of explanations.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> You do realize how incredibly stupid you sound, right?



Yes, but that's an indictment of your ears, not my voice. As I said, you have no idea how science works or what its working assumptions are, and you've demonstrated that yet again.



> "We're a lot closer to knowing".
> 
> LOL! That's certainly...."scientific".



Indeed it is. As I said before, science never claims 100% certainty, because there can be no 100% certainty, ever, about anything. And that's just as true about creationist ideas as it is about evolution.

But there is actually evidence in favor of evolution, while there is NO evidence AT ALL for creation. So, while neither set of ideas can be claimed with 100% certainty, evolution can be claimed with a very high degree of probability, while the probability that creation as described in the Bible is true is far, far under 1%.

So yes -- we are a lot closer to knowing than you are.


----------



## koshergrl

"
Understanding the diversification of phenotypes through time&#8212;&#8220;descent with modification&#8221;&#8212;has been the focus of evolutionary biology for 150 years. If, contrary to expectations, similarity evolves in unrelated taxa, researchers are guided to uncover the genetic and developmental mechanisms responsible. Similar phenotypes may be retained from common ancestry (homology), but a phylogenetic context may instead reveal that they are independently derived, due to convergence or parallel evolution, or less likely, that they experienced reversal. Such examples of homoplasy present opportunities to discover the foundations of morphological traits. A common underlying mechanism may exist, and components may have been redeployed in a way that produces the &#8220;same&#8221; phenotype. New, robust phylogenetic hypotheses and molecular, genomic, and developmental techniques enable integrated exploration of the mechanisms by which similarity arises. "

So much for the *almost* inerrancy of your evidence.
Homoplasy: From Detecting Pattern to Determining Process and Mechanism of Evolution


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> So much for the *almost* inerrancy of your evidence.
> Homoplasy: From Detecting Pattern to Determining Process and Mechanism of Evolution



You honestly think you have proven anything with that? Your ignorance of science is simply staggering.

As I've said a couple of times, what strikes me about creationists is not faith but rather their LACK of faith. Real faith would not need to insist on absurd ideas like magical creation to preserve belief in God. The absurdity of creationist ideas will never lead to their abandonment no matter how well this is pointed out, as along as creationists continue to fear that if they accept evolution they will lose God. That is the real, at-root irrationality of the entire belief-system.


----------



## koshergrl

Good grief, I knew you were ignorant but I realize now how incredibly stupid you really are.

Your idiotic claims that your belief is somehow more valid than mine show you for the silly nitwit you are..and it's backed up by your continuing insistence that you have the science behind you...and yet you pooh-pooh the science when it doesn't jibe with your own beliefs.

Typical of someone who depends upon logical fallacy.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> [snip pointless personal attacks and empty rhetoric devoid of cognitive content]



Once more, nothing there. Say something of substance and we'll talk.


----------



## koshergrl

And yet again, surprise surprise, you can only speak to that which hasn't been said...you won't speak to the actual argument.

go figure.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the *almost* inerrancy of your evidence.
> Homoplasy: From Detecting Pattern to Determining Process and Mechanism of Evolution
Click to expand...

 
Likewise, *snip* nothing except logical fallacy and self-important aggrandizment.

Nothing of substance.

As I've said before, and will say again..always look to what the progressive loons are complaining about, and you will find the problem with their own argument and style.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't answer that or how he has always existed,that is something you might want to ask him when you meet him.
> 
> 
> Bible and science provide faith and truth.
> 
> Not lies and propaganda.
> 
> I'll see you in the other thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I accept your intellectual surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surrender hardly, I still feel from the evdence that it is more logical to accept creation over a natural process undirected by intelligence.
Click to expand...

Then if you categorically reject any notion that life can arise from non-living origins, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> [snip pointless personal attacks and empty rhetoric devoid of cognitive content]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once more, nothing there. Say something of substance and we'll talk.
Click to expand...



Ok a couple of short videos then we will dive into mutations.

13-Science Refutes Neo-Darwinism

9-The Fossil Record Refutes Darwinism


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, I have no idea what your stances are, they change daily.
> 
> One day you're a full blown science denier.
> 
> The next day you admit to parts of evolution being fact.
> 
> The next day you completely buy into microevolution.
> 
> Then the 4th day you're back to saying Satan is behind science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're avoiding my questions again.
> 
> I have never denied real science.
> 
> I have never denied micro-evolution or in other words micro-adaptations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't ask a question.  And yes you have denied micro-evolution, your view on micro-evolution changes with the wind.  Out of one side of your mouth you admit to new species being about to form through evolution, but jump into super denial science hater mode  when that same aspect of science is used when discussing humankind.
> 
> Which question have you asked that I haven't already answered a half dozen or more times?
Click to expand...


No I didn't deny micro-evolution or better named micro-adaptations I denied they lead to  macro-evolution.

The question that went ignored was how did chimps and humans share a common ancestor ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> [snip pointless personal attacks and empty rhetoric devoid of cognitive content]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once more, nothing there. Say something of substance and we'll talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok a couple of short videos then we will dive into mutations.
> 
> 13-Science Refutes Neo-Darwinism
> 
> 9-The Fossil Record Refutes Darwinism
Click to expand...

Just another superstitious, intellectually dishonest, retard.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I accept your intellectual surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surrender hardly, I still feel from the evdence that it is more logical to accept creation over a natural process undirected by intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then if you categorically reject any notion that life can arise from non-living origins, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
Click to expand...


I already have,living organisms produce living organisms can this be proven or not ?

There is zero evidence that non-life can produce life,zero evidence.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're avoiding my questions again.
> 
> I have never denied real science.
> 
> I have never denied micro-evolution or in other words micro-adaptations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't ask a question.  And yes you have denied micro-evolution, your view on micro-evolution changes with the wind.  Out of one side of your mouth you admit to new species being about to form through evolution, but jump into super denial science hater mode  when that same aspect of science is used when discussing humankind.
> 
> Which question have you asked that I haven't already answered a half dozen or more times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't deny micro-evolution or better named micro-adaptations I denied they lead to  macro-evolution.
> 
> The question that went ignored was how did chimps and humans share a common ancestor ?
Click to expand...


I already provided 2 links to answer that question.  On the last page.

And yes you deny all forms of evolution when it comes to the homo sapiens species, you think science skips over us.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surrender hardly, I still feel from the evdence that it is more logical to accept creation over a natural process undirected by intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> Then if you categorically reject any notion that life can arise from non-living origins, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have,living organisms produce living organisms can this be proven or not ?
> 
> There is zero evidence that non-life can produce life,zero evidence.
Click to expand...

You are asserting then that your creator is dead. Yes? Then whence the life in His creation?

If not, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet..

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.


----------



## Dr.Drock

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once more, nothing there. Say something of substance and we'll talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok a couple of short videos then we will dive into mutations.
> 
> 13-Science Refutes Neo-Darwinism
> 
> 9-The Fossil Record Refutes Darwinism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just another superstitious, intellectually dishonest, retard.
Click to expand...


I've asked him to stop with the Bible bloggers, does no good.


----------



## LOki

Dr.Drock said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok a couple of short videos then we will dive into mutations.
> 
> 13-Science Refutes Neo-Darwinism
> 
> 9-The Fossil Record Refutes Darwinism
> 
> 
> 
> Just another superstitious, intellectually dishonest, retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've asked him to stop with the Bible bloggers, does no good.
Click to expand...

If you've cause to wonder why I'm so free with applying the term "retard" to these faithies, it's a lifetime of exposure to them having literally no reference, outside of those who share a stoic refusal to relinquish belief in the objective reality of their fairy tale, to bring validity to their assertions--intellectual or moral.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denials of amateurs like koshergirl or Youwerecreated or me mean nothing.
> 
> Only empirical data on matters of nature count, not our faith beliefs or emotional feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself.
Click to expand...


I am speaking for all faith believers, that we have the strength to recognize the obligation of our belief is not to blur it with an objectivity we cannot document in terms of Biblical genesis.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't ask a question.  And yes you have denied micro-evolution, your view on micro-evolution changes with the wind.  Out of one side of your mouth you admit to new species being about to form through evolution, but jump into super denial science hater mode  when that same aspect of science is used when discussing humankind.
> 
> Which question have you asked that I haven't already answered a half dozen or more times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't deny micro-evolution or better named micro-adaptations I denied they lead to  macro-evolution.
> 
> The question that went ignored was how did chimps and humans share a common ancestor ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already provided 2 links to answer that question.  On the last page.
> 
> And yes you deny all forms of evolution when it comes to the homo sapiens species, you think science skips over us.
Click to expand...


So they had to cross breed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok a couple of short videos then we will dive into mutations.
> 
> 13-Science Refutes Neo-Darwinism
> 
> 9-The Fossil Record Refutes Darwinism
> 
> 
> 
> Just another superstitious, intellectually dishonest, retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've asked him to stop with the Bible bloggers, does no good.
Click to expand...


Why ?you present your faith through wiki


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't ask a question.  And yes you have denied micro-evolution, your view on micro-evolution changes with the wind.  Out of one side of your mouth you admit to new species being about to form through evolution, but jump into super denial science hater mode  when that same aspect of science is used when discussing humankind.
> 
> Which question have you asked that I haven't already answered a half dozen or more times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't deny micro-evolution or better named micro-adaptations I denied they lead to  macro-evolution.
> 
> The question that went ignored was how did chimps and humans share a common ancestor ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already provided 2 links to answer that question.  On the last page.
> 
> And yes you deny all forms of evolution when it comes to the homo sapiens species, you think science skips over us.
Click to expand...


Hold on tightly we are gonna shift this conversation to mutations and genetics.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another superstitious, intellectually dishonest, retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked him to stop with the Bible bloggers, does no good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you've cause to wonder why I'm so free with applying the term "retard" to these faithies, it's a lifetime of exposure to them having literally no reference, outside of those who share a stoic refusal to relinquish belief in the objective reality of their fairy tale, to bring validity to their assertions--intellectual or moral.
Click to expand...


Because you're about 13 years old.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok a couple of short videos then we will dive into mutations.
> 
> 13-Science Refutes Neo-Darwinism
> 
> 9-The Fossil Record Refutes Darwinism
> 
> 
> 
> Just another superstitious, intellectually dishonest, retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've asked him to stop with the Bible bloggers, does no good.
Click to expand...


Are purebred animals the result of a loss of genetic information ,yes or no ?

When we breed animals do we breed information out or new information in ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked him to stop with the Bible bloggers, does no good.
> 
> 
> 
> If you've cause to wonder why I'm so free with applying the term "retard" to these faithies, it's a lifetime of exposure to them having literally no reference, outside of those who share a stoic refusal to relinquish belief in the objective reality of their fairy tale, to bring validity to their assertions--intellectual or moral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're about 13 years old.
Click to expand...

Yet not retarded or superstitious.

So genius, are you preparing to put your big girl panties on, or are you going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.


----------



## koshergrl

JakeStarkey said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denials of amateurs like koshergirl or Youwerecreated or me mean nothing.
> 
> Only empirical data on matters of nature count, not our faith beliefs or emotional feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am speaking for all faith believers, that we have the strength to recognize the obligation of our belief is not to blur it with an objectivity we cannot document in terms of Biblical genesis.
Click to expand...

 
"blur it with an objectivity we cannot document?"

What a silly way of putting it.

At any rate, I have no objection to believing ... whatever. My objection is that anti-Christians, who seek out Christians to tell them their *side* is better, somehow. Dragon's assertion is that it's better because he believes it. As if that adds extra credence to what is STILL a matter of "what do you believe?"

At least Christians are honest and we admit that our beliefs are rooted in faith, and have not been DISPROVEN (even if they haven't been proven..and they won't, until the end of time). What is so aggravating about the antis is their insistence that their faith is somehow more substantive than our own...and yet they admit (though they convolute the admission) that there is no solid evidence to support it.

And when you pin them on it, they start arguing to points that have never been made.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> "blur it with an objectivity we cannot document?"
> 
> That makes no sense whatever.



What he means is, there's a distinction to be drawn between faith and superstition. God is found within the heart, not in objective evidence out in the world. In fact, if God could be proven from objective evidence out in the world, that would, in my view, lessen him. It would make him/her/it only a _part_ of reality, something that could be separated out and looked at, instead of the All-in-All that he/she/it really is.

The sense of the divine presence, openness to the Mysteries, awareness of the sacred -- these are faith. Belief in unsupported dogma such as the Biblical creation account -- that is superstition.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you've cause to wonder why I'm so free with applying the term "retard" to these faithies, it's a lifetime of exposure to them having literally no reference, outside of those who share a stoic refusal to relinquish belief in the objective reality of their fairy tale, to bring validity to their assertions--intellectual or moral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you're about 13 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet not retarded or superstitious.
> 
> So genius, are you preparing to put your big girl panties on, or are you going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?
> 
> Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
Click to expand...


My belief that we were created is built on faith and rational thought.


----------



## koshergrl

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another superstitious, intellectually dishonest, retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked him to stop with the Bible bloggers, does no good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why ?you present your faith through wiki
Click to expand...

 
No shit...

The "3 out of 4 uneducated ignorami believe it so it MUST be true" school of thought.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "blur it with an objectivity we cannot document?"
> 
> That makes no sense whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What he means is, there's a distinction to be drawn between faith and superstition. God is found within the heart, not in objective evidence out in the world. In fact, if God could be proven from objective evidence out in the world, that would, in my view, lessen him. It would make him/her/it only a _part_ of reality, something that could be separated out and looked at, instead of the All-in-All that he/she/it really is.
> 
> The sense of the divine presence, openness to the Mysteries, awareness of the sacred -- these are faith. Belief in unsupported dogma such as the Biblical creation account -- that is superstition.
Click to expand...

 
Lol..again you're here to tell us what everybody MEANS and what they THINK.

Does it get tiring misinterpreting people's meanings and thoughts to fit your own life view,  all day long?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you're about 13 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet not retarded or superstitious.
> 
> So genius, are you preparing to put your big girl panties on, or are you going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?
> 
> Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My belief that we were created is built on faith and rational thought.
Click to expand...

Nice internally inconsistent dodge, Marsha.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet not retarded or superstitious.
> 
> So genius, are you preparing to put your big girl panties on, or are you going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?
> 
> Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My belief that we were created is built on faith and rational thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice internally inconsistent dodge, Marsha.
Click to expand...


You seem to have an opinion on just about everything I post I am beginning to think you have a fatal attraction for me. So I addressed questions to your pal and he seems to have disappeared. So since you have an opinion on just about everything would you like to answer the questions. Let's quit with the baloney,let's see if your theory can stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## JakeStarkey

It's the only way to put it.  Your faith belief cannot be quantified, it cannot be empirically tested, it depends only on your belief, which you can't prove.

And who here has said his or her belief is greater than yours, koshergirl.  That is not true.

Believe as you will, but you will never convince anyone that your basis for your belief is scientific or that your dislike of evolution is empirically based.

You are biased.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you're about 13 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet not retarded or superstitious.
> 
> So genius, are you preparing to put your big girl panties on, or are you going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?
> 
> Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My belief that we were created is built on faith and rational thought.
Click to expand...


Thank you for finally being honest.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> . . . again you're here to tell us what everybody MEANS and what they THINK.  Does it get tiring misinterpreting people's meanings and thoughts to fit your own life view,  all day long?



This is what _*you *_do, koshergirl.


----------



## koshergrl

No, it's not.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yeppes, it is.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet not retarded or superstitious.
> 
> So genius, are you preparing to put your big girl panties on, or are you going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?
> 
> Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My belief that we were created is built on faith and rational thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for finally being honest.
Click to expand...


I said the same thing before can't remember which thread. I assure you I am an honest person have no reason to lie.


----------



## koshergrl

I've said it too. Repeatedly. 

It's not that we aren't honest about it. It's that they don't acknowledge that we admit it...they're so busy pretending their own belief system has nothing to do with faith that they can't fathom anyone else following the same course of denial.


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> No, it's not.



I asked them simple questions concerning genetics and they disappear. I can't wait for their answers because the next step is if they hold true to their theory they have some explaining to do. I really don't think they know the theory. Earlier I asked for the mechanisms for evolution he only mentioned two and didn't mention the other two. They forgot genetic drift and migration.


----------



## koshergrl

When you ask for specifics that back up the claims, you get "our theory is much more plausible than yours, dummy".

Not exactly a mature or scientific approach.


----------



## Dr Grump

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked them simple questions concerning genetics and they disappear. I can't wait for their answers because the next step is if they hold true to their theory they have some explaining to do. I really don't think they know the theory. Earlier I asked for the mechanisms for evolution he only mentioned two and didn't mention the other two. They forgot genetic drift and migration.
Click to expand...


But instead of talking about the theories of evolution, you're more than willing to believe some dude or dudess, from - ahem - god knows where - just appeared out of thin air and made it happen?


----------



## Dr Grump

koshergrl said:


> When you ask for specifics that back up the claims, you get "our theory is much more plausible than yours, dummy".
> 
> Not exactly a mature or scientific approach.



on the contrary, there have been a myriad of scientific theories that have turned into fact. How many "gods" have turned in facts?

Science has a much better track record than creationism. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that creationism has absolutely no track record based on fact...


----------



## koshergrl

Oh well, then.

As I said.


----------



## Dr Grump

koshergrl said:


> Oh well, then.
> 
> As I said.



You didn't say much.....


----------



## koshergrl

No, I already said it, and you've done nothing except verify what I said.


----------



## Dr Grump

I smell a sock puppet....You are sounding very familiar Koshergirl..

1) Lack of substance in posts
2) When called on BS refuses to back it up
3) Basic argument is "Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah"

I just need you to say a couple more things then I'm calling you out.....
Syntax doesn't lie...


----------



## The Professor

The Book of Genesis cannot be used as evidence of Earth's creation.  Contrary to popular belief, there is no creation account in Genesis; rather there are several such accounts and these accounts contain multiple contradictions.   The first creation story is told in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3, and the second story is from Genesis 2:4-25.  

According the First Chapter of Genesis, on day five the fishes and birdies were brought forth; and on day six all other creatures great and small were created, and then and only then were Adam and Eve created together.   I will not quote the verses since everyone has heard this story many times and should know it by heart.  The important thing to remember is that the First Chapter of Genesis   states in clear and certain terms that ALL the animals (birdies, fishes and beasts of the field) were created prior to the creation of Adam.

However, there is another creation account in the Second Chapter of Genesis which says that Adam was created first, then the animals,  and finally Eve.   This is the creation sequence as described in Genesis Chapter 2:15-23, KJV  (I have eliminated verse numbers for easier reading and edited for brevity without changing substance): 

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.  And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.  And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.  And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;   And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.  And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 

Now it is clear from the quoted scripture that God first created Adam, and then the animals and finally Eve.  There is simply no way to interpret these words  to give any other order of creation.  The Bible says that Adam was alone in the garden  and God decided that Adam needed a helpmate.  The flow of the narrative proves that Adam was created before the animals, and there is a single sentence which establishes this beyond the possibility of debate;  And..the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air.....;  but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

The word but in the above sentence is a conjunction which shows that the sentences prior to and subsequent to this conjunction are related.  The context shows that the latter sentence diminishes or restricts the former, so that the proper definition of but is: still, yet, or in spite of .    This shows that God was attempting to create a helpmate for his first creation, Adam, but initially failed.   Of course, God would not attempt to find a helpmate for a non-existing being, so that Adam clearly was created prior to the animals.  It is logically and linguistically impossible to read the above verses and interpret the order of creation in any way other than:  Adam, then the animals, then Eve.

In conclusion,  the First Chapter of Genesis says Adam was created after the animals, but the Second Chapter of Genesis says that Adam was created before the animals.  There are many other contradictions between the two versions, such as Genesis 1:20 which says that flying fowl were created out of the water and  Genesis 2:19 claims they were created out of the ground.  This has caused many Christians to claim the accounts are not to be taken literally, but allegorically.   At any rate, a single contradiction invalidates any claim to divinely inspired  authorship of the creation account(s).   Absent a claim of divine authorship  and unsupported by scientific corroboration, the Biblical creation account is totally lacking in evidentiary value. 

Of course that is only my humble opinion (OK, I lied about the humble part).


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My belief that we were created is built on faith and rational thought.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice internally inconsistent dodge, Marsha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have an opinion on just about everything I post I am beginning to think you have a fatal attraction for me.
Click to expand...

Still dodging the question, Cupcake?



Youwerecreated said:


> So I addressed questions to your pal and he seems to have disappeared.


Still dodging the question, Cupcake?



Youwerecreated said:


> So since you have an opinion on just about everything would you like to answer the questions.


Still dodging the question, Cupcake?



Youwerecreated said:


> Let's quit with the baloney,let's see if your theory can stand up to scrutiny.


Still dodging the question, Cupcake?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My belief that we were created is built on faith and rational thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for finally being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said the same thing before can't remember which thread. I assure you I am an honest person have no reason to lie.
Click to expand...

Your assurances are meaningless.



Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked them simple questions concerning genetics and they disappear.
Click to expand...

So much for your assurances--I have been so diligent in responding to your questions that rather than "disappear," you suggest that I might be some kind of stalker.

So there's an obvious, and freshly fabricated, lie from you.



Youwerecreated said:


> I can't wait for their answers because the next step is if they hold true to their theory they have some explaining to do.


Another lie. You don't have to wait; the answers have been provided already.

It's worth noting that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.



Youwerecreated said:


> I really don't think they know the theory.


You could be right, but you have not demonstrated it.

However, I will grant that you certainly have have _some_ idea of what the actual theory of evolution describes; it's the validity of that certainty that exposes your propagation of misinformation (evidenced by your own posts and the "experts" you cite) as being *intentional* propagation of misinformation. IOW, lies.



Youwerecreated said:


> Earlier I asked for the mechanisms for evolution he only mentioned two and didn't mention the other two. They forgot genetic drift and migration.


More misinformation. As I recall it, you claimed that evolutionary theory offered *no* mechanism for evolution, and that (at least) two mechanisms were submitted as direct refutation of your claim.

I also note that you (dishonestly) fail to acknowledge you've been unambiguously refuted every time you make this claim.

It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have no problem with Creationism or ID as long as the proponents of such handled it honestly.  That did not happen until the last few pages of this thread.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked them simple questions concerning genetics and they disappear. I can't wait for their answers because the next step is if they hold true to their theory they have some explaining to do. I really don't think they know the theory. Earlier I asked for the mechanisms for evolution he only mentioned two and didn't mention the other two. They forgot genetic drift and migration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But instead of talking about the theories of evolution, you're more than willing to believe some dude or dudess, from - ahem - god knows where - just appeared out of thin air and made it happen?
Click to expand...


Well you believe some natural process poofed and life began 

Worse yet you go against all the evidence that shows life creates life not non-living matter creating life. It can't even be demonstrated in the labs under perfect conditions but even if some day they do it,it took intelligence to make it happen and you laugh at me.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you ask for specifics that back up the claims, you get "our theory is much more plausible than yours, dummy".
> 
> Not exactly a mature or scientific approach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on the contrary, there have been a myriad of scientific theories that have turned into fact. How many "gods" have turned in facts?
> 
> Science has a much better track record than creationism. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that creationism has absolutely no track record based on fact...
Click to expand...


Not to rational thinking human beings.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well, then.
> 
> As I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't say much.....
Click to expand...


You talk of theories and evidence but you never go into details that is what your side does.  

I believe none of you know the theory well enough to argue for it or you're afraid we are gonna poke serious holes in your theory.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> I asked them simple questions concerning genetics and they disappear.



Horseshit. I just looked back over the thread since I was last on line and there were no questions about genetics from you over that period. Any questions you have asked have been answered, you just ignored the answers, which seems to be your M.O.

But if I missed something, re-post it please or link to your earlier post.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> I've said it too. Repeatedly.
> 
> It's not that we aren't honest about it.


It is. You are dishonest about it. Faith is not rational; it's not possible to hold a belief both on faith and rational bases at the same time.



koshergrl said:


> It's that they don't acknowledge that we admit it ...


Such "admissions" cannot be acknowledged (as valid) as long as you demand (dishonestly) that faith has any validating foundation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Such demands are self-evidently invalid, and the persistence of such demands in the face of their invalidity speaks directly to dishonesty.



koshergrl said:


> ...they're so busy pretending their own belief system has nothing to do with faith ...


I literally have no idea to whom you are referring, except to say it's not me. I will say this to you though, any belief system that is founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic can not be faith; any belief system that is validated by verifiable evidence and or valid logic can not be faith.

Such a belief system has literally NOTHING to do with faith--it simply cannot have anything to do with faith.



koshergrl said:


> ... that they can't fathom anyone else following the same course of denial.


You're absolutely wrong. Plenty of reasonable, rational folks have sufficient experience with toddlers to fathom how superstitious folks like you follow courses of  intellectual denial. What can't be fathomed is how anyone who subscribes to faith can *honestly* assert that the foundations and validations of their beliefs have anything but a superficially coincidental--but in absolutely no way necessary--consistency with an objective reality, or with beliefs founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic (i.e. rational thought/beliefs).

You see koshergrl, if you asshats would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.
Q. How do explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
A. God made everything using magic.

Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.

Q. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.

Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...

Q. Why? Why do that?
A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.

Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest. Most of us (at least those like myself) are mostly offended by the dishonesty, not the retardedness. Honest retards (even the superstitious ones) get my sympathy and my sincere wishes for happiness, and efforts to "mainstream" them so they can enjoy the greatest benefits of their potential. The dishonest get my abiding antipathy; dishonest retards get no sympathy; and dishonest superstitious retards also get my mean-spirited ridicule.

And they deserve it.

So what are you going to do about it? Are you going to level up? 

Maybe you'll decide to just be a retard; or a superstitious retard.

Maybe you could start by encouraging your fellow--Youwerecreated--to level up.

That would be nice. Seriously. It's not like every opportunity has not been offered.

What would be more amusing though, would be telling me that you (and hopefully your little cohort of dopey Bible-scientists) intend to remain a dishonest superstitious retard ... and that you intend to continue griping about what it gets you.

I'm pretty good with that too.


----------



## Youwerecreated

The Professor said:


> The Book of Genesis cannot be used as evidence of Earth's creation.  Contrary to popular belief, there is no creation account in Genesis; rather there are several such accounts and these accounts contain multiple contradictions.   The first creation story is told in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3, and the second story is from Genesis 2:4-25.
> 
> According the First Chapter of Genesis, on day five the fishes and birdies were brought forth; and on day six all other creatures great and small were created, and then and only then were Adam and Eve created together.   I will not quote the verses since everyone has heard this story many times and should know it by heart.  The important thing to remember is that the First Chapter of Genesis   states in clear and certain terms that ALL the animals (birdies, fishes and beasts of the field) were created prior to the creation of Adam.
> 
> However, there is another creation account in the Second Chapter of Genesis which says that Adam was created first, then the animals,  and finally Eve.   This is the creation sequence as described in Genesis Chapter 2:15-23, KJV  (I have eliminated verse numbers for easier reading and edited for brevity without changing substance):
> 
> And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.  And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
> 
> And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.  And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.  And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
> 
> And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;   And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.  And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
> 
> Now it is clear from the quoted scripture that God first created Adam, and then the animals and finally Eve.  There is simply no way to interpret these words  to give any other order of creation.  The Bible says that Adam was alone in the garden  and God decided that Adam needed a helpmate.  The flow of the narrative proves that Adam was created before the animals, and there is a single sentence which establishes this beyond the possibility of debate;  And..the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air.....;  but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
> 
> The word but in the above sentence is a conjunction which shows that the sentences prior to and subsequent to this conjunction are related.  The context shows that the latter sentence diminishes or restricts the former, so that the proper definition of but is: still, yet, or in spite of .    This shows that God was attempting to create a helpmate for his first creation, Adam, but initially failed.   Of course, God would not attempt to find a helpmate for a non-existing being, so that Adam clearly was created prior to the animals.  It is logically and linguistically impossible to read the above verses and interpret the order of creation in any way other than:  Adam, then the animals, then Eve.
> 
> In conclusion,  the First Chapter of Genesis says Adam was created after the animals, but the Second Chapter of Genesis says that Adam was created before the animals.  There are many other contradictions between the two versions, such as Genesis 1:20 which says that flying fowl were created out of the water and  Genesis 2:19 claims they were created out of the ground.  This has caused many Christians to claim the accounts are not to be taken literally, but allegorically.   At any rate, a single contradiction invalidates any claim to divinely inspired  authorship of the creation account(s).   Absent a claim of divine authorship  and unsupported by scientific corroboration, the Biblical creation account is totally lacking in evidentiary value.
> 
> Of course that is only my humble opinion (OK, I lied about the humble part).



This site explains your argument quiet nicely.

Two Creation Accounts?

Here are the accounts from a Jewish translation.

Bereishit - Genesis - Chapter 1


Chapter 1
1. In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth.   &#1488;. &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1512;&#1461;&#1488;&#1513;&#1473;&#1460;&#1497;&#1514; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1461;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1461;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509;: 
2. Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water.   &#1489;. &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1492;&#1464;&#1497;&#1456;&#1514;&#1464;&#1492; &#1514;&#1465;&#1492;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1464;&#1489;&#1465;&#1492;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1456;&#1495;&#1465;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1498;&#1456; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1461;&#1497; &#1514;&#1456;&#1492;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1493;&#1456;&#1512;&#1493;&#1468;&#1495;&#1463; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1502;&#1456;&#1512;&#1463;&#1495;&#1462;&#1508;&#1462;&#1514; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1461;&#1497; &#1492;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1464;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501;: 
3. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.   &#1490;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1488;&#1493;&#1465;&#1512; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1488;&#1493;&#1465;&#1512;: 
4. And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated between the light and between the darkness.   &#1491;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1493;&#1465;&#1512; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1496;&#1493;&#1465;&#1489; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1489;&#1456;&#1491;&#1468;&#1461;&#1500; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1461;&#1497;&#1503; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1493;&#1465;&#1512; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1461;&#1497;&#1503; &#1492;&#1463;&#1495;&#1465;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1498;&#1456;: 
5. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night, and it was evening and it was morning, one day.   &#1492;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1511;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1500;&#1464;&#1488;&#1493;&#1465;&#1512; &#1497;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1493;&#1456;&#1500;&#1463;&#1495;&#1465;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1498;&#1456; &#1511;&#1464;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1500;&#1464;&#1497;&#1456;&#1500;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1506;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1489; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1489;&#1465;&#1511;&#1462;&#1512; &#1497;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1495;&#1464;&#1491;: 
6. And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the water, and let it be a separation between water and water."   &#1493;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1512;&#1464;&#1511;&#1460;&#1497;&#1506;&#1463; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1514;&#1493;&#1465;&#1498;&#1456; &#1492;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1464;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1460;&#1497;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1502;&#1463;&#1489;&#1456;&#1491;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1500; &#1489;&#1468;&#1461;&#1497;&#1503; &#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1500;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501;: 
7. And God made the expanse and it separated between the water that was below the expanse and the water that was above the expanse, and it was so.   &#1494;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1506;&#1463;&#1513;&#1474; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1512;&#1464;&#1511;&#1460;&#1497;&#1506;&#1463; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1489;&#1456;&#1491;&#1468;&#1461;&#1500; &#1489;&#1468;&#1461;&#1497;&#1503; &#1492;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1502;&#1460;&#1514;&#1468;&#1463;&#1495;&#1463;&#1514; &#1500;&#1464;&#1512;&#1464;&#1511;&#1460;&#1497;&#1506;&#1463; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1461;&#1497;&#1503; &#1492;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1502;&#1461;&#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1500;&#1464;&#1512;&#1464;&#1511;&#1460;&#1497;&#1506;&#1463; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1499;&#1461;&#1503;: 
8. And God called the expanse Heaven, and it was evening, and it was morning, a second day.   &#1495;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1511;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1500;&#1464;&#1512;&#1464;&#1511;&#1460;&#1497;&#1506;&#1463; &#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1506;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1489; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1489;&#1465;&#1511;&#1462;&#1512; &#1497;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1513;&#1473;&#1461;&#1504;&#1460;&#1497;: 
9. And God said, "Let the water that is beneath the heavens gather into one place, and let the dry land appear," and it was so.   &#1496;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1497;&#1460;&#1511;&#1468;&#1464;&#1493;&#1493;&#1468; &#1492;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1502;&#1460;&#1514;&#1468;&#1463;&#1495;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1500; &#1502;&#1464;&#1511;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1495;&#1464;&#1491; &#1493;&#1456;&#1514;&#1461;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488;&#1462;&#1492; &#1492;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1499;&#1461;&#1503;: 
10. And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas, and God saw that it was good.   &#1497;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1511;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1500;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1460;&#1511;&#1456;&#1493;&#1461;&#1492; &#1492;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1511;&#1464;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1497;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1496;&#1493;&#1465;&#1489;: 
11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.   &#1497;&#1488;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1514;&#1468;&#1463;&#1491;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1461;&#1488; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1491;&#1468;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1488; &#1506;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1489; &#1502;&#1463;&#1494;&#1456;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497;&#1506;&#1463; &#1494;&#1462;&#1512;&#1463;&#1506; &#1506;&#1461;&#1509; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497; &#1506;&#1465;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1492; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497; &#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1504;&#1493;&#1465; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1494;&#1463;&#1512;&#1456;&#1506;&#1493;&#1465; &#1489;&#1493;&#1465; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1499;&#1461;&#1503;: 
12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.   &#1497;&#1489;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1514;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465;&#1510;&#1461;&#1488; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1491;&#1468;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1488; &#1506;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1489; &#1502;&#1463;&#1494;&#1456;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497;&#1506;&#1463; &#1494;&#1462;&#1512;&#1463;&#1506; &#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1504;&#1461;&#1492;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1456;&#1506;&#1461;&#1509; &#1506;&#1465;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1492; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1494;&#1463;&#1512;&#1456;&#1506;&#1493;&#1465; &#1489;&#1493;&#1465; &#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1504;&#1461;&#1492;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1496;&#1493;&#1465;&#1489;: 
13. And it was evening, and it was morning, a third day.   &#1497;&#1490;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1506;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1489; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1489;&#1465;&#1511;&#1462;&#1512; &#1497;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1513;&#1473;&#1456;&#1500;&#1460;&#1497;&#1513;&#1473;&#1460;&#1497;: 
14. And God said, "Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens, to separate between the day and between the night, and they shall be for signs and for appointed seasons and for days and years.   &#1497;&#1491;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1502;&#1456;&#1488;&#1465;&#1512;&#1465;&#1514; &#1489;&#1468;&#1460;&#1512;&#1456;&#1511;&#1460;&#1497;&#1506;&#1463; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1500;&#1456;&#1492;&#1463;&#1489;&#1456;&#1491;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1500; &#1489;&#1468;&#1461;&#1497;&#1503; &#1492;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1461;&#1497;&#1503; &#1492;&#1463;&#1500;&#1468;&#1464;&#1497;&#1456;&#1500;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1464;&#1497;&#1493;&#1468; &#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1465;&#1514;&#1465;&#1514; &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1493;&#1465;&#1506;&#1458;&#1491;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1497;&#1464;&#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1493;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1504;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501;: 
15. And they shall be for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shed light upon the earth." And it was so.   &#1496;&#1493;. &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1464;&#1497;&#1493;&#1468; &#1500;&#1460;&#1502;&#1456;&#1488;&#1493;&#1465;&#1512;&#1465;&#1514; &#1489;&#1468;&#1460;&#1512;&#1456;&#1511;&#1460;&#1497;&#1506;&#1463; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1500;&#1456;&#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1460;&#1497;&#1512; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1499;&#1461;&#1503;: 
16. And God made the two great luminaries: the great luminary to rule the day and the lesser luminary to rule the night, and the stars.   &#1496;&#1494;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1506;&#1463;&#1513;&#1474; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1513;&#1473;&#1456;&#1504;&#1461;&#1497; &#1492;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1456;&#1488;&#1465;&#1512;&#1465;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1490;&#1468;&#1456;&#1491;&#1465;&#1500;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1464;&#1488;&#1493;&#1465;&#1512; &#1492;&#1463;&#1490;&#1468;&#1464;&#1491;&#1465;&#1500; &#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1462;&#1502;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1500;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1464;&#1488;&#1493;&#1465;&#1512; &#1492;&#1463;&#1511;&#1468;&#1464;&#1496;&#1465;&#1503; &#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1462;&#1502;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1500;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1500;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1500;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1461;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1499;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465;&#1499;&#1464;&#1489;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501;: 
17. And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to shed light upon the earth.   &#1497;&#1494;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1514;&#1468;&#1461;&#1503; &#1488;&#1465;&#1514;&#1464;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1460;&#1512;&#1456;&#1511;&#1460;&#1497;&#1506;&#1463; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1500;&#1456;&#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1460;&#1497;&#1512; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509;: 
18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate between the light and between the darkness, and God saw that it was good.   &#1497;&#1495;. &#1493;&#1456;&#1500;&#1460;&#1502;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1465;&#1500; &#1489;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1463;&#1500;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1500;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1458;&#1492;&#1463;&#1489;&#1456;&#1491;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1500; &#1489;&#1468;&#1461;&#1497;&#1503; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1493;&#1465;&#1512; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1461;&#1497;&#1503; &#1492;&#1463;&#1495;&#1465;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1498;&#1456; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1496;&#1493;&#1465;&#1489;: 
19. And it was evening, and it was morning, a fourth day.   &#1497;&#1496;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1506;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1489; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1489;&#1465;&#1511;&#1462;&#1512; &#1497;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1512;&#1456;&#1489;&#1460;&#1497;&#1506;&#1460;&#1497;: 
20. And God said, "Let the waters swarm a swarming of living creatures, and let fowl fly over the earth, across the expanse of the heavens."   &#1499;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1497;&#1460;&#1513;&#1473;&#1456;&#1512;&#1456;&#1510;&#1493;&#1468; &#1492;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1504;&#1462;&#1508;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1456;&#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1497;&#1456;&#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1508;&#1461;&#1507; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1461;&#1497; &#1512;&#1456;&#1511;&#1460;&#1497;&#1506;&#1463; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501;: 
21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.   &#1499;&#1488;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1489;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1514;&#1468;&#1463;&#1504;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1504;&#1460;&#1501; &#1492;&#1463;&#1490;&#1468;&#1456;&#1491;&#1465;&#1500;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1461;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1504;&#1462;&#1508;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473; &#1492;&#1463;&#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1492;&#1464;&#1512;&#1465;&#1502;&#1462;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1514; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1512;&#1456;&#1510;&#1493;&#1468; &#1492;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1504;&#1461;&#1492;&#1462;&#1501; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1461;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1504;&#1464;&#1507; &#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1504;&#1461;&#1492;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1496;&#1493;&#1465;&#1489;: 
22. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let the fowl multiply upon the earth."   &#1499;&#1489;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1489;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1498;&#1456; &#1488;&#1465;&#1514;&#1464;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1500;&#1461;&#1488;&#1502;&#1465;&#1512; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1512;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1512;&#1456;&#1489;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1460;&#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1493;&#1468; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1502;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1464;&#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1497;&#1460;&#1512;&#1462;&#1489; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509;: 
23. And it was evening, and it was morning, a fifth day.   &#1499;&#1490;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1506;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1489; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1489;&#1465;&#1511;&#1462;&#1512; &#1497;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1495;&#1458;&#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1513;&#1473;&#1460;&#1497;: 
24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.   &#1499;&#1491;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1514;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465;&#1510;&#1461;&#1488; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1504;&#1462;&#1508;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1504;&#1464;&#1492;&#1468; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1492;&#1461;&#1502;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1502;&#1462;&#1513;&#1474; &#1493;&#1456;&#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1514;&#1493;&#1465; &#1488;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1504;&#1464;&#1492;&#1468; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1499;&#1461;&#1503;: 
25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.   &#1499;&#1492;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1506;&#1463;&#1513;&#1474; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1504;&#1464;&#1492;&#1468; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1492;&#1461;&#1502;&#1464;&#1492; &#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1504;&#1464;&#1492;&#1468; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1461;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1512;&#1462;&#1502;&#1462;&#1513;&#1474; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1458;&#1491;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1492; &#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1460;&#1497;&#1504;&#1461;&#1492;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1496;&#1493;&#1465;&#1489;: 
26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."   &#1499;&#1493;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1504;&#1463;&#1506;&#1458;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1492; &#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1510;&#1463;&#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1461;&#1504;&#1493;&#1468; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1491;&#1456;&#1502;&#1493;&#1468;&#1514;&#1461;&#1504;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1456;&#1497;&#1460;&#1512;&#1456;&#1491;&#1468;&#1493;&#1468; &#1489;&#1460;&#1491;&#1456;&#1490;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1463;&#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1492;&#1461;&#1502;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1502;&#1462;&#1513;&#1474; &#1492;&#1464;&#1512;&#1465;&#1502;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509;: 
27. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.   &#1499;&#1494;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1489;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1510;&#1463;&#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1493;&#1465; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1510;&#1462;&#1500;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1488;&#1465;&#1514;&#1493;&#1465; &#1494;&#1464;&#1499;&#1464;&#1512; &#1493;&#1468;&#1504;&#1456;&#1511;&#1461;&#1489;&#1464;&#1492; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1488;&#1465;&#1514;&#1464;&#1501;: 
28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. "   &#1499;&#1495;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1489;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1498;&#1456; &#1488;&#1465;&#1514;&#1464;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1500;&#1464;&#1492;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1512;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1512;&#1456;&#1489;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1460;&#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1493;&#1468; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1456;&#1499;&#1460;&#1489;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1467;&#1492;&#1464; &#1493;&#1468;&#1512;&#1456;&#1491;&#1493;&#1468; &#1489;&#1468;&#1460;&#1491;&#1456;&#1490;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1492;&#1464;&#1512;&#1465;&#1502;&#1462;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1514; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509;: 
29. And God said, "Behold, I have given you every seed bearing herb, which is upon the surface of the entire earth, and every tree that has seed bearing fruit; it will be yours for food.   &#1499;&#1496;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1492;&#1460;&#1504;&#1468;&#1461;&#1492; &#1504;&#1464;&#1514;&#1463;&#1514;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1500;&#1464;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1506;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1489; &#1494;&#1465;&#1512;&#1461;&#1506;&#1463; &#1494;&#1462;&#1512;&#1463;&#1506; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1461;&#1497; &#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1506;&#1461;&#1509; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1489;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465; &#1508;&#1456;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497; &#1506;&#1461;&#1509; &#1494;&#1465;&#1512;&#1461;&#1506;&#1463; &#1494;&#1464;&#1512;&#1463;&#1506; &#1500;&#1464;&#1499;&#1462;&#1501; &#1497;&#1460;&#1492;&#1456;&#1497;&#1462;&#1492; &#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1464;&#1499;&#1456;&#1500;&#1464;&#1492;: 
30. And to all the beasts of the earth and to all the fowl of the heavens, and to everything that moves upon the earth, in which there is a living spirit, every green herb to eat," and it was so.   &#1500;. &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1499;&#1465;&#1500; &#1512;&#1493;&#1465;&#1502;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1489;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465; &#1504;&#1462;&#1508;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1497;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1511; &#1506;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1489; &#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1464;&#1499;&#1456;&#1500;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1499;&#1461;&#1503;: 
31. And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good, and it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day.   &#1500;&#1488;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1506;&#1464;&#1513;&#1474;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1504;&#1468;&#1461;&#1492; &#1496;&#1493;&#1465;&#1489; &#1502;&#1456;&#1488;&#1465;&#1491; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1506;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1489; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1489;&#1465;&#1511;&#1462;&#1512; &#1497;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1460;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1460;&#1497;: 


Bereishit - Genesis - Chapter 2


Chapter 2
1. Now the heavens and the earth were completed and all their host.   &#1488;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1499;&#1467;&#1500;&#1468;&#1493;&#1468; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1510;&#1456;&#1489;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1501;: 
2. And God completed on the seventh day His work that He did, and He abstained on the seventh day from all His work that He did.   &#1489;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1499;&#1463;&#1500; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1456;&#1489;&#1460;&#1497;&#1506;&#1460;&#1497; &#1502;&#1456;&#1500;&#1463;&#1488;&#1499;&#1456;&#1514;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1506;&#1464;&#1513;&#1474;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1513;&#1473;&#1456;&#1489;&#1468;&#1465;&#1514; &#1489;&#1468;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1456;&#1489;&#1460;&#1497;&#1506;&#1460;&#1497; &#1502;&#1460;&#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1502;&#1456;&#1500;&#1463;&#1488;&#1499;&#1456;&#1514;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1506;&#1464;&#1513;&#1474;&#1464;&#1492;: 
3. And God blessed the seventh day and He hallowed it, for thereon He abstained from all His work that God created to do.   &#1490;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1489;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1498;&#1456; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1497;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1456;&#1489;&#1460;&#1497;&#1506;&#1460;&#1497; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1511;&#1463;&#1491;&#1468;&#1461;&#1513;&#1473; &#1488;&#1465;&#1514;&#1493;&#1465; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1489;&#1493;&#1465; &#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1489;&#1463;&#1514; &#1502;&#1460;&#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1502;&#1456;&#1500;&#1463;&#1488;&#1499;&#1456;&#1514;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1500;&#1463;&#1506;&#1458;&#1513;&#1474;&#1493;&#1465;&#1514;: 
4. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.   &#1491;. &#1488;&#1461;&#1500;&#1468;&#1462;&#1492; &#1514;&#1493;&#1465;&#1500;&#1456;&#1491;&#1493;&#1465;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488;&#1464;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1497;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1506;&#1458;&#1513;&#1474;&#1493;&#1465;&#1514; &#1497;&#1456;&#1470;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1470;&#1492; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501;: 
5. Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord God had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil.   &#1492;. &#1493;&#1456;&#1499;&#1465;&#1500; &#1513;&#1474;&#1460;&#1497;&#1495;&#1463; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1474;&#1464;&#1491;&#1462;&#1492; &#1496;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1501; &#1497;&#1460;&#1492;&#1456;&#1497;&#1462;&#1492; &#1489;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1506;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1489; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1474;&#1464;&#1491;&#1462;&#1492; &#1496;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1501; &#1497;&#1460;&#1510;&#1456;&#1502;&#1464;&#1495; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1500;&#1465;&#1488; &#1492;&#1460;&#1502;&#1456;&#1496;&#1460;&#1497;&#1512; &#1497;&#1456;&#1470;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1470;&#1492; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1488;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1503; &#1500;&#1463;&#1506;&#1458;&#1489;&#1465;&#1491; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1458;&#1491;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1492;: 
6. And a mist ascended from the earth and watered the entire surface of the ground.   &#1493;. &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1461;&#1491; &#1497;&#1463;&#1506;&#1458;&#1500;&#1462;&#1492; &#1502;&#1460;&#1503; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1513;&#1473;&#1456;&#1511;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1461;&#1497; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1458;&#1491;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1492;: 
7. And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.   &#1494;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1510;&#1462;&#1512; &#1497;&#1456;&#1470;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1470;&#1492; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1506;&#1464;&#1508;&#1464;&#1512; &#1502;&#1460;&#1503; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1458;&#1491;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1508;&#1468;&#1463;&#1495; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1488;&#1463;&#1508;&#1468;&#1464;&#1497;&#1493; &#1504;&#1460;&#1513;&#1473;&#1456;&#1502;&#1463;&#1514; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1500;&#1456;&#1504;&#1462;&#1508;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492;: 
8. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden from the east, and He placed there the man whom He had formed.   &#1495;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1496;&#1468;&#1463;&#1506; &#1497;&#1456;&#1470;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1470;&#1492; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1490;&#1468;&#1463;&#1503; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1506;&#1461;&#1491;&#1462;&#1503; &#1502;&#1460;&#1511;&#1468;&#1462;&#1491;&#1462;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1501; &#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1497;&#1464;&#1510;&#1464;&#1512;: 
9. And the Lord God caused to sprout from the ground every tree pleasant to see and good to eat, and the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil.   &#1496;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1510;&#1456;&#1502;&#1463;&#1495; &#1497;&#1456;&#1470;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1470;&#1492; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1502;&#1460;&#1503; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1458;&#1491;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1492; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1506;&#1461;&#1509; &#1504;&#1462;&#1495;&#1456;&#1502;&#1464;&#1491; &#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1463;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488;&#1462;&#1492; &#1493;&#1456;&#1496;&#1493;&#1465;&#1489; &#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1463;&#1488;&#1458;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1493;&#1456;&#1506;&#1461;&#1509; &#1492;&#1463;&#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1514;&#1493;&#1465;&#1498;&#1456; &#1492;&#1463;&#1490;&#1468;&#1464;&#1503; &#1493;&#1456;&#1506;&#1461;&#1509; &#1492;&#1463;&#1491;&#1468;&#1463;&#1506;&#1463;&#1514; &#1496;&#1493;&#1465;&#1489; &#1493;&#1464;&#1512;&#1464;&#1506;: 
10. And a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it separated and became four heads.   &#1497;. &#1493;&#1456;&#1504;&#1464;&#1492;&#1464;&#1512; &#1497;&#1465;&#1510;&#1461;&#1488; &#1502;&#1461;&#1506;&#1461;&#1491;&#1462;&#1503; &#1500;&#1456;&#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1473;&#1456;&#1511;&#1493;&#1465;&#1514; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1490;&#1468;&#1464;&#1503; &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1460;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1501; &#1497;&#1460;&#1508;&#1468;&#1464;&#1512;&#1461;&#1491; &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1464;&#1497;&#1464;&#1492; &#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1463;&#1512;&#1456;&#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1506;&#1464;&#1492; &#1512;&#1464;&#1488;&#1513;&#1473;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501;: 
11. The name of one is Pishon; that is the one that encompasses all the land of Havilah, where there is gold.   &#1497;&#1488;. &#1513;&#1473;&#1461;&#1501; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1462;&#1495;&#1464;&#1491; &#1508;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1513;&#1473;&#1493;&#1465;&#1503; &#1492;&#1493;&#1468;&#1488; &#1492;&#1463;&#1505;&#1468;&#1465;&#1489;&#1461;&#1489; &#1488;&#1461;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1488;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1492;&#1463;&#1495;&#1458;&#1493;&#1460;&#1497;&#1500;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1501; &#1492;&#1463;&#1494;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492;&#1464;&#1489;: 
12. And the gold of that land is good; there is the crystal and the onyx stone.   &#1497;&#1489;. &#1493;&#1468;&#1494;&#1458;&#1492;&#1463;&#1489; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1492;&#1463;&#1492;&#1460;&#1493;&#1488; &#1496;&#1493;&#1465;&#1489; &#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1501; &#1492;&#1463;&#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1491;&#1465;&#1500;&#1463;&#1495; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1462;&#1489;&#1462;&#1503; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1465;&#1492;&#1463;&#1501;: 
13. And the name of the second river is Gihon; that is the one that encompasses all the land of Cush.   &#1497;&#1490;. &#1493;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1461;&#1501; &#1492;&#1463;&#1504;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492;&#1464;&#1512; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1461;&#1504;&#1460;&#1497; &#1490;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1495;&#1493;&#1465;&#1503; &#1492;&#1493;&#1468;&#1488; &#1492;&#1463;&#1505;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465;&#1489;&#1461;&#1489; &#1488;&#1461;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1488;&#1462;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1499;&#1468;&#1493;&#1468;&#1513;&#1473;: 
14. And the name of the third river is Tigris; that is the one that flows to the east of Assyria, and the fourth river that is the Euphrates.   &#1497;&#1491;. &#1493;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1461;&#1501; &#1492;&#1463;&#1504;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492;&#1464;&#1512; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1456;&#1500;&#1460;&#1497;&#1513;&#1473;&#1460;&#1497; &#1495;&#1460;&#1491;&#1468;&#1462;&#1511;&#1462;&#1500; &#1492;&#1493;&#1468;&#1488; &#1492;&#1463;&#1492;&#1465;&#1500;&#1461;&#1498;&#1456; &#1511;&#1460;&#1491;&#1456;&#1502;&#1463;&#1514; &#1488;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1493;&#1468;&#1512; &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1463;&#1504;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492;&#1464;&#1512; &#1492;&#1464;&#1512;&#1456;&#1489;&#1460;&#1497;&#1506;&#1460;&#1497; &#1492;&#1493;&#1468;&#1488; &#1508;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1514;: 
15. Now the Lord God took the man, and He placed him in the Garden of Eden to work it and to guard it.   &#1496;&#1493;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1511;&#1468;&#1463;&#1495; &#1497;&#1456;&#1470;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1470;&#1492; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1504;&#1468;&#1460;&#1495;&#1461;&#1492;&#1493;&#1468; &#1489;&#1456;&#1490;&#1463;&#1503; &#1506;&#1461;&#1491;&#1462;&#1503; &#1500;&#1456;&#1506;&#1464;&#1489;&#1456;&#1491;&#1464;&#1492;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1492;&#1468;: 
16. And the Lord God commanded man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.   &#1496;&#1494;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1510;&#1463;&#1493; &#1497;&#1456;&#1470;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1470;&#1492; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1500;&#1461;&#1488;&#1502;&#1465;&#1512; &#1502;&#1460;&#1499;&#1468;&#1465;&#1500; &#1506;&#1461;&#1509; &#1492;&#1463;&#1490;&#1468;&#1464;&#1503; &#1488;&#1464;&#1499;&#1465;&#1500; &#1514;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1499;&#1461;&#1500;: 
17. But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die."   &#1497;&#1494;. &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1461;&#1506;&#1461;&#1509; &#1492;&#1463;&#1491;&#1468;&#1463;&#1506;&#1463;&#1514; &#1496;&#1493;&#1465;&#1489; &#1493;&#1464;&#1512;&#1464;&#1506; &#1500;&#1465;&#1488; &#1514;&#1465;&#1488;&#1499;&#1463;&#1500; &#1502;&#1460;&#1502;&#1468;&#1462;&#1504;&#1468;&#1493;&#1468; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1497;&#1493;&#1465;&#1501; &#1488;&#1458;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500;&#1456;&#1498;&#1464; &#1502;&#1460;&#1502;&#1468;&#1462;&#1504;&#1468;&#1493;&#1468; &#1502;&#1493;&#1465;&#1514; &#1514;&#1468;&#1464;&#1502;&#1493;&#1468;&#1514;: 
18. And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man is alone; I shall make him a helpmate opposite him."   &#1497;&#1495;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1497;&#1456;&#1470;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1470;&#1492; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1500;&#1465;&#1488; &#1496;&#1493;&#1465;&#1489; &#1492;&#1457;&#1497;&#1493;&#1465;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1500;&#1456;&#1489;&#1463;&#1491;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465; &#1488;&#1462;&#1506;&#1457;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1492; &#1500;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465; &#1506;&#1461;&#1494;&#1462;&#1512; &#1499;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1462;&#1490;&#1456;&#1491;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465;: 
19. And the Lord God formed from the earth every beast of the field and every fowl of the heavens, and He brought [it] to man to see what he would call it, and whatever the man called each living thing, that was its name.   &#1497;&#1496;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1510;&#1462;&#1512; &#1497;&#1456;&#1470;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1470;&#1492; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1502;&#1460;&#1503; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1458;&#1491;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1492; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1474;&#1464;&#1491;&#1462;&#1492; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1461;&#1514; &#1499;&#1468;&#1464;&#1500; &#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1489;&#1461;&#1488; &#1488;&#1462;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1500;&#1460;&#1512;&#1456;&#1488;&#1493;&#1465;&#1514; &#1502;&#1463;&#1492; &#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1511;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1500;&#1493;&#1465; &#1493;&#1456;&#1499;&#1465;&#1500; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1497;&#1460;&#1511;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1500;&#1493;&#1465; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1504;&#1462;&#1508;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1492;&#1493;&#1468;&#1488; &#1513;&#1473;&#1456;&#1502;&#1493;&#1465;: 
20. And man named all the cattle and the fowl of the heavens and all the beasts of the field, but for man, he did not find a helpmate opposite him.   &#1499;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1511;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1513;&#1473;&#1461;&#1502;&#1493;&#1465;&#1514; &#1500;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1492;&#1463;&#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1492;&#1461;&#1502;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1499;&#1465;&#1500; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1474;&#1464;&#1491;&#1462;&#1492; &#1493;&#1468;&#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1500;&#1465;&#1488; &#1502;&#1464;&#1510;&#1464;&#1488; &#1506;&#1461;&#1494;&#1462;&#1512; &#1499;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1462;&#1490;&#1456;&#1491;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465;: 
21. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon man, and he slept, and He took one of his sides, and He closed the flesh in its place.   &#1499;&#1488;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1463;&#1508;&#1468;&#1461;&#1500; &#1497;&#1456;&#1470;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1470;&#1492; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1514;&#1468;&#1463;&#1512;&#1456;&#1491;&#1468;&#1461;&#1502;&#1464;&#1492; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1503; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1511;&#1468;&#1463;&#1495; &#1488;&#1463;&#1495;&#1463;&#1514; &#1502;&#1460;&#1510;&#1468;&#1463;&#1500;&#1456;&#1506;&#1465;&#1514;&#1464;&#1497;&#1493; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1505;&#1456;&#1490;&#1468;&#1465;&#1512; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1513;&#1474;&#1464;&#1512; &#1514;&#1468;&#1463;&#1495;&#1456;&#1514;&#1468;&#1462;&#1504;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492;: 
22. And the Lord God built the side that He had taken from man into a woman, and He brought her to man.   &#1499;&#1489;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1489;&#1462;&#1503; &#1497;&#1456;&#1470;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1470;&#1492; &#1488;&#1457;&#1470;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1510;&#1468;&#1461;&#1500;&#1464;&#1506; &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1473;&#1462;&#1512; &#1500;&#1464;&#1511;&#1463;&#1495; &#1502;&#1460;&#1503; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1460;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1489;&#1460;&#1488;&#1462;&#1492;&#1464; &#1488;&#1462;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501;: 
23. And man said, "This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man)."   &#1499;&#1490;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1494;&#1465;&#1488;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1508;&#1468;&#1463;&#1506;&#1463;&#1501; &#1506;&#1462;&#1510;&#1462;&#1501; &#1502;&#1461;&#1506;&#1458;&#1510;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1464;&#1513;&#1474;&#1464;&#1512; &#1502;&#1460;&#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1513;&#1474;&#1464;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497; &#1500;&#1456;&#1494;&#1465;&#1488;&#1514; &#1497;&#1460;&#1511;&#1468;&#1464;&#1512;&#1461;&#1488; &#1488;&#1460;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1492; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1502;&#1461;&#1488;&#1460;&#1497;&#1513;&#1473; &#1500;&#1467;&#1511;&#1459;&#1495;&#1464;&#1492; &#1494;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1514;: 
24. Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.   &#1499;&#1491;. &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1499;&#1468;&#1461;&#1503; &#1497;&#1463;&#1506;&#1458;&#1494;&#1464;&#1489; &#1488;&#1460;&#1497;&#1513;&#1473; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1488;&#1464;&#1489;&#1460;&#1497;&#1493; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1488;&#1460;&#1502;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465; &#1493;&#1456;&#1491;&#1464;&#1489;&#1463;&#1511; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1488;&#1460;&#1513;&#1473;&#1456;&#1514;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465; &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1464;&#1497;&#1493;&#1468; &#1500;&#1456;&#1489;&#1464;&#1513;&#1474;&#1464;&#1512; &#1488;&#1462;&#1495;&#1464;&#1491;: 
25. Now they were both naked, the man and his wife, but they were not ashamed.   &#1499;&#1492;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1492;&#1456;&#1497;&#1493;&#1468; &#1513;&#1473;&#1456;&#1504;&#1461;&#1497;&#1492;&#1462;&#1501; &#1506;&#1458;&#1512;&#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1460;&#1513;&#1473;&#1456;&#1514;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465; &#1493;&#1456;&#1500;&#1465;&#1488; &#1497;&#1460;&#1514;&#1456;&#1489;&#1468;&#1465;&#1513;&#1473;&#1464;&#1513;&#1473;&#1493;&#1468;: 
 « Previous


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice internally inconsistent dodge, Marsha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have an opinion on just about everything I post I am beginning to think you have a fatal attraction for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still dodging the question, Cupcake?
> 
> Still dodging the question, Cupcake?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So since you have an opinion on just about everything would you like to answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still dodging the question, Cupcake?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's quit with the baloney,let's see if your theory can stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still dodging the question, Cupcake?
Click to expand...


I didn't think you would answer the questions and I did answer your question.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for finally being honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said the same thing before can't remember which thread. I assure you I am an honest person have no reason to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your assurances are meaningless.
> 
> So much for your assurances--I have been so diligent in responding to your questions that rather than "disappear," you suggest that I might be some kind of stalker.
> 
> So there's an obvious, and freshly fabricated, lie from you.
> 
> Another lie. You don't have to wait; the answers have been provided already.
> 
> It's worth noting that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think they know the theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could be right, but you have not demonstrated it.
> 
> However, I will grant that you certainly have have _some_ idea of what the actual theory of evolution describes; it's the validity of that certainty that exposes your propagation of misinformation (evidenced by your own posts and the "experts" you cite) as being *intentional* propagation of misinformation. IOW, lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier I asked for the mechanisms for evolution he only mentioned two and didn't mention the other two. They forgot genetic drift and migration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More misinformation. As I recall it, you claimed that evolutionary theory offered *no* mechanism for evolution, and that (at least) two mechanisms were submitted as direct refutation of your claim.
> 
> I also note that you (dishonestly) fail to acknowledge you've been unambiguously refuted every time you make this claim.
> 
> It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
Click to expand...


If you truly understand what I said, I asked for the mechanisms , the mechanisms offered were not complete. Why would I ask for evolutionary mechanisms if  I thought they didn't exist ? What I am saying and maybe I didn't make it clear enough is they can't be proven and lack evidence. We are moving to genetics and mutations so I can show you the nonsense your side teaches and believes.

Is your comprehension that bad ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for finally being honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said the same thing before can't remember which thread. I assure you I am an honest person have no reason to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your assurances are meaningless.
> 
> So much for your assurances--I have been so diligent in responding to your questions that rather than "disappear," you suggest that I might be some kind of stalker.
> 
> So there's an obvious, and freshly fabricated, lie from you.
> 
> Another lie. You don't have to wait; the answers have been provided already.
> 
> It's worth noting that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think they know the theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could be right, but you have not demonstrated it.
> 
> However, I will grant that you certainly have have _some_ idea of what the actual theory of evolution describes; it's the validity of that certainty that exposes your propagation of misinformation (evidenced by your own posts and the "experts" you cite) as being *intentional* propagation of misinformation. IOW, lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier I asked for the mechanisms for evolution he only mentioned two and didn't mention the other two. They forgot genetic drift and migration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More misinformation. As I recall it, you claimed that evolutionary theory offered *no* mechanism for evolution, and that (at least) two mechanisms were submitted as direct refutation of your claim.
> 
> I also note that you (dishonestly) fail to acknowledge you've been unambiguously refuted every time you make this claim.
> 
> It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
Click to expand...


They offered no mechanism that could be proven or verified do you understand ?

So when are you gonna answer the simple questions I asked ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> I have no problem with Creationism or ID as long as the proponents of such handled it honestly.  That did not happen until the last few pages of this thread.



Wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked them simple questions concerning genetics and they disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit. I just looked back over the thread since I was last on line and there were no questions about genetics from you over that period. Any questions you have asked have been answered, you just ignored the answers, which seems to be your M.O.
> 
> But if I missed something, re-post it please or link to your earlier post.
Click to expand...


These questions went ignored,this one by loki,and loki is avoiding the other questions to.

I already have,living organisms produce living organisms can this be proven or not ?

These two quetions were asked of you and drock and they went it ignored so here is your chance.

Are purebred animals the result of a loss of genetic information ,yes or no ?

When we breed animals do we breed information out or new information in ?


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> I already have,living organisms produce living organisms can this be proven or not ?



For what it's worth (and it ain't worth much), the answer is yes. Unless, of course, you insert an "only" before the first "living" in that sentence.



> Are purebred animals the result of a loss of genetic information ,yes or no ?
> 
> When we breed animals do we breed information out or new information in ?



No, and neither. The amount of information in the genetic code of a purebred animal is exactly the same as in that of a mixed-breed, neither more nor less.

Now, here's one for you. When plant or animal stock is bred for certain desired characteristics, this bears a resemblance to what mechanism described in the theory of evolution?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it too. Repeatedly.
> 
> It's not that we aren't honest about it.
> 
> 
> 
> It is. You are dishonest about it. Faith is not rational; it's not possible to hold a belief both on faith and rational bases at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's that they don't acknowledge that we admit it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such "admissions" cannot be acknowledged (as valid) as long as you demand (dishonestly) that faith has any validating foundation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> Such demands are self-evidently invalid, and the persistence of such demands in the face of their invalidity speaks directly to dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...they're so busy pretending their own belief system has nothing to do with faith ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I literally have no idea to whom you are referring, except to say it's not me. I will say this to you though, any belief system that is founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic can not be faith; any belief system that is validated by verifiable evidence and or valid logic can not be faith.
> 
> Such a belief system has literally NOTHING to do with faith--it simply cannot have anything to do with faith.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... that they can't fathom anyone else following the same course of denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're absolutely wrong. Plenty of reasonable, rational folks have sufficient experience with toddlers to fathom how superstitious folks like you follow courses of  intellectual denial. What can't be fathomed is how anyone who subscribes to faith can *honestly* assert that the foundations and validations of their beliefs have anything but a superficially coincidental--but in absolutely no way necessary--consistency with an objective reality, or with beliefs founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic (i.e. rational thought/beliefs).
> 
> You see koshergrl, if you asshats would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.
> Q. How do explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
> A. God made everything using magic.
> 
> Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
> A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.
> 
> Q. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
> A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.
> 
> Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
> A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...
> 
> Q. Why? Why do that?
> A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.
> 
> Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
> A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest. Most of us (at least those like myself) are mostly offended by the dishonesty, not the retardedness. Honest retards (even the superstitious ones) get my sympathy and my sincere wishes for happiness, and efforts to "mainstream" them so they can enjoy the greatest benefits of their potential. The dishonest get my abiding antipathy; dishonest retards get no sympathy; and dishonest superstitious retards also get my mean-spirited ridicule.
> 
> And they deserve it.
> 
> So what are you going to do about it? Are you going to level up?
> 
> Maybe you'll decide to just be a retard; or a superstitious retard.
> 
> Maybe you could start by encouraging your fellow--Youwerecreated--to level up.
> 
> That would be nice. Seriously. It's not like every opportunity has not been offered.
> 
> What would be more amusing though, would be telling me that you (and hopefully your little cohort of dopey Bible-scientists) intend to remain a dishonest superstitious retard ... and that you intend to continue griping about what it gets you.
> 
> I'm pretty good with that too.
Click to expand...


I had faith last night when I went to bed the sun would rise is that rational thought to assume it was gonna rise today ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it too. Repeatedly.
> 
> It's not that we aren't honest about it.
> 
> 
> 
> It is. You are dishonest about it. Faith is not rational; it's not possible to hold a belief both on faith and rational bases at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's that they don't acknowledge that we admit it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such "admissions" cannot be acknowledged (as valid) as long as you demand (dishonestly) that faith has any validating foundation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> Such demands are self-evidently invalid, and the persistence of such demands in the face of their invalidity speaks directly to dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...they're so busy pretending their own belief system has nothing to do with faith ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I literally have no idea to whom you are referring, except to say it's not me. I will say this to you though, any belief system that is founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic can not be faith; any belief system that is validated by verifiable evidence and or valid logic can not be faith.
> 
> Such a belief system has literally NOTHING to do with faith--it simply cannot have anything to do with faith.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... that they can't fathom anyone else following the same course of denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're absolutely wrong. Plenty of reasonable, rational folks have sufficient experience with toddlers to fathom how superstitious folks like you follow courses of  intellectual denial. What can't be fathomed is how anyone who subscribes to faith can *honestly* assert that the foundations and validations of their beliefs have anything but a superficially coincidental--but in absolutely no way necessary--consistency with an objective reality, or with beliefs founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic (i.e. rational thought/beliefs).
> 
> You see koshergrl, if you asshats would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.
> Q. How do explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
> A. God made everything using magic.
> 
> Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
> A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.
> 
> Q. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
> A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.
> 
> Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
> A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...
> 
> Q. Why? Why do that?
> A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.
> 
> Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
> A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest. Most of us (at least those like myself) are mostly offended by the dishonesty, not the retardedness. Honest retards (even the superstitious ones) get my sympathy and my sincere wishes for happiness, and efforts to "mainstream" them so they can enjoy the greatest benefits of their potential. The dishonest get my abiding antipathy; dishonest retards get no sympathy; and dishonest superstitious retards also get my mean-spirited ridicule.
> 
> And they deserve it.
> 
> So what are you going to do about it? Are you going to level up?
> 
> Maybe you'll decide to just be a retard; or a superstitious retard.
> 
> Maybe you could start by encouraging your fellow--Youwerecreated--to level up.
> 
> That would be nice. Seriously. It's not like every opportunity has not been offered.
> 
> What would be more amusing though, would be telling me that you (and hopefully your little cohort of dopey Bible-scientists) intend to remain a dishonest superstitious retard ... and that you intend to continue griping about what it gets you.
> 
> I'm pretty good with that too.
Click to expand...


How can you be certain God does not exist ?

How can you be certain that everything is not the product of creation by God ?


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> How can you be certain God does not exist ?



I should probably let Loki answer that, but I anticipate he will say that he can't be certain of this and never said he could; what he can say is that there is no evidence in favor of God's existence, and that the inability to achieve complete certainty about that is irrelevant.



> How can you be certain that everything is not the product of creation by God ?



I can be certain that if everything is the product of creation by God, nevertheless we may observe that evolution is real, so God created the diversity of life on this planet by means of evolution. Divine guidance cannot be logically ruled out, but you are claiming something beyond that, which can.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have an opinion on just about everything I post I am beginning to think you have a fatal attraction for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Still dodging the question, Cupcake?
> 
> Still dodging the question, Cupcake?
> 
> Still dodging the question, Cupcake?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's quit with the baloney,let's see if your theory can stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still dodging the question, Cupcake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't think you would answer the questions and I did answer your question.
Click to expand...

Just another lie from a dishonest superstitious retard. Link to this answer of yours.

You won't of course; not because of some lame excuse regarding the effort or my deserving of it, but because you have no idea how the internet works such that the entire world can see that no such answer exists for you to link to.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have,living organisms produce living organisms can this be proven or not ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth (and it ain't worth much), the answer is yes. Unless, of course, you insert an "only" before the first "living" in that sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are purebred animals the result of a loss of genetic information ,yes or no ?
> 
> When we breed animals do we breed information out or new information in ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, and neither. The amount of information in the genetic code of a purebred animal is exactly the same as in that of a mixed-breed, neither more nor less.
> 
> Now, here's one for you. When plant or animal stock is bred for certain desired characteristics, this bears a resemblance to what mechanism described in the theory of evolution?
Click to expand...


Wrong on both accounts.

By definition, purebred dogs have a smaller gene pool to draw on than mixed breed dogs. That smaller gene pool gives the breed its individual characteristics, such as physical appearance and temperament. It is what makes a poodle a Poodle and a Golden Retriever a Golden Retriever. But there is considerable controversy with regard to whether the gene pools of the modern pure-bred have become too small.

Inbreeding -

In-breeding is more likely to help "set" or "fix" a particular trait within a breed or a line by narrowing the gene pool to favor those traits. So if a breeder is looking to set a particular desirable feature of their line then in-breeding and choosing the offspring most strongly possessing that trait can be beneficial.

Breeding Methods


The genepool gets smaller because you're breeding information out cornering certain traits.

Now what would happen to the genepool if you cross two different breeds ?

The answer to your question is artificial selection. But bad name for explaining this form of breeding.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with Creationism or ID as long as the proponents of such handled it honestly.  That did not happen until the last few pages of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...


Yes, thank you for admitting you were wrong.

We can go forward in honesty from here on out.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it too. Repeatedly.
> 
> It's not that we aren't honest about it.
> 
> 
> 
> It is. You are dishonest about it. Faith is not rational; it's not possible to hold a belief both on faith and rational bases at the same time.
> 
> Such "admissions" cannot be acknowledged (as valid) as long as you demand (dishonestly) that faith has any validating foundation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> Such demands are self-evidently invalid, and the persistence of such demands in the face of their invalidity speaks directly to dishonesty.
> 
> I literally have no idea to whom you are referring, except to say it's not me. I will say this to you though, any belief system that is founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic can not be faith; any belief system that is validated by verifiable evidence and or valid logic can not be faith.
> 
> Such a belief system has literally NOTHING to do with faith--it simply cannot have anything to do with faith.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... that they can't fathom anyone else following the same course of denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're absolutely wrong. Plenty of reasonable, rational folks have sufficient experience with toddlers to fathom how superstitious folks like you follow courses of  intellectual denial. What can't be fathomed is how anyone who subscribes to faith can *honestly* assert that the foundations and validations of their beliefs have anything but a superficially coincidental--but in absolutely no way necessary--consistency with an objective reality, or with beliefs founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic (i.e. rational thought/beliefs).
> 
> You see koshergrl, if you asshats would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.
> Q. How do explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
> A. God made everything using magic.
> 
> Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
> A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.
> 
> Q. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
> A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.
> 
> Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
> A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...
> 
> Q. Why? Why do that?
> A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.
> 
> Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
> A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest. Most of us (at least those like myself) are mostly offended by the dishonesty, not the retardedness. Honest retards (even the superstitious ones) get my sympathy and my sincere wishes for happiness, and efforts to "mainstream" them so they can enjoy the greatest benefits of their potential. The dishonest get my abiding antipathy; dishonest retards get no sympathy; and dishonest superstitious retards also get my mean-spirited ridicule.
> 
> And they deserve it.
> 
> So what are you going to do about it? Are you going to level up?
> 
> Maybe you'll decide to just be a retard; or a superstitious retard.
> 
> Maybe you could start by encouraging your fellow--Youwerecreated--to level up.
> 
> That would be nice. Seriously. It's not like every opportunity has not been offered.
> 
> What would be more amusing though, would be telling me that you (and hopefully your little cohort of dopey Bible-scientists) intend to remain a dishonest superstitious retard ... and that you intend to continue griping about what it gets you.
> 
> I'm pretty good with that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you be certain God does not exist ?
Click to expand...

I have made no such claim of certainty.

Your implication that I have is just further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.



Youwerecreated said:


> How can you be certain that everything is not the product of creation by God ?


I have made no such claim of certainty.

Your implication that I have is just further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.

It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still dodging the question, Cupcake?
> 
> Still dodging the question, Cupcake?
> 
> Still dodging the question, Cupcake?
> 
> Still dodging the question, Cupcake?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think you would answer the questions and I did answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just another lie from a dishonest superstitious retard. Link to this answer of yours.
> 
> You won't of course; not because of some lame excuse regarding the effort or my deserving of it, but because you have no idea how the internet works such that the entire world can see that no such answer exists for you to link to.
Click to expand...


If you can't run with the big dogs you had better stay on the porch.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is. You are dishonest about it. Faith is not rational; it's not possible to hold a belief both on faith and rational bases at the same time.
> 
> Such "admissions" cannot be acknowledged (as valid) as long as you demand (dishonestly) that faith has any validating foundation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> Such demands are self-evidently invalid, and the persistence of such demands in the face of their invalidity speaks directly to dishonesty.
> 
> I literally have no idea to whom you are referring, except to say it's not me. I will say this to you though, any belief system that is founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic can not be faith; any belief system that is validated by verifiable evidence and or valid logic can not be faith.
> 
> Such a belief system has literally NOTHING to do with faith--it simply cannot have anything to do with faith.
> 
> You're absolutely wrong. Plenty of reasonable, rational folks have sufficient experience with toddlers to fathom how superstitious folks like you follow courses of  intellectual denial. What can't be fathomed is how anyone who subscribes to faith can *honestly* assert that the foundations and validations of their beliefs have anything but a superficially coincidental--but in absolutely no way necessary--consistency with an objective reality, or with beliefs founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic (i.e. rational thought/beliefs).
> 
> You see koshergrl, if you asshats would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.
> Q. How do explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
> A. God made everything using magic.
> 
> Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
> A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.
> 
> Q. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
> A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.
> 
> Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
> A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...
> 
> Q. Why? Why do that?
> A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.
> 
> Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
> A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest. Most of us (at least those like myself) are mostly offended by the dishonesty, not the retardedness. Honest retards (even the superstitious ones) get my sympathy and my sincere wishes for happiness, and efforts to "mainstream" them so they can enjoy the greatest benefits of their potential. The dishonest get my abiding antipathy; dishonest retards get no sympathy; and dishonest superstitious retards also get my mean-spirited ridicule.
> 
> And they deserve it.
> 
> So what are you going to do about it? Are you going to level up?
> 
> Maybe you'll decide to just be a retard; or a superstitious retard.
> 
> Maybe you could start by encouraging your fellow--Youwerecreated--to level up.
> 
> That would be nice. Seriously. It's not like every opportunity has not been offered.
> 
> What would be more amusing though, would be telling me that you (and hopefully your little cohort of dopey Bible-scientists) intend to remain a dishonest superstitious retard ... and that you intend to continue griping about what it gets you.
> 
> I'm pretty good with that too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you be certain God does not exist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have made no such claim of certainty.
> 
> Your implication that I have is just further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you be certain that everything is not the product of creation by God ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have made no such claim of certainty.
> 
> Your implication that I have is just further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
Click to expand...


By your attacks on Christians and the bible it sure seems to me you have a burning agenda.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think you would answer the questions and I did answer your question.
> 
> 
> 
> Just another lie from a dishonest superstitious retard. Link to this answer of yours.
> 
> You won't of course; not because of some lame excuse regarding the effort or my deserving of it, but because you have no idea how the internet works such that the entire world can see that no such answer exists for you to link to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't run with the big dogs you had better stay on the porch.
Click to expand...

Conclusive proof you're a just a punk.


----------



## Youwerecreated

JakeStarkey said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with Creationism or ID as long as the proponents of such handled it honestly.  That did not happen until the last few pages of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, thank you for admitting you were wrong.
> 
> We can go forward in honesty from here on out.
Click to expand...


Not possible when people like yourself deny the truth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another lie from a dishonest superstitious retard. Link to this answer of yours.
> 
> You won't of course; not because of some lame excuse regarding the effort or my deserving of it, but because you have no idea how the internet works such that the entire world can see that no such answer exists for you to link to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't run with the big dogs you had better stay on the porch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conclusive proof you're a just a punk.
Click to expand...


Not really, we are just getting in over your head now.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you be certain God does not exist ?
> 
> 
> 
> I have made no such claim of certainty.
> 
> Your implication that I have is just further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you be certain that everything is not the product of creation by God ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have made no such claim of certainty.
> 
> Your implication that I have is just further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your attacks on Christians and the bible it sure seems to me you have a burning agenda.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur.

It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't run with the big dogs you had better stay on the porch.
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusive proof you're a just a punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, we are just getting in over your head now.
Click to expand...

More intentional misinformation.

It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you be certain God does not exist ?
> 
> 
> 
> I have made no such claim of certainty.
> 
> Your implication that I have is just further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you be certain that everything is not the product of creation by God ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have made no such claim of certainty.
> 
> Your implication that I have is just further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your attacks on Christians and the bible it sure seems to me you have a burning agenda.
Click to expand...


He's waving the white flag by playing the victim card.

Simply asking him a question is "attacking christians."  Victim card 101.


----------



## Dragon

YWC isn't able to answer questions honestly on this subject. That's really not a reasonable thing to expect of a man with a gun to his head; he's going to say whatever he thinks will keep the man holding the gun from pulling the trigger -- truth and honesty are not considerations.

YWC's god is holding over him a threat of perpetual torture forever and ever, which is rather more serious than a mere bullet to the brain. He is going to say whatever he thinks will keep him out of hell -- truth and honesty are not considerations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusive proof you're a just a punk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, we are just getting in over your head now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More intentional misinformation.
> 
> It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
Click to expand...


If you continue watching the thread I am gonna show why your theory don't hold up to scrutiny. And I will explain why macroevolution can't happen the way evolutionist say. Keep watching you might learn something.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have made no such claim of certainty.
> 
> Your implication that I have is just further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> I have made no such claim of certainty.
> 
> Your implication that I have is just further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your attacks on Christians and the bible it sure seems to me you have a burning agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's waving the white flag by playing the victim card.
> 
> Simply asking him a question is "attacking christians."  Victim card 101.
Click to expand...


How is it waving the white flag when I answer the questions put to me. God used his power to create everything we see.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> YWC isn't able to answer questions honestly on this subject. That's really not a reasonable thing to expect of a man with a gun to his head; he's going to say whatever he thinks will keep the man holding the gun from pulling the trigger -- truth and honesty are not considerations.
> 
> YWC's god is holding over him a threat of perpetual torture forever and ever, which is rather more serious than a mere bullet to the brain. He is going to say whatever he thinks will keep him out of hell -- truth and honesty are not considerations.



Are you gonna continue answering my questions ? If you don't know the answer just say so and I will educate you.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Are you gonna continue answering my questions ? If you don't know the answer just say so and I will educate you.



I have answered every one of your questions. Are you going to answer mine?

As I said, I don't expect you to answer them honestly, because you have a gun to your head. It's not a real gun, but you believe it is and that's all that matters. Still, you might have a go -- if you have the courage.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> YWC isn't able to answer questions honestly on this subject. That's really not a reasonable thing to expect of a man with a gun to his head; he's going to say whatever he thinks will keep the man holding the gun from pulling the trigger -- truth and honesty are not considerations.
> 
> YWC's god is holding over him a threat of perpetual torture forever and ever, which is rather more serious than a mere bullet to the brain. He is going to say whatever he thinks will keep him out of hell -- truth and honesty are not considerations.



Here is the last question put to you follow along you will see what I am showing you.

Now what would happen to the genepool if you cross two different breeds ?

What happens to the offspring if you continue  breeding the same breed if you do not introduce new genes from the same breed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gonna continue answering my questions ? If you don't know the answer just say so and I will educate you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered every one of your questions. Are you going to answer mine?
> 
> As I said, I don't expect you to answer them honestly, because you have a gun to your head. It's not a real gun, but you believe it is and that's all that matters. Still, you might have a go -- if you have the courage.
Click to expand...


Artificial selection , I answered it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Where did you go dragon ?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Dragon said:


> YWC isn't able to answer questions honestly on this subject. That's really not a reasonable thing to expect of a man with a gun to his head; he's going to say whatever he thinks will keep the man holding the gun from pulling the trigger -- truth and honesty are not considerations.
> 
> YWC's god is holding over him a threat of perpetual torture forever and ever, which is rather more serious than a mere bullet to the brain. He is going to say whatever he thinks will keep him out of hell -- truth and honesty are not considerations.



That's a great point, he thinks he HAS to be a science denier to make his god happy.  I even provided him an interpretation of the verses that he feels force him to deny science and the interpretation shows how the words could easily go along with evolution.

But he's gone too far, he's been denying science for decades I would imagine.  He can't process new information because he feels he'll look like a hypocrite for standing so strongly against science for all this time.

I'm trying to provide him security on this board to replace the fear he lives with.  He can believe science and be a good christian.  Many of the fundamentalists in this country are pushing a propaganda machine that you HAVE to deny science and that science is the devil, not true.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC isn't able to answer questions honestly on this subject. That's really not a reasonable thing to expect of a man with a gun to his head; he's going to say whatever he thinks will keep the man holding the gun from pulling the trigger -- truth and honesty are not considerations.
> 
> YWC's god is holding over him a threat of perpetual torture forever and ever, which is rather more serious than a mere bullet to the brain. He is going to say whatever he thinks will keep him out of hell -- truth and honesty are not considerations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great point, he thinks he HAS to be a science denier to make his god happy.  I even provided him an interpretation of the verses that he feels force him to deny science and the interpretation shows how the words could easily go along with evolution.
> 
> But he's gone too far, he's been denying science for decades I would imagine.  He can't process new information because he feels he'll look like a hypocrite for standing so strongly against science for all this time.
> 
> I'm trying to provide him security on this board to replace the fear he lives with.  He can believe science and be a good christian.  Many of the fundamentalists in this country are pushing a propaganda machine that you HAVE to deny science and that science is the devil, not true.
Click to expand...


Oh boy


----------



## Youwerecreated

Just wave the white flag and I will begin teaching you guys something you won't learn in your classes.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Now what would happen to the genepool if you cross two different breeds ?



If you're going to switch gears and ask about the gene pool, which is a different concept, you should acknowledge that. The answer is that you would have a broader pool of genes to choose from. This is generally considered a healthier procedure, which is why "mutts" have, on the average, more robust health than purebreds.

Are you going somewhere with this?

By the way, the answer to my question is not "artificial selection" but "natural selection." We call it "artificial" when it is done deliberately by human beings, but the mechanics are identical.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Just wave the white flag and I will begin teaching you guys something you won't learn in your classes.



I can assure you the Bible blog links you have saved on your computer have never been amazing teaching devices to anyone who takes science seriously on this site.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Youwerecreated said:


> Just wave the white flag and I will begin teaching you guys something you won't learn in your classes.



You are fail here.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now what would happen to the genepool if you cross two different breeds ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to switch gears and ask about the gene pool, which is a different concept, you should acknowledge that. The answer is that you would have a broader pool of genes to choose from. This is generally considered a healthier procedure, which is why "mutts" have, on the average, more robust health than purebreds.
> 
> Are you going somewhere with this?
> 
> By the way, the answer to my question is not "artificial selection" but "natural selection." We call it "artificial" when it is done deliberately by human beings, but the mechanics are identical.
Click to expand...


Or you could call it selective breeding.

Good answer to my question.

Now that we established the genepool is larger in the mutts then purebreeds. We also established genetic information is bred out not in. The only time new information is bred in is when cross breeding happens.

Now when you cross breed you can come up with new offspring. Is that not a way for us to find different looking fossils when two different breeds of the same family cross ?

Let's go with an ape and chimp would their be morphological changes if they cross bred ?

How do we have lions and tigers two different breeds within the same family ? was this by mutations or selective breeding ?

So purebreds only have genetic information to produce their breed. While let's say a mutt has the genetic information to produce diversity.

The one thing all organisms have in common is they can only produce offspring of their family.

Bacteria produce bacteria,dogs produce dogs,horses produce horses,humans produce humans, apes produce apes because they only have the genetic information to produce their kind.

Is this in line with what the bible teaches ?

Gen 1:21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

Gen 6:20. Of the fowl after its kind and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing upon the ground after its kind; two of each shall come to you to preserve alive.

Gen 7:14  They went in, and every animal after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth after its kind, and every fowl after its kind, every bird of every sort.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now what would happen to the genepool if you cross two different breeds ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to switch gears and ask about the gene pool, which is a different concept, you should acknowledge that. The answer is that you would have a broader pool of genes to choose from. This is generally considered a healthier procedure, which is why "mutts" have, on the average, more robust health than purebreds.
> 
> Are you going somewhere with this?
> 
> By the way, the answer to my question is not "artificial selection" but "natural selection." We call it "artificial" when it is done deliberately by human beings, but the mechanics are identical.
Click to expand...


Not by the way you worded your question.

Natural selection happens by bad and small genepools to where they can't survive their enviornment, And by genetic information being bred out as we have established.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wave the white flag and I will begin teaching you guys something you won't learn in your classes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can assure you the Bible blog links you have saved on your computer have never been amazing teaching devices to anyone who takes science seriously on this site.
Click to expand...


Follow along drock we are gonna get much deeper into genetics and mutations but first I am showing you microadaptations that your side has extrapolated from to produce your theory of macro-evolution.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wave the white flag and I will begin teaching you guys something you won't learn in your classes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can assure you the Bible blog links you have saved on your computer have never been amazing teaching devices to anyone who takes science seriously on this site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Follow along drock we are gonna get much deeper into genetics and mutations but first I am showing you microadaptations that your side has extrapolated from to produce your theory of macro-evolution.
Click to expand...


I've already seen your bible blogs viewpoints on mutation, they're not amazing, they're not eye opening, but if you must humor yourself, have at it.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, we are just getting in over your head now.
> 
> 
> 
> More intentional misinformation.
> 
> It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you continue watching the thread I am gonna show why your theory don't hold up to scrutiny. And I will explain why macroevolution can't happen the way evolutionist say. Keep watching you might learn something.
Click to expand...

Fine. No doubt it will be consistent with all the rest of your intellectually dishonest posting.

And it's still worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your attacks on Christians and the bible it sure seems to me you have a burning agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's waving the white flag by playing the victim card.
> 
> Simply asking him a question is "attacking christians."  Victim card 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it waving the white flag when I answer the questions put to me.
Click to expand...

This is a patent lie.

It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Just wave the white flag and I will begin teaching you guys something you won't learn in your classes.


LOLsome. There is literally nothing to be learned from your dishonesty--it's not even a novel, or otherwise remarkable brand of dishonesty. It's just persistent.

It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Now when you cross breed you can come up with new offspring. Is that not a way for us to find different looking fossils when two different breeds of the same family cross ?



If you ask that question without narrowing things down, you could say so, but nonetheless the variation we see in the fossil record cannot be explained by cross-breeding. You cannot cross-breed single-celled organisms to produce multi-celled organisms. You cannot cross-breed fish to produce amphibians. You cannot cross-breed reptiles to produce mammals, or dinosaurs to produce birds. You cannot cross-breed nonflowering plants -- well, at all, really, but certainly not so as to produce flowering plants.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's waving the white flag by playing the victim card.
> 
> Simply asking him a question is "attacking christians."  Victim card 101.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it waving the white flag when I answer the questions put to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a patent lie.
> 
> It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
Click to expand...


I have seen no evidence to make me question whether we came into existence through a natural process,and that is why I believe life could not have come into existence by chance but it forces me to accept we were created through design.

I don't know how much clearer I can give my answer. Is that being dishonest by disagreeing with you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now when you cross breed you can come up with new offspring. Is that not a way for us to find different looking fossils when two different breeds of the same family cross ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you ask that question without narrowing things down, you could say so, but nonetheless the variation we see in the fossil record cannot be explained by cross-breeding. You cannot cross-breed single-celled organisms to produce multi-celled organisms. You cannot cross-breed fish to produce amphibians. You cannot cross-breed reptiles to produce mammals, or dinosaurs to produce birds. You cannot cross-breed nonflowering plants -- well, at all, really, but certainly not so as to produce flowering plants.
Click to expand...


But you have no evidence except someones opinion that is what is seen. It's clear genetics decide what the offspring will be.

Morhological change through cross breeding,in one generation the crossing of lion and tiger.

Redirect Notice


http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&...tbnw=207&start=27&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:27


----------



## Youwerecreated

Now a crossing of a cow and buffalo.

Redirect Notice


Who say's diversity can't happen through cross breeding.

More evidence genetics cause diversity not mutations over many ,many years.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Now if you wish to cover mutations you can see when mutations cause change from a mistake it usually is harmful to organisms.

Beneficial mutations are so rare they cannot do what evolutionist say.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now what would happen to the genepool if you cross two different breeds ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to switch gears and ask about the gene pool, which is a different concept, you should acknowledge that. The answer is that you would have a broader pool of genes to choose from. This is generally considered a healthier procedure, which is why "mutts" have, on the average, more robust health than purebreds.
> 
> Are you going somewhere with this?
> 
> By the way, the answer to my question is not "artificial selection" but "natural selection." We call it "artificial" when it is done deliberately by human beings, but the mechanics are identical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or you could call it selective breeding.
> 
> Good answer to my question.
> 
> Now that we established the genepool is larger in the mutts then purebreeds. We also established genetic information is bred out not in. The only time new information is bred in is when cross breeding happens.
> 
> Now when you cross breed you can come up with new offspring. Is that not a way for us to find different looking fossils when two different breeds of the same family cross ?
> 
> Let's go with an ape and chimp would their be morphological changes if they cross bred ?
> 
> How do we have lions and tigers two different breeds within the same family ? was this by mutations or selective breeding ?
> 
> So purebreds only have genetic information to produce their breed. While let's say a mutt has the genetic information to produce diversity.
> 
> The one thing all organisms have in common is they can only produce offspring of their family.
> 
> Bacteria produce bacteria,dogs produce dogs,horses produce horses,humans produce humans, apes produce apes because they only have the genetic information to produce their kind.
> 
> Is this in line with what the bible teaches ?
> 
> Gen 1:21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.
> 
> Gen 6:20. Of the fowl after its kind and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing upon the ground after its kind; two of each shall come to you to preserve alive.
> 
> Gen 7:14  They went in, and every animal after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth after its kind, and every fowl after its kind, every bird of every sort.
Click to expand...

Here's another question I'm sure you'll avoid:

The use of the term "kind"; some have suggested that it is synonymous with "species," yet here the suggestion seems to be that it means "family." Saying that any gender compatible members of a common species can successfully reproduce is saying one thing (and not in dispute--I think), and saying that any gender compatible members of a family can successfully reproduce is saying something significantly different.

Precisely clarify the term "kind" as it relates to species and/or family if you are going to refer to contemporary taxonomies and taxonomic terminology as compatible with scriptural taxonomy and taxonomic terminology.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Now if you wish to cover mutations you can see when mutations cause change from a mistake it usually is harmful to organisms.
> 
> Beneficial mutations are so rare they cannot do what evolutionist say.



In this post you admit that mutations aren't always harmful to organisms.



Sometimes you slip up and accidentally admit to believing science.  Because that's exactly what biologists say, that most mutations are harmful or neutral but in minority cases they can be beneficial.  Beneficial meaning they increase an organisms chance to survive and breed and pass on the beneficial mutation.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> But you have no evidence except someones opinion that is what is seen. It's clear genetics decide what the offspring will be.



You are mistaken. The evidence is overpowering. Note that in what follows I am not going to talk about the model of evolution currently employed in biology; I am simply going to examine your hypothesis of cross-breeding as an explanation for species diversity.

Life first appeared on this planet about 3.8 billion years ago.

Photosynthesis first started about 3 billion years ago. Photosynthetic organisms could not have come about from "cross-breeding" non-photosynthetic life, especially since there was no such thing as sexual reproduction then and so "cross-breeding" was literally impossible.

Multicellular life first appeared about a billion years ago. It could not have come about from "cross-breeding" one-celled organisms, especially since one-celled organisms all reproduce by non-sexual methods and so never "cross-breed."

Fish emerged about 500 million years ago. They could not have resulted from cross-breeding of non-fish.

Amphibians emerged about 360 million years ago and reptiles some 300 million years ago. Both are likely to have evolved from fish (and if we posit "cross-breeding" we must also posit a fishy source), but it is impossible for reptiles or amphibians to have emerged from fish cross-breeding.

And so on.

In order to posit cross-breeding from an original one-time creation, you must have reptiles (for example) existing all the way back to the origin of life, and the fossil record indicates that they did not. It's not just that the specific reptile species we have today did not, it's that there was nothing on the planet 3 billion years ago that could be described as a vertebrate quadrupedal cold-blooded egg-laying land animal with scales -- in other words, no reptiles at all.

There is simply no possible way that the species diversity we see could have come about from cross-breeding. Another explanation is required.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to switch gears and ask about the gene pool, which is a different concept, you should acknowledge that. The answer is that you would have a broader pool of genes to choose from. This is generally considered a healthier procedure, which is why "mutts" have, on the average, more robust health than purebreds.
> 
> Are you going somewhere with this?
> 
> By the way, the answer to my question is not "artificial selection" but "natural selection." We call it "artificial" when it is done deliberately by human beings, but the mechanics are identical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you could call it selective breeding.
> 
> Good answer to my question.
> 
> Now that we established the genepool is larger in the mutts then purebreeds. We also established genetic information is bred out not in. The only time new information is bred in is when cross breeding happens.
> 
> Now when you cross breed you can come up with new offspring. Is that not a way for us to find different looking fossils when two different breeds of the same family cross ?
> 
> Let's go with an ape and chimp would their be morphological changes if they cross bred ?
> 
> How do we have lions and tigers two different breeds within the same family ? was this by mutations or selective breeding ?
> 
> So purebreds only have genetic information to produce their breed. While let's say a mutt has the genetic information to produce diversity.
> 
> The one thing all organisms have in common is they can only produce offspring of their family.
> 
> Bacteria produce bacteria,dogs produce dogs,horses produce horses,humans produce humans, apes produce apes because they only have the genetic information to produce their kind.
> 
> Is this in line with what the bible teaches ?
> 
> Gen 1:21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.
> 
> Gen 6:20. Of the fowl after its kind and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing upon the ground after its kind; two of each shall come to you to preserve alive.
> 
> Gen 7:14  They went in, and every animal after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth after its kind, and every fowl after its kind, every bird of every sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's another question I'm sure you'll avoid:
> 
> The use of the term "kind"; some have suggested that it is synonymous with "species," yet here the suggestion seems to be that it means "family." Saying that any gender compatible members of a common species can successfully reproduce is saying one thing (and not in dispute--I think), and saying that any gender compatible members of a family is saying something significantly different.
> 
> Precisely clarify the term "kind" as it relates to species and/or family if you are going to refer to contemporary taxonomies and taxonomic terminology as compatible with scriptural taxonomy and taxonomic terminology.
> 
> Since I hold little hope out for an ingenuous and honest reply, it's also worth reminding you (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
Click to expand...


Kind can mean both family or breed.

There are many breeds within a family some breeds can't breed with other family members but they are still from the same family or kind.

That's all for today folks have a great day.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have no evidence except someones opinion that is what is seen. It's clear genetics decide what the offspring will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are mistaken. The evidence is overpowering. Note that in what follows I am not going to talk about the model of evolution currently employed in biology; I am simply going to examine your hypothesis of cross-breeding as an explanation for species diversity.
> 
> Life first appeared on this planet about 3.8 billion years ago.
> 
> Photosynthesis first started about 3 billion years ago. Photosynthetic organisms could not have come about from "cross-breeding" non-photosynthetic life, especially since there was no such thing as sexual reproduction then and so "cross-breeding" was literally impossible.
> 
> Multicellular life first appeared about a billion years ago. It could not have come about from "cross-breeding" one-celled organisms, especially since one-celled organisms all reproduce by non-sexual methods and so never "cross-breed."
> 
> Fish emerged about 500 million years ago. They could not have resulted from cross-breeding of non-fish.
> 
> Amphibians emerged about 360 million years ago and reptiles some 300 million years ago. Both are likely to have evolved from fish (and if we posit "cross-breeding" we must also posit a fishy source), but it is impossible for reptiles or amphibians to have emerged from fish cross-breeding.
> 
> And so on.
> 
> In order to posit cross-breeding from an original one-time creation, you must have reptiles (for example) existing all the way back to the origin of life, and the fossil record indicates that they did not. It's not just that the specific reptile species we have today did not, it's that there was nothing on the planet 3 billion years ago that could be described as a vertebrate quadrupedal cold-blooded egg-laying land animal with scales -- in other words, no reptiles at all.
> 
> There is simply no possible way that the species diversity we see could have come about from cross-breeding. Another explanation is required.
Click to expand...


Not mistaken,I am saying all diversity of life we see happened in 5,000 years roughly.

I am saying no life emerged from earlier then 13,000 years. It does say in the bible a 1,000 years is but a day to God so I say that is as long as I will go back for the age of the earth and universe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you wish to cover mutations you can see when mutations cause change from a mistake it usually is harmful to organisms.
> 
> Beneficial mutations are so rare they cannot do what evolutionist say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this post you admit that mutations aren't always harmful to organisms.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes you slip up and accidentally admit to believing science.  Because that's exactly what biologists say, that most mutations are harmful or neutral but in minority cases they can be beneficial.  Beneficial meaning they increase an organisms chance to survive and breed and pass on the beneficial mutation.
Click to expand...


Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

For honest answers.

Mutations


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have passed on some of Youwerecreated's arguments (not his moniker) to a couple of evangelical Christian scientists in the Bio department at the U.  While they aren't thrilled with evolutionary theory, they both say You is in la la land, and that is type of nonsense makes it much harder for them.

Unsubscribe.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> I have seen no evidence to make me question whether we came into existence through a natural process, ...


Are you asserting that chemical reactions are not fundamentally naturally processes, or parts of fundamentally natural processes?  
>>>Trying to throw you a bone here<<<
Is it then your contention that every single chemical reaction not (verifiably) directed (ever) by the agency of human beings is evidently directed none-the-less? Because the only chemical reactions you are aware of in any capacity are those directed by human beings?
>>>Got no more bone for you here<<<<

You've seen no chemical reactions, or evidences of chemical reactions, that were not (verifiably) directed by some conscious agency? Seriously?



Youwerecreated said:


> ... and that is why I believe life could not have come into existence by chance but it forces me to accept we were created through design.


Although there is no evidence of a designer? Literally, and logically speaking, there is no evidence (at least none that I have been presented--including examples of alleged irreducible complexity) that can be identified as evidence of a designer, without first committing to the existence of said designer. Even then, so many of these alleged "designs" are a laughable joke, require more magical rationalizations like "curses" and such.



Youwerecreated said:


> I don't know how much clearer I can give my answer.


Your answer is clear, but it is also clearly not an answer to the question I asked you.

As far as the question I asked you is concerned, your assertion that life was created was stipulated; restating your conviction in the validity of that assertion fails to answer the question posed. It is a disingenuous diversion. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Is that being dishonest by disagreeing with you ?


No. The dishonesty involves how you claim to have answered a question I asked, when you answered a question I did not ask.

So, It's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Not mistaken,I am saying all diversity of life we see happened in 5,000 years roughly.
> 
> I am saying no life emerged from earlier then 13,000 years.



There is no evidence to support your statement. There is a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

Let me ask you a question now which probably will illustrate what I said earlier: that you are talking with a gun to your head, and so cannot answer honestly.

If the fossil record says one thing, and the Bible, interpreted literally, says another, which is wrong, the fossil record or that interpretation of the Bible?

A related question. If the mummified corpse of Jesus were to be discovered, would that change your view on how to interpret the story of the Resurrection?


----------



## koshergrl

"There is no God because I don't believe it!"

Lol...

"My evidence is BETTER than yours, therefore my faith is more valid! Cuz I say so!"

Lol...


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another question I'm sure you'll avoid:
> 
> The use of the term "kind"; some have suggested that it is synonymous with "species," yet here the suggestion seems to be that it means "family." Saying that any gender compatible members of a common species can successfully reproduce is saying one thing (and not in dispute--I think), and saying that any gender compatible members of a family is saying something significantly different.
> 
> Precisely clarify the term "kind" as it relates to species and/or family if you are going to refer to contemporary taxonomies and taxonomic terminology as compatible with scriptural taxonomy and taxonomic terminology.
> 
> Since I hold little hope out for an ingenuous and honest reply, it's also worth reminding you (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind can mean both family or breed.
> 
> There are many breeds within a family some breeds can't breed with other family members but they are still from the same family or kind.
> 
> That's all for today folks have a great day.
Click to expand...

You know, I knew you couldn't be counted on ... or rather could be.

You couldn't be counted upon to be honest and ingenuous, and could certainly be counted upon for some more bullshit.

"Breed?" really? "Breed" is synonymous with "sub-species" and your answer is hardly precise, and certainly not an honest illumination upon the parsing out of a valid and meaningful use of the term "kind." 

You really just said "Yeah, "kind" means species or family, whatever."

It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


>


"Powerful stuff!"


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another question I'm sure you'll avoid:
> 
> The use of the term "kind"; some have suggested that it is synonymous with "species," yet here the suggestion seems to be that it means "family." Saying that any gender compatible members of a common species can successfully reproduce is saying one thing (and not in dispute--I think), and saying that any gender compatible members of a family is saying something significantly different.
> 
> Precisely clarify the term "kind" as it relates to species and/or family if you are going to refer to contemporary taxonomies and taxonomic terminology as compatible with scriptural taxonomy and taxonomic terminology.
> 
> Since I hold little hope out for an ingenuous and honest reply, it's also worth reminding you (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind can mean both family or breed.
> 
> There are many breeds within a family some breeds can't breed with other family members but they are still from the same family or kind.
> 
> That's all for today folks have a great day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I knew you couldn't be counted on ... or rather could be.
> 
> You couldn't be counted upon to be honest and ingenuous, and could certainly be counted upon for some more bullshit.
> 
> "Breed?" really? "Breed" is synonymous with "sub-species" and your answer is hardly precise, and certainly not an honest illumination upon the parsing out of a valid and meaningful use of the term "kind."
> 
> You really just said "Yeah, "kind" means species or family, whatever."
> 
> It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
Click to expand...

 
If you're going to argue semantics and word meanings, you should look them up first. Otherwise, you come across as the village idiot:

"*kind 2* (k
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




nd) 
_n._ *1. **a. *A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort: _different kinds of furniture; a new kind of politics."_

in kind - definition of in kind by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> "There is no God because I don't believe it!"
> 
> Lol...
> 
> "My evidence is BETTER than yours, therefore my faith is more valid! Cuz I say so!"
> 
> Lol...



Now you are catching on to the failings of faith opinions when trying to apply them to the natural world of science.  They don't compute.

You and i can both believe in The Rise Lord and don't have to be concerned about how God created the world, for it is not a salvation issue, right?


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> If you're going to argue semantics and word meanings, you should look them up first. Otherwise, you come across as the village idiot:
> 
> "*kind 2* (k
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nd)
> _n._ *1. **a. *A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort: _different kinds of furniture; a new kind of politics."_
> 
> in kind - definition of in kind by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Well look at who is really the idiot!

Sweetheart, go play in the street, grown-ups are talking.


----------



## koshergrl

"
The Biblical usage of "kind" is close to the scientific usage of "species". The Biblical phrase "after their kind" is commonly interpreted to imply fixity of species in Genesis 1, but this interpretation is not consistent with the usage in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Species is defined scientifically as *reproductive isolation*; organisms are of the same species if they can interbreed successfully, and are of different species if they cannot. In the case of fossils, where the reproductive test cannot be conducted, different species are distinguished by morphology (physical characteristics). If two fossils look different enough, they are classified as different species. A panel of scientists may judge the differences in morphology. This practice also matches the Biblical usage, where different organisms are identified by how they look. If two populations can be reliably distinguished, then they are different Biblical "kinds". 

Biblical Kind


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> "
> The Biblical usage of "kind" is close to the scientific usage of "species". The Biblical phrase "after their kind" is commonly interpreted to imply fixity of species in Genesis 1, but this interpretation is not consistent with the usage in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Species is defined scientifically as *reproductive isolation*; organisms are of the same species if they can interbreed successfully, and are of different species if they cannot. In the case of fossils, where the reproductive test cannot be conducted, different species are distinguished by morphology (physical characteristics). If two fossils look different enough, they are classified as different species. A panel of scientists may judge the differences in morphology. This practice also matches the Biblical usage, where different organisms are identified by how they look. If two populations can be reliably distinguished, then they are different Biblical "kinds".
> 
> Biblical Kind


Nice! Nicely leveled up!

And I will keep this in mind, as I discuss the topic with you, that as far as you're concerned the Biblical term "kind" is synonymous with "species."

I'm still interested in how YWC intends to use the term. That asshat is not quite so ingenuous.

Thanks.

P.S. Do not hesitate to correct me if I have your notion wrong. All right? You seem to have decided to be cool, so I'll be cool about getting your perspective right. Fair?


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> If you're going to argue semantics and word meanings, you should look them up first.



He wasn't asking for a standard definition, he was asking YWC for HIS definition, what HE meant by it. Words mean whatever we say they mean and agree they mean. A definition is just a description, not a prescription. If YWC had given a coherent and precise definition of the term "kind," that would have clarified what he was saying when he used the term.

The problem, and it came out in YWC's response, is that he didn't have a clear meaning in mind at all. It was a vague, general term, very fuzzy, and usable for fudging data and issues. Which is, of course, the way that creationists have pretty consistently used it. Is a "kind" a species? A genus? A family? No, not really -- it's just a way to make a statement in support of creationism that doesn't actually mean anything, and therefore can't be disproven.


----------



## koshergrl

JakeStarkey said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There is no God because I don't believe it!"
> 
> Lol...
> 
> "My evidence is BETTER than yours, therefore my faith is more valid! Cuz I say so!"
> 
> Lol...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are catching on to the failings of faith opinions when trying to apply them to the natural world of science. They don't compute.
> 
> You and i can both believe in The Rise Lord and don't have to be concerned about how God created the world, for it is not a salvation issue, right?
Click to expand...

 
Spare me your condescension...I know what the *failings* of faith opinions are, and I recognize and own that nobody has or will prove the existence of God until he sends Christ back to us. I wonder when you will "catch on" to that? I've certainly stated it enough times that anyone who can read and who has read anything I've posted should have gotten it by now.

That has never been my objection to the anti-Christian community that gets their jollies from running around preaching the religion of evolution to believers. My objection is their pig headed and dishonest insistence that their beliefs HAVE been proven. They haven't. My objection is to their compulsion (which of course I BELIEVE comes straight from hell) to seek out Christians with their fake *facts* to try to shake their faith with them.

The devil is a liar, and so are those who do this. I don't need evidence to verify God exists because if there was evidence, there would be no need for faith now, would there? But it is patently true that there is absolutely NO true evidence that can disprove the existence of God, or the veracity of the bible. It doesn't exist, and it will never exist. Every now and then, we hear of some great *discovery* and all the antis get all worked up over the "proof" that disproves the bible...and in the end, these little discoveries always end up being garbage.

I don't need to verify the existence of God, my faith and the Holy Spirit convict me.

But the other side apparently DOES need that verification...and they lie that it exists when it doesn't.

That's my one and only problem with anti Christians. I have no problem whatever with science. I just don't need it to substantiate my faith in God. And that DOESN'T mean I don't understand it or enjoy it, nor does it mean I don't know anything about it.


----------



## LOki

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to argue semantics and word meanings, you should look them up first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't asking for a standard definition, he was asking YWC for HIS definition, what HE meant by it. Words mean whatever we say they mean and agree they mean. A definition is just a description, not a prescription. If YWC had given a coherent and precise definition of the term "kind," that would have clarified what he was saying when he used the term.
> 
> The problem, and it came out in YWC's response, is that he didn't have a clear meaning in mind at all. It was a vague, general term, very fuzzy, and usable for fudging data and issues. Which is, of course, the way that creationists have pretty consistently used it. Is a "kind" a species? A genus? A family? No, not really -- it's just a way to make a statement in support of creationism that doesn't actually mean anything, and therefore can't be disproven.
Click to expand...

_"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dragon again."_


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you wish to cover mutations you can see when mutations cause change from a mistake it usually is harmful to organisms.
> 
> Beneficial mutations are so rare they cannot do what evolutionist say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this post you admit that mutations aren't always harmful to organisms.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes you slip up and accidentally admit to believing science.  Because that's exactly what biologists say, that most mutations are harmful or neutral but in minority cases they can be beneficial.  Beneficial meaning they increase an organisms chance to survive and breed and pass on the beneficial mutation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> For honest answers.
> 
> Mutations
Click to expand...


It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.

But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There is no God because I don't believe it!"
> 
> Lol...
> 
> "My evidence is BETTER than yours, therefore my faith is more valid! Cuz I say so!"
> 
> Lol...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are catching on to the failings of faith opinions when trying to apply them to the natural world of science. They don't compute.
> 
> You and i can both believe in The Rise Lord and don't have to be concerned about how God created the world, for it is not a salvation issue, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spare me your condescension...  *snip  *
Click to expand...


She says condescendingly.  You know, koshergirl in fact, very little about it.  That is a simple fact, and only some time, study, and humility will change that.  Don't worry about the wacks on the far side, for they surely have enough matters to worry about.  You have done poorly here, as a scientist and as a witness.  You remind me of a new convert so committed to convincing the world that you do more damage than twenty devils.

Please stop it.


----------



## koshergrl

I'm glad you caught the condescension. Maybe you are learning.

I've done just fine. I do wonder about those who claim to have faith who batter their own team, though.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to argue semantics and word meanings, you should look them up first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't asking for a standard definition, he was asking YWC for HIS definition, what HE meant by it. Words mean whatever we say they mean and agree they mean. A definition is just a description, not a prescription. If YWC had given a coherent and precise definition of the term "kind," that would have clarified what he was saying when he used the term.
> 
> The problem, and it came out in YWC's response, is that he didn't have a clear meaning in mind at all. It was a vague, general term, very fuzzy, and usable for fudging data and issues. Which is, of course, the way that creationists have pretty consistently used it. Is a "kind" a species? A genus? A family? No, not really -- it's just a way to make a statement in support of creationism that doesn't actually mean anything, and therefore can't be disproven.
Click to expand...

 
Lol..and AGAIN you're on hand to explain to everybody what they REALLY mean.

Good grief, this has to be some sort of disorder...


----------



## koshergrl

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this post you admit that mutations aren't always harmful to organisms.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes you slip up and accidentally admit to believing science. Because that's exactly what biologists say, that most mutations are harmful or neutral but in minority cases they can be beneficial. Beneficial meaning they increase an organisms chance to survive and breed and pass on the beneficial mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> For honest answers.
> 
> Mutations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.
> 
> But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.
Click to expand...

 
Who's an evolution denier?

Please quote and link.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> Lol..and AGAIN you're on hand to explain to everybody what they REALLY mean.
> 
> Good grief, this has to be some sort of disorder...



You might have noticed that Loki attempted to give me rep for that post. Obviously I got what he meant right.

In fact, what he meant was quite obvious and not at all obscure, even though you had some trouble understanding it.


----------



## koshergrl

Tried to give you rep?

What the hell are you talking about? Never mind, I honestly have had enough of your translations. How on earth would people communicate without you?


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> Tried to give you rep?
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?



Look at post #730.



> Never mind, I honestly have had enough of your translations. How on earth would people communicate without you?



It usually isn't a problem. It's only a problem here because we are discussing a subject about which you are both ignorant and dishonest.


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> For honest answers.
> 
> Mutations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.
> 
> But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's an evolution denier?
> 
> Please quote and link.
Click to expand...


Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read all about it.  He essentially invented his own version of evolution.


----------



## JakeStarkey

koshergrl said:


> I'm glad you caught the condescension. Maybe you are learning.  I've done just fine. I do wonder about those who claim to have faith who batter their own team, though.



I am never concerned in terms of "battering" the other side, because they are on their own unless they cross into my territory.  You, as a proclaiming believer, stooped to their level to play their game.  So I did not "batter" you, I most appropriately corrected you.  Check your biblical precepts, please.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> The Biblical usage of "kind" is close to the scientific usage of "species". The Biblical phrase "after their kind" is commonly interpreted to imply fixity of species in Genesis 1, but this interpretation is not consistent with the usage in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Species is defined scientifically as *reproductive isolation*; organisms are of the same species if they can interbreed successfully, and are of different species if they cannot. In the case of fossils, where the reproductive test cannot be conducted, different species are distinguished by morphology (physical characteristics). If two fossils look different enough, they are classified as different species. A panel of scientists may judge the differences in morphology. This practice also matches the Biblical usage, where different organisms are identified by how they look. If two populations can be reliably distinguished, then they are different Biblical "kinds".
> 
> Biblical Kind
> 
> 
> 
> Nice! Nicely leveled up!
> 
> And I will keep this in mind, as I discuss the topic with you, that as far as you're concerned the Biblical term "kind" is synonymous with "species."
> 
> I'm still interested in how YWC intends to use the term. That asshat is not quite so ingenuous.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> P.S. Do not hesitate to correct me if I have your notion wrong. All right? You seem to have decided to be cool, so I'll be cool about getting your perspective right. Fair?
Click to expand...


I have said it before you can ask drock. you can replace the term kind with the term species or family so it applies to today. You can replace kinds with species, breeds or family.

Do you really expect me to play with you when you come off as arrogant,ignorant,and rude.

You go play, adults are conducting a discussion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this post you admit that mutations aren't always harmful to organisms.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes you slip up and accidentally admit to believing science.  Because that's exactly what biologists say, that most mutations are harmful or neutral but in minority cases they can be beneficial.  Beneficial meaning they increase an organisms chance to survive and breed and pass on the beneficial mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> For honest answers.
> 
> Mutations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.
> 
> But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.
Click to expand...


You have never heard of DR.Spetner  he is the one that single handedly destroyed Neo Darwinism.

Maybe you should read his book.

Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.
> 
> But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's an evolution denier?
> 
> Please quote and link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Read all about it.  He essentially invented his own version of evolution.
Click to expand...


Yep but in the process destroyed the mutation argument.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tried to give you rep?
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at post #730.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind, I honestly have had enough of your translations. How on earth would people communicate without you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It usually isn't a problem. It's only a problem here because we are discussing a subject about which you are both ignorant and dishonest.
Click to expand...


You're funny


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> "
> The Biblical usage of "kind" is close to the scientific usage of "species". The Biblical phrase "after their kind" is commonly interpreted to imply fixity of species in Genesis 1, but this interpretation is not consistent with the usage in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Species is defined scientifically as *reproductive isolation*; organisms are of the same species if they can interbreed successfully, and are of different species if they cannot. In the case of fossils, where the reproductive test cannot be conducted, different species are distinguished by morphology (physical characteristics). If two fossils look different enough, they are classified as different species. A panel of scientists may judge the differences in morphology. This practice also matches the Biblical usage, where different organisms are identified by how they look. If two populations can be reliably distinguished, then they are different Biblical "kinds".
> 
> Biblical Kind



I tried to give you reputation points but I have nobody else in the thread to give reputation points to and it say's I must spread it around. I guess I could give it to dragon for his one right answer that purebreds genepool  gets smaller. by admitting that you breed out genetic information not in genetic information, he really can't see the problems that presents for evolutionists.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this post you admit that mutations aren't always harmful to organisms.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes you slip up and accidentally admit to believing science.  Because that's exactly what biologists say, that most mutations are harmful or neutral but in minority cases they can be beneficial.  Beneficial meaning they increase an organisms chance to survive and breed and pass on the beneficial mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> For honest answers.
> 
> Mutations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.
> 
> But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.
Click to expand...


Every creationist I have posted has a background in science,unless I overlooked someone please point them out.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's an evolution denier?
> 
> Please quote and link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Read all about it.  He essentially invented his own version of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep but in the process destroyed the mutation argument.
Click to expand...


His whole stance is that information is only lost in mutations, which is a flat out lie.

By effect on function
Loss-of-function mutations are the result of gene product having less or no function. When the allele has a complete loss of function (null allele) it is often called an amorphic mutation. Phenotypes associated with such mutations are most often recessive. Exceptions are when the organism is haploid, or when the reduced dosage of a normal gene product is not enough for a normal phenotype (this is called haploinsufficiency).
*Gain-of-function mutations change the gene product such that it gains a new and abnormal function. These mutations usually have dominant phenotypes. Often called a neomorphic mutation.[/B
]Dominant negative mutations (also called antimorphic mutations) have an altered gene product that acts antagonistically to the wild-type allele. These mutations usually result in an altered molecular function (often inactive) and are characterised by a dominant or semi-dominant phenotype. In humans, Marfan syndrome is an example of a dominant negative mutation occurring in an autosomal dominant disease. In this condition, the defective glycoprotein product of the fibrillin gene (FBN1) antagonizes the product of the normal allele.
Lethal mutations are mutations that lead to the death of the organisms which carry the mutations.
A back mutation or reversion is a point mutation that restores the original sequence and hence the original phenotype.[31]*


----------



## Dr.Drock

This has already been tested and proven, again your bible bloggers don't provide the earth-shattering evidence you were praying for.

Gain-of-function mutation in FGFR3 in mice leads to decreased bone mass by affecting both osteoblastogenesis and osteoclastogenesis


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> For honest answers.
> 
> Mutations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.
> 
> But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's an evolution denier?
> 
> Please quote and link.
Click to expand...


They just don't get it,I have said I believe in small scale micro-evolution within a family group or kind.Heck I even presented evidence for it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Read all about it.  He essentially invented his own version of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep but in the process destroyed the mutation argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His whole stance is that information is only lost in mutations, which is a flat out lie.
> 
> By effect on function
> Loss-of-function mutations are the result of gene product having less or no function. When the allele has a complete loss of function (null allele) it is often called an amorphic mutation. Phenotypes associated with such mutations are most often recessive. Exceptions are when the organism is haploid, or when the reduced dosage of a normal gene product is not enough for a normal phenotype (this is called haploinsufficiency).
> *Gain-of-function mutations change the gene product such that it gains a new and abnormal function. These mutations usually have dominant phenotypes. Often called a neomorphic mutation.[/B
> ]Dominant negative mutations (also called antimorphic mutations) have an altered gene product that acts antagonistically to the wild-type allele. These mutations usually result in an altered molecular function (often inactive) and are characterised by a dominant or semi-dominant phenotype. In humans, Marfan syndrome is an example of a dominant negative mutation occurring in an autosomal dominant disease. In this condition, the defective glycoprotein product of the fibrillin gene (FBN1) antagonizes the product of the normal allele.
> Lethal mutations are mutations that lead to the death of the organisms which carry the mutations.
> A back mutation or reversion is a point mutation that restores the original sequence and hence the original phenotype.[31]*
Click to expand...

*

You need to read more the kind of mutations Neo needs can't do what they say I can't help you don't understand what's being said.*


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> The Biblical usage of "kind" is close to the scientific usage of "species". The Biblical phrase "after their kind" is commonly interpreted to imply fixity of species in Genesis 1, but this interpretation is not consistent with the usage in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Species is defined scientifically as *reproductive isolation*; organisms are of the same species if they can interbreed successfully, and are of different species if they cannot. In the case of fossils, where the reproductive test cannot be conducted, different species are distinguished by morphology (physical characteristics). If two fossils look different enough, they are classified as different species. A panel of scientists may judge the differences in morphology. This practice also matches the Biblical usage, where different organisms are identified by how they look. If two populations can be reliably distinguished, then they are different Biblical "kinds".
> 
> Biblical Kind
> 
> 
> 
> Nice! Nicely leveled up!
> 
> And I will keep this in mind, as I discuss the topic with you, that as far as you're concerned the Biblical term "kind" is synonymous with "species."
> 
> I'm still interested in how YWC intends to use the term. That asshat is not quite so ingenuous.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> P.S. Do not hesitate to correct me if I have your notion wrong. All right? You seem to have decided to be cool, so I'll be cool about getting your perspective right. Fair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have said it before you can ask drock. you can replace the term kind with the term species or family so it applies to today. You can replace kinds with species, breeds or family.
> 
> Do you really expect me to play with you when you come off as arrogant,ignorant,and rude.
> 
> You go play, adults are conducting a discussion.
Click to expand...

You know, I knew you couldn't be counted on ... or rather could be.

You couldn't be counted upon to be honest and ingenuous, and could certainly be counted upon for some more bullshit.

"Breed?" really? "Breed" is synonymous with "sub-species" and your answer is hardly precise, and certainly not an honest illumination upon the parsing out of a valid and meaningful use of the term "kind." 

You really just said "Yeah, "kind" means species or family, whatever."

It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> This has already been tested and proven, again your bible bloggers don't provide the earth-shattering evidence you were praying for.
> 
> Gain-of-function mutation in FGFR3 in mice leads to decreased bone mass by affecting both osteoblastogenesis and osteoclastogenesis




You are missing the point but here is a good explanation.

Darwinism and the Deterioration
of the Genome


Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
© 2005 by Creation Research Society. All rights reserved. Used by permission. 
This article first appeared in Vol. 42, No. 2 of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, 
a peer-reviewed journal published by the Creation Research Society.


Abstract
An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information.  Instead, mutations will produce degradation of the information in the genome.  This is the opposite of the predictions of the neoDarwinian origins model.  Such genome degradation is counteracted by natural selection that helps maintain the status quo.  Degradation results for many reasons, two of which are reviewed here.  1) there is a tendency for mutations to produce a highly disproportionate number of certain nucleotide bases such as thymine and 2) many mutations occur in only a relatively few places within the gene called &#8220;hot spots,&#8221; and rarely occur in others, known as &#8220;cold spots.&#8221; An intensive review of the literature fails to reveal a single clear example of a beneficial information-gaining mutation.  Conversely, thousands of deleterious mutations exist, supporting the hypothesis that very few mutations are beneficial.  These findings support the creation origins model.

Introduction
he primary basis of macroevolution is presumably the occurrence of mutations, which are accidental changes in the DNA.  This includes both DNA that codes for protein and that which has other roles in the cell.  This changed DNA can result in an observable change in the phenotype (the physical appearance) of the organism.  These mutations ultimately provide the differences that are selected for (or against) by natural selection (Mayr, 2001; Wise, 2002, p. 163).  The critical importance of mutations in providing the raw material for evolution is widely acknowledged by Darwinists, and is almost universally mentioned in biology textbooks (Mayr, 2001).  In the words of one of the founders of the modern neoDarwinian theory, and one of the most eminent evolutionists, Harvard professor Ernst Mayr: &#8220;Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to mutation&#8221; (Mayr, 1967, p. 50).  The primary architect of neoDarwinism was Theodosius Dobzhansky who wrote that &#8220;the process of mutation is the only source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution&#8221; (Dobzhansky, 1957, p. 385, emphasis mine).  Dobzhansky concluded that &#8220;evolution is possible only because heredity is counteracted by another process opposite in effect&#8212;namely, mutation&#8221; (1951, p. 25, emphasis mine).  The conclusion that mutations are the key to evolution is the basis of modern neoDarwinism (Mayr, 2001).

Other sources of variation, such as sexual reproduction, genetic crossing over, and transposition, primarily produce only rearrangements of existing information and do not create new genetic information.  These other mechanisms of change yield phenotypic variations that will produce, at best, only a limited amount of microevolution.  Therefore, the source of all genetic variety required for macroevolution ultimately is mutations.

One of the most commonly utilized illustrations to help understand the process macroevolution via mutations was developed by the leading evolutionary biologist and Oxford professor, Richard Dawkins (1986).  His example requires random variations of all, or almost all, of the nucleotides for neoDarwinian evolution to occur.  This paper examines whether or not this general requirement is fulfilled. 

The Dawkins macroevolutionary model actually helps to show why mutations that are expressed virtually always result in loss of information or corruption of the gene.  Most all expressed mutations yield proteins that have reduced function, such as illustrated by sickle cell anemia.  Some mutations, like adrenoleukodystrophy, cause a complete loss of function (Lewis, 2003, p. 26).  This result fits with Batten&#8217;s report that most mutations are harmful and

most of the remainder seem to have neither positive nor negative effect.  Mutations that are actually beneficial are extraordinarily rare and involve insignificant changes.  Mutations seem to be much more degenerative than constructive...  (Batten, 2002, p. 163).
Three kinds of mutations can be distinguished&#8212;beneficial, neutral, or deleterious (Mayr, 2001, p. 98).  To be consistent, Mayr&#8217;s terminology will be used in this paper, which argues that the long term result of mutations is the degradation, deterioration, or degeneration of the genome.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jerry Bergman has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University, in Detroit, Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Medical College of Ohio in Toledo.  He has taught at Bowling Green State University, the University of Toledo, Medical College of Ohio and at other colleges and universities.  He currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics.  He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals

- Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome -- TrueOrigin Archive


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.
> 
> But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's an evolution denier?
> 
> Please quote and link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They just don't get it,I have said I believe in small scale micro-evolution within a family group or kind.Heck I even presented evidence for it.
Click to expand...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA"]YWC--"I believe in small scale micro-evolution within a family group or kind"[/ame]


----------



## koshergrl

So obviously, nobody has said they deny evolution.

Thank you, anti Christians, for illustrating your dishonesty so thoroughly.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> So obviously, nobody has said they deny evolution.
> 
> Thank you, anti Christians, for illustrating your dishonesty so thoroughly.


Just when I thought you had leveled up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice! Nicely leveled up!
> 
> And I will keep this in mind, as I discuss the topic with you, that as far as you're concerned the Biblical term "kind" is synonymous with "species."
> 
> I'm still interested in how YWC intends to use the term. That asshat is not quite so ingenuous.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> P.S. Do not hesitate to correct me if I have your notion wrong. All right? You seem to have decided to be cool, so I'll be cool about getting your perspective right. Fair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have said it before you can ask drock. you can replace the term kind with the term species or family so it applies to today. You can replace kinds with species, breeds or family.
> 
> Do you really expect me to play with you when you come off as arrogant,ignorant,and rude.
> 
> You go play, adults are conducting a discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I knew you couldn't be counted on ... or rather could be.
> 
> You couldn't be counted upon to be honest and ingenuous, and could certainly be counted upon for some more bullshit.
> 
> "Breed?" really? "Breed" is synonymous with "sub-species" and your answer is hardly precise, and certainly not an honest illumination upon the parsing out of a valid and meaningful use of the term "kind."
> 
> You really just said "Yeah, "kind" means species or family, whatever."
> 
> It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
Click to expand...


Yes breed is a term I prefer over the term sub-species. I don't like using terms that evolutionist create to build their theory off. A species can be a family or a breed and why would you call one breed a sub-species if it is a breed from the same family ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's an evolution denier?
> 
> Please quote and link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just don't get it,I have said I believe in small scale micro-evolution within a family group or kind.Heck I even presented evidence for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA"]YWC--"I believe in small scale micro-evolution within a family group or kind"[/ame]
Click to expand...


When you actually say something worth responding to I will respond to it,otherwise I will just ignore what you say.

Because really we are talking science you talk very little science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So obviously, nobody has said they deny evolution.
> 
> Thank you, anti Christians, for illustrating your dishonesty so thoroughly.
> 
> 
> 
> Just when I thought you had leveled up.
Click to expand...


So someone is level when they say what you want to hear  your true colors are obvious.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> So someone is level when they say what you want to hear  your true colors are obvious.



No, someone is level when they exhibit honesty and intellectual integrity (although it's a lost cause to expect that from creationists).

For example, one is level when they don't present, in lieu of an argument, a wall of text that they themselves do not understand.


----------



## Dr.Drock

From your other link.

"An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information."

They keep repeating this lie even though it has been tested and proven that this is false.

Find me a Bible blogger who takes biology seriously, all the ones you've provided clearly don't.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So someone is level when they say what you want to hear  your true colors are obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, someone is level when they exhibit honesty and intellectual integrity (although it's a lost cause to expect that from creationists).
> 
> For example, one is level when they don't present, in lieu of an argument, a wall of text that they themselves do not understand.
Click to expand...


I am a creationist and I do support my views with evidence not like some here.

To call someone dishonest because they disagree with you what would you call that ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> From your other link.
> 
> "An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information."
> 
> They keep repeating this lie even though it has been tested and proven that this is false.
> 
> Find me a Bible blogger who takes biology seriously, all the ones you've provided clearly don't.



Really,the one you quoted has 7 degrees in science,you really think he doesn't take it serious drock ?

The thing you do is get focused on one thing but not paying attention to why he made the comment. Some people know about mutations and what they do and don't do. The other thing you're missing he is discussing several different forms of mutations and where they occur that is important to know to come to a conclusion.

You rest on A few mutations that did help in one area and hurt a function in the process. If a mutation helps in one area but harms the organism in another area how does that benefit the organism ?

Did you understand how mutations cause harm to the Genome ? Do you believe that is a benefit ?


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> I am a creationist and I do support my views with evidence not like some here.



No, you don't. You present walls of text that you do not understand yourself. That is not supporting your views with evidence.

If you want to be taken seriously, present what your wall of cut-and-paste says in your own words, briefly. You can also present a link for those who want to explore further.



> To call someone dishonest because they disagree with you what would you call that ?



I would call that "something that has not been done on this thread."


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your other link.
> 
> "An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information."
> 
> They keep repeating this lie even though it has been tested and proven that this is false.
> 
> Find me a Bible blogger who takes biology seriously, all the ones you've provided clearly don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really,the one you quoted has 7 degrees in science,you really think he doesn't take it serious drock ?
> 
> The thing you do is get focused on one thing but not paying attention to why he made the comment. Some people know about mutations and what they do and don't do. The other thing you're missing he is discussing several different forms of mutations and where they occur that is important to know to come to a conclusion.
> 
> You rest on A few mutations that did help in one area and hurt a function in the process. If a mutation helps in one area but harms the organism in another area how does that benefit the organism ?
> 
> Did you understand how mutations cause harm to the Genome ? Do you believe that is a benefit ?
Click to expand...


Beneficial mutations don't always cause a harm.  That's a stupid assumption and has already been proven wrong with the link I provided before yours.

Anything else?

Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection

Beneficial mutationsAlthough mutations that change protein sequences are predominantly harmful to an organism; on occasion, the effect can be neutral or positive in a given environment. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-&#916;32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[40] The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-&#916;32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased.[41] This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.[42]

Another example is Sickle cell disease, a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene,[43] because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait).[44] Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells which it infests.

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and even from one of your Bible bloggers

Are Mutations Harmful?

Moreover a mutation may be favorable in the sense that it permits survival in an unfavorable environment and yet be unfavorable in a better environment.




A beneficial mutation that permits survival and breeding to spread genes in an unfavorable environment is exactly what I've been trying to get through to you.  Even your Bible blogs agree with this.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a creationist and I do support my views with evidence not like some here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't. You present walls of text that you do not understand yourself. That is not supporting your views with evidence.
> 
> If you want to be taken seriously, present what your wall of cut-and-paste says in your own words, briefly. You can also present a link for those who want to explore further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To call someone dishonest because they disagree with you what would you call that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would call that "something that has not been done on this thread."
Click to expand...


Wrong I explained my points then presented pictures as support did you forget that ?

What I post I clearly understand.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> What I post I clearly understand.



LOL oh, really?

Well here's a chance to demonstrate that. In your own words, exactly what is a "mutation"?

You're allowed to look up the answer, but it must be in your own words so as to demonstrate that you understand it and aren't just cutting and pasting.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So obviously, nobody has said they deny evolution.
> 
> Thank you, anti Christians, for illustrating your dishonesty so thoroughly.
> 
> 
> 
> Just when I thought you had leveled up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So someone is level when they say what you want to hear  your true colors are obvious.
Click to expand...

No. Nice that you reaffirm your commitment to spreading misinformation though.

Someone levels up when they demonstrate some intellectual integrity and honesty. It would be nice if you'd level up. It's not like you haven't had every opportunity to do so.

Which reminds me that, consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your other link.
> 
> "An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information."
> 
> They keep repeating this lie even though it has been tested and proven that this is false.
> 
> Find me a Bible blogger who takes biology seriously, all the ones you've provided clearly don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really,the one you quoted has 7 degrees in science,you really think he doesn't take it serious drock ?
> 
> The thing you do is get focused on one thing but not paying attention to why he made the comment. Some people know about mutations and what they do and don't do. The other thing you're missing he is discussing several different forms of mutations and where they occur that is important to know to come to a conclusion.
> 
> You rest on A few mutations that did help in one area and hurt a function in the process. If a mutation helps in one area but harms the organism in another area how does that benefit the organism ?
> 
> Did you understand how mutations cause harm to the Genome ? Do you believe that is a benefit ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beneficial mutations don't always cause a harm.  That's a stupid assumption and has already been proven wrong with the link I provided before yours.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
> 
> Beneficial mutationsAlthough mutations that change protein sequences are predominantly harmful to an organism; on occasion, the effect can be neutral or positive in a given environment. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.
> 
> For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-&#916;32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[40] The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-&#916;32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased.[41] This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.[42]
> 
> Another example is Sickle cell disease, a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene,[43] because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait).[44] Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells which it infests.
> 
> Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> and even from one of your Bible bloggers
> 
> Are Mutations Harmful?
> 
> Moreover a mutation may be favorable in the sense that it permits survival in an unfavorable environment and yet be unfavorable in a better environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A beneficial mutation that permits survival and breeding to spread genes in an unfavorable environment is exactly what I've been trying to get through to you.  Even you Bible blogs agree with this.
Click to expand...


You're still missing the point,beneficial mutations are still to rare to evolve every creature that supposedly evolved.

You need to show mutations did indeed cause macro-evolution that has never been done for one species let alone every species that ever existed.



How can gene mutations affect health and development?


To function correctly, each cell depends on thousands of proteins to do their jobs in the right places at the right times. Sometimes, gene mutations prevent one or more of these proteins from working properly. By changing a gene&#8217;s instructions for making a protein, a mutation can cause the protein to malfunction or to be missing entirely. When a mutation alters a protein that plays a critical role in the body, it can disrupt normal development or cause a medical condition. A condition caused by mutations in one or more genes is called a genetic disorder.

In some cases, gene mutations are so severe that they prevent an embryo from surviving until birth. These changes occur in genes that are essential for development, and often disrupt the development of an embryo in its earliest stages. Because these mutations have very serious effects, they are incompatible with life.

It is important to note that genes themselves do not cause disease&#8212;genetic disorders are caused by mutations that make a gene function improperly. For example, when people say that someone has &#8220;the cystic fibrosis gene,&#8221; they are usually referring to a mutated version of the CFTR gene, which causes the disease. All people, including those without cystic fibrosis, have a version of the CFTR gene.

For more information about mutations and genetic disorders:

The National Cancer Institute provides additional information about how gene mutations can trigger disease:



Do all gene mutations affect health and development?


No; only a small percentage of mutations cause genetic disorders&#8212;most have no impact on health or development. For example, some mutations alter a gene&#8217;s DNA base sequence but do not change the function of the protein made by the gene.

Often, gene mutations that could cause a genetic disorder are repaired by certain enzymes before the gene is expressed (makes a protein). Each cell has a number of pathways through which enzymes recognize and repair mistakes in DNA. Because DNA can be damaged or mutated in many ways, DNA repair is an important process by which the body protects itself from disease.

A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect. These mutations lead to new versions of proteins that help an organism and its future generations better adapt to changes in their environment. For example, a beneficial mutation could result in a protein that protects the organism from a new strain of bacteria.

For more information about DNA repair and the health effects of gene mutations:

The University of Utah Genetic Science Learning Center provides information about genetic disorders that explains why some mutations cause disorders but others do not.

Additional information about DNA repair is available from the NCBI Science Primer. In the chapter called What Is A Cell?, scroll down to the heading &#8220;DNA Repair Mechanisms.&#8221;



What kinds of gene mutations are possible?


The DNA sequence of a gene can be altered in a number of ways. Gene mutations have varying effects on health, depending on where they occur and whether they alter the function of essential proteins. The types of mutations include:
 Missense mutation (illustration) 
This type of mutation is a change in one DNA base pair that results in the substitution of one amino acid for another in the protein made by a gene.
Nonsense mutation (illustration) 
A nonsense mutation is also a change in one DNA base pair. Instead of substituting one amino acid for another, however, the altered DNA sequence prematurely signals the cell to stop building a protein. This type of mutation results in a shortened protein that may function improperly or not at all.
Insertion (illustration) 
An insertion changes the number of DNA bases in a gene by adding a piece of DNA. As a result, the protein made by the gene may not function properly.
Deletion (illustration) 
A deletion changes the number of DNA bases by removing a piece of DNA. Small deletions may remove one or a few base pairs within a gene, while larger deletions can remove an entire gene or several neighboring genes. The deleted DNA may alter the function of the resulting protein(s).
Duplication (illustration) 
A duplication consists of a piece of DNA that is abnormally copied one or more times. This type of mutation may alter the function of the resulting protein.
Frameshift mutation (illustration) 
This type of mutation occurs when the addition or loss of DNA bases changes a gene&#8217;s reading frame. A reading frame consists of groups of 3 bases that each code for one amino acid. A frameshift mutation shifts the grouping of these bases and changes the code for amino acids. The resulting protein is usually nonfunctional. Insertions, deletions, and duplications can all be frameshift mutations.
Repeat expansion (illustration) 
Nucleotide repeats are short DNA sequences that are repeated a number of times in a row. For example, a trinucleotide repeat is made up of 3-base-pair sequences, and a tetranucleotide repeat is made up of 4-base-pair sequences. A repeat expansion is a mutation that increases the number of times that the short DNA sequence is repeated. This type of mutation can cause the resulting protein to function improperly.

For more information about the types of gene mutations:

The National Human Genome Research Institute offers a Talking Glossary of Genetic Terms. This resource includes definitions, diagrams, and detailed audio descriptions of several of the gene mutations listed above.



Can a change in the number of genes affect health and development?


People have two copies of most genes, one copy inherited from each parent. In some cases, however, the number of copies varies&#8212;meaning that a person can be born with one, three, or more copies of particular genes. Less commonly, one or more genes may be entirely missing. This type of genetic difference is known as copy number variation (CNV).

Copy number variation results from insertions, deletions, and duplications of large segments of DNA. These segments are big enough to include whole genes. Variation in gene copy number can influence the activity of genes and ultimately affect many body functions.

Researchers were surprised to learn that copy number variation accounts for a significant amount of genetic difference between people. More than 10 percent of human DNA appears to contain these differences in gene copy number. While much of this variation does not affect health or development, some differences likely influence a person&#8217;s risk of disease and response to certain drugs. Future research will focus on the consequences of copy number variation in different parts of the genome and study the contribution of these variations to many types of disease.


Can a change in the number of genes affect health and development? - Genetics Home Reference

This is very interesting read sure puts doubt on the chimp and human similarity.

http://www.hhmi.org/news/scherer20061123.html


----------



## LOki

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So someone is level when they say what you want to hear  your true colors are obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, someone is level when they exhibit honesty and intellectual integrity (although it's a lost cause to expect that from creationists).
> 
> For example, one is level when they don't present, in lieu of an argument, a wall of text that they themselves do not understand.
Click to expand...

LOL.

_"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dragon again."_​
I should probably look to see if you've already pointed out the obvious to these retards before I do it myself.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So someone is level when they say what you want to hear  your true colors are obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, someone is level when they exhibit honesty and intellectual integrity (although it's a lost cause to expect that from creationists).
> 
> For example, one is level when they don't present, in lieu of an argument, a wall of text that they themselves do not understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a creationist and I do support my views with evidence not like some here.
Click to expand...

You're an intellectually dishonest superstitious retard whose notions of "evidence" are completely discredited rantings of snake-oil salesmen, deliberate denials of reality, and patently fallacious logic.



Youwerecreated said:


> To call someone dishonest because they disagree with you what would you call that ?


It's not about your disagreements with us, you intellectually dishonest retard; it's your insistence that your disagreements with the verifiable facts of reality are validly consistent with the verifiable facts of reality.

Also, lest it escapes your retarded attention span, consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I post I clearly understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL oh, really?
> 
> Well here's a chance to demonstrate that. In your own words, exactly what is a "mutation"?
> 
> You're allowed to look up the answer, but it must be in your own words so as to demonstrate that you understand it and aren't just cutting and pasting.
Click to expand...


Oh boy, It is a damaged gene ,and It is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of the gene.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really,the one you quoted has 7 degrees in science,you really think he doesn't take it serious drock ?
> 
> The thing you do is get focused on one thing but not paying attention to why he made the comment. Some people know about mutations and what they do and don't do. The other thing you're missing he is discussing several different forms of mutations and where they occur that is important to know to come to a conclusion.
> 
> You rest on A few mutations that did help in one area and hurt a function in the process. If a mutation helps in one area but harms the organism in another area how does that benefit the organism ?
> 
> Did you understand how mutations cause harm to the Genome ? Do you believe that is a benefit ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beneficial mutations don't always cause a harm.  That's a stupid assumption and has already been proven wrong with the link I provided before yours.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
> 
> Beneficial mutationsAlthough mutations that change protein sequences are predominantly harmful to an organism; on occasion, the effect can be neutral or positive in a given environment. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.
> 
> For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-&#916;32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[40] The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-&#916;32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased.[41] This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.[42]
> 
> Another example is Sickle cell disease, a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene,[43] because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait).[44] Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells which it infests.
> 
> Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> and even from one of your Bible bloggers
> 
> Are Mutations Harmful?
> 
> Moreover a mutation may be favorable in the sense that it permits survival in an unfavorable environment and yet be unfavorable in a better environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A beneficial mutation that permits survival and breeding to spread genes in an unfavorable environment is exactly what I've been trying to get through to you.  Even you Bible blogs agree with this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still missing the point,beneficial mutations are still to rare to evolve every creature that supposedly evolved.
> 
> You need to show mutations did indeed cause macro-evolution that has never been done for one species let alone every species that ever existed.
> 
> 
> 
> How can gene mutations affect health and development?
> 
> 
> To function correctly, each cell depends on thousands of proteins to do their jobs in the right places at the right times. Sometimes, gene mutations prevent one or more of these proteins from working properly. By changing a gene&#8217;s instructions for making a protein, a mutation can cause the protein to malfunction or to be missing entirely. When a mutation alters a protein that plays a critical role in the body, it can disrupt normal development or cause a medical condition. A condition caused by mutations in one or more genes is called a genetic disorder.
> 
> In some cases, gene mutations are so severe that they prevent an embryo from surviving until birth. These changes occur in genes that are essential for development, and often disrupt the development of an embryo in its earliest stages. Because these mutations have very serious effects, they are incompatible with life.
> 
> It is important to note that genes themselves do not cause disease&#8212;genetic disorders are caused by mutations that make a gene function improperly. For example, when people say that someone has &#8220;the cystic fibrosis gene,&#8221; they are usually referring to a mutated version of the CFTR gene, which causes the disease. All people, including those without cystic fibrosis, have a version of the CFTR gene.
> 
> For more information about mutations and genetic disorders:
> 
> The National Cancer Institute provides additional information about how gene mutations can trigger disease:
> 
> 
> 
> Do all gene mutations affect health and development?
> 
> 
> No; only a small percentage of mutations cause genetic disorders&#8212;most have no impact on health or development. For example, some mutations alter a gene&#8217;s DNA base sequence but do not change the function of the protein made by the gene.
> 
> Often, gene mutations that could cause a genetic disorder are repaired by certain enzymes before the gene is expressed (makes a protein). Each cell has a number of pathways through which enzymes recognize and repair mistakes in DNA. Because DNA can be damaged or mutated in many ways, DNA repair is an important process by which the body protects itself from disease.
> 
> A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect. These mutations lead to new versions of proteins that help an organism and its future generations better adapt to changes in their environment. For example, a beneficial mutation could result in a protein that protects the organism from a new strain of bacteria.
> 
> For more information about DNA repair and the health effects of gene mutations:
> 
> The University of Utah Genetic Science Learning Center provides information about genetic disorders that explains why some mutations cause disorders but others do not.
> 
> Additional information about DNA repair is available from the NCBI Science Primer. In the chapter called What Is A Cell?, scroll down to the heading &#8220;DNA Repair Mechanisms.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> What kinds of gene mutations are possible?
> 
> 
> The DNA sequence of a gene can be altered in a number of ways. Gene mutations have varying effects on health, depending on where they occur and whether they alter the function of essential proteins. The types of mutations include:
> Missense mutation (illustration)
> This type of mutation is a change in one DNA base pair that results in the substitution of one amino acid for another in the protein made by a gene.
> Nonsense mutation (illustration)
> A nonsense mutation is also a change in one DNA base pair. Instead of substituting one amino acid for another, however, the altered DNA sequence prematurely signals the cell to stop building a protein. This type of mutation results in a shortened protein that may function improperly or not at all.
> Insertion (illustration)
> An insertion changes the number of DNA bases in a gene by adding a piece of DNA. As a result, the protein made by the gene may not function properly.
> Deletion (illustration)
> A deletion changes the number of DNA bases by removing a piece of DNA. Small deletions may remove one or a few base pairs within a gene, while larger deletions can remove an entire gene or several neighboring genes. The deleted DNA may alter the function of the resulting protein(s).
> Duplication (illustration)
> A duplication consists of a piece of DNA that is abnormally copied one or more times. This type of mutation may alter the function of the resulting protein.
> Frameshift mutation (illustration)
> This type of mutation occurs when the addition or loss of DNA bases changes a gene&#8217;s reading frame. A reading frame consists of groups of 3 bases that each code for one amino acid. A frameshift mutation shifts the grouping of these bases and changes the code for amino acids. The resulting protein is usually nonfunctional. Insertions, deletions, and duplications can all be frameshift mutations.
> Repeat expansion (illustration)
> Nucleotide repeats are short DNA sequences that are repeated a number of times in a row. For example, a trinucleotide repeat is made up of 3-base-pair sequences, and a tetranucleotide repeat is made up of 4-base-pair sequences. A repeat expansion is a mutation that increases the number of times that the short DNA sequence is repeated. This type of mutation can cause the resulting protein to function improperly.
> 
> For more information about the types of gene mutations:
> 
> The National Human Genome Research Institute offers a Talking Glossary of Genetic Terms. This resource includes definitions, diagrams, and detailed audio descriptions of several of the gene mutations listed above.
> 
> 
> 
> Can a change in the number of genes affect health and development?
> 
> 
> People have two copies of most genes, one copy inherited from each parent. In some cases, however, the number of copies varies&#8212;meaning that a person can be born with one, three, or more copies of particular genes. Less commonly, one or more genes may be entirely missing. This type of genetic difference is known as copy number variation (CNV).
> 
> Copy number variation results from insertions, deletions, and duplications of large segments of DNA. These segments are big enough to include whole genes. Variation in gene copy number can influence the activity of genes and ultimately affect many body functions.
> 
> Researchers were surprised to learn that copy number variation accounts for a significant amount of genetic difference between people. More than 10 percent of human DNA appears to contain these differences in gene copy number. While much of this variation does not affect health or development, some differences likely influence a person&#8217;s risk of disease and response to certain drugs. Future research will focus on the consequences of copy number variation in different parts of the genome and study the contribution of these variations to many types of disease.
> 
> 
> Can a change in the number of genes affect health and development? - Genetics Home Reference
> 
> This is very interesting read sure puts doubt on the chimp and human similarity.
> 
> HHMI News: Genetic Variation: We're More Different Than We Thought
Click to expand...


*"A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect"*

Thank you for providing another source that agrees with me.  

What scientist says every species that's experienced macroevolution has done so solely by mutation?

I again ask you to at least educate yourself on what evolution is before you deny it.

Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like everyone else said, you can't deny macroevolution and accept microevolution.  You're either a full blown science denier or you aren't.

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution.[131] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one &#8211; the difference is simply the time involved


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> You're still missing the point,beneficial mutations are still too rare to evolve every creature that supposedly evolved.
> 
> [snip wall of text that the poster doesn't understand]



Provide a mathematical proof of this in your own words. Demonstrate that you understand

1) How the process of evolution works according to current theory
2) How to calculate the probability of a key evolutionary development, say the emergence of photosynthesis or of the spinal column, over the time that actually was allowed for its development
3) How to calculate, from this, the probability of evolution resulting in the species development that we observe over time.
4) That this probability is insignificant.

No more walls of text, please. I'm satisfied you know how to cut and paste; you don't need to demonstrate that ability again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beneficial mutations don't always cause a harm.  That's a stupid assumption and has already been proven wrong with the link I provided before yours.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
> 
> Beneficial mutationsAlthough mutations that change protein sequences are predominantly harmful to an organism; on occasion, the effect can be neutral or positive in a given environment. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.
> 
> For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-&#916;32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[40] The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-&#916;32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased.[41] This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.[42]
> 
> Another example is Sickle cell disease, a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene,[43] because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait).[44] Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells which it infests.
> 
> Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> and even from one of your Bible bloggers
> 
> Are Mutations Harmful?
> 
> Moreover a mutation may be favorable in the sense that it permits survival in an unfavorable environment and yet be unfavorable in a better environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A beneficial mutation that permits survival and breeding to spread genes in an unfavorable environment is exactly what I've been trying to get through to you.  Even you Bible blogs agree with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still missing the point,beneficial mutations are still to rare to evolve every creature that supposedly evolved.
> 
> You need to show mutations did indeed cause macro-evolution that has never been done for one species let alone every species that ever existed.
> 
> 
> 
> How can gene mutations affect health and development?
> 
> 
> To function correctly, each cell depends on thousands of proteins to do their jobs in the right places at the right times. Sometimes, gene mutations prevent one or more of these proteins from working properly. By changing a genes instructions for making a protein, a mutation can cause the protein to malfunction or to be missing entirely. When a mutation alters a protein that plays a critical role in the body, it can disrupt normal development or cause a medical condition. A condition caused by mutations in one or more genes is called a genetic disorder.
> 
> In some cases, gene mutations are so severe that they prevent an embryo from surviving until birth. These changes occur in genes that are essential for development, and often disrupt the development of an embryo in its earliest stages. Because these mutations have very serious effects, they are incompatible with life.
> 
> It is important to note that genes themselves do not cause diseasegenetic disorders are caused by mutations that make a gene function improperly. For example, when people say that someone has the cystic fibrosis gene, they are usually referring to a mutated version of the CFTR gene, which causes the disease. All people, including those without cystic fibrosis, have a version of the CFTR gene.
> 
> For more information about mutations and genetic disorders:
> 
> The National Cancer Institute provides additional information about how gene mutations can trigger disease:
> 
> 
> 
> Do all gene mutations affect health and development?
> 
> 
> No; only a small percentage of mutations cause genetic disordersmost have no impact on health or development. For example, some mutations alter a genes DNA base sequence but do not change the function of the protein made by the gene.
> 
> Often, gene mutations that could cause a genetic disorder are repaired by certain enzymes before the gene is expressed (makes a protein). Each cell has a number of pathways through which enzymes recognize and repair mistakes in DNA. Because DNA can be damaged or mutated in many ways, DNA repair is an important process by which the body protects itself from disease.
> 
> A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect. These mutations lead to new versions of proteins that help an organism and its future generations better adapt to changes in their environment. For example, a beneficial mutation could result in a protein that protects the organism from a new strain of bacteria.
> 
> For more information about DNA repair and the health effects of gene mutations:
> 
> The University of Utah Genetic Science Learning Center provides information about genetic disorders that explains why some mutations cause disorders but others do not.
> 
> Additional information about DNA repair is available from the NCBI Science Primer. In the chapter called What Is A Cell?, scroll down to the heading DNA Repair Mechanisms.
> 
> 
> 
> What kinds of gene mutations are possible?
> 
> 
> The DNA sequence of a gene can be altered in a number of ways. Gene mutations have varying effects on health, depending on where they occur and whether they alter the function of essential proteins. The types of mutations include:
> Missense mutation (illustration)
> This type of mutation is a change in one DNA base pair that results in the substitution of one amino acid for another in the protein made by a gene.
> Nonsense mutation (illustration)
> A nonsense mutation is also a change in one DNA base pair. Instead of substituting one amino acid for another, however, the altered DNA sequence prematurely signals the cell to stop building a protein. This type of mutation results in a shortened protein that may function improperly or not at all.
> Insertion (illustration)
> An insertion changes the number of DNA bases in a gene by adding a piece of DNA. As a result, the protein made by the gene may not function properly.
> Deletion (illustration)
> A deletion changes the number of DNA bases by removing a piece of DNA. Small deletions may remove one or a few base pairs within a gene, while larger deletions can remove an entire gene or several neighboring genes. The deleted DNA may alter the function of the resulting protein(s).
> Duplication (illustration)
> A duplication consists of a piece of DNA that is abnormally copied one or more times. This type of mutation may alter the function of the resulting protein.
> Frameshift mutation (illustration)
> This type of mutation occurs when the addition or loss of DNA bases changes a genes reading frame. A reading frame consists of groups of 3 bases that each code for one amino acid. A frameshift mutation shifts the grouping of these bases and changes the code for amino acids. The resulting protein is usually nonfunctional. Insertions, deletions, and duplications can all be frameshift mutations.
> Repeat expansion (illustration)
> Nucleotide repeats are short DNA sequences that are repeated a number of times in a row. For example, a trinucleotide repeat is made up of 3-base-pair sequences, and a tetranucleotide repeat is made up of 4-base-pair sequences. A repeat expansion is a mutation that increases the number of times that the short DNA sequence is repeated. This type of mutation can cause the resulting protein to function improperly.
> 
> For more information about the types of gene mutations:
> 
> The National Human Genome Research Institute offers a Talking Glossary of Genetic Terms. This resource includes definitions, diagrams, and detailed audio descriptions of several of the gene mutations listed above.
> 
> 
> 
> Can a change in the number of genes affect health and development?
> 
> 
> People have two copies of most genes, one copy inherited from each parent. In some cases, however, the number of copies variesmeaning that a person can be born with one, three, or more copies of particular genes. Less commonly, one or more genes may be entirely missing. This type of genetic difference is known as copy number variation (CNV).
> 
> Copy number variation results from insertions, deletions, and duplications of large segments of DNA. These segments are big enough to include whole genes. Variation in gene copy number can influence the activity of genes and ultimately affect many body functions.
> 
> Researchers were surprised to learn that copy number variation accounts for a significant amount of genetic difference between people. More than 10 percent of human DNA appears to contain these differences in gene copy number. While much of this variation does not affect health or development, some differences likely influence a persons risk of disease and response to certain drugs. Future research will focus on the consequences of copy number variation in different parts of the genome and study the contribution of these variations to many types of disease.
> 
> 
> Can a change in the number of genes affect health and development? - Genetics Home Reference
> 
> This is very interesting read sure puts doubt on the chimp and human similarity.
> 
> HHMI News: Genetic Variation: We're More Different Than We Thought
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect"*
> 
> Thank you for providing another source that agrees with me.
> 
> What scientist says every species that's experienced macroevolution has done so solely by mutation?
> 
> I again ask you to at least educate yourself on what evolution is before you deny it.
> 
> Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Like everyone else said, you can't deny macroevolution and accept microevolution.  You're either a full blown science denier or you aren't.
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution.[131] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one  the difference is simply the time involved
Click to expand...


What that does is prove my point they are to rare to cause everything to evolve as evolutionist claim.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still missing the point,beneficial mutations are still to rare to evolve every creature that supposedly evolved.
> 
> You need to show mutations did indeed cause macro-evolution that has never been done for one species let alone every species that ever existed.
> 
> 
> 
> How can gene mutations affect health and development?
> 
> 
> To function correctly, each cell depends on thousands of proteins to do their jobs in the right places at the right times. Sometimes, gene mutations prevent one or more of these proteins from working properly. By changing a genes instructions for making a protein, a mutation can cause the protein to malfunction or to be missing entirely. When a mutation alters a protein that plays a critical role in the body, it can disrupt normal development or cause a medical condition. A condition caused by mutations in one or more genes is called a genetic disorder.
> 
> In some cases, gene mutations are so severe that they prevent an embryo from surviving until birth. These changes occur in genes that are essential for development, and often disrupt the development of an embryo in its earliest stages. Because these mutations have very serious effects, they are incompatible with life.
> 
> It is important to note that genes themselves do not cause diseasegenetic disorders are caused by mutations that make a gene function improperly. For example, when people say that someone has the cystic fibrosis gene, they are usually referring to a mutated version of the CFTR gene, which causes the disease. All people, including those without cystic fibrosis, have a version of the CFTR gene.
> 
> For more information about mutations and genetic disorders:
> 
> The National Cancer Institute provides additional information about how gene mutations can trigger disease:
> 
> 
> 
> Do all gene mutations affect health and development?
> 
> 
> No; only a small percentage of mutations cause genetic disordersmost have no impact on health or development. For example, some mutations alter a genes DNA base sequence but do not change the function of the protein made by the gene.
> 
> Often, gene mutations that could cause a genetic disorder are repaired by certain enzymes before the gene is expressed (makes a protein). Each cell has a number of pathways through which enzymes recognize and repair mistakes in DNA. Because DNA can be damaged or mutated in many ways, DNA repair is an important process by which the body protects itself from disease.
> 
> A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect. These mutations lead to new versions of proteins that help an organism and its future generations better adapt to changes in their environment. For example, a beneficial mutation could result in a protein that protects the organism from a new strain of bacteria.
> 
> For more information about DNA repair and the health effects of gene mutations:
> 
> The University of Utah Genetic Science Learning Center provides information about genetic disorders that explains why some mutations cause disorders but others do not.
> 
> Additional information about DNA repair is available from the NCBI Science Primer. In the chapter called What Is A Cell?, scroll down to the heading DNA Repair Mechanisms.
> 
> 
> 
> What kinds of gene mutations are possible?
> 
> 
> The DNA sequence of a gene can be altered in a number of ways. Gene mutations have varying effects on health, depending on where they occur and whether they alter the function of essential proteins. The types of mutations include:
> Missense mutation (illustration)
> This type of mutation is a change in one DNA base pair that results in the substitution of one amino acid for another in the protein made by a gene.
> Nonsense mutation (illustration)
> A nonsense mutation is also a change in one DNA base pair. Instead of substituting one amino acid for another, however, the altered DNA sequence prematurely signals the cell to stop building a protein. This type of mutation results in a shortened protein that may function improperly or not at all.
> Insertion (illustration)
> An insertion changes the number of DNA bases in a gene by adding a piece of DNA. As a result, the protein made by the gene may not function properly.
> Deletion (illustration)
> A deletion changes the number of DNA bases by removing a piece of DNA. Small deletions may remove one or a few base pairs within a gene, while larger deletions can remove an entire gene or several neighboring genes. The deleted DNA may alter the function of the resulting protein(s).
> Duplication (illustration)
> A duplication consists of a piece of DNA that is abnormally copied one or more times. This type of mutation may alter the function of the resulting protein.
> Frameshift mutation (illustration)
> This type of mutation occurs when the addition or loss of DNA bases changes a genes reading frame. A reading frame consists of groups of 3 bases that each code for one amino acid. A frameshift mutation shifts the grouping of these bases and changes the code for amino acids. The resulting protein is usually nonfunctional. Insertions, deletions, and duplications can all be frameshift mutations.
> Repeat expansion (illustration)
> Nucleotide repeats are short DNA sequences that are repeated a number of times in a row. For example, a trinucleotide repeat is made up of 3-base-pair sequences, and a tetranucleotide repeat is made up of 4-base-pair sequences. A repeat expansion is a mutation that increases the number of times that the short DNA sequence is repeated. This type of mutation can cause the resulting protein to function improperly.
> 
> For more information about the types of gene mutations:
> 
> The National Human Genome Research Institute offers a Talking Glossary of Genetic Terms. This resource includes definitions, diagrams, and detailed audio descriptions of several of the gene mutations listed above.
> 
> 
> 
> Can a change in the number of genes affect health and development?
> 
> 
> People have two copies of most genes, one copy inherited from each parent. In some cases, however, the number of copies variesmeaning that a person can be born with one, three, or more copies of particular genes. Less commonly, one or more genes may be entirely missing. This type of genetic difference is known as copy number variation (CNV).
> 
> Copy number variation results from insertions, deletions, and duplications of large segments of DNA. These segments are big enough to include whole genes. Variation in gene copy number can influence the activity of genes and ultimately affect many body functions.
> 
> Researchers were surprised to learn that copy number variation accounts for a significant amount of genetic difference between people. More than 10 percent of human DNA appears to contain these differences in gene copy number. While much of this variation does not affect health or development, some differences likely influence a persons risk of disease and response to certain drugs. Future research will focus on the consequences of copy number variation in different parts of the genome and study the contribution of these variations to many types of disease.
> 
> 
> Can a change in the number of genes affect health and development? - Genetics Home Reference
> 
> This is very interesting read sure puts doubt on the chimp and human similarity.
> 
> HHMI News: Genetic Variation: We're More Different Than We Thought
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect"*
> 
> Thank you for providing another source that agrees with me.
> 
> What scientist says every species that's experienced macroevolution has done so solely by mutation?
> 
> I again ask you to at least educate yourself on what evolution is before you deny it.
> 
> Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Like everyone else said, you can't deny macroevolution and accept microevolution.  You're either a full blown science denier or you aren't.
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution.[131] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one  the difference is simply the time involved
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What that does is prove my point they are to rare to cause everything to evolve as evolutionist claim.
Click to expand...


*What scientist says every species that's experienced macroevolution has done so solely by mutation?*


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still missing the point,beneficial mutations are still too rare to evolve every creature that supposedly evolved.
> 
> [snip wall of text that the poster doesn't understand]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a mathematical proof of this in your own words. Demonstrate that you understand
> 
> 1) How the process of evolution works according to current theory
> 2) How to calculate the probability of a key evolutionary development, say the emergence of photosynthesis or of the spinal column, over the time that actually was allowed for its development
> 3) How to calculate, from this, the probability of evolution resulting in the species development that we observe over time.
> 4) That this probability is insignificant.
> 
> No more walls of text, please. I'm satisfied you know how to cut and paste; you don't need to demonstrate that ability again.
Click to expand...


Did you not read anything drock posted so I am gonna repeat what he posted. And what I have learned over the years ?

How bout you explain it ,it's your theory and provide evidence to prove it.

I did for mine now It's your turn.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect"*
> 
> Thank you for providing another source that agrees with me.
> 
> What scientist says every species that's experienced macroevolution has done so solely by mutation?
> 
> I again ask you to at least educate yourself on what evolution is before you deny it.
> 
> Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Like everyone else said, you can't deny macroevolution and accept microevolution.  You're either a full blown science denier or you aren't.
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution.[131] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one  the difference is simply the time involved
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What that does is prove my point they are to rare to cause everything to evolve as evolutionist claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What scientist says every species that's experienced macroevolution has done so solely by mutation?*
Click to expand...


Surprise,surprise,I am quoting evolutionist that are explaining mutations since you do not like creationist explaining it to you. You didn't expect them to support my views do you ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still missing the point,beneficial mutations are still too rare to evolve every creature that supposedly evolved.
> 
> [snip wall of text that the poster doesn't understand]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a mathematical proof of this in your own words. Demonstrate that you understand
> 
> 1) How the process of evolution works according to current theory
> 2) How to calculate the probability of a key evolutionary development, say the emergence of photosynthesis or of the spinal column, over the time that actually was allowed for its development
> 3) How to calculate, from this, the probability of evolution resulting in the species development that we observe over time.
> 4) That this probability is insignificant.
> 
> No more walls of text, please. I'm satisfied you know how to cut and paste; you don't need to demonstrate that ability again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you not read anything drock posted so I am gonna repeat what he posted. And what I have learned over the years ?
> 
> How bout you explain it ,it's your theory and provide evidence to prove it.
> 
> I did for mine now It's your turn.
Click to expand...

Actually you didn't. You have refused to provide this evidence as directly asked of you.

It's also worth noting that you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What that does is prove my point they are to rare to cause everything to evolve as evolutionist claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What scientist says every species that's experienced macroevolution has done so solely by mutation?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surprise,surprise,I am quoting evolutionist that are explaining mutations since you do not like creationist explaining it to you. You didn't expect them to support my views do you ?
Click to expand...


No i don't expect scientists to support your views.

You keep saying scientists say mutations affected every species that's been a part of macroevolution, I'm saying that's horse shit, please provide proof of your assessment that ONE scientist says "mutations have affected every species."


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a mathematical proof of this in your own words. Demonstrate that you understand
> 
> 1) How the process of evolution works according to current theory
> 2) How to calculate the probability of a key evolutionary development, say the emergence of photosynthesis or of the spinal column, over the time that actually was allowed for its development
> 3) How to calculate, from this, the probability of evolution resulting in the species development that we observe over time.
> 4) That this probability is insignificant.
> 
> No more walls of text, please. I'm satisfied you know how to cut and paste; you don't need to demonstrate that ability again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not read anything drock posted so I am gonna repeat what he posted. And what I have learned over the years ?
> 
> How bout you explain it ,it's your theory and provide evidence to prove it.
> 
> I did for mine now It's your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you didn't. You have refused to provide this evidence as directly asked of you.
> 
> It's also worth noting that you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
Click to expand...


Go back and read and look at the pictures.

I don't need to prove creation because it is based on rational thought and faith do you understand this ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What scientist says every species that's experienced macroevolution has done so solely by mutation?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surprise,surprise,I am quoting evolutionist that are explaining mutations since you do not like creationist explaining it to you. You didn't expect them to support my views do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No i don't expect scientists to support your views.
> 
> You keep saying scientists say mutations affected every species that's been a part of macroevolution, I'm saying that's horse shit, please provide proof of your assessment that ONE scientist says "mutations have affected every species."
Click to expand...


Is every living organism a product of evolution or not ?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprise,surprise,I am quoting evolutionist that are explaining mutations since you do not like creationist explaining it to you. You didn't expect them to support my views do you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No i don't expect scientists to support your views.
> 
> You keep saying scientists say mutations affected every species that's been a part of macroevolution, I'm saying that's horse shit, please provide proof of your assessment that ONE scientist says "mutations have affected every species."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is every living organism a product of evolution or not ?
Click to expand...


Yes of course.

But that's not even remotely similar to your assessment that scientists say all organisms that have evolved have done so because of mutations.

Can you provide proof of that?  Or are you going to admit you lied again?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not read anything drock posted so I am gonna repeat what he posted. And what I have learned over the years ?
> 
> How bout you explain it ,it's your theory and provide evidence to prove it.
> 
> I did for mine now It's your turn.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you didn't. You have refused to provide this evidence as directly asked of you.
> 
> It's also worth noting that you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back and read and look at the pictures.
> 
> I don't need to prove creation because it is based on rational thought and faith do you understand this ?
Click to expand...

No. There's nothing to read; you provided no pictures. So explain it to me. Rational thought and faith are mutually exclusive; you cannot have faith based upon rational thoughts, and you cannot have rational thoughts based upon faith.

Besides, I didn't ask you to explain creation, but if you are going to claim that you explained your theory, then you better cowboy up and explain your fucking theory--which you have refused to do despite having it directly asked of you.

You've had every opportunity to level up, son--seriously. Get on board, your intellectual dishonesty is not doing any favors for those who share your beliefs


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> No i don't expect scientists to support your views.
> 
> You keep saying scientists say mutations affected every species that's been a part of macroevolution, I'm saying that's horse shit, please provide proof of your assessment that ONE scientist says "mutations have affected every species."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is every living organism a product of evolution or not ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes of course.
> 
> But that's not even remotely similar to your assessment that scientists say all organisms that have evolved have done so because of mutations.
> 
> Can you provide proof of that?  Or are you going to admit you lied again?
Click to expand...


Oh if I said that I made a mistake. Because I made the point yesterday that variations in a family was due to inter and cross-breeding not mutations.

What they do say is every family of organisms evolved from another family of organisms through mutations and that still presents a problem because of all the different family of organisms.

How Many Species? A Study Says 8.7 Million, but It&#8217;s Tricky

By CARL ZIMMER

Published: August 23, 2011 



Recommend
Twitter
Linkedin
 Sign In to E-Mail 
Print 


Reprints 
Share





. 



In the foothills of the Andes Mountains lives a bat the size of a raspberry. In Singapore, there&#8217;s a nematode worm that dwells only in the lungs of the changeable lizard. 



RSS Feed


Get Science News From The New York Times » 
. 

The bat and the worm have something in common: They are both new to science. Each of them recently received its official scientific name: Myotis diminutus for the bat, Rhabdias singaporensis for the worm. 

These are certainly not the last two species that scientists will ever discover. Each year, researchers report more than 15,000 new species, and their workload shows no sign of letting up. &#8220;Ask any taxonomist in a museum, and they&#8217;ll tell you they have hundreds of species waiting to be described,&#8221; says Camilo Mora, a marine ecologist at the University of Hawaii. 

Scientists have named and cataloged 1.3 million species. How many more species there are left to discover is a question that has hovered like a cloud over the heads of taxonomists for two centuries. 

&#8220;It&#8217;s astounding that we don&#8217;t know the most basic thing about life,&#8221; said Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia. 

On Tuesday, Dr. Worm, Dr. Mora and their colleagues presented the latest estimate of how many species there are, based on a new method they have developed. They estimate there are 8.7 million species on the planet, plus or minus 1.3 million. 

The new paper, published in the journal PLoS Biology, is drawing strong reactions from other experts. &#8220;In my opinion this is a very important paper,&#8221; said Angela Brandt, a marine biologist at the University of Hamburg in Germany. But critics say that the method in the new paper can&#8217;t work, and that Earth&#8217;s true diversity is far greater. 

In 1833, a British entomologist named John Obadiah Westwood made the earliest known estimate of global biodiversity by guessing how many insect species there are. He estimated how many species of insects lived on each plant species in England, and then extrapolated that figure across the whole planet. &#8220;If we say 400,000, we shall, perhaps, not be very wide of the truth,&#8221; he wrote. 

Today, scientists know the Westwood figure is far too low. They&#8217;ve already found more than a million insect species, and their discovery rate shows no signs of slowing down. 

In recent decades, scientists have looked for better ways to determine how many species are left to find. In 1988, Robert May, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford, observed that the diversity of land animals increases as they get smaller. He reasoned that we probably have found most of the species of big animals, like mammals and birds, so he used their diversity to calculate the diversity of smaller animals. He ended up with an estimate 10 to 50 million species of land animals. 

Other estimates have ranged from as few as 3 million to as many as 100 million. Dr. Mora and his colleagues believed that all of these estimates were flawed in one way or another. Most seriously, there was no way to validate the methods used, to be sure they were reliable. 

For the new estimate, the scientists came up with a method of their own, based on how taxonomists classify species. Each species belongs to a larger group called a genus, which belongs to a larger group called a family, and so on. We humans, for example, belong to the class of mammals, along with about 5,500 other species. 

In 2002, researchers at the University of Rome published a paper in which they used these higher groups to estimate the diversity of plants around Italy. At three different sites, they noted the number of genera, families and so on. There were fewer higher-level groups than lower ones at each site, like the layers of a pyramid. The scientists could estimate how many species there were at each site, much as it&#8217;s possible to estimate how big the bottom layer of a pyramid based on the rest of it. 

The paper drew little notice at the time, but Dr. Mora and his colleagues seized on it, hoping to use the method to estimate all the species on Earth. They charted the discovery of new classes of animals since 1750. The total number climbed steeply for the first 150 years and then began to crest &#8212; a sign that we&#8217;re getting close to finding all the classes of animal. They found that the discovery rate of other high-level groups has also been slowing down. The scientists built a taxonomic pyramid to estimate the total number of species in well-studied groups, like mammals and birds. They consistently made good predictions. 

Confident in their method, the scientists then used it on all major groups of species, coming up with estimates of 7.7 million species of animals, for example, and 298,000 species of plants. Although the land makes up 29 percent of the Earth&#8217;s surface, the scientists concluded that it is home to 86 percent of the world&#8217;s species. 

&#8220;I think it is an interesting and imaginative new approach to the important question of how many species actually are alive on earth today,&#8221; said Lord May. 

But Terry Erwin, an entomologist at the Smithsonian Institution, think there&#8217;s a big flaw in the study. There&#8217;s no reason to assume that the diversity in little-studied groups will follow the rules of well-studied ones. &#8220;They&#8217;re measuring human activity, not biodiversity,&#8221; he said. 

David Pollock, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Colorado who studies fungi &#8212; a particularly understudied group &#8212; agrees. &#8220;This appears to be an incredibly ill-founded approach,&#8221; he said. There are 43,271 cataloged species of fungi, based on which Dr. Mora and his colleagues estimate there are 660,000 species of fungi on Earth. But other studies on fungus diversity suggest the number may be as high as 5.1 million species. 

The authors of the new study acknowledge that their method doesn&#8217;t work well with bacteria. Scientists have only started to really dig into the biodiversity of microbes, and so they are finding high-level groups of bacteria at a brisk pace. Dr. Mora and his colleagues write that their estimate &#8212; about 10,000 species &#8212; should be considered a &#8220;lower bound.&#8221; 

Microbiologists, on the other hand, are fairly sure the diversity of microbes will turn out to dwarf the diversity of animals. A single spoonful of soil may contain 10,000 different species of bacteria, many of which are new to science. 

Jonathan Eisen, an expert on microbial diversity at the University of California, Davis, said he found the new paper disappointing. 

&#8220;This is akin to saying, &#8216;Dinosaurs roamed the Earth more than 500 years ago,&#8217; &#8221; he said. &#8220;While true, what is the point of saying it?&#8221;


It's evolutionist problem they are the ones making the claims knowing that beneficial mutations through natural selection is how over eons of time macroevolution took place. Knowing how rare beneficial mutations really are that is problem they need to overcome.

My prediction eventually as more evidence comes to light they will abandon the theory of Neo Darwinism.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> It's evolutionist problem they are the ones making the claims knowing that beneficial mutations through natural selection is how over eons of time macroevolution took place. Knowing how rare beneficial mutations really are that is problem they need to overcome.


Disingenuously asserted misrepresentation.



Youwerecreated said:


> My prediction eventually as more evidence comes to light they will abandon the theory of Neo Darwinism.


The predictions of intellectually dishonest superstitious retards like yourself are as meaningless as the terms you use to avoid validly explaining your dumbass beliefs.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you didn't. You have refused to provide this evidence as directly asked of you.
> 
> It's also worth noting that you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read and look at the pictures.
> 
> I don't need to prove creation because it is based on rational thought and faith do you understand this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There's nothing to read; you provided no pictures. So explain it to me. Rational thought and faith are mutually exclusive; you cannot have faith based upon rational thoughts, and you cannot have rational thoughts based upon faith.
> 
> Besides, I didn't ask you to explain creation, but if you are going to claim that you explained your theory, then you better cowboy up and explain your fucking theory--which you have refused to do despite having it directly asked of you.
> 
> You've had every opportunity to level up, son--seriously. Get on board, your intellectual dishonesty is not doing any favors for those who share your beliefs
Click to expand...


Morphological change can be seen in the very first offspring of two different breeds from the same family from cross breeding. That is how you can explain variations within a family.

That also explains why so few fossils found look like each other they were products of cross breeding and they died out or bred back into the family and those traits were lost.

If man was not crossing lions and tigers and or buffalo and cattle they would die out because they would probably not cross breed in the wild. But they know cross breeding in the wild has happened.

You notice that just like in our cities most races keep to themselves but they do mix but not enough to make a new race. Most breeds of animals not in the wild were the result of selective breeding.

In the wild I think God had something to do with creating the different animals we classify as a family.Surely if he created them he had the ability to create diversity.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's evolutionist problem they are the ones making the claims knowing that beneficial mutations through natural selection is how over eons of time macroevolution took place. Knowing how rare beneficial mutations really are that is problem they need to overcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Disingenuously asserted misrepresentation.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My prediction eventually as more evidence comes to light they will abandon the theory of Neo Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The predictions of intellectually dishonest superstitious retards like yourself are as meaningless as the terms you use to avoid validly explaining your dumbass beliefs.
Click to expand...


Explain the misrepresentation ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you didn't. You have refused to provide this evidence as directly asked of you.
> 
> It's also worth noting that you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read and look at the pictures.
> 
> I don't need to prove creation because it is based on rational thought and faith do you understand this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There's nothing to read; you provided no pictures. So explain it to me. Rational thought and faith are mutually exclusive; you cannot have faith based upon rational thoughts, and you cannot have rational thoughts based upon faith.
> 
> Besides, I didn't ask you to explain creation, but if you are going to claim that you explained your theory, then you better cowboy up and explain your fucking theory--which you have refused to do despite having it directly asked of you.
> 
> You've had every opportunity to level up, son--seriously. Get on board, your intellectual dishonesty is not doing any favors for those who share your beliefs
Click to expand...


Ask dragon he read it.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is every living organism a product of evolution or not ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course.
> 
> But that's not even remotely similar to your assessment that scientists say all organisms that have evolved have done so because of mutations.
> 
> Can you provide proof of that?  Or are you going to admit you lied again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh if I said that I made a mistake. Because I made the point yesterday that variations in a family was due to inter and cross-breeding not mutations.
> 
> What they do say is every family of organisms evolved from another family of organisms throught mutations and that still presents a problem because of all the different faily of organisms.
> 
> How Many Species? A Study Says 8.7 Million, but Its Tricky
> 
> By CARL ZIMMER
> 
> Published: August 23, 2011
> 
> 
> 
> Recommend
> Twitter
> Linkedin
> Sign In to E-Mail
> Print
> 
> 
> Reprints
> Share
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> In the foothills of the Andes Mountains lives a bat the size of a raspberry. In Singapore, theres a nematode worm that dwells only in the lungs of the changeable lizard.
> 
> 
> 
> RSS Feed
> 
> 
> Get Science News From The New York Times »
> .
> 
> The bat and the worm have something in common: They are both new to science. Each of them recently received its official scientific name: Myotis diminutus for the bat, Rhabdias singaporensis for the worm.
> 
> These are certainly not the last two species that scientists will ever discover. Each year, researchers report more than 15,000 new species, and their workload shows no sign of letting up. Ask any taxonomist in a museum, and theyll tell you they have hundreds of species waiting to be described, says Camilo Mora, a marine ecologist at the University of Hawaii.
> 
> Scientists have named and cataloged 1.3 million species. How many more species there are left to discover is a question that has hovered like a cloud over the heads of taxonomists for two centuries.
> 
> Its astounding that we dont know the most basic thing about life, said Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia.
> 
> On Tuesday, Dr. Worm, Dr. Mora and their colleagues presented the latest estimate of how many species there are, based on a new method they have developed. They estimate there are 8.7 million species on the planet, plus or minus 1.3 million.
> 
> The new paper, published in the journal PLoS Biology, is drawing strong reactions from other experts. In my opinion this is a very important paper, said Angela Brandt, a marine biologist at the University of Hamburg in Germany. But critics say that the method in the new paper cant work, and that Earths true diversity is far greater.
> 
> In 1833, a British entomologist named John Obadiah Westwood made the earliest known estimate of global biodiversity by guessing how many insect species there are. He estimated how many species of insects lived on each plant species in England, and then extrapolated that figure across the whole planet. If we say 400,000, we shall, perhaps, not be very wide of the truth, he wrote.
> 
> Today, scientists know the Westwood figure is far too low. Theyve already found more than a million insect species, and their discovery rate shows no signs of slowing down.
> 
> In recent decades, scientists have looked for better ways to determine how many species are left to find. In 1988, Robert May, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford, observed that the diversity of land animals increases as they get smaller. He reasoned that we probably have found most of the species of big animals, like mammals and birds, so he used their diversity to calculate the diversity of smaller animals. He ended up with an estimate 10 to 50 million species of land animals.
> 
> Other estimates have ranged from as few as 3 million to as many as 100 million. Dr. Mora and his colleagues believed that all of these estimates were flawed in one way or another. Most seriously, there was no way to validate the methods used, to be sure they were reliable.
> 
> For the new estimate, the scientists came up with a method of their own, based on how taxonomists classify species. Each species belongs to a larger group called a genus, which belongs to a larger group called a family, and so on. We humans, for example, belong to the class of mammals, along with about 5,500 other species.
> 
> In 2002, researchers at the University of Rome published a paper in which they used these higher groups to estimate the diversity of plants around Italy. At three different sites, they noted the number of genera, families and so on. There were fewer higher-level groups than lower ones at each site, like the layers of a pyramid. The scientists could estimate how many species there were at each site, much as its possible to estimate how big the bottom layer of a pyramid based on the rest of it.
> 
> The paper drew little notice at the time, but Dr. Mora and his colleagues seized on it, hoping to use the method to estimate all the species on Earth. They charted the discovery of new classes of animals since 1750. The total number climbed steeply for the first 150 years and then began to crest  a sign that were getting close to finding all the classes of animal. They found that the discovery rate of other high-level groups has also been slowing down. The scientists built a taxonomic pyramid to estimate the total number of species in well-studied groups, like mammals and birds. They consistently made good predictions.
> 
> Confident in their method, the scientists then used it on all major groups of species, coming up with estimates of 7.7 million species of animals, for example, and 298,000 species of plants. Although the land makes up 29 percent of the Earths surface, the scientists concluded that it is home to 86 percent of the worlds species.
> 
> I think it is an interesting and imaginative new approach to the important question of how many species actually are alive on earth today, said Lord May.
> 
> But Terry Erwin, an entomologist at the Smithsonian Institution, think theres a big flaw in the study. Theres no reason to assume that the diversity in little-studied groups will follow the rules of well-studied ones. Theyre measuring human activity, not biodiversity, he said.
> 
> David Pollock, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Colorado who studies fungi  a particularly understudied group  agrees. This appears to be an incredibly ill-founded approach, he said. There are 43,271 cataloged species of fungi, based on which Dr. Mora and his colleagues estimate there are 660,000 species of fungi on Earth. But other studies on fungus diversity suggest the number may be as high as 5.1 million species.
> 
> The authors of the new study acknowledge that their method doesnt work well with bacteria. Scientists have only started to really dig into the biodiversity of microbes, and so they are finding high-level groups of bacteria at a brisk pace. Dr. Mora and his colleagues write that their estimate  about 10,000 species  should be considered a lower bound.
> 
> Microbiologists, on the other hand, are fairly sure the diversity of microbes will turn out to dwarf the diversity of animals. A single spoonful of soil may contain 10,000 different species of bacteria, many of which are new to science.
> 
> Jonathan Eisen, an expert on microbial diversity at the University of California, Davis, said he found the new paper disappointing.
> 
> This is akin to saying, Dinosaurs roamed the Earth more than 500 years ago,  he said. While true, what is the point of saying it?
> 
> 
> It's evolutionist problem they are the ones making the claims knowing that beneficial mutations through natural selection is how over eons of time macroevolution took place. Knowing how rare beneficial mutations really are that is problem they need to overcome.
> 
> My prediction eventually as more evidence comes to light they will abandon the theory of Neo Darwinism.
Click to expand...


Your article never once mentions mutation, and I have no idea why you posted it.  Scientists have different estimations about how many species there are?  So what?

Every other article and link you've provided says beneficial mutations happen, I'm glad they agree with me and I'm not sure why you'd post articles and links that state the exact opposite of what you're trying to convince us.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Morphological change can be seen in the very first offspring of two different breeds from the same family from cross breeding. That is how you can explain variations within a family.


Members from the same family cannot cross-breed unless they belong to the same species.

Really, you're just restating the obvious fact that breeding pairs that belong to the same species (exhibiting some degree of variation) also belong to the same family--a point that has never been in contention.



Youwerecreated said:


> That also explains why so few fossils found look like each other they were products of cross breeding and they died out or bred back into the family and those traits were lost.


Meaningless for the reason that your interchangeable use of the terms "species" and "family" are meaningless.



Youwerecreated said:


> If man was ...
> 
> ---_WORTHLESS SUPERSTITIOUS CONJECTURES SNIPPED_---
> 
> ... had the ability to create diversity.


Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's evolutionist problem they are the ones making the claims knowing that beneficial mutations through natural selection is how over eons of time macroevolution took place. Knowing how rare beneficial mutations really are that is problem they need to overcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Disingenuously asserted misrepresentation.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My prediction eventually as more evidence comes to light they will abandon the theory of Neo Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The predictions of intellectually dishonest superstitious retards like yourself are as meaningless as the terms you use to avoid validly explaining your dumbass beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain the misrepresentation ?
Click to expand...

First, there's no problem to overcome. Second, "microevolution" is how over eons of time is how evolutionists explain how "macroevolution" place.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read and look at the pictures.
> 
> I don't need to prove creation because it is based on rational thought and faith do you understand this ?
> 
> 
> 
> No. There's nothing to read; you provided no pictures. So explain it to me. Rational thought and faith are mutually exclusive; you cannot have faith based upon rational thoughts, and you cannot have rational thoughts based upon faith.
> 
> Besides, I didn't ask you to explain creation, but if you are going to claim that you explained your theory, then you better cowboy up and explain your fucking theory--which you have refused to do despite having it directly asked of you.
> 
> You've had every opportunity to level up, son--seriously. Get on board, your intellectual dishonesty is not doing any favors for those who share your beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask dragon he read it.
Click to expand...

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course.
> 
> But that's not even remotely similar to your assessment that scientists say all organisms that have evolved have done so because of mutations.
> 
> Can you provide proof of that?  Or are you going to admit you lied again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh if I said that I made a mistake. Because I made the point yesterday that variations in a family was due to inter and cross-breeding not mutations.
> 
> What they do say is every family of organisms evolved from another family of organisms throught mutations and that still presents a problem because of all the different faily of organisms.
> 
> How Many Species? A Study Says 8.7 Million, but Its Tricky
> 
> By CARL ZIMMER
> 
> Published: August 23, 2011
> 
> 
> 
> Recommend
> Twitter
> Linkedin
> Sign In to E-Mail
> Print
> 
> 
> Reprints
> Share
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> In the foothills of the Andes Mountains lives a bat the size of a raspberry. In Singapore, theres a nematode worm that dwells only in the lungs of the changeable lizard.
> 
> 
> 
> RSS Feed
> 
> 
> Get Science News From The New York Times »
> .
> 
> The bat and the worm have something in common: They are both new to science. Each of them recently received its official scientific name: Myotis diminutus for the bat, Rhabdias singaporensis for the worm.
> 
> These are certainly not the last two species that scientists will ever discover. Each year, researchers report more than 15,000 new species, and their workload shows no sign of letting up. Ask any taxonomist in a museum, and theyll tell you they have hundreds of species waiting to be described, says Camilo Mora, a marine ecologist at the University of Hawaii.
> 
> Scientists have named and cataloged 1.3 million species. How many more species there are left to discover is a question that has hovered like a cloud over the heads of taxonomists for two centuries.
> 
> Its astounding that we dont know the most basic thing about life, said Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia.
> 
> On Tuesday, Dr. Worm, Dr. Mora and their colleagues presented the latest estimate of how many species there are, based on a new method they have developed. They estimate there are 8.7 million species on the planet, plus or minus 1.3 million.
> 
> The new paper, published in the journal PLoS Biology, is drawing strong reactions from other experts. In my opinion this is a very important paper, said Angela Brandt, a marine biologist at the University of Hamburg in Germany. But critics say that the method in the new paper cant work, and that Earths true diversity is far greater.
> 
> In 1833, a British entomologist named John Obadiah Westwood made the earliest known estimate of global biodiversity by guessing how many insect species there are. He estimated how many species of insects lived on each plant species in England, and then extrapolated that figure across the whole planet. If we say 400,000, we shall, perhaps, not be very wide of the truth, he wrote.
> 
> Today, scientists know the Westwood figure is far too low. Theyve already found more than a million insect species, and their discovery rate shows no signs of slowing down.
> 
> In recent decades, scientists have looked for better ways to determine how many species are left to find. In 1988, Robert May, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford, observed that the diversity of land animals increases as they get smaller. He reasoned that we probably have found most of the species of big animals, like mammals and birds, so he used their diversity to calculate the diversity of smaller animals. He ended up with an estimate 10 to 50 million species of land animals.
> 
> Other estimates have ranged from as few as 3 million to as many as 100 million. Dr. Mora and his colleagues believed that all of these estimates were flawed in one way or another. Most seriously, there was no way to validate the methods used, to be sure they were reliable.
> 
> For the new estimate, the scientists came up with a method of their own, based on how taxonomists classify species. Each species belongs to a larger group called a genus, which belongs to a larger group called a family, and so on. We humans, for example, belong to the class of mammals, along with about 5,500 other species.
> 
> In 2002, researchers at the University of Rome published a paper in which they used these higher groups to estimate the diversity of plants around Italy. At three different sites, they noted the number of genera, families and so on. There were fewer higher-level groups than lower ones at each site, like the layers of a pyramid. The scientists could estimate how many species there were at each site, much as its possible to estimate how big the bottom layer of a pyramid based on the rest of it.
> 
> The paper drew little notice at the time, but Dr. Mora and his colleagues seized on it, hoping to use the method to estimate all the species on Earth. They charted the discovery of new classes of animals since 1750. The total number climbed steeply for the first 150 years and then began to crest  a sign that were getting close to finding all the classes of animal. They found that the discovery rate of other high-level groups has also been slowing down. The scientists built a taxonomic pyramid to estimate the total number of species in well-studied groups, like mammals and birds. They consistently made good predictions.
> 
> Confident in their method, the scientists then used it on all major groups of species, coming up with estimates of 7.7 million species of animals, for example, and 298,000 species of plants. Although the land makes up 29 percent of the Earths surface, the scientists concluded that it is home to 86 percent of the worlds species.
> 
> I think it is an interesting and imaginative new approach to the important question of how many species actually are alive on earth today, said Lord May.
> 
> But Terry Erwin, an entomologist at the Smithsonian Institution, think theres a big flaw in the study. Theres no reason to assume that the diversity in little-studied groups will follow the rules of well-studied ones. Theyre measuring human activity, not biodiversity, he said.
> 
> David Pollock, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Colorado who studies fungi  a particularly understudied group  agrees. This appears to be an incredibly ill-founded approach, he said. There are 43,271 cataloged species of fungi, based on which Dr. Mora and his colleagues estimate there are 660,000 species of fungi on Earth. But other studies on fungus diversity suggest the number may be as high as 5.1 million species.
> 
> The authors of the new study acknowledge that their method doesnt work well with bacteria. Scientists have only started to really dig into the biodiversity of microbes, and so they are finding high-level groups of bacteria at a brisk pace. Dr. Mora and his colleagues write that their estimate  about 10,000 species  should be considered a lower bound.
> 
> Microbiologists, on the other hand, are fairly sure the diversity of microbes will turn out to dwarf the diversity of animals. A single spoonful of soil may contain 10,000 different species of bacteria, many of which are new to science.
> 
> Jonathan Eisen, an expert on microbial diversity at the University of California, Davis, said he found the new paper disappointing.
> 
> This is akin to saying, Dinosaurs roamed the Earth more than 500 years ago,  he said. While true, what is the point of saying it?
> 
> 
> It's evolutionist problem they are the ones making the claims knowing that beneficial mutations through natural selection is how over eons of time macroevolution took place. Knowing how rare beneficial mutations really are that is problem they need to overcome.
> 
> My prediction eventually as more evidence comes to light they will abandon the theory of Neo Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your article never once mentions mutation, and I have no idea why you posted it.  Scientists have different estimations about how many species there are?  So what?
> 
> Every other article and link you've provided says beneficial mutations happen, I'm glad they agree with me and I'm not sure why you'd post articles and links that state the exact opposite of what you're trying to convince us.
Click to expand...


The point is there are too many family of organisms to evolve over time through beneficial mutations,Because they are so rare.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morphological change can be seen in the very first offspring of two different breeds from the same family from cross breeding. That is how you can explain variations within a family.
> 
> 
> 
> Members from the same family cannot cross-breed unless they belong to the same species.
> 
> Really, you're just restating the obvious fact that breeding pairs that belong to the same species (exhibiting some degree of variation) also belong to the same family--a point that has never been in contention.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That also explains why so few fossils found look like each other they were products of cross breeding and they died out or bred back into the family and those traits were lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless for the reason that your interchangeable use of the terms "species" and "family" are meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If man was ...
> 
> ---_WORTHLESS SUPERSTITIOUS CONJECTURES SNIPPED_---
> 
> ... had the ability to create diversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
Click to expand...


Do you consider lions and tigers different species ? How bout the buffalo and cattle ?

How bout the coyote and domestic dog ? How bout a horse and zebra ?

How bout a chimp and ape ?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh if I said that I made a mistake. Because I made the point yesterday that variations in a family was due to inter and cross-breeding not mutations.
> 
> What they do say is every family of organisms evolved from another family of organisms throught mutations and that still presents a problem because of all the different faily of organisms.
> 
> How Many Species? A Study Says 8.7 Million, but Its Tricky
> 
> By CARL ZIMMER
> 
> Published: August 23, 2011
> 
> 
> 
> Recommend
> Twitter
> Linkedin
> Sign In to E-Mail
> Print
> 
> 
> Reprints
> Share
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> In the foothills of the Andes Mountains lives a bat the size of a raspberry. In Singapore, theres a nematode worm that dwells only in the lungs of the changeable lizard.
> 
> 
> 
> RSS Feed
> 
> 
> Get Science News From The New York Times »
> .
> 
> The bat and the worm have something in common: They are both new to science. Each of them recently received its official scientific name: Myotis diminutus for the bat, Rhabdias singaporensis for the worm.
> 
> These are certainly not the last two species that scientists will ever discover. Each year, researchers report more than 15,000 new species, and their workload shows no sign of letting up. Ask any taxonomist in a museum, and theyll tell you they have hundreds of species waiting to be described, says Camilo Mora, a marine ecologist at the University of Hawaii.
> 
> Scientists have named and cataloged 1.3 million species. How many more species there are left to discover is a question that has hovered like a cloud over the heads of taxonomists for two centuries.
> 
> Its astounding that we dont know the most basic thing about life, said Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia.
> 
> On Tuesday, Dr. Worm, Dr. Mora and their colleagues presented the latest estimate of how many species there are, based on a new method they have developed. They estimate there are 8.7 million species on the planet, plus or minus 1.3 million.
> 
> The new paper, published in the journal PLoS Biology, is drawing strong reactions from other experts. In my opinion this is a very important paper, said Angela Brandt, a marine biologist at the University of Hamburg in Germany. But critics say that the method in the new paper cant work, and that Earths true diversity is far greater.
> 
> In 1833, a British entomologist named John Obadiah Westwood made the earliest known estimate of global biodiversity by guessing how many insect species there are. He estimated how many species of insects lived on each plant species in England, and then extrapolated that figure across the whole planet. If we say 400,000, we shall, perhaps, not be very wide of the truth, he wrote.
> 
> Today, scientists know the Westwood figure is far too low. Theyve already found more than a million insect species, and their discovery rate shows no signs of slowing down.
> 
> In recent decades, scientists have looked for better ways to determine how many species are left to find. In 1988, Robert May, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford, observed that the diversity of land animals increases as they get smaller. He reasoned that we probably have found most of the species of big animals, like mammals and birds, so he used their diversity to calculate the diversity of smaller animals. He ended up with an estimate 10 to 50 million species of land animals.
> 
> Other estimates have ranged from as few as 3 million to as many as 100 million. Dr. Mora and his colleagues believed that all of these estimates were flawed in one way or another. Most seriously, there was no way to validate the methods used, to be sure they were reliable.
> 
> For the new estimate, the scientists came up with a method of their own, based on how taxonomists classify species. Each species belongs to a larger group called a genus, which belongs to a larger group called a family, and so on. We humans, for example, belong to the class of mammals, along with about 5,500 other species.
> 
> In 2002, researchers at the University of Rome published a paper in which they used these higher groups to estimate the diversity of plants around Italy. At three different sites, they noted the number of genera, families and so on. There were fewer higher-level groups than lower ones at each site, like the layers of a pyramid. The scientists could estimate how many species there were at each site, much as its possible to estimate how big the bottom layer of a pyramid based on the rest of it.
> 
> The paper drew little notice at the time, but Dr. Mora and his colleagues seized on it, hoping to use the method to estimate all the species on Earth. They charted the discovery of new classes of animals since 1750. The total number climbed steeply for the first 150 years and then began to crest  a sign that were getting close to finding all the classes of animal. They found that the discovery rate of other high-level groups has also been slowing down. The scientists built a taxonomic pyramid to estimate the total number of species in well-studied groups, like mammals and birds. They consistently made good predictions.
> 
> Confident in their method, the scientists then used it on all major groups of species, coming up with estimates of 7.7 million species of animals, for example, and 298,000 species of plants. Although the land makes up 29 percent of the Earths surface, the scientists concluded that it is home to 86 percent of the worlds species.
> 
> I think it is an interesting and imaginative new approach to the important question of how many species actually are alive on earth today, said Lord May.
> 
> But Terry Erwin, an entomologist at the Smithsonian Institution, think theres a big flaw in the study. Theres no reason to assume that the diversity in little-studied groups will follow the rules of well-studied ones. Theyre measuring human activity, not biodiversity, he said.
> 
> David Pollock, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Colorado who studies fungi  a particularly understudied group  agrees. This appears to be an incredibly ill-founded approach, he said. There are 43,271 cataloged species of fungi, based on which Dr. Mora and his colleagues estimate there are 660,000 species of fungi on Earth. But other studies on fungus diversity suggest the number may be as high as 5.1 million species.
> 
> The authors of the new study acknowledge that their method doesnt work well with bacteria. Scientists have only started to really dig into the biodiversity of microbes, and so they are finding high-level groups of bacteria at a brisk pace. Dr. Mora and his colleagues write that their estimate  about 10,000 species  should be considered a lower bound.
> 
> Microbiologists, on the other hand, are fairly sure the diversity of microbes will turn out to dwarf the diversity of animals. A single spoonful of soil may contain 10,000 different species of bacteria, many of which are new to science.
> 
> Jonathan Eisen, an expert on microbial diversity at the University of California, Davis, said he found the new paper disappointing.
> 
> This is akin to saying, Dinosaurs roamed the Earth more than 500 years ago,  he said. While true, what is the point of saying it?
> 
> 
> It's evolutionist problem they are the ones making the claims knowing that beneficial mutations through natural selection is how over eons of time macroevolution took place. Knowing how rare beneficial mutations really are that is problem they need to overcome.
> 
> My prediction eventually as more evidence comes to light they will abandon the theory of Neo Darwinism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your article never once mentions mutation, and I have no idea why you posted it.  Scientists have different estimations about how many species there are?  So what?
> 
> Every other article and link you've provided says beneficial mutations happen, I'm glad they agree with me and I'm not sure why you'd post articles and links that state the exact opposite of what you're trying to convince us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is there are too many family of organisms to evolve over time through beneficial mutations,Because they are so rare.
Click to expand...


What number is too many?

100?  1,000? 1 million? 10 million?

And after you answer that question, please give me proof as to why that's too many species for mutations to have a hand in evolution.

Thank you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disingenuously asserted misrepresentation.
> 
> The predictions of intellectually dishonest superstitious retards like yourself are as meaningless as the terms you use to avoid validly explaining your dumbass beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain the misrepresentation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, there's no problem to overcome. Second, "microevolution" is how over eons of time is how evolutionists explain how "macroevolution" place.
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
Click to expand...


Lets see if you can define kind here ,which so happens the word species did not exist in the Hebrew language at the time of the writing of the scriptures.

11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.

Sounds like the seed contained the genetics to know what to produce.

12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good

20. And God said, "Let the waters swarm a swarming of living creatures, and let fowl fly over the earth, across the expanse of the heavens."   
21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good. 


22. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let the fowl multiply upon the earth."

24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

So can you reason out what the important term means you keep asking about.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> So can you reason out what the important term means you keep asking about.



No. These statements from the Bible are too vague for that. Besides, it is YOUR term, so it is YOUR job to define it.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morphological change can be seen in the very first offspring of two different breeds from the same family from cross breeding. That is how you can explain variations within a family.
> 
> 
> 
> Members from the same family cannot cross-breed unless they belong to the same species.
> 
> Really, you're just restating the obvious fact that breeding pairs that belong to the same species (exhibiting some degree of variation) also belong to the same family--a point that has never been in contention.
> 
> Meaningless for the reason that your interchangeable use of the terms "species" and "family" are meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If man was ...
> 
> ---_WORTHLESS SUPERSTITIOUS CONJECTURES SNIPPED_---
> 
> ... had the ability to create diversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider lions and tigers different species ? How bout the buffalo and cattle ?
> 
> How bout the coyote and domestic dog ? How bout a horse and zebra ?
> 
> How bout a chimp and ape ?
Click to expand...

No.

*Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."*

*And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own continued refusal to answer questions directed at you.*


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain the misrepresentation ?
> 
> 
> 
> First, there's no problem to overcome. Second, "microevolution" is how over eons of time is how evolutionists explain how "macroevolution" place.
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets see if you can define kind here ,which so happens the word species did not exist in the Hebrew language at the time of the writing of the scriptures.
> 
> 11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.
> 
> Sounds like the seed contained the genetics to know what to produce.
> 
> 12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good
> 
> 20. And God said, "Let the waters swarm a swarming of living creatures, and let fowl fly over the earth, across the expanse of the heavens."
> 21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> 22. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let the fowl multiply upon the earth."
> 
> 24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.
> 
> 25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.
> 
> So can you reason out what the important term means you keep asking about.
Click to expand...

*Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
*


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Did you not read anything drock posted so I am gonna repeat what he posted. And what I have learned over the years ?



Good. Like I said, I'm not interested in having you re-post walls of text that you don't even understand. I want this in your own words.



> How bout you explain it ,it's your theory and provide evidence to prove it.



Wrong. It was you, not I, who claimed that it was mathematically impossible for evolution to have produced the results we see. As that is your assertion, not mine, it is your burden of proof, not mine.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Members from the same family cannot cross-breed unless they belong to the same species.
> 
> Really, you're just restating the obvious fact that breeding pairs that belong to the same species (exhibiting some degree of variation) also belong to the same family--a point that has never been in contention.
> 
> Meaningless for the reason that your interchangeable use of the terms "species" and "family" are meaningless.
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you consider lions and tigers different species ? How bout the buffalo and cattle ?
> 
> How bout the coyote and domestic dog ? How bout a horse and zebra ?
> 
> How bout a chimp and ape ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> *Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."*
> 
> *And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own continued refusal to answer questions directed at you.*
Click to expand...


Wrong,before you knock me for using the term kind why don't you find out what a species is.

In all comparisons They were from different species but belonged to the same family and you know what else you got wrong they all have been cross bred.

Bringing on morphological changes which my theory predicts and comfirms.

Thanks for showing your ignorance again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, there's no problem to overcome. Second, "microevolution" is how over eons of time is how evolutionists explain how "macroevolution" place.
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see if you can define kind here ,which so happens the word species did not exist in the Hebrew language at the time of the writing of the scriptures.
> 
> 11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.
> 
> Sounds like the seed contained the genetics to know what to produce.
> 
> 12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good
> 
> 20. And God said, "Let the waters swarm a swarming of living creatures, and let fowl fly over the earth, across the expanse of the heavens."
> 21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> 22. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let the fowl multiply upon the earth."
> 
> 24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.
> 
> 25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.
> 
> So can you reason out what the important term means you keep asking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> *
Click to expand...


Moron are you ignorant or a liar ? I say both.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not read anything drock posted so I am gonna repeat what he posted. And what I have learned over the years ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Like I said, I'm not interested in having you re-post walls of text that you don't even understand. I want this in your own words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How bout you explain it ,it's your theory and provide evidence to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. It was you, not I, who claimed that it was mathematically impossible for evolution to have produced the results we see. As that is your assertion, not mine, it is your burden of proof, not mine.
Click to expand...


I used the percentage difference in the Dna of a chimp and human to show the impossibility.

Which is 150,000,000 base pairs of Dna.

Look in the old threads ask drock or someone I am not gonna put it all out again.

It took a little time to work it out.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see if you can define kind here ,which so happens the word species did not exist in the Hebrew language at the time of the writing of the scriptures.
> 
> 11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.
> 
> Sounds like the seed contained the genetics to know what to produce.
> 
> 12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good
> 
> 20. And God said, "Let the waters swarm a swarming of living creatures, and let fowl fly over the earth, across the expanse of the heavens."
> 21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> 22. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let the fowl multiply upon the earth."
> 
> 24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.
> 
> 25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.
> 
> So can you reason out what the important term means you keep asking about.
> 
> 
> 
> *Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moron are you ignorant or a liar ? I say both.
Click to expand...

And your dishonesty continues.

*Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.*


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> I used the percentage difference in the Dna of a chimp and human to show the impossibility.



Since humans are not descended from chimpanzees, that is a non-argument. Try again. Or, of course, you could retract the claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used the percentage difference in the Dna of a chimp and human to show the impossibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since humans are not descended from chimpanzees, that is a non-argument. Try again. Or, of course, you could retract the claim.
Click to expand...


As more research is done the chimps DNA will grow further from the human. He is our cousin isn't he ? The chimp is closer related to the ape so I can't do the ape.

We can't map the genome of our so called nearest ancestor now can we how convenient.

So who and what do you say we can compare DNA to do what I did with the chimp and human ?


----------



## daws101

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used the percentage difference in the Dna of a chimp and human to show the impossibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since humans are not descended from chimpanzees, that is a non-argument. Try again. Or, of course, you could retract the claim.
Click to expand...

humans and all the great apes evolved from a common ancestor..we are branches on the same tree. 
the % of DNA between "US" and chimps is 2%


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you consider lions and tigers different species ? How bout the buffalo and cattle ?
> 
> How bout the coyote and domestic dog ? How bout a horse and zebra ?
> 
> How bout a chimp and ape ?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> *Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."*
> 
> *And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own continued refusal to answer questions directed at you.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong,before you knock me for using the term kind why don't you find out what a species is.
Click to expand...

I am sufficiently aware of what the term "species" means, and asking you for a precise and meaningful definition for the term "kind" is not "knocking" you for using it ... I'm trying to figure out WHAT THE FUCK YOU MEAN when you use the term.



Youwerecreated said:


> In all comparisons They were from different species but belonged to the same family ...


Not in dispute.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... and you know what else you got wrong they all have been cross bred.


I'm not sure that sterile male offspring meets the criteria for the successful breeding indicating they belong to the same species.

At least that's the way I remember it from 10th grade. I could be wrong.



Youwerecreated said:


> Bringing on morphological changes which my theory predicts and comfirms.


What theory? What the fuck are you talking about?

The one where life can ONLY be the created by life? The one you continually refuse to offer any explanation for?



Youwerecreated said:


> Thanks for showing your ignorance again.


Thank you for demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty again.

*Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."*

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own continued refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> *Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."*
> 
> *And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own continued refusal to answer questions directed at you.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,before you knock me for using the term kind why don't you find out what a species is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sufficiently aware of what the term "species" means, and asking you for a precise and meaningful definition for the term "kind" is not "knocking" you for using it ... I'm trying to figure out WHAT THE FUCK YOU MEAN when you use the term.
> 
> Not in dispute.
> 
> I'm not sure that sterile male offspring meets the criteria for the successful breeding indicating they belong to the same species.
> 
> At least that's the way I remember it from 10th grade. I could be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bringing on morphological changes which my theory predicts and comfirms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What theory? What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> The one where life can ONLY be the created by life? The one you continually refuse to offer any explanation for?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for showing your ignorance again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty again.
> 
> *Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."*
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own continued refusal to answer questions directed at you.
Click to expand...


No,the diversity we see in each family can be due to cross breeding. And you better do your homework the offspring were not always sterile.

If their DNA was not close enough there would be no offspring.

Now what relative do we have that we can produce offspring with ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used the percentage difference in the Dna of a chimp and human to show the impossibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since humans are not descended from chimpanzees, that is a non-argument. Try again. Or, of course, you could retract the claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> humans and all the great apes evolved from a common ancestor..we are branches on the same tree.
> the % of DNA between "US" and chimps is 2%
Click to expand...


Wrong.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> So who and what do you say we can compare DNA to do what I did with the chimp and human ?



You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).

As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.

Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> No,the diversity we see in each family can be due to cross breeding.



You have still presented nothing to uphold this rather extraordinary claim. You don't even seem to understand that it IS extraordinary.


----------



## Dragon

Once again, it seems to me that the problem creationists have is a lack of faith. God is not something established by objective, external evidence, and the need for such evidence is a sign that one's faith is weak and one's connection to the holy is tenuous. Someone whose soul is been filled with the presence of God _cannot_ doubt his/her/its reality, and a small thing like the evolutionary history of life, or our own non-human ancestry, is completely irrelevant to that impossibility of doubt. Which frees one to appreciate the evidence as it really exists, without any need to drive it into a false mold.

Of all religious believers, creationists are surely the weakest in faith.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,before you knock me for using the term kind why don't you find out what a species is.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sufficiently aware of what the term "species" means, and asking you for a precise and meaningful definition for the term "kind" is not "knocking" you for using it ... I'm trying to figure out WHAT THE FUCK YOU MEAN when you use the term.
> 
> Not in dispute.
> 
> I'm not sure that sterile male offspring meets the criteria for the successful breeding indicating they belong to the same species.
> 
> At least that's the way I remember it from 10th grade. I could be wrong.
> 
> What theory? What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> The one where life can ONLY be the created by life? The one you continually refuse to offer any explanation for?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for showing your ignorance again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty again.
> 
> *Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."*
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own continued refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,the diversity we see in each family can be due to cross breeding.
Click to expand...

Not in FUCKING DISPUTE! (at least not as long as you have no meaningful constraints on the way you apply your terms)

But do you want to know what is in dispute, Cupcake? This theory of yours you continually refuse to offer any explanation for.



Youwerecreated said:


> And you better do your homework the offspring were not always sterile.


Another example of a BLATANTLY DISINGENUOUS MISREPRESENTATION of what I said.



Youwerecreated said:


> If their DNA was not close enough there would be no offspring.


Not necessarily so. Time for you to do your homework.



Youwerecreated said:


> Now what relative do we have that we can produce offspring with ?


Apparently, none of the male offspring.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own continued refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Dragon said:


> Once again, it seems to me that the problem creationists have is a lack of faith. God is not something established by objective, external evidence, and the need for such evidence is a sign that one's faith is weak and one's connection to the holy is tenuous. Someone whose soul is been filled with the presence of God _cannot_ doubt his/her/its reality, and a small thing like the evolutionary history of life, or our own non-human ancestry, is completely irrelevant to that impossibility of doubt. Which frees one to appreciate the evidence as it really exists, without any need to drive it into a false mold.
> 
> Of all religious believers, creationists are surely the weakest in faith.



I can't agree with that, you have fundamentalist types like YWC and some of his teammates on this board, but most creationists I know aren't anti-science because they think it's the work of the devil like some of our board fundies do.


----------



## daws101

Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated  

Do you consider lions and tigers different species ? How bout the buffalo and cattle ?

How bout the coyote and domestic dog ? How bout a horse and zebra ?

How bout a chimp and ape ?
lions and tigers are both big cats and they can breed with each other the result is called a lyger. technically they are the same species .
the same goes for dogs and coyotes (Coydogs) 
horses and zebras also can be bred:HYBRID EQUINES



Equid (horse, donkey, zebra) hybrids are well known and some are bred commercially. The generic term for a zebra hybrid with a horse, pony, donkey or ass is a zebroid. The generic term for a hybrid of a zebra with any type of donkey or ass is a zebrass.

The usual naming convention for hybrids is a "portmanteau word" comprising first part of male parent's name + second part of female parent's name


Father
 Mother
 Offspring

Donkey (jack)
 Horse (mare)
 Mule (male), John (male), Molly (female)

Horse
 Donkey (jenny/jennet)
 Hinny

Zebra
 Donkey (jenny/jennet)
 Zebrass, Zedonk, Zebronkey, Zonkey, Zebadonk, Zebryde, Zenkey (Japan), Hamzab (Israel)

Zebra
 Horse
 Zorse, Golden zebra, Zebra mule, Zebrule 

Zebra
 Pony
 Zony 

Zebra
 Shetland Pony
 Zetland

Donkey (jack)
 Zebra
 Zebret

Horse
 Zebra
 Hebra

PRIMATES (EXCLUDING HUMANS)

In "The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication" Charles Darwin noted: "Several members of the family of Lemurs have produced hybrids in the Zoological Gardens." 

In the primates, many Gibbons are hard to visually identify and are identified by their song. This has led to hybrids in zoos where the Gibbons were mis-identified. For example, some collections could not distinguish between Javan Gibbons, Lar Gibbons or Hoolocks and their supposedly pure breeding pairs were mixed pairs or hybrids from previous mixed pairs. Agile gibbons have also interbred with these. The offspring were sent to other Gibbon breeders and led to further hybridization in captive Gibbons. Hybrids also occur in wild Gibbons where the ranges overlap. Gibbon/Siamang hybrids have occurred in captivity - a female Siamang produced hybrid "Siabon" offspring on 2 occasions when housed with a male Gibbon; one hybrid survived, the other didn't. Anubis Baboons and Hamadryas Baboons have hybridized in the wild where their ranges meet. Different Macaque species can interbreed. In "The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication" Charles Darwin wrote: "A Macacus, according to Flourens, bred in Paris; and more than one species of this genus has produced young in London, especially the Macacus rhesus, which everywhere shows a special capacity to breed under confinement. Hybrids have been produced both in Paris and London from this same genus." In addition, the Rheboon is a captive-bred Rhesus Macaque/Hamadryas Baboon hybrid with a baboon-like body shape and Macaque-like tail.

Various hybrid monkeys are bred within the pet trade. These include hybrid Capuchins e.g. Tufted (Cebus apella) x Wedge-capped/weeper (C olivaceus); Liontail macaque X Pigtail macaque hybrids and Rhesus x Stumptail hybrids. The Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) has interbred with the introduced Taiwanese macacque (M cyclopis); the latter has escaped into the wild from private zoos. Among African monkeys, natural hybridization is not uncommon. There numerous field reports of hybrid monkeys and detailed studies of zones where species overlap and hybrids occur. Among the apes, Sumatran and Bornean orang-utans are separate species with anatomical differences, producing sterile hybrids. Hybrid orang utans are genetically weaker lower survival rates pure animals. 

Another unknown ape (the Koolakamba) has been reported in Africa and claimed to be a Gorilla/Chimp hybrid. Larger, flatter faced, larger skulled and more bipedal than a chimp, it may also be a mutation, in which case we are witnessing evolution in action. According to von Koppenfels in 1881: I believe it is proved that there are crosses between the male Troglodytes gorilla and the female Troglodytes niger, but for reasons easily understood, there are none in the opposite direction. I have in my possession positive proof of this. This settles all the questions about the gorilla, chimpanzee, Kooloo Kamba, Nschigo, Mbouve, the Sokos, Baboos, etc. Yerkes reported several "unclassifiable apes" with features intermediate between chimpanzee and gorilla in his 1929 book "A Study of Anthropoid Life".

Garner (1896) wrote that an ape called Mafuca exhibited at Dresden Zoo in 1875 was sometimes described as a cross between chimpanzee and gorilla. Different experts identified her as a chimpanzee or as a young gorilla."It would be difficult to believe that two apes of different species in a wild state would cross, but to believe that two that belonged to different genera would do so is even more illogical. Yerkes (1929) reported the case of adult female Johanna at Lisbon, whom Duckworth (1899) considered an unclassifiable ape intermediate between gorilla and chimpanzee and similar to the Kulu-Kamba and Mafuca. Others considered Johanna, who had been a performing ape wit Barnum and Bailey's Circus, to be a gorilla

the reason apes and humans cannot breed is called speciation: (to differentiate into new biological species)in other words our evolutionary paths have diverged.
not because we were created as separate life forms.


----------



## LOki

Dr.Drock said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, it seems to me that the problem creationists have is a lack of faith. God is not something established by objective, external evidence, and the need for such evidence is a sign that one's faith is weak and one's connection to the holy is tenuous. Someone whose soul is been filled with the presence of God _cannot_ doubt his/her/its reality, and a small thing like the evolutionary history of life, or our own non-human ancestry, is completely irrelevant to that impossibility of doubt. Which frees one to appreciate the evidence as it really exists, without any need to drive it into a false mold.
> 
> Of all religious believers, creationists are surely the weakest in faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't agree with that, you have fundamentalist types like YWC and some of his teammates on this board, but most creationists I know aren't anti-science because they think it's the work of the devil like some of our board fundies do.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dragon

Dr.Drock said:


> I can't agree with that, you have fundamentalist types like YWC and some of his teammates on this board, but most creationists I know aren't anti-science because they think it's the work of the devil like some of our board fundies do.



Whether they think it's the work of the devil or not, all creationists are anti-science. It's impossible to believe in the creationist doctrine without being anti-science, because creationism and science are incompatible. Science and intelligent design, as that is usually advocated, are also incompatible, although less blatantly so.

Loki is wrong in his last, of course. It is possible to reason with religious people. But not, it seems, with creationists.


----------



## LOki

Dragon said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't agree with that, you have fundamentalist types like YWC and some of his teammates on this board, but most creationists I know aren't anti-science because they think it's the work of the devil like some of our board fundies do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether they think it's the work of the devil or not, all creationists are anti-science. It's impossible to believe in the creationist doctrine without being anti-science, because creationism and science are incompatible. Science and intelligent design, as that is usually advocated, are also incompatible, although less blatantly so.
> 
> Loki is wrong in his last, of course. It is possible to reason with religious people. But not, it seems, with creationists.
Click to expand...

House is wrong.

But I'll let you tell him that.


----------



## Dragon

LOki said:


> House is wrong.



Point taken.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Maybe it's time for one of you to give your explanation to how macroevolution happened and present documented evidence to support it.


----------



## LOki

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.



Youwerecreated said:


> Maybe it's time for one of you to give your explanation to how macroevolution happened and present documented evidence to support it.


It's been done for you repeatedly, you obtuse water park doot-surprise.

So why don't you (finally) level the fuck up?


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Maybe it's time for one of you to give your explanation to how macroevolution happened and present documented evidence to support it.



I have a question YWC.  You have said before that you believe the Earth to be only thousands of years old, if I recall correctly you gave 13,000 as the maximum number.  Do you think this belief has an effect on your contention that evolution cannot be the explanation for the diversity of life?  After all, if the Earth is that young, then evolution would not explain things as it is understood now.

I guess another way to put it would be do you think that, if the Earth and life on it are around for another couple of hundred million years, that the many changes that will occur due to micro-evolution could eventually lead to macro-evolution?  

If you do not, do you have a reason or mechanism for why that cannot occur?


----------



## daws101

"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd. 

I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. " 

- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988), 
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).


----------



## koshergrl

Dr.Drock said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, it seems to me that the problem creationists have is a lack of faith. God is not something established by objective, external evidence, and the need for such evidence is a sign that one's faith is weak and one's connection to the holy is tenuous. Someone whose soul is been filled with the presence of God _cannot_ doubt his/her/its reality, and a small thing like the evolutionary history of life, or our own non-human ancestry, is completely irrelevant to that impossibility of doubt. Which frees one to appreciate the evidence as it really exists, without any need to drive it into a false mold.
> 
> Of all religious believers, creationists are surely the weakest in faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't agree with that, you have fundamentalist types like YWC and some of his teammates on this board, but most creationists I know aren't anti-science because they think it's the work of the devil like some of our board fundies do.
Click to expand...

 
I think I'll just ask you to back that up and name names. Who thinks science is the work of the devil?


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> "... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.
> 
> I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "
> 
> - Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
> from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).


 
Well it is certainly true that you won't find believers who accept your belief based on the premise that your theory is just "better", as Dragon uses to "verify" his statements.

I haven't seen YWC deny one bit of true science. When it comes to jumping to conclusions, thanks, I don't accept your word for it either, or agree with your conclusions. We're able to draw our own, and they're every bit as valid as yours.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who and what do you say we can compare DNA to do what I did with the chimp and human ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).
> 
> As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.
> 
> ,Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.
Click to expand...


Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,the diversity we see in each family can be due to cross breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have still presented nothing to uphold this rather extraordinary claim. You don't even seem to understand that it IS extraordinary.
Click to expand...


Sure I do,but I am not certain on this theory but it is a better theory then you present. I also believe every species could have been created as they are and very little cross breeding took place.

So God created lions and tigers as they are,And every other species as they are. And he gave every organism the ability to adapt to their enviornment and the ones that could not adapt as the enviornment changed went extinct.

One problem for my theory is all organisms seem to stay with their own kind.

Only a few species cross breed or just simply breed anims of their kind.

Dogs,horses,cattle are not so picky are they ?

But when we move to the wild they are picky..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
> 
> Do you consider lions and tigers different species ? How bout the buffalo and cattle ?
> 
> How bout the coyote and domestic dog ? How bout a horse and zebra ?
> 
> How bout a chimp and ape ?
> lions and tigers are both big cats and they can breed with each other the result is called a lyger. technically they are the same species .
> the same goes for dogs and coyotes (Coydogs)
> horses and zebras also can be bred:HYBRID EQUINES
> 
> 
> 
> Equid (horse, donkey, zebra) hybrids are well known and some are bred commercially. The generic term for a zebra hybrid with a horse, pony, donkey or ass is a zebroid. The generic term for a hybrid of a zebra with any type of donkey or ass is a zebrass.
> 
> The usual naming convention for hybrids is a "portmanteau word" comprising first part of male parent's name + second part of female parent's name
> 
> 
> Father
> Mother
> Offspring
> 
> Donkey (jack)
> Horse (mare)
> Mule (male), John (male), Molly (female)
> 
> Horse
> Donkey (jenny/jennet)
> Hinny
> 
> Zebra
> Donkey (jenny/jennet)
> Zebrass, Zedonk, Zebronkey, Zonkey, Zebadonk, Zebryde, Zenkey (Japan), Hamzab (Israel)
> 
> Zebra
> Horse
> Zorse, Golden zebra, Zebra mule, Zebrule
> 
> Zebra
> Pony
> Zony
> 
> Zebra
> Shetland Pony
> Zetland
> 
> Donkey (jack)
> Zebra
> Zebret
> 
> Horse
> Zebra
> Hebra
> 
> PRIMATES (EXCLUDING HUMANS)
> 
> In "The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication" Charles Darwin noted: "Several members of the family of Lemurs have produced hybrids in the Zoological Gardens."
> 
> In the primates, many Gibbons are hard to visually identify and are identified by their song. This has led to hybrids in zoos where the Gibbons were mis-identified. For example, some collections could not distinguish between Javan Gibbons, Lar Gibbons or Hoolocks and their supposedly pure breeding pairs were mixed pairs or hybrids from previous mixed pairs. Agile gibbons have also interbred with these. The offspring were sent to other Gibbon breeders and led to further hybridization in captive Gibbons. Hybrids also occur in wild Gibbons where the ranges overlap. Gibbon/Siamang hybrids have occurred in captivity - a female Siamang produced hybrid "Siabon" offspring on 2 occasions when housed with a male Gibbon; one hybrid survived, the other didn't. Anubis Baboons and Hamadryas Baboons have hybridized in the wild where their ranges meet. Different Macaque species can interbreed. In "The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication" Charles Darwin wrote: "A Macacus, according to Flourens, bred in Paris; and more than one species of this genus has produced young in London, especially the Macacus rhesus, which everywhere shows a special capacity to breed under confinement. Hybrids have been produced both in Paris and London from this same genus." In addition, the Rheboon is a captive-bred Rhesus Macaque/Hamadryas Baboon hybrid with a baboon-like body shape and Macaque-like tail.
> 
> Various hybrid monkeys are bred within the pet trade. These include hybrid Capuchins e.g. Tufted (Cebus apella) x Wedge-capped/weeper (C olivaceus); Liontail macaque X Pigtail macaque hybrids and Rhesus x Stumptail hybrids. The Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) has interbred with the introduced Taiwanese macacque (M cyclopis); the latter has escaped into the wild from private zoos. Among African monkeys, natural hybridization is not uncommon. There numerous field reports of hybrid monkeys and detailed studies of zones where species overlap and hybrids occur. Among the apes, Sumatran and Bornean orang-utans are separate species with anatomical differences, producing sterile hybrids. Hybrid orang utans are genetically weaker lower survival rates pure animals.
> 
> Another unknown ape (the Koolakamba) has been reported in Africa and claimed to be a Gorilla/Chimp hybrid. Larger, flatter faced, larger skulled and more bipedal than a chimp, it may also be a mutation, in which case we are witnessing evolution in action. According to von Koppenfels in 1881: I believe it is proved that there are crosses between the male Troglodytes gorilla and the female Troglodytes niger, but for reasons easily understood, there are none in the opposite direction. I have in my possession positive proof of this. This settles all the questions about the gorilla, chimpanzee, Kooloo Kamba, Nschigo, Mbouve, the Sokos, Baboos, etc. Yerkes reported several "unclassifiable apes" with features intermediate between chimpanzee and gorilla in his 1929 book "A Study of Anthropoid Life".
> 
> Garner (1896) wrote that an ape called Mafuca exhibited at Dresden Zoo in 1875 was sometimes described as a cross between chimpanzee and gorilla. Different experts identified her as a chimpanzee or as a young gorilla."It would be difficult to believe that two apes of different species in a wild state would cross, but to believe that two that belonged to different genera would do so is even more illogical. Yerkes (1929) reported the case of adult female Johanna at Lisbon, whom Duckworth (1899) considered an unclassifiable ape intermediate between gorilla and chimpanzee and similar to the Kulu-Kamba and Mafuca. Others considered Johanna, who had been a performing ape wit Barnum and Bailey's Circus, to be a gorilla
> 
> the reason apes and humans cannot breed is called speciation: (to differentiate into new biological species)in other words our evolutionary paths have diverged.
> not because we were created as separate life forms.



No they are not the same species look it up,they are of the same family.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't agree with that, you have fundamentalist types like YWC and some of his teammates on this board, but most creationists I know aren't anti-science because they think it's the work of the devil like some of our board fundies do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether they think it's the work of the devil or not, all creationists are anti-science. It's impossible to believe in the creationist doctrine without being anti-science, because creationism and science are incompatible. Science and intelligent design, as that is usually advocated, are also incompatible, although less blatantly so.
> 
> Loki is wrong in his last, of course. It is possible to reason with religious people. But not, it seems, with creationists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> House is wrong.
> 
> But I'll let you tell him that.
Click to expand...


The blind following the blind.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who and what do you say we can compare DNA to do what I did with the chimp and human ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).
> 
> As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.
> 
> ,Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, ...
Click to expand...

Not in dispute. No theory of speciation that proposes a causal relationship between genetic material and phenotype can ignore mutation, or say that mutation has only deleterious effect upon genetic information.



Youwerecreated said:


> ...but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.


There is literally no reason to believe that changes in genotype cannot result in changes in phenotype.



Youwerecreated said:


> We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.


Why does it have to be only one mutation for the notion to be valid?

and speaking of questions you have no intention of ingenuously answering ....

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether they think it's the work of the devil or not, all creationists are anti-science. It's impossible to believe in the creationist doctrine without being anti-science, because creationism and science are incompatible. Science and intelligent design, as that is usually advocated, are also incompatible, although less blatantly so.
> 
> Loki is wrong in his last, of course. It is possible to reason with religious people. But not, it seems, with creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> House is wrong.
> 
> But I'll let you tell him that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The blind following the blind.
Click to expand...

But not superstitious retards following retarded superstitions.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
> 
> We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.



That's easily answered, but I need to pin you down on something first. Please define "new features."


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).
> 
> As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.
> 
> ,Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in dispute. No theory of speciation that proposes a causal relationship between genetic material and phenotype can ignore mutation, or say that mutation has only deleterious effect upon genetic information.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is literally no reason to believe that changes in genotype cannot result in changes in phenotype.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does it have to be only one mutation for the notion to be valid?
> 
> and speaking of questions you have no intention of ingenuously answering ....
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
Click to expand...


There should not be just one but many. But I am being easy by asking for one this is what your theory requires. Without this evidence you're going by faith.

Remember us speaking of gradualism which is what all evolutnist predicted and is believed. The cambrian explosion disproves gradualism because so many complex organisms just suddenly appeared in the fossil record. That is a major problem for evolutionist.

The cambrian explosion showed that gradual change did not happen . the fossil record shows basic phyla emerged and stayed basically the same showing some variations within the same phylum. 

There is no evidence of phyla gradually changing into something new.

Darwin worked under the belief that cells were not complex well we know that was hogwash. Cells are very complex,and cells have to appear fully formed or they would be useless.

 certain organelles that are necessary for cellular life cannot be formed in gradual steps. The whole organelle must appear fully formed or the cell will not work.  some organelles are not just harmful but deadly to the cell if formed in gradual steps. 

Why is this a problem that cellular life does not conform to evolution ? Is it not how animals supposedly evolved ? because cells are the building blocks to life.

If cellular life is not in harmony with evolution the theory is dead on arrival.

Evolutionist depend on genetic mutations to account for changes in species. Genetic mutations must explain and show how organisms changed from single celled organisms to multicelled organisms.To marine life to amphibious life to mammals and so on.

I will Quote Jonathan Wells PhD in Developmental Biology.

"Mutations are supposed to provide the raw material for evolution,they can only do this if they benefit the organism, and mutations in developmental genes are always harmful. In fact, the only DNA mutations that are known to be benficial are those that affect immediate interactions between a mutant protein and other molecules. Such mutations can confer antibiotic and insecticide resistance, but they can never lead to the sorts of changes that could account for evolution. DNA mutations cannot even change the species of an animal, much less change a fish into an amphibian or a dinosaur into a bird".


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> House is wrong.
> 
> But I'll let you tell him that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The blind following the blind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But not superstitious retards following retarded superstitions.
Click to expand...


Thank you for admitting to being blind I have never admitted to being a retard.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
> 
> We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's easily answered, but I need to pin you down on something first. Please define "new features."
Click to expand...


New feature through new information, body parts, but it has to be new information that benefits the organism lets stay within the Neo Darwinist paradigm.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> New feature through new information body parts but it has to be new information that benefits the organism lets stay within the Neo Darwinist paradigm.



You haven't clarified yourself at all here.

Let me offer a definition and you OK it before we proceed. A "new feature" is a structure or a function of an existing structure that did not exist before. An example of a new structure would be if a dog developed a prehensile tail. An example of a new function would be if offspring were born with at least partial immunity to a disease.

OK this definition and I'll present you with some examples.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> New feature through new information body parts but it has to be new information that benefits the organism lets stay within the Neo Darwinist paradigm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't clarified yourself at all here.
> 
> Let me offer a definition and you OK it before we proceed. A "new feature" is a structure or a function of an existing structure that did not exist before. An example of a new structure would be if a dog developed a prehensile tail. An example of a new function would be if offspring were born with at least partial immunity to a disease.
> 
> OK this definition and I'll present you with some examples.
Click to expand...


Look at my post to Loki I made it clear.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Look at my post to Loki I made it clear.



I'm afraid not. Do you accept the definition I posted above?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> New feature through new information body parts but it has to be new information that benefits the organism lets stay within the Neo Darwinist paradigm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't clarified yourself at all here.
> 
> Let me offer a definition and you OK it before we proceed. A "new feature" is a structure or a function of an existing structure that did not exist before. An example of a new structure would be if a dog developed a prehensile tail. An example of a new function would be if offspring were born with at least partial immunity to a disease.
> 
> OK this definition and I'll present you with some examples.
Click to expand...


How would a mutation that helped with antibiotic resistence show it can change a feature and eventually change it into a new creature ?

Don't you get it,everything has the ability to adapt to their enviornment and if it can't it is eliminated through natural selection.

You have to show how creatures change in to a new creature not that a mutation can help with adapting. And you know these kind of beneficial mutations are really rare.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at my post to Loki I made it clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid not. Do you accept the definition I posted above?
Click to expand...


Burden of proof is on you. I have seen the mutations on fruit flies there were changes and new structures but they were deformed or didn't work but none of what I saw was new information. And all thoses flies were not benefitted by the mutations and they died prematurely.

I saw an extra pair of wings that didn't work. I saw missing wings,I saw antennas deformed or in the wrong place, the ones that showed no change prematurely died.

Nope not one mutation in the fruit fly was a benefit.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Burden of proof is on you.



I'm not disputing that. I'm just trying to clarify proof of exactly WHAT we are talking about.

Do you accept the definition of "new feature" I presented above, or not? If not, do you have a CLEAR AND CONCISE definition of your own to suggest?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at my post to Loki I made it clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid not. Do you accept the definition I posted above?
Click to expand...


All organisms have mutations if mutations do what you say they do and believe they do why do we not see change in the fossils from the modern day organisms of the fossils that are supposedly very old ?



Living-Fossils.com


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Burden of proof is on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not disputing that. I'm just trying to clarify proof of exactly WHAT we are talking about.
> 
> Do you accept the definition of "new feature" I presented above, or not? If not, do you have a CLEAR AND CONCISE definition of your own to suggest?
Click to expand...


I don't except many definitions of your theory just provide the evidence asked for.

You can present your evidence that you're holding back and we can discuss it. I am on record saying I believe in micro-adaptations but that has been the only evidence presented by your side and your side extrapolates from that as evidence for macro-evolution.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> I don't except many definitions of your theory just provide the evidence asked for.



You're really dodging and weaving here, which is no surprise but is, frankly, disgusting.

I will provide the evidence asked for as soon as we have clarified exactly WHAT it is supposed to be evidence of. With precision. Without convenient exits available.

Again: a "new feature" is either a structure or a new function of an existing structure that did not appear in prior generations.

Is this an acceptable definition? Say yes, and I will show you mutations that have resulted in new features.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't except many definitions of your theory just provide the evidence asked for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're really dodging and weaving here, which is no surprise but is, frankly, disgusting.
> 
> I will provide the evidence asked for as soon as we have clarified exactly WHAT it is supposed to be evidence of. With precision. Without convenient exits available.
> 
> Again: a "new feature" is either a structure or a new function of an existing structure that did not appear in prior generations.
> 
> Is this an acceptable definition? Say yes, and I will show you mutations that have resulted in new features.
Click to expand...


I am presenting my evidence but I must say what you want me to say before you present your evidence. Son evidence don't lie.

What are you afraid of I am not dodging let your evidence speak for itself.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koshergirl was asking for the same thing and you would not present your evidence. Maybe because you know it won't stand up to scrutiny. But anyways I will wait for you to present evidence that supports your theory.  

Were you not gonna respond to what I presented to Loki or are you gonna ignore it like he or she is ?


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> I am presenting my evidence but I must say what you want me to say before you present your evidence. Son evidence don't lie.
> 
> What are you afraid of I am not dodging let your evidence speak for itself.



EVIDENCE OF WHAT, EXACTLY?

That is not an unreasonable request. If you refuse to grant it, you are not asking for evidence, you are dodging and weaving.

ONE MORE TIME: A "new feature" is either a new structure or a new function of an existing structure. Is this an acceptable definition of "new feature"?

If it is, say so and I will show you mutations that have resulted in "new features." If not, present your own PRECISE definition of "new feature" and I will either dispute it or present evidence to accommodate it.

Ball's in your court.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am presenting my evidence but I must say what you want me to say before you present your evidence. Son evidence don't lie.
> 
> What are you afraid of I am not dodging let your evidence speak for itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVIDENCE OF WHAT, EXACTLY?
> 
> That is not an unreasonable request. If you refuse to grant it, you are not asking for evidence, you are dodging and weaving.
> 
> ONE MORE TIME: A "new feature" is either a new structure or a new function of an existing structure. Is this an acceptable definition of "new feature"?
> 
> If it is, say so and I will show you mutations that have resulted in "new features." If not, present your own PRECISE definition of "new feature" and I will either dispute it or present evidence to accommodate it.
> 
> Ball's in your court.
Click to expand...


You said it's easily proven I guess not  but only if we agree on a definition, knowing I don't agree with many definitions because I believe the definitions are biased and arrived at by faulty reasoning of the evidence.

I presented a site with pictures comparing fossils and living organisms.

I presented and asked  why fossils that are very old according to evolutuionist show no change from living oranisms today since all organisms experience mutations,if mutations do as you believe ?


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> pro
> You said it's easily proven I guess not  but only if we agree on a definition, knowing I don't agree with many definitions because I believe the definitions are biased and arrived at by faulty reasoning of the evidence.



This is such horseshit. You ask for proof. I insist you clarify proof of WHAT. That's a perfectly reasonable request. if you refuse to grant it, you prove that you are a dishonest person.

I'll be blunt. I suspect you of presenting a vague concept and asking for proof of that vague concept precisely so that, after being presented with the proof, you can deny that it is proof. Since the thing you want proven has not, by you, been precisely defined, this creates such a back-door escape.

To forestall this, I want a precise definition of what you want proven, so that there can be no doubt, fudging, or dodging about what is or is not proof. If you don't like the definition I offered, present your own. I cannot present proof of anything if I don't know what it is I am supposed to be proving, and at this point  do not -- which is exactly what you are trying to achieve, and exactly what I am unwilling to allow.

Say EXACTLY AND PRECISELY what you want proven, and I will show you the proof. But I cannot prove or disprove a cloud of formless goo.


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, it seems to me that the problem creationists have is a lack of faith. God is not something established by objective, external evidence, and the need for such evidence is a sign that one's faith is weak and one's connection to the holy is tenuous. Someone whose soul is been filled with the presence of God _cannot_ doubt his/her/its reality, and a small thing like the evolutionary history of life, or our own non-human ancestry, is completely irrelevant to that impossibility of doubt. Which frees one to appreciate the evidence as it really exists, without any need to drive it into a false mold.
> 
> Of all religious believers, creationists are surely the weakest in faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't agree with that, you have fundamentalist types like YWC and some of his teammates on this board, but most creationists I know aren't anti-science because they think it's the work of the devil like some of our board fundies do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I'll just ask you to back that up and name names. Who thinks science is the work of the devil?
Click to expand...


YWC thinks those who teach evolution are motivated by the devil, ask him yourself.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who and what do you say we can compare DNA to do what I did with the chimp and human ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).
> 
> As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.
> 
> ,Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
> 
> We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.
Click to expand...


I've already provided proof of the exact opposite being tested and proven in the lab.

Mutations produce new and positive features.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.
> 
> I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "
> 
> - Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
> from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is certainly true that you won't find believers who accept your belief based on the premise that your theory is just "better", as Dragon uses to "verify" his statements.
> 
> I haven't seen YWC deny one bit of true science. When it comes to jumping to conclusions, thanks, I don't accept your word for it either, or agree with your conclusions. We're able to draw our own, and they're every bit as valid as yours.
Click to expand...

hardly....as your beliefs  

are based on a non quantifiable premise..as is ALL faith.
With no hard evidence to bolster your claim ,there is no validity .


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't agree with that, you have fundamentalist types like YWC and some of his teammates on this board, but most creationists I know aren't anti-science because they think it's the work of the devil like some of our board fundies do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'll just ask you to back that up and name names. Who thinks science is the work of the devil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YWC thinks those who teach evolution are motivated by the devil, ask him yourself.
Click to expand...


Didn't say it exactly like that, I will say ones who have an agenda and deliberately spin evidence to support their religion they are being lead by satan.

Some people are taught the theory and they take it as it is presented but when they realize what it really is they reject it. So not all who believe are of satan. Dawkins that is a different story or many atheists  that do the same as dawkins are being used by satan.

Joh 14:30  I shall no longer speak many things with you, for the ruler of this world comes, and he has nothing in Me. 

1Co 3:19  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written, "He takes the wise in their own craftiness."

2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).
> 
> As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.
> 
> ,Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
> 
> We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already provided proof of the exact opposite being tested and proven in the lab.
> 
> Mutations produce new and positive features.
Click to expand...


Present these features that are a benefit to the organism and is considered new information.

The only thing you have presented is Micro-adaptations not macro-evolution.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
> 
> Do you consider lions and tigers different species ? How bout the buffalo and cattle ?
> 
> How bout the coyote and domestic dog ? How bout a horse and zebra ?
> 
> How bout a chimp and ape ?
> lions and tigers are both big cats and they can breed with each other the result is called a lyger. technically they are the same species .
> the same goes for dogs and coyotes (Coydogs)
> horses and zebras also can be bred:HYBRID EQUINES
> 
> 
> 
> Equid (horse, donkey, zebra) hybrids are well known and some are bred commercially. The generic term for a zebra hybrid with a horse, pony, donkey or ass is a zebroid. The generic term for a hybrid of a zebra with any type of donkey or ass is a zebrass.
> 
> The usual naming convention for hybrids is a "portmanteau word" comprising first part of male parent's name + second part of female parent's name
> 
> 
> Father
> Mother
> Offspring
> 
> Donkey (jack)
> Horse (mare)
> Mule (male), John (male), Molly (female)
> 
> Horse
> Donkey (jenny/jennet)
> Hinny
> 
> Zebra
> Donkey (jenny/jennet)
> Zebrass, Zedonk, Zebronkey, Zonkey, Zebadonk, Zebryde, Zenkey (Japan), Hamzab (Israel)
> 
> Zebra
> Horse
> Zorse, Golden zebra, Zebra mule, Zebrule
> 
> Zebra
> Pony
> Zony
> 
> Zebra
> Shetland Pony
> Zetland
> 
> Donkey (jack)
> Zebra
> Zebret
> 
> Horse
> Zebra
> Hebra
> 
> PRIMATES (EXCLUDING HUMANS)
> 
> In "The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication" Charles Darwin noted: "Several members of the family of Lemurs have produced hybrids in the Zoological Gardens."
> 
> In the primates, many Gibbons are hard to visually identify and are identified by their song. This has led to hybrids in zoos where the Gibbons were mis-identified. For example, some collections could not distinguish between Javan Gibbons, Lar Gibbons or Hoolocks and their supposedly pure breeding pairs were mixed pairs or hybrids from previous mixed pairs. Agile gibbons have also interbred with these. The offspring were sent to other Gibbon breeders and led to further hybridization in captive Gibbons. Hybrids also occur in wild Gibbons where the ranges overlap. Gibbon/Siamang hybrids have occurred in captivity - a female Siamang produced hybrid "Siabon" offspring on 2 occasions when housed with a male Gibbon; one hybrid survived, the other didn't. Anubis Baboons and Hamadryas Baboons have hybridized in the wild where their ranges meet. Different Macaque species can interbreed. In "The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication" Charles Darwin wrote: "A Macacus, according to Flourens, bred in Paris; and more than one species of this genus has produced young in London, especially the Macacus rhesus, which everywhere shows a special capacity to breed under confinement. Hybrids have been produced both in Paris and London from this same genus." In addition, the Rheboon is a captive-bred Rhesus Macaque/Hamadryas Baboon hybrid with a baboon-like body shape and Macaque-like tail.
> 
> Various hybrid monkeys are bred within the pet trade. These include hybrid Capuchins e.g. Tufted (Cebus apella) x Wedge-capped/weeper (C olivaceus); Liontail macaque X Pigtail macaque hybrids and Rhesus x Stumptail hybrids. The Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) has interbred with the introduced Taiwanese macacque (M cyclopis); the latter has escaped into the wild from private zoos. Among African monkeys, natural hybridization is not uncommon. There numerous field reports of hybrid monkeys and detailed studies of zones where species overlap and hybrids occur. Among the apes, Sumatran and Bornean orang-utans are separate species with anatomical differences, producing sterile hybrids. Hybrid orang utans are genetically weaker lower survival rates pure animals.
> 
> Another unknown ape (the Koolakamba) has been reported in Africa and claimed to be a Gorilla/Chimp hybrid. Larger, flatter faced, larger skulled and more bipedal than a chimp, it may also be a mutation, in which case we are witnessing evolution in action. According to von Koppenfels in 1881: I believe it is proved that there are crosses between the male Troglodytes gorilla and the female Troglodytes niger, but for reasons easily understood, there are none in the opposite direction. I have in my possession positive proof of this. This settles all the questions about the gorilla, chimpanzee, Kooloo Kamba, Nschigo, Mbouve, the Sokos, Baboos, etc. Yerkes reported several "unclassifiable apes" with features intermediate between chimpanzee and gorilla in his 1929 book "A Study of Anthropoid Life".
> 
> Garner (1896) wrote that an ape called Mafuca exhibited at Dresden Zoo in 1875 was sometimes described as a cross between chimpanzee and gorilla. Different experts identified her as a chimpanzee or as a young gorilla."It would be difficult to believe that two apes of different species in a wild state would cross, but to believe that two that belonged to different genera would do so is even more illogical. Yerkes (1929) reported the case of adult female Johanna at Lisbon, whom Duckworth (1899) considered an unclassifiable ape intermediate between gorilla and chimpanzee and similar to the Kulu-Kamba and Mafuca. Others considered Johanna, who had been a performing ape wit Barnum and Bailey's Circus, to be a gorilla
> 
> the reason apes and humans cannot breed is called speciation: (to differentiate into new biological species)in other words our evolutionary paths have diverged.
> not because we were created as separate life forms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not the same species look it up,they are of the same family.
Click to expand...

wrong again, they are the same species if they were not they could not produce offspring 
genus:ge·nus noun \&#712;j&#275;-n&#601;s, &#712;je-\
plural gen·era\&#712;je-n&#601;-r&#601;\ also ge·nus·es

Definition of GENUS
1: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic; specifically : a category of biological classification ranking between the family and the species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting unusual differentiation, and being designated by a Latin or latinized capitalized singular noun 
2: a class of objects divided into several subordinate species 
thanks for playing!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.
> 
> I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "
> 
> - Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
> from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is certainly true that you won't find believers who accept your belief based on the premise that your theory is just "better", as Dragon uses to "verify" his statements.
> 
> I haven't seen YWC deny one bit of true science. When it comes to jumping to conclusions, thanks, I don't accept your word for it either, or agree with your conclusions. We're able to draw our own, and they're every bit as valid as yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hardly....as your beliefs
> 
> are based on a non quantifiable premise..as is ALL faith.
> With no hard evidence to bolster your claim ,there is no validity .
Click to expand...


Give up the evidence or else face it your belief is based in faith.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who and what do you say we can compare DNA to do what I did with the chimp and human ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).
> 
> As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.
> 
> ,Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
> 
> We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.
Click to expand...

mu·ta·tion [ myoo táysh'n ]   
change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.
alteration: the action or process of changing something or of being changed
phonetic change: a phonetic change found in Celtic languages in which the initial consonant of a word changes according to the preceding word
Synonyms: change, alteration, transformation, transmutation, metamorphosis, transfiguration, modification

change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is certainly true that you won't find believers who accept your belief based on the premise that your theory is just "better", as Dragon uses to "verify" his statements.
> 
> I haven't seen YWC deny one bit of true science. When it comes to jumping to conclusions, thanks, I don't accept your word for it either, or agree with your conclusions. We're able to draw our own, and they're every bit as valid as yours.
> 
> 
> 
> hardly....as your beliefs
> 
> are based on a non quantifiable premise..as is ALL faith.
> With no hard evidence to bolster your claim ,there is no validity .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give up the evidence or else face it your belief is based in faith.
Click to expand...

what type of evidence would you like?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
> 
> We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already provided proof of the exact opposite being tested and proven in the lab.
> 
> Mutations produce new and positive features.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Present these features that are a benefit to the organism and is considered new information.
> 
> The only thing you have presented is Micro-adaptations not macro-evolution.
Click to expand...


They're in the link I already provided to you specifically in this exact thread.  Exact proof of beneficial mutations, that even your bible blogs admit happen.

If this is another one of your threads where you crown yourself victor because you repeat yourself the most, go ahead and do it.


----------



## Dr.Drock

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).
> 
> As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.
> 
> ,Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
> 
> We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mu·ta·tion [ myoo táysh'n ]
> change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.
> alteration: the action or process of changing something or of being changed
> phonetic change: a phonetic change found in Celtic languages in which the initial consonant of a word changes according to the preceding word
> Synonyms: change, alteration, transformation, transmutation, metamorphosis, transfiguration, modification
> 
> change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.
Click to expand...


Facts and definitions get you nowhere with YWC.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
> 
> Do you consider lions and tigers different species ? How bout the buffalo and cattle ?
> 
> How bout the coyote and domestic dog ? How bout a horse and zebra ?
> 
> How bout a chimp and ape ?
> lions and tigers are both big cats and they can breed with each other the result is called a lyger. technically they are the same species .
> the same goes for dogs and coyotes (Coydogs)
> horses and zebras also can be bred:HYBRID EQUINES
> 
> 
> 
> Equid (horse, donkey, zebra) hybrids are well known and some are bred commercially. The generic term for a zebra hybrid with a horse, pony, donkey or ass is a zebroid. The generic term for a hybrid of a zebra with any type of donkey or ass is a zebrass.
> 
> The usual naming convention for hybrids is a "portmanteau word" comprising first part of male parent's name + second part of female parent's name
> 
> 
> Father
> Mother
> Offspring
> 
> Donkey (jack)
> Horse (mare)
> Mule (male), John (male), Molly (female)
> 
> Horse
> Donkey (jenny/jennet)
> Hinny
> 
> Zebra
> Donkey (jenny/jennet)
> Zebrass, Zedonk, Zebronkey, Zonkey, Zebadonk, Zebryde, Zenkey (Japan), Hamzab (Israel)
> 
> Zebra
> Horse
> Zorse, Golden zebra, Zebra mule, Zebrule
> 
> Zebra
> Pony
> Zony
> 
> Zebra
> Shetland Pony
> Zetland
> 
> Donkey (jack)
> Zebra
> Zebret
> 
> Horse
> Zebra
> Hebra
> 
> PRIMATES (EXCLUDING HUMANS)
> 
> In "The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication" Charles Darwin noted: "Several members of the family of Lemurs have produced hybrids in the Zoological Gardens."
> 
> In the primates, many Gibbons are hard to visually identify and are identified by their song. This has led to hybrids in zoos where the Gibbons were mis-identified. For example, some collections could not distinguish between Javan Gibbons, Lar Gibbons or Hoolocks and their supposedly pure breeding pairs were mixed pairs or hybrids from previous mixed pairs. Agile gibbons have also interbred with these. The offspring were sent to other Gibbon breeders and led to further hybridization in captive Gibbons. Hybrids also occur in wild Gibbons where the ranges overlap. Gibbon/Siamang hybrids have occurred in captivity - a female Siamang produced hybrid "Siabon" offspring on 2 occasions when housed with a male Gibbon; one hybrid survived, the other didn't. Anubis Baboons and Hamadryas Baboons have hybridized in the wild where their ranges meet. Different Macaque species can interbreed. In "The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication" Charles Darwin wrote: "A Macacus, according to Flourens, bred in Paris; and more than one species of this genus has produced young in London, especially the Macacus rhesus, which everywhere shows a special capacity to breed under confinement. Hybrids have been produced both in Paris and London from this same genus." In addition, the Rheboon is a captive-bred Rhesus Macaque/Hamadryas Baboon hybrid with a baboon-like body shape and Macaque-like tail.
> 
> Various hybrid monkeys are bred within the pet trade. These include hybrid Capuchins e.g. Tufted (Cebus apella) x Wedge-capped/weeper (C olivaceus); Liontail macaque X Pigtail macaque hybrids and Rhesus x Stumptail hybrids. The Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) has interbred with the introduced Taiwanese macacque (M cyclopis); the latter has escaped into the wild from private zoos. Among African monkeys, natural hybridization is not uncommon. There numerous field reports of hybrid monkeys and detailed studies of zones where species overlap and hybrids occur. Among the apes, Sumatran and Bornean orang-utans are separate species with anatomical differences, producing sterile hybrids. Hybrid orang utans are genetically weaker lower survival rates pure animals.
> 
> Another unknown ape (the Koolakamba) has been reported in Africa and claimed to be a Gorilla/Chimp hybrid. Larger, flatter faced, larger skulled and more bipedal than a chimp, it may also be a mutation, in which case we are witnessing evolution in action. According to von Koppenfels in 1881: I believe it is proved that there are crosses between the male Troglodytes gorilla and the female Troglodytes niger, but for reasons easily understood, there are none in the opposite direction. I have in my possession positive proof of this. This settles all the questions about the gorilla, chimpanzee, Kooloo Kamba, Nschigo, Mbouve, the Sokos, Baboos, etc. Yerkes reported several "unclassifiable apes" with features intermediate between chimpanzee and gorilla in his 1929 book "A Study of Anthropoid Life".
> 
> Garner (1896) wrote that an ape called Mafuca exhibited at Dresden Zoo in 1875 was sometimes described as a cross between chimpanzee and gorilla. Different experts identified her as a chimpanzee or as a young gorilla."It would be difficult to believe that two apes of different species in a wild state would cross, but to believe that two that belonged to different genera would do so is even more illogical. Yerkes (1929) reported the case of adult female Johanna at Lisbon, whom Duckworth (1899) considered an unclassifiable ape intermediate between gorilla and chimpanzee and similar to the Kulu-Kamba and Mafuca. Others considered Johanna, who had been a performing ape wit Barnum and Bailey's Circus, to be a gorilla
> 
> the reason apes and humans cannot breed is called speciation: (to differentiate into new biological species)in other words our evolutionary paths have diverged.
> not because we were created as separate life forms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not the same species look it up,they are of the same family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong again, they are the same species if they were not they could not produce offspring
> genus:ge·nus noun \&#712;j&#275;-n&#601;s, &#712;je-\
> plural gen·era\&#712;je-n&#601;-r&#601;\ also ge·nus·es
> 
> Definition of GENUS
> 1: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic; specifically : a category of biological classification ranking between the family and the species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting unusual differentiation, and being designated by a Latin or latinized capitalized singular noun
> 2: a class of objects divided into several subordinate species
> thanks for playing!
Click to expand...


Who is wrong.

Do horses and donkeys belong to same species? - Yahoo! Answers


Cattle species bos taurus:
Web definition cattle: domesticated bovine animals as a group regardless of sex or age; "so many head of cattle"; "wait till the cows...

American buffalo species is bison.

bison [&#712;ba&#618;s&#601;n]
n pl -son
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) Also called American bison buffalo a member of the cattle tribe, Bison bison, formerly widely distributed over the prairies of W North America but now confined to reserves and parks, with a massive head, shaggy forequarters, and a humped back


Lions and tigers

Are lions and tigers part of the same species?
by de47 » Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:18 am 

Are lions and tigers part of the same speciesde47 
Garter


Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:54 am
Location: land of the long white cloud Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by i_r_e_d » Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:49 pm 

They're both cats...  

-Dannyi_r_e_d 
Coral


Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Socorro, New Mexico USA Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by alextemplet » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:30 am 

No. Lions are Panthera leo; tigers are Panthera tigris. They're the same genus but separate species.

The rest you can look up yourself.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hardly....as your beliefs
> 
> are based on a non quantifiable premise..as is ALL faith.
> With no hard evidence to bolster your claim ,there is no validity .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give up the evidence or else face it your belief is based in faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what type of evidence would you like?
Click to expand...


The same evidence I asked of Loki,drock,and dragon.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).
> 
> As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.
> 
> ,Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
> 
> We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mu·ta·tion [ myoo táysh'n ]
> change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.
> alteration: the action or process of changing something or of being changed
> phonetic change: a phonetic change found in Celtic languages in which the initial consonant of a word changes according to the preceding word
> Synonyms: change, alteration, transformation, transmutation, metamorphosis, transfiguration, modification
> 
> change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.
Click to expand...


Your definition is not evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already provided proof of the exact opposite being tested and proven in the lab.
> 
> Mutations produce new and positive features.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Present these features that are a benefit to the organism and is considered new information.
> 
> The only thing you have presented is Micro-adaptations not macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're in the link I already provided to you specifically in this exact thread.  Exact proof of beneficial mutations, that even your bible blogs admit happen.
> 
> If this is another one of your threads where you crown yourself victor because you repeat yourself the most, go ahead and do it.
Click to expand...


The thing your not understanding a mutation that might provide a benefit to being antibiotic resistence is different then the mutation that would create a new feature like arm and brain and so on.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
> 
> We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.
> 
> 
> 
> mu·ta·tion [ myoo táysh'n ]
> change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.
> alteration: the action or process of changing something or of being changed
> phonetic change: a phonetic change found in Celtic languages in which the initial consonant of a word changes according to the preceding word
> Synonyms: change, alteration, transformation, transmutation, metamorphosis, transfiguration, modification
> 
> change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts and definitions get you nowhere with YWC.
Click to expand...


A definition is not evidence.


----------



## daws101

Dr.Drock said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
> 
> We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.
> 
> 
> 
> mu·ta·tion [ myoo táysh'n ]
> change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.
> alteration: the action or process of changing something or of being changed
> phonetic change: a phonetic change found in Celtic languages in which the initial consonant of a word changes according to the preceding word
> Synonyms: change, alteration, transformation, transmutation, metamorphosis, transfiguration, modification
> 
> change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts and definitions get you nowhere with YWC.
Click to expand...

thanks I had a feeling it would be like that.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> The same evidence I asked of Loki,drock,and dragon.



And you have yet to clarify what you were asking of any of us, either.

It's impossible to offer evidence for a vague statement that could mean almost anything, or even to know whether or not we believe it's true.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
> 
> We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.
> 
> 
> 
> mu·ta·tion [ myoo táysh'n ]
> change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.
> alteration: the action or process of changing something or of being changed
> phonetic change: a phonetic change found in Celtic languages in which the initial consonant of a word changes according to the preceding word
> Synonyms: change, alteration, transformation, transmutation, metamorphosis, transfiguration, modification
> 
> change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your definition is not evidence.
Click to expand...

of course it is, it discribes proven observations and tests.
I'll ask again, what short of evidence do you require?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Present these features that are a benefit to the organism and is considered new information.
> 
> The only thing you have presented is Micro-adaptations not macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're in the link I already provided to you specifically in this exact thread.  Exact proof of beneficial mutations, that even your bible blogs admit happen.
> 
> If this is another one of your threads where you crown yourself victor because you repeat yourself the most, go ahead and do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing your not understanding a mutation that might provide a benefit to being antibiotic resistence is different then the mutation that would create a new feature like arm and brain and so on.
Click to expand...

bullshit!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not the same species look it up,they are of the same family.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, they are the same species if they were not they could not produce offspring
> genus:ge·nus noun \&#712;j&#275;-n&#601;s, &#712;je-\
> plural gen·era\&#712;je-n&#601;-r&#601;\ also ge·nus·es
> 
> Definition of GENUS
> 1: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic; specifically : a category of biological classification ranking between the family and the species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting unusual differentiation, and being designated by a Latin or latinized capitalized singular noun
> 2: a class of objects divided into several subordinate species
> thanks for playing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is wrong.
> 
> Do horses and donkeys belong to same species? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> 
> Cattle species bos taurus:
> Web definition cattle: domesticated bovine animals as a group regardless of sex or age; "so many head of cattle"; "wait till the cows...
> 
> American buffalo species is bison.
> 
> bison [&#712;ba&#618;s&#601;n]
> n pl -son
> 1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) Also called American bison buffalo a member of the cattle tribe, Bison bison, formerly widely distributed over the prairies of W North America but now confined to reserves and parks, with a massive head, shaggy forequarters, and a humped back
> 
> 
> Lions and tigers
> 
> Are lions and tigers part of the same species?
> by de47 » Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:18 am
> 
> Are lions and tigers part of the same speciesde47
> Garter
> 
> 
> Posts: 7
> Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:54 am
> Location: land of the long white cloud Top
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> by i_r_e_d » Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:49 pm
> 
> They're both cats...
> 
> -Dannyi_r_e_d
> Coral
> 
> 
> Posts: 305
> Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:31 pm
> Location: Socorro, New Mexico USA Top
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> by alextemplet » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:30 am
> 
> No. Lions are Panthera leo; tigers are Panthera tigris. They're the same genus but separate species.
> 
> The rest you can look up yourself.
Click to expand...

thanks already have and you're wrong ! the point you are avoiding is that all of these creatures can produce mix or mutated offspring that by definition is evolution


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, they are the same species if they were not they could not produce offspring
> genus:ge·nus noun \&#712;j&#275;-n&#601;s, &#712;je-\
> plural gen·era\&#712;je-n&#601;-r&#601;\ also ge·nus·es
> 
> Definition of GENUS
> 1: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic; specifically : a category of biological classification ranking between the family and the species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting unusual differentiation, and being designated by a Latin or latinized capitalized singular noun
> 2: a class of objects divided into several subordinate species
> thanks for playing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is wrong.
> 
> Do horses and donkeys belong to same species? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> 
> Cattle species bos taurus:
> Web definition cattle: domesticated bovine animals as a group regardless of sex or age; "so many head of cattle"; "wait till the cows...
> 
> American buffalo species is bison.
> 
> bison [&#712;ba&#618;s&#601;n]
> n pl -son
> 1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) Also called American bison buffalo a member of the cattle tribe, Bison bison, formerly widely distributed over the prairies of W North America but now confined to reserves and parks, with a massive head, shaggy forequarters, and a humped back
> 
> 
> Lions and tigers
> 
> Are lions and tigers part of the same species?
> by de47 » Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:18 am
> 
> Are lions and tigers part of the same speciesde47
> Garter
> 
> 
> Posts: 7
> Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:54 am
> Location: land of the long white cloud Top
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> by i_r_e_d » Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:49 pm
> 
> They're both cats...
> 
> -Dannyi_r_e_d
> Coral
> 
> 
> Posts: 305
> Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:31 pm
> Location: Socorro, New Mexico USA Top
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> by alextemplet » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:30 am
> 
> No. Lions are Panthera leo; tigers are Panthera tigris. They're the same genus but separate species.
> 
> The rest you can look up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks already have and you're wrong ! the point you are avoiding is that all of these creatures can produce mix or mutated offspring that by definition is evolution
Click to expand...


They are different species but from the same family.

You don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

Their offspring came from selective breeding not mutations.

Look at the pictures you see the genetics from both species in the offspring.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> The thing your not understanding a mutation that might provide a benefit to being antibiotic resistence is different then the mutation that would create a new feature like arm and brain and so on.



Ah, NOW we're getting somewhere.

Clearly, what you mean by "new feature" is "any feature of a living organism which represents too huge a development to be accounted for by any ONE mutation."

Which is pretty much what I expected: you are presenting a circular argument.

What are you so afraid of that you have to lie in order to try to uphold creationism? You know, lying is a sin, and if you're lying about this you don't actually believe it, and that's not going to protect you from hell.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is wrong.
> 
> Do horses and donkeys belong to same species? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> 
> Cattle species bos taurus:
> Web definition cattle: domesticated bovine animals as a group regardless of sex or age; "so many head of cattle"; "wait till the cows...
> 
> American buffalo species is bison.
> 
> bison [&#712;ba&#618;s&#601;n]
> n pl -son
> 1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) Also called American bison buffalo a member of the cattle tribe, Bison bison, formerly widely distributed over the prairies of W North America but now confined to reserves and parks, with a massive head, shaggy forequarters, and a humped back
> 
> 
> Lions and tigers
> 
> Are lions and tigers part of the same species?
> by de47 » Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:18 am
> 
> Are lions and tigers part of the same speciesde47
> Garter
> 
> 
> Posts: 7
> Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:54 am
> Location: land of the long white cloud Top
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> by i_r_e_d » Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:49 pm
> 
> They're both cats...
> 
> -Dannyi_r_e_d
> Coral
> 
> 
> Posts: 305
> Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:31 pm
> Location: Socorro, New Mexico USA Top
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> by alextemplet » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:30 am
> 
> No. Lions are Panthera leo; tigers are Panthera tigris. They're the same genus but separate species.
> 
> The rest you can look up yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> thanks already have and you're wrong ! the point you are avoiding is that all of these creatures can produce mix or mutated offspring that by definition is evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are different species but from the same family.
> 
> You don't have a clue of what you're talking about.
> 
> Their offspring came from selective breeding not mutations.
> 
> Look at the pictures you see the genetics from both species in the offspring.
Click to expand...

talking about not having a clue! the breeding selective or otherwise caused the mutations
what an ass clown. animal breeders match specific animals together to get the mutations (genetic traits) they prefer.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Present these features that are a benefit to the organism and is considered new information.
> 
> The only thing you have presented is Micro-adaptations not macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're in the link I already provided to you specifically in this exact thread.  Exact proof of beneficial mutations, that even your bible blogs admit happen.
> 
> If this is another one of your threads where you crown yourself victor because you repeat yourself the most, go ahead and do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing your not understanding a mutation that might provide a benefit to being antibiotic resistence is different then the mutation that would create a new feature like arm and brain and so on.
Click to expand...


That's not what the link said, don't ask for proof when the proof you're given you'll just ignore.

It was an experiment in a lab with mice, go back and look.


----------



## daws101

Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, ...
> 
> 
> 
> Not in dispute. No theory of speciation that proposes a causal relationship between genetic material and phenotype can ignore mutation, or say that mutation has only deleterious effect upon genetic information.
> 
> There is literally no reason to believe that changes in genotype cannot result in changes in phenotype.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does it have to be only one mutation for the notion to be valid?
> 
> and speaking of questions you have no intention of ingenuously answering ....
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There should not be just one but many. But I am being easy by asking for one...
Click to expand...

No. You're just being a disingenuous retard.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.



Youwerecreated said:


> this is what your theory requires.


This is a blatant misrepresentation.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.



Youwerecreated said:


> Without this evidence you're going by faith.


Utter nonsense.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.



Youwerecreated said:


> Remember us speaking of gradualism which is what all evolutnist predicted and is believed.


Yes. I also remeber how I pointed out to you that intellectually dishonest retards like yourself have a penchant for misrepresenting assertions expressing broad generalizations as if they were specific and unqualified assertions.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.



Youwerecreated said:


> The cambrian explosion disproves gradualism because so many complex organisms just suddenly appeared in the fossil record.


No it doesn't. This is just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.



Youwerecreated said:


> That is a major problem for evolutionist.


No, it's not. Evolutionary theory is entirely consistent with the evidence of the Cambrian explosion. That same evidence, however, contradicts both creationism and the global flood fairy tale.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.



Youwerecreated said:


> The cambrian explosion showed that gradual change did not happen .


A lie.



Youwerecreated said:


> the fossil record shows basic phyla emerged and stayed basically the same showing some variations within the same phylum.
> 
> There is no evidence of phyla gradually changing into something new.



Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind." Does it mean "phylum" too?



Youwerecreated said:


> Darwin worked under the belief that cells were not complex well we know that was hogwash.


Typical of your intellectual dishonesty, you just made that up from nothing.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.



Youwerecreated said:


> Cells are very complex,and cells have to appear fully formed or they would be useless.


Useless as cells I suppose, so, not in contention.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.



Youwerecreated said:


> certain organelles that are necessary for cellular life cannot be formed in gradual steps. The whole organelle must appear fully formed or the cell will not work.  some organelles are not just harmful but deadly to the cell if formed in gradual steps.


Ah, irreducible complexity. You are the lolz.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.



Youwerecreated said:


> Why is this a problem that cellular life does not conform to evolution ? Is it not how animals supposedly evolved ? because cells are the building blocks to life.
> 
> If cellular life is not in harmony with evolution the theory is dead on arrival.


Good thing it's not.

Sorry about your intellectually dishonest retarded superstitious luck.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.



Youwerecreated said:


> Evolutionist depend on genetic mutations to account for changes in species.


Evolutionists do not deny that mutations are changes to the genetic materials that in turn can be expressed...otherwise they could not depend on the fact of reality that genotype leads to phenotype.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA"]YWC--"Huh. This contradicts what I say about evolution so, ... this never happened! Praise Jesus!"[/ame]

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."



Youwerecreated said:


> Genetic mutations must explain and show how organisms changed from single celled organisms to multicelled organisms.To marine life to amphibious life to mammals and so on.
> 
> I will Quote Jonathan Wells PhD in Developmental Biology.
> 
> --*musings of a superstitious retard snipped*--​


I'd rather read your superstitious musings:

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The blind following the blind.
> 
> 
> 
> But not superstitious retards following retarded superstitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting to being blind I have never admitted to being a retard.
Click to expand...

You don't have to.


----------



## Dr Grump

Loki

You are a glutton for punishment. Why bother? The guy's a kook of the first degree....


----------



## LOki

Dr Grump said:


> Loki
> 
> You are a glutton for punishment. Why bother? The guy's a kook of the first degree....



Exposing these superstitious douche-bags to themselves and each other is not the least bit punishing for me ... it's like eating potato-chips.


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in dispute. No theory of speciation that proposes a causal relationship between genetic material and phenotype can ignore mutation, or say that mutation has only deleterious effect upon genetic information.
> 
> There is literally no reason to believe that changes in genotype cannot result in changes in phenotype.
> 
> Why does it have to be only one mutation for the notion to be valid?
> 
> and speaking of questions you have no intention of ingenuously answering ....
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There should not be just one but many. But I am being easy by asking for one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You're just being a disingenuous retard.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> This is a blatant misrepresentation.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Utter nonsense.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Yes. I also remeber how I pointed out to you that intellectually dishonest retards like yourself have a penchant for misrepresenting assertions expressing broad generalizations as if they were specific and unqualified assertions.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> No it doesn't. This is just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> No, it's not. Evolutionary theory is entirely consistent with the evidence of the Cambrian explosion. That same evidence, however, contradicts both creationism and the global flood fairy tale.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> A lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind." Does it mean "phylum" too?
> 
> Typical of your intellectual dishonesty, you just made that up from nothing.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Useless as cells I suppose, so, not in contention.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Ah, irreducible complexity. You are the lolz.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Good thing it's not.
> 
> Sorry about your intellectually dishonest retarded superstitious luck.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist depend on genetic mutations to account for changes in species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolutionists do not deny that mutations are changes to the genetic materials that in turn can be expressed...otherwise they could not depend on the fact of reality that genotype leads to phenotype.
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA"]YWC--"Huh. This contradicts what I say about evolution so, ... this never happened! Praise Jesus!"[/ame]
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genetic mutations must explain and show how organisms changed from single celled organisms to multicelled organisms.To marine life to amphibious life to mammals and so on.
> 
> I will Quote Jonathan Wells PhD in Developmental Biology.
> 
> --*musings of a superstitious retard snipped*--​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd rather read your superstitious musings:
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
Click to expand...

 
Jonathan Wells is a superstitious retard?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing your not understanding a mutation that might provide a benefit to being antibiotic resistence is different then the mutation that would create a new feature like arm and brain and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, NOW we're getting somewhere.
> 
> Clearly, what you mean by "new feature" is "any feature of a living organism which represents too huge a development to be accounted for by any ONE mutation."
> 
> Which is pretty much what I expected: you are presenting a circular argument.
> 
> What are you so afraid of that you have to lie in order to try to uphold creationism? You know, lying is a sin, and if you're lying about this you don't actually believe it, and that's not going to protect you from hell.
Click to expand...


Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.

Your theory is based on circular reasoning 


I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks already have and you're wrong ! the point you are avoiding is that all of these creatures can produce mix or mutated offspring that by definition is evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are different species but from the same family.
> 
> You don't have a clue of what you're talking about.
> 
> Their offspring came from selective breeding not mutations.
> 
> Look at the pictures you see the genetics from both species in the offspring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> talking about not having a clue! the breeding selective or otherwise caused the mutations
> what an ass clown. animal breeders match specific animals together to get the mutations (genetic traits) they prefer.
Click to expand...


Mutations are copying error's someone please help this guy out,Before he makes a bigger fool of himself. what happened was the offspring were the result of both parents genes.

You do have gene mutation but that only occurrs when a mistake has taken place good thing God has a back up plan to help in correcting those errors, which also is evidence of design. a natural process would think of creating a mechanism to correct mistakes ?

You need a class in genetics,ever hear of inheritable traits ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds



Do you understand why they make this claim ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

This is funny stuff, not trying to make fun of people sorry if I came off rude but I get tired of the lesser educated trying to educate me when they don't have a clue whats being taught.


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There should not be just one but many. But I am being easy by asking for one...
> 
> 
> 
> No. You're just being a disingenuous retard.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> This is a blatant misrepresentation.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Utter nonsense.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Yes. I also remeber how I pointed out to you that intellectually dishonest retards like yourself have a penchant for misrepresenting assertions expressing broad generalizations as if they were specific and unqualified assertions.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> No it doesn't. This is just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> No, it's not. Evolutionary theory is entirely consistent with the evidence of the Cambrian explosion. That same evidence, however, contradicts both creationism and the global flood fairy tale.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> A lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind." Does it mean "phylum" too?
> 
> Typical of your intellectual dishonesty, you just made that up from nothing.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Useless as cells I suppose, so, not in contention.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Ah, irreducible complexity. You are the lolz.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Good thing it's not.
> 
> Sorry about your intellectually dishonest retarded superstitious luck.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Evolutionists do not deny that mutations are changes to the genetic materials that in turn can be expressed...otherwise they could not depend on the fact of reality that genotype leads to phenotype.
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA"]YWC--"Huh. This contradicts what I say about evolution so, ... this never happened! Praise Jesus!"[/ame]
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genetic mutations must explain and show how organisms changed from single celled organisms to multicelled organisms.To marine life to amphibious life to mammals and so on.
> 
> I will Quote Jonathan Wells PhD in Developmental Biology.
> 
> --*musings of a superstitious retard snipped*--​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd rather read your superstitious musings:
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jonathan Wells is a superstitious retard?
Click to expand...


I don't know why I give you the time of day. Let's see how rational you're


Internal Contradiction - Problem of Knowledge

A final piece of evidence I wish to consider is the problem of internal consistency with materialistic evolution. If life is not designed, but the product of random, unintelligent, accidental causes, then what basis is there for saying our brains are a reliable source of information? Here is the catch: if we say our brains are trustworthy for knowledge, then we must admit that they were deisgned in such a way to accurately give us knowledge. On the other hand, if we say our brains are not trustworthy for knowing the world, then we cannot say evolution (or any other science) is true. Peter Kreeft (philosophy professor at Boston College) captures this in this dialog:


Chris: Would you trust a computer programmed by chance? -by a fall of hailstones on its keyboard, for instance?
sali: No.
chris: Or if you were flying in an airplane and the public address system announced that the plane was being flown by a computer that had been programmed by a football player in spiked shoes walking over computer cards, would you trust the airplane to land safely?
sal: No way.
chris: Then why do you trust your brain and nervous system? It's like a very complex computer. If it's been programmed only by chance, by blind nature, and not by God, not by any Designer, why trust it when it does science, and when it tells you about nature? Or about itself? If you can't trust the programmer of the human brain, then you can't trust the brain when it tells you about the brain!5

This final problem is not mere sophistry or a simple logic puzzle. If our brains are reliable, then there must be some other reason to be justified in believing that besides supposing a theory that declares that all life is the result of random, unintelligent processes. If materialistic evolution is true, I see no basis by which we can trust our own reasoning. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a scientific paradigm that effectually saws off the epistemological limb it stands upon. For this reason, evolution is internally inconsistent, and therefore ought to be rejected.


http://www.ukapologetics.net/1neodarwinism.htm


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Jonathan Wells is a superstitious retard?



Unambiguously, yes.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing your not understanding a mutation that might provide a benefit to being antibiotic resistence is different then the mutation that would create a new feature like arm and brain and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, NOW we're getting somewhere.
> 
> Clearly, what you mean by "new feature" is "any feature of a living organism which represents too huge a development to be accounted for by any ONE mutation."
> 
> Which is pretty much what I expected: you are presenting a circular argument.
> 
> What are you so afraid of that you have to lie in order to try to uphold creationism? You know, lying is a sin, and if you're lying about this you don't actually believe it, and that's not going to protect you from hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.
> 
> Your theory is based on circular reasoning
Click to expand...

Intellectually dishonest misrepresentations.




Youwerecreated said:


> I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.


Another intellectually dishonest misrepresentation.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.



No, it doesn't. The Cambrian explosion occupied millions of years. It was only "sudden" in comparison with periods of slower evolution. It was in no sense instantaneous.



> I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.



My eyes are already open, thanks, and you ARE being dishonest. The mystery is why you bother. See, while the arguments you are presenting might actually sway people who are utterly ignorant of biology, you are addressing now people who have some knowledge of the subject. The flaws in it, such as your completely incorrect understanding of what happened in the Cambrian explosion, are quite obvious to us, and you are not going to accomplish anything by these tactics except to expose your own lack of intellectual integrity.

Which you are doing very nicely.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, NOW we're getting somewhere.
> 
> Clearly, what you mean by "new feature" is "any feature of a living organism which represents too huge a development to be accounted for by any ONE mutation."
> 
> Which is pretty much what I expected: you are presenting a circular argument.
> 
> What are you so afraid of that you have to lie in order to try to uphold creationism? You know, lying is a sin, and if you're lying about this you don't actually believe it, and that's not going to protect you from hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.
> 
> Your theory is based on circular reasoning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intellectually dishonest misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another intellectually dishonest misrepresentation.
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
Click to expand...


You really need to work on an argument and your vocabulary.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. The Cambrian explosion occupied millions of years. It was only "sudden" in comparison with periods of slower evolution. It was in no sense instantaneous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My eyes are already open, thanks, and you ARE being dishonest. The mystery is why you bother. See, while the arguments you are presenting might actually sway people who are utterly ignorant of biology, you are addressing now people who have some knowledge of the subject. The flaws in it, such as your completely incorrect understanding of what happened in the Cambrian explosion, are quite obvious to us, and you are not going to accomplish anything by these tactics except to expose your own lack of intellectual integrity.
> 
> Which you are doing very nicely.
Click to expand...


5 to 10 miilions years according to your side, now show me these gradual changes that had to take place in that time frame ?

Show me the transitional fossils from the pre cambrian to the cambrian.

My views are different because not what I have been taught like you but by reasoning on the evidence.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> 5 to 10 miilions years according to your side, now show me these gradual changes that had to take place in that time frame ?



The Cambrian lasted for some 54 million years.



> Show me the transitional fossils from the pre cambrian to the cambrian.



"Transitional fossils" is another of those terms, like "new feature" and "kinds," that creationists refuse to precisely define. I could of course show intermediate fossils between life forms in the mid-Proterozoic and the mid-Cambrian, but if I did, you would simply insist that these are not "transitional fossils" and demand something in between them, and so on for whatever is shown. This is, of course, completely dishonest.

But prove me wrong. Give me a precise definition of what exactly you mean by "transitional fossil" and I will endeavor to show you one. (Then again, you could easily find it yourself.)



> My views are different because not what I have been taught like you but by reasoning on the evidence.



Your views are not based from reasoning on the evidence, but from fear of hell. You have a gun to your head and are incapable of reasoning or arguing honestly. It could not be more obvious.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. The Cambrian explosion occupied millions of years. It was only "sudden" in comparison with periods of slower evolution. It was in no sense instantaneous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My eyes are already open, thanks, and you ARE being dishonest. The mystery is why you bother. See, while the arguments you are presenting might actually sway people who are utterly ignorant of biology, you are addressing now people who have some knowledge othe subject. The flaws in it, such as your completely incorrect understanding of what happened in the Cambrian explosion, are quite obvious to us, and you are not going to accomplish anything by these tactics except to expose your own lack of intellectual integrity.
> 
> Which you are doing very nicely.
Click to expand...


No your eyes are wide shut.

Can you explain why eldredge and gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium.It was over the stasis found in the cambrian. The body structures are still the same today go figure.

So guess again buckaroo.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5 to 10 miilions years according to your side, now show me these gradual changes that had to take place in that time frame ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cambrian lasted for some 54 million years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the transitional fossils from the pre cambrian to the cambrian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Transitional fossils" is another of those terms, like "new feature" and "kinds," that creationists refuse to precisely define. I could of course show intermediate fossils between life forms in the mid-Proterozoic and the mid-Cambrian, but if I did, you would simply insist that these are not "transitional fossils" and demand something in between them, and so on for whatever is shown. This is, of course, completely dishonest.
> 
> But prove me wrong. Give me a precise definition of what exactly you mean by "transitional fossil" and I will endeavor to show you one. (Then again, you could easily find it yourself.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My views are different because not what I have been taught like you but by reasoning on the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your views are not based from reasoning on the evidence, but from fear of hell. You have a gun to your head and are incapable of reasoning or arguing honestly. It could not be more obvious.
Click to expand...


Wrong again buckaroo, it lasted about 5 million years and it happenedly supposedly between 490 million years ago to 543 million years ago.


The Cambrian Period


----------



## koshergrl

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. The Cambrian explosion occupied millions of years. It was only "sudden" in comparison with periods of slower evolution. It was in no sense instantaneous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My eyes are already open, thanks, and you ARE being dishonest. The mystery is why you bother. See, while the arguments you are presenting might actually sway people who are utterly ignorant of biology, you are addressing now people who have some knowledge of the subject. The flaws in it, such as your completely incorrect understanding of what happened in the Cambrian explosion, are quite obvious to us, and you are not going to accomplish anything by these tactics except to expose your own lack of intellectual integrity.
> 
> Which you are doing very nicely.
Click to expand...

 
So the way you point out dishonesty is by lying?

Many, many people who are NOT ignorant of biology (myself, many professionals who exceed your own pathetic education, including top scientists) believe as we do. So if you are going to make an argument, make an argument, besides the LYING *argument* that educated people don't believe.

They do. And in fact, I believe I just saw a study that showed that it was the uneducated who were most likely to lack faith...


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. The Cambrian explosion occupied millions of years. It was only "sudden" in comparison with periods of slower evolution. It was in no sense instantaneous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My eyes are already open, thanks, and you ARE being dishonest. The mystery is why you bother. See, while the arguments you are presenting might actually sway people who are utterly ignorant of biology, you are addressing now people who have some knowledge of the subject. The flaws in it, such as your completely incorrect understanding of what happened in the Cambrian explosion, are quite obvious to us, and you are not going to accomplish anything by these tactics except to expose your own lack of intellectual integrity.
> 
> Which you are doing very nicely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the way you point out dishonesty is by lying?
> 
> Many, many people who are NOT ignorant of biology (myself, many professionals who exceed your own pathetic education, including top scientists) believe as we do. So if you are going to make an argument, make an argument, besides the LYING *argument* that educated people don't believe.
> 
> They do. And in fact, I believe I just saw a study that showed that it was the uneducated who were most likely to lack faith...
Click to expand...


It amazes me how many of these defenders of the faith don't know their own theory.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. You're just being a disingenuous retard.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> This is a blatant misrepresentation.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Utter nonsense.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Yes. I also remeber how I pointed out to you that intellectually dishonest retards like yourself have a penchant for misrepresenting assertions expressing broad generalizations as if they were specific and unqualified assertions.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> No it doesn't. This is just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> No, it's not. Evolutionary theory is entirely consistent with the evidence of the Cambrian explosion. That same evidence, however, contradicts both creationism and the global flood fairy tale.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> A lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind." Does it mean "phylum" too?
> 
> Typical of your intellectual dishonesty, you just made that up from nothing.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Useless as cells I suppose, so, not in contention.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Ah, irreducible complexity. You are the lolz.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Good thing it's not.
> 
> Sorry about your intellectually dishonest retarded superstitious luck.
> 
> Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Evolutionists do not deny that mutations are changes to the genetic materials that in turn can be expressed...otherwise they could not depend on the fact of reality that genotype leads to phenotype.
> 
> YWC--"Huh. This contradicts what I say about evolution so, ... this never happened! Praise Jesus!"
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> I'd rather read your superstitious musings:
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan Wells is a superstitious retard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why I give you the time of day. Let's see how rational you're
> 
> 
> Internal Contradiction - Problem of Knowledge
> 
> A final piece of evidence I wish to consider is the problem of internal consistency with materialistic evolution. If life is not designed, but the product of random, unintelligent, accidental causes, then what basis is there for saying our brains are a reliable source of information? Here is the catch: if we say our brains are trustworthy for knowledge, then we must admit that they were deisgned in such a way to accurately give us knowledge. On the other hand, if we say our brains are not trustworthy for knowing the world, then we cannot say evolution (or any other science) is true. Peter Kreeft (philosophy professor at Boston College) captures this in this dialog:
> 
> 
> Chris: Would you trust a computer programmed by chance? -by a fall of hailstones on its keyboard, for instance?
> sali: No.
> chris: Or if you were flying in an airplane and the public address system announced that the plane was being flown by a computer that had been programmed by a football player in spiked shoes walking over computer cards, would you trust the airplane to land safely?
> sal: No way.
> chris: Then why do you trust your brain and nervous system? It's like a very complex computer. If it's been programmed only by chance, by blind nature, and not by God, not by any Designer, why trust it when it does science, and when it tells you about nature? Or about itself? If you can't trust the programmer of the human brain, then you can't trust the brain when it tells you about the brain!5
> 
> This final problem is not mere sophistry or a simple logic puzzle. If our brains are reliable, then there must be some other reason to be justified in believing that besides supposing a theory that declares that all life is the result of random, unintelligent processes. If materialistic evolution is true, I see no basis by which we can trust our own reasoning. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a scientific paradigm that effectually saws off the epistemological limb it stands upon. For this reason, evolution is internally inconsistent, and therefore ought to be rejected.
> 
> 
> Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?: The Evidence Against Evolution
Click to expand...


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0"]If life is not designed, but the product of random, unintelligent, accidental causes, then what basis is there for saying our brains are a reliable source of information?[/ame]

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.
> 
> Your theory is based on circular reasoning
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectually dishonest misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another intellectually dishonest misrepresentation.
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to work on an argument and your vocabulary.
Click to expand...


Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. The Cambrian explosion occupied millions of years. It was only "sudden" in comparison with periods of slower evolution. It was in no sense instantaneous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My eyes are already open, thanks, and you ARE being dishonest. The mystery is why you bother. See, while the arguments you are presenting might actually sway people who are utterly ignorant of biology, you are addressing now people who have some knowledge of the subject. The flaws in it, such as your completely incorrect understanding of what happened in the Cambrian explosion, are quite obvious to us, and you are not going to accomplish anything by these tactics except to expose your own lack of intellectual integrity.
> 
> Which you are doing very nicely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5 to 10 miilions years according to your side, now show me these gradual changes that had to take place in that time frame ?
Click to expand...

Do math much?



Youwerecreated said:


> Show me the transitional fossils from the pre cambrian to the cambrian.


Show me the fossils of human beings in cambrian explosion that proves your creation fairy tale.



Youwerecreated said:


> My views are different because not what I have been taught like you but by reasoning on the evidence.


What reasoning? What evidence? You clearly claimed your beliefs are faith, which necessarily denies faith and requires the application of logical fallacy as it's foundation and means of validation. 

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. The Cambrian explosion occupied millions of years. It was only "sudden" in comparison with periods of slower evolution. It was in no sense instantaneous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My eyes are already open, thanks, and you ARE being dishonest. The mystery is why you bother. See, while the arguments you are presenting might actually sway people who are utterly ignorant of biology, you are addressing now people who have some knowledge othe subject. The flaws in it, such as your completely incorrect understanding of what happened in the Cambrian explosion, are quite obvious to us, and you are not going to accomplish anything by these tactics except to expose your own lack of intellectual integrity.
> 
> Which you are doing very nicely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No your eyes are wide shut.
> 
> Can you explain why eldredge and gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium.It was over the stasis found in the cambrian. The body structures are still the same today go figure.
Click to expand...

Blatant misrepresentation.



Youwerecreated said:


> So guess again buckaroo.


Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5 to 10 miilions years according to your side, now show me these gradual changes that had to take place in that time frame ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cambrian lasted for some 54 million years.
> 
> 
> 
> "Transitional fossils" is another of those terms, like "new feature" and "kinds," that creationists refuse to precisely define. I could of course show intermediate fossils between life forms in the mid-Proterozoic and the mid-Cambrian, but if I did, you would simply insist that these are not "transitional fossils" and demand something in between them, and so on for whatever is shown. This is, of course, completely dishonest.
> 
> But prove me wrong. Give me a precise definition of what exactly you mean by "transitional fossil" and I will endeavor to show you one. (Then again, you could easily find it yourself.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My views are different because not what I have been taught like you but by reasoning on the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your views are not based from reasoning on the evidence, but from fear of hell. You have a gun to your head and are incapable of reasoning or arguing honestly. It could not be more obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again buckaroo, it lasted about 5 million years and it happenedly supposedly between 490 million years ago to 543 million years ago.
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Period
Click to expand...

Look it up again and do the math, retard.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. The Cambrian explosion occupied millions of years. It was only "sudden" in comparison with periods of slower evolution. It was in no sense instantaneous.
> 
> 
> 
> My eyes are already open, thanks, and you ARE being dishonest. The mystery is why you bother. See, while the arguments you are presenting might actually sway people who are utterly ignorant of biology, you are addressing now people who have some knowledge othe subject. The flaws in it, such as your completely incorrect understanding of what happened in the Cambrian explosion, are quite obvious to us, and you are not going to accomplish anything by these tactics except to expose your own lack of intellectual integrity.
> 
> Which you are doing very nicely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No your eyes are wide shut.
> 
> Can you explain why eldredge and gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium.It was over the stasis found in the cambrian. The body structures are still the same today go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blatant misrepresentation.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So guess again buckaroo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
Click to expand...


Just admit to ignorance and let's move on. Both me and koshergirl are waiting for the answers to questions put to you disingenuous crowd ignorant of your own theory. I have answered your questions and you don't like the answer but you post no rebuttal to the answers provided who is being intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Just admit to ignorance and let's move on.



Of course I'm not going to do that. You are the ignorant one here, unless you are even more dishonest than you obviously are.



> Both me and koshergirl are waiting for the answers to questions put to you



And I'm still waiting for you to define your terms, without which a question cannot be answered.



> I have answered your questions



No, you have not. Once again:

What is the definition of "kind"?

What is the definition of "new feature"?

What is the definition of "transitional fossil"?

Until you answer these questions, it will remain impossible to answer yours, as your questions include those terms and their meaning is unclear.


----------



## koshergrl

Why on earth are you carping on "kind"? I provided the biblical definition. Why do you need something else?


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> Why on earth are you carping on "kind"? I provided the biblical definition. Why do you need something else?



Because the Biblical definition is completely vague and imprecise. If we are going to use that term in a scientific discussion, which this is, then we need to give it an exact definition.

Biology uses terms of classification for living things in a hierarchy: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. A few other terms exist for nit-pickers but those are the main ones. I know exactly what each of these terms means. Our own species, _Homo sapiens_, is:

species sapiens
genus Homo
family Homie (hominids and great apes)
order Primates (hominids, apes, monkeys, lemurs, and a few others)
class Mammalia (all mammals)
phylum Chordata (all animals with spinal cords)
kingdom Animal (all animals)

But "kind"? I know it's something along the same lines, but what, exactly? Is a "kind" the same as a species? Apparently not -- and it's impossible to pin down those who are using it as to what it IS equivalent to in standard biology.

Until we know exactly what "kind" means, we really can't say anything about kinds with precision.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why on earth are you carping on "kind"? I provided the biblical definition. Why do you need something else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Biblical definition is completely vague and imprecise. If we are going to use that term in a scientific discussion, which this is, then we need to give it an exact definition.
> 
> Biology uses terms of classification for living things in a hierarchy: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. A few other terms exist for nit-pickers but those are the main ones. I know exactly what each of these terms means. Our own species, _Homo sapiens_, is:
> 
> species sapiens
> genus Homo
> family Homie (hominids and great apes)
> order Primates (hominids, apes, monkeys, lemurs, and a few others)
> class Mammalia (all mammals)
> phylum Chordata (all animals with spinal cords)
> kingdom Animal (all animals)
> 
> But "kind"? I know it's something along the same lines, but what, exactly? Is a "kind" the same as a species? Apparently not -- and it's impossible to pin down those who are using it as to what it IS equivalent to in standard biology.
> 
> Until we know exactly what "kind" means, we really can't say anything about kinds with precision.
Click to expand...


It does mean species.

Gen 1

11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.   
12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good. 


24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.

Sorry God did not use terms you're looking for they didn't exist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just admit to ignorance and let's move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I'm not going to do that. You are the ignorant one here, unless you are even more dishonest than you obviously are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both me and koshergirl are waiting for the answers to questions put to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm still waiting for you to define your terms, without which a question cannot be answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered your questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have not. Once again:
> 
> What is the definition of "kind"?
> 
> What is the definition of "new feature"?
> 
> What is the definition of "transitional fossil"?
> 
> Until you answer these questions, it will remain impossible to answer yours, as your questions include those terms and their meaning is unclear.
Click to expand...


You really need an explanation for feature or transitional fossil,Don't be rediculous.

Are you ready to explain the cambrian now that you know what it is and what it presented ?

How bout,non-intelligence creating intelligence ?

Why do you trust the information in your brain if it was not programmed properly ?

Do you believe a computer could program itself or did it need intelligence to program it ?


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> It does mean species.



Excellent! Now, in the future, if this term comes up, I will know what you mean. I'm going to hold you to this definition, though.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> You really need an explanation for feature or transitional fossil



I need an explanation of EXACTLY what YOU mean by it, in precise terms, with no wiggle room and no secret exits.



> Are you ready to explain the cambrian now that you know what it is and what it presented ?



I always knew. I already explained it: your notion that the Cambrian explosion happened instantaneously is non-factual. It didn't. It was simply a period of unusually rapid evolution. So the only thing to explain (if anything at all) is that evolution does not proceed at a constant speed. Do you need that explained?



> How bout,non-intelligence creating intelligence ?



Well, first we have to define intelligence and how it works. If you really want an explanation of this, follow along.

The root operation of intelligence is simply trial and error. It presumes a preferred outcome, which for living things is (at simplest level) survival. Do A. If A works, live. If A doesn't, die.

Now let's suppose a large group of living things (one-celled organisms in this case). Let's say they are faced with choices between two actions in a given situation and make those choices randomly. Those that choose A live. Those that choose B die. Now let's recognize also, because this is true, that a predilection to choose A instead of B can be encoded into the genes. Further, let's posit that a certain percentage, say 10%, are coded to prefer A, while another 10% are coded to prefer B, and the remaining 80% are coded to prefer neither. Over time, those coded to prefer A will replace the population coded to prefer B or neither, because they will survive and pass on their genes more reliably. Eventually, the entire population will be genetically programmed to prefer A.

So there we have the simplest, most basic form of intelligence: a genetic, instinctive preference to make a particular decision. There's a lot of that in nature. We're not up to what we would call intelligence proper, yet, but bear with me.

Now let's skip a few steps, because to have intelligence as that term is normally meant we need a multicelled organism. (I can explain how that happens, too. It's not nearly as mysterious as you seem to think. But I'll skip it for now.) All right, we have multicelled organisms and the beginning of differentiation, with some cells specializing in some functions and other cells in other functions. Again, I'm skipping steps, but none of this presents any problem at all to evolutionary theory.

One of the advances likely to happen because it presents a clear survival advantage is the development of specialized nerve tissue, which makes the processing of information and sensing of the environment more efficient. We're still not up to intelligence properly so called, but now we have information coming to the organism for it to act upon. It still makes decisions by random trial and error, "learning" over generations and "deciding" by instinct, but does so more efficiently. But specialized nerve tissue allows for another advance: memory. Memory means that the organism can recall what it did on a prior decision and whether or not it worked. So instead of making a new random decision each time, it can make a random decision once, and if that works out remember and make the same decision (no longer random) next time. This gives it a big survival advantage, so memory is kept and passed on to future generations.

Now, over time and generations, more nerve tissue is given over to the functions of sensation and memory (natural selection alone can do this, no mutations needed at this stage). And at some point, we add a new refinement: imagination. The organism comes upon a situation that isn't exactly like anything it's met before, but enough like it that it can extrapolate. Instead of just barging ahead and doing A or B, it imagines doing both, imagines the outcome (in which it may be right or wrong), and chooses in real life whichever approach it imagines will be better. And again, over time and generations, its descendants become better at doing this through a process of natural selection.

So let's review what we have so far:

1) Basic trial and error decision making leads to instinctive knowledge.

2) Multicelled organization leads to specialized nerve tissue.

3) Specialized nerve tissue leads to memory.

4) Memory leads to imagination, and the making of decisions by imaginary trial and error rather than the real thing.

And there we have the basis for intelligence. Everything else is just refinement and improvement.

That's how evolution works, not in one huge jump but in many smaller increments, each opening new possibilities.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No your eyes are wide shut.
> 
> Can you explain why eldredge and gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium.It was over the stasis found in the cambrian. The body structures are still the same today go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> Blatant misrepresentation.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So guess again buckaroo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just admit to ignorance and let's move on.
Click to expand...

Ignorant of what you mean when you use terms that you don't define in a deliberately imprecise manner that defies definition?

Sure thing retard. Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

_EDIT: I now see Post 906, and I'll accept YWC's definition as I accepted koshergrl's earlier. It's about fucking time._​


Youwerecreated said:


> Both me and koshergirl are waiting for the answers to questions put to you disingenuous crowd ignorant of your own theory.


No you're not. You have been answered repeatedly and in depth.

But here's the deal you mendacious buffoon, You need only post those question I have not answered but once, and I will (unlike you) respond--provided that you first answer the one question I have asked of you dozens of times.

Too honest of a deal for you?

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.



Youwerecreated said:


> I have answered your questions and you don't like the answer....


No you haven't. Not once. 

 I defy you to link to this answer. 

You won't, I assure you, because you have not answered the question I have asked you, so there is literally no answer for you to link to.



Youwerecreated said:


> ...but you post no rebuttal to the answers provided who is being intellectually dishonest.


There is no answer to rebut you fucktard. You have repeatedly refused to answer the question I have asked you, and now to cement the proof of your intellectual dishonesty you project your lack of integrity with this patently bullshit accusation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

You guys have proven not to be worthy of debating this issue I don't see any reason to carry on so you guys enjoy being brainwashed.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> You guys have proven not to be worthy of debating this issue I don't see any reason to carry on so you guys enjoy being brainwashed.



LOL that was predictable. Bye.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> You guys have proven not to be worthy of debating this issue I don't see any reason to carry on so you guys enjoy being brainwashed.


Later on, retard!


----------



## LOki

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have proven not to be worthy of debating this issue I don't see any reason to carry on so you guys enjoy being brainwashed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL that was predictable. Bye.
Click to expand...

lol


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have proven not to be worthy of debating this issue I don't see any reason to carry on so you guys enjoy being brainwashed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL that was predictable. Bye.
Click to expand...


What's really funny you believe a word in the bible is what the debates about. Sorry It's the evidence which apparently your only evidence are words something I said many times in debates on this issue. Koshergirl was right about you. So long


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have proven not to be worthy of debating this issue I don't see any reason to carry on so you guys enjoy being brainwashed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL that was predictable. Bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's really funny you believe a word in the bible is what the debates about. Sorry It's the evidence which apparently your only evidence are words something I said many times in debates on this issue. Koshergirl was right about you. So long
Click to expand...

Keep running! Run, Forrest, run!


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> What's really funny you believe a word in the bible is what the debates about. Sorry It's the evidence which apparently your only evidence are words something I said many times in debates on this issue. Koshergirl was right about you. So long



Not only are your thoughts incoherent, so is your use of the English language.

No, you're just doing what creationists typically do when confronted with sound logic and real knowledge: running away. You have no real answer to the arguments you're confronting, your walls of text didn't work and you don't understand them well enough to deal with that failure, and your commitment to defend the indefensible has simply put you in an impossible position.

Perhaps all you need to do is grow up a little. I do get the impression I'm dealing with a child here, given your poor syntax, vocabulary, and reasoning ability. If so, best of luck to you.


----------



## LOki

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's really funny you believe a word in the bible is what the debates about. Sorry It's the evidence which apparently your only evidence are words something I said many times in debates on this issue. Koshergirl was right about you. So long
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only are your thoughts incoherent, so is your use of the English language.
> 
> No, you're just doing what creationists typically do when confronted with sound logic and real knowledge: running away. You have no real answer to the arguments you're confronting, your walls of text didn't work and you don't understand them well enough to deal with that failure, and your commitment to defend the indefensible has simply put you in an impossible position.
> 
> Perhaps all you need to do is grow up a little. I do get the impression I'm dealing with a child here, given your poor syntax, vocabulary, and reasoning ability. If so, best of luck to you.
Click to expand...

_"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dragon again."_​


----------



## LOki

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO7IT81h200&feature=player_profilepage"]Creation 'Science' Made Easy[/ame]

I'm going to go out farther on a limb than the guy above, and put forth the assertion that being based on faith, Intelligent Design, and the entirety of Creation "science," is not only factually wrong (as demonstrated over and over) but also morally wrong ... *because *of the faith:


Youwerecreated said:


> I had faith last night when I went to bed the sun would rise is that rational thought to assume it was gonna rise today ?


No. Rational thought requires verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Faith requires the absence and denial of verifiable evidence and valid logic.

If your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, then your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is not faith--it cannot be--whether the sun rises or not.

For instance; if the sun in fact of reality (as evidenced by its rising) rises the next morning and you maintain the belief that it did rise, you are validating (by accepting the verifiable evidence as the validating criteria of the sun having risen) your past (rational) belief and are still not exercising faith.

If the sun (as evidenced by its failure to rise) does not rise the next morning and you maintain the belief that it did not rise, you are invalidating (by accepting the verifiable evidence as the validating criteria of the sun having not risen) your past (rational) belief--IOW: you admit you were wrong, and are still not exercising faith by accepting the verifiable evidence of the sun having not risen--even if it has (in fact of reality) and the evidence of the fact is not available to you.

If, OTOH, your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is unfounded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, then your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is faith--it must be--whether the sun rises or not.

For instance; if you believed that the sun will not rise tomorrow in spite of all the evidence that it has in the past, and lack of evidence for a change of the conditions under which past experience prevails, you are exercising faith. If the sun rises in fact of reality (as evidenced by its rising) the next morning and you maintain the belief that it did not rise (in denial of the verifiable evidence that it has risen) then you are again exercising faith currently, as well as validating (by denying the verifiable evidence as the validating criteria of the sun having risen) the faith you held yesterday.

If, without any regard what-so-ever for any evidence regarding the rising of the sun, you believed that the sun will rise, you are still exercising faith. If the sun in fact of reality (as evidenced by its rising) rises the next morning and you maintain the belief that it did so without any regard what-so-ever for any evidence regarding the rising of the sun, then you are still exercising faith, as well as validating (by denying the verifiable evidence as the validating criteria of the sun having risen) the faith you held yesterday.

And here is where the rubber meets the road folks. Rationally held beliefs, (valid) reasoning is *morally* superior to faith, in that reason at it's very worst is amoral--simply incorrect. Otherwise, reason (i.e. rationally held beliefs) is verifiably right & truthful--verifiable against objective reality.

Faith ... well, faith is just amoral on it's very best day--faith is a broken clock that gets it right by pure coincidence, but not as the result of any intent of design. And when you ascribe even good intentions you end up with lies reinforced by the certainty of the approval of a conscience of faith. Unless faith is operating at its very best, it is patently immoral--it is the road to intellectual and moral folly, it is lies, it is the seed of corruption.


----------



## Sheldon

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it too. Repeatedly.
> 
> It's not that we aren't honest about it.
> 
> 
> 
> It is. You are dishonest about it. Faith is not rational; it's not possible to hold a belief both on faith and rational bases at the same time.
> 
> Such "admissions" cannot be acknowledged (as valid) as long as you demand (dishonestly) that faith has any validating foundation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> Such demands are self-evidently invalid, and the persistence of such demands in the face of their invalidity speaks directly to dishonesty.
> 
> I literally have no idea to whom you are referring, except to say it's not me. I will say this to you though, any belief system that is founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic can not be faith; any belief system that is validated by verifiable evidence and or valid logic can not be faith.
> 
> Such a belief system has literally NOTHING to do with faith--it simply cannot have anything to do with faith.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... that they can't fathom anyone else following the same course of denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're absolutely wrong. Plenty of reasonable, rational folks have sufficient experience with toddlers to fathom how superstitious folks like you follow courses of  intellectual denial. What can't be fathomed is how anyone who subscribes to faith can *honestly* assert that the foundations and validations of their beliefs have anything but a superficially coincidental--but in absolutely no way necessary--consistency with an objective reality, or with beliefs founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic (i.e. rational thought/beliefs).
> 
> You see koshergrl, if you asshats would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.
> Q. How do explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
> A. God made everything using magic.
> 
> Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
> A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.
> 
> Q. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
> A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.
> 
> Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
> A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...
> 
> Q. Why? Why do that?
> A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.
> 
> Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
> A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest. Most of us (at least those like myself) are mostly offended by the dishonesty, not the retardedness. Honest retards (even the superstitious ones) get my sympathy and my sincere wishes for happiness, and efforts to "mainstream" them so they can enjoy the greatest benefits of their potential. The dishonest get my abiding antipathy; dishonest retards get no sympathy; and dishonest superstitious retards also get my mean-spirited ridicule.
> 
> And they deserve it.
> 
> So what are you going to do about it? Are you going to level up?
> 
> Maybe you'll decide to just be a retard; or a superstitious retard.
> 
> Maybe you could start by encouraging your fellow--Youwerecreated--to level up.
> 
> That would be nice. Seriously. It's not like every opportunity has not been offered.
> 
> What would be more amusing though, would be telling me that you (and hopefully your little cohort of dopey Bible-scientists) intend to remain a dishonest superstitious retard ... and that you intend to continue griping about what it gets you.
> 
> I'm pretty good with that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had faith last night when I went to bed the sun would rise is that rational thought to assume it was gonna rise today ?
Click to expand...


Of course that would be rational. It's based on repeatable observations of the universe that could be falsified. There's a name for this process but I just can't seem to remember it at the moment.


----------



## koshergrl

Youwerecreated said:


> You guys have proven not to be worthy of debating this issue I don't see any reason to carry on so you guys enjoy being brainwashed.


 
Paraphrase:

"I have no argument except the dishonest logical fallacy that educated people don't believe in God. I surrender completely and without reserve. I'm sorry I wasted your time with my anti-Christian rantings. Good bye."


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have proven not to be worthy of debating this issue I don't see any reason to carry on so you guys enjoy being brainwashed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paraphrase:
> 
> "I have no argument except the dishonest logical fallacy that educated people don't believe in god. I surrender completely and without reserve. I'm sorry I wasted your time with my anti-Christian rantings. Good bye."
Click to expand...


I hope you know I meant dragon,drock,and the one with the name of a mythological god ,but he is probably not bright enough to know it.

Good thing he didn't take the name of the real God. Isn't it kind of funny no one has ever taken that name of the Hebrew God.

When they get in over their heads I will come in and point it out again. It is kinda funny to watch them squirm and make complete asses out of themselves.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have proven not to be worthy of debating this issue I don't see any reason to carry on so you guys enjoy being brainwashed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paraphrase:
> 
> "I have no argument except the dishonest logical fallacy that educated people don't believe in God. I surrender completely and without reserve. I'm sorry I wasted your time with my anti-Christian rantings. Good bye."
Click to expand...


You might want to take another look at just who you're paraphrasing there. I don't think YWC would have said what you just said he said.


----------



## LOki

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have proven not to be worthy of debating this issue I don't see any reason to carry on so you guys enjoy being brainwashed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paraphrase:
> 
> "I have no argument except the dishonest logical fallacy that educated people don't believe in God. I surrender completely and without reserve. I'm sorry I wasted your time with my anti-Christian rantings. Good bye."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might want to take another look at just who you're paraphrasing there. I don't think YWC would have said what you just said he said.
Click to expand...

It's entirely possible that koshergrl is calling it the way she see's it--I saw her level straight up earlier on the way she intended to use the term "kind"; she could be doing it again.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have proven not to be worthy of debating this issue I don't see any reason to carry on so you guys enjoy being brainwashed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paraphrase:
> 
> "I have no argument except the dishonest logical fallacy that educated people don't believe in god. I surrender completely and without reserve. I'm sorry I wasted your time with my anti-Christian rantings. Good bye."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you know I meant dragon,drock,and the one with the name of a mythological god ,but he is probably not bright enough to know it.
> 
> Good thing he didn't take the name of the real God. Isn't it kind of funny no one has ever taken that name of the Hebrew God.
Click to expand...


Maybe it's not so funny anymore. Maybe it's funnier.



Youwerecreated said:


> When they get in over their heads I will come in and point it out again. It is kinda funny to watch them squirm and make complete asses out of themselves.



Who's squirming, sis? I'd say it was the one in little pink booties who couldn't take it and ran.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paraphrase:
> 
> "I have no argument except the dishonest logical fallacy that educated people don't believe in god. I surrender completely and without reserve. I'm sorry I wasted your time with my anti-Christian rantings. Good bye."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you know I meant dragon,drock,and the one with the name of a mythological god ,but he is probably not bright enough to know it.
> 
> Good thing he didn't take the name of the real God. Isn't it kind of funny no one has ever taken that name of the Hebrew God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe it's not so funny anymore. Maybe it's funnier.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they get in over their heads I will come in and point it out again. It is kinda funny to watch them squirm and make complete asses out of themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's squirming, sis? I'd say it was the one in little pink booties who couldn't take it and ran.
Click to expand...


I don't run from anything I am not some nerd that hides behind a pc. You really lack the the grey matter for this kind of discussion. Don't be offended just take it as helpful advice. Besides koshergirl might have misunderstood when I said defenders of the faith I was not talking about our faith but the faith you,drock,and dragon try to defend ,very poorly I must add.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> I don't run from anything



You did a few hours ago. I guess you got embarrassed.



> I am not some nerd that hides behind a pc.



I guess you could be hiding behind a laptop or a smartphone instead . . . but you're sure hiding behind something.



> You really lack the the grey matter for this kind of discussion. Don't be offended just take it as helpful advice.



LOL.

Child, grow a few years. Seriously.

Setting aside the fact that your statement above is ironic as all hell, it's never helpful advice to tell someone "you're dumb." Never. Nor is it ever intended to be helpful, nor are you even remotely credible with that claim.

Have you studied what I said about the evolution of intelligence yet? Have any questions? You certainly don't have a coherent response.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> I don't run from anything ...


You ran. When the time came for you to explain your point as requested, in terms with precise meanings, you ran exactly as predicted.



Youwerecreated said:


> I am not some nerd that hides behind a pc.


I cannot say one way or the other; but I can say based upon abundant, verifiable evidence that you are an intellectually dishonest coward hiding behind a PC.



Youwerecreated said:


> You really lack the the grey matter for this kind of discussion.


Superstitious retards like yourself are entirely unqualified to make such judgments.



Youwerecreated said:


> Don't be offended just take it as helpful advice.


There's no point in your attempts to salvage your busted self esteem by pretending you have any valuable advice to offer to anybody.



Youwerecreated said:


> Besides koshergirl might have misunderstood when I said defenders of the faith I was not talking about our faith ...


I would be careful about presuming for koshergrl what she meant; she has demonstrated that she has 1000 times more intellectual integrity and courage than you do, and I suspect she could tear you a brand new asshole with minimal effort.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... but the faith you,drock,and dragon try to defend ,very poorly I must add.


Well, there's no faith involved in the position I've presented, and there's no evidence (that  I've seen) of faith involved in the positions of Dragon or Dr. Drock ... so I wouldn't expect there to be any defense of faith at all on any of our parts.

Thanks for your candid admission, however, that this entire time you were engaging in the dishonest (and cowardly) practice of attacking the strawmen you created for our positions rather than our actual positions.

You may recommence your hopeless flight from your shame at having your illegitimate beliefs and behaviors exposed by your intellectual and moral superiors.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't run from anything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did a few hours ago. I guess you got embarrassed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not some nerd that hides behind a pc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you could be hiding behind a laptop or a smartphone instead . . . but you're sure hiding behind something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really lack the the grey matter for this kind of discussion. Don't be offended just take it as helpful advice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Child, grow a few years. Seriously.
> 
> Setting aside the fact that your statement above is ironic as all hell, it's never helpful advice to tell someone "you're dumb." Never. Nor is it ever intended to be helpful, nor are you even remotely credible with that claim.
> 
> Have you studied what I said about the evolution of intelligence yet? Have any questions? You certainly don't have a coherent response.
Click to expand...


I am old enough to be your father,Luke I am your father


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't run from anything ...
> 
> 
> 
> You ran. When the time came for you to explain your point as requested, in terms with precise meanings, you ran exactly as predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not some nerd that hides behind a pc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cannot say one way or the other; but I can say based upon abundant, verifiable evidence that you are an intellectually dishonest coward hiding behind a PC.
> 
> Superstitious retards like yourself are entirely unqualified to make such judgments.
> 
> There's no point in your attempts to salvage your busted self esteem by pretending you have any valuable advice to offer to anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides koshergirl might have misunderstood when I said defenders of the faith I was not talking about our faith ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would be careful about presuming for koshergrl what she meant; she has demonstrated that she has 1000 times more intellectual integrity and courage than you do, and I suspect she could tear you a brand new asshole with minimal effort.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but the faith you,drock,and dragon try to defend ,very poorly I must add.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, there's no faith involved in the position I've presented, and there's no evidence (that  I've seen) of faith involved in the positions of Dragon or Dr. Drock ... so I wouldn't expect there to be any defense of faith at all on any of our parts.
> 
> Thanks for your candid admission, however, that this entire time you were engaging in the dishonest (and cowardly) practice of attacking the strawmen you created for our positions rather than our actual positions.
> 
> You may recommence your hopeless flight from your shame at having your illegitimate beliefs and behaviors exposed by your intellectual and moral superiors.
Click to expand...


Still no substance and no rebuttal for questions and evidence put to you. I flew off no where uh oh he is back. You were hoping I would not return but when I have time I will reload those questions and wait for you or any of the other defenders of the faith might attempt an answer.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Still no substance and no rebuttal for questions and evidence put to you.


I explained to you in clear terms how this is going to work. So what's this accustion about? Just more intellectual dishonesty from you. 
EDIT: I predict that Youwerecreated, consistent with his intellectually dishonesty, will repost his questions and evidence (as if they weren't responded to repeatedly and in depth) before he answers the question I put to him (which he claims (but cannot bring evidence for) he has already answered.​


Youwerecreated said:


> I flew off no where uh oh he is back.



It's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.



Youwerecreated said:


> You were hoping I would not return but when I have time I will reload those questions and wait for you or any of the other defenders of the faith might attempt an answer.



And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> I am old enough to be your father,Luke I am your father



If you really are in your 70s, and aren't suffering from dementia, your immaturity has no excuse. I don't believe it, though.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am old enough to be your father,Luke I am your father
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really are in your 70s, and aren't suffering from dementia, your immaturity has no excuse. I don't believe it, though.
Click to expand...


Well you got me I am not that old. As for my level of maturity I guess you possess a very short memory since you exhibited some of the same maturity. I do have to admit I have acted sometimes out of character. But I am ay a tournament I will talk to you later.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no substance and no rebuttal for questions and evidence put to you.
> 
> 
> 
> I explained to you in clear terms how this is going to work. So what's this accustion about? Just more intellectual dishonesty from you.
> EDIT: I predict that Youwerecreated, consistent with his intellectually dishonesty, will repost his questions and evidence (as if they weren't responded to repeatedly and in depth) before he answers the question I put to him (which he claims (but cannot bring evidence for) he has already answered.​
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I flew off no where uh oh he is back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were hoping I would not return but when I have time I will reload those questions and wait for you or any of the other defenders of the faith might attempt an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.
Click to expand...


you are as predictable as genetics.


----------



## Dragon

Interesting to note that, although he is still physically here, YWC has stopped talking about creationism, and is merely tossing about childish insults. It looks like the discussion is over.


----------



## Douger

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.


I recall one murkin who bleated " Satan put dinosaur boned here to deceive us"


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> you are as predictable as genetics.


And, it's worth noting (again) your continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are as predictable as genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) your continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
Click to expand...


If you're referring to the meaning of kind its been answered many times. But you have continued to ignore my questions. But I am at the tournament I will repost my questions when I get the time I an at a tournament and have football game later. So I suggest you  use this time to study. I will point out two obvious flaws with your theory before I go. You believe that non-life produced life. You believe that non-intelligence created intelligence. Absurd and those beliefs are based on faith not science. But anyways I was gonna ask questions but I will wait and let those contradictions sink in.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are as predictable as genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) your continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're referring to the meaning of kind its been answered many times.
Click to expand...

There's a link there (as there always has been) to refer you to the question. Stop being a disingenuous retard.



Youwerecreated said:


> But you have continued to ignore my questions.


This is a lie. A patently obvious lie. It's a lie now, just as it was the first time you posted it, and every single time afterward. You are a liar; a remorseless serial liar of the very first order.



Youwerecreated said:


> But I am at the tournament I will repost my questions when I get the time I an at a tournament and have football game later. So I suggest you  use this time to study. I will point out two obvious flaws with your theory before I go. You believe that non-life produced life.


Without stipulating that you have any idea of what I believe, for the purposes of our discussion I will stand by everything I have thus far posted and assert that I agree. It's not a belief I hold with unqualified certainty, but it is indeed my belief. That is what the observable evidence currently available suggests. This is without valid dispute, neither upon evidentiary bases, or upon logical bases.



Youwerecreated said:


> You believe that non-intelligence created intelligence.


I agree. It's not a belief I hold with unqualified certainty, but it is indeed my belief. That is what the observable evidence currently available suggests. This is without valid dispute, neither upon evidentiary bases, or upon logical bases.



Youwerecreated said:


> Absurd and those beliefs are based on faith not science.


Your superstitious judgements regarding "absurdity" possess no verifable validity. None.

A belief is simply the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing. A rational belief is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Faith is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which there is no support in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; the obtuse strength of the denial of the contrary evidence and or valid logic is the "validating" quality of faith.

So, these beliefs you fatuously call "absurd" are indeed based upon science (as has been well demonstrated) rather than faith, in that those "absurd" beliefs are founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and are validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, rather than denials of verifiable evidence and valid logic.

It's really too bad for you, that your retarded superstitions cannot make the same claims.



Youwerecreated said:


> But anyways I was gonna ask questions but I will wait and let those contradictions sink in.


I predict that Youwerecreated, consistent with his intellectually dishonesty, will repost his questions and "evidence" (as if they weren't responded to repeatedly and in depth) before he answers the question I put to him (which he claims--but cannot bring evidence for--he has already answered).​No one can say that you are inconsistent in your denial of reality.

And, it's worth noting (again) your continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.


----------



## koshergrl

Did anybody answer my question...why are the antis carping on the meaning of kind?


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> Did anybody answer my question...why are the antis carping on the meaning of kind?



I answered your question; however, as YWC has finally defined "kind" (as he's using it anyway) as being identical to "species," there should be no further carping on that particular subject.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Did anybody answer my question...why are the antis carping on the meaning of kind?


I thought this was covered. Unlike yourself, Youwerecreated was disingenuously using the taxonomical term "kind" to mean anything from "species" to "family" (to perhaps "phylum"--uncertain). His purpose (as evidenced by his usage) was to obfuscate his obvious errors of fact regarding the necessary composition of the Ark population in his global flood story, as well as the role that genetics plays in speciation.


----------



## koshergrl

I thought interpretation of the biblical kind allowed for that broad interpretation.

We were talking about its use in the bible, I believe.


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> I thought interpretation of the biblical kind allowed for that broad interpretation.
> 
> We were talking about its use in the bible, I believe.



As long as it remains just Biblical critique, no problem there. The difficulty is when it gets dragged into some other arena, such as discussion of the theory of evolution. That being a scientific context, a precise definition is required, where it wouldn't be otherwise.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> I thought interpretation of the biblical kind allowed for that broad interpretation.
> 
> We were talking about its use in the bible, I believe.


Well, I guess it's allowable ... if you think it's intellectually honest to assert, for instance, that _*all*_ members of Felidae to have ever existed are the same "kind" of cat; to avoid admitting the presence (or evidence of existence in the past) of intermediate species.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) your continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're referring to the meaning of kind its been answered many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a link there (as there always has been) to refer you to the question. Stop being a disingenuous retard.
> 
> This is a lie. A patently obvious lie. It's a lie now, just as it was the first time you posted it, and every single time afterward. You are a liar; a remorseless serial liar of the very first order.
> 
> Without stipulating that you have any idea of what I believe, for the purposes of our discussion I will stand by everything I have thus far posted and assert that I agree. It's not a belief I hold with unqualified certainty, but it is indeed my belief. That is what the observable evidence currently available suggests. This is without valid dispute, neither upon evidentiary bases, or upon logical bases.
> 
> I agree. It's not a belief I hold with unqualified certainty, but it is indeed my belief. That is what the observable evidence currently available suggests. This is without valid dispute, neither upon evidentiary bases, or upon logical bases.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absurd and those beliefs are based on faith not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your superstitious judgements regarding "absurdity" possess no verifable validity. None.
> 
> A belief is simply the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing. A rational belief is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Faith is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which there is no support in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; the obtuse strength of the denial of the contrary evidence and or valid logic is the "validating" quality of faith.
> 
> So, these beliefs you fatuously call "absurd" are indeed based upon science (as has been well demonstrated) rather than faith, in that those "absurd" beliefs are founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and are validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, rather than denials of verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> It's really too bad for you, that your retarded superstitions cannot make the same claims.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But anyways I was gonna ask questions but I will wait and let those contradictions sink in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I predict that Youwerecreated, consistent with his intellectually dishonesty, will repost his questions and "evidence" (as if they weren't responded to repeatedly and in depth) before he answers the question I put to him (which he claims--but cannot bring evidence for--he has already answered).​No one can say that you are inconsistent in your denial of reality.
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) your continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
Click to expand...


Evidence for creation.


The Universe Has a Center 



Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe. Galaxies look the same, and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions.  The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions. These and other data strongly indicate we are located at a very special location by design.

Instead of accepting the obvious, recent models of physical cosmology assume the earth is not special and that everywhere in the universe the exact same observation of receding objects would be seen. Instead of a universe with an age measured in thousands of years, this assumption leads to billions of years.

In contrast, creation cosmologies explain the data better by starting from biblically-based axioms: the cosmos has a unique center and a boundary for its matter, beyond which there is at least some empty space; and on a cosmic scale of distances, the earth is near the center.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) your continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're referring to the meaning of kind its been answered many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a link there (as there always has been) to refer you to the question. Stop being a disingenuous retard.
> 
> This is a lie. A patently obvious lie. It's a lie now, just as it was the first time you posted it, and every single time afterward. You are a liar; a remorseless serial liar of the very first order.
> 
> Without stipulating that you have any idea of what I believe, for the purposes of our discussion I will stand by everything I have thus far posted and assert that I agree. It's not a belief I hold with unqualified certainty, but it is indeed my belief. That is what the observable evidence currently available suggests. This is without valid dispute, neither upon evidentiary bases, or upon logical bases.
> 
> I agree. It's not a belief I hold with unqualified certainty, but it is indeed my belief. That is what the observable evidence currently available suggests. This is without valid dispute, neither upon evidentiary bases, or upon logical bases.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absurd and those beliefs are based on faith not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your superstitious judgements regarding "absurdity" possess no verifable validity. None.
> 
> A belief is simply the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing. A rational belief is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Faith is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which there is no support in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; the obtuse strength of the denial of the contrary evidence and or valid logic is the "validating" quality of faith.
> 
> So, these beliefs you fatuously call "absurd" are indeed based upon science (as has been well demonstrated) rather than faith, in that those "absurd" beliefs are founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and are validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, rather than denials of verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> It's really too bad for you, that your retarded superstitions cannot make the same claims.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But anyways I was gonna ask questions but I will wait and let those contradictions sink in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I predict that Youwerecreated, consistent with his intellectually dishonesty, will repost his questions and "evidence" (as if they weren't responded to repeatedly and in depth) before he answers the question I put to him (which he claims--but cannot bring evidence for--he has already answered).​No one can say that you are inconsistent in your denial of reality.
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) your continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
Click to expand...


Evidence for creation.


The Universe Has a Center 



Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe. Galaxies look the same, and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions.  The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions. These and other data strongly indicate we are located at a very special location by design.

Instead of accepting the obvious, recent models of physical cosmology assume the earth is not special and that everywhere in the universe the exact same observation of receding objects would be seen. Instead of a universe with an age measured in thousands of years, this assumption leads to billions of years.

In contrast, creation cosmologies explain the data better by starting from biblically-based axioms: the cosmos has a unique center and a boundary for its matter, beyond which there is at least some empty space; and on a cosmic scale of distances, the earth is near the center.


The Universe Was Created Powerfully 



A star is a continuous explosion of awesome power. The power to create a universe with a billion galaxies, each with a billion stars, is beyond imagination. To create matter and energy can only be done by a Creator who is outside of nature. 


The creation of the laws of nature themselves demonstrates an even greater power. These laws are balanced so that our sun provides the energy to us day by day. These laws are balanced so the molecules within us can use that energy.


The laws of nature are fine-tuned so our sun can burn and provide us with the energy we need.

Light from stars and the sun begins with hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. The sun is a large ball of very hot hydrogen. It is more than 100 times larger than the earth.

The energy of the sun comes from explosions of hydrogen. These are nuclear explosions, which are much more powerful than chemical explosions. 


Gravity draws all the sun's hydrogen together creating intense pressure. In the core of the sun, the huge forces cause nuclear fusion reactions. Hydrogen atoms fuse together into helium and release huge amounts of energy. 


These explosions do not cause the sun to suddenly blow up and then go cold. The balanced laws of physics hold our sun together. Gravity pulls the atoms back as each explosion pushes them away. This balance keeps the billions of stars in billions of galaxies burning. 


If the laws of nature were just slightly different, the delicate balance would not exist between hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Without this balance thousands of critical molecular interactions would not happen. There are only a few elements that can sustain life through their unique properties. Any change would make life impossible.

The Universe Was Created Recently 



Many clock-like processes operating in the solar system and beyond indicate that the universe is young. For example, spiral galaxies should not exist if they are billions of years old. The stars near their centers rotate around the galactic cores faster than stars at the perimeters. If a cosmology based on long ages is correct, they should have blended into disk-shaped galaxies by now.

Comets pose a similar problem. They lose material each time they pass around the sun. Why would they still exist after vast eons? Saturn&#8217;s rings still look new and shiny. And many planets and moons are very geologically active. Surely the energy they continually expend should have been spent long ago if they are as old as they are usually claimed to be.

Instead, the more astronomers learn about the heavens, the more evidence there is that the universe is young. 



'Wildly Unexpected' Galaxies Defy Simple Naturalistic Explanations 

by Brian Thomas, M.S. * 

God said in Isaiah 45:12: "I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." 1 Corinthians 15:41 states, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory." If what the Bible says is true, then planets, stars, and galaxies should each be unique, thus defying a simple origins explanation based on physical laws.

This truth is already well-established with the solar system, since each planet has a totally unique chemical composition and overall layout.1 And the discovery of "old" galaxies mixed with "young" shows that galaxy formation has been hopelessly difficult for nature-only theories to explain.2 Could creation be the best explanation for all these one-of-a-kind stellar entities?

The June 13, 2011, issue of New Scientist magazine summarized recent work by astronomer John Kormendy of the University of Texas at Austin and cosmologist Jim Peebles of Princeton University, as well as others. Astronomers are finding evidence that, according to Peebles, shows that "galaxies are complicated and we don't really understand how they form. It's really an embarrassment."3

In the January 2011 issue of Nature, Peebles summarized two papers that described galaxy discs that totally failed to fit the standard theories of how galaxies supposedly formed.4 The galaxies they investigated had very dense points of mass in the center of their cores, presumably black holes. But only about half of them had a "bulge" of associated stars nearby. The other galaxies were razor-flat in side profile, even though they appeared brighter near their centers.

"Bulgeless" galaxies are "wildly unexpected in the standard model," according to Peebles.3 He wrote in Nature, "A challenge for the advancing power of theoretical methods is to understand this inward migration of matter, and why it preferentially fed the pseudobulge [concentration of stars within the galaxy's plane] in some galaxies and the black hole in others."4 In other words, why would matter have bulged beyond the plane of some spiral or disc galaxies, while in otherwise similarly shaped galaxies it remained confined within the flat plane of the galaxy?

They found a large number of "slimline" galaxies in "pristine spirals." These are a "big problem" because, as Kormendy told New Scientist, "We don't know how to prevent bulge formation when galaxies grow big via mergers."3 Part of the standard model is that early on, small proto-galaxies crashed into one another to become today's massive galaxies&#8212;a conjecture that lacks observational verification. But even the conjecture holds that such crashes make messes and bulges, whereas close to half of the galaxies they observed are clean and flat.

One aspect of slimline galaxies, like the Milky Way and Galaxy M101, that was not discussed is how young they look. Wouldn't their billions of stars have had ample opportunity over billions of years to collide, especially in dense regions? At least some, but probably most, of those stars should have been bumped out of the galactic plane. But instead, their arrangement is as orderly as so many ink dots on a vast sheet of paper. Similar observations show that Saturn's razor-flat rings look young.5

This thin, youthful appearance is no problem for the Bible's recent creation account. And the mixture of bulged and "no bulge" galaxies is easy to explain as the handiwork of a Creator who crafted a unique signature for each of His cosmological formations.


http://www.icr.org/creation-universe/


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Evidence for creation.
> 
> 
> The Universe Has a Center
> 
> 
> 
> Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe. Galaxies look the same, and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions.  The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions. These and other data strongly indicate we are located at a very special location by design.



LOL.

No. That same effect would be observed no matter where in the universe we were located. The universe is expanding; all parts of it are moving away from all other parts, so put your point of view at any point and you will see all other points moving away from you uniformly from all directions. There is no evidence that we are located near the center of the universe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

More evidence.

Everything Has a Cause 




In ordinary experience, one knows intuitively that nothing happens in isolation. Every event can be traced to one or more events which preceded it and that, in fact, caused it. We ask: "How did this happen?" "What caused this?" "Where did this come from?" "When did it start?" Or, more incisively, "Why did this happen?"

When we try to trace the event to its cause, or causes, we find that we never seem to reach a stopping point. The cause of the event was itself caused by a prior cause, which was affected by a previous cause, and so on back.

Police investigators on an accident scene, for instance, use the principles of cause and effect every day to determine who was ultimately responsible and how it happened.

Eventually, we must face the question of the original cause&#8212;and uncaused First Cause.

A scientific experiment specifically tries to relate effects to causes, in the form of quantitative equations if possible. Thus, if one repeats the same experiment with exactly the same factors, then exactly the same results will be reproduced. The very basis of the highly reputed "scientific method" is this very law of causality&#8212;that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. Science in the modern sense would be altogether impossible if cause and effect should cease.

This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives: (1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes (nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects); or (2) an uncaused primary Cause of all causes (the One absolute Cause)

The Effect Problem 



There are two other "Universal Laws" that we see demonstrated in everything we examine in the world around us.

1. There is no new mass/energy coming into existence anywhere in the universe, and every bit of that original mass/energy is still here.

2. Every time something happens (an event takes place), some of the energy becomes unavailable.

The First Law tells us that matter (mass/energy) can be changed, but can neither be created nor destroyed. The Second Law tells us that all phenomena (mass/energy) continually proceed to lower levels of usefulness. 

In simple terms, every cause must be at least as great as the effect that it produces&#8212;and will, in reality, produce an effect that is less than the cause. That is, any effect must have a greater cause. 

When this universal law is traced backwards, one is faced again with the possibility that there is an ongoing chain of ever-decreasing effects, resulting from an infinite chain of nonprimary ever-increasing causes. However, what appears more probable is the existence of an uncaused Source, an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and Primary, First Cause.

Cause and Effect


God Caused Beauty 



Aesthetics is the study of beauty, more often associated today with art. However, the discipline itself, and the philosophical apologetics from the concept are extended into every sphere of imagination, sensibility, and taste.

Essentially, the foundational argument would suggest that given the universal reality that the concept of "beauty" exists (even if it is in "the eye of the beholder") there is an ultimate "standard" by which beauty is judged. Determining the aesthetic value of anything requires rational judgment, even though that judgment is unique to each individual.  Each rational judgment must rely on one's ability to discriminate at a sensory or emotional level.

This examination makes a judgment regarding whether something is beautiful, sublime, disgusting, fun, cute, silly, entertaining, pretentious, discordant, harmonious, boring, humorous, or tragic. And, of course, since such an ability exists only in the mental acuity of imaginative appreciation, then the Source of such ability must also be both rational and emotional.

The vast differences between individual tastes and between cultures, both in time and in location, speak to the enormity of such possibilities and to the unfathomable wonder of the hunger for "beauty" in every human being.

That such a hunger exists only in the human being is a wonder in itself! The flower is not impressed with its own majesty; it merely exists with no conscious awareness. The chimpanzee does not gaze longingly on the enigma of the Mona Lisa, nor do the stars muse on the heavens they themselves grace.

In fact, all humanity eschews destruction and random chaos as "ugly" and attempts to mask death with various levels of cosmetic disguises, and this speaks to the realization that some 


God Caused Justice 



Morality involves the study of the universal recognition that "good" is better than "evil," which logically requires the existence of an ultimate Judge. That is, since all humanity accepts the knowledge that some events and standards are better than others&#8212;even though cultures may differ on what those events or standards may be&#8212;there must be an ultimate Source of such thinking, even if the absolute standard has become distorted over time.

C.S. Lewis, one of the most prolific writers and thinkers of our time, wrote of what he called "Moral Law," or the "Law of Human Nature" in his work Mere Christianity.


The Moral Law, or Law of Human Nature, is not simply a fact about human behavior in the same way as the Law of Gravitation is, or may be, simply a fact about how heavy objects behave. On the other hand, it is not a mere fancy, for we cannot get rid of the idea, and most of the things we say and think about men would be reduced to nonsense if we did. And it is not simple a statement about how we should like men to behave for our own convenience; for the behavior we call bad or unfair is not exactly the same as the behavior we find inconvenient, and may even be the opposite. Consequently, the rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thing&#8212;a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves (Page 20).

We find then that we do not exist on our own, that we are under a law, and that Somebody or Something wants us to behave in a certain way.

Therefore, this Somebody or Something is directing the universe, and as a result we sense an internal law that urges us to do right and makes us feel responsibile and uncomfortable when we do wrong.  We have to assume this entity is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know, because after all, the only other thing we know is matter and you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions.

Catholic apologist and philosophy professor Peter Kreeft also writes in his work The Argument from Conscience, "The only possible source of absolute authority is an absolute perfect will." The full text of Argument can be viewed here.


God Caused Love 



Unlike affection, only humans are capable of receiving, giving, refusing, and rejecting love.

Animals (including chimps) are not able to provide any assistance to other creatures they are not related to, and even seem to be unable to recognize the needs of other animals.  Although some animals (especially mammals like dogs, cats, and horses) can and do appreciate affection, only humans are capable of receiving, giving, refusing, and rejecting love.

Humans are driven by an entirely different kind of love.  We love our children when they are disobedient.  We can love our enemies and sacrifice our lives for our friends (like soldiers do).  The highest, truest kind of love is that which consciously seeks and takes practical action to do good for someone else, valuing that other person as higher than one's self, even if providing such good requires self-sacrifice.  This is what separates us, practically, from love expressed by animals.

Of course, if God did not create us, how would we ever know what real love is, much less learn to practice love ourselves?  The very fact that we can love and be loved (by God and by others) is yet another proof of a Creator's love.  Because of His own nature of infinite love and grace, it was God's good pleasure to create things in whom He could bestow His love and grace and who, being made in His image, would be capable of reciprocating and responding to that love.

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).


God Caused Meaning 



Humans in particular seek a "reason to exist" and for the most part find it difficult to accept that we are simply here to consume the earth's resources and die.  However, God in the beginning created the heavens, the earth, and all living creatures&#8212;especially mankind&#8212;with special purposes in mind, which He explained in His Word.

Here is the essence of the naturalistic-evolutionary "story."

There is no God (or "god" is in the forces of nature, or in man himself).  Nothing "supernatural" exists (except perhaps some "extra-terrestrial" race of super-intellects that have evolved in other parts of the universe.  Since no evidence for the Bible's "God" exists, we can be certain that there is no such thing as a "plan for your life."  And since there is so, there is no future, no "afterlife."  Speculative Hollywood movies notwithstanding, and the many reported "out of the body experiences" to the contrary, no rational naturalist believes in any form of "eternal life."  When you're dead, you're dead!

Such hopeless beliefs drive many into lives of debauchery and hedonism, and fill the couches of psychologists and psychiatrists all over the world.  Teenage suicide is alarmingly high, and the therapitst themselves continue to manifest one of the highest suicide rates in civilized countries.  Scandals abound among the leaders of world business, politics, and churches.

"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" (1 Corinthians 15:19).

There is no "good news" in the evolutionary theory.

There is, however, glorious wonder and life-changing power in the "everlasting gospel" (Revelation 14:6).

God Caused Order 



Ordered systems or structures do not happen spontaenously.  We never observe orderliness occurring by accident, without an intelligent cause to direct the order.  No amount of power or energy is enough to bring order out of chaos.  Try shooting a wristwatch with a bullet; the watch's order does not increase!  (The only order in a watch is that which the watchmaker intelligently puts into it at the beginning.)

Likewise, if we drop a plain glass bottle of spoiled milk on bricks, it quite naturally shatters into a more disorderly arrangement: chaotic glass fragments mixed with spilt spoiled milk.  It could never reform itself into a more exquisitely-sculpted glass container containing fresh milk!

The mere addition of "lots of energy" is not enough, either.  A tired human eats to gain food energy, but eating hot coals is not an adequate energy source, because it fails to match and cooperate with the orderly design of human digestive systems.

Everyday experiences, such as broken watches and spilled milk, remind us that order does not happen by itself.  In fact, our entire universe teaches us that same truth.  The earth's rotation, the moon cycle, and the changing seasons are just a few of the ordered processes observable in nature.  These processes don't happen randomly but are divinely caused by God.

God is the Author and Organizer of orderliness.  His design and construction of our own bodies, through the complexity of biogenesis, is a proper reason for glorifying and thanking Him for making us.

God Caused Time, Space, and Matter 



The cause of the universe is God. Our Creator is outside of the physical creation he made.  Time is not eternal, but created.  

To ask what happened in time before time was created is to create a false paradox without meaning. There was no "before" before the triune universe of time, space and matter was created.

God Caused Wisdom 



Wisdom is, essentially, the effective understanding and use of information.  Humans discover information; we do not invent it.  Through wisdom, humanity has developed (i.e. used information effectively) a set of scientific laws that elegantly express reality in the language of mathematics.  Johann Kepler, the noted founder of physical astronomy, is said to have considered his science to be "thinking God's thoughts after Him."

The unfathomable intelligence that was used to invent the universe, and to pre-program its interactive workings, is a source of "wisdom" beyond-the-imagination.  In particular, the cause of our universe coming into being, and of its continuing to operate as it does, is a dynamic display of the Creator's wisdom, some of which we can scientifically understand and effectively apply.  When we do, we are (as Kepler) "thinking God's thoughts after Him."

To the extent that humans have any wisdom at all, much less the wisdom necessary to understand a meaningful amount of the working of the universe, the very fact that we can understand at all is more amazing than the marvelous physics of the universe!  How can an immaterial mind, residing inside a human body, made mostly of water (along with other constituent elements of the earth), comprehend anything, even this sentence?

It is only by God's creative grace that human being can think any thoughts at all, much less thoughts that are logical and analytical enough to be called "scientific."


Design and Purpose


----------



## Youwerecreated

The Earth Is Unique 



As far as science "knows," the planet earth is unique in the entire universe.  Certainly this is true in our own solar system. Nothing that we have observed leads us to believe that there is any other planet like earth


The Earth Itself 



Earth is the only planet circling our sun on which life as we know it could (and does) exist.

Like no other planet, ours is covered with green vegetation, enormous blue-green oceans containing over a million islands, hundreds of thousands of streams and rivers, huge land masses called continents, mountains, ice caps, and deserts that produce a spectacular variety of color and texture. Some form of life is found in virtually every ecological niche on the earth's surface. Even in the extremely cold Antarctica, hardy microscopic beings thrive in ponds, tiny wingless insects live in patches of moss and lichen, and plants grow and flower yearly. From the apex of the atmosphere to the bottom of the oceans, from the coldest part of the poles to the warmest part of the equator, life thrives here. To this day, no evidence of life has been found on any other planet.

The earth is immense in size, about 8,000 miles in diameter, with a mass calculated at roughly 6.6 x 1,021 tons. The earth is on average 93 million miles from the sun. If the earth traveled much faster in its 584-million-mile-long journey around the sun, its orbit would become larger and it would move farther away from the sun. If it moved too far from the narrow habitable zone, all life would cease to exist on earth. If it traveled slightly slower in its orbit, the earth would move closer to the sun, and if it moved too close, all life would likewise perish. The earth's 365-days, 6-hours, 49-minutes and 9.54-seconds trip around the sun (the sidereal year) is consistent to over a thousandth of a second! 

If the yearly average temperature on earth's surface changed by only a few degrees or so, much of the life on it would eventually roast or freeze. This change would upset the water-to-ice ratio and other critical balances, with disastrous results. If the earth rotated slower on its axis, all life would die in time, either by freezing at night because of lack of heat from the sun or by burning during the day from too much heat.

Our "normal" earth processes are assuredly unique among our solar system and, according to what we know, in the entire universe.

The Sun and Moon 



Of all the energy the sun gives off, only 0.45 billionth of its daily output strikes the earth. The sun provides the earth with energy estimated at over 239 trillion horsepower, about 35,000 horsepower for each current resident. Even though there likely exist several hundred billion galaxies in the universe, each with 100 billion stars, there is only one atom for every 88 gallons of space, which means the vast majority of the universe is empty space!

If the moon was much larger or nearer to the earth, the huge tides that would result would overflow onto the lowlands and erode the mountains. If the continents were leveled, it is estimated that water would cover the entire surface to the depth of over a mile! If the earth was not tilted 23° on its axis, but rather was on a 90° angle in reference to the sun, we would not have four seasons. 

Without seasons, life would soon not be able to exist on earth&#8212;the poles would lie in eternal twilight, and water vapor from the oceans would be carried by the wind towards both the north and south, freezing when it moved close enough to the poles. In time, huge continents of snow and ice would pile up in the polar regions, leaving most of the earth a dry desert. The oceans would eventually disappear, and rainfall would cease. The accumulated weight of ice at the poles would cause the equator to bulge, and, as a result, the earth's rotation would drastically change.

Just a &#8220;little&#8221; change (in the perspective of the universe) would render the earth unsuitable to support any life. Is this the result of accidental randomness, or purposeful intent?


The Miracle of Water 



The earth is the only known planet with huge bodies of water. Seventy percent of its surface area consists of oceans, lakes, and seas surrounding huge bodies of land. The few other planets that have water contain only moisture floating as vapor on their surface or small amounts of ice or liquid water on the planet itself, not large bodies of liquid water as on earth.

Water is unique in that it can absorb enormous amounts of heat without a large alteration in its temperature. Its heat absorption level is about ten times as great as steel. During the day, the earth's bodies of water rapidly soak up enormous amounts of heat; thus, the earth stays fairly cool. At night, they release the vast amounts of heat that they absorbed during the day, which, combined with atmospheric effects, keeps most of the surface from freezing solid at night. If it were not for the tremendous amounts of water on the earth, far greater day and night temperature variations would exist. Many parts of the surface would be hot enough to boil water during the day, and the same parts would be cold enough to freeze water at night. Because water is an excellent temperature stabilizer, the large oceans on earth are vital for life to exist on earth.

In contrast to virtually all other materials (the rare exceptions include rubber and antimony), water contracts when cooled only until it reaches 4 degrees Celsius. Then it amazingly expands until it freezes. Thus, because of this anomaly, the ice that forms in seas, oceans, and lakes stays near the surface, where the sun heats it during the day and the warm water below melts it in the summer. This and the Coriolis effect, which produces ocean currents, ensure that most of the ocean stays in a liquid form, allowing the myriads of water creatures to live.

This is one more "stunning" demonstration that the "Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens" (Proverbs 3:19).


The Miracle of Air 



The air close to the earth's surface is heated by light energy from the sun, and after the air is warmed it becomes less dense and rises upward. The result is that the air near the earth's surface maintains a temperature in which life can exist. If air contracted when heated and became denser, the temperature on the earth's surface would become unbearable, and most life could not survive for very long. The temperature a few hundred feet above the surface, on the other hand, would be extremely cold, and most life could also not exist there for very long. The only habitable region would be a thin slice of air, but even here life could not exist for long because the plants and trees necessary to support life in the atmosphere could not survive, as they would be in the cold zone. Thus birds would have no resting place or food, water, or oxygen. But because air on the earth's surface rises when heated, life can exist on the earth.

The movement of warm air from the surface rising upward creates air currents (wind), which are an important part of the earth's ecological system. They carry away carbon dioxide from areas that overproduce, such as cities, and move oxygen to areas in need of it, such as the large urban population centers.

The mixture of gases usually found in the atmosphere not contaminated by human pollution is perfect for life. If it were much different (e.g. 17 percent instead of 21 percent oxygen, too little carbon dioxide, etc., or the atmospheric pressure were much higher or lower), life would cease to exist on earth. If our atmosphere were much thinner, many of the millions of meteors that now are burned up would reach the earth's surface, causing death, destruction, and fires everywhere.


Unique Environment for Life 



If evolution works to evolve life to fit the existing environments, why has it not equally conquered all of the various environments here and elsewhere? 

Earth is far better suited for life than any other planet, yet even here most of the environments are too hot, too cold, too far underground or too far above ground to support much life. In the many thousands of miles of changing environments from the center of the earth to the edge of its atmosphere, there are only a few meters of habitable environment for most life forms, and therefore, almost all creatures are forced to live there. Although in our solar system only the earth was made to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18), even on the earth only a thin slice is ideally suited for most life-forms, including those we are most familiar with, such as mammals, birds, and reptiles.

This thin section, though, is teeming with life. It is estimated that an acre of typical farm soil, six inches deep, has several tons of living bacteria, almost a ton of fungi, two hundred pounds of one-cell protozoan animals, about one hundred pounds of yeast, and the same amount of algae.

The Earth Is Unique


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> More evidence.



More walls of text that you don't understand.

What you present here is nothing new. It's simply the "cosmological argument" for the existence of God. It is not logically sound, for this reason: it is not necessarily true that "everything has a cause."

In fact, "everything" -- literally, all that exists -- cannot have a cause.

What is a "cause" exactly? It always take the form of one event leading to another event consistently with a coherent and plausible mechanism. But an event is always only PART of the universe. It is not the whole of the universe, which includes all of time as well as all of space. Causation, therefore, applies only within the bounds of natural reality, to relationships among fragments of the whole. It cannot apply to the whole itself.

The argument that the universe must have a cause depends on the fallacy of improper reasoning from the part to the whole.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> The Earth Is Unique



And still more walls of text.

What you present here is what is known as the "anthropic principle." It is similar to the business about all the universe moving uniformly away from us: an illusion of viewpoint.

Basically, it's like this. The Earth appears to be unique (in our solar system anyway) because it has the characteristics for life to evolve here, which means that only Earth is there any possibility of anyone existing to OBSERVE that it is unique. In fact, the conditions for life could have happened anywhere in the solar system and if it had, THAT planet would similarly be found unique. It's a tautology.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Continued-

Evidence from Science 



Where does everything come from and what does it mean? Science is limited in its ability to answer the questions nearest to our hearts. However, science does give us tools to understand our universe and the laws of nature that we can observe today.

This understanding provides compelling evidence for creation.

Earth Was Created for Life 



Our solar system is filled with amazing planets, but none are perfect for life except the earth.

Mercury is the closest planet to the sun. It gets very hot and very cold. It has a very slow spin. The side facing the sun is heated to 800 (F) while the side away from the sun is cooled to &#8211;298 degrees (F).

Venus is hotter than Mercury, yet farther away from the sun. Venus has an atmosphere 90 times thicker than earth's. Heat is trapped in the clouds and heats the entire planet to 931 degrees (F).

Mars is similar to earth in many ways. A day on Mars is 24.7 hours. It is tilted 25 degrees, just two more degrees than earth. At its warmest, it can get to be a comfortable 67 degrees (F). It has two small moons. But Mars is smaller than earth. The gravity on Mars is only a third of the earth&#8217;s. Without enough gravity, Mars is unable to hold a larger atmosphere. What atmosphere it has is made of the gases we cannot breathe. Without much of an atmosphere, many meteoroids hit Mars. It also gets very cold at night.

Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system. It is ten times smaller than the sun and ten times larger than the earth. Jupiter spins faster than any other planet, with a day of 9 hours and 55.5 minutes. Its fast spin causes tremendous storms. The big red spot on Jupiter is a huge hurricane.

Saturn is the second-largest planet in our solar system and has the largest set of rings. It is almost twice as far away from the sun as Jupiter is. Saturn is a gas giant. As one descends into the atmosphere, the pressure, temperature, and gravity greatly increase. The core of the planet is boiling hot and radiates more heat out into space than it receives from the sun.

Uranus is tilted on its side with its axis pointed at the sun. If the earth's axis was pointed at the sun, one hemisphere would always be boiling hot and the other would be freezing cold. Uranus is four times as far from the sun as Jupiter and twice as far from the sun as Saturn.


Neptune is the farthest gas giant from the sun. It is almost four times larger than the earth. Its strong gravity traps harmful gases in its atmosphere.

The utter lifelessness of other planets in our solar system illustrates the fact that earth is unique and specially created for life.


Earth Was Created in a Wonderful Location 



Our Sun Is Perfectly Located Within Our Galaxy


The spiral-shaped galaxy in which the earth is located is called the Milky Way. The spiraling arms and center of this galaxy contain many stars set close together, giving off its characteristic brightness.

Other galaxies&#8212;older, smaller, elliptical, and irregular&#8212;are missing the proper amounts of elements necessary to maintain the right balance of stars and planets required to support life.

Some stars explode into supernovas, causing deadly radiation to flow through nearby stars and planets.

The center and arms of galaxies are flooded with high amounts of radiation. Most stars are located in places with too much harmful energy for life.

Our solar system is located about two-thirds of the way out toward the edge of the Milky Way, where we are least likely to suffer collisions with other stars. Most of the stars in our galaxy are in the larger spiral arms or in the center. Because there are few stars near us, there is a low amount of radiation surrounding our solar system and we can observe the rest of the universe and our own galaxy much better.

Our Planet is Perfectly Located Within Our Solar System


Our solar system also contains thousands of asteroids and meteoroids. These sometime collide with planets. Jupiter keeps large rocks from hitting earth by attracting them with its strong gravity. 

The earth's huge moon also protects us from many of rocks that cross our planet's path. The craters across the moon's surface demonstrate the frequency something has collided with the moon instead of earth. The moon's South Pole&#8212;Aitken basin&#8212;is the largest known crater in our solar system. It is eight miles deep and 1500 miles across. The earth's moon is unusually large. 


In addition, our huge moon is a stabilizing anchor for our planet. Our moon prevents our planet from tilting too far from the attraction of the sun or Jupiter.

We are protected because of the way our solar system was created.

Earth Was Created in a Wonderful Location

Earth's Core Was Created to Protect Life 



Our planet was created for life. 


A smaller planet, like Mars, would be unable to hold our atmosphere, which protects us from meteoroids and keeps the temperature within the range needed for life.

A larger planet, like Neptune, would trap too much atmosphere. The pressure and temperature would greatly increase.  A  stronger gravity from the increased size would also trap harmful gases in the atmosphere. 

Earth has a strong magnetic field. This protects us from harmful radiation from the sun.


Earth's Water Cycle Protects and Provides 



Clouds function as earth's curtains, balancing the temperature. When they form, they block the sun when the temperature on earth becomes too hot, and they let the sunlight in when it becomes too cold. When the earth is hot, more water evaporates from the oceans and turns into clouds. These clouds reflect more energy and the earth cools. When the earth is cold, the clouds cool and condense into rain and snow. With fewer clouds, less energy is reflected. The energy reaches the earth and warms it. The earth has the most diverse collection of reflective surfaces in our solar system.

Water is the most abundant chemical compound on earth. Water covers three fourths of the earth's surface. Between half to three fourths of your body is water. Water is ideal for carbon-based chemistry.

Water is transported from the ocean to the atmosphere, to the land, and then back to the ocean. The ocean is the primary storehouse of water on the earth. The sun evaporates water from the oceans, which rises into the atmosphere and eventually returns to the ocean.

The atmosphere also stores a small quantity of water. Wind blows water vapor from the hot ocean to the cool land. Cooling water vapor condenses into clouds. Water falls back to the land as rain and snow.

The land also stores water. Fresh water is held for months in ice and snow. Water infiltrates into the land and is stored underground. Surface water flows into streams and rivers. Lakes store water. Water flows from the land back into the ocean.

Water expands when it freezes, unlike most other substances. Ice and snow take up more volume than the same amount of liquid water. This makes water denser as a liquid than when frozen, so ice floats on the surface. If ice did not float on the surface of the water, the floors of oceans and lakes would be covered with glaciers of ice that never melt. Ice helps regulate the climate by reflecting energy.

As a liquid, water's temperature range is perfect for cycling water from the oceans to the land. Water takes a lot of energy to evaporate into a vapor, and it releases this energy when it condenses back into liquid. This absorbtion and release of energy balances temperatures in the earth's climate, as well as inside living cells. If less energy were required for evaporation, streams, rivers, and lakes would evaporate away quickly. 

Beautiful clouds and sunsets inspire praise for the Creator who forms them. We are blessed by the water that flows though our biosphere.

The Earth Was Uniquely Created

This should be enough for you to chew on for a while.


----------



## Dragon

YWC, you are presenting very old arguments that have been answered long ago, and that involve logical fallacies. None of this is any evidence for creation or intelligent design at all.

Your latest attempt is another iteration of the anthropic principle. It proves nothing except that the conditions for life are rare. They happen to exist here. If they did not, there would be no one here to observe that they do not. No matter where the conditions for life exist, they will be perceived as if they were uniquely tailored for us; the reality in fact is the other way around.


----------



## koshergrl

Do you know what a logical fallacy is, Dragon? I don't believe you do. I haven't seen a single argument put forth by you that is NOT a logical fallacy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Now for some quesions that went ignored.

Transitional fossils from precambrian . Transitional fossils during the cambrian,where are they ?

Why do the fossils found in the precambrian show no change today ?

How come fossils found and dated from way back in the past show no change ?

All organisms have mutations,how come we don't see species in the process of evolving ?

What evidence is there showing life can happen spontaneously from non-life ?

Why do you hold the view that non-intelligence can produce intelligence ?

Can you produce evidence for mutations causing a feature change ? How did it benefit the organism ?

Why are there more harmful mutations then beneficial mutations ?

Why is there life on only one planet ?

Why does your side make many different family trees if we are all related ? why not just one tree since you believe DNA similarity proves ancestry.

How is ancestry proven today ? Why can't we use the same method for declaring ancestry from the past ?

Why do you trust dating methods created by man when they have proven to be unreliable ? How do you account for things with a known age showing up much older then the known age ?

Why do you believe beneficial mutations are the engine that drives macro-evolution when they are so rare and do not change the organism the way Neo say's ? If I'm wrong provide evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More walls of text that you don't understand.
> 
> What you present here is nothing new. It's simply the "cosmological argument" for the existence of God. It is not logically sound, for this reason: it is not necessarily true that "everything has a cause."
> 
> In fact, "everything" -- literally, all that exists -- cannot have a cause.
> 
> What is a "cause" exactly? It always take the form of one event leading to another event consistently with a coherent and plausible mechanism. But an event is always only PART of the universe. It is not the whole of the universe, which includes all of time as well as all of space. Causation, therefore, applies only within the bounds of natural reality, to relationships among fragments of the whole. It cannot apply to the whole itself.
> 
> The argument that the universe must have a cause depends on the fallacy of improper reasoning from the part to the whole.
Click to expand...


Design.

Otherwise show how before the universe existed nothing existed and it blew up ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought interpretation of the biblical kind allowed for that broad interpretation.
> 
> We were talking about its use in the bible, I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as it remains just Biblical critique, no problem there. The difficulty is when it gets dragged into some other arena, such as discussion of the theory of evolution. That being a scientific context, a precise definition is required, where it wouldn't be otherwise.
Click to expand...


So what is your point  the terms you use today were not available at the time of the writing the scriptures.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought interpretation of the biblical kind allowed for that broad interpretation.
> 
> We were talking about its use in the bible, I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess it's allowable ... if you think it's intellectually honest to assert, for instance, that _*all*_ members of Felidae to have ever existed are the same "kind" of cat; to avoid admitting the presence (or evidence of existence in the past) of intermediate species.
Click to expand...


The variations in each family are the product of interbreeding and cross breeding or I now prefer creation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence for creation.
> 
> 
> The Universe Has a Center
> 
> 
> 
> Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe. Galaxies look the same, and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions.  The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions. These and other data strongly indicate we are located at a very special location by design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> No. That same effect would be observed no matter where in the universe we were located. The universe is expanding; all parts of it are moving away from all other parts, so put your point of view at any point and you will see all other points moving away from you uniformly from all directions. There is no evidence that we are located near the center of the universe.
Click to expand...


Really,

Earth Was Created in a Wonderful Location

Really evrything is going in the same direction. Not scattered every different direction according to an explosion.

The Physical Sciences


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More walls of text that you don't understand.
> 
> What you present here is nothing new. It's simply the "cosmological argument" for the existence of God. It is not logically sound, for this reason: it is not necessarily true that "everything has a cause."
> 
> In fact, "everything" -- literally, all that exists -- cannot have a cause.
> 
> What is a "cause" exactly? It always take the form of one event leading to another event consistently with a coherent and plausible mechanism. But an event is always only PART of the universe. It is not the whole of the universe, which includes all of time as well as all of space. Causation, therefore, applies only within the bounds of natural reality, to relationships among fragments of the whole. It cannot apply to the whole itself.
> 
> The argument that the universe must have a cause depends on the fallacy of improper reasoning from the part to the whole.
Click to expand...


Speak for yourself.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Speak for yourself.



Unlike you, I did. You, instead, let a wall of text that you don't understand speak for you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Earth Is Unique
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And still more walls of text.
> 
> What you present here is what is known as the "anthropic principle." It is similar to the business about all the universe moving uniformly away from us: an illusion of viewpoint.
> 
> Basically, it's like this. The Earth appears to be unique (in our solar system anyway) because it has the characteristics for life to evolve here, which means that only Earth is there any possibility of anyone existing to OBSERVE that it is unique. In fact, the conditions for life could have happened anywhere in the solar system and if it had, THAT planet would similarly be found unique. It's a tautology.
Click to expand...


No the planet possesses all the characteristics for life not for life to evolve you have to prove that first. That is like putting the cart before the horse or trying to drive a car with no steering wheel.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I did. You, instead, let a wall of text that you don't understand speak for you.
Click to expand...


I was the one correcting you the other day and your gonna say I don't understand what I post.

Why don't you show why what I posted is wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I did. You, instead, let a wall of text that you don't understand speak for you.
Click to expand...


When are you gonna respond to my questions ?


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Transitional fossils from precambrian . Transitional fossils during the cambrian,where are they ?



Every fossil in the fossil record, except those of currently-living species, is a transitional fossil.



> Why do the fossils found in the precambrian show no change today ?
> 
> How come fossils found and dated from way back in the past show no change ?



Because they're fossilized, of course.



> All organisms have mutations,how come we don't see species in the process of evolving ?



We do.



> What evidence is there showing life can happen spontaneously from non-life ?



It's complicated. If you really want to know, do a search for "abiogenesis." (Of course, once again, this has nothing to do with evolution.)



> Why do you hold the view that non-intelligence can produce intelligence ?



Because there is no reason not to.



> Can you produce evidence for mutations causing a feature change ? How did it benefit the organism ?



Before I present that evidence, please define "new feature" as I asked you to do before. There is evidence of any REASONABLE meaning of this phrase.



> Why are there more harmful mutations then beneficial mutations ?



Because mutation is a random change, and there are many more possible random changes that are harmful than that are beneficial.



> Why is there life on only one planet ?



1) Because only a fairly narrow set of conditions can allow life as we know it to exist.

2) We don't know that there is life on only one planet. There are many planets in the universe that have never been explored, and it is in fact very likely that there is life on some of them.



> Why does your side make many different family trees if we are all related ? why not just one tree since you believe DNA similarity proves ancestry.



For the same reason that when driving I might use a map of California rather than a globe of the earth.



> How is ancestry proven today ? Why can't we use the same method for the past ?



What makes you think we don't?



> Why do you trust dating methods created by man when they have proven to be unreliable ?



They have not proven to be unreliable.



> How do you account for things with a known age showing up much older then the known age ?



Specifics, please.



> Why do you believe beneficial mutations are the engine that drives macro-evolution when they are so rare and do not change the organism the way Neo say's ? If I'm wrong provide evidence.



Because evolution happens over a very long time, plenty of time to allow for beneficial mutations to explain what we see, even though they are rare.

Again, please define "new feature." Until you do, it is pointless to present evidence, as you will simply use the ambiguity of the phrase to escape out the back way. You must pin yourself down so no such dodge is possible before I am willing to proceed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are as predictable as genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) your continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
Click to expand...


Here you go.

Evidence for Intelligent Design

So, how do I connect the dots between the organic and inorganic world? Evidence for Intelligent Design is obvious upon close examination of any mechanical machine. The concept and design inherent in a machine, whether simple or complex, is self-evident. Whether a machine is high quality or low quality, its designer is both necessary and apparent. Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind. Even the diminished quality of a poorly constructed machine cannot obscure the necessity of an intelligent designer. 

Machines, as defined by French Biochemist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Lucien Monod (1910-1976), are "purposeful aggregates of matter that, utilizing energy, perform specific tasks." 1 By this authoritative definition, living systems are also recognized as machines. A living organism fulfills the definition of a machine all the way down to the molecular level. 

Back in the mid-1700's, David Hume successfully invalidated the "machine" analogy in biologic systems because we could only guess at what existed at the molecular level. 2 However, the phenomenal discoveries in the last few decades have finally and unequivocally demonstrated that living systems are, in fact, machines - even to the deepest, molecular level! 3 



It has only been over the past twenty years with the molecular biological revolution and with the advances in cybernetic and computer technology that Hume's criticism has been finally invalidated and the analogy between organisms and machines has at last become convincing In every direction the biochemist gazes, as he journeys through the weird molecular labyrinth, he sees devices and appliances reminiscent of our own twentieth-century world of advanced technology. 4
Because of the metaphysical implications of life resulting from "Intelligent Design", a surprisingly large number of us seek to reject the foregoing statements and find a mechanism by which complex biologic machines may arise naturally by random chance. 

However, I was now seeing a tremendous inconsistency... 


When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance! 5
H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester (UK), continues: 


In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it.6

Miracle of Life

So, I'm going to look at this "miracle of life" one more time... 

Could life evolve randomly from inorganic matter? Not according to mathematicians. 



In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000. 

...the odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. The odds led Fred Hoyle to state that the probability of spontaneous generation 'is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.' Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics -- i.e. a miracle.1 
Harold Marowitz, an atheist physicist, created mathematical models by imagining broths of living bacteria that were superheated until all the complex chemicals were broken down into basic building blocks. After cooling the mixtures, Marowitz used physics calculations to conclude that the odds of a single bacterium reassembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. 2 Wow! How can I grasp such a large statistic? Well, it's more likely that I would win the state lottery every week for a million years by purchasing just one ticket each week. 

In response to the probabilities calculated by Marowitz, Robert Shapiro, author of Origins - A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, wrote: 


The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.3 
Sir Fred Hoyle compared the probability of life arising by chance to lining up 1050 (ten with fifty zeros after it) blind people, giving each one a scrambled Rubik's Cube, and finding that they all solve the cube at the same moment. 

Regarding the origin of life, Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology for his work with the DNA molecule, stated in 1982: 


An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. 4


Creation of Life - A Final "Experiment"

Remarkably, right before I finished this chapter, a friend confronted me with "proof" for the creation of life in a "random" laboratory experiment. After a little discussion, I realized that my buddy was pointing to the "spark and soup" experiments of the 1950's where guys like Harold Urey and Stanley Miller passed mixtures of boiling water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen through elaborate "electric spark systems" of beakers and test tubes. In those experiments, they were able to produce traces of one or two amino acids -- the "building blocks of life" -- and therefore, the media hailed these as proof for the possibility of spontaneous generation on a prebiotic Earth. 1 

There were many unreported problems with these "designed" experiments. Dramatically, the greatest byproducts of these soups were tar (85%) and carboxylic acids (13%), both of which are toxic to living systems. Notwithstanding all the other issues, producing a trace amino acid in a laboratory experiment would be similar to producing a clay brick and declaring that we just figured out how to randomly design and build a New York skyscraper. 

After discussing a little more of the science stuff, I turned to my friend and decided to toss him a nice graphic illustration... 

"Take a frog and put him in a blender. Turn the blender on for seven minutes, or until whipped to a frothy consistency." 

He stared at me with that look... 

"Pour the mixture into an open container and place the container in the sun for a few million years. After a few million years, retrieve the container and examine the contents..." 

I gave him a nod, "Do you have a frog?" 

He thought for only a second... 

"Nope, you still have frog soup," he laughed. 

"You're absolutely right," I agreed. "How can you have anything but a soupy mixture containing the building blocks of frog life. With no information code to tie it all together, you have nothing resembling any kind of self-existing organism." 

In this simple (yet graphic) illustration, I gave every potential to create a frog. I provided every chemical, amino acid, protein and molecule that makes up the frog's organic structure. However, if I placed this illustration in the context of a "prebiotic soup" on primitive Earth, we'd be lucky to see even one trace element or amino acid develop over the same time period -- let alone the biologic components of an entire frog! 


Metaphysics - Now What?

Physics and metaphysics are not mutually exclusive. Scientific discovery implores us to follow the observational evidence, no matter what the destination. Antony Flew, a British philosopher, Oxford professor and leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century, said it best: 



"My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
Well, at age 81, Flew honestly followed the evidence and renounced his atheism, concluding that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. He declared, "A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature." 

For me, logic screamed that someone (or something) was responsible for life. Now, I couldn't go back. To be intellectually honest with myself, I had to go forward and discover who (or what) caused everything that I see. It could be God... it could be Mother Nature... it could be UFO's -- but it was something in the realm of metaphysics... 

To be honest, I was very uncomfortable -- I didn't like the "metaphysical" implications of what science and technology revealed. For me, evolution was dead. The world did not create itself. Therefore, my comfortable humanist, materialist world-view also had to die. Since someone (or something) was out there, logic declared that my relativistic view of things also had to go 

Although skeptical about my next subject, I had to keep searching... I started reading the various myths, stories and histories about our past. I studied the ancient civilizations. I reviewed maps of the ancient world. I was fascinated by the archaeological evidence. In fact, I had no idea mankind was writing government records, statutory codes and legal contracts in 2500 BC. I thought ancient history was merely oral traditions of very simple cultures. Then, I started reading the so-called "holy books"... 

Read the Next Chapter!


Like this information? Help us by sharing it with others using the social media buttons below. What is this?

Evidence For Intelligent Design


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> No the planet possesses all the characteristics for life not for life to evolve



Same thing.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind.



False. And that invalidates the entire argument.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Transitional fossils from precambrian . Transitional fossils during the cambrian,where are they ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every fossil in the fossil record, except those of currently-living species, is a transitional fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do the fossils found in the precambrian show no change today ?
> 
> How come fossils found and dated from way back in the past show no change ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they're fossilized, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> We do.
> 
> 
> 
> It's complicated. If you really want to know, do a search for "abiogenesis." (Of course, once again, this has nothing to do with evolution.)
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no reason not to.
> 
> 
> 
> Before I present that evidence, please define "new feature" as I asked you to do before. There is evidence of any REASONABLE meaning of this phrase.
> 
> 
> 
> Because mutation is a random change, and there are many more possible random changes that are harmful than that are beneficial.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Because only a fairly narrow set of conditions can allow life as we know it to exist.
> 
> 2) We don't know that there is life on only one planet. There are many planets in the universe that have never been explored, and it is in fact very likely that there is life on some of them.
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason that when driving I might use a map of California rather than a globe of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think we don't?
> 
> 
> 
> They have not proven to be unreliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you account for things with a known age showing up much older then the known age ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specifics, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe beneficial mutations are the engine that drives macro-evolution when they are so rare and do not change the organism the way Neo say's ? If I'm wrong provide evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because evolution happens over a very long time, plenty of time to allow for beneficial mutations to explain what we see, even though they are rare.
> 
> Again, please define "new feature." Until you do, it is pointless to present evidence, as you will simply use the ambiguity of the phrase to escape out the back way. You must pin yourself down so no such dodge is possible before I am willing to proceed.
Click to expand...


Prove it.

Fossilized fossils show no change because they're fossilized you need to explain this ?

Everyone knows abiogenesis is not possible. Give me one peer review that accepts the theory of abiogenesis.

What you are saying I am gonna believe even though there is no supporting evidence.

Feature Morphological Structures and Mechanisms.

One question I forgot to ask . how and why would a non-intelligent process create a mechanism to repair mutations ?

Well beneficial mutations must build on each other how is that possible with many neutral mutations and the admittence of harmful mutations greatly out numbering the beneficial mutations ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. And that invalidates the entire argument.
Click to expand...


How is language developed ?

How was sicence developed ?

How does a house get built ?

How does a car get built ?

How is music developed ?

What was all technology developed by ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the planet possesses all the characteristics for life not for life to evolve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing.
Click to expand...


Only by a biased opinion.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Fossilized fossils show no change because they're fossilized you need to explain this ?



Well, it's a fossil. It's made of rock. Rock has a tendency to last a long time without significant changes.



> Everyone knows abiogenesis is not possible. Give me one peer review that accepts the theory of abiogenesis.



No, it's not true that everyone "knows abiogenesis is not possible."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v331/n6157/pdf/331612a0.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v230/n5289/pdf/230107a0.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v216/n5113/pdf/216408a0.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v216/n5110/pdf/216029a0.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v205/n4969/pdf/205328a0.pdf

There are FIVE peer-reviewed articles whose authors accept the possibility of abiogenesis. All I did was go to Nature on line and do a search for "abiogenesis." It's a significant topic within biology, so I knew I'd get some hits. Nature is probably the world's premier general science journal, and everything in it is peer-reviewed.



> One question I forgot to ask . how and why would a non-intelligent process create a mechanism to repair mutations ?
> 
> Well beneficial mutations must build on each other how is that possible with many neutral mutations and the admittence of harmful mutations greatly out numbering the beneficial mutations ?



That's where natural selection comes in. A harmful mutation (by definition) is one that either hurts the chances of survival, or lowers the chances of procreation. When harmful mutations show up, they tend to kill the organism or prevent it from reproducing. In either case, the mutation is not passed on and dies out (except in the case of recessive genes). A beneficial mutation (by definition) either helps survival or helps procreation, and so DOES tend to be passed on and does NOT die out.

Let's say there's a 90% chance a given mutation will be harmful. Using a random number generator, I generate numbers from 1 to 10 and only a 10 represents a beneficial mutation. This will show how, over time, we can end up with five beneficial mutations and no harmful ones in the gene pool -- even though most mutations (90% of them in this illustration) are harmful.

First 16 mutations are all harmful -- and they all die out.

The 17th is beneficial. It is passed on. We now have 1 beneficial mutation and no harmful mutations in the gene pool.

Next 5 are harmful. They all die out. 1 beneficial and zero harmful mutations in the gene pool so far.

The 23rd is beneficial, and it's passed on, so now we have 2 beneficial mutations and no harmful ones in the gene pool.

6 more harmful mutations. They all die out.

Next 2 are beneficial. They're passed on. We have 4 beneficial mutations and no harmful ones in the gene pool.

3 more harmful mutations.They all die out.

The 35th mutation is beneficial and is passed on. We now have 5 beneficial mutations and zero harmful ones in the gene pool. It took 35 mutations to reach this state, but none of the harmful ones have been "kept" -- natural selection got rid of them all. All 5 of the beneficial ones have been passed on.

See how that works?


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> How is language developed ?
> 
> How was sicence developed ?
> 
> How does a house get built ?
> 
> How does a car get built ?
> 
> How is music developed ?
> 
> What was all technology developed by ?



Specific samples prove nothing. You need to prove the general principle that nothing similar to language, science, houses, cars, music, or technology can arise without being the product of a mind. There is no principle of information theory that insists on this as you claimed. That many things ARE the products of minds is irrelevant to the question.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the planet possesses all the characteristics for life not for life to evolve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only by a biased opinion.
Click to expand...


No, in the context we're discussing at the moment (the anthropic principle), they're the same thing. It doesn't matter whether life actually evolved or not; all that matters is that the planet possessed the ability to support life, and that is the reason why life exists on it -- without which there would be nobody to observe that it does. If life had emerged on Mars, then we would be saying the same thing about Mars. If life had emerged on Jupiter, we'd be saying the same thing about Jupiter. If life never emerged in this solar system at all, we wouldn't be saying it anywhere. The anthropic principle is a tautology; it doesn't say anything of significance about the universe except that we are in it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Transitional fossils from precambrian . Transitional fossils during the cambrian,where are they ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every fossil in the fossil record, except those of currently-living species, is a transitional fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do the fossils found in the precambrian show no change today ?
> 
> How come fossils found and dated from way back in the past show no change ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they're fossilized, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> We do.
> 
> 
> 
> It's complicated. If you really want to know, do a search for "abiogenesis." (Of course, once again, this has nothing to do with evolution.)
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no reason not to.
> 
> 
> 
> Before I present that evidence, please define "new feature" as I asked you to do before. There is evidence of any REASONABLE meaning of this phrase.
> 
> 
> 
> Because mutation is a random change, and there are many more possible random changes that are harmful than that are beneficial.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Because only a fairly narrow set of conditions can allow life as we know it to exist.
> 
> 2) We don't know that there is life on only one planet. There are many planets in the universe that have never been explored, and it is in fact very likely that there is life on some of them.
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason that when driving I might use a map of California rather than a globe of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think we don't?
> 
> 
> 
> They have not proven to be unreliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you account for things with a known age showing up much older then the known age ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specifics, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe beneficial mutations are the engine that drives macro-evolution when they are so rare and do not change the organism the way Neo say's ? If I'm wrong provide evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because evolution happens over a very long time, plenty of time to allow for beneficial mutations to explain what we see, even though they are rare.
> 
> Again, please define "new feature." Until you do, it is pointless to present evidence, as you will simply use the ambiguity of the phrase to escape out the back way. You must pin yourself down so no such dodge is possible before I am willing to proceed.
Click to expand...


You are not being honest here.

The truith is there are very few full bodied fossils,most creatures they have less the 25% of the fossil of an organism they used their imagination to create many creatures that exist in the fossil record.

What does being fossilized have to do with not showing gradualism ? They were once living creatures if they evolved,the changes would be locked in before they died. 

Specifics please. Look through this site and see all the evidence I am speaking of.


Living-Fossils.com


EXPERTS ON DATING 

Carbon-14 calculations are based on 7 assumptions 1) The balance between Carbon-14 production and decay has always been the same; 2) The rate of Carbon-14 decay has not altered; 3) Organic material tested has not been contaminated by Carbon-14 since its death; 4) Earth's magnetic field intensity has not changed; 5) There have only been small variations in ocean depths; 6) Ocean temperature changes have only been minor; and 7) Cosmic ray intensity has not changed. Measurements based on assumptions are guesses, not fact. Willard F. Libby,
"Radiocarbon Dating", University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1955 p:8, 10, 19-31

Examples of where uniformitarian dating has been shown to be wrong:

In 1968 scientists dated the rocks of a Hawaiian volcano called Hualalai, using Potassium/Argon radiometric techniques. They knew that the volcano had erupted in 1800 and that the rocks were around 170 years old, but the ages they determined ranged from 160 million to 3 billion. This method of dating rocks obviously produces erroneous ages, and should not be used to factually age the earth and its geology. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, No. 14, 1968 p:4601-4607


Different radioactive dating methods used on volcanic rock samples from Reunion Island (Indian Ocean) gave conflicting results that varied from 100,000 to 4.4 billion years. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 35, 1971 p:261-288 & Vol. 36, 1972 p:1167


A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000 years. Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61


Shell from living clams was 'dated' thousands of years old. Science, Vol. 141, August 16, 1963 p:634


Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+


A freshly killed seal was assessed at 1,300 old. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+


15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat.
New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466


Radiometric dating of fossil skull 1470 show that the various methods do not give accurate measurements of ages. The first tests gave an age of 221 million years. The second, 2.4 million years. Subsequent tests gave ages which ranged from 290,000 to 19.5 million years. Palaeomagnetic determinations gave an age of 3 million years. All these readings give a 762 fold error in the age calculations. Given that only errors less than 10% (0.1 fold) are acceptable in scientific calculations, these readings show that radiometric assessment should never ever be used. John Reader, "Missing Links", BCA/Collins: London, 1981 p:206-209


A  metal hammer, with its fossilized wooden handle, has been found in sandstone at Paluxy River (Texas, USA). The sandstone has been dated as being 400 million years old. This is 399 million years before the first human is supposed to have evolved. Also found inside rock has been a pair of pliers, a bolt, and a set of car keys. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1984 p:16; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1992 p:20; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1995 p:45 [photographs included]


&#8220;The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966


A felt hat left in a spray mine in Tasmania (Australia) was found 50 years later. The minerals in the water that covered the hat had turned the hat to stone. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10 [photo included]


Rocks composed of iron-rich limestone, sand and mud are forming in a Norfolk (UK) marsh in as short a time as 6 months. The limestone which cements the material together is being created by bacteria which are thriving on the rotting vegetation. Rocks do not necessarily take millions of years to form, nor do the fossils within them. Eastern Daily Press (UK), October 5, 1994


Some man-made items recovered from coal seams include:- (a) a gold chain [1891], (b) an iron thimble [1883], (c) a drill bit or borer [1853], (d) coins [1901], (e) a cuboid-shaped tool [1885], and (f) a carved stone plate bearing the image of a man's face. These discoveries have never been widely announced, as they contradict the evolutionary time-frames for rock formation and human evolution.
(a) Morrisonville Times, June 11, 1891; (b) American Antiquarian, Vol. 5, 1883; (c) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, Vol. 1, Part
2, 1853; (d) Strand Magazine, Vol. 21, 1901; (e) INFO Journal, Autumn, 1967; (f) The Daily Bee Newspaper, April 3, 1897


 Radiometric dating of fossil skull 1470 show that the various methods do not give accurate measurements of ages. The first tests gave an age of 221 million years. The second, 2.4 million years. Subsequent tests gave ages which ranged from 290,000 to 19.5 million years. Palaeomagnetic determinations gave an age of 3 million years. All these readings give a 762 fold error in the age calculations. Given that only errors less than 10% (0.1 fold) are acceptable in scientific calculations, these readings show that radiometric assessment should never ever be used. John Reader, "Missing Links", BCA/Collins: London, 1981 p:206-209


 In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs.  The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.&#8221; Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9


 William D. Stansfield, Ph.D. (animal breeding) (Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University) in-The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, 1977, p. 80.-"Certain fossils appear to be restricted to rocks of a relatively limited geological age span. These are called 'index fossils'. Whenever a rock is found bearing such a fossil, its approximate age is automatically established. This method is not foolproof. Occasionally an organism, previously thought to be extinct, is found to be extant. Such 'living fossils' obviously cannot function as index fossils except within the broader time span of their known existence."  
           pp. 82 and 84.-"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long term radiological 'clock'. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists..."



DATES THAT DON&#8217;T MATCH THE THEORY OR DISCARDED

 A. Hayatsu (Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada), "K-Ar isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia",-Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16, 1979,-"In conventional interpretation of K-Ar (potassium/argon dating method) age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily-attributed to excess or loss of argon."  In other words the potassium/argon (K/Ar) method doesn't support the uranium/lead (U/Pb) method.


 Richard L. Mauger, Ph.D. (Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University, USA), Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol. 15 (1), 1977, p. 37.-"In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained."


LINKS TO STUDY MORE ON DATING AND EVOLUTION

serious problems of dating techniques (last half is best and has quotes by evolutionists)
http://home.talkcity.com/InspirationAv/vs8int/philebadcarbon.html

7 wonders of Mt. St. Helens (showing that volcanoes and natural disasters make uniformitarian dating very very inaccurate.)
http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/wonders. Atmospheric Experiments

Early earth atmosphere science
Early Earth Display

Detailed Data on moon dust from direct talks with NASA scientist (there are 4 pages on this, so make sure to click next. The conclusion is that if the moon were 4 million + years old, it should have at least 50 times more dust than it does. Very scientific and of course analyzes the comets and such in depth). 
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotesa4.html#1023996

Problems with the Big Bang (Christians and atheists both who do believe in the big bang say that it had to be extremely precise in many factors for life to develop. Even some of the atheists are saying that it must have been guided somehow)
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 54.** First Law of Thermodynamics

Rapid burial (many fossils show that they were buried rapidly showing that uniformitarianism is not the way that all fossils were created!).
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 20.** Embryology

Speed of light changes even just in last few centuries (another evidence that uniformitarian's assumption of constant rates always is completely unjustified) and in the past possible up to a million fold faster than it is now!!!
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Why Does the Universe Seem to Be Expanding?

major changes in rates of stalactite growth (another nail in the uniformitarian theory)
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 63.** Radiometric Dating

DNA Production DNA cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins,a but proteins are produced by only DNA.b Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other.c Apparently, this entire manufacturing system came into existence simultaneously. This implies creation.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 32.** Genetic Distances

out of place fossils showing that the geological column is not accurate
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 24.** Missing Trunk

logical and scientific impossibility of sexual reproduction evolving by evolution
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 37.** Metamorphosis*******

living technology is greater than our technology which was carefully researched and planned!
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 39.** Sexual Reproduction

CIA and Noah's ark 
http://home.talkcity.com/InspirationAv/vs8int/phileark.html

EXTRA INFORMATION

Evolution depends critically on long time periods of time in order for it to be rationally possible&#8230;below are many references that show that the dating methods used are testably vastly in error and extremely inaccurate.  They are based on the uniformitarian methods which gives at least 80 ways of dating the earth and these ages range from 400 years total to over 100 billion. With a theory like that, you can just pick whatever dates suit your theory best.  But, the data proves that this is very inaccurate and can&#8217;t be trusted.

 Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error",-Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19 (3), 1981, pp. 9-29. Reprinted in the-Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19 (2), September 1982, pp. 117-127 (quotes from pp. 123 and 125).-"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs."....  
    "Radiocarbon dating has somehow avoided collapse onto its own battered foundation, and now lurches onward with feigned consistency. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who base their argument upon the dates. The early authorities began the charade by stressing that they were 'not aware of a single significant disagreement' on any sample that had been dated at different labs. {86,87} Such enthusiasts continue to claim, incredible though it may seem, that 'no gross-discrepancies are apparent', {88,89} Surely 15,000 years of difference on a single block of soil is indeed a 'gross' discrepancy! And how could the excessive disagreement between the labs be called insignificant, when it has been the basis for the reappraisal of the standard error associated with each and every date in existence?  
    "Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates 'appear' to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the numbers do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what 'look' like precise calendar years, figures 'seem' somehow better&#8212;both to layman and professional not versed in statistics&#8212;than complex stratigraphic or cultural correlations, and are more easily retained in one's memory. 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments."...  
    "No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There 'are' gross discrepancies, the chronology is 'uneven' and 'relative', and the accepted dates are actually 'selected' dates. 
    "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.{91}"

 Dr. C. Brooks (Professor of Geology, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada), Dr. D. E. James (Staff Member in geophysics and geochemistry, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington D.C., USA) and Dr. S. R. Hart (Professor of Geochemistry, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA), "Ancient lithosphere: its role in young continental volcanism",-Science, vol. 193, September 17, 1976, p. 1093.-"One serious consequence of the mantle isochron (equal in duration; equal intervals of time) model is that crystallization ages determined on basic igneous rocks by the Rb-Sr whole-rock technique can be greater than the true age by many hundreds of millions of years. This problem of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks, and there are well documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr age in the literature." 

 Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA) and Prof. James L.  Powell (Department of Geology, Oberlin College, Ohio, USA) in "Strontium Isotope Geology", Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972, p. 102.-"These results indicate that even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism (the process by which rocks are altered in composition, texture, or internal structure by extreme heat, pressure, and the introduction of new chemical substances) and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age."

 Richard L. Mauger, Ph.D. (geology) (Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University, USA), "K-Ar ages of biotites -(dark brownish to black mica {aluminum silicate minerals, common in igneous and metamorphic rocks, characteristically splitting into flexible sheets used in insulation and electrical equipment} found in igneous {formed from a molten [made liquid by heat] state} and metamorphic {formed by pressure, heat} rocks)-from tuffs-(a rock composed of compacted volcanic ash varying in size from fine sand to coarse gravel)-in Eocene rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado".-Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol. 15 (1), 1977, p. 37.-"In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained."

 M. L. Keith and G. M. Anderson (Department of Geochemistry and Mineralogy, Pennsylvania State University, USA), "Radiocarbon dating: fictitious results with mollusk shells",-Science, vol. 141, 16 August 1963, pp. 634,635.-"The most noteworthy feature of the results is that the analyzed modern mollusk shells from river environments are not only deficient in C13, relative to marine shells, as noted by Keith 'et al'. (16), but are also extremely deficient in C14, relative to modern wood, and give uncorrected radiocarbon ages in the range 1010 to 2300 years."

 Wakefield Dort, Jr. (Department of Geology, The University of Kansas), "Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land",- Antarctic Journal-(Washington), vol. 6, September-October 1971, p. 211.-Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, antarctic sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several radiocarbon ages determined for the mummified seal carcasses cannot be accepted as correct. For example, the apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years."

 (flood) "The scientific establishment's acceptance of worldwide catastrophism and mass extinction does not signify their abandonment of materialistic evolution. 
    Neither has their grudging acquiescence to the fact that great catastrophes caused the deposition of many of the fossils forced them to consider that virtually no fossils are in the process of forming on the bottom of any lake or sea today. This is a verboten subject. When I asked the editors of several of the most prestigious scientific journals the reasons for this silence, I was met with more silence." 


Luther D. Sunderland,  "Mass Extinction & Catastrophism Replace Darwinism & Uniformitarianism"

Evolution Says .....
Sedimentary rocks are millions of years old, as they take millions of years to form. Gemstones and petrified wood also takes millions of years to form. These are all proof of the old age of the earth.

The Facts Are .....

 A petrified orange has been found in a creek near Gayndah (Queensland). The orange cannot be
more than about 25 years old, as the first oranges were not produced in the area until 1968. This short
period of time for an organic object to turn into rock nullifies the evolutionary hypothesis that millions
of years are required for the process to occur. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1988 p:11 [photographs included]

 A felt hat left in a spray mine in Tasmania (Australia) was found 50 years later. The minerals in the
water that covered the hat had turned the hat to stone. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10 [photo included]

 A bowler hat was buried in the volcanic eruption of Te Wairoa village (North Island, New
Zealand) on June 10, 1886. It was discovered 20 years later, and found to have turned to stone. A leg
of ham had also been petrified after being buried in the same catastrophe. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986
p:10 [photos included]

 In the 1780's a Maori chief was buried by being placed in a burial cave at Cavern Head (NZ). The
remains of the chief were discovered by Walter Traill in 1877, and were found to have turned to stone.
Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10

 Rocks composed of iron-rich limestone, sand and mud are forming in a Norfolk (UK) marsh in as
short a time as 6 months. The limestone which cements the material together is being created by
bacteria which are thriving on the rotting vegetation. Rocks do not necessarily take millions of years
to form, nor do the fossils within them. Eastern Daily Press (UK), October 5, 1994

 Fuming volcanoes are known to produce around 500 gm of gold per day in the fluids coming out
of them. This is the equivalent of 18 tonnes of gold per century from just one volcano. New Scientist,
November 5, 1994 p:6  (we should gave quite an incredible amount of gold...MUCH more than we do from billions of years ages...another proof of a young earth)

 A hammer has been found embedded in Ordovician rock in London (Texas, USA), and has been
assigned the age of 400-500 million years. The handle of the hammer is wooden, and the head is steel.
An analysis of the head by Batelle Laboratories (USA) indicates that it was not prepared by any
known modern process of steel production. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1985 p:14-16 [photos included]

 Some man-made items recovered from coal seams include:- (a) a gold chain [1891], (b) an iron
thimble [1883], (c) a drill bit or borer [1853], (d) coins [1901], (e) a cuboid-shaped tool [1885], and
(f) a carved stone plate bearing the image of a man's face. These discoveries have never been widely
announced, as they contradict the evolutionary time-frames for rock formation and human evolution.
(a) Morrisonville Times, June 11, 1891; (b) American Antiquarian, Vol. 5, 1883; (c) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, Vol. 1, Part
2, 1853; (d) Strand Magazine, Vol. 21, 1901; (e) INFO Journal, Autumn, 1967; (f) The Daily Bee Newspaper, April 3, 1897

 Human fossil skulls and bones have been found in anthracite coal. The assessed age of the rock is
hundreds of millions of years older than the time when humans are said to have evolved. Science Frontiers,
September/October, 1991 p:3

 The US Geological Survey has documented that as much as 90% of the radioactive elements in
some granites could be removed by leaching the rock with a weak acid. They also state that as much
as 40% of the uranium in fresh-appearing igneous rocks is readily leachable. K.R. Klepper & D.G. Wyant, "Notes
on the Geology of Uranium", US Geological Survey Bulletin, No. 1046-F, 1957 p:93

 The Committee on the Measurement of Geological Time expressed their lack of confidence in
radioactive dating as far back as 1950. They said that the 'dates' were like railway timetables in that
they are subject to change without notice. "The Penguin Dictionary of Geology", Penguin Books: Middlesex (England), 1972 p:378

 "There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as
previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that atomic
clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [era] to a close
may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man." Written in Frederic B.
Jueneman, "Secular Catastrophism", Industrial Research and Development, June 1982 p:21

 "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are
claimed to be ..... The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and
evolutionists ....." Written by Dr William D. Stansfield (Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University) in his book "The Science of
Evolution", Macmillan: New York, 1977 p:84

 "One serious consequence of the mantle isochron model is that crystallization ages determined on
basic igneous rocks by the Rb-Sr whole-rock technique can be greater than the true age by many
hundreds of millions of years. This problem of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks, and
there are well-documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr age in the
literature." Written by Dr C. Brooks (Professor of Geology, University of Montreal, Canada) and others, in their article "Ancient Lithosphere: Its Role
in Young Continental Volcanism", in Science, Vol. 193, September 17, 1976 p:1093

 "Much still remains to be learned of the interpretation of isotopic ages and the realization that in
many instances the isotopic age is not necessarily the geological age of a rock has unfortunately led to
an over-sceptical attitude by some field geologists." Written by Peter E. Brown and John A. Miller in their article "Interpretation
of Isotopic Ages in Orogenic Belts" in "Time and Place in Orogeny", Geological Society of London Special Publication, No. 3, 1969 p:137

 Eleven distinct types of microbes have been identified in rock samples from Marble Bar (W.A.) dated
at 3.5 billion years old, in evolutionary terms. This date puts the rock at forming only 400 million years
after the earth cooled enough for life to exist - according to evolutionary theory. The assessed age of
these organisms is in total conflict with the current ages assigned by evolutionists to the origin of life on
Earth. Time (Australia), May 10, 1993 p:15; Science, April 30, 1993 p:640-646

 In the 1960's, scientists took ten samples of lava from both vegetated and unvegetated sites on
Mount Rangitoto (Auckland), and had their ages calculated using the Potassium-Argon method. The
ages of the ten samples ranged from 146,000-500,000 years. Not only did the tests produce a
discrepancy in age of the rocks, but the rock formed when the volcano erupted around 200 years ago,
according to Maori legend. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 33, 1969 p:1485-1520

 In 1968 scientists dated the rocks of a Hawaiian volcano called Hualalai, using Potassium/Argon
radiometric techniques. They knew that the volcano had erupted in 1800 and that the rocks were around
170 years old, but the ages they determined ranged from 160 million to 3 billion. This method of dating
rocks obviously produces erroneous ages, and should not be used to factually age the earth and its
geology. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, No. 14, 1968 p:4601-4607

 Different radioactive dating methods used on volcanic rock samples from Reunion Island (Indian
Ocean) gave conflicting results that varied from 100,000 to 4.4 billion years. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol.
35, 1971 p:261-288 & Vol. 36, 1972 p:1167

 Radiocarbon and Uranium-Thorium dates calculated by the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory
(New York) for samples of Caribbean coral have been found to differ by 3,500 years. These tests show
how inaccurate, and artificial, age assessments from radio-dating are. Science News, June 9, 1990 p:356

 Lava flows on the Uinkaret Plateau north of the Grand Canyon are a most recent formation, being
only a few thousand years old. Radiodating of this rock using Rubidium-Strontium and Lead-Lead
methods has produced ages from 1.5 - 2.6 billion years. Clearly, the age assessment techniques are vastly
inaccurate if the young lava flow is assessed as being older that the sedimentary rock on which it lies.
Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1989 p:37


Radiodating of minerals collected from a drill core in Northern Australia, using the Uranium-
Thorium-Lead method, has produced conflicting ages. One sample was dated as 862 million years old,
while three other samples were each assessed as being 0 (zero) million years old. This adds to the
confirmation that radiodating techniques are highly variable, and therefore cannot be used to accurately
date objects. Search, Vol. 3, 1972 p:382-385; Mineralium Deposita, Vol. 11, 1976 p:133-154.


(1) Carbon-14 calculations are based on 7 assumptions , concerning the past 20-30 thousand years. 1/
The balance between Carbon-14 production and decay has always been the same; 2/ The rate of
Carbon-14 decay has not altered; 3/ Organic material tested has not been contaminated by Carbon-14
since its death; 4/ Earth's magnetic field intensity has not changed; 5/ There have only been small
variations in ocean depths; 6/ Ocean temperature changes have only been minor; and 7/ Cosmic ray
intensity has not changed. Measurements based on assumptions are guesses, not fact. Willard F. Libby,
"Radiocarbon Dating", University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1955 p:8, 10, 19-31
(2) Examples of where C-14 dating has been shown to be erroneous:-
(i) A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000
years. Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61
(ii) Shell from living clams was 'dated' thousands of years old. Science, Vol. 141, August 16, 1963 p:634
(iii) Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old. Antarctic Journal of the United
States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+
(iv) A freshly killed seal was assessed at 1,300 old. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+
(v) A 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat.
New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466
(3) Thirty eight laboratories world-wide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and
produced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative
test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error
terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. Nature,
September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10
(4) "In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly
astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ..... The
radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross
discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected
dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which
funny paper you read"." Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19,
No. 3, 1981 p:9
(5) "Materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true
ages of many fewer calendar years." Personal correspondence from Gerald E. Aardsma to Paul Taylor. Quoted in Paul S. Taylor, "The
Illustrated Origins Answer Book" (4th. ed.) Eden Publications: Mesa (Arizona), 1992 p:59
(6) In Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating", it states:
"Radiocarbon is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. The technique does not in fact provide
true ages, and radiocarbon results must be adjusted (calibrated) to bring them into line with calendar
ages". Diggings, August, 1990 p:8
(7) "If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict
them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." Professor Brew, quoted by T.
Save-Soderbergh (Egyptologist) & Ingrid Olsson (Physicist) in "C-14 Dating and Egyptian 

Lots more on this site.

The dating game


----------



## Youwerecreated

Funny how you offer an opinion dragon but no evidence to support what you're saying,why ?


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Funny how you offer an opinion dragon but no evidence to support what you're saying,why ?



Look again. I did provide evidence where what I was saying wasn't self-evident and common knowledge.


----------



## Youwerecreated

You're still not responding to all my questions dragon.

What developed the things I listed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you offer an opinion dragon but no evidence to support what you're saying,why ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look again. I did provide evidence where what I was saying wasn't self-evident and common knowledge.
Click to expand...


Show how and why they came to those conclusions.

Still waiting to hear what developed the things I listed.


----------



## Dragon

I'm snipping your wall of text again. Please express ideas in your own words concisely.



Youwerecreated said:


> The truith is there are very few full bodied fossils,most creatures they have less the 25% of the fossil of an organism they used their imagination to create many creatures that exist in the fossil record.



This is not a significant fact. No product of the imagination is ever used as evidence of facts not know.



> What does being fossilized have to do with not showing gradualism ?



Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you were asking why the fossil ITSELF didn't change, not why it didn't SHOW change.

That's different. The answer is that it does show change.

Again, I'm not going to read through a wall of text. Please explain in your own words, concisely. Give me a few examples of things showing up with dates "much different" from the known date.

Please understand that I'm not denying this can happen. I am simply denying that it presents any significant problem with radioactive dating methods. Reasons why it would happen are known and understood, and the likelihood of them happening is known to be small.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Show how and why they came to those conclusions.



What conclusions?



> Still waiting to hear what developed the things I listed.



The question was irrelevant. I answered it appropriately.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> You're still not responding to all my questions dragon.



On the contrary, I answered every question you asked.



> What developed the things I listed ?



The question is irrelevant. That is my answer.

What is your definition of "new feature"? That's one YOU haven't answered.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> I'm snipping your wall of text again. Please express ideas in your own words concisely.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truith is there are very few full bodied fossils,most creatures they have less the 25% of the fossil of an organism they used their imagination to create many creatures that exist in the fossil record.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a significant fact. No product of the imagination is ever used as evidence of facts not know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does being fossilized have to do with not showing gradualism ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you were asking why the fossil ITSELF didn't change, not why it didn't SHOW change.
> 
> That's different. The answer is that it does show change.
> 
> Again, I'm not going to read through a wall of text. Please explain in your own words, concisely. Give me a few examples of things showing up with dates "much different" from the known date.
> 
> Please understand that I'm not denying this can happen. I am simply denying that it presents any significant problem with radioactive dating methods. Reasons why it would happen are known and understood, and the likelihood of them happening is known to be small.
Click to expand...


Then you are saying eldredge and gould who came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium didn't understand the fossil record ?

And many other well educated professors say there are no transitional fossils they don't understand the fossil record either ?

That quote!&mdash;about the missing transitional fossils


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still not responding to all my questions dragon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, I answered every question you asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What developed the things I listed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is irrelevant. That is my answer.
> 
> What is your definition of "new feature"? That's one YOU haven't answered.
Click to expand...


No you don't want to admit you were wrong.

A mind developed them. Since you are not open to an honest debate don't waste my time.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Then you are saying eldredge and gould who came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium didn't understand the fossil record ?



No, I am saying that there is no conflict between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism. The one is a form of the other.



> And many other well educated professors say there are no transitional fossils they don't understand the fossil record either ?



Those who say there are no "transitional fossils," or even use that phrase, don't understand the fossil record. That is correct.

All fossils are transitional fossils.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show how and why they came to those conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What conclusions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting to hear what developed the things I listed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was irrelevant. I answered it appropriately.
Click to expand...


The explanations you were giving.

Really,you are just wasting my time.

Typical of your side. 

I have better things to do today ,I will just let the readers make up their minds what you're presenting vs what I have presented.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> A mind developed them.



That fact is irrelevant, and therefore so was your question.

Your claim was not that some complex phenomena were designed by minds. Therefore, the fact that some complex phenomena were designed by minds gives no support to your claim. Your claim rather was that information theory holds that no complex phenomena can exist that are NOT designed by minds. That is untrue; there is no such principle in information theory.

Nor is there any principle of information theory which holds that complex phenomena CAN'T be designed by minds, so the fact that some things were is evidence of nothing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are saying eldredge and gould who came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium didn't understand the fossil record ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am saying that there is no conflict between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism. The one is a form of the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And many other well educated professors say there are no transitional fossils they don't understand the fossil record either ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who say there are no "transitional fossils," or even use that phrase, don't understand the fossil record. That is correct.
> 
> All fossils are transitional fossils.
Click to expand...



Nonsense.

I ask you to prove these statements.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Really,you are just wasting my time.



No, you are wasting your time. Your time isn't mine to waste. I'm wasting mine, but rather enjoying doing it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mind developed them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That fact is irrelevant, and therefore so was your question.
> 
> Your claim was not that some complex phenomena were designed by minds. Therefore, the fact that some complex phenomena were designed by minds gives no support to your claim. Your claim rather was that information theory holds that no complex phenomena can exist that are NOT designed by minds. That is untrue; there is no such principle in information theory.
> 
> Nor is there any principle of information theory which holds that complex phenomena CAN'T be designed by minds, so the fact that some things were is evidence of nothing.
Click to expand...


Complex things need to be designed they don't simply create themselves.

You are unrational in your thought process.

Where did the information come from that programmed our brain ?


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> I ask you to prove these statements.



There is no conflict between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism. Punctuated equilibrium does not mean either that evolution happens instantly when it happens, or that it stops happening altogether during the times of "equilibrium." It means only that evolution happens more rapidly at some times than at others.

The Cambrian was a time of particularly rapid evolution, but it took over 50 million years. That is rapid change _for evolution_, considering the magnitude of the changes, but it is still gradual change, not instantaneous change.

All fossils are transitional fossils. That is because all are between other life forms that were different, before and after. This is the only legitimate meaning the phrase "transitional fossil" has. The term is used in creationist literature in a dishonest way: it is always possible, between any two forms of life, however closely related, to posit something between the two and point out that fossils of this imaginary life form cannot be found. But the fact that these fossils of imaginary life forms are not found does not mean there are no "transitional fossils." In fact, it doesn't mean much of anything. All fossils are transitional.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Complex things need to be designed they don't simply create themselves.



Why? Definitely not because of any "principle of information theory."



> Where did the information come from that programmed our brain ?



Which part of the programming? Some comes from our genes, some from our environment. The genetic part was not anyone's design. The environmental part sometimes is.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're referring to the meaning of kind its been answered many times.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a link there (as there always has been) to refer you to the question. Stop being a disingenuous retard.
> 
> This is a lie. A patently obvious lie. It's a lie now, just as it was the first time you posted it, and every single time afterward. You are a liar; a remorseless serial liar of the very first order.
> 
> Without stipulating that you have any idea of what I believe, for the purposes of our discussion I will stand by everything I have thus far posted and assert that I agree. It's not a belief I hold with unqualified certainty, but it is indeed my belief. That is what the observable evidence currently available suggests. This is without valid dispute, neither upon evidentiary bases, or upon logical bases.
> 
> I agree. It's not a belief I hold with unqualified certainty, but it is indeed my belief. That is what the observable evidence currently available suggests. This is without valid dispute, neither upon evidentiary bases, or upon logical bases.
> 
> Your superstitious judgements regarding "absurdity" possess no verifable validity. None.
> 
> A belief is simply the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing. A rational belief is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Faith is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which there is no support in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; the obtuse strength of the denial of the contrary evidence and or valid logic is the "validating" quality of faith.
> 
> So, these beliefs you fatuously call "absurd" are indeed based upon science (as has been well demonstrated) rather than faith, in that those "absurd" beliefs are founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and are validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, rather than denials of verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> It's really too bad for you, that your retarded superstitions cannot make the same claims.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But anyways I was gonna ask questions but I will wait and let those contradictions sink in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I predict that Youwerecreated, consistent with his intellectually dishonesty, will repost his questions and "evidence" (as if they weren't responded to repeatedly and in depth) before he answers the question I put to him (which he claims--but cannot bring evidence for--he has already answered).​No one can say that you are inconsistent in your denial of reality.
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) your continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence for creation.
> 
> 
> The Universe Has a Center
> 
> 
> 
> Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe. Galaxies look the same, and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions.  The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions. These and other data strongly indicate we are located at a very special location by design.
> 
> Instead of accepting the obvious, recent models of physical cosmology assume the earth is not special and that everywhere in the universe the exact same observation of receding objects would be seen. Instead of a universe with an age measured in thousands of years, this assumption leads to billions of years.
> 
> In contrast, creation cosmologies explain the data better by starting from biblically-based axioms: the cosmos has a unique center and a boundary for its matter, beyond which there is at least some empty space; and on a cosmic scale of distances, the earth is near the center.
Click to expand...

Prediction validated.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're referring to the meaning of kind its been answered many times.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a link there (as there always has been) to refer you to the question. Stop being a disingenuous retard.
> 
> This is a lie. A patently obvious lie. It's a lie now, just as it was the first time you posted it, and every single time afterward. You are a liar; a remorseless serial liar of the very first order.
> 
> Without stipulating that you have any idea of what I believe, for the purposes of our discussion I will stand by everything I have thus far posted and assert that I agree. It's not a belief I hold with unqualified certainty, but it is indeed my belief. That is what the observable evidence currently available suggests. This is without valid dispute, neither upon evidentiary bases, or upon logical bases.
> 
> I agree. It's not a belief I hold with unqualified certainty, but it is indeed my belief. That is what the observable evidence currently available suggests. This is without valid dispute, neither upon evidentiary bases, or upon logical bases.
> 
> Your superstitious judgements regarding "absurdity" possess no verifable validity. None.
> 
> A belief is simply the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing. A rational belief is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Faith is the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which there is no support in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; the obtuse strength of the denial of the contrary evidence and or valid logic is the "validating" quality of faith.
> 
> So, these beliefs you fatuously call "absurd" are indeed based upon science (as has been well demonstrated) rather than faith, in that those "absurd" beliefs are founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and are validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, rather than denials of verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> It's really too bad for you, that your retarded superstitions cannot make the same claims.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But anyways I was gonna ask questions but I will wait and let those contradictions sink in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I predict that Youwerecreated, consistent with his intellectually dishonesty, will repost his questions and "evidence" (as if they weren't responded to repeatedly and in depth) before he answers the question I put to him (which he claims--but cannot bring evidence for--he has already answered).​No one can say that you are inconsistent in your denial of reality.
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) your continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence for creation.
> 
> 
> The Universe Has a Center
> 
> 
> 
> Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe. Galaxies look the same, and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions.  The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions. These and other data strongly indicate we are located at a very special location by design.
> 
> Instead of accepting the obvious, recent models of physical cosmology assume the earth is not special and that everywhere in the universe the exact same observation of receding objects would be seen. Instead of a universe with an age measured in thousands of years, this assumption leads to billions of years.
> 
> In contrast, creation cosmologies explain the data better by starting from biblically-based axioms: the cosmos has a unique center and a boundary for its matter, beyond which there is at least some empty space; and on a cosmic scale of distances, the earth is near the center.
> 
> 
> The Universe Was Created Powerfully
> 
> 
> 
> A star is a continuous explosion of awesome power. The power to create a universe with a billion galaxies, each with a billion stars, is beyond imagination. To create matter and energy can only be done by a Creator who is outside of nature.
> 
> 
> The creation of the laws of nature themselves demonstrates an even greater power. These laws are balanced so that our sun provides the energy to us day by day. These laws are balanced so the molecules within us can use that energy.
> 
> 
> The laws of nature are fine-tuned so our sun can burn and provide us with the energy we need.
> 
> Light from stars and the sun begins with hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. The sun is a large ball of very hot hydrogen. It is more than 100 times larger than the earth.
> 
> The energy of the sun comes from explosions of hydrogen. These are nuclear explosions, which are much more powerful than chemical explosions.
> 
> 
> Gravity draws all the sun's hydrogen together creating intense pressure. In the core of the sun, the huge forces cause nuclear fusion reactions. Hydrogen atoms fuse together into helium and release huge amounts of energy.
> 
> 
> These explosions do not cause the sun to suddenly blow up and then go cold. The balanced laws of physics hold our sun together. Gravity pulls the atoms back as each explosion pushes them away. This balance keeps the billions of stars in billions of galaxies burning.
> 
> 
> If the laws of nature were just slightly different, the delicate balance would not exist between hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Without this balance thousands of critical molecular interactions would not happen. There are only a few elements that can sustain life through their unique properties. Any change would make life impossible.
> 
> The Universe Was Created Recently
> 
> 
> 
> Many clock-like processes operating in the solar system and beyond indicate that the universe is young. For example, spiral galaxies should not exist if they are billions of years old. The stars near their centers rotate around the galactic cores faster than stars at the perimeters. If a cosmology based on long ages is correct, they should have blended into disk-shaped galaxies by now.
> 
> Comets pose a similar problem. They lose material each time they pass around the sun. Why would they still exist after vast eons? Saturns rings still look new and shiny. And many planets and moons are very geologically active. Surely the energy they continually expend should have been spent long ago if they are as old as they are usually claimed to be.
> 
> Instead, the more astronomers learn about the heavens, the more evidence there is that the universe is young.
> 
> 
> 
> 'Wildly Unexpected' Galaxies Defy Simple Naturalistic Explanations
> 
> by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
> 
> God said in Isaiah 45:12: "I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." 1 Corinthians 15:41 states, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory." If what the Bible says is true, then planets, stars, and galaxies should each be unique, thus defying a simple origins explanation based on physical laws.
> 
> This truth is already well-established with the solar system, since each planet has a totally unique chemical composition and overall layout.1 And the discovery of "old" galaxies mixed with "young" shows that galaxy formation has been hopelessly difficult for nature-only theories to explain.2 Could creation be the best explanation for all these one-of-a-kind stellar entities?
> 
> The June 13, 2011, issue of New Scientist magazine summarized recent work by astronomer John Kormendy of the University of Texas at Austin and cosmologist Jim Peebles of Princeton University, as well as others. Astronomers are finding evidence that, according to Peebles, shows that "galaxies are complicated and we don't really understand how they form. It's really an embarrassment."3
> 
> In the January 2011 issue of Nature, Peebles summarized two papers that described galaxy discs that totally failed to fit the standard theories of how galaxies supposedly formed.4 The galaxies they investigated had very dense points of mass in the center of their cores, presumably black holes. But only about half of them had a "bulge" of associated stars nearby. The other galaxies were razor-flat in side profile, even though they appeared brighter near their centers.
> 
> "Bulgeless" galaxies are "wildly unexpected in the standard model," according to Peebles.3 He wrote in Nature, "A challenge for the advancing power of theoretical methods is to understand this inward migration of matter, and why it preferentially fed the pseudobulge [concentration of stars within the galaxy's plane] in some galaxies and the black hole in others."4 In other words, why would matter have bulged beyond the plane of some spiral or disc galaxies, while in otherwise similarly shaped galaxies it remained confined within the flat plane of the galaxy?
> 
> They found a large number of "slimline" galaxies in "pristine spirals." These are a "big problem" because, as Kormendy told New Scientist, "We don't know how to prevent bulge formation when galaxies grow big via mergers."3 Part of the standard model is that early on, small proto-galaxies crashed into one another to become today's massive galaxiesa conjecture that lacks observational verification. But even the conjecture holds that such crashes make messes and bulges, whereas close to half of the galaxies they observed are clean and flat.
> 
> One aspect of slimline galaxies, like the Milky Way and Galaxy M101, that was not discussed is how young they look. Wouldn't their billions of stars have had ample opportunity over billions of years to collide, especially in dense regions? At least some, but probably most, of those stars should have been bumped out of the galactic plane. But instead, their arrangement is as orderly as so many ink dots on a vast sheet of paper. Similar observations show that Saturn's razor-flat rings look young.5
> 
> This thin, youthful appearance is no problem for the Bible's recent creation account. And the mixture of bulged and "no bulge" galaxies is easy to explain as the handiwork of a Creator who crafted a unique signature for each of His cosmological formations.
> 
> 
> The Universe Was Created
Click to expand...

Prediction validated.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I predict that Youwerecreated, consistent with his intellectually dishonesty, will repost his questions and "evidence" (as if they weren't responded to repeatedly and in depth) before he answers the question I put to him (which he claims--but cannot bring evidence for--he has already answered).
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence.
> 
> Everything Has a Cause
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In ordinary experience, one knows intuitively that nothing happens in isolation. Every event can be traced to one or more events which preceded it and that, in fact, caused it. We ask: "How did this happen?" "What caused this?" "Where did this come from?" "When did it start?" Or, more incisively, "Why did this happen?"
> 
> When we try to trace the event to its cause, or causes, we find that we never seem to reach a stopping point. The cause of the event was itself caused by a prior cause, which was affected by a previous cause, and so on back.
> 
> Police investigators on an accident scene, for instance, use the principles of cause and effect every day to determine who was ultimately responsible and how it happened.
> 
> Eventually, we must face the question of the original causeand uncaused First Cause.
> 
> A scientific experiment specifically tries to relate effects to causes, in the form of quantitative equations if possible. Thus, if one repeats the same experiment with exactly the same factors, then exactly the same results will be reproduced. The very basis of the highly reputed "scientific method" is this very law of causalitythat effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. Science in the modern sense would be altogether impossible if cause and effect should cease.
> 
> This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives: (1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes (nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects); or (2) an uncaused primary Cause of all causes (the One absolute Cause)
> 
> The Effect Problem
> 
> 
> 
> There are two other "Universal Laws" that we see demonstrated in everything we examine in the world around us.
> 
> 1. There is no new mass/energy coming into existence anywhere in the universe, and every bit of that original mass/energy is still here.
> 
> 2. Every time something happens (an event takes place), some of the energy becomes unavailable.
> 
> The First Law tells us that matter (mass/energy) can be changed, but can neither be created nor destroyed. The Second Law tells us that all phenomena (mass/energy) continually proceed to lower levels of usefulness.
> 
> In simple terms, every cause must be at least as great as the effect that it producesand will, in reality, produce an effect that is less than the cause. That is, any effect must have a greater cause.
> 
> When this universal law is traced backwards, one is faced again with the possibility that there is an ongoing chain of ever-decreasing effects, resulting from an infinite chain of nonprimary ever-increasing causes. However, what appears more probable is the existence of an uncaused Source, an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and Primary, First Cause.
> 
> Cause and Effect
> 
> 
> God Caused Beauty
> 
> 
> 
> Aesthetics is the study of beauty, more often associated today with art. However, the discipline itself, and the philosophical apologetics from the concept are extended into every sphere of imagination, sensibility, and taste.
> 
> Essentially, the foundational argument would suggest that given the universal reality that the concept of "beauty" exists (even if it is in "the eye of the beholder") there is an ultimate "standard" by which beauty is judged. Determining the aesthetic value of anything requires rational judgment, even though that judgment is unique to each individual.  Each rational judgment must rely on one's ability to discriminate at a sensory or emotional level.
> 
> This examination makes a judgment regarding whether something is beautiful, sublime, disgusting, fun, cute, silly, entertaining, pretentious, discordant, harmonious, boring, humorous, or tragic. And, of course, since such an ability exists only in the mental acuity of imaginative appreciation, then the Source of such ability must also be both rational and emotional.
> 
> The vast differences between individual tastes and between cultures, both in time and in location, speak to the enormity of such possibilities and to the unfathomable wonder of the hunger for "beauty" in every human being.
> 
> That such a hunger exists only in the human being is a wonder in itself! The flower is not impressed with its own majesty; it merely exists with no conscious awareness. The chimpanzee does not gaze longingly on the enigma of the Mona Lisa, nor do the stars muse on the heavens they themselves grace.
> 
> In fact, all humanity eschews destruction and random chaos as "ugly" and attempts to mask death with various levels of cosmetic disguises, and this speaks to the realization that some
> 
> 
> God Caused Justice
> 
> 
> 
> Morality involves the study of the universal recognition that "good" is better than "evil," which logically requires the existence of an ultimate Judge. That is, since all humanity accepts the knowledge that some events and standards are better than otherseven though cultures may differ on what those events or standards may bethere must be an ultimate Source of such thinking, even if the absolute standard has become distorted over time.
> 
> C.S. Lewis, one of the most prolific writers and thinkers of our time, wrote of what he called "Moral Law," or the "Law of Human Nature" in his work Mere Christianity.
> 
> 
> The Moral Law, or Law of Human Nature, is not simply a fact about human behavior in the same way as the Law of Gravitation is, or may be, simply a fact about how heavy objects behave. On the other hand, it is not a mere fancy, for we cannot get rid of the idea, and most of the things we say and think about men would be reduced to nonsense if we did. And it is not simple a statement about how we should like men to behave for our own convenience; for the behavior we call bad or unfair is not exactly the same as the behavior we find inconvenient, and may even be the opposite. Consequently, the rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thinga thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves (Page 20).
> 
> We find then that we do not exist on our own, that we are under a law, and that Somebody or Something wants us to behave in a certain way.
> 
> Therefore, this Somebody or Something is directing the universe, and as a result we sense an internal law that urges us to do right and makes us feel responsibile and uncomfortable when we do wrong.  We have to assume this entity is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know, because after all, the only other thing we know is matter and you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions.
> 
> Catholic apologist and philosophy professor Peter Kreeft also writes in his work The Argument from Conscience, "The only possible source of absolute authority is an absolute perfect will." The full text of Argument can be viewed here.
> 
> 
> God Caused Love
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike affection, only humans are capable of receiving, giving, refusing, and rejecting love.
> 
> Animals (including chimps) are not able to provide any assistance to other creatures they are not related to, and even seem to be unable to recognize the needs of other animals.  Although some animals (especially mammals like dogs, cats, and horses) can and do appreciate affection, only humans are capable of receiving, giving, refusing, and rejecting love.
> 
> Humans are driven by an entirely different kind of love.  We love our children when they are disobedient.  We can love our enemies and sacrifice our lives for our friends (like soldiers do).  The highest, truest kind of love is that which consciously seeks and takes practical action to do good for someone else, valuing that other person as higher than one's self, even if providing such good requires self-sacrifice.  This is what separates us, practically, from love expressed by animals.
> 
> Of course, if God did not create us, how would we ever know what real love is, much less learn to practice love ourselves?  The very fact that we can love and be loved (by God and by others) is yet another proof of a Creator's love.  Because of His own nature of infinite love and grace, it was God's good pleasure to create things in whom He could bestow His love and grace and who, being made in His image, would be capable of reciprocating and responding to that love.
> 
> "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
> 
> 
> God Caused Meaning
> 
> 
> 
> Humans in particular seek a "reason to exist" and for the most part find it difficult to accept that we are simply here to consume the earth's resources and die.  However, God in the beginning created the heavens, the earth, and all living creaturesespecially mankindwith special purposes in mind, which He explained in His Word.
> 
> Here is the essence of the naturalistic-evolutionary "story."
> 
> There is no God (or "god" is in the forces of nature, or in man himself).  Nothing "supernatural" exists (except perhaps some "extra-terrestrial" race of super-intellects that have evolved in other parts of the universe.  Since no evidence for the Bible's "God" exists, we can be certain that there is no such thing as a "plan for your life."  And since there is so, there is no future, no "afterlife."  Speculative Hollywood movies notwithstanding, and the many reported "out of the body experiences" to the contrary, no rational naturalist believes in any form of "eternal life."  When you're dead, you're dead!
> 
> Such hopeless beliefs drive many into lives of debauchery and hedonism, and fill the couches of psychologists and psychiatrists all over the world.  Teenage suicide is alarmingly high, and the therapitst themselves continue to manifest one of the highest suicide rates in civilized countries.  Scandals abound among the leaders of world business, politics, and churches.
> 
> "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" (1 Corinthians 15:19).
> 
> There is no "good news" in the evolutionary theory.
> 
> There is, however, glorious wonder and life-changing power in the "everlasting gospel" (Revelation 14:6).
> 
> God Caused Order
> 
> 
> 
> Ordered systems or structures do not happen spontaenously.  We never observe orderliness occurring by accident, without an intelligent cause to direct the order.  No amount of power or energy is enough to bring order out of chaos.  Try shooting a wristwatch with a bullet; the watch's order does not increase!  (The only order in a watch is that which the watchmaker intelligently puts into it at the beginning.)
> 
> Likewise, if we drop a plain glass bottle of spoiled milk on bricks, it quite naturally shatters into a more disorderly arrangement: chaotic glass fragments mixed with spilt spoiled milk.  It could never reform itself into a more exquisitely-sculpted glass container containing fresh milk!
> 
> The mere addition of "lots of energy" is not enough, either.  A tired human eats to gain food energy, but eating hot coals is not an adequate energy source, because it fails to match and cooperate with the orderly design of human digestive systems.
> 
> Everyday experiences, such as broken watches and spilled milk, remind us that order does not happen by itself.  In fact, our entire universe teaches us that same truth.  The earth's rotation, the moon cycle, and the changing seasons are just a few of the ordered processes observable in nature.  These processes don't happen randomly but are divinely caused by God.
> 
> God is the Author and Organizer of orderliness.  His design and construction of our own bodies, through the complexity of biogenesis, is a proper reason for glorifying and thanking Him for making us.
> 
> God Caused Time, Space, and Matter
> 
> 
> 
> The cause of the universe is God. Our Creator is outside of the physical creation he made.  Time is not eternal, but created.
> 
> To ask what happened in time before time was created is to create a false paradox without meaning. There was no "before" before the triune universe of time, space and matter was created.
> 
> God Caused Wisdom
> 
> 
> 
> Wisdom is, essentially, the effective understanding and use of information.  Humans discover information; we do not invent it.  Through wisdom, humanity has developed (i.e. used information effectively) a set of scientific laws that elegantly express reality in the language of mathematics.  Johann Kepler, the noted founder of physical astronomy, is said to have considered his science to be "thinking God's thoughts after Him."
> 
> The unfathomable intelligence that was used to invent the universe, and to pre-program its interactive workings, is a source of "wisdom" beyond-the-imagination.  In particular, the cause of our universe coming into being, and of its continuing to operate as it does, is a dynamic display of the Creator's wisdom, some of which we can scientifically understand and effectively apply.  When we do, we are (as Kepler) "thinking God's thoughts after Him."
> 
> To the extent that humans have any wisdom at all, much less the wisdom necessary to understand a meaningful amount of the working of the universe, the very fact that we can understand at all is more amazing than the marvelous physics of the universe!  How can an immaterial mind, residing inside a human body, made mostly of water (along with other constituent elements of the earth), comprehend anything, even this sentence?
> 
> It is only by God's creative grace that human being can think any thoughts at all, much less thoughts that are logical and analytical enough to be called "scientific."
> 
> 
> Design and Purpose
Click to expand...

Prediction validated.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I predict that Youwerecreated, consistent with his intellectually dishonesty, will repost his questions and "evidence" (as if they weren't responded to repeatedly and in depth) before he answers the question I put to him (which he claims--but cannot bring evidence for--he has already answered).
> 
> 
> 
> The Earth Is Unique
> 
> 
> 
> As far as science "knows," the planet earth is unique in the entire universe.  Certainly this is true in our own solar system. Nothing that we have observed leads us to believe that there is any other planet like earth
> 
> 
> The Earth Itself
> 
> 
> 
> Earth is the only planet circling our sun on which life as we know it could (and does) exist.
> 
> Like no other planet, ours is covered with green vegetation, enormous blue-green oceans containing over a million islands, hundreds of thousands of streams and rivers, huge land masses called continents, mountains, ice caps, and deserts that produce a spectacular variety of color and texture. Some form of life is found in virtually every ecological niche on the earth's surface. Even in the extremely cold Antarctica, hardy microscopic beings thrive in ponds, tiny wingless insects live in patches of moss and lichen, and plants grow and flower yearly. From the apex of the atmosphere to the bottom of the oceans, from the coldest part of the poles to the warmest part of the equator, life thrives here. To this day, no evidence of life has been found on any other planet.
> 
> The earth is immense in size, about 8,000 miles in diameter, with a mass calculated at roughly 6.6 x 1,021 tons. The earth is on average 93 million miles from the sun. If the earth traveled much faster in its 584-million-mile-long journey around the sun, its orbit would become larger and it would move farther away from the sun. If it moved too far from the narrow habitable zone, all life would cease to exist on earth. If it traveled slightly slower in its orbit, the earth would move closer to the sun, and if it moved too close, all life would likewise perish. The earth's 365-days, 6-hours, 49-minutes and 9.54-seconds trip around the sun (the sidereal year) is consistent to over a thousandth of a second!
> 
> If the yearly average temperature on earth's surface changed by only a few degrees or so, much of the life on it would eventually roast or freeze. This change would upset the water-to-ice ratio and other critical balances, with disastrous results. If the earth rotated slower on its axis, all life would die in time, either by freezing at night because of lack of heat from the sun or by burning during the day from too much heat.
> 
> Our "normal" earth processes are assuredly unique among our solar system and, according to what we know, in the entire universe.
> 
> The Sun and Moon
> 
> 
> 
> Of all the energy the sun gives off, only 0.45 billionth of its daily output strikes the earth. The sun provides the earth with energy estimated at over 239 trillion horsepower, about 35,000 horsepower for each current resident. Even though there likely exist several hundred billion galaxies in the universe, each with 100 billion stars, there is only one atom for every 88 gallons of space, which means the vast majority of the universe is empty space!
> 
> If the moon was much larger or nearer to the earth, the huge tides that would result would overflow onto the lowlands and erode the mountains. If the continents were leveled, it is estimated that water would cover the entire surface to the depth of over a mile! If the earth was not tilted 23° on its axis, but rather was on a 90° angle in reference to the sun, we would not have four seasons.
> 
> Without seasons, life would soon not be able to exist on earththe poles would lie in eternal twilight, and water vapor from the oceans would be carried by the wind towards both the north and south, freezing when it moved close enough to the poles. In time, huge continents of snow and ice would pile up in the polar regions, leaving most of the earth a dry desert. The oceans would eventually disappear, and rainfall would cease. The accumulated weight of ice at the poles would cause the equator to bulge, and, as a result, the earth's rotation would drastically change.
> 
> Just a little change (in the perspective of the universe) would render the earth unsuitable to support any life. Is this the result of accidental randomness, or purposeful intent?
> 
> 
> The Miracle of Water
> 
> 
> 
> The earth is the only known planet with huge bodies of water. Seventy percent of its surface area consists of oceans, lakes, and seas surrounding huge bodies of land. The few other planets that have water contain only moisture floating as vapor on their surface or small amounts of ice or liquid water on the planet itself, not large bodies of liquid water as on earth.
> 
> Water is unique in that it can absorb enormous amounts of heat without a large alteration in its temperature. Its heat absorption level is about ten times as great as steel. During the day, the earth's bodies of water rapidly soak up enormous amounts of heat; thus, the earth stays fairly cool. At night, they release the vast amounts of heat that they absorbed during the day, which, combined with atmospheric effects, keeps most of the surface from freezing solid at night. If it were not for the tremendous amounts of water on the earth, far greater day and night temperature variations would exist. Many parts of the surface would be hot enough to boil water during the day, and the same parts would be cold enough to freeze water at night. Because water is an excellent temperature stabilizer, the large oceans on earth are vital for life to exist on earth.
> 
> In contrast to virtually all other materials (the rare exceptions include rubber and antimony), water contracts when cooled only until it reaches 4 degrees Celsius. Then it amazingly expands until it freezes. Thus, because of this anomaly, the ice that forms in seas, oceans, and lakes stays near the surface, where the sun heats it during the day and the warm water below melts it in the summer. This and the Coriolis effect, which produces ocean currents, ensure that most of the ocean stays in a liquid form, allowing the myriads of water creatures to live.
> 
> This is one more "stunning" demonstration that the "Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens" (Proverbs 3:19).
> 
> 
> The Miracle of Air
> 
> 
> 
> The air close to the earth's surface is heated by light energy from the sun, and after the air is warmed it becomes less dense and rises upward. The result is that the air near the earth's surface maintains a temperature in which life can exist. If air contracted when heated and became denser, the temperature on the earth's surface would become unbearable, and most life could not survive for very long. The temperature a few hundred feet above the surface, on the other hand, would be extremely cold, and most life could also not exist there for very long. The only habitable region would be a thin slice of air, but even here life could not exist for long because the plants and trees necessary to support life in the atmosphere could not survive, as they would be in the cold zone. Thus birds would have no resting place or food, water, or oxygen. But because air on the earth's surface rises when heated, life can exist on the earth.
> 
> The movement of warm air from the surface rising upward creates air currents (wind), which are an important part of the earth's ecological system. They carry away carbon dioxide from areas that overproduce, such as cities, and move oxygen to areas in need of it, such as the large urban population centers.
> 
> The mixture of gases usually found in the atmosphere not contaminated by human pollution is perfect for life. If it were much different (e.g. 17 percent instead of 21 percent oxygen, too little carbon dioxide, etc., or the atmospheric pressure were much higher or lower), life would cease to exist on earth. If our atmosphere were much thinner, many of the millions of meteors that now are burned up would reach the earth's surface, causing death, destruction, and fires everywhere.
> 
> 
> Unique Environment for Life
> 
> 
> 
> If evolution works to evolve life to fit the existing environments, why has it not equally conquered all of the various environments here and elsewhere?
> 
> Earth is far better suited for life than any other planet, yet even here most of the environments are too hot, too cold, too far underground or too far above ground to support much life. In the many thousands of miles of changing environments from the center of the earth to the edge of its atmosphere, there are only a few meters of habitable environment for most life forms, and therefore, almost all creatures are forced to live there. Although in our solar system only the earth was made to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18), even on the earth only a thin slice is ideally suited for most life-forms, including those we are most familiar with, such as mammals, birds, and reptiles.
> 
> This thin section, though, is teeming with life. It is estimated that an acre of typical farm soil, six inches deep, has several tons of living bacteria, almost a ton of fungi, two hundred pounds of one-cell protozoan animals, about one hundred pounds of yeast, and the same amount of algae.
> 
> The Earth Is Unique
Click to expand...

Prediction validated.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I predict that Youwerecreated, consistent with his intellectually dishonesty, will repost his questions and "evidence" (as if they weren't responded to repeatedly and in depth) before he answers the question I put to him (which he claims--but cannot bring evidence for--he has already answered).
> 
> 
> 
> Continued-
> 
> Evidence from Science
> 
> 
> 
> Where does everything come from and what does it mean? Science is limited in its ability to answer the questions nearest to our hearts. However, science does give us tools to understand our universe and the laws of nature that we can observe today.
> 
> This understanding provides compelling evidence for creation.
> 
> Earth Was Created for Life
> 
> 
> 
> Our solar system is filled with amazing planets, but none are perfect for life except the earth.
> 
> Mercury is the closest planet to the sun. It gets very hot and very cold. It has a very slow spin. The side facing the sun is heated to 800 (F) while the side away from the sun is cooled to 298 degrees (F).
> 
> Venus is hotter than Mercury, yet farther away from the sun. Venus has an atmosphere 90 times thicker than earth's. Heat is trapped in the clouds and heats the entire planet to 931 degrees (F).
> 
> Mars is similar to earth in many ways. A day on Mars is 24.7 hours. It is tilted 25 degrees, just two more degrees than earth. At its warmest, it can get to be a comfortable 67 degrees (F). It has two small moons. But Mars is smaller than earth. The gravity on Mars is only a third of the earths. Without enough gravity, Mars is unable to hold a larger atmosphere. What atmosphere it has is made of the gases we cannot breathe. Without much of an atmosphere, many meteoroids hit Mars. It also gets very cold at night.
> 
> Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system. It is ten times smaller than the sun and ten times larger than the earth. Jupiter spins faster than any other planet, with a day of 9 hours and 55.5 minutes. Its fast spin causes tremendous storms. The big red spot on Jupiter is a huge hurricane.
> 
> Saturn is the second-largest planet in our solar system and has the largest set of rings. It is almost twice as far away from the sun as Jupiter is. Saturn is a gas giant. As one descends into the atmosphere, the pressure, temperature, and gravity greatly increase. The core of the planet is boiling hot and radiates more heat out into space than it receives from the sun.
> 
> Uranus is tilted on its side with its axis pointed at the sun. If the earth's axis was pointed at the sun, one hemisphere would always be boiling hot and the other would be freezing cold. Uranus is four times as far from the sun as Jupiter and twice as far from the sun as Saturn.
> 
> 
> Neptune is the farthest gas giant from the sun. It is almost four times larger than the earth. Its strong gravity traps harmful gases in its atmosphere.
> 
> The utter lifelessness of other planets in our solar system illustrates the fact that earth is unique and specially created for life.
> 
> 
> Earth Was Created in a Wonderful Location
> 
> 
> 
> Our Sun Is Perfectly Located Within Our Galaxy
> 
> 
> The spiral-shaped galaxy in which the earth is located is called the Milky Way. The spiraling arms and center of this galaxy contain many stars set close together, giving off its characteristic brightness.
> 
> Other galaxiesolder, smaller, elliptical, and irregularare missing the proper amounts of elements necessary to maintain the right balance of stars and planets required to support life.
> 
> Some stars explode into supernovas, causing deadly radiation to flow through nearby stars and planets.
> 
> The center and arms of galaxies are flooded with high amounts of radiation. Most stars are located in places with too much harmful energy for life.
> 
> Our solar system is located about two-thirds of the way out toward the edge of the Milky Way, where we are least likely to suffer collisions with other stars. Most of the stars in our galaxy are in the larger spiral arms or in the center. Because there are few stars near us, there is a low amount of radiation surrounding our solar system and we can observe the rest of the universe and our own galaxy much better.
> 
> Our Planet is Perfectly Located Within Our Solar System
> 
> 
> Our solar system also contains thousands of asteroids and meteoroids. These sometime collide with planets. Jupiter keeps large rocks from hitting earth by attracting them with its strong gravity.
> 
> The earth's huge moon also protects us from many of rocks that cross our planet's path. The craters across the moon's surface demonstrate the frequency something has collided with the moon instead of earth. The moon's South PoleAitken basinis the largest known crater in our solar system. It is eight miles deep and 1500 miles across. The earth's moon is unusually large.
> 
> 
> In addition, our huge moon is a stabilizing anchor for our planet. Our moon prevents our planet from tilting too far from the attraction of the sun or Jupiter.
> 
> We are protected because of the way our solar system was created.
> 
> Earth Was Created in a Wonderful Location
> 
> Earth's Core Was Created to Protect Life
> 
> 
> 
> Our planet was created for life.
> 
> 
> A smaller planet, like Mars, would be unable to hold our atmosphere, which protects us from meteoroids and keeps the temperature within the range needed for life.
> 
> A larger planet, like Neptune, would trap too much atmosphere. The pressure and temperature would greatly increase.  A  stronger gravity from the increased size would also trap harmful gases in the atmosphere.
> 
> Earth has a strong magnetic field. This protects us from harmful radiation from the sun.
> 
> 
> Earth's Water Cycle Protects and Provides
> 
> 
> 
> Clouds function as earth's curtains, balancing the temperature. When they form, they block the sun when the temperature on earth becomes too hot, and they let the sunlight in when it becomes too cold. When the earth is hot, more water evaporates from the oceans and turns into clouds. These clouds reflect more energy and the earth cools. When the earth is cold, the clouds cool and condense into rain and snow. With fewer clouds, less energy is reflected. The energy reaches the earth and warms it. The earth has the most diverse collection of reflective surfaces in our solar system.
> 
> Water is the most abundant chemical compound on earth. Water covers three fourths of the earth's surface. Between half to three fourths of your body is water. Water is ideal for carbon-based chemistry.
> 
> Water is transported from the ocean to the atmosphere, to the land, and then back to the ocean. The ocean is the primary storehouse of water on the earth. The sun evaporates water from the oceans, which rises into the atmosphere and eventually returns to the ocean.
> 
> The atmosphere also stores a small quantity of water. Wind blows water vapor from the hot ocean to the cool land. Cooling water vapor condenses into clouds. Water falls back to the land as rain and snow.
> 
> The land also stores water. Fresh water is held for months in ice and snow. Water infiltrates into the land and is stored underground. Surface water flows into streams and rivers. Lakes store water. Water flows from the land back into the ocean.
> 
> Water expands when it freezes, unlike most other substances. Ice and snow take up more volume than the same amount of liquid water. This makes water denser as a liquid than when frozen, so ice floats on the surface. If ice did not float on the surface of the water, the floors of oceans and lakes would be covered with glaciers of ice that never melt. Ice helps regulate the climate by reflecting energy.
> 
> As a liquid, water's temperature range is perfect for cycling water from the oceans to the land. Water takes a lot of energy to evaporate into a vapor, and it releases this energy when it condenses back into liquid. This absorbtion and release of energy balances temperatures in the earth's climate, as well as inside living cells. If less energy were required for evaporation, streams, rivers, and lakes would evaporate away quickly.
> 
> Beautiful clouds and sunsets inspire praise for the Creator who forms them. We are blessed by the water that flows though our biosphere.
> 
> The Earth Was Uniquely Created
> 
> This should be enough for you to chew on for a while.
Click to expand...

Prediction validated.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I predict that Youwerecreated, consistent with his intellectually dishonesty, will repost his questions and "evidence" (as if they weren't responded to repeatedly and in depth) before he answers the question I put to him (which he claims--but cannot bring evidence for--he has already answered).
> 
> 
> 
> Now for some quesions that went ignored.
> 
> Transitional fossils from precambrian . Transitional fossils during the cambrian,where are they ?
> 
> Why do the fossils found in the precambrian show no change today ?
> 
> How come fossils found and dated from way back in the past show no change ?
> 
> All organisms have mutations,how come we don't see species in the process of evolving ?
> 
> What evidence is there showing life can happen spontaneously from non-life ?
> 
> Why do you hold the view that non-intelligence can produce intelligence ?
> 
> Can you produce evidence for mutations causing a feature change ? How did it benefit the organism ?
> 
> Why are there more harmful mutations then beneficial mutations ?
> 
> Why is there life on only one planet ?
> 
> Why does your side make many different family trees if we are all related ? why not just one tree since you believe DNA similarity proves ancestry.
> 
> How is ancestry proven today ? Why can't we use the same method for declaring ancestry from the past ?
> 
> Why do you trust dating methods created by man when they have proven to be unreliable ? How do you account for things with a known age showing up much older then the known age ?
> 
> Why do you believe beneficial mutations are the engine that drives macro-evolution when they are so rare and do not change the organism the way Neo say's ? If I'm wrong provide evidence.
Click to expand...

Prediction validated.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Complex things need to be designed they don't simply create themselves.
> 
> You are unrational in your thought process.
> 
> Where did the information come from that programmed our brain ?



Classic Christian paradigm: replace ignorance with religion.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought interpretation of the biblical kind allowed for that broad interpretation.
> 
> We were talking about its use in the bible, I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess it's allowable ... if you think it's intellectually honest to assert, for instance, that _*all*_ members of Felidae to have ever existed are the same "kind" of cat; to avoid admitting the presence (or evidence of existence in the past) of intermediate species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The variations in each family are the product of interbreeding and cross breeding or I now prefer creation.
Click to expand...

Not possible according to creation theory, or your demands that mutation is irrelevant. Different species do not successfully produce fertile male AND female progeny. Creation claims completed (not continuing) creation. And you specifically deny that (accumulated) differences in genotype are able to result in sufficient changes in phenotype to result in speciation ... that must apply even within a taxonomic family or your creationism collapses on evidentiary and logical bases.

And, it's worth noting (again) that your continued dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued (and predictable) refusal to answer the question directed at you.


----------



## bigwern

My thing is why are "creationists" so unwilling to accept that "God" created this universe through a process as complex and evolution but they will accept that he just threw things together in a week? If your God is not confined by time like mine isn't, and no people were present to take notes as the Earth was made how can you even argue that the bible, written by people, gives a correct account of how the Earth was made? Genesis and Revelation in the bible both speak of times and places where people were not there to witness the events, so what are we just supposed to go along with it because its in the book? PURE IGNORANCE.


----------



## koshergrl

Really? Where did a creationist deny the existence of evolution?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Now for some quesions that went ignored.
> 
> Transitional fossils from precambrian . Transitional fossils during the cambrian,where are they ?


In the fossil record of the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian periods respectively.

That wasn't hard.

And yes, they indeed are there, and you have seen them--no, your application of Zeno's Paradox is not a valid dismissal of the evidence you are seeing.



Youwerecreated said:


> Why do the fossils found in the precambrian show no change today ?


Fossils don't change; they're the mineralized remains of dead organisms.

Why would they change?

Or are you asking "Why is every single species of organism that was fossilized in the Pre-Cambrian also existent today without any changes what-so-ever?"

To which I answer: I have no idea why you ask. This condition simply does not exist. It is a question disingeunuously asked with an intentionally faulty premise.

It is a stawman attack.



Youwerecreated said:


> How come fossils found and dated from way back in the past show no change ?









Are you asking again, "Why is every single species of organism that was fossilized in the Pre-Cambrian also existent today without any changes what-so-ever?"

The answer hasn't changed.



Youwerecreated said:


> All organisms have mutations,how come we don't see species in the process of evolving ?


We do. We have. You have pointed them out ... you call it "micro-evolution."

However, only the superstitious would demand that the proof of this must be an individual evolving. The theory of evolution does not make this prediction.



Youwerecreated said:


> What evidence is there showing life can happen spontaneously from non-life ?


The obvious evidence that life is composed of, and sustained by the interactions of, non-living things. The verifiable fact of reality that chemical reactions occur without any verifiable direction of any verifiable intelligence.

More here, where you insist this question "was ignored."



Youwerecreated said:


> Why do you hold the view that non-intelligence can produce intelligence ?


The evidence suggests it, and there is no logically valid, competing argument or verifiable contradictory evidence.



Youwerecreated said:


> Can you produce evidence for mutations causing a feature change ? How did it benefit the organism ?


Yes. By allowing the organism a greater probabilty to live to reproduce.



Youwerecreated said:


> Why are there more harmful mutations then beneficial mutations ?


This seems to be rhetorical. Seriously. Maybe genetics is consistent with the rest of the world in that there are more ways that something can happen than just the one (or few) you prefer for whatever reason?

Why ask this question? And I don't just mean generally, because I have no problem accepting as fact that mutation appears to be harmful more often than beneficial--the point is not in contention; I mean why are YOU asking? You don't think they're significant (or real apparently; particularly the beneficial ones).



Youwerecreated said:


> Why is there life on only one planet ?


I don't know that there is life on only one planet. How have you come to the absolute unqualified certainty that there is life on only one planet? Evidence? Valid logic? Emotional attachment to your superstition?



Youwerecreated said:


> Why does your side make many different family trees if we are all related ? why not just one tree since you believe DNA similarity proves ancestry.


Proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not assert that there are or "... make many different family trees."





It is in fact creationists who (in stolidly retarded denial of the genetic evidence) make many family trees based on their dopey baraminology.

Why do you ask such questions as if your opponents make such claims?



Youwerecreated said:


> How is ancestry proven today ? Why can't we use the same method for declaring ancestry from the past ?


Genetic similarity.

Are you suggesting that we don't use genetic similarity where the opportunity presents itself?



Youwerecreated said:


> Why do you trust dating methods created by man when they have proven to be unreliable ?


They have not been proven to be unreliable. This claim of your is just another example of your penchant for intentional misinformation.

How do you account for things with a known age showing up much older then the known age ?[/QUOTE][ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY]Well Documented Creationist Dishonesty[/ame]



Youwerecreated said:


> Why do you believe beneficial mutations are the engine that drives macro-evolution when they are so rare and do not change the organism the way Neo say's ? If I'm wrong provide evidence.


Straw-man. Again. So first (and hopefully for the last fucking time), MUTATION IS NOT THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION!!!!

GOT THAT??????? NOT   THE   FUCKING    ENGINE   OF   EVOLUTION!!!!!

Natual selection is the engine of evolution. NATURAL SELECTION IS THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION!!!!!

Got that? NATURAL SELECTION.

Fucking creationist retards.

Mutation could be considered fuel, I suppose, if you wish to continue with the metaphor, but nobody says mutation drives evolution.

Secondly, mutation happens exactly the way actual evolutionists claim if not the way your straw-man evolutionists claim.

You're wrong, and the evidence is you disingenuously barking up the wrong tree.

And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Complex things need to be designed they don't simply create themselves.
> 
> You are unrational in your thought process.
> 
> Where did the information come from that programmed our brain ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classic Christian paradigm: replace ignorance with religion.
Click to expand...


Wrong, many scientist would agree with what i said only the irrational denies it.

Would you like to provide proof of something complex spontaneously developing itself ?

This should be interesting.


----------



## Youwerecreated

bigwern said:


> My thing is why are "creationists" so unwilling to accept that "God" created this universe through a process as complex and evolution but they will accept that he just threw things together in a week? If your God is not confined by time like mine isn't, and no people were present to take notes as the Earth was made how can you even argue that the bible, written by people, gives a correct account of how the Earth was made? Genesis and Revelation in the bible both speak of times and places where people were not there to witness the events, so what are we just supposed to go along with it because its in the book? PURE IGNORANCE.



A believer trusts the Almighty's word, our faith is baseless without it.

Calling someone ignorant that disagrees with you only shows ignorance on your side.


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> Really? Where did a creationist deny the existence of evolution?



They just don't get it after all this time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now for some quesions that went ignored.
> 
> Transitional fossils from precambrian . Transitional fossils during the cambrian,where are they ?
> 
> 
> 
> In the fossil record of the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian periods respectively.
> 
> That wasn't hard.
> 
> And yes, they indeed are there, and you have seen them--no, your application of Zeno's Paradox is not a valid dismissal of the evidence you are seeing.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do the fossils found in the precambrian show no change today ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fossils don't change; they're the mineralized remains of dead organisms.
> 
> Why would they change?
> 
> Or are you asking "Why is every single species of organism that was fossilized in the Pre-Cambrian also existent today without any changes what-so-ever?"
> 
> To which I answer: I have no idea why you ask. This condition simply does not exist. It is a question disingeunuously asked with an intentionally faulty premise.
> 
> It is a stawman attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking again, "Why is every single species of organism that was fossilized in the Pre-Cambrian also existent today without any changes what-so-ever?"
> 
> The answer hasn't changed.
> 
> We do. We have. You have pointed them out ... you call it "micro-evolution."
> 
> However, only the superstitious would demand that the proof of this must be an individual evolving. The theory of evolution does not make this prediction.
> 
> The obvious evidence that life is composed of, and sustained by the interactions of, non-living things. The verifiable fact of reality that chemical reactions occur without any verifiable direction of any verifiable intelligence.
> 
> More here, where you insist this question "was ignored."
> 
> The evidence suggests it, and there is no logically valid, competing argument or verifiable contradictory evidence.
> 
> Yes. By allowing the organism a greater probabilty to live to reproduce.
> 
> This seems to be rhetorical. Seriously. Maybe genetics is consistent with the rest of the world in that there are more ways that something can happen than just the one (or few) you prefer for whatever reason?
> 
> Why ask this question? And I don't just mean generally, because I have no problem accepting as fact that mutation appears to be harmful more often than beneficial--the point is not in contention; I mean why are YOU asking? You don't think they're significant (or real apparently; particularly the beneficial ones).
> 
> I don't know that there is life on only one planet. How have you come to the absolute unqualified certainty that there is life on only one planet? Evidence? Valid logic? Emotional attachment to your superstition?
> 
> Proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not assert that there are or "... make many different family trees."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in fact creationists who (in stolidly retarded denial of the genetic evidence) make many family trees based on their dopey baraminology.
> 
> Why do you ask such questions as if your opponents make such claims?
> 
> Genetic similarity.
> 
> Are you suggesting that we don't use genetic similarity where the opportunity presents itself?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you trust dating methods created by man when they have proven to be unreliable ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have not been proven to be unreliable. This claim of your is just another example of your penchant for intentional misinformation.
> 
> How do you account for things with a known age showing up much older then the known age ?
Click to expand...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY]Well Documented Creationist Dishonesty[/ame]



Youwerecreated said:


> Why do you believe beneficial mutations are the engine that drives macro-evolution when they are so rare and do not change the organism the way Neo say's ? If I'm wrong provide evidence.


Straw-man. Again. So first (and hopefully for the last fucking time), MUTATION IS NOT THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION!!!!

GOT THAT??????? NOT   THE   FUCKING    ENGINE   OF   EVOLUTION!!!!!

Natual selection is the engine of evolution. NATURAL SELECTION IS THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION!!!!!

Got that? NATURAL SELECTION.

Fucking creationist retards.

Mutation could be considered fuel, I suppose, if you wish to continue with the metaphor, but nobody says mutation drives evolution.

Secondly, mutation happens exactly the way actual evolutionists claim if not the way your straw-man evolutionists claim.

You're wrong, and the evidence is you disingenuously barking up the wrong tree.

And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.[/QUOTE]


















You once again show you have no idea what you're talking about.

If beneficial mutations are not supposedly the engine of evolution where do you get the new information for macro-evolution ?

Here let me help you,according to your theory.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.

2. then natural selection helps the mutant spread through the population.

3. then the magic  ingredient is added to make it possible,long ages for it to happen to long to be observed. That's not science.

What neo teaches is mutations+natural selection=Neo darwinian macro-evolution.

This is why your theory don't work natural selection prevents the mutant to spread because when breeding takes place you breed out information you don't breed new information in and the genepool gets smaller. Making it easier for mutant genes to be eliminated not spread through the population.

Natural selection prevents macro-evolution. Here is what I believe the DNA code barrier+Gene depletion+natural selection prevents zero macro-evolution.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> You once again show you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> If beneficial mutations are not supposedly the engine of evolution where do you get the new information for macro-evolution ?
> 
> Here let me help you,according to your theory.
> 
> 1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.
> 
> 2. then natural selection helps the mutant spread through the population.
> 
> 3. then the magic  ingredient is added to make it possible,long ages for it to happen to long to be observed. That's not science.
> 
> What neo teaches is mutations+natural selection=Neo darwinian macro-evolution.


No. You have just demonstrated that despite having it explained, to you over and over again, that you are wrong ... you insist upon spreading you dishonest misrepresentations.



Youwerecreated said:


> This is why your theory don't work natural selection prevents the mutant to spread because when breeding takes place you breed out information you don't breed new information in and the genepool gets smaller. Making it easier for mutant genes to be eliminated not spread through the population.


Correct. The strawman version of "evolution" you have created does not work. That's not in dispute. It never has been.



Youwerecreated said:


> Natural selection prevents macro-evolution.


Absolutely false.  NATURAL SELECTION IS THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION, YOU RETARD! 



Youwerecreated said:


> Here is what I believe the DNA code barrier+Gene depletion+natural selection prevents zero macro-evolution.


Here's what you believe: Changes in genotype do not result in changes in phenotype.

Which proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.

And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> bigwern said:
> 
> 
> 
> My thing is why are "creationists" so unwilling to accept that "God" created this universe through a process as complex and evolution but they will accept that he just threw things together in a week? If your God is not confined by time like mine isn't, and no people were present to take notes as the Earth was made how can you even argue that the bible, written by people, gives a correct account of how the Earth was made? Genesis and Revelation in the bible both speak of times and places where people were not there to witness the events, so what are we just supposed to go along with it because its in the book? PURE IGNORANCE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A believer trusts the Almighty's word, our faith is baseless without it.
Click to expand...

Your faith is baseless regardless.



Youwerecreated said:


> Calling someone ignorant that disagrees with you only shows ignorance on your side.


But his is not happening. You misrepresent again.

It's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Also Youwerecreated, even if I and every proponent of actual evolution, or even the strawman versions you invent, are all entirely wrong and we have no idea what we're talking about, .... it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You once again show you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> If beneficial mutations are not supposedly the engine of evolution where do you get the new information for macro-evolution ?
> 
> Here let me help you,according to your theory.
> 
> 1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.
> 
> 2. then natural selection helps the mutant spread through the population.
> 
> 3. then the magic  ingredient is added to make it possible,long ages for it to happen to long to be observed. That's not science.
> 
> What neo teaches is mutations+natural selection=Neo darwinian macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> No. You have just demonstrated that despite having it explained, to you over and over again, that you are wrong ... you insist upon spreading you dishonest misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why your theory don't work natural selection prevents the mutant to spread because when breeding takes place you breed out information you don't breed new information in and the genepool gets smaller. Making it easier for mutant genes to be eliminated not spread through the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. The strawman version of "evolution" you have created does not work. That's not in dispute. It never has been.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection prevents macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely false.  NATURAL SELECTION IS THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION, YOU RETARD!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what I believe the DNA code barrier+Gene depletion+natural selection prevents zero macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's what you believe: Changes in genotype do not result in changes in phenotype.
> 
> Which proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
Click to expand...


Alright genius then point to one mutation that has been allowed to spread through the human population through natural selection ?

Remember these mutations must be found in the whole population For macro-evolution to occurr


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You once again show you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> If beneficial mutations are not supposedly the engine of evolution where do you get the new information for macro-evolution ?
> 
> Here let me help you,according to your theory.
> 
> 1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.
> 
> 2. then natural selection helps the mutant spread through the population.
> 
> 3. then the magic  ingredient is added to make it possible,long ages for it to happen to long to be observed. That's not science.
> 
> What neo teaches is mutations+natural selection=Neo darwinian macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> No. You have just demonstrated that despite having it explained, to you over and over again, that you are wrong ... you insist upon spreading you dishonest misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why your theory don't work natural selection prevents the mutant to spread because when breeding takes place you breed out information you don't breed new information in and the genepool gets smaller. Making it easier for mutant genes to be eliminated not spread through the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. The strawman version of "evolution" you have created does not work. That's not in dispute. It never has been.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection prevents macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely false.  NATURAL SELECTION IS THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION, YOU RETARD!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what I believe the DNA code barrier+Gene depletion+natural selection prevents zero macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's what you believe: Changes in genotype do not result in changes in phenotype.
> 
> Which proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
Click to expand...


Wrong never denied this,listen dummy what do you think happens with mutations ?  when mutations cause change they cause more harm then benefit. It's documented.

You  have been brainwashed to believe that traits change through mutations thats not true ,traits change through sexual reproduction or asexual reproduction. This is where we go back to the genes of each parent decide what the offspring will look like and be.

Your ignorance is a beautiful thing to watch.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigwern said:
> 
> 
> 
> My thing is why are "creationists" so unwilling to accept that "God" created this universe through a process as complex and evolution but they will accept that he just threw things together in a week? If your God is not confined by time like mine isn't, and no people were present to take notes as the Earth was made how can you even argue that the bible, written by people, gives a correct account of how the Earth was made? Genesis and Revelation in the bible both speak of times and places where people were not there to witness the events, so what are we just supposed to go along with it because its in the book? PURE IGNORANCE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A believer trusts the Almighty's word, our faith is baseless without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your faith is baseless regardless.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling someone ignorant that disagrees with you only shows ignorance on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But his is not happening. You misrepresent again.
> 
> It's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
Click to expand...


You can take it up with YAHWEH when he appears on your door step.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Also Youwerecreated, even if I and every proponent of actual evolution, or even the strawman versions you invent, are all entirely wrong and we have no idea what we're talking about, .... it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.



You are entirely wrong.

You have a poor understanding of genetics and what they do and how they spread through the population.


----------



## PredFan

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



Creationist: The Bible says so.

Skeptic: Who wrote the Bible?

Creationist: God.

Skeptic: How do you know he did?

Creationist: The Bible says so.

And on and on ad nauseum.


----------



## Youwerecreated

PredFan said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist: The Bible says so.
> 
> Skeptic: Who wrote the Bible?
> 
> Creationist: God.
> 
> Skeptic: How do you know he did?
> 
> Creationist: The Bible says so.
> 
> And on and on ad nauseum.
Click to expand...


Agreed,but there are things contained in the bible that man did not know at the time of the writing of the bible that leads you to believe those men were inspired by someone superior.

Man has failed in trying to show all things are a product of a natural process. They are going on faith to hold such a view.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Also Youwerecreated, even if I and every proponent of actual evolution, or even the strawman versions you invent, are all entirely wrong and we have no idea what we're talking about, .... it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.



Look how parents genes have an effect on the offspring the genetics not mutations.

Beefalo image by snowyridgeranch on Photobucket

Redirect Notice

Redirect Notice


----------



## Youwerecreated

Genetics have always been a problem for evolutionist,they just are not willing to admit to variations within a family can be due to genetics.








Introduction



Before we take on the ten reasons evolution is wrong we must first define what we are talking about.  Evolutionists will say the word evolution to you and you may think you know what they are saying, but you probably don&#8217;t.  There are at least five concepts of evolution that the evolutionist speaks of as one.  They are:

Cosmic Evolution &#8211; Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being. 
Stellar Evolution &#8211; How the stars, galaxies etc. formed 
Earth&#8217;s Evolution &#8211; How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system. 
Macroevolution &#8211; The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time. 
Microevolution &#8211; The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome. 


As creationists we may not agree with all these as being evolution and so it helps to understand what we are saying.  In this article I agree that microevolution occurs, but the other four are imminently debatable. 



Now another issue needs to be face before we go on.  Evolutionists are fond of talking down and attacking creationists as being less &#8220;scientific&#8221; than they.  They use ad-hominen attacks and accuse creationists as being stupid and unable to understand their &#8220;science&#8221;.   We need to understand what science is and how our arguments fit in its&#8217; framework.



Science. According to the Oxford Dictionary science is "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain."



The process is for a postulate to be first formulated and then announced.  Then there are three things about this postulate that must be true before it can be considered a theory.

The postulate must be observable. 
The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification 
The postulate must withstand a falsifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate. 


When you talk with evolutionists make sure you have these points covered.  They will talk circles around you and call you stupid if you don&#8217;t know what they are talking about.  As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they only talk about the last microevolution and try to define it as all five!   The constantly point out microevolution as being the proof of all the other four.  The sooner we creationists figure this out the sooner we can win this debate.



From the points given above is shows us that both evolution and creation are postulates.  Neither have much of a chance of becoming a theory because of the difficulty of observing events that happened in the distant past and trying to have those events become repeatable.  When evolutionists become dogmatic in their speech as if evolution had been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, they are talking about microevolution and they are bluffing because the lack real proof.



What we are left to do then is look forensically into such things as fossils, microbiology, biochemistry, information theory, etc. to try and see if we can catch the process in its&#8217; act.  We will talk about all these things in this article.



.Microevolution Defined 



We now need to define carefully the concept of microevolution as we and the evolutionists both understand it differently.  Microevolution to the creationist is the limited variation that can be expressed by the genome of a &#8220;species&#8217; or family of plants or animals. It is the variation in the alleles of a genome as they are expressed in sexual reproduction and the mixing of alleles that occurs. These alleles are mostly not the product of mutations, but rather reside in the total genome of a population. See the genetics section for a further treatment of alleles in a genome.



The Evolutionist sees microevolution as the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. They believe that it is billions of microevolution mutations in the genome, creating new alleles, and natural selection preserving those changes that is the process of evolution.



Creationists do not see microevolution as being able to drive the massive information gain that needs to occur for evolution to be possible, that is the amoeba to man evolution concept. Microevolution changes mainly occur through the practice of selective breeding. There are no &#8220;mutations&#8221; in selective breeding or in genome adaptation to the environment.  The complex changes that occur are already in the genome and are merely being brought out from human or environmental pressure.



For instance sugar beets in the early 1800&#8217;s had a 6% sugar content, by selective breeding that sugar content had risen to 17% by 1878.   That was as far as the breeders were able to stretch the genome and they certainly didn&#8217;t create a potato from the sugar beet.

Another instance of microevolution is the English peppered moth (Biston betularia).  In pre-industrial England the peppered moth lived on the white bark of the birch tree.  The moth came in two basic varieties, peppered white and dark.  These two varieties hatch out at about a 50% ratio.  But when the dark variety landed on the white birch bark, the birds saw them and ate them at a higher rate than the peppered white moth.  But as industrialization occurred and coal dust darkened the birch trees, the peppered white moth became rarer because the birds ate them and the dark variety blended into the tree.  But they still hatched out at a 50% ratio.  (This has since been proven to have 'staged' photographs of the moths 'glued' to tree trunks - so much for evolutionists objectivity) 

Other microevolution issues we look at are selective breeding in dogs, cats or cows for example.  If we let these all breed together they would all fall back to some common denominator animal.  But you can see how far the genome will stretch when you look at a teacup poodle and a Rottweiler.   But they never created another species.

In fact evolutionists are experimenting with microevolution experiments to see if mutations, a cornerstone in their postulate, will really cause enough positive changes to move one species to another.  Since 1910 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with the fruit fly.  To date no success.  Since about 1950 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with bacteria and again not much success.  Come to think of it these would be really good falsifiability experiments too wouldn&#8217;t they?



So with all that said we are now ready to begin our ten reasons evolution is wrong.



Reason Number 1

Genetics is Not Evolution&#8217;s Friend



Genome &#8211; the total genetic structure of a species or kind or its gene pool. 
Mutation &#8211; a mistake in the copying of the DNA; can be caused by radiation, or chemicals. 
Recombination &#8211; the genetic mixing in sexual or asexual reproduction 
Gene &#8211; the stuff of life, the sequence of amino acids in the double helix of DNA 
Allele &#8211; variants of genes in the Genome that are for the same structure but that express a characteristic differently, such as brown eyes vs. blue eyes. 
Taxon &#8211; Category in classification such as species, phylum. 
Phylogeny &#8211; The (supposed) evolutionary history or family tree of a species or other group. 


As we stated before evolution depends on beneficial mutation, natural selection and enormous amount of time for it to occur.  Therefore we will now look at genetics and see if this is true.



But first let us look at the comments of an amateur evolutionist. 



&#8220;EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM, FOR (probably not) THE LAST TIME.  Variety is there because evolution causes random mutation, hence the variety.&#8221;  From a debate on talkorigins.org 



Ummm a little double talk.  Well it also appears this is perilously close to evolution being an intelligent designer. But it is also a tautology or circular reasoning to say that &#8220;evolution causes random mutation&#8221; because evolutionists say random mutation causes evolution. 



But to be correct, evolution is a philosophy that masquerades as a science .  So evolution isn&#8217;t necessarily any more random than the person&#8217;s thoughts and it certainly cannot be some kind of force driving the random mutation.  Nor can it cause mutations random or otherwise. 



Mutation and natural selection are the engine of evolution.  Creationists believe in natural selection but we doubt the role mutations play in evolution and know if we can show that mutations cannot be part of the engine, then evolution will have lost its power. 



Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning.  Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin were contemporaries.  Mendel is the father of modern genetics and Darwin is the father of evolution.  In Darwin&#8217;s day genetics was just starting and Darwin knew really very little about how genetics worked.  His idea of change in species was based on erroneous and untested ideas of inheritance.  Mendel&#8217;s ideas were based on careful experimentation and showed that individual characteristics were surprisingly resilient and constant. 



Darwin believed in the idea that variations caused by environment could be inherited.  Thus the giraffe&#8217;s long neck was a result of the &#8220;inherited effects of the increased use of parts&#8221;.  The Origin of Species, 6th ed, London 1902, p 278.  Darwin believed that if parent giraffes strained their necks to reach the top leaves then the progeny would inherit longer necks.  While even evolutionists today would see this a patently false, they still accept with apparent ease the change in the genetic structure it represents and throw that change to the magic of mutation.  It wasn&#8217;t until much later that mutations were used as the change agent in evolution because it became apparent this idea of Darwin didn&#8217;t work.



In reality there are multiple mutation processes that can impact a genome but evolutionists only choose one.  I will explain why in a bit.  First the types of mutations:



   1. Duplication or Amplification of a segment of DNA

   2. Inversion of a segment of DNA

   3. Deletion of a segment of DNA

   4. Insertion of a segment of DNA

   5. Transposition of a segment of DNA from one place to another.

   6. Point Mutation of a single nucleotide.



The first five are interesting genetic processes.  Each is a complex and precise process that has much biochemical signaling and purpose.  We don&#8217;t really know much about why the genes do this as we are still very weak in our knowledge of how our genome works.  But none of these processes can add any data to the genome, they just move data around.  I must add another point here: some evolutionists place recombination in this list, but recombination is sexual mixing and once again cannot add any data to the genome.  Recombination just takes the genome and mixes what is there.  There are tens of maybe hundreds or trillions of combinations in our genome to recombine.  We are wonderfully and fearfully made.



The type of mutations called point mutations are the only genetic processes that can actually add information to the genome and that is why evolutionists have chosen point mutations as the mutational driver of evolution.  We will hereafter call point mutations simply mutations to simplify the writing.







Were Darwin's Galapagos Finches Evolution? 



What does happen in a population as the genome reacts to the environment?  Darwin looks at the finches on the Galapagos Islands and notices variations in beak size.  He thought that the harder seed in the dry time was causing the beaks of the finches to grow stouter from the use of the part.  But what was happening was that natural selection or a long term drought in the islands was causing the seed cases to harden.  The heavier beaked finch allele in the genome was favored and the lighter beaked finch allele was not.  The heavier beaked finch became more dominant because it passed on the heavy beak alleles.  The heavy beak was not the result of a mutation!  It was already an allele in the genome and was just brought out as a result of the environment.  When the rains came back the lighter beak became the more efficient beak and the number of heavy beaks reduced.  This is microevolution at its best.  But there was no change in the genome of the finch and certainly no new species has arisen from this. The genome expresses its variety by recombination of the alleles and causing the phenotype to show its wonderful God given types.



What About Mutations? 



But what about mutations then?  What are they and how can they be beneficial?  Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process.  They effect one nucleotide base at a time and are called point mutations. Once in every 10,000 to 100,000 copies there is a mistake made.  Our bodies have a compare &#8211; correct process that is very efficient.   In fact it is 1016 times better than the best computer code, but once in every 1,000,000,000 or 10,000,000,000 copies a mutation &#8220;gets out&#8221; so to speak.  That is equal to a professional typist making a mistake in 50,000,000 pages of typescript.  You see mutations are predominately bad and the cell tries to make sure they don&#8217;t happen.



The Neo-Darwinists made random mutations the engine of evolution. They claim that many very small mutations are the basis of the &#8220;goo to you&#8221; hypothesis of evolution. For mutations to be the driver of the massive amount of information there must be two things true of those mutations.



1. The mutations must be positive and allow the organism to procreate and pass them on.

2. The mutations must add information to the genome of the organism.



To date no evolutionist has pointed out such a mutation and if they exist they must be exceedingly rare.



The smallness of the point mutation is also in question.  Dawkins seems to think that the mutation can be as small as needed to make the hypothesis work, but it appears that one nucleotide base is as small as you can get.  So a positive mutation cannot add but a single bit of information to the genome or one nucleotide&#8217;s worth.  But is that enough?  And if that truly does occur will natural selection grab and go with it?

Population Genetics Factors

Population Genetics show that a positive mutation in a population has a poor chance of surviving the &#8220;noise&#8221; of random events in the population.  In a stable population of organisms each organism must reproduce one of itself to keep the stability of the population.  But we see in nature that animals must produce many more than one for themselves because of the randomness of death.  Even elephants produce 5 to 10 offspring to overcome this random noise factor.  Some organisms produce thousands or even millions to assure replacing themselves. Evolutionists want many mutations to occur so positive mutations can be captured by natural selection but a high mutation rate for a population is not good as the overwhelming number of mutations can destroy a population.



But let&#8217;s say that one point mutation occurs and gives an individual a positive value of 0.1 percent for survival and passing on that positive gene.  Let us also say that this population needs 5 offspring to keep the population stable or 20 percent growth.  The survival rate increase would be 20.02 for the mutation.  Sir Ronald Fisher was a mathematician and one of the world&#8217;s experts on the mathematics of evolution and one of the founders of the field of population genetics.  He was also one of the architects of the Neo Darwinian Theory.  He calculated that most mutations with positive survival values would not survive, and he believed that the answer was many positive mutations. He said: &#8220;A mutation, even if favorable, will have only a very small chance of establishing itself in the species if it occurs once only.&#8221;  Fisher R.A. (1958). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Oxford, Second revised edition, New York: Dover. 



Let us continue our example above with Fisher&#8217;s calculations.  Our organism with a  0.1% survival factor would have one chance in 500 of surviving.   If there were 500 organisms with the mutation their odds would be about 5 out of 8.  With 1000 with the same mutation their odds would be about 6 out of 7 and with 2500 organisms with the same mutation the odds are about even.  What are the odds of 2500 organisms having the same point mutation (it has to be the same for that particular information to get into the genome) in a population?  The chances that 500 organisms would have the very same point mutation in the very same nucleotide is 1 in 3.6 x 102,738.  Lee M. Spentner, Not By Chance &#8211; Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, The Judica Press, New York, p. 103. 



A mutation almost always involves a loss of information or just a copy of information.  They have never added new information to the genome, so it appears that they can never bring that genome added complexity.  Are there beneficial mutations?  Yes there are for certain environments.  Blind cave catfishes are the result of the mutation that lost the information of an eye.  This mutation caused the eye, which was useless and prone to disease and injury in the cave to be lost and it actually helped the catfish survive in the cave.  But the catfish genome did not have any new information added for it to become a perch genome or any other genome.  In fact the eye genes were lost to the genome.  If that blind fish were to be swept out of the cave by a flood, and that does happen, it won&#8217;t survive to pass on those no eye alleles.  So natural selection, working in the cave worked to keep the eyeless catfish going, outside the cave it will quickly die.  The important thing to keep in mind is that we all along were only working with the genome of the catfish and at no point was there any new information to change that genome to another.  Genomes are like rubber bands that you can stretch out very far, but they will always snap back to the original when released. 



If we look at the accelerated fruit fly experiments that used radiation to accelerate the copying errors of DNA to try to produce another species, we have only seen fruit flies with parts missing or dead flies or flies too crippled to pass on its genes.  They never got a house fly out of the deal.  Why?  Because the mutation lost information in the fruit fly genome and did not add the information to become a house fly.



Beneficial verses Positive Mutations 



How do we define &#8220;beneficial&#8221; mutations?  It is interesting that a mutation such as an orange without seeds is considered useful, that is to orange eaters like me, but to oranges it is not such a good idea, for the seedless orange cannot pass on its genes.  It is a useful mutation, but not a positive mutation.  A positive mutation would enable the species to pass on its genes more efficiently and would add information to the genome.  Evolutionists get this definition confused too.



 Another problem is that evolutionists confuse mutations with recombination and alleles.  They are not the same.  Some variant alleles in a genome are the result of mutation, but most are from recombination and were there at the beginning of that species.  All alleles that arise from mutation are either neutral or excessively deleterious.  There are not really any positive mutations in literature today, even evolution literature. In one instance the single nucleotide substation in a genome was responsible for the resistance to a weed herbicide.  This herbicide was made to attach and deactivate a protein needed by the weed.  A single change in the genetic code for this protein, in the sector used for defining the herbicide attachment, deprived the herbicide of its attachment point and nullified its effectiveness.  



Was this a positive mutation?  We have no way of knowing if this was the result of a mutated allele or the expression of an allele in the genome that was already there.  It may have been a very rare, neutral mutation of an allele that had been in the genome too.  But it was specific to the man-made herbicide and had no selective value outside of that.  It did not create another function and did not help the weed to adapt any other way.  It added no information to the genome and thus no new complexity.  There was no evolution here.



So you see, mutations can produce an allele of a gene that is neutral (rarely) or produce alleles that are dangerous, but cannot be the driver of massive amount of change that needs to occur to change one species into another.  Most people don&#8217;t appreciate the massive amount of point change that must occur. For that to occur we should be seeing many positive mutations in the population.  Instead we are seeing massive information loss mutations in the population.  The X-Men just couldn&#8217;t happen outside of the movies


http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#Reason1


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Would you like to provide proof of something complex spontaneously developing itself ?



"Spontaneously developing itself" is the wrong phrase. "Developing without being planned deliberately by a conscious intelligence" is the right one.

All forms of life. Also, the planet Earth. Also, the solar system. Also, anything complex in nature. Complexity does not require intelligence.


----------



## koshergrl

That's a great opinion. Now do as you're asked and provide the verification that it's true.

I won't wait, because of course that verification doesn't exist anywhere except in your head.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You once again show you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> If beneficial mutations are not supposedly the engine of evolution where do you get the new information for macro-evolution ?
> 
> Here let me help you,according to your theory.
> 
> 1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.
> 
> 2. then natural selection helps the mutant spread through the population.
> 
> 3. then the magic  ingredient is added to make it possible,long ages for it to happen to long to be observed. That's not science.
> 
> What neo teaches is mutations+natural selection=Neo darwinian macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> No. You have just demonstrated that despite having it explained, to you over and over again, that you are wrong ... you insist upon spreading you dishonest misrepresentations.
> 
> Correct. The strawman version of "evolution" you have created does not work. That's not in dispute. It never has been.
> 
> Absolutely false.  NATURAL SELECTION IS THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION, YOU RETARD!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what I believe the DNA code barrier+Gene depletion+natural selection prevents zero macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's what you believe: Changes in genotype do not result in changes in phenotype.
> 
> Which proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alright genius then point to one mutation that has been allowed to spread through the human population through natural selection ?
> 
> Remember these mutations must be found in the whole population For macro-evolution to occurr
Click to expand...

Opposable thumbs.

And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Wrong never denied this, ...


You deny it every single time you say mutation cannot lead to speciation.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... listen dummy what do you think happens with mutations ?


I think there's a change in genetic information. Don't you?



Youwerecreated said:


> when mutations cause change they cause more harm then benefit. It's documented.


It's also documented that beneficial mutations cause more benefit that harm. Don't you agree?



Youwerecreated said:


> You  have been brainwashed to believe that traits change through mutations thats not true ,...


Well, you have yet to demonstrate how genotype is unrelated to phenotype.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... traits change through sexual reproduction or asexual reproduction.


Not where there's no change in the genotype that codes for the trait in question. Or are you about to level up and admit you believe magic causes the change in traits expressed?



Youwerecreated said:


> This is where we go back to the genes of each parent decide what the offspring will look like and be.


Not if, as you assert, a difference in the genetic information can not express as a difference in the trait.



Youwerecreated said:


> Your ignorance is a beautiful thing to watch.


I seem to rather well informed compared to you.

And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> what do you think happens with mutations ?  when mutations cause change they cause more harm then benefit. It's documented.



No. What's been documented is that more harmful than beneficial mutations occur. That does NOT mean that mutations cause more harm than benefit. You still don't understand the role played by natural selection, which is further evidenced by your incorrect appraisal of it as "spreading mutations throughout the population."

Natural selection acts as a filter. It stops harmful mutations from being passed on to future generations. Because of natural selection, mutation does more good than harm, even though more harmful than beneficial mutations occur.

Let's say we have, on average, three mutations occurring per generation in a population. Of those, let's say that nine out of ten are harmful and one out of ten is beneficial. Here's how it would work over the course of nine generations. I'm using a random number generator to determine beneficial/harmful mutations.

First generation: 3 mutations, all harmful. Total in this generation: 3H/0B

Now natural selection goes to work. The three individuals with the harmful mutations die before they can pass on their altered genes. 

Second generation: 3 mutations, 1 beneficial, 2 harmful. Total in this generation: 1B/2H.

Because natural selection killed the three harmful mutations from the prior generation, only the current two remain in the gene pool, along with the one beneficial mutation.

Third generation: 3 mutations, 2 harmful, 1 beneficial. Total in this generation: 2B/2H.

So far over three generations, we've seen 7 harmful mutations and only two beneficial ones. Yet this generation shows equal benefit and harm. Why? Because natural selection pruned out the harmful generations from the past. It also prunes out these current two harmful mutations, not allowing them to be passed on to the next generation.

The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th generations each had 3 harmful and no beneficial mutations. For each one of them, the total is 3H/2B, because again, all of the harmful mutations are screened out by natural selection; the only ones that manifest are the ones occurring in the current generations. No harmful mutations are passed on.

9th generation: 3 mutations, 2 beneficial, 1 harmful. Total in this generation: 4B/1H.

Now look at this. We've had a total of 27 mutations so far, and of those 23 were harmful and only 4 beneficial. Yet this generation shows the effect of those 4 beneficial mutations and only 1 harmful mutation! Why? Natural selection again: it weeded out all the harmful mutations from past generations so that they were not passed on. Only the beneficial mutations are left.

This is how it works.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> You can take it up with YAHWEH when he appears on your door step.


I'll let you know how it turns out.

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also Youwerecreated, even if I and every proponent of actual evolution, or even the strawman versions you invent, are all entirely wrong and we have no idea what we're talking about, .... it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are entirely wrong.
Click to expand...

Even if I am entirely wrong and we have no idea what we're talking about, .... *it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.*



Youwerecreated said:


> You have a poor understanding of genetics and what they do and how they spread through the population.


Even if you're right, .... *it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.*


----------



## Dragon

koshergrl said:


> That's a great opinion. Now do as you're asked and provide the verification that it's true.



The formation of crystals - crystal shapes, composition and structure

Start with that.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist: The Bible says so.
> 
> Skeptic: Who wrote the Bible?
> 
> Creationist: God.
> 
> Skeptic: How do you know he did?
> 
> Creationist: The Bible says so.
> 
> And on and on ad nauseum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed,but there are things contained in the bible that man did not know at the time of the writing of the bible that leads you to believe those men were inspired by someone superior.
> 
> Man has failed in trying to show all things are a product of a natural process. They are going on faith to hold such a view.
Click to expand...

Evolutionists assert qualified certainties based upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Creationists assert absolute certainties based upon unverifiable evidence and invalid logic. And superstitious retards like you dishonestly assert your absolute certainties based upon your intentionally applied falsehoods and invalid logic.

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also Youwerecreated, even if I and every proponent of actual evolution, or even the strawman versions you invent, are all entirely wrong and we have no idea what we're talking about, .... it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look how parents genes have an effect on the offspring the genetics not mutations.
> 
> Beefalo image by snowyridgeranch on Photobucket
> 
> Redirect Notice
> 
> Redirect Notice
Click to expand...

It's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.


----------



## koshergrl

What is the question this time? My experience has been that you are the one who's dishonest, and generally that dishonesty is reflected in the very accusations you level...so my guess is that you've refused to answer a question and so have created another scenario.

Give me the question. And don't waste my time with long convoluted bloviating...just the question, please. I'm sick of listening to your long winded self-aggrandizing bullshit.


----------



## koshergrl

Funny how the timing of that ignore worked out...Dragon now has me on ignore, just in time to prevent him from answering the question.

Go figure.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to provide proof of something complex spontaneously developing itself ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Spontaneously developing itself" is the wrong phrase. "Developing without being planned deliberately by a conscious intelligence" is the right one.
> 
> All forms of life. Also, the planet Earth. Also, the solar system. Also, anything complex in nature. Complexity does not require intelligence.
Click to expand...


What is your evidence ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. You have just demonstrated that despite having it explained, to you over and over again, that you are wrong ... you insist upon spreading you dishonest misrepresentations.
> 
> Correct. The strawman version of "evolution" you have created does not work. That's not in dispute. It never has been.
> 
> Absolutely false.  NATURAL SELECTION IS THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION, YOU RETARD!
> 
> Here's what you believe: Changes in genotype do not result in changes in phenotype.
> 
> Which proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alright genius then point to one mutation that has been allowed to spread through the human population through natural selection ?
> 
> Remember these mutations must be found in the whole population For macro-evolution to occurr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Opposable thumbs.
> 
> And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
Click to expand...


What is your proof again ?


----------



## koshergrl

There is no evidence, any more than there's any direct evidence of God.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do you think happens with mutations ?  when mutations cause change they cause more harm then benefit. It's documented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. What's been documented is that more harmful than beneficial mutations occur. That does NOT mean that mutations cause more harm than benefit. You still don't understand the role played by natural selection, which is further evidenced by your incorrect appraisal of it as "spreading mutations throughout the population."
> 
> Natural selection acts as a filter. It stops harmful mutations from being passed on to future generations. Because of natural selection, mutation does more good than harm, even though more harmful than beneficial mutations occur.
> 
> Let's say we have, on average, three mutations occurring per generation in a population. Of those, let's say that nine out of ten are harmful and one out of ten is beneficial. Here's how it would work over the course of nine generations. I'm using a random number generator to determine beneficial/harmful mutations.
> 
> First generation: 3 mutations, all harmful. Total in this generation: 3H/0B
> 
> Now natural selection goes to work. The three individuals with the harmful mutations die before they can pass on their altered genes.
> 
> Second generation: 3 mutations, 1 beneficial, 2 harmful. Total in this generation: 1B/2H.
> 
> Because natural selection killed the three harmful mutations from the prior generation, only the current two remain in the gene pool, along with the one beneficial mutation.
> 
> Third generation: 3 mutations, 2 harmful, 1 beneficial. Total in this generation: 2B/2H.
> 
> So far over three generations, we've seen 7 harmful mutations and only two beneficial ones. Yet this generation shows equal benefit and harm. Why? Because natural selection pruned out the harmful generations from the past. It also prunes out these current two harmful mutations, not allowing them to be passed on to the next generation.
> 
> The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th generations each had 3 harmful and no beneficial mutations. For each one of them, the total is 3H/2B, because again, all of the harmful mutations are screened out by natural selection; the only ones that manifest are the ones occurring in the current generations. No harmful mutations are passed on.
> 
> 9th generation: 3 mutations, 2 beneficial, 1 harmful. Total in this generation: 4B/1H.
> 
> Now look at this. We've had a total of 27 mutations so far, and of those 23 were harmful and only 4 beneficial. Yet this generation shows the effect of those 4 beneficial mutations and only 1 harmful mutation! Why? Natural selection again: it weeded out all the harmful mutations from past generations so that they were not passed on. Only the beneficial mutations are left.
> 
> This is how it works.
Click to expand...


Let's use the proper term a positive mutation while I have said  beneficial mutation but that is a bad term  as i consider that article i posted. And I am still waiting for this mutation that has spread through the population through natural selection that can be proven ? Not  something that is in a persons mind.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Genetics have always been a problem for evolutionist,they just are not willing to admit to variations within a family can be due to genetics.


Genetic aren't a problem for Evolutionists. Genetics have always been a problem for Creationists, because they just are not willing to admit to variations in phenotype can be EVER be due to ANY variations in genetics caused by mutations.



Youwerecreated said:


> ---_DISINGENUOUSLY INVENTED STRAWMAN ASSERTIONS THOUGHTLESSLY CUT/PASTED BECAUSE RETARDS DON'T LINK SNIPPED_---​





			
				Some Retard Youwerecreated Admires said:
			
		

> But first let us look at the comments of an amateur evolutionist.
> 
> EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM, FOR (probably not) THE LAST TIME. Variety is there because evolution causes random mutation, hence the variety. From a debate on talkorigins.org
> 
> Ummm a little double talk. Well it also appears this is perilously close to evolution being an intelligent designer. But it is also a tautology or circular reasoning to say that evolution causes random mutation because evolutionists say random mutation causes evolution.


Note here that your intellectual hero possess the same lack of intellectual integrity that you do as he presents his strawman (this "amateur evolutionist"), and attacks his strawman's argument as if it was the very best argument that an informed evolutionist would make or defend.

You and this asshat both avoid the actual position that Evolution actually holds on mutation is more like, "Mutation is a source of change in genotype, that could lead naturally to change in phenotype."

The reason you fucktards avoid it is because it's far more difficult to refute than the strawmen you erect in its place.



			
				Some Retard Youwerecreated Admires said:
			
		

> Creationists believe in natural selection but we doubt the role mutations play in evolution and know if we can show that mutations cannot be part of the engine, then evolution will have lost its power.


A patently retarded and intentional misrepresentation offered as if Evolutionary Theory denies the influences genetic drift, transposition, recombination, and duplication on genetic variation.

Creationists like you project your dismissal of mutation on Evolutionists in the form of requiring them to dismiss everything but mutation. You're disingenuous douche-bags like that.



			
				Some Retard Youwerecreated Admires said:
			
		

> In reality there are multiple mutation processes that can impact a genome but evolutionists only choose one.


See what I mean? This is a patent lie.

Evolutionists incorporate all of them.

The actual fact of the matter is that Creationists deny the validity of one type of mutation process, and that type of process is that which can successfully introduce new information into the genome to the organisms benefit. Whatever that (those) process(es) may be, doesn't exist.  It can't, otherwise Creationists will have to resort to some other dishonestly retarded attempt at refuting evolution.

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> Funny how the timing of that ignore worked out...Dragon now has me on ignore, just in time to prevent him from answering the question.
> 
> Go figure.



Eventually Loki will to.

Keeps showing his ignorance on simple reasoning. 

I guess if he keeps saying someone is dishonest that everyone will believe him,while ducking questions or giving an opinion with nothing as far as evidence to support it.

Talk about a TROLL.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> What is the question this time? My experience has been that you are the one who's dishonest, and generally that dishonesty is reflected in the very accusations you level...so my guess is that you've refused to answer a question and so have created another scenario.
> 
> Give me the question. And don't waste my time with long convoluted bloviating...just the question, please. I'm sick of listening to your long winded self-aggrandizing bullshit.



There's a link right to the question, you dope. It's been there all this time. You just couldn't click it?


----------



## daws101

Everyone is in fact born an atheist because everyone is born lacking beliefs in the existence of any gods. As a state or condition, rather than a belief system or ideology, atheism doesnt need to be "invented" or be "come up with" any more than being apolitical needs to be invented. It's simply the state that some people happen to be in, though for many religious believers it seems important to portray atheism as much more. 

Scientists Invented Atheism? Did Scientists Come Up With Atheism Recently? Is Atheism the Belief that Species Appeared Out of Thin Air?


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> There is no evidence, any more than there's any direct evidence of God.



Yes,and we are honest enough to say our belief is out of faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genetics have always been a problem for evolutionist,they just are not willing to admit to variations within a family can be due to genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> Genetic aren't a problem for Evolutionists. Genetics have always been a problem for Creationists, because they just are not willing to admit to variations in phenotype can be EVER be due to ANY variations in genetics caused by mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---_DISINGENUOUSLY INVENTED STRAWMAN ASSERTIONS THOUGHTLESSLY CUT/PASTED BECAUSE RETARDS DON'T LINK SNIPPED_---​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note here that your intellectual hero possess the same lack of intellectual integrity that you do as he presents his strawman (this "amateur evolutionist"), and attacks his strawman's argument as if it was the very best argument that an informed evolutionist would make or defend.
> 
> You and this asshat both avoid the actual position that Evolution actually holds on mutation is more like, "Mutation is a source of change in genotype, that could lead naturally to change in phenotype."
> 
> The reason you fucktards avoid it is because it's far more difficult to refute than the strawmen you erect in its place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Retard Youwerecreated Admires said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists believe in natural selection but we doubt the role mutations play in evolution and know if we can show that mutations cannot be part of the engine, then evolution will have lost its power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A patently retarded and intentional misrepresentation offered as if Evolutionary Theory denies the influences genetic drift, transposition, recombination, and duplication on genetic variation.
> 
> Creationists like you project your dismissal of mutation on Evolutionists in the form of requiring them to dismiss everything but mutation. You're disingenuous douche-bags like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Retard Youwerecreated Admires said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reality there are multiple mutation processes that can impact a genome but evolutionists only choose one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I mean? This is a patent lie.
> 
> Evolutionists incorporate all of them.
> 
> The actual fact of the matter is that Creationists deny the validity of one type of mutation process, and that type of process is that which can successfully introduce new information into the genome to the organisms benefit. Whatever that (those) process(es) may be, doesn't exist.  It can't, otherwise Creationists will have to resort to some other dishonestly retarded attempt at refuting evolution.
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
Click to expand...


You are really just ignorant.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright genius then point to one mutation that has been allowed to spread through the human population through natural selection ?
> 
> Remember these mutations must be found in the whole population For macro-evolution to occurr
> 
> 
> 
> Opposable thumbs.
> 
> And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your proof again ?
Click to expand...

You've got them, right? Everybody else has them, right? We all find them beneficial, right? End of proof.

And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the timing of that ignore worked out...Dragon now has me on ignore, just in time to prevent him from answering the question.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually Loki will to.
> 
> Keeps showing his ignorance on simple reasoning.
> 
> I guess if he keeps saying someone is dishonest that everyone will believe him,while ducking questions or giving an opinion with nothing as far as evidence to support it.
> 
> Talk about a TROLL.
Click to expand...

Lying is the hallmark of dishonesty, and that's what you've been up to.

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opposable thumbs.
> 
> And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof again ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've got them, right? Everybody else has them, right? We all find them beneficial, right? End of proof.
> 
> And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
Click to expand...


Evidence that they were a product of a mutation please ?

Or are you just gonna keep bloviating ?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genetics have always been a problem for evolutionist,they just are not willing to admit to variations within a family can be due to genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> Genetic aren't a problem for Evolutionists. Genetics have always been a problem for Creationists, because they just are not willing to admit to variations in phenotype can be EVER be due to ANY variations in genetics caused by mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> Note here that your intellectual hero possess the same lack of intellectual integrity that you do as he presents his strawman (this "amateur evolutionist"), and attacks his strawman's argument as if it was the very best argument that an informed evolutionist would make or defend.
> 
> You and this asshat both avoid the actual position that Evolution actually holds on mutation is more like, "Mutation is a source of change in genotype, that could lead naturally to change in phenotype."
> 
> The reason you fucktards avoid it is because it's far more difficult to refute than the strawmen you erect in its place.
> 
> A patently retarded and intentional misrepresentation offered as if Evolutionary Theory denies the influences genetic drift, transposition, recombination, and duplication on genetic variation.
> 
> Creationists like you project your dismissal of mutation on Evolutionists in the form of requiring them to dismiss everything but mutation. You're disingenuous douche-bags like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Retard Youwerecreated Admires said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reality there are multiple mutation processes that can impact a genome but evolutionists only choose one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I mean? This is a patent lie.
> 
> Evolutionists incorporate all of them.
> 
> The actual fact of the matter is that Creationists deny the validity of one type of mutation process, and that type of process is that which can successfully introduce new information into the genome to the organisms benefit. Whatever that (those) process(es) may be, doesn't exist.  It can't, otherwise Creationists will have to resort to some other dishonestly retarded attempt at refuting evolution.
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are really just ignorant.
Click to expand...


It's always cute watching you, of all people, call others that.

You're on here denying evolution all the while being totally clueless on it.  Having no clue what a mutation is, no clue that no scientist says humans evolved from chimps, you choose ignorance because the facts hurt the fundamentalist mindset you've based your life on.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the timing of that ignore worked out...Dragon now has me on ignore, just in time to prevent him from answering the question.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually Loki will to.
> 
> Keeps showing his ignorance on simple reasoning.
> 
> I guess if he keeps saying someone is dishonest that everyone will believe him,while ducking questions or giving an opinion with nothing as far as evidence to support it.
> 
> Talk about a TROLL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying is the hallmark of dishonesty, and that's what you've been up to.
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
Click to expand...


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opposable thumbs.
> 
> And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof again ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've got them, right? Everybody else has them, right? We all find them beneficial, right? End of proof.
> 
> And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
Click to expand...

 
So the fact that they exist proves a specific theory about how they came to be?

What planet do you live on? That's not an answer, nor is it any sort of evidence of anything except their current existence. The fact that they now exist does not confirm the way by which they came to be.

My 3rd grade daughter knows better than to try to fly such a ridiculous argument, incidentally.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genetics have always been a problem for evolutionist,they just are not willing to admit to variations within a family can be due to genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> Genetic aren't a problem for Evolutionists. Genetics have always been a problem for Creationists, because they just are not willing to admit to variations in phenotype can be EVER be due to ANY variations in genetics caused by mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> Note here that your intellectual hero possess the same lack of intellectual integrity that you do as he presents his strawman (this "amateur evolutionist"), and attacks his strawman's argument as if it was the very best argument that an informed evolutionist would make or defend.
> 
> You and this asshat both avoid the actual position that Evolution actually holds on mutation is more like, "Mutation is a source of change in genotype, that could lead naturally to change in phenotype."
> 
> The reason you fucktards avoid it is because it's far more difficult to refute than the strawmen you erect in its place.
> 
> A patently retarded and intentional misrepresentation offered as if Evolutionary Theory denies the influences genetic drift, transposition, recombination, and duplication on genetic variation.
> 
> Creationists like you project your dismissal of mutation on Evolutionists in the form of requiring them to dismiss everything but mutation. You're disingenuous douche-bags like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Retard Youwerecreated Admires said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reality there are multiple mutation processes that can impact a genome but evolutionists only choose one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I mean? This is a patent lie.
> 
> Evolutionists incorporate all of them.
> 
> The actual fact of the matter is that Creationists deny the validity of one type of mutation process, and that type of process is that which can successfully introduce new information into the genome to the organisms benefit. Whatever that (those) process(es) may be, doesn't exist.  It can't, otherwise Creationists will have to resort to some other dishonestly retarded attempt at refuting evolution.
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are really just ignorant.
Click to expand...

Well then, why don't you enlighten me with your answer the question I asked of you?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genetic aren't a problem for Evolutionists. Genetics have always been a problem for Creationists, because they just are not willing to admit to variations in phenotype can be EVER be due to ANY variations in genetics caused by mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> Note here that your intellectual hero possess the same lack of intellectual integrity that you do as he presents his strawman (this "amateur evolutionist"), and attacks his strawman's argument as if it was the very best argument that an informed evolutionist would make or defend.
> 
> You and this asshat both avoid the actual position that Evolution actually holds on mutation is more like, "Mutation is a source of change in genotype, that could lead naturally to change in phenotype."
> 
> The reason you fucktards avoid it is because it's far more difficult to refute than the strawmen you erect in its place.
> 
> A patently retarded and intentional misrepresentation offered as if Evolutionary Theory denies the influences genetic drift, transposition, recombination, and duplication on genetic variation.
> 
> Creationists like you project your dismissal of mutation on Evolutionists in the form of requiring them to dismiss everything but mutation. You're disingenuous douche-bags like that.
> 
> See what I mean? This is a patent lie.
> 
> Evolutionists incorporate all of them.
> 
> The actual fact of the matter is that Creationists deny the validity of one type of mutation process, and that type of process is that which can successfully introduce new information into the genome to the organisms benefit. Whatever that (those) process(es) may be, doesn't exist.  It can't, otherwise Creationists will have to resort to some other dishonestly retarded attempt at refuting evolution.
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are really just ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's always cute watching you, of all people, call others that.
> 
> You're on here denying evolution all the while being totally clueless on it.  Having no clue what a mutation is, no clue that no scientist says humans evolved from chimps, you choose ignorance because the facts hurt the fundamentalist mindset you've based your life on.
Click to expand...


I have made it clear I know what a mutation is


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof again ?
> 
> 
> 
> You've got them, right? Everybody else has them, right? We all find them beneficial, right? End of proof.
> 
> And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence that they were a product of a mutation please ?
> 
> Or are you just gonna keep bloviating ?
Click to expand...

I will happily provide evidence. Answer my question first.


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opposable thumbs.
> 
> And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof again ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've got them, right? Everybody else has them, right? We all find them beneficial, right? End of proof.
> 
> And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
Click to expand...

 
You know, the link to your question doesn't take us to anywhere except the beginning of this page, you lying pos.

So again, for like the third time..kindly ask the question again, without the self-aggrandizing bullshit. Just post the question you allege hasn't been answered. And provide a REAL link to the post where you asked it in the first place.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are really just ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's always cute watching you, of all people, call others that.
> 
> You're on here denying evolution all the while being totally clueless on it.  Having no clue what a mutation is, no clue that no scientist says humans evolved from chimps, you choose ignorance because the facts hurt the fundamentalist mindset you've based your life on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made it clear I know what a mutation is
Click to expand...


No you haven't, the definition of mutation includes providing beneficial features, which every link you've provided agrees with, even the most hardcore fundamentalist bible blogs.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof again ?
> 
> 
> 
> You've got them, right? Everybody else has them, right? We all find them beneficial, right? End of proof.
> 
> And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence that they were a product of a mutation please ?
> 
> Or are you just gonna keep bloviating ?
Click to expand...

I'll give you the short version. we are all products of mutation going all the way back to the first creature with a spine. as stated many times before, mutation caused us and our ape cousin's evolutionary paths to diverge
away from our common ancestor.
if all life were created separately there would be no inter breeding of anything.
since this is not so ...then it's smoking gun proof that there is no intelligent design.


----------



## koshergrl

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genetics have always been a problem for evolutionist,they just are not willing to admit to variations within a family can be due to genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> Genetic aren't a problem for Evolutionists. Genetics have always been a problem for Creationists, because they just are not willing to admit to variations in phenotype can be EVER be due to ANY variations in genetics caused by mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> Note here that your intellectual hero possess the same lack of intellectual integrity that you do as he presents his strawman (this "amateur evolutionist"), and attacks his strawman's argument as if it was the very best argument that an informed evolutionist would make or defend.
> 
> You and this asshat both avoid the actual position that Evolution actually holds on mutation is more like, "Mutation is a source of change in genotype, that could lead naturally to change in phenotype."
> 
> The reason you fucktards avoid it is because it's far more difficult to refute than the strawmen you erect in its place.
> 
> A patently retarded and intentional misrepresentation offered as if Evolutionary Theory denies the influences genetic drift, transposition, recombination, and duplication on genetic variation.
> 
> Creationists like you project your dismissal of mutation on Evolutionists in the form of requiring them to dismiss everything but mutation. You're disingenuous douche-bags like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Retard Youwerecreated Admires said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reality there are multiple mutation processes that can impact a genome but evolutionists only choose one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I mean? This is a patent lie.
> 
> Evolutionists incorporate all of them.
> 
> The actual fact of the matter is that Creationists deny the validity of one type of mutation process, and that type of process is that which can successfully introduce new information into the genome to the organisms benefit. Whatever that (those) process(es) may be, doesn't exist. It can't, otherwise Creationists will have to resort to some other dishonestly retarded attempt at refuting evolution.
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are really just ignorant.
Click to expand...

 
This is the post Liki keeps linking to.

I don't see a question, at all... Just trolling.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genetic aren't a problem for Evolutionists. Genetics have always been a problem for Creationists, because they just are not willing to admit to variations in phenotype can be EVER be due to ANY variations in genetics caused by mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> Note here that your intellectual hero possess the same lack of intellectual integrity that you do as he presents his strawman (this "amateur evolutionist"), and attacks his strawman's argument as if it was the very best argument that an informed evolutionist would make or defend.
> 
> You and this asshat both avoid the actual position that Evolution actually holds on mutation is more like, "Mutation is a source of change in genotype, that could lead naturally to change in phenotype."
> 
> The reason you fucktards avoid it is because it's far more difficult to refute than the strawmen you erect in its place.
> 
> A patently retarded and intentional misrepresentation offered as if Evolutionary Theory denies the influences genetic drift, transposition, recombination, and duplication on genetic variation.
> 
> Creationists like you project your dismissal of mutation on Evolutionists in the form of requiring them to dismiss everything but mutation. You're disingenuous douche-bags like that.
> 
> See what I mean? This is a patent lie.
> 
> Evolutionists incorporate all of them.
> 
> The actual fact of the matter is that Creationists deny the validity of one type of mutation process, and that type of process is that which can successfully introduce new information into the genome to the organisms benefit. Whatever that (those) process(es) may be, doesn't exist.  It can't, otherwise Creationists will have to resort to some other dishonestly retarded attempt at refuting evolution.
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are really just ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then, why don't you enlighten me with your answer the question I asked of you?
Click to expand...


How many times have I answered this question.I can't help it you do not like my honest answer.

Well are you gonna put your big boy pants on and provide proof of that mutation being spread through the human population by natural selection ?


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof again ?
> 
> 
> 
> You've got them, right? Everybody else has them, right? We all find them beneficial, right? End of proof.
> 
> And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the fact that they exist proves a specific theory about how they came to be?
> 
> What planet do you live on? *That's not an answer, nor is it any sort of evidence of anything except their current existence.* The fact that they now exist does not confirm the way by which they came to be.
> 
> My 3rd grade daughter knows better than to try to fly such a ridiculous argument, incidentally.
Click to expand...

I hope you know that I will be referring to this argument if you ever decide to assert "Creation" is evidence of your "Creator" to me. Thanks!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've got them, right? Everybody else has them, right? We all find them beneficial, right? End of proof.
> 
> And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence that they were a product of a mutation please ?
> 
> Or are you just gonna keep bloviating ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll give you the short version. we are all products of mutation going all the way back to the first creature with a spine. as stated many times before, mutation caused us and our ape cousin's evolutionary paths to diverge
> away from our common ancestor.
> if all life were created separately there would be no inter breeding of anything.
> since this is not so ...then it's smoking gun proof that there is no intelligent design.
Click to expand...


Evidence please.


----------



## koshergrl

What the hell IS the question? Because that link doesn't take you to one. It just takes you to yet another meandering diatribe about how stupid people are for not accepting his opinion about a variety of different things.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've got them, right? Everybody else has them, right? We all find them beneficial, right? End of proof.
> 
> And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that they exist proves a specific theory about how they came to be?
> 
> What planet do you live on? *That's not an answer, nor is it any sort of evidence of anything except their current existence.* The fact that they now exist does not confirm the way by which they came to be.
> 
> My 3rd grade daughter knows better than to try to fly such a ridiculous argument, incidentally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope you know that I will be referring to this argument if you ever decide to assert "Creation" is evidence of your "Creator" to me. Thanks!
Click to expand...


There is all kinds of evidence for intelligent design.

I can provide evdence for my belief but you on the other hand cannot.


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> What the hell IS the question? Because that link doesn't take you to one. It just takes you to yet another meandering diatribe about how stupid people are for not accepting his opinion about a variety of different things.



He wants to know the evidence for a creator. There is plenty of evidence for intelligent design that allows a rational person to rationalize a designer.

We can point to all things that are created by the mind.


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've got them, right? Everybody else has them, right? We all find them beneficial, right? End of proof.
> 
> And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that they exist proves a specific theory about how they came to be?
> 
> What planet do you live on? *That's not an answer, nor is it any sort of evidence of anything except their current existence.* The fact that they now exist does not confirm the way by which they came to be.
> 
> My 3rd grade daughter knows better than to try to fly such a ridiculous argument, incidentally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope you know that I will be referring to this argument if you ever decide to assert "Creation" is evidence of your "Creator" to me. Thanks!
Click to expand...

 
Thank you for illustrating so succinctly what disgusts me most about anti-Christians.

It isn't that you believe as you do.

It's that you pretend that your belief is the same thing as EVIDENCE.

I know that I have faith. I don't pretend I have "proof" of the existence of God. 

Unlike the anti-Christian blatherers, who will proclaim to the heavens that their various, convoluted, always changing and pseudo-scientific beliefs have been declared "PROVEN!" by unnamed REALLY IMPORTANT REALLY SMART PEOPLE (including themselves) and that the proof is..get this..."It exists therefore it's whatever I say it is because MY THEORY IS JUST BETTER"...I admit I just have faith. I know that my belief has not been disproven by science...yet these yahoos insist on hanging around and pretending it has.

IT HASN'T. And none of the theories they have that they (lie) say disproves the existence of God have been proven...nor have those theories ever been proven.

Likewise, when they say "no thinking person believes that God created" blah blah blah...they're also lying. They're incapable of being truthful about any aspect of the conversation.

Which makes them completely irrelevant, to anyone except themselves. 

You all did realize that the welfare crowd has more atheists than faithful, right? It seems the education level of those who don't believe in God is somewhat lower than the education level of the "thinking" people...aka, Christians.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell IS the question? Because that link doesn't take you to one. It just takes you to yet another meandering diatribe about how stupid people are for not accepting his opinion about a variety of different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wants to know the evidence for a creator. There is plenty of evidence for intelligent design that allows a rational person to rationalize a designer.
> 
> We can point to all things that are created by the mind.
Click to expand...


He's not talking about a human being using his mind to build a model airplane.

Intelligent design being your god creating the earth and everything else.

And an answer of "just look around you" isn't sufficient.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence that they were a product of a mutation please ?
> 
> Or are you just gonna keep bloviating ?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you the short version. we are all products of mutation going all the way back to the first creature with a spine. as stated many times before, mutation caused us and our ape cousin's evolutionary paths to diverge
> away from our common ancestor.
> if all life were created separately there would be no inter breeding of anything.
> since this is not so ...then it's smoking gun proof that there is no intelligent design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence please.
Click to expand...

that is the evidence ASSCLOWN!


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof again ?
> 
> 
> 
> You've got them, right? Everybody else has them, right? We all find them beneficial, right? End of proof.
> 
> And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, the link to your question doesn't take us to anywhere except the beginning of this page, you lying pos.
Click to expand...

Who's the lying piece of shit?

It's clearly you. Click the link in the post, you retard. Not the link to the top of the page.



koshergrl said:


> So again, for like the third time..kindly ask the question again, without the self-aggrandizing bullshit. Just post the question you allege hasn't been answered. And provide a REAL link to the post where you asked it in the first place.





LOki said:


> Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.


Do you think your retarded clicking skills can manage now, Cupcake?


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you the short version. we are all products of mutation going all the way back to the first creature with a spine. as stated many times before, mutation caused us and our ape cousin's evolutionary paths to diverge
> away from our common ancestor.
> if all life were created separately there would be no inter breeding of anything.
> since this is not so ...then it's smoking gun proof that there is no intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is the evidence ASSCLOWN!
Click to expand...

 
NO IT'S NOT.

I suggest you look up the term "evidence" and "proof". Because that is not any kind of evidence. You might like the opinion, but just because it sounds good to you DOESN'T MAGICALLY TURN IT INTO PROOF.

What IS the average grade level of you guys? 5th??????


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are really just ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, why don't you enlighten me with your answer the question I asked of you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times have I answered this question.
Click to expand...

Never.



Youwerecreated said:


> I can't help it you do not like my honest answer.


I have no opinion of this answer you never posted ever.



Youwerecreated said:


> Well are you gonna put your big boy pants on and provide proof of that mutation being spread through the human population by natural selection ?


Yes. After you answer the question I asked of you.


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've got them, right? Everybody else has them, right? We all find them beneficial, right? End of proof.
> 
> And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, the link to your question doesn't take us to anywhere except the beginning of this page, you lying pos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's the lying piece of shit?
> 
> It's clearly you. Click the link in the post, you retard. Not the link to the top of the page.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So again, for like the third time..kindly ask the question again, without the self-aggrandizing bullshit. Just post the question you allege hasn't been answered. And provide a REAL link to the post where you asked it in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think your retarded clicking skills can manage now, Cupcake?
Click to expand...

 
Same garbage.

Since you are unable to restate your alleged question, I will assume you are lying that there is one.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that they exist proves a specific theory about how they came to be?
> 
> What planet do you live on? *That's not an answer, nor is it any sort of evidence of anything except their current existence.* The fact that they now exist does not confirm the way by which they came to be.
> 
> My 3rd grade daughter knows better than to try to fly such a ridiculous argument, incidentally.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you know that I will be referring to this argument if you ever decide to assert "Creation" is evidence of your "Creator" to me. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is all kinds of evidence for intelligent design.
> 
> I can provide evdence for my belief but you on the other hand cannot.
Click to expand...

BULLSHIT there is not. the only evidence is for your belief  is belief. you have no empirical quantifiable evidence to prove that the thing or action (intelligent design) believed in exists or happened .
belief only proves belief nothing more.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that they exist proves a specific theory about how they came to be?
> 
> What planet do you live on? *That's not an answer, nor is it any sort of evidence of anything except their current existence.* The fact that they now exist does not confirm the way by which they came to be.
> 
> My 3rd grade daughter knows better than to try to fly such a ridiculous argument, incidentally.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you know that I will be referring to this argument if you ever decide to assert "Creation" is evidence of your "Creator" to me. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is all kinds of evidence for intelligent design.
Click to expand...

No there isn't. Seriously. No evidence. Not even a suggestion of evidence. None. Zip. Nada.



Youwerecreated said:


> I can provide evdence for my belief but you on the other hand cannot.


No you can't, as you clearly have not; and yes I can, as I have already clearly done.

And, it's worth noting (again) your continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell IS the question? Because that link doesn't take you to one. It just takes you to yet another meandering diatribe about how stupid people are for not accepting his opinion about a variety of different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wants to know the evidence for a creator.
Click to expand...

I know there's no evidence of your creator. That's not what I asked.



Youwerecreated said:


> There is plenty of evidence for intelligent design...


There's none.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... that allows a rational person to rationalize a designer.


Rational people don't rationalize.



Youwerecreated said:


> We can point to all things that are created by the mind.


Including your Creator, but creating him in your mind doesn't make Him objectively real.

And, it's worth noting (again) your continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence please.
> 
> 
> 
> that is the evidence ASSCLOWN!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO IT'S NOT.
> 
> I suggest you look up the term "evidence" and "proof". Because that is not any kind of evidence. You might like the opinion, but just because it sounds good to you DOESN'T MAGICALLY TURN IT INTO PROOF.
> 
> What IS the average grade level of you guys? 5th??????
Click to expand...


Well right after 5th grade is normally when they start teaching about evolution, so I would use that excuse yourself as to why you're so ignorant of the subject.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that they exist proves a specific theory about how they came to be?
> 
> What planet do you live on? *That's not an answer, nor is it any sort of evidence of anything except their current existence.* The fact that they now exist does not confirm the way by which they came to be.
> 
> My 3rd grade daughter knows better than to try to fly such a ridiculous argument, incidentally.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you know that I will be referring to this argument if you ever decide to assert "Creation" is evidence of your "Creator" to me. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for illustrating so succinctly what disgusts me most about anti-Christians.
> 
> It isn't that you believe as you do.
> 
> It's that you pretend that your belief is the same thing as EVIDENCE.
Click to expand...

Reason believes what it sees; faith sees what it believes.

I don't think my beliefs are evidence; that what faith does. My beliefs are based on verifiable evidence; faith denies verifiable evidence.

And this is what disgusts me about intellectually dishonest superstitious retards: It's the way you assign your intellectually dishonest paradigm upon others--it's called pathological projection.



koshergrl said:


> I know that I have faith. I don't pretend I have "proof" of the existence of God.


You don't even have evidence. Your entire belief system is nothing but the absolute certainty your right validated only by the "evidence" of the belief you are right. Entirely imaginary.

And I'll lay you odds that you think I've claimed "proof" of the most contentious beliefs you think I hold--and you'll lose that bet. Because "proof" in regard to absolute certainty is ONLY claimed by faithies.



koshergrl said:


> Unlike the anti-Christian blatherers, who will proclaim to the heavens that their various, convoluted, always changing and pseudo-scientific beliefs have been declared "PROVEN!" by unnamed REALLY IMPORTANT REALLY SMART PEOPLE (including themselves) and that the proof is..get this..."It exists therefore it's whatever I say it is because MY THEORY IS JUST BETTER"...


That is literally faith, and entirely inconsistent with everything I've said.



koshergrl said:


> I admit I just have faith. I know that my belief has not been disproven by science...yet these yahoos insist on hanging around and pretending it has.


If you're referring to me Cupcake, you should be aware that what you're up to is undeniably "false witness."



koshergrl said:


> IT HASN'T.


I've never said it has. What's your point?



koshergrl said:


> And none of the theories they have that they (lie) say disproves the existence of God have been proven...


You're just making this shit up. Literally.

Seriously. No rational person says the Big Bang or Evolution disproves the existence of God. But intellectually dishonest superstitious retards routinely claim rational people do.



koshergrl said:


> ... nor have those theories ever been proven.


Certainly not to the satisfaction of the fatuous notion of absolute certainty that the superstitious require.



koshergrl said:


> Likewise, when they say "no thinking person believes that God created" blah blah blah...they're also lying.


You're lying if you're asserting that I, or anyone who thinks like me says that.



koshergrl said:


> They're incapable of being truthful about any aspect of the conversation.


No sweetheart, you're incapable of being truthful about any aspect of the conversation.



koshergrl said:


> Which makes them completely irrelevant, to anyone except themselves.


No, this is you and the rest of the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards wringing their hands about their emotional reaction to the difference between what they believe and what is verifiably real revealed to them.



koshergrl said:


> You all did realize that the welfare crowd has more atheists than faithful, right?


I think what you're referring to is the manner in which government services out-compete religious charity in both breadth of service and magnitude of relief. Every panhandler on the planet loves Jesus--just ask them.



koshergrl said:


> It seems the education level of those who don't believe in God is somewhat lower than the education level of the "thinking" people...aka, Christians.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, the link to your question doesn't take us to anywhere except the beginning of this page, you lying pos.
> 
> 
> 
> Who's the lying piece of shit?
> 
> It's clearly you. Click the link in the post, you retard. Not the link to the top of the page.
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think your retarded clicking skills can manage now, Cupcake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same garbage.
> 
> Since you are unable to restate your alleged question, I will assume you are lying that there is one.
Click to expand...

Holy fuck! You're the dumbest retard ever!

The links are good; clear your cache, or just OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES!!!!!!


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you know that I will be referring to this argument if you ever decide to assert "Creation" is evidence of your "Creator" to me. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for illustrating so succinctly what disgusts me most about anti-Christians.
> 
> It isn't that you believe as you do.
> 
> It's that you pretend that your belief is the same thing as EVIDENCE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reason believes what it sees; faith sees what it believes.
> 
> I don't think my beliefs are evidence; that what faith does. My beliefs are based on verifiable evidence; faith denies verifiable evidence.
> 
> And this is what disgusts me about intellectually dishonest superstitious retards: It's the way you assign your intellectually dishonest paradigm upon others--it's called pathological projection.
> 
> You don't even have evidence. Your entire belief system is nothing but the absolute certainty your right validated only by the "evidence" of the belief you are right. Entirely imaginary.
> 
> And I'll lay you odds that you think I've claimed "proof" of the most contentious beliefs you think I hold--and you'll lose that bet. Because "proof" in regard to absolute certainty is ONLY claimed by faithies.
> 
> That is literally faith, and entirely inconsistent with everything I've said.
> 
> If you're referring to me Cupcake, you should be aware that what you're up to is undeniably "false witness."
> 
> I've never said it has. What's your point?
> 
> You're just making this shit up. Literally.
> 
> Seriously. No rational person says the Big Bang or Evolution disproves the existence of God. But intellectually dishonest superstitious retards routinely claim rational people do.
> 
> Certainly not to the satisfaction of the fatuous notion of absolute certainty that the superstitious require.
> 
> You're lying if you're asserting that I, or anyone who thinks like me says that.
> 
> No sweetheart, you're incapable of being truthful about any aspect of the conversation.
> 
> No, this is you and the rest of the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards wringing their hands about their emotional reaction to the difference between what they believe and what is verifiably real revealed to them.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all did realize that the welfare crowd has more atheists than faithful, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think what you're referring to is the manner in which government services out-compete religious charity in both breadth of service and magnitude of relief. Every panhandler on the planet loves Jesus--just ask them.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems the education level of those who don't believe in God is somewhat lower than the education level of the "thinking" people...aka, Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
Wow, thanks for the lesson in vernacular nonsense.

But I still don't seen any evidence, nor do I see the question you claim hasn't been answered.

Oh well. Thanks for playing. You're a dishonest and uneducated twit...but that's not exactly unusual when it comes to anti-Christian spastics.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for illustrating so succinctly what disgusts me most about anti-Christians.
> 
> It isn't that you believe as you do.
> 
> It's that you pretend that your belief is the same thing as EVIDENCE.
> 
> 
> 
> Reason believes what it sees; faith sees what it believes.
> 
> I don't think my beliefs are evidence; that what faith does. My beliefs are based on verifiable evidence; faith denies verifiable evidence.
> 
> And this is what disgusts me about intellectually dishonest superstitious retards: It's the way you assign your intellectually dishonest paradigm upon others--it's called pathological projection.
> 
> You don't even have evidence. Your entire belief system is nothing but the absolute certainty your right validated only by the "evidence" of the belief you are right. Entirely imaginary.
> 
> And I'll lay you odds that you think I've claimed "proof" of the most contentious beliefs you think I hold--and you'll lose that bet. Because "proof" in regard to absolute certainty is ONLY claimed by faithies.
> 
> That is literally faith, and entirely inconsistent with everything I've said.
> 
> If you're referring to me Cupcake, you should be aware that what you're up to is undeniably "false witness."
> 
> I've never said it has. What's your point?
> 
> You're just making this shit up. Literally.
> 
> Seriously. No rational person says the Big Bang or Evolution disproves the existence of God. But intellectually dishonest superstitious retards routinely claim rational people do.
> 
> Certainly not to the satisfaction of the fatuous notion of absolute certainty that the superstitious require.
> 
> You're lying if you're asserting that I, or anyone who thinks like me says that.
> 
> No sweetheart, you're incapable of being truthful about any aspect of the conversation.
> 
> No, this is you and the rest of the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards wringing their hands about their emotional reaction to the difference between what they believe and what is verifiably real revealed to them.
> 
> I think what you're referring to is the manner in which government services out-compete religious charity in both breadth of service and magnitude of relief. Every panhandler on the planet loves Jesus--just ask them.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems the education level of those who don't believe in God is somewhat lower than the education level of the "thinking" people...aka, Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, thanks for the lesson in vernacular nonsense.
> 
> But I still don't seen any evidence, nor do I see the question you claim hasn't been answered.
> 
> Oh well. Thanks for playing. You're a dishonest and uneducated twit...but that's not exactly unusual when it comes to anti-Christian spastics.
Click to expand...

the power of denial is strong with this one.


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's the lying piece of shit?
> 
> It's clearly you. Click the link in the post, you retard. Not the link to the top of the page.
> 
> Do you think your retarded clicking skills can manage now, Cupcake?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same garbage.
> 
> Since you are unable to restate your alleged question, I will assume you are lying that there is one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy fuck! You're the dumbest retard ever!
> 
> The links are good; clear your cache, or just OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES!!!!!!
Click to expand...

 
It's telling that your memory isn't sufficient to just write the question.

As I said, I assume the question is nonsensical or nonexistent. Particularly since you would rather just post the same non-working link over and over and over, instead of just restating it like a civilized person so we can converse about it.

Obviously, you aren't interested in the actual topic, even though it is supposedly one of your own determination. Apparently even you have some reservations...


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same garbage.
> 
> Since you are unable to restate your alleged question, I will assume you are lying that there is one.
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck! You're the dumbest retard ever!
> 
> The links are good; clear your cache, or just OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's telling that your memory isn't sufficient to just write the question.
> 
> As I said, I assume the question is nonsensical or nonexistent. Particularly since you would rather just post the same non-working link over and over and over, instead of just restating it like a civilized person so we can converse about it.
> 
> Obviously, you aren't interested in the actual topic, even though it is supposedly one of your own determination. Apparently even you have some reservations...
Click to expand...

Seriously. What the fuck is wrong with you? You can't click a link, you can't read words posted in giant font just for you ... what is your malfunction?


----------



## koshergrl

I clicked the link repeatedly. The only words I see are words to the effect of "follow the link moron" and "I already said, here's the link". As I said, if you can't state the question, regardless of what is causing my difficulty in accessing whatever you have linked (the link just takes me to the top of the page, and I've clicked on it in different places about 10 times now, not that it matters) I assume you don't even know what the question is, or don't trust your ability to follow the same convoluted path you may have initially gone along to establish the alleged question in the first place.

It makes no nevermind, you don't have a history of truthfulness anyway, so I just assume you're full of shit when it comes to the alleged "question" anyway. If I'm wrong, I think you would have just posted the stupid "question" instead of playing this silly game. As I said, more evidence you aren't interested in the question, if it exists, or even in discussing it. You just want to post silliness and lies, and then move on to the next game.

Pretty standard.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> I clicked the link repeatedly. The only words I see are words to the effect of "follow the link moron" and "I already said, here's the link". As I said, if you can't state the question, regardless of what is causing my difficulty in accessing whatever you have linked (the link just takes me to the top of the page, and I've clicked on it in different places about 10 times now, not that it matters) I assume you don't even know what the question is, or don't trust your ability to follow the same convoluted path you may have initially gone along to establish the alleged question in the first place.
> 
> It makes no nevermind, you don't have a history of truthfulness anyway, so I just assume you're full of shit when it comes to the alleged "question" anyway. If I'm wrong, I think you would have just posted the stupid "question" instead of playing this silly game. As I said, more evidence you aren't interested in the question, if it exists, or even in discussing it. You just want to post silliness and lies, and then move on to the next game.
> 
> Pretty standard.


Besides the perfectly working links to it, I also blockquoted it, and then I bolded and posted it in *GIANT FONT* so you couldn't miss it.

You are truly retarded.


----------



## koshergrl

Sigh.

Why can't you restate it where you know I can see it?

I don't see any giant fonted question on this page...so where is it?

Dishonest. Twit.


----------



## bigwern

So are you saying that you dont even believe in a force behind everything in the universe? Do u think that the perfection in the universe all the way from a dying star creating a blackhole and thus beginning a new galaxy down to e. coli symbiotically living in you at this very moment just happens by chance? That there is no force that drove the evolution of the universe to this point u think its basically just a big mistake? Im late but i just wanna kno your overall opinion on that...


----------



## koshergrl

He won't say what he believes, or do anything except pretend he's operating from some stance of intellectual superiority..without ever providing anything of intellectual substance.

His and Dragon's entire argument is apparently "There is no God because men have opposable thumbs. That's all the proof you need."

It's laughable.

When they get twitted about that, they revert to pretending there are "questions" that haven't been adequately answered and claim they won't address the issue further until the questions (which are never defined) are answered, or they put you on ignore.


----------



## koshergrl

In other words, they're just trolling.


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same garbage.
> 
> Since you are unable to restate your alleged question, I will assume you are lying that there is one.
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck! You're the dumbest retard ever!
> 
> The links are good; clear your cache, or just OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's telling that your memory isn't sufficient to just write the question.
> 
> As I said, I assume the question is nonsensical or nonexistent. Particularly since you would rather just post the same non-working link over and over and over, instead of just restating it like a civilized person so we can converse about it.
> 
> Obviously, you aren't interested in the actual topic, even though it is supposedly one of your own determination. Apparently even you have some reservations...
Click to expand...


Here is what he is talking about, "Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.".

To be fair it's really more a request than a question.


----------



## koshergrl

It's not a question at all. As I thought. It's bloviation, he's muddying the water by speaking to an argument that has never been made.


----------



## LOki

bigwern said:


> So are you saying that you dont even believe in a force behind everything in the universe?


What force? what do you mean by "behind everything in the universe?"



bigwern said:


> Do u think that the perfection in the universe all the way from a dying star creating a blackhole and thus beginning a new galaxy down to e. coli symbiotically living in you at this very moment just happens by chance?


Nope. Nor do I believe that Santa Claus made me this "perfect" universe and gave it to me for Christmas.



bigwern said:


> That there is no force that drove the evolution of the universe to this point u think its basically just a big mistake?


I make no such judgments regarding the universe; I can't imagine the means to make that kind of declaration regarding the universe.



bigwern said:


> Im late but i just wanna kno your overall opinion on that...


I believe, based upon the verifiable evidence, that the universe exists and it is what it is. I make no pretense to know, or have special knowledge of, anything (or anyone) that is "beyond" that self-evident truth.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> He won't say what he believes, or do anything except pretend he's operating from some stance of intellectual superiority..without ever providing anything of intellectual substance.


A patently obvious lie. Typical of dishonest superstitious retards.



koshergrl said:


> His and Dragon's entire argument is apparently "There is no God because men have opposable thumbs. That's all the proof you need."


Again, a patenly obvious lie. You'll note this this particular example of dishonest superstitious retard cannot produce a single bit of evidence to support her fatuous claims.



koshergrl said:


> It's laughable.


Well, you ARE the joke here.



koshergrl said:


> When they get twitted about that, they revert to pretending there are "questions" that haven't been adequately answered and claim they won't address the issue further until the questions (which are never defined) are answered, or they put you on ignore.


Well, if this is addressing me, this is just another lie from a retard too stupid or lazy to validate her facts.


----------



## koshergrl

What fact haven't I validated?

Kindly provide the quote. Link it if you can.


----------



## LOki

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck! You're the dumbest retard ever!
> 
> The links are good; clear your cache, or just OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's telling that your memory isn't sufficient to just write the question.
> 
> As I said, I assume the question is nonsensical or nonexistent. Particularly since you would rather just post the same non-working link over and over and over, instead of just restating it like a civilized person so we can converse about it.
> 
> Obviously, you aren't interested in the actual topic, even though it is supposedly one of your own determination. Apparently even you have some reservations...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what he is talking about, "Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.".
> 
> To be fair it's really more a request than a question.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see the hurdle that was too great for intellectually challenged to navigate past. Not technically a question. Mea culpa. 

Let me reprise the exchange that led us here and let's just see who has and who has not been disingenuous about answering questions and requests for information.Youwerecreated: You let me know when life can spontaneously generate itself through a natural process.

LOki: When the conditions are right for it.

Now you explain to me how life magicked itself into your Creator.
n.b.: I answered his request, and submitted a request of my own.

Youwerecreated: I can't answer that or how he has always existed,that is something you might want to ask him when you meet him.
n.b.: The disingenuous hypocrisy is patently obvious in this retard's refusal to acknowledge the unjustifiable disparity in the threshold of what constitutes acceptable defense of his own belief and what constitutes an acceptable defense by his opposition.

LOki: I accept your intellectual surrender.​And that should have been that. Youwerecreated candidly admitted that his creationism literally had no explanation; no basis for intellectual validity; no basis what-so-ever in verifiable evidence or valid logic.

Game, Set, Match ...

But NO!Youwerecreated: Surrender hardly, I still feel from the evdence that it is more logical to accept creation over a natural process undirected by intelligence.
n.b.: Now he has "evidence" and "logic" ... but refuses to share it.​Youwerecreated apparently wants a "do over." So *he* puts his bullshit assertion back into play as if he hadn't already eaten it.

I'm a good sport, but no longer patient with his intellectual dishonesty; so ...LOki: Then if you categorically reject any notion that life can arise from non-living origins, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

Youwerecreated: I already have,living organisms produce living organisms can this be proven or not ?

There is zero evidence that non-life can produce life,zero evidence.​Do you see ANY mention of this Creator of his? I sure don't. Logic? None.

What is asserted here is a lie. He first said he couldn't answer, then he said he could, then he said he did ... but no verifiable evidence or valid logic or explanation what-so-ever was submitted regarding the origin of the life that he insists he is certain is the Creator of this planet.

So I attempt again:LOki: You are asserting then that your creator is dead. Yes? Then whence the life in His creation?

If not, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet...

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.​Since he ignored my valid request and instead decided to cal me a 13 year old, I repeated my  request:LOki: So genius, are you preparing to put your big girl panties on, or are you going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.​And from this point on Youwerecreated continued to ask questions and make demands for explanations (all granted BTW) yet not once any verifiable evidence or valid logic or explanation what-so0ever was submitted regarding the origin of the life that he insists he is certain is the Creator of this planet.

So, again, I'm sorry that my request was not in the form of a question. Despite linking to the request dozens of times, blockquoting it, and posting it in giant font, I see that the disingenuous retard who could not find my "request for information" was entirely stumped by this.

But Youwerecreated has been acutely aware of the request this entire time, and he is disingenuously avoiding it for reasons we are all aware of--he lacks the integrity of courage in his superstitious convictions to admit that his beliefs have no relationship what-so-ever to any verifiable evidence or valid logic ever presented to ever presented to him except that his beliefs are stolid denials of verifiable evidence and valid logic.

And it's worth noting that his intellectual dishonesty is manifest in his (predictable and) continued refusal to provide a substantive response to my request. After all, he could have accepted his intellectual capitulation; he could have taken the honest route of asserting a belief that it's all magic, but he didn't.

So to avoid overtaxing the already disadvantaged rational capacity of the superstitious and retarded members of the peanut gallery, I will resubmit my request as clearly as I am able:Youwerecreated,
You claim that through evidence and logic, you can support your assertion that life was created and hence, you can support your assertion of a Creator.

Further, if you if you categorically reject any notion that life can arise from non-living origins, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet.

Do this, and as I said I would, I will submit, as you requested, evidence that opposable thumbs in humans are a result of mutation.​Continued refusal of my request will make patently clear that Youwerecreated's beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to him.

Furthermore, such continued (and intellectually disingenuous) refusals would constitute prima facie evidence that Youwerecreated's patent disdain for the validity of verifiable evidence and valid logic discredits his every rebuttal to the case of evolution, and certainly every accusation he makes disparaging evolutionists.


----------



## koshergrl

What do you not understand about "you are arguing against a point that was never made"?

Fucking moron.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> What fact haven't I validated?
> 
> Kindly provide the quote. Link it if you can.


This not an exhaustive inventory of such unvalidated facts, but only the latest examples.

koshergrl said:


> He won't say what he believes, or do anything except pretend he's operating from some stance of intellectual superiority..without ever providing anything of intellectual substance.
> 
> His and Dragon's entire argument is apparently "There is no God because men have opposable thumbs. That's all the proof you need."
> 
> It's laughable.
> 
> When they get twitted about that, they revert to pretending there are "questions" that haven't been adequately answered and claim they won't address the issue further until the questions (which are never defined) are answered, or they put you on ignore.


There you go, blockquote with link included.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> What do you not understand about "you are arguing against a point that was never made"?
> 
> Fucking moron.


Who's the moron?

There's just no way to over-estimate the retard power of intellectually dishonest superstitious retards like yourself.


----------



## koshergrl

Oh, I see. You are another of those who isn't educated enough to have a logical debate. You apparently have difficulty with understanding what words mean.

My opinion of your idiocy and a catalogue of my observations of your stupidity is not an example of "unvalidated facts" you retard. 

Do you even know what the topic is? Can you try to stay on point?


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Oh, I see. You are another of those who isn't educated enough to have a logical debate. You apparently have difficulty with understanding what words mean.
> 
> My opinion of your idiocy and a catalogue of my observations of your stupidity is not an example of "unvalidated facts" you retard.
> 
> Do you even know what the topic is? Can you try to stay on point?


Again, pathological projection.

Predictable.


----------



## koshergrl

No. You don't understand the difference between sidebar observations of behavior and the topic of the conversation. No wonder you can't make your point.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you know that I will be referring to this argument if you ever decide to assert "Creation" is evidence of your "Creator" to me. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is all kinds of evidence for intelligent design.
> 
> I can provide evdence for my belief but you on the other hand cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BULLSHIT there is not. the only evidence is for your belief  is belief. you have no empirical quantifiable evidence to prove that the thing or action (intelligent design) believed in exists or happened .
> belief only proves belief nothing more.
Click to expand...


Everything created or invented came into existence by intelligence.

Can you think of any language that came in to existence absent of a mind ? The DNA code is a language did that come into existence by intelligence ?

Can non-intelligence create intelligence ?

Would a natural process be able to think of everything that is needed for life then think of mechanisms to preserve that life ?

How bout this planet that is setup to sustain life is that just a coincedence ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell IS the question? Because that link doesn't take you to one. It just takes you to yet another meandering diatribe about how stupid people are for not accepting his opinion about a variety of different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wants to know the evidence for a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know there's no evidence of your creator. That's not what I asked.
> 
> There's none.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... that allows a rational person to rationalize a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rational people don't rationalize.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can point to all things that are created by the mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Including your Creator, but creating him in your mind doesn't make Him objectively real.
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) your continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
Click to expand...


If that is true people might as well give up on science how else can they come to a conclusion of evidence ?

 the thumbs argument  you brought up is evidence of a designer they call it chirality.

Yeah an unintelligent process would think of that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is the evidence ASSCLOWN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO IT'S NOT.
> 
> I suggest you look up the term "evidence" and "proof". Because that is not any kind of evidence. You might like the opinion, but just because it sounds good to you DOESN'T MAGICALLY TURN IT INTO PROOF.
> 
> What IS the average grade level of you guys? 5th??????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well right after 5th grade is normally when they start teaching about evolution, so I would use that excuse yourself as to why your so ignorant of the subject.
Click to expand...


Really,the only ignorance that has been shown in this thread on the subject has been shown from your side.


----------



## Youwerecreated

bigwern said:


> So are you saying that you dont even believe in a force behind everything in the universe? Do u think that the perfection in the universe all the way from a dying star creating a blackhole and thus beginning a new galaxy down to e. coli symbiotically living in you at this very moment just happens by chance? That there is no force that drove the evolution of the universe to this point u think its basically just a big mistake? Im late but i just wanna kno your overall opinion on that...



Expect no reply for such a tough question from a naturalist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> He won't say what he believes, or do anything except pretend he's operating from some stance of intellectual superiority..without ever providing anything of intellectual substance.
> 
> His and Dragon's entire argument is apparently "There is no God because men have opposable thumbs. That's all the proof you need."
> 
> It's laughable.
> 
> When they get twitted about that, they revert to pretending there are "questions" that haven't been adequately answered and claim they won't address the issue further until the questions (which are never defined) are answered, or they put you on ignore.



 so true. And they can't prove that was the result of a mutation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck! You're the dumbest retard ever!
> 
> The links are good; clear your cache, or just OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's telling that your memory isn't sufficient to just write the question.
> 
> As I said, I assume the question is nonsensical or nonexistent. Particularly since you would rather just post the same non-working link over and over and over, instead of just restating it like a civilized person so we can converse about it.
> 
> Obviously, you aren't interested in the actual topic, even though it is supposedly one of your own determination. Apparently even you have some reservations...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what he is talking about, "Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.".
> 
> To be fair it's really more a request than a question.
Click to expand...


There is none we answered it, it is a matter of faith through rationalizing. It has been answered many times.

He is using it as a smoke screen to avoid questions put to him.


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> It's not a question at all. As I thought. It's bloviation, he's muddying the water by speaking to an argument that has never been made.



But has been answered.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> bigwern said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that you dont even believe in a force behind everything in the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> What force? what do you mean by "behind everything in the universe?"
> 
> 
> 
> bigwern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do u think that the perfection in the universe all the way from a dying star creating a blackhole and thus beginning a new galaxy down to e. coli symbiotically living in you at this very moment just happens by chance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Nor do I believe that Santa Claus made me this "perfect" universe and gave it to me for Christmas.
> 
> 
> 
> bigwern said:
> 
> 
> 
> That there is no force that drove the evolution of the universe to this point u think its basically just a big mistake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I make no such judgments regarding the universe; I can't imagine the means to make that kind of declaration regarding the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> bigwern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im late but i just wanna kno your overall opinion on that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe, based upon the verifiable evidence, that the universe exists and it is what it is. I make no pretense to know, or have special knowledge of, anything (or anyone) that is "beyond" that self-evident truth.
Click to expand...


A rational human being can look at this and wonder what force is behind this.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...&ei=mnbCTvuWO6qhiALy7KXSCw&sqi=2&ved=0CD4QsAQ


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> He won't say what he believes, or do anything except pretend he's operating from some stance of intellectual superiority..without ever providing anything of intellectual substance.
> 
> 
> 
> A patently obvious lie. Typical of dishonest superstitious retards.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> His and Dragon's entire argument is apparently "There is no God because men have opposable thumbs. That's all the proof you need."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, a patenly obvious lie. You'll note this this particular example of dishonest superstitious retard cannot produce a single bit of evidence to support her fatuous claims.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you ARE the joke here.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they get twitted about that, they revert to pretending there are "questions" that haven't been adequately answered and claim they won't address the issue further until the questions (which are never defined) are answered, or they put you on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if this is addressing me, this is just another lie from a retard too stupid or lazy to validate her facts.
Click to expand...


The only deliberate liar or ignorant person here is you. It's pitiful you can't see it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Speaking of chirality can you imagine how useless  my right thumb would be on my left hand and vice versa ?

Or my left arm or leg on my right side and vice versa.

Or my left ear on the right side of my head and vice versa.

How bout my left foot as my right foot and vice versa.

Yeah I guess you get the point of chirality and the evidence of design not by random mutation.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> No. You don't understand the difference between sidebar observations of behavior and the topic of the conversation. No wonder you can't make your point.


No. I understand that you wish to contribute your superstitious senselessness, and you want it to have the respect of sensible contribution, but you do not want your involvement to be subject to validation in reality or perceived as superstitious senselessness.

You're literally no different than every other intellectually dishonest superstitious retard on this planet with a fucking opinion.

You're as meaningless as your beliefs.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is all kinds of evidence for intelligent design.
> 
> I can provide evdence for my belief but you on the other hand cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT there is not. the only evidence is for your belief  is belief. you have no empirical quantifiable evidence to prove that the thing or action (intelligent design) believed in exists or happened .
> belief only proves belief nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything created or invented came into existence by intelligence.
> 
> Can you think of any language that came in to existence absent of a mind ? The DNA code is a language did that come into existence by intelligence ?
> 
> Can non-intelligence create intelligence ?
> 
> Would a natural process be able to think of everything that is needed for life then think of mechanisms to preserve that life ?
> 
> How bout this planet that is setup to sustain life is that just a coincedence ?
Click to expand...

Petitio Principii--The favorite logical fallacy of the superstitious.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wants to know the evidence for a creator.
> 
> 
> 
> I know there's no evidence of your creator. That's not what I asked.
> 
> There's none.
> 
> Rational people don't rationalize.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can point to all things that are created by the mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Including your Creator, but creating him in your mind doesn't make Him objectively real.
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) your continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is true people might as well give up on science how else can they come to a conclusion of evidence ?
Click to expand...

By validating their conclusion with evidence, rather than apply your bullshit practice of validating your evidence with your conclusion.



Youwerecreated said:


> the thumbs argument  you brought up is evidence of a designer they call it chirality.


Perfect example of your bullshit method as described above.



Youwerecreated said:


> Yeah an unintelligent process would think of that.


Evidence of your retarded question-begging, rationalizing paradigm.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> bigwern said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that you dont even believe in a force behind everything in the universe? Do u think that the perfection in the universe all the way from a dying star creating a blackhole and thus beginning a new galaxy down to e. coli symbiotically living in you at this very moment just happens by chance? That there is no force that drove the evolution of the universe to this point u think its basically just a big mistake? Im late but i just wanna kno your overall opinion on that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Expect no reply for such a tough question from a naturalist.
Click to expand...

Expect more pathological projection from this intellectually dishonest superstitious retard.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> He won't say what he believes, or do anything except pretend he's operating from some stance of intellectual superiority..without ever providing anything of intellectual substance.
> 
> His and Dragon's entire argument is apparently "There is no God because men have opposable thumbs. That's all the proof you need."
> 
> It's laughable.
> 
> When they get twitted about that, they revert to pretending there are "questions" that haven't been adequately answered and claim they won't address the issue further until the questions (which are never defined) are answered, or they put you on ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so true. And they can't prove that was the result of a mutation.
Click to expand...

You didn't ask for proof, you asked for evidence. Moving the goal posts is just another logical fallacy that the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards apply to "validate" the superiority of their position.

And you'll get your evidence (as I said you would) too if you manage to engage honestly.

So why don't you level up?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's telling that your memory isn't sufficient to just write the question.
> 
> As I said, I assume the question is nonsensical or nonexistent. Particularly since you would rather just post the same non-working link over and over and over, instead of just restating it like a civilized person so we can converse about it.
> 
> Obviously, you aren't interested in the actual topic, even though it is supposedly one of your own determination. Apparently even you have some reservations...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what he is talking about, "Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this creator that you say is the source of life on this planet.".
> 
> To be fair it's really more a request than a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is none we answered it, it is a matter of faith through rationalizing. It has been answered many times.
Click to expand...

A proven lie.



Youwerecreated said:


> He is using it as a smoke screen to avoid questions put to him.


Another proven lie.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a question at all. As I thought. It's bloviation, he's muddying the water by speaking to an argument that has never been made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But has been answered.
Click to expand...

A proven lie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT there is not. the only evidence is for your belief  is belief. you have no empirical quantifiable evidence to prove that the thing or action (intelligent design) believed in exists or happened .
> belief only proves belief nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything created or invented came into existence by intelligence.
> 
> Can you think of any language that came in to existence absent of a mind ? The DNA code is a language did that come into existence by intelligence ?
> 
> Can non-intelligence create intelligence ?
> 
> Would a natural process be able to think of everything that is needed for life then think of mechanisms to preserve that life ?
> 
> How bout this planet that is setup to sustain life is that just a coincedence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Petitio Principii--The favorite logical fallacy of the superstitious.
Click to expand...


Wrong,the evidence points this out.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigwern said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that you dont even believe in a force behind everything in the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> What force? what do you mean by "behind everything in the universe?"
> 
> Nope. Nor do I believe that Santa Claus made me this "perfect" universe and gave it to me for Christmas.
> 
> I make no such judgments regarding the universe; I can't imagine the means to make that kind of declaration regarding the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> bigwern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im late but i just wanna kno your overall opinion on that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe, based upon the verifiable evidence, that the universe exists and it is what it is. I make no pretense to know, or have special knowledge of, anything (or anyone) that is "beyond" that self-evident truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rational human being can look at this and wonder what force is behind this.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...&ei=mnbCTvuWO6qhiALy7KXSCw&sqi=2&ved=0CD4QsAQ
Click to expand...

I agree.

But it take a superstitious human being to assert that this "force" is their invisible friend.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there's no evidence of your creator. That's not what I asked.
> 
> There's none.
> 
> Rational people don't rationalize.
> 
> Including your Creator, but creating him in your mind doesn't make Him objectively real.
> 
> And, it's worth noting (again) your continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true people might as well give up on science how else can they come to a conclusion of evidence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By validating their conclusion with evidence, rather than apply your bullshit practice of validating your evidence with your conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> the thumbs argument  you brought up is evidence of a designer they call it chirality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect example of your bullshit method as described above.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah an unintelligent process would think of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidence of your retarded question-begging, rationalizing paradigm.
Click to expand...


A conclusion is arrived at through rreasoning on the evidence.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> He won't say what he believes, or do anything except pretend he's operating from some stance of intellectual superiority..without ever providing anything of intellectual substance.
> 
> 
> 
> A patently obvious lie. Typical of dishonest superstitious retards.
> 
> Again, a patenly obvious lie. You'll note this this particular example of dishonest superstitious retard cannot produce a single bit of evidence to support her fatuous claims.
> 
> Well, you ARE the joke here.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they get twitted about that, they revert to pretending there are "questions" that haven't been adequately answered and claim they won't address the issue further until the questions (which are never defined) are answered, or they put you on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if this is addressing me, this is just another lie from a retard too stupid or lazy to validate her facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only deliberate liar or ignorant person here is you. It's pitiful you can't see it.
Click to expand...

Patently obvious pathological projection. I know evidence doesn't mean anything to you in the face of your belief, but the verifable evidence is clear; you're the liar here.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Speaking of chirality can you imagine how useless  my right thumb would be on my left hand and vice versa ?
> 
> Or my left arm or leg on my right side and vice versa.
> 
> Or my left ear on the right side of my head and vice versa.
> 
> How bout my left foot as my right foot and vice versa.
> 
> Yeah I guess you get the point of chirality and the evidence of design not by random mutation.


Petitio principii--the foundation of disingenuous retards.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> He won't say what he believes, or do anything except pretend he's operating from some stance of intellectual superiority..without ever providing anything of intellectual substance.
> 
> His and Dragon's entire argument is apparently "There is no God because men have opposable thumbs. That's all the proof you need."
> 
> It's laughable.
> 
> When they get twitted about that, they revert to pretending there are "questions" that haven't been adequately answered and claim they won't address the issue further until the questions (which are never defined) are answered, or they put you on ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so true. And they can't prove that was the result of a mutation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask for proof, you asked for evidence. Moving the goal posts is just another logical fallacy that the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards apply to "validate" the superiority of their position.
> 
> And you'll get your evidence (as I said you would) too if you manage to engage honestly.
> 
> So why don't you level up?
Click to expand...


Do you have that evidence for the claim you made ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything created or invented came into existence by intelligence.
> 
> Can you think of any language that came in to existence absent of a mind ? The DNA code is a language did that come into existence by intelligence ?
> 
> Can non-intelligence create intelligence ?
> 
> Would a natural process be able to think of everything that is needed for life then think of mechanisms to preserve that life ?
> 
> How bout this planet that is setup to sustain life is that just a coincedence ?
> 
> 
> 
> Petitio Principii--The favorite logical fallacy of the superstitious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong,the evidence points this out.
Click to expand...

What evidence? Your question-begging evidence?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What force? what do you mean by "behind everything in the universe?"
> 
> Nope. Nor do I believe that Santa Claus made me this "perfect" universe and gave it to me for Christmas.
> 
> I make no such judgments regarding the universe; I can't imagine the means to make that kind of declaration regarding the universe.
> 
> I believe, based upon the verifiable evidence, that the universe exists and it is what it is. I make no pretense to know, or have special knowledge of, anything (or anyone) that is "beyond" that self-evident truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A rational human being can look at this and wonder what force is behind this.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...&ei=mnbCTvuWO6qhiALy7KXSCw&sqi=2&ved=0CD4QsAQ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree.
> 
> But it take a superstitious human being to assert that this "force" is their invisible friend.
Click to expand...


So what is the force that put everything in motion and it appears to be a purposeful motion or life on this planet would not exist.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true people might as well give up on science how else can they come to a conclusion of evidence ?
> 
> 
> 
> By validating their conclusion with evidence, rather than apply your bullshit practice of validating your evidence with your conclusion.
> 
> Perfect example of your bullshit method as described above.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah an unintelligent process would think of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidence of your retarded question-begging, rationalizing paradigm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conclusion is arrived at through rreasoning on the evidence.
Click to expand...

I agree. Why don't you give it a try?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> so true. And they can't prove that was the result of a mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't ask for proof, you asked for evidence. Moving the goal posts is just another logical fallacy that the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards apply to "validate" the superiority of their position.
> 
> And you'll get your evidence (as I said you would) too if you manage to engage honestly.
> 
> So why don't you level up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have that evidence for the claim you made ?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A rational human being can look at this and wonder what force is behind this.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...&ei=mnbCTvuWO6qhiALy7KXSCw&sqi=2&ved=0CD4QsAQ
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> But it take a superstitious human being to assert that this "force" is their invisible friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what is the force that put everything in motion and it appears to be a purposeful motion or life on this planet would not exist.
Click to expand...

I'm not certain. The evidence suggests it to be a function of expansion in space/time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of chirality can you imagine how useless  my right thumb would be on my left hand and vice versa ?
> 
> Or my left arm or leg on my right side and vice versa.
> 
> Or my left ear on the right side of my head and vice versa.
> 
> How bout my left foot as my right foot and vice versa.
> 
> Yeah I guess you get the point of chirality and the evidence of design not by random mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> Petitio principii--the foundation of disingenuous retards.
Click to expand...


Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> By validating their conclusion with evidence, rather than apply your bullshit practice of validating your evidence with your conclusion.
> 
> Perfect example of your bullshit method as described above.
> 
> Evidence of your retarded question-begging, rationalizing paradigm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A conclusion is arrived at through rreasoning on the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. Why don't you give it a try?
Click to expand...


That is exactly what I am pointing out to you if i did not try it why would I suggest using it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't ask for proof, you asked for evidence. Moving the goal posts is just another logical fallacy that the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards apply to "validate" the superiority of their position.
> 
> And you'll get your evidence (as I said you would) too if you manage to engage honestly.
> 
> So why don't you level up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have that evidence for the claim you made ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely.
Click to expand...


Present it ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have that evidence for the claim you made ?
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Present it ?
Click to expand...

You know the deal, it's been presented often and clearly enough. Put up or shut up.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO IT'S NOT.
> 
> I suggest you look up the term "evidence" and "proof". Because that is not any kind of evidence. You might like the opinion, but just because it sounds good to you DOESN'T MAGICALLY TURN IT INTO PROOF.
> 
> What IS the average grade level of you guys? 5th??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well right after 5th grade is normally when they start teaching about evolution, so I would use that excuse yourself as to why your so ignorant of the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really,the only ignorance that has been shown in this thread on the subject has been shown from your side.
Click to expand...


Who's ignorance was it that caused him to make the claim that scientists say humans evolved from chimps?

Was that ignorance from an ignorant science denier?

Or was that the ignorance from a person who accepts science?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Present it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know the deal, it's been presented often and clearly enough. Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...


Hmm, you claim to have evidence to support your claim but you won't present it. What does that cause a person to think of you and your argument ?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Present it ?
> 
> 
> 
> You know the deal, it's been presented often and clearly enough. Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, you claim to have evidence to support your claim but you won't present it. What does that cause a person to think of you and your argument ?
Click to expand...


Stop pretending you care if people provide evidence that proves you wrong, I already provided a link that proved your assessment of mutations wrong.  A scientific experiment that produced a beneficial mutation in a lab was provided to you in a link, you ignored it of course because it went against your pre-molded assumptions.

Why you want to have these discussions, and filter out the stuff you don't want to hear, is confusing to me.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of chirality can you imagine how useless  my right thumb would be on my left hand and vice versa ?
> 
> Or my left arm or leg on my right side and vice versa.
> 
> Or my left ear on the right side of my head and vice versa.
> 
> How bout my left foot as my right foot and vice versa.
> 
> Yeah I guess you get the point of chirality and the evidence of design not by random mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> Petitio principii--the foundation of disingenuous retards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?
Click to expand...

I don't accept your question-begging presumption. I don't assert and have never even implied that "a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears, arms, legs, hands, and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use."

Just for a change of pace, why don't you ask for an explanation of what your opponents actually assert, rather than the strawman assertions you assign to them?


----------



## Dr.Drock

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Petitio principii--the foundation of disingenuous retards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't accept your question-begging presumption. I don't assert and have never even implied that "a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears, arms, legs, hands, and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use."
> 
> Just for a change of pace, why don't you ask for an explanation of what your opponents actually assert, rather than the strawman assertions you assign to them?
Click to expand...


Yeah he's trying to load god into his question, and get you to answer a question with god in it which would cause a built in assumption that you believe in god.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A conclusion is arrived at through rreasoning on the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Why don't you give it a try?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly what I am pointing out to you if i did not try it why would I suggest using it ?
Click to expand...

You have admitted that you don't do this--you have been very clear about this; you have your conclusion, and competing theories do not have sufficient certainty of "proof" to overcome your certainty (without proof) of your conclusion. You validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence), and every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Present it ?
> 
> 
> 
> You know the deal, it's been presented often and clearly enough. Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, you claim to have evidence to support your claim but you won't present it.
Click to expand...

This is a lie. And it is pathological projection.

With the exception of this last request, I have accommodated every one of your requests for evidence explanation, etc...; I have proven this. I have also proven that you have NOT responded to the one request for explanation I have made of you.

I made it abundantly clear: Youwerecreated,

You claim that through evidence and logic, you can support your assertion that life was created and hence, you can support your assertion of a Creator.

Further, if you if you categorically reject any notion that life can arise from non-living origins, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet.

Do this, and as I said I would, I will submit, as you requested, evidence that opposable thumbs in humans are a result of mutation.​


Youwerecreated said:


> What does that cause a person to think of you and your argument ?


That I am dealing with you honestly as usual, and that you're still an intellectually dishonest retard.


----------



## koshergrl

What complete gobbledygook.


----------



## LOki

Dr.Drock said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't accept your question-begging presumption. I don't assert and have never even implied that "a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears, arms, legs, hands, and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use."
> 
> Just for a change of pace, why don't you ask for an explanation of what your opponents actually assert, rather than the strawman assertions you assign to them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah he's trying to load god into his question, and get you to answer a question with god in it which would cause a built in assumption that you believe in god.
Click to expand...

Of course.

These superstitious retards have no verifiable evidence to support their logically fallacious assertions. Everything they want "proof" of always requires accepting their unfounded presumptions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well right after 5th grade is normally when they start teaching about evolution, so I would use that excuse yourself as to why your so ignorant of the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really,the only ignorance that has been shown in this thread on the subject has been shown from your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's ignorance was it that caused him to make the claim that scientists say humans evolved from chimps?
> 
> Was that ignorance from an ignorant science denier?
> 
> Or was that the ignorance from a person who accepts science?
Click to expand...


Hmm funny read for you.


Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He's a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity


Richard Sternberg May 14, 2009 11:06 AM | Permalink



I am often struck by how the topic of evolution in general, and chimp/human ancestry in particular, can be an immediate conversation opener that just as quickly becomes a conversation closer. Mind you, I don't go around buttonholing people at, say, my favorite lounge (this music will conjure up the atmosphere) about some phylogenetic arcana -- at least, I try not to do so. But for some strange reason, there exist individuals of good will who apparently feel called upon to "raise my consciousness" about some Darwinian facts that I've presumably gotten wrong. Not just a bit wrong, but astoundingly wrong. You see, to their way of thinking, I am in dire need of reeducation and they are there to charitably point the way to "help." 

Here is an example of how "chats" like the one I'm talking about begin. After I have been formally introduced (though sometimes not) to an emissary of enlightenment, my just-made acquaintance proceeds to ask whether I've read a certain book (title withheld) that purportedly shows four things: We are 99% chimp; our chromosomes contain "scars" that are shared with those of our simian cousins; the DNA scars, like 98.5% of our genome, are simply junk; and these facts change everything we "know" about God. In response I invariably say, "How interesting," with a wan smile followed by, "Oh, sure, I've read parts of it." For me this is a taxing turn in the conversation for I must all at once feign attention, ask the bartender for another drink, and work to suppress my desire to bolt out the door. Sensing my unease, my new friend usually seems to read my restlessness as one of intellectual discomfort -- possibly fear. Anyhow, seeing me as the quarry, he leans in and expounds on each of the topics, his eyes glinting throughout with the impression that he is surrounding me via a four-pronged conceptual assault, a two-pincer strategy. (All the while, I am praising the heavenly host for the warm irreducible complexity of scotch.)

Then a lull in the barrage occurs. To his way of thinking, it is my guess, an opportunity is being provided for me to offer an unconditional surrender; or, at the very least, for me to acknowledge that pieces like the one just published in the Scientific American (Katherine S. Pollard, "What Makes Us Human? Comparisons of the genomes of humans and chimpanzees are revealing those rare stretches of DNA that are ours alone," April 20, 2009) are right when they assert that "our DNA blueprints are nearly 99 percent identical" to the sequences of chimps. Awaiting the white flag, my conversation partner will now sometimes try to emphasize that I have been at the receiving end of a coup de grÃ¢ce, 


By the way, this is the apogee or climax of the conversation. It is strictly downward from here on. But at such a critical juncture I proffer no surrender and, indeed, I mount a counter-offensive. Yes, yes, I know: The audacity...the rudeness. Whether my attempts to make my case are ever successful is unknown for my responses sooner or later elicit an abrupt termination of discourse. Regardless, my turn at the conversation goes something like this...

One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. "Relative differences: The myth of 1%," Science 316: 1836.). Part of the reason for this is if one decides to take into account the plethora of species-specific DNA insertions and deletions ("indels") that are present along any segment compared between chimp and human, the percentage of identity drops. Another reason is that duplications, inversions, translocations, and transpositions at all scales uniquely characterize the two genome sequences -- these have to be untangled before aligning the sequences in order to measure their similarity. Also, the 99% identity figure is often derived from protein-coding regions that only comprise about 1.5% of the two genomes. Many mammalian protein-coding regions are highly conserved, however. We also have to consider that a detailed comparison of certain "heterochromatic" chromosome regions between chimps and humans has yet to be made. In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors.

As I continue in this vein, I notice that I am being given the universal gesture of "Wow, look at the time...it's really getting late...I'd love to pursue this matter further but I have better things to do..." by my interlocutor: He keeps staring at his watch and asking the bartender for the time. Since I'm now getting warmed up, I lean in and suggest to him that he should try his own chimp-human alignments and not take so-and-so's word for it -- after all, the sequences are publicly available. Why trust authority? (I can tell from his sandals and ponytail that this late 1960s reference will appeal to him.) But he has to make a parting shot and so, after commenting that only creationists are as recalcitrant to logic as I seem to be, he presents to me the ultimate criterion of truth, the standard by which I have failed. That criterion, the one I missed in school, comes through in a single sentence he utters: "Everything you just said, well, I have never heard this before." Taken aback and after I request that he repeat what I just heard, my now peeved acquaintance tells me (holding up his book) that since he has never read in his trusted sources that DNA sequence comparisons often require complicated alignments, that the data are filtered through software algorithms that in turn rest on a priori assumptions, etc., he must dismiss my first salvo.

He tallies the intellectual score as 4-0 in his favor.

At this break, three things happen. The bartender receives my nod that I want another drink and then, after he places it before me, I inquire as to whether he can play anything by Ethel Ennis -- I now want to listen to something languorous, music that will soothe the feeling of ennui that has come over me. Next, or simultaneously, my sparring partner makes one of two moves. Either he places his book into his hand-woven Inca-nesque bag and leaves without so much as a farewell, or he decides to tarry a bit longer and says, "You have no answer for ITSs, do you?"

ITSs...interstitial telomeric sequences...the chromosome scars, the pieces of junk DNA he was lecturing me about earlier. As you know, telomeres are the ends of chromosomes. In many species, including chimps and humans, the DNA sequences that are found at these genomic tips are tandem repetitions of TTAGGG. That's right...TTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG...over and over and over again. A notable exception to this rule is the fruit fly, an organism that in this regard has provided the junk DNA notion no succor, since its telomeres have complex combinations of three different retrotransposons instead of those six-basepair units. What is important to note, though, is that telomeric sequences are essential to the cell, and it seems that hardly a week does not pass without some new role being discovered for these elements. 

How, precisely, are miles and miles of TTAGGG of significance? From the standpoint of chromosome architecture, the repetitive elements en masse have the propensity to form complicated topologies such as quadruplex DNA. These sequences or, rather, topographies are also bound by a host of chromatin proteins and particular RNAs to generate a unique "suborganelle" -- for the lack of better term -- at each end. As a matter of fact, the chromatin organization of telomeres can silence genes and has been linked to epigenetic modes of inheritance in yeast and fruit flies. Furthermore, different classes of transcripts emanate from telomeres and their flanking repetitive DNA regions, which are involved in various and sundry cellular and developmental operations.

I try to outline all the functions of telomeric repeats, but my friend tells me that I am getting off the subject.

He wants to me to focus on the ITSs, the tracks of the hexamer TTAGGG that reside within chromosome arms or around the centromere, not at the ends. I tell him that I was just coming to that topic. The story, you see, is that in the lineage leading up (or down, I forget which) to chimps and humans, a fusion of chromosome ends occurred -- two telomeres became stuck together, the DNA was stitched together, and now we find the remnants of this event on the inside of chromosomes. And to be fair, I concede at this point that the 2q13 ITS site shared by chimps and humans can be considered a synapomorphy, a five-dollar cladistic term meaning a genetic marker that the two species share. As this is said, it is apparent that the countenance of my acquaintance lightens a bit only to darken a second later. For I follow up by saying that of all the known ITSs, and there are many in the genomes of chimps and humans, as well as mice and rats and cows..., the 2q13 ITS is the only one that can be associated with an evolutionary breakpoint or fusion. The other ITSs, I hasten to add, do not square up with chromosomal breakpoints in primates (FarrÃ© M, PonsÃ  M, Bosch M. 2009. "Interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints in primates," Cytogenetic and Genome Research 124(2): 128-131.). In brief, to hone in on the 2q13 ITS as being typical of what we see in the human and chimp genomes seems almost like cherry-picking data. Most are not DNA scars in the way they have been portrayed.

Exasperated with my stubbornness, the caffeine from innumerable herbal teas having only enhanced his tension, he rises from the bar and asks: "How, then, do you account for such ITSs in the first place...everyone knows they are out-of-place junk." I tell him that I do have an answer but that first I must be excused for a moment. While making my way back to the bar, I mentally rehearse so as to be as succinct as possible. My rejoinders are, simply, that ITSs reflect sites where TTAGGG repeats have been added to chromosomes by telomerases, that these repeats are moreover engineered -- literally synthesized by the telomerase machinery, that ITSs have a telomere-like chromatin organization and are associated with distinct sets of proteins, and that many have been linked to roles such a recombination hotspots. And just as I begin to reflect on where the references are in my bag that supports those points I notice...he is gone.

Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He's a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity - Evolution News & Views


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> What complete gobbledygook.


Typical denial of verifiable reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the deal, it's been presented often and clearly enough. Put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, you claim to have evidence to support your claim but you won't present it. What does that cause a person to think of you and your argument ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop pretending you care if people provide evidence that proves you wrong, I already provided a link that proved your assessment of mutations wrong.  A scientific experiment that produced a beneficial mutation in a lab was provided to you in a link, you ignored it of course because it went against your pre-molded assumptions.
> 
> Why you want to have these discussions, and filter out the stuff you don't want to hear, is confusing to me.
Click to expand...


DR. Spetner took care of your argument if you read and understood what he said.

I don't think it is wrong to ask him to back up his claim with evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Petitio principii--the foundation of disingenuous retards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't accept your question-begging presumption. I don't assert and have never even implied that "a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears, arms, legs, hands, and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use."
> 
> Just for a change of pace, why don't you ask for an explanation of what your opponents actually assert, rather than the strawman assertions you assign to them?
Click to expand...


Then the alernative is intelligent design which is what we see with every complex product.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the deal, it's been presented often and clearly enough. Put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, you claim to have evidence to support your claim but you won't present it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie. And it is pathological projection.
> 
> With the exception of this last request, I have accommodated every one of your requests for evidence explanation, etc...; I have proven this. I have also proven that you have NOT responded to the one request for explanation I have made of you.
> 
> I made it abundantly clear: Youwerecreated,
> 
> You claim that through evidence and logic, you can support your assertion that life was created and hence, you can support your assertion of a Creator.
> 
> Further, if you if you categorically reject any notion that life can arise from non-living origins, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Do this, and as I said I would, I will submit, as you requested, evidence that opposable thumbs in humans are a result of mutation.​
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that cause a person to think of you and your argument ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That I am dealing with you honestly as usual, and that you're still an intellectually dishonest retard.
Click to expand...


Look I am not gonna do link chasing put it here for us to read copy and paste if you must.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What complete gobbledygook.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical denial of verifiable reality.
Click to expand...


Oh boy i clicked on your link and it did not present your argument just copy and paste it so we can see the full argument.

I want to point out all the flaws.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, you claim to have evidence to support your claim but you won't present it.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie. And it is pathological projection.
> 
> With the exception of this last request, I have accommodated every one of your requests for evidence explanation, etc...; I have proven this. I have also proven that you have NOT responded to the one request for explanation I have made of you.
> 
> I made it abundantly clear: Youwerecreated,
> 
> You claim that through evidence and logic, you can support your assertion that life was created and hence, you can support your assertion of a Creator.
> 
> Further, if you if you categorically reject any notion that life can arise from non-living origins, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Do this, and as I said I would, I will submit, as you requested, evidence that opposable thumbs in humans are a result of mutation.​
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that cause a person to think of you and your argument ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That I am dealing with you honestly as usual, and that you're still an intellectually dishonest retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look I am not gonna do link chasing put it here for us to read copy and paste if you must.
Click to expand...

It's right there you fucking retard! You and koshergrl both are such disingenuous deniers of reality.

But fine. I'll accommodate you one more time, fucktard.*Youwerecreated,

You claim that through evidence and logic, you can support your assertion that life was created and hence, you can support your assertion of a Creator.

Further, if you categorically reject any notion that life can arise from non-living origins, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet.

Do this, and as I said I would, I will submit, as you requested, evidence that opposable thumbs in humans are a result of mutation.​*

You think you can find it this time, retard?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Present it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know the deal, it's been presented often and clearly enough. Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...


I clicked your link and saw nothing supporting your claim that a mutation caused chirality.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie. And it is pathological projection.
> 
> With the exception of this last request, I have accommodated every one of your requests for evidence explanation, etc...; I have proven this. I have also proven that you have NOT responded to the one request for explanation I have made of you.
> 
> I made it abundantly clear: Youwerecreated,
> 
> You claim that through evidence and logic, you can support your assertion that life was created and hence, you can support your assertion of a Creator.
> 
> Further, if you if you categorically reject any notion that life can arise from non-living origins, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Do this, and as I said I would, I will submit, as you requested, evidence that opposable thumbs in humans are a result of mutation.​
> That I am dealing with you honestly as usual, and that you're still an intellectually dishonest retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look I am not gonna do link chasing put it here for us to read copy and paste if you must.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's right there you fucking retard! You and koshergrl both are such disingenuous deniers of reality.
> 
> But fine. I'll accommodate you one more time, fucktard.*Youwerecreated,
> 
> You claim that through evidence and logic, you can support your assertion that life was created and hence, you can support your assertion of a Creator.
> 
> Further, if you categorically reject any notion that life can arise from non-living origins, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Do this, and as I said I would, I will submit, as you requested, evidence that opposable thumbs in humans are a result of mutation.​*
> 
> You think you can find it this time, retard?
Click to expand...


I have been pointing out to you evidence of design. Evidence of design is evidence of God the creator.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What complete gobbledygook.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical denial of verifiable reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy i clicked on your link and it did not present your argument just copy and paste it so we can see the full argument.
> 
> I want to point out all the flaws.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur much, retard?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look I am not gonna do link chasing put it here for us to read copy and paste if you must.
> 
> 
> 
> It's right there you fucking retard! You and koshergrl both are such disingenuous deniers of reality.
> 
> But fine. I'll accommodate you one more time, fucktard.Youwerecreated,
> 
> You claim that through evidence and logic, you can support your assertion that life was created and hence, you can support your assertion of a Creator.
> 
> Further, if you categorically reject any notion that life can arise from non-living origins, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Do this, and as I said I would, I will submit, as you requested, evidence that opposable thumbs in humans are a result of mutation.​
> You think you can find it this time, retard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been pointing out to you evidence of design.
Click to expand...

No you haven't.

And ... you have not provided your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet, as I have so clearly and abundantly requested.

I can see you have clearly capitulated.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look I am not gonna do link chasing put it here for us to read copy and paste if you must.
> 
> 
> 
> It's right there you fucking retard! You and koshergrl both are such disingenuous deniers of reality.
> 
> But fine. I'll accommodate you one more time, fucktard.Youwerecreated,
> 
> You claim that through evidence and logic, you can support your assertion that life was created and hence, you can support your assertion of a Creator.
> 
> Further, if you categorically reject any notion that life can arise from non-living origins, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Do this, and as I said I would, I will submit, as you requested, evidence that opposable thumbs in humans are a result of mutation.​
> You think you can find it this time, retard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been pointing out to you evidence of design. Evidence of design is evidence of God the creator.
Click to expand...

Petitio principii--your game is over, son.  You lost.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Present it ?
> 
> 
> 
> You know the deal, it's been presented often and clearly enough. Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I clicked your link and saw nothing supporting your claim that a mutation caused chirality.
Click to expand...

I made no such claim. It's not surprising then that any link I would provide would point to such a claim. You still have an opportunity to put up or just shut up.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really,the only ignorance that has been shown in this thread on the subject has been shown from your side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's ignorance was it that caused him to make the claim that scientists say humans evolved from chimps?
> 
> Was that ignorance from an ignorant science denier?
> 
> Or was that the ignorance from a person who accepts science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm funny read for you.
> 
> 
> Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He's a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity
> 
> 
> Richard Sternberg May 14, 2009 11:06 AM | Permalink
> 
> 
> 
> I am often struck by how the topic of evolution in general, and chimp/human ancestry in particular, can be an immediate conversation opener that just as quickly becomes a conversation closer. Mind you, I don't go around buttonholing people at, say, my favorite lounge (this music will conjure up the atmosphere) about some phylogenetic arcana -- at least, I try not to do so. But for some strange reason, there exist individuals of good will who apparently feel called upon to "raise my consciousness" about some Darwinian facts that I've presumably gotten wrong. Not just a bit wrong, but astoundingly wrong. You see, to their way of thinking, I am in dire need of reeducation and they are there to charitably point the way to "help."
> 
> Here is an example of how "chats" like the one I'm talking about begin. After I have been formally introduced (though sometimes not) to an emissary of enlightenment, my just-made acquaintance proceeds to ask whether I've read a certain book (title withheld) that purportedly shows four things: We are 99% chimp; our chromosomes contain "scars" that are shared with those of our simian cousins; the DNA scars, like 98.5% of our genome, are simply junk; and these facts change everything we "know" about God. In response I invariably say, "How interesting," with a wan smile followed by, "Oh, sure, I've read parts of it." For me this is a taxing turn in the conversation for I must all at once feign attention, ask the bartender for another drink, and work to suppress my desire to bolt out the door. Sensing my unease, my new friend usually seems to read my restlessness as one of intellectual discomfort -- possibly fear. Anyhow, seeing me as the quarry, he leans in and expounds on each of the topics, his eyes glinting throughout with the impression that he is surrounding me via a four-pronged conceptual assault, a two-pincer strategy. (All the while, I am praising the heavenly host for the warm irreducible complexity of scotch.)
> 
> Then a lull in the barrage occurs. To his way of thinking, it is my guess, an opportunity is being provided for me to offer an unconditional surrender; or, at the very least, for me to acknowledge that pieces like the one just published in the Scientific American (Katherine S. Pollard, "What Makes Us Human? Comparisons of the genomes of humans and chimpanzees are revealing those rare stretches of DNA that are ours alone," April 20, 2009) are right when they assert that "our DNA blueprints are nearly 99 percent identical" to the sequences of chimps. Awaiting the white flag, my conversation partner will now sometimes try to emphasize that I have been at the receiving end of a coup de grÃ¢ce,
> 
> 
> By the way, this is the apogee or climax of the conversation. It is strictly downward from here on. But at such a critical juncture I proffer no surrender and, indeed, I mount a counter-offensive. Yes, yes, I know: The audacity...the rudeness. Whether my attempts to make my case are ever successful is unknown for my responses sooner or later elicit an abrupt termination of discourse. Regardless, my turn at the conversation goes something like this...
> 
> One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. "Relative differences: The myth of 1%," Science 316: 1836.). Part of the reason for this is if one decides to take into account the plethora of species-specific DNA insertions and deletions ("indels") that are present along any segment compared between chimp and human, the percentage of identity drops. Another reason is that duplications, inversions, translocations, and transpositions at all scales uniquely characterize the two genome sequences -- these have to be untangled before aligning the sequences in order to measure their similarity. Also, the 99% identity figure is often derived from protein-coding regions that only comprise about 1.5% of the two genomes. Many mammalian protein-coding regions are highly conserved, however. We also have to consider that a detailed comparison of certain "heterochromatic" chromosome regions between chimps and humans has yet to be made. In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors.
> 
> As I continue in this vein, I notice that I am being given the universal gesture of "Wow, look at the time...it's really getting late...I'd love to pursue this matter further but I have better things to do..." by my interlocutor: He keeps staring at his watch and asking the bartender for the time. Since I'm now getting warmed up, I lean in and suggest to him that he should try his own chimp-human alignments and not take so-and-so's word for it -- after all, the sequences are publicly available. Why trust authority? (I can tell from his sandals and ponytail that this late 1960s reference will appeal to him.) But he has to make a parting shot and so, after commenting that only creationists are as recalcitrant to logic as I seem to be, he presents to me the ultimate criterion of truth, the standard by which I have failed. That criterion, the one I missed in school, comes through in a single sentence he utters: "Everything you just said, well, I have never heard this before." Taken aback and after I request that he repeat what I just heard, my now peeved acquaintance tells me (holding up his book) that since he has never read in his trusted sources that DNA sequence comparisons often require complicated alignments, that the data are filtered through software algorithms that in turn rest on a priori assumptions, etc., he must dismiss my first salvo.
> 
> He tallies the intellectual score as 4-0 in his favor.
> 
> At this break, three things happen. The bartender receives my nod that I want another drink and then, after he places it before me, I inquire as to whether he can play anything by Ethel Ennis -- I now want to listen to something languorous, music that will soothe the feeling of ennui that has come over me. Next, or simultaneously, my sparring partner makes one of two moves. Either he places his book into his hand-woven Inca-nesque bag and leaves without so much as a farewell, or he decides to tarry a bit longer and says, "You have no answer for ITSs, do you?"
> 
> ITSs...interstitial telomeric sequences...the chromosome scars, the pieces of junk DNA he was lecturing me about earlier. As you know, telomeres are the ends of chromosomes. In many species, including chimps and humans, the DNA sequences that are found at these genomic tips are tandem repetitions of TTAGGG. That's right...TTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG...over and over and over again. A notable exception to this rule is the fruit fly, an organism that in this regard has provided the junk DNA notion no succor, since its telomeres have complex combinations of three different retrotransposons instead of those six-basepair units. What is important to note, though, is that telomeric sequences are essential to the cell, and it seems that hardly a week does not pass without some new role being discovered for these elements.
> 
> How, precisely, are miles and miles of TTAGGG of significance? From the standpoint of chromosome architecture, the repetitive elements en masse have the propensity to form complicated topologies such as quadruplex DNA. These sequences or, rather, topographies are also bound by a host of chromatin proteins and particular RNAs to generate a unique "suborganelle" -- for the lack of better term -- at each end. As a matter of fact, the chromatin organization of telomeres can silence genes and has been linked to epigenetic modes of inheritance in yeast and fruit flies. Furthermore, different classes of transcripts emanate from telomeres and their flanking repetitive DNA regions, which are involved in various and sundry cellular and developmental operations.
> 
> I try to outline all the functions of telomeric repeats, but my friend tells me that I am getting off the subject.
> 
> He wants to me to focus on the ITSs, the tracks of the hexamer TTAGGG that reside within chromosome arms or around the centromere, not at the ends. I tell him that I was just coming to that topic. The story, you see, is that in the lineage leading up (or down, I forget which) to chimps and humans, a fusion of chromosome ends occurred -- two telomeres became stuck together, the DNA was stitched together, and now we find the remnants of this event on the inside of chromosomes. And to be fair, I concede at this point that the 2q13 ITS site shared by chimps and humans can be considered a synapomorphy, a five-dollar cladistic term meaning a genetic marker that the two species share. As this is said, it is apparent that the countenance of my acquaintance lightens a bit only to darken a second later. For I follow up by saying that of all the known ITSs, and there are many in the genomes of chimps and humans, as well as mice and rats and cows..., the 2q13 ITS is the only one that can be associated with an evolutionary breakpoint or fusion. The other ITSs, I hasten to add, do not square up with chromosomal breakpoints in primates (FarrÃ© M, PonsÃ  M, Bosch M. 2009. "Interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints in primates," Cytogenetic and Genome Research 124(2): 128-131.). In brief, to hone in on the 2q13 ITS as being typical of what we see in the human and chimp genomes seems almost like cherry-picking data. Most are not DNA scars in the way they have been portrayed.
> 
> Exasperated with my stubbornness, the caffeine from innumerable herbal teas having only enhanced his tension, he rises from the bar and asks: "How, then, do you account for such ITSs in the first place...everyone knows they are out-of-place junk." I tell him that I do have an answer but that first I must be excused for a moment. While making my way back to the bar, I mentally rehearse so as to be as succinct as possible. My rejoinders are, simply, that ITSs reflect sites where TTAGGG repeats have been added to chromosomes by telomerases, that these repeats are moreover engineered -- literally synthesized by the telomerase machinery, that ITSs have a telomere-like chromatin organization and are associated with distinct sets of proteins, and that many have been linked to roles such a recombination hotspots. And just as I begin to reflect on where the references are in my bag that supports those points I notice...he is gone.
> 
> Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He's a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity - Evolution News & Views
Click to expand...


*"simian cousins"*

Thank you for providing another link that agrees with me and another link that shows how ignorant you were being when you stated that scientists say humans evolved from chimps?

The next step is getting you to admit that you have the ignorance that your links say you have.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, you claim to have evidence to support your claim but you won't present it. What does that cause a person to think of you and your argument ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop pretending you care if people provide evidence that proves you wrong, I already provided a link that proved your assessment of mutations wrong.  A scientific experiment that produced a beneficial mutation in a lab was provided to you in a link, you ignored it of course because it went against your pre-molded assumptions.
> 
> Why you want to have these discussions, and filter out the stuff you don't want to hear, is confusing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DR. Spetner took care of your argument if you read and understood what he said.
> 
> I don't think it is wrong to ask him to back up his claim with evidence.
Click to expand...


No he didn't, his stupid assessment that mutations can't be beneficial was proven wrong by the experiment, and many others I'm sure.

But what I'm saying is you don't look at people's proof when it says something you don't want to hear, so why do you ask for proof when you don't even acknowledge or click on it?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Your sides main argument is DNA similarity that everything is related to each other but that is supporting what the bible states.

24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.

The term earth represents dry ground.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

Gen 18:27  Abraham answered, "I am nothing more than the dust of the earth. Please forgive me, LORD, for daring to speak to you like this. 

Gen 3:19  In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return. 

So if all things came from the ground would that not show support for DNA similarity ?

But the information in the DNA shows large diversity why ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's right there you fucking retard! You and koshergrl both are such disingenuous deniers of reality.
> 
> But fine. I'll accommodate you one more time, fucktard.Youwerecreated,
> 
> You claim that through evidence and logic, you can support your assertion that life was created and hence, you can support your assertion of a Creator.
> 
> Further, if you categorically reject any notion that life can arise from non-living origins, provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Do this, and as I said I would, I will submit, as you requested, evidence that opposable thumbs in humans are a result of mutation.​
> You think you can find it this time, retard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been pointing out to you evidence of design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you haven't.
> 
> And ... you have not provided your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet, as I have so clearly and abundantly requested.
> 
> I can see you have clearly capitulated.
Click to expand...


Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.

I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.

Now present your evidence.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Your sides main argument is DNA similarity that everything is related to each other but that is supporting what the bible states.
> 
> 24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.
> 
> The term earth represents dry ground.
> 
> 25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.
> 
> Gen 18:27  Abraham answered, "I am nothing more than the dust of the earth. Please forgive me, LORD, for daring to speak to you like this.
> 
> Gen 3:19  In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.
> 
> So if all things came from the ground would that not show support for DNA similarity ?
> 
> But the information in the DNA shows large diversity why ?



We don't have a "main argument", DNA is a piece of the evidence of evolution but there's many many pieces of evidence of evolution.  

Like I already showed you with these quotes, kind can mean he's the guiding hand behind evolution.  It doesn't say every species stayed the same.

All things comes from the ground could be interpretted to mean elements on the ground are what started live and evolved into the plants and animals we see today.

You don't have to take the science-hating side, you can believe your Bible without sounding like a crazy fundamentalist kook, most christians take the sane side and they embrace science.  But you choose to sound like a kook for whatever reason.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop pretending you care if people provide evidence that proves you wrong, I already provided a link that proved your assessment of mutations wrong.  A scientific experiment that produced a beneficial mutation in a lab was provided to you in a link, you ignored it of course because it went against your pre-molded assumptions.
> 
> Why you want to have these discussions, and filter out the stuff you don't want to hear, is confusing to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DR. Spetner took care of your argument if you read and understood what he said.
> 
> I don't think it is wrong to ask him to back up his claim with evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he didn't, his stupid assessment that mutations can't be beneficial was proven wrong by the experiment, and many others I'm sure.
> 
> But what I'm saying is you don't look at people's proof when it says something you don't want to hear, so why do you ask for proof when you don't even acknowledge or click on it?
Click to expand...


Evidently you did not read what he stated you are lying.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been pointing out to you evidence of design.
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't.
> 
> And ... you have not provided your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet, as I have so clearly and abundantly requested.
> 
> I can see you have clearly capitulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.
> 
> I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.
> 
> Now present your evidence.
Click to expand...


No, you take a man's word for what he says god said, then all the interpretations over thousands of years.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your sides main argument is DNA similarity that everything is related to each other but that is supporting what the bible states.
> 
> 24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.
> 
> The term earth represents dry ground.
> 
> 25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.
> 
> Gen 18:27  Abraham answered, "I am nothing more than the dust of the earth. Please forgive me, LORD, for daring to speak to you like this.
> 
> Gen 3:19  In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.
> 
> So if all things came from the ground would that not show support for DNA similarity ?
> 
> But the information in the DNA shows large diversity why ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have a "main argument", DNA is a piece of the evidence of evolution but there's many many pieces of evidence of evolution.
> 
> Like I already showed you with these quotes, kind can mean he's the guiding hand behind evolution.  It doesn't say every species stayed the same.
> 
> All things comes from the ground could be interpretted to mean elements on the ground are what started live and evolved into the plants and animals we see today.
> 
> You don't have to take the science-hating side, you can believe your Bible without sounding like a crazy fundamentalist kook, most christians take the sane side and they embrace science.  But you choose to sound like a kook for whatever reason.
Click to expand...


How do you get around this ?

26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."  
27. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> DR. Spetner took care of your argument if you read and understood what he said.
> 
> I don't think it is wrong to ask him to back up his claim with evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn't, his stupid assessment that mutations can't be beneficial was proven wrong by the experiment, and many others I'm sure.
> 
> But what I'm saying is you don't look at people's proof when it says something you don't want to hear, so why do you ask for proof when you don't even acknowledge or click on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently you did not read what he stated you are lying.
Click to expand...


His jibberish is that beneficial mutations can't affect a large population, which my link with the experiment already proved was pure hysterical lunacy.  It wasn't "theorized" to be wrong, it was proven wrong in a lab.

He's a nutjob who tells you what you want to hear, so you lap it up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't.
> 
> And ... you have not provided your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet, as I have so clearly and abundantly requested.
> 
> I can see you have clearly capitulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.
> 
> I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.
> 
> Now present your evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you take a man's word for what he says god said, then all the interpretations over thousands of years.
Click to expand...



I have given many reasons why i trust the bible. But you accuse me of something you do yourself taking the word of men who claim your relatives are chimps.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your sides main argument is DNA similarity that everything is related to each other but that is supporting what the bible states.
> 
> 24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.
> 
> The term earth represents dry ground.
> 
> 25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.
> 
> Gen 18:27  Abraham answered, "I am nothing more than the dust of the earth. Please forgive me, LORD, for daring to speak to you like this.
> 
> Gen 3:19  In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.
> 
> So if all things came from the ground would that not show support for DNA similarity ?
> 
> But the information in the DNA shows large diversity why ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have a "main argument", DNA is a piece of the evidence of evolution but there's many many pieces of evidence of evolution.
> 
> Like I already showed you with these quotes, kind can mean he's the guiding hand behind evolution.  It doesn't say every species stayed the same.
> 
> All things comes from the ground could be interpretted to mean elements on the ground are what started live and evolved into the plants and animals we see today.
> 
> You don't have to take the science-hating side, you can believe your Bible without sounding like a crazy fundamentalist kook, most christians take the sane side and they embrace science.  But you choose to sound like a kook for whatever reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you get around this ?
> 
> 26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."
> 27. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them
Click to expand...


Doesn't say how long it took him to create man, most christians I hear say a day to God isn't the same as a day to man.  

So you could interpret it to mean, according to man's time it took billions of years to finish creating our current species with how he used his guiding hand in evolution.

See, still didn't have to deny science.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.
> 
> I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.
> 
> Now present your evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you take a man's word for what he says god said, then all the interpretations over thousands of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have given many reasons why i trust the bible. But you accuse me of something you do yourself taking the word of men who claim your relatives are chimps.
Click to expand...


Who wrote the Bible?  Men

Who rewrote it over thousands of years?  Men

Who translanted it over and over again to new languages thought up by men?  Men


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn't, his stupid assessment that mutations can't be beneficial was proven wrong by the experiment, and many others I'm sure.
> 
> But what I'm saying is you don't look at people's proof when it says something you don't want to hear, so why do you ask for proof when you don't even acknowledge or click on it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently you did not read what he stated you are lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His jibberish is that beneficial mutations can't affect a large population, which my link with the experiment already proved was pure hysterical lunacy.  It wasn't "theorized" to be wrong, it was proven wrong in a lab.
> 
> He's a nutjob who tells you what you want to hear, so you lap it up.
Click to expand...


Really,can you point out any positive mutation that spread through the whole population of man through natural selection and prove it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have a "main argument", DNA is a piece of the evidence of evolution but there's many many pieces of evidence of evolution.
> 
> Like I already showed you with these quotes, kind can mean he's the guiding hand behind evolution.  It doesn't say every species stayed the same.
> 
> All things comes from the ground could be interpretted to mean elements on the ground are what started live and evolved into the plants and animals we see today.
> 
> You don't have to take the science-hating side, you can believe your Bible without sounding like a crazy fundamentalist kook, most christians take the sane side and they embrace science.  But you choose to sound like a kook for whatever reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get around this ?
> 
> 26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."
> 27. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't say how long it took him to create man, most christians I hear say a day to God isn't the same as a day to man.
> 
> So you could interpret it to mean, according to man's time it took billions of years to finish creating our current species with how he used his guiding hand in evolution.
> 
> See, still didn't have to deny science.
Click to expand...


Like i said in the past the max age of the planet is 13,000 years old going by what the bible states. But i don't know for sure i was not there.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you take a man's word for what he says god said, then all the interpretations over thousands of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have given many reasons why i trust the bible. But you accuse me of something you do yourself taking the word of men who claim your relatives are chimps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who wrote the Bible?  Men
> 
> Who rewrote it over thousands of years?  Men
> 
> Who translanted it over and over again to new languages thought up by men?  Men
Click to expand...


Yes men wrote it and translated it but why did they have to translate it over and over ? I'll tell you because they made it available in all lanuages and each lanuage added words to their vocabulary but they did not change the message that is what you're missing.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently you did not read what he stated you are lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His jibberish is that beneficial mutations can't affect a large population, which my link with the experiment already proved was pure hysterical lunacy.  It wasn't "theorized" to be wrong, it was proven wrong in a lab.
> 
> He's a nutjob who tells you what you want to hear, so you lap it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really,can you point out any positive mutation that spread through the whole population of man through natural selection and prove it ?
Click to expand...


I see, now we're moving the goalposts to only include man.  Since you didn't like being proven wrong when beneficial mutations were shown in mice, I can see why you'd want to move the goalposts.

Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans

The links shows mutations in man with relation to heart disease and how those with the mutation are beneficial to those with the mutation.  There's other instances of benefticial mutations as well in the link.

All done by doctors with MD's, all with evidence to back them up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have a "main argument", DNA is a piece of the evidence of evolution but there's many many pieces of evidence of evolution.
> 
> Like I already showed you with these quotes, kind can mean he's the guiding hand behind evolution.  It doesn't say every species stayed the same.
> 
> All things comes from the ground could be interpretted to mean elements on the ground are what started live and evolved into the plants and animals we see today.
> 
> You don't have to take the science-hating side, you can believe your Bible without sounding like a crazy fundamentalist kook, most christians take the sane side and they embrace science.  But you choose to sound like a kook for whatever reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get around this ?
> 
> 26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."
> 27. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't say how long it took him to create man, most christians I hear say a day to God isn't the same as a day to man.
> 
> So you could interpret it to mean, according to man's time it took billions of years to finish creating our current species with how he used his guiding hand in evolution.
> 
> See, still didn't have to deny science.
Click to expand...


Ok let's use your reasoning God said he created all in 6 days.

2Pe 3:8  But, beloved, let not this one thing be hidden from you, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 

Now do you think it is possible for anything especially man to evolve in a thousand years ?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have given many reasons why i trust the bible. But you accuse me of something you do yourself taking the word of men who claim your relatives are chimps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who wrote the Bible?  Men
> 
> Who rewrote it over thousands of years?  Men
> 
> Who translanted it over and over again to new languages thought up by men?  Men
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes men wrote it and translated it but why did they have to translate it over and over ? I'll tell you because they made it available in all lanuages and each lanuage added words to their vocabulary but they did not change the message that is what you're missing.
Click to expand...


How do you know they didn't change the message?

Have you ever studied a foreign language?  There's words that are in one language and aren't in another so you can't provide an exact translation.

If someone can't provide an exact translation through multiple languages over thousands of years, don't you think it's possible for a flawed species to make a flaw in the message?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been pointing out to you evidence of design.
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't.
> 
> And ... you have not provided your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet, as I have so clearly and abundantly requested.
> 
> I can see you have clearly capitulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.
> 
> I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.
> 
> Now present your evidence.
Click to expand...

Last chance.

*Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator* you claim is the source of life on this planet.

Do this, and as I said I would, I will submit, as you requested, evidence that opposable thumbs in humans are a result of mutation.

Your refusal of my request will make patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

Furthermore, such continued (and intellectually disingenuous) refusals will be taken as prima facie evidence that your patent disdain for the validity of verifiable evidence and valid logic discredits your every rebuttal to the case of evolution, and certainly every accusation you make disparaging evolutionists.

I predict, as I have so successfully before, that you will not. You are the Prince of Turds; a shining credit to the intellectual dishonesty of every superstitious retard who shares your patently invalid beliefs.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> His jibberish is that beneficial mutations can't affect a large population, which my link with the experiment already proved was pure hysterical lunacy.  It wasn't "theorized" to be wrong, it was proven wrong in a lab.
> 
> He's a nutjob who tells you what you want to hear, so you lap it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really,can you point out any positive mutation that spread through the whole population of man through natural selection and prove it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, now we're moving the goalposts to only include man.  Since you didn't like being proven wrong when beneficial mutations were shown in mice, I can see why you'd want to move the goalposts.
> 
> Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans
> 
> The links shows mutations in man with relation to heart disease and how those with the mutation are beneficial to those with the mutation.  There's other instances of benefticial mutations as well in the link.
> 
> All done by doctors with MD's, all with evidence to back them up.
Click to expand...


Drock a positive mutation has to be present in all humans for macro-evolution not a certain few.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get around this ?
> 
> 26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."
> 27. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't say how long it took him to create man, most christians I hear say a day to God isn't the same as a day to man.
> 
> So you could interpret it to mean, according to man's time it took billions of years to finish creating our current species with how he used his guiding hand in evolution.
> 
> See, still didn't have to deny science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok let's use your reasoning God said he created all in 6 days.
> 
> 2Pe 3:8  But, beloved, let not this one thing be hidden from you, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
> 
> Now do you think it is possible for anything especially man to evolve in a thousand years ?
Click to expand...


That could just mean one days is as important to the lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as important to the lord as one day.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really,can you point out any positive mutation that spread through the whole population of man through natural selection and prove it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, now we're moving the goalposts to only include man.  Since you didn't like being proven wrong when beneficial mutations were shown in mice, I can see why you'd want to move the goalposts.
> 
> Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans
> 
> The links shows mutations in man with relation to heart disease and how those with the mutation are beneficial to those with the mutation.  There's other instances of benefticial mutations as well in the link.
> 
> All done by doctors with MD's, all with evidence to back them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drock a positive mutation has to be present in all humans for macro-evolution not a certain few.
Click to expand...


No, no it doesn't.  But thank you for waving the white flag by not questioning the doctor's findings.

Macroevolution doesn't happen only because of beneficial mutations, I tried getting that through your thick head dozens of pages ago and it seems I failed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who wrote the Bible?  Men
> 
> Who rewrote it over thousands of years?  Men
> 
> Who translanted it over and over again to new languages thought up by men?  Men
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes men wrote it and translated it but why did they have to translate it over and over ? I'll tell you because they made it available in all lanuages and each lanuage added words to their vocabulary but they did not change the message that is what you're missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know they didn't change the message?
> 
> Have you ever studied a foreign language?  There's words that are in one language and aren't in another so you can't provide an exact translation.
> 
> If someone can't provide an exact translation through multiple languages over thousands of years, don't you think it's possible for a flawed species to make a flaw in the message?
Click to expand...


Drock i have eleven different versions  i see the same message in all of them.

Manuscripts have been handed down over the years but I still see too much of the bible being verfied through archaeology and has been stated the things contained in the scriptures that men did not know until modern day science confirmed them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't.
> 
> And ... you have not provided your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet, as I have so clearly and abundantly requested.
> 
> I can see you have clearly capitulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.
> 
> I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.
> 
> Now present your evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last chance.
> 
> *Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator* you claim is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Do this, and as I said I would, I will submit, as you requested, evidence that opposable thumbs in humans are a result of mutation.
> 
> Your refusal of my request will make patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> Furthermore, such continued (and intellectually disingenuous) refusals will be taken as prima facie evidence that your patent disdain for the validity of verifiable evidence and valid logic discredits your every rebuttal to the case of evolution, and certainly every accusation you make disparaging evolutionists.
> 
> I predict, as I have so successfully before, that you will not. You are the Prince of Turds; a shining credit to the intellectual dishonesty of every superstitious retard who shares your patently invalid beliefs.
Click to expand...


Look just admit it you can't prove your claim you will present someone speculating no proof.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> Look just admit it you can't prove your claim you will present someone speculating no proof.



He CAN prove it to anyone willing to honestly evaluate the evidence. The problem is that that clearly does not describe you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, now we're moving the goalposts to only include man.  Since you didn't like being proven wrong when beneficial mutations were shown in mice, I can see why you'd want to move the goalposts.
> 
> Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans
> 
> The links shows mutations in man with relation to heart disease and how those with the mutation are beneficial to those with the mutation.  There's other instances of benefticial mutations as well in the link.
> 
> All done by doctors with MD's, all with evidence to back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drock a positive mutation has to be present in all humans for macro-evolution not a certain few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no it doesn't.  But thank you for waving the white flag by not questioning the doctor's findings.
> 
> Macroevolution doesn't happen only because of beneficial mutations, I tried getting that through your thick head dozens of pages ago and it seems I failed.
Click to expand...


Yes it does


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look just admit it you can't prove your claim you will present someone speculating no proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He CAN prove it to anyone willing to honestly evaluate the evidence. The problem is that that clearly does not describe you.
Click to expand...


Explain chirality according to your theory ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look just admit it you can't prove your claim you will present someone speculating no proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He CAN prove it to anyone willing to honestly evaluate the evidence. The problem is that that clearly does not describe you.
Click to expand...


Here you go.

Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality 

by Charles McCombs, Ph.D. * 

Download Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality PDF

When the newspaper headline, "Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our bodies, newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now proved life came from chemicals. 

As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino acids under these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form, but this fact does not stop evolutionists from claiming that this experiment is proof that life came from chemicals. Evolutionists know that amino acids do not live, but they call this proof anyway because they claim that amino acids are the building blocks of life. This claim suggests that if enough building blocks are present, life would result, but this conclusion is only an assumption and has never been demonstrated. Amino acids may be the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are necessary for life, but that does not mean that amino acids are the building blocks of life. I could go to an auto parts store and buy every single part to construct a car, but that does not provide me with a functioning motor vehicle. Just as there had to be an assembler to make a moving vehicle from those auto parts, there had to be an assembler of those amino acids to make the proteins so that life could exist in our bodies. 

Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino acids in those experiments proves the claim that life came from chemicals? Many have debated if this experiment validates evolution or does the evidence point to an Omnipotent Creator? For 50 years, scientists have been asking questions; for 50 years, the discussion ends in debate. Call it professional curiosity, but as a scientist, I always wondered why there are more debates on this issue than discussion of the facts. Then I realized that a discussion of the facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of the subject of chirality. Chirality is probably one of the best scientific evidences we have against random chance evolution and chirality totally destroys the claim that life came from chemicals. Obviously, this is one fact they do not even want to discuss. 

Chirality is a chemical term that means handedness. Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other, those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule is called an optical isomer. 

What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes. 

Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L" isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins and DNA with their unique chirality. 

If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural process. 

However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality? 

Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or chirality doesn't exist. 

If you're in doubt as to which is correct, you are a living example of the reality of chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes could not do their job; DNA could not function at all. Without properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this earth. The reality of chirality, more than any other evidence, did more to convince me of the reality of an all-powerful Creator. I hope it will do the same for you. 

I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry. 

There is another problem with DNA and how it works in the human body. As part of the normal replication process for DNA, an enzyme travels down the DNA strand so that a copy strand of DNA can be produced. As the enzyme reads the sequence of molecules along the strand, and if an incorrect nucleotide is detected in the strand, there is a mechanism that uses other enzymes to cut out the bad nucleotide and insert the correct one, thus repairing the DNA. 

Let's look at DNA and this repair mechanism, if indeed they were formed from random chance natural processes. If the repair mechanism evolved first, what use is a repair mechanism if DNA has not evolved yet? If DNA evolved first, how would the DNA even know it would be better off with a repair mechanism? Can molecules think? DNA is not a stable chemical molecule, and without a repair mechanism, it would easily deteriorate by chemical oxidation and other processes. There is no mechanism to explain how DNA could exist for millions of years while the repair mechanism evolved. DNA would just decompose back into pond scum before the alleged billions of random chance mutations could ever form the repair mechanism. 

Once we realize that design does not happen by chance, then we realize that the entire universe is not the product of a random, chance process; it is the result of an omnipotent Creator who created everything by just His Word. I hope you are beginning to see the problem. Evolution can give you a theory that might on the surface seem possible, but when true science gets involved and scientists start asking questions, the problems and false logic of the theory become apparent. This is why evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry. 

* Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. Organic Chemist trained in the methods of scientific investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.

Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality


----------



## Dragon

By the way, your statement that a positive mutation has to be present in "all humans" for "macroevolution" to take place is completely wrong.

If "macroevolution" were to take place in the human species, it would be through a new species branching off from us. The most likely way for this to happen is if a human population were to be isolated from all other humans for a few million years. Conceivably this could happen as a result of space colonization. The different population groups and the different circumstances of life on the other planet would cause the two populations to diverge through evolution. Eventually (but again, we're talking at least a million years) the colony population could be changed enough that it and Earth humans would no longer be interfertile. Whatever mutations had occurred in the colony population would not exist at all in the Earth population, let alone be present in "all humans."


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions.



[All snipped except the pertinent part.] [You could have done this yourself if you had understood what you were quoting.]

If left-handed proteins and nucleic acids are necessary for life, then right-handed proteins and DNA will be eliminated by natural selection. There is no need for chirality to occur "randomly." Evolution is not random. This is not a problem.


----------



## koshergrl

Oh, well, if DRAGON says so, it must be so.

More evidence of the idiocy of pseudo intellectuals who poo-pooh their betters.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.
> 
> I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.
> 
> Now present your evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Last chance.
> 
> *Provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator* you claim is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Do this, and as I said I would, I will submit, as you requested, evidence that opposable thumbs in humans are a result of mutation.
> 
> Your refusal of my request will make patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> Furthermore, such continued (and intellectually disingenuous) refusals will be taken as prima facie evidence that your patent disdain for the validity of verifiable evidence and valid logic discredits your every rebuttal to the case of evolution, and certainly every accusation you make disparaging evolutionists.
> 
> I predict, as I have so successfully before, that you will not. You are the Prince of Turds; a shining credit to the intellectual dishonesty of every superstitious retard who shares your patently invalid beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look just admit it you can't prove your claim you will present someone speculating no proof.
Click to expand...


You had your last chance. So it's just as before, I accept your intellectual surrender. Game - Set - Match; you lose.

And your bonus prize is: Your unambiguous self-affirmation that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you; and that your patent disdain for the validity of verifiable evidence and valid logic discredits your every rebuttal to the case of evolution, and certainly every accusation you make disparaging evolutionists.


----------



## koshergrl

The only losers are the ones on here pretending their brand of idiocy is any more scientific than that of the Christians they so obviously hate.


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> Oh, well, if DRAGON says so, it must be so.
> 
> More evidence of the idiocy of pseudo intellectuals who poo-pooh their betters.



No it's that science says it, Dragon is just repeating what has already proven.



Idiocy is when people deny scientific facts that have been proven in a lab, which is what we're seeing on display in this thread from the fundamentalist science-hating crowd.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drock a positive mutation has to be present in all humans for macro-evolution not a certain few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no it doesn't.  But thank you for waving the white flag by not questioning the doctor's findings.
> 
> Macroevolution doesn't happen only because of beneficial mutations, I tried getting that through your thick head dozens of pages ago and it seems I failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does
Click to expand...


I imagine a man in a straitjacket laughing at the voices in his head.




Continue to deny something that you know nothing about (evolution).  You don't even do a good job of pretending to know what evolution is.


----------



## koshergrl

No, idiocy is pretending that our understanding of things should never be challenged, you nitwit. Just because something has been proven in a lab doesn't mean there are no more questions to be asked, nor does it mean that what was "proven" can't be "disproven" or discovered to be completely false somewhere down the line.

It happens all the time. As those who actually work in the fields of science know. If they stopped every time something is "proven in a lab" we would would still be in the dark ages.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> The only losers are the ones on here pretending their brand of idiocy is any more scientific than that of the Christians they so obviously hate.


All right Cupcake; same deal, bring your best game--only you don't get dozens of concessions like Youwerecreated, and this is your only chance to refuse gracefully and respectfully--otherwise, same consequences.


----------



## daws101

bigwern said:


> So are you saying that you dont even believe in a force behind everything in the universe? Do u think that the perfection in the universe all the way from a dying star creating a blackhole and thus beginning a new galaxy down to e. coli symbiotically living in you at this very moment just happens by chance? That there is no force that drove the evolution of the universe to this point u think its basically just a big mistake? Im late but i just wanna kno your overall opinion on that...


which one of us is that comment directed at?


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> What do you not understand about "you are arguing against a point that was never made"?
> 
> Fucking moron.


so much for christian empathy


----------



## Dr.Drock

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you not understand about "you are arguing against a point that was never made"?
> 
> Fucking moron.
> 
> 
> 
> so much for christian empathy
Click to expand...


Yeah, she certainly couldn't give a shit less about Jesus's Golden Rule.  



She thinks she only has to apply it to ppl who agree with her, then if you disagree with her, she sides with how Satan thinks you should treat people lol.


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> No, idiocy is pretending that our understanding of things should never be challenged, you nitwit. Just because something has been proven in a lab doesn't mean there are no more questions to be asked, nor does it mean that what was "proven" can't be "disproven" or discovered to be completely false somewhere down the line.
> 
> It happens all the time. As those who actually work in the fields of science know. If they stopped every time something is "proven in a lab" we would would still be in the dark ages.



That's what's great about continous scientific experimentation and studying.  You have no use for that, you just blindly believe whatever a book a few thousand years old says about science.  

Something proven in a lab doesn't mean it was proven?  Now that's some neat fundamentalist chatter!!!

Beneficial mutations have been proven in the lab, then a guy writes a blog about how it can be cuz he says it can't be, despite the facts going against him and YWC loves every word of it and takes that for fact, rather than the facts proven in the lab.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.
> 
> 
> 
> Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logical fallacy.
> 
> Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> So the parallel between them is a false parallel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh you just caught them, now they have to explain how chimps and humans could breed and produce offspring.
Click to expand...


they wouldn't and cannot.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. There is no way that what we observe in the fossil record can be the result of crossbreeding. For one thing, for a very long time there was no such thing as sexual reproduction, so "crossbreeding" was literally impossible. Even beginning from the time when sexual reproduction did exist, there is no way to account (for example) for the emergence of vertebrates, or of fish, or of insects, or of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of any other major innovation of life, by crossbreeding from prior species. Mutation is an absolute necessity, with natural selection being the other part of the process.
> 
> 
> 
> Ages ago, wolves produced dogs. Ages ago, pre-human hominids/primates produced humans. Both dogs and humans continue to evolve, as well; we are not genetically identical to our pre-civilized ancestors, although we are not yet a different species.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why are you so weak in faith? Why does your belief in God depend on an irrational denial of reality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logical fallacy.
> 
> Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> So the parallel between them is a false parallel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you notice how they totally ignored the DNA similarity between mice and worms with humans and the many other animals I posted. By their reasoning you would have to say they are our relatives to and that presents a problem for their evolutionary tree.
Click to expand...


wow, sometimes your level of understanding is unbelievable.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jean Auel (clan of the cavebear) hypothesised that humans interbred with non-human neandertals or cro-magnons, whatever they were. And offered exactly zero insight on how the two separate species came into being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist hated it when neanderthals were declared human.
Click to expand...


lol!  this is just nonsense.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. "Bla bla bla bla blah" and "We don't know".
> 
> Exactly what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We come a LOT closer to knowing than you do, though. And yet, you think you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there's another important point to consider: Functional morphological and genetic similarities between humans and apes could be the result of common design just as much as common descent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and it also COULD be the result of aliens who separately planted the two species using a common pool of genetic material because they employed the same contractor.
> 
> The difference is that there is actual evidence in favor of evolution, and none in favor of creation. So the fact that either is a plausible explanation for this one datum of genetic similarity does not make them equally appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Briefly what is the engine that drives macro-evolution ?
> 
> If the term engine throws you what is the mechanism let's see if you agree with BB that posted in this thread.
> 
> And let's look at the reality of this engine.
Click to expand...


Well, again, modification with descent.  How many times do you have to ask?


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well, then.
> 
> As I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't say much.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk of theories and evidence but you never go into details that is what your side does.
> 
> I believe none of you know the theory well enough to argue for it or you're afraid we are gonna poke serious holes in your theory.
Click to expand...


if you want to learn about the theories, go back to school, no one here is getting paid to teach you.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is all kinds of evidence for intelligent design.
> 
> I can provide evdence for my belief but you on the other hand cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT there is not. the only evidence is for your belief  is belief. you have no empirical quantifiable evidence to prove that the thing or action (intelligent design) believed in exists or happened .
> belief only proves belief nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything created or invented came into existence by intelligence.
> 
> Can you think of any language that came in to existence absent of a mind ? The DNA code is a language did that come into existence by intelligence ?
> 
> Can non-intelligence create intelligence ?
> 
> Would a natural process be able to think of everything that is needed for life then think of mechanisms to preserve that life ?
> 
> How bout this planet that is setup to sustain life is that just a coincedence ?
Click to expand...

first you have to prove what intelligence is did it come about due to naturally occurring conditions and billions of years of evolution? inventions are man made and after the fact, they are a byproduct of human existence.
science has shown that everything is caused by chemical reactions.
can you prove that intelligence is anything more than that?
don't forget:  Probability is ordinarily used to describe an attitude of mind towards some proposition of whose truth we are not certain.[1] The proposition of interest is usually of the form "Will a specific event occur?" The attitude of mind is of the form "How certain are we that the event will occur?" The certainty we adopt can be described in terms of a numerical measure and this number, between 0 and 1, we call probability.[2] The higher the probability of an event, the more certain we are that the event will occur. Thus, probability in an applied sense is a measure of the likeliness that a (random) event will occur.

The concept has been given an axiomatic mathematical derivation in probability theory, which is used widely in such areas of study as mathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science, artificial intelligence/machine learning and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the likeliness of events. Probability is used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.

your insistence that an intelligent force is behind existence is based on faith, nothing more.
IMO that faith is a way of filling in the unknown.


----------



## FurthurBB

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have,living organisms produce living organisms can this be proven or not ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth (and it ain't worth much), the answer is yes. Unless, of course, you insert an "only" before the first "living" in that sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are purebred animals the result of a loss of genetic information ,yes or no ?
> 
> When we breed animals do we breed information out or new information in ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, and neither. The amount of information in the genetic code of a purebred animal is exactly the same as in that of a mixed-breed, neither more nor less.
> 
> Now, here's one for you. When plant or animal stock is bred for certain desired characteristics, this bears a resemblance to what mechanism described in the theory of evolution?
Click to expand...


Dammit that is not correct.  Pure breeds have less variation and you are trying to breed the variation out.  When thinking about all the polymorphisms possible in a mixed breed dog, you could say that there is more information because mixed breeds will have more heterozygous locus whereas pure breeds will be homozygous for most alleles and it could be construed as less information.


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only losers are the ones on here pretending their brand of idiocy is any more scientific than that of the Christians they so obviously hate.
> 
> 
> 
> All right Cupcake; same deal, bring your best game--only you don't get dozens of concessions like Youwerecreated, and this is your only chance to refuse gracefully and respectfully--otherwise, same consequences.
Click to expand...

 
What the hell are you yammering about? My contention is that you have different standards for yourself v. the faithful, and lie about what the evidence shows.

That's proven every time you open your stupid mouth. There's really nothing else to bring.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Now if you wish to cover mutations you can see when mutations cause change from a mistake it usually is harmful to organisms.
> 
> Beneficial mutations are so rare they cannot do what evolutionist say.



Same mutations, different environment.


----------



## Montrovant

Does anyone else wonder how long this thread can keep going, considering the arguments seem to have been pretty much exhausted and are getting to the point of just being rehashed between the same people?


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you wish to cover mutations you can see when mutations cause change from a mistake it usually is harmful to organisms.
> 
> Beneficial mutations are so rare they cannot do what evolutionist say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this post you admit that mutations aren't always harmful to organisms.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes you slip up and accidentally admit to believing science.  Because that's exactly what biologists say, that most mutations are harmful or neutral but in minority cases they can be beneficial.  Beneficial meaning they increase an organisms chance to survive and breed and pass on the beneficial mutation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> For honest answers.
> 
> Mutations
Click to expand...


When talking about mutations and evolution, humans are the wrong species to look at because we have one of the highest genetic loads of any organism, for the ninth time.  Unless of course you want to look at human cancer cells, which do give a lot of information because they have much variation and a very low genetic load.  Although most on this board will not understand that almost every mutation is beneficial to a cancer cell, which is basically a different organism once it is no longer responding to signals, when they obviously do not benefit you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't say much.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of theories and evidence but you never go into details that is what your side does.
> 
> I believe none of you know the theory well enough to argue for it or you're afraid we are gonna poke serious holes in your theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you want to learn about the theories, go back to school, no one here is getting paid to teach you.
Click to expand...


Don't need the education just testing to see what they do know, and read the whole thread, don't come in the middle of it and you will see why i contiue to ask them the same question.

The only one here teaching is the one you tell to go back to school.


----------



## FurthurBB

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this post you admit that mutations aren't always harmful to organisms.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes you slip up and accidentally admit to believing science.  Because that's exactly what biologists say, that most mutations are harmful or neutral but in minority cases they can be beneficial.  Beneficial meaning they increase an organisms chance to survive and breed and pass on the beneficial mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> For honest answers.
> 
> Mutations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.
> 
> But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.
Click to expand...


more like, if they didn't they would lie about it.  Creationists are some of the biggest liars around.  Do they think god really wants them to lie for him/her/it?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> By the way, your statement that a positive mutation has to be present in "all humans" for "macroevolution" to take place is completely wrong.
> 
> If "macroevolution" were to take place in the human species, it would be through a new species branching off from us. The most likely way for this to happen is if a human population were to be isolated from all other humans for a few million years. Conceivably this could happen as a result of space colonization. The different population groups and the different circumstances of life on the other planet would cause the two populations to diverge through evolution. Eventually (but again, we're talking at least a million years) the colony population could be changed enough that it and Earth humans would no longer be interfertile. Whatever mutations had occurred in the colony population would not exist at all in the Earth population, let alone be present in "all humans."



It has to spread through the population to be considered macroevolution.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your sides main argument is DNA similarity that everything is related to each other but that is supporting what the bible states.
> 
> 24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.
> 
> The term earth represents dry ground.
> 
> 25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.
> 
> Gen 18:27  Abraham answered, "I am nothing more than the dust of the earth. Please forgive me, LORD, for daring to speak to you like this.
> 
> Gen 3:19  In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.
> 
> So if all things came from the ground would that not show support for DNA similarity ?
> 
> But the information in the DNA shows large diversity why ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have a "main argument", DNA is a piece of the evidence of evolution but there's many many pieces of evidence of evolution.
> 
> Like I already showed you with these quotes, kind can mean he's the guiding hand behind evolution.  It doesn't say every species stayed the same.
> 
> All things comes from the ground could be interpretted to mean elements on the ground are what started live and evolved into the plants and animals we see today.
> 
> You don't have to take the science-hating side, you can believe your Bible without sounding like a crazy fundamentalist kook, most christians take the sane side and they embrace science.  But you choose to sound like a kook for whatever reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you get around this ?
> 
> 26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."
> 27. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them
Click to expand...

simple! it's a poetic guess by and author or authors who were ignorant to even the most fundamental science and biology.driven by the same fear of the unknown that you are.
it's also a not credible source as it has been edited many times to fit a narrow POV.
so any information taken from it is erroneous.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's an evolution denier?
> 
> Please quote and link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Read all about it.  He essentially invented his own version of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep but in the process destroyed the mutation argument.
Click to expand...


No, actually that backs it up.  What have I told you?  Mutations are not beneficial or harmful, they just are.  It is the environment that changes.  Unbelievable that a scientist, even a physicist would make such an elementary mistake.


----------



## koshergrl

FurthurBB said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> For honest answers.
> 
> Mutations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.
> 
> But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more like, if they didn't they would lie about it. Creationists are some of the biggest liars around. Do they think god really wants them to lie for him/her/it?
Click to expand...

 

As I've pointed out, I've had a year of college biology, YWC has certainly had his college biology. The ones who come across as uneducated idiots aren't the believers. At least not in this thread. It's the babies who think that the hours they spend on PBS and watching 30-year-old National Geographic specials in the basement actually give them some level of understanding about the topics they have chosen to opine on.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [All snipped except the pertinent part.] [You could have done this yourself if you had understood what you were quoting.]
> 
> If left-handed proteins and nucleic acids are necessary for life, then right-handed proteins and DNA will be eliminated by natural selection. There is no need for chirality to occur "randomly." Evolution is not random. This is not a problem.
Click to expand...


Then you do not understand genetics. random mutations would have to produce the exact opposite.


----------



## FurthurBB

Dr.Drock said:


> This has already been tested and proven, again your bible bloggers don't provide the earth-shattering evidence you were praying for.
> 
> Gain-of-function mutation in FGFR3 in mice leads to decreased bone mass by affecting both osteoblastogenesis and osteoclastogenesis



Not to mention gene and even whole genome duplication events which we have seen take place recently add tremendous information to the gene pool, something creationists ignore.


----------



## koshergrl

"That is not a problem".

Lol...this is an example of Dragon's "science". To make retarded proclamations based upon nothing except his own ignorance and representing NOTHING that has been verified via scientific observation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, well, if DRAGON says so, it must be so.
> 
> More evidence of the idiocy of pseudo intellectuals who poo-pooh their betters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's that science says it, Dragon is just repeating what has already proven.
> 
> 
> 
> Idiocy is when people deny scientific facts that have been proven in a lab, which is what we're seeing on display in this thread from the fundamentalist science-hating crowd.
Click to expand...


Where is the proof name the experiment that proved it ?


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> It has to spread through the population to be considered macroevolution.



Wrong. You don't seem to understand what "macroevolution" (the evolution of a new species) involves. Perhaps you're thinking of it in terms of one species TURNING INTO another one? So the new one exists and the old one is gone?

That's wrong. It's possible for a new species to emerge from an old one, and the old one still to exist. In that case, any mutations responsible for the new species would not exist in the old one -- they would NOT have "spread through the population."


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, idiocy is pretending that our understanding of things should never be challenged, you nitwit. Just because something has been proven in a lab doesn't mean there are no more questions to be asked, nor does it mean that what was "proven" can't be "disproven" or discovered to be completely false somewhere down the line.
> 
> It happens all the time. As those who actually work in the fields of science know. If they stopped every time something is "proven in a lab" we would would still be in the dark ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what's great about continous scientific experimentation and studying.  You have no use for that, you just blindly believe whatever a book a few thousand years old says about science.
> 
> Something proven in a lab doesn't mean it was proven?  Now that's some neat fundamentalist chatter!!!
> 
> Beneficial mutations have been proven in the lab, then a guy writes a blog about how it can be cuz he says it can't be, despite the facts going against him and YWC loves every word of it and takes that for fact, rather than the facts proven in the lab.
Click to expand...


Beneficial mutations yes positive mutations no.

How does a positive mutation become a permanent part of the genepool ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logical fallacy.
> 
> Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> So the parallel between them is a false parallel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh you just caught them, now they have to explain how chimps and humans could breed and produce offspring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they wouldn't and cannot.
Click to expand...


Something we agree on and they agree to so how do they prove descent ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logical fallacy.
> 
> Dogs and wolves are the same species. They can mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> Apes and humans are not the same species. They cannot mate and have fertile offspring.
> 
> So the parallel between them is a false parallel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice how they totally ignored the DNA similarity between mice and worms with humans and the many other animals I posted. By their reasoning you would have to say they are our relatives to and that presents a problem for their evolutionary tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow, sometimes your level of understanding is unbelievable.
Click to expand...


Really,try this on for size,the bible say's all things were created from igredients of the ground would that be an argument on behalf of DNA similarity ? and not ancestry ?


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> random mutations would have to produce the exact opposite.



Your source stated that a random process would generate equal numbers of left- and right-handed DNA. If right-handed DNA is incapable of supporting life, it would be eliminated by natural selection, which would perfectly explain why all life we see now is left-handed.

For that matter, if all life is descended from ONE instance of randomly-generated DNA, then the fact that all life we see has left-handed DNA is the purely coincidental result of the fact that that one instance of randomly-generated DNA happened to be left-handed.

Either way, there is no need at all to postulate a random process generated a large pool of DNA, all of which is left-handed in defiance of probability.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jean Auel (clan of the cavebear) hypothesised that humans interbred with non-human neandertals or cro-magnons, whatever they were. And offered exactly zero insight on how the two separate species came into being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist hated it when neanderthals were declared human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol!  this is just nonsense.
Click to expand...


 they were hoping it could be a transitional fossil that linked humans and some sort of apelike creature.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I post I clearly understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL oh, really?
> 
> Well here's a chance to demonstrate that. In your own words, exactly what is a "mutation"?
> 
> You're allowed to look up the answer, but it must be in your own words so as to demonstrate that you understand it and aren't just cutting and pasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy, It is a damaged gene ,and It is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of the gene.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  A mutation is a change in DNA/RNA sequence.  It does not have to be in a gene, in a promoter region, or even in binding regions.  it does not have to affect a gene in anyway to be a mutation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> We come a LOT closer to knowing than you do, though. And yet, you think you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and it also COULD be the result of aliens who separately planted the two species using a common pool of genetic material because they employed the same contractor.
> 
> The difference is that there is actual evidence in favor of evolution, and none in favor of creation. So the fact that either is a plausible explanation for this one datum of genetic similarity does not make them equally appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Briefly what is the engine that drives macro-evolution ?
> 
> If the term engine throws you what is the mechanism let's see if you agree with BB that posted in this thread.
> 
> And let's look at the reality of this engine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, again, modification with descent.  How many times do you have to ask?
Click to expand...


No,no,and no again. The preferred theory now is Neo,that is positive mutation+natural selection+large spans of time equal macro-evolution.


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> they were hoping it could be a transitional fossil that linked humans and some sort of apelike creature.



"Transitional fossil" is a creationist term. It carries no weight with scientists. Your statement as to what was hoped is, therefore, incorrect. You are exaggerating the degree to which creationist arguments are taken seriously among biologists from, well, zero (which is the reality) to something in the plausible zone.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh if I said that I made a mistake. Because I made the point yesterday that variations in a family was due to inter and cross-breeding not mutations.
> 
> What they do say is every family of organisms evolved from another family of organisms throught mutations and that still presents a problem because of all the different faily of organisms.
> 
> How Many Species? A Study Says 8.7 Million, but Its Tricky
> 
> By CARL ZIMMER
> 
> Published: August 23, 2011
> 
> 
> 
> Recommend
> Twitter
> Linkedin
> Sign In to E-Mail
> Print
> 
> 
> Reprints
> Share
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> In the foothills of the Andes Mountains lives a bat the size of a raspberry. In Singapore, theres a nematode worm that dwells only in the lungs of the changeable lizard.
> 
> 
> 
> RSS Feed
> 
> 
> Get Science News From The New York Times »
> .
> 
> The bat and the worm have something in common: They are both new to science. Each of them recently received its official scientific name: Myotis diminutus for the bat, Rhabdias singaporensis for the worm.
> 
> These are certainly not the last two species that scientists will ever discover. Each year, researchers report more than 15,000 new species, and their workload shows no sign of letting up. Ask any taxonomist in a museum, and theyll tell you they have hundreds of species waiting to be described, says Camilo Mora, a marine ecologist at the University of Hawaii.
> 
> Scientists have named and cataloged 1.3 million species. How many more species there are left to discover is a question that has hovered like a cloud over the heads of taxonomists for two centuries.
> 
> Its astounding that we dont know the most basic thing about life, said Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia.
> 
> On Tuesday, Dr. Worm, Dr. Mora and their colleagues presented the latest estimate of how many species there are, based on a new method they have developed. They estimate there are 8.7 million species on the planet, plus or minus 1.3 million.
> 
> The new paper, published in the journal PLoS Biology, is drawing strong reactions from other experts. In my opinion this is a very important paper, said Angela Brandt, a marine biologist at the University of Hamburg in Germany. But critics say that the method in the new paper cant work, and that Earths true diversity is far greater.
> 
> In 1833, a British entomologist named John Obadiah Westwood made the earliest known estimate of global biodiversity by guessing how many insect species there are. He estimated how many species of insects lived on each plant species in England, and then extrapolated that figure across the whole planet. If we say 400,000, we shall, perhaps, not be very wide of the truth, he wrote.
> 
> Today, scientists know the Westwood figure is far too low. Theyve already found more than a million insect species, and their discovery rate shows no signs of slowing down.
> 
> In recent decades, scientists have looked for better ways to determine how many species are left to find. In 1988, Robert May, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford, observed that the diversity of land animals increases as they get smaller. He reasoned that we probably have found most of the species of big animals, like mammals and birds, so he used their diversity to calculate the diversity of smaller animals. He ended up with an estimate 10 to 50 million species of land animals.
> 
> Other estimates have ranged from as few as 3 million to as many as 100 million. Dr. Mora and his colleagues believed that all of these estimates were flawed in one way or another. Most seriously, there was no way to validate the methods used, to be sure they were reliable.
> 
> For the new estimate, the scientists came up with a method of their own, based on how taxonomists classify species. Each species belongs to a larger group called a genus, which belongs to a larger group called a family, and so on. We humans, for example, belong to the class of mammals, along with about 5,500 other species.
> 
> In 2002, researchers at the University of Rome published a paper in which they used these higher groups to estimate the diversity of plants around Italy. At three different sites, they noted the number of genera, families and so on. There were fewer higher-level groups than lower ones at each site, like the layers of a pyramid. The scientists could estimate how many species there were at each site, much as its possible to estimate how big the bottom layer of a pyramid based on the rest of it.
> 
> The paper drew little notice at the time, but Dr. Mora and his colleagues seized on it, hoping to use the method to estimate all the species on Earth. They charted the discovery of new classes of animals since 1750. The total number climbed steeply for the first 150 years and then began to crest  a sign that were getting close to finding all the classes of animal. They found that the discovery rate of other high-level groups has also been slowing down. The scientists built a taxonomic pyramid to estimate the total number of species in well-studied groups, like mammals and birds. They consistently made good predictions.
> 
> Confident in their method, the scientists then used it on all major groups of species, coming up with estimates of 7.7 million species of animals, for example, and 298,000 species of plants. Although the land makes up 29 percent of the Earths surface, the scientists concluded that it is home to 86 percent of the worlds species.
> 
> I think it is an interesting and imaginative new approach to the important question of how many species actually are alive on earth today, said Lord May.
> 
> But Terry Erwin, an entomologist at the Smithsonian Institution, think theres a big flaw in the study. Theres no reason to assume that the diversity in little-studied groups will follow the rules of well-studied ones. Theyre measuring human activity, not biodiversity, he said.
> 
> David Pollock, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Colorado who studies fungi  a particularly understudied group  agrees. This appears to be an incredibly ill-founded approach, he said. There are 43,271 cataloged species of fungi, based on which Dr. Mora and his colleagues estimate there are 660,000 species of fungi on Earth. But other studies on fungus diversity suggest the number may be as high as 5.1 million species.
> 
> The authors of the new study acknowledge that their method doesnt work well with bacteria. Scientists have only started to really dig into the biodiversity of microbes, and so they are finding high-level groups of bacteria at a brisk pace. Dr. Mora and his colleagues write that their estimate  about 10,000 species  should be considered a lower bound.
> 
> Microbiologists, on the other hand, are fairly sure the diversity of microbes will turn out to dwarf the diversity of animals. A single spoonful of soil may contain 10,000 different species of bacteria, many of which are new to science.
> 
> Jonathan Eisen, an expert on microbial diversity at the University of California, Davis, said he found the new paper disappointing.
> 
> This is akin to saying, Dinosaurs roamed the Earth more than 500 years ago,  he said. While true, what is the point of saying it?
> 
> 
> It's evolutionist problem they are the ones making the claims knowing that beneficial mutations through natural selection is how over eons of time macroevolution took place. Knowing how rare beneficial mutations really are that is problem they need to overcome.
> 
> My prediction eventually as more evidence comes to light they will abandon the theory of Neo Darwinism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your article never once mentions mutation, and I have no idea why you posted it.  Scientists have different estimations about how many species there are?  So what?
> 
> Every other article and link you've provided says beneficial mutations happen, I'm glad they agree with me and I'm not sure why you'd post articles and links that state the exact opposite of what you're trying to convince us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is there are too many family of organisms to evolve over time through beneficial mutations,Because they are so rare.
Click to expand...


Mutations are common, beneficial is a misnomer.  How many times do you think you have to hear something before it sinks in?


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not read anything drock posted so I am gonna repeat what he posted. And what I have learned over the years ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Like I said, I'm not interested in having you re-post walls of text that you don't even understand. I want this in your own words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How bout you explain it ,it's your theory and provide evidence to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. It was you, not I, who claimed that it was mathematically impossible for evolution to have produced the results we see. As that is your assertion, not mine, it is your burden of proof, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used the percentage difference in the Dna of a chimp and human to show the impossibility.
> 
> Which is 150,000,000 base pairs of Dna.
> 
> Look in the old threads ask drock or someone I am not gonna put it all out again.
> 
> It took a little time to work it out.
Click to expand...


And when did you calculate in the chromosome translocation event that separates us from all other primates ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT there is not. the only evidence is for your belief  is belief. you have no empirical quantifiable evidence to prove that the thing or action (intelligent design) believed in exists or happened .
> belief only proves belief nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything created or invented came into existence by intelligence.
> 
> Can you think of any language that came in to existence absent of a mind ? The DNA code is a language did that come into existence by intelligence ?
> 
> Can non-intelligence create intelligence ?
> 
> Would a natural process be able to think of everything that is needed for life then think of mechanisms to preserve that life ?
> 
> How bout this planet that is setup to sustain life is that just a coincedence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> first you have to prove what intelligence is did it come about due to naturally occurring conditions and billions of years of evolution? inventions are man made and after the fact, they are a byproduct of human existence.
> science has shown that everything is caused by chemical reactions.
> can you prove that intelligence is anything more than that?
> don't forget:  Probability is ordinarily used to describe an attitude of mind towards some proposition of whose truth we are not certain.[1] The proposition of interest is usually of the form "Will a specific event occur?" The attitude of mind is of the form "How certain are we that the event will occur?" The certainty we adopt can be described in terms of a numerical measure and this number, between 0 and 1, we call probability.[2] The higher the probability of an event, the more certain we are that the event will occur. Thus, probability in an applied sense is a measure of the likeliness that a (random) event will occur.
> 
> The concept has been given an axiomatic mathematical derivation in probability theory, which is used widely in such areas of study as mathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science, artificial intelligence/machine learning and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the likeliness of events. Probability is used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.
> 
> your insistence that an intelligent force is behind existence is based on faith, nothing more.
> IMO that faith is a way of filling in the unknown.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dragon

Youwerecreated said:


> The preferred theory now is Neo,that is positive mutation+natural selection+large spans of time equal macro-evolution.



Don't know what you mean by "Neo" (watching The Matrix too many times?) but this is more or less accurate: mutation plus natural selection.

However, you demonstrated above that you do NOT know what "mutation" means, and you have demonstrated with other posts that you also don't know what "natural selection" means, so the fact that you can spout those words correctly doesn't mean you understand the theory.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who and what do you say we can compare DNA to do what I did with the chimp and human ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).
> 
> As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.
> 
> ,Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
> 
> We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.
Click to expand...


Paralogs ...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything created or invented came into existence by intelligence.
> 
> Can you think of any language that came in to existence absent of a mind ? The DNA code is a language did that come into existence by intelligence ?
> 
> Can non-intelligence create intelligence ?
> 
> Would a natural process be able to think of everything that is needed for life then think of mechanisms to preserve that life ?
> 
> How bout this planet that is setup to sustain life is that just a coincedence ?
> 
> 
> 
> first you have to prove what intelligence is did it come about due to naturally occurring conditions and billions of years of evolution? inventions are man made and after the fact, they are a byproduct of human existence.
> science has shown that everything is caused by chemical reactions.
> can you prove that intelligence is anything more than that?
> don't forget:  Probability is ordinarily used to describe an attitude of mind towards some proposition of whose truth we are not certain.[1] The proposition of interest is usually of the form "Will a specific event occur?" The attitude of mind is of the form "How certain are we that the event will occur?" The certainty we adopt can be described in terms of a numerical measure and this number, between 0 and 1, we call probability.[2] The higher the probability of an event, the more certain we are that the event will occur. Thus, probability in an applied sense is a measure of the likeliness that a (random) event will occur.
> 
> The concept has been given an axiomatic mathematical derivation in probability theory, which is used widely in such areas of study as mathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science, artificial intelligence/machine learning and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the likeliness of events. Probability is used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.
> 
> your insistence that an intelligent force is behind existence is based on faith, nothing more.
> IMO that faith is a way of filling in the unknown.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

shut u up!


----------



## koshergrl

Yes, because it's just incoherent rambling.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have,living organisms produce living organisms can this be proven or not ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth (and it ain't worth much), the answer is yes. Unless, of course, you insert an "only" before the first "living" in that sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are purebred animals the result of a loss of genetic information ,yes or no ?
> 
> When we breed animals do we breed information out or new information in ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, and neither. The amount of information in the genetic code of a purebred animal is exactly the same as in that of a mixed-breed, neither more nor less.
> 
> Now, here's one for you. When plant or animal stock is bred for certain desired characteristics, this bears a resemblance to what mechanism described in the theory of evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dammit that is not correct.  Pure breeds have less variation and you are trying to breed the variation out.  When thinking about all the polymorphisms possible in a mixed breed dog, you could say that there is more information because mixed breeds will have more heterozygous locus whereas pure breeds will be homozygous for most alleles and it could be construed as less information.
Click to expand...


Really,what separates you and i are what mutations do and you believe it happens over large spans of time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only losers are the ones on here pretending their brand of idiocy is any more scientific than that of the Christians they so obviously hate.
> 
> 
> 
> All right Cupcake; same deal, bring your best game--only you don't get dozens of concessions like Youwerecreated, and this is your only chance to refuse gracefully and respectfully--otherwise, same consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you yammering about? My contention is that you have different standards for yourself v. the faithful, and lie about what the evidence shows.
> 
> That's proven every time you open your stupid mouth. There's really nothing else to bring.
Click to expand...


Someone needs to give you reputation points I tried but it wouldn't let me and that was after i added reputation to BB.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Does anyone else wonder how long this thread can keep going, considering the arguments seem to have been pretty much exhausted and are getting to the point of just being rehashed between the same people?



Not really, because we have a different theory of evolution going on now.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Every YWC thread is simply him forcing you to repeat yourself, and re-debunk assessments he made earlier in the thread over and over again until you're bored with it.  


Then once you're bored with proving him wrong, he repeats himself again, and declares himself victor.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> For honest answers.
> 
> Mutations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.
> 
> But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more like, if they didn't they would lie about it.  Creationists are some of the biggest liars around.  Do they think god really wants them to lie for him/her/it?
Click to expand...


Hold on a second pal, you sound like these Ideologues we are talking to.

We look at the same evidence as you evolutionist we have different presuppositions that is why we interpret evidence differently. We come at it from the point of view of creation you come at from the point of view of a naturalist. If you can understand the differences that presents from observed evidence then you're no different then your bretheren.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Read all about it.  He essentially invented his own version of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep but in the process destroyed the mutation argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually that backs it up.  What have I told you?  Mutations are not beneficial or harmful, they just are.  It is the environment that changes.  Unbelievable that a scientist, even a physicist would make such an elementary mistake.
Click to expand...


Oh it's not a mistake,there is no evidence to suggest mutations cause macro-evolution zero.


----------



## Dragon

Dr.Drock said:


> Every YWC thread is simply him forcing you to repeat yourself, and re-debunk assessments he made earlier in the thread over and over again until you're bored with it.
> 
> 
> Then once you're bored with proving him wrong, he repeats himself again, and declares himself victor.



I think you're right. The question is, why does he bother? He's not going to convince anyone who knows anything about the subject. Is he really foolish enough to think there are no answers to the arguments he's raising? What does he get out of this? It's quite mysterious.

Anyway, I think I will take your implied advice and be done with this thread. There is really no point in arguing with committed creationists; no evidence will be seriously and honestly considered.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has already been tested and proven, again your bible bloggers don't provide the earth-shattering evidence you were praying for.
> 
> Gain-of-function mutation in FGFR3 in mice leads to decreased bone mass by affecting both osteoblastogenesis and osteoclastogenesis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention gene and even whole genome duplication events which we have seen take place recently add tremendous information to the gene pool, something creationists ignore.
Click to expand...


The key is new information to the genepool you have admitted that when breeding takes place you breed information out not information in unless you are cross breeding.

DR. Max evolutionist agreed with DR. Spetner

Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations.  And I agree with your further comment that we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.  But you go on to say that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.  An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur. 

Spetner: Now Ed, thats ridiculous!  Those two statements are not symmetrical.  I dont have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT.  You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist.  You are obliged to show an existence.  I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS:  IN MAXS POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE.  I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> they were hoping it could be a transitional fossil that linked humans and some sort of apelike creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Transitional fossil" is a creationist term. It carries no weight with scientists. Your statement as to what was hoped is, therefore, incorrect. You are exaggerating the degree to which creationist arguments are taken seriously among biologists from, well, zero (which is the reality) to something in the plausible zone.
Click to expand...


Ever heard of Darwin  ? the term was used by him.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Dragon said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every YWC thread is simply him forcing you to repeat yourself, and re-debunk assessments he made earlier in the thread over and over again until you're bored with it.
> 
> 
> Then once you're bored with proving him wrong, he repeats himself again, and declares himself victor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're right. The question is, why does he bother? He's not going to convince anyone who knows anything about the subject. Is he really foolish enough to think there are no answers to the arguments he's raising? What does he get out of this? It's quite mysterious.
> 
> Anyway, I think I will take your implied advice and be done with this thread. There is really no point in arguing with committed creationists; no evidence will be seriously and honestly considered.
Click to expand...


He doesn't even click on the proof I provide anymore.  He probably reads the word "science" somewhere in the link I provide and determines it's not worth clicking on.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your article never once mentions mutation, and I have no idea why you posted it.  Scientists have different estimations about how many species there are?  So what?
> 
> Every other article and link you've provided says beneficial mutations happen, I'm glad they agree with me and I'm not sure why you'd post articles and links that state the exact opposite of what you're trying to convince us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is there are too many family of organisms to evolve over time through beneficial mutations,Because they are so rare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations are common, beneficial is a misnomer.  How many times do you think you have to hear something before it sinks in?
Click to expand...


Here you go I will only post a little bit of the article i would read the whole article.

The Detrimental Mutation Rate 

and the Genetic Deterioration of Mankind




Since mutations are the only possible source of novel genomic function in the evolution of living things, we should consider a few facts about these mutations.  Mutations are thought to be purely random events causes by errors of replication and maintenance over time. They occur anywhere in the entire genome in a fairly random fashion with each generation.  Given this information, lets consider how these mutations would build up and what effect, if any, they would have on a human lineage. 

Some researchers suggests a detrimental mutation rate (Ud) of 1 to 3 per person per generation with at least some scientists (Nachmann and Crowell, 2000) favoring at least 3 or more.30  Notice that these detrimental mutation rates are based on overall DNA mutation rate estimates that are indirectly determined based on assumed evolutionary relationships. The actual mutation rates, as noted above, are likely to be much higher.  In any case, even given these assumptions, since detrimental mutations outnumber beneficial mutations by at least 1,000 to 1, it seems like the build up of detrimental mutations in a population might lead toward extinction. 34,36 

Nachmann and Crowell detail the perplexing situation at hand in the following conclusion from their fairly recent paper on human mutation rates: 





The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox.  If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U [detrimental mutation rate] would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction [like humans and apes etc.] . . . 

The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 - e -U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966).  For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size.  This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher.  

The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero).  However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes.  This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; this is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness.  In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population.  While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic [the death of all those with a detrimental mutational balance], the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.30 





Nachmann and Crowell find the situation a very puzzling one.  How does one get rid of all the bad mutations faster than they are produced?  Does their hypothesis of positive epistasisÃÂ adequately explain how detrimental mutations can be cleared faster than they are added to a population?  If the functional effects of mutations were increased in a multiplicative instead of additive fashion, would fewer individuals die than before?  As noted above, even if every detrimental mutation caused the death of its owner, the reproductive burden of the survivors would not diminish, but would remain the same. 

For example, lets say that all those with at least three detrimental mutations die before reproducing.  The population average would soon hover just above 3 deleterious mutation rates.  Over 95% of each subsequent generation would have 3 or more deleterious mutations as compared with the original "neutral" population.  The death rate would increase dramatically.  In order to keep up, the reproductive rates of those surviving individuals would have to increase in proportion to the increased death rate.  The same thing would eventually happen if the death line were drawn at 100, 500, 1000, 10000 or more deleterious mutations.  The only difference would be the length of time it would take a given population to build up a lethal number of deleterious mutations in its gene pool beginning at a relatively "neutral" starting point.  The population might survive fairly well for many generations without having to resort to huge increases in the reproduction rate.  However, without getting rid of the accumulating deleterious mutations, the population would eventually find itself experiencing an exponential rise in its death rate as its average population crossed the line of lethal mutations.  

Since the theory of positive epistasis does not seem to help the situation much, some other process must be found to explain how to preferentially get rid of detrimental mutations from a population.  Consider an excerpt from a fairly recent Scientific American article entitled, "Mutations Galore": 





According to standard population genetics theory, the figure of three harmful mutations per person per generation implies that three people would have to die prematurely in each generation (or fail to reproduce) for each person who reproduced in order to eliminate the now absent deleterious mutations [75% death rate].  Humans do not reproduce fast enough to support such a huge death toll.  As James F. Crow of the University of Wisconsin asked rhetorically, in a commentary in Nature on Eyre-Walker and Keightley's analysis: "Why aren't we extinct?"

Crow's answer is that sex, which shuffles genes around, allows detrimental mutations to be eliminated in bunches.  The new findings thus support the idea that sex evolved because individuals who (thanks to sex) inherited several bad mutations rid the gene pool of all of them at once, by failing to survive or reproduce.   

Yet natural selection has weakened in human populations with the advent of modern medicine, Crow notes.  So he theorizes that harmful mutations may now be starting to accumulate at an even higher rate, with possibly worrisome consequences for health.  Keightley is skeptical:  he thinks that many mildly deleterious mutations have already become widespread in human populations through random events in evolution and that various adaptations, notably intelligence, have more than compensated.  "I doubt that we'll have to pay a penalty as Crow seems to think," he remarks. "We've managed perfectly well up until now." 37 



Well, the answer might be found in a combination of processes where both sexual replication and natural selection play a role to keep a slowly reproducing population from going extinct.  For example consider the following chart showing how deleterious mutations build up in a population that reproduces via asexual means: 49











Notice how the most fit "Progenitor Class" (P) loss numbers in each generation while the numbers of those that have greater numbers of deleterious mutations build up more and more.  In this article Rice notes that in asexual populations the only way to really overcome this buildup of detrimental mutations is to increase the reproductive rate substantially.  But, what about beneficial mutations?  Rice comments, "Rare reverse and compensatory mutations can move deleterious mutations, via genetic hitchhiking, against the flow of genetic polarization. But this is a minor influence, analogous to water turbulence that occasionally transports a pebble a short distance upstream." 49   So, how do sexually reproducing populations overcome this problem?

When it comes to sexually reproducing populations, the ability for genetic recombination during the formation of gametes makes it possible to concentrate both good and bad mutations.  For example, lets say we have two individuals, each with 2 detrimental mutations. Given sexual recombination between these two individuals, there is a decent chance that some of their offspring (1 chance in 32) will not have any inherited detrimental mutations.   But what happens when the rate of additional detrimental mutations is quite high - higher than 3?

To look into this just a bit more, consider another example of a steady state population of 5,000 individuals each starting out with 7 detrimental mutations and an average detrimental mutation rate of 3 per individual per generation.  Given a reproductive rate of 4 offspring per each one of the 2,500 couples (10,000 offspring), in one generation, how many offspring will have the same or fewer detrimental mutations than the parent generation?



Inherited 
 After Ud = 3

7 
  901 

6 
 631 

5 
 378 

4 
 189 

3 
 76 

2 
 23 

1 
 5 

0 
 0.45 

< or = 7 
 2202




This Poisson approximation shows that out of 10,000 offspring, only 2,202 of them would have the same or less than the original number of detrimental mutations of the parent population.  This leaves 7,798 with more detrimental mutations than the parent population.51  Of course, in order to maintain a steady state population of 5,000, natural selection must cull out 5,000 of these 10,000 offspring before they are able to reproduce.  Given a preference, those with more detrimental mutations will be less fit by a certain degree and will be removed from the population before those that are more fit (less detrimental mutations).  Given strong selection pressure, the second generation might be made up of ~2,200 more fit individuals and only ~2,800 less fit individuals with the overall average showing a decline as compared with the original parent generation.  If selection pressure is strong, so that the majority of those with more than 7 detrimental mutations are removed from the population, the next generation will only have about 1,100 mating couples as compared to 2,500 in the original generation.  With a reproductive rate of 4 per couple, only 4,400 offspring will be produced as compared to 10,000 originally.  In order to keep up with this loss, the reproductive rate must be increased or the population will head toward extinction.  In fact, given a detrimental mutation rate of Ud = 3 in a sexually reproducing population, the average number of offspring needed to keep up would be around 20 per breeding couple (2eUd/2).  While this is about half that required for an asexual population (2eUd), it is still quite significant.  

In this light, consider that more recent estimates suggest that the deleterious mutation rate is even higher. "Extrapolations from studies of humans and Drosophila (Mukai, 1979; Kondroshov, 1988; Crow, 1993) suggest that Ud > 5 is feasible." 49   However, the number of required offspring needed to compensate for a detrimental mutation rate of Ud = 5 would soar to 148 per female per generation!  And, this is not the worst of it.  Recent genetic studies have shown that much of what was once thought of as "junk DNA" is actually functional ( Link ).  In fact, these recent studies suggest that the total amount of functional DNA in the human genome is not actually 2-3% as previously thought, but is upwards of 85-90% ( Link ).  Consider also that what were once thought to be neutral mutations are now being discovered to be functional mutations governed by natural selection.  In a 2007 paper published in the Indian Journal of Human Genetics, author Clyde Winters claims to have made a very interesting discovery.  



  It is often assumed that selection plays a limited role in the mtDNA control region. . .  However, there is a selective constraint on mutation frequencies of an mtDNA site.  Some of the East African transitions . . . are the most rapidly occurring nucleotide substitutions in the human mitochondrial genome. These transitions are often referred too as "hotspots." These hot spots of mutational activity suggest that positive selection influences mutation rates and not neutral selection which, theoretically, would manifest parallel mutations.53





Of course, this is not the only region in the human genome that was once thought to be limited to neutral mutations alone. Much of the genome is now known to be subject to differential selection. 

So what.  What does this matter?  It matters to this particular problem because the actual detrimental mutation rate would be a significantly greater percentage of the total number of mutations experienced by the genome in each generation.  As noted above, the total number of mutations per offspring per generation is at least 175.  If the functional genome percentage was actually 50% (instead of just 2%), the likely detrimental mutation rate (Ud) would be well over 30 instead of the usual estimates of ~3 noted above.  This would increase the reproductive rate needed to avoid genomic decay from ~20 offspring per woman per generation to well over 10 trillion offspring per woman per generation - obviously an impossible hurdle to overcome.  

In short, the best available evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory that the human genome is in decay.  The various forms of "positive epistasis" (see illustration by Rice below) 49 do not solve this problem. 















The Y-Chromosome Rapidly Headed for Extinction?



Also, what about the Y-chromosome in males?  The Y-chromosome does not undergo significant sexual recombination. Are the males of slowly reproducing species, like humans, therefore headed for extinction at an even faster rate than females?  



"The absence of recombination with a homologous partner means that it [The Y-chromosome] can never be repaired by recombination. This has led to suggestions that the Y is destined for extinction it will eventually dwindle to nothing. According to this model, its role in sex determination will eventually be taken on by genes elsewhere in the genome."  50



The author of the above quoted article goes onto point out that several species, like the Armenian mole vole, are able to reproduce without the Y chromosome.  While this might explain where humans are headed, it doesn't seem quite clear as to just how the Y-chromosome could have evolved over millions of years of time given its relative inability to combat high detrimental mutation rates. 

DNA Mutation Rates and Evolution


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Like I said, I'm not interested in having you re-post walls of text that you don't even understand. I want this in your own words.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It was you, not I, who claimed that it was mathematically impossible for evolution to have produced the results we see. As that is your assertion, not mine, it is your burden of proof, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used the percentage difference in the Dna of a chimp and human to show the impossibility.
> 
> Which is 150,000,000 base pairs of Dna.
> 
> Look in the old threads ask drock or someone I am not gonna put it all out again.
> 
> It took a little time to work it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when did you calculate in the chromosome translocation event that separates us from all other primates ?
Click to expand...


What is your point ?

It's just two chromosomes getting stuck together.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dragon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The preferred theory now is Neo,that is positive mutation+natural selection+large spans of time equal macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know what you mean by "Neo" (watching The Matrix too many times?) but this is more or less accurate: mutation plus natural selection.
> 
> However, you demonstrated above that you do NOT know what "mutation" means, and you have demonstrated with other posts that you also don't know what "natural selection" means, so the fact that you can spout those words correctly doesn't mean you understand the theory.
Click to expand...


Neo darwinism.

Definition for neo darwinism:




Web definitions:




a modern Darwinian theory that explains new species in terms of genetic mutations.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


----------



## daws101

Dragon said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every YWC thread is simply him forcing you to repeat yourself, and re-debunk assessments he made earlier in the thread over and over again until you're bored with it.
> 
> 
> Then once you're bored with proving him wrong, he repeats himself again, and declares himself victor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're right. The question is, why does he bother? He's not going to convince anyone who knows anything about the subject. Is he really foolish enough to think there are no answers to the arguments he's raising? What does he get out of this? It's quite mysterious.
> 
> Anyway, I think I will take your implied advice and be done with this thread. There is really no point in arguing with committed creationists; no evidence will be seriously and honestly considered.
Click to expand...

hazzaa! 
it's no mystery, ywc for the attention, he may say that's not so..but that would be a lie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> first you have to prove what intelligence is did it come about due to naturally occurring conditions and billions of years of evolution? inventions are man made and after the fact, they are a byproduct of human existence.
> science has shown that everything is caused by chemical reactions.
> can you prove that intelligence is anything more than that?
> don't forget:  Probability is ordinarily used to describe an attitude of mind towards some proposition of whose truth we are not certain.[1] The proposition of interest is usually of the form "Will a specific event occur?" The attitude of mind is of the form "How certain are we that the event will occur?" The certainty we adopt can be described in terms of a numerical measure and this number, between 0 and 1, we call probability.[2] The higher the probability of an event, the more certain we are that the event will occur. Thus, probability in an applied sense is a measure of the likeliness that a (random) event will occur.
> 
> The concept has been given an axiomatic mathematical derivation in probability theory, which is used widely in such areas of study as mathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science, artificial intelligence/machine learning and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the likeliness of events. Probability is used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.
> 
> your insistence that an intelligent force is behind existence is based on faith, nothing more.
> IMO that faith is a way of filling in the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> shut u up!
Click to expand...


Dream on,nothing complex can be denomstrated to have come into existence on it's own.


----------



## koshergrl

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> All right Cupcake; same deal, bring your best game--only you don't get dozens of concessions like Youwerecreated, and this is your only chance to refuse gracefully and respectfully--otherwise, same consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell are you yammering about? My contention is that you have different standards for yourself v. the faithful, and lie about what the evidence shows.
> 
> That's proven every time you open your stupid mouth. There's really nothing else to bring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone needs to give you reputation points I tried but it wouldn't let me and that was after i added reputation to BB.
Click to expand...

 
Oh noooo! Lol..reputation is highly overrated, don't worry about it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Every YWC thread is simply him forcing you to repeat yourself, and re-debunk assessments he made earlier in the thread over and over again until you're bored with it.
> 
> 
> Then once you're bored with proving him wrong, he repeats himself again, and declares himself victor.



This isn't my thread 

You follow me aronud it's almost like a fatal attraction.

Loki does the same thing.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shut u up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dream on,nothing complex can be denomstrated to have come into existence on it's own.
Click to expand...

odd, the same can be said of complex creation.
thanks for playing


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell are you yammering about? My contention is that you have different standards for yourself v. the faithful, and lie about what the evidence shows.
> 
> That's proven every time you open your stupid mouth. There's really nothing else to bring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone needs to give you reputation points I tried but it wouldn't let me and that was after i added reputation to BB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh noooo! Lol..reputation is highly overrated, don't worry about it.
Click to expand...


Well you deserve it fighting off these ignorant trolls.

They are always trying to change the subject matter when I produce evidence for Intelligent design.

They don't want to admit it takes intelligence to accomplish any project.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> shut u up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dream on,nothing complex can be denomstrated to have come into existence on it's own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> odd, the same can be said of complex creation.
> thanks for playing
Click to expand...


Did i just become dumber from reading your post ?


----------



## koshergrl

Hey, it's okay when they do it...when they do it, it's "proof". When we do it, we're stupid bible thumpers.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm snipping your wall of text again. Please express ideas in your own words concisely.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truith is there are very few full bodied fossils,most creatures they have less the 25% of the fossil of an organism they used their imagination to create many creatures that exist in the fossil record.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a significant fact. No product of the imagination is ever used as evidence of facts not know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does being fossilized have to do with not showing gradualism ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you were asking why the fossil ITSELF didn't change, not why it didn't SHOW change.
> 
> That's different. The answer is that it does show change.
> 
> Again, I'm not going to read through a wall of text. Please explain in your own words, concisely. Give me a few examples of things showing up with dates "much different" from the known date.
> 
> Please understand that I'm not denying this can happen. I am simply denying that it presents any significant problem with radioactive dating methods. Reasons why it would happen are known and understood, and the likelihood of them happening is known to be small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are saying eldredge and gould who came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium didn't understand the fossil record ?
> 
> And many other well educated professors say there are no transitional fossils they don't understand the fossil record either ?
> 
> That quote!&mdash;about the missing transitional fossils
Click to expand...


Punctuated equilibrium is a well known aspect of the modern evolutionary theory.  It has since been shown that evolution can happen many different ways.  This was not a problem with the fossil record or anything to do with the theory of evolution not being correct.  When new evidence was presented, it was incorporated.  That is how science works.  As far as the last thing, I think they are just seeing what they want to see because everything is transitional.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You once again show you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> If beneficial mutations are not supposedly the engine of evolution where do you get the new information for macro-evolution ?
> 
> Here let me help you,according to your theory.
> 
> 1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.
> 
> 2. then natural selection helps the mutant spread through the population.
> 
> 3. then the magic  ingredient is added to make it possible,long ages for it to happen to long to be observed. That's not science.
> 
> What neo teaches is mutations+natural selection=Neo darwinian macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> No. You have just demonstrated that despite having it explained, to you over and over again, that you are wrong ... you insist upon spreading you dishonest misrepresentations.
> 
> Correct. The strawman version of "evolution" you have created does not work. That's not in dispute. It never has been.
> 
> Absolutely false.  NATURAL SELECTION IS THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION, YOU RETARD!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what I believe the DNA code barrier+Gene depletion+natural selection prevents zero macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's what you believe: Changes in genotype do not result in changes in phenotype.
> 
> Which proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong never denied this,listen dummy what do you think happens with mutations ?  when mutations cause change they cause more harm then benefit. It's documented.
> 
> You  have been brainwashed to believe that traits change through mutations thats not true ,traits change through sexual reproduction or asexual reproduction. This is where we go back to the genes of each parent decide what the offspring will look like and be.
> 
> Your ignorance is a beautiful thing to watch.
Click to expand...


Reproduction changes traits the same way mutations change traits.  If you have a change in the genetic information you might have a change in a gene, if you have a change in a gene you might have a change in a protein, if you have a change in a protein you might have a change in phenotype, that is how it all works.  Like I have a hereditary mutation that causes me to have fructose malabsorption disorder, a bad thing, but I also have a hereditary mutation that causes me to process fats better than 90% of the population, a good thing.  They are both single point mutations, one is in a promoter region of a gene and the other is in a regulatory binding site.


----------



## koshergrl

"It's not a problem because I say so".

See, it's always the same.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also Youwerecreated, even if I and every proponent of actual evolution, or even the strawman versions you invent, are all entirely wrong and we have no idea what we're talking about, .... it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look how parents genes have an effect on the offspring the genetics not mutations.
> 
> Beefalo image by snowyridgeranch on Photobucket
> 
> Redirect Notice
> 
> Redirect Notice
Click to expand...


How does heredity change phenotypes?


----------



## FurthurBB

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong never denied this, ...
> 
> 
> 
> You deny it every single time you say mutation cannot lead to speciation.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... listen dummy what do you think happens with mutations ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think there's a change in genetic information. Don't you?
> 
> It's also documented that beneficial mutations cause more benefit that harm. Don't you agree?
> 
> Well, you have yet to demonstrate how genotype is unrelated to phenotype.
> 
> Not where there's no change in the genotype that codes for the trait in question. Or are you about to level up and admit you believe magic causes the change in traits expressed?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where we go back to the genes of each parent decide what the offspring will look like and be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if, as you assert, a difference in the genetic information can not express as a difference in the trait.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is a beautiful thing to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I seem to rather well informed compared to you.
> 
> And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

I definitely think you are pretty well informed on these topics.


----------



## Dr Grump

Youwerecreated said:


> Dream on,nothing complex can be denomstrated to have come into existence on it's own.



Yet you believe a god did, right?


----------



## koshergrl

You still don't get it.

We don't claim that our faith is based upon proof.

You do.

But you have no proof.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are really just ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's always cute watching you, of all people, call others that.
> 
> You're on here denying evolution all the while being totally clueless on it.  Having no clue what a mutation is, no clue that no scientist says humans evolved from chimps, you choose ignorance because the facts hurt the fundamentalist mindset you've based your life on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made it clear I know what a mutation is
Click to expand...


No, you have actually made the exact opposite clear.


----------



## FurthurBB

Dr.Drock said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is the evidence ASSCLOWN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO IT'S NOT.
> 
> I suggest you look up the term "evidence" and "proof". Because that is not any kind of evidence. You might like the opinion, but just because it sounds good to you DOESN'T MAGICALLY TURN IT INTO PROOF.
> 
> What IS the average grade level of you guys? 5th??????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well right after 5th grade is normally when they start teaching about evolution, so I would use that excuse yourself as to why you're so ignorant of the subject.
Click to expand...


Thank you!  I have seen grade school students with a better grasp of biology.


----------



## FurthurBB

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's the lying piece of shit?
> 
> It's clearly you. Click the link in the post, you retard. Not the link to the top of the page.
> 
> Do you think your retarded clicking skills can manage now, Cupcake?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same garbage.
> 
> Since you are unable to restate your alleged question, I will assume you are lying that there is one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy fuck! You're the dumbest retard ever!
> 
> The links are good; clear your cache, or just OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Yes, those links are good.  I checked.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is all kinds of evidence for intelligent design.
> 
> I can provide evdence for my belief but you on the other hand cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT there is not. the only evidence is for your belief  is belief. you have no empirical quantifiable evidence to prove that the thing or action (intelligent design) believed in exists or happened .
> belief only proves belief nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything created or invented came into existence by intelligence.
> 
> Can you think of any language that came in to existence absent of a mind ? The DNA code is a language did that come into existence by intelligence ?
> 
> Can non-intelligence create intelligence ?
> 
> Would a natural process be able to think of everything that is needed for life then think of mechanisms to preserve that life ?
> 
> How bout this planet that is setup to sustain life is that just a coincedence ?
Click to expand...


This is all anecdotal, semantics, and non-intelligence thinking is just out there.


----------



## Dr Grump

koshergrl said:


> You still don't get it.
> 
> We don't claim that our faith is based upon proof.
> 
> You do.
> 
> But you have no proof.



Proof of what? Evolution? There is plenty of evidence. 

Maybe you don't base your claim on proof, Avatar disagrees....

....Oh, by the way, I've figured out who you are, but why you bothered to change your name is beyond me...


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of chirality can you imagine how useless  my right thumb would be on my left hand and vice versa ?
> 
> Or my left arm or leg on my right side and vice versa.
> 
> Or my left ear on the right side of my head and vice versa.
> 
> How bout my left foot as my right foot and vice versa.
> 
> Yeah I guess you get the point of chirality and the evidence of design not by random mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> Petitio principii--the foundation of disingenuous retards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?
Click to expand...


This question is just ignorant.  No one thought anything, how do the clouds know when to rain, how does the wind know when to blow, how does the sun know when to set.  This question is on par with that, and also, a little tweaking of your homeobox genes during development would change all that anyway.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been pointing out to you evidence of design.
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't.
> 
> And ... you have not provided your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet, as I have so clearly and abundantly requested.
> 
> I can see you have clearly capitulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.
> 
> I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.
> 
> Now present your evidence.
Click to expand...


No it is not, sorry, we have already been through this.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drock a positive mutation has to be present in all humans for macro-evolution not a certain few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no it doesn't.  But thank you for waving the white flag by not questioning the doctor's findings.
> 
> Macroevolution doesn't happen only because of beneficial mutations, I tried getting that through your thick head dozens of pages ago and it seems I failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does
Click to expand...


Sometimes, I can not believe the crap you post.  No, it does not no matter how much that would back the claims of others you keep citing if it was the truth.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look just admit it you can't prove your claim you will present someone speculating no proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He CAN prove it to anyone willing to honestly evaluate the evidence. The problem is that that clearly does not describe you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go.
> 
> Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality
> 
> by Charles McCombs, Ph.D. *
> 
> Download Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality PDF
> 
> When the newspaper headline, "Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our bodies, newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now proved life came from chemicals.
> 
> As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino acids under these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form, but this fact does not stop evolutionists from claiming that this experiment is proof that life came from chemicals. Evolutionists know that amino acids do not live, but they call this proof anyway because they claim that amino acids are the building blocks of life. This claim suggests that if enough building blocks are present, life would result, but this conclusion is only an assumption and has never been demonstrated. Amino acids may be the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are necessary for life, but that does not mean that amino acids are the building blocks of life. I could go to an auto parts store and buy every single part to construct a car, but that does not provide me with a functioning motor vehicle. Just as there had to be an assembler to make a moving vehicle from those auto parts, there had to be an assembler of those amino acids to make the proteins so that life could exist in our bodies.
> 
> Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino acids in those experiments proves the claim that life came from chemicals? Many have debated if this experiment validates evolution or does the evidence point to an Omnipotent Creator? For 50 years, scientists have been asking questions; for 50 years, the discussion ends in debate. Call it professional curiosity, but as a scientist, I always wondered why there are more debates on this issue than discussion of the facts. Then I realized that a discussion of the facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of the subject of chirality. Chirality is probably one of the best scientific evidences we have against random chance evolution and chirality totally destroys the claim that life came from chemicals. Obviously, this is one fact they do not even want to discuss.
> 
> Chirality is a chemical term that means handedness. Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other, those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule is called an optical isomer.
> 
> What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes.
> 
> Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L" isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins and DNA with their unique chirality.
> 
> If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural process.
> 
> However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?
> 
> Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or chirality doesn't exist.
> 
> If you're in doubt as to which is correct, you are a living example of the reality of chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes could not do their job; DNA could not function at all. Without properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this earth. The reality of chirality, more than any other evidence, did more to convince me of the reality of an all-powerful Creator. I hope it will do the same for you.
> 
> I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.
> 
> There is another problem with DNA and how it works in the human body. As part of the normal replication process for DNA, an enzyme travels down the DNA strand so that a copy strand of DNA can be produced. As the enzyme reads the sequence of molecules along the strand, and if an incorrect nucleotide is detected in the strand, there is a mechanism that uses other enzymes to cut out the bad nucleotide and insert the correct one, thus repairing the DNA.
> 
> Let's look at DNA and this repair mechanism, if indeed they were formed from random chance natural processes. If the repair mechanism evolved first, what use is a repair mechanism if DNA has not evolved yet? If DNA evolved first, how would the DNA even know it would be better off with a repair mechanism? Can molecules think? DNA is not a stable chemical molecule, and without a repair mechanism, it would easily deteriorate by chemical oxidation and other processes. There is no mechanism to explain how DNA could exist for millions of years while the repair mechanism evolved. DNA would just decompose back into pond scum before the alleged billions of random chance mutations could ever form the repair mechanism.
> 
> Once we realize that design does not happen by chance, then we realize that the entire universe is not the product of a random, chance process; it is the result of an omnipotent Creator who created everything by just His Word. I hope you are beginning to see the problem. Evolution can give you a theory that might on the surface seem possible, but when true science gets involved and scientists start asking questions, the problems and false logic of the theory become apparent. This is why evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.
> 
> * Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. Organic Chemist trained in the methods of scientific investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.
> 
> Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality
Click to expand...


We have already been through this and you don't even understand it.  You don't try to understand it.  You let other people do your thinking for you and pretend that you know something.  It is disgusting.


----------



## Dr Grump

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of chirality can you imagine how useless  my right thumb would be on my left hand and vice versa ?
> 
> Or my left arm or leg on my right side and vice versa.
> 
> Or my left ear on the right side of my head and vice versa.
> 
> How bout my left foot as my right foot and vice versa.
> 
> Yeah I guess you get the point of chirality and the evidence of design not by random mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> Petitio principii--the foundation of disingenuous retards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?
Click to expand...


On the other side of the coin, why do we need to defacate and urinate? And why do women have to give birth in such a way? Surely an 'intelligent designer' would fix these glitches.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, your statement that a positive mutation has to be present in "all humans" for "macroevolution" to take place is completely wrong.
> 
> If "macroevolution" were to take place in the human species, it would be through a new species branching off from us. The most likely way for this to happen is if a human population were to be isolated from all other humans for a few million years. Conceivably this could happen as a result of space colonization. The different population groups and the different circumstances of life on the other planet would cause the two populations to diverge through evolution. Eventually (but again, we're talking at least a million years) the colony population could be changed enough that it and Earth humans would no longer be interfertile. Whatever mutations had occurred in the colony population would not exist at all in the Earth population, let alone be present in "all humans."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to spread through the population to be considered macroevolution.
Click to expand...


No, it does not, all it takes is enough genetic variation that successful breeding is not possible anymore.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [All snipped except the pertinent part.] [You could have done this yourself if you had understood what you were quoting.]
> 
> If left-handed proteins and nucleic acids are necessary for life, then right-handed proteins and DNA will be eliminated by natural selection. There is no need for chirality to occur "randomly." Evolution is not random. This is not a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you do not understand genetics. random mutations would have to produce the exact opposite.
Click to expand...


Show me a single mutation that has changed the chirality of a protein.  You are getting more out there every second.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, idiocy is pretending that our understanding of things should never be challenged, you nitwit. Just because something has been proven in a lab doesn't mean there are no more questions to be asked, nor does it mean that what was "proven" can't be "disproven" or discovered to be completely false somewhere down the line.
> 
> It happens all the time. As those who actually work in the fields of science know. If they stopped every time something is "proven in a lab" we would would still be in the dark ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what's great about continous scientific experimentation and studying.  You have no use for that, you just blindly believe whatever a book a few thousand years old says about science.
> 
> Something proven in a lab doesn't mean it was proven?  Now that's some neat fundamentalist chatter!!!
> 
> Beneficial mutations have been proven in the lab, then a guy writes a blog about how it can be cuz he says it can't be, despite the facts going against him and YWC loves every word of it and takes that for fact, rather than the facts proven in the lab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beneficial mutations yes positive mutations no.
> 
> How does a positive mutation become a permanent part of the genepool ?
Click to expand...


Well, in reproductive species it must be in the germline DNA.  For bacteria it becomes part of the gene pool as soon as they live long enough to divide.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh you just caught them, now they have to explain how chimps and humans could breed and produce offspring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they wouldn't and cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something we agree on and they agree to so how do they prove descent ?
Click to expand...


The same way they prove paternity bioinformatics and phylogeny studies as well as predictions about what they will find if they are related.  Come on really?  My daughter knows these things and she is in high school.  Bioinformatics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Phylogenetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice how they totally ignored the DNA similarity between mice and worms with humans and the many other animals I posted. By their reasoning you would have to say they are our relatives to and that presents a problem for their evolutionary tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow, sometimes your level of understanding is unbelievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really,try this on for size,the bible say's all things were created from igredients of the ground would that be an argument on behalf of DNA similarity ? and not ancestry ?
Click to expand...


Neither


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Briefly what is the engine that drives macro-evolution ?
> 
> If the term engine throws you what is the mechanism let's see if you agree with BB that posted in this thread.
> 
> And let's look at the reality of this engine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, again, modification with descent.  How many times do you have to ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,no,and no again. The preferred theory now is Neo,that is positive mutation+natural selection+large spans of time equal macro-evolution.
Click to expand...


No no and no again you are wrong.  I teach biology at a graduate level, you are making things up.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.
> 
> But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more like, if they didn't they would lie about it.  Creationists are some of the biggest liars around.  Do they think god really wants them to lie for him/her/it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold on a second pal, you sound like these Ideologues we are talking to.
> 
> We look at the same evidence as you evolutionist we have different presuppositions that is why we interpret evidence differently. We come at it from the point of view of creation you come at from the point of view of a naturalist. If you can understand the differences that presents from observed evidence then you're no different then your bretheren.
Click to expand...


I have read what you have to say.  I have absolute faith that you wouldn't understand any of the evidence because you understand so little about biology, I would be surprised if you actually graduated from high school.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep but in the process destroyed the mutation argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually that backs it up.  What have I told you?  Mutations are not beneficial or harmful, they just are.  It is the environment that changes.  Unbelievable that a scientist, even a physicist would make such an elementary mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it's not a mistake,there is no evidence to suggest mutations cause macro-evolution zero.
Click to expand...


Again you are as wrong as a person could be about everything to do with biology.  Do you know what urine is made from?  Never mind, I am sure you will just look it up and lie some more.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has already been tested and proven, again your bible bloggers don't provide the earth-shattering evidence you were praying for.
> 
> Gain-of-function mutation in FGFR3 in mice leads to decreased bone mass by affecting both osteoblastogenesis and osteoclastogenesis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention gene and even whole genome duplication events which we have seen take place recently add tremendous information to the gene pool, something creationists ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The key is new information to the genepool you have admitted that when breeding takes place you breed information out not information in unless you are cross breeding.
> 
> DR. Max evolutionist agreed with DR. Spetner
> 
> Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations.  And I agree with your further comment that we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.  But you go on to say that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.  An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.
> 
> Spetner: Now Ed, thats ridiculous!  Those two statements are not symmetrical.  I dont have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT.  You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist.  You are obliged to show an existence.  I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
> [LMS:  IN MAXS POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE.  I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
Click to expand...


I never said anything like that, we were talking selective breeding of dogs.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used the percentage difference in the Dna of a chimp and human to show the impossibility.
> 
> Which is 150,000,000 base pairs of Dna.
> 
> Look in the old threads ask drock or someone I am not gonna put it all out again.
> 
> It took a little time to work it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when did you calculate in the chromosome translocation event that separates us from all other primates ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point ?
> 
> It's just two chromosomes getting stuck together.
Click to expand...


So, that would make no difference in our DNA?


----------



## koshergrl

Dr Grump said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Petitio principii--the foundation of disingenuous retards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other side of the coin, why do we need to defacate and urinate? And why do women have to give birth in such a way? Surely an 'intelligent designer' would fix these glitches.
Click to expand...

 
I think the design works pretty well.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only losers are the ones on here pretending their brand of idiocy is any more scientific than that of the Christians they so obviously hate.
> 
> 
> 
> All right Cupcake; same deal, bring your best game--only you don't get dozens of concessions like Youwerecreated, and this is your only chance to refuse gracefully and respectfully--otherwise, same consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you yammering about?
Click to expand...

Yammering?



koshergrl said:


> My contention is that you have different standards for yourself v. the faithful, and lie about what the evidence shows.


 This is nonsense. And unsubstantiated. Just like everything you have posted. Literally everything.



koshergrl said:


> That's proven every time you open your stupid mouth. There's really nothing else to bring.


This is you yammering.

Your stupid superstition just has your retarded mind closed shut. You should have just gone with "magic."


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [All snipped except the pertinent part.] [You could have done this yourself if you had understood what you were quoting.]
> 
> If left-handed proteins and nucleic acids are necessary for life, then right-handed proteins and DNA will be eliminated by natural selection. There is no need for chirality to occur "randomly." Evolution is not random. This is not a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you do not understand genetics. random mutations would have to produce the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

And you understand neither genetics or natural selection.

I thought you claimed to be educated on these subjects.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, idiocy is pretending that our understanding of things should never be challenged, you nitwit. Just because something has been proven in a lab doesn't mean there are no more questions to be asked, nor does it mean that what was "proven" can't be "disproven" or discovered to be completely false somewhere down the line.
> 
> It happens all the time. As those who actually work in the fields of science know. If they stopped every time something is "proven in a lab" we would would still be in the dark ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what's great about continous scientific experimentation and studying.  You have no use for that, you just blindly believe whatever a book a few thousand years old says about science.
> 
> Something proven in a lab doesn't mean it was proven?  Now that's some neat fundamentalist chatter!!!
> 
> Beneficial mutations have been proven in the lab, then a guy writes a blog about how it can be cuz he says it can't be, despite the facts going against him and YWC loves every word of it and takes that for fact, rather than the facts proven in the lab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beneficial mutations yes positive mutations no.
> 
> How does a positive mutation become a permanent part of the genepool ?
Click to expand...

The way any mutation that is part of a gene-pool does.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Briefly what is the engine that drives macro-evolution ?
> 
> If the term engine throws you what is the mechanism let's see if you agree with BB that posted in this thread.
> 
> And let's look at the reality of this engine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, again, modification with descent.  How many times do you have to ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,no,and no again. The preferred theory now is Neo,that is positive mutation+natural selection+large spans of time equal macro-evolution.
Click to expand...

Not that there's any hope for a precise, meaningful response; you make a distinction between a "beneficial mutation" and  a "positive mutation" without explaining what that distinction is. If there is a difference, what is the difference "beneficial mutation" and  a "positive mutation?"


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep but in the process destroyed the mutation argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually that backs it up.  What have I told you?  Mutations are not beneficial or harmful, they just are.  It is the environment that changes.  Unbelievable that a scientist, even a physicist would make such an elementary mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it's not a mistake,there is no evidence to suggest mutations cause macro-evolution zero.
Click to expand...

Right. Mutation results in a change of genotype; natural selection (with reproductive isolation) results in macro-evolution.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every YWC thread is simply him forcing you to repeat yourself, and re-debunk assessments he made earlier in the thread over and over again until you're bored with it.
> 
> 
> Then once you're bored with proving him wrong, he repeats himself again, and declares himself victor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't my thread
> 
> You follow me aronud it's almost like a fatal attraction.
> 
> Loki does the same thing.
Click to expand...

LOLsome! First this asshat declares that I ignore him, and now he declares I have a "fatal attraction" for him.

His denial of reality is certainly thorough.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Hey, it's okay when they do it...when they do it, it's "proof". When we do it, we're stupid bible thumpers.


You're just intellectually dishonest superstitious retards.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> "It's not a problem because I say so".
> 
> See, it's always the same.


Your superstition is the clown; Youwerecreated is the clown-shoes; and your retarded cheer-leading is the clown's squeaky red nose.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> You still don't get it.
> 
> We don't claim that our faith is based upon proof.


But you seem to demand that you have verifiable evidence and valid logic that supports your claim. Your demand is bullshit, of course, yet you (particularly you, koshergrl) make it without bringing said verifiable evidence and valid logic.

You just don't accept the intellectually dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm.  While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.



koshergrl said:


> You do.


Untrue. And this has been explained to you repeatedly. Absolute unqualified certainty is not what we claim about out conclusions, nor is it what we require of competing conclusions. We require verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; NOT "proof." Our conclusions are subject to verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; in contrast to you and your superstitious tribe of intellectually dishonest retards who require that their evidence and logic are subject to their conclusion.



koshergrl said:


> But you have no proof.


And your beliefs are baseless in verifiable evidence and valid logic.


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It's not a problem because I say so".
> 
> See, it's always the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Your superstition is the clown; Youwerecreated is the clown-shoes; and your retarded cheer-leading is the clown's squeaky red nose.
Click to expand...

 
"There is no God cuz yore dumb!"


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it.
> 
> We don't claim that our faith is based upon proof.
> 
> 
> 
> But you seem to demand that you have verifiable evidence and valid logic that supports your claim. Your demand is bullshit, of course, yet you (particularly you, koshergrl) make it without bringing said verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> You just don't accept the intellectually dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm. While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.
> 
> You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Untrue. And this has been explained to you repeatedly. Absolute unqualified certainty is not what we claim about out conclusions, nor is it what we require of competing conclusions. We require verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; NOT "proof." Our conclusions are subject to verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; in contrast to you and your superstitious tribe of intellectually dishonest retards who require that their evidence and logic are subject to their conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your beliefs are baseless in verifiable evidence and valid logic.
Click to expand...

 
Look, more lies.

How many times have I said we admit there is no solid evidence that God exists and there never will be? So again, you're a liar.

You morons, on the other hand, pretend you have solid evidence that "proves" the bible is full of lies...when you absolutely don't.

Which is why I don't spend time arguing with you. You post silliness and pass it off as some sort of superior argument and post lies and pretend it's evidence. There's no point. You lie, and there's no arguing with liars. All one can do is point out the lies...which is what I do. 

And keep asking the same questions..which are never answered and always precipitate a flurry of ad hominem attacks, other logical fallacies, a flurry of deflections, and more lies.

It's like arguing with retards. Well, it is arguing with retards.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm snipping your wall of text again. Please express ideas in your own words concisely.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a significant fact. No product of the imagination is ever used as evidence of facts not know.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you were asking why the fossil ITSELF didn't change, not why it didn't SHOW change.
> 
> That's different. The answer is that it does show change.
> 
> Again, I'm not going to read through a wall of text. Please explain in your own words, concisely. Give me a few examples of things showing up with dates "much different" from the known date.
> 
> Please understand that I'm not denying this can happen. I am simply denying that it presents any significant problem with radioactive dating methods. Reasons why it would happen are known and understood, and the likelihood of them happening is known to be small.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are saying eldredge and gould who came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium didn't understand the fossil record ?
> 
> And many other well educated professors say there are no transitional fossils they don't understand the fossil record either ?
> 
> That quote!&mdash;about the missing transitional fossils
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Punctuated equilibrium is a well known aspect of the modern evolutionary theory.  It has since been shown that evolution can happen many different ways.  This was not a problem with the fossil record or anything to do with the theory of evolution not being correct.  When new evidence was presented, it was incorporated.  That is how science works.  As far as the last thing, I think they are just seeing what they want to see because everything is transitional.
Click to expand...



Punctuated equilibrium came about as a theory because the lack of transitional fossils. The cambrian showed stasis and the same things found in the cambrian are still the same today,why ?

Don't theorize that an organism could survive many consecutive mutations over a short period of time there is no evidence to support this claim besides we know this is not true.

The only way to see immediate morphologoical changes is through crossbreeding.

Explain to me the main way for evolution to happen is through mutations,if all organisms exp mutations how come we are not seeing macro-evolution take place ?


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it.
> 
> We don't claim that our faith is based upon proof.
> 
> 
> 
> But you seem to demand that you have verifiable evidence and valid logic that supports your claim. Your demand is bullshit, of course, yet you (particularly you, koshergrl) make it without bringing said verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> You just don't accept the intellectually dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm. While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.
> 
> You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.
> 
> Untrue. And this has been explained to you repeatedly. Absolute unqualified certainty is not what we claim about out conclusions, nor is it what we require of competing conclusions. We require verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; NOT "proof." Our conclusions are subject to verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; in contrast to you and your superstitious tribe of intellectually dishonest retards who require that their evidence and logic are subject to their conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your beliefs are baseless in verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, more lies.
> 
> How many times have I said we admit there is no solid evidence that God exists and there never will be? So again, you're a liar.
Click to expand...

I said the same, so how am I lying?



koshergrl said:


> You morons, on the other hand, pretend you have solid evidence that "proves" the bible is full of lies...when you absolutely don't.


The evidence of the patent disparities between Biblical assertions regarding reality, and the verifiable facts of reality have been presented repeatedly.

Consistent with your intellectually dishonest paradigm, every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.



koshergrl said:


> Which is why I don't spend time arguing with you.


Nonsense. You're just an intellectual coward.



koshergrl said:


> You post silliness and pass it off as some sort of superior argument and post lies and pretend it's evidence.


Prima facie evidence that for you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.



koshergrl said:


> There's no point. You lie, and there's no arguing with liars. All one can do is point out the lies...which is what I do.


If this were true, you would have actually pointed out one of these lies; and if you were intellectually honest, you would demonstrate just how they are lies.



koshergrl said:


> And keep asking the same questions..which are never answered and always precipitate a flurry of ad hominem attacks, other logical fallacies, a flurry of deflections, and more lies.


You have earned the ad hominem attacks (which BTW is not the same thing as the logical fallacy of an ad hominem argument), and I have submitted no logical fallacies, deflections or lies that you can identify.

If you did, I would correct them. If you do, I WILL correct them.



koshergrl said:


> It's like arguing with retards. Well, it is arguing with retards.


Another fine example of your pathological projection.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Petitio principii--the foundation of disingenuous retards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This question is just ignorant.  No one thought anything, how do the clouds know when to rain, how does the wind know when to blow, how does the sun know when to set.  This question is on par with that, and also, a little tweaking of your homeobox genes during development would change all that anyway.
Click to expand...


Oh boy,calling my question ignorant it's a solid question that you can't explain away let me show you.

How do clouds know when to rain ? How does the wind know when to blow ? You just admitted they are thinking processes that intelligence is behind it.

Unintelligence would not produce whats needed.

 If you have a doctor build a car,if you have a carpenter do the work of a doctor,if you have a truck driver fly a plane,what do you think would happen ?

What does intelligence produce ? What would non-intelligence produce ?


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It's not a problem because I say so".
> 
> See, it's always the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Your superstition is the clown; Youwerecreated is the clown-shoes; and your retarded cheer-leading is the clown's squeaky red nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "There is no God cuz yore dumb!"
Click to expand...

I have repeatedly said (in response to your repeated claims) that we ARE NOT concluding there is no God.

Can you manage to get it right for once?


----------



## koshergrl

You are, however, concluding and pretending there's evidence that proves the bible is in error. Which is essentially calling God a liar, and establishing that he isn't God after all.

And that is a lie.

Actually, I think your statement that you aren't claiming there's no god is a lie as well...after all, you refer to those who have faith as superstitious..if that is not claiming there's no God I don't know what is.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't.
> 
> And ... you have not provided your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet, as I have so clearly and abundantly requested.
> 
> I can see you have clearly capitulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.
> 
> I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.
> 
> Now present your evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not, sorry, we have already been through this.
Click to expand...


Chirality is a problem for evolution not only does random mutations have to get it right where thigs belong but random mutations have to make the exact opposite. Most rational human beings would admit this is evidence of design.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, no it doesn't.  But thank you for waving the white flag by not questioning the doctor's findings.
> 
> Macroevolution doesn't happen only because of beneficial mutations, I tried getting that through your thick head dozens of pages ago and it seems I failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes, I can not believe the crap you post.  No, it does not no matter how much that would back the claims of others you keep citing if it was the truth.
Click to expand...


I can't believe the crap you believe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Petitio principii--the foundation of disingenuous retards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other side of the coin, why do we need to defacate and urinate? And why do women have to give birth in such a way? Surely an 'intelligent designer' would fix these glitches.
Click to expand...


Because we were designed to do the things we do other then sin.

Do most mothers have such a strong bond to those children unless they are loony ? Why?

He designed away to rid the body of waste, so what, he did it with all animals and humans.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> You are, however, concluding and pretending there's evidence that proves the bible is in error.


There is verifiable evidence of the patent disparities between Biblical assertions regarding reality, and the verifiable facts of reality. The conclusions follow the evidence; there's no pretense at all. 



koshergrl said:


> Which is essentially calling God a liar, ...


FUCK NO!!!

It simply does not follow that pointing out the factual inaccuracies in a book of fables written by ignorant rock-chuckers is calling God a liar.



koshergrl said:


> ... and establishing that he isn't God after all.


It simply does not follow that pointing out the factual inaccuracies in a book of fables written by ignorant rock-chuckers leads to the conclusion that God is not God.

Seriousy, where do you get your notions of logical fallacy?

That's right: For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.



koshergrl said:


> And that is a lie.


Your emotional rationalizations for accusing others of making assertions that they are not making do not validate your lies.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, your statement that a positive mutation has to be present in "all humans" for "macroevolution" to take place is completely wrong.
> 
> If "macroevolution" were to take place in the human species, it would be through a new species branching off from us. The most likely way for this to happen is if a human population were to be isolated from all other humans for a few million years. Conceivably this could happen as a result of space colonization. The different population groups and the different circumstances of life on the other planet would cause the two populations to diverge through evolution. Eventually (but again, we're talking at least a million years) the colony population could be changed enough that it and Earth humans would no longer be interfertile. Whatever mutations had occurred in the colony population would not exist at all in the Earth population, let alone be present in "all humans."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to spread through the population to be considered macroevolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not, all it takes is enough genetic variation that successful breeding is not possible anymore.
Click to expand...


When we breed we breed out information not in information. Purebreds if you do not bring new lines of genetics of the same breed eventually it would become harmful to the breed. That is why breeders of greyhounds started breeding european greyhounds with american greyhounds. This is a fact.

The reason why things only bring forth offspring of their kind is because they only have the genetic data to produce what they are. It is loony to suggest otherwise. Breeders know what the offspring will be because they know what they're breeding. Same with farmers.

There is tons of evidence that genetics decide what the offspring will be and genetics has always been a problem for evolutionist because they know they have to come up with a way for new information for macro-evolution to be possible and they know humans and animals only possess genetics produce after their kind exactly what the bible states ten times in genesis.


----------



## koshergrl

Look, more lies.

Go figure.

I find it sort of funny that an asshat whose avatar proclaims itself as the "yaweh of mischief" and who has since told a few lies that are verifiable within his last two or three posts, continues to say "I never said that".

You're a liar, in other words. Nothing you say holds any water. And you mistakenly think that your childish and transparent net of words can hide that. You're wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> [All snipped except the pertinent part.] [You could have done this yourself if you had understood what you were quoting.]
> 
> If left-handed proteins and nucleic acids are necessary for life, then right-handed proteins and DNA will be eliminated by natural selection. There is no need for chirality to occur "randomly." Evolution is not random. This is not a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you do not understand genetics. random mutations would have to produce the exact opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a single mutation that has changed the chirality of a protein.  You are getting more out there every second.
Click to expand...


It's not mutations causing chirality it's our DNA our genetics.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Look, more lies.
> 
> Go figure.


Quote one.



koshergrl said:


> I find it sort of funny that an asshat whose avatar proclaims itself as the "yaweh of mischief" and who has since told a few lies that are verifiable within his last two or three posts, continues to say "I never said that".


Quote and link please.



koshergrl said:


> You're a liar, in other words. Nothing you say holds any water. And you mistakenly think that your childish and transparent net of words can hide that. You're wrong.


Quote, link, provide some substantive explanation, or abandon all claims to credibility.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Actually, I think your statement that you aren't claiming there's no god is a lie as well...after all, you refer to those who have faith as superstitious...


I am using the correct term and using it correctly.



koshergrl said:


> ... if that is not claiming there's no God I don't know what is.


I appreciate your candid admission that you don't know what "claiming there's no God" is.

From this point on, please do not fling this baseless accusation until you do.

_EDIT: 11:50_





That was easy.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This question is just ignorant.  No one thought anything, how do the clouds know when to rain, how does the wind know when to blow, how does the sun know when to set.  This question is on par with that, and also, a little tweaking of your homeobox genes during development would change all that anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy,calling my question ignorant it's a solid question that you can't explain away let me show you.
> 
> *How do clouds know when to rain ? How does the wind know when to blow ? You just admitted they are thinking processes that intelligence is behind it.*
> 
> Unintelligence would not produce whats needed.
> 
> If you have a doctor build a car,if you have a carpenter do the work of a doctor,if you have a truck driver fly a plane,what do you think would happen ?
> 
> What does intelligence produce ? What would non-intelligence produce ?
Click to expand...




YWC, did you notice at the beginning of the sentence he said 'No one thought anything'?  I'm pretty confident his point was that clouds dropping rain and wind blowing and the sun setting are things that are not and do not need to be controlled by intelligence.  There was no admission of these things being thinking processes.  In fact, it appears he specifically picked things that do not require intelligence to make a point which went right by you.


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it.
> 
> We don't claim that our faith is based upon proof.
> 
> 
> 
> But you seem to demand that you have verifiable evidence and valid logic that supports your claim. Your demand is bullshit, of course, yet you (particularly you, koshergrl) make it without bringing said verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> You just don't accept the intellectually dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm. While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.
> 
> You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Untrue. And this has been explained to you repeatedly. Absolute unqualified certainty is not what we claim about out conclusions, nor is it what we require of competing conclusions. We require verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; NOT "proof." Our conclusions are subject to verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; in contrast to you and your superstitious tribe of intellectually dishonest retards who require that their evidence and logic are subject to their conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your beliefs are baseless in verifiable evidence and valid logic.[/QUOTE]
> 
> I have highlighted the glaring lies and inconsistencies.
> 
> Didn't you just post that you hadn't claimed there was evidence that denied the existence of God? Since my belief is that there is a god, you show yourself up as a liar right there.
> 
> Not that it's unique or anything...pretty much every word you fling is a lie.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question is just ignorant.  No one thought anything, how do the clouds know when to rain, how does the wind know when to blow, how does the sun know when to set.  This question is on par with that, and also, a little tweaking of your homeobox genes during development would change all that anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy,calling my question ignorant it's a solid question that you can't explain away let me show you.
> 
> *How do clouds know when to rain ? How does the wind know when to blow ? You just admitted they are thinking processes that intelligence is behind it.*
> 
> Unintelligence would not produce whats needed.
> 
> If you have a doctor build a car,if you have a carpenter do the work of a doctor,if you have a truck driver fly a plane,what do you think would happen ?
> 
> What does intelligence produce ? What would non-intelligence produce ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, did you notice at the beginning of the sentence he said 'No one thought anything'?  I'm pretty confident his point was that clouds dropping rain and wind blowing and the sun setting are things that are not and do not need to be controlled by intelligence.  There was no admission of these things being thinking processes.  In fact, it appears he specifically picked things that do not require intelligence to make a point which went right by you.
Click to expand...


A fully self contained planet sounds like intelligence to me.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it.
> 
> We don't claim that our faith is based upon proof.
> 
> 
> 
> But you seem to demand that you have verifiable evidence and valid logic that supports your claim. Your demand is bullshit, of course, yet you (particularly you, koshergrl) make it without bringing said verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

All right. Allow me to submit the following:





Youwerecreated said:


> My view of creation is built on faith and *rational thought*.
> 
> You let me know when life can spontaneously generate itself through a natural process.
> (Emphasis: LOki)





Youwerecreated said:


> Surrender hardly, I still feel *from the evdence that it is more logical* to accept creation over a natural process undirected by intelligence.
> (Emphasis: LOki)





Youwerecreated said:


> Evidence for creation._--REMAINDER SNIPPED TO CONSERVE SPACE--_​





Youwerecreated said:


> Evidence for creation._--REMAINDER SNIPPED TO CONSERVE SPACE--​_





Youwerecreated said:


> More evidence._--REMAINDER SNIPPED TO CONSERVE SPACE--​_





Youwerecreated said:


> Continued-
> 
> Evidence from Science_--REMAINDER SNIPPED TO CONSERVE SPACE--​_





Youwerecreated said:


> Evidence for Intelligent Design_--REMAINDER SNIPPED TO CONSERVE SPACE--​_





Youwerecreated said:


> There is all kinds of evidence for intelligent design.
> 
> I can provide evdence for my belief but you on the other hand cannot.





Youwerecreated said:


> He wants to know the evidence for a creator. *There is plenty of evidence for intelligent design* that allows a rational person to rationalize a designer.
> 
> We can point to all things that are created by the mind.
> (Emphasis: LOki)





Youwerecreated said:


> I have been pointing out to you evidence of design. Evidence of design is evidence of God the creator.





Youwerecreated said:


> Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.
> 
> I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.
> 
> Now present your evidence.


I do not think it should be necessary that I post all the cheerleading you've been posting while YWC was discussing his logic and evidence, nor do I think it should be necessary that I make a special effort to demonstrate that you made no effort to correct YWC on this matter.

In light of this, I hope you can understand how I might have come to the conclusion that you demand that you as well have verifiable evidence and valid logic that support your claims.

If however, you claim that your assertion that this world, and all the life on it was created and designed by a creator is entirely baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, then I'll admit I was wrong to declare you said otherwise.  If I have misrepresented you, it was unintentional; and please consider this my sincere and public apology to you.  But I won't make such declaration for or apologize to, YWC or anyone else who maintains the validity of his fatuous claims directly or indirectly. 



koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just don't accept the intellectually dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm. While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.
> 
> You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.
Click to expand...

I stand by this. 

This is all unquestionably true, by your very own admissions:





koshergrl said:


> And yet..you still haven't proven your own claims.
> 
> At least we admit our belief begins with faith. The problem with the Christian bashers is they're dishonest from the word go. Since that dishonesty is a biblical truth as well, you actually bolster our faith when you go on and on ridiculing Christians and setting forth a lying, alternate reality.





koshergrl said:


> ... we admit that our beliefs are rooted in faith, and have not been DISPROVEN (even if they haven't been proven..and they won't, until the end of time).





koshergrl said:


> I know that I have faith. I don't pretend I have "proof" of the existence of God.
> ...​...I admit I just have faith. I know that my belief has not been disproven by science...yet these yahoos insist on hanging around and pretending it has.
> 
> IT HASN'T. And none of the theories they have that they (lie) say disproves the existence of God have been proven...nor have those theories ever been proven.



If you've been demonstrating or affirming that your intellectual paradigm is intellectually dishonest, I am failing to see it. If my failure to see that you acknowledge that your intellectual paradigm is intellectually dishonest has led me to misrepresent you again, I assure you it was unintentional, and I would hope you would again accept my sincere and public apology to you. Otherwise, as I said earlier, I will stand by my assertion regarding your failure to accept the intellectual dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm.

In any event, and as before, I am not extending this mea culpa or apology to YWC or anyone else who maintains the validity of his dishonest intellectual paradigm directly or indirectly. 



koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have no proof.
> 
> 
> 
> And your beliefs are baseless in verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

But look at your very own words above ... you candidly admit your beliefs are not based in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. How can you honestly have any problem with my assertion here? How can you claim or suggest I am lying? 



koshergrl said:


> I have highlighted the glaring lies and inconsistencies.


With the possible exception of the first line you highlighted, I cannot see how you can honestly claim there are any inconsistencies with fact that I have posted. And in regard to actual lying; just look at the record! Considering YWC's and your own contributions, how can you honestly claim that I have made a deliberate attempt to misinform? *You really need to explain that to me.*



koshergrl said:


> Didn't you just post that you hadn't claimed there was evidence that denied the existence of God?


I'm not sure, but I will conditionally stipulate to the fact, since there is evidence that God doesn't exist. I'm not saying I can demonstrate proof, but I can identify the evidence.



koshergrl said:


> Since my belief is that there is a god, you show yourself up as a liar right there.


Well, your belief in God is irrelevant to any fact of reality that I am lying in this regard. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between being incorrect about the facts, and lying about the facts.



koshergrl said:


> Not that it's unique or anything...pretty much every word you fling is a lie.


You have yet to demonstrate this unsubstantiated accusation of yours; and your faith that "...pretty much every word *I* fling is a lie" is obviously irrelevant to any determination of such that is validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.


----------



## Old Rocks

Well, dingleberry, we do not see stasis during the Cambrian, and, very definately, not the Pre-Cabrian.

Chirality is affect by light, by the chemistry of feldspars, and many other ways. There is no problem of chirality, just as there is no problem with mutation. 

There are issues as to which natural processes are or were, the most important.

The creation arguement is dead. It died with the development of genetic mapping. It died in court after the rejection of the Design arguements.

Creationism has now joined the 'Flat Earthers' as far as most are concerned. Dead subject.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, again, modification with descent.  How many times do you have to ask?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,no,and no again. The preferred theory now is Neo,that is positive mutation+natural selection+large spans of time equal macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No no and no again you are wrong.  I teach biology at a graduate level, you are making things up.
Click to expand...


I don't make things up, and i'm impressed you teach it at the graduate level. My teachers that believed this nonsense then is way out there just like you.

You're are wrong again,.

Definition for neo darwinism:




Web definitions:




a modern Darwinian theory that explains new species in terms of genetic mutations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Old Rocks said:


> Well, dingleberry, we do not see stasis during the Cambrian, and, very definately, not the Pre-Cabrian.
> 
> Chirality is affect by light, by the chemistry of feldspars, and many other ways. There is no problem of chirality, just as there is no problem with mutation.
> 
> There are issues as to which natural processes are or were, the most important.
> 
> The creation arguement is dead. It died with the development of genetic mapping. It died in court after the rejection of the Design arguements.
> 
> Creationism has now joined the 'Flat Earthers' as far as most are concerned. Dead subject.



You need to prove otherwise.

The Fossil Record
The Only Direct Evidence.

CARL DUNBAR, Yale, "Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms." HISTORICAL GEOLOGY, p. 47

S. M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins, "It is doubtful whether, in the absence of fossils, the idea of evolution would represent anything more than an outrageous hypothesis. ...The fossil record and only the fossil record provides direct evidence of major sequential changes in the Earth's biota." NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, p.72, 1981

HISTORICAL &#65533; NOT EMPIRICAL, JOHN H. HORNER "...paleontology is a historical science, a science based on circumstantial evidence, after the fact. We can never reach hard and fast conclusions in our study of ancient plants and animals... These days it&#65533;s easy to go through school for a good many years, sometimes even through college, without ever hearing that some sciences are historical or by nature inconclusive." Dinosaur Lives, 1997, p.19

In Their "Beginning": Sudden; Complex; Diverse; Every Animal Phylum; Assumed History Missing

STEPHEN J. GOULD, HARVARD, "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682

Preston Cloud & Martin F. Glaessner, "Ever since Darwin, the geologically abrupt appearance and rapid diversification of early animal life have fascinated biologist and students of Earth history alike....This interval, plus Early Cambrian, was the time during which metazoan life diversified into nearly all of the major phyla and most of the invertebrate classes and orders subsequently known." Science, Aug.27, 1982

RICHARD Monastersky, Earth Science Ed., Science News, "The remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. ...This moment, right at the start of the Earth's Cambrian Period...marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures. ...&#65533;This is Genesis material,&#65533; gushed one researcher. ...demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today...a menagerie of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, and other invertevrates that would seem vaguely familiar to any scuba diver." Discover, p.40, 4/93

Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, "And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation...", The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230

TREES & FISH IN CAMBRIAN, John Repetski, U.S.Geol. Survey, "The oldest land plants now known are from the Early Cambrian... Approximately 60 Cambrian spore-genera are now on record...represent 6 different groups of vascular plants..." Evolution, V.13, 6/'59, p.264. Daniel I. Axelrod, UCLA, "This report of fish material from Upper Cambrian rocks further extends the record of the vertebrates by approximately 40 million years." [WY, OK, WA, NV, ID, AR] Science, Vol.200, 5 May, 1978, p.529

PATCH FAILED, "Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world. ...just as the peculiar behavior of light forced physicists to conclude that Newton's laws were incomplete, so the Cambrian explosion has caused experts to wonder if the twin Darwinian imperatives of genetic variation and natural selection provide an adequate framework for understanding evolution..." Time, 12/4, 1995, p.67, 74

BLIND FAITH, Douglas Futuyma, "It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed, without intermediates connecting one form to another." EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, 1985, p.325

"Trees" Contradicted By Fossils, From Some Similarities, Ignoring Others

SEPARATE LIVING KINDS" Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "Our modern phyla represent designs of great distinctness, yet our diverse world contains nothing in between sponges, corals, insects, snails, sea urchins, and fishes (to choose standard representatives of the most prominent phyla).", Natural History, p.15, Oct. 1990

SEPRATE FOSSIL KINDS" Valentine (U. CA) & Erwin (MI St.), "If we were to expect to find ancestors to or intermediates between higher taxa, it would be the rocks of the late Precambrian to Ordivician times, when the bulk of the world's higher animal taxa evolved. Yet traditional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing then.", Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.84, 1987.

"TREES" NOT FROM FOSSILS, Steven J. Gould, Harvard, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils.", Nat.His., V.86, p.13

STORY TIME, COLIN PATTERSON, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Nat. History, "You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another.... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. .... I don't think we shall ever have any access to any form of tree which we can call factual." HARPER'S, Feb.1984, p.56

ARBITRARY ARRANGEMENT, R.H.Dott, U.of Wis. & R.L.Batten, Columbia, AMNH, "We have arranged the groups in a traditional way with the 'simplest' forms first, and progressively more complex groups following. This particular arrangement is arbitrary and depends on what definition of 'complexity' you wish to choose. ...things are alike because they are related, and the less they look alike, the further removed they are from their common ancestor." EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH, p.602

Unrelated Look-Alikes, J.Z.Young, Prof. of Anatomy, Oxford, "...similar features repeatedly appear in distinct lines. ...Parallel evolution is so common that it is almost a rule that detailed study of any group produces a confused taxonomy. Investigators are unable to distinguish populations that are parallel new developments from those truly descended from each other." LIFE OF THE VERTEBRATES, p.779

similarity IS NoT genetic, Sir Gavin Debeer, Prof. Embry., U.London, Director BMNH, "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless." Oxford Biology Reader, p.16, Homology an Unsolved Problem

Embryonic Recapitulation?

R. H. DOTT, Univ. of WI, R. L BATTEN, Columbia Univ., A.M.N.H., "Much research has been done in embryology since Haeckel's day, and we now know that there are all too many exceptions to this analogy, and that ontogeny does not reflect accurately the course of evolution." EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH, p.86

SIMPSON & BECK, "Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny."Intro.To Biology, 1965,p.273

KEITH S. THOMPSON, Academy of Natural Sciences, "Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry, it was extinct in the twenties." American Scientist, 5/6, 1988, p.273 "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated"

Ashley Montagu, "The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel." Montagu-Gish Prinston Debate, 4/12/1980

"EMBRYONIC FRAUD LIVES ON," "Although Hacckel confessed&#65533;and was convicted of fraud at the University of Jena, the drawings persist." New Scientist, p.23, 9/6/97

Significant Change Is Not Observed

BOTHERSOM distresS, STEPHEN J. Gould, Harvard , "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980.

"DESIGNS," S.J.Gould, Harvard, "We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence. ...I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. ...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." Natural History, 2/82, p.2

Required Transitional Forms Missing

DARWIN'S BIGGEST PROBLEM, "...innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ...why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory". Origin of the Species.

MORE EMBARRASSING, David M. Raup, U. Chicago; Ch. F. Mus. of N. H., "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50, p.35

PREDICTION FAILED, Niles Eldridge, Amer. Mus. N. H., "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search.... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46

Proposed Links "Debunked"

TEXTBOOK DECEIT, GEORGE G. SIMPSON, "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers never happened in nature." LIFE OF THE PAST, p.119

THE HORSE "STORY", Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History, "There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff." Harper's, p. 60, 1984. 

TEXTBOOK HORSES, Bruce MacFadden, FL Museum of Natural History & U. of FL "...over the years fossil horses have been cited as a prime example of orthogenesis ["straight-line evolution"] ...it can no longer be considered a valid theory...we find that once a notion becomes part of accepted scientific knowledge, it is very difficult to modify or reject it" FOSSIL HORSES, 1994, p.27

STORY TIME OVER, Derek Ager, U.at Swansea, Wales, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.", PROC. GEOL. ASSO., Vol.87, p.132

"FOSSIL BIRD SHAKES EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESES, "Fossil remains claimed to be of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found....a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. ...tends to confirm what many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds." Nature, Vol.322, 1986 p.677

REPTILE TO BIRD W.E. SWINTON, "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved." BIOLOGY & COMPARATIVE PHYSIOLOGY OF BIRDS, Vol.1, p.1.

Systematic Gaps

orders, classes, & phyla, George Gaylord Simpson, Harvard, "Gaps among known species are sporatic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large.", EVOLUTION OF LIFE, p.149

GENUINE KNOWLEDGE, D.B. Kitts, U.of OK, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them... The 'fact that discontinuities are almost always and systematically present at the origin of really big categories' is an item of genuinely historical knowledge.", Evolution, Vol.28, p. 467

NOT ONE! D.S. Woodroff, U.of CA, San Diego, "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." Science, Vol.208, 1980, p.716 STEPHEN M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins U., "In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." THE NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, 1981, p.95 

EVIDENCE-A MATTER OF FAITH, A.C. Seward, Cambridge, "The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize." Plant Life Through the Ages, p.561

"WE KNEW BETTER", Niles Eldredge, Columbia U., American Museum Of Natural History, "And it has been the paleontologist&#65533; my own breed&#65533;who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: .... We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not.", TIME FRAMES, 1986, p.144

Punctuated Equilibrium

Unobserved imagined scenario to explain missing evidence,based on fossils not found, mechanisms not observed

GOULD & ELDREDGE, "In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing; 'all these years of work and I haven't found any evolution'. (R.A. REYMENT Quoted) "The occurrences of long sequences within species are common in boreholes and it is possible to exploit the statistical properties of such sequences in detailed biostratigraphy. It is noteworthy that gradual, directed transitions from one species to another do not seem to exist in borehole samples of microorganisms." (H.J. MACGILLAVRY Quoted) "During my work as an oil paleontologist I had the opportunity to study sections meeting these rigid requirements. As an ardent student of evolution, moreover, I was continually on the watch for evidence of evolutionary change. ...The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all." Paleobiology, Vol.3, p.136

S. M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins "The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. We seem forced to conclude that most evolution takes place rapidly...a punctuational model of evolution...operated by a natural mechanism whose major effects are wrought exactly where we are least able to study them - in small, localized, transitory populations...The point here is that if the transition was typically rapid and the population small and localized, fossil evidence of the event would never be found." p.77, 110, New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981

Colin Patterson, B.M.N.H. "Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. ...When you haven't got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence." Darwin's EnigmA, p.100

Implication Of The Fossils

PALEONTOLOGY DOES NOT PROVE EVOLUTION, D.B. Kitts, U.of OK, "The claim is made that paleontology provides a direct way to get at the major events of organic history and that, furthermore, it provides a means of testing evolutionary theories. ...the paleontologist can provide knowledge that cannot be provided by biological principles alone. But he cannot provide us with evolution.", Evolution, Vol.28, p.466

DON'T USE THE FOSSILS, Mark Ridley, Oxford, "...a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." New Scientist, June, 1981, p.831

FOSSILS INDICATE CREATION! E.J.H. Cornor, Cambridge "Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the Theory of Evolution from Biology, Biogeography, and Paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." CONTEMPORARY BOTANICAL THOUGHT, p.61

Fossils Do Not Support Evolution. Fossils Are Positive Evidence For Creation!



Valentine (U. CA) & Erwin (MI St.), "We conclude that...neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans." Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.96, 1987.



THE NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, 1981

NO VERTICAL CHANGE, NILES ELDRIDGE, Curator, American Museum Of Natural History, "The classic cases of &#65533;living fossils&#65533; reveal a more pervasive conservatism: there seems to have been almost no change in any part we can compare between the living organism and its fossilized progenitors of the remote geological past. Living fossils embody the theme of evolutionary stability to an extreme degree. ...Against them we might pit the mutability, the evolutionary changeability, of disease-causing and antibiotic-resistant staphylo-coccus bacteria, malaria pathogens, or the dreaded retroviruses (that cause AIDS and other horrid afflictions): in the short term, at least, evolutionary change in these microbes is extremely rapid. And so we ask: what underlies this great disparity of evolutionary rates?" FOSSILS, 1991, p.100



PERCY E. RAYMOND, Prof. of Paleontology, Harvard , "It is evidence that the oldest Cambrian fauna is diversified and not so simple, perhaps, as the evolutionists would hope to find it. Instead of being composed chiefly of protozoans, it contains no representatives of that phylum but numerous members of seven higher groups are present, a fact which shows that the greater part of the major differentiation of animals had already taken place in those ancient times.", PREHISTORIC LIFE, 1967 p.23



H.S. Ladd, UCLA, "Most paleontologists today give little thought to fossiliferous rocks older than the Cambrian, thus ignoring the most important missing link of all. Indeed the missing Pre-Cambrian record cannot properly be described as a link for it is in reality, about nine-tenths of the chain of life: the first nine-tenths.", Geo. So. of Am. Mem. 1967, Vol.II, p.7



Evidence for Creation: FOSSIL RECORD


----------



## Youwerecreated

Old Rocks said:


> Well, dingleberry, we do not see stasis during the Cambrian, and, very definately, not the Pre-Cabrian.
> 
> Chirality is affect by light, by the chemistry of feldspars, and many other ways. There is no problem of chirality, just as there is no problem with mutation.
> 
> There are issues as to which natural processes are or were, the most important.
> 
> The creation arguement is dead. It died with the development of genetic mapping. It died in court after the rejection of the Design arguements.
> 
> Creationism has now joined the 'Flat Earthers' as far as most are concerned. Dead subject.



Video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URWilfB2RVU]103 - Bones in Stones / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, dingleberry, we do not see stasis during the Cambrian, and, very definately, not the Pre-Cabrian.
> 
> Chirality is affect by light, by the chemistry of feldspars, and many other ways. There is no problem of chirality, just as there is no problem with mutation.
> 
> There are issues as to which natural processes are or were, the most important.
> 
> The creation arguement is dead. It died with the development of genetic mapping. It died in court after the rejection of the Design arguements.
> 
> Creationism has now joined the 'Flat Earthers' as far as most are concerned. Dead subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Video.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URWilfB2RVU]103 - Bones in Stones / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

Meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard, posted here by one of his own retarded ideological species.


----------



## LOki

*Lee Spetner* _"Spetner developed what he called his "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis", which (in common with Christian young earth creationists) accepted microevolution (which he attributed to *Lamarckian-like inheritance*), but rejected macroevolution."​_Interesting. While adhering to "Lamarckian-like inheritance" this "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis" of his seems to suggest that evolutionary theory proposes that evolution is entirely random--that somehow evolutionary theory entirely discounts the biasing effects of chromosome structure and natural selection.

He seriously cannot be proposing the Lamarckian notion that was discounted in high-school biology: giraffes stretching their necks to get at food, and then passing that stretched neck to their progeny. Were beneficial mutations "magicked" into the population?

HAHA! YES HE DOES!_"Dr. Spetner suggests that these experiments which indicate that adaptive mutations are stimulated by the environment, ..."

...​
"Dr. Spetner wonders how much of the fossil record might be the result of the direct influence of environment on the phenotype without any change in the genotype. (Spetner 1998)"_​LOLsome!


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, dingleberry, we do not see stasis during the Cambrian, and, very definately, not the Pre-Cabrian.
> 
> Chirality is affect by light, by the chemistry of feldspars, and many other ways. There is no problem of chirality, just as there is no problem with mutation.
> 
> There are issues as to which natural processes are or were, the most important.
> 
> The creation arguement is dead. It died with the development of genetic mapping. It died in court after the rejection of the Design arguements.
> 
> Creationism has now joined the 'Flat Earthers' as far as most are concerned. Dead subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to prove otherwise.
> 
> The Fossil Record
> The Only Direct Evidence.
> 
> CARL DUNBAR, Yale, "Although the compa ....
> 
> _--WALL OF CRAP SNIPPED--​_
> ... ine-tenths.", Geo. So. of Am. Mem. 1967, Vol.II, p.7
> 
> Evidence for Creation: FOSSIL RECORD
Click to expand...

This is another good a spot to insert this excerpt from an essay I discovered while looking for this single layer of silt found world-wide that was undeniably deposited during Youwerecreated's and Walter Veith's global deluge.

_Even if all biologists were in the clutches of evolutions vile, atheist conspiracy, presumably bribed by their academic paychecks and research grants, theres no reason for profit-seeking corporations to cripple themselves by sticking with a fraud like evolution  not when theres an allegedly better theory around. The free enterprise system isnt interested in ideology  only what works. Business executives and their shareholders are results-oriented, and if theres a legal way to use knowledge to earn profits, theyll do it. But somehow, despite the incentives to stay ahead of the competition, flood geologists arent recruited by the mining or oil industries, creation scientists arent hired as researchers for the biotech industry or pharmaceutical firms, and  this is trivial, but true  specialists in Noahs Ark arent in demand by naval architects.

Isnt it amazing that these industries, which are profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, which employ tens of thousands of scientists in the fields of biology, geology, etc., never specifically recruit creationists and dont waste their time or their shareholders money doing creation science? Why dont they offer big salaries to hire the leading ID scientists away from the Discovery Institute? Why dont they make tempting offers to all the creationists who claim that universities discriminate against them? Why are they avoiding such a rich source of talent?

If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation science in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the science of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries.

Does the Darwinist conspiracy control not only academia, but also the hiring and research activities of major corporations? Oil companies too? If so, where are the gutsy little start-ups that have some hot new creationist development to sell? Why dont venture capitalists bankroll such enterprises? If creation science is such hot stuff, why isnt there a creationist version of Silicon Valley? Could it be that  gasp!  investments in creationism dont offer anything of value?_
--The Sensuous Curmudgeon, 2009​


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> *Lee Spetner* _"Spetner developed what he called his "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis", which (in common with Christian young earth creationists) accepted microevolution (which he attributed to *Lamarckian-like inheritance*), but rejected macroevolution."​_Interesting. While adhering to "Lamarckian-like inheritance" this "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis" of his seems to suggest that evolutionary theory proposes that evolution is entirely random--that somehow evolutionary theory entirely discounts the biasing effects of chromosome structure and natural selection.
> 
> He seriously cannot be proposing the Lamarckian notion that was discounted in high-school biology: giraffes stretching their necks to get at food, and then passing that stretched neck to their progeny. Were beneficial mutations "magicked" into the population?
> 
> HAHA! YES HE DOES!_"Dr. Spetner suggests that these experiments which indicate that adaptive mutations are stimulated by the environment, ..."
> 
> ...​
> "Dr. Spetner wonders how much of the fossil record might be the result of the direct influence of environment on the phenotype without any change in the genotype. (Spetner 1998)"_​LOLsome!



Retard,you should read his book he destroys the modern day theory of evolution ,that is neo darwinism. The book is not by chance however I do not agree with him on his form of evolution. I believe in microadaptations which is microevolution. That is what you dummys extrapolate from to try and show macroevolurion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, dingleberry, we do not see stasis during the Cambrian, and, very definately, not the Pre-Cabrian.
> 
> Chirality is affect by light, by the chemistry of feldspars, and many other ways. There is no problem of chirality, just as there is no problem with mutation.
> 
> There are issues as to which natural processes are or were, the most important.
> 
> The creation arguement is dead. It died with the development of genetic mapping. It died in court after the rejection of the Design arguements.
> 
> Creationism has now joined the 'Flat Earthers' as far as most are concerned. Dead subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Video.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URWilfB2RVU]103 - Bones in Stones / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard, posted here by one of his own retarded ideological species.
Click to expand...


Just watch and learn and tell us what is propaganda and point out where he is wrong. I have seen no one who writes so many meaningless posts,that's amazing.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Video.
> 
> 103 - Bones in Stones / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard, posted here by one of his own retarded ideological species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just watch and learn and tell us what is propaganda and point out where he is wrong. I have seen no one who writes so many meaningless posts,that's amazing.
Click to expand...

I watched it. I actually posted it before you, you idiot.

And it's still meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dream on,nothing complex can be denomstrated to have come into existence on it's own.
> 
> 
> 
> odd, the same can be said of complex creation.
> thanks for playing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did i just become dumber from reading your post ?
Click to expand...

how could you become any dumber! your pov says it all.


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you seem to demand that you have verifiable evidence and valid logic that supports your claim. Your demand is bullshit, of course, yet you (particularly you, koshergrl) make it without bringing said verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right. Allow me to submit the following:
> 
> 
> I do not think it should be necessary that I post all the cheerleading you've been posting while YWC was discussing his logic and evidence, nor do I think it should be necessary that I make a special effort to demonstrate that you made no effort to correct YWC on this matter.
> 
> In light of this, I hope you can understand how I might have come to the conclusion that you demand that you as well have verifiable evidence and valid logic that support your claims.
> 
> If however, you claim that your assertion that this world, and all the life on it was created and designed by a creator is entirely baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, then I'll admit I was wrong to declare you said otherwise. If I have misrepresented you, it was unintentional; and please consider this my sincere and public apology to you. But I won't make such declaration for or apologize to, YWC or anyone else who maintains the validity of his fatuous claims directly or indirectly.
> 
> 
> I stand by this.
> 
> This is all unquestionably true, by your very own admissions:
> 
> If you've been demonstrating or affirming that your intellectual paradigm is intellectually dishonest, I am failing to see it. If my failure to see that you acknowledge that your intellectual paradigm is intellectually dishonest has led me to misrepresent you again, I assure you it was unintentional, and I would hope you would again accept my sincere and public apology to you. Otherwise, as I said earlier, I will stand by my assertion regarding your failure to accept the intellectual dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm.
> 
> In any event, and as before, I am not extending this mea culpa or apology to YWC or anyone else who maintains the validity of his dishonest intellectual paradigm directly or indirectly.
> 
> But look at your very own words above ... you candidly admit your beliefs are not based in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. How can you honestly have any problem with my assertion here? How can you claim or suggest I am lying?
> 
> With the possible exception of the first line you highlighted, I cannot see how you can honestly claim there are any inconsistencies with fact that I have posted. And in regard to actual lying; just look at the record! Considering YWC's and your own contributions, how can you honestly claim that I have made a deliberate attempt to misinform? *You really need to explain that to me.*
> 
> I'm not sure, but I will conditionally stipulate to the fact, since there is evidence that God doesn't exist. I'm not saying I can demonstrate proof, but I can identify the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since my belief is that there is a god, you show yourself up as a liar right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, your belief in God is irrelevant to any fact of reality that I am lying in this regard. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between being incorrect about the facts, and lying about the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that it's unique or anything...pretty much every word you fling is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have yet to demonstrate this unsubstantiated accusation of yours; and your faith that "...pretty much every word *I* fling is a lie" is obviously irrelevant to any determination of such that is validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
Click to expand...

 
I'm sorry, you're a fucking idiot.

I don't even need to say anything. You prove yourself an idiot, as well as a liar, in the very post you use to (supposedly) show that you AREN'T.

I'll just let your idiocy stand as it is, without garnishment. It needs none.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it.
> 
> We don't claim that our faith is based upon proof.
> 
> 
> 
> But you seem to demand that you have verifiable evidence and valid logic that supports your claim. Your demand is bullshit, of course, yet you (particularly you, koshergrl) make it without bringing said verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> You just don't accept the intellectually dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm. While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.
> 
> You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.
> 
> Untrue. And this has been explained to you repeatedly. Absolute unqualified certainty is not what we claim about out conclusions, nor is it what we require of competing conclusions. We require verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; NOT "proof." Our conclusions are subject to verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; in contrast to you and your superstitious tribe of intellectually dishonest retards who require that their evidence and logic are subject to their conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your beliefs are baseless in verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, more lies.
> 
> How many times have I said we admit there is no solid evidence that God exists and there never will be? So again, you're a liar.
> 
> You morons, on the other hand, pretend you have solid evidence that "proves" the bible is full of lies...when you absolutely don't.
> 
> Which is why I don't spend time arguing with you. You post silliness and pass it off as some sort of superior argument and post lies and pretend it's evidence. There's no point. You lie, and there's no arguing with liars. All one can do is point out the lies...which is what I do.
> 
> And keep asking the same questions..which are never answered and always precipitate a flurry of ad hominem attacks, other logical fallacies, a flurry of deflections, and more lies.
> 
> It's like arguing with retards. Well, it is arguing with retards.
Click to expand...

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard, posted here by one of his own retarded ideological species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just watch and learn and tell us what is propaganda and point out where he is wrong. I have seen no one who writes so many meaningless posts,that's amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched it. I actually posted it before you, you idiot.
> 
> And it's still meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard.
Click to expand...


So,what does he say that is wrong ?


----------



## daws101

The Bible consists of a collection of sixty-six separate books. These books were chosen, after a bit of haggling, by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.more than three hundred years after the time of Jesus. This collection is broken into two major sections: The Old Testament, which consists of thirty-nine books, and The New Testament, which consists of twenty-seven books. (Catholic Bibles include additional books known as the Apocrypha.)

The Old Testament is concerned with the Hebrew God, Yahweh, and purports to be a history of the early Israelites. The New Testament is the work of early Christians and reflects their beliefs about Jesus; it purports to be a history of what Jesus taught and did.

The composition of the various books is thought to have begun around 1000 B.C., and to have continued for about 1,100 years. Much oral material was included. This was repeated from father to son, revised over and over again, and then put into written form by various editors. These editors often worked in different locales and in different time periods, and were often unaware of each other. Their work was primarily intended for local use and it is unlikely that any author foresaw that his work would be included in a "Bible."

No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not one book which survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations, some accidental and some purposeful, were made to the originals by various authors, editors, and copyists.

Many biblical authors are unknown. When an author has been named that name has sometimes been selected by pious believers rather than given by the author himself. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are examples of books which did not carry the names of their actual authors; the present names were assigned long after these four books were written. Andin spite of what the Gospel authors saybiblical scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the Gospel authors was either an actual disciple of Jesus or even an eyewitness to his ministry.

Although some books of the Bible are traditionally attributed to a single author, many are actually the work of multiple authors. Genesis and John are two examples of books which reflect multiple authorship.

Many biblical books have the earmarks of fiction. For example, private conversations are often related when no reporter was present. Conversations between God and various individuals are recorded. Prehistoric events are given in great detail. When a story is told by more than one author, there are usually significant differences. Many storiesstories which in their original context are considered even by Christians to be fictionalwere borrowed by the biblical authors, adapted for their own purposes, given a historical setting, and then declared to be fact.

The Flood story is an example of this kind of adaptation. Its migration from the earliest known occurrence in Sumeria, around 1600 B.C., from place to place and eventually to the Bible, can be traced historically. Each time the story was used again, it was altered to speak of local gods and heroes.

Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you seem to demand that you have verifiable evidence and valid logic that supports your claim. Your demand is bullshit, of course, yet you (particularly you, koshergrl) make it without bringing said verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> You just don't accept the intellectually dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm. While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.
> 
> You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.
> 
> Untrue. And this has been explained to you repeatedly. Absolute unqualified certainty is not what we claim about out conclusions, nor is it what we require of competing conclusions. We require verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; NOT "proof." Our conclusions are subject to verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; in contrast to you and your superstitious tribe of intellectually dishonest retards who require that their evidence and logic are subject to their conclusion.
> 
> And your beliefs are baseless in verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, more lies.
> 
> How many times have I said we admit there is no solid evidence that God exists and there never will be? So again, you're a liar.
> 
> You morons, on the other hand, pretend you have solid evidence that "proves" the bible is full of lies...when you absolutely don't.
> 
> Which is why I don't spend time arguing with you. You post silliness and pass it off as some sort of superior argument and post lies and pretend it's evidence. There's no point. You lie, and there's no arguing with liars. All one can do is point out the lies...which is what I do.
> 
> And keep asking the same questions..which are never answered and always precipitate a flurry of ad hominem attacks, other logical fallacies, a flurry of deflections, and more lies.
> 
> It's like arguing with retards. Well, it is arguing with retards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf
Click to expand...


You mean taking scriptures out of context and the atheist unable to reason from what they read ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, dingleberry, we do not see stasis during the Cambrian, and, very definately, not the Pre-Cabrian.
> 
> Chirality is affect by light, by the chemistry of feldspars, and many other ways. There is no problem of chirality, just as there is no problem with mutation.
> 
> There are issues as to which natural processes are or were, the most important.
> 
> The creation arguement is dead. It died with the development of genetic mapping. It died in court after the rejection of the Design arguements.
> 
> Creationism has now joined the 'Flat Earthers' as far as most are concerned. Dead subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Video.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URWilfB2RVU]103 - Bones in Stones / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard, posted here by one of his own retarded ideological species.
Click to expand...


I guess you missed all these educated people from your side that agrees with the good Doctor.

The Fossil Record
The Only Direct Evidence.

CARL DUNBAR, Yale, "Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms." HISTORICAL GEOLOGY, p. 47

S. M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins, "It is doubtful whether, in the absence of fossils, the idea of evolution would represent anything more than an outrageous hypothesis. ...The fossil record and only the fossil record provides direct evidence of major sequential changes in the Earth's biota." NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, p.72, 1981

HISTORICAL &#65533; NOT EMPIRICAL, JOHN H. HORNER "...paleontology is a historical science, a science based on circumstantial evidence, after the fact. We can never reach hard and fast conclusions in our study of ancient plants and animals... These days it&#65533;s easy to go through school for a good many years, sometimes even through college, without ever hearing that some sciences are historical or by nature inconclusive." Dinosaur Lives, 1997, p.19

In Their "Beginning": Sudden; Complex; Diverse; Every Animal Phylum; Assumed History Missing

STEPHEN J. GOULD, HARVARD, "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682

Preston Cloud & Martin F. Glaessner, "Ever since Darwin, the geologically abrupt appearance and rapid diversification of early animal life have fascinated biologist and students of Earth history alike....This interval, plus Early Cambrian, was the time during which metazoan life diversified into nearly all of the major phyla and most of the invertebrate classes and orders subsequently known." Science, Aug.27, 1982

RICHARD Monastersky, Earth Science Ed., Science News, "The remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. ...This moment, right at the start of the Earth's Cambrian Period...marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures. ...&#65533;This is Genesis material,&#65533; gushed one researcher. ...demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today...a menagerie of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, and other invertevrates that would seem vaguely familiar to any scuba diver." Discover, p.40, 4/93

Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, "And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation...", The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230

TREES & FISH IN CAMBRIAN, John Repetski, U.S.Geol. Survey, "The oldest land plants now known are from the Early Cambrian... Approximately 60 Cambrian spore-genera are now on record...represent 6 different groups of vascular plants..." Evolution, V.13, 6/'59, p.264. Daniel I. Axelrod, UCLA, "This report of fish material from Upper Cambrian rocks further extends the record of the vertebrates by approximately 40 million years." [WY, OK, WA, NV, ID, AR] Science, Vol.200, 5 May, 1978, p.529

PATCH FAILED, "Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world. ...just as the peculiar behavior of light forced physicists to conclude that Newton's laws were incomplete, so the Cambrian explosion has caused experts to wonder if the twin Darwinian imperatives of genetic variation and natural selection provide an adequate framework for understanding evolution..." Time, 12/4, 1995, p.67, 74

BLIND FAITH, Douglas Futuyma, "It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed, without intermediates connecting one form to another." EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, 1985, p.325

"Trees" Contradicted By Fossils, From Some Similarities, Ignoring Others

SEPARATE LIVING KINDS" Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "Our modern phyla represent designs of great distinctness, yet our diverse world contains nothing in between sponges, corals, insects, snails, sea urchins, and fishes (to choose standard representatives of the most prominent phyla).", Natural History, p.15, Oct. 1990

SEPRATE FOSSIL KINDS" Valentine (U. CA) & Erwin (MI St.), "If we were to expect to find ancestors to or intermediates between higher taxa, it would be the rocks of the late Precambrian to Ordivician times, when the bulk of the world's higher animal taxa evolved. Yet traditional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing then.", Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.84, 1987.

"TREES" NOT FROM FOSSILS, Steven J. Gould, Harvard, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils.", Nat.His., V.86, p.13

STORY TIME, COLIN PATTERSON, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Nat. History, "You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another.... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. .... I don't think we shall ever have any access to any form of tree which we can call factual." HARPER'S, Feb.1984, p.56

ARBITRARY ARRANGEMENT, R.H.Dott, U.of Wis. & R.L.Batten, Columbia, AMNH, "We have arranged the groups in a traditional way with the 'simplest' forms first, and progressively more complex groups following. This particular arrangement is arbitrary and depends on what definition of 'complexity' you wish to choose. ...things are alike because they are related, and the less they look alike, the further removed they are from their common ancestor." EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH, p.602

Unrelated Look-Alikes, J.Z.Young, Prof. of Anatomy, Oxford, "...similar features repeatedly appear in distinct lines. ...Parallel evolution is so common that it is almost a rule that detailed study of any group produces a confused taxonomy. Investigators are unable to distinguish populations that are parallel new developments from those truly descended from each other." LIFE OF THE VERTEBRATES, p.779

similarity IS NoT genetic, Sir Gavin Debeer, Prof. Embry., U.London, Director BMNH, "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless." Oxford Biology Reader, p.16, Homology an Unsolved Problem

Embryonic Recapitulation?

R. H. DOTT, Univ. of WI, R. L BATTEN, Columbia Univ., A.M.N.H., "Much research has been done in embryology since Haeckel's day, and we now know that there are all too many exceptions to this analogy, and that ontogeny does not reflect accurately the course of evolution." EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH, p.86

SIMPSON & BECK, "Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny."Intro.To Biology, 1965,p.273

KEITH S. THOMPSON, Academy of Natural Sciences, "Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry, it was extinct in the twenties." American Scientist, 5/6, 1988, p.273 "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated"

Ashley Montagu, "The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel." Montagu-Gish Prinston Debate, 4/12/1980

"EMBRYONIC FRAUD LIVES ON," "Although Hacckel confessed&#65533;and was convicted of fraud at the University of Jena, the drawings persist." New Scientist, p.23, 9/6/97

Significant Change Is Not Observed

BOTHERSOM distresS, STEPHEN J. Gould, Harvard , "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980.

"DESIGNS," S.J.Gould, Harvard, "We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence. ...I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. ...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." Natural History, 2/82, p.2

Required Transitional Forms Missing

DARWIN'S BIGGEST PROBLEM, "...innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ...why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory". Origin of the Species.

MORE EMBARRASSING, David M. Raup, U. Chicago; Ch. F. Mus. of N. H., "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50, p.35

PREDICTION FAILED, Niles Eldridge, Amer. Mus. N. H., "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search.... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46

Proposed Links "Debunked"

TEXTBOOK DECEIT, GEORGE G. SIMPSON, "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers never happened in nature." LIFE OF THE PAST, p.119

THE HORSE "STORY", Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History, "There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff." Harper's, p. 60, 1984. 

TEXTBOOK HORSES, Bruce MacFadden, FL Museum of Natural History & U. of FL "...over the years fossil horses have been cited as a prime example of orthogenesis ["straight-line evolution"] ...it can no longer be considered a valid theory...we find that once a notion becomes part of accepted scientific knowledge, it is very difficult to modify or reject it" FOSSIL HORSES, 1994, p.27

STORY TIME OVER, Derek Ager, U.at Swansea, Wales, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.", PROC. GEOL. ASSO., Vol.87, p.132

"FOSSIL BIRD SHAKES EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESES, "Fossil remains claimed to be of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found....a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. ...tends to confirm what many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds." Nature, Vol.322, 1986 p.677

REPTILE TO BIRD W.E. SWINTON, "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved." BIOLOGY & COMPARATIVE PHYSIOLOGY OF BIRDS, Vol.1, p.1.

Systematic Gaps

orders, classes, & phyla, George Gaylord Simpson, Harvard, "Gaps among known species are sporatic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large.", EVOLUTION OF LIFE, p.149

GENUINE KNOWLEDGE, D.B. Kitts, U.of OK, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them... The 'fact that discontinuities are almost always and systematically present at the origin of really big categories' is an item of genuinely historical knowledge.", Evolution, Vol.28, p. 467

NOT ONE! D.S. Woodroff, U.of CA, San Diego, "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." Science, Vol.208, 1980, p.716 STEPHEN M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins U., "In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." THE NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, 1981, p.95 

EVIDENCE-A MATTER OF FAITH, A.C. Seward, Cambridge, "The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize." Plant Life Through the Ages, p.561

"WE KNEW BETTER", Niles Eldredge, Columbia U., American Museum Of Natural History, "And it has been the paleontologist&#65533; my own breed&#65533;who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: .... We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not.", TIME FRAMES, 1986, p.144

Punctuated Equilibrium

Unobserved imagined scenario to explain missing evidence,based on fossils not found, mechanisms not observed

GOULD & ELDREDGE, "In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing; 'all these years of work and I haven't found any evolution'. (R.A. REYMENT Quoted) "The occurrences of long sequences within species are common in boreholes and it is possible to exploit the statistical properties of such sequences in detailed biostratigraphy. It is noteworthy that gradual, directed transitions from one species to another do not seem to exist in borehole samples of microorganisms." (H.J. MACGILLAVRY Quoted) "During my work as an oil paleontologist I had the opportunity to study sections meeting these rigid requirements. As an ardent student of evolution, moreover, I was continually on the watch for evidence of evolutionary change. ...The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all." Paleobiology, Vol.3, p.136

S. M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins "The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. We seem forced to conclude that most evolution takes place rapidly...a punctuational model of evolution...operated by a natural mechanism whose major effects are wrought exactly where we are least able to study them - in small, localized, transitory populations...The point here is that if the transition was typically rapid and the population small and localized, fossil evidence of the event would never be found." p.77, 110, New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981

Colin Patterson, B.M.N.H. "Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. ...When you haven't got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence." Darwin's EnigmA, p.100

Implication Of The Fossils

PALEONTOLOGY DOES NOT PROVE EVOLUTION, D.B. Kitts, U.of OK, "The claim is made that paleontology provides a direct way to get at the major events of organic history and that, furthermore, it provides a means of testing evolutionary theories. ...the paleontologist can provide knowledge that cannot be provided by biological principles alone. But he cannot provide us with evolution.", Evolution, Vol.28, p.466

DON'T USE THE FOSSILS, Mark Ridley, Oxford, "...a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." New Scientist, June, 1981, p.831

FOSSILS INDICATE CREATION! E.J.H. Cornor, Cambridge "Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the Theory of Evolution from Biology, Biogeography, and Paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." CONTEMPORARY BOTANICAL THOUGHT, p.61

Fossils Do Not Support Evolution. Fossils Are Positive Evidence For Creation!



Valentine (U. CA) & Erwin (MI St.), "We conclude that...neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans." Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.96, 1987.



THE NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, 1981

NO VERTICAL CHANGE, NILES ELDRIDGE, Curator, American Museum Of Natural History, "The classic cases of &#65533;living fossils&#65533; reveal a more pervasive conservatism: there seems to have been almost no change in any part we can compare between the living organism and its fossilized progenitors of the remote geological past. Living fossils embody the theme of evolutionary stability to an extreme degree. ...Against them we might pit the mutability, the evolutionary changeability, of disease-causing and antibiotic-resistant staphylo-coccus bacteria, malaria pathogens, or the dreaded retroviruses (that cause AIDS and other horrid afflictions): in the short term, at least, evolutionary change in these microbes is extremely rapid. And so we ask: what underlies this great disparity of evolutionary rates?" FOSSILS, 1991, p.100



PERCY E. RAYMOND, Prof. of Paleontology, Harvard , "It is evidence that the oldest Cambrian fauna is diversified and not so simple, perhaps, as the evolutionists would hope to find it. Instead of being composed chiefly of protozoans, it contains no representatives of that phylum but numerous members of seven higher groups are present, a fact which shows that the greater part of the major differentiation of animals had already taken place in those ancient times.", PREHISTORIC LIFE, 1967 p.23



H.S. Ladd, UCLA, "Most paleontologists today give little thought to fossiliferous rocks older than the Cambrian, thus ignoring the most important missing link of all. Indeed the missing Pre-Cambrian record cannot properly be described as a link for it is in reality, about nine-tenths of the chain of life: the first nine-tenths.", Geo. So. of Am. Mem. 1967, Vol.II, p.7


----------



## daws101

Item According to Genesis According to Evolution Theory 
Source Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 Paleontologists, Biologists, Astronomers, Geologists, etc. 
Sun Created after the world Present before world coalesces 
Grass, land plants, trees Created before the sun Evolved after the sun 
First forms of life Land plants Marine organisms 
Birds Created before land animals Evolved from land animals 
Fruit Trees Created before fish Evolved after fish 
Initial diet of animals Restricted to plants Animals evolved as meat, plant eaters, and omnivores. 
Age of the universe Less than 10,000 years About 14 billion years 
Age of the Earth Less than 10,000 years About 4.5 billion years 
Age of earliest life forms Less than 10,000 years About 3.5 billion years 
Where humans came from From Adam who was created by God(s). Genesis 1:27 does not explain the method. Genesis 2:7 explains that Adam was made from dust, the ground, or soil (translations differ). Evolved; higher apes and Homo Sapiens share a common ancestor. Actually, any two species of life have a common ancestor, even humans and cabbages, or dogs and sharks.  

The theory of evolution concludes that all life forms can be traced back to a primitive one-cell animal. Exactly how that simple animal developed out of non-living matter is beyond the scope of the theory evolution. The origins of life are the subject of a separate field of science, called: abiogenesis.


----------



## daws101

In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /&#716;e&#618;ba&#618;.&#629;&#712;d&#658;&#603;n&#616;s&#618;s/ ay-by-oh-jen-&#601;-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the MillerUrey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.

In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself,[3][4] with reliable fossil evidence of the first life found in rocks 3.4 Gyr old.[5] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[6][7] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[8][9]

The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).



Read more: abiogenesis: Definition from Answers.com


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Video.
> 
> 103 - Bones in Stones / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard, posted here by one of his own retarded ideological species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you missed all these educated people from your side that agrees with the good Doctor.
> 
> _--ALL THE CRAP CITED IN A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO VALIDATE CREATIONIST SUPERSTITIOUS PSUEDO-SCIENCE I DIDN'T MISS SNIPPED FOR THE BENEFIT OF RATIONAL HUMANITY---​_
Click to expand...

No. I suspect that the scientists and educated people (even the one you  asshats cite) from *my side* disavow the deliberate and disingenuous conclusions made by retards like you and Veith, citing their valid work.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, more lies.
> 
> How many times have I said we admit there is no solid evidence that God exists and there never will be? So again, you're a liar.
> 
> You morons, on the other hand, pretend you have solid evidence that "proves" the bible is full of lies...when you absolutely don't.
> 
> Which is why I don't spend time arguing with you. You post silliness and pass it off as some sort of superior argument and post lies and pretend it's evidence. There's no point. You lie, and there's no arguing with liars. All one can do is point out the lies...which is what I do.
> 
> And keep asking the same questions..which are never answered and always precipitate a flurry of ad hominem attacks, other logical fallacies, a flurry of deflections, and more lies.
> 
> It's like arguing with retards. Well, it is arguing with retards.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean taking scriptures out of context and the atheist unable to reason from what they read ?
Click to expand...

 lol! ahhh...it's seems you have a ass backward idea of what reason is. none of the text was taken out of context, it was taken as written so the flaw must be with the authors, not the readers.
if memory serves the bible was intended to be literal..that every word is true.
a little logic and analytical reading proves otherwise.


----------



## daws101

Why are there two creation stories in Genesis?Answer
The early Jews are believed to have encountered an early version of what is now the first creation story, in Genesis 1:1-2:4a, during the Babylonian Exile. It was assimilated and added to Genesis, without removing the second creation story, which starts in Genesis 2:4b, probably because the older story was popular and it would have caused dissent to have removed it. 

Leon R. Kass (The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis) says that pious readers, believing that the text cannot contain contradictions, ignore the major disjunctions between the two creation stories and tend to treat the second story as the fuller, more detailed account of the creation of man (and woman), but he says we must scrupulously avoid reading into the second story any facts or notions taken from the first (and vice versa) if we mean to understand each story on its own terms.   
There are two different creation stories: 

The first is Genesis 1:1-2:3 
The second is Genesis 2:4-25






Read more: Why are there two creation stories in Genesis


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Lee Spetner* _"Spetner developed what he called his "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis", which (in common with Christian young earth creationists) accepted microevolution (which he attributed to *Lamarckian-like inheritance*), but rejected macroevolution."​_Interesting. While adhering to "Lamarckian-like inheritance" this "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis" of his seems to suggest that evolutionary theory proposes that evolution is entirely random--that somehow evolutionary theory entirely discounts the biasing effects of chromosome structure and natural selection.
> 
> He seriously cannot be proposing the Lamarckian notion that was discounted in high-school biology: giraffes stretching their necks to get at food, and then passing that stretched neck to their progeny. Were beneficial mutations "magicked" into the population?
> 
> HAHA! YES HE DOES!_"Dr. Spetner suggests that these experiments which indicate that adaptive mutations are stimulated by the environment, ..."
> 
> ...​
> "Dr. Spetner wonders how much of the fossil record might be the result of the direct influence of environment on the phenotype without any change in the genotype. (Spetner 1998)"_​LOLsome!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard,you should read his book he destroys the modern day theory of evolution ,that is neo darwinism.
Click to expand...

See folks, what Youwerecreated fails to take note of is that his hero here, literally fails to "destroys the modern day theory of evolution" with his notion of magical signals from the environment choosing beneficial mutations. It's a laugh.



Youwerecreated said:


> The book is not by chance however I do not agree with him on his form of evolution. I believe in microadaptations which is microevolution.


I like to see this candid admission that a superstitious retard has finally accepted that evolution is a well established fact. _MICROEVOLUTION. A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers in a population. ...​ MACROEVOLUTION is a large amount of evolutionary change involving many elementary changes in gene proportions: the sum of many microevolutionary steps over a very large time-scale._​ Since microevolution and macroevolution describe the same processes on different scales, we can all agree that Youwerecreated believes in macroevolution as well, bringing him finally up to date with 10th grade Biology.



Youwerecreated said:


> That is what you dummys extrapolate from to try and show macroevolurion.


Well what do you know? Stupid really is forever, or Slowcoach has some explaining to do--the least this asshat could do is provide those with an education in evolutionary genetics with some precise and meaningful definitions of his terms.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> I'm sorry, you're a fucking idiot.


I apparently am ... for considering for one moment that you might have some intellectual integrity.



koshergrl said:


> I don't even need to say anything. You prove yourself an idiot, as well as a liar, in the very post you use to (supposedly) show that you AREN'T.


Well, I actually proved I didn't lie, and you're now proving that you're the idiot.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!



koshergrl said:


> I'll just let your idiocy stand as it is, without garnishment. It needs none.


Despite having every opportunity to substantiate your accusations with direct quotes and explanations, you didn't--the honest reason is that you can't.

You're a closed-minded idiot who lacks the intellectual integrity to admit she's wrong when it has been demonstrated to her.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watch and learn and tell us what is propaganda and point out where he is wrong. I have seen no one who writes so many meaningless posts,that's amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> I watched it. I actually posted it before you, you idiot.
> 
> And it's still meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So,what does he say that is wrong ?
Click to expand...

You should make the attempt to read what you reply to._Previously posted_ *here.*

Only 2 minutes in, this asshat starts greasing the specious path to the intellectually and morally bankrupt conclusions he hopes to use as props for his defense of the beliefs of superstitious retards like himself.

~ 0:02:00 Considering Veith's unambiguous record of disingenuousity, it's worth pointing out that relative to the geologic time scale, the occurrence of the Cambrian "Explosion" is arguably "sudden." Veith (disingenuously) fails to point out that "suddenly" on this scale occurred some 900,000,000 years after the earliest eukaryotes, and the "explosion" he is describing is about 600,000,000* in duration.    EDIT: * Just noticed I threw an extra zero in there--I meant to say "about 60,000,000"--I can't fix it in the original posting.

@ 0:02:45 Veith asserts that there is no such thing as primitive creatures. He (disingenuously) wants to get one thing straight: "There is no such thing as a simple organism. Every organism on this planet is highly, highly complex."

As if the absolute complexity of life is at all in dispute.

Veith is boldly demanding that evolutionists are not using the terms "primitive" and "simple" as descriptors on a relative scale.

Without foundation in fact of reality, verifiable evidence, or valid logic, Veith is attempting to invalidate patently obvious observations along the lines of, "Single celled organisms are simple, compared to multi-cellular organisms."

What he is doing (as he has done throughout this series thus far) is presenting a generalization made by evolutionists (which they clearly assert as being only a generalization) and then he picks specific examples not explained by the generalization, and then asserts (disingenuously) that this specific example is inexplicable for evolutionists.

Veith is clearly an intellectually dishonest douche.

@ 050 Veith begins to demonstrate that there's more than one way that a fossil record can be established. He then tell a story about the "catastrophic" effect that a bulldozer might have on a small pond, as it buries the organisms associated with it.

He of course, does not make it clear (for the purposes of metaphorical accuracy and honesty) that aside from this burying, there is to be no evidence what-so-ever that such a bulldozer was ever present or logically necessary, so you could validly hypothesize by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic that such a bulldozer was present.

@ 0:06:30 Veith asserts that it is the fossils in a layer that determine the age of the layer they are found in; then he demands that by circular reasoning alone are the ages of the layers and the fossils found in them determined. The suggestion he presents is NOT that fossils simply offer evidence of the age of a layer, or that similar fossils offer can offer strong evidence of similar ages for similar layers, but that fossils are the sole determinant factor for the age of the layer of sediment.

It's a patent error of fact that Veith is certainly aware of, and so are Youwerecreated and MarcATL, making the three of them intellectually dishonest retards.

@ 0:07:38 While discussing the conditions that paleo-geologists consider to be ideal for fossil formation, Veith takes the refusal to assert the clearly local nature of localized (in both time AND location) "catastrophes" as evidence of a global catastrophe, to be the denial of the evidence that local catastrophes occurred and could therefore be responsible for fossil formation--thus by default, this same set of scientists are then somehow obligated to recognize ONLY uniformitarian explanations.

Other than intellectually dishonest superstitious retards, who can take this guy seriously?

@ 045 Veith just goes entirely off reservation regarding how scientists classify an organism as "primitive."

I really do not think it is at all necessary to view the remaining 65 minutes of Veith's intellectual dishonesty to make the obvious conclusions regarding its intellectual value in light of this forst 10 minutes, and the thoroughness of his dishonesty in the 2 previous presentations.

I seriously wish there was a transcript available, so that examining this crap would consume so much time.

So I'm going to try to skip ahead to this "one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms" that YWC was on about, so I can respond to him.

==========================================
===============INTERMISSION===============
==========================================

This is as good a spot as any to insert this excerpt from an essay I discovered while looking for this single layer of silt found world-wide that was undeniably deposited during Youwerecreated's and Walter Veith's global deluge.

    Even if all biologists were in the clutches of evolution&#8217;s vile, atheist conspiracy, presumably bribed by their academic paychecks and research grants, there&#8217;s no reason for profit-seeking corporations to cripple themselves by sticking with a &#8220;fraud&#8221; like evolution &#8212; not when there&#8217;s an allegedly better theory around. The free enterprise system isn&#8217;t interested in ideology &#8212; only what works. Business executives and their shareholders are results-oriented, and if there&#8217;s a legal way to use knowledge to earn profits, they&#8217;ll do it. But somehow, despite the incentives to stay ahead of the competition, flood geologists aren&#8217;t recruited by the mining or oil industries, creation scientists aren&#8217;t hired as researchers for the biotech industry or pharmaceutical firms, and &#8212; this is trivial, but true &#8212; specialists in Noah&#8217;s Ark aren&#8217;t in demand by naval architects.

    Isn&#8217;t it amazing that these industries, which are profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, which employ tens of thousands of scientists in the fields of biology, geology, etc., never specifically recruit creationists and don&#8217;t waste their time or their shareholders&#8217; money doing &#8220;creation science&#8221;? Why don&#8217;t they offer big salaries to hire the leading ID scientists away from the Discovery Institute? Why don&#8217;t they make tempting offers to all the creationists who claim that universities discriminate against them? Why are they avoiding such a rich source of talent?

    If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation &#8220;science&#8221; in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the &#8220;science&#8221; of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries.

    Does the &#8220;Darwinist&#8221; conspiracy control not only academia, but also the hiring and research activities of major corporations? Oil companies too? If so, where are the gutsy little start-ups that have some hot new creationist development to sell? Why don&#8217;t venture capitalists bankroll such enterprises? If creation science is such hot stuff, why isn&#8217;t there a creationist version of Silicon Valley? Could it be that &#8212; gasp! &#8212; investments in creationism don&#8217;t offer anything of value?
    --The Sensuous Curmudgeon, 2009

==========================================
=============END INTERMISSION=============
==========================================

I couldn't find Veith's discussion of "the one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms" which is not at all surprising, as I couldn't find any discussion of such a thing anywhere, except to say that no such thing exists. YWC will just have to point it out to me specifically.

But, while I was searching this video I found:

@ 0:15:24 Veith asserts that "you can't have your cake and eat it."

Of course, he is just as wrong about this as he is about nearly everything else. What you cannot do is eat your cake, and then have it. You in fact CAN have your cake and eat it. As it turns out, it is a logical necessity of reality that you have cake in order to eat it--you MUST have your cake in order to eat it.​You'll just have to excuse me for not documenting every bit of Veith's disingenuous bullshit; his track record for intellectual dishonesty was well established in his first 2 presentations, and in this one he couldn't manage abstain from his bullshit more than 3 minutes.


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, you're a fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> I apparently am ... for considering for one moment that you might have some intellectual integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even need to say anything. You prove yourself an idiot, as well as a liar, in the very post you use to (supposedly) show that you AREN'T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I actually proved I didn't lie, and you're now proving that you're the idiot.
> 
> CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just let your idiocy stand as it is, without garnishment. It needs none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite having every opportunity to substantiate your accusations with direct quotes and explanations, you didn't--the honest reason is that you can't.
> 
> You're a closed-minded idiot who lacks the intellectual integrity to admit she's wrong when it has been demonstrated to her.
Click to expand...

 
Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem.

And you didn't prove a thing except that you're a liar. Who I guess doesn't know what the word "lie" means, or "proof" for that matter, which is sad. You're an example of the biblical truth about non-believers, scoffers, persecuters, and those who think they're *wise* but continually miss the point and actuall strengthen my faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Item According to Genesis According to Evolution Theory
> Source Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 Paleontologists, Biologists, Astronomers, Geologists, etc.
> Sun Created after the world Present before world coalesces
> Grass, land plants, trees Created before the sun Evolved after the sun
> First forms of life Land plants Marine organisms
> Birds Created before land animals Evolved from land animals
> Fruit Trees Created before fish Evolved after fish
> Initial diet of animals Restricted to plants Animals evolved as meat, plant eaters, and omnivores.
> Age of the universe Less than 10,000 years About 14 billion years
> Age of the Earth Less than 10,000 years About 4.5 billion years
> Age of earliest life forms Less than 10,000 years About 3.5 billion years
> Where humans came from From Adam who was created by God(s). Genesis 1:27 does not explain the method. Genesis 2:7 explains that Adam was made from dust, the ground, or soil (translations differ). Evolved; higher apes and Homo Sapiens share a common ancestor. Actually, any two species of life have a common ancestor, even humans and cabbages, or dogs and sharks.
> 
> The theory of evolution concludes that all life forms can be traced back to a primitive one-cell animal. Exactly how that simple animal developed out of non-living matter is beyond the scope of the theory evolution. The origins of life are the subject of a separate field of science, called: abiogenesis.



There is nothing simple when it comes to life.

Letv me show why all your claims on your site simply read everything literally which is dishonest on their part .

Anyone who knows the bible,knows that it is full of metaphors and the bible had to be pieced together.

Just an example of what's done from your side.





Factual Accuracy



Flood



Geology



Miracles



Nature of God



Prophecy



Resurrection of Christ



Salvation



Theistic Evolution



Transmission/Textual Criticism




Alleged Discrepancies













Search :












Search By Keyword

Search By Bible Verse





Share41



Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?



by 

Wayne Jackson, M.A.



Q.

Genesis 1 and 2 provide accounts of what God did during creation. But these two chapters dont seem to agree. Are there two different accounts of creation under discussion in Genesis 1 and 2?



A.

It is common for liberal critics of the Bible to assert that the book of Genesis contains two accounts of the creation of the Earth and mankind. Allegedly, these two accounts reflect different authors, different time periods, etc. It further is charged that the narratives contradict each other in several particulars.

The two records are supposed to involve Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25. One author has written: It is evident that the Pentateuch cannot be the continuous work of a single author. This is shown by the existence of two differing accounts (doublets) of the same event: thus e.g. the story of the creation in Gen. 1 and 2:4ff... (Weiser, 1961, pp. 72-73, emp. in orig.). This view of Scripture is not the exclusive property of the radically liberal theologians; it has made its presence felt in conservative circles as well. Some religionists speak of the two different creation accounts (Murray and Buffaloe, 1981, p. 7), or the two creation hymns  (see Manis as quoted by Thompson, 1986, p. 16).

One of the foundational assumptions of this so-called higher critical viewpoint is that the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) was not authored by Moses. Supposedly, several ancient writers contributed to this collection. These authors are referred to as J, E, P, and D. Some scholars subdivide them even further, e.g., J1, J2, etc. J stands for Jehovah, since that name for God was prominent in certain sections. E signifies Elohim, another divine name allegedly identifying certain portions. P purports to be a Priestly Code, and D identifies what is known as the Deuteronomic writer. The critics claim that all of these writings eventually were collected and combined by a redactor (editor). This theory, known as the Documentary Hypothesis, became popular in the 19th century when Jean Astruc, a French physician, claimed that he had isolated certain source authors in the Pentateuch. His views were expanded and popularized by others so that by the end of the century numerous biblical commentators had gravitated to this liberal concept. Though this approach is circulated widely and defended frequently, it will not bear the weight of scholarly investigation. [For further discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis, see the authors article, Destructive Criticism and the Old Testament, (Thompson and Jackson, 1990, 4:1ff).]

In the case of the two creation accounts, Genesis 1 is said to be a P document (dating from the Babylonian or post-Babylonian captivity period), while Genesis 2 is supposed to be a J narrative from the ninth century B.C.

The arguments in support of this radical viewpoint are twofold. (1) It is claimed that the two creation stories show evidence of different styles of writing. (2) It is argued that the accounts conflict in that they reflect divergent concepts of deity and a mismatched order of creation. Let us give these assertions brief consideration.




 STYLISTIC VARIATION

Professor Kenneth Kitchen of the University of Liverpool has noted, stylistic differences are meaningless (1966, p. 118). Such differences may as much indicate a variance in the subject addressed as the suggestion of multiple authors. On the basis of archaeological evidence, Kitchen has shown that the stylistic theory simply is not credible. For example, a biographical inscription of Uni, an Egyptian official who lived about 2400 B.C., reflects at least four different styles, and yet no one denies the unity of its authorship (Kitchen, 1966, p. 125).

The plural authorship of the creation accounts is supposed to be indicated by the use of two names for deity in these sections. God (Elohim) is employed in Genesis 1, whereas Jehovah (Yahweh) is found in 2:4ff. In response it may be observed, first, that solid biblical research has clearly shown the use of different appellations for deity to possibly reflect a purposeful theological emphasis. For example, Elohim, which suggests strength, exalts God as the mighty Creator. Yahweh is the name that expresses the essential moral and spiritual nature of deity, particularly in terms of His relationship to the nation of Israel (see Stone, 1944, p. 17). Second, the multiple employment of titles was common in the literature of antiquity as a device of literary variety. Archaeological discoveries have amply illustrated this point. Consider Genesis 28:13. The Lord speaks to Jacob and says: I am Jehovah (Yahweh), the God (Elohim) of Abraham, the God (Elohim) of Isaac. Would one argue for the multiple authorship of this single sentence upon the basis of the use of two Hebrew names for the Creator? Hardly. One scholar pointedly observed:



To conclude that differences in style or vocabulary unmistakably indicate different authors is invalid for any body of literature. It is well known that a single author may vary his style and select vocabulary to fit the themes he is developing and the people he is addressing. It goes without saying that a young graduate students love letter will vary significantly in vocabulary and style from his research paper (Davis, 1975, p. 23).

It must be concluded that arguments for two creation accounts in Genesis, based upon a subjective view of style, are speculative and unconvincing.




 SO-CALLED CONTRADICTIONS

As mentioned earlier, the alleged discrepancies between chapters 1 and 2 involve an imagined difference in the perception of God on the part of the hypothetical authors, and the alleged contradictory order of events mentioned in the respective records.

First, it is supposed that in Genesis 1 the Creator is a transcendent Being, majestically and distantly bringing the creation into existence. In Genesis 2, however, He is characterized by naive anthropomorphisms (human terminology applied to deity) which imply an inferior status. For example, in Genesis 2 the writer says that Jehovah formed, breathed, planted, etc. (7-8).

While it is true that such expressions are found in chapter 2, what the critics have failed to notice is that anthropomorphic terminology also is employed in Genesis 1:1-2:4. In that section, God called, saw, rested, etc. (1:8,12; 2:1). There is no validity in this argument, and one is not surprised that serious scholars have labeled it illusory (Kitchen, 1966, p. 118).

Second, as indicated above, some reversed language order, as seen in the two chapters, is also supposed to demonstrate conflicting creation accounts. E.A. Speiser has written: The first account starts out with the creation of heaven and earth (1:1). The present narrative begins with the making of earth and heaven (2:4b). Speiser goes on to emphasize that in the first record heavenly activity is in focus, while in the latter account man is the center of interest. He thus concluded: This far-reaching divergence in basic philosophy would alone be sufficient to warn the reader that two separate sources appear to be involved, one heaven-centered and the other earth-centered (Speiser, 1964, pp. 18-19). This argument for a dual authorship of Genesis 1 and 2 is truly unconvincing. Let us carefully note Genesis 2:4. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven. In this one verse there is contained the heaven/earth and earth/heaven motif. [Does this mean that two people must have written this one sentence?] Even the critics do not so contend!

Third, the claim is made that in chapter 1 man is represented as having been made in the image of God (27), yet in chapter 2, he is merely formed...of the dust of the ground (7), thus suggesting a distinct contrast. The point of comparison is too limited, hence, unfair. As professor John Sailhamer observed:



...we should not overlook the fact that the topic of the creation of man in chapter 2 is not limited merely to v. 7. In fact, the topic of the creation of the man and the woman is the focus of the whole of chapter 2. What the author had stated as a simple fact in chapter 1 (man, male and female, was created in Gods likeness) is explained and developed throughout the narrative of chapter 2. We cannot contrast the depiction of the creation of man in chapter 1 with only one verse in chapter 2; we must compare the whole of the chapter (1990, 2:40-41, parenthetical comment in orig.).

Fourth, Genesis 1 and 2 are said to contradict each other in the relative creation-order of plants and man. In chapter 1, it is argued, plants were created on the third day of the initial week (11-12), and man was made on the sixth day (26ff.), whereas in chapter 2, plants and herbs seem not to appear until after the formation of man (5ff.). The real problem exists only in the mind of the critic. There are possible means by which to resolve the alleged difficulty.

Some suggest that in Genesis 1 the original creation of the botanical world is in view, while in Genesis 2 the emphasis is upon the fact that plant reproduction had not commenced, for as yet there was not sufficient moisture, nor a cultivator of the ground, which factors are remedied in verses 6-7 (Jacobus, 1864, 1:96).

Others agree that entirely different matters are in view in these respective accounts. In Genesis 1:11-12 vegetation in general is under consideration, but in Genesis 2:5ff. the writer is discussing the specific sort of vegetation that requires human cultivation. It has been observed that the words rendered plant, field, and grew, never occur in the first chapter; they are terms expressive of the produce of labour and cultivation; so that the historian evidently means that no cultivated land and no vegetables fit for the use of man were yet in existence on the earth (Browne, 1981, 1:39, emp. in orig.).

Another view is that Genesis 2:5 does not refer to the condition of the Earth at large; rather, the writer simply is discussing the preparation of the beautiful garden in which man was to live (Young, p. 61). In any event, we must stress this point: whenever there is the possibility of legitimate reconciliation between passages that superficially appear to conflict, no contradiction can be charged!

Fifth, it is argued that Genesis 1 represents animals as existing before man (24-26), yet Genesis 2 has Adam created before the animals are formed (19). The text of Genesis 2:19 merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man; it says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology. The critic is reading something into the text that simply is not there. William Green pointed out that when noted scholar Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890), an advocate of the Documentary Hypothesis, first authored his famous commentary on Genesis, he employed this argument as a proof of a discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2. However, in the last edition of his work, after his knowledge had matured, he repudiated this quibble and argued for the harmony of 2:19 with chapter 1 (Green, 1979, p. 26).




 THE REAL EXPLANATION

Are there differences in the inspired narratives of Genesis 1 and 2? Of course there are. But differences do not necessarily imply contradictions, much less multiple authorship. The real question is this: Is there a purpose to these variations? Indeed there is. Furthermore, there are a number of factors that militate against the notion that Genesis 1 and 2 are independent and contradictory accounts of the creation.

First, careful analysis reveals that there is deliberate purpose in the individuality of these two sections of Scripture. In Genesis 1 there is a broad outline of the events of the creation week, which reaches its climax with the origin of mankind in the very image of God. In Genesis 2 there is the special emphasis upon man, the divine preparation of his home, the formation of a suitable mate, etc. Edward J. Young has a good statement of this matter:



There are different emphases in the two chapters...but the reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about mans original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1 (1960, p. 53).

This type of procedure was not unknown in the literary methodology of antiquity. Gleason Archer observed that the technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance (1964, p. 118). These respective sections have a different literary motif. Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment. [This procedure is not unknown elsewhere in biblical literature. Matthews account of the ministry of Christ is more topical, while Marks record is more chronological.]

Second, there is clear evidence that Genesis 2 was never an independent creation account. There are simply too many crucial elements missing for that to have been the case. For instance, there is no mention in Genesis 2 of the creation of the Earth, and there is no reference to the oceans or fish. There is no allusion to the Sun, Moon, and stars, etc. Archer has pointed out that there is not an origins record in the entire literature collection of the ancient Near East that omits discussing the creation of the Sun, Moon, seas, etc. (1982, p. 69). Obviously, Genesis 2 is a sequel to chapter 1. The latter presupposes the former and is built upon it.

Even Howard Johnston, who was (at least in part) sympathetic to the Documentary Hypothesis, conceded:



The initial chapter [Genesis 1] gives a general account of the creation. The second chapter is generally declared by critics to be a second account of the creation, but, considered in the light of the general plan, that is not an accurate statement. Evidently the purpose of this chapter is to show that out of all the creation we have especially to do with man. Therefore only so much of the general account is repeated as is involved in a more detailed statement concerning the creation of man. There is a marked difference of style in the two accounts, but the record is consistent with the plan to narrow down the story to man (1902, p. 90).

The following summary statement by Kenneth Kitchen is worthy of notice:



It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation-narratives. In point of fact, however, the strictly complementary nature of the two accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. There is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism (1966, pp. 116-117, emp. in orig.).




 CONCLUSION

One final but forceful point should be made. In Matthew 19:4-5, the Lord Jesus combined quotations from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. He declared: He who made them from the beginning made them male and female [1:26], and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh [2:24]. If the liberal viewpoint is true, how very strange that Christ should have given not the slightest hint that the two accounts involved a multiple authorship and contradictory material! Obviously, the Son of God did not endorse the modern Documentary Hypothesis.

When the texts of Genesis 1 and 2 have been considered carefully, one thing is clear: an objective evaluation reveals no discrepancies, nor is a dual authorship to be inferred. Devout students of the Bible should not be disturbed by the fanciful, ever-changing theories of the liberal critics. It is wise to remember that the Word of God was not written for the benefit of scholars, but for the common person. The Scriptures assume that the average person is able to understand the message and to know that the source is divine.

Apologetics Press - Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /&#716;e&#618;ba&#618;.&#629;&#712;d&#658;&#603;n&#616;s&#618;s/ ay-by-oh-jen-&#601;-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the MillerUrey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.
> 
> In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.
> 
> In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself,[3][4] with reliable fossil evidence of the first life found in rocks 3.4 Gyr old.[5] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[6][7] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[8][9]
> 
> The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: abiogenesis: Definition from Answers.com



No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.

There are so much bacteria we would be seeing  new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Lee Spetner* _"Spetner developed what he called his "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis", which (in common with Christian young earth creationists) accepted microevolution (which he attributed to *Lamarckian-like inheritance*), but rejected macroevolution."​_Interesting. While adhering to "Lamarckian-like inheritance" this "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis" of his seems to suggest that evolutionary theory proposes that evolution is entirely random--that somehow evolutionary theory entirely discounts the biasing effects of chromosome structure and natural selection.
> 
> He seriously cannot be proposing the Lamarckian notion that was discounted in high-school biology: giraffes stretching their necks to get at food, and then passing that stretched neck to their progeny. Were beneficial mutations "magicked" into the population?
> 
> HAHA! YES HE DOES!_"Dr. Spetner suggests that these experiments which indicate that adaptive mutations are stimulated by the environment, ..."
> 
> ...​
> "Dr. Spetner wonders how much of the fossil record might be the result of the direct influence of environment on the phenotype without any change in the genotype. (Spetner 1998)"_​LOLsome!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard,you should read his book he destroys the modern day theory of evolution ,that is neo darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See folks, what Youwerecreated fails to take note of is that his hero here, literally fails to "destroys the modern day theory of evolution" with his notion of magical signals from the environment choosing beneficial mutations. It's a laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The book is not by chance however I do not agree with him on his form of evolution. I believe in microadaptations which is microevolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like to see this candid admission that a superstitious retard has finally accepted that evolution is a well established fact. _MICROEVOLUTION. A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers in a population. ...​ MACROEVOLUTION is a large amount of evolutionary change involving many elementary changes in gene proportions: the sum of many microevolutionary steps over a very large time-scale._​ Since microevolution and macroevolution describe the same processes on different scales, we can all agree that Youwerecreated believes in macroevolution as well, bringing him finally up to date with 10th grade Biology.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what you dummys extrapolate from to try and show macroevolurion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well what do you know? Stupid really is forever, or Slowcoach has some explaining to do--the least this asshat could do is provide those with an education in evolutionary genetics with some precise and meaningful definitions of his terms.
Click to expand...


The one problem for you is you don't know or understand what the modern day theory of evolution is. If you do then explain it in detail ?

BB claimed to be a biology teacher but didn't know what it was.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, you're a fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> I apparently am ... for considering for one moment that you might have some intellectual integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even need to say anything. You prove yourself an idiot, as well as a liar, in the very post you use to (supposedly) show that you AREN'T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I actually proved I didn't lie, and you're now proving that you're the idiot.
> 
> CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just let your idiocy stand as it is, without garnishment. It needs none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite having every opportunity to substantiate your accusations with direct quotes and explanations, you didn't--the honest reason is that you can't.
> 
> You're a closed-minded idiot who lacks the intellectual integrity to admit she's wrong when it has been demonstrated to her.
Click to expand...


You ignorant bloviator.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched it. I actually posted it before you, you idiot.
> 
> And it's still meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So,what does he say that is wrong ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should make the attempt to read what you reply to._Previously posted_ *here.*
> 
> Only 2 minutes in, this asshat starts greasing the specious path to the intellectually and morally bankrupt conclusions he hopes to use as props for his defense of the beliefs of superstitious retards like himself.
> 
> ~ 0:02:00 Considering Veith's unambiguous record of disingenuousity, it's worth pointing out that relative to the geologic time scale, the occurrence of the Cambrian "Explosion" is arguably "sudden." Veith (disingenuously) fails to point out that "suddenly" on this scale occurred some 900,000,000 years after the earliest eukaryotes, and the "explosion" he is describing is about 600,000,000* in duration.    EDIT: * Just noticed I threw an extra zero in there--I meant to say "about 60,000,000"--I can't fix it in the original posting.
> 
> @ 0:02:45 Veith asserts that there is no such thing as primitive creatures. He (disingenuously) wants to get one thing straight: "There is no such thing as a simple organism. Every organism on this planet is highly, highly complex."
> 
> As if the absolute complexity of life is at all in dispute.
> 
> Veith is boldly demanding that evolutionists are not using the terms "primitive" and "simple" as descriptors on a relative scale.
> 
> Without foundation in fact of reality, verifiable evidence, or valid logic, Veith is attempting to invalidate patently obvious observations along the lines of, "Single celled organisms are simple, compared to multi-cellular organisms."
> 
> What he is doing (as he has done throughout this series thus far) is presenting a generalization made by evolutionists (which they clearly assert as being only a generalization) and then he picks specific examples not explained by the generalization, and then asserts (disingenuously) that this specific example is inexplicable for evolutionists.
> 
> Veith is clearly an intellectually dishonest douche.
> 
> @ 050 Veith begins to demonstrate that there's more than one way that a fossil record can be established. He then tell a story about the "catastrophic" effect that a bulldozer might have on a small pond, as it buries the organisms associated with it.
> 
> He of course, does not make it clear (for the purposes of metaphorical accuracy and honesty) that aside from this burying, there is to be no evidence what-so-ever that such a bulldozer was ever present or logically necessary, so you could validly hypothesize by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic that such a bulldozer was present.
> 
> @ 0:06:30 Veith asserts that it is the fossils in a layer that determine the age of the layer they are found in; then he demands that by circular reasoning alone are the ages of the layers and the fossils found in them determined. The suggestion he presents is NOT that fossils simply offer evidence of the age of a layer, or that similar fossils offer can offer strong evidence of similar ages for similar layers, but that fossils are the sole determinant factor for the age of the layer of sediment.
> 
> It's a patent error of fact that Veith is certainly aware of, and so are Youwerecreated and MarcATL, making the three of them intellectually dishonest retards.
> 
> @ 0:07:38 While discussing the conditions that paleo-geologists consider to be ideal for fossil formation, Veith takes the refusal to assert the clearly local nature of localized (in both time AND location) "catastrophes" as evidence of a global catastrophe, to be the denial of the evidence that local catastrophes occurred and could therefore be responsible for fossil formation--thus by default, this same set of scientists are then somehow obligated to recognize ONLY uniformitarian explanations.
> 
> Other than intellectually dishonest superstitious retards, who can take this guy seriously?
> 
> @ 045 Veith just goes entirely off reservation regarding how scientists classify an organism as "primitive."
> 
> I really do not think it is at all necessary to view the remaining 65 minutes of Veith's intellectual dishonesty to make the obvious conclusions regarding its intellectual value in light of this forst 10 minutes, and the thoroughness of his dishonesty in the 2 previous presentations.
> 
> I seriously wish there was a transcript available, so that examining this crap would consume so much time.
> 
> So I'm going to try to skip ahead to this "one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms" that YWC was on about, so I can respond to him.
> 
> ==========================================
> ===============INTERMISSION===============
> ==========================================
> 
> This is as good a spot as any to insert this excerpt from an essay I discovered while looking for this single layer of silt found world-wide that was undeniably deposited during Youwerecreated's and Walter Veith's global deluge.
> 
> Even if all biologists were in the clutches of evolutions vile, atheist conspiracy, presumably bribed by their academic paychecks and research grants, theres no reason for profit-seeking corporations to cripple themselves by sticking with a fraud like evolution  not when theres an allegedly better theory around. The free enterprise system isnt interested in ideology  only what works. Business executives and their shareholders are results-oriented, and if theres a legal way to use knowledge to earn profits, theyll do it. But somehow, despite the incentives to stay ahead of the competition, flood geologists arent recruited by the mining or oil industries, creation scientists arent hired as researchers for the biotech industry or pharmaceutical firms, and  this is trivial, but true  specialists in Noahs Ark arent in demand by naval architects.
> 
> Isnt it amazing that these industries, which are profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, which employ tens of thousands of scientists in the fields of biology, geology, etc., never specifically recruit creationists and dont waste their time or their shareholders money doing creation science? Why dont they offer big salaries to hire the leading ID scientists away from the Discovery Institute? Why dont they make tempting offers to all the creationists who claim that universities discriminate against them? Why are they avoiding such a rich source of talent?
> 
> If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation science in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the science of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries.
> 
> Does the Darwinist conspiracy control not only academia, but also the hiring and research activities of major corporations? Oil companies too? If so, where are the gutsy little start-ups that have some hot new creationist development to sell? Why dont venture capitalists bankroll such enterprises? If creation science is such hot stuff, why isnt there a creationist version of Silicon Valley? Could it be that  gasp!  investments in creationism dont offer anything of value?
> --The Sensuous Curmudgeon, 2009
> 
> ==========================================
> =============END INTERMISSION=============
> ==========================================
> 
> I couldn't find Veith's discussion of "the one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms" which is not at all surprising, as I couldn't find any discussion of such a thing anywhere, except to say that no such thing exists. YWC will just have to point it out to me specifically.
> 
> But, while I was searching this video I found:
> 
> @ 0:15:24 Veith asserts that "you can't have your cake and eat it."
> 
> Of course, he is just as wrong about this as he is about nearly everything else. What you cannot do is eat your cake, and then have it. You in fact CAN have your cake and eat it. As it turns out, it is a logical necessity of reality that you have cake in order to eat it--you MUST have your cake in order to eat it.​You'll just have to excuse me for not documenting every bit of Veith's disingenuous bullshit; his track record for intellectual dishonesty was well established in his first 2 presentations, and in this one he couldn't manage abstain from his bullshit more than 3 minutes.
Click to expand...


Everything he say's can be supported. He uses your own against you. And he makes solid arguments.

I noticed you failed to respond to the ones on your side that secialize in the correct fields to make such conclusions that agree with the Doctors explanation of your side.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Why are there two creation stories in Genesis?Answer
> The early Jews are believed to have encountered an early version of what is now the first creation story, in Genesis 1:1-2:4a, during the Babylonian Exile. It was assimilated and added to Genesis, without removing the second creation story, which starts in Genesis 2:4b, probably because the older story was popular and it would have caused dissent to have removed it.
> 
> Leon R. Kass (The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis) says that pious readers, believing that the text cannot contain contradictions, ignore the major disjunctions between the two creation stories and tend to treat the second story as the fuller, more detailed account of the creation of man (and woman), but he says we must scrupulously avoid reading into the second story any facts or notions taken from the first (and vice versa) if we mean to understand each story on its own terms.
> There are two different creation stories:
> 
> The first is Genesis 1:1-2:3
> The second is Genesis 2:4-25
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Why are there two creation stories in Genesis




Responded to.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless propaganda from an unambiguously intellectually dishonest superstitious retard, posted here by one of his own retarded ideological species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you missed all these educated people from your side that agrees with the good Doctor.
> 
> _--ALL THE CRAP CITED IN A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO VALIDATE CREATIONIST SUPERSTITIOUS PSUEDO-SCIENCE I DIDN'T MISS SNIPPED FOR THE BENEFIT OF RATIONAL HUMANITY---​_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I suspect that the scientists and educated people (even the one you  asshats cite) from *my side* disavow the deliberate and disingenuous conclusions made by retards like you and Veith, citing their valid work.
Click to expand...


 Their quotes were clear ,what did they do recant their comments


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Lee Spetner* _"Spetner developed what he called his "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis", which (in common with Christian young earth creationists) accepted microevolution (which he attributed to *Lamarckian-like inheritance*), but rejected macroevolution."​_Interesting. While adhering to "Lamarckian-like inheritance" this "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis" of his seems to suggest that evolutionary theory proposes that evolution is entirely random--that somehow evolutionary theory entirely discounts the biasing effects of chromosome structure and natural selection.
> 
> He seriously cannot be proposing the Lamarckian notion that was discounted in high-school biology: giraffes stretching their necks to get at food, and then passing that stretched neck to their progeny. Were beneficial mutations "magicked" into the population?
> 
> HAHA! YES HE DOES!_"Dr. Spetner suggests that these experiments which indicate that adaptive mutations are stimulated by the environment, ..."
> 
> ...​
> "Dr. Spetner wonders how much of the fossil record might be the result of the direct influence of environment on the phenotype without any change in the genotype. (Spetner 1998)"_​LOLsome!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard,you should read his book he destroys the modern day theory of evolution ,that is neo darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See folks, what Youwerecreated fails to take note of is that his hero here, literally fails to "destroys the modern day theory of evolution" with his notion of magical signals from the environment choosing beneficial mutations. It's a laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The book is not by chance however I do not agree with him on his form of evolution. I believe in microadaptations which is microevolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like to see this candid admission that a superstitious retard has finally accepted that evolution is a well established fact. _MICROEVOLUTION. A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers in a population. ...​ MACROEVOLUTION is a large amount of evolutionary change involving many elementary changes in gene proportions: the sum of many microevolutionary steps over a very large time-scale._​ Since microevolution and macroevolution describe the same processes on different scales, we can all agree that Youwerecreated believes in macroevolution as well, bringing him finally up to date with 10th grade Biology.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what you dummys extrapolate from to try and show macroevolurion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well what do you know? Stupid really is forever, or Slowcoach has some explaining to do--the least this asshat could do is provide those with an education in evolutionary genetics with some precise and meaningful definitions of his terms.
Click to expand...


No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.

You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, you're a fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> I apparently am ... for considering for one moment that you might have some intellectual integrity.
> 
> Well, I actually proved I didn't lie, and you're now proving that you're the idiot.
> 
> CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just let your idiocy stand as it is, without garnishment. It needs none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite having every opportunity to substantiate your accusations with direct quotes and explanations, you didn't--the honest reason is that you can't.
> 
> You're a closed-minded idiot who lacks the intellectual integrity to admit she's wrong when it has been demonstrated to her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem.
Click to expand...

Of course; justly earned ad-hominem attack, but not ad-hominem argument; certainly not application of the logical fallacy you so habitually practice.



koshergrl said:


> And you didn't prove a thing except that you're a liar.


This is a deliberate denial of verifiable reality. It is prima-facie evidence of your pathological projection; your pathetic attempt to deny your unmistakable lack of moral and intellectual integrity. 



koshergrl said:


> Who I guess doesn't know what the word "lie" means, or "proof" for that matter, which is sad.


This person, who doesn't know what the word(s) "lie" (or "proof") means, is clearly and unambiguously you.

You have made no substantive demonstration that I have deliberately asserted any misinformation regarding your claims. Meanwhile, I have unambiguously substantiated (with your very own behavior and self-indicting statements) the extent of the validity of the statements you referenced, and I offered my sincere and public apology to you where my misapprehensions led to misrepresentations of your claims. This is an indisputable fact of reality.

And in return for my ingenuousness toward you, you maliciously declare that I'm an idiot and fling the unsubstantiated accusation that I'm a liar.

Considering the abundant evidence you provide, I cannot imagine the rational basis upon which you might consider yourself to be a credit to Christianity, and an affirmative example of Christian moral integrity.



koshergrl said:


> You're an example of the biblical truth about non-believers, scoffers, persecuters, and those who think they're *wise* but continually miss the point and actuall strengthen my faith.


Utterly meaningless to any fact of reality about me. Yet still, unambiguous evidence that I am entirely correct regarding your failure to accept the intellectual dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm; which (in consideration of this evidence) I will amend to, "Your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm."

The next time you are inspired to express your objections about the way "non-believers, scoffers, persecuters (sic)", react to your example of Christian behavior, you might benefit from a pause to consider the role your example plays in their evaluation of Christians and Christianity; you might consider Jesus' evaluation of your example.

As far as I'm concerned at this point, you can just go eat a bag of shit.

ENJOY!


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retard,you should read his book he destroys the modern day theory of evolution ,that is neo darwinism.
> 
> 
> 
> See folks, what Youwerecreated fails to take note of is that his hero here, literally fails to "destroys the modern day theory of evolution" with his notion of magical signals from the environment choosing beneficial mutations. It's a laugh.
> 
> I like to see this candid admission that a superstitious retard has finally accepted that evolution is a well established fact. _MICROEVOLUTION. A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers in a population. ...​ MACROEVOLUTION is a large amount of evolutionary change involving many elementary changes in gene proportions: the sum of many microevolutionary steps over a very large time-scale._​ Since microevolution and macroevolution describe the same processes on different scales, we can all agree that Youwerecreated believes in macroevolution as well, bringing him finally up to date with 10th grade Biology.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what you dummys extrapolate from to try and show macroevolurion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well what do you know? Stupid really is forever, or Slowcoach has some explaining to do--the least this asshat could do is provide those with an education in evolutionary genetics with some precise and meaningful definitions of his terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.
Click to expand...

Obviously what we have here is a thoroughly indoctrinated simpleton who demands that the ontological differentiation of the concepts of micro-evolution and macro-evolution propagated by pulpitarians take precedence over the legitimate differentiation expressed by vetted geneticists.

The problem Creationists face when confronted by the verifiable facts of reality is that there is abundant evidence supporting the claim that change in genotype (even those caused by mutation) can lead to change in phenotype. Hence, the Creationist's disingenuous persistence in applying their own vague meanings to terms already understood by others as a means to disguise their self-indicting lack of courage in their certainty of the objective validity of their convictions.

The burden of the issue, none-the-less, fully belongs to these superstitious Creationist asshats who are obligated explain why, of all the ways that change in genotype verifiably lead to change in phenotype, the one exception to the well established and agreed upon relationship between genotype and phenotype is mutation.

We might hope that this should keep them _silently _busy forever. But, we should be careful to not underestimate the strength of the Creationist's biological imperative to inflict their superstitious folly upon the world; to the annoyance of the population of intellectually honest, rational human beings.



Youwerecreated said:


> You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.


Consistent with the axiomatic requirement of the superstitious to deny all evidence in contradiction to their baseless preconceptions, this shameless devotee to a specious postulate simply denies the plenitude of evidence that change in genotype verifiably leads to change in phenotype, and that the divergences of phenotype that so often indicate different species, different genera, different families, different orders, etc..., are directly the result of divergences (or differences, arrived at by any or all of the well established and documented mechanisms) of genotype.

A stolid commitment to ignorance is the only explanation for the impudent claim these retards make, that what they practice is legitimate science.


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I apparently am ... for considering for one moment that you might have some intellectual integrity.
> 
> Well, I actually proved I didn't lie, and you're now proving that you're the idiot.
> 
> CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!
> 
> Despite having every opportunity to substantiate your accusations with direct quotes and explanations, you didn't--the honest reason is that you can't.
> 
> You're a closed-minded idiot who lacks the intellectual integrity to admit she's wrong when it has been demonstrated to her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course; justly earned ad-hominem attack, but not ad-hominem argument; certainly not application of the logical fallacy you so habitually practice.
> 
> This is a deliberate denial of verifiable reality. It is prima-facie evidence of your pathological projection; your pathetic attempt to deny your unmistakable lack of moral and intellectual integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who I guess doesn't know what the word "lie" means, or "proof" for that matter, which is sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This person, who doesn't know what the word(s) "lie" (or "proof") means, is clearly and unambiguously you.
> 
> You have made no substantive demonstration that I have deliberately asserted any misinformation regarding your claims. Meanwhile, I have unambiguously substantiated (with your very own behavior and self-indicting statements) the extent of the validity of the statements you referenced, and I offered my sincere and public apology to you where my misapprehensions led to misrepresentations of your claims. This is an indisputable fact of reality.
> 
> And in return for my ingenuousness toward you, you maliciously declare that I'm an idiot and fling the unsubstantiated accusation that I'm a liar.
> 
> Considering the abundant evidence you provide, I cannot imagine the rational basis upon which you might consider yourself to be a credit to Christianity, and an affirmative example of Christian moral integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an example of the biblical truth about non-believers, scoffers, persecuters, and those who think they're *wise* but continually miss the point and actuall strengthen my faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utterly meaningless to any fact of reality about me. Yet still, unambiguous evidence that I am entirely correct regarding your failure to accept the intellectual dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm; which (in consideration of this evidence) I will amend to, "Your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm."
> 
> The next time you are inspired to express your objections about the way "non-believers, scoffers, persecuters (sic)", react to your example of Christian behavior, you might benefit from a pause to consider the role your example plays in their evaluation of Christians and Christianity; you might consider Jesus' evaluation of your example.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned at this point, you can just go eat a bag of shit.
> 
> ENJOY!
Click to expand...

 
Do you ever listen to yourself?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retard,you should read his book he destroys the modern day theory of evolution ,that is neo darwinism.
> 
> 
> 
> See folks, what Youwerecreated fails to take note of is that his hero here, literally fails to "destroys the modern day theory of evolution" with his notion of magical signals from the environment choosing beneficial mutations. It's a laugh.
> 
> I like to see this candid admission that a superstitious retard has finally accepted that evolution is a well established fact. _MICROEVOLUTION. A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers in a population. ...​ MACROEVOLUTION is a large amount of evolutionary change involving many elementary changes in gene proportions: the sum of many microevolutionary steps over a very large time-scale._​ Since microevolution and macroevolution describe the same processes on different scales, we can all agree that Youwerecreated believes in macroevolution as well, bringing him finally up to date with 10th grade Biology.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what you dummys extrapolate from to try and show macroevolurion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well what do you know? Stupid really is forever, or Slowcoach has some explaining to do--the least this asshat could do is provide those with an education in evolutionary genetics with some precise and meaningful definitions of his terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.
> 
> You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.
Click to expand...


Our side has already proven that mutations can be beneficial in a population.  If something is beneficial to individuals in a species it increases their chances to survive and increases their chances to mate.



We're dropping below biology, and now we're just trying to get you to have common sense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> See folks, what Youwerecreated fails to take note of is that his hero here, literally fails to "destroys the modern day theory of evolution" with his notion of magical signals from the environment choosing beneficial mutations. It's a laugh.
> 
> I like to see this candid admission that a superstitious retard has finally accepted that evolution is a well established fact. _MICROEVOLUTION. A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers in a population. ...​ MACROEVOLUTION is a large amount of evolutionary change involving many elementary changes in gene proportions: the sum of many microevolutionary steps over a very large time-scale._​ Since microevolution and macroevolution describe the same processes on different scales, we can all agree that Youwerecreated believes in macroevolution as well, bringing him finally up to date with 10th grade Biology.
> 
> Well what do you know? Stupid really is forever, or Slowcoach has some explaining to do--the least this asshat could do is provide those with an education in evolutionary genetics with some precise and meaningful definitions of his terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.
> 
> You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our side has already proven that mutations can be beneficial in a population.  If something is beneficial to individuals in a species it increases their chances to survive and increases their chances to mate.
> 
> 
> 
> We're dropping below biology, and now we're just trying to get you to have common sense.
Click to expand...


No what has been proven is adaptations have allowed organisms to survive and reproduce. What has not been proven is these adaptations allowed an animal over time to change in to something new. It has not been proven whether the information that was brought out to adapt was there all along.

The burden of proof is on your side to prove these adaptations lead to macro-evolution.

If natural selection was the cause through mutations why is it that things that show no evolution are still around ? The things that evolved because of natural selection are still here and so are the organisms that they evolved from,why ?

Does that make any sense at all if natural selection eliminates the weaker organisms that could not adapt ? and that is why others had to evolve to survive According to your theory.

But that is not what is seen we see organisms suddenly appearing in the fossil record and no gradualism at all.


natural selection
 noun 











Definition of NATURAL SELECTION



: a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environm

Why do they say producing more offspring,you mean our ancestors stopped producing offspring ?

So what are they saying ?

Definition for survival of the fittest:




Web definitions:




survival: a natural process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the environment.

Now we know better adapted organisms survive but why did others evolve if there was no pressure on the ancestors to survive they are still here in many cases ?

The theory makes no sense,especially when you look at the fossil record.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> See folks, what Youwerecreated fails to take note of is that his hero here, literally fails to "destroys the modern day theory of evolution" with his notion of magical signals from the environment choosing beneficial mutations. It's a laugh.
> 
> I like to see this candid admission that a superstitious retard has finally accepted that evolution is a well established fact. _MICROEVOLUTION. A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers in a population. ...​ MACROEVOLUTION is a large amount of evolutionary change involving many elementary changes in gene proportions: the sum of many microevolutionary steps over a very large time-scale._​ Since microevolution and macroevolution describe the same processes on different scales, we can all agree that Youwerecreated believes in macroevolution as well, bringing him finally up to date with 10th grade Biology.
> 
> Well what do you know? Stupid really is forever, or Slowcoach has some explaining to do--the least this asshat could do is provide those with an education in evolutionary genetics with some precise and meaningful definitions of his terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.
> 
> You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our side has already proven that mutations can be beneficial in a population.  If something is beneficial to individuals in a species it increases their chances to survive and increases their chances to mate.
> 
> 
> 
> We're dropping below biology, and now we're just trying to get you to have common sense.
Click to expand...


Common sense it what my views are based in.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.
> 
> You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.



I think it's up to your side to show why micro-adaptations, piled one upon the other, would not eventually lead to macro-adaptation.  You admit they occur, but seem to reject the additive effect of many micro-adaptations.  WHY???


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course; justly earned ad-hominem attack, but not ad-hominem argument; certainly not application of the logical fallacy you so habitually practice.
> 
> This is a deliberate denial of verifiable reality. It is prima-facie evidence of your pathological projection; your pathetic attempt to deny your unmistakable lack of moral and intellectual integrity.
> 
> This person, who doesn't know what the word(s) "lie" (or "proof") means, is clearly and unambiguously you.
> 
> You have made no substantive demonstration that I have deliberately asserted any misinformation regarding your claims. Meanwhile, I have unambiguously substantiated (with your very own behavior and self-indicting statements) the extent of the validity of the statements you referenced, and I offered my sincere and public apology to you where my misapprehensions led to misrepresentations of your claims. This is an indisputable fact of reality.
> 
> And in return for my ingenuousness toward you, you maliciously declare that I'm an idiot and fling the unsubstantiated accusation that I'm a liar.
> 
> Considering the abundant evidence you provide, I cannot imagine the rational basis upon which you might consider yourself to be a credit to Christianity, and an affirmative example of Christian moral integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an example of the biblical truth about non-believers, scoffers, persecuters, and those who think they're *wise* but continually miss the point and actuall strengthen my faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utterly meaningless to any fact of reality about me. Yet still, unambiguous evidence that I am entirely correct regarding your failure to accept the intellectual dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm; which (in consideration of this evidence) I will amend to, "Your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm."
> 
> The next time you are inspired to express your objections about the way "non-believers, scoffers, persecuters (sic)", react to your example of Christian behavior, you might benefit from a pause to consider the role your example plays in their evaluation of Christians and Christianity; you might consider Jesus' evaluation of your example.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned at this point, you can just go eat a bag of shit.
> 
> ENJOY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you ever listen to yourself?
Click to expand...

Your persistent paucity of substantive response is just further evidence of your commitment to venomous mendacity.


----------



## koshergrl

When you provide something worthy of a substantive response, I'll provide it. Until then, your own posts do more to illuminate your idiocy and dishonesty than anything I could ever say...


----------



## MoistTrout

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



Maybe the same way some people believe the government taking more money away from people will help the economy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.
> 
> You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's up to your side to show why micro-adaptations, piled one upon the other, would not eventually lead to macro-adaptation.  You admit they occur, but seem to reject the additive effect of many micro-adaptations.  WHY???
Click to expand...



This is a good question i will let this article explain it.

Micro and Macro-Evolution Explained

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in todays culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible. Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.

Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response. Take a look at Darwins observation of the changes in finches. Isolated in the Galapagos Island, Darwin discovered finches that had much longer beaks than those found off the island. His assumption was that evolution was changing this species. However, these finches remained finches. Princeton professor Peter Grant completed an 18 year study of the finches on this island. He concluded that during drought years, the finches with shorter beaks died off because with a limited supply of seeds, only those that could reach the grubs living under tree bark could survive. With limited resources on a small island, these finches could not migrate to find food. We clearly observe natural selection, but not macro-evolution. However, it is not a permanent change. The finch offspring with shorter beaks prospered during seasons of plenty. Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution. There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions. 3. No new information is added to the DNA.

The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.

1. Dysfunctional change or otherwise noted as irreducibly complex. When a trait is critical for the survival of the species, it must be fully functional or the species will die off and any evolutionary progress would be lost. For example, a bat could not evolve from a rodent because it is completely dependent on its wings for survival. A half-evolved wing could not be used for walking because of its awkward length and shape and would not be functional for flying. The idea of a half-evolved bat is completely illogical. It would be easily tracked down by predators and it would be helpless to get food and survive on its own. This need for completeness can be clearly observed from the most primitive single celled animal to the most complex mammal. To contradict this idea would clearly contradict Darwins principle of natural selection. Many scientists are making a shift because gradual change produces dysfunction in-between species. The new emerging proposal is the quantum jump. Jay Gould proposed the idea that every living cell could possibly be encoded with the ability to change into any other living thing. He believes that an external stimulus causes this jump.

This is a bigger stretch than gradual evolution. Based on his idea, simple pond microbes would have the same DNA encoding as humans and science has proven that this is not the case. Primitive life forms have far less genetic material than more complex animals such as a mammal. Goulds leap of faith also does not account for varieties of different species. If environment is the trigger and we all have the same DNA, the jump should be to the same creature. Plus we can plainly observe that this reaction does not occur today. Moving from a warm weather climate to a cold weather climate doesnt trigger a different type of offspring.

2. The DNA code barrier. A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling. This perhaps is the biggest obstacle to gradual change through micro-evolution. Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organism will have. If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical. Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change.  There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations. No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present.  Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.

Charles Colson made mention of a few good examples of this principle. Darwin used breeding of the rock pigeon as a basis for his theory that gradual changes in species will evolve into new species. All pigeons are descendents of the rock pigeon. This pigeon is the same pigeon that can be found in most city parks. Through selective breeding, Darwin was able to produce many drastic variations of pigeons. He observed very rapid changes in traits that he could alter by this selective breeding and concluded that if he could make these changes within a few generations of pigeons, in time a new species of bird would develop. There are several flaws with this theory. 1. His intervention was the trigger for these various breeds. It did not occur naturally. 2. When left alone, his pigeons returned back to the ancestral rock pigeon within a few generations. If his theory were valid, they should have continued their ascent. 3. Darwin never lived to see that there was a natural barrier that slowed changes after a few generations and eventually reached a stopping point.

Change can be rapid when leaving the norm, but slows and eventually stops as the ceiling is reached. There is a limit to the number of combinations a specific trait can have. Another good example of this comes from the book, How Now Shall We Live. 150 years ago, sugar cane farmers committed to increasing the sugar content in their sugar beets. At the time the project began, sugar content was at 6%. Through selective cross-pollination, within a few generations of beets the sugar content soared to 13%. Over the next 75 years these growers were able to inch the sugar content up to 17%. Now, 75 years after they were able to achieve the 17% barrier, the sugar beet remains at 17%. This is a clear example of the DNA code barrier that limits the variation of a specific trait. This example shows the same principle that Darwin unknowingly discovered. Rapid change, then slow change followed by no change.

Another conflict with the evolutionary theory is that when the DNA ceiling is reached, the species becomes weak. When a trait is exaggerated beyond its natural limits, the species weakens and suffers from genetically induced diseases or vulnerability to disease. The farther from the norm the more disease prone the plant or animal becomes. So even with selective breeding and exploited traits, the species becomes vulnerable and at risk of extinction. Animals that are bred to bring out their desired features often become sterile or diseased. We can look around today and see examples of this problem. Anyone involved with farming is aware of the sterility problem associated with over-breeding. Dogs are very defect prone when they are bred to show quality. However, when left alone, species will soon return to the norm.

Natural selection thins the gene pool, but evolution demands that information be added. No evolutionary change (i.e. micro evolution) ever adds information to the genetic material. The only way evolution (i.e. Macro evolution) could be possible is if new information were to be added to the DNA. 

Hybrids are often used as examples of how simple it is for evolution to change the DNA of plants or animals. You can cross pollinate two types of tomato plants to produce a new tomato plant that produces larger fruit. There are three problems with how evolutionists interpret this observation. The first problem is the most obvious; nature is not making a change, human intelligence is forcing the change and must prevent nature from reverting back. Second, the next generation of seeds is both sterile and unable to reproduce, or it reverts back to an inferior fruit. The third problem is that you are not taking on new information; you are combining two plants that already possess the necessary information and have compatible DNA structures. For evolution to be possible, there must be new information added that did not previously exist. In other words, information must come into the existing genetic material without any pre-arranged order, combine with the DNA that is already present and create a new or better code than that which already existed. If newly added information is garbled, the DNA that existed would be useless. If it was inserted in the wrong place or in the wrong order, the plant or animal produced would die or be completely dysfunctional. For example, a microbe would need to somehow acquire enough information through millions of errorless mutations that added to its DNA, which would enable it to become a fish. A fish would have to get the new information that did not previously exist to form a lung, then feet, feathers and so on. The problem is that science does not observe mutations that add to the information, but rather just the opposite. It is a loss of information that occurs when mutations occur. Natural selection is a good example of this. 

Survival of the fittest is what thins out the gene pool; it does not increase or add to the genetic data. Natural selection does open the door for adaptation and changes within a species, but it accomplishes just the opposite of what is necessary for evolution. When natural selection occurs, the species that have certain traits are often weeded out. If Darwin had been correct in his observation and the Galapagos Island finches permanently weeded out the shorter beaked finches, they have not added to the gene pool, but they have subtracted genetic code and would no longer have the information necessary to produce offspring that has a shorter beak. Natural selection and evolution work against each other. Natural selection does sometimes make changes within a species, but the progression is downward and not upward  and the species does not become a new species, but rather a variation of the old. A permanent change is a loss of information, but evolution requires the addition of new information. In science we can clearly observe that when a species has a trait that the environment challenges, those who have this trait are weeded out. What has never been observed in science is the addition of new information. Even if an example should be found to have happened by chance, it doesn't help the evolution cause. There must be millions of changes that add to the DNA information, without harming the species. We don't observe this happening. We do observe mutations, but they are a loss of information or a defective copy of information that damages the species.

Richard Dawkins is arguably the most influential proponent of evolution today. In a debate, he was asked to provide one example where new information was added to DNA as observed by science. After a long silence, he passed by the question. He later rebutted the question with a three page argument but never addressed this original question and he did not provide one example. Even environmental adaptations harm the evolution belief system. When the environment changes and those animals that have traits that prevent them from surviving, there is not an increase of information, but a loss of genetic code.

Even microscopic evolution shows this problem. We have all heard about the super germs that have grown resistant to antibiotics. In reality, they are weak germs. Bacteria that is resistant to drugs are usually destroyed by other organisms. For example, bacterium that has mutated so that it no longer pipes in the toxins that would normally destroy it are weaker than other bacteria because they also cannot pipe in the nutrients that are needed to flourish. It may fail to produce enzymes that enable it to resist the drugs, but this also becomes a crippling factor that limits its survival. The very mutations that make it resistant also make it vulnerable and weak.

These issues render change by micro-evolution impossible thus leaving macro-evolution as the only stand that evolutionists can take, and all the evidence clearly disputes the concept of macro-evolution. The fossil records show zero gradual change. Species in existence today show no change from the fossils that supposedly date back hundreds of millions of years. Interdependency also renders evolution an impossibility. Nature is filled with species that are completely dependent on other species. If one species cannot survive without another, evolution becomes an illogical deduction. There are also interdependencies between plants and animals. If a plant is dependent on an animal and an animal is dependent on that specific plant, the two would have to emerge from the evolutionary change at the exact same time and place. One generation later is too late.

Dont mistake micro-evolution for Darwinian evolution. They are not related. When a Christian says they do not believe in evolution, it is not a reference to changes in specific traits. It is a reference to changes that require crossing the DNA limitations. When the facts stare evolutionists in the face, they are reduced to either insulting those who present the evidence or they must admit their world view doesnt hold water. Evolutionists always call Christians and creationists non-thinkers because we question their illogical theories. Critical analysis is not un-intellectual, but it is unreasonable to refuse to honestly look at the whole picture painted when all the facts are presented. When someone builds their belief system around a godless world view, it leaves the realm of science and becomes a religious defense. Anyone who gets angry at the facts is not defending science, but is defending their hope that God does not exist and their hope that there is no God in which we are accountable.

What is Micro and Macro-Evolution?


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.
> 
> You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's up to your side to show why micro-adaptations, piled one upon the other, would not eventually lead to macro-adaptation.  You admit they occur, but seem to reject the additive effect of many micro-adaptations.  WHY???
Click to expand...


I am not the one making the claim that micro-adaptations cause one family of organisms to change into a new destinct family from a prior family,that is your side making the claim but i did offer an article that explains why.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.
> 
> You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our side has already proven that mutations can be beneficial in a population.  If something is beneficial to individuals in a species it increases their chances to survive and increases their chances to mate.
> 
> 
> 
> We're dropping below biology, and now we're just trying to get you to have common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common sense it what my views are based in.
Click to expand...


Well please use the common sense that says benefitical mutations would benefit individuals in a species.  I can't dumb it down any further than that.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> When you provide something worthy of a substantive response, I'll provide it. Until then, your own posts do more to illuminate your idiocy and dishonesty than anything I could ever say...


 There is just no penetrating your resolute denial of verifiable reality. BRAVO!!!! I take my hat of to the impressive magnitude of your dumb. 

You literally stare -eyes wide open- at the undeniable substantiations I've posted by directly quoting the public record of your indisputable lack of moral and intellectual integrity, and just casually declare, "  Nope. Don't see it. It's not there. You're the idiot. You're the liar. "   Just ...... fascinating!

It's as if you have no idea that you enthusiastically posted your personal brand of stoic stupidity somewhere that's available for scrutiny and witness by just about everybody.

Again, .... :standing ovation: .... BRAVO, RETARD, BRAVO!!!


----------



## koshergrl

They aren't undeniable at all. 

And..again, do you ever listen to yourself? You really should, because you come across as a pontificating blow hard...all that flowery verbage..and yet you say nada. It's just noise. And it tickles my editorial funny bone.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our side has already proven that mutations can be beneficial in a population.  If something is beneficial to individuals in a species it increases their chances to survive and increases their chances to mate.
> 
> 
> 
> We're dropping below biology, and now we're just trying to get you to have common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense it what my views are based in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well please use the common sense that says benefitical mutations would benefit individuals in a species.  I can't dumb it down any further than that.
Click to expand...


Use your common sense,Can you explain how blood cells are found in a 70 million year old T-rex when DNA only last best a 100,000 years ? Do evolutionist need to move the goalposts again ?

msnbc.com Video Player

Extraction of the mitochondrial DNA

After death, DNA starts degrading immediately. It is thought that under the most favorable conditions, some DNA fragments can survive for as long as 50,000 to 100,000 years. The Feldhofer Neandertal fossil, thought to be between 30,000 and 100,000 years old, was therefore pushing the limits for this kind of work. However initial testing of the fossil showed good preservation of amino acids, indicating that it might contain recoverable mtDNA.

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is a technique which can be used to create many copies of an initially small number of molecules. The researchers used PCR to amplify and extract many short strands of mtDNA from the Neandertal sample. By overlapping these, they were able to generate a sequence of 379 bases apparently from the Neandertal individual. To protect against errors and contamination, each base was extracted in at least two separate amplifications. The sequence was extracted from a section of the mtDNA genome known as the hypervariable region 1 (HVR1), so-called because that section of the genome accumulates mutations more rapidly than most of the genome and hence is particularly useful in distinguishing between different populations.

Krings et al. then compared this sequence against a database of 994 different mtDNA sequences from modern humans. For the sequence of mtDNA in question, humans on average differ from each other in 8 +/- 3.1 positions (the '3.1' represents one standard deviation). The greatest difference between any two modern humans was 24, and the smallest difference was 1 (because duplicates were removed from the database).


Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense it what my views are based in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well please use the common sense that says benefitical mutations would benefit individuals in a species.  I can't dumb it down any further than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Use your common sense,Can you explain how blood cells are found in a 70 million year old T-rex when DNA only last best a 100,000 years ? Do evolutionist need to move the goalposts again ?
> 
> msnbc.com Video Player
> 
> Extraction of the mitochondrial DNA
> 
> After death, DNA starts degrading immediately. It is thought that under the most favorable conditions, some DNA fragments can survive for as long as 50,000 to 100,000 years. The Feldhofer Neandertal fossil, thought to be between 30,000 and 100,000 years old, was therefore pushing the limits for this kind of work. However initial testing of the fossil showed good preservation of amino acids, indicating that it might contain recoverable mtDNA.
> 
> Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is a technique which can be used to create many copies of an initially small number of molecules. The researchers used PCR to amplify and extract many short strands of mtDNA from the Neandertal sample. By overlapping these, they were able to generate a sequence of 379 bases apparently from the Neandertal individual. To protect against errors and contamination, each base was extracted in at least two separate amplifications. The sequence was extracted from a section of the mtDNA genome known as the hypervariable region 1 (HVR1), so-called because that section of the genome accumulates mutations more rapidly than most of the genome and hence is particularly useful in distinguishing between different populations.
> 
> Krings et al. then compared this sequence against a database of 994 different mtDNA sequences from modern humans. For the sequence of mtDNA in question, humans on average differ from each other in 8 +/- 3.1 positions (the '3.1' represents one standard deviation). The greatest difference between any two modern humans was 24, and the smallest difference was 1 (because duplicates were removed from the database).
> 
> 
> Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA
Click to expand...


Where does it say DNA was extracted?  DNA and soft tissue aren't the same thing.


You babble about moving goal posts, right after you deflect from our mutation discussion.


That ploy used to be cute the first dozen times I saw you use, but now it's just annoying.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well please use the common sense that says benefitical mutations would benefit individuals in a species.  I can't dumb it down any further than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use your common sense,Can you explain how blood cells are found in a 70 million year old T-rex when DNA only last best a 100,000 years ? Do evolutionist need to move the goalposts again ?
> 
> msnbc.com Video Player
> 
> Extraction of the mitochondrial DNA
> 
> After death, DNA starts degrading immediately. It is thought that under the most favorable conditions, some DNA fragments can survive for as long as 50,000 to 100,000 years. The Feldhofer Neandertal fossil, thought to be between 30,000 and 100,000 years old, was therefore pushing the limits for this kind of work. However initial testing of the fossil showed good preservation of amino acids, indicating that it might contain recoverable mtDNA.
> 
> Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is a technique which can be used to create many copies of an initially small number of molecules. The researchers used PCR to amplify and extract many short strands of mtDNA from the Neandertal sample. By overlapping these, they were able to generate a sequence of 379 bases apparently from the Neandertal individual. To protect against errors and contamination, each base was extracted in at least two separate amplifications. The sequence was extracted from a section of the mtDNA genome known as the hypervariable region 1 (HVR1), so-called because that section of the genome accumulates mutations more rapidly than most of the genome and hence is particularly useful in distinguishing between different populations.
> 
> Krings et al. then compared this sequence against a database of 994 different mtDNA sequences from modern humans. For the sequence of mtDNA in question, humans on average differ from each other in 8 +/- 3.1 positions (the '3.1' represents one standard deviation). The greatest difference between any two modern humans was 24, and the smallest difference was 1 (because duplicates were removed from the database).
> 
> 
> Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say DNA was extracted?  DNA and soft tissue aren't the same thing.
> 
> 
> You babble about moving goal posts, right after you deflect from our mutation discussion.
> 
> 
> That ploy used to be cute the first dozen times I saw you use, but now it's just annoying.
Click to expand...


Blood cells are DNA.

Read the article.

By the way it should not last 70 million years.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well please use the common sense that says benefitical mutations would benefit individuals in a species.  I can't dumb it down any further than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use your common sense,Can you explain how blood cells are found in a 70 million year old T-rex when DNA only last best a 100,000 years ? Do evolutionist need to move the goalposts again ?
> 
> msnbc.com Video Player
> 
> Extraction of the mitochondrial DNA
> 
> After death, DNA starts degrading immediately. It is thought that under the most favorable conditions, some DNA fragments can survive for as long as 50,000 to 100,000 years. The Feldhofer Neandertal fossil, thought to be between 30,000 and 100,000 years old, was therefore pushing the limits for this kind of work. However initial testing of the fossil showed good preservation of amino acids, indicating that it might contain recoverable mtDNA.
> 
> Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is a technique which can be used to create many copies of an initially small number of molecules. The researchers used PCR to amplify and extract many short strands of mtDNA from the Neandertal sample. By overlapping these, they were able to generate a sequence of 379 bases apparently from the Neandertal individual. To protect against errors and contamination, each base was extracted in at least two separate amplifications. The sequence was extracted from a section of the mtDNA genome known as the hypervariable region 1 (HVR1), so-called because that section of the genome accumulates mutations more rapidly than most of the genome and hence is particularly useful in distinguishing between different populations.
> 
> Krings et al. then compared this sequence against a database of 994 different mtDNA sequences from modern humans. For the sequence of mtDNA in question, humans on average differ from each other in 8 +/- 3.1 positions (the '3.1' represents one standard deviation). The greatest difference between any two modern humans was 24, and the smallest difference was 1 (because duplicates were removed from the database).
> 
> 
> Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say DNA was extracted?  DNA and soft tissue aren't the same thing.
> 
> 
> You babble about moving goal posts, right after you deflect from our mutation discussion.
> 
> 
> That ploy used to be cute the first dozen times I saw you use, but now it's just annoying.
Click to expand...


WASHINGTON  March 24, 2005 - For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex. 

If scientists can isolate proteins from the material, they may be able to learn new details of how dinosaurs lived, said lead researcher Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University. 

"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials. 

It was recovered dinosaur DNA  the blueprint for life  that was featured in the fictional recreation of the ancient animals in the book and film "Jurassic Park." 

The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died. 

The bone was broken when it was removed from the site. Schweitzer and her colleagues then analyzed the material inside the bone. 

"The vessels and contents are similar in all respects to blood vessels recovered from ... ostrich bone," they reported in a paper bring published Friday in the journal Science. 

Because evidence has accumulated in recent years that modern birds descended from dinosaurs, Schweitzer said she chose to compare the dinosaur remains with those of an ostrich, the largest bird available. 

Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor of Science, noted that there are few examples of soft tissues, except for leaves or petrified wood, that are preserved as fossils, just as there are few discoveries of insects in amber or humans and mammoths in peat or ice. 

Soft tissues are rare in older finds. "That's why in a 70 million-year-old fossil it is so interesting," he said. 


Advertise | AdChoices



Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said the discovery was "pretty exciting stuff." 

"You are actually getting into the small-scale biology of the animal, which is something we rarely get the opportunity to look at," said Carrano, who was not part of the research team. 

In addition, he said, it is a huge opportunity to learn more about how fossils are made, a process that is not fully understood. 

Richard A. Hengst of Purdue University said the finding "opens the door for research into the protein structure of ancient organisms, if nothing else. While we think that nature is conservative in how things are built, this gives scientists an opportunity to observe this at the chemical and cellular level." Hengst was not part of the research team. 

John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen," but probably is not unique. Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections, said Horner, a co-author of the paper. 

Video: Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue Most museums, he said, prefer to keep their specimens intact. 

Schweitzer said that after removing the minerals from the specimen, the remaining tissues were soft and transparent and could be manipulated with instruments. 

The bone matrix was stretchy and flexible, she said. Also, there were long structures like blood vessels. What appeared to be individual cells were visible. 

She did not know if they were blood cells. "They are little round cells," Schweitzer said. 

She likened the process to placing a chicken bone in vinegar. The minerals will dissolve, leaving the soft tissues. 

The research was funded by North Carolina State University and grants .

Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /&#716;e&#618;ba&#618;.&#629;&#712;d&#658;&#603;n&#616;s&#618;s/ ay-by-oh-jen-&#601;-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the MillerUrey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.
> 
> In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.
> 
> In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself,[3][4] with reliable fossil evidence of the first life found in rocks 3.4 Gyr old.[5] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[6][7] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[8][9]
> 
> The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: abiogenesis: Definition from Answers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.
> 
> There are so much bacteria we would be seeing  new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .
Click to expand...

list them!


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use your common sense,Can you explain how blood cells are found in a 70 million year old T-rex when DNA only last best a 100,000 years ? Do evolutionist need to move the goalposts again ?
> 
> msnbc.com Video Player
> 
> Extraction of the mitochondrial DNA
> 
> After death, DNA starts degrading immediately. It is thought that under the most favorable conditions, some DNA fragments can survive for as long as 50,000 to 100,000 years. The Feldhofer Neandertal fossil, thought to be between 30,000 and 100,000 years old, was therefore pushing the limits for this kind of work. However initial testing of the fossil showed good preservation of amino acids, indicating that it might contain recoverable mtDNA.
> 
> Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is a technique which can be used to create many copies of an initially small number of molecules. The researchers used PCR to amplify and extract many short strands of mtDNA from the Neandertal sample. By overlapping these, they were able to generate a sequence of 379 bases apparently from the Neandertal individual. To protect against errors and contamination, each base was extracted in at least two separate amplifications. The sequence was extracted from a section of the mtDNA genome known as the hypervariable region 1 (HVR1), so-called because that section of the genome accumulates mutations more rapidly than most of the genome and hence is particularly useful in distinguishing between different populations.
> 
> Krings et al. then compared this sequence against a database of 994 different mtDNA sequences from modern humans. For the sequence of mtDNA in question, humans on average differ from each other in 8 +/- 3.1 positions (the '3.1' represents one standard deviation). The greatest difference between any two modern humans was 24, and the smallest difference was 1 (because duplicates were removed from the database).
> 
> 
> Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say DNA was extracted?  DNA and soft tissue aren't the same thing.
> 
> 
> You babble about moving goal posts, right after you deflect from our mutation discussion.
> 
> 
> That ploy used to be cute the first dozen times I saw you use, but now it's just annoying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON  March 24, 2005 - For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.
> 
> If scientists can isolate proteins from the material, they may be able to learn new details of how dinosaurs lived, said lead researcher Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University.
> 
> "We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials.
> 
> It was recovered dinosaur DNA  the blueprint for life  that was featured in the fictional recreation of the ancient animals in the book and film "Jurassic Park."
> 
> The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died.
> 
> The bone was broken when it was removed from the site. Schweitzer and her colleagues then analyzed the material inside the bone.
> 
> "The vessels and contents are similar in all respects to blood vessels recovered from ... ostrich bone," they reported in a paper bring published Friday in the journal Science.
> 
> Because evidence has accumulated in recent years that modern birds descended from dinosaurs, Schweitzer said she chose to compare the dinosaur remains with those of an ostrich, the largest bird available.
> 
> Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor of Science, noted that there are few examples of soft tissues, except for leaves or petrified wood, that are preserved as fossils, just as there are few discoveries of insects in amber or humans and mammoths in peat or ice.
> 
> Soft tissues are rare in older finds. "That's why in a 70 million-year-old fossil it is so interesting," he said.
> 
> 
> Advertise | AdChoices
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said the discovery was "pretty exciting stuff."
> 
> "You are actually getting into the small-scale biology of the animal, which is something we rarely get the opportunity to look at," said Carrano, who was not part of the research team.
> 
> In addition, he said, it is a huge opportunity to learn more about how fossils are made, a process that is not fully understood.
> 
> Richard A. Hengst of Purdue University said the finding "opens the door for research into the protein structure of ancient organisms, if nothing else. While we think that nature is conservative in how things are built, this gives scientists an opportunity to observe this at the chemical and cellular level." Hengst was not part of the research team.
> 
> John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen," but probably is not unique. Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections, said Horner, a co-author of the paper.
> 
> Video: Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue Most museums, he said, prefer to keep their specimens intact.
> 
> Schweitzer said that after removing the minerals from the specimen, the remaining tissues were soft and transparent and could be manipulated with instruments.
> 
> The bone matrix was stretchy and flexible, she said. Also, there were long structures like blood vessels. What appeared to be individual cells were visible.
> 
> She did not know if they were blood cells. "They are little round cells," Schweitzer said.
> 
> She likened the process to placing a chicken bone in vinegar. The minerals will dissolve, leaving the soft tissues.
> 
> The research was funded by North Carolina State University and grants .
> 
> Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com
Click to expand...


I understand you don't read other people's links when they prove you wrong, but why don't you read your own links?  You'll realize you just posted ANOTHER one that proves you wrong.

*"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials. *


Now please provide me proof that DNA was extracted from materials.


Thank you.


----------



## daws101

17 Captivating Fractals Found in Nature | WebEcoist


answers the simple to complex problem without the aid of creator


----------



## LOki

youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.
> 
> You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think it's up to your side to show why micro-adaptations, piled one upon the other, would not eventually lead to macro-adaptation.  You admit they occur, but seem to reject the additive effect of many micro-adaptations.  Why???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> this is a good question i will let this article explain it.
> 
> Micro and macro-evolution explained
> 
> the difference betw...==================================
> ================*SNIP*================
> ==================================​What is obviously happening here is this retard has no understanding what-so-ever of the subject he is addressing.
> 
> He certainly has no honest notion of what is asserted, confirmed, and demonstrably predicted by evolutionists and evolutionary theory.
> 
> The sad (and embarrassing to his creationist fellows) fact is that this intellectually dishonest moron hasn't the slightest idea regarding what his resources are saying.
> 
> If he had sufficient understanding of the topic to selectively quote the salient point from his sources, and then link just provide link to that source for reference, this persistently stupid dumbass would have done just that.
> 
> But no. He requires you to figure it out for him.
> 
> When he encounters an argument that is fully substantiated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, he clears the boogers from his fingernails with his teeth and opens Google.
> 
> In the search field he types in "evolution debunked"
> 
> after 37 pages of results all ridiculing the notion that evolution has been debunked, he finally finds a link to the site he's been looking for:
> www.super_prestigious_university_of_creationscience&hair_salon&jiffy_lube.derp
> 
> in the site menu he clicks the link to "science papers that debunk perfessers"
> 
> he scrolls down until he finds a link to "how i debunked evolution: Richard dawkins is the devil" by delmer pudpuller phd. Creation geology. (n.b.: Old delmer used that phd of his to land himself a sweet career scaling fish from the tailgate of his truck, down by the docks.)
> 
> satisfied by the unimpeachable credentials of the author of this ... Ahem .... Peer reviewed "scientific" paper, he clicks the link.
> 
> What confronts our little buttercup here is alot of words--which he finds impressive, except many of them are those "50 cent" words that the church lady told him were tools of the devil! Jesus save us from exceeding a 3rd grade vocabulary! Amen!
> 
> With so little experience with big words without pictures, or any familiarity with critical thinking, ywc scrolls down through this paper searching for a word that he recognizes.
> 
> After about disappointing 4 minutes, he sees a "fact" that he has no understanding of, but it's about darwin being "proven" wrong by a guy who's name he recognizes--it was his lab partner in creationist genetics, richard whistler, phd. Creation genetics. (n.b.: Apparently dick's credentials were so impressive that he scored a an important position at pudgie's pulled pork; $15k a year and they gave him rubber boots and a hair-net.  Who says an advanced degree in creation science doesn't pay off? Commie evolutionist atheists! That's who!)
> 
> armed with the confidence of the undeniable gravitas brought by dr. Whistler, our cupcake resumes his search for a big word he recognizes.
> 
> About 49 minutes of scrolling later, he sees not one, but two big words he recognizes. Whats more he understands the sentence they're in because he was whipped by his paw until he committed it to memory: "there is no relationship what-so-ever between microevolution and macroevolution, just like jesus told us in the bible."
> 
> sure now that he's got the resource that will "demolish" evolution, ywc clears his fingernails again (disappointed that he forgot to "reload" them), presses ctrl-a, then ctrl-c. He carefully clicks the "post reply" button in the forum, selects the "reply to thread" window, and presses ctrl-v. Submit reply!
> 
> Now what this retard is waiting for is his opponents to pick through his c/p vomit pile to identify the relevance in his post that he is unable to recognize because he has no idea what constitutes such relevance. His deficiency of understanding is so complete, that even when this relevance is explained to him in excruciating detail, he still exhibits a stunning misconception of everything he talks about.
> 
> So in response to ywc's c/p vomit piles, i think i'll just fight fire with fire and replace them with something that i have marginally more confidence will be sensible, but am fully confident will at least present the pertinent cases of evolutionists and creationists honestly.
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> The talk.origins archive: Exploring the creation/evolution controversy
> 
> macroevolution
> its definition, philosophy and history
> by john wilkins
> version 2.1.3
> copyright © 1997-2006
> [last update: September 23, 2006]
> 
> to be read in conjunction with douglas theobald's 29+ evidences for macroevolution faq.
> 
> This faq covers the following topics:
> 
> What macroevolution and microevolution mean
> 
> how the terms are used and how they came to be coined
> 
> confusions in the scientific literature about the terms
> 
> a philosophical discussion of whether macroevolution is reducible to microevolution, or if it stands as a separate process in evolution
> 
> whether or not there are barriers that prevent microevolution, which creationists accept, from becoming macroevolution, which they reject
> 
> whether or not the idea of macroevolution can be falsified, and whether specific accounts of macroevolution can be falsified.
> 
> Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology.
> 
> A later version will add a section on how creationists "move the goalposts" when confronted with undeniable evidence of macroevolution, but for now see the sister faq of douglas theobald.
> 
> The reader is invited to skip the section on reduction. This is a largely philosophical discussion included because it is a debate within the scientific community. It has no impact on the fact of above-species evolution (that is, on speciation, common descent, and pattern in the phylogenetic record). But it is often the subject of heated debates in forums discussing evolution in the context of creationism.
> 
> As humpty dumpty said to alice:
> 
> There's glory for you!'
> 'i don't know what you mean by "glory,"' alice said.
> Humpty dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'of course you don't  till i tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
> 'but "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' alice objected.
> 'when i use a word,' humpty dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what i choose it to mean  neither more nor less.'
> 'the question is,' said alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
> 'the question is,' said humpty dumpty, 'which is to be master  that's all.'
> 
> words are not the master of science; science is, or should be, the master of its words. But we can inquire how scientists use their words, and whether they use them consistently. And having done that, we can inquire whether others who are not scientists read too much into them, or use them in a totally different way.
> Contents
> 
> what is macroevolution?
> The history of the concept of macroevolution
> confusions
> is macroevolution reducible to microevolution?
> Species sorting/selection
> historical constraints/bauplans
> emergent properties
> barriers to macroevolution
> falsifying macroevolution
> conclusions
> notes
> references
> 
> what is macroevolution?
> 
> First, we have to get the definitions right. The following terms are defined: Macroevolution, microevolution, cladogenesis, anagenesis, punctuated equilibrium theory, phyletic gradualism
> 
> creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.
> 
> In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the greek words). For example, "macrofauna" means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while "microfauna" means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be "macro" by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct.
> 
> In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.
> 
> Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.
> Time versus anagenesis and cladogenesis graph d 	figure 1: Anagenesis and cladogenesis. In this example, species a anagenetically changes over time to become species b, while species b cladogenetically changes over time by splitting into species c and d, neither of which are very different from b or each other. The anagenesis axis represents change of form, either genetic or phenotypic. The cladogenetic axis represents isolation of species from each other (for example, reproductive isolation). Of course, cladogenesis and anagenesis can often go hand-in-hand as well. Anagenesis is not regarded by most scientists as "real" speciation, although it is indistinguishable in the fossil record from a cladogenetic event.
> 
> Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution and microevolution is within-species evolution. Sometimes, macroevolution is called "supraspecific evolution" (rensch 1959, see hennig 1966: 223-225).
> 
> There are various views of the dynamics of macroevolution. Punctuated equilibria are patterns of change that indicate stasis, or long periods of time where species exhibit very little change. There are several hypotheses that attempt to explain stasis. The current consensus among paleontologists is that large populations are buffered against evolutionary change by natural selection or genetic drift. Evolutionary change becomes easier when populations split into smaller demes. This change can be "locked in" if the subpopulations evolve reproductive isolation and become separate species. That's why change is associated with cladogenesis. Phyletic gradualism suggests that species continue to adapt to new challenges over the course of their history (see fig. 1). Species selection and species sorting theories think that there are macroevolutionary processes going on that make it more or less likely that certain species will exist for very long before becoming extinct, in a kind of parallel to what happens to genes in microevolution.
> The history of the concept of macroevolution
> 
> how did the terms enter into scientific use, and what has happened to them since?
> 
> In the "modern synthesis" of neo-darwinism, which developed in the period from 1930 to 1950 with the reconciliation of evolution by natural selection and modern genetics, macroevolution is thought to be the combined effects of microevolutionary processes.
> 
> The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the russian entomologist iuri'i filipchenko (or philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his german-language work variabilität und variation, which was an early attempt to reconcile mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when mendelism seemed to have made darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of darwinism" (bowler 1983), he was not a darwinian, but an orthogeneticist (he believed evolution had a direction). Moreover, russian biologists of the period had a history of rejecting darwin's malthusian mechanism of evolution by competition (todes 1989).
> 
> In dobzhansky's founding work of the modern synthesis, genetics and the origin of species, he began by saying that "we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution" (1937: 12), thereby introducing the terms into the english-speaking biological community (alexandrov 1994). Dobzhansky had been filipchenko's student and regarded him as his mentor. In science as in all academic disciplines, it is difficult to deny a major tenet of one's teachers due to filial loyalty, and dobzhansky, who effectively started the modern darwinian synthesis with this book, found it disagreeable to have to deny his teacher's views (burian 1994).
> 
> The term fell into limited disfavour when it was taken over by such writers as the geneticist richard goldschmidt (1940) and the paleontologist otto schindewolf to describe their orthogenetic theories. As a result, apart from dobzhansky, bernhardt rensch and ernst mayr, very few neo-darwinian writers used the term, preferring instead to talk of evolution as changes in allele frequencies without mention of the level of the changes (above species level or below). Those who did were generally working within the continental european traditions (as dobzhansky, mayr, rensch, goldschmidt, and schindewolf are) and those who didn't were generally working within the anglo-american tradition (such as john maynard smith and richard dawkins). Hence, use of the term "macroevolution" is sometimes wrongly used as a litmus test of whether the writer is "properly" neo-darwinian or not (eldredge 1995: 126-127).
> 
> The term was revived by a number of mainly paleontological authors such as steven stanley (1979), stephen jay gould and niles eldredge, the authors of punctuated equilibrium theory (see eldredge 1995), who argued that something other than within-species processes are causing macroevolution, although they disavow the view that evolution is progressive. Many paleontologists have held that what happens in evolution beyond the species level is due to processes that operate beyond the level of populations  for example, the notion of species selection (the idea that species themselves get selected similarly to the way alleles get selected within populations, see grantham 1995, rice 1995, and stidd and wade 1995 for reviews and discussions).
> 
> The idea that the origin of higher taxa such as genera requires something special is often based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new lineages arise. The two species that are the origin of canine and feline lineages probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were taxonomically isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared internally but that other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (e.g., gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.
> Confusions
> 
> ways in which the term "macroevolution" is used by scientists. Some are exact in the way they use it, while others are less exact. These usages are not all the same, and this causes some confusion. Why do scientists not agree on the meaning of their terms?
> 
> The meaning modern authors give to the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is often confusing, and varies according to what it is they are discussing. This is particularly the case when "large-scale" evolutionary processes are being discussed. For example, r. L. Carroll, in his undergraduate textbook (1997: 10) defines microevolution as "involving phenomena at the level of populations and species" and macroevolution as "evolutionary patterns expressed over millions and hundreds of millions of years". Eldredge says, "macroevolution, however it is precisely defined, always connotes "large-scale evolutionary change" (1989: Vii) and throughout his book speaks of macroevolution as roughly equivalent to the evolution of taxa that are of a higher rank than species, such as genera, orders, families and the like. In his book evolution, mark ridley defines the terms thus (2004: 227):
> 
> Macroevolution means evolution on the grand scale, and it is mainly studied in the fossil record. It is contrasted with microevolution, the study of evolution over short time periods, such as that of a human lifetime or less. Microevolution therefore refers to changes in gene frequency within a population .... Macroevolutionary events events are much more likely to take millions of years. Macroevolution refers to things like the trends in horse evolution ... Or the origin of major groups, or mass extinctions, or the cambrian explosion .... Speciation is the traditional dividing line between micro- and macroevolution.
> 
> There are many papers published that use the term in this "higher category" way; why is that?
> 
> Science is not always consistent in its use of terms; this is the source of much confusion. Sometimes this is carelessness, and sometimes this is because of the way in which terms are developed over time. When biologists and paleontologists talk about macroevolution in the sense of "large-scale" evolution, they are strictly speaking meaning only a part of the phenomena the term covers, but it is the most interesting part for those specialists. That is, they are talking about the patterns of well-above-species-level evolution (smith 1994).
> 
> In order to have a pattern you have to be able to compare three or more species (fig. 2). On its own, species a forms no patterns, and so long as the changes within it do not result in a new species, evolution is microevolutionary. If a new species b splits from a, then you have macroevolution, but no patterns. For there to be a pattern, you need to be able to say that one species is more closely related to another than a third is (in this case, that a is closer to b than it is to c).
> Cladogramd 	figure 2: If only two species or higher taxa are identified (red set) there is no pattern. If three or more (blue set) are included, then you are able to say that one is more closely related, evolutionarily speaking, to another than the third  in this case a and b are more closely related to each other than either is to c, which split off earlier than the a/b split.
> 
> The sorts of patterns that people are interested in when discussing macroevolution tend to involve very many species, either as a single large group ("higher taxon") or individually. This is why many authors use the term "macroevolution" to mean "large-scale evolution". However, just like anagenetic speciation, "large-scale" is an arbitrary and often subjective term, and the objective meaning of macroevolution is evolution at or above the level of species [note 2]. Hence, carroll's "definition" is problematic, despite his prominence in the field, and this sort of confusion is to be avoided. A previous attempt by simpson (1944) to introduce "megaevolution" for large-scale changes also failed to be accepted, in part because it was never entirely clear when "macro" ended and "mega" started.
> 
> A more considered definition is levinton's: "i define the process of macroevolution to be "the sum of those processes that explain the character-state transitions that diagnose evolutionary differences of major taxonomic rank" (levinton 2001:2). Here, levinton is trying to define macroevolution in a way that is not prejudicial to the debate he is writing about. It focuses on the characters of taxa, and is neutral about what level of taxa are involved. He denies the "species level" definition because he thinks, i believe unnecessarily, that it makes macroevolution the study of speciation. If the "pattern" analysis above is right, then macroevolution only includes the study of speciation, but it is hardly restricted to it. The scope of macroevolution rises very far above that level. It's worth observing, though, that linnaean higher taxonomic levels are artificial, constructed for convenience by systematists. Conclusions about evolution that rely upon taxonomic levels like genera or families (e.g., raup's and sepkoski's work on extinction, raup and sepkoski 1986, sepkoski 1987, raup 1991) must be taken with a grain of salt, since the taxon levels are not the "same" across phylogenetically distant groups, because they are not "natural", although they may, in fact (to be shown), be good surrogates for phylogenetic diversity.
> 
> Incidentally, the study of speciation has taken off significantly in recent years with some solid theoretical work that suggests many macroevolutionary effects are indeed the result of population level processes (gavrilets 2003, 2004, gavrilets and gravner 1997). Using the metaphor of the adaptive landscape  the field of all possible gene recombinations for a population, each of which has a fitness value assigned to it by the environment, gavrilets and colleagues have shown that what happens at the population level can indeed lead to divergence between them, but that most of the time populations that are maintained at a high fitness by selection can nonetheless "drift" apart at random.
> Is macroevolution reducible to microevolution?
> 
> Hot news: Philosophers of science like to argue about the reduction of one kind of science to another. Many have asked whether macroevolution reduces to microevolution. That is, whether or not larger changes in evolution are "just the sum of" small changes. We need to understand what "reduction" means in the philosophy of science before we can start accusing people of being "reductionists" or "holists".
> 
> From a philosophical perspective, one might say macroevolution is just a bunch of microevolution. It's also just a bunch of chemistry. And physics. These are unhelpful answers, so we might find it worthwhile to ask how scientific domains relate to each other. Whenever a scientist or philosopher asks if two theories are reducible one to the other, there are several answers that can be given. One is if the first theory being reduced a is adequately captured by the reducing theory b. Another is that a is not entirely captured by b. A third is that a and b each have overlapping areas, and areas only they capture. This is called the problem of theory reduction.
> 
> Reduction has been a philosophical problem with respect to science for about 60 years. It comes in three main varieties: Methodological reduction, which is the notion that one ought to try to explain wholes in terms of the parts and their interactions; ontological reduction, which is the notion that all the units or entities of one theory are composed of units or entities of another; and metaphysical reduction, which is the claim that only one kind of thing exists (also called "monism"). Ontological reduction includes reducing all the laws and dynamic generalisations of the a theory to laws and dynamic generalisations of the b theory. In philosophy of science, the case is often put in just these terms, but increasingly philosophers are attending to the objects of scientific theories as well as the models.
> 
> Consider atoms, as an example. At the time dalton proposed atoms, he was trying to explain larger things in terms of smaller things with properties that added up to the properties of the whole. He did this because he felt it was a good rule to follow, explaining wholes in terms of parts. So he was a methodological reductionist, explaining things in terms of ontological reduction. He wasn't a metaphysical reductionist, though, if he allowed that reality comprised stuff other than atoms  such as gravity or light (or god). A parallel case is genetic reductionism, in which behaviours are "reduced" to genes  it is both methodologically and ontologically reductionist in the domain of behaviour and biology. It doesn't assert that everything in biology is genetic, though, because we know that how genes are expressed is affected by non-genetic factors, such as the availability of food during crucial phases of development.
> 
> The reductive relation between microevolution and macroevolution is hotly debated. There are those who, with dobzhansky, say that macroevolution reduces to microevolution. We can break this down to three claims: Within the "universe" of biology, one might say that everything biological is best explained by microevolution (methodological), or that all entities and processes of macroevolution are microevolutionary (usually genetic  this is ontological), or that everything that happens (in biology) is genetic (metaphysical). In the metaphysical case, genes acquire an almost mystical significance, and no serious biologist makes this claim, although opponents accuse some (particularly dawkins) of doing so.
> 
> The two reductive claims we will consider now are the methodological and the ontological.
> 
> The methodological claim that macroevolution (ma) reduces to microevolution (mi) is a claim that the optimal solution for investigating evolution is to apply modelling and testing by genetic techniques. And this has been very successful. However, it has not been an unqualified success  developmental biology is not easily reducible to genetics, nor is ecology. Cell division, specialisation and signalling explain development, and the relationship between genes and these processes is equivocal  that is, some genes play a role in many developmental processes, and many genes play a role in pretty well all processes. Moreover, there are many other things involved in development: Epigenetic factors (para-genetic inheritance and environmental modulation of genetic effects), cytological inheritance (organelles, cell membranes, ribosomes and enzymes from parent cells, and parent organisms). So genes on their own are not enough to explain why evolution occurs along the pathways that it has. One reaction to methodological reductionism in biology has been to assert that genes are merely "bookkeeping" entities for evolutionary investigation (gould 2002). The methodological reduction is not sufficient, even if genes turn out to be the only significant "players" in evolution.
> 
> It is this assumption that antireductionists challenge in the ontological reductionist case. There are entities and processes, they say, that affect macroevolutionary dynamics which are not in their nature microevolutionary. What could these be?
> 
> Well, a list that reductionists would accept includes climate change, geomorphological processes like mountain building, tectonic isolation and drift, vulcanism, extraterrestrial influences like bolide impacts, galactic wobble, precession of the earth's axial rotation, and possibly even local stars approaching and changing the impact on the earth of comets and other bolides in a cycle averaging around 13 million years. The point the reductionists would make, though, is that everything that these things affect is microevolutionary  only the frequencies of genes in populations, and so on. They serve as the environment in which genes change their frequency (or fail to, and the species goes extinct). What the "player" is in microevolution is the population, comprising organisms, traits and genes; in short, the gene pool. Nothing else is important.
> 
> Nonreductionists will argue, however, that there are emergent processes and entities in macroevolution that cannot be captured ontologically. There are several candidates for these, each challenged by reductionists. The basis for this is a view of evolution as a series of inclusive hierarchical levels, each of which is somewhat independent of the lower levels.
> Macroevolution and microevolution graphicd
> figure 3. The hierarchical relations between macroevolution (ma) and microevolution (mi), and the environment (e). Mi consists of organisms (o) and their interactions (i) together with factors from the environment. Examples a-g illustrate the levels of environmental influence:
> 
> Mutation caused by chemical, thermal or radioactive interference.
> Heat shock on developing zygotes.
> Local adaptation to a niche.
> Climatological change causing migration.
> Geographical isolation.
> Environmental changes that cannot be adapted to for historical or developmental reasons (causing extinction).
> Changes that affect speciation rates and type.
> 
> 
> 
> One thing to bear in mind is that in classical reductionism, the arrow of causal direction is from the microlevel to the macrolevel. But speciation and higher evolutionary processes affect what happens at lower levels too. David sepkoski has a table that illustrates the kind of causal arrows that work downwards as well as upwards:
> Macroevolutionary hierarchy chartd
> [text-only version]
> 
> the frequencies of objects like species or organisms or alleles are affected by the contexts in which they occur, which are usually processes at the next level up. His notation clearly describes what may be called "darwinian" in this respect, although one might not necessarily accept that the macro2 level is "non-darwinian", if by that is meant something contrary to darwinian evolution in a broader sense.
> Species selection/sorting
> 
> elisabeth vrba (vrba 1985, gould and vrba 1993) proposed that species come into being and go extinct in a biased way. Generalist species (eurytopes) tend to survive longer  when one food source is unavailable, they switch to another until it comes back, thus avoiding predator-prey cycles known as lotka-volterra cycles (such as fox numbers dropping dramatically when rabbits are over-predated). Specialist species (stenotopes), though, are sensitive to the contingent changes forced by climate changes  even long droughts. But specialists tend to speciate more frequently, even if they go extinct more frequently, too, as they adapt to loss of degradation of their food resources. Selection is a process of differential survival correlated with ecological success, so proponents of selection of this kind consider this to be a selection process on species. Others refer to it as a species "sorting" process (see grantham 1995 for a review) because species are not sufficiently like organisms/individuals. Gould published an extensive discussion shortly before his death (gould 2002: 644-673). It is worth noting here that if species are selected, it is more like asexual evolution than the evolution of sexual organisms, as species rarely evolve by recombining lineages, or at least animal species don't. Plant species often do (at about 5-10% of new species), and we have insufficient evidence about other groups to generalise.
> Historical constraints/bauplans
> 
> some "non-synthesis" or post-synthesis evolutionists think that the processes that cause speciation are of a different kind to those that occur within species. That is, they admit that macroevolution occurs, but think that normal genetic change is restricted by such proposed mechanisms as developmental constraints. This view is originally associated with the names of schmalhausen and waddington, who were often characterised as being non-darwinians by the modern synthesis theorists. However, with the recent rise of the field known as "evo-devo", or evolutionary developmental biology, many of the ideas proposed by waddington and others have been revisited (schlichting and pigliucci 1998, amundson 2005, levinton 2001).
> 
> There are several kinds of constraints upon evolution. The best known is of course selective constraints: Some forms are just not viable, one way or another. But developmental constraints have been proposed to explain why, for example, in centipedes the segment number is always an odd number (arthur 2003). In these cases, the constraint is the nature of the developmental system itself. Others (schlichting and pigliucci 1998) consider this as much a case of selection as anything else; the developmental system  indeed, the ability to evolve  is subjected to selection as well. Historical constraints form a kind of "you can't get there from here" class. Once something has evolved, any state that requires reversing the evolution of that trait to get somewhere else is vanishingly unlikely. So the dynamics of the evolution of that trait are constrained by what has evolved already.
> 
> The notion of a bauplan  a german word meaning "blueprint" or "builder's plan"  has been applied to evolution most notably by gould and lewontin (1979). Bauplans (the word takes the english plural in this context) are the body plans of phyla, the second highest linnaean taxonomic level. Since georges cuvier named them in the early 19th century, phyla (singular phylum) have been seen as distinct and natural groupings within animals (arguably not in plants, where the level is division). Bauplans have been tied into the notion of a developmental and a historical constraint. There have been criticisms of the notion of a bauplan as being mystical in its causal power. Others see it as something that cannot be easily modified by the processes of within-species (mi) evolution.
> Emergent properties
> 
> one of the claims made by nonreductionists is that evolution occurs on emergent properties. An emergent property is one in which the property of a higher level system or object cannot be reduced to the properties of its constituent elements, but instead it "emerges" from the interactions between them (o'connor and wong 2002, mandik 2004). Emergent properties were first proposed by, coincidentally, a friend of darwin's, g. H. Lewes, in the field of psychology, but the idea goes back to j. S. Mill in 1843. It is often sloganized as "the whole is more than the sum of its parts". Emergence was made an issue when applied, ironically enough, to evolution in the 1920s by jan smuts and c. D. Broad.
> 
> In evolution, a species is considered by some nonreductionists as being a system that has properties above the level of the individual, the kin, or the deme (breeding population), based somewhat on mayr's definition of a species as being a protected breeding gene-pool ( mayr 1996). This has been challenged on various grounds, not least being that usually species appear to have no systematic interactions between all its parts, and that the appropriate level is the population.
> 
> In this writer's opinion, an emergent property is simply a property that we have trouble computing or predicting from a knowledge of the constituent parts, but this simple dismissal is insufficient. We have to identify the following aspects of the matter:
> 
> E: The environmental factors in which a species exists  for example, geological and climatological changes
> 
> o: The properties of the organisms  for example their traits and capacities severally
> 
> i: The interactions between the organisms  for example, the lineages of heredity at the gene, haplotype, genome and developmental levels of organization. Also, the issue of organisms changing their environment through a feedback process known as "niche construction" affects both e and i (oyama et al. 2000). We can set up the reductionist position like this:
> 
> Reductionism: I(o & e) &#8594; ma
> 
> ma is therefore the result of the union, in some way, of e, o and i. This can be massively complex and give rise to "sudden" changes [note 3], or hold the evolutionary process in a state of stasis for long periods. Whether or not one wants to call this "repeated rounds of microevolution" or not (erwin 2000) is open to debate. And even if it is, we still need to know the models for how they relate, and what mi covers.
> 
> The alternative, nonreductionism, posits that there are properties and processes going on that cannot be reduced to e, o, and ialone. There are some other things happening, call them m, that need to be added into the mix.
> 
> Nonreductionism: M & i(o & e) &#8594; ma
> 
> the arguments in biology are therefore concerned with what the set of ms might be, and how they operate.
> Barriers to macroevolution?
> 
> It is a common claim of antievolutionists that there is a limit to the amount of change that can be made. Creationists like gish (1979) claim that there is some limitation within "basic kinds", without being able to express exactly what basic kinds might be, or why change is restricted within them. Others such as johnson (1991:18) claim that the limit lies in the availability of genetic variety, and that when that limit is reached change ceases, and although he does accept that "darwinists" have "some points to make", he is hardly fair when he says that variation "might conceivably be renewed by mutation, but whether (and how often) this happens is not known" (p19). Of course it is known. We have had experimental evidence of rates of mutations since the 1910s, and modern research both mathematically and empirically confirms that rates of mutation occur at around 0.1-1.5 per zygote, which is to say every embryo has between 1/10th and 1.5 mutations on average, depending on species (crow 1997). The average mutation rate  that is the average rate of persisting mutations in a population  is 2.2 x 10-9 (kumar and subramanian 2002). Further, genes do not have evolutionary histories that match exactly the history of the species in which they exist; a field known as coalescence genetics covers the ability of novel genes to persist across speciation events, so that the variability is "available" when it is selectively advantageous (hey and wakeley 1997). Note that this is not to say that variation is maintained in order to be available. It's just that it is available when selective pressures change some of the time.
> 
> Creationists often say that species cannot be evolved from each other because chromosome numbers are different. Humans, for example, have 46 chromosomes, while chimpanzees have 48. But the human chromosome 2 is the result of what is called a robertsonian fusion  the ancestral ape chromosomes 2p and 2q appear to have fused at their ends (telomeres) to form the human chromosome 2 (williams, not dated), and other species that have large chromosomal differences can still interbreed (nevo et al. 1994). Dna aligns according to local sequence rather than large-scale chromosome structure, and this is why inversions and translocation in parts of the sequence still allow interbreeding.
> 
> There appears to be no single amount of genetic variation common between closely related species that prevents interbreeding. In some, only a few are sufficient. In others, much variation, such as the large chromosomal difference in nevo's mole rats, fails to prevent interbreeding. Introgression, or the leakage of genes across species boundaries, has been observed in lizards, plants, birds, and fish.
> 
> In summary, there is no barrier to species forming. This may not be enough to show that large-scale macroevolution occurs, though, according to writers like johnson and hitching (1982), but the logic here implies some causal force actively preventing change, rather than a problem with change occurring. For if there is enough change to form new species, and each species is slightly different from its ancestor, then simple addition shows that many speciation events can cause large-scale evolution over enough time. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Conversely, many single steps can traverse long distances. There is no evidence of any kind of barriers to large-scale change (brauer and brumbaugh 2001), although creationists are free to offer some.
> Falsifying macroevolution
> 
> is macroevolution a testable hypothesis? Can it be falsified?
> 
> Antievolutionists try to make out that macroevolution is a tautology, the way they claim that natural selection is a tautology. The implication is that macroevolution cannot be tested and shown to be wrong, and therefore it is not science.
> 
> To clarify this, consider what it is that scientists test when they test a hypothesis. Let's suppose that we are testing the idea that global warming is caused by a rise in co2 in the atmosphere. There are two parts to this  one claim is that co*2 causes the retention of solar and other heat, and the second is that this has happened in the past and is actually happening now. If you show that in a particular case global warming didn't happen (say, in the period of the last interglacial), you haven't thereby shown that co2 doesn't cause global warming, nor that it isn't doing so now. All you have tested is a particular case.
> 
> We can test a particular claim of macroevolution. We can test, for example, if weasels are more closely related to red pandas than bears are (flynn and nedbal 1998, flynn et al. 2000). This is a test of a particular evolutionary tree or scenario. It tests a historical reconstruction. If shown, on the basis of the evidence and the best data, to be wrong, then that history has indeed been falsified. But can we test the idea of common descent? It is not possible to show that something never occurred, but it is very easy to show that where it ought to occur, it either has or it hasn't. Science will not retain a bad idea when it is shown repeatedly not to explain what we have a right to expect it to explain (this is one reason why creationism was dropped from science back in the 1850s). If macroevolution persistently were shown to run counter to the data, then science would drop it and look for another solution.
> 
> Moreover, science has to an extent falsified the initial conception of macroevolution. The original idea was that evolution formed only tree-like patterns  species split like branches. A growing consensus has argued that both hybridisation (species recombining) and lateral genetic transfer (genes crossing the taxonomic boundaries individually or as part of symbiotic organisms that are taken into the "host" taxon's cellular machinery) are more common than we had previously thought. Macroevolution of species is still regarded as the most common way that the diversity of life has developed, but the "tree" now has "vines" that hang across the branches of single celled organisms (fig. 4).
> 'vines'd
> figure 4. Evolutionary "vines" lateral genetic transfer across the tree of life. Taken from carl zimmer's blog, the loom, based on work done by victor kunin, et al. This image covers only bacteria and archaea, but the same conclusions apply at the wider scale of other single celled organisms. [full-sized image]
> 
> so the common descent hypothesisas we might call the general idea, or the notion of descent with modification as darwin called it in his correspondence, is tested every time a particular hypothesis is tested. When there are problems in enough phylogenies, then common descent may be rejected. So far, though, it is a very good first approximation, and the fact that revisions can be and have been made show that it is neither dogma, nor insulated from data.
> 
> [see 29+ evidences of macroevolution for specific falsifying tests.]
> conclusions
> 
> is microevolution distinct from macroevolution and vice versa? We concluded that this depends very much on what is meant by "distinct" and so forth. All phenomena of microevolution  evolution below the species level  must necessarily have some effect above the species level. But whether this is an additive effect or not depends on the complexity of the relationships between the two levels in each case. At least some macroevolution is the result of microevolutionary processes. So we are only asking now if all is. This is open to debate: The e (environmental) factors that affect macroevolution are not within-species (mi) forces, but do microevolutionary processes like gene frequency changes necessarily mediate them? And this question is still unresolved amongst specialists. One thing we can say now, though, is that we cannot draw a simple equals sign between the two domains. It is an open question, one much argued within evolutionary biology and related disciplines, whether mi = ma in any sense.
> 
> Ontologically, all the objects of ma are accounted for by the objects of mi plus the objects and processes of e. However, we can't just assume all the processes of ma are just the aggregate sum of the processes of mi  this needs to be shown. Methodologically, we can not predict the outcomes of ma from a knowledge of the states of mi plus e. This is not because the outcomes of ma are not the result of mi and so on, necessarily, but because we cannot compute in a reasonable time those outcomes  too many variables, conditions, and interconnections (dupré 1993, rosenberg 1994).
> 
> But this doesn't mean that we can say that it is impossible to evolve from one group to another because there is a barrier, as creationists claim. Genes and developmental sequences are extremely modifiable, and to date no barrier has been found, nor any reason to suspect one exists. All modern biology accepts that ma is possible, through biological processes. The question is, in what ways? And that is a matter for empirical investigation, which is ongoing, and through which we are learning new things.
> 
> Macroevolution is at least evolution at or above the level of speciation, but it remains an open debate among scientists whether or not it is solely the end product of microevolutionary processes or there is some other set of processes that causes higher level trends and patterns. It is this writer's opinion that macroevolutionary processes are just the vector sum of microevolutionary processes in conjunction with large scale changes in geology and the environment, but this is only one of several opinions held by specialists.
> 
> The misuse of the terms by creationists is all their own work. It is not due to the ways scientists have used them. Basically when creationists use "macroevolution" they mean "evolution which we object to on theological grounds", and by "microevolution" they mean "evolution we either cannot deny, or which is acceptable on theological grounds".
> Notes
> 
> this is not because species do not change over time  some do. This is because there is no objective and common criterion for when a species has changed enough to count as a new species. The decision to count a species as a new one when there is no splitting of the species into two or more is a matter of personal taste or convention, which means that such decisions tell us more about the preferences of the scientist than they do about the organisms.
> 
> The definition of what counts as a "species" is itself debated. Most often, for organisms that reproduce sexually, it is the biological species concept, where organisms are of the same species if they can reproduce together and their progeny are fertile. However, this does not work in asexual organisms, and often fails in organisms that can interbreed across large taxonomic gaps. See the index of creation claims cb801 for references.
> 
> Terms like "sudden" or "rapid" or "slow" or "abrupt" are relative terms (loon 1999). A lot of confusion occurs when people used to thinking at one timescale, such as the geological, in which an event that takes 5 million years can be "sudden", talk to people for whom "sudden" means a few generations  which depending on the organisms can be a couple of hours, months, years or centuries. Similarly, "qualitative" change is relative to the measures used. Something that is qualitatively different on one measure can be a simple extrapolation on another (for example, if exponential scales are used to graph the change). I recommend removing such relative terms from this discussion whenever possible, or quantifying them exactly, to avoid misunderstanding.
> 
> References cited
> 
> alexandrov, d. A. 1994. Filipchenko and dobzhansky: Issues in evolutionary genetics in the 1920s. In the evolution of theodosius dobzhansky, ed. Mb adams, princeton: Princeton university press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> amundson, r. 2005. The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary biology: Structure and synthesis, cambridge studies in philosophy and biology. New york: Cambridge university press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> arthur, w. 2003. Developmental constraint and natural selection. Evolution & development 5 (2):117-118. [pubmed]
> 
> bowler, p. J. 1983. The eclipse of darwinism: Anti-darwinian evolution theories in the decades around 1900. Baltimore and london: John hopkins university press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> brauer, matthew j., and daniel r. Brumbaugh. 2001. Biology remystified: The scientific claims of the new creationists. In intelligent design and its critics, edited by r. T. Pennock. Cambridge, ma: Mit press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> burian, r. M.: 1994. Dobzhansky on evolutionary dynamics: Some questions about his russian background. In the evolution of theodosius dobzhansky, ed. Mb adams, princeton: Princeton university press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> carroll, r. L. 1997. Patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution, cambridge paleobiology series. Cambridge, uk: Cambridge university press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> crow, james f. 1997. The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Pnas 94 (16):8380-8386. The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health
> 
> dupré, j. 1993. The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Cambridge ma: Harvard university press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> dobzhansky, t. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. New york: Columbia university press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> eldredge, n. 1989. Macroevolutionary dynamics: Species, niches, and adaptive peaks. New york: Mcgraw-hill. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> eldredge, n. 1995. Reinventing darwin: The great evolutionary debate. London uk: Weidenfeld and nicholson. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> erwin, d. H. 2000. Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evol dev 2 (2):78-84. [pubmed]
> 
> flynn, j. J., and m. A. Nedbal. 1998. Phylogeny of the carnivora (mammalia): Congruence vs incompatibility among multiple data sets. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution 9 (3):414-426. [pubmed]
> 
> flynn, john j., michael a. Nedbal, jerry w. Dragoo, and rodney l. Honeycutt. 2000. Whence the red panda? . Molecular phylogenetics and evolution 17 (2):190-199. http://www.msb.unm.edu/mammals/publications/flynn2000.pdf
> 
> gavrilets, s. 2003. Perspective: Models of speciation: What have we learned in 40 years? Evolution int j org evolution 57 (10):2197-215. [pubmed]
> 
> gavrilets, s. 2004. Fitness landscapes and the origin of species, monographs in population biology; v. 41. Princeton, n.j.; oxford, england: Princeton university press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> gavrilets, s., and j. Gravner. 1997. Percolation on the fitness hypercube and the evolution of reproductive isolation. J. Theor. Biol. 184 (1):51-64. [pubmed]
> 
> gish, duane t. 1979. Evolution: The fossils say no! 3rd ed. San diego, calif.: Creation-life publishers. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> grantham, t. 1995. Hierarchical approaches to macroevolution - recent work on species selection and the effect hypothesis. Annual review of ecology and systematics 26:301-321. [jstor]
> 
> goldschmidt, r. B. 1940 (1982). The material basis of evolution, silliman milestones in science. New haven: Yale university press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> gould, s. J. 1989. Wonderful life: The burgess shale and the nature of history, new york: Norton [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> gould, s. J. 2002. The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, mass., belknap press of harvard university press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> gould, s. J., and r. C. Lewontin. 1979. The spandrels of san marco and the panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc r soc lond b 205:581-598. http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_areas/evolution/perspectives/gould_lewontin_1979.shtml or The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm:
> 
> hennig, w. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. Translated by d. D. Davis and r. Zangerl. Urbana: University of illinois press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> hey, j., and j. Wakeley. 1997. A coalescent estimator of the population recombination rate. Genetics 145 (3):833-846. A Coalescent Estimator of the Population Recombination Rate
> 
> hitching, francis. 1982. The neck of the giraffe: Or where darwin went wrong. London: Pan books. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> johnson, phillip e. Darwin on trial. 1991. Washington: Regnery gateway. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> kumar, sudhir, and sankar subramanian. 2002. Mutation rates in mammalian genomes. Pnas 99 (2):803-808. Mutation rates in mammalian genomes
> 
> kunin, v., l. Goldovsky, n. Darzentas, and c. A. Ouzounis. 2005. The net of life: Reconstructing the microbial phylogenetic network. Genome res 15 (7):954-9. Epub 2005 jun 17. http://www.genome.org/cgi/reprint/gr.3666505v1
> 
> levinton, j. S. 2001. Genetics, paleontology, and macroevolution. 2nd ed. Cambridge uk: Cambridge university press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> loon, a.j. Van. 1999. The meaning of 'abruptness' in the geological past. Earth-science reviews 45:209-214. [science direct]
> 
> mandik, p. 2005. Emergence. In dictionary for the philosophy of mind. http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/minddict/emergence.html
> 
> mayr, e. 1996. What is a species, and what is not? Philosophy of science 2:262-277.
> 
> Nevo, e., m. G. Filippucci, and a. Beiles. 1994. Genetic polymorphisms in subterranean mammals (spalax ehrenbergi superspecies) in the near east revisited: Patterns and theory. Heredity 72 (pt 5):465-87. [pubmed]
> 
> o'connor, t., and h. Y. Wong. 2002. Emergent properties. In the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, edited by e. N. Zalta. Emergent Properties (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Summer 2005 Edition)
> 
> oyama, s., p. E. Griffiths, and r. D. Gray, eds. 2000. Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution. Cambridge, ma: Mit press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> raup, d. M. 1991. Extinction: Bad genes or bad luck? New york: W.w. Norton. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> raup, d. M., and j. J. Sepkoski, jr. 1986. Periodic extinction of families and genera. Science 231:833-6. [jstor] [pubmed]
> 
> rensch, b. 1959. Evolution above the species level. New york, columbia university press. [amazon ]
> 
> rice, s. H. 1995. A genetical theory of species selection. J. Theor. Biol. 177 (3):237-245. http://www.webpages.ttu.edu/searice/specsel.pdf
> 
> ridley, m. 2004. Evolution. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell pub. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> rosenberg, alexander. 1994. Instrumental biology, or, the disunity of science. Chicago: University of chicago press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> schlichting, c. D., and m. Pigliucci. 1998. Phenotypic evolution: A reaction norm perspective. Sunderland, ma: Sinauer associates. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> sepkoski, j. J., jr. 1987. Environmental trends in extinction during the paleozoic. Science 235:64-6. [pubmed] [science]
> 
> simpson, george gaylord. 1944. Tempo and mode in evolution. New york: Columbia university press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> smith, a. B. 1994. Systematics and the fossil record: Documenting evolutionary patterns. Oxford, ox; cambridge, mass., usa: Blackwell science. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> stanley, s. M. 1979. Macroevolution, pattern and process. San francisco: W. H. Freeman. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> stidd, b. M., and d. L. Wade. 1995. Is species selection dependent upon emergent characters? Biology and philosophy 10:55-76. [springer link]
> 
> todes, d. P. 1989. Darwin without malthus: The struggle for existence in russian evolutionary thought, monographs on the history and philosophy of biology. New york: Oxford university press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> vrba, e. S., ed. 1985. Species and speciation, transvaal museum monograph; no. 4. Pretoria, south africa: Transvaal museum.
> 
> Williams, robert. Not dated. Comparison of the human and great ape chromosomes as evidence for common ancestry. From the evolution evidence page. Human and Ape Chromosomes
> additional literature
> 
> allmon, w. D. 1994. Taxic evolutionary paleoecology and the ecological context of macroevolutionary change. Evolutionary ecology 8 (2):95-112. [springer link]
> 
> coyne, j. A. 1992. Genetics and speciation. Nature 355 (6360):511-5. [pubmed]
> 
> coyne, j. A., and h. A. Orr. 1998. The evolutionary genetics of speciation. Philos trans r soc lond b biol sci 353 (1366):287-305. http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ceb/coyne&orr_1998.pdf
> 
> coyne, j. A., and h. A. Orr. 2004. Speciation. Sunderland, mass.: Sinauer associates. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> foote, m. 1997. The evolution of morphological diversity. Annual review of ecology and systematics 28:129-152. http://biology.queensu.ca/~biol440/footeares1997.pdf
> 
> funk, v. A., and d. R. Brooks. 1989. Phylogenetic systematics as the basis of comparative biology. Smithsonian contributions to botany 0 (73):1-45. [amazon]
> 
> ghiselin, m. T. 1997. Metaphysics and the origin of species. Albany: State university of new york press. [amazon] [powell's] [barnes and noble]
> 
> gould, s. J. 1994. Tempo and mode in the macroevolutionary reconstruction of darwinism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91 (15):6764-6771. Tempo and mode in the macroevolutionary reconstruction of Darwinism
> 
> hansen, t. F., and e. P. Martins. 1996. Translating between microevolutionary process and macroevolutionary patterns: The correlation structure of interspecific data. Evolution 50 (4):1404-1417. [jstor]
> 
> heard, s. B. 1996. Patterns in phylogenetic tree balance with variable and evolving speciation rates. Evolution 50 (6):2141-2148. [abstract]
> 
> horvath, c. D. 1997. Discussion: Phylogenetic species concept: Pluralism, monism, and history. Biology and philosophy 12 (2):225-232. [springer link]
> 
> hunter, j. P. 1998. Key innovations and the ecology of macroevolution. Trends in evolution and ecology 13 (1, january):31-36. [springer link]
> 
> mooers, a. O., and d. Schluter. 1998. Fitting macroevolutionary models to phylogenies: An example using vertebrate body sizes. Contributions to zoology 68 (1):3-18. Contributions to Zoology
> 
> plutynski, a. Forthcoming. Speciation and macroevolution. In anya plutynski and sahotra sarkar, eds, blackwell's companion to the philosophy of biology.
> 
> Sepkoski, d. Forthcoming. Macroevolution. In michael ruse, ed., oxford handbook of the philosophy of biology.
> 
> Solé, r. V., s. C. Manrubia, m. Benton, s. Kauffman, and p. Bak. 1999. Criticality and scaling in evolutionary ecology. Trends in evolution and ecology 14 (4):156-160. [pubmed]
> 
> acknowledgements: Thanks to larry moran, matt silberstein, tom scharle, douglas theobald, pete dunkelberg, josh zelinsky, chris rohrer, erik w., and many others on the newsgroup, for comments, criticisms and outright disagreement. Thanks also to carl zimmer for the "vines" figure, and to david sepkoski and anya plutynski for copies of their forthcoming articles.
> ​
> ==================================
> ================SNIP================
> ==================================​... T and their hope that there is no god in which we are accountable.
> 
> what is micro and macro-evolution?
Click to expand...

ywc haz bin t0tle refutarz!!! Rofl!!!


----------



## LOki

koshergrl: "  Nope. Don't see it. It's not there. You're the idiot. You're the liar. "​


koshergrl said:


> They aren't undeniable at all.
> 
> And..again, do you ever listen to yourself? You really should, because you come across as a pontificating blow hard...all that flowery verbage..and yet you say nada. It's just noise. And it tickles my editorial funny bone.


Don't Stop Believin'


----------



## koshergrl

You know, I think it's against the rules to mess with quotes...


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> You know, I think it's against the rules to mess with quotes...


Fixed it for ya.


----------



## koshergrl

Thanks, I'd hate to get credit for that incredibly intelligent commentary.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Thanks, I'd hate to get credit for that incredibly intelligent commentary.


It *IS* just like looking at twins.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /&#716;e&#618;ba&#618;.&#629;&#712;d&#658;&#603;n&#616;s&#618;s/ ay-by-oh-jen-&#601;-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the MillerUrey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.
> 
> In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.
> 
> In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself,[3][4] with reliable fossil evidence of the first life found in rocks 3.4 Gyr old.[5] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[6][7] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[8][9]
> 
> The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: abiogenesis: Definition from Answers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.
> 
> There are so much bacteria we would be seeing  new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> list them!
Click to expand...


Not sure what you're asking for but 99.9% of all animals that once lived are now extinct.

CARPE DIEM: 99.9% of All Species Have Already Gone Extinct


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say DNA was extracted?  DNA and soft tissue aren't the same thing.
> 
> 
> You babble about moving goal posts, right after you deflect from our mutation discussion.
> 
> 
> That ploy used to be cute the first dozen times I saw you use, but now it's just annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON  March 24, 2005 - For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.
> 
> If scientists can isolate proteins from the material, they may be able to learn new details of how dinosaurs lived, said lead researcher Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University.
> 
> "We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials.
> 
> It was recovered dinosaur DNA  the blueprint for life  that was featured in the fictional recreation of the ancient animals in the book and film "Jurassic Park."
> 
> The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died.
> 
> The bone was broken when it was removed from the site. Schweitzer and her colleagues then analyzed the material inside the bone.
> 
> "The vessels and contents are similar in all respects to blood vessels recovered from ... ostrich bone," they reported in a paper bring published Friday in the journal Science.
> 
> Because evidence has accumulated in recent years that modern birds descended from dinosaurs, Schweitzer said she chose to compare the dinosaur remains with those of an ostrich, the largest bird available.
> 
> Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor of Science, noted that there are few examples of soft tissues, except for leaves or petrified wood, that are preserved as fossils, just as there are few discoveries of insects in amber or humans and mammoths in peat or ice.
> 
> Soft tissues are rare in older finds. "That's why in a 70 million-year-old fossil it is so interesting," he said.
> 
> 
> Advertise | AdChoices
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said the discovery was "pretty exciting stuff."
> 
> "You are actually getting into the small-scale biology of the animal, which is something we rarely get the opportunity to look at," said Carrano, who was not part of the research team.
> 
> In addition, he said, it is a huge opportunity to learn more about how fossils are made, a process that is not fully understood.
> 
> Richard A. Hengst of Purdue University said the finding "opens the door for research into the protein structure of ancient organisms, if nothing else. While we think that nature is conservative in how things are built, this gives scientists an opportunity to observe this at the chemical and cellular level." Hengst was not part of the research team.
> 
> John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen," but probably is not unique. Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections, said Horner, a co-author of the paper.
> 
> Video: Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue Most museums, he said, prefer to keep their specimens intact.
> 
> Schweitzer said that after removing the minerals from the specimen, the remaining tissues were soft and transparent and could be manipulated with instruments.
> 
> The bone matrix was stretchy and flexible, she said. Also, there were long structures like blood vessels. What appeared to be individual cells were visible.
> 
> She did not know if they were blood cells. "They are little round cells," Schweitzer said.
> 
> She likened the process to placing a chicken bone in vinegar. The minerals will dissolve, leaving the soft tissues.
> 
> The research was funded by North Carolina State University and grants .
> 
> Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you don't read other people's links when they prove you wrong, but why don't you read your own links?  You'll realize you just posted ANOTHER one that proves you wrong.
> 
> *"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials. *
> 
> 
> Now please provide me proof that DNA was extracted from materials.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


Just did, you deny science ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say DNA was extracted?  DNA and soft tissue aren't the same thing.
> 
> 
> You babble about moving goal posts, right after you deflect from our mutation discussion.
> 
> 
> That ploy used to be cute the first dozen times I saw you use, but now it's just annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON &#8212; March 24, 2005 - For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.
> 
> If scientists can isolate proteins from the material, they may be able to learn new details of how dinosaurs lived, said lead researcher Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University.
> 
> "We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials.
> 
> It was recovered dinosaur DNA &#8212; the blueprint for life &#8212; that was featured in the fictional recreation of the ancient animals in the book and film "Jurassic Park."
> 
> The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died.
> 
> The bone was broken when it was removed from the site. Schweitzer and her colleagues then analyzed the material inside the bone.
> 
> "The vessels and contents are similar in all respects to blood vessels recovered from ... ostrich bone," they reported in a paper bring published Friday in the journal Science.
> 
> Because evidence has accumulated in recent years that modern birds descended from dinosaurs, Schweitzer said she chose to compare the dinosaur remains with those of an ostrich, the largest bird available.
> 
> Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor of Science, noted that there are few examples of soft tissues, except for leaves or petrified wood, that are preserved as fossils, just as there are few discoveries of insects in amber or humans and mammoths in peat or ice.
> 
> Soft tissues are rare in older finds. "That's why in a 70 million-year-old fossil it is so interesting," he said.
> 
> 
> Advertise | AdChoices
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said the discovery was "pretty exciting stuff."
> 
> "You are actually getting into the small-scale biology of the animal, which is something we rarely get the opportunity to look at," said Carrano, who was not part of the research team.
> 
> In addition, he said, it is a huge opportunity to learn more about how fossils are made, a process that is not fully understood.
> 
> Richard A. Hengst of Purdue University said the finding "opens the door for research into the protein structure of ancient organisms, if nothing else. While we think that nature is conservative in how things are built, this gives scientists an opportunity to observe this at the chemical and cellular level." Hengst was not part of the research team.
> 
> John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen," but probably is not unique. Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections, said Horner, a co-author of the paper.
> 
> Video: Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue Most museums, he said, prefer to keep their specimens intact.
> 
> Schweitzer said that after removing the minerals from the specimen, the remaining tissues were soft and transparent and could be manipulated with instruments.
> 
> The bone matrix was stretchy and flexible, she said. Also, there were long structures like blood vessels. What appeared to be individual cells were visible.
> 
> She did not know if they were blood cells. "They are little round cells," Schweitzer said.
> 
> She likened the process to placing a chicken bone in vinegar. The minerals will dissolve, leaving the soft tissues.
> 
> The research was funded by North Carolina State University and grants .
> 
> Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you don't read other people's links when they prove you wrong, but why don't you read your own links?  You'll realize you just posted ANOTHER one that proves you wrong.
> 
> *"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials. *
> 
> 
> Now please provide me proof that DNA was extracted from materials.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


She described blood cells.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say DNA was extracted?  DNA and soft tissue aren't the same thing.
> 
> 
> You babble about moving goal posts, right after you deflect from our mutation discussion.
> 
> 
> That ploy used to be cute the first dozen times I saw you use, but now it's just annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON  March 24, 2005 - For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.
> 
> If scientists can isolate proteins from the material, they may be able to learn new details of how dinosaurs lived, said lead researcher Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University.
> 
> "We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials.
> 
> It was recovered dinosaur DNA  the blueprint for life  that was featured in the fictional recreation of the ancient animals in the book and film "Jurassic Park."
> 
> The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died.
> 
> The bone was broken when it was removed from the site. Schweitzer and her colleagues then analyzed the material inside the bone.
> 
> "The vessels and contents are similar in all respects to blood vessels recovered from ... ostrich bone," they reported in a paper bring published Friday in the journal Science.
> 
> Because evidence has accumulated in recent years that modern birds descended from dinosaurs, Schweitzer said she chose to compare the dinosaur remains with those of an ostrich, the largest bird available.
> 
> Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor of Science, noted that there are few examples of soft tissues, except for leaves or petrified wood, that are preserved as fossils, just as there are few discoveries of insects in amber or humans and mammoths in peat or ice.
> 
> Soft tissues are rare in older finds. "That's why in a 70 million-year-old fossil it is so interesting," he said.
> 
> 
> Advertise | AdChoices
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said the discovery was "pretty exciting stuff."
> 
> "You are actually getting into the small-scale biology of the animal, which is something we rarely get the opportunity to look at," said Carrano, who was not part of the research team.
> 
> In addition, he said, it is a huge opportunity to learn more about how fossils are made, a process that is not fully understood.
> 
> Richard A. Hengst of Purdue University said the finding "opens the door for research into the protein structure of ancient organisms, if nothing else. While we think that nature is conservative in how things are built, this gives scientists an opportunity to observe this at the chemical and cellular level." Hengst was not part of the research team.
> 
> John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen," but probably is not unique. Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections, said Horner, a co-author of the paper.
> 
> Video: Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue Most museums, he said, prefer to keep their specimens intact.
> 
> Schweitzer said that after removing the minerals from the specimen, the remaining tissues were soft and transparent and could be manipulated with instruments.
> 
> The bone matrix was stretchy and flexible, she said. Also, there were long structures like blood vessels. What appeared to be individual cells were visible.
> 
> She did not know if they were blood cells. "They are little round cells," Schweitzer said.
> 
> She likened the process to placing a chicken bone in vinegar. The minerals will dissolve, leaving the soft tissues.
> 
> The research was funded by North Carolina State University and grants .
> 
> Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you don't read other people's links when they prove you wrong, but why don't you read your own links?  You'll realize you just posted ANOTHER one that proves you wrong.
> 
> *"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials. *
> 
> 
> Now please provide me proof that DNA was extracted from materials.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


Quote from the article.

" including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex."


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say DNA was extracted?  DNA and soft tissue aren't the same thing.
> 
> 
> You babble about moving goal posts, right after you deflect from our mutation discussion.
> 
> 
> That ploy used to be cute the first dozen times I saw you use, but now it's just annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON  March 24, 2005 - For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.
> 
> If scientists can isolate proteins from the material, they may be able to learn new details of how dinosaurs lived, said lead researcher Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University.
> 
> "We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials.
> 
> It was recovered dinosaur DNA  the blueprint for life  that was featured in the fictional recreation of the ancient animals in the book and film "Jurassic Park."
> 
> The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died.
> 
> The bone was broken when it was removed from the site. Schweitzer and her colleagues then analyzed the material inside the bone.
> 
> "The vessels and contents are similar in all respects to blood vessels recovered from ... ostrich bone," they reported in a paper bring published Friday in the journal Science.
> 
> Because evidence has accumulated in recent years that modern birds descended from dinosaurs, Schweitzer said she chose to compare the dinosaur remains with those of an ostrich, the largest bird available.
> 
> Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor of Science, noted that there are few examples of soft tissues, except for leaves or petrified wood, that are preserved as fossils, just as there are few discoveries of insects in amber or humans and mammoths in peat or ice.
> 
> Soft tissues are rare in older finds. "That's why in a 70 million-year-old fossil it is so interesting," he said.
> 
> 
> Advertise | AdChoices
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said the discovery was "pretty exciting stuff."
> 
> "You are actually getting into the small-scale biology of the animal, which is something we rarely get the opportunity to look at," said Carrano, who was not part of the research team.
> 
> In addition, he said, it is a huge opportunity to learn more about how fossils are made, a process that is not fully understood.
> 
> Richard A. Hengst of Purdue University said the finding "opens the door for research into the protein structure of ancient organisms, if nothing else. While we think that nature is conservative in how things are built, this gives scientists an opportunity to observe this at the chemical and cellular level." Hengst was not part of the research team.
> 
> John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen," but probably is not unique. Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections, said Horner, a co-author of the paper.
> 
> Video: Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue Most museums, he said, prefer to keep their specimens intact.
> 
> Schweitzer said that after removing the minerals from the specimen, the remaining tissues were soft and transparent and could be manipulated with instruments.
> 
> The bone matrix was stretchy and flexible, she said. Also, there were long structures like blood vessels. What appeared to be individual cells were visible.
> 
> She did not know if they were blood cells. "They are little round cells," Schweitzer said.
> 
> She likened the process to placing a chicken bone in vinegar. The minerals will dissolve, leaving the soft tissues.
> 
> The research was funded by North Carolina State University and grants .
> 
> Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you don't read other people's links when they prove you wrong, but why don't you read your own links?  You'll realize you just posted ANOTHER one that proves you wrong.
> 
> *"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials. *
> 
> 
> Now please provide me proof that DNA was extracted from materials.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


Here drock look for yourself.

T-REX SOFT TISSUE!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say DNA was extracted?  DNA and soft tissue aren't the same thing.
> 
> 
> You babble about moving goal posts, right after you deflect from our mutation discussion.
> 
> 
> That ploy used to be cute the first dozen times I saw you use, but now it's just annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON  March 24, 2005 - For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.
> 
> If scientists can isolate proteins from the material, they may be able to learn new details of how dinosaurs lived, said lead researcher Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University.
> 
> "We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials.
> 
> It was recovered dinosaur DNA  the blueprint for life  that was featured in the fictional recreation of the ancient animals in the book and film "Jurassic Park."
> 
> The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died.
> 
> The bone was broken when it was removed from the site. Schweitzer and her colleagues then analyzed the material inside the bone.
> 
> "The vessels and contents are similar in all respects to blood vessels recovered from ... ostrich bone," they reported in a paper bring published Friday in the journal Science.
> 
> Because evidence has accumulated in recent years that modern birds descended from dinosaurs, Schweitzer said she chose to compare the dinosaur remains with those of an ostrich, the largest bird available.
> 
> Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor of Science, noted that there are few examples of soft tissues, except for leaves or petrified wood, that are preserved as fossils, just as there are few discoveries of insects in amber or humans and mammoths in peat or ice.
> 
> Soft tissues are rare in older finds. "That's why in a 70 million-year-old fossil it is so interesting," he said.
> 
> 
> Advertise | AdChoices
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said the discovery was "pretty exciting stuff."
> 
> "You are actually getting into the small-scale biology of the animal, which is something we rarely get the opportunity to look at," said Carrano, who was not part of the research team.
> 
> In addition, he said, it is a huge opportunity to learn more about how fossils are made, a process that is not fully understood.
> 
> Richard A. Hengst of Purdue University said the finding "opens the door for research into the protein structure of ancient organisms, if nothing else. While we think that nature is conservative in how things are built, this gives scientists an opportunity to observe this at the chemical and cellular level." Hengst was not part of the research team.
> 
> John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen," but probably is not unique. Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections, said Horner, a co-author of the paper.
> 
> Video: Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue Most museums, he said, prefer to keep their specimens intact.
> 
> Schweitzer said that after removing the minerals from the specimen, the remaining tissues were soft and transparent and could be manipulated with instruments.
> 
> The bone matrix was stretchy and flexible, she said. Also, there were long structures like blood vessels. What appeared to be individual cells were visible.
> 
> She did not know if they were blood cells. "They are little round cells," Schweitzer said.
> 
> She likened the process to placing a chicken bone in vinegar. The minerals will dissolve, leaving the soft tissues.
> 
> The research was funded by North Carolina State University and grants .
> 
> Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you don't read other people's links when they prove you wrong, but why don't you read your own links?  You'll realize you just posted ANOTHER one that proves you wrong.
> 
> *"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials. *
> 
> 
> Now please provide me proof that DNA was extracted from materials.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


Look how she is spinning it drock when she has evidence staring her right in the face she can't admit evolutionist have been wrong and their dating methods too.





The Scrambling Continues


An Update on the Amazing T. Rex Bone Discovery Announced a Year ago This Month

March 6, 2006


Layman



 dinosaurs
 evolutionists
 fossils


Last year at about this time, it was disclosed that scientists had made an amazing discovery of a Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone that still retained well-preserved soft tissue (which included blood vessels and cells). For evolutionists who argue that dinosaurs died about 65 million years ago, it was a startling discovery. AiGUSAs Dr. David Menton (who holds a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University) wrote at the time that it certainly taxes ones imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.1 

At the annual meeting of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, late last month (and which was attended by Dr. Menton), the North Carolina State University paleontologist who had announced the find last year, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, elaborated on the discovery that continues to shock the paleontological community. Evolutionists like her have been scrambling for 12 months to explain away this powerful evidence that dinosaurs have been around in relatively recent times. (For additional evidence of dinosaurs living in the past several centuries, go to Are dinosaurs alive today?) At the AAAS meeting, Dr. Schweitzer, as recorded by National Geographic, explained how she has been trying to make sense of the surprising discovery, [and that] scientists are beginning to rethink a long-standing model of how the fossilization process works.  Traditional ideas of how fossils form do not allow for the preservation of soft, perishable organic tissues.2 

Schweitzer also said at the AAAS conference that we propose now that soft-tissue components of bone might persist in a lot more different animals, in a lot more ages and environments, than we once thought.3 So steadfast is she in her long-age belief, Dr. Schweitzer will not even consider a re-think of her view that dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago. So she continues a search for an explanation of how soft tissue could have survived so well preserved for a long time. 

What did the researchers find? 

A year ago this month, the journal Science reported that a team led by Dr. Schweitzer found flexible connective tissue and branching blood vessels, as well as intact cells (that have the appearance of red blood cells) and osteocytes (bone cells) in the femur (thigh bone) of a 68-million-year-old T. rex uncovered in Montana. 

As summarized by Dr. Menton last year4: 


The T. rex was deposited in sandstone of estuarine origin, meaning that the animal was buried in rock layers laid down by water (no surprise here for the creationistssee Genesis and catastrophe). 

Since the bone looked relatively unfossilized, researchers, using weak acid, dissolved the mineral from a piece of the dinosaur bone (much the same way as the common science class exercise where chicken leg bones are soaked in vinegar for a week to make them rubbery). 

In fresh bones, the acid removes the hard mineral, leaving only organic material such as fibrous connective tissue, blood vessels and various cells. By comparison, if one were to demineralize a typical well-permineralized fossil, there would be nothing left. The acid-treated T. rex bone fragment, however, produced a flexible and elastic structure similar to what you would get from a fresh bone. 

When the demineralized T. rex bone was examined under the microscope, it revealed small branching translucent blood vessels with what appeared to be red blood cells inside.  

The report would have been an interesting scientific contribution if the writers would have ended on the note that old dinosaur bones look surprisingly young. But this would hardly serve as evidence for their millions of years of evolution. 

To see the startling photos of the dinosaur tissue and to read more about this find, go to Still soft and stretchy. 

Schweitzer, reports National Geographic, said that she will be continuing to study possible ways to explain this phenomenon, which was previously thought to be impossible. To illustrate the challenge being faced (although she claims to be on one possible track5), she showed two photographs and stated: One of these cells is 65 million years old, and one is about 9 months old. Can anyone tell me which is which? 

Her inferred answer was no. 

Will evolutionists now be convinced to think about rewriting dinosaur history? 

As AiG wrote in a news release 12 months ago about this find (in a release which was distributed nationwide to the secular media): 


The tissue/blood vessels are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most. (I.e., by the global Flood of Noahs time, about 4,300 years ago.) 

The deeply entrenched idea of long ages is so dominant in most of the scientific establishments that facts will not undermine the evolution belief system.  Philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn have pointed out what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm: the paradigm is not discarded but modified. 

Years ago when a startled Dr. Schweitzer found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. rex bone, she said, it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldnt believe it.  The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long? Her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. 

Almost certainly this astonishing discovery will become an accepted phenomenon that even stretchy soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years  and stretching beyond belief the idea that the evolutionary timetable concerning dinosaurs can be true. 

Regardless of how the evolutionist community finally decides what to do with this fossil conundrum, the creationists now possess immensely powerful evidence against the well-publicized belief that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and instead have tremendous support for the biblical timeline of a recent creation. 

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.


Footnotes
 1.As we reported nine years ago (see Sensational dinosaur blood report!), there have been previous reports of soft tissue and cells found in dinosaur fossils. Back
 2.Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue, National Geographic News, February 22, 2006, news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue.html. Back
 3.Ibid. Back
 4.Ostrich-osaurus discovery? Back
 5.National Geographic summarized one track of her search for an answer: 

New findings not yet published have led her to suggest one possible explanation. The key, she believes, may be the iron content of the blood and muscle proteins hemoglobin and myoglobin. 

After an organism dies, iron released from these proteins as they degrade may trigger the formation of highly reactive forms of oxygen known as free radicals. Other heavy metals in the environment may produce the same effect. 

Schweitzer thinks these metal-generated free radicals may trigger the formation of longer molecular chains, known as polymers, which essentially bind and lock remaining cellular structures in place. 

Eventually, the polymerized remains become inert, free from attack from the outside and further chemical change, Schweitzer said. 

The researchers are now trying to obtain a pure sample of the blood cell-like structures. If successful, Schweitzer hopes to apply a technique known as Raman spectroscopy to search for the presence of hemoglobin. 

In addition to testing her preservation theory, this analysis will help determine if identifiable protein fragments from the ancient animal are still present in the tissues. Its possible, Schweitzer says, that some unknown form of geochemical replacement preserved the tissue structure but changed its molecular composition. 

The Scrambling Continues - Answers in Genesis


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.
> 
> There are so much bacteria we would be seeing  new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .
> 
> 
> 
> list them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what you're asking for but 99.9% of all animals that once lived are now extinct.
> 
> CARPE DIEM: 99.9% of All Species Have Already Gone Extinct
Click to expand...

stop doging the question: I ask you to list  what scientists    post #1335


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> list them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you're asking for but 99.9% of all animals that once lived are now extinct.
> 
> CARPE DIEM: 99.9% of All Species Have Already Gone Extinct
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop doging the question: I ask you to list  what scientists    post #1335
Click to expand...


I still don't know what you are asking,please clarify ?

I looked at post #1335 That was my post.

You might want to check the post #


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> list them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you're asking for but 99.9% of all animals that once lived are now extinct.
> 
> CARPE DIEM: 99.9% of All Species Have Already Gone Extinct
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop doging the question: I ask you to list  what scientists    post #1335
Click to expand...


Looks like you were asking to list the species, But i can't think for you.

No real scientist would believe in abiogenesis. Find me a peer review where scientist accept the abiogenesis theory.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So,what does he say that is wrong ?
> 
> 
> 
> You should make the attempt to read what you reply to._Previously posted_ *here.*
> 
> Only 2 minutes in, this asshat starts greasing the specious path to the intellectually and morally bankrupt conclusions he hopes to use as props for his defense of the beliefs of superstitious retards like himself.
> 
> ~ 0:02:00 Considering Veith's unambiguous record of disingenuousity, it's worth pointing out that relative to the geologic time scale, the occurrence of the Cambrian "Explosion" is arguably "sudden." Veith (disingenuously) fails to point out that "suddenly" on this scale occurred some 900,000,000 years after the earliest eukaryotes, and the "explosion" he is describing is about 600,000,000* in duration.    EDIT: * Just noticed I threw an extra zero in there--I meant to say "about 60,000,000"--I can't fix it in the original posting.
> 
> @ 0:02:45 Veith asserts that there is no such thing as primitive creatures. He (disingenuously) wants to get one thing straight: "There is no such thing as a simple organism. Every organism on this planet is highly, highly complex."
> 
> As if the absolute complexity of life is at all in dispute.
> 
> Veith is boldly demanding that evolutionists are not using the terms "primitive" and "simple" as descriptors on a relative scale.
> 
> Without foundation in fact of reality, verifiable evidence, or valid logic, Veith is attempting to invalidate patently obvious observations along the lines of, "Single celled organisms are simple, compared to multi-cellular organisms."
> 
> What he is doing (as he has done throughout this series thus far) is presenting a generalization made by evolutionists (which they clearly assert as being only a generalization) and then he picks specific examples not explained by the generalization, and then asserts (disingenuously) that this specific example is inexplicable for evolutionists.
> 
> Veith is clearly an intellectually dishonest douche.
> 
> @ 050 Veith begins to demonstrate that there's more than one way that a fossil record can be established. He then tell a story about the "catastrophic" effect that a bulldozer might have on a small pond, as it buries the organisms associated with it.
> 
> He of course, does not make it clear (for the purposes of metaphorical accuracy and honesty) that aside from this burying, there is to be no evidence what-so-ever that such a bulldozer was ever present or logically necessary, so you could validly hypothesize by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic that such a bulldozer was present.
> 
> @ 0:06:30 Veith asserts that it is the fossils in a layer that determine the age of the layer they are found in; then he demands that by circular reasoning alone are the ages of the layers and the fossils found in them determined. The suggestion he presents is NOT that fossils simply offer evidence of the age of a layer, or that similar fossils offer can offer strong evidence of similar ages for similar layers, but that fossils are the sole determinant factor for the age of the layer of sediment.
> 
> It's a patent error of fact that Veith is certainly aware of, and so are Youwerecreated and MarcATL, making the three of them intellectually dishonest retards.
> 
> @ 0:07:38 While discussing the conditions that paleo-geologists consider to be ideal for fossil formation, Veith takes the refusal to assert the clearly local nature of localized (in both time AND location) "catastrophes" as evidence of a global catastrophe, to be the denial of the evidence that local catastrophes occurred and could therefore be responsible for fossil formation--thus by default, this same set of scientists are then somehow obligated to recognize ONLY uniformitarian explanations.
> 
> Other than intellectually dishonest superstitious retards, who can take this guy seriously?
> 
> @ 045 Veith just goes entirely off reservation regarding how scientists classify an organism as "primitive."
> 
> I really do not think it is at all necessary to view the remaining 65 minutes of Veith's intellectual dishonesty to make the obvious conclusions regarding its intellectual value in light of this forst 10 minutes, and the thoroughness of his dishonesty in the 2 previous presentations.
> 
> I seriously wish there was a transcript available, so that examining this crap would consume so much time.
> 
> So I'm going to try to skip ahead to this "one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms" that YWC was on about, so I can respond to him.
> 
> ==========================================
> ===============INTERMISSION===============
> ==========================================
> 
> This is as good a spot as any to insert this excerpt from an essay I discovered while looking for this single layer of silt found world-wide that was undeniably deposited during Youwerecreated's and Walter Veith's global deluge.
> 
> Even if all biologists were in the clutches of evolutions vile, atheist conspiracy, presumably bribed by their academic paychecks and research grants, theres no reason for profit-seeking corporations to cripple themselves by sticking with a fraud like evolution  not when theres an allegedly better theory around. The free enterprise system isnt interested in ideology  only what works. Business executives and their shareholders are results-oriented, and if theres a legal way to use knowledge to earn profits, theyll do it. But somehow, despite the incentives to stay ahead of the competition, flood geologists arent recruited by the mining or oil industries, creation scientists arent hired as researchers for the biotech industry or pharmaceutical firms, and  this is trivial, but true  specialists in Noahs Ark arent in demand by naval architects.
> 
> Isnt it amazing that these industries, which are profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, which employ tens of thousands of scientists in the fields of biology, geology, etc., never specifically recruit creationists and dont waste their time or their shareholders money doing creation science? Why dont they offer big salaries to hire the leading ID scientists away from the Discovery Institute? Why dont they make tempting offers to all the creationists who claim that universities discriminate against them? Why are they avoiding such a rich source of talent?
> 
> If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation science in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the science of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries.
> 
> Does the Darwinist conspiracy control not only academia, but also the hiring and research activities of major corporations? Oil companies too? If so, where are the gutsy little start-ups that have some hot new creationist development to sell? Why dont venture capitalists bankroll such enterprises? If creation science is such hot stuff, why isnt there a creationist version of Silicon Valley? Could it be that  gasp!  investments in creationism dont offer anything of value?
> --The Sensuous Curmudgeon, 2009
> 
> ==========================================
> =============END INTERMISSION=============
> ==========================================
> 
> I couldn't find Veith's discussion of "the one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms" which is not at all surprising, as I couldn't find any discussion of such a thing anywhere, except to say that no such thing exists. YWC will just have to point it out to me specifically.
> 
> But, while I was searching this video I found:
> 
> @ 0:15:24 Veith asserts that "you can't have your cake and eat it."
> 
> Of course, he is just as wrong about this as he is about nearly everything else. What you cannot do is eat your cake, and then have it. You in fact CAN have your cake and eat it. As it turns out, it is a logical necessity of reality that you have cake in order to eat it--you MUST have your cake in order to eat it.​You'll just have to excuse me for not documenting every bit of Veith's disingenuous bullshit; his track record for intellectual dishonesty was well established in his first 2 presentations, and in this one he couldn't manage abstain from his bullshit more than 3 minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything he say's can be supported.
Click to expand...

By faith ... which is intellectually meaningless.



Youwerecreated said:


> He uses your own against you.


He uses strawmen. He's a dope.



Youwerecreated said:


> And he makes solid arguments.


He makes fatuous arguments that can't stand the scrutiny of honest analysis.



Youwerecreated said:


> I noticed you failed to respond to the ones on your side that secialize in the correct fields to make such conclusions that agree with the Doctors explanation of your side.


Sometimes, we all wish you had some notion of what you are talking about.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you missed all these educated people from your side that agrees with the good Doctor.
> 
> _--ALL THE CRAP CITED IN A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO VALIDATE CREATIONIST SUPERSTITIOUS PSUEDO-SCIENCE I DIDN'T MISS SNIPPED FOR THE BENEFIT OF RATIONAL HUMANITY---​_
> 
> 
> 
> No. I suspect that the scientists and educated people (even the one you  asshats cite) from *my side* disavow the deliberate and disingenuous conclusions made by retards like you and Veith, citing their valid work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their quotes were clear ,what did they do recant their comments
Click to expand...

No. I suspect that the scientists and educated people (even the one you asshats cite) from *my side* disavow the deliberate and disingenuous conclusions made by retards like you and Veith, citing their valid work.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should make the attempt to read what you reply to._Previously posted_ *here.*
> 
> Only 2 minutes in, this asshat starts greasing the specious path to the intellectually and morally bankrupt conclusions he hopes to use as props for his defense of the beliefs of superstitious retards like himself.
> 
> ~ 0:02:00 Considering Veith's unambiguous record of disingenuousity, it's worth pointing out that relative to the geologic time scale, the occurrence of the Cambrian "Explosion" is arguably "sudden." Veith (disingenuously) fails to point out that "suddenly" on this scale occurred some 900,000,000 years after the earliest eukaryotes, and the "explosion" he is describing is about 600,000,000* in duration.    EDIT: * Just noticed I threw an extra zero in there--I meant to say "about 60,000,000"--I can't fix it in the original posting.
> 
> @ 0:02:45 Veith asserts that there is no such thing as primitive creatures. He (disingenuously) wants to get one thing straight: "There is no such thing as a simple organism. Every organism on this planet is highly, highly complex."
> 
> As if the absolute complexity of life is at all in dispute.
> 
> Veith is boldly demanding that evolutionists are not using the terms "primitive" and "simple" as descriptors on a relative scale.
> 
> Without foundation in fact of reality, verifiable evidence, or valid logic, Veith is attempting to invalidate patently obvious observations along the lines of, "Single celled organisms are simple, compared to multi-cellular organisms."
> 
> What he is doing (as he has done throughout this series thus far) is presenting a generalization made by evolutionists (which they clearly assert as being only a generalization) and then he picks specific examples not explained by the generalization, and then asserts (disingenuously) that this specific example is inexplicable for evolutionists.
> 
> Veith is clearly an intellectually dishonest douche.
> 
> @ 050 Veith begins to demonstrate that there's more than one way that a fossil record can be established. He then tell a story about the "catastrophic" effect that a bulldozer might have on a small pond, as it buries the organisms associated with it.
> 
> He of course, does not make it clear (for the purposes of metaphorical accuracy and honesty) that aside from this burying, there is to be no evidence what-so-ever that such a bulldozer was ever present or logically necessary, so you could validly hypothesize by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic that such a bulldozer was present.
> 
> @ 0:06:30 Veith asserts that it is the fossils in a layer that determine the age of the layer they are found in; then he demands that by circular reasoning alone are the ages of the layers and the fossils found in them determined. The suggestion he presents is NOT that fossils simply offer evidence of the age of a layer, or that similar fossils offer can offer strong evidence of similar ages for similar layers, but that fossils are the sole determinant factor for the age of the layer of sediment.
> 
> It's a patent error of fact that Veith is certainly aware of, and so are Youwerecreated and MarcATL, making the three of them intellectually dishonest retards.
> 
> @ 0:07:38 While discussing the conditions that paleo-geologists consider to be ideal for fossil formation, Veith takes the refusal to assert the clearly local nature of localized (in both time AND location) "catastrophes" as evidence of a global catastrophe, to be the denial of the evidence that local catastrophes occurred and could therefore be responsible for fossil formation--thus by default, this same set of scientists are then somehow obligated to recognize ONLY uniformitarian explanations.
> 
> Other than intellectually dishonest superstitious retards, who can take this guy seriously?
> 
> @ 045 Veith just goes entirely off reservation regarding how scientists classify an organism as "primitive."
> 
> I really do not think it is at all necessary to view the remaining 65 minutes of Veith's intellectual dishonesty to make the obvious conclusions regarding its intellectual value in light of this forst 10 minutes, and the thoroughness of his dishonesty in the 2 previous presentations.
> 
> I seriously wish there was a transcript available, so that examining this crap would consume so much time.
> 
> So I'm going to try to skip ahead to this "one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms" that YWC was on about, so I can respond to him.
> 
> ==========================================
> ===============INTERMISSION===============
> ==========================================
> 
> This is as good a spot as any to insert this excerpt from an essay I discovered while looking for this single layer of silt found world-wide that was undeniably deposited during Youwerecreated's and Walter Veith's global deluge.
> 
> Even if all biologists were in the clutches of evolutions vile, atheist conspiracy, presumably bribed by their academic paychecks and research grants, theres no reason for profit-seeking corporations to cripple themselves by sticking with a fraud like evolution  not when theres an allegedly better theory around. The free enterprise system isnt interested in ideology  only what works. Business executives and their shareholders are results-oriented, and if theres a legal way to use knowledge to earn profits, theyll do it. But somehow, despite the incentives to stay ahead of the competition, flood geologists arent recruited by the mining or oil industries, creation scientists arent hired as researchers for the biotech industry or pharmaceutical firms, and  this is trivial, but true  specialists in Noahs Ark arent in demand by naval architects.
> 
> Isnt it amazing that these industries, which are profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, which employ tens of thousands of scientists in the fields of biology, geology, etc., never specifically recruit creationists and dont waste their time or their shareholders money doing creation science? Why dont they offer big salaries to hire the leading ID scientists away from the Discovery Institute? Why dont they make tempting offers to all the creationists who claim that universities discriminate against them? Why are they avoiding such a rich source of talent?
> 
> If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation science in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the science of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries.
> 
> Does the Darwinist conspiracy control not only academia, but also the hiring and research activities of major corporations? Oil companies too? If so, where are the gutsy little start-ups that have some hot new creationist development to sell? Why dont venture capitalists bankroll such enterprises? If creation science is such hot stuff, why isnt there a creationist version of Silicon Valley? Could it be that  gasp!  investments in creationism dont offer anything of value?
> --The Sensuous Curmudgeon, 2009
> 
> ==========================================
> =============END INTERMISSION=============
> ==========================================
> 
> I couldn't find Veith's discussion of "the one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms" which is not at all surprising, as I couldn't find any discussion of such a thing anywhere, except to say that no such thing exists. YWC will just have to point it out to me specifically.
> 
> But, while I was searching this video I found:
> 
> @ 0:15:24 Veith asserts that "you can't have your cake and eat it."
> 
> Of course, he is just as wrong about this as he is about nearly everything else. What you cannot do is eat your cake, and then have it. You in fact CAN have your cake and eat it. As it turns out, it is a logical necessity of reality that you have cake in order to eat it--you MUST have your cake in order to eat it.​You'll just have to excuse me for not documenting every bit of Veith's disingenuous bullshit; his track record for intellectual dishonesty was well established in his first 2 presentations, and in this one he couldn't manage abstain from his bullshit more than 3 minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything he say's can be supported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By faith ... which is intellectually meaningless.
> 
> He uses strawmen. He's a dope.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And he makes solid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He makes fatuous arguments that can't stand the scrutiny of honest analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you failed to respond to the ones on your side that secialize in the correct fields to make such conclusions that agree with the Doctors explanation of your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes, we all wish you had some notion of what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


I have asked you for any proof that refutes what he said and you can't provide that proof so you make another meaningless post.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I suspect that the scientists and educated people (even the one you  asshats cite) from *my side* disavow the deliberate and disingenuous conclusions made by retards like you and Veith, citing their valid work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their quotes were clear ,what did they do recant their comments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I suspect that the scientists and educated people (even the one you asshats cite) from *my side* disavow the deliberate and disingenuous conclusions made by retards like you and Veith, citing their valid work.
Click to expand...


I hate to break it to you but those were their quotes prove otherwise. 

Put up or shut up. 

How do you like this DNA evidence found of  a T-rex that was supposedly 70 million years old


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you're asking for but 99.9% of all animals that once lived are now extinct.
> 
> CARPE DIEM: 99.9% of All Species Have Already Gone Extinct
> 
> 
> 
> stop doging the question: I ask you to list  what scientists    post #1335
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like you were asking to list the species, But i can't think for you.
> 
> No real scientist would believe in abiogenesis. Find me a peer review where scientist accept the abiogenesis theory.
Click to expand...


no you find me a list of "real"credible scientists that refute abiogenesis.
that's what I was asking for. since you're the one making the claim "no real scientists...." it's you who must provide the proof.


----------



## koshergrl

"
The reason cited most often is they feel evolution theories of natural selection and speciation are both "settled" science, and the other theories only serve to obfuscate the real issue. 
In the mind of the anti-creationist, creation is the only real myth in the debate.  This rationale primarily based on their opposition to Young Earth Creationism (YEC).
Not everyone who believes in creationism accepts YEC.   However, evolutionists invariably try to establish certain ground rules going into the debate.  The unwritten rules appear to include these axioms:

Creationism is synonymous with YEC, whether or not the counter-argument to evolution actually embraced the theory.In other words, evolution is really only opposed by YEC advocates.
Evolution consists of Darwin's theory of natural selection and speciation.  Darwin cataloged an abundance of information in meticulous records that irrefutably prove the process of natural selection does exist.  Proof of speciation can be found in the geologic record.  Transitional fossils such as _Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus, and Tiktaaklit._prove speciation has occurred_.   _
Only scientific theories can be called theories.  Even a bad scientific theory is still scientific. Any theory espousing the divine, a creator, a supernatural extraterrestrial being some people like to call God is dogmatic in nature and cannot rightly be called a theory because the scientific method cannot be applied.
Even discredited scientific theories are superior to religious beliefs.  Science is rational and religion is delusional.
Failure to accept these postulates is an indication of ignorance.  Truly enlightened intellectuals understand and embrace the beauty and truth of science.
Efforts inevitably ensue to force the creationist to embrace YEC, regardless of whether it is actually accepted by the creationism advocate.  If the evolutionist was always synonymous with YEC, that's what matters most often, not the actual opposing viewpoint in the debate.

Objecting to the inclusion of abiogenesis as a theory of evolution is critical to bolster the evolutionist's perspective, because abiogenesis as it currently is understood requires a scientific "leap of faith" and therefore diminishes evolution as a whole if included in the debate.  Abiogenesis requires that non-living matter had to magically become a living organism with adequate sources of food and water in close enough proximity to survive.  The first organism had to live long enough to figure out how to replicate itself before its life span was exhausted or entropy took effect.  It is clear why an evolutionist must remove abiogenesis from the evolutionary debate. It requires the same suspension of belief for scientific evidence that the evolutionist chides the creationist for employing.  


​Continue reading on Examiner.com Creationism, evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang - Atlanta creationism | Examiner.com Creationism, evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang - Atlanta creationism | Examiner.com 

Thought that was kind of interesting...​


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> "
> The reason cited most often is they feel evolution theories of natural selection and speciation are both "settled" science, and the other theories only serve to obfuscate the real issue.
> In the mind of the anti-creationist, creation is the only real myth in the debate.  This rationale primarily based on their opposition to Young Earth Creationism (YEC).
> Not everyone who believes in creationism accepts YEC.   However, evolutionists invariably try to establish certain ground rules going into the debate.  The unwritten rules appear to include these axioms:
> 
> Creationism is synonymous with YEC, whether or not the counter-argument to evolution actually embraced the theory.In other words, evolution is really only opposed by YEC advocates.
> Evolution consists of Darwin's theory of natural selection and speciation.  Darwin cataloged an abundance of information in meticulous records that irrefutably prove the process of natural selection does exist.  Proof of speciation can be found in the geologic record.  Transitional fossils such as _Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus, and Tiktaaklit._prove speciation has occurred_.   _
> Only scientific theories can be called theories.  Even a bad scientific theory is still scientific. Any theory espousing the divine, a creator, a supernatural extraterrestrial being some people like to call God is dogmatic in nature and cannot rightly be called a theory because the scientific method cannot be applied.
> Even discredited scientific theories are superior to religious beliefs.  Science is rational and religion is delusional.
> Failure to accept these postulates is an indication of ignorance.  Truly enlightened intellectuals understand and embrace the beauty and truth of science.
> Efforts inevitably ensue to force the creationist to embrace YEC, regardless of whether it is actually accepted by the creationism advocate.  If the evolutionist was always synonymous with YEC, that's what matters most often, not the actual opposing viewpoint in the debate.
> 
> Objecting to the inclusion of abiogenesis as a theory of evolution is critical to bolster the evolutionist's perspective, because abiogenesis as it currently is understood requires a scientific "leap of faith" and therefore diminishes evolution as a whole if included in the debate.  Abiogenesis requires that non-living matter had to magically become a living organism with adequate sources of food and water in close enough proximity to survive.  The first organism had to live long enough to figure out how to replicate itself before its life span was exhausted or entropy took effect.  It is clear why an evolutionist must remove abiogenesis from the evolutionary debate. It requires the same suspension of belief for scientific evidence that the evolutionist chides the creationist for employing.
> 
> 
> ​Continue reading on Examiner.com Creationism, evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang - Atlanta creationism | Examiner.com Creationism, evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang - Atlanta creationism | Examiner.com
> 
> Thought that was kind of interesting...​


the article is far from objective!


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything he say's can be supported.
> 
> 
> 
> By faith ... which is intellectually meaningless.
> 
> He uses strawmen. He's a dope.
> 
> He makes fatuous arguments that can't stand the scrutiny of honest analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you failed to respond to the ones on your side that secialize in the correct fields to make such conclusions that agree with the Doctors explanation of your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes, we all wish you had some notion of what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked you for any proof that refutes what he said and you can't provide that proof so you make another meaningless post.
Click to expand...

Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.

There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.

While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?


----------



## koshergrl

There's no such thing as an objective article about the origin of life.


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> By faith ... which is intellectually meaningless.
> 
> He uses strawmen. He's a dope.
> 
> He makes fatuous arguments that can't stand the scrutiny of honest analysis.
> 
> Sometimes, we all wish you had some notion of what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you for any proof that refutes what he said and you can't provide that proof so you make another meaningless post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.
> 
> While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.
> 
> You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.
> 
> So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?
Click to expand...

 
I'm going to do you a favor.

I'm going to edit your response so it can perhaps be taken seriously. Though it's doubtful it will ever be taken seriously, as I doubt that once I've edited it, there will be any substance to it. The red is what I am taking out. I want to highlight it first to draw attention to how incredibly ridiculous it is:


"Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.

There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refus(e)al to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.

_Forgive me while I pause to guffaw and laugh until tears roll down my cheeks..._


While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs (HUH? Thank you for a sentence that means nothing. You obviously work for the government. Are you a speech writer?), you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others (and how the hell do you know this? You spend a lot of telling people what it is they require...)with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.(Another journey into Nonsense Land!)

You asshats (what asshats?) validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). (PFFFTTT....HAHAHAHAHAHA) IOW, (Is that a technical term?) if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless (more vanity speak)conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. (Again with the "you" and repetetive nonsense.) Every bit of (Really, EVERY BIT? That's a LOT) evidence and valid logic (redundant, again) that refutes your "evidence" (redundant redundancy) is judged invalid (please use new words)because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. (Is this how they teach you to debate in scientist school?) For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid. (Wow where have I heard that before? Shouldn't you cite me?)

So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?" (Honestly, who cares?)

Here's what a serious and well trained debater would have written:


 There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you ..

Oh never mind. There's absolutely nothing in that post of substance. But it was fun to mark it up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> By faith ... which is intellectually meaningless.
> 
> He uses strawmen. He's a dope.
> 
> He makes fatuous arguments that can't stand the scrutiny of honest analysis.
> 
> Sometimes, we all wish you had some notion of what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you for any proof that refutes what he said and you can't provide that proof so you make another meaningless post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.
> 
> While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.
> 
> You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.
> 
> So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?
Click to expand...


I am gonna leave my Christian beliefs for just one second  stupid.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Sorry I couldn't resist,please forgive me everyone.


----------



## koshergrl

I had a hard time maintaining a civil demeanor when I was tutoring English with this type too...the people who think they can hide the fact that they haven't a CLUE with a lot of hyperbole and flowery (and repetetive) adjective usage. They will fight you tooth and nail to keep that shit in there, swearing it's absolutely NECESSARY. Of course they think their farts are necessary for the betterment of the world as well....

And they INVARIABLE see themselves as great WRITERS. To which I say...GET YOUR ASS TO A NEWSPAPER AND GO TOE TO TOE WITH A COPY EDITOR for a while if you want to learn how to get your point across. Because they have no use for such a huge waste of wind, bandwidth, ink, and paper, and neither do I.


----------



## koshergrl

So is the theory that monkey evolved from..us???
Aren't we supposed to be improving with time?


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> So is the theory that monkey evolved from..us???
> Aren't we supposed to be improving with time?



Did I miss a post?  Where did this come from?


----------



## LOki

John Leonard said:


> Darwinists frequently raise vehement objections to lumping the Big Bang and abiogenesis together with natural selection and speciation in debates comparing creationism versus evolution. The reason cited most often is they feel evolution theories of natural selection and speciation are both "settled" science, and the other theories only serve to obfuscate the real issue.


This is not entirely true. Although the broad, general structure of natural selection and speciation is pretty much settled, the specifics of the mechanisms regarding why we observe the validated phenomena of natural selection and speciation is still relatively open to inquiry. The actual reason "Dawinists" (provocative label) object to lumping the Big Bang and abiogenesis together with natural selection and speciation, is that unlike creationist "science" where the origin of the cosmos, the planet, life, and the nature of species is all lumped into one unexplained and intrinsically inexplicable mechanism, natural selection and speciation are specific areas of inquiry pursued independently of the origins of life and the universe.



John Leonard said:


> In the mind of the anti-creationist, creation is the only real myth in the debate.


Scientific proponents of evolution (Evolutionists) do not harbor "anti-creationist" bias in the way that Creationists harbor "anti-evolution" bias. It is well understood by both Creationists and Evolutionists that Creationism is the defense of an unexplained and intrinsically inexplicable mechanism for the origin of everything--there's no dispute there. The dispute is centered upon the intellectual validity of frank conclusions derived from scientific inquiry vs. the validity of the preconceptions that Creationism seeks to defend.

In so far as the author is referring to Evolutionists when he discusses the mind of "anti-creationists", he seems to be grousing about the candidly valid point that "creation is the only real myth in the debate." Objectively, by the standards of verifiable evidence and vald logic, the various ancient creation myths told around the world in different cultures practicing every different religion ever have no greater or less valid foundation than the "creation" of creationists.



John Leonard said:


> This rationale primarily based on their opposition to Young Earth Creationism (YEC).


Incorrect. As stated above, the myth status of "creation" is based entirely upon the objective fact that the various ancient creation myths told around the world in different cultures practicing every different religion ever have no greater or less valid foundation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic than the "creation" of creationists. Intellectually honest Creationists do not dispute this.



John Leonard said:


> Not everyone who believes in creationism accepts YEC.   However, evolutionists invariably try to establish certain ground rules going into the debate.  The unwritten rules appear to include these axioms:1. Creationism is synonymous with YEC, whether or not the counter-argument to evolution actually embraced the theory. In other words, evolution is really only opposed by YEC advocates.​


This is neither an axiomatic or any other kind of truth. What Creationists and YEC advocates have in common is the manner in which they validate evidence against their preconceived conclusion, and build hypotheses to defend their preconceived conclusion. If "creation" is discredited in the scientific community upon those grounds, it has nothing to do with YEC at all.



John Leonard said:


> 2. Evolution consists of Darwin's theory of natural selection and speciation.  Darwin cataloged an abundance of information in meticulous records that irrefutably prove the process of natural selection does exist.  Proof of speciation can be found in the geologic record.  Transitional fossils such as _Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus, and Tiktaaklit._prove speciation has occurred_.   _


This is not entirely true. There is nothing intrinsically irrefutable about Darwin's Theory. "Proof" in the absolute sense that Creationists use the term is not what Evolutionists claim when they assert the degree of certainty they have in their conclusions based upon the best verifiable evidence available to them and/or valid logic.



John Leonard said:


> 3. Only scientific theories can be called theories.  Even a bad scientific theory is still scientific. Any theory espousing the divine, a creator, a supernatural extraterrestrial being some people like to call God is dogmatic in nature and cannot rightly be called a theory because the scientific method cannot be applied.


Well, yes. It's not as if Evolutionists (or any genuine scientist for that matter) do not hold themselves to that same standard. They're not picking on Creationists here, they are using a precise term in a precise manner. No intellectually honest Creationist has a problem with this.

And just to point out how invalid this complaint of John's is, imagine that someone presented this to a group of Creationists, ...





... and then demanded based upon the faith paradigm that they validate his assertions that all of creation is the result of ancient condensation from the thawing of Niflheim, which begat the giant frost ogre named Ymir. The thawing also begat a cow called Audhumla from which 4 rivers of milk issued that fed Ymir. As Audhumla licked the salty ice blocks, she freed Odin's grandfather. Odin and his brothers killed and butchered Ymir, and from parts of his body created the heavens and the Earth.

I assure you that no Creationist would EVER validate such a story based upon the strength of the presenter's conviction of certainty, and his capacity to stolidly disavow every competing "theory" regardless of it's basis.



John Leonard said:


> 4. Even discredited scientific theories are superior to religious beliefs.  Science is rational and religion is delusional.


I think this might be a bit unfair ... this depends upon what you consider "delusional". If by delusional you mean, requiring no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, yet demanding absolute unqualified "proof" to refute such baseless beliefs, then if the shoe fits ...



John Leonard said:


> 5. Failure to accept these postulates is an indication of ignorance.


Some of those postulates are validly defensible, and I don't think even Evolutionists would accept the strawman postulates John is advancing on behalf of Evolutionists.



John Leonard said:


> 5.1 Truly enlightened intellectuals understand and embrace the beauty and truth of science.


I'm not sure that's true or even asserted by Evolutionists, but a more likely postulate is would be, "Truly enlightened intellectuals who understand and embrace the beauty and truth of science don't require the false certainty offered by superstition to console their busted self esteems." 



John Leonard said:


> Efforts inevitably ensue to force the creationist to embrace YEC, regardless of whether it is actually accepted by the creationism advocate.  If the evolutionist was always synonymous with YEC, that's what matters most often, not the actual opposing viewpoint in the debate.


John is entitled to feel this way, but as I pointed out earlier, what Creationists and YEC advocates have in common is the manner in which they validate evidence against their preconceived conclusion, and build hypotheses to defend their preconceived conclusion. If the actual opposing viewpoint in the debate is this common quality shaered with YEC, and "creation" is discredited in the scientific community upon those grounds, it has nothing to do with YEC at all.



John Leonard said:


> Objecting to the inclusion of abiogenesis as a theory of evolution is critical to bolster the evolutionist's perspective, because abiogenesis as it currently is understood requires a scientific "leap of faith" and therefore diminishes evolution as a whole if included in the debate.


Nope. Objecting to the inclusion of abiogenesis in a discussion of speciation through natural selection as a theory of evolution is critical to the fact of reality that abiogenesis is not a theory of speciation through natural selection.



John Leonard said:


> Abiogenesis requires that non-living matter had to magically become a living organism with adequate sources of food and water in close enough proximity to survive.


Creationism, actually requires that non-living matter had to magically become a living organism (without, BTW adequate sources of food and water in close enough proximity to survive--remeber, it's magic!)

All scientific hypotheses regarding abiogenesis explicitly disallow the application of magic to explain the origin of life.



John Leonard said:


> The first organism had to live long enough to figure out how to replicate itself before its life span was exhausted or entropy took effect.


It "figure[d] out how to replicate itself", eh John? That's what Evolutionists say? The first organism did some "figuring"? What is it with the intellectual disingenuousity of Creationists? 



John Leonard said:


> It is clear why an evolutionist must remove abiogenesis from the evolutionary debate. It requires the same suspension of belief for scientific evidence that the evolutionist chides the creationist for employing.


No John, what's clear is that Evolutionists must never validate the intellectual sloth and dishonesty of Creationists just to allow them to feel like they're in the game, and they must always remind them without mincing words of the intellectual dishonesty of their intellectual paradigm, and the lack of intellectual and moral integrity that accompanies it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is the theory that monkey evolved from..us???
> Aren't we supposed to be improving with time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I miss a post?  Where did this come from?
Click to expand...


Loki needs to learn some manners from you. We can have a civil conversation with people that come across like you do. You actually ask good questions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> John Leonard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinists frequently raise vehement objections to lumping the Big Bang and abiogenesis together with natural selection and speciation in debates comparing creationism versus evolution. The reason cited most often is they feel evolution theories of natural selection and speciation are both "settled" science, and the other theories only serve to obfuscate the real issue.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not entirely true. Although the broad, general structure of natural selection and speciation is pretty much settled, the specifics of the mechanisms regarding why we observe the validated phenomena of natural selection and speciation is still relatively open to inquiry. The actual reason "Dawinists" (provocative label) object to lumping the Big Bang and abiogenesis together with natural selection and speciation, is that unlike creationist "science" where the origin of the cosmos, the planet, life, and the nature of species is all lumped into one unexplained and intrinsically inexplicable mechanism, natural selection and speciation are specific areas of inquiry pursued independently of the origins of life and the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> John Leonard said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the mind of the anti-creationist, creation is the only real myth in the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientific proponents of evolution (Evolutionists) do not harbor "anti-creationist" bias in the way that Creationists harbor "anti-evolution" bias. It is well understood by both Creationists and Evolutionists that Creationism is the defense of an unexplained and intrinsically inexplicable mechanism for the origin of everything--there's no dispute there. The dispute is centered upon the intellectual validity of frank conclusions derived from scientific inquiry vs. the validity of the preconceptions that Creationism seeks to defend.
> 
> In so far as the author is referring to Evolutionists when he discusses the mind of "anti-creationists", he seems to be grousing about the candidly valid point that "creation is the only real myth in the debate." Objectively, by the standards of verifiable evidence and vald logic, the various ancient creation myths told around the world in different cultures practicing every different religion ever have no greater or less valid foundation than the "creation" of creationists.
> 
> Incorrect. As stated above, the myth status of "creation" is based entirely upon the objective fact that the various ancient creation myths told around the world in different cultures practicing every different religion ever have no greater or less valid foundation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic than the "creation" of creationists. Intellectually honest Creationists do not dispute this.
> 
> This is neither an axiomatic or any other kind of truth. What Creationists and YEC advocates have in common is the manner in which they validate evidence against their preconceived conclusion, and build hypotheses to defend their preconceived conclusion. If "creation" is discredited in the scientific community upon those grounds, it has nothing to do with YEC at all.
> 
> This is not entirely true. There is nothing intrinsically irrefutable about Darwin's Theory. "Proof" in the absolute sense that Creationists use the term is not what Evolutionists claim when they assert the degree of certainty they have in their conclusions based upon the best verifiable evidence available to them and/or valid logic.
> 
> Well, yes. It's not as if Evolutionists (or any genuine scientist for that matter) do not hold themselves to that same standard. They're not picking on Creationists here, they are using a precise term in a precise manner. No intellectually honest Creationist has a problem with this.
> 
> And just to point out how invalid this complaint of John's is, imagine that someone presented this to a group of Creationists, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and then demanded based upon the faith paradigm that they validate his assertions that all of creation is the result of ancient condensation from the thawing of Niflheim, which begat the giant frost ogre named Ymir. The thawing also begat a cow called Audhumla from which 4 rivers of milk issued that fed Ymir. As Audhumla licked the salty ice blocks, she freed Odin's grandfather. Odin and his brothers killed and butchered Ymir, and from parts of his body created the heavens and the Earth.
> 
> I assure you that no Creationist would EVER validate such a story based upon the strength of the presenter's conviction of certainty, and his capacity to stolidly disavow every competing "theory" regardless of it's basis.
> 
> I think this might be a bit unfair ... this depends upon what you consider "delusional". If by delusional you mean, requiring no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, yet demanding absolute unqualified "proof" to refute such baseless beliefs, then if the shoe fits ...
> 
> Some of those postulates are validly defensible, and I don't think even Evolutionists would accept the strawman postulates John is advancing on behalf of Evolutionists.
> 
> I'm not sure that's true or even asserted by Evolutionists, but a more likely postulate is would be, "Truly enlightened intellectuals who understand and embrace the beauty and truth of science don't require the false certainty offered by superstition to console their busted self esteems."
> 
> John is entitled to feel this way, but as I pointed out earlier, what Creationists and YEC advocates have in common is the manner in which they validate evidence against their preconceived conclusion, and build hypotheses to defend their preconceived conclusion. If the actual opposing viewpoint in the debate is this common quality shaered with YEC, and "creation" is discredited in the scientific community upon those grounds, it has nothing to do with YEC at all.
> 
> Nope. Objecting to the inclusion of abiogenesis in a discussion of speciation through natural selection as a theory of evolution is critical to the fact of reality that abiogenesis is not a theory of speciation through natural selection.
> 
> Creationism, actually requires that non-living matter had to magically become a living organism (without, BTW adequate sources of food and water in close enough proximity to survive--remeber, it's magic!)
> 
> All scientific hypotheses regarding abiogenesis explicitly disallow the application of magic to explain the origin of life.
> 
> 
> 
> John Leonard said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first organism had to live long enough to figure out how to replicate itself before its life span was exhausted or entropy took effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It "figure[d] out how to replicate itself", eh John? That's what Evolutionists say? The first organism did some "figuring"? What is it with the intellectual disingenuousity of Creationists?
> 
> 
> 
> John Leonard said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear why an evolutionist must remove abiogenesis from the evolutionary debate. It requires the same suspension of belief for scientific evidence that the evolutionist chides the creationist for employing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No John, what's clear is that Evolutionists must never validate the intellectual sloth and dishonesty of Creationists just to allow them to feel like they're in the game, and they must always remind them without mincing words of the intellectual dishonesty of their intellectual paradigm, and the lack of intellectual and moral integrity that accompanies it.
Click to expand...


The truth is there is no way non-life can produce life.

There is no way  a non-thinking process  can create intelligence.


----------



## koshergrl

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is the theory that monkey evolved from..us???
> Aren't we supposed to be improving with time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I miss a post? Where did this come from?
Click to expand...

 
Arg..wrong thread, my apologies. But it is sort of funny to see just completely weird ramdom crap every now and then!


----------



## Youwerecreated

I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.

If by your theory over time things get better and  through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive  why did we lose certain ablilities that would aid us in survival.

Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?

Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?

Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is the theory that monkey evolved from..us???
> Aren't we supposed to be improving with time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I miss a post? Where did this come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arg..wrong thread, my apologies. But it is sort of funny to see just completely weird ramdom crap every now and then!
Click to expand...


If that theory be true that would be evolution in reverse.


----------



## koshergrl

Exactly, it's from another thread where that idiot who claims to have been courted by Mensa maintains we're aunts and uncles of monkeys...


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON  March 24, 2005 - For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.
> 
> If scientists can isolate proteins from the material, they may be able to learn new details of how dinosaurs lived, said lead researcher Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University.
> 
> "We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials.
> 
> It was recovered dinosaur DNA  the blueprint for life  that was featured in the fictional recreation of the ancient animals in the book and film "Jurassic Park."
> 
> The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died.
> 
> The bone was broken when it was removed from the site. Schweitzer and her colleagues then analyzed the material inside the bone.
> 
> "The vessels and contents are similar in all respects to blood vessels recovered from ... ostrich bone," they reported in a paper bring published Friday in the journal Science.
> 
> Because evidence has accumulated in recent years that modern birds descended from dinosaurs, Schweitzer said she chose to compare the dinosaur remains with those of an ostrich, the largest bird available.
> 
> Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor of Science, noted that there are few examples of soft tissues, except for leaves or petrified wood, that are preserved as fossils, just as there are few discoveries of insects in amber or humans and mammoths in peat or ice.
> 
> Soft tissues are rare in older finds. "That's why in a 70 million-year-old fossil it is so interesting," he said.
> 
> 
> Advertise | AdChoices
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said the discovery was "pretty exciting stuff."
> 
> "You are actually getting into the small-scale biology of the animal, which is something we rarely get the opportunity to look at," said Carrano, who was not part of the research team.
> 
> In addition, he said, it is a huge opportunity to learn more about how fossils are made, a process that is not fully understood.
> 
> Richard A. Hengst of Purdue University said the finding "opens the door for research into the protein structure of ancient organisms, if nothing else. While we think that nature is conservative in how things are built, this gives scientists an opportunity to observe this at the chemical and cellular level." Hengst was not part of the research team.
> 
> John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen," but probably is not unique. Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections, said Horner, a co-author of the paper.
> 
> Video: Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue Most museums, he said, prefer to keep their specimens intact.
> 
> Schweitzer said that after removing the minerals from the specimen, the remaining tissues were soft and transparent and could be manipulated with instruments.
> 
> The bone matrix was stretchy and flexible, she said. Also, there were long structures like blood vessels. What appeared to be individual cells were visible.
> 
> She did not know if they were blood cells. "They are little round cells," Schweitzer said.
> 
> She likened the process to placing a chicken bone in vinegar. The minerals will dissolve, leaving the soft tissues.
> 
> The research was funded by North Carolina State University and grants .
> 
> Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you don't read other people's links when they prove you wrong, but why don't you read your own links?  You'll realize you just posted ANOTHER one that proves you wrong.
> 
> *"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials. *
> 
> 
> Now please provide me proof that DNA was extracted from materials.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look how she is spinning it drock when she has evidence staring her right in the face she can't admit evolutionist have been wrong and their dating methods too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Scrambling Continues
> 
> 
> An Update on the Amazing T. Rex Bone Discovery Announced a Year ago This Month
> 
> March 6, 2006
> 
> 
> Layman
> 
> 
> 
> dinosaurs
> evolutionists
> fossils
> 
> 
> Last year at about this time, it was disclosed that scientists had made an amazing discovery of a Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone that still retained well-preserved soft tissue (which included blood vessels and cells). For evolutionists who argue that dinosaurs died about 65 million years ago, it was a startling discovery. AiGUSAs Dr. David Menton (who holds a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University) wrote at the time that it certainly taxes ones imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.1
> 
> At the annual meeting of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, late last month (and which was attended by Dr. Menton), the North Carolina State University paleontologist who had announced the find last year, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, elaborated on the discovery that continues to shock the paleontological community. Evolutionists like her have been scrambling for 12 months to explain away this powerful evidence that dinosaurs have been around in relatively recent times. (For additional evidence of dinosaurs living in the past several centuries, go to Are dinosaurs alive today?) At the AAAS meeting, Dr. Schweitzer, as recorded by National Geographic, explained how she has been trying to make sense of the surprising discovery, [and that] scientists are beginning to rethink a long-standing model of how the fossilization process works.  Traditional ideas of how fossils form do not allow for the preservation of soft, perishable organic tissues.2
> 
> Schweitzer also said at the AAAS conference that we propose now that soft-tissue components of bone might persist in a lot more different animals, in a lot more ages and environments, than we once thought.3 So steadfast is she in her long-age belief, Dr. Schweitzer will not even consider a re-think of her view that dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago. So she continues a search for an explanation of how soft tissue could have survived so well preserved for a long time.
> 
> What did the researchers find?
> 
> A year ago this month, the journal Science reported that a team led by Dr. Schweitzer found flexible connective tissue and branching blood vessels, as well as intact cells (that have the appearance of red blood cells) and osteocytes (bone cells) in the femur (thigh bone) of a 68-million-year-old T. rex uncovered in Montana.
> 
> As summarized by Dr. Menton last year4:
> 
> 
> The T. rex was deposited in sandstone of estuarine origin, meaning that the animal was buried in rock layers laid down by water (no surprise here for the creationistssee Genesis and catastrophe).
> 
> Since the bone looked relatively unfossilized, researchers, using weak acid, dissolved the mineral from a piece of the dinosaur bone (much the same way as the common science class exercise where chicken leg bones are soaked in vinegar for a week to make them rubbery).
> 
> In fresh bones, the acid removes the hard mineral, leaving only organic material such as fibrous connective tissue, blood vessels and various cells. By comparison, if one were to demineralize a typical well-permineralized fossil, there would be nothing left. The acid-treated T. rex bone fragment, however, produced a flexible and elastic structure similar to what you would get from a fresh bone.
> 
> When the demineralized T. rex bone was examined under the microscope, it revealed small branching translucent blood vessels with what appeared to be red blood cells inside.
> 
> The report would have been an interesting scientific contribution if the writers would have ended on the note that old dinosaur bones look surprisingly young. But this would hardly serve as evidence for their millions of years of evolution.
> 
> To see the startling photos of the dinosaur tissue and to read more about this find, go to Still soft and stretchy.
> 
> Schweitzer, reports National Geographic, said that she will be continuing to study possible ways to explain this phenomenon, which was previously thought to be impossible. To illustrate the challenge being faced (although she claims to be on one possible track5), she showed two photographs and stated: One of these cells is 65 million years old, and one is about 9 months old. Can anyone tell me which is which?
> 
> Her inferred answer was no.
> 
> Will evolutionists now be convinced to think about rewriting dinosaur history?
> 
> As AiG wrote in a news release 12 months ago about this find (in a release which was distributed nationwide to the secular media):
> 
> 
> The tissue/blood vessels are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most. (I.e., by the global Flood of Noahs time, about 4,300 years ago.)
> 
> The deeply entrenched idea of long ages is so dominant in most of the scientific establishments that facts will not undermine the evolution belief system.  Philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn have pointed out what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm: the paradigm is not discarded but modified.
> 
> Years ago when a startled Dr. Schweitzer found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. rex bone, she said, it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldnt believe it.  The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long? Her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm.
> 
> Almost certainly this astonishing discovery will become an accepted phenomenon that even stretchy soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years  and stretching beyond belief the idea that the evolutionary timetable concerning dinosaurs can be true.
> 
> Regardless of how the evolutionist community finally decides what to do with this fossil conundrum, the creationists now possess immensely powerful evidence against the well-publicized belief that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and instead have tremendous support for the biblical timeline of a recent creation.
> 
> Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.
> 
> 
> Footnotes
> 1.As we reported nine years ago (see Sensational dinosaur blood report!), there have been previous reports of soft tissue and cells found in dinosaur fossils. Back
> 2.Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue, National Geographic News, February 22, 2006, news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue.html. Back
> 3.Ibid. Back
> 4.Ostrich-osaurus discovery? Back
> 5.National Geographic summarized one track of her search for an answer:
> 
> New findings not yet published have led her to suggest one possible explanation. The key, she believes, may be the iron content of the blood and muscle proteins hemoglobin and myoglobin.
> 
> After an organism dies, iron released from these proteins as they degrade may trigger the formation of highly reactive forms of oxygen known as free radicals. Other heavy metals in the environment may produce the same effect.
> 
> Schweitzer thinks these metal-generated free radicals may trigger the formation of longer molecular chains, known as polymers, which essentially bind and lock remaining cellular structures in place.
> 
> Eventually, the polymerized remains become inert, free from attack from the outside and further chemical change, Schweitzer said.
> 
> The researchers are now trying to obtain a pure sample of the blood cell-like structures. If successful, Schweitzer hopes to apply a technique known as Raman spectroscopy to search for the presence of hemoglobin.
> 
> In addition to testing her preservation theory, this analysis will help determine if identifiable protein fragments from the ancient animal are still present in the tissues. Its possible, Schweitzer says, that some unknown form of geochemical replacement preserved the tissue structure but changed its molecular composition.
> 
> The Scrambling Continues - Answers in Genesis
Click to expand...


Every Bible blog you've ever posted has been bullshit.

Please provide me a science based website that says DNA was extracted from those T-Rex materials.


Thank you.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you for any proof that refutes what he said and you can't provide that proof so you make another meaningless post.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.
> 
> While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.
> 
> You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.
> 
> So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to do you a favor.
> 
> I'm going to edit your response so it can perhaps be taken seriously. Though it's doubtful it will ever be taken seriously, as I doubt that once I've edited it, there will be any substance to it. The red is what I am taking out. I want to highlight it first to draw attention to how incredibly ridiculous it is:
> 
> 
> "Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refus(e)al to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.
> 
> _Forgive me while I pause to guffaw and laugh until tears roll down my cheeks..._
> 
> 
> While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs (HUH? Thank you for a sentence that means nothing. You obviously work for the government. Are you a speech writer?), you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others (and how the hell do you know this? You spend a lot of telling people what it is they require...)with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.(Another journey into Nonsense Land!)
> 
> You asshats (what asshats?) validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). (PFFFTTT....HAHAHAHAHAHA) IOW, (Is that a technical term?) if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless (more vanity speak)conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. (Again with the "you" and repetetive nonsense.) Every bit of (Really, EVERY BIT? That's a LOT) evidence and valid logic (redundant, again) that refutes your "evidence" (redundant redundancy) is judged invalid (please use new words)because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. (Is this how they teach you to debate in scientist school?) For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid. (Wow where have I heard that before? Shouldn't you cite me?)
> 
> So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?" (Honestly, who cares?)
> 
> Here's what a serious and well trained debater would have written:
> 
> 
> There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you ..
> 
> Oh never mind. There's absolutely nothing in that post of substance. But it was fun to mark it up.
Click to expand...

This was enlightening and candid admission that you literally ignore the substance of what I post. Then based upon your deliberate refusal to acknowledge that substance, you claim there is no substance to the post. BRAVO!!!!

This is an unusually refreshing (and stunningly self-aware) departure from your usual brand of intellectual dishonesty. It's so gratifying to see you so plainly and earnestly confirming each and every point I made.

I sincerely thank you!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you don't read other people's links when they prove you wrong, but why don't you read your own links?  You'll realize you just posted ANOTHER one that proves you wrong.
> 
> *"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials. *
> 
> 
> Now please provide me proof that DNA was extracted from materials.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look how she is spinning it drock when she has evidence staring her right in the face she can't admit evolutionist have been wrong and their dating methods too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Scrambling Continues
> 
> 
> An Update on the Amazing T. Rex Bone Discovery Announced a Year ago This Month
> 
> March 6, 2006
> 
> 
> Layman
> 
> 
> 
> dinosaurs
> evolutionists
> fossils
> 
> 
> Last year at about this time, it was disclosed that scientists had made an amazing discovery of a Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone that still retained well-preserved soft tissue (which included blood vessels and cells). For evolutionists who argue that dinosaurs died about 65 million years ago, it was a startling discovery. AiG&#8211;USA&#8217;s Dr. David Menton (who holds a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University) wrote at the time that it &#8220;certainly taxes one&#8217;s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.&#8221;1
> 
> At the annual meeting of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, late last month (and which was attended by Dr. Menton), the North Carolina State University paleontologist who had announced the find last year, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, elaborated on the discovery that continues to shock the paleontological community. Evolutionists like her have been scrambling for 12 months to explain away this powerful evidence that dinosaurs have been around in relatively recent times. (For additional evidence of dinosaurs living in the past several centuries, go to Are dinosaurs alive today?) At the AAAS meeting, Dr. Schweitzer, as recorded by National Geographic, explained how she has been trying &#8220;to make sense of the surprising discovery, [and that] scientists are beginning to rethink a long-standing model of how the fossilization process works. &#8230; Traditional ideas of how fossils form do not allow for the preservation of soft, perishable organic tissues.&#8221;2
> 
> Schweitzer also said at the AAAS conference that &#8220;we propose now that soft-tissue components of bone might persist in a lot more different animals, in a lot more ages and environments, than we once thought.&#8221;3 So steadfast is she in her long-age belief, Dr. Schweitzer will not even consider a re-think of her view that dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago. So she continues a search for an explanation of how soft tissue could have survived so well preserved for a long time.
> 
> What did the researchers find?
> 
> A year ago this month, the journal Science reported that a team led by Dr. Schweitzer found flexible connective tissue and branching blood vessels, as well as intact cells (that have the appearance of red blood cells) and osteocytes (bone cells) in the femur (thigh bone) of a &#8220;68-million-year-old&#8221; T. rex uncovered in Montana.
> 
> As summarized by Dr. Menton last year4:
> 
> 
> The T. rex was deposited in sandstone of &#8220;estuarine&#8221; origin, meaning that the animal was buried in rock layers laid down by water (no surprise here for the creationists&#8212;see &#8220;Genesis and catastrophe&#8221.
> 
> Since the bone looked relatively unfossilized, researchers, using weak acid, dissolved the mineral from a piece of the dinosaur bone (much the same way as the common science class exercise where chicken leg bones are soaked in vinegar for a week to make them rubbery).
> 
> In fresh bones, the acid removes the hard mineral, leaving only organic material such as fibrous connective tissue, blood vessels and various cells. By comparison, if one were to demineralize a typical well-permineralized fossil, there would be nothing left. The acid-treated T. rex bone fragment, however, produced a flexible and elastic structure similar to what you would get from a fresh bone.
> 
> When the demineralized T. rex bone was examined under the microscope, it revealed small branching translucent blood vessels with what appeared to be red blood cells inside. &#8230;
> 
> The report would have been an interesting scientific contribution if the writers would have ended on the note that old dinosaur bones look surprisingly young. But this would hardly serve as evidence for their millions of years of evolution.
> 
> To see the startling photos of the dinosaur tissue and to read more about this find, go to Still soft and stretchy.
> 
> Schweitzer, reports National Geographic, said that she will be continuing to study possible ways to explain this phenomenon, which was previously thought to be impossible. To illustrate the challenge being faced (although she claims to be on one possible track5), she showed two photographs and stated: &#8220;One of these cells is 65 million years old, and one is about 9 months old. Can anyone tell me which is which?&#8221;
> 
> Her inferred answer was no.
> 
> Will evolutionists now be convinced to think about rewriting dinosaur history?
> 
> As AiG wrote in a news release 12 months ago about this find (in a release which was distributed nationwide to the secular media):
> 
> 
> The tissue/blood vessels are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most. (I.e., by the global Flood of Noah&#8217;s time, about 4,300 years ago.)
> 
> The deeply entrenched idea of long ages is so dominant in most of the scientific establishments that facts will not undermine the evolution belief system. &#8230; Philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn have pointed out what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm: the paradigm is not discarded but modified.
> 
> Years ago when a startled Dr. Schweitzer found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. rex bone, she said, &#8220;it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn&#8217;t believe it. &#8230; The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?&#8221; Her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm.
> 
> Almost certainly this astonishing discovery will become an &#8220;accepted&#8221; phenomenon that even &#8220;stretchy&#8221; soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years &#8230; and &#8220;stretching&#8221; beyond belief the idea that the evolutionary timetable concerning dinosaurs can be true.
> 
> Regardless of how the evolutionist community finally decides what to do with this fossil conundrum, the creationists now possess immensely powerful evidence against the well-publicized belief that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and instead have tremendous support for the biblical timeline of a recent creation.
> 
> Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.
> 
> 
> Footnotes
> 1.As we reported nine years ago (see Sensational dinosaur blood report!), there have been previous reports of soft tissue and cells found in dinosaur fossils. Back
> 2.&#8220;Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue,&#8221; National Geographic News, February 22, 2006, news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue.html. Back
> 3.Ibid. Back
> 4.&#8220;Ostrich-osaurus&#8221; discovery? Back
> 5.National Geographic summarized one track of her search for an answer:
> 
> New findings not yet published have led her to suggest one possible explanation. The key, she believes, may be the iron content of the blood and muscle proteins hemoglobin and myoglobin.
> 
> After an organism dies, iron released from these proteins as they degrade may trigger the formation of highly reactive forms of oxygen known as free radicals. Other heavy metals in the environment may produce the same effect.
> 
> Schweitzer thinks these metal-generated free radicals may trigger the formation of longer molecular chains, known as polymers, which essentially bind and lock remaining cellular structures in place.
> 
> &#8220;Eventually, the polymerized remains become inert, free from attack from the outside and further chemical change,&#8221; Schweitzer said.
> 
> The researchers are now trying to obtain a pure sample of the blood cell-like structures. If successful, Schweitzer hopes to apply a technique known as Raman spectroscopy to search for the presence of hemoglobin.
> 
> In addition to testing her preservation theory, this analysis will help determine if identifiable protein fragments from the ancient animal are still present in the tissues. It&#8217;s possible, Schweitzer says, that some unknown form of geochemical replacement preserved the tissue structure but changed its molecular composition.
> 
> The Scrambling Continues - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every Bible blog you've ever posted has been bullshit.
> 
> Please provide me a science based website that says DNA was extracted from those T-Rex materials.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


Who do you think it was that made the discovery of the red blood cells. She just has not come out and admitted to it ,because she admittedly don't want to change her view that the dinosaur is 70 million years old.

She knows the problem this presents for the theory. But you can see the pictures and you can see blood vessels and cells.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you don't read other people's links when they prove you wrong, but why don't you read your own links?  You'll realize you just posted ANOTHER one that proves you wrong.
> 
> *"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials. *
> 
> 
> Now please provide me proof that DNA was extracted from materials.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look how she is spinning it drock when she has evidence staring her right in the face she can't admit evolutionist have been wrong and their dating methods too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Scrambling Continues
> 
> 
> An Update on the Amazing T. Rex Bone Discovery Announced a Year ago This Month
> 
> March 6, 2006
> 
> 
> Layman
> 
> 
> 
> dinosaurs
> evolutionists
> fossils
> 
> 
> Last year at about this time, it was disclosed that scientists had made an amazing discovery of a Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone that still retained well-preserved soft tissue (which included blood vessels and cells). For evolutionists who argue that dinosaurs died about 65 million years ago, it was a startling discovery. AiG&#8211;USA&#8217;s Dr. David Menton (who holds a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University) wrote at the time that it &#8220;certainly taxes one&#8217;s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.&#8221;1
> 
> At the annual meeting of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, late last month (and which was attended by Dr. Menton), the North Carolina State University paleontologist who had announced the find last year, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, elaborated on the discovery that continues to shock the paleontological community. Evolutionists like her have been scrambling for 12 months to explain away this powerful evidence that dinosaurs have been around in relatively recent times. (For additional evidence of dinosaurs living in the past several centuries, go to Are dinosaurs alive today?) At the AAAS meeting, Dr. Schweitzer, as recorded by National Geographic, explained how she has been trying &#8220;to make sense of the surprising discovery, [and that] scientists are beginning to rethink a long-standing model of how the fossilization process works. &#8230; Traditional ideas of how fossils form do not allow for the preservation of soft, perishable organic tissues.&#8221;2
> 
> Schweitzer also said at the AAAS conference that &#8220;we propose now that soft-tissue components of bone might persist in a lot more different animals, in a lot more ages and environments, than we once thought.&#8221;3 So steadfast is she in her long-age belief, Dr. Schweitzer will not even consider a re-think of her view that dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago. So she continues a search for an explanation of how soft tissue could have survived so well preserved for a long time.
> 
> What did the researchers find?
> 
> A year ago this month, the journal Science reported that a team led by Dr. Schweitzer found flexible connective tissue and branching blood vessels, as well as intact cells (that have the appearance of red blood cells) and osteocytes (bone cells) in the femur (thigh bone) of a &#8220;68-million-year-old&#8221; T. rex uncovered in Montana.
> 
> As summarized by Dr. Menton last year4:
> 
> 
> The T. rex was deposited in sandstone of &#8220;estuarine&#8221; origin, meaning that the animal was buried in rock layers laid down by water (no surprise here for the creationists&#8212;see &#8220;Genesis and catastrophe&#8221.
> 
> Since the bone looked relatively unfossilized, researchers, using weak acid, dissolved the mineral from a piece of the dinosaur bone (much the same way as the common science class exercise where chicken leg bones are soaked in vinegar for a week to make them rubbery).
> 
> In fresh bones, the acid removes the hard mineral, leaving only organic material such as fibrous connective tissue, blood vessels and various cells. By comparison, if one were to demineralize a typical well-permineralized fossil, there would be nothing left. The acid-treated T. rex bone fragment, however, produced a flexible and elastic structure similar to what you would get from a fresh bone.
> 
> When the demineralized T. rex bone was examined under the microscope, it revealed small branching translucent blood vessels with what appeared to be red blood cells inside. &#8230;
> 
> The report would have been an interesting scientific contribution if the writers would have ended on the note that old dinosaur bones look surprisingly young. But this would hardly serve as evidence for their millions of years of evolution.
> 
> To see the startling photos of the dinosaur tissue and to read more about this find, go to Still soft and stretchy.
> 
> Schweitzer, reports National Geographic, said that she will be continuing to study possible ways to explain this phenomenon, which was previously thought to be impossible. To illustrate the challenge being faced (although she claims to be on one possible track5), she showed two photographs and stated: &#8220;One of these cells is 65 million years old, and one is about 9 months old. Can anyone tell me which is which?&#8221;
> 
> Her inferred answer was no.
> 
> Will evolutionists now be convinced to think about rewriting dinosaur history?
> 
> As AiG wrote in a news release 12 months ago about this find (in a release which was distributed nationwide to the secular media):
> 
> 
> The tissue/blood vessels are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most. (I.e., by the global Flood of Noah&#8217;s time, about 4,300 years ago.)
> 
> The deeply entrenched idea of long ages is so dominant in most of the scientific establishments that facts will not undermine the evolution belief system. &#8230; Philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn have pointed out what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm: the paradigm is not discarded but modified.
> 
> Years ago when a startled Dr. Schweitzer found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. rex bone, she said, &#8220;it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn&#8217;t believe it. &#8230; The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?&#8221; Her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm.
> 
> Almost certainly this astonishing discovery will become an &#8220;accepted&#8221; phenomenon that even &#8220;stretchy&#8221; soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years &#8230; and &#8220;stretching&#8221; beyond belief the idea that the evolutionary timetable concerning dinosaurs can be true.
> 
> Regardless of how the evolutionist community finally decides what to do with this fossil conundrum, the creationists now possess immensely powerful evidence against the well-publicized belief that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and instead have tremendous support for the biblical timeline of a recent creation.
> 
> Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.
> 
> 
> Footnotes
> 1.As we reported nine years ago (see Sensational dinosaur blood report!), there have been previous reports of soft tissue and cells found in dinosaur fossils. Back
> 2.&#8220;Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue,&#8221; National Geographic News, February 22, 2006, news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue.html. Back
> 3.Ibid. Back
> 4.&#8220;Ostrich-osaurus&#8221; discovery? Back
> 5.National Geographic summarized one track of her search for an answer:
> 
> New findings not yet published have led her to suggest one possible explanation. The key, she believes, may be the iron content of the blood and muscle proteins hemoglobin and myoglobin.
> 
> After an organism dies, iron released from these proteins as they degrade may trigger the formation of highly reactive forms of oxygen known as free radicals. Other heavy metals in the environment may produce the same effect.
> 
> Schweitzer thinks these metal-generated free radicals may trigger the formation of longer molecular chains, known as polymers, which essentially bind and lock remaining cellular structures in place.
> 
> &#8220;Eventually, the polymerized remains become inert, free from attack from the outside and further chemical change,&#8221; Schweitzer said.
> 
> The researchers are now trying to obtain a pure sample of the blood cell-like structures. If successful, Schweitzer hopes to apply a technique known as Raman spectroscopy to search for the presence of hemoglobin.
> 
> In addition to testing her preservation theory, this analysis will help determine if identifiable protein fragments from the ancient animal are still present in the tissues. It&#8217;s possible, Schweitzer says, that some unknown form of geochemical replacement preserved the tissue structure but changed its molecular composition.
> 
> The Scrambling Continues - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every Bible blog you've ever posted has been bullshit.
> 
> Please provide me a science based website that says DNA was extracted from those T-Rex materials.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


Taking shots at creationists who report the evidence accurately,highjacked that is funny.

Uwilling to let their views go.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

From the articel above.

I would just like to point you to an article I have just read, it states:-

"in Montana 2005 field palaeontologist Otis Kline and his excavation team unearthed fossils from a triceratops and a hadrosaur. These specimens came from the same Hall Creek formation as the Schweitzer T-rex. They were also in good condition and the team was propelled to determine if these, like the T-rex still contained some fresh remains that hadn't yet fossilised.
Both the dinosaurs still possessed collagen!!
Otis Kline & another Scientist, Hugh Miller, were eager to test both of these dinosaurs for Carbon 14. 
Due to the significance of this study, the industry-recognised Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS) was used to test for Carbon 14. Furthermore, not one but two internationally recognised labs, Geochron Laboratories and the University of Georgia Isotope Center were used so that the results could be independently confirmed. 
The tests yielded paradigm-shifting results: BOTH bones contained Carbon 14
 According to the AMS testing, the Triceratops registered, on multiple tests an average age of 30,890 ±380 years old.
The Hadrosaur was tested to be 23,170±170 years old (Josef Holzschuh, Jean Pontcharra, Hugh Miller, Recent C-14 Dating of Fossils Including Dinosaur Collagen, Nov 2009)
The Evolution believing Scientists who found and tested the T-rex bone, Refuse to carbon date it, because they say it is impossible as it is 65 million years old. Are they afraid it will cause them even more problems.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz1e4TlULdX


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look how she is spinning it drock when she has evidence staring her right in the face she can't admit evolutionist have been wrong and their dating methods too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Scrambling Continues
> 
> 
> An Update on the Amazing T. Rex Bone Discovery Announced a Year ago This Month
> 
> March 6, 2006
> 
> 
> Layman
> 
> 
> 
> dinosaurs
> evolutionists
> fossils
> 
> 
> Last year at about this time, it was disclosed that scientists had made an amazing discovery of a Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone that still retained well-preserved soft tissue (which included blood vessels and cells). For evolutionists who argue that dinosaurs died about 65 million years ago, it was a startling discovery. AiG&#8211;USA&#8217;s Dr. David Menton (who holds a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University) wrote at the time that it &#8220;certainly taxes one&#8217;s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.&#8221;1
> 
> At the annual meeting of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, late last month (and which was attended by Dr. Menton), the North Carolina State University paleontologist who had announced the find last year, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, elaborated on the discovery that continues to shock the paleontological community. Evolutionists like her have been scrambling for 12 months to explain away this powerful evidence that dinosaurs have been around in relatively recent times. (For additional evidence of dinosaurs living in the past several centuries, go to Are dinosaurs alive today?) At the AAAS meeting, Dr. Schweitzer, as recorded by National Geographic, explained how she has been trying &#8220;to make sense of the surprising discovery, [and that] scientists are beginning to rethink a long-standing model of how the fossilization process works. &#8230; Traditional ideas of how fossils form do not allow for the preservation of soft, perishable organic tissues.&#8221;2
> 
> Schweitzer also said at the AAAS conference that &#8220;we propose now that soft-tissue components of bone might persist in a lot more different animals, in a lot more ages and environments, than we once thought.&#8221;3 So steadfast is she in her long-age belief, Dr. Schweitzer will not even consider a re-think of her view that dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago. So she continues a search for an explanation of how soft tissue could have survived so well preserved for a long time.
> 
> What did the researchers find?
> 
> A year ago this month, the journal Science reported that a team led by Dr. Schweitzer found flexible connective tissue and branching blood vessels, as well as intact cells (that have the appearance of red blood cells) and osteocytes (bone cells) in the femur (thigh bone) of a &#8220;68-million-year-old&#8221; T. rex uncovered in Montana.
> 
> As summarized by Dr. Menton last year4:
> 
> 
> The T. rex was deposited in sandstone of &#8220;estuarine&#8221; origin, meaning that the animal was buried in rock layers laid down by water (no surprise here for the creationists&#8212;see &#8220;Genesis and catastrophe&#8221.
> 
> Since the bone looked relatively unfossilized, researchers, using weak acid, dissolved the mineral from a piece of the dinosaur bone (much the same way as the common science class exercise where chicken leg bones are soaked in vinegar for a week to make them rubbery).
> 
> In fresh bones, the acid removes the hard mineral, leaving only organic material such as fibrous connective tissue, blood vessels and various cells. By comparison, if one were to demineralize a typical well-permineralized fossil, there would be nothing left. The acid-treated T. rex bone fragment, however, produced a flexible and elastic structure similar to what you would get from a fresh bone.
> 
> When the demineralized T. rex bone was examined under the microscope, it revealed small branching translucent blood vessels with what appeared to be red blood cells inside. &#8230;
> 
> The report would have been an interesting scientific contribution if the writers would have ended on the note that old dinosaur bones look surprisingly young. But this would hardly serve as evidence for their millions of years of evolution.
> 
> To see the startling photos of the dinosaur tissue and to read more about this find, go to Still soft and stretchy.
> 
> Schweitzer, reports National Geographic, said that she will be continuing to study possible ways to explain this phenomenon, which was previously thought to be impossible. To illustrate the challenge being faced (although she claims to be on one possible track5), she showed two photographs and stated: &#8220;One of these cells is 65 million years old, and one is about 9 months old. Can anyone tell me which is which?&#8221;
> 
> Her inferred answer was no.
> 
> Will evolutionists now be convinced to think about rewriting dinosaur history?
> 
> As AiG wrote in a news release 12 months ago about this find (in a release which was distributed nationwide to the secular media):
> 
> 
> The tissue/blood vessels are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most. (I.e., by the global Flood of Noah&#8217;s time, about 4,300 years ago.)
> 
> The deeply entrenched idea of long ages is so dominant in most of the scientific establishments that facts will not undermine the evolution belief system. &#8230; Philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn have pointed out what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm: the paradigm is not discarded but modified.
> 
> Years ago when a startled Dr. Schweitzer found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. rex bone, she said, &#8220;it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn&#8217;t believe it. &#8230; The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?&#8221; Her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm.
> 
> Almost certainly this astonishing discovery will become an &#8220;accepted&#8221; phenomenon that even &#8220;stretchy&#8221; soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years &#8230; and &#8220;stretching&#8221; beyond belief the idea that the evolutionary timetable concerning dinosaurs can be true.
> 
> Regardless of how the evolutionist community finally decides what to do with this fossil conundrum, the creationists now possess immensely powerful evidence against the well-publicized belief that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and instead have tremendous support for the biblical timeline of a recent creation.
> 
> Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.
> 
> 
> Footnotes
> 1.As we reported nine years ago (see Sensational dinosaur blood report!), there have been previous reports of soft tissue and cells found in dinosaur fossils. Back
> 2.&#8220;Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue,&#8221; National Geographic News, February 22, 2006, news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue.html. Back
> 3.Ibid. Back
> 4.&#8220;Ostrich-osaurus&#8221; discovery? Back
> 5.National Geographic summarized one track of her search for an answer:
> 
> New findings not yet published have led her to suggest one possible explanation. The key, she believes, may be the iron content of the blood and muscle proteins hemoglobin and myoglobin.
> 
> After an organism dies, iron released from these proteins as they degrade may trigger the formation of highly reactive forms of oxygen known as free radicals. Other heavy metals in the environment may produce the same effect.
> 
> Schweitzer thinks these metal-generated free radicals may trigger the formation of longer molecular chains, known as polymers, which essentially bind and lock remaining cellular structures in place.
> 
> &#8220;Eventually, the polymerized remains become inert, free from attack from the outside and further chemical change,&#8221; Schweitzer said.
> 
> The researchers are now trying to obtain a pure sample of the blood cell-like structures. If successful, Schweitzer hopes to apply a technique known as Raman spectroscopy to search for the presence of hemoglobin.
> 
> In addition to testing her preservation theory, this analysis will help determine if identifiable protein fragments from the ancient animal are still present in the tissues. It&#8217;s possible, Schweitzer says, that some unknown form of geochemical replacement preserved the tissue structure but changed its molecular composition.
> 
> The Scrambling Continues - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every Bible blog you've ever posted has been bullshit.
> 
> Please provide me a science based website that says DNA was extracted from those T-Rex materials.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking shots at creationists who report the evidence accurately,highjacked that is funny.
> 
> Uwilling to let their views go.
> 
> Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
Click to expand...


From your link:


"Of course, what everyone wants to know is whether DNA might be lurking in that tissue. Wittmeyer, from much experience with the press since the discovery, calls this &#8220;the awful question&#8221;&#8212;whether Schweitzer&#8217;s work is paving the road to a real-life version of science fiction&#8217;s Jurassic Park, where dinosaurs were regenerated from DNA preserved in amber. But DNA, which carries the genetic script for an animal, is a very fragile molecule. It&#8217;s also ridiculously hard to study because it is so easily contaminated with modern biological material, such as microbes or skin cells, while buried or after being dug up."

Read more: Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine


So the challenge stands, please find me one science website (not a bible blog) that says DNA was taken from the T-Rex materials.



If you can't find one, that's ok, just admit it, I don't understand why you keep posting science websites that go against you.  Just admit no science based website exists that says DNA was pulled from the materials.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you for any proof that refutes what he said and you can't provide that proof so you make another meaningless post.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.
> 
> While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.
> 
> You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.
> 
> So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am gonna leave my Christian beliefs for just one second  stupid.
Click to expand...

I have clearly scored a


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> The truth is there is no way non-life can produce life.


Is that really so? Enlighten us then; if your Creator is a living being, then please describe the mechanism by which His life was produced from non-life; if your Creator is not living, then by what mechanism did He bring about life? 



Youwerecreated said:


> There is no way  a non-thinking process  can create intelligence.


Well, I have to admit that you're strong evidence of this.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every Bible blog you've ever posted has been bullshit.
> 
> Please provide me a science based website that says DNA was extracted from those T-Rex materials.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking shots at creationists who report the evidence accurately,highjacked that is funny.
> 
> Uwilling to let their views go.
> 
> Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> 
> "Of course, what everyone wants to know is whether DNA might be lurking in that tissue. Wittmeyer, from much experience with the press since the discovery, calls this &#8220;the awful question&#8221;&#8212;whether Schweitzer&#8217;s work is paving the road to a real-life version of science fiction&#8217;s Jurassic Park, where dinosaurs were regenerated from DNA preserved in amber. But DNA, which carries the genetic script for an animal, is a very fragile molecule. It&#8217;s also ridiculously hard to study because it is so easily contaminated with modern biological material, such as microbes or skin cells, while buried or after being dug up."
> 
> Read more: Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> So the challenge stands, please find me one science website (not a bible blog) that says DNA was taken from the T-Rex materials.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't find one, that's ok, just admit it, I don't understand why you keep posting science websites that go against you.  Just admit no science based website exists that says DNA was pulled from the materials.
Click to expand...


If you can't see whats going on it's because you don't want to see it. I know you have a lot invested in your views.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.


We'd like to reason with you as well. Seriously.

So, though I claim no special expertise nor special status as an authority, I will submit my best understanding to the questions you pose. I hope you'll accept that I'm just attempting to address your questions, and not submitting a comprehensive research paper on the subject. I also hope that you'll allow for correction if I have misunderstood your question or have myself, misspoken.

Fair?



Youwerecreated said:


> If by your theory over time things get better and  through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive  why did we lose certain ablilities that would aid us in survival.
> 
> Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?
> 
> Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?


The theory of evolution does not assert or predict that "over time things get better". The theory acknowledges variation (caused by several mechanisms) in genotype and phenotype within a population of individual organisms. The theory asserts that organisms with greater inheritable fitness to survive (i.e. advantaged) to reproduce in their environment, will more likely pass that fitness and their other heritable traits to their progeny; those less fit (i.e. disadvantaged) will be less likely to pass _*any*_ inheritable traits.

Illustrative example: If under conditions of some kind of environmental hardship, increased problem solving capability (say, of survival) proved to be so great an advantage to survival that superior land speed, superior eyesight, superior strength, and superior sense of smell became less relevant to fitness, then those organisms less advantaged in problem solving capability are less likely to make relevant inheritable contributions to future generations--even such contributions as those you cite.

If, for say genetic or morphological, reasons the traits you cite (call them physical) are incompatible with the expression, heritability, or adaptive function of increased problem solving capability (call them reasoning), then the shift away from those physical traits will be dramatic in the population possessing the reasoning traits.

In any case, this is not to say that the population possessing the superior physical traits will necessarily disappear; it's not as if those (physical) traits have no survival value in any environment. Particularly in the cases of resource abundance or where competition is not a selective pressure in their environment. These two populations could continue to co-exist and never experience noteworthy divergence. But where less fit populations find themselves in direct competition for (scarce) survival resources with more fit populations, the less fit will suffer for it and their genetic legacy necessarily with them.



Youwerecreated said:


> Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?


Yes. The direction of evolution is not in any way defined by "big to small", "small to big", "slow to fast", "weak to strong", "stupid to smart", or any other hierarchy of value we place on such things; the direction of evolution is toward greater net fitness to successfully beget progeny. If environmental conditions (including the other organisms living in that environment) favor one size variant over another, for whatever reason--it does not have to have anything to do with size (maybe they can hide better, or maybe they're stronger, or maybe they're faster, or maybe have a better sense of smell, or maybe they are smarter)--such net fitness (and the inheritable traits of those who posses it) is more likely to prevail in later generations.

Helpful?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.
> 
> While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.
> 
> You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.
> 
> So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am gonna leave my Christian beliefs for just one second  stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have clearly scored a
Click to expand...


No, you just keep repeating the same rhetoric not offering a sound argument against what we ask and provide.

First it takes intelligence to load and fire a firearm.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is there is no way non-life can produce life.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that really so? Enlighten us then; if your Creator is a living being, then please describe the mechanism by which His life was produced from non-life; if your Creator is not living, then by what mechanism did He bring about life?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way  a non-thinking process  can create intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I have to admit that you're strong evidence of this.
Click to expand...


You want someone who is finite explain somone who is infinite. You want someone that at best may live 80 years to someone that has always been.

This is the exception we die God has no beginning and no end.

You see,for someone to become intelligent they must first be able to think and reason.


----------



## Photonic

koshergrl said:


> Exactly, it's from another thread where that idiot who claims to have been courted by Mensa maintains we're aunts and uncles of monkeys...



You truly have absolutely no idea what evolution is, do you.

That's not even a question, I'm making a statement of pure fact here.


----------



## Photonic

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is there is no way non-life can produce life.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that really so? Enlighten us then; if your Creator is a living being, then please describe the mechanism by which His life was produced from non-life; if your Creator is not living, then by what mechanism did He bring about life?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way  a non-thinking process  can create intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I have to admit that you're strong evidence of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want someone who is finite explain somone who is infinite. You want someone that at best may live 80 years to someone that has always been.
> 
> This is the exception we die God has no beginning and no end.
> 
> You see,for someone to become intelligent they must first be able to think and reason.
Click to expand...


You assume the human mind can't comprehend the concept of infinity but we are more than capable of doing so (Well, maybe not you). We are also more than capable of expressing it and defining it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.
> 
> 
> 
> We'd like to reason with you as well. Seriously.
> 
> So, though I claim no special expertise nor special status as an authority, I will submit my best understanding to the questions you pose. I hope you'll accept that I'm just attempting to address your questions, and not submitting a comprehensive research paper on the subject. I also hope that you'll allow for correction if I have misunderstood your question or have myself, misspoken.
> 
> Fair?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If by your theory over time things get better and  through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive  why did we lose certain ablilities that would aid us in survival.
> 
> Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?
> 
> Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The theory of evolution does not assert or predict that "over time things get better". The theory acknowledges variation (caused by several mechanisms) in genotype and phenotype within a population of individual organisms. The theory asserts that organisms with greater inheritable fitness to survive (i.e. advantaged) to reproduce in their environment, will more likely pass that fitness and their other heritable traits to their progeny; those less fit (i.e. disadvantaged) will be less likely to pass _*any*_ inheritable traits.
> 
> Illustrative example: If under conditions of some kind of environmental hardship, increased problem solving capability (say, of survival) proved to be so great an advantage to survival that superior land speed, superior eyesight, superior strength, and superior sense of smell became less relevant to fitness, then those organisms less advantaged in problem solving capability are less likely to make relevant inheritable contributions to future generations--even such contributions as those you cite.
> 
> If, for say genetic or morphological, reasons the traits you cite (call them physical) are incompatible with the expression, heritability, or adaptive function of increased problem solving capability (call them reasoning), then the shift away from those physical traits will be dramatic in the population possessing the reasoning traits.
> 
> In any case, this is not to say that the population possessing the superior physical traits will necessarily disappear; it's not as if those (physical) traits have no survival value in any environment. Particularly in the cases of resource abundance or where competition is not a selective pressure in their environment. These two populations could continue to co-exist and never experience noteworthy divergence. But where less fit populations find themselves in direct competition for (scarce) survival resources with more fit populations, the less fit will suffer for it and their genetic legacy necessarily with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. The direction of evolution is not in any way defined by "big to small", "small to big", "slow to fast", "weak to strong", "stupid to smart", or any other hierarchy of value we place on such things; the direction of evolution is toward greater net fitness to successfully beget progeny. If environmental conditions (including the other organisms living in that environment) favor one size variant over another, for whatever reason--it does not have to have anything to do with size (maybe they can hide better, or maybe they're stronger, or maybe they're faster, or maybe have a better sense of smell, or maybe they are smarter)--such net fitness (and the inheritable traits of those who posses it) is more likely to prevail in later generations.
> 
> Helpful?
Click to expand...


So things don't get better with time we ended with the human did we get better then our ancestors ?

If we start with one cell and wind up with a dinosaur what just happened ?

If we don't go from less complex to more complex why does your side say we did ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Photonic said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, it's from another thread where that idiot who claims to have been courted by Mensa maintains we're aunts and uncles of monkeys...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You truly have absolutely no idea what evolution is, do you.
> 
> That's not even a question, I'm making a statement of pure fact here.
Click to expand...


Oh boy,you are saying chimps evolved from us ?


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.
> 
> If by your theory over time things get better and  through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive  why did we lose certain ablilities that would aid us in survival.
> 
> Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?
> 
> Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?
> 
> Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?



As usual, let me preface this by saying I am a layman when it comes to evolution; I make no claims of extensive knowledge or education on the subject.

That said, I wonder if you are reading too much into the use of the term beneficial.  Sometimes you seem to try and impart an intelligence upon natural selection which, as far as I am aware, is not part of the theory of evolution.  If something is better, as far as selection is concerned, it just means that the animals with that trait were better able to survive and reproduce than others without it.  It does not follow that everything about the animals is superior to the others.  So, as an example, an animal with less speed might survive and reproduce more efficiently that one with more speed, if the animal with less speed had more intelligence and was better able to find hidden food, or hide from predators, etc.  The animal with less speed but more intelligence survives better, breeds more, and over time, dominates the area and perhaps even pushes the faster but less intelligent animal into extinction.

As to small to large and back again, again I wonder if you are imparting features to natural selection which are not part of the theory of evolution.  Evolution is not supposed to be a direct line from single-celled organisms up through modern day to eventually reach some kind of perfect creature.  It is supposed to work based on the environment involved; so where in some times/places/situations bigger animals may thrive, in others smaller animals may do so.  I'm not sure what you are referencing with this smaller to bigger to smaller argument.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Photonic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that really so? Enlighten us then; if your Creator is a living being, then please describe the mechanism by which His life was produced from non-life; if your Creator is not living, then by what mechanism did He bring about life?
> 
> Well, I have to admit that you're strong evidence of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want someone who is finite explain somone who is infinite. You want someone that at best may live 80 years to someone that has always been.
> 
> This is the exception we die God has no beginning and no end.
> 
> You see,for someone to become intelligent they must first be able to think and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume the human mind can't comprehend the concept of infinity but we are more than capable of doing so (Well, maybe not you). We are also more than capable of expressing it and defining it.
Click to expand...


Really,name one thing that has always existed ? And describe why and how it has always existed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.
> 
> If by your theory over time things get better and  through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive  why did we lose certain ablilities that would aid us in survival.
> 
> Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?
> 
> Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?
> 
> Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, let me preface this by saying I am a layman when it comes to evolution; I make no claims of extensive knowledge or education on the subject.
> 
> That said, I wonder if you are reading too much into the use of the term beneficial.  Sometimes you seem to try and impart an intelligence upon natural selection which, as far as I am aware, is not part of the theory of evolution.  If something is better, as far as selection is concerned, it just means that the animals with that trait were better able to survive and reproduce than others without it.  It does not follow that everything about the animals is superior to the others.  So, as an example, an animal with less speed might survive and reproduce more efficiently that one with more speed, if the animal with less speed had more intelligence and was better able to find hidden food, or hide from predators, etc.  The animal with less speed but more intelligence survives better, breeds more, and over time, dominates the area and perhaps even pushes the faster but less intelligent animal into extinction.
> 
> As to small to large and back again, again I wonder if you are imparting features to natural selection which are not part of the theory of evolution.  Evolution is not supposed to be a direct line from single-celled organisms up through modern day to eventually reach some kind of perfect creature.  It is supposed to work based on the environment involved; so where in some times/places/situations bigger animals may thrive, in others smaller animals may do so.  I'm not sure what you are referencing with this smaller to bigger to smaller argument.
Click to expand...


Not sure what theory of evolution you subscribe to but yes many believe natural selection is part of evolution.

There has been many scientist who said evolution makes things better. As we become better adapted does that not make us stronger and better with things being added to help us adapt  better ?

So what you're saying by random chance humans got bigger brains ? but lost the ability of superior sight,superior strength,superior land speed,superior sense of smell ?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking shots at creationists who report the evidence accurately,highjacked that is funny.
> 
> Uwilling to let their views go.
> 
> Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> 
> "Of course, what everyone wants to know is whether DNA might be lurking in that tissue. Wittmeyer, from much experience with the press since the discovery, calls this &#8220;the awful question&#8221;&#8212;whether Schweitzer&#8217;s work is paving the road to a real-life version of science fiction&#8217;s Jurassic Park, where dinosaurs were regenerated from DNA preserved in amber. But DNA, which carries the genetic script for an animal, is a very fragile molecule. It&#8217;s also ridiculously hard to study because it is so easily contaminated with modern biological material, such as microbes or skin cells, while buried or after being dug up."
> 
> Read more: Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> So the challenge stands, please find me one science website (not a bible blog) that says DNA was taken from the T-Rex materials.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't find one, that's ok, just admit it, I don't understand why you keep posting science websites that go against you.  Just admit no science based website exists that says DNA was pulled from the materials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't see whats going on it's because you don't want to see it. I know you have a lot invested in your views.
Click to expand...


I have nothing invested in my views, if science proves evolution wrong, I have no moral issue with changing my view of evolution.


But you're projecting, literally the entire way you live your life is invested in being a science denier.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am gonna leave my Christian beliefs for just one second  stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> I have clearly scored a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you just keep repeating the same rhetoric not offering a sound argument against what we ask and provide.
Click to expand...

The argument is sound. The facts that support it are not in dispute ... YOU don't even dispute the facts (or at least where you do, you haven't voiced it).

So, I am not _*just*_ repeating rhetoric; I am reiterating the argument that is the premise of the question,"Why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?"

The answer to that question is worth having IMO, because it might help me to better reach an understanding with you regarding precisely what you're asking for.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.
> 
> If by your theory over time things get better and  through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive  why did we lose certain ablilities that would aid us in survival.
> 
> Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?
> 
> Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?
> 
> Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, let me preface this by saying I am a layman when it comes to evolution; I make no claims of extensive knowledge or education on the subject.
> 
> That said, I wonder if you are reading too much into the use of the term beneficial.  Sometimes you seem to try and impart an intelligence upon natural selection which, as far as I am aware, is not part of the theory of evolution.  If something is better, as far as selection is concerned, it just means that the animals with that trait were better able to survive and reproduce than others without it.  It does not follow that everything about the animals is superior to the others.  So, as an example, an animal with less speed might survive and reproduce more efficiently that one with more speed, if the animal with less speed had more intelligence and was better able to find hidden food, or hide from predators, etc.  The animal with less speed but more intelligence survives better, breeds more, and over time, dominates the area and perhaps even pushes the faster but less intelligent animal into extinction.
> 
> As to small to large and back again, again I wonder if you are imparting features to natural selection which are not part of the theory of evolution.  Evolution is not supposed to be a direct line from single-celled organisms up through modern day to eventually reach some kind of perfect creature.  It is supposed to work based on the environment involved; so where in some times/places/situations bigger animals may thrive, in others smaller animals may do so.  I'm not sure what you are referencing with this smaller to bigger to smaller argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what theory of evolution you subscribe to but yes many believe natural selection is part of evolution.
> 
> There has been many scientist who said evolution makes things better. As we become better adapted does that not make us stronger and better with things being added to help us adapt  better ?
> 
> So what you're saying by random chance humans got bigger brains ? but lost the ability of superior sight,superior strength,superior land speed,superior sense of smell ?
Click to expand...


You misread my statement.  What I said is not part of the theory of evolution is the intelligence you seem to think drives natural selection, not natural selection itself.

Once again, better in terms of evolution does not necessarily mean better in terms of what humans might want.  In terms of selection, what is better is not known until after the fact.  Is it better to be stronger, or faster, or more elusive?  That depends on the environment.  And since evolution is not based on an intelligence directing things, the idea that it must lead to creatures with all of the features you consider positive or beneficial is incorrect.  

I don't know if you are asking if human intelligence is random chance based on evolution or the existence/lack of a creator.  It could have been random in the sense there was no guarantee intelligence to our extent would develop.  It would not be random in the sense that our intelligence was a positive survival/reproduction trait.

As far as losing senses, I honestly don't know.  I don't know how acute the senses of the animals we descended from were, nor how strong they were, nor how fast; I don't know if there is some reason those senses or musculature would be incompatible with the features that allow us to have our intelligence.


----------



## Photonic

Youwerecreated said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, it's from another thread where that idiot who claims to have been courted by Mensa maintains we're aunts and uncles of monkeys...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You truly have absolutely no idea what evolution is, do you.
> 
> That's not even a question, I'm making a statement of pure fact here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy,you are saying chimps evolved from us ?
Click to expand...


If you could hear my sigh as I read that...


You can stop with the being dishonest thing now, you know full well evolution is very clear about us not evolving from any modern day animal.

That includes chimps.


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.
> 
> If by your theory over time things get better and  through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive  why did we lose certain abilities that would aid us in survival.
> 
> Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?



Traits can be lost for a variety of reasons. You use it or lose it. If we had no more need for better eyesight to survive, we wouldn't continue having them. The reason is, if something like that isn't being used, then it isn't worth for the cells to continue to invest time and energy to develop such biological structures but also maintain it. Cells have economies, they are not post-scarcity economies. They have finite resources and time to work with, so they must spend it wisely and accordingly or else the organism they make up won't survive. 

To be honest I'm pretty sure humans never had any of those traits, particularly all of them at once. Not to mention, they are relative, and at that they would have been relative to the nearest predator. The larger point still stands, however. What we do have that separates us from the rest of our cousins is a far superior brain (which are enormously expensive in terms of cell economies) and thumbs.

Not to mention such subjective terms of traits raise questions like: superior to what? You only need to be better at surviving, and procreating. 



> Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?



Well, I'm not so sure humans had any of those skills, so the question is fairly irrelevant. You don't seem to understand how something can lose a trait.

Let's say you had good running skills, and you could outrun a predator that was also good at running. If that predator dies off, and you don't need to run at a high speed to run anymore, are you going to keep that trait? Nope, you won't. There's no need to devote the resources to develop and maintain the muscles and other associated structures that allow you to run so fast, if there isn't a reason to run that fast anymore. This will happen over time, as previously you had to have good running skills to survive, but now that isn't required, so those that couldn't run, will now survive and procreate.

It's a pretty generalized and basic example, but that's how losing a trait works.



> Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?



Evolution is change in organisms, and that change is in terms of survival. One of the silliest and most annoying lines of thinking is assuming there are more 'evolved' forms and 'un-evolved ' forms. In nature, it isn't about a linear progression of better and better organisms each one better (which is a very subjective and human term) than the last. All that matters is _survival_ and how a mutation helps (or doesn't help) an organism survive. A gaining of a trait is not automatically positive and a loss of a trait is not automatically negative. What constitutes that is the degree it allows the organism to survive.


----------



## FactFinder

*Creationists *

There is only One.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.
> 
> If by your theory over time things get better and  through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive  why did we lose certain abilities that would aid us in survival.
> 
> Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traits can be lost for a variety of reasons. You use it or lose it. If we had no more need for better eyesight to survive, we wouldn't continue having them. The reason is, if something like that isn't being used, then it isn't worth for the cells to continue to invest time and energy to develop such biological structures but also maintain it. Cells have economies, they are not post-scarcity economies. They have finite resources and time to work with, so they must spend it wisely and accordingly or else the organism they make up won't survive.
> 
> To be honest I'm pretty sure humans never had any of those traits, particularly all of them at once. Not to mention, they are relative, and at that they would have been relative to the nearest predator. The larger point still stands, however. What we do have that separates us from the rest of our cousins is a far superior brain (which are enormously expensive in terms of cell economies) and thumbs.
> 
> Not to mention such subjective terms of traits raise questions like: superior to what? You only need to be better at surviving, and procreating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not so sure humans had any of those skills, so the question is fairly irrelevant. You don't seem to understand how something can lose a trait.
> 
> Let's say you had good running skills, and you could outrun a predator that was also good at running. If that predator dies off, and you don't need to run at a high speed to run anymore, are you going to keep that trait? Nope, you won't. There's no need to devote the resources to develop and maintain the muscles and other associated structures that allow you to run so fast, if there isn't a reason to run that fast anymore. This will happen over time, as previously you had to have good running skills to survive, but now that isn't required, so those that couldn't run, will now survive and procreate.
> 
> It's a pretty generalized and basic example, but that's how losing a trait works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is change in organisms, and that change is in terms of survival. One of the silliest and most annoying lines of thinking is assuming there are more 'evolved' forms and 'un-evolved ' forms. In nature, it isn't about a linear progression of better and better organisms each one better (which is a very subjective and human term) than the last. All that matters is _survival_ and how a mutation helps (or doesn't help) an organism survive. A gaining of a trait is not automatically positive and a loss of a trait is not automatically negative. What constitutes that is the degree it allows the organism to survive.
Click to expand...


If it was truly Survival of the fittest it would not be humans at the top of the food chain. We were designed to be at the top of the food chain just as the bible states.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Photonic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You truly have absolutely no idea what evolution is, do you.
> 
> That's not even a question, I'm making a statement of pure fact here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy,you are saying chimps evolved from us ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you could hear my sigh as I read that...
> 
> 
> You can stop with the being dishonest thing now, you know full well evolution is very clear about us not evolving from any modern day animal.
> 
> That includes chimps.
Click to expand...


I agree 100 % we didn't evolve from anything. A human has always been a human and always will be.

But to suggest chimps and humans share a common ancestor what are you saying ?

What are you saying we diverged from the chimp and the chimp is our cousin ?

So what you are saying is that humans and chimps or an apelike creature had to cross breed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, let me preface this by saying I am a layman when it comes to evolution; I make no claims of extensive knowledge or education on the subject.
> 
> That said, I wonder if you are reading too much into the use of the term beneficial.  Sometimes you seem to try and impart an intelligence upon natural selection which, as far as I am aware, is not part of the theory of evolution.  If something is better, as far as selection is concerned, it just means that the animals with that trait were better able to survive and reproduce than others without it.  It does not follow that everything about the animals is superior to the others.  So, as an example, an animal with less speed might survive and reproduce more efficiently that one with more speed, if the animal with less speed had more intelligence and was better able to find hidden food, or hide from predators, etc.  The animal with less speed but more intelligence survives better, breeds more, and over time, dominates the area and perhaps even pushes the faster but less intelligent animal into extinction.
> 
> As to small to large and back again, again I wonder if you are imparting features to natural selection which are not part of the theory of evolution.  Evolution is not supposed to be a direct line from single-celled organisms up through modern day to eventually reach some kind of perfect creature.  It is supposed to work based on the environment involved; so where in some times/places/situations bigger animals may thrive, in others smaller animals may do so.  I'm not sure what you are referencing with this smaller to bigger to smaller argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what theory of evolution you subscribe to but yes many believe natural selection is part of evolution.
> 
> There has been many scientist who said evolution makes things better. As we become better adapted does that not make us stronger and better with things being added to help us adapt  better ?
> 
> So what you're saying by random chance humans got bigger brains ? but lost the ability of superior sight,superior strength,superior land speed,superior sense of smell ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You misread my statement.  What I said is not part of the theory of evolution is the intelligence you seem to think drives natural selection, not natural selection itself.
> 
> Once again, better in terms of evolution does not necessarily mean better in terms of what humans might want.  In terms of selection, what is better is not known until after the fact.  Is it better to be stronger, or faster, or more elusive?  That depends on the environment.  And since evolution is not based on an intelligence directing things, the idea that it must lead to creatures with all of the features you consider positive or beneficial is incorrect.
> 
> I don't know if you are asking if human intelligence is random chance based on evolution or the existence/lack of a creator.  It could have been random in the sense there was no guarantee intelligence to our extent would develop.  It would not be random in the sense that our intelligence was a positive survival/reproduction trait.
> 
> As far as losing senses, I honestly don't know.  I don't know how acute the senses of the animals we descended from were, nor how strong they were, nor how fast; I don't know if there is some reason those senses or musculature would be incompatible with the features that allow us to have our intelligence.
Click to expand...


But look at it throught the eyes of common sense. There are limits to adapting to our enviornment,why ?

If the enviornment forces change there should be no limits.

Look at the giraffe that sucker could have starved out by the time it took for that neck to get longer. Or it could be extinct and easy pray if the sponge in the brain didn't develop quickly because when it went to get a drink of water it would have passed out and been eaten by predators.

The theory makes no sense at all. Genetics and the fossil record is a problem for the theory.


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.
> 
> If by your theory over time things get better and  through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive  why did we lose certain abilities that would aid us in survival.
> 
> Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traits can be lost for a variety of reasons. You use it or lose it. If we had no more need for better eyesight to survive, we wouldn't continue having them. The reason is, if something like that isn't being used, then it isn't worth for the cells to continue to invest time and energy to develop such biological structures but also maintain it. Cells have economies, they are not post-scarcity economies. They have finite resources and time to work with, so they must spend it wisely and accordingly or else the organism they make up won't survive.
> 
> To be honest I'm pretty sure humans never had any of those traits, particularly all of them at once. Not to mention, they are relative, and at that they would have been relative to the nearest predator. The larger point still stands, however. What we do have that separates us from the rest of our cousins is a far superior brain (which are enormously expensive in terms of cell economies) and thumbs.
> 
> Not to mention such subjective terms of traits raise questions like: superior to what? You only need to be better at surviving, and procreating.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not so sure humans had any of those skills, so the question is fairly irrelevant. You don't seem to understand how something can lose a trait.
> 
> Let's say you had good running skills, and you could outrun a predator that was also good at running. If that predator dies off, and you don't need to run at a high speed to run anymore, are you going to keep that trait? Nope, you won't. There's no need to devote the resources to develop and maintain the muscles and other associated structures that allow you to run so fast, if there isn't a reason to run that fast anymore. This will happen over time, as previously you had to have good running skills to survive, but now that isn't required, so those that couldn't run, will now survive and procreate.
> 
> It's a pretty generalized and basic example, but that's how losing a trait works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is change in organisms, and that change is in terms of survival. One of the silliest and most annoying lines of thinking is assuming there are more 'evolved' forms and 'un-evolved ' forms. In nature, it isn't about a linear progression of better and better organisms each one better (which is a very subjective and human term) than the last. All that matters is _survival_ and how a mutation helps (or doesn't help) an organism survive. A gaining of a trait is not automatically positive and a loss of a trait is not automatically negative. What constitutes that is the degree it allows the organism to survive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was truly Survival of the fittest it would not be humans at the top of the food chain. We were designed to be at the top of the food chain just as the bible states.
Click to expand...


That's nice and all, but that had nothing to do with my post. I guess you finally understand how evolution can result in a gain of traits and a loss of traits.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.
> 
> If by your theory over time things get better and  through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive  why did we lose certain abilities that would aid us in survival.
> 
> Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traits can be lost for a variety of reasons. You use it or lose it. If we had no more need for better eyesight to survive, we wouldn't continue having them. The reason is, if something like that isn't being used, then it isn't worth for the cells to continue to invest time and energy to develop such biological structures but also maintain it. Cells have economies, they are not post-scarcity economies. They have finite resources and time to work with, so they must spend it wisely and accordingly or else the organism they make up won't survive.
> 
> To be honest I'm pretty sure humans never had any of those traits, particularly all of them at once. Not to mention, they are relative, and at that they would have been relative to the nearest predator. The larger point still stands, however. What we do have that separates us from the rest of our cousins is a far superior brain (which are enormously expensive in terms of cell economies) and thumbs.
> 
> Not to mention such subjective terms of traits raise questions like: superior to what? You only need to be better at surviving, and procreating.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not so sure humans had any of those skills, so the question is fairly irrelevant. You don't seem to understand how something can lose a trait.
> 
> Let's say you had good running skills, and you could outrun a predator that was also good at running. If that predator dies off, and you don't need to run at a high speed to run anymore, are you going to keep that trait? Nope, you won't. There's no need to devote the resources to develop and maintain the muscles and other associated structures that allow you to run so fast, if there isn't a reason to run that fast anymore. This will happen over time, as previously you had to have good running skills to survive, but now that isn't required, so those that couldn't run, will now survive and procreate.
> 
> It's a pretty generalized and basic example, but that's how losing a trait works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is change in organisms, and that change is in terms of survival. One of the silliest and most annoying lines of thinking is assuming there are more 'evolved' forms and 'un-evolved ' forms. In nature, it isn't about a linear progression of better and better organisms each one better (which is a very subjective and human term) than the last. All that matters is _survival_ and how a mutation helps (or doesn't help) an organism survive. A gaining of a trait is not automatically positive and a loss of a trait is not automatically negative. What constitutes that is the degree it allows the organism to survive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was truly Survival of the fittest it would not be humans at the top of the food chain. We were designed to be at the top of the food chain just as the bible states.
Click to expand...


Why would humans not be at the top of the food chain?  Why isn't intelligence (and opposable thumbs) good enough to put us there?


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what theory of evolution you subscribe to but yes many believe natural selection is part of evolution.
> 
> There has been many scientist who said evolution makes things better. As we become better adapted does that not make us stronger and better with things being added to help us adapt  better ?
> 
> So what you're saying by random chance humans got bigger brains ? but lost the ability of superior sight,superior strength,superior land speed,superior sense of smell ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You misread my statement.  What I said is not part of the theory of evolution is the intelligence you seem to think drives natural selection, not natural selection itself.
> 
> Once again, better in terms of evolution does not necessarily mean better in terms of what humans might want.  In terms of selection, what is better is not known until after the fact.  Is it better to be stronger, or faster, or more elusive?  That depends on the environment.  And since evolution is not based on an intelligence directing things, the idea that it must lead to creatures with all of the features you consider positive or beneficial is incorrect.
> 
> I don't know if you are asking if human intelligence is random chance based on evolution or the existence/lack of a creator.  It could have been random in the sense there was no guarantee intelligence to our extent would develop.  It would not be random in the sense that our intelligence was a positive survival/reproduction trait.
> 
> As far as losing senses, I honestly don't know.  I don't know how acute the senses of the animals we descended from were, nor how strong they were, nor how fast; I don't know if there is some reason those senses or musculature would be incompatible with the features that allow us to have our intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But look at it throught the eyes of common sense. There are limits to adapting to our enviornment,why ?
> 
> If the enviornment forces change there should be no limits.
> 
> Look at the giraffe that sucker could have starved out by the time it took for that neck to get longer. Or it could be extinct and easy pray if the sponge in the brain didn't develop quickly because when it went to get a drink of water it would have passed out and been eaten by predators.
> 
> The theory makes no sense at all. Genetics and the fossil record is a problem for the theory.
Click to expand...


You are looking at is as an all-or-nothing question.  It doesn't follow that because a long neck was a positive survival/reproduction trait, a short neck would lead to a dying out of the species.  Instead, consider the possibility that a short neck allowed for survival, but the long neck developed over time because it was better for survival/reproduction than the short neck.


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what theory of evolution you subscribe to but yes many believe natural selection is part of evolution.
> 
> There has been many scientist who said evolution makes things better. As we become better adapted does that not make us stronger and better with things being added to help us adapt  better ?
> 
> So what you're saying by random chance humans got bigger brains ? but lost the ability of superior sight,superior strength,superior land speed,superior sense of smell ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You misread my statement.  What I said is not part of the theory of evolution is the intelligence you seem to think drives natural selection, not natural selection itself.
> 
> Once again, better in terms of evolution does not necessarily mean better in terms of what humans might want.  In terms of selection, what is better is not known until after the fact.  Is it better to be stronger, or faster, or more elusive?  That depends on the environment.  And since evolution is not based on an intelligence directing things, the idea that it must lead to creatures with all of the features you consider positive or beneficial is incorrect.
> 
> I don't know if you are asking if human intelligence is random chance based on evolution or the existence/lack of a creator.  It could have been random in the sense there was no guarantee intelligence to our extent would develop.  It would not be random in the sense that our intelligence was a positive survival/reproduction trait.
> 
> As far as losing senses, I honestly don't know.  I don't know how acute the senses of the animals we descended from were, nor how strong they were, nor how fast; I don't know if there is some reason those senses or musculature would be incompatible with the features that allow us to have our intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But look at it throught the eyes of common sense. There are limits to adapting to our enviornment,why ?
> 
> If the enviornment forces change there should be no limits.
> 
> Look at the giraffe that sucker could have starved out by the time it took for that neck to get longer. Or it could be extinct and easy pray if the sponge in the brain didn't develop quickly because when it went to get a drink of water it would have passed out and been eaten by predators.
> 
> The theory makes no sense at all. Genetics and the fossil record is a problem for the theory.
Click to expand...


The theory makes sense and genetics and the fossil record reinforce it, but your giraffe example shows you don't know much about natural selection.


----------



## LOki

Ruminating upon this some, it occured to me that this scenario I previously posted might be further illustrative of the character of Creation "scientists."


LOki said:


> John Leonard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Only scientific theories can be called theories.  Even a bad scientific theory is still scientific. Any theory espousing the divine, a creator, a supernatural extraterrestrial being some people like to call God is dogmatic in nature and cannot rightly be called a theory because the scientific method cannot be applied.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes. It's not as if Evolutionists (or any genuine scientist for that matter) do not hold themselves to that same standard. They're not picking on Creationists here, they are using a precise term in a precise manner. No intellectually honest Creationist has a problem with this.
> 
> And just to point out how invalid this complaint of John's is, imagine that someone presented this to a group of Creationists, ...
> 
> ---IMAGE SNIPPED TO SAVE SPACE---​
> ... and then demanded based upon the faith paradigm that they validate his assertions that all of creation is the result of ancient condensation from the thawing of Niflheim, which begat the giant frost ogre named Ymir. The thawing also begat a cow called Audhumla from which 4 rivers of milk issued that fed Ymir. As Audhumla licked the salty ice blocks, she freed Odin's grandfather. Odin and his brothers killed and butchered Ymir, and from parts of his body created the heavens and the Earth.
> 
> I assure you that no Creationist would EVER validate such a story based upon the strength of the presenter's conviction of certainty, and his capacity to stolidly disavow every competing "theory" regardless of it's basis.
Click to expand...

Yet imagine that by some twist of Supreme Court jurisprudence, Norse creation "science" was as rendered legitimate Judeo/Christian creation "science."

We would find ourselves in the situation where Dragon, Dr. Drock and I would not only be having this discussion with Youwerecreated, Koshergrl, and MarcATL; the six of us would also be engaged with Yngvarweiftael, Kaetilglr, MákrASG.


			
				MákrASG said:
			
		

> Powerful Stuff!





			
				Yngvarweiftael said:
			
		

> This brave warrior's son completely destroyed those dress wearing Creationists and feeble Evolutionist Poindexters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Veith Skulldentedin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answers in the Eddas--Axes and War Hammers vs Logic and Lambs
> 
> Christians and Evolutionists are confused regarding how Ice Giants have indeed been expunged from Midgard (as taught by the Eddas); they have no explanation! Of course we know that Odin promised the end of all Ice Giants; to Christians and Evolutionists, it's INEXPLICABLE!
> 
> 
> 
> When will the geeks and grovelers accept that Odin is the ruler and archietect of heaven and earth; that he is the first and greatest of gods, warriors and men?
Click to expand...




			
				LOki said:
			
		

> What? This is ludicrous! How can anybody take this superstitious retard and his fatuous fairy tale seriously?
> 
> No one with an atom of intellectual integrity would honestly demand an explanation for the absence of Ice Giants that never existed; or claim that the absence of such an explanation is evidence of confusion.
> 
> Fucking intellectually dishonest retards!





			
				Youwerecreated said:
			
		

> This article by a world famous expert on cud chewing hares and unicorns, proves that deoxyribonucleic acid, if it were real, could only harm cells--not control their growth.
> 
> "Richard Dawkins is the Devil" by Skeeter Pigknuckle Phd., Flat Earth Geology and Baraminology
> Levitican Bible University of Creation Science, Truck-Stop, and Tractor Pull
> 
> --6,382 PAGES SNIPPED--​





			
				Kaetilglr said:
			
		

> I don't know why these Odin bashers are such dumb sissies.
> 
> LOki, you're just a stupid trickster, you prove you brush your teeth every day!
> 
> Youwerecreated, you cry like a girl ... why don't you go fish for some men?





			
				Yngvarweiftael said:
			
		

> HAHA! Kaetilglr, you are so right! But then, what else would you expect from perfumed ivory tower book learners and sheep herding boot-lickers? ROFL!





			
				Kaetilglr said:
			
		

> Yng, you're so dreamy ... lets have tall blonde babies together!





			
				Yngvarweiftael said:
			
		

> VALHALLA!!!!!1111!!!!one1111!!!!


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is there is no way non-life can produce life.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that really so? Enlighten us then; if your Creator is a living being, then please describe the mechanism by which His life was produced from non-life; if your Creator is not living, then by what mechanism did He bring about life?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way  a non-thinking process  can create intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I have to admit that you're strong evidence of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want someone who is finite explain somone who is infinite. You want someone that at best may live 80 years to someone that has always been.
Click to expand...

No. I don't. Please, don't explain your Creator; just don't claim He's an "explanation" for he origin of life. You see, I know you can't explain Him, but if you're going to claim your Creator "explanation" is not exactly the same as saying, "I don't know," then you must do better than to say, "My explanation is not explainable."



Youwerecreated said:


> This is the exception we die God has no beginning and no end.


This is known as the logical fallacy of "special pleading."



Youwerecreated said:


> You see,for someone to become intelligent they must first be able to think and reason.


More precisely, someone who is intelligent is able to think effectively and reason. Thinking effectively and reasoning require you to disabuse yourself of both emotional rationalizations and applications of logical fallacies.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.
> 
> 
> 
> We'd like to reason with you as well. Seriously.
> 
> So, though I claim no special expertise nor special status as an authority, I will submit my best understanding to the questions you pose. I hope you'll accept that I'm just attempting to address your questions, and not submitting a comprehensive research paper on the subject. I also hope that you'll allow for correction if I have misunderstood your question or have myself, misspoken.
> 
> Fair?
> 
> The theory of evolution does not assert or predict that "over time things get better". The theory acknowledges variation (caused by several mechanisms) in genotype and phenotype within a population of individual organisms. The theory asserts that organisms with greater inheritable fitness to survive (i.e. advantaged) to reproduce in their environment, will more likely pass that fitness and their other heritable traits to their progeny; those less fit (i.e. disadvantaged) will be less likely to pass _*any*_ inheritable traits.
> 
> Illustrative example: If under conditions of some kind of environmental hardship, increased problem solving capability (say, of survival) proved to be so great an advantage to survival that superior land speed, superior eyesight, superior strength, and superior sense of smell became less relevant to fitness, then those organisms less advantaged in problem solving capability are less likely to make relevant inheritable contributions to future generations--even such contributions as those you cite.
> 
> If, for say genetic or morphological, reasons the traits you cite (call them physical) are incompatible with the expression, heritability, or adaptive function of increased problem solving capability (call them reasoning), then the shift away from those physical traits will be dramatic in the population possessing the reasoning traits.
> 
> In any case, this is not to say that the population possessing the superior physical traits will necessarily disappear; it's not as if those (physical) traits have no survival value in any environment. Particularly in the cases of resource abundance or where competition is not a selective pressure in their environment. These two populations could continue to co-exist and never experience noteworthy divergence. But where less fit populations find themselves in direct competition for (scarce) survival resources with more fit populations, the less fit will suffer for it and their genetic legacy necessarily with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. The direction of evolution is not in any way defined by "big to small", "small to big", "slow to fast", "weak to strong", "stupid to smart", or any other hierarchy of value we place on such things; the direction of evolution is toward greater net fitness to successfully beget progeny. If environmental conditions (including the other organisms living in that environment) favor one size variant over another, for whatever reason--it does not have to have anything to do with size (maybe they can hide better, or maybe they're stronger, or maybe they're faster, or maybe have a better sense of smell, or maybe they are smarter)--such net fitness (and the inheritable traits of those who posses it) is more likely to prevail in later generations.
> 
> Helpful?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The lack of punctuation makes these questions a little unclear, so you'll have to just be patient if my responses don't address your intended requests.



Youwerecreated said:


> So things don't get better with time we ended with the human did we get better then our ancestors ?


What do you mean, "get better with time"? Get better from what? Or get better how? And "things?"

What do you mean, "we ended with the human"? What end? what (which?) human?

What do you mean, "did we get better then our ancestors?" Better from the end(?), and then our ancestors got better from the end?

Maybe it's not just the punctuation but also perhaps an invalid presumption making the question confusing. A preconception you might be applying is that there's some kind of will to purpose included in the theory of evolution; that there's some kind of abstract goal or metaphysical purpose (like "perfection") that Evolutionists claim "getting better" serves--there isn't.



Youwerecreated said:


> If we start with one cell and wind up with a dinosaur what just happened ?


Sounds like magic. Sounds like Creation. Sounds nothing like the theory of evolution.

There's nothing in the theory of evolution, or in what evolutionists claim that explains some circumstance where a single-celled organism just "poofs" into a dinosaur.

Again, the confusion might be your punctuation, of it might be an invalid preconception you're applying.



Youwerecreated said:


> If we don't go from less complex to more complex why does your side say we did ?


This is a weird question. If the development of living organisms DID NOT generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms, then I have no idea why Evolutionists would say that it did.

The thing is YWC, it's Creationists that actually claim that living organisms didn't generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms.

The valid logic applied to the analysis of the verifiable evidence suggests that the development of living organisms DID generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms; and the Claims of Evolutionists are consistent with that.

Was this helpful?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what theory of evolution you subscribe to but yes many believe natural selection is part of evolution.
> 
> There has been many scientist who said evolution makes things better. As we become better adapted does that not make us stronger and better with things being added to help us adapt  better ?
> 
> So what you're saying by random chance humans got bigger brains ? but lost the ability of superior sight,superior strength,superior land speed,superior sense of smell ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You misread my statement.  What I said is not part of the theory of evolution is the intelligence you seem to think drives natural selection, not natural selection itself.
> 
> Once again, better in terms of evolution does not necessarily mean better in terms of what humans might want.  In terms of selection, what is better is not known until after the fact.  Is it better to be stronger, or faster, or more elusive?  That depends on the environment.  And since evolution is not based on an intelligence directing things, the idea that it must lead to creatures with all of the features you consider positive or beneficial is incorrect.
> 
> I don't know if you are asking if human intelligence is random chance based on evolution or the existence/lack of a creator.  It could have been random in the sense there was no guarantee intelligence to our extent would develop.  It would not be random in the sense that our intelligence was a positive survival/reproduction trait.
> 
> As far as losing senses, I honestly don't know.  I don't know how acute the senses of the animals we descended from were, nor how strong they were, nor how fast; I don't know if there is some reason those senses or musculature would be incompatible with the features that allow us to have our intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But look at it throught the eyes of common sense. There are limits to adapting to our enviornment,why ?
> 
> If the enviornment forces change there should be no limits.
> 
> Look at the giraffe that sucker could have starved out by the time it took for that neck to get longer. Or it could be extinct and easy pray if the sponge in the brain didn't develop quickly because when it went to get a drink of water it would have passed out and been eaten by predators.
> 
> The theory makes no sense at all. Genetics and the fossil record is a problem for the theory.
Click to expand...

This is the argument refuting Dr. Spetners "nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis" which, incidentally, also fails to "[Shatter] the Modern Theory of Evolution."


----------



## Photonic

I figure I would inject a little sanity into this thread if I may. I suggest taking a long look at this particular list of logical fallacies.


5 Logical Fallacies That Make You Wrong More Than You Think | Cracked.com

I know I've posted it in other places, but it's just so damn applicable.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> But look at it throught the eyes of common sense. There are limits to adapting to our enviornment,why ?


This sounds like philosophy ... metaphysics. Evolutionists (and scientists in general) do no subscribe to the notion of a subjective reality, but rather an objective reality. An objective reality is fundamentally independent of one's perceptions and wishes. The practical implication of this is that in reality, things are not (un)real simply out of the strength of desire for them to be (un)real.

Illustrative example: When some sad fellow has it in his mind that he can in fact of reality fly unassisted from the top of a skyscraper, there is no mechanism of objective reality by which that act of will can manifest itself as unassisted human flight ... IOW, he will hit the pavement like so many jars of strawberry preserves.

So my response to the question of why there are limits to adapting to our environment, is that no amount of desire, or sincerity of belief will alter the objective reality that we are constrained to such a nature in reality. We can't wish ourselves into being angels simply by wishing wings on to ourselves.



Youwerecreated said:


> If the enviornment forces change there should be no limits.


I don't think there's evidence of a will to purpose that supports the notion that the environment forces anything.

Organisms must interact (even if passively) with the environment to survive. The success of those interactions (in terms of survival to reproduce) has a profound impact upon the likelihood that a survivor's heritable traits will be passed on to subsequent generations.

Any change in an organism's environment could be entirely lethal, or beneficial or irrelevant as far as individual organisms are concerned; these organisms have no control over the inheritability of their traits, or the adaptive value of those traits, or which traits are passed to their progeny--they can only fail or succeed in capitalizing upon their traits to achieve the end of surviving to reproduce.

Success means greater likelihood of adaptive traits being passed (along with everything else) to their progeny; failure means none of their traits are passed on.



Youwerecreated said:


> Look at the giraffe that sucker could have starved out by the time it took for that neck to get longer.


Why?

This seems to suggest to me that you're of the impression that individual organisms evolve; gaining inheritable traits through effort of will. It wouldn't be the first time I've met a Creationist operating from this misapprehension of what evolutionists claim.

And as far as the animals starving is concerned; while it seems plainly obvious that longer necked individuals would likely enjoy some competitive advantage over shorter-necked members of the population, I see nothing that should prevent shorter necked animals from browsing the vegetation they could reach--unless of course, the longer necked animals ate all _that_ vegetation as well; rendering the shorter-necked animals unlikely to survive to reproduce and pass their shorter-necked variant to subsequent generations.



Youwerecreated said:


> Or it could be extinct and easy pray if the sponge in the brain didn't develop quickly because when it went to get a drink of water it would have passed out and been eaten by predators.


I'm not familiar with this "sponge" you reference, but the giraffe's circulatory system certainly exhibits a number of advantageous features that prevent various hydraulic failures that such a creature is likely to be subject to--so I'd say your hypothesis is strong; that the population of animals that passed out for lack of such features were less likely to pass that lack on to progeny for reasons (among others, I'm sure) you cite.



Youwerecreated said:


> The theory makes no sense at all.


I am failing to see your logic; like I said, your hypothesis seems strong.



Youwerecreated said:


> Genetics and the fossil record is a problem for the theory.


Untrue. Genetics and the fossil record entirely support the theory of evolution, and are rather problematic for those hypotheses resting upon notions that a will to purpose selected those traits organisms find adaptive.


----------



## koshergrl

You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy. Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.


----------



## Youwerecreated

No one is commenting on DNA found from a supposedly 70 million year old dinosaur knowing the decay rate for DNA that is a problem for many modern theories.

The lack of transitional fossils. There is no gradualism in the fossil record as has been admitted by evolutionist.

We know genetics from parents and Grand parents determine the offspring.

Variations in families can easily be attributed to interbreeding and information already present the same can be said for adapting that the ability was already present.

The only positive mutations that evolutionist point to only helps with biological issues helping in adapting not morphological changes.

Saying a mutation caused a morphological change is no different then saying God created it like that.

Every group of organisms exp mutations but we do not see new families arising.

There is no evidence that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence.

There is no evidence that non-life can produce life.

There is so much bacteria we should be seeing new species contantly arising.

If random mutations can cause positive morhological changes ,why can't we point to these positive morphological changes and why is there far more harmful mutations then positive mutations.

We see it time and time again that two parents produce what their genetics say the offspring will be.

Every family of organisms produce offspring like themselves. They only have genetic data to produce what they are. This has been observed through selective breeding. Through this selective breeding we can see change with the very first offspring from cross breeding as well.

There are no transitional fossils linking the precambrian to the cambrian. Fact is we see many fossils dating way back in time according to evolutionist but yet with all the mutations they exp they show no morphological changes at all with the same organisms today.

Gradualism has to be shown for macro-evolution to be a viable theory.

Because organisms have the ability to adapt does not mean they have the ability to over time change into a new destinct kind from the family they belong to.

Variations in families are simply due to either being created as they appear,or interbreeding from the genetic data that is already present and it can't be proven otherwise.

Breeders and farmers can rely on genetics to produce what they want, i don't understand why evolutionist can't see the obvious.


----------



## Photonic

koshergrl said:


> You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy. Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.



Evolution is compatible with a deity, it ISN'T compatible however with bible literalism.


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> No one is commenting on DNA found from a supposedly 70 million year old dinosaur knowing the decay rate for DNA that is a problem for many modern theories.



Why exactly is it a problem, precisely?



> The lack of transitional fossils. There is no gradualism in the fossil record as has been admitted by evolutionist.



Lol, yeah okay buddy. We have a long list of transitional fossils. There are far more than that site shows, especially once you understand what conceptually constitutes a transitional fossil.



> We know genetics from parents and Grand parents determine the offspring.



Okay...? Parental genetics having a hand in your own is not exactly a new idea in the field of biology. We all were taught punnet squares and the work of Gregor Mendel in high school biology class.



> Variations in families can easily be attributed to interbreeding and information already present the same can be said for adapting that the ability was already present.



Except we know for a fact the information isn't present. Mutations are caused by errors in DNA code, when the DNA is replicating itself. That causes new sequences of DNA, ones that are only marginally different than the parent, but still different. If the same information was constantly floating around the gene pool, we'd end up with clones during reproduction.



> The only positive mutations that evolutionist point to only helps with biological issues helping in adapting not morphological changes.



Wouldn't the appearance of bigger heads in our evolutionary past to accommodate bigger brains count as a 'morphological' change?



> Saying a mutation caused a morphological change is no different then saying God created it like that.



Not really, we can see and study mutations, not so much for God. We know mutations cause change in organism, we can see DNA replication in action.

So I'm not sure why you want to throw in the God bit. It doesn't really fit in at all.



> Every group of organisms exp mutations but we do not see new families arising.



What the devil is a 'family' precisely? We have in fact seen the rise of new species, both in nature and laboratory experiments.



> There is no evidence that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence.





> There is no evidence that non-life can produce life.



Your straying into abiogenesis, something which evolution keeps mum about. These two questions are essentially the same, because other organisms have some degree of intelligence as well, even if they may not be able to solve calculus or have some other human marker of 'intelligence.'



> There is so much bacteria we should be seeing new species contantly arising.



I'm not sure what you mean by this. We do see new species arising at the cell and germ level. You've heard of superbugs, correct? Strong strains of diseases that can withstand medicine? That's natural selection in action.



> If random mutations can cause positive morhological changes ,why can't we point to these positive morphological changes and why is there far more harmful mutations then positive mutations.



Well, we _can_. In fact I just gave an example. You just tend to ignore anything contrary to your view, and then give a flimsy reason to ignoring it. The other question has no relevance to what you're trying to get at, but it's good to note we call them errors in DNA transcription.



> We see it time and time again that two parents produce what their genetics say the offspring will be.



Except their not exactly the same as your parents, in biology that's called a clone. You still don't seem to understand mutations or even how things evolve, or even the time it takes.



> Every family of organisms produce offspring like themselves. They only have genetic data to produce what they are. This has been observed through selective breeding. Through this selective breeding we can see change with the very first offspring from cross breeding as well.



_Like _themselves, but not an exact copy. If you have set of parents A, and they have children B. Well, B is certainly very much like A, but B has it's differences in DNA as well. B has kids called C, and C certainly resembles B, but still has differences as well. Let's skip ten or twenty generations, all the way down to some descendents, we'll call them Z. Z certainly resembles its parents, Y, but have marked differences.

Now, how much resembles does Z have to A? This is how evolution and genetics work, the answer is they won't resembles each other, because the original DNA is slightly altered every time. Eventually it won't resemble what you started with, because so much has changed. This is why if you take a rabbit from now, and look at a rabbit from hundreds of thousands of years ago, they won't look quite the same. And if you could look at a rabbit from that many years into the future, it still wouldn't be an exact copy of a rabbit from today.

There's really good analogy a scientist filmed. He made a straight line, and then walked around the city he was in and found someone to trace the straight line. Then he asked someone else to trace the line the first guy he asked made. And then he found someone else to trace the line the second guy made. And so on and so on. Eventually by the end, the line didn't resemble anything close to the original straight line.



> There are no transitional fossils linking the precambrian to the cambrian. Fact is we see many fossils dating way back in time according to evolutionist but yet with all the mutations they exp they show no morphological changes at all with the same organisms today.



There aren't many for a variety reasons, chief among them being that rocks from the Precambrian go through metamorphic changes.



> Gradualism has to be shown for macro-evolution to be a viable theory.



Well, that or Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium. Richard Dawkins is one of the people who take the side of gradualism.

Also, evolution is the theory as a whole, macro-evolution is just a large span of time. It's not an individual theory in itself. So your quaint little "it's either this or this!" doesn't really have any water.



> Because organisms have the ability to adapt does not mean they have the ability to over time change into a new destinct kind from the family they belong to.



Speciation occurs, it has been proven. Stop wasting my time repeating the same buggery nonsense.



> Variations in families are simply due to either being created as they appear,or interbreeding from the genetic data that is already present and it can't be proven otherwise.



Interbreeding as a theory doesn't hold up biologically, I've knocked it down before. Could you please stop being a broken record?


----------



## koshergrl

Photonic said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy. Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is compatible with a deity, it ISN'T compatible however with bible literalism.
Click to expand...

 
Meh. Says you.


----------



## Photonic

koshergrl said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy. Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is compatible with a deity, it ISN'T compatible however with bible literalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh. Says you.
Click to expand...


Twist the words of your Holy Book as much as you want then.


----------



## koshergrl

I don't have to twist anything. You won't find me adjusting the bible to fit the latest human fad.


----------



## Photonic

koshergrl said:


> I don't have to twist anything. You won't find me adjusting the bible to fit the latest human fad.



I'm sure you do it on a daily basis.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy.


I realize that someone like you, who just naturally employs logical fallacy, has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.



Strawman Fallacy said:


> Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.


Without having any meaningful understanding of the term "prove," you have repeatedly made this baseless assertion as a response my posts (and those of others), despite the verifiable fact that I've made no such declaration and in fact have explicitly been clear that I am not making such declaration. Do you think you can identify this logical fallacy you're applying?

I thought not.

I am certain that (consistent with your general intellectual dishonesty, and your explicit demonstrations) you still have a fundamental lack of understanding what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Photonic said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy. Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is compatible with a deity, it ISN'T compatible however with bible literalism.
Click to expand...


Not with the one and only creator from the bible.


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that someone like you, who just naturally employs logical fallacy, has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman Fallacy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without having any meaningful understanding of the term "prove," you have repeatedly made this baseless assertion as a response my posts (and those of others), despite the verifiable fact that I've made no such declaration and in fact have explicitly been clear that I am not making such declaration. Do you think you can identify this logical fallacy you're applying?
> 
> I thought not.
> 
> I am certain that (consistent with your general intellectual dishonesty, and your explicit demonstrations) you still have a fundamental lack of understanding what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.
Click to expand...

 
No, I know exactly what the difference is. I do use logical fallacy occasionally because it's really easy to distract retards like yourself with it.

But the difference between me and you..I also have substantive arguments, and I argue to the POINT, instead of continually interjecting random topics, and pretending those are what's being argued. 

And if I have a point, I prove it. I don't post lies and pretend I've made a point. That's all you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is commenting on DNA found from a supposedly 70 million year old dinosaur knowing the decay rate for DNA that is a problem for many modern theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why exactly is it a problem, precisely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of transitional fossils. There is no gradualism in the fossil record as has been admitted by evolutionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol, yeah okay buddy. We have a long list of transitional fossils. There are far more than that site shows, especially once you understand what conceptually constitutes a transitional fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay...? Parental genetics having a hand in your own is not exactly a new idea in the field of biology. We all were taught punnet squares and the work of Gregor Mendel in high school biology class.
> 
> 
> 
> Except we know for a fact the information isn't present. Mutations are caused by errors in DNA code, when the DNA is replicating itself. That causes new sequences of DNA, ones that are only marginally different than the parent, but still different. If the same information was constantly floating around the gene pool, we'd end up with clones during reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the appearance of bigger heads in our evolutionary past to accommodate bigger brains count as a 'morphological' change?
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, we can see and study mutations, not so much for God. We know mutations cause change in organism, we can see DNA replication in action.
> 
> So I'm not sure why you want to throw in the God bit. It doesn't really fit in at all.
> 
> 
> 
> What the devil is a 'family' precisely? We have in fact seen the rise of new species, both in nature and laboratory experiments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your straying into abiogenesis, something which evolution keeps mum about. These two questions are essentially the same, because other organisms have some degree of intelligence as well, even if they may not be able to solve calculus or have some other human marker of 'intelligence.'
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. We do see new species arising at the cell and germ level. You've heard of superbugs, correct? Strong strains of diseases that can withstand medicine? That's natural selection in action.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we _can_. In fact I just gave an example. You just tend to ignore anything contrary to your view, and then give a flimsy reason to ignoring it. The other question has no relevance to what you're trying to get at, but it's good to note we call them errors in DNA transcription.
> 
> 
> 
> Except their not exactly the same as your parents, in biology that's called a clone. You still don't seem to understand mutations or even how things evolve, or even the time it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> _Like _themselves, but not an exact copy. If you have set of parents A, and they have children B. Well, B is certainly very much like A, but B has it's differences in DNA as well. B has kids called C, and C certainly resembles B, but still has differences as well. Let's skip ten or twenty generations, all the way down to some descendents, we'll call them Z. Z certainly resembles its parents, Y, but have marked differences.
> 
> Now, how much resembles does Z have to A? This is how evolution and genetics work, the answer is they won't resembles each other, because the original DNA is slightly altered every time. Eventually it won't resemble what you started with, because so much has changed. This is why if you take a rabbit from now, and look at a rabbit from hundreds of thousands of years ago, they won't look quite the same. And if you could look at a rabbit from that many years into the future, it still wouldn't be an exact copy of a rabbit from today.
> 
> There's really good analogy a scientist filmed. He made a straight line, and then walked around the city he was in and found someone to trace the straight line. Then he asked someone else to trace the line the first guy he asked made. And then he found someone else to trace the line the second guy made. And so on and so on. Eventually by the end, the line didn't resemble anything close to the original straight line.
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't many for a variety reasons, chief among them being that rocks from the Precambrian go through metamorphic changes.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that or Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium. Richard Dawkins is one of the people who take the side of gradualism.
> 
> Also, evolution is the theory as a whole, macro-evolution is just a large span of time. It's not an individual theory in itself. So your quaint little "it's either this or this!" doesn't really have any water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because organisms have the ability to adapt does not mean they have the ability to over time change into a new destinct kind from the family they belong to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speciation occurs, it has been proven. Stop wasting my time repeating the same buggery nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Variations in families are simply due to either being created as they appear,or interbreeding from the genetic data that is already present and it can't be proven otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interbreeding as a theory doesn't hold up biologically, I've knocked it down before. Could you please stop being a broken record?
Click to expand...


It shows the dating methods are way off and that dinosaurs did not go extinct as ecvolutionist claim. It shows they didn't die out and birds evoplved from dinosaurs.

If there truly was transitional fossils there would have been no need for the punctuated equilibrium theory. Too many educated paleontologist are on record admitting so.

If you take a bunch of fossils and put some people in a room you can build an evolution tree. Do you realize how many full bodied fossils we have not many. Most animals we have only a few parts of a creature so they had to buils the animal from the imagination. The public goes into a fossil museum and what they actually see is a bunch of creatures created from the mind and they are constructed of plater.

Yes,and you can't prove variations within a family is a result from something other then parental genetics. You are taught genetics in college as well but they add to the theory saying random mutations are the reason for diversity. Mutations are mistakes and in most cases if they cause any change at all it's usually harmful to the organism. But your theory needs a lot of  accumulative positive mutations over time for your theory to work,but they are just to rare to create all the diversity we see..

How do you prove our heads are bigger today ? neanderthals heads are no smaller.

Well i have to leave now I will respond further when I return.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Photonic said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is compatible with a deity, it ISN'T compatible however with bible literalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh. Says you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twist the words of your Holy Book as much as you want then.
Click to expand...


Whoever tries to make the theory fit with the scriptures is the one twisting words of the scriptures.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Photonic said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to twist anything. You won't find me adjusting the bible to fit the latest human fad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you do it on a daily basis.
Click to expand...


That is exactly the problems with the theories of men they are an inference of the views already believed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that someone like you, who just naturally employs logical fallacy, has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman Fallacy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without having any meaningful understanding of the term "prove," you have repeatedly made this baseless assertion as a response my posts (and those of others), despite the verifiable fact that I've made no such declaration and in fact have explicitly been clear that I am not making such declaration. Do you think you can identify this logical fallacy you're applying?
> 
> I thought not.
> 
> I am certain that (consistent with your general intellectual dishonesty, and your explicit demonstrations) you still have a fundamental lack of understanding what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.
Click to expand...


I have seen no logical fallacies on the part of koshergirl,but you have presented many in this thread.

You present no real rebuttals to questions put to you other then rhetoric. Nothing of substance that defends your position. Most of you don't even realize the theory of punctuated equlibrium presents for your theory according to the fossil record.


----------



## Youwerecreated

One other question evolutionist ignore is all organisms experience mutations,but we have fossils dated back to hundreds of thousand years ago and further back, that show no change in the same organisms at all today ,how do you explain this ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Oh and transitional fossils that connect every divergence of macro-evolution ,where are they ?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Photonic said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to twist anything. You won't find me adjusting the bible to fit the latest human fad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you do it on a daily basis.
Click to expand...



The words don't have to be twisted, you just have to become an all out science and math denier.


It's one or the other, take the Bible literally, or deny math and science.  If someone doesn't take every word in the Bible literally, but believes in a deity, math and science denying isn't necessary.


----------



## Photonic

Youwerecreated said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to twist anything. You won't find me adjusting the bible to fit the latest human fad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you do it on a daily basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly the problems with the theories of men they are an inference of the views already believed.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> One other question evolutionist ignore is all organisms experience mutations,but we have fossils dated back to hundreds of thousand years ago and further back, that show no change in the same organisms at all today ,how do you explain this ?



Got any science based link that says all organisms experience mutations?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> No one is commenting on DNA found from a supposedly 70 million year old dinosaur knowing the decay rate for DNA that is a problem for many modern theories.


I have seen nothing that suggests that any ancient DNA discovered anywhere has not exhibited any degree of degradation. From the articles you cited in this thread, it looked like the most that was suggested was that there was DNA ... I didn't see claims to the effect of complete genetic information from the remains of the organism.

And there's this and this to look at, I suppose.

> Schweitzer and Horner (1999) addresses this issue of cellular preservation directly. The observed structures are not red blood cells -
> 
> Clearly these structures are not functional cells. However, one possibility is that they represent diagenetic alteration of original blood remnants, such as complexes of hemoglobin breakdown products, a possibility supported by other data that demonstrate that organic components remain in these dinosaur tissues.​
> And
> 
> Although they are not consistent with pyrite framboids, they may indeed be geological in origin, derived from some process as yet undefined; they may have their origin as colonies of iron-concentrating bacteria or fungal spores, or they may be the result of cellular debris, which clumped upon death, became desiccated, and then through diagenetic processes such as anion exchange or others not yet elucidated, became complexed with other, secondary degradation products. [Schweitzer and Horner (1999: 189)]​





Youwerecreated said:


> The lack of transitional fossils. There is no gradualism in the fossil record as has been admitted by evolutionist.


There are plenty of examples of transitional fossils--and they have been presented, cited, and referenced repeatedly. Your application of Zeno's Paradox is no valid refutation of the evidence.



Youwerecreated said:


> We know genetics from parents and Grand parents determine the offspring.


Not in dispute. Never has been.



Youwerecreated said:


> Variations in families can easily be attributed to interbreeding and information already present the same can be said for adapting that the ability was already present.


And where sufficient divergence of genetic variation between different populations within a family prevents members from these different populations from successfully inter-breeding, the result is speciation.

For you, considering your presumption of the homogenous distribution (inconsequential to speciation) of genetic information in a taxonomic family, this verifiable speciation is inexplicable.

For you, considering you presumptive denial of any possible beneficially adaptive role mutation can have in the genetic variation of a population, the genetic variation from inconsequential homogeneity required for speciation is inexplicable.

You cannot eat your cake and than have it too.



Youwerecreated said:


> The only positive mutations that evolutionist point to only helps with biological issues helping in adapting not morphological changes.


Yet they are the recent and verifiable ones that unambiguously refute your claims that  mutations can not be adaptively beneficial. Such verifiable evidence that mutation can ineed be beneficial, cripples your suggestion that beneficial morphology categorically cannot arise from mutations.



Youwerecreated said:


> Saying a mutation caused a morphological change is no different then saying God created it like that.


It's entirely different in that an explanation that is by definition unexplainable, is different from an explanation that is explainable and is not inherently dependent upon the invention of an inexplicable explanation.

In fact, saying "(an unexplainable) God created it like that," is literally no explanation at all.



Youwerecreated said:


> Every group of organisms exp mutations but we do not see new families arising.


That doesn't mean that there is no evidence that strongly suggests that the accumulated weight of genetic variations is the basis of  morphological differentiation at the family level.

And come to think of it, ... you're wrong; if we are seeing mutations in populations of organisms, and we are seeing segregation of population along morphological lines due to genetic divergence, then we literally ARE seeing the rise of new families ... IN PROGRESS, if not in final actualization.

There is no mechanism, at least none submitted, that plausibly describes how genetic variation is limited to maintaining a species.



Youwerecreated said:


> There is no evidence that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence.


There certainly is; there may not be proof, but there is evidence. What there is no proof or evidence of is an intelligence that imparted intelligence to us.



Youwerecreated said:


> There is no evidence that non-life can produce life.


There most certainly is evidence that non-life produced life. The undeniable fact of reality that spontaneous interactions between non-living things happen, and that it is through interactions of non-living things that life is sustained, and the continued propagation of life is made possible, are all evidences that non-life can produce life.



Youwerecreated said:


> There is so much bacteria we should be seeing new species contantly arising.


And we do. Examples have been provided to you.



Youwerecreated said:


> If random mutations can cause positive morhological changes ,why can't we point to these positive morphological changes ...


Denying that mutations can cause positive morphological changes is just a specific denial belonging to the broader denial that mutations can cause any morphological changes. The failure to see that mutations can cause positive morphological changes does not lie in any failure to have them pointed out to you.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... and why is there far more harmful mutations then positive mutations.


Because "beneficial" is both specific and relative, whereas mutation is not.



Youwerecreated said:


> We see it time and time again that two parents produce what their genetics say the offspring will be.


The only folks that dispute this are Lamarckians ... opponents to the theory you also oppose.



Youwerecreated said:


> Every family of organisms produce offspring like themselves.


Not necessarily exactly like themselves though.



Youwerecreated said:


> They only have genetic data to produce what they are.


They have no control what-so-ever regarding what that genetic data contains, its fidelity to it's own genotypes, or what combinations of their genetic data will be passed to their progeny.



Youwerecreated said:


> This has been observed through selective breeding. Through this selective breeding we can see change with the very first offspring from cross breeding as well.


This observation is in no way in conflict with evolutionary theory; but unmodified make no accounting what-so-ever for any morphological impacts that a mutation might have.



Youwerecreated said:


> There are no transitional fossils linking the precambrian to the cambrian. Fact is we see many fossils dating way back in time according to evolutionist but yet with all the mutations they exp they show no morphological changes at all with the same organisms today.


These are bold statements, considering that there are certainly examples of transitional fossils linking pre-Cambrian life to Cambrian life--Take lobopods -> Anomalocaris, and Bomakellia -> trilobites, Wiwaxia and Halkiera -> Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida, for examples.



Youwerecreated said:


> Gradualism has to be shown for macro-evolution to be a viable theory.


I'm not sure this is true, but regardless, gradualism is evident in the fossil record. Gradualism is evident in the existence of ring species, gradualism is evident.

Furthmore, there is no sensible explanation of the mechanism that prevents microevolution from leading to macroevolution.



Youwerecreated said:


> Because organisms have the ability to adapt does not mean they have the ability to over time change into a new destinct kind from the family they belong to.


No one says they do, ... except Creationists describing some anthropomorphic evolutionary strawman.



Youwerecreated said:


> Variations in families are simply due to either being created as they appear,or interbreeding from the genetic data that is already present and it can't be proven otherwise.


Family anf species have different meanings, and species cannot not interbreed successfully. Variation in families is due to genetic differentiation above the species level ... by definition, evidence of macroevolution.



Youwerecreated said:


> Breeders and farmers can rely on genetics to produce what they want, i don't understand why evolutionist can't see the obvious.


I can't see why you can't see that they do. In fact, there is NOTHING about selective breeding that in any manner what-so-ever diminishes in any manner anything in evolutionary theory ... rather, it supports it fully.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that someone like you, who just naturally employs logical fallacy, has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman Fallacy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without having any meaningful understanding of the term "prove," you have repeatedly made this baseless assertion as a response my posts (and those of others), despite the verifiable fact that I've made no such declaration and in fact have explicitly been clear that I am not making such declaration. Do you think you can identify this logical fallacy you're applying?
> 
> I thought not.
> 
> I am certain that (consistent with your general intellectual dishonesty, and your explicit demonstrations) you still have a fundamental lack of understanding what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I know exactly what the difference is. I do use logical fallacy occasionally because it's really easy to distract retards like yourself with it.
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy is intrinsic to your intellectual paradigm. No one but you is fooled by this attempted dodge of yours.



koshergrl said:


> But the difference between me and you..I also have substantive arguments, ...


You have yet to bring a single one ... despite every opportunity to do so.



koshergrl said:


> ... and I argue to the POINT, instead of continually interjecting random topics, and pretending those are what's being argued.


You provide a point you're more comfortable with, and then you assign it to your opponent.



koshergrl said:


> And if I have a point, I prove it.


Apparently you have no point then.



koshergrl said:


> I don't post lies and pretend I've made a point. That's all you.


Right there are two lies you've posted. BRAVO!!!!!


----------



## koshergrl

The sad thing is you really believe you've made a point of your own, when all you do (and keep doing) is make my point for me.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you ended that post with a logical fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that someone like you, who just naturally employs logical fallacy, has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman Fallacy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution doesn't prove or disprove the theory that a being created evolution itself, or life, you nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without having any meaningful understanding of the term "prove," you have repeatedly made this baseless assertion as a response my posts (and those of others), despite the verifiable fact that I've made no such declaration and in fact have explicitly been clear that I am not making such declaration. Do you think you can identify this logical fallacy you're applying?
> 
> I thought not.
> 
> I am certain that (consistent with your general intellectual dishonesty, and your explicit demonstrations) you still have a fundamental lack of understanding what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen no logical fallacies on the part of koshergirl, ...
Click to expand...

Your intellectual dishonesty is well documented, and there's really no reason I can see that you should draw a line at selectively avoiding the patent logical fallacies she applies.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... but you have presented many in this thread.


Or projecting your lack of moral and intellectual integrity on to me. I note that you didn't bring evidence to support your accusation despite having the opportunity to do so.

If there's so many, why is that?



Youwerecreated said:


> You present no real rebuttals to questions put to you other then rhetoric. Nothing of substance that defends your position.


You've had your ass handed to you argumentatively, with the full substance of verifiable evidence and valid logic. You have only brought denial of verifiable reality and your pathetic application of faulty logic.



Youwerecreated said:


> Most of you don't even realize the theory of punctuated equlibrium presents for your theory according to the fossil record.


You say "punctuated equilibrium" as if you have any idea of what it means, is inconsistent with what I've said,  and believe it is a refutation of any argument I have made. And you do so without any substantive defense of your position. None.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> One other question evolutionist ignore is all organisms experience mutations,but we have fossils dated back to hundreds of thousand years ago and further back, that show no change in the same organisms at all today ,how do you explain this ?


By the verifiable fossil record which strongly suggests that organisms have been changing for millions of years. We ignore your patently invalid question on the basis of its deliberately false premise. We are under no obligation to explain your obvious denial of reality.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Oh and transitional fossils that connect every divergence of macro-evolution ,where are they ?


Check the fossil record.


----------



## koshergrl

"Suggest".

I "suggest" Loki is a "self-educated" retard who supposes himself a great writer.

Does that make it true? We certainly have enough evidence to support THAT...


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> The sad thing is you really believe you've made a point of your own, when all you do (and keep doing) is make my point for me.


Yet you fail to bring your "substantive arguments" every time ... even now.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> "Suggest".
> 
> I "suggest" Loki is a "self-educated" retard who supposes himself a great writer.
> 
> Does that make it true? We certainly have enough evidence to support THAT...


Well Cupcake, you'll just have to make up your idiot mind now ... do I say "suggest," or do I say "prove," as you have insisted earlier?


----------



## koshergrl

I have no idea, and I don't care enough to look.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want someone who is finite explain somone who is infinite. You want someone that at best may live 80 years to someone that has always been.
> 
> This is the exception we die God has no beginning and no end.
> 
> You see,for someone to become intelligent they must first be able to think and reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume the human mind can't comprehend the concept of infinity but we are more than capable of doing so (Well, maybe not you). We are also more than capable of expressing it and defining it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really,name one thing that has always existed ? And describe why and how it has always existed ?
Click to expand...

what's your definition of always. space time or earth time?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One other question evolutionist ignore is all organisms experience mutations,but we have fossils dated back to hundreds of thousand years ago and further back, that show no change in the same organisms at all today ,how do you explain this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any science based link that says all organisms experience mutations?
Click to expand...


How did anything evolve if it didn't experience mutations ? according to your theory mutations alters traits no ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One other question evolutionist ignore is all organisms experience mutations,but we have fossils dated back to hundreds of thousand years ago and further back, that show no change in the same organisms at all today ,how do you explain this ?
> 
> 
> 
> By the verifiable fossil record which strongly suggests that organisms have been changing for millions of years. We ignore your patently invalid question on the basis of its deliberately false premise. We are under no obligation to explain your obvious denial of reality.
Click to expand...


Show me these missing links that connect two diverging families.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One other question evolutionist ignore is all organisms experience mutations,but we have fossils dated back to hundreds of thousand years ago and further back, that show no change in the same organisms at all today ,how do you explain this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any science based link that says all organisms experience mutations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did anything evolve if it didn't experience mutations ? according to your theory mutations alters traits no ?
Click to expand...

answer the question.!!!
this question with a question shit  is just more proof that you have no proof!


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One other question evolutionist ignore is all organisms experience mutations,but we have fossils dated back to hundreds of thousand years ago and further back, that show no change in the same organisms at all today ,how do you explain this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any science based link that says all organisms experience mutations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did anything evolve if it didn't experience mutations ? according to your theory mutations alters traits no ?
Click to expand...


So no science based link that says all organisms experience mutations?

Are you admitting to another lie?  Or is this just plain old ignorance again?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One other question evolutionist ignore is all organisms experience mutations,but we have fossils dated back to hundreds of thousand years ago and further back, that show no change in the same organisms at all today ,how do you explain this ?
> 
> 
> 
> By the verifiable fossil record which strongly suggests that organisms have been changing for millions of years. We ignore your patently invalid question on the basis of its deliberately false premise. We are under no obligation to explain your obvious denial of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me these missing links that connect two diverging families.
Click to expand...

Hominoidea is where the great apes and lesser apes differentiated.
I'll do you two levels more general: Amniotes  to Synapsids is the bridge between reptiles and mammals.
And if you want a diagram with pictures, get familiar with Google.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and transitional fossils that connect every divergence of macro-evolution ,where are they ?
> 
> 
> 
> Check the fossil record.
Click to expand...


Let me ask you an honest question how can you know what a crearture looked liked with less then 25 percent of the body parts ?


Look another one of your guys admitting to what I have been telling you all along.

Interpreting the Fossil Record


Paleoanthropology  is the study of early forms of humans and their primate ancestors.  It is similar to paleontology  except its focus is documenting and understanding human biological and cultural evolution.  Paleoanthropologists do not look for dinosaurs and other early creatures.  However, like paleontology, the data for paleoanthropology is found mainly in the fossil record.  Before examining this evidence, it is necessary to first learn what fossils are and how they are formed.  In addition, it is important to know how paleoanthropologists date fossils and other evidence of the prehistoric past. 


The Nature of Fossils

In order to understand fossils, it is useful to learn how they formed.  Taphonomy  is the study of the conditions under which plants, animals, and other organisms become altered after death and sometimes preserved as fossils.  Research into these matters has shown that fossilization is a rare phenomenon.  In order for a fossil to form, the body must not be eaten or destroyed by erosion and other natural forces.  Preservation would most likely occur if the organism were buried quickly and deeply.  In most environments, soft body parts, such as skin, muscle, fat, and internal organs, deteriorate rapidly and leave no trace.  Only very rarely do we find the casts of such tissues.  Similarly, the totally soft-bodied creatures, like jellyfish, are very uncommon fossils.  Hard body parts, such as dense bones, teeth, and shells, are what most often are preserved.  It is likely that the vast majority of fossils will never be found before they are destroyed by erosion.  That coupled with the fact that extremely few living things are preserved long enough after death to become fossils makes the large collections of fossils in the museums of the world quite remarkable.  It is a testament to the tenacious searching by fossil hunters over the last two centuries.  

Fossil of an extinct marine
mollusk (Ammonite)
and its living descendent
today (Nautilus)


People often think of fossils as being mineralized bones or shells stored in museums.  However, they can be any remains or traces of ancient organisms.  They even can be footprints, burrows, or casts of bodies with nothing else surviving.  Some of the best preserved fossils were rapidly frozen in permafrost soil or ice, dehydrated in dry desert caves, or encased in tree resin that hardened into amber.  In any of these three environmental conditions, even soft body parts can be remarkably well preserved indefinitely.  

Several wooly mammoths that lived during the last ice age have been excavated from frozen tundra soil in Siberia.  Some were still in such good condition, that parts of their bodies were fed to the dogs of the Russian scientists who found them.  One small mammoth was even transported intact to Moscow where it is kept in a specially made large freezer that allows it to be displayed for the general public.  The oldest frozen human remains were discovered on the edge of a glacier in the Alps of northern Italy in 1991.  It was a well preserved body of a man, along with his clothes and tools, who died about 5,300 years ago.  Even tattoos on his skin were preserved by the extreme cold. 



  Well preserved body from a Danish bog
("Tollund Man", 4th century B.C.)


Spider preserved in amber

The mummies of ancient Egypt were preserved by extreme, continuous dehydration.  The complicated mummification practices used to prepare the bodies of important people only accelerated the dehydration, but it was not necessary in the dry conditions of Egypt.  Mummies from other cultures have been found in deserts around the globe.  Some of the best preserved ones were discovered in the Tarim Basin of Western China.

Bodies of people submerged in stagnant swamps or bogs in Denmark and the British Isles thousands of years ago have also been found in remarkably good condition with their soft tissues intact.  They were preserved naturally by cold anaerobic environments and by tannins with antibiotic properties released from decaying plants in the swamps.  The bodies were essentially tanned like shoe leather.  These conditions are hostile for bacteria and other organisms that normally reduce organic matter to basic soil nutrients in a matter of months.

Amber is a fossilized resin that originally oozed from cone bearing trees, such as pines and firs, millions of years ago.  When fresh, it primarily consisted of sticky, non-water-soluble organic resins and volatile essential oils.  Occasionally the resin fell on small creatures and trapped them.  Under the pressure of burial deep underground for long periods of time, the resin was converted into a rock-like substance that is most commonly yellow-orange and translucent.  Often well preserved plant fragments and animals can be seen within amber nodules.  The oldest animal life found in amber so far are single cell organisms that date back to 220 million years ago.


Mineralized Bones

Bones are composed of inorganic minerals and organic molecules (especially proteins and fats).  After death, most of the organic components are eventually consumed by bacteria.  What remains are brittle, microscopically porous bones.  Water percolating down through the soil above dissolves mineral salts, some of which are precipitated out into the porous areas of bone.  These minerals are usually calcium carbonate (limestone), silica, or iron compounds.  Over time, this process makes bone increasingly more rock-like.

Mineralization of bone underground
resulting from the gradual addition
of inorganic minerals dissolved in
ground water


Dinosaur and other very ancient animal bones in museums were preserved in this way.  They are essentially rock today.  In extremely rare circumstances, soft tissue can become mineralized as well.  The discovery of a 77 million year old nearly complete duck-billed dinosaur fossil in Montana in 2001 showed this to be the case.  Much of its skin and muscle tissues had been preserved by the same mineralization process that preserved its bones.  Even the feathers of some species of dinosaurs have been discovered in a mineralized form as well as preserved in amber.


How Reliable is the Fossil Record?

The fossil record is somewhat like an enormously complex jigsaw puzzle with many pieces still missing.  Our interpretation of this record has been biased by differential preservation.  Some species are underrepresented or have not yet been found.  We are left with a somewhat blurred picture of portions of the past, especially the early past.  Despite these realities, we have been able to piece together a remarkable understanding of the evolution of life on our planet.  

Whether an organism is preserved greatly depends on the local environment in which it died.  Plants and animals from humid tropical forests are rarely preserved because they decay rapidly in these regions.  Similarly, fossils from mountainous areas rarely survive due to high rates of erosion.  Desert creatures generally become fossilized more often due to the preserving arid conditions.  Likewise, aquatic organisms are often well preserved if their bodies ended up in deep water where there is little oxygen and life.  However, bodies in shallow intertidal zones along coastlines are quickly eaten and the remaining bones are ground into sand particles by tide and wave action.

Not all bones from the same animal survive equally well.  Lightweight bones with relatively large surface areas deteriorate more quickly and are, therefore, less often fossilized.  Small, delicate bones are also more likely to be crushed or carried away from the rest of a skeleton by running water.  Human and other primate fossils frequently consist of teeth, bits of dense jaw, skull, leg and arm bone fragments.  The more porous ribs and shoulder blades are rarely preserved.

There has been a bias in the fossil record resulting from the fact that paleontologists have not equally searched all areas of the globe.   Because of the inaccessibility of some regions, such as Central Asia and much of Africa, their fossil records are poorly understood compared to those of Europe and North America.  Many in the current generation of professional fossil hunters are now concentrating their efforts in these under represented areas. 

When only one or two skeletons of a species have been discovered, there is no way of knowing how representative they are of that kind of animal.  They could be typical or atypical in size and shape.  Until many more specimens have been found, it is unwise to attempt a definitive species description.  Imagine if our species becomes extinct at some distant time in the future and extraterrestrial fossil hunters visit earth and find only one human skeleton.  Just by chance, it could be male or female, young or old, tall or short, normal or deviant.  The extraterrestrial scientists would very likely not grasp the full range of what humans are like from this evidence and would develop an inaccurate picture of our species.  Early in the 20th century, just such an error was made by the noted French paleontologist, Marcellin Boule , when he analyzed one of the first nearly complete prehistoric human skeletons found in Europe.  Boule described this Neandertal  specimen from la Chapelle-aux-Saints , France as a dull-witted, brutish, ape-like man who walked hunched over with a shuffling gait.  This misled several generations of anthropologists.  In fact, the skeleton was abnormal.  The individual was a very old, arthritic man with severe, near crippling orthopedic problems.  We now know that Neandertals looked much more like us than was earlier believed.  Paleoanthropologists today consider them to have been either an early variety of our species, Homo sapiens , or a closely related species.  The complexity and size of their brains, along with their cultural artifacts, indicate that they were far from being a dim-witted, ape-like creature.


Marcellin Boule Misguided depiction of a Neandertal
man from a 1909 French publication 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE:  In many older books, Neandertal is spelled with a "thal" ending (Neanderthal) instead of "tal".  This is the Old German spelling that was replaced in the early 20th century.  However, this antiquated usage persists in some English publications.  It is also continued in the scientific designation (Homo neanderthalensis).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When paleontologists trace the evolution of a species line, they often find that there are gaps of time in the fossil record.  Nineteenth century evolutionists referred to these periods in which fossils were still lacking as "missing links" in the "chain of evolution."  Such gaps are often the result of changing preservation conditions in the distant past.  For long periods of time, most individuals in some species may not have survived long enough after their deaths to become fossils because they were eaten, and the few fossils that were formed may have been destroyed at a high rate by increased erosion in particular regions.  Gaps in the fossil record are sometimes due also to the simple fact that we have looked for them in the wrong places.  The climate has dramatically changed many times in the past.  When that occurred, members of the same species often died out in one region but flourished in others.  Unless we are alert to this possibility and search in different geographic regions, it will look like the fossil record has been abruptly broken, only to begin again thousands or even millions of years later.  Eventually, the larger gaps in the fossil record are usually filled through intensive worldwide research.  This has resulted in an ever more accurate picture of the past.


What do the Fossils Tell Us?

Fossils show us a great deal about earlier life forms.  Not only can we learn about evolutionary processes and trends, but we can also reconstruct body shapes.  Most prominent animal fossils displayed in museums usually are mineralized bones.  From these skeletons, researchers can often learn about gender, physical capabilities, growth patterns, life expectancies, and pathologies.  For instance, by studying muscle attachment points on bones, it is usually possible to make inferences about the size and shape of muscles.  This can be an important clue to understanding locomotion.  The relative size, shape, and position of eyes, nose, and ears on a skull can lead to an understanding of the importance and capabilities of these different senses.  In humans, gender can often be determined by noting skeletal differences of the pelvis, or hip region.  These differences are due to modifications needed for a broad birth canal in females.  Brains are virtually never fossilized, but the brain cases often are.  These can give us a good idea of the gross structures of brains and their overall mass.  The age at death can be estimated by such things as closure of bone growth plates and skull sutures as well as tooth eruption and wear patterns.  Bones sometimes also show evidence of medical abnormalities such as fractures and other injuries as well as specific kinds of diseases such as meningitis and tuberculosis.


How are Fossils Assigned a Species Name?

When new fossils are discovered, it is not always clear as to which species they belong.  There are two different, opposing approaches to solving this problem.  They are commonly known as the typological and the populationist viewpoints.  Those who take the typological approach believe that if two fossils look even slightly different, they must be from two distinct species.  This is an emphasis on minor differences.  In contrast, those who use the populationist approach accept that individuals in all populations of organisms normally have at least minor differences.  Therefore, when they encounter fossils that are similar, but not identical, they tend to lump them into the same species.  They expect that separate species would exhibit major differences.  The populationist approach to defining species has become the dominant one in the biological sciences today.  For psychological reasons, however, some important discoverers of fossils have tended to take the typological viewpoint.  It is ego boosting to say that you have discovered something new and unknown rather than just another specimen of an already well known species.

There probably always will be a heated debate regarding the species identification for new fossil specimens.  We cannot use the criteria of reproduction to distinguish species from fossils because it is not possible to get two skeletons to breed in order to see if they can produce fertile offspring.  Therefore, paleoanthropologists often take a cautious approach and use the term paleospecies  instead of species.  This is a group of similar fossils whose range of physical variation does not exceed the range of variation of a closely related living species.  Eventually, we may be able to define ancient species more reliably on the basis of DNA samples extracted from fossil bones and other preserved tissues.  At present, however, this work is just beginning and it is frustratingly hampered by the fact that DNA usually is very fragmentary in mineralized bone.  The earliest human whose DNA has been studied was much less than 100,000 years old, while hominin  evolution goes back to at least 4,000,000 years.

The Record of Time:  Interpreting the Fossil Record

Hardly sounds convincing,see the guess work ? Now imagine how much faith you're exhibiting by trusting in the fossil record.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume the human mind can't comprehend the concept of infinity but we are more than capable of doing so (Well, maybe not you). We are also more than capable of expressing it and defining it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really,name one thing that has always existed ? And describe why and how it has always existed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what's your definition of always. space time or earth time?
Click to expand...


We were discussing infinite.


----------



## Dr.Drock

From YWC's own link

*"we have been able to piece together a remarkable understanding of the evolution of life on our planet. "*

*"Fossils show us a great deal about earlier life forms. Not only can we learn about evolutionary processes and trends, but we can also reconstruct body shapes."*

Seems he's coming around, maybe science denying is getting old to him.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and transitional fossils that connect every divergence of macro-evolution ,where are they ?
> 
> 
> 
> Check the fossil record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me ask you an honest question how can you know what a crearture looked liked with less then 25 percent of the body parts ?
Click to expand...

From that 25% I've got more explanation for it than you have for your Creator.

Let me ask you an honest question; how can you claim that "a Creator" is an explanation when you can't explain this "Creator"?


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> Oh and transitional fossils that connect every divergence of macro-evolution ,where are they ?



They're out there.  Many have been found.  Many have not yet been found.  Many may never be found.  But one never has to find EVERY instance to prove a theory.  That comes from logical deduction that, if this species evolved, it's very likely that that species did to.  That's how science works.  If we had to employ the creationists' standard of "proof" in other matters, we'd never be able prove anything!!!


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and transitional fossils that connect every divergence of macro-evolution ,where are they ?
> 
> 
> 
> Check the fossil record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me ask you an honest question how can you know what a crearture looked liked with less then 25 percent of the body parts ?
> 
> 
> Look another one of your guys admitting to what I have been telling you all along.
> 
> Interpreting the Fossil Record
> 
> 
> Paleoanthropology  is t ...
> 
> _--WALL OF CRAP SNIPPED--​_
> ... ess than 100,000 years old, while hominin  evolution goes back to at least 4,000,000 years.
> 
> The Record of Time:* Interpreting the Fossil Record
> 
> Hardly sounds convincing,see the guess work ? Now imagine how much faith you're exhibiting by trusting in the fossil record.
Click to expand...

Since it's verifiable evidence and valid logic that the belief is based upon, there's no faith involved at all. You're trying to pass uncertainty as faith--but as you well know, faith is all about your absolute and unassailable certainty in the validity of your certainty--your intellectually unfounded, terminally faulty, question-begging paradigm.

 So what's you alternative? A fairy tale. Your unassailable certainty that your fairy tale is real.

Not convincing at all.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that someone like you, who just naturally employs logical fallacy, has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.
> 
> Without having any meaningful understanding of the term "prove," you have repeatedly made this baseless assertion as a response my posts (and those of others), despite the verifiable fact that I've made no such declaration and in fact have explicitly been clear that I am not making such declaration. Do you think you can identify this logical fallacy you're applying?
> 
> I thought not.
> 
> I am certain that (consistent with your general intellectual dishonesty, and your explicit demonstrations) you still have a fundamental lack of understanding what the difference between a valid argument and a logical fallacy is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen no logical fallacies on the part of koshergirl, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your intellectual dishonesty is well documented, and there's really no reason I can see that you should draw a line at selectively avoiding the patent logical fallacies she applies.
> 
> Or projecting your lack of moral and intellectual integrity on to me. I note that you didn't bring evidence to support your accusation despite having the opportunity to do so.
> 
> If there's so many, why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You present no real rebuttals to questions put to you other then rhetoric. Nothing of substance that defends your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've had your ass handed to you argumentatively, with the full substance of verifiable evidence and valid logic. You have only brought denial of verifiable reality and your pathetic application of faulty logic.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you don't even realize the theory of punctuated equlibrium presents for your theory according to the fossil record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say "punctuated equilibrium" as if you have any idea of what it means, is inconsistent with what I've said,  and believe it is a refutation of any argument I have made. And you do so without any substantive defense of your position. None.
Click to expand...


You must be dreaming, i have seen no evidence presented to support your view.

Yes your side claims that eldredge did not make the theory because of the lack of transitional fossils and that is a lie.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are saying eldredge and gould who came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium didn't understand the fossil record ?
> 
> And many other well educated professors say there are no transitional fossils they don't understand the fossil record either ?
> 
> That quote!&mdash;about the missing transitional fossils
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Punctuated equilibrium is a well known aspect of the modern evolutionary theory.  It has since been shown that evolution can happen many different ways.  This was not a problem with the fossil record or anything to do with the theory of evolution not being correct.  When new evidence was presented, it was incorporated.  That is how science works.  As far as the last thing, I think they are just seeing what they want to see because everything is transitional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Punctuated equilibrium came about as a theory because the lack of transitional fossils. The cambrian showed stasis and the same things found in the cambrian are still the same today,why ?
> 
> Don't theorize that an organism could survive many consecutive mutations over a short period of time there is no evidence to support this claim besides we know this is not true.
> 
> The only way to see immediate morphologoical changes is through crossbreeding.
> 
> Explain to me the main way for evolution to happen is through mutations,if all organisms exp mutations how come we are not seeing macro-evolution take place ?
Click to expand...


No, you are just wrong about all of this.  We see morphological changes without crossbreeding, due to mutations.  Unicellular organisms have a low genetic load for the 20th time, and survive many hundreds of thousands of mutations over a short period of time.  We survive many thousands of mutations over a short period of time (our lifetime), but we have a high genetic load. There do not even have to be many consecutive mutations in a short period of time for specialization to happen.   We have seen macroevolution taking place, so ...?  You would not need to ask these basic questions if you would actually look into it a little bit.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really,name one thing that has always existed ? And describe why and how it has always existed ?
> 
> 
> 
> what's your definition of always. space time or earth time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were discussing infinite.
Click to expand...

infinite what? time, space, distance?


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This question is just ignorant.  No one thought anything, how do the clouds know when to rain, how does the wind know when to blow, how does the sun know when to set.  This question is on par with that, and also, a little tweaking of your homeobox genes during development would change all that anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy,calling my question ignorant it's a solid question that you can't explain away let me show you.
> 
> How do clouds know when to rain ? How does the wind know when to blow ? You just admitted they are thinking processes that intelligence is behind it.
> 
> Unintelligence would not produce whats needed.
> 
> If you have a doctor build a car,if you have a carpenter do the work of a doctor,if you have a truck driver fly a plane,what do you think would happen ?
> 
> What does intelligence produce ? What would non-intelligence produce ?
Click to expand...


No, they are not intelligent processes.  The questions were all ignorant because they go against what is evidenced in nature.  What is wrong with you?


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.
> 
> I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.
> 
> Now present your evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not, sorry, we have already been through this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chirality is a problem for evolution not only does random mutations have to get it right where thigs belong but random mutations have to make the exact opposite. Most rational human beings would admit this is evidence of design.
Click to expand...


Do you really think that ignoring reality will make it go away.  I have already shown you that it is not a problem, but you cannot think for yourself.  You let all these internet hacks do your thinking for you.  it is really sad.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes, I can not believe the crap you post.  No, it does not no matter how much that would back the claims of others you keep citing if it was the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe the crap you believe.
Click to expand...


Luckily, it does not require your belief to be accurate.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to spread through the population to be considered macroevolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not, all it takes is enough genetic variation that successful breeding is not possible anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we breed we breed out information not in information. Purebreds if you do not bring new lines of genetics of the same breed eventually it would become harmful to the breed. That is why breeders of greyhounds started breeding european greyhounds with american greyhounds. This is a fact.
> 
> The reason why things only bring forth offspring of their kind is because they only have the genetic data to produce what they are. It is loony to suggest otherwise. Breeders know what the offspring will be because they know what they're breeding. Same with farmers.
> 
> There is tons of evidence that genetics decide what the offspring will be and genetics has always been a problem for evolutionist because they know they have to come up with a way for new information for macro-evolution to be possible and they know humans and animals only possess genetics produce after their kind exactly what the bible states ten times in genesis.
Click to expand...


No, when we breed purbreds, we as people breed out variation.  That has nothing to do with nature.  Genetics has done nothing but solidified evolution every step of the way.


----------



## daws101

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk]Galaxy Song - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you do not understand genetics. random mutations would have to produce the exact opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a single mutation that has changed the chirality of a protein.  You are getting more out there every second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not mutations causing chirality it's our DNA our genetics.
Click to expand...


So, why would mutations create chirality when we have never seen it?  You are not making any sense.


----------



## daws101

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a single mutation that has changed the chirality of a protein.  You are getting more out there every second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not mutations causing chirality it's our DNA our genetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, why would mutations create chirality when we have never seen it?  You are not making any sense.
Click to expand...

post of the century!


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen no logical fallacies on the part of koshergirl, ...
> 
> 
> 
> Your intellectual dishonesty is well documented, and there's really no reason I can see that you should draw a line at selectively avoiding the patent logical fallacies she applies.
> 
> Or projecting your lack of moral and intellectual integrity on to me. I note that you didn't bring evidence to support your accusation despite having the opportunity to do so.
> 
> If there's so many, why is that?
> 
> You've had your ass handed to you argumentatively, with the full substance of verifiable evidence and valid logic. You have only brought denial of verifiable reality and your pathetic application of faulty logic.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you don't even realize the theory of punctuated equlibrium presents for your theory according to the fossil record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say "punctuated equilibrium" as if you have any idea of what it means, is inconsistent with what I've said,  and believe it is a refutation of any argument I have made. And you do so without any substantive defense of your position. None.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be dreaming, i have seen no evidence presented to support your view.
Click to expand...

Every bit of fossil evidence, instance of contemporary speciation, the entire field of genetics and molecular biology, and the application of valid logic supports my view. Your refusal to acknowledge the verifiable reality of that truth based on its inconsistency with your unvalidated preconceptions doesn't change the validity of my view.



Youwerecreated said:


> Yes your side claims that eldredge did not make the theory because of the lack of transitional fossils and that is a lie.


Maybe not so much.
"PE is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one (1977).

PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972)."​Maybe it's time for you to STFU regarding what punctuated equilibrium is actually about, Junior.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,no,and no again. The preferred theory now is Neo,that is positive mutation+natural selection+large spans of time equal macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No no and no again you are wrong.  I teach biology at a graduate level, you are making things up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't make things up, and i'm impressed you teach it at the graduate level. My teachers that believed this nonsense then is way out there just like you.
> 
> You're are wrong again,.
> 
> Definition for neo darwinism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Web definitions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a modern Darwinian theory that explains new species in terms of genetic mutations.
Click to expand...


Try modern synthesis instead, which is the proper term.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /&#716;e&#618;ba&#618;.&#629;&#712;d&#658;&#603;n&#616;s&#618;s/ ay-by-oh-jen-&#601;-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the MillerUrey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.
> 
> In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.
> 
> In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself,[3][4] with reliable fossil evidence of the first life found in rocks 3.4 Gyr old.[5] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[6][7] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[8][9]
> 
> The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: abiogenesis: Definition from Answers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.
> 
> There are so much bacteria we would be seeing  new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .
Click to expand...


Hmmm ... so, we live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around?   How do we survive?


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retard,you should read his book he destroys the modern day theory of evolution ,that is neo darwinism.
> 
> 
> 
> See folks, what Youwerecreated fails to take note of is that his hero here, literally fails to "destroys the modern day theory of evolution" with his notion of magical signals from the environment choosing beneficial mutations. It's a laugh.
> 
> I like to see this candid admission that a superstitious retard has finally accepted that evolution is a well established fact. _MICROEVOLUTION. A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers in a population. ...​ MACROEVOLUTION is a large amount of evolutionary change involving many elementary changes in gene proportions: the sum of many microevolutionary steps over a very large time-scale._​ Since microevolution and macroevolution describe the same processes on different scales, we can all agree that Youwerecreated believes in macroevolution as well, bringing him finally up to date with 10th grade Biology.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what you dummys extrapolate from to try and show macroevolurion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well what do you know? Stupid really is forever, or Slowcoach has some explaining to do--the least this asshat could do is provide those with an education in evolutionary genetics with some precise and meaningful definitions of his terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one problem for you is you don't know or understand what the modern day theory of evolution is. If you do then explain it in detail ?
> 
> BB claimed to be a biology teacher but didn't know what it was.
Click to expand...


I do not like the term neodarwinism and did not know that it was in common use, since I have never heard it used, except by creationists.  I see now that it may be used more commonly than I thought.  Whew 2 points out of a million to you.


----------



## daws101

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /&#716;e&#618;ba&#618;.&#629;&#712;d&#658;&#603;n&#616;s&#618;s/ ay-by-oh-jen-&#601;-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the MillerUrey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.
> 
> In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.
> 
> In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself,[3][4] with reliable fossil evidence of the first life found in rocks 3.4 Gyr old.[5] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[6][7] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[8][9]
> 
> The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: abiogenesis: Definition from Answers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.
> 
> There are so much bacteria we would be seeing  new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm ... so, we live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around?   How do we survive?
Click to expand...

wondered that myself ,
he never did give an answer to what a "real scientist" is.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.
> 
> If by your theory over time things get better and  through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive  why did we lose certain ablilities that would aid us in survival.
> 
> Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?
> 
> Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?
> 
> Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?



Asked and answered.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.
> 
> If by your theory over time things get better and  through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive  why did we lose certain ablilities that would aid us in survival.
> 
> Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?
> 
> Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?
> 
> Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, let me preface this by saying I am a layman when it comes to evolution; I make no claims of extensive knowledge or education on the subject.
> 
> That said, I wonder if you are reading too much into the use of the term beneficial.  Sometimes you seem to try and impart an intelligence upon natural selection which, as far as I am aware, is not part of the theory of evolution.  If something is better, as far as selection is concerned, it just means that the animals with that trait were better able to survive and reproduce than others without it.  It does not follow that everything about the animals is superior to the others.  So, as an example, an animal with less speed might survive and reproduce more efficiently that one with more speed, if the animal with less speed had more intelligence and was better able to find hidden food, or hide from predators, etc.  The animal with less speed but more intelligence survives better, breeds more, and over time, dominates the area and perhaps even pushes the faster but less intelligent animal into extinction.
> 
> As to small to large and back again, again I wonder if you are imparting features to natural selection which are not part of the theory of evolution.  Evolution is not supposed to be a direct line from single-celled organisms up through modern day to eventually reach some kind of perfect creature.  It is supposed to work based on the environment involved; so where in some times/places/situations bigger animals may thrive, in others smaller animals may do so.  I'm not sure what you are referencing with this smaller to bigger to smaller argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what theory of evolution you subscribe to but yes many believe natural selection is part of evolution.
> 
> There has been many scientist who said evolution makes things better. As we become better adapted does that not make us stronger and better with things being added to help us adapt  better ?
> 
> So what you're saying by random chance humans got bigger brains ? but lost the ability of superior sight,superior strength,superior land speed,superior sense of smell ?
Click to expand...


#99 natural selection is not random.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.
> 
> If by your theory over time things get better and  through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive  why did we lose certain abilities that would aid us in survival.
> 
> Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traits can be lost for a variety of reasons. You use it or lose it. If we had no more need for better eyesight to survive, we wouldn't continue having them. The reason is, if something like that isn't being used, then it isn't worth for the cells to continue to invest time and energy to develop such biological structures but also maintain it. Cells have economies, they are not post-scarcity economies. They have finite resources and time to work with, so they must spend it wisely and accordingly or else the organism they make up won't survive.
> 
> To be honest I'm pretty sure humans never had any of those traits, particularly all of them at once. Not to mention, they are relative, and at that they would have been relative to the nearest predator. The larger point still stands, however. What we do have that separates us from the rest of our cousins is a far superior brain (which are enormously expensive in terms of cell economies) and thumbs.
> 
> Not to mention such subjective terms of traits raise questions like: superior to what? You only need to be better at surviving, and procreating.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not so sure humans had any of those skills, so the question is fairly irrelevant. You don't seem to understand how something can lose a trait.
> 
> Let's say you had good running skills, and you could outrun a predator that was also good at running. If that predator dies off, and you don't need to run at a high speed to run anymore, are you going to keep that trait? Nope, you won't. There's no need to devote the resources to develop and maintain the muscles and other associated structures that allow you to run so fast, if there isn't a reason to run that fast anymore. This will happen over time, as previously you had to have good running skills to survive, but now that isn't required, so those that couldn't run, will now survive and procreate.
> 
> It's a pretty generalized and basic example, but that's how losing a trait works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is change in organisms, and that change is in terms of survival. One of the silliest and most annoying lines of thinking is assuming there are more 'evolved' forms and 'un-evolved ' forms. In nature, it isn't about a linear progression of better and better organisms each one better (which is a very subjective and human term) than the last. All that matters is _survival_ and how a mutation helps (or doesn't help) an organism survive. A gaining of a trait is not automatically positive and a loss of a trait is not automatically negative. What constitutes that is the degree it allows the organism to survive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was truly Survival of the fittest it would not be humans at the top of the food chain. We were designed to be at the top of the food chain just as the bible states.
Click to expand...


Ridiculous!


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what theory of evolution you subscribe to but yes many believe natural selection is part of evolution.
> 
> There has been many scientist who said evolution makes things better. As we become better adapted does that not make us stronger and better with things being added to help us adapt  better ?
> 
> So what you're saying by random chance humans got bigger brains ? but lost the ability of superior sight,superior strength,superior land speed,superior sense of smell ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You misread my statement.  What I said is not part of the theory of evolution is the intelligence you seem to think drives natural selection, not natural selection itself.
> 
> Once again, better in terms of evolution does not necessarily mean better in terms of what humans might want.  In terms of selection, what is better is not known until after the fact.  Is it better to be stronger, or faster, or more elusive?  That depends on the environment.  And since evolution is not based on an intelligence directing things, the idea that it must lead to creatures with all of the features you consider positive or beneficial is incorrect.
> 
> I don't know if you are asking if human intelligence is random chance based on evolution or the existence/lack of a creator.  It could have been random in the sense there was no guarantee intelligence to our extent would develop.  It would not be random in the sense that our intelligence was a positive survival/reproduction trait.
> 
> As far as losing senses, I honestly don't know.  I don't know how acute the senses of the animals we descended from were, nor how strong they were, nor how fast; I don't know if there is some reason those senses or musculature would be incompatible with the features that allow us to have our intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But look at it throught the eyes of common sense. There are limits to adapting to our enviornment,why ?
> 
> If the enviornment forces change there should be no limits.
> 
> Look at the giraffe that sucker could have starved out by the time it took for that neck to get longer. Or it could be extinct and easy pray if the sponge in the brain didn't develop quickly because when it went to get a drink of water it would have passed out and been eaten by predators.
> 
> The theory makes no sense at all. Genetics and the fossil record is a problem for the theory.
Click to expand...


No, genetics and the fossil record continuously add more weight to the theory.  We do not know why giraffes adapted the way they did, we do not need to know every little thing.  Not that we will ever stop trying to know.  The problem is when you relegate god to these gaps, you force people prove he is not there when the gaps no longer exist.  None of us want to be put in that position.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> From YWC's own link
> 
> *"we have been able to piece together a remarkable understanding of the evolution of life on our planet. "*
> 
> *"Fossils show us a great deal about earlier life forms. Not only can we learn about evolutionary processes and trends, but we can also reconstruct body shapes."*
> 
> Seems he's coming around, maybe science denying is getting old to him.



Please read the whole post it is one of your guys 

The parts you ignore.

" Hard body parts, such as dense bones, teeth, and shells, are what most often are preserved. It is likely that the vast majority of fossils will never be found before they are destroyed by erosion."

This fossil pictured showed very little change it is the same family still. It was just a small variation within the family.

Fossil of an extinct marine
mollusk (Ammonite)
and its living descendent

Notice the admission that  inference plays a role because the lack of evidence. Why do you cherry pick ?


"The fossil record is somewhat like an enormously complex jigsaw puzzle with many pieces still missing Our interpretation of this record has been biased by differential preservation. Some species are underrepresented or have not yet been found. We are left with a somewhat blurred picture of portions of the past, especially the early past. Despite these realities, we have been able to piece together a remarkable understanding of the evolution of life on our planet." 

Look at this admission,sounds like fossils are found from a rapid burial like the global flood perhaps ,lots of water 

"Whether an organism is preserved greatly depends on the local environment in which it died. Plants and animals from humid tropical forests are rarely preserved because they decay rapidly in these regions. Similarly, fossils from mountainous areas rarely survive due to high rates of erosion. Desert creatures generally become fossilized more often due to the preserving arid conditions. Likewise, aquatic organisms are often well preserved if their bodies ended up in deep water where there is little oxygen and life. However, bodies in shallow intertidal zones along coastlines are quickly eaten and the remaining bones are ground into sand particles by tide and wave action."

Aha,very little is found of an organism so we have to imagine what it is and reconstruct it show it looks like a transitional fossil,i see.

"Not all bones from the same animal survive equally well. Lightweight bones with relatively large surface areas deteriorate more quickly and are, therefore, less often fossilized. Small, delicate bones are also more likely to be crushed or carried away from the rest of a skeleton by running water. Human and other primate fossils frequently consist of teeth, bits of dense jaw, skull, leg and arm bone fragments. The more porous ribs and shoulder blades are rarely preserved."

Really,biased in where they look they must be biased in their interpretations.

"There has been a bias in the fossil record resulting from the fact that paleontologists have not equally searched all areas of the globe. Because of the inaccessibility of some regions, such as Central Asia and much of Africa, their fossil records are poorly understood compared to those of Europe and North America. Many in the current generation of professional fossil hunters are now concentrating their efforts in these under represented areas." 

Really.But what do they do ?

"When only one or two skeletons of a species have been discovered, there is no way of knowing how representative they are of that kind of animal. They could be typical or atypical in size and shape. Until many more specimens have been found, it is unwise to attempt a definitive species description"



"Imagine if our species becomes extinct at some distant time in the future and extraterrestrial fossil hunters visit earth and find only one human skeleton. Just by chance, it could be male or female, young or old, tall or short, normal or deviant. The extraterrestrial scientists would very likely not grasp the full range of what humans are like from this evidence and would develop an inaccurate picture of our species."


I wonder why ? funny stuff.

"Early in the 20th century, just such an error was made by the noted French paleontologist, Marcellin Boule , when he analyzed one of the first nearly complete prehistoric human skeletons found in Europe. Boule described this Neandertal specimen from la Chapelle-aux-Saints , France as a dull-witted, brutish, ape-like man who walked hunched over with a shuffling gait. This misled several generations of anthropologists. In fact, the skeleton was abnormal. The individual was a very old, arthritic man with severe, near crippling orthopedic problems. We now know that Neandertals looked much more like us than was earlier believed. Paleoanthropologists today consider them to have been either an early variety of our species, Homo sapiens , or a closely related species. The complexity and size of their brains, along with their cultural artifacts, indicate that they were far from being a dim-witted, ape-like creature."


Don't sound reliable to me.

"When paleontologists trace the evolution of a species line, they often find that there are gaps of time in the fossil record. Nineteenth century evolutionists referred to these periods in which fossils were still lacking as "missing links" in the "chain of evolution." Such gaps are often the result of changing preservation conditions in the distant past. For long periods of time, most individuals in some species may not have survived long enough after their deaths to become fossils because they were eaten, and the few fossils that were formed may have been destroyed at a high rate by increased erosion in particular regions. Gaps in the fossil record are sometimes due also to the simple fact that we have looked for them in the wrong places. The climate has dramatically changed many times in the past. When that occurred, members of the same species often died out in one region but flourished in others. Unless we are alert to this possibility and search in different geographic regions, it will look like the fossil record has been abruptly broken, only to begin again thousands or even millions of years later. Eventually, the larger gaps in the fossil record are usually filled through intensive worldwide research. This has resulted in an ever more accurate picture of the past."



Reconstruct with very little recovered of an organism,where did i hear this before ?

"Fossils show us a great deal about earlier life forms. Not only can we learn about evolutionary processes and trends, but we can also reconstruct body shapes. " 

Ladies and gentlemen this is why humans are put in the same category as apes, monkey's ,and chimps.

"When new fossils are discovered, it is not always clear as to which species they belong. There are two different, opposing approaches to solving this problem. They are commonly known as the typological and the populationist viewpoints. Those who take the typological approach believe that if two fossils look even slightly different, they must be from two distinct species. This is an emphasis on minor differences. In contrast, those who use the populationist approach accept that individuals in all populations of organisms normally have at least minor differences. Therefore, when they encounter fossils that are similar, but not identical, they tend to lump them into the same species. They expect that separate species would exhibit major differences. The populationist approach to defining species has become the dominant one in the biological sciences today. For psychological reasons, however, some important discoverers of fossils have tended to take the typological viewpoint. It is ego boosting to say that you have discovered something new and unknown rather than just another specimen of an already well known species."

I love how you cherry pick drock to make an argument 

Hmm,DNA don't last long,where did i hear that ?

"There probably always will be a heated debate regarding the species identification for new fossil specimens. We cannot use the criteria of reproduction to distinguish species from fossils because it is not possible to get two skeletons to breed in order to see if they can produce fertile offspring. Therefore, paleoanthropologists often take a cautious approach and use the term paleospecies instead of species. This is a group of similar fossils whose range of physical variation does not exceed the range of variation of a closely related living species. Eventually, we may be able to define ancient species more reliably on the basis of DNA samples extracted from fossil bones and other preserved tissues. At present, however, this work is just beginning and it is frustratingly hampered by the fact that DNA usually is very fragmentary in mineralized bone. The earliest human whose DNA has been studied was much less than 100,000 years old, while hominin evolution goes back to at least 4,000,000 years."


Cherry picker.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a single mutation that has changed the chirality of a protein.  You are getting more out there every second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not mutations causing chirality it's our DNA our genetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, why would mutations create chirality when we have never seen it?  You are not making any sense.
Click to expand...


Just like you have never seen macro-evolution,but your side should be able to explain how our genes cover both left and right by chance .to believe that it just happened by chance is rediculous.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check the fossil record.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you an honest question how can you know what a crearture looked liked with less then 25 percent of the body parts ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From that 25% I've got more explanation for it than you have for your Creator.
> 
> Let me ask you an honest question; how can you claim that "a Creator" is an explanation when you can't explain this "Creator"?
Click to expand...


That is where faith comes in.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not mutations causing chirality it's our DNA our genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, why would mutations create chirality when we have never seen it?  You are not making any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> post of the century!
Click to expand...


Not hardly


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> No no and no again you are wrong.  I teach biology at a graduate level, you are making things up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make things up, and i'm impressed you teach it at the graduate level. My teachers that believed this nonsense then is way out there just like you.
> 
> You're are wrong again,.
> 
> Definition for neo darwinism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Web definitions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a modern Darwinian theory that explains new species in terms of genetic mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try modern synthesis instead, which is the proper term.
Click to expand...


If you say so


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /&#716;e&#618;ba&#618;.&#629;&#712;d&#658;&#603;n&#616;s&#618;s/ ay-by-oh-jen-&#601;-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the MillerUrey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.
> 
> In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.
> 
> In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself,[3][4] with reliable fossil evidence of the first life found in rocks 3.4 Gyr old.[5] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[6][7] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[8][9]
> 
> The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: abiogenesis: Definition from Answers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.
> 
> There are so much bacteria we would be seeing  new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm ... so, we live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around?   How do we survive?
Click to expand...


Humans, that  God put at the top of the food chain have done well for 5,000 years or so.


----------



## FurthurBB

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One other question evolutionist ignore is all organisms experience mutations,but we have fossils dated back to hundreds of thousand years ago and further back, that show no change in the same organisms at all today ,how do you explain this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any science based link that says all organisms experience mutations?
Click to expand...


All organisms do experience mutations, that is why polymerases have error rates.

That was the wrong way to put it, this is how we know the error rates of polymerases.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.
> 
> There are so much bacteria we would be seeing  new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm ... so, we live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around?   How do we survive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wondered that myself ,
> he never did give an answer to what a "real scientist" is.
Click to expand...


Real scientist don't have an agenda and goes where the evidence leads and when they see a problem with the theory, that we are discussing ,they speak up and tell it like it is.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misread my statement.  What I said is not part of the theory of evolution is the intelligence you seem to think drives natural selection, not natural selection itself.
> 
> Once again, better in terms of evolution does not necessarily mean better in terms of what humans might want.  In terms of selection, what is better is not known until after the fact.  Is it better to be stronger, or faster, or more elusive?  That depends on the environment.  And since evolution is not based on an intelligence directing things, the idea that it must lead to creatures with all of the features you consider positive or beneficial is incorrect.
> 
> I don't know if you are asking if human intelligence is random chance based on evolution or the existence/lack of a creator.  It could have been random in the sense there was no guarantee intelligence to our extent would develop.  It would not be random in the sense that our intelligence was a positive survival/reproduction trait.
> 
> As far as losing senses, I honestly don't know.  I don't know how acute the senses of the animals we descended from were, nor how strong they were, nor how fast; I don't know if there is some reason those senses or musculature would be incompatible with the features that allow us to have our intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But look at it throught the eyes of common sense. There are limits to adapting to our enviornment,why ?
> 
> If the enviornment forces change there should be no limits.
> 
> Look at the giraffe that sucker could have starved out by the time it took for that neck to get longer. Or it could be extinct and easy pray if the sponge in the brain didn't develop quickly because when it went to get a drink of water it would have passed out and been eaten by predators.
> 
> The theory makes no sense at all. Genetics and the fossil record is a problem for the theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, genetics and the fossil record continuously add more weight to the theory.  We do not know why giraffes adapted the way they did, we do not need to know every little thing.  Not that we will ever stop trying to know.  The problem is when you relegate god to these gaps, you force people prove he is not there when the gaps no longer exist.  None of us want to be put in that position.
Click to expand...


You've been brainwashed.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not mutations causing chirality it's our DNA our genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, why would mutations create chirality when we have never seen it?  You are not making any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like you have never seen macro-evolution,but your side should be able to explain how our genes cover both left and right by chance .to believe that it just happened by chance is rediculous.
Click to expand...


I have seen macroevolution.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But look at it throught the eyes of common sense. There are limits to adapting to our enviornment,why ?
> 
> If the enviornment forces change there should be no limits.
> 
> Look at the giraffe that sucker could have starved out by the time it took for that neck to get longer. Or it could be extinct and easy pray if the sponge in the brain didn't develop quickly because when it went to get a drink of water it would have passed out and been eaten by predators.
> 
> The theory makes no sense at all. Genetics and the fossil record is a problem for the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, genetics and the fossil record continuously add more weight to the theory.  We do not know why giraffes adapted the way they did, we do not need to know every little thing.  Not that we will ever stop trying to know.  The problem is when you relegate god to these gaps, you force people prove he is not there when the gaps no longer exist.  None of us want to be put in that position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been brainwashed.
Click to expand...


Thanks, if you think I am brainwashed I must be doing something right!


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not mutations causing chirality it's our DNA our genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, why would mutations create chirality when we have never seen it?  You are not making any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like you have never seen macro-evolution,but your side should be able to explain how our genes cover both left and right by chance .to believe that it just happened by chance is rediculous.
Click to expand...


It wasn't chance and it is not random.  Have you not noticed that lots of things in nature have a similar symmetry.  Even Bacteria and viruses have a certain, albeit less complex, symmetry and they do not even have homeobox genes, which we know control our symmetry.  For those who never learned much biology Discovering the Homeobox.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, why would mutations create chirality when we have never seen it?  You are not making any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you have never seen macro-evolution,but your side should be able to explain how our genes cover both left and right by chance .to believe that it just happened by chance is rediculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen macroevolution.
Click to expand...


What ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, why would mutations create chirality when we have never seen it?  You are not making any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you have never seen macro-evolution,but your side should be able to explain how our genes cover both left and right by chance .to believe that it just happened by chance is rediculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't chance and it is not random.  Have you not noticed that lots of things in nature have a similar symmetry.  Even Bacteria and viruses have a certain, albeit less complex, symmetry and they do not even have homeobox genes, which we know control our symmetry.  For those who never learned much biology Discovering the Homeobox.
Click to expand...


So viruses and bacteria are no longer bacteria and viruses ? That is not macro-evolution that is micro-adaptations.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you an honest question how can you know what a crearture looked liked with less then 25 percent of the body parts ?
> 
> 
> 
> From that 25% I've got more explanation for it than you have for your Creator.
> 
> Let me ask you an honest question; how can you claim that "a Creator" is an explanation when you can't explain this "Creator"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is where faith comes in.
Click to expand...

Upon what basis then should your "explanation" be considered superior to any creation story unfounded in evidence and/or valid logic? On what basis should it be considered intellectually honest?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.
> 
> There are so much bacteria we would be seeing  new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm ... so, we live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around?   How do we survive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans, that  God put at the top of the food chain have done well for 5,000 years or so.
Click to expand...

Odin?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> From that 25% I've got more explanation for it than you have for your Creator.
> 
> Let me ask you an honest question; how can you claim that "a Creator" is an explanation when you can't explain this "Creator"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is where faith comes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upon what basis then should your "explanation" be considered superior to any creation story unfounded in evidence and/or valid logic? On what basis should it be considered intellectually honest?
Click to expand...



Things that were written by men in the bible at the time man had no way to know such things.

We know it takes intelligence to build and design.

Complexity don't arise on it's own.

Molecular machines can't arise on their own,they are products of design.

There is so much bacteria there should be new families of organism's constantly arising and it is not happening. We are seeing a decline in the amount of organism's not an increase.

The evcidence is overwhelming that life produces life.

We have perfectly aligned planets and if they were not Aligned properly there would be no life.

To much evidence to be ignored from a rational thinker.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, genetics and the fossil record continuously add more weight to the theory.  We do not know why giraffes adapted the way they did, we do not need to know every little thing.  Not that we will ever stop trying to know.  The problem is when you relegate god to these gaps, you force people prove he is not there when the gaps no longer exist.  None of us want to be put in that position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been brainwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, if you think I am brainwashed I must be doing something right!
Click to expand...


What if you're wrong ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm ... so, we live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around?   How do we survive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humans, that  God put at the top of the food chain have done well for 5,000 years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odin?
Click to expand...


No,YAHWEH.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Beacause we see variations in each family and the ability to adapt is not a sound reason to believe everything was a product of evolution,especially when we see what genetics can do through cross breeding  and knowing the harm of mutations that cause change.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> From YWC's own link
> 
> *"we have been able to piece together a remarkable understanding of the evolution of life on our planet. "*
> 
> *"Fossils show us a great deal about earlier life forms. Not only can we learn about evolutionary processes and trends, but we can also reconstruct body shapes."*
> 
> Seems he's coming around, maybe science denying is getting old to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please read the whole post it is one of your guys
> 
> The parts you ignore.
> 
> " Hard body parts, such as dense bones, teeth, and shells, are what most often are preserved. It is likely that the vast majority of fossils will never be found before they are destroyed by erosion."
> 
> This fossil pictured showed very little change it is the same family still. It was just a small variation within the family.
> 
> Fossil of an extinct marine
> mollusk (Ammonite)
> and its living descendent
> 
> Notice the admission that  inference plays a role because the lack of evidence. Why do you cherry pick ?
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is somewhat like an enormously complex jigsaw puzzle with many pieces still missing Our interpretation of this record has been biased by differential preservation. Some species are underrepresented or have not yet been found. We are left with a somewhat blurred picture of portions of the past, especially the early past. Despite these realities, we have been able to piece together a remarkable understanding of the evolution of life on our planet."
> 
> Look at this admission,sounds like fossils are found from a rapid burial like the global flood perhaps ,lots of water
> 
> "Whether an organism is preserved greatly depends on the local environment in which it died. Plants and animals from humid tropical forests are rarely preserved because they decay rapidly in these regions. Similarly, fossils from mountainous areas rarely survive due to high rates of erosion. Desert creatures generally become fossilized more often due to the preserving arid conditions. Likewise, aquatic organisms are often well preserved if their bodies ended up in deep water where there is little oxygen and life. However, bodies in shallow intertidal zones along coastlines are quickly eaten and the remaining bones are ground into sand particles by tide and wave action."
> 
> Aha,very little is found of an organism so we have to imagine what it is and reconstruct it show it looks like a transitional fossil,i see.
> 
> "Not all bones from the same animal survive equally well. Lightweight bones with relatively large surface areas deteriorate more quickly and are, therefore, less often fossilized. Small, delicate bones are also more likely to be crushed or carried away from the rest of a skeleton by running water. Human and other primate fossils frequently consist of teeth, bits of dense jaw, skull, leg and arm bone fragments. The more porous ribs and shoulder blades are rarely preserved."
> 
> Really,biased in where they look they must be biased in their interpretations.
> 
> "There has been a bias in the fossil record resulting from the fact that paleontologists have not equally searched all areas of the globe. Because of the inaccessibility of some regions, such as Central Asia and much of Africa, their fossil records are poorly understood compared to those of Europe and North America. Many in the current generation of professional fossil hunters are now concentrating their efforts in these under represented areas."
> 
> Really.But what do they do ?
> 
> "When only one or two skeletons of a species have been discovered, there is no way of knowing how representative they are of that kind of animal. They could be typical or atypical in size and shape. Until many more specimens have been found, it is unwise to attempt a definitive species description"
> 
> 
> 
> "Imagine if our species becomes extinct at some distant time in the future and extraterrestrial fossil hunters visit earth and find only one human skeleton. Just by chance, it could be male or female, young or old, tall or short, normal or deviant. The extraterrestrial scientists would very likely not grasp the full range of what humans are like from this evidence and would develop an inaccurate picture of our species."
> 
> 
> I wonder why ? funny stuff.
> 
> "Early in the 20th century, just such an error was made by the noted French paleontologist, Marcellin Boule , when he analyzed one of the first nearly complete prehistoric human skeletons found in Europe. Boule described this Neandertal specimen from la Chapelle-aux-Saints , France as a dull-witted, brutish, ape-like man who walked hunched over with a shuffling gait. This misled several generations of anthropologists. In fact, the skeleton was abnormal. The individual was a very old, arthritic man with severe, near crippling orthopedic problems. We now know that Neandertals looked much more like us than was earlier believed. Paleoanthropologists today consider them to have been either an early variety of our species, Homo sapiens , or a closely related species. The complexity and size of their brains, along with their cultural artifacts, indicate that they were far from being a dim-witted, ape-like creature."
> 
> 
> Don't sound reliable to me.
> 
> "When paleontologists trace the evolution of a species line, they often find that there are gaps of time in the fossil record. Nineteenth century evolutionists referred to these periods in which fossils were still lacking as "missing links" in the "chain of evolution." Such gaps are often the result of changing preservation conditions in the distant past. For long periods of time, most individuals in some species may not have survived long enough after their deaths to become fossils because they were eaten, and the few fossils that were formed may have been destroyed at a high rate by increased erosion in particular regions. Gaps in the fossil record are sometimes due also to the simple fact that we have looked for them in the wrong places. The climate has dramatically changed many times in the past. When that occurred, members of the same species often died out in one region but flourished in others. Unless we are alert to this possibility and search in different geographic regions, it will look like the fossil record has been abruptly broken, only to begin again thousands or even millions of years later. Eventually, the larger gaps in the fossil record are usually filled through intensive worldwide research. This has resulted in an ever more accurate picture of the past."
> 
> 
> 
> Reconstruct with very little recovered of an organism,where did i hear this before ?
> 
> "Fossils show us a great deal about earlier life forms. Not only can we learn about evolutionary processes and trends, but we can also reconstruct body shapes. "
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen this is why humans are put in the same category as apes, monkey's ,and chimps.
> 
> "When new fossils are discovered, it is not always clear as to which species they belong. There are two different, opposing approaches to solving this problem. They are commonly known as the typological and the populationist viewpoints. Those who take the typological approach believe that if two fossils look even slightly different, they must be from two distinct species. This is an emphasis on minor differences. In contrast, those who use the populationist approach accept that individuals in all populations of organisms normally have at least minor differences. Therefore, when they encounter fossils that are similar, but not identical, they tend to lump them into the same species. They expect that separate species would exhibit major differences. The populationist approach to defining species has become the dominant one in the biological sciences today. For psychological reasons, however, some important discoverers of fossils have tended to take the typological viewpoint. It is ego boosting to say that you have discovered something new and unknown rather than just another specimen of an already well known species."
> 
> I love how you cherry pick drock to make an argument
> 
> Hmm,DNA don't last long,where did i hear that ?
> 
> "There probably always will be a heated debate regarding the species identification for new fossil specimens. We cannot use the criteria of reproduction to distinguish species from fossils because it is not possible to get two skeletons to breed in order to see if they can produce fertile offspring. Therefore, paleoanthropologists often take a cautious approach and use the term paleospecies instead of species. This is a group of similar fossils whose range of physical variation does not exceed the range of variation of a closely related living species. Eventually, we may be able to define ancient species more reliably on the basis of DNA samples extracted from fossil bones and other preserved tissues. At present, however, this work is just beginning and it is frustratingly hampered by the fact that DNA usually is very fragmentary in mineralized bone. The earliest human whose DNA has been studied was much less than 100,000 years old, while hominin evolution goes back to at least 4,000,000 years."
> 
> 
> Cherry picker.
Click to expand...


Yes most fossils given enough time erode away, are destroyed, never found or what have you.  What's the point?

Doesn't mean they all are, or the ones that are found are any less credible of evidence.  You can pretend that's the case to your own detriment, but not to those of us who don't spend our lives denying basic verifiable, proven science.


----------



## Dr.Drock

FurthurBB said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One other question evolutionist ignore is all organisms experience mutations,but we have fossils dated back to hundreds of thousand years ago and further back, that show no change in the same organisms at all today ,how do you explain this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any science based link that says all organisms experience mutations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All organisms do experience mutations, that is why polymerases have error rates.
> 
> That was the wrong way to put it, this is how we know the error rates of polymerases.
Click to expand...


There's different levels of mutation rates, but a rate doesn't guarantee a mutation is going to happen.  Just impacts the likeliness.

I'll keep waiting for a science based link that says all organisms experience mutations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> From YWC's own link
> 
> *"we have been able to piece together a remarkable understanding of the evolution of life on our planet. "*
> 
> *"Fossils show us a great deal about earlier life forms. Not only can we learn about evolutionary processes and trends, but we can also reconstruct body shapes."*
> 
> Seems he's coming around, maybe science denying is getting old to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please read the whole post it is one of your guys
> 
> The parts you ignore.
> 
> " Hard body parts, such as dense bones, teeth, and shells, are what most often are preserved. It is likely that the vast majority of fossils will never be found before they are destroyed by erosion."
> 
> This fossil pictured showed very little change it is the same family still. It was just a small variation within the family.
> 
> Fossil of an extinct marine
> mollusk (Ammonite)
> and its living descendent
> 
> Notice the admission that  inference plays a role because the lack of evidence. Why do you cherry pick ?
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is somewhat like an enormously complex jigsaw puzzle with many pieces still missing Our interpretation of this record has been biased by differential preservation. Some species are underrepresented or have not yet been found. We are left with a somewhat blurred picture of portions of the past, especially the early past. Despite these realities, we have been able to piece together a remarkable understanding of the evolution of life on our planet."
> 
> Look at this admission,sounds like fossils are found from a rapid burial like the global flood perhaps ,lots of water
> 
> "Whether an organism is preserved greatly depends on the local environment in which it died. Plants and animals from humid tropical forests are rarely preserved because they decay rapidly in these regions. Similarly, fossils from mountainous areas rarely survive due to high rates of erosion. Desert creatures generally become fossilized more often due to the preserving arid conditions. Likewise, aquatic organisms are often well preserved if their bodies ended up in deep water where there is little oxygen and life. However, bodies in shallow intertidal zones along coastlines are quickly eaten and the remaining bones are ground into sand particles by tide and wave action."
> 
> Aha,very little is found of an organism so we have to imagine what it is and reconstruct it show it looks like a transitional fossil,i see.
> 
> "Not all bones from the same animal survive equally well. Lightweight bones with relatively large surface areas deteriorate more quickly and are, therefore, less often fossilized. Small, delicate bones are also more likely to be crushed or carried away from the rest of a skeleton by running water. Human and other primate fossils frequently consist of teeth, bits of dense jaw, skull, leg and arm bone fragments. The more porous ribs and shoulder blades are rarely preserved."
> 
> Really,biased in where they look they must be biased in their interpretations.
> 
> "There has been a bias in the fossil record resulting from the fact that paleontologists have not equally searched all areas of the globe. Because of the inaccessibility of some regions, such as Central Asia and much of Africa, their fossil records are poorly understood compared to those of Europe and North America. Many in the current generation of professional fossil hunters are now concentrating their efforts in these under represented areas."
> 
> Really.But what do they do ?
> 
> "When only one or two skeletons of a species have been discovered, there is no way of knowing how representative they are of that kind of animal. They could be typical or atypical in size and shape. Until many more specimens have been found, it is unwise to attempt a definitive species description"
> 
> 
> 
> "Imagine if our species becomes extinct at some distant time in the future and extraterrestrial fossil hunters visit earth and find only one human skeleton. Just by chance, it could be male or female, young or old, tall or short, normal or deviant. The extraterrestrial scientists would very likely not grasp the full range of what humans are like from this evidence and would develop an inaccurate picture of our species."
> 
> 
> I wonder why ? funny stuff.
> 
> "Early in the 20th century, just such an error was made by the noted French paleontologist, Marcellin Boule , when he analyzed one of the first nearly complete prehistoric human skeletons found in Europe. Boule described this Neandertal specimen from la Chapelle-aux-Saints , France as a dull-witted, brutish, ape-like man who walked hunched over with a shuffling gait. This misled several generations of anthropologists. In fact, the skeleton was abnormal. The individual was a very old, arthritic man with severe, near crippling orthopedic problems. We now know that Neandertals looked much more like us than was earlier believed. Paleoanthropologists today consider them to have been either an early variety of our species, Homo sapiens , or a closely related species. The complexity and size of their brains, along with their cultural artifacts, indicate that they were far from being a dim-witted, ape-like creature."
> 
> 
> Don't sound reliable to me.
> 
> "When paleontologists trace the evolution of a species line, they often find that there are gaps of time in the fossil record. Nineteenth century evolutionists referred to these periods in which fossils were still lacking as "missing links" in the "chain of evolution." Such gaps are often the result of changing preservation conditions in the distant past. For long periods of time, most individuals in some species may not have survived long enough after their deaths to become fossils because they were eaten, and the few fossils that were formed may have been destroyed at a high rate by increased erosion in particular regions. Gaps in the fossil record are sometimes due also to the simple fact that we have looked for them in the wrong places. The climate has dramatically changed many times in the past. When that occurred, members of the same species often died out in one region but flourished in others. Unless we are alert to this possibility and search in different geographic regions, it will look like the fossil record has been abruptly broken, only to begin again thousands or even millions of years later. Eventually, the larger gaps in the fossil record are usually filled through intensive worldwide research. This has resulted in an ever more accurate picture of the past."
> 
> 
> 
> Reconstruct with very little recovered of an organism,where did i hear this before ?
> 
> "Fossils show us a great deal about earlier life forms. Not only can we learn about evolutionary processes and trends, but we can also reconstruct body shapes. "
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen this is why humans are put in the same category as apes, monkey's ,and chimps.
> 
> "When new fossils are discovered, it is not always clear as to which species they belong. There are two different, opposing approaches to solving this problem. They are commonly known as the typological and the populationist viewpoints. Those who take the typological approach believe that if two fossils look even slightly different, they must be from two distinct species. This is an emphasis on minor differences. In contrast, those who use the populationist approach accept that individuals in all populations of organisms normally have at least minor differences. Therefore, when they encounter fossils that are similar, but not identical, they tend to lump them into the same species. They expect that separate species would exhibit major differences. The populationist approach to defining species has become the dominant one in the biological sciences today. For psychological reasons, however, some important discoverers of fossils have tended to take the typological viewpoint. It is ego boosting to say that you have discovered something new and unknown rather than just another specimen of an already well known species."
> 
> I love how you cherry pick drock to make an argument
> 
> Hmm,DNA don't last long,where did i hear that ?
> 
> "There probably always will be a heated debate regarding the species identification for new fossil specimens. We cannot use the criteria of reproduction to distinguish species from fossils because it is not possible to get two skeletons to breed in order to see if they can produce fertile offspring. Therefore, paleoanthropologists often take a cautious approach and use the term paleospecies instead of species. This is a group of similar fossils whose range of physical variation does not exceed the range of variation of a closely related living species. Eventually, we may be able to define ancient species more reliably on the basis of DNA samples extracted from fossil bones and other preserved tissues. At present, however, this work is just beginning and it is frustratingly hampered by the fact that DNA usually is very fragmentary in mineralized bone. The earliest human whose DNA has been studied was much less than 100,000 years old, while hominin evolution goes back to at least 4,000,000 years."
> 
> 
> Cherry picker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes most fossils given enough time erode away, are destroyed, never found or what have you.  What's the point?
> 
> Doesn't mean they all are, or the ones that are found are any less credible of evidence.  You can pretend that's the case to your own detriment, but not to those of us who don't spend our lives denying basic verifiable, proven science.
Click to expand...


The fossil record is built on imagination don't you get it ?

They reconstruct creatures they have very little fossils for.

They have no tranitional fossils even though they claim they do.

Teeth and a few bone fragments is no way to reconstruct a creature.

Another problem is they have not found enough of these so called transitional fossils of the same creature to say they existed or was just a product of cross breeding or deformity.

Evidence that organisms can adapt is not evidence of macro-evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got any science based link that says all organisms experience mutations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All organisms do experience mutations, that is why polymerases have error rates.
> 
> That was the wrong way to put it, this is how we know the error rates of polymerases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's different levels of mutation rates, but a rate doesn't guarantee a mutation is going to happen.  Just impacts the likeliness.
> 
> I'll keep waiting for a science based link that says all organisms experience mutations.
Click to expand...


Do you understand the theory you defend ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

I just gave you someone supporting my views of the fossil record from your side but yet you don't except it. Why would you accept it if i provide one that say's all organisms exp mutations ?

Think for a second drock, why would any organism not exp errors in their genes ?

Talk about deliberately denying science.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> I just gave you someone supporting my views of the fossil record from your side but yet you don't except it. Why would you accept it if i provide one that say's all organisms exp mutations ?
> 
> Think for a second drock, why would any organism not exp errors in their genes ?
> 
> Talk about deliberately denying science.



No, your view is nothing similar to the link the provided.

You dismiss all fossils.  The link says most fossils erode, aren't found, aren't complete, etc.  Most doesn't equal all, being able to find good fossils even if they're the minority is still great, hard evidence.  Your scientific fact-denying perspective is the exact opposite of everything your link stated.

Your view is "most fossils erode and aren't found, so the ones they do find in great condition I'll just shove my fingers in my ears and deny those too, it's what God wants to hear."  I can assure you, that's not what the author of those writings is saying.

Retype your other question;  "why would any organism not exp errors in their genes ?", I'm not sure what you're asking.  Did exp mean experience?


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.
> 
> There are so much bacteria we would be seeing  new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm ... so, we live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around?   How do we survive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans, that  God put at the top of the food chain have done well for 5,000 years or so.
Click to expand...


We do not live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around.  I am pretty sure most US children older than 10 would know that.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you have never seen macro-evolution,but your side should be able to explain how our genes cover both left and right by chance .to believe that it just happened by chance is rediculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen macroevolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ?
Click to expand...


I HAVE SEEN MACROEVOLUTION  maybe you need new glasses.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you have never seen macro-evolution,but your side should be able to explain how our genes cover both left and right by chance .to believe that it just happened by chance is rediculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't chance and it is not random.  Have you not noticed that lots of things in nature have a similar symmetry.  Even Bacteria and viruses have a certain, albeit less complex, symmetry and they do not even have homeobox genes, which we know control our symmetry.  For those who never learned much biology Discovering the Homeobox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So viruses and bacteria are no longer bacteria and viruses ? That is not macro-evolution that is micro-adaptations.
Click to expand...


Wow!  You really took a wrong turn somewhere.  Maybe you should read that again.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've been brainwashed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, if you think I am brainwashed I must be doing something right!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if you're wrong ?
Click to expand...


It is extremely unlikely with the massive amounts of evidence that I have seen and read that keeps leading back to evolution with every new discovery.  I definitely could be wrong about some things, just like anyone else, but evolution will not be toppled and no scientists are going to find the answers you are looking for.  Why don't you just believe what you want to believe and leave science out of it.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Beacause we see variations in each family and the ability to adapt is not a sound reason to believe everything was a product of evolution,especially when we see what genetics can do through cross breeding  and knowing the harm of mutations that cause change.



You are looking at the big picture.  It was the variation that led Darwin to his theory, but now it is so much more.  There is more evidence for the evolutionary theory than any other theory in science.  I know that all you understand is what you see with your eyes, but if you are really interested in this subject it would behoove you to know a tiny bit about it.


----------



## FurthurBB

Dr.Drock said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got any science based link that says all organisms experience mutations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All organisms do experience mutations, that is why polymerases have error rates.
> 
> That was the wrong way to put it, this is how we know the error rates of polymerases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's different levels of mutation rates, but a rate doesn't guarantee a mutation is going to happen.  Just impacts the likeliness.
> 
> I'll keep waiting for a science based link that says all organisms experience mutations.
Click to expand...



There would have to be one for every species, I am not playing that game.  All organisms have a constant rate of mutations and mutations are extremely common.  maybe you could look up the genome of every species on NCBI, they have all the known point mutations in every species.  Home - PubMed - NCBI, other than that I do not know what to tell you.


----------



## Dr.Drock

FurthurBB said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> All organisms do experience mutations, that is why polymerases have error rates.
> 
> That was the wrong way to put it, this is how we know the error rates of polymerases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's different levels of mutation rates, but a rate doesn't guarantee a mutation is going to happen.  Just impacts the likeliness.
> 
> I'll keep waiting for a science based link that says all organisms experience mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There would have to be one for every species, I am not playing that game.  All organisms have a constant rate of mutations and mutations are extremely common.  maybe you could look up the genome of every species on NCBI, they have all the known point mutations in every species.  Home - PubMed - NCBI, other than that I do not know what to tell you.
Click to expand...


There wouldn't have to be, it's based on math.  Certain species are more likely to have mutations than other species, and you have to factor in population size.

If I were to find the answer to some crazy long math problem with time and population size it is most likely that most species will have individuals with mutations, but you can't say it's 100%.

Maybe you can, and I'm wrong, I'll concede that point when i get proof of it.

Keep in mind we're on the same side of the evolution and mutation debate.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm ... so, we live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around?   How do we survive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humans, that  God put at the top of the food chain have done well for 5,000 years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around.  I am pretty sure most US children older than 10 would know that.
Click to expand...


Really google how many species that have gone extinct  that have ever existed.
,
How many new species can you point to and prove it hasn't existed all along ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen macroevolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I HAVE SEEN MACROEVOLUTION  maybe you need new glasses.
Click to expand...


Provide this macro-evolution that is not just an adaptation ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you someone supporting my views of the fossil record from your side but yet you don't except it. Why would you accept it if i provide one that say's all organisms exp mutations ?
> 
> Think for a second drock, why would any organism not exp errors in their genes ?
> 
> Talk about deliberately denying science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your view is nothing similar to the link the provided.
> 
> You dismiss all fossils.  The link says most fossils erode, aren't found, aren't complete, etc.  Most doesn't equal all, being able to find good fossils even if they're the minority is still great, hard evidence.  Your scientific fact-denying perspective is the exact opposite of everything your link stated.
> 
> Your view is "most fossils erode and aren't found, so the ones they do find in great condition I'll just shove my fingers in my ears and deny those too, it's what God wants to hear."  I can assure you, that's not what the author of those writings is saying.
> 
> Retype your other question;  "why would any organism not exp errors in their genes ?", I'm not sure what you're asking.  Did exp mean experience?
Click to expand...


We disagree on a few things but he suggested the many things i have commented on concerning the fossil reord.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's different levels of mutation rates, but a rate doesn't guarantee a mutation is going to happen.  Just impacts the likeliness.
> 
> I'll keep waiting for a science based link that says all organisms experience mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There would have to be one for every species, I am not playing that game.  All organisms have a constant rate of mutations and mutations are extremely common.  maybe you could look up the genome of every species on NCBI, they have all the known point mutations in every species.  Home - PubMed - NCBI, other than that I do not know what to tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There wouldn't have to be, it's based on math.  Certain species are more likely to have mutations than other species, and you have to factor in population size.
> 
> If I were to find the answer to some crazy long math problem with time and population size it is most likely that most species will have individuals with mutations, but you can't say it's 100%.
> 
> Maybe you can, and I'm wrong, I'll concede that point when i get proof of it.
> 
> Keep in mind we're on the same side of the evolution and mutation debate.
Click to expand...


Do you realize mathematics can't answer a question it can only suggest.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's different levels of mutation rates, but a rate doesn't guarantee a mutation is going to happen.  Just impacts the likeliness.
> 
> I'll keep waiting for a science based link that says all organisms experience mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There would have to be one for every species, I am not playing that game.  All organisms have a constant rate of mutations and mutations are extremely common.  maybe you could look up the genome of every species on NCBI, they have all the known point mutations in every species.  Home - PubMed - NCBI, other than that I do not know what to tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There wouldn't have to be, it's based on math.  Certain species are more likely to have mutations than other species, and you have to factor in population size.
> 
> If I were to find the answer to some crazy long math problem with time and population size it is most likely that most species will have individuals with mutations, but you can't say it's 100%.
> 
> Maybe you can, and I'm wrong, I'll concede that point when i get proof of it.
> 
> Keep in mind we're on the same side of the evolution and mutation debate.
Click to expand...


Drock you have a real problem with being corrected.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> There would have to be one for every species, I am not playing that game.  All organisms have a constant rate of mutations and mutations are extremely common.  maybe you could look up the genome of every species on NCBI, they have all the known point mutations in every species.  Home - PubMed - NCBI, other than that I do not know what to tell you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There wouldn't have to be, it's based on math.  Certain species are more likely to have mutations than other species, and you have to factor in population size.
> 
> If I were to find the answer to some crazy long math problem with time and population size it is most likely that most species will have individuals with mutations, but you can't say it's 100%.
> 
> Maybe you can, and I'm wrong, I'll concede that point when i get proof of it.
> 
> Keep in mind we're on the same side of the evolution and mutation debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drock you have a real problem with being corrected.
Click to expand...


Not sure how you can say that when you've never corrected me, with facts or science that is. 

And again no, the article didn't repeat any of your positions.  Your position is everything science says about fossils is wrong, the article states the opposite repeatedly.


----------



## koshergrl

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> There would have to be one for every species, I am not playing that game. All organisms have a constant rate of mutations and mutations are extremely common. maybe you could look up the genome of every species on NCBI, they have all the known point mutations in every species. Home - PubMed - NCBI, other than that I do not know what to tell you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There wouldn't have to be, it's based on math. Certain species are more likely to have mutations than other species, and you have to factor in population size.
> 
> If I were to find the answer to some crazy long math problem with time and population size it is most likely that most species will have individuals with mutations, but you can't say it's 100%.
> 
> Maybe you can, and I'm wrong, I'll concede that point when i get proof of it.
> 
> Keep in mind we're on the same side of the evolution and mutation debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drock you have a real problem with being corrected.
Click to expand...

 
Drock is a propagandist. He doesn't acknowledge fact when it doesn't fit in with his ideology, and will continue to spout lies in the face of fact.

That's the way Nazis work, too.


----------



## Dr.Drock

koshergrl said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> There wouldn't have to be, it's based on math. Certain species are more likely to have mutations than other species, and you have to factor in population size.
> 
> If I were to find the answer to some crazy long math problem with time and population size it is most likely that most species will have individuals with mutations, but you can't say it's 100%.
> 
> Maybe you can, and I'm wrong, I'll concede that point when i get proof of it.
> 
> Keep in mind we're on the same side of the evolution and mutation debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drock you have a real problem with being corrected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drock is a propagandist. He doesn't acknowledge fact when it doesn't fit in with his ideology, and will continue to spout lies in the face of fact.
> 
> That's the way Nazis work, too.
Click to expand...


Lol the more someone is losing an argument, the more they repeat the word Nazi.



I've never seen someone go so far off the deep end on a mesasge board.  I hope how you type on this board isn't a reflection of your life or personality.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is where faith comes in.
> 
> 
> 
> Upon what basis then should your "explanation" be considered superior to any creation story unfounded in evidence and/or valid logic? On what basis should it be considered intellectually honest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Things that were written by men in the bible at the time man had no way to know such things.
Click to expand...

Like how the hare chews cud, that bats are birds, and the strength of unicorns? That sort of thing? The sort of thing we still don't know about? 

Please don't waste our time with your cumbersome and ludicrous rationalizations for why so many presumptions and statements of fact in the Bible are inconsistent with the verifiable facts of reality. Besides, I already addressed 101 of them.



Youwerecreated said:


> We know it takes intelligence to build and design.


If true, then fairy tales, fables and superstitions are indications it doesn't take terribly much intelligence.

In any case, all you're doing is asserting your question-begging argument. It's just not valid.



Youwerecreated said:


> Complexity don't arise on it's own.


Except snowflakes and imaginary friends ... right?



Youwerecreated said:


> Molecular machines can't arise on their own,they are products of design.


The evidence suggests otherwise. To borrow the (apparently unassailable) refutation of Creationists: You haven't proven anything.



Youwerecreated said:


> There is so much bacteria there should be new families of organism's constantly arising and it is not happening.


Why? Why do you say this? And why do you say the theory of evolution predicts this is necessary?



Youwerecreated said:


> We are seeing a decline in the amount of organism's not an increase.


Really? I was of the impression that we are identifying new species faster than we can identify them going extinct. Interesting.



Youwerecreated said:


> The evcidence is overwhelming that life produces life.


The evidence is also overwhelming that this fact is not in dispute. The evidence is also overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, the interactions non-living things.

The evidence is also overwhelming that you have not recognized the validity of those facts of reality.



Youwerecreated said:


> We have perfectly aligned planets and if they were not Aligned properly there would be no life.


You have no evidence of this necessary relationship between the planets, nor does the logic follow to the necessity of this relationship.

Welcome to the weak anthropic principle, BTW.



Youwerecreated said:


> To much evidence to be ignored from a rational thinker.


What verifiable evidence have you submitted? None. Your validations for your "evidence" all--and I mean without exception--rest upon a question begging argument.

Which of course is just fine considering that by invoking faith as the foundation for this explanation of yours, you admit to no fundamental or necessary substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

I accept this. And just to be clear, I've stopped asking you to validate with evidence your explanation whose foundation has no explanation in evidence. I think I have been clear that I accept this. But I'm not sure you do. So I'll ask again, and read the question carefully; I am uninterested in more "evidence" that is fundamentally irrelevant to you anyway; I'm looking for your justifications for dismissing other faith-based creation 
"theories" along with evolution: "Upon what basis then should your "explanation" be considered superior to any creation story unfounded in evidence and/or valid logic? On what basis should it be considered intellectually honest?"​


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans, that  God put at the top of the food chain have done well for 5,000 years or so.
> 
> 
> 
> Odin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,YAHWEH.
Click to expand...

Upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic  do you base this?


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is commenting on DNA found from a supposedly 70 million year old dinosaur knowing the decay rate for DNA that is a problem for many modern theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why exactly is it a problem, precisely?
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, yeah okay buddy. We have a long list of transitional fossils. There are far more than that site shows, especially once you understand what conceptually constitutes a transitional fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay...? Parental genetics having a hand in your own is not exactly a new idea in the field of biology. We all were taught punnet squares and the work of Gregor Mendel in high school biology class.
> 
> 
> 
> Except we know for a fact the information isn't present. Mutations are caused by errors in DNA code, when the DNA is replicating itself. That causes new sequences of DNA, ones that are only marginally different than the parent, but still different. If the same information was constantly floating around the gene pool, we'd end up with clones during reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the appearance of bigger heads in our evolutionary past to accommodate bigger brains count as a 'morphological' change?
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, we can see and study mutations, not so much for God. We know mutations cause change in organism, we can see DNA replication in action.
> 
> So I'm not sure why you want to throw in the God bit. It doesn't really fit in at all.
> 
> 
> 
> What the devil is a 'family' precisely? We have in fact seen the rise of new species, both in nature and laboratory experiments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your straying into abiogenesis, something which evolution keeps mum about. These two questions are essentially the same, because other organisms have some degree of intelligence as well, even if they may not be able to solve calculus or have some other human marker of 'intelligence.'
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. We do see new species arising at the cell and germ level. You've heard of superbugs, correct? Strong strains of diseases that can withstand medicine? That's natural selection in action.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we _can_. In fact I just gave an example. You just tend to ignore anything contrary to your view, and then give a flimsy reason to ignoring it. The other question has no relevance to what you're trying to get at, but it's good to note we call them errors in DNA transcription.
> 
> 
> 
> Except their not exactly the same as your parents, in biology that's called a clone. You still don't seem to understand mutations or even how things evolve, or even the time it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> _Like _themselves, but not an exact copy. If you have set of parents A, and they have children B. Well, B is certainly very much like A, but B has it's differences in DNA as well. B has kids called C, and C certainly resembles B, but still has differences as well. Let's skip ten or twenty generations, all the way down to some descendents, we'll call them Z. Z certainly resembles its parents, Y, but have marked differences.
> 
> Now, how much resembles does Z have to A? This is how evolution and genetics work, the answer is they won't resembles each other, because the original DNA is slightly altered every time. Eventually it won't resemble what you started with, because so much has changed. This is why if you take a rabbit from now, and look at a rabbit from hundreds of thousands of years ago, they won't look quite the same. And if you could look at a rabbit from that many years into the future, it still wouldn't be an exact copy of a rabbit from today.
> 
> There's really good analogy a scientist filmed. He made a straight line, and then walked around the city he was in and found someone to trace the straight line. Then he asked someone else to trace the line the first guy he asked made. And then he found someone else to trace the line the second guy made. And so on and so on. Eventually by the end, the line didn't resemble anything close to the original straight line.
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't many for a variety reasons, chief among them being that rocks from the Precambrian go through metamorphic changes.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that or Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium. Richard Dawkins is one of the people who take the side of gradualism.
> 
> Also, evolution is the theory as a whole, macro-evolution is just a large span of time. It's not an individual theory in itself. So your quaint little "it's either this or this!" doesn't really have any water.
> 
> 
> 
> Speciation occurs, it has been proven. Stop wasting my time repeating the same buggery nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Variations in families are simply due to either being created as they appear,or interbreeding from the genetic data that is already present and it can't be proven otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interbreeding as a theory doesn't hold up biologically, I've knocked it down before. Could you please stop being a broken record?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It shows the dating methods are way off and that dinosaurs did not go extinct as ecvolutionist claim. It shows they didn't die out and birds evoplved from dinosaurs.
Click to expand...


I don't get it. Why does finding soft tissue in a dinosaur bone disprove radiometric dating? You haven't actually said why it does.



> If there truly was transitional fossils there would have been no need for the punctuated equilibrium theory. Too many educated paleontologist are on record admitting so.



You realize that species that doesn't go extinct is a transitional fossil when it dies, right? Punctuated equilibrium is an attempt to explain why the fossil record isn't perfect (and it isn't, we sadly don't have a skeleton for all organisms that ever had one).



> If you take a bunch of fossils and put some people in a room you can build an evolution tree.



If you take into account some more information that just random fossils. You must take into account:

Where on earth you found the fossils
What level of rock they were found buried in
How old they are
How much they resemble fossils we already recognize

And so on. There's probably a lot more to include when attempting to decide where to classify, but digging up fossils and classifying them is not something I'm that up to speed about. It's kind of boring. 

Also one more thing. When scientists do decide to gather fossils and decide what to classify it as a species and so on, fierce debates can result from scientists arguing just what to classify it _as_. They don't always agree with each other 100%.



> Do you realize how many full bodied fossils we have not many. Most animals we have only a few parts of a creature so they had to buils the animal from the imagination. The public goes into a fossil museum and what they actually see is a bunch of creatures created from the mind and they are constructed of plater.



Yes, I'm aware of this. Why is this an issue? This doesn't actually disprove evolution you know, it just shows how lacking the fossil record is. There's a reason Darwin was lamented it when he wrote _Origin_. But evolution has to use more proof that just fossils. Such proof as been presented to you.

Many times.



> Yes,and you can't prove variations within a family is a result from something other then parental genetics.



Um, what? We know for a fact mutations (which at the very basic definition are CHANGES IN DNA) arise from errors in transcription. We know when you take a parent and a child of that parent, their DNA will not be precisely the same. I'm not sure why you keep having trouble understanding that's where new variations in DNA code come from. I even typed out a long example that should have made it clear.



> You are taught genetics in college as well but they add to the theory saying random mutations are the reason for diversity. Mutations are mistakes and in most cases if they cause any change at all it's usually harmful to the organism. But your theory needs a lot of  accumulative positive mutations over time for your theory to work,but they are just to rare to create all the diversity we see..



The chances of a mutation being positive usually run about 7-30%, it really varies depending on the organism. Are you trying to tell me, that with a rate even as low as 7%, the billions of years life has been around on earth isn't a long enough time? What on earth makes you think it isn't?



> How do you prove our heads are bigger today ? neanderthals heads are no smaller.



I don't see why Neanderthal head size matters. There wasn't any significant gene flow between us and them. You have to go back to the other species in the genus _Homo_.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please read the whole post it is one of your guys
> 
> The parts you ignore.
> 
> " Hard body parts, such as dense bones, teeth, and shells, are what most often are preserved. It is likely that the vast majority of fossils will never be found before they are destroyed by erosion."
> 
> This fossil pictured showed very little change it is the same family still. It was just a small variation within the family.
> 
> Fossil of an extinct marine
> mollusk (Ammonite)
> and its living descendent
> 
> Notice the admission that  inference plays a role because the lack of evidence. Why do you cherry pick ?
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is somewhat like an enormously complex jigsaw puzzle with many pieces still missing Our interpretation of this record has been biased by differential preservation. Some species are underrepresented or have not yet been found. We are left with a somewhat blurred picture of portions of the past, especially the early past. Despite these realities, we have been able to piece together a remarkable understanding of the evolution of life on our planet."
> 
> Look at this admission,sounds like fossils are found from a rapid burial like the global flood perhaps ,lots of water
> 
> "Whether an organism is preserved greatly depends on the local environment in which it died. Plants and animals from humid tropical forests are rarely preserved because they decay rapidly in these regions. Similarly, fossils from mountainous areas rarely survive due to high rates of erosion. Desert creatures generally become fossilized more often due to the preserving arid conditions. Likewise, aquatic organisms are often well preserved if their bodies ended up in deep water where there is little oxygen and life. However, bodies in shallow intertidal zones along coastlines are quickly eaten and the remaining bones are ground into sand particles by tide and wave action."
> 
> Aha,very little is found of an organism so we have to imagine what it is and reconstruct it show it looks like a transitional fossil,i see.
> 
> "Not all bones from the same animal survive equally well. Lightweight bones with relatively large surface areas deteriorate more quickly and are, therefore, less often fossilized. Small, delicate bones are also more likely to be crushed or carried away from the rest of a skeleton by running water. Human and other primate fossils frequently consist of teeth, bits of dense jaw, skull, leg and arm bone fragments. The more porous ribs and shoulder blades are rarely preserved."
> 
> Really,biased in where they look they must be biased in their interpretations.
> 
> "There has been a bias in the fossil record resulting from the fact that paleontologists have not equally searched all areas of the globe. Because of the inaccessibility of some regions, such as Central Asia and much of Africa, their fossil records are poorly understood compared to those of Europe and North America. Many in the current generation of professional fossil hunters are now concentrating their efforts in these under represented areas."
> 
> Really.But what do they do ?
> 
> "When only one or two skeletons of a species have been discovered, there is no way of knowing how representative they are of that kind of animal. They could be typical or atypical in size and shape. Until many more specimens have been found, it is unwise to attempt a definitive species description"
> 
> 
> 
> "Imagine if our species becomes extinct at some distant time in the future and extraterrestrial fossil hunters visit earth and find only one human skeleton. Just by chance, it could be male or female, young or old, tall or short, normal or deviant. The extraterrestrial scientists would very likely not grasp the full range of what humans are like from this evidence and would develop an inaccurate picture of our species."
> 
> 
> I wonder why ? funny stuff.
> 
> "Early in the 20th century, just such an error was made by the noted French paleontologist, Marcellin Boule , when he analyzed one of the first nearly complete prehistoric human skeletons found in Europe. Boule described this Neandertal specimen from la Chapelle-aux-Saints , France as a dull-witted, brutish, ape-like man who walked hunched over with a shuffling gait. This misled several generations of anthropologists. In fact, the skeleton was abnormal. The individual was a very old, arthritic man with severe, near crippling orthopedic problems. We now know that Neandertals looked much more like us than was earlier believed. Paleoanthropologists today consider them to have been either an early variety of our species, Homo sapiens , or a closely related species. The complexity and size of their brains, along with their cultural artifacts, indicate that they were far from being a dim-witted, ape-like creature."
> 
> 
> Don't sound reliable to me.
> 
> "When paleontologists trace the evolution of a species line, they often find that there are gaps of time in the fossil record. Nineteenth century evolutionists referred to these periods in which fossils were still lacking as "missing links" in the "chain of evolution." Such gaps are often the result of changing preservation conditions in the distant past. For long periods of time, most individuals in some species may not have survived long enough after their deaths to become fossils because they were eaten, and the few fossils that were formed may have been destroyed at a high rate by increased erosion in particular regions. Gaps in the fossil record are sometimes due also to the simple fact that we have looked for them in the wrong places. The climate has dramatically changed many times in the past. When that occurred, members of the same species often died out in one region but flourished in others. Unless we are alert to this possibility and search in different geographic regions, it will look like the fossil record has been abruptly broken, only to begin again thousands or even millions of years later. Eventually, the larger gaps in the fossil record are usually filled through intensive worldwide research. This has resulted in an ever more accurate picture of the past."
> 
> 
> 
> Reconstruct with very little recovered of an organism,where did i hear this before ?
> 
> "Fossils show us a great deal about earlier life forms. Not only can we learn about evolutionary processes and trends, but we can also reconstruct body shapes. "
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen this is why humans are put in the same category as apes, monkey's ,and chimps.
> 
> "When new fossils are discovered, it is not always clear as to which species they belong. There are two different, opposing approaches to solving this problem. They are commonly known as the typological and the populationist viewpoints. Those who take the typological approach believe that if two fossils look even slightly different, they must be from two distinct species. This is an emphasis on minor differences. In contrast, those who use the populationist approach accept that individuals in all populations of organisms normally have at least minor differences. Therefore, when they encounter fossils that are similar, but not identical, they tend to lump them into the same species. They expect that separate species would exhibit major differences. The populationist approach to defining species has become the dominant one in the biological sciences today. For psychological reasons, however, some important discoverers of fossils have tended to take the typological viewpoint. It is ego boosting to say that you have discovered something new and unknown rather than just another specimen of an already well known species."
> 
> I love how you cherry pick drock to make an argument
> 
> Hmm,DNA don't last long,where did i hear that ?
> 
> "There probably always will be a heated debate regarding the species identification for new fossil specimens. We cannot use the criteria of reproduction to distinguish species from fossils because it is not possible to get two skeletons to breed in order to see if they can produce fertile offspring. Therefore, paleoanthropologists often take a cautious approach and use the term paleospecies instead of species. This is a group of similar fossils whose range of physical variation does not exceed the range of variation of a closely related living species. Eventually, we may be able to define ancient species more reliably on the basis of DNA samples extracted from fossil bones and other preserved tissues. At present, however, this work is just beginning and it is frustratingly hampered by the fact that DNA usually is very fragmentary in mineralized bone. The earliest human whose DNA has been studied was much less than 100,000 years old, while hominin evolution goes back to at least 4,000,000 years."
> 
> 
> Cherry picker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes most fossils given enough time erode away, are destroyed, never found or what have you.  What's the point?
> 
> Doesn't mean they all are, or the ones that are found are any less credible of evidence.  You can pretend that's the case to your own detriment, but not to those of us who don't spend our lives denying basic verifiable, proven science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fossil record is built on imagination don't you get it ?
> 
> They reconstruct creatures they have very little fossils for.
> 
> They have no tranitional fossils even though they claim they do.
> 
> Teeth and a few bone fragments is no way to reconstruct a creature.
> 
> Another problem is they have not found enough of these so called transitional fossils of the same creature to say they existed or was just a product of cross breeding or deformity.
> 
> Evidence that organisms can adapt is not evidence of macro-evolution.
Click to expand...

bullshit!
Tyrannosaurus Sue
The prehistoric giant stands again 
Holly Hartman


After 65 million years, Sue is back on her feet. 
SUE IS A SENSATION. It's not just that she's 42 feet long and 65 million years old. She's the world's most complete, best preserved, and largest Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton. More than 10,000 visitors went to her May 17, 2000, debut at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History.

Many brought their camerasand a few brought violins. The Chicago Chamber Musicians performed a new piece, written especially for the opening, caled Tyrannosaurus Sue: A Cretaceous Concerto. (T. rex lived during the Cretaceous period, not the Jurassic period, as many believe.)

Rest in Pieces
Sue's Stats
Weight: 14,000 pounds
Length: 42 feet
Height: 13 feet at hip
Age: 65 million years
Head: 5 feet long
Teeth: 58
Brain capacity: 4 cups
Home: South Dakota
Found: Aug. 12, 1990
Sold: Oct. 4, 1997
Cost: $8.4 million

Amazingly, more than 200 of Sue's bones were preserved. The skeleton includes the most complete T. rex tail ever found, as well as one of only two T. rex arms ever found. Sue's skull contains the longest (and scariest) T. rex tooth yet knownit's a foot long.

One amazing discovery in Sue's skeleton is that she has a wishbone, or furcula, such as you would find in most bird skeletons. This is the first wishbone found on a T. rex. It supports the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs, either directly or from a common ancestor.

Even though Sue's bones are more than 65 million years old, they are so well-preserved that you can see marks where muscles and tendons once lay.

Tyrannosaurus Sue &mdash; FactMonster.com


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not mutations causing chirality it's our DNA our genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, why would mutations create chirality when we have never seen it?  You are not making any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like you have never seen macro-evolution,but your side should be able to explain how our genes cover both left and right by chance .to believe that it just happened by chance is rediculous.
Click to expand...

because form follows function ..  your claim that if they were reversed (thumbs and big toes on the outside of the hands and feet they would be useless) is a steaming pile.
as long as the thumb can cross the palm giving us grip, nothing major would change .
we would still have the ability to make and use tools, write, tie knots etc..
the only thing that would be different with feet would be shoe design.since the balance organs are in the inner ear, it would make no real difference where the big toe was.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans, that  God put at the top of the food chain have done well for 5,000 years or so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around.  I am pretty sure most US children older than 10 would know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really google how many species that have gone extinct  that have ever existed.
> ,
> How many new species can you point to and prove it hasn't existed all along ?
Click to expand...


Good grief!  Okay, let us back up a bit because you are so lost this is getting us no where.  I am not talking about species of organisms, I am talking about a reducing environment.  There are reactive chemical species swirling around.  Sometimes your lack of understanding is astonishing Reducing atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I HAVE SEEN MACROEVOLUTION  maybe you need new glasses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide this macro-evolution that is not just an adaptation ?
Click to expand...


I helped my daughter's class do the Dodd experiment, they just finished it last year.  With isolation and a different food source middle school students can witness speciation at work.  The funny thing is it is easy and always works, it does not always take the same amount of generations though.  Evidence for speciation at the bottom of the page


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> The fossil record is built on imagination don't you get it ?


Yet it remains entirely verifiable as real by evidence and valid logic in a way that the reality of your Creator persistently resists being verified. Why do you suppose that is?



Youwerecreated said:


> They reconstruct creatures they have very little fossils for.


You construct our Creator from even less. Upon what basis can you honestly demand He is not even more imaginary?



Youwerecreated said:


> They have no tranitional fossils even though they claim they do.


Your application of Zeno's paradox to rationalize this claim of yours fails to refute the abundant presence of transitional fossils in the fossil record.



Youwerecreated said:


> Teeth and a few bone fragments is no way to reconstruct a creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has the foundation of your imaginary friend entirely whupped though.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another problem is they have not found enough of these so called transitional fossils of the same creature to say they existed or was just a product of cross breeding or deformity.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not as big a problem for evolution, as the reliance creationists have on logical fallacy to propose their assertions regarding "creation." And your repeated application of Zeno's paradox to rationalize this repeated claim of yours fails to refute the abundant presence of transitional fossils in the fossil record.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence that organisms can adapt is not evidence of macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But evidence that they have differentiated through the accumulation of adaptive traits is evidence of macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around.  I am pretty sure most US children older than 10 would know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really google how many species that have gone extinct  that have ever existed.
> ,
> How many new species can you point to and prove it hasn't existed all along ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief!  Okay, let us back up a bit because you are so lost this is getting us no where.  I am not talking about species of organisms, I am talking about a reducing environment.  There are reactive chemical species swirling around.  Sometimes your lack of understanding is astonishing Reducing atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Make your questions clear and precise. We were speaking of species when you put your two cents in.

I posted an article the other day,it was from someone from your side of the argument that said 99.9% of all species have gone extinct.  Do you people agree on anything ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> There wouldn't have to be, it's based on math.  Certain species are more likely to have mutations than other species, and you have to factor in population size.
> 
> If I were to find the answer to some crazy long math problem with time and population size it is most likely that most species will have individuals with mutations, but you can't say it's 100%.
> 
> Maybe you can, and I'm wrong, I'll concede that point when i get proof of it.
> 
> Keep in mind we're on the same side of the evolution and mutation debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drock you have a real problem with being corrected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure how you can say that when you've never corrected me, with facts or science that is.
> 
> And again no, the article didn't repeat any of your positions.  Your position is everything science says about fossils is wrong, the article states the opposite repeatedly.
Click to expand...


Yeah I have, and I have used people on your side of the argument to do so.


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> There wouldn't have to be, it's based on math. Certain species are more likely to have mutations than other species, and you have to factor in population size.
> 
> If I were to find the answer to some crazy long math problem with time and population size it is most likely that most species will have individuals with mutations, but you can't say it's 100%.
> 
> Maybe you can, and I'm wrong, I'll concede that point when i get proof of it.
> 
> Keep in mind we're on the same side of the evolution and mutation debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drock you have a real problem with being corrected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drock is a propagandist. He doesn't acknowledge fact when it doesn't fit in with his ideology, and will continue to spout lies in the face of fact.
> 
> That's the way Nazis work, too.
Click to expand...


You're so right,drock will not believe until God shows up on his door step unfortunately.

You see how they act when I provide comments from educated people on his side of the argument. Atleast some of these educated in the theory are honest about it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upon what basis then should your "explanation" be considered superior to any creation story unfounded in evidence and/or valid logic? On what basis should it be considered intellectually honest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Things that were written by men in the bible at the time man had no way to know such things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like how the hare chews cud, that bats are birds, and the strength of unicorns? That sort of thing? The sort of thing we still don't know about?
> 
> Please don't waste our time with your cumbersome and ludicrous rationalizations for why so many presumptions and statements of fact in the Bible are inconsistent with the verifiable facts of reality. Besides, I already addressed 101 of them.
> 
> If true, then fairy tales, fables and superstitions are indications it doesn't take terribly much intelligence.
> 
> In any case, all you're doing is asserting your question-begging argument. It's just not valid.
> 
> Except snowflakes and imaginary friends ... right?
> 
> The evidence suggests otherwise. To borrow the (apparently unassailable) refutation of Creationists: You haven't proven anything.
> 
> Why? Why do you say this? And why do you say the theory of evolution predicts this is necessary?
> 
> Really? I was of the impression that we are identifying new species faster than we can identify them going extinct. Interesting.
> 
> The evidence is also overwhelming that this fact is not in dispute. The evidence is also overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, the interactions non-living things.
> 
> The evidence is also overwhelming that you have not recognized the validity of those facts of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have perfectly aligned planets and if they were not Aligned properly there would be no life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no evidence of this necessary relationship between the planets, nor does the logic follow to the necessity of this relationship.
> 
> Welcome to the weak anthropic principle, BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To much evidence to be ignored from a rational thinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What verifiable evidence have you submitted? None. Your validations for your "evidence" all--and I mean without exception--rest upon a question begging argument.
> 
> Which of course is just fine considering that by invoking faith as the foundation for this explanation of yours, you admit to no fundamental or necessary substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> I accept this. And just to be clear, I've stopped asking you to validate with evidence your explanation whose foundation has no explanation in evidence. I think I have been clear that I accept this. But I'm not sure you do. So I'll ask again, and read the question carefully; I am uninterested in more "evidence" that is fundamentally irrelevant to you anyway; I'm looking for your justifications for dismissing other faith-based creation
> "theories" along with evolution: "Upon what basis then should your "explanation" be considered superior to any creation story unfounded in evidence and/or valid logic? On what basis should it be considered intellectually honest?"​
Click to expand...


No like some these things,take your pick.


101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge 

        Psalm 19:1-3  The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. 
Jeremiah 10:12  He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.

Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. 

Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts. That book is the Bible.
This booklet presents 101 scientific facts found in the Scriptures. Many of these facts were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece to the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator. How does this affect you? The last several pages provide the answer  you need to read them carefully.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  1.
The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.

Visit:
Modern Science In An Ancient (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.
Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Visit:
All About Atoms (Jefferson Lab)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.
The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.

Visit:
The Arks perfect dimensions (Answers In Genesis)
Safety investigation of Noahs Ark in a seaway (Answers In Genesis)
Noahs Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.
When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.

Visit:
-Why do I need to wash my hands? 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.
Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.
Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

Visit:
Springs of the Ocean (ICR)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.
There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

Visit:
Numerical Simulations Of Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8.
Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creators presence  in Your presence is fullness of joy (Psalm 16:11).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9.
Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.

Visit:
Life in the Blood (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.
The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe  namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.

Visit:
Things You May Not Know About Evolution (ICR)
Creation - Evolution (ICR)
Evolution and the Bible (ICR)
The Fossil Record: Intermediate Links (ChristianAnswers.net)
Archaeopteryx A Feathered Reptile? (ChristianAnswers.net)
The Ape-Man: Missing Link (ChristianAnswers.net)
Biological Evolution Darwin's Finches (ChristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11.
Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwins theory of the survival of the fittest.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12.
Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.

Visit:
What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg? (ICR)
The Egg/Chicken Conundrum (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13.
Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

Visit:
Things that are Made (ICR)
Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality (ICR)
Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories (ICR)
The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14.
Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.

Visit:
The elements of the periodic table sorted by their presence in human body. (Lenntech)
The Bible is a Textbook of Science (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.
The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16.
The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)Then God said, Let there be light (energy). No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17.
The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18.
The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.

Visit:
Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth 
Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19.
Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20.
Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow in the cloud as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets  which act as a prism  separating white light into its color spectrum.

Visit:
What causes a rainbow? (CristianAnswers.net)
The Rainbow And The Cloud (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago  God declared this four millennia ago!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22.
Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the paths of the seas. In the 19th century Matthew Maury  the father of oceanography  after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maurys data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23.
Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body, and that those who commit homosexual sin would receive in themselves the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.

Visit
Sex Habits Linked to Early Death, Disability (Fox News)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24.
Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25.
Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars  thats a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26.
The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along  He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27.
The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28.
Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.

Visit:
Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality (ICR)
Is Creation One of the Traditional Values? (ICR)
Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism (ICR)
Would China Benefit from Christianity? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29.
The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was Gods judgment on mans wickedness.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30.
Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.

Visit:
The Origin of Coal (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31.
The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent  just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

32.
Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the fountains of the great deep were broken up. This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.

Visit:
Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

33.
Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often  By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.

Visit:
Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

34.
Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

Visit:
Is the unborn human less than human? (CristianAnswers.net)
Cloning: Redefining When Life Begins Exposing Flaws in the Preembryo-Embryo Distinction (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

35.
God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an intricate unity in the womb.

Visit:
Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

36.
DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Visit:
Curiously Wrought (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

37.
God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

Visit:
One Blood: The biblical answer to racism (CristianAnswers.net) 
Where Did The Races Come From? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

38.
Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Visit:
Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR) 
On the Origin of Language (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39.
Origin of the different races explained (Genesis 11). As Noahs descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

Visit:
Where did the human races come from? (CristianAnswers.net)
Evolution and Modern Racism (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

40.
God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along  there are healing compounds found in plants.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

41.
Healthy dietary laws (Leviticus 11:9-12). Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales. We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

42.
The Bible warns against eating birds of prey (Leviticus 11:13-19). Scientists now recognize that those birds which eat carrion (putrefying flesh), often spread disease.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

43.
Avoid swine (Deuteronomy 14:8). Not so long ago, science learned that eating undercooked pork causes an infection of parasites called trichinosis. Now consider this: the Bible forbid the eating of swine more than 3,000 years before we learned how to cook pork safely.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. (NCBI)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44.
Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, Gods Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as Mother and naturalism is enshrined.

Visit:
Earth Day, Environmentalism, and the Bible (ICR)
The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
The Hyper-Environmentalists (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

45.
Black holes and dark matter anticipated (Matthew 25:30; Jude 1:13; Isaiah 50:3). Cosmologists now speculate that over 98% of the known universe is comprised of dark matter, with dark energy and black holes. A black holes gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls outer darkness or the blackness of darkness forever.

Visit:
The Outer Darkness (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

46.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God  resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is grow(ing) old like a garment (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ChrisitanAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

47.
Cains wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry  therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.

Visit:
Where did Cain get his wife? (CristianAnswers.net)
Cain's Wife: It Really Does Matter! (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48.
Incest laws established (Leviticus 18:6). To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common. Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice. The reason is simple  the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses day the genetic errors had swelled. Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed.

Visit:
The Blind Gunman (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

49.
Genetic mixing of different seeds forbidden (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9). The Bible warns against mixing seeds  as this will result in an inferior or dangerous crop. There is now growing evidence that unnatural, genetically engineered crops may be harmful.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

50.
Hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Jeremiah 10:13; Amos 9:6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man (Job 36:27-28). The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

51.
The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity  the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit  just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

52.
Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Visit:
Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day (Apologetics Press)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

53.
God has given us just the right amount of water to sustain life (Isaiah 40:12). We now recognize that if there was significantly more or less water, the earth would not support life as we know it.

Visit:
The Anthropic Principle: Is the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life? (ChristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

54.
The earth was designed for biological life (Isaiah 45:18). Scientists have discovered that the most fundamental characteristics of our earth and cosmos are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist. This is called the Anthropic Principle and it agrees with the Bible which states that God formed the earth to be inhabited.

Visit:
The Earth: Unique in All the Universe (ICR)
Design in Nature: The Anthropic Principle (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

55.
The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Eisntein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago  the universe is expanding!

Visit:
The Battle for the Cosmic Center (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

56.
Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, Gods life, created all life.

Visit:
Chemical Evolution: Spontaneous generation; Stanley Miller Experiment (ChristianAnswers.net)
Evolution is Biologically Impossible (ICR)
The Myth Of Chemical Evolution (ICR)
Virgil's Aeneid, by Chance Alone? (ICR)
The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

57.
Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).

Visit:
How did bad things come about? (CristianAnswers.net)
Extinction (ICR)
Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

58.
Light travels in a path (Job 38:19). Light is said to have a way [Hebrew: derek, literally a traveled path or road]. Until the 17th century it was believed that light was transmitted instantaneously. We now know that light is a form of energy that travels at ~186,000 miles per second in a straight line. Indeed, there is a way of light.

Visit:
Light travels in a path was foretold in the Bible hundreds of years before scientists discovered it (creationists.org)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

59.
Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established a weight for the wind. In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

60.
Jet stream anticipated (Ecclesiastes 1:6). At a time when it was thought that winds blew straight, the Bible declares The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit. King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago. Now consider this: it was not until World War II that airmen discovered the jet stream circuit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

61.
Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

62.
Each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the advent of the telescope, the Bible declared what only God and the angels knew  each star varies in size and intensity!

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

63.
The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing  electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send lightnings which indeed speak when they arrive.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

64.
Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, A merry heart does good, like medicine. For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.

Visit:
Benefits of Laughter (Personal-Development.com)
Humor and Laughter: Health Benefits and Online Sources (helpguide.org)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

65.
Intense sorrow or stress is harmful to your health (Proverbs 18:14; Mark 14:34). Researchers have studied individuals with no prior medical problems who showed symptoms of stress cardiomyopathy including chest pain, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, and even heart failure  following a stressful incident.

Visit:
The Physical Dangers of Stress (Fitness Article)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

66.
Microorganisms anticipated (Exodus 22:31). The Bible warns Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the LORD (Leviticus 22:8). Today we understand that a decaying carcass is full of disease causing germs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

67.
The Bible cautions against consuming fat (Leviticus 7:23). Only in recent decades has the medical community determined that fat clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

68.
Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:12). A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood. However, the Creator repeatedly told His people to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:20; 21:25). Of course, modern science reveals that consuming raw blood is dangerous.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

69.
The Bible describes dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24). In 1842, Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosaur, meaning terrible lizard, after discovering large reptilian-like fossils. However in the Book of Job, written 4,000 years earlier, God describes the behemoth as: the largest of all land creatures, plant eating (herbivore), with great strength in its hips and legs, powerful stomach muscles, a tail like a cedar tree, and bones like bars of iron. This is an accurate description of sauropods  the largest known dinosaur family.

Visit:
The Great Dinosaur Mystery (CristianAnswers.net)
How Do The Dinosaurs Fit In? (ICR)
Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood? (ICR)
Dragons in Paradise (ICR)
Leviathan (ICR)
Dinosaurs And The Bible (ICR)
Dinosaur Mania and Our Children (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

70.
Pleasure explained (Psalm 36:8). Evolution cannot explain pleasure  even the most complex chemicals do not experience bliss. However, the Bible states that God gives us richly all things to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17). Pleasure is a gift from God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

71.
Life is more than matter and energy (Genesis 2:7; Job 12:7-10). We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Even though its body may be perfectly intact, and air and energy are reintroduced to spark life, the body remains dead. Scripture agrees with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. Life cannot be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone  as evolutionists would lead us to believe.

Visit:
Breath And Spirit (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

72.
Origin of music explained (Psalm 40:3). Evolution cannot explain the origin of music. The Bible says that every good gift comes from God (James 1:17). This includes joyful melodies. God has given both man and angels the gift of music-making (Genesis 4:21; Ezekiel 28:13). Singing is intended to express rejoicing in and worship of the Lord (Job 38:7; Psalm 95:1-2).

Visit:
Music or Evolution
Musicevidence of creation (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

73.
Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with Gods Word.

Visit:
Ancient civilizations and modern man (Answers In Genesis)
The mystery of ancient man (Answers In Genesis)
Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

74.
Cavemen described in the Bible (Job 30:1-8). Four thousand years ago, Job describes certain vile men who were driven from society to forage among the bushes for survival and who live in the clefts of the valleys, (and) in caves of the earth and the rocks. Therefore cavemen were simply outcasts and vagabounds  not our primitive ancestors as evolutionists speculate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

75.
Environmental devastation of the planet foreseen (Revelation 11:18). Though evolution imagines that things should be getting better, the Bible foresaw what is really occurring today: pollution, destruction and corrupt dominion.

Visit:
Creation and the Environment (ICR)
The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

76.
The seed of a plant contains its life (Genesis 1:11; 29). As stated in the Book of Genesis, we now recognize that inside the humble seed is life itself. Within the seed is a tiny factory of amazing complexity. No scientist can build a synthetic seed and no seed is simple!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

77.
A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells give their lives to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

78.
The order of creation agrees with true science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v. 6), then soil (v. 9), and then He created plant life (v. 11).

Visit:
What is the order of events in the biblical Creation? (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

79.
God created lights in the heavens for signs and seasons, and for days and years (Genesis 1:14-16). We now know that a year is the time required for the earth to travel once around the sun. The seasons are caused by the changing position of the earth in relation to the sun. The moons phases follow one another in clock-like precision  constituting the lunar calendar Evolution teaches that the cosmos evolved by random chance, yet the Bible agrees with the observable evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

80.
The Bible speaks of heaven and the highest heavens (Deuteronomy 10:14). Long before the Hubble Space Telescope, Scripture spoke of the heaven of heavens and the third heaven (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Corinthians 12:2). We now know that the heavens consist of our immediate atmosphere and the vast reaches of outer space  as well as Gods wonderful abode.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

81.
Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him  pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

82.
Man is fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). We are only beginning to probe the complexity of the DNA molecule, the eye, the brain, and all the intricate components of life. No human invention compares to the marvelous wonders of Gods creation.

Visit:
Mankind- The Pinnacle of God's Creation (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

83.
Beauty understood (Genesis 1:31; 2:9; Job 40:10; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Matthew 6:28-30). Beauty surrounds us: radiant sunsets, majestic mountains, brightly colored flowers, glowing gems, soothing foliage, brilliantly adorned birds, etc. Beauty is a mystery to the evolutionist. However, Scripture reveals that God creates beautiful things for our benefit and His glory.

Visit:
Beauty (oldpaths.com)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

84.
Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Physicists do not understand what binds the atoms nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that all things consist  or are held together by the Creator  Jesus Christ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

85.
Atomic fission anticipated (2 Peter 3:10-12). Scripture states that the elements will melt with fervent heat when the earth and the heavens are dissolved by fire. Today we understand that if the elements of the atom are loosed, there would be an enormous release of heat and energy (radiation).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

86.
The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

87.
Safe drinking water (Leviticus 11:33-36). God forbade drinking from vessels or stagnant water that had been contaminated by coming into contact with a dead animal. It is only in the last 100 years that medical science has learned that contaminated water can cause typhoid and cholera.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

88.
Pest control (Leviticus 25:1-24). Farmers are plagued today with insects. Yet God gave a sure-fire remedy to control pests centuries ago. Moses commanded Israel to set aside one year in seven when no crops were raised. Insects winter in the stalks of last years harvest, hatch in the spring, and are perpetuated by laying eggs in the new crop. If the crop is denied one year in seven, the pests have nothing to subsist upon, and are thereby controlled.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

89.
Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if Gods commands were followed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

90.
Animal instincts understood (Job 39; Proverbs 30:24-28; Jeremiah 8:7). A newly hatched spider weaves an intricate web without being taught. A recently emerged butterfly somehow knows to navigate a 2,500-mile migration route without a guide. God explains that He has endowed each creature with specific knowledge. Scripture, not evolution, explains animal instincts.

Visit:
Instinct, Wise Behavior, Unlearned Knowledge And Abilities (oldpaths.com)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

91.
Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in Gods image.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

92.
Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science). True science agrees with the Creators Word.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

93.
Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews  which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.

Visit:
DNA Evidence And The Book Of Mormon (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

94.
Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

95.
Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, Gods Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.

Visit:
Is Man a "Higher" Animal? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

96.
The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donors character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

97.
The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted  introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98.
Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die  The soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of Gods Law. To see if you will die, please review Gods Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then youre an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creators name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy  and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99.
Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death  which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100.
Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person  free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

101.
The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away (Revelation 21:4).


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes most fossils given enough time erode away, are destroyed, never found or what have you.  What's the point?
> 
> Doesn't mean they all are, or the ones that are found are any less credible of evidence.  You can pretend that's the case to your own detriment, but not to those of us who don't spend our lives denying basic verifiable, proven science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is built on imagination don't you get it ?
> 
> They reconstruct creatures they have very little fossils for.
> 
> They have no tranitional fossils even though they claim they do.
> 
> Teeth and a few bone fragments is no way to reconstruct a creature.
> 
> Another problem is they have not found enough of these so called transitional fossils of the same creature to say they existed or was just a product of cross breeding or deformity.
> 
> Evidence that organisms can adapt is not evidence of macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit!
> Tyrannosaurus Sue
> The prehistoric giant stands again
> Holly Hartman
> 
> 
> After 65 million years, Sue is back on her feet.
> SUE IS A SENSATION. It's not just that she's 42 feet long and 65 million years old. She's the world's most complete, best preserved, and largest Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton. More than 10,000 visitors went to her May 17, 2000, debut at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History.
> 
> Many brought their camerasand a few brought violins. The Chicago Chamber Musicians performed a new piece, written especially for the opening, caled Tyrannosaurus Sue: A Cretaceous Concerto. (T. rex lived during the Cretaceous period, not the Jurassic period, as many believe.)
> 
> Rest in Pieces
> Sue's Stats
> Weight: 14,000 pounds
> Length: 42 feet
> Height: 13 feet at hip
> Age: 65 million years
> Head: 5 feet long
> Teeth: 58
> Brain capacity: 4 cups
> Home: South Dakota
> Found: Aug. 12, 1990
> Sold: Oct. 4, 1997
> Cost: $8.4 million
> 
> Amazingly, more than 200 of Sue's bones were preserved. The skeleton includes the most complete T. rex tail ever found, as well as one of only two T. rex arms ever found. Sue's skull contains the longest (and scariest) T. rex tooth yet knownit's a foot long.
> 
> One amazing discovery in Sue's skeleton is that she has a wishbone, or furcula, such as you would find in most bird skeletons. This is the first wishbone found on a T. rex. It supports the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs, either directly or from a common ancestor.
> 
> Even though Sue's bones are more than 65 million years old, they are so well-preserved that you can see marks where muscles and tendons once lay.
> 
> Tyrannosaurus Sue &mdash; FactMonster.com
Click to expand...


I never said there were no full body fossils  they are few.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,YAHWEH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic  do you base this?
Click to expand...


Faith and reasoning from the scriptures. You go ahead and laugh now i just hope you come to your senses before it is too late.

Psa 10:4  Through the pride of his face the wicked will not seek Him; There is no God in all his schemes. 

Psa 14:1  To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good. 

Mat 11:25  At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank You, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the sophisticated and cunning, and revealed them to babes. 


Eph 4:14  so that we no longer may be infants, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, in the dishonesty of men, in cunning craftiness, to the wiles of deceit. 


2Pe 3:3  First, knowing this, that there will come in the last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts 

Sounds familiar.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things that were written by men in the bible at the time man had no way to know such things.
> 
> 
> 
> Like how the hare chews cud, that bats are birds, and the strength of unicorns? That sort of thing? The sort of thing we still don't know about?
> 
> Please don't waste our time with your cumbersome and ludicrous rationalizations for why so many presumptions and statements of fact in the Bible are inconsistent with the verifiable facts of reality. Besides, I already addressed 101 of them.
> 
> If true, then fairy tales, fables and superstitions are indications it doesn't take terribly much intelligence.
> 
> In any case, all you're doing is asserting your question-begging argument. It's just not valid.
> 
> Except snowflakes and imaginary friends ... right?
> 
> The evidence suggests otherwise. To borrow the (apparently unassailable) refutation of Creationists: You haven't proven anything.
> 
> Why? Why do you say this? And why do you say the theory of evolution predicts this is necessary?
> 
> Really? I was of the impression that we are identifying new species faster than we can identify them going extinct. Interesting.
> 
> The evidence is also overwhelming that this fact is not in dispute. The evidence is also overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, the interactions non-living things.
> 
> The evidence is also overwhelming that you have not recognized the validity of those facts of reality.
> 
> You have no evidence of this necessary relationship between the planets, nor does the logic follow to the necessity of this relationship.
> 
> Welcome to the weak anthropic principle, BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To much evidence to be ignored from a rational thinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What verifiable evidence have you submitted? None. Your validations for your "evidence" all--and I mean without exception--rest upon a question begging argument.
> 
> Which of course is just fine considering that by invoking faith as the foundation for this explanation of yours, you admit to no fundamental or necessary substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> I accept this. And just to be clear, I've stopped asking you to validate with evidence your explanation whose foundation has no explanation in evidence. I think I have been clear that I accept this. But I'm not sure you do. So I'll ask again, and read the question carefully; I am uninterested in more "evidence" that is fundamentally irrelevant to you anyway; I'm looking for your justifications for dismissing other faith-based creation
> "theories" along with evolution: "Upon what basis then should your "explanation" be considered superior to any creation story unfounded in evidence and/or valid logic? On what basis should it be considered intellectually honest?"​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No like some these things,take your pick.
> 
> 
> 101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge
> 
> --WALL OF CRAP SNIPPED--​
Click to expand...


That crap isn't any less crap now than it was when I responded to it before.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,YAHWEH.
> 
> 
> 
> Upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic  do you base this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faith and reasoning from the scriptures.
Click to expand...

First, I asked for fact of objective reality and/or valid logic; second, faith and valid reasoning are mutually exclusive.

So why not give it another try?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is built on imagination don't you get it ?
> 
> They reconstruct creatures they have very little fossils for.
> 
> They have no tranitional fossils even though they claim they do.
> 
> Teeth and a few bone fragments is no way to reconstruct a creature.
> 
> Another problem is they have not found enough of these so called transitional fossils of the same creature to say they existed or was just a product of cross breeding or deformity.
> 
> Evidence that organisms can adapt is not evidence of macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> Tyrannosaurus Sue
> The prehistoric giant stands again
> Holly Hartman
> 
> 
> After 65 million years, Sue is back on her feet.
> SUE IS A SENSATION. It's not just that she's 42 feet long and 65 million years old. She's the world's most complete, best preserved, and largest Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton. More than 10,000 visitors went to her May 17, 2000, debut at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History.
> 
> Many brought their camerasand a few brought violins. The Chicago Chamber Musicians performed a new piece, written especially for the opening, caled Tyrannosaurus Sue: A Cretaceous Concerto. (T. rex lived during the Cretaceous period, not the Jurassic period, as many believe.)
> 
> Rest in Pieces
> Sue's Stats
> Weight: 14,000 pounds
> Length: 42 feet
> Height: 13 feet at hip
> Age: 65 million years
> Head: 5 feet long
> Teeth: 58
> Brain capacity: 4 cups
> Home: South Dakota
> Found: Aug. 12, 1990
> Sold: Oct. 4, 1997
> Cost: $8.4 million
> 
> Amazingly, more than 200 of Sue's bones were preserved. The skeleton includes the most complete T. rex tail ever found, as well as one of only two T. rex arms ever found. Sue's skull contains the longest (and scariest) T. rex tooth yet knownit's a foot long.
> 
> One amazing discovery in Sue's skeleton is that she has a wishbone, or furcula, such as you would find in most bird skeletons. This is the first wishbone found on a T. rex. It supports the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs, either directly or from a common ancestor.
> 
> Even though Sue's bones are more than 65 million years old, they are so well-preserved that you can see marks where muscles and tendons once lay.
> 
> Tyrannosaurus Sue &mdash; FactMonster.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said there were no full body fossils  they are few.
Click to expand...

 those few  disprove your creation story (I say story, as a theory has to have some basis in fact)
if the bible is acurate why was the t rex and all other pre biblical creation story life left out?


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things that were written by men in the bible at the time man had no way to know such things.
> 
> 
> 
> Like how the hare chews cud, that bats are birds, and the strength of unicorns? That sort of thing? The sort of thing we still don't know about?
> 
> Please don't waste our time with your cumbersome and ludicrous rationalizations for why so many presumptions and statements of fact in the Bible are inconsistent with the verifiable facts of reality. Besides, I already addressed 101 of them.
> 
> If true, then fairy tales, fables and superstitions are indications it doesn't take terribly much intelligence.
> 
> In any case, all you're doing is asserting your question-begging argument. It's just not valid.
> 
> Except snowflakes and imaginary friends ... right?
> 
> The evidence suggests otherwise. To borrow the (apparently unassailable) refutation of Creationists: You haven't proven anything.
> 
> Why? Why do you say this? And why do you say the theory of evolution predicts this is necessary?
> 
> Really? I was of the impression that we are identifying new species faster than we can identify them going extinct. Interesting.
> 
> The evidence is also overwhelming that this fact is not in dispute. The evidence is also overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, the interactions non-living things.
> 
> The evidence is also overwhelming that you have not recognized the validity of those facts of reality.
> 
> You have no evidence of this necessary relationship between the planets, nor does the logic follow to the necessity of this relationship.
> 
> Welcome to the weak anthropic principle, BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To much evidence to be ignored from a rational thinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What verifiable evidence have you submitted? None. Your validations for your "evidence" all--and I mean without exception--rest upon a question begging argument.
> 
> Which of course is just fine considering that by invoking faith as the foundation for this explanation of yours, you admit to no fundamental or necessary substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> I accept this. And just to be clear, I've stopped asking you to validate with evidence your explanation whose foundation has no explanation in evidence. I think I have been clear that I accept this. But I'm not sure you do. So I'll ask again, and read the question carefully; I am uninterested in more "evidence" that is fundamentally irrelevant to you anyway; I'm looking for your justifications for dismissing other faith-based creation
> "theories" along with evolution: "Upon what basis then should your "explanation" be considered superior to any creation story unfounded in evidence and/or valid logic? On what basis should it be considered intellectually honest?"​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No like some these things,take your pick.
> 
> 
> 101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge
> 
> Psalm 19:1-3 &#8211; The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.
> Jeremiah 10:12 &#8211; He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.
> 
> Romans 1:20 &#8211; For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
> 
> Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts. That book is the Bible.
> This booklet presents 101 scientific facts found in the Scriptures. Many of these facts were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece to the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator. How does this affect you? The last several pages provide the answer &#8211; you need to read them carefully.
Click to expand...


So I figured I'd have some fun with your unoriginal copy and pasted article and answer the first twenty. It's not as scientific as the writers claim. In fact, it's really just them shoehorning modern science into Biblical scripture, stretching the passages as far as they can to include it. I'm also pretty sure they were hoping whoever read this was retarded, with no knowledge of history or science.



> 1.
> The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true &#8211; &#8220;He hangs the earth on nothing.&#8221;



Which is funny, because the Bible also makes pains to point out that the earth is flat, has edges, is set upon pillars, and is covered by a dome that is the sky.



> 2.
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.



People had ideas about atoms and particles in India and Greece that predate the Bible. I suggest you look up Democritus or Lucretius.



> 3.
> The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.



The Old Testament was written at the earliest in 1000 BC, so that's the date we'll be using, not the faulty dates it gives for Genesis.

The Egyptians already were building boats around those parameters in 2500 BC. It's not an idea the Bible came up with, and certainly not from a god.



> 4.
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.



Sanitation isn't really a novel idea from the Bible. People have been recognizing the need for running water for thousands of years. See the next one for more information.



> 5.
> Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.



Sanitation practices is not an idea the Bible introduced. Sanitation practices and works have existed for thousands of years, with some of the very first ones coming from India. Shouldn't we be praising the appropriate Hindu god instead?

Also, if the Bible gave such great ideas on sanitation, why did the Roman aqueducts fall into disuse? Shouldn't they have been kept up? And also, was Europe Christian for a lot of time before World War I, why didn't they follow good sanitation? It sounds like shoving modern ideas into the Bible, and it doesn't seem to hold up at all.



> 6.
> Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!



Most of the water source of the oceans is the water cycle, not 'springs from the sea.' You'd think if the Bible wanted to be accurate it'd mention something about it.



> 7.
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.



That's not quite accurate, and it's really poetically stretching it. Other translations show it up as "roots" or even once "moorings." Saying it predicts mountains underwater, would be like saying if you go underground to a tree's roots, then there must be trees underground.



> 8.
> Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creator&#8217;s presence &#8211; &#8220;in Your presence is fullness of joy&#8221; (Psalm 16:11).



There's no science in here at all. Only God makes you happy? Atheists would disagree.



> 9.
> Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were &#8220;bled&#8221; and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that &#8220;the life of the flesh is in the blood&#8221; long before science understood its function.



Any soldier in antiquity will tell you if you lose a lot of blood, you aren't going to live. Again, this isn't really a new idea coming solely from the Bible, but something that was already known at the time (and probably a great time before) the Bible was written.



> 10.
> The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe &#8211; namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.



Except evolution is in fact true, and we have seen speciation in nature and in lab conditions. Domestication is a prime example of how it happened. Domesticated plants and animals (cows, corn, dogs, cats, cabbage, etc) look nothing like they originally did.



> 11.
> Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin&#8217;s theory of the survival of the fittest.



Two things.

One, kindness and honor to others, isn't a concept that the Bible only brought up. There are instances scattered through antiquity of such acts, which predate the Bible. The sacrifice of the Greek soldiers at Thermopylae is one such example.

Two, if evolutionary processes was at odds with such acts of cooperation, then why do cells join up to survive? This act by cells has been replicated in the lab, so we know they are capable of doing it if need be. 

Also, this doesn't explain parent-child relationships in nature. We find many examples of animals caring for their young. If it was truly survival of the fittest, why do these relationships exist? The answer is simple, such acts of kindness and cooperation is not a concept at odds with evolution, or even a concept solely regulated upon humans. Richard Dawkins wrote a whole book, _The Selfish Gene_, about this.



> 12.
> Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.



Neither, this one is fucking retarded. Dinosaurs laid eggs, and dinosaurs predate chickens. Ergo, eggs were around before chickens and birds. That's not even new knowledge, whoever wrote this was a complete moron. 



> 13.
> Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.



That's not in Revelations at all. It just says "well herp, god is great for making everything." DNA and proteins don't even enter into it. This is a huge claim to make, and you're really stretching the meaning of Bible passages.



> 14.
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements &#8211; all of which are found in the earth.



I've torn this down many times from you before. Are we of Mars as well? Many of the elements we are made of come from Mars. Also, if we're of dust, why are we 75% water? And so on.



> 15.
> The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.



No it doesn't. It's a stretch to say it predicts the laws of thermodynamics, when all those cited passages say is, God finished doing shit and rested. No where is thermodynamics listed, unless you wish to do mental gymnastics.



> 16.
> The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: &#8220;In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)&#8230;Then God said, &#8220;Let there be light (energy).&#8221; No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.



Except if you read the rest of the chapter, light clearly means actual light (the sun and moon are referred to as great lights. That doesn't make sense if you take light to mean energy.), the earth actually means the earth (that's how Genesis refers to the place God shits out everything), and like I say below, lots of creation myths have a beginning of the universe. That's what a _creation _myth is!



> 17.
> The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.



The creation myth in Genesis is not alone in this, actually. Lots of creation myths start the universe. That's why their called _creation _myths.



> 18.
> The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.



See above where the Bible also suggests it's flat and has ends. This is an excellent time to point out that there was never actually widespread thinking that the earth was flat. Both the ancient Greeks and Phoenicians knew the Earth was round, sometime way back in the sixth or seventh centuries BCE. Hell, just because they didn't live in the modern world doesn't mean they were stupid. If the earth was flat, then a ship sailing over the horizon wouldn't disappear from sight from the hull to the top of the mast. That's something you could see and work out for yourself even in antiquity.



> 19.
> Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.



The Bible also says the Earth doesn't move. I'm starting to think the Bible is a schizo.



> 20.
> Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow &#8220;in the cloud&#8221; as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets &#8211; which act as a prism &#8211; separating white light into its color spectrum.



That passage doesn't actually explain at all. It literally just says rainbows are a sign from God he won't flood again. It says nothing about light shining through water.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drock you have a real problem with being corrected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drock is a propagandist. He doesn't acknowledge fact when it doesn't fit in with his ideology, and will continue to spout lies in the face of fact.
> 
> That's the way Nazis work, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so right,drock will not believe until God shows up on his door step unfortunately.
> 
> You see how they act when I provide comments from educated people on his side of the argument. Atleast some of these educated in the theory are honest about it.
Click to expand...


Every science link you've ever tried to use against me I've highlighted parts of the article that are repeating what I've already said to you.  

Now your Bible blogs often go against me, but they never use science.  Like that silly one you reposted with 100 things the Bible blogger twists into agreeing with science, you still post it even though it's been debunked a dozen times.

You're right, I need the tiniest shred of scientific evidence of a god(s).  I have no moral issue with believing in god(s), but i take science seriously unlike you.  I won't take stories written by ignorant, uneducated people thousands of years ago as something to base my life on until science agrees with those ignorant, uneducated people.


----------



## koshergrl

Drock does the rounds, telling the same lies from thread to thread. "I have proved my point" (but never references it) and "People who believe as you are exactly what you argue against".

Nutjob.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I HAVE SEEN MACROEVOLUTION  maybe you need new glasses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide this macro-evolution that is not just an adaptation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I helped my daughter's class do the Dodd experiment, they just finished it last year.  With isolation and a different food source middle school students can witness speciation at work.  The funny thing is it is easy and always works, it does not always take the same amount of generations though.  Evidence for speciation at the bottom of the page
Click to expand...


Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution.

That is no different then what happens with dogs and horses.

They are still  Iguanas.

It's no different then what darwin saw with the galapagos finches. They will die out and what they were will return.

That is something your side ignores. The finches when drought was present the short beak was dying out,but what when the drought was over ? that's right the short beaked finch made a strong come back.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,YAHWEH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic  do you base this?
Click to expand...


The bible can be both fact and theory,mostly fact though.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,YAHWEH.
> 
> 
> 
> Upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic  do you base this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible can be both fact and theory,mostly fact though.
Click to expand...

By your very own criteria then, the same objectively applies to the Eddas. That being the case, upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic do you base your assertion that Yahweh, rather than Odin, is the Creator?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is built on imagination don't you get it ?
> 
> 
> 
> Yet it remains entirely verifiable as real by evidence and valid logic in a way that the reality of your Creator persistently resists being verified. Why do you suppose that is?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They reconstruct creatures they have very little fossils for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You construct our Creator from even less. Upon what basis can you honestly demand He is not even more imaginary?
> 
> Your application of Zeno's paradox to rationalize this claim of yours fails to refute the abundant presence of transitional fossils in the fossil record.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Teeth and a few bone fragments is no way to reconstruct a creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has the foundation of your imaginary friend entirely whupped though.
> 
> It's not as big a problem for evolution, as the reliance creationists have on logical fallacy to propose their assertions regarding "creation." And your repeated application of Zeno's paradox to rationalize this repeated claim of yours fails to refute the abundant presence of transitional fossils in the fossil record.
> 
> But evidence that they have differentiated through the accumulation of adaptive traits is evidence of macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunking evolution.
> 
> 
> Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> Tyrannosaurus Sue
> The prehistoric giant stands again
> Holly Hartman
> 
> 
> After 65 million years, Sue is back on her feet.
> SUE IS A SENSATION. It's not just that she's 42 feet long and 65 million years old. She's the world's most complete, best preserved, and largest Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton. More than 10,000 visitors went to her May 17, 2000, debut at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History.
> 
> Many brought their camerasand a few brought violins. The Chicago Chamber Musicians performed a new piece, written especially for the opening, caled Tyrannosaurus Sue: A Cretaceous Concerto. (T. rex lived during the Cretaceous period, not the Jurassic period, as many believe.)
> 
> Rest in Pieces
> Sue's Stats
> Weight: 14,000 pounds
> Length: 42 feet
> Height: 13 feet at hip
> Age: 65 million years
> Head: 5 feet long
> Teeth: 58
> Brain capacity: 4 cups
> Home: South Dakota
> Found: Aug. 12, 1990
> Sold: Oct. 4, 1997
> Cost: $8.4 million
> 
> Amazingly, more than 200 of Sue's bones were preserved. The skeleton includes the most complete T. rex tail ever found, as well as one of only two T. rex arms ever found. Sue's skull contains the longest (and scariest) T. rex tooth yet knownit's a foot long.
> 
> One amazing discovery in Sue's skeleton is that she has a wishbone, or furcula, such as you would find in most bird skeletons. This is the first wishbone found on a T. rex. It supports the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs, either directly or from a common ancestor.
> 
> Even though Sue's bones are more than 65 million years old, they are so well-preserved that you can see marks where muscles and tendons once lay.
> 
> Tyrannosaurus Sue &mdash; FactMonster.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said there were no full body fossils  they are few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those few  disprove your creation story (I say story, as a theory has to have some basis in fact)
> if the bible is acurate why was the t rex and all other pre biblical creation story life left out?
Click to expand...


They were not left out. Did you expect them to use terms of today to explain them ?


Dinosaurs in the Bible


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr.Drock said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drock is a propagandist. He doesn't acknowledge fact when it doesn't fit in with his ideology, and will continue to spout lies in the face of fact.
> 
> That's the way Nazis work, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so right,drock will not believe until God shows up on his door step unfortunately.
> 
> You see how they act when I provide comments from educated people on his side of the argument. Atleast some of these educated in the theory are honest about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every science link you've ever tried to use against me I've highlighted parts of the article that are repeating what I've already said to you.
> 
> Now your Bible blogs often go against me, but they never use science.  Like that silly one you reposted with 100 things the Bible blogger twists into agreeing with science, you still post it even though it's been debunked a dozen times.
> 
> You're right, I need the tiniest shred of scientific evidence of a god(s).  I have no moral issue with believing in god(s), but i take science seriously unlike you.  I won't take stories written by ignorant, uneducated people thousands of years ago as something to base my life on until science agrees with those ignorant, uneducated people.
Click to expand...


Of couirse they will make comments that you agree with they are evolutionist but they admit to the problems why is that hard for you to grasp ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic  do you base this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible can be both fact and theory,mostly fact though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By your very own criteria then, the same objectively applies to the Eddas. That being the case, upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic do you base your assertion that Yahweh, rather than Odin, is the Creator?
Click to expand...


I refuse to keep repeating myself.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're so right,drock will not believe until God shows up on his door step unfortunately.
> 
> You see how they act when I provide comments from educated people on his side of the argument. Atleast some of these educated in the theory are honest about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every science link you've ever tried to use against me I've highlighted parts of the article that are repeating what I've already said to you.
> 
> Now your Bible blogs often go against me, but they never use science.  Like that silly one you reposted with 100 things the Bible blogger twists into agreeing with science, you still post it even though it's been debunked a dozen times.
> 
> You're right, I need the tiniest shred of scientific evidence of a god(s).  I have no moral issue with believing in god(s), but i take science seriously unlike you.  I won't take stories written by ignorant, uneducated people thousands of years ago as something to base my life on until science agrees with those ignorant, uneducated people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of couirse they will make comments that you agree with they are evolutionist but they admit to the problems why is that hard for you to grasp ?
Click to expand...


They don't make comments I agree with, they present facts that I don't deny and you do.

What problems?  That the minority of fossils survive over time?  That the Bible doesn't agree with it?  That's the big problem?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,YAHWEH.
> 
> 
> 
> Upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic  do you base this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible can be both fact and theory,mostly fact though.
Click to expand...

wrong !your own belief precludes that. if the bible were accurate then there would be no theories.
hard core creationists  insist that everything contained in it is fact,with no exceptions .   
 YOU'VE JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELF!


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> i never said there were no full body fossils  They are few.
> 
> 
> 
> those few  disprove your creation story (i say story, as a theory has to have some basis in fact)
> if the bible is acurate why was the t rex and all other pre biblical creation story life left out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they were not left out. Did you expect them to use terms of today to explain them ?
> 
> 
> dinosaurs in the bible
Click to expand...

 lol!


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really google how many species that have gone extinct  that have ever existed.
> ,
> How many new species can you point to and prove it hasn't existed all along ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief!  Okay, let us back up a bit because you are so lost this is getting us no where.  I am not talking about species of organisms, I am talking about a reducing environment.  There are reactive chemical species swirling around.  Sometimes your lack of understanding is astonishing Reducing atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make your questions clear and precise. We were speaking of species when you put your two cents in.
> 
> I posted an article the other day,it was from someone from your side of the argument that said 99.9% of all species have gone extinct.  Do you people agree on anything ?
Click to expand...


Wow!  #13 that I have seen where you reply to a post with something that has nothing to do with the post at all.  Reducing environments and reactive species are terms that you learn early in a biology degree, though since I am sure you never got one, I am not surprised to find your knowledge nonexistent as usual.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Provide this macro-evolution that is not just an adaptation ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I helped my daughter's class do the Dodd experiment, they just finished it last year.  With isolation and a different food source middle school students can witness speciation at work.  The funny thing is it is easy and always works, it does not always take the same amount of generations though.  Evidence for speciation at the bottom of the page
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution.
> 
> That is no different then what happens with dogs and horses.
> 
> They are still  Iguanas.
> 
> It's no different then what darwin saw with the galapagos finches. They will die out and what they were will return.
> 
> That is something your side ignores. The finches when drought was present the short beak was dying out,but what when the drought was over ? that's right the short beaked finch made a strong come back.
Click to expand...


Look, you do not know what you are talking about, you make up invalid definitions for words and try to disprove them on that basis, which is called lying.  You either can't read or refuse to read anything but nonsense.  You get almost everything you say wrong.  the experiment was not about iguanas, it was about fruit flies and how you can with a little isolation and a different food source, get two groups that will no longer mate with the other which is the beginning of speciation and can be witnessed by everyone.  That, not whatever nonsense you make up in your head, is macroevolution.  The finch thing is also wrong because it was about more than beaks, it was about the finches not being able to breed with the original population anymore, which was actually not even known in Darwin's time.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible can be both fact and theory,mostly fact though.
> 
> 
> 
> By your very own criteria then, the same objectively applies to the Eddas. That being the case, upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic do you base your assertion that Yahweh, rather than Odin, is the Creator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refuse to keep repeating myself.
Click to expand...

You refuse honestly answer, because you would then have to admit that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that Yahweh, rather than Odin, is the Creator.

Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:
El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
Viracocha in Inca mythology;
Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
Rod in Slavic mythology;
Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in M&#257;ori mythology
I'm going to predict right now that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith.


----------



## koshergrl

apply invalid rationalizing?

SERIOUSLY?

Dude..it's "apply invalid rationale" if you're really committed to mouthing such an atrocity.


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,YAHWEH.
> 
> 
> 
> Upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic  do you base this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible can be both fact and theory,mostly fact though.
Click to expand...


Mostly fact? Judging by some of the 'facts' it presents, I'd say no.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is built on imagination don't you get it ?
> 
> 
> 
> Yet it remains entirely verifiable as real by evidence and valid logic in a way that the reality of your Creator persistently resists being verified. Why do you suppose that is?
> 
> You construct our Creator from even less. Upon what basis can you honestly demand He is not even more imaginary?
> 
> Your application of Zeno's paradox to rationalize this claim of yours fails to refute the abundant presence of transitional fossils in the fossil record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Teeth and a few bone fragments is no way to reconstruct a creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has the foundation of your imaginary friend entirely whupped though.
> 
> It's not as big a problem for evolution, as the reliance creationists have on logical fallacy to propose their assertions regarding "creation." And your repeated application of Zeno's paradox to rationalize this repeated claim of yours fails to refute the abundant presence of transitional fossils in the fossil record.
> 
> But evidence that they have differentiated through the accumulation of adaptive traits is evidence of macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunking evolution.
> 
> 
> Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong
Click to expand...

Debunking evolution? What a laugh!

Did you write that yourself? Because it's exactly wrong in every single way we've been proving you wrong; and wrong for the exact same misrepresentations of evolutionary theory, errors of fact, and logically fallacious reasoning we've been pointing out you've been applying all along.

Why don't you get a little intellectual integrity and level up?


----------



## LOki

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic  do you base this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible can be both fact and theory,mostly fact though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly fact? Judging by some of the 'facts' it presents, I'd say no.
Click to expand...

Seriously.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> apply invalid rationalizing?
> 
> SERIOUSLY?


Yes. Seriously. I'll say it again, RATIONALIZING.



koshergrl said:


> Dude..it's "apply invalid rationale" if you're really committed to mouthing such an atrocity.


As usual, you're absolutely wrong. "Rationalizing" is the correct term, and I am using it correctly.

And considering the dishonest cut of your jib, I wouldn't put it past you to bring your lame and invalid correction as a contrived attempt to equate the statements of invalid reasoning (rationalizations) you and YWC apply as being valid reasons (rationales) for your beliefs.


----------



## koshergrl

Idiot...you don't apply rationalIZING, you moron. You APPLY rationALE.

Rationalizing is the act of being rational. You don't apply an act.


----------



## koshergrl

In other words, you don't APPLY a VERB. 

Interestingly, I can't even find the word "rationalizing" in the dictionary.

Rationalize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## Woyzeck

I think I'll take on some more of those 'science facts' from the Bible.



> 21.
> Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago  God declared this four millennia ago!



This is one of those passages from the Bible that get stretched to mean a modern scientific fact. This passage literally just asks which way is light parted? It's entirely mum on any sort of recombination, or that color even comes from different wavelengths of light. To be honest, I'm not sure where it's getting the "parting" from, or really even the combining. The recombining looks like the authors of this piece stretching the meaning of a single poetic line to mean whole swathes of scientific theory.



> 22.
> Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the paths of the seas. In the 19th century Matthew Maury  the father of oceanography  after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maurys data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.



Sailors in antiquity had knowledge of coastal currents, but obviously not ones from the open ocean. This one isn't that valid either, I'm afraid.



> 23.
> Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body, and that those who commit homosexual sin would receive in themselves the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.



Unprotected sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health. It didn't take the Bible for people to realize venereal diseases exist. The rest of this is moralizing against homosexuality and for monogamy. It doesn't take a genius to realize if you sleep with the same person, you chances of catching STDs go down.



> 24.
> Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.



This is one of those 'facts' which actually aren't valid explanations. It doesn't actually give a reason except 'God did it,' which is a fallacy filled 'God in the gaps' argument

Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean you can attribute to a god. There are lots of things we didn't know before, that we do know. I guess that makes a god an ever-receding pocket of ignorance.

Also, I dunno if we actually do know what the penis and vagina evolved at the same time. The above still applies regardless.



> 25.
> Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars  thats a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.



 This one is funny to claim credit for. Considering the translation quote says incalculable, and that it stands to reason that there is a finite number of stars (there is, the universe also has a finite mass, i.e., an actual weight), you can't give credit for something that will ultimately proved wrong.

I'd also like to know where it gets the 5,000 stars visible bit. The ancients also witnessed one or two supernovas, and I can't find anything about how many they thought there were in the universe.



> 26.
> The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along  He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!



 So it contradicts itself! First in claims it's impossible to count all the stars, and now it twists the passage to say it can! Not to mention the exact passage it quotes doesn't actually automatically mean finite, it could be easily be infinite based on Christian claims of what God can do.



> 27.
> The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.



This is the third time it's gone on about stars. See above for an answer.


> 28.
> Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.



False claims. Take a look what Christians did when they ran the planet. Go on. I'll wait. Take a look on the priests who are morally depraved because they touch little boys. "People of God" can be morally depraved as anyone else. Hell, the Scandivian countries are fairly atheistic, yet they seem to be doing just find in terms of happiness and law and order.



> 29.
> The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was Gods judgment on mans wickedness.



It isn't possible for the Flood to have happened, but mass extinction events do. The reasons its impossible are numerous. The Ark can't have possibly held every species. There isn't enough water to flood the earth completely. It isn't possible to repopulate most species from simply two members of it.

Isn't it funny that now you wish you use fossil evidence, but only when its convenient for you?



> 30.
> Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.



Fossils aren't from the flood. See above.



> 31.
> The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent  just as the Bible said way back in Genesis



This is a massive stretch to say it predicts that. Those passages explicitly state how he separates the ocean from the land. It's entirely mum on anything concerning one super continent or plate tectonics.



> 32.
> Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the fountains of the great deep were broken up. This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.



Again, the Flood didn't happen. So there's no pointing arguing like it did.



> 33.
> Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often  By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.



THE FLOOD DID NOT HAPPEN. I stated way it's impossible above. Two, it's stretching the meaning of Bible passages again. Those passages only talk about ice and cold in general. There is no mention of a world wide ice age. Saying it said anything about the ice age is stretching the truth considerably.



> 34.
> Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.



This is still open to debate at where life starts. We still haven't decided. Taking a stand on an issue like that does not equal science fact.



> 35.
> God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an intricate unity in the womb.



It just says God makes us. It doesn't say anything about embryonic development. In fact saying God does it makes it false, we know how fetus' develop in the womb. Also, the womb was not unknown to ancient peoples either, so saying this knowledge comes solely from the Bible is wrong.



> 36.
> DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.



That's not what that passages means at all. It just says God already knows who a person is and what their actions are before they are born. Which is pretty in line with Christian teaching (predestination anyone?).

To say it means DNA is to completely miss what that passage actually means.



> 37.
> God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)



This is stretching it, almost certainly. Y-chromosomal Adam is simply the most recent common ancestor of all this. He wasn't actually Adam, and only got named that because of the Bible and people's preference for assigning pop culture to something like that. He didn't even live at the same time as mitochondrial Eve.

Also, don't people who object to evolution object to the fact of common descent from a gene pool? Didn't you say we were all created and not from a "slime mold?" Way to contradict yourself.



> 38.
> Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.



Of course evolution wouldn't teach that, that's the field of anthropology and linguistics. I'm not sure why we should expect people isolated from each other to have the same language, that's actually quite retarded to suggest, and poor evidence that that is evidence of the tower of Babel.



> 39.
> Origin of the different races explained (Genesis 11). As Noahs descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.



So, it accepts concepts from evolution, but only when it's convenient? What hypocrites.


> 40.
> God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along  there are healing compounds found in plants.



Every ancient culture wasn't one based around the Judeo-Christian god. So the point is invalid by its own argument, the Bible has had nothing to do with.

These next twenty were more or less the same as the first. It involved shoveling scientific theory into whatever passage could fit the theory, stretching the meaning of passages beyond belief, and often times attributing to the Bible what is actually the credit of other non-Jewish societies. I'm surprised it wishes to use evolutionary concepts, but doesn't think evolution exists.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Idiot...you don't apply rationalIZING, you moron. You APPLY rationALE.
> 
> Rationalizing is the act of being rational. You don't apply an act.


I understand that you teach children; the parents should be arrested for inflicting you on their children.

Open a dictionary, retard. Read the entry. Accept that English is not your first language.

And while you're at it, look up future active participle.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> In other words, you don't APPLY a VERB.
> 
> Interestingly, I can't even find the word "rationalizing" in the dictionary.
> 
> Rationalize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


What we have here folks, is an unambiguous example of the stolid denial of verifiable reality that characterizes faith.  You see, here our little cupcake holds a baseless preconception about reality, and with the absolute, unassailable, arrogant, and sanctimonious certainty of faith, she refuses to acknowledge that she actually found "rationalizing" in a dictionary; she linked to it, ignored her incorrect notion of the term's primary meaning, and then declared it wasn't to be found.*ra·tio·nal·ize  verb*
\&#712;rash-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z, &#712;ra-sh&#601;-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z\

r*a·tio·nal·ized | ra·tio·nal·iz·ing*

*Definition of RATIONALIZE*

_transitive verb_

1 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as

a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> 

b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>​The lesson to be learned here, is that those who apply faith are correct only by accident; and even when unambiguously wrong, they will deny verifiable reality--the strength of that denial being the strength of their faith.


----------



## koshergrl

You can't apply a verb, this is my point. You don't apply RATIONALIZING. You apply a noun, rationale. Just accept that your writing sucks and move on.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> You can't apply a verb, this is my point. You don't apply RATIONALIZING. You apply a noun, rationale. Just accept that your writing sucks and move on.


Again, you're wrong. Of course an activity can be the object of a verb.

I will enjoy watching football today;
Detroit will regret playing football today;
YWC will continue to apply rationalizing;
and you will continue denying that you are wrong.


----------



## koshergrl

Yes and if you had used it that way, it would have been correct. 

Unfortunately, you didn't.

You're a miserable wordsmith, that's the beginning and end of it. Your copy is laughable and you need to learn to edit your own crap or suffer criticism and ridicule from anyone who can write (or edit) and is subjected to it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief!  Okay, let us back up a bit because you are so lost this is getting us no where.  I am not talking about species of organisms, I am talking about a reducing environment.  There are reactive chemical species swirling around.  Sometimes your lack of understanding is astonishing Reducing atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make your questions clear and precise. We were speaking of species when you put your two cents in.
> 
> I posted an article the other day,it was from someone from your side of the argument that said 99.9% of all species have gone extinct.  Do you people agree on anything ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!  #13 that I have seen where you reply to a post with something that has nothing to do with the post at all.  Reducing environments and reactive species are terms that you learn early in a biology degree, though since I am sure you never got one, I am not surprised to find your knowledge nonexistent as usual.
Click to expand...


At this point ,i don't really know what we were talking about because of your response.

The enviornment does affect survival but no one knows how many organisms that have ever existed they are just guessing,that is the inference we get from the likes of you.

One of your evolutionist guys make a claim,and you guys  parrot it to nauseum  and start teaching it like it's been verified and it is a statement of fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I helped my daughter's class do the Dodd experiment, they just finished it last year.  With isolation and a different food source middle school students can witness speciation at work.  The funny thing is it is easy and always works, it does not always take the same amount of generations though.  Evidence for speciation at the bottom of the page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution.
> 
> That is no different then what happens with dogs and horses.
> 
> They are still  Iguanas.
> 
> It's no different then what darwin saw with the galapagos finches. They will die out and what they were will return.
> 
> That is something your side ignores. The finches when drought was present the short beak was dying out,but what when the drought was over ? that's right the short beaked finch made a strong come back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, you do not know what you are talking about, you make up invalid definitions for words and try to disprove them on that basis, which is called lying.  You either can't read or refuse to read anything but nonsense.  You get almost everything you say wrong.  the experiment was not about iguanas, it was about fruit flies and how you can with a little isolation and a different food source, get two groups that will no longer mate with the other which is the beginning of speciation and can be witnessed by everyone.  That, not whatever nonsense you make up in your head, is macroevolution.  The finch thing is also wrong because it was about more than beaks, it was about the finches not being able to breed with the original population anymore, which was actually not even known in Darwin's time.
Click to expand...


No you have been brainwashed to believe micro-evolution is macro-evolution or leads to it with no evidence to believe it. Don't call me a liar you moron,i have had enough of someone questioning my honesty.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic  do you base this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible can be both fact and theory,mostly fact though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly fact? Judging by some of the 'facts' it presents, I'd say no.
Click to expand...


Then we just disagree.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet it remains entirely verifiable as real by evidence and valid logic in a way that the reality of your Creator persistently resists being verified. Why do you suppose that is?
> 
> You construct our Creator from even less. Upon what basis can you honestly demand He is not even more imaginary?
> 
> Your application of Zeno's paradox to rationalize this claim of yours fails to refute the abundant presence of transitional fossils in the fossil record.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has the foundation of your imaginary friend entirely whupped though.
> 
> It's not as big a problem for evolution, as the reliance creationists have on logical fallacy to propose their assertions regarding "creation." And your repeated application of Zeno's paradox to rationalize this repeated claim of yours fails to refute the abundant presence of transitional fossils in the fossil record.
> 
> But evidence that they have differentiated through the accumulation of adaptive traits is evidence of macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunking evolution.
> 
> 
> Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Debunking evolution? What a laugh!
> 
> Did you write that yourself? Because it's exactly wrong in every single way we've been proving you wrong; and wrong for the exact same misrepresentations of evolutionary theory, errors of fact, and logically fallacious reasoning we've been pointing out you've been applying all along.
> 
> Why don't you get a little intellectual integrity and level up?
Click to expand...


Practice what you preach


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't APPLY a VERB.
> 
> Interestingly, I can't even find the word "rationalizing" in the dictionary.
> 
> Rationalize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> What we have here folks, is an unambiguous example of the stolid denial of verifiable reality that characterizes faith.  You see, here our little cupcake holds a baseless preconception about reality, and with the absolute, unassailable, arrogant, and sanctimonious certainty of faith, she refuses to acknowledge that she actually found "rationalizing" in a dictionary; she linked to it, ignored her incorrect notion of the term's primary meaning, and then declared it wasn't to be found.*ra·tio·nal·ize  verb*
> \&#712;rash-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z, &#712;ra-sh&#601;-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z\
> 
> r*a·tio·nal·ized | ra·tio·nal·iz·ing*
> 
> *Definition of RATIONALIZE*
> 
> _transitive verb_
> 
> 1 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as
> 
> a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth>
> 
> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>​The lesson to be learned here, is that those who apply faith are correct only by accident; and even when unambiguously wrong, they will deny verifiable reality--the strength of that denial being the strength of their faith.
Click to expand...


Dr. veith was showing in the videos to how your side does the very thing you claim creationist do.

Circular reasoning,and using rational thought. It does take faith to believe as you do because there is no evidence to show it happened like evolutionist claim, and that is what they don't want you to know.

You people ,once you start get hitting with the facts you turn your attention on the bible which none of you clearly understand. It is appartent that all of your attacks are based on how you think today, not like how people thought back then.

Do you people understand that languages evolve over time ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> I think I'll take on some more of those 'science facts' from the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21.
> Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago  God declared this four millennia ago!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those passages from the Bible that get stretched to mean a modern scientific fact. This passage literally just asks which way is light parted? It's entirely mum on any sort of recombination, or that color even comes from different wavelengths of light. To be honest, I'm not sure where it's getting the "parting" from, or really even the combining. The recombining looks like the authors of this piece stretching the meaning of a single poetic line to mean whole swathes of scientific theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22.
> Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the paths of the seas. In the 19th century Matthew Maury  the father of oceanography  after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maurys data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sailors in antiquity had knowledge of coastal currents, but obviously not ones from the open ocean. This one isn't that valid either, I'm afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> Unprotected sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health. It didn't take the Bible for people to realize venereal diseases exist. The rest of this is moralizing against homosexuality and for monogamy. It doesn't take a genius to realize if you sleep with the same person, you chances of catching STDs go down.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those 'facts' which actually aren't valid explanations. It doesn't actually give a reason except 'God did it,' which is a fallacy filled 'God in the gaps' argument
> 
> Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean you can attribute to a god. There are lots of things we didn't know before, that we do know. I guess that makes a god an ever-receding pocket of ignorance.
> 
> Also, I dunno if we actually do know what the penis and vagina evolved at the same time. The above still applies regardless.
> 
> 
> 
> This one is funny to claim credit for. Considering the translation quote says incalculable, and that it stands to reason that there is a finite number of stars (there is, the universe also has a finite mass, i.e., an actual weight), you can't give credit for something that will ultimately proved wrong.
> 
> I'd also like to know where it gets the 5,000 stars visible bit. The ancients also witnessed one or two supernovas, and I can't find anything about how many they thought there were in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> So it contradicts itself! First in claims it's impossible to count all the stars, and now it twists the passage to say it can! Not to mention the exact passage it quotes doesn't actually automatically mean finite, it could be easily be infinite based on Christian claims of what God can do.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the third time it's gone on about stars. See above for an answer.
> 
> 
> False claims. Take a look what Christians did when they ran the planet. Go on. I'll wait. Take a look on the priests who are morally depraved because they touch little boys. "People of God" can be morally depraved as anyone else. Hell, the Scandivian countries are fairly atheistic, yet they seem to be doing just find in terms of happiness and law and order.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't possible for the Flood to have happened, but mass extinction events do. The reasons its impossible are numerous. The Ark can't have possibly held every species. There isn't enough water to flood the earth completely. It isn't possible to repopulate most species from simply two members of it.
> 
> Isn't it funny that now you wish you use fossil evidence, but only when its convenient for you?
> 
> 
> 
> Fossils aren't from the flood. See above.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a massive stretch to say it predicts that. Those passages explicitly state how he separates the ocean from the land. It's entirely mum on anything concerning one super continent or plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the Flood didn't happen. So there's no pointing arguing like it did.
> 
> 
> 
> THE FLOOD DID NOT HAPPEN. I stated way it's impossible above. Two, it's stretching the meaning of Bible passages again. Those passages only talk about ice and cold in general. There is no mention of a world wide ice age. Saying it said anything about the ice age is stretching the truth considerably.
> 
> 
> 
> This is still open to debate at where life starts. We still haven't decided. Taking a stand on an issue like that does not equal science fact.
> 
> 
> 
> It just says God makes us. It doesn't say anything about embryonic development. In fact saying God does it makes it false, we know how fetus' develop in the womb. Also, the womb was not unknown to ancient peoples either, so saying this knowledge comes solely from the Bible is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what that passages means at all. It just says God already knows who a person is and what their actions are before they are born. Which is pretty in line with Christian teaching (predestination anyone?).
> 
> To say it means DNA is to completely miss what that passage actually means.
> 
> 
> 
> This is stretching it, almost certainly. Y-chromosomal Adam is simply the most recent common ancestor of all this. He wasn't actually Adam, and only got named that because of the Bible and people's preference for assigning pop culture to something like that. He didn't even live at the same time as mitochondrial Eve.
> 
> Also, don't people who object to evolution object to the fact of common descent from a gene pool? Didn't you say we were all created and not from a "slime mold?" Way to contradict yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course evolution wouldn't teach that, that's the field of anthropology and linguistics. I'm not sure why we should expect people isolated from each other to have the same language, that's actually quite retarded to suggest, and poor evidence that that is evidence of the tower of Babel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 39.
> Origin of the different races explained (Genesis 11). As Noahs descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, it accepts concepts from evolution, but only when it's convenient? What hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 40.
> God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along  there are healing compounds found in plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every ancient culture wasn't one based around the Judeo-Christian god. So the point is invalid by its own argument, the Bible has had nothing to do with.
> 
> These next twenty were more or less the same as the first. It involved shoveling scientific theory into whatever passage could fit the theory, stretching the meaning of passages beyond belief, and often times attributing to the Bible what is actually the credit of other non-Jewish societies. I'm surprised it wishes to use evolutionary concepts, but doesn't think evolution exists.
Click to expand...


Don't attack something you clearly don't understand.

If you wanted them to write it exactly like we would today 3,500 years ago. I'm sorry to disappoint you but all of your atttacks are baseless and from your typical atheist websites.

I have responded to your baseless attacks on the bible in the past and it can be shown your understanding of the scriptures is rather poor.

I think you and drock spend too much time at the same sites as well as the mythical god loki.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'll take on some more of those 'science facts' from the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21.
> Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago  God declared this four millennia ago!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those passages from the Bible that get stretched to mean a modern scientific fact. This passage literally just asks which way is light parted? It's entirely mum on any sort of recombination, or that color even comes from different wavelengths of light. To be honest, I'm not sure where it's getting the "parting" from, or really even the combining. The recombining looks like the authors of this piece stretching the meaning of a single poetic line to mean whole swathes of scientific theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Sailors in antiquity had knowledge of coastal currents, but obviously not ones from the open ocean. This one isn't that valid either, I'm afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> Unprotected sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health. It didn't take the Bible for people to realize venereal diseases exist. The rest of this is moralizing against homosexuality and for monogamy. It doesn't take a genius to realize if you sleep with the same person, you chances of catching STDs go down.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those 'facts' which actually aren't valid explanations. It doesn't actually give a reason except 'God did it,' which is a fallacy filled 'God in the gaps' argument
> 
> Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean you can attribute to a god. There are lots of things we didn't know before, that we do know. I guess that makes a god an ever-receding pocket of ignorance.
> 
> Also, I dunno if we actually do know what the penis and vagina evolved at the same time. The above still applies regardless.
> 
> 
> 
> This one is funny to claim credit for. Considering the translation quote says incalculable, and that it stands to reason that there is a finite number of stars (there is, the universe also has a finite mass, i.e., an actual weight), you can't give credit for something that will ultimately proved wrong.
> 
> I'd also like to know where it gets the 5,000 stars visible bit. The ancients also witnessed one or two supernovas, and I can't find anything about how many they thought there were in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> So it contradicts itself! First in claims it's impossible to count all the stars, and now it twists the passage to say it can! Not to mention the exact passage it quotes doesn't actually automatically mean finite, it could be easily be infinite based on Christian claims of what God can do.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the third time it's gone on about stars. See above for an answer.
> 
> 
> False claims. Take a look what Christians did when they ran the planet. Go on. I'll wait. Take a look on the priests who are morally depraved because they touch little boys. "People of God" can be morally depraved as anyone else. Hell, the Scandivian countries are fairly atheistic, yet they seem to be doing just find in terms of happiness and law and order.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't possible for the Flood to have happened, but mass extinction events do. The reasons its impossible are numerous. The Ark can't have possibly held every species. There isn't enough water to flood the earth completely. It isn't possible to repopulate most species from simply two members of it.
> 
> Isn't it funny that now you wish you use fossil evidence, but only when its convenient for you?
> 
> 
> 
> Fossils aren't from the flood. See above.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a massive stretch to say it predicts that. Those passages explicitly state how he separates the ocean from the land. It's entirely mum on anything concerning one super continent or plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the Flood didn't happen. So there's no pointing arguing like it did.
> 
> 
> 
> THE FLOOD DID NOT HAPPEN. I stated way it's impossible above. Two, it's stretching the meaning of Bible passages again. Those passages only talk about ice and cold in general. There is no mention of a world wide ice age. Saying it said anything about the ice age is stretching the truth considerably.
> 
> 
> 
> This is still open to debate at where life starts. We still haven't decided. Taking a stand on an issue like that does not equal science fact.
> 
> 
> 
> It just says God makes us. It doesn't say anything about embryonic development. In fact saying God does it makes it false, we know how fetus' develop in the womb. Also, the womb was not unknown to ancient peoples either, so saying this knowledge comes solely from the Bible is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what that passages means at all. It just says God already knows who a person is and what their actions are before they are born. Which is pretty in line with Christian teaching (predestination anyone?).
> 
> To say it means DNA is to completely miss what that passage actually means.
> 
> 
> 
> This is stretching it, almost certainly. Y-chromosomal Adam is simply the most recent common ancestor of all this. He wasn't actually Adam, and only got named that because of the Bible and people's preference for assigning pop culture to something like that. He didn't even live at the same time as mitochondrial Eve.
> 
> Also, don't people who object to evolution object to the fact of common descent from a gene pool? Didn't you say we were all created and not from a "slime mold?" Way to contradict yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course evolution wouldn't teach that, that's the field of anthropology and linguistics. I'm not sure why we should expect people isolated from each other to have the same language, that's actually quite retarded to suggest, and poor evidence that that is evidence of the tower of Babel.
> 
> 
> 
> So, it accepts concepts from evolution, but only when it's convenient? What hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 40.
> God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along  there are healing compounds found in plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every ancient culture wasn't one based around the Judeo-Christian god. So the point is invalid by its own argument, the Bible has had nothing to do with.
> 
> These next twenty were more or less the same as the first. It involved shoveling scientific theory into whatever passage could fit the theory, stretching the meaning of passages beyond belief, and often times attributing to the Bible what is actually the credit of other non-Jewish societies. I'm surprised it wishes to use evolutionary concepts, but doesn't think evolution exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't attack something you clearly don't understand.
> 
> If you wanted them to write it exactly like we would today 3,500 years ago. I'm sorry to disappoint you but all of your atttacks are baseless and from your typical atheist websites.
> 
> I have responded to your baseless attacks on the bible in the past and it can be shown your understanding of the scriptures is rather poor.
> 
> I think you and drock spend too much time at the same sites as well as the mythical god loki.
Click to expand...


I can't name one atheist website.


Thou shalt not lie YWC.


----------



## cbirch2

YWC can you explain chromosome 2 yet?


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution.
> 
> That is no different then what happens with dogs and horses.
> 
> They are still  Iguanas.
> 
> It's no different then what darwin saw with the galapagos finches. They will die out and what they were will return.
> 
> That is something your side ignores. The finches when drought was present the short beak was dying out,but what when the drought was over ? that's right the short beaked finch made a strong come back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you do not know what you are talking about, you make up invalid definitions for words and try to disprove them on that basis, which is called lying.  You either can't read or refuse to read anything but nonsense.  You get almost everything you say wrong.  the experiment was not about iguanas, it was about fruit flies and how you can with a little isolation and a different food source, get two groups that will no longer mate with the other which is the beginning of speciation and can be witnessed by everyone.  That, not whatever nonsense you make up in your head, is macroevolution.  The finch thing is also wrong because it was about more than beaks, it was about the finches not being able to breed with the original population anymore, which was actually not even known in Darwin's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you have been brainwashed to believe micro-evolution is macro-evolution or leads to it with no evidence to believe it. Don't call me a liar you moron,i have had enough of someone questioning my honesty.
Click to expand...


That would be easy enough to overcome with a little honesty on your part.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make your questions clear and precise. We were speaking of species when you put your two cents in.
> 
> I posted an article the other day,it was from someone from your side of the argument that said 99.9% of all species have gone extinct.  Do you people agree on anything ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  #13 that I have seen where you reply to a post with something that has nothing to do with the post at all.  Reducing environments and reactive species are terms that you learn early in a biology degree, though since I am sure you never got one, I am not surprised to find your knowledge nonexistent as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this point ,i don't really know what we were talking about because of your response.
> 
> The enviornment does affect survival but no one knows how many organisms that have ever existed they are just guessing,that is the inference we get from the likes of you.
> 
> One of your evolutionist guys make a claim,and you guys  parrot it to nauseum  and start teaching it like it's been verified and it is a statement of fact.
Click to expand...


Of course you do not know what I am talking about, it is not because my responses.  It is because you are an idiot on this entire subject.


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'll take on some more of those 'science facts' from the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21.
> Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago  God declared this four millennia ago!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those passages from the Bible that get stretched to mean a modern scientific fact. This passage literally just asks which way is light parted? It's entirely mum on any sort of recombination, or that color even comes from different wavelengths of light. To be honest, I'm not sure where it's getting the "parting" from, or really even the combining. The recombining looks like the authors of this piece stretching the meaning of a single poetic line to mean whole swathes of scientific theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Sailors in antiquity had knowledge of coastal currents, but obviously not ones from the open ocean. This one isn't that valid either, I'm afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> Unprotected sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health. It didn't take the Bible for people to realize venereal diseases exist. The rest of this is moralizing against homosexuality and for monogamy. It doesn't take a genius to realize if you sleep with the same person, you chances of catching STDs go down.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those 'facts' which actually aren't valid explanations. It doesn't actually give a reason except 'God did it,' which is a fallacy filled 'God in the gaps' argument
> 
> Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean you can attribute to a god. There are lots of things we didn't know before, that we do know. I guess that makes a god an ever-receding pocket of ignorance.
> 
> Also, I dunno if we actually do know what the penis and vagina evolved at the same time. The above still applies regardless.
> 
> 
> 
> This one is funny to claim credit for. Considering the translation quote says incalculable, and that it stands to reason that there is a finite number of stars (there is, the universe also has a finite mass, i.e., an actual weight), you can't give credit for something that will ultimately proved wrong.
> 
> I'd also like to know where it gets the 5,000 stars visible bit. The ancients also witnessed one or two supernovas, and I can't find anything about how many they thought there were in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> So it contradicts itself! First in claims it's impossible to count all the stars, and now it twists the passage to say it can! Not to mention the exact passage it quotes doesn't actually automatically mean finite, it could be easily be infinite based on Christian claims of what God can do.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the third time it's gone on about stars. See above for an answer.
> 
> 
> False claims. Take a look what Christians did when they ran the planet. Go on. I'll wait. Take a look on the priests who are morally depraved because they touch little boys. "People of God" can be morally depraved as anyone else. Hell, the Scandivian countries are fairly atheistic, yet they seem to be doing just find in terms of happiness and law and order.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't possible for the Flood to have happened, but mass extinction events do. The reasons its impossible are numerous. The Ark can't have possibly held every species. There isn't enough water to flood the earth completely. It isn't possible to repopulate most species from simply two members of it.
> 
> Isn't it funny that now you wish you use fossil evidence, but only when its convenient for you?
> 
> 
> 
> Fossils aren't from the flood. See above.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a massive stretch to say it predicts that. Those passages explicitly state how he separates the ocean from the land. It's entirely mum on anything concerning one super continent or plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the Flood didn't happen. So there's no pointing arguing like it did.
> 
> 
> 
> THE FLOOD DID NOT HAPPEN. I stated way it's impossible above. Two, it's stretching the meaning of Bible passages again. Those passages only talk about ice and cold in general. There is no mention of a world wide ice age. Saying it said anything about the ice age is stretching the truth considerably.
> 
> 
> 
> This is still open to debate at where life starts. We still haven't decided. Taking a stand on an issue like that does not equal science fact.
> 
> 
> 
> It just says God makes us. It doesn't say anything about embryonic development. In fact saying God does it makes it false, we know how fetus' develop in the womb. Also, the womb was not unknown to ancient peoples either, so saying this knowledge comes solely from the Bible is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what that passages means at all. It just says God already knows who a person is and what their actions are before they are born. Which is pretty in line with Christian teaching (predestination anyone?).
> 
> To say it means DNA is to completely miss what that passage actually means.
> 
> 
> 
> This is stretching it, almost certainly. Y-chromosomal Adam is simply the most recent common ancestor of all this. He wasn't actually Adam, and only got named that because of the Bible and people's preference for assigning pop culture to something like that. He didn't even live at the same time as mitochondrial Eve.
> 
> Also, don't people who object to evolution object to the fact of common descent from a gene pool? Didn't you say we were all created and not from a "slime mold?" Way to contradict yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course evolution wouldn't teach that, that's the field of anthropology and linguistics. I'm not sure why we should expect people isolated from each other to have the same language, that's actually quite retarded to suggest, and poor evidence that that is evidence of the tower of Babel.
> 
> 
> 
> So, it accepts concepts from evolution, but only when it's convenient? What hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 40.
> God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along  there are healing compounds found in plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every ancient culture wasn't one based around the Judeo-Christian god. So the point is invalid by its own argument, the Bible has had nothing to do with.
> 
> These next twenty were more or less the same as the first. It involved shoveling scientific theory into whatever passage could fit the theory, stretching the meaning of passages beyond belief, and often times attributing to the Bible what is actually the credit of other non-Jewish societies. I'm surprised it wishes to use evolutionary concepts, but doesn't think evolution exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't attack something you clearly don't understand.
Click to expand...


And how don't I understand it?



> If you wanted them to write it exactly like we would today 3,500 years ago. I'm sorry to disappoint you but all of your atttacks are baseless and from your typical atheist websites.



Could you point out how precisely they state scientific theory? I'm pretty sure the only way you could construe the theory you want is by stretching the meaning of the words past the breaking point. I examined the passages listed and pointed out that many did not even go near anywhere of actually describing modern scientific phenomenon. Perhaps you'd care to offer specific rebuttals to my points?



> I have responded to your baseless attacks on the bible in the past and it can be shown your understanding of the scriptures is rather poor.
> 
> I think you and drock spend too much time at the same sites as well as the mythical god loki.



Actually all I did was google the specific passages and chapters, and then looked up various sites that described the specific theory that I didn't know off the top of my head. There were no atheist sites like you suggest.

If I'm so wrong and have "baseless" attacks, perhaps you could offer more specific criticisms of why I'm wrong, rather than just a general "well you're wrong!" without giving actual support.


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible can be both fact and theory,mostly fact though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly fact? Judging by some of the 'facts' it presents, I'd say no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we just disagree.
Click to expand...


You're free to disagree, however the reality of the situation proves the contrary.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> YWC can you explain chromosome 2 yet?



Already have,you may not like the answer but that does not prove we diverged from the ape family. You don't remember the response ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> YWC can you explain chromosome 2 yet?



Why would I be concerned with that argument, don't you realize chimps have more chromosomes and they are bigger ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  #13 that I have seen where you reply to a post with something that has nothing to do with the post at all.  Reducing environments and reactive species are terms that you learn early in a biology degree, though since I am sure you never got one, I am not surprised to find your knowledge nonexistent as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point ,i don't really know what we were talking about because of your response.
> 
> The enviornment does affect survival but no one knows how many organisms that have ever existed they are just guessing,that is the inference we get from the likes of you.
> 
> One of your evolutionist guys make a claim,and you guys  parrot it to nauseum  and start teaching it like it's been verified and it is a statement of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you do not know what I am talking about, it is not because my responses.  It is because you are an idiot on this entire subject.
Click to expand...


Listen you idiot,what does viruses becoming bacteria have to do with what we were talking about ?  pay attention or remain silent.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC can you explain chromosome 2 yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already have,you may not like the answer but that does not prove we diverged from the ape family. You don't remember the response ?
Click to expand...


"that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"

The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species. 

But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?

Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.

You really just reject all genetics??


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you do not know what you are talking about, you make up invalid definitions for words and try to disprove them on that basis, which is called lying.  You either can't read or refuse to read anything but nonsense.  You get almost everything you say wrong.  the experiment was not about iguanas, it was about fruit flies and how you can with a little isolation and a different food source, get two groups that will no longer mate with the other which is the beginning of speciation and can be witnessed by everyone.  That, not whatever nonsense you make up in your head, is macroevolution.  The finch thing is also wrong because it was about more than beaks, it was about the finches not being able to breed with the original population anymore, which was actually not even known in Darwin's time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you have been brainwashed to believe micro-evolution is macro-evolution or leads to it with no evidence to believe it. Don't call me a liar you moron,i have had enough of someone questioning my honesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be easy enough to overcome with a little honesty on your part.
Click to expand...


Honesty has nothing to do with it,well maybe it does but it has to come from your side. Your side has never proven or observed that major changes happens to create a new destinct organism from small changes over time =micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations.

The main difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution , micro-evolution are small scale changes within a family and macro-evolution are large scale changes that creates a new family group.

This has never been observed or demonstrated. You can point to Horzontal gene transfer all you want but that is merely one taking over another. You can point to a virus becoming a unhealthy bacteria. You can point to antibiotic resistence all you want. But these are all nothing more then micro-adaptations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'll take on some more of those 'science facts' from the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those passages from the Bible that get stretched to mean a modern scientific fact. This passage literally just asks which way is light parted? It's entirely mum on any sort of recombination, or that color even comes from different wavelengths of light. To be honest, I'm not sure where it's getting the "parting" from, or really even the combining. The recombining looks like the authors of this piece stretching the meaning of a single poetic line to mean whole swathes of scientific theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Sailors in antiquity had knowledge of coastal currents, but obviously not ones from the open ocean. This one isn't that valid either, I'm afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> Unprotected sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health. It didn't take the Bible for people to realize venereal diseases exist. The rest of this is moralizing against homosexuality and for monogamy. It doesn't take a genius to realize if you sleep with the same person, you chances of catching STDs go down.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those 'facts' which actually aren't valid explanations. It doesn't actually give a reason except 'God did it,' which is a fallacy filled 'God in the gaps' argument
> 
> Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean you can attribute to a god. There are lots of things we didn't know before, that we do know. I guess that makes a god an ever-receding pocket of ignorance.
> 
> Also, I dunno if we actually do know what the penis and vagina evolved at the same time. The above still applies regardless.
> 
> 
> 
> This one is funny to claim credit for. Considering the translation quote says incalculable, and that it stands to reason that there is a finite number of stars (there is, the universe also has a finite mass, i.e., an actual weight), you can't give credit for something that will ultimately proved wrong.
> 
> I'd also like to know where it gets the 5,000 stars visible bit. The ancients also witnessed one or two supernovas, and I can't find anything about how many they thought there were in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> So it contradicts itself! First in claims it's impossible to count all the stars, and now it twists the passage to say it can! Not to mention the exact passage it quotes doesn't actually automatically mean finite, it could be easily be infinite based on Christian claims of what God can do.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the third time it's gone on about stars. See above for an answer.
> 
> 
> False claims. Take a look what Christians did when they ran the planet. Go on. I'll wait. Take a look on the priests who are morally depraved because they touch little boys. "People of God" can be morally depraved as anyone else. Hell, the Scandivian countries are fairly atheistic, yet they seem to be doing just find in terms of happiness and law and order.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't possible for the Flood to have happened, but mass extinction events do. The reasons its impossible are numerous. The Ark can't have possibly held every species. There isn't enough water to flood the earth completely. It isn't possible to repopulate most species from simply two members of it.
> 
> Isn't it funny that now you wish you use fossil evidence, but only when its convenient for you?
> 
> 
> 
> Fossils aren't from the flood. See above.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a massive stretch to say it predicts that. Those passages explicitly state how he separates the ocean from the land. It's entirely mum on anything concerning one super continent or plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the Flood didn't happen. So there's no pointing arguing like it did.
> 
> 
> 
> THE FLOOD DID NOT HAPPEN. I stated way it's impossible above. Two, it's stretching the meaning of Bible passages again. Those passages only talk about ice and cold in general. There is no mention of a world wide ice age. Saying it said anything about the ice age is stretching the truth considerably.
> 
> 
> 
> This is still open to debate at where life starts. We still haven't decided. Taking a stand on an issue like that does not equal science fact.
> 
> 
> 
> It just says God makes us. It doesn't say anything about embryonic development. In fact saying God does it makes it false, we know how fetus' develop in the womb. Also, the womb was not unknown to ancient peoples either, so saying this knowledge comes solely from the Bible is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what that passages means at all. It just says God already knows who a person is and what their actions are before they are born. Which is pretty in line with Christian teaching (predestination anyone?).
> 
> To say it means DNA is to completely miss what that passage actually means.
> 
> 
> 
> This is stretching it, almost certainly. Y-chromosomal Adam is simply the most recent common ancestor of all this. He wasn't actually Adam, and only got named that because of the Bible and people's preference for assigning pop culture to something like that. He didn't even live at the same time as mitochondrial Eve.
> 
> Also, don't people who object to evolution object to the fact of common descent from a gene pool? Didn't you say we were all created and not from a "slime mold?" Way to contradict yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course evolution wouldn't teach that, that's the field of anthropology and linguistics. I'm not sure why we should expect people isolated from each other to have the same language, that's actually quite retarded to suggest, and poor evidence that that is evidence of the tower of Babel.
> 
> 
> 
> So, it accepts concepts from evolution, but only when it's convenient? What hypocrites.
> 
> 
> Every ancient culture wasn't one based around the Judeo-Christian god. So the point is invalid by its own argument, the Bible has had nothing to do with.
> 
> These next twenty were more or less the same as the first. It involved shoveling scientific theory into whatever passage could fit the theory, stretching the meaning of passages beyond belief, and often times attributing to the Bible what is actually the credit of other non-Jewish societies. I'm surprised it wishes to use evolutionary concepts, but doesn't think evolution exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't attack something you clearly don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how don't I understand it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you wanted them to write it exactly like we would today 3,500 years ago. I'm sorry to disappoint you but all of your atttacks are baseless and from your typical atheist websites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you point out how precisely they state scientific theory? I'm pretty sure the only way you could construe the theory you want is by stretching the meaning of the words past the breaking point. I examined the passages listed and pointed out that many did not even go near anywhere of actually describing modern scientific phenomenon. Perhaps you'd care to offer specific rebuttals to my points?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have responded to your baseless attacks on the bible in the past and it can be shown your understanding of the scriptures is rather poor.
> 
> I think you and drock spend too much time at the same sites as well as the mythical god loki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually all I did was google the specific passages and chapters, and then looked up various sites that described the specific theory that I didn't know off the top of my head. There were no atheist sites like you suggest.
> 
> If I'm so wrong and have "baseless" attacks, perhaps you could offer more specific criticisms of why I'm wrong, rather than just a general "well you're wrong!" without giving actual support.
Click to expand...


I guess you got me, the difference between science is they are in search of facts and with God it is a fact. God don't create theories he just creates.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly fact? Judging by some of the 'facts' it presents, I'd say no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we just disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to disagree, however the reality of the situation proves the contrary.
Click to expand...


I have answered this before,if God exists he knows the facts he is not searching for it.

I guess you're right God is not involved in the scientific method because he is not looking for facts he created facts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC can you explain chromosome 2 yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already have,you may not like the answer but that does not prove we diverged from the ape family. You don't remember the response ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"
> 
> The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species.
> 
> But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?
> 
> Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.
> 
> You really just reject all genetics??
Click to expand...


No i don't,there is no human that has ever possessed 48 chromosomes.

This is a very weak argument to try and prove ancestry.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC can you explain chromosome 2 yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already have,you may not like the answer but that does not prove we diverged from the ape family. You don't remember the response ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"
> 
> The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species.
> 
> But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?
> 
> Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.
> 
> You really just reject all genetics??
Click to expand...


A hare has 46 chromosomes but what does this prove or suggest ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC can you explain chromosome 2 yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already have,you may not like the answer but that does not prove we diverged from the ape family. You don't remember the response ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"
> 
> The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species.
> 
> But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?
> 
> Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.
> 
> You really just reject all genetics??
Click to expand...


I don't deny genetics, i believe every living organism is a product of parental genes. The same with Asexual organisms they are what they are because of the genes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?



Our bigger brains.

I'm still waiting for you to reply to a few of my posts. I would think you'd be most interested in telling me why precisely I'm wrong with my criticisms of the 'science facts' in the Bible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our bigger brains.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to reply to a few of my posts. I would think you'd be most interested in telling me why precisely I'm wrong with my criticisms of the 'science facts' in the Bible.
Click to expand...




Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution? And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.

You give me a list where science disagrees with what is written in the bible and i will do this one more time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our bigger brains.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to reply to a few of my posts. I would think you'd be most interested in telling me why precisely I'm wrong with my criticisms of the 'science facts' in the Bible.
Click to expand...


While we are waiting for you,this is another site that disagrees with you.

Science and the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already have,you may not like the answer but that does not prove we diverged from the ape family. You don't remember the response ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"
> 
> The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species.
> 
> But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?
> 
> Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.
> 
> You really just reject all genetics??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No i don't,there is no human that has ever possessed 48 chromosomes.
Click to expand...


Which is actually my very argument. *When our ancestors possessed 48 chromosomes they werent human*, by the very definition of what it means to be human. But yet chromosome two is indisputable proof that modern humanity is descended from an organism with 48 chromosomes. Hence the need for a speciation event in which chimpanzee chromosome 2q and 2p either fused or failed to fully separate, and this mutation persisted throughout human history. 



Youwerecreated said:


> This is a very weak argument to try and prove ancestry.



Actually its a very strong argument. You just clearly cant comprehend it. You really only have two choices.

A) Reject the so far indisputable fact that human chromosome two is the result of the fusion of two chromosomes

or

B) Accept that at some point in humanity's common ancestry, we all descended from a similar group of animals that had 48 chromosomes. 


I have yet to see you attempt to disprove the fusion of the chromosome so i assume your taking stance B....


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already have,you may not like the answer but that does not prove we diverged from the ape family. You don't remember the response ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"
> 
> The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species.
> 
> But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?
> 
> Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.
> 
> You really just reject all genetics??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A hare has 46 chromosomes but what does this prove or suggest ?
Click to expand...




Actually, hares have 48. But thats irrelevant. 

Would you agree that humans, with 46 chromosomes, are a different species from some hypothetical human-like animal with 48 chromosomes?

So would I! Because thats part of the definition of species. A group of animals with 48 chromosomes cant reproduce with a group of animals that have 46. So they are different species. this is the common definition of a species, animals that cannot interbreed.

So chromosome two is indisputable proof that humanity was descended from some other human-like primate with 48 chromosomes, rather than 46, and therefore descended from another species.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our bigger brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution?
Click to expand...


Its actually not the size of our brains its the dense layer of cells covering its surface called the cerebral cortex and the amount of surface area provided by the gryi and the sulci. 

Besides, doesnt the very existence of neanderthals disprove the young earth creationist view of the world?



Youwerecreated said:


> And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.



^^Clear disregard for all genetics

Your claiming that the formation of a cerebral cortex and a highly folded brain isnt due to genetics.

Thats like claiming our 4 chambered heart isnt due to genetics.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.




PLoS Biology: Accelerated Evolution of the ASPM Gene Controlling Brain Size Begins Prior to Human Brain Expansion
ScienceDirect - Cell : Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens
Genetic links between brain development and brain evolution : Abstract : Nature Reviews Genetics
Murine Otx1 and Drosophila otd genes share conserved genetic functions required in invertebrate and vertebrate brain development
Reconstructing the evolutionary history of microcephalin, a gene controlling human brain size
ScienceDirect - Gene : Molecular evolution of the brain size regulator genes CDK5RAP2 and CENPJ
SpringerLink - Development Genes and Evolution, Volume 209, Number 1
ScienceDirect - Current Opinion in Cell Biology : Cytoskeletal genes regulating brain size



Youwerecreated said:


> You give me a list where science disagrees with what is written in the bible and i will do this one more time.



Um jesus turned water into wine. He violated the law of conservation of energy and mass. Im not sure what your definition of science is but it doesnt support the biblical view in the slightest.

You can believe that jesus turned water into wine, you just have to also disagree with the law of conservation of energy and mass.

To use someone elses words...._"science disagrees with what is written in the bible"_


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our bigger brains.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to reply to a few of my posts. I would think you'd be most interested in telling me why precisely I'm wrong with my criticisms of the 'science facts' in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution? And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.
> 
> You give me a list where science disagrees with what is written in the bible and i will do this one more time.
Click to expand...


I pointed out that we weren't directly descended from neanderthals. This is one of the posts you never replied to earlier. 

I just replied to your list of science facts with actual scientific knowledge. Please stop wasting my time with your same old tired arguments.


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our bigger brains.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to reply to a few of my posts. I would think you'd be most interested in telling me why precisely I'm wrong with my criticisms of the 'science facts' in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While we are waiting for you,this is another site that disagrees with you.
> 
> Science and the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?
Click to expand...


And that site falls into the same trap that your lazy copy and paste article did. Would you please stop repeating yourself and offer some actual responses, or do you not wish to be taken seriously?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"
> 
> The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species.
> 
> But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?
> 
> Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.
> 
> You really just reject all genetics??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No i don't,there is no human that has ever possessed 48 chromosomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is actually my very argument. *When our ancestors possessed 48 chromosomes they werent human*, by the very definition of what it means to be human. But yet chromosome two is indisputable proof that modern humanity is descended from an organism with 48 chromosomes. Hence the need for a speciation event in which chimpanzee chromosome 2q and 2p either fused or failed to fully separate, and this mutation persisted throughout human history.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very weak argument to try and prove ancestry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually its a very strong argument. You just clearly cant comprehend it. You really only have two choices.
> 
> A) Reject the so far indisputable fact that human chromosome two is the result of the fusion of two chromosomes
> 
> or
> 
> B) Accept that at some point in humanity's common ancestry, we all descended from a similar group of animals that had 48 chromosomes.
> 
> 
> I have yet to see you attempt to disprove the fusion of the chromosome so i assume your taking stance B....
Click to expand...


If i use your reasoning,i have to assume all organisms are related which they clearly are not.

But using your line of reasoning it makes more sense to believe in creation. Because God created all things of similar substances and the bible says we all were created from the ground. If you reason out we all came from ingredients of the earth how did we become so diverse ? That sounds like design not random mutations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"
> 
> The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species.
> 
> But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?
> 
> Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.
> 
> You really just reject all genetics??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A hare has 46 chromosomes but what does this prove or suggest ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, hares have 48. But thats irrelevant.
> 
> Would you agree that humans, with 46 chromosomes, are a different species from some hypothetical human-like animal with 48 chromosomes?
> 
> So would I! Because thats part of the definition of species. A group of animals with 48 chromosomes cant reproduce with a group of animals that have 46. So they are different species. this is the common definition of a species, animals that cannot interbreed.
> 
> So chromosome two is indisputable proof that humanity was descended from some other human-like primate with 48 chromosomes, rather than 46, and therefore descended from another species.
Click to expand...


You're assuming ancestry because of similarity,that view is based on imagination.

You ignore how vastly diiferent we from each other your main argument is because we supposedly went from from 48 to 46 chromosomes but ignore the information difference. not to mention the diffence in the genome.

Oh and eventually you will get more of a difference between chimps and humans once they learn more of the differences in the genome. There were admitted things not figured in to their equations..

Mark my words, eventually,you and i will be discussing that we were further apart from from chimps then previously thought.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our bigger brains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its actually not the size of our brains its the dense layer of cells covering its surface called the cerebral cortex and the amount of surface area provided by the gryi and the sulci.
> 
> Besides, doesnt the very existence of neanderthals disprove the young earth creationist view of the world?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^Clear disregard for all genetics
> 
> Your claiming that the formation of a cerebral cortex and a highly folded brain isnt due to genetics.
> 
> Thats like claiming our 4 chambered heart isnt due to genetics.
Click to expand...



No,neanderthals could have been just a product of bad genetics or inbreeding who knows.

It is very hard to say anything with certainty when no one was there.

Neanderthals did have bigger brains,how would you explain that ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our bigger brains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its actually not the size of our brains its the dense layer of cells covering its surface called the cerebral cortex and the amount of surface area provided by the gryi and the sulci.
> 
> Besides, doesnt the very existence of neanderthals disprove the young earth creationist view of the world?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^Clear disregard for all genetics
> 
> Your claiming that the formation of a cerebral cortex and a highly folded brain isnt due to genetics.
> 
> Thats like claiming our 4 chambered heart isnt due to genetics.
Click to expand...


What i am saying is neanderthals brains were the result of the possibility of deformity,maybe from inbreeding.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No i don't,there is no human that has ever possessed 48 chromosomes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is actually my very argument. *When our ancestors possessed 48 chromosomes they werent human*, by the very definition of what it means to be human. But yet chromosome two is indisputable proof that modern humanity is descended from an organism with 48 chromosomes. Hence the need for a speciation event in which chimpanzee chromosome 2q and 2p either fused or failed to fully separate, and this mutation persisted throughout human history.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very weak argument to try and prove ancestry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually its a very strong argument. You just clearly cant comprehend it. You really only have two choices.
> 
> A) Reject the so far indisputable fact that human chromosome two is the result of the fusion of two chromosomes
> 
> or
> 
> B) Accept that at some point in humanity's common ancestry, we all descended from a similar group of animals that had 48 chromosomes.
> 
> 
> I have yet to see you attempt to disprove the fusion of the chromosome so i assume your taking stance B....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If i use your reasoning,i have to assume all organisms are related which they clearly are not.
> 
> But using your line of reasoning it makes more sense to believe in creation. Because God created all things of similar substances and the bible says we all were created from the ground. If you reason out we all came from ingredients of the earth how did we become so diverse ? That sounds like design not random mutations.
Click to expand...


No...you just have to understand human reproduction....your missing the entire point...

maybe it helps to think of it like this.

You have 46 chromosomes! Your dad contributed 23, your mom contributed another 23. It has been like this all throughout human history, i assume even creationists agree on this. its simple 7th grade biology. 

Well, imagine we look at YOUR chromosomes. We do a little cheek swab, place the cells under a microscope, and view the chromosomes. What we see, is that chromosome 2 is very obviously two chromosomes fused together. If we looked at your parents, or grandparents, DNA, we would see the same thing. 

And that makes sense, because your DNA is just a copy of certain parts of your mother and fathers DNA, with minute mistakes in the process, and they had the same fused chromosome. And this copying process has gone on over and over through the generations. So if we trace YOUR LINEAGE back far enough we get to a point where a mutation was introduced into a population of people with 48 chromosomes. These people werent "human" technically, because the species homo sapien has 46 chromosomes. But this mutation was the fusion of two adjacent chromosomes among a few people. It had some advantage, some genes dealing with brain exist on chromosome 2. 

At that point, when the two chromosomes fused during meiosis in the testes or ovaries of that 'humanoid', the lineage of "mankind" experienced a speciation event that led to the number of chromosomes we have today.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A hare has 46 chromosomes but what does this prove or suggest ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, hares have 48. But thats irrelevant.
> 
> Would you agree that humans, with 46 chromosomes, are a different species from some hypothetical human-like animal with 48 chromosomes?
> 
> So would I! Because thats part of the definition of species. A group of animals with 48 chromosomes cant reproduce with a group of animals that have 46. So they are different species. this is the common definition of a species, animals that cannot interbreed.
> 
> So chromosome two is indisputable proof that humanity was descended from some other human-like primate with 48 chromosomes, rather than 46, and therefore descended from another species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're assuming ancestry because of similarity,that view is based on imagination.
> 
> You ignore how vastly diiferent we from each other your main argument is because we supposedly went from from 48 to 46 chromosomes but ignore the information difference. not to mention the diffence in the genome.
> 
> Oh and eventually you will get more of a difference between chimps and humans once they learn more of the differences in the genome. There were admitted things not figured in to their equations..
> 
> Mark my words, eventually,you and i will be discussing that we were further apart from from chimps then previously thought.
Click to expand...


IM NOT ASSUMING ANCESTRY BECAUSE OF SIMILARITY. 

it is my *belief* that the evidence suggests that, _but that isnt my argument here._ My argument here lies entirely in the number of chromosomes and how human reproduction works, it has nothing to do with similarities to apes. 

My argument is that chromosome 2, in each of YOUR cells, and mine, still has the remnants of this fusion event. If you looked at one under a microscope, you would see the vestigal centromere and the telomeres where it fused. Either you somehow reject that this chromosome is fused, or you admit that one of your ancestors, sometime loooong ago, was born of an organism with 48 chromosomes, but during meiosis or mitosis the chromosomes fused together, and the offspring had 46 chromosomes.

facts man...facts...


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLoS Biology: Accelerated Evolution of the ASPM Gene Controlling Brain Size Begins Prior to Human Brain Expansion
> ScienceDirect - Cell : Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens
> Genetic links between brain development and brain evolution : Abstract : Nature Reviews Genetics
> Murine Otx1 and Drosophila otd genes share conserved genetic functions required in invertebrate and vertebrate brain development
> Reconstructing the evolutionary history of microcephalin, a gene controlling human brain size
> ScienceDirect - Gene : Molecular evolution of the brain size regulator genes CDK5RAP2 and CENPJ
> SpringerLink - Development Genes and Evolution, Volume 209, Number 1
> ScienceDirect - Current Opinion in Cell Biology : Cytoskeletal genes regulating brain size
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You give me a list where science disagrees with what is written in the bible and i will do this one more time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um jesus turned water into wine. He violated the law of conservation of energy and mass. Im not sure what your definition of science is but it doesnt support the biblical view in the slightest.
> 
> You can believe that jesus turned water into wine, you just have to also disagree with the law of conservation of energy and mass.
> 
> To use someone elses words...._"science disagrees with what is written in the bible"_
Click to expand...


Well you're ruling out the ability of the creator. You rule out the possibility of God taking everything needed for life and put it all together. But would rather believe it all just happened by chance over time.

You believe because there are constraints on what man can do and know that there is no one out there that has no constraints.

You're trying to force these constraints on God because you have never seen or spoke to him.,even though you can't explain how life could of happened without a designer. That is faith believing that everything was the result of chance. I know you don't like hearing this ,but that is what you believe in a nutshell.

Everything that man created was the result of intelligence,but you draw a line by saying life is not the result of design. Even though complex products are a product of design.

We know and there is no doubt that offspring are the product of parental genes,that is design,not mutations by chance.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its actually not the size of our brains its the dense layer of cells covering its surface called the cerebral cortex and the amount of surface area provided by the gryi and the sulci.
> 
> Besides, doesnt the very existence of neanderthals disprove the young earth creationist view of the world?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^Clear disregard for all genetics
> 
> Your claiming that the formation of a cerebral cortex and a highly folded brain isnt due to genetics.
> 
> Thats like claiming our 4 chambered heart isnt due to genetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No,neanderthals could have been just a product of bad genetics or inbreeding who knows.
> 
> It is very hard to say anything with certainty when no one was there.
> 
> Neanderthals did have bigger brains,how would you explain that ?
Click to expand...


Again, brain size does not mean theyre smarter

Cerebral cortex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Learn what that is.

But besides, neanderthals WERE relatively advanced for their time. Some of the first tools come from neanderthals.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our bigger brains.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to reply to a few of my posts. I would think you'd be most interested in telling me why precisely I'm wrong with my criticisms of the 'science facts' in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution? And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.
> 
> You give me a list where science disagrees with what is written in the bible and i will do this one more time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pointed out that we weren't directly descended from neanderthals. This is one of the posts you never replied to earlier.
> 
> I just replied to your list of science facts with actual scientific knowledge. Please stop wasting my time with your same old tired arguments.
Click to expand...


If science had all the answers there would be no disagreement,but what we have here is a difference of opinions of the evidence.

You are the one who said we evolved because we have bigger brains then apes but yet neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans.

Why would neanderthals have bigger brains then us since they are human human ?

Then you have another problem finding out who the neanderthals evolved from.

You see when a person tells a lie eventually that person has to tell another lie to defend the previous lie.

Not calling you a liar but are just pointing out when your assumptions are wrong as we find new evidence it creates more problems trying to explain the faulty assumptions and it just keeps getting bigger and you have more and more problems.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLoS Biology: Accelerated Evolution of the ASPM Gene Controlling Brain Size Begins Prior to Human Brain Expansion
> ScienceDirect - Cell : Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens
> Genetic links between brain development and brain evolution : Abstract : Nature Reviews Genetics
> Murine Otx1 and Drosophila otd genes share conserved genetic functions required in invertebrate and vertebrate brain development
> Reconstructing the evolutionary history of microcephalin, a gene controlling human brain size
> ScienceDirect - Gene : Molecular evolution of the brain size regulator genes CDK5RAP2 and CENPJ
> SpringerLink - Development Genes and Evolution, Volume 209, Number 1
> ScienceDirect - Current Opinion in Cell Biology : Cytoskeletal genes regulating brain size
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You give me a list where science disagrees with what is written in the bible and i will do this one more time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um jesus turned water into wine. He violated the law of conservation of energy and mass. Im not sure what your definition of science is but it doesnt support the biblical view in the slightest.
> 
> You can believe that jesus turned water into wine, you just have to also disagree with the law of conservation of energy and mass.
> 
> To use someone elses words...._"science disagrees with what is written in the bible"_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you're ruling out the ability of the creator. You rule out the possibility of God taking everything needed for life and put it all together. But would rather believe it all just happened by chance over time.
> 
> You believe because there are constraints on what man can do and know that there is no one out there that has no constraints.
> 
> You're trying to force these constraints on God because you have never seen or spoke to him.,even though you can't explain how life could of happened without a designer. That is faith believing that everything was the result of chance. I know you don't like hearing this ,but that is what you believe in a nutshell.
> 
> Everything that man created was the result of intelligence,but you draw a line by saying life is not the result of design. Even though complex products are a product of design.
> 
> We know and there is no doubt that offspring are the product of parental genes,that is design,not mutations by chance.
Click to expand...


"im trying to force constraints...blah blah" no, im not. The argument was about god and science.

Science says "matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed". Either god poofed matter into existence, in which case science is wrong, or your believing in a fairy tale.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our bigger brains.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to reply to a few of my posts. I would think you'd be most interested in telling me why precisely I'm wrong with my criticisms of the 'science facts' in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While we are waiting for you,this is another site that disagrees with you.
> 
> Science and the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that site falls into the same trap that your lazy copy and paste article did. Would you please stop repeating yourself and offer some actual responses, or do you not wish to be taken seriously?
Click to expand...


If you don't look at both sides of the argument how can you reach a proper conclusion ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its actually not the size of our brains its the dense layer of cells covering its surface called the cerebral cortex and the amount of surface area provided by the gryi and the sulci.
> 
> Besides, doesnt the very existence of neanderthals disprove the young earth creationist view of the world?
> 
> 
> 
> ^^Clear disregard for all genetics
> 
> Your claiming that the formation of a cerebral cortex and a highly folded brain isnt due to genetics.
> 
> Thats like claiming our 4 chambered heart isnt due to genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,neanderthals could have been just a product of bad genetics or inbreeding who knows.
> 
> It is very hard to say anything with certainty when no one was there.
> 
> Neanderthals did have bigger brains,how would you explain that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, brain size does not mean theyre smarter
> 
> Cerebral cortex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Learn what that is.
> 
> But besides, neanderthals WERE relatively advanced for their time. Some of the first tools come from neanderthals.
Click to expand...


I didn't even remotely suggest they were more intelligent.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> PLoS Biology: Accelerated Evolution of the ASPM Gene Controlling Brain Size Begins Prior to Human Brain Expansion
> ScienceDirect - Cell : Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens
> Genetic links between brain development and brain evolution : Abstract : Nature Reviews Genetics
> Murine Otx1 and Drosophila otd genes share conserved genetic functions required in invertebrate and vertebrate brain development
> Reconstructing the evolutionary history of microcephalin, a gene controlling human brain size
> ScienceDirect - Gene : Molecular evolution of the brain size regulator genes CDK5RAP2 and CENPJ
> SpringerLink - Development Genes and Evolution, Volume 209, Number 1
> ScienceDirect - Current Opinion in Cell Biology : Cytoskeletal genes regulating brain size
> 
> 
> 
> Um jesus turned water into wine. He violated the law of conservation of energy and mass. Im not sure what your definition of science is but it doesnt support the biblical view in the slightest.
> 
> You can believe that jesus turned water into wine, you just have to also disagree with the law of conservation of energy and mass.
> 
> To use someone elses words...._"science disagrees with what is written in the bible"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're ruling out the ability of the creator. You rule out the possibility of God taking everything needed for life and put it all together. But would rather believe it all just happened by chance over time.
> 
> You believe because there are constraints on what man can do and know that there is no one out there that has no constraints.
> 
> You're trying to force these constraints on God because you have never seen or spoke to him.,even though you can't explain how life could of happened without a designer. That is faith believing that everything was the result of chance. I know you don't like hearing this ,but that is what you believe in a nutshell.
> 
> Everything that man created was the result of intelligence,but you draw a line by saying life is not the result of design. Even though complex products are a product of design.
> 
> We know and there is no doubt that offspring are the product of parental genes,that is design,not mutations by chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "im trying to force constraints...blah blah" no, im not. The argument was about god and science.
> 
> Science says "matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed". Either god poofed matter into existence, in which case science is wrong, or your believing in a fairy tale.
Click to expand...


Like it or not until you disprove the existence of God that is what you're doing.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its actually not the size of our brains its the dense layer of cells covering its surface called the cerebral cortex and the amount of surface area provided by the gryi and the sulci.
> 
> Besides, doesnt the very existence of neanderthals disprove the young earth creationist view of the world?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^Clear disregard for all genetics
> 
> Your claiming that the formation of a cerebral cortex and a highly folded brain isnt due to genetics.
> 
> Thats like claiming our 4 chambered heart isnt due to genetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What i am saying is neanderthals brains were the result of the possibility of deformity,maybe from inbreeding.
Click to expand...


Is that your professional opinion? What evidence do you have to back that up, your own wishful thinking?

In reality neanderthals were some of the first primates to craft tools. 

you realize that this statement:

"What i am saying is neanderthals brains were the result of the possibility of deformity,maybe from inbreeding" 

is a description of evolution right? ADAPTIONS ARE DEFORMATIONS. Theyre genetic deformations that cause a change in the expression of a protein that alters some function. 

In the case of neanderthals, this mutation probably did make them smarter. All indications are that neanderthals were smart for their time, they just didnt survive. But that doesnt mean theyre smarter than we are, just because they have larger brains. ours are much more developed.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're ruling out the ability of the creator. You rule out the possibility of God taking everything needed for life and put it all together. But would rather believe it all just happened by chance over time.
> 
> You believe because there are constraints on what man can do and know that there is no one out there that has no constraints.
> 
> You're trying to force these constraints on God because you have never seen or spoke to him.,even though you can't explain how life could of happened without a designer. That is faith believing that everything was the result of chance. I know you don't like hearing this ,but that is what you believe in a nutshell.
> 
> Everything that man created was the result of intelligence,but you draw a line by saying life is not the result of design. Even though complex products are a product of design.
> 
> We know and there is no doubt that offspring are the product of parental genes,that is design,not mutations by chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "im trying to force constraints...blah blah" no, im not. The argument was about god and science.
> 
> Science says "matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed". Either god poofed matter into existence, in which case science is wrong, or your believing in a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like it or not until you disprove the existence of God that is what you're doing.
Click to expand...


I dont have to disprove anything. You arent right until proven wrong. If you assert something exists its on you to prove that it exists, thats how it works in the real world.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, hares have 48. But thats irrelevant.
> 
> Would you agree that humans, with 46 chromosomes, are a different species from some hypothetical human-like animal with 48 chromosomes?
> 
> So would I! Because thats part of the definition of species. A group of animals with 48 chromosomes cant reproduce with a group of animals that have 46. So they are different species. this is the common definition of a species, animals that cannot interbreed.
> 
> So chromosome two is indisputable proof that humanity was descended from some other human-like primate with 48 chromosomes, rather than 46, and therefore descended from another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming ancestry because of similarity,that view is based on imagination.
> 
> You ignore how vastly diiferent we from each other your main argument is because we supposedly went from from 48 to 46 chromosomes but ignore the information difference. not to mention the diffence in the genome.
> 
> Oh and eventually you will get more of a difference between chimps and humans once they learn more of the differences in the genome. There were admitted things not figured in to their equations..
> 
> Mark my words, eventually,you and i will be discussing that we were further apart from from chimps then previously thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IM NOT ASSUMING ANCESTRY BECAUSE OF SIMILARITY.
> 
> it is my *belief* that the evidence suggests that, _but that isnt my argument here._ My argument here lies entirely in the number of chromosomes and how human reproduction works, it has nothing to do with similarities to apes.
> 
> My argument is that chromosome 2, in each of YOUR cells, and mine, still has the remnants of this fusion event. If you looked at one under a microscope, you would see the vestigal centromere and the telomeres where it fused. Either you somehow reject that this chromosome is fused, or you admit that one of your ancestors, sometime loooong ago, was born of an organism with 48 chromosomes, but during meiosis or mitosis the chromosomes fused together, and the offspring had 46 chromosomes.
> 
> facts man...facts...
Click to expand...


Yes it is because similarity of the genome our DNA is one of your sides main argument.

That and our morhoplogical similarities.

The chromosome 2 proves nothing but by your reasoning you think it does that is just conjecture.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its actually not the size of our brains its the dense layer of cells covering its surface called the cerebral cortex and the amount of surface area provided by the gryi and the sulci.
> 
> Besides, doesnt the very existence of neanderthals disprove the young earth creationist view of the world?
> 
> 
> 
> ^^Clear disregard for all genetics
> 
> Your claiming that the formation of a cerebral cortex and a highly folded brain isnt due to genetics.
> 
> Thats like claiming our 4 chambered heart isnt due to genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What i am saying is neanderthals brains were the result of the possibility of deformity,maybe from inbreeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that your professional opinion? What evidence do you have to back that up, your own wishful thinking?
> 
> In reality neanderthals were some of the first primates to craft tools.
> 
> you realize that this statement:
> 
> "What i am saying is neanderthals brains were the result of the possibility of deformity,maybe from inbreeding"
> 
> is a description of evolution right? ADAPTIONS ARE DEFORMATIONS. Theyre genetic deformations that cause a change in the expression of a protein that alters some function.
> 
> In the case of neanderthals, this mutation probably did make them smarter. All indications are that neanderthals were smart for their time, they just didnt survive. But that doesnt mean theyre smarter than we are, just because they have larger brains. ours are much more developed.
Click to expand...


Have no evidence, it's just conjecture. like it's conjecture on your part to believe chromosome 2 proves ancestry.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "im trying to force constraints...blah blah" no, im not. The argument was about god and science.
> 
> Science says "matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed". Either god poofed matter into existence, in which case science is wrong, or your believing in a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not until you disprove the existence of God that is what you're doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont have to disprove anything. You arent right until proven wrong. If you assert something exists its on you to prove that it exists, thats how it works in the real world.
Click to expand...


I ask you has it been documented that inbreeding can cause deformity ?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming ancestry because of similarity,that view is based on imagination.
> 
> You ignore how vastly diiferent we from each other your main argument is because we supposedly went from from 48 to 46 chromosomes but ignore the information difference. not to mention the diffence in the genome.
> 
> Oh and eventually you will get more of a difference between chimps and humans once they learn more of the differences in the genome. There were admitted things not figured in to their equations..
> 
> Mark my words, eventually,you and i will be discussing that we were further apart from from chimps then previously thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM NOT ASSUMING ANCESTRY BECAUSE OF SIMILARITY.
> 
> it is my *belief* that the evidence suggests that, _but that isnt my argument here._ My argument here lies entirely in the number of chromosomes and how human reproduction works, it has nothing to do with similarities to apes.
> 
> My argument is that chromosome 2, in each of YOUR cells, and mine, still has the remnants of this fusion event. If you looked at one under a microscope, you would see the vestigal centromere and the telomeres where it fused. Either you somehow reject that this chromosome is fused, or you admit that one of your ancestors, sometime loooong ago, was born of an organism with 48 chromosomes, but during meiosis or mitosis the chromosomes fused together, and the offspring had 46 chromosomes.
> 
> facts man...facts...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is because similarity of the genome our DNA is one of your sides main argument.
> 
> That and our morhoplogical similarities.
> 
> The chromosome 2 proves nothing but by your reasoning you think it does that is just conjecture.
Click to expand...


What??

I dont think you understand how human reproduction works..

you know meiosis in the testes...the sperm fertilizes the egg...mitosis ensues...do you know these?

The only question i have for you, is "Is your second chromosome the result of two chromosomes fused together?"

If it is, then your great-great-great-great-great-great-great....grandparents had 48 chromosomes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "im trying to force constraints...blah blah" no, im not. The argument was about god and science.
> 
> Science says "matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed". Either god poofed matter into existence, in which case science is wrong, or your believing in a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not until you disprove the existence of God that is what you're doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont have to disprove anything. You arent right until proven wrong. If you assert something exists its on you to prove that it exists, thats how it works in the real world.
Click to expand...


Of course you do.

We are either products of creation or a natural process, man has not been able to show life can spontaneously arise.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not until you disprove the existence of God that is what you're doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to disprove anything. You arent right until proven wrong. If you assert something exists its on you to prove that it exists, thats how it works in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ask you has it been documented that inbreeding can cause deformity ?
Click to expand...


I dont think you understand how inbreeding causes deformity.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not until you disprove the existence of God that is what you're doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to disprove anything. You arent right until proven wrong. If you assert something exists its on you to prove that it exists, thats how it works in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you do.
> 
> We are either products of creation or a natural process, man has not been able to show life can spontaneously arise.
Click to expand...


I dont know how life came about. But if your going to claim that jesus christ is the son of god, the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, and humans were crafted in the image of god, its on you to prove that.

You dont just get to assume your right and make everyone else prove you wrong. 

If i was actually claiming life arose from nonanimate matter, which i havent done, then it would be on me to prove that. But im not claiming that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> IM NOT ASSUMING ANCESTRY BECAUSE OF SIMILARITY.
> 
> it is my *belief* that the evidence suggests that, _but that isnt my argument here._ My argument here lies entirely in the number of chromosomes and how human reproduction works, it has nothing to do with similarities to apes.
> 
> My argument is that chromosome 2, in each of YOUR cells, and mine, still has the remnants of this fusion event. If you looked at one under a microscope, you would see the vestigal centromere and the telomeres where it fused. Either you somehow reject that this chromosome is fused, or you admit that one of your ancestors, sometime loooong ago, was born of an organism with 48 chromosomes, but during meiosis or mitosis the chromosomes fused together, and the offspring had 46 chromosomes.
> 
> facts man...facts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is because similarity of the genome our DNA is one of your sides main argument.
> 
> That and our morhoplogical similarities.
> 
> The chromosome 2 proves nothing but by your reasoning you think it does that is just conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What??
> 
> I dont think you understand how human reproduction works..
> 
> you know meiosis in the testes...the sperm fertilizes the egg...mitosis ensues...do you know these?
> 
> The only question i have for you, is "Is your second chromosome the result of two chromosomes fused together?"
> 
> If it is, then your great-great-great-great-great-great-great....grandparents had 48 chromosomes.
Click to expand...


No.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to disprove anything. You arent right until proven wrong. If you assert something exists its on you to prove that it exists, thats how it works in the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ask you has it been documented that inbreeding can cause deformity ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont think you understand how inbreeding causes deformity.
Click to expand...


It's more likely for Bad genes to be passed on,because both parents have a better chance of posssessing the same defective genes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to disprove anything. You arent right until proven wrong. If you assert something exists its on you to prove that it exists, thats how it works in the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do.
> 
> We are either products of creation or a natural process, man has not been able to show life can spontaneously arise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont know how life came about. But if your going to claim that jesus christ is the son of god, the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, and humans were crafted in the image of god, its on you to prove that.
> 
> You dont just get to assume your right and make everyone else prove you wrong.
> 
> If i was actually claiming life arose from nonanimate matter, which i havent done, then it would be on me to prove that. But im not claiming that.
Click to expand...


Why ? i don't have a problem admitting many of my beliefs are based in faith.

If time has a beginning so does matter.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is because similarity of the genome our DNA is one of your sides main argument.
> 
> That and our morhoplogical similarities.
> 
> The chromosome 2 proves nothing but by your reasoning you think it does that is just conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What??
> 
> I dont think you understand how human reproduction works..
> 
> you know meiosis in the testes...the sperm fertilizes the egg...mitosis ensues...do you know these?
> 
> The only question i have for you, is "Is your second chromosome the result of two chromosomes fused together?"
> 
> If it is, then your great-great-great-great-great-great-great....grandparents had 48 chromosomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


So just if im understanding you correctly, you reject the notion that chromosome two is the fusion of two chromosomes?

So ive presented the evidence of why its fused. it retains the vestigial centromere and carries a long sequence of telemere caps at its center as well as its ends. When we observe chromosomes that have fused during reproduction, this is exactly what we see. In fact, its the only place we see it.

Can you refute that evidence or provide a reason why you think its not fused? Because a undergraduate biology student could notice on his own that its the fusion of chromosomes


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Yes and if you had used it that way, it would have been correct.
> 
> Unfortunately, you didn't.
> 
> You're a miserable wordsmith, that's the beginning and end of it. Your copy is laughable and you need to learn to edit your own crap or suffer criticism and ridicule from anyone who can write (or edit) and is subjected to it.


Your overbearing hubris is just hilarious. 

Let's just catalog the criticisms from someone who alleges she can write and/or edit:

You deny the distinction between what a rationale is, and what a rationalization is.
After looking up "rationalizing," you deny its existence, and you still refuse to accept that there is a distinction between what a rationale is, and what a rationalization is.
During all of this you are in resolute denial of the gerund, such that you repeatedly insist that a verb cannot be applied to another verb.
Then finally, having your retarded nose thoroughly rubbed into both the reality of the existence of the term "rationalizing" and the existence of the gerund, you now deny the unambiguous reality that in this clause ...: _... you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that ..._​... the term "rationalizing" is used precisely (and correctly) as a gerund; "rationalizing" being the object of the verb "apply."
Someone who cares about you, or cares about the positions you defend, would ask you to please STFU, as you clearly have no idea what you're discussing when you talk about any sciences or English. The pride you take in your obvious stupidity is just embarrassing to your peers.

For my part, I ask that you please, please, please keep exposing your retarded and dishonest nature so I may continue to enjoy pointing it out in the fatuous face of your obtuse denials of reality.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Debunking evolution.
> 
> 
> Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong
> 
> 
> 
> Debunking evolution? What a laugh!
> 
> Did you write that yourself? Because it's exactly wrong in every single way we've been proving you wrong; and wrong for the exact same misrepresentations of evolutionary theory, errors of fact, and logically fallacious reasoning we've been pointing out you've been applying all along.
> 
> Why don't you get a little intellectual integrity and level up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Practice what you preach
Click to expand...

Look here, douche.

I'm not the one here who misrepresents the evolutionist's account of evolution, _AND_ the science that supports it, _AND_ Biblical cosmology and biology in order to advance my point of view. That is 100% you, pal--it's 100% intellectually disingenuous, and you and your Creation "scientists" (along with your Creation "science") have been thoroughly exposed as cavalier travesties comprised of intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacy.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't APPLY a VERB.
> 
> Interestingly, I can't even find the word "rationalizing" in the dictionary.
> 
> Rationalize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> What we have here folks, is an unambiguous example of the stolid denial of verifiable reality that characterizes faith.  You see, here our little cupcake holds a baseless preconception about reality, and with the absolute, unassailable, arrogant, and sanctimonious certainty of faith, she refuses to acknowledge that she actually found "rationalizing" in a dictionary; she linked to it, ignored her incorrect notion of the term's primary meaning, and then declared it wasn't to be found.*ra·tio·nal·ize  verb*
> \&#712;rash-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z, &#712;ra-sh&#601;-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z\
> 
> r*a·tio·nal·ized | ra·tio·nal·iz·ing*
> 
> *Definition of RATIONALIZE*
> 
> _transitive verb_
> 
> 1 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as
> 
> a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth>
> 
> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>​The lesson to be learned here, is that those who apply faith are correct only by accident; and even when unambiguously wrong, they will deny verifiable reality--the strength of that denial being the strength of their faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dr. veith was showing in the videos to how your side does the very thing you claim creationist do.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. He was exposing himself as an intellectually dishonest superstitious retard--nothing more.



Youwerecreated said:


> Circular reasoning,and using rational thought.


Circular reasoning is the hallmark of your superstitious paradigm, and is incompatible with rational thought. Your creation "science" is founded firmly in circular reasoning, and evolution science is clearly NOT.



Youwerecreated said:


> It does take faith to believe as you do because there is no evidence to show it happened like evolutionist claim, and that is what they don't want you to know.


There is BOATLOADS of evidence! It's been brought to you repeatedly, you intellectually dishonest fucktard!



Youwerecreated said:


> You people ,once you start get hitting with the facts you turn your attention on the bible which none of you clearly understand.


This is utter nonsense. You are engaging in pathological projection. There are no actual facts of reality that I, or any evolutionist you have engaged in here, have actually disputed. Every "fact" in dispute has been one of your patent errors of fact, baseless presumptions, or ridiculous strawmen; and each of them has been thoroughly exposed.



Youwerecreated said:


> It is appartent that all of your attacks are based on how you think today, not like how people thought back then.
> 
> Do you people understand that languages evolve over time ?


Look here, retard. Just as I pointed out to you for Veith, you can't eat your cake and have it too. The Bible account is literal and inerrant, or it is not; it is illegitimate and intellectually dishonest to make and deny each claim as it suits your rationalizations.


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution? And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.
> 
> You give me a list where science disagrees with what is written in the bible and i will do this one more time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed out that we weren't directly descended from neanderthals. This is one of the posts you never replied to earlier.
> 
> I just replied to your list of science facts with actual scientific knowledge. Please stop wasting my time with your same old tired arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If science had all the answers there would be no disagreement,but what we have here is a difference of opinions of the evidence.
Click to expand...


Science doesn't have all the answers. If science had all the answers, it would stop being science.



> You are the one who said we evolved because we have bigger brains then apes but yet neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans.
> 
> Why would neanderthals have bigger brains then us since they are human human ?



We are not descended from neanderthals, so your premise is invalid. Why do you keep repeating it?



> Then you have another problem finding out who the neanderthals evolved from.
> 
> You see when a person tells a lie eventually that person has to tell another lie to defend the previous lie.
> 
> Not calling you a liar but are just pointing out when your assumptions are wrong as we find new evidence it creates more problems trying to explain the faulty assumptions and it just keeps getting bigger and you have more and more problems.



We know who we actually evolved from. You're the one who assumed it was neanderthals. I've pointed this out to you before, and you stopped replying to me.


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> While we are waiting for you,this is another site that disagrees with you.
> 
> Science and the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that site falls into the same trap that your lazy copy and paste article did. Would you please stop repeating yourself and offer some actual responses, or do you not wish to be taken seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't look at both sides of the argument how can you reach a proper conclusion ?
Click to expand...


I've looked at your arguments and I've responded to them. You haven't defended them at all.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What??
> 
> I dont think you understand how human reproduction works..
> 
> you know meiosis in the testes...the sperm fertilizes the egg...mitosis ensues...do you know these?
> 
> The only question i have for you, is "Is your second chromosome the result of two chromosomes fused together?"
> 
> If it is, then your great-great-great-great-great-great-great....grandparents had 48 chromosomes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just if im understanding you correctly, you reject the notion that chromosome two is the fusion of two chromosomes?
> 
> So ive presented the evidence of why its fused. it retains the vestigial centromere and carries a long sequence of telemere caps at its center as well as its ends. When we observe chromosomes that have fused during reproduction, this is exactly what we see. In fact, its the only place we see it.
> 
> Can you refute that evidence or provide a reason why you think its not fused? Because a undergraduate biology student could notice on his own that its the fusion of chromosomes
Click to expand...


I never denied the fusion i denied this as evidence of humans diverging from an apelike creature or even sharing an apelike creature.

I see what you're saying but i believe all humans came from a common ancestor but it was human. Whether it was adam or eve I have no idea.

There is no fusion in the chromosomes in any apelike creature only in humans so why would you or anyone assume ancestry based on this ?

Once again all you can point to is similarity  between apes and humans,thats all. Like i said earlier it proves nothing.

All living humans are descended from those humans in which the fusion occurred.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Debunking evolution? What a laugh!
> 
> Did you write that yourself? Because it's exactly wrong in every single way we've been proving you wrong; and wrong for the exact same misrepresentations of evolutionary theory, errors of fact, and logically fallacious reasoning we've been pointing out you've been applying all along.
> 
> Why don't you get a little intellectual integrity and level up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Practice what you preach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look here, douche.
> 
> I'm not the one here who misrepresents the evolutionist's account of evolution, _AND_ the science that supports it, _AND_ Biblical cosmology and biology in order to advance my point of view. That is 100% you, pal--it's 100% intellectually disingenuous, and you and your Creation "scientists" (along with your Creation "science") have been thoroughly exposed as cavalier travesties comprised of intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacy.
Click to expand...


That is true, because you don't understand the theory as has been pointed out.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we have here folks, is an unambiguous example of the stolid denial of verifiable reality that characterizes faith.  You see, here our little cupcake holds a baseless preconception about reality, and with the absolute, unassailable, arrogant, and sanctimonious certainty of faith, she refuses to acknowledge that she actually found "rationalizing" in a dictionary; she linked to it, ignored her incorrect notion of the term's primary meaning, and then declared it wasn't to be found.*ra·tio·nal·ize  verb*
> \&#712;rash-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z, &#712;ra-sh&#601;-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z\
> 
> r*a·tio·nal·ized | ra·tio·nal·iz·ing*
> 
> *Definition of RATIONALIZE*
> 
> _transitive verb_
> 
> 1 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as
> 
> a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth>
> 
> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>​The lesson to be learned here, is that those who apply faith are correct only by accident; and even when unambiguously wrong, they will deny verifiable reality--the strength of that denial being the strength of their faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. veith was showing in the videos to how your side does the very thing you claim creationist do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. He was exposing himself as an intellectually dishonest superstitious retard--nothing more.
> 
> Circular reasoning is the hallmark of your superstitious paradigm, and is incompatible with rational thought. Your creation "science" is founded firmly in circular reasoning, and evolution science is clearly NOT.
> 
> There is BOATLOADS of evidence! It's been brought to you repeatedly, you intellectually dishonest fucktard!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people ,once you start get hitting with the facts you turn your attention on the bible which none of you clearly understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is utter nonsense. You are engaging in pathological projection. There are no actual facts of reality that I, or any evolutionist you have engaged in here, have actually disputed. Every "fact" in dispute has been one of your patent errors of fact, baseless presumptions, or ridiculous strawmen; and each of them has been thoroughly exposed.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is appartent that all of your attacks are based on how you think today, not like how people thought back then.
> 
> Do you people understand that languages evolve over time ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look here, retard. Just as I pointed out to you for Veith, you can't eat your cake and have it too. The Bible account is literal and inerrant, or it is not; it is illegitimate and intellectually dishonest to make and deny each claim as it suits your rationalizations.
Click to expand...


I will ignore your responses from here on out, it is pointless to argue with someone who is not educated well enough in the field to argue it.

Talk to you later punk.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed out that we weren't directly descended from neanderthals. This is one of the posts you never replied to earlier.
> 
> I just replied to your list of science facts with actual scientific knowledge. Please stop wasting my time with your same old tired arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If science had all the answers there would be no disagreement,but what we have here is a difference of opinions of the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't have all the answers. If science had all the answers, it would stop being science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who said we evolved because we have bigger brains then apes but yet neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans.
> 
> Why would neanderthals have bigger brains then us since they are human human ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not descended from neanderthals, so your premise is invalid. Why do you keep repeating it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have another problem finding out who the neanderthals evolved from.
> 
> You see when a person tells a lie eventually that person has to tell another lie to defend the previous lie.
> 
> Not calling you a liar but are just pointing out when your assumptions are wrong as we find new evidence it creates more problems trying to explain the faulty assumptions and it just keeps getting bigger and you have more and more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know who we actually evolved from. You're the one who assumed it was neanderthals. I've pointed this out to you before, and you stopped replying to me.
Click to expand...


Exactly,and God does possess all the answers.


I never said we are descended from neanderthals. I said neanderthals could be the result of too much inbreeding.

How do you explain their brains bigger then modern day humans ? What did they evolve from ? They're humans period.

Who have we descended from ? How do you know this ?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So just if im understanding you correctly, you reject the notion that chromosome two is the fusion of two chromosomes?
> 
> So ive presented the evidence of why its fused. it retains the vestigial centromere and carries a long sequence of telemere caps at its center as well as its ends. When we observe chromosomes that have fused during reproduction, this is exactly what we see. In fact, its the only place we see it.
> 
> Can you refute that evidence or provide a reason why you think its not fused? Because a undergraduate biology student could notice on his own that its the fusion of chromosomes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never denied the fusion i denied this as evidence of humans diverging from an apelike creature or even sharing an apelike creature.
> 
> I see what you're saying but i believe all humans came from a common ancestor but it was human. Whether it was adam or eve I have no idea.
> 
> There is no fusion in the chromosomes in any apelike creature only in humans so why would you or anyone assume ancestry based on this ?
> 
> Once again all you can point to is similarity  between apes and humans,thats all. Like i said earlier it proves nothing.
> 
> All living humans are descended from those humans in which the fusion occurred.
Click to expand...


Im not assuming ape ancestry with this...im assuming speciation...for the last time...

So you agree that it is a result of fusion right? Well doesnt that mean that they werent fused at one point in the past?

Maybe i dont understand basic logic. i thought two things could only fuse together if they were separate originally....


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then we just disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to disagree, however the reality of the situation proves the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have answered this before,if God exists he knows the facts he is not searching for it.
> 
> I guess you're right God is not involved in the scientific method because he is not looking for facts he created facts.
Click to expand...

Prove this with verifiable evidence and valid logic, please.

And no, you have not yet done this; you've managed only to stolidly deny the plenitude of valid arguments and verifiable evidence presented to you, and all of your "evidence" thus far has been validated ONLY by question-begging rationalizations.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already have,you may not like the answer but that does not prove we diverged from the ape family. You don't remember the response ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"
> 
> The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species.
> 
> But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?
> 
> Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.
> 
> You really just reject all genetics??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't deny genetics, i believe every living organism is a product of parental genes. The same with Asexual organisms they are what they are because of the genes.
Click to expand...

you are clearly in some denial of the relationship that genotype has with phenotype, and you have not presented a single valid argument for why you assert this denial.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just if im understanding you correctly, you reject the notion that chromosome two is the fusion of two chromosomes?
> 
> So ive presented the evidence of why its fused. it retains the vestigial centromere and carries a long sequence of telemere caps at its center as well as its ends. When we observe chromosomes that have fused during reproduction, this is exactly what we see. In fact, its the only place we see it.
> 
> Can you refute that evidence or provide a reason why you think its not fused? Because a undergraduate biology student could notice on his own that its the fusion of chromosomes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never denied the fusion i denied this as evidence of humans diverging from an apelike creature or even sharing an apelike creature.
> 
> I see what you're saying but i believe all humans came from a common ancestor but it was human. Whether it was adam or eve I have no idea.
> 
> There is no fusion in the chromosomes in any apelike creature only in humans so why would you or anyone assume ancestry based on this ?
> 
> Once again all you can point to is similarity  between apes and humans,thats all. Like i said earlier it proves nothing.
> 
> All living humans are descended from those humans in which the fusion occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not assuming ape ancestry with this...im assuming speciation...for the last time...
> 
> So you agree that it is a result of fusion right? Well doesnt that mean that they werent fused at one point in the past?
> 
> Maybe i dont understand basic logic. i thought two things could only fuse together if they were separate originally....
Click to expand...


No,what it shows is the humans we all descended from had 24 pairs of chromosomes.

There are no apelike creatures that have had this fusion.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?


The entire fossil record is evidence of these morphological changes for which mutations contributed to sufficient divergent (and beneficial) changes in genotype, that the resultant divergence in phenotypes resulted in speciation.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never denied the fusion i denied this as evidence of humans diverging from an apelike creature or even sharing an apelike creature.
> 
> I see what you're saying but i believe all humans came from a common ancestor but it was human. Whether it was adam or eve I have no idea.
> 
> There is no fusion in the chromosomes in any apelike creature only in humans so why would you or anyone assume ancestry based on this ?
> 
> Once again all you can point to is similarity  between apes and humans,thats all. Like i said earlier it proves nothing.
> 
> All living humans are descended from those humans in which the fusion occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not assuming ape ancestry with this...im assuming speciation...for the last time...
> 
> So you agree that it is a result of fusion right? Well doesnt that mean that they werent fused at one point in the past?
> 
> Maybe i dont understand basic logic. i thought two things could only fuse together if they were separate originally....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,what it shows is the humans we all descended from had 24 pairs of chromosomes.
> 
> There are no apelike creatures that have had this fusion.
Click to expand...


Exactly....it shows that our descendants had 24 pairs of chromosomes. Hence, were another species...

The definition of species is a group of animals capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. 2 animals wit different numbers of chromosomes cannot produce fertile offspring. 

Therefore if a modern human were to attempt to mate with one of these "humans" with 24 pairs of chromosomes, they wouldnt be able to. Hence, they were difference species. 

"There are no apelike creatures that have had this fusion."

Isnt that exactly what you would expect if we evolved from apes...?

We just proved that our ancestors did not have this fusion. You just agreed that apes also do not have this fusion. 

Maybe now your closer to understanding.


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If science had all the answers there would be no disagreement,but what we have here is a difference of opinions of the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't have all the answers. If science had all the answers, it would stop being science.
> 
> 
> 
> We are not descended from neanderthals, so your premise is invalid. Why do you keep repeating it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have another problem finding out who the neanderthals evolved from.
> 
> You see when a person tells a lie eventually that person has to tell another lie to defend the previous lie.
> 
> Not calling you a liar but are just pointing out when your assumptions are wrong as we find new evidence it creates more problems trying to explain the faulty assumptions and it just keeps getting bigger and you have more and more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know who we actually evolved from. You're the one who assumed it was neanderthals. I've pointed this out to you before, and you stopped replying to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly,and God does possess all the answers.
Click to expand...


Science doesn't claim to know the answers because it goes against the philosophy of science of knowing how much you don't know and then going to find out about it. There's an air of Socrates in it. God has nothing to do with it, and certainly doesn't have any of the answers if anything of the things you claim are the answers.




> I never said we are descended from neanderthals. I said neanderthals could be the result of too much inbreeding.



No no, you asked if neanderthals had bigger brains, how could we have such a morphological change such as bigger brains then? And I answered that it was irrelevant because we are not directly descended from neanderthals, therefore the morphological change was still valid.



> How do you explain their brains bigger then modern day humans ? What did they evolve from ? They're humans period.



They're relatives for sure. After all they are part of the genus _homo_, but to call them human would be inaccurate. I never denied their cranial size. cbirch2 has actually been giving you a fairly good explanation on it.



> Who have we descended from ? How do you know this ?



I find it interesting you claim they're humans and than ask me how we know who we're descended from.

The answer you're looking for is _homo ergaster_ and possibly _homo erectus_ as well. We know this through fossils, as well as DNA sequencing.


----------



## cbirch2

Pointing out transitional fossils is pointless. We have plenty. Heres the problem with the whole debate though.

Creationists ask for proof that the skeletal anatomy of apes could progress to that of humans. So we offer skeletons like Australopithecus as a transitional fossil. They then just ask for proof that Australopithecus could progress to humans. We offer skeletons like homo erectus, which show upright stature. Then they just ask us to prove the progress from homo erectus to humans

And this goes on and on until creationists are basically asking something as trivial as how a femur lengthened or a thumb gained another 6 degrees of flexibility. 

In other words, creationists will never accept any amount of evidence when it comes to transitional fossils.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not assuming ape ancestry with this...im assuming speciation...for the last time...
> 
> So you agree that it is a result of fusion right? Well doesnt that mean that they werent fused at one point in the past?
> 
> Maybe i dont understand basic logic. i thought two things could only fuse together if they were separate originally....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,what it shows is the humans we all descended from had 24 pairs of chromosomes.
> 
> There are no apelike creatures that have had this fusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly....it shows that our descendants had 24 pairs of chromosomes. Hence, were another species...
> 
> The definition of species is a group of animals capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. 2 animals wit different numbers of chromosomes cannot produce fertile offspring.
> 
> Therefore if a modern human were to attempt to mate with one of these "humans" with 24 pairs of chromosomes, they wouldnt be able to. Hence, they were difference species.
> 
> "There are no apelike creatures that have had this fusion."
> 
> Isnt that exactly what you would expect if we evolved from apes...?
> 
> We just proved that our ancestors did not have this fusion. You just agreed that apes also do not have this fusion.
> 
> Maybe now your closer to understanding.
Click to expand...



1. Tobacco
2. potato
3. orangutan
4. hare
5. gorilla
6. deer mouse
7. beaver

These all have the same chromosome count as the chimpanzee,can they all crossbreed ?

It's really not the chromosome count that is important,it's the information in the chromosomes is what really matters.

Humans 46 chromosomes two other species i know of have the same amount as humans.

1. Reeve's Muntjac
2. Sable Antelope

It's the information contained in the chromosomes that shows we are vastly different with the same amount of chromosomes.

Bad argument.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Now i can't explain why humans chromosomes would have went from 24 pairs to 23 pairs. But i can clearly see the difference in the information in each species  chromosomes.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,what it shows is the humans we all descended from had 24 pairs of chromosomes.
> 
> There are no apelike creatures that have had this fusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly....it shows that our descendants had 24 pairs of chromosomes. Hence, were another species...
> 
> The definition of species is a group of animals capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. 2 animals wit different numbers of chromosomes cannot produce fertile offspring.
> 
> Therefore if a modern human were to attempt to mate with one of these "humans" with 24 pairs of chromosomes, they wouldnt be able to. Hence, they were difference species.
> 
> "There are no apelike creatures that have had this fusion."
> 
> Isnt that exactly what you would expect if we evolved from apes...?
> 
> We just proved that our ancestors did not have this fusion. You just agreed that apes also do not have this fusion.
> 
> Maybe now your closer to understanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Tobacco
> 2. potato
> 3. orangutan
> 4. hare
> 5. gorilla
> 6. deer mouse
> 7. beaver
> 
> These all have the same chromosome count as the chimpanzee,can they all crossbreed ?
> 
> It's really not the chromosome count that is important,it's the information in the chromosomes is what really matters.
> 
> Humans 46 chromosomes two other species i know of have the same amount as humans.
> 
> 1. Reeve's Muntjac
> 2. Sable Antelope
> 
> It's the information contained in the chromosomes that shows we are vastly different with the same amount of chromosomes.
> 
> Bad argument.
Click to expand...


That isnt even a correct description of the argument! 

You just agreed that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes. 



Youwerecreated said:


> ...what it shows is the humans we all descended from had 24 pairs of chromosomes.



*NO ORGANISM WITH 24 PAIRS OF CHROMOSOMES IS HUMAN. 

*Thats the entire point. That is the very definition of human.

Ever heard of correlation-causality? Because your fucking it up. 

If an animal _doesnt_ have 46 chromosomes, then its _not a human. _However, if an organism _does_ have 46 chromosomes, than that _does not necessarily mean it is a human_

Similar to:

If its raining it must be wet outside, but just because its wet outside doesnt mean its raining. (maybe the sprinkler is on...)

Get it??

Ill say it again:
*
If an animal doesnt have 46 chromosomes, then its not a human. However, if an organism does have 46 chromosomes, than that does not necessarily mean it is a human* 

So if you admit that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes, which you do, then you MUST admit that human ancestors were a different species.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> Now i can't explain why humans chromosomes would have went from 24 pairs to 23 pairs. But i can clearly see the difference in the information in each species  chromosomes.



Exactly! Different species!

Human ancestors were a different species!!!!!


----------



## cbirch2

Just to hammer down the correlation causality thing one more time. 

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is what your doing.

Statement 1: An animal with something other than 46 chromosomes is not a human.

Statement 2: An animal with 46 chromosomes is a human. 

Statement 1 is correct, statement 2 is false. 

Similar to....

Statement 1: The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is observed to be.

Statement 2: Therefore firemen cause fire.

Statement one is true; more firefighters are sent to fight a bigger fire. But statement two is false; firemen certainly dont cause the fire.

Get it yet?


----------



## cbirch2

And maybe you dont understand why a human must have 46 chromosomes. 

Species - "The major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, *are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another * *species*."

If you know ANYTHING about biology, you will know that an organism with 48 chromosomes and an organism with 46 chromosomes cannot breed.

But that doesnt mean a human can breed with just any organism that has 46 chromosomes. That is just one requirement.

See where im going with this?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our bigger brains.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to reply to a few of my posts. I would think you'd be most interested in telling me why precisely I'm wrong with my criticisms of the 'science facts' in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While we are waiting for you,this is another site that disagrees with you.
> 
> Science and the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?
Click to expand...

Desperate Rationalizations by the Superstitious: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles? YES!

Fixed.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No i don't,there is no human that has ever possessed 48 chromosomes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is actually my very argument. *When our ancestors possessed 48 chromosomes they werent human*, by the very definition of what it means to be human. But yet chromosome two is indisputable proof that modern humanity is descended from an organism with 48 chromosomes. Hence the need for a speciation event in which chimpanzee chromosome 2q and 2p either fused or failed to fully separate, and this mutation persisted throughout human history.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very weak argument to try and prove ancestry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually its a very strong argument. You just clearly cant comprehend it. You really only have two choices.
> 
> A) Reject the so far indisputable fact that human chromosome two is the result of the fusion of two chromosomes
> 
> or
> 
> B) Accept that at some point in humanity's common ancestry, we all descended from a similar group of animals that had 48 chromosomes.
> 
> 
> I have yet to see you attempt to disprove the fusion of the chromosome so i assume your taking stance B....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If i use your reasoning,i have to assume all organisms are related which they clearly are not.
Click to expand...

Then by your same fallacious reasoning we are all related to Adam and Eve, which we clearly cannot be in the same sense you use "all ... related." 



Youwerecreated said:


> But using your line of reasoning it makes more sense to believe in creation.


Nonsense. Doing so introduces baseless superstition.



Youwerecreated said:


> Because God created all things of similar substances and the bible says we all were created from the ground. If you reason out we all came from ingredients of the earth how did we become so diverse ? That sounds like design not random mutations.


No, it sounds like the all to familiar question-begging rationalizations of the superstitious.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its actually not the size of our brains its the dense layer of cells covering its surface called the cerebral cortex and the amount of surface area provided by the gryi and the sulci.
> 
> Besides, doesnt the very existence of neanderthals disprove the young earth creationist view of the world?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^Clear disregard for all genetics
> 
> Your claiming that the formation of a cerebral cortex and a highly folded brain isnt due to genetics.
> 
> Thats like claiming our 4 chambered heart isnt due to genetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No,neanderthals could have been just a product of bad genetics or inbreeding who knows.
> 
> It is very hard to say anything with certainty when no one was there.
> 
> Neanderthals did have bigger brains,how would you explain that ?
Click to expand...

Who designed such bad genetics, and why would He design them so badly?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its actually not the size of our brains its the dense layer of cells covering its surface called the cerebral cortex and the amount of surface area provided by the gryi and the sulci.
> 
> Besides, doesnt the very existence of neanderthals disprove the young earth creationist view of the world?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^Clear disregard for all genetics
> 
> Your claiming that the formation of a cerebral cortex and a highly folded brain isnt due to genetics.
> 
> Thats like claiming our 4 chambered heart isnt due to genetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What i am saying is neanderthals brains were the result of the possibility of deformity,maybe from inbreeding.
Click to expand...

Like how Adam and Eve and their Children did? Like Noah and his family did? And weren't you the one who insisted that such breeding leads to a genetically homogeneous population? Yet homo-sapiens is so diverse! Creationists have no explanation for this! It's INEXPLICABLE!


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLoS Biology: Accelerated Evolution of the ASPM Gene Controlling Brain Size Begins Prior to Human Brain Expansion
> ScienceDirect - Cell : Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens
> Genetic links between brain development and brain evolution : Abstract : Nature Reviews Genetics
> Murine Otx1 and Drosophila otd genes share conserved genetic functions required in invertebrate and vertebrate brain development
> Reconstructing the evolutionary history of microcephalin, a gene controlling human brain size
> ScienceDirect - Gene : Molecular evolution of the brain size regulator genes CDK5RAP2 and CENPJ
> SpringerLink - Development Genes and Evolution, Volume 209, Number 1
> ScienceDirect - Current Opinion in Cell Biology : Cytoskeletal genes regulating brain size
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You give me a list where science disagrees with what is written in the bible and i will do this one more time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um jesus turned water into wine. He violated the law of conservation of energy and mass. Im not sure what your definition of science is but it doesnt support the biblical view in the slightest.
> 
> You can believe that jesus turned water into wine, you just have to also disagree with the law of conservation of energy and mass.
> 
> To use someone elses words...._"science disagrees with what is written in the bible"_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you're ruling out the ability of the creator. You rule out the possibility of God taking everything needed for life and put it all together.
Click to expand...

A lie.



Youwerecreated said:


> But would rather believe it all just happened by chance over time.


Another lie.



Youwerecreated said:


> You believe because there are constraints on what man can do and know that there is no one out there that has no constraints.


Another lie.



Youwerecreated said:


> You're trying to force these constraints on God because you have never seen or spoke to him.,even though you can't explain how life could of happened without a designer.


More lies.



Youwerecreated said:


> That is faith believing that everything was the result of chance.


Another lie.



Youwerecreated said:


> I know you don't like hearing this ,but that is what you believe in a nutshell.


You're so laughably full of shit.



Youwerecreated said:


> Everything that man created was the result of intelligence,but you draw a line by saying life is not the result of design.


A lie.



Youwerecreated said:


> Even though complex products are a product of design.


Irrelevant.



Youwerecreated said:


> We know and there is no doubt that offspring are the product of parental genes,that is design,not mutations by chance.


Question-begging rationalization.


----------



## LOki

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> PLoS Biology: Accelerated Evolution of the ASPM Gene Controlling Brain Size Begins Prior to Human Brain Expansion
> ScienceDirect - Cell : Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens
> Genetic links between brain development and brain evolution : Abstract : Nature Reviews Genetics
> Murine Otx1 and Drosophila otd genes share conserved genetic functions required in invertebrate and vertebrate brain development
> Reconstructing the evolutionary history of microcephalin, a gene controlling human brain size
> ScienceDirect - Gene : Molecular evolution of the brain size regulator genes CDK5RAP2 and CENPJ
> SpringerLink - Development Genes and Evolution, Volume 209, Number 1
> ScienceDirect - Current Opinion in Cell Biology : Cytoskeletal genes regulating brain size
> 
> 
> 
> Um jesus turned water into wine. He violated the law of conservation of energy and mass. Im not sure what your definition of science is but it doesnt support the biblical view in the slightest.
> 
> You can believe that jesus turned water into wine, you just have to also disagree with the law of conservation of energy and mass.
> 
> To use someone elses words...._"science disagrees with what is written in the bible"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're ruling out the ability of the creator. You rule out the possibility of God taking everything needed for life and put it all together. But would rather believe it all just happened by chance over time.
> 
> You believe because there are constraints on what man can do and know that there is no one out there that has no constraints.
> 
> You're trying to force these constraints on God because you have never seen or spoke to him.,even though you can't explain how life could of happened without a designer. That is faith believing that everything was the result of chance. I know you don't like hearing this ,but that is what you believe in a nutshell.
> 
> Everything that man created was the result of intelligence,but you draw a line by saying life is not the result of design. Even though complex products are a product of design.
> 
> We know and there is no doubt that offspring are the product of parental genes,that is design,not mutations by chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "im trying to force constraints...blah blah" no, im not. The argument was about god and science.
> 
> Science says "matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed". Either god poofed matter into existence, in which case science is wrong, or your believing in a fairy tale.
Click to expand...


He believes in a fairy tale.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're ruling out the ability of the creator. You rule out the possibility of God taking everything needed for life and put it all together. But would rather believe it all just happened by chance over time.
> 
> You believe because there are constraints on what man can do and know that there is no one out there that has no constraints.
> 
> You're trying to force these constraints on God because you have never seen or spoke to him.,even though you can't explain how life could of happened without a designer. That is faith believing that everything was the result of chance. I know you don't like hearing this ,but that is what you believe in a nutshell.
> 
> Everything that man created was the result of intelligence,but you draw a line by saying life is not the result of design. Even though complex products are a product of design.
> 
> We know and there is no doubt that offspring are the product of parental genes,that is design,not mutations by chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "im trying to force constraints...blah blah" no, im not. The argument was about god and science.
> 
> Science says "matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed". Either god poofed matter into existence, in which case science is wrong, or your believing in a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like it or not until you disprove the existence of God that is what you're doing.
Click to expand...

No, the positive assertion is that God exists--the actual burden of proof is upon those who assert his existence, not on those who do not.

You lose again.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not until you disprove the existence of God that is what you're doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to disprove anything. You arent right until proven wrong. If you assert something exists its on you to prove that it exists, thats how it works in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you do.
> 
> We are either products of creation or a natural process, man has not been able to show life can spontaneously arise.
Click to expand...

And the verifiable evidence supports a natural process, and your question-begging demonstrates nothing but your lack of intellectual integrity.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do.
> 
> We are either products of creation or a natural process, man has not been able to show life can spontaneously arise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know how life came about. But if your going to claim that jesus christ is the son of god, the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, and humans were crafted in the image of god, its on you to prove that.
> 
> You dont just get to assume your right and make everyone else prove you wrong.
> 
> If i was actually claiming life arose from nonanimate matter, which i havent done, then it would be on me to prove that. But im not claiming that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why ? i don't have a problem admitting many of my beliefs are based in faith.
Click to expand...


But you do have a problem with admitting that faith is an intellectually invalid basis for assertions regarding the nature of the objective reality we live in.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Practice what you preach
> 
> 
> 
> Look here, douche.
> 
> I'm not the one here who misrepresents the evolutionist's account of evolution, _AND_ the science that supports it, _AND_ Biblical cosmology and biology in order to advance my point of view. That is 100% you, pal--it's 100% intellectually disingenuous, and you and your Creation "scientists" (along with your Creation "science") have been thoroughly exposed as cavalier travesties comprised of intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true, because you don't understand the theory as has been pointed out.
Click to expand...

Your strawman notions of the theory of evolution, and literally ALL the sciences that support it are indeed incomprehensible.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. veith was showing in the videos to how your side does the very thing you claim creationist do.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. He was exposing himself as an intellectually dishonest superstitious retard--nothing more.
> 
> Circular reasoning is the hallmark of your superstitious paradigm, and is incompatible with rational thought. Your creation "science" is founded firmly in circular reasoning, and evolution science is clearly NOT.
> 
> There is BOATLOADS of evidence! It's been brought to you repeatedly, you intellectually dishonest fucktard!
> 
> This is utter nonsense. You are engaging in pathological projection. There are no actual facts of reality that I, or any evolutionist you have engaged in here, have actually disputed. Every "fact" in dispute has been one of your patent errors of fact, baseless presumptions, or ridiculous strawmen; and each of them has been thoroughly exposed.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is appartent that all of your attacks are based on how you think today, not like how people thought back then.
> 
> Do you people understand that languages evolve over time ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look here, retard. Just as I pointed out to you for Veith, you can't eat your cake and have it too. The Bible account is literal and inerrant, or it is not; it is illegitimate and intellectually dishonest to make and deny each claim as it suits your rationalizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will ignore your responses from here on out, it is pointless to argue with someone who is not educated well enough in the field to argue it.
> 
> Talk to you later punk.
Click to expand...

Running away from the whupping you're getting again?

See you later, retard.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly....it shows that our descendants had 24 pairs of chromosomes. Hence, were another species...
> 
> The definition of species is a group of animals capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. 2 animals wit different numbers of chromosomes cannot produce fertile offspring.
> 
> Therefore if a modern human were to attempt to mate with one of these "humans" with 24 pairs of chromosomes, they wouldnt be able to. Hence, they were difference species.
> 
> "There are no apelike creatures that have had this fusion."
> 
> Isnt that exactly what you would expect if we evolved from apes...?
> 
> We just proved that our ancestors did not have this fusion. You just agreed that apes also do not have this fusion.
> 
> Maybe now your closer to understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Tobacco
> 2. potato
> 3. orangutan
> 4. hare
> 5. gorilla
> 6. deer mouse
> 7. beaver
> 
> These all have the same chromosome count as the chimpanzee,can they all crossbreed ?
> 
> It's really not the chromosome count that is important,it's the information in the chromosomes is what really matters.
> 
> Humans 46 chromosomes two other species i know of have the same amount as humans.
> 
> 1. Reeve's Muntjac
> 2. Sable Antelope
> 
> It's the information contained in the chromosomes that shows we are vastly different with the same amount of chromosomes.
> 
> Bad argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isnt even a correct description of the argument!
> 
> You just agreed that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what it shows is the humans we all descended from had 24 pairs of chromosomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *NO ORGANISM WITH 24 PAIRS OF CHROMOSOMES IS HUMAN.
> 
> *Thats the entire point. That is the very definition of human.
> 
> Ever heard of correlation-causality? Because your fucking it up.
> 
> If an animal _doesnt_ have 46 chromosomes, then its _not a human. _However, if an organism _does_ have 46 chromosomes, than that _does not necessarily mean it is a human_
> 
> Similar to:
> 
> If its raining it must be wet outside, but just because its wet outside doesnt mean its raining. (maybe the sprinkler is on...)
> 
> Get it??
> 
> Ill say it again:
> *
> If an animal doesnt have 46 chromosomes, then its not a human. However, if an organism does have 46 chromosomes, than that does not necessarily mean it is a human*
> 
> So if you admit that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes, which you do, then you MUST admit that human ancestors were a different species.
Click to expand...


Well my explanation would be that the fusion was caused by God. God knowing how perverted man could be he made sure there would be no crossing of ape and human or any animal. God said he created man in his image and he meant for man to remain in his image.

God also commanded that man should not lie with an animal.

Exodus 22:19 (ESV)
19 Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death

Leviticus 18:23 (ESV)
23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.


Leviticus 20:1516 (ESV)
15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely 


Deuteronomy 27:21 (ESV)
21  Cursed be anyone who lies with any kind of animal. And all the people shall say, Amen.


So i would say god defitnitely made sure man and animal could not produce offspring.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't have all the answers. If science had all the answers, it would stop being science.
> 
> 
> 
> We are not descended from neanderthals, so your premise is invalid. Why do you keep repeating it?
> 
> 
> 
> We know who we actually evolved from. You're the one who assumed it was neanderthals. I've pointed this out to you before, and you stopped replying to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly,and God does possess all the answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't claim to know the answers because it goes against the philosophy of science of knowing how much you don't know and then going to find out about it. There's an air of Socrates in it. God has nothing to do with it, and certainly doesn't have any of the answers if anything of the things you claim are the answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No no, you asked if neanderthals had bigger brains, how could we have such a morphological change such as bigger brains then? And I answered that it was irrelevant because we are not directly descended from neanderthals, therefore the morphological change was still valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain their brains bigger then modern day humans ? What did they evolve from ? They're humans period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're relatives for sure. After all they are part of the genus _homo_, but to call them human would be inaccurate. I never denied their cranial size. cbirch2 has actually been giving you a fairly good explanation on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who have we descended from ? How do you know this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it interesting you claim they're humans and than ask me how we know who we're descended from.
> 
> The answer you're looking for is _homo ergaster_ and possibly _homo erectus_ as well. We know this through fossils, as well as DNA sequencing.
Click to expand...


So you are not sure who we are descended from.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now i can't explain why humans chromosomes would have went from 24 pairs to 23 pairs. But i can clearly see the difference in the information in each species  chromosomes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! Different species!
> 
> Human ancestors were a different species!!!!!
Click to expand...


I can't prove it, but it was God knowing how perverted man can and would be this was his insurance plan.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Just to hammer down the correlation causality thing one more time.
> 
> Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> This is what your doing.
> 
> Statement 1: An animal with something other than 46 chromosomes is not a human.
> 
> Statement 2: An animal with 46 chromosomes is a human.
> 
> Statement 1 is correct, statement 2 is false.
> 
> Similar to....
> 
> Statement 1: The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is observed to be.
> 
> Statement 2: Therefore firemen cause fire.
> 
> Statement one is true; more firefighters are sent to fight a bigger fire. But statement two is false; firemen certainly dont cause the fire.
> 
> Get it yet?



Wrong,i showed animals with the same amount of chromosomes that were vastly different.

And i pointed out it was not the number of chromosomes but it was the information contained in the chromosomes that mattered.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Well my explanation would be that the fusion was caused by God.


What God? Explain your explanation please.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well my explanation would be that the fusion was caused by God.
> 
> 
> 
> What God? Explain your explanation please.
Click to expand...


God caused the fusion to make sure that perverted humans did not crossbreed with apelike creatures.

Now explain how the fusion happened from your point of view ?

How would you know that two humans were not the parents that had the same fusion and passed it on ?

You do realize that it is not necessary for two different species to have the same amount of chromosomes to reproduce ?

classifying horses and donkeys as the same KIND or  having a common ancestor,  while at the same time classifying humans and chimps as different kinds not having a common ancestor. Most evolutionist believe this common ancestor lived between 5 to 8 million years ago.  

  While there may not be sufficient genetic evidence yet to answer the question, an answer does appear to be coming.  Some differences are obvious.  obvious chromosomal differences are easily noted.  Humans and chimps differ not only in chromosome number, but also by nine pericentric chromosomal inversions and one centric fusion.Trust me in the future the DNA similarity will decrease between the chimp and human once they fully understand all the differences.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well my explanation would be that the fusion was caused by God.
> 
> 
> 
> What God? Explain your explanation please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God caused ...
> 
> *--CRAP THAT DID NOT ADDRESS THE QUESTION SNIPPED--
> *​
Click to expand...

What God? Explain this "God" thing you keep referencing. Provide His testable attributes. Provide the hypothetical conditions under which you would accept the existence of God falsified. What would constitute "proof" that this God thing does not exist?


----------



## koshergrl

Christ is my personal savior, and God is the Father.

No testable attributes, he's God. I'm not going to test him, don't need to.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What God? Explain your explanation please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God caused ...
> 
> *--CRAP THAT DID NOT ADDRESS THE QUESTION SNIPPED--
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What God? Explain this "God" thing you keep referencing. Provide His testable attributes. Provide the hypothetical conditions under which you would accept the existence of God falsified. What would constitute "proof" that this God thing does not exist?
Click to expand...


Just as soon as you explain with the same method you expect from me  how life spontaneously started.

Oh and don't ignore my question concerning chromosome #2


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Christ is my personal savior, and God is the Father.
> 
> No testable attributes, he's God. I'm not going to test him, don't need to.


Then everything based upon your baseless premise is also baseless.

See? You feel better now that you have unambiguously admitted to your intellectually dishonest superstition, don't you?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God caused ...
> 
> *--CRAP THAT DID NOT ADDRESS THE QUESTION SNIPPED--
> *
> 
> 
> 
> What God? Explain this "God" thing you keep referencing. Provide His testable attributes. Provide the hypothetical conditions under which you would accept the existence of God falsified. What would constitute "proof" that this God thing does not exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as soon as you explain with the same method you expect from me how life spontaneously started.
Click to expand...

Already done for you multiple times ... now it's your turn.

What God? Explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.



Youwerecreated said:


> Oh and don't ignore my question concerning chromosome #2


Since i asked first, I'll ignore your questions as long as you ignore mine.

So, what God? Explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What God? Explain this "God" thing you keep referencing. Provide His testable attributes. Provide the hypothetical conditions under which you would accept the existence of God falsified. What would constitute "proof" that this God thing does not exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already done for you multiple times ... now it's your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What God? Explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
Click to expand...

 
Troll.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already done for you multiple times ... now it's your turn.
> 
> 
> 
> What God? Explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
Click to expand...

Bitter loser.


----------



## koshergrl

Er...ok.

Whatever you say, troll.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Er...ok.
> 
> Whatever you say, troll.


That was easy now, wasn't it?

I know your little pride stings a little now, but in the future maybe you'll think twice about presenting your baseless superstitions as verifiable facts of reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What God? Explain this "God" thing you keep referencing. Provide His testable attributes. Provide the hypothetical conditions under which you would accept the existence of God falsified. What would constitute "proof" that this God thing does not exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Just as soon as you explain with the same method you expect from me how life spontaneously started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already done for you multiple times ... now it's your turn.
> 
> What God? Explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and don't ignore my question concerning chromosome #2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since i asked first, I'll ignore your questions as long as you ignore mine.
> 
> So, what God? Explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
Click to expand...


Nitwit, no real scientist buys the theory of abiogenesis.

The miller urey experiment did not create life,let me repeat myself, The miller urey experiment did not create life. Now do you want to try in your own words explain this  phenomenon that causes real scientist to admit ignorance on.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What God? Explain this "God" thing you keep referencing. Provide His testable attributes. Provide the hypothetical conditions under which you would accept the existence of God falsified. What would constitute "proof" that this God thing does not exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Just as soon as you explain with the same method you expect from me how life spontaneously started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already done for you multiple times ... now it's your turn.
> 
> What God? Explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and don't ignore my question concerning chromosome #2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since i asked first, I'll ignore your questions as long as you ignore mine.
> 
> So, what God? Explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
Click to expand...


I gave an answer to the question i was asked that is why you responded to my post. Now put up or shut up i am ok with either.


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already done for you multiple times ... now it's your turn.
> 
> 
> 
> What God? Explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
Click to expand...


Definitely.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What God? Explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bitter loser.
Click to expand...


The bitter one claiming victory with such ignorant posts


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bitter one claiming victory with such ignorant posts
Click to expand...

Nothing at all ignorant about my posts. I have made a FAR BETTER and more honest effort to answer your questions than you have made to answer mine.

What's really getting to you now is that you're either going submit an answer, and get inescapably pinned by your sanctimonious anti-intelligence, or you're going take the route of the intellectual coward and  bail; just as you have previously.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bitter one claiming victory with such ignorant posts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing at all ignorant about my posts. I have made a FAR BETTER and more honest effort to answer your questions than you have made to answer mine.
> 
> What's really getting to you now is that you're either going submit an answer, and get inescapably pinned by your sanctimonious anti-intelligence, or you're going take the route of the intellectual coward and  bail; just as you have previously.
Click to expand...


Why are you avoiding answering the question concerning chromosome 2 ?

Bailing ? i just ignore ignorant posts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Well i guess the Troll bailed.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bitter one claiming victory with such ignorant posts
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing at all ignorant about my posts. I have made a FAR BETTER and more honest effort to answer your questions than you have made to answer mine.
> 
> What's really getting to you now is that you're either going submit an answer, and get inescapably pinned by your sanctimonious anti-intelligence, or you're going take the route of the intellectual coward and  bail; just as you have previously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you avoiding answering the question concerning chromosome 2 ?
Click to expand...

It's as if you have no idea that your posts on the internet can be referenced at will.

And no, you have not answered my question; neither *here* nor *especially here*.

So, what God? I ask again that you please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.



Youwerecreated said:


> Bailing ? i just ignore ignorant posts.





Youwerecreated said:


> Well i guess the Troll bailed.


You at least have the courage to voice your most desperate wish.

Sorry about your superstitious luck.

So again, what God? I ask again that you please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to hammer down the correlation causality thing one more time.
> 
> Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> This is what your doing.
> 
> Statement 1: An animal with something other than 46 chromosomes is not a human.
> 
> Statement 2: An animal with 46 chromosomes is a human.
> 
> Statement 1 is correct, statement 2 is false.
> 
> Similar to....
> 
> Statement 1: The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is observed to be.
> 
> Statement 2: Therefore firemen cause fire.
> 
> Statement one is true; more firefighters are sent to fight a bigger fire. But statement two is false; firemen certainly dont cause the fire.
> 
> Get it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,i showed animals with the same amount of chromosomes that were vastly different.
> 
> And i pointed out it was not the number of chromosomes but it was the information contained in the chromosomes that mattered.
Click to expand...


NO YOU IDIOT!

"animals with the same amount of chromosomes that were vastly different."

EXACTLY!!!!!!!
---------------
Statement 2: An animal with 46 chromosomes is a human.  <---thats false! there are plenty of animals with 46 chromsomes

Statement 1: An animal with something other than 46 chromosomes is not a human. <----thats true, all humans must have 46 chromosomes
---------------
chromosomes equal 46, then human

chromosomes not equal 46, then not necessarily human. 
---------------
The point is that if human ancestors had 48 chromosomes they werent human. 

No one is claiming that means all animals with 46 chromosomes are human.

but all humans have 46 chromosomes.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Tobacco
> 2. potato
> 3. orangutan
> 4. hare
> 5. gorilla
> 6. deer mouse
> 7. beaver
> 
> These all have the same chromosome count as the chimpanzee,can they all crossbreed ?
> 
> It's really not the chromosome count that is important,it's the information in the chromosomes is what really matters.
> 
> Humans 46 chromosomes two other species i know of have the same amount as humans.
> 
> 1. Reeve's Muntjac
> 2. Sable Antelope
> 
> It's the information contained in the chromosomes that shows we are vastly different with the same amount of chromosomes.
> 
> Bad argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isnt even a correct description of the argument!
> 
> You just agreed that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what it shows is the humans we all descended from had 24 pairs of chromosomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *NO ORGANISM WITH 24 PAIRS OF CHROMOSOMES IS HUMAN.
> 
> *Thats the entire point. That is the very definition of human.
> 
> Ever heard of correlation-causality? Because your fucking it up.
> 
> If an animal _doesnt_ have 46 chromosomes, then its _not a human. _However, if an organism _does_ have 46 chromosomes, than that _does not necessarily mean it is a human_
> 
> Similar to:
> 
> If its raining it must be wet outside, but just because its wet outside doesnt mean its raining. (maybe the sprinkler is on...)
> 
> Get it??
> 
> Ill say it again:
> *
> If an animal doesnt have 46 chromosomes, then its not a human. However, if an organism does have 46 chromosomes, than that does not necessarily mean it is a human*
> 
> So if you admit that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes, which you do, then you MUST admit that human ancestors were a different species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well my explanation would be that the fusion was caused by God. God knowing how perverted man could be he made sure there would be no crossing of ape and human or any animal. God said he created man in his image and he meant for man to remain in his image.
> 
> God also commanded that man should not lie with an animal.
> 
> Exodus 22:19 (ESV)
> 19 Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death
> 
> Leviticus 18:23 (ESV)
> 23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.
> 
> 
> Leviticus 20:1516 (ESV)
> 15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 27:21 (ESV)
> 21  Cursed be anyone who lies with any kind of animal. And all the people shall say, Amen.
> 
> 
> So i would say god defitnitely made sure man and animal could not produce offspring.
Click to expand...


So your explanation is that speciation exists, but its just that god drives it?


----------



## daws101

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isnt even a correct description of the argument!
> 
> You just agreed that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes.
> 
> 
> 
> *NO ORGANISM WITH 24 PAIRS OF CHROMOSOMES IS HUMAN.
> 
> *Thats the entire point. That is the very definition of human.
> 
> Ever heard of correlation-causality? Because your fucking it up.
> 
> If an animal _doesnt_ have 46 chromosomes, then its _not a human. _However, if an organism _does_ have 46 chromosomes, than that _does not necessarily mean it is a human_
> 
> Similar to:
> 
> If its raining it must be wet outside, but just because its wet outside doesnt mean its raining. (maybe the sprinkler is on...)
> 
> Get it??
> 
> Ill say it again:
> *
> If an animal doesnt have 46 chromosomes, then its not a human. However, if an organism does have 46 chromosomes, than that does not necessarily mean it is a human*
> 
> So if you admit that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes, which you do, then you MUST admit that human ancestors were a different species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well my explanation would be that the fusion was caused by God. God knowing how perverted man could be he made sure there would be no crossing of ape and human or any animal. God said he created man in his image and he meant for man to remain in his image.
> 
> God also commanded that man should not lie with an animal.
> 
> Exodus 22:19 (ESV)
> 19 Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death
> 
> Leviticus 18:23 (ESV)
> 23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.
> 
> 
> Leviticus 20:1516 (ESV)
> 15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 27:21 (ESV)
> 21  Cursed be anyone who lies with any kind of animal. And all the people shall say, Amen.
> 
> 
> So i would say god defitnitely made sure man and animal could not produce offspring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your explanation is that speciation exists, but its just that god drives it?
Click to expand...

what does goat sex have to do with human evolution...?
"daaaaaaaady!"
"look at it this way kid, you'll never need a sweater."
"


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to hammer down the correlation causality thing one more time.
> 
> Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> This is what your doing.
> 
> Statement 1: An animal with something other than 46 chromosomes is not a human.
> 
> Statement 2: An animal with 46 chromosomes is a human.
> 
> Statement 1 is correct, statement 2 is false.
> 
> Similar to....
> 
> Statement 1: The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is observed to be.
> 
> Statement 2: Therefore firemen cause fire.
> 
> Statement one is true; more firefighters are sent to fight a bigger fire. But statement two is false; firemen certainly dont cause the fire.
> 
> Get it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,i showed animals with the same amount of chromosomes that were vastly different.
> 
> And i pointed out it was not the number of chromosomes but it was the information contained in the chromosomes that mattered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO YOU IDIOT!
> 
> "animals with the same amount of chromosomes that were vastly different."
> 
> EXACTLY!!!!!!!
> ---------------
> Statement 2: An animal with 46 chromosomes is a human.  <---thats false! there are plenty of animals with 46 chromsomes
> 
> Statement 1: An animal with something other than 46 chromosomes is not a human. <----thats true, all humans must have 46 chromosomes
> ---------------
> chromosomes equal 46, then human
> 
> chromosomes not equal 46, then not necessarily human.
> ---------------
> The point is that if human ancestors had 48 chromosomes they werent human.
> 
> No one is claiming that means all animals with 46 chromosomes are human.
> 
> but all humans have 46 chromosomes.
Click to expand...


The idiot is the one that can't read. How do you know there were no humans with 48 chromosomes ?

I named two species that were not human with 46 chromosomes. Not saying they were human  unless there was a typo.

The point is the information in the chromosomes is the important issue which you ignored, not the number of chromosomes.



Here let me blow your little theory up again.

Man with 44 chromosomes that is perfectly normal,it is fun debating people who constantly step in it. Give you guys enough rope you hang yourselves with it.  Notice how they try to spin this evidence.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=124


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isnt even a correct description of the argument!
> 
> You just agreed that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes.
> 
> 
> 
> *NO ORGANISM WITH 24 PAIRS OF CHROMOSOMES IS HUMAN.
> 
> *Thats the entire point. That is the very definition of human.
> 
> Ever heard of correlation-causality? Because your fucking it up.
> 
> If an animal _doesnt_ have 46 chromosomes, then its _not a human. _However, if an organism _does_ have 46 chromosomes, than that _does not necessarily mean it is a human_
> 
> Similar to:
> 
> If its raining it must be wet outside, but just because its wet outside doesnt mean its raining. (maybe the sprinkler is on...)
> 
> Get it??
> 
> Ill say it again:
> *
> If an animal doesnt have 46 chromosomes, then its not a human. However, if an organism does have 46 chromosomes, than that does not necessarily mean it is a human*
> 
> So if you admit that human ancestors had 24 pairs of chromosomes, which you do, then you MUST admit that human ancestors were a different species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well my explanation would be that the fusion was caused by God. God knowing how perverted man could be he made sure there would be no crossing of ape and human or any animal. God said he created man in his image and he meant for man to remain in his image.
> 
> God also commanded that man should not lie with an animal.
> 
> Exodus 22:19 (ESV)
> 19 Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death
> 
> Leviticus 18:23 (ESV)
> 23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.
> 
> 
> Leviticus 20:1516 (ESV)
> 15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 27:21 (ESV)
> 21  Cursed be anyone who lies with any kind of animal. And all the people shall say, Amen.
> 
> 
> So i would say god defitnitely made sure man and animal could not produce offspring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your explanation is that speciation exists, but its just that god drives it?
Click to expand...


Possibly or he just allowed variations within a family.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Here let me blow your little theory up again.
> 
> Man with 44 chromosomes that is perfectly normal,it is fun debating people who constantly step in it. Give you guys enough rope you hang yourselves with it.  Notice how they try to spin this evidence.
> 
> http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=124


It appears that what we're looking at here is an example of human speciation. Blowing up _your _little "theory."

You lose again!


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well my explanation would be that the fusion was caused by God. God knowing how perverted man could be he made sure there would be no crossing of ape and human or any animal. God said he created man in his image and he meant for man to remain in his image.
> 
> God also commanded that man should not lie with an animal.
> 
> Exodus 22:19 (ESV)
> 19 Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death
> 
> Leviticus 18:23 (ESV)
> 23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.
> 
> 
> Leviticus 20:1516 (ESV)
> 15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely
> 
> 
> Deuteronomy 27:21 (ESV)
> 21  Cursed be anyone who lies with any kind of animal. And all the people shall say, Amen.
> 
> 
> So i would say god defitnitely made sure man and animal could not produce offspring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your explanation is that speciation exists, but its just that god drives it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Possibly or he just allowed variations within a family.
Click to expand...

Literally no evolutionist anywhere is disputing the genetic variation that exists within a taxonomic family--as a matter of fact, such variation is in perfect agreement with evolutionary theory, but your Creation science has no explanation for it; IT'S INEXPLICABLE!


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here let me blow your little theory up again.
> 
> Man with 44 chromosomes that is perfectly normal,it is fun debating people who constantly step in it. Give you guys enough rope you hang yourselves with it.  Notice how they try to spin this evidence.
> 
> http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=124
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that what we're looking at here is an example of human speciation. Blowing up _your _little "theory."
> 
> You lose again!
Click to expand...


Try again moron.

No change and perfectly normal don't sound like evolution to me. 

So how do you know humans didn't have 48 chromosomes ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your explanation is that speciation exists, but its just that god drives it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly or he just allowed variations within a family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Literally no evolutionist anywhere is disputing the genetic variation that exists within a taxonomic family--as a matter of fact, such variation is in perfect agreement with evolutionary theory, but your Creation science has no explanation for it; IT'S INEXPLICABLE!
Click to expand...


It fits perfectly with creation,we believe in microevolution which adds up to microadaptations which brings about variations within a family,not macroevolution that means new family.

Cross breeding and parental traits, i answered this before . I guess it didn't sink in.

You're amazing


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here let me blow your little theory up again.
> 
> Man with 44 chromosomes that is perfectly normal,it is fun debating people who constantly step in it. Give you guys enough rope you hang yourselves with it.  Notice how they try to spin this evidence.
> 
> http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=124
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that what we're looking at here is an example of human speciation. Blowing up _your _little "theory."
> 
> You lose again!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try again moron.
> 
> No change and perfectly normal don't sound like evolution to me.
> 
> So how do you know humans didn't have 48 chromosomes ?
Click to expand...

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=124


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that what we're looking at here is an example of human speciation. Blowing up _your _little "theory."
> 
> You lose again!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again moron.
> 
> No change and perfectly normal don't sound like evolution to me.
> 
> So how do you know humans didn't have 48 chromosomes ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=124
Click to expand...


Evolutionist claim humans only have 46 chromosomes they were wrong again.

Like i said the guy with 44 chromosomes is perfectly normal,the chromosome count is not important,it's the information in the chromosomes that is important.


----------



## Youwerecreated

School is out for the day.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here let me blow your little theory up again.
> 
> Man with 44 chromosomes that is perfectly normal,it is fun debating people who constantly step in it. Give you guys enough rope you hang yourselves with it.  Notice how they try to spin this evidence.
> 
> http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=124
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that what we're looking at here is an example of human speciation. Blowing up _your _little "theory."
> 
> You lose again!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try again moron.
> 
> No change and perfectly normal don't sound like evolution to me.
Click to expand...

The article seems to assert that he cannot successfully reproduce with a genetically normal Homo sapiens-sapiens; hence, he may be the founder of a new species of Homo--_IF_ he can find a mate with his same mutation.

And right there in one act of retarded hubris, you have just provided prima-facie evidence that not only can mutation lead to speciation (as you have been denying) but also that human beings are subject to such variation in genotype to engender speciation in agreement with evolutionary theory--and in direct contradiction to your Creationism "theory."

CONGRATULATIONS DUMBASS! 



Youwerecreated said:


> So how do you know humans didn't have 48 chromosomes ?


Because homo sapiens DOES NOT have 48 chromosomes.

WOW! That was easy! 

Now your turn; I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that what we're looking at here is an example of human speciation. Blowing up _your _little "theory."
> 
> You lose again!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again moron.
> 
> No change and perfectly normal don't sound like evolution to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The article seems to assert that he cannot successfully reproduce with a genetically normal Homo sapiens-sapiens; hence, he may be the founder of a new species of Homo--_IF_ he can find a mate with his same mutation.
> 
> And right there in one act of retarded hubris, you have just provided prima-facie evidence that not only can mutation lead to speciation (as you have been denying) but also that human beings are subject to such variation in genotype to engender speciation in agreement with evolutionary theory--and in direct contradiction to your Creationism "theory."
> 
> CONGRATULATIONS DUMBASS!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you know humans didn't have 48 chromosomes ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because homo sapiens DOES NOT have 48 chromosomes.
> 
> WOW! That was easy!
> 
> Now your turn; I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
Click to expand...


Human is human dumbass 

Was there a change in the information ? 

You do realize new information is evolution right ? 

Don't be such a Troll


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that what we're looking at here is an example of human speciation. Blowing up _your _little "theory."
> 
> You lose again!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again moron.
> 
> No change and perfectly normal don't sound like evolution to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The article seems to assert that he cannot successfully reproduce with a genetically normal Homo sapiens-sapiens; hence, he may be the founder of a new species of Homo--_IF_ he can find a mate with his same mutation.
> 
> And right there in one act of retarded hubris, you have just provided prima-facie evidence that not only can mutation lead to speciation (as you have been denying) but also that human beings are subject to such variation in genotype to engender speciation in agreement with evolutionary theory--and in direct contradiction to your Creationism "theory."
> 
> CONGRATULATIONS DUMBASS!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you know humans didn't have 48 chromosomes ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because homo sapiens DOES NOT have 48 chromosomes.
> 
> WOW! That was easy!
> 
> Now your turn; I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
Click to expand...


Do you ever read everything you 

"Theoretically the 44 chromosome man should have fewer problems having children than his parents did. As this figure shows, there are no unpaired chromosomes when he and a woman with 46 chromosomes have children. But all of their kids would have a balanced translocation."


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Human is human dumbass


Yes, ... and cats are cats. But all cats are not all the same species. I was obligated to school you on this subject, because you failed to learn it in 10th grade.



Youwerecreated said:


> Was there a change in the information ?


Yes.



Youwerecreated said:


> You do realize new information is evolution right ?


Yes.



Youwerecreated said:


> Don't be such a Troll






Youwerecreated said:


> Do you ever read everything you


Yes. Yet you seem to have some trouble reading everything ... even the crap you post. Seriously.



Youwerecreated said:


> "Theoretically the 44 chromosome man should have fewer problems having children than his parents did. As this figure shows, there are no unpaired chromosomes when he and a woman with 46 chromosomes have children. But all of their kids would have a balanced translocation."


Yes, to this "theoretically"; but the actuality his progeny will experience is significantly different. So what does your quote _actually_ mean? Here's the answer:"His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on *if* he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too." _[em.: LOki]_...






...​"The parent with the balanced translocation can make 6 different kinds of sperm or egg (the second row). As the figure shows, when the eggs and sperm combine, *2/3 of the time the fetus ends up with an extra or missing chromosome*. Unless this chromosome is the X, Y or number 21, the usual result is miscarriage or being born with severe problems.

*In this case it would almost certainly result in miscarriage.* In fact, the 44 chromosome man's family has a long history of miscarriages and spontaneous abortions." _[em.: LOki]_​You see there? He has to find "... a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too ..." if he is to pass this 44 chromosome configuration in a stable manner; otherwise his progeny--ALL of his progeny--will experience a 66% reproductive failure rate at best.

After seeing you resolutely deny the plenitude of fossil evidence of transitions in populations of organisms (and the necessary transitions in genetic information appurtenant to them), and your arrant refusal to acknowledge the existence (and significant blow they make to your criticisms of evolution theory of speciation) of ring species, it's not at all surprising that now you'd (deliberately) not see the transition from 46 chromosomes, to 45 chromosomes, to 44 chromosomes to be any difference in the genetic information between the respective organisms, nor any evidence of any kind of transition.

Considering your inability to effectively (or honestly) discuss any subject of actual science, I would surmise you'd have every confidence in your ability to provide a meaningful explanation for your own "theory."

So, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human is human dumbass
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, ... and cats are cats. But all cats are not all the same species. I was obligated to school you on this subject, because you failed to learn it in 10th grade.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was there a change in the information ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read everything you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Yet you seem to have some trouble reading everything ... even the crap you post. Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Theoretically the 44 chromosome man should have fewer problems having children than his parents did. As this figure shows, there are no unpaired chromosomes when he and a woman with 46 chromosomes have children. But all of their kids would have a balanced translocation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, to this "theoretically"; but the actuality his progeny will experience is significantly different. So what does your quote _actually_ mean? Here's the answer:"His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on *if* he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too." _[em.: LOki]_...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...​"The parent with the balanced translocation can make 6 different kinds of sperm or egg (the second row). As the figure shows, when the eggs and sperm combine, *2/3 of the time the fetus ends up with an extra or missing chromosome*. Unless this chromosome is the X, Y or number 21, the usual result is miscarriage or being born with severe problems.
> 
> *In this case it would almost certainly result in miscarriage.* In fact, the 44 chromosome man's family has a long history of miscarriages and spontaneous abortions." _[em.: LOki]_​You see there? He has to find "... a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too ..." if he is to pass this 44 chromosome configuration in a stable manner; otherwise his progeny--ALL of his progeny--will experience a 66% reproductive failure rate at best.
> 
> After seeing you resolutely deny the plenitude of fossil evidence of transitions in populations of organisms (and the necessary transitions in genetic information appurtenant to them), and your arrant refusal to acknowledge the existence (and significant blow they make to your criticisms of evolution theory of speciation) of ring species, it's not at all surprising that now you'd (deliberately) not see the transition from 46 chromosomes, to 45 chromosomes, to 44 chromosomes to be any difference in the genetic information between the respective organisms, nor any evidence of any kind of transition.
> 
> Considering your inability to effectively (or honestly) discuss any subject of actual science, I would surmise you'd have every confidence in your ability to provide a meaningful explanation for your own "theory."
> 
> So, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
Click to expand...


The only difference is he has 44 chromosomes.

The information is the same if not there would be a difference.

That is why i use terms kind or family while there are variations but this guy shows no difference period other then having 44 chromosomes he is a human not a new species.

I have told you and others evolutionist are guilty of creating terms to help them in making a case for macro-evolution.

The theory is built on faulty assumptions and conclusions from those faulty assumptions.

We descended from humans that is what genetics teach us. We do not share a common ancestor with the chimp. There is zero evidence of this.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human is human dumbass
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, ... and cats are cats. But all cats are not all the same species. I was obligated to school you on this subject, because you failed to learn it in 10th grade.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was there a change in the information ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read everything you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Yet you seem to have some trouble reading everything ... even the crap you post. Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Theoretically the 44 chromosome man should have fewer problems having children than his parents did. As this figure shows, there are no unpaired chromosomes when he and a woman with 46 chromosomes have children. But all of their kids would have a balanced translocation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, to this "theoretically"; but the actuality his progeny will experience is significantly different. So what does your quote _actually_ mean? Here's the answer:"His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on *if* he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too." _[em.: LOki]_...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...​"The parent with the balanced translocation can make 6 different kinds of sperm or egg (the second row). As the figure shows, when the eggs and sperm combine, *2/3 of the time the fetus ends up with an extra or missing chromosome*. Unless this chromosome is the X, Y or number 21, the usual result is miscarriage or being born with severe problems.
> 
> *In this case it would almost certainly result in miscarriage.* In fact, the 44 chromosome man's family has a long history of miscarriages and spontaneous abortions." _[em.: LOki]_​You see there? He has to find "... a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too ..." if he is to pass this 44 chromosome configuration in a stable manner; otherwise his progeny--ALL of his progeny--will experience a 66% reproductive failure rate at best.
> 
> After seeing you resolutely deny the plenitude of fossil evidence of transitions in populations of organisms (and the necessary transitions in genetic information appurtenant to them), and your arrant refusal to acknowledge the existence (and significant blow they make to your criticisms of evolution theory of speciation) of ring species, it's not at all surprising that now you'd (deliberately) not see the transition from 46 chromosomes, to 45 chromosomes, to 44 chromosomes to be any difference in the genetic information between the respective organisms, nor any evidence of any kind of transition.
> 
> Considering your inability to effectively (or honestly) discuss any subject of actual science, I would surmise you'd have every confidence in your ability to provide a meaningful explanation for your own "theory."
> 
> So, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
Click to expand...


How many times do i have to say I can't prove God exists from physical evidence,but he can be shown to exist from what's contained in the scriptures. You don't want to accept it fine,but you can't prove he doesn't exist.

You can't prove your religion ever happened either. You still don't see your beliefs are based on faith not evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human is human dumbass
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, ... and cats are cats. But all cats are not all the same species. I was obligated to school you on this subject, because you failed to learn it in 10th grade.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was there a change in the information ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever read everything you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Yet you seem to have some trouble reading everything ... even the crap you post. Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Theoretically the 44 chromosome man should have fewer problems having children than his parents did. As this figure shows, there are no unpaired chromosomes when he and a woman with 46 chromosomes have children. But all of their kids would have a balanced translocation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, to this "theoretically"; but the actuality his progeny will experience is significantly different. So what does your quote _actually_ mean? Here's the answer:"His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on *if* he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too." _[em.: LOki]_...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...​"The parent with the balanced translocation can make 6 different kinds of sperm or egg (the second row). As the figure shows, when the eggs and sperm combine, *2/3 of the time the fetus ends up with an extra or missing chromosome*. Unless this chromosome is the X, Y or number 21, the usual result is miscarriage or being born with severe problems.
> 
> *In this case it would almost certainly result in miscarriage.* In fact, the 44 chromosome man's family has a long history of miscarriages and spontaneous abortions." _[em.: LOki]_​You see there? He has to find "... a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too ..." if he is to pass this 44 chromosome configuration in a stable manner; otherwise his progeny--ALL of his progeny--will experience a 66% reproductive failure rate at best.
> 
> After seeing you resolutely deny the plenitude of fossil evidence of transitions in populations of organisms (and the necessary transitions in genetic information appurtenant to them), and your arrant refusal to acknowledge the existence (and significant blow they make to your criticisms of evolution theory of speciation) of ring species, it's not at all surprising that now you'd (deliberately) not see the transition from 46 chromosomes, to 45 chromosomes, to 44 chromosomes to be any difference in the genetic information between the respective organisms, nor any evidence of any kind of transition.
> 
> Considering your inability to effectively (or honestly) discuss any subject of actual science, I would surmise you'd have every confidence in your ability to provide a meaningful explanation for your own "theory."
> 
> So, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
Click to expand...


Explain the new and beneficial genetic information ?

Evolution is considered new and benficial information so how would this be evolution ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> How many times do i have to say I can't prove God exists from physical evidence,but he can be shown to exist from what's contained in the scriptures.


How many times do I have to point out to you that "... show[ing God] to exist from what's contained in the scriptures" is question-begging? It's an INVALID demonstration of fact!

Besides, I have unambiguously stated I am aware that the existence of your God is baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and that you are aware of this as well ... which is why I am not asking you to prove that your God exists. I have long stopped asking for any verifiable evidence and/or valid logic proving that your God exists. I have stopped asking for this.

Am I now finally clear? I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.

Do you understand this? I will say it again:

I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.

So stop refusing to prove that your God exists, when I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.

Can you perceive why you should stop refusing to prove that your God exists? Let me tell you why:

I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.

Is this now finally clear to you?

I hope so, because I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists ...... until that point where you make the claim that you can. Then I'll (legitimately) start asking again.(The same goes for any assertion you make regarding "evidence" you can submit that supports any assertion you make that your God exists. I will then (legitimately) insist that you present your evidence for inspection and validation.)​So as long as you can abide by these rules of intellectually honest discourse, you can continue to be assured that I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.

Ok?



Youwerecreated said:


> You don't want to accept it fine, ..."


You've offered no intellectually valid--OR HONEST--reason to accept your "(utter and complete lack of) explanation."

Just saying "God did it" is not an explanation. And saying, "I can't prove God exists" does not address the question asked, because:

(Say it with me now, ) I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.

Ok?



Youwerecreated said:


> ... but you can't prove he doesn't exist.


I NEVER set out to do so, I have NEVER claimed I could, and I AM NOT asking you to prove that your God does exist ... I am asking you to provide the exact same specificity regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory." You're just obstinately refusing to do so, or you're just too cowardly to admit that your "theory" as well as your objections to other theories are entirely duplicitous; and baseless in fact of reality and/or meaningless.

So from now on, you can stop accusing me of asserting that your God does not exist.

I am not saying I can prove that your God does not exist.

I am not trying to prove that your God does not exist.

I am not saying that your God does not exist.

I am not saying that I can prove [whatever god you wish to name] does not exist.

I am not trying to prove [whatever god you wish to name] does not exist.

I am not saying that [whatever god you wish to name] does not exist.

I am not saying I can prove that a Creator does not exist.

I am not trying to prove that a Creator does not exist.

I am not saying that a Creator does not exist.

I am not even saying that everything was not created.

Ok? Got that? All of you? Have I made myself abundantly clear?

I am NOT saying that God does not exist.

Thus, claiming that I am saying one or all of these things is no valid rebuttal to anything I actually say or have actually said because, (now say it with me) I am NOT saying that God (or a Creator, or whatever superstitious supremacy you wish to invoke--I'll just say "God" from now on for brevity's sake) does not exist.

You got that now?

I am NOT saying that God does not exist; I am NOT trying to prove that God does not exist.

You may now desist with the accusation that I am saying God does not exist, or that I am trying to prove God does not exist, as any kind of rebuttal to anything I am actually saying because, I am NOT saying that God does not exist; I am NOT trying to prove that God does not exist.

So if you _do_ make such an accusation, you had better provide specific substantiation in the form of a direct quote and link, or your accusation--baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic--is meaningless garbage, and I will gleefully expose it as such.

Are we clear on _that_ now?

Allow me to repeat: I am NOT saying that God does not exist; I am NOT trying to prove that God does not exist.

Ok?

I am NOT saying that God does not exist; I am NOT trying to prove that God does not exist. (Just in case ...)



Youwerecreated said:


> You can't prove your religion ever happened either.


What religion? What religion, precisely? What claim of "proof" have I made? Provide verifiable evidence of your claims; provide quotes and/or links so that your claims can be validated.  Again, your disingenuous claims about, objections to, and criticisms of other theories are entirely baseless in verifiable fact of reality and/or meaningless.



Youwerecreated said:


> You still don't see your beliefs are based on faith not evidence.


The evidentiary bases of my beliefs have been amply provided, and as such are conspicuously obvious; you have made that point clear with your responses. Yet the fact that you prejudicially refuse to acknowledge verifiable evidence is no refutation of that evidence or its validity. And your refusal to accept the verifiable evidence that I have presented as "*proof*" (rather than simply evidence), is irrelevant to the fact of reality that what I have presented is actual valid evidence in support of my beliefs; evidence validated by its verifiability AND by valid logic. Do you understand the important distinction between such valid evidence, and the invalid evidence you present?

I hope so, because then you must accept as such, that there is literally NO FAITH involved in my beliefs as presented. None. These beliefs require no denial of verifiable evidence or denial of valid logic; they simply are not faith.

Now that I've cleared all of that up for you, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.*

*(n.b.: Lest you have already forgotten: I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists; so there is no reason at all for you to refuse this request, on the basis that it's a request for you to prove that your God exists. Ok? I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.)


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Explain the new and beneficial genetic information ?


Did I say, "new"? Direct quote and link, please.

Did I say, "beneficial"? Direct quote and link, please.

I would be happy to explain something I said (for a change).



Youwerecreated said:


> Evolution is considered new and benficial information so how would this be evolution ?


Considered by whom? Direct quote (from an actual and currently practicing mainstream evolutionary scientist) and link, please.

So, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

Thanks!


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> The only difference is he has 44 chromosomes.
> 
> The information is the same if not there would be a difference.


You seem to be confused. Is there a difference, or is there no difference?



Youwerecreated said:


> That is why i use terms kind or family while there are variations but this guy shows no difference period other then having 44 chromosomes he is a human not a new species.


You seem to be confused. Is there a difference, or is there no difference?

I see a difference. And I see that difference (under the right conditions) could prove to be significant in the way such differences (and others) accumulate such that speciation occurs transitionally, as manifested in ring-species, for example.

I wonder why you just won't perceive the difference here.



Youwerecreated said:


> I have told you and others evolutionist are guilty of creating terms to help them in making a case for macro-evolution.


The terms are descriptive. The principles mechanisms they describe are pretty consistently understood and acceptable--differences are conspicuously noted.



Youwerecreated said:


> The theory is built on faulty assumptions and conclusions from those faulty assumptions.


Nonsense. The assumptions are not faulty. At least not so egregiously faulty as assuming that Santa's elves cause evolution when they feed fairy dust to flying reindeer, whose subsequent flatulence directs the development of life in a specific (and spiritually meaningful) way; or that "God" did it.

Right?



Youwerecreated said:


> We descended from humans that is what genetics teach us. We do not share a common ancestor with the chimp. There is zero evidence of this.


Your prejudicial refusal to acknowledge of the evidence is no refutation of that evidence or its validity.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do i have to say I can't prove God exists from physical evidence,but he can be shown to exist from what's contained in the scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to point out to you that "... show[ing God] to exist from what's contained in the scriptures" is question-begging? It's an INVALID demonstration of fact!
> 
> Besides, I have unambiguously stated I am aware that the existence of your God is baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and that you are aware of this as well ... which is why I am not asking you to prove that your God exists. I have long stopped asking for any verifiable evidence and/or valid logic proving that your God exists. I have stopped asking for this.
> 
> Am I now finally clear? I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.
> 
> Do you understand this? I will say it again:
> 
> I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.
> 
> So stop refusing to prove that your God exists, when I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.
> 
> Can you perceive why you should stop refusing to prove that your God exists? Let me tell you why:
> 
> I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.
> 
> Is this now finally clear to you?
> 
> I hope so, because I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists ...... until that point where you make the claim that you can. Then I'll (legitimately) start asking again.(The same goes for any assertion you make regarding "evidence" you can submit that supports any assertion you make that your God exists. I will then (legitimately) insist that you present your evidence for inspection and validation.)​So as long as you can abide by these rules of intellectually honest discourse, you can continue to be assured that I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.
> 
> Ok?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to accept it fine, ..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've offered no intellectually valid--OR HONEST--reason to accept your "(utter and complete lack of) explanation."
> 
> Just saying "God did it" is not an explanation. And saying, "I can't prove God exists" does not address the question asked, because:
> 
> (Say it with me now, ) I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.
> 
> Ok?
> 
> I NEVER set out to do so, I have NEVER claimed I could, and I AM NOT asking you to prove that your God does exist ... I am asking you to provide the exact same specificity regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory." You're just obstinately refusing to do so, or you're just too cowardly to admit that your "theory" as well as your objections to other theories are entirely duplicitous; and baseless in fact of reality and/or meaningless.
> 
> So from now on, you can stop accusing me of asserting that your God does not exist.
> 
> I am not saying I can prove that your God does not exist.
> 
> I am not trying to prove that your God does not exist.
> 
> I am not saying that your God does not exist.
> 
> I am not saying that I can prove [whatever god you wish to name] does not exist.
> 
> I am not trying to prove [whatever god you wish to name] does not exist.
> 
> I am not saying that [whatever god you wish to name] does not exist.
> 
> I am not saying I can prove that a Creator does not exist.
> 
> I am not trying to prove that a Creator does not exist.
> 
> I am not saying that a Creator does not exist.
> 
> I am not even saying that everything was not created.
> 
> Ok? Got that? All of you? Have I made myself abundantly clear?
> 
> I am NOT saying that God does not exist.
> 
> Thus, claiming that I am saying one or all of these things is no valid rebuttal to anything I actually say or have actually said because, (now say it with me) I am NOT saying that God (or a Creator, or whatever superstitious supremacy you wish to invoke--I'll just say "God" from now on for brevity's sake) does not exist.
> 
> You got that now?
> 
> I am NOT saying that God does not exist; I am NOT trying to prove that God does not exist.
> 
> You may now desist with the accusation that I am saying God does not exist, or that I am trying to prove God does not exist, as any kind of rebuttal to anything I am actually saying because, I am NOT saying that God does not exist; I am NOT trying to prove that God does not exist.
> 
> So if you _do_ make such an accusation, you had better provide specific substantiation in the form of a direct quote and link, or your accusation--baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic--is meaningless garbage, and I will gleefully expose it as such.
> 
> Are we clear on _that_ now?
> 
> Allow me to repeat: I am NOT saying that God does not exist; I am NOT trying to prove that God does not exist.
> 
> Ok?
> 
> I am NOT saying that God does not exist; I am NOT trying to prove that God does not exist. (Just in case ...)
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove your religion ever happened either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What religion? What religion, precisely? What claim of "proof" have I made? Provide verifiable evidence of your claims; provide quotes and/or links so that your claims can be validated.  Again, your disingenuous claims about, objections to, and criticisms of other theories are entirely baseless in verifiable fact of reality and/or meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't see your beliefs are based on faith not evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evidentiary bases of my beliefs have been amply provided, and as such are conspicuously obvious; you have made that point clear with your responses. Yet the fact that you prejudicially refuse to acknowledge verifiable evidence is no refutation of that evidence or its validity. And your refusal to accept the verifiable evidence that I have presented as "*proof*" (rather than simply evidence), is irrelevant to the fact of reality that what I have presented is actual valid evidence in support of my beliefs; evidence validated by its verifiability AND by valid logic. Do you understand the important distinction between such valid evidence, and the invalid evidence you present?
> 
> I hope so, because then you must accept as such, that there is literally NO FAITH involved in my beliefs as presented. None. These beliefs require no denial of verifiable evidence or denial of valid logic; they simply are not faith.
> 
> Now that I've cleared all of that up for you, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.*
> 
> *(n.b.: Lest you have already forgotten: I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists; so there is no reason at all for you to refuse this request, on the basis that it's a request for you to prove that your God exists. Ok? I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.)
Click to expand...


The bible made claims and science verified many of the claims.

I have pointed out many parts of the theory that are not backed by evidence so they fall in the faith category. like it or not that is the facts.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> The bible made claims and science verified many of the claims.


The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Look it up.



Youwerecreated said:


> I have pointed out many parts of the theory that are not backed by evidence so they fall in the faith category. like it or not that is the facts.


You have intentionally misrepresented the assertions made by theorists (e.g. punctuated equilibrium), the theory of evolution (e.g. "everything is supposed to get better"), as well as the "evidence" (e.g. conflation of taxonomic descriptions); and every instance of your misrepresentations have been unambiguously exposed for what they are.

Now that we have _that_ out of the way, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.*

*(n.b.: Lest you have already forgotten: I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists; so there is no reason at all for you to refuse this request, on the basis that it's a request for you to prove that your God exists. Ok? I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.)


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain the new and beneficial genetic information ?
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say, "new"? Direct quote and link, please.
> 
> Did I say, "beneficial"? Direct quote and link, please.
> 
> I would be happy to explain something I said (for a change).
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is considered new and benficial information so how would this be evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considered by whom? Direct quote (from an actual and currently practicing mainstream evolutionary scientist) and link, please.
> 
> So, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
> 
> Thanks!
Click to expand...


Why don't you learn the theory before you try to argue in behalf of it.This is why i should ignore your posts.

Sweeps weak in human evolution 


Rapid spread of beneficial mutations relatively rare

 By Tina Hesman Saey 

Web edition : Thursday, February 17th, 2011 

Text Size 


Humans probably didn&#8217;t get swept up in evolution.

Scientists have favored a model of evolution in which beneficial gene mutations quickly and dramatically sweep through a population due to the evolutionary advantages they confer. Such mutations would become nearly universal in a population. But this selective sweep model may not be accurate for humans, a new study indicates. Human evolution likely followed a more subtle and complicated path, say population geneticists Molly Przeworski of the University of Chicago and Guy Sella of Hebrew University of Jerusalem and colleagues.

Sweeps Weak In Human Evolution - Science News


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain the new and beneficial genetic information ?
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say, "new"? Direct quote and link, please.
> 
> Did I say, "beneficial"? Direct quote and link, please.
> 
> I would be happy to explain something I said (for a change).
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is considered new and benficial information so how would this be evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considered by whom? Direct quote (from an actual and currently practicing mainstream evolutionary scientist) and link, please.
> 
> So, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you learn the theory before you try to argue in behalf of it.
> 
> Sweeps weak in human evolution
> 
> 
> Rapid spread of beneficial mutations relatively rare
> 
> By Tina Hesman Saey
> 
> Web edition : Thursday, February 17th, 2011
> 
> Text Size
> 
> 
> Humans probably didnt get swept up in evolution.
> 
> Scientists have favored a model of evolution in which beneficial gene mutations quickly and dramatically sweep through a population due to the evolutionary advantages they confer. Such mutations would become nearly universal in a population. But this selective sweep model may not be accurate for humans, a new study indicates. Human evolution likely followed a more subtle and complicated path, say population geneticists Molly Przeworski of the University of Chicago and Guy Sella of Hebrew University of Jerusalem and colleagues.
> 
> Sweeps Weak In Human Evolution - Science News
Click to expand...

Seriously. Why don't YOU you learn the theory before you try to argue against it?

And, just for a change of pace, why don't you directly address my requests for information in my posts, rather than address something else that you think you're more comfortable with? Really, were we talking about the selective sweep model? No.

But just so you don't walk away with the impression that I'm unfamiliar (or that you're not) with the notion of such "sweeps," the point is not in contention. Just because recent/current population conditions would have a (well explained, BTW) nullifying effect on the propagation of a 44 chromosome Homo- amongst Homo sapiens-sapiens, it does not follow that such conditions were always existent (they most certainly weren't), or will always persist. The point you're clumsily dodging here is that this dramatic change in genetic information actually occurred in a contemporary time frame; though it's potential effect has not (or, considering the current state of human interactions, cannot, I'll grant you) been measured, that potential cannot simply be ignored while the effects of other translocations are well documented. You have held opposition to both of these facts of reality, in effect insisting that since science cannot "prove" such a dramatic genetic change is not lethal or detrimental, there is no evidence what-so-ever that such a dramatic genetic change can have evolutionary significance.

You seem to take the better understanding (as described in the link) of the role that selective sweep in human evolution to be some refutation of the selective sweep model, and/or evolutionary theory entirely._"Good evidence does exist for some mutations that did undergo selective sweeps in humans, such as those for skin pigmentation, hair and teeth morphology and the genetic change that allows adults in some populations to digest the milk sugar lactose. But those examples are the exception rather than the rule in human evolution.

We have beautiful examples of selective sweeps. But there are not many of them, and our results suggest [there are] not many more to come, Przeworski says. Our results do not suggest that adaptation was rare. Many protein changes in humans may well have been adaptive. What our results indicate is that the dominant mode of adaptation was not the classic sweep, she says."_​Where Creation "science" finds it necessary to defend its preconceptions--declaring inconsistency with the preconceptions of Creation "science" to be the invalidating standard--evolution science makes no such inconsistencies necessarily mutually exclusive; such that one or the other must be wrong. There is no preconceived conclusion that can be refuted. The conclusions are demonstrated by agreeing with verifiable evidence, rather than "evidence" being demonstrated or verified by agreement with a preconceived conclusion.

So selective sweep is not as common as was thought 35 years ago. So what?

Selective sweep didn't simply "replace" all the other recognized identifiable mechanisms for genetic diversity and the distribution of such diversity. It was not necessary that those mechanisms be replaced by some newly discovered mechanism. This isn't mono-theism vs poly-theism. This isn't believe in this or that jealous god or be wrong. The selective sweep model described a set of observations, just like the other models. Predictions were made based on those models, and the validity of those models was tested. If the resulting evidence indicates more than one mechanism at work, evolutionary theory makes no prohibition from declaring so. Evolution is no religion, it's a description; it's not a god, jealous or otherwise. 

If you're under the impression that evolutionary theory considers every identifiable mechanism for genetic diversity and the distribution of such diversity to be mutually exclusive (manifested in the apparent way you present them as refutations of each other), then you really have a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution (of science, really), and should take the time to become informed about it somewhere other than Sunday school, the Discovery Institute, or The Institute for Creation Research. 

Now that I've cleared all of that up for you, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.*

At least provide an intellectually honest reason why you are refusing to do so. Ok?

*(n.b.: Lest you have already forgotten: I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists; so there is no reason at all for you to refuse this request, on the basis that it's a request for you to prove that your God exists. Ok? I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.)


----------



## koshergrl

Troll.


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say, "new"? Direct quote and link, please.
> 
> Did I say, "beneficial"? Direct quote and link, please.
> 
> I would be happy to explain something I said (for a change).
> 
> Considered by whom? Direct quote (from an actual and currently practicing mainstream evolutionary scientist) and link, please.
> 
> So, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you learn the theory before you try to argue in behalf of it.
> 
> Sweeps weak in human evolution
> 
> 
> Rapid spread of beneficial mutations relatively rare
> 
> By Tina Hesman Saey
> 
> Web edition : Thursday, February 17th, 2011
> 
> Text Size
> 
> 
> Humans probably didnt get swept up in evolution.
> 
> Scientists have favored a model of evolution in which beneficial gene mutations quickly and dramatically sweep through a population due to the evolutionary advantages they confer. Such mutations would become nearly universal in a population. But this selective sweep model may not be accurate for humans, a new study indicates. Human evolution likely followed a more subtle and complicated path, say population geneticists Molly Przeworski of the University of Chicago and Guy Sella of Hebrew University of Jerusalem and colleagues.
> 
> Sweeps Weak In Human Evolution - Science News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously. Why don't YOU you learn the theory before you try to argue against it?
> 
> And, just for a change of pace, why don't you directly address my requests for information in my posts, rather than address something else that you think you're more comfortable with? Really, were we talking about the selective sweep model? No.
> 
> But just so you don't walk away with the impression that I'm unfamiliar (or that you're not) with the notion of such "sweeps," the point is not in contention. Just because recent/current population conditions would have a (well explained, BTW) nullifying effect on the propagation of a 44 chromosome Homo- amongst Homo sapiens-sapiens, it does not follow that such conditions were always existent (they most certainly weren't), or will always persist. The point you're clumsily dodging here is that this dramatic change in genetic information actually occurred in a contemporary time frame; though it's potential effect has not (or, considering the current state of human interactions, cannot, I'll grant you) been measured, that potential cannot simply be ignored while the effects of other translocations are well documented. You have held opposition to both of these facts of reality, in effect insisting that since science cannot "prove" such a dramatic genetic change is not lethal or detrimental, there is no evidence what-so-ever that such a dramatic genetic change can have evolutionary significance.
> 
> You seem to take the better understanding (as described in the link) of the role that selective sweep in human evolution to be some refutation of the selective sweep model, and/or evolutionary theory entirely.
> _"Good evidence does exist for some mutations that did undergo selective sweeps in humans, such as those for skin pigmentation, hair and teeth morphology and the genetic change that allows adults in some populations to digest the milk sugar lactose. But those examples are the exception rather than the rule in human evolution._
> 
> _We have beautiful examples of selective sweeps. But there are not many of them, and our results suggest [there are] not many more to come, Przeworski says. Our results do not suggest that adaptation was rare. Many protein changes in humans may well have been adaptive. What our results indicate is that the dominant mode of adaptation was not the classic sweep, she says."_​Where Creation "science" finds it necessary to defend its preconceptions--declaring inconsistency with the preconceptions of Creation "science" to be the invalidating standard--evolution science makes no such inconsistencies necessarily mutually exclusive; such that one or the other must be wrong. There is no preconceived conclusion that can be refuted. The conclusions are demonstrated by agreeing with verifiable evidence, rather than "evidence" being demonstrated or verified by agreement with a preconceived conclusion.
> 
> So selective sweep is not as common as was thought 35 years ago. So what?
> 
> Selective sweep didn't simply "replace" all the other recognized identifiable mechanisms for genetic diversity and the distribution of such diversity. It was not necessary that those mechanisms be replaced by some newly discovered mechanism. This isn't mono-theism vs poly-theism. This isn't believe in this or that jealous god or be wrong. The selective sweep model described a set of observations, just like the other models. Predictions were made based on those models, and the validity of those models was tested. If the resulting evidence indicates more than one mechanism at work, evolutionary theory makes no prohibition from declaring so. Evolution is no religion, it's a description; it's not a god, jealous or otherwise.
> 
> If you're under the impression that evolutionary theory considers every identifiable mechanism for genetic diversity and the distribution of such diversity to be mutually exclusive (manifested in the apparent way you present them as refutations of each other), then you really have a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution (of science, really), and should take the time to become informed about it somewhere other than Sunday school, the Discovery Institute, or The Institute for Creation Research.
> 
> Now that I've cleared all of that up for you, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.*
> 
> At least provide an intellectually honest reason why you are refusing to do so. Ok?
> 
> *(n.b.: Lest you have already forgotten: I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists; so there is no reason at all for you to refuse this request, on the basis that it's a request for you to prove that your God exists. Ok? I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.)
Click to expand...

 
Lest we forget..you aren't doing anything that is productive or positive. You're just trolling.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Lest we forget..you aren't doing anything that is productive or positive. You're just trolling.


Look sweetie, all I am asking YWC to do is honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of his (and apparently, your) Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."

Is that really so much to ask? Is that what "trolling" is? Apparently so.

I accept that you consider asking pertinent questions and requiring intellectually honest answers to be "trolling," but why don't you (for a change of pace from your usual unsubstantiated sniping) do something "productive or positive" in this discussion?

Why don't you pick up the gauntlet, exercise some intellectual courage, and explain this "explanation" you and YWC repeatedly assert without any further demonstration, elucidation, or exposition. Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.*

Or at least provide an intellectually honest reason why you are refusing to do so. Ok?

*(n.b.: Lest you have already forgotten: I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists; so there is no reason at all for you to refuse this request, on the basis that it's a request for you to prove that your God exists. Ok? I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.)


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try again moron.
> 
> No change and perfectly normal don't sound like evolution to me.
> 
> So how do you know humans didn't have 48 chromosomes ?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=124
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolutionist claim humans only have 46 chromosomes they were wrong again.
> 
> Like i said the guy with 44 chromosomes is perfectly normal,the chromosome count is not important,it's the information in the chromosomes that is important.
Click to expand...

wow! talk about cherry picking!
guess you missed this :His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on if he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too. And this would certainly be possible in the future given his family history.

But why doesn't he have any problems? A loss of one let alone two chromosomes is almost always fatal because so many essential genes are lost.

In this case, he has fewer chromosomes but is actually missing very few genes. Instead, he has two chromosomes stuck to two other chromosomes. More specifically, both his chromosome 14's are stuck to his chromosome 15's.

So he has almost all the same genes as any other person. He just has them packaged a bit differently.

This is an important finding because it tells us about a key genetic event in human prehistory. All the evidence points to humans, like their relatives the chimpanzees, having 48 chromosomes a million or so years ago. Nowadays most humans have 46.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human is human dumbass
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, ... and cats are cats. But all cats are not all the same species. I was obligated to school you on this subject, because you failed to learn it in 10th grade.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Yet you seem to have some trouble reading everything ... even the crap you post. Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Theoretically the 44 chromosome man should have fewer problems having children than his parents did. As this figure shows, there are no unpaired chromosomes when he and a woman with 46 chromosomes have children. But all of their kids would have a balanced translocation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, to this "theoretically"; but the actuality his progeny will experience is significantly different. So what does your quote _actually_ mean? Here's the answer:"His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on *if* he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too." _[em.: LOki]_...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...​"The parent with the balanced translocation can make 6 different kinds of sperm or egg (the second row). As the figure shows, when the eggs and sperm combine, *2/3 of the time the fetus ends up with an extra or missing chromosome*. Unless this chromosome is the X, Y or number 21, the usual result is miscarriage or being born with severe problems.
> 
> *In this case it would almost certainly result in miscarriage.* In fact, the 44 chromosome man's family has a long history of miscarriages and spontaneous abortions." _[em.: LOki]_​You see there? He has to find "... a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too ..." if he is to pass this 44 chromosome configuration in a stable manner; otherwise his progeny--ALL of his progeny--will experience a 66% reproductive failure rate at best.
> 
> After seeing you resolutely deny the plenitude of fossil evidence of transitions in populations of organisms (and the necessary transitions in genetic information appurtenant to them), and your arrant refusal to acknowledge the existence (and significant blow they make to your criticisms of evolution theory of speciation) of ring species, it's not at all surprising that now you'd (deliberately) not see the transition from 46 chromosomes, to 45 chromosomes, to 44 chromosomes to be any difference in the genetic information between the respective organisms, nor any evidence of any kind of transition.
> 
> Considering your inability to effectively (or honestly) discuss any subject of actual science, I would surmise you'd have every confidence in your ability to provide a meaningful explanation for your own "theory."
> 
> So, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do i have to say I can't prove God exists from physical evidence,but he can be shown to exist from what's contained in the scriptures. You don't want to accept it fine,but you can't prove he doesn't exist.
> 
> You can't prove your religion ever happened either. You still don't see your beliefs are based on faith not evidence.
Click to expand...

bullshit! the Scriptures are not viable evidence ..here's one example:The bible was compiled around 325AD by Emperor Constantine and his hand picked bishops to unionize the christian church and make it a single hierarchy in order to unify the people once again and keep the empire under control.
They decided which books of the bible would be considered sacred and which would be considered forbidden (banned books)
Constantine also made Christianity legal, his predecessor, Emperor Theodosius, made it manditory by outlawing all non-christian religions around 391AD
The bible was compiled to strengthen the Roman Empire... good job Jesus.
p.s. 
The idea of a belief in god or Jesus is no different in believing Jim Jonesis your savior.


Read more: Who compiled the Bible


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say, "new"? Direct quote and link, please.
> 
> Did I say, "beneficial"? Direct quote and link, please.
> 
> I would be happy to explain something I said (for a change).
> 
> Considered by whom? Direct quote (from an actual and currently practicing mainstream evolutionary scientist) and link, please.
> 
> So, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you learn the theory before you try to argue in behalf of it.
> 
> Sweeps weak in human evolution
> 
> 
> Rapid spread of beneficial mutations relatively rare
> 
> By Tina Hesman Saey
> 
> Web edition : Thursday, February 17th, 2011
> 
> Text Size
> 
> 
> Humans probably didnt get swept up in evolution.
> 
> Scientists have favored a model of evolution in which beneficial gene mutations quickly and dramatically sweep through a population due to the evolutionary advantages they confer. Such mutations would become nearly universal in a population. But this selective sweep model may not be accurate for humans, a new study indicates. Human evolution likely followed a more subtle and complicated path, say population geneticists Molly Przeworski of the University of Chicago and Guy Sella of Hebrew University of Jerusalem and colleagues.
> 
> Sweeps Weak In Human Evolution - Science News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously. Why don't YOU you learn the theory before you try to argue against it?
> 
> And, just for a change of pace, why don't you directly address my requests for information in my posts, rather than address something else that you think you're more comfortable with? Really, were we talking about the selective sweep model? No.
> 
> But just so you don't walk away with the impression that I'm unfamiliar (or that you're not) with the notion of such "sweeps," the point is not in contention. Just because recent/current population conditions would have a (well explained, BTW) nullifying effect on the propagation of a 44 chromosome Homo- amongst Homo sapiens-sapiens, it does not follow that such conditions were always existent (they most certainly weren't), or will always persist. The point you're clumsily dodging here is that this dramatic change in genetic information actually occurred in a contemporary time frame; though it's potential effect has not (or, considering the current state of human interactions, cannot, I'll grant you) been measured, that potential cannot simply be ignored while the effects of other translocations are well documented. You have held opposition to both of these facts of reality, in effect insisting that since science cannot "prove" such a dramatic genetic change is not lethal or detrimental, there is no evidence what-so-ever that such a dramatic genetic change can have evolutionary significance.
> 
> You seem to take the better understanding (as described in the link) of the role that selective sweep in human evolution to be some refutation of the selective sweep model, and/or evolutionary theory entirely._"Good evidence does exist for some mutations that did undergo selective sweeps in humans, such as those for skin pigmentation, hair and teeth morphology and the genetic change that allows adults in some populations to digest the milk sugar lactose. But those examples are the exception rather than the rule in human evolution.
> 
> We have beautiful examples of selective sweeps. But there are not many of them, and our results suggest [there are] not many more to come, Przeworski says. Our results do not suggest that adaptation was rare. Many protein changes in humans may well have been adaptive. What our results indicate is that the dominant mode of adaptation was not the classic sweep, she says."_​Where Creation "science" finds it necessary to defend its preconceptions--declaring inconsistency with the preconceptions of Creation "science" to be the invalidating standard--evolution science makes no such inconsistencies necessarily mutually exclusive; such that one or the other must be wrong. There is no preconceived conclusion that can be refuted. The conclusions are demonstrated by agreeing with verifiable evidence, rather than "evidence" being demonstrated or verified by agreement with a preconceived conclusion.
> 
> So selective sweep is not as common as was thought 35 years ago. So what?
> 
> Selective sweep didn't simply "replace" all the other recognized identifiable mechanisms for genetic diversity and the distribution of such diversity. It was not necessary that those mechanisms be replaced by some newly discovered mechanism. This isn't mono-theism vs poly-theism. This isn't believe in this or that jealous god or be wrong. The selective sweep model described a set of observations, just like the other models. Predictions were made based on those models, and the validity of those models was tested. If the resulting evidence indicates more than one mechanism at work, evolutionary theory makes no prohibition from declaring so. Evolution is no religion, it's a description; it's not a god, jealous or otherwise.
> 
> If you're under the impression that evolutionary theory considers every identifiable mechanism for genetic diversity and the distribution of such diversity to be mutually exclusive (manifested in the apparent way you present them as refutations of each other), then you really have a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution (of science, really), and should take the time to become informed about it somewhere other than Sunday school, the Discovery Institute, or The Institute for Creation Research.
> 
> Now that I've cleared all of that up for you, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.*
> 
> At least provide an intellectually honest reason why you are refusing to do so. Ok?
> 
> *(n.b.: Lest you have already forgotten: I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists; so there is no reason at all for you to refuse this request, on the basis that it's a request for you to prove that your God exists. Ok? I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.)
Click to expand...


You didn't understand the problem the cambrian explosion causes for the fossil record.

You didn't understand that macro-evolution needs beneficial mutations.

You thought a person having only 44 chromosomes was a different species.

You said that it was evolution the perfectly normal man with 44 chromosomes.

You didn't understand if time had a beginning then life as we know it had a beginning.

Do i need to really go any further ? what is really funny ,you said i am intellectually dishonest the way i am misrepresenting science,and you don't have clue about some of the things discussed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference is he has 44 chromosomes.
> 
> The information is the same if not there would be a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be confused. Is there a difference, or is there no difference?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why i use terms kind or family while there are variations but this guy shows no difference period other then having 44 chromosomes he is a human not a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to be confused. Is there a difference, or is there no difference?
> 
> I see a difference. And I see that difference (under the right conditions) could prove to be significant in the way such differences (and others) accumulate such that speciation occurs transitionally, as manifested in ring-species, for example.
> 
> I wonder why you just won't perceive the difference here.
> 
> The terms are descriptive. The principles mechanisms they describe are pretty consistently understood and acceptable--differences are conspicuously noted.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The theory is built on faulty assumptions and conclusions from those faulty assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. The assumptions are not faulty. At least not so egregiously faulty as assuming that Santa's elves cause evolution when they feed fairy dust to flying reindeer, whose subsequent flatulence directs the development of life in a specific (and spiritually meaningful) way; or that "God" did it.
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We descended from humans that is what genetics teach us. We do not share a common ancestor with the chimp. There is zero evidence of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prejudicial refusal to acknowledge of the evidence is no refutation of that evidence or its validity.
Click to expand...


The only one who does not uderstand what was presented so far was you. Notice how cbirch who is much more intelligent then you when it comes to evolution drops his argument.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lest we forget..you aren't doing anything that is productive or positive. You're just trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> Look sweetie, all I am asking YWC to do is honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of his (and apparently, your) Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."
> 
> Is that really so much to ask? Is that what "trolling" is? Apparently so.
> 
> I accept that you consider asking pertinent questions and requiring intellectually honest answers to be "trolling," but why don't you (for a change of pace from your usual unsubstantiated sniping) do something "productive or positive" in this discussion?
> 
> Why don't you pick up the gauntlet, exercise some intellectual courage, and explain this "explanation" you and YWC repeatedly assert without any further demonstration, elucidation, or exposition. Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.*
> 
> Or at least provide an intellectually honest reason why you are refusing to do so. Ok?
> 
> *(n.b.: Lest you have already forgotten: I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists; so there is no reason at all for you to refuse this request, on the basis that it's a request for you to prove that your God exists. Ok? I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.)
Click to expand...


Even though i have answered it many times.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference is he has 44 chromosomes.
> 
> The information is the same if not there would be a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be confused. Is there a difference, or is there no difference?
> 
> You seem to be confused. Is there a difference, or is there no difference?
> 
> I see a difference. And I see that difference (under the right conditions) could prove to be significant in the way such differences (and others) accumulate such that speciation occurs transitionally, as manifested in ring-species, for example.
> 
> I wonder why you just won't perceive the difference here.
> 
> The terms are descriptive. The principles mechanisms they describe are pretty consistently understood and acceptable--differences are conspicuously noted.
> 
> Nonsense. The assumptions are not faulty. At least not so egregiously faulty as assuming that Santa's elves cause evolution when they feed fairy dust to flying reindeer, whose subsequent flatulence directs the development of life in a specific (and spiritually meaningful) way; or that "God" did it.
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We descended from humans that is what genetics teach us. We do not share a common ancestor with the chimp. There is zero evidence of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prejudicial refusal to acknowledge of the evidence is no refutation of that evidence or its validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only one who does not uderstand what was presented so far was you. Notice how cbirch who is much more intelligent then you when it comes to evolution drops his argument.
Click to expand...

if that's not intentional misinterpretation of events there is none.
Cbirch left because he /she tired of your nonsense!


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> You didn't understand the problem the cambrian explosion causes for the fossil record.


I understand you have no idea of what you're talking about. This "problem" and my lack of understanding are both products of your desperate imagination.



Youwerecreated said:


> You didn't understand that macro-evolution needs beneficial mutations.


Again. Imaginary. Fabricated from nothing. A lie.



Youwerecreated said:


> You thought a person having only 44 chromosomes was a different species.


Again. A fabrication. Another lie.



Youwerecreated said:


> You said that it was evolution the perfectly normal man with 44 chromosomes.


Again. A fabrication. Another lie. 



Youwerecreated said:


> You didn't understand if time had a beginning then life as we know it had a beginning.


You simply have no refutation for a single thing I have said, so you just make shit up.



Youwerecreated said:


> Do i need to really go any further ?


Yes. Please do.



Youwerecreated said:


> what is really funny ,you said i am intellectually dishonest the way i am misrepresenting science,and you don't have clue about some of the things discussed.


You clearly are. You have proven so just now with this list of yours. 

You see, what's really funny is the apparent belief you hold that if you don't substantiate your stupid accusations, then it's impossible for someone to find out that you're just pulling them from your ass.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, ... and cats are cats. But all cats are not all the same species. I was obligated to school you on this subject, because you failed to learn it in 10th grade.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Yet you seem to have some trouble reading everything ... even the crap you post. Seriously.
> 
> Yes, to this "theoretically"; but the actuality his progeny will experience is significantly different. So what does your quote _actually_ mean? Here's the answer:"His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on *if* he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too." _[em.: LOki]_...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...​"The parent with the balanced translocation can make 6 different kinds of sperm or egg (the second row). As the figure shows, when the eggs and sperm combine, *2/3 of the time the fetus ends up with an extra or missing chromosome*. Unless this chromosome is the X, Y or number 21, the usual result is miscarriage or being born with severe problems.
> 
> *In this case it would almost certainly result in miscarriage.* In fact, the 44 chromosome man's family has a long history of miscarriages and spontaneous abortions." _[em.: LOki]_​You see there? He has to find "... a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too ..." if he is to pass this 44 chromosome configuration in a stable manner; otherwise his progeny--ALL of his progeny--will experience a 66% reproductive failure rate at best.
> 
> After seeing you resolutely deny the plenitude of fossil evidence of transitions in populations of organisms (and the necessary transitions in genetic information appurtenant to them), and your arrant refusal to acknowledge the existence (and significant blow they make to your criticisms of evolution theory of speciation) of ring species, it's not at all surprising that now you'd (deliberately) not see the transition from 46 chromosomes, to 45 chromosomes, to 44 chromosomes to be any difference in the genetic information between the respective organisms, nor any evidence of any kind of transition.
> 
> Considering your inability to effectively (or honestly) discuss any subject of actual science, I would surmise you'd have every confidence in your ability to provide a meaningful explanation for your own "theory."
> 
> So, I ask again, what God? Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do i have to say I can't prove God exists from physical evidence,but he can be shown to exist from what's contained in the scriptures. You don't want to accept it fine,but you can't prove he doesn't exist.
> 
> You can't prove your religion ever happened either. You still don't see your beliefs are based on faith not evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit! the Scriptures are not viable evidence ..here's one example:The bible was compiled around 325AD by Emperor Constantine and his hand picked bishops to unionize the christian church and make it a single hierarchy in order to unify the people once again and keep the empire under control.
> They decided which books of the bible would be considered sacred and which would be considered forbidden (banned books)
> Constantine also made Christianity legal, his predecessor, Emperor Theodosius, made it manditory by outlawing all non-christian religions around 391AD
> The bible was compiled to strengthen the Roman Empire... good job Jesus.
> p.s.
> The idea of a belief in god or Jesus is no different in believing Jim Jonesis your savior.
> 
> 
> Read more: Who compiled the Bible
Click to expand...


So what ?

Every true biblical scholar agrees the books that found their way into the scriptures have supporting manuscripts. 

If God exists,and he created everything we see,you don't think he could make sure which books were to be in the bible ?

The bible constantly is under attack, Why ? The bible constantly stands up to scrutiny. The bible is used by archaeologists unlocking the past. You can deny all you like but people like you are being warned,hopefully some will heed the warning.

God be with you my son.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do i have to say I can't prove God exists from physical evidence,but he can be shown to exist from what's contained in the scriptures. You don't want to accept it fine,but you can't prove he doesn't exist.
> 
> You can't prove your religion ever happened either. You still don't see your beliefs are based on faith not evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! the Scriptures are not viable evidence ..here's one example:The bible was compiled around 325AD by Emperor Constantine and his hand picked bishops to unionize the christian church and make it a single hierarchy in order to unify the people once again and keep the empire under control.
> They decided which books of the bible would be considered sacred and which would be considered forbidden (banned books)
> Constantine also made Christianity legal, his predecessor, Emperor Theodosius, made it manditory by outlawing all non-christian religions around 391AD
> The bible was compiled to strengthen the Roman Empire... good job Jesus.
> p.s.
> The idea of a belief in god or Jesus is no different in believing Jim Jonesis your savior.
> 
> 
> Read more: Who compiled the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what ?
> 
> Every true biblical scholar agrees the books that found their way into the scriptures have supporting manuscripts.
> 
> If God exists,and he created everything we see,you don't think he could make sure which books were to be in the bible ?
> 
> The bible constantly is under attack, Why ? The bible constantly stands up to scrutiny. The bible is used by archaeologists unlocking the past. You can deny all you like but people like you are being warned,hopefully some will heed the warning.
> 
> God be with you my son.
Click to expand...

dodge ! 
btw you can stfu on that son shit!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be confused. Is there a difference, or is there no difference?
> 
> You seem to be confused. Is there a difference, or is there no difference?
> 
> I see a difference. And I see that difference (under the right conditions) could prove to be significant in the way such differences (and others) accumulate such that speciation occurs transitionally, as manifested in ring-species, for example.
> 
> I wonder why you just won't perceive the difference here.
> 
> The terms are descriptive. The principles mechanisms they describe are pretty consistently understood and acceptable--differences are conspicuously noted.
> 
> Nonsense. The assumptions are not faulty. At least not so egregiously faulty as assuming that Santa's elves cause evolution when they feed fairy dust to flying reindeer, whose subsequent flatulence directs the development of life in a specific (and spiritually meaningful) way; or that "God" did it.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Your prejudicial refusal to acknowledge of the evidence is no refutation of that evidence or its validity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only one who does not uderstand what was presented so far was you. Notice how cbirch who is much more intelligent then you when it comes to evolution drops his argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if that's not intentional misinterpretation of events there is none.
> Cbirch left because he /she tired of your nonsense!
Click to expand...


You don't know Cbirch to well then,let's just say ,he and I had a very long standing debate on this issue. I have to admit he has gotten better ,he only called me a name once this time.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about,i put you in the same category as LOKI a want to be.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lest we forget..you aren't doing anything that is productive or positive. You're just trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> Look sweetie, all I am asking YWC to do is honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of his (and apparently, your) Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."
> 
> Is that really so much to ask? Is that what "trolling" is? Apparently so.
> 
> I accept that you consider asking pertinent questions and requiring intellectually honest answers to be "trolling," but why don't you (for a change of pace from your usual unsubstantiated sniping) do something "productive or positive" in this discussion?
> 
> Why don't you pick up the gauntlet, exercise some intellectual courage, and explain this "explanation" you and YWC repeatedly assert without any further demonstration, elucidation, or exposition. Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.*
> 
> Or at least provide an intellectually honest reason why you are refusing to do so. Ok?
> 
> *(n.b.: Lest you have already forgotten: I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists; so there is no reason at all for you to refuse this request, on the basis that it's a request for you to prove that your God exists. Ok? I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though i have answered it many times.
Click to expand...

Saying you can't prove the existence of God is not explaining this God thing. you have NEVER--NOT ONCE--answered me.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! the Scriptures are not viable evidence ..here's one example:The bible was compiled around 325AD by Emperor Constantine and his hand picked bishops to unionize the christian church and make it a single hierarchy in order to unify the people once again and keep the empire under control.
> They decided which books of the bible would be considered sacred and which would be considered forbidden (banned books)
> Constantine also made Christianity legal, his predecessor, Emperor Theodosius, made it manditory by outlawing all non-christian religions around 391AD
> The bible was compiled to strengthen the Roman Empire... good job Jesus.
> p.s.
> The idea of a belief in god or Jesus is no different in believing Jim Jonesis your savior.
> 
> 
> Read more: Who compiled the Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what ?
> 
> Every true biblical scholar agrees the books that found their way into the scriptures have supporting manuscripts.
> 
> If God exists,and he created everything we see,you don't think he could make sure which books were to be in the bible ?
> 
> The bible constantly is under attack, Why ? The bible constantly stands up to scrutiny. The bible is used by archaeologists unlocking the past. You can deny all you like but people like you are being warned,hopefully some will heed the warning.
> 
> God be with you my son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dodge !
> btw you can stfu on that son shit!
Click to expand...


Oh a tough guy on the internet  or do you prefer daughter ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look sweetie, all I am asking YWC to do is honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of his (and apparently, your) Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."
> 
> Is that really so much to ask? Is that what "trolling" is? Apparently so.
> 
> I accept that you consider asking pertinent questions and requiring intellectually honest answers to be "trolling," but why don't you (for a change of pace from your usual unsubstantiated sniping) do something "productive or positive" in this discussion?
> 
> Why don't you pick up the gauntlet, exercise some intellectual courage, and explain this "explanation" you and YWC repeatedly assert without any further demonstration, elucidation, or exposition. Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.*
> 
> Or at least provide an intellectually honest reason why you are refusing to do so. Ok?
> 
> *(n.b.: Lest you have already forgotten: I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists; so there is no reason at all for you to refuse this request, on the basis that it's a request for you to prove that your God exists. Ok? I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though i have answered it many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying you can't prove the existence of God is not explaining this God thing. you have NEVER--NOT ONCE--answered me.
Click to expand...


He is a spirit,he is love,he is just,he is all knowing,he is almighty,he is the creator of all things,he has always existed,nothing escapes his attention,he makes the rules,and he enforces the rules,there is no one like him.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one who does not uderstand what was presented so far was you. Notice how cbirch who is much more intelligent then you when it comes to evolution drops his argument.
> 
> 
> 
> if that's not intentional misinterpretation of events there is none.
> Cbirch left because he /she tired of your nonsense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know Cbirch to well then,let's just say ,he and I had a very long standing debate on this issue. I have to admit he has gotten better ,he only called me a name once this time.
> 
> You don't have a clue what you are talking about,i put you in the same category as LOKI a want to be.
Click to expand...

that would be "too and wannabe" and I don't have a clue!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what ?
> 
> Every true biblical scholar agrees the books that found their way into the scriptures have supporting manuscripts.
> 
> If God exists,and he created everything we see,you don't think he could make sure which books were to be in the bible ?
> 
> The bible constantly is under attack, Why ? The bible constantly stands up to scrutiny. The bible is used by archaeologists unlocking the past. You can deny all you like but people like you are being warned,hopefully some will heed the warning.
> 
> God be with you my son.
> 
> 
> 
> dodge !
> btw you can stfu on that son shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh a tough guy on the internet  or do you prefer daughter ?
Click to expand...

dodge #2
are you asking me out?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though i have answered it many times.
> 
> 
> 
> Saying you can't prove the existence of God is not explaining this God thing. you have NEVER--NOT ONCE--answered me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is a spirit,he is love,he is just,he is all knowing,he is almighty,he is the creator of all things,he has always existed,nothing escapes his attention,he makes the rules,and he enforces the rules,there is no one like him.
Click to expand...

only in your mind, there is no quantitative proof to support your claim. 
the bible is not proof as it was written by man ,not god.
there is no evidence to the contrary.
BTW your assumption that god is male is erroneous .


----------



## koshergrl

Why do you care that we don't need proof to believe?


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Why do you care that we don't need proof to believe?


misinterpret much...your need to believe is not proof that what you believe in is fact .
the only fact you possess is that you believe.
you're lying if you say you need no proof
the truth is you have all the proof you need to believe.


----------



## koshergrl

I never said that my need to believe was proof.

That's all you. Talk about projecting.

The rest of your post is drivel. It doesn't make sense, it's just hateful nonsense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=124
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist claim humans only have 46 chromosomes they were wrong again.
> 
> Like i said the guy with 44 chromosomes is perfectly normal,the chromosome count is not important,it's the information in the chromosomes that is important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow! talk about cherry picking!
> guess you missed this :His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on if he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too. And this would certainly be possible in the future given his family history.
> 
> But why doesn't he have any problems? A loss of one let alone two chromosomes is almost always fatal because so many essential genes are lost.
> 
> In this case, he has fewer chromosomes but is actually missing very few genes. Instead, he has two chromosomes stuck to two other chromosomes. More specifically, both his chromosome 14's are stuck to his chromosome 15's.
> 
> So he has almost all the same genes as any other person. He just has them packaged a bit differently.
> 
> This is an important finding because it tells us about a key genetic event in human prehistory. All the evidence points to humans, like their relatives the chimpanzees, having 48 chromosomes a million or so years ago. Nowadays most humans have 46.
Click to expand...


The whole point you must have missed was Cbirch said all humans have 46 chromosomes if they don't they are not human. 

He said that after i asked how do you know humans never had 48 chromosomes showing we descended from humans with 48 chromosomes.

I said several times it's not the chromosome count that is important,it was the information contained in the chromosome.

What they are attempting to do is try to explain away earlier assumptions that were wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't understand the problem the cambrian explosion causes for the fossil record.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you have no idea of what you're talking about. This "problem" and my lack of understanding are both products of your desperate imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't understand that macro-evolution needs beneficial mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again. Imaginary. Fabricated from nothing. A lie.
> 
> Again. A fabrication. Another lie.
> 
> Again. A fabrication. Another lie.
> 
> You simply have no refutation for a single thing I have said, so you just make shit up.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do i need to really go any further ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Please do.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is really funny ,you said i am intellectually dishonest the way i am misrepresenting science,and you don't have clue about some of the things discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly are. You have proven so just now with this list of yours.
> 
> You see, what's really funny is the apparent belief you hold that if you don't substantiate your stupid accusations, then it's impossible for someone to find out that you're just pulling them from your ass.
Click to expand...


You can look at post #1723 to see your admission that you did not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory. 

I am not gonna go back and find all of your ignorant posts. People reading this thread saw them and was probably hoping you would stop posting.

Anyways you do bring a smile to my face.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't understand the problem the cambrian explosion causes for the fossil record.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you have no idea of what you're talking about. This "problem" and my lack of understanding are both products of your desperate imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't understand that macro-evolution needs beneficial mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again. Imaginary. Fabricated from nothing. A lie.
> 
> Again. A fabrication. Another lie.
> 
> Again. A fabrication. Another lie.
> 
> You simply have no refutation for a single thing I have said, so you just make shit up.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do i need to really go any further ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Please do.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is really funny ,you said i am intellectually dishonest the way i am misrepresenting science,and you don't have clue about some of the things discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly are. You have proven so just now with this list of yours.
> 
> You see, what's really funny is the apparent belief you hold that if you don't substantiate your stupid accusations, then it's impossible for someone to find out that you're just pulling them from your ass.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look sweetie, all I am asking YWC to do is honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of his (and apparently, your) Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."
> 
> Is that really so much to ask? Is that what "trolling" is? Apparently so.
> 
> I accept that you consider asking pertinent questions and requiring intellectually honest answers to be "trolling," but why don't you (for a change of pace from your usual unsubstantiated sniping) do something "productive or positive" in this discussion?
> 
> Why don't you pick up the gauntlet, exercise some intellectual courage, and explain this "explanation" you and YWC repeatedly assert without any further demonstration, elucidation, or exposition. Please explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.*
> 
> Or at least provide an intellectually honest reason why you are refusing to do so. Ok?
> 
> *(n.b.: Lest you have already forgotten: I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists; so there is no reason at all for you to refuse this request, on the basis that it's a request for you to prove that your God exists. Ok? I am NOT asking you to prove that your God exists.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though i have answered it many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying you can't prove the existence of God is not explaining this God thing. you have NEVER--NOT ONCE--answered me.
Click to expand...


Troll


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if that's not intentional misinterpretation of events there is none.
> Cbirch left because he /she tired of your nonsense!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know Cbirch to well then,let's just say ,he and I had a very long standing debate on this issue. I have to admit he has gotten better ,he only called me a name once this time.
> 
> You don't have a clue what you are talking about,i put you in the same category as LOKI a want to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would be "too and wannabe" and I don't have a clue!
Click to expand...


You are gonna have to forgive my ignorance on your slang.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> dodge !
> btw you can stfu on that son shit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh a tough guy on the internet  or do you prefer daughter ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dodge #2
> are you asking me out?
Click to expand...


What am i dodging ? if you're not female i don't go that way.Besides i only would date smart people but i took care of that issue many moons ago. We now have 8 Grandchildren.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying you can't prove the existence of God is not explaining this God thing. you have NEVER--NOT ONCE--answered me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is a spirit,he is love,he is just,he is all knowing,he is almighty,he is the creator of all things,he has always existed,nothing escapes his attention,he makes the rules,and he enforces the rules,there is no one like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in your mind, there is no quantitative proof to support your claim.
> the bible is not proof as it was written by man ,not god.
> there is no evidence to the contrary.
> BTW your assumption that god is male is erroneous .
Click to expand...


Let me post them for you again.

101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge 

        Psalm 19:1-3  The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. 
Jeremiah 10:12  He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.

Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. 

Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts. That book is the Bible.
This booklet presents 101 scientific facts found in the Scriptures. Many of these facts were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece to the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator. How does this affect you? The last several pages provide the answer  you need to read them carefully.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  1.
The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.

Visit:
Modern Science In An Ancient (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.
Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Visit:
All About Atoms (Jefferson Lab)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.
The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.

Visit:
The Arks perfect dimensions (Answers In Genesis)
Safety investigation of Noahs Ark in a seaway (Answers In Genesis)
Noahs Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.
When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.

Visit:
-Why do I need to wash my hands? 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.
Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.
Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

Visit:
Springs of the Ocean (ICR)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.
There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

Visit:
Numerical Simulations Of Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8.
Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creators presence  in Your presence is fullness of joy (Psalm 16:11).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9.
Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.

Visit:
Life in the Blood (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.
The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe  namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.

Visit:
Things You May Not Know About Evolution (ICR)
Creation - Evolution (ICR)
Evolution and the Bible (ICR)
The Fossil Record: Intermediate Links (ChristianAnswers.net)
Archaeopteryx A Feathered Reptile? (ChristianAnswers.net)
The Ape-Man: Missing Link (ChristianAnswers.net)
Biological Evolution Darwin's Finches (ChristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11.
Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwins theory of the survival of the fittest.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12.
Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.

Visit:
What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg? (ICR)
The Egg/Chicken Conundrum (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13.
Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

Visit:
Things that are Made (ICR)
Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality (ICR)
Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories (ICR)
The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14.
Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.

Visit:
The elements of the periodic table sorted by their presence in human body. (Lenntech)
The Bible is a Textbook of Science (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.
The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16.
The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)Then God said, Let there be light (energy). No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17.
The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18.
The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.

Visit:
Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth 
Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19.
Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20.
Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow in the cloud as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets  which act as a prism  separating white light into its color spectrum.

Visit:
What causes a rainbow? (CristianAnswers.net)
The Rainbow And The Cloud (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago  God declared this four millennia ago!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22.
Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the paths of the seas. In the 19th century Matthew Maury  the father of oceanography  after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maurys data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23.
Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body, and that those who commit homosexual sin would receive in themselves the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.

Visit
Sex Habits Linked to Early Death, Disability (Fox News)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24.
Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25.
Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars  thats a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26.
The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along  He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27.
The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28.
Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.

Visit:
Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality (ICR)
Is Creation One of the Traditional Values? (ICR)
Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism (ICR)
Would China Benefit from Christianity? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29.
The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was Gods judgment on mans wickedness.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30.
Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.

Visit:
The Origin of Coal (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31.
The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent  just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

32.
Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the fountains of the great deep were broken up. This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.

Visit:
Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

33.
Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often  By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.

Visit:
Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

34.
Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

Visit:
Is the unborn human less than human? (CristianAnswers.net)
Cloning: Redefining When Life Begins Exposing Flaws in the Preembryo-Embryo Distinction (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

35.
God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an intricate unity in the womb.

Visit:
Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

36.
DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Visit:
Curiously Wrought (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

37.
God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

Visit:
One Blood: The biblical answer to racism (CristianAnswers.net) 
Where Did The Races Come From? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

38.
Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Visit:
Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR) 
On the Origin of Language (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39.
Origin of the different races explained (Genesis 11). As Noahs descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

Visit:
Where did the human races come from? (CristianAnswers.net)
Evolution and Modern Racism (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

40.
God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along  there are healing compounds found in plants.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

41.
Healthy dietary laws (Leviticus 11:9-12). Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales. We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

42.
The Bible warns against eating birds of prey (Leviticus 11:13-19). Scientists now recognize that those birds which eat carrion (putrefying flesh), often spread disease.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

43.
Avoid swine (Deuteronomy 14:8). Not so long ago, science learned that eating undercooked pork causes an infection of parasites called trichinosis. Now consider this: the Bible forbid the eating of swine more than 3,000 years before we learned how to cook pork safely.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. (NCBI)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44.
Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, Gods Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as Mother and naturalism is enshrined.

Visit:
Earth Day, Environmentalism, and the Bible (ICR)
The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
The Hyper-Environmentalists (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

45.
Black holes and dark matter anticipated (Matthew 25:30; Jude 1:13; Isaiah 50:3). Cosmologists now speculate that over 98% of the known universe is comprised of dark matter, with dark energy and black holes. A black holes gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls outer darkness or the blackness of darkness forever.

Visit:
The Outer Darkness (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

46.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God  resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is grow(ing) old like a garment (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ChrisitanAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

47.
Cains wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry  therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.

Visit:
Where did Cain get his wife? (CristianAnswers.net)
Cain's Wife: It Really Does Matter! (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48.
Incest laws established (Leviticus 18:6). To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common. Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice. The reason is simple  the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses day the genetic errors had swelled. Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed.

Visit:
The Blind Gunman (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

49.
Genetic mixing of different seeds forbidden (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9). The Bible warns against mixing seeds  as this will result in an inferior or dangerous crop. There is now growing evidence that unnatural, genetically engineered crops may be harmful.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

50.
Hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Jeremiah 10:13; Amos 9:6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man (Job 36:27-28). The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

51.
The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity  the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit  just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

52.
Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Visit:
Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day (Apologetics Press)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

53.
God has given us just the right amount of water to sustain life (Isaiah 40:12). We now recognize that if there was significantly more or less water, the earth would not support life as we know it.

Visit:
The Anthropic Principle: Is the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life? (ChristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

54.
The earth was designed for biological life (Isaiah 45:18). Scientists have discovered that the most fundamental characteristics of our earth and cosmos are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist. This is called the Anthropic Principle and it agrees with the Bible which states that God formed the earth to be inhabited.

Visit:
The Earth: Unique in All the Universe (ICR)
Design in Nature: The Anthropic Principle (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

55.
The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Eisntein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago  the universe is expanding!

Visit:
The Battle for the Cosmic Center (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

56.
Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, Gods life, created all life.

Visit:
Chemical Evolution: Spontaneous generation; Stanley Miller Experiment (ChristianAnswers.net)
Evolution is Biologically Impossible (ICR)
The Myth Of Chemical Evolution (ICR)
Virgil's Aeneid, by Chance Alone? (ICR)
The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

57.
Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).

Visit:
How did bad things come about? (CristianAnswers.net)
Extinction (ICR)
Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

58.
Light travels in a path (Job 38:19). Light is said to have a way [Hebrew: derek, literally a traveled path or road]. Until the 17th century it was believed that light was transmitted instantaneously. We now know that light is a form of energy that travels at ~186,000 miles per second in a straight line. Indeed, there is a way of light.

Visit:
Light travels in a path was foretold in the Bible hundreds of years before scientists discovered it (creationists.org)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

59.
Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established a weight for the wind. In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

60.
Jet stream anticipated (Ecclesiastes 1:6). At a time when it was thought that winds blew straight, the Bible declares The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit. King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago. Now consider this: it was not until World War II that airmen discovered the jet stream circuit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

61.
Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

62.
Each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the advent of the telescope, the Bible declared what only God and the angels knew  each star varies in size and intensity!

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

63.
The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing  electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send lightnings which indeed speak when they arrive.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

64.
Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, A merry heart does good, like medicine. For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.

Visit:
Benefits of Laughter (Personal-Development.com)
Humor and Laughter: Health Benefits and Online Sources (helpguide.org)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

65.
Intense sorrow or stress is harmful to your health (Proverbs 18:14; Mark 14:34). Researchers have studied individuals with no prior medical problems who showed symptoms of stress cardiomyopathy including chest pain, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, and even heart failure  following a stressful incident.

Visit:
The Physical Dangers of Stress (Fitness Article)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

66.
Microorganisms anticipated (Exodus 22:31). The Bible warns Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the LORD (Leviticus 22:8). Today we understand that a decaying carcass is full of disease causing germs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

67.
The Bible cautions against consuming fat (Leviticus 7:23). Only in recent decades has the medical community determined that fat clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

68.
Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:12). A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood. However, the Creator repeatedly told His people to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:20; 21:25). Of course, modern science reveals that consuming raw blood is dangerous.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

69.
The Bible describes dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24). In 1842, Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosaur, meaning terrible lizard, after discovering large reptilian-like fossils. However in the Book of Job, written 4,000 years earlier, God describes the behemoth as: the largest of all land creatures, plant eating (herbivore), with great strength in its hips and legs, powerful stomach muscles, a tail like a cedar tree, and bones like bars of iron. This is an accurate description of sauropods  the largest known dinosaur family.

Visit:
The Great Dinosaur Mystery (CristianAnswers.net)
How Do The Dinosaurs Fit In? (ICR)
Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood? (ICR)
Dragons in Paradise (ICR)
Leviathan (ICR)
Dinosaurs And The Bible (ICR)
Dinosaur Mania and Our Children (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

70.
Pleasure explained (Psalm 36:8). Evolution cannot explain pleasure  even the most complex chemicals do not experience bliss. However, the Bible states that God gives us richly all things to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17). Pleasure is a gift from God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

71.
Life is more than matter and energy (Genesis 2:7; Job 12:7-10). We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Even though its body may be perfectly intact, and air and energy are reintroduced to spark life, the body remains dead. Scripture agrees with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. Life cannot be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone  as evolutionists would lead us to believe.

Visit:
Breath And Spirit (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

72.
Origin of music explained (Psalm 40:3). Evolution cannot explain the origin of music. The Bible says that every good gift comes from God (James 1:17). This includes joyful melodies. God has given both man and angels the gift of music-making (Genesis 4:21; Ezekiel 28:13). Singing is intended to express rejoicing in and worship of the Lord (Job 38:7; Psalm 95:1-2).

Visit:
Music or Evolution
Musicevidence of creation (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

73.
Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with Gods Word.

Visit:
Ancient civilizations and modern man (Answers In Genesis)
The mystery of ancient man (Answers In Genesis)
Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

74.
Cavemen described in the Bible (Job 30:1-8). Four thousand years ago, Job describes certain vile men who were driven from society to forage among the bushes for survival and who live in the clefts of the valleys, (and) in caves of the earth and the rocks. Therefore cavemen were simply outcasts and vagabounds  not our primitive ancestors as evolutionists speculate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

75.
Environmental devastation of the planet foreseen (Revelation 11:18). Though evolution imagines that things should be getting better, the Bible foresaw what is really occurring today: pollution, destruction and corrupt dominion.

Visit:
Creation and the Environment (ICR)
The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

76.
The seed of a plant contains its life (Genesis 1:11; 29). As stated in the Book of Genesis, we now recognize that inside the humble seed is life itself. Within the seed is a tiny factory of amazing complexity. No scientist can build a synthetic seed and no seed is simple!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

77.
A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells give their lives to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

78.
The order of creation agrees with true science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v. 6), then soil (v. 9), and then He created plant life (v. 11).

Visit:
What is the order of events in the biblical Creation? (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

79.
God created lights in the heavens for signs and seasons, and for days and years (Genesis 1:14-16). We now know that a year is the time required for the earth to travel once around the sun. The seasons are caused by the changing position of the earth in relation to the sun. The moons phases follow one another in clock-like precision  constituting the lunar calendar Evolution teaches that the cosmos evolved by random chance, yet the Bible agrees with the observable evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

80.
The Bible speaks of heaven and the highest heavens (Deuteronomy 10:14). Long before the Hubble Space Telescope, Scripture spoke of the heaven of heavens and the third heaven (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Corinthians 12:2). We now know that the heavens consist of our immediate atmosphere and the vast reaches of outer space  as well as Gods wonderful abode.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

81.
Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him  pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

82.
Man is fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). We are only beginning to probe the complexity of the DNA molecule, the eye, the brain, and all the intricate components of life. No human invention compares to the marvelous wonders of Gods creation.

Visit:
Mankind- The Pinnacle of God's Creation (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

83.
Beauty understood (Genesis 1:31; 2:9; Job 40:10; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Matthew 6:28-30). Beauty surrounds us: radiant sunsets, majestic mountains, brightly colored flowers, glowing gems, soothing foliage, brilliantly adorned birds, etc. Beauty is a mystery to the evolutionist. However, Scripture reveals that God creates beautiful things for our benefit and His glory.

Visit:
Beauty (oldpaths.com)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

84.
Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Physicists do not understand what binds the atoms nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that all things consist  or are held together by the Creator  Jesus Christ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

85.
Atomic fission anticipated (2 Peter 3:10-12). Scripture states that the elements will melt with fervent heat when the earth and the heavens are dissolved by fire. Today we understand that if the elements of the atom are loosed, there would be an enormous release of heat and energy (radiation).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

86.
The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

87.
Safe drinking water (Leviticus 11:33-36). God forbade drinking from vessels or stagnant water that had been contaminated by coming into contact with a dead animal. It is only in the last 100 years that medical science has learned that contaminated water can cause typhoid and cholera.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

88.
Pest control (Leviticus 25:1-24). Farmers are plagued today with insects. Yet God gave a sure-fire remedy to control pests centuries ago. Moses commanded Israel to set aside one year in seven when no crops were raised. Insects winter in the stalks of last years harvest, hatch in the spring, and are perpetuated by laying eggs in the new crop. If the crop is denied one year in seven, the pests have nothing to subsist upon, and are thereby controlled.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

89.
Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if Gods commands were followed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

90.
Animal instincts understood (Job 39; Proverbs 30:24-28; Jeremiah 8:7). A newly hatched spider weaves an intricate web without being taught. A recently emerged butterfly somehow knows to navigate a 2,500-mile migration route without a guide. God explains that He has endowed each creature with specific knowledge. Scripture, not evolution, explains animal instincts.

Visit:
Instinct, Wise Behavior, Unlearned Knowledge And Abilities (oldpaths.com)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

91.
Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in Gods image.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

92.
Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science). True science agrees with the Creators Word.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

93.
Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews  which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.

Visit:
DNA Evidence And The Book Of Mormon (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

94.
Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

95.
Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, Gods Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.

Visit:
Is Man a "Higher" Animal? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

96.
The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donors character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

97.
The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted  introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98.
Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die  The soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of Gods Law. To see if you will die, please review Gods Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then youre an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creators name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy  and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99.
Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death  which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100.
Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person  free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

101.
The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away (Revelation 21:4).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bible is inspired by the Creator. Therefore it is no surprise that lifes ultimate questions are answered within its pages. The Bible reveals the purpose of our existence. Scripture alone explains where our conscience came from. And no other source explains the root cause of death. Seeing that all die, wouldnt it be wise to search for the remedy in the only book that proves it was inspired by God? The Bible offers the only remedy for sin, suffering, and death. Gods Word presents the only perfect, sinless Savior  one who died for our sins and rose from the dead. Jesus is the Creator (John 1; Colossians 1). He said I and My Father are one (John 10:30). He said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:6). And He promises His followers: I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish (John 10:28). Your eternal destiny will be determined by your choice. There is only one provision for sin. Jesus died in your place. Only by faith in Christs finished work will you be saved. This is Gods free gift offered to all. Please do not let pride, religion, opinions, or love for sin separate you from God. No sin is worth an eternity in hell. Please heed Jesus words  Repent, and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15). If you do, you will live in heaven with our awesome Creator forever!


Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> I never said that my need to believe was proof.
> 
> That's all you. Talk about projecting.
> 
> The rest of your post is drivel. It doesn't make sense, it's just hateful nonsense.


you ask, I gave you the most honest answer.
if you don't like the result ,don't ask.
since when is fact hateful? 
no you did not ,it's implied .
as i SAID, you believe and that's all the proof you need.
but then again belief only proves belief.
it does not and can not prove the existence of the thing believed in.  

it takes evidence for that.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know Cbirch to well then,let's just say ,he and I had a very long standing debate on this issue. I have to admit he has gotten better ,he only called me a name once this time.
> 
> You don't have a clue what you are talking about,i put you in the same category as LOKI a want to be.
> 
> 
> 
> that would be "too and wannabe" and I don't have a clue!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are gonna have to forgive my ignorance on your slang.
Click to expand...

 "too" is proper english "wannabe" is proper spelling.
"gonna" is slang. your ignorance is curable


----------



## koshergrl

Yes, and it's "English".


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a spirit,he is love,he is just,he is all knowing,he is almighty,he is the creator of all things,he has always existed,nothing escapes his attention,he makes the rules,and he enforces the rules,there is no one like him.
> 
> 
> 
> only in your mind, there is no quantitative proof to support your claim.
> the bible is not proof as it was written by man ,not god.
> there is no evidence to the contrary.
> BTW your assumption that god is male is erroneous .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me post them for you again.
> 
> 101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   edited due to waste of bandwidth and substituting ASSumption for actual evidence
> and fraudulently  passing off religion for science
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Yes, and it's "English".


yes it is, your point?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that would be "too and wannabe" and I don't have a clue!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are gonna have to forgive my ignorance on your slang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "too" is proper english "wannabe" is proper spelling.
> "gonna" is slang. your ignorance is curable
Click to expand...


Wannabe is slang.

What does WANNABE mean? - WANNABE Definition - Meaning of WANNABE - InternetSlang.com


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly,and God does possess all the answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't claim to know the answers because it goes against the philosophy of science of knowing how much you don't know and then going to find out about it. There's an air of Socrates in it. God has nothing to do with it, and certainly doesn't have any of the answers if anything of the things you claim are the answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No no, you asked if neanderthals had bigger brains, how could we have such a morphological change such as bigger brains then? And I answered that it was irrelevant because we are not directly descended from neanderthals, therefore the morphological change was still valid.
> 
> 
> 
> They're relatives for sure. After all they are part of the genus _homo_, but to call them human would be inaccurate. I never denied their cranial size. cbirch2 has actually been giving you a fairly good explanation on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who have we descended from ? How do you know this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it interesting you claim they're humans and than ask me how we know who we're descended from.
> 
> The answer you're looking for is _homo ergaster_ and possibly _homo erectus_ as well. We know this through fossils, as well as DNA sequencing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are not sure who we are descended from.
Click to expand...


That's not what I said. Try again please.


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that my need to believe was proof.
> 
> That's all you. Talk about projecting.
> 
> The rest of your post is drivel. It doesn't make sense, it's just hateful nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> you ask, I gave you the most honest answer.
> if you don't like the result ,don't ask.
> since when is fact hateful?
> no you did not ,it's implied .
> as i SAID, you believe and that's all the proof you need.
> but then again belief only proves belief.
> it does not and can not prove the existence of the thing believed in.
> 
> it takes evidence for that.
Click to expand...

 
Did I ask? I don't remember.

Anyway, I reiterate. I don't need proof, and I never said faith was proof.

Moron.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Let me post them for you again.
> 
> 101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge
> 
> *--101 APPLICATIONS OF THE TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER FALLACY AND INTENTIONAL MISINFORMATION SNIPPED--​*
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge


This was intentional misinformation the first time you posted it, as it was every time afterward, and still is in this instance.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> You can look at post #1723 to see your admission that you did not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.


I have looked at post 1723, and as anyone who looks at post 1723 can see, there is literally no admission what-so-ever that I do not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.

I know you have faith that such an admission is there, and consistent with faith you're obligated to deny the verifable evidence that such an admission is not there, but the fact of reality remains that no such admission is actually there.

Your accusation is a prima facie example of the necessary renunciation of intellectual and moral integrity that embracing faith requires. 



Youwerecreated said:


> I am not gonna go back and find all of your ignorant posts.


Of course you won't. There are none to go back to. Which, of course, is entirely beside the point; as it is entirely unneccessary for you to validate your beliefs with verifiable evidence, which do not require verifiable evidence for you to hold in the first place. Correct?



Youwerecreated said:


> People reading this thread saw them and was probably hoping you would stop posting.


This is without doubt just denial of reality and wishful thinking on your part.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> He is a spirit,he is love,he is just,he is all knowing,he is almighty,he is the creator of all things,he has always existed,nothing escapes his attention,he makes the rules,and he enforces the rules,there is no one like him.


All I am asking you to do is honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" (i.e. this "God" thing you reference) that you require me to provide when I explain claims regarding the Theory of Evolution--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."

What you have provided here is clearly no such explanation at all.

And I'm pretty certain you really don't mean for it to be an explanation, otherwise by saying "God is ..." what you're telling me is that your notions of love, justice, knowledge, might, things, existence, attention, and rules are all MEANINGLESS; they are all baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Furthermore, in order to validate your notions of love, justice, knowledge, might, things, existence, attention, and rules you must deny all verifiable evidence and valid logic supporting them.

I'm pretty sure you don't really mean to say this, so why don't you make an honest effort to explain this "God" thing you keep referencing. Please provide the kind of response you require--that you would accept--when you ask me to explain some point of evolution.

Is that really too much to ask?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't claim to know the answers because it goes against the philosophy of science of knowing how much you don't know and then going to find out about it. There's an air of Socrates in it. God has nothing to do with it, and certainly doesn't have any of the answers if anything of the things you claim are the answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No no, you asked if neanderthals had bigger brains, how could we have such a morphological change such as bigger brains then? And I answered that it was irrelevant because we are not directly descended from neanderthals, therefore the morphological change was still valid.
> 
> 
> 
> They're relatives for sure. After all they are part of the genus _homo_, but to call them human would be inaccurate. I never denied their cranial size. cbirch2 has actually been giving you a fairly good explanation on it.
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting you claim they're humans and than ask me how we know who we're descended from.
> 
> The answer you're looking for is _homo ergaster_ and possibly _homo erectus_ as well. We know this through fossils, as well as DNA sequencing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not sure who we are descended from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I said. Try again please.
Click to expand...


The ol fossil tree again,someone putting a puzzle to gether in a back room. First you need to prove we descended from apelike creatures. That we have a common ancestor with the chimp.

These are inferred beliefs from your presuppositions not from the evidence.

What your side has done is found crossbreeding ape fossils and tried to build a tree that we humans came from. Saying we share a common ancestor is rediculous. You're saying we had to cross breed and there is no evidence of that.

There definitely is no evidence of gradualism that over time beneficial mutations spread through the population making us what we are today.

These beliefs are merely Inferences of the mind not evidence so it falls under the faith category.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can look at post #1723 to see your admission that you did not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> I have looked at post 1723, and as anyone who looks at post 1723 can see, there is literally no admission what-so-ever that I do not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.
> 
> I know you have faith that such an admission is there, and consistent with faith you're obligated to deny the verifable evidence that such an admission is not there, but the fact of reality remains that no such admission is actually there.
> 
> Your accusation is a prima facie example of the necessary renunciation of intellectual and moral integrity that embracing faith requires.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not gonna go back and find all of your ignorant posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you won't. There are none to go back to. Which, of course, is entirely beside the point; as it is entirely unneccessary for you to validate your beliefs with verifiable evidence, which do not require verifiable evidence for you to hold in the first place. Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> People reading this thread saw them and was probably hoping you would stop posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is without doubt just denial of reality and wishful thinking on your part.
Click to expand...


Did you ask for me to provide someone of science saying that beneficial mutations are needed for evolution  ?

It's right there in the post #1723 where i quoted you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can look at post #1723 to see your admission that you did not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> I have looked at post 1723, and as anyone who looks at post 1723 can see, there is literally no admission what-so-ever that I do not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.
> 
> I know you have faith that such an admission is there, and consistent with faith you're obligated to deny the verifable evidence that such an admission is not there, but the fact of reality remains that no such admission is actually there.
> 
> Your accusation is a prima facie example of the necessary renunciation of intellectual and moral integrity that embracing faith requires.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not gonna go back and find all of your ignorant posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you won't. There are none to go back to. Which, of course, is entirely beside the point; as it is entirely unneccessary for you to validate your beliefs with verifiable evidence, which do not require verifiable evidence for you to hold in the first place. Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> People reading this thread saw them and was probably hoping you would stop posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is without doubt just denial of reality and wishful thinking on your part.
Click to expand...


From post#1723

Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated  
Evolution is considered new and benficial information so how would this be evolution ?

LOKI'S response
"Considered by whom? Direct quote (from an actual and currently practicing mainstream evolutionary scientist) and link, please."


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can look at post #1723 to see your admission that you did not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> I have looked at post 1723, and as anyone who looks at post 1723 can see, there is literally no admission what-so-ever that I do not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.
> 
> I know you have faith that such an admission is there, and consistent with faith you're obligated to deny the verifable evidence that such an admission is not there, but the fact of reality remains that no such admission is actually there.
> 
> Your accusation is a prima facie example of the necessary renunciation of intellectual and moral integrity that embracing faith requires.
> 
> Of course you won't. There are none to go back to. Which, of course, is entirely beside the point; as it is entirely unneccessary for you to validate your beliefs with verifiable evidence, which do not require verifiable evidence for you to hold in the first place. Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> People reading this thread saw them and was probably hoping you would stop posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is without doubt just denial of reality and wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From post#1723
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
> Evolution is considered new and benficial information so how would this be evolution ?
> 
> LOKI'S response
> "Considered by whom? Direct quote (from an actual and currently practicing mainstream evolutionary scientist) and link, please."
Click to expand...

These facts are not in dispute.

What is in dispute is whether or not I admitted that I "... do not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory" not that I have denied that "Evolution is considered new and benficial information."

And, so that another fact of reality that cannot honestly be disputed is not overlooked, you haven't provided any substantiation in the form of a direct quote (with a link) from an actual and currently practicing mainstream evolutionary scientist who says "evolution is considered new and benficial information."


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have looked at post 1723, and as anyone who looks at post 1723 can see, there is literally no admission what-so-ever that I do not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.
> 
> I know you have faith that such an admission is there, and consistent with faith you're obligated to deny the verifable evidence that such an admission is not there, but the fact of reality remains that no such admission is actually there.
> 
> Your accusation is a prima facie example of the necessary renunciation of intellectual and moral integrity that embracing faith requires.
> 
> Of course you won't. There are none to go back to. Which, of course, is entirely beside the point; as it is entirely unneccessary for you to validate your beliefs with verifiable evidence, which do not require verifiable evidence for you to hold in the first place. Correct?
> 
> This is without doubt just denial of reality and wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From post#1723
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
> Evolution is considered new and benficial information so how would this be evolution ?
> 
> LOKI'S response
> "Considered by whom? Direct quote (from an actual and currently practicing mainstream evolutionary scientist) and link, please."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These facts are not in dispute.
> 
> What is in dispute is whether or not I admitted that I "... do not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory" not that I have denied that "Evolution is considered new and benficial information."
> 
> And, so that another fact of reality that cannot honestly be disputed is not overlooked, you haven't provided any substantiation in the form of a direct quote (with a link) from an actual and currently practicing mainstream evolutionary scientist who says "evolution is considered new and benficial information."
Click to expand...


You seem to be a little confused even when you look at your own comment.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Well i have to head out of town for a few hours,i shall return.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> You seem to be a little confused even when you look at your own comment.


The confusion is all on your account.

Asking you to provide substantiation that "*Evolution is* considered new and benficial information", is no denial that "... it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory." It doesn't even suggest it.

I know that your faith requires you to rationalize it that way, but the fact of reality remains that your accusation is entirely baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Your belief is entirely a desperate fabrication of your delusional imagination.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Well i have to head out of town for a few hours,i shall return.


While you're out, why not give this some consideration?


Youwerecreated said:


> He is a spirit,he is love,he is just,he is all knowing,he is almighty,he is the creator of all things,he has always existed,nothing escapes his attention,he makes the rules,and he enforces the rules,there is no one like him.


All I am asking you to do is honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" (i.e. this "God" thing you reference) that you require me to provide when I explain claims regarding the Theory of Evolution--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."

What you have provided here is clearly no such explanation at all.

And I'm pretty certain you really don't mean for it to be an explanation, otherwise by saying "God is ..." what you're telling me is that your notions of love, justice, knowledge, might, things, existence, attention, and rules are all MEANINGLESS; they are all baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Furthermore, in order to validate your notions of love, justice, knowledge, might, things, existence, attention, and rules you must deny all verifiable evidence and valid logic supporting them.

I'm pretty sure you don't really mean to say this, so why don't you make an honest effort to explain this "God" thing you keep referencing. Please provide the kind of response you require--that you would accept--when you ask me to explain some point of evolution.

Is that really too much to ask?


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Troll.


Intellectually gutless, superstitious, duplicitous, morally retarded troll.


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectually gutless, superstitious, duplicitous, morally retarded troll.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, you are all those things, but I chose to tone my description down a little in the spirit of civility.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well i have to head out of town for a few hours,i shall return.
> 
> 
> 
> While you're out, why not give this some consideration?
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a spirit,he is love,he is just,he is all knowing,he is almighty,he is the creator of all things,he has always existed,nothing escapes his attention,he makes the rules,and he enforces the rules,there is no one like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All I am asking you to do is honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" (i.e. this "God" thing you reference) that you require me to provide when I explain claims regarding the Theory of Evolution--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."
> 
> What you have provided here is clearly no such explanation at all.
> 
> And I'm pretty certain you really don't mean for it to be an explanation, otherwise by saying "God is ..." what you're telling me is that your notions of love, justice, knowledge, might, things, existence, attention, and rules are all MEANINGLESS; they are all baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Furthermore, in order to validate your notions of love, justice, knowledge, might, things, existence, attention, and rules you must deny all verifiable evidence and valid logic supporting them.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you don't really mean to say this, so why don't you make an honest effort to explain this "God" thing you keep referencing. Please provide the kind of response you require--that you would accept--when you ask me to explain some point of evolution.
> 
> Is that really too much to ask?
Click to expand...


All i can give you is what the scriptures say. If you're looking for something beyond that you will have to wait for his coming just like the rest of us . But thanks for admitting your views to are based in faith.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well i have to head out of town for a few hours,i shall return.
> 
> 
> 
> While you're out, why not give this some consideration?
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a spirit,he is love,he is just,he is all knowing,he is almighty,he is the creator of all things,he has always existed,nothing escapes his attention,he makes the rules,and he enforces the rules,there is no one like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All I am asking you to do is honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" (i.e. this "God" thing you reference) that you require me to provide when I explain claims regarding the Theory of Evolution--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."
> 
> What you have provided here is clearly no such explanation at all.
> 
> And I'm pretty certain you really don't mean for it to be an explanation, otherwise by saying "God is ..." what you're telling me is that your notions of love, justice, knowledge, might, things, existence, attention, and rules are all MEANINGLESS; they are all baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Furthermore, in order to validate your notions of love, justice, knowledge, might, things, existence, attention, and rules you must deny all verifiable evidence and valid logic supporting them.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you don't really mean to say this, so why don't you make an honest effort to explain this "God" thing you keep referencing. Please provide the kind of response you require--that you would accept--when you ask me to explain some point of evolution.
> 
> Is that really too much to ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All i can give you is what the scriptures say. If you're looking for something beyond that you will have to wait for his coming just like the rest of us .
Click to expand...

I understand you completely; you have no verifiable or logically valid basis for understanding what you believe in, or the beliefs of others which you criticize. Thank you for your candid admission that you have no idea what you're talking about; that everything you post is simply obtuse denials of reality; all entirely baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.



Youwerecreated said:


> But thanks for admitting your views to are based in faith.


No such admission was submitted, but thank you again, for so unambiguously affirming that you have no idea what you're talking about; that everything you post is simply obtuse denials of reality; all entirely baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectually gutless, superstitious, duplicitous, morally retarded troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are all those things, but I chose to tone my description down a little in the spirit of civility.
Click to expand...

In recognition of the recent holiday, I wish to thank you for affirming your resolute commitment to being an intellectually gutless, superstitious, duplicitous, morally retarded troll.


----------



## koshergrl

Sorry, that won't work, troll.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Sorry, that won't work, troll.


It's working perfectly.

Feel free to continue with your enthusiastic affirmations of your unmistakably cretinous nature.


----------



## Sky Dancer

The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right&#8212;mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.

Scientist Arthur Kaplan


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, that won't work, troll.
> 
> 
> 
> It's working perfectly.
> 
> Feel free to continue with your enthusiastic affirmations of your unmistakably cretinous nature.
Click to expand...


----------



## koshergrl

Sky Dancer said:


> The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was rightmankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.


No, it doesn't, you idiot.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, that won't work, troll.
> 
> 
> 
> It's working perfectly.
> 
> Feel free to continue with your enthusiastic affirmations of your unmistakably cretinous nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Sky Dancer

koshergrl said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right&#8212;mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't, you idiot.
Click to expand...


End of discussion, name caller.

Intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case for its theory.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly or he just allowed variations within a family.
> 
> 
> 
> Literally no evolutionist anywhere is disputing the genetic variation that exists within a taxonomic family--as a matter of fact, such variation is in perfect agreement with evolutionary theory, but your Creation science has no explanation for it; IT'S INEXPLICABLE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It fits perfectly with creation,we believe in microevolution which adds up to microadaptations which brings about variations within a family,not macroevolution that means new family.
> 
> Cross breeding and parental traits, i answered this before . I guess it didn't sink in.
> 
> You're amazing
Click to expand...



How exactly do you propose a mechanism that forces the mutations to keep the organism within a certain set of characteristics?

DNA is just a long sequence of Thymine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Adenine, The order of those determine the proteins expressed. Mutations change one of those to another. That changes the protein express. 

If mutations are random how do you exactly expect the organism to just vary?

imagine a bacteria a billion years ago with the DNA sequence "ACGTACGTACGT". In one generation, a single mutation might take place. Maybe the offspring looks like "*T*CGTACGTACGT". Adenine was replaced with Thymine. It reproduces over and over and small variations begin to build up. after a billion years, how can you guarantee that those random variations have not changed it to something like "TGCATGCATGCA".

And if two organisms have totally dissimilar genomes, how can you possibly consider them the same species


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectually gutless, superstitious, duplicitous, morally retarded troll.
Click to expand...




LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll.
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectually gutless, superstitious, duplicitous, morally retarded troll.
Click to expand...


When you look at life animals and humans it is very easy to detect design .that is evidence of a designer.So how would you explain evidence that shows that intelligence was required to create something ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Sky Dancer said:


> The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was rightmankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.
> 
> Scientist Arthur Kaplan



Care to share what exactly does the genome  reveal to support your comment ? Which genome are you speaking of ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Sky Dancer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was rightmankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> End of discussion, name caller.
> 
> Intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case for its theory.
Click to expand...


so that is why you believe the genome proves macroevolution  yes they have,bit you think its proving Gods existence then no they have not done that. Before you make blanket statements about something you know little on you might want to research it before you make such statements so you don't look foolish.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Literally no evolutionist anywhere is disputing the genetic variation that exists within a taxonomic family--as a matter of fact, such variation is in perfect agreement with evolutionary theory, but your Creation science has no explanation for it; IT'S INEXPLICABLE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It fits perfectly with creation,we believe in microevolution which adds up to microadaptations which brings about variations within a family,not macroevolution that means new family.
> 
> Cross breeding and parental traits, i answered this before . I guess it didn't sink in.
> 
> You're amazing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly do you propose a mechanism that forces the mutations to keep the organism within a certain set of characteristics?
> 
> DNA is just a long sequence of Thymine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Adenine, The order of those determine the proteins expressed. Mutations change one of those to another. That changes the protein express.
> 
> If mutations are random how do you exactly expect the organism to just vary?
> 
> imagine a bacteria a billion years ago with the DNA sequence "ACGTACGTACGT". In one generation, a single mutation might take place. Maybe the offspring looks like "*T*CGTACGTACGT". Adenine was replaced with Thymine. It reproduces over and over and small variations begin to build up. after a billion years, how can you guarantee that those random variations have not changed it to something like "TGCATGCATGCA".
> 
> And if two organisms have totally dissimilar genomes, how can you possibly consider them the same species
Click to expand...


Because animals from the same family have different genetic data does not mean they are no longer from that family why must they be classified as a different species ? That is why I prefer kind or family as a description. But it the best way to do it is name them by breeds. Do we know the difference between a wolf,coyote,and fox. What's the point of defining a new species when breed pretty much covers it.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> When you look at life animals and humans it is very easy to detect design .


Only if you first presume a designer.



Youwerecreated said:


> that is evidence of a designer.


No. Having first presumed a designer, calling that "evidence" is question-begging.

But let's just allow the fallacy to slide for a moment ... the only "designers" we have verifiable evidence of are human beings. The only "designers" we can legitimately propose (you know, without just imagining one for the purpose) are human beings. If we understand that the only "designers" we have evidence of could not have designed everything, then we must look elsewhere.

If we look, and we see natural causes for effects, but see no (other) designers about designing things, then the evidence and valid logic leads to a conclusion that the effects we see are the result of the natural causes we see. Making up some designer that has no other explanation than "that's what we believe", is not logically or evidentially valid.

Just to remind you, I'm not saying that this "proves" there is no Creator, I'm not saying that there is no Creator, I'm just saying there's no verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to honestly propose, let alone defend, the notion that there is a Creator.

Savvy?



Youwerecreated said:


> So how would you explain evidence that shows that intelligence was required to create something ?


What evidence?

Or are you speaking hypothetically?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are gonna have to forgive my ignorance on your slang.
> 
> 
> 
> "too" is proper english "wannabe" is proper spelling.
> "gonna" is slang. your ignorance is curable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wannabe is slang.
> 
> What does WANNABE mean? - WANNABE Definition - Meaning of WANNABE - InternetSlang.com
Click to expand...

yes it is ..your point!?


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that my need to believe was proof.
> 
> That's all you. Talk about projecting.
> 
> The rest of your post is drivel. It doesn't make sense, it's just hateful nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> you ask, I gave you the most honest answer.
> if you don't like the result ,don't ask.
> since when is fact hateful?
> no you did not ,it's implied .
> as i SAID, you believe and that's all the proof you need.
> but then again belief only proves belief.
> it does not and can not prove the existence of the thing believed in.
> 
> it takes evidence for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I ask? I don't remember.
> 
> Anyway, I reiterate. I don't need proof, and I never said faith was proof.
> 
> Moron.
Click to expand...

i'll reintegrate ,you seem to be slow on the uptake.YOUR belife IS your proof.


----------



## daws101

Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik

fits all the criteria for beneficial mutation....


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you ask, I gave you the most honest answer.
> if you don't like the result ,don't ask.
> since when is fact hateful?
> no you did not ,it's implied .
> as i SAID, you believe and that's all the proof you need.
> but then again belief only proves belief.
> it does not and can not prove the existence of the thing believed in.
> 
> it takes evidence for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I ask? I don't remember.
> 
> Anyway, I reiterate. I don't need proof, and I never said faith was proof.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i'll reintegrate ,you seem to be slow on the uptake.YOUR belife IS your proof.
Click to expand...

 
What the hell is "reintegrate"? And what is "belife"?

Anyway, my belief isn't my proof. I keep telling you retards and yet you can't seem to get it through your thick stupid skulls...I DON'T NEED PROOF. You say that belief can't be proof...then you say that my proof is belief. Hello? This is just silliness and semantics...


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I ask? I don't remember.
> 
> Anyway, I reiterate. I don't need proof, and I never said faith was proof.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> i'll reintegrate ,you seem to be slow on the uptake.YOUR belife IS your proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is "reintegrate"? And what is "belife"?
> 
> Anyway, my belief isn't my proof. I keep telling you retards and yet you can't seem to get it through your thick stupid skulls...I DON'T NEED PROOF. You say that belief can't be proof...then you say that my proof is belief. Hello? This is just silliness and semantics...
Click to expand...

didn't use spell check...my bad!
if you understood the concept of real evidence as compared belief based thinking(magical thinking) you'd understand the need for empirical evidence. 

Ok.... i'll bite, what is "your proof"?


----------



## LOki

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'll reintegrate ,you seem to be slow on the uptake.YOUR belife IS your proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell is "reintegrate"? And what is "belife"?
> 
> Anyway, my belief isn't my proof. I keep telling you retards and yet you can't seem to get it through your thick stupid skulls...I DON'T NEED PROOF. You say that belief can't be proof...then you say that my proof is belief. Hello? This is just silliness and semantics...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> didn't use spell check...my bad!
> if you understood the concept of real evidence as compared belief based thinking(magical thinking) you'd understand the need for empirical evidence.
> 
> Ok.... i'll bite, what is "your proof"?
Click to expand...

You're missing the point she's making; she needs no proof what-so-ever to hold her beliefs. NONE. There's no verifiable evidence upon which her belief is founded; there is no valid logic that brings her to her beliefs. The facts of reality are entirely immaterial to her beliefs. She has faith. That is what faith is.

Faith is belief held without any support or basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Faith is validated by the holder's persistence in maintaining their belief in the face of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic--faith is literally validated by the denial of verifable evidence and valid logic.

This is why the superstitious, like koshergrl here, are always demanding that you "prove" them wrong, and why they are always disappointed when you merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support your belief. Denying evidence is like breathing air for these retards, but if you were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then you would have finally brought a real test of their faith--if they manage to maintain their retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but their delusional imagination, then they would "know"--they would finally have that certainty in themselves that they have in their magical imaginary friends--that they can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over their fellows.

In the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to them, to koshergrl in fact. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of your time to expose them for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards that they are; to point out vividly their intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects so their vain, mendacious, anti-reason, reality-denying hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful society.


----------



## daws101

LOki said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell is "reintegrate"? And what is "belife"?
> 
> Anyway, my belief isn't my proof. I keep telling you retards and yet you can't seem to get it through your thick stupid skulls...I DON'T NEED PROOF. You say that belief can't be proof...then you say that my proof is belief. Hello? This is just silliness and semantics...
> 
> 
> 
> didn't use spell check...my bad!
> if you understood the concept of real evidence as compared belief based thinking(magical thinking) you'd understand the need for empirical evidence.
> 
> Ok.... i'll bite, what is "your proof"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point she's making; she needs no proof what-so-ever to hold her beliefs. NONE. There's no verifiable evidence upon which her belief is founded; there is no valid logic that brings her to her beliefs. The facts of reality are entirely immaterial to her beliefs. She has faith. That is what faith is.
> 
> Faith is belief held without any support or basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Faith is validated by the holders persistence in maintaining their belief in the face of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic--faith is literally validated by the denial of verifable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> This is why the superstitious, like koshergrl here, are always demanding that you "prove" them wrong, and why they are always disappointed when you merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support your belief. Denying evidence is like breathing air for these retards, but if you were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then you would have finally brought a real test of their faith--if they manage to maintain their retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but their delusional imagination, then they would "know"--they would finally have that certainty in themselves that they have in their magical imaginary friends--that they can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over their fellows.
> 
> In the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to them, to koshergrl in fact. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of your time to expose them for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards that they are; to point out vividly their intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects so their vain, mendacious, hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful society.
Click to expand...

thanks, I understand the concept of faith.


----------



## daws101

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## LOki

daws101 said:


> Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
> 
> Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.
> 
> The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Dude. In her mind, you just "proved" she is right.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "too" is proper english "wannabe" is proper spelling.
> "gonna" is slang. your ignorance is curable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wannabe is slang.
> 
> What does WANNABE mean? - WANNABE Definition - Meaning of WANNABE - InternetSlang.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes it is ..your point!?
Click to expand...


Look I rather stay on topic ,but you said it was proper English not slang.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you look at life animals and humans it is very easy to detect design .
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you first presume a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is evidence of a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Having first presumed a designer, calling that "evidence" is question-begging.
> 
> But let's just allow the fallacy to slide for a moment ... the only "designers" we have verifiable evidence of are human beings. The only "designers" we can legitimately propose (you know, without just imagining one for the purpose) are human beings. If we understand that the only "designers" we have evidence of could not have designed everything, then we must look elsewhere.
> 
> If we look, and we see natural causes for effects, but see no (other) designers about designing things, then the evidence and valid logic leads to a conclusion that the effects we see are the result of the natural causes we see. Making up some designer that has no other explanation than "that's what we believe", is not logically or evidentially valid.
> 
> Just to remind you, I'm not saying that this "proves" there is no Creator, I'm not saying that there is no Creator, I'm just saying there's no verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to honestly propose, let alone defend, the notion that there is a Creator.
> 
> Savvy?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how would you explain evidence that shows that intelligence was required to create something ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What evidence?
> 
> Or are you speaking hypothetically?
Click to expand...


Yeah house,medicine,car,telephone,computer,launguages, and they were all designed by the brain. But the brain was not designed or programmed by intelligence according to your beliefs. That does not sound contradictory to you ?

Everything in the body serves a purpose how is that not evidence for design ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you ask, I gave you the most honest answer.
> if you don't like the result ,don't ask.
> since when is fact hateful?
> no you did not ,it's implied .
> as i SAID, you believe and that's all the proof you need.
> but then again belief only proves belief.
> it does not and can not prove the existence of the thing believed in.
> 
> it takes evidence for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I ask? I don't remember.
> 
> Anyway, I reiterate. I don't need proof, and I never said faith was proof.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i'll reintegrate ,you seem to be slow on the uptake.YOUR belife IS your proof.
Click to expand...


No,i posted many reasons why we can trust that the bible is the word od of God,the bible strengthens our faith to believe. Circular reasoning somewhat but evolution requires circular reasoning for some of their beliefs to. By putting an age on a fossil because the strata it's found in.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik
> 
> fits all the criteria for beneficial mutation....




Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2


An in-depth look

by Dr. David N. Menton on

May 23, 2007

Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2 - Answers in Genesis

Instead of jumping to conclusions take a look.

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_53-57.pdf


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
> 
> Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.
> 
> The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Speak for yourself.


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not sure who we are descended from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said. Try again please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ol fossil tree again,someone putting a puzzle to gether in a back room. First you need to prove we descended from apelike creatures. That we have a common ancestor with the chimp.
Click to expand...


Which we have. We've used molecular evidence to prove it.



> These are inferred beliefs from your presuppositions not from the evidence.



See above. Keep in mind, you've never offered anything in the way of scientific evidence otherwise, or even a reply that actually addresses what my original posts were about.



> What your side has done is found crossbreeding ape fossils and tried to build a tree that we humans came from. Saying we share a common ancestor is rediculous. You're saying we had to cross breed and there is no evidence of that.



Crossbreeding is a bullshit theory, and I've swatted it down before when you've said. Please stop continuing to act like it's correct, you're only showing how little you actually understand of genetics and biology.



> There definitely is no evidence of gradualism that over time beneficial mutations spread through the population making us what we are today.



You'll find biologists split over gradualism or punctuated equilibrium. But, over time beneficial mutations spreading through a population does in fact happen. We know this occurs, the proof is purely mountainous.



> These beliefs are merely Inferences of the mind not evidence so it falls under the faith category.



It's based on hard evidence. Which you've never provided a shred of for creationism. Please stop wasting everyone's time if you're just going to ignore someone every time they present evidence to you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you look at life animals and humans it is very easy to detect design .
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you first presume a designer.
> 
> 
> No. Having first presumed a designer, calling that "evidence" is question-begging.
> 
> But let's just allow the fallacy to slide for a moment ... the only "designers" we have verifiable evidence of are human beings. The only "designers" we can legitimately propose (you know, without just imagining one for the purpose) are human beings. If we understand that the only "designers" we have evidence of could not have designed everything, then we must look elsewhere.
> 
> If we look, and we see natural causes for effects, but see no (other) designers about designing things, then the evidence and valid logic leads to a conclusion that the effects we see are the result of the natural causes we see. Making up some designer that has no other explanation than "that's what we believe", is not logically or evidentially valid.
> 
> Just to remind you, I'm not saying that this "proves" there is no Creator, I'm not saying that there is no Creator, I'm just saying there's no verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to honestly propose, let alone defend, the notion that there is a Creator.
> 
> Savvy?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how would you explain evidence that shows that intelligence was required to create something ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What evidence?
> 
> Or are you speaking hypothetically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah house,medicine,car,telephone,computer,launguages, and they were all designed by the brain.
Click to expand...

Presented as if I didn't address this, so ... ?



Youwerecreated said:


> But the brain was not designed or programmed by intelligence according to your beliefs.


I'll just bet you find these beliefs you say I have very convenient.



Youwerecreated said:


> That does not sound contradictory to you ?


Contradictory to what?



Youwerecreated said:


> Everything in the body serves a purpose how is that not evidence for design ?


Your question has Texas Sharpshooting and question-begging premises.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said. Try again please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ol fossil tree again,someone putting a puzzle to gether in a back room. First you need to prove we descended from apelike creatures. That we have a common ancestor with the chimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which we have. We've used molecular evidence to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> See above. Keep in mind, you've never offered anything in the way of scientific evidence otherwise, or even a reply that actually addresses what my original posts were about.
> 
> 
> 
> Crossbreeding is a bullshit theory, and I've swatted it down before when you've said. Please stop continuing to act like it's correct, you're only showing how little you actually understand of genetics and biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There definitely is no evidence of gradualism that over time beneficial mutations spread through the population making us what we are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll find biologists split over gradualism or punctuated equilibrium. But, over time beneficial mutations spreading through a population does in fact happen. We know this occurs, the proof is purely mountainous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These beliefs are merely Inferences of the mind not evidence so it falls under the faith category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's based on hard evidence. Which you've never provided a shred of for creationism. Please stop wasting everyone's time if you're just going to ignore someone every time they present evidence to you.
Click to expand...


No we havn't. Are you referring to chromosome #2 ?

If not what molecular evidence are you referring to ?

Are genes what determine the offspring yes or no ?

No it is not,because you don't know if the information came through mutations or was already present in the genepool.

What evidence have you presented ? you have presented what you read from books and never actually looked at yourself.

You're insulting my professor to say i don't understand what he taught. I just don't hide behind lies and i call it how i see it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you first presume a designer.
> 
> 
> No. Having first presumed a designer, calling that "evidence" is question-begging.
> 
> But let's just allow the fallacy to slide for a moment ... the only "designers" we have verifiable evidence of are human beings. The only "designers" we can legitimately propose (you know, without just imagining one for the purpose) are human beings. If we understand that the only "designers" we have evidence of could not have designed everything, then we must look elsewhere.
> 
> If we look, and we see natural causes for effects, but see no (other) designers about designing things, then the evidence and valid logic leads to a conclusion that the effects we see are the result of the natural causes we see. Making up some designer that has no other explanation than "that's what we believe", is not logically or evidentially valid.
> 
> Just to remind you, I'm not saying that this "proves" there is no Creator, I'm not saying that there is no Creator, I'm just saying there's no verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to honestly propose, let alone defend, the notion that there is a Creator.
> 
> Savvy?
> 
> What evidence?
> 
> Or are you speaking hypothetically?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah house,medicine,car,telephone,computer,launguages, and they were all designed by the brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Presented as if I didn't address this, so ... ?
> 
> I'll just bet you find these beliefs you say I have very convenient.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not sound contradictory to you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Contradictory to what?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in the body serves a purpose how is that not evidence for design ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your question has Texas Sharpshooting and question-begging premises.
Click to expand...


If you can't see the contradiction in your reasoning i can't help you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you first presume a designer.
> 
> 
> No. Having first presumed a designer, calling that "evidence" is question-begging.
> 
> But let's just allow the fallacy to slide for a moment ... the only "designers" we have verifiable evidence of are human beings. The only "designers" we can legitimately propose (you know, without just imagining one for the purpose) are human beings. If we understand that the only "designers" we have evidence of could not have designed everything, then we must look elsewhere.
> 
> If we look, and we see natural causes for effects, but see no (other) designers about designing things, then the evidence and valid logic leads to a conclusion that the effects we see are the result of the natural causes we see. Making up some designer that has no other explanation than "that's what we believe", is not logically or evidentially valid.
> 
> Just to remind you, I'm not saying that this "proves" there is no Creator, I'm not saying that there is no Creator, I'm just saying there's no verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to honestly propose, let alone defend, the notion that there is a Creator.
> 
> Savvy?
> 
> What evidence?
> 
> Or are you speaking hypothetically?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah house,medicine,car,telephone,computer,launguages, and they were all designed by the brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Presented as if I didn't address this, so ... ?
> 
> I'll just bet you find these beliefs you say I have very convenient.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not sound contradictory to you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Contradictory to what?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in the body serves a purpose how is that not evidence for design ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your question has Texas Sharpshooting and question-begging premises.
Click to expand...


You really need me to point out the contradiction ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said. Try again please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ol fossil tree again,someone putting a puzzle to gether in a back room. First you need to prove we descended from apelike creatures. That we have a common ancestor with the chimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which we have. We've used molecular evidence to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> See above. Keep in mind, you've never offered anything in the way of scientific evidence otherwise, or even a reply that actually addresses what my original posts were about.
> 
> 
> 
> Crossbreeding is a bullshit theory, and I've swatted it down before when you've said. Please stop continuing to act like it's correct, you're only showing how little you actually understand of genetics and biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There definitely is no evidence of gradualism that over time beneficial mutations spread through the population making us what we are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll find biologists split over gradualism or punctuated equilibrium. But, over time beneficial mutations spreading through a population does in fact happen. We know this occurs, the proof is purely mountainous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These beliefs are merely Inferences of the mind not evidence so it falls under the faith category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's based on hard evidence. Which you've never provided a shred of for creationism. Please stop wasting everyone's time if you're just going to ignore someone every time they present evidence to you.
Click to expand...


So who has been more successful with predictions concerning mutations ,creationist or evolutionist ?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It fits perfectly with creation,we believe in microevolution which adds up to microadaptations which brings about variations within a family,not macroevolution that means new family.
> 
> Cross breeding and parental traits, i answered this before . I guess it didn't sink in.
> 
> You're amazing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly do you propose a mechanism that forces the mutations to keep the organism within a certain set of characteristics?
> 
> DNA is just a long sequence of Thymine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Adenine, The order of those determine the proteins expressed. Mutations change one of those to another. That changes the protein express.
> 
> If mutations are random how do you exactly expect the organism to just vary?
> 
> imagine a bacteria a billion years ago with the DNA sequence "ACGTACGTACGT". In one generation, a single mutation might take place. Maybe the offspring looks like "*T*CGTACGTACGT". Adenine was replaced with Thymine. It reproduces over and over and small variations begin to build up. after a billion years, how can you guarantee that those random variations have not changed it to something like "TGCATGCATGCA".
> 
> And if two organisms have totally dissimilar genomes, how can you possibly consider them the same species
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because animals from the same family have different genetic data does not mean they are no longer from that family why must they be classified as a different species ?
Click to expand...


Do you seriously not fucking understand genetics??!?!?!

Every humans genome is over 99% identical....If two genomes are 0% similar, like the ones above, they have to be a different species. they dont even code for the same genes. They code for totally different structures. 

Your human analogy is horrible. Every human is 99% identical.



Youwerecreated said:


> That is why I prefer kind or family as a description. But it the best way to do it is name them by breeds. Do we know the difference between a wolf,coyote,and fox. What's the point of defining a new species when breed pretty much covers it.



"breed" - A *breed* is a group of domestic animals or plants with a homogeneous appearance, behavior, and other characteristics that distinguish it from other animals or plants of the same species.  Despite the centrality of the idea of "breeds" to animal husbandry,  *there is no scientifically accepted definition of the term.

*Because the situation is much more complex than you even understand!

How exactly do you apply that to a bacteria?!?!?!

Creationists always apply the top-down fallacy. 

EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE ON A GENETIC LEVEL! The mutation doesnt care what the animal looks like now, its just going to mutate one of those A's, C's, G's, or T's.


----------



## cbirch2

And based on your definition of breed, can i ask you a few things? Or maybe make a few assumptions about what you might believe, based on this idea of a breed. 

So take the idea of darwins finches. The idea being that they originated on the mainland and spread out to each island. They then diversified, microevolved if u must use that term, independently. That is, the populations on each island would be slightly different because they have no way of "microevolving" together since theyre separated. 

Science classifies these birds as different species. I assume you would view this classification as more or less pointless, because the animals are still within the same "breed". correct?

(I feel like you couldnt define breed more accurately and thats why  generalized, but ok...)

Am i basically right about the finches though????


----------



## cbirch2

and genomes are similar because the structures are similar, and DNA is like the hammer with which god constructs the house. So obviously god gave every animal a set of "heart genes", and such, because they need a heart.

This is similar to your belief about the similarity between the genomes of different species, correct?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly do you propose a mechanism that forces the mutations to keep the organism within a certain set of characteristics?
> 
> DNA is just a long sequence of Thymine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Adenine, The order of those determine the proteins expressed. Mutations change one of those to another. That changes the protein express.
> 
> If mutations are random how do you exactly expect the organism to just vary?
> 
> imagine a bacteria a billion years ago with the DNA sequence "ACGTACGTACGT". In one generation, a single mutation might take place. Maybe the offspring looks like "*T*CGTACGTACGT". Adenine was replaced with Thymine. It reproduces over and over and small variations begin to build up. after a billion years, how can you guarantee that those random variations have not changed it to something like "TGCATGCATGCA".
> 
> And if two organisms have totally dissimilar genomes, how can you possibly consider them the same species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because animals from the same family have different genetic data does not mean they are no longer from that family why must they be classified as a different species ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you seriously not fucking understand genetics??!?!?!
> 
> Every humans genome is over 99% identical....If two genomes are 0% similar, like the ones above, they have to be a different species. they dont even code for the same genes. They code for totally different structures.
> 
> Your human analogy is horrible. Every human is 99% identical.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why I prefer kind or family as a description. But it the best way to do it is name them by breeds. Do we know the difference between a wolf,coyote,and fox. What's the point of defining a new species when breed pretty much covers it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "breed" - A *breed* is a group of domestic animals or plants with a homogeneous appearance, behavior, and other characteristics that distinguish it from other animals or plants of the same species.  Despite the centrality of the idea of "breeds" to animal husbandry,  *there is no scientifically accepted definition of the term.
> 
> *Because the situation is much more complex than you even understand!
> 
> How exactly do you apply that to a bacteria?!?!?!
> 
> Creationists always apply the top-down fallacy.
> 
> EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE ON A GENETIC LEVEL! The mutation doesnt care what the animal looks like now, its just going to mutate one of those A's, C's, G's, or T's.
Click to expand...


Is this another claim like the claim if a human does not have 46 chromosomes it's not a human ?

So spare me do i understand genetics.

Do you understand kind or breed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> And based on your definition of breed, can i ask you a few things? Or maybe make a few assumptions about what you might believe, based on this idea of a breed.
> 
> So take the idea of darwins finches. The idea being that they originated on the mainland and spread out to each island. They then diversified, microevolved if u must use that term, independently. That is, the populations on each island would be slightly different because they have no way of "microevolving" together since theyre separated.
> 
> Science classifies these birds as different species. I assume you would view this classification as more or less pointless, because the animals are still within the same "breed". correct?
> 
> (I feel like you couldnt define breed more accurately and thats why  generalized, but ok...)
> 
> Am i basically right about the finches though????



They are all of the same family and yes there are different breeds of finches. But when the drought was over the shorter beaked finch made a come back  because they did not evolve,but simply were being hurt by natural selection because the other finches were better adapted to drought conditions.


----------



## cbirch2

I like the example of protein composition to refute this one. 

So review: DNA is composed of nucleotides, three nuclotides form a codon, a codon codes for an amino acid, amino acids form proteins. Single mutations mutate amino acids. Most amino acid mutations dont change the overall structure of the protein, because a protein is thousands of amino acids long. 

So these random mutations in the amino acid composition of certain proteins builds up as time goes on. The variation in non-essential amino acids in two samples can therefore be used to infer the amount of time (number of generations, number of DNA replications, however you want to look at it). between them. 

What we find when we look at certain proteins are just this. For example, Cytochrome C in every human has a nearly identical amino acid sequence. The similarities follow the evolutionary pattern, primates are slightly more varied, bacteria are much more varied. 

So this isnt a case of god having to change the structure for new function, the amino acid variations are useless. But the frequency of them can be used to determine how many generations have passed. 

So....Is god just fucking with us?


----------



## cbirch2

I mean seriously? God gave the entire universe to humans on earth???

There are billions of stars in this galaxy and billions of galaxies in the universe. Even the stars you see at night are only a fraction of the stars in our local neighborhood within our galaxy. 

We've even found planets outside of our own solar system. Hundreds in fact. 

How exactly does that match up to your biblical story? Why did god give us a different solar system 7 billion light years away??

I can certainly accept the idea of a god, but he didnt just make people and animals as they are.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because animals from the same family have different genetic data does not mean they are no longer from that family why must they be classified as a different species ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously not fucking understand genetics??!?!?!
> 
> Every humans genome is over 99% identical....If two genomes are 0% similar, like the ones above, they have to be a different species. they dont even code for the same genes. They code for totally different structures.
> 
> Your human analogy is horrible. Every human is 99% identical.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why I prefer kind or family as a description. But it the best way to do it is name them by breeds. Do we know the difference between a wolf,coyote,and fox. What's the point of defining a new species when breed pretty much covers it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "breed" - A *breed* is a group of domestic animals or plants with a homogeneous appearance, behavior, and other characteristics that distinguish it from other animals or plants of the same species.  Despite the centrality of the idea of "breeds" to animal husbandry,  *there is no scientifically accepted definition of the term.
> 
> *Because the situation is much more complex than you even understand!
> 
> How exactly do you apply that to a bacteria?!?!?!
> 
> Creationists always apply the top-down fallacy.
> 
> EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE ON A GENETIC LEVEL! The mutation doesnt care what the animal looks like now, its just going to mutate one of those A's, C's, G's, or T's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this another claim like the claim if a human does not have 46 chromosomes it's not a human ?
> 
> So spare me do i understand genetics.
> 
> Do you understand kind or breed ?
Click to expand...


Omg will you please address the example i provided? How is that impossible? By what mechanism do mutations not change certain characteristics that define a breed. 

idiot.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> and genomes are similar because the structures are similar, and DNA is like the hammer with which god constructs the house. So obviously god gave every animal a set of "heart genes", and such, because they need a heart.
> 
> This is similar to your belief about the similarity between the genomes of different species, correct?



God formed things out of similar substances and gave the substances different abilities and different looks.

Some hearts beat faster,some heart are bigger,some hearts pump more blood.

Wings,some wings cause flight, some wings are bigger,some wings flap faster,some wings don't allow flight.

Same with eyes,arms,and legs.

Everything points to design not chance.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And based on your definition of breed, can i ask you a few things? Or maybe make a few assumptions about what you might believe, based on this idea of a breed.
> 
> So take the idea of darwins finches. The idea being that they originated on the mainland and spread out to each island. They then diversified, microevolved if u must use that term, independently. That is, the populations on each island would be slightly different because they have no way of "microevolving" together since theyre separated.
> 
> Science classifies these birds as different species. I assume you would view this classification as more or less pointless, because the animals are still within the same "breed". correct?
> 
> (I feel like you couldnt define breed more accurately and thats why  generalized, but ok...)
> 
> Am i basically right about the finches though????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are all of the same family and yes there are different breeds of finches. But when the drought was over the shorter beaked finch made a come back  because they did not evolve,but simply were being hurt by natural selection because the other finches were better adapted to drought conditions.
Click to expand...


Um what? Your example had nothing to do with evolution. Are darwins finches all eventually descended from a single type of bird or not? Is genetic variation of that extent possible or did god create them separate????


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and genomes are similar because the structures are similar, and DNA is like the hammer with which god constructs the house. So obviously god gave every animal a set of "heart genes", and such, because they need a heart.
> 
> This is similar to your belief about the similarity between the genomes of different species, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God formed things out of similar substances and gave the substances different abilities and different looks.
> 
> Some hearts beat faster,some heart are bigger,some hearts pump more blood.
> 
> Wings,some wings cause flight, some wings are bigger,some wings flap faster,some wings don't allow flight.
> 
> Same with eyes,arms,and legs.
> 
> Everything points to design not chance.
Click to expand...


So your stance is that god wanted all animals to have a heart and therefore he gave them a set of heart genes. and thats why some animals share characteristics. Not because theyre descended from eachother.

Correct?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> I like the example of protein composition to refute this one.
> 
> So review: DNA is composed of nucleotides, three nuclotides form a codon, a codon codes for an amino acid, amino acids form proteins. Single mutations mutate amino acids. Most amino acid mutations dont change the overall structure of the protein, because a protein is thousands of amino acids long.
> 
> So these random mutations in the amino acid composition of certain proteins builds up as time goes on. The difference in the amount of variation in non-essential amino acids in two samples can therefore be used to infer the amount of time between them.
> 
> What we find when we look at certain proteins are just this. For example, Cytochrome C in every human has a nearly identical amino acid sequence. The similarities follow the evolutionary pattern, primates are slightly more varied, bacteria are much more varied.
> 'So this isnt a case of god having to change the structure for new function, the amino acid variations are useless. But the frequency of them can be used to determine how many generations have passed.
> 
> So....Is god just fucking with us?



If God exists and created all things he is not messing with us we just can't fugure out how he did it all.

It is nothing more then ignorance if man thinks he has all the answers, and we know we are not even close to having all the answers. So please show a litlle respect just in case you're wrong.

Which by the way you're respectfully.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the example of protein composition to refute this one.
> 
> So review: DNA is composed of nucleotides, three nuclotides form a codon, a codon codes for an amino acid, amino acids form proteins. Single mutations mutate amino acids. Most amino acid mutations dont change the overall structure of the protein, because a protein is thousands of amino acids long.
> 
> So these random mutations in the amino acid composition of certain proteins builds up as time goes on. The difference in the amount of variation in non-essential amino acids in two samples can therefore be used to infer the amount of time between them.
> 
> What we find when we look at certain proteins are just this. For example, Cytochrome C in every human has a nearly identical amino acid sequence. The similarities follow the evolutionary pattern, primates are slightly more varied, bacteria are much more varied.
> 'So this isnt a case of god having to change the structure for new function, the amino acid variations are useless. But the frequency of them can be used to determine how many generations have passed.
> 
> So....Is god just fucking with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God exists and created all things he is not messing with us we just can't fugure out how he did it all.
> 
> It is nothing more then ignorance if man thinks he has all the answers, and we know we are not even close to having all the answers. So please show a litlle respect just in case you're wrong.
> 
> Which by the way you're respectfully.
Click to expand...


Again, you just explain things away with wishful thinking.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the example of protein composition to refute this one.
> 
> So review: DNA is composed of nucleotides, three nuclotides form a codon, a codon codes for an amino acid, amino acids form proteins. Single mutations mutate amino acids. Most amino acid mutations dont change the overall structure of the protein, because a protein is thousands of amino acids long.
> 
> So these random mutations in the amino acid composition of certain proteins builds up as time goes on. The difference in the amount of variation in non-essential amino acids in two samples can therefore be used to infer the amount of time between them.
> 
> What we find when we look at certain proteins are just this. For example, Cytochrome C in every human has a nearly identical amino acid sequence. The similarities follow the evolutionary pattern, primates are slightly more varied, bacteria are much more varied.
> 'So this isnt a case of god having to change the structure for new function, the amino acid variations are useless. But the frequency of them can be used to determine how many generations have passed.
> 
> So....Is god just fucking with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God exists and created all things he is not messing with us we just can't fugure out how he did it all.
> 
> It is nothing more then ignorance if man thinks he has all the answers, and we know we are not even close to having all the answers. So please show a litlle respect just in case you're wrong.
> 
> Which by the way you're respectfully.
Click to expand...


No, _*you*_ cant figure out how it happened. In my mind thats the perfect reason to believe evolution! why would you assume god just made creatures as they are right now. Woudnt he have more spectacular means. 

Your the one claiming you know how it happened. Im claiming we have a good set of facts that point us in the right direction and should go from there. Your claiming that you know that god created humans and other animals as they are.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> I mean seriously? God gave the entire universe to humans on earth???
> 
> There are billions of stars in this galaxy and billions of galaxies in the universe. Even the stars you see at night are only a fraction of the stars in our local neighborhood within our galaxy.
> 
> We've even found planets outside of our own solar system. Hundreds in fact.
> 
> How exactly does that match up to your biblical story? Why did god give us a different solar system 7 billion light years away??
> 
> I can certainly accept the idea of a god, but he didnt just make people and animals as they are.



That should make you able to see how precious life is to him. He picks just a speck out of the universe and produces life on it.

Psa 8:1  To the Chief Musician, on the harp. A Psalm of David. O Jehovah our Lord, how excellent is Your name in all the earth! You have set Your glory above the heavens! 
Psa 8:2  Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings You have ordained strength, because of ones vexing You, to cause the enemy and the avenger to cease. 
Psa 8:3  When I look at Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars which You have established; 
Psa 8:4  what is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man, that You visit him? 
Psa 8:5  For You have made him lack a little from God, and have crowned him with glory and honor. 
Psa 8:6  You made him rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet: 
Psa 8:7  all sheep and oxen, yes, and the beasts of the field; 
Psa 8:8  the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, and all that pass through the paths of the seas. 
Psa 8:9  O Jehovah, our Lord, how excellent is Your name in all the earth!


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean seriously? God gave the entire universe to humans on earth???
> 
> There are billions of stars in this galaxy and billions of galaxies in the universe. Even the stars you see at night are only a fraction of the stars in our local neighborhood within our galaxy.
> 
> We've even found planets outside of our own solar system. Hundreds in fact.
> 
> How exactly does that match up to your biblical story? Why did god give us a different solar system 7 billion light years away??
> 
> I can certainly accept the idea of a god, but he didnt just make people and animals as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That should make you able to see how precious life is to him. He picks just a speck out of the universe and produces life on it.
> 
> Psa 8:1  To the Chief Musician, on the harp. A Psalm of David. O Jehovah our Lord, how excellent is Your name in all the earth! You have set Your glory above the heavens!
> Psa 8:2  Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings You have ordained strength, because of ones vexing You, to cause the enemy and the avenger to cease.
> Psa 8:3  When I look at Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars which You have established;
> Psa 8:4  what is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man, that You visit him?
> Psa 8:5  For You have made him lack a little from God, and have crowned him with glory and honor.
> Psa 8:6  You made him rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet:
> Psa 8:7  all sheep and oxen, yes, and the beasts of the field;
> Psa 8:8  the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, and all that pass through the paths of the seas.
> Psa 8:9  O Jehovah, our Lord, how excellent is Your name in all the earth!
Click to expand...


The catholic church thought the stars revolved around the earth until like 500 years ago. You realize every star is a sun right? And pretty much every sun has a set of planets around them.

God made all those planets for what reason? God made galaxies entirely separate from ours because....


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the example of protein composition to refute this one.
> 
> So review: DNA is composed of nucleotides, three nuclotides form a codon, a codon codes for an amino acid, amino acids form proteins. Single mutations mutate amino acids. Most amino acid mutations dont change the overall structure of the protein, because a protein is thousands of amino acids long.
> 
> So these random mutations in the amino acid composition of certain proteins builds up as time goes on. The difference in the amount of variation in non-essential amino acids in two samples can therefore be used to infer the amount of time between them.
> 
> What we find when we look at certain proteins are just this. For example, Cytochrome C in every human has a nearly identical amino acid sequence. The similarities follow the evolutionary pattern, primates are slightly more varied, bacteria are much more varied.
> 'So this isnt a case of god having to change the structure for new function, the amino acid variations are useless. But the frequency of them can be used to determine how many generations have passed.
> 
> So....Is god just fucking with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God exists and created all things he is not messing with us we just can't fugure out how he did it all.
> 
> It is nothing more then ignorance if man thinks he has all the answers, and we know we are not even close to having all the answers. So please show a litlle respect just in case you're wrong.
> 
> Which by the way you're respectfully.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, _*you*_ cant figure out how it happened. In my mind thats the perfect reason to believe evolution! why would you assume god just made creatures as they are right now. Woudnt he have more spectacular means.
> 
> Your the one claiming you know how it happened. Im claiming we have a good set of facts that point us in the right direction and should go from there. Your claiming that you know that god created humans and other animals as they are.
Click to expand...


I have said it many times variations and natrual selection. There are variations in every family. Through genetic drift and natural selection has created the diversity we see today.

God created the families but left enough genetic information to allow adaptation and variations. natural selection and genetic drift has created the many differet breeds.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean seriously? God gave the entire universe to humans on earth???
> 
> There are billions of stars in this galaxy and billions of galaxies in the universe. Even the stars you see at night are only a fraction of the stars in our local neighborhood within our galaxy.
> 
> We've even found planets outside of our own solar system. Hundreds in fact.
> 
> How exactly does that match up to your biblical story? Why did god give us a different solar system 7 billion light years away??
> 
> I can certainly accept the idea of a god, but he didnt just make people and animals as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That should make you able to see how precious life is to him. He picks just a speck out of the universe and produces life on it.
> 
> Psa 8:1  To the Chief Musician, on the harp. A Psalm of David. O Jehovah our Lord, how excellent is Your name in all the earth! You have set Your glory above the heavens!
> Psa 8:2  Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings You have ordained strength, because of ones vexing You, to cause the enemy and the avenger to cease.
> Psa 8:3  When I look at Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars which You have established;
> Psa 8:4  what is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man, that You visit him?
> Psa 8:5  For You have made him lack a little from God, and have crowned him with glory and honor.
> Psa 8:6  You made him rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet:
> Psa 8:7  all sheep and oxen, yes, and the beasts of the field;
> Psa 8:8  the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, and all that pass through the paths of the seas.
> Psa 8:9  O Jehovah, our Lord, how excellent is Your name in all the earth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The catholic church thought the stars revolved around the earth until like 500 years ago. You realize every star is a sun right? And pretty much every sun has a set of planets around them.
> 
> God made all those planets for what reason? God made galaxies entirely separate from ours because....
Click to expand...


I'm not catholic. God created them yes, that answer would have to come from God.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God exists and created all things he is not messing with us we just can't fugure out how he did it all.
> 
> It is nothing more then ignorance if man thinks he has all the answers, and we know we are not even close to having all the answers. So please show a litlle respect just in case you're wrong.
> 
> Which by the way you're respectfully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, _*you*_ cant figure out how it happened. In my mind thats the perfect reason to believe evolution! why would you assume god just made creatures as they are right now. Woudnt he have more spectacular means.
> 
> Your the one claiming you know how it happened. Im claiming we have a good set of facts that point us in the right direction and should go from there. Your claiming that you know that god created humans and other animals as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have said it many times variations and natrual selection. There are variations in every family. Through genetic drift and natural selection has created the diversity we see today.
> 
> God created the families but left enough genetic information to allow adaptation and variations. natural selection and genetic drift has created the many differet breeds.
Click to expand...


And like ive asked you many many MANY times, what mechanism ensures that genetic variations cant become too great?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, _*you*_ cant figure out how it happened. In my mind thats the perfect reason to believe evolution! why would you assume god just made creatures as they are right now. Woudnt he have more spectacular means.
> 
> Your the one claiming you know how it happened. Im claiming we have a good set of facts that point us in the right direction and should go from there. Your claiming that you know that god created humans and other animals as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have said it many times variations and natrual selection. There are variations in every family. Through genetic drift and natural selection has created the diversity we see today.
> 
> God created the families but left enough genetic information to allow adaptation and variations. natural selection and genetic drift has created the many differet breeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And like ive asked you many many MANY times, what mechanism ensures that genetic variations cant become too great?
Click to expand...


DNA barrier and genetic drift i believe they only allow for so much variance. If an organism goes beyond the limits of adaptation it will die or become weaker.

Genetic drift through selective breeding creates breeds. But genetic drift has also helped in maintaining breeds in the wild. Over time traits are removed from the genepool. Lions have the genetic data for lions,tigers have genetic data for tigers so on and so on for every breed of organism.

We see evidence of recombination in humans ,that the information didn't go away or was there all along. That is another reason i don't believe in macro-evolution because who is to say when recombination can happen ?

That is why you can see black parents give birth to a white child and vice versa.

What do you think you can see with a large gene pool like the mutt ? But in smaller groups that is where genetic drift is most powerful in eliminating traits creating breeds.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wannabe is slang.
> 
> What does WANNABE mean? - WANNABE Definition - Meaning of WANNABE - InternetSlang.com
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is ..your point!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look I rather stay on topic ,but you said it was proper English not slang.
Click to expand...

no I didn't I said, "proper spelling"  see post# 1755 this thread.
here's the quote: "too" is proper english "wannabe" is proper spelling.
"gonna" is slang. your ignorance is curable."

 if your reading and comprehension are so bad that you can't even remember or look up what was said within the last 48 hours , your credibility on this topic is highly questionable!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik
> 
> fits all the criteria for beneficial mutation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2
> 
> 
> An in-depth look
> 
> by Dr. David N. Menton on
> 
> May 23, 2007
> 
> Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2 - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Instead of jumping to conclusions take a look.
> 
> http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_53-57.pdf
Click to expand...

 the article 

in   your link is not vaild, it's a rationalization and not science.


----------



## daws101

LOki said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
> 
> Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.
> 
> The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. In her mind, you just "proved" she is right.
Click to expand...

 just as I had planned!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you look at life animals and humans it is very easy to detect design .
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you first presume a designer.
> 
> 
> No. Having first presumed a designer, calling that "evidence" is question-begging.
> 
> But let's just allow the fallacy to slide for a moment ... the only "designers" we have verifiable evidence of are human beings. The only "designers" we can legitimately propose (you know, without just imagining one for the purpose) are human beings. If we understand that the only "designers" we have evidence of could not have designed everything, then we must look elsewhere.
> 
> If we look, and we see natural causes for effects, but see no (other) designers about designing things, then the evidence and valid logic leads to a conclusion that the effects we see are the result of the natural causes we see. Making up some designer that has no other explanation than "that's what we believe", is not logically or evidentially valid.
> 
> Just to remind you, I'm not saying that this "proves" there is no Creator, I'm not saying that there is no Creator, I'm just saying there's no verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to honestly propose, let alone defend, the notion that there is a Creator.
> 
> Savvy?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how would you explain evidence that shows that intelligence was required to create something ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What evidence?
> 
> Or are you speaking hypothetically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah house,medicine,car,telephone,computer,launguages, and they were all designed by the brain. But the brain was not designed or programmed by intelligence according to your beliefs. That does not sound contradictory to you ?
> 
> Everything in the body serves a purpose how is that not evidence for design ?
Click to expand...

 your arugement is specious : spe·cious adj \&#712;sp&#275;-sh&#601;s\
Definition of SPECIOUS
1obsolete : showy 
2: having deceptive attraction or allure 
3: having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic <specious reasoning> 
 spe·cious·ly adverb 
 spe·cious·ness noun 
 See specious defined for English-language learners »
See specious defined for kids »
Examples of SPECIOUS
He justified his actions with specious reasoning. 
<a specious argument that really does not stand up under close examination> 
Forty years ago I was not yet thirty, and my father still held to the hope that I would come to my senses, abandon the practice of journalism, and follow a career in one of the Wall Street money trades. As a young man during the Great Depression he had labored briefly as a city-room reporter for William Randolph Hearst's San Francisco Examiner, and he knew that the game was poorly paid and usually rigged, more often than not a matter of converting specious rumor into dubious fact. Lewis H. Lapham, Harper's, February 2004 

you have no evidence of a designer ,your faith in one is not valid evidence. 
if A "god" had indeed desiged ours or any brain,  such a god would have started from scratch not piled one on top of another as science has proven.
if "god" had created us as the foremost life form on earth then why isn't our brain functionally and structurally very different from our closest relatives the apes?
if "god" was a truly great designer why did "god" intermix a sewer and a playground?


if that's not contradictory nothing is.


----------



## koshergrl

Look, wiki scholars.

You guys are fab.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Look, wiki scholars.
> 
> You guys are fab.


 another bogus ASSumption...


----------



## koshergrl

You're not fab?


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> You're not fab?


your first sentence is a bogus ASSumption.
the second is a lame attempt at sarcasm.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> If you can't see the contradiction in your reasoning i can't help you.


If you're going to say there's some contradiction in my beliefs (rather than, of course, the strawmen you assign to me), then you have to identify the contradiction.

Thanks.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah house,medicine,car,telephone,computer,launguages, and they were all designed by the brain.
> 
> 
> 
> Presented as if I didn't address this, so ... ?
> 
> I'll just bet you find these beliefs you say I have very convenient.
> 
> Contradictory to what?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in the body serves a purpose how is that not evidence for design ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your question has Texas Sharpshooting and question-begging premises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need me to point out the contradiction ?
Click to expand...

Yes. Be specific, and above all, intellectually honest about it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see the contradiction in your reasoning i can't help you.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to say there's some contradiction in my beliefs (rather than, of course, the strawmen you assign to me), then you have to identify the contradiction.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


Well you know the brain is resposible for science,homes,telephones,medicine,computers,language and every modern day creation.

Why do you believe the brain used intelligence to create all these things,but the brain was not created and programmed through intelligence ? you don't see that view as contradictory ?

Simple reasoning.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see the contradiction in your reasoning i can't help you.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to say there's some contradiction in my beliefs (rather than, of course, the strawmen you assign to me), then you have to identify the contradiction.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you know the brain is resposible for science,homes,telephones,medicine,computers,language and every modern day creation.
> 
> Why do you believe the brain used intelligence to create all these things,but the brain was not created and programmed through intelligence ?
Click to expand...

 I asked you to be intellectually honest. I even provided a link to explain to you where your reasoning went wrong the first time you said this.

Since I never said, or made the argument that "... the brain was not created and programmed through intelligence" I have to wonder why you still insist that I have.



Youwerecreated said:


> you don't see that view as contradictory ?


No. I see that it's your usual intellectual dishonesty.



Youwerecreated said:


> Simple reasoning.


No. It's your INVALID reasoning.


----------



## LOki




----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to say there's some contradiction in my beliefs (rather than, of course, the strawmen you assign to me), then you have to identify the contradiction.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you know the brain is resposible for science,homes,telephones,medicine,computers,language and every modern day creation.
> 
> Why do you believe the brain used intelligence to create all these things,but the brain was not created and programmed through intelligence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you to be intellectually honest. I even provided a link to explain to you where your reasoning went wrong the first time you said this.
> 
> Since I never said, or made the argument that "... the brain was not created and programmed through intelligence" I have to wonder why you still insist that I have.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> you don't see that view as contradictory ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I see that it's your usual intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's your INVALID reasoning.
Click to expand...


How is it invalid for me to believe intelligence creates intelligence explain?

What is invalid reasoning is to think an unintelligent natural process would create an organ that is programmed with the ability to learn and create, Sorry that takes intelligence. Where would such information come from if not a designer ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you first presume a designer.
> 
> 
> No. Having first presumed a designer, calling that "evidence" is question-begging.
> 
> But let's just allow the fallacy to slide for a moment ... the only "designers" we have verifiable evidence of are human beings. The only "designers" we can legitimately propose (you know, without just imagining one for the purpose) are human beings. If we understand that the only "designers" we have evidence of could not have designed everything, then we must look elsewhere.
> 
> If we look, and we see natural causes for effects, but see no (other) designers about designing things, then the evidence and valid logic leads to a conclusion that the effects we see are the result of the natural causes we see. Making up some designer that has no other explanation than "that's what we believe", is not logically or evidentially valid.
> 
> Just to remind you, I'm not saying that this "proves" there is no Creator, I'm not saying that there is no Creator, I'm just saying there's no verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to honestly propose, let alone defend, the notion that there is a Creator.
> 
> Savvy?
> 
> What evidence?
> 
> Or are you speaking hypothetically?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah house,medicine,car,telephone,computer,launguages, and they were all designed by the brain. But the brain was not designed or programmed by intelligence according to your beliefs. That does not sound contradictory to you ?
> 
> Everything in the body serves a purpose how is that not evidence for design ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your arugement is specious : spe·cious adj \&#712;sp&#275;-sh&#601;s\
> Definition of SPECIOUS
> 1obsolete : showy
> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic <specious reasoning>
>  spe·cious·ly adverb
>  spe·cious·ness noun
> See specious defined for English-language learners »
> See specious defined for kids »
> Examples of SPECIOUS
> He justified his actions with specious reasoning.
> <a specious argument that really does not stand up under close examination>
> Forty years ago I was not yet thirty, and my father still held to the hope that I would come to my senses, abandon the practice of journalism, and follow a career in one of the Wall Street money trades. As a young man during the Great Depression he had labored briefly as a city-room reporter for William Randolph Hearst's San Francisco Examiner, and he knew that the game was poorly paid and usually rigged, more often than not a matter of converting specious rumor into dubious fact. Lewis H. Lapham, Harper's, February 2004
> 
> you have no evidence of a designer ,your faith in one is not valid evidence.
> if A "god" had indeed desiged ours or any brain,  such a god would have started from scratch not piled one on top of another as science has proven.
> if "god" had created us as the foremost life form on earth then why isn't our brain functionally and structurally very different from our closest relatives the apes?
> if "god" was a truly great designer why did "god" intermix a sewer and a playground?
> 
> 
> if that's not contradictory nothing is.
Click to expand...


Wrong, it's reality an organ behind all modern day inventions and creativity we see. Where did this information come from to cause an organ to achieve all it has ? And it is still growing in intelligence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik
> 
> fits all the criteria for beneficial mutation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2
> 
> 
> An in-depth look
> 
> by Dr. David N. Menton on
> 
> May 23, 2007
> 
> Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2 - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Instead of jumping to conclusions take a look.
> 
> http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_53-57.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the article
> 
> in   your link is not vaild, it's a rationalization and not science.
Click to expand...


Do you realize rationalization is done in science ? How do you think scientist reach conclusions ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not fab?
> 
> 
> 
> your first sentence is a bogus ASSumption.
> the second is a lame attempt at sarcasm.
Click to expand...


Are you gonna actually discuss science or hide behind a faulty english lesson ?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said it many times variations and natrual selection. There are variations in every family. Through genetic drift and natural selection has created the diversity we see today.
> 
> God created the families but left enough genetic information to allow adaptation and variations. natural selection and genetic drift has created the many differet breeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And like ive asked you many many MANY times, what mechanism ensures that genetic variations cant become too great?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA barrier and genetic drift i believe they only allow for so much variance.
Click to expand...


1. DNA barrier is a made up term
2. Genetic drift has nothing to do with what mutations can actually take place.
3. I dont care what you believe, id like what you can support with evidence.



Youwerecreated said:


> If an organism goes beyond the limits of adaptation it will die or become weaker.



Or become stronger. You can make a pretty compelling argument if you just leave out one half of the story...



Youwerecreated said:


> Genetic drift through selective breeding creates breeds. But genetic drift has also helped in maintaining breeds in the wild. Over time traits are removed from the genepool.



This idea that traits somehow only get removed from a population is bullshit. Source please, source please!?!?!



Youwerecreated said:


> Lions have the genetic data for lions,tigers have genetic data for tigers so on and so on for every breed of organism.



Without a doubt, tigers and lions are well over 90% genetically identical. Because they all share common traits, because tigers and lions share a common ancestor. Do you honestly not think adaption could change an organism from a lion to a tiger? Theyre so similar they can interbreed still! They havent been separated long enough to become genetically different enough to not be able to interbreed.



Youwerecreated said:


> We see evidence of recombination in humans ,that the information didn't go away or was there all along.



Um what? Your use of the word recombination doesnt even make sense. We dont see "evidence" of recombination, we see the actual process. Sexual recombination takes place in every sex cell.

Where does a loss come in when your discussing recombination? 



Youwerecreated said:


> That is another reason i don't believe in macro-evolution because who is to say when recombination can happen ?
> 
> That is why you can see black parents give birth to a white child and vice versa.



Your understanding of what recombination is is so convoluted i cant even follow your logic with this one. No one says when recombination can happen, genetic recombination happens each time your body produces a sex cell like a sperm or an egg....



Youwerecreated said:


> What do you think you can see with a large gene pool like the mutt ? But in smaller groups that is where genetic drift is most powerful in eliminating traits creating breeds.



"The mutt"

O sorry, i didnt know that when we discussed a mutt we were talking about a specific genepool. I didnt realize there was a specific type of dog called 'mutt'.

What is your point? You never even discuss the central point of evolution!!! When genetic material is copied there are mistakes, maybe adenine turns to cytosine. This is how the function of proteins are altered, at least one of the ways. 

Explain to me how there is no situation in which the altered expression of a protein is beneficial. Then explain to me what mechanism prevents these changes from building up.

Thats all you have to do. You have two questions to answer, get to it.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not fab?
> 
> 
> 
> your first sentence is a bogus ASSumption.
> the second is a lame attempt at sarcasm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you gonna actually discuss science or hide behind a faulty english lesson ?
Click to expand...


Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black huh?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And like ive asked you many many MANY times, what mechanism ensures that genetic variations cant become too great?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA barrier and genetic drift i believe they only allow for so much variance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. DNA barrier is a made up term
> 2. Genetic drift has nothing to do with what mutations can actually take place.
> 3. I dont care what you believe, id like what you can support with evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Or become stronger. You can make a pretty compelling argument if you just leave out one half of the story...
> 
> 
> 
> This idea that traits somehow only get removed from a population is bullshit. Source please, source please!?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> Without a doubt, tigers and lions are well over 90% genetically identical. Because they all share common traits, because tigers and lions share a common ancestor. Do you honestly not think adaption could change an organism from a lion to a tiger? Theyre so similar they can interbreed still! They havent been separated long enough to become genetically different enough to not be able to interbreed.
> 
> 
> 
> Um what? Your use of the word recombination doesnt even make sense. We dont see "evidence" of recombination, we see the actual process. Sexual recombination takes place in every sex cell.
> 
> Where does a loss come in when your discussing recombination?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is another reason i don't believe in macro-evolution because who is to say when recombination can happen ?
> 
> That is why you can see black parents give birth to a white child and vice versa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your understanding of what recombination is is so convoluted i cant even follow your logic with this one. No one says when recombination can happen, genetic recombination happens each time your body produces a sex cell like a sperm or an egg....
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think you can see with a large gene pool like the mutt ? But in smaller groups that is where genetic drift is most powerful in eliminating traits creating breeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The mutt"
> 
> O sorry, i didnt know that when we discussed a mutt we were talking about a specific genepool. I didnt realize there was a specific type of dog called 'mutt'.
> 
> What is your point? You never even discuss the central point of evolution!!! When genetic material is copied there are mistakes, maybe adenine turns to cytosine. This is how the function of proteins are altered, at least one of the ways.
> 
> Explain to me how there is no situation in which the altered expression of a protein is beneficial. Then explain to me what mechanism prevents these changes from building up.
> 
> Thats all you have to do. You have two questions to answer, get to it.
Click to expand...


DNA Code Barrier

Made up word what do you think horizontal gene transfer is, ?or evolution. The whole science vocabulary was made up 

A purebred animal only has the genetic data to produce what they're. Does this have to be explained further ?

You don't know mutts have a larger gene pool ?Why do mutts have larger gene pools ?

Millions of people have welcomed four legged friends into the family, in particular, the cuddly mutt. While a lot can be said for a purebred&#8217;s beauty and grace, mutts are often healthier overall with fewer temperamental problems. This desirable tendency results from breeding within a larger genetic pool where there are fewer chances for unfavorable genes to overlap. The only real disadvantage of the lovable mutt is not knowing what kind of dog it really is. A dog DNA test can answer this question by revealing the ancestry of a furry friend.

What is a Dog DNA Test?

So why do lions produce lions only ? Why do tigers produce tigers only ? This is such a simple explanation but yet it goes right over your head.

Let me help you one more time.

If each species did not possess only genetic data to produce what they are you would see some funny creatures coming out of mothers. The genetic information gets bred out not in and that is why they can only reproduce what they are.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your first sentence is a bogus ASSumption.
> the second is a lame attempt at sarcasm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gonna actually discuss science or hide behind a faulty english lesson ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black huh?
Click to expand...


This is a dumb post considering the post you just responded to.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA barrier and genetic drift i believe they only allow for so much variance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. DNA barrier is a made up term
> 2. Genetic drift has nothing to do with what mutations can actually take place.
> 3. I dont care what you believe, id like what you can support with evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Or become stronger. You can make a pretty compelling argument if you just leave out one half of the story...
> 
> 
> 
> This idea that traits somehow only get removed from a population is bullshit. Source please, source please!?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> Without a doubt, tigers and lions are well over 90% genetically identical. Because they all share common traits, because tigers and lions share a common ancestor. Do you honestly not think adaption could change an organism from a lion to a tiger? Theyre so similar they can interbreed still! They havent been separated long enough to become genetically different enough to not be able to interbreed.
> 
> 
> 
> Um what? Your use of the word recombination doesnt even make sense. We dont see "evidence" of recombination, we see the actual process. Sexual recombination takes place in every sex cell.
> 
> Where does a loss come in when your discussing recombination?
> 
> 
> 
> Your understanding of what recombination is is so convoluted i cant even follow your logic with this one. No one says when recombination can happen, genetic recombination happens each time your body produces a sex cell like a sperm or an egg....
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think you can see with a large gene pool like the mutt ? But in smaller groups that is where genetic drift is most powerful in eliminating traits creating breeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The mutt"
> 
> O sorry, i didnt know that when we discussed a mutt we were talking about a specific genepool. I didnt realize there was a specific type of dog called 'mutt'.
> 
> What is your point? You never even discuss the central point of evolution!!! When genetic material is copied there are mistakes, maybe adenine turns to cytosine. This is how the function of proteins are altered, at least one of the ways.
> 
> Explain to me how there is no situation in which the altered expression of a protein is beneficial. Then explain to me what mechanism prevents these changes from building up.
> 
> Thats all you have to do. You have two questions to answer, get to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA Code Barrier
Click to expand...


LMAO The Instution of Origins Education. HAHAHAHAHAH



Youwerecreated said:


> Made up word what do you think horizontal gene transfer is, ?or evolution. The whole science vocabulary was made up



Except horizonta gene transfer is an actual thing and the DNA code barrier is something that does not exist outside of the institute for origins education.



Youwerecreated said:


> A purebred animal only has the genetic data to produce what they're. Does this have to be explained further ?



Obviously the genetic information of an animal only has the information encoded in it. Thats like saying the only things in a book are whats written in it...pretty self explanatory.



Youwerecreated said:


> You don't know mutts have a larger gene pool ?Why do mutts have larger gene pools ?
> 
> Millions of people have welcomed four legged friends into the family, in particular, the cuddly mutt. While a lot can be said for a purebreds beauty and grace, mutts are often healthier overall with fewer temperamental problems. This desirable tendency results from breeding within a larger genetic pool where there are fewer chances for unfavorable genes to overlap. The only real disadvantage of the lovable mutt is not knowing what kind of dog it really is. A dog DNA test can answer this question by revealing the ancestry of a furry friend.
> 
> What is a Dog DNA Test?



omg what does that have to do with anything you retard!?!?!?!?!?!?!

maybe you need to articulate your point further. so far i have:

1. Mutts have a large gene pool
2. ?????
3. Evolution doesnt exist.



Youwerecreated said:


> So why do lions produce lions only ? Why do tigers produce tigers only ? This is such a simple explanation but yet it goes right over your head.



Wow....just wow.....



Youwerecreated said:


> Let me help you one more time.
> 
> If each species did not possess only genetic data to produce what they are you would see some funny creatures coming out of mothers. The genetic information gets bred out not in and that is why they can only reproduce what they are.



Dude, what the fuck are you talking about. Again, obviously the offspring of an animal has roughly the same genetic code as its parent. Do you see anyone arguing that? But notice the roughly part. Small mutations occur in the process of DNA replication. Infections by prophrage viruses add information to the genome. Information in the form of strands of nucleotides can, and most certainly are, randomly added. The mutations that are either neutral, or more rarely beneficial, build up over generations. 

If two groups of animals become separated they will continue to vary and adapt in this way. Random genetic code is added to the genome and the environment decides which combination of that code will survive and dominate the gene pool (remember that word?). In the case of two separate groups, the environment has no way of guiding the separate gene pools in the same direction. If the groups remain separated the genomes of organisms in each will become less similar, and reproduction will become harder, and the phenomena will become more pronounced. 

This is why you see some animals, like a tiger and a lion, or a horse and a donkey, that can still produce offspring together. They are still similar enough that fertilization can occasionally take place. But the offspring usually have problems, mules (horse x donkey) are sterile. This is because while the genomes are similar enough to reproduce in some cases, theyve still diverged significantly. 

If everything is defined by a breed, please explain a mule or a liger.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you know the brain is resposible for science,homes,telephones,medicine,computers,language and every modern day creation.
> 
> Why do you believe the brain used intelligence to create all these things,but the brain was not created and programmed through intelligence ?
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to be intellectually honest. I even provided a link to explain to you where your reasoning went wrong the first time you said this.
> 
> Since I never said, or made the argument that "... the brain was not created and programmed through intelligence" I have to wonder why you still insist that I have.
> 
> No. I see that it's your usual intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's your INVALID reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it invalid for me to believe intelligence creates intelligence explain?
Click to expand...

Firstly, you don't believe that intelligence is a necessary prerequisite for the existence of intelligence. You're going to prove it to everyone else, if not yourself.

Secondly, the defense you'll use when you lamely attempt to refute the above assertion will be "special pleading." And when I say "lamely," I mean it in the sense that even among special pleading arguments, I will be able to demonstrate that yours is especially lame.

Finally, the invalid reasoning that I was clearly referring to was your application of the strawman fallacy as your refutation of my actual point.



Youwerecreated said:


> What is invalid reasoning is to think an unintelligent natural process would create an organ that is programmed with the ability to learn and create,


What's invalid in your reasoning, is that your conclusion is unsupported in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. That's what's invalid, precisely.



Youwerecreated said:


> Sorry that takes intelligence.


Demonstrate. With verifiable evidence AND valid logic, please.



Youwerecreated said:


> Where would such information come from if not a designer ?


It obviously comes from the Designer who designed the Designer you keep referencing. Obviously. Right?

And be careful about your response to this ... the temptation to be unambiguously intellectually disingenuous is likely to be a greater temptation than you can resist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. DNA barrier is a made up term
> 2. Genetic drift has nothing to do with what mutations can actually take place.
> 3. I dont care what you believe, id like what you can support with evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Or become stronger. You can make a pretty compelling argument if you just leave out one half of the story...
> 
> 
> 
> This idea that traits somehow only get removed from a population is bullshit. Source please, source please!?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> Without a doubt, tigers and lions are well over 90% genetically identical. Because they all share common traits, because tigers and lions share a common ancestor. Do you honestly not think adaption could change an organism from a lion to a tiger? Theyre so similar they can interbreed still! They havent been separated long enough to become genetically different enough to not be able to interbreed.
> 
> 
> 
> Um what? Your use of the word recombination doesnt even make sense. We dont see "evidence" of recombination, we see the actual process. Sexual recombination takes place in every sex cell.
> 
> Where does a loss come in when your discussing recombination?
> 
> 
> 
> Your understanding of what recombination is is so convoluted i cant even follow your logic with this one. No one says when recombination can happen, genetic recombination happens each time your body produces a sex cell like a sperm or an egg....
> 
> 
> 
> "The mutt"
> 
> O sorry, i didnt know that when we discussed a mutt we were talking about a specific genepool. I didnt realize there was a specific type of dog called 'mutt'.
> 
> What is your point? You never even discuss the central point of evolution!!! When genetic material is copied there are mistakes, maybe adenine turns to cytosine. This is how the function of proteins are altered, at least one of the ways.
> 
> Explain to me how there is no situation in which the altered expression of a protein is beneficial. Then explain to me what mechanism prevents these changes from building up.
> 
> Thats all you have to do. You have two questions to answer, get to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA Code Barrier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO The Instution of Origins Education. HAHAHAHAHAH
> 
> 
> 
> Except horizonta gene transfer is an actual thing and the DNA code barrier is something that does not exist outside of the institute for origins education.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the genetic information of an animal only has the information encoded in it. Thats like saying the only things in a book are whats written in it...pretty self explanatory.
> 
> 
> 
> omg what does that have to do with anything you retard!?!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> maybe you need to articulate your point further. so far i have:
> 
> 1. Mutts have a large gene pool
> 2. ?????
> 3. Evolution doesnt exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do lions produce lions only ? Why do tigers produce tigers only ? This is such a simple explanation but yet it goes right over your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow....just wow.....
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you one more time.
> 
> If each species did not possess only genetic data to produce what they are you would see some funny creatures coming out of mothers. The genetic information gets bred out not in and that is why they can only reproduce what they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, what the fuck are you talking about. Again, obviously the offspring of an animal has roughly the same genetic code as its parent. Do you see anyone arguing that? But notice the roughly part. Small mutations occur in the process of DNA replication. Infections by prophrage viruses add information to the genome. Information in the form of strands of nucleotides can, and most certainly are, randomly added. The mutations that are either neutral, or more rarely beneficial, build up over generations.
> 
> If two groups of animals become separated they will continue to vary and adapt in this way. Random genetic code is added to the genome and the environment decides which combination of that code will survive and dominate the gene pool (remember that word?). In the case of two separate groups, the environment has no way of guiding the separate gene pools in the same direction. If the groups remain separated the genomes of organisms in each will become less similar, and reproduction will become harder, and the phenomena will become more pronounced.
> 
> This is why you see some animals, like a tiger and a lion, or a horse and a donkey, that can still produce offspring together. They are still similar enough that fertilization can occasionally take place. But the offspring usually have problems, mules (horse x donkey) are sterile. This is because while the genomes are similar enough to reproduce in some cases, theyve still diverged significantly.
> 
> If everything is defined by a breed, please explain a mule or a liger.
Click to expand...


What prevents species from cross breeding if there is no barrier ?

I never said beneficial traits can't build up and become part of a gene pool. They just didn't do it over millions of years like you claim prove to me they did build up over millions of years ?

Your side don't want to admit to the barrier ,so as far as they will go is reproductive isolation.But gene flow has barriers because animals only breed with their own kind.Then you have the DNA barrier,that for two organisms to breed they have to be DNA compatible.

You can say mutations build up over millions of years all you want it does not make it so and that can't be shown through other then imagination..

Correct and that is a DNA barrier if Dna is not compatible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to be intellectually honest. I even provided a link to explain to you where your reasoning went wrong the first time you said this.
> 
> Since I never said, or made the argument that "... the brain was not created and programmed through intelligence" I have to wonder why you still insist that I have.
> 
> No. I see that it's your usual intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> No. It's your INVALID reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it invalid for me to believe intelligence creates intelligence explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firstly, you don't believe that intelligence is a necessary requirement to create intelligence. You're going to prove it to everyone else, if not yourself.
> 
> Secondly, the defense you'll use when you lamely attempt to refute the above assertion will be "special pleading." And when I say "lamely," I mean it in the sense that even among special pleading arguments, I will be able to demonstrate that yours is especially lame.
> 
> Finally, the invalid reasoning that I was clearly referring to was your application of the strawman fallacy as your refutation of my actual point.
> 
> What's invalid in your reasoning, is that your conclusion is unsupported in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. That's what's invalid, precisely.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry that takes intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Demonstrate. With verifiable evidence AND valid logic, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where would such information come from if not a designer ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It obviously comes from the Designer who designed the Designer you keep referencing. Obviously. Right?
> 
> And be careful about your response to this ... the temptation to be unambiguously intellectually disingenuous is likely to be a greater temptation than you can resist.
Click to expand...


Sorry but i can hear people laughing at you right now for this post.

Computers program themselves correct ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it invalid for me to believe intelligence creates intelligence explain?
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, you don't believe that intelligence is a necessary requirement to create intelligence. You're going to prove it to everyone else, if not yourself.
> 
> Secondly, the defense you'll use when you lamely attempt to refute the above assertion will be "special pleading." And when I say "lamely," I mean it in the sense that even among special pleading arguments, I will be able to demonstrate that yours is especially lame.
> 
> Finally, the invalid reasoning that I was clearly referring to was your application of the strawman fallacy as your refutation of my actual point.
> 
> What's invalid in your reasoning, is that your conclusion is unsupported in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. That's what's invalid, precisely.
> 
> Demonstrate. With verifiable evidence AND valid logic, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where would such information come from if not a designer ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It obviously comes from the Designer who designed the Designer you keep referencing. Obviously. Right?
> 
> And be careful about your response to this ... the temptation to be unambiguously intellectually disingenuous is likely to be a greater temptation than you can resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but i can hear people laughing you right now for this post.
> 
> Computers program themselves correct ?
Click to expand...

You can't say you weren't warned.

If, as you vehemently demand, intelligence can ONLY arise from intelligence, and no intelligence "programmed" your Designer, then your Designer obviously can not be intelligent.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it invalid for me to believe intelligence creates intelligence explain?
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, you don't believe that intelligence is a necessary requirement to create intelligence. You're going to prove it to everyone else, if not yourself.
> 
> Secondly, the defense you'll use when you lamely attempt to refute the above assertion will be "special pleading." And when I say "lamely," I mean it in the sense that even among special pleading arguments, I will be able to demonstrate that yours is especially lame.
> 
> Finally, the invalid reasoning that I was clearly referring to was your application of the strawman fallacy as your refutation of my actual point.
> 
> What's invalid in your reasoning, is that your conclusion is unsupported in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. That's what's invalid, precisely.
> 
> Demonstrate. With verifiable evidence AND valid logic, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where would such information come from if not a designer ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It obviously comes from the Designer who designed the Designer you keep referencing. Obviously. Right?
> 
> And be careful about your response to this ... the temptation to be unambiguously intellectually disingenuous is likely to be a greater temptation than you can resist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but i can hear people laughing you right now for this post.
> 
> Computers program themselves correct ?
Click to expand...


Is your argument, then, that because humans have created things, all things must have been created?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, you don't believe that intelligence is a necessary requirement to create intelligence. You're going to prove it to everyone else, if not yourself.
> 
> Secondly, the defense you'll use when you lamely attempt to refute the above assertion will be "special pleading." And when I say "lamely," I mean it in the sense that even among special pleading arguments, I will be able to demonstrate that yours is especially lame.
> 
> Finally, the invalid reasoning that I was clearly referring to was your application of the strawman fallacy as your refutation of my actual point.
> 
> What's invalid in your reasoning, is that your conclusion is unsupported in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. That's what's invalid, precisely.
> 
> Demonstrate. With verifiable evidence AND valid logic, please.
> 
> It obviously comes from the Designer who designed the Designer you keep referencing. Obviously. Right?
> 
> And be careful about your response to this ... the temptation to be unambiguously intellectually disingenuous is likely to be a greater temptation than you can resist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but i can hear people laughing you right now for this post.
> 
> Computers program themselves correct ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't say you weren't warned.
> 
> If, as you vehemently demand, intelligence can ONLY arise from intelligence, and no intelligence "programmed" your Designer, then your Designer obviously can not be intelligent.
Click to expand...


My creator has always been, that is the difference in being infinite versus finite. He has no beginning and no end.

So where did intelligence come from ? where did the information come from to create the brain naturally ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, you don't believe that intelligence is a necessary requirement to create intelligence. You're going to prove it to everyone else, if not yourself.
> 
> Secondly, the defense you'll use when you lamely attempt to refute the above assertion will be "special pleading." And when I say "lamely," I mean it in the sense that even among special pleading arguments, I will be able to demonstrate that yours is especially lame.
> 
> Finally, the invalid reasoning that I was clearly referring to was your application of the strawman fallacy as your refutation of my actual point.
> 
> What's invalid in your reasoning, is that your conclusion is unsupported in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. That's what's invalid, precisely.
> 
> Demonstrate. With verifiable evidence AND valid logic, please.
> 
> It obviously comes from the Designer who designed the Designer you keep referencing. Obviously. Right?
> 
> And be careful about your response to this ... the temptation to be unambiguously intellectually disingenuous is likely to be a greater temptation than you can resist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but i can hear people laughing you right now for this post.
> 
> Computers program themselves correct ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your argument, then, that because humans have created things, all things must have been created?
Click to expand...


No my point is creation comes from intelligence whether it's a car ,house ,computer or the brain.

There is so much evidence that intelligence created the world as we see it from early man to modern day man.

Man that created the pyramids were pretty darn intelligent they just lacked modern day tools and technological advances.

The greatest creation God gave us was our brains.

Your natural process would have had to be pretty intelligent to produce the brain.

God created us and put us in charge of all beasts and plants and that is what we see.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah house,medicine,car,telephone,computer,launguages, and they were all designed by the brain. But the brain was not designed or programmed by intelligence according to your beliefs. That does not sound contradictory to you ?
> 
> Everything in the body serves a purpose how is that not evidence for design ?
> 
> 
> 
> your arugement is specious : spe·cious adj \&#712;sp&#275;-sh&#601;s\
> Definition of SPECIOUS
> 1obsolete : showy
> 2: having deceptive attraction or allure
> 3: having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic <specious reasoning>
>  spe·cious·ly adverb
>  spe·cious·ness noun
> See specious defined for English-language learners »
> See specious defined for kids »
> Examples of SPECIOUS
> He justified his actions with specious reasoning.
> <a specious argument that really does not stand up under close examination>
> Forty years ago I was not yet thirty, and my father still held to the hope that I would come to my senses, abandon the practice of journalism, and follow a career in one of the Wall Street money trades. As a young man during the Great Depression he had labored briefly as a city-room reporter for William Randolph Hearst's San Francisco Examiner, and he knew that the game was poorly paid and usually rigged, more often than not a matter of converting specious rumor into dubious fact. Lewis H. Lapham, Harper's, February 2004
> 
> you have no evidence of a designer ,your faith in one is not valid evidence.
> if A "god" had indeed desiged ours or any brain,  such a god would have started from scratch not piled one on top of another as science has proven.
> if "god" had created us as the foremost life form on earth then why isn't our brain functionally and structurally very different from our closest relatives the apes?
> if "god" was a truly great designer why did "god" intermix a sewer and a playground?
> 
> 
> if that's not contradictory nothing is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, it's reality an organ behind all modern day inventions and creativity we see. Where did this information come from to cause an organ to achieve all it has ? And it is still growing in intelligence.
Click to expand...


dodge!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not fab?
> 
> 
> 
> your first sentence is a bogus ASSumption.
> the second is a lame attempt at sarcasm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you gonna actually discuss science or hide behind a faulty english lesson ?
Click to expand...

when you do,I will.

gonna is slang!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2
> 
> 
> An in-depth look
> 
> by Dr. David N. Menton on
> 
> May 23, 2007
> 
> Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2 - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Instead of jumping to conclusions take a look.
> 
> http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_53-57.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> the article
> 
> in   your link is not vaild, it's a rationalization and not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize rationalization is done in science ? How do you think scientist reach conclusions ?
Click to expand...

scientists do not rationalize:b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem> 
: to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct 
they do however assume, only when there is substantial emperical evidence to do so.
It's clear you have no concept of the scientific method:


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but i can hear people laughing you right now for this post.
> 
> Computers program themselves correct ?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't say you weren't warned.
> 
> If, as you vehemently demand, intelligence can ONLY arise from intelligence, and no intelligence "programmed" your Designer, then your Designer obviously can not be intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My creator has always been, that is the difference in being infinite versus finite. He has no beginning and no end.
> 
> So where did intelligence come from ? where did the information come from to create the brain naturally ?
Click to expand...

your assumption that a "creator" exists is erroneous  as is your infinite versus finite. you have no proof of either
since we know the universe is not in a "steady state" infinite and finite are relative terms.
so if your "creator" existed  it would have had to begin somewhere, sometime and will end somewhere, sometime.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the article
> 
> in   your link is not vaild, it's a rationalization and not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize rationalization is done in science ? How do you think scientist reach conclusions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> scientists do not rationalize:b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
> : to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct
> they do however assume, only when there is substantial emperical evidence to do so.
> It's clear you have no concept of the scientific method:
Click to expand...


Wrong again assumptions come from a lack of evidence. Conclusions come from reasoning on the evidence.

The scientific method is testing the hypotheses,so tell me how  they test a hypotheses of evolution if they are not able to observe it ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but i can hear people laughing you right now for this post.
> 
> Computers program themselves correct ?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't say you weren't warned.
> 
> If, as you vehemently demand, intelligence can ONLY arise from intelligence, and no intelligence "programmed" your Designer, then your Designer obviously can not be intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My creator has always been, that is the difference in being infinite versus finite. He has no beginning and no end.
Click to expand...

This is "special pleading."

It is an invalid explanation for where the intelligence of this "Creator" of yours came from.

In fact, it's no explanation at all. Given your response, there is no valid reason reason at all to say that this "Creator" of yours is intelligent; if, as you vehemently demand, intelligence can ONLY arise from intelligence, and no intelligence "programmed" this "Creator" of yours, then this "Creator" of yours obviously can not be intelligent.

Which means, even if your assertion that this "Creator" of yours exists was valid (and let's just be clear; it's not), that some other explanation for the existence of "intelligence" must be considered.

Additionally, it's a case of "special pleading" for the existence of this "Creator" of yours; the argument for which is inevitably "question-begging."

Now I can offer a competing argument, featuring "special pleading" as yours does:_"Human beings (the most appropriately "intelligent" beings evident) are most likely the source of their own intelligence; human beings "created," if you will, their own intelligence."_
Because it has been well established that you're an intellectually dishonest retard, I find it necessary to point out explicitly that I am not asserting the above argument for any other purpose than to demonstrate the insurmountable weakness of yours.​This competing argument (featuring "special pleading"), that I have submitted above, enjoys the benefit of actually deserving to some extent the request for special treatment; as it turns out, human beings *are* the most *evident* source of intelligence. And, the argument has the additional benefit of not having to fabricate an intelligence that is arbitrarily declared inexplicable.



Youwerecreated said:


> So where did intelligence come from ?


From somewhere other than your imaginary friend, apparently.



Youwerecreated said:


> where did the information come from to create the brain naturally ?


It appears to me that Natural Selection allows for the accumulation of natural processes whose synergy amounts to what is commonly held to be "intelligence." And it does so without having to fabricate an explanation that is arbitrarily declared inexplicable; ... you know, like your explanation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't say you weren't warned.
> 
> If, as you vehemently demand, intelligence can ONLY arise from intelligence, and no intelligence "programmed" your Designer, then your Designer obviously can not be intelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My creator has always been, that is the difference in being infinite versus finite. He has no beginning and no end.
> 
> So where did intelligence come from ? where did the information come from to create the brain naturally ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your assumption that a "creator" exists is erroneous  as is your infinite versus finite. you have no proof of either
> since we know the universe is not in a "steady state" infinite and finite are relative terms.
> so if your "creator" existed  it would have had to begin somewhere, sometime and will end somewhere, sometime.
Click to expand...


God exists before time putting him outside of the universe. Time for man began with the beginning of the universe..

Once again you use finite explanations to explain infinite.

If time began with the universe where did matter come from ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize rationalization is done in science ? How do you think scientist reach conclusions ?
> 
> 
> 
> scientists do not rationalize:b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
> : to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct
> they do however assume, only when there is substantial empirical evidence to do so.
> It's clear you have no concept of the scientific method:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again assumptions come from a lack of evidence. Conclusions come from reasoning on the evidence.
> 
> The scientific method is testing the hypotheses,so tell me how  they test a hypotheses of evolution if they are not able to observe it ?
Click to expand...

 thanks for playing (cue buzzer)sorry but again you've spun the meaning to fit your false premise.
as already explained 
I'll try to make this simple, a scientific ASSumption s based on the best available evidence not the lack of it, lets say a paleontologist finds 50% of a T- REX ,SAY THE RIGHT HALF..They can safely assume that specimen has another half. 
it not the same as your assumptions about "intelligent design" which assumes facts not in evidence 
as to not being able to observe it the fossil record shows it, Darwin and many other scientists have observed it in action 
germs and viruses do it everyday


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My creator has always been, that is the difference in being infinite versus finite. He has no beginning and no end.
> 
> So where did intelligence come from ? where did the information come from to create the brain naturally ?
> 
> 
> 
> your assumption that a "creator" exists is erroneous  as is your infinite versus finite. you have no proof of either
> since we know the universe is not in a "steady state" infinite and finite are relative terms.
> so if your "creator" existed  it would have had to begin somewhere, sometime and will end somewhere, sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God exists before time putting him outside of the universe. Time for man began with the beginning of the universe..
> 
> Once again you use finite explanations to explain infinite.
> 
> If time began with the universe where did matter come from ?
Click to expand...

once again you're presenting belief as fact 
you have no evidence that there is anything outside the universe...since man was not around for 99% of the universes existence,  your "theory" that time started with man is a false premise.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA Code Barrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO The Instution of Origins Education. HAHAHAHAHAH
> 
> 
> 
> Except horizonta gene transfer is an actual thing and the DNA code barrier is something that does not exist outside of the institute for origins education.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the genetic information of an animal only has the information encoded in it. Thats like saying the only things in a book are whats written in it...pretty self explanatory.
> 
> 
> 
> omg what does that have to do with anything you retard!?!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> maybe you need to articulate your point further. so far i have:
> 
> 1. Mutts have a large gene pool
> 2. ?????
> 3. Evolution doesnt exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....just wow.....
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you one more time.
> 
> If each species did not possess only genetic data to produce what they are you would see some funny creatures coming out of mothers. The genetic information gets bred out not in and that is why they can only reproduce what they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, what the fuck are you talking about. Again, obviously the offspring of an animal has roughly the same genetic code as its parent. Do you see anyone arguing that? But notice the roughly part. Small mutations occur in the process of DNA replication. Infections by prophrage viruses add information to the genome. Information in the form of strands of nucleotides can, and most certainly are, randomly added. The mutations that are either neutral, or more rarely beneficial, build up over generations.
> 
> If two groups of animals become separated they will continue to vary and adapt in this way. Random genetic code is added to the genome and the environment decides which combination of that code will survive and dominate the gene pool (remember that word?). In the case of two separate groups, the environment has no way of guiding the separate gene pools in the same direction. If the groups remain separated the genomes of organisms in each will become less similar, and reproduction will become harder, and the phenomena will become more pronounced.
> 
> This is why you see some animals, like a tiger and a lion, or a horse and a donkey, that can still produce offspring together. They are still similar enough that fertilization can occasionally take place. But the offspring usually have problems, mules (horse x donkey) are sterile. This is because while the genomes are similar enough to reproduce in some cases, theyve still diverged significantly.
> 
> If everything is defined by a breed, please explain a mule or a liger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What prevents species from cross breeding if there is no barrier ?
Click to expand...


Again, please stop using the term barrier. There is no defined barrier. What determines whether or not two organisms can produce viable offspring is the similarity of their genomes. So take two scenarios.

Horses, animals separated by relatively few generations and with similar genomes, can reproduce together fairly successfully. Their offspring are normally _fertile_ horses. 

But a horse and a donkey can also reproduce together, and make mules. This is because the horse and the donkey are related just like the two horses were, just by more generations. But their genome has diverged significantly enough so that any offspring that are produced normally have problems, like being sterile. 

If god created separate breeds like horses and donkeys, explain a mule. 
If god created lions and tigers separate, explain a liger. 



Youwerecreated said:


> I never said beneficial traits can't build up and become part of a gene pool. They just didn't do it over millions of years like you claim prove to me they did build up over millions of years ?



Again, i dont have to. The distinction is imaginary, its in your mind. Can you explain any process by which build ups of beneficial mutations in the short term doesnt lead to a build up of information in the long term?

Thats like saying if you keep counting by one you wont eventually hit a million. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Your side don't want to admit to the barrier ,so as far as they will go is reproductive isolation.But gene flow has barriers because animals only breed with their own kind.Then you have the DNA barrier,that for two organisms to breed they have to be DNA compatible.



Again, you wont find DNA barrier outside of the institute for origins creation. What determines whether or not two organism can reproduce is the similarity of their genomes, which of course is reflective of how far separated they are.



Youwerecreated said:


> You can say mutations build up over millions of years all you want it does not make it so and that can't be shown through other then imagination..



And you can imagine that if you count by one you wont reach a hundred. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Correct and that is a DNA barrier if Dna is not compatible.



There is no barrier! Reproduction is a fluid concept that depends on the similarity of genomes. Hence lions that can mate with tigers.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO The Instution of Origins Education. HAHAHAHAHAH
> 
> 
> 
> Except horizonta gene transfer is an actual thing and the DNA code barrier is something that does not exist outside of the institute for origins education.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the genetic information of an animal only has the information encoded in it. Thats like saying the only things in a book are whats written in it...pretty self explanatory.
> 
> 
> 
> omg what does that have to do with anything you retard!?!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> maybe you need to articulate your point further. so far i have:
> 
> 1. Mutts have a large gene pool
> 2. ?????
> 3. Evolution doesnt exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....just wow.....
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, what the fuck are you talking about. Again, obviously the offspring of an animal has roughly the same genetic code as its parent. Do you see anyone arguing that? But notice the roughly part. Small mutations occur in the process of DNA replication. Infections by prophrage viruses add information to the genome. Information in the form of strands of nucleotides can, and most certainly are, randomly added. The mutations that are either neutral, or more rarely beneficial, build up over generations.
> 
> If two groups of animals become separated they will continue to vary and adapt in this way. Random genetic code is added to the genome and the environment decides which combination of that code will survive and dominate the gene pool (remember that word?). In the case of two separate groups, the environment has no way of guiding the separate gene pools in the same direction. If the groups remain separated the genomes of organisms in each will become less similar, and reproduction will become harder, and the phenomena will become more pronounced.
> 
> This is why you see some animals, like a tiger and a lion, or a horse and a donkey, that can still produce offspring together. They are still similar enough that fertilization can occasionally take place. But the offspring usually have problems, mules (horse x donkey) are sterile. This is because while the genomes are similar enough to reproduce in some cases, theyve still diverged significantly.
> 
> If everything is defined by a breed, please explain a mule or a liger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What prevents species from cross breeding if there is no barrier ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, please stop using the term barrier. There is no defined barrier. What determines whether or not two organisms can produce viable offspring is the similarity of their genomes. So take two scenarios.
> 
> Horses, animals separated by relatively few generations and with similar genomes, can reproduce together fairly successfully. Their offspring are normally _fertile_ horses.
> 
> But a horse and a donkey can also reproduce together, and make mules. This is because the horse and the donkey are related just like the two horses were, just by more generations. But their genome has diverged significantly enough so that any offspring that are produced normally have problems, like being sterile.
> 
> If god created separate breeds like horses and donkeys, explain a mule.
> If god created lions and tigers separate, explain a liger.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, i dont have to. The distinction is imaginary, its in your mind. Can you explain any process by which build ups of beneficial mutations in the short term doesnt lead to a build up of information in the long term?
> 
> Thats like saying if you keep counting by one you wont eventually hit a million.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you wont find DNA barrier outside of the institute for origins creation. What determines whether or not two organism can reproduce is the similarity of their genomes, which of course is reflective of how far separated they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can say mutations build up over millions of years all you want it does not make it so and that can't be shown through other then imagination..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you can imagine that if you count by one you wont reach a hundred.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct and that is a DNA barrier if Dna is not compatible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no barrier! Reproduction is a fluid concept that depends on the similarity of genomes. Hence lions that can mate with tigers.
Click to expand...


Hey we agree on something. Yes two different breeds from the same family can cross breed and reproduce if their DNA is close enough. But one of the major problems is almost all species breed with others of their kind,very little cross breeding happens unless through selective breeding by humans.

Now let me give you the three scientific principles that makes macro-evolution impossible.I will do it in my language.

#1 principle

The code barrier,referred to as the DNA Code Barrier,is a scientific principle that one kind of plant or animal only has the genetic information in it's gene pool to produce its own kind.

Example, take a dog as a simple example. While there may exist the genetic data that produces a wide variety of adaptations within the dogs particular DNA,the simple fact is that dogs still only possess the genetic information to produce other dogs.

Darwinist must have a way for dogs to produce non-dogs,and this would only be feasible if there were a method for nature to add massive amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to an already existing gene pool.

There is no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to any kind of plant or animals DNA. The DNA code barrier is a huge problem for you evolutionist.

#2 principle

Gene depletion is the scientific principle that all adaptations and/or mutations are the result of the sorting or the loss of the parents genetic information. So adaptational variations,as well as mutational changes,are caused by the recombination or loss of the origional genetic information which was inherited from the parents and not by the gain of new and beneficial genetic information. Mutations ans adapted organisms are not genetically stronger as Neo darwinism falsely teaches.

Example, Ranchers managing gene depletion is how ranchers breed out traits to produce meatier cows and cows that produce more milk.

This is done by a loss of genetic information not by the gain of new genetic information in the cows DNA. The loss of genetic information is referred to as the scientific principle of gene depletion.


#3 fact

Natural selection is the scientifically-observed process whereby in free competition for resources the weaker of the species tends to be eliminated and unable to compete with the stronger of its kind.This means that the genetically weaker mutations and adaptations are the ones most likely removed from the population.

Lets put the three scientific principles together and show why there is no viable evidence of neo darwinism ever taking place.

The DNA Code Barrier + Gene Depletion + Natural selection makes darwinian style change scientifically impossible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your assumption that a "creator" exists is erroneous  as is your infinite versus finite. you have no proof of either
> since we know the universe is not in a "steady state" infinite and finite are relative terms.
> so if your "creator" existed  it would have had to begin somewhere, sometime and will end somewhere, sometime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God exists before time putting him outside of the universe. Time for man began with the beginning of the universe..
> 
> Once again you use finite explanations to explain infinite.
> 
> If time began with the universe where did matter come from ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> once again you're presenting belief as fact
> you have no evidence that there is anything outside the universe...since man was not around for 99% of the universes existence,  your "theory" that time started with man is a false premise.
Click to expand...


Belief can be fact.

You have no proof nothing exists outside of the universe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> scientists do not rationalize:b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
> : to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct
> they do however assume, only when there is substantial empirical evidence to do so.
> It's clear you have no concept of the scientific method:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again assumptions come from a lack of evidence. Conclusions come from reasoning on the evidence.
> 
> The scientific method is testing the hypotheses,so tell me how  they test a hypotheses of evolution if they are not able to observe it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks for playing (cue buzzer)sorry but again you've spun the meaning to fit your false premise.
> as already explained
> I'll try to make this simple, a scientific ASSumption s based on the best available evidence not the lack of it, lets say a paleontologist finds 50% of a T- REX ,SAY THE RIGHT HALF..They can safely assume that specimen has another half.
> it not the same as your assumptions about "intelligent design" which assumes facts not in evidence
> as to not being able to observe it the fossil record shows it, Darwin and many other scientists have observed it in action
> germs and viruses do it everyday
Click to expand...


If you assume all life was the product of a natural process and absent of a creator what is your evidence ? you have to show evidence for two things. #1 evidence of the natural process that created all life  #2 evidence there is no creator.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What prevents species from cross breeding if there is no barrier ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, please stop using the term barrier. There is no defined barrier. What determines whether or not two organisms can produce viable offspring is the similarity of their genomes. So take two scenarios.
> 
> Horses, animals separated by relatively few generations and with similar genomes, can reproduce together fairly successfully. Their offspring are normally _fertile_ horses.
> 
> But a horse and a donkey can also reproduce together, and make mules. This is because the horse and the donkey are related just like the two horses were, just by more generations. But their genome has diverged significantly enough so that any offspring that are produced normally have problems, like being sterile.
> 
> If god created separate breeds like horses and donkeys, explain a mule.
> If god created lions and tigers separate, explain a liger.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, i dont have to. The distinction is imaginary, its in your mind. Can you explain any process by which build ups of beneficial mutations in the short term doesnt lead to a build up of information in the long term?
> 
> Thats like saying if you keep counting by one you wont eventually hit a million.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you wont find DNA barrier outside of the institute for origins creation. What determines whether or not two organism can reproduce is the similarity of their genomes, which of course is reflective of how far separated they are.
> 
> 
> 
> And you can imagine that if you count by one you wont reach a hundred.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct and that is a DNA barrier if Dna is not compatible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no barrier! Reproduction is a fluid concept that depends on the similarity of genomes. Hence lions that can mate with tigers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey we agree on something. Yes two different breeds from the same family can cross breed and reproduce if their DNA is close enough. But one of the major problems is almost all species breed with others of their kind,very little cross breeding happens unless through selective breeding by humans.
> 
> Now let me give you the three scientific principles that makes macro-evolution impossible.I will do it in my language.
> 
> #1 principle
> 
> The code barrier,referred to as the DNA Code Barrier,is a scientific principle that one kind of plant or animal only has the genetic information in it's gene pool to produce its own kind.
Click to expand...


This should read

"... DNA Code Barrier,is a _creationist_ principle"



Youwerecreated said:


> Example, take a dog as a simple example. While there may exist the genetic data that produces a wide variety of adaptations within the dogs particular DNA,the simple fact is that dogs still only possess the genetic information to produce other dogs.
> 
> Darwinist must have a way for dogs to produce non-dogs,and this would only be feasible if there were a method for nature to add massive amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to an already existing gene pool.
> 
> There is no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to any kind of plant or animals DNA. The DNA code barrier is a huge problem for you evolutionist.



Again, this is just blatantly false. Not only is it false, but it shows a total lack of understanding as to how mutations form and how an organisms DNA functions. 

There are plenty of ways to add information to genomes. It can happen in small amounts each generation. It can happen through viral infection. It can happen through duplication of chromosomes. 

How many times to i have to point you to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics)



Youwerecreated said:


> #2 principle
> 
> Gene depletion is the scientific principle that all adaptations and/or mutations are the result of the sorting or the loss of the parents genetic information. So adaptational variations,as well as mutational changes,are caused by the recombination or loss of the origional genetic information which was inherited from the parents and not by the gain of new and beneficial genetic information. Mutations ans adapted organisms are not genetically stronger as Neo darwinism falsely teaches.



Again, if you reject one entire side of the story then you have an argument. But information can be added. More mutations are not the loss of information, and those that are wont likely be passed on to dominate the gene pool



Youwerecreated said:


> Example, Ranchers managing gene depletion is how ranchers breed out traits to produce meatier cows and cows that produce more milk.
> 
> This is done by a loss of genetic information not by the gain of new genetic information in the cows DNA. The loss of genetic information is referred to as the scientific principle of gene depletion.



Cows dont normally attempt to breed based on genotypes in nature you idiot. Of course humans can selectively mate animals to weed out certain genotypes or phenotypes. But this isnt how nature works; in fact its pretty much the opposite of how nature works. 



Youwerecreated said:


> #3 fact
> 
> Natural selection is the scientifically-observed process whereby in free competition for resources the weaker of the species tends to be eliminated and unable to compete with the stronger of its kind.This means that the genetically weaker mutations and adaptations are the ones most likely removed from the population.



And genetically stronger ones survive.



Youwerecreated said:


> Lets put the three scientific principles together and show why there is no viable evidence of neo darwinism ever taking place.
> 
> The DNA Code Barrier + Gene Depletion + Natural selection makes darwinian style change scientifically impossible.



lulllz kk


----------



## cbirch2

Ok i also need you to define a few of your terms for me duuuude...

So do organisms within the same family share a common ancestor?

What exactly is the relationship between a lion and a tiger, and why can they reproduce?​


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, please stop using the term barrier. There is no defined barrier. What determines whether or not two organisms can produce viable offspring is the similarity of their genomes. So take two scenarios.
> 
> Horses, animals separated by relatively few generations and with similar genomes, can reproduce together fairly successfully. Their offspring are normally _fertile_ horses.
> 
> But a horse and a donkey can also reproduce together, and make mules. This is because the horse and the donkey are related just like the two horses were, just by more generations. But their genome has diverged significantly enough so that any offspring that are produced normally have problems, like being sterile.
> 
> If god created separate breeds like horses and donkeys, explain a mule.
> If god created lions and tigers separate, explain a liger.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, i dont have to. The distinction is imaginary, its in your mind. Can you explain any process by which build ups of beneficial mutations in the short term doesnt lead to a build up of information in the long term?
> 
> Thats like saying if you keep counting by one you wont eventually hit a million.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you wont find DNA barrier outside of the institute for origins creation. What determines whether or not two organism can reproduce is the similarity of their genomes, which of course is reflective of how far separated they are.
> 
> 
> 
> And you can imagine that if you count by one you wont reach a hundred.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no barrier! Reproduction is a fluid concept that depends on the similarity of genomes. Hence lions that can mate with tigers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey we agree on something. Yes two different breeds from the same family can cross breed and reproduce if their DNA is close enough. But one of the major problems is almost all species breed with others of their kind,very little cross breeding happens unless through selective breeding by humans.
> 
> Now let me give you the three scientific principles that makes macro-evolution impossible.I will do it in my language.
> 
> #1 principle
> 
> The code barrier,referred to as the DNA Code Barrier,is a scientific principle that one kind of plant or animal only has the genetic information in it's gene pool to produce its own kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This should read
> 
> "... DNA Code Barrier,is a _creationist_ principle"
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is just blatantly false. Not only is it false, but it shows a total lack of understanding as to how mutations form and how an organisms DNA functions.
> 
> There are plenty of ways to add information to genomes. It can happen in small amounts each generation. It can happen through viral infection. It can happen through duplication of chromosomes.
> 
> How many times to i have to point you to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics)
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if you reject one entire side of the story then you have an argument. But information can be added. More mutations are not the loss of information, and those that are wont likely be passed on to dominate the gene pool
> 
> 
> 
> Cows dont normally attempt to breed based on genotypes in nature you idiot. Of course humans can selectively mate animals to weed out certain genotypes or phenotypes. But this isnt how nature works; in fact its pretty much the opposite of how nature works.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> #3 fact
> 
> Natural selection is the scientifically-observed process whereby in free competition for resources the weaker of the species tends to be eliminated and unable to compete with the stronger of its kind.This means that the genetically weaker mutations and adaptations are the ones most likely removed from the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And genetically stronger ones survive.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets put the three scientific principles together and show why there is no viable evidence of neo darwinism ever taking place.
> 
> The DNA Code Barrier + Gene Depletion + Natural selection makes darwinian style change scientifically impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lulllz kk
Click to expand...


Do creationist hold scientific degrees ? 

Mutations form from mistakes they are errors do you understand this ?

The way you think there is never information loss that is blatantly false. Anytime there is a change from the origional information it comes at a loss of the origional information.

If the genome still contains genetic information from other creatures then why do animals not give birth to something other then what they are ?

Everything i said can be verified and proven however the argument you make  cannot be observed. Off spring are always the same species the parents are.

Genetically stronger survive, is that not what i said ?

Why are purebreds dealing with a smaller gene pool then the mutt ?

Don't act silly when i present you with facts you can't refute.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Ok i also need you to define a few of your terms for me duuuude...
> 
> So do organisms within the same family share a common ancestor?
> 
> What exactly is the relationship between a lion and a tiger, and why can they reproduce?​



Yes and no.

There were many groups of organisms that were created as they are and never changed. They were put in to families by man because some men believe they all evolved .they were put into families because they are similar looking in a morphological sense and through DNA similarity. I will say that there are variations in each family of organisms but how do we know exactly who was created as they are and which breeds came about through variations.

All humans are related there is no doubting that and we we all descended from one set of parents.


They are just two breeds from the same family. They are genetically close enough to reproduce. However they cannot cross breed in the wild they are mortal enemies. Besides tigers are from Asia and lions are from Africa.

Do you notice their offspring show traits from both parents not traits from random mutations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I had to edit the above post as i thought on it my first response was wrong.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok i also need you to define a few of your terms for me duuuude...
> 
> So do organisms within the same family share a common ancestor?
> 
> What exactly is the relationship between a lion and a tiger, and why can they reproduce?​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> There were many groups of organisms that were created as they are and never changed. They were put in to families by man because some men believe they all evolved .they were put into families because they are similar looking in a morphological sense and through DNA similarity. I will say that there are variations in each family of organisms but how do we know exactly who was created as they are and which breeds came about through variations.
> 
> All humans are related there is no doubting that and we we all descended from one set of parents.
> 
> 
> They are just two breeds from the same family. They are genetically close enough to reproduce. However they cannot cross breed in the wild they are mortal enemies. Besides tigers are from Asia and lions are from Africa.
> 
> Do you notice their offspring show traits from both parents not traits from random mutations.
Click to expand...


If lions and tigers do not interact in the wild, how are they mortal enemies?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey we agree on something. Yes two different breeds from the same family can cross breed and reproduce if their DNA is close enough. But one of the major problems is almost all species breed with others of their kind,very little cross breeding happens unless through selective breeding by humans.
> 
> Now let me give you the three scientific principles that makes macro-evolution impossible.I will do it in my language.
> 
> #1 principle
> 
> The code barrier,referred to as the DNA Code Barrier,is a scientific principle that one kind of plant or animal only has the genetic information in it's gene pool to produce its own kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This should read
> 
> "... DNA Code Barrier,is a _creationist_ principle"
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is just blatantly false. Not only is it false, but it shows a total lack of understanding as to how mutations form and how an organisms DNA functions.
> 
> There are plenty of ways to add information to genomes. It can happen in small amounts each generation. It can happen through viral infection. It can happen through duplication of chromosomes.
> 
> How many times to i have to point you to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics)
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if you reject one entire side of the story then you have an argument. But information can be added. More mutations are not the loss of information, and those that are wont likely be passed on to dominate the gene pool
> 
> 
> 
> Cows dont normally attempt to breed based on genotypes in nature you idiot. Of course humans can selectively mate animals to weed out certain genotypes or phenotypes. But this isnt how nature works; in fact its pretty much the opposite of how nature works.
> 
> 
> 
> And genetically stronger ones survive.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets put the three scientific principles together and show why there is no viable evidence of neo darwinism ever taking place.
> 
> The DNA Code Barrier + Gene Depletion + Natural selection makes darwinian style change scientifically impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lulllz kk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do creationist hold scientific degrees ?
Click to expand...


I actually have yet to see someone that dedicates their time to young earth creationism and actually has a respectable degree. If someone has a degree in management, i dont care what their opinion is on biology...

That said im sure some do hold good degrees...their numbers are just a lot few than those that think the earth is over 6000 years old.



Youwerecreated said:


> Mutations form from mistakes they are errors do you understand this ?



And somehow that has to be bad? A change in genetic information is just a change in amino acids and a change in protein expression. Different proteins have different uses. Small segments of proteins can certainly be changed so that it yields some beneficial usage beyond its non-mutated function. This isnt even debatable.



Youwerecreated said:


> The way you think there is never information loss that is blatantly false.



Im not denying there can be information loss. Where do i deny that? The loss of genetic information is certainly a valid mutation....



Youwerecreated said:


> Anytime there is a change from the origional information it comes at a loss of the origional information.



and a change to new information. If adenine changes to thymine, thats a change of information. The old information, adenine, is lost. The new information, thymine, is added...

Get it? 



Youwerecreated said:


> If the genome still contains genetic information from other creatures then why do animals not give birth to something other then what they are ?



....

..........

A human and a chimpanzee share something like 99% of their genes. So by and large, you do contain the genetic information of other creatures. Again, thats just a fact. DNA is just a sequence of nucleotides. 

"The published chimpanzee genome differs from that of the human genome by 1.23% in direct sequence comparisons.[35]"

So you do have the same genetic information as primates do, by and large. If your DNA sequence was ACGTACGTACGT, a primates DNA might be *T*CGTACGTACGT. Everything but the T is the exact same information.

The difference between us is that we are separated from a common ancestor by many many generations, and both groups have gained *and lost *information as theyve been separated. For you to give birth to a chimpanzee, that would require that the normal errors in DNA replication somehow happen on the exact right nucleotides and in the exact right amount. its just infinitely not possible. 

But it doesnt work like that the other way around. 




Youwerecreated said:


> Everything i said can be verified and proven however the argument you make  cannot be observed. Off spring are always the same species the parents are.



What have you proved? Youve just cried that information cant be added. Even "answersingenesis.com" disagrees with you there. 

OMG "offspring are always the same species as their parent" is the argument of someone that doesnt understand evolution.

Two populations of big cats become separated. The gene pool of each population randomly diverges because of random mutation and the environment deciding which ones dominate the population. As time passes there is no way to guarantee that the random mutations that come to dominate each gene pool will be similar. In fact all common sense would say they would be different. As time passes those groups would be significantly different, and their genomes may no longer be compatible. When fertilization occurs, there are a lot of A's where T's should be, or C's where G's should be, or whichever combination. Theres no way that you can prevent these random changes in bases from happening in random places.

But within each groups, each successful offspring was only marginally different from their parents. 






Do you get it yet?



Youwerecreated said:


> Genetically stronger survive, is that not what i said ?
> 
> Why are purebreds dealing with a smaller gene pool then the mutt ?



because thats the definition of a pure bred so we continue to artificially breed them like that....

There is no such thing as "pure". There is only a combination of nucleotides that we recognize as a distinct lineage and through mating we preserve the gene pool as best we can, without being able to control random mutations in reproduction.



Youwerecreated said:


> Don't act silly when i present you with facts you can't refute.



Youve presented me with a thoroughly contrived explanation of what you think evolution is and how it works. You have less understanding than a 7th grader.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok i also need you to define a few of your terms for me duuuude...
> 
> So do organisms within the same family share a common ancestor?
> 
> What exactly is the relationship between a lion and a tiger, and why can they reproduce?​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> There were many groups of organisms that were created as they are and never changed. They were put in to families by man because some men believe they all evolved .they were put into families because they are similar looking in a morphological sense and through DNA similarity. I will say that there are variations in each family of organisms but how do we know exactly who was created as they are and which breeds came about through variations.
Click to expand...


Ok. So this is what i understand of your position. 

God created certain animals. Some may have varied within their originally created group, like lions and tigers possibly, but we have absolutely no way of knowing if thats happened or not. 

Right?



Youwerecreated said:


> All humans are related there is no doubting that and we we all descended from one set of parents.



Really? Care to find that somewhere outside of christiananswers?



Youwerecreated said:


> They are just two breeds from the same family. They are genetically close enough to reproduce. However they cannot cross breed in the wild they are mortal enemies.



Are you talking about the mule now? But what does it mean to be a breed within a family!? Does that mean one original big cat gave birth to successive child cats, and so on with each generation, and eventually two populations became distinct?

And its not as if of they can still reproduce fine. Theyre children are usually sterile.



Youwerecreated said:


> Besides tigers are from Asia and lions are from Africa.



In other words populations of big cats that were separated geographically and subsequently diverged genetically? Kind of sounds like my exact argument...



Youwerecreated said:


> Do you notice their offspring show traits from both parents not traits from random mutations.



What? 

And is this your explanation for why no nucleobases can be different from parents?

Ok, if one parent has TTTT, and other has AAAA, the combination for the offspring might not be a logical combination of the two. It might not be TTAA or TATA. Maybe DNA replicase made a mistake and the offspring looks like CTAA, rather than TTAA, even though no parent had a C (cytosine), in that gene segment. 

The result of that might kill the organism. It might do nothing. It might, for example, allow the protein or catalyze citric acid for use in the krebs cycle. 

Get it?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok i also need you to define a few of your terms for me duuuude...
> 
> So do organisms within the same family share a common ancestor?
> 
> What exactly is the relationship between a lion and a tiger, and why can they reproduce?​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> There were many groups of organisms that were created as they are and never changed. They were put in to families by man because some men believe they all evolved .they were put into families because they are similar looking in a morphological sense and through DNA similarity. I will say that there are variations in each family of organisms but how do we know exactly who was created as they are and which breeds came about through variations.
> 
> All humans are related there is no doubting that and we we all descended from one set of parents.
> 
> 
> They are just two breeds from the same family. They are genetically close enough to reproduce. However they cannot cross breed in the wild they are mortal enemies. Besides tigers are from Asia and lions are from Africa.
> 
> Do you notice their offspring show traits from both parents not traits from random mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If lions and tigers do not interact in the wild, how are they mortal enemies?
Click to expand...


Well because when they come face to face they will fight.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfQGn4xCq8]Tiger vs Lion - Tiger wins the fight! - YouTube[/ame]

Why do you think they don't live together ?

Now living in captivity they still show lions are too territorial.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This should read
> 
> "... DNA Code Barrier,is a _creationist_ principle"
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is just blatantly false. Not only is it false, but it shows a total lack of understanding as to how mutations form and how an organisms DNA functions.
> 
> There are plenty of ways to add information to genomes. It can happen in small amounts each generation. It can happen through viral infection. It can happen through duplication of chromosomes.
> 
> How many times to i have to point you to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics)
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if you reject one entire side of the story then you have an argument. But information can be added. More mutations are not the loss of information, and those that are wont likely be passed on to dominate the gene pool
> 
> 
> 
> Cows dont normally attempt to breed based on genotypes in nature you idiot. Of course humans can selectively mate animals to weed out certain genotypes or phenotypes. But this isnt how nature works; in fact its pretty much the opposite of how nature works.
> 
> 
> 
> And genetically stronger ones survive.
> 
> 
> 
> lulllz kk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do creationist hold scientific degrees ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually have yet to see someone that dedicates their time to young earth creationism and actually has a respectable degree. If someone has a degree in management, i dont care what their opinion is on biology...
> 
> That said im sure some do hold good degrees...their numbers are just a lot few than those that think the earth is over 6000 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> And somehow that has to be bad? A change in genetic information is just a change in amino acids and a change in protein expression. Different proteins have different uses. Small segments of proteins can certainly be changed so that it yields some beneficial usage beyond its non-mutated function. This isnt even debatable.
> 
> 
> 
> Im not denying there can be information loss. Where do i deny that? The loss of genetic information is certainly a valid mutation....
> 
> 
> 
> and a change to new information. If adenine changes to thymine, thats a change of information. The old information, adenine, is lost. The new information, thymine, is added...
> 
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> ..........
> 
> A human and a chimpanzee share something like 99% of their genes. So by and large, you do contain the genetic information of other creatures. Again, thats just a fact. DNA is just a sequence of nucleotides.
> 
> "The published chimpanzee genome differs from that of the human genome by 1.23% in direct sequence comparisons.[35]"
> 
> So you do have the same genetic information as primates do, by and large. If your DNA sequence was ACGTACGTACGT, a primates DNA might be *T*CGTACGTACGT. Everything but the T is the exact same information.
> 
> The difference between us is that we are separated from a common ancestor by many many generations, and both groups have gained *and lost *information as theyve been separated. For you to give birth to a chimpanzee, that would require that the normal errors in DNA replication somehow happen on the exact right nucleotides and in the exact right amount. its just infinitely not possible.
> 
> But it doesnt work like that the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> What have you proved? Youve just cried that information cant be added. Even "answersingenesis.com" disagrees with you there.
> 
> OMG "offspring are always the same species as their parent" is the argument of someone that doesnt understand evolution.
> 
> Two populations of big cats become separated. The gene pool of each population randomly diverges because of random mutation and the environment deciding which ones dominate the population. As time passes there is no way to guarantee that the random mutations that come to dominate each gene pool will be similar. In fact all common sense would say they would be different. As time passes those groups would be significantly different, and their genomes may no longer be compatible. When fertilization occurs, there are a lot of A's where T's should be, or C's where G's should be, or whichever combination. Theres no way that you can prevent these random changes in bases from happening in random places.
> 
> But within each groups, each successful offspring was only marginally different from their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genetically stronger survive, is that not what i said ?
> 
> Why are purebreds dealing with a smaller gene pool then the mutt ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because thats the definition of a pure bred so we continue to artificially breed them like that....
> 
> There is no such thing as "pure". There is only a combination of nucleotides that we recognize as a distinct lineage and through mating we preserve the gene pool as best we can, without being able to control random mutations in reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't act silly when i present you with facts you can't refute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youve presented me with a thoroughly contrived explanation of what you think evolution is and how it works. You have less understanding than a 7th grader.
Click to expand...


There is more evidence if mutations cause change they cause more harm then good.

No i Have always understood mutations come at a loss of genetic information.

Just like it is impossible for mutations to do what you say. They don't accumulate because they are easily removed from the gene pool.

You are avoiding answering the question truthfully,the truth is a purebred animal is the result of of a loss of information. They only possess the genetic information to produce what they are.

So you're saying vets and breeders don't know what they are talking about ?

For your information many of us creationist hold degrees in the same fields as evolutionist.

They are pure because of the DNA information will only produce what they are. This is not hard to understand.

7th grade education  Then why must i continue correcting you ?

Your whole theory rests on speculation not observed evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok i also need you to define a few of your terms for me duuuude...
> 
> So do organisms within the same family share a common ancestor?
> 
> What exactly is the relationship between a lion and a tiger, and why can they reproduce?​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> There were many groups of organisms that were created as they are and never changed. They were put in to families by man because some men believe they all evolved .they were put into families because they are similar looking in a morphological sense and through DNA similarity. I will say that there are variations in each family of organisms but how do we know exactly who was created as they are and which breeds came about through variations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. So this is what i understand of your position.
> 
> God created certain animals. Some may have varied within their originally created group, like lions and tigers possibly, but we have absolutely no way of knowing if thats happened or not.
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Care to find that somewhere outside of christiananswers?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the mule now? But what does it mean to be a breed within a family!? Does that mean one original big cat gave birth to successive child cats, and so on with each generation, and eventually two populations became distinct?
> 
> And its not as if of they can still reproduce fine. Theyre children are usually sterile.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides tigers are from Asia and lions are from Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words populations of big cats that were separated geographically and subsequently diverged genetically? Kind of sounds like my exact argument...
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you notice their offspring show traits from both parents not traits from random mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> And is this your explanation for why no nucleobases can be different from parents?
> 
> Ok, if one parent has TTTT, and other has AAAA, the combination for the offspring might not be a logical combination of the two. It might not be TTAA or TATA. Maybe DNA replicase made a mistake and the offspring looks like CTAA, rather than TTAA, even though no parent had a C (cytosine), in that gene segment.
> 
> The result of that might kill the organism. It might do nothing. It might, for example, allow the protein or catalyze citric acid for use in the krebs cycle.
> 
> Get it?
Click to expand...


I understand your theory really well and thats why it is easy for me to attack.

2. The DNA code barrier. A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling. This perhaps is the biggest obstacle to gradual change through micro-evolution. Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organism will have. If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical. Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change.  There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations. No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present.  Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.

Charles Colson made mention of a few good examples of this principle. Darwin used breeding of the rock pigeon as a basis for his theory that gradual changes in species will evolve into new species. All pigeons are descendents of the rock pigeon. This pigeon is the same pigeon that can be found in most city parks. Through selective breeding, Darwin was able to produce many drastic variations of pigeons. He observed very rapid changes in traits that he could alter by this selective breeding and concluded that if he could make these changes within a few generations of pigeons, in time a new species of bird would develop. There are several flaws with this theory. 1. His intervention was the trigger for these various breeds. It did not occur naturally. 2. When left alone, his pigeons returned back to the ancestral rock pigeon within a few generations. If his theory were valid, they should have continued their ascent. 3. Darwin never lived to see that there was a natural barrier that slowed changes after a few generations and eventually reached a stopping point.

Change can be rapid when leaving the &#8216;norm&#8217;, but slows and eventually stops as the &#8216;ceiling&#8217; is reached. There is a limit to the number of combinations a specific trait can have. Another good example of this comes from the book, &#8216;How Now Shall We Live&#8217;. 150 years ago, sugar cane farmers committed to increasing the sugar content in their sugar beets. At the time the project began, sugar content was at 6%. Through selective cross-pollination, within a few generations of beets the sugar content soared to 13%. Over the next 75 years these growers were able to inch the sugar content up to 17%. Now, 75 years after they were able to achieve the 17% barrier, the sugar beet remains at 17%. This is a clear example of the DNA code barrier that limits the variation of a specific trait. This example shows the same principle that Darwin unknowingly discovered. Rapid change, then slow change followed by no change.

Another conflict with the evolutionary theory is that when the DNA ceiling is reached, the species becomes weak. When a trait is exaggerated beyond its natural limits, the species weakens and suffers from genetically induced diseases or vulnerability to disease. The farther from the &#8216;norm&#8217; the more disease prone the plant or animal becomes. So even with selective breeding and exploited traits, the species becomes vulnerable and at risk of extinction. Animals that are bred to bring out their desired features often become sterile or diseased. We can look around today and see examples of this problem. Anyone involved with farming is aware of the sterility problem associated with over-breeding. Dogs are very defect prone when they are bred to show quality. However, when left alone, species will soon return to the norm.

What is Micro and Macro-Evolution?

If you want to learn something read this article.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Cbirch the evidence is overwhelmingly on my side of the debate ,none of your pretty graphs can change the facts.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> There were many groups of organisms that were created as they are and never changed. They were put in to families by man because some men believe they all evolved .they were put into families because they are similar looking in a morphological sense and through DNA similarity. I will say that there are variations in each family of organisms but how do we know exactly who was created as they are and which breeds came about through variations.
> 
> All humans are related there is no doubting that and we we all descended from one set of parents.
> 
> 
> They are just two breeds from the same family. They are genetically close enough to reproduce. However they cannot cross breed in the wild they are mortal enemies. Besides tigers are from Asia and lions are from Africa.
> 
> Do you notice their offspring show traits from both parents not traits from random mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If lions and tigers do not interact in the wild, how are they mortal enemies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well because when they come face to face they will fight.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfQGn4xCq8]Tiger vs Lion - Tiger wins the fight! - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Why do you think they don't live together ?
> 
> Now living in captivity they still show lions are too territorial.
Click to expand...


LOL, I think you are missing the common use of mortal enemy.  Just because animals fight doesn't mean that phrase really fits.  Your use of it was just funny.


----------



## LOki

Your misinformation regarding punctated equilibrium exposed.

The basis in logical fallacy of the intelligence of this "Creator" or "designer" of yours exposed.

Let us continue to expose your stolid mendacity:



Youwerecreated said:


> God exists before time putting him outside of the universe.


There was no time, obviously, before time for this "God" of yours to exist in.



Youwerecreated said:


> Time for man began with the beginning of the universe..
> 
> Once again you use finite explanations to explain infinite.
> 
> If time began with the universe where did matter come from ?


Time is a function of existence. The proper question is; how do you explain the existence of this "God" of yours before existence?



Youwerecreated said:


> Yes two different breeds from the same family can cross breed and reproduce if their DNA is close enough.


Breeds belong to the same species; they are properly called "sub-species." Sub-species within a family can only successfully breed if the mating pair belong to the same species.



Youwerecreated said:


> But one of the major problems is almost all species breed with others of their kind, ...


"Kind" is term belonging to bariminology, and it is meaningless in the sense you're using it now. You said earlier that "kind" meant "species," and if you were intellectually honest, you would stick to that.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... very little cross breeding happens unless through selective breeding by humans.


This is entirely, grossly infact, wrong. "Mutts" are a fine example of the commonplace nature of members belonging to separate sub-species within a species breeding. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Darwinist must have a way for dogs to produce non-dogs, ...


This misinformation. Evolution DOES NOT require dogs to produce non-dogs; if it did, the entire theory would collapse.



Youwerecreated said:


> There is no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to any kind of plant or animals DNA.


There is. It's been presented to you dozens of times. Your baseless denial of this reality is no refutation of the facts of reality.



Youwerecreated said:


> The DNA code barrier is a huge problem for you evolutionist.


There is no problematic "DNA code barrier" that prevents "new and beneficial genetic information" from being introduced to plant or animal DNA.



Youwerecreated said:


> Mutations ans adapted organisms are not genetically stronger as Neo darwinism falsely teaches.
> 
> Example, Ranchers managing gene depletion is how ranchers breed out traits to produce meatier cows and cows that produce more milk.


You example PROVES you to be unambiguously wrong. Those "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk" a far more suited to their environment--"genetically stronger" if you will--than their  root stock would be in an environment that selected for "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk."



Youwerecreated said:


> You have no proof nothing exists outside of the universe.


He doesn't need it; you do though.



Youwerecreated said:


> If you assume all life was the product of a natural process and absent of a creator what is your evidence ?


It is NOT assumed that "... all life was the product of a natural process and absent of a creator."

You are attacking a strawman, AGAIN!

However, you ARE obligated to explain (with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic) why you arbitraily *pre*sume life is NOT the product of a natural process.
Considering your verifiable history of intellectual dishonesty, I predict that you will demand that you have already done so, but will refuse to provide a link, or ANY OTHER substantiation for your claim; obligating me to once again point it out to you, with the fact of reality that no such explanation exists being proof.



Youwerecreated said:


> you have to show evidence for two things. #1 evidence of the natural process that created all life ...


These natural processes have been presented to you dozens of times. Your baseless denial of this reality is no refutation of the facts of reality.



Youwerecreated said:


> #2 evidence there is no creator.


The lack of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic supporting the existence of this "creator" of yours, is evidence that this "creator" of yours does not exist.
Considering your verifiable history of intellectual dishonesty, I feel obligated to point out that here is a distinction to be made between "evidence" and "proof", which I am confident that you're willing to ignore with your predictable response of, "That doesn't prove a creator does not exist."

And let's just be absolutely clear here, the burden of proof rests entirely upon you; as the theory you oppose does not exclude the possibility of a creator, whereas your theory excludes all explanations without a creator.

So ... what's up with that?



Youwerecreated said:


> Mutations form from mistakes they are errors do you understand this ?


If mutations are truly mistakes as you claim here, it strongly suggests fallibilty in the "design" of this "intelligent" creator you keep referencing for no reason founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. 



Youwerecreated said:


> The way you think there is never information loss that is blatantly false.


I don't think you understand that the theory of evolution makes no claims that if there's a change in the genetic information of one member of a species, that ALL members of that species suddenly experience that same change.



Youwerecreated said:


> Anytime there is a change from the origional information it comes at a loss of the origional information.


Not true. Just because some information is not expressed, it does not follow that it must then ALWAYS be lost.



Youwerecreated said:


> If the genome still contains genetic information from other creatures then why do animals not give birth to something other then what they are ?


Because evolutionists are not talking about magic.



Youwerecreated said:


> Everything i said can be verified and proven ...


You mean "refuted" due to lacking verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.



Youwerecreated said:


> however the argument you make  cannot be observed.


Really? Are you still denying ring species? Still?



Youwerecreated said:


> Off spring are always the same species the parents are.


The Theory of Evolution says nothing different, you intellectually dishonest retard.



Youwerecreated said:


> Why are purebreds dealing with a smaller gene pool then the mutt ?


Because purebreds are more genetically homogeneous.



Youwerecreated said:


> Don't act silly when i present you with facts you can't refute.


*HAHAHA!* _"Can't refute"_? LOLsome!



Youwerecreated said:


> [Lions and tigers] are just two breeds from the same family.


No. They are different species from the same family. 



Youwerecreated said:


> [Lions and tigers] are genetically close enough to reproduce.


true, yet offspring from such pairings cannot reproduce amongst themselves. Proof enough that they are not of the same ... ahem ... "kind."



Youwerecreated said:


> However [lions and tigers] cannot cross breed in the wild they are mortal enemies.


You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Besides tigers are from Asia and lions are from Africa.


Really? Then how did they become  "mortal enemies?" 



Youwerecreated said:


> There is more evidence if mutations cause change they cause more harm then good.


And you seem to be in denial that the "harmful" ones are essentially meaningless to evolution; they are not passed on.



Youwerecreated said:


> No i Have always understood mutations come at a loss of genetic information.


Then you "understand" at best 1/3 of the story.



Youwerecreated said:


> Just like it is impossible for mutations to do what you say. They don't accumulate because they are easily removed from the gene pool.


Right. The lethal ones. It's not "impossible" for non-lethal mutations to persist.

you are a glutton for having your ass handed to you on this subject, aren't you?



Youwerecreated said:


> You are avoiding answering the question truthfully,the truth is a purebred animal is the result of of a loss of information. They only possess the genetic information to produce what they are.


Yet members of other subspecies of Canis lupus still have an abundance of this lost information.

If you're right, how is it that the species still has all that "lost" information? What's up with that?



Youwerecreated said:


> So you're saying vets and breeders don't know what they are talking about ?


No. We're saying that you don't know what vets and breeders are talking about, you don't know what evolutionists are talking about, and you don't know what you are talking about.



Youwerecreated said:


> For your information many of us creationist hold degrees in the same fields as evolutionist.


Yeah, but those Creationists that hold such degrees from Sunday School don't count.



Youwerecreated said:


> 7th grade education  Then why must i continue correcting you ?


Asserting your misinformation as fact, is not correcting anybody.



Youwerecreated said:


> Your whole theory rests on speculation not observed evidence.


Of all things, this is certainly one thing that the Theory of Evolution DOES NOT share with your "theory."



Youwerecreated said:


> I understand your theory really well and thats why it is easy for me to attack.
> 
> _--SNIP--_​
> What is Micro and Macro-Evolution?
> 
> If you want to learn something read this article.


You have no honest understanding of Evolutionary Theory what-so-ever, and your insistence upon your macro- /micro- evolution distinction just proves it.



Youwerecreated said:


> Cbirch the evidence is overwhelmingly on my side of the debate ,...


Then bring it.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... none of your pretty graphs can change the facts.


True. And none of your denials of reality change the facts of reality.

Your magical thinking is just bunk.

And let's not forget that in the real world, there's literally no verifiable evidence and/or verifiable evidence that leads to your certainty, and that only denials of verifiable evidence and valid logic validate your certainty.

For instance, the intelligence of this "Creator" or "designer" of yours.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Your misinformation regarding punctated equilibrium exposed.
> 
> The basis in logical fallacy of the intelligence of this "Creator" or "designer" of yours exposed.
> 
> Let us continue to expose your stolid mendacity:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God exists before time putting him outside of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> There was no time, obviously, before time for this "God" of yours to exist in.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for man began with the beginning of the universe..
> 
> Once again you use finite explanations to explain infinite.
> 
> If time began with the universe where did matter come from ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Time is a function of existence. The proper question is; how do you explain the existence of this "God" of yours before existence?
> 
> Breeds belong to the same species; they are properly called "sub-species." Sub-species within a family can only successfully breed if the mating pair belong to the same species.
> 
> "Kind" is term belonging to bariminology, and it is meaningless in the sense you're using it now. You said earlier that "kind" meant "species," and if you were intellectually honest, you would stick to that.
> 
> This is entirely, grossly infact, wrong. "Mutts" are a fine example of the commonplace nature of members belonging to separate sub-species within a species breeding.
> 
> This misinformation. Evolution DOES NOT require dogs to produce non-dogs; if it did, the entire theory would collapse.
> 
> There is. It's been presented to you dozens of times. Your baseless denial of this reality is no refutation of the facts of reality.
> 
> There is no problematic "DNA code barrier" that prevents "new and beneficial genetic information" from being introduced to plant or animal DNA.
> 
> You example PROVES you to be unambiguously wrong. Those "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk" a far more suited to their environment--"genetically stronger" if you will--than their  root stock would be in an environment that selected for "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk."
> 
> He doesn't need it; you do though.
> 
> It is NOT assumed that "... all life was the product of a natural process and absent of a creator."
> 
> You are attacking a strawman, AGAIN!
> 
> However, you ARE obligated to explain (with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic) why you arbitraily *pre*sume life is NOT the product of a natural process.
> Considering your verifiable history of intellectual dishonesty, I predict that you will demand that you have already done so, but will refuse to provide a link, or ANY OTHER substantiation for your claim; obligating me to once again point it out to you, with the fact of reality that no such explanation exists being proof.
> 
> These natural processes have been presented to you dozens of times. Your baseless denial of this reality is no refutation of the facts of reality.
> 
> The lack of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic supporting the existence of this "creator" of yours, is evidence that this "creator" of yours does not exist.
> Considering your verifiable history of intellectual dishonesty, I feel obligated to point out that here is a distinction to be made between "evidence" and "proof", which I am confident that you're willing to ignore with your predictable response of, "That doesn't prove a creator does not exist."
> 
> And let's just be absolutely clear here, the burden of proof rests entirely upon you; as the theory you oppose does not exclude the possibility of a creator, whereas your theory excludes all explanations without a creator.
> 
> So ... what's up with that?
> 
> If mutations are truly mistakes as you claim here, it strongly suggests fallibilty in the "design" of this "intelligent" creator you keep referencing for no reason founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> I don't think you understand that the theory of evolution makes no claims that if there's a change in the genetic information of one member of a species, that ALL members of that species suddenly experience that same change.
> 
> Not true. Just because some information is not expressed, it does not follow that it must then ALWAYS be lost.
> 
> Because evolutionists are not talking about magic.
> 
> You mean "refuted" due to lacking verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> Really? Are you still denying ring species? Still?
> 
> The Theory of Evolution says nothing different, you intellectually dishonest retard.
> 
> Because purebreds are more genetically homogeneous.
> 
> *HAHAHA!* _"Can't refute"_? LOLsome!
> 
> No. They are different species from the same family.
> 
> true, yet offspring from such pairings cannot reproduce amongst themselves. Proof enough that they are not of the same ... ahem ... "kind."
> 
> You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.
> 
> Really? Then how did they become  "mortal enemies?"
> 
> And you seem to be in denial that the "harmful" ones are essentially meaningless to evolution; they are not passed on.
> 
> Then you "understand" at best 1/3 of the story.
> 
> Right. The lethal ones. It's not "impossible" for non-lethal mutations to persist.
> 
> you are a glutton for having your ass handed to you on this subject, aren't you?
> 
> Yet members of other subspecies of Canis lupus still have an abundance of this lost information.
> 
> If you're right, how is it that the species still has all that "lost" information? What's up with that?
> 
> No. We're saying that you don't know what vets and breeders are talking about, you don't know what evolutionists are talking about, and you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Yeah, but those Creationists that hold such degrees from Sunday School don't count.
> 
> Asserting your misinformation as fact, is not correcting anybody.
> 
> Of all things, this is certainly one thing that the Theory of Evolution DOES NOT share with your "theory."
> 
> You have no honest understanding of Evolutionary Theory what-so-ever, and your insistence upon your macro- /micro- evolution distinction just proves it.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cbirch the evidence is overwhelmingly on my side of the debate ,...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then bring it.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... none of your pretty graphs can change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. And none of your denials of reality change the facts of reality.
> 
> Your magical thinking is just bunk.
> 
> And let's not forget that in the real world, there's literally no verifiable evidence and/or verifiable evidence that leads to your certainty, and that only denials of verifiable evidence and valid logic validate your certainty.
> 
> For instance, the intelligence of this "Creator" or "designer" of yours.
Click to expand...


I believe God created the universe in doing so he created time as we know it. I don't have to prove that God exists i have admitted my belief is based in faith, dummy. If he is gonna deny God exists it is up to him to prove it ,and all life came from a natural process then he needs to be able to show it. Those were his claims i like how you cherry pick.

Kind can mean either species or sub-species get it ?

Don't need to explain Gods existence.

Mutts are from a much larger gene pool because you don't know what you will get in the offspring .where when you breed purebreeds you know what you will get and that shows the gene pool is smaller,you don't have a clue concerning simple genetics.

If macro-evolution is a viable theory that is what you need dogs traits evolving to a point it is a destinctly new organism,in other words no longer a dog. Please learn the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Before you try to discuss it,it only shows your ignorance.

There is no natural process that shows life can spontaneously start on it's own you are lying.

Most evolutionist deny God creating are you just gonna be this dishonest in front of everyone reading this thread.

Wrong anytime a gene mutates to a point it causes change that is a permanent change and the origional gene is no more.So information is lost. You really need to study genetics before you discuss it with someone who has.

Homogeneous means they are very much the same and the reason they are very much the same is because they only have the genetic data to produce themselves but thanks for agreeing with me.

Lions are mortal enemies to any big cat that comes into their territory,you didn't understand what territorial means you mental midget. You don't believe animals migrated ?


Now this is really funny and shows your ignorance on genetics  harmful mutations are not passed on  why do we have over 4,500 genetic diseases and defects and counting ? Contradicted yourself did ya ?

I am a glutton for being amused by the ignorant.

My degree in molecular biology is not from sunday school,it's from the University of Arizona. have you heard of it ?

I corrected him that it's not the number of chromosomes that matter its the information in the chromosome that matters. Remember Mr. 44 chromosome man. I have corrected him that purebreds are from belong to a smaller gene pool. The proof is all purebreds have had information bred out of them and that is why they are their own breed.

Dummy,both terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution were terms created by evolutionist and there is a major difference the terms. 

Oh and i did bring it and you didn't understand  that trait changes have a ceiling or limit but you were not bright enough to understand it when i presented it.

Don't waste my time with your drivel.

Goodnight school is out.


----------



## IndependntLogic

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



Just so you know, the majority of us who do not believe that life just "Poof'd" into existence, also do not believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. 

We see no conflict between science and spirituality.


----------



## Youwerecreated

IndependntLogic said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you know, the majority of us who do not believe that life just "Poof'd" into existence, also do not believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> We see no conflict between science and spirituality.
Click to expand...



Because you don't read the bible,or believe in a god that did not create.

Just so you understand i don't have to believe in God to know the modern day theory of macro-evolution is nonsense. And man thniking he could put an age on the universe


----------



## LOki

Your ignorance regarding the role of genetics in agriculture, and its significance regarding natural selection exposed.

Your ignorance regarding the frequency of cross breeding among sub-species exposed.

Let us continue to expose your stolid mendacity:



Youwerecreated said:


> I believe God created the universe in doing so he created time as we know it.


Time is a function of existence. The proper question is; how do you explain the existence of this "God" of yours before existence?



Youwerecreated said:


> I don't have to prove that God exists i have admitted my belief is based in faith, dummy.


No. You do. We are just being generous to you by giving you a pass. That pass expires the second you say that we have to prove this Creator of yours does not exist.



Youwerecreated said:


> If he is gonna deny God exists it is up to him to prove it ,...


In the debate regarding whether or not this Creator of your exists, the burden of proof is on you. Period.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... and all life came from a natural process then he needs to be able to show it. Those were his claims i like how you cherry pick.


I cherry picked nothing. I pointed out your illicit shifting of the burden of proof.

And let's just be absolutely clear here, the the burden of proof is on you rests entirely upon you; as the theory you oppose does not exclude the possibility of a creator, whereas your theory excludes all explanations without a creator.

So ... what's up with that?



Youwerecreated said:


> Kind can mean either species or sub-species get it ?


Not in contention. What is in contention is your insistence that members of different species can successfully reproduce. You're just as wrong now as you were when you first tried to make this assertion.

Besides, ligers and tigons are not even sub-species; hence they are not of the same ... ahem ... "kind."



Youwerecreated said:


> Don't need to explain Gods existence.


No. You really do. Not to convince yourself, obviously; but to convince us. We are just being generous to you by giving you a pass.

We are patronizing you, because you're a retard who is over his head.



Youwerecreated said:


> Mutts are from a much larger gene pool because you don't know what you will get in the offspring .


You are unambiguously wrong. Purebreds and mutts belong to the exactly and precisely same gene pool. It is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for mutts to belong to a larger gene pool than purebreds.



Youwerecreated said:


> where when you breed purebreeds you know what you will get and that shows the gene pool is smaller,you don't have a clue concerning simple genetics.


It is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for mutts to belong to a larger gene pool than purebreds.

It is obvious that it is YOU who has no clue what-so-ever regarding genetics. NONE!



Youwerecreated said:


> If macro-evolution is a viable theory that is what you need dogs traits evolving to a point it is a destinctly new organism,in other words no longer a dog.


You insist that we understand evolution before we discuss it with you, and then you start in with shit that defies what evolution asserts.

If the progeny of a mating pair was EVER a different species from its parents, the theory of evolution would IMPLODE! You are truly an idiot. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Please learn the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Before you try to discuss it,it only shows your ignorance.


I know the difference. I just don't accept your ignorant use of the terms. Instead, you intellectually dishonest douche, YOU should learn the proper difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution before you try to discuss it.



Youwerecreated said:


> There is no natural process that shows life can spontaneously start on it's own you are lying.


These natural processes have been presented to you dozens of times. Were you not REQUIRED to take organic chemistry in pursuit of your alleged molecular biology degree? Apparently not. Your baseless denial of this reality is no refutation of the facts of reality.



Youwerecreated said:


> Most evolutionist deny God creating are you just gonna be this dishonest in front of everyone reading this thread.


Dishonest?  You're just the kettle calling the clean fine china black. You're a retard.



Youwerecreated said:


> Wrong anytime a gene mutates to a point it causes change that is a permanent change and the origional gene is no more.So information is lost. You really need to study genetics before you discuss it with someone who has.


You really need to study genetics before you discuss it with someone who has. When a gene mutates, the original gene simply changes. And it does not magically change in every member of the species all at once; so information is not lost "anytime" there is a mutation.



Youwerecreated said:


> Homogeneous means they are very much the same and the reason they are very much the same is because they only have the genetic data to produce themselves but thanks for agreeing with me.


The impression of agreement was due only to misspeaking. There is less variation among purebreds because of greater homogeneity amongst members of the specific breed; they have the exactly and precisey same gene pool as mutts.



Youwerecreated said:


> Lions are mortal enemies to any big cat that comes into their territory,you didn't understand what territorial means you mental midget. You don't believe animals migrated ?


You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Now this is really funny and shows your ignorance on genetics  harmful mutations are not passed on  why do we have over 4,500 genetic diseases and defects and counting ? Contradicted yourself did ya ?


I misspoke. I meant to assert that "lethal" mutations are essentially meaningless to evolution; they are not passed on. The harmful ones are, non-the-less, less likely to be passed on ... particularly if the heterozygous diploid is not advantageous.



Youwerecreated said:


> My degree in molecular biology is not from sunday school,it's from the University of Arizona. have you heard of it ?


Apparently your degree is a joke.

You see, I could tell you that I'm a PhD. candidate in Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics at Columbia University of New York. I could further tell you after presenting some of your notions regarding evolution, genetics and natural processes  to Dr. Bosco, Dr. Dieckmann, and Dr. Little, they thought it laughable that anyone with such disregard for science and the facts of reality could achieve any level of academic achievement in Molecular Biology.

But being just internet yakking, this is all entirely meaningless; just like your claims regarding your degree in molecular biology from the U of A.

What is actually meaningful, is your patent disregard for science and the facts of reality; your obvious ignorance of genetics and the theory of evolution; your persistent embrace of logical fallacies and misinformation; and your complete lack of intellectual rigor and integrity.

It is apparent to me that you clearly had no courses in organic chemistry or genetics, or basic biology for that matter; I seriously suspect you had no coursework in molecular biology in the pursuit of your molecular biology degree.

In effect, the credentials you claim are entirely meaningless in light of the specious crap you post.



Youwerecreated said:


> I corrected him that it's not the number of chromosomes that matter its the information in the chromosome that matters. Remember Mr. 44 chromosome man.


Remember that the number of chromosomes actually did matter some? Most notably to his progeny who would experience a 66% rate of infant moratality in their attempts to have children.



Youwerecreated said:


> I have corrected him that purebreds are from belong to a smaller gene pool. The proof is all purebreds have had information bred out of them and that is why they are their own breed.


In which if he bought your bullshit, you only succeeded in misinforming someone.



Youwerecreated said:


> Dummy,both terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution were terms created by evolutionist and there is a major difference the terms.


No. There isn't a major difference in the terms--not when used by evolutionists. YOU should learn the proper difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution before you try to discuss it.



Youwerecreated said:


> Oh and i did bring it and you didn't understand  that trait changes have a ceiling or limit but you were not bright enough to understand it when i presented it.


You were just as wrong then, as you are now.

And let's not forget that in the real world, there's literally no verifiable evidence and/or verifiable evidence that leads to your certainty, and that only denials of verifiable evidence and valid logic validate your certainty.

For instance, the intelligence of this "Creator" or "designer" of yours.


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. Finding proof that the earth is less than ten thousand years old isn't hard to do, just look around, *if* the earth was some billions years of age, there would be more evidence pointing there, there is not.
2. Everything appears to be new, mountains appear fresh and unaffected by erosion.
3. There is no evidence of age, its only in the scientist minds.
4. They say mankind has been on the planet some six hundred thousand years, were is the evidence of that?
5. There is none, mans history can be traced back, with archaeological digs, and we can never see past six thousand years of history.
6. Its as plain as the nose on your face, this is a young earth, and universe.
7. You need to get your shit together, and wake up.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Your ignorance regarding the role of genetics in agriculture, and its significance regarding natural selection exposed.
> 
> Your ignorance regarding the frequency of cross breeding among sub-species exposed.
> 
> Let us continue to expose your stolid mendacity:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God created the universe in doing so he created time as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Time is a function of existence. The proper question is; how do you explain the existence of this "God" of yours before existence?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove that God exists i have admitted my belief is based in faith, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You do. We are just being generous to you by giving you a pass. That pass expires the second you say that we have to prove this Creator of yours does not exist.
> 
> In the debate regarding whether or not this Creator of your exists, the burden of proof is on you. Period.
> 
> I cherry picked nothing. I pointed out your illicit shifting of the burden of proof.
> 
> And let's just be absolutely clear here, the the burden of proof is on you rests entirely upon you; as the theory you oppose does not exclude the possibility of a creator, whereas your theory excludes all explanations without a creator.
> 
> So ... what's up with that?
> 
> Not in contention. What is in contention is your insistence that members of different species can successfully reproduce. You're just as wrong now as you were when you first tried to make this assertion.
> 
> Besides, ligers and tigons are not even sub-species; hence they are not of the same ... ahem ... "kind."
> 
> No. You really do. Not to convince yourself, obviously; but to convince us. We are just being generous to you by giving you a pass.
> 
> We are patronizing you, because you're a retard who is over his head.
> 
> You are unambiguously wrong. Purebreds and mutts belong to the exactly and precisely same gene pool. It is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for mutts to belong to a larger gene pool than purebreds.
> 
> It is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for mutts to belong to a larger gene pool than purebreds.
> 
> It is obvious that it is YOU who has no clue what-so-ever regarding genetics. NONE!
> 
> You insist that we understand evolution before we discuss it with you, and then you start in with shit that defies what evolution asserts.
> 
> If the progeny of a mating pair was EVER a different species from its parents, the theory of evolution would IMPLODE! You are truly an idiot.
> 
> I know the difference. I just don't accept your ignorant use of the terms. Instead, you intellectually dishonest douche, YOU should learn the proper difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution before you try to discuss it.
> 
> These natural processes have been presented to you dozens of times. Were you not REQUIRED to take organic chemistry in pursuit of your alleged molecular biology degree? Apparently not. Your baseless denial of this reality is no refutation of the facts of reality.
> 
> Dishonest?  You're just the kettle calling the clean fine china black. You're a retard.
> 
> You really need to study genetics before you discuss it with someone who has. When a gene mutates, the original gene simply changes. And it does not magically change in every member of the species all at once; so information is not lost "anytime" there is a mutation.
> 
> The impression of agreement was due only to misspeaking. There is less variation among purebreds because of greater homogeneity amongst members of the specific breed; they have the exactly and precisey same gene pool as mutts.
> 
> You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.
> 
> I misspoke. I meant to assert that "lethal" mutations are essentially meaningless to evolution; they are not passed on. The harmful ones are, non-the-less, less likely to be passed on ... particularly if the heterozygous diploid is not advantageous.
> 
> Apparently your degree is a joke.
> 
> You see, I could tell you that I'm a PhD. candidate in Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics at Columbia University of New York. I could further tell you after presenting some of your notions regarding evolution, genetics and natural processes  to Dr. Bosco, Dr. Dieckmann, and Dr. Little, they thought it laughable that anyone with such disregard for science and the facts of reality could achieve any level of academic achievement in Molecular Biology.
> 
> But being just internet yakking, this is all entirely meaningless; just like your claims regarding your degree in molecular biology from the U of A.
> 
> What is actually meaningful, is your patent disregard for science and the facts of reality; your obvious ignorance of genetics and the theory of evolution; your persistent embrace of logical fallacies and misinformation; and your complete lack of intellectual rigor and integrity.
> 
> It is apparent to me that you clearly had no courses in organic chemistry or genetics, or basic biology for that matter; I seriously suspect you had no coursework in molecular biology in the pursuit of your molecular biology degree.
> 
> In effect, the credentials you claim are entirely meaningless in light of the specious crap you post.
> 
> Remember that the number of chromosomes actually did matter some? Most notably to his progeny who would experience a 66% rate of infant moratality in their attempts to have children.
> 
> In which if he bought your bullshit, you only succeeded in misinforming someone.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dummy,both terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution were terms created by evolutionist and there is a major difference the terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There isn't a major difference in the terms--not when used by evolutionists. YOU should learn the proper difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution before you try to discuss it.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and i did bring it and you didn't understand  that trait changes have a ceiling or limit but you were not bright enough to understand it when i presented it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were just as wrong then, as you are now.
> 
> And let's not forget that in the real world, there's literally no verifiable evidence and/or verifiable evidence that leads to your certainty, and that only denials of verifiable evidence and valid logic validate your certainty.
> 
> For instance, the intelligence of this "Creator" or "designer" of yours.
Click to expand...


Posting something you don't understand does not make your argument 

Trust me i have seen action from the paranormal to convince me there are unseen forces all aroud us.

But like i said i don't need to believe in God to know macro-evolution never happened. It's an impossibility the creator allowed for adaptations thats it.

Let's focus in on how you believe macro-evolution happened. Go into detail explain where and how new genetic information is achieved. Tell what kind of mutations produce the kind of information needed for macro-evolution ?

Then explain to me in detail how life spontaneously started on its own without the aid of a designer. Explain to me what the miller urey experiment proved ?

Lets get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I have to travel to meet with my attorney today we will continue this when i return but in the meantime please explain what i have asked of you.


----------



## IndependntLogic

Youwerecreated said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you know, the majority of us who do not believe that life just "Poof'd" into existence, also do not believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> We see no conflict between science and spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you don't read the bible,or believe in a god that did not create.
> 
> Just so you understand i don't have to believe in God to know the modern day theory of macro-evolution is nonsense. And man thniking he could put an age on the universe
Click to expand...


Ah you. The guy who likes to judge the faith of another. So you sit and judge, eh? So much for following the example taught by Christ.

Yes I read the Bible. This is obvious: I know far more about it than you.

Did I say anything about evolution? While the evidence of evolution is obvious, I find flaws in the theory as a whole. That's called reason, btw. 

As far as the age of the universe, did I say anything about that? Ah, you're projecting so you can judge again.

So again to the OPer: Not all of us are judgmental fundamentalists like YouWereCreated, here. The majority of us have come to learn that man can fly (this thought was considered heresy), atoms exist (this thought and the science that led to it was considered heresy), people are taller than they used to be (that would be evolution) etc....

Our biggest difference in belief is the "Poof" factor. Not whether evolution occurs (obviously, it does) but rather the Origin of Life and whether there is a living force beyond our understanding.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> There were many groups of organisms that were created as they are and never changed. They were put in to families by man because some men believe they all evolved .they were put into families because they are similar looking in a morphological sense and through DNA similarity. I will say that there are variations in each family of organisms but how do we know exactly who was created as they are and which breeds came about through variations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. So this is what i understand of your position.
> 
> God created certain animals. Some may have varied within their originally created group, like lions and tigers possibly, but we have absolutely no way of knowing if thats happened or not.
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Care to find that somewhere outside of christiananswers?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the mule now? But what does it mean to be a breed within a family!? Does that mean one original big cat gave birth to successive child cats, and so on with each generation, and eventually two populations became distinct?
> 
> And its not as if of they can still reproduce fine. Theyre children are usually sterile.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words populations of big cats that were separated geographically and subsequently diverged genetically? Kind of sounds like my exact argument...
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you notice their offspring show traits from both parents not traits from random mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> And is this your explanation for why no nucleobases can be different from parents?
> 
> Ok, if one parent has TTTT, and other has AAAA, the combination for the offspring might not be a logical combination of the two. It might not be TTAA or TATA. Maybe DNA replicase made a mistake and the offspring looks like CTAA, rather than TTAA, even though no parent had a C (cytosine), in that gene segment.
> 
> The result of that might kill the organism. It might do nothing. It might, for example, allow the protein or catalyze citric acid for use in the krebs cycle.
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your theory really well and thats why it is easy for me to attack.
> 
> 2. The DNA code barrier. A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling. This perhaps is the biggest obstacle to gradual change through micro-evolution. Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organism will have. If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical. Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change.  There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations. No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present.  Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.
> 
> Charles Colson made mention of a few good examples of this principle. Darwin used breeding of the rock pigeon as a basis for his theory that gradual changes in species will evolve into new species. All pigeons are descendents of the rock pigeon. This pigeon is the same pigeon that can be found in most city parks. Through selective breeding, Darwin was able to produce many drastic variations of pigeons. He observed very rapid changes in traits that he could alter by this selective breeding and concluded that if he could make these changes within a few generations of pigeons, in time a new species of bird would develop. There are several flaws with this theory. 1. His intervention was the trigger for these various breeds. It did not occur naturally. 2. When left alone, his pigeons returned back to the ancestral rock pigeon within a few generations. If his theory were valid, they should have continued their ascent. 3. Darwin never lived to see that there was a natural barrier that slowed changes after a few generations and eventually reached a stopping point.
> 
> Change can be rapid when leaving the norm, but slows and eventually stops as the ceiling is reached. There is a limit to the number of combinations a specific trait can have. Another good example of this comes from the book, How Now Shall We Live. 150 years ago, sugar cane farmers committed to increasing the sugar content in their sugar beets. At the time the project began, sugar content was at 6%. Through selective cross-pollination, within a few generations of beets the sugar content soared to 13%. Over the next 75 years these growers were able to inch the sugar content up to 17%. Now, 75 years after they were able to achieve the 17% barrier, the sugar beet remains at 17%. This is a clear example of the DNA code barrier that limits the variation of a specific trait. This example shows the same principle that Darwin unknowingly discovered. Rapid change, then slow change followed by no change.
> 
> Another conflict with the evolutionary theory is that when the DNA ceiling is reached, the species becomes weak. When a trait is exaggerated beyond its natural limits, the species weakens and suffers from genetically induced diseases or vulnerability to disease. The farther from the norm the more disease prone the plant or animal becomes. So even with selective breeding and exploited traits, the species becomes vulnerable and at risk of extinction. Animals that are bred to bring out their desired features often become sterile or diseased. We can look around today and see examples of this problem. Anyone involved with farming is aware of the sterility problem associated with over-breeding. Dogs are very defect prone when they are bred to show quality. However, when left alone, species will soon return to the norm.
> 
> What is Micro and Macro-Evolution?
> 
> If you want to learn something read this article.
Click to expand...

this is not science, it's a another rationalization based of a false premise.
please present testing methods, results  and peer reviewed papers .


----------



## daws101

Creation ScienceFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creation Science or scientific creationism[1] is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.[2][3] Its most vocal proponents are fundamentalist Christians in the United States who seek to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution.[4] The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex nihilo"; the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 10,000 years; the belief that mankind and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed "baraminological" kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth.[5] As a result, creation science also challenges the geologic and astrophysical evidence for the age and origins of Earth and Universe, which creation scientists acknowledge are irreconcilable to the account in the Book of Genesis.[4] Creation science proponents often refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" or as "Darwinian evolution".

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that Creation Science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[6][7] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[8][9]

Creation science texts and curricula emerged in the 1960s. They focused upon concepts derived from a literal interpretation of the Bible and were overtly religious in nature, most notably linking Noah's flood in the Biblical Genesis account to the geological and fossil record in a system termed "flood geology". These works attracted little notice beyond the schools and congregations of conservative fundamental and evangelical Christians until the 1970s when its followers challenged the teaching of evolution in the public schools and other venues in the United States, bringing it to the attention of the public-at-large and the scientific community. Many school boards and lawmakers were persuaded to include the teaching of creation science alongside Darwinian evolution in the science curriculum.[10] Creation science texts and curricula used in churches and Christian schools were revised to eliminate their Biblical and theological references, and less explicitly sectarian versions of creation science education were introduced in public schools in Louisiana, Arkansas, and other regions in the United States.[10][11]

The 1982 ruling in McLean v. Arkansas found that creation science fails to meet the essential characteristics of science and that its chief intent is to advance a particular religious view.[12] The teaching of creation science in public schools in the United States effectively ended in 1987 following the United States Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard.[4] The court affirmed that a statute requiring the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution is taught in Louisiana public schools was unconstitutional because its sole true purpose was to advance a particular religious belief.[12]

MAIN POINT:"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that Creation Science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[6][7] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[8][9]".

Creation Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## daws101

IndependntLogic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you know, the majority of us who do not believe that life just "Poof'd" into existence, also do not believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> We see no conflict between science and spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you don't read the bible,or believe in a god that did not create.
> 
> Just so you understand i don't have to believe in God to know the modern day theory of macro-evolution is nonsense. And man thniking he could put an age on the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah you. The guy who likes to judge the faith of another. So you sit and judge, eh? So much for following the example taught by Christ.
> 
> Yes I read the Bible. This is obvious: I know far more about it than you.
> 
> Did I say anything about evolution? While the evidence of evolution is obvious, I find flaws in the theory as a whole. That's called reason, btw.
> 
> As far as the age of the universe, did I say anything about that? Ah, you're projecting so you can judge again.
> 
> So again to the OPer: Not all of us are judgmental fundamentalists like YouWereCreated, here. The majority of us have come to learn that man can fly (this thought was considered heresy), atoms exist (this thought and the science that led to it was considered heresy), people are taller than they used to be (that would be evolution) etc....
> 
> Our biggest difference in belief is the "Poof" factor. Not whether evolution occurs (obviously, it does) but rather the Origin of Life and whether there is a living force beyond our understanding.
Click to expand...

BLASPHEMER! YOU'RE GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL!


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again assumptions come from a lack of evidence. Conclusions come from reasoning on the evidence.
> 
> The scientific method is testing the hypotheses,so tell me how  they test a hypotheses of evolution if they are not able to observe it ?
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for playing (cue buzzer)sorry but again you've spun the meaning to fit your false premise.
> As already explained
> i'll try to make this simple, a scientific assumption s based on the best available evidence not the lack of it, lets say a paleontologist finds 50% of a t- rex ,say the right half..they can safely assume that specimen has another half.
> It not the same as your assumptions about "intelligent design" which assumes facts not in evidence
> as to not being able to observe it the fossil record shows it, darwin and many other scientists have observed it in action
> germs and viruses do it everyday
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you assume all life was the product of a natural process and absent of a creator what is your evidence ? You have to show evidence for two things. #1 evidence of the natural process that created all life  #2 evidence there is no creator.
Click to expand...

asked and answered


----------



## Youwerecreated

IndependntLogic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you know, the majority of us who do not believe that life just "Poof'd" into existence, also do not believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> We see no conflict between science and spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you don't read the bible,or believe in a god that did not create.
> 
> Just so you understand i don't have to believe in God to know the modern day theory of macro-evolution is nonsense. And man thniking he could put an age on the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah you. The guy who likes to judge the faith of another. So you sit and judge, eh? So much for following the example taught by Christ.
> 
> Yes I read the Bible. This is obvious: I know far more about it than you.
> 
> Did I say anything about evolution? While the evidence of evolution is obvious, I find flaws in the theory as a whole. That's called reason, btw.
> 
> As far as the age of the universe, did I say anything about that? Ah, you're projecting so you can judge again.
> 
> So again to the OPer: Not all of us are judgmental fundamentalists like YouWereCreated, here. The majority of us have come to learn that man can fly (this thought was considered heresy), atoms exist (this thought and the science that led to it was considered heresy), people are taller than they used to be (that would be evolution) etc....
> 
> Our biggest difference in belief is the "Poof" factor. Not whether evolution occurs (obviously, it does) but rather the Origin of Life and whether there is a living force beyond our understanding.
Click to expand...


Just a few questions for you. Do you believe in science ideology over what the bible states ? Not trying to be judgmental , I just don't understand someone saying they are a believer then accept a theory that contradicts the scriptures. Either way you believe poof had to have something to do with the origins of life. I agree with adaptations happening but not evolution there is no observable evidence for it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. So this is what i understand of your position.
> 
> God created certain animals. Some may have varied within their originally created group, like lions and tigers possibly, but we have absolutely no way of knowing if thats happened or not.
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Care to find that somewhere outside of christiananswers?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the mule now? But what does it mean to be a breed within a family!? Does that mean one original big cat gave birth to successive child cats, and so on with each generation, and eventually two populations became distinct?
> 
> And its not as if of they can still reproduce fine. Theyre children are usually sterile.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words populations of big cats that were separated geographically and subsequently diverged genetically? Kind of sounds like my exact argument...
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> And is this your explanation for why no nucleobases can be different from parents?
> 
> Ok, if one parent has TTTT, and other has AAAA, the combination for the offspring might not be a logical combination of the two. It might not be TTAA or TATA. Maybe DNA replicase made a mistake and the offspring looks like CTAA, rather than TTAA, even though no parent had a C (cytosine), in that gene segment.
> 
> The result of that might kill the organism. It might do nothing. It might, for example, allow the protein or catalyze citric acid for use in the krebs cycle.
> 
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your theory really well and thats why it is easy for me to attack.
> 
> 2. The DNA code barrier. A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling. This perhaps is the biggest obstacle to gradual change through micro-evolution. Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organism will have. If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical. Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change.  There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations. No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present.  Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.
> 
> Charles Colson made mention of a few good examples of this principle. Darwin used breeding of the rock pigeon as a basis for his theory that gradual changes in species will evolve into new species. All pigeons are descendents of the rock pigeon. This pigeon is the same pigeon that can be found in most city parks. Through selective breeding, Darwin was able to produce many drastic variations of pigeons. He observed very rapid changes in traits that he could alter by this selective breeding and concluded that if he could make these changes within a few generations of pigeons, in time a new species of bird would develop. There are several flaws with this theory. 1. His intervention was the trigger for these various breeds. It did not occur naturally. 2. When left alone, his pigeons returned back to the ancestral rock pigeon within a few generations. If his theory were valid, they should have continued their ascent. 3. Darwin never lived to see that there was a natural barrier that slowed changes after a few generations and eventually reached a stopping point.
> 
> Change can be rapid when leaving the norm, but slows and eventually stops as the ceiling is reached. There is a limit to the number of combinations a specific trait can have. Another good example of this comes from the book, How Now Shall We Live. 150 years ago, sugar cane farmers committed to increasing the sugar content in their sugar beets. At the time the project began, sugar content was at 6%. Through selective cross-pollination, within a few generations of beets the sugar content soared to 13%. Over the next 75 years these growers were able to inch the sugar content up to 17%. Now, 75 years after they were able to achieve the 17% barrier, the sugar beet remains at 17%. This is a clear example of the DNA code barrier that limits the variation of a specific trait. This example shows the same principle that Darwin unknowingly discovered. Rapid change, then slow change followed by no change.
> 
> Another conflict with the evolutionary theory is that when the DNA ceiling is reached, the species becomes weak. When a trait is exaggerated beyond its natural limits, the species weakens and suffers from genetically induced diseases or vulnerability to disease. The farther from the norm the more disease prone the plant or animal becomes. So even with selective breeding and exploited traits, the species becomes vulnerable and at risk of extinction. Animals that are bred to bring out their desired features often become sterile or diseased. We can look around today and see examples of this problem. Anyone involved with farming is aware of the sterility problem associated with over-breeding. Dogs are very defect prone when they are bred to show quality. However, when left alone, species will soon return to the norm.
> 
> What is Micro and Macro-Evolution?
> 
> If you want to learn something read this article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is not science, it's a another rationalization based of a false premise.
> please present testing methods, results  and peer reviewed papers .
Click to expand...


you really don't get it do you. creations look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions of the evidence. because both sides have different presuppositions.  What you should ask yourself whose presuppositions are better supported by the evidence ?  I think I provided plenty of evidence to support what I believe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Creation ScienceFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Creation Science or scientific creationism[1] is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.[2][3] Its most vocal proponents are fundamentalist Christians in the United States who seek to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution.[4] The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex nihilo"; the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 10,000 years; the belief that mankind and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed "baraminological" kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth.[5] As a result, creation science also challenges the geologic and astrophysical evidence for the age and origins of Earth and Universe, which creation scientists acknowledge are irreconcilable to the account in the Book of Genesis.[4] Creation science proponents often refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" or as "Darwinian evolution".
> 
> The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that Creation Science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[6][7] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[8][9]
> 
> Creation science texts and curricula emerged in the 1960s. They focused upon concepts derived from a literal interpretation of the Bible and were overtly religious in nature, most notably linking Noah's flood in the Biblical Genesis account to the geological and fossil record in a system termed "flood geology". These works attracted little notice beyond the schools and congregations of conservative fundamental and evangelical Christians until the 1970s when its followers challenged the teaching of evolution in the public schools and other venues in the United States, bringing it to the attention of the public-at-large and the scientific community. Many school boards and lawmakers were persuaded to include the teaching of creation science alongside Darwinian evolution in the science curriculum.[10] Creation science texts and curricula used in churches and Christian schools were revised to eliminate their Biblical and theological references, and less explicitly sectarian versions of creation science education were introduced in public schools in Louisiana, Arkansas, and other regions in the United States.[10][11]
> 
> The 1982 ruling in McLean v. Arkansas found that creation science fails to meet the essential characteristics of science and that its chief intent is to advance a particular religious view.[12] The teaching of creation science in public schools in the United States effectively ended in 1987 following the United States Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard.[4] The court affirmed that a statute requiring the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution is taught in Louisiana public schools was unconstitutional because its sole true purpose was to advance a particular religious belief.[12]
> 
> MAIN POINT:"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that Creation Science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[6][7] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[8][9]".
> 
> Creation Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



School of wiki that explains a lot.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for playing (cue buzzer)sorry but again you've spun the meaning to fit your false premise.
> As already explained
> i'll try to make this simple, a scientific assumption s based on the best available evidence not the lack of it, lets say a paleontologist finds 50% of a t- rex ,say the right half..they can safely assume that specimen has another half.
> It not the same as your assumptions about "intelligent design" which assumes facts not in evidence
> as to not being able to observe it the fossil record shows it, darwin and many other scientists have observed it in action
> germs and viruses do it everyday
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you assume all life was the product of a natural process and absent of a creator what is your evidence ? You have to show evidence for two things. #1 evidence of the natural process that created all life  #2 evidence there is no creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answered
Click to expand...


Where are your peer reviewed articles supporting this view ? Go into detail please. I hope you understand miller and urey did not prove life can spontaneously happen on its own. But you have already been corrected on this issue,try again. What is the evidence that there is no creator ?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do creationist hold scientific degrees ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually have yet to see someone that dedicates their time to young earth creationism and actually has a respectable degree. If someone has a degree in management, i dont care what their opinion is on biology...
> 
> That said im sure some do hold good degrees...their numbers are just a lot few than those that think the earth is over 6000 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> And somehow that has to be bad? A change in genetic information is just a change in amino acids and a change in protein expression. Different proteins have different uses. Small segments of proteins can certainly be changed so that it yields some beneficial usage beyond its non-mutated function. This isnt even debatable.
> 
> 
> 
> Im not denying there can be information loss. Where do i deny that? The loss of genetic information is certainly a valid mutation....
> 
> 
> 
> and a change to new information. If adenine changes to thymine, thats a change of information. The old information, adenine, is lost. The new information, thymine, is added...
> 
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> ..........
> 
> A human and a chimpanzee share something like 99% of their genes. So by and large, you do contain the genetic information of other creatures. Again, thats just a fact. DNA is just a sequence of nucleotides.
> 
> "The published chimpanzee genome differs from that of the human genome by 1.23% in direct sequence comparisons.[35]"
> 
> So you do have the same genetic information as primates do, by and large. If your DNA sequence was ACGTACGTACGT, a primates DNA might be *T*CGTACGTACGT. Everything but the T is the exact same information.
> 
> The difference between us is that we are separated from a common ancestor by many many generations, and both groups have gained *and lost *information as theyve been separated. For you to give birth to a chimpanzee, that would require that the normal errors in DNA replication somehow happen on the exact right nucleotides and in the exact right amount. its just infinitely not possible.
> 
> But it doesnt work like that the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> What have you proved? Youve just cried that information cant be added. Even "answersingenesis.com" disagrees with you there.
> 
> OMG "offspring are always the same species as their parent" is the argument of someone that doesnt understand evolution.
> 
> Two populations of big cats become separated. The gene pool of each population randomly diverges because of random mutation and the environment deciding which ones dominate the population. As time passes there is no way to guarantee that the random mutations that come to dominate each gene pool will be similar. In fact all common sense would say they would be different. As time passes those groups would be significantly different, and their genomes may no longer be compatible. When fertilization occurs, there are a lot of A's where T's should be, or C's where G's should be, or whichever combination. Theres no way that you can prevent these random changes in bases from happening in random places.
> 
> But within each groups, each successful offspring was only marginally different from their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> because thats the definition of a pure bred so we continue to artificially breed them like that....
> 
> There is no such thing as "pure". There is only a combination of nucleotides that we recognize as a distinct lineage and through mating we preserve the gene pool as best we can, without being able to control random mutations in reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't act silly when i present you with facts you can't refute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youve presented me with a thoroughly contrived explanation of what you think evolution is and how it works. You have less understanding than a 7th grader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is more evidence if mutations cause change they cause more harm then good.
Click to expand...


Yes but bad mutations cannot come to dominate a gene pool in nature, neutral mutations spread through the gene pool like every other gene, and beneficial mutations dominate the gene pool.



Youwerecreated said:


> No i Have always understood mutations come at a loss of genetic information.



So its _*impossible*_ for _DNA replicase_ to either insert a random nitrogenous base, or duplicate ones already there?

What about duplication? If an organism starts with just two adenine's, AA, and the next generation accidentally has AAAA because of a gene duplication, then then the third generation has an error in replication to cause AACC, isnt that a net gain of information. 

Im just not sure what your argument is. 

Its impossible for nucleotide bases to be added to chromosomes during replications? Because that would be a dumb argument.



Youwerecreated said:


> Just like it is impossible for mutations to do what you say. They don't accumulate because they are easily removed from the gene pool.



No. Mutations are not just removed from a gene pool. This is wrong. Mutations are passed around a gene pool just like any other sequence of nucleotides. Because thats all they are, a sequence of nucleotides like any other gene.

The extent and the speed with which that gene can spread through a gene pool is determined by that mutations effect on the organisms survival. Thats why bad mutations die out. 

But the vast majority of mutations are not bad, they do nothing. Those mutations spread around the gene pool just like any other gene would.



Youwerecreated said:


> You are avoiding answering the question truthfully,the truth is a purebred animal is the result of of a loss of information. They only possess the genetic information to produce what they are.



Im not avoiding the answer truthfully, you just dont get what im saying because your an idiot. 

Again, humans can selectively weed out traits however they want, nature isnt quite like that. 

Imagine a dog has two alleles, genotype RR (homozygous dominant). And you mate it with another dog of the same genotype, Rr (heterozygous). You could selectively breed the dominant gene (R), out of that population if you simply picked which genotypes produced offspring through successive generations. 

Breed the RR x Rr until you get an Rr x Rr, breed those until you get rr x rr, and then every subsequent generation will be homozygous recessive, and you have weeded out the dominant gene from that small gene pool. 

But nature doesnt even work like that. Not even by mendelian standards does it work like that, because each allele would spread throughout the population statistically. But evolutionarily its even more wrong.



Youwerecreated said:


> So you're saying vets and breeders don't know what they are talking about ?



Im saying you dont know what your talking about. 



Youwerecreated said:


> For your information many of us creationist hold degrees in the same fields as evolutionist.



1. Statistically, no most of you do not hold degrees
2. Statistically, most people that hold degrees are not creationists. 



Youwerecreated said:


> They are pure because of the DNA information will only produce what they are. This is not hard to understand.



No. They are pure because we have breeded them with the same family for hundreds of years.

The pure bred german shepherd originates from 1899 german dog named Horand von Grafrath. All german shepherds of descendants of this dog, and any dogs that have no other breeds in their ancestry are purebred. 

Horand von Grafrath - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Youwerecreated said:


> 7th grade education  Then why must i continue correcting you ?



Why dont you understand what purebreds are? They arent biblical, unless you consider dog breeders like Max von Stephanitz god. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Your whole theory rests on speculation not observed evidence.



As does all of science but that doesnt mean its wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually have yet to see someone that dedicates their time to young earth creationism and actually has a respectable degree. If someone has a degree in management, i dont care what their opinion is on biology...
> 
> That said im sure some do hold good degrees...their numbers are just a lot few than those that think the earth is over 6000 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> And somehow that has to be bad? A change in genetic information is just a change in amino acids and a change in protein expression. Different proteins have different uses. Small segments of proteins can certainly be changed so that it yields some beneficial usage beyond its non-mutated function. This isnt even debatable.
> 
> 
> 
> Im not denying there can be information loss. Where do i deny that? The loss of genetic information is certainly a valid mutation....
> 
> 
> 
> and a change to new information. If adenine changes to thymine, thats a change of information. The old information, adenine, is lost. The new information, thymine, is added...
> 
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> ..........
> 
> A human and a chimpanzee share something like 99% of their genes. So by and large, you do contain the genetic information of other creatures. Again, thats just a fact. DNA is just a sequence of nucleotides.
> 
> "The published chimpanzee genome differs from that of the human genome by 1.23% in direct sequence comparisons.[35]"
> 
> So you do have the same genetic information as primates do, by and large. If your DNA sequence was ACGTACGTACGT, a primates DNA might be *T*CGTACGTACGT. Everything but the T is the exact same information.
> 
> The difference between us is that we are separated from a common ancestor by many many generations, and both groups have gained *and lost *information as theyve been separated. For you to give birth to a chimpanzee, that would require that the normal errors in DNA replication somehow happen on the exact right nucleotides and in the exact right amount. its just infinitely not possible.
> 
> But it doesnt work like that the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> What have you proved? Youve just cried that information cant be added. Even "answersingenesis.com" disagrees with you there.
> 
> OMG "offspring are always the same species as their parent" is the argument of someone that doesnt understand evolution.
> 
> Two populations of big cats become separated. The gene pool of each population randomly diverges because of random mutation and the environment deciding which ones dominate the population. As time passes there is no way to guarantee that the random mutations that come to dominate each gene pool will be similar. In fact all common sense would say they would be different. As time passes those groups would be significantly different, and their genomes may no longer be compatible. When fertilization occurs, there are a lot of A's where T's should be, or C's where G's should be, or whichever combination. Theres no way that you can prevent these random changes in bases from happening in random places.
> 
> But within each groups, each successful offspring was only marginally different from their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> because thats the definition of a pure bred so we continue to artificially breed them like that....
> 
> There is no such thing as "pure". There is only a combination of nucleotides that we recognize as a distinct lineage and through mating we preserve the gene pool as best we can, without being able to control random mutations in reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> Youve presented me with a thoroughly contrived explanation of what you think evolution is and how it works. You have less understanding than a 7th grader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is more evidence if mutations cause change they cause more harm then good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but bad mutations cannot come to dominate a gene pool in nature, neutral mutations spread through the gene pool like every other gene, and beneficial mutations dominate the gene pool.
> 
> 
> 
> So its _*impossible*_ for _DNA replicase_ to either insert a random nitrogenous base, or duplicate ones already there?
> 
> What about duplication? If an organism starts with just two adenine's, AA, and the next generation accidentally has AAAA because of a gene duplication, then then the third generation has an error in replication to cause AACC, isnt that a net gain of information.
> 
> Im just not sure what your argument is.
> 
> Its impossible for nucleotide bases to be added to chromosomes during replications? Because that would be a dumb argument.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Mutations are not just removed from a gene pool. This is wrong. Mutations are passed around a gene pool just like any other sequence of nucleotides. Because thats all they are, a sequence of nucleotides like any other gene.
> 
> The extent and the speed with which that gene can spread through a gene pool is determined by that mutations effect on the organisms survival. Thats why bad mutations die out.
> 
> But the vast majority of mutations are not bad, they do nothing. Those mutations spread around the gene pool just like any other gene would.
> 
> 
> 
> Im not avoiding the answer truthfully, you just dont get what im saying because your an idiot.
> 
> Again, humans can selectively weed out traits however they want, nature isnt quite like that.
> 
> Imagine a dog has two alleles, genotype RR (homozygous dominant). And you mate it with another dog of the same genotype, Rr (heterozygous). You could selectively breed the dominant gene (R), out of that population if you simply picked which genotypes produced offspring through successive generations.
> 
> Breed the RR x Rr until you get an Rr x Rr, breed those until you get rr x rr, and then every subsequent generation will be homozygous recessive, and you have weeded out the dominant gene from that small gene pool.
> 
> But nature doesnt even work like that. Not even by mendelian standards does it work like that, because each allele would spread throughout the population statistically. But evolutionarily its even more wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Im saying you dont know what your talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Statistically, no most of you do not hold degrees
> 2. Statistically, most people that hold degrees are not creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> No. They are pure because we have breeded them with the same family for hundreds of years.
> 
> The pure bred german shepherd originates from 1899 german dog named Horand von Grafrath. All german shepherds of descendants of this dog, and any dogs that have no other breeds in their ancestry are purebred.
> 
> Horand von Grafrath - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7th grade education  Then why must i continue correcting you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why dont you understand what purebreds are? They arent biblical, unless you consider dog breeders like Max von Stephanitz god.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your whole theory rests on speculation not observed evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As does all of science but that doesnt mean its wrong.
Click to expand...


The only thing worth responding to is man created dog breeds,it takes several different needs of dogs to create new a breed. You create the new breed by breeding unwanted traits out. If you look at a German short hair you can see out they necame more streamlined. they use to look like a bloodhound.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> There were many groups of organisms that were created as they are and never changed. They were put in to families by man because some men believe they all evolved .they were put into families because they are similar looking in a morphological sense and through DNA similarity. I will say that there are variations in each family of organisms but how do we know exactly who was created as they are and which breeds came about through variations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. So this is what i understand of your position.
> 
> God created certain animals. Some may have varied within their originally created group, like lions and tigers possibly, but we have absolutely no way of knowing if thats happened or not.
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Care to find that somewhere outside of christiananswers?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the mule now? But what does it mean to be a breed within a family!? Does that mean one original big cat gave birth to successive child cats, and so on with each generation, and eventually two populations became distinct?
> 
> And its not as if of they can still reproduce fine. Theyre children are usually sterile.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words populations of big cats that were separated geographically and subsequently diverged genetically? Kind of sounds like my exact argument...
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you notice their offspring show traits from both parents not traits from random mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> And is this your explanation for why no nucleobases can be different from parents?
> 
> Ok, if one parent has TTTT, and other has AAAA, the combination for the offspring might not be a logical combination of the two. It might not be TTAA or TATA. Maybe DNA replicase made a mistake and the offspring looks like CTAA, rather than TTAA, even though no parent had a C (cytosine), in that gene segment.
> 
> The result of that might kill the organism. It might do nothing. It might, for example, allow the protein or catalyze citric acid for use in the krebs cycle.
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your theory really well and thats why it is easy for me to attack.
Click to expand...


Lol



Youwerecreated said:


> 2. The DNA code barrier. A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling.



Definitely not a fact



Youwerecreated said:


> Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organism will have.



Why did you waste your time explaining something to me that ive explained to you many times??



Youwerecreated said:


> If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia.



Well that was a fun/random copy-posta



Youwerecreated said:


> With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical.



I just want to make sure that you know not all genes can change you know that right? 99% of information in the genome is information identical to all humans.



Youwerecreated said:


> Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change.  There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations.



Thats how mendel thought of it in 1800's before DNA came about. It your plotting it out on those mendelian charts they make *7th graders *do, then that makes sense.



Youwerecreated said:


> No new genetic material can be added.



Again, bases are inserted during mistake in deplication all the time. Not to mention viral infection. much of the human genome is a remnant of viral infection.

There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. [/quote]

nope.



Youwerecreated said:


> However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes.



Gross misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution doesnt work backwards. How could a mutation that causes the loss of a separated heart ventrical be spread throughout the population? It couldnt.

But a gene that adds a barrier between ventricles, as is normal, that could spread through a population. This is the story of amphibians/reptiles/mammals, at least partially.

Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.

[/quote]

Before you use that term again you better find it outside a creationist website.



Youwerecreated said:


> Charles Colson made mention of a few good examples of this principle. Darwin used breeding of the rock pigeon as a basis for his theory that gradual changes in species will evolve into new species. All pigeons are descendents of the rock pigeon. This pigeon is the same pigeon that can be found in most city parks. Through selective breeding, Darwin was able to produce many drastic variations of pigeons. He observed very rapid changes in traits that he could alter by this selective breeding and concluded that if he could make these changes within a few generations of pigeons, in time a new species of bird would develop. There are several flaws with this theory. 1. His intervention was the trigger for these various breeds. It did not occur naturally. 2. When left alone, his pigeons returned back to the ancestral rock pigeon within a few generations. If his theory were valid, they should have continued their ascent. 3. Darwin never lived to see that there was a natural barrier that slowed changes after a few generations and eventually reached a stopping point.
> 
> 1. Darwin wasnt triggering the mutation of the genome. That was random, but he was influencing which mutations performed the best. Just like the environment does.
> 2. Of course when you stop applying the environmental disturbance the competitive advantage goes away....wow....
> 3. See 2
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Change can be rapid when leaving the norm, but slows and eventually stops as the ceiling is reached. There is a limit to the number of combinations a specific trait can have. Another good example of this comes from the book, How Now Shall We Live. 150 years ago, sugar cane farmers committed to increasing the sugar content in their sugar beets. At the time the project began, sugar content was at 6%. Through selective cross-pollination, within a few generations of beets the sugar content soared to 13%. Over the next 75 years these growers were able to inch the sugar content up to 17%. Now, 75 years after they were able to achieve the 17% barrier, the sugar beet remains at 17%. This is a clear example of the DNA code barrier that limits the variation of a specific trait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally useless comparison. Thats not a limit on evolution is a limit on biochemical reactions and the structure of a plant. Could sugar be 100% of a fruit? No, there is a natural barrier that has nothing to do with evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another conflict with the evolutionary theory is that when the DNA ceiling is reached, the species becomes weak. When a trait is exaggerated beyond its natural limits, the species weakens and suffers from genetically induced diseases or vulnerability to disease. The farther from the norm the more disease prone the plant or animal becomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source please
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So even with selective breeding and exploited traits, the species becomes vulnerable and at risk of extinction. Animals that are bred to bring out their desired features often become sterile or diseased. We can look around today and see examples of this problem. Anyone involved with farming is aware of the sterility problem associated with over-breeding. Dogs are very defect prone when they are bred to show quality. However, when left alone, species will soon return to the norm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do i have to explain to you again that Captain Max von Stephanitz was not god, and that Horand von Grafrath is not his anointed son.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is Micro and Macro-Evolution?
> 
> If you want to learn something read this article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationist link ignored. Link to any site besides a creationist one.
Click to expand...


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is more evidence if mutations cause change they cause more harm then good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but bad mutations cannot come to dominate a gene pool in nature, neutral mutations spread through the gene pool like every other gene, and beneficial mutations dominate the gene pool.
> 
> 
> 
> So its _*impossible*_ for _DNA replicase_ to either insert a random nitrogenous base, or duplicate ones already there?
> 
> What about duplication? If an organism starts with just two adenine's, AA, and the next generation accidentally has AAAA because of a gene duplication, then then the third generation has an error in replication to cause AACC, isnt that a net gain of information.
> 
> Im just not sure what your argument is.
> 
> Its impossible for nucleotide bases to be added to chromosomes during replications? Because that would be a dumb argument.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Mutations are not just removed from a gene pool. This is wrong. Mutations are passed around a gene pool just like any other sequence of nucleotides. Because thats all they are, a sequence of nucleotides like any other gene.
> 
> The extent and the speed with which that gene can spread through a gene pool is determined by that mutations effect on the organisms survival. Thats why bad mutations die out.
> 
> But the vast majority of mutations are not bad, they do nothing. Those mutations spread around the gene pool just like any other gene would.
> 
> 
> 
> Im not avoiding the answer truthfully, you just dont get what im saying because your an idiot.
> 
> Again, humans can selectively weed out traits however they want, nature isnt quite like that.
> 
> Imagine a dog has two alleles, genotype RR (homozygous dominant). And you mate it with another dog of the same genotype, Rr (heterozygous). You could selectively breed the dominant gene (R), out of that population if you simply picked which genotypes produced offspring through successive generations.
> 
> Breed the RR x Rr until you get an Rr x Rr, breed those until you get rr x rr, and then every subsequent generation will be homozygous recessive, and you have weeded out the dominant gene from that small gene pool.
> 
> But nature doesnt even work like that. Not even by mendelian standards does it work like that, because each allele would spread throughout the population statistically. But evolutionarily its even more wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Im saying you dont know what your talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Statistically, no most of you do not hold degrees
> 2. Statistically, most people that hold degrees are not creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> No. They are pure because we have breeded them with the same family for hundreds of years.
> 
> The pure bred german shepherd originates from 1899 german dog named Horand von Grafrath. All german shepherds of descendants of this dog, and any dogs that have no other breeds in their ancestry are purebred.
> 
> Horand von Grafrath - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Why dont you understand what purebreds are? They arent biblical, unless you consider dog breeders like Max von Stephanitz god.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your whole theory rests on speculation not observed evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As does all of science but that doesnt mean its wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing worth responding to is man created dog breeds,it takes several different needs of dogs to create new a breed. You create the new breed by breeding unwanted traits out. If you look at a German short hair you can see out they necame more streamlined. they use to look like a bloodhound.
Click to expand...


Ok the point is that purebred dogs were not created as is by god. That is a stupid fucking argument. The point of a purebred is that its entire lineage is documented from the first person that decided to breed the lineage. Your claim is verifiably false. 

And you clearly couldnt respond to any other of the very substantive refutations of your ridiculous argument.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but bad mutations cannot come to dominate a gene pool in nature, neutral mutations spread through the gene pool like every other gene, and beneficial mutations dominate the gene pool.
> 
> 
> 
> So its _*impossible*_ for _DNA replicase_ to either insert a random nitrogenous base, or duplicate ones already there?
> 
> What about duplication? If an organism starts with just two adenine's, AA, and the next generation accidentally has AAAA because of a gene duplication, then then the third generation has an error in replication to cause AACC, isnt that a net gain of information.
> 
> Im just not sure what your argument is.
> 
> Its impossible for nucleotide bases to be added to chromosomes during replications? Because that would be a dumb argument.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Mutations are not just removed from a gene pool. This is wrong. Mutations are passed around a gene pool just like any other sequence of nucleotides. Because thats all they are, a sequence of nucleotides like any other gene.
> 
> The extent and the speed with which that gene can spread through a gene pool is determined by that mutations effect on the organisms survival. Thats why bad mutations die out.
> 
> But the vast majority of mutations are not bad, they do nothing. Those mutations spread around the gene pool just like any other gene would.
> 
> 
> 
> Im not avoiding the answer truthfully, you just dont get what im saying because your an idiot.
> 
> Again, humans can selectively weed out traits however they want, nature isnt quite like that.
> 
> Imagine a dog has two alleles, genotype RR (homozygous dominant). And you mate it with another dog of the same genotype, Rr (heterozygous). You could selectively breed the dominant gene (R), out of that population if you simply picked which genotypes produced offspring through successive generations.
> 
> Breed the RR x Rr until you get an Rr x Rr, breed those until you get rr x rr, and then every subsequent generation will be homozygous recessive, and you have weeded out the dominant gene from that small gene pool.
> 
> But nature doesnt even work like that. Not even by mendelian standards does it work like that, because each allele would spread throughout the population statistically. But evolutionarily its even more wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Im saying you dont know what your talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Statistically, no most of you do not hold degrees
> 2. Statistically, most people that hold degrees are not creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> No. They are pure because we have breeded them with the same family for hundreds of years.
> 
> The pure bred german shepherd originates from 1899 german dog named Horand von Grafrath. All german shepherds of descendants of this dog, and any dogs that have no other breeds in their ancestry are purebred.
> 
> Horand von Grafrath - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Why dont you understand what purebreds are? They arent biblical, unless you consider dog breeders like Max von Stephanitz god.
> 
> 
> 
> As does all of science but that doesnt mean its wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing worth responding to is man created dog breeds,it takes several different needs of dogs to create new a breed. You create the new breed by breeding unwanted traits out. If you look at a German short hair you can see out they necame more streamlined. they use to look like a bloodhound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok the point is that purebred dogs were not created as is by god. That is a stupid fucking argument. The point of a purebred is that its entire lineage is documented from the first person that decided to breed the lineage. Your claim is verifiably false.
> 
> And you clearly couldnt respond to any other of the very substantive refutations of your ridiculous argument.
Click to expand...


When I have time I will respond but I am not gonna keep repeating myself idiot. I am on my phone talk some sense into you later.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> you really don't get it do you. creations look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions of the evidence. because both sides have different presuppositions.


No. Scientists ask, "How did this happen?"

Creationists ask, "Who caused this to happen?"

Scientists allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not point to that conclusion.

Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed a creator, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusion.

The reason creationists look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions is that they are intellectually dishonest superstitious retards.



Youwerecreated said:


> What you should ask yourself whose presuppositions are better supported by the evidence ?


The evidence does not support your presuppositions, and evolutionists don't have presuppositions as such. Evolutionists do not subscribe to your intellectually dishonest intellectual paradigm.



Youwerecreated said:


> I think I provided plenty of evidence to support what I believe.


No you didn't, but now you can  . Bring verifiable evidence of the existence of this creator of yours.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Posting something you don't understand does not make your argument


That's precisely what I've been telling you.

I've demonstrated quite handily, that I understand BOTH your position and mine better than you.



Youwerecreated said:


> Trust me i have seen action from the paranormal to convince me there are unseen forces all aroud us.


Your superstitions run deep, do they?



Youwerecreated said:


> But like i said i don't need to believe in God to know macro-evolution never happened.


Right. You need only deny reality, and refuse to admit that your logical fallacies are invalid.

We are already acquainted with the notion that your beliefs are faith.



Youwerecreated said:


> It's an impossibility the creator allowed for adaptations thats it.


What creator? Please explain this creator you keep referencing.



Youwerecreated said:


> Let's focus in on how you believe macro-evolution happened. Go into detail explain where and how new genetic information is achieved.


This has been presented to you dozens of times. In fact, EVERY TIME YOU'VE ASKED, IT HAS BEEN DONE FOR YOU! EVERY TIME!



Youwerecreated said:


> Tell what kind of mutations produce the kind of information needed for macro-evolution ?


The kind that are not lethal.



Youwerecreated said:


> Then explain to me in detail how life spontaneously started on its own without the aid of a designer.


I've already done this for you. In fact, EVERY TIME YOU'VE ASKED, IT HAS BEEN DONE FOR YOU! EVERY TIME!



Youwerecreated said:


> Explain to me what the miller urey experiment proved ?


 It established the plausibility of organic molecules spontaneously forming from inorganic precursors under the conditions hypothesized to exist early in the history of the Earth.



Youwerecreated said:


> Lets get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating.


Yes. So no more of this "I don't have to explain God" business then. Get intellectual integrity or get out.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I guess it is time for us to get into the nitty gritty and discuss these so called mutations that caused macro-evolution.

For you LOKI and Cbirch lets see if you understand the problems presented.

A Scientific Critique of Evolution
Dr. Lee Spetner
in an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max 

© 2000 L.M. Spetner.  All Rights Reserved.  

r. Edward E. Max posted an essay entitled The Evolution of Improved Fitness by Random Mutation Plus Selection on http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness.html.  He asked me for my comments and, as a result, I wrote a critique of his essay (of his version updated 12 July 1999) and sent it to him on 2 August 2000.  He promised me he would have it posted on the talkorigins website with a link from his essay.  He responded to my critique on 22 August and I replied to his response on 29 August.  I received a reply from him on 25 September that he was &#8220;looking forward to responding&#8221;, but was busy at the time.  At the time of this writing (27 November 2000) I have not received any further substantive reply from him, and my comments have so far not appeared on the above website.  I have therefore decided to post here a unified version of the present status of our debate.  I have merged my original critique, his response, and my reply to his response to present our debate in an understandable flow.  In my original critique I refer to Dr. Max in the third person.  In my reply to his response, I address him in the second person.

I recommend you first read his original essay posted at the above-mentioned URL, and then read the following.  I have interspersed Max&#8217;s comments into my critique where they are applicable, followed by my response to them.

At the outset, I shall establish an important and necessary guideline in this discussion of evolution.  The word evolution is generally used in at least two different senses, and the distinction between them is important.  On the one hand, the word evolution is used to denote the descent of all life from a putative single primitive source.  It is the grand sweep of evolution that is supposed to have led from a simple beginning, something perhaps simpler than a bacterium, to all organisms living today, including humans.  This descent is supposed to have occurred through purely natural means.  Neo-Darwinian theory (NDT), which is the prevailing theory of evolution, teaches that this development occurred through random heritable variations in the organisms followed by natural selection.  I shall denote the word evolution used in this sense as Evolution A.  When evolution is discussed for popular consumption, it is most often Evolution A.

The second sense in which the word evolution is used is to denote any kind of change of a population.  The change can sometimes occur in response to environmental pressure (artificial or natural selection), and sometimes it can just be random (genetic drift).  I shall denote the word used in this second sense as Evolution B.  Evolution B has been observed.  Evolution A is an inference, but is not observable.  The distinction between these two meanings of evolution parallels the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, but the two pairs of terms are not identical.  Evolution A is certainly what is called macroevolution, but what is called macroevolution is not identical with Evolution A.  In any case, I prefer to use the A and B to avoid having to carry whatever baggage might go with the macro/micro distinction.

The distinction between these two meanings of evolution is often ignored by the defenders of Neo-Darwinian evolution.  But the distinction is critical.  The claim is made for Evolution A, but the proof offered is often limited to Evolution B.  The implication is that the observation of Evolution B is a substantiation of Evolution A.  But this is not so.  Since Evolution A is not an observable, it can only be substantiated by circumstantial evidence.  This circumstantial evidence is principally the fossil record, amino-acid-sequence comparisons, and comparative anatomy.  Circumstantial evidence must be accompanied by a theory of how it relates to what is to be proved.  NDT is generally accepted to be that theory.  The strength of the circumstantial evidence for Evolution A can therefore be no better than the strength of NDT.

The important claim of Neo-Darwinism is that it can account for Evolution A.  The public perceives this claim as the core of the controversy over evolution.  This claim is also the source of the contention by evolutionists that life is the result of purely natural processes, which ensue from well-known natural laws.  I have examined this claim in my book Not By Chance!, and have found it to be empty.

Evolution A is the principle message of evolution, namely that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source.  The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection.  The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.  That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance.  There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall refrain from addressing that issue here.  That is for another place and another time.  What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution.  The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.

Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story.  No one has ever shown that the mechanism of NDT can result in Evolution A.  Most evolutionists assume that long sequences of microevolutionary events can produce Evolution A, but no one has ever shown it to be so.  (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I have a hard time telling what it is.) 

For Evolution A to work, long series of &#8220;beneficial&#8221; mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism.  The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of present-day life.  There must be a long series of possible mutations, each conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can enable it to take over the population.  Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such, series.

The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context.  The concept of the adaptive landscape is useful here.  This concept was first introduced by Sewall Wright[1], but now nucleotide sequences of the mean population genome have taken the place of Wright&#8217;s gene combinations.  There are a great many adaptive hills of various heights spread over the genomic landscape.  NDT then says that it should be possible to continue to climb an &#8220;adaptive&#8221; hill to a large global maximum (or near-maximum), one base change at a time, without getting hung up on a small local maximum.  No one has ever shown this to be possible.

Evolutionists often claim that if the evolutionary process were hung up on a small local adaptive maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination, or other genetic rearrangement, could bring it to another hill that has a higher peak, and place it higher up on that hill than it was before.  Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable.  They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable.  No one has shown this to be possible either.

Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision&#8212;not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance.  Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because no one can think of any other way that beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law requiring them to occur.  Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all.  They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed for a population to escape from a local small adaptive maximum.

Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval.  Our genetic observations over the past 100 years is thought to be more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes.  But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.

Max: &#8220;An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.&#8221;
Spetner: Thank you for acknowledging that what I said was reasonable.  But the two statements, yours and mine, are not symmetrical.  I don&#8217;t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT.  Those who base a theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist.  They are obliged to demonstrate an existence.  I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.  NDT has the convenient characteristic that the very events that would prove the theory valid are inherently not observable.  Pleading that one should be excused from bringing such proofs because they are not observable does not help the evolutionist&#8217;s case.  If you want to prove the theory, you had better find something observable.

Continuing my original critique, I pointed out that the argument against evolution is considerably stronger than merely noting that the evolutionists have not proved their case.  It turns out that there is evidence that the series of mutations NDT requires do not, in fact, exist.  The theory requires there be a vast number of possible point mutations which, coupled with natural selection, can generate the evolutionary advances that could produce Evolution A.  If there really are a large number of potentially qualifying mutations, at least a few of them should have been observed in some of the many genetics laboratories around the world.  All the mutations in these long series must not only confer selective advantage on the organism but they must, on the average, also contribute to the information, or complexity, increase that surely distinguishes present-day life from the putative primitive organism.

These mutations must have whatever characteristics are necessary for them to serve as elements of Evolution A.  Thus, for a mutation to qualify as a representative member of the required multitude of the long series that are supposed to produce evolution, it must bring new information not just to the genome of the organism, but the information must be new to the entire biocosm.[2]  The horizontal transfer of a gene from one species to another does not inject new information into the biocosm.  To show evolution in action, one must at least demonstrate examples of a mutation that can serve as a prototype of those required by the theory.  Such a mutation must be one that could be a contributing member of a series of mutations that could lead to the vast increase in information required by the theory.  Thus, for example, a mutation that yields an enzyme new to the biocosm, or one that makes an enzyme more specific than anything in the biocosm, would be adding information.  On the other hand, a mutation that disables a repressor gene causing a constitutive synthesis of an enzyme might be advantageous to an organism under special circumstances, but the disabling of a gene is not the kind of mutation the theory requires.  Once in a while, such a mutation might make an adaptive contribution, but it cannot be typical of the mutations required by the theory.

Max devoted a good portion of his essay to challenging what he calls the &#8220;creationist&#8221; arguments against evolution.  The arguments he challenged include false statements such as:  (1) all mutations are harmful; (2) random mutations cannot increase the information content of a system; (3) the proteins had to arise by random trials without the benefit of natural selection.  If he found creationists that said such things, then I suppose it&#8217;s part of the job he has assumed upon himself to refute them.  His challenges, however, are hardly a telling argument for evolution.  (1) Mutations have indeed been observed that confer an adaptive advantage, but that alone does not qualify them to serve as components of a series of Neo-Darwinian steps.  (2) Some special cases of mutations may add information to the genome, but here again, that alone does not qualify them to serve as components of an evolutionary series.  (3) Although the creation of proteins by random trials is not the thesis of NDT, no one has shown that they can be generated by random mutations and natural selection in the context of evolution.  His challenges are valid, but they are far from sufficient to establish NDT.  I shall address these points in what follows.

The following is additional criticism of Max&#8217;s original essay that was not included in my original response.

Max challenged point (1) by indicating that beneficial mutations indeed occur.  The intention of his essay was to argue for Evolution A.  Had he limited himself to Evolution B, I would have no quarrel with him.  He claimed that &#8220;a rare beneficial mutation can confer a survival, or reproductive, advantage to the individuals that carry it, thereby leading&#8212;over several generations&#8212;to the spread of the mutation throughout a population.&#8221;

His description is of what is often called a step in the evolutionary process.  Max stated categorically that such a step can occur.  Moreover, to support Evolution A, the kind of step he described must have happened over and over again, millions upon millions of times.  He presented no evidence that it has ever happened, but simply tacitly assumed that it could.  Can it indeed?  I address that question.

One must understand that at the heart of NDT lies chance and randomness.  Mutations are random events.  The occurrence of a beneficial mutation at any given time in any given population is governed by chance.  Even natural selection, which carries the burden of being the directive force of evolution, is subject to the laws of chance.  Selection coefficients are average values.  What happens in any particular instance is a random event.  A mutation, even one that confers adaptive benefit on the organism, is likely to be wiped out by chance events (see Chapter 3 of my book).  There is a good chance that it will disappear before it can take over the population.  The question is not if it can happen, but, with what probability will it happen?

NDT is a theory that is supposed to account for the natural development of all life from a simple beginning.  I don&#8217;t know why we need such a theory, because the development of life from a simple beginning is not an observable.  The theory is gratuitous; it comes to account for something that was never observed.

Actually, evolutionary thinking goes like this. 

One observes present life. 
One then assumes that it arose in a natural way. 
One then concocts a theory (e.g., the NDT) to account for the observation, given the assumption. 
I suppose that if the theory were really a good one, and could really explain well how life could have developed in a natural way, it would lend some credence to the assumption that life did indeed develop in a natural way.  But it is not a good theory, and it does not account for what it is supposed to.  Evolutionists, realizing this, have lately been reduced to arguing that if no one has a better theory that can account for the natural origin of life, then one must accept NDT.  As you will see from some of Max&#8217;s comments below, he also adopts this approach.  I don&#8217;t know why NDT merits the pedestal on which evolutionists have put it.

Now let&#8217;s get back to the probability of occurrence of one of those evolutionary steps of Max&#8217;s.  Since they are chance events, we cannot say with any certainty that they will happen.  The best we can do is to say with what probability such an event will occur.  So, evolutionists have offered us a theory (NDT) that postulates a long string of random events to account for the existence of life, assuming it developed in a natural way.  If the probability of those events were to turn out to be close to 1, then one could say that the theory accounts for the observation.  On the other hand, if, according to the theory, the probability of those events were very low, one would have to say that the theory does not account for the observation.  If a theory predicts observed events to be highly improbable, then one cannot justifiably say that the theory accounts for those events.

You would think that, since the issue of the probabilities of the evolutionary events is so crucial to the validity of the theory, the advocates of evolution would have calculated the necessary probabilities to make their case.  But they haven&#8217;t.  Since they have not made these calculations, Max is not entitled to assume that evolutionary steps can occur.

There is some difficulty in calculating these probabilities because the values of the relevant parameters are not all known.  In my book, I addressed the problem of the probability of getting enough successful evolutionary steps to account for the evolution of the horse.  In spite of the difficulties I just mentioned, I was able to calculate an important result.  I found that either the probability of the horse evolving was impossibly low, or else convergent evolution cannot occur.  This result refutes NDT, and with it Evolution A.  Not only is Max&#8217;s point here not substantiated, it stands refuted.

Antibiotic Resistance as an Example of Evolution
Continuing his effort to show the evolutionary efficacy of beneficial mutations, Max presented in his essay the acquisition of antibiotic resistance by microorganisms as an example of evolution.  He said one can &#8220;demonstrate a beneficial mutation &#8230; with laboratory organisms that multiply rapidly, and indeed such experiments have shown that rare beneficial mutations can occur.  For instance, from a single bacterium one can grow a population in the presence of an antibiotic, and demonstrate that organisms surviving this culture have mutations in genes that confer antibiotic resistance.&#8221;  Such an experiment shows that &#8220;de novo beneficial mutations&#8221; can arise.

My response to this is that I have shown in my book that mutations leading to antibiotic resistance fail the test of representing the mutations necessary for evolution.  I summarize that argument here.

All antibiotics are derived from microorganisms.  Recall the story of the serendipitous discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in 1928, when he noticed that his plate of Staphylococcus bacteria was clear in the vicinity of a bread-mold contaminant.  The mold was found to produce something that could lyse and kill the bacteria.  That something was a molecule later named penicillin.  Afterwards, other antibiotics were found to be produced by other microorganisms, such as soil bacteria.  Soil has long been recognized in folk medicine as a cure for infections.

The antibiotics produced by these microorganisms serve them as a defense against attack by other microorganisms.  Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics.  This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell.  Unfortunately for human health care, the organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well.  Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have, to our misfortune, succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner qualifies as evolution only in the sense that it is an adaptive hereditary change.  It is an example only of Evolution B.  It is not the type of evolution that can make a baboon out of a bacterium.  The genetic change is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution A.  The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium&#8217;s genome, they must add new information to the biocosm.  The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species.

It turns out, however, that a microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide, and this is the kind of example Max presented.  Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way.  But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT.  The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule.  This change in the surface of the microorganism&#8217;s ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function.  It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information.  The main point is that Evolution A cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are.  Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.

In the final paragraph of my original critique, I said the following:

The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed.  No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by NDT that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information.  The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support?  The answer turns out to be NO!  Many have lost information.  To support NDT one would have to show many examples of random mutations that add information. Unless the aggregate results of the genetic experiments performed until now is a grossly biased sample, we can safely dismiss Neo-Darwinian theory as an explanation of how life developed from a single simple source.

Max: &#8220;I think that the sample of genetic mutations you cite is in fact biased, incorrectly interpreted, and much too small and non-systematic to draw such a sweeping conclusion.  I will try to explain why I believe this.

&#8220;Some streptomycin resistance mutations do, as you point out, reflect mutations of the ribosomal protein S12 which cause loss of binding of this antibiotic, which you interpret as &#8216;loss of information.&#8217;  However, you ignore other mutations of this protein that do not lead to loss of antibiotic binding (e.g. Timms et al., Mol Gen Genet 232:89, 1992).  According to your formulation, these mutations would not represent a loss of information, yet they are represent natural mutations that are adaptive under conditions of exposure to streptomycin.  Would you accept that this kind of mutation is a good model for an adaptive evolutionary change consistent with Neo-Darwinian Theory?

&#8220;Using your own example of streptomycin resistance, I have pointed out that some mutations of the S12 ribosomal protein do not represent a &#8216;loss of information&#8217; even by your own questionable criteria.&#8221;

Spetner: First of all, I would recommend that you not refer to my criteria of information loss as &#8220;questionable&#8221; until you understand them.  See below, where I explain your misunderstanding.  You let your own tacit assumptions get in the way of understanding my thesis.

Furthermore, you misunderstood the paper by Timms et al., which you cited.  All of the adaptive mutations reported in that paper show reduced binding of the streptomycin molecule.  The 12 adaptive mutations reported in the S12 protein fall into two categories.  There was no example of what you claimed I ignored.  Five of those mutants are designated as streptomycin resistant (Smr), and seven are designated as streptomycin dependent (Smd).  All 12 of them, in the words of the authors &#8220;reduce the affinity of the ribosome for streptomycin.&#8221;  Perhaps you would like to point out to me where in that paper they mention mutations in S12 do not lead to reduced binding, and which you claim I have ignored.

Max: &#8220;&#8230; how about the single amino acid substitution in a blowfly carboxylesterase that converts this enzyme into an organophosphorus hydrolase under selection by organophosphate insecticides [Newcomb et al., PNAS 94:464, 1997]?&#8221;
Spetner: In the Newcomb et al. paper that you cited, the experimenters started with 15 existing strains of blowflies, some of which were resistant to organophosphorus (OP) insecticide and some were not.  No mutations were imposed or observed.  The amino-acid differences between the two groups were only assumed to have arisen by mutation.

The esterase enzyme E3 plays an important role in the operation of the fly&#8217;s nervous system.  OP insecticides kill the insects by interfering with this activity.  Newcomb et al. found that the resistant allele of the gene encoding the enzyme E3 and the corresponding susceptible allele differ from each other in 19 nucleotides.  These differences translate into 5 amino-acid differences between the enzymes.  The authors concluded from their study that one of those 5, namely Gly137® Asp, could account for both a loss of esterase activity and an acquisition of OP hydrolase activity.

Although it is not certain that the difference in the activities of this enzyme arose through a random mutation, let us even suppose it did.  If it did, then this mutation is not likely to have occurred recently, because much time would be needed to have accumulated all the 19 nucleotide differences between these two phenotypes.  Both phenotypes have likely been in the populations of blowflies long before OP insecticides entered the environment.  The resistant allele must therefore have adaptive advantages in addition to OP insecticide resistance.

One can say with a large measure of confidence that the resistant strain did not arise through a single random mutation and proliferate through natural selection in the presence of OP.  This is evident from a close examination of Fig. 2 of the above-cited paper.  From what the authors have shown, if there were such a mutation it would have been the substitution Gly137® Asp.  The authors created two chimeric alleles of the E3 enzyme. One of these (let&#8217;s call it the susceptible chimera) had Gly137, corresponding to the allele susceptible to diazinon insecticide, but had the other 4 of the 5 discordant amino acids identical with the wild-type allele resistant to diazinon.  The other chimera (we&#8217;ll call it the resistant chimera) had the opposite; it had Asp137, and the other 4 of the 5 discordant amino acids identical with the susceptible allele.  The authors measured the OP hydrolase activity in the wild-type susceptible allele, the susceptible chimera, the wild-type resistant allele, and the resistant chimera.  They presented the results of their measurements in Fig. 2 of their paper, which shows the following:

There is negligible OP hydrolase activity in the wild-type susceptible allele of E3 and in the susceptible chimera. 
There is marked OP hydrolase activity in the wild-type resistant allele of E3 and in the resistant chimera.  It is this activity that the authors understand to be responsible for the resistance to OP insecticide. 
The OP hydrolase activity of the resistant chimera is about two and a half times that of the wild-type resistant allele. 
Accepting the authors&#8217; premise that the OP hydrolase activity is responsible for the resistance, we can say that a strain of blow fly whose E3 enzyme is identical with that of the wild-type susceptible, except for the single substitution Asp137, should be even more resistant than the wild-type resistant strain.  Therefore, if a mutation occurred in the susceptible strain achieving the substitution Gly137® Asp, it should be more adaptive than the wild-type susceptible strain in the presence of diazinon insecticide.  That being the case, the resistant population of blow flies should have an E3 enzyme with only Asp137 differing from that of the wild-type susceptible strain.  Since that is not the case, one can conclude that the other 4 of the discordant amino acids must have some overriding adaptive value that trumps the greater OP hydrolase activity of the resistant chimera, even though we don&#8217;t know what that adaptive value is. In light of these data, one can conclude that the substitution Gly137® Asp did not arise by random mutation from the susceptible strain.

Moreover, to tell if the substitution, Gly137® Asp, even if it did arise by a random mutation, represents an addition or a loss of information, we must know more about how the mutation affects the enzyme&#8217;s hydrolase activity on more than just the one substrate.  As in the example I showed in my book (and described briefly below), what looked like an enhancement of activity on one substrate, coupled with a degradation of activity on another, turned out to be nothing more than a simple reduction of specificity of the enzyme over wider a set of substrates.  As I wrote in my original comments (see below) on your posting, one must be careful about jumping to conclusions about what constitutes an information increase.  This is not a weasel statement.  One can know when one has enough data to make a judgment.  If the activity profile of the mutant enzyme over several different substrates sharpens by increasing the activity on one substrate and concomitantly decreasing the activity on other substrates, there is an increase in selectivity and hence an increase in information.  If, on the other hand, the activity profile of the mutant enzyme over a set of substrates is flatter than that that of the wild type, then information has been lost.  One just needs enough data to be able to see an activity profile over several substrates for both the mutant and the wild type.

Max: &#8220;Certainly you are not correct when you say &#8216;all known examples of these mutations lose information rather than gain it.&#8217;&#8221;
Spetner: Since you have not shown any valid counterexamples, my statement still stands, and your statement falls.  None of the examples you gave qualifies as a random mutation in the germ line that could be typical of those required for Evolution A.  The context in which I made the above statement was that of random mutations in the germ line that, according to NDT, are capable of producing Evolution A.

You must admit that the most widely used examples by evolutionists to show evolution in action do in fact lose information.  You have used such an example yourself in your posted essay&#8212;the evolution of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms.  These so-called &#8220;best examples&#8221; are poor and do not demonstrate, nor even indicate a typical contribution to, Evolution A.

You failed in your attempt to rebut my statement that all known examples of random mutations that could play a role in Evolution A lose information rather than gain it.

Evolution and the Increase of Information
In my critique, I included for pedagogical purposes the following short explanation of the information in enzymatic activity and its measurement:

I shall emphasize again:  There is no theorem requiring mutations to lose information.  I can easily imagine mutations that gain information.  The simplest example is what is known as a back mutation.  A back mutation undoes the effect of a previous mutation.  If the change of a single base pair in the genome were to change to another and lose information, then a subsequent mutation back to the previous condition would regain the lost information.  Since these mutations are known to occur, they form a counterexample to any conjecture that random mutations must lose information.  An important point I make in my book, and which I emphasize here, is that, as far as I know, no mutations observed so far qualify as examples of the kind of mutations required for Evolution A.

In discussing mutations in my book I noted in each case in which the molecular change was known, that it could not serve as a prototype for the mutations required by NDT.  In all the cases I discussed, it was the loss of information that prevented the mutation from serving as a prototype of those required by NDT.  The back mutation likewise cannot serve as a prototype of the NDT-required mutations.  Here, the reason is not that it loses information&#8212;it actually gains information.  But the information it gains is already in the biocosm and the mutation contributes nothing new.  Evolution is not accounted for if the only information gain was by back mutations.

In my book, I did not quantify the information gain or loss in a mutation.  I left it out mainly because I was reluctant to introduce equations and scare off the average reader.  And anyway, I thought it rather obvious that a mutation that destroys the functionality of a gene (such as a repressor gene) is a loss of information.  I also thought it rather obvious that a mutation that reduces the specificity of an enzyme is also a loss of information.  But I shall take this opportunity to quantify the information difference before and after mutation in an important special case, which I described in my book.

The information content of the genome is difficult to evaluate with any precision.  Fortunately, for my purposes, I need only consider the change in the information in an enzyme caused by a mutation.  The information content of an enzyme is the sum of many parts, among which are:

Level of catalytic activity 
Specificity with respect to the substrate 
Strength of binding to cell structure 
Specificity of binding to cell structure 
Specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation 
These are all difficult to evaluate, but the easiest to get a handle on is the information in the substrate specificity.

To estimate the information in an enzyme I shall assume that the information content of the enzyme itself is at least the maximum information gained in transforming the substrate distribution into the product distribution.  (I think this assumption is reasonable, but to be rigorous it should really be proved.)

We can think of the substrate specificity of the enzyme as a kind of filter.  The entropy of the ensemble of substances separated after filtration is less than the entropy of the original ensemble of the mixture.  We can therefore say that the filtration process results in an information gain equal to the decrease in entropy.  Let&#8217;s imagine a uniform distribution of substrates presented to many copies of an enzyme.  I choose a uniform distribution of substrates because that will permit the enzyme to express its maximum information gain.  The substrates considered here are restricted to a set of similar molecules on which the enzyme has the same metabolic effect.  This restriction not only simplifies our exercise but it applies to the case I discussed in my book.

The products of a substrate on which the enzyme has a higher activity will be more numerous than those of a substrate on which the enzyme has a lower activity.  Because of the filtering, the distribution of concentrations of products will have a lower entropy than that of substrates.  Note that we are neglecting whatever entropy change stems from the chemical changes of the substrates into products, and we are focusing on the entropy change reflected in the distributions of the products of the substrates acted upon by the enzyme. 

The entropy of an ensemble of n elements with fractional concentrations f1,&#8230;,fn is given by    (1) 
and if the base of the logarithm is 2, the units of entropy are bits.

As a first illustration of this formula let us take the extreme case where there are n possible substrates, and the enzyme has a nonzero activity on only one of them.  This is perfect filtering.  The input entropy for a uniform distribution of n elements is, from (1), given by    (2) 
since the fi's are each 1/n.  The entropy of the output is zero,    (3) 
because all the concentrations except one are zero, and the concentration of that one is 1.  Then the decrease in entropy brought about by the selectivity of the enzyme is then the difference between (2) and (3), or      
Another example is the other extreme case in which the enzyme does not discriminate at all among the n substrates.  In this case the input and output entropies are the same, namely    (4) 
Therefore, the information gain, which is the difference between HO and HI, in this case is zero,    (5) 
We normalize the activities of the enzyme on the various substrates and these normalized activities will then be the fractional concentrations of the products.  This normalization will eliminate from our consideration the effect of the absolute activity level on the information content, leaving us with only the effect of the selectivity.

Although these simplifications prevent us from calculating the total entropy decrease achieved by action of the enzyme, we are able to calculate the entropy change due to enzyme specificity alone. 

The Dangers of Conclusion Jumping
As a final example let me take part of a series of experiments I discussed in my book, which demonstrate the dangers of conclusion jumping.  This subject bears emphasis because evolutionists from Darwin on have been guilty of jumping to unwarranted conclusions from inadequate data.  I shall here take only a portion of the discussion in my book, namely, what I took from a paper by Burleigh et al.[3] to illustrate my point.


Ribitol is a naturally occurring sugar that some soil bacteria can normally metabolize, and ribitol dehydrogenase is the enzyme that catalyzes the first step in its metabolism.  Xylitol is a sugar very similar in structure to ribitol, but does not occur in nature.  Bacteria cannot normally live on xylitol, but when a large population of them were cultured on only xylitol, mutants appeared that were able to metabolize it.  The wild-type enzyme was found to have a small activity on xylitol, but not large enough for the bacteria to live on xylitol alone.  The mutant enzyme had an activity large enough to permit the bacterium to live on xylitol alone. 

Fig. 1 shows the activity of the wild-type enzyme and the mutant enzyme on both ribitol and xylitol.  Note that the mutant enzyme has a lower activity on ribitol and a higher activity on xylitol than does the wild-type enzyme.  An evolutionist would be tempted to see here the beginning of a trend.  He might be inclined to jump to the conclusion that with a series of many mutations of this kind, one after another, evolution could produce an enzyme that would have a high activity on xylitol and a low, or zero, activity on ribitol.  Now wouldn&#8217;t that be a useful thing for a bacterium that had only xylitol available and no ribitol?  Such a series would produce the kind of evolutionary change NDT calls for.  It would be an example of the kind of series that would support NDT.  The series would have to consist of mutations that would, step by step, lower the activity of the enzyme on the first substrate while increasing it on the second.


But Fig. 1 is misleading in this regard because it provides only a restricted view of the story.  Burleigh and his colleagues also measured the activities of the two enzymes on another similar sugar, L-arabitol, and the results of these measurements are shown in Fig. 2.  With the additional data on L-arabitol, a different picture emerges.  No longer do we see the mutation just swinging the activity away from ribitol and toward xylitol.  We see instead a general lowering of the selectivity of the enzyme over the set of substrates.  The activity profiles in Fig. 2 show that the wild-type enzyme is more selective than is the mutant enzyme.

In Fig. 1 alone, there appears to be a trend evolving an enzyme with a high activity on xylitol and a low activity on ribitol.  But Fig. 2 shows that such an extrapolation is unwarranted.  It shows instead a much different trend.  An extrapolation of the trend that appears in Fig. 2 would indicate that a series of such mutations could result in an enzyme that had no selectivity at all, but exhibited the same low activity on a wide set of substrates. 

The point to be made from this example is that conclusion jumping from the observation of an apparent trend is a risky business.  From a little data, the mutation appears to add information to the enzyme.  From a little more data, the mutation appears to be degrading the enzyme&#8217;s specificity and losing information.

Just as we calculated information in the two special cases above, we can calculate the information in the enzyme acting on a uniform mixture of the three substrates for both the wild type and the mutant enzyme.  Using the measured activity values reported by Burleigh et al. we find the information in the specificities of the two enzymes to be 0.74 and 0.38 bits respectively.  The information in the wild-type enzyme then turns out to be about twice that of the mutant. 

The evolutionist community, from Darwin to today, has based its major claims on unwarranted conclusion jumping.  Darwin saw that pigeon breeders could achieve a wide variety of forms in their pigeons by selection, and he assumed that the reach of selection was unlimited.  Evolutionists, who have seen crops and farm animals bred to have many commercially desirable features, have jumped to the conclusion that natural selection, in the course of millions of years, could achieve many-fold greater adaptive changes than artificial selection has achieved in only tens of years.  I have shown in my book that such extrapolations are ill founded because breeding experiments, such as those giving wheat greater protein content or vegetables greater size, result from mutations that disable repressor genes.  The conclusions jumped to were false because they were based on data that could not be extrapolated to long sequences.  One cannot gain information from a long sequence of steps that all lose information.  As I noted in my book, that would be like the merchant who lost a little money on each sale, but thought he could make it up on volume.

Max: &#8220;I want to make it clear that I don&#8217;t buy your interpretation of certain specific mutations as reflecting a &#8216;loss of information.&#8217;  You state that the &#8216;information content of an enzyme is the sum of many parts, among which are:  level of catalytic activity, specificity with respect to the substrate, strength [and specificity] of binding to cell structure, [and] specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation.&#8217;  This formulation is vague, non-quantitative, not supported by clear logic, not accepted in the scientific literature (to the best of my knowledge; please educate me if I am wrong), and in my view not useful.&#8221;
Spetner: Ed, the level of your argument here is quite low.  You have seen this entire section (above), and you took from the introduction my list of what characteristics can contribute to the information content of an enzyme and criticized it for being non-quantitative (followed by other pejorative epithets).  Is that supposed to be some sort of debating tactic?  In any case, the tactic is out of place in this discussion.  From the context of what I wrote, it should have been clear to you that this partial list of characteristics that can contribute to the information in an enzyme was an introduction to my quantitative estimate of one of the characteristics of specificity of an enzyme.  After I showed how one might calculate the information related to a type of specificity, I showed how a mutation that appeared to enhance activity on a new substrate actually reduced the information by about 50%. 

It is elementary that specificity translates into information and vice versa.  Have you ever played 20 questions?  With the YES/NO answers to 20 judicious questions, one can discover a previously-chosen number between 1 and a million.  If the questions are well chosen, those YES/NO answers can be worth one bit of information each, and 20 bits can specify one object out of a million.  Twenty bits of information translates to specificity of one part in a million.  Ten bits&#8212;to one part in a thousand.

The Zip codes in the US also demonstrate that specificity and information are two sides of the same coin and go hand in hand.  An address in the United States can be completely specified by the nine-digit zip code.  One digit of information will narrow down the address from being anywhere in the United States to being in just a few states.  Thus if the first digit is a 6, the address is located somewhere in Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, or Nebraska. 

A second digit of information will add specificity by narrowing down the address further.  A 3, 4, or 5 in the second digit puts the address in Missouri.  A 3 in the second digit puts it in the eastern portion of the state.  Two digits of information are more specific than one.

A third digit of information is still more specific, narrowing down the address even more, making it still more specific.  If the third digit is a 1, the address is specific to St. Louis and its suburbs.  The next two digits of information pin down the address to within a few blocks.  The last 4 digits of information can locate a specific building.  Thus, it is clear that the information contained in the digits of the zip code translate into specificity.

There is no question about it:  SPECIFICITY = INFORMATION.

Max: &#8220;&#8230; there are several other ways of considering how mutations affect information.  In my view, even if all S12 mutations that caused streptomycin resistance abolished antibiotic binding, a reasonable argument could still be made that such mutations represent a gain of information rather than a loss.  In the universe of all the possible S12 amino acid sequences that can function in the ribosome, essentially all S12 proteins found in &#8216;wild-type&#8217; bacteria (i.e., those grown in the absence of streptomycin) bind to this antibiotic.  The S12 sequences that allow bacterial growth in the presence of streptomycin represent a small subset of the universe of observed functional S12 sequences.  Therefore by growing bacteria in streptomycin we select for a specific and small subset of possible S12 sequences; thus it might be argued that we have forced a small increase the information content of the genome by narrowing the choice of S12 sequences.&#8221;
Spetner: I cannot agree with what you wrote here.  The wild-type S12 proteins that bind to the streptomycin molecule also form a subset of the universe of all possible S12 proteins.  The set of S12 proteins that allow bacterial growth in streptomycin (i.e. that do not bind to the antibiotic) form a disparate subset of the universe of S12 proteins.  My intuition tells me that the set that binds (the susceptible set) is smaller, and therefore has a smaller entropy, than the set that does not bind (the resistant set).  Mutations that appear in the presence of the antibiotic convert one subset to the other.  A mutation that transfers the enzyme from a low-entropy set to a higher-entropy set loses information; it does not gain it.

Max: &#8220;Alternatively, it could just as well be argued that in all cases of single amino acid replacements there has been no change in information content at all, in that any given amino acid sequence is equally &#8216;improbable&#8217; compared with any other amino acid sequence of the same length.&#8221;
Spetner: This is not a useful concept.  It is like the pleading of the poker player who had a bust hand.  When it came to the call, his opponent showed four aces.  He pleaded that his bust hand was just as improbable, and therefore worth as much, as the four-aces, and suggested they split the pot.  He&#8217;s right about the probabilities of the two hands, but in the context of poker, four aces win and the bust hand loses.  Although in the context of the organism&#8217;s survival in streptomycin, the degraded specificity of the S12 protein is beneficial, in the context of evolution, it is a dead end and it loses.

Max: &#8220;Certainly you have provided no theoretical justification for using your arbitrary criteria such as &#8216;specificity of binding&#8217; to assess information content; indeed, you fail to provide any quantitative theory of how all the criteria you list (&#8216;level of catalytic activity, specificity with respect to substrate, . .&#8217; etc) would be integrated into a quantitative information measure.&#8221;
Spetner: On the contrary, I have provided substantial theoretical justification for equating information to specificity.  You just chose to ignore what I wrote.

Max: &#8220;In general, if a protein has evolved under selection for a specific function, changes in the structure of that protein to meet some new criterion can be expected to adversely affect the original function.  This is true in ribosomal S12 proteins that have become streptomycin resistant (they are less efficient in proof-reading) and is clear in the example of the carboxylesterase, which loses this activity essentially completely when mutated to become an organophosphorus hydrolase.  The structure of any protein&#8212;like the product of engineering design&#8212;involves trade-offs between various opposing optimization &#8216;goals&#8217;.  Thus it is likely that intense selection for resistance to a lethal agent&#8212;exactly the kind of quick experimental protocol useful for laboratory models of adaptive evolutionary change&#8212;will lead to mutations that involve what might be construed by you as a &#8216;loss of information&#8217; something is always likely to be lost when a modified, mutated protein becomes prevalent in the face of a new selective pressure.  This fact explains, I believe, why such genetic experiments may in fact be &#8216;grossly biased&#8217; in the way that led you to inappropriately dismiss Neo-Darwinian theory.&#8221;
Spetner: You show here that you misunderstand what I mean by a mutation losing information.  If a mutation in an enzyme were to lose its specificity to one substrate and gain specificity to another substrate, I would credit the mutation with a gain of information and I would not &#8216;construe&#8217; it as a loss.  But I will not credit it with a gain if the enzyme increased its activity to another substrate merely by becoming less specific, as in the example I gave above with ribitol and xylitol.

What you have presented is not so much a case for bias as it is a pleading that any modification to a protein must cause some degradation, and therefore you want to be excused from having to show a case where information is increased.  But you have overplayed your hand.  You seem to be saying in effect that because proteins have evolved so well, any change will degrade them.  (If that were so, it would be a good argument for Creation.)

Suppose a mutation causes a protein to become more adaptive in a particular environment.  Then by your thesis, it is already so well evolved that &#8220;something is always likely to be lost when a modified, mutated protein becomes prevalent in the face of a new selective pressure.&#8221;  You imply that the loss is one of information, because that&#8217;s the context of this discussion.  But then, according to you, after that modification, it is again well evolved, so the next time it undergoes an adaptive mutation, it must again lose something.  Continuing the process you have described, the protein will continue to lose something.  You have just consigned the evolutionary process to a dead end!

Max: &#8220;But consider this:  If blowflies happened to have duplicated their carboxyhydrolase gene before they were exposed to organophosphates, and if they mutated one of their two copies to organophosphate hydrolase, we would have a clear example of an increase in genetic information:  creation of a new functional gene &#8230; without any loss of information since the original sequence would be intact in the unaltered copy.&#8221;
Spetner: I have already shown above that the organophosphorus hydrolase activity did not necessarily come from a single point mutation.  I have also noted that we don&#8217;t have enough information to know if the acquisition of this activity is a loss or a gain of information.  Furthermore, you don&#8217;t have to keep bringing up the necessity of gene duplication.  If an enzyme lost its old activity to gain a new specificity, I would credit it with a gain of information without regard to the loss of the old activity.  I have always assumed that gene duplication is available to evolution.

Max: &#8220;Now, gene duplications are rather rare events, and favorable mutations are also rare; so the combined frequencies of these two events are so rare that they are not likely to be observable in a laboratory experiment.  But if we look at many gene systems in modern animals we can see how they might have been caused by duplication followed by mutation to a new, or at least slightly different, function.&#8221;
Spetner: As I said above, I grant the possibility of gene duplication, so you needn&#8217;t throw that in to make the probability low.  If I saw the gain of specificity through a random mutation, I would credit the mutation with an increase of information without deducting for the loss of the old activity.  A single point mutation (which is all that NDT requires at each step) is not very rare considering all the genetic experiments that have been performed throughout the world.  If there really are as many adaptive, information-adding mutations as NDT needs, we should expect to have seen many of them.

Max: &#8220;As an example of such a system, let&#8217;s consider a gene locus that I have studied in my lab:  the human immunoglobulin heavy chain (or IgH) locus.  In the human locus one sees evidence of a large DNA duplication that created two copies that are highly similar in both coding and non-coding flanking regions.  One duplicate includes constant region sequences known as gamma3, gamma1, pseudo-epsilon and alpha1, while the second copy contains gamma2, gamma4, epsilon and alpha2.  More primitive primates like the New World monkeys appear to have a single copy of this locus and a single gamma gene.  The four human gamma chain genes are thus thought to have derived from a single ancestral gamma chain gene in a primate ancestor by a series of duplications and mutations.&#8230; In the ancestral primate we had one non-specialized gene whereas in modern humans we have four specialized genes.  This is exactly the sort of genetic change that would be consistent with Neo-Darwinian evolution leading to an increase in complexity.&#8221;
Spetner: Yes, information would have been increased if what you speculate had indeed happened.  The proof would only lie in showing that it has indeed happened through random mutations and natural selection.  Let us not lose sight of the requirement of Neo-Darwinian evolution for long series of single-nucleotide substitutions, where each mutation makes the phenotype sufficiently more adaptive than it was to permit the mutated phenotype to take over the population through natural selection with a high probability.  It is far from clear that the individual mutations you suggest will each be adaptive and selected at each step.  You cannot show this&#8212;you merely assume it.  You are postulating an historical event that cannot possibly be verified.  It seems that all of your arguments are based on postulating events that are inherently not observable.  That should make one a little suspicious of the theory, shouldn&#8217;t it?

Max: &#8220;I realize that the above model for the human IgH locus is hypothetical and assumes that the evolutionary triad of duplication, random mutation and selection is a reasonable naturalistic explanation for the four human gamma genes.  We cannot verify this explanation since we can never know the properties of the primordial ancestral gamma immunoglobulin, or know the series of mutations that occurred in the various duplicate gamma genes during our evolution from that primordial ancestor.  What I am asking is:  is there anything so implausible in this model to justify your suggestion that we should &#8216;dismiss Neo-Darwinian theory&#8217; as an explanation for this example?&#8221;
Spetner: Yes, it is implausible because you are postulating a series of events of a type for which there is evidence that they have not occurred.  If they had occurred to produce Evolution A, there should have been a vast number of them, and there aren&#8217;t.  Had there been the required large number of them, we should have seen some of them in all the genetic experiments performed in all the laboratories of the world.  And we haven&#8217;t, to my knowledge, seen a single one.

Max: &#8220;Or more to the point, exactly what alternative explanation for the origin of the four human gamma genes do you propose that is more plausible than the one I offered?&#8221;
Spetner: How does Creation grab you?  You probably are reluctant to admit that possibility, but you can think of it as a default position.  It cannot be demonstrated scientifically, not because of any philosophical defect in the proposition, but because of the limitations of Science.  Because Science is incapable of dealing with it does not mean it hasn&#8217;t happened.  There are, after all, some truths in the physical world that cannot be reached by Science, just as there are mathematical truths that cannot be reached by mathematical proof.[4]  If we don&#8217;t have a scientifically viable theory to account for the origin of the four human gamma genes, or for the origin of life itself, we needn&#8217;t despair.  Not every mystery necessarily has a scientific solution.  I do not mean to say that one should not look for a scientific solution.  One should.  But not having such a solution is not a license to make up stories and pass them off to a gullible public as Science.  Because I don&#8217;t have a (scientifically) &#8216;plausible&#8217; explanation of the origin of life, does not mean that your improbable stories are correct and should be foisted on the public under the guise of scientific truth.

Max: &#8220;This is important, because considering the weaknesses I have pointed out in your arguments, you are far from having definitively ruled out the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary triad as the correct explanation for what you call the &#8216;grand sweep of evolution&#8217;&#8221;[I am now calling this Evolution A (LMS)].
Spetner: As you can see from my above remarks, you have not succeeded in pointing out any weakness in my arguments.  What you call the &#8220;Darwinian evolutionary triad&#8221; is no more than a big bluff.  It has great theoretical and empirical difficulties, which neither you nor anyone else has succeeded in overcoming. 

Mutations in the Immune System
Max&#8217;s field of expertise is the immune system.  This is the field in which he does research and in which he has published.  In his original posting, his pièce de résistance was the presentation of somatic mutations in B lymphocytes (B cells) of the vertebrate immune system as examples of random mutations that add information.  He implied that Evolution A could follow this method to achieve baboons from bacteria.  I agree with him that these mutations add information to the B-cell genome.  I also agree that they are random.  They are random, however, only in the base changes they make; they are not random in where in the genome they can occur.  More important, I do not agree that the Evolution A could be achieved through such mutations, and I shall show why.

Although the somatic mutations to which Max referred are point mutations that do indeed add information to the genome of the B cells, they cannot be applied to Darwinian evolution.  These are not the kind of mutations that can operate as the random mutations required by NDT, which allegedly can, through chance errors, build information one base change at a time.

For one thing, the rate of the somatic mutations in the immune system is extremely high&#8212;more than a million times normal germ-line mutation rates.  For this reason they are called hypermutations.  If an organism had a germline mutation rate that was even a small fraction of this rate it could not survive.  For a second thing, the hypermutations in the B cells are restricted to a specific tiny portion of the genome, where they can do no harm but only good.  The entire genome of the B cell could not mutate at this rate; the hypermutation must be restricted only to the region encoding selected portions of the variable part of the antibody.

The mutation rate of the hypermutating part of the B cell&#8217;s genome is usually about 10-3 per base pair per replication[5], and it can be as high as 10-2 per base pair per replication[6].  These rates cannot produce Darwinian evolution.  If a genome were to mutate at this rate, there would be, on the average, several mutations in every gene, with a high probability that many of them would be fatal for the organism.  Darwinian evolution could not occur with such rates.

These high rates are essential for the working of the immune system.  In each replication of a B cell, about 30 of the 300 or so gene regions encoding the CDRs (complementarity-determining regions) will have a mutation.  A lower mutation rate would make for a less efficient immune system.  The high mutation rates, so necessary for the immune system, if applied to an entire organism for evolutionary purposes, would be fatal many times over.

Note that these hypermutations are limited to a restricted portion of the genome.  Moreover, the hypermutations are mediated by special enzymes.  Although the hypermutations are random in the changes they make in the bases of the genome, they are not random in the positions in which they occur.  They occur only in the small region in which they are needed, and occur there through enzymes that apparently play only that role.  Furthermore, they occur only when they are switched on by the controlling mechanism of B-cell maturation.  Thus, it is clear that the hypermutations in B cells cannot serve as a prototype for the random mutations required for NDT.

Max: &#8220;You &#8230; declare that the B cell example is a poor model for what happens in &#8216;Darwinian&#8217; evolution, and you cite two reasons:  (1) the mutation rate in this model is much higher than what is seen in non-immunoglobulin genes and in non-B-cells; and (2) these &#8216;hypermutations&#8217; are mediated by &#8216;special enzymes.&#8217;  With regard to your first point, I agree that the mutation rate is higher in the B cell example than in evolution, but I fail to see why that fact weakens the usefulness of the example as a model for evolution.  If adaptive mutations that increase information in the genome of a B lymphocyte population can occur over one week given a high mutation rate, what theoretical argument would lead you to reject the idea that adaptive mutations that increase information in the genome of a germ cell population could occur over many millions of years given a much lower mutation rate?&#8221;
Spetner: The theoretical argument hinges on the fact that the benefit that accrues to the immune system is a nonlinear function of the mutation rate.  Evolution requires a long series of steps each consisting of an adaptive mutation followed by natural selection.  In this series, each mutation must have a higher selective value than the previous[7].  Thus, the evolving population moves across the adaptive landscape always rising toward higher adaptivity.  It is generally accepted that the adaptive landscape is not just one big smooth hill with a single maximum, but it is many hills of many different heights.  Most likely, the population is on a hill that is one of the many lowest and not on one of the few highest in the landscape.  It will then get stuck on a low local maximum of adaptivity and will not be able to move from it.  That is particularly likely because the steps it takes are very small&#8212;only one nucleotide change at a time.  The problem is compounded by the lack of freedom of a single nucleotide substitution to cause a change in the encoded amino acid.  A single nucleotide substitution does not have the potential to change an amino acid to any one of the other 19.  In general, its potential for change is limited to only 5 or 6 others.  To evolve off the &#8220;dead point&#8221; of adaptivity, a larger step, such as the simultaneous change of more than one nucleotide, is required[8].  Moreover, the probability is close to 1 that a single mutation in a population, even though it is adaptive, will disappear without taking over the population (see my book, Chapter 3).  Therefore, several adaptive mutations must occur independently and randomly at each step.

Hypermutation in the B cells does this.  It quickly achieves all possible single, double, and triple mutations for the immune system, which allows them to obtain the information necessary to match a new antigen.  Ordinary mutations, at the normal low rate, cannot add this information&#8212;even over long times.  I shall explain why.  The effects of mutation rate are nonlinear.  Consider a population of antigen-activated B cells of, say, a billion individuals, which is smaller than the typical number.  In two weeks, there will be about 30 generations.  Let&#8217;s say the population size is stable, so in two weeks there will be a total of 30 billion replications.  With a mutation rate of 1 per 1000 nucleotides per replication, there will be an average of 30 million independent changes in any particular nucleotide during a two-week period.  The probability of getting two particular nucleotides to change is one per million replications.  Thus in two weeks, there will be an average of 30 thousand changes in any two particular nucleotides.  There will be an average of 30 changes in any three particular nucleotides.  If the mutation rate is 1 per 100, these numbers would be correspondingly larger.

How many generations, and how long, would it take to get a particular multiple-nucleotide change in a germ cell to have an effect on Neo-Darwinian evolution?  Here, the mutation rate is about one per billion nucleotides per replication.  Let&#8217;s suppose we&#8217;re doing this experiment with a population of a billion bacteria.  Then, in one generation, there will be an average of one change in any particular base in some one individual.  A particular double-base change has a probability of one per quintillion, or 10-18.  To get one of these would take a billion generations, or about 100,000 years.  To get a triple change would take 1014, or a hundred trillion, years.  That is why a long waiting time cannot compensate for a low mutation rate.  I&#8217;ve given numbers here for a laboratory experiment with bacteria.  Many more mutations would be expected world wide.  But the same kind of thing has to happen under NDT with multicelled animals as well.  With vertebrates, for example, the breeding populations seldom exceed a few thousand.  Multicelled animals would have many fewer mutations than those cited above for bacteria.

Max: &#8220;Your second objection to the somatic mutation model in B-cells, that &#8216;special enzymes&#8217; are involved, is unsupportable.  As far as I can tell from my reading of the literature, the mechanism of somatic hypermutation in B-cells is not currently known.&#8221;
Spetner: On the contrary, my objection is well supported in the professional literature.  The somatic hypermutations you cite do indeed require &#8220;special enzymes&#8221;, and is not the kind of mutations held to be responsible for the variation required in NDT.  These mutations, unlike ordinary errors in DNA replication in the germline, are under precise control in the cell.  They are turned on exactly when they are needed, and they are turned off when they have done their job.  They are accurately targeted to the very small regions of the genome where they can provide variability to the CDRs, which form the antibody-binding site.  They do not occur at any other place in the genome.  Although the mechanism of this precisely targeted phenomenon is not yet known in complete detail, enough is known to say that there has to be a &#8220;mechanism&#8221;&#8212;hypermutation does not happen by chance.  Thus, even 14 years ago, a popular textbook in cell biology said[9], &#8220;There must exist mechanisms that direct mutational activity to variable-region sequences.  How this might occur is not known; possibly some sequence in the area of the variable region directs a special enzyme system to carry out point replacements of nucleotides independent of template specification.&#8221; (my emphasis)

Informed current opinion on the subject of somatic hypermutations is overwhelmingly (and perhaps even unanimously) in favor of the suggestion that they are produced by a special mechanism requiring special enzymes that are unlike the spontaneous germline mutations assumed to be responsible for evolution.  Experts in this field are very clear on this point.  Let me just bring you a few quotes from a recent paper by Robert Blanden and his colleagues[10], in which they describe important characteristics of somatic mutations, and note how they differ from germline mutations [all emphases are mine (LMS)]:

&#8220;The accumulated findings strongly suggest a complex mechanism [for hypermutation], which is unlikely to employ simple error-prone DNA repair processes involving DNA template directed DNA synthesis.&#8221;
&#8220;&#8230; there should logically be a mechanism to ensure that when successful mutation has taken place, there is no further mutation which may destroy successful V(D)J sequences.&#8221;
Let me also bring you a few quotes from another recent paper by David Winter & Patricia Gearhart (whom you may even know) on the subject of somatic hypermutations[11]:

&#8220;The pattern of somatic mutations in rearranged variable (V) genes differs from the pattern of meiotic mutations, indicating that a different mechanism generates hypermutations than generates spontaneous mutation.&#8221;
&#8220;&#8230; somatic hypermutations may be derived by different mutational processes than meiotic mutations.&#8221;
&#8220;The evidence suggests a model of hypermutation in which the DNA sequence of the immunoglobulin region directs the rearranged variable gene to a point on the nuclear matrix where both transcription and hypermutation occur.&#8221;
&#8220;B cells that are stimulated by antigen activate an error-prone hypermutation mechanism to introduce point substitutions throughout the V region.&#8221;
&#8220;&#8230; it has been shown that areas containing transcription promoters and enhancers are required for [hyper]mutation &#8230;&#8221;
It thus seems quite clear that informed opinion in this field supports my contention and rejects your suggestion that &#8220;an alternative possibility is that the high rate of accumulation of mutations simply reflects selective inhibition of normal proof-reading mechanisms&#8221;.  This is your field of expertise, Ed.  Please let me know if you agree or disagree.

Max: &#8220;The mechanism could perhaps involve &#8216;special&#8217; enzymes that create mutations, but an alternative possibility is that the high rate of accumulation of mutations simply reflects selective inhibition of normal proof-reading mechanisms.  But again, I fail to see why the source of the random mutations should influence the general validity of the conclusion that random mutations and selection can increase genomic information, or why you feel that these mutations cannot serve as a model for evolutionary adaptations.&#8221;
Spetner: It should be clear from what I have written above that the hypermutation in B cells cannot serve as a prototype for the random mutations required by NDT to account for evolution.  There is no known mechanism for mutation in germ cells that is comparable to the hypermutation in B cells.  The example of hypermutation cannot be used to support your contention that random mutations in germ cells can build up information in the genome to explain Evolution A.

Max: &#8220;&#8230; if we accept your argument against extrapolation from B cell adaptation to species adaptation, should we reject the extrapolation of any information learned from studying one organism to understand adaptations in a second organism, unless it is shown that both the rate and mechanism of mutation are the same in both organisms?  In my view this would be like refusing to use the gravitational constant determined in laboratories on earth to analyze stellar physics.  Such a reluctance to extrapolate would certainly prevent the use of modern organisms as a basis for understanding evolutionary events that occurred millions of years ago (which may be precisely your intent).  I sometimes hear arguments like yours from creationists who are demanding rigorous &#8216;proof&#8217; of evolution.  These creationists do not seem to understand the distinction between mathematics, where a rigorous proof is expected, versus most experimental and observational science, where all we are seeking is the best theory that explains observed data.  Of course, it is possible to extrapolate unreasonably, but I do not see that you have shown how evolutionary theory (or my essay) does this.&#8221;
Spetner: Your comparison is fallacious.  Extrapolations made in astrophysics and cosmology may not be entirely valid, but at least they are reasonable based on everything we know.  The extrapolation you propose from B-cell hypermutation to Neo-Darwinian evolution is unreasonable based on present knowledge, and it is therefore unjustified (as explained above).  It is not Science. 

I have not asked for a mathematical-like proof for evolution.  But for heaven&#8217;s sake, how about exercising some scientific discipline?  Scenarios and just-so stories cannot substitute for proof.  There is no proof of Evolution A that is of a standard that would be acceptable in any other scientific area.

Max then summarized his arguments against my comments to his posting, which I reproduce below and to which I have appended my comments.

Max: &#8220;I have made these opposing points:
(1) Using your own example of streptomycin resistance, I have pointed out that some mutations of the S12 ribosomal protein do not represent a &#8216;loss of information&#8217; even by your own questionable criteria.&#8221;
Spetner: And I have shown above the errors of your argument.  Your use of pejorative adjectives cannot make up for the weakness of your case.

Max: &#8220;(2) I have argued that your &#8216;information&#8217; criteria (for deciding whether genes gain or lose information after specific mutations) are vague, non-quantitative, not supported by any logic, not accepted in the scientific literature and not demonstrably superior to other ways of judging the effects of mutation on genomic information.&#8221;
Spetner: Not only have I made it clear above that my criterion for gain/loss of information is quantitative, and supported by logic and the conventional understanding of these notions in information theory, I included that section in my first critique of your posting.  You chose not to relate to it at all, and instead you made up the above criticism out of thin air.

Max: &#8220;(3) I have discussed why examples of adaptive mutations in non-duplicated genes might appear to show some loss of one type of function (if not loss of information) as they gain a new function under selection by a novel environmental stress, and thus exhibit a kind of &#8216;bias&#8217; that might have mislead you into making your rather risky extrapolations about the role of random mutations in evolution.
&#8220;(4) I have explained why an example of a gene duplication followed by differentiation of the two gene copies to enlarge genomic information might be hard to observe in the laboratory, contributing to the &#8216;bias&#8217; mentioned above in the set of mutations that we do observe in the laboratory.&#8221;
Spetner: And I have shown above that what you call a possible bias in our observations of mutations stems from your lack of understanding of my arguments.  You have shown no valid reason why there is any bias in the set of all mutations that have been observed in all the genetic laboratories in the world.

Max: &#8220;(5) I have provided an example of duplicated and differentiated immunoglobulin gamma genes that can plausibly be interpreted by the evolutionary triad of mechanisms (gene duplication, random mutation and natural selection) each of which has been demonstrated individually as natural mechanism in appropriate laboratory experiments; and I have challenged you to provide an alternative more plausible explanation for the origin of these four gamma genes.&#8221;
Spetner: And I have shown above that your laboratory experiments are not applicable to Evolution A.  I have also pointed out that there is no obligation to provide a natural explanation of origins.  There may not be one.  But I encourage you to keep looking.  But please remember that the solution to the problem of the origin of proteins, or the origin of life, may not be where you are looking.

Max: &#8220;(6) Finally, I have asked you to explain why hypermutation and selection of immunoglobulin genes in B cells should not serve as an instructive prototype demonstrating the potential of mutation and selection to improve function of proteins in evolution; specifically, I have asked why either the faster mutation rate in the B cell model or the unknown mechanisms of the mutations are relevant to the question of whether random mutation and natural selection can lead to increased fitness of proteins in evolution.&#8221;
Spetner: And I have explained all that above and showed you why the somatic hypermutations do not qualify as examples that could pertain to the germ-line mutations required for evolution.

Summary
I have shown here, with references to my book, that the examples most often cited by evolutionists as evidence for evolution occurring now are not evidence at all for the grand sweep of evolution, which I have called here Evolution A.  For an example of evolution happening now to have any relevance to Evolution A, it must be based on a mutation that could be typical of those alleged to be in the long series of steps that lead from a bacterium to a baboon.  The mutation must at least be one that when repeated again and again will build up enough information to turn a bacterium into a baboon.  The favorite example cited for evolution is antibiotic resistance.  I have shown that the mutations leading to antibiotic resistance do not add any information to the biocosm.  In some cases, they actually lose information.  I have shown an example of a mutation that can easily be misconstrued to demonstrate the addition of information to the genome.  Upon the gathering of further data, this example turned out to be a demonstration of information loss and not gain.  Conclusion jumping is always risky, because we seldom have enough data.  Yet, the evolutionist community has persisted in making the shakiest of extrapolations.

Max has tried to argue that his triad of gene duplication, random mutation, and natural selection, can add information to the collective genome of the biocosm.

I have exposed his argument as being nothing more that offering possible scenarios&#8212;it is argument by just-so-stories.  But the argument against NDT does not stop with the failure of its supporters to show proper theoretical or empirical evidence for it.  The telling blow against NDT is that examples of information addition have never been exhibited.  The absence of such examples is more than just the absence of evidence for evolution.  It is actually evidence against evolution because if NDT were correct, there should be millions of such examples and in all the genetic experiments performed until now we should have seen many.

Finally, the example of mutations in the B cells of the immune system carries no weight as an example of a mutation that adds information.  Although these mutations do add information to the B-cell genome, they cannot be applied to evolution for the reasons I laid out above.

Dr. Edward E. Max made a valiant attempt to present a case for evolution in his posting on the URL cited above.  That he failed is not because of any defect in the author.  Dr. Max is an intelligent, competent, and articulate scientist.  He has a PhD and an MD, and for many years has done research and published on the genetics of the immune system, and he has made important contributions to our knowledge in this field.  If he could not make a good case for evolution, there must be something woefully wrong with evolution.

Dr. Lee M. Spetner      

A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution

Don't run i am calling you out both of you. The information for organisms to adapt has always been in the DNA and this information aided in micro-evolution or better yet micro-adaptations. This information accounts for variations in species.


----------



## Montrovant

YWC, it's been brought up to you multiple times in the past that all the pages-long copy-pasting you do is generally considered a breach of message board etiquette.  In other words, your walls of text are rude.  They do not improve your point, they just annoy people trying to read the thread.  If someone wants to read the information, they can do it just as easily by clicking a link.  Your refusal to simply post a link and perhaps a short summary of the information contained within is rude.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> YWC, it's been brought up to you multiple times in the past that all the pages-long copy-pasting you do is generally considered a breach of message board etiquette.  In other words, your walls of text are rude.  They do not improve your point, they just annoy people trying to read the thread.  If someone wants to read the information, they can do it just as easily by clicking a link.  Your refusal to simply post a link and perhaps a short summary of the information contained within is rude.



Respectfully Montrovant,its time for Dr Max and Dr Spetner to set the record straight. If they are gonna make ss claims now they are gonna have to show the doctors wrong. And if you or anyone like to discuss mutations the discussion is now open. I am tired of going around and around now its time for them to put up or shut up. Besides they need to see one of their own trying to call something evidence that it is not evidence which has been repeated by the parrots.


----------



## IndependntLogic

Montrovant said:


> YWC, it's been brought up to you multiple times in the past that all the pages-long copy-pasting you do is generally considered a breach of message board etiquette.  In other words, your walls of text are rude.  They do not improve your point, they just annoy people trying to read the thread.  If someone wants to read the information, they can do it just as easily by clicking a link.  Your refusal to simply post a link and perhaps a short summary of the information contained within is rude.



Seriously. Do you think he believes anyone actually read that?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> I guess it is time for us to get into the nitty gritty and discuss these so called mutations that caused macro-evolution.
> 
> For you LOKI and Cbirch lets see if you understand the problems presented.
> 
> A Scientific Critique of Evolution
> Dr. Lee Spetner
> in an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> © 2000 L.M. Spetner.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> *---COPY/PASTE THOUGHTLESSLY VOMITED INTO THREAD SNIPPED---​*
> Dr. Lee M. Spetner
> 
> A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution
> 
> Don't run i am calling you out both of you. The information for organisms to adapt has always been in the DNA and this information aided in micro-evolution or better yet micro-adaptations. This information accounts for variations in species.



*REBUTTAL*

*ALSO*


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, it's been brought up to you multiple times in the past that all the pages-long copy-pasting you do is generally considered a breach of message board etiquette.  In other words, your walls of text are rude.  They do not improve your point, they just annoy people trying to read the thread.  If someone wants to read the information, they can do it just as easily by clicking a link.  Your refusal to simply post a link and perhaps a short summary of the information contained within is rude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully Montrovant,its time for Dr Max and Dr Spetner to set the record straight. If they are gonna make ss claims now they are gonna have to show the doctors wrong. And if you or anyone like to discuss mutations the discussion is now open. I am tired of going around and around now its time for them to put up or shut up. Besides they need to see one of their own trying to call something evidence that it is not evidence which has been repeated by the parrots.
Click to expand...


Nothing you just said has anything to do with my point.  What you posted would have said exactly the same thing if you had provided a link and either a brief summary of the contents or a snippet of the text so anyone interested could then go read it.

This is far from the first time you have posted one of these walls of text.  You have even posted the same huge copy-paste multiple times in the same thread.  This isn't the first time I have pointed out the generally accepted rudeness of this practice.  You seem to feel that such rudeness doesn't matter.  There's nothing I can do about that other than to say that it's unlikely to bolster your argument, and quite possibly might lead to people deciding your arguments aren't worth the time to read.


----------



## Youwerecreated

IndependntLogic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, it's been brought up to you multiple times in the past that all the pages-long copy-pasting you do is generally considered a breach of message board etiquette.  In other words, your walls of text are rude.  They do not improve your point, they just annoy people trying to read the thread.  If someone wants to read the information, they can do it just as easily by clicking a link.  Your refusal to simply post a link and perhaps a short summary of the information contained within is rude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously. Do you think he believes anyone actually read that?
Click to expand...


Anyone who does not read it should not be arguing that the accumulative of beneficial mutations and natural selection are the answer for Neo Darwinism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it is time for us to get into the nitty gritty and discuss these so called mutations that caused macro-evolution.
> 
> For you LOKI and Cbirch lets see if you understand the problems presented.
> 
> A Scientific Critique of Evolution
> Dr. Lee Spetner
> in an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> © 2000 L.M. Spetner.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> *---COPY/PASTE THOUGHTLESSLY VOMITED INTO THREAD SNIPPED---​*
> Dr. Lee M. Spetner
> 
> A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution
> 
> Don't run i am calling you out both of you. The information for organisms to adapt has always been in the DNA and this information aided in micro-evolution or better yet micro-adaptations. This information accounts for variations in species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *REBUTTAL*
> 
> *ALSO*
Click to expand...


Yes Dr. Spetner showed how max manipulated what he said and when he said it. The point is that Dr. Max could not provide one point mutation that produced new information without it presenting a loss of the origional information. Talk origins their not biased and by the way Dr. Spetner also provided a link from that site as well.

Bottom line mutations do not do what evolutionist claim unless you would like to show otherwise.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, it's been brought up to you multiple times in the past that all the pages-long copy-pasting you do is generally considered a breach of message board etiquette.  In other words, your walls of text are rude.  They do not improve your point, they just annoy people trying to read the thread.  If someone wants to read the information, they can do it just as easily by clicking a link.  Your refusal to simply post a link and perhaps a short summary of the information contained within is rude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully Montrovant,its time for Dr Max and Dr Spetner to set the record straight. If they are gonna make ss claims now they are gonna have to show the doctors wrong. And if you or anyone like to discuss mutations the discussion is now open. I am tired of going around and around now its time for them to put up or shut up. Besides they need to see one of their own trying to call something evidence that it is not evidence which has been repeated by the parrots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing you just said has anything to do with my point.  What you posted would have said exactly the same thing if you had provided a link and either a brief summary of the contents or a snippet of the text so anyone interested could then go read it.
> 
> This is far from the first time you have posted one of these walls of text.  You have even posted the same huge copy-paste multiple times in the same thread.  This isn't the first time I have pointed out the generally accepted rudeness of this practice.  You seem to feel that such rudeness doesn't matter.  There's nothing I can do about that other than to say that it's unlikely to bolster your argument, and quite possibly might lead to people deciding your arguments aren't worth the time to read.
Click to expand...


Yes ,but i am finding many here will not click the link. It does get a little technical so i believe that will turn off some, But this is exactly at the heart of the matter. I asked Loki what mutations cause macro-evolution and he just ignored the question so i had to point it out and then let him see exactly what those mutations do. Not many here take me at my word so i added a few heavy weights to the issue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, it's been brought up to you multiple times in the past that all the pages-long copy-pasting you do is generally considered a breach of message board etiquette.  In other words, your walls of text are rude.  They do not improve your point, they just annoy people trying to read the thread.  If someone wants to read the information, they can do it just as easily by clicking a link.  Your refusal to simply post a link and perhaps a short summary of the information contained within is rude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully Montrovant,its time for Dr Max and Dr Spetner to set the record straight. If they are gonna make ss claims now they are gonna have to show the doctors wrong. And if you or anyone like to discuss mutations the discussion is now open. I am tired of going around and around now its time for them to put up or shut up. Besides they need to see one of their own trying to call something evidence that it is not evidence which has been repeated by the parrots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing you just said has anything to do with my point.  What you posted would have said exactly the same thing if you had provided a link and either a brief summary of the contents or a snippet of the text so anyone interested could then go read it.
> 
> This is far from the first time you have posted one of these walls of text.  You have even posted the same huge copy-paste multiple times in the same thread.  This isn't the first time I have pointed out the generally accepted rudeness of this practice.  You seem to feel that such rudeness doesn't matter.  There's nothing I can do about that other than to say that it's unlikely to bolster your argument, and quite possibly might lead to people deciding your arguments aren't worth the time to read.
Click to expand...


You're concerned with me being rude by posting facts  have you not seen the rudeness from your side ?

Notice how Dr.Spetner and Dr. Max handled their exchange ? If it's rude i'm sorry but it is pointing out a lot of faulty claims made by both Cbirch and Loki.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it is time for us to get into the nitty gritty and discuss these so called mutations that caused macro-evolution.
> 
> For you LOKI and Cbirch lets see if you understand the problems presented.
> 
> A Scientific Critique of Evolution
> Dr. Lee Spetner
> in an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> © 2000 L.M. Spetner.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> *---COPY/PASTE THOUGHTLESSLY VOMITED INTO THREAD SNIPPED---​*
> Dr. Lee M. Spetner
> 
> A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution
> 
> Don't run i am calling you out both of you. The information for organisms to adapt has always been in the DNA and this information aided in micro-evolution or better yet micro-adaptations. This information accounts for variations in species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *REBUTTAL*
> 
> *ALSO*
Click to expand...


That is funny your source claims directed mutations is from a non-intelligent force.

That is like believing that non-intelligence can produce intelligence,in other words a non-intelligent prcocess could produce and program the human brain.

Or that in winter a non-intelligent process would cause an animal to grow longer hair and in the summer it would cause the animal to shed. It all points to that dirty word design.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully Montrovant,its time for Dr Max and Dr Spetner to set the record straight. If they are gonna make ss claims now they are gonna have to show the doctors wrong. And if you or anyone like to discuss mutations the discussion is now open. I am tired of going around and around now its time for them to put up or shut up. Besides they need to see one of their own trying to call something evidence that it is not evidence which has been repeated by the parrots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you just said has anything to do with my point.  What you posted would have said exactly the same thing if you had provided a link and either a brief summary of the contents or a snippet of the text so anyone interested could then go read it.
> 
> This is far from the first time you have posted one of these walls of text.  You have even posted the same huge copy-paste multiple times in the same thread.  This isn't the first time I have pointed out the generally accepted rudeness of this practice.  You seem to feel that such rudeness doesn't matter.  There's nothing I can do about that other than to say that it's unlikely to bolster your argument, and quite possibly might lead to people deciding your arguments aren't worth the time to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're concerned with me being rude by posting facts  have you not seen the rudeness from your side ?
> 
> Notice how Dr.Spetner and Dr. Max handled their exchange ? If it's rude i'm sorry but it is pointing out a lot of faulty claims made by both Cbirch and Loki.
Click to expand...


Are you truly this blind?

I'm not concerned with you being rude to individual posters.  I'm not concerned with individual posters being rude to you.  What concerns me is the GIANT WALLS OF TEXT that you feel a need to post over and over which is rude to anyone who decides to read the thread.  Which side of this argument anyone is on is irrelevant.  If any of the people arguing with you post GIANT WALLS OF TEXT they are being just as rude.

Again, it has nothing to do with this particular argument.  In any thread, it is rude to post GIANT WALLS OF TEXT instead of providing a link.  Your inability to recognize or admit this does not speak well to your ability to have a reasonable discussion on any other topic.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it is time for us to get into the nitty gritty and discuss these so called mutations that caused macro-evolution.
> 
> For you LOKI and Cbirch lets see if you understand the problems presented.
> 
> A Scientific Critique of Evolution
> Dr. Lee Spetner
> in an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> © 2000 L.M. Spetner.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> *---COPY/PASTE THOUGHTLESSLY VOMITED INTO THREAD SNIPPED---​*
> Dr. Lee M. Spetner
> 
> A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution
> 
> Don't run i am calling you out both of you. The information for organisms to adapt has always been in the DNA and this information aided in micro-evolution or better yet micro-adaptations. This information accounts for variations in species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *REBUTTAL*
> 
> *ALSO*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Dr. Spetner showed how max manipulated what he said and when he said it. The point is that Dr. Max could not provide one point mutation that produced new information without it presenting a loss of the origional information. Talk origins their not biased and by the way Dr. Spetner also provided a link from that site as well.
Click to expand...

This is entirely untrue.

The discussions in those links fully rebut Spetner's fallacious assertions, and his (literally) magical mechanism for the expression of variations in genetic information.

Spetner asserts that when a gene increases in generality of information, it NECESSARILY loses in specificity of information; ... and then weirdly, when a gene increases in specificity of information, it NECESSARILY loses in generality of information.

Spetner simply ignores the valid logic and the verifiable evidence that entirely rebuts his fatuous assertions. And he defends that disingenuously cultivated ignorance by applying first one metric describing information when generality increases, and then uses a different metric describing information when specificity increases; each according to it's convenience in supporting his claims, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that part of the metrics he uses that do not support his assertions.

Much like the disingenuous way you flip back and forth between taxonomic "species" and "family," when you use the term "kind" to obfuscate your patently  wrong notions of speciation and evolution.

You asshats routinely ignore the qualifications that are explicitly expressed when a generalization is proffered, in order to misapply it as an absolute; just as you intentionally ignore the explicitly expressed specificity of an assertion to to misapply it as a generalization--always to the convenience of your criticisms that are denials of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

He, like you, is insisting he can eat his cake, and then have it.

You're both retards.



Youwerecreated said:


> Bottom line mutations do not do what evolutionist claim unless you would like to show otherwise.


No. The bottom line is that creationists cannot apply valid logic to the verifiable facts of reality to support their claims or invalidate the theory of evolution.

With each retarded attempt, creationists validate the indictment of their intellectual disingenuousness, by insisting upon applying logical fallacies, misrepresenting evolution and evolutionists, and flatly denying as valid, any verifiable evidence that refutes their baseless preconceptions. And in those cases where it is just impossible to deny the validity of the evidence, they dismiss it as ENTIRELY invalid because it fails to conclusively and unambiguously PROVE their entirely baseless beliefs wrong.

And all the while, you intellectually dishonest superstitious retards take the fall-back position that you don't have to validate your certainties against reality, because your certainties cannot be validated against reality. You simply DENY the legitimacy of valid logic applied to verifiable evidence in favor of the verisimilitude of your certainty in the reality of your unverifiable, untestable, unprovable, specious creationism.



Youwerecreated said:


> That is funny your source claims directed mutations is from a non-intelligent force.


Blatant misrepresentation. "Directed" is Spetner's presumptive term.



Youwerecreated said:


> That is like believing that non-intelligence can produce intelligence,in other words a non-intelligent prcocess could produce and program the human brain.


And this is clearly what you believe. You said it yourself, you believe that intelligence is only possible as the result of another intelligence; since no intelligence "programed" or otherwise conferred intelligence upon this "Designer" of yours, He simply cannot be intelligent.



Youwerecreated said:


> Or that in winter a non-intelligent process would cause an animal to grow longer hair and in the summer it would cause the animal to shed. It all points to that dirty word design.


"Design" requires intelligence to guide the will to a purpose for a design. As you claim, it is impossible that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent, otherwise I'd expect you to perform intellectually honest due diligence and provide substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic for your belief (contradictory to your assertions) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent.

Then you'll have to show me the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

Having done that, you'll have to explain what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

So what purpose does designing an animal to grow longer hair in the winter, and shed it in the summer, serve this "Designer" of yours?

You're the one who wanted to "get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating," so get to it. And  no more of this "I don't have to explain God" business. Bring both your "nitty" and your "gritty"; let's examine this "creator" of yours, this unintelligent "designer." Get intellectual integrity or get out.


----------



## daws101

IndependntLogic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, it's been brought up to you multiple times in the past that all the pages-long copy-pasting you do is generally considered a breach of message board etiquette.  In other words, your walls of text are rude.  They do not improve your point, they just annoy people trying to read the thread.  If someone wants to read the information, they can do it just as easily by clicking a link.  Your refusal to simply post a link and perhaps a short summary of the information contained within is rude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously. Do you think he believes anyone actually read that?
Click to expand...

just enough to see the biasness of the source.
ywc will not acknowledge that objectivity is one of the basic tenants of science.


----------



## daws101

Special creation by God (or for that matter, the gods of other religions) has never been proven scientifically. It is a matter of faith alone.

Read more: How is creation scientifically proven

"Creation science" fails two important tests of science: it neither makes predictions nor makes claims that can be empirically verified. It simply makes proclamations by faith. Furthermore, creation scientists have yet to offer any scientific evidence that proves the case of creationism; their efforts are almost entirely spent critiquing apparent contradictions within evolution. Finally, the scientific credentials of the creation scientists are what we might charitably describe as suspicious. 

In the last few decades, a movement called "creation science" has gained considerable influence among Christian fundamentalists. According to Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research, their studies require "no reliance upon biblical revelation," but utilize "only scientific data to support and expound the creation model." (1) Specifically, this model is the literal interpretation of Genesis as it happened 6,000 years ago. Discoveries in both geology and biology were already deconstructing this model by the mid-19th century, and by the turn of the 20th century most fundamentalists had simply conceded the scientific fight to evolutionists. In recent times, however, creationists have become determined to resurrect their scientific case, and fight against evolutionists on their own ground.

By presenting the creation model as science, creationists have re-raised the question of what "science" is. Philosophers of science have worked out a commonly accepted list of criteria (produced well outside the debate between creationists and evolutionists). To be accepted as science, a theory must have predictive value, must be coherent (or internally consistent), must be falsifiable (or verifiable), and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the current theory.

Creation science fails to meet these criteria in several ways. First, its claims are not falsifiable. (This doesn't mean a theory has to be false -- only that if it were false, there would be some way of verifying it. It's the same thing as being vulnerable without actually being hurt.) If you were to claim that life exists on a planet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri, that would not qualify as science because there is no way of verifying it. It merely becomes an unsupported assertion. The claim that God made the earth is likewise unverifiable no one has yet found any way to test this claim. Evolution, on the other hand, has made countless claims that have the capacity to be proven false, if indeed they are.

Second, creationism has no predictive value. A theory must be able to make predictions which can then be tested for accuracy. Creation science makes "predictions" that already happened in the past or are unfalsifiable. Evolutionary theory passes this test because it has made accurate predictions concerning population densities, physiologies, chemistries, fossil find forecasts, and many other things.

Third, creation scientists have not come anywhere close to explaining all the phenomena of life to the extent that evolution has. It would be entirely fair, and no exaggeration whatsoever, to say that the difference between the two explanatory efforts is akin to the difference between a magazine article and the Encyclopedia Britannica. 

Here, creation scientists will probably protest. Although it's true that the Institute for Creation Research is a small organization, employing dozens of researchers who have written dozens of books, this is hardly the entire literary output of creationists. The book Anti-Evolution, by Tom McIver, is a bibliography of those Christian books touching upon any aspect of this debate, and he lists no less than 1,852 titles. (2) However, virtually none of these books makes a positive scientific description of creationism. There is almost no attempt to use the scientific data found in the world today to prove creationism. Instead, the overwhelming majority of these books forge a negative scientific critique on its opponent, evolution. When not doing that, they concern themselves with the theological or legal issues surrounding the debate. But when it comes to making a positive scientific case for their paradigm, the analogy of a magazine article vs. the Encyclopedia Britannica is entirely correct.

The near complete absence of a scientific theory of creationism has been an embarrassment to that movement ever since it started. Creation scientists claim to have scientific evidence -- tons and tons of it, according to their charming and affable spokesman, Duane Gish -- but they never produce it. The welcome page for talk.origins, the Internet discussion group where evolution and creation are hotly debated, says up front: "No one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us." (3) A study of 135,000 manuscripts submitted to 68 scientific journals over a 3-year period found that only 18 attempted to make a case for scientific creationism, and these were rejected because they were apparently written by laymen with a high-school level understanding of their subjects. (4) The simple fact is, creationists do not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis. If they had it, they would offer it.

"Creation science" is science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *REBUTTAL*
> 
> *ALSO*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Dr. Spetner showed how max manipulated what he said and when he said it. The point is that Dr. Max could not provide one point mutation that produced new information without it presenting a loss of the origional information. Talk origins their not biased and by the way Dr. Spetner also provided a link from that site as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is entirely untrue.
> 
> The discussions in those links fully rebut Spetner's fallacious assertions, and his (literally) magical mechanism for the expression of variations in genetic information.
> 
> Spetner asserts that when a gene increases in generality of information, it NECESSARILY loses in specificity of information; ... and then weirdly, when a gene increases in specificity of information, it NECESSARILY loses in generality of information.
> 
> Spetner simply ignores the valid logic and the verifiable evidence that entirely rebuts his fatuous assertions. And he defends that disingenuously cultivated ignorance by applying first one metric describing information when generality increases, and then uses a different metric describing information when specificity increases; each according to it's convenience in supporting his claims, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that part of the metrics he uses that do not support his assertions.
> 
> Much like the disingenuous way you flip back and forth between taxonomic "species" and "family," when you use the term "kind" to obfuscate your patently  wrong notions of speciation and evolution.
> 
> You asshats routinely ignore the qualifications that are explicitly expressed when a generalization is proffered, in order to misapply it as an absolute; just as you intentionally ignore the explicitly expressed specificity of an assertion to to misapply it as a generalization--always to the convenience of your criticisms that are denials of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> He, like you, is insisting he can eat his cake, and then have it.
> 
> You're both retards.
> 
> No. The bottom line is that creationists cannot apply valid logic to the verifiable facts of reality to support their claims or invalidate the theory of evolution.
> 
> With each retarded attempt, creationists validate the indictment of their intellectual disingenuousness, by insisting upon applying logical fallacies, misrepresenting evolution and evolutionists, and flatly denying as valid, any verifiable evidence that refutes their baseless preconceptions. And in those cases where it is just impossible to deny the validity of the evidence, they dismiss it as ENTIRELY invalid because it fails to conclusively and unambiguously PROVE their entirely baseless beliefs wrong.
> 
> And all the while, you intellectually dishonest superstitious retards take the fall-back position that you don't have to validate your certainties against reality, because your certainties cannot be validated against reality. You simply DENY the legitimacy of valid logic applied to verifiable evidence in favor of the verisimilitude of your certainty in the reality of your unverifiable, untestable, unprovable, specious creationism.
> 
> Blatant misrepresentation. "Directed" is Spetner's presumptive term.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is like believing that non-intelligence can produce intelligence,in other words a non-intelligent prcocess could produce and program the human brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this is clearly what you believe. You said it yourself, you believe that intelligence is only possible as the result of another intelligence; since no intelligence "programed" or otherwise conferred intelligence upon this "Designer" of yours, He simply cannot be intelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or that in winter a non-intelligent process would cause an animal to grow longer hair and in the summer it would cause the animal to shed. It all points to that dirty word design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Design" requires intelligence to guide the will to a purpose for a design. As you claim, it is impossible that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent, otherwise I'd expect you to perform intellectually honest due diligence and provide substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic for your belief (contradictory to your assertions) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent.
> 
> Then you'll have to show me the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.
> 
> Having done that, you'll have to explain what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.
> 
> So what purpose does designing an animal to grow longer hair in the winter, and shed it in the summer, serve this "Designer" of yours?
> 
> You're the one who wanted to "get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating," so get to it. And  no more of this "I don't have to explain God" business. Bring both your "nitty" and your "gritty"; let's examine this "creator" of yours, this unintelligent "designer." Get intellectual integrity or get out.
Click to expand...


Let's learn about this intelligent designer.

You keep speaking of logic ok let's look at this from a logical standpoint.

Where does all information come from ? Dna information ? the genetic code ?any form of communicating ?the information that programmed our brains ?What causes intelligence ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Special creation by God (or for that matter, the gods of other religions) has never been proven scientifically. It is a matter of faith alone.
> 
> Read more: How is creation scientifically proven
> 
> "Creation science" fails two important tests of science: it neither makes predictions nor makes claims that can be empirically verified. It simply makes proclamations by faith. Furthermore, creation scientists have yet to offer any scientific evidence that proves the case of creationism; their efforts are almost entirely spent critiquing apparent contradictions within evolution. Finally, the scientific credentials of the creation scientists are what we might charitably describe as suspicious.
> 
> In the last few decades, a movement called "creation science" has gained considerable influence among Christian fundamentalists. According to Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research, their studies require "no reliance upon biblical revelation," but utilize "only scientific data to support and expound the creation model." (1) Specifically, this model is the literal interpretation of Genesis as it happened 6,000 years ago. Discoveries in both geology and biology were already deconstructing this model by the mid-19th century, and by the turn of the 20th century most fundamentalists had simply conceded the scientific fight to evolutionists. In recent times, however, creationists have become determined to resurrect their scientific case, and fight against evolutionists on their own ground.
> 
> By presenting the creation model as science, creationists have re-raised the question of what "science" is. Philosophers of science have worked out a commonly accepted list of criteria (produced well outside the debate between creationists and evolutionists). To be accepted as science, a theory must have predictive value, must be coherent (or internally consistent), must be falsifiable (or verifiable), and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the current theory.
> 
> Creation science fails to meet these criteria in several ways. First, its claims are not falsifiable. (This doesn't mean a theory has to be false -- only that if it were false, there would be some way of verifying it. It's the same thing as being vulnerable without actually being hurt.) If you were to claim that life exists on a planet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri, that would not qualify as science because there is no way of verifying it. It merely becomes an unsupported assertion. The claim that God made the earth is likewise unverifiable no one has yet found any way to test this claim. Evolution, on the other hand, has made countless claims that have the capacity to be proven false, if indeed they are.
> 
> Second, creationism has no predictive value. A theory must be able to make predictions which can then be tested for accuracy. Creation science makes "predictions" that already happened in the past or are unfalsifiable. Evolutionary theory passes this test because it has made accurate predictions concerning population densities, physiologies, chemistries, fossil find forecasts, and many other things.
> 
> Third, creation scientists have not come anywhere close to explaining all the phenomena of life to the extent that evolution has. It would be entirely fair, and no exaggeration whatsoever, to say that the difference between the two explanatory efforts is akin to the difference between a magazine article and the Encyclopedia Britannica.
> 
> Here, creation scientists will probably protest. Although it's true that the Institute for Creation Research is a small organization, employing dozens of researchers who have written dozens of books, this is hardly the entire literary output of creationists. The book Anti-Evolution, by Tom McIver, is a bibliography of those Christian books touching upon any aspect of this debate, and he lists no less than 1,852 titles. (2) However, virtually none of these books makes a positive scientific description of creationism. There is almost no attempt to use the scientific data found in the world today to prove creationism. Instead, the overwhelming majority of these books forge a negative scientific critique on its opponent, evolution. When not doing that, they concern themselves with the theological or legal issues surrounding the debate. But when it comes to making a positive scientific case for their paradigm, the analogy of a magazine article vs. the Encyclopedia Britannica is entirely correct.
> 
> The near complete absence of a scientific theory of creationism has been an embarrassment to that movement ever since it started. Creation scientists claim to have scientific evidence -- tons and tons of it, according to their charming and affable spokesman, Duane Gish -- but they never produce it. The welcome page for talk.origins, the Internet discussion group where evolution and creation are hotly debated, says up front: "No one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us." (3) A study of 135,000 manuscripts submitted to 68 scientific journals over a 3-year period found that only 18 attempted to make a case for scientific creationism, and these were rejected because they were apparently written by laymen with a high-school level understanding of their subjects. (4) The simple fact is, creationists do not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis. If they had it, they would offer it.
> 
> "Creation science" is science.



I have never denied that my belief in God is based on faith as well as infromation written in the scriptures.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Special creation by God (or for that matter, the gods of other religions) has never been proven scientifically. It is a matter of faith alone.
> 
> Read more: How is creation scientifically proven
> 
> "Creation science" fails two important tests of science: it neither makes predictions nor makes claims that can be empirically verified. It simply makes proclamations by faith. Furthermore, creation scientists have yet to offer any scientific evidence that proves the case of creationism; their efforts are almost entirely spent critiquing apparent contradictions within evolution. Finally, the scientific credentials of the creation scientists are what we might charitably describe as suspicious.
> 
> In the last few decades, a movement called "creation science" has gained considerable influence among Christian fundamentalists. According to Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research, their studies require "no reliance upon biblical revelation," but utilize "only scientific data to support and expound the creation model." (1) Specifically, this model is the literal interpretation of Genesis as it happened 6,000 years ago. Discoveries in both geology and biology were already deconstructing this model by the mid-19th century, and by the turn of the 20th century most fundamentalists had simply conceded the scientific fight to evolutionists. In recent times, however, creationists have become determined to resurrect their scientific case, and fight against evolutionists on their own ground.
> 
> By presenting the creation model as science, creationists have re-raised the question of what "science" is. Philosophers of science have worked out a commonly accepted list of criteria (produced well outside the debate between creationists and evolutionists). To be accepted as science, a theory must have predictive value, must be coherent (or internally consistent), must be falsifiable (or verifiable), and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the current theory.
> 
> Creation science fails to meet these criteria in several ways. First, its claims are not falsifiable. (This doesn't mean a theory has to be false -- only that if it were false, there would be some way of verifying it. It's the same thing as being vulnerable without actually being hurt.) If you were to claim that life exists on a planet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri, that would not qualify as science because there is no way of verifying it. It merely becomes an unsupported assertion. The claim that God made the earth is likewise unverifiable no one has yet found any way to test this claim. Evolution, on the other hand, has made countless claims that have the capacity to be proven false, if indeed they are.
> 
> Second, creationism has no predictive value. A theory must be able to make predictions which can then be tested for accuracy. Creation science makes "predictions" that already happened in the past or are unfalsifiable. Evolutionary theory passes this test because it has made accurate predictions concerning population densities, physiologies, chemistries, fossil find forecasts, and many other things.
> 
> Third, creation scientists have not come anywhere close to explaining all the phenomena of life to the extent that evolution has. It would be entirely fair, and no exaggeration whatsoever, to say that the difference between the two explanatory efforts is akin to the difference between a magazine article and the Encyclopedia Britannica.
> 
> Here, creation scientists will probably protest. Although it's true that the Institute for Creation Research is a small organization, employing dozens of researchers who have written dozens of books, this is hardly the entire literary output of creationists. The book Anti-Evolution, by Tom McIver, is a bibliography of those Christian books touching upon any aspect of this debate, and he lists no less than 1,852 titles. (2) However, virtually none of these books makes a positive scientific description of creationism. There is almost no attempt to use the scientific data found in the world today to prove creationism. Instead, the overwhelming majority of these books forge a negative scientific critique on its opponent, evolution. When not doing that, they concern themselves with the theological or legal issues surrounding the debate. But when it comes to making a positive scientific case for their paradigm, the analogy of a magazine article vs. the Encyclopedia Britannica is entirely correct.
> 
> The near complete absence of a scientific theory of creationism has been an embarrassment to that movement ever since it started. Creation scientists claim to have scientific evidence -- tons and tons of it, according to their charming and affable spokesman, Duane Gish -- but they never produce it. The welcome page for talk.origins, the Internet discussion group where evolution and creation are hotly debated, says up front: "No one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us." (3) A study of 135,000 manuscripts submitted to 68 scientific journals over a 3-year period found that only 18 attempted to make a case for scientific creationism, and these were rejected because they were apparently written by laymen with a high-school level understanding of their subjects. (4) The simple fact is, creationists do not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis. If they had it, they would offer it.
> 
> "Creation science" is science.



Creation compared to evolution.


The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:

The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:



I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.

I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.



II. Life was suddenly created.

II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.



III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.

III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.



IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.

IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.



V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.

V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.



VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).

VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).



VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.

VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.


Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)


----------



## AVG-JOE

Montrovant said:


> Are you truly this blind?
> 
> I'm not concerned with you being rude to individual posters.  I'm not concerned with individual posters being rude to you.  What concerns me is the GIANT WALLS OF TEXT that you feel a need to post over and over which is rude to anyone who decides to read the thread.  Which side of this argument anyone is on is irrelevant.  If any of the people arguing with you post GIANT WALLS OF TEXT they are being just as rude.
> 
> Again, it has nothing to do with this particular argument.  In any thread, it is rude to post GIANT WALLS OF TEXT instead of providing a link.  Your inability to recognize or admit this does not speak well to your ability to have a reasonable discussion on any other topic.



In any case, Montrovant is right.

"Free" speech is a myth - every board has rules, including this one, believe it or not.



			
				The Informative Link Below said:
			
		

> *Copyright Guidelines:*
> Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use small sections or link to the article. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, regardless of how you originally came across the material. Link Each Copy and Paste.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/47455-usmb-rules-and-regulations.html



Posting copyrighted material without a link can get you an infraction. eek: Whatever the fuck THAT is!)  
A general rule of thumb is to post no more than 3 paragraphs and link it.

Yes, I realize that I'm ass-U-me-ing the material copy and pasted is copyrighted stuff.  I'm impressive that way when I mod.


----------



## Youwerecreated

AVG-JOE said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you truly this blind?
> 
> I'm not concerned with you being rude to individual posters.  I'm not concerned with individual posters being rude to you.  What concerns me is the GIANT WALLS OF TEXT that you feel a need to post over and over which is rude to anyone who decides to read the thread.  Which side of this argument anyone is on is irrelevant.  If any of the people arguing with you post GIANT WALLS OF TEXT they are being just as rude.
> 
> Again, it has nothing to do with this particular argument.  In any thread, it is rude to post GIANT WALLS OF TEXT instead of providing a link.  Your inability to recognize or admit this does not speak well to your ability to have a reasonable discussion on any other topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, Montrovant is right.
> 
> "Free" speech is a myth - every board has rules, including this one, believe it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Informative Link Below said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Copyright Guidelines:*
> Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use small sections or link to the article. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, regardless of how you originally came across the material. Link Each Copy and Paste.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/47455-usmb-rules-and-regulations.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Posting copyrighted material without a link can get you an infraction. eek: Whatever the fuck THAT is!)
> A general rule of thumb is to post no more than 3 paragraphs and link it.
> 
> Yes, I realize that I'm ass-U-me-ing the material copy and pasted is copyrighted stuff.  I'm impressive that way when I mod.
Click to expand...


Ok I will not post full articles,it doesn't do any good anyways because most of them did not understand what was posted.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Special creation by God (or for that matter, the gods of other religions) has never been proven scientifically. It is a matter of faith alone.
> 
> Read more: How is creation scientifically proven
> 
> "Creation science" fails two important tests of science: it neither makes predictions nor makes claims that can be empirically verified. It simply makes proclamations by faith. Furthermore, creation scientists have yet to offer any scientific evidence that proves the case of creationism; their efforts are almost entirely spent critiquing apparent contradictions within evolution. Finally, the scientific credentials of the creation scientists are what we might charitably describe as suspicious.
> 
> In the last few decades, a movement called "creation science" has gained considerable influence among Christian fundamentalists. According to Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research, their studies require "no reliance upon biblical revelation," but utilize "only scientific data to support and expound the creation model." (1) Specifically, this model is the literal interpretation of Genesis as it happened 6,000 years ago. Discoveries in both geology and biology were already deconstructing this model by the mid-19th century, and by the turn of the 20th century most fundamentalists had simply conceded the scientific fight to evolutionists. In recent times, however, creationists have become determined to resurrect their scientific case, and fight against evolutionists on their own ground.
> 
> By presenting the creation model as science, creationists have re-raised the question of what "science" is. Philosophers of science have worked out a commonly accepted list of criteria (produced well outside the debate between creationists and evolutionists). To be accepted as science, a theory must have predictive value, must be coherent (or internally consistent), must be falsifiable (or verifiable), and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the current theory.
> 
> Creation science fails to meet these criteria in several ways. First, its claims are not falsifiable. (This doesn't mean a theory has to be false -- only that if it were false, there would be some way of verifying it. It's the same thing as being vulnerable without actually being hurt.) If you were to claim that life exists on a planet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri, that would not qualify as science because there is no way of verifying it. It merely becomes an unsupported assertion. The claim that God made the earth is likewise unverifiable&#8230; no one has yet found any way to test this claim. Evolution, on the other hand, has made countless claims that have the capacity to be proven false, if indeed they are.
> 
> Second, creationism has no predictive value. A theory must be able to make predictions which can then be tested for accuracy. Creation science makes "predictions" that already happened in the past or are unfalsifiable. Evolutionary theory passes this test because it has made accurate predictions concerning population densities, physiologies, chemistries, fossil find forecasts, and many other things.
> 
> Third, creation scientists have not come anywhere close to explaining all the phenomena of life to the extent that evolution has. It would be entirely fair, and no exaggeration whatsoever, to say that the difference between the two explanatory efforts is akin to the difference between a magazine article and the Encyclopedia Britannica.
> 
> Here, creation scientists will probably protest. Although it's true that the Institute for Creation Research is a small organization, employing dozens of researchers who have written dozens of books, this is hardly the entire literary output of creationists. The book Anti-Evolution, by Tom McIver, is a bibliography of those Christian books touching upon any aspect of this debate, and he lists no less than 1,852 titles. (2) However, virtually none of these books makes a positive scientific description of creationism. There is almost no attempt to use the scientific data found in the world today to prove creationism. Instead, the overwhelming majority of these books forge a negative scientific critique on its opponent, evolution. When not doing that, they concern themselves with the theological or legal issues surrounding the debate. But when it comes to making a positive scientific case for their paradigm, the analogy of a magazine article vs. the Encyclopedia Britannica is entirely correct.
> 
> The near complete absence of a scientific theory of creationism has been an embarrassment to that movement ever since it started. Creation scientists claim to have scientific evidence -- tons and tons of it, according to their charming and affable spokesman, Duane Gish -- but they never produce it. The welcome page for talk.origins, the Internet discussion group where evolution and creation are hotly debated, says up front: "No one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us." (3) A study of 135,000 manuscripts submitted to 68 scientific journals over a 3-year period found that only 18 attempted to make a case for scientific creationism, and these were rejected because they were apparently written by laymen with a high-school level understanding of their subjects. (4) The simple fact is, creationists do not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis. If they had it, they would offer it.
> 
> "Creation science" is science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation compared to evolution.
> 
> 
> The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:
> 
> The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:
> 
> 
> 
> I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.
> 
> I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.
> 
> 
> 
> II. Life was suddenly created.
> 
> II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.
> 
> 
> 
> III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.
> 
> III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.
> 
> 
> 
> IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.
> 
> IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.
> 
> 
> 
> V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.
> 
> V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).
> 
> VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).
> 
> 
> 
> VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.
> 
> VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.
> 
> 
> Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)
Click to expand...

Creation science fails to meet these criteria in several ways. First, its claims are not falsifiable. (This doesn't mean a theory has to be false -- only that if it were false, there would be some way of verifying it. It's the same thing as being vulnerable without actually being hurt.) If you were to claim that life exists on a planet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri, that would not qualify as science because there is no way of verifying it. It merely becomes an unsupported assertion. The claim that God made the earth is likewise unverifiable&#8230; no one has yet found any way to test this claim. Evolution, on the other hand, has made countless claims that have the capacity to be proven false, if indeed they are.

you are either too ignorant or too stupid to understand that what you're presenting as evidence is not evidence as detailed above.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Well since you guys are Hell bent on believing information comes from a natural means let's talk about where and how it came about ? Let's see if intelligence and information comes from natural processes or from intelligence. Come on loki let's get to it. This is the true difference between your belief and mine.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Special creation by God (or for that matter, the gods of other religions) has never been proven scientifically. It is a matter of faith alone.
> 
> Read more: How is creation scientifically proven
> 
> "Creation science" fails two important tests of science: it neither makes predictions nor makes claims that can be empirically verified. It simply makes proclamations by faith. Furthermore, creation scientists have yet to offer any scientific evidence that proves the case of creationism; their efforts are almost entirely spent critiquing apparent contradictions within evolution. Finally, the scientific credentials of the creation scientists are what we might charitably describe as suspicious.
> 
> In the last few decades, a movement called "creation science" has gained considerable influence among Christian fundamentalists. According to Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research, their studies require "no reliance upon biblical revelation," but utilize "only scientific data to support and expound the creation model." (1) Specifically, this model is the literal interpretation of Genesis as it happened 6,000 years ago. Discoveries in both geology and biology were already deconstructing this model by the mid-19th century, and by the turn of the 20th century most fundamentalists had simply conceded the scientific fight to evolutionists. In recent times, however, creationists have become determined to resurrect their scientific case, and fight against evolutionists on their own ground.
> 
> By presenting the creation model as science, creationists have re-raised the question of what "science" is. Philosophers of science have worked out a commonly accepted list of criteria (produced well outside the debate between creationists and evolutionists). To be accepted as science, a theory must have predictive value, must be coherent (or internally consistent), must be falsifiable (or verifiable), and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the current theory.
> 
> Creation science fails to meet these criteria in several ways. First, its claims are not falsifiable. (This doesn't mean a theory has to be false -- only that if it were false, there would be some way of verifying it. It's the same thing as being vulnerable without actually being hurt.) If you were to claim that life exists on a planet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri, that would not qualify as science because there is no way of verifying it. It merely becomes an unsupported assertion. The claim that God made the earth is likewise unverifiable no one has yet found any way to test this claim. Evolution, on the other hand, has made countless claims that have the capacity to be proven false, if indeed they are.
> 
> Second, creationism has no predictive value. A theory must be able to make predictions which can then be tested for accuracy. Creation science makes "predictions" that already happened in the past or are unfalsifiable. Evolutionary theory passes this test because it has made accurate predictions concerning population densities, physiologies, chemistries, fossil find forecasts, and many other things.
> 
> Third, creation scientists have not come anywhere close to explaining all the phenomena of life to the extent that evolution has. It would be entirely fair, and no exaggeration whatsoever, to say that the difference between the two explanatory efforts is akin to the difference between a magazine article and the Encyclopedia Britannica.
> 
> Here, creation scientists will probably protest. Although it's true that the Institute for Creation Research is a small organization, employing dozens of researchers who have written dozens of books, this is hardly the entire literary output of creationists. The book Anti-Evolution, by Tom McIver, is a bibliography of those Christian books touching upon any aspect of this debate, and he lists no less than 1,852 titles. (2) However, virtually none of these books makes a positive scientific description of creationism. There is almost no attempt to use the scientific data found in the world today to prove creationism. Instead, the overwhelming majority of these books forge a negative scientific critique on its opponent, evolution. When not doing that, they concern themselves with the theological or legal issues surrounding the debate. But when it comes to making a positive scientific case for their paradigm, the analogy of a magazine article vs. the Encyclopedia Britannica is entirely correct.
> 
> The near complete absence of a scientific theory of creationism has been an embarrassment to that movement ever since it started. Creation scientists claim to have scientific evidence -- tons and tons of it, according to their charming and affable spokesman, Duane Gish -- but they never produce it. The welcome page for talk.origins, the Internet discussion group where evolution and creation are hotly debated, says up front: "No one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us." (3) A study of 135,000 manuscripts submitted to 68 scientific journals over a 3-year period found that only 18 attempted to make a case for scientific creationism, and these were rejected because they were apparently written by laymen with a high-school level understanding of their subjects. (4) The simple fact is, creationists do not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis. If they had it, they would offer it.
> 
> "Creation science" is science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied that my belief in God is based on faith as well as infromation written in the scriptures.
Click to expand...

neither one is science or scientific "The simple fact is, creationists do not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis."


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Let's learn about this intelligent designer.


Yes, let's. Finally.



Youwerecreated said:


> You keep speaking of logic ok let's look at this from a logical standpoint.


Yes, yes I do; let us indeed examine this using *VALID* logic.



Youwerecreated said:


> Where does all information come from ?


If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also say this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Leprechauns?



Youwerecreated said:


> Dna information ?


If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Paul Bunyan?



Youwerecreated said:


> the genetic code ?


If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... the Easter Bunny?



Youwerecreated said:


> any form of communicating ?


If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Frosty the snowman?



Youwerecreated said:


> the information that programmed our brains ?What causes intelligence ?


If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... the Tooth Fairy?

Is this what you've got now? You'll accept the Tooth Fairy, or any other superstitious magic explanation, so long as you don't have to accept any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence? I thought YOU were going to explain this "Designer" of yours. Why are YOU asking me your stupid questions, when YOU should be answering them; when YOU should be providing the explanations.

For instance;

Since you deny that intelligence can come to exist from processes without intelligence, and given that this "Designer" of yours was not imbued with intelligence by another intelligence, it is impossible (according to your premises) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent. And since  "design" requires intelligence to guide the will to a purpose for a design, I expect you to perform intellectually honest due diligence and provide substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic for your belief (contradictory to your assertions) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent.

When you're done there, show me the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

Once you manage that, you can get to explaining what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

So what purpose does designing an animal to grow longer hair in the winter, and shed it in the summer, serve this "Designer" of yours?

Remember, YOU are the one who wanted to "get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating," so get to it. And no more of this "I don't have to explain God" business. Bring both your "nitty" and your "gritty"; it's finally time for you to stop challenging us, and start meeting the challenges brought to you; it's time for you to finally explain this "creator" of yours, ... this unintelligent "Designer."





_


			
				EDIT: said:
			
		




Youwerecreated said:



			Well since you guys are Hell bent on believing information comes from a natural means let's talk about where and how it came about ? Let's see if intelligence and information comes from natural processes or from intelligence. Come on loki let's get to it. This is the true difference between your belief and mine.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Challenge enthusiastically accepted. *AFTER* you have finished what you've started first; then I will happily hand you your own ass ... again. *First* you meet your obligations above, *THEN* we "get to it" ... *NOT* Before.
		
Click to expand...

_​


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Special creation by God (or for that matter, the gods of other religions) has never been proven scientifically. It is a matter of faith alone.
> 
> Read more: How is creation scientifically proven
> 
> "Creation science" fails two important tests of science: it neither makes predictions nor makes claims that can be empirically verified. It simply makes proclamations by faith. Furthermore, creation scientists have yet to offer any scientific evidence that proves the case of creationism; their efforts are almost entirely spent critiquing apparent contradictions within evolution. Finally, the scientific credentials of the creation scientists are what we might charitably describe as suspicious.
> 
> In the last few decades, a movement called "creation science" has gained considerable influence among Christian fundamentalists. According to Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research, their studies require "no reliance upon biblical revelation," but utilize "only scientific data to support and expound the creation model." (1) Specifically, this model is the literal interpretation of Genesis as it happened 6,000 years ago. Discoveries in both geology and biology were already deconstructing this model by the mid-19th century, and by the turn of the 20th century most fundamentalists had simply conceded the scientific fight to evolutionists. In recent times, however, creationists have become determined to resurrect their scientific case, and fight against evolutionists on their own ground.
> 
> By presenting the creation model as science, creationists have re-raised the question of what "science" is. Philosophers of science have worked out a commonly accepted list of criteria (produced well outside the debate between creationists and evolutionists). To be accepted as science, a theory must have predictive value, must be coherent (or internally consistent), must be falsifiable (or verifiable), and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the current theory.
> 
> Creation science fails to meet these criteria in several ways. First, its claims are not falsifiable. (This doesn't mean a theory has to be false -- only that if it were false, there would be some way of verifying it. It's the same thing as being vulnerable without actually being hurt.) If you were to claim that life exists on a planet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri, that would not qualify as science because there is no way of verifying it. It merely becomes an unsupported assertion. The claim that God made the earth is likewise unverifiable&#8230; no one has yet found any way to test this claim. Evolution, on the other hand, has made countless claims that have the capacity to be proven false, if indeed they are.
> 
> Second, creationism has no predictive value. A theory must be able to make predictions which can then be tested for accuracy. Creation science makes "predictions" that already happened in the past or are unfalsifiable. Evolutionary theory passes this test because it has made accurate predictions concerning population densities, physiologies, chemistries, fossil find forecasts, and many other things.
> 
> Third, creation scientists have not come anywhere close to explaining all the phenomena of life to the extent that evolution has. It would be entirely fair, and no exaggeration whatsoever, to say that the difference between the two explanatory efforts is akin to the difference between a magazine article and the Encyclopedia Britannica.
> 
> Here, creation scientists will probably protest. Although it's true that the Institute for Creation Research is a small organization, employing dozens of researchers who have written dozens of books, this is hardly the entire literary output of creationists. The book Anti-Evolution, by Tom McIver, is a bibliography of those Christian books touching upon any aspect of this debate, and he lists no less than 1,852 titles. (2) However, virtually none of these books makes a positive scientific description of creationism. There is almost no attempt to use the scientific data found in the world today to prove creationism. Instead, the overwhelming majority of these books forge a negative scientific critique on its opponent, evolution. When not doing that, they concern themselves with the theological or legal issues surrounding the debate. But when it comes to making a positive scientific case for their paradigm, the analogy of a magazine article vs. the Encyclopedia Britannica is entirely correct.
> 
> The near complete absence of a scientific theory of creationism has been an embarrassment to that movement ever since it started. Creation scientists claim to have scientific evidence -- tons and tons of it, according to their charming and affable spokesman, Duane Gish -- but they never produce it. The welcome page for talk.origins, the Internet discussion group where evolution and creation are hotly debated, says up front: "No one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us." (3) A study of 135,000 manuscripts submitted to 68 scientific journals over a 3-year period found that only 18 attempted to make a case for scientific creationism, and these were rejected because they were apparently written by laymen with a high-school level understanding of their subjects. (4) The simple fact is, creationists do not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis. If they had it, they would offer it.
> 
> "Creation science" is science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation compared to evolution.
> 
> 
> The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:
> 
> The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:
> 
> 
> 
> I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.
> 
> I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.
> 
> 
> 
> II. Life was suddenly created.
> 
> II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.
> 
> 
> 
> III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.
> 
> III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.
> 
> 
> 
> IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.
> 
> IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.
> 
> 
> 
> V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.
> 
> V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).
> 
> VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).
> 
> 
> 
> VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.
> 
> VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.
> 
> 
> Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creation science fails to meet these criteria in several ways. First, its claims are not falsifiable. (This doesn't mean a theory has to be false -- only that if it were false, there would be some way of verifying it. It's the same thing as being vulnerable without actually being hurt.) If you were to claim that life exists on a planet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri, that would not qualify as science because there is no way of verifying it. It merely becomes an unsupported assertion. The claim that God made the earth is likewise unverifiable&#8230; no one has yet found any way to test this claim. Evolution, on the other hand, has made countless claims that have the capacity to be proven false, if indeed they are.
> 
> you are either too ignorant or too stupid to understand that what you're presenting as evidence is not evidence as detailed above.
Click to expand...



Uh can you explain how evolution is falsifiable  and creation is not ?

Definition for falsifiable:
Web definitions:
confirmable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.

How can you confirm the universe came about by  natural processes ?


How can you confirm Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes ?

How can you confirm All present kinds of organisms emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man ?

How can you confirm Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism ?

How can you confirm Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor ?

How can you confirm The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism) ?

How can you confirm The inception of the earth and then that life must have occurred several billion years ago ?

Your theories are no more falsifiable then creation dummy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's learn about this intelligent designer.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's. Finally.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep speaking of logic ok let's look at this from a logical standpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, yes I do; let us indeed examine this using *VALID* logic.
> 
> If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also say this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Leprechauns?
> 
> If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Paul Bunyan?
> 
> If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... the Easter Bunny?
> 
> If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Frosty the snowman?
> 
> If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... the Tooth Fairy?
> 
> Is this what you've got now? You'll accept the Tooth Fairy, or any other superstitious magic explanation, so long as you don't have to accept any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence? I thought YOU were going to explain this "Designer" of yours. Why are YOU asking me your stupid questions, when YOU should be answering them; when YOU should be providing the explanations.
> 
> For instance;
> 
> Since you deny that intelligence can come to exist from processes without intelligence, and given that this "Designer" of yours was not imbued with intelligence by another intelligence, it is impossible (according to your premises) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent. And since  "design" requires intelligence to guide the will to a purpose for a design, I expect you to perform intellectually honest due diligence and provide substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic for your belief (contradictory to your assertions) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent.
> 
> When you're done there, show me the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.
> 
> Once you manage that, you can get to explaining what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.
> 
> So what purpose does designing an animal to grow longer hair in the winter, and shed it in the summer, serve this "Designer" of yours?
> 
> Remember, YOU are the one who wanted to "get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating," so get to it. And no more of this "I don't have to explain God" business. Bring both your "nitty" and your "gritty"; it's finally time for you to stop challenging us, and start meeting the challenges brought to you; it's time for you to finally explain this "creator" of yours, ... this unintelligent "Designer."
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well since you guys are Hell bent on believing information comes from a natural means let's talk about where and how it came about ? Let's see if intelligence and information comes from natural processes or from intelligence. Come on loki let's get to it. This is the true difference between your belief and mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely. Challenge enthusiastically accepted. *AFTER* you have finished what you've started first; then I will happily hand you your own ass ... again. *First* you meet your obligations above, *THEN* we "get to it" ... *NOT* Before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
Click to expand...


You are easy to rebut ,Yes.

Can you demonstrate otherwise ?

God has always existed and as always been intelligent.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's learn about this intelligent designer.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's. Finally.
> 
> Yes, yes I do; let us indeed examine this using *VALID* logic.
> 
> If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also say this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Leprechauns?
> 
> If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Paul Bunyan?
> 
> If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... the Easter Bunny?
> 
> If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Frosty the snowman?
> 
> If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... the Tooth Fairy?
> 
> Is this what you've got now? You'll accept the Tooth Fairy, or any other superstitious magic explanation, so long as you don't have to accept any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence? I thought YOU were going to explain this "Designer" of yours. Why are YOU asking me your stupid questions, when YOU should be answering them; when YOU should be providing the explanations.
> 
> For instance;
> 
> Since you deny that intelligence can come to exist from processes without intelligence, and given that this "Designer" of yours was not imbued with intelligence by another intelligence, it is impossible (according to your premises) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent. And since  "design" requires intelligence to guide the will to a purpose for a design, I expect you to perform intellectually honest due diligence and provide substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic for your belief (contradictory to your assertions) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent.
> 
> When you're done there, show me the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.
> 
> Once you manage that, you can get to explaining what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.
> 
> So what purpose does designing an animal to grow longer hair in the winter, and shed it in the summer, serve this "Designer" of yours?
> 
> Remember, YOU are the one who wanted to "get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating," so get to it. And no more of this "I don't have to explain God" business. Bring both your "nitty" and your "gritty"; it's finally time for you to stop challenging us, and start meeting the challenges brought to you; it's time for you to finally explain this "creator" of yours, ... this unintelligent "Designer."
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. Challenge enthusiastically accepted. *AFTER* you have finished what you've started first; then I will happily hand you your own ass ... again. *First* you meet your obligations above, *THEN* we "get to it" ... *NOT* Before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are easy to rebut ,Yes.
> 
> Can you demonstrate otherwise ?
Click to expand...

Rebut? "Yes" to what?  Demonstrate "otherwise" regarding ... ?



Youwerecreated said:


> God has always existed and as always been intelligent.


I am aware that you believe this, ... and I am waiting for you to demonstrate this, as you said you would ... using logic; let me add, *VALID* logic.

So, there's no need for you to procrastinate any longer. Please commence with the demonstrations and explanations, forthwith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's. Finally.
> 
> Yes, yes I do; let us indeed examine this using *VALID* logic.
> 
> If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also say this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Leprechauns?
> 
> If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Paul Bunyan?
> 
> If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... the Easter Bunny?
> 
> If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Frosty the snowman?
> 
> If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... the Tooth Fairy?
> 
> Is this what you've got now? You'll accept the Tooth Fairy, or any other superstitious magic explanation, so long as you don't have to accept any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence? I thought YOU were going to explain this "Designer" of yours. Why are YOU asking me your stupid questions, when YOU should be answering them; when YOU should be providing the explanations.
> 
> For instance;
> 
> Since you deny that intelligence can come to exist from processes without intelligence, and given that this "Designer" of yours was not imbued with intelligence by another intelligence, it is impossible (according to your premises) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent. And since  "design" requires intelligence to guide the will to a purpose for a design, I expect you to perform intellectually honest due diligence and provide substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic for your belief (contradictory to your assertions) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent.
> 
> When you're done there, show me the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.
> 
> Once you manage that, you can get to explaining what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.
> 
> So what purpose does designing an animal to grow longer hair in the winter, and shed it in the summer, serve this "Designer" of yours?
> 
> Remember, YOU are the one who wanted to "get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating," so get to it. And no more of this "I don't have to explain God" business. Bring both your "nitty" and your "gritty"; it's finally time for you to stop challenging us, and start meeting the challenges brought to you; it's time for you to finally explain this "creator" of yours, ... this unintelligent "Designer."
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> You are easy to rebut ,Yes.
> 
> Can you demonstrate otherwise ?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Rebut? "Yes" to what?  Demonstrate "otherwise" regarding ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God has always existed and as always been intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am aware that you believe this, ... and I am waiting for you to demonstrate this, as you said you would ... using logic; let me add, *VALID* logic.
> 
> So, there's no need for you to procrastinate any longer. Please commence with the demonstrations and explanations, forthwith._
Click to expand...

_

So you can't give an example of intelligence or any of the other things mentioned arising through a natural means. So chalk one up for it took intelligence to produce intelligence. Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about. So now if there is no creator where did intelligence and information come from ? It's logical to assume a creator ,thanks for playing._


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are easy to rebut ,Yes.
> 
> Can you demonstrate otherwise ?
> 
> 
> 
> Rebut? "Yes" to what?  Demonstrate "otherwise" regarding ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God has always existed and as always been intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am aware that you believe this, ... and I am waiting for you to demonstrate this, as you said you would ... using logic; let me add, *VALID* logic.
> 
> So, there's no need for you to procrastinate any longer. Please commence with the demonstrations and explanations, forthwith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't give an example of intelligence or any of the other things mentioned arise through a natural means. So chalk one up for it took intelligence to produce intelligence. *Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about.* So now if there is no creator where did intelligence and information come from ? It's logical to assume a creator ,thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


You believe that to be true, but there is no evidence that it is the case.  In fact, you give the impression that your argument is actually 'everything formed, built or created *by intelligence* needed intelligence to bring it about'.  If a new river is formed, was it intelligence that necessarily did it?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> So you can't give an example of intelligence or any of the other things mentioned arise through a natural means. So chalk one up for it took intelligence to produce intelligence.


Even if true, this is not an explanation or demonstration of this intelligent designer of yours using valid logic.

So, chalk this up as another failure on your part to make your point.



Youwerecreated said:


> Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about.


Even if true, this is not an explanation or demonstration of this intelligent designer of yours using valid logic.

So, chalk this up as another failure on your part to make your point.



Youwerecreated said:


> So now if there is no creator where did intelligence and information come from ?


This is not an explanation or demonstration of this intelligent designer of yours using valid logic.

So, chalk this up as another failure on your part to make your point.



Youwerecreated said:


> It's logical to assume a creator ,thanks for playing.


This is not an explanation or demonstration of this intelligent designer of yours using valid logic.

So, chalk this up as another failure on your part to make your point.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rebut? "Yes" to what?  Demonstrate "otherwise" regarding ... ?
> 
> I am aware that you believe this, ... and I am waiting for you to demonstrate this, as you said you would ... using logic; let me add, *VALID* logic.
> 
> So, there's no need for you to procrastinate any longer. Please commence with the demonstrations and explanations, forthwith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't give an example of intelligence or any of the other things mentioned arise through a natural means. So chalk one up for it took intelligence to produce intelligence. *Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about.* So now if there is no creator where did intelligence and information come from ? It's logical to assume a creator ,thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe that to be true, but there is no evidence that it is the case.  In fact, you give the impression that your argument is actually 'everything formed, built or created *by intelligence* needed intelligence to bring it about'.  If a new river is formed, was it intelligence that necessarily did it?
Click to expand...


What does a river have to do with anything mentioned ?

Yes,rivers are easily formed just imagine the colorado river down at the bottom of the grand canyon that was one heck of a flood to carve out the grand canyon and leave that little river behind.

Not a very good example but i was expecting bad examples from your side to try and compare to things that took intelligence to create.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't give an example of intelligence or any of the other things mentioned arise through a natural means. So chalk one up for it took intelligence to produce intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if true, this is not an explanation or demonstration of this intelligent designer of yours using valid logic.
> 
> So, chalk this up as another failure on your part to make your point.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if true, this is not an explanation or demonstration of this intelligent designer of yours using valid logic.
> 
> So, chalk this up as another failure on your part to make your point.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now if there is no creator where did intelligence and information come from ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not an explanation or demonstration of this intelligent designer of yours using valid logic.
> 
> So, chalk this up as another failure on your part to make your point.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's logical to assume a creator ,thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not an explanation or demonstration of this intelligent designer of yours using valid logic.
> 
> So, chalk this up as another failure on your part to make your point.
Click to expand...


Wrong,intelligence cannot arise on it's own. A non-intelligent process could not create the greatest organ formed, the brain. Just think of what the brain has accomplished.

Failure  intelligence and all information came from only one thing, intelligence. 

Chalk one up for intelligence.

If God the all knowing creator is not a good explanation for all intelligence and information what is ?

By this demonstration a person with just a little bit of intelligence can see it took intelligence to create,build,and form. Not only is our brains responsible for all intelligence,information,and creations of man but it aso runs our body.

Scientist compare our brains as better then any super computer designed ,built,and programmed. But yet you are still willing to say this organ was the result of a non-intelligent non-thinking process. You're in denial my friend and you are using poor logic to assume such a thing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Now lets cover young earth evidence.

Ok evidence that shows a much younger earth then man says.

Introduction:
Contrary to what we've been told over and over by the evolution-believing mass media, the "scientific" establishment, and old-Earth (slow) Creationists (who don't want God to receive too much glory), there are, in fact, numerous geophysical and astronomical clocks which point to a young age for the earth, solar system, and universe. In fact, such young-earth indicators are in the majority. But because the scientific establishment and the media are biased in favor of evolution, and against the Creator, and because evolution requires an old earth to appear plausible, the public at large is rarely informed of the mounting evidence that contradicts the old earth dogma of evolution. 

In the pages that follow we discuss 22 clocks, or indicators that the Earth and Universe are young. Or to say it another way: there is a LOT of scientific evidence that suggests the Earth is perhaps only thousands of years old, and that the 4.5 billion year age that evolution-believing "scientists" have LOUDLY proclaimed -- over and over -- is incorrect.

Time Clocks:
A "clock" is any geophysical or astronomical process that is changing at a constant rate. Clocks may be used to estimate how long a process has been going on for. All clocks (including radiometric ones) require the use of at least three assumptions. These are:

1. The rate of change has remained constant throughout the past.
2. The original conditions are known.
3. The process has not been altered by outside forces.

In each of these cases it is not possible to prove that the assumptions are true. For example flooding can greatly alter sedimentation rates, and with clocks over 5,000 years old, the original conditions cannot be known with certainty. Therefore scientists must make a guess with regard to what they believe the original conditions might have been. The shorter the time involved, the more likely that a specific process has been constant, and unaltered by external influences.

The following clocks point to a young earth, solar system, and universe. Taken together, they suggest that the earth is quite young -- probably less than 10,000 years old.

For undisputed evidence of a younger earth then man states.


The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.





Is There Really Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth?
For the past several decades, the question of the age of the Earth has been a very divisive one among Christians. Many people (known as "Young-Earth Creationists") believe that the only valid interpretation of the Bible indicates that the Earth is 10,000 years old or less, and they also claim to have scientific evidence that supports this view of the Earth. At the same time, there are many others who believe that scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, while the Universe as a whole is 10 to 20 billion years old. Many people in this latter category affirm the intimate involvement of God in this process of creation. 

It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss theology, but this author firmly believes that a literal interpretation of Genesis allows for an Old-Earth view that is consistent with mainstream science. I say this only to emphasize that this paper is not intended to oppose any Christian beliefs, or to tear down anyone's faith. Rather, the purpose of this paper is to ensure that our Faith is based firmly on Truth, and not merely wishful thinking. 

Through the ages, many people have denied certain facts of nature because those facts did not fit into the belief system that they desired to hold to. Both Christians and atheists are commonly guilty of this error. It should be obvious that any Christian who believes that God is the ordainer and framer of this world, and that God is the initiator of all logic and scientific thought, should never take such a position. The purpose of this paper is to show that Young-Earth Creationists, however unintentionally, have in fact done this. Regardless of what we may think the Bible says, the facts of nature are also ordained by God, and it is not right deny them or to misrepresent them in order to support any particular belief system. The purpose of this paper is to set forth the facts of nature in light of the claims made by Young-Earth Creationist leaders in hope that, by better understanding the facts of nature, we will also come to a better understanding of God's greater source of revelation - the words of the Bible. 

Please read further.

Is There Really Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth?


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't give an example of intelligence or any of the other things mentioned arise through a natural means. So chalk one up for it took intelligence to produce intelligence. *Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about.* So now if there is no creator where did intelligence and information come from ? It's logical to assume a creator ,thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that to be true, but there is no evidence that it is the case.  In fact, you give the impression that your argument is actually 'everything formed, built or created *by intelligence* needed intelligence to bring it about'.  If a new river is formed, was it intelligence that necessarily did it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does a river have to do with anything mentioned ?
> 
> Yes,rivers are easily formed just imagine the colorado river down at the bottom of the grand canyon that was one heck of a flood to carve out the grand canyon and leave that little river behind.
> 
> Not a very good example but i was expecting bad examples from your side to try and compare to things that took intelligence to create.
Click to expand...


The more you post, the less I think you understand the responses people give.

I put the important part of your post in bold, and still you missed it.  You said "Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about."  I brought up rivers being formed, as an example of something formed that didn't need intelligence.  See the extremely obvious connection yet?

Your point truly does seem to be that since humans, with our intelligence, have created many things, all things must also have been created with intelligence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that to be true, but there is no evidence that it is the case.  In fact, you give the impression that your argument is actually 'everything formed, built or created *by intelligence* needed intelligence to bring it about'.  If a new river is formed, was it intelligence that necessarily did it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does a river have to do with anything mentioned ?
> 
> Yes,rivers are easily formed just imagine the colorado river down at the bottom of the grand canyon that was one heck of a flood to carve out the grand canyon and leave that little river behind.
> 
> Not a very good example but i was expecting bad examples from your side to try and compare to things that took intelligence to create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more you post, the less I think you understand the responses people give.
> 
> I put the important part of your post in bold, and still you missed it.  You said "Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about."  I brought up rivers being formed, as an example of something formed that didn't need intelligence.  See the extremely obvious connection yet?
> 
> Your point truly does seem to be that since humans, with our intelligence, have created many things, all things must also have been created with intelligence.
Click to expand...


Give me an example otherwise. all information, intelligence,communications,science,computers, came about through intelligence. So why do you reason different for life and the universe ? Don't forget the brain.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that to be true, but there is no evidence that it is the case.  In fact, you give the impression that your argument is actually 'everything formed, built or created *by intelligence* needed intelligence to bring it about'.  If a new river is formed, was it intelligence that necessarily did it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does a river have to do with anything mentioned ?
> 
> Yes,rivers are easily formed just imagine the colorado river down at the bottom of the grand canyon that was one heck of a flood to carve out the grand canyon and leave that little river behind.
> 
> Not a very good example but i was expecting bad examples from your side to try and compare to things that took intelligence to create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more you post, the less I think you understand the responses people give.
> 
> I put the important part of your post in bold, and still you missed it.  You said "Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about."  I brought up rivers being formed, as an example of something formed that didn't need intelligence.  See the extremely obvious connection yet?
> 
> Your point truly does seem to be that since humans, with our intelligence, have created many things, all things must also have been created with intelligence.
Click to expand...


Must i point out the genetic code again. It's a language and blue print of a living organism did that not need intelligence to produce the blue print ?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> I guess it is time for us to get into the nitty gritty and discuss these so called mutations that caused macro-evolution.
> 
> For you LOKI and Cbirch lets see if you understand the problems presented.
> 
> A Scientific Critique of Evolution
> Dr. Lee Spetner
> in an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> © 2000 L.M. Spetner.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> *Blah blah blah blah blah
> 
> * Dr. Lee M. Spetner
> 
> A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution
> 
> Don't run i am calling you out both of you. The information for organisms to adapt has always been in the DNA and this information aided in micro-evolution or better yet micro-adaptations. This information accounts for variations in species.



Do not ever accuse me of copy and pasting because i cant articulate it myself, obviously thats your role. 

And second, Spetner has a degree in mechanical engineering. IDGAF about idiot creationists. 

Explain it in your own words fool. Im not going to read your 5,000+ word copya pasta from creationist websites. 

Explain it to me using actual genetic terminology and then i will take you seriously. Im not even reading that massive *wall of text.*


----------



## cbirch2

Why did you just totally ignore the purebred topic kid?

Wasnt that essentially the basic point of your argument? 

That purebreds are pure breeds created by god and everything else is just a mix???

Lets go back to that. That was funny to hear someone argue.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does a river have to do with anything mentioned ?
> 
> Yes,rivers are easily formed just imagine the colorado river down at the bottom of the grand canyon that was one heck of a flood to carve out the grand canyon and leave that little river behind.
> 
> Not a very good example but i was expecting bad examples from your side to try and compare to things that took intelligence to create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post, the less I think you understand the responses people give.
> 
> I put the important part of your post in bold, and still you missed it.  You said "Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about."  I brought up rivers being formed, as an example of something formed that didn't need intelligence.  See the extremely obvious connection yet?
> 
> Your point truly does seem to be that since humans, with our intelligence, have created many things, all things must also have been created with intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me an example otherwise. all information, intelligence,communications,science,computers, came about through intelligence. So why do you reason different for life and the universe ? Don't forget the brain.
Click to expand...


First, good job not admitting your mistake.  
Second, all intelligence came about through intelligence?  Are you sure that's what you meant to say?
Third, just because humans have created various technologies does not in any way mean that everything in the universe came about through intelligence.  Humans created explosives; does that mean all explosions require intelligence to happen?

You believe an intelligence is behind creation.  That's fine.  I have no proof to offer that an intelligence didn't create the universe, or that an intelligence didn't create life.  However, your belief does not make it an objectively obvious truth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it is time for us to get into the nitty gritty and discuss these so called mutations that caused macro-evolution.
> 
> For you LOKI and Cbirch lets see if you understand the problems presented.
> 
> A Scientific Critique of Evolution
> Dr. Lee Spetner
> in an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> © 2000 L.M. Spetner.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> *Blah blah blah blah blah
> 
> * Dr. Lee M. Spetner
> 
> A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution
> 
> Don't run i am calling you out both of you. The information for organisms to adapt has always been in the DNA and this information aided in micro-evolution or better yet micro-adaptations. This information accounts for variations in species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do not ever accuse me of copy and pasting because i cant articulate it myself, obviously thats your role.
> 
> And second, Spetner has a degree in mechanical engineering. IDGAF about idiot creationists.
> 
> Explain it in your own words fool. Im not going to read your 5,000+ word copya pasta from creationist websites.
> 
> Explain it to me using actual genetic terminology and then i will take you seriously. Im not even reading that massive *wall of text.*
Click to expand...


Correction,he is a Physicist.

And it was very clear by the responses from Dr. Max that Dr. Spetner knew what he was talking about. Anmd did you see max didn't even attempt an argument against spetners views on antibiotic resistence bacteria.

Dr. spetner believes in the same adaptations or micro-evolution i believe in and he knows that mutations don't do what Neo darwinist claim.

He tackled the many mutations that darwinist point to as their evidence if you don't read it,it is your loss.

But we differ on information you say it came about naturally and i believe intelligence was required for producing information and intelligence the thread is now focused on this subject.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Why did you just totally ignore the purebred topic kid?
> 
> Wasnt that essentially the basic point of your argument?
> 
> That purebreds are pure breeds created by god and everything else is just a mix???
> 
> Lets go back to that. That was funny to hear someone argue.



God yes did create purebreds,but do you know the origional breeds God created ? You are being ignorant because all dog breeds were the result of cross breeding by man. The only breeds that were in the wild were not defiled by man.

Wolf,coyote,fox. who is to say the origional breeds God created. Man has created breeds in all domesticated animals.

The animals in the wild only breed with animals of their kind and that is why you see smaller gene pools in the wild. Once man creates a new breed through selective breeding they stop the cross breeding and only breed members of the same breed.That goes for cows,horses,dogs,and all other livestock.

The thread has moved on now there is no point to me repeating this again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post, the less I think you understand the responses people give.
> 
> I put the important part of your post in bold, and still you missed it.  You said "Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about."  I brought up rivers being formed, as an example of something formed that didn't need intelligence.  See the extremely obvious connection yet?
> 
> Your point truly does seem to be that since humans, with our intelligence, have created many things, all things must also have been created with intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me an example otherwise. all information, intelligence,communications,science,computers, came about through intelligence. So why do you reason different for life and the universe ? Don't forget the brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, good job not admitting your mistake.
> Second, all intelligence came about through intelligence?  Are you sure that's what you meant to say?
> Third, just because humans have created various technologies does not in any way mean that everything in the universe came about through intelligence.  Humans created explosives; does that mean all explosions require intelligence to happen?
> 
> You believe an intelligence is behind creation.  That's fine.  I have no proof to offer that an intelligence didn't create the universe, or that an intelligence didn't create life.  However, your belief does not make it an objectively obvious truth.
Click to expand...


Not a mistake,intelligence was needed to create the brain and the brain was needed to create what we see today.

God was that intelligence.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it is time for us to get into the nitty gritty and discuss these so called mutations that caused macro-evolution.
> 
> For you LOKI and Cbirch lets see if you understand the problems presented.
> 
> A Scientific Critique of Evolution
> Dr. Lee Spetner
> in an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> © 2000 L.M. Spetner.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> *Blah blah blah blah blah
> 
> * Dr. Lee M. Spetner
> 
> A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution
> 
> Don't run i am calling you out both of you. The information for organisms to adapt has always been in the DNA and this information aided in micro-evolution or better yet micro-adaptations. This information accounts for variations in species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do not ever accuse me of copy and pasting because i cant articulate it myself, obviously thats your role.
> 
> And second, Spetner has a degree in mechanical engineering. IDGAF about idiot creationists.
> 
> Explain it in your own words fool. Im not going to read your 5,000+ word copya pasta from creationist websites.
> 
> Explain it to me using actual genetic terminology and then i will take you seriously. Im not even reading that massive *wall of text.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correction,he is a Physicist.
> 
> And it was very clear by the responses from Dr. Max that Dr. Spetner knew what he was talking about. Anmd did you see max didn't even attempt an argument against spetners views on antibiotic resistence bacteria.
> 
> Dr. spetner believes in the same adaptations or micro-evolution i believe in and he knows that mutations don't do what Neo darwinist claim.
> 
> He tackled the many mutations that darwinist point to as their evidence if you don't read it,it is your loss.
> 
> But we differ on information you say it came about naturally and i believe intelligence was required for producing information and intelligence the thread is now focused on this subject.
Click to expand...


I didnt read anything that spetner says, but let me guess a bit. 

He threw up a few examples of bacteria losing information (maybe a receptor site??) in response to the environment (say a virus). 

Not impressed. 

Tell me why DNA polymerase cannot insert a nucleotide, like adenine, into a gene, through mutation.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you just totally ignore the purebred topic kid?
> 
> Wasnt that essentially the basic point of your argument?
> 
> That purebreds are pure breeds created by god and everything else is just a mix???
> 
> Lets go back to that. That was funny to hear someone argue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God yes did create purebreds,but do you know the origional breeds God created ? You are being ignorant because all dog breeds were the result of cross breeding by man. The only breeds that were in the wild were not defiled by man.
> 
> Wolf,coyote,fox. who is to say the origional breeds God created. Man has created breeds in all domesticated animals.
> 
> The animals in the wild only breed with animals of their kind and that is why you see smaller gene pools in the wild. Once man creates a new breed through selective breeding they stop the cross breeding and only breed members of the same breed.That goes for cows,horses,dogs,and all other livestock.
> 
> The thread has moved on now there is no point to me repeating this again.
Click to expand...


So just so im clear, your dropping your contention that the animals we now call purebreed are special?

Good. For a second i thought you were crazy....lol....


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Wrong,intelligence cannot arise on it's own.


Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.



Youwerecreated said:


> A non-intelligent process could not create the greatest organ formed, the brain.


Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.



Youwerecreated said:


> Just think of what the brain has accomplished.


It was brains that surely imagined Leprechauns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Frosty the snowman, Paul Bunyan, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, but none of that is any kind of evidence that the existence of any of these beings is a fact of reality.



Youwerecreated said:


> Failure  intelligence and all information came from only one thing, intelligence.


Nonsense. Information exists independent of any intelligence that would endow it with meaning.

And you're just NOT demonstrating the reality of, or explaining in any manner, this intelligent "Designer" of yours using valid logic. You have actually done nothing but affirm that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "Designer" of yours--and all of his attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as fact of reality.



Youwerecreated said:


> Chalk one up for intelligence.


Fine, so long as we're not imagining it's your "intelligence," or the imaginary intelligence of your imaginary "Designer."



Youwerecreated said:


> If God the all knowing creator is not a good explanation for all intelligence and information what is ?


Some combination of natural processes that can be validated with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such an explanation might prove to be, an explanation founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is certainly a better explanation for "all intelligence and information" than this obviously imaginary "God" of yours.



Youwerecreated said:


> By this demonstration a person with just a little bit of intelligence can see it took intelligence to create,build,and form.


Simply declaring that you demonstrated something is not the same a actually demonstrating something.

Just as simply believing that this plainly factitious "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours is real, is in no way the same thing as this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours actually being real.



Youwerecreated said:


> Not only is our brains responsible for all intelligence,information,and creations of man but it aso runs our body.


Excellent. This statement is consistent with my notions of the source of our intelligence, as well as that of this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I agree that it's OUR brains that are responsible for all intelligence, information, and creations of man--including this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours.



Youwerecreated said:


> Scientist compare our brains as better then any super computer designed ,built,and programmed. But yet you are still willing to say this organ was the result of a non-intelligent non-thinking process.


Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence certainly leads to such a conclusion.

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying *valid* logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."

If you're trying to do _*that*_, then we have all entirely misunderstood your point. It's more likely, however, that you are just continuing you exemplary track record of having no idea what you're talking about.



Youwerecreated said:


> You're in denial my friend and you are using poor logic to assume such a thing.


In denial of what, exactly? I see no weakness in the logic that leads to denying the verifiable reality of this imaginary "Designer" of yours. I am certainly not in denial of the verifiable evidence or the valid logic. 

Not that there's any possibility that you'd even make the attempt, but why don't you try to summon up some intellectual integrity, and demonstrate (with VALID logic) that the logic I'm using is "poor."


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me an example otherwise. all information, intelligence,communications,science,computers, came about through intelligence. So why do you reason different for life and the universe ? Don't forget the brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, good job not admitting your mistake.
> Second, all intelligence came about through intelligence?  Are you sure that's what you meant to say?
> Third, just because humans have created various technologies does not in any way mean that everything in the universe came about through intelligence.  Humans created explosives; does that mean all explosions require intelligence to happen?
> 
> You believe an intelligence is behind creation.  That's fine.  I have no proof to offer that an intelligence didn't create the universe, or that an intelligence didn't create life.  However, your belief does not make it an objectively obvious truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a mistake,intelligence was needed to create the brain and the brain was needed to create what we see today.
> 
> God was that intelligence.
Click to expand...


No actually rings of carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen were that information.

God is raining information from the sky!!!!

I think the problem here is that an understanding of evolution (and abiogenesis) requires at least a basic understanding of both cellular biology and organic chemistry. 

You have neither.


----------



## cbirch2

I hate that conservatives cant get past their general terms. Its because they know nothing else.

God created the "information" needed for our brains?

You dont say what that "information" is because if you did your argument would sound fucking retarded. 

God "created" the rings of carbon that comprise the nucleotide sequences that are our DNA??? Do you mean directly assembled??? God directly assembled the rings of carbon and nitrogen atoms that comprise our genome?

Sorry. But that just seems like bullshit to me. Its just a total of like 15 atoms that react in specific electrochemical ways. Hows a *viroid* fit your definition of a god creating the information directly?? An organism is just composed of cells, a cell is just a complex structure of 4 types of organic polymers (lipids, nucleic acids, carbs, and proteins), each of those polymers is just a chain of monomers, each of those monomers is just a group of atoms electromagnetically attracted to each other, and each of those atoms are composed of elementary particles.* When it comes down to it, the only things in life youve ever interacted with are up quarks, down quarks, electrons, and photons. Everything around you is just a combination of these things, all you are is a combination of these things.* The nature of these things not only allow but necessitate the formation of life.

If there is a god, these are the mechanisms through which it works. Not by literally assembling organic molecules into a life form. Thats retardation.


----------



## daws101

OK, if the bible is accurate then every human on earth should be a descendant of Noah ?
how could that be true, as Noah and his crew were not large enough to sustain a viable breeding population.
 also it does not explain the other races on the earth.
did god SHAZAM them into being when nobody was looking?
why if Noah, put all the land animals on the ark and the description of Leviathan in the bible accurately translates to dinosaurs and other PRE human animals, then logically  shouldn't there be aquatic dinosaurs in every ocean and stream.
one more little tid bit, there is evidence that some land masses have never been underwater, Australia come to mind.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not ever accuse me of copy and pasting because i cant articulate it myself, obviously thats your role.
> 
> And second, Spetner has a degree in mechanical engineering. IDGAF about idiot creationists.
> 
> Explain it in your own words fool. Im not going to read your 5,000+ word copya pasta from creationist websites.
> 
> Explain it to me using actual genetic terminology and then i will take you seriously. Im not even reading that massive *wall of text.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction,he is a Physicist.
> 
> And it was very clear by the responses from Dr. Max that Dr. Spetner knew what he was talking about. Anmd did you see max didn't even attempt an argument against spetners views on antibiotic resistence bacteria.
> 
> Dr. spetner believes in the same adaptations or micro-evolution i believe in and he knows that mutations don't do what Neo darwinist claim.
> 
> He tackled the many mutations that darwinist point to as their evidence if you don't read it,it is your loss.
> 
> But we differ on information you say it came about naturally and i believe intelligence was required for producing information and intelligence the thread is now focused on this subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt read anything that spetner says, but let me guess a bit.
> 
> He threw up a few examples of bacteria losing information (maybe a receptor site??) in response to the environment (say a virus).
> 
> Not impressed.
> 
> Tell me why DNA polymerase cannot insert a nucleotide, like adenine, into a gene, through mutation.
Click to expand...


Didn't say it could not happen,but would it benefit the organism ?could it do it enough to create enough beneficial mutations for everything to evolve through macro-evolution ? The answer is no.

Your using wiki as your source and you say Dr. Spetner has not delivered an impressive blow to Neo Darwinist and your not impressed  and you didn't even read it. He takes on all your so called mutations and they don't do what your side needs.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you just totally ignore the purebred topic kid?
> 
> Wasnt that essentially the basic point of your argument?
> 
> That purebreds are pure breeds created by god and everything else is just a mix???
> 
> Lets go back to that. That was funny to hear someone argue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God yes did create purebreds,but do you know the origional breeds God created ? You are being ignorant because all dog breeds were the result of cross breeding by man. The only breeds that were in the wild were not defiled by man.
> 
> Wolf,coyote,fox. who is to say the origional breeds God created. Man has created breeds in all domesticated animals.
> 
> The animals in the wild only breed with animals of their kind and that is why you see smaller gene pools in the wild. Once man creates a new breed through selective breeding they stop the cross breeding and only breed members of the same breed.That goes for cows,horses,dogs,and all other livestock.
> 
> The thread has moved on now there is no point to me repeating this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just so im clear, your dropping your contention that the animals we now call purebreed are special?
> 
> Good. For a second i thought you were crazy....lol....
Click to expand...


ped·i·gree/&#712;ped&#601;&#716;gr&#275;/
Noun:
1.The record of descent of an animal, showing it to be purebred.
2.A purebred animal.


How do they become purebred genius ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,intelligence cannot arise on it's own.
> 
> 
> 
> Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A non-intelligent process could not create the greatest organ formed, the brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> It was brains that surely imagined Leprechauns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Frosty the snowman, Paul Bunyan, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, but none of that is any kind of evidence that the existence of any of these beings is a fact of reality.
> 
> Nonsense. Information exists independent of any intelligence that would endow it with meaning.
> 
> And you're just NOT demonstrating the reality of, or explaining in any manner, this intelligent "Designer" of yours using valid logic. You have actually done nothing but affirm that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "Designer" of yours--and all of his attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as fact of reality.
> 
> Fine, so long as we're not imagining it's your "intelligence," or the imaginary intelligence of your imaginary "Designer."
> 
> Some combination of natural processes that can be validated with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such an explanation might prove to be, an explanation founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is certainly a better explanation for "all intelligence and information" than this obviously imaginary "God" of yours.
> 
> Simply declaring that you demonstrated something is not the same a actually demonstrating something.
> 
> Just as simply believing that this plainly factitious "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours is real, is in no way the same thing as this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours actually being real.
> 
> Excellent. This statement is consistent with my notions of the source of our intelligence, as well as that of this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I agree that it's OUR brains that are responsible for all intelligence, information, and creations of man--including this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientist compare our brains as better then any super computer designed ,built,and programmed. But yet you are still willing to say this organ was the result of a non-intelligent non-thinking process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence certainly leads to such a conclusion.
> 
> If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying *valid* logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> If you're trying to do _*that*_, then we have all entirely misunderstood your point. It's more likely, however, that you are just continuing you exemplary track record of having no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're in denial my friend and you are using poor logic to assume such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In denial of what, exactly? I see no weakness in the logic that leads to denying the verifiable reality of this imaginary "Designer" of yours. I am certainly not in denial of the verifiable evidence or the valid logic.
> 
> Not that there's any possibility that you'd even make the attempt, but why don't you try to summon up some intellectual integrity, and demonstrate (with VALID logic) that the logic I'm using is "poor."
Click to expand...


Dummy you are the one that believes it happened it's on you.

I can give many cases where something was formed,built,designed,and created and itelligence was needed to do so.

Now you show how non-intelligence can do the same.

I know you avoided my question because you can't do what was asked of you.

Chalk one up for God the creator.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> I hate that conservatives cant get past their general terms. Its because they know nothing else.
> 
> God created the "information" needed for our brains?
> 
> You dont say what that "information" is because if you did your argument would sound fucking retarded.
> 
> God "created" the rings of carbon that comprise the nucleotide sequences that are our DNA??? Do you mean directly assembled??? God directly assembled the rings of carbon and nitrogen atoms that comprise our genome?
> 
> Sorry. But that just seems like bullshit to me. Its just a total of like 15 atoms that react in specific electrochemical ways. Hows a *viroid* fit your definition of a god creating the information directly?? An organism is just composed of cells, a cell is just a complex structure of 4 types of organic polymers (lipids, nucleic acids, carbs, and proteins), each of those polymers is just a chain of monomers, each of those monomers is just a group of atoms electromagnetically attracted to each other, and each of those atoms are composed of elementary particles.* When it comes down to it, the only things in life youve ever interacted with are up quarks, down quarks, electrons, and photons. Everything around you is just a combination of these things, all you are is a combination of these things.* The nature of these things not only allow but necessitate the formation of life.
> 
> If there is a god, these are the mechanisms through which it works. Not by literally assembling organic molecules into a life form. Thats retardation.



Go read your wiki little man.

You still can't produce anything that was formed,built,designed or created without intelligence being needed.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate that conservatives cant get past their general terms. Its because they know nothing else.
> 
> God created the "information" needed for our brains?
> 
> You dont say what that "information" is because if you did your argument would sound fucking retarded.
> 
> God "created" the rings of carbon that comprise the nucleotide sequences that are our DNA??? Do you mean directly assembled??? God directly assembled the rings of carbon and nitrogen atoms that comprise our genome?
> 
> Sorry. But that just seems like bullshit to me. Its just a total of like 15 atoms that react in specific electrochemical ways. Hows a *viroid* fit your definition of a god creating the information directly?? An organism is just composed of cells, a cell is just a complex structure of 4 types of organic polymers (lipids, nucleic acids, carbs, and proteins), each of those polymers is just a chain of monomers, each of those monomers is just a group of atoms electromagnetically attracted to each other, and each of those atoms are composed of elementary particles.* When it comes down to it, the only things in life youve ever interacted with are up quarks, down quarks, electrons, and photons. Everything around you is just a combination of these things, all you are is a combination of these things.* The nature of these things not only allow but necessitate the formation of life.
> 
> If there is a god, these are the mechanisms through which it works. Not by literally assembling organic molecules into a life form. Thats retardation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go read your wiki little man.
> 
> You still can't produce anything that was formed,built,designed or created without intelligence being needed.
Click to expand...

 really? ...lava...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> OK, if the bible is accurate then every human on earth should be a descendant of Noah ?
> how could that be true, as Noah and his crew were not large enough to sustain a viable breeding population.
> also it does not explain the other races on the earth.
> did god SHAZAM them into being when nobody was looking?
> why if Noah, put all the land animals on the ark and the description of Leviathan in the bible accurately translates to dinosaurs and other PRE human animals, then logically  shouldn't there be aquatic dinosaurs in every ocean and stream.
> one more little tid bit, there is evidence that some land masses have never been underwater, Australia come to mind.



Do you understand variations according to enviornment ?

Humans are all descended from Adam and Eve. There is only one human race there are just variations within the family.

Here educate yourself.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=337


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate that conservatives cant get past their general terms. Its because they know nothing else.
> 
> God created the "information" needed for our brains?
> 
> You dont say what that "information" is because if you did your argument would sound fucking retarded.
> 
> God "created" the rings of carbon that comprise the nucleotide sequences that are our DNA??? Do you mean directly assembled??? God directly assembled the rings of carbon and nitrogen atoms that comprise our genome?
> 
> Sorry. But that just seems like bullshit to me. Its just a total of like 15 atoms that react in specific electrochemical ways. Hows a *viroid* fit your definition of a god creating the information directly?? An organism is just composed of cells, a cell is just a complex structure of 4 types of organic polymers (lipids, nucleic acids, carbs, and proteins), each of those polymers is just a chain of monomers, each of those monomers is just a group of atoms electromagnetically attracted to each other, and each of those atoms are composed of elementary particles.* When it comes down to it, the only things in life youve ever interacted with are up quarks, down quarks, electrons, and photons. Everything around you is just a combination of these things, all you are is a combination of these things.* The nature of these things not only allow but necessitate the formation of life.
> 
> If there is a god, these are the mechanisms through which it works. Not by literally assembling organic molecules into a life form. Thats retardation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go read your wiki little man.
> 
> You still can't produce anything that was formed,built,designed or created without intelligence being needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? ...lava...
Click to expand...


Design. I'll give you a kids site.

What Causes Volcanoes

How bout oxygen ? How bout the earths plane ? How bout the moons position ? How bout the suns position ? How bout the hydrologic system ? Yeah more design.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, if the bible is accurate then every human on earth should be a descendant of Noah ?
> how could that be true, as Noah and his crew were not large enough to sustain a viable breeding population.
> also it does not explain the other races on the earth.
> did god SHAZAM them into being when nobody was looking?
> why if Noah, put all the land animals on the ark and the description of Leviathan in the bible accurately translates to dinosaurs and other PRE human animals, then logically  shouldn't there be aquatic dinosaurs in every ocean and stream.
> one more little tid bit, there is evidence that some land masses have never been underwater, Australia come to mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand variations according to enviornment ?
> 
> Humans are all descended from Adam and Eve. There is only one human race there are just variations within the family.
> 
> Here educate yourself.
> 
> http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=337
Click to expand...

dodge! Adam and eve are a worse example than Noah....two is not a viable breeding population for humans or any other higher life forms (I take it you've never seen the film deliverance) 
once again you're substituting belief for evidence.
still does not answer the question: why are all humans born after the so called flood  NOT descendants of Noah.
or why there are no ocean going dinosaurs (  odd that god let the Coelacanths ( /&#712;si&#720;l&#601;kæn&#952;/, adaptation of Modern Latin Clacanthus "hollow spine", from Greek &#954;&#959;&#8150;&#955;-&#959;&#962; koilos "hollow" + &#7940;&#954;&#945;&#957;&#952;-&#945; akantha "spine", referring to the hollow caudal fin rays of the first fossil specimen described and named by Agassiz in 1839[1]) are members of an order of fish that includes the oldest living lineage of Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish + tetrapods) known to date.

Coelacanths belong to the subclass Actinistia, a group of lobed-finned fish that are related to lungfish and other extinct Devonian fish like osteolepiforms, porolepiforms, rhizodonts, and Panderichthys.[1] Coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct in the Late Cretaceous, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.[2] Latimeria chalumnae and the Latimeria menadoensis are the only two living coelacanth species, which are found along the coastlines of the Indian Ocean.[3] The coelacanth has been nicknamed a living fossil, because it was originally known only through fossils, long before the first discovery of a live specimen.[1] The coelacanth is thought to have evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.[4] survive and not the sea going reptiles. 

also your reply does not answer the never been underwater question.


----------



## InDoctriNation

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,intelligence cannot arise on it's own.
> 
> 
> 
> Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> It was brains that surely imagined Leprechauns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Frosty the snowman, Paul Bunyan, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, but none of that is any kind of evidence that the existence of any of these beings is a fact of reality.
> 
> Nonsense. Information exists independent of any intelligence that would endow it with meaning.
> 
> And you're just NOT demonstrating the reality of, or explaining in any manner, this intelligent "Designer" of yours using valid logic. You have actually done nothing but affirm that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "Designer" of yours--and all of his attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as fact of reality.
> 
> Fine, so long as we're not imagining it's your "intelligence," or the imaginary intelligence of your imaginary "Designer."
> 
> Some combination of natural processes that can be validated with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such an explanation might prove to be, an explanation founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is certainly a better explanation for "all intelligence and information" than this obviously imaginary "God" of yours.
> 
> Simply declaring that you demonstrated something is not the same a actually demonstrating something.
> 
> Just as simply believing that this plainly factitious "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours is real, is in no way the same thing as this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours actually being real.
> 
> Excellent. This statement is consistent with my notions of the source of our intelligence, as well as that of this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I agree that it's OUR brains that are responsible for all intelligence, information, and creations of man--including this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours.
> 
> Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence certainly leads to such a conclusion.
> 
> If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying *valid* logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> If you're trying to do _*that*_, then we have all entirely misunderstood your point. It's more likely, however, that you are just continuing you exemplary track record of having no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're in denial my friend and you are using poor logic to assume such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In denial of what, exactly? I see no weakness in the logic that leads to denying the verifiable reality of this imaginary "Designer" of yours. I am certainly not in denial of the verifiable evidence or the valid logic.
> 
> Not that there's any possibility that you'd even make the attempt, but why don't you try to summon up some intellectual integrity, and demonstrate (with VALID logic) that the logic I'm using is "poor."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dummy you are the one that believes it happened it's on you.
> 
> I can give many cases where something was formed,built,designed,and created and itelligence was needed to do so.
> 
> Now you show how non-intelligence can do the same.
> 
> I know you avoided my question because you can't do what was asked of you.
> 
> Chalk one up for God the creator.
Click to expand...


What about snowflakes? They look pretty damn intricate and symmetrical, but they are the pure product of natural (or "non-intelligent," as you would say) processes.

But I suppose you think that God handcrafts every individual snowflake too.


----------



## daws101

InDoctriNation said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> It was brains that surely imagined Leprechauns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Frosty the snowman, Paul Bunyan, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, but none of that is any kind of evidence that the existence of any of these beings is a fact of reality.
> 
> Nonsense. Information exists independent of any intelligence that would endow it with meaning.
> 
> And you're just NOT demonstrating the reality of, or explaining in any manner, this intelligent "Designer" of yours using valid logic. You have actually done nothing but affirm that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "Designer" of yours--and all of his attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as fact of reality.
> 
> Fine, so long as we're not imagining it's your "intelligence," or the imaginary intelligence of your imaginary "Designer."
> 
> Some combination of natural processes that can be validated with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such an explanation might prove to be, an explanation founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is certainly a better explanation for "all intelligence and information" than this obviously imaginary "God" of yours.
> 
> Simply declaring that you demonstrated something is not the same a actually demonstrating something.
> 
> Just as simply believing that this plainly factitious "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours is real, is in no way the same thing as this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours actually being real.
> 
> Excellent. This statement is consistent with my notions of the source of our intelligence, as well as that of this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I agree that it's OUR brains that are responsible for all intelligence, information, and creations of man--including this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours.
> 
> Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence certainly leads to such a conclusion.
> 
> If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying *valid* logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> If you're trying to do _*that*_, then we have all entirely misunderstood your point. It's more likely, however, that you are just continuing you exemplary track record of having no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> In denial of what, exactly? I see no weakness in the logic that leads to denying the verifiable reality of this imaginary "Designer" of yours. I am certainly not in denial of the verifiable evidence or the valid logic.
> 
> Not that there's any possibility that you'd even make the attempt, but why don't you try to summon up some intellectual integrity, and demonstrate (with VALID logic) that the logic I'm using is "poor."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dummy you are the one that believes it happened it's on you.
> 
> I can give many cases where something was formed,built,designed,and created and itelligence was needed to do so.
> 
> Now you show how non-intelligence can do the same.
> 
> I know you avoided my question because you can't do what was asked of you.
> 
> Chalk one up for God the creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about snowflakes? They look pretty damn intricate and symmetrical, but they are the pure product of natural (or "non-intelligent," as you would say) processes.
> 
> But I suppose you think that God handcrafts every individual snowflake too.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

InDoctriNation said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> It was brains that surely imagined Leprechauns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Frosty the snowman, Paul Bunyan, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, but none of that is any kind of evidence that the existence of any of these beings is a fact of reality.
> 
> Nonsense. Information exists independent of any intelligence that would endow it with meaning.
> 
> And you're just NOT demonstrating the reality of, or explaining in any manner, this intelligent "Designer" of yours using valid logic. You have actually done nothing but affirm that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "Designer" of yours--and all of his attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as fact of reality.
> 
> Fine, so long as we're not imagining it's your "intelligence," or the imaginary intelligence of your imaginary "Designer."
> 
> Some combination of natural processes that can be validated with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such an explanation might prove to be, an explanation founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is certainly a better explanation for "all intelligence and information" than this obviously imaginary "God" of yours.
> 
> Simply declaring that you demonstrated something is not the same a actually demonstrating something.
> 
> Just as simply believing that this plainly factitious "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours is real, is in no way the same thing as this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours actually being real.
> 
> Excellent. This statement is consistent with my notions of the source of our intelligence, as well as that of this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I agree that it's OUR brains that are responsible for all intelligence, information, and creations of man--including this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours.
> 
> Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence certainly leads to such a conclusion.
> 
> If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying *valid* logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> If you're trying to do _*that*_, then we have all entirely misunderstood your point. It's more likely, however, that you are just continuing you exemplary track record of having no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> In denial of what, exactly? I see no weakness in the logic that leads to denying the verifiable reality of this imaginary "Designer" of yours. I am certainly not in denial of the verifiable evidence or the valid logic.
> 
> Not that there's any possibility that you'd even make the attempt, but why don't you try to summon up some intellectual integrity, and demonstrate (with VALID logic) that the logic I'm using is "poor."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dummy you are the one that believes it happened it's on you.
> 
> I can give many cases where something was formed,built,designed,and created and itelligence was needed to do so.
> 
> Now you show how non-intelligence can do the same.
> 
> I know you avoided my question because you can't do what was asked of you.
> 
> Chalk one up for God the creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about snowflakes? They look pretty damn intricate and symmetrical, but they are the pure product of natural (or "non-intelligent," as you would say) processes.
> 
> But I suppose you think that God handcrafts every individual snowflake too.
Click to expand...



Joh 1:3  All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. 

Job 31:15  Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not One shape us in the womb? 

Psa 139:13

(ASV)  For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother's womb. 

(BBE)  My flesh was made by you, and my parts joined together in my mother's body. 

(CEV)  You are the one who put me together inside my mother's body, 

The answer is yes everything was created by God.


----------



## InDoctriNation

Youwerecreated said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dummy you are the one that believes it happened it's on you.
> 
> I can give many cases where something was formed,built,designed,and created and itelligence was needed to do so.
> 
> Now you show how non-intelligence can do the same.
> 
> I know you avoided my question because you can't do what was asked of you.
> 
> Chalk one up for God the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about snowflakes? They look pretty damn intricate and symmetrical, but they are the pure product of natural (or "non-intelligent," as you would say) processes.
> 
> But I suppose you think that God handcrafts every individual snowflake too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Joh 1:3  All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
> 
> Job 31:15  Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not One shape us in the womb?
> 
> Psa 139:13
> 
> (ASV)  For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother's womb.
> 
> (BBE)  My flesh was made by you, and my parts joined together in my mother's body.
> 
> (CEV)  You are the one who put me together inside my mother's body,
> 
> The answer is yes everything was created by God.
Click to expand...


Except we know that snowflakes aren't created by God, so no, not everything was created by God. We also know that the fetus is not physically created by God, because if that was the case a sonogram is all you would need to prove God's existence. However, I have yet to hear of a sonogram showing God gluing limbs to the torso of a fetus. Epic Bible fail.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, if the bible is accurate then every human on earth should be a descendant of Noah ?
> how could that be true, as Noah and his crew were not large enough to sustain a viable breeding population.
> also it does not explain the other races on the earth.
> did god SHAZAM them into being when nobody was looking?
> why if Noah, put all the land animals on the ark and the description of Leviathan in the bible accurately translates to dinosaurs and other PRE human animals, then logically  shouldn't there be aquatic dinosaurs in every ocean and stream.
> one more little tid bit, there is evidence that some land masses have never been underwater, Australia come to mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand variations according to enviornment ?
> 
> Humans are all descended from Adam and Eve. There is only one human race there are just variations within the family.
> 
> Here educate yourself.
> 
> http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=337
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dodge! Adam and eve are a worse example than Noah....two is not a viable breeding population for humans or any other higher life forms (I take it you've never seen the film deliverance)
> once again you're substituting belief for evidence.
> still does not answer the question: why are all humans born after the so called flood  NOT descendants of Noah.
> or why there are no ocean going dinosaurs (  odd that god let the Coelacanths ( /&#712;si&#720;l&#601;kæn&#952;/, adaptation of Modern Latin Clacanthus "hollow spine", from Greek &#954;&#959;&#8150;&#955;-&#959;&#962; koilos "hollow" + &#7940;&#954;&#945;&#957;&#952;-&#945; akantha "spine", referring to the hollow caudal fin rays of the first fossil specimen described and named by Agassiz in 1839[1]) are members of an order of fish that includes the oldest living lineage of Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish + tetrapods) known to date.
> 
> Coelacanths belong to the subclass Actinistia, a group of lobed-finned fish that are related to lungfish and other extinct Devonian fish like osteolepiforms, porolepiforms, rhizodonts, and Panderichthys.[1] Coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct in the Late Cretaceous, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.[2] Latimeria chalumnae and the Latimeria menadoensis are the only two living coelacanth species, which are found along the coastlines of the Indian Ocean.[3] The coelacanth has been nicknamed a living fossil, because it was originally known only through fossils, long before the first discovery of a live specimen.[1] The coelacanth is thought to have evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.[4] survive and not the sea going reptiles.
> 
> also your reply does not answer the never been underwater question.
Click to expand...


May 11 2011
The world population has grown tremendously over the past two thousand years. In 1999, the world population passed the six billion mark.
 Latest official current world population estimate, for mid-year 2010, is estimated at 6,852,472,823.

 The chart below shows past world population data back to the year one and future world population projections through the year 2050.


World Population Growth



Year

Population



1

200 million



1000

275 million



1500

450 million



1650

500 million



1750

700 million



1804

1 billion



1850

1.2 billion



1900

1.6 billion



1927

2 billion



1950

2.55 billion



1955

2.8 billion



1960

3 billion



1965

3.3 billion



1970

3.7 billion



1975

4 billion



1980

4.5 billion



1985

4.85 billion



1990

5.3 billion



1995

5.7 billion



1999

6 billion



2006

6.5 billion



2009

6.8 billion



2011

7 billion



2025

8 billion



2043

9 billion


World Population - The Current World Population


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,intelligence cannot arise on it's own.
> 
> 
> 
> Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> It was brains that surely imagined Leprechauns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Frosty the snowman, Paul Bunyan, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, but none of that is any kind of evidence that the existence of any of these beings is a fact of reality.
> 
> Nonsense. Information exists independent of any intelligence that would endow it with meaning.
> 
> And you're just NOT demonstrating the reality of, or explaining in any manner, this intelligent "Designer" of yours using valid logic. You have actually done nothing but affirm that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "Designer" of yours--and all of his attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as fact of reality.
> 
> Fine, so long as we're not imagining it's your "intelligence," or the imaginary intelligence of your imaginary "Designer."
> 
> Some combination of natural processes that can be validated with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such an explanation might prove to be, an explanation founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is certainly a better explanation for "all intelligence and information" than this obviously imaginary "God" of yours.
> 
> Simply declaring that you demonstrated something is not the same a actually demonstrating something.
> 
> Just as simply believing that this plainly factitious "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours is real, is in no way the same thing as this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours actually being real.
> 
> Excellent. This statement is consistent with my notions of the source of our intelligence, as well as that of this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I agree that it's OUR brains that are responsible for all intelligence, information, and creations of man--including this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours.
> 
> Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence certainly leads to such a conclusion.
> 
> If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying *valid* logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> If you're trying to do _*that*_, then we have all entirely misunderstood your point. It's more likely, however, that you are just continuing you exemplary track record of having no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're in denial my friend and you are using poor logic to assume such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In denial of what, exactly? I see no weakness in the logic that leads to denying the verifiable reality of this imaginary "Designer" of yours. I am certainly not in denial of the verifiable evidence or the valid logic.
> 
> Not that there's any possibility that you'd even make the attempt, but why don't you try to summon up some intellectual integrity, and demonstrate (with VALID logic) that the logic I'm using is "poor."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dummy you are the one that believes it happened it's on you.
Click to expand...

No. *YOU* said, "... intelligence cannot arise on it's own," so it's *NOT* my responsibility to explain why. Douche.



Youwerecreated said:


> I can give many cases where something was formed,built,designed,and created and itelligence was needed to do so.


Unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying *valid* logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."



Youwerecreated said:


> Now you show how non-intelligence can do the same.


Absolutely. Challenge enthusiastically accepted. AFTER you have finished what you've started first; then I will happily hand you your own ass ... again. *First you must meet your obligations above,* THEN we "get to it" ... NOT Before.



Youwerecreated said:


> I know you avoided my question because you can't do what was asked of you.


No. You are engaging again in pathological projection. You are avoiding your own responsibilities, simply because you know you cannot meet them; and you are illicitly attributing your own dishonest tactics to me.

No one's ever going to buy your bullshit here pal, because I will never tire of linking you right back to your sanctimonious hypocrisy.

Remember, YOU are the one who wanted to "get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating," so get to it. And no more of this "I don't have to explain God" business. Bring both your "nitty" and your "gritty"; it's finally time for you to stop challenging us, and start meeting the challenges brought to you; it's time for you to finally explain this "creator" of yours, ... this unintelligent "Designer."



Youwerecreated said:


> Chalk one up for God the creator.


What "Creator?" You keep referencing this "Creator," yet there's no evidence of His existence. NONE! You keep saying [this thing or that] was "created," which "proves" the existence of this "Creator" of yours, but *that's just asserting invalid logic.*

It is *INVALID* to require the acceptance of your conclusion in the premise OR the arguments that lead to your conclusion.

You have done LITERALLY NOTHING to demonstrate or explain the "intelligence" of this "Designer" of yours. You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "Designer" of yours--and all of his attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as fact of reality.

So, FUCK NO! there's no chalking of ANYTHING up to this fictitious Creator of yours.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dummy you are the one that believes it happened it's on you.
> 
> I can give many cases where something was formed,built,designed,and created and itelligence was needed to do so.
> 
> Now you show how non-intelligence can do the same.
> 
> I know you avoided my question because you can't do what was asked of you.
> 
> Chalk one up for God the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about snowflakes? They look pretty damn intricate and symmetrical, but they are the pure product of natural (or "non-intelligent," as you would say) processes.
> 
> But I suppose you think that God handcrafts every individual snowflake too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Joh 1:3  All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
> 
> Job 31:15  Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not One shape us in the womb?
> 
> Psa 139:13
> 
> (ASV)  For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother's womb.
> 
> (BBE)  My flesh was made by you, and my parts joined together in my mother's body.
> 
> (CEV)  You are the one who put me together inside my mother's body,
> 
> The answer is yes everything was created by God.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that there is no such thing as a natural process?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about snowflakes? They look pretty damn intricate and symmetrical, but they are the pure product of natural (or "non-intelligent," as you would say) processes.
> 
> But I suppose you think that God handcrafts every individual snowflake too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joh 1:3  All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
> 
> Job 31:15  Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not One shape us in the womb?
> 
> Psa 139:13
> 
> (ASV)  For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother's womb.
> 
> (BBE)  My flesh was made by you, and my parts joined together in my mother's body.
> 
> (CEV)  You are the one who put me together inside my mother's body,
> 
> The answer is yes everything was created by God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that there is no such thing as a natural process?
Click to expand...


Not saying that,the only natural systems is ones that God put in motion. Like the hydrologic system and the seasons and adaptations.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joh 1:3  All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
> 
> Job 31:15  Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not One shape us in the womb?
> 
> Psa 139:13
> 
> (ASV)  For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother's womb.
> 
> (BBE)  My flesh was made by you, and my parts joined together in my mother's body.
> 
> (CEV)  You are the one who put me together inside my mother's body,
> 
> The answer is yes everything was created by God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that there is no such thing as a natural process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not saying that,the only natural systems is ones that God put in motion. Like the hydrologic system and the seasons and adaptations.
Click to expand...


That leaves me still wondering what your answer is to whether snowflakes (or any other similar, natural process) can be formed or created without intelligence.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> The answer is yes everything was created by God.


What is this "God" thing you keep referencing?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction,he is a Physicist.
> 
> And it was very clear by the responses from Dr. Max that Dr. Spetner knew what he was talking about. Anmd did you see max didn't even attempt an argument against spetners views on antibiotic resistence bacteria.
> 
> Dr. spetner believes in the same adaptations or micro-evolution i believe in and he knows that mutations don't do what Neo darwinist claim.
> 
> He tackled the many mutations that darwinist point to as their evidence if you don't read it,it is your loss.
> 
> But we differ on information you say it came about naturally and i believe intelligence was required for producing information and intelligence the thread is now focused on this subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt read anything that spetner says, but let me guess a bit.
> 
> He threw up a few examples of bacteria losing information (maybe a receptor site??) in response to the environment (say a virus).
> 
> Not impressed.
> 
> Tell me why DNA polymerase cannot insert a nucleotide, like adenine, into a gene, through mutation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't say it could not happen,but would it benefit the organism ?could it do it enough to create enough beneficial mutations for everything to evolve through macro-evolution ? The answer is no.
Click to expand...


Actually the answer to both is yes.

Could the insertion benefit the organism? Well that depends. The probability that a new nucleotide is beneficial is the same probability that a deletion is beneficial. So your argument (evolution by deletion), is just as likely to yield beneficial results as actual evolution.

Could it happen fast enough? Certainly! The human genome is 3 billion base pairs long. Thats an average of one insertion mutation in a gene pool a year to go from a group of amino acid coding nucleotides 3 billion years ago to a human genome. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Your using wiki as your source and you say Dr. Spetner has not delivered an impressive blow to Neo Darwinist and your not impressed  and you didn't even read it. He takes on all your so called mutations and they don't do what your side needs.



Maybe im wrong but havent you and Dr Spetner been refuted by multiple people already? I remember Loki refuted your massive wall of text, from what i read.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God yes did create purebreds,but do you know the origional breeds God created ? You are being ignorant because all dog breeds were the result of cross breeding by man. The only breeds that were in the wild were not defiled by man.
> 
> Wolf,coyote,fox. who is to say the origional breeds God created. Man has created breeds in all domesticated animals.
> 
> The animals in the wild only breed with animals of their kind and that is why you see smaller gene pools in the wild. Once man creates a new breed through selective breeding they stop the cross breeding and only breed members of the same breed.That goes for cows,horses,dogs,and all other livestock.
> 
> The thread has moved on now there is no point to me repeating this again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So just so im clear, your dropping your contention that the animals we now call purebreed are special?
> 
> Good. For a second i thought you were crazy....lol....
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ped·i·gree/&#712;ped&#601;&#716;gr&#275;/
> Noun:
> 1.The record of descent of an animal, showing it to be purebred.
> 2.A purebred animal.
> 
> 
> How do they become purebred genius ?
Click to expand...


German Shephard - *Horand von Grafrath* (January 1, 1895 - after 1899) (formerly *Hektor Linksrhein*) was the first German Shepherd Dog and the genetic basis for modern German Shepherds.

Labrador Retriever - The modern Labrador's ancestors originated on the island of Newfoundland, now part of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.[8] The founding breed of the Labrador was the St. John's Water Dog, a breed that emerged through ad-hoc breedings by early settlers of the island in the 16th century.

*WE BRED THE BREEDS THAT EXIST TODAY!!

HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT!?!
*


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> It was brains that surely imagined Leprechauns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Frosty the snowman, Paul Bunyan, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, but none of that is any kind of evidence that the existence of any of these beings is a fact of reality.
> 
> Nonsense. Information exists independent of any intelligence that would endow it with meaning.
> 
> And you're just NOT demonstrating the reality of, or explaining in any manner, this intelligent "Designer" of yours using valid logic. You have actually done nothing but affirm that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "Designer" of yours--and all of his attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as fact of reality.
> 
> Fine, so long as we're not imagining it's your "intelligence," or the imaginary intelligence of your imaginary "Designer."
> 
> Some combination of natural processes that can be validated with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such an explanation might prove to be, an explanation founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is certainly a better explanation for "all intelligence and information" than this obviously imaginary "God" of yours.
> 
> Simply declaring that you demonstrated something is not the same a actually demonstrating something.
> 
> Just as simply believing that this plainly factitious "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours is real, is in no way the same thing as this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours actually being real.
> 
> Excellent. This statement is consistent with my notions of the source of our intelligence, as well as that of this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I agree that it's OUR brains that are responsible for all intelligence, information, and creations of man--including this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours.
> 
> Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence certainly leads to such a conclusion.
> 
> If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying *valid* logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> If you're trying to do _*that*_, then we have all entirely misunderstood your point. It's more likely, however, that you are just continuing you exemplary track record of having no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> In denial of what, exactly? I see no weakness in the logic that leads to denying the verifiable reality of this imaginary "Designer" of yours. I am certainly not in denial of the verifiable evidence or the valid logic.
> 
> Not that there's any possibility that you'd even make the attempt, but why don't you try to summon up some intellectual integrity, and demonstrate (with VALID logic) that the logic I'm using is "poor."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dummy you are the one that believes it happened it's on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. *YOU* said, "... intelligence cannot arise on it's own," so it's *NOT* my responsibility to explain why. Douche.
> 
> Unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying *valid* logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> Absolutely. Challenge enthusiastically accepted. AFTER you have finished what you've started first; then I will happily hand you your own ass ... again. *First you must meet your obligations above,* THEN we "get to it" ... NOT Before.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you avoided my question because you can't do what was asked of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You are engaging again in pathological projection. You are avoiding your own responsibilities, simply because you know you cannot meet them; and you are illicitly attributing your own dishonest tactics to me.
> 
> No one's ever going to buy your bullshit here pal, because I will never tire of linking you right back to your sanctimonious hypocrisy.
> 
> Remember, YOU are the one who wanted to "get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating," so get to it. And no more of this "I don't have to explain God" business. Bring both your "nitty" and your "gritty"; it's finally time for you to stop challenging us, and start meeting the challenges brought to you; it's time for you to finally explain this "creator" of yours, ... this unintelligent "Designer."
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chalk one up for God the creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "Creator?" You keep referencing this "Creator," yet there's no evidence of His existence. NONE! You keep saying [this thing or that] was "created," which "proves" the existence of this "Creator" of yours, but *that's just asserting invalid logic.*
> 
> It is *INVALID* to require the acceptance of your conclusion in the premise OR the arguments that lead to your conclusion.
> 
> You have done LITERALLY NOTHING to demonstrate or explain the "intelligence" of this "Designer" of yours. You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "Designer" of yours--and all of his attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as fact of reality.
> 
> So, FUCK NO! there's no chalking of ANYTHING up to this fictitious Creator of yours.
Click to expand...


Yeah it was also the brain that was creative and created a theory that goes against the the evidence that is observed for a belief that has not been observed. 

God created all if there are any natural processes it was put in motion by God. If God created all things that came in to existence these natural processes are working because of design.

There is so many evidences of design that goes ignored you and others because you have not laid eyes on the creator but i assure you all will see the creator in due time.

That is correct intelligence is responsible for so much is it logical to believe that all of these things came about by chance or someone designed them ?

God has always existed the intelligence dealing with man was definitely created how ever God has always existed and he has always been God so his intelligence has always existed.

You guys keep trying to put the same limitations on God that is upon man. Man had a beginning where God has not.

Man believes time began with the universe who or what created the universe,well God did,that is why he is not bound by the time of man. God existed outside of time and our universe.

God didn't create himself he has always existed. The laws of man are not the laws for God other then the ones he gave to man to obey to the best of our ability.

I feel some day you will wake out of the fog you are under and acknowledge like many of us that once believed as you do, and realized,all of this just didn't happen by chance through natural processes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that there is no such thing as a natural process?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not saying that,the only natural systems is ones that God put in motion. Like the hydrologic system and the seasons and adaptations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That leaves me still wondering what your answer is to whether snowflakes (or any other similar, natural process) can be formed or created without intelligence.
Click to expand...


Seasons,snow,rain,snowflakes,summer heat,spring,are natural processes that was put in motion by the creator ,who created all things.

Whoever designed the computer and programmed it was still responsible for what the computer was capable of.

People were able to add to it's ability and even attack it but it was still a product of design through intelligence.

Man has always been intelligent we can see that by the things they built and designed absent of the technology we possess today.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is yes everything was created by God.
> 
> 
> 
> What is this "God" thing you keep referencing?
Click to expand...


 A supernatural being that is all knowing and all powerful,the creator of everything we see,and don't see.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt read anything that spetner says, but let me guess a bit.
> 
> He threw up a few examples of bacteria losing information (maybe a receptor site??) in response to the environment (say a virus).
> 
> Not impressed.
> 
> Tell me why DNA polymerase cannot insert a nucleotide, like adenine, into a gene, through mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say it could not happen,but would it benefit the organism ?could it do it enough to create enough beneficial mutations for everything to evolve through macro-evolution ? The answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the answer to both is yes.
> 
> Could the insertion benefit the organism? Well that depends. The probability that a new nucleotide is beneficial is the same probability that a deletion is beneficial. So your argument (evolution by deletion), is just as likely to yield beneficial results as actual evolution.
> 
> Could it happen fast enough? Certainly! The human genome is 3 billion base pairs long. Thats an average of one insertion mutation in a gene pool a year to go from a group of amino acid coding nucleotides 3 billion years ago to a human genome.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your using wiki as your source and you say Dr. Spetner has not delivered an impressive blow to Neo Darwinist and your not impressed  and you didn't even read it. He takes on all your so called mutations and they don't do what your side needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe im wrong but havent you and Dr Spetner been refuted by multiple people already? I remember Loki refuted your massive wall of text, from what i read.
Click to expand...


No you can argue your points and i can argue mine it is up to the person to decide who is right and who is wrong.

The evidence only supports one side opr the other you can't have it both ways.

You don't have to accept my views but i for living observed the results of mutations  and you can read others views on mutations. Anytime there is a loss of genetic information somewhere it creates problems for the organism because we were designed to have certain functions when the body can't perform those functions it leads to problems.

Let us use a car,what would happen if the car didn't possess a battery ? How bout no engine ?how bout no tires ? How bout no gas tank ? How bout no steering wheel ? How bout no trasmission ?

How bout the smaller things like the cylanoid ? starter ? water ? oil ? no filters ?no lines ?

If you eliminate a function it creates a problem for the car it won't work, the same thing can be reasoned for life. Over time man added to the car to make it better but that was not by chance and a natrual process it was by intelligence and information. Same way medical research has done things to lengthen the life of the human population. We can't create life except through the process that God intended. Even if we do it would be done through intelligence and is not an argument for a natural process but intelligence once again.

God gave us the ability to adapt and have the intelligence for us to survive and take care of his planet and animals that he put us in charge of.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just so im clear, your dropping your contention that the animals we now call purebreed are special?
> 
> Good. For a second i thought you were crazy....lol....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ped·i·gree/&#712;ped&#601;&#716;gr&#275;/
> Noun:
> 1.The record of descent of an animal, showing it to be purebred.
> 2.A purebred animal.
> 
> 
> How do they become purebred genius ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> German Shephard - *Horand von Grafrath* (January 1, 1895 - after 1899) (formerly *Hektor Linksrhein*) was the first German Shepherd Dog and the genetic basis for modern German Shepherds.
> 
> Labrador Retriever - The modern Labrador's ancestors originated on the island of Newfoundland, now part of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.[8] The founding breed of the Labrador was the St. John's Water Dog, a breed that emerged through ad-hoc breedings by early settlers of the island in the 16th century.
> 
> *WE BRED THE BREEDS THAT EXIST TODAY!!
> 
> HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT!?!
> *
Click to expand...


In the wild the origional organisms created remain virtually the same other then a few variations because they only reproduce with their own kind.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Wow i hate doing this on my phone i had to edit.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say it could not happen,but would it benefit the organism ?could it do it enough to create enough beneficial mutations for everything to evolve through macro-evolution ? The answer is no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the answer to both is yes.
> 
> Could the insertion benefit the organism? Well that depends. The probability that a new nucleotide is beneficial is the same probability that a deletion is beneficial. So your argument (evolution by deletion), is just as likely to yield beneficial results as actual evolution.
> 
> Could it happen fast enough? Certainly! The human genome is 3 billion base pairs long. Thats an average of one insertion mutation in a gene pool a year to go from a group of amino acid coding nucleotides 3 billion years ago to a human genome.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your using wiki as your source and you say Dr. Spetner has not delivered an impressive blow to Neo Darwinist and your not impressed  and you didn't even read it. He takes on all your so called mutations and they don't do what your side needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe im wrong but havent you and Dr Spetner been refuted by multiple people already? I remember Loki refuted your massive wall of text, from what i read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you can argue your points and i can argue mine it is up to the person to decide who is right and who is wrong.
> 
> The evidence only supports one side opr the other you can't have it both ways.
> 
> You don't have to accept my views but i for living observed the results of mutations  and you can read others views on mutations. Anytime there is a loss of genetic information somewhere it creates problems for the organism because we were designed to have certain functions when the body can't perform those functions it leads to problems.
> 
> Let us use a car,what would happen if the car didn't possess a battery ? How bout no engine ?how bout no tires ? How bout no gas tank ? How bout no steering wheel ? How bout no trasmission ?
> 
> How bout the smaller things like the cylanoid ? starter ? water ? oil ? no filters ?no lines ?
> 
> If you eliminate a function it creates a problem for the car it won't work, the same thing can be reasoned for life. Over time man added to the car to make it better but that was not by chance and a natrual process it was by intelligence and information. Same way medical research has done things to lengthen the life of the human population. We can't create life except through the process that God intended. Even if we do it would be done through intelligence and is not an argument for a natural process but intelligence once again.
> 
> God gave us the ability to adapt and have the intelligence for us to survive and take care of his planet and animals that he put us in charge of.
Click to expand...


From the mind of someone who clearly doesnt understand that everything about you is a very complex interaction of the expression of millions of genes in your genome. 

You can just make comparisons between animals and machines, but thats just a bullshit comparison and you know it.

You want an example of beneficial evolution on a molecular/genetic level?

*Not hard to find.

*Go to the biology section of any online science publication.



> "So evolutionary biologist Joseph Thornton of the University of Oregon, Eugene, and his colleagues picked a more tractable subject: a single protein. His group has been studying the more than 450-million-year evolution of the glucocorticoid receptor (GR), a protein that binds to the stress hormone cortisol to control animals' response to it. Like all proteins, GR is made up of amino acids. By collecting the amino acid sequences of GR and related proteins from living animals, Thornton and his team previously constructed the GR evolutionary tree and resurrected sequences of GR's ancestors. This history reveals that GR has switched its hormone preference. Around the time cartilaginous fish such as sharks split off from bony fish, roughly 440 million years ago, the ancestral protein that the scientists call GR1 responded to both cortisol and the hormone aldosterone. But 40 million years later, when four-legged creatures started to appear, the descendent GR2 had become cortisol-specific.
> During these 40 million years, 37 amino acids changed. Only two were necessary to alter the function: One put a kink in the protein's shape, making it unresponsive to both hormones, and another allowed the restructured molecule to interact with only cortisol. Thornton's team next wondered if they could make GR2 recognize both cortisol and aldosterone by reverting these amino acids, which they call group X, back to their GR1 state. The researchers  report today in _Nature_ that this swap not only couldn't restore GR's original dual function but that it also killed the protein's ability to recognize any hormone."


So molecular evolution is real. 

Idk how much more i can explain it to you.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ped·i·gree/&#712;ped&#601;&#716;gr&#275;/
> Noun:
> 1.The record of descent of an animal, showing it to be purebred.
> 2.A purebred animal.
> 
> 
> How do they become purebred genius ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German Shephard - *Horand von Grafrath* (January 1, 1895 - after 1899) (formerly *Hektor Linksrhein*) was the first German Shepherd Dog and the genetic basis for modern German Shepherds.
> 
> Labrador Retriever - The modern Labrador's ancestors originated on the island of Newfoundland, now part of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.[8] The founding breed of the Labrador was the St. John's Water Dog, a breed that emerged through ad-hoc breedings by early settlers of the island in the 16th century.
> 
> *WE BRED THE BREEDS THAT EXIST TODAY!!
> 
> HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT!?!
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the wild the origional organisms created remain virtually the same other then a few variations because they only reproduce with their own kind.
Click to expand...


So your going to stop talking about pedigrees right dumbass?

The only difference is the mechanism by which we separate their reproduction. In nature "breeds" (idiot word) are basically defined by location. While in human society we can artificially control reproduction. 

Your statement is just idiocy. 

They dont mate in nature because their genomes have significantly diverged, they probably recognize each other as different. But they still can reproduce, so you would assume that most logical people would think that the entire genus of panthera is related and diverging. The two most recently related groups, lions and leopards, can even consistently produce fertile offspring.

Evolution....


----------



## cbirch2

And im sure in 133 pages you've explained this, but an answer doesnt stand out so ill ask again. Shoot me down if this is dumb. 

But uh, why are there dinosaur bones deep underneath of us?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the answer to both is yes.
> 
> Could the insertion benefit the organism? Well that depends. The probability that a new nucleotide is beneficial is the same probability that a deletion is beneficial. So your argument (evolution by deletion), is just as likely to yield beneficial results as actual evolution.
> 
> Could it happen fast enough? Certainly! The human genome is 3 billion base pairs long. Thats an average of one insertion mutation in a gene pool a year to go from a group of amino acid coding nucleotides 3 billion years ago to a human genome.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe im wrong but havent you and Dr Spetner been refuted by multiple people already? I remember Loki refuted your massive wall of text, from what i read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you can argue your points and i can argue mine it is up to the person to decide who is right and who is wrong.
> 
> The evidence only supports one side opr the other you can't have it both ways.
> 
> You don't have to accept my views but i for living observed the results of mutations  and you can read others views on mutations. Anytime there is a loss of genetic information somewhere it creates problems for the organism because we were designed to have certain functions when the body can't perform those functions it leads to problems.
> 
> Let us use a car,what would happen if the car didn't possess a battery ? How bout no engine ?how bout no tires ? How bout no gas tank ? How bout no steering wheel ? How bout no trasmission ?
> 
> How bout the smaller things like the cylanoid ? starter ? water ? oil ? no filters ?no lines ?
> 
> If you eliminate a function it creates a problem for the car it won't work, the same thing can be reasoned for life. Over time man added to the car to make it better but that was not by chance and a natrual process it was by intelligence and information. Same way medical research has done things to lengthen the life of the human population. We can't create life except through the process that God intended. Even if we do it would be done through intelligence and is not an argument for a natural process but intelligence once again.
> 
> God gave us the ability to adapt and have the intelligence for us to survive and take care of his planet and animals that he put us in charge of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the mind of someone who clearly doesnt understand that everything about you is a very complex interaction of the expression of millions of genes in your genome.
> 
> You can just make comparisons between animals and machines, but thats just a bullshit comparison and you know it.
> 
> You want an example of beneficial evolution on a molecular/genetic level?
> 
> *Not hard to find.
> 
> *Go to the biology section of any online science publication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So evolutionary biologist Joseph Thornton of the University of Oregon, Eugene, and his colleagues picked a more tractable subject: a single protein. His group has been studying the more than 450-million-year evolution of the glucocorticoid receptor (GR), a protein that binds to the stress hormone cortisol to control animals' response to it. Like all proteins, GR is made up of amino acids. By collecting the amino acid sequences of GR and related proteins from living animals, Thornton and his team previously constructed the GR evolutionary tree and resurrected sequences of GR's ancestors. This history reveals that GR has switched its hormone preference. Around the time cartilaginous fish such as sharks split off from bony fish, roughly 440 million years ago, the ancestral protein that the scientists call GR1 responded to both cortisol and the hormone aldosterone. But 40 million years later, when four-legged creatures started to appear, the descendent GR2 had become cortisol-specific.
> During these 40 million years, 37 amino acids changed. Only two were necessary to alter the function: One put a kink in the protein's shape, making it unresponsive to both hormones, and another allowed the restructured molecule to interact with only cortisol. Thornton's team next wondered if they could make GR2 recognize both cortisol and aldosterone by reverting these amino acids, which they call group X, back to their GR1 state. The researchers  report today in _Nature_ that this swap not only couldn't restore GR's original dual function but that it also killed the protein's ability to recognize any hormone."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So molecular evolution is real.
> 
> Idk how much more i can explain it to you.
Click to expand...


Well you got one thing right bullshit. The brain was pretty complex no ? The brain is responsible for all of mans creations,you know things like language. Don't give me your b.s. imagination. Admit it you are an ideologue. How many times must one poke holes in your reasoning before you get it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the answer to both is yes.
> 
> Could the insertion benefit the organism? Well that depends. The probability that a new nucleotide is beneficial is the same probability that a deletion is beneficial. So your argument (evolution by deletion), is just as likely to yield beneficial results as actual evolution.
> 
> Could it happen fast enough? Certainly! The human genome is 3 billion base pairs long. Thats an average of one insertion mutation in a gene pool a year to go from a group of amino acid coding nucleotides 3 billion years ago to a human genome.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe im wrong but havent you and Dr Spetner been refuted by multiple people already? I remember Loki refuted your massive wall of text, from what i read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you can argue your points and i can argue mine it is up to the person to decide who is right and who is wrong.
> 
> The evidence only supports one side opr the other you can't have it both ways.
> 
> You don't have to accept my views but i for living observed the results of mutations  and you can read others views on mutations. Anytime there is a loss of genetic information somewhere it creates problems for the organism because we were designed to have certain functions when the body can't perform those functions it leads to problems.
> 
> Let us use a car,what would happen if the car didn't possess a battery ? How bout no engine ?how bout no tires ? How bout no gas tank ? How bout no steering wheel ? How bout no trasmission ?
> 
> How bout the smaller things like the cylanoid ? starter ? water ? oil ? no filters ?no lines ?
> 
> If you eliminate a function it creates a problem for the car it won't work, the same thing can be reasoned for life. Over time man added to the car to make it better but that was not by chance and a natrual process it was by intelligence and information. Same way medical research has done things to lengthen the life of the human population. We can't create life except through the process that God intended. Even if we do it would be done through intelligence and is not an argument for a natural process but intelligence once again.
> 
> God gave us the ability to adapt and have the intelligence for us to survive and take care of his planet and animals that he put us in charge of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the mind of someone who clearly doesnt understand that everything about you is a very complex interaction of the expression of millions of genes in your genome.
> 
> You can just make comparisons between animals and machines, but thats just a bullshit comparison and you know it.
> 
> You want an example of beneficial evolution on a molecular/genetic level?
> 
> *Not hard to find.
> 
> *Go to the biology section of any online science publication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So evolutionary biologist Joseph Thornton of the University of Oregon, Eugene, and his colleagues picked a more tractable subject: a single protein. His group has been studying the more than 450-million-year evolution of the glucocorticoid receptor (GR), a protein that binds to the stress hormone cortisol to control animals' response to it. Like all proteins, GR is made up of amino acids. By collecting the amino acid sequences of GR and related proteins from living animals, Thornton and his team previously constructed the GR evolutionary tree and resurrected sequences of GR's ancestors. This history reveals that GR has switched its hormone preference. Around the time cartilaginous fish such as sharks split off from bony fish, roughly 440 million years ago, the ancestral protein that the scientists call GR1 responded to both cortisol and the hormone aldosterone. But 40 million years later, when four-legged creatures started to appear, the descendent GR2 had become cortisol-specific.
> During these 40 million years, 37 amino acids changed. Only two were necessary to alter the function: One put a kink in the protein's shape, making it unresponsive to both hormones, and another allowed the restructured molecule to interact with only cortisol. Thornton's team next wondered if they could make GR2 recognize both cortisol and aldosterone by reverting these amino acids, which they call group X, back to their GR1 state. The researchers  report today in _Nature_ that this swap not only couldn't restore GR's original dual function but that it also killed the protein's ability to recognize any hormone."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So molecular evolution is real.
> 
> Idk how much more i can explain it to you.
Click to expand...


Molecular machines are more evidence of design to anyone with half a brain and understand what these molecular machines do.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> German Shephard - *Horand von Grafrath* (January 1, 1895 - after 1899) (formerly *Hektor Linksrhein*) was the first German Shepherd Dog and the genetic basis for modern German Shepherds.
> 
> Labrador Retriever - The modern Labrador's ancestors originated on the island of Newfoundland, now part of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.[8] The founding breed of the Labrador was the St. John's Water Dog, a breed that emerged through ad-hoc breedings by early settlers of the island in the 16th century.
> 
> *WE BRED THE BREEDS THAT EXIST TODAY!!
> 
> HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT!?!
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the wild the origional organisms created remain virtually the same other then a few variations because they only reproduce with their own kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your going to stop talking about pedigrees right dumbass?
> 
> The only difference is the mechanism by which we separate their reproduction. In nature "breeds" (idiot word) are basically defined by location. While in human society we can artificially control reproduction.
> 
> Your statement is just idiocy.
> 
> They dont mate in nature because their genomes have significantly diverged, they probably recognize each other as different. But they still can reproduce, so you would assume that most logical people would think that the entire genus of panthera is related and diverging. The two most recently related groups, lions and leopards, can even consistently produce fertile offspring.
> 
> Evolution....
Click to expand...


Hey get your facts straight before you refer to someone as a dumbass. Coyotes have crossed with domestic dogs so have wolves. How breeds are maintained in the wild they only run with their own. The truth when a person gets rude it shows weakness ,They result to insults. I will put my background up against yours anytime genius. You lost a lot of credibility with me when you did what any ideologue would do,it was not God it was a natural process called abiogenesis,only a fool believes such a thing.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you can argue your points and i can argue mine it is up to the person to decide who is right and who is wrong.
> 
> The evidence only supports one side opr the other you can't have it both ways.
> 
> You don't have to accept my views but i for living observed the results of mutations  and you can read others views on mutations. Anytime there is a loss of genetic information somewhere it creates problems for the organism because we were designed to have certain functions when the body can't perform those functions it leads to problems.
> 
> Let us use a car,what would happen if the car didn't possess a battery ? How bout no engine ?how bout no tires ? How bout no gas tank ? How bout no steering wheel ? How bout no trasmission ?
> 
> How bout the smaller things like the cylanoid ? starter ? water ? oil ? no filters ?no lines ?
> 
> If you eliminate a function it creates a problem for the car it won't work, the same thing can be reasoned for life. Over time man added to the car to make it better but that was not by chance and a natrual process it was by intelligence and information. Same way medical research has done things to lengthen the life of the human population. We can't create life except through the process that God intended. Even if we do it would be done through intelligence and is not an argument for a natural process but intelligence once again.
> 
> God gave us the ability to adapt and have the intelligence for us to survive and take care of his planet and animals that he put us in charge of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the mind of someone who clearly doesnt understand that everything about you is a very complex interaction of the expression of millions of genes in your genome.
> 
> You can just make comparisons between animals and machines, but thats just a bullshit comparison and you know it.
> 
> You want an example of beneficial evolution on a molecular/genetic level?
> 
> *Not hard to find.
> 
> *Go to the biology section of any online science publication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So evolutionary biologist Joseph Thornton of the University of Oregon, Eugene, and his colleagues picked a more tractable subject: a single protein. His group has been studying the more than 450-million-year evolution of the glucocorticoid receptor (GR), a protein that binds to the stress hormone cortisol to control animals' response to it. Like all proteins, GR is made up of amino acids. By collecting the amino acid sequences of GR and related proteins from living animals, Thornton and his team previously constructed the GR evolutionary tree and resurrected sequences of GR's ancestors. This history reveals that GR has switched its hormone preference. Around the time cartilaginous fish such as sharks split off from bony fish, roughly 440 million years ago, the ancestral protein that the scientists call GR1 responded to both cortisol and the hormone aldosterone. But 40 million years later, when four-legged creatures started to appear, the descendent GR2 had become cortisol-specific.
> During these 40 million years, 37 amino acids changed. Only two were necessary to alter the function: One put a kink in the protein's shape, making it unresponsive to both hormones, and another allowed the restructured molecule to interact with only cortisol. Thornton's team next wondered if they could make GR2 recognize both cortisol and aldosterone by reverting these amino acids, which they call group X, back to their GR1 state. The researchers  report today in _Nature_ that this swap not only couldn't restore GR's original dual function but that it also killed the protein's ability to recognize any hormone."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So molecular evolution is real.
> 
> Idk how much more i can explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you got one thing right bullshit. The brain was pretty complex no ? The brain is responsible for all creations of man and things like language. Don't give me your b.s. imagination. Admit it you ate an ideologue. Hoe many times must one poke holes in your reasoning before you get it ?
Click to expand...


What holes in my reasoning have you poked? Absolutely 0?

Whats so complex about the brain? You realize that everything you think makes humans special, like math, language, reading, using tools, can all be traced to specific regions of the cerebral cortex right? And that the brain is just a connection of millions of neurons and the electrochemical reactions between them, right?

And you realize that certain genes/proteins control the formation of the brain right? 

Im not an ideologue, ill change my opinion on a whim if you can actually prove it wrong. 

Your just restating the same things i thought were viable arguments before i took biology freshman year of high school and understood how genetics works. 

In other words your dumber than a high schooler kiddy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> And im sure in 133 pages you've explained this, but an answer doesnt stand out so ill ask again. Shoot me down if this is dumb.
> 
> But uh, why are there dinosaur bones deep underneath of us?



Well it makes sense that heavy things sink further in soft soil from like a global good. But in turn you need to answer how fossils were found in the wrong strata ?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you can argue your points and i can argue mine it is up to the person to decide who is right and who is wrong.
> 
> The evidence only supports one side opr the other you can't have it both ways.
> 
> You don't have to accept my views but i for living observed the results of mutations  and you can read others views on mutations. Anytime there is a loss of genetic information somewhere it creates problems for the organism because we were designed to have certain functions when the body can't perform those functions it leads to problems.
> 
> Let us use a car,what would happen if the car didn't possess a battery ? How bout no engine ?how bout no tires ? How bout no gas tank ? How bout no steering wheel ? How bout no trasmission ?
> 
> How bout the smaller things like the cylanoid ? starter ? water ? oil ? no filters ?no lines ?
> 
> If you eliminate a function it creates a problem for the car it won't work, the same thing can be reasoned for life. Over time man added to the car to make it better but that was not by chance and a natrual process it was by intelligence and information. Same way medical research has done things to lengthen the life of the human population. We can't create life except through the process that God intended. Even if we do it would be done through intelligence and is not an argument for a natural process but intelligence once again.
> 
> God gave us the ability to adapt and have the intelligence for us to survive and take care of his planet and animals that he put us in charge of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the mind of someone who clearly doesnt understand that everything about you is a very complex interaction of the expression of millions of genes in your genome.
> 
> You can just make comparisons between animals and machines, but thats just a bullshit comparison and you know it.
> 
> You want an example of beneficial evolution on a molecular/genetic level?
> 
> *Not hard to find.
> 
> *Go to the biology section of any online science publication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So evolutionary biologist Joseph Thornton of the University of Oregon, Eugene, and his colleagues picked a more tractable subject: a single protein. His group has been studying the more than 450-million-year evolution of the glucocorticoid receptor (GR), a protein that binds to the stress hormone cortisol to control animals' response to it. Like all proteins, GR is made up of amino acids. By collecting the amino acid sequences of GR and related proteins from living animals, Thornton and his team previously constructed the GR evolutionary tree and resurrected sequences of GR's ancestors. This history reveals that GR has switched its hormone preference. Around the time cartilaginous fish such as sharks split off from bony fish, roughly 440 million years ago, the ancestral protein that the scientists call GR1 responded to both cortisol and the hormone aldosterone. But 40 million years later, when four-legged creatures started to appear, the descendent GR2 had become cortisol-specific.
> During these 40 million years, 37 amino acids changed. Only two were necessary to alter the function: One put a kink in the protein's shape, making it unresponsive to both hormones, and another allowed the restructured molecule to interact with only cortisol. Thornton's team next wondered if they could make GR2 recognize both cortisol and aldosterone by reverting these amino acids, which they call group X, back to their GR1 state. The researchers  report today in _Nature_ that this swap not only couldn't restore GR's original dual function but that it also killed the protein's ability to recognize any hormone."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So molecular evolution is real.
> 
> Idk how much more i can explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Molecular machines are more evidence of design to anyone with half a brain and understand what these molecular machines do.
Click to expand...


Again, you do not make facts. You just state things and expect me to take them as given?

A set of three nucleotides is a codon, and it codes for an amino acid. A single nucleotide mutation changes what amino acid is inserted into the protein. That change alters the structure of the protein, and the altered structure changes the function. In this case only two changed amino acids, two mutations, changed which chemicals the protein interacted with. 

God is necessary for two mutations? Youve got to be kidding me. 

Read a book.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not saying that,the only natural systems is ones that God put in motion. Like the hydrologic system and the seasons and adaptations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That leaves me still wondering what your answer is to whether snowflakes (or any other similar, natural process) can be formed or created without intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seasons,snow,rain,snowflakes,summer heat,spring,are natural processes that was put in motion by the creator ,who created all things.
> 
> Whoever designed the computer and programmed it was still responsible for what the computer was capable of.
> 
> People were able to add to it's ability and even attack it but it was still a product of design through intelligence.
> 
> Man has always been intelligent we can see that by the things they built and designed absent of the technology we possess today.
Click to expand...


So when you ask for evidence of something having been formed, built or created without intelligence, it isn't an honest question, because you do not even accept natural processes that require no intelligence since they were originally created by god.  The natural processes that create a snowflake do not require intelligence.  Since you believe god started those processes, however, you consider it an intelligence-driven process.  Why do you even ask anyone to provide evidence when, by your own belief, such evidence is impossible to provide?

You're free to believe what you wish, but that doesn't make your beliefs objectively obvious.  You act as though your belief in god is somehow verifiable or that you have objective evidence for it.  For anyone who does not believe in god, or does not believe in god the way that you do, there can be plenty of evidence of things being formed or created without intelligence.  Your beliefs apparently require you to think everything is the result of intelligence, so that nothing can ever possibly be the result of randomness or non-intelligence processes, but you then project that to everyone else and make it seem that is an obvious truth to everyone.

You seemingly cannot differentiate your faith from scientific discussion.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the wild the origional organisms created remain virtually the same other then a few variations because they only reproduce with their own kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your going to stop talking about pedigrees right dumbass?
> 
> The only difference is the mechanism by which we separate their reproduction. In nature "breeds" (idiot word) are basically defined by location. While in human society we can artificially control reproduction.
> 
> Your statement is just idiocy.
> 
> They dont mate in nature because their genomes have significantly diverged, they probably recognize each other as different. But they still can reproduce, so you would assume that most logical people would think that the entire genus of panthera is related and diverging. The two most recently related groups, lions and leopards, can even consistently produce fertile offspring.
> 
> Evolution....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey get your facts straight before you refer to someone as a dumbass. Coyote have crossed with domesticated dogs so have wolves. How breeds are maintained in the wild are they only run with their own. The truth majesty you a rude person always a sign of someone losing a debate. They result to insults. I will put my background up against yours anytime genius. You lost a lot of credibility with me when you did what any ideologue would do,it was not God it was a natural process called abiogenesis,only a fool believes such a thing.
Click to expand...


Lol you insulted me before saying that the person insulting was losing the debate...wow...

And may i just point out that domestic dogs are wolves, you know this right? And wolves and coyotes are related....

Hence wolves/coyotes can mate with dogs....

Why do you keep providing evidence for evolution????


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the mind of someone who clearly doesnt understand that everything about you is a very complex interaction of the expression of millions of genes in your genome.
> 
> You can just make comparisons between animals and machines, but thats just a bullshit comparison and you know it.
> 
> You want an example of beneficial evolution on a molecular/genetic level?
> 
> *Not hard to find.
> 
> *Go to the biology section of any online science publication.
> 
> So molecular evolution is real.
> 
> Idk how much more i can explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you got one thing right bullshit. The brain was pretty complex no ? The brain is responsible for all creations of man and things like language. Don't give me your b.s. imagination. Admit it you ate an ideologue. Hoe many times must one poke holes in your reasoning before you get it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What holes in my reasoning have you poked? Absolutely 0?
> 
> Whats so complex about the brain? You realize that everything you think makes humans special, like math, language, reading, using tools, can all be traced to specific regions of the cerebral cortex right? And that the brain is just a connection of millions of neurons and the electrochemical reactions between them, right?
> 
> And you realize that certain genes/proteins control the formation of the brain right?
> 
> Im not an ideologue, ill change my opinion on a whim if you can actually prove it wrong.
> 
> Your just restating the same things i thought were viable arguments before i took biology freshman year of high school and understood how genetics works.
> 
> In other words your dumber than a high schooler kiddy.
Click to expand...


Anyone who believes life can spontaneously generate itself from non-life,anyone who believes non-intelligence can produce intelligence. Anyone who believes an organism can lose a function and still survive natural selection.

The car was a great example and it went right over your head.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And im sure in 133 pages you've explained this, but an answer doesnt stand out so ill ask again. Shoot me down if this is dumb.
> 
> But uh, why are there dinosaur bones deep underneath of us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it makes sense that heavy things sink further in soft soil from like a global good. But in turn you need to answer how fossils were found in the wrong strata ?
Click to expand...


Right the bones just sunk through the rock. 

Fossils can be found in strange rock strata for many reasons. The ground is not a static entity. 

But that doesnt explain why the vast majority, a statistically significant amount, are found in certain strata. And why that strata-based age often coincides with multiple radiometric dating methods, and why those methods often coincide with genetic dating of multiple gene sequences?

Ahyawrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the mind of someone who clearly doesnt understand that everything about you is a very complex interaction of the expression of millions of genes in your genome.
> 
> You can just make comparisons between animals and machines, but thats just a bullshit comparison and you know it.
> 
> You want an example of beneficial evolution on a molecular/genetic level?
> 
> *Not hard to find.
> 
> *Go to the biology section of any online science publication.
> 
> So molecular evolution is real.
> 
> Idk how much more i can explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Molecular machines are more evidence of design to anyone with half a brain and understand what these molecular machines do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you do not make facts. You just state things and expect me to take them as given?
> 
> A set of three nucleotides is a codon, and it codes for an amino acid. A single nucleotide mutation changes what amino acid is inserted into the protein. That change alters the structure of the protein, and the altered structure changes the function. In this case only two changed amino acids, two mutations, changed which chemicals the protein interacted with.
> 
> God is necessary for two mutations? Youve got to be kidding me.
> 
> Read a book.
Click to expand...


I believe mutations is the way God administered his punishment  of death to all sinners. as we get older information gets lost mutations cause us problems.

Mutations lead to a loss of the origional genetic information and eventually leads to death. That is why we age and die.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And im sure in 133 pages you've explained this, but an answer doesnt stand out so ill ask again. Shoot me down if this is dumb.
> 
> But uh, why are there dinosaur bones deep underneath of us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it makes sense that heavy things sink further in soft soil from like a global good. But in turn you need to answer how fossils were found in the wrong strata ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right the bones just sunk through the rock.
> 
> Fossils can be found in strange rock strata for many reasons. The ground is not a static entity.
> 
> But that doesnt explain why the vast majority, a statistically significant amount, are found in certain strata. And why that strata-based age often coincides with multiple radiometric dating methods, and why those methods often coincide with genetic dating of multiple gene sequences?
> 
> Ahyawrong.
Click to expand...


Wrong it was not rock unitl it hardened..

Please watch this video and we will discuss it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URWilfB2RVU]103 - Bones in Stones / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you got one thing right bullshit. The brain was pretty complex no ? The brain is responsible for all creations of man and things like language. Don't give me your b.s. imagination. Admit it you ate an ideologue. Hoe many times must one poke holes in your reasoning before you get it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What holes in my reasoning have you poked? Absolutely 0?
> 
> Whats so complex about the brain? You realize that everything you think makes humans special, like math, language, reading, using tools, can all be traced to specific regions of the cerebral cortex right? And that the brain is just a connection of millions of neurons and the electrochemical reactions between them, right?
> 
> And you realize that certain genes/proteins control the formation of the brain right?
> 
> Im not an ideologue, ill change my opinion on a whim if you can actually prove it wrong.
> 
> Your just restating the same things i thought were viable arguments before i took biology freshman year of high school and understood how genetics works.
> 
> In other words your dumber than a high schooler kiddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life can spontaneously generate itself from non-life,anyone who believes non-intelligence can produce intelligence.
Click to expand...


Abiogensis is a separate topic from evolution.

But since you brought it up. 

The problem lies with your definition of intelligence. Sure, humans are intelligent. Most animals are somewhat intelligent, in some sense. Are plants intelligent? How about single cells? Is a virus intelligent? What about a viroid or a prion?

Theres that top-down fallacy again....



Youwerecreated said:


> Anyone who believes an organism can lose a function and still survive natural selection.



Please just go learn anything



Youwerecreated said:


> The car was a great example and it went right over your head.



You think that example went over my head? Are you serious?

Thats such a simple analogy a third grader could be convinced by it, which explains a lot. 

Anyone using that example doesnt even deserve a rebuttle, its a horrible argument.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molecular machines are more evidence of design to anyone with half a brain and understand what these molecular machines do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you do not make facts. You just state things and expect me to take them as given?
> 
> A set of three nucleotides is a codon, and it codes for an amino acid. A single nucleotide mutation changes what amino acid is inserted into the protein. That change alters the structure of the protein, and the altered structure changes the function. In this case only two changed amino acids, two mutations, changed which chemicals the protein interacted with.
> 
> God is necessary for two mutations? Youve got to be kidding me.
> 
> Read a book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe mutations is the way God administered his punishment  of death to all sinners. as we get older information gets lost mutations cause us problems.
> 
> Mutations lead to a loss of the origional genetic information and eventually leads to death. That is why we age and die.
Click to expand...


yaoksogeneticsanddnareplicationisjustbullshitokgotit!!!


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it makes sense that heavy things sink further in soft soil from like a global good. But in turn you need to answer how fossils were found in the wrong strata ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right the bones just sunk through the rock.
> 
> Fossils can be found in strange rock strata for many reasons. The ground is not a static entity.
> 
> But that doesnt explain why the vast majority, a statistically significant amount, are found in certain strata. And why that strata-based age often coincides with multiple radiometric dating methods, and why those methods often coincide with genetic dating of multiple gene sequences?
> 
> Ahyawrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong it was not rock unitl it hardened..
> 
> Please watch this video and we will discuss it.
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URWilfB2RVU"]103 - Bones in Stones / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


give me any website that doesnt have "rekindling the reformation", or something of the like, on its home page banner.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And im sure in 133 pages you've explained this, but an answer doesnt stand out so ill ask again. Shoot me down if this is dumb.
> 
> But uh, why are there dinosaur bones deep underneath of us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it makes sense that heavy things sink further in soft soil from like a global good*. But in turn you need to answer how fossils were found in the wrong strata ?*
Click to expand...

*

*

The answer to that is simple.  Take the Grand Canyon for an example.  Everything, including the fossils embedded in the ground, that was in the earth where the canyon now exists is now down stream and sitting on top of layers of sediment laid down long after the erosion of the Grand Canyon started.  In short the earth's crust is subject to many forces that constantly "mix up" the makeup.  Mountain ranges get pushed up by plate tectonics and subsequently get worn down by wind and water and ice.  Lakes and seas get formed and leave deep deposits....Glaciers from ice ages excavate thousands of feet of top crust and deposit this earth many..sometimes thousands of miles away from their source.

I would suggest that you study geology.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And im sure in 133 pages you've explained this, but an answer doesnt stand out so ill ask again. Shoot me down if this is dumb.
> 
> But uh, why are there dinosaur bones deep underneath of us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it makes sense that heavy things sink further in soft soil from like a global good*. But in turn you need to answer how fossils were found in the wrong strata ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> The answer to that is simple.  Take the Grand Canyon for an example.  Everything, including the fossils embedded in the ground, that was in the earth where the canyon now exists is now down stream and sitting on top of layers of sediment laid down long after the erosion of the Grand Canyon started.  In short the earth's crust is subject to many forces that constantly "mix up" the makeup.  Mountain ranges get pushed up by plate tectonics and subsequently get worn down by wind and water and ice.  Lakes and seas get formed and leave deep deposits....Glaciers from ice ages excavate thousands of feet of top crust and deposit this earth many..sometimes thousands of miles away from their source.
> 
> I would suggest that you study geology.
Click to expand...


I would say around 5,000 years ago a lot of water came across that area and the majority of the water that came across that area ran swiftly back to the sea. Leaving behind many organisms buried rapidly from in the sediments which is now stone.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right the bones just sunk through the rock.
> 
> Fossils can be found in strange rock strata for many reasons. The ground is not a static entity.
> 
> But that doesnt explain why the vast majority, a statistically significant amount, are found in certain strata. And why that strata-based age often coincides with multiple radiometric dating methods, and why those methods often coincide with genetic dating of multiple gene sequences?
> 
> Ahyawrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong it was not rock unitl it hardened..
> 
> Please watch this video and we will discuss it.
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URWilfB2RVU"]103 - Bones in Stones / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> give me any website that doesnt have "rekindling the reformation", or something of the like, on its home page banner.
Click to expand...


Whats the matter you just can't bring yourself to watch something that makes sense and is agains't your beliefs ?

You are a closed minded little twit and that is why you have been mislead. The sad thing is you won't know it until it's too late.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it makes sense that heavy things sink further in soft soil from like a global good*. But in turn you need to answer how fossils were found in the wrong strata ?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to that is simple.  Take the Grand Canyon for an example.  Everything, including the fossils embedded in the ground, that was in the earth where the canyon now exists is now down stream and sitting on top of layers of sediment laid down long after the erosion of the Grand Canyon started.  In short the earth's crust is subject to many forces that constantly "mix up" the makeup.  Mountain ranges get pushed up by plate tectonics and subsequently get worn down by wind and water and ice.  Lakes and seas get formed and leave deep deposits....Glaciers from ice ages excavate thousands of feet of top crust and deposit this earth many..sometimes thousands of miles away from their source.
> 
> I would suggest that you study geology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say around 5,000 years ago a lot of water came across that area and the majority of the water that came across that area ran swiftly back to the sea. Leaving behind many organisms buried rapidly from in the sediments which is now stone.
Click to expand...


And no one really cares what you can say, its what you can prove. 

Good luck.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong it was not rock unitl it hardened..
> 
> Please watch this video and we will discuss it.
> 
> 103 - Bones in Stones / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> give me any website that doesnt have "rekindling the reformation", or something of the like, on its home page banner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whats the matter you just can't bring yourself to watch something that makes sense and is agains't your beliefs ?
> 
> You are a closed minded little twit and that is why you have been mislead. The sad thing is you won't know it until it's too late.
Click to expand...


LMAO.

Is there any possible conclusion that an orginization dedicated to "reviving the reformation" will arrive at, other than a creationist one?

It doesnt make me ignorant for ignoring your source. Only an idiot believes obviously biased sources. 

Besides, its an hour long video about a well debunked topic. Your flaunting the dumbest of the creationist arguments and you think your winning the debate. Arguing with you is like arguing with a tape recording of kent hovind.

its funny. If i quote wiki, im being a biased liberal quoting a biased source. If you quote shit like the creation museum, your just the only one in touch with reality. That about how it goes?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand variations according to enviornment ?
> 
> Humans are all descended from Adam and Eve. There is only one human race there are just variations within the family.
> 
> Here educate yourself.
> 
> http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=337
> 
> 
> 
> dodge! Adam and eve are a worse example than Noah....two is not a viable breeding population for humans or any other higher life forms (I take it you've never seen the film deliverance)
> once again you're substituting belief for evidence.
> still does not answer the question: why are all humans born after the so called flood  NOT descendants of Noah.
> or why there are no ocean going dinosaurs (  odd that god let the Coelacanths ( /&#712;si&#720;l&#601;kæn&#952;/, adaptation of Modern Latin Clacanthus "hollow spine", from Greek &#954;&#959;&#8150;&#955;-&#959;&#962; koilos "hollow" + &#7940;&#954;&#945;&#957;&#952;-&#945; akantha "spine", referring to the hollow caudal fin rays of the first fossil specimen described and named by Agassiz in 1839[1]) are members of an order of fish that includes the oldest living lineage of Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish + tetrapods) known to date.
> 
> Coelacanths belong to the subclass Actinistia, a group of lobed-finned fish that are related to lungfish and other extinct Devonian fish like osteolepiforms, porolepiforms, rhizodonts, and Panderichthys.[1] Coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct in the Late Cretaceous, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.[2] Latimeria chalumnae and the Latimeria menadoensis are the only two living coelacanth species, which are found along the coastlines of the Indian Ocean.[3] The coelacanth has been nicknamed a living fossil, because it was originally known only through fossils, long before the first discovery of a live specimen.[1] The coelacanth is thought to have evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.[4] survive and not the sea going reptiles.
> 
> also your reply does not answer the never been underwater question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May 11 2011
> The world population has grown tremendously over the past two thousand years. In 1999, the world population passed the six billion mark.
> Latest official current world population estimate, for mid-year 2010, is estimated at 6,852,472,823.
> 
> The chart below shows past world population data back to the year one and future world population projections through the year 2050.
> 
> 
> World Population Growth
> 
> 
> 
> Year
> 
> Population
> 
> 
> 
> 1
> 
> 200 million
> 
> 
> 
> 1000
> 
> 275 million
> 
> 
> 
> 1500
> 
> 450 million
> 
> 
> 
> 1650
> 
> 500 million
> 
> 
> 
> 1750
> 
> 700 million
> 
> 
> 
> 1804
> 
> 1 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1850
> 
> 1.2 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1900
> 
> 1.6 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1927
> 
> 2 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1950
> 
> 2.55 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1955
> 
> 2.8 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1960
> 
> 3 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1965
> 
> 3.3 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1970
> 
> 3.7 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1975
> 
> 4 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1980
> 
> 4.5 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1985
> 
> 4.85 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1990
> 
> 5.3 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1995
> 
> 5.7 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1999
> 
> 6 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 2006
> 
> 6.5 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 2009
> 
> 6.8 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 2011
> 
> 7 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 2025
> 
> 8 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 2043
> 
> 9 billion
> 
> 
> World Population - The Current World Population
Click to expand...

dodge. and weren't  you warned about walls of text ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dummy you are the one that believes it happened it's on you.
> 
> I can give many cases where something was formed,built,designed,and created and itelligence was needed to do so.
> 
> Now you show how non-intelligence can do the same.
> 
> I know you avoided my question because you can't do what was asked of you.
> 
> Chalk one up for God the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about snowflakes? They look pretty damn intricate and symmetrical, but they are the pure product of natural (or "non-intelligent," as you would say) processes.
> 
> But I suppose you think that God handcrafts every individual snowflake too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Joh 1:3  All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
> 
> Job 31:15  Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not One shape us in the womb?
> 
> Psa 139:13
> 
> (ASV)  For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother's womb.
> 
> (BBE)  My flesh was made by you, and my parts joined together in my mother's body.
> 
> (CEV)  You are the one who put me together inside my mother's body,
> 
> The answer is yes everything was created by God.
Click to expand...

once again, not science!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And im sure in 133 pages you've explained this, but an answer doesnt stand out so ill ask again. Shoot me down if this is dumb.
> 
> But uh, why are there dinosaur bones deep underneath of us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it makes sense that heavy things sink further in soft soil from like a global good. But in turn you need to answer how fossils were found in the wrong strata ?
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> That leaves me still wondering what your answer is to whether snowflakes (or any other similar, natural process) can be formed or created without intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seasons,snow,rain,snowflakes,summer heat,spring,are natural processes that was put in motion by the creator ,who created all things.
> 
> Whoever designed the computer and programmed it was still responsible for what the computer was capable of.
> 
> People were able to add to it's ability and even attack it but it was still a product of design through intelligence.
> 
> Man has always been intelligent we can see that by the things they built and designed absent of the technology we possess today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when you ask for evidence of something having been formed, built or created without intelligence, it isn't an honest question, because you do not even accept natural processes that require no intelligence since they were originally created by god.  The natural processes that create a snowflake do not require intelligence.  Since you believe god started those processes, however, you consider it an intelligence-driven process.  Why do you even ask anyone to provide evidence when, by your own belief, such evidence is impossible to provide?
> 
> You're free to believe what you wish, but that doesn't make your beliefs objectively obvious.  You act as though your belief in god is somehow verifiable or that you have objective evidence for it.  For anyone who does not believe in god, or does not believe in god the way that you do, there can be plenty of evidence of things being formed or created without intelligence.  Your beliefs apparently require you to think everything is the result of intelligence, so that nothing can ever possibly be the result of randomness or non-intelligence processes, but you then project that to everyone else and make it seem that is an obvious truth to everyone.
> 
> You seemingly cannot differentiate your faith from scientific discussion.
Click to expand...

 great post!
BTW I think LACK of the ability to differentiate is intentional.
like all fundamentalists  ywc believes  any time you can proselytize is all the time 
he or she seems to forget what Jesus said: "when rebuked, withdraw."


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you got one thing right bullshit. The brain was pretty complex no ? The brain is responsible for all creations of man and things like language. Don't give me your b.s. imagination. Admit it you ate an ideologue. Hoe many times must one poke holes in your reasoning before you get it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What holes in my reasoning have you poked? Absolutely 0?
> 
> Whats so complex about the brain? You realize that everything you think makes humans special, like math, language, reading, using tools, can all be traced to specific regions of the cerebral cortex right? And that the brain is just a connection of millions of neurons and the electrochemical reactions between them, right?
> 
> And you realize that certain genes/proteins control the formation of the brain right?
> 
> Im not an ideologue, ill change my opinion on a whim if you can actually prove it wrong.
> 
> Your just restating the same things i thought were viable arguments before i took biology freshman year of high school and understood how genetics works.
> 
> In other words your dumber than a high schooler kiddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life can spontaneously generate itself from non-life,anyone who believes non-intelligence can produce intelligence. Anyone who believes an organism can lose a function and still survive natural selection.
> 
> The car was a great example and it went right over your head.
Click to expand...

 using man made items such as cars to advance the intelligent design myth is laughable ALL man made items are clunky, inefficient and shoddy, compared to your so called god's works.
your "god" does not use fabricated materials such as steel, rubber, fiberglass.


----------



## InDoctriNation

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What holes in my reasoning have you poked? Absolutely 0?
> 
> Whats so complex about the brain? You realize that everything you think makes humans special, like math, language, reading, using tools, can all be traced to specific regions of the cerebral cortex right? And that the brain is just a connection of millions of neurons and the electrochemical reactions between them, right?
> 
> And you realize that certain genes/proteins control the formation of the brain right?
> 
> Im not an ideologue, ill change my opinion on a whim if you can actually prove it wrong.
> 
> Your just restating the same things i thought were viable arguments before i took biology freshman year of high school and understood how genetics works.
> 
> In other words your dumber than a high schooler kiddy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life can spontaneously generate itself from non-life,anyone who believes non-intelligence can produce intelligence. Anyone who believes an organism can lose a function and still survive natural selection.
> 
> The car was a great example and it went right over your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> using man made items such as cars to advance the intelligent design myth is laughable ALL man made items are clunky, inefficient and shoddy, compared to your so called god's works.
> your "god" does not use fabricated materials such as steel, rubber, fiberglass.
Click to expand...


But his god does use those materials, since everything that has ever been created (cars, buildings, the mona lisa, the art display of the cucifix in urine) was created by god, according to him!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And im sure in 133 pages you've explained this, but an answer doesnt stand out so ill ask again. Shoot me down if this is dumb.
> 
> But uh, why are there dinosaur bones deep underneath of us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it makes sense that heavy things sink further in soft soil from like a global good. But in turn you need to answer how fossils were found in the wrong strata ?
Click to expand...

(cue buzzer) ahhh...there is no wrong strata...you own belief precludes that.
did not god place them there? or did god fuck up.


Meteorology, Geology - Noahs Flood


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> give me any website that doesnt have "rekindling the reformation", or something of the like, on its home page banner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the matter you just can't bring yourself to watch something that makes sense and is agains't your beliefs ?
> 
> You are a closed minded little twit and that is why you have been mislead. The sad thing is you won't know it until it's too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO.
> 
> Is there any possible conclusion that an orginization dedicated to "reviving the reformation" will arrive at, other than a creationist one?
> 
> It doesnt make me ignorant for ignoring your source. Only an idiot believes obviously biased sources.
> 
> Besides, its an hour long video about a well debunked topic. Your flaunting the dumbest of the creationist arguments and you think your winning the debate. Arguing with you is like arguing with a tape recording of kent hovind.
> 
> its funny. If i quote wiki, im being a biased liberal quoting a biased source. If you quote shit like the creation museum, your just the only one in touch with reality. That about how it goes?
Click to expand...


I have been saying all along your presuppositions will cause us to look at evidence differently do you understand this ?

Most people who write on wiki on this issue are on your side of the debate get it ? but they are not biased is that what you're claiming and my sources are ?


----------



## daws101

InDoctriNation said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life can spontaneously generate itself from non-life,anyone who believes non-intelligence can produce intelligence. Anyone who believes an organism can lose a function and still survive natural selection.
> 
> The car was a great example and it went right over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> using man made items such as cars to advance the intelligent design myth is laughable ALL man made items are clunky, inefficient and shoddy, compared to your so called god's works.
> your "god" does not use fabricated materials such as steel, rubber, fiberglass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But his god does use those materials, since everything that has ever been created (cars, buildings, the mona lisa, the art display of the cucifix in urine) was created by god, according to him!
Click to expand...

golly! if I'd have known that......thanks!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> dodge! Adam and eve are a worse example than Noah....two is not a viable breeding population for humans or any other higher life forms (I take it you've never seen the film deliverance)
> once again you're substituting belief for evidence.
> still does not answer the question: why are all humans born after the so called flood  NOT descendants of Noah.
> or why there are no ocean going dinosaurs (  odd that god let the Coelacanths ( /&#712;si&#720;l&#601;kæn&#952;/, adaptation of Modern Latin C&#339;lacanthus "hollow spine", from Greek &#954;&#959;&#8150;&#955;-&#959;&#962; koilos "hollow" + &#7940;&#954;&#945;&#957;&#952;-&#945; akantha "spine", referring to the hollow caudal fin rays of the first fossil specimen described and named by Agassiz in 1839[1]) are members of an order of fish that includes the oldest living lineage of Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish + tetrapods) known to date.
> 
> Coelacanths belong to the subclass Actinistia, a group of lobed-finned fish that are related to lungfish and other extinct Devonian fish like osteolepiforms, porolepiforms, rhizodonts, and Panderichthys.[1] Coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct in the Late Cretaceous, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.[2] Latimeria chalumnae and the Latimeria menadoensis are the only two living coelacanth species, which are found along the coastlines of the Indian Ocean.[3] The coelacanth has been nicknamed a &#8220;living fossil&#8221;, because it was originally known only through fossils, long before the first discovery of a live specimen.[1] The coelacanth is thought to have evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.[4] survive and not the sea going reptiles.
> 
> also your reply does not answer the never been underwater question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May 11 2011
> The world population has grown tremendously over the past two thousand years. In 1999, the world population passed the six billion mark.
> Latest official current world population estimate, for mid-year 2010, is estimated at 6,852,472,823.
> 
> The chart below shows past world population data back to the year one and future world population projections through the year 2050.
> 
> 
> World Population Growth
> 
> 
> 
> Year
> 
> Population
> 
> 
> 
> 1
> 
> 200 million
> 
> 
> 
> 1000
> 
> 275 million
> 
> 
> 
> 1500
> 
> 450 million
> 
> 
> 
> 1650
> 
> 500 million
> 
> 
> 
> 1750
> 
> 700 million
> 
> 
> 
> 1804
> 
> 1 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1850
> 
> 1.2 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1900
> 
> 1.6 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1927
> 
> 2 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1950
> 
> 2.55 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1955
> 
> 2.8 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1960
> 
> 3 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1965
> 
> 3.3 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1970
> 
> 3.7 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1975
> 
> 4 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1980
> 
> 4.5 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1985
> 
> 4.85 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1990
> 
> 5.3 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1995
> 
> 5.7 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1999
> 
> 6 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 2006
> 
> 6.5 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 2009
> 
> 6.8 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 2011
> 
> 7 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 2025
> 
> 8 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 2043
> 
> 9 billion
> 
> 
> World Population - The Current World Population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dodge. and weren't  you warned about walls of text ?
Click to expand...


Not walls,just a little post  to show you how the worlds population boomed over the last 2,000 years can you imagine what it would have been if we went back from the time evolutionist claim man showed up on the earth ?

But anyhow let's not let facts get in the way right.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What holes in my reasoning have you poked? Absolutely 0?
> 
> Whats so complex about the brain? You realize that everything you think makes humans special, like math, language, reading, using tools, can all be traced to specific regions of the cerebral cortex right? And that the brain is just a connection of millions of neurons and the electrochemical reactions between them, right?
> 
> And you realize that certain genes/proteins control the formation of the brain right?
> 
> Im not an ideologue, ill change my opinion on a whim if you can actually prove it wrong.
> 
> Your just restating the same things i thought were viable arguments before i took biology freshman year of high school and understood how genetics works.
> 
> In other words your dumber than a high schooler kiddy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life can spontaneously generate itself from non-life,anyone who believes non-intelligence can produce intelligence. Anyone who believes an organism can lose a function and still survive natural selection.
> 
> The car was a great example and it went right over your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> using man made items such as cars to advance the intelligent design myth is laughable ALL man made items are clunky, inefficient and shoddy, compared to your so called god's works.
> your "god" does not use fabricated materials such as steel, rubber, fiberglass.
Click to expand...


What it should show you is life and the universe is much more complex and so is the creator. I'm just pointing out the obvious.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about snowflakes? They look pretty damn intricate and symmetrical, but they are the pure product of natural (or "non-intelligent," as you would say) processes.
> 
> But I suppose you think that God handcrafts every individual snowflake too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joh 1:3  All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
> 
> Job 31:15  Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not One shape us in the womb?
> 
> Psa 139:13
> 
> (ASV)  For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother's womb.
> 
> (BBE)  My flesh was made by you, and my parts joined together in my mother's body.
> 
> (CEV)  You are the one who put me together inside my mother's body,
> 
> The answer is yes everything was created by God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> once again, not science!
Click to expand...


It goes to show man and his theories are at odds with God. I would say Gods creations are science, it's just that men of science don't know how he did it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

InDoctriNation said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life can spontaneously generate itself from non-life,anyone who believes non-intelligence can produce intelligence. Anyone who believes an organism can lose a function and still survive natural selection.
> 
> The car was a great example and it went right over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> using man made items such as cars to advance the intelligent design myth is laughable ALL man made items are clunky, inefficient and shoddy, compared to your so called god's works.
> your "god" does not use fabricated materials such as steel, rubber, fiberglass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But his god does use those materials, since everything that has ever been created (cars, buildings, the mona lisa, the art display of the cucifix in urine) was created by god, according to him!
Click to expand...


Yes,everything you see touch and feel was the result of my Gods mind.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And im sure in 133 pages you've explained this, but an answer doesnt stand out so ill ask again. Shoot me down if this is dumb.
> 
> But uh, why are there dinosaur bones deep underneath of us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it makes sense that heavy things sink further in soft soil from like a global good. But in turn you need to answer how fossils were found in the wrong strata ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (cue buzzer) ahhh...there is no wrong strata...you own belief precludes that.
> did not god place them there? or did god fuck up.
> 
> 
> Meteorology, Geology - Noahs Flood
Click to expand...


Gods flood created strata,man interpreted it wrong.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the matter you just can't bring yourself to watch something that makes sense and is agains't your beliefs ?
> 
> You are a closed minded little twit and that is why you have been mislead. The sad thing is you won't know it until it's too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO.
> 
> Is there any possible conclusion that an orginization dedicated to "reviving the reformation" will arrive at, other than a creationist one?
> 
> It doesnt make me ignorant for ignoring your source. Only an idiot believes obviously biased sources.
> 
> Besides, its an hour long video about a well debunked topic. Your flaunting the dumbest of the creationist arguments and you think your winning the debate. Arguing with you is like arguing with a tape recording of kent hovind.
> 
> its funny. If i quote wiki, im being a biased liberal quoting a biased source. If you quote shit like the creation museum, your just the only one in touch with reality. That about how it goes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been saying all along your presuppositions will cause us to look at evidence differently do you understand this ?
> 
> Most people who write on wiki on this issue are on your side of the debate get it ? but they are not biased is that what you're claiming and my sources are ?
Click to expand...

he's not claiming anything your "sources" are bias and have been from the very beginning based on these facts:
1. false premise.
2. no credible evidence     
3. assuming facts not in evidence
4. ethnocentric pov: eth·no·cen·tric adj \&#716;eth-n&#333;-&#712;sen-trik\
Definition of ETHNOCENTRIC
: characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior 
5. threating violence or death to non practitioners.
6.false comparisons  
7. wrong, false, or zero credentials  on the subject matter.
etc...


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the matter you just can't bring yourself to watch something that makes sense and is agains't your beliefs ?
> 
> You are a closed minded little twit and that is why you have been mislead. The sad thing is you won't know it until it's too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO.
> 
> Is there any possible conclusion that an orginization dedicated to "reviving the reformation" will arrive at, other than a creationist one?
> 
> It doesnt make me ignorant for ignoring your source. Only an idiot believes obviously biased sources.
> 
> Besides, its an hour long video about a well debunked topic. Your flaunting the dumbest of the creationist arguments and you think your winning the debate. Arguing with you is like arguing with a tape recording of kent hovind.
> 
> its funny. If i quote wiki, im being a biased liberal quoting a biased source. If you quote shit like the creation museum, your just the only one in touch with reality. That about how it goes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been saying all along your presuppositions will cause us to look at evidence differently do you understand this ?
> 
> Most people who write on wiki on this issue are on your side of the debate get it ? but they are not biased is that what you're claiming and my sources are ?
Click to expand...


Look wiki is at least sourced at the bottom, and from my experience happens to match up fairly well with other outside sources. 

But yet, i have yet to see one creationist website that impresses me. Rather, they usually make very simple logical mistakes that a simple understanding of general education (math, history, chemistry, biology), would indicate is wrong. 

Browsing around websites like answersingenesis.org, its pretty obviously full of blatant fallacies and total non-understandings. When _any_ _major_ part of your website can be thrown out and disproved by a layman, you should just discredit the entire website. And your websites just dont hold up.


----------



## InDoctriNation

Youwerecreated said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> using man made items such as cars to advance the intelligent design myth is laughable ALL man made items are clunky, inefficient and shoddy, compared to your so called god's works.
> your "god" does not use fabricated materials such as steel, rubber, fiberglass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But his god does use those materials, since everything that has ever been created (cars, buildings, the mona lisa, the art display of the cucifix in urine) was created by god, according to him!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes,everything you see touch and feel was the result of my Gods mind.
Click to expand...


Maybe, but your God's mind was actually created by my God, and everything that your God perceives is the result of my God's mind. My God also has a bigger spaceless, timeless dick than your God.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> May 11 2011
> The world population has grown tremendously over the past two thousand years. In 1999, the world population passed the six billion mark.
> Latest official current world population estimate, for mid-year 2010, is estimated at 6,852,472,823.
> 
> The chart below shows past world population data back to the year one and future world population projections through the year 2050.
> 
> 
> World Population Growth
> 
> 
> 
> Year
> 
> Population
> 
> 
> 
> 1
> 
> 200 million
> 
> 
> 
> 1000
> 
> 275 million
> 
> 
> 
> 1500
> 
> 450 million
> 
> 
> 
> 1650
> 
> 500 million
> 
> 
> 
> 1750
> 
> 700 million
> 
> 
> 
> 1804
> 
> 1 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1850
> 
> 1.2 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1900
> 
> 1.6 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1927
> 
> 2 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1950
> 
> 2.55 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1955
> 
> 2.8 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1960
> 
> 3 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1965
> 
> 3.3 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1970
> 
> 3.7 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1975
> 
> 4 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1980
> 
> 4.5 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1985
> 
> 4.85 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1990
> 
> 5.3 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1995
> 
> 5.7 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 1999
> 
> 6 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 2006
> 
> 6.5 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 2009
> 
> 6.8 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 2011
> 
> 7 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 2025
> 
> 8 billion
> 
> 
> 
> 2043
> 
> 9 billion
> 
> 
> World Population - The Current World Population
> 
> 
> 
> dodge. and weren't  you warned about walls of text ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not walls,just a little post  to show you how the worlds population boomed over the last 2,000 years can you imagine what it would have been if we went back from the time evolutionist claim man showed up on the earth ?
> 
> But anyhow let's not let facts get in the way right.
Click to expand...

conveniently left out all of the deaths in the last 2,000 years and no prediction for 2040. still a dodge 
does not answer the descendants of Noah question.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> using man made items such as cars to advance the intelligent design myth is laughable ALL man made items are clunky, inefficient and shoddy, compared to your so called god's works.
> your "god" does not use fabricated materials such as steel, rubber, fiberglass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But his god does use those materials, since everything that has ever been created (cars, buildings, the mona lisa, the art display of the cucifix in urine) was created by god, according to him!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes,everything you see touch and feel was the result of my Gods mind.
Click to expand...


Do you feel see or touch anything other than up quarks, down quarks, electrons, or photons?

Lets ignore gluons, the W/Z bosons, and neutrinos just for simplicity. 

Is anything around you anything other than those 4 types of particles?

Please realize your dealing with someone whose major was originally supposed to be particle physics/chemistry. Cells are biochemical machines. Complex, very impressive, biochemical machines, but biochemical machines none the less. Theyre just extensions of the laws that govern individual molecules.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life can spontaneously generate itself from non-life,anyone who believes non-intelligence can produce intelligence. Anyone who believes an organism can lose a function and still survive natural selection.
> 
> The car was a great example and it went right over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> using man made items such as cars to advance the intelligent design myth is laughable ALL man made items are clunky, inefficient and shoddy, compared to your so called god's works.
> your "god" does not use fabricated materials such as steel, rubber, fiberglass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it should show you is life and the universe is much more complex and so is the creator. I'm just pointing out the obvious.
Click to expand...

no your not, it's not a valid example (yours not mine)


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes life can spontaneously generate itself from non-life,anyone who believes non-intelligence can produce intelligence. Anyone who believes an organism can lose a function and still survive natural selection.
> 
> The car was a great example and it went right over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> using man made items such as cars to advance the intelligent design myth is laughable ALL man made items are clunky, inefficient and shoddy, compared to your so called god's works.
> your "god" does not use fabricated materials such as steel, rubber, fiberglass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it should show you is life and the universe is much more complex and so is the creator. I'm just pointing out the obvious.
Click to expand...


No see the problem is that the we understand the complexities of life. 

Its just that you dont.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joh 1:3  All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
> 
> Job 31:15  Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not One shape us in the womb?
> 
> Psa 139:13
> 
> (ASV)  For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother's womb.
> 
> (BBE)  My flesh was made by you, and my parts joined together in my mother's body.
> 
> (CEV)  You are the one who put me together inside my mother's body,
> 
> The answer is yes everything was created by God.
> 
> 
> 
> once again, not science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It goes to show man and his theories are at odds with God. I would say Gods creations are science, it's just that men of science don't know how he did it.
Click to expand...

no it doesn't  it shows only your belief that it does .
it's not science or scientific 
it's only your opinion and like assholes everybody has one, and yours stinks!


----------



## daws101

InDoctriNation said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> But his god does use those materials, since everything that has ever been created (cars, buildings, the mona lisa, the art display of the cucifix in urine) was created by god, according to him!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,everything you see touch and feel was the result of my Gods mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, but your God's mind was actually created by my God, and everything that your God perceives is the result of my God's mind. My God also has a bigger spaceless, timeless dick than your God.
Click to expand...

 once your god and my god were standing on a bridge.
your god says " I gotta piss " whips it out tosses it over the side 1 second later a splash.
my god says "that's a good idea", whips his out tosses it over the side 1second later a splash.
your god reels his dick in, it takes about a minute.
my god smiles.
my god reels his dick in, it takes 5 minutes.
your god says "wow that water was cold !'
"deep too." replies my god.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not saying that,the only natural systems is ones that God put in motion. Like the hydrologic system and the seasons and adaptations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That leaves me still wondering what your answer is to whether snowflakes (or any other similar, natural process) can be formed or created without intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seasons,snow,rain,snowflakes,summer heat,spring,are natural processes that was put in motion by the creator ,who created all things.
> 
> Whoever designed the computer and programmed it was still responsible for what the computer was capable of.
Click to expand...


On a rare concilliatory note: _this is a genuinely valid and intelligent statement._

I dont know why you cant apply this same logic to biology, life, an evolution. If you would, we would be on the same page, possibly. 

God can still be the creator without physically sculpting cells and animals. How cells and chemicals function is well understood. The real mysteries are things like, why are all electric charges multiples of the elementary charge? Why is plancks constant 6.62606957(29)×10&#8722;34? Why is the speed of light slightly less than 3,000,000 m/s? 

This is how god really works, if he/she exists.



Youwerecreated said:


> Man has always been intelligent we can see that by the things they built and designed absent of the technology we possess today.



Really? 

How do you explain speaking and writing? Did we always have them? What was the first spoken or written language?

How about tools? Could we always use all the tools we have today? What were the first tools?

Could we always do math? Who invented math?


----------



## cbirch2

K we collectively shit on you enough so im good for now.


----------



## Youwerecreated

InDoctriNation said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> But his god does use those materials, since everything that has ever been created (cars, buildings, the mona lisa, the art display of the cucifix in urine) was created by god, according to him!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,everything you see touch and feel was the result of my Gods mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, but your God's mind was actually created by my God, and everything that your God perceives is the result of my God's mind. My God also has a bigger spaceless, timeless dick than your God.
Click to expand...


Who is your God naturalism ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO.
> 
> Is there any possible conclusion that an orginization dedicated to "reviving the reformation" will arrive at, other than a creationist one?
> 
> It doesnt make me ignorant for ignoring your source. Only an idiot believes obviously biased sources.
> 
> Besides, its an hour long video about a well debunked topic. Your flaunting the dumbest of the creationist arguments and you think your winning the debate. Arguing with you is like arguing with a tape recording of kent hovind.
> 
> its funny. If i quote wiki, im being a biased liberal quoting a biased source. If you quote shit like the creation museum, your just the only one in touch with reality. That about how it goes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been saying all along your presuppositions will cause us to look at evidence differently do you understand this ?
> 
> Most people who write on wiki on this issue are on your side of the debate get it ? but they are not biased is that what you're claiming and my sources are ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he's not claiming anything your "sources" are bias and have been from the very beginning based on these facts:
> 1. false premise.
> 2. no credible evidence
> 3. assuming facts not in evidence
> 4. ethnocentric pov: eth·no·cen·tric adj \&#716;eth-n&#333;-&#712;sen-trik\
> Definition of ETHNOCENTRIC
> : characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior
> 5. threating violence or death to non practitioners.
> 6.false comparisons
> 7. wrong, false, or zero credentials  on the subject matter.
> etc...
Click to expand...


Troll.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO.
> 
> Is there any possible conclusion that an orginization dedicated to "reviving the reformation" will arrive at, other than a creationist one?
> 
> It doesnt make me ignorant for ignoring your source. Only an idiot believes obviously biased sources.
> 
> Besides, its an hour long video about a well debunked topic. Your flaunting the dumbest of the creationist arguments and you think your winning the debate. Arguing with you is like arguing with a tape recording of kent hovind.
> 
> its funny. If i quote wiki, im being a biased liberal quoting a biased source. If you quote shit like the creation museum, your just the only one in touch with reality. That about how it goes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been saying all along your presuppositions will cause us to look at evidence differently do you understand this ?
> 
> Most people who write on wiki on this issue are on your side of the debate get it ? but they are not biased is that what you're claiming and my sources are ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look wiki is at least sourced at the bottom, and from my experience happens to match up fairly well with other outside sources.
> 
> But yet, i have yet to see one creationist website that impresses me. Rather, they usually make very simple logical mistakes that a simple understanding of general education (math, history, chemistry, biology), would indicate is wrong.
> 
> Browsing around websites like answersingenesis.org, its pretty obviously full of blatant fallacies and total non-understandings. When _any_ _major_ part of your website can be thrown out and disproved by a layman, you should just discredit the entire website. And your websites just dont hold up.
Click to expand...


It's only perceived as fallalcies because you have never truly looked at it with an open mind.

Well i also use Professor Browns site let's see what your problems with him are.

Michael E. Brown PhD: Molecular History Research Center


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> K we collectively shit on you enough so im good for now.



You are not big enough to crap on me boy,i'd do to you what i use to do to the Qb's. You are no more then a fart bubble from what i can tell.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been saying all along your presuppositions will cause us to look at evidence differently do you understand this ?
> 
> Most people who write on wiki on this issue are on your side of the debate get it ? but they are not biased is that what you're claiming and my sources are ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look wiki is at least sourced at the bottom, and from my experience happens to match up fairly well with other outside sources.
> 
> But yet, i have yet to see one creationist website that impresses me. Rather, they usually make very simple logical mistakes that a simple understanding of general education (math, history, chemistry, biology), would indicate is wrong.
> 
> Browsing around websites like answersingenesis.org, its pretty obviously full of blatant fallacies and total non-understandings. When _any_ _major_ part of your website can be thrown out and disproved by a layman, you should just discredit the entire website. And your websites just dont hold up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's only perceived as fallalcies because you have never truly looked at it with an open mind.
> 
> Well i also use Professor Browns site let's see what your problems with him are.
> 
> Michael E. Brown PhD: Molecular History Research Center
Click to expand...


Can you point me to some points that this Michael Brown makes?

This is all i see



> Why is it that amino acids are still found in fossils   and are not broken  down after hundreds of million of years? This  question was faced by evolutionists in the 1950s and 1960s, yet no one  ever came up with a viable answer.







> The existence of viable ancient DNA in the spores of  bacterium, that should have degraded long ago, is an interesting problem  for Evolutionists that will not go away. I am sure this test will be a  point of contention between Creationists and Evolutionists in the  future.




By what mechanism does an amino acid, or nucleic acid in the case of DNA/RNA, decay while in a fossil? 

In short, some form of radioactive decay. Ionizing radiation impacting the molecules, or spontaneous decay of the atoms themselves. 

This is statistical. One single atom may _never_ decay, even if a population statistically will. Eventually you are bound to find some intact DNA segments. 

If hes talking about some other form of decay, enlighten me.

The rest of this points on that page arent very good pieces of evidence.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> K we collectively shit on you enough so im good for now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not big enough to crap on me boy,i'd do to you what i use to do to the Qb's. You are no more then a fart bubble from what i can tell.
Click to expand...


Thats why you just ignore every fact lol


----------



## cbirch2

I really want to get into this physics dicussion though.

In your mind, what are the basic constituents of the things around you, and of you yourself?

Is that answer to that question: quanta called up and down quarks bound together by gluons into nucleons such as the proton, being orbited by quanta called electrons, all exchanging electromagnetic energy via the photon?

Because it should be.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> That leaves me still wondering what your answer is to whether snowflakes (or any other similar, natural process) can be formed or created without intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seasons,snow,rain,snowflakes,summer heat,spring,are natural processes that was put in motion by the creator ,who created all things.
> 
> Whoever designed the computer and programmed it was still responsible for what the computer was capable of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On a rare concilliatory note: _this is a genuinely valid and intelligent statement._
> 
> I dont know why you cant apply this same logic to biology, life, an evolution. If you would, we would be on the same page, possibly.
> 
> God can still be the creator without physically sculpting cells and animals. How cells and chemicals function is well understood. The real mysteries are things like, why are all electric charges multiples of the elementary charge? Why is plancks constant 6.62606957(29)×10&#8722;34? Why is the speed of light slightly less than 3,000,000 m/s?
> 
> This is how god really works, if he/she exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man has always been intelligent we can see that by the things they built and designed absent of the technology we possess today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> How do you explain speaking and writing? Did we always have them? What was the first spoken or written language?
> 
> How about tools? Could we always use all the tools we have today? What were the first tools?
> 
> Could we always do math? Who invented math?
Click to expand...


So you like mathematics.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YinrToIKJtg]Mathematics Disprove Evolution? The probability of spontaneous generation (creation vs. evolution) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look wiki is at least sourced at the bottom, and from my experience happens to match up fairly well with other outside sources.
> 
> But yet, i have yet to see one creationist website that impresses me. Rather, they usually make very simple logical mistakes that a simple understanding of general education (math, history, chemistry, biology), would indicate is wrong.
> 
> Browsing around websites like answersingenesis.org, its pretty obviously full of blatant fallacies and total non-understandings. When _any_ _major_ part of your website can be thrown out and disproved by a layman, you should just discredit the entire website. And your websites just dont hold up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's only perceived as fallalcies because you have never truly looked at it with an open mind.
> 
> Well i also use Professor Browns site let's see what your problems with him are.
> 
> Michael E. Brown PhD: Molecular History Research Center
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you point me to some points that this Michael Brown makes?
> 
> This is all i see
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that amino acids are still found in fossils   and are not broken  down after hundreds of million of years? This  question was faced by evolutionists in the 1950s and 1960s, yet no one  ever came up with a viable answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of viable ancient DNA in the spores of  bacterium, that should have degraded long ago, is an interesting problem  for Evolutionists that will not go away. I am sure this test will be a  point of contention between Creationists and Evolutionists in the  future.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By what mechanism does an amino acid, or nucleic acid in the case of DNA/RNA, decay while in a fossil?
> 
> In short, some form of radioactive decay. Ionizing radiation impacting the molecules, or spontaneous decay of the atoms themselves.
> 
> This is statistical. One single atom may _never_ decay, even if a population statistically will. Eventually you are bound to find some intact DNA segments.
> 
> If hes talking about some other form of decay, enlighten me.
> 
> The rest of this points on that page arent very good pieces of evidence.
Click to expand...


Topics of Interest: Molecular History Research Center

Mike's Origins Resource: A PhD Creationist's view of Science, Origins, and the Future Hope of the Human Race.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seasons,snow,rain,snowflakes,summer heat,spring,are natural processes that was put in motion by the creator ,who created all things.
> 
> Whoever designed the computer and programmed it was still responsible for what the computer was capable of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On a rare concilliatory note: _this is a genuinely valid and intelligent statement._
> 
> I dont know why you cant apply this same logic to biology, life, an evolution. If you would, we would be on the same page, possibly.
> 
> God can still be the creator without physically sculpting cells and animals. How cells and chemicals function is well understood. The real mysteries are things like, why are all electric charges multiples of the elementary charge? Why is plancks constant 6.62606957(29)×10&#8722;34? Why is the speed of light slightly less than 3,000,000 m/s?
> 
> This is how god really works, if he/she exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man has always been intelligent we can see that by the things they built and designed absent of the technology we possess today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> How do you explain speaking and writing? Did we always have them? What was the first spoken or written language?
> 
> How about tools? Could we always use all the tools we have today? What were the first tools?
> 
> Could we always do math? Who invented math?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you like mathematics.
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YinrToIKJtg"]Mathematics Disprove Evolution? The probability of spontaneous generation (creation vs. evolution) - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


This genuinely is what creationist think the theory of abiogensis says.

And a video like that really does pass for evidence among creationists.

Amazing.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's only perceived as fallalcies because you have never truly looked at it with an open mind.
> 
> Well i also use Professor Browns site let's see what your problems with him are.
> 
> Michael E. Brown PhD: Molecular History Research Center
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you point me to some points that this Michael Brown makes?
> 
> This is all i see
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of viable ancient DNA in the spores of  bacterium, that should have degraded long ago, is an interesting problem  for Evolutionists that will not go away. I am sure this test will be a  point of contention between Creationists and Evolutionists in the  future.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By what mechanism does an amino acid, or nucleic acid in the case of DNA/RNA, decay while in a fossil?
> 
> In short, some form of radioactive decay. Ionizing radiation impacting the molecules, or spontaneous decay of the atoms themselves.
> 
> This is statistical. One single atom may _never_ decay, even if a population statistically will. Eventually you are bound to find some intact DNA segments.
> 
> If hes talking about some other form of decay, enlighten me.
> 
> The rest of this points on that page arent very good pieces of evidence.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Topics of Interest: Molecular History Research Center
Click to expand...


As i said, i am _*thoroughly *_unimpressed by that webpage. 

Most of it can be debunked by that simple explanation of statistical decay of atoms. Not all the atoms will decay. You can still find small amounts of C-14 in fossils of practically any age, but it is not enough to make an accurate prediction, which is why C-14 has limits on how old the samples can be. 

Not to mention there are plenty of other radiometric dating methods that agree with each other.



Youwerecreated said:


> Mike's Origins Resource: A PhD Creationist's view of Science, Origins, and the Future Hope of the Human Race.



From your own link, about speciation:


			
				Michael Brown said:
			
		

> Most Creationists have viewed the fixity of species to be  a central pillar of creationary thought. This view however, falls in  the face of documented change in the formation of new species.




In a word, *fuck you*


----------



## cbirch2

Wow he even makes the entropy argument. 

You would think a Ph. D would know that the laws of entropy dont apply to open systems. Life is by definition an open system.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On a rare concilliatory note: _this is a genuinely valid and intelligent statement._
> 
> I dont know why you cant apply this same logic to biology, life, an evolution. If you would, we would be on the same page, possibly.
> 
> God can still be the creator without physically sculpting cells and animals. How cells and chemicals function is well understood. The real mysteries are things like, why are all electric charges multiples of the elementary charge? Why is plancks constant 6.62606957(29)×10&#8722;34? Why is the speed of light slightly less than 3,000,000 m/s?
> 
> This is how god really works, if he/she exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> How do you explain speaking and writing? Did we always have them? What was the first spoken or written language?
> 
> How about tools? Could we always use all the tools we have today? What were the first tools?
> 
> Could we always do math? Who invented math?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you like mathematics.
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YinrToIKJtg"]Mathematics Disprove Evolution? The probability of spontaneous generation (creation vs. evolution) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This genuinely is what creationist think the theory of abiogensis says.
> 
> And a video like that really does pass for evidence among creationists.
> 
> Amazing.
Click to expand...


Just pointing out what an educated fool believes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you point me to some points that this Michael Brown makes?
> 
> This is all i see
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By what mechanism does an amino acid, or nucleic acid in the case of DNA/RNA, decay while in a fossil?
> 
> In short, some form of radioactive decay. Ionizing radiation impacting the molecules, or spontaneous decay of the atoms themselves.
> 
> This is statistical. One single atom may _never_ decay, even if a population statistically will. Eventually you are bound to find some intact DNA segments.
> 
> If hes talking about some other form of decay, enlighten me.
> 
> The rest of this points on that page arent very good pieces of evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Topics of Interest: Molecular History Research Center
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As i said, i am _*thoroughly *_unimpressed by that webpage.
> 
> Most of it can be debunked by that simple explanation of statistical decay of atoms. Not all the atoms will decay. You can still find small amounts of C-14 in fossils of practically any age, but it is not enough to make an accurate prediction, which is why C-14 has limits on how old the samples can be.
> 
> Not to mention there are plenty of other radiometric dating methods that agree with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike's Origins Resource: A PhD Creationist's view of Science, Origins, and the Future Hope of the Human Race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your own link, about speciation:
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Brown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Creationists have viewed the fixity of species to be  a central pillar of creationary thought. This view however, falls in  the face of documented change in the formation of new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a word, *fuck you*
Click to expand...


Ah yeah but what he is speaking of are variations that happen from the genetic pool not mutations.

I never denied new breeds arise within the same family.

Punk.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you like mathematics.
> 
> Mathematics Disprove Evolution? The probability of spontaneous generation (creation vs. evolution) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This genuinely is what creationist think the theory of abiogensis says.
> 
> And a video like that really does pass for evidence among creationists.
> 
> Amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just pointing out what an educated fool believes.
Click to expand...


You must *believe* that. Because no set of facts and knowledge would lead one to think their argument is convincing, it must require belief and faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Wow he even makes the entropy argument.
> 
> You would think a Ph. D would know that the laws of entropy dont apply to open systems. Life is by definition an open system.



You would think an educated fool would notice the entropy all around him.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I hope you enjoyed a dose of reality trekky fan.


----------



## InDoctriNation

Youwerecreated said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,everything you see touch and feel was the result of my Gods mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but your God's mind was actually created by my God, and everything that your God perceives is the result of my God's mind. My God also has a bigger spaceless, timeless dick than your God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is your God naturalism ?
Click to expand...


Nope. His name is Gob, and he creates sub-Gods and makes them think that they are the all powerful creators of everything, the alpha and the omega. But everything these sub-Gods create is actually created by Gob, for all intelligent creators and creations are made possible by the mind of Gob. At the end of time, all of the creations of the sub-Gods will be rectified by Gob, and the sub-Gods who acted immorally in their respective creations will be thrown into an everlasting pit of despair (a certain locale of Gob's anatomy). For instance, a sub-God who toys with his creation by sending himself as a blood sacrifice for the so-called sins of sentient creatures as a loophole for a stupid rule created by him..... well, things aren't looking too good for that sub-God.

Now where do I line up to get this taught in science class? It fits pretty well with the multiverse hypothesis...


----------



## cbirch2

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations



> 2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.





> 3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.





> 4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.



Ive seen you and your sources commit all three of those.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow he even makes the entropy argument.
> 
> You would think a Ph. D would know that the laws of entropy dont apply to open systems. Life is by definition an open system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would think an educated fool would notice the entropy all around him.
Click to expand...


The "entropy" all around me?

As if "entropy" is an actual substance. Lol. 

Life is an open system by necessity, therefore the argument of entropy does not even apply. End of story, finito.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Topics of Interest: Molecular History Research Center
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As i said, i am _*thoroughly *_unimpressed by that webpage.
> 
> Most of it can be debunked by that simple explanation of statistical decay of atoms. Not all the atoms will decay. You can still find small amounts of C-14 in fossils of practically any age, but it is not enough to make an accurate prediction, which is why C-14 has limits on how old the samples can be.
> 
> Not to mention there are plenty of other radiometric dating methods that agree with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> From your own link, about speciation:
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Brown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Creationists have viewed the fixity of species to be  a central pillar of creationary thought. This view however, falls in  the face of documented change in the formation of new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a word, *fuck you*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yeah but what he is speaking of are variations that happen from the genetic pool not mutations.
> 
> I never denied new breeds arise within the same family.
> 
> Punk.
Click to expand...


Lol and then when you claim satan planted all the transitional fossils its a pretty good argument. 

Where do you draw the line? Are all of the big-cats related?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,everything you see touch and feel was the result of my Gods mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but your God's mind was actually created by my God, and everything that your God perceives is the result of my God's mind. My God also has a bigger spaceless, timeless dick than your God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is your God naturalism ?
Click to expand...

 why would I need a god when none exists, except in the minds of those who invented it.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been saying all along your presuppositions will cause us to look at evidence differently do you understand this ?
> 
> Most people who write on wiki on this issue are on your side of the debate get it ? but they are not biased is that what you're claiming and my sources are ?
> 
> 
> 
> he's not claiming anything your "sources" are bias and have been from the very beginning based on these facts:
> 1. false premise.
> 2. no credible evidence
> 3. assuming facts not in evidence
> 4. ethnocentric pov: eth·no·cen·tric adj \&#716;eth-n&#333;-&#712;sen-trik\
> Definition of ETHNOCENTRIC
> : characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior
> 5. threating violence or death to non practitioners.
> 6.false comparisons
> 7. wrong, false, or zero credentials  on the subject matter.
> etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
Click to expand...

just stating the facts...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been saying all along your presuppositions will cause us to look at evidence differently do you understand this ?
> 
> Most people who write on wiki on this issue are on your side of the debate get it ? but they are not biased is that what you're claiming and my sources are ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look wiki is at least sourced at the bottom, and from my experience happens to match up fairly well with other outside sources.
> 
> But yet, i have yet to see one creationist website that impresses me. Rather, they usually make very simple logical mistakes that a simple understanding of general education (math, history, chemistry, biology), would indicate is wrong.
> 
> Browsing around websites like answersingenesis.org, its pretty obviously full of blatant fallacies and total non-understandings. When _any_ _major_ part of your website can be thrown out and disproved by a layman, you should just discredit the entire website. And your websites just dont hold up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's only perceived as fallalcies because you have never truly looked at it with an open mind.
> 
> Well i also use Professor Browns site let's see what your problems with him are.
> 
> Michael E. Brown PhD: Molecular History Research Center
Click to expand...

wrong again. they are not "perceived as fallacies" they in fact are, you have no credible evidence to prove otherwise.
open mind!!! to an educated person that means giving both sides of an issue equal weight.
to you, It means buy my bullshit whole sale.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> K we collectively shit on you enough so im good for now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not big enough to crap on me boy,i'd do to you what i use to do to the Qb's. You are no more then a fart bubble from what i can tell.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seasons,snow,rain,snowflakes,summer heat,spring,are natural processes that was put in motion by the creator ,who created all things.
> 
> Whoever designed the computer and programmed it was still responsible for what the computer was capable of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On a rare concilliatory note: _this is a genuinely valid and intelligent statement._
> 
> I dont know why you cant apply this same logic to biology, life, an evolution. If you would, we would be on the same page, possibly.
> 
> God can still be the creator without physically sculpting cells and animals. How cells and chemicals function is well understood. The real mysteries are things like, why are all electric charges multiples of the elementary charge? Why is plancks constant 6.62606957(29)×10&#8722;34? Why is the speed of light slightly less than 3,000,000 m/s?
> 
> This is how god really works, if he/she exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man has always been intelligent we can see that by the things they built and designed absent of the technology we possess today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> How do you explain speaking and writing? Did we always have them? What was the first spoken or written language?
> 
> How about tools? Could we always use all the tools we have today? What were the first tools?
> 
> Could we always do math? Who invented math?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you like mathematics.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YinrToIKJtg]Mathematics Disprove Evolution? The probability of spontaneous generation (creation vs. evolution) - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

fine example of a false premise!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you like mathematics.
> 
> Mathematics Disprove Evolution? The probability of spontaneous generation (creation vs. evolution) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This genuinely is what creationist think the theory of abiogensis says.
> 
> And a video like that really does pass for evidence among creationists.
> 
> Amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just pointing out what an educated fool believes.
Click to expand...

 so ignorance is bliss then?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dummy you are the one that believes it happened it's on you.
> 
> 
> 
> No. *YOU* said, "... intelligence cannot arise on it's own," so it's *NOT* my responsibility to explain why. Douche.
> 
> Unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying *valid* logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> Absolutely. Challenge enthusiastically accepted. AFTER you have finished what you've started first; then I will happily hand you your own ass ... again. *First you must meet your obligations above,* THEN we "get to it" ... NOT Before.
> 
> No. You are engaging again in pathological projection. You are avoiding your own responsibilities, simply because you know you cannot meet them; and you are illicitly attributing your own dishonest tactics to me.
> 
> No one's ever going to buy your bullshit here pal, because I will never tire of linking you right back to your sanctimonious hypocrisy.
> 
> Remember, YOU are the one who wanted to "get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating," so get to it. And no more of this "I don't have to explain God" business. Bring both your "nitty" and your "gritty"; it's finally time for you to stop challenging us, and start meeting the challenges brought to you; it's time for you to finally explain this "creator" of yours, ... this unintelligent "Designer."
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chalk one up for God the creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "Creator?" You keep referencing this "Creator," yet there's no evidence of His existence. NONE! You keep saying [this thing or that] was "created," which "proves" the existence of this "Creator" of yours, but *that's just asserting invalid logic.*
> 
> It is *INVALID* to require the acceptance of your conclusion in the premise OR the arguments that lead to your conclusion.
> 
> You have done LITERALLY NOTHING to demonstrate or explain the "intelligence" of this "Designer" of yours. You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "Designer" of yours--and all of his attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as fact of reality.
> 
> So, FUCK NO! there's no chalking of ANYTHING up to this fictitious Creator of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah it was also the brain that was creative and created a theory that goes against the the evidence that is observed for a belief that has not been observed.
Click to expand...

"Intelligent Design" is this precise "... theory that goes against the the evidence that is observed for a belief that has not been observed."

Good to see you're capable of momentary lucidity.



Youwerecreated said:


> God created all if there are any natural processes it was put in motion by God. If God created all things that came in to existence these natural processes are working because of design.


You keep saying [this thing or that, and now "any natural processes"] was "created," which "proves" the existence of this "Creator" of yours, but *that's just asserting invalid logic.*

Why do you keep doing that? If asserting the existence of this "Creator" is valid in reality, why is it that you simply cannot put together verifiable evidence AND valid logic to validate your assertion?

What's up with that?



Youwerecreated said:


> There is so many evidences of design that goes ignored you and others because you have not laid eyes on the creator but i assure you all will see the creator in due time.


"There is so many evidences of design ...", yet you cannot bring as single one that does not require you to first assert the premise of a "designer" in order for such to be "... evidences of design."

What's up with that?



Youwerecreated said:


> That is correct intelligence is responsible for so much is it logical to believe that all of these things came about by chance or someone designed them ?


If the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made," why do you persist in introducing your imaginary "Creator" to the subject?

What's up with that?



Youwerecreated said:


> God has always existed ...


Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence says otherwise. Until you overcome that, repeating this assertion is just meaningless.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... the intelligence dealing with man was definitely created ...


Sure, by natural processes that are valid without having to assert the existence of this imaginary "Creator" of yours. 



Youwerecreated said:


> ... how ever God has always existed and he has always been God so his intelligence has always existed.


Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence says otherwise. Until you overcome that, repeating this assertion is just meaningless.



Youwerecreated said:


> You guys keep trying to put the same limitations on God that is upon man.


Example please.



Youwerecreated said:


> Man had a beginning where God has not.


What is this "God" thing you keep referencing? Until you provide a sensible, logically valid explanation of what this "God" thing you keep referencing is, your repeated referencing of "God" is just meaningless.



Youwerecreated said:


> Man believes time began with the universe who or what created the universe,well God did,that is why he is not bound by the time of man. God existed outside of time and our universe.


What is this "God" thing you keep referencing? Until you provide a sensible, logically valid explanation of what this "God" thing you keep referencing to is, your repeated referencing of "God" is just meaningless.

You keep saying [this thing or that, and now "any natural processes"] was "created," which "proves" the existence of this "Creator" of yours, but *that's just asserting invalid logic.*

Why do you keep doing that? If asserting the existence of this "Creator" is valid in reality, why is it that you simply cannot put together verifiable evidence AND valid logic to validate your assertion?

What's up with that?



Youwerecreated said:


> God didn't create himself he has always existed.


And I'll assert that the universe has always existed.

My assertion enjoys the benefits of the evident universe, and not having to assert a "God" in denial of the valid logic applied to verifiable evidence that says otherwise.



Youwerecreated said:


> The laws of man are not the laws for God other then the ones he gave to man to obey to the best of our ability.


What is this "God" thing you keep referencing? Until you provide a sensible, logically valid explanation of what this "God" thing you keep referencing is, your repeated referencing of "God" is just meaningless; and laws regarding this meaningless "God" of yours are entirely irrelevant.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... all of this just didn't happen by chance through natural processes.


If asserting the existence of this "Creator" is valid in reality, why is it that you simply cannot put together verifiable evidence AND valid logic to validate your assertion?

What's up with that?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is yes everything was created by God.
> 
> 
> 
> What is this "God" thing you keep referencing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A supernatural being that is all knowing and all powerful,the creator of everything we see,and don't see.
Click to expand...

Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence says there's no reason to assert the existence of such a thing. Until you overcome that, repeating this assertion is just meaningless.

So really, what is this "God" thing you keep referencing? Until you provide a sensible, logically valid explanation of what this "God" thing you keep referencing to is, your repeated referencing of "God" is just meaningless.

You have done LITERALLY NOTHING to demonstrate or explain the existence, let alone the "intelligence," of this "God" thing of yours. You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "God" thing of yours--and all of its attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as valid facts of reality.

If asserting the existence of this "God" of yours *is* valid in reality, why is it that you simply cannot put together verifiable evidence AND valid logic to validate your assertion?

What's up with that?


----------



## Youwerecreated

InDoctriNation said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but your God's mind was actually created by my God, and everything that your God perceives is the result of my God's mind. My God also has a bigger spaceless, timeless dick than your God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is your God naturalism ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. His name is Gob, and he creates sub-Gods and makes them think that they are the all powerful creators of everything, the alpha and the omega. But everything these sub-Gods create is actually created by Gob, for all intelligent creators and creations are made possible by the mind of Gob. At the end of time, all of the creations of the sub-Gods will be rectified by Gob, and the sub-Gods who acted immorally in their respective creations will be thrown into an everlasting pit of despair (a certain locale of Gob's anatomy). For instance, a sub-God who toys with his creation by sending himself as a blood sacrifice for the so-called sins of sentient creatures as a loophole for a stupid rule created by him..... well, things aren't looking too good for that sub-God.
> 
> Now where do I line up to get this taught in science class? It fits pretty well with the multiverse hypothesis...
Click to expand...


A science class.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ive seen you and your sources commit all three of those.
Click to expand...


Are you denying that all the components for life have to be formed precisely and come together for life to take place ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow he even makes the entropy argument.
> 
> You would think a Ph. D would know that the laws of entropy dont apply to open systems. Life is by definition an open system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would think an educated fool would notice the entropy all around him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "entropy" all around me?
> 
> As if "entropy" is an actual substance. Lol.
> 
> Life is an open system by necessity, therefore the argument of entropy does not even apply. End of story, finito.
Click to expand...


You like to put words in peoples mouths.

The components of most systems on earth remain on earth. In this sense, the earth is a closed system.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i said, i am _*thoroughly *_unimpressed by that webpage.
> 
> Most of it can be debunked by that simple explanation of statistical decay of atoms. Not all the atoms will decay. You can still find small amounts of C-14 in fossils of practically any age, but it is not enough to make an accurate prediction, which is why C-14 has limits on how old the samples can be.
> 
> Not to mention there are plenty of other radiometric dating methods that agree with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> From your own link, about speciation:
> 
> 
> In a word, *fuck you*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yeah but what he is speaking of are variations that happen from the genetic pool not mutations.
> 
> I never denied new breeds arise within the same family.
> 
> Punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol and then when you claim satan planted all the transitional fossils its a pretty good argument.
> 
> Where do you draw the line? Are all of the big-cats related?
Click to expand...


Your point ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but your God's mind was actually created by my God, and everything that your God perceives is the result of my God's mind. My God also has a bigger spaceless, timeless dick than your God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is your God naturalism ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why would I need a god when none exists, except in the minds of those who invented it.
Click to expand...


You mean the same way they invented the idea that all living organisms are related


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look wiki is at least sourced at the bottom, and from my experience happens to match up fairly well with other outside sources.
> 
> But yet, i have yet to see one creationist website that impresses me. Rather, they usually make very simple logical mistakes that a simple understanding of general education (math, history, chemistry, biology), would indicate is wrong.
> 
> Browsing around websites like answersingenesis.org, its pretty obviously full of blatant fallacies and total non-understandings. When _any_ _major_ part of your website can be thrown out and disproved by a layman, you should just discredit the entire website. And your websites just dont hold up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's only perceived as fallalcies because you have never truly looked at it with an open mind.
> 
> Well i also use Professor Browns site let's see what your problems with him are.
> 
> Michael E. Brown PhD: Molecular History Research Center
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong again. they are not "perceived as fallacies" they in fact are, you have no credible evidence to prove otherwise.
> open mind!!! to an educated person that means giving both sides of an issue equal weight.
> to you, It means buy my bullshit whole sale.
Click to expand...


I presented plenty you just don't want to believe it.just admit you have a dog in the hunt.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On a rare concilliatory note: _this is a genuinely valid and intelligent statement._
> 
> I dont know why you cant apply this same logic to biology, life, an evolution. If you would, we would be on the same page, possibly.
> 
> God can still be the creator without physically sculpting cells and animals. How cells and chemicals function is well understood. The real mysteries are things like, why are all electric charges multiples of the elementary charge? Why is plancks constant 6.62606957(29)×10&#8722;34? Why is the speed of light slightly less than 3,000,000 m/s?
> 
> This is how god really works, if he/she exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> How do you explain speaking and writing? Did we always have them? What was the first spoken or written language?
> 
> How about tools? Could we always use all the tools we have today? What were the first tools?
> 
> Could we always do math? Who invented math?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you like mathematics.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YinrToIKJtg]Mathematics Disprove Evolution? The probability of spontaneous generation (creation vs. evolution) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fine example of a false premise!
Click to expand...


Explain the false false premise ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This genuinely is what creationist think the theory of abiogensis says.
> 
> And a video like that really does pass for evidence among creationists.
> 
> Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just pointing out what an educated fool believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so ignorance is bliss then?
Click to expand...


Apparently so if you believe life was not directed by someone and believe in chance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is this "God" thing you keep referencing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A supernatural being that is all knowing and all powerful,the creator of everything we see,and don't see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence says there's no reason to assert the existence of such a thing. Until you overcome that, repeating this assertion is just meaningless.
> 
> So really, what is this "God" thing you keep referencing? Until you provide a sensible, logically valid explanation of what this "God" thing you keep referencing to is, your repeated referencing of "God" is just meaningless.
> 
> You have done LITERALLY NOTHING to demonstrate or explain the existence, let alone the "intelligence," of this "God" thing of yours. You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "God" thing of yours--and all of its attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as valid facts of reality.
> 
> If asserting the existence of this "God" of yours *is* valid in reality, why is it that you simply cannot put together verifiable evidence AND valid logic to validate your assertion?
> 
> What's up with that?
Click to expand...


Hey you don't have to believe in the creator many won't and that is precisely why the world is in the condition it is in.

Just trying to help you out but some people can't be helped.

Many will taste humility.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow he even makes the entropy argument.
> 
> You would think a Ph. D would know that the laws of entropy dont apply to open systems. Life is by definition an open system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would think an educated fool would notice the entropy all around him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "entropy" all around me?
> 
> As if "entropy" is an actual substance. Lol.
> 
> Life is an open system by necessity, therefore the argument of entropy does not even apply. End of story, finito.
Click to expand...


What is the purpose of the atmosphere ? Another piece of evidence of design as well as gravity.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think an educated fool would notice the entropy all around him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "entropy" all around me?
> 
> As if "entropy" is an actual substance. Lol.
> 
> Life is an open system by necessity, therefore the argument of entropy does not even apply. End of story, finito.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like to put words in peoples mouths.
> 
> The components of most systems on earth remain on earth. In this sense, the earth is a closed system.
Click to expand...


lol life isnt


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ive seen you and your sources commit all three of those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you denying that all the components for life have to be formed precisely and come together for life to take place ?
Click to expand...


Im saying it not as if a group of molecules are thrown together like bowling balls and must come together just right. 

Its all basically 4 types of organic molecules. See any similarities?

Nucleic acids:




Amino acid:





fatty acid:




Glucose:





OK ill teach you organic chemistry. 

Theyre all just rings or chains of carbon with functional groups of N, H, or O attatched somewhere. Considering these are just a handful molecules that are electromagnetically attracted to each other in specific ways, they can form pretty readily. 

From here you just have to go from these single monomers, to polymers (sugars, lipids, proteins, and DNA/RNA).

And then you have to wonder what happens when you have the oceans of the earth filled with these things. We already know that lipids like to form small spherical membranes in aqueous solutions. You would think that random concoctions of amino acids and nucleic acids would dissolve into the lipid membranes that we talked about above, and this would happen pretty much everywhere. And from there theres a lot of reactions that can take place.

Your picture of chemistry is just all wrong. Its like you think its analogous to throwing boards together and building a house. It's not.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yeah but what he is speaking of are variations that happen from the genetic pool not mutations.
> 
> I never denied new breeds arise within the same family.
> 
> Punk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol and then when you claim satan planted all the transitional fossils its a pretty good argument.
> 
> Where do you draw the line? Are all of the big-cats related?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point ?
Click to expand...


My point is that your argument has a cop out. 

My argument is that all of these big cats are related. The tiger, the lion, the leopard, and the jaguar are all examples of evolution. Not only that, but if you would trace their lineage back far enough, you would see theyre related to dogs as well, and by the same process!






But you can claim something like: sure all big cats are related, thats just variation within a family. But obviously dogs and cats are not related, thats just ridiculous. There anatomy is totally different. 

_Cop out
_
The only reason you can claim that is because any common ancestor is long dead. And when we point to fossils your general response is to just act like they dont exist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "entropy" all around me?
> 
> As if "entropy" is an actual substance. Lol.
> 
> Life is an open system by necessity, therefore the argument of entropy does not even apply. End of story, finito.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You like to put words in peoples mouths.
> 
> The components of most systems on earth remain on earth. In this sense, the earth is a closed system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol life isnt
Click to expand...


Does Entropy Contradict Evolution? 

by Henry Morris, Ph.D. * 

The popular syndicated columnist, Sydney Harris, recently commented on the evolution/entropy conflict as follows:


There is a factor called "entropy" in physics, indicating that the whole universe of matter is running down, and ultimately will reduce itself to uniform chaos. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems about as basic and unquestionable to modern scientific minds as any truth can be. At the same time that this is happening on the physical level of existence, something quite different seems to be happening on the biological level: structure and species are becoming more complex, more sophisticated, more organized, with higher degrees of performance and consciousness.1

As Harris points out, the law of increasing entropy is a universal law of decreasing complexity, whereas evolution is supposed to be a universal law of increasing complexity. Creationists have been pointing out this serious contradiction for years, and it is encouraging that at least some evolutionists (such as Harris) are beginning to be aware of it.

How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question - because it seems to me the question most worth asking and working upon with all our intellectual and scientific resources.2


 Rest of article here you need to see this contradiction.

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You like to put words in peoples mouths.
> 
> The components of most systems on earth remain on earth. In this sense, the earth is a closed system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol life isnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
> 
> by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *
> 
> The popular syndicated columnist, Sydney Harris, recently commented on the evolution/entropy conflict as follows:
> 
> 
> There is a factor called "entropy" in physics, indicating that the whole universe of matter is running down, and ultimately will reduce itself to uniform chaos. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems about as basic and unquestionable to modern scientific minds as any truth can be. At the same time that this is happening on the physical level of existence, something quite different seems to be happening on the biological level: structure and species are becoming more complex, more sophisticated, more organized, with higher degrees of performance and consciousness.1
> 
> As Harris points out, the law of increasing entropy is a universal law of decreasing complexity, whereas evolution is supposed to be a universal law of increasing complexity. Creationists have been pointing out this serious contradiction for years, and it is encouraging that at least some evolutionists (such as Harris) are beginning to be aware of it.
> 
> How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question - because it seems to me the question most worth asking and working upon with all our intellectual and scientific resources.2
> 
> 
> Rest of article here you need to see this contradiction.
> 
> Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
Click to expand...


Yea again i will tell that the law of entropy does not apply to an open system.

Does the law of entropy apply to DNA polymerase and the replication of genes??? Nooooo. Open system.....

Thats all i have to say about your dumb little creationist link. Will you stop using those?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
> 
> Ive seen you and your sources commit all three of those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you denying that all the components for life have to be formed precisely and come together for life to take place ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im saying it not as if a group of molecules are thrown together like bowling balls and must come together just right.
> 
> Its all basically 4 types of organic molecules. See any similarities?
> 
> Nucleic acids:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amino acid:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fatty acid:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glucose:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK ill teach you organic chemistry.
> 
> Theyre all just rings or chains of carbon with functional groups of N, H, or O attatched somewhere. Considering these are just a handful molecules that are electromagnetically attracted to each other in specific ways, they can form pretty readily.
> 
> From here you just have to go from these single monomers, to polymers (sugars, lipids, proteins, and DNA/RNA).
> 
> And then you have to wonder what happens when you have the oceans of the earth filled with these things. We already know that lipids like to form small spherical membranes in aqueous solutions. You would think that random concoctions of amino acids and nucleic acids would dissolve into the lipid membranes that we talked about above, and this would happen pretty much everywhere. And from there theres a lot of reactions that can take place.
> 
> Your picture of chemistry is just all wrong. Its like you think its analogous to throwing boards together and building a house. It's not.
Click to expand...


So where do you get the amino acids we know what oxygen does to amino acid binding blocks ? Oxygen is poisonous to organic and inorganic material.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol and then when you claim satan planted all the transitional fossils its a pretty good argument.
> 
> Where do you draw the line? Are all of the big-cats related?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that your argument has a cop out.
> 
> My argument is that all of these big cats are related. The tiger, the lion, the leopard, and the jaguar are all examples of evolution. Not only that, but if you would trace their lineage back far enough, you would see theyre related to dogs as well, and by the same process!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you can claim something like: sure all big cats are related, thats just variation within a family. But obviously dogs and cats are not related, thats just ridiculous. There anatomy is totally different.
> 
> _Cop out
> _
> The only reason you can claim that is because any common ancestor is long dead. And when we point to fossils your general response is to just act like they dont exist.
Click to expand...


Have you not read where i believe variations happened within each family.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol life isnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
> 
> by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *
> 
> The popular syndicated columnist, Sydney Harris, recently commented on the evolution/entropy conflict as follows:
> 
> 
> There is a factor called "entropy" in physics, indicating that the whole universe of matter is running down, and ultimately will reduce itself to uniform chaos. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems about as basic and unquestionable to modern scientific minds as any truth can be. At the same time that this is happening on the physical level of existence, something quite different seems to be happening on the biological level: structure and species are becoming more complex, more sophisticated, more organized, with higher degrees of performance and consciousness.1
> 
> As Harris points out, the law of increasing entropy is a universal law of decreasing complexity, whereas evolution is supposed to be a universal law of increasing complexity. Creationists have been pointing out this serious contradiction for years, and it is encouraging that at least some evolutionists (such as Harris) are beginning to be aware of it.
> 
> How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question - because it seems to me the question most worth asking and working upon with all our intellectual and scientific resources.2
> 
> 
> Rest of article here you need to see this contradiction.
> 
> Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea again i will tell that the law of entropy does not apply to an open system.
> 
> Does the law of entropy apply to DNA polymerase and the replication of genes??? Nooooo. Open system.....
> 
> Thats all i have to say about your dumb little creationist link. Will you stop using those?
Click to expand...


Why because men of science contradict your points ?

I have asked you the purpose of gravity and our atmosphere ? why won't you answer the questions ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Fossils can only be preserved by rapid burial because oxygen leads to rapid decay. Where were you educated ?

So how do we have so many nicely preserved fossils ? This evidence is consistent with the flood causing a lot of mud. What can bury a big dinosaur so fast ?
 Have you ever seen a fish decay and how fast it takes place ?

But yet we find fish preserved in rock imagine that.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you denying that all the components for life have to be formed precisely and come together for life to take place ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im saying it not as if a group of molecules are thrown together like bowling balls and must come together just right.
> 
> Its all basically 4 types of organic molecules. See any similarities?
> 
> Nucleic acids:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amino acid:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fatty acid:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glucose:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK ill teach you organic chemistry.
> 
> Theyre all just rings or chains of carbon with functional groups of N, H, or O attatched somewhere. Considering these are just a handful molecules that are electromagnetically attracted to each other in specific ways, they can form pretty readily.
> 
> From here you just have to go from these single monomers, to polymers (sugars, lipids, proteins, and DNA/RNA).
> 
> And then you have to wonder what happens when you have the oceans of the earth filled with these things. We already know that lipids like to form small spherical membranes in aqueous solutions. You would think that random concoctions of amino acids and nucleic acids would dissolve into the lipid membranes that we talked about above, and this would happen pretty much everywhere. And from there theres a lot of reactions that can take place.
> 
> Your picture of chemistry is just all wrong. Its like you think its analogous to throwing boards together and building a house. It's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where do you get the amino acids we know what oxygen does to amino acid binding blocks ? Oxygen is poisonous to organic and inorganic material.
Click to expand...


Free oxygen would not have existed in early earth for precisely this reason. All of it is already readily bound to other molecules, mostly carbon, to form CO2. You cant have oxidation without free oxygen.

There had to have been a mechanism to break molecular bonds and form free oxygen. That didnt happen until plants slowly began to oxygenate the atmosphere. For earths early history our atmosphere was very different.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that your argument has a cop out.
> 
> My argument is that all of these big cats are related. The tiger, the lion, the leopard, and the jaguar are all examples of evolution. Not only that, but if you would trace their lineage back far enough, you would see theyre related to dogs as well, and by the same process!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you can claim something like: sure all big cats are related, thats just variation within a family. But obviously dogs and cats are not related, thats just ridiculous. There anatomy is totally different.
> 
> _Cop out
> _
> The only reason you can claim that is because any common ancestor is long dead. And when we point to fossils your general response is to just act like they dont exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you not read where i believe variations happened within each family.
Click to expand...


Yup and im telling you that this is a total cop out, because you can blur the line as much as you want. 

Which animals are within the same family? Are a dog and a cat within the same family? 

Do you mean literal Family, like in a taxonomy sense?

So an animal of the family Mephitidae, like a skunk, was created separate from an animal of the family Mustelidae, like a weasel? Or can those two be variations within what you call a "family"

Could the entire Order of carnivora, composed of many Families, be a a related group of animals?

I just dont know what your definition of "Family" is. Are you using the biological, taxonomic definition? Or some other amorphous definition that you have.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
> 
> by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *
> 
> The popular syndicated columnist, Sydney Harris, recently commented on the evolution/entropy conflict as follows:
> 
> 
> There is a factor called "entropy" in physics, indicating that the whole universe of matter is running down, and ultimately will reduce itself to uniform chaos. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems about as basic and unquestionable to modern scientific minds as any truth can be. At the same time that this is happening on the physical level of existence, something quite different seems to be happening on the biological level: structure and species are becoming more complex, more sophisticated, more organized, with higher degrees of performance and consciousness.1
> 
> As Harris points out, the law of increasing entropy is a universal law of decreasing complexity, whereas evolution is supposed to be a universal law of increasing complexity. Creationists have been pointing out this serious contradiction for years, and it is encouraging that at least some evolutionists (such as Harris) are beginning to be aware of it.
> 
> How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question - because it seems to me the question most worth asking and working upon with all our intellectual and scientific resources.2
> 
> 
> Rest of article here you need to see this contradiction.
> 
> Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea again i will tell that the law of entropy does not apply to an open system.
> 
> Does the law of entropy apply to DNA polymerase and the replication of genes??? Nooooo. Open system.....
> 
> Thats all i have to say about your dumb little creationist link. Will you stop using those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why because men of science contradict your points ?
Click to expand...


No because the laws of entropy dont apply to open systems moron how many times do i have to say that?



Youwerecreated said:


> I have asked you the purpose of gravity and our atmosphere ? why won't you answer the questions ?



Um what?

What do you mean purpose?

There is no purpose for either of these things. Gravity just is, everything with mass attracts everything else. Its not specific to earth, you didnt think it was did you? lol Like ive said, if there is a god this maybe be an avenue through which he works. But god isnt physically holding you down to earth with his hands, or sculpting cells like an artisan.

Whats the purpose of our atmosphere? Again, wtf?? There is no purpose, thats just how a ball of matter would coalesce. The dense rock is pulled to the middle more than gasses, and so the gas surrounds the rock.

I might counter by asking what the purpose of venus's atmosphere is? Or why galaxies light years away are still bound together by gravity, if gravity has a human-centric "purpose"?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> Fossils can only be preserved by rapid burial because oxygen leads to rapid decay. Where were you educated ?
> 
> So how do we have so many nicely preserved fossils ? This evidence is consistent with the flood causing a lot of mud. What can bury a big dinosaur so fast ?
> Have you ever seen a fish decay and how fast it takes place ?



You realize that "rapid" in this case is many years, right? 

Theres a lot of ways bones can be covered by earth over a span of a few years....We find human bones as skeletons in ancient civilizations, how do you explain that. 

Even skeleton of people in places that have existed for the last 2000 years. Hows does that match up with your idea that a massive flood is the only way to achieve fossilization?

Woefully ignorant.



Youwerecreated said:


> But yet we find fish preserved in rock imagine that.



Yea im sure the fish bones were at a real danger of being oxidized by all that oxygen deep in the ocean....


----------



## InDoctriNation

I remember when I was young building a miniature house out of popsicle sticks. I started with a disorganized pile of popsicle sticks, and the finished product was a bundle of popsicle sticks organized in the shape of a house. According to YWC, I defied the law of entropy simply by gluing some popsicle sticks together in an organized fashion. How was I able to do this, YWC, since order always proceeds towards disorder? If you are able to answer that question, you will have answered why evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


----------



## cbirch2

InDoctriNation said:


> I remember when I was young building a miniature house out of popsicle sticks. I started with a disorganized pile of popsicle sticks, and the finished product was a bundle of popsicle sticks organized in the shape of a house. According to YWC, I defied the law of entropy simply by gluing some popsicle sticks together in an organized fashion. How was I able to do this, YWC, since order always proceeds towards disorder? If you are able to answer that question, you will have answered why evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics.



I know right?

I dont think he gets the concept of open system. 

By his definition the formation of an H2O molecule defies the laws of entropy.


----------



## cbirch2

^^Variation within a "family"^^






^^Variation within the mammalian "family"^^


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im saying it not as if a group of molecules are thrown together like bowling balls and must come together just right.
> 
> Its all basically 4 types of organic molecules. See any similarities?
> 
> Nucleic acids:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amino acid:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fatty acid:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glucose:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK ill teach you organic chemistry.
> 
> Theyre all just rings or chains of carbon with functional groups of N, H, or O attatched somewhere. Considering these are just a handful molecules that are electromagnetically attracted to each other in specific ways, they can form pretty readily.
> 
> From here you just have to go from these single monomers, to polymers (sugars, lipids, proteins, and DNA/RNA).
> 
> And then you have to wonder what happens when you have the oceans of the earth filled with these things. We already know that lipids like to form small spherical membranes in aqueous solutions. You would think that random concoctions of amino acids and nucleic acids would dissolve into the lipid membranes that we talked about above, and this would happen pretty much everywhere. And from there theres a lot of reactions that can take place.
> 
> Your picture of chemistry is just all wrong. Its like you think its analogous to throwing boards together and building a house. It's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where do you get the amino acids we know what oxygen does to amino acid binding blocks ? Oxygen is poisonous to organic and inorganic material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free oxygen would not have existed in early earth for precisely this reason. All of it is already readily bound to other molecules, mostly carbon, to form CO2. You cant have oxidation without free oxygen.
> 
> There had to have been a mechanism to break molecular bonds and form free oxygen. That didnt happen until plants slowly began to oxygenate the atmosphere. For earths early history our atmosphere was very different.
Click to expand...


That was the assumptions that miller urey assumed because they knew it could not happen with oxygen present.

What evidence do they have to reach this conclusion ? How does man know the conditions of the enviornment that many years ago ? This test was done through years of training in the field,but it was accomplished through intelligence.

But i would love to know how scientist knew what the enviornment was like some 4 or 5 billion years ago. Interesting they new it could not happen with oxygen present.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that your argument has a cop out.
> 
> My argument is that all of these big cats are related. The tiger, the lion, the leopard, and the jaguar are all examples of evolution. Not only that, but if you would trace their lineage back far enough, you would see theyre related to dogs as well, and by the same process!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you can claim something like: sure all big cats are related, thats just variation within a family. But obviously dogs and cats are not related, thats just ridiculous. There anatomy is totally different.
> 
> _Cop out
> _
> The only reason you can claim that is because any common ancestor is long dead. And when we point to fossils your general response is to just act like they dont exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you not read where i believe variations happened within each family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup and im telling you that this is a total cop out, because you can blur the line as much as you want.
> 
> Which animals are within the same family? Are a dog and a cat within the same family?
> 
> Do you mean literal Family, like in a taxonomy sense?
> 
> So an animal of the family Mephitidae, like a skunk, was created separate from an animal of the family Mustelidae, like a weasel? Or can those two be variations within what you call a "family"
> 
> Could the entire Order of carnivora, composed of many Families, be a a related group of animals?
> 
> I just dont know what your definition of "Family" is. Are you using the biological, taxonomic definition? Or some other amorphous definition that you have.
Click to expand...


I am saying a family= dogs. I am saying a family= cats. They are not from the same family.

They only have the genetic data to produce what they are.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where do you get the amino acids we know what oxygen does to amino acid binding blocks ? Oxygen is poisonous to organic and inorganic material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free oxygen would not have existed in early earth for precisely this reason. All of it is already readily bound to other molecules, mostly carbon, to form CO2. You cant have oxidation without free oxygen.
> 
> There had to have been a mechanism to break molecular bonds and form free oxygen. That didnt happen until plants slowly began to oxygenate the atmosphere. For earths early history our atmosphere was very different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the assumptions that miller urey assumed because they knew it could not happen with oxygen present.
> 
> What evidence do they have to reach this conclusion ? How does man know the conditions of the enviornment that many years ago ? This test was done through years of training in the field,but it was accomplished through intelligence.
> 
> But i would love to know how scientist knew what the enviornment was like some 4 or 5 billion years ago. Interesting they new it could not happen with oxygen present.
Click to expand...


Early Earth and the Evolution of the Atmosphere
"


*Hypothesis:* Oxygen was                 nearly absent in the atmosphere of early Earth so photosynthesis                 would have created a net gain of oxygen first in the ocean and                 later in the atmosphere. Eventually with sufficient oxygen in                 the atmosphere respiration would have balanced photosynthesis                 except when burial removed the organic material from the oxygenated                 water or air. Before oxygen could build up in the atmosphere                 it must have oxidized reduced ions in seawater.
*Evidence to support the above                       hypothesis:*                 Iron (Fe) is a very abundant element in the earth's crust so                 much is released by the chemical disintegration of minerals contained                 in rocks. Fe++ is slightly soluble in seawater while                 Fe+++ is insoluble (Figure                 6). During the time when the earth had a reducing atmosphere                 Fe++ should have accumulated as dissolved ions in                 seawater. However at some point the oxygen build-up in the ocean                 from prokaryote photosynthesis should have oxidized the Fe++ to                 Fe+++ resulting in the precipitation of insoluble                 iron compounds. Are such ancient iron rich compounds preserved?                 Yes there are, in fact the bulk of the iron ore mined to produce                 steel comes from iron deposits that are about two billion years                 old (Figure                 7). Such deposits are found on all continents and all look                 much the same (Figure                 8). They are reddish and have clearly visible bands hence                 they are called Banded Iron Formations. The Messabi range of                 Minnesota is an example of such a deposit. It was for much of                 US history the primary source of iron ore for the steel mills                 of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and Gary, Indiana. If we know the                 mass of these banded iron formations and the rate at which we                 mine them we can calculate their residence time and determine                 how long they will last, or when we will run out of this kind                 of iron ore (Figure                 9).
               A second line of evidence, to suggest that the                   early earth had a reducing atmosphere like Venus and Mars,                   is the presence of detrital (formed from the products of erosion                   of pre-existing rocks) pyrite in sedimentary deposits older                   than two billion years old. Iron pyrite forms in reducing environment                   and is quickly chemically decomposed in the presence of oxygen.                   Today such minerals are only preserved in rocks that formed                   in reducing environments such as swamps etc. However, in rocks                   older than two billion years old this mineral (iron pyrite)                   is found in rocks that were probably formed in streambeds."


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you not read where i believe variations happened within each family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup and im telling you that this is a total cop out, because you can blur the line as much as you want.
> 
> Which animals are within the same family? Are a dog and a cat within the same family?
> 
> Do you mean literal Family, like in a taxonomy sense?
> 
> So an animal of the family Mephitidae, like a skunk, was created separate from an animal of the family Mustelidae, like a weasel? Or can those two be variations within what you call a "family"
> 
> Could the entire Order of carnivora, composed of many Families, be a a related group of animals?
> 
> I just dont know what your definition of "Family" is. Are you using the biological, taxonomic definition? Or some other amorphous definition that you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying a family= dogs. I am saying a family= cats. They are not from the same family.
> 
> They only have the genetic data to produce what they are.
Click to expand...


If you say "they only have the genetic data to produce what they are" one more time im going to rip my hair out. 

Miacids only had the information to make other miacids. yet small variations in that template produced the entire order of carnivora. Of course, the miacids may not be the exact LCA of carnivora, but its close.

And now were back to you not answering the question. What constitutes a family? All of Felidae is related, then? And any two Families within the same order are just similar animals created by god?

Or are you using some totally differnt classification system that doesnt go  Domain > Kingdom > Phylum > Class > Order > Family > Genus > Specie


----------



## cbirch2

Your still stuck on this notion of similarity and information. 

You admit that all big-cats may be related, but then you deny that there can be any deeper relation between other members of carnivora. 

Why can this tiger




not be related to this miacid?






Variation within a family cant go that far?

I bet if i said the miacid skeleton was a tiger and the tiger was a miacid, you wouldnt have even realized.


----------



## cbirch2

You cant just say family = dogs, family = cats. 

Again, thats just avoiding the entire topic im trying to get at and you know it. All domestic cats are of the same species, the same with dogs. But i thought we established prior that not all animals that we consider separate species are unrelated in your eyes, because you classify according to some "family" term. So some animals that we consider to be separate species, may in fact just be "variation within a family". So lets talk about that

Im talking about big cats, when im talking about cats. Unless i specifically say domestic cats.

Are leopards (_Panthera Pardus_):





related to cheetahs (_Acinonyx jubatus)_?





Variation within a family? Or no?

Perhaps they descended from the Proailurus? 









And maybe that Proailurus is related to the miacis, which is a type of miacid?





It kind of looks like an amorphous, generic cat doesnt it? You might think its just an artists rendition, but there are actually animals alive today that are pretty similar. Meet the fossa:
Madagascar's Strange Predator -- the Fossa - YouTube

The point is that the animals of Order Carnivora are most certainly related, and split into Ferliformia (cat-like) suborder and caniformia (dog-like) suborder.


----------



## amrchaos

geauxtohell said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is John Morris Pendleton?
> 
> This is quite the CV, let me tell you........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - In the year 2000, he has answered and mailed free creationist materials in Spanish to almost 120 individuals from 13 countries. These were letters and emails in response to the Spanish radio broadcasts of Back to Genesis of the Institute for Creation Research.
> - At present, he is dedicating his efforts to Zacatecas, Mexico to bring the message of creation into the public schools and the community, and to equip the local churches with teachings and materials to do the same.
> - Founder and director of the Grupo Internacional de Científicos Creacionistas -- G.I.C.C. -- The International Group of Creation Scientists and their group of associate members.
> - Presented the creationist conferences in Cuba in March and December of 1999, with plans to tour all of Cuba in 15 days in July or August of 2001.
> - Was one of the main speakers in the First and Second National Creationist Congress in Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico in May, 1998 and August, 2000.
> - His creationists conferences in video (Spanish and English) are now in the U.S.A., 15 Latin American countries, Spain, Zimbabwe, Africa and India.
> *- Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from the University of Wisconin in Madison, U.S.A.
> - Automotive technician for 10 years. *
> - Worked in cancer research for 1 1/2 years.
> - Made creationist conferences for Christian television in El Paso, Midland-Odessa and San Antonio, Texas.
> - Part of the team that won the debate on CREATION AND EVOLUTION at the University of Morelos in Cuernavaca, Mexico in 1994.
> - Translated and published in Spanish 15,000 copies of the powerful booklet by Ken Ham -- DINOSAURS AND THE BIBLE.
> - Interviewed on various radio and t-v stations in the U.S.A., Mexico, Venezuela and Paraguay.
> - For television, made 40 half-hour programs about science, the Bible, the creation, evolution, dinosaurs and the flood.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy's got a bachelor's degree and worked as a mechanic and thinks he can slap a labcoat on and have instant credibility.
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> At least, unlike Kent Hovind, he didn't buy a Ph.D. at a Diploma Mill.
Click to expand...




He is a chemist, so yes he can slap on a labcoat.  Although what he is saying seems more fit for a straitjacket.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> You cant just say family = dogs, family = cats.
> 
> Again, thats just avoiding the entire topic im trying to get at and you know it. All domestic cats are of the same species, the same with dogs. But i thought we established prior that not all animals that we consider separate species are unrelated in your eyes, because you classify according to some "family" term. So some animals that we consider to be separate species, may in fact just be "variation within a family". So lets talk about that
> 
> Im talking about big cats, when im talking about cats. Unless i specifically say domestic cats.
> 
> Are leopards (_Panthera Pardus_):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> related to cheetahs (_Acinonyx jubatus)_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Variation within a family? Or no?
> 
> Perhaps they descended from the Proailurus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And maybe that Proailurus is related to the miacis, which is a type of miacid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It kind of looks like an amorphous, generic cat doesnt it? You might think its just an artists rendition, but there are actually animals alive today that are pretty similar. Meet the fossa:
> Madagascar's Strange Predator -- the Fossa - YouTube
> 
> The point is that the animals of Order Carnivora are most certainly related, and split into Ferliformia (cat-like) suborder and caniformia (dog-like) suborder.



They have no evidence just speculation about the enviornment 4.or 5 billion years ago.

I don't know the exact breeds God created in each family and i don't know which ones were a product of variation. Don't know i was not there.

Reckless speculation is not science ok. It proves nothing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

amrchaos said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is John Morris Pendleton?
> 
> This is quite the CV, let me tell you........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - In the year 2000, he has answered and mailed free creationist materials in Spanish to almost 120 individuals from 13 countries. These were letters and emails in response to the Spanish radio broadcasts of Back to Genesis of the Institute for Creation Research.
> - At present, he is dedicating his efforts to Zacatecas, Mexico to bring the message of creation into the public schools and the community, and to equip the local churches with teachings and materials to do the same.
> - Founder and director of the Grupo Internacional de Científicos Creacionistas -- G.I.C.C. -- The International Group of Creation Scientists and their group of associate members.
> - Presented the creationist conferences in Cuba in March and December of 1999, with plans to tour all of Cuba in 15 days in July or August of 2001.
> - Was one of the main speakers in the First and Second National Creationist Congress in Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico in May, 1998 and August, 2000.
> - His creationists conferences in video (Spanish and English) are now in the U.S.A., 15 Latin American countries, Spain, Zimbabwe, Africa and India.
> *- Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from the University of Wisconin in Madison, U.S.A.
> - Automotive technician for 10 years. *
> - Worked in cancer research for 1 1/2 years.
> - Made creationist conferences for Christian television in El Paso, Midland-Odessa and San Antonio, Texas.
> - Part of the team that won the debate on CREATION AND EVOLUTION at the University of Morelos in Cuernavaca, Mexico in 1994.
> - Translated and published in Spanish 15,000 copies of the powerful booklet by Ken Ham -- DINOSAURS AND THE BIBLE.
> - Interviewed on various radio and t-v stations in the U.S.A., Mexico, Venezuela and Paraguay.
> - For television, made 40 half-hour programs about science, the Bible, the creation, evolution, dinosaurs and the flood.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy's got a bachelor's degree and worked as a mechanic and thinks he can slap a labcoat on and have instant credibility.
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> At least, unlike Kent Hovind, he didn't buy a Ph.D. at a Diploma Mill.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is a chemist, so yes he can slap on a labcoat.  Although what he is saying seems more fit for a straitjacket.
Click to expand...




Not all creationist are mechanics and they are in agreement on many things i present.

You were making fun of Dr. Spetner and claiming he was something he was not.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free oxygen would not have existed in early earth for precisely this reason. All of it is already readily bound to other molecules, mostly carbon, to form CO2. You cant have oxidation without free oxygen.
> 
> There had to have been a mechanism to break molecular bonds and form free oxygen. That didnt happen until plants slowly began to oxygenate the atmosphere. For earths early history our atmosphere was very different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the assumptions that miller urey assumed because they knew it could not happen with oxygen present.
> 
> What evidence do they have to reach this conclusion ? How does man know the conditions of the enviornment that many years ago ? This test was done through years of training in the field,but it was accomplished through intelligence.
> 
> But i would love to know how scientist knew what the enviornment was like some 4 or 5 billion years ago. Interesting they new it could not happen with oxygen present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Early Earth and the Evolution of the Atmosphere
> "
> 
> 
> *Hypothesis:* Oxygen was                 nearly absent in the atmosphere of early Earth so photosynthesis                 would have created a net gain of oxygen first in the ocean and                 later in the atmosphere. Eventually with sufficient oxygen in                 the atmosphere respiration would have balanced photosynthesis                 except when burial removed the organic material from the oxygenated                 water or air. Before oxygen could build up in the atmosphere                 it must have oxidized reduced ions in seawater.
> *Evidence to support the above                       hypothesis:*                 Iron (Fe) is a very abundant element in the earth's crust so                 much is released by the chemical disintegration of minerals contained                 in rocks. Fe++ is slightly soluble in seawater while                 Fe+++ is insoluble (Figure                 6). During the time when the earth had a reducing atmosphere                 Fe++ should have accumulated as dissolved ions in                 seawater. However at some point the oxygen build-up in the ocean                 from prokaryote photosynthesis should have oxidized the Fe++ to                 Fe+++ resulting in the precipitation of insoluble                 iron compounds. Are such ancient iron rich compounds preserved?                 Yes there are, in fact the bulk of the iron ore mined to produce                 steel comes from iron deposits that are about two billion years                 old (Figure                 7). Such deposits are found on all continents and all look                 much the same (Figure                 8). They are reddish and have clearly visible bands hence                 they are called Banded Iron Formations. The Messabi range of                 Minnesota is an example of such a deposit. It was for much of                 US history the primary source of iron ore for the steel mills                 of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and Gary, Indiana. If we know the                 mass of these banded iron formations and the rate at which we                 mine them we can calculate their residence time and determine                 how long they will last, or when we will run out of this kind                 of iron ore (Figure                 9).
> A second line of evidence, to suggest that the                   early earth had a reducing atmosphere like Venus and Mars,                   is the presence of detrital (formed from the products of erosion                   of pre-existing rocks) pyrite in sedimentary deposits older                   than two billion years old. Iron pyrite forms in reducing environment                   and is quickly chemically decomposed in the presence of oxygen.                   Today such minerals are only preserved in rocks that formed                   in reducing environments such as swamps etc. However, in rocks                   older than two billion years old this mineral (iron pyrite)                   is found in rocks that were probably formed in streambeds."
Click to expand...


What good is this post if you can't follow the scientific method ? Like test study or observe the enviornment 4 or 5 billion years ago ?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cant just say family = dogs, family = cats.
> 
> Again, thats just avoiding the entire topic im trying to get at and you know it. All domestic cats are of the same species, the same with dogs. But i thought we established prior that not all animals that we consider separate species are unrelated in your eyes, because you classify according to some "family" term. So some animals that we consider to be separate species, may in fact just be "variation within a family". So lets talk about that
> 
> Im talking about big cats, when im talking about cats. Unless i specifically say domestic cats.
> 
> Are leopards (_Panthera Pardus_):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> related to cheetahs (_Acinonyx jubatus)_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Variation within a family? Or no?
> 
> Perhaps they descended from the Proailurus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And maybe that Proailurus is related to the miacis, which is a type of miacid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It kind of looks like an amorphous, generic cat doesnt it? You might think its just an artists rendition, but there are actually animals alive today that are pretty similar. Meet the fossa:
> Madagascar's Strange Predator -- the Fossa - YouTube
> 
> The point is that the animals of Order Carnivora are most certainly related, and split into Ferliformia (cat-like) suborder and caniformia (dog-like) suborder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have no evidence just speculation about the enviornment 4.or 5 billion years ago.
> 
> I don't know the exact breeds God created in each family and i don't know which ones were a product of variation. Don't know i was not there.
> 
> Reckless speculation is not science ok. It proves nothing.
Click to expand...


Lol this is slightly more than speculation you idiot. Radiometric dating and rock strata both accurately date specimens. Those specimen fall into line with our anatomical understanding of how organisms are similar, and that understanding is exactly the same as our genetic tree of life. 

its a complete picture. If theyre just all unrelated you must explain why they form a coherent timeline.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was the assumptions that miller urey assumed because they knew it could not happen with oxygen present.
> 
> What evidence do they have to reach this conclusion ? How does man know the conditions of the enviornment that many years ago ? This test was done through years of training in the field,but it was accomplished through intelligence.
> 
> But i would love to know how scientist knew what the enviornment was like some 4 or 5 billion years ago. Interesting they new it could not happen with oxygen present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Early Earth and the Evolution of the Atmosphere
> "
> 
> 
> *Hypothesis:* Oxygen was                 nearly absent in the atmosphere of early Earth so photosynthesis                 would have created a net gain of oxygen first in the ocean and                 later in the atmosphere. Eventually with sufficient oxygen in                 the atmosphere respiration would have balanced photosynthesis                 except when burial removed the organic material from the oxygenated                 water or air. Before oxygen could build up in the atmosphere                 it must have oxidized reduced ions in seawater.
> *Evidence to support the above                       hypothesis:*                 Iron (Fe) is a very abundant element in the earth's crust so                 much is released by the chemical disintegration of minerals contained                 in rocks. Fe++ is slightly soluble in seawater while                 Fe+++ is insoluble (Figure                 6). During the time when the earth had a reducing atmosphere                 Fe++ should have accumulated as dissolved ions in                 seawater. However at some point the oxygen build-up in the ocean                 from prokaryote photosynthesis should have oxidized the Fe++ to                 Fe+++ resulting in the precipitation of insoluble                 iron compounds. Are such ancient iron rich compounds preserved?                 Yes there are, in fact the bulk of the iron ore mined to produce                 steel comes from iron deposits that are about two billion years                 old (Figure                 7). Such deposits are found on all continents and all look                 much the same (Figure                 8). They are reddish and have clearly visible bands hence                 they are called Banded Iron Formations. The Messabi range of                 Minnesota is an example of such a deposit. It was for much of                 US history the primary source of iron ore for the steel mills                 of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and Gary, Indiana. If we know the                 mass of these banded iron formations and the rate at which we                 mine them we can calculate their residence time and determine                 how long they will last, or when we will run out of this kind                 of iron ore (Figure                 9).
> A second line of evidence, to suggest that the                   early earth had a reducing atmosphere like Venus and Mars,                   is the presence of detrital (formed from the products of erosion                   of pre-existing rocks) pyrite in sedimentary deposits older                   than two billion years old. Iron pyrite forms in reducing environment                   and is quickly chemically decomposed in the presence of oxygen.                   Today such minerals are only preserved in rocks that formed                   in reducing environments such as swamps etc. However, in rocks                   older than two billion years old this mineral (iron pyrite)                   is found in rocks that were probably formed in streambeds."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What good is this post if you can't follow the scientific method ? Like test study or observe the enviornment 4 or 5 billion years ago ?
Click to expand...


Can you read? You dont have to be somewhere when something happened to know it did, the scientific method does not claim anything of the sort. Observation does not mean you actually have to see earths early atmosphere, you just have to _observe_ evidence that it was there. 

If i drive past the ruins of a burnt down house, how do i know it was destroyed by a fire. I didnt see the actual fire, but the charred remains are pretty good evidence that the house burnt down...


----------



## InDoctriNation

Nope, gotta see the house burn down in person, otherwise it's just speculation. Just as likely that a tsunami wiped it out!


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Early Earth and the Evolution of the Atmosphere
> "
> 
> 
> *Hypothesis:* Oxygen was                 nearly absent in the atmosphere of early Earth so photosynthesis                 would have created a net gain of oxygen first in the ocean and                 later in the atmosphere. Eventually with sufficient oxygen in                 the atmosphere respiration would have balanced photosynthesis                 except when burial removed the organic material from the oxygenated                 water or air. Before oxygen could build up in the atmosphere                 it must have oxidized reduced ions in seawater.
> *Evidence to support the above                       hypothesis:*                 Iron (Fe) is a very abundant element in the earth's crust so                 much is released by the chemical disintegration of minerals contained                 in rocks. Fe++ is slightly soluble in seawater while                 Fe+++ is insoluble (Figure                 6). During the time when the earth had a reducing atmosphere                 Fe++ should have accumulated as dissolved ions in                 seawater. However at some point the oxygen build-up in the ocean                 from prokaryote photosynthesis should have oxidized the Fe++ to                 Fe+++ resulting in the precipitation of insoluble                 iron compounds. Are such ancient iron rich compounds preserved?                 Yes there are, in fact the bulk of the iron ore mined to produce                 steel comes from iron deposits that are about two billion years                 old (Figure                 7). Such deposits are found on all continents and all look                 much the same (Figure                 8). They are reddish and have clearly visible bands hence                 they are called Banded Iron Formations. The Messabi range of                 Minnesota is an example of such a deposit. It was for much of                 US history the primary source of iron ore for the steel mills                 of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and Gary, Indiana. If we know the                 mass of these banded iron formations and the rate at which we                 mine them we can calculate their residence time and determine                 how long they will last, or when we will run out of this kind                 of iron ore (Figure                 9).
> A second line of evidence, to suggest that the                   early earth had a reducing atmosphere like Venus and Mars,                   is the presence of detrital (formed from the products of erosion                   of pre-existing rocks) pyrite in sedimentary deposits older                   than two billion years old. Iron pyrite forms in reducing environment                   and is quickly chemically decomposed in the presence of oxygen.                   Today such minerals are only preserved in rocks that formed                   in reducing environments such as swamps etc. However, in rocks                   older than two billion years old this mineral (iron pyrite)                   is found in rocks that were probably formed in streambeds."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What good is this post if you can't follow the scientific method ? Like test study or observe the enviornment 4 or 5 billion years ago ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you read? You dont have to be somewhere when something happened to know it did, the scientific method does not claim anything of the sort. Observation does not mean you actually have to see earths early atmosphere, you just have to _observe_ evidence that it was there.
> 
> If i drive past the ruins of a burnt down house, how do i know it was destroyed by a fire. I didnt see the actual fire, but the charred remains are pretty good evidence that the house burnt down...
Click to expand...


Imagination proves nothing got it ?

When are you gonna tell me the purpose of gravity and the atmosphere ? why are you avoiding these questions ?


----------



## InDoctriNation

Who said that gravity and the atmosphere have a purpose? Are you on acid?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A supernatural being that is all knowing and all powerful,the creator of everything we see,and don't see.
> 
> 
> 
> Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence says there's no reason to assert the existence of such a thing. Until you overcome that, repeating this assertion is just meaningless.
> 
> So really, what is this "God" thing you keep referencing? Until you provide a sensible, logically valid explanation of what this "God" thing you keep referencing to is, your repeated referencing of "God" is just meaningless.
> 
> You have done LITERALLY NOTHING to demonstrate or explain the existence, let alone the "intelligence," of this "God" thing of yours. You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "God" thing of yours--and all of its attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as valid facts of reality.
> 
> If asserting the existence of this "God" of yours *is* valid in reality, why is it that you simply cannot put together verifiable evidence AND valid logic to validate your assertion?
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you don't have to believe in the creator many won't and that is precisely why the world is in the condition it is in.
Click to expand...

And you refuse to do ANYTHING to remedy this "condition." You have done LITERALLY NOTHING to demonstrate or explain the existence, let alone the "intelligence," of this "God" thing of yours. You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "God" thing of yours--and all of its attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as valid facts of reality.

What's up with that?

It occurs to me that centuries of trying to appease the remorseless vanity and/or satisfy the bloodthirsty malevolence of imaginary "Designers", "Creators", "Gods", etc. ... , is the primary rationalization superstitious retards like you have and continue to use, to inflict widespread misery upon humanity.



Youwerecreated said:


> Just trying to help you out but some people can't be helped.


If this is true, and the existence of this "God" of yours *is* valid in reality, why is it that you simply refuse to put together verifiable evidence AND valid logic to validate the existence of this "God" of yours?

What's up with that, Mr. Helpful?



Youwerecreated said:


> Many will taste humility.


If there is in fact of reality an all-powerful "Creator" worthy of of the love and devotion of decent human beings, then those possessed of the sanctimonious hubris of faith will be obligated to far more than a "taste" of humility.


----------



## Youwerecreated

InDoctriNation said:


> Who said that gravity and the atmosphere have a purpose? Are you on acid?



Only someone that denies design can't see the truth they were intended. meaning they were designed let's see where we would be without them. This also shows Cbirch 's example earlier concerning what the earths enviornment was like 4 or 5 billion years ago as nonsense.

Atmosphere.

1. Breathing comes naturally but without the atmosphere we would all die because we couldn't breathe. It holds oxygen in.

2. It protects all living things on our planet from dangerous radiation from the sun.

3. It also keeps us from freezing to death.

4. It also gives us storms which is needed for survival.

5. It protects us from objects coming towards our planet from outer space.

6. It's needed for plant life.

7. It makes flight possible,an airplane could not get off the ground without it,neither could a bee or bird.

8. It also allows us to talk to one another. it controls sound waves.

Gravity holds us firmly to the ground and keeps our planet circling the sun. It keeps our planet in a spherical shape preventing our atmoshere from escaping into space.

So you think they didn't have a purpose ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Oh and don't forget nothing could survive on our planet without gravity we would all spin right off this planet without it. Take a piece of kite string and tie a washer on the the end of the string. Take the other end of the string and hold it on top of your head with your index finger and spin around in a circle as fast as you can and look at what the ring is doing. Well without gravity that is what would be happening to everything on this planet but we would not have a string to keep us from getting launched off this planet.


----------



## InDoctriNation

Life has evolved and adapted to the atmospheric and gravitational conditions on this planet, so obviously if those conditions were severely altered life would be in trouble because it is best adapted to the current conditions. As those conditions continue to change gradually, life on this planet will gradually adapt and evolve to those changing conditions. You seem to think that the conditions were adapted to fit life on this planet, when it's so obviously the other way around. Fish have gills and are really good at swimming because they adapted to aquatic conditions, the aquatic conditions did not adapt to suit the needs of the fish.


----------



## Youwerecreated

InDoctriNation said:


> Life has evolved and adapted to the atmospheric and gravitational conditions on this planet, so obviously if those conditions were severely altered life would be in trouble because it is best adapted to the current conditions. As those conditions continue to change gradually, life on this planet will gradually adapt and evolve to those changing conditions. You seem to think that the conditions were adapted to fit life on this planet, when it's so obviously the other way around. Fish have gills and are really good at swimming because they adapted to aquatic conditions, the aquatic conditions did not adapt to suit the needs of the fish.



No you are not getting it. If we did not have them there would be no life and life couldn't start without these conditions. There are no other planets we know of like this one and that is the reason we see no life out there. You can say there so many planets how do you know ? Well as we know for now there is no life out there . There won't be either without the conditions of this planet. This is obvious evidence of a creator. To believe as your aide does I would have to try and stop reasoning from the evidence. If you missed it earlier I was asking where would amino acids come from the building blocks of life come from when the environment woe destroy them before they could become life. You add this up with the probability video I posted yesterday,not a very good chance for life developing without a designer.


----------



## InDoctriNation

Youwerecreated said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life has evolved and adapted to the atmospheric and gravitational conditions on this planet, so obviously if those conditions were severely altered life would be in trouble because it is best adapted to the current conditions. As those conditions continue to change gradually, life on this planet will gradually adapt and evolve to those changing conditions. You seem to think that the conditions were adapted to fit life on this planet, when it's so obviously the other way around. Fish have gills and are really good at swimming because they adapted to aquatic conditions, the aquatic conditions did not adapt to suit the needs of the fish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you are not getting it. If we did not have them there would be no life and life couldn't start without these condirions. There are no other planets we know of like this and that is the reason we see no life out there. You can say there so many planets how do you know ? Well as we know for now there is no life out there . There won't be either without the conditions of this planet. This is obvious evidence of a creator. To believe as your aide does I would have to try and stop reasoning from the evidence. If you missed it earlier I was asking where would amino acids come from the building blocks of life come from when the environment woe destroy them before they could become life. You add this up with the probability video I posted yesterday,not a very good chance for life developing without a designer.
Click to expand...


So you're saying that the all powerful creator of the universe, when creating life, is bound by the current conditions on this planet. He's supposed to be omnipotent, so shouldn't he be able to create life under any atmospheric or gravitational circumstances? I think it would be far better evidence of a creator if we found ourselves and life in general thriving in conditions that were extremely hostile to life. The fact that life is found on a planet that has the required conditions for life is not much of a miracle, and certainly isn't evidence that this was all created for us. A puddle of water wouldn't exist if the contours of the terrain surrounding it were slightly altered. I wonder if that puddle could think, would it think it was the result of intelligent design as well?


----------



## Youwerecreated

InDoctriNation said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life has evolved and adapted to the atmospheric and gravitational conditions on this planet, so obviously if those conditions were severely altered life would be in trouble because it is best adapted to the current conditions. As those conditions continue to change gradually, life on this planet will gradually adapt and evolve to those changing conditions. You seem to think that the conditions were adapted to fit life on this planet, when it's so obviously the other way around. Fish have gills and are really good at swimming because they adapted to aquatic conditions, the aquatic conditions did not adapt to suit the needs of the fish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you are not getting it. If we did not have them there would be no life and life couldn't start without these condirions. There are no other planets we know of like this and that is the reason we see no life out there. You can say there so many planets how do you know ? Well as we know for now there is no life out there . There won't be either without the conditions of this planet. This is obvious evidence of a creator. To believe as your aide does I would have to try and stop reasoning from the evidence. If you missed it earlier I was asking where would amino acids come from the building blocks of life come from when the environment woe destroy them before they could become life. You add this up with the probability video I posted yesterday,not a very good chance for life developing without a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that the all powerful creator of the universe, when creating life, is bound by the current conditions on this planet. He's supposed to be omnipotent, so shouldn't he be able to create life under any atmospheric or gravitational circumstances? I think it would be far better evidence of a creator if we found ourselves and life in general thriving in conditions that were extremely hostile to life. The fact that life is found on a planet that has the required conditions for life is not much of a miracle, and certainly isn't evidence that this was all created for us. A puddle of water wouldn't exist if the contours of the terrain surrounding it were slightly altered. I wonder if that puddle could think, would it think it was the result of intelligent design as well?
Click to expand...


If you were the creator and was creating would you create so your creation could survive ,but not just survive but thrive ? He the creator said multiply and become many and that is what happened. Not only that ,God said he loves his creation and he loved us so much that he calls us his children. God gave us so many blessings but yet they escape the attention of many.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What good is this post if you can't follow the scientific method ? Like test study or observe the enviornment 4 or 5 billion years ago ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you read? You dont have to be somewhere when something happened to know it did, the scientific method does not claim anything of the sort. Observation does not mean you actually have to see earths early atmosphere, you just have to _observe_ evidence that it was there.
> 
> If i drive past the ruins of a burnt down house, how do i know it was destroyed by a fire. I didnt see the actual fire, but the charred remains are pretty good evidence that the house burnt down...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imagination proves nothing got it ?
> 
> When are you gonna tell me the purpose of gravity and the atmosphere ? why are you avoiding these questions ?
Click to expand...


Wow. 

You dont just get to dismiss evidence as imagination because you dont agree with it. 

Im saying "deposits of this type of iron molecule can only exist if the earth once had a reducing atmosphere, and you cant explain it any other way."

And your saying, essentially, "pics or it didnt happen"

Wow.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life has evolved and adapted to the atmospheric and gravitational conditions on this planet, so obviously if those conditions were severely altered life would be in trouble because it is best adapted to the current conditions. As those conditions continue to change gradually, life on this planet will gradually adapt and evolve to those changing conditions. You seem to think that the conditions were adapted to fit life on this planet, when it's so obviously the other way around. Fish have gills and are really good at swimming because they adapted to aquatic conditions, the aquatic conditions did not adapt to suit the needs of the fish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you are not getting it. If we did not have them there would be no life and life couldn't start without these condirions. *There are no other planets we know of like this* and that is the reason we see no life out there. You can say there so many planets how do you know ? Well as we know for now there is no life out there . There won't be either without the conditions of this planet. This is obvious evidence of a creator. To believe as your aide does I would have to try and stop reasoning from the evidence. If you missed it earlier I was asking where would amino acids come from the building blocks of life come from when the environment woe destroy them before they could become life. You add this up with the probability video I posted yesterday,not a very good chance for life developing without a designer.
Click to expand...


kepler 22b - Google Search

Thats just the most earth like found so far. There are 708 other known exosolar planets, planets that are orbiting other stars. 

But the idea needed to refute you is the anthropic principle. In short, your guilty of yet another logical fallacy. 

Its like asking "why didnt life form on mars?" Well because thats impossible, given its current conditions. 

Or "why did life form on earth and not another planet?" Thats like asking why your sitting in the room your in....because you are....If we had been born on, for example, kepler 22b, we would just call that our home planet, and have no knowledge of what we now call earth.


----------



## blu

creationists are a bad joke, will be gone in a couple more generatons


----------



## cbirch2

blu said:


> creationists are a bad joke, will be gone in a couple more generatons



Eh, theres still some young ones. 

But your about right. 

YWC, embrace your dying breed. 

Lol actually, to him this is a good sign. Its a signal that has actually right, because his kind is being persecuted. 

All religions have things like this built in, things that necessitate the survival of the religion. 

All religions have some form of persecution in their mythology, so that any challenge to the religious order is perceived as fulfillment of prophecy. 
And all religions tell their followers to continually reproduce, so as to boost their numbers. Its how the mormons, and before that the catholics, did it. 

Its all just bullshiite


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> creationists are a bad joke, will be gone in a couple more generatons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, theres still some young ones.
> 
> But your about right.
> 
> YWC, embrace your dying breed.
> 
> Lol actually, to him this is a good sign. Its a signal that has actually right, because his kind is being persecuted.
> 
> All religions have things like this built in, things that necessitate the survival of the religion.
> 
> All religions have some form of persecution in their mythology, so that any challenge to the religious order is perceived as fulfillment of prophecy.
> And all religions tell their followers to continually reproduce, so as to boost their numbers. Its how the mormons, and before that the catholics, did it.
> 
> Its all just bullshiite
Click to expand...


One side will be dying for sure and that's what bothers me. There is no life but earth and the conditions of the earth is the reason there is life here. And these conditions would not allow life to start here without a creator.. believe as you must but you are clearly wrong on this.


----------



## Youwerecreated

InDoctriNation said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life has evolved and adapted to the atmospheric and gravitational conditions on this planet, so obviously if those conditions were severely altered life would be in trouble because it is best adapted to the current conditions. As those conditions continue to change gradually, life on this planet will gradually adapt and evolve to those changing conditions. You seem to think that the conditions were adapted to fit life on this planet, when it's so obviously the other way around. Fish have gills and are really good at swimming because they adapted to aquatic conditions, the aquatic conditions did not adapt to suit the needs of the fish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you are not getting it. If we did not have them there would be no life and life couldn't start without these condirions. There are no other planets we know of like this and that is the reason we see no life out there. You can say there so many planets how do you know ? Well as we know for now there is no life out there . There won't be either without the conditions of this planet. This is obvious evidence of a creator. To believe as your aide does I would have to try and stop reasoning from the evidence. If you missed it earlier I was asking where would amino acids come from the building blocks of life come from when the environment woe destroy them before they could become life. You add this up with the probability video I posted yesterday,not a very good chance for life developing without a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that the all powerful creator of the universe, when creating life, is bound by the current conditions on this planet. He's supposed to be omnipotent, so shouldn't he be able to create life under any atmospheric or gravitational circumstances? I think it would be far better evidence of a creator if we found ourselves and life in general thriving in conditions that were extremely hostile to life. The fact that life is found on a planet that has the required conditions for life is not much of a miracle, and certainly isn't evidence that this was all created for us. A puddle of water wouldn't exist if the contours of the terrain surrounding it were slightly altered. I wonder if that puddle could think, would it think it was the result of intelligent design as well?
Click to expand...


No not what i'm saying. I'm saying God has no laws he is bound by except death and sin he can't do either. He created the conditions and he created the living organisms.

The naturalist theory are bound to laws and the conditions of the earth would prevent a natural process of creating life. Now you are seeing the problems for chance and coincidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you read? You dont have to be somewhere when something happened to know it did, the scientific method does not claim anything of the sort. Observation does not mean you actually have to see earths early atmosphere, you just have to _observe_ evidence that it was there.
> 
> If i drive past the ruins of a burnt down house, how do i know it was destroyed by a fire. I didnt see the actual fire, but the charred remains are pretty good evidence that the house burnt down...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imagination proves nothing got it ?
> 
> When are you gonna tell me the purpose of gravity and the atmosphere ? why are you avoiding these questions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> You dont just get to dismiss evidence as imagination because you dont agree with it.
> 
> Im saying "deposits of this type of iron molecule can only exist if the earth once had a reducing atmosphere, and you cant explain it any other way."
> 
> And your saying, essentially, "pics or it didnt happen"
> 
> Wow.
Click to expand...


Neither do you but you do because your mind is not open to the truth.

I can't say in what order God created in and i'm not totally sure of the enviornment I was not there. But one thing is certain oxygen is needed for life and the atmosphere keeps the oxygen in so to say there was no oxygen is absolutely wrong.

Miller and urey had to hypothesize there was no oxygen because they knew life couldn't form the way evolutionist claim if it was present. How convenient,but in reality once again it took intelligence to perform the experiment.

Can you not see the list of coincidences,,miracles,and all the chances needed for this universe, this planet, and the life we see that was needed for it to happen naturally. surely you can see the design and purpose i spoke of now.

Some very good things come from science but theories built on wild imagination are not the good things that come from science,that comes from Ideologues and ones who spread these messages are Idelogues.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life has evolved and adapted to the atmospheric and gravitational conditions on this planet, so obviously if those conditions were severely altered life would be in trouble because it is best adapted to the current conditions. As those conditions continue to change gradually, life on this planet will gradually adapt and evolve to those changing conditions. You seem to think that the conditions were adapted to fit life on this planet, when it's so obviously the other way around. Fish have gills and are really good at swimming because they adapted to aquatic conditions, the aquatic conditions did not adapt to suit the needs of the fish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you are not getting it. If we did not have them there would be no life and life couldn't start without these condirions. *There are no other planets we know of like this* and that is the reason we see no life out there. You can say there so many planets how do you know ? Well as we know for now there is no life out there . There won't be either without the conditions of this planet. This is obvious evidence of a creator. To believe as your aide does I would have to try and stop reasoning from the evidence. If you missed it earlier I was asking where would amino acids come from the building blocks of life come from when the environment woe destroy them before they could become life. You add this up with the probability video I posted yesterday,not a very good chance for life developing without a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> kepler 22b - Google Search
> 
> Thats just the most earth like found so far. There are 708 other known exosolar planets, planets that are orbiting other stars.
> 
> But the idea needed to refute you is the anthropic principle. In short, your guilty of yet another logical fallacy.
> 
> Its like asking "why didnt life form on mars?" Well because thats impossible, given its current conditions.
> 
> Or "why did life form on earth and not another planet?" Thats like asking why your sitting in the room your in....because you are....If we had been born on, for example, kepler 22b, we would just call that our home planet, and have no knowledge of what we now call earth.
Click to expand...


Theory does not trump facts sorry.


----------



## Youwerecreated

blu said:


> creationists are a bad joke, will be gone in a couple more generatons



It will be the other way around the world is slowly coming to the climax predicted of many years ago.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> creationists are a bad joke, will be gone in a couple more generatons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, theres still some young ones.
> 
> But your about right.
> 
> YWC, embrace your dying breed.
> 
> Lol actually, to him this is a good sign. Its a signal that has actually right, because his kind is being persecuted.
> 
> All religions have things like this built in, things that necessitate the survival of the religion.
> 
> All religions have some form of persecution in their mythology, so that any challenge to the religious order is perceived as fulfillment of prophecy.
> And all religions tell their followers to continually reproduce, so as to boost their numbers. Its how the mormons, and before that the catholics, did it.
> 
> Its all just bullshiite
Click to expand...


Don't think so, but you might want to prepare for the coming my friend.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> creationists are a bad joke, will be gone in a couple more generatons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, theres still some young ones.
> 
> But your about right.
> 
> YWC, embrace your dying breed.
> 
> Lol actually, to him this is a good sign. Its a signal that has actually right, because his kind is being persecuted.
> 
> All religions have things like this built in, things that necessitate the survival of the religion.
> 
> All religions have some form of persecution in their mythology, so that any challenge to the religious order is perceived as fulfillment of prophecy.
> And all religions tell their followers to continually reproduce, so as to boost their numbers. Its how the mormons, and before that the catholics, did it.
> 
> Its all just bullshiite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One side will be dying for sure and that's what bothers me. There is no life but earth and the conditions of the earth is the reason there is life here. And these conditions would not allow life to start here without a creator.. believe as you must but you are clearly wrong on this.
Click to expand...


Your like the cristians that used to tell us the world was flat, or that the earth was the center of the solar system, or that the sun was the center of the universe. 

The components of life are the result of natural, and simple, chemical processes; and they exist anywhere that the conditions are right.

Since were on the topic of alien life, and all that. 


Earth is just a chunk of rock, made round by gravity:






Orbiting around a cloud of hydrogen gas undergoing a perpetual thermonuclear reaction, again as a result of gravity:





Along with many other planets, in the form of a solar system:





And our star, and our solar system as a whole, is just one of many stars that we can see:





And all of the stars that we can see individually are stars within our own galaxy, the milky way, a collection of billions of stars:




(thats actually a different galaxy, because we can't take pictures of our own galaxy)

And even our galaxy, the milky way, is just one of many galaxies we see far away, and they even form clusters:





Why would you think that one tiny planet is special? It is one of billions of planets within our galaxy alone. And our galaxy is just one of billions of galaxies, each with around the same number of stars. 

_And god gave it all to us!_

Why are you so dumb?

And I'm wrong about that??

Go ask some teenagers how they feel about creationism. Im right.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagination proves nothing got it ?
> 
> When are you gonna tell me the purpose of gravity and the atmosphere ? why are you avoiding these questions ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> You dont just get to dismiss evidence as imagination because you dont agree with it.
> 
> Im saying "deposits of this type of iron molecule can only exist if the earth once had a reducing atmosphere, and you cant explain it any other way."
> 
> And your saying, essentially, "pics or it didnt happen"
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither do you but you do because your mind is not open to the truth.
Click to expand...


Dude I'm just not going to be convinced by someone that continually shows they have no knowledge of anything intelligent, at all. As you'll see shortly....



Youwerecreated said:


> I can't say in what order God created in and i'm not totally sure of the enviornment I was not there. But one thing is certain oxygen is needed for life



No not really. See: Anaerobic Organisms



Youwerecreated said:


> and the atmosphere keeps the oxygen in so to say there was no oxygen is absolutely wrong.



"The atmosphere keeps the oxygen in"

Please stop hypothesizing. You remind me of Newt Gingrich, the idea man! Yea, only if you accept retarded ideas....

Wtf does, the atmosphere keeps the oxygen in, even mean? If you want to get technical, gravity keeps the oxygen in. 

The reason oxygen would not have existed in the early environment is because it readily reacts with the chemicals arounds it, *like iron*, and any in the atmosphere would have quickly been bound to other chemicals like iron. Eventually these chemicals become saturated with oxygen, because early anaerobic organisms were oxygenating the atmosphere by producing oxygen as a by product of their metabolism, and the excess oxygen then starts to accumulate in the atmosphere. 

It has nothing to do with "the atmosphere keeping the oxygen in". Thats just a strange statement.



Youwerecreated said:


> Miller and urey had to hypothesize there was no oxygen because they knew life couldn't form the way evolutionist claim if it was present. How convenient,but in reality once again it took intelligence to perform the experiment.



Lol it took intelligence to perform the experiment? Thats your argument? 

So if those organic compounds came together by chance in a reducing environment, the same thing wouldn't happen? They only got that result because a _person_ poured the chemicals together, essentially?



Youwerecreated said:


> Can you not see the list of coincidences,,miracles,and all the chances needed for this universe, this planet, and the life we see that was needed for it to happen naturally. surely you can see the design and purpose i spoke of now.



I don't see any miracles because i understand how it works. You really think that a planet and a star are a miracle? They are the only possible outcome of gravity. There are 708 known planets outside of out solar system, orbiting other stars; and thousands more pending. Wow, whole lot of miracles. 

We see stars being created, it happens just like we think. Its just gravity pulling a star together. Are we witnessing miracles?

Ill admit that gravity may be a result of god, but god did not create the sun as it is now; the sun formed like every other star we see. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fucking idiot.



Youwerecreated said:


> Some very good things come from science but theories built on wild imagination are not the good things that come from science,that comes from Ideologues and ones who spread these messages are Idelogues.



They aren't built on imagination you fool. Just because you can't follow deductive reasoning and don't understand chemistry, doesn't mean they're imaginary. I means your a thick skulled fool.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you are not getting it. If we did not have them there would be no life and life couldn't start without these condirions. *There are no other planets we know of like this* and that is the reason we see no life out there. You can say there so many planets how do you know ? Well as we know for now there is no life out there . There won't be either without the conditions of this planet. This is obvious evidence of a creator. To believe as your aide does I would have to try and stop reasoning from the evidence. If you missed it earlier I was asking where would amino acids come from the building blocks of life come from when the environment woe destroy them before they could become life. You add this up with the probability video I posted yesterday,not a very good chance for life developing without a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kepler 22b - Google Search
> 
> Thats just the most earth like found so far. There are 708 other known exosolar planets, planets that are orbiting other stars.
> 
> But the idea needed to refute you is the anthropic principle. In short, your guilty of yet another logical fallacy.
> 
> Its like asking "why didnt life form on mars?" Well because thats impossible, given its current conditions.
> 
> Or "why did life form on earth and not another planet?" Thats like asking why your sitting in the room your in....because you are....If we had been born on, for example, kepler 22b, we would just call that our home planet, and have no knowledge of what we now call earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theory does not trump facts sorry.
Click to expand...


Lol now your just running away from arguments.

Ok, cool.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> creationists are a bad joke, will be gone in a couple more generatons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, theres still some young ones.
> 
> But your about right.
> 
> YWC, embrace your dying breed.
> 
> Lol actually, to him this is a good sign. Its a signal that has actually right, because his kind is being persecuted.
> 
> All religions have things like this built in, things that necessitate the survival of the religion.
> 
> All religions have some form of persecution in their mythology, so that any challenge to the religious order is perceived as fulfillment of prophecy.
> And all religions tell their followers to continually reproduce, so as to boost their numbers. Its how the mormons, and before that the catholics, did it.
> 
> Its all just bullshiite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't think so, but you might want to prepare for the coming my friend.
Click to expand...


Lol is it coming in your lifetime?

Do you believe jesus is coming back in your life time?


----------



## cbirch2

And do you not realize that claiming the early atmosphere had free oxygen is speculation as well right? The only difference is that my theory has evidence supporting it. Although i know creationists don't like evidence...


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, theres still some young ones.
> 
> But your about right.
> 
> YWC, embrace your dying breed.
> 
> Lol actually, to him this is a good sign. Its a signal that has actually right, because his kind is being persecuted.
> 
> All religions have things like this built in, things that necessitate the survival of the religion.
> 
> All religions have some form of persecution in their mythology, so that any challenge to the religious order is perceived as fulfillment of prophecy.
> And all religions tell their followers to continually reproduce, so as to boost their numbers. Its how the mormons, and before that the catholics, did it.
> 
> Its all just bullshiite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One side will be dying for sure and that's what bothers me. There is no life but earth and the conditions of the earth is the reason there is life here. And these conditions would not allow life to start here without a creator.. believe as you must but you are clearly wrong on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your like the cristians that used to tell us the world was flat, or that the earth was the center of the solar system, or that the sun was the center of the universe.
> 
> The components of life are the result of natural, and simple, chemical processes; and they exist anywhere that the conditions are right.
> 
> Since were on the topic of alien life, and all that.
> 
> 
> Earth is just a chunk of rock, made round by gravity:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Orbiting around a cloud of hydrogen gas undergoing a perpetual thermonuclear reaction, again as a result of gravity:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Along with many other planets, in the form of a solar system:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And our star, and our solar system as a whole, is just one of many stars that we can see:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all of the stars that we can see individually are stars within our own galaxy, the milky way, a collection of billions of stars:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (thats actually a different galaxy, because we can't take pictures of our own galaxy)
> 
> And even our galaxy, the milky way, is just one of many galaxies we see far away, and they even form clusters:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you think that one tiny planet is special? It is one of billions of planets within our galaxy alone. And our galaxy is just one of billions of galaxies, each with around the same number of stars.
> 
> _And god gave it all to us!_
> 
> Why are you so dumb?
> 
> And I'm wrong about that??
> 
> Go ask some teenagers how they feel about creationism. Im right.
Click to expand...


Because its the only one that contains life and can sustain life dummy. You should be able to reason that out for yourself,but no you couldn't do that either.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> You dont just get to dismiss evidence as imagination because you dont agree with it.
> 
> Im saying "deposits of this type of iron molecule can only exist if the earth once had a reducing atmosphere, and you cant explain it any other way."
> 
> And your saying, essentially, "pics or it didnt happen"
> 
> Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do you but you do because your mind is not open to the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude I'm just not going to be convinced by someone that continually shows they have no knowledge of anything intelligent, at all. As you'll see shortly....
> 
> 
> 
> No not really. See: Anaerobic Organisms
> 
> 
> 
> "The atmosphere keeps the oxygen in"
> 
> Please stop hypothesizing. You remind me of Newt Gingrich, the idea man! Yea, only if you accept retarded ideas....
> 
> Wtf does, the atmosphere keeps the oxygen in, even mean? If you want to get technical, gravity keeps the oxygen in.
> 
> The reason oxygen would not have existed in the early environment is because it readily reacts with the chemicals arounds it, *like iron*, and any in the atmosphere would have quickly been bound to other chemicals like iron. Eventually these chemicals become saturated with oxygen, because early anaerobic organisms were oxygenating the atmosphere by producing oxygen as a by product of their metabolism, and the excess oxygen then starts to accumulate in the atmosphere.
> 
> It has nothing to do with "the atmosphere keeping the oxygen in". Thats just a strange statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol it took intelligence to perform the experiment? Thats your argument?
> 
> So if those organic compounds came together by chance in a reducing environment, the same thing wouldn't happen? They only got that result because a _person_ poured the chemicals together, essentially?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you not see the list of coincidences,,miracles,and all the chances needed for this universe, this planet, and the life we see that was needed for it to happen naturally. surely you can see the design and purpose i spoke of now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see any miracles because i understand how it works. You really think that a planet and a star are a miracle? They are the only possible outcome of gravity. There are 708 known planets outside of out solar system, orbiting other stars; and thousands more pending. Wow, whole lot of miracles.
> 
> We see stars being created, it happens just like we think. Its just gravity pulling a star together. Are we witnessing miracles?
> 
> Ill admit that gravity may be a result of god, but god did not create the sun as it is now; the sun formed like every other star we see. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some very good things come from science but theories built on wild imagination are not the good things that come from science,that comes from Ideologues and ones who spread these messages are Idelogues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't built on imagination you fool. Just because you can't follow deductive reasoning and don't understand chemistry, doesn't mean they're imaginary. I means your a thick skulled fool.
Click to expand...


so are you suggesting life began with these organisms  you really are way out there and don't have a clue about reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Now you been reduced to cherry picking from theories to make your arguments ? No my argument was amino acids ,you know the building blocks of life could  not form in the environment that contained oxygen. How did you miss that,where were you educated ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

CCbirch you can lie to some but not someone that knows more then you foolish child.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One side will be dying for sure and that's what bothers me. There is no life but earth and the conditions of the earth is the reason there is life here. And these conditions would not allow life to start here without a creator.. believe as you must but you are clearly wrong on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your like the cristians that used to tell us the world was flat, or that the earth was the center of the solar system, or that the sun was the center of the universe.
> 
> The components of life are the result of natural, and simple, chemical processes; and they exist anywhere that the conditions are right.
> 
> Since were on the topic of alien life, and all that.
> 
> 
> Earth is just a chunk of rock, made round by gravity:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Orbiting around a cloud of hydrogen gas undergoing a perpetual thermonuclear reaction, again as a result of gravity:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Along with many other planets, in the form of a solar system:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And our star, and our solar system as a whole, is just one of many stars that we can see:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all of the stars that we can see individually are stars within our own galaxy, the milky way, a collection of billions of stars:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (thats actually a different galaxy, because we can't take pictures of our own galaxy)
> 
> And even our galaxy, the milky way, is just one of many galaxies we see far away, and they even form clusters:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you think that one tiny planet is special? It is one of billions of planets within our galaxy alone. And our galaxy is just one of billions of galaxies, each with around the same number of stars.
> 
> _And god gave it all to us!_
> 
> Why are you so dumb?
> 
> And I'm wrong about that??
> 
> Go ask some teenagers how they feel about creationism. Im right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because its the only one that contains life and can sustain life dummy. You should be able to reason that out for yourself,but no you couldn't do that either.
Click to expand...


That claim is totally unsubstantiated. 

In the middle ages the europeans thought the world was flat because no one was able to see otherwise. Your using the same argument again, theres that logical fallacy again. 

So what do these other water covered worlds look like? Are there organic compounds in the oceans? 

Your brain damaged.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do you but you do because your mind is not open to the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude I'm just not going to be convinced by someone that continually shows they have no knowledge of anything intelligent, at all. As you'll see shortly....
> 
> 
> 
> No not really. See: Anaerobic Organisms
> 
> 
> 
> "The atmosphere keeps the oxygen in"
> 
> Please stop hypothesizing. You remind me of Newt Gingrich, the idea man! Yea, only if you accept retarded ideas....
> 
> Wtf does, the atmosphere keeps the oxygen in, even mean? If you want to get technical, gravity keeps the oxygen in.
> 
> The reason oxygen would not have existed in the early environment is because it readily reacts with the chemicals arounds it, *like iron*, and any in the atmosphere would have quickly been bound to other chemicals like iron. Eventually these chemicals become saturated with oxygen, because early anaerobic organisms were oxygenating the atmosphere by producing oxygen as a by product of their metabolism, and the excess oxygen then starts to accumulate in the atmosphere.
> 
> It has nothing to do with "the atmosphere keeping the oxygen in". Thats just a strange statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol it took intelligence to perform the experiment? Thats your argument?
> 
> So if those organic compounds came together by chance in a reducing environment, the same thing wouldn't happen? They only got that result because a _person_ poured the chemicals together, essentially?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any miracles because i understand how it works. You really think that a planet and a star are a miracle? They are the only possible outcome of gravity. There are 708 known planets outside of out solar system, orbiting other stars; and thousands more pending. Wow, whole lot of miracles.
> 
> We see stars being created, it happens just like we think. Its just gravity pulling a star together. Are we witnessing miracles?
> 
> Ill admit that gravity may be a result of god, but god did not create the sun as it is now; the sun formed like every other star we see. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some very good things come from science but theories built on wild imagination are not the good things that come from science,that comes from Ideologues and ones who spread these messages are Idelogues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't built on imagination you fool. Just because you can't follow deductive reasoning and don't understand chemistry, doesn't mean they're imaginary. I means your a thick skulled fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so are you suggesting life began with these organisms  you really are way out there and don't have a clue about reality.
Click to expand...


Yea i am actually. 

How many times do i have to tell you, laughing off the arguments does nothing but make me respect you less and less. 

Its like a husband who wont accept that his wife is cheating on him. You can ignore all the signs but that doesnt mean its not happening.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> Now you been reduced to cherry picking from theories to make your arguments ? No my argument was amino acids ,you know the building blocks of life could  not form in the environment that contained oxygen. How did you miss that,where were you educated ?



What are you talking about?

Didnt we already have this discussion. Free oxygen did not exist in the early atmosphere. We have evidence to prove it. 

Now plug your ears and cry, im sure thats about why your response will be.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Cbirch do you understand that there are over 100 amino acids that your side admits that they can't form naturally how do you explain that ? You really are just using smoke and mirrors and deliberately being misleading with your responses either that or you do not understand what you are talking about. No oxygen ,you are a funny guy and so are anyone else that suggests such nonsense. There are no explosions and no fire without oxygen.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> CCbirch you can lie to some but not someone that knows more then you foolish child.



Someone that knows more than me? Lol. Thats awesome.

Ive had to explain everything to you. The structure of an atom, the types of organic molecules, examples of genetic mutations, the evolutionary trees of organisms, transitional fossils, how information is encoded in the genome, what nucleotides are, etc, etc, etc....And you havent explained one thing to me. In fact all ive done is correct your ignorance. 

How the hell can you possibly think you know more than i do?

You have not provided one piece of evidence. In fact you havent once shown you even have an understanding of chemistry or biology. Not once. Everything you say about genetics and chemistry is just blatant ignorance. Its not even based on text book knowledge, its obvious that you read these creationist websites and form your understanding of science upon those. Its sad 

A respectable creationist is one who first understands the science and then rejects it. You've accepted the creationist viewpoint and then set out to disprove the science. And in doing so you've managed to learn a very wrong notion of just about every science.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> Cbirch do you understand that there are over 100 amino acids can't form naturally how do you explain that?



Again, please understand how things work. Theres about 20 amino acids that form naturally, yep. 

The idea is that a whole bunch are coded for by sequences of nucleic acids, which do form naturally. Not all amino acids may be able to form naturally, but the blueprints that code for them do.



Youwerecreated said:


> You really are just using smoke and mirrors and deliberately being misleading with your responses either that or you do not understand what you are talking about.



Nope im not being misleading. Your being an idiot.


----------



## cbirch2

I just want to make sure you realize the logical fallacy of your "life only exists on earth" argument. 

We cannot observe any other planet close enough to come to that conclusion. 

So the only factual conclusion to come to at this point is that we dont know if life exists elsewhere. To say it doesnt is wishful thinking, just like when europeans thought the earth was flat. 

But what we can say is that planets are very common, and that planets within a stars habitable zone are common as well. 

You can claim life is special, but you _cannot_ claim the earth is special. And in my mind if earth isnt special, that would seem to indicate life isnt special either. But others may not see it that way.


----------



## skipper

> Ill admit that gravity may be a result of god, but god did not create the sun as it is now; the sun formed like every other star we see. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fucking idiot.



Just trying to follow along. So god _may_ have created gravity? Is this the result of a lack of scientific knowledge? Not taking sides here. Just an interesting on-looker.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is your God naturalism ?
> 
> 
> 
> why would I need a god when none exists, except in the minds of those who invented it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the same way they invented the idea that all living organisms are related
Click to expand...

once more it is not an invention it's a valid conclusion based on on evidence ,unlike yours.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just pointing out what an educated fool believes.
> 
> 
> 
> so ignorance is bliss then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently so if you believe life was not directed by someone and believe in chance.
Click to expand...

chance is fact and operates in real time..
so it is unnecessary to believe be·lieve verb \b&#601;-&#712;l&#275;v\
be·lievedbe·liev·ing
Definition of BELIEVE
intransitive verb
1a : to have a firm religious faith)in it.
there is no proof of a "someone"


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you like mathematics.
> 
> Mathematics Disprove Evolution? The probability of spontaneous generation (creation vs. evolution) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> fine example of a false premise!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain the false false premise ?
Click to expand...

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You like to put words in peoples mouths.
> 
> The components of most systems on earth remain on earth. In this sense, the earth is a closed system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol life isnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
> 
> by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *
> 
> The popular syndicated columnist, Sydney Harris, recently commented on the evolution/entropy conflict as follows:
> 
> 
> There is a factor called "entropy" in physics, indicating that the whole universe of matter is running down, and ultimately will reduce itself to uniform chaos. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems about as basic and unquestionable to modern scientific minds as any truth can be. At the same time that this is happening on the physical level of existence, something quite different seems to be happening on the biological level: structure and species are becoming more complex, more sophisticated, more organized, with higher degrees of performance and consciousness.1
> 
> As Harris points out, the law of increasing entropy is a universal law of decreasing complexity, whereas evolution is supposed to be a universal law of increasing complexity. Creationists have been pointing out this serious contradiction for years, and it is encouraging that at least some evolutionists (such as Harris) are beginning to be aware of it.
> 
> How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question - because it seems to me the question most worth asking and working upon with all our intellectual and scientific resources.2
> 
> 
> Rest of article here you need to see this contradiction.
> 
> Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
Click to expand...

biased...invalid source....conjecture not fact .


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> I just want to make sure you realize the logical fallacy of your "life only exists on earth" argument.
> 
> We cannot observe any other planet close enough to come to that conclusion.
> 
> So the only factual conclusion to come to at this point is that we dont know if life exists elsewhere. To say it doesnt is wishful thinking, just like when europeans thought the earth was flat.
> 
> But what we can say is that planets are very common, and that planets within a stars habitable zone are common as well.
> 
> You can claim life is special, but you _cannot_ claim the earth is special. And in my mind if earth isnt special, that would seem to indicate life isnt special either. But others may not see it that way.



You don't realize you don't have an argument until life is found somewhere other then our planet. What you don't realize is the only evidence you presented was from the miller and urwy experiment. That is only based in truth if there was no free oxygen. You font even realize there would have been no big bang without oxygen. It is laughable that you believe you taught me what an atom was and about mutations. Wake up dreamer the point is if mutations cause change we know most change from mutations result in q loss of information and in harming the organism. You are are blatantly lying to suggest otherwise. Do you remember me presenting the argument as to why beneficial mutations do not accumulate in the gene pool like you claim. It's a lie  and its been shown how rare these beneficial mutations are and I can point to over 4,500 genetic disorders and disease that is the result of mutations. So please stop lying. So where were you educated again and what degree do you hold ? I was forthcoming about my background.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that gravity and the atmosphere have a purpose? Are you on acid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only someone that denies design can't see the truth they were intended. meaning they were designed let's see where we would be without them. This also shows Cbirch 's example earlier concerning what the earths enviornment was like 4 or 5 billion years ago as nonsense.
> 
> Atmosphere.
> 
> 1. Breathing comes naturally but without the atmosphere we would all die because we couldn't breathe. It holds oxygen in.
> 
> 2. It protects all living things on our planet from dangerous radiation from the sun.
> 
> 3. It also keeps us from freezing to death.
> 
> 4. It also gives us storms which is needed for survival.
> 
> 5. It protects us from objects coming towards our planet from outer space.
> 
> 6. It's needed for plant life.
> 
> 7. It makes flight possible,an airplane could not get off the ground without it,neither could a bee or bird.
> 
> 8. It also allows us to talk to one another. it controls sound waves.
> 
> Gravity holds us firmly to the ground and keeps our planet circling the sun. It keeps our planet in a spherical shape preventing our atmoshere from escaping into space.
> 
> So you think they didn't have a purpose ?
Click to expand...

the Earth is a bit wider than it is "high". The shape is often called a geoid (Earth-like) or an ellipsoid. The rotation of the Earth causes a slight bulge toward the equator. The circumference of the Earth at the equator (24,901.55) is about 41 miles greater than the circumference through the poles (24,859.82 miles. If you were standing on the moon, looking at the Earth, it would be virtually impossible to see the bulge and the Earth would appear to be a perfect sphere. 
The mathematical name for the shape of the earth is an 'Oblate spheroid'.



Read more: Is the earth a perfect sphere


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Because its the only one that contains life and can sustain life dummy. You should be able to reason that out for yourself,but no you couldn't do that either.



Ah, this again.

What you should be saying is that the Earth is the only planet *that we know of* that contains life.  Unless you are also claiming that the universe is actually far, far smaller than our observations would lead us to think, there are enormous numbers of planets that we have little or no data on.  Even those planets we have observed we have almost no close observational data to use.  With the numbers of stars we can see, and the possibility of planets orbiting those stars, your declarations that our planet is the only one with life and the only one able to sustain life are not only nothing but speculation, they are speculation based on no evidence.

I feel confident that everyone on here is willing to concede that life has not been found on other planets.  That is not in contention.  However, our not having discovered life on other planets in no way indicates such life does not or cannot exist.  Even if you go under the assumption that god created the universe and all life, it seems pretty arrogant to say that god would create this vast universe, fill it with so many other stars and planets, but only put life on this one planet.

On multiple occasions now you have made statements that not only have we not discovered life anywhere but on Earth, you have said there is no life other than on Earth and there cannot be.  You have (obviously) provided no observable evidence of this and, so far as I recall, have not even provided any scriptural evidence.  It seems to be something you have made up entirely on your own in an attempt to bolster your arguments.


----------



## sfcalifornia

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do you but you do because your mind is not open to the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude I'm just not going to be convinced by someone that continually shows they have no knowledge of anything intelligent, at all. As you'll see shortly....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The atmosphere keeps the oxygen in"
> 
> Please stop hypothesizing. You remind me of Newt Gingrich, the idea man! Yea, only if you accept retarded ideas....
> 
> Wtf does, the atmosphere keeps the oxygen in, even mean? If you want to get technical, gravity keeps the oxygen in.
> 
> The reason oxygen would not have existed in the early environment is because it readily reacts with the chemicals arounds it, *like iron*, and any in the atmosphere would have quickly been bound to other chemicals like iron. Eventually these chemicals become saturated with oxygen, because early anaerobic organisms were oxygenating the atmosphere by producing oxygen as a by product of their metabolism, and the excess oxygen then starts to accumulate in the atmosphere.
> 
> It has nothing to do with "the atmosphere keeping the oxygen in". Thats just a strange statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol it took intelligence to perform the experiment? Thats your argument?
> 
> So if those organic compounds came together by chance in a reducing environment, the same thing wouldn't happen? They only got that result because a _person_ poured the chemicals together, essentially?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any miracles because i understand how it works. You really think that a planet and a star are a miracle? They are the only possible outcome of gravity. There are 708 known planets outside of out solar system, orbiting other stars; and thousands more pending. Wow, whole lot of miracles.
> 
> We see stars being created, it happens just like we think. Its just gravity pulling a star together. Are we witnessing miracles?
> 
> Ill admit that gravity may be a result of god, but god did not create the sun as it is now; the sun formed like every other star we see. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some very good things come from science but theories built on wild imagination are not the good things that come from science,that comes from Ideologues and ones who spread these messages are Idelogues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't built on imagination you fool. Just because you can't follow deductive reasoning and don't understand chemistry, doesn't mean they're imaginary. I means your a thick skulled fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so are you suggesting life began with these organisms  you really are way out there and don't have a clue about reality.
Click to expand...


I wanna know where Cain got his wife.  When I google it, everyone says it was his sister.  That's just gross.  The gene pool sure didn't grow by having sex with your siblings.


----------



## Youwerecreated

sfcalifornia said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude I'm just not going to be convinced by someone that continually shows they have no knowledge of anything intelligent, at all. As you'll see shortly....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The atmosphere keeps the oxygen in"
> 
> Please stop hypothesizing. You remind me of Newt Gingrich, the idea man! Yea, only if you accept retarded ideas....
> 
> Wtf does, the atmosphere keeps the oxygen in, even mean? If you want to get technical, gravity keeps the oxygen in.
> 
> The reason oxygen would not have existed in the early environment is because it readily reacts with the chemicals arounds it, *like iron*, and any in the atmosphere would have quickly been bound to other chemicals like iron. Eventually these chemicals become saturated with oxygen, because early anaerobic organisms were oxygenating the atmosphere by producing oxygen as a by product of their metabolism, and the excess oxygen then starts to accumulate in the atmosphere.
> 
> It has nothing to do with "the atmosphere keeping the oxygen in". Thats just a strange statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol it took intelligence to perform the experiment? Thats your argument?
> 
> So if those organic compounds came together by chance in a reducing environment, the same thing wouldn't happen? They only got that result because a _person_ poured the chemicals together, essentially?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any miracles because i understand how it works. You really think that a planet and a star are a miracle? They are the only possible outcome of gravity. There are 708 known planets outside of out solar system, orbiting other stars; and thousands more pending. Wow, whole lot of miracles.
> 
> We see stars being created, it happens just like we think. Its just gravity pulling a star together. Are we witnessing miracles?
> 
> Ill admit that gravity may be a result of god, but god did not create the sun as it is now; the sun formed like every other star we see. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't built on imagination you fool. Just because you can't follow deductive reasoning and don't understand chemistry, doesn't mean they're imaginary. I means your a thick skulled fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so are you suggesting life began with these organisms  you really are way out there and don't have a clue about reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wanna know where Cain got his wife.  When I google it, everyone says it was his sister.  That's just gross.  The gene pool sure didn't grow by having sex with your siblings.
Click to expand...




sfcalifornia said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude I'm just not going to be convinced by someone that continually shows they have no knowledge of anything intelligent, at all. As you'll see shortly....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The atmosphere keeps the oxygen in"
> 
> Please stop hypothesizing. You remind me of Newt Gingrich, the idea man! Yea, only if you accept retarded ideas....
> 
> Wtf does, the atmosphere keeps the oxygen in, even mean? If you want to get technical, gravity keeps the oxygen in.
> 
> The reason oxygen would not have existed in the early environment is because it readily reacts with the chemicals arounds it, *like iron*, and any in the atmosphere would have quickly been bound to other chemicals like iron. Eventually these chemicals become saturated with oxygen, because early anaerobic organisms were oxygenating the atmosphere by producing oxygen as a by product of their metabolism, and the excess oxygen then starts to accumulate in the atmosphere.
> 
> It has nothing to do with "the atmosphere keeping the oxygen in". Thats just a strange statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol it took intelligence to perform the experiment? Thats your argument?
> 
> So if those organic compounds came together by chance in a reducing environment, the same thing wouldn't happen? They only got that result because a _person_ poured the chemicals together, essentially?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any miracles because i understand how it works. You really think that a planet and a star are a miracle? They are the only possible outcome of gravity. There are 708 known planets outside of out solar system, orbiting other stars; and thousands more pending. Wow, whole lot of miracles.
> 
> We see stars being created, it happens just like we think. Its just gravity pulling a star together. Are we witnessing miracles?
> 
> Ill admit that gravity may be a result of god, but god did not create the sun as it is now; the sun formed like every other star we see. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't built on imagination you fool. Just because you can't follow deductive reasoning and don't understand chemistry, doesn't mean they're imaginary. I means your a thick skulled fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so are you suggesting life began with these organisms  you really are way out there and don't have a clue about reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wanna know where Cain got his wife.  When I google it, everyone says it was his sister.  That's just gross.  The gene pool sure didn't grow by having sex with your siblings.
Click to expand...


I believe the land of nod, the reason it is wrong is you have better chance of passing on defective genes. At the time his either was his sister or there were humans in the land of nod to grow the human population. The bible don't go into detail. But at that time their bodies were much closer to perfection so less chance ofbad genes existing. But I can't for sure because the bible don't go into detail. But either way if we all originated from one life form you would be a product of inbreeding ,still grose ?  We know all humans were from one set of human parents.


----------



## Youwerecreated

That's it after how bad the last post was I'm done trying to do this on my phone. Have a nice everyone and you to Cbirch.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to make sure you realize the logical fallacy of your "life only exists on earth" argument.
> 
> We cannot observe any other planet close enough to come to that conclusion.
> 
> So the only factual conclusion to come to at this point is that we dont know if life exists elsewhere. To say it doesnt is wishful thinking, just like when europeans thought the earth was flat.
> 
> But what we can say is that planets are very common, and that planets within a stars habitable zone are common as well.
> 
> You can claim life is special, but you _cannot_ claim the earth is special. And in my mind if earth isnt special, that would seem to indicate life isnt special either. But others may not see it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize you don't have an argument until life is found somewhere other then our planet.
Click to expand...


I dont have a definitive argument that life does exist, just like you dont have an argument that it doesnt. 

But i do have an argument that plenty of earth like planets exist.



Youwerecreated said:


> What you don't realize is the only evidence you presented was from the miller and urwy experiment.



What about the nucleotides we find in meteors?



Youwerecreated said:


> That is only based in truth if there was no free oxygen.



So your whole argument is based on the fact that there _was_ free oxygen? Evidence please? I have evidence for my position, oxidized iron deposits. 

Whats your evidence?



Youwerecreated said:


> You font even realize there would have been no big bang without oxygen.



Um the big bang has nothing at all to do with oxygen. Not a single thing. learn science. The BB claims oxygen atoms did not exist anywhere at all in vast quantities for long after the big bang. Dont bring up the big bang theory to me, because i will teach you things you'll never even understand.

Wanna talk about the existence of the CMB and the big bang theorys perfect prediction of its temperature?



Youwerecreated said:


> It is laughable that you believe you taught me what an atom was and about mutations.



Lol you think the big bang had to do with oxygen. Evidently you think it was a chemical explosion. 

Ill add this to the things i had to teach you, along with atoms and mutations.



Youwerecreated said:


> Wake up dreamer the point is if mutations cause change we know most change from mutations result in q loss of information and in harming the organism.



Which dont dominate the gene pool...

Do you understand the significance of the frequency of alleles in a population? Do you understand the difference between mendelian genetics and darwinian genetics even in the slightest bit?



Youwerecreated said:


> You are are blatantly lying to suggest otherwise.



No.



Youwerecreated said:


> Do you remember me presenting the argument as to why beneficial mutations do not accumulate in the gene pool like you claim.



You have presented no such evidence. How do beneficial mutations simple leave the gene pool. It is passed along just like any other gene. Saying a beneficial mutation would leave a gene pool is like saying the genes to make a kidney would leave a gene pool. It doesnt make sense to anyone that knows anything. 

UGH!



Youwerecreated said:


> It's a lie  and its been shown how rare these beneficial mutations are



No, it hasnt. Theyre actually fairly common.



Youwerecreated said:


> and I can point to over 4,500 genetic disorders and disease that is the result of mutations.



Are you suggesting that cerebral palsy will dominate the human gene pool? If not then your argument is totally useless.



Youwerecreated said:


> So please stop lying.



Im not sure what ive lied about so far.



Youwerecreated said:


> So where were you educated again and what degree do you hold? I was forthcoming about my background.



University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


----------



## sfcalifornia

Youwerecreated said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> so are you suggesting life began with these organisms  you really are way out there and don't have a clue about reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanna know where Cain got his wife.  When I google it, everyone says it was his sister.  That's just gross.  The gene pool sure didn't grow by having sex with your siblings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the land of nod, the reason it is wrong is you have better chance of passing on defective genes. At the time his either was his sister or there were humans in the land of nod to grow the human population. The bible don't go into detail. But at that time their bodies were much closer to perfection so less chance ofbad genes existing. But I can't for sure because the bible don't go into detail. But either way if we all originated from one life form you would be a product of inbreeding ,still grose ?  We know all humans were from one set of human parents.
Click to expand...


The bible doesn't go into detail because there is no plausible answer, religiously speaking.  Scientifically, evolution is logical.


----------



## cbirch2

Again, since i was originally supposed to be a physics major, heres a quick big bang lesson.

Atoms did not exist at the moment of the big bang, or so the theory says. In technical terms: Only after the energy density decreases beyond a certain point, and electroweak symmetry breaks, do you have the formation of particles with mass like quarks, gluons, and leptons (electrons and such). As the universe then cools gluons bind quarks together into hadrons like protons and neutrons. As it then cools even further, electrons and protons have radiated away enough energy so that they can electromagnetically bind together into a hydrogen atom. For a while you just have hydrogen and helium. Eventually those clouds of hydrogen and helium coalesce via gravity. As gravity tries to collapse the massive object, the atoms repel each other and star heats up. Eventually the gravity forces nuclear fusion between hydrogen atoms, forming helium atoms and gamma radiation. Once the hydrogen is exhausted gravity begins to collapse the star further, and it then starts to fuse helium to create things like oxygen and carbon. 

According to the big bang theory, oxygen would not exist in any useful quantity prior to the first generation of stars.







I left out the period of inflation, because i didnt think you would understand the concept of successive symmetries breaking between the 4 fundamental forces.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to make sure you realize the logical fallacy of your "life only exists on earth" argument.
> 
> We cannot observe any other planet close enough to come to that conclusion.
> 
> So the only factual conclusion to come to at this point is that we dont know if life exists elsewhere. To say it doesnt is wishful thinking, just like when europeans thought the earth was flat.
> 
> But what we can say is that planets are very common, and that planets within a stars habitable zone are common as well.
> 
> You can claim life is special, but you _cannot_ claim the earth is special. And in my mind if earth isnt special, that would seem to indicate life isnt special either. But others may not see it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize you don't have an argument until life is found somewhere other then our planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont have a definitive argument that life does exist, just like you dont have an argument that it doesnt.
> 
> But i do have an argument that plenty of earth like planets exist.
> 
> 
> 
> What about the nucleotides we find in meteors?
> 
> 
> 
> So your whole argument is based on the fact that there _was_ free oxygen? Evidence please? I have evidence for my position, oxidized iron deposits.
> 
> Whats your evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> Um the big bang has nothing at all to do with oxygen. Not a single thing. learn science. The BB claims oxygen atoms did not exist anywhere at all in vast quantities for long after the big bang. Dont bring up the big bang theory to me, because i will teach you things you'll never even understand.
> 
> Wanna talk about the existence of the CMB and the big bang theorys perfect prediction of its temperature?
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you think the big bang had to do with oxygen. Evidently you think it was a chemical explosion.
> 
> Ill add this to the things i had to teach you, along with atoms and mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> Which dont dominate the gene pool...
> 
> Do you understand the significance of the frequency of alleles in a population? Do you understand the difference between mendelian genetics and darwinian genetics even in the slightest bit?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> You have presented no such evidence. How do beneficial mutations simple leave the gene pool. It is passed along just like any other gene. Saying a beneficial mutation would leave a gene pool is like saying the genes to make a kidney would leave a gene pool. It doesnt make sense to anyone that knows anything.
> 
> UGH!
> 
> 
> 
> No, it hasnt. Theyre actually fairly common.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that cerebral palsy will dominate the human gene pool? If not then your argument is totally useless.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So please stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not sure what ive lied about so far.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where were you educated again and what degree do you hold? I was forthcoming about my background.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Click to expand...


If life is only on our planet does that not make our planet unique and special ?

I have no reason to believe life is on other planets.

No but most explosions do not happen without oxygen. Just for the record i don't believe in the Big Bang either just pointing out flaws with your theories.

11-Big Bang or Big Dud?


----------



## Youwerecreated

sfcalifornia said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wanna know where Cain got his wife.  When I google it, everyone says it was his sister.  That's just gross.  The gene pool sure didn't grow by having sex with your siblings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the land of nod, the reason it is wrong is you have better chance of passing on defective genes. At the time his either was his sister or there were humans in the land of nod to grow the human population. The bible don't go into detail. But at that time their bodies were much closer to perfection so less chance ofbad genes existing. But I can't for sure because the bible don't go into detail. But either way if we all originated from one life form you would be a product of inbreeding ,still grose ?  We know all humans were from one set of human parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible doesn't go into detail because there is no plausible answer, religiously speaking.  Scientifically, evolution is logical.
Click to expand...



God did not have to go into complete detail did he ?

Macro-evolution is illogical.

Adaptations logical.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Again, since i was originally supposed to be a physics major, heres a quick big bang lesson.
> 
> Atoms did not exist at the moment of the big bang, or so the theory says. In technical terms: Only after the energy density decreases beyond a certain point, and electroweak symmetry breaks, do you have the formation of particles with mass like quarks, gluons, and leptons (electrons and such). As the universe then cools gluons bind quarks together into hadrons like protons and neutrons. As it then cools even further, electrons and protons have radiated away enough energy so that they can electromagnetically bind together into a hydrogen atom. For a while you just have hydrogen and helium. Eventually those clouds of hydrogen and helium coalesce via gravity. As gravity tries to collapse the massive object, the atoms repel each other and star heats up. Eventually the gravity forces nuclear fusion between hydrogen atoms, forming helium atoms and gamma radiation. Once the hydrogen is exhausted gravity begins to collapse the star further, and it then starts to fuse helium to create things like oxygen and carbon.
> 
> According to the big bang theory, oxygen would not exist in any useful quantity prior to the first generation of stars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I left out the period of inflation, because i didnt think you would understand the concept of successive symmetries breaking between the 4 fundamental forces.



Yeah nothing existed, than nothing blew up.

11-Big Bang or Big Dud?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Again, since i was originally supposed to be a physics major, heres a quick big bang lesson.
> 
> Atoms did not exist at the moment of the big bang, or so the theory says. In technical terms: Only after the energy density decreases beyond a certain point, and electroweak symmetry breaks, do you have the formation of particles with mass like quarks, gluons, and leptons (electrons and such). As the universe then cools gluons bind quarks together into hadrons like protons and neutrons. As it then cools even further, electrons and protons have radiated away enough energy so that they can electromagnetically bind together into a hydrogen atom. For a while you just have hydrogen and helium. Eventually those clouds of hydrogen and helium coalesce via gravity. As gravity tries to collapse the massive object, the atoms repel each other and star heats up. Eventually the gravity forces nuclear fusion between hydrogen atoms, forming helium atoms and gamma radiation. Once the hydrogen is exhausted gravity begins to collapse the star further, and it then starts to fuse helium to create things like oxygen and carbon.
> 
> According to the big bang theory, oxygen would not exist in any useful quantity prior to the first generation of stars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I left out the period of inflation, because i didnt think you would understand the concept of successive symmetries breaking between the 4 fundamental forces.





Chapter 10: Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?


by Dr. Jason Lisle on

April 15, 2010


Layman



 author-jason-lisle
 bible
 big-bang
 cosmology
 nab2




Featured In
Browse this title
Buy this title

 The big bang is a story about how the universe came into existence. It proposes that billions of years ago the universe began in a tiny, infinitely hot and dense point called a singularity. This singularity supposedly contained not only all the mass and energy that would become everything we see today, but also space itself. According to the story, the singularity rapidly expanded, spreading out the energy and space. 



It is supposed that over vast periods of time, the energy from the big bang cooled down as the universe expanded. Some of it turned into matterhydrogen and helium gas. These gases collapsed to form stars and galaxies of stars. Some of the stars created the heavier elements in their core and then exploded, distributing these elements into space. Some of the heavier elements allegedly began to stick together and formed the earth and other planets.


Rest of article.

Chapter 10: Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible? - Answers in Genesis


----------



## Youwerecreated

Here is a great page pointing out all the problems with the big bang theory.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/astrophysics


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize you don't have an argument until life is found somewhere other then our planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have a definitive argument that life does exist, just like you dont have an argument that it doesnt.
> 
> But i do have an argument that plenty of earth like planets exist.
> 
> 
> 
> What about the nucleotides we find in meteors?
> 
> 
> 
> So your whole argument is based on the fact that there _was_ free oxygen? Evidence please? I have evidence for my position, oxidized iron deposits.
> 
> Whats your evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> Um the big bang has nothing at all to do with oxygen. Not a single thing. learn science. The BB claims oxygen atoms did not exist anywhere at all in vast quantities for long after the big bang. Dont bring up the big bang theory to me, because i will teach you things you'll never even understand.
> 
> Wanna talk about the existence of the CMB and the big bang theorys perfect prediction of its temperature?
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you think the big bang had to do with oxygen. Evidently you think it was a chemical explosion.
> 
> Ill add this to the things i had to teach you, along with atoms and mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> Which dont dominate the gene pool...
> 
> Do you understand the significance of the frequency of alleles in a population? Do you understand the difference between mendelian genetics and darwinian genetics even in the slightest bit?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> You have presented no such evidence. How do beneficial mutations simple leave the gene pool. It is passed along just like any other gene. Saying a beneficial mutation would leave a gene pool is like saying the genes to make a kidney would leave a gene pool. It doesnt make sense to anyone that knows anything.
> 
> UGH!
> 
> 
> 
> No, it hasnt. Theyre actually fairly common.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that cerebral palsy will dominate the human gene pool? If not then your argument is totally useless.
> 
> 
> 
> Im not sure what ive lied about so far.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where were you educated again and what degree do you hold? I was forthcoming about my background.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If life is only on our planet does that not make our planet unique and special ?
> 
> I have no reason to believe life is on other planets.
> 
> No but most explosions do not happen without oxygen. Just for the record i don't believe in the Big Bang either just pointing out flaws with your theories.
> 
> 11-Big Bang or Big Dud?
Click to expand...



Again, we dont know if life exists elsewhere or not. 

Your claim is that humans are the only life in the entire universe. Theres no way to support this claim. 

I would never definitively say that there certainly is life throughout the universe, because theres no way i could support that claim. 

"most explosions dont happen without oxygen"

Please learn what the big bang theory is. Its not a physical explosion. Its not like there was a whole bunch of gun powder sitting in space that exploded. Anyone that thinks that is mentally handicapped. 

The big bang was not an Explosion: However an explosion is a metaphor for what the big bang was.

Ill be back to refute your video later.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, since i was originally supposed to be a physics major, heres a quick big bang lesson.
> 
> Atoms did not exist at the moment of the big bang, or so the theory says. In technical terms: Only after the energy density decreases beyond a certain point, and electroweak symmetry breaks, do you have the formation of particles with mass like quarks, gluons, and leptons (electrons and such). As the universe then cools gluons bind quarks together into hadrons like protons and neutrons. As it then cools even further, electrons and protons have radiated away enough energy so that they can electromagnetically bind together into a hydrogen atom. For a while you just have hydrogen and helium. Eventually those clouds of hydrogen and helium coalesce via gravity. As gravity tries to collapse the massive object, the atoms repel each other and star heats up. Eventually the gravity forces nuclear fusion between hydrogen atoms, forming helium atoms and gamma radiation. Once the hydrogen is exhausted gravity begins to collapse the star further, and it then starts to fuse helium to create things like oxygen and carbon.
> 
> According to the big bang theory, oxygen would not exist in any useful quantity prior to the first generation of stars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I left out the period of inflation, because i didnt think you would understand the concept of successive symmetries breaking between the 4 fundamental forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 10: Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?
> 
> 
> by Dr. Jason Lisle on
> 
> April 15, 2010
> 
> 
> Layman
> 
> 
> 
> author-jason-lisle
> bible
> big-bang
> cosmology
> nab2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Featured In
> Browse this title
> Buy this title
> 
> The big bang is a story about how the universe came into existence. It proposes that billions of years ago the universe began in a tiny, infinitely hot and dense point called a singularity. This singularity supposedly contained not only all the mass and energy that would become everything we see today, but also space itself. According to the story, the singularity rapidly expanded, spreading out the energy and space.
> 
> 
> 
> It is supposed that over vast periods of time, the energy from the big bang cooled down as the universe expanded. Some of it turned into matterhydrogen and helium gas. These gases collapsed to form stars and galaxies of stars. Some of the stars created the heavier elements in their core and then exploded, distributing these elements into space. Some of the heavier elements allegedly began to stick together and formed the earth and other planets.
> 
> 
> Rest of article.
> 
> Chapter 10: Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible? - Answers in Genesis
Click to expand...



Congrats on a very basic understanding. 

I like that you got the point about space itself expanding. Very good...


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> Here is a great page pointing out all the problems with the big bang theory.
> 
> Astrophysics - Answers in Genesis



I stopped reading when the article totally slaughtered the term dark matter.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> 11-Big Bang or Big Dud?



Wow....

Seriously?

"I suspect stars are the source of the MBR"

"reshifted starlight is not proof of the big bang"

"universe is too tightly wound up to be old"

"the universe blew up and the earth formed"

Omg are you serious?

Omg are you serious?

Omg are you serious?

Omg omg omg omg omg omg omg

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

To sum up, in his own words: "nothing blew up and then made a rock and then it rained and poof humans appeared. Isnt that darwinism in a nutshell"

No you fraud, no it is not.


----------



## sfcalifornia

Youwerecreated said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the land of nod, the reason it is wrong is you have better chance of passing on defective genes. At the time his either was his sister or there were humans in the land of nod to grow the human population. The bible don't go into detail. But at that time their bodies were much closer to perfection so less chance ofbad genes existing. But I can't for sure because the bible don't go into detail. But either way if we all originated from one life form you would be a product of inbreeding ,still grose ?  We know all humans were from one set of human parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible doesn't go into detail because there is no plausible answer, religiously speaking.  Scientifically, evolution is logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> God did not have to go into complete detail did he ?
> 
> Macro-evolution is illogical.
> 
> Adaptations logical.
Click to expand...


It is illogical to think that Eve could pump out enough kids to bring the world's population to what what it is today in 6,000 years.  She would have had to be pregnant her entire life.  Assuming she lived to be 900+ years old like Adam, with a 9 month gestation, she would only have had 1,200 kids, unless she dropped 50-100 kids at a time.  Either that or she gave birth immediately after getting screwed by Adam. 
How old were Adam and Eve when they were created?
Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old.....  seems Adam and Eve wasted a bit of time between kids....  they had a world to populate!
Then you have to take menopause into account.  Exactly how many fertile years did Eve have?
Oh and all the while, she was birthing Asians and Africans too?
When did she have time to raise the kids?  The poor woman must have been pooped. 

Compared to macro-evolution, the Adam and Eve story is completely implausible.

Seems to me Moses and the other contributors to the bible were using Adam and Eve as a metaphor for the entire human race and over time everyone started taking everything literally.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Macro-evolution is illogical.


Demonstrate.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have a definitive argument that life does exist, just like you dont have an argument that it doesnt.
> 
> But i do have an argument that plenty of earth like planets exist.
> 
> 
> 
> What about the nucleotides we find in meteors?
> 
> 
> 
> So your whole argument is based on the fact that there _was_ free oxygen? Evidence please? I have evidence for my position, oxidized iron deposits.
> 
> Whats your evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> Um the big bang has nothing at all to do with oxygen. Not a single thing. learn science. The BB claims oxygen atoms did not exist anywhere at all in vast quantities for long after the big bang. Dont bring up the big bang theory to me, because i will teach you things you'll never even understand.
> 
> Wanna talk about the existence of the CMB and the big bang theorys perfect prediction of its temperature?
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you think the big bang had to do with oxygen. Evidently you think it was a chemical explosion.
> 
> Ill add this to the things i had to teach you, along with atoms and mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> Which dont dominate the gene pool...
> 
> Do you understand the significance of the frequency of alleles in a population? Do you understand the difference between mendelian genetics and darwinian genetics even in the slightest bit?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> You have presented no such evidence. How do beneficial mutations simple leave the gene pool. It is passed along just like any other gene. Saying a beneficial mutation would leave a gene pool is like saying the genes to make a kidney would leave a gene pool. It doesnt make sense to anyone that knows anything.
> 
> UGH!
> 
> 
> 
> No, it hasnt. Theyre actually fairly common.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that cerebral palsy will dominate the human gene pool? If not then your argument is totally useless.
> 
> 
> 
> Im not sure what ive lied about so far.
> 
> 
> 
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If life is only on our planet does that not make our planet unique and special ?
> 
> I have no reason to believe life is on other planets.
> 
> No but most explosions do not happen without oxygen. Just for the record i don't believe in the Big Bang either just pointing out flaws with your theories.
> 
> 11-Big Bang or Big Dud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we dont know if life exists elsewhere or not.
> 
> Your claim is that humans are the only life in the entire universe. Theres no way to support this claim.
> 
> I would never definitively say that there certainly is life throughout the universe, because theres no way i could support that claim.
> 
> "most explosions dont happen without oxygen"
> 
> Please learn what the big bang theory is. Its not a physical explosion. Its not like there was a whole bunch of gun powder sitting in space that exploded. Anyone that thinks that is mentally handicapped.
> 
> The big bang was not an Explosion: However an explosion is a metaphor for what the big bang was.
> 
> Ill be back to refute your video later.
Click to expand...


Yes it was certainly explosion by the way it's taught.

They try to explain planets that are doing as predicted as being ran into by other objects.

That is their reasoning because they see the the universe expanding.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a great page pointing out all the problems with the big bang theory.
> 
> Astrophysics - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading when the article totally slaughtered the term dark matter.
Click to expand...


Your side can't explain it nor does black holes fit in your theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 11-Big Bang or Big Dud?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> "I suspect stars are the source of the MBR"
> 
> "reshifted starlight is not proof of the big bang"
> 
> "universe is too tightly wound up to be old"
> 
> "the universe blew up and the earth formed"
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg omg omg omg omg omg omg
> 
> ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> 
> To sum up, in his own words: "nothing blew up and then made a rock and then it rained and poof humans appeared. Isnt that darwinism in a nutshell"
> 
> No you fraud, no it is not.
Click to expand...


That is what your side claims it maybe, too straight to the point for you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 11-Big Bang or Big Dud?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> "I suspect stars are the source of the MBR"
> 
> "reshifted starlight is not proof of the big bang"
> 
> "universe is too tightly wound up to be old"
> 
> "the universe blew up and the earth formed"
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg omg omg omg omg omg omg
> 
> ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> 
> To sum up, in his own words: "nothing blew up and then made a rock and then it rained and poof humans appeared. Isnt that darwinism in a nutshell"
> 
> No you fraud, no it is not.
Click to expand...


I didn't think you believed in God


----------



## Youwerecreated

sfcalifornia said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible doesn't go into detail because there is no plausible answer, religiously speaking.  Scientifically, evolution is logical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God did not have to go into complete detail did he ?
> 
> Macro-evolution is illogical.
> 
> Adaptations logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is illogical to think that Eve could pump out enough kids to bring the world's population to what what it is today in 6,000 years.  She would have had to be pregnant her entire life.  Assuming she lived to be 900+ years old like Adam, with a 9 month gestation, she would only have had 1,200 kids, unless she dropped 50-100 kids at a time.  Either that or she gave birth immediately after getting screwed by Adam.
> How old were Adam and Eve when they were created?
> Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old.....  seems Adam and Eve wasted a bit of time between kids....  they had a world to populate!
> Then you have to take menopause into account.  Exactly how many fertile years did Eve have?
> Oh and all the while, she was birthing Asians and Africans too?
> When did she have time to raise the kids?  The poor woman must have been pooped.
> 
> Compared to macro-evolution, the Adam and Eve story is completely implausible.
> 
> Seems to me Moses and the other contributors to the bible were using Adam and Eve as a metaphor for the entire human race and over time everyone started taking everything literally.
Click to expand...


So you think it is illogical that the population of humans were only at 200 million just 2,000 years ago now it's at 8 billion ? so it it went from 8 people to 200 million in 3,000 years.

Explain by those numbers how it is illogical ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Macro-evolution is illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate.
Click to expand...


Simple, parents only reproduce after their kind. Their genetic data only produces what they are. You have to add three magical fornulas for macro- to happen.

1. new and beneficial Genetic information

2. large spans of time

3. natural selection to weed out the bad genes and only preserve the good and beneficial genes. And we have over 4,500 genetic disorders versus very few genetic improvements you can point to.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a great page pointing out all the problems with the big bang theory.
> 
> Astrophysics - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading when the article totally slaughtered the term dark matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your side can't explain it nor does black holes fit in your theory.
Click to expand...


O wow i would love to hear how black holes contradict the big bang. 

Id love to teach you what a black hole is as well.

Besides, dark matter has nothing to do with the big bang.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 11-Big Bang or Big Dud?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> "I suspect stars are the source of the MBR"
> 
> "reshifted starlight is not proof of the big bang"
> 
> "universe is too tightly wound up to be old"
> 
> "the universe blew up and the earth formed"
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg omg omg omg omg omg omg
> 
> ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> 
> To sum up, in his own words: "nothing blew up and then made a rock and then it rained and poof humans appeared. Isnt that darwinism in a nutshell"
> 
> No you fraud, no it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't think you believed in God
Click to expand...


Actually, if you would pay attention ive said over and over that im very open to the concept of a god. 

Just not your retarded concept. 

Lets actually talk substance though. 

The CMB comes from stars? Are you serious? Do you realize how easy it would be to prove that? 

Do you realize the history of the CMB contradicts that? When it was discovered they looked for a source, there is no source. It comes from everywhere. If it was coming from stars we would simply point radio telescopes at stars and measure the CMB radiation they emit. They dont.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not have to go into complete detail did he ?
> 
> Macro-evolution is illogical.
> 
> Adaptations logical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is illogical to think that Eve could pump out enough kids to bring the world's population to what what it is today in 6,000 years.  She would have had to be pregnant her entire life.  Assuming she lived to be 900+ years old like Adam, with a 9 month gestation, she would only have had 1,200 kids, unless she dropped 50-100 kids at a time.  Either that or she gave birth immediately after getting screwed by Adam.
> How old were Adam and Eve when they were created?
> Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old.....  seems Adam and Eve wasted a bit of time between kids....  they had a world to populate!
> Then you have to take menopause into account.  Exactly how many fertile years did Eve have?
> Oh and all the while, she was birthing Asians and Africans too?
> When did she have time to raise the kids?  The poor woman must have been pooped.
> 
> Compared to macro-evolution, the Adam and Eve story is completely implausible.
> 
> Seems to me Moses and the other contributors to the bible were using Adam and Eve as a metaphor for the entire human race and over time everyone started taking everything literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it is illogical that the population of humans were only at 200 million just 2,000 years ago now it's at 8 billion ? so it it went from 8 people to 200 million in 3,000 years.
> 
> Explain by those numbers how it is illogical ?
Click to expand...


its illogical because humanity could not have possibly come from 2 people.

There are at least like 4 distictly different races, caucasians, africans, asians, and hispanics. 

How did 2 people come to create 4 races? lol?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Macro-evolution is illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple, parents only reproduce after their kind. Their genetic data only produces what they are. You have to add three magical fornulas for macro- to happen.
> 
> 1. new and beneficial Genetic information
Click to expand...


Weve already talked about this. Tell me why DNA Polymerase cannot add an adenine during replication. 



Youwerecreated said:


> 2. large spans of time



K so what every piece of evidence says is right?



Youwerecreated said:


> 3. natural selection to weed out the bad genes and only preserve the good and beneficial genes. And we have over 4,500 genetic disorders versus very few genetic improvements you can point to.



HARMFUL GENETIC DISORDERS CANNOT SPREAD THROUGH A GENE POOL. How many times should i explain this to you?

Saying a harmful mutation can spread through a gene pool is like saying people with cerebral palsy are going to over run the world. its idiotic. 

BENEFICIAL GENETIC MUTATIONS ARE SPREAD THROUGH THE GENE POOL LIKE ANY OTHER GENE, AND EVEN FASTER. 

Explain to me how beneficial mutations could possibly get removed from a gene pool. Harmful mutations can and do, because those organisms wont reproduce as much. But an organism with a beneficial mutation will reproduce the same way a normal organism does. And that mutation will be passed on like any other piece of DNA, because thats all it is, just another piece of DNA. 

So yes, beneficial mutations necessarily build up in a gene pool. Idk how much more i can even say about this. 

Your a moron.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If life is only on our planet does that not make our planet unique and special ?
> 
> I have no reason to believe life is on other planets.
> 
> No but most explosions do not happen without oxygen. Just for the record i don't believe in the Big Bang either just pointing out flaws with your theories.
> 
> 11-Big Bang or Big Dud?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we dont know if life exists elsewhere or not.
> 
> Your claim is that humans are the only life in the entire universe. Theres no way to support this claim.
> 
> I would never definitively say that there certainly is life throughout the universe, because theres no way i could support that claim.
> 
> "most explosions dont happen without oxygen"
> 
> Please learn what the big bang theory is. Its not a physical explosion. Its not like there was a whole bunch of gun powder sitting in space that exploded. Anyone that thinks that is mentally handicapped.
> 
> The big bang was not an Explosion: However an explosion is a metaphor for what the big bang was.
> 
> Ill be back to refute your video later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it was certainly explosion by the way it's taught.
Click to expand...


Are you still claiming the big bang was a _chemical_ explosion? Wow. 

Were gonna have to talk about this. If you cant even understand this simple concept were done.



Youwerecreated said:


> They try to explain planets that are doing as predicted as being ran into by other objects.



What? There is actually evidence for these things. There is evidence that the moon formed via impact with the earth. 



Youwerecreated said:


> That is their reasoning because they see the the universe expanding.



Exactly right. We *see* the universe expanding. We see it. We witness it. Its been observed. 

Game over, you lose.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 11-Big Bang or Big Dud?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> "I suspect stars are the source of the MBR"
> 
> "reshifted starlight is not proof of the big bang"
> 
> "universe is too tightly wound up to be old"
> 
> "the universe blew up and the earth formed"
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg omg omg omg omg omg omg
> 
> ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> 
> To sum up, in his own words: "nothing blew up and then made a rock and then it rained and poof humans appeared. Isnt that darwinism in a nutshell"
> 
> No you fraud, no it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what your side claims it maybe, too straight to the point for you.
Click to expand...


No, its a gross distortion of the actual theories. 

Thats an explanation you use when your trying to convince someone that your opinion is right. 

An honest person might talk about how organic chemicals form naturally and what the big bang, abiogensis, and evolution actually says

So far you think the big bang was a chemical explosion. Wrong

And that abiogenesis says we came from a rock. Wrong.

And that something called a "DNA code barrier" prevents evolution. Wrong. 

Wrong wrong wrong....


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading when the article totally slaughtered the term dark matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your side can't explain it nor does black holes fit in your theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O wow i would love to hear how black holes contradict the big bang.
> 
> Id love to teach you what a black hole is as well.
> 
> Besides, dark matter has nothing to do with the big bang.
Click to expand...


Didn't say black holes are a problem for the big bang if that is what i said it was typo. It is however a problenm for evolution.

No black holes have yet been positively identified, and not all astronomers accept their existence. But even if black holes do exist, they give no support to the theory of evolution. Black holes are simply in line with the fact that the universe is decaying. Things do not spontaneously improve and become more orderly, as evolution theory would have people believe. They decay, run down, and lose their orderliness.

 This is completely in line with creationist thinking. But it does not lend support to the evolutionary idea that todays complexity has evolved and become more ordered from the chaos of long ago.

Black Holes in Space Don


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is illogical to think that Eve could pump out enough kids to bring the world's population to what what it is today in 6,000 years.  She would have had to be pregnant her entire life.  Assuming she lived to be 900+ years old like Adam, with a 9 month gestation, she would only have had 1,200 kids, unless she dropped 50-100 kids at a time.  Either that or she gave birth immediately after getting screwed by Adam.
> How old were Adam and Eve when they were created?
> Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old.....  seems Adam and Eve wasted a bit of time between kids....  they had a world to populate!
> Then you have to take menopause into account.  Exactly how many fertile years did Eve have?
> Oh and all the while, she was birthing Asians and Africans too?
> When did she have time to raise the kids?  The poor woman must have been pooped.
> 
> Compared to macro-evolution, the Adam and Eve story is completely implausible.
> 
> Seems to me Moses and the other contributors to the bible were using Adam and Eve as a metaphor for the entire human race and over time everyone started taking everything literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it is illogical that the population of humans were only at 200 million just 2,000 years ago now it's at 8 billion ? so it it went from 8 people to 200 million in 3,000 years.
> 
> Explain by those numbers how it is illogical ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> its illogical because humanity could not have possibly come from 2 people.
> 
> There are at least like 4 distictly different races, caucasians, africans, asians, and hispanics.
> 
> How did 2 people come to create 4 races? lol?
Click to expand...


Yes and there are very little differences in humans just variations.

So you're saying the popoulation can't grow from 8 to 200 million in three thousand years but it can grow from 200 million to 8 billion in two thousand years.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> "I suspect stars are the source of the MBR"
> 
> "reshifted starlight is not proof of the big bang"
> 
> "universe is too tightly wound up to be old"
> 
> "the universe blew up and the earth formed"
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg omg omg omg omg omg omg
> 
> ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> 
> To sum up, in his own words: "nothing blew up and then made a rock and then it rained and poof humans appeared. Isnt that darwinism in a nutshell"
> 
> No you fraud, no it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think you believed in God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you would pay attention ive said over and over that im very open to the concept of a god.
> 
> Just not your retarded concept.
> 
> Lets actually talk substance though.
> 
> The CMB comes from stars? Are you serious? Do you realize how easy it would be to prove that?
> 
> Do you realize the history of the CMB contradicts that? When it was discovered they looked for a source, there is no source. It comes from everywhere. If it was coming from stars we would simply point radio telescopes at stars and measure the CMB radiation they emit. They dont.
Click to expand...


Make your posts clearer please,what do you mean CMB ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple, parents only reproduce after their kind. Their genetic data only produces what they are. You have to add three magical fornulas for macro- to happen.
> 
> 1. new and beneficial Genetic information
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weve already talked about this. Tell me why DNA Polymerase cannot add an adenine during replication.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. large spans of time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> K so what every piece of evidence says is right?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. natural selection to weed out the bad genes and only preserve the good and beneficial genes. And we have over 4,500 genetic disorders versus very few genetic improvements you can point to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HARMFUL GENETIC DISORDERS CANNOT SPREAD THROUGH A GENE POOL. How many times should i explain this to you?
> 
> Saying a harmful mutation can spread through a gene pool is like saying people with cerebral palsy are going to over run the world. its idiotic.
> 
> BENEFICIAL GENETIC MUTATIONS ARE SPREAD THROUGH THE GENE POOL LIKE ANY OTHER GENE, AND EVEN FASTER.
> 
> Explain to me how beneficial mutations could possibly get removed from a gene pool. Harmful mutations can and do, because those organisms wont reproduce as much. But an organism with a beneficial mutation will reproduce the same way a normal organism does. And that mutation will be passed on like any other piece of DNA, because thats all it is, just another piece of DNA.
> 
> So yes, beneficial mutations necessarily build up in a gene pool. Idk how much more i can even say about this.
> 
> Your a moron.
Click to expand...


You're missing the obvious point can you have a give and take without resorting to insults ?

The reality is that we can point to mutations causing more harm then good that is why there are so many more genetic disorders then benefits from mutations you can point to.

The obvious point is no mutations can take over a gene pool.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your side can't explain it nor does black holes fit in your theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O wow i would love to hear how black holes contradict the big bang.
> 
> Id love to teach you what a black hole is as well.
> 
> Besides, dark matter has nothing to do with the big bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't say black holes are a problem for the big bang if that is what i said it was typo. It is however a problenm for evolution.
> 
> No black holes have yet been positively identified, and not all astronomers accept their existence. But even if black holes do exist, they give no support to the theory of evolution. Black holes are simply in line with the fact that the universe is decaying. Things do not spontaneously improve and become more orderly, as evolution theory would have people believe. They decay, run down, and lose their orderliness.
> 
> This is completely in line with creationist thinking. But it does not lend support to the evolutionary idea that todays complexity has evolved and become more ordered from the chaos of long ago.
> 
> Black Holes in Space Don
Click to expand...


Well its actually completely in line with scientific thinking as well. Just because stars "decay", doesnt mean everything does at every moment. Stars are, by and large, closed systems. So entropy applies to it, but not to life. 

No black hole has ever been positively identified?

Seriously?

Are you fucking stupid?

Newly Discovered Black Holes Are Largest So Far : NPR

Are you really that fucking stupid?


----------



## cbirch2

Cygnus X-1 is the poster child for black holes.

And it was recently proven without a doubt that Cygnus X-1 is a black hole. 

And by without a doubt, i mean that Steven Hawking lost his bet and paid up.

http://techie-buzz.com/science/cygnus-black-hole-hawking.html


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Macro-evolution is illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple, parents only reproduce after their kind.
Click to expand...

Meaningless.



Youwerecreated said:


> Their genetic data only produces what they are.


The offspring is genetically DIFFERENT than either of its parents. 



Youwerecreated said:


> You have to add three magical fornulas for macro- to happen.
> 
> 1. new and beneficial Genetic information
> 
> 2. large spans of time
> 
> 3. natural selection to weed out the bad genes and only preserve the good and beneficial genes.


All three have been demonstrated, and none of them are magical--unlike every single bit of your creation story.



Youwerecreated said:


> And we have over 4,500 genetic disorders versus very few genetic improvements you can point to.


Very few? Every single allele that is not a "genetic disorder" accounts as "very few" in your calculus?

Your candor regarding your denial of reality is reassuring.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we dont know if life exists elsewhere or not.
> 
> Your claim is that humans are the only life in the entire universe. Theres no way to support this claim.
> 
> I would never definitively say that there certainly is life throughout the universe, because theres no way i could support that claim.
> 
> "most explosions dont happen without oxygen"
> 
> Please learn what the big bang theory is. Its not a physical explosion. Its not like there was a whole bunch of gun powder sitting in space that exploded. Anyone that thinks that is mentally handicapped.
> 
> The big bang was not an Explosion: However an explosion is a metaphor for what the big bang was.
> 
> Ill be back to refute your video later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was certainly explosion by the way it's taught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still claiming the big bang was a _chemical_ explosion? Wow.
> 
> Were gonna have to talk about this. If you cant even understand this simple concept were done.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They try to explain planets that are doing as predicted as being ran into by other objects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? There is actually evidence for these things. There is evidence that the moon formed via impact with the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is their reasoning because they see the the universe expanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly right. We *see* the universe expanding. We see it. We witness it. Its been observed.
> 
> Game over, you lose.
Click to expand...


ThesaurusLegend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. big bang theory - (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature 


No God is causing the exspansion.

Psa 104:2  covering Yourself with light as with a robe; and stretching out the heavens like a curtain; 

You are so wrong.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> The obvious point is no mutations can take over a gene pool.



*Any mutation, bad or good, is passed along just like any other gene during reproduction. *

The extent to which it dominates a gene pool is determined by the role that the mutation has on survival. 

This is the difference between mendelian and darwinian genetics. 

A beneficial mutation, or a neutral mutation, flow through the gene pool just like every other normal gene does. 

When your looking at just reproduction between two indiviuals, as opposed to the population as a whole, even bad mutations are passed on like any other gene. 

Do you get it now?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> O wow i would love to hear how black holes contradict the big bang.
> 
> Id love to teach you what a black hole is as well.
> 
> Besides, dark matter has nothing to do with the big bang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say black holes are a problem for the big bang if that is what i said it was typo. It is however a problenm for evolution.
> 
> No black holes have yet been positively identified, and not all astronomers accept their existence. But even if black holes do exist, they give no support to the theory of evolution. Black holes are simply in line with the fact that the universe is decaying. Things do not spontaneously improve and become more orderly, as evolution theory would have people believe. They decay, run down, and lose their orderliness.
> 
> This is completely in line with creationist thinking. But it does not lend support to the evolutionary idea that todays complexity has evolved and become more ordered from the chaos of long ago.
> 
> Black Holes in Space Don
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well its actually completely in line with scientific thinking as well. Just because stars "decay", doesnt mean everything does at every moment. Stars are, by and large, closed systems. So entropy applies to it, but not to life.
> 
> No black hole has ever been positively identified?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Are you fucking stupid?
> 
> Newly Discovered Black Holes Are Largest So Far : NPR
> 
> Are you really that fucking stupid?
Click to expand...


 these kind of posts just show you being threatened and are desperate.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was certainly explosion by the way it's taught.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still claiming the big bang was a _chemical_ explosion? Wow.
> 
> Were gonna have to talk about this. If you cant even understand this simple concept were done.
> 
> 
> 
> What? There is actually evidence for these things. There is evidence that the moon formed via impact with the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is their reasoning because they see the the universe expanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly right. We *see* the universe expanding. We see it. We witness it. Its been observed.
> 
> Game over, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ThesaurusLegend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
> Noun 1. big bang theory - (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature
> 
> 
> No God is causing the exspansion.
> 
> Psa 104:2  covering Yourself with light as with a robe; and stretching out the heavens like a curtain;
> 
> You are so wrong.
Click to expand...


Im not wrong. The big bang can be thought of as an explosion, but it was not a _chemical explosion. _

If you think the big bang was a chemical explosion, then were done with this debate because you clearly dont understand anything.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious point is no mutations can take over a gene pool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Any mutation, bad or good, is passed along just like any other gene during reproduction. *
> 
> The extent to which it dominates a gene pool is determined by the role that the mutation has on survival.
> 
> This is the difference between mendelian and darwinian genetics.
> 
> A beneficial mutation, or a neutral mutation, flow through the gene pool just like every other normal gene does.
> 
> When your looking at just reproduction between two indiviuals, as opposed to the population as a whole, even bad mutations are passed on like any other gene.
> 
> Do you get it now?
Click to expand...


Whoa you just contradicted yourself.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say black holes are a problem for the big bang if that is what i said it was typo. It is however a problenm for evolution.
> 
> No black holes have yet been positively identified, and not all astronomers accept their existence. But even if black holes do exist, they give no support to the theory of evolution. Black holes are simply in line with the fact that the universe is decaying. Things do not spontaneously improve and become more orderly, as evolution theory would have people believe. They decay, run down, and lose their orderliness.
> 
> This is completely in line with creationist thinking. But it does not lend support to the evolutionary idea that today&#8217;s complexity has evolved and become more ordered from the chaos of long ago.
> 
> Black Holes in Space Don
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well its actually completely in line with scientific thinking as well. Just because stars "decay", doesnt mean everything does at every moment. Stars are, by and large, closed systems. So entropy applies to it, but not to life.
> 
> No black hole has ever been positively identified?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Are you fucking stupid?
> 
> Newly Discovered Black Holes Are Largest So Far : NPR
> 
> Are you really that fucking stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> these kind of posts just show you being threatened and are desperate.
Click to expand...


They do?

Granted im frustrated at your ignorance.

But how can you possibly claim that no black hole has ever been shown to exist?

That is a ignorant statement, it flies in the face of all facts. 

Your saying my statement smacks of desperation, but at least i couple my insults with facts and sources. 

You just dodge my facts.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious point is no mutations can take over a gene pool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Any mutation, bad or good, is passed along just like any other gene during reproduction. *
> 
> The extent to which it dominates a gene pool is determined by the role that the mutation has on survival.
> 
> This is the difference between mendelian and darwinian genetics.
> 
> A beneficial mutation, or a neutral mutation, flow through the gene pool just like every other normal gene does.
> 
> When your looking at just reproduction between two indiviuals, as opposed to the population as a whole, even bad mutations are passed on like any other gene.
> 
> Do you get it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa you just contradicted yourself.
Click to expand...


No i didnt. Please tell me where. 

I think you dont understand the difference between mendelian and darwinian genetics 

During any single act of reproduction, a mutation is passed along just like any other gene segment. Even if its a harmful one. 

But the dominance of that mutation in the gene pool of the population is dependent on the health of the organisms that carry it.

Get it?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still claiming the big bang was a _chemical_ explosion? Wow.
> 
> Were gonna have to talk about this. If you cant even understand this simple concept were done.
> 
> 
> 
> What? There is actually evidence for these things. There is evidence that the moon formed via impact with the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right. We *see* the universe expanding. We see it. We witness it. Its been observed.
> 
> Game over, you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThesaurusLegend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
> Noun 1. big bang theory - (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature
> 
> 
> No God is causing the exspansion.
> 
> Psa 104:2  covering Yourself with light as with a robe; and stretching out the heavens like a curtain;
> 
> You are so wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not wrong. The big bang can be thought of as an explosion, but it was not a _chemical explosion. _
> 
> If you think the big bang was a chemical explosion, then were done with this debate because you clearly dont understand anything.
Click to expand...


So where did all the water come from ?

We observe chemical elements made in the Big Bang.  
In the 1940's, the physicist George Gamow and his colleagues realized that the early universe must have been extremely hot as well as dense. Scientists were just beginning to understand that under great heat and density, chemical elements can be transformed from one into the other. Gamow and his colleagues calculated that for a hot, dense, and expanding universe about one-quarter of the simplest chemical element - hydrogen - would have been "cooked" into the element helium. Astronomers have measured the proportion of hydrogen and helium scattered through our universe, and it matches the prediction perfectly. This was strong evidence that the early universe was hot as well as dense.

--Universe Forum--Big Bang--What was it?

I guess we are done and you don't know what you're talking about other then theory.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ThesaurusLegend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
> Noun 1. big bang theory - (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature
> 
> 
> No God is causing the exspansion.
> 
> Psa 104:2  covering Yourself with light as with a robe; and stretching out the heavens like a curtain;
> 
> You are so wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not wrong. The big bang can be thought of as an explosion, but it was not a _chemical explosion. _
> 
> If you think the big bang was a chemical explosion, then were done with this debate because you clearly dont understand anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where did all the water come from ?
> 
> We observe chemical elements made in the Big Bang.
> In the 1940's, the physicist George Gamow and his colleagues realized that the early universe must have been extremely hot as well as dense. Scientists were just beginning to understand that under great heat and density, chemical elements can be transformed from one into the other. Gamow and his colleagues calculated that for a hot, dense, and expanding universe about one-quarter of the simplest chemical element - hydrogen - would have been "cooked" into the element helium. Astronomers have measured the proportion of hydrogen and helium scattered through our universe, and it matches the prediction perfectly. This was strong evidence that the early universe was hot as well as dense.
> 
> --Universe Forum--Big Bang--What was it?
> 
> I guess we are done and you don't know what you're talking about other then theory.
Click to expand...


Hydrogen and helium atoms were only able to form after electroweak symmetry broke!!!! Do i need to post that graphic again!?! *The chemical elements hydrogen and helium were formed shortly after the big bang as the universe cooled, but they did not exist as atoms at the first moment of the big bang.
* 
And wtf are you talking about water?

Water was certainly not present at the time of the big bang!


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> O wow i would love to hear how black holes contradict the big bang.
> 
> Id love to teach you what a black hole is as well.
> 
> Besides, dark matter has nothing to do with the big bang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say black holes are a problem for the big bang if that is what i said it was typo. It is however a problenm for evolution.
> 
> No black holes have yet been positively identified, and not all astronomers accept their existence. But even if black holes do exist, they give no support to the theory of evolution. Black holes are simply in line with the fact that the universe is decaying. Things do not spontaneously improve and become more orderly, as evolution theory would have people believe. They decay, run down, and lose their orderliness.
> 
> This is completely in line with creationist thinking. But it does not lend support to the evolutionary idea that today&#8217;s complexity has evolved and become more ordered from the chaos of long ago.
> 
> Black Holes in Space Don
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well its actually completely in line with scientific thinking as well. Just because stars "decay", doesnt mean everything does at every moment. Stars are, by and large, closed systems. So entropy applies to it, but not to life.
> 
> No black hole has ever been positively identified?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Are you fucking stupid?
> 
> Newly Discovered Black Holes Are Largest So Far : NPR
> 
> Are you really that fucking stupid?
Click to expand...


Really by looking into a spot in space seeing absolutely nothing is evidence  There goes that active imagination again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not wrong. The big bang can be thought of as an explosion, but it was not a _chemical explosion. _
> 
> If you think the big bang was a chemical explosion, then were done with this debate because you clearly dont understand anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where did all the water come from ?
> 
> We observe chemical elements made in the Big Bang.
> In the 1940's, the physicist George Gamow and his colleagues realized that the early universe must have been extremely hot as well as dense. Scientists were just beginning to understand that under great heat and density, chemical elements can be transformed from one into the other. Gamow and his colleagues calculated that for a hot, dense, and expanding universe about one-quarter of the simplest chemical element - hydrogen - would have been "cooked" into the element helium. Astronomers have measured the proportion of hydrogen and helium scattered through our universe, and it matches the prediction perfectly. This was strong evidence that the early universe was hot as well as dense.
> 
> --Universe Forum--Big Bang--What was it?
> 
> I guess we are done and you don't know what you're talking about other then theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrogen and helium atoms were only able to form after electroweak symmetry broke!!!! Do i need to post that graphic again!?! *The chemical elements hydrogen and helium were formed shortly after the big bang as the universe cooled, but they did not exist as atoms at the first moment of the big bang.
> *
> And wtf are you talking about water?
> 
> Water was certainly not present at the time of the big bang!
Click to expand...


Water is a chemical and it's found on other planets isn't it ? Where did it come from ?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say black holes are a problem for the big bang if that is what i said it was typo. It is however a problenm for evolution.
> 
> No black holes have yet been positively identified, and not all astronomers accept their existence. But even if black holes do exist, they give no support to the theory of evolution. Black holes are simply in line with the fact that the universe is decaying. Things do not spontaneously improve and become more orderly, as evolution theory would have people believe. They decay, run down, and lose their orderliness.
> 
> This is completely in line with creationist thinking. But it does not lend support to the evolutionary idea that today&#8217;s complexity has evolved and become more ordered from the chaos of long ago.
> 
> Black Holes in Space Don
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well its actually completely in line with scientific thinking as well. Just because stars "decay", doesnt mean everything does at every moment. Stars are, by and large, closed systems. So entropy applies to it, but not to life.
> 
> No black hole has ever been positively identified?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Are you fucking stupid?
> 
> Newly Discovered Black Holes Are Largest So Far : NPR
> 
> Are you really that fucking stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really by looking into a spot in space seeing absolutely nothing is evidence  There goes thaty imagination again.
Click to expand...


yea because thats how astronomers look for black holes. 

Lmao wow. 


Lets just pretend gravity doesnt exist huh? And that matter about to fall past the event horizon doesnt emit specific x ray radiation


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where did all the water come from ?
> 
> We observe chemical elements made in the Big Bang.
> In the 1940's, the physicist George Gamow and his colleagues realized that the early universe must have been extremely hot as well as dense. Scientists were just beginning to understand that under great heat and density, chemical elements can be transformed from one into the other. Gamow and his colleagues calculated that for a hot, dense, and expanding universe about one-quarter of the simplest chemical element - hydrogen - would have been "cooked" into the element helium. Astronomers have measured the proportion of hydrogen and helium scattered through our universe, and it matches the prediction perfectly. This was strong evidence that the early universe was hot as well as dense.
> 
> --Universe Forum--Big Bang--What was it?
> 
> I guess we are done and you don't know what you're talking about other then theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hydrogen and helium atoms were only able to form after electroweak symmetry broke!!!! Do i need to post that graphic again!?! *The chemical elements hydrogen and helium were formed shortly after the big bang as the universe cooled, but they did not exist as atoms at the first moment of the big bang.
> *
> And wtf are you talking about water?
> 
> Water was certainly not present at the time of the big bang!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Water is a chemical and it's found on other planets isn't it ? Where did it come from ?
Click to expand...


OK just so make this clear. Water did not exist at the time of the big bang. Water is hydrogen and oxygen, and neither of those atoms were able to form in the moments after the big bang. It would have been a highly energetic quark-gluon plasma, hadrons (like protons and neutrons) could not form. And therefore atoms could not form. Only once the universe cooled enough could quarks bind to form protons, and electrons orbit those protons to form atoms. 

Where did they come from in the first place? Idk, maybe god. 

We've talked about this before. Im open to the idea of god. Just not your retarded idea of him.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> "I suspect stars are the source of the MBR"
> 
> "reshifted starlight is not proof of the big bang"
> 
> "universe is too tightly wound up to be old"
> 
> "the universe blew up and the earth formed"
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg are you serious?
> 
> Omg omg omg omg omg omg omg
> 
> ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> 
> To sum up, in his own words: "nothing blew up and then made a rock and then it rained and poof humans appeared. Isnt that darwinism in a nutshell"
> 
> No you fraud, no it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think you believed in God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you would pay attention ive said over and over that im very open to the concept of a god.
> 
> Just not your retarded concept.
> 
> Lets actually talk substance though.
> 
> The CMB comes from stars? Are you serious? Do you realize how easy it would be to prove that?
> 
> Do you realize the history of the CMB contradicts that? When it was discovered they looked for a source, there is no source. It comes from everywhere. If it was coming from stars we would simply point radio telescopes at stars and measure the CMB radiation they emit. They dont.
Click to expand...


The problem

 The temperature of the CMB is essentially the same everywhere5>in all directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000).6 However (according to big bang theorists), in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB7 would have been very different at different places in space due to the random nature of the initial conditions. These different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant regions would come to equilibrium by exchanging radiation (i.e. light8). The radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler ones until they had the same temperature.


(1) Early in the alleged big bang, points A and B start out with different temperatures. 



(2) Today, points A and B have the same temperature, yet there has not been enough time for them to exchange light.



The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other?9 This is a light-traveltime problem.10

Light-Travel Time: A Problem for the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis


----------



## Youwerecreated

The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science. For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis. Really, the big bang is a secular alternative to the Bible. 

So, this weak cluster-pattern of galaxies does not support the big bang with its billions of years. On the contrary, the big bang is simply assumed in order to explain this clustering within a naturalistic framework.


Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the &#8220;sound waves&#8221; interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.

âRipplesâ of GalaxiesâAnother Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis


----------



## sfcalifornia

Youwerecreated said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not have to go into complete detail did he ?
> 
> Macro-evolution is illogical.
> 
> Adaptations logical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is illogical to think that Eve could pump out enough kids to bring the world's population to what what it is today in 6,000 years.  She would have had to be pregnant her entire life.  Assuming she lived to be 900+ years old like Adam, with a 9 month gestation, she would only have had 1,200 kids, unless she dropped 50-100 kids at a time.  Either that or she gave birth immediately after getting screwed by Adam.
> How old were Adam and Eve when they were created?
> Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old.....  seems Adam and Eve wasted a bit of time between kids....  they had a world to populate!
> Then you have to take menopause into account.  Exactly how many fertile years did Eve have?
> Oh and all the while, she was birthing Asians and Africans too?
> When did she have time to raise the kids?  The poor woman must have been pooped.
> 
> Compared to macro-evolution, the Adam and Eve story is completely implausible.
> 
> Seems to me Moses and the other contributors to the bible were using Adam and Eve as a metaphor for the entire human race and over time everyone started taking everything literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it is illogical that the population of humans were only at 200 million just 2,000 years ago now it's at 8 billion ? so it it went from 8 people to 200 million in 3,000 years.
> 
> Explain by those numbers how it is illogical ?
Click to expand...


You mean 7 billion:

World population hits 7 billion

If Eve birthed one kid every nine months, that's only 1200 kids for the first 900 years.  But that's incorrect anyway.  Adam was 130 before they had Seth.  So it was even less kids....  And when did Eve go into menopause?  Even less kids. 

You're gonna need to show the math if you're ever going to convince any of us that 2 people were able to bring the population up to 7 billion in 6,000 years.

And you still didn't explain how Eve pumped out Asians, Africans and Latinos much less any of the other questions I posted.   That's what creationists do...  they just gloss over and ignore the bits they can't explain.....


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think you believed in God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you would pay attention ive said over and over that im very open to the concept of a god.
> 
> Just not your retarded concept.
> 
> Lets actually talk substance though.
> 
> The CMB comes from stars? Are you serious? Do you realize how easy it would be to prove that?
> 
> Do you realize the history of the CMB contradicts that? When it was discovered they looked for a source, there is no source. It comes from everywhere. If it was coming from stars we would simply point radio telescopes at stars and measure the CMB radiation they emit. They dont.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem
> 
> The temperature of the CMB is essentially the same everywhere5>in all directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000).6 However (according to big bang theorists), in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB7 would have been very different at different places in space due to the random nature of the initial conditions. These different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant regions would come to equilibrium by exchanging radiation (i.e. light8). The radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler ones until they had the same temperature.
> 
> 
> (1) Early in the alleged big bang, points A and B start out with different temperatures.
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Today, points A and B have the same temperature, yet there has not been enough time for them to exchange light.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other?9 This is a light-traveltime problem.10
> 
> Light-Travel Time: A Problem for the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis
Click to expand...


What? Photons dont have to travel across the universe for there to be a relatively constant temperature. 

And its not totally uniform.







And is this going into an argument about inflation? Id love it.

There actually is evidence to support inflation. The idea behind the period of inflation is several fold. First the expansion of space itself would make particles farther apart without them actually having traveled that distance. Second the idea of unified forces. At the limits of our energy in labs, weve only been able to prove that the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism unify above something like 246 GeV; in other words, fermions begin to exchange photons instead of W or Z bosons above that energy. So its a safe assumption that the strong nuclear force behaves the same way. 

So then you have a very high energy environment right after the big bang in which at least 3 of the 4 fundamental forces were unified and behaved in a different way.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science. For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis. Really, the big bang is a secular alternative to the Bible.
> 
> So, this weak cluster-pattern of galaxies does not support the big bang with its billions of years. On the contrary, the big bang is simply assumed in order to explain this clustering within a naturalistic framework.
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the &#8220;sound waves&#8221; interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.
> 
> â&#8364;&#339;Ripplesâ&#8364; of Galaxiesâ&#8364;&#8221;Another Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis



Proto Galaxy - Astronomers discover a small proto galaxy 13.2 billion light-years away | TopNews United States

There is tremendous difficulting in getting stars to form on their own?

Seriously?

What do you expect giant clouds of gas to do in space? No forces act on a gas cloud but itself and gravity. Its going to collapse in on itself eventually, its a mathematical inevitability. 

YaleNews | Astronomers Witness a Star Being Born

We do see stars being born fool. What is that? Oh its just a cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself and heating up in the process. 

Nope thats not the definition of a star or anything.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science.


Nonsense.



Youwerecreated said:


> For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis.


Events of creation as recorded in Genesis are a fairy tale.



Youwerecreated said:


> Really, the big bang is a secular alternative to the Bible.


Nonsense.



Youwerecreated said:


> So, this weak cluster-pattern of galaxies does not support the big bang with its billions of years.


Nonsense.



Youwerecreated said:


> On the contrary, the big bang is simply assumed in order to explain this clustering within a naturalistic framework.


Nonsense.



Youwerecreated said:


> Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the sound waves interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.
> 
> âRipplesâ of GalaxiesâAnother Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis


Superstition inspired nonsense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science. For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis. Really, the big bang is a secular alternative to the Bible.
> 
> So, this weak cluster-pattern of galaxies does not support the big bang with its billions of years. On the contrary, the big bang is simply assumed in order to explain this clustering within a naturalistic framework.
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the &#8220;sound waves&#8221; interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.
> 
> â&#8364;&#339;Ripplesâ&#8364; of Galaxiesâ&#8364;&#8221;Another Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proto Galaxy - Astronomers discover a small proto galaxy 13.2 billion light-years away | TopNews United States
> 
> There is tremendous difficulting in getting stars to form on their own?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> What do you expect giant clouds of gas to do in space? No forces act on a gas cloud but itself and gravity. Its going to collapse in on itself eventually, its a mathematical inevitability.
> 
> YaleNews | Astronomers Witness a Star Being Born
> 
> We do see stars being born fool. What is that? Oh its just a cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself and heating up in the process.
> 
> Nope thats not the definition of a star or anything.
Click to expand...


Let's get to the important questions and leave the rhetoric alone.

There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions ,

 Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from? 

If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen?

 Where did gravity come from that held it together? 



The dot spun rapidly until it exploded,then where did the energy come from to start the spinning? 

Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this spinning dot would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from. 

This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum. This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from. 

So all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction. But two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards. Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigbang.html

 How do you explain this ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science. For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis. Really, the big bang is a secular alternative to the Bible.
> 
> So, this weak cluster-pattern of galaxies does not support the big bang with its billions of years. On the contrary, the big bang is simply assumed in order to explain this clustering within a naturalistic framework.
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the sound waves interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.
> 
> âRipplesâ of GalaxiesâAnother Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proto Galaxy - Astronomers discover a small proto galaxy 13.2 billion light-years away | TopNews United States
> 
> There is tremendous difficulting in getting stars to form on their own?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> What do you expect giant clouds of gas to do in space? No forces act on a gas cloud but itself and gravity. Its going to collapse in on itself eventually, its a mathematical inevitability.
> 
> YaleNews | Astronomers Witness a Star Being Born
> 
> We do see stars being born fool. What is that? Oh its just a cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself and heating up in the process.
> 
> Nope thats not the definition of a star or anything.
Click to expand...


Who are you calling fool you brainwashed little twit.



Star Formation and Creation


Can We See Stars Forming?

by Wayne R. Spencer on

November 19, 2008


Semi-technical



 age-of-stars
 astronomy
 author-wayne-spencer
 stellar-evolution


Keywords: stars, star formation, creation, infant stars, European Southern Observatory, Very Large Telescope Interferometer, VLTI, astronomy, creation scientists, disks, clouds, gas, dust

A recent article on the Internet was entitled Infant Stars Caught in Act of Feeding.1 New techniques are allowing astronomers to study disks of dust and gas around stars at very high levels of detail. The European Southern Observatorys Very Large Telescope Interferometer (or VLTI) in Chile is able to measure at an angle so small, it would be like looking at the period of a sentence at a distance of 50 Kilometers (31 Miles). An interferometer combines the data from two or more telescopes that are separated from each other in such a way that the multiple telescopes act like one much larger telescope. A recent study looked at six stars known as Herbig Ae/Be objects, believed to be young stars still growing in size from their formation. This study was directed at finding what is happening to the dust and gas surrounding these stars.

Astronomers frequently report observations like this of new stars or young stars, which assume that these stars formed within the last few million years. Astronomers who believe the big bang and todays other naturalistic origins theories would say stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. Realize that no one saw these stars form. Instead, the properties of these stars, along with their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form is the basis for the belief that they are recently formed stars.


Star Formation and Creation - Answers in Genesis


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Events of creation as recorded in Genesis are a fairy tale.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the big bang is simply assumed in order to explain this clustering within a naturalistic framework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the sound waves interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.
> 
> âRipplesâ of GalaxiesâAnother Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Superstition inspired nonsense.
Click to expand...


Oh boy


----------



## Youwerecreated

sfcalifornia said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is illogical to think that Eve could pump out enough kids to bring the world's population to what what it is today in 6,000 years.  She would have had to be pregnant her entire life.  Assuming she lived to be 900+ years old like Adam, with a 9 month gestation, she would only have had 1,200 kids, unless she dropped 50-100 kids at a time.  Either that or she gave birth immediately after getting screwed by Adam.
> How old were Adam and Eve when they were created?
> Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old.....  seems Adam and Eve wasted a bit of time between kids....  they had a world to populate!
> Then you have to take menopause into account.  Exactly how many fertile years did Eve have?
> Oh and all the while, she was birthing Asians and Africans too?
> When did she have time to raise the kids?  The poor woman must have been pooped.
> 
> Compared to macro-evolution, the Adam and Eve story is completely implausible.
> 
> Seems to me Moses and the other contributors to the bible were using Adam and Eve as a metaphor for the entire human race and over time everyone started taking everything literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it is illogical that the population of humans were only at 200 million just 2,000 years ago now it's at 8 billion ? so it it went from 8 people to 200 million in 3,000 years.
> 
> Explain by those numbers how it is illogical ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean 7 billion:
> 
> World population hits 7 billion
> 
> If Eve birthed one kid every nine months, that's only 1200 kids for the first 900 years.  But that's incorrect anyway.  Adam was 130 before they had Seth.  So it was even less kids....  And when did Eve go into menopause?  Even less kids.
> 
> You're gonna need to show the math if you're ever going to convince any of us that 2 people were able to bring the population up to 7 billion in 6,000 years.
> 
> And you still didn't explain how Eve pumped out Asians, Africans and Latinos much less any of the other questions I posted.   That's what creationists do...  they just gloss over and ignore the bits they can't explain.....
Click to expand...


It was 8 people after the flood and it is very possible for the population to grow from 8 people to 200 million in 3,000 years.

World Population Since Creation


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science. For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis. Really, the big bang is a secular alternative to the Bible.
> 
> So, this weak cluster-pattern of galaxies does not support the big bang with its billions of years. On the contrary, the big bang is simply assumed in order to explain this clustering within a naturalistic framework.
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the sound waves interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.
> 
> âRipplesâ of GalaxiesâAnother Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proto Galaxy - Astronomers discover a small proto galaxy 13.2 billion light-years away | TopNews United States
> 
> There is tremendous difficulting in getting stars to form on their own?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> What do you expect giant clouds of gas to do in space? No forces act on a gas cloud but itself and gravity. Its going to collapse in on itself eventually, its a mathematical inevitability.
> 
> YaleNews | Astronomers Witness a Star Being Born
> 
> We do see stars being born fool. What is that? Oh its just a cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself and heating up in the process.
> 
> Nope thats not the definition of a star or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's get to the important questions and leave the rhetoric alone.
> 
> There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions ,
> 
> Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?
Click to expand...


We've already talked about this



Youwerecreated said:


> If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen?



We've talked about this too. Im open to the idea of god. 

And according to theory at least, nothing compressed it. There was never a period of compression, ill explain in a second.



Youwerecreated said:


> Where did gravity come from that held it together?



It was never held together, according to the theory. Again, follow me along while i teach you the big bang theory.



Youwerecreated said:


> The dot spun rapidly until it exploded,then where did the energy come from to start the spinning?



Yea this is just wrong. There was no before the big bang. 

Ever heard of the concept of spacetime? Space and time are one object, this is proved by general relativity. If space was created at the moment of the big bang, time was as well. Therefore it makes no sense to refer to the time before the big bang. 

At least according to the theory.



Youwerecreated said:


> Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode.



Dot wasnt spinning. Friction did not exist, because mass did not exist, because at the moment of big bang electroweak symmetry had not broke, so particles did not have mass.

Follow yet?



Youwerecreated said:


> If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this spinning dot would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.



Most simplistic argument ive ever heard. Even if that was a valid argument, which its not because it wasnt spinning as explained above, you would still be wrong. That assumes that none of the particles created after the universe cools will ever interact with each other, ever. lets just imagine that particles dont have electric charges, shall we?



Youwerecreated said:


> This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum. This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from.



Wow. Conservation of angular momentum _does not_ mean everything is spinning the same way. 



Youwerecreated said:


> So all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction. But two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards. Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.
> 
> The Big Bang: Scientific and Biblical reasons why it is not possible
> 
> How do you explain this ?



Angular momentum does not mean everything is simply spinning the same way. It means angular momentum is conserved, just what it says. 

Again, physics major here!

If you dont understand the equations of circular motion you should just stop now. And i dont think you do, from what i read above.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science. For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis. Really, the big bang is a secular alternative to the Bible.
> 
> So, this weak cluster-pattern of galaxies does not support the big bang with its billions of years. On the contrary, the big bang is simply assumed in order to explain this clustering within a naturalistic framework.
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the sound waves interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.
> 
> âRipplesâ of GalaxiesâAnother Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proto Galaxy - Astronomers discover a small proto galaxy 13.2 billion light-years away | TopNews United States
> 
> There is tremendous difficulting in getting stars to form on their own?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> What do you expect giant clouds of gas to do in space? No forces act on a gas cloud but itself and gravity. Its going to collapse in on itself eventually, its a mathematical inevitability.
> 
> YaleNews | Astronomers Witness a Star Being Born
> 
> We do see stars being born fool. What is that? Oh its just a cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself and heating up in the process.
> 
> Nope thats not the definition of a star or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you calling fool you brainwashed little twit.
> 
> 
> 
> Star Formation and Creation
> 
> 
> Can We See Stars Forming?
> 
> by Wayne R. Spencer on
> 
> November 19, 2008
> 
> 
> Semi-technical
> 
> 
> 
> age-of-stars
> astronomy
> author-wayne-spencer
> stellar-evolution
> 
> 
> Keywords: stars, star formation, creation, infant stars, European Southern Observatory, Very Large Telescope Interferometer, VLTI, astronomy, creation scientists, disks, clouds, gas, dust
> 
> A recent article on the Internet was entitled Infant Stars Caught in Act of Feeding.1 New techniques are allowing astronomers to study disks of dust and gas around stars at very high levels of detail. The European Southern Observatorys Very Large Telescope Interferometer (or VLTI) in Chile is able to measure at an angle so small, it would be like looking at the period of a sentence at a distance of 50 Kilometers (31 Miles). An interferometer combines the data from two or more telescopes that are separated from each other in such a way that the multiple telescopes act like one much larger telescope. A recent study looked at six stars known as Herbig Ae/Be objects, believed to be young stars still growing in size from their formation. This study was directed at finding what is happening to the dust and gas surrounding these stars.
> 
> Astronomers frequently report observations like this of new stars or young stars, which assume that these stars formed within the last few million years. Astronomers who believe the big bang and todays other naturalistic origins theories would say stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. Realize that no one saw these stars form. Instead, the properties of these stars, along with their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form is the basis for the belief that they are recently formed stars.
> 
> 
> Star Formation and Creation - Answers in Genesis
Click to expand...


Did you read my article about star formation at all?

Its not a star weve deemed as "young"

Its a cloud of hydrogen that is not yet a star, but is coalescing and heating up at the same time. Just like a star would as its being born. 

What would you call a cloud of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion because of gravitational forces?

A star?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proto Galaxy - Astronomers discover a small proto galaxy 13.2 billion light-years away | TopNews United States
> 
> There is tremendous difficulting in getting stars to form on their own?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> What do you expect giant clouds of gas to do in space? No forces act on a gas cloud but itself and gravity. Its going to collapse in on itself eventually, its a mathematical inevitability.
> 
> YaleNews | Astronomers Witness a Star Being Born
> 
> We do see stars being born fool. What is that? Oh its just a cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself and heating up in the process.
> 
> Nope thats not the definition of a star or anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you calling fool you brainwashed little twit.
> 
> 
> 
> Star Formation and Creation
> 
> 
> Can We See Stars Forming?
> 
> by Wayne R. Spencer on
> 
> November 19, 2008
> 
> 
> Semi-technical
> 
> 
> 
> age-of-stars
> astronomy
> author-wayne-spencer
> stellar-evolution
> 
> 
> Keywords: stars, star formation, creation, infant stars, European Southern Observatory, Very Large Telescope Interferometer, VLTI, astronomy, creation scientists, disks, clouds, gas, dust
> 
> A recent article on the Internet was entitled Infant Stars Caught in Act of Feeding.1 New techniques are allowing astronomers to study disks of dust and gas around stars at very high levels of detail. The European Southern Observatorys Very Large Telescope Interferometer (or VLTI) in Chile is able to measure at an angle so small, it would be like looking at the period of a sentence at a distance of 50 Kilometers (31 Miles). An interferometer combines the data from two or more telescopes that are separated from each other in such a way that the multiple telescopes act like one much larger telescope. A recent study looked at six stars known as Herbig Ae/Be objects, believed to be young stars still growing in size from their formation. This study was directed at finding what is happening to the dust and gas surrounding these stars.
> 
> Astronomers frequently report observations like this of new stars or young stars, which assume that these stars formed within the last few million years. Astronomers who believe the big bang and todays other naturalistic origins theories would say stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. Realize that no one saw these stars form. Instead, the properties of these stars, along with their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form is the basis for the belief that they are recently formed stars.
> 
> 
> Star Formation and Creation - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read my article about star formation at all?
> 
> Its not a star weve deemed as "young"
> 
> Its a cloud of hydrogen that is not yet a star, but is coalescing and heating up at the same time. Just like a star would as its being born.
> 
> What would you call a cloud of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion because of gravitational forces?
> 
> A star?
Click to expand...


So you admit that no stars have been observed forming ? I said that view was just an active imagination. Then you called me fool


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> so are you suggesting life began with these organisms  you really are way out there and don't have a clue about reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanna know where Cain got his wife.  When I google it, everyone says it was his sister.  That's just gross.  The gene pool sure didn't grow by having sex with your siblings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> so are you suggesting life began with these organisms  you really are way out there and don't have a clue about reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wanna know where Cain got his wife.  When I google it, everyone says it was his sister.  That's just gross.  The gene pool sure didn't grow by having sex with your siblings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the land of nod, the reason it is wrong is you have better chance of passing on defective genes. At the time his either was his sister or there were humans in the land of nod to grow the human population. The bible don't go into detail. But at that time their bodies were much closer to perfection so less chance ofbad genes existing. But I can't for sure because the bible don't go into detail. But either way if we all originated from one life form you would be a product of inbreeding ,still grose ?  We know all humans were from one set of human parents.
Click to expand...








[MVP is the minimum number of healthy surviving individuals that would maximise long term survival of the population without excessive loss of genetic variability through genetic drift--without losing evolutionary potential. The safest estimate of MVP is approximately 10,000 individuals--roughly the number of humans supposed to survive the Toba catastrophe 75,000 years ago.

Al Fin: Planning for Apocalypse: Minimum Viable Population


The Toba supereruption (Youngest Toba Tuff or simply YTT[1]) was a supervolcanic eruption that occurred some time between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at Lake Toba (Sumatra, Indonesia). It is recognized as one of the Earth's largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe theory holds that this event plunged the planet into a 6-to-10-year volcanic winter and possibly an additional 1,000-year cooling episode. This change in temperature resulted in the world's human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution.

Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize you don't have an argument until life is found somewhere other then our planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have a definitive argument that life does exist, just like you dont have an argument that it doesnt.
> 
> But i do have an argument that plenty of earth like planets exist.
> 
> 
> 
> What about the nucleotides we find in meteors?
> 
> 
> 
> So your whole argument is based on the fact that there _was_ free oxygen? Evidence please? I have evidence for my position, oxidized iron deposits.
> 
> Whats your evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> Um the big bang has nothing at all to do with oxygen. Not a single thing. learn science. The BB claims oxygen atoms did not exist anywhere at all in vast quantities for long after the big bang. Dont bring up the big bang theory to me, because i will teach you things you'll never even understand.
> 
> Wanna talk about the existence of the CMB and the big bang theorys perfect prediction of its temperature?
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you think the big bang had to do with oxygen. Evidently you think it was a chemical explosion.
> 
> Ill add this to the things i had to teach you, along with atoms and mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> Which dont dominate the gene pool...
> 
> Do you understand the significance of the frequency of alleles in a population? Do you understand the difference between mendelian genetics and darwinian genetics even in the slightest bit?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> You have presented no such evidence. How do beneficial mutations simple leave the gene pool. It is passed along just like any other gene. Saying a beneficial mutation would leave a gene pool is like saying the genes to make a kidney would leave a gene pool. It doesnt make sense to anyone that knows anything.
> 
> UGH!
> 
> 
> 
> No, it hasnt. Theyre actually fairly common.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that cerebral palsy will dominate the human gene pool? If not then your argument is totally useless.
> 
> 
> 
> Im not sure what ive lied about so far.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where were you educated again and what degree do you hold? I was forthcoming about my background.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If life is only on our planet does that not make our planet unique and special ?
> 
> I have no reason to believe life is on other planets.
> 
> No but most explosions do not happen without oxygen. Just for the record i don't believe in the Big Bang either just pointing out flaws with your theories.
> 
> 11-Big Bang or Big Dud?
Click to expand...

not credible source!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was certainly explosion by the way it's taught.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still claiming the big bang was a _chemical_ explosion? Wow.
> 
> Were gonna have to talk about this. If you cant even understand this simple concept were done.
> 
> 
> 
> What? There is actually evidence for these things. There is evidence that the moon formed via impact with the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is their reasoning because they see the the universe expanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly right. We *see* the universe expanding. We see it. We witness it. Its been observed.
> 
> Game over, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ThesaurusLegend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
> Noun 1. big bang theory - (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature
> 
> 
> No God is causing the exspansion.
> 
> Psa 104:2  covering Yourself with light as with a robe; and stretching out the heavens like a curtain;
> 
> You are so wrong.
Click to expand...

bahahahahahahahahaha! 
that's some spin! 
the more correct interpretation would be:"light"as with a robe" meaning  covering yourself with  knowledge... "stretching out to the heavens like a curtain" means teaching that knowledge to all...
you ass wipe, it's metaphor not literal.
btw LIGHT HAS ALMOST NO MASS It does not cause expansion ,


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where did all the water come from ?
> 
> We observe chemical elements made in the Big Bang.
> In the 1940's, the physicist George Gamow and his colleagues realized that the early universe must have been extremely hot as well as dense. Scientists were just beginning to understand that under great heat and density, chemical elements can be transformed from one into the other. Gamow and his colleagues calculated that for a hot, dense, and expanding universe about one-quarter of the simplest chemical element - hydrogen - would have been "cooked" into the element helium. Astronomers have measured the proportion of hydrogen and helium scattered through our universe, and it matches the prediction perfectly. This was strong evidence that the early universe was hot as well as dense.
> 
> --Universe Forum--Big Bang--What was it?
> 
> I guess we are done and you don't know what you're talking about other then theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hydrogen and helium atoms were only able to form after electroweak symmetry broke!!!! Do i need to post that graphic again!?! *The chemical elements hydrogen and helium were formed shortly after the big bang as the universe cooled, but they did not exist as atoms at the first moment of the big bang.
> *
> And wtf are you talking about water?
> 
> Water was certainly not present at the time of the big bang!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Water is a chemical and it's found on other planets isn't it ? Where did it come from ?
Click to expand...

water is not 1 chemical it's two as in H20.


----------



## daws101

The LORDS Care over All His Works.

1Bless the LORD, O my soul!
         O LORD my God, You are very great;
         You are clothed with splendor and majesty, 
2Covering Yourself with light as with a cloak,
         Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain. 

3He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters;
         He makes the clouds His chariot;
         He walks upon the wings of the wind; 

4He makes the winds His messengers,
         Flaming fire His ministers. 

5He established the earth upon its foundations,
         So that it will not totter forever and ever. 

6You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
         The waters were standing above the mountains. 

7At Your rebuke they fled,
         At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. 

8The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
         To the place which You established for them. 

9You set a boundary that they may not pass over,
         So that they will not return to cover the earth. 

10He sends forth springs in the valleys;
         They flow between the mountains; 

11They give drink to every beast of the field;
         The wild donkeys quench their thirst. 

12Beside them the birds of the heavens dwell;
         They lift up their voices among the branches. 

13He waters the mountains from His upper chambers;
         The earth is satisfied with the fruit of His works. 

14He causes the grass to grow for the cattle,
         And vegetation for the labor of man,
         So that he may bring forth food from the earth, 

15And wine which makes mans heart glad,
         So that he may make his face glisten with oil,
         And food which sustains mans heart. 

16The trees of the LORD drink their fill,
         The cedars of Lebanon which He planted, 

17Where the birds build their nests,
         And the stork, whose home is the fir trees. 

18The high mountains are for the wild goats;
         The cliffs are a refuge for the shephanim. 

19He made the moon for the seasons;
         The sun knows the place of its setting. 

20You appoint darkness and it becomes night,
         In which all the beasts of the forest prowl about. 

21The young lions roar after their prey
         And seek their food from God. 

22When the sun rises they withdraw
         And lie down in their dens. 

23Man goes forth to his work
         And to his labor until evening. 

24O LORD, how many are Your works!
         In wisdom You have made them all;
         The earth is full of Your possessions. 

25There is the sea, great and broad,
         In which are swarms without number,
         Animals both small and great. 

26There the ships move along,
         And Leviathan, which You have formed to sport in it. 

27They all wait for You
         To give them their food in due season. 

28You give to them, they gather it up;
         You open Your hand, they are satisfied with good. 

29You hide Your face, they are dismayed;
         You take away their spirit, they expire
         And return to their dust. 

30You send forth Your Spirit, they are created;
         And You renew the face of the ground. 

31Let the glory of the LORD endure forever;
         Let the LORD be glad in His works; 

32He looks at the earth, and it trembles;
         He touches the mountains, and they smoke. 

33I will sing to the LORD as long as I live;
         I will sing praise to my God while I have my being. 

34Let my meditation be pleasing to Him;
         As for me, I shall be glad in the LORD. 

35Let sinners be consumed from the earth
         And let the wicked be no more.
         Bless the LORD, O my soul.
         Praise the LORD!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still claiming the big bang was a _chemical_ explosion? Wow.
> 
> Were gonna have to talk about this. If you cant even understand this simple concept were done.
> 
> 
> 
> What? There is actually evidence for these things. There is evidence that the moon formed via impact with the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right. We *see* the universe expanding. We see it. We witness it. Its been observed.
> 
> Game over, you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThesaurusLegend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
> Noun 1. big bang theory - (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature
> 
> 
> No God is causing the exspansion.
> 
> Psa 104:2  covering Yourself with light as with a robe; and stretching out the heavens like a curtain;
> 
> You are so wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bahahahahahahahahaha!
> that's some spin!
> the more correct interpretation would be:"light"as with a robe" meaning  covering yourself with  knowledge... "stretching out to the heavens like a curtain" means teaching that knowledge to all...
> you ass wipe, it's metaphor not literal.
> btw LIGHT HAS ALMOST NO MASS It does not cause expansion ,
Click to expand...


How is stretching out the heavens a metaphor ? Where do you get metaphor from ?

These things actually happen.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hydrogen and helium atoms were only able to form after electroweak symmetry broke!!!! Do i need to post that graphic again!?! *The chemical elements hydrogen and helium were formed shortly after the big bang as the universe cooled, but they did not exist as atoms at the first moment of the big bang.
> *
> And wtf are you talking about water?
> 
> Water was certainly not present at the time of the big bang!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Water is a chemical and it's found on other planets isn't it ? Where did it come from ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> water is not 1 chemical it's two as in H20.
Click to expand...


Your point ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have a definitive argument that life does exist, just like you dont have an argument that it doesnt.
> 
> But i do have an argument that plenty of earth like planets exist.
> 
> 
> 
> What about the nucleotides we find in meteors?
> 
> 
> 
> So your whole argument is based on the fact that there _was_ free oxygen? Evidence please? I have evidence for my position, oxidized iron deposits.
> 
> Whats your evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> Um the big bang has nothing at all to do with oxygen. Not a single thing. learn science. The BB claims oxygen atoms did not exist anywhere at all in vast quantities for long after the big bang. Dont bring up the big bang theory to me, because i will teach you things you'll never even understand.
> 
> Wanna talk about the existence of the CMB and the big bang theorys perfect prediction of its temperature?
> 
> 
> 
> Lol you think the big bang had to do with oxygen. Evidently you think it was a chemical explosion.
> 
> Ill add this to the things i had to teach you, along with atoms and mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> Which dont dominate the gene pool...
> 
> Do you understand the significance of the frequency of alleles in a population? Do you understand the difference between mendelian genetics and darwinian genetics even in the slightest bit?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> You have presented no such evidence. How do beneficial mutations simple leave the gene pool. It is passed along just like any other gene. Saying a beneficial mutation would leave a gene pool is like saying the genes to make a kidney would leave a gene pool. It doesnt make sense to anyone that knows anything.
> 
> UGH!
> 
> 
> 
> No, it hasnt. Theyre actually fairly common.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that cerebral palsy will dominate the human gene pool? If not then your argument is totally useless.
> 
> 
> 
> Im not sure what ive lied about so far.
> 
> 
> 
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If life is only on our planet does that not make our planet unique and special ?
> 
> I have no reason to believe life is on other planets.
> 
> No but most explosions do not happen without oxygen. Just for the record i don't believe in the Big Bang either just pointing out flaws with your theories.
> 
> 11-Big Bang or Big Dud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not credible source!
Click to expand...


Are you educated by people who hold degrees so was russ.

What do you consider a credible source ?

Russ miller is in full agreement with creationist that hold degrees in the sciences. And was educated by creationist.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you calling fool you brainwashed little twit.
> 
> 
> 
> Star Formation and Creation
> 
> 
> Can We See Stars Forming?
> 
> by Wayne R. Spencer on
> 
> November 19, 2008
> 
> 
> Semi-technical
> 
> 
> 
> age-of-stars
> astronomy
> author-wayne-spencer
> stellar-evolution
> 
> 
> Keywords: stars, star formation, creation, infant stars, European Southern Observatory, Very Large Telescope Interferometer, VLTI, astronomy, creation scientists, disks, clouds, gas, dust
> 
> A recent article on the Internet was entitled &#8220;Infant Stars Caught in Act of Feeding.&#8221;1 New techniques are allowing astronomers to study disks of dust and gas around stars at very high levels of detail. The European Southern Observatory&#8217;s Very Large Telescope Interferometer (or VLTI) in Chile is able to measure at an angle so small, it would be like looking at the period of a sentence at a distance of 50 Kilometers (31 Miles). An interferometer combines the data from two or more telescopes that are separated from each other in such a way that the multiple telescopes act like one much larger telescope. A recent study looked at six stars known as Herbig Ae/Be objects, believed to be young stars still growing in size from their formation. This study was directed at finding what is happening to the dust and gas surrounding these stars.
> 
> Astronomers frequently report observations like this of &#8220;new stars&#8221; or &#8220;young stars,&#8221; which assume that these stars formed within the last few million years. Astronomers who believe the big bang and today&#8217;s other naturalistic origins theories would say stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. Realize that no one saw these stars form. Instead, the properties of these stars, along with their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form is the basis for the belief that they are recently formed stars.
> 
> 
> Star Formation and Creation - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read my article about star formation at all?
> 
> Its not a star weve deemed as "young"
> 
> Its a cloud of hydrogen that is not yet a star, but is coalescing and heating up at the same time. Just like a star would as its being born.
> 
> What would you call a cloud of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion because of gravitational forces?
> 
> A star?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that no stars have been observed forming ? I said that view was just an active imagination. Then you called me fool
Click to expand...


Lol really?

What will happen to that cloud of hydrogen as it collapses in on itself?

The moment that a star ignites is a fairly fast event. Its pretty understandable that we havent observed that moment in the several billion year life time of stars. 

Again, whats the ultimate outcome of a protostar, a hot dense cloud of hydrogen? Inevitably, it is a star. There is no way around it, as long as the cloud has enough mass. Its not even debatable.

Again, your argument boils down to "pics or it didnt happen".


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Events of creation as recorded in Genesis are a fairy tale.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the sound waves interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.
> 
> âRipplesâ of GalaxiesâAnother Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Superstition inspired nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy
Click to expand...

Looks like I scored another  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read my article about star formation at all?
> 
> Its not a star weve deemed as "young"
> 
> Its a cloud of hydrogen that is not yet a star, but is coalescing and heating up at the same time. Just like a star would as its being born.
> 
> What would you call a cloud of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion because of gravitational forces?
> 
> A star?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that no stars have been observed forming ? I said that view was just an active imagination. Then you called me fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol really?
> 
> What will happen to that cloud of hydrogen as it collapses in on itself?
> 
> The moment that a star ignites is a fairly fast event. Its pretty understandable that we havent observed that moment in the several billion year life time of stars.
> 
> Again, whats the ultimate outcome of a protostar, a hot dense cloud of hydrogen? Inevitably, it is a star. There is no way around it, as long as the cloud has enough mass. Its not even debatable.
> 
> Again, your argument boils down to "pics or it didnt happen".
Click to expand...


No your evidence once again boils down to imagination since it is not observed evidence. That is the problem with all secular theories they are erroneous conclusions from no observed evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Events of creation as recorded in Genesis are a fairy tale.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Superstition inspired nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like I scored another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It's funny you give such ignorant responses on something you know very little about and actually think you scored points,dillusional you are.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like I scored another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny you give such ignorant responses on something you know very little about and actually think you scored points,dillusional you are.
Click to expand...

Definite headshot.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ThesaurusLegend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
> Noun 1. big bang theory - (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature
> 
> 
> No God is causing the exspansion.
> 
> Psa 104:2  covering Yourself with light as with a robe; and stretching out the heavens like a curtain;
> 
> You are so wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> bahahahahahahahahaha!
> that's some spin!
> the more correct interpretation would be:"light"as with a robe" meaning  covering yourself with  knowledge... "stretching out to the heavens like a curtain" means teaching that knowledge to all...
> you ass wipe, it's metaphor not literal.
> btw LIGHT HAS ALMOST NO MASS It does not cause expansion ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is "stretching out the heavens a metaphor" ? Where do you get metaphor from ?
> 
> These things actually happen.
Click to expand...

 yes they do,,,your description of their causation has no basis in fact. 


 In the evangelical community, the year 2011 has brought a resurgence of debate over evolution. The current issue of Christianity Today asks if genetic discoveries preclude an historical Adam. While BioLogos, the brainchild of NIH director Francis Collins, is seeking to promote theistic evolution among evangelicals, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recently argued that true Christians should believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

As someone raised evangelical, I realize anti-evolutionists believe they are defending the Christian tradition. But as a seminary graduate now training to be a medical scientist, I can say that, in reality, they've abandoned it.

In theory, if not always in practice, past Christian theologians valued science out of the belief that God created the world scientists study. Augustine castigated those who made the Bible teach bad science, John Calvin argued that Genesis reflects a commoner's view of the physical world, and the Belgic confession likened scripture and nature to two books written by the same author. 

These beliefs encouraged past Christians to accept the best science of their day, and these beliefs persisted even into the evangelical tradition. As Princeton Seminary's Charles Hodge, widely considered the father of modern evangelical theology, put it in 1859: "Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science."

In this analysis, Christians must accept sound science, not because they don't believe God created the world, but precisely because they do.

Jonathan Dudley: Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If life is only on our planet does that not make our planet unique and special ?
> 
> I have no reason to believe life is on other planets.
> 
> No but most explosions do not happen without oxygen. Just for the record i don't believe in the Big Bang either just pointing out flaws with your theories.
> 
> 11-Big Bang or Big Dud?
> 
> 
> 
> not credible source!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you educated by people who hold degrees so was russ.
> 
> What do you consider a credible source ?
> 
> Russ miller is in full agreement with creationist that hold degrees in the sciences. And was educated by creationist.
Click to expand...

 NO I was educated in college by professors that held many degrees  I have one myself.

What do you consider a credible source ?..one that has evidence and is based in science..
yours is not .


----------



## daws101

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> i wanna know where cain got his wife.  When i google it, everyone says it was his sister.  That's just gross.  The gene pool sure didn't grow by having sex with your siblings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> i wanna know where cain got his wife.  When i google it, everyone says it was his sister.  That's just gross.  The gene pool sure didn't grow by having sex with your siblings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i believe the land of nod, the reason it is wrong is you have better chance of passing on defective genes. At the time his either was his sister or there were humans in the land of nod to grow the human population. The bible don't go into detail. But at that time their bodies were much closer to perfection so less chance ofbad genes existing. But i can't for sure because the bible don't go into detail. But either way if we all originated from one life form you would be a product of inbreeding ,still grose ?  We know all humans were from one set of human parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [mvp is the minimum number of healthy surviving individuals that would maximise long term survival of the population without excessive loss of genetic variability through genetic drift--without losing evolutionary potential. The safest estimate of mvp is approximately 10,000 individuals--roughly the number of humans supposed to survive the toba catastrophe 75,000 years ago.
> 
> al fin: Planning for apocalypse: Minimum viable population
> 
> 
> the toba supereruption (youngest toba tuff or simply ytt[1]) was a supervolcanic eruption that occurred some time between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at lake toba (sumatra, indonesia). It is recognized as one of the earth's largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe theory holds that this event plunged the planet into a 6-to-10-year volcanic winter and possibly an additional 1,000-year cooling episode. This change in temperature resulted in the world's human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution.
> 
> toba catastrophe theory - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

 ywc dodged this question!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bahahahahahahahahaha!
> that's some spin!
> the more correct interpretation would be:"light"as with a robe" meaning  covering yourself with  knowledge... "stretching out to the heavens like a curtain" means teaching that knowledge to all...
> you ass wipe, it's metaphor not literal.
> btw LIGHT HAS ALMOST NO MASS It does not cause expansion ,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is "stretching out the heavens a metaphor" ? Where do you get metaphor from ?
> 
> These things actually happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes they do,,,your description of their causation has no basis in fact.
> 
> 
> In the evangelical community, the year 2011 has brought a resurgence of debate over evolution. The current issue of Christianity Today asks if genetic discoveries preclude an historical Adam. While BioLogos, the brainchild of NIH director Francis Collins, is seeking to promote theistic evolution among evangelicals, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recently argued that true Christians should believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
> 
> As someone raised evangelical, I realize anti-evolutionists believe they are defending the Christian tradition. But as a seminary graduate now training to be a medical scientist, I can say that, in reality, they've abandoned it.
> 
> In theory, if not always in practice, past Christian theologians valued science out of the belief that God created the world scientists study. Augustine castigated those who made the Bible teach bad science, John Calvin argued that Genesis reflects a commoner's view of the physical world, and the Belgic confession likened scripture and nature to two books written by the same author.
> 
> These beliefs encouraged past Christians to accept the best science of their day, and these beliefs persisted even into the evangelical tradition. As Princeton Seminary's Charles Hodge, widely considered the father of modern evangelical theology, put it in 1859: "Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science."
> 
> In this analysis, Christians must accept sound science, not because they don't believe God created the world, but precisely because they do.
> 
> Jonathan Dudley: Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution
Click to expand...


That is exactly why creationist reject all secular science which happens to be the big bang and Macro-evolution.

What you quoted was not a metaphor in any way.

I have studied the scriptures for over 40 years and you remind me of any other one who tries to blend evolution,natural processes and God. They call it theistic evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not credible source!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you educated by people who hold degrees so was russ.
> 
> What do you consider a credible source ?
> 
> Russ miller is in full agreement with creationist that hold degrees in the sciences. And was educated by creationist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO I was educated in college by professors that held many degrees  I have one myself.
> 
> What do you consider a credible source ?..one that has evidence and is based in science..
> yours is not .
Click to expand...


A credible source does not have to hold a degree. Have you ever heard of people having a profession without a degree they just happen to specialize in something and their education is actual hands on experience ?

I was to educated by men and women that hold degrees but i don't need a degree to understand the bible. I do hold a degree in molecular biology. I also have actual experience in molecular biology research. I worked with a team studying the effects of mutations as well.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> i believe the land of nod, the reason it is wrong is you have better chance of passing on defective genes. At the time his either was his sister or there were humans in the land of nod to grow the human population. The bible don't go into detail. But at that time their bodies were much closer to perfection so less chance ofbad genes existing. But i can't for sure because the bible don't go into detail. But either way if we all originated from one life form you would be a product of inbreeding ,still grose ?  We know all humans were from one set of human parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [mvp is the minimum number of healthy surviving individuals that would maximise long term survival of the population without excessive loss of genetic variability through genetic drift--without losing evolutionary potential. The safest estimate of mvp is approximately 10,000 individuals--roughly the number of humans supposed to survive the toba catastrophe 75,000 years ago.
> 
> al fin: Planning for apocalypse: Minimum viable population
> 
> 
> the toba supereruption (youngest toba tuff or simply ytt[1]) was a supervolcanic eruption that occurred some time between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at lake toba (sumatra, indonesia). It is recognized as one of the earth's largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe theory holds that this event plunged the planet into a 6-to-10-year volcanic winter and possibly an additional 1,000-year cooling episode. This change in temperature resulted in the world's human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution.
> 
> toba catastrophe theory - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ywc dodged this question!
Click to expand...


What question ?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that no stars have been observed forming ? I said that view was just an active imagination. Then you called me fool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol really?
> 
> What will happen to that cloud of hydrogen as it collapses in on itself?
> 
> The moment that a star ignites is a fairly fast event. Its pretty understandable that we havent observed that moment in the several billion year life time of stars.
> 
> Again, whats the ultimate outcome of a protostar, a hot dense cloud of hydrogen? Inevitably, it is a star. There is no way around it, as long as the cloud has enough mass. Its not even debatable.
> 
> Again, your argument boils down to "pics or it didnt happen".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No your evidence once again boils down to imagination since it is not observed evidence. That is the problem with all secular theories they are erroneous conclusions from no observed evidence.
Click to expand...


Answer my question you moron. 

We see this cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself. We see it heating up. 

Whats the eventually outcome? Do you understand the concept of hydrogen under pressure?

This isnt an imaginary.

When you compress hydrogen enough you get nuclear fusion. So if a collapsing cloud of hydrogen has enough mass, it will undergo nuclear fusion. 

Lol, how is this a stretch in your mind? 

Probably because you dont get the concept of nuclear fusion? 

Just ask if you want me to explain it to you. 

lol


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol really?
> 
> What will happen to that cloud of hydrogen as it collapses in on itself?
> 
> The moment that a star ignites is a fairly fast event. Its pretty understandable that we havent observed that moment in the several billion year life time of stars.
> 
> Again, whats the ultimate outcome of a protostar, a hot dense cloud of hydrogen? Inevitably, it is a star. There is no way around it, as long as the cloud has enough mass. Its not even debatable.
> 
> Again, your argument boils down to "pics or it didnt happen".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No your evidence once again boils down to imagination since it is not observed evidence. That is the problem with all secular theories they are erroneous conclusions from no observed evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer my question you moron.
> 
> We see this cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself. We see it heating up.
> 
> Whats the eventually outcome? Do you understand the concept of hydrogen under pressure?
> 
> This isnt an imaginary.
> 
> When you compress hydrogen enough you get nuclear fusion. So if a collapsing cloud of hydrogen has enough mass, it will undergo nuclear fusion.
> 
> Lol, how is this a stretch in your mind?
> 
> Probably because you dont get the concept of nuclear fusion?
> 
> Just ask if you want me to explain it to you.
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


When are you gonna answer the questions put to you ?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No your evidence once again boils down to imagination since it is not observed evidence. That is the problem with all secular theories they are erroneous conclusions from no observed evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question you moron.
> 
> We see this cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself. We see it heating up.
> 
> Whats the eventually outcome? Do you understand the concept of hydrogen under pressure?
> 
> This isnt an imaginary.
> 
> When you compress hydrogen enough you get nuclear fusion. So if a collapsing cloud of hydrogen has enough mass, it will undergo nuclear fusion.
> 
> Lol, how is this a stretch in your mind?
> 
> Probably because you dont get the concept of nuclear fusion?
> 
> Just ask if you want me to explain it to you.
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are you gonna answer the questions put to you ?
Click to expand...


I wasnt aware that you asked any. Go ahead, ask your questions. 

While your at it, make sure you answer mine. 

Hydrogen always undergoes nuclear fusion if it is compressed enough. We see a very massive hydrogen cloud compressing and becoming hot. 

How is it not a valid assumption that compressed hydrogen will undergo fusion? I guess if you dont know what words like "fusion", and "hydrogen".

Do you even know the structure of a hydrogen atom? Please, dont google it first....


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol really?
> 
> What will happen to that cloud of hydrogen as it collapses in on itself?
> 
> The moment that a star ignites is a fairly fast event. Its pretty understandable that we havent observed that moment in the several billion year life time of stars.
> 
> Again, whats the ultimate outcome of a protostar, a hot dense cloud of hydrogen? Inevitably, it is a star. There is no way around it, as long as the cloud has enough mass. Its not even debatable.
> 
> Again, your argument boils down to "pics or it didnt happen".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No your evidence once again boils down to imagination since it is not observed evidence. That is the problem with all secular theories they are erroneous conclusions from no observed evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer my question you moron.
> 
> We see this cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself. We see it heating up.
> 
> Whats the eventually outcome? Do you understand the concept of hydrogen under pressure?
> 
> This isnt an imaginary.
> 
> When you compress hydrogen enough you get nuclear fusion. So if a collapsing cloud of hydrogen has enough mass, it will undergo nuclear fusion.
> 
> Lol, how is this a stretch in your mind?
> 
> Probably because you dont get the concept of nuclear fusion?
> 
> Just ask if you want me to explain it to you.
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


Here is your answer.

One major problem with this scenario is that as the gases are heated, the pressure increases. This pressure would tend to cause the nebula to expand and counteract the gravitational collapse.

Your imagination is leading you down the wrong road again.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No your evidence once again boils down to imagination since it is not observed evidence. That is the problem with all secular theories they are erroneous conclusions from no observed evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question you moron.
> 
> We see this cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself. We see it heating up.
> 
> Whats the eventually outcome? Do you understand the concept of hydrogen under pressure?
> 
> This isnt an imaginary.
> 
> When you compress hydrogen enough you get nuclear fusion. So if a collapsing cloud of hydrogen has enough mass, it will undergo nuclear fusion.
> 
> Lol, how is this a stretch in your mind?
> 
> Probably because you dont get the concept of nuclear fusion?
> 
> Just ask if you want me to explain it to you.
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is your answer.
> 
> One major problem with this scenario is that as the gases are heated, the pressure increases. This pressure would tend to cause the nebula to expand and counteract the gravitational collapse.
> 
> Your imagination is leading you down the wrong road.
Click to expand...


Wow. Just wow.

Thats why the cloud of hydrogen has to be massive enough so that the gravitational pressure causes hydrogen atoms to fuse. 

Of course the pressure counteracts the gravity at a certain point, thats why a star doesnt collapse entirely, and is stable. At a certain point, force pushing out and force pushing in are equal. If pressure pushing in is great enough, the star ignites. 

Your wrong. By your logic, hydrogen fusion is not possible in any setting. Because atoms will always just push each other apart. Again, your wrong. 

Idk how many times i have to say it, your wrong. 

Even with everything we know about hydrogen and gravity, a basic computer model proves you wrong.


Your claim is made on basic physics. Gravity pushing in, interactions between particles pushing out. Two forces that are very measurable. If your saying they equal out, why do the equations simply not support you?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question you moron.
> 
> We see this cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself. We see it heating up.
> 
> Whats the eventually outcome? Do you understand the concept of hydrogen under pressure?
> 
> This isnt an imaginary.
> 
> When you compress hydrogen enough you get nuclear fusion. So if a collapsing cloud of hydrogen has enough mass, it will undergo nuclear fusion.
> 
> Lol, how is this a stretch in your mind?
> 
> Probably because you dont get the concept of nuclear fusion?
> 
> Just ask if you want me to explain it to you.
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are you gonna answer the questions put to you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasnt aware that you asked any. Go ahead, ask your questions.
> 
> While your at it, make sure you answer mine.
> 
> Hydrogen always undergoes nuclear fusion if it is compressed enough. We see a very massive hydrogen cloud compressing and becoming hot.
> 
> How is it not a valid assumption that compressed hydrogen will undergo fusion? I guess if you dont know what words like "fusion", and "hydrogen".
> 
> Do you even know the structure of a hydrogen atom? Please, dont google it first....
Click to expand...


Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from? 

If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen?

Where did gravity come from that held it together? 



The dot spun rapidly until it exploded,then where did the energy come from to start the spinning? 

Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this spinning dot would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from. 

This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum. This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from. 

So all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction. But two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards. Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.


How do you explain this ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question you moron.
> 
> We see this cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself. We see it heating up.
> 
> Whats the eventually outcome? Do you understand the concept of hydrogen under pressure?
> 
> This isnt an imaginary.
> 
> When you compress hydrogen enough you get nuclear fusion. So if a collapsing cloud of hydrogen has enough mass, it will undergo nuclear fusion.
> 
> Lol, how is this a stretch in your mind?
> 
> Probably because you dont get the concept of nuclear fusion?
> 
> Just ask if you want me to explain it to you.
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is your answer.
> 
> One major problem with this scenario is that as the gases are heated, the pressure increases. This pressure would tend to cause the nebula to expand and counteract the gravitational collapse.
> 
> Your imagination is leading you down the wrong road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> Thats why the cloud of hydrogen has to be massive enough so that the gravitational pressure causes hydrogen atoms to fuse.
> 
> Of course the pressure counteracts the gravity at a certain point, thats why a star doesnt collapse entirely, and is stable. At a certain point, force pushing out and force pushing in are equal. If pressure pushing in is great enough, the star ignites.
> 
> Your wrong. By your logic, hydrogen fusion is not possible in any setting. Because atoms will always just push each other apart. Again, your wrong.
> 
> Idk how many times i have to say it, your wrong.
Click to expand...


Now answer my questions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question you moron.
> 
> We see this cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself. We see it heating up.
> 
> Whats the eventually outcome? Do you understand the concept of hydrogen under pressure?
> 
> This isnt an imaginary.
> 
> When you compress hydrogen enough you get nuclear fusion. So if a collapsing cloud of hydrogen has enough mass, it will undergo nuclear fusion.
> 
> Lol, how is this a stretch in your mind?
> 
> Probably because you dont get the concept of nuclear fusion?
> 
> Just ask if you want me to explain it to you.
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is your answer.
> 
> One major problem with this scenario is that as the gases are heated, the pressure increases. This pressure would tend to cause the nebula to expand and counteract the gravitational collapse.
> 
> Your imagination is leading you down the wrong road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> Thats why the cloud of hydrogen has to be massive enough so that the gravitational pressure causes hydrogen atoms to fuse.
> 
> Of course the pressure counteracts the gravity at a certain point, thats why a star doesnt collapse entirely, and is stable. At a certain point, force pushing out and force pushing in are equal. If pressure pushing in is great enough, the star ignites.
> 
> Your wrong. By your logic, hydrogen fusion is not possible in any setting. Because atoms will always just push each other apart. Again, your wrong.
> 
> Idk how many times i have to say it, your wrong.
Click to expand...


A Simulation video proves your point


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are you gonna answer the questions put to you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasnt aware that you asked any. Go ahead, ask your questions.
> 
> While your at it, make sure you answer mine.
> 
> Hydrogen always undergoes nuclear fusion if it is compressed enough. We see a very massive hydrogen cloud compressing and becoming hot.
> 
> How is it not a valid assumption that compressed hydrogen will undergo fusion? I guess if you dont know what words like "fusion", and "hydrogen".
> 
> Do you even know the structure of a hydrogen atom? Please, dont google it first....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?
> 
> If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen?
> 
> Where did gravity come from that held it together?
Click to expand...


How many times have we talked about this? 

Again, the singularity that resulted in the big bang was not compressed. This is a total lack of understand as to what the big bang theory claims. The singularity wasnt just sitting there and then exploded. It came into existence and continually expanded, it was not static, not even for one instant.



Youwerecreated said:


> The dot spun rapidly until it exploded,then where did the energy come from to start the spinning?



Again, the dot was not spinning, there was no before. It was not simply sitting there spinning, and then it exploded. According to the theory it came into existence and began rapidly expanding. It was not at a singularity for any interval of time, just a single instant.



Youwerecreated said:


> Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this spinning dot would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.



How many times do i have to explain the big bang to you? Particles did not exist at the beginning of the big bang, only once electroweak symmetry broke as the universe cooled did particles with mass form. Ill say it again, only once electroweak symmetry broke shortly after the big bang did particles with mass form. Even if particles were present, friction sort of irrelevant. Friction is a macro concept. There is no friction between quarks, only the 4 fundamental forces of electromagnetism, strong and weak forces, and gravity.



Youwerecreated said:


> This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum. This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from.



Angular momentum does not mean everythings spinning the same way!!!!!!

Even if it did, the singularity wasnt spinning!!! It was singularity without any particles, there was no matter to spin! only energy!



Youwerecreated said:


> So all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction. But two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards. Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.



Conservation of angular momentum does not say everything should be spinning the same way!!!!!!



Youwerecreated said:


> How do you explain this ?




Its pretty simple. Your a fucking idiot that has to have absolutely everything explain to him because you get your science from creationist websites. 

Read a fucking physics book you retard.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is your answer.
> 
> One major problem with this scenario is that as the gases are heated, the pressure increases. This pressure would tend to cause the nebula to expand and counteract the gravitational collapse.
> 
> Your imagination is leading you down the wrong road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> Thats why the cloud of hydrogen has to be massive enough so that the gravitational pressure causes hydrogen atoms to fuse.
> 
> Of course the pressure counteracts the gravity at a certain point, thats why a star doesnt collapse entirely, and is stable. At a certain point, force pushing out and force pushing in are equal. If pressure pushing in is great enough, the star ignites.
> 
> Your wrong. By your logic, hydrogen fusion is not possible in any setting. Because atoms will always just push each other apart. Again, your wrong.
> 
> Idk how many times i have to say it, your wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Simulation video proves your point
Click to expand...


Yea it does actually.

Your claiming that known forces of physics, mostly friction between hydrogen, would prevent a star from undergoing nuclear fusion. 

And im telling you that the laws of physics say no such thing. If a star is massive enough friction between particles wont prevent gravity from compressing it past the point of fusion.  

If you are right, and simple laws of physics prevent star formation, shouldnt a computer model be able to replicate that? Theyre just equations, after all.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is "stretching out the heavens a metaphor" ? Where do you get metaphor from ?
> 
> These things actually happen.
> 
> 
> 
> yes they do,,,your description of their causation has no basis in fact.
> 
> 
> In the evangelical community, the year 2011 has brought a resurgence of debate over evolution. The current issue of Christianity Today asks if genetic discoveries preclude an historical Adam. While BioLogos, the brainchild of NIH director Francis Collins, is seeking to promote theistic evolution among evangelicals, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recently argued that true Christians should believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
> 
> As someone raised evangelical, I realize anti-evolutionists believe they are defending the Christian tradition. But as a seminary graduate now training to be a medical scientist, I can say that, in reality, they've abandoned it.
> 
> In theory, if not always in practice, past Christian theologians valued science out of the belief that God created the world scientists study. Augustine castigated those who made the Bible teach bad science, John Calvin argued that Genesis reflects a commoner's view of the physical world, and the Belgic confession likened scripture and nature to two books written by the same author.
> 
> These beliefs encouraged past Christians to accept the best science of their day, and these beliefs persisted even into the evangelical tradition. As Princeton Seminary's Charles Hodge, widely considered the father of modern evangelical theology, put it in 1859: "Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science."
> 
> In this analysis, Christians must accept sound science, not because they don't believe God created the world, but precisely because they do.
> 
> Jonathan Dudley: Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly why creationist reject all secular science which happens to be the big bang and Macro-evolution.
> 
> What you quoted was not a metaphor in any way.
> 
> I have studied the scriptures for over 40 years and you remind me of any other one who tries to blend evolution,natural processes and God. They call it theistic evolution.
Click to expand...

1. there is no science but secular science, creationist "science is not and cannot be science:  The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that Creation Science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[6][7] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[8][9]

Religion does not really work well with science. And of course its bias.If the creationist found evidence that did not fit their argument then they would disregard it.They will deny science before they would god.And at best its a pseudoscience like studying ghost or aliens.


" I have studied the scriptures for over 40 years and you remind me of any other one who tries to blend evolution,natural processes and God. They call it theistic evolution" -YWC

beside the faulty grammar,you've again made wrong assumptions based on your bias .
1. since I'm an atheist any reminder or similarity to any one who:"tries to blend evolution,natural processes and God." is fictitious and erroneous.
  2.why I posted this:"Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution" was to point out that what you are   proselytizing is at odds with your own faith, that's called a schism ( a : formal division in or separation from a church or religious body) .

3,your scripture study is in this instance is meaningless, it's not science or scientific.
All it proves is that you've read them,not understand them .
if scripture is the only thing you've studied ,then you have no context to make judgments or conclusions on events or actions that are not sanctioned by those very bias and short sighted writings .


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasnt aware that you asked any. Go ahead, ask your questions.
> 
> While your at it, make sure you answer mine.
> 
> Hydrogen always undergoes nuclear fusion if it is compressed enough. We see a very massive hydrogen cloud compressing and becoming hot.
> 
> How is it not a valid assumption that compressed hydrogen will undergo fusion? I guess if you dont know what words like "fusion", and "hydrogen".
> 
> Do you even know the structure of a hydrogen atom? Please, dont google it first....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?
> 
> If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen?
> 
> Where did gravity come from that held it together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times have we talked about this?
> 
> Again, the singularity that resulted in the big bang was not compressed. This is a total lack of understand as to what the big bang theory claims. The singularity wasnt just sitting there and then exploded. It came into existence and continually expanded, it was not static, not even for one instant.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the dot was not spinning, there was no before. It was not simply sitting there spinning, and then it exploded. According to the theory it came into existence and began rapidly expanding. It was not at a singularity for any interval of time, just a single instant.
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do i have to explain the big bang to you? Particles did not exist at the beginning of the big bang, only once electroweak symmetry broke as the universe cooled did particles with mass form. Ill say it again, only once electroweak symmetry broke shortly after the big bang did particles with mass form. Even if particles were present, friction sort of irrelevant. Friction is a macro concept. There is no friction between quarks, only the 4 fundamental forces of electromagnetism, strong and weak forces, and gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> Angular momentum does not mean everythings spinning the same way!!!!!!
> 
> Even if it did, the singularity wasnt spinning!!! It was singularity without any particles, there was no matter to spin! only energy!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction. But two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards. Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservation of angular momentum does not say everything should be spinning the same way!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple. Your a fucking idiot that has to have absolutely everything explain to him because you get your science from creationist websites.
> 
> Read a fucking physics book you retard.
Click to expand...


You didn't answer my questions again moron.

Here is an article that addresses your nonsense belief.

Chapter 3: Origin of the Solar System - Answers in Genesis


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [mvp is the minimum number of healthy surviving individuals that would maximise long term survival of the population without excessive loss of genetic variability through genetic drift--without losing evolutionary potential. The safest estimate of mvp is approximately 10,000 individuals--roughly the number of humans supposed to survive the toba catastrophe 75,000 years ago.
> 
> al fin: Planning for apocalypse: Minimum viable population
> 
> 
> the toba supereruption (youngest toba tuff or simply ytt[1]) was a supervolcanic eruption that occurred some time between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at lake toba (sumatra, indonesia). It is recognized as one of the earth's largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe theory holds that this event plunged the planet into a 6-to-10-year volcanic winter and possibly an additional 1,000-year cooling episode. This change in temperature resulted in the world's human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution.
> 
> toba catastrophe theory - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> ywc dodged this question!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What question ?
Click to expand...

Minimum viable population


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you educated by people who hold degrees so was russ.
> 
> What do you consider a credible source ?
> 
> Russ miller is in full agreement with creationist that hold degrees in the sciences. And was educated by creationist.
> 
> 
> 
> NO I was educated in college by professors that held many degrees  I have one myself.
> 
> What do you consider a credible source ?..one that has evidence and is based in science..
> yours is not .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A credible source does not have to hold a degree. Have you ever heard of people having a profession without a degree they just happen to specialize in something and their education is actual hands on experience ?
> 
> I was to educated by men and women that hold degrees but i don't need a degree to understand the bible. I do hold a degree in molecular biology. I also have actual experience in molecular biology research. I worked with a team studying the effects of mutations as well.
Click to expand...

 if you did you hide it well!

I did not say a DEGREE was need to be a credible source , this is what I said: "one that has evidence and is based in science..
yours is not .[/QUOTE]
do you have comprehension and short term memory problems ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ywc dodged this question!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Minimum viable population
Click to expand...


Don't expect me to answer something you can't prove happened 70,000 years ago.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO I was educated in college by professors that held many degrees  I have one myself.
> 
> What do you consider a credible source ?..one that has evidence and is based in science..
> yours is not .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A credible source does not have to hold a degree. Have you ever heard of people having a profession without a degree they just happen to specialize in something and their education is actual hands on experience ?
> 
> I was to educated by men and women that hold degrees but i don't need a degree to understand the bible. I do hold a degree in molecular biology. I also have actual experience in molecular biology research. I worked with a team studying the effects of mutations as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you did you hide it well!
> 
> I did not say a DEGREE was need to be a credible source , this is what I said: "one that has evidence and is based in science..
> yours is not .
Click to expand...

do you have comprehension and short term memory problems ?[/QUOTE]

As a fact i do have memory problems but Cbirch thought you were talking about his question. Are you directing this insult to Cbirch as well ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> Thats why the cloud of hydrogen has to be massive enough so that the gravitational pressure causes hydrogen atoms to fuse.
> 
> Of course the pressure counteracts the gravity at a certain point, thats why a star doesnt collapse entirely, and is stable. At a certain point, force pushing out and force pushing in are equal. If pressure pushing in is great enough, the star ignites.
> 
> Your wrong. By your logic, hydrogen fusion is not possible in any setting. Because atoms will always just push each other apart. Again, your wrong.
> 
> Idk how many times i have to say it, your wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Simulation video proves your point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea it does actually.
> 
> Your claiming that known forces of physics, mostly friction between hydrogen, would prevent a star from undergoing nuclear fusion.
> 
> And im telling you that the laws of physics say no such thing. If a star is massive enough friction between particles wont prevent gravity from compressing it past the point of fusion.
> 
> If you are right, and simple laws of physics prevent star formation, shouldnt a computer model be able to replicate that? Theyre just equations, after all.
Click to expand...


If a star is massive enough  ? the universe began as a little Dot do you know your own theory ?

Once again you dodge my questions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Cbirch go learn your theory before you try to defend it you moron.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What question ?
> 
> 
> 
> Minimum viable population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't expect me to answer something you can't prove happened 70,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

 you mean like adam and eve ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What question ?
> 
> 
> 
> Minimum viable population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't expect me to answer something you can't prove happened 70,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

Toba Volcano, ch.5 - Human evolution


Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> I do hold a degree in molecular biology. I also have actual experience in molecular biology research. I worked with a team studying the effects of mutations as well.


LOLsome.

You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level chemistry.

You have no  understanding of legitimate high-school level geology.

You have no  understanding of legitimate  high-school level biology.

You have no  understanding of legitimate high-school level physics.

You have no  understanding of legitimate high-school level genetics.

You have no  understanding of legitimate high-school level evolutionary theory.

Yet somehow you achieved a degree in molecular biology. And your research? How well did your Bible "Science" education and your Bible "Science" degree in Bible molecular Bible biology work out for you in the real world where your superstitions hold no intellectual validity, and your fairy tale is meaningless?

LOLsome!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Minimum viable population
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect me to answer something you can't prove happened 70,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean like adam and eve ?
Click to expand...


The worlds population is more consistent with the biblical account than the evolutionary account. Did you see the site idolphin that I posted ?  If the earth was near as old as your side claims we should have a lot more fossils and especially those fossils that should show gradualism that your side claims.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do hold a degree in molecular biology. I also have actual experience in molecular biology research. I worked with a team studying the effects of mutations as well.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLsome.
> 
> You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level chemistry.
> 
> You have no  understanding of legitimate high-school level geology.
> 
> You have no  understanding of legitimate  high-school level biology.
> 
> You have no  understanding of legitimate high-school level physics.
> 
> You have no  understanding of legitimate high-school level genetics.
> 
> You have no  understanding of legitimate high-school level evolutionary theory.
> 
> Yet somehow you achieved a degree in molecular biology. And your research? How well did your Bible "Science" education and your Bible "Science" degree in Bible molecular Bible biology work out for you in the real world where your superstitions hold no intellectual validity, and your fairy tale is meaningless?
> 
> LOLsome!
Click to expand...


when you fellas grow up we will continue this discussion.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?
> 
> If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen?
> 
> Where did gravity come from that held it together?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have we talked about this?
> 
> Again, the singularity that resulted in the big bang was not compressed. This is a total lack of understand as to what the big bang theory claims. The singularity wasnt just sitting there and then exploded. It came into existence and continually expanded, it was not static, not even for one instant.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the dot was not spinning, there was no before. It was not simply sitting there spinning, and then it exploded. According to the theory it came into existence and began rapidly expanding. It was not at a singularity for any interval of time, just a single instant.
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do i have to explain the big bang to you? Particles did not exist at the beginning of the big bang, only once electroweak symmetry broke as the universe cooled did particles with mass form. Ill say it again, only once electroweak symmetry broke shortly after the big bang did particles with mass form. Even if particles were present, friction sort of irrelevant. Friction is a macro concept. There is no friction between quarks, only the 4 fundamental forces of electromagnetism, strong and weak forces, and gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> Angular momentum does not mean everythings spinning the same way!!!!!!
> 
> Even if it did, the singularity wasnt spinning!!! It was singularity without any particles, there was no matter to spin! only energy!
> 
> 
> 
> Conservation of angular momentum does not say everything should be spinning the same way!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple. Your a fucking idiot that has to have absolutely everything explain to him because you get your science from creationist websites.
> 
> Read a fucking physics book you retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my questions again moron.
> 
> Here is an article that addresses your nonsense belief.
> 
> Chapter 3: Origin of the Solar System - Answers in Genesis
Click to expand...


I answered every part of your post piece by piece. 

Dont try to claim shit that isnt true just to make yourself sound like your winning. I respond to every single point you make with factual evidence, and then you skip over it all and respond with a nonsense creationist link. This is the undeniable pattern of this thread. 

But as for your link:

"This pressure would tend to cause the nebula to expand and counteract the gravitational collapse.   	To counter this problem, it is suggested that some type of shock overcomes the gas pressure at just the right time."

LOL!

Let me explain this to you. 

Imagine you have a cloud of hydrogen gas that is behaving exactly as you say. The pressure from the gas compressing counteracts the gravity, and it is static. In reality, every star is like this. That is why theyre a constant size. Some proto-stars, however, dont have enough mass to undergo sustained nuclear fusion, and they become failed stars, or brown dwarfs. See: Jupiter. 

So imagine you have this brown dwarf. Gravity and outward pressure nullify eachother, its not massive enough for fusion. What happens if you add more mass? Well gravity increases, thats a given. But what happens to the outward pressure? Friction increases, but within a larger volume, so it stays constant, or at least increases less than gravity. 

Therefore the size of the original cloud is what determines whether it becomes a successful star. This is 100% consistent with what we see in the universe. Brown dwarfs, stars like our own, and giants. Even white dwarf stars, neutron stars, and black holes are variations of this pressure-gravity idea. And theyre all totally consistent with what we see and what our theories are. 

If you cant disprove that you cant really say shit.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Simulation video proves your point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea it does actually.
> 
> Your claiming that known forces of physics, mostly friction between hydrogen, would prevent a star from undergoing nuclear fusion.
> 
> And im telling you that the laws of physics say no such thing. If a star is massive enough friction between particles wont prevent gravity from compressing it past the point of fusion.
> 
> If you are right, and simple laws of physics prevent star formation, shouldnt a computer model be able to replicate that? Theyre just equations, after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a star is massive enough  ? the universe began as a little Dot do you know your own theory ?
> 
> Once again you dodge my questions.
Click to expand...


What questions did i dodge?

Was that first sentence a question? Or two?

Because it seems like gibberish to me. 

"If a star is massive enough the universe began as a little dot do you know your own theory?"

Ok let me decipher that....

Are you saying that the universe should have collapsed in on itself shortly after the big bang, because the universe is by definition more massive than a star, and a singularity is by definition more compact than a star?

Hmmmmm.....

See: Electroweak symmetry
See: Velocity
See: Inflation
See: Spacetime

But you should mostly see the first one, since you keep showing that you clearly do not understand its consequences. 

"To understand how it works consider a ferromagnet which is heated up  and then chilled. Each atom inside it acts as a minature magnet. At high  temperatures, they wiggle around willy-nilly, not preferring any one  direction to any other. The system is, in a sense, symmetrical: the  milling atoms look the same whatever the observer&#8217;s vantage point. On  reaching a particular temperature, though, they suddenly pick a  preferred direction, creating a uniform magnetic field. They no longer  look the same to different observers.Something similar is  believed to have happened with the Higgs field. At the scorching  temparatures instants after the Big Bang it was in disarray and all  elementary particles were oblivious to it. They were, in other words,  massless. Moreover, photons, Ws and Zs all looked the same. There was no  distinction between electromagnetism and the weak interaction. Instead,  the three bosons conveyed the same &#8220;electroweak&#8221; force. "


This is an except for simpletons trying to explain electroweak theory and the higgs field.


In technical terms, above about 100GeV fermions exchange photons rather than Z or W bosons. The weak nuclear force, which drives radioactive decay, and the electromagnetic force can be described in the same way. They become the same force. How the higgs mechanism equates to this is slightly too complicated to explain to you. But essentially as successive symmetries break, the bosons that mediate the newly generated force (weak force, for example) interact with the higgs field and aquire mass. Had to explain without matricies....


And nope, this is not conjecture. The electroweak force is real, and nobel prizes have been awarded for it.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do hold a degree in molecular biology. I also have actual experience in molecular biology research. I worked with a team studying the effects of mutations as well.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLsome.
> 
> You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level chemistry.
> 
> You have no  understanding of legitimate high-school level geology.
> 
> You have no  understanding of legitimate  high-school level biology.
> 
> You have no  understanding of legitimate high-school level physics.
> 
> You have no  understanding of legitimate high-school level genetics.
> 
> You have no  understanding of legitimate high-school level evolutionary theory.
> 
> Yet somehow you achieved a degree in molecular biology. And your research? How well did your Bible "Science" education and your Bible "Science" degree in Bible molecular Bible biology work out for you in the real world where your superstitions hold no intellectual validity, and your fairy tale is meaningless?
> 
> LOLsome!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when you fellas grow up we will continue this discussion.
Click to expand...

Looks like I score another 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes they do,,,your description of their causation has no basis in fact.
> 
> 
> In the evangelical community, the year 2011 has brought a resurgence of debate over evolution. The current issue of Christianity Today asks if genetic discoveries preclude an historical Adam. While BioLogos, the brainchild of NIH director Francis Collins, is seeking to promote theistic evolution among evangelicals, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recently argued that true Christians should believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
> 
> As someone raised evangelical, I realize anti-evolutionists believe they are defending the Christian tradition. But as a seminary graduate now training to be a medical scientist, I can say that, in reality, they've abandoned it.
> 
> In theory, if not always in practice, past Christian theologians valued science out of the belief that God created the world scientists study. Augustine castigated those who made the Bible teach bad science, John Calvin argued that Genesis reflects a commoner's view of the physical world, and the Belgic confession likened scripture and nature to two books written by the same author.
> 
> These beliefs encouraged past Christians to accept the best science of their day, and these beliefs persisted even into the evangelical tradition. As Princeton Seminary's Charles Hodge, widely considered the father of modern evangelical theology, put it in 1859: "Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science."
> 
> In this analysis, Christians must accept sound science, not because they don't believe God created the world, but precisely because they do.
> 
> Jonathan Dudley: Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly why creationist reject all secular science which happens to be the big bang and Macro-evolution.
> 
> What you quoted was not a metaphor in any way.
> 
> I have studied the scriptures for over 40 years and you remind me of any other one who tries to blend evolution,natural processes and God. They call it theistic evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. there is no science but secular science, creationist "science is not and cannot be science:  The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that Creation Science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[6][7] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[8][9]
> 
> Religion does not really work well with science. And of course its bias.If the creationist found evidence that did not fit their argument then they would disregard it.They will deny science before they would god.And at best its a pseudoscience like studying ghost or aliens.
> 
> 
> " I have studied the scriptures for over 40 years and you remind me of any other one who tries to blend evolution,natural processes and God. They call it theistic evolution" -YWC
> 
> beside the faulty grammar,you've again made wrong assumptions based on your bias .
> 1. since I'm an atheist any reminder or similarity to any one who:"tries to blend evolution,natural processes and God." is fictitious and erroneous.
> 2.why I posted this:"Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution" was to point out that what you are   proselytizing is at odds with your own faith, that's called a schism ( a : formal division in or separation from a church or religious body) .
> 
> 3,your scripture study is in this instance is meaningless, it's not science or scientific.
> All it proves is that you've read them,not understand them .
> if scripture is the only thing you've studied ,then you have no context to make judgments or conclusions on events or actions that are not sanctioned by those very bias and short sighted writings .
Click to expand...


Technically secular science is also built on faith because much of it is assumed and believed out of faith not observable evidence. Did you see Cbirch try to provide evidence that was supposedly observed but was not observed. When you believe something without actual evidence you are believing out of faith nothing more or nothing less.

Many times interpretations of evidence are later proven wrong but until that happens you believed faulty conclusions because of faulty assumptions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have we talked about this?
> 
> Again, the singularity that resulted in the big bang was not compressed. This is a total lack of understand as to what the big bang theory claims. The singularity wasnt just sitting there and then exploded. It came into existence and continually expanded, it was not static, not even for one instant.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the dot was not spinning, there was no before. It was not simply sitting there spinning, and then it exploded. According to the theory it came into existence and began rapidly expanding. It was not at a singularity for any interval of time, just a single instant.
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do i have to explain the big bang to you? Particles did not exist at the beginning of the big bang, only once electroweak symmetry broke as the universe cooled did particles with mass form. Ill say it again, only once electroweak symmetry broke shortly after the big bang did particles with mass form. Even if particles were present, friction sort of irrelevant. Friction is a macro concept. There is no friction between quarks, only the 4 fundamental forces of electromagnetism, strong and weak forces, and gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> Angular momentum does not mean everythings spinning the same way!!!!!!
> 
> Even if it did, the singularity wasnt spinning!!! It was singularity without any particles, there was no matter to spin! only energy!
> 
> 
> 
> Conservation of angular momentum does not say everything should be spinning the same way!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple. Your a fucking idiot that has to have absolutely everything explain to him because you get your science from creationist websites.
> 
> Read a fucking physics book you retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my questions again moron.
> 
> Here is an article that addresses your nonsense belief.
> 
> Chapter 3: Origin of the Solar System - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered every part of your post piece by piece.
> 
> Dont try to claim shit that isnt true just to make yourself sound like your winning. I respond to every single point you make with factual evidence, and then you skip over it all and respond with a nonsense creationist link. This is the undeniable pattern of this thread.
> 
> But as for your link:
> 
> "This pressure would tend to cause the nebula to expand and counteract the gravitational collapse.   	To counter this problem, it is suggested that some type of &#8220;shock&#8221; overcomes the gas pressure at just the right time."
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Let me explain this to you.
> 
> Imagine you have a cloud of hydrogen gas that is behaving exactly as you say. The pressure from the gas compressing counteracts the gravity, and it is static. In reality, every star is like this. That is why theyre a constant size. Some proto-stars, however, dont have enough mass to undergo sustained nuclear fusion, and they become failed stars, or brown dwarfs. See: Jupiter.
> 
> So imagine you have this brown dwarf. Gravity and outward pressure nullify eachother, its not massive enough for fusion. What happens if you add more mass? Well gravity increases, thats a given. But what happens to the outward pressure? Friction increases, but within a larger volume, so it stays constant, or at least increases less than gravity.
> 
> Therefore the size of the original cloud is what determines whether it becomes a successful star. This is 100% consistent with what we see in the universe. Brown dwarfs, stars like our own, and giants. Even white dwarf stars, neutron stars, and black holes are variations of this pressure-gravity idea. And theyre all totally consistent with what we see and what our theories are.
> 
> If you cant disprove that you cant really say shit.
Click to expand...


Like I said you can theorize anything you like but it does not prove thats how it happens get it ?

The nebular hypothesis is simply a story to describe what may have happened in the prehistoric solar system. There are no observations to support the claims that natural processes over millions of years could form a solar system.

Do you remember this comment you made.


 the early earth had a reducing atmosphere?

Evolutionists assume that the early earth lacked oxygen because life could not evolve in an environment containing oxygen. If this were true, the rocks older than 1.9 billion years should contain no evidence of being formed in an environment with oxygen. Iron deposits from these rock layers indicate an environment with oxygen. The lack of sulfide deposits and the presence of sulfates and other oxygen bearing compounds also point to an oxidizing environment. These and other evidences point to an atmosphere that contained oxygen from its beginning.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Technically secular science is also built on faith because much of it is assumed and believed out of faith not observable evidence.


Untrue. Entirely untrue. In no way what-so-ever does science make any assertions that are in denial of verifiable evidence an/or valid logic. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, it would not be science.



Youwerecreated said:


> Did you see Cbirch try to provide evidence that was supposedly observed but was not observed.


And you continue to pretend that the application of VALID logic to verifiable evidence is insufficiently different from making up something from nothing and applying logical fallacies to rationalize lack of intellectual rigor, so that the two are the same.

YOUR SUPERSTITIONS ARE NOT SCIENCE!



Youwerecreated said:


> When you believe something without actual evidence you are believing out of faith nothing more or nothing less.


NO! VALID logic counts.



Youwerecreated said:


> Many times interpretations of evidence are later proven wrong but until that happens you believed faulty conclusions because of faulty assumptions.


The entirety of your superstition is based upon invalid logic and denial of reality ... making them intellectually invalid.

This is not about you simply having your facts wrong YWC; it's not that you're simply ignorant, having no idea what others are talking about or what you are talking about; YOU are wrong. Your thinking is INVALID; your conclusions are INVALID; your intellectual paradigm where your beliefs are validated against your belief that they are valid is INVALID.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> Thats why the cloud of hydrogen has to be massive enough so that the gravitational pressure causes hydrogen atoms to fuse.
> 
> Of course the pressure counteracts the gravity at a certain point, thats why a star doesnt collapse entirely, and is stable. At a certain point, force pushing out and force pushing in are equal. If pressure pushing in is great enough, the star ignites.
> 
> Your wrong. By your logic, hydrogen fusion is not possible in any setting. Because atoms will always just push each other apart. Again, your wrong.
> 
> Idk how many times i have to say it, your wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Simulation video proves your point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea it does actually.
> 
> Your claiming that known forces of physics, mostly friction between hydrogen, would prevent a star from undergoing nuclear fusion.
> 
> And im telling you that the laws of physics say no such thing. If a star is massive enough friction between particles wont prevent gravity from compressing it past the point of fusion.
> 
> If you are right, and simple laws of physics prevent star formation, shouldnt a computer model be able to replicate that? Theyre just equations, after all.
Click to expand...



The recent observations of the six Herbig Ae/Be stars showed that for two cases gas was falling into the star, and, for the other four, gas was moving outward away from the star or from a disk around the star. Stars go through a variety of stages as they age. In some of these stages there are particularly strong stellar winds made up of charged particles that flow outward from the star, driving gas away from the star. However some stars are quieter so that gas is more likely to be pulled into the star by gravity. Either of these processes is possible in a creation view, so these observations are not surprising.

 From a creation viewpoint, the interesting questions raised by these observations are about the age of the disks and which came first, the star or the disk. What was created in the Creation Week? Was it the star, the disk, or were both created by God at the same time? Was the star formed out of the disk at creation, though perhaps in a supernatural manner? Young-universe creationist scientists research these questions and have various opinions. It is important to note that just because gas is observed falling into the star, this does not necessarily mean that the disk had anything to do with the formation of the star.

There are always other possibilities that scientists with evolutionary assumptions do not consider. Disks (and clouds) of gas and dust could have been created when the stars were created, just several thousand years ago. The dust disks dissipate over time, and today, astronomers studying these disks find that the disks do not always fit their models. Recent research on dust disks has turned up examples of stars that according to accepted ideas of stellar evolution are old, yet they are observed to have extensive dust disks.2 Astronomers have generally believed that older stars could not still have dust disks. This calls into question the old-age assumptions regarding these disks and the stars found with them. George Rieke from the University of Arizona has recently commented on this problem, We thought young stars, about 1 million years old, would have larger, brighter discs, and older stars from 10 to 100 million years old would have fainter ones . . . But we found some young stars missing discs and some old stars with massive discs.3

The clouds in space that surround many stars are often as large as or larger than our entire solar system. This may suggest that the cloud has been there since Creation. However, some stars are found with smaller disks of dust and gas that could have originated in a collision of planets (extrasolar planets) orbiting the star.4,5 Extrasolar planets outside our own solar system are sometimes in elliptical orbits that could make planet collisions more likely than would be the case in our own solar system. There are over 200 cases of what are believed to be planets orbiting other stars.6 The existence of planets orbiting other stars does not conflict with a creation viewpoint, though Christians have reason to be skeptical about naturalistic planet origins theories.7

If some disks formed from collisions since creation, these disks would be very young in age and limited in size. On the other hand, if the disks were created in the Creation Week, they would still be only several thousand years old. An age of thousands of years means that the amount of change in the disk since the beginning would be limited. This seems to agree with this report about the six Herbig Ae/Be stars, which said that some of the stars had dust present closer to the star than was expected considering the temperature.8 It is not surprising to find evidence of gas near the star, but these observations suggest there are microscopic dust grains close to the star. Evolutionary scientists would expect that in millions of years, dust very near the star would be driven away or would be vaporized.

How young?

So, a question raised is why have the dust particles close to the star not evaporated when it is more than hot enough to vaporize them. This suggests the disks are very young indeed. To evolutionary scientists, the dust grains near the star would be perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Over those kinds of time scales the dust could not still be so close to the star unless something keeps it from being too hot, e.g., gas shielding the dust from the stars light. This is an example of how scientists assume processes they have not observed are at work in order to explain how the observed dust could still be present. Instead, why not consider the star and the disks to be only several thousand years old, then many of the difficulties of explaining the dust disks disappear.


Star Formation and Creation - Answers in Genesis


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect me to answer something you can't prove happened 70,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> you mean like adam and eve ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The worlds population is more consistent with the biblical account than the evolutionary account. Did you see the site idolphin that I posted ?  If the earth was near as old as your side claims we should have a lot more fossils and especially those fossils that should show gradualism that your side claims.
Click to expand...

  no it's not and your site is a steaming pile 

if you knew anything about how fossils are formed your posts do not reflect it 
THERE ARE NO SHOULDS IN SCIENCE , SHIT HAPPENS OR IT DOESN'T.

the reason fossils are rare is simple, MOST creatures including man do not die under the proper conditions for fossilization most, decompose in to dust or are eaten by other creatures till nothing is left .
this was also true of humans for most of our prehistory .
if it weren't for the invention of burial practices  there would be even less.
you, even in your intentional ignorance would have to realize for something to be fossilized the conditions have to be ideal.


----------



## daws101

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically secular science is also built on faith because much of it is assumed and believed out of faith not observable evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. Entirely untrue. In no way what-so-ever does science make any assertions that are in denial of verifiable evidence an/or valid logic. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, it would not be science.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see Cbirch try to provide evidence that was supposedly observed but was not observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you continue to pretend that the application of VALID logic to verifiable evidence is insufficiently different from making up something from nothing and applying logical fallacies to rationalize lack of intellectual rigor, so that the two are the same.
> 
> YOUR SUPERSTITIONS ARE NOT SCIENCE!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you believe something without actual evidence you are believing out of faith nothing more or nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO! VALID logic counts.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many times interpretations of evidence are later proven wrong but until that happens you believed faulty conclusions because of faulty assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entirety of your superstition is based upon invalid logic and denial of reality ... making them intellectually invalid.
> 
> This is not about you simply having your facts wrong YWC; it's not that you're simply ignorant, having no idea what others are talking about or what you are talking about; YOU are wrong. Your thinking is INVALID; your conclusions are INVALID; your intellectual paradigm where your beliefs are validated against your belief that they are valid is INVALID.
Click to expand...

bump!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Simulation video proves your point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea it does actually.
> 
> Your claiming that known forces of physics, mostly friction between hydrogen, would prevent a star from undergoing nuclear fusion.
> 
> And im telling you that the laws of physics say no such thing. If a star is massive enough friction between particles wont prevent gravity from compressing it past the point of fusion.
> 
> If you are right, and simple laws of physics prevent star formation, shouldnt a computer model be able to replicate that? Theyre just equations, after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The recent observations of the six Herbig Ae/Be stars showed that for two cases gas was falling into the star, and, for the other four, gas was moving outward away from the star or from a disk around the star. Stars go through a variety of stages as they age. In some of these stages there are particularly strong stellar winds made up of charged particles that flow outward from the star, driving gas away from the star. However some stars are quieter so that gas is more likely to be pulled into the star by gravity. Either of these processes is possible in a creation view, so these observations are not surprising.
> 
> From a creation viewpoint, the interesting questions raised by these observations are about the age of the disks and which came first, the star or the disk. What was created in the Creation Week? Was it the star, the disk, or were both created by God at the same time? Was the star formed out of the disk at creation, though perhaps in a supernatural manner? Young-universe creationist scientists research these questions and have various opinions. It is important to note that just because gas is observed falling into the star, this does not necessarily mean that the disk had anything to do with the formation of the star.
> 
> There are always other possibilities that scientists with evolutionary assumptions do not consider. Disks (and clouds) of gas and dust could have been created when the stars were created, just several thousand years ago. The dust disks dissipate over time, and today, astronomers studying these disks find that the disks do not always fit their models. Recent research on dust disks has turned up examples of stars that according to accepted ideas of stellar evolution are old, yet they are observed to have extensive dust disks.2 Astronomers have generally believed that older stars could not still have dust disks. This calls into question the old-age assumptions regarding these disks and the stars found with them. George Rieke from the University of Arizona has recently commented on this problem, We thought young stars, about 1 million years old, would have larger, brighter discs, and older stars from 10 to 100 million years old would have fainter ones . . . But we found some young stars missing discs and some old stars with massive discs.3
> 
> The clouds in space that surround many stars are often as large as or larger than our entire solar system. This may suggest that the cloud has been there since Creation. However, some stars are found with smaller disks of dust and gas that could have originated in a collision of planets (extrasolar planets) orbiting the star.4,5 Extrasolar planets outside our own solar system are sometimes in elliptical orbits that could make planet collisions more likely than would be the case in our own solar system. There are over 200 cases of what are believed to be planets orbiting other stars.6 The existence of planets orbiting other stars does not conflict with a creation viewpoint, though Christians have reason to be skeptical about naturalistic planet origins theories.7
> 
> If some disks formed from collisions since creation, these disks would be very young in age and limited in size. On the other hand, if the disks were created in the Creation Week, they would still be only several thousand years old. An age of thousands of years means that the amount of change in the disk since the beginning would be limited. This seems to agree with this report about the six Herbig Ae/Be stars, which said that some of the stars had dust present closer to the star than was expected considering the temperature.8 It is not surprising to find evidence of gas near the star, but these observations suggest there are microscopic dust grains close to the star. Evolutionary scientists would expect that in millions of years, dust very near the star would be driven away or would be vaporized.
> 
> How young?
> 
> So, a question raised is why have the dust particles close to the star not evaporated when it is more than hot enough to vaporize them. This suggests the disks are very young indeed. To evolutionary scientists, the dust grains near the star would be perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Over those kinds of time scales the dust could not still be so close to the star unless something keeps it from being too hot, e.g., gas shielding the dust from the stars light. This is an example of how scientists assume processes they have not observed are at work in order to explain how the observed dust could still be present. Instead, why not consider the star and the disks to be only several thousand years old, then many of the difficulties of explaining the dust disks disappear.
> 
> 
> Star Formation and Creation - Answers in Genesis
Click to expand...

non credible site  ,conjecture only  no evidence


----------



## daws101

Is there any evidence that backs up the creation theory?   No.


If you refer to creationism or "creation science", no. In the first place, there is no such thing as a creation theory; the best attempts so far are nothing more than hypotheses, posited by virtue of a need to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible.
They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't.

Further to this, there is no evidence to support the few basic claims made by creationists, such as a young earth/universe, direct creation 'as-is' of all species, and most of the myths in the Old Testament (such as Noah's flood). All evidence suggests the complete opposite: an old earth and universe, gradual development of biodiversity, and the absence of any such major events as a global flood.

Many creationists and creationist institutes have been founded to attempt furthering both "research" into the subject in favour of the idea, and to continue a basic propaganda mission in favour of converting people to that view. The few real research projects undertaken by these groups have completely invalidated their own initial ideas, notably for example the RATE project. Most otehr work consists of misinterpreting, misapplying and misunderstanding much of modern science, and ignoring basic techniques required to ensure validity and accuracy in the conclusions reached.

In effect - and this has been demonstrated in both legal and true scientific fields - creationism and its offshoots are simply attempts to insert religion into the secular world, almost invariably under direction from fundamentalist Christian sects.



Read more: Is there any evidence that backs up the creation theory


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my questions again moron.
> 
> Here is an article that addresses your nonsense belief.
> 
> Chapter 3: Origin of the Solar System - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered every part of your post piece by piece.
> 
> Dont try to claim shit that isnt true just to make yourself sound like your winning. I respond to every single point you make with factual evidence, and then you skip over it all and respond with a nonsense creationist link. This is the undeniable pattern of this thread.
> 
> But as for your link:
> 
> "This pressure would tend to cause the nebula to expand and counteract the gravitational collapse.       To counter this problem, it is suggested that some type of &#8220;shock&#8221; overcomes the gas pressure at just the right time."
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Let me explain this to you.
> 
> Imagine you have a cloud of hydrogen gas that is behaving exactly as you say. The pressure from the gas compressing counteracts the gravity, and it is static. In reality, every star is like this. That is why theyre a constant size. Some proto-stars, however, dont have enough mass to undergo sustained nuclear fusion, and they become failed stars, or brown dwarfs. See: Jupiter.
> 
> So imagine you have this brown dwarf. Gravity and outward pressure nullify eachother, its not massive enough for fusion. What happens if you add more mass? Well gravity increases, thats a given. But what happens to the outward pressure? Friction increases, but within a larger volume, so it stays constant, or at least increases less than gravity.
> 
> Therefore the size of the original cloud is what determines whether it becomes a successful star. This is 100% consistent with what we see in the universe. Brown dwarfs, stars like our own, and giants. Even white dwarf stars, neutron stars, and black holes are variations of this pressure-gravity idea. And theyre all totally consistent with what we see and what our theories are.
> 
> If you cant disprove that you cant really say shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said you can theorize anything you like but it does not prove thats how it happens get it ?
Click to expand...


Your probably one of those people that are against vaccines as well, arent you?

This is not theory. We can perform nuclear fusion in a lab you fucking moron. Its just gravity, which is very much described by equations, and the charges of particles, which is also very much described by equations. 

Your basically doubting all of physics here. Gravity and matter must act differently far away...



Youwerecreated said:


> The nebular hypothesis is simply a story to describe what may have happened in the prehistoric solar system. There are no observations to support the claims that natural processes over millions of years could form a solar system.



Well probably because we cant observe things for billions of years. 

Either a nebula that is massive enough will collapse in on itself and undergo fusion, or gravity and nuclear physic are both wrong. There is no other options. We can perform nuclear fusion in a laboratory. Gravity is one of the best measured forces. 

So which one is it? Do nebulas form stars, or are gravity and physics 100% wrong?



Youwerecreated said:


> Do you remember this comment you made.
> 
> 
> the early earth had a reducing atmosphere?
> 
> Evolutionists assume that the early earth lacked oxygen because life could not evolve in an environment containing oxygen. If this were true, the rocks older than 1.9 billion years should contain no evidence of being formed in an environment with oxygen. Iron deposits from these rock layers indicate an environment with oxygen. The lack of sulfide deposits and the presence of sulfates and other oxygen bearing compounds also point to an oxidizing environment. These and other evidences point to an atmosphere that contained oxygen from its beginning.



No, we do not claim that. See this is where you misunderstanding of oxygen and atoms and chemistry and even the conservation of energy/mass and what constitutes a single element....

Oxygen remained trapped in minerals exactly like iron, and was unable to react with organic particles, because it was already bound to those minerals. Your statement just makes no sense to anyone that understands it. In the early earth most oxygen is already bound to inorganic minerals like iron. Its not in the atmosphere to react with organic molecules. 

And i would probably say evolution is exactly in line with this theory. 

Early organisms were anaerobic prokaryotes, they didnt need oxygen. All eukaryote evolves from them, and retain chemical processes like glycolysis from those days.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Simulation video proves your point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea it does actually.
> 
> Your claiming that known forces of physics, mostly friction between hydrogen, would prevent a star from undergoing nuclear fusion.
> 
> And im telling you that the laws of physics say no such thing. If a star is massive enough friction between particles wont prevent gravity from compressing it past the point of fusion.
> 
> If you are right, and simple laws of physics prevent star formation, shouldnt a computer model be able to replicate that? Theyre just equations, after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The recent observations of the six Herbig Ae/Be stars showed that for two cases gas was falling into the star, and, for the other four, gas was moving outward away from the star or from a disk around the star. Stars go through a variety of stages as they age. In some of these stages there are particularly strong stellar winds made up of charged particles that flow outward from the star, driving gas away from the star. However some stars are quieter so that gas is more likely to be pulled into the star by gravity. Either of these processes is possible in a creation view, so these observations are not surprising.
Click to expand...


Only stars that are already undergoing nuclear fusion are emitting a vast amount of solar wind. 

Understand how this works please. Hydrogen has just one proton and one electron. With enough energy (called ionization energy) the electron will fly away from the proton. Youll have a plasma, just a cloud of protons and electrons. Some lights work on a similar process, this is a mundane process. The only outward force counteracting gravity is the force repelling like particles. If gravitational pressure passes a certain point protons will begin to fuse, and the star will have been born. 

Im just not sure how you can deny this. Again, either gravity and physics is wrong, or your wrong. Sorry, ill stick with Albert Einstein and Paul Dirac.



Youwerecreated said:


> From a creation viewpoint, the interesting questions raised by these observations are about the age of the disks and which came first, the star or the disk. What was created in the Creation Week? Was it the star, the disk, or were both created by God at the same time? Was the star formed out of the disk at creation, though perhaps in a supernatural manner? Young-universe creationist scientists research these questions and have various opinions. It is important to note that just because gas is observed falling into the star, this does not necessarily mean that the disk had anything to do with the formation of the star.



Blah blah blah. Useless questions that will never answer. Those are not science. Young earth "scientists"

Werent you the one babbling on with something like "pics or it didnt happen". Now your "investigating" whether god created the star and the disk at the same time. Wow. Scientists is not an appropriate term. More like "morons playing imagination time."

When jesus comes back call me up. otherwise think of me on your death bed and realize ive won.



Youwerecreated said:


> There are always other possibilities that scientists with evolutionary assumptions do not consider. Disks (and clouds) of gas and dust could have been created when the stars were created, just several thousand years ago. The dust disks dissipate over time, and today, astronomers studying these disks find that the disks do not always fit their models. Recent research on dust disks has turned up examples of stars that according to accepted ideas of stellar evolution are old, yet they are observed to have extensive dust disks.2 Astronomers have generally believed that older stars could not still have dust disks. This calls into question the old-age assumptions regarding these disks and the stars found with them. George Rieke from the University of Arizona has recently commented on this problem, We thought young stars, about 1 million years old, would have larger, brighter discs, and older stars from 10 to 100 million years old would have fainter ones . . . But we found some young stars missing discs and some old stars with massive discs.3
> 
> The clouds in space that surround many stars are often as large as or larger than our entire solar system. This may suggest that the cloud has been there since Creation. However, some stars are found with smaller disks of dust and gas that could have originated in a collision of planets (extrasolar planets) orbiting the star.4,5 Extrasolar planets outside our own solar system are sometimes in elliptical orbits that could make planet collisions more likely than would be the case in our own solar system. There are over 200 cases of what are believed to be planets orbiting other stars.6 The existence of planets orbiting other stars does not conflict with a creation viewpoint, though Christians have reason to be skeptical about naturalistic planet origins theories.7
> 
> If some disks formed from collisions since creation, these disks would be very young in age and limited in size. On the other hand, if the disks were created in the Creation Week, they would still be only several thousand years old. An age of thousands of years means that the amount of change in the disk since the beginning would be limited. This seems to agree with this report about the six Herbig Ae/Be stars, which said that some of the stars had dust present closer to the star than was expected considering the temperature.8 It is not surprising to find evidence of gas near the star, but these observations suggest there are microscopic dust grains close to the star. Evolutionary scientists would expect that in millions of years, dust very near the star would be driven away or would be vaporized.
> 
> How young?
> 
> So, a question raised is why have the dust particles close to the star not evaporated when it is more than hot enough to vaporize them. This suggests the disks are very young indeed. To evolutionary scientists, the dust grains near the star would be perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Over those kinds of time scales the dust could not still be so close to the star unless something keeps it from being too hot, e.g., gas shielding the dust from the stars light. This is an example of how scientists assume processes they have not observed are at work in order to explain how the observed dust could still be present. Instead, why not consider the star and the disks to be only several thousand years old, then many of the difficulties of explaining the dust disks disappear.
> 
> 
> Star Formation and Creation - Answers in Genesis



Dude, why do you keep linking to creationist web sites. No one cares.

Your arguments are idiotic. Nebulas dont form stars because we see all different kinds of nebulas? What?

Thats the dumbest shit.....

I dont know how much longer i can keep wading through this total perversion of science and trying to untangle it all. 

Its easy to argue against a concept that you dont even understand fully. No one with a knowledge of nuclear physics would question how a star is born. its a very basic process. 












You must learn about the very small before you can comprehend the very large. 

You dont understand either.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean like adam and eve ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The worlds population is more consistent with the biblical account than the evolutionary account. Did you see the site idolphin that I posted ?  If the earth was near as old as your side claims we should have a lot more fossils and especially those fossils that should show gradualism that your side claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it's not and your site is a steaming pile
> 
> if you knew anything about how fossils are formed your posts do not reflect it
> THERE ARE NO SHOULDS IN SCIENCE , SHIT HAPPENS OR IT DOESN'T.
> 
> the reason fossils are rare is simple, MOST creatures including man do not die under the proper conditions for fossilization most, decompose in to dust or are eaten by other creatures till nothing is left .
> this was also true of humans for most of our prehistory .
> if it weren't for the invention of burial practices  there would be even less.
> you, even in your intentional ignorance would have to realize for something to be fossilized the conditions have to be ideal.
Click to expand...


You had better get to class because science makes predictions and then tries testing their predictions..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea it does actually.
> 
> Your claiming that known forces of physics, mostly friction between hydrogen, would prevent a star from undergoing nuclear fusion.
> 
> And im telling you that the laws of physics say no such thing. If a star is massive enough friction between particles wont prevent gravity from compressing it past the point of fusion.
> 
> If you are right, and simple laws of physics prevent star formation, shouldnt a computer model be able to replicate that? Theyre just equations, after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The recent observations of the six Herbig Ae/Be stars showed that for two cases gas was falling into the star, and, for the other four, gas was moving outward away from the star or from a disk around the star. Stars go through a variety of stages as they age. In some of these stages there are particularly strong stellar winds made up of charged particles that flow outward from the star, driving gas away from the star. However some stars are &#8220;quieter&#8221; so that gas is more likely to be pulled into the star by gravity. Either of these processes is possible in a creation view, so these observations are not surprising.
> 
> From a creation viewpoint, the interesting questions raised by these observations are about the age of the disks and which came first, the star or the disk. What was created in the Creation Week? Was it the star, the disk, or were both created by God at the same time? Was the star formed out of the disk at creation, though perhaps in a supernatural manner? Young-universe creationist scientists research these questions and have various opinions. It is important to note that just because gas is observed falling into the star, this does not necessarily mean that the disk had anything to do with the formation of the star.
> 
> There are always other possibilities that scientists with evolutionary assumptions do not consider. Disks (and clouds) of gas and dust could have been created when the stars were created, just several thousand years ago. The dust disks dissipate over time, and today, astronomers studying these disks find that the disks do not always fit their models. Recent research on dust disks has turned up examples of stars that according to accepted ideas of stellar evolution are old, yet they are observed to have extensive dust disks.2 Astronomers have generally believed that older stars could not still have dust disks. This calls into question the old-age assumptions regarding these disks and the stars found with them. George Rieke from the University of Arizona has recently commented on this problem, &#8220;We thought young stars, about 1 million years old, would have larger, brighter discs, and older stars from 10 to 100 million years old would have fainter ones . . . But we found some young stars missing discs and some old stars with massive discs.&#8221;3
> 
> The clouds in space that surround many stars are often as large as or larger than our entire solar system. This may suggest that the cloud has been there since Creation. However, some stars are found with smaller disks of dust and gas that could have originated in a collision of planets (extrasolar planets) orbiting the star.4,5 Extrasolar planets outside our own solar system are sometimes in elliptical orbits that could make planet collisions more likely than would be the case in our own solar system. There are over 200 cases of what are believed to be planets orbiting other stars.6 The existence of planets orbiting other stars does not conflict with a creation viewpoint, though Christians have reason to be skeptical about naturalistic planet origins theories.7
> 
> If some disks formed from collisions since creation, these disks would be very young in age and limited in size. On the other hand, if the disks were created in the Creation Week, they would still be only several thousand years old. An age of thousands of years means that the amount of change in the disk since the beginning would be limited. This seems to agree with this report about the six Herbig Ae/Be stars, which said that some of the stars had dust present closer to the star than was expected considering the temperature.8 It is not surprising to find evidence of gas near the star, but these observations suggest there are microscopic dust grains close to the star. Evolutionary scientists would expect that in millions of years, dust very near the star would be driven away or would be vaporized.
> 
> How young?
> 
> So, a question raised is why have the dust particles close to the star not evaporated when it is more than hot enough to vaporize them. This suggests the disks are very young indeed. To evolutionary scientists, the dust grains near the star would be perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Over those kinds of time scales the dust could not still be so close to the star unless something keeps it from being too hot, e.g., gas shielding the dust from the star&#8217;s light. This is an example of how scientists assume processes they have not observed are at work in order to explain how the observed dust could still be present. Instead, why not consider the star and the disks to be only several thousand years old, then many of the difficulties of explaining the dust disks disappear.
> 
> 
> Star Formation and Creation - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> non credible site  ,conjecture only  no evidence
Click to expand...


Conjecture what do you think the big bang is based on as well as evolution 

Really  conjecture  ? The rings would most certianly be destroyed by the heat not to mention the winds. That is evidence of a young universe.

Then how do you explain planets without these rings ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered every part of your post piece by piece.
> 
> Dont try to claim shit that isnt true just to make yourself sound like your winning. I respond to every single point you make with factual evidence, and then you skip over it all and respond with a nonsense creationist link. This is the undeniable pattern of this thread.
> 
> But as for your link:
> 
> "This pressure would tend to cause the nebula to expand and counteract the gravitational collapse.       To counter this problem, it is suggested that some type of &#8220;shock&#8221; overcomes the gas pressure at just the right time."
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Let me explain this to you.
> 
> Imagine you have a cloud of hydrogen gas that is behaving exactly as you say. The pressure from the gas compressing counteracts the gravity, and it is static. In reality, every star is like this. That is why theyre a constant size. Some proto-stars, however, dont have enough mass to undergo sustained nuclear fusion, and they become failed stars, or brown dwarfs. See: Jupiter.
> 
> So imagine you have this brown dwarf. Gravity and outward pressure nullify eachother, its not massive enough for fusion. What happens if you add more mass? Well gravity increases, thats a given. But what happens to the outward pressure? Friction increases, but within a larger volume, so it stays constant, or at least increases less than gravity.
> 
> Therefore the size of the original cloud is what determines whether it becomes a successful star. This is 100% consistent with what we see in the universe. Brown dwarfs, stars like our own, and giants. Even white dwarf stars, neutron stars, and black holes are variations of this pressure-gravity idea. And theyre all totally consistent with what we see and what our theories are.
> 
> If you cant disprove that you cant really say shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said you can theorize anything you like but it does not prove thats how it happens get it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your probably one of those people that are against vaccines as well, arent you?
> 
> This is not theory. We can perform nuclear fusion in a lab you fucking moron. Its just gravity, which is very much described by equations, and the charges of particles, which is also very much described by equations.
> 
> Your basically doubting all of physics here. Gravity and matter must act differently far away...
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The nebular hypothesis is simply a story to describe what may have happened in the prehistoric solar system. There are no observations to support the claims that natural processes over millions of years could form a solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well probably because we cant observe things for billions of years.
> 
> Either a nebula that is massive enough will collapse in on itself and undergo fusion, or gravity and nuclear physic are both wrong. There is no other options. We can perform nuclear fusion in a laboratory. Gravity is one of the best measured forces.
> 
> So which one is it? Do nebulas form stars, or are gravity and physics 100% wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you remember this comment you made.
> 
> 
> the early earth had a reducing atmosphere?
> 
> Evolutionists assume that the early earth lacked oxygen because life could not evolve in an environment containing oxygen. If this were true, the rocks older than 1.9 billion years should contain no evidence of being formed in an environment with oxygen. Iron deposits from these rock layers indicate an environment with oxygen. The lack of sulfide deposits and the presence of sulfates and other oxygen bearing compounds also point to an oxidizing environment. These and other evidences point to an atmosphere that contained oxygen from its beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we do not claim that. See this is where you misunderstanding of oxygen and atoms and chemistry and even the conservation of energy/mass and what constitutes a single element....
> 
> Oxygen remained trapped in minerals exactly like iron, and was unable to react with organic particles, because it was already bound to those minerals. Your statement just makes no sense to anyone that understands it. In the early earth most oxygen is already bound to inorganic minerals like iron. Its not in the atmosphere to react with organic molecules.
> 
> And i would probably say evolution is exactly in line with this theory.
> 
> Early organisms were anaerobic prokaryotes, they didnt need oxygen. All eukaryote evolves from them, and retain chemical processes like glycolysis from those days.
Click to expand...


You first used that very argument nitwit  for abiogenesis you are a liar or have a very short memory.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Is there any evidence that backs up the creation theory?   No.
> 
> 
> If you refer to creationism or "creation science", no. In the first place, there is no such thing as a creation theory; the best attempts so far are nothing more than hypotheses, posited by virtue of a need to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible.
> They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't.
> 
> Further to this, there is no evidence to support the few basic claims made by creationists, such as a young earth/universe, direct creation 'as-is' of all species, and most of the myths in the Old Testament (such as Noah's flood). All evidence suggests the complete opposite: an old earth and universe, gradual development of biodiversity, and the absence of any such major events as a global flood.
> 
> Many creationists and creationist institutes have been founded to attempt furthering both "research" into the subject in favour of the idea, and to continue a basic propaganda mission in favour of converting people to that view. The few real research projects undertaken by these groups have completely invalidated their own initial ideas, notably for example the RATE project. Most otehr work consists of misinterpreting, misapplying and misunderstanding much of modern science, and ignoring basic techniques required to ensure validity and accuracy in the conclusions reached.
> 
> In effect - and this has been demonstrated in both legal and true scientific fields - creationism and its offshoots are simply attempts to insert religion into the secular world, almost invariably under direction from fundamentalist Christian sects.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Is there any evidence that backs up the creation theory



Evidence for a young earth and universe.

Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation


----------



## Youwerecreated

Go here to learn more about creation evidence of a young earth and universe.

4th Day Alliance | Creationism, Creation Science, and Creation Astronomy Mega Site


----------



## Youwerecreated

Here are the 15 evidences so you do not have to look for them.

4th Day Alliance | Creationism, Creation Science, and Creation Astronomy | 15 Evidences for the Age of the Universe


----------



## Montrovant

YWC, how old do you think the universe is?  Are you going by the same age as the earth, somewhere in the 10-20,000 year range?

Does this belief line up with something like the speed of light?; we should not be able to see a star that is greater than 10-20,000 light years away, as the light would not have had time to reach here yet.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The worlds population is more consistent with the biblical account than the evolutionary account. Did you see the site idolphin that I posted ?  If the earth was near as old as your side claims we should have a lot more fossils and especially those fossils that should show gradualism that your side claims.
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not and your site is a steaming pile
> 
> if you knew anything about how fossils are formed your posts do not reflect it
> THERE ARE NO SHOULDS IN SCIENCE , SHIT HAPPENS OR IT DOESN'T.
> 
> the reason fossils are rare is simple, MOST creatures including man do not die under the proper conditions for fossilization most, decompose in to dust or are eaten by other creatures till nothing is left .
> this was also true of humans for most of our prehistory .
> if it weren't for the invention of burial practices  there would be even less.
> you, even in your intentional ignorance would have to realize for something to be fossilized the conditions have to be ideal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You had better get to class because science makes predictions and then tries testing their predictions..
Click to expand...

dodge!!
 wrong!......science is at it's core the study of evidence, evidence of actions, evidence of things etc.. scientists only make prediction when there is sufficient EVIDENCE to do so THERE IS NO TRY TO TEST, THERE IS ONLY TESTING.
(TESTING,  A THING CREATIONIST'S  NEVER DO!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any evidence that backs up the creation theory?   No.
> 
> 
> If you refer to creationism or "creation science", no. In the first place, there is no such thing as a creation theory; the best attempts so far are nothing more than hypotheses, posited by virtue of a need to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible.
> They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't.
> 
> Further to this, there is no evidence to support the few basic claims made by creationists, such as a young earth/universe, direct creation 'as-is' of all species, and most of the myths in the Old Testament (such as Noah's flood). All evidence suggests the complete opposite: an old earth and universe, gradual development of biodiversity, and the absence of any such major events as a global flood.
> 
> Many creationists and creationist institutes have been founded to attempt furthering both "research" into the subject in favour of the idea, and to continue a basic propaganda mission in favour of converting people to that view. The few real research projects undertaken by these groups have completely invalidated their own initial ideas, notably for example the RATE project. Most otehr work consists of misinterpreting, misapplying and misunderstanding much of modern science, and ignoring basic techniques required to ensure validity and accuracy in the conclusions reached.
> 
> In effect - and this has been demonstrated in both legal and true scientific fields - creationism and its offshoots are simply attempts to insert religion into the secular world, almost invariably under direction from fundamentalist Christian sects.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Is there any evidence that backs up the creation theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence for a young earth and universe.
> 
> Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVcjMBJuLMo]Creation Astronomy - 15 Evidences for a Young Universe - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

there is no such thing as a creation theory; the best attempts so far are nothing more than hypotheses, posited by virtue of a need to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible.
They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The recent observations of the six Herbig Ae/Be stars showed that for two cases gas was falling into the star, and, for the other four, gas was moving outward away from the star or from a disk around the star. Stars go through a variety of stages as they age. In some of these stages there are particularly strong stellar winds made up of charged particles that flow outward from the star, driving gas away from the star. However some stars are quieter so that gas is more likely to be pulled into the star by gravity. Either of these processes is possible in a creation view, so these observations are not surprising.
> 
> From a creation viewpoint, the interesting questions raised by these observations are about the age of the disks and which came first, the star or the disk. What was created in the Creation Week? Was it the star, the disk, or were both created by God at the same time? Was the star formed out of the disk at creation, though perhaps in a supernatural manner? Young-universe creationist scientists research these questions and have various opinions. It is important to note that just because gas is observed falling into the star, this does not necessarily mean that the disk had anything to do with the formation of the star.
> 
> There are always other possibilities that scientists with evolutionary assumptions do not consider. Disks (and clouds) of gas and dust could have been created when the stars were created, just several thousand years ago. The dust disks dissipate over time, and today, astronomers studying these disks find that the disks do not always fit their models. Recent research on dust disks has turned up examples of stars that according to accepted ideas of stellar evolution are old, yet they are observed to have extensive dust disks.2 Astronomers have generally believed that older stars could not still have dust disks. This calls into question the old-age assumptions regarding these disks and the stars found with them. George Rieke from the University of Arizona has recently commented on this problem, We thought young stars, about 1 million years old, would have larger, brighter discs, and older stars from 10 to 100 million years old would have fainter ones . . . But we found some young stars missing discs and some old stars with massive discs.3
> 
> The clouds in space that surround many stars are often as large as or larger than our entire solar system. This may suggest that the cloud has been there since Creation. However, some stars are found with smaller disks of dust and gas that could have originated in a collision of planets (extrasolar planets) orbiting the star.4,5 Extrasolar planets outside our own solar system are sometimes in elliptical orbits that could make planet collisions more likely than would be the case in our own solar system. There are over 200 cases of what are believed to be planets orbiting other stars.6 The existence of planets orbiting other stars does not conflict with a creation viewpoint, though Christians have reason to be skeptical about naturalistic planet origins theories.7
> 
> If some disks formed from collisions since creation, these disks would be very young in age and limited in size. On the other hand, if the disks were created in the Creation Week, they would still be only several thousand years old. An age of thousands of years means that the amount of change in the disk since the beginning would be limited. This seems to agree with this report about the six Herbig Ae/Be stars, which said that some of the stars had dust present closer to the star than was expected considering the temperature.8 It is not surprising to find evidence of gas near the star, but these observations suggest there are microscopic dust grains close to the star. Evolutionary scientists would expect that in millions of years, dust very near the star would be driven away or would be vaporized.
> 
> How young?
> 
> So, a question raised is why have the dust particles close to the star not evaporated when it is more than hot enough to vaporize them. This suggests the disks are very young indeed. To evolutionary scientists, the dust grains near the star would be perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Over those kinds of time scales the dust could not still be so close to the star unless something keeps it from being too hot, e.g., gas shielding the dust from the stars light. This is an example of how scientists assume processes they have not observed are at work in order to explain how the observed dust could still be present. Instead, why not consider the star and the disks to be only several thousand years old, then many of the difficulties of explaining the dust disks disappear.
> 
> 
> Star Formation and Creation - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> non credible site  ,conjecture only  no evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conjecture what do you think the big bang is based on as well as evolution
> 
> Really  conjecture  ? The rings would most certianly be destroyed by the heat not to mention the winds. That is evidence of a young universe.
> 
> Then how do you explain planets without these rings ?
Click to expand...

there is no such thing as a creation theory; the best attempts so far are nothing more than hypotheses, posited by virtue of a need to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible.
They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Go here to learn more about creation evidence of a young earth and universe.
> 
> 4th Day Alliance | Creationism, Creation Science, and Creation Astronomy Mega Site


there is no such thing as a creation theory; the best attempts so far are nothing more than hypotheses, posited by virtue of a need to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible.
They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Here are the 15 evidences so you do not have to look for them.
> 
> 4th Day Alliance | Creationism, Creation Science, and Creation Astronomy | 15 Evidences for the Age of the Universe


there is no such thing as a creation theory; the best attempts so far are nothing more than hypotheses, posited by virtue of a need to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible.
They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't.


----------



## LOki

YWC's cosmology gets pwn't.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> YWC, how old do you think the universe is?  Are you going by the same age as the earth, somewhere in the 10-20,000 year range?
> 
> Does this belief line up with something like the speed of light?; we should not be able to see a star that is greater than 10-20,000 light years away, as the light would not have had time to reach here yet.




Someone put this same question to a creationist but it's not just a problem for creationist.




Feedback: Too Many Theories?


by Bodie Hodge, AiGU.S. on

December 12, 2008


Layman



 astronomy
 author-bodie-hodge
 cosmology
 feedback
 information
 starlight


I have been visiting your website pretty regularly for about a year. I am amazed by the time and energy you put in attempting to refute common scientific facts. Over the last year I have read no less than three contrived theories dealing with the speed of light and how gravity can explain a 6000 year old universe. If I understand you correctly, light was faster, created already on its way or we are sitting in a gravity well causing a time dilation.

It appears that you skew science to fit into what you think is true. It seems that the body of evidence for evolutionary biology is at a minimum overwhelming. The evidence agrees with all the observations from the different sects of science. Molecular biology confirms that DNA is the building blocks of life. Quantum physics explains the interactions of particles and justifies changes (mutations) within DNA. Archeology illustrates the layering of the fossil record exactly as we would expect, but you guys dont want to see or believe what is.

J.P., U.S.

Feedback: Too Many Theories? - Answers in Genesis

At the site he does give explanations to this problem.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not and your site is a steaming pile
> 
> if you knew anything about how fossils are formed your posts do not reflect it
> THERE ARE NO SHOULDS IN SCIENCE , SHIT HAPPENS OR IT DOESN'T.
> 
> the reason fossils are rare is simple, MOST creatures including man do not die under the proper conditions for fossilization most, decompose in to dust or are eaten by other creatures till nothing is left .
> this was also true of humans for most of our prehistory .
> if it weren't for the invention of burial practices  there would be even less.
> you, even in your intentional ignorance would have to realize for something to be fossilized the conditions have to be ideal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You had better get to class because science makes predictions and then tries testing their predictions..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dodge!!
> wrong!......science is at it's core the study of evidence, evidence of actions, evidence of things etc.. scientists only make prediction when there is sufficient EVIDENCE to do so THERE IS NO TRY TO TEST, THERE IS ONLY TESTING.
> (TESTING,  A THING CREATIONIST'S  NEVER DO!
Click to expand...


Oh boy !


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any evidence that backs up the creation theory?   No.
> 
> 
> If you refer to creationism or "creation science", no. In the first place, there is no such thing as a creation theory; the best attempts so far are nothing more than hypotheses, posited by virtue of a need to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible.
> They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't.
> 
> Further to this, there is no evidence to support the few basic claims made by creationists, such as a young earth/universe, direct creation 'as-is' of all species, and most of the myths in the Old Testament (such as Noah's flood). All evidence suggests the complete opposite: an old earth and universe, gradual development of biodiversity, and the absence of any such major events as a global flood.
> 
> Many creationists and creationist institutes have been founded to attempt furthering both "research" into the subject in favour of the idea, and to continue a basic propaganda mission in favour of converting people to that view. The few real research projects undertaken by these groups have completely invalidated their own initial ideas, notably for example the RATE project. Most otehr work consists of misinterpreting, misapplying and misunderstanding much of modern science, and ignoring basic techniques required to ensure validity and accuracy in the conclusions reached.
> 
> In effect - and this has been demonstrated in both legal and true scientific fields - creationism and its offshoots are simply attempts to insert religion into the secular world, almost invariably under direction from fundamentalist Christian sects.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Is there any evidence that backs up the creation theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence for a young earth and universe.
> 
> Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVcjMBJuLMo]Creation Astronomy - 15 Evidences for a Young Universe - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no such thing as a creation theory; the best attempts so far are nothing more than hypotheses, posited by virtue of a need to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible.
> They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't.
Click to expand...


Wrong and you know i posted the the model side by side , That is the creation model and evolutionary model and it's just as testable as the evolutionary model but evolutionist will not do that not until they are forced to do it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not and your site is a steaming pile
> 
> if you knew anything about how fossils are formed your posts do not reflect it
> THERE ARE NO SHOULDS IN SCIENCE , SHIT HAPPENS OR IT DOESN'T.
> 
> the reason fossils are rare is simple, MOST creatures including man do not die under the proper conditions for fossilization most, decompose in to dust or are eaten by other creatures till nothing is left .
> this was also true of humans for most of our prehistory .
> if it weren't for the invention of burial practices  there would be even less.
> you, even in your intentional ignorance would have to realize for something to be fossilized the conditions have to be ideal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You had better get to class because science makes predictions and then tries testing their predictions..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dodge!!
> wrong!......science is at it's core the study of evidence, evidence of actions, evidence of things etc.. scientists only make prediction when there is sufficient EVIDENCE to do so THERE IS NO TRY TO TEST, THERE IS ONLY TESTING.
> (TESTING,  A THING CREATIONIST'S  NEVER DO!
Click to expand...


The dodge is you ignoring evidence that is a problem for the big bang theory. It goes against what your theory calls for.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> YWC's cosmology gets pwn't.



What is your point ?

Take and lite a cigarette put it in a glass bottle put a lid on it what happens to the cigarette ? Camp fire how do you get it going ? by fanning it. The sun does need many chemicals or it would go out.

What lit the sun ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC's cosmology gets pwn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point ?
> 
> Take and lite a cigarette put it in a glass bottle put a lid on it what happens to the cigarette ? Camp fire how do you get it going ? by fanning it. The sun does need many chemicals or it would go out.
> 
> What lit the sun ?
Click to expand...

Like I said, "You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level chemistry; ... no understanding of legitimate high-school level physics."

BRAVO, retard! 

Your Bible chemistry and Bible physics are surely proving to be a great intellectual asset.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said you can theorize anything you like but it does not prove thats how it happens get it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your probably one of those people that are against vaccines as well, arent you?
> 
> This is not theory. We can perform nuclear fusion in a lab you fucking moron. Its just gravity, which is very much described by equations, and the charges of particles, which is also very much described by equations.
> 
> Your basically doubting all of physics here. Gravity and matter must act differently far away...
> 
> 
> 
> Well probably because we cant observe things for billions of years.
> 
> Either a nebula that is massive enough will collapse in on itself and undergo fusion, or gravity and nuclear physic are both wrong. There is no other options. We can perform nuclear fusion in a laboratory. Gravity is one of the best measured forces.
> 
> So which one is it? Do nebulas form stars, or are gravity and physics 100% wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you remember this comment you made.
> 
> 
> the early earth had a reducing atmosphere?
> 
> Evolutionists assume that the early earth lacked oxygen because life could not evolve in an environment containing oxygen. If this were true, the rocks older than 1.9 billion years should contain no evidence of being formed in an environment with oxygen. Iron deposits from these rock layers indicate an environment with oxygen. The lack of sulfide deposits and the presence of sulfates and other oxygen bearing compounds also point to an oxidizing environment. These and other evidences point to an atmosphere that contained oxygen from its beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we do not claim that. See this is where you misunderstanding of oxygen and atoms and chemistry and even the conservation of energy/mass and what constitutes a single element....
> 
> Oxygen remained trapped in minerals exactly like iron, and was unable to react with organic particles, because it was already bound to those minerals. Your statement just makes no sense to anyone that understands it. In the early earth most oxygen is already bound to inorganic minerals like iron. Its not in the atmosphere to react with organic molecules.
> 
> And i would probably say evolution is exactly in line with this theory.
> 
> Early organisms were anaerobic prokaryotes, they didnt need oxygen. All eukaryote evolves from them, and retain chemical processes like glycolysis from those days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You first used that very argument nitwit  for abiogenesis you are a liar or have a very short memory.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about? 

Without linking to a creationist website, explain how thats wrong. 

Your argument is that oxygen would react with organic molecules like amino acids and so they couldnt form. How could that happen in any significant amount if most of the oxygen is already bound to other molecules?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Look there is a problem suggesting there is no oxygen in space. Because there is gravity all through space and this gravity pulls everything towards itself,how can there be oxygen here on earth but none in space ? Gravity is what formed our atmoshere just think if the gravity around the sun formed an atmosphere,we would have been screwed.

You can't see the design ? This planet has an atmoshere that benefits this planet for life. Without this atmosphere there would be no life. It's rediculous to say at one time there was no oxygen on this planet so life could start through abiogenesis. Because gravity was needed for life as well and gravity would pull the oxygen as well as everything else to form the atmosphere.

What all this points to is design and creation not evolution. Life was created spontaneously with the atmosphere in place and oxygen. There may not be oxygen in space,and the sun is just the product of fusion but isn't that just a little coincedental to have a sun,for light,energy,heat,and have an atmosphere to protect us from radiation of the sun ?

My God there is so much evidence for design you would have to be Ideologue to say there was no creator. The conditions had to be just right and it is just right for life on this planet.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC's cosmology gets pwn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point ?
> 
> Take and lite a cigarette put it in a glass bottle put a lid on it what happens to the cigarette ? Camp fire how do you get it going ? by fanning it. The sun does need many chemicals or it would go out.
> 
> What lit the sun ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, "You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level chemistry; ... no understanding of legitimate high-school level physics."
> 
> BRAVO, retard!
> 
> Your Bible chemistry and Bible physics are surely proving to be a great intellectual asset.
Click to expand...


Really ? because there are a lot of unanswered questions by the theories of men.

How old is a person that uses the term retard again ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your probably one of those people that are against vaccines as well, arent you?
> 
> This is not theory. We can perform nuclear fusion in a lab you fucking moron. Its just gravity, which is very much described by equations, and the charges of particles, which is also very much described by equations.
> 
> Your basically doubting all of physics here. Gravity and matter must act differently far away...
> 
> 
> 
> Well probably because we cant observe things for billions of years.
> 
> Either a nebula that is massive enough will collapse in on itself and undergo fusion, or gravity and nuclear physic are both wrong. There is no other options. We can perform nuclear fusion in a laboratory. Gravity is one of the best measured forces.
> 
> So which one is it? Do nebulas form stars, or are gravity and physics 100% wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> No, we do not claim that. See this is where you misunderstanding of oxygen and atoms and chemistry and even the conservation of energy/mass and what constitutes a single element....
> 
> Oxygen remained trapped in minerals exactly like iron, and was unable to react with organic particles, because it was already bound to those minerals. Your statement just makes no sense to anyone that understands it. In the early earth most oxygen is already bound to inorganic minerals like iron. Its not in the atmosphere to react with organic molecules.
> 
> And i would probably say evolution is exactly in line with this theory.
> 
> Early organisms were anaerobic prokaryotes, they didnt need oxygen. All eukaryote evolves from them, and retain chemical processes like glycolysis from those days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You first used that very argument nitwit  for abiogenesis you are a liar or have a very short memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> Without linking to a creationist website, explain how thats wrong.
> 
> Your argument is that oxygen would react with organic molecules like amino acids and so they couldnt form. How could that happen in any significant amount if most of the oxygen is already bound to other molecules?
Click to expand...


Oxygen would prevent the building blocks of life forming on their own. And your side knows this problem. That is why miller and urey hypothesized very little to no oxygen on the planet when life spontaneously formed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

One more thing I would like to point out there is a problem with their theory because they used electricity in their experiment simulating lightning. If there was no atmosphere already in place there would have been no lightning.

This whole test that gets ignored was done through intelligence. It did not happen on it's own and it was done through assuming what the earth was like 4 or 5 billion years ago with no evidence to prove the conditions of earth at that time.

Why can't you see the flaws ?


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Look there is a problem suggesting there is no oxygen in space. Because there is gravity all through space and this gravity pulls everything towards itself,how can there be oxygen here on earth but none in space ? Gravity is what formed our atmoshere just think if the gravity around the sun formed an atmosphere,we would have been screwed.
> 
> You can't see the design ? This planet has an atmoshere that benefits this planet for life. Without this atmosphere there would be no life. It's rediculous to say at one time there was no oxygen on this planet so life could start through abiogenesis. Because gravity was needed for life as well and gravity would pull the oxygen as well as everything else to form the atmosphere.
> 
> What all this points to is design and creation not evolution. Life was created spontaneously with the atmosphere in place and oxygen. There may not be oxygen in space,and the sun is just the product of fusion but isn't that just a little coincedental to have a sun,for light,energy,heat,and have an atmosphere to protect us from radiation of the sun ?
> 
> My God there is so much evidence for design you would have to be Ideologue to say there was no creator. The conditions had to be just right and it is just right for life on this planet.



Your inability to separate varying ideas is ridiculous.  The big bang does not = abiogenesis does not = evolution.

Also, you too often seem to try and apply 'common sense' reasoning to science.  For example, asking 'what lit the sun?' is fairly silly, especially in the context you did it.  You seem to think of it as you would a fire you can personally start, rather than the giant ball of fusion it is supposed to be.  This is a common theme with you in this discussion; you attempt to look at everything through a lens of 'how would I do this?' or 'how could this happen based on mankind's current abilities?'.  Reality is not defined or limited by mankind's current abilities, or your own.

As far as the 'coincidences' that allow life to survive here, you again seem to ignore things.  Maybe if our solar system were the entirety of the universe, I could see your argument about how incredible the coincidences allowing life are.  If the universe is as vast and as old as current science would tell us, however, it is far less surprising to think of the conditions arising.  We are talking about a universe believed to be billions of years old, and a universe so incredibly vast and filled with so many stars and planets that it's hard to grasp, except in the abstract.  Even if you don't believe the universe is that old or that large, can you not see how, if someone does believe it is that old and vast, their views on our own world would be different?

Creationism is not science
Science is not infallible.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> Here are the 15 evidences so you do not have to look for them.
> 
> 4th Day Alliance | Creationism, Creation Science, and Creation Astronomy | 15 Evidences for the Age of the Universe



*Short Period Comets*

Quick  astronomy lesson. The solar system is not as static as you think it is.  Beyond the orbit of neptune there is an entire collection of objects,  similar to a second asteroid belt. Thats why pluto isnt considered a  planet anymore. Most comets are just random chunks of ice and other  substances that have been ejected from the oort cloud and the kuiper  belt.

*Saturns Rings

*Like  most things, this argument is based on a total simplification of the  world and a lack of understanding. There's a lot of ways that rings can  be created and a lot of factors that effect their dissipation. How do  you know a moon didnt cross the Roche Limit within the last 100 million years? 

*Supernovas

*The only claim on this page is that we only have 7,000 years of star remnants in our galaxy. 

The only source for the claim is 

(Keith Davies, Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy,  _Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism_  (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1994), pp.  175184.)

So....ok....

*Speedy star changes*

Do you know anything about the evolution of stars, or about Sakurais Object?

A  star is a cloud of hydrogen atoms fusing together to create helium and  energy (remember that picture above!?). Eventually it will run out of  hydrogen, because all of it will have been fused into helium. At this  point, it will become a white dwarf, as fusion stops, it cools down, and  gravity begins to collapse it. It will be a chunk of helium collapsing  just like the original chunk of hydrogen. Eventually, as gravity  collapses is, the helium will begin to undergo fusion and form elements  like carbon and oxygen, similar to the original fusion of the star. 

Thats  all that happened with Sakurais Object. It was a white dwarf star that  ran out of its original fuel and eventually began fusing helium. 

*Extrasolar planets

*Basically  the argument here seems to be that since every solar systems isnt like  ours, ours is special. No. Instead we find a wide variation in the type  of solar systems, because it depends on the original state of the early  solar system. 

Besides, this article just seems very outdated.  For a long time, we could only find large planets (which are usually gas  giants) orbiting close to their stars because of the technique used to  locate exoplanets; we saw when they passed by their star. So for the  first few years, we could only see planets that orbited their sun within  a year or two and were big enough and close enough to block some of the  stars light. 

Now we have better telescopes and methods, and we  have over 700 confirmed planets even a few thousand more pending  confirmation. A lot of them are earth-like and orbit in the same  position as earth. 

*Lunar recession

*This is one of  those situtions where creationists just flat out lie. The entire  assumption relies on lunar recession being faster in the past than it is  now, which is just bullshit. Most evidence would indicate the opposite.

Knowledge

*Crater creep

*I  cant even take this one seriously. I would argue that craters in space  are pretty static in the absence of all forces except gravity.

*Moons Heat

*Knowledge

*Planets heat

*I see there is no citation next to "radioactivity cannot heat up the planet".

even if there was, its still just a massive simplification of how things actually work.

*Solar wind

*Understand  that it isnt particles from the sun that eject other particles from the  solar system, it is light itself. Photons have momentum...

Knowledge

*Enceladus*

Total  simplification, once more. The extrapolation used by these "young earth  scientists" calculate that Enceladus would have ejected 1/6 of its mass  in a few decades at the current rate. 

So that right there should probably indicate that their extrapolation is wrong.

*Small comets

*"Therefore, small comets would have placed much more water on Earth than  is here today. Obviously, this did not happen, so oceans look young."

No math for that, no stats, just the statement.

What if early earth had very little water until it was bombarded by massive amounts of comets?

Possible...But  rather, i think the reason that they dont show any math to prove  conclusion is because they didnt use any math to arrive at it.

*Connected galaxies

*I  think its interesting that creationists argument is based on the fact  that redshift is derived from velocity. But on to the rebuttal...

I  cant even find a coherent argument in this page. Its like the author of  that page thinks that gravitationally attracted galaxies should have  the same redshift. This is just...wrong...

If two galaxies are  gravitationally attracted to eachother to the extend that they are going  to fully merge, the direction of their velocity would be opposite  eachother. Hence one would appear more blue while the other would appear  more red. 

In other words, your evidence against an old universe actually fits it very well.

*Galaxies are unstable

*They are? Any citation??

Come on...

*Galaxy glusters

*Ok  first, id just like to point out your simplification of events again.  Just because galaxies are moving fast, doesnt mean the galaxy clusters  should have dissipated. 

But second, do you get the concept of dark matter? Its not just something we think should exist so we say it does

"However, many experiments have shown that the needed missing mass does not exist."

O yea? Really? For sure? No doubt?











We  can measure the gravity distorting the light. Were not pretending its  there, we see its gravitational effects. Fact. Those are real maps of  dark matter.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Look there is a problem suggesting there is no oxygen in space.


There sure is. It's as big a problem as suggesting that what's happening on and in the sun is an oxidation reaction.

Those are problems that Bible "scientists" have yet to work out; their failure to do so in any meaningful and verifiable way is the reason why Bible "scientists" can't get or keep jobs where an understanding of reality is necessary.



Youwerecreated said:


> Because there is gravity all through space and this gravity pulls everything towards itself,how can there be oxygen here on earth but none in space ?


No one says there's *NONE* in space, The Earth is in space, and there's oxygen on Earth. Creationists are ALL retarded in their inability to parse reality from their superstitious fairy tales.

There is however, very little oxygen (or any other matter) in the space between celestial bodies; the reason there's so little matter in open space is that it has been collecting (over the course of billions of years) and concentrating through the very phenomenon of gravity you pretend to understand.



Youwerecreated said:


> Gravity is what formed our atmoshere just think if the gravity around the sun formed an atmosphere,we would have been screwed.


Well, I guess we're screwed then, because there's an atmosphere around the sun. It's not 20% O2, but it's there none-the-less.

Obviously a fact of reality overlooked in your geo-centric Bible astronomy class.



Youwerecreated said:


> You can't see the design ?


You can't see that your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER?

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.



Youwerecreated said:


> This planet has an atmoshere that benefits this planet for life.


NOT in contention.



Youwerecreated said:


> Without this atmosphere there would be no life.


Not out life, as we're currently configured, but "*no life*"? You need to demonstrate that.



Youwerecreated said:


> It's rediculous to say at one time there was no oxygen on this planet so life could start through abiogenesis.


That's what valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence suggests, and that suggestion is NOT NEARLY AS RIDICULOUS as the assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, for which there is no basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

The assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours is what's ridiculous.



Youwerecreated said:


> Because gravity was needed for life as well and gravity would pull the oxygen as well as everything else to form the atmosphere.


This is just superstitious nonsense. Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.

If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.

You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.



Youwerecreated said:


> What all this points to is design and creation not evolution.


Nope. Your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.



Youwerecreated said:


> Life was created spontaneously with the atmosphere in place and oxygen.


The verifiable evidence and valid logic disagrees with this assertion.

What's up with that?



Youwerecreated said:


> There may not be oxygen in space,and the sun is just the product of fusion but isn't that just a little coincedental to have a sun,for light,energy,heat,and have an atmosphere to protect us from radiation of the sun ?


NO.

Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.

If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.

You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.



Youwerecreated said:


> My God there is so much evidence for design you would have to be Ideologue to say there was no creator.


Nope. Your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

Nor a "Creator."

Your EVERY argument--each and EVERY evidence you bring--is a *logical fallacy*.

*YOU* are wrong.



Youwerecreated said:


> The conditions had to be just right and it is just right for life on this planet.


You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point ?
> 
> Take and lite a cigarette put it in a glass bottle put a lid on it what happens to the cigarette ? Camp fire how do you get it going ? by fanning it. The sun does need many chemicals or it would go out.
> 
> What lit the sun ?
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, "You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level chemistry; ... no understanding of legitimate high-school level physics."
> 
> BRAVO, retard!
> 
> Your Bible chemistry and Bible physics are surely proving to be a great intellectual asset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really ? because there are a lot of unanswered questions by the theories of men.
Click to expand...

And the people who are NOT superstitious retards don't propose (or accept) an imaginary friend, or super-leprechauns as valid "answers" to questions about reality



Youwerecreated said:


> How old is a person that uses the term retard again ?


Anyone old enough to understand that your superstition has no superior claim as an explanation for ANYTHING than other superstitions.


----------



## daws101

The Genesis creation narrative (or creation myth) in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis describes the divine creation of the world including the first man and woman. It was a product of the cultural world of the ancient Near East and yet distinctively different, incorporating older Mesopotamian myths, but adapting them to the unique conception of the Hebrew's one God.[1]

Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (the Hebrew word meaning "God") in six days by means of divine speech culminating in the creation of mankind, then resting on, blessing and sanctifying the seventh day. Chapter two tells of Yahweh (the personal name of the God of Israel) creating the first man from dust, placing him in the Garden of Eden, and forming the first woman Eve, from his side. Robert Alter, professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at the University of California, Berkeley, describes the combined narrative as "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends."[2]

The common understanding among biblical scholars today is that the first edition of Genesis (and therefore the Genesis creation story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE, (the Yahwist source), and that this was later expanded by the addition of various narratives and laws (the Priestly source) into a work very like the present-day book.[3] (The two sources appear in reverse order: Genesis 1 is Priestly and Genesis 2 is Yahwistic). Its over-riding purpose is to establish a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of Israel's historic enemy, Babylon.[4] Professor R.N. Whybray, discussing the themes of Genesis in the Oxford Bible Commentary, writes that the Primeval Narrative (Genesis 1-11), introduces a supreme and single God who creates a world which is "good"; later, mankind will rebel against this God, bringing on the catastrophe of the Flood, to be followed in due course by the more hopeful destiny of a human race blessed through Abraham.[5]



is there any evidence proving this myth is more valid than other creation myths of the world?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look there is a problem suggesting there is no oxygen in space.
> 
> 
> 
> There sure is. It's as big a problem as suggesting that what's happening on and in the sun is an oxidation reaction.
> 
> Those are problems that Bible "scientists" have yet to work out; their failure to do so in any meaningful and verifiable way is the reason why Bible "scientists" can't get or keep jobs where an understanding of reality is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is gravity all through space and this gravity pulls everything towards itself,how can there be oxygen here on earth but none in space ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one says there's *NONE* in space, The Earth is in space, and there's oxygen on Earth. Creationists are ALL retarded in their inability to parse reality from their superstitious fairy tales.
> 
> There is however, very little oxygen (or any other matter) in the space between celestial bodies; the reason there's so little matter in open space is that it has been collecting (over the course of billions of years) and concentrating through the very phenomenon of gravity you pretend to understand.
> 
> Well, I guess we're screwed then, because there's an atmosphere around the sun. It's not 20% O2, but it's there none-the-less.
> 
> Obviously a fact of reality overlooked in your geo-centric Bible astronomy class.
> 
> You can't see that your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER?
> 
> Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.
> 
> NOT in contention.
> 
> Not out life, as we're currently configured, but "*no life*"? You need to demonstrate that.
> 
> That's what valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence suggests, and that suggestion is NOT NEARLY AS RIDICULOUS as the assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, for which there is no basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> The assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours is what's ridiculous.
> 
> This is just superstitious nonsense. Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.
> 
> If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.
> 
> You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.
> 
> Nope. Your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.
> 
> Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.
> 
> The verifiable evidence and valid logic disagrees with this assertion.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> NO.
> 
> Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.
> 
> If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.
> 
> You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My God there is so much evidence for design you would have to be Ideologue to say there was no creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.
> 
> Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.
> 
> Nor a "Creator."
> 
> Your EVERY argument--each and EVERY evidence you bring--is a *logical fallacy*.
> 
> *YOU* are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conditions had to be just right and it is just right for life on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.
Click to expand...


You need a demonstration life can't exist without the sun ? without gravity ? and without an atmosphere that holds oxygen and carbondioxide in which is important for plant and animal life ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, "You have no understanding of legitimate high-school level chemistry; ... no understanding of legitimate high-school level physics."
> 
> BRAVO, retard!
> 
> Your Bible chemistry and Bible physics are surely proving to be a great intellectual asset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? because there are a lot of unanswered questions by the theories of men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the people who are NOT superstitious retards don't propose (or accept) an imaginary friend, or super-leprechauns as valid "answers" to questions about reality
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old is a person that uses the term retard again ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone old enough to understand that your superstition has no superior claim as an explanation for ANYTHING than other superstitions.
Click to expand...


If anything that term applies to you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> The Genesis creation narrative (or creation myth) in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis describes the divine creation of the world including the first man and woman. It was a product of the cultural world of the ancient Near East and yet distinctively different, incorporating older Mesopotamian myths, but adapting them to the unique conception of the Hebrew's one God.[1]
> 
> Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (the Hebrew word meaning "God") in six days by means of divine speech culminating in the creation of mankind, then resting on, blessing and sanctifying the seventh day. Chapter two tells of Yahweh (the personal name of the God of Israel) creating the first man from dust, placing him in the Garden of Eden, and forming the first woman Eve, from his side. Robert Alter, professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at the University of California, Berkeley, describes the combined narrative as "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends."[2]
> 
> The common understanding among biblical scholars today is that the first edition of Genesis (and therefore the Genesis creation story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE, (the Yahwist source), and that this was later expanded by the addition of various narratives and laws (the Priestly source) into a work very like the present-day book.[3] (The two sources appear in reverse order: Genesis 1 is Priestly and Genesis 2 is Yahwistic). Its over-riding purpose is to establish a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of Israel's historic enemy, Babylon.[4] Professor R.N. Whybray, discussing the themes of Genesis in the Oxford Bible Commentary, writes that the Primeval Narrative (Genesis 1-11), introduces a supreme and single God who creates a world which is "good"; later, mankind will rebel against this God, bringing on the catastrophe of the Flood, to be followed in due course by the more hopeful destiny of a human race blessed through Abraham.[5]
> 
> 
> 
> is there any evidence proving this myth is more valid than other creation myths of the world?



There is only one Holy book that claims responsibility for all creation. And that book is the bible and it can be supported by science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look there is a problem suggesting there is no oxygen in space.
> 
> 
> 
> There sure is. It's as big a problem as suggesting that what's happening on and in the sun is an oxidation reaction.
> 
> Those are problems that Bible "scientists" have yet to work out; their failure to do so in any meaningful and verifiable way is the reason why Bible "scientists" can't get or keep jobs where an understanding of reality is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is gravity all through space and this gravity pulls everything towards itself,how can there be oxygen here on earth but none in space ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one says there's *NONE* in space, The Earth is in space, and there's oxygen on Earth. Creationists are ALL retarded in their inability to parse reality from their superstitious fairy tales.
> 
> There is however, very little oxygen (or any other matter) in the space between celestial bodies; the reason there's so little matter in open space is that it has been collecting (over the course of billions of years) and concentrating through the very phenomenon of gravity you pretend to understand.
> 
> Well, I guess we're screwed then, because there's an atmosphere around the sun. It's not 20% O2, but it's there none-the-less.
> 
> Obviously a fact of reality overlooked in your geo-centric Bible astronomy class.
> 
> You can't see that your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER?
> 
> Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.
> 
> NOT in contention.
> 
> Not out life, as we're currently configured, but "*no life*"? You need to demonstrate that.
> 
> That's what valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence suggests, and that suggestion is NOT NEARLY AS RIDICULOUS as the assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, for which there is no basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> The assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours is what's ridiculous.
> 
> This is just superstitious nonsense. Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.
> 
> If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.
> 
> You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.
> 
> Nope. Your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.
> 
> Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.
> 
> The verifiable evidence and valid logic disagrees with this assertion.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> NO.
> 
> Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.
> 
> If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.
> 
> You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My God there is so much evidence for design you would have to be Ideologue to say there was no creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.
> 
> Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.
> 
> Nor a "Creator."
> 
> Your EVERY argument--each and EVERY evidence you bring--is a *logical fallacy*.
> 
> *YOU* are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conditions had to be just right and it is just right for life on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.
Click to expand...


No theory but creation makes any sense when measured against the evidence.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Genesis creation narrative (or creation myth) in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis describes the divine creation of the world including the first man and woman. It was a product of the cultural world of the ancient Near East and yet distinctively different, incorporating older Mesopotamian myths, but adapting them to the unique conception of the Hebrew's one God.[1]
> 
> Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (the Hebrew word meaning "God") in six days by means of divine speech culminating in the creation of mankind, then resting on, blessing and sanctifying the seventh day. Chapter two tells of Yahweh (the personal name of the God of Israel) creating the first man from dust, placing him in the Garden of Eden, and forming the first woman Eve, from his side. Robert Alter, professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at the University of California, Berkeley, describes the combined narrative as "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends."[2]
> 
> The common understanding among biblical scholars today is that the first edition of Genesis (and therefore the Genesis creation story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE, (the Yahwist source), and that this was later expanded by the addition of various narratives and laws (the Priestly source) into a work very like the present-day book.[3] (The two sources appear in reverse order: Genesis 1 is Priestly and Genesis 2 is Yahwistic). Its over-riding purpose is to establish a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of Israel's historic enemy, Babylon.[4] Professor R.N. Whybray, discussing the themes of Genesis in the Oxford Bible Commentary, writes that the Primeval Narrative (Genesis 1-11), introduces a supreme and single God who creates a world which is "good"; later, mankind will rebel against this God, bringing on the catastrophe of the Flood, to be followed in due course by the more hopeful destiny of a human race blessed through Abraham.[5]
> 
> 
> 
> is there any evidence proving this myth is more valid than other creation myths of the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one Holy book that claims responsibility for all creation. And that book is the bible and it can be supported by science.
Click to expand...


On so many levels,


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> If anything that term applies to you.


You're simply unqualified to make that judgment.



Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look there is a problem suggesting there is no oxygen in space.
> 
> 
> 
> There sure is. It's as big a problem as suggesting that what's happening on and in the sun is an oxidation reaction.
> 
> Those are problems that Bible "scientists" have yet to work out; their failure to do so in any meaningful and verifiable way is the reason why Bible "scientists" can't get or keep jobs where an understanding of reality is necessary.
> 
> No one says there's *NONE* in space, The Earth is in space, and there's oxygen on Earth. Creationists are ALL retarded in their inability to parse reality from their superstitious fairy tales.
> 
> There is however, very little oxygen (or any other matter) in the space between celestial bodies; the reason there's so little matter in open space is that it has been collecting (over the course of billions of years) and concentrating through the very phenomenon of gravity you pretend to understand.
> 
> Well, I guess we're screwed then, because there's an atmosphere around the sun. It's not 20% O2, but it's there none-the-less.
> 
> Obviously a fact of reality overlooked in your geo-centric Bible astronomy class.
> 
> You can't see that your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER?
> 
> Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.
> 
> NOT in contention.
> 
> Not out life, as we're currently configured, but "*no life*"? You need to demonstrate that.
> 
> That's what valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence suggests, and that suggestion is NOT NEARLY AS RIDICULOUS as the assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, for which there is no basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> The assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours is what's ridiculous.
> 
> This is just superstitious nonsense. Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.
> 
> If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.
> 
> You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.
> 
> Nope. Your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.
> 
> Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.
> 
> The verifiable evidence and valid logic disagrees with this assertion.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> NO.
> 
> Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.
> 
> If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.
> 
> You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.
> 
> Nope. Your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.
> 
> Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.
> 
> Nor a "Creator."
> 
> Your EVERY argument--each and EVERY evidence you bring--is a *logical fallacy*.
> 
> *YOU* are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conditions had to be just right and it is just right for life on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No theory but creation makes any sense when measured against the evidence.
Click to expand...

Your creation myth is as senseless as every other creation myth when measured against the evidence ... and it's senseless for the exact came reasons.

Your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.

Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

Nor a "Creator."

Your EVERY argument--each and EVERY evidence you bring--is a *logical fallacy*.

*YOU* are wrong.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look there is a problem suggesting there is no oxygen in space.
> 
> 
> 
> There sure is. It's as big a problem as suggesting that what's happening on and in the sun is an oxidation reaction.
> 
> Those are problems that Bible "scientists" have yet to work out; their failure to do so in any meaningful and verifiable way is the reason why Bible "scientists" can't get or keep jobs where an understanding of reality is necessary.
> 
> No one says there's *NONE* in space, The Earth is in space, and there's oxygen on Earth. Creationists are ALL retarded in their inability to parse reality from their superstitious fairy tales.
> 
> There is however, very little oxygen (or any other matter) in the space between celestial bodies; the reason there's so little matter in open space is that it has been collecting (over the course of billions of years) and concentrating through the very phenomenon of gravity you pretend to understand.
> 
> Well, I guess we're screwed then, because there's an atmosphere around the sun. It's not 20% O2, but it's there none-the-less.
> 
> Obviously a fact of reality overlooked in your geo-centric Bible astronomy class.
> 
> You can't see that your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER?
> 
> Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.
> 
> NOT in contention.
> 
> Not out life, as we're currently configured, but "*no life*"? You need to demonstrate that.
> 
> That's what valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence suggests, and that suggestion is NOT NEARLY AS RIDICULOUS as the assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, for which there is no basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> The assertion of this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours is what's ridiculous.
> 
> This is just superstitious nonsense. Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.
> 
> If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.
> 
> You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.
> 
> Nope. Your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.
> 
> Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.
> 
> The verifiable evidence and valid logic disagrees with this assertion.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> NO.
> 
> Gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are NOT present BECAUSE life "needed" (or "needs") them.
> 
> If gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere were NOT present, then life that DOES need them would NOT be here ... just as it's not anywhere else where gravity and a 20% O2 atmosphere are not present.
> 
> You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.
> 
> Nope. Your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF YOUR BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.
> 
> Without your BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of yours, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.
> 
> Nor a "Creator."
> 
> Your EVERY argument--each and EVERY evidence you bring--is a *logical fallacy*.
> 
> *YOU* are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conditions had to be just right and it is just right for life on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to look into the weak anthropic principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need a demonstration life can't exist without the sun ? without gravity ? and without an atmosphere that holds oxygen and carbondioxide in which is important for plant and animal life ?
Click to expand...

Thermal Vents 

One current theory is that life originated deep beneath the surface of the ocean at deep sea hydrothermal vents. These hydrothermal vents were first discovered in 1979. Soon after, scientists made an exciting discovery. These vents release hot gaseous substances from the center of the earth at temperatures in excess of 572oF. Previously scientists were sure that life could not exist, deep beneath the surface of the ocean. After the discovery of hydrothermal vents, they found ecosystems thriving in the depths of the ocean. These ecosystems contained various types of fish, worms, crabs, bacteria and other organisms which had found a way to survive in a cold, hostile environment without energy input from sunlight. Because life had been found to exist where it previously was thought unable to, many scientists began to ask questions as to whether or not this was where life may have originated on the earth.


On the molecular level, the chances of life originating at deep sea thermal vents is not likely. It is known that organic molecules are unstable at high temperatures, and are destroyed as quickly as they are produced. It has been estimated that life could not have arisen in the ocean unless the temperature was less than 25oC, or 77oF.


Supporters of this theory claim that the organic molecules at the thermal vents are not formed in 300oC temperatures, but rather in a gradient formed between the hydrothermal vent water, and the extremely cold water, 4oC (39.2oF), which surrounds the vent at the bottom of the ocean.

The temperatures at this gradient would be suitable for organic chemistry to occur. Debates still remain, however, as to the gradient's effectiveness in producing organic compounds.


Extra Terrestrial Sources 


Panspermia
In the early twentieth century, a Swedish chemist named Svente Arrhenius developed a theory called panspermia. Arrhenius' theory accounted for life's origins by simply stating that life did not originate on the Earth, but originated elsewhere in the universe. He believed that cellular life reached the Earth hiding inside a meteor which hit the Earth long ago. Newly uncovered evidence suggests that this might be possible, since an organism inside a meteor (Picture of impactor) would be safe from the high levels of radiation in space, and would be kept at a relatively low temperature. The odds of an organism surving inside a meteor for thousands of years, however, are not high. It is even less likely that organisms would be able to withstand the high energy impacts of bolides into the Earth or other planetary objects. Most scientists today do not look at this hypothesis as a very likely origin of life on the earth. However, it is considered possible, at least for now, and so is still a candidate for life's origin on earth.


Frozen Ocean
Three billion years ago, the Sun which lights our solar system was thirty percent less luminous than it is today. Mant people believe that if the Earth's atmosphere was the same then as it is today, the oceans would be frozen. But recently, Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has proposed that the oceans would not completely freeze. Instead, he calculates that only the top 300 meters of the ocean would freeze over. 





You might think that icy cold water trapped under hundreds of meters of ice would not be beneficial to life beginning, but in fact it is advantageous in many aspects. One advantage is that the layer of ice would provide a protective shield by preventing ultra-violet light, which enters the earth's atmosphere and destroys organic compounds, from reaching the developing molecules. Another advantage is that it would provide safety from the devestating effects of impact frustration. ( Definition Box -Impact frustration is a theory which says that life may potentially have arisen many times, but was wiped out due to severe bolide impacts) The water beneath the ice would be cold, allowing for organic molecules to survive over much longer periods of time. These organic molecules could have been provided by the hydrothermal vents still prevalent on the ocean floor today. With a sufficient supply of organic molecules safe from ultra-violet radiation and bolide impact frustration, many believe that this was the environment allowing life to get a foothold on a hostile earth.


With a barrier between the atmosphere and the ocean, the debate concerning the composition of the atmosphere becomes much less significant. All of the components needed for organic syntheses such as the Strecker synthesis would be provided and kept stable, while the bottom of the ocean would provide a place for organics to gather and react. Following this reasoning, the atmospheric composition may only be important after life came out of the water, when life had already begun.



http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/sites.html


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Genesis creation narrative (or creation myth) in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis describes the divine creation of the world including the first man and woman. It was a product of the cultural world of the ancient Near East and yet distinctively different, incorporating older Mesopotamian myths, but adapting them to the unique conception of the Hebrew's one God.[1]
> 
> Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (the Hebrew word meaning "God") in six days by means of divine speech culminating in the creation of mankind, then resting on, blessing and sanctifying the seventh day. Chapter two tells of Yahweh (the personal name of the God of Israel) creating the first man from dust, placing him in the Garden of Eden, and forming the first woman Eve, from his side. Robert Alter, professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at the University of California, Berkeley, describes the combined narrative as "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends."[2]
> 
> The common understanding among biblical scholars today is that the first edition of Genesis (and therefore the Genesis creation story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE, (the Yahwist source), and that this was later expanded by the addition of various narratives and laws (the Priestly source) into a work very like the present-day book.[3] (The two sources appear in reverse order: Genesis 1 is Priestly and Genesis 2 is Yahwistic). Its over-riding purpose is to establish a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of Israel's historic enemy, Babylon.[4] Professor R.N. Whybray, discussing the themes of Genesis in the Oxford Bible Commentary, writes that the Primeval Narrative (Genesis 1-11), introduces a supreme and single God who creates a world which is "good"; later, mankind will rebel against this God, bringing on the catastrophe of the Flood, to be followed in due course by the more hopeful destiny of a human race blessed through Abraham.[5]
> 
> 
> 
> is there any evidence proving this myth is more valid than other creation myths of the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one Holy book that claims responsibility for all creation. And that book is the bible and it can be supported by science.
Click to expand...

there is no such thing as a creation theory; the best attempts so far are nothing more than hypotheses, posited by virtue of a need to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible.
They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't. 
__________________


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? because there are a lot of unanswered questions by the theories of men.
> 
> 
> 
> And the people who are NOT superstitious retards don't propose (or accept) an imaginary friend, or super-leprechauns as valid "answers" to questions about reality
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old is a person that uses the term retard again ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone old enough to understand that your superstition has no superior claim as an explanation for ANYTHING than other superstitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anything that term applies to you.
Click to expand...

 clever for an 8th grader not a grandfather, unless the grandfather never got past 8th grade.

When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, creationists often reject the conclusions of the research[17] or its underlying scientific theories[18] or its methodology.[19] The rejection of scientific findings has sparked political and theological controversy.[7] Two offshoots of creationism&#8212;creation science and intelligent design&#8212;have been characterized as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[20] The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system and the origin of the universe.[21][22][23][24]


----------



## daws101

Creationism: A Valid Case? | Socyberty


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the people who are NOT superstitious retards don't propose (or accept) an imaginary friend, or super-leprechauns as valid "answers" to questions about reality
> 
> Anyone old enough to understand that your superstition has no superior claim as an explanation for ANYTHING than other superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anything that term applies to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> clever for an 8th grader not a grandfather, unless the grandfather never got past 8th grade.
> 
> When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, creationists often reject the conclusions of the research[17] or its underlying scientific theories[18] or its methodology.[19] The rejection of scientific findings has sparked political and theological controversy.[7] Two offshoots of creationismcreation science and intelligent designhave been characterized as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[20] The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system and the origin of the universe.[21][22][23][24]
Click to expand...


Well of course the scientific community has been hijacked by secularlists and atheist,and the ones that are not in either category have big egos,naturally they will not speak out against many of the theories that are based on wild imaginations and faulty conclusions. Their egos won't let them admit they were wrong. So the game continues but a day will come that they will be brought to their knees. You want to base your life and views on chance have at it. If you wish in one hand poop in the other which one will fill up first ?  I don't accept chance as an explanation of our universe,our planet, and the complexity of life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Genesis creation narrative (or creation myth) in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis describes the divine creation of the world including the first man and woman. It was a product of the cultural world of the ancient Near East and yet distinctively different, incorporating older Mesopotamian myths, but adapting them to the unique conception of the Hebrew's one God.[1]
> 
> Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (the Hebrew word meaning "God") in six days by means of divine speech culminating in the creation of mankind, then resting on, blessing and sanctifying the seventh day. Chapter two tells of Yahweh (the personal name of the God of Israel) creating the first man from dust, placing him in the Garden of Eden, and forming the first woman Eve, from his side. Robert Alter, professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at the University of California, Berkeley, describes the combined narrative as "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends."[2]
> 
> The common understanding among biblical scholars today is that the first edition of Genesis (and therefore the Genesis creation story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE, (the Yahwist source), and that this was later expanded by the addition of various narratives and laws (the Priestly source) into a work very like the present-day book.[3] (The two sources appear in reverse order: Genesis 1 is Priestly and Genesis 2 is Yahwistic). Its over-riding purpose is to establish a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of Israel's historic enemy, Babylon.[4] Professor R.N. Whybray, discussing the themes of Genesis in the Oxford Bible Commentary, writes that the Primeval Narrative (Genesis 1-11), introduces a supreme and single God who creates a world which is "good"; later, mankind will rebel against this God, bringing on the catastrophe of the Flood, to be followed in due course by the more hopeful destiny of a human race blessed through Abraham.[5]
> 
> 
> 
> is there any evidence proving this myth is more valid than other creation myths of the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one Holy book that claims responsibility for all creation. And that book is the bible and it can be supported by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no such thing as a creation theory; the best attempts so far are nothing more than hypotheses, posited by virtue of a need to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible.
> They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't.
> __________________
Click to expand...


The bible says ten times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind and after billions of observations, what do we see ? Kinds bringing forth offspring after their own kind. So do kinds bring forth after their own kind ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Genesis creation narrative (or creation myth) in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis describes the divine creation of the world including the first man and woman. It was a product of the cultural world of the ancient Near East and yet distinctively different, incorporating older Mesopotamian myths, but adapting them to the unique conception of the Hebrew's one God.[1]
> 
> Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (the Hebrew word meaning "God") in six days by means of divine speech culminating in the creation of mankind, then resting on, blessing and sanctifying the seventh day. Chapter two tells of Yahweh (the personal name of the God of Israel) creating the first man from dust, placing him in the Garden of Eden, and forming the first woman Eve, from his side. Robert Alter, professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at the University of California, Berkeley, describes the combined narrative as "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends."[2]
> 
> The common understanding among biblical scholars today is that the first edition of Genesis (and therefore the Genesis creation story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE, (the Yahwist source), and that this was later expanded by the addition of various narratives and laws (the Priestly source) into a work very like the present-day book.[3] (The two sources appear in reverse order: Genesis 1 is Priestly and Genesis 2 is Yahwistic). Its over-riding purpose is to establish a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of Israel's historic enemy, Babylon.[4] Professor R.N. Whybray, discussing the themes of Genesis in the Oxford Bible Commentary, writes that the Primeval Narrative (Genesis 1-11), introduces a supreme and single God who creates a world which is "good"; later, mankind will rebel against this God, bringing on the catastrophe of the Flood, to be followed in due course by the more hopeful destiny of a human race blessed through Abraham.[5]
> 
> 
> 
> is there any evidence proving this myth is more valid than other creation myths of the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one Holy book that claims responsibility for all creation. And that book is the bible and it can be supported by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On so many levels,
Click to expand...


Honesty test. The bible says ten times kinds bring forth after their own kind does science support this comment in the bible after billions of observations ?


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one Holy book that claims responsibility for all creation. And that book is the bible and it can be supported by science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On so many levels,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honesty test. The bible says ten times kinds bring forth after their own kind does science support this comment in the bible after billions of observations ?
Click to expand...


Depends on what it means by kind, I would suppose!  But generally speaking, yes.  Of course, that doesn't really mean the bible is supported by science.  I'm sure I could go pick some examples from any number of fiction books, or even probably other holy books, that are accurate.

Also, have you read all the other holy books and know that none of them say their gods are responsible for creation?  

Once again,


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything that term applies to you.
> 
> 
> 
> clever for an 8th grader not a grandfather, unless the grandfather never got past 8th grade.
> 
> When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, creationists often reject the conclusions of the research[17] or its underlying scientific theories[18] or its methodology.[19] The rejection of scientific findings has sparked political and theological controversy.[7] Two offshoots of creationism&#8212;creation science and intelligent design&#8212;have been characterized as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[20] The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system and the origin of the universe.[21][22][23][24]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well of course the scientific community has been hijacked by secularlists and atheist,and the ones that are not in either category have big egos,naturally they will not speak out against many of the theories that are based on wild imaginations and faulty conclusions. Their egos won't let them admit they were wrong. So the game continues but a day will come that they will be brought to their knees. You want to base your life and views on chance have at it. If you wish in one hand poop in the other which one will fill up first ?  I don't accept chance as an explanation of our universe,our planet, and the complexity of life.
Click to expand...

_Even if all biologists were in the clutches of evolution&#8217;s vile, atheist conspiracy, presumably bribed by their academic paychecks and research grants, there&#8217;s no reason for profit-seeking corporations to cripple themselves by sticking with a &#8220;fraud&#8221; like evolution &#8212; not when there&#8217;s an allegedly better theory around. The free enterprise system isn&#8217;t interested in ideology &#8212; only what works. Business executives and their shareholders are results-oriented, and if there&#8217;s a legal way to use knowledge to earn profits, they&#8217;ll do it. *But somehow, despite the incentives to stay ahead of the competition, flood geologists aren&#8217;t recruited by the mining or oil industries, creation scientists aren&#8217;t hired as researchers for the biotech industry or pharmaceutical firms, and &#8212; this is trivial, but true &#8212; specialists in Noah&#8217;s Ark aren&#8217;t in demand by naval architects.*[emph. LOki]

Isn&#8217;t it amazing that these industries, which are profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, which employ tens of thousands of scientists in the fields of biology, geology, etc., never specifically recruit creationists and don&#8217;t waste their time or their shareholders&#8217; money doing &#8220;creation science&#8221;? Why don&#8217;t they offer big salaries to hire the leading ID scientists away from the Discovery Institute? Why don&#8217;t they make tempting offers to all the creationists who claim that universities discriminate against them? *Why are they avoiding such a rich source of talent?*[emph. LOki]

If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation &#8220;science&#8221; in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the &#8220;science&#8221; of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries.

Does the &#8220;Darwinist&#8221; conspiracy control not only academia, but also the hiring and research activities of major corporations? Oil companies too? If so, where are the gutsy little start-ups that have some hot new creationist development to sell? Why don&#8217;t venture capitalists bankroll such enterprises? If creation science is such hot stuff, why isn&#8217;t there a creationist version of Silicon Valley? *Could it be that &#8212; gasp! &#8212; investments in creationism don&#8217;t offer anything of value?*[emph. LOki]_
--The Sensuous Curmudgeon, 2009​What's up with that, Youwerecreated?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Well of course the scientific community has been hijacked by secularlists and atheist,and the ones that are not in either category have big egos,naturally they will not speak out against many of the theories that are based on wild imaginations and faulty conclusions.


Your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF *YOUR* BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.

Without *YOUR* BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of *YOURS*, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.

Nor a "Creator."

Your EVERY argument--each and EVERY evidence you bring--is a *logical fallacy*.

*YOU* are wrong.



Youwerecreated said:


> Their egos won't let them admit they were wrong.


*YOUR* "theory" is  "... based on wild imaginations and faulty conclusions ...", and *YOU* are wrong, and you won't admit it.

Is that *YOUR* ego?

What's up with that?



Youwerecreated said:


> So the game continues but a day will come that they will be brought to their knees.


Is this *YOUR* ego again, desperately trying to defend *YOUR* "theory" based on *YOUR* imaginary friend; *YOUR* "... wild imaginations and faulty conclusions ..."?



Youwerecreated said:


> You want to base your life and views on chance have at it. If you wish in one hand poop in the other which one will fill up first ?  I don't accept chance as an explanation of our universe,our planet, and the complexity of life.


Why is your refusal to "... accept chance as an explanation of our universe,our planet, and the complexity of life ..." a reason to accept a *fairy tale* as an "... explanation of our universe,our planet, and the complexity of life"?

I'll tell you. You are entirely UNCONCERNED with an actual intellectually valid "... explanation of our universe, our planet, and the complexity of life." This is all about *YOUR EGO*.

This is why *YOU* are always demanding that we "prove" *YOUR* imaginary-friend-based "theory" wrong, and why *YOU* are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our belief. Denying evidence is like breathing air for retards like *YOU*, but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then we would have finally brought a real test of *YOUR* faith--if *YOU* manage to maintain *YOUR* retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but *YOUR* delusional imagination, then *YOU* would "know"--*YOU* would finally have that certainty in *YOUR*self that *YOU* have in *YOUR* magical imaginary friend--that *YOU* can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over *YOUR* fellows.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> On so many levels,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honesty test. The bible says ten times kinds bring forth after their own kind does science support this comment in the bible after billions of observations ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on what it means by kind, I would suppose!  But generally speaking, yes.  Of course, that doesn't really mean the bible is supported by science.  I'm sure I could go pick some examples from any number of fiction books, or even probably other holy books, that are accurate.
> 
> Also, have you read all the other holy books and know that none of them say their gods are responsible for creation?
> 
> Once again,
Click to expand...


Even if they do they would easily be refuted by science like the koran.

And you are laughing when the bible is supportyed by the evidence ?

How bout a little more.

Could man know these things when the bible was written and has science confirmed them.

Gen 2:7  And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 


Job 26:7  He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing. 


Oceans contain springs The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors

Job 38:16  Have you gone to the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths? 


There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor . Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

Jon 2:5  Waters encompassed me, even to the soul; the depth closed around me; the seaweed was bound to my head. 
Jon 2:6  I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was around me forever; yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Jehovah my God. 


Blood is the source of life and health . Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.

Lev 17:11  For the life of the flesh is in the blood. And I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. 

Lev 17:14  For it is the life of all flesh. Its blood is for the life of it. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any flesh. For the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off. 


You laugh this off  ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> clever for an 8th grader not a grandfather, unless the grandfather never got past 8th grade.
> 
> When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, creationists often reject the conclusions of the research[17] or its underlying scientific theories[18] or its methodology.[19] The rejection of scientific findings has sparked political and theological controversy.[7] Two offshoots of creationism&#8212;creation science and intelligent design&#8212;have been characterized as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[20] The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system and the origin of the universe.[21][22][23][24]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course the scientific community has been hijacked by secularlists and atheist,and the ones that are not in either category have big egos,naturally they will not speak out against many of the theories that are based on wild imaginations and faulty conclusions. Their egos won't let them admit they were wrong. So the game continues but a day will come that they will be brought to their knees. You want to base your life and views on chance have at it. If you wish in one hand poop in the other which one will fill up first ?  I don't accept chance as an explanation of our universe,our planet, and the complexity of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Even if all biologists were in the clutches of evolution&#8217;s vile, atheist conspiracy, presumably bribed by their academic paychecks and research grants, there&#8217;s no reason for profit-seeking corporations to cripple themselves by sticking with a &#8220;fraud&#8221; like evolution &#8212; not when there&#8217;s an allegedly better theory around. The free enterprise system isn&#8217;t interested in ideology &#8212; only what works. Business executives and their shareholders are results-oriented, and if there&#8217;s a legal way to use knowledge to earn profits, they&#8217;ll do it. *But somehow, despite the incentives to stay ahead of the competition, flood geologists aren&#8217;t recruited by the mining or oil industries, creation scientists aren&#8217;t hired as researchers for the biotech industry or pharmaceutical firms, and &#8212; this is trivial, but true &#8212; specialists in Noah&#8217;s Ark aren&#8217;t in demand by naval architects.*[emph. LOki]
> 
> Isn&#8217;t it amazing that these industries, which are profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, which employ tens of thousands of scientists in the fields of biology, geology, etc., never specifically recruit creationists and don&#8217;t waste their time or their shareholders&#8217; money doing &#8220;creation science&#8221;? Why don&#8217;t they offer big salaries to hire the leading ID scientists away from the Discovery Institute? Why don&#8217;t they make tempting offers to all the creationists who claim that universities discriminate against them? *Why are they avoiding such a rich source of talent?*[emph. LOki]
> 
> If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation &#8220;science&#8221; in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the &#8220;science&#8221; of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries.
> 
> Does the &#8220;Darwinist&#8221; conspiracy control not only academia, but also the hiring and research activities of major corporations? Oil companies too? If so, where are the gutsy little start-ups that have some hot new creationist development to sell? Why don&#8217;t venture capitalists bankroll such enterprises? If creation science is such hot stuff, why isn&#8217;t there a creationist version of Silicon Valley? *Could it be that &#8212; gasp! &#8212; investments in creationism don&#8217;t offer anything of value?*[emph. LOki]_
> --The Sensuous Curmudgeon, 2009​What's up with that, Youwerecreated?
Click to expand...


There are a few ethical sciemtist that have spoken out with the problems of many of the theories but they are reduced to a creationist or there is something else wrong with them. You see if a scientist goes against the establishment trouble comes for that person. But that does not matter for a creationist in search of truth. He oe she will be lead by their integrity.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course the scientific community has been hijacked by secularlists and atheist,and the ones that are not in either category have big egos,naturally they will not speak out against many of the theories that are based on wild imaginations and faulty conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> Your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF *YOUR* BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.
> 
> Without *YOUR* BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of *YOURS*, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.
> 
> Nor a "Creator."
> 
> Your EVERY argument--each and EVERY evidence you bring--is a *logical fallacy*.
> 
> *YOU* are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their egos won't let them admit they were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *YOUR* "theory" is  "... based on wild imaginations and faulty conclusions ...", and *YOU* are wrong, and you won't admit it.
> 
> Is that *YOUR* ego?
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the game continues but a day will come that they will be brought to their knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this *YOUR* ego again, desperately trying to defend *YOUR* "theory" based on *YOUR* imaginary friend; *YOUR* "... wild imaginations and faulty conclusions ..."?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to base your life and views on chance have at it. If you wish in one hand poop in the other which one will fill up first ?  I don't accept chance as an explanation of our universe,our planet, and the complexity of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is your refusal to "... accept chance as an explanation of our universe,our planet, and the complexity of life ..." a reason to accept a *fairy tale* as an "... explanation of our universe,our planet, and the complexity of life"?
> 
> I'll tell you. You are entirely UNCONCERNED with an actual intellectually valid "... explanation of our universe, our planet, and the complexity of life." This is all about *YOUR EGO*.
> 
> This is why *YOU* are always demanding that we "prove" *YOUR* imaginary-friend-based "theory" wrong, and why *YOU* are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our belief. Denying evidence is like breathing air for retards like *YOU*, but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then we would have finally brought a real test of *YOUR* faith--if *YOU* manage to maintain *YOUR* retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but *YOUR* delusional imagination, then *YOU* would "know"--*YOU* would finally have that certainty in *YOUR*self that *YOU* have in *YOUR* magical imaginary friend--that *YOU* can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over *YOUR* fellows.
Click to expand...


Loki for your belief system to be true you had to have an awful lot of coincedences and they had to be exact or there would be nothing i don't and won't rely on chance because it is an impossibility.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honesty test. The bible says ten times kinds bring forth after their own kind does science support this comment in the bible after billions of observations ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what it means by kind, I would suppose!  But generally speaking, yes.  Of course, that doesn't really mean the bible is supported by science.  I'm sure I could go pick some examples from any number of fiction books, or even probably other holy books, that are accurate.
> 
> Also, have you read all the other holy books and know that none of them say their gods are responsible for creation?
> 
> Once again,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if they do they would easily be refuted by science like the koran.
> 
> And you are laughing when the bible is supportyed by the evidence ?
> 
> How bout a little more.
> 
> Could man know these things when the bible was written and has science confirmed them.
> 
> Gen 2:7  And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> 
> Job 26:7  He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.
> 
> 
> Oceans contain springs The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors
> 
> Job 38:16  Have you gone to the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?
> 
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor . Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
> 
> Jon 2:5  Waters encompassed me, even to the soul; the depth closed around me; the seaweed was bound to my head.
> Jon 2:6  I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was around me forever; yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Jehovah my God.
> 
> 
> Blood is the source of life and health . Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.
> 
> Lev 17:11  For the life of the flesh is in the blood. And I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.
> 
> Lev 17:14  For it is the life of all flesh. Its blood is for the life of it. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any flesh. For the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
> 
> 
> You laugh this off  ?
Click to expand...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwLO3ASs5sU"]Youwerecreated shoots himself in the head[/ame]

Yes. What you have provided are just your superstitiously retarded examples of Texas Sharpshooting. You are ENTIRELY laughable.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what it means by kind, I would suppose!  But generally speaking, yes.  Of course, that doesn't really mean the bible is supported by science.  I'm sure I could go pick some examples from any number of fiction books, or even probably other holy books, that are accurate.
> 
> Also, have you read all the other holy books and know that none of them say their gods are responsible for creation?
> 
> Once again,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if they do they would easily be refuted by science like the koran.
> 
> And you are laughing when the bible is supportyed by the evidence ?
> 
> How bout a little more.
> 
> Could man know these things when the bible was written and has science confirmed them.
> 
> Gen 2:7  And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> 
> Job 26:7  He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.
> 
> 
> Oceans contain springs The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors
> 
> Job 38:16  Have you gone to the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?
> 
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor . Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
> 
> Jon 2:5  Waters encompassed me, even to the soul; the depth closed around me; the seaweed was bound to my head.
> Jon 2:6  I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was around me forever; yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Jehovah my God.
> 
> 
> Blood is the source of life and health . Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.
> 
> Lev 17:11  For the life of the flesh is in the blood. And I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.
> 
> Lev 17:14  For it is the life of all flesh. Its blood is for the life of it. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any flesh. For the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
> 
> 
> You laugh this off  ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwLO3ASs5sU"]Youwerecreated shoots himself in the head[/ame]
> 
> Yes. What you have provided are just your superstitiously retarded examples of Texas Sharpshooting. You are ENTIRELY laughable.
Click to expand...


The true fallacy is you not seeing all the great hands you would have to had dealt to you one after the other. The problem is,you have lost the ability to to reason and think for yourself because of the nonsense put into your head by the textbooks.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course the scientific community has been hijacked by secularlists and atheist,and the ones that are not in either category have big egos,naturally they will not speak out against many of the theories that are based on wild imaginations and faulty conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> Your perception of "design" is *ONLY* A PRODUCT OF *YOUR* BELIEF IN A DESIGNER.
> 
> Without *YOUR* BASELESS preconception of this "Designer" of *YOURS*, NOTHING you've pointed at as "design" is any evidence WHAT-SO-EVER of design.
> 
> Nor a "Creator."
> 
> Your EVERY argument--each and EVERY evidence you bring--is a *logical fallacy*.
> 
> *YOU* are wrong.
> 
> *YOUR* "theory" is  "... based on wild imaginations and faulty conclusions ...", and *YOU* are wrong, and you won't admit it.
> 
> Is that *YOUR* ego?
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> Is this *YOUR* ego again, desperately trying to defend *YOUR* "theory" based on *YOUR* imaginary friend; *YOUR* "... wild imaginations and faulty conclusions ..."?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to base your life and views on chance have at it. If you wish in one hand poop in the other which one will fill up first ?  I don't accept chance as an explanation of our universe,our planet, and the complexity of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is your refusal to "... accept chance as an explanation of our universe,our planet, and the complexity of life ..." a reason to accept a *fairy tale* as an "... explanation of our universe,our planet, and the complexity of life"?
> 
> I'll tell you. You are entirely UNCONCERNED with an actual intellectually valid "... explanation of our universe, our planet, and the complexity of life." This is all about *YOUR EGO*.
> 
> This is why *YOU* are always demanding that we "prove" *YOUR* imaginary-friend-based "theory" wrong, and why *YOU* are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our belief. Denying evidence is like breathing air for retards like *YOU*, but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then we would have finally brought a real test of *YOUR* faith--if *YOU* manage to maintain *YOUR* retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but *YOUR* delusional imagination, then *YOU* would "know"--*YOU* would finally have that certainty in *YOUR*self that *YOU* have in *YOUR* magical imaginary friend--that *YOU* can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over *YOUR* fellows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki for your belief system to be true you had to have an awful lot of coincedences ...
Click to expand...

This is true for *ANY* specific outcome ... including each of those outcomes that would NOT have brought about life that can ask the question, "Why are we here?"



Youwerecreated said:


> ... and they had to be exact or there would be *nothing*[emph. LOki] ...


So what? Between us, I'm not the one insisting upon the validity of logical fallacies to "prove" my point, I'm not the one refusing to bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support my point, I'm not the one in denial of the reality of the appurtenances of an objectively real existence, I'm not the one who proposes that "*nothing*" is really "some(objectively real)thing" that explains why there is not this "*nothing*" you posit as an alternative.



Youwerecreated said:


> i don't and won't rely on chance because it is an impossibility.


You don't have to rely on chance AFTER the dice are cast. There's literally no "chance" at all that something happened differently than the way it happened. Even your faith cannot introduce "chance" into that, let alone the application of valid logic to the verifiable evidence. Your intellectual paradigm is just WRONG.

You see Youwerecreated, for *YOUR* belief system to be true, you require an awful lot of coincidences too, they all have to be to be just as exact, *AND YOU REQUIRE BELIEF in an all powerful Tooth-Fairy to make sure it all coincides exactly*.

This inexplicable Tooth-Fairy of yours is *CLEARLY NOT* an explanation for anything; so I don't accept it as an explanation for anything. You are just replacing the intellectually honest admission that you don't know, or are are not completely certain, with the intellectually dishonest certainty of this Tooth-Fairy of yours.

I don't believe this Tooth-Fairy of yours is real because it shares none of the hallmarks of things that are objectively real; and I won't rely on this Tooth-Fairy of yours for anything because exists ONLY in *YOUR* imagination--and since you're a retard, this Tooth-Fairy of yours is necessarily retarded too.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if they do they would easily be refuted by science like the koran.
> 
> And you are laughing when the bible is supportyed by the evidence ?
> 
> How bout a little more.
> 
> Could man know these things when the bible was written and has science confirmed them.
> 
> Gen 2:7  And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> 
> Job 26:7  He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.
> 
> 
> Oceans contain springs The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors
> 
> Job 38:16  Have you gone to the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?
> 
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor . Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
> 
> Jon 2:5  Waters encompassed me, even to the soul; the depth closed around me; the seaweed was bound to my head.
> Jon 2:6  I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was around me forever; yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Jehovah my God.
> 
> 
> Blood is the source of life and health . Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.
> 
> Lev 17:11  For the life of the flesh is in the blood. And I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.
> 
> Lev 17:14  For it is the life of all flesh. Its blood is for the life of it. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any flesh. For the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
> 
> 
> You laugh this off  ?
> 
> 
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwLO3ASs5sU"]Youwerecreated shoots himself in the head[/ame]
> 
> Yes. What you have provided are just your superstitiously retarded examples of Texas Sharpshooting. You are ENTIRELY laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The true fallacy is you not seeing all the great hands you would have to had dealt to you one after the other.
Click to expand...

Demonstrate. I know you won't, because NOTHING I've posted supports this wishful accusation of yours.

The true fallacy is that you assert that faith is a valid source of valid understanding of reality.



Youwerecreated said:


> The problem is,you have lost the ability to to reason and think for yourself because of the nonsense put into your head by the textbooks.


My reasoning ability is fine. My mind is open to the facts of reality validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

You, OTOH, you have lost the ability to to reason and think for yourself because of the nonsense put into your head by the superstitious. Your baseless certainty in the validity of the preconceived conclusions of your superstitions has your mind shut to the validity of conclusions drawn from reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated shoots himself in the head
> 
> Yes. What you have provided are just your superstitiously retarded examples of Texas Sharpshooting. You are ENTIRELY laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The true fallacy is you not seeing all the great hands you would have to had dealt to you one after the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Demonstrate. I know you won't, because NOTHING I've posted supports this wishful accusation of yours.
> 
> The true fallacy is that you assert that faith is a valid source of valid understanding of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is,you have lost the ability to to reason and think for yourself because of the nonsense put into your head by the textbooks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reasoning ability is fine. My mind is open to the facts of reality validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> You, OTOH, you have lost the ability to to reason and think for yourself because of the nonsense put into your head by the superstitious. Your baseless certainty in the validity of the preconceived conclusions of your superstitions has your mind shut to the validity of conclusions drawn from reality.
Click to expand...


My line of thinking is not just faith it is logical.

No matter how long i sit in a chair and stare at my lawn i know that lawn will not take care of itself,i have to get out of that chair and do something to make my lawn look nice.

That is both faith and logical thinking.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated shoots himself in the head
> 
> Yes. What you have provided are just your superstitiously retarded examples of Texas Sharpshooting. You are ENTIRELY laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The true fallacy is you not seeing all the great hands you would have to had dealt to you one after the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Demonstrate. I know you won't, because NOTHING I've posted supports this wishful accusation of yours.
> 
> The true fallacy is that you assert that faith is a valid source of valid understanding of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is,you have lost the ability to to reason and think for yourself because of the nonsense put into your head by the textbooks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reasoning ability is fine. My mind is open to the facts of reality validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> You, OTOH, you have lost the ability to to reason and think for yourself because of the nonsense put into your head by the superstitious. Your baseless certainty in the validity of the preconceived conclusions of your superstitions has your mind shut to the validity of conclusions drawn from reality.
Click to expand...


What verfiable evidence do you have for macro-evolution ? What verifiable evidence do you have for the big bang ?

What verifiable evidence do you have for life coming about through a narural process ?

What you have is another mans opinions of the evidence.


----------



## amrchaos

I was wondering--if we were not made of the same stuff as that which makes up the universe, what could we be made of, Angel wings?

Sounds like a good assumption than a "Humanly unknowable" truth.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true fallacy is you not seeing all the great hands you would have to had dealt to you one after the other.
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate. I know you won't, because NOTHING I've posted supports this wishful accusation of yours.
> 
> The true fallacy is that you assert that faith is a valid source of valid understanding of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is,you have lost the ability to to reason and think for yourself because of the nonsense put into your head by the textbooks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reasoning ability is fine. My mind is open to the facts of reality validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> You, OTOH, you have lost the ability to to reason and think for yourself because of the nonsense put into your head by the superstitious. Your baseless certainty in the validity of the preconceived conclusions of your superstitions has your mind shut to the validity of conclusions drawn from reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My line of thinking is not just faith it is logical.
Click to expand...

Faith and valid logic are irreconcilable. Faith and verifiable evidence are irreconcilable. Your "logic" is fundamentally fallacious, your "evidence" requires question-begging, as has been pointed out to you numerous times. 



Youwerecreated said:


> No matter how long i sit in a chair and stare at my lawn i know that lawn will not take care of itself,i have to get out of that chair and do something to make my lawn look nice.
> 
> That is both faith and logical thinking.


Without any fear you'll meet this request; demonstrate that it's both.


----------



## cbirch2

Yesterdays news:

Hubble Captures Violent Birth Pangs of Enormous Star | Wired Science | Wired.com


----------



## Youwerecreated

amrchaos said:


> I was wondering--if we were not made of the same stuff as that which makes up the universe, what could we be made of, Angel wings?
> 
> Sounds like a good assumption than a "Humanly unknowable" truth.



You really think 3,500 years ago people would assume they were made up of igredients of the earth ?

It's only reasonable because what we know now just recently.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate. I know you won't, because NOTHING I've posted supports this wishful accusation of yours.
> 
> The true fallacy is that you assert that faith is a valid source of valid understanding of reality.
> 
> My reasoning ability is fine. My mind is open to the facts of reality validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> You, OTOH, you have lost the ability to to reason and think for yourself because of the nonsense put into your head by the superstitious. Your baseless certainty in the validity of the preconceived conclusions of your superstitions has your mind shut to the validity of conclusions drawn from reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My line of thinking is not just faith it is logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faith and valid logic are irreconcilable. Faith and verifiable evidence are irreconcilable. Your "logic" is fundamentally fallacious, your "evidence" requires question-begging, as has been pointed out to you numerous times.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how long i sit in a chair and stare at my lawn i know that lawn will not take care of itself,i have to get out of that chair and do something to make my lawn look nice.
> 
> That is both faith and logical thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without any fear you'll meet this request; demonstrate that it's both.
Click to expand...


I have faith that my lawn will grow out of control if i do nothing.

It is logical to think that my lawn will grow out of control if i do nothing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Yesterdays news:
> 
> Hubble Captures Violent Birth Pangs of Enormous Star | Wired Science | Wired.com



Oxygen on mars.

Is there enough oxygen on Mars to support life?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything that term applies to you.
> 
> 
> 
> clever for an 8th grader not a grandfather, unless the grandfather never got past 8th grade.
> 
> When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, creationists often reject the conclusions of the research[17] or its underlying scientific theories[18] or its methodology.[19] The rejection of scientific findings has sparked political and theological controversy.[7] Two offshoots of creationism&#8212;creation science and intelligent design&#8212;have been characterized as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[20] The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system and the origin of the universe.[21][22][23][24]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well of course the scientific community has been hijacked by secularlists and atheist,and the ones that are not in either category have big egos,naturally they will not speak out against many of the theories that are based on wild imaginations and faulty conclusions. Their egos won't let them admit they were wrong. So the game continues but a day will come that they will be brought to their knees. You want to base your life and views on chance have at it. If you wish in one hand poop in the other which one will fill up first ?  I don't accept chance as an explanation of our universe,our planet, and the complexity of life.
Click to expand...

 
I love it when the ignorant rationalize.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> What verfiable evidence do you have for macro-evolution ?


The entire fossil record, the verifiable relationship between genotype and phenotype, and the observed instances of contemporary speciation--such as those evidenced by ring species.



Youwerecreated said:


> What verifiable evidence do you have for the big bang ?


The current expansion of the entire observable universe.



Youwerecreated said:


> What verifiable evidence do you have for life coming about through a narural process ?


The self-evident fact that life IS a natural process. The verifiable evidence of natural processes bringing about all manner of organization and complexity (snowflakes, ripples on ponds, organic compounds, etc.). The verifiable evidence that life is maintained and promoted through natural processes, and that life is impossible without natural processes.



Youwerecreated said:


> What you have is another mans opinions of the evidence.


Nope. That would be religion; and even if I had religion, I am possessed of sufficient intellectual integrity to NOT promote it's baseless preconceptions as intellectually valid conclusions. I actually have enough courage in my convictions to test them against objective reality, using *VALID* logic; and I have sufficient humility in my convictions to accept and declare the uncertainties in them, as well as the errors in them when they are discovered.

And, unlike you, what I certainly am NOT asserting is my own superstition and Tooth-Fairy in place of my ignorance and/or uncertainty.

So, now that I have once again made an intellectually ingenuous response to your requests, why don't you reciprocate? Why don't you provide the kind of response, in both detail and intellectual validity that you require from my responses?_*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.

For a change of pace, why don't you prove me wrong?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yesterdays news:
> 
> Hubble Captures Violent Birth Pangs of Enormous Star | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oxygen on mars.
> 
> Is there enough oxygen on Mars to support life?
Click to expand...


Im thoroughly confused....

What did that have to do with anything?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one Holy book that claims responsibility for all creation. And that book is the bible and it can be supported by science.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no such thing as a creation theory; the best attempts so far are nothing more than hypotheses, posited by virtue of a need to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible.
> They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't.
> __________________
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible says ten times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind and after billions of observations, what do we see ? Kinds bringing forth offspring after their own kind. So do kinds bring forth after their own kind ?
Click to expand...

 the bible is not a valid source of "SCIENTIFIC" evidence,
the observations by illiterate goat herders is not valid.
the only kind I see an ignorant kind spewing nonsense.


----------



## cbirch2

The problem is your definition of macroevolution. 

I can show you plenty of examples of speciation, particularly with plants. But you dont accept speciation as an example of macroevolution, because you dont accept the concept of a species. 

The only proof you will accept is a monkey giving birth to a human, which is both impossible and gross misrepresentation of science.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honesty test. The bible says ten times kinds bring forth after their own kind does science support this comment in the bible after billions of observations ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what it means by kind, I would suppose!  But generally speaking, yes.  Of course, that doesn't really mean the bible is supported by science.  I'm sure I could go pick some examples from any number of fiction books, or even probably other holy books, that are accurate.
> 
> Also, have you read all the other holy books and know that none of them say their gods are responsible for creation?
> 
> Once again,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if they do they would easily be refuted by science like the koran.
> 
> And you are laughing when the bible is supportyed by the evidence ?
> 
> How bout a little more.
> 
> Could man know these things when the bible was written and has science confirmed them.
> 
> Gen 2:7  And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> 
> Job 26:7  He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.
> 
> 
> Oceans contain springs The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors
> 
> Job 38:16  Have you gone to the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?
> 
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor . Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
> 
> Jon 2:5  Waters encompassed me, even to the soul; the depth closed around me; the seaweed was bound to my head.
> Jon 2:6  I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was around me forever; yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Jehovah my God.
> 
> 
> Blood is the source of life and health . Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.
> 
> Lev 17:11  For the life of the flesh is in the blood. And I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.
> 
> Lev 17:14  For it is the life of all flesh. Its blood is for the life of it. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any flesh. For the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
> 
> 
> You laugh this off  ?
Click to expand...


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering--if we were not made of the same stuff as that which makes up the universe, what could we be made of, Angel wings?
> 
> Sounds like a good assumption than a "Humanly unknowable" truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really think 3,500 years ago people would assume they were made up of igredients of the earth ?
> 
> It's only reasonable because what we know now just recently.
Click to expand...

The funny thing, is you like do this thing while ignoring everything that the authors of the Bible got wrong--like the flat earth, the taxonomic classification of bats, and the gastrology of the hare, for examples. You are engaging in more Texas Sharpshooting.

The evidence in Genesis does not suggest that 3,500 years ago people assumed they were made up of of "the ingredients of the earth" (such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, etc. ....); Genesis explicitly says, "... the dust of the ground, ...".

The significance of "ingredients" you place there does not exist. The significance is ENTIRELY fabricated by you as a rationalization for your assertion that those ancient goat herders couldn't possibly know about what they wrote--hence "evidence" of this "God" thing of yours. But it's clear they wrote what they thought they knew ... dust, NOT "ingredients of the earth." Just dust and magic ... pure superstition.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My line of thinking is not just faith it is logical.
> 
> 
> 
> Faith and valid logic are irreconcilable. Faith and verifiable evidence are irreconcilable. Your "logic" is fundamentally fallacious, your "evidence" requires question-begging, as has been pointed out to you numerous times.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how long i sit in a chair and stare at my lawn i know that lawn will not take care of itself,i have to get out of that chair and do something to make my lawn look nice.
> 
> That is both faith and logical thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without any fear you'll meet this request; demonstrate that it's both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have faith that my lawn will grow out of control if i do nothing.
Click to expand...

If you have observed that "... [your] lawn will grow out of control if [you] do nothing," then you have evidence that your lawn will grow out of control if you do nothing; hence, it's NOT faith that you'd believe so. It's rational.



Youwerecreated said:


> is logical to think that my lawn will grow out of control if i do nothing.


Based on the evidence, it is CERTAINLY logical to think so; hence, it's NOT faith that you'd believe so. It's rational.

See? I had nothing to fear.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honesty test. The bible says ten times kinds bring forth after their own kind does science support this comment in the bible after billions of observations ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what it means by kind, I would suppose!  But generally speaking, yes.  Of course, that doesn't really mean the bible is supported by science.  I'm sure I could go pick some examples from any number of fiction books, or even probably other holy books, that are accurate.
> 
> Also, have you read all the other holy books and know that none of them say their gods are responsible for creation?
> 
> Once again,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if they do they would easily be refuted by science like the koran.
> 
> And you are laughing when the bible is supportyed by the evidence ?
> 
> How bout a little more.
> 
> Could man know these things when the bible was written and has science confirmed them.
> 
> Gen 2:7  And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> 
> Job 26:7  He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.
> 
> 
> Oceans contain springs The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors
> 
> Job 38:16  Have you gone to the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?
> 
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor . Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
> 
> Jon 2:5  Waters encompassed me, even to the soul; the depth closed around me; the seaweed was bound to my head.
> Jon 2:6  I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was around me forever; yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Jehovah my God.
> 
> 
> Blood is the source of life and health . Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.
> 
> Lev 17:11  For the life of the flesh is in the blood. And I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.
> 
> Lev 17:14  For it is the life of all flesh. Its blood is for the life of it. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any flesh. For the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
> 
> 
> You laugh this off  ?
Click to expand...


Yep, I'm still laughing!  

I laugh at your statement that no other holy book takes credit for creation.  Ridiculous!

I laugh at your statement that the bible is supported by science while other holy books are not.  Not only have you not given examples of other holy books being unsupported, the examples you've given on how science supports the bible range from possibly valid to painfully stretching the meaning of scripture to try and validate your views.

I laugh at your seeming arrogance that you know the right answers while almost everyone else is wrong.  I laugh at your seeming arrogance in assuming no other holy book could possibly take credit for creation; as though the idea of a creation myth is a somehow uniquely Christian one.  I laugh at your seeming arrogance that your interpretations of scripture must be obvious to everyone.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> clever for an 8th grader not a grandfather, unless the grandfather never got past 8th grade.
> 
> When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, creationists often reject the conclusions of the research[17] or its underlying scientific theories[18] or its methodology.[19] The rejection of scientific findings has sparked political and theological controversy.[7] Two offshoots of creationismcreation science and intelligent designhave been characterized as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[20] The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system and the origin of the universe.[21][22][23][24]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course the scientific community has been hijacked by secularlists and atheist,and the ones that are not in either category have big egos,naturally they will not speak out against many of the theories that are based on wild imaginations and faulty conclusions. Their egos won't let them admit they were wrong. So the game continues but a day will come that they will be brought to their knees. You want to base your life and views on chance have at it. If you wish in one hand poop in the other which one will fill up first ?  I don't accept chance as an explanation of our universe,our planet, and the complexity of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when the ignorant rationalize.
Click to expand...


Back at ya


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what it means by kind, I would suppose!  But generally speaking, yes.  Of course, that doesn't really mean the bible is supported by science.  I'm sure I could go pick some examples from any number of fiction books, or even probably other holy books, that are accurate.
> 
> Also, have you read all the other holy books and know that none of them say their gods are responsible for creation?
> 
> Once again,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if they do they would easily be refuted by science like the koran.
> 
> And you are laughing when the bible is supportyed by the evidence ?
> 
> How bout a little more.
> 
> Could man know these things when the bible was written and has science confirmed them.
> 
> Gen 2:7  And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> 
> Job 26:7  He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.
> 
> 
> Oceans contain springs The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors
> 
> Job 38:16  Have you gone to the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?
> 
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor . Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
> 
> Jon 2:5  Waters encompassed me, even to the soul; the depth closed around me; the seaweed was bound to my head.
> Jon 2:6  I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was around me forever; yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Jehovah my God.
> 
> 
> Blood is the source of life and health . Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.
> 
> Lev 17:11  For the life of the flesh is in the blood. And I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.
> 
> Lev 17:14  For it is the life of all flesh. Its blood is for the life of it. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any flesh. For the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
> 
> 
> You laugh this off  ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, I'm still laughing!
> 
> I laugh at your statement that no other holy book takes credit for creation.  Ridiculous!
> 
> I laugh at your statement that the bible is supported by science while other holy books are not.  Not only have you not given examples of other holy books being unsupported, the examples you've given on how science supports the bible range from possibly valid to painfully stretching the meaning of scripture to try and validate your views.
> 
> I laugh at your seeming arrogance that you know the right answers while almost everyone else is wrong.  I laugh at your seeming arrogance in assuming no other holy book could possibly take credit for creation; as though the idea of a creation myth is a somehow uniquely Christian one.  I laugh at your seeming arrogance that your interpretations of scripture must be obvious to everyone.
Click to expand...


You should be laughing at yourself.

Look at my signature.


----------



## cbirch2

I would like to do two things right here. 1. Disprove your notion of DNA, its more complicated then you understand. 2. Prove lineage among primates, at least to anyone that has a brain. 

As viruses infect their hosts, especially proviruses, they can leave behind parts of their genome, called an endogenous retroviral sequence. If this happens to a gamete or a newly fertilized embryo, which is not uncommon, that retroviral insertion insertion would continue down their lineage. 

If your great ancestors millions of generations ago were apes, we should be able to find a distinct pattern of endogenous retroviral sequences that have persisted through the entire million generation lineage of the family. 








Again, i expect that you will claim this is only circumstantial evidence. It is only so to someone that doesnt understand biology. 

How does your "we only have the information for us" theory compare to that little story. 

And did god insert the viral genomes at the same place in monkeys and humans genome just to make it look like we were descended from the same species? And insert the types of mutations in just the right types of monkeys so that it fits perfectly with our anatomical and complete genetic timeline. As well as our timeline from radiometric dating.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if they do they would easily be refuted by science like the koran.
> 
> And you are laughing when the bible is supportyed by the evidence ?
> 
> How bout a little more.
> 
> Could man know these things when the bible was written and has science confirmed them.
> 
> Gen 2:7  And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> 
> Job 26:7  He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.
> 
> 
> Oceans contain springs The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors
> 
> Job 38:16  Have you gone to the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?
> 
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor . Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
> 
> Jon 2:5  Waters encompassed me, even to the soul; the depth closed around me; the seaweed was bound to my head.
> Jon 2:6  I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was around me forever; yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Jehovah my God.
> 
> 
> Blood is the source of life and health . Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.
> 
> Lev 17:11  For the life of the flesh is in the blood. And I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls. For it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.
> 
> Lev 17:14  For it is the life of all flesh. Its blood is for the life of it. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any flesh. For the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
> 
> 
> You laugh this off  ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, I'm still laughing!
> 
> I laugh at your statement that no other holy book takes credit for creation.  Ridiculous!
> 
> I laugh at your statement that the bible is supported by science while other holy books are not.  Not only have you not given examples of other holy books being unsupported, the examples you've given on how science supports the bible range from possibly valid to painfully stretching the meaning of scripture to try and validate your views.
> 
> I laugh at your seeming arrogance that you know the right answers while almost everyone else is wrong.  I laugh at your seeming arrogance in assuming no other holy book could possibly take credit for creation; as though the idea of a creation myth is a somehow uniquely Christian one.  I laugh at your seeming arrogance that your interpretations of scripture must be obvious to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should be laughing at yourself.
> 
> Look at my signature.
Click to expand...


Yes, let's look at your signature.....wow, who'd have guessed it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what we are currently discussing?  It has nothing to do with your statements about other holy books or the supposed scientific verifiability of the bible.

Care to discuss those, or retract the statements, or will you (once again) simply ignore those things you cannot or will not discuss?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> I would like to do two things right here. 1. Disprove your notion of DNA, its more complicated then you understand. 2. Prove lineage among primates, at least to anyone that has a brain.
> 
> As viruses infect their hosts, especially proviruses, they can leave behind parts of their genome, called an endogenous retroviral sequence. If this happens to a gamete or a newly fertilized embryo, which is not uncommon, that retroviral insertion insertion would continue down their lineage.
> 
> If your great ancestors millions of generations ago were apes, we should be able to find a distinct pattern of endogenous retroviral sequences that have persisted through the entire million generation lineage of the family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, i expect that you will claim this is only circumstantial evidence. It is only so to someone that doesnt understand biology.
> 
> How does your "we only have the information for us" theory compare to that little story.
> 
> And did god insert the viral genomes at the same place in monkeys and humans genome just to make it look like we were descended from the same species? And insert the types of mutations in just the right types of monkeys so that it fits perfectly with our anatomical and complete genetic timeline. As well as our timeline from radiometric dating.



Wrong,if the creator used the same elements with similar design that would explain the DNA similarity seen. That is exactly what the creator did. But what was amazing with the same biological similarity he was able to produce vastly different information.

But how true that statement is. You can't prove any organism has information to produce anything other then what they are. That is where your magical, and wild explanation has to come in which you cannot prove.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, I'm still laughing!
> 
> I laugh at your statement that no other holy book takes credit for creation.  Ridiculous!
> 
> I laugh at your statement that the bible is supported by science while other holy books are not.  Not only have you not given examples of other holy books being unsupported, the examples you've given on how science supports the bible range from possibly valid to painfully stretching the meaning of scripture to try and validate your views.
> 
> I laugh at your seeming arrogance that you know the right answers while almost everyone else is wrong.  I laugh at your seeming arrogance in assuming no other holy book could possibly take credit for creation; as though the idea of a creation myth is a somehow uniquely Christian one.  I laugh at your seeming arrogance that your interpretations of scripture must be obvious to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should be laughing at yourself.
> 
> Look at my signature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, let's look at your signature.....wow, who'd have guessed it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what we are currently discussing?  It has nothing to do with your statements about other holy books or the supposed scientific verifiability of the bible.
> 
> Care to discuss those, or retract the statements, or will you (once again) simply ignore those things you cannot or will not discuss?
Click to expand...


The thing is you had a chance to point out flaws and could not do it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> I would like to do two things right here. 1. Disprove your notion of DNA, its more complicated then you understand. 2. Prove lineage among primates, at least to anyone that has a brain.
> 
> As viruses infect their hosts, especially proviruses, they can leave behind parts of their genome, called an endogenous retroviral sequence. If this happens to a gamete or a newly fertilized embryo, which is not uncommon, that retroviral insertion insertion would continue down their lineage.
> 
> If your great ancestors millions of generations ago were apes, we should be able to find a distinct pattern of endogenous retroviral sequences that have persisted through the entire million generation lineage of the family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, i expect that you will claim this is only circumstantial evidence. It is only so to someone that doesnt understand biology.
> 
> How does your "we only have the information for us" theory compare to that little story.
> 
> And did god insert the viral genomes at the same place in monkeys and humans genome just to make it look like we were descended from the same species? And insert the types of mutations in just the right types of monkeys so that it fits perfectly with our anatomical and complete genetic timeline. As well as our timeline from radiometric dating.



No God did not use mutations to create,he used them to hand down his punishment for sin which is death.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Wrong,if the creator ...


What "Creator"?



Youwerecreated said:


> ... used the same elements with similar design that would explain the DNA similarity seen.


It's seems rather apparent that a being with "infinite" resources would "design" according to specific purpose rather than pulling parts from "off the shelf." Such a being certainly would not say, put finger bones in the fins of dolphins when sharks surely have no "design" requirement for them; or put tissues in the light path to light receptors of eyes, when it's evident that such a counter-intuitive "design" is not necessary.

And to what purpose (for the designer) is all the superfluous DNA? All the stuff that encodes nothing? And remember, just because something (eventually) has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all.

It's seems rather apparent that a being with "infinite" resources would "design" according to specific purpose rather than pulling parts from the shelf.

And let's not forget that the DNA in question is demonstrably not native to the ...ahem... "design."

Before you object to explaining these elements of "design," remember that its the evidence of the mechanism or specific process of design that identifies "design" in the absence of evidence for this "Designer" of yours. If you have no valid verifiable evidence of either your "Designer" or His "design," then you have no argument for design.



Youwerecreated said:


> That is exactly what the creator did.


What "Creator"?



Youwerecreated said:


> But what was amazing with the same biological similarity he was able to produce vastly different information.


Why is this "amazing"? Why would it be less "amazing" if "the same biological similarity he was able to produce vastly different information," just without your Tooth-Fairy's involvement.



Youwerecreated said:


> But how true that statement is. You can't prove any organism has information to produce anything other then what they are.


So? You seem to repeat this like it's an important refutation of what the Theory of Evolution--what Natural Selection--proposes. What's up with that?      *ANSWER*

How many times will I have to repeat the actual fact of reality that the theory you're so opposed to says nothing different?



Youwerecreated said:


> That is where your magical, and wild explanation has to come in which you cannot prove.


We don't have to prove that parent organisms  of the same species always produce offspring of the same species.

It is, however, a logical necessity of the Theory of Biblical Creationism that parent organisms must have, at various points, magically given rise to progeny of a different species. This is why you are obligated to disingenuously use the meaningless term "kind" when describing your fatuous Creationist taxonomy (Cats are all the same "kind" of animal ... except when it's inconvenient to say that the term means "species"; then cats are not all the same "kind" of animal). Otherwise, Creationists have no explanation for the diversity of species ... it's INEXPLICABLE!

The Theory of Evolution actually *REQUIRES* parent organisms of the same species to produce offspring of the same species. Get it into your retarded head, and stop repeating your misinformation as if you now don't know better.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,if the creator ...
> 
> 
> 
> What "Creator"?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... used the same elements with similar design that would explain the DNA similarity seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's seems rather apparent that a being with "infinite" resources would "design" according to specific purpose rather than pulling parts from "off the shelf." Such a being certainly would not say, put finger bones in the fins of dolphins when sharks surely have no "design" requirement for them; or put tissues in the light path to light receptors of eyes, when it's evident that such a counter-intuitive "design" is not necessary.
> 
> And to what purpose (for the designer) is all the superfluous DNA? All the stuff that encodes nothing? And remember, just because something (eventually) has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all.
> 
> It's seems rather apparent that a being with "infinite" resources would "design" according to specific purpose rather than pulling parts from the shelf.
> 
> And let's not forget that the DNA in question is demonstrably not native to the ...ahem... "design."
> 
> Before you object to explaining these elements of "design," remember that its the evidence of the mechanism or specific process of design that identifies "design" in the absence of evidence for this "Designer" of yours. If you have no valid verifiable evidence of either your "Designer" or His "design," then you have no argument for design.
> 
> What "Creator"?
> 
> Why is this "amazing"? Why would it be less "amazing" if "the same biological similarity he was able to produce vastly different information," just without your Tooth-Fairy's involvement.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But how true that statement is. You can't prove any organism has information to produce anything other then what they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? You seem to repeat this like it's an important refutation of what the Theory of Evolution--what Natural Selection--proposes. What's up with that?      *ANSWER*
> 
> How many times will I have to repeat the actual fact of reality that the theory you're so opposed to says nothing different?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is where your magical, and wild explanation has to come in which you cannot prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have to prove that parent organisms  of the same species always produce offspring of the same species.
> 
> It is, however, a logical necessity of the Theory of Biblical Creationism that parent organisms must have, at various points, magically given rise to progeny of a different species. This is why you are obligated to disingenuously use the meaningless term "kind" when describing your fatuous Creationist taxonomy (Cats are all the same "kind" of animal ... except when it's inconvenient to say that the term means "species"; then cats are not all the same "kind" of animal). Otherwise, Creationists have no explanation for the diversity of species ... it's INEXPLICABLE!
> 
> The Theory of Evolution actually *REQUIRES* parent organisms of the same species to produce offspring of the same species. Get it into your retarded head, and stop repeating your misinformation as if you now don't know better.
Click to expand...


Either way you look at it there is a creator either God the Almighty or your natural process. Which ever it is shows intelligence to create what we see.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,if the creator ...
> 
> 
> 
> What "Creator"?
> 
> It's seems rather apparent that a being with "infinite" resources would "design" according to specific purpose rather than pulling parts from "off the shelf." Such a being certainly would not say, put finger bones in the fins of dolphins when sharks surely have no "design" requirement for them; or put tissues in the light path to light receptors of eyes, when it's evident that such a counter-intuitive "design" is not necessary.
> 
> And to what purpose (for the designer) is all the superfluous DNA? All the stuff that encodes nothing? And remember, just because something (eventually) has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all.
> 
> It's seems rather apparent that a being with "infinite" resources would "design" according to specific purpose rather than pulling parts from the shelf.
> 
> And let's not forget that the DNA in question is demonstrably not native to the ...ahem... "design."
> 
> Before you object to explaining these elements of "design," remember that its the evidence of the mechanism or specific process of design that identifies "design" in the absence of evidence for this "Designer" of yours. If you have no valid verifiable evidence of either your "Designer" or His "design," then you have no argument for design.
> 
> What "Creator"?
> 
> Why is this "amazing"? Why would it be less "amazing" if "the same biological similarity he was able to produce vastly different information," just without your Tooth-Fairy's involvement.
> 
> So? You seem to repeat this like it's an important refutation of what the Theory of Evolution--what Natural Selection--proposes. What's up with that?      *ANSWER*
> 
> How many times will I have to repeat the actual fact of reality that the theory you're so opposed to says nothing different?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is where your magical, and wild explanation has to come in which you cannot prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have to prove that parent organisms  of the same species always produce offspring of the same species.
> 
> It is, however, a logical necessity of the Theory of Biblical Creationism that parent organisms must have, at various points, magically given rise to progeny of a different species. This is why you are obligated to disingenuously use the meaningless term "kind" when describing your fatuous Creationist taxonomy (Cats are all the same "kind" of animal ... except when it's inconvenient to say that the term means "species"; then cats are not all the same "kind" of animal). Otherwise, Creationists have no explanation for the diversity of species ... it's INEXPLICABLE!
> 
> The Theory of Evolution actually *REQUIRES* parent organisms of the same species to produce offspring of the same species. Get it into your retarded head, and stop repeating your misinformation as if you now don't know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either way you look at it there is a creator either God the Almighty or your natural process.
Click to expand...

"Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.



Youwerecreated said:


> Which ever it is shows intelligence to create what we see.


Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be laughing at yourself.
> 
> Look at my signature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's look at your signature.....wow, who'd have guessed it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what we are currently discussing?  It has nothing to do with your statements about other holy books or the supposed scientific verifiability of the bible.
> 
> Care to discuss those, or retract the statements, or will you (once again) simply ignore those things you cannot or will not discuss?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is you had a chance to point out flaws and could not do it.
Click to expand...


WTF are you talking about?  Had a chance to point out flaws in what?  You jump around from point to point wildly, with little or no relation to the current discussion.  Maybe you should consider responding less frequently, or to fewer people, if you are unable to stay on track with the person you are responding to.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Either way you look at it there is a creator either God the Almighty or your natural process. Which ever it is shows intelligence to create what we see.



What if I think there is a different creator?  What if I think there were multiple creators?

The assumption that Christianity or atheism are the only possible answers is both ridiculous and arrogant, especially combined with the strong impression you give that the only possibilities are YOUR version of Christianity and atheism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's look at your signature.....wow, who'd have guessed it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what we are currently discussing?  It has nothing to do with your statements about other holy books or the supposed scientific verifiability of the bible.
> 
> Care to discuss those, or retract the statements, or will you (once again) simply ignore those things you cannot or will not discuss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is you had a chance to point out flaws and could not do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?  Had a chance to point out flaws in what?  You jump around from point to point wildly, with little or no relation to the current discussion.  Maybe you should consider responding less frequently, or to fewer people, if you are unable to stay on track with the person you are responding to.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about ? i responded to another poster that was commenting on what you and I were talking about. You could have responded i'm not the one having a problem keeping up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "Creator"?
> 
> It's seems rather apparent that a being with "infinite" resources would "design" according to specific purpose rather than pulling parts from "off the shelf." Such a being certainly would not say, put finger bones in the fins of dolphins when sharks surely have no "design" requirement for them; or put tissues in the light path to light receptors of eyes, when it's evident that such a counter-intuitive "design" is not necessary.
> 
> And to what purpose (for the designer) is all the superfluous DNA? All the stuff that encodes nothing? And remember, just because something (eventually) has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all.
> 
> It's seems rather apparent that a being with "infinite" resources would "design" according to specific purpose rather than pulling parts from the shelf.
> 
> And let's not forget that the DNA in question is demonstrably not native to the ...ahem... "design."
> 
> Before you object to explaining these elements of "design," remember that its the evidence of the mechanism or specific process of design that identifies "design" in the absence of evidence for this "Designer" of yours. If you have no valid verifiable evidence of either your "Designer" or His "design," then you have no argument for design.
> 
> What "Creator"?
> 
> Why is this "amazing"? Why would it be less "amazing" if "the same biological similarity he was able to produce vastly different information," just without your Tooth-Fairy's involvement.
> 
> So? You seem to repeat this like it's an important refutation of what the Theory of Evolution--what Natural Selection--proposes. What's up with that?      *ANSWER*
> 
> How many times will I have to repeat the actual fact of reality that the theory you're so opposed to says nothing different?
> 
> We don't have to prove that parent organisms  of the same species always produce offspring of the same species.
> 
> It is, however, a logical necessity of the Theory of Biblical Creationism that parent organisms must have, at various points, magically given rise to progeny of a different species. This is why you are obligated to disingenuously use the meaningless term "kind" when describing your fatuous Creationist taxonomy (Cats are all the same "kind" of animal ... except when it's inconvenient to say that the term means "species"; then cats are not all the same "kind" of animal). Otherwise, Creationists have no explanation for the diversity of species ... it's INEXPLICABLE!
> 
> The Theory of Evolution actually *REQUIRES* parent organisms of the same species to produce offspring of the same species. Get it into your retarded head, and stop repeating your misinformation as if you now don't know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either way you look at it there is a creator either God the Almighty or your natural process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which ever it is shows intelligence to create what we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
Click to expand...


Your denial is noted. Your God is chance and mistakes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either way you look at it there is a creator either God the Almighty or your natural process. Which ever it is shows intelligence to create what we see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if I think there is a different creator?  What if I think there were multiple creators?
> 
> The assumption that Christianity or atheism are the only possible answers is both ridiculous and arrogant, especially combined with the strong impression you give that the only possibilities are YOUR version of Christianity and atheism.
Click to expand...


Not arrogance,just confidence that there is only one creator and his name is YAHWEH.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is you had a chance to point out flaws and could not do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?  Had a chance to point out flaws in what?  You jump around from point to point wildly, with little or no relation to the current discussion.  Maybe you should consider responding less frequently, or to fewer people, if you are unable to stay on track with the person you are responding to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about ? i responded to another poster that was commenting on what you and I were talking about. You could have responded i'm not the one having a problem keeping up.
Click to expand...


Another poster?  

You responded to another poster in the post in which there was a quote from me, a response by you, and another response by me?  With no other poster quoted?  That is what you mean by responding to another poster?

You do understand the point behind quoting someone's post, right?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either way you look at it there is a creator either God the Almighty or your natural process.
> 
> 
> 
> "Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which ever it is shows intelligence to create what we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your denial is noted. Your God is chance and mistakes.
Click to expand...

"Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?  Had a chance to point out flaws in what?  You jump around from point to point wildly, with little or no relation to the current discussion.  Maybe you should consider responding less frequently, or to fewer people, if you are unable to stay on track with the person you are responding to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about ? i responded to another poster that was commenting on what you and I were talking about. You could have responded i'm not the one having a problem keeping up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another poster?
> 
> You responded to another poster in the post in which there was a quote from me, a response by you, and another response by me?  With no other poster quoted?  That is what you mean by responding to another poster?
> 
> You do understand the point behind quoting someone's post, right?
Click to expand...


Yes. I don't know what you think is funny if what can be said in the bible can be verified by the evidence.

But you understand when you go back and read it don't you  ? so what is your point ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
> 
> Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial is noted. Your God is chance and mistakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
> 
> Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
Click to expand...



Universe,sun,moon,atmosphere,gravity,oxygen,carbon dioxide,water,life,plants,animals,genders,humans,sex organs,organs,molecular machines,blood,the ability to adapt,offspring of our own kind,love,language,song,joy,sadness,forgiveness,intelligence,the brain. So many things left out.

Where would we be without these creations ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

If man knew how God did everything and had all the answers,there would be no need for God.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about ? i responded to another poster that was commenting on what you and I were talking about. You could have responded i'm not the one having a problem keeping up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another poster?
> 
> You responded to another poster in the post in which there was a quote from me, a response by you, and another response by me?  With no other poster quoted?  That is what you mean by responding to another poster?
> 
> You do understand the point behind quoting someone's post, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I don't know what you think is funny if what can be said in the bible can be verified by the evidence.
> 
> But you understand when you go back and read it don't you  ? so what is your point ?
Click to expand...


In case you don't understand : the purpose of quoting someone else's post is to respond to it.  It is not used to respond to a different poster.  When you quote my post, and respond to someone else, it makes no sense!

Everything in the bible cannot be verified scientifically, and there are many things for which there is no evidence.  Just because there are some things in it that are accurate does not mean all of it is accurate; especially when there are many things in it which go against observable reality.  

If you can't even understand that quoting someone indicates you are responding to them, it seems unlikely you can understand the complexities of evolution or cosmology.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another poster?
> 
> You responded to another poster in the post in which there was a quote from me, a response by you, and another response by me?  With no other poster quoted?  That is what you mean by responding to another poster?
> 
> You do understand the point behind quoting someone's post, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I don't know what you think is funny if what can be said in the bible can be verified by the evidence.
> 
> But you understand when you go back and read it don't you  ? so what is your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In case you don't understand : the purpose of quoting someone else's post is to respond to it.  It is not used to respond to a different poster.  When you quote my post, and respond to someone else, it makes no sense!
> 
> Everything in the bible cannot be verified scientifically, and there are many things for which there is no evidence.  Just because there are some things in it that are accurate does not mean all of it is accurate; especially when there are many things in it which go against observable reality.
> 
> If you can't even understand that quoting someone indicates you are responding to them, it seems unlikely you can understand the complexities of evolution or cosmology.
Click to expand...


Oh please don't be rediculous. Maybe i did quote you and this other poster.

By the way i did quote you at post #2332

Where i pointed out what you believe in my signature and because you were laughing at sayings in the bible that has been confirmed by evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
> 
> Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial is noted. Your God is chance and mistakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
> 
> Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
Click to expand...


If you can't see the necessity of the things metioned you are hopeless. No demonstration would ever convince you of the intent when it stares you in the face.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to do two things right here. 1. Disprove your notion of DNA, its more complicated then you understand. 2. Prove lineage among primates, at least to anyone that has a brain.
> 
> As viruses infect their hosts, especially proviruses, they can leave behind parts of their genome, called an endogenous retroviral sequence. If this happens to a gamete or a newly fertilized embryo, which is not uncommon, that retroviral insertion insertion would continue down their lineage.
> 
> If your great ancestors millions of generations ago were apes, we should be able to find a distinct pattern of endogenous retroviral sequences that have persisted through the entire million generation lineage of the family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, i expect that you will claim this is only circumstantial evidence. It is only so to someone that doesnt understand biology.
> 
> How does your "we only have the information for us" theory compare to that little story.
> 
> And did god insert the viral genomes at the same place in monkeys and humans genome just to make it look like we were descended from the same species? And insert the types of mutations in just the right types of monkeys so that it fits perfectly with our anatomical and complete genetic timeline. As well as our timeline from radiometric dating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,if the creator used the same elements with similar design that would explain the DNA similarity seen. That is exactly what the creator did. But what was amazing with the same biological similarity he was able to produce vastly different information.
Click to expand...


So god inserted viral genomes into our DNA?



Youwerecreated said:


> But how true that statement is. You can't prove any organism has information to produce anything other then what they are. That is where your magical, and wild explanation has to come in which you cannot prove.



Genes from Ebola Virus Family Found in Human Genome: Scientific American

*We are Ebola!

"* You can't prove any organism has information to produce anything other then what they are."

Whats in Your Genes?

Yes i can


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to do two things right here. 1. Disprove your notion of DNA, its more complicated then you understand. 2. Prove lineage among primates, at least to anyone that has a brain.
> 
> As viruses infect their hosts, especially proviruses, they can leave behind parts of their genome, called an endogenous retroviral sequence. If this happens to a gamete or a newly fertilized embryo, which is not uncommon, that retroviral insertion insertion would continue down their lineage.
> 
> If your great ancestors millions of generations ago were apes, we should be able to find a distinct pattern of endogenous retroviral sequences that have persisted through the entire million generation lineage of the family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, i expect that you will claim this is only circumstantial evidence. It is only so to someone that doesnt understand biology.
> 
> How does your "we only have the information for us" theory compare to that little story.
> 
> And did god insert the viral genomes at the same place in monkeys and humans genome just to make it look like we were descended from the same species? And insert the types of mutations in just the right types of monkeys so that it fits perfectly with our anatomical and complete genetic timeline. As well as our timeline from radiometric dating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No God did not use mutations to create,he used them to hand down his punishment for sin which is death.
Click to expand...


1. You clearly did not understand my argument, which has nothing to do with random mutations, and everything to do with viral infections.
2. Mutations are caused by sin? Wow. Do we live in the 17th century? Now i understand why we cant have a coherent debate, you dont even understand fundamentals. Sin causes mutation...wow....So the very act of DNA replication is sin, because errors in replication inevitably occur each time.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I don't know what you think is funny if what can be said in the bible can be verified by the evidence.
> 
> But you understand when you go back and read it don't you  ? so what is your point ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case you don't understand : the purpose of quoting someone else's post is to respond to it.  It is not used to respond to a different poster.  When you quote my post, and respond to someone else, it makes no sense!
> 
> Everything in the bible cannot be verified scientifically, and there are many things for which there is no evidence.  Just because there are some things in it that are accurate does not mean all of it is accurate; especially when there are many things in it which go against observable reality.
> 
> If you can't even understand that quoting someone indicates you are responding to them, it seems unlikely you can understand the complexities of evolution or cosmology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please don't be rediculous. Maybe i did quote you and this other poster.
> 
> By the way i did quote you at post #2332
> 
> Where i pointed out what you believe in my signature and because you were laughing at sayings in the bible that has been confirmed by evidence.
Click to expand...


Post #2334.  You did not quote me and some other poster to whom you were responding, you quoted only me (and yourself).

Your signature is a silly oversimplification, but I'm sure you know that.

You didn't just say some things in the bible can be confirmed by science, you said the bible can be confirmed by science.  That is obviously ridiculous.  Walking on water, a serpent talking, water into wine, living inside a whale, etc. etc. etc....there are many things in the bible that cannot be confirmed by science and often go against the observed rules of the natural world.  You believe they are possible through god, and that is fine; when you claim they are confirmed by science, you are lying.  

If I pull some quotes from other holy books of things that can be confirmed by science, does that make those books confirmed by science?

Of course, many of the scripture quotes you bring up as being confirmed by science are nothing of the sort, as has been pointed out to you by many posters.  At best, your interpretation of those quotes conforms with scientific knowledge.  That interpretation is neither universally held nor, in many cases, clear to anyone who does not already agree with you.  Some of the connections you make strain the bonds of credulity to breaking.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and shoehorn this book of faith into modern scientific knowledge.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to do two things right here. 1. Disprove your notion of DNA, its more complicated then you understand. 2. Prove lineage among primates, at least to anyone that has a brain.
> 
> As viruses infect their hosts, especially proviruses, they can leave behind parts of their genome, called an endogenous retroviral sequence. If this happens to a gamete or a newly fertilized embryo, which is not uncommon, that retroviral insertion insertion would continue down their lineage.
> 
> If your great ancestors millions of generations ago were apes, we should be able to find a distinct pattern of endogenous retroviral sequences that have persisted through the entire million generation lineage of the family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, i expect that you will claim this is only circumstantial evidence. It is only so to someone that doesnt understand biology.
> 
> How does your "we only have the information for us" theory compare to that little story.
> 
> And did god insert the viral genomes at the same place in monkeys and humans genome just to make it look like we were descended from the same species? And insert the types of mutations in just the right types of monkeys so that it fits perfectly with our anatomical and complete genetic timeline. As well as our timeline from radiometric dating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No God did not use mutations to create,he used them to hand down his punishment for sin which is death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You clearly did not understand my argument, which has nothing to do with random mutations, and everything to do with viral infections.
> 2. Mutations are caused by sin? Wow. Do we live in the 17th century? Now i understand why we cant have a coherent debate, you dont even understand fundamentals. Sin causes mutation...wow....So the very act of DNA replication is sin, because errors in replication inevitably occur each time.
Click to expand...


Yes the loss of genetic data causes aging and death,just an opinion can't prove it but that is what i think.

God struck people with plagues.

Gen 12:17  And Jehovah plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife. 

Exo 9:14  For I am going to send at this time all My plagues upon your heart, and upon your servants, and upon your people, so that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth. 
Exo 9:15  For now I will stretch out My hand, that I may strike you and your people with plagues, and you shall be cut off from the earth. 


Lev 26:21  And if you walk contrary to Me, and will not listen to Me, I will bring seven times more plagues on you according to your sins. 

Deu 28:59  then Jehovah will make your plagues remarkable, and the plagues of your seed great and persistent plagues; with evil and long-lasting sicknesses.

Deu 29:22  so that the generation to come of your sons that shall rise up after you, and the stranger that shall come from a far land, shall say (when they see the plagues of that land, and the sicknesses which Jehovah has laid on it) 

Jer 49:17  Also Edom shall be a ruin. Everyone who goes by it shall be amazed and shall hiss at all its plagues. 

Jer 50:13  Because of the wrath of Jehovah it shall not be inhabited, but it shall be wholly a waste. Everyone who goes by Babylon shall be amazed and hiss at all her plagues. 

Rev 15:1  And I saw another sign in Heaven, great and marvelous: seven angels with the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.

Rev 15:8  And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from His authority. And no one was able to enter into the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed. 

Rev 22:18  For I testify together to everyone who hears the Words of the prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add on him the plagues that have been written in this Book. 


How do you think these come upon us ? Mutations and bacteria.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you don't understand : the purpose of quoting someone else's post is to respond to it.  It is not used to respond to a different poster.  When you quote my post, and respond to someone else, it makes no sense!
> 
> Everything in the bible cannot be verified scientifically, and there are many things for which there is no evidence.  Just because there are some things in it that are accurate does not mean all of it is accurate; especially when there are many things in it which go against observable reality.
> 
> If you can't even understand that quoting someone indicates you are responding to them, it seems unlikely you can understand the complexities of evolution or cosmology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please don't be rediculous. Maybe i did quote you and this other poster.
> 
> By the way i did quote you at post #2332
> 
> Where i pointed out what you believe in my signature and because you were laughing at sayings in the bible that has been confirmed by evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #2334.  You did not quote me and some other poster to whom you were responding, you quoted only me (and yourself).
> 
> Your signature is a silly oversimplification, but I'm sure you know that.
> 
> You didn't just say some things in the bible can be confirmed by science, you said the bible can be confirmed by science.  That is obviously ridiculous.  Walking on water, a serpent talking, water into wine, living inside a whale, etc. etc. etc....there are many things in the bible that cannot be confirmed by science and often go against the observed rules of the natural world.  You believe they are possible through god, and that is fine; when you claim they are confirmed by science, you are lying.
> 
> If I pull some quotes from other holy books of things that can be confirmed by science, does that make those books confirmed by science?
> 
> Of course, many of the scripture quotes you bring up as being confirmed by science are nothing of the sort, as has been pointed out to you by many posters.  At best, your interpretation of those quotes conforms with scientific knowledge.  That interpretation is neither universally held nor, in many cases, clear to anyone who does not already agree with you.  Some of the connections you make strain the bonds of credulity to breaking.
> 
> I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and shoehorn this book of faith into modern scientific knowledge.
Click to expand...


Things from the bible can be confirmed through science and the evidence.

I posted a few things that men would not have known at the time of the writing of the scriptures but is known today.


----------



## FactFinder

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you don't understand : the purpose of quoting someone else's post is to respond to it.  It is not used to respond to a different poster.  When you quote my post, and respond to someone else, it makes no sense!
> 
> Everything in the bible cannot be verified scientifically, and there are many things for which there is no evidence.  Just because there are some things in it that are accurate does not mean all of it is accurate; especially when there are many things in it which go against observable reality.
> 
> If you can't even understand that quoting someone indicates you are responding to them, it seems unlikely you can understand the complexities of evolution or cosmology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please don't be rediculous. Maybe i did quote you and this other poster.
> 
> By the way i did quote you at post #2332
> 
> Where i pointed out what you believe in my signature and because you were laughing at sayings in the bible that has been confirmed by evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #2334.  You did not quote me and some other poster to whom you were responding, you quoted only me (and yourself).
> 
> Your signature is a silly oversimplification, but I'm sure you know that.
> 
> You didn't just say some things in the bible can be confirmed by science, you said the bible can be confirmed by science.  That is obviously ridiculous.  Walking on water, a serpent talking, water into wine, living inside a whale, etc. etc. etc....there are many things in the bible that cannot be confirmed by science and often go against the observed rules of the natural world.  You believe they are possible through god, and that is fine; when you claim they are confirmed by science, you are lying.
> 
> If I pull some quotes from other holy books of things that can be confirmed by science, does that make those books confirmed by science?
> 
> Of course, many of the scripture quotes you bring up as being confirmed by science are nothing of the sort, as has been pointed out to you by many posters.  At best, your interpretation of those quotes conforms with scientific knowledge.  That interpretation is neither universally held nor, in many cases, clear to anyone who does not already agree with you.  Some of the connections you make strain the bonds of credulity to breaking.
> 
> I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and shoehorn this book of faith into modern scientific knowledge.
Click to expand...


There is a difference between what can be confirmed by science and what has been confirmed. It's all about faith, heh?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial is noted. Your God is chance and mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> "Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
> 
> Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Universe,sun,moon,atmosphere,gravity,oxygen,carbon dioxide,water,life,plants,animals,genders,humans,sex organs,organs,molecular machines,blood,the ability to adapt,offspring of our own kind,love,language,song,joy,sadness,forgiveness,intelligence,the brain. So many things left out.
> 
> Where would we be without these creations ?
Click to expand...

What "creations"? Demonstrate that anything you've listed there was created. Use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> If man knew how God did everything and had all the answers,there would be no need for God.


So what? There's apparently no need for this "God" of yours, regardless.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial is noted. Your God is chance and mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> "Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
> 
> Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't see the necessity of the things metioned you are hopeless.
Click to expand...

If you can't demonstrate with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic the necessity of this "intelligence" you claim is required for the things mentioned, your assertion of the necessity of this "intelligence" you claim is meaningless.



Youwerecreated said:


> No demonstration would ever convince you of the intent when it stares you in the face.


This is untrue, and you know it. It is another example of your pathological projection. I have consistently said I would be convinced by a demonstration using verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

You just can't make such demonstration, and you lack the intellectual integrity to admit that the reason is that this "Creator" of yours and you creation "theory" is entirely imaginary.

But in case you're ready to prove me wrong I'll remind you of this exchange you've been pretending never happened:

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What verfiable evidence do you have for macro-evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> The entire fossil record, the verifiable relationship between genotype and phenotype, and the observed instances of contemporary speciation--such as those evidenced by ring species.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What verifiable evidence do you have for the big bang ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The current expansion of the entire observable universe.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What verifiable evidence do you have for life coming about through a narural process ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The self-evident fact that life IS a natural process. The verifiable evidence of natural processes bringing about all manner of organization and complexity (snowflakes, ripples on ponds, organic compounds, etc.). The verifiable evidence that life is maintained and promoted through natural processes, and that life is impossible without natural processes.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you have is another mans opinions of the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. That would be religion; and even if I had religion, I am possessed of sufficient intellectual integrity to NOT promote it's baseless preconceptions as intellectually valid conclusions. I actually have enough courage in my convictions to test them against objective reality, using *VALID* logic; and I have sufficient humility in my convictions to accept and declare the uncertainties in them, as well as the errors in them when they are discovered.
> 
> And, unlike you, what I certainly am NOT asserting is my own superstition and Tooth-Fairy in place of my ignorance and/or uncertainty.
> 
> So, now that I have once again made an intellectually ingenuous response to your requests, why don't you reciprocate? Why don't you provide the kind of response, in both detail and intellectual validity that you require from my responses?_*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> For a change of pace, why don't you prove me wrong?
Click to expand...

And I'll reiterate without fear you'll actually make an intellectually honest and valid attempt at making your point; the verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of bringing verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to demonstrate the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If man knew how God did everything and had all the answers,there would be no need for God.
> 
> 
> 
> So what? There's apparently no need for this "God" of yours, regardless.
Click to expand...


Some day I think you will eat those words.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
> 
> Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see the necessity of the things metioned you are hopeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't demonstrate with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic the necessity of this "intelligence" you claim is required for the things mentioned, your assertion of the necessity of this "intelligence" you claim is meaningless.
> 
> This is untrue, and you know it. It is another example of your pathological projection. I have consistently said I would be convinced by a demonstration using verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> You just can't make such demonstration, and you lack the intellectual integrity to admit that the reason is that this "Creator" of yours and you creation "theory" is entirely imaginary.
> 
> But in case you're ready to prove me wrong I'll remind you of this exchange you've been pretending never happened:
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire fossil record, the verifiable relationship between genotype and phenotype, and the observed instances of contemporary speciation--such as those evidenced by ring species.
> 
> The current expansion of the entire observable universe.
> 
> The self-evident fact that life IS a natural process. The verifiable evidence of natural processes bringing about all manner of organization and complexity (snowflakes, ripples on ponds, organic compounds, etc.). The verifiable evidence that life is maintained and promoted through natural processes, and that life is impossible without natural processes.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you have is another mans opinions of the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. That would be religion; and even if I had religion, I am possessed of sufficient intellectual integrity to NOT promote it's baseless preconceptions as intellectually valid conclusions. I actually have enough courage in my convictions to test them against objective reality, using *VALID* logic; and I have sufficient humility in my convictions to accept and declare the uncertainties in them, as well as the errors in them when they are discovered.
> 
> And, unlike you, what I certainly am NOT asserting is my own superstition and Tooth-Fairy in place of my ignorance and/or uncertainty.
> 
> So, now that I have once again made an intellectually ingenuous response to your requests, why don't you reciprocate? Why don't you provide the kind of response, in both detail and intellectual validity that you require from my responses?_*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> For a change of pace, why don't you prove me wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'll reiterate without fear you'll actually make an intellectually honest and valid attempt at making your point; the verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of bringing verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to demonstrate the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
Click to expand...


I already have and it went right over your head.


----------



## FactFinder

Methinks you are trapped in this:
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3-4

Hail Loki, May you and yours have the greatest Christmas ever!


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
> 
> Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;"  use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see the necessity of the things metioned you are hopeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't demonstrate with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic the necessity of this "intelligence" you claim is required for the things mentioned, your assertion of the necessity of this "intelligence" you claim is meaningless.
> 
> This is untrue, and you know it. It is another example of your pathological projection. I have consistently said I would be convinced by a demonstration using verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> You just can't make such demonstration, and you lack the intellectual integrity to admit that the reason is that this "Creator" of yours and you creation "theory" is entirely imaginary.
> 
> But in case you're ready to prove me wrong I'll remind you of this exchange you've been pretending never happened:
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire fossil record, the verifiable relationship between genotype and phenotype, and the observed instances of contemporary speciation--such as those evidenced by ring species.
> 
> The current expansion of the entire observable universe.
> 
> The self-evident fact that life IS a natural process. The verifiable evidence of natural processes bringing about all manner of organization and complexity (snowflakes, ripples on ponds, organic compounds, etc.). The verifiable evidence that life is maintained and promoted through natural processes, and that life is impossible without natural processes.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you have is another mans opinions of the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. That would be religion; and even if I had religion, I am possessed of sufficient intellectual integrity to NOT promote it's baseless preconceptions as intellectually valid conclusions. I actually have enough courage in my convictions to test them against objective reality, using *VALID* logic; and I have sufficient humility in my convictions to accept and declare the uncertainties in them, as well as the errors in them when they are discovered.
> 
> And, unlike you, what I certainly am NOT asserting is my own superstition and Tooth-Fairy in place of my ignorance and/or uncertainty.
> 
> So, now that I have once again made an intellectually ingenuous response to your requests, why don't you reciprocate? Why don't you provide the kind of response, in both detail and intellectual validity that you require from my responses?_*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> For a change of pace, why don't you prove me wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'll reiterate without fear you'll actually make an intellectually honest and valid attempt at making your point; the verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of bringing verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to demonstrate the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
Click to expand...


Here we go one more time.

If we didn't have matter we wouldn't have anything. If we didn't have the universe we wouldn't have the sun and moon.Without the sun and moon we wouldn't have heat and energy and our ocean tides controlled. If we didn't have gravity we wouldn't have an atmosphere. Without an atmosphere we wouldn't have oxygen and carbon dioxide and protection from deadly radiation. Without the atmoshere we wouldn't have flight of any kind nor protection from objects in space moving towards the earth. We also would not have needed storms.

Without water we have no life.Without life everything is meaningless. So if you want to believe this all happened by random chance and mistakes you hold on to that view but to me that is just foolish and a stretch of the imagination.

What would happen if there was no sun or moon ?

What would happen if there was no atmosphere ?

What would happen if there was no gravity ?

What would happen if there was no water ?

What would happen if there was no oxygen ?

What would happen if there was organs ?

What would happen if there was sex organs ?

What would happen if there were no genders ?

What would happen if there was no brain most importantly to man ?

What would happen if there was no intelligence ?

So whether you believe in a designer or a natural process whatever is responsible for all these things shows that intent was needed.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please don't be rediculous. Maybe i did quote you and this other poster.
> 
> By the way i did quote you at post #2332
> 
> Where i pointed out what you believe in my signature and because you were laughing at sayings in the bible that has been confirmed by evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post #2334.  You did not quote me and some other poster to whom you were responding, you quoted only me (and yourself).
> 
> Your signature is a silly oversimplification, but I'm sure you know that.
> 
> You didn't just say some things in the bible can be confirmed by science, you said the bible can be confirmed by science.  That is obviously ridiculous.  Walking on water, a serpent talking, water into wine, living inside a whale, etc. etc. etc....there are many things in the bible that cannot be confirmed by science and often go against the observed rules of the natural world.  You believe they are possible through god, and that is fine; when you claim they are confirmed by science, you are lying.
> 
> If I pull some quotes from other holy books of things that can be confirmed by science, does that make those books confirmed by science?
> 
> Of course, many of the scripture quotes you bring up as being confirmed by science are nothing of the sort, as has been pointed out to you by many posters.  At best, your interpretation of those quotes conforms with scientific knowledge.  That interpretation is neither universally held nor, in many cases, clear to anyone who does not already agree with you.  Some of the connections you make strain the bonds of credulity to breaking.
> 
> I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and shoehorn this book of faith into modern scientific knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Things from the bible can be confirmed through science and the evidence.
> 
> I posted a few things that men would not have known at the time of the writing of the scriptures but is known today.
Click to expand...

*TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER FALLACY!*

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwLO3ASs5sU"]How Youwerecreated rationalizes these fatuous claims of his.[/ame]


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If man knew how God did everything and had all the answers,there would be no need for God.
> 
> 
> 
> So what? There's apparently no need for this "God" of yours, regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some day I think you will eat those words.
Click to expand...

Got ANY verifiable evidence and/or valid logic backing up this thought?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see the necessity of the things metioned you are hopeless.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't demonstrate with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic the necessity of this "intelligence" you claim is required for the things mentioned, your assertion of the necessity of this "intelligence" you claim is meaningless.
> 
> This is untrue, and you know it. It is another example of your pathological projection. I have consistently said I would be convinced by a demonstration using verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> You just can't make such demonstration, and you lack the intellectual integrity to admit that the reason is that this "Creator" of yours and you creation "theory" is entirely imaginary.
> 
> But in case you're ready to prove me wrong I'll remind you of this exchange you've been pretending never happened:
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire fossil record, the verifiable relationship between genotype and phenotype, and the observed instances of contemporary speciation--such as those evidenced by ring species.
> 
> The current expansion of the entire observable universe.
> 
> The self-evident fact that life IS a natural process. The verifiable evidence of natural processes bringing about all manner of organization and complexity (snowflakes, ripples on ponds, organic compounds, etc.). The verifiable evidence that life is maintained and promoted through natural processes, and that life is impossible without natural processes.
> 
> Nope. That would be religion; and even if I had religion, I am possessed of sufficient intellectual integrity to NOT promote it's baseless preconceptions as intellectually valid conclusions. I actually have enough courage in my convictions to test them against objective reality, using *VALID* logic; and I have sufficient humility in my convictions to accept and declare the uncertainties in them, as well as the errors in them when they are discovered.
> 
> And, unlike you, what I certainly am NOT asserting is my own superstition and Tooth-Fairy in place of my ignorance and/or uncertainty.
> 
> So, now that I have once again made an intellectually ingenuous response to your requests, why don't you reciprocate? Why don't you provide the kind of response, in both detail and intellectual validity that you require from my responses?_*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> For a change of pace, why don't you prove me wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'll reiterate without fear you'll actually make an intellectually honest and valid attempt at making your point; the verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of bringing verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to demonstrate the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have and it went right over your head.
Click to expand...

If you did, you could repeat it, or just link to it.

Without fear you'll actually make an intellectually honest and valid attempt at making your point; the verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of bringing verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to demonstrate the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see the necessity of the things metioned you are hopeless.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't demonstrate with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic the necessity of this "intelligence" you claim is required for the things mentioned, your assertion of the necessity of this "intelligence" you claim is meaningless.
> 
> This is untrue, and you know it. It is another example of your pathological projection. I have consistently said I would be convinced by a demonstration using verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> You just can't make such demonstration, and you lack the intellectual integrity to admit that the reason is that this "Creator" of yours and you creation "theory" is entirely imaginary.
> 
> But in case you're ready to prove me wrong I'll remind you of this exchange you've been pretending never happened:
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire fossil record, the verifiable relationship between genotype and phenotype, and the observed instances of contemporary speciation--such as those evidenced by ring species.
> 
> The current expansion of the entire observable universe.
> 
> The self-evident fact that life IS a natural process. The verifiable evidence of natural processes bringing about all manner of organization and complexity (snowflakes, ripples on ponds, organic compounds, etc.). The verifiable evidence that life is maintained and promoted through natural processes, and that life is impossible without natural processes.
> 
> Nope. That would be religion; and even if I had religion, I am possessed of sufficient intellectual integrity to NOT promote it's baseless preconceptions as intellectually valid conclusions. I actually have enough courage in my convictions to test them against objective reality, using *VALID* logic; and I have sufficient humility in my convictions to accept and declare the uncertainties in them, as well as the errors in them when they are discovered.
> 
> And, unlike you, what I certainly am NOT asserting is my own superstition and Tooth-Fairy in place of my ignorance and/or uncertainty.
> 
> So, now that I have once again made an intellectually ingenuous response to your requests, why don't you reciprocate? Why don't you provide the kind of response, in both detail and intellectual validity that you require from my responses?_*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> For a change of pace, why don't you prove me wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'll reiterate without fear you'll actually make an intellectually honest and valid attempt at making your point; the verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of bringing verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to demonstrate the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go one more time.
> 
> If we didn't have matter we wouldn't have anything. If we didn't have the universe we wouldn't have the sun and moon.Without the sun and moon we wouldn't have heat and energy and our ocean tides controlled. If we didn't have gravity we wouldn't have an atmosphere. Without an atmosphere we wouldn't have oxygen and carbon dioxide and protection from deadly radiation. Without the atmoshere we wouldn't have flight of any kind nor protection from objects in space moving towards the earth. We also would not have needed storms.
> 
> Without water we have no life.Without life everything is meaningless. So if you want to believe this all happened by random chance and mistakes you hold on to that view but to me that is just foolish and a stretch of the imagination.
> 
> What would happen if there was no sun or moon ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no atmosphere ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no gravity ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no water ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no oxygen ?
> 
> What would happen if there was organs ?
> 
> What would happen if there was sex organs ?
> 
> What would happen if there were no genders ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no brain most importantly to man ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no intelligence ?
> 
> So whether you believe in a designer or a natural process whatever is responsible for all these things shows that intent was needed.
Click to expand...

I'll reiterate without fear you'll actually make an intellectually honest and valid attempt at making your point; the verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of bringing verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to demonstrate the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post #2334.  You did not quote me and some other poster to whom you were responding, you quoted only me (and yourself).
> 
> Your signature is a silly oversimplification, but I'm sure you know that.
> 
> You didn't just say some things in the bible can be confirmed by science, you said the bible can be confirmed by science.  That is obviously ridiculous.  Walking on water, a serpent talking, water into wine, living inside a whale, etc. etc. etc....there are many things in the bible that cannot be confirmed by science and often go against the observed rules of the natural world.  You believe they are possible through god, and that is fine; when you claim they are confirmed by science, you are lying.
> 
> If I pull some quotes from other holy books of things that can be confirmed by science, does that make those books confirmed by science?
> 
> Of course, many of the scripture quotes you bring up as being confirmed by science are nothing of the sort, as has been pointed out to you by many posters.  At best, your interpretation of those quotes conforms with scientific knowledge.  That interpretation is neither universally held nor, in many cases, clear to anyone who does not already agree with you.  Some of the connections you make strain the bonds of credulity to breaking.
> 
> I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and shoehorn this book of faith into modern scientific knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Things from the bible can be confirmed through science and the evidence.
> 
> I posted a few things that men would not have known at the time of the writing of the scriptures but is known today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER FALLACY!*
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwLO3ASs5sU"]How Youwerecreated rationalizes these fatuous claims of his.[/ame]
Click to expand...


Call it anything you like but it does not explain away evidence that supports a designer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? There's apparently no need for this "God" of yours, regardless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some day I think you will eat those words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got ANY verifiable evidence and/or valid logic backing up this thought?
Click to expand...


Named many verifiable evidences.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't demonstrate with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic the necessity of this "intelligence" you claim is required for the things mentioned, your assertion of the necessity of this "intelligence" you claim is meaningless.
> 
> This is untrue, and you know it. It is another example of your pathological projection. I have consistently said I would be convinced by a demonstration using verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> You just can't make such demonstration, and you lack the intellectual integrity to admit that the reason is that this "Creator" of yours and you creation "theory" is entirely imaginary.
> 
> But in case you're ready to prove me wrong I'll remind you of this exchange you've been pretending never happened:​And I'll reiterate without fear you'll actually make an intellectually honest and valid attempt at making your point; the verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of bringing verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to demonstrate the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go one more time.
> 
> If we didn't have matter we wouldn't have anything. If we didn't have the universe we wouldn't have the sun and moon.Without the sun and moon we wouldn't have heat and energy and our ocean tides controlled. If we didn't have gravity we wouldn't have an atmosphere. Without an atmosphere we wouldn't have oxygen and carbon dioxide and protection from deadly radiation. Without the atmoshere we wouldn't have flight of any kind nor protection from objects in space moving towards the earth. We also would not have needed storms.
> 
> Without water we have no life.Without life everything is meaningless. So if you want to believe this all happened by random chance and mistakes you hold on to that view but to me that is just foolish and a stretch of the imagination.
> 
> What would happen if there was no sun or moon ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no atmosphere ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no gravity ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no water ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no oxygen ?
> 
> What would happen if there was organs ?
> 
> What would happen if there was sex organs ?
> 
> What would happen if there were no genders ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no brain most importantly to man ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no intelligence ?
> 
> So whether you believe in a designer or a natural process whatever is responsible for all these things shows that intent was needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll reiterate without fear you'll actually make an intellectually honest and valid attempt at making your point; the verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of bringing verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to demonstrate the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
Click to expand...



Intellectually honest and valid attempt at making my point has been made many times. It don't take someone special to grasp how strong my verifiable evidences are.

Now would you like to do the same and give verifiable evidences my evidences were merely coincedence through random chance ? That my evidences were not products of intent.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Come on Loki i have to get ready for church and then some football.


Psa 14:1  (A psalm by David for the music leader.) Only a fool would say, "There is no God!" People like that are worthless; they are heartless and cruel and never do right. 

Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good. 

Pro 14:16  A wise one fears and departs from evil, but the fool rages and is sure. 

Isa 32:6  For the fool will speak folly, and his heart work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy and to speak error against Jehovah, to make the soul of the hungry empty, and he will take away the drink of the thirsty.

Isa 32:7  Also the weapons of the fool are evil; he thinks of wicked ways to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaks right. 

Job 37:16  Do you know the balancing of the clouds, the wonderful works of Him who is perfect in knowledge? 

Psa 9:1  To the Chief Musician. To die for the Son. A Psalm of David. I will praise You, O Jehovah, with my whole heart; I will tell of all Your marvelous works. 

Psa 28:5  Because they do not pay attention to the works of Jehovah and to the work of His hands, He shall destroy them and never build them up. 




God don't think too highly of the ones who deny him and his works


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things from the bible can be confirmed through science and the evidence.
> 
> I posted a few things that men would not have known at the time of the writing of the scriptures but is known today.
> 
> 
> 
> *TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER FALLACY!*
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwLO3ASs5sU"]How Youwerecreated rationalizes these fatuous claims of his.[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it anything you like but it does not explain away evidence that supports a designer.
Click to expand...

It explains WHY what you have presented only APPEARS to be evidence that supports a designer; the question-begging nature of your "evidence" THOROUGHLY invalidates its support for the assertion of this "Designer" of yours.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some day I think you will eat those words.
> 
> 
> 
> Got ANY verifiable evidence and/or valid logic backing up this thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Named many verifiable evidences.
Click to expand...

Link to it, retard!


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got ANY verifiable evidence and/or valid logic backing up this thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Named many verifiable evidences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to it, retard!
Click to expand...


Enough of the foolishness,i edited the post before this post some scriptures that apply to you. I sure don't want to be in your shoes.

Oh by the way are you gonna demonstrate what was asked of you ? or is it you expect me to do as you ask only ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Funny you call me retard but can't support your views amazing !


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go one more time.
> 
> If we didn't have matter we wouldn't have anything. If we didn't have the universe we wouldn't have the sun and moon.Without the sun and moon we wouldn't have heat and energy and our ocean tides controlled. If we didn't have gravity we wouldn't have an atmosphere. Without an atmosphere we wouldn't have oxygen and carbon dioxide and protection from deadly radiation. Without the atmoshere we wouldn't have flight of any kind nor protection from objects in space moving towards the earth. We also would not have needed storms.
> 
> Without water we have no life.Without life everything is meaningless. So if you want to believe this all happened by random chance and mistakes you hold on to that view but to me that is just foolish and a stretch of the imagination.
> 
> What would happen if there was no sun or moon ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no atmosphere ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no gravity ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no water ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no oxygen ?
> 
> What would happen if there was organs ?
> 
> What would happen if there was sex organs ?
> 
> What would happen if there were no genders ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no brain most importantly to man ?
> 
> What would happen if there was no intelligence ?
> 
> So whether you believe in a designer or a natural process whatever is responsible for all these things shows that intent was needed.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll reiterate without fear you'll actually make an intellectually honest and valid attempt at making your point; the verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of bringing verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to demonstrate the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intellectually honest and valid attempt at making my point has been made many times.
Click to expand...

Not even once. Proven over and over.



Youwerecreated said:


> It don't take someone special to grasp how strong my verifiable evidences are.


The UNAMBIGUOUS invalidity of your EVERY evidence you've presented has been THOROUGHLY demonstrated.



Youwerecreated said:


> Now would you like to do the same and give verifiable evidences my evidences were merely coincedence through random chance ?


They're NOT evidences for your point. It has been demonstrated THOROUGHLY.



Youwerecreated said:


> That my evidences were not products of intent.


I have no such obligation. I don't have to refute your point that is baseless in valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; the burden of proof still rests upon you to bring valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support your assertions.

Without fear you'll actually make an intellectually honest and valid attempt at making your point; the verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of bringing verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to demonstrate the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got ANY verifiable evidence and/or valid logic backing up this thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Named many verifiable evidences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to it, retard!
Click to expand...


Give me your best sale as to why your views are right and i am wrong.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Come on Loki i have to get ready for church and then some football.
> 
> 
> Psa 14:1  (A psalm by David for the music leader.) Only a fool would say, "There is no God!" People like that are worthless; they are heartless and cruel and never do right.
> 
> Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good.
> 
> Pro 14:16  A wise one fears and departs from evil, but the fool rages and is sure.
> 
> Isa 32:6  For the fool will speak folly, and his heart work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy and to speak error against Jehovah, to make the soul of the hungry empty, and he will take away the drink of the thirsty.
> 
> Isa 32:7  Also the weapons of the fool are evil; he thinks of wicked ways to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaks right.
> 
> Job 37:16  Do you know the balancing of the clouds, the wonderful works of Him who is perfect in knowledge?
> 
> Psa 9:1  To the Chief Musician. To die for the Son. A Psalm of David. I will praise You, O Jehovah, with my whole heart; I will tell of all Your marvelous works.
> 
> Psa 28:5  Because they do not pay attention to the works of Jehovah and to the work of His hands, He shall destroy them and never build them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God don't think too highly of the ones who deny him and his works


100% *SUPERSTITION*.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Come on now i am waiting.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Loki i have to get ready for church and then some football.
> 
> 
> Psa 14:1  (A psalm by David for the music leader.) Only a fool would say, "There is no God!" People like that are worthless; they are heartless and cruel and never do right.
> 
> Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good.
> 
> Pro 14:16  A wise one fears and departs from evil, but the fool rages and is sure.
> 
> Isa 32:6  For the fool will speak folly, and his heart work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy and to speak error against Jehovah, to make the soul of the hungry empty, and he will take away the drink of the thirsty.
> 
> Isa 32:7  Also the weapons of the fool are evil; he thinks of wicked ways to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaks right.
> 
> Job 37:16  Do you know the balancing of the clouds, the wonderful works of Him who is perfect in knowledge?
> 
> Psa 9:1  To the Chief Musician. To die for the Son. A Psalm of David. I will praise You, O Jehovah, with my whole heart; I will tell of all Your marvelous works.
> 
> Psa 28:5  Because they do not pay attention to the works of Jehovah and to the work of His hands, He shall destroy them and never build them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God don't think too highly of the ones who deny him and his works
> 
> 
> 
> 100% *SUPERSTITION*.
Click to expand...


You had better be right.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Named many verifiable evidences.
> 
> 
> 
> Link to it, retard!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me your best sale as to why your views are right and i am wrong.
Click to expand...


Loki i'm waiting help me out here.


----------



## Youwerecreated

You made several assertions now support them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Come on loki you assert a designer wasn't needed demonstrate why ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Loki i have to get ready for church and then some football.
> 
> 
> Psa 14:1  (A psalm by David for the music leader.) Only a fool would say, "There is no God!" People like that are worthless; they are heartless and cruel and never do right.
> 
> Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good.
> 
> Pro 14:16  A wise one fears and departs from evil, but the fool rages and is sure.
> 
> Isa 32:6  For the fool will speak folly, and his heart work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy and to speak error against Jehovah, to make the soul of the hungry empty, and he will take away the drink of the thirsty.
> 
> Isa 32:7  Also the weapons of the fool are evil; he thinks of wicked ways to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaks right.
> 
> Job 37:16  Do you know the balancing of the clouds, the wonderful works of Him who is perfect in knowledge?
> 
> Psa 9:1  To the Chief Musician. To die for the Son. A Psalm of David. I will praise You, O Jehovah, with my whole heart; I will tell of all Your marvelous works.
> 
> Psa 28:5  Because they do not pay attention to the works of Jehovah and to the work of His hands, He shall destroy them and never build them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God don't think too highly of the ones who deny him and his works
> 
> 
> 
> 100% *SUPERSTITION*.
Click to expand...


32-Intelligent Biblical Designer


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Loki i have to get ready for church and then some football.
> 
> 
> Psa 14:1  (A psalm by David for the music leader.) Only a fool would say, "There is no God!" People like that are worthless; they are heartless and cruel and never do right.
> 
> Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good.
> 
> Pro 14:16  A wise one fears and departs from evil, but the fool rages and is sure.
> 
> Isa 32:6  For the fool will speak folly, and his heart work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy and to speak error against Jehovah, to make the soul of the hungry empty, and he will take away the drink of the thirsty.
> 
> Isa 32:7  Also the weapons of the fool are evil; he thinks of wicked ways to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaks right.
> 
> Job 37:16  Do you know the balancing of the clouds, the wonderful works of Him who is perfect in knowledge?
> 
> Psa 9:1  To the Chief Musician. To die for the Son. A Psalm of David. I will praise You, O Jehovah, with my whole heart; I will tell of all Your marvelous works.
> 
> Psa 28:5  Because they do not pay attention to the works of Jehovah and to the work of His hands, He shall destroy them and never build them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God don't think too highly of the ones who deny him and his works
> 
> 
> 
> 100% *SUPERSTITION*.
Click to expand...


Here lets look at some more facts.

7-Refute Darwinism In 7-Seconds Flat

12-Winning the Lottery of Life


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Named many verifiable evidences.
> 
> 
> 
> Link to it, retard!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me your best sale as to why your views are right and i am wrong.
Click to expand...

You continue to pretend that the application of VALID logic to verifiable evidence is insufficiently different from making up something from nothing and applying logical fallacies to rationalize lack of intellectual rigor; so that the two are the same.

The difference *IS* significant, and YOUR SUPERSTITIONS ARE NOT SCIENCE!




My position is the result of valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence. All the verifiable evidence supports my position--ALL of the verifiable evidence; *AND*, consistent with VALID logic, my position DOES NOT EXCLUDE an intelligent agency responsible for the universe as we perceive it.

In short, my position is FULLY CONSISTENT with the verifiable evidence and the application of valid logic to that evidence.



Your "Bible Creation" position, OTOH, is entirely imaginary. You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "God" thing of yours--and all of its attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as valid facts of reality.

You have this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours, who you assert is "proof" of creation; and you assert "creation" as "proof" of this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours.


*It's all Begging-the-Question.*

EVERY "evidence" you bring to rationalize this fallacious assertion of yours also suffers from this same logical fallacy; in order to accept this "evidence of creation" you must FIRST accept the validity of this "Creator" of yours.


You validate evidence against your conclusion rather than validating your conclusion against evidence; rather than applying valid logic to verifiable evidence to reach your conclusion, you bring your conclusion to the table as if already valid, and then seek (question-begging) "evidence" to support your conclusion.

You keep saying [this thing or that] was "created," which "proves" the existence of this "Creator" of yours, but *that's just asserting invalid logic.*

Your position, ENTIRELY BASELESS in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, EXCLUDES *for no INTELLECTUALLY VALID reason* EVERY explanation that does not assert this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours. The entirety of your superstitious "theory" is based upon invalid logic and denial of reality ... making it entirely intellectually invalid.

This is not about you simply having your facts wrong YWC; it's not that you're simply ignorant, having no idea what others are talking about or what you are talking about; *YOU are wrong*. Your thinking is INVALID; your conclusions are INVALID; *your intellectual paradigm--where your beliefs are validated against your belief that they are valid--is INVALID.*




Seriously. If asserting the existence of this "God" of yours *is* valid in actual objective reality, why is it that you simply cannot put together verifiable evidence AND valid logic to validate your assertion?

What's up with that?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Loki i have to get ready for church and then some football.
> 
> 
> Psa 14:1  (A psalm by David for the music leader.) Only a fool would say, "There is no God!" People like that are worthless; they are heartless and cruel and never do right.
> 
> Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good.
> 
> Pro 14:16  A wise one fears and departs from evil, but the fool rages and is sure.
> 
> Isa 32:6  For the fool will speak folly, and his heart work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy and to speak error against Jehovah, to make the soul of the hungry empty, and he will take away the drink of the thirsty.
> 
> Isa 32:7  Also the weapons of the fool are evil; he thinks of wicked ways to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaks right.
> 
> Job 37:16  Do you know the balancing of the clouds, the wonderful works of Him who is perfect in knowledge?
> 
> Psa 9:1  To the Chief Musician. To die for the Son. A Psalm of David. I will praise You, O Jehovah, with my whole heart; I will tell of all Your marvelous works.
> 
> Psa 28:5  Because they do not pay attention to the works of Jehovah and to the work of His hands, He shall destroy them and never build them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God don't think too highly of the ones who deny him and his works
> 
> 
> 
> 100% *SUPERSTITION*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 32-Intelligent Biblical Designer
Click to expand...

I have already addressed this specifically, the first time you presented it. "Creation Science" is not science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to it, retard!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me your best sale as to why your views are right and i am wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You continue to pretend that the application of VALID logic to verifiable evidence is insufficiently different from making up something from nothing and applying logical fallacies to rationalize lack of intellectual rigor; so that the two are the same.
> 
> The difference *IS* significant, and YOUR SUPERSTITIONS ARE NOT SCIENCE!
> 
> 
> 
> My position is the result of valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence. All the verifiable evidence supports my position--ALL of the verifiable evidence; *AND*, consistent with VALID logic, my position DOES NOT EXCLUDE an intelligent agency responsible for the universe as we perceive it.
> 
> In short, my position is FULLY CONSISTENT with the verifiable evidence and the application of valid logic to that evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Your "Bible Creation" position, OTOH, is entirely imaginary. You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "God" thing of yours--and all of its attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as valid facts of reality.
> 
> You have this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours, who you assert is "proof" of creation; and you assert "creation" as "proof" of this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours.
> 
> 
> *It's all Begging-the-Question.*
> 
> EVERY "evidence" you bring to rationalize this fallacious assertion of yours also suffers from this same logical fallacy; in order to accept this "evidence of creation" you must FIRST accept the validity of this "Creator" of yours.
> 
> 
> You validate evidence against your conclusion rather than validating your conclusion against evidence; rather than applying valid logic to verifiable evidence to reach your conclusion, you bring your conclusion to the table as if already valid, and then seek (question-begging) "evidence" to support your conclusion.
> 
> You keep saying [this thing or that] was "created," which "proves" the existence of this "Creator" of yours, but *that's just asserting invalid logic.*
> 
> Your position, ENTIRELY BASELESS in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, EXCLUDES *for no INTELLECTUALLY VALID reason* EVERY explanation that does not assert this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours. The entirety of your superstitious "theory" is based upon invalid logic and denial of reality ... making it entirely intellectually invalid.
> 
> This is not about you simply having your facts wrong YWC; it's not that you're simply ignorant, having no idea what others are talking about or what you are talking about; *YOU are wrong*. Your thinking is INVALID; your conclusions are INVALID; *your intellectual paradigm--where your beliefs are validated against your belief that they are valid--is INVALID.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously. If asserting the existence of this "God" of yours *is* valid in actual objective reality, why is it that you simply cannot put together verifiable evidence AND valid logic to validate your assertion?
> 
> What's up with that?
Click to expand...


Show what is invalid.

Saying something is invalid is different from showing it is invalid.

Those videos show the imagination at work on your side.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Loki i have to get ready for church and then some football.
> 
> 
> Psa 14:1  (A psalm by David for the music leader.) Only a fool would say, "There is no God!" People like that are worthless; they are heartless and cruel and never do right.
> 
> Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good.
> 
> Pro 14:16  A wise one fears and departs from evil, but the fool rages and is sure.
> 
> Isa 32:6  For the fool will speak folly, and his heart work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy and to speak error against Jehovah, to make the soul of the hungry empty, and he will take away the drink of the thirsty.
> 
> Isa 32:7  Also the weapons of the fool are evil; he thinks of wicked ways to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaks right.
> 
> Job 37:16  Do you know the balancing of the clouds, the wonderful works of Him who is perfect in knowledge?
> 
> Psa 9:1  To the Chief Musician. To die for the Son. A Psalm of David. I will praise You, O Jehovah, with my whole heart; I will tell of all Your marvelous works.
> 
> Psa 28:5  Because they do not pay attention to the works of Jehovah and to the work of His hands, He shall destroy them and never build them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God don't think too highly of the ones who deny him and his works
> 
> 
> 
> 100% *SUPERSTITION*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here lets look at some more facts.
> 
> 7-Refute Darwinism In 7-Seconds Flat
Click to expand...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA"]Refuting the Above Superstitious Retard[/ame]


Youwerecreated said:


> 12-Winning the Lottery of Life


I have already addressed this specifically, the first time you presented it. "Creation Science" is not science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% *SUPERSTITION*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 32-Intelligent Biblical Designer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already addressed this specifically, the first time you presented it. "Creation Science" is not science.
Click to expand...


Really ?

Do real scientists believe in Creation?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% *SUPERSTITION*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here lets look at some more facts.
> 
> 7-Refute Darwinism In 7-Seconds Flat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA"]Refuting the Above Superstitious Retard[/ame]
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12-Winning the Lottery of Life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already addressed this specifically, the first time you presented it. "Creation Science" is not science.
Click to expand...


You were wrong then too.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me your best sale as to why your views are right and i am wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to pretend that the application of VALID logic to verifiable evidence is insufficiently different from making up something from nothing and applying logical fallacies to rationalize lack of intellectual rigor; so that the two are the same.
> 
> The difference *IS* significant, and YOUR SUPERSTITIONS ARE NOT SCIENCE!
> 
> 
> 
> My position is the result of valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence. All the verifiable evidence supports my position--ALL of the verifiable evidence; *AND*, consistent with VALID logic, my position DOES NOT EXCLUDE an intelligent agency responsible for the universe as we perceive it.
> 
> In short, my position is FULLY CONSISTENT with the verifiable evidence and the application of valid logic to that evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Your "Bible Creation" position, OTOH, is entirely imaginary. You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "God" thing of yours--and all of its attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as valid facts of reality.
> 
> You have this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours, who you assert is "proof" of creation; and you assert "creation" as "proof" of this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours.
> 
> 
> *It's all Begging-the-Question.*
> 
> EVERY "evidence" you bring to rationalize this fallacious assertion of yours also suffers from this same logical fallacy; in order to accept this "evidence of creation" you must FIRST accept the validity of this "Creator" of yours.
> 
> 
> You validate evidence against your conclusion rather than validating your conclusion against evidence; rather than applying valid logic to verifiable evidence to reach your conclusion, you bring your conclusion to the table as if already valid, and then seek (question-begging) "evidence" to support your conclusion.
> 
> You keep saying [this thing or that] was "created," which "proves" the existence of this "Creator" of yours, but *that's just asserting invalid logic.*
> 
> Your position, ENTIRELY BASELESS in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, EXCLUDES *for no INTELLECTUALLY VALID reason* EVERY explanation that does not assert this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours. The entirety of your superstitious "theory" is based upon invalid logic and denial of reality ... making it entirely intellectually invalid.
> 
> This is not about you simply having your facts wrong YWC; it's not that you're simply ignorant, having no idea what others are talking about or what you are talking about; *YOU are wrong*. Your thinking is INVALID; your conclusions are INVALID; *your intellectual paradigm--where your beliefs are validated against your belief that they are valid--is INVALID.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously. If asserting the existence of this "God" of yours *is* valid in actual objective reality, why is it that you simply cannot put together verifiable evidence AND valid logic to validate your assertion?
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show what is invalid.
Click to expand...

I did.



Youwerecreated said:


> Saying something is invalid is different from showing it is invalid.


I know this. That is why EVERY SINGLE TIME I make a claim, I demonstrate it's validity with verifiable evidence and valid logic.



Youwerecreated said:


> Those videos show the imagination at work on your side.


No. They are examples of fallacious reasoning and your lack of intellectual integrity.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 32-Intelligent Biblical Designer
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed this specifically, the first time you presented it. "Creation Science" is not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really ?
> 
> Do real scientists believe in Creation?
Click to expand...

The assertion that scientists can believe in "Creation" does NOT refute the assertion that "Creation Science" is not science.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here lets look at some more facts.
> 
> 7-Refute Darwinism In 7-Seconds Flat
> 
> 
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA"]Refuting the Above Superstitious Retard[/ame]
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12-Winning the Lottery of Life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already addressed this specifically, the first time you presented it. "Creation Science" is not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were wrong then too.
Click to expand...

Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

What's up with that?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already addressed this specifically, the first time you presented it. "Creation Science" is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really ?
> 
> Do real scientists believe in Creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The assertion that scientists can believe in "Creation" does NOT refute the assertion that "Creation Science" is not science.
Click to expand...


Wrong,they believe in creation because there evidence to suggest many things didn't happen by chance, that intent was necessary for something to come into existence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refuting the Above Superstitious Retard
> I have already addressed this specifically, the first time you presented it. "Creation Science" is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were wrong then too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What's up with that?
Click to expand...


You have given no valid logic and evidence that supports that valid logic, That contrtadicts my valid logic and evidence. You have also not given valid evidence to support your valid logic concerning what you believe.

What's up with that ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refuting the Above Superstitious Retard
> I have already addressed this specifically, the first time you presented it. "Creation Science" is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were wrong then too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What's up with that?
Click to expand...


What evidence have you given ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Why do scientist believe in creation if there is no evidence for it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refuting the Above Superstitious Retard
> I have already addressed this specifically, the first time you presented it. "Creation Science" is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were wrong then too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What's up with that?
Click to expand...


Your evidence for macro-evolution is valid logic  ? what evidence is this valid logic based on ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refuting the Above Superstitious Retard
> I have already addressed this specifically, the first time you presented it. "Creation Science" is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were wrong then too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What's up with that?
Click to expand...


Empirical evidence is observable evidence,list your observed evidence for macro-evolution.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No God did not use mutations to create,he used them to hand down his punishment for sin which is death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You clearly did not understand my argument, which has nothing to do with random mutations, and everything to do with viral infections.
> 2. Mutations are caused by sin? Wow. Do we live in the 17th century? Now i understand why we cant have a coherent debate, you dont even understand fundamentals. Sin causes mutation...wow....So the very act of DNA replication is sin, because errors in replication inevitably occur each time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes the loss of genetic data causes aging and death,just an opinion can't prove it but that is what i think.
> 
> God struck people with plagues.
> 
> Gen 12:17  And Jehovah plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife.
> 
> Exo 9:14  For I am going to send at this time all My plagues upon your heart, and upon your servants, and upon your people, so that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth.
> Exo 9:15  For now I will stretch out My hand, that I may strike you and your people with plagues, and you shall be cut off from the earth.
> 
> 
> Lev 26:21  And if you walk contrary to Me, and will not listen to Me, I will bring seven times more plagues on you according to your sins.
> 
> Deu 28:59  then Jehovah will make your plagues remarkable, and the plagues of your seed great and persistent plagues; with evil and long-lasting sicknesses.
> 
> Deu 29:22  so that the generation to come of your sons that shall rise up after you, and the stranger that shall come from a far land, shall say (when they see the plagues of that land, and the sicknesses which Jehovah has laid on it)
> 
> Jer 49:17  Also Edom shall be a ruin. Everyone who goes by it shall be amazed and shall hiss at all its plagues.
> 
> Jer 50:13  Because of the wrath of Jehovah it shall not be inhabited, but it shall be wholly a waste. Everyone who goes by Babylon shall be amazed and hiss at all her plagues.
> 
> Rev 15:1  And I saw another sign in Heaven, great and marvelous: seven angels with the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.
> 
> Rev 15:8  And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from His authority. And no one was able to enter into the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed.
> 
> Rev 22:18  For I testify together to everyone who hears the Words of the prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add on him the plagues that have been written in this Book.
> 
> 
> How do you think these come upon us ? Mutations and bacteria.
Click to expand...


All plagues are bacteria or virus, maybe even a fungus or protist. But a plague caused by a mutation? That is something that doesnt happen. 

And again, dont quote the bible and then tell me to explain it. I dont quote harry potter and tell you to disprove magic. 

And your dancing around the question. How do you explain the insertions of viral genomes on that chart, and their hierarchy? God purposely inserted a viral genomes in humans that are a subset of ones for more primitive primates, and did so for every fossil in between ape and man in a perfect hierarchy?

Wow.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course the scientific community has been hijacked by secularlists and atheist,and the ones that are not in either category have big egos,naturally they will not speak out against many of the theories that are based on wild imaginations and faulty conclusions. Their egos won't let them admit they were wrong. So the game continues but a day will come that they will be brought to their knees. You want to base your life and views on chance have at it. If you wish in one hand poop in the other which one will fill up first ?  I don't accept chance as an explanation of our universe,our planet, and the complexity of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when the ignorant rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back at ya
Click to expand...

that was a retorical statement. your answer showcases your ignorance.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to do two things right here. 1. Disprove your notion of DNA, its more complicated then you understand. 2. Prove lineage among primates, at least to anyone that has a brain.
> 
> As viruses infect their hosts, especially proviruses, they can leave behind parts of their genome, called an endogenous retroviral sequence. If this happens to a gamete or a newly fertilized embryo, which is not uncommon, that retroviral insertion insertion would continue down their lineage.
> 
> If your great ancestors millions of generations ago were apes, we should be able to find a distinct pattern of endogenous retroviral sequences that have persisted through the entire million generation lineage of the family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, i expect that you will claim this is only circumstantial evidence. It is only so to someone that doesnt understand biology.
> 
> How does your "we only have the information for us" theory compare to that little story.
> 
> And did god insert the viral genomes at the same place in monkeys and humans genome just to make it look like we were descended from the same species? And insert the types of mutations in just the right types of monkeys so that it fits perfectly with our anatomical and complete genetic timeline. As well as our timeline from radiometric dating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No God did not use mutations to create,he used them to hand down his punishment for sin which is death.
Click to expand...

 so sin is a Disease?  most  mutations do not kill.
death is a punishment from god...odd, everything dies.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either way you look at it there is a creator either God the Almighty or your natural process. Which ever it is shows intelligence to create what we see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if I think there is a different creator?  What if I think there were multiple creators?
> 
> The assumption that Christianity or atheism are the only possible answers is both ridiculous and arrogant, especially combined with the strong impression you give that the only possibilities are YOUR version of Christianity and atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not arrogance,just confidence that there is only one creator and his name is YAHWEH.
Click to expand...

 are you Jewish or Israeli? that's the name they gave to god....if your anything else you're plagiarizing.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> If man knew how God did everything and had all the answers,there would be no need for God.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk41Gbjljfo]XTC-Dear God - YouTube[/ame]

nuff said!


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you don't understand : the purpose of quoting someone else's post is to respond to it.  It is not used to respond to a different poster.  When you quote my post, and respond to someone else, it makes no sense!
> 
> Everything in the bible cannot be verified scientifically, and there are many things for which there is no evidence.  Just because there are some things in it that are accurate does not mean all of it is accurate; especially when there are many things in it which go against observable reality.
> 
> If you can't even understand that quoting someone indicates you are responding to them, it seems unlikely you can understand the complexities of evolution or cosmology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please don't be rediculous. Maybe i did quote you and this other poster.
> 
> By the way i did quote you at post #2332
> 
> Where i pointed out what you believe in my signature and because you were laughing at sayings in the bible that has been confirmed by evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #2334.  You did not quote me and some other poster to whom you were responding, you quoted only me (and yourself).
> 
> Your signature is a silly oversimplification, but I'm sure you know that.
> 
> You didn't just say some things in the bible can be confirmed by science, you said the bible can be confirmed by science.  That is obviously ridiculous.  Walking on water, a serpent talking, water into wine, living inside a whale, etc. etc. etc....there are many things in the bible that cannot be confirmed by science and often go against the observed rules of the natural world.  You believe they are possible through god, and that is fine; when you claim they are confirmed by science, you are lying.
> 
> If I pull some quotes from other holy books of things that can be confirmed by science, does that make those books confirmed by science?
> 
> Of course, many of the scripture quotes you bring up as being confirmed by science are nothing of the sort, as has been pointed out to you by many posters.  At best, your interpretation of those quotes conforms with scientific knowledge.  That interpretation is neither universally held nor, in many cases, clear to anyone who does not already agree with you.  Some of the connections you make strain the bonds of credulity to breaking.
> 
> I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and shoehorn this book of faith into modern scientific knowledge.
Click to expand...

I think I do, fundamentalists like many "believers" have somehow deluded themselves in to the idea that our species is Superior and separate from all others on this planet.
that's a lie.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If man knew how God did everything and had all the answers,there would be no need for God.
> 
> 
> 
> So what? There's apparently no need for this "God" of yours, regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some day I think you will eat those words.
Click to expand...

 ahhh...you mean wish or believe. think does not enter in,


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> You have given no valid logic and evidence that supports that valid logic, ...


 Do you have ANY IDEA what the terms you use mean to folks other than you and you imaginary friends?



Youwerecreated said:


> That contrtadicts my valid logic and evidence.


The INVALIDITY of your "valid logic and evidence" has been thoroughly and unambiguously demonstrated ... repeatedly.



Youwerecreated said:


> You have also not given valid evidence to support your valid logic concerning what you believe.


I cetrtainly have, and despite the CLEAR OPPORTUNITY you have had to do so, you simply HAVE NOT demonstrated that ANY of the logic or evidence I've brought to support my beliefs is invalid; you just baselessly deny it's validity by ignoring it. 



Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were wrong then too.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence have you given ?
Click to expand...

Your self-contradictory and self-indicting posting.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Why do scientist believe in creation if there is no evidence for it ?


Who cares? The answer to that question does not invalidate the assertion that "Creation Science" is not science.

Besides, there's this to consider.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Why do scientist believe in creation if there is no evidence for it ?


Why Do Smart People Believe Weird Things?



Carl Sagan, in his last book Demon-Haunted World, expressed his growing concern in the growth of belief in the paranormal such as astrology, witchcraft, spiritualism, Loc Ness Monster, Bigfoot, etc.  Many academics bemoan the fact that Americans, including their students, seem unable to distinguish science from pseudoscience, history from pseudohistory, or sense from nonsense:  The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations of pseudo-science and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance (25-26).  Sagan  laments, If we teach only the findings and products of scienceno matter how useful and even inspiring they may bewithout communicating its critical method, how can the average person possibly distinguish science from pseudoscience? (21).  Michael Shermers Why People Believe Weird Things may offer some insights into understanding why humans believe the things they do.  



More than any other reason, people believe what they want to, despite evidence to the contrary.  Shermer elaborates with four explanatory reasons these beliefs persist:

immediate gratification 
simplicity 
morality and meaning 
hope springs eternal 


Why do these irrational beliefs persist even among many college students despite an emphasis on critical thinking in the classroom?  In other words, why do smart people believe weird things?  

Intelligence doesnt seem to necessarily shape ones beliefs. 
Often smart peoples intelligence is domain specific. 
Smart people are not necessarily less prejudiced and authoritarian, but educated people are less so.  Unfortunately students today are often taught what to think but not how to think. (Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking (Sagan 25). 
Believers tend to be high in external locus of control, whereas skeptics tend to be high in internal locus of control.  People with high external locus of control believe that circumstances are beyond their control, i.e. things just happen.  Those with a high internal locus of control tend to believe they make things happen.  So the former tend to be more superstitious and believe in ESP, precognition, witchcraft, spiritualism, etc. 
Smart people are better at defending beliefs arrived at for non-smart reasons since even they are corrupted by intellectual attribution bias and confirmation bias that we all suffer from.  Intellectual attribution bias occurs when we identify environmental or personality causes in our own favor, that is we take credit for our good actions and blame a situation for our bad ones. 
Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek or interpret evidence favorable to already existing beliefs and to ignore or reinterpret evidence unfavorable to already existing beliefs.  Thus we see people convinced of weird things such as Area 51, Bible codes, alien abductions, Loch Ness and Sasquatch monsters, Atlantis and Lemuria, etc., despite evidence to the contrary.

Why Do Smart People Believe Weird Things


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were wrong then too.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your evidence for macro-evolution is valid logic  ?
Click to expand...

The validity of macro-evolution is supported by the application of valid logic to the verifiable evidence.



Youwerecreated said:


> what evidence is this valid logic based on ?


I'm not sure what you're asking, but here's my best shot at an answer: That "X" =/= "not X".


----------



## LOki

youwerecreated said:


> loki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> you were wrong then too.
> 
> 
> 
> yet you cannot demonstrate i was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> empirical evidence is observable evidence,list your observed evidence for macro-evolution.
Click to expand...

*Ring Species* you impenetrable dumbass!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]*RING-FUCKING-SPECIES*[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You clearly did not understand my argument, which has nothing to do with random mutations, and everything to do with viral infections.
> 2. Mutations are caused by sin? Wow. Do we live in the 17th century? Now i understand why we cant have a coherent debate, you dont even understand fundamentals. Sin causes mutation...wow....So the very act of DNA replication is sin, because errors in replication inevitably occur each time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the loss of genetic data causes aging and death,just an opinion can't prove it but that is what i think.
> 
> God struck people with plagues.
> 
> Gen 12:17  And Jehovah plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife.
> 
> Exo 9:14  For I am going to send at this time all My plagues upon your heart, and upon your servants, and upon your people, so that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth.
> Exo 9:15  For now I will stretch out My hand, that I may strike you and your people with plagues, and you shall be cut off from the earth.
> 
> 
> Lev 26:21  And if you walk contrary to Me, and will not listen to Me, I will bring seven times more plagues on you according to your sins.
> 
> Deu 28:59  then Jehovah will make your plagues remarkable, and the plagues of your seed great and persistent plagues; with evil and long-lasting sicknesses.
> 
> Deu 29:22  so that the generation to come of your sons that shall rise up after you, and the stranger that shall come from a far land, shall say (when they see the plagues of that land, and the sicknesses which Jehovah has laid on it)
> 
> Jer 49:17  Also Edom shall be a ruin. Everyone who goes by it shall be amazed and shall hiss at all its plagues.
> 
> Jer 50:13  Because of the wrath of Jehovah it shall not be inhabited, but it shall be wholly a waste. Everyone who goes by Babylon shall be amazed and hiss at all her plagues.
> 
> Rev 15:1  And I saw another sign in Heaven, great and marvelous: seven angels with the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.
> 
> Rev 15:8  And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from His authority. And no one was able to enter into the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed.
> 
> Rev 22:18  For I testify together to everyone who hears the Words of the prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add on him the plagues that have been written in this Book.
> 
> 
> How do you think these come upon us ? Mutations and bacteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All plagues are bacteria or virus, maybe even a fungus or protist. But a plague caused by a mutation? That is something that doesnt happen.
> 
> And again, dont quote the bible and then tell me to explain it. I dont quote harry potter and tell you to disprove magic.
> 
> And your dancing around the question. How do you explain the insertions of viral genomes on that chart, and their hierarchy? God purposely inserted a viral genomes in humans that are a subset of ones for more primitive primates, and did so for every fossil in between ape and man in a perfect hierarchy?
> 
> Wow.
Click to expand...


Mutations can cause disease and genetic disorders.

Pseudogenes most likely are the result of degradation. They have lost their original created function. 



Are Pseudogenes Shared Mistakes Between Primate Genomes?


by John Woodmorappe on

December 1, 2000


Technical



 author-john-woodmorappe
 dna
 human-genome
 journal-of-creation
 junk-dna
 pseudogenes




Featured In

Summary



Given a sufficient lack of comprehension, anything (and that includes a quartet of Mozart) can be declared to be junk. The junk DNA concept has exercised such a hold over a large part of the community of molecular biologists (emphasis in original).  Zuckerkandl and Henning1

DNA not known to be coding for proteins or functional RNAs, especially pseudogenes, are now at times referred to in publications simply as nonfunctional DNA, as though their nonfunctionality were an established fact.  Zuckerkandl, Latter and Jurka2

Rest of article.

Are Pseudogenes


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if I think there is a different creator?  What if I think there were multiple creators?
> 
> The assumption that Christianity or atheism are the only possible answers is both ridiculous and arrogant, especially combined with the strong impression you give that the only possibilities are YOUR version of Christianity and atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not arrogance,just confidence that there is only one creator and his name is YAHWEH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you Jewish or Israeli? that's the name they gave to god....if your anything else you're plagiarizing.
Click to expand...


No but YAHWEH is Jesus.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please don't be rediculous. Maybe i did quote you and this other poster.
> 
> By the way i did quote you at post #2332
> 
> Where i pointed out what you believe in my signature and because you were laughing at sayings in the bible that has been confirmed by evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post #2334.  You did not quote me and some other poster to whom you were responding, you quoted only me (and yourself).
> 
> Your signature is a silly oversimplification, but I'm sure you know that.
> 
> You didn't just say some things in the bible can be confirmed by science, you said the bible can be confirmed by science.  That is obviously ridiculous.  Walking on water, a serpent talking, water into wine, living inside a whale, etc. etc. etc....there are many things in the bible that cannot be confirmed by science and often go against the observed rules of the natural world.  You believe they are possible through god, and that is fine; when you claim they are confirmed by science, you are lying.
> 
> If I pull some quotes from other holy books of things that can be confirmed by science, does that make those books confirmed by science?
> 
> Of course, many of the scripture quotes you bring up as being confirmed by science are nothing of the sort, as has been pointed out to you by many posters.  At best, your interpretation of those quotes conforms with scientific knowledge.  That interpretation is neither universally held nor, in many cases, clear to anyone who does not already agree with you.  Some of the connections you make strain the bonds of credulity to breaking.
> 
> I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and shoehorn this book of faith into modern scientific knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think I do, fundamentalists like many "believers" have somehow deluded themselves in to the idea that our species is Superior and separate from all others on this planet.
> that's a lie.
Click to expand...


We are at the top of the food chain.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do scientist believe in creation if there is no evidence for it ?
> 
> 
> 
> Why Do Smart People Believe Weird Things?
> 
> 
> 
> Carl Sagan, in his last book Demon-Haunted World, expressed his growing concern in the growth of belief in the paranormal such as astrology, witchcraft, spiritualism, Loc Ness Monster, Bigfoot, etc.  Many academics bemoan the fact that Americans, including their students, seem unable to distinguish science from pseudoscience, history from pseudohistory, or sense from nonsense:  The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations of pseudo-science and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance (25-26).  Sagan  laments, If we teach only the findings and products of scienceno matter how useful and even inspiring they may bewithout communicating its critical method, how can the average person possibly distinguish science from pseudoscience? (21).  Michael Shermers Why People Believe Weird Things may offer some insights into understanding why humans believe the things they do.
> 
> 
> 
> More than any other reason, people believe what they want to, despite evidence to the contrary.  Shermer elaborates with four explanatory reasons these beliefs persist:
> 
> immediate gratification
> simplicity
> morality and meaning
> hope springs eternal
> 
> 
> Why do these irrational beliefs persist even among many college students despite an emphasis on critical thinking in the classroom?  In other words, why do smart people believe weird things?
> 
> Intelligence doesnt seem to necessarily shape ones beliefs.
> Often smart peoples intelligence is domain specific.
> Smart people are not necessarily less prejudiced and authoritarian, but educated people are less so.  Unfortunately students today are often taught what to think but not how to think. (Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking (Sagan 25).
> Believers tend to be high in external locus of control, whereas skeptics tend to be high in internal locus of control.  People with high external locus of control believe that circumstances are beyond their control, i.e. things just happen.  Those with a high internal locus of control tend to believe they make things happen.  So the former tend to be more superstitious and believe in ESP, precognition, witchcraft, spiritualism, etc.
> Smart people are better at defending beliefs arrived at for non-smart reasons since even they are corrupted by intellectual attribution bias and confirmation bias that we all suffer from.  Intellectual attribution bias occurs when we identify environmental or personality causes in our own favor, that is we take credit for our good actions and blame a situation for our bad ones.
> Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek or interpret evidence favorable to already existing beliefs and to ignore or reinterpret evidence unfavorable to already existing beliefs.  Thus we see people convinced of weird things such as Area 51, Bible codes, alien abductions, Loch Ness and Sasquatch monsters, Atlantis and Lemuria, etc., despite evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Why Do Smart People Believe Weird Things
Click to expand...


That is why i wonder why so many educated believe in macro-evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do scientist believe in creation if there is no evidence for it ?
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? The answer to that question does not invalidate the assertion that "Creation Science" is not science.
> 
> Besides, there's this to consider.
Click to expand...


It does matter dumbass.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loki said:
> 
> 
> 
> yet you cannot demonstrate i was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> empirical evidence is observable evidence,list your observed evidence for macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ring Species* you impenetrable dumbass!
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]*RING-FUCKING-SPECIES*[/ame]
Click to expand...


What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ?  typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> empirical evidence is observable evidence,list your observed evidence for macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> *Ring Species* you impenetrable dumbass!
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]*RING-FUCKING-SPECIES*[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ?  typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.
Click to expand...

Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.

_"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."_
LINK

_"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."_
LINK

"*macroevolution* _The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."_
LINK

_"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."_
LINK

_"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."_

[*Macroevolution*] _is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level"._

"*mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion*
_noun Biology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."_​
Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## FurthurBB

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ring Species* you impenetrable dumbass!
> *RING-FUCKING-SPECIES*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ?  typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.
> 
> _"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."_
> LINK
> 
> "*macroevolution* _The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."_
> 
> [*Macroevolution*] _is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level"._
> 
> "*mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion*
> _noun Biology.
> major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."_​
> Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...


Really, do you believe that any amount of information will make that poster less blind, ignorant, or dishonest?  I do not.  A person who wants to give words their own definition because obviously the actual definition proves their point moot is just dishonest.  A person who continually posts crap that has been completely proven false and swears that no one can prove it false, is just dishonest.  A person who lies about their qualifications to try and make their crap look more reasoned when they obviously do not even understand elementary school science, is a fraud and a liar.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ring Species* you impenetrable dumbass!
> *RING-FUCKING-SPECIES*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ?  typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.
> 
> _"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."_
> LINK
> 
> "*macroevolution* _The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."_
> 
> [*Macroevolution*] _is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level"._
> 
> "*mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion*
> _noun Biology.
> major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."_​
> Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...


Do you understand the difference between macro-evolution and micro-adaptations ?

One more thing these ring species are a product of sexual reproduction not mutations as your theory calls for.

Yet another example of your ignorance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ?  typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.
> 
> 
> 
> Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.
> 
> _"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."_
> LINK
> 
> "*macroevolution* _The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."_
> 
> [*Macroevolution*] _is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level"._
> 
> "*mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion*
> _noun Biology.
> major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."_​
> Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, do you believe that any amount of information will make that poster less blind, ignorant, or dishonest?  I do not.  A person who wants to give words their own definition because obviously the actual definition proves their point moot is just dishonest.  A person who continually posts crap that has been completely proven false and swears that no one can prove it false, is just dishonest.  A person who lies about their qualifications to try and make their crap look more reasoned when they obviously do not even understand elementary school science, is a fraud and a liar.
Click to expand...


Wrong these ring species are a product of sexual reproduction and just variations within a family.


----------



## Youwerecreated

You can quote any definition of macro-evolution you like but macro evolution was origionally  major change like a dog producing a non-dog over large spans of time.

Your side had to extrapolate from micro-adaptations as your evidence which happens in short periods of time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ring Species* you impenetrable dumbass!
> *RING-FUCKING-SPECIES*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ?  typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.
> 
> _"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."_
> LINK
> 
> "*macroevolution* _The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."_
> 
> [*Macroevolution*] _is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level"._
> 
> "*mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion*
> _noun Biology.
> major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."_​
> Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...


Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution. There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions. 3. No new information is added to the DNA.

The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.


What is Micro and Macro-Evolution?

What is the number 1 reason evolutionist give as to why we can't see macro-evolution ? here let me help you because it takes too long for it to happen. Are you guys forgetting gradualism ?

grad·u·al·ism/&#712;grajo&#862;o&#601;&#716;liz&#601;m/
Noun:
1.A policy of gradual reform rather than sudden change or revolution.
2.The hypothesis that evolution proceeds chiefly by the accumulation of gradual changes (in contrast to the punctuationist model).


So what do you believe in gradualism or punctuated equilibirium ? you are on record defending both


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ring Species* you impenetrable dumbass!
> *RING-FUCKING-SPECIES*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ?  typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.
> 
> _"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."_
> LINK
> 
> "*macroevolution* _The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."_
> 
> [*Macroevolution*] _is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level"._
> 
> "*mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion*
> _noun Biology.
> major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."_​
> Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...


Just for you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6zrpBINJR0]5 questions evolutionists can&#39;t answer - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ?  typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.
> 
> 
> 
> Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.
> 
> _"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."_
> LINK
> 
> "*macroevolution* _The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."_
> 
> [*Macroevolution*] _is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level"._
> 
> "*mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion*
> _noun Biology.
> major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."_​
> Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between macro-evolution and micro-adaptations ?
Click to expand...

Hi. You said the small changes in microevolution couldn't lead to speciation (macroevolution). It can. It does. YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN!



Youwerecreated said:


> One more thing these ring species are a product of sexual reproduction not mutations as your theory calls for.


Evolution recognizes the role mutation plays in genetic diversity, but IT DOES NOT REQUIRE MUTATION TO ASSERT THE VALIDITY OF AN OBSERVATION OF EVOLUTION.

YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN!



Youwerecreated said:


> Yet another example of your ignorance.


Not at all. It is clear that you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ... AGAIN!


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the loss of genetic data causes aging and death,just an opinion can't prove it but that is what i think.
> 
> God struck people with plagues.
> 
> Gen 12:17  And Jehovah plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife.
> 
> Exo 9:14  For I am going to send at this time all My plagues upon your heart, and upon your servants, and upon your people, so that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth.
> Exo 9:15  For now I will stretch out My hand, that I may strike you and your people with plagues, and you shall be cut off from the earth.
> 
> 
> Lev 26:21  And if you walk contrary to Me, and will not listen to Me, I will bring seven times more plagues on you according to your sins.
> 
> Deu 28:59  then Jehovah will make your plagues remarkable, and the plagues of your seed great and persistent plagues; with evil and long-lasting sicknesses.
> 
> Deu 29:22  so that the generation to come of your sons that shall rise up after you, and the stranger that shall come from a far land, shall say (when they see the plagues of that land, and the sicknesses which Jehovah has laid on it)
> 
> Jer 49:17  Also Edom shall be a ruin. Everyone who goes by it shall be amazed and shall hiss at all its plagues.
> 
> Jer 50:13  Because of the wrath of Jehovah it shall not be inhabited, but it shall be wholly a waste. Everyone who goes by Babylon shall be amazed and hiss at all her plagues.
> 
> Rev 15:1  And I saw another sign in Heaven, great and marvelous: seven angels with the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.
> 
> Rev 15:8  And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from His authority. And no one was able to enter into the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed.
> 
> Rev 22:18  For I testify together to everyone who hears the Words of the prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add on him the plagues that have been written in this Book.
> 
> 
> How do you think these come upon us ? Mutations and bacteria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All plagues are bacteria or virus, maybe even a fungus or protist. But a plague caused by a mutation? That is something that doesnt happen.
> 
> And again, dont quote the bible and then tell me to explain it. I dont quote harry potter and tell you to disprove magic.
> 
> And your dancing around the question. How do you explain the insertions of viral genomes on that chart, and their hierarchy? God purposely inserted a viral genomes in humans that are a subset of ones for more primitive primates, and did so for every fossil in between ape and man in a perfect hierarchy?
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations can cause disease and genetic disorders.
> 
> Pseudogenes most likely are the result of degradation. They have lost their original created function.
> 
> 
> 
> Are Pseudogenes &#8216;Shared Mistakes&#8217; Between Primate Genomes?
> 
> 
> by John Woodmorappe on
> 
> December 1, 2000
> 
> 
> Technical
> 
> 
> 
> author-john-woodmorappe
> dna
> human-genome
> journal-of-creation
> junk-dna
> pseudogenes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Featured In
> 
> Summary
> 
> 
> 
> &#8216;Given a sufficient lack of comprehension, anything (and that includes a quartet of Mozart) can be declared to be junk. The junk DNA concept has exercised such a hold over a large part of the community of molecular biologists &#8230;(emphasis in original).&#8217; &#8211; Zuckerkandl and Henning1
> 
> &#8216;DNA not known to be coding for proteins or functional RNAs, especially pseudogenes, are now at times referred to in publications simply as nonfunctional DNA, as though their nonfunctionality were an established fact.&#8217; &#8211; Zuckerkandl, Latter and Jurka2
> 
> Rest of article.
> 
> Are Pseudogenes
Click to expand...


No mutation will ever cause *a plague.* Thats what i was pointing out you retard. Im very aware that mutations can cause harm and disease. But disease does not equal plague. And technically, plague only refers to infection by the bacteria _Yersinia pestis. _Please tell me you dont think god infects people with Y. pestis....You might think he created the bacteria in the first place, but god is not giving it to sinful people. They contract it just like any other bacteria. Lets go back to the 1800's, do you even accept germ theory?! OMG.


----------



## cbirch2

FurthurBB said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ?  typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.
> 
> 
> 
> Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.
> _"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."_
> LINK
> 
> "*macroevolution* _The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."_
> 
> [*Macroevolution*] _is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level"._
> 
> "*mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion*
> _noun Biology.
> major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."_​Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, do you believe that any amount of information will make that poster less blind, ignorant, or dishonest?  I do not.  A person who wants to give words their own definition because obviously the actual definition proves their point moot is just dishonest.  A person who continually posts crap that has been completely proven false and swears that no one can prove it false, is just dishonest.  A person who lies about their qualifications to try and make their crap look more reasoned when they obviously do not even understand elementary school science, is a fraud and a liar.
Click to expand...


Your only defense in the face of undeniable evidence is to call the source a liar. Why dont you look up the species yourself, and find the evidence at an unbiased source. No i bet you wont do that because you'd prefer to wallow in your own ignorance.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ?  typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.
> 
> 
> 
> Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution._"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."_
> LINK
> 
> "*macroevolution* _The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."_
> 
> [*Macroevolution*] _is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level"._
> 
> "*mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion*
> _noun Biology.
> major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."_​Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between macro-evolution and micro-adaptations ?
> 
> One more thing these ring species are a product of sexual reproduction not mutations as your theory calls for.
> 
> Yet another example of your ignorance.
Click to expand...


What?!

*Your whole theory is that new information cannot be added, and kinds are always the same!

*Now your just all over the place you idiot. 

OK if sexual reproduction just results in the same information, just recombined, how could they diverge to the point that they cannot reproduce. Thats the point that you dont get. Thats the point your not explaining.

What kind are the two resulting species? The same as the original? Why cant they breed?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point ? you are using micro-adaptations or micro-evolution as your evidence for macro-evolution ?  typical of an evolutionist since that is the only evidence they have.
> 
> 
> 
> Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.
> 
> _"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."_
> LINK
> 
> "*macroevolution* _The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."_
> 
> [*Macroevolution*] _is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level"._
> 
> "*mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion*
> _noun Biology.
> major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."_​
> Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for you.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6zrpBINJR0]5 questions evolutionists can't answer - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

These questions all have answers, and have SPECIFICALLY BEEN ANSWERED FOR YOU, and are not the least bit of a conundrum except for those instances where they are challenges to assertions that Evolutionists CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE.

OTOH, there is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as they ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE! _*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.

And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.

For a change of pace, why don't you prove me wrong?


----------



## cbirch2

Stop dancing around my question about endogenous retroviruses. 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7OclPDN_s"]Evolution: Genetic Evidence - Endogenous RetroVirus - YouTube[/ame]

You'd have a pretty hard time explaining the hierarchy of ERV's that matches our evolutionary timeline.

You'd have an even harder time explaining why those ERV's are located in the exact same location on the chromosome throughout the hierarchy, considering viruses insert their DNA randomly.

But then again, i suspect your response will be to label genetics pointless and scream "PICS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN!!!!!"


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Stop dancing around my question about endogenous retroviruses.
> 
> Evolution: Genetic Evidence - Endogenous RetroVirus - YouTube
> 
> You'd have a pretty hard time explaining the hierarchy of ERV's that matches our evolutionary timeline.
> 
> You'd have an even harder time explaining why those ERV's are located in the exact same location on the chromosome throughout the hierarchy, considering viruses insert their DNA randomly.
> 
> But then again, i suspect your response will be to label genetics pointless and scream "PICS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN!!!!!"



From Dr. Brown he is a very reasonable creationist more then myself.

Dear Mike, 

This came on the asa net. Do you have an explanation ? 

Hi list, 

Dick Fischer's ORIGIN'S SOLUTION mentions the dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA as a strong lobbyist for common descent. Anybody have any other reasonable explanation? 

(Name withheld)

Hi ,

This is an extremely important question that Creationists have to face. It is exactly the same question that I sought to answer with my research on Pseudogenes. In my talk at Andrews University, I introduced the idea of "Common Mechanism" as an alternative to "Common Descent". I also discussed evidence that shows "Common Mechanism" is being a possible answer to the origin of the many common sequences found in different species. 

The common sequences that have given us problems in the past are sequences that don't seem to have a function for the organism. Common sequences that are easily identified as being functional, can easily be explained as existing because God designed them in the same way. I don't like the term "Common Designer, " because it has connotations of a deficient God who designs different animals in the same way because he is running out of ideas, or because it is too much effort to redesign the different animals. 

A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one. That is what Common Designer means. It takes too much effort not to use what has already be done before. 

The question is, do we want to say the same thing about God? Is God designing the various animals in such a similar fashion because it would be too much effort to completely design a completely different design? Like the rocket designer? 

I don't think so. I think this is our chance to start looking for alternative ideas. Instead of thinking of God as a designer, maybe we should think of Him as an artist (well, maybe both). If we go into a new house, maybe Mexican style, we might expect the whole house to have common features throughout. We would expect to see various artistic themes throughout the whole house. Also we would expect to see various differences in the house that is due to artistic variations of the Mexican themes found in the house. 

I might expect God to have created the Earth in the same way. The animals (and plants) have many common features which I attribute as being artistic themes. Also, all one has to do is to look at a comparative anatomy text book to see the artistic variations of themes God has placed in this world. 

I might expect the same artistic theme aspect of God's creation to be as deep as the very molecules we are made of. This could also include proteins and DNA. 

I introduced this whole issue in my talk at Andrews.

back to the other issue. . . 

The b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is a excellent example of a functionless portion of the genome. Yet the same Pseudogene is found in different species (only 6 differences between human and chimp in the whole sequence!). 

Why are they there? Maybe there is some sort of function. The problem is that function has been sought by many for a number of years. Nothing yet has surfaced. Of course this is an open ended search. Jim Gibson by the way, wrote an article supporting the idea that there must be some purpose that is yet undiscovered. His article is on the internet in the Geoscience web pages. 

The other possibility is that there is no function. That the sequence is what it looks like, defective. Many say that the presence of the b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is very strong evidence for a common ancestor. Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Monkeys (both new and old world), Baboon, etc., all have virtually the same Pseudogene. (However as more species are compared, the differences also increase as well)

In my yet unpublished work, (don't spread my research around yet) I see evidence for the existence of either viral or enzymatic activity that creates mutations. 

So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions. 

If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so. 

The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp. 

Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer. 


Pseudogenes: a description of the problem: Molecular History Research Center


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.
> 
> _"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."_
> LINK
> 
> "*macroevolution* _The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."_
> 
> [*Macroevolution*] _is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level"._
> 
> "*mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion*
> _noun Biology.
> major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."_​
> Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for you.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6zrpBINJR0]5 questions evolutionists can't answer - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These questions all have answers, and have SPECIFICALLY BEEN ANSWERED FOR YOU, and are not the least bit of a conundrum except for those instances where they are challenges to assertions that Evolutionists CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE.
> 
> OTOH, there is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as they ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE! _*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.
> 
> For a change of pace, why don't you prove me wrong?
Click to expand...


Still heavy on the rhetoric and the evidence is lacking.

Name calling is not a very strong way to hide your ignorance.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dancing around my question about endogenous retroviruses.
> 
> Evolution: Genetic Evidence - Endogenous RetroVirus - YouTube
> 
> You'd have a pretty hard time explaining the hierarchy of ERV's that matches our evolutionary timeline.
> 
> You'd have an even harder time explaining why those ERV's are located in the exact same location on the chromosome throughout the hierarchy, considering viruses insert their DNA randomly.
> 
> But then again, i suspect your response will be to label genetics pointless and scream "PICS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN!!!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Dr. Brown he is a very reasonable creationist more then myself.
> 
> Dear Mike,
> 
> This came on the asa net. Do you have an explanation ?
> 
> Hi list,
> 
> Dick Fischer's ORIGIN'S SOLUTION mentions the dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA as a strong lobbyist for common descent. Anybody have any other reasonable explanation?
> 
> (Name withheld)
> 
> Hi ,
> 
> This is an extremely important question that Creationists have to face. It is exactly the same question that I sought to answer with my research on Pseudogenes. In my talk at Andrews University, I introduced the idea of "Common Mechanism" as an alternative to "Common Descent". I also discussed evidence that shows "Common Mechanism" is being a possible answer to the origin of the many common sequences found in different species.
> 
> The common sequences that have given us problems in the past are sequences that don't seem to have a function for the organism. Common sequences that are easily identified as being functional, can easily be explained as existing because God designed them in the same way. I don't like the term "Common Designer, " because it has connotations of a deficient God who designs different animals in the same way because he is running out of ideas, or because it is too much effort to redesign the different animals.
> 
> A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one. That is what Common Designer means. It takes too much effort not to use what has already be done before.
> 
> The question is, do we want to say the same thing about God? Is God designing the various animals in such a similar fashion because it would be too much effort to completely design a completely different design? Like the rocket designer?
> 
> I don't think so. I think this is our chance to start looking for alternative ideas. Instead of thinking of God as a designer, maybe we should think of Him as an artist (well, maybe both). If we go into a new house, maybe Mexican style, we might expect the whole house to have common features throughout. We would expect to see various artistic themes throughout the whole house. Also we would expect to see various differences in the house that is due to artistic variations of the Mexican themes found in the house.
> 
> I might expect God to have created the Earth in the same way. The animals (and plants) have many common features which I attribute as being artistic themes. Also, all one has to do is to look at a comparative anatomy text book to see the artistic variations of themes God has placed in this world.
> 
> I might expect the same artistic theme aspect of God's creation to be as deep as the very molecules we are made of. This could also include proteins and DNA.
> 
> I introduced this whole issue in my talk at Andrews.
> 
> back to the other issue. . .
> 
> The b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is a excellent example of a functionless portion of the genome. Yet the same Pseudogene is found in different species (only 6 differences between human and chimp in the whole sequence!).
> 
> Why are they there? Maybe there is some sort of function. The problem is that function has been sought by many for a number of years. Nothing yet has surfaced. Of course this is an open ended search. Jim Gibson by the way, wrote an article supporting the idea that there must be some purpose that is yet undiscovered. His article is on the internet in the Geoscience web pages.
> 
> The other possibility is that there is no function. That the sequence is what it looks like, defective. Many say that the presence of the b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is very strong evidence for a common ancestor. Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Monkeys (both new and old world), Baboon, etc., all have virtually the same Pseudogene. (However as more species are compared, the differences also increase as well)
> 
> In my yet unpublished work, (don't spread my research around yet) I see evidence for the existence of either viral or enzymatic activity that creates mutations.
> 
> So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions.
> 
> If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.
> 
> The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.
> 
> Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer.
> 
> 
> Pseudogenes: a description of the problem: Molecular History Research Center
Click to expand...


Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection. 

So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?


----------



## Montrovant

cbirch2 said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.
> _"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."_
> LINK
> 
> "*macroevolution* _The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."_
> 
> [*Macroevolution*] _is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level"._
> 
> "*mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion*
> _noun Biology.
> major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."_​Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, do you believe that any amount of information will make that poster less blind, ignorant, or dishonest?  I do not.  A person who wants to give words their own definition because obviously the actual definition proves their point moot is just dishonest.  A person who continually posts crap that has been completely proven false and swears that no one can prove it false, is just dishonest.  A person who lies about their qualifications to try and make their crap look more reasoned when they obviously do not even understand elementary school science, is a fraud and a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your only defense in the face of undeniable evidence is to call the source a liar. Why dont you look up the species yourself, and find the evidence at an unbiased source. No i bet you wont do that because you'd prefer to wallow in your own ignorance.
Click to expand...


I think you are quoting the wrong person here!


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dancing around my question about endogenous retroviruses.
> 
> Evolution: Genetic Evidence - Endogenous RetroVirus - YouTube
> 
> You'd have a pretty hard time explaining the hierarchy of ERV's that matches our evolutionary timeline.
> 
> You'd have an even harder time explaining why those ERV's are located in the exact same location on the chromosome throughout the hierarchy, considering viruses insert their DNA randomly.
> 
> But then again, i suspect your response will be to label genetics pointless and scream "PICS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN!!!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Dr. Brown he is a very reasonable creationist more then myself.
> 
> Dear Mike,
> 
> This came on the asa net. Do you have an explanation ?
> 
> Hi list,
> 
> Dick Fischer's ORIGIN'S SOLUTION mentions the dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA as a strong lobbyist for common descent. Anybody have any other reasonable explanation?
> 
> (Name withheld)
> 
> Hi ,
> 
> This is an extremely important question that Creationists have to face. It is exactly the same question that I sought to answer with my research on Pseudogenes. In my talk at Andrews University, I introduced the idea of "Common Mechanism" as an alternative to "Common Descent". I also discussed evidence that shows "Common Mechanism" is being a possible answer to the origin of the many common sequences found in different species.
> 
> The common sequences that have given us problems in the past are sequences that don't seem to have a function for the organism. Common sequences that are easily identified as being functional, can easily be explained as existing because God designed them in the same way. I don't like the term "Common Designer, " because it has connotations of a deficient God who designs different animals in the same way because he is running out of ideas, or because it is too much effort to redesign the different animals.
> 
> A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one. That is what Common Designer means. It takes too much effort not to use what has already be done before.
> 
> The question is, do we want to say the same thing about God? Is God designing the various animals in such a similar fashion because it would be too much effort to completely design a completely different design? Like the rocket designer?
> 
> I don't think so. I think this is our chance to start looking for alternative ideas. Instead of thinking of God as a designer, maybe we should think of Him as an artist (well, maybe both). If we go into a new house, maybe Mexican style, we might expect the whole house to have common features throughout. We would expect to see various artistic themes throughout the whole house. Also we would expect to see various differences in the house that is due to artistic variations of the Mexican themes found in the house.
> 
> I might expect God to have created the Earth in the same way. The animals (and plants) have many common features which I attribute as being artistic themes. Also, all one has to do is to look at a comparative anatomy text book to see the artistic variations of themes God has placed in this world.
> 
> I might expect the same artistic theme aspect of God's creation to be as deep as the very molecules we are made of. This could also include proteins and DNA.
> 
> I introduced this whole issue in my talk at Andrews.
> 
> back to the other issue. . .
> 
> The b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is a excellent example of a functionless portion of the genome. Yet the same Pseudogene is found in different species (only 6 differences between human and chimp in the whole sequence!).
> 
> Why are they there? Maybe there is some sort of function. The problem is that function has been sought by many for a number of years. Nothing yet has surfaced. Of course this is an open ended search. Jim Gibson by the way, wrote an article supporting the idea that there must be some purpose that is yet undiscovered. His article is on the internet in the Geoscience web pages.
> 
> The other possibility is that there is no function. That the sequence is what it looks like, defective. Many say that the presence of the b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is very strong evidence for a common ancestor. Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Monkeys (both new and old world), Baboon, etc., all have virtually the same Pseudogene. (However as more species are compared, the differences also increase as well)
> 
> In my yet unpublished work, (don't spread my research around yet) I see evidence for the existence of either viral or enzymatic activity that creates mutations.
> 
> So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions.
> 
> If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.
> 
> The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.
> 
> Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer.
> 
> 
> Pseudogenes: a description of the problem: Molecular History Research Center
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection.
> 
> So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?
Click to expand...


What you are talking about proves nothing,yes.


----------



## cbirch2

1. Again, this beneficial information being inserted argument is getting really old. Apparently its impossible for a nucleotide to be inserted into a geneome. Apparently horizontal gene transfer is impossible. Apparently viral infections cant added DNA to a genome.

And apparently mutations cant be beneficial. Only someone that doesnt understand biology would claim that.

2. Transitional fossils, really? This is your argument? The maker of this video considers transitional fossils ones that show a definitive change from one species to another. How could that possibly happen? A dog will not give birth to a cat today, and the same applies to past animals. The problem is that we arent going to find a thousand generations of animal fossils lined up head to vagina.

We still do pretty good though.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. Atoms and quantum mechanics? Not that i expect the author to know anything about this, because i think weve made it clear that you know nothing about my previous major, and shouldnt want to start an argument about this. 

But this argument is just insane. Stop blurring the line between evolution and the big bang, there is a very defined line. Evolution came about almost a century before the big bang. It doesnt make sense to claim that evolution claims everything came from nothing, because it doesnt. Maybe you should just change from arguing against evolution to arguing against science in general, thats pretty much what ur doing.

I cant even keep going. "Evolution happened from an explosion of rocks."

Are you and video author really this fucking dumb?

Do you think that the big bang says a chunk of rock exploded and created life? Do you think evolution deals with the origin of the universe?

Stupidity all around. 

That video demands proof of a version of evolutionary theory that does not exist. 

How exactly does one fossil capture the transition between two species? Wouldnt you need a big group of fossils for that? And then wouldnt you have to somehow admit that those fossils are related. Again, we wont find a thousand generations of animals fossilized head to vagina. Thats a pretty unreasonable amount of proof to request.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for you.
> 
> 5 questions evolutionists can't answer - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> These questions all have answers, and have SPECIFICALLY BEEN ANSWERED FOR YOU, and are not the least bit of a conundrum except for those instances where they are challenges to assertions that Evolutionists CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE.
> 
> OTOH, there is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as they ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE! _*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.
> 
> For a change of pace, why don't you prove me wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still heavy on the rhetoric and the evidence is lacking.
> 
> Name calling is not a very strong way to hide your ignorance.
Click to expand...


Confirmation of another 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory."


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> From Dr. Brown he is a very reasonable creationist more then myself.
> 
> Dear Mike,
> 
> This came on the asa net. Do you have an explanation ?
> 
> Hi list,
> 
> Dick Fischer's ORIGIN'S SOLUTION mentions the dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA as a strong lobbyist for common descent. Anybody have any other reasonable explanation?
> 
> (Name withheld)
> 
> Hi ,
> 
> This is an extremely important question that Creationists have to face. It is exactly the same question that I sought to answer with my research on Pseudogenes. In my talk at Andrews University, I introduced the idea of "Common Mechanism" as an alternative to "Common Descent". I also discussed evidence that shows "Common Mechanism" is being a possible answer to the origin of the many common sequences found in different species.
> 
> The common sequences that have given us problems in the past are sequences that don't seem to have a function for the organism. Common sequences that are easily identified as being functional, can easily be explained as existing because God designed them in the same way. I don't like the term "Common Designer, " because it has connotations of a deficient God who designs different animals in the same way because he is running out of ideas, or because it is too much effort to redesign the different animals.
> 
> A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one. That is what Common Designer means. It takes too much effort not to use what has already be done before.
> 
> The question is, do we want to say the same thing about God? Is God designing the various animals in such a similar fashion because it would be too much effort to completely design a completely different design? Like the rocket designer?
> 
> I don't think so. I think this is our chance to start looking for alternative ideas. Instead of thinking of God as a designer, maybe we should think of Him as an artist (well, maybe both). If we go into a new house, maybe Mexican style, we might expect the whole house to have common features throughout. We would expect to see various artistic themes throughout the whole house. Also we would expect to see various differences in the house that is due to artistic variations of the Mexican themes found in the house.
> 
> I might expect God to have created the Earth in the same way. The animals (and plants) have many common features which I attribute as being artistic themes. Also, all one has to do is to look at a comparative anatomy text book to see the artistic variations of themes God has placed in this world.
> 
> I might expect the same artistic theme aspect of God's creation to be as deep as the very molecules we are made of. This could also include proteins and DNA.
> 
> I introduced this whole issue in my talk at Andrews.
> 
> back to the other issue. . .
> 
> The b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is a excellent example of a functionless portion of the genome. Yet the same Pseudogene is found in different species (only 6 differences between human and chimp in the whole sequence!).
> 
> Why are they there? Maybe there is some sort of function. The problem is that function has been sought by many for a number of years. Nothing yet has surfaced. Of course this is an open ended search. Jim Gibson by the way, wrote an article supporting the idea that there must be some purpose that is yet undiscovered. His article is on the internet in the Geoscience web pages.
> 
> The other possibility is that there is no function. That the sequence is what it looks like, defective. Many say that the presence of the b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is very strong evidence for a common ancestor. Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Monkeys (both new and old world), Baboon, etc., all have virtually the same Pseudogene. (However as more species are compared, the differences also increase as well)
> 
> In my yet unpublished work, (don't spread my research around yet) I see evidence for the existence of either viral or enzymatic activity that creates mutations.
> 
> So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions.
> 
> If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.
> 
> The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.
> 
> Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer.
> 
> 
> Pseudogenes: a description of the problem: Molecular History Research Center
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection.
> 
> So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are talking about proves nothing,yes.
Click to expand...


KK so ERV's dont happen because of viruses? Is it all a coincidence? 

You dont have many options here. 

Either god put the ERV's there to mislead us, which is no better than saying satan planted dinosaur bones. Its a fools argument. 

Or its a result of a viral infection. And if its a result for viral infection, then its a pretty good indicator of relation. Either that, or the infections are all coincidence. And if its all coincidence, you should probably explain why the ERV's are all in the same location since viruses insert their genome randomly. 

You dont get to dismiss evidence just because you wont expend the mental energy to comprehend the argument.


----------



## cbirch2

montrovant said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> furthurbb said:
> 
> 
> 
> really, do you believe that any amount of information will make that poster less blind, ignorant, or dishonest?  I do not.  A person who wants to give words their own definition because obviously the actual definition proves their point moot is just dishonest.  A person who continually posts crap that has been completely proven false and swears that no one can prove it false, is just dishonest.  A person who lies about their qualifications to try and make their crap look more reasoned when they obviously do not even understand elementary school science, is a fraud and a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your only defense in the face of undeniable evidence is to call the source a liar. Why dont you look up the species yourself, and find the evidence at an unbiased source. No i bet you wont do that because you'd prefer to wallow in your own ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think you are quoting the wrong person here!
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dancing around my question about endogenous retroviruses.
> 
> Evolution: Genetic Evidence - Endogenous RetroVirus - YouTube
> 
> You'd have a pretty hard time explaining the hierarchy of ERV's that matches our evolutionary timeline.
> 
> You'd have an even harder time explaining why those ERV's are located in the exact same location on the chromosome throughout the hierarchy, considering viruses insert their DNA randomly.
> 
> But then again, i suspect your response will be to label genetics pointless and scream "PICS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN!!!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Dr. Brown he is a very reasonable creationist more then myself.
> 
> Dear Mike,
> 
> This came on the asa net. Do you have an explanation ?
> 
> Hi list,
> 
> Dick Fischer's ORIGIN'S SOLUTION mentions the dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA as a strong lobbyist for common descent. Anybody have any other reasonable explanation?
> 
> (Name withheld)
> 
> Hi ,
> 
> This is an extremely important question that Creationists have to face. It is exactly the same question that I sought to answer with my research on Pseudogenes. In my talk at Andrews University, I introduced the idea of "Common Mechanism" as an alternative to "Common Descent". I also discussed evidence that shows "Common Mechanism" is being a possible answer to the origin of the many common sequences found in different species.
> 
> The common sequences that have given us problems in the past are sequences that don't seem to have a function for the organism. Common sequences that are easily identified as being functional, can easily be explained as existing because God designed them in the same way. I don't like the term "Common Designer, " because it has connotations of a deficient God who designs different animals in the same way because he is running out of ideas, or because it is too much effort to redesign the different animals.
> 
> A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one. That is what Common Designer means. It takes too much effort not to use what has already be done before.
> 
> The question is, do we want to say the same thing about God? Is God designing the various animals in such a similar fashion because it would be too much effort to completely design a completely different design? Like the rocket designer?
> 
> I don't think so. I think this is our chance to start looking for alternative ideas. Instead of thinking of God as a designer, maybe we should think of Him as an artist (well, maybe both). If we go into a new house, maybe Mexican style, we might expect the whole house to have common features throughout. We would expect to see various artistic themes throughout the whole house. Also we would expect to see various differences in the house that is due to artistic variations of the Mexican themes found in the house.
> 
> I might expect God to have created the Earth in the same way. The animals (and plants) have many common features which I attribute as being artistic themes. Also, all one has to do is to look at a comparative anatomy text book to see the artistic variations of themes God has placed in this world.
> 
> I might expect the same artistic theme aspect of God's creation to be as deep as the very molecules we are made of. This could also include proteins and DNA.
> 
> I introduced this whole issue in my talk at Andrews.
> 
> back to the other issue. . .
> 
> The b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is a excellent example of a functionless portion of the genome. Yet the same Pseudogene is found in different species (only 6 differences between human and chimp in the whole sequence!).
> 
> Why are they there? Maybe there is some sort of function. The problem is that function has been sought by many for a number of years. Nothing yet has surfaced. Of course this is an open ended search. Jim Gibson by the way, wrote an article supporting the idea that there must be some purpose that is yet undiscovered. His article is on the internet in the Geoscience web pages.
> 
> The other possibility is that there is no function. That the sequence is what it looks like, defective. Many say that the presence of the b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is very strong evidence for a common ancestor. Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Monkeys (both new and old world), Baboon, etc., all have virtually the same Pseudogene. (However as more species are compared, the differences also increase as well)
> 
> In my yet unpublished work, (don't spread my research around yet) I see evidence for the existence of either viral or enzymatic activity that creates mutations.
> 
> So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions.
> 
> If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.
> 
> The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.
> 
> Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer.
> 
> 
> Pseudogenes: a description of the problem: Molecular History Research Center
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection.
> 
> So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?
Click to expand...


Look it is this simple, you can take car designers using the same materials with the same sort of performance but look drastically different but suffer from the same problems with the same type of parts.

But a vw bug is not a honda civic and they are not related they just came from similar technology and materials.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> From Dr. Brown he is a very reasonable creationist more then myself.
> 
> Dear Mike,
> 
> This came on the asa net. Do you have an explanation ?
> 
> Hi list,
> 
> Dick Fischer's ORIGIN'S SOLUTION mentions the dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA as a strong lobbyist for common descent. Anybody have any other reasonable explanation?
> 
> (Name withheld)
> 
> Hi ,
> 
> This is an extremely important question that Creationists have to face. It is exactly the same question that I sought to answer with my research on Pseudogenes. In my talk at Andrews University, I introduced the idea of "Common Mechanism" as an alternative to "Common Descent". I also discussed evidence that shows "Common Mechanism" is being a possible answer to the origin of the many common sequences found in different species.
> 
> The common sequences that have given us problems in the past are sequences that don't seem to have a function for the organism. Common sequences that are easily identified as being functional, can easily be explained as existing because God designed them in the same way. I don't like the term "Common Designer, " because it has connotations of a deficient God who designs different animals in the same way because he is running out of ideas, or because it is too much effort to redesign the different animals.
> 
> A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one. That is what Common Designer means. It takes too much effort not to use what has already be done before.
> 
> The question is, do we want to say the same thing about God? Is God designing the various animals in such a similar fashion because it would be too much effort to completely design a completely different design? Like the rocket designer?
> 
> I don't think so. I think this is our chance to start looking for alternative ideas. Instead of thinking of God as a designer, maybe we should think of Him as an artist (well, maybe both). If we go into a new house, maybe Mexican style, we might expect the whole house to have common features throughout. We would expect to see various artistic themes throughout the whole house. Also we would expect to see various differences in the house that is due to artistic variations of the Mexican themes found in the house.
> 
> I might expect God to have created the Earth in the same way. The animals (and plants) have many common features which I attribute as being artistic themes. Also, all one has to do is to look at a comparative anatomy text book to see the artistic variations of themes God has placed in this world.
> 
> I might expect the same artistic theme aspect of God's creation to be as deep as the very molecules we are made of. This could also include proteins and DNA.
> 
> I introduced this whole issue in my talk at Andrews.
> 
> back to the other issue. . .
> 
> The b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is a excellent example of a functionless portion of the genome. Yet the same Pseudogene is found in different species (only 6 differences between human and chimp in the whole sequence!).
> 
> Why are they there? Maybe there is some sort of function. The problem is that function has been sought by many for a number of years. Nothing yet has surfaced. Of course this is an open ended search. Jim Gibson by the way, wrote an article supporting the idea that there must be some purpose that is yet undiscovered. His article is on the internet in the Geoscience web pages.
> 
> The other possibility is that there is no function. That the sequence is what it looks like, defective. Many say that the presence of the b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is very strong evidence for a common ancestor. Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Monkeys (both new and old world), Baboon, etc., all have virtually the same Pseudogene. (However as more species are compared, the differences also increase as well)
> 
> In my yet unpublished work, (don't spread my research around yet) I see evidence for the existence of either viral or enzymatic activity that creates mutations.
> 
> So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions.
> 
> If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.
> 
> The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.
> 
> Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer.
> 
> 
> Pseudogenes: a description of the problem: Molecular History Research Center
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection.
> 
> So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look it is this simple, you can take car designers using the same materials with the same sort of performance but look drastically different but suffer from the same problems with the same type of parts.
> 
> But a vw bug is not a honda civic and they are not related they just came from similar technology and materials.
Click to expand...


Ok so your argument is that god just put the ERV's in our genome to fuck with us?

Great to know. 

Idiocy.

You get what an ERV is right? Its not our DNA (well i supposed it is now), but it is not DNA that serves a function in a human. Its viral DNA left behind from previous infections.

Basically your just saying you dont know what ERV's are.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection.
> 
> So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are talking about proves nothing,yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> KK so ERV's dont happen because of viruses? Is it all a coincidence?
> 
> You dont have many options here.
> 
> Either god put the ERV's there to mislead us, which is no better than saying satan planted dinosaur bones. Its a fools argument.
> 
> Or its a result of a viral infection. And if its a result for viral infection, then its a pretty good indicator of relation. Either that, or the infections are all coincidence. And if its all coincidence, you should probably explain why the ERV's are all in the same location since viruses insert their genome randomly.
> 
> You dont get to dismiss evidence just because you wont expend the mental energy to comprehend the argument.
Click to expand...


Here is your debate.

Similarities in anatomy and DNA sequences simply reflect the fact that the organisms had the same designer.

http://creationwiki.org/Similarities_in_DNA_and_anatomy_are_due_to_common_design_(Talk.Origins)


Here is another rebuttal.


Abstract

Retroviruses that are not normally present in healthy hosts are called exogenous viruses, while DNA sequences in cellular genomes that are homologous to retroviruses are called endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). While the belief that all ERVs are remnants of germline infection seems logical, there are also facts against the endogenization theory, such as xenotropic ERVs and essentiality of some ERVs in host physiology. Syncytins, products of the env gene of HERV-W and HERV-FRD, contribute to human placenta development. Similar genes are also found in mouse and sheep. Indeed, the sheep ERV genes have been shown essential for sheep reproduction. Furthermore, regulation of the human syncytin-1 gene involves a complex regulation network including both viral and host factors. Conclusion: While intact ERVs with positional polymorphism are likely germline copies of exogenous viruses, ERVs with fixed locations and conserved beneficial genes may have been incorporated into the host genome at the time of creation. Exogenous retroviruses may have been created to help the ERVs and to transfer useful genes between hosts


Were Retroviruses Created Good? - Answers in Genesis


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection.
> 
> So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look it is this simple, you can take car designers using the same materials with the same sort of performance but look drastically different but suffer from the same problems with the same type of parts.
> 
> But a vw bug is not a honda civic and they are not related they just came from similar technology and materials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok so your argument is that god just put the ERV's in our genome to fuck with us?
> 
> Great to know.
> 
> Idiocy.
> 
> You get what an ERV is right? Its not our DNA (well i supposed it is now), but it is not DNA that serves a function in a human. Its viral DNA left behind from previous infections.
> 
> Basically your just saying you dont know what ERV's are.
Click to expand...


Not what i am saying.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look it is this simple, you can take car designers using the same materials with the same sort of performance but look drastically different but suffer from the same problems with the same type of parts.
> 
> But a vw bug is not a honda civic and they are not related they just came from similar technology and materials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so your argument is that god just put the ERV's in our genome to fuck with us?
> 
> Great to know.
> 
> Idiocy.
> 
> You get what an ERV is right? Its not our DNA (well i supposed it is now), but it is not DNA that serves a function in a human. Its viral DNA left behind from previous infections.
> 
> Basically your just saying you dont know what ERV's are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what i am saying.
Click to expand...


No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections. 

Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.

Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so your argument is that god just put the ERV's in our genome to fuck with us?
> 
> Great to know.
> 
> Idiocy.
> 
> You get what an ERV is right? Its not our DNA (well i supposed it is now), but it is not DNA that serves a function in a human. Its viral DNA left behind from previous infections.
> 
> Basically your just saying you dont know what ERV's are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what i am saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.
> 
> Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.
> 
> Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.
Click to expand...


A retard with a degree in molecular biology  what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so your argument is that god just put the ERV's in our genome to fuck with us?
> 
> Great to know.
> 
> Idiocy.
> 
> You get what an ERV is right? Its not our DNA (well i supposed it is now), but it is not DNA that serves a function in a human. Its viral DNA left behind from previous infections.
> 
> Basically your just saying you dont know what ERV's are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what i am saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.
> 
> Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.
> 
> Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.
Click to expand...


Have you come up with a viable explanation of how non-life brought life into existence ?  have come up with a viable explanation as to how non-intelligence created intelligence ?   can you come up with a viable explanation as to how this planet is so unique that it gives the impression of intentional creation to sustain life. do you believe it was just coincidence ?


----------



## Photonic

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what i am saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.
> 
> Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.
> 
> Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A retard with a degree in molecular biology  what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.
Click to expand...


You are not a microbiologist, this is abundantly clear to everyone. If you are, you are not an accredited one.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Have you come up with a viable explanation of how non-life brought life into existence ?


Yes. Provided every time you asked with intellectually valid support.

Have you? No. Not one intellectually valid explanation. Not one.



Youwerecreated said:


> have come up with a viable explanation as to how non-intelligence created intelligence ?


Yes. Provided every time you asked with intellectually valid support.

Have you? No. Not one intellectually valid explanation. Not one.



Youwerecreated said:


> can you come up with a viable explanation as to how this planet is so unique that it gives the impression of intentional creation to sustain life.


Yes. Provided every time you asked with intellectually valid support.

Have you? No. Not one intellectually valid explanation. Not one.



Youwerecreated said:


> do you believe it was just coincidence ?


Considering the valid and verifiable evidence, "coincidence" is a better explanation than this WHOLLY IMAGINARY "God" of yours.


----------



## LOki

Photonic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.
> 
> Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.
> 
> Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A retard with a degree in molecular biology  what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a microbiologist, this is abundantly clear to everyone. If you are, you are not an accredited one.
Click to expand...

*"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Photonic again."​*


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not arrogance,just confidence that there is only one creator and his name is YAHWEH.
> 
> 
> 
> are you Jewish or Israeli? that's the name they gave to god....if your anything else you're plagiarizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No but YAHWEH is Jesus.
Click to expand...








The name Jesus (which in the Hebrew is Yeshua, or perhaps Yehoshua, and equivalent to the English name Joshua) means "The salvation of Yahweh"
Actually Yahweh is just a scholarly assumption for the pronunciation of the name of God which was revealed to Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3:14), and recorded in Hebrew by 4 Hebrew letters (referred to by scholars as the tretragrameton, meaning simply 'four letters'), and translated in most versions by the phrase "I am that I am", or "I am who I am", which is God's way of saying to us that He is the self-existent One, the One who is uncreated and self-sustained; namely, that He is GOD!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post #2334.  You did not quote me and some other poster to whom you were responding, you quoted only me (and yourself).
> 
> Your signature is a silly oversimplification, but I'm sure you know that.
> 
> You didn't just say some things in the bible can be confirmed by science, you said the bible can be confirmed by science.  That is obviously ridiculous.  Walking on water, a serpent talking, water into wine, living inside a whale, etc. etc. etc....there are many things in the bible that cannot be confirmed by science and often go against the observed rules of the natural world.  You believe they are possible through god, and that is fine; when you claim they are confirmed by science, you are lying.
> 
> If I pull some quotes from other holy books of things that can be confirmed by science, does that make those books confirmed by science?
> 
> Of course, many of the scripture quotes you bring up as being confirmed by science are nothing of the sort, as has been pointed out to you by many posters.  At best, your interpretation of those quotes conforms with scientific knowledge.  That interpretation is neither universally held nor, in many cases, clear to anyone who does not already agree with you.  Some of the connections you make strain the bonds of credulity to breaking.
> 
> I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and shoehorn this book of faith into modern scientific knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> I think I do, fundamentalists like many "believers" have somehow deluded themselves in to the idea that our species is Superior and separate from all others on this planet.
> that's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are at the top of the food chain.
Click to expand...

that statement does not answer the question "Superior and separate" 
and it's only partially  true,  until very recently in our evolution, we were not the top predators on the planet .
from most of that time(100.000 years) we were prey.
even with the invention of weapons ,spears, bows etc.. we were still just barely holding our own.
it wasn't until gun power was invented (around 800 AD by the Chinese) that the balance was tipped, but only in certain parts of the world.
in this country it wasn't until the late 19th century that people entering the woods or other wild places could be fairly sure that they would not be attacked  by other predators.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> From Dr. Brown he is a very reasonable creationist more then myself.
> 
> Dear Mike,
> 
> This came on the asa net. Do you have an explanation ?
> 
> Hi list,
> 
> Dick Fischer's ORIGIN'S SOLUTION mentions the dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA as a strong lobbyist for common descent. Anybody have any other reasonable explanation?
> 
> (Name withheld)
> 
> Hi ,
> 
> This is an extremely important question that Creationists have to face. It is exactly the same question that I sought to answer with my research on Pseudogenes. In my talk at Andrews University, I introduced the idea of "Common Mechanism" as an alternative to "Common Descent". I also discussed evidence that shows "Common Mechanism" is being a possible answer to the origin of the many common sequences found in different species.
> 
> The common sequences that have given us problems in the past are sequences that don't seem to have a function for the organism. Common sequences that are easily identified as being functional, can easily be explained as existing because God designed them in the same way. I don't like the term "Common Designer, " because it has connotations of a deficient God who designs different animals in the same way because he is running out of ideas, or because it is too much effort to redesign the different animals.
> 
> A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one. That is what Common Designer means. It takes too much effort not to use what has already be done before.
> 
> The question is, do we want to say the same thing about God? Is God designing the various animals in such a similar fashion because it would be too much effort to completely design a completely different design? Like the rocket designer?
> 
> I don't think so. I think this is our chance to start looking for alternative ideas. Instead of thinking of God as a designer, maybe we should think of Him as an artist (well, maybe both). If we go into a new house, maybe Mexican style, we might expect the whole house to have common features throughout. We would expect to see various artistic themes throughout the whole house. Also we would expect to see various differences in the house that is due to artistic variations of the Mexican themes found in the house.
> 
> I might expect God to have created the Earth in the same way. The animals (and plants) have many common features which I attribute as being artistic themes. Also, all one has to do is to look at a comparative anatomy text book to see the artistic variations of themes God has placed in this world.
> 
> I might expect the same artistic theme aspect of God's creation to be as deep as the very molecules we are made of. This could also include proteins and DNA.
> 
> I introduced this whole issue in my talk at Andrews.
> 
> back to the other issue. . .
> 
> The b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is a excellent example of a functionless portion of the genome. Yet the same Pseudogene is found in different species (only 6 differences between human and chimp in the whole sequence!).
> 
> Why are they there? Maybe there is some sort of function. The problem is that function has been sought by many for a number of years. Nothing yet has surfaced. Of course this is an open ended search. Jim Gibson by the way, wrote an article supporting the idea that there must be some purpose that is yet undiscovered. His article is on the internet in the Geoscience web pages.
> 
> The other possibility is that there is no function. That the sequence is what it looks like, defective. Many say that the presence of the b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is very strong evidence for a common ancestor. Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Monkeys (both new and old world), Baboon, etc., all have virtually the same Pseudogene. (However as more species are compared, the differences also increase as well)
> 
> In my yet unpublished work, (don't spread my research around yet) I see evidence for the existence of either viral or enzymatic activity that creates mutations.
> 
> So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions.
> 
> If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.
> 
> The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.
> 
> Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer.
> 
> 
> Pseudogenes: a description of the problem: Molecular History Research Center
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection.
> 
> So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are talking about proves nothing,yes.
Click to expand...

 it proves without doubt that you YWC are dodging.
put your big boy pants on and answer the question.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> From Dr. Brown he is a very reasonable creationist more then myself.
> 
> Dear Mike,
> 
> This came on the asa net. Do you have an explanation ?
> 
> Hi list,
> 
> Dick Fischer's ORIGIN'S SOLUTION mentions the dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA as a strong lobbyist for common descent. Anybody have any other reasonable explanation?
> 
> (Name withheld)
> 
> Hi ,
> 
> This is an extremely important question that Creationists have to face. It is exactly the same question that I sought to answer with my research on Pseudogenes. In my talk at Andrews University, I introduced the idea of "Common Mechanism" as an alternative to "Common Descent". I also discussed evidence that shows "Common Mechanism" is being a possible answer to the origin of the many common sequences found in different species.
> 
> The common sequences that have given us problems in the past are sequences that don't seem to have a function for the organism. Common sequences that are easily identified as being functional, can easily be explained as existing because God designed them in the same way. I don't like the term "Common Designer, " because it has connotations of a deficient God who designs different animals in the same way because he is running out of ideas, or because it is too much effort to redesign the different animals.
> 
> A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one. That is what Common Designer means. It takes too much effort not to use what has already be done before.
> 
> The question is, do we want to say the same thing about God? Is God designing the various animals in such a similar fashion because it would be too much effort to completely design a completely different design? Like the rocket designer?
> 
> I don't think so. I think this is our chance to start looking for alternative ideas. Instead of thinking of God as a designer, maybe we should think of Him as an artist (well, maybe both). If we go into a new house, maybe Mexican style, we might expect the whole house to have common features throughout. We would expect to see various artistic themes throughout the whole house. Also we would expect to see various differences in the house that is due to artistic variations of the Mexican themes found in the house.
> 
> I might expect God to have created the Earth in the same way. The animals (and plants) have many common features which I attribute as being artistic themes. Also, all one has to do is to look at a comparative anatomy text book to see the artistic variations of themes God has placed in this world.
> 
> I might expect the same artistic theme aspect of God's creation to be as deep as the very molecules we are made of. This could also include proteins and DNA.
> 
> I introduced this whole issue in my talk at Andrews.
> 
> back to the other issue. . .
> 
> The b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is a excellent example of a functionless portion of the genome. Yet the same Pseudogene is found in different species (only 6 differences between human and chimp in the whole sequence!).
> 
> Why are they there? Maybe there is some sort of function. The problem is that function has been sought by many for a number of years. Nothing yet has surfaced. Of course this is an open ended search. Jim Gibson by the way, wrote an article supporting the idea that there must be some purpose that is yet undiscovered. His article is on the internet in the Geoscience web pages.
> 
> The other possibility is that there is no function. That the sequence is what it looks like, defective. Many say that the presence of the b-hemoglobin Pseudogene is very strong evidence for a common ancestor. Human, Chimp, Gorilla, Monkeys (both new and old world), Baboon, etc., all have virtually the same Pseudogene. (However as more species are compared, the differences also increase as well)
> 
> In my yet unpublished work, (don't spread my research around yet) I see evidence for the existence of either viral or enzymatic activity that creates mutations.
> 
> So I think there is a mechanistic process that has produced many of the Pseudogenes that we have, rather than a random process. If the Pseudogene is truly defective and if the mutations are truly found in patterns (not random), then the idea that it's a common mechanism is possible. Viruses have enzymes that, under the same conditions, do repeatable reactions.
> 
> If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.
> 
> The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.
> 
> Common descent or common Ancestor is not the only answer.
> 
> 
> Pseudogenes: a description of the problem: Molecular History Research Center
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not talking about Pseudogenes. Im talking about insertions of viral DNA that occur during an infection.
> 
> So your basically just denying the entire concept of viruses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look it is this simple, you can take car designers using the same materials with the same sort of performance but look drastically different but suffer from the same problems with the same type of parts.
> 
> But a vw bug is not a honda civic and they are not related they just came from similar technology and materials.
Click to expand...

 hey major dumbass if the parts are the same even though the body may look different the basic design,  I.E. THE FRAME AND WEELS ARE IN THE SAME PLACE, THE ENGINES PERFORM THE SAME FUCTION, ARE  NO DIFFERENT.
THEY ARE THE SAME IN FUCTIONALITY  AND ARE RELATED ON A MUCH MORE FUNDIMENTAL LEVEL THE THE COSMETICS OF THE THE BODY STYLE.
THEY ARE BOTH CARS!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what i am saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.
> 
> Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.
> 
> Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A retard with a degree in molecular biology  what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.
Click to expand...

YOU KEEP SAYING YOU HAVE A molecular biology DEGREE! SHOW US IT AND THE SCHOOL YOU GOT IT FROM 
i'll wait.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what i am saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.
> 
> Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.
> 
> Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A retard with a degree in molecular biology  what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.
Click to expand...


Lol you with a degree. LMAO. The most education you've ever had when it comes to molecular biology was my overview of organic molecules. I have been your teacher, and you my student. Thank me for bestowing intelligence upon you, although you might not have received it well. 

And i keep pointing this next point out to you, and you cant seem to get it. Maybe im a bad teacher.....

There is a vast difference between my insults and your insults. Yours come when you have nothing to say, mine come complimented by facts that youre unable to explain. 

Every time you use a phrase like "you cant debate without insulting", your trying to avoid an indisputable fact that ive presented. Im not going to let you ignore them.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what i am saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.
> 
> Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.
> 
> Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you come up with a viable explanation of how non-life brought life into existence ?  have come up with a viable explanation as to how non-intelligence created intelligence ?   can you come up with a viable explanation as to how this planet is so unique that it gives the impression of intentional creation to sustain life. do you believe it was just coincidence ?
Click to expand...


Lol tell me where your god came from. 

Ill wait. 

Your argument suffers from the same logical fallacy as mine, you just hide yours behind bullshit. I just try to get at the solution through evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Photonic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.
> 
> Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.
> 
> Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A retard with a degree in molecular biology  what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a microbiologist, this is abundantly clear to everyone. If you are, you are not an accredited one.
Click to expand...


A degree from the University of Arizona,yes it is an accredited school you think ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.
> 
> Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.
> 
> Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you come up with a viable explanation of how non-life brought life into existence ?  have come up with a viable explanation as to how non-intelligence created intelligence ?   can you come up with a viable explanation as to how this planet is so unique that it gives the impression of intentional creation to sustain life. do you believe it was just coincidence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol tell me where your god came from.
> 
> Ill wait.
> 
> Your argument suffers from the same logical fallacy as mine, you just hide yours behind bullshit. I just try to get at the solution through evidence.
Click to expand...


Yes there are many questions about my God I cannot answer.

My God defies logic according to mans understanding. The proof is no one has a viable explanation to how my God created everything we see.

Man is not even close to understanding how life began. How it can adapt,he can only assume through imagination.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do have opinions. That does not mean I can't be wrong just as man has been wrong many times.


----------



## cbirch2

And i would think anyone truly thought about the spectrum life (and understood its composition) would understand that it is complex but it is just matter none the same. 

Think about a person, pretty complicated right? Its Eukaryote, it has complex cells with nuclei. And its multicellular, its cells must act in concert with each other. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Well what about a single yeast cell? Still pretty complicated, but not multicellular. Its still a eukaryote (as is the human), it has a pretty complex set of cellular machinery to do things like glycolysis and protein synthesis. It has membrane bound compartments and its DNA is wrapped into chromosomes and bound in the nucleus. Pretty complex for such a small cell!





How about a simple bacterial cell? Well its much simpler. it doesnt have complex chemical machinery confined in neat compartments like a eukaryotic cell does. It doesnt have a nucleus. its still fairly complicated. It has a cell membrane, but thats the only membrane. Its DNA is a free floating ring floating within the cells cytoplasm. All of the cells reactions take place in the cytoplasm. Its magnitudes simpler than a eukaryote, but still could be considered very complex. 




How about a virus? No metabolism, no organelles. Its just a genome, and a protein capsid surrounding the genome. The capsid is just a repeated sequence of capsomeres, which are coded for by the genome they surround, and are created with the replication of the genome during infection and replication. So a virus is simply as complicated as its genome. A virus is fairly simple. Maybe you would call it complex, but i wouldnt.




What about a viroid? If a virus is simple, a viroid must be simpler. It doesnt have the complex niceties like a protein coat or spikes. Its just a strand of DNA that causes problems when its inside other cells. 





So a viroid is just DNA. Is DNA that complex? No, its just nucleotides. Nucleotides are just carbon, with some functional groups like carboxyl attached. 





Where do you draw the line? Where does life start, and where does life end?

*Which part of life isnt ultimately controlled by biochemistry?*


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A retard with a degree in molecular biology  what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a microbiologist, this is abundantly clear to everyone. If you are, you are not an accredited one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A degree from the University of Arizona,yes it is an accredited school you think ?
Click to expand...


Lol

No one here believes you have a degree in molecular biology. You dont even correctly understand DNA.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Photonic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.
> 
> Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.
> 
> Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A retard with a degree in molecular biology  what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a microbiologist, this is abundantly clear to everyone. If you are, you are not an accredited one.
Click to expand...


You claimed to hold a degree once,what field was that degree in ? and is it an accredited school ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> And i would think anyone truly thought about the spectrum life (and understood its composition) would understand that it is complex but it is just matter none the same.
> 
> Think about a person, pretty complicated right? Its Eukaryote, it has complex cells with nuclei. And its multicellular, its cells must act in concert with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well what about a single yeast cell? Still pretty complicated, but not multicellular. Its still a eukaryote (as is the human), it has a pretty complex set of cellular machinery to do things like glycolysis and protein synthesis. It has membrane bound compartments and its DNA is wrapped into chromosomes and bound in the nucleus. Pretty complex for such a small cell!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a simple bacterial cell? Well its much simpler. it doesnt have complex chemical machinery confined in neat compartments like a eukaryotic cell does. It doesnt have a nucleus. its still fairly complicated. It has a cell membrane, but thats the only membrane. Its DNA is a free floating ring floating within the cells cytoplasm. All of the cells reactions take place in the cytoplasm. Its magnitudes simpler than a eukaryote, but still could be considered very complex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a virus? No metabolism, no organelles. Its just a genome, and a protein capsid surrounding the genome. The capsid is just a repeated sequence of capsomeres, which are coded for by the genome they surround, and are created with the replication of the genome during infection and replication. So a virus is simply as complicated as its genome. A virus is fairly simple. Maybe you would call it complex, but i wouldnt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about a viroid? If a virus is simple, a viroid must be simpler. It doesnt have the complex niceties like a protein coat or spikes. Its just a strand of DNA that causes problems when its inside other cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a viroid is just DNA. Is DNA that complex? No, its just nucleotides. Nucleotides are just carbon, with some functional groups like carboxyl attached.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you draw the line? Where does life start, and where does life end?
> 
> *Which part of life isnt ultimately controlled by biochemistry?*



You have just made a great argument for design. Those things could not have possibly created themselves no matter how much imagination is used in trying to explain it.

Have you ever heard the creator is greater then the creation? now imagine God.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And i would think anyone truly thought about the spectrum life (and understood its composition) would understand that it is complex but it is just matter none the same.
> 
> Think about a person, pretty complicated right? Its Eukaryote, it has complex cells with nuclei. And its multicellular, its cells must act in concert with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well what about a single yeast cell? Still pretty complicated, but not multicellular. Its still a eukaryote (as is the human), it has a pretty complex set of cellular machinery to do things like glycolysis and protein synthesis. It has membrane bound compartments and its DNA is wrapped into chromosomes and bound in the nucleus. Pretty complex for such a small cell!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a simple bacterial cell? Well its much simpler. it doesnt have complex chemical machinery confined in neat compartments like a eukaryotic cell does. It doesnt have a nucleus. its still fairly complicated. It has a cell membrane, but thats the only membrane. Its DNA is a free floating ring floating within the cells cytoplasm. All of the cells reactions take place in the cytoplasm. Its magnitudes simpler than a eukaryote, but still could be considered very complex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a virus? No metabolism, no organelles. Its just a genome, and a protein capsid surrounding the genome. The capsid is just a repeated sequence of capsomeres, which are coded for by the genome they surround, and are created with the replication of the genome during infection and replication. So a virus is simply as complicated as its genome. A virus is fairly simple. Maybe you would call it complex, but i wouldnt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about a viroid? If a virus is simple, a viroid must be simpler. It doesnt have the complex niceties like a protein coat or spikes. Its just a strand of DNA that causes problems when its inside other cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a viroid is just DNA. Is DNA that complex? No, its just nucleotides. Nucleotides are just carbon, with some functional groups like carboxyl attached.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you draw the line? Where does life start, and where does life end?
> 
> *Which part of life isnt ultimately controlled by biochemistry?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have just made a great argument for design. Those things could not have possibly created themselves no matter how much imagination is used in trying to explain it.
> 
> Have you ever heard the creator is greater then the creation? now imagine God.
Click to expand...


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And i would think anyone truly thought about the spectrum life (and understood its composition) would understand that it is complex but it is just matter none the same.
> 
> Think about a person, pretty complicated right? Its Eukaryote, it has complex cells with nuclei. And its multicellular, its cells must act in concert with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well what about a single yeast cell? Still pretty complicated, but not multicellular. Its still a eukaryote (as is the human), it has a pretty complex set of cellular machinery to do things like glycolysis and protein synthesis. It has membrane bound compartments and its DNA is wrapped into chromosomes and bound in the nucleus. Pretty complex for such a small cell!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a simple bacterial cell? Well its much simpler. it doesnt have complex chemical machinery confined in neat compartments like a eukaryotic cell does. It doesnt have a nucleus. its still fairly complicated. It has a cell membrane, but thats the only membrane. Its DNA is a free floating ring floating within the cells cytoplasm. All of the cells reactions take place in the cytoplasm. Its magnitudes simpler than a eukaryote, but still could be considered very complex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a virus? No metabolism, no organelles. Its just a genome, and a protein capsid surrounding the genome. The capsid is just a repeated sequence of capsomeres, which are coded for by the genome they surround, and are created with the replication of the genome during infection and replication. So a virus is simply as complicated as its genome. A virus is fairly simple. Maybe you would call it complex, but i wouldnt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about a viroid? If a virus is simple, a viroid must be simpler. It doesnt have the complex niceties like a protein coat or spikes. Its just a strand of DNA that causes problems when its inside other cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a viroid is just DNA. Is DNA that complex? No, its just nucleotides. Nucleotides are just carbon, with some functional groups like carboxyl attached.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you draw the line? Where does life start, and where does life end?
> 
> *Which part of life isnt ultimately controlled by biochemistry?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have just made a great argument for design.
Click to expand...

No.



Youwerecreated said:


> things could not have possibly created themselves no matter how much imagination is used in trying to explain it..


*NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THEY CREATED THEMSELVES ... NO MATTER HOW MUCH IMAGINATION YOU USE TO SAY OTHERWISE!*

How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?  ANSWER: You're a fraud.

Why, *WHY, WHY* do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they *CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?* ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.



Youwerecreated said:


> Have you ever heard the creator is greater then the creation?


What "Creator"? Have you ever heard of using valid, verifiable evidence and valid logic to support your case?_*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.



Youwerecreated said:


> now imagine God.


*AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS!* Youwerecreated's very candid admission that this "God" of his must be imagined; is actually *IMAGINARY!*


----------



## daws101




----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a microbiologist, this is abundantly clear to everyone. If you are, you are not an accredited one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A degree from the University of Arizona,yes it is an accredited school you think ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> No one here believes you have a degree in molecular biology. You dont even correctly understand DNA.
Click to expand...


Sure I do, I just don't go along with the brainwashing any longer. I have presented the paradigm I support and refuted your claims of mutations but yet you still doubt.

Look I will do it again for you.

Micro-adaptations always produce the same kind of plant or animal.

Micro-adaptations are the result of the sorting or the loss of genetic information. Because of the loss of genetic information adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools. Call it gene depletion.

When you breed things you breed gentic information out that is why purebreeds have weaker genetic pools because the loss of information and that is why the gene pool of the mutt is stronger because it's a much bigger gene pool and less of a loss of information.

Increasing new & beneficial genetic information scientists know of no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool. It's only fantasy to suggest otherwise. 

If your side was correct they should be able to point to millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information being added to the the gene pool so far they only point to antibiotic resistent bacteria and a few others while there are over 4,500 genetic diseases and disorders from mutations.

Three false assumptions by macro-evolutionist.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.

2. Natural selection lets the mutant gene take over the population.

3. Large spans of time millions of years.

After all observed mutations that cause change , They're caused by the sorting or loss of the pre-existing genetic information,once again call it gene depletion. So gene pools get weaker and weaker until they are removed by natural selection. By the way no mutation can take over a gene pool which makes for a problem for macro-evolution. Because according to your theory the mutations must spread through the populations.

Natural selection removes weaker gene pools and preserves the stronger and origional creation of God. That is why left alone species going through micro-adaptations will return to the origional. Just like the finches in the galapagos islands.

Your textbook teaches that natural selection causes macro-evolution, that is a lie. Natural selection is what prevents macro-evolution from being possible because it eliminates the weaker gene pools from adaptations and mutations because the loss of the origional information.

That is why the short beak finches were dying off but once the drought was over they made a comeback and thrived.

Here is the proper theory.

DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural selection = No macro-evolution.

I hope you got it this time.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> No one here believes you have a degree in molecular biology. You dont even correctly understand DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do, I just don't go along with the brainwashing any longer. I have presented the paradigm I support and refuted your claims of mutations but yet you still doubt.
Click to expand...

Denial is not the same thing as "refuted." You lose again.



Youwerecreated said:


> Look I will do it again for you.


Let's see if you bring ANY intellectually valid stroke to your demonstration.



Youwerecreated said:


> Micro-adaptations always produce the same kind of plant or animal.


Not in contention.



Youwerecreated said:


> Micro-adaptations are the result of the sorting or the loss of genetic information.


Not in contention.



Youwerecreated said:


> Because of the loss of genetic information adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools.


If "the loss of genetic information" NECESSARILY means "weaker and weaker gene pools," how do you explain the STRENGTH of contemporary gene pools after the NECESSARILY catastrophic "loss of genetic information" caused by reducing EVERY species gene pool to that of a single mating pair less than 10k years ago as described in your Creation Myth?

If that genetic bottleneck had ACTUALLY occurred, then every member of every species would be so nearly identical genetically to their respective fellows that the differentiation currently observed would be INEXPLICABLE! There'd be no "races" of human beings, no different "breeds" of dogs, no different "kinds" of cats.



Youwerecreated said:


> Call it gene depletion.


No. No genes are depleted, otherwise it's mutation.



Youwerecreated said:


> When you breed things you breed gentic information out that is why purebreeds have weaker genetic pools because the loss of information and that is why the gene pool of the mutt is stronger because it's a much bigger gene pool and less of a loss of information.


Mutts and purebreds share the exact same genepool. There my be homogeneity (call it loss if you must) of information within the breed, but there is NO LOSS of information from the species' genepool.



Youwerecreated said:


> Increasing new & beneficial genetic information scientists know of no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.


Mutation does.



Youwerecreated said:


> It's only fantasy to suggest otherwise.


It's a denial of reality to assert that the accumulation of mutations over time simply CANNOT  add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.



Youwerecreated said:


> If your side was correct they should be able to point to millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information being added to the the gene pool so far they only point to antibiotic resistent bacteria and a few others while there are over 4,500 genetic diseases and disorders from mutations.


In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.



Youwerecreated said:


> Three false assumptions by macro-evolutionist.
> 
> 1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.


Thoroughly refuted repeatedly.



Youwerecreated said:


> 2. Natural selection lets the mutant gene take over the population.


Thoroughly consistent with valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.



Youwerecreated said:


> 3. Large spans of time millions of years.


Thoroughly supported by valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.

So. NO FALSE ASSUMPTIONS THERE.

Let's look at Creationism's false assumptions, shall we?

*There is a "Creator" or "Designer."​*
Until you surmount that *inexplicable* assumption Youwerecreated, your explanations have NO INTELLECTUAL VALIDITY. *NONE!*



Youwerecreated said:


> After all observed mutations that cause change , They're caused by the sorting or loss of the pre-existing genetic information,once again call it gene depletion.


No. It's an INCREASE IN DIVERSITY.



Youwerecreated said:


> So gene pools get weaker and weaker until they are removed by natural selection.


If weaknesses are lost, and strength is retained, how is the gene pool "weakened"?

ANSWER: It is obviously not weakened.



Youwerecreated said:


> By the way no mutation can take over a gene pool which makes for a problem for macro-evolution.


It wouldn't be a problem even if this were true.



Youwerecreated said:


> Because according to your theory the mutations must spread through the populations.


How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology? 

ANSWER: You're a fraud.



Youwerecreated said:


> Natural selection removes weaker gene pools and preserves the stronger and origional creation of God.


1. What "God"?

2. Evolutionary Theory does NOT say that natural selection removes weaker gene pools.

Why, *WHY, WHY* do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they *CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?*

ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.



Youwerecreated said:


> That is why left alone species going through micro-adaptations will return to the origional. Just like the finches in the galapagos islands.


Except that they WERE left alone, and they DIDN'T "return to the original." (whatever the fuck that might be)



Youwerecreated said:


> Your textbook teaches that natural selection causes macro-evolution, that is a lie.


No. You say that Evolution says natural selection causes macro-evolution; and that is a lie.

How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.



Youwerecreated said:


> Natural selection is what prevents macro-evolution from being possible because it eliminates the weaker gene pools from adaptations and mutations because the loss of the origional information.


Absolutely wrong.

How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

Why, *WHY, WHY* do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they *CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?*

ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.



Youwerecreated said:


> That is why the short beak finches were dying off but once the drought was over they made a comeback and thrived.


None of which is inconsistent with Evolutionary Theory.



Youwerecreated said:


> Here is the proper theory.


This will prove to be rich.



Youwerecreated said:


> DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural selection = No macro-evolution.
> 
> I hope you got it this time.


 No one is surprised in the least that:

Youwerecreated's Magical DNA code barrier + Youwerecreated's nonsensical notions of Gene depletion + Youwerecreated's fundamental misunderstanding of Natural selection = No macro-evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> No one here believes you have a degree in molecular biology. You dont even correctly understand DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do, I just don't go along with the brainwashing any longer. I have presented the paradigm I support and refuted your claims of mutations but yet you still doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Denial is not the same thing as "refuted." You lose again.
> 
> Let's see if you bring ANY intellectually valid stroke to your demonstration.
> 
> Not in contention.
> 
> Not in contention.
> 
> If "the loss of genetic information" NECESSARILY means "weaker and weaker gene pools," how do you explain the STRENGTH of contemporary gene pools after the NECESSARILY catastrophic "loss of genetic information" caused by reducing EVERY species gene pool to that of a single mating pair less than 10k years ago as described in your Creation Myth?
> 
> If that genetic bottleneck had ACTUALLY occurred, then every member of every species would be so nearly identical genetically to their respective fellows that the differentiation currently observed would be INEXPLICABLE! There'd be no "races" of human beings, no different "breeds" of dogs, no different "kinds" of cats.
> 
> No. No genes are depleted, otherwise it's mutation.
> 
> Mutts and purebreds share the exact same genepool. There my be homogeneity (call it loss if you must) of information within the breed, but there is NO LOSS of information from the species' genepool.
> 
> Mutation does.
> 
> It's a denial of reality to assert that the accumulation of mutations over time simply CANNOT  add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.
> 
> In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.
> 
> Thoroughly refuted repeatedly.
> 
> Thoroughly consistent with valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.
> 
> Thoroughly supported by valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.
> 
> So. NO FALSE ASSUMPTIONS THERE.
> 
> Let's look at Creationism's false assumptions, shall we?
> 
> *There is a "Creator" or "Designer."​*
> Until you surmount that *inexplicable* assumption Youwerecreated, your explanations have NO INTELLECTUAL VALIDITY. *NONE!*
> 
> No. It's an INCREASE IN DIVERSITY.
> 
> If weaknesses are lost, and strength is retained, how is the gene pool "weakened"?
> 
> ANSWER: It is obviously not weakened.
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem even if this were true.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> 1. What "God"?
> 
> 2. Evolutionary Theory does NOT say that natural selection removes weaker gene pools.
> 
> Why, *WHY, WHY* do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they *CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?*
> 
> ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.
> 
> Except that they WERE left alone, and they DIDN'T "return to the original." (whatever the fuck that might be)
> 
> No. You say that Evolution says natural selection causes macro-evolution; and that is a lie.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> Absolutely wrong.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> Why, *WHY, WHY* do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they *CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?*
> 
> ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.
> 
> None of which is inconsistent with Evolutionary Theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the proper theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This will prove to be rich.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural selection = No macro-evolution.
> 
> I hope you got it this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is surprised in the least that:
> 
> Youwerecreated's Magical DNA code barrier + Youwerecreated's nonsensical notions of Gene depletion + Youwerecreated's fundamental misunderstanding of Natural selection = No macro-evolution.
Click to expand...


I dare you to give me a list of all beneficial mutations from someone of stature from your side,a Link not your faulty opinions.

Well how do you think species become extinct ?

You are confused, humans have a large gene pool,mutts have a huge gene pool,and purebred animals have a much smaller gene pool. The proof is when they cross breed you will see traits of that purebred because the purebred animal only has DNA of that breed.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do, I just don't go along with the brainwashing any longer. I have presented the paradigm I support and refuted your claims of mutations but yet you still doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> Denial is not the same thing as "refuted." You lose again.
> 
> Let's see if you bring ANY intellectually valid stroke to your demonstration.
> 
> Not in contention.
> 
> Not in contention.
> 
> If "the loss of genetic information" NECESSARILY means "weaker and weaker gene pools," how do you explain the STRENGTH of contemporary gene pools after the NECESSARILY catastrophic "loss of genetic information" caused by reducing EVERY species gene pool to that of a single mating pair less than 10k years ago as described in your Creation Myth?
> 
> If that genetic bottleneck had ACTUALLY occurred, then every member of every species would be so nearly identical genetically to their respective fellows that the differentiation currently observed would be INEXPLICABLE! There'd be no "races" of human beings, no different "breeds" of dogs, no different "kinds" of cats.
> 
> No. No genes are depleted, otherwise it's mutation.
> 
> Mutts and purebreds share the exact same genepool. There my be homogeneity (call it loss if you must) of information within the breed, but there is NO LOSS of information from the species' genepool.
> 
> Mutation does.
> 
> It's a denial of reality to assert that the accumulation of mutations over time simply CANNOT  add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.
> 
> In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.
> 
> Thoroughly refuted repeatedly.
> 
> Thoroughly consistent with valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.
> 
> Thoroughly supported by valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.
> 
> So. NO FALSE ASSUMPTIONS THERE.
> 
> Let's look at Creationism's false assumptions, shall we?
> 
> *There is a "Creator" or "Designer."​*
> Until you surmount that *inexplicable* assumption Youwerecreated, your explanations have NO INTELLECTUAL VALIDITY. *NONE!*
> 
> No. It's an INCREASE IN DIVERSITY.
> 
> If weaknesses are lost, and strength is retained, how is the gene pool "weakened"?
> 
> ANSWER: It is obviously not weakened.
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem even if this were true.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> 1. What "God"?
> 
> 2. Evolutionary Theory does NOT say that natural selection removes weaker gene pools.
> 
> Why, *WHY, WHY* do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they *CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?*
> 
> ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.
> 
> Except that they WERE left alone, and they DIDN'T "return to the original." (whatever the fuck that might be)
> 
> No. You say that Evolution says natural selection causes macro-evolution; and that is a lie.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> Absolutely wrong.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> Why, *WHY, WHY* do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they *CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?*
> 
> ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.
> 
> None of which is inconsistent with Evolutionary Theory.
> 
> This will prove to be rich.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural selection = No macro-evolution.
> 
> I hope you got it this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is surprised in the least that:
> 
> Youwerecreated's Magical DNA code barrier + Youwerecreated's nonsensical notions of Gene depletion + Youwerecreated's fundamental misunderstanding of Natural selection = No macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dare you to give me a list of all beneficial mutations from someone of stature from your side,a Link not your faulty opinions.
Click to expand...

In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.




Youwerecreated said:


> Well how do you think species become extinct ?


Every member of the species dies before they produce offspring.



Youwerecreated said:


> You are confused,...


No. Not at all.



Youwerecreated said:


> humans have a large gene pool,...


I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.



Youwerecreated said:


> mutts have a huge gene pool,...


I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.



Youwerecreated said:


> and purebred animals have a much smaller gene pool.


Purebreds belong to the exact same gene-pool as mutts ... their gene-pool is IDENTICAL ... it cannot be smaller. 



Youwerecreated said:


> The proof is when they cross breed you will see traits of that purebred because the purebred animal only has DNA of that breed.


This does not prove you're right, but literally proves that I'm right.

I'll claim another 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And i would think anyone truly thought about the spectrum life (and understood its composition) would understand that it is complex but it is just matter none the same.
> 
> Think about a person, pretty complicated right? Its Eukaryote, it has complex cells with nuclei. And its multicellular, its cells must act in concert with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well what about a single yeast cell? Still pretty complicated, but not multicellular. Its still a eukaryote (as is the human), it has a pretty complex set of cellular machinery to do things like glycolysis and protein synthesis. It has membrane bound compartments and its DNA is wrapped into chromosomes and bound in the nucleus. Pretty complex for such a small cell!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a simple bacterial cell? Well its much simpler. it doesnt have complex chemical machinery confined in neat compartments like a eukaryotic cell does. It doesnt have a nucleus. its still fairly complicated. It has a cell membrane, but thats the only membrane. Its DNA is a free floating ring floating within the cells cytoplasm. All of the cells reactions take place in the cytoplasm. Its magnitudes simpler than a eukaryote, but still could be considered very complex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a virus? No metabolism, no organelles. Its just a genome, and a protein capsid surrounding the genome. The capsid is just a repeated sequence of capsomeres, which are coded for by the genome they surround, and are created with the replication of the genome during infection and replication. So a virus is simply as complicated as its genome. A virus is fairly simple. Maybe you would call it complex, but i wouldnt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about a viroid? If a virus is simple, a viroid must be simpler. It doesnt have the complex niceties like a protein coat or spikes. Its just a strand of DNA that causes problems when its inside other cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a viroid is just DNA. Is DNA that complex? No, its just nucleotides. Nucleotides are just carbon, with some functional groups like carboxyl attached.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you draw the line? Where does life start, and where does life end?
> 
> *Which part of life isnt ultimately controlled by biochemistry?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have just made a great argument for design. Those things could not have possibly created themselves no matter how much imagination is used in trying to explain it.
> 
> Have you ever heard the creator is greater then the creation? now imagine God.
Click to expand...


Well thats the opinion of someone that doesnt understand evolution, so its understandable how you would think its impossible. 

You have danced around the question yet again by trying to act witty and smart. Your not, and you fail. 

You might have missed the point of the post, i think you skipped the last half, because it addressed the problem of complexity. 

At what point in the sequence (greatest to least complexity): Eukaryote > Prokaryote > Virus > Viroid > Nucleotide, does it become too complex?

Is the ring of carbon atoms (nucleotide) too complex to form alone? Evidence would say otherwise. 

Is a viroid too complex to form alone? Well a viroid is just a strand of nucleotides, so it shouldnt be much more complex than just one nucleotide. 

How about a virus? A virus is just a viroid that has evolved more advanced structures, like a icosahedral capsid made of repeating proteins. So it cant really be too much more complex than a viroid. 

See the picture here??

Which of those is too complex? The Virus? The Viroid? The Nucleotide?

You need to start understanding that the organism doesnt control the DNA, the DNA controls the organism.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A degree from the University of Arizona,yes it is an accredited school you think ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> No one here believes you have a degree in molecular biology. You dont even correctly understand DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I do, I just don't go along with the brainwashing any longer. I have presented the paradigm I support and refuted your claims of mutations but yet you still doubt.
> 
> Look I will do it again for you.
> 
> Micro-adaptations always produce the same kind of plant or animal.
> 
> Micro-adaptations are the result of the sorting or the loss of genetic information. Because of the loss of genetic information adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools. Call it gene depletion.
> 
> When you breed things you breed gentic information out that is why purebreeds have weaker genetic pools because the loss of information and that is why the gene pool of the mutt is stronger because it's a much bigger gene pool and less of a loss of information.
> 
> Increasing new & beneficial genetic information scientists know of no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool. It's only fantasy to suggest otherwise.
> 
> If your side was correct they should be able to point to millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information being added to the the gene pool so far they only point to antibiotic resistent bacteria and a few others while there are over 4,500 genetic diseases and disorders from mutations.
> 
> Three false assumptions by macro-evolutionist.
> 
> 1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.
> 
> 2. Natural selection lets the mutant gene take over the population.
> 
> 3. Large spans of time millions of years.
> 
> After all observed mutations that cause change , They're caused by the sorting or loss of the pre-existing genetic information,once again call it gene depletion. So gene pools get weaker and weaker until they are removed by natural selection. By the way no mutation can take over a gene pool which makes for a problem for macro-evolution. Because according to your theory the mutations must spread through the populations.
> 
> Natural selection removes weaker gene pools and preserves the stronger and origional creation of God. That is why left alone species going through micro-adaptations will return to the origional. Just like the finches in the galapagos islands.
> 
> Your textbook teaches that natural selection causes macro-evolution, that is a lie. Natural selection is what prevents macro-evolution from being possible because it eliminates the weaker gene pools from adaptations and mutations because the loss of the origional information.
> 
> That is why the short beak finches were dying off but once the drought was over they made a comeback and thrived.
> 
> Here is the proper theory.
> 
> DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural selection = No macro-evolution.
> 
> I hope you got it this time.
Click to expand...


Dude there is no such thing as a DNA code barrier. The DNA controls the organism, the organism doesnt control the DNA. 

Thats how i know your not a molecular biologist. Your an idiot. 

As a molecular biologist, i think i have a question you should be able to answer: *What part of any organism is not ultimately a reaction between atoms?*


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denial is not the same thing as "refuted." You lose again.
> 
> Let's see if you bring ANY intellectually valid stroke to your demonstration.
> 
> Not in contention.
> 
> Not in contention.
> 
> If "the loss of genetic information" NECESSARILY means "weaker and weaker gene pools," how do you explain the STRENGTH of contemporary gene pools after the NECESSARILY catastrophic "loss of genetic information" caused by reducing EVERY species gene pool to that of a single mating pair less than 10k years ago as described in your Creation Myth?
> 
> If that genetic bottleneck had ACTUALLY occurred, then every member of every species would be so nearly identical genetically to their respective fellows that the differentiation currently observed would be INEXPLICABLE! There'd be no "races" of human beings, no different "breeds" of dogs, no different "kinds" of cats.
> 
> No. No genes are depleted, otherwise it's mutation.
> 
> Mutts and purebreds share the exact same genepool. There my be homogeneity (call it loss if you must) of information within the breed, but there is NO LOSS of information from the species' genepool.
> 
> Mutation does.
> 
> It's a denial of reality to assert that the accumulation of mutations over time simply CANNOT  add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.
> 
> In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.
> 
> Thoroughly refuted repeatedly.
> 
> Thoroughly consistent with valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.
> 
> Thoroughly supported by valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.
> 
> So. NO FALSE ASSUMPTIONS THERE.
> 
> Let's look at Creationism's false assumptions, shall we?
> 
> *There is a "Creator" or "Designer."​*
> Until you surmount that *inexplicable* assumption Youwerecreated, your explanations have NO INTELLECTUAL VALIDITY. *NONE!*
> 
> No. It's an INCREASE IN DIVERSITY.
> 
> If weaknesses are lost, and strength is retained, how is the gene pool "weakened"?
> 
> ANSWER: It is obviously not weakened.
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem even if this were true.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> 1. What "God"?
> 
> 2. Evolutionary Theory does NOT say that natural selection removes weaker gene pools.
> 
> Why, *WHY, WHY* do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they *CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?*
> 
> ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.
> 
> Except that they WERE left alone, and they DIDN'T "return to the original." (whatever the fuck that might be)
> 
> No. You say that Evolution says natural selection causes macro-evolution; and that is a lie.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> Absolutely wrong.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> Why, *WHY, WHY* do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they *CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?*
> 
> ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.
> 
> None of which is inconsistent with Evolutionary Theory.
> 
> This will prove to be rich.
> 
> No one is surprised in the least that:
> 
> Youwerecreated's Magical DNA code barrier + Youwerecreated's nonsensical notions of Gene depletion + Youwerecreated's fundamental misunderstanding of Natural selection = No macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dare you to give me a list of all beneficial mutations from someone of stature from your side,a Link not your faulty opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.
> 
> 
> Every member of the species dies before they produce offspring.
> 
> No. Not at all.
> 
> I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.
> 
> I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> and purebred animals have a much smaller gene pool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Purebreds belong to the exact same gene-pool as mutts ... their gene-pool is IDENTICAL ... it cannot be smaller.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is when they cross breed you will see traits of that purebred because the purebred animal only has DNA of that breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This does not prove you're right, but literally proves that I'm right.
> 
> I'll claim another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
Click to expand...


Pose the question to any vet they will tell you the same thing i did mutts are healthier because they belong to a much larger gene pool,they have the genetic information for all dogs. Where with a purebred they only have the information of that breed the answer is they breed out information.

Do you realize there are different gene pools of the same breed all over the world ? Pretty hard to go extinct unless there is too much inbreeding and mutations that would make the breed less adapted.

Even members of the same breeds don't all stay together that creates smaller gene pools unless new blood is introduced from the same breed to a particular gene pool problems can arise to make that group weaker from adaptations and mutations.

So now how do you explain it when all groups die out from a particular breed or species ?

Like i said please provide a link with all the supposedly beneficial mutations saying everything from a microbe to a human does not cut it, that is poor circular reasoning. The reason why i want a link we will compare it to the harmful mutations list . I figured you wouldn't be able to LIST them all on your own. Name all beneficial mutations that your side say's are beneficial mutations ,so p[lease provide a link with a complete list. No more of your poor circular reasoning.

What are the results of too much inbreeding ?

If you cross a purebred with a mutt you will no longer have a purebred but you will see traits of the purebred in the whole litter of pups,why because the purebred parent only has genetic data of it's breed proving what I am saying right and you wrong.

The traits of the mutt will cause different looks to the breed because it's new or different information introduced to that particular gene pool.

Your problem is you can't reason from evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And i would think anyone truly thought about the spectrum life (and understood its composition) would understand that it is complex but it is just matter none the same.
> 
> Think about a person, pretty complicated right? Its Eukaryote, it has complex cells with nuclei. And its multicellular, its cells must act in concert with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well what about a single yeast cell? Still pretty complicated, but not multicellular. Its still a eukaryote (as is the human), it has a pretty complex set of cellular machinery to do things like glycolysis and protein synthesis. It has membrane bound compartments and its DNA is wrapped into chromosomes and bound in the nucleus. Pretty complex for such a small cell!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a simple bacterial cell? Well its much simpler. it doesnt have complex chemical machinery confined in neat compartments like a eukaryotic cell does. It doesnt have a nucleus. its still fairly complicated. It has a cell membrane, but thats the only membrane. Its DNA is a free floating ring floating within the cells cytoplasm. All of the cells reactions take place in the cytoplasm. Its magnitudes simpler than a eukaryote, but still could be considered very complex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a virus? No metabolism, no organelles. Its just a genome, and a protein capsid surrounding the genome. The capsid is just a repeated sequence of capsomeres, which are coded for by the genome they surround, and are created with the replication of the genome during infection and replication. So a virus is simply as complicated as its genome. A virus is fairly simple. Maybe you would call it complex, but i wouldnt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about a viroid? If a virus is simple, a viroid must be simpler. It doesnt have the complex niceties like a protein coat or spikes. Its just a strand of DNA that causes problems when its inside other cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a viroid is just DNA. Is DNA that complex? No, its just nucleotides. Nucleotides are just carbon, with some functional groups like carboxyl attached.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you draw the line? Where does life start, and where does life end?
> 
> *Which part of life isnt ultimately controlled by biochemistry?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have just made a great argument for design. Those things could not have possibly created themselves no matter how much imagination is used in trying to explain it.
> 
> Have you ever heard the creator is greater then the creation? now imagine God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thats the opinion of someone that doesnt understand evolution, so its understandable how you would think its impossible.
> 
> You have danced around the question yet again by trying to act witty and smart. Your not, and you fail.
> 
> You might have missed the point of the post, i think you skipped the last half, because it addressed the problem of complexity.
> 
> At what point in the sequence (greatest to least complexity): Eukaryote > Prokaryote > Virus > Viroid > Nucleotide, does it become too complex?
> 
> Is the ring of carbon atoms (nucleotide) too complex to form alone? Evidence would say otherwise.
> 
> Is a viroid too complex to form alone? Well a viroid is just a strand of nucleotides, so it shouldnt be much more complex than just one nucleotide.
> 
> How about a virus? A virus is just a viroid that has evolved more advanced structures, like a icosahedral capsid made of repeating proteins. So it cant really be too much more complex than a viroid.
> 
> See the picture here??
> 
> Which of those is too complex? The Virus? The Viroid? The Nucleotide?
> 
> You need to start understanding that the organism doesnt control the DNA, the DNA controls the organism.
Click to expand...


Nope,but that is what you did.

I do understand that and have stated it so many times that the DNA of the parents and their parents will determine what the offspring will be.

It's not the gene itself,it is the information contained in the DNA. That is what makes us vastly different then chimps.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denial is not the same thing as "refuted." You lose again.
> 
> Let's see if you bring ANY intellectually valid stroke to your demonstration.
> 
> Not in contention.
> 
> Not in contention.
> 
> If "the loss of genetic information" NECESSARILY means "weaker and weaker gene pools," how do you explain the STRENGTH of contemporary gene pools after the NECESSARILY catastrophic "loss of genetic information" caused by reducing EVERY species gene pool to that of a single mating pair less than 10k years ago as described in your Creation Myth?
> 
> If that genetic bottleneck had ACTUALLY occurred, then every member of every species would be so nearly identical genetically to their respective fellows that the differentiation currently observed would be INEXPLICABLE! There'd be no "races" of human beings, no different "breeds" of dogs, no different "kinds" of cats.
> 
> No. No genes are depleted, otherwise it's mutation.
> 
> Mutts and purebreds share the exact same genepool. There my be homogeneity (call it loss if you must) of information within the breed, but there is NO LOSS of information from the species' genepool.
> 
> Mutation does.
> 
> It's a denial of reality to assert that the accumulation of mutations over time simply CANNOT  add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.
> 
> In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.
> 
> Thoroughly refuted repeatedly.
> 
> Thoroughly consistent with valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.
> 
> Thoroughly supported by valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.
> 
> So. NO FALSE ASSUMPTIONS THERE.
> 
> Let's look at Creationism's false assumptions, shall we?
> 
> *There is a "Creator" or "Designer."​*
> Until you surmount that *inexplicable* assumption Youwerecreated, your explanations have NO INTELLECTUAL VALIDITY. *NONE!*
> 
> No. It's an INCREASE IN DIVERSITY.
> 
> If weaknesses are lost, and strength is retained, how is the gene pool "weakened"?
> 
> ANSWER: It is obviously not weakened.
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem even if this were true.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> 1. What "God"?
> 
> 2. Evolutionary Theory does NOT say that natural selection removes weaker gene pools.
> 
> Why, *WHY, WHY* do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they *CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?*
> 
> ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.
> 
> Except that they WERE left alone, and they DIDN'T "return to the original." (whatever the fuck that might be)
> 
> No. You say that Evolution says natural selection causes macro-evolution; and that is a lie.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> Absolutely wrong.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> Why, *WHY, WHY* do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they *CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?*
> 
> ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.
> 
> None of which is inconsistent with Evolutionary Theory.
> 
> This will prove to be rich.
> 
> No one is surprised in the least that:
> 
> Youwerecreated's Magical DNA code barrier + Youwerecreated's nonsensical notions of Gene depletion + Youwerecreated's fundamental misunderstanding of Natural selection = No macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dare you to give me a list of all beneficial mutations from someone of stature from your side,a Link not your faulty opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.
> 
> 
> Every member of the species dies before they produce offspring.
> 
> No. Not at all.
> 
> I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.
> 
> I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> and purebred animals have a much smaller gene pool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Purebreds belong to the exact same gene-pool as mutts ... their gene-pool is IDENTICAL ... it cannot be smaller.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is when they cross breed you will see traits of that purebred because the purebred animal only has DNA of that breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This does not prove you're right, but literally proves that I'm right.
> 
> I'll claim another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
Click to expand...


A lesson for you.

One cannot define inbreeding as simply mating relatives. The true definition is the mating of individuals more closely related than the average of the population from which they come. This means that a true definition of inbreeding could vary from breed to breed and from location (country) to location. However absolute values can be derived and assessed on that count. 

Inbreeding is measured using Wright's Coefficient of Inbreeding which was first put forward in the 1920s. It can be expressed as a percentage e.g. 12.5% or as a proportion 0.125. It measures the increased homozygosity likely to occur in an individual. If you mate a Boxer to a Boxer you get Boxers which is no surprise because, of course, over the years many genes have become fixed in the breed. This means that all individuals carry the same combination of these genes. 


The consequences of Inbreeding 

Whether we inbreed or not it would make no difference to genes that are fixed in all members of the breed but in non-fixed genes it would lead to an increase in homozygosity and a decrease in heterozygosity. If we have a gene that we will call N with alternatives N and n then we have three possibilities NN, Nn and nn. Inbreeding will move us towards the NN and nn versions at the expense of Nn. Most deliterious traits tend to be recessive. This is because if an undesirable feature is dominant a dog which has it shows it and thus is usually selected against, unless it is very late onset. Thus most abnormalities and defects tend to be recessive ( the nn equivalent) while normal animals are NN or Nn (called carriers). If inbreeding takes us towards NN and nn then the first thing we will see is an increase in deliterious defects. But many rare genes will be lost on inbreeding, it depends on the population. Moreover once identified the nn animals and some of the Nn ones can be discarded from a breeding programme. Inbreeding does not operate in isolation but coupled with selection and this is certainly true of the dog in respect of inherited defects.. 

Inbreeding BMD, for example, would increase the risk of hypomyelinogenesis (trembler) but only very slightly because it is already rare. In contrast it might not increase cancer risks (though they are not necessarily simple traits) because some 40% of the breed already die of cancer of one kind or another. However if your line does not carry a specific defect inbreeding will not create it. For example, our own line began with a dog of exemplary character who was the son of a "trembler carrier". This meant that our dog had a 50:50 chance that he carried the trembler allele and a 50:50 chance that he did not. Close breeding (> 25% inbreeding) within the line has shown that he did not carry the trembler allele and thus it is absent from our line. Do not forget that breeders, even if they inbreed, also follow selection so that we are not just talking about inbreeding but inbreeding with selection which is a different ball game. 

What we do know is that inbreeding brings about something called inbreeding depression. This depends on a formula which is: 

-2F dpq 

This will look complex so let us examine this. The term F relates to the inbreeding coefficient. If the animal were a brother sister mating the F value would be 0.25 (25%) and if a half brother half/sister it would be 0.125. So 2F relates to twice the inbreeding coefficient in the population. The terms p and q relate to the frequencies in the population of the alternative genes. If, for example, half the genes in the breed were N and the other half were n then the p frequency (N) would be 0.5 and the q frequency (n) would also be 0.5. If only ten percent of the genes were n then p would equal 0.9 and q would equal 0.1. (A summation sign is needed because it must be done over all loci but is not given because my computer does not have it). 

The term d relates to the degree of dominance. This is measured from the midpoint between the parents. Suppose wither height were a single gene trait and we mated a 66 cm animal to a 60 cm (having corrected for sex) then the mid point is 66+60/2 = 63. If this offspring from this mating averaged 63 cm there would be no dominance and d would be equal to 0. 

To be further educated read the whole article.

INBREEDING AND PEDIGREE DOG BREEDS


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denial is not the same thing as "refuted." You lose again.
> 
> Let's see if you bring ANY intellectually valid stroke to your demonstration.
> 
> Not in contention.
> 
> Not in contention.
> 
> If "the loss of genetic information" NECESSARILY means "weaker and weaker gene pools," how do you explain the STRENGTH of contemporary gene pools after the NECESSARILY catastrophic "loss of genetic information" caused by reducing EVERY species gene pool to that of a single mating pair less than 10k years ago as described in your Creation Myth?
> 
> If that genetic bottleneck had ACTUALLY occurred, then every member of every species would be so nearly identical genetically to their respective fellows that the differentiation currently observed would be INEXPLICABLE! There'd be no "races" of human beings, no different "breeds" of dogs, no different "kinds" of cats.
> 
> No. No genes are depleted, otherwise it's mutation.
> 
> Mutts and purebreds share the exact same genepool. There my be homogeneity (call it loss if you must) of information within the breed, but there is NO LOSS of information from the species' genepool.
> 
> Mutation does.
> 
> It's a denial of reality to assert that the accumulation of mutations over time simply CANNOT  add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.
> 
> In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.
> 
> Thoroughly refuted repeatedly.
> 
> Thoroughly consistent with valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.
> 
> Thoroughly supported by valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.
> 
> So. NO FALSE ASSUMPTIONS THERE.
> 
> Let's look at Creationism's false assumptions, shall we?
> 
> *There is a "Creator" or "Designer."​*
> Until you surmount that *inexplicable* assumption Youwerecreated, your explanations have NO INTELLECTUAL VALIDITY. *NONE!*
> 
> No. It's an INCREASE IN DIVERSITY.
> 
> If weaknesses are lost, and strength is retained, how is the gene pool "weakened"?
> 
> ANSWER: It is obviously not weakened.
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem even if this were true.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> 1. What "God"?
> 
> 2. Evolutionary Theory does NOT say that natural selection removes weaker gene pools.
> 
> Why, *WHY, WHY* do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they *CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?*
> 
> ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.
> 
> Except that they WERE left alone, and they DIDN'T "return to the original." (whatever the fuck that might be)
> 
> No. You say that Evolution says natural selection causes macro-evolution; and that is a lie.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> Absolutely wrong.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> Why, *WHY, WHY* do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they *CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?*
> 
> ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.
> 
> None of which is inconsistent with Evolutionary Theory.
> 
> This will prove to be rich.
> 
> No one is surprised in the least that:
> 
> Youwerecreated's Magical DNA code barrier + Youwerecreated's nonsensical notions of Gene depletion + Youwerecreated's fundamental misunderstanding of Natural selection = No macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dare you to give me a list of all beneficial mutations from someone of stature from your side,a Link not your faulty opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.
> 
> 
> Every member of the species dies before they produce offspring.
> 
> No. Not at all.
> 
> I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.
> 
> I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> and purebred animals have a much smaller gene pool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Purebreds belong to the exact same gene-pool as mutts ... their gene-pool is IDENTICAL ... it cannot be smaller.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is when they cross breed you will see traits of that purebred because the purebred animal only has DNA of that breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This does not prove you're right, but literally proves that I'm right.
> 
> I'll claim another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
Click to expand...


Time for me to give you a true headshot.



Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution


by Roger Patterson on

March 8, 2007


Layman
 author-roger-patterson
 biology


 We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it&#8217;s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn&#8217;t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation &#8230; 
&#8211;Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris
 on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter Wilders


What You Will Learn

Textbooks present evolution in two different ways&#8212;small, observable changes (natural selection, speciation, adaptation) and large, unobservable changes (molecules-to-man evolution). They show evidence for the former and then conclude that this proves that the latter took place as well.

Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution - Answers in Genesis


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dare you to give me a list of all beneficial mutations from someone of stature from your side,a Link not your faulty opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.
> 
> 
> Every member of the species dies before they produce offspring.
> 
> No. Not at all.
> 
> I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.
> 
> I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.
> 
> Purebreds belong to the exact same gene-pool as mutts ... their gene-pool is IDENTICAL ... it cannot be smaller.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is when they cross breed you will see traits of that purebred because the purebred animal only has DNA of that breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This does not prove you're right, but literally proves that I'm right.
> 
> I'll claim another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pose the question to any vet they will tell you the same thing i did mutts are healthier because they belong to a much larger gene pool, ...
Click to expand...

No, veterinarians don't say this. Actual qualified veterinarians would say that mutts enjoy the benefits of a more heterogeneous genome. Actual qualified veterinarians would say that mutts belong to the exact same and identical gene-pool that all dogs belong to--the same IDENTICAL gene-pool.

Another 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



Youwerecreated said:


> ... they have the genetic information for all dogs. Where with a purebred they only have the information of that breed the answer is they breed out information.


All dogs have all the genetic information necessary to produce a dog ... mutts and purebreds both. While it is true that a particular pure-breed population is more genetically homogenous than the population of mutts or the population of all dogs, purebreds still belong to the exact same gene-pool as mutts ... there is NO GENETIC INFORMATION LOST FROM THE GENE-POOL OF DOGS DUE TO THE EXISTENCE OF PUREBREDS! *NONE!*

Another 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



Youwerecreated said:


> Do you realize there are different gene pools of the same breed all over the world ?


Do you realize that population =/= gene-pool?
ANSWER: No.

All dogs, all over the world, mutt AND purebreds, belong to the same gene-pool.

Another 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



Youwerecreated said:


> Pretty hard to go extinct unless there is too much inbreeding and mutations that would make the breed less adapted.


Such genetic diversity is irrelevant in the face of a global flood, and impossible considering the necessary loss of genetic information that you Creation Myth necessarily asserts.

Another 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



Youwerecreated said:


> Even members of the same breeds don't all stay together that creates smaller gene pools unless new blood is introduced from the same breed to a particular gene pool problems can arise to make that group weaker from adaptations and mutations.


Isolating a population does not automatically create a new gene-pool. As long as the members of the isolated population remain members of the parent species, they belong to the same gene-pool.

Another 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



Youwerecreated said:


> So now how do you explain it when all groups die out from a particular breed or species ?


They're dead. What's to explain? You're asking two different questions involving two different kinds of events, and the point of the questions is not clear. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Like i said please provide a link with all the supposedly beneficial mutations saying everything from a microbe to a human does not cut it, that is poor circular reasoning. The reason why i want a link we will compare it to the harmful mutations list . I figured you wouldn't be able to LIST them all on your own.


Every trait that is "beneficial," from kidneys to eyes, to opposable thumbs, is the result of some mutation that occurred at some point during the evolution of the human being



Youwerecreated said:


> Name all beneficial mutations that your side say's are beneficial mutations ,so p[lease provide a link with a complete list.


You're right; I can't do it on my own--Google all those "beneficial" traits and you'll have your list. Knock yourself out.

Feel free then to compare all of those "beneficial" traits caused by the accumulation of "beneficial" mutations to your list of a few thousand "harmful" mutations that affect a fraction of the human population.



Youwerecreated said:


> No more of your poor circular reasoning.


I'm not engaging in circular reasoning. 



Youwerecreated said:


> What are the results of too much inbreeding ?


What is "too much inbreeding"? The necessary (by the account of your "theory")  inbreeding that occurred amongst Adam, Eve and their progeny? The necessary (by the account of your "theory") inbreeding that occurred between the 4 couples belonging to Noah's family? Would that be "too much inbreeding"?

I can tell you this much though, if the genetic bottleneck described in your Creation Myth had ACTUALLY occurred, then every member of every species would be so nearly identical genetically to their respective fellows that the differentiation currently observed would be INEXPLICABLE! There'd be no "races" of human beings, no different "breeds" of dogs, no different "kinds" of cats.

How do you explain the DIVERSITY in contemporary gene-pools after the NECESSARILY catastrophic "loss of genetic information" caused by reducing EVERY species' gene-pool to that of a single mating pair less than 10k years ago as described in your Creation Myth?



Youwerecreated said:


> If you cross a purebred with a mutt you will no longer have a purebred but you will see traits of the purebred in the whole litter of pups,why because the purebred parent only has genetic data of it's breed proving what I am saying right and you wrong.


You have just repeated the exact same line that proves me right, and fails to prove you right.

Nicely done. Another 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



Youwerecreated said:


> The traits of the mutt will cause different looks to the breed because it's new or different information introduced to that particular gene pool.


Producing a litter has no effect on the gene-pool of a breed, sub-species, or species. NO EFFECT AT ALL.

Another 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



Youwerecreated said:


> Your problem is you can't reason from evidence.


Nonsense. Your problem is that you cannot differentiate your superstition from reality.


----------



## FurthurBB

cbirch2 said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.
> _"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."_
> LINK
> 
> "*macroevolution* _The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."_
> LINK
> 
> _"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."_
> 
> [*Macroevolution*] _is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level"._
> 
> "*mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion*
> _noun Biology.
> major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."_​Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, do you believe that any amount of information will make that poster less blind, ignorant, or dishonest?  I do not.  A person who wants to give words their own definition because obviously the actual definition proves their point moot is just dishonest.  A person who continually posts crap that has been completely proven false and swears that no one can prove it false, is just dishonest.  A person who lies about their qualifications to try and make their crap look more reasoned when they obviously do not even understand elementary school science, is a fraud and a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your only defense in the face of undeniable evidence is to call the source a liar. Why dont you look up the species yourself, and find the evidence at an unbiased source. No i bet you wont do that because you'd prefer to wallow in your own ignorance.
Click to expand...


What?  You think that poster has undeniable evidence?  I always look at unbiased sources unless a creationist puts something up from a creationist site.  I think I am far from ignorant about biology, but thanks for your concern.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dare you to give me a list of all beneficial mutations from someone of stature from your side,a Link not your faulty opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.
> 
> 
> Every member of the species dies before they produce offspring.
> 
> No. Not at all.
> 
> I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.
> 
> I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.
> 
> Purebreds belong to the exact same gene-pool as mutts ... their gene-pool is IDENTICAL ... it cannot be smaller.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is when they cross breed you will see traits of that purebred because the purebred animal only has DNA of that breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This does not prove you're right, but literally proves that I'm right.
> 
> I'll claim another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time for me to give you a true headshot.
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution
> 
> 
> by Roger Patterson on
> 
> March 8, 2007
> 
> 
> Layman
> author-roger-patterson
> biology
> 
> 
> We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because its good, we know it is bad, but because there isnt any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation
> Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris
> on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter Wilders
> 
> 
> What You Will Learn
> 
> Textbooks present evolution in two different wayssmall, observable changes (natural selection, speciation, adaptation) and large, unobservable changes (molecules-to-man evolution). They show evidence for the former and then conclude that this proves that the latter took place as well.
> 
> Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution - Answers in Genesis
Click to expand...


A head-shot cannot be delivered by this kind of non-sequitur, you retarded, superstitious sense-embargo.


----------



## FurthurBB

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.
> 
> Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.
> 
> Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A retard with a degree in molecular biology  what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU KEEP SAYING YOU HAVE A molecular biology DEGREE! SHOW US IT AND THE SCHOOL YOU GOT IT FROM
> i'll wait.
Click to expand...


Does anyone believe that?  Really, that poster has less understanding of biology than a third grader.


----------



## FurthurBB

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denial is not the same thing as "refuted." You lose again.
> 
> Let's see if you bring ANY intellectually valid stroke to your demonstration.
> 
> Not in contention.
> 
> Not in contention.
> 
> If "the loss of genetic information" NECESSARILY means "weaker and weaker gene pools," how do you explain the STRENGTH of contemporary gene pools after the NECESSARILY catastrophic "loss of genetic information" caused by reducing EVERY species gene pool to that of a single mating pair less than 10k years ago as described in your Creation Myth?
> 
> If that genetic bottleneck had ACTUALLY occurred, then every member of every species would be so nearly identical genetically to their respective fellows that the differentiation currently observed would be INEXPLICABLE! There'd be no "races" of human beings, no different "breeds" of dogs, no different "kinds" of cats.
> 
> No. No genes are depleted, otherwise it's mutation.
> 
> Mutts and purebreds share the exact same genepool. There my be homogeneity (call it loss if you must) of information within the breed, but there is NO LOSS of information from the species' genepool.
> 
> Mutation does.
> 
> It's a denial of reality to assert that the accumulation of mutations over time simply CANNOT  add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.
> 
> In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.
> 
> Thoroughly refuted repeatedly.
> 
> Thoroughly consistent with valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.
> 
> Thoroughly supported by valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.
> 
> So. NO FALSE ASSUMPTIONS THERE.
> 
> Let's look at Creationism's false assumptions, shall we?
> 
> *There is a "Creator" or "Designer."​*
> Until you surmount that *inexplicable* assumption Youwerecreated, your explanations have NO INTELLECTUAL VALIDITY. *NONE!*
> 
> No. It's an INCREASE IN DIVERSITY.
> 
> If weaknesses are lost, and strength is retained, how is the gene pool "weakened"?
> 
> ANSWER: It is obviously not weakened.
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem even if this were true.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> 1. What "God"?
> 
> 2. Evolutionary Theory does NOT say that natural selection removes weaker gene pools.
> 
> Why, *WHY, WHY* do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they *CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?*
> 
> ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.
> 
> Except that they WERE left alone, and they DIDN'T "return to the original." (whatever the fuck that might be)
> 
> No. You say that Evolution says natural selection causes macro-evolution; and that is a lie.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> Absolutely wrong.
> 
> How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?
> 
> ANSWER: You're a fraud.
> 
> Why, *WHY, WHY* do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they *CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?*
> 
> ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.
> 
> None of which is inconsistent with Evolutionary Theory.
> 
> This will prove to be rich.
> 
> No one is surprised in the least that:
> 
> Youwerecreated's Magical DNA code barrier + Youwerecreated's nonsensical notions of Gene depletion + Youwerecreated's fundamental misunderstanding of Natural selection = No macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dare you to give me a list of all beneficial mutations from someone of stature from your side,a Link not your faulty opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.
> 
> 
> Every member of the species dies before they produce offspring.
> 
> No. Not at all.
> 
> I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.
> 
> I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> and purebred animals have a much smaller gene pool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Purebreds belong to the exact same gene-pool as mutts ... their gene-pool is IDENTICAL ... it cannot be smaller.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is when they cross breed you will see traits of that purebred because the purebred animal only has DNA of that breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This does not prove you're right, but literally proves that I'm right.
> 
> I'll claim another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
Click to expand...


Not to mention our selection of traits for animals would never be natural selection.  We breed pugs that have to give birth by C-section.  That would never happen in nature.  Artificial selection cannot be compared to natural selection in that way.


----------



## FurthurBB

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And i would think anyone truly thought about the spectrum life (and understood its composition) would understand that it is complex but it is just matter none the same.
> 
> Think about a person, pretty complicated right? Its Eukaryote, it has complex cells with nuclei. And its multicellular, its cells must act in concert with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well what about a single yeast cell? Still pretty complicated, but not multicellular. Its still a eukaryote (as is the human), it has a pretty complex set of cellular machinery to do things like glycolysis and protein synthesis. It has membrane bound compartments and its DNA is wrapped into chromosomes and bound in the nucleus. Pretty complex for such a small cell!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a simple bacterial cell? Well its much simpler. it doesnt have complex chemical machinery confined in neat compartments like a eukaryotic cell does. It doesnt have a nucleus. its still fairly complicated. It has a cell membrane, but thats the only membrane. Its DNA is a free floating ring floating within the cells cytoplasm. All of the cells reactions take place in the cytoplasm. Its magnitudes simpler than a eukaryote, but still could be considered very complex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a virus? No metabolism, no organelles. Its just a genome, and a protein capsid surrounding the genome. The capsid is just a repeated sequence of capsomeres, which are coded for by the genome they surround, and are created with the replication of the genome during infection and replication. So a virus is simply as complicated as its genome. A virus is fairly simple. Maybe you would call it complex, but i wouldnt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about a viroid? If a virus is simple, a viroid must be simpler. It doesnt have the complex niceties like a protein coat or spikes. Its just a strand of DNA that causes problems when its inside other cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a viroid is just DNA. Is DNA that complex? No, its just nucleotides. Nucleotides are just carbon, with some functional groups like carboxyl attached.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you draw the line? Where does life start, and where does life end?
> 
> *Which part of life isnt ultimately controlled by biochemistry?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have just made a great argument for design. Those things could not have possibly created themselves no matter how much imagination is used in trying to explain it.
> 
> Have you ever heard the creator is greater then the creation? now imagine God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thats the opinion of someone that doesnt understand evolution, so its understandable how you would think its impossible.
> 
> You have danced around the question yet again by trying to act witty and smart. Your not, and you fail.
> 
> You might have missed the point of the post, i think you skipped the last half, because it addressed the problem of complexity.
> 
> At what point in the sequence (greatest to least complexity): Eukaryote > Prokaryote > Virus > Viroid > Nucleotide, does it become too complex?
> 
> Is the ring of carbon atoms (nucleotide) too complex to form alone? Evidence would say otherwise.
> 
> Is a viroid too complex to form alone? Well a viroid is just a strand of nucleotides, so it shouldnt be much more complex than just one nucleotide.
> 
> How about a virus? A virus is just a viroid that has evolved more advanced structures, like a icosahedral capsid made of repeating proteins. So it cant really be too much more complex than a viroid.
> 
> See the picture here??
> 
> Which of those is too complex? The Virus? The Viroid? The Nucleotide?
> 
> You need to start understanding that the organism doesnt control the DNA, the DNA controls the organism.
Click to expand...


Not to mention when we are talking about evolution, it is really the evolution of DNA/RNA molecules at the heart of things.  People who do not at all understand the molecular level of biology always make the mistake of looking at things from too far away to even begin to understand.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Still no one offering a list of beneficial mutations that did not lead to a loss of the origional genetic information.

All organisms experience mutations but yet we don't see new morpohlogical change ,why ? If mutations are the answer for new genetic data.

I am warning you a day will come where there will be a new theory for macro-evolution because mutations are a deadend.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have just made a great argument for design. Those things could not have possibly created themselves no matter how much imagination is used in trying to explain it.
> 
> Have you ever heard the creator is greater then the creation? now imagine God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thats the opinion of someone that doesnt understand evolution, so its understandable how you would think its impossible.
> 
> You have danced around the question yet again by trying to act witty and smart. Your not, and you fail.
> 
> You might have missed the point of the post, i think you skipped the last half, because it addressed the problem of complexity.
> 
> At what point in the sequence (greatest to least complexity): Eukaryote > Prokaryote > Virus > Viroid > Nucleotide, does it become too complex?
> 
> Is the ring of carbon atoms (nucleotide) too complex to form alone? Evidence would say otherwise.
> 
> Is a viroid too complex to form alone? Well a viroid is just a strand of nucleotides, so it shouldnt be much more complex than just one nucleotide.
> 
> How about a virus? A virus is just a viroid that has evolved more advanced structures, like a icosahedral capsid made of repeating proteins. So it cant really be too much more complex than a viroid.
> 
> See the picture here??
> 
> Which of those is too complex? The Virus? The Viroid? The Nucleotide?
> 
> You need to start understanding that the organism doesnt control the DNA, the DNA controls the organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention when we are talking about evolution, it is really the evolution of DNA/RNA molecules at the heart of things.  People who do not at all understand the molecular level of biology always make the mistake of looking at things from too far away to even begin to understand.
Click to expand...


Come on because you and I don't agree I am wrong ? you have offered no explanation to show what I say is wrong.

I'll show you one more time animals where their genes become fixed purebreeds only have genetic data to produce what they are.

Google

Once again you can see traits from both sides because genes have become fixed in each breed. That is because they only have genetic data to produce what they are.

Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A retard with a degree in molecular biology  what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU KEEP SAYING YOU HAVE A molecular biology DEGREE! SHOW US IT AND THE SCHOOL YOU GOT IT FROM
> i'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does anyone believe that?  Really, that poster has less understanding of biology than a third grader.
Click to expand...


Tired of the insults lets see if you can do better then your buddies.

1.
How did life originate? So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

 2.
How did the DNA code originate? What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? 

3.
How could mutations accidental copying mistakes DNA letters exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? 
Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as evolution, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? 

5.
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? 

6.
Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? 

7.
How did multi cellular life originate? How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success ,fitness for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? 

9.
Why are the expected countless millions of transitional fossils missing? 

10.
How do living fossils remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? 

11.
How did blind chemistry create mind-intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? 

12.
Why is evolutionary just so story telling tolerated? 

13.
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have just made a great argument for design. Those things could not have possibly created themselves no matter how much imagination is used in trying to explain it.
> 
> Have you ever heard the creator is greater then the creation? now imagine God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thats the opinion of someone that doesnt understand evolution, so its understandable how you would think its impossible.
> 
> You have danced around the question yet again by trying to act witty and smart. Your not, and you fail.
> 
> You might have missed the point of the post, i think you skipped the last half, because it addressed the problem of complexity.
> 
> At what point in the sequence (greatest to least complexity): Eukaryote > Prokaryote > Virus > Viroid > Nucleotide, does it become too complex?
> 
> Is the ring of carbon atoms (nucleotide) too complex to form alone? Evidence would say otherwise.
> 
> Is a viroid too complex to form alone? Well a viroid is just a strand of nucleotides, so it shouldnt be much more complex than just one nucleotide.
> 
> How about a virus? A virus is just a viroid that has evolved more advanced structures, like a icosahedral capsid made of repeating proteins. So it cant really be too much more complex than a viroid.
> 
> See the picture here??
> 
> Which of those is too complex? The Virus? The Viroid? The Nucleotide?
> 
> You need to start understanding that the organism doesnt control the DNA, the DNA controls the organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope,but that is what you did.
> 
> I do understand that and have stated it so many times that the DNA of the parents and their parents will determine what the offspring will be.
> 
> It's not the gene itself,it is the information contained in the DNA. That is what makes us vastly different then chimps.
Click to expand...


OK, what? "Its not the gene itself, its the information contained in the DNA." What?

You probably have some nuanced explanation for that but its a retarded statement. 

A gene is just a sequence of nucleotides that code for a protein. Those nucleotides are the information. The gene is the information, the nucleotides are the units of information. 

You clearly avoided the question again. 

Which of those is too complicated to form alone???????


----------



## cbirch2

"I do understand that and have stated it so many times that the DNA of  the parents and their parents will determine what the offspring will be."

PLUS ANY ERRORS IN DNA REPLICATION OR MUTATIONS OF THE OFFSPRING DNA OR GAMETE DNA.

Neutral mutations

Beneficial mutations

You should first understand neutral mutations, and how they will accumulate in a gene pool. After that, then you will understand the beneficial mutations accumulate in the same way, except accelerated by natural selection.


----------



## cbirch2

FurthurBB said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have just made a great argument for design. Those things could not have possibly created themselves no matter how much imagination is used in trying to explain it.
> 
> Have you ever heard the creator is greater then the creation? now imagine God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thats the opinion of someone that doesnt understand evolution, so its understandable how you would think its impossible.
> 
> You have danced around the question yet again by trying to act witty and smart. Your not, and you fail.
> 
> You might have missed the point of the post, i think you skipped the last half, because it addressed the problem of complexity.
> 
> At what point in the sequence (greatest to least complexity): Eukaryote > Prokaryote > Virus > Viroid > Nucleotide, does it become too complex?
> 
> Is the ring of carbon atoms (nucleotide) too complex to form alone? Evidence would say otherwise.
> 
> Is a viroid too complex to form alone? Well a viroid is just a strand of nucleotides, so it shouldnt be much more complex than just one nucleotide.
> 
> How about a virus? A virus is just a viroid that has evolved more advanced structures, like a icosahedral capsid made of repeating proteins. So it cant really be too much more complex than a viroid.
> 
> See the picture here??
> 
> Which of those is too complex? The Virus? The Viroid? The Nucleotide?
> 
> You need to start understanding that the organism doesnt control the DNA, the DNA controls the organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention when we are talking about evolution, it is really the evolution of DNA/RNA molecules at the heart of things.  People who do not at all understand the molecular level of biology always make the mistake of looking at things from too far away to even begin to understand.
Click to expand...


Exactly. A few posts back i told him the same thing. The DNA controls the organism, the organism doesnt control the DNA. 

He thinks there is something called the DNA code barrier.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> Still no one offering a list of beneficial mutations that did not lead to a loss of the origional genetic information.
> 
> All organisms experience mutations but yet we don't see new morpohlogical change ,why ? If mutations are the answer for new genetic data.
> 
> I am warning you a day will come where there will be a new theory for macro-evolution because mutations are a deadend.



Mutations are not a dead end. Your a retard. 

OK since your a molecular biologist you must understand how mutations in DNA are translated to physical deformities or benefits, right? Its a sequence a enzyme-catalyzed reactions transcribing DNA to RNA and RNA to protein 

The structure of a protein is a sequence of a amino acids strung together and folded first into primary, then into secondary, and then into tertiary structures, sometimes even quaternary structures. The function of the protein is defined by its structure, most specifically the receptor site. 






Mutations arent just "bad things". Mostly theyre just a small alteration in this giant structure of thousands of amino acids in a complex structure of hydrogen bonds. So most mutations dont do much. A mutation that doesnt do anything cant get weeded out, the its just part of the new offsprings DNA like any other nucleotide. When it reproduces, it may pass it on. Therefore neutral mutations become part of a gene pool when introduced, as long as that lineage doesnt die for other reasons. So over time, neutral mutations add up in a gene pool. This is fact. 

Beneficial mutations therefore must be the same, except that organisms with these organisms may dominate a gene pool. 

Getit?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well thats the opinion of someone that doesnt understand evolution, so its understandable how you would think its impossible.
> 
> You have danced around the question yet again by trying to act witty and smart. Your not, and you fail.
> 
> You might have missed the point of the post, i think you skipped the last half, because it addressed the problem of complexity.
> 
> At what point in the sequence (greatest to least complexity): Eukaryote > Prokaryote > Virus > Viroid > Nucleotide, does it become too complex?
> 
> Is the ring of carbon atoms (nucleotide) too complex to form alone? Evidence would say otherwise.
> 
> Is a viroid too complex to form alone? Well a viroid is just a strand of nucleotides, so it shouldnt be much more complex than just one nucleotide.
> 
> How about a virus? A virus is just a viroid that has evolved more advanced structures, like a icosahedral capsid made of repeating proteins. So it cant really be too much more complex than a viroid.
> 
> See the picture here??
> 
> Which of those is too complex? The Virus? The Viroid? The Nucleotide?
> 
> You need to start understanding that the organism doesnt control the DNA, the DNA controls the organism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention when we are talking about evolution, it is really the evolution of DNA/RNA molecules at the heart of things.  People who do not at all understand the molecular level of biology always make the mistake of looking at things from too far away to even begin to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on because you and I don't agree I am wrong ? you have offered no explanation to show what I say is wrong.
> 
> I'll show you one more time animals where their genes become fixed purebreeds only have genetic data to produce what they are.
> 
> Google
> 
> Once again you can see traits from both sides because genes have become fixed in each breed. That is because they only have genetic data to produce what they are.
> 
> Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?
Click to expand...


Its proof that you can restrict the gene pool faster than evolution can expand it, thats about all purebreds are proof of. 

Your a fucking moron. 

Remember the german shephard we talked about? This is how a pure bred works. 

A breeder identifies a dog they like, with desireable traits. And then mates that dog with another. Then they inbreed the children, and so much that they can get a large litter. Horand-the-german-shephard had like 84 grand children. All pure-bred german shephards are descendants of this family. 

Random mutations still occur in the DNA replication of these dogs, just like any other organism. The only difference is we wouldnt even see the effect of those over the 100 or so years that the german shephard breed has existed, while in that same time we can easily constrict breeded and create a distinct lineage. So please stop mentioning purebreds, its annoying arguing about something thats entirely irrelevant and frankly exposes your ignorance.

Getit?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Still no one offering a list of beneficial mutations that did not lead to a loss of the origional genetic information.


Mutation DOES NOT necessarily, in EACH AND EVERY CASE, "lead to a loss of the original genetic information" from a species' gene pool.

When a mutation is not lethal and inheritable, that mutation NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC DIVERSITY in the species' gene pool; since you equate increased genetic diversity with increased genetic information, for you this NECESSARILY means that non-lethal *MUTATION NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC INFORMATION* in the species' gene pool.

Another 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



Youwerecreated said:


> All organisms experience mutations but yet we don't see new morpohlogical change ,why ? If mutations are the answer for new genetic data.


Simply claiming that change isn't seen, doesn't mean change isn't seen.

When *YOU* claim change isn't seen, ... well Cupcake, it is just about as safe bet as you can get that change is in fact seen, and you are just exercising faith.



Youwerecreated said:


> I am warning you a day will come where there will be a new theory for macro-evolution because mutations are a deadend.


And I am telling you, that until the day comes when you surmount your *false and inexplicable* presumption that there is a "Creator" or "Designer", your *false and inexplicable* explanations have *NO INTELLECTUAL VALIDITY.* They are *STILL-BORN*. They are a *DEAD-END!*


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> I'll show you one more time animals where their genes become fixed purebreeds only have genetic data to produce what they are.
> 
> Google


These are not purebreds. They are hybrids and they are not a sub-species or breed ... pure or otherwise.

How, *HOW, HOW* can you so persistently get your facts about genetics and taxonomy so very *VERY VERY WRONG* if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?ANSWER: You didn't earn an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology; you're a fraud.​Did you *really* say you have a degree in molecular biology? INEXPLICABLE!



Youwerecreated said:


> Once again you can see traits from both sides because genes have become fixed in each breed. That is because they only have genetic data to produce what they are.


Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.



Youwerecreated said:


> Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?


CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.

No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, *apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.*

Care to explain that, Mr. Bible-Degree-in-Bible-Molecular-Bible-Biology?

Another delivered 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU KEEP SAYING YOU HAVE A molecular biology DEGREE! SHOW US IT AND THE SCHOOL YOU GOT IT FROM
> i'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone believe that?  Really, that poster has less understanding of biology than a third grader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tired of the insults lets see if you can do better then your buddies.
> 
> 1.
> How did life originate? So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
Click to expand...


First evolution is totally independent of abiogensis. The histories of the theories are different, they were derived separately, they are separate topics that operate without eachother. The same goes for the big bang. 

But it forms the same way a viroid forms. We would be having a discussion about this if you would pay attention and answer my questions. If you include a virus as life, life is just a sequence of DNA or RNA that is replicated in the presence of certain enzymes. Contain that in a lipid membrane, which form spontaneously in water, and you have a self contained replicating process. 



Youwerecreated said:


> 2.
> How did the DNA code originate? What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?



Naturally Occurring Acid-Soluble Nucleotides - Chemical Reviews (ACS Publications)



Youwerecreated said:


> 3.
> How could mutations accidental copying mistakes DNA letters exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
> Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as evolution, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?



Again, your making this more complicated than it has to be. Just read a book or something. 

Imagine a virus infects a cell with 3,000 genes and inserts 100 genes into it. Those genes dont do anything in the cell but survive as an Endogenous Retro Virus. imagine the cell asexually reproduces, now all its offspring have 3,100 genes but still most likely the same function as before. But throughout many generations of that lineage random mutations take place on that ERV as well; after all, the ERV is still a sequence of nucleotides that code for a protein. Eventually the ERV will be distorted, may produce a different protein structure with a different function, and may change something about that organisms life. See (according to some biologists): The placenta

So information doesnt have to be added at the same time as a beneficial mutation. The addition of information is easy. The beneficial mutation part is more rare. Yet so many offspring are produce constantly in any given population, that they are inevitable. In a culture of bacteria, every mutation that is viable from the base template will probably happen over the course of a few years. 



Youwerecreated said:


> 5.
> How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?



Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection -- see "Evolution of new metabolic pathways"



Youwerecreated said:


> 6.
> Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?



Wow. 

My toast looks like the virgin mary. Prove it was not toasted by jesus.



Youwerecreated said:


> 7.
> How did multi cellular life originate? How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success ,fitness for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected?



Sexual reproduction provides diversity to a population. There are plenty of bacteria that can undergo both asexual and sexual reproduction. In fact, most exclusively undergo asexual reproduction, and switch to sexual reproduction in harsh climates. Which would support the idea that sexual reproduction arose to provide diversity in a harsh climate. 

Multicellular organisms would be explainable to anyone that knows anything about *molecular biology. *Cells just communicate by excreting chemicals. When i was in biology in college i had to review a scientific article about this very topic, in which a cell excretes a chemical as a part of its natural processes (independent of the whole colony of bacteria), but nevertheless the end result is that the surrounding cells react in a way similar to a multicellular organism. 






Multicellular life isnt that much more complicated than eukaryotic life, just another evolutionary step.



Youwerecreated said:


> 9.
> Why are the expected countless millions of transitional fossils missing?



Well certainly not every skeleton is fossilized, and we dont find them all by any account. 

But

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(A few) transitional fossils



Youwerecreated said:


> 10.
> How do living fossils remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?



Well evolution doesnt say humans came from a worm. You cant just pick any animal any say humans came from it. Mmk? Learn the actual predicted lineage. 

But really, its obvious to anyone that can work through in their mind how this works. Evolution says some fish eventually became terapods, and grew the ability to walk on primitive limbs. Does it say _all _fish decided to do that? No, that would be pretty strange if that happened to every species of fish. Rather, each population adapts to its local environment. Usually living fossils live in very isolated environments. And of course they arent genetically identical to the ones that existed millions of years ago, theres would be no way to make that assertion. 

So evolution does not prohibit "living fossils". A school of fish living in an underwater cavern cannot turn into a human, no matter how long its given. It probably wont even turn into a terapod in a billion years. There are no evolutionary pressures in these isolated and extreme environments to drive any sort of significant natural selection, nor is there the ability to isolate and speciate. Living fossils are in fact quite in line with evolution, we find them in the exact environments evolution would predict. 

This even made news a few weeks ago



Youwerecreated said:


> 11.
> How did blind chemistry create mind-intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?



Wow now you dont understand how the brain works?

Neuron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Axon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dendrite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the one that is relevant on the most basic level:
Ion transporter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All of your higher thought breaks down to these basic levels. Even morality

If you want to talk about the evolution of the brain, i would love to talk about that too. Why do you think our lower brain is called the reptilian brain? 



Youwerecreated said:


> 12.
> Why is evolutionary just so story telling tolerated?



Idk it probably does sound like stories to someone that is learning biology and chemistry at the same time hes learning about evolution. You dont understand evolution because you dont understand chemistry or biology.



Youwerecreated said:


> 13.
> Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?



Well first, something doesnt have to be immediately applicable to be true. The formation of general relativity was pretty pointless to the average person until we went to space. 

And second, ever heard of penicillin and amoxicillin?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dare you to give me a list of all beneficial mutations from someone of stature from your side,a Link not your faulty opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.
> 
> 
> Every member of the species dies before they produce offspring.
> 
> No. Not at all.
> 
> I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.
> 
> I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.
> 
> Purebreds belong to the exact same gene-pool as mutts ... their gene-pool is IDENTICAL ... it cannot be smaller.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is when they cross breed you will see traits of that purebred because the purebred animal only has DNA of that breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This does not prove you're right, but literally proves that I'm right.
> 
> I'll claim another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time for me to give you a true headshot.
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution
> 
> 
> by Roger Patterson on
> 
> March 8, 2007
> 
> 
> Layman
> author-roger-patterson
> biology
> 
> 
> We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because its good, we know it is bad, but because there isnt any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation
> Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris
> on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter Wilders
> 
> 
> What You Will Learn
> 
> Textbooks present evolution in two different wayssmall, observable changes (natural selection, speciation, adaptation) and large, unobservable changes (molecules-to-man evolution). They show evidence for the former and then conclude that this proves that the latter took place as well.
> 
> Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution - Answers in Genesis
Click to expand...

The scientific community considers creation science to be pseudoscience which "does not use any scientific reasoning."[85] Consequently, scientific and scholarly organizations, including United States National Academy of Sciences, the Paleontological Society, Geological Society of America, Australian Academy of Science, and the Royal Society of Canada have issued statements against the teaching of creationism.[86] As a result, the National Center for Science Education, a science advocacy group, criticize AiG's promotion of non-science.[87][88][89] In direct response to AiG, No Answers in Genesis is a website maintained by members of the Australian Skeptics and retired civil servant John Stear for the purpose of rebutting claims made by AiG.[90] In June 2005, AiG-Australia staff accepted an invitation for an online debate[91] with representatives from the Australian Skeptics in Margo Kingston's section of the Sydney Morning Herald.[92] Also the website talk.origins includes scientific responses to claims made by AiG's authors.[93]

The Louisville Courier-Journal reported, "Cincinnati Zoo and the Creation Museum launched a joint promotional deal last week to draw attention to their holiday attractions."[7] But following an outcry of criticism, the zoo ended the relationship after two days.


"...be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are far fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers."
--Saint Augustine

~~~~~~

"Evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses 
small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."
--An Introduction to Evolution, from Understanding Evolution (see link immediately below)

No Answers in Genesis


----------



## daws101

FurthurBB said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A retard with a degree in molecular biology  what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU KEEP SAYING YOU HAVE A molecular biology DEGREE! SHOW US IT AND THE SCHOOL YOU GOT IT FROM
> i'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does anyone believe that?  Really, that poster has less understanding of biology than a third grader.
Click to expand...

no it's just a fun way to watch the bullshit pile up.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dare you to give me a list of all beneficial mutations from someone of stature from your side,a Link not your faulty opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.
> 
> 
> Every member of the species dies before they produce offspring.
> 
> No. Not at all.
> 
> I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.
> 
> I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.
> 
> Purebreds belong to the exact same gene-pool as mutts ... their gene-pool is IDENTICAL ... it cannot be smaller.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is when they cross breed you will see traits of that purebred because the purebred animal only has DNA of that breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This does not prove you're right, but literally proves that I'm right.
> 
> I'll claim another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time for me to give you a true headshot.
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution
> 
> 
> by Roger Patterson on
> 
> March 8, 2007
> 
> 
> Layman
> author-roger-patterson
> biology
> 
> 
> We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because its good, we know it is bad, but because there isnt any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation
> Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris
> on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter Wilders
> 
> 
> What You Will Learn
> 
> Textbooks present evolution in two different wayssmall, observable changes (natural selection, speciation, adaptation) and large, unobservable changes (molecules-to-man evolution). They show evidence for the former and then conclude that this proves that the latter took place as well.
> 
> Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution - Answers in Genesis
Click to expand...

"Ken Ham is not recognized as a scientist or educator among experts in the fields of geology and paleontology, and his views on the interpretation of Biblical texts are extremist. Visitors to his museum may arrive knowing little about these sciences, but they will leave misled and intellectually deceived, said Dr. Kevin Padian, professor and curator, University of California, Berkeley and president of the National Center for Science Education.

Society Of Vertebrate Paleontology Speaks Out On Creation Museum


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU KEEP SAYING YOU HAVE A molecular biology DEGREE! SHOW US IT AND THE SCHOOL YOU GOT IT FROM
> i'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone believe that?  Really, that poster has less understanding of biology than a third grader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it's just a fun way to watch the bullshit pile up.
Click to expand...


Yeah you guys have laid it on kinda thick.

Big pile of pooh.


----------



## Youwerecreated

You can lead  horses to water but you can't make them drink it.

A day will come that we will clearly see who was right


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> You can lead  horses to water but you can't make them drink it.
> 
> A day will come that we will clearly see who was right


*TRANSLATION:*

Youwerecreated said:


>



Your surrender is accepted. Dismissed.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone believe that?  Really, that poster has less understanding of biology than a third grader.
> 
> 
> 
> no it's just a fun way to watch the bullshit pile up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah you guys have laid it on kinda thick.
> 
> Big pile of pooh.
Click to expand...

wrong again ! you're the pile and we're the shovels!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> You can lead  horses to water but you can't make them drink it.
> 
> A day will come that we will clearly see who was right


their's that loosely veiled threat again.
BTW who's we? ....you got a mouse in your pocket?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lead  horses to water but you can't make them drink it.
> 
> A day will come that we will clearly see who was right
> 
> 
> 
> their's that loosely veiled threat again.
> BTW who's we? ....you got a mouse in your pocket?
Click to expand...


No threat, just a promise given a long time ago.

Joh 1:3  All things came into existence through him, and without him nothing was. 

Eph 3:9  and to bring to light what is the fellowship of the mystery which from eternity has been hidden in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ; 

Rev 4:11  O Lord, You are worthy to receive glory and honor and power, because You created all things, and for Your will they are and were created. 

Rev 6:15  And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains. 
Rev 6:16  And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; 
Rev 6:17  for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand? 

I definitely have more faith in God over sinful man.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lead  horses to water but you can't make them drink it.
> 
> A day will come that we will clearly see who was right
> 
> 
> 
> their's that loosely veiled threat again.
> BTW who's we? ....you got a mouse in your pocket?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No threat, just a promise given a long time ago.
> 
> Joh 1:3  All things came into existence through him, and without him nothing was.
> 
> Eph 3:9  and to bring to light what is the fellowship of the mystery which from eternity has been hidden in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ;
> 
> Rev 4:11  O Lord, You are worthy to receive glory and honor and power, because You created all things, and for Your will they are and were created.
> 
> Rev 6:15  And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains.
> Rev 6:16  And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
> Rev 6:17  for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand?
> 
> I definitely have more faith in God over sinful man.
Click to expand...

Yet you still cite the Bible rather than the WORD.

What a tool.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lead  horses to water but you can't make them drink it.
> 
> A day will come that we will clearly see who was right
> 
> 
> 
> their's that loosely veiled threat again.
> BTW who's we? ....you got a mouse in your pocket?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No threat, just a promise given a long time ago.
> 
> Joh 1:3  All things came into existence through him, and without him nothing was.
> 
> Eph 3:9  and to bring to light what is the fellowship of the mystery which from eternity has been hidden in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ;
> 
> Rev 4:11  O Lord, You are worthy to receive glory and honor and power, because You created all things, and for Your will they are and were created.
> 
> Rev 6:15  And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains.
> Rev 6:16  And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
> Rev 6:17  for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand?
> 
> I definitely have more faith in God over sinful man.
Click to expand...

any way you spin it it's still a threat...
as to sin it's  conceived by man  practiced by man...


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> their's that loosely veiled threat again.
> BTW who's we? ....you got a mouse in your pocket?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No threat, just a promise given a long time ago.
> 
> Joh 1:3  All things came into existence through him, and without him nothing was.
> 
> Eph 3:9  and to bring to light what is the fellowship of the mystery which from eternity has been hidden in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ;
> 
> Rev 4:11  O Lord, You are worthy to receive glory and honor and power, because You created all things, and for Your will they are and were created.
> 
> Rev 6:15  And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains.
> Rev 6:16  And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
> Rev 6:17  for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand?
> 
> I definitely have more faith in God over sinful man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you still cite the Bible rather than the WORD.
> 
> What a tool.
Click to expand...


Not sure what you mean by this post ? the bible is the word of God.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> their's that loosely veiled threat again.
> BTW who's we? ....you got a mouse in your pocket?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No threat, just a promise given a long time ago.
> 
> Joh 1:3  All things came into existence through him, and without him nothing was.
> 
> Eph 3:9  and to bring to light what is the fellowship of the mystery which from eternity has been hidden in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ;
> 
> Rev 4:11  O Lord, You are worthy to receive glory and honor and power, because You created all things, and for Your will they are and were created.
> 
> Rev 6:15  And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains.
> Rev 6:16  And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
> Rev 6:17  for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand?
> 
> I definitely have more faith in God over sinful man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any way you spin it it's still a threat...
> as to sin it's  conceived by man  practiced by man...
Click to expand...


I don't spin i speak to the point that is why you guys disagree with me so. I call things the way I see it.

That is a promise through prophecy if you take it as a threat then that is on you.

God say's how it is gonna be and there is no changing that.

Man can use philosophy all they like to rid their thoughts of God ,but GOD doesn't go away and is always in the back of your mind even with the ones who reject him.


----------



## FurthurBB

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well thats the opinion of someone that doesnt understand evolution, so its understandable how you would think its impossible.
> 
> You have danced around the question yet again by trying to act witty and smart. Your not, and you fail.
> 
> You might have missed the point of the post, i think you skipped the last half, because it addressed the problem of complexity.
> 
> At what point in the sequence (greatest to least complexity): Eukaryote > Prokaryote > Virus > Viroid > Nucleotide, does it become too complex?
> 
> Is the ring of carbon atoms (nucleotide) too complex to form alone? Evidence would say otherwise.
> 
> Is a viroid too complex to form alone? Well a viroid is just a strand of nucleotides, so it shouldnt be much more complex than just one nucleotide.
> 
> How about a virus? A virus is just a viroid that has evolved more advanced structures, like a icosahedral capsid made of repeating proteins. So it cant really be too much more complex than a viroid.
> 
> See the picture here??
> 
> Which of those is too complex? The Virus? The Viroid? The Nucleotide?
> 
> You need to start understanding that the organism doesnt control the DNA, the DNA controls the organism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,but that is what you did.
> 
> I do understand that and have stated it so many times that the DNA of the parents and their parents will determine what the offspring will be.
> 
> It's not the gene itself,it is the information contained in the DNA. That is what makes us vastly different then chimps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, what? "Its not the gene itself, its the information contained in the DNA." What?
> 
> You probably have some nuanced explanation for that but its a retarded statement.
> 
> A gene is just a sequence of nucleotides that code for a protein. Those nucleotides are the information. The gene is the information, the nucleotides are the units of information.
> 
> You clearly avoided the question again.
> 
> Which of those is too complicated to form alone???????
Click to expand...


I mean, seriously, how can one continue to lie about their knowledge in the face of not knowing what genes are, what polymerase is, what gene pools are, how mutations work, how if the basics of DNA evolution were wrong, then so would paternity testing be, I could go on but isn't this enough to show the poster never even took anything more than middle school biology and doesn't even understand that?


----------



## Youwerecreated

I would like to introduce you to someone and his argument against your theory.

Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?
(This article comes from JohnDePoe.com to whom we are grateful).


In 1859 Charles Darwin published his seminal work, On the Origin of the Species. This publication sent the public in an uproar and has continued to do so to the present day. Why all the commotion over one book? 

_EDIT:  SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS_

 Are you willing to follow the evidence where it points? 


Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?: The Evidence Against Evolution


The author.

John M. DePoe


I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood Universitys philosophy department. I  have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God.  I may have even worked out some constructive answers to those questions.


  Curriculum Vitae


_EDIT:  SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS_





Education


_EDIT:  SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS_



Publications


_EDIT:  SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS_


For his research.

Philosophical Research & Interests


----------



## FurthurBB

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no one offering a list of beneficial mutations that did not lead to a loss of the origional genetic information.
> 
> All organisms experience mutations but yet we don't see new morpohlogical change ,why ? If mutations are the answer for new genetic data.
> 
> I am warning you a day will come where there will be a new theory for macro-evolution because mutations are a deadend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations are not a dead end. Your a retard.
> 
> OK since your a molecular biologist you must understand how mutations in DNA are translated to physical deformities or benefits, right? Its a sequence a enzyme-catalyzed reactions transcribing DNA to RNA and RNA to protein
> 
> The structure of a protein is a sequence of a amino acids strung together and folded first into primary, then into secondary, and then into tertiary structures, sometimes even quaternary structures. The function of the protein is defined by its structure, most specifically the receptor site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations arent just "bad things". Mostly theyre just a small alteration in this giant structure of thousands of amino acids in a complex structure of hydrogen bonds. So most mutations dont do much. A mutation that doesnt do anything cant get weeded out, the its just part of the new offsprings DNA like any other nucleotide. When it reproduces, it may pass it on. Therefore neutral mutations become part of a gene pool when introduced, as long as that lineage doesnt die for other reasons. So over time, neutral mutations add up in a gene pool. This is fact.
> 
> Beneficial mutations therefore must be the same, except that organisms with these organisms may dominate a gene pool.
> 
> Getit?
Click to expand...



Not to mention whole genome or even just gene duplications http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2447450/pdf/CFG-05-281.pdf, or horizontal transfer Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or plasmids, or viral DNA remnants.  All things that only add to the genetic information.  Then there are mutations that affect alternative splicing, no information is lost, none is gained, but function can definitely be lost or gained.  It really does not matter what you say though, they cannot understand it and are guided by others who also either don't know what they are talking about or are deliberately dishonest.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,but that is what you did.
> 
> I do understand that and have stated it so many times that the DNA of the parents and their parents will determine what the offspring will be.
> 
> It's not the gene itself,it is the information contained in the DNA. That is what makes us vastly different then chimps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, what? "Its not the gene itself, its the information contained in the DNA." What?
> 
> You probably have some nuanced explanation for that but its a retarded statement.
> 
> A gene is just a sequence of nucleotides that code for a protein. Those nucleotides are the information. The gene is the information, the nucleotides are the units of information.
> 
> You clearly avoided the question again.
> 
> Which of those is too complicated to form alone???????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean, seriously, how can one continue to lie about their knowledge in the face of not knowing what genes are, what polymerase is, what gene pools are, how mutations work, how if the basics of DNA evolution were wrong, then so would paternity testing be, I could go on but isn't this enough to show the poster never even took anything more than middle school biology and doesn't even understand that?
Click to expand...


Because my presuppositions are different then yours and my presuppositions give a different explanation then yours, does not prove your hate filled and insulting comment.

I posted just the guy for you he hits the nail squarely on the head.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,but that is what you did.
> 
> I do understand that and have stated it so many times that the DNA of the parents and their parents will determine what the offspring will be.
> 
> It's not the gene itself,it is the information contained in the DNA. That is what makes us vastly different then chimps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, what? "Its not the gene itself, its the information contained in the DNA." What?
> 
> You probably have some nuanced explanation for that but its a retarded statement.
> 
> A gene is just a sequence of nucleotides that code for a protein. Those nucleotides are the information. The gene is the information, the nucleotides are the units of information.
> 
> You clearly avoided the question again.
> 
> Which of those is too complicated to form alone???????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean, seriously, how can one continue to lie about their knowledge in the face of not knowing what genes are, what polymerase is, what gene pools are, how mutations work, how if the basics of DNA evolution were wrong, then so would paternity testing be, I could go on but isn't this enough to show the poster never even took anything more than middle school biology and doesn't even understand that?
Click to expand...


This guy describes you to a T.

Am I Some Whacked Out Fundamentalist?

"Too many people believe that the only kind of person who could reject evolution must be some fundamentalist who reads the Genesis creation account in the most literal way. First, that is an ad hominem argument. That means such a point pokes fun at the person making the argument, and does not address whether or not that person has offered good or bad reasons for accepting or rejecting the argument. Secondly, that is simply false. There are many evangelical Christians who hold a high view of the Bible and believe the earth is more than 10,000 years old"


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No threat, just a promise given a long time ago.
> 
> Joh 1:3  All things came into existence through him, and without him nothing was.
> 
> Eph 3:9  and to bring to light what is the fellowship of the mystery which from eternity has been hidden in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ;
> 
> Rev 4:11  O Lord, You are worthy to receive glory and honor and power, because You created all things, and for Your will they are and were created.
> 
> Rev 6:15  And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains.
> Rev 6:16  And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
> Rev 6:17  for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand?
> 
> I definitely have more faith in God over sinful man.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you still cite the Bible rather than the WORD.
> 
> What a tool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by this post ? the bible is the word of God.
Click to expand...

The Bible is the word of men. Literally. Moses, Matthew, John, etc...; men.

In their words--words of men, not the WORD of God--is where you have placed your conviction of certainty. You're just wrong again. So terribly, terribly, wrong again. Always, always, wrong; yet so certain you're right. Such is the nature of faith: _the conviction of absolute certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic has been established; the obstinate strength of resolute denial of valid verifiable evidence and valid logic is the "validating" quality of faith._

Your mind is so shut by obdurate faith, that it is shut also to God.

Sorry about your superstitious luck, retard.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you still cite the Bible rather than the WORD.
> 
> What a tool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by this post ? the bible is the word of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is the word of men. Literally. Moses, Matthew, John, etc...; men.
> 
> In their words--words of men, not the WORD of God--is where you have placed your conviction of certainty. You're just wrong again. So terribly, terribly, wrong again. Always, always, wrong; yet so certain you're right. Such is the nature of faith: _the conviction of absolute certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic has been established; the obstinate strength of resolute denial of valid verifiable evidence and valid logic is the "validating" quality of faith._
> 
> Your mind is so shut by obdurate faith, that it is shut also to God.
> 
> Sorry about your superstitious luck, retard.
Click to expand...


They were inspired by God.

2Ti 3:16  All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 

Now let's consider contradictions of your theory.

Evolution Contradictions - Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums

Contradictions to the theory of Evolution

Caught in Contradictions, PZ Myers Claims "Evolutionary Theory Predicts Differences as well as Similarities" (and Therefore Predicts Nothing) (Updated) - Evolution News & Views

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hV-rqCDhew]Evolution Bloopers Hoaxes and Contradictions - YouTube[/ame]

There you go you mental midget.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by this post ? the bible is the word of God.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the word of men. Literally. Moses, Matthew, John, etc...; men.
> 
> In their words--words of men, not the WORD of God--is where you have placed your conviction of certainty. You're just wrong again. So terribly, terribly, wrong again. Always, always, wrong; yet so certain you're right. Such is the nature of faith: _the conviction of absolute certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic has been established; the obstinate strength of resolute denial of valid verifiable evidence and valid logic is the "validating" quality of faith._
> 
> Your mind is so shut by obdurate faith, that it is shut also to God.
> 
> Sorry about your superstitious luck, retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were inspired by God.
> 
> 2Ti 3:16  All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
Click to expand...

The Bible is the word of men. Literally. Moses, Matthew, John, etc...; men. Inspired by God or otherwise, you still prefer to place your conviction of certainty in the words of men rather than the WORD. 

You're just wrong again. So terribly, terribly, wrong again. Always, always, wrong; yet so certain you're right. Such is the nature of faith: _the conviction of absolute certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic has been established; the obstinate strength of resolute denial of valid verifiable evidence and valid logic is the "validating" quality of faith._

Your mind is so shut by obdurate faith, that it is shut also to God.



Youwerecreated said:


> Now let's consider contradictions of your theory.
> 
> Evolution Contradictions - Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums
> 
> Contradictions to the theory of Evolution
> 
> Caught in Contradictions, PZ Myers Claims "Evolutionary Theory Predicts Differences as well as Similarities" (and Therefore Predicts Nothing) (Updated) - Evolution News & Views
> 
> Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
> 
> Evolution Bloopers Hoaxes and Contradictions - YouTube
> 
> There you go you mental midget.


All strawmen.

Sorry about your superstitious luck, retard. 

But since you brought up contradictions, do care to straighten this one out Chucklefuck?





> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you can see traits from both sides because genes have become fixed in each breed. That is because they only have genetic data to produce what they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.
> 
> No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, *apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.*​
Click to expand...

​


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the word of men. Literally. Moses, Matthew, John, etc...; men.
> 
> In their words--words of men, not the WORD of God--is where you have placed your conviction of certainty. You're just wrong again. So terribly, terribly, wrong again. Always, always, wrong; yet so certain you're right. Such is the nature of faith: _the conviction of absolute certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic has been established; the obstinate strength of resolute denial of valid verifiable evidence and valid logic is the "validating" quality of faith._
> 
> Your mind is so shut by obdurate faith, that it is shut also to God.
> 
> Sorry about your superstitious luck, retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were inspired by God.
> 
> 2Ti 3:16  All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is the word of men. Literally. Moses, Matthew, John, etc...; men. Inspired by God or otherwise, you still prefer to place your conviction of certainty in the words of men rather than the WORD.
> 
> You're just wrong again. So terribly, terribly, wrong again. Always, always, wrong; yet so certain you're right. Such is the nature of faith: _the conviction of absolute certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic has been established; the obstinate strength of resolute denial of valid verifiable evidence and valid logic is the "validating" quality of faith._
> 
> Your mind is so shut by obdurate faith, that it is shut also to God.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now let's consider contradictions of your theory.
> 
> Evolution Contradictions - Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums
> 
> Contradictions to the theory of Evolution
> 
> Caught in Contradictions, PZ Myers Claims "Evolutionary Theory Predicts Differences as well as Similarities" (and Therefore Predicts Nothing) (Updated) - Evolution News & Views
> 
> Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
> 
> Evolution Bloopers Hoaxes and Contradictions - YouTube
> 
> There you go you mental midget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All strawmen.
> 
> Sorry about your superstitious luck, retard.
Click to expand...


Those are facts,face it your side is so desperate for evidence to support your wild unsupported theory they jump to the wrong conclusions and make stuff up. 

Who is the retard ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the word of men. Literally. Moses, Matthew, John, etc...; men.
> 
> In their words--words of men, not the WORD of God--is where you have placed your conviction of certainty. You're just wrong again. So terribly, terribly, wrong again. Always, always, wrong; yet so certain you're right. Such is the nature of faith: _the conviction of absolute certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic has been established; the obstinate strength of resolute denial of valid verifiable evidence and valid logic is the "validating" quality of faith._
> 
> Your mind is so shut by obdurate faith, that it is shut also to God.
> 
> Sorry about your superstitious luck, retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were inspired by God.
> 
> 2Ti 3:16  All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is the word of men. Literally. Moses, Matthew, John, etc...; men. Inspired by God or otherwise, you still prefer to place your conviction of certainty in the words of men rather than the WORD.
> 
> You're just wrong again. So terribly, terribly, wrong again. Always, always, wrong; yet so certain you're right. Such is the nature of faith: _the conviction of absolute certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic has been established; the obstinate strength of resolute denial of valid verifiable evidence and valid logic is the "validating" quality of faith._
> 
> Your mind is so shut by obdurate faith, that it is shut also to God.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now let's consider contradictions of your theory.
> 
> Evolution Contradictions - Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums
> 
> Contradictions to the theory of Evolution
> 
> Caught in Contradictions, PZ Myers Claims "Evolutionary Theory Predicts Differences as well as Similarities" (and Therefore Predicts Nothing) (Updated) - Evolution News & Views
> 
> Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
> 
> Evolution Bloopers Hoaxes and Contradictions - YouTube
> 
> There you go you mental midget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All strawmen.
> 
> Sorry about your superstitious luck, retard.
Click to expand...


One other thing you posted to quickly to look at everything to call them all strawmen you LIAR


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> You can lead  horses to water but you can't make them drink it.
> 
> A day will come that we will clearly see who was right



Yea when your on year death bed and jesus hasnt come back youll realize you lived your entire life for no reason. 

Your last neuron will cease firing and your thoughts will stop. No soul will not depart, because _everything_ about you is an electrical impulse in your brain.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Those are facts,face it your side is so desperate for evidence to support your wild unsupported theory they jump to the wrong conclusions and make stuff up.
> 
> Who is the retard ?


Again. Those are strawmen, and you're the retard.



Youwerecreated said:


> One other thing you posted to quickly to look at everything to call them all strawmen you LIAR


Nonsense. I read the articles, but I'll admit that I didn't watch the whole vid; it's bullshit first minutes were enough evidence that it was nothing but the same disingenuous quote-mined strawmen that you typically produce.

And as usual, you and these Creationists cannot refute Evolution on any evidential or validly logical basis; so you create these strawmen, refute these strawmen, and then claim you refuted Evolution.

This process of yours has been demonstrated repeatedly, and this instance is just more evidence of it.

CONGRATULATIONS RETARD! BRAVO! 

Again, since you brought up contadictions, why don't you straighten this one out Mr. Potato-head?

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you can see traits from both sides because genes have become fixed in each breed. That is because they only have genetic data to produce what they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.
> 
> No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, *apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.*
> 
> Care to explain that, Mr. Bible-Degree-in-Bible-Molecular-Bible-Biology?
> 
> Another delivered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
Click to expand...


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> The author.
> 
> John M. DePoe
> 
> 
> I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood University&#8217;s philosophy department. I  have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God.  I may have even worked out some constructive answers to those questions.
> 
> 
> Curriculum Vitae
> 
> 
> (shortened online version, last updated 6/7/2011)
> Professional Employment
> 
> 
> Fall 2011&#8212;Current: Assistant Professor, Marywood University
> Fall 2010&#8212;Spring 2011: Visiting Instructor, Black Hawk College
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education
> 
> 
> Ph.D. Philosophy, University of Iowa (2010)
> Dissertation:  &#8220;A Defense of the Knowledge Argument&#8221;
> Director: Richard A. Fumerton
> 
> 
> M.A. Philosophy, Western Michigan University (2006)
> 
> 
> M.A. Religion, Hardin-Simmons University (2004)
> Thesis: &#8220;Human Freedom and Divine Foreknowledge: An Analysis of Selected Solutions&#8221;
> Director: Dan R. Stiver
> 
> 
> B.A. Philosophy and Theology, Hardin-Simmons University (2002)
> 
> 
> 
> Areas of Specialization
> 
> 
> Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Religion
> 
> 
> 
> Areas of Competence
> 
> 
> History of Modern Philosophy, Logic, Ethics
> 
> 
> 
> Publications
> 
> 
> Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles
> 
> 
> &#8220;Williamson on the Evidence for Skepticism,&#8221; Southwest Philosophical Studies, forthcoming.
> 
> 
> &#8220;Defeating the Self-Defeat Argument for Phenomenal Conservatism,&#8221; Philosophical Studies 152, no. 3 (2011): 347-359.
> 
> 
> &#8220;Vindicating a Bayesian Approach to Confirming Miracles: A Response to Jordan Howard Sobel&#8217;s Reading of Hume,&#8221; Philosophia Christi 10, no. 1 (2008): 229-38.
> 
> 
> &#8220;In Defense of Classical Foundationalism: A Critical Evaluation of Plantinga's Argument that Classical Foundationalism is Self-Refuting,&#8221; The South African Journal of Philosophy 26, no. 3 (2007): 245-51.
> 
> 
> &#8220;Theism, Atheism, and the Metaphysics of Free Will,&#8221; Southwest Philosophical Studies 27 (2005): 36-44.
> 
> 
> 
> For his research.
> 
> Philosophical Research & Interests



Ignorance! Pure ignorance!

*Cambrian explosion

*The consensus on the cambrian explosion is quite different then you understand. Its not the evolution of most animals we see today. Its the evolution of things like crustaceans and fish, not dogs and cats. 

*Darwins black box

*Irreducible complexity? Really? How many times does that have to be disproved? The flagella is partially a Type III secretion system, 10 of the proteins function as a "needle" to inject toxin in some bacteria. So its not an example of irreducible complexity. 

Usually tackling the problem of irreducible complexity requires knowledge of how proteins, cells, and even the human body work (remember when i had to teach you about the brain?). I think thats the problem were running into with this argument.

*Genetics

*UGH! The genetic mutation behind darwins finches isnt known??? really??

Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches

protein BMP4 controls the structure of the beak during gestation. Again, the claim that "mutations in developmental genes are always harmful" is a giant simplification. more likely a change in the protein leads to a small change in the structure of some skeletal feature.

_Note:_ I deleted everything but your sources, because i think they might say something about the quality of your copy-pasta. Esta no muy bueno señor....


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lead  horses to water but you can't make them drink it.
> 
> A day will come that we will clearly see who was right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea when your on year death bed and jesus hasnt come back youll realize you lived your entire life for no reason.
> 
> Your last neuron will cease firing and your thoughts will stop. No soul will not depart, because _everything_ about you is an electrical impulse in your brain.
Click to expand...


Really ? I have my own successful business. I have 8 children and 7 grand children. I have a beautiful home up on a mountain in Arizona. Have the same wife I gladly married 30 years ago.

I played football.I played on a national paintball team.

I have horses and see Gods beauty everytime we take them out for a ride. Outside of the stroke i have had a great life.

I am an ethical and honest person partly because of me but more so because the influence of my faith.

So I don't see my life as a waste either way. But I have zero doubt that there is no God and I will meet him when the time is right.

What if Darwin was wrong ? he wasted his life chasing something that may have never happened. And his wild imagination took a whole lot of people down with him.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author.
> 
> John M. DePoe
> 
> 
> I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood University&#8217;s philosophy department. I  have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God.  I may have even worked out some constructive answers to those questions.
> 
> 
> Curriculum Vitae
> 
> 
> (shortened online version, last updated 6/7/2011)
> Professional Employment
> 
> 
> Fall 2011&#8212;Current: Assistant Professor, Marywood University
> Fall 2010&#8212;Spring 2011: Visiting Instructor, Black Hawk College
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education
> 
> 
> Ph.D. Philosophy, University of Iowa (2010)
> Dissertation:  &#8220;A Defense of the Knowledge Argument&#8221;
> Director: Richard A. Fumerton
> 
> 
> M.A. Philosophy, Western Michigan University (2006)
> 
> 
> M.A. Religion, Hardin-Simmons University (2004)
> Thesis: &#8220;Human Freedom and Divine Foreknowledge: An Analysis of Selected Solutions&#8221;
> Director: Dan R. Stiver
> 
> 
> B.A. Philosophy and Theology, Hardin-Simmons University (2002)
> 
> 
> 
> Areas of Specialization
> 
> 
> Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Religion
> 
> 
> 
> Areas of Competence
> 
> 
> History of Modern Philosophy, Logic, Ethics
> 
> 
> 
> Publications
> 
> 
> Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles
> 
> 
> &#8220;Williamson on the Evidence for Skepticism,&#8221; Southwest Philosophical Studies, forthcoming.
> 
> 
> &#8220;Defeating the Self-Defeat Argument for Phenomenal Conservatism,&#8221; Philosophical Studies 152, no. 3 (2011): 347-359.
> 
> 
> &#8220;Vindicating a Bayesian Approach to Confirming Miracles: A Response to Jordan Howard Sobel&#8217;s Reading of Hume,&#8221; Philosophia Christi 10, no. 1 (2008): 229-38.
> 
> 
> &#8220;In Defense of Classical Foundationalism: A Critical Evaluation of Plantinga's Argument that Classical Foundationalism is Self-Refuting,&#8221; The South African Journal of Philosophy 26, no. 3 (2007): 245-51.
> 
> 
> &#8220;Theism, Atheism, and the Metaphysics of Free Will,&#8221; Southwest Philosophical Studies 27 (2005): 36-44.
> 
> 
> 
> For his research.
> 
> Philosophical Research & Interests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance! Pure ignorance!
> 
> *Cambrian explosion
> 
> *The consensus on the cambrian explosion is quite different then you understand. Its not the evolution of most animals we see today. Its the evolution of things like crustaceans and fish, not dogs and cats.
> 
> *Darwins black box
> 
> *Irreducible complexity? Really? How many times does that have to be disproved? The flagella is partially a Type III secretion system, 10 of the proteins function as a "needle" to inject toxin in some bacteria. So its not an example of irreducible complexity.
> 
> Usually tackling the problem of irreducible complexity requires knowledge of how proteins, cells, and even the human body work (remember when i had to teach you about the brain?). I think thats the problem were running into with this argument.
> 
> *Genetics
> 
> *UGH! The genetic mutation behind darwins finches isnt known??? really??
> 
> Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches
> 
> protein BMP4 controls the structure of the beak during gestation. Again, the claim that "mutations in developmental genes are always harmful" is a giant simplification. more likely a change in the protein leads to a small change in the structure of some skeletal feature.
> 
> _Note:_ I deleted everything but your sources, because i think they might say something about the quality of your copy-pasta. Esta no muy bueno señor....
Click to expand...


Calling a professor ignorant  with peer reviewed articles. 

That is a fact about the cambrian explosion all of a sudden in a short period time over 50 different body sructures appeared with no connection from the past,And they are still the same today.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author.
> 
> John M. DePoe
> 
> 
> I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood Universitys philosophy department. I  have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God.  I may have even worked out some constructive answers to those questions.
> 
> 
> Curriculum Vitae
> 
> 
> (shortened online version, last updated 6/7/2011)
> Professional Employment
> 
> 
> Fall 2011Current: Assistant Professor, Marywood University
> Fall 2010Spring 2011: Visiting Instructor, Black Hawk College
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education
> 
> 
> Ph.D. Philosophy, University of Iowa (2010)
> Dissertation:  A Defense of the Knowledge Argument
> Director: Richard A. Fumerton
> 
> 
> M.A. Philosophy, Western Michigan University (2006)
> 
> 
> M.A. Religion, Hardin-Simmons University (2004)
> Thesis: Human Freedom and Divine Foreknowledge: An Analysis of Selected Solutions
> Director: Dan R. Stiver
> 
> 
> B.A. Philosophy and Theology, Hardin-Simmons University (2002)
> 
> 
> 
> Areas of Specialization
> 
> 
> Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Religion
> 
> 
> 
> Areas of Competence
> 
> 
> History of Modern Philosophy, Logic, Ethics
> 
> 
> 
> Publications
> 
> 
> Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles
> 
> 
> Williamson on the Evidence for Skepticism, Southwest Philosophical Studies, forthcoming.
> 
> 
> Defeating the Self-Defeat Argument for Phenomenal Conservatism, Philosophical Studies 152, no. 3 (2011): 347-359.
> 
> 
> Vindicating a Bayesian Approach to Confirming Miracles: A Response to Jordan Howard Sobels Reading of Hume, Philosophia Christi 10, no. 1 (2008): 229-38.
> 
> 
> In Defense of Classical Foundationalism: A Critical Evaluation of Plantinga's Argument that Classical Foundationalism is Self-Refuting, The South African Journal of Philosophy 26, no. 3 (2007): 245-51.
> 
> 
> Theism, Atheism, and the Metaphysics of Free Will, Southwest Philosophical Studies 27 (2005): 36-44.
> 
> 
> 
> For his research.
> 
> Philosophical Research & Interests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance! Pure ignorance!
> 
> *Cambrian explosion
> 
> *The consensus on the cambrian explosion is quite different then you understand. Its not the evolution of most animals we see today. Its the evolution of things like crustaceans and fish, not dogs and cats.
> 
> *Darwins black box
> 
> *Irreducible complexity? Really? How many times does that have to be disproved? The flagella is partially a Type III secretion system, 10 of the proteins function as a "needle" to inject toxin in some bacteria. So its not an example of irreducible complexity.
> 
> Usually tackling the problem of irreducible complexity requires knowledge of how proteins, cells, and even the human body work (remember when i had to teach you about the brain?). I think thats the problem were running into with this argument.
> 
> *Genetics
> 
> *UGH! The genetic mutation behind darwins finches isnt known??? really??
> 
> Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches
> 
> protein BMP4 controls the structure of the beak during gestation. Again, the claim that "mutations in developmental genes are always harmful" is a giant simplification. more likely a change in the protein leads to a small change in the structure of some skeletal feature.
> 
> _Note:_ I deleted everything but your sources, because i think they might say something about the quality of your copy-pasta. Esta no muy bueno señor....
Click to expand...


If you are so concerned with copying and pasting why do you do it ?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author.
> 
> John M. DePoe
> 
> 
> I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood Universitys philosophy department. I  have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God.  I may have even worked out some constructive answers to those questions.
> 
> 
> Curriculum Vitae
> 
> 
> (shortened online version, last updated 6/7/2011)
> Professional Employment
> 
> 
> Fall 2011Current: Assistant Professor, Marywood University
> Fall 2010Spring 2011: Visiting Instructor, Black Hawk College
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education
> 
> 
> Ph.D. Philosophy, University of Iowa (2010)
> Dissertation:  A Defense of the Knowledge Argument
> Director: Richard A. Fumerton
> 
> 
> M.A. Philosophy, Western Michigan University (2006)
> 
> 
> M.A. Religion, Hardin-Simmons University (2004)
> Thesis: Human Freedom and Divine Foreknowledge: An Analysis of Selected Solutions
> Director: Dan R. Stiver
> 
> 
> B.A. Philosophy and Theology, Hardin-Simmons University (2002)
> 
> 
> 
> Areas of Specialization
> 
> 
> Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Religion
> 
> 
> 
> Areas of Competence
> 
> 
> History of Modern Philosophy, Logic, Ethics
> 
> 
> 
> Publications
> 
> 
> Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles
> 
> 
> Williamson on the Evidence for Skepticism, Southwest Philosophical Studies, forthcoming.
> 
> 
> Defeating the Self-Defeat Argument for Phenomenal Conservatism, Philosophical Studies 152, no. 3 (2011): 347-359.
> 
> 
> Vindicating a Bayesian Approach to Confirming Miracles: A Response to Jordan Howard Sobels Reading of Hume, Philosophia Christi 10, no. 1 (2008): 229-38.
> 
> 
> In Defense of Classical Foundationalism: A Critical Evaluation of Plantinga's Argument that Classical Foundationalism is Self-Refuting, The South African Journal of Philosophy 26, no. 3 (2007): 245-51.
> 
> 
> Theism, Atheism, and the Metaphysics of Free Will, Southwest Philosophical Studies 27 (2005): 36-44.
> 
> 
> 
> For his research.
> 
> Philosophical Research & Interests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance! Pure ignorance!
> 
> *Cambrian explosion
> 
> *The consensus on the cambrian explosion is quite different then you understand. Its not the evolution of most animals we see today. Its the evolution of things like crustaceans and fish, not dogs and cats.
> 
> *Darwins black box
> 
> *Irreducible complexity? Really? How many times does that have to be disproved? The flagella is partially a Type III secretion system, 10 of the proteins function as a "needle" to inject toxin in some bacteria. So its not an example of irreducible complexity.
> 
> Usually tackling the problem of irreducible complexity requires knowledge of how proteins, cells, and even the human body work (remember when i had to teach you about the brain?). I think thats the problem were running into with this argument.
> 
> *Genetics
> 
> *UGH! The genetic mutation behind darwins finches isnt known??? really??
> 
> Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches
> 
> protein BMP4 controls the structure of the beak during gestation. Again, the claim that "mutations in developmental genes are always harmful" is a giant simplification. more likely a change in the protein leads to a small change in the structure of some skeletal feature.
> 
> _Note:_ I deleted everything but your sources, because i think they might say something about the quality of your copy-pasta. Esta no muy bueno señor....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are so concerned with copying and pasting why do you do it ?
Click to expand...


Lol the only thing i copied was the URL for that link you fool. Cool little dance around my rebuttal, though.

Typical. State something that isnt true to avoid factual debate.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lead  horses to water but you can't make them drink it.
> 
> A day will come that we will clearly see who was right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea when your on year death bed and jesus hasnt come back youll realize you lived your entire life for no reason.
> 
> Your last neuron will cease firing and your thoughts will stop. No soul will not depart, because _everything_ about you is an electrical impulse in your brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really ? I have my own successful business. I have 8 children and 7 grand children. I have a beautiful home up on a mountain in Arizona. Have the same wife I gladly married 30 years ago.
> 
> I played football.I played on a national paintball team.
> 
> I have horses and see Gods beauty everytime we take them out for a ride. Outside of the stroke i have had a great life.
> 
> I am an ethical and honest person partly because of me but more so because the influence of my faith.
> 
> So I don't see my life as a waste either way. But I have zero doubt that there is no God and I will meet him when the time is right.
> 
> What if Darwin was wrong ? he wasted his life chasing something that may have never happened. And his wild imagination took a whole lot of people down with him.
Click to expand...


Well you can think you see god all you want, the fact is you will die without proof. Because most likely he doesnt exist.

But what if darwin is wrong? Well see, my faith isnt evolution. Thats where you and i diverge, i dont form my opinions on faith. 

If darwin is wrong, my opinion on the afterlife is no different. Your personality is just electrical connections in the brain. The concept of a soul comes from the feeling that your personality and your mind are separate from your body. While complex, its still biochemistry none-the-less.

So if darwin's wrong im still going to be certain in what i believe happens after death: nothing. Your neurons stop firing and you will be dead.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author.
> 
> John M. DePoe
> 
> 
> I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood University&#8217;s philosophy department. I  have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God.  I may have even worked out some constructive answers to those questions.
> 
> 
> Curriculum Vitae
> 
> 
> (shortened online version, last updated 6/7/2011)
> Professional Employment
> 
> 
> Fall 2011&#8212;Current: Assistant Professor, Marywood University
> Fall 2010&#8212;Spring 2011: Visiting Instructor, Black Hawk College
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education
> 
> 
> Ph.D. Philosophy, University of Iowa (2010)
> Dissertation:  &#8220;A Defense of the Knowledge Argument&#8221;
> Director: Richard A. Fumerton
> 
> 
> M.A. Philosophy, Western Michigan University (2006)
> 
> 
> M.A. Religion, Hardin-Simmons University (2004)
> Thesis: &#8220;Human Freedom and Divine Foreknowledge: An Analysis of Selected Solutions&#8221;
> Director: Dan R. Stiver
> 
> 
> B.A. Philosophy and Theology, Hardin-Simmons University (2002)
> 
> 
> 
> Areas of Specialization
> 
> 
> Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Religion
> 
> 
> 
> Areas of Competence
> 
> 
> History of Modern Philosophy, Logic, Ethics
> 
> 
> 
> Publications
> 
> 
> Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles
> 
> 
> &#8220;Williamson on the Evidence for Skepticism,&#8221; Southwest Philosophical Studies, forthcoming.
> 
> 
> &#8220;Defeating the Self-Defeat Argument for Phenomenal Conservatism,&#8221; Philosophical Studies 152, no. 3 (2011): 347-359.
> 
> 
> &#8220;Vindicating a Bayesian Approach to Confirming Miracles: A Response to Jordan Howard Sobel&#8217;s Reading of Hume,&#8221; Philosophia Christi 10, no. 1 (2008): 229-38.
> 
> 
> &#8220;In Defense of Classical Foundationalism: A Critical Evaluation of Plantinga's Argument that Classical Foundationalism is Self-Refuting,&#8221; The South African Journal of Philosophy 26, no. 3 (2007): 245-51.
> 
> 
> &#8220;Theism, Atheism, and the Metaphysics of Free Will,&#8221; Southwest Philosophical Studies 27 (2005): 36-44.
> 
> 
> 
> For his research.
> 
> Philosophical Research & Interests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance! Pure ignorance!
> 
> *Cambrian explosion
> 
> *The consensus on the cambrian explosion is quite different then you understand. Its not the evolution of most animals we see today. Its the evolution of things like crustaceans and fish, not dogs and cats.
> 
> *Darwins black box
> 
> *Irreducible complexity? Really? How many times does that have to be disproved? The flagella is partially a Type III secretion system, 10 of the proteins function as a "needle" to inject toxin in some bacteria. So its not an example of irreducible complexity.
> 
> Usually tackling the problem of irreducible complexity requires knowledge of how proteins, cells, and even the human body work (remember when i had to teach you about the brain?). I think thats the problem were running into with this argument.
> 
> *Genetics
> 
> *UGH! The genetic mutation behind darwins finches isnt known??? really??
> 
> Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches
> 
> protein BMP4 controls the structure of the beak during gestation. Again, the claim that "mutations in developmental genes are always harmful" is a giant simplification. more likely a change in the protein leads to a small change in the structure of some skeletal feature.
> 
> _Note:_ I deleted everything but your sources, because i think they might say something about the quality of your copy-pasta. Esta no muy bueno señor....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling a professor ignorant  with peer reviewed articles.
> 
> That is a fact about the cambrian explosion all of a sudden in a short period time over 50 different body sructures appeared with no connection from the past,And they are still the same today.
Click to expand...


"peer reviewed"

Really? i doubt that, and if so i doubt his peers had very good things to say.

But what do you mean the body structures are still the same today? They arent, because theyre much more evolved. The Cambrian explosion is basically the transition from colonies of cells to full fledged multicellular organisms. Its not a short period of time either, its about 100 million years.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea when your on year death bed and jesus hasnt come back youll realize you lived your entire life for no reason.
> 
> Your last neuron will cease firing and your thoughts will stop. No soul will not depart, because _everything_ about you is an electrical impulse in your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? I have my own successful business. I have 8 children and 7 grand children. I have a beautiful home up on a mountain in Arizona. Have the same wife I gladly married 30 years ago.
> 
> I played football.I played on a national paintball team.
> 
> I have horses and see Gods beauty everytime we take them out for a ride. Outside of the stroke i have had a great life.
> 
> I am an ethical and honest person partly because of me but more so because the influence of my faith.
> 
> So I don't see my life as a waste either way. But I have zero doubt that there is no God and I will meet him when the time is right.
> 
> What if Darwin was wrong ? he wasted his life chasing something that may have never happened. And his wild imagination took a whole lot of people down with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you can think you see god all you want, the fact is you will die without proof. Because most likely he doesnt exist.
> 
> But what if darwin is wrong? Well see, my faith isnt evolution. Thats where you and i diverge, i dont form my opinions on faith.
> 
> If darwin is wrong, my opinion on the afterlife is no different. Your personality is just electrical connections in the brain. The concept of a soul comes from the feeling that your personality and your mind are separate from your body. While complex, its still biochemistry none-the-less.
> 
> So if darwin's wrong im still going to be certain in what i believe happens after death: nothing. Your neurons stop firing and you will be dead.
Click to expand...


Maybe ,maybe not.

I should have posted this article sooner.

27. TWENTY OBJECTIONS ADMITTED

Evolutionists themselves, even including Darwin, admit as many as 20 objections to his theory. Darwin states the first four and Prof. V. L. Kellogg sums up the remaining 16 on pp. 247-52 of "Readings in Evolution." Among them are:

1. There must have been innumerable transitional forms in the formation of new species. No convincing evidence of these missing links exists.

2. Natural selection can not account for the instinct of animals such as that of the honey bee, "which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematics.":

4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the formation of new species.

5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited.

6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance.

7. Variation is so slight as to be imperceptible, and, therefore, cannot account for the "survival of the fittest." If the same progressive changes do not occur generally, if not universally, in the numbers of the same species in the same period, no new species can arise. Such general changes do not occur.

8. Natural selection could not make use of initial slight changes. "What would be the advantage of the first few hairs of a mammal, or the first steps toward feathers in a bird, when these creatures were beginning to diverge from their reptilian ancestors?"

9. Even if Darwinism should explain the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the survival of the fittest, which is far more important.

10. Darwin says, "I am convinced that natural selection has been the most important but not the exclusive means of modification." Many scientists think it of very little importance, and that it is not true.

11. "The fluctuating variations of Darwinism are quantitative, or plus and minus variations; whereas, the differences between species are qualitative." Growth and development in one species does not produce a new species, which must be of a different kind. Miles Darden, of Tennessee, was 90 inches tall, and weighed 1000 pounds, but remained a member of the human species, though he was as high and heavy as a horse. So did the giant Posius, over 10 feet tall, who lived in the days of Augustus.

12. "There is a growing skepticism on the part of biologists as to the extreme fierceness of the struggle for existence and of the consequent rigor of selection." Overproduction and shortage of space and food might sometime be a factor of importance, but has it been so in the past? Has it affected the human race?

13. Darwin proposed the theory of gemmules. Prof. H. H. Newman says, "This theory was not satisfactory even to Darwin and is now only of historical interest."

14. Darwin's subsidiary theory of sexual selection has also been rejected by scientists as worthless.

In view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that Darwin's theory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?

And is it not amazing that self-styled "scientists" hold on to their precious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight? They can not save evolution even by rejecting Darwinism.

Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the British Museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." Is a man in that position not a credible witness?

Prof. Beale, of King's College, London, a distinguished physiologist, said: "There is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."

Prof Virchow, of Berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: The attempt to find the transition from the .animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal."

Prof. Fleishman, of Erlangen, who once accepted Darwinism, but after further investigation repudiated it, said: "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it, in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the product of the imagination."

Prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "The theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency There is not a fact known to science, tending to show that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."

Dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of NY Academy of Medicine, said: "The Darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His so called fellow animals, the primates--gorilla, orang and chimpanzee--can do nothing truly human."

Sir William Dawson, an eminent geologist, of Canada, said: "The record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without apparent predecessors...Paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what is told in Scripture."

The foremost evolutionists, Spencer, Huxley and Romanes, before their death, repudiated Darwinism. Haeckel alone supported the theory and that by forged evidence.

Dr. St. George Mivert, late professor of biology in the University College of Kensington, calls Darwinism a "puerile hypothesis."

Dr. James Orr, of Edinburgh University, says: "The greatest scientists and theologians of Europe are now pronouncing Darwinism to be absolutely dead."

Dr. Traas, a famous paleontologist, concludes: "The idea that mankind is descended from any simian species whatever, is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man." Does this apply to H. G. Wells?

Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor of Geology, in Harvard University, said: "It is not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions, now inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly, by the operation of natural selection."

Prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: "Most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly Darwinism, is an error, and can not be maintained.

Prof. Huxley, said that evolution is "not proved and not provable."

Sir Charles Bell, Prof. of the University College of London, says: "Everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."

These testimonies of scientists of the first rank are a part of a large number. Many of them and many more, are given in Prof. Townsend's "Collapse of Evolution," McCann's "God or Gorilla," Philip Mauro's "Evolution At the Bar," and other anti-evolution books. Alfred McCann, in his great work, "God or Gorilla," mentions 20 of the most prominent scholars, who do not accept Darwinism. Yet they say, "All scholars accept evolution."



For full article.

The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance! Pure ignorance!
> 
> *Cambrian explosion
> 
> *The consensus on the cambrian explosion is quite different then you understand. Its not the evolution of most animals we see today. Its the evolution of things like crustaceans and fish, not dogs and cats.
> 
> *Darwins black box
> 
> *Irreducible complexity? Really? How many times does that have to be disproved? The flagella is partially a Type III secretion system, 10 of the proteins function as a "needle" to inject toxin in some bacteria. So its not an example of irreducible complexity.
> 
> Usually tackling the problem of irreducible complexity requires knowledge of how proteins, cells, and even the human body work (remember when i had to teach you about the brain?). I think thats the problem were running into with this argument.
> 
> *Genetics
> 
> *UGH! The genetic mutation behind darwins finches isnt known??? really??
> 
> Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches
> 
> protein BMP4 controls the structure of the beak during gestation. Again, the claim that "mutations in developmental genes are always harmful" is a giant simplification. more likely a change in the protein leads to a small change in the structure of some skeletal feature.
> 
> _Note:_ I deleted everything but your sources, because i think they might say something about the quality of your copy-pasta. Esta no muy bueno señor....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling a professor ignorant  with peer reviewed articles.
> 
> That is a fact about the cambrian explosion all of a sudden in a short period time over 50 different body sructures appeared with no connection from the past,And they are still the same today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "peer reviewed"
> 
> Really? i doubt that, and if so i doubt his peers had very good things to say.
> 
> But what do you mean the body structures are still the same today? They arent, because theyre much more evolved. The Cambrian explosion is basically the transition from colonies of cells to full fledged multicellular organisms. Its not a short period of time either, its about 100 million years.
Click to expand...


Living fossils.

Living-Fossils.com


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling a professor ignorant  with peer reviewed articles.
> 
> That is a fact about the cambrian explosion all of a sudden in a short period time over 50 different body sructures appeared with no connection from the past,And they are still the same today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "peer reviewed"
> 
> Really? i doubt that, and if so i doubt his peers had very good things to say.
> 
> But what do you mean the body structures are still the same today? They arent, because theyre much more evolved. The Cambrian explosion is basically the transition from colonies of cells to full fledged multicellular organisms. Its not a short period of time either, its about 100 million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Living fossils.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
Click to expand...


How many times do i have to explain the same things to you over and over. If you would have read my point by point refutation of your idiocy you would have read the part about living fossils. 

Evolution says some fish evolved into terapods. It does not say all fish evolve into terapods, that would be strange. 

Besides, living fossils usually live in isolated environments. If a fish lives in an underwater cavern, it wont evolve into an air breathing terapod in a billion years. The environment necessary is just not there for it to happen. 

Living fossils are wonderful evidence of evolution, because we find them in environments evolution predicts we should!


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? I have my own successful business. I have 8 children and 7 grand children. I have a beautiful home up on a mountain in Arizona. Have the same wife I gladly married 30 years ago.
> 
> I played football.I played on a national paintball team.
> 
> I have horses and see Gods beauty everytime we take them out for a ride. Outside of the stroke i have had a great life.
> 
> I am an ethical and honest person partly because of me but more so because the influence of my faith.
> 
> So I don't see my life as a waste either way. But I have zero doubt that there is no God and I will meet him when the time is right.
> 
> What if Darwin was wrong ? he wasted his life chasing something that may have never happened. And his wild imagination took a whole lot of people down with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you can think you see god all you want, the fact is you will die without proof. Because most likely he doesnt exist.
> 
> But what if darwin is wrong? Well see, my faith isnt evolution. Thats where you and i diverge, i dont form my opinions on faith.
> 
> If darwin is wrong, my opinion on the afterlife is no different. Your personality is just electrical connections in the brain. The concept of a soul comes from the feeling that your personality and your mind are separate from your body. While complex, its still biochemistry none-the-less.
> 
> So if darwin's wrong im still going to be certain in what i believe happens after death: nothing. Your neurons stop firing and you will be dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe ,maybe not.
> 
> I should have posted this article sooner.
> 
> 27. TWENTY OBJECTIONS ADMITTED
> 
> Evolutionists themselves, even including Darwin, admit as many as 20 objections to his theory. Darwin states the first four and Prof. V. L. Kellogg sums up the remaining 16 on pp. 247-52 of "Readings in Evolution." Among them are:
> 
> 1. There must have been innumerable transitional forms in the formation of new species. No convincing evidence of these missing links exists.
> 
> 2. Natural selection can not account for the instinct of animals such as that of the honey bee, "which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematics.":
> 
> 4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the formation of new species.
> 
> 5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited.
> 
> 6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance.
> 
> 7. Variation is so slight as to be imperceptible, and, therefore, cannot account for the "survival of the fittest." If the same progressive changes do not occur generally, if not universally, in the numbers of the same species in the same period, no new species can arise. Such general changes do not occur.
> 
> 8. Natural selection could not make use of initial slight changes. "What would be the advantage of the first few hairs of a mammal, or the first steps toward feathers in a bird, when these creatures were beginning to diverge from their reptilian ancestors?"
> 
> 9. Even if Darwinism should explain the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the survival of the fittest, which is far more important.
> 
> 10. Darwin says, "I am convinced that natural selection has been the most important but not the exclusive means of modification." Many scientists think it of very little importance, and that it is not true.
> 
> 11. "The fluctuating variations of Darwinism are quantitative, or plus and minus variations; whereas, the differences between species are qualitative." Growth and development in one species does not produce a new species, which must be of a different kind. Miles Darden, of Tennessee, was 90 inches tall, and weighed 1000 pounds, but remained a member of the human species, though he was as high and heavy as a horse. So did the giant Posius, over 10 feet tall, who lived in the days of Augustus.
> 
> 12. "There is a growing skepticism on the part of biologists as to the extreme fierceness of the struggle for existence and of the consequent rigor of selection." Overproduction and shortage of space and food might sometime be a factor of importance, but has it been so in the past? Has it affected the human race?
> 
> 13. Darwin proposed the theory of gemmules. Prof. H. H. Newman says, "This theory was not satisfactory even to Darwin and is now only of historical interest."
> 
> 14. Darwin's subsidiary theory of sexual selection has also been rejected by scientists as worthless.
> 
> In view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that Darwin's theory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?
> 
> And is it not amazing that self-styled "scientists" hold on to their precious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight? They can not save evolution even by rejecting Darwinism.
> 
> Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the British Museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." Is a man in that position not a credible witness?
> 
> Prof. Beale, of King's College, London, a distinguished physiologist, said: "There is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."
> 
> Prof Virchow, of Berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: The attempt to find the transition from the .animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal."
> 
> Prof. Fleishman, of Erlangen, who once accepted Darwinism, but after further investigation repudiated it, said: "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it, in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the product of the imagination."
> 
> Prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "The theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency There is not a fact known to science, tending to show that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."
> 
> Dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of NY Academy of Medicine, said: "The Darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His so called fellow animals, the primates--gorilla, orang and chimpanzee--can do nothing truly human."
> 
> Sir William Dawson, an eminent geologist, of Canada, said: "The record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without apparent predecessors...Paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what is told in Scripture."
> 
> The foremost evolutionists, Spencer, Huxley and Romanes, before their death, repudiated Darwinism. Haeckel alone supported the theory and that by forged evidence.
> 
> Dr. St. George Mivert, late professor of biology in the University College of Kensington, calls Darwinism a "puerile hypothesis."
> 
> Dr. James Orr, of Edinburgh University, says: "The greatest scientists and theologians of Europe are now pronouncing Darwinism to be absolutely dead."
> 
> Dr. Traas, a famous paleontologist, concludes: "The idea that mankind is descended from any simian species whatever, is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man." Does this apply to H. G. Wells?
> 
> Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor of Geology, in Harvard University, said: "It is not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions, now inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly, by the operation of natural selection."
> 
> Prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: "Most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly Darwinism, is an error, and can not be maintained.
> 
> Prof. Huxley, said that evolution is "not proved and not provable."
> 
> Sir Charles Bell, Prof. of the University College of London, says: "Everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."
> 
> These testimonies of scientists of the first rank are a part of a large number. Many of them and many more, are given in Prof. Townsend's "Collapse of Evolution," McCann's "God or Gorilla," Philip Mauro's "Evolution At the Bar," and other anti-evolution books. Alfred McCann, in his great work, "God or Gorilla," mentions 20 of the most prominent scholars, who do not accept Darwinism. Yet they say, "All scholars accept evolution."
> 
> 
> 
> For full article.
> 
> The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved
Click to expand...


Yea argue against darwins 150 year old understanding of evolution, thatll make you sound smart. Learn the modern theory of evolution, and by that i mean after the discovery of genetics and proteins.

Im not going to refute that post point by point, because every time i do that you ignore it. I'm not going to waste an hour of my life teaching you biology when your going to ignore the entire post anyways, just like last time.


----------



## cbirch2

Ok since it was so easy to refute some of your points i had to.

"4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are  sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the  formation of new species."

See: Mule

"5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited."

And if you think evolution says they are you should hit yourself in the head with a hammer


And this is my favorite:

"6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance."

OH WHAT A GREAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

"darwinism eliminates design." Oh im convinced!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No threat, just a promise given a long time ago.
> 
> Joh 1:3  All things came into existence through him, and without him nothing was.
> 
> Eph 3:9  and to bring to light what is the fellowship of the mystery which from eternity has been hidden in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ;
> 
> Rev 4:11  O Lord, You are worthy to receive glory and honor and power, because You created all things, and for Your will they are and were created.
> 
> Rev 6:15  And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains.
> Rev 6:16  And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
> Rev 6:17  for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand?
> 
> I definitely have more faith in God over sinful man.
> 
> 
> 
> any way you spin it it's still a threat...
> as to sin it's  conceived by man  practiced by man...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't spin i speak to the point that is why you guys disagree with me so. I call things the way I see it.
> 
> That is a promise through prophecy if you take it as a threat then that is on you.
> 
> God say's how it is gonna be and there is no changing that.
> 
> Man can use philosophy all they like to rid their thoughts of God ,but GOD doesn't go away and is always in the back of your mind even with the ones who reject him.
Click to expand...

ahhh... everything you post is spun ...it's not objective ..it's subjective .
god is credited for saying lots of things will happen, but they never have.
if they were to happen, they would have to be better then the laws of Chance: 50% 50%
and then be proven by emperical evidence not to be chance.


----------



## LOki

A  better wall of text.



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does your side make many different family trees if we are all related ? why not just one tree since you believe DNA similarity proves ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not assert that there are or "... make many different family trees."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in fact creationists who (in stolidly retarded denial of the genetic evidence) make many family trees based on their dopey baraminology.
> 
> Another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
Click to expand...




LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously what we have here is a thoroughly indoctrinated simpleton who demands that the ontological differentiation of the concepts of micro-evolution and macro-evolution propagated by pulpitarians take precedence over the legitimate differentiation expressed by vetted geneticists.
> 
> The problem Creationists face when confronted by the verifiable facts of reality is that there is abundant evidence supporting the claim that change in genotype (even those caused by mutation) can lead to change in phenotype. Hence, the Creationist's disingenuous persistence in applying their own vague meanings to terms already understood by others as a means to disguise their self-indicting lack of courage in their certainty of the objective validity of their convictions.
> 
> The burden of the issue, none-the-less, fully belongs to these superstitious Creationist asshats who are obligated explain why, of all the ways that change in genotype verifiably lead to change in phenotype, the one exception to the well established and agreed upon relationship between genotype and phenotype is mutation.
> 
> We might hope that this should keep them _silently _busy forever. But, we should be careful to not underestimate the strength of the Creationist's biological imperative to inflict their superstitious folly upon the world; to the annoyance of the population of intellectually honest, rational human beings.
> 
> Another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
Click to expand...




LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked you for any proof that refutes what he said and you can't provide that proof so you make another meaningless post.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.
> 
> There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.
> 
> While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.
> 
> You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.
> 
> So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?
> 
> Another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
Click to expand...




LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes your side claims that eldredge did not make the theory because of the lack of transitional fossils and that is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not so much.
> "PE is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one (1977).
> 
> PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972)."​Maybe it's time for you to STFU regarding what punctuated equilibrium is actually about, Junior.
> 
> Another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated.
Click to expand...




LOki said:


> What verifiable evidence have you submitted? None. Your validations for your "evidence" all--and I mean without exception--rest upon a question begging argument.
> 
> Which of course is just fine considering that by invoking faith as the foundation for this explanation of yours, you admit to no fundamental or necessary substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> I accept this. And just to be clear, I've stopped asking you to validate with evidence your explanation whose foundation has no explanation in evidence. I think I have been clear that I accept this. But I'm not sure you do. So I'll ask again, and read the question carefully; I am uninterested in more "evidence" that is fundamentally irrelevant to you anyway; I'm looking for your justifications for dismissing other faith-based creation
> "theories" along with evolution: "Upon what basis then should your "explanation" be considered superior to any creation story unfounded in evidence and/or valid logic? On what basis should it be considered intellectually honest?"​
> Another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated.





LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your very own criteria then, the same objectively applies to the Eddas. That being the case, upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic do you base your assertion that Yahweh, rather than Odin, is the Creator?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refuse to keep repeating myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You refuse honestly answer, because you would then have to admit that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that Yahweh, rather than Odin, is the Creator.
> 
> Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:
> El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
> Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
> Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
> Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
> Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
> Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
> The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
> Viracocha in Inca mythology;
> Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
> Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
> Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
> Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
> Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
> Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
> Rod in Slavic mythology;
> Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in M&#257;ori mythology
> I'm going to predict right now that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith.
> 
> Another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
Click to expand...




LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What i am saying is neanderthals brains were the result of the possibility of deformity,maybe from inbreeding.
> 
> 
> 
> Like how Adam and Eve and their Children did? Like Noah and his family did? And weren't you the one who insisted that such breeding leads to a genetically homogeneous population? Yet homo-sapiens is so diverse! Creationists have no explanation for this! It's INEXPLICABLE!
> 
> Another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
Click to expand...




LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations ans adapted organisms are not genetically stronger as Neo darwinism falsely teaches.
> 
> Example, Ranchers managing gene depletion is how ranchers breed out traits to produce meatier cows and cows that produce more milk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You example PROVES you to be unambiguously wrong. Those "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk" a far more suited to their environment--"genetically stronger" if you will--than their  root stock would be in an environment that selected for "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk."
> 
> Another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated.
Click to expand...




LOki said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> empirical evidence is observable evidence,list your observed evidence for macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]*RING-FUCKING-SPECIES*[/ame]
> 
> Another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
Click to expand...




LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no one offering a list of beneficial mutations that did not lead to a loss of the origional genetic information.
> 
> 
> 
> Mutation DOES NOT necessarily, in EACH AND EVERY CASE, "lead to a loss of the original genetic information" from a species' gene pool.
> 
> When a mutation is not lethal and inheritable, that mutation NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC DIVERSITY in the species' gene pool; since you equate increased genetic diversity with increased genetic information, for you this NECESSARILY means that non-lethal *MUTATION NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC INFORMATION* in the species' gene pool.
> 
> Another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!
Click to expand...




LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you can see traits from both sides because genes have become fixed in each breed. That is because they only have genetic data to produce what they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.
> 
> No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, *apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.*
> 
> Care to explain that, Mr. Bible-Degree-in-Bible-Molecular-Bible-Biology?
> 
> Another delivered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
Click to expand...




LOki said:


> [T]here is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as [you] ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE! _*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.
> 
> Another delivered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!





LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard the creator is greater then the creation?
> 
> 
> 
> What "Creator"? Have you ever heard of using valid, verifiable evidence and valid logic to support your case?_*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> Another delivered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
Click to expand...




LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> now imagine God.
> 
> 
> 
> *AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS!* Youwerecreated's very candid admission that this "God" of his must be imagined; is actually *IMAGINARY!*
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> I would like to introduce you to someone and his argument against your theory.
> 
> Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?
> (This article comes from JohnDePoe.com to whom we are grateful).
> 
> 
> In 1859 Charles Darwin published his seminal work, On the Origin of the Species. This publication sent the public in an uproar and has continued to do so to the present day. Why all the commotion over one book?
> 
> _EDIT:  SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS_
> 
> Are you willing to follow the evidence where it points?
> 
> 
> Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?: The Evidence Against Evolution
> 
> 
> The author.
> 
> John M. DePoe
> 
> 
> I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood Universitys philosophy department. I  have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God.  I may have even worked out some constructive answers to those questions.
> 
> 
> Curriculum Vitae
> 
> 
> _EDIT:  SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education
> 
> 
> _EDIT:  SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS_
> 
> 
> 
> Publications
> 
> 
> _EDIT:  SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS_
> 
> 
> For his research.
> 
> Philosophical Research & Interests


"I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood Universitys philosophy department. I  have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God." CUE BUZZER........so you are NOT a biologist , paleontologist, geologist,physicist or a practitioner of any of the hard sciences ?
NO?
THEN YOUR THEORIES ON EVOLUTION MAKE ABOUT AS MUCH SENSE AS A ONE LEGGED MAN IN AN ASS KICKING CONTEST.


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> loki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> not sure what you mean by this post ? The bible is the word of god.
> 
> 
> 
> the bible is the word of men. Literally. Moses, matthew, john, etc...; men.
> 
> In their words--words of men, not the word of god--is where you have placed your conviction of certainty. You're just wrong again. So terribly, terribly, wrong again. Always, always, wrong; yet so certain you're right. Such is the nature of faith: _the conviction of absolute certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic has been established; the obstinate strength of resolute denial of valid verifiable evidence and valid logic is the "validating" quality of faith._
> 
> your mind is so shut by obdurate faith, that it is shut also to god.
> 
> Sorry about your superstitious luck, retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they were inspired by god.
> 
> 2ti 3:16  all scripture is god-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
> 
> now let's consider contradictions of your theory.
> 
> evolution contradictions - unexplained mysteries discussion forums
> 
> contradictions to the theory of evolution
> 
> caught in contradictions, pz myers claims "evolutionary theory predicts differences as well as similarities" (and therefore predicts nothing) (updated) - evolution news & views
> 
> does entropy contradict evolution?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hv-rqcdhew]evolution bloopers hoaxes and contradictions - youtube[/ame]
> 
> there you go you mental midget.
Click to expand...

does it surprise anyone that all the links are to non scientific web sites and all the authors are non scientists?


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> really ? I have my own successful business. I have 8 children and 7 grand children. I have a beautiful home up on a mountain in arizona. Have the same wife i gladly married 30 years ago.
> 
> I played football.i played on a national paintball team.
> 
> I have horses and see gods beauty everytime we take them out for a ride. Outside of the stroke i have had a great life.
> 
> I am an ethical and honest person partly because of me but more so because the influence of my faith.
> 
> So i don't see my life as a waste either way. But i have zero doubt that there is no god and i will meet him when the time is right.
> 
> What if darwin was wrong ? He wasted his life chasing something that may have never happened. And his wild imagination took a whole lot of people down with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well you can think you see god all you want, the fact is you will die without proof. Because most likely he doesnt exist.
> 
> But what if darwin is wrong? Well see, my faith isnt evolution. Thats where you and i diverge, i dont form my opinions on faith.
> 
> If darwin is wrong, my opinion on the afterlife is no different. Your personality is just electrical connections in the brain. The concept of a soul comes from the feeling that your personality and your mind are separate from your body. While complex, its still biochemistry none-the-less.
> 
> So if darwin's wrong im still going to be certain in what i believe happens after death: Nothing. Your neurons stop firing and you will be dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe ,maybe not.
> 
> I should have posted this article sooner.
> 
> 27. Twenty objections admitted
> 
> evolutionists themselves, even including darwin, admit as many as 20 objections to his theory. Darwin states the first four and prof. V. L. Kellogg sums up the remaining 16 on pp. 247-52 of "readings in evolution." among them are:
> 
> 1. There must have been innumerable transitional forms in the formation of new species. No convincing evidence of these missing links exists.
> 
> 2. Natural selection can not account for the instinct of animals such as that of the honey bee, "which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematics.":
> 
> 4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the formation of new species.
> 
> 5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited.
> 
> 6. Since darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance.
> 
> 7. Variation is so slight as to be imperceptible, and, therefore, cannot account for the "survival of the fittest." if the same progressive changes do not occur generally, if not universally, in the numbers of the same species in the same period, no new species can arise. Such general changes do not occur.
> 
> 8. Natural selection could not make use of initial slight changes. "what would be the advantage of the first few hairs of a mammal, or the first steps toward feathers in a bird, when these creatures were beginning to diverge from their reptilian ancestors?"
> 
> 9. Even if darwinism should explain the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the survival of the fittest, which is far more important.
> 
> 10. Darwin says, "i am convinced that natural selection has been the most important but not the exclusive means of modification." many scientists think it of very little importance, and that it is not true.
> 
> 11. "the fluctuating variations of darwinism are quantitative, or plus and minus variations; whereas, the differences between species are qualitative." growth and development in one species does not produce a new species, which must be of a different kind. Miles darden, of tennessee, was 90 inches tall, and weighed 1000 pounds, but remained a member of the human species, though he was as high and heavy as a horse. So did the giant posius, over 10 feet tall, who lived in the days of augustus.
> 
> 12. "there is a growing skepticism on the part of biologists as to the extreme fierceness of the struggle for existence and of the consequent rigor of selection." overproduction and shortage of space and food might sometime be a factor of importance, but has it been so in the past? Has it affected the human race?
> 
> 13. Darwin proposed the theory of gemmules. Prof. H. H. Newman says, "this theory was not satisfactory even to darwin and is now only of historical interest."
> 
> 14. Darwin's subsidiary theory of sexual selection has also been rejected by scientists as worthless.
> 
> In view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that darwin's theory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?
> 
> And is it not amazing that self-styled "scientists" hold on to their precious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight? They can not save evolution even by rejecting darwinism.
> 
> Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the british museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said: "nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." is a man in that position not a credible witness?
> 
> Prof. Beale, of king's college, london, a distinguished physiologist, said: "there is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."
> 
> prof virchow, of berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: The attempt to find the transition from the .animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal."
> 
> prof. Fleishman, of erlangen, who once accepted darwinism, but after further investigation repudiated it, said: "the darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it, in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the product of the imagination."
> 
> prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "the theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency there is not a fact known to science, tending to show that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."
> 
> dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of ny academy of medicine, said: "the darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His so called fellow animals, the primates--gorilla, orang and chimpanzee--can do nothing truly human."
> 
> sir william dawson, an eminent geologist, of canada, said: "the record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without apparent predecessors...paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what is told in scripture."
> 
> the foremost evolutionists, spencer, huxley and romanes, before their death, repudiated darwinism. Haeckel alone supported the theory and that by forged evidence.
> 
> Dr. St. George mivert, late professor of biology in the university college of kensington, calls darwinism a "puerile hypothesis."
> 
> dr. James orr, of edinburgh university, says: "the greatest scientists and theologians of europe are now pronouncing darwinism to be absolutely dead."
> 
> dr. Traas, a famous paleontologist, concludes: "the idea that mankind is descended from any simian species whatever, is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man." does this apply to h. G. Wells?
> 
> Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor of geology, in harvard university, said: "it is not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions, now inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly, by the operation of natural selection."
> 
> prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: "most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly darwinism, is an error, and can not be maintained.
> 
> Prof. Huxley, said that evolution is "not proved and not provable."
> 
> sir charles bell, prof. Of the university college of london, says: "everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."
> 
> these testimonies of scientists of the first rank are a part of a large number. Many of them and many more, are given in prof. Townsend's "collapse of evolution," mccann's "god or gorilla," philip mauro's "evolution at the bar," and other anti-evolution books. Alfred mccann, in his great work, "god or gorilla," mentions 20 of the most prominent scholars, who do not accept darwinism. Yet they say, "all scholars accept evolution."
> 
> 
> 
> for full article.
> 
> the evolution of man scientifically disproved
Click to expand...

another non scientist.


----------



## daws101

played football.i played on a national paintball team.-ywc

if that's true, then was it after helmet's were introduced to the game?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Ok since it was so easy to refute some of your points i had to.
> 
> "4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are  sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the  formation of new species."
> 
> See: Mule
> 
> "5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited."
> 
> And if you think evolution says they are you should hit yourself in the head with a hammer
> 
> 
> And this is my favorite:
> 
> "6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance."
> 
> OH WHAT A GREAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE.
> 
> "darwinism eliminates design." Oh im convinced!



First you have not refuted anything you give opinions but that is not refutation. That is a lie that evolutionist predicted fish living in a cave would lose their eyes that poor fish was the result of deformity through mutations. Mules are sterile and they are selectively bred by man. The reason they are sterile is they reached the limits of their dna compatibility that is the dna barrier you deny exists.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "peer reviewed"
> 
> Really? i doubt that, and if so i doubt his peers had very good things to say.
> 
> But what do you mean the body structures are still the same today? They arent, because theyre much more evolved. The Cambrian explosion is basically the transition from colonies of cells to full fledged multicellular organisms. Its not a short period of time either, its about 100 million years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Living fossils.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do i have to explain the same things to you over and over. If you would have read my point by point refutation of your idiocy you would have read the part about living fossils.
> 
> Evolution says some fish evolved into terapods. It does not say all fish evolve into terapods, that would be strange.
> 
> Besides, living fossils usually live in isolated environments. If a fish lives in an underwater cavern, it wont evolve into an air breathing terapod in a billion years. The environment necessary is just not there for it to happen.
> 
> Living fossils are wonderful evidence of evolution, because we find them in environments evolution predicts we should!
Click to expand...


living fossils show no change which a is an argument against your theory. All organisms have mutations but all these creatures show no change what kind of nonsense are you trying to pass off ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok since it was so easy to refute some of your points i had to.
> 
> "4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are  sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the  formation of new species."
> 
> See: Mule
> 
> "5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited."
> 
> And if you think evolution says they are you should hit yourself in the head with a hammer
> 
> 
> And this is my favorite:
> 
> "6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance."
> 
> OH WHAT A GREAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE.
> 
> "darwinism eliminates design." Oh im convinced!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you have not refuted anything you give opinions but that is not refutation. That is a lie that evolutionist predicted fish living in a cave would lose their eyes that poor fish was the result of deformity through mutations. Mules are sterile and they are selectively bred by man. The reason they are sterile is they reached the limits of their dna compatibility that is the dna barrier you deny exists.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Living fossils.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do i have to explain the same things to you over and over. If you would have read my point by point refutation of your idiocy you would have read the part about living fossils.
> 
> Evolution says some fish evolved into terapods. It does not say all fish evolve into terapods, that would be strange.
> 
> Besides, living fossils usually live in isolated environments. If a fish lives in an underwater cavern, it wont evolve into an air breathing terapod in a billion years. The environment necessary is just not there for it to happen.
> 
> Living fossils are wonderful evidence of evolution, because we find them in environments evolution predicts we should!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> living fossils show no change which a is an argument against your theory. All organisms have mutations but all these creatures show no change what kind of nonsense are you trying to pass off ?
Click to expand...

wrong again!


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance! Pure ignorance!
> 
> *Cambrian explosion
> 
> *The consensus on the cambrian explosion is quite different then you understand. Its not the evolution of most animals we see today. Its the evolution of things like crustaceans and fish, not dogs and cats.
> 
> *Darwins black box
> 
> *Irreducible complexity? Really? How many times does that have to be disproved? The flagella is partially a Type III secretion system, 10 of the proteins function as a "needle" to inject toxin in some bacteria. So its not an example of irreducible complexity.
> 
> Usually tackling the problem of irreducible complexity requires knowledge of how proteins, cells, and even the human body work (remember when i had to teach you about the brain?). I think thats the problem were running into with this argument.
> 
> *Genetics
> 
> *UGH! The genetic mutation behind darwins finches isnt known??? really??
> 
> Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches
> 
> protein BMP4 controls the structure of the beak during gestation. Again, the claim that "mutations in developmental genes are always harmful" is a giant simplification. more likely a change in the protein leads to a small change in the structure of some skeletal feature.
> 
> _Note:_ I deleted everything but your sources, because i think they might say something about the quality of your copy-pasta. Esta no muy bueno señor....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are so concerned with copying and pasting why do you do it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the only thing i copied was the URL for that link you fool. Cool little dance around my rebuttal, though.
> 
> Typical. State something that isnt true to avoid factual debate.
Click to expand...


Oh that wasn't you copying and pasting graphs and comments from the sites. Do i need check all your postings and see which sites they come from because many times you don't give credit either.

You do Plagiarize I have noticed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "peer reviewed"
> 
> Really? i doubt that, and if so i doubt his peers had very good things to say.
> 
> But what do you mean the body structures are still the same today? They arent, because theyre much more evolved. The Cambrian explosion is basically the transition from colonies of cells to full fledged multicellular organisms. Its not a short period of time either, its about 100 million years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Living fossils.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do i have to explain the same things to you over and over. If you would have read my point by point refutation of your idiocy you would have read the part about living fossils.
> 
> Evolution says some fish evolved into terapods. It does not say all fish evolve into terapods, that would be strange.
> 
> Besides, living fossils usually live in isolated environments. If a fish lives in an underwater cavern, it wont evolve into an air breathing terapod in a billion years. The environment necessary is just not there for it to happen.
> 
> Living fossils are wonderful evidence of evolution, because we find them in environments evolution predicts we should!
Click to expand...


Giving an opinion is not refutation do you understand this ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you can think you see god all you want, the fact is you will die without proof. Because most likely he doesnt exist.
> 
> But what if darwin is wrong? Well see, my faith isnt evolution. Thats where you and i diverge, i dont form my opinions on faith.
> 
> If darwin is wrong, my opinion on the afterlife is no different. Your personality is just electrical connections in the brain. The concept of a soul comes from the feeling that your personality and your mind are separate from your body. While complex, its still biochemistry none-the-less.
> 
> So if darwin's wrong im still going to be certain in what i believe happens after death: nothing. Your neurons stop firing and you will be dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe ,maybe not.
> 
> I should have posted this article sooner.
> 
> 27. TWENTY OBJECTIONS ADMITTED
> 
> Evolutionists themselves, even including Darwin, admit as many as 20 objections to his theory. Darwin states the first four and Prof. V. L. Kellogg sums up the remaining 16 on pp. 247-52 of "Readings in Evolution." Among them are:
> 
> 1. There must have been innumerable transitional forms in the formation of new species. No convincing evidence of these missing links exists.
> 
> 2. Natural selection can not account for the instinct of animals such as that of the honey bee, "which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematics.":
> 
> 4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the formation of new species.
> 
> 5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited.
> 
> 6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance.
> 
> 7. Variation is so slight as to be imperceptible, and, therefore, cannot account for the "survival of the fittest." If the same progressive changes do not occur generally, if not universally, in the numbers of the same species in the same period, no new species can arise. Such general changes do not occur.
> 
> 8. Natural selection could not make use of initial slight changes. "What would be the advantage of the first few hairs of a mammal, or the first steps toward feathers in a bird, when these creatures were beginning to diverge from their reptilian ancestors?"
> 
> 9. Even if Darwinism should explain the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the survival of the fittest, which is far more important.
> 
> 10. Darwin says, "I am convinced that natural selection has been the most important but not the exclusive means of modification." Many scientists think it of very little importance, and that it is not true.
> 
> 11. "The fluctuating variations of Darwinism are quantitative, or plus and minus variations; whereas, the differences between species are qualitative." Growth and development in one species does not produce a new species, which must be of a different kind. Miles Darden, of Tennessee, was 90 inches tall, and weighed 1000 pounds, but remained a member of the human species, though he was as high and heavy as a horse. So did the giant Posius, over 10 feet tall, who lived in the days of Augustus.
> 
> 12. "There is a growing skepticism on the part of biologists as to the extreme fierceness of the struggle for existence and of the consequent rigor of selection." Overproduction and shortage of space and food might sometime be a factor of importance, but has it been so in the past? Has it affected the human race?
> 
> 13. Darwin proposed the theory of gemmules. Prof. H. H. Newman says, "This theory was not satisfactory even to Darwin and is now only of historical interest."
> 
> 14. Darwin's subsidiary theory of sexual selection has also been rejected by scientists as worthless.
> 
> In view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that Darwin's theory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?
> 
> And is it not amazing that self-styled "scientists" hold on to their precious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight? They can not save evolution even by rejecting Darwinism.
> 
> Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the British Museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." Is a man in that position not a credible witness?
> 
> Prof. Beale, of King's College, London, a distinguished physiologist, said: "There is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."
> 
> Prof Virchow, of Berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: The attempt to find the transition from the .animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal."
> 
> Prof. Fleishman, of Erlangen, who once accepted Darwinism, but after further investigation repudiated it, said: "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it, in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the product of the imagination."
> 
> Prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "The theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency There is not a fact known to science, tending to show that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."
> 
> Dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of NY Academy of Medicine, said: "The Darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His so called fellow animals, the primates--gorilla, orang and chimpanzee--can do nothing truly human."
> 
> Sir William Dawson, an eminent geologist, of Canada, said: "The record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without apparent predecessors...Paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what is told in Scripture."
> 
> The foremost evolutionists, Spencer, Huxley and Romanes, before their death, repudiated Darwinism. Haeckel alone supported the theory and that by forged evidence.
> 
> Dr. St. George Mivert, late professor of biology in the University College of Kensington, calls Darwinism a "puerile hypothesis."
> 
> Dr. James Orr, of Edinburgh University, says: "The greatest scientists and theologians of Europe are now pronouncing Darwinism to be absolutely dead."
> 
> Dr. Traas, a famous paleontologist, concludes: "The idea that mankind is descended from any simian species whatever, is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man." Does this apply to H. G. Wells?
> 
> Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor of Geology, in Harvard University, said: "It is not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions, now inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly, by the operation of natural selection."
> 
> Prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: "Most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly Darwinism, is an error, and can not be maintained.
> 
> Prof. Huxley, said that evolution is "not proved and not provable."
> 
> Sir Charles Bell, Prof. of the University College of London, says: "Everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."
> 
> These testimonies of scientists of the first rank are a part of a large number. Many of them and many more, are given in Prof. Townsend's "Collapse of Evolution," McCann's "God or Gorilla," Philip Mauro's "Evolution At the Bar," and other anti-evolution books. Alfred McCann, in his great work, "God or Gorilla," mentions 20 of the most prominent scholars, who do not accept Darwinism. Yet they say, "All scholars accept evolution."
> 
> 
> 
> For full article.
> 
> The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea argue against darwins 150 year old understanding of evolution, thatll make you sound smart. Learn the modern theory of evolution, and by that i mean after the discovery of genetics and proteins.
> 
> Im not going to refute that post point by point, because every time i do that you ignore it. I'm not going to waste an hour of my life teaching you biology when your going to ignore the entire post anyways, just like last time.
Click to expand...


Because you can't ,you don't have the evidence to.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> A  better wall of text.
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does your side make many different family trees if we are all related ? why not just one tree since you believe DNA similarity proves ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not assert that there are or "... make many different family trees."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in fact creationists who (in stolidly retarded denial of the genetic evidence) make many family trees based on their dopey baraminology.
> 
> Another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> now imagine God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS!* Youwerecreated's very candid admission that this "God" of his must be imagined; is actually *IMAGINARY!*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Dreamer ,nothing but a dreamer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to introduce you to someone and his argument against your theory.
> 
> Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?
> (This article comes from JohnDePoe.com to whom we are grateful).
> 
> 
> In 1859 Charles Darwin published his seminal work, On the Origin of the Species. This publication sent the public in an uproar and has continued to do so to the present day. Why all the commotion over one book?
> 
> _EDIT:  SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS_
> 
> Are you willing to follow the evidence where it points?
> 
> 
> Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?: The Evidence Against Evolution
> 
> 
> The author.
> 
> John M. DePoe
> 
> 
> I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood Universitys philosophy department. I  have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God.  I may have even worked out some constructive answers to those questions.
> 
> 
> Curriculum Vitae
> 
> 
> _EDIT:  SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education
> 
> 
> _EDIT:  SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS_
> 
> 
> 
> Publications
> 
> 
> _EDIT:  SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS_
> 
> 
> For his research.
> 
> Philosophical Research & Interests
> 
> 
> 
> "I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood Universitys philosophy department. I  have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God." CUE BUZZER........so you are NOT a biologist , paleontologist, geologist,physicist or a practitioner of any of the hard sciences ?
> NO?
> THEN YOUR THEORIES ON EVOLUTION MAKE ABOUT AS MUCH SENSE AS A ONE LEGGED MAN IN AN ASS KICKING CONTEST.
Click to expand...


Oh boy


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loki said:
> 
> 
> 
> the bible is the word of men. Literally. Moses, matthew, john, etc...; men.
> 
> In their words--words of men, not the word of god--is where you have placed your conviction of certainty. You're just wrong again. So terribly, terribly, wrong again. Always, always, wrong; yet so certain you're right. Such is the nature of faith: _the conviction of absolute certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic has been established; the obstinate strength of resolute denial of valid verifiable evidence and valid logic is the "validating" quality of faith._
> 
> your mind is so shut by obdurate faith, that it is shut also to god.
> 
> Sorry about your superstitious luck, retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they were inspired by god.
> 
> 2ti 3:16  all scripture is god-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
> 
> now let's consider contradictions of your theory.
> 
> evolution contradictions - unexplained mysteries discussion forums
> 
> contradictions to the theory of evolution
> 
> caught in contradictions, pz myers claims "evolutionary theory predicts differences as well as similarities" (and therefore predicts nothing) (updated) - evolution news & views
> 
> does entropy contradict evolution?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hv-rqcdhew]evolution bloopers hoaxes and contradictions - youtube[/ame]
> 
> there you go you mental midget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> does it surprise anyone that all the links are to non scientific web sites and all the authors are non scientists?
Click to expand...


You must have missed these guys comments.

In view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that darwin's theory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?

And is it not amazing that self-styled "scientists" hold on to their precious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight? They can not save evolution even by rejecting darwinism.

Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the british museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said: "nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." is a man in that position not a credible witness?

Prof. Beale, of king's college, london, a distinguished physiologist, said: "there is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."

prof virchow, of berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: The attempt to find the transition from the .animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal."

prof. Fleishman, of erlangen, who once accepted darwinism, but after further investigation repudiated it, said: "the darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it, in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the product of the imagination."

prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "the theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency there is not a fact known to science, tending to show that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."

dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of ny academy of medicine, said: "the darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His so called fellow animals, the primates--gorilla, orang and chimpanzee--can do nothing truly human."

sir william dawson, an eminent geologist, of canada, said: "the record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without apparent predecessors...paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what is told in scripture."

the foremost evolutionists, spencer, huxley and romanes, before their death, repudiated darwinism. Haeckel alone supported the theory and that by forged evidence.

Dr. St. George mivert, late professor of biology in the university college of kensington, calls darwinism a "puerile hypothesis."

dr. James orr, of edinburgh university, says: "the greatest scientists and theologians of europe are now pronouncing darwinism to be absolutely dead."

dr. Traas, a famous paleontologist, concludes: "the idea that mankind is descended from any simian species whatever, is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man." does this apply to h. G. Wells?

Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor of geology, in harvard university, said: "it is not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions, now inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly, by the operation of natural selection."

prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: "most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly darwinism, is an error, and can not be maintained.

Prof. Huxley, said that evolution is "not proved and not provable."

sir charles bell, prof. Of the university college of london, says: "everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Living fossils.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do i have to explain the same things to you over and over. If you would have read my point by point refutation of your idiocy you would have read the part about living fossils.
> 
> Evolution says some fish evolved into terapods. It does not say all fish evolve into terapods, that would be strange.
> 
> Besides, living fossils usually live in isolated environments. If a fish lives in an underwater cavern, it wont evolve into an air breathing terapod in a billion years. The environment necessary is just not there for it to happen.
> 
> Living fossils are wonderful evidence of evolution, because we find them in environments evolution predicts we should!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Giving an opinion is not refutation do you understand this ?
Click to expand...

 it's not an opinion.
and don't start that shit about no observation.
when i check you so called sources NONE OF THEM HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS TO DO ANY MORE THEN SPECULATE. do you understand this?


----------



## LOki

LOki said:


> [T]here is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as [you] ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE! _*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.


An insurmountable 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does your side make many different family trees if we are all related ? why not just one tree since you believe DNA similarity proves ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not assert that there are or "... make many different family trees."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in fact creationists who (in stolidly retarded denial of the genetic evidence) make many family trees based on their dopey baraminology.
Click to expand...

It is also evidence of Youwerecreated's "solid understanding" of Evolutionary Theory and Creation "Science." 

An unambiguous 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes your side claims that eldredge did not make the theory because of the lack of transitional fossils and that is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not so much.
> "PE is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one (1977).
> 
> PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972)."​Maybe it's time for you to STFU regarding what punctuated equilibrium is actually about, Junior.
Click to expand...


Another example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty and a 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated.



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations ans adapted organisms are not genetically stronger as Neo darwinism falsely teaches.
> 
> Example, Ranchers managing gene depletion is how ranchers breed out traits to produce meatier cows and cows that produce more milk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You example PROVES you to be unambiguously wrong. Those "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk" a far more suited to their environment--"genetically stronger" if you will--than their  root stock would be in an environment that selected for "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk."
Click to expand...

Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of the nature and role of selection in altering a population's genome, and the relationship that alteration has on morphology and/or phenoype; a
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated.



LOki said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> empirical evidence is observable evidence,list your observed evidence for macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]*RING-FUCKING-SPECIES*[/ame]
Click to expand...


A 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated; and his refusal to accept ring species as definitive evidence of macro-evolution is yet another example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty. A double 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, if you will.



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no one offering a list of beneficial mutations that did not lead to a loss of the origional genetic information.
> 
> 
> 
> Mutation DOES NOT necessarily, in EACH AND EVERY CASE, "lead to a loss of the original genetic information" from a species' gene pool.
> 
> When a mutation is not lethal and inheritable, that mutation NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC DIVERSITY in the species' gene pool; since you equate increased genetic diversity with increased genetic information, for you this NECESSARILY means that non-lethal *MUTATION NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC INFORMATION* in the species' gene pool.
Click to expand...


Another example od Youwerecreated's egregious lack of understanding and intellectual dishonesty; a 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you can see traits from both sides because genes have become fixed in each breed. That is because they only have genetic data to produce what they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.
> 
> No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, *apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.*
Click to expand...

Care to explain that, Youwerecreated? You've had plenty of opportunity.

Apparently not.

Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of genetics and taxonomy, a prime example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty, and a difinitive 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> played football.i played on a national paintball team.-ywc
> 
> if that's true, then was it after helmet's were introduced to the game?



Well I am no spring chicken but I am not that old. Football had helmets the paitball team we had masks.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok since it was so easy to refute some of your points i had to.
> 
> "4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are  sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the  formation of new species."
> 
> See: Mule
> 
> "5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited."
> 
> And if you think evolution says they are you should hit yourself in the head with a hammer
> 
> 
> And this is my favorite:
> 
> "6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance."
> 
> OH WHAT A GREAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE.
> 
> "darwinism eliminates design." Oh im convinced!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you have not refuted anything you give opinions but that is not refutation. That is a lie that evolutionist predicted fish living in a cave would lose their eyes that poor fish was the result of deformity through mutations. Mules are sterile and they are selectively bred by man. The reason they are sterile is they reached the limits of their dna compatibility that is the dna barrier you deny exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


He hasn't ,all he has done is given opinions that proves nothing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do i have to explain the same things to you over and over. If you would have read my point by point refutation of your idiocy you would have read the part about living fossils.
> 
> Evolution says some fish evolved into terapods. It does not say all fish evolve into terapods, that would be strange.
> 
> Besides, living fossils usually live in isolated environments. If a fish lives in an underwater cavern, it wont evolve into an air breathing terapod in a billion years. The environment necessary is just not there for it to happen.
> 
> Living fossils are wonderful evidence of evolution, because we find them in environments evolution predicts we should!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> living fossils show no change which a is an argument against your theory. All organisms have mutations but all these creatures show no change what kind of nonsense are you trying to pass off ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong again!
Click to expand...


Really do you know what you are talking about ?

Look for yourself.

Living-Fossils.com


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do i have to explain the same things to you over and over. If you would have read my point by point refutation of your idiocy you would have read the part about living fossils.
> 
> Evolution says some fish evolved into terapods. It does not say all fish evolve into terapods, that would be strange.
> 
> Besides, living fossils usually live in isolated environments. If a fish lives in an underwater cavern, it wont evolve into an air breathing terapod in a billion years. The environment necessary is just not there for it to happen.
> 
> Living fossils are wonderful evidence of evolution, because we find them in environments evolution predicts we should!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Giving an opinion is not refutation do you understand this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's not an opinion.
> and don't start that shit about no observation.
> when i check you so called sources NONE OF THEM HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS TO DO ANY MORE THEN SPECULATE. do you understand this?
Click to expand...


Unless you observe something you can only give an opinion. You violate the science method if you can't test, study, and observe.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to introduce you to someone and his argument against your theory.
> 
> Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?
> (This article comes from JohnDePoe.com to whom we are grateful).
> 
> 
> In 1859 Charles Darwin published his seminal work, On the Origin of the Species. This publication sent the public in an uproar and has continued to do so to the present day. Why all the commotion over one book?
> 
> _EDIT:  SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS_
> 
> Are you willing to follow the evidence where it points?
> 
> 
> Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?: The Evidence Against Evolution
> 
> 
> The author.
> 
> John M. DePoe
> 
> 
> I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood Universitys philosophy department. I  have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God.  I may have even worked out some constructive answers to those questions.
> 
> 
> Curriculum Vitae
> 
> 
> _EDIT:  SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education
> 
> 
> _EDIT:  SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS_
> 
> 
> 
> Publications
> 
> 
> _EDIT:  SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS_
> 
> 
> For his research.
> 
> Philosophical Research & Interests
> 
> 
> 
> "I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood Universitys philosophy department. I  have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God." CUE BUZZER........so you are NOT a biologist , paleontologist, geologist,physicist or a practitioner of any of the hard sciences ?
> NO?
> THEN YOUR THEORIES ON EVOLUTION MAKE ABOUT AS MUCH SENSE AS A ONE LEGGED MAN IN AN ASS KICKING CONTEST.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy
Click to expand...

a degree in philosophy"Definition of PHILOSOPHY
1a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : physical science (2) : ethics c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology 
2a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs 
3a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> 
4a : the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher 
 See philosophy defined for English-language learners »
See philosophy defined for kids »
Examples of PHILOSOPHY
Her degree is in philosophy and religion. 
The group eventually split over conflicting political philosophies. 
Her main cooking philosophy is to use only fresh ingredients. 
There's plenty of blame to go around: poor regulation, eight years of a failed Republican economic philosophy, Wall Street-friendly Democrats who helped stymie reform, misguided bipartisan efforts to promote home ownership, Wall Street greed, corrupt CEOs, a botched rescue effort, painfully fallible central bankers. Daniel Gross, Newsweek, 9 Mar. 2009 

do you see anywhere in that definition anything even close to the scientific credentials needed to TEST EVOLUTION.
If you do ,then then you must have taken too many shots to the head when you allegedly played football.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> [T]here is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as [you] ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE! _*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.
> 
> 
> 
> An insurmountable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not assert that there are or "... make many different family trees."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in fact creationists who (in stolidly retarded denial of the genetic evidence) make many family trees based on their dopey baraminology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is also evidence of Youwerecreated's "solid understanding" of Evolutionary Theory and Creation "Science."
> 
> An unambiguous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty and a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated.
> 
> Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of the nature and role of selection in altering a population's genome, and the relationship that alteration has on morphology and/or phenoype; a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated.
> 
> 
> 
> A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated; and his refusal to accept ring species as definitive evidence of macro-evolution is yet another example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty. A double
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , if you will.
> 
> 
> 
> Another example od Youwerecreated's egregious lack of understanding and intellectual dishonesty; a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.
> 
> No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, *apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to explain that, Youwerecreated? You've had plenty of opportunity.
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of genetics and taxonomy, a prime example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty, and a difinitive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
Click to expand...


Don't bate and switch with me boy.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> they were inspired by god.
> 
> 2ti 3:16  all scripture is god-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
> 
> now let's consider contradictions of your theory.
> 
> evolution contradictions - unexplained mysteries discussion forums
> 
> contradictions to the theory of evolution
> 
> caught in contradictions, pz myers claims "evolutionary theory predicts differences as well as similarities" (and therefore predicts nothing) (updated) - evolution news & views
> 
> does entropy contradict evolution?
> 
> evolution bloopers hoaxes and contradictions - youtube
> 
> there you go you mental midget.
> 
> 
> 
> does it surprise anyone that all the links are to non scientific web sites and all the authors are non scientists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have missed these guys comments.
> 
> In view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that darwin's theory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?
> 
> And is it not amazing that self-styled "scientists" hold on to their precious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight? They can not save evolution even by rejecting darwinism.
> 
> Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the british museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said: "nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." is a man in that position not a credible witness?
> 
> Prof. Beale, of king's college, london, a distinguished physiologist, said: "there is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."
> 
> prof virchow, of berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: The attempt to find the transition from the .animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal."
> 
> prof. Fleishman, of erlangen, who once accepted darwinism, but after further investigation repudiated it, said: "the darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it, in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the product of the imagination."
> 
> prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "the theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency there is not a fact known to science, tending to show that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."
> 
> dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of ny academy of medicine, said: "the darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His so called fellow animals, the primates--gorilla, orang and chimpanzee--can do nothing truly human."
> 
> sir william dawson, an eminent geologist, of canada, said: "the record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without apparent predecessors...paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what is told in scripture."
> 
> the foremost evolutionists, spencer, huxley and romanes, before their death, repudiated darwinism. Haeckel alone supported the theory and that by forged evidence.
> 
> Dr. St. George mivert, late professor of biology in the university college of kensington, calls darwinism a "puerile hypothesis."
> 
> dr. James orr, of edinburgh university, says: "the greatest scientists and theologians of europe are now pronouncing darwinism to be absolutely dead."
> 
> dr. Traas, a famous paleontologist, concludes: "the idea that mankind is descended from any simian species whatever, is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man." does this apply to h. G. Wells?
> 
> Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor of geology, in harvard university, said: "it is not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions, now inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly, by the operation of natural selection."
> 
> prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: "most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly darwinism, is an error, and can not be maintained.
> 
> Prof. Huxley, said that evolution is "not proved and not provable."
> 
> sir charles bell, prof. Of the university college of london, says: "everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."
Click to expand...

fossilologist
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> living fossils show no change which a is an argument against your theory. All organisms have mutations but all these creatures show no change what kind of nonsense are you trying to pass off ?
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really do you know what you are talking about ?
> 
> Look for yourself.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
Click to expand...

Born in Ankara in 1956, Adnan Oktar is a prominent Turkish intellectual. not a paleontologist !


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Don't bate and switch with me boy.


*TRANSLATION:*


Youwerecreated said:


>



Ok. Don't make a hatchet job of English and non-sequitur with me, retard.



LOki said:


> [T]here is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as [you] ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE! _*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.



An insurmountable 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does your side make many different family trees if we are all related ? why not just one tree since you believe DNA similarity proves ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not assert that there are or "... make many different family trees."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in fact creationists who (in stolidly retarded denial of the genetic evidence) make many family trees based on their dopey baraminology.
Click to expand...

It is also evidence of Youwerecreated's "solid understanding" of Evolutionary Theory and Creation "Science." 

An unambiguous 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes your side claims that eldredge did not make the theory because of the lack of transitional fossils and that is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not so much.
> "PE is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one (1977).
> 
> PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972)."​Maybe it's time for you to STFU regarding what punctuated equilibrium is actually about, Junior.
Click to expand...


Another example of *CHRISTIAN* Creationist intellectual dishonesty and a 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated.



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations ans adapted organisms are not genetically stronger as Neo darwinism falsely teaches.
> 
> Example, Ranchers managing gene depletion is how ranchers breed out traits to produce meatier cows and cows that produce more milk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You example PROVES you to be unambiguously wrong. Those "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk" a far more suited to their environment--"genetically stronger" if you will--than their  root stock would be in an environment that selected for "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk."
Click to expand...

Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of the nature and role of selection in altering a population's genome, and the relationship that alteration has on morphology and/or phenoype; a
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated.



LOki said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> empirical evidence is observable evidence,list your observed evidence for macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]*RING-FUCKING-SPECIES*[/ame]
Click to expand...


A 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated; and his refusal to accept ring species as definitive evidence of macro-evolution is yet another example of *CHRISTIAN* Creationist intellectual dishonesty. A double 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, if you will.



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no one offering a list of beneficial mutations that did not lead to a loss of the origional genetic information.
> 
> 
> 
> Mutation DOES NOT necessarily, in EACH AND EVERY CASE, "lead to a loss of the original genetic information" from a species' gene pool.
> 
> When a mutation is not lethal and inheritable, that mutation NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC DIVERSITY in the species' gene pool; since you equate increased genetic diversity with increased genetic information, for you this NECESSARILY means that non-lethal *MUTATION NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC INFORMATION* in the species' gene pool.
Click to expand...


Another example od Youwerecreated's egregious lack of understanding and intellectual dishonesty; a 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you can see traits from both sides because genes have become fixed in each breed. That is because they only have genetic data to produce what they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.
> 
> No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, *apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.*
Click to expand...

Care to explain that, Youwerecreated? You've had plenty of opportunity.

Apparently not.

Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of genetics and taxonomy, a prime example of *CHRISTIAN* Creationist intellectual dishonesty, and a definitive 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giving an opinion is not refutation do you understand this ?
> 
> 
> 
> it's not an opinion.
> and don't start that shit about no observation.
> when i check you so called sources NONE OF THEM HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS TO DO ANY MORE THEN SPECULATE. do you understand this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you observe something you can only give an opinion. You violate the science method if you can't test, study, and observe.
Click to expand...

then that would mean all creation dogma is false... as you've never tested or observed or studied reading a badly written compendium of fairy tales and drawing false conclusions from them is not science


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> [T]here is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as [you] ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE! _*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.
> 
> 
> 
> An insurmountable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
> 
> It is also evidence of Youwerecreated's "solid understanding" of Evolutionary Theory and Creation "Science."
> 
> An unambiguous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty and a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated.
> 
> Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of the nature and role of selection in altering a population's genome, and the relationship that alteration has on morphology and/or phenoype; a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated.
> 
> 
> 
> A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated; and his refusal to accept ring species as definitive evidence of macro-evolution is yet another example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty. A double
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , if you will.
> 
> 
> 
> Another example od Youwerecreated's egregious lack of understanding and intellectual dishonesty; a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.
> 
> CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.
> 
> No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, *apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to explain that, Youwerecreated? You've had plenty of opportunity.
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of genetics and taxonomy, a prime example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty, and a difinitive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't bate and switch with me boy.
Click to expand...

A little testy are we?


----------



## LOki

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> An insurmountable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
> 
> It is also evidence of Youwerecreated's "solid understanding" of Evolutionary Theory and Creation "Science."
> 
> An unambiguous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty and a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated.
> 
> Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of the nature and role of selection in altering a population's genome, and the relationship that alteration has on morphology and/or phenoype; a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated.
> 
> 
> 
> A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated; and his refusal to accept ring species as definitive evidence of macro-evolution is yet another example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty. A double
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , if you will.
> 
> 
> 
> Another example od Youwerecreated's egregious lack of understanding and intellectual dishonesty; a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!
> 
> Care to explain that, Youwerecreated? You've had plenty of opportunity.
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of genetics and taxonomy, a prime example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty, and a difinitive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't bate and switch with me boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A little testy are we?
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's not an opinion.
> and don't start that shit about no observation.
> when i check you so called sources NONE OF THEM HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS TO DO ANY MORE THEN SPECULATE. do you understand this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you observe something you can only give an opinion. You violate the science method if you can't test, study, and observe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then that would mean all creation dogma is false... as you've never tested or observed or studied reading a badly written compendium of fairy tales and drawing false conclusions from them is not science
Click to expand...


The bible says 10 times in genesis kinds will bring forth after their kind that has been put to the test,studied,and observed.

The bible says we were created from the dust of the groud that has been put to the test,studied,and observed.

The bible says there are springs in the oceans,that has been put to the test,studied,and observed.

Mind you this was written over 3,500 years ago by people who had no way of knowing some of these things.

You were saying ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't bate and switch with me boy.
> 
> 
> 
> *TRANSLATION:*
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. Don't make a hatchet job of English and non-sequitur with me, retard.
> 
> 
> 
> An insurmountable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
> 
> It is also evidence of Youwerecreated's "solid understanding" of Evolutionary Theory and Creation "Science."
> 
> An unambiguous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of *CHRISTIAN* Creationist intellectual dishonesty and a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated.
> 
> Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of the nature and role of selection in altering a population's genome, and the relationship that alteration has on morphology and/or phenoype; a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated.
> 
> 
> 
> A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated; and his refusal to accept ring species as definitive evidence of macro-evolution is yet another example of *CHRISTIAN* Creationist intellectual dishonesty. A double
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , if you will.
> 
> 
> 
> Another example od Youwerecreated's egregious lack of understanding and intellectual dishonesty; a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.
> 
> No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, *apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to explain that, Youwerecreated? You've had plenty of opportunity.
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of genetics and taxonomy, a prime example of *CHRISTIAN* Creationist intellectual dishonesty, and a definitive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
Click to expand...


I have responded to everything you have ever asked of me no more foolish games please.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really do you know what you are talking about ?
> 
> Look for yourself.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Born in Ankara in 1956, Adnan Oktar is a prominent Turkish intellectual. not a paleontologist !
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you are talking about,do you ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> I have responded to everything you have ever asked of me no more foolish games please.


If you did, you OBVIOUSLY had your ass handed to you.

Just look...



Youwerecreated said:


> Don't bate and switch with me boy.


*TRANSLATION:*


Youwerecreated said:


>



Ok. Don't make a hatchet job of English and non-sequitur with me, retard.



LOki said:


> [T]here is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as [you] ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE! _*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.



An insurmountable 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does your side make many different family trees if we are all related ? why not just one tree since you believe DNA similarity proves ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not assert that there are or "... make many different family trees."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in fact creationists who (in stolidly retarded denial of the genetic evidence) make many family trees based on their dopey baraminology.
Click to expand...

It is also evidence of Youwerecreated's "solid understanding" of Evolutionary Theory and Creation "Science." 

An unambiguous 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes your side claims that eldredge did not make the theory because of the lack of transitional fossils and that is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not so much.
> "PE is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one (1977).
> 
> PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972)."​Maybe it's time for you to STFU regarding what punctuated equilibrium is actually about, Junior.
Click to expand...


Another example of *CHRISTIAN* Creationist intellectual dishonesty and a 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated.



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations ans adapted organisms are not genetically stronger as Neo darwinism falsely teaches.
> 
> Example, Ranchers managing gene depletion is how ranchers breed out traits to produce meatier cows and cows that produce more milk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You example PROVES you to be unambiguously wrong. Those "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk" a far more suited to their environment--"genetically stronger" if you will--than their  root stock would be in an environment that selected for "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk."
Click to expand...

Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of the nature and role of selection in altering a population's genome, and the relationship that alteration has on morphology and/or phenoype; a
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated.



LOki said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> empirical evidence is observable evidence,list your observed evidence for macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]*RING-FUCKING-SPECIES*[/ame]
Click to expand...


A 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated; and his refusal to accept ring species as definitive evidence of macro-evolution is yet another example of *CHRISTIAN* Creationist intellectual dishonesty. A double 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, if you will.



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no one offering a list of beneficial mutations that did not lead to a loss of the origional genetic information.
> 
> 
> 
> Mutation DOES NOT necessarily, in EACH AND EVERY CASE, "lead to a loss of the original genetic information" from a species' gene pool.
> 
> When a mutation is not lethal and inheritable, that mutation NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC DIVERSITY in the species' gene pool; since you equate increased genetic diversity with increased genetic information, for you this NECESSARILY means that non-lethal *MUTATION NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC INFORMATION* in the species' gene pool.
Click to expand...


Another example od Youwerecreated's egregious lack of understanding and intellectual dishonesty; a 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you can see traits from both sides because genes have become fixed in each breed. That is because they only have genetic data to produce what they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.
> 
> No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, *apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.*
Click to expand...

Care to explain that, Youwerecreated? You've had plenty of opportunity.

Apparently not.

Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of genetics and taxonomy, a prime example of *CHRISTIAN* Creationist intellectual dishonesty, and a definitive 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!


----------



## FurthurBB

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea when your on year death bed and jesus hasnt come back youll realize you lived your entire life for no reason.
> 
> Your last neuron will cease firing and your thoughts will stop. No soul will not depart, because _everything_ about you is an electrical impulse in your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? I have my own successful business. I have 8 children and 7 grand children. I have a beautiful home up on a mountain in Arizona. Have the same wife I gladly married 30 years ago.
> 
> I played football.I played on a national paintball team.
> 
> I have horses and see Gods beauty everytime we take them out for a ride. Outside of the stroke i have had a great life.
> 
> I am an ethical and honest person partly because of me but more so because the influence of my faith.
> 
> So I don't see my life as a waste either way. But I have zero doubt that there is no God and I will meet him when the time is right.
> 
> What if Darwin was wrong ? he wasted his life chasing something that may have never happened. And his wild imagination took a whole lot of people down with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you can think you see god all you want, the fact is you will die without proof. Because most likely he doesnt exist.
> 
> But what if darwin is wrong? Well see, my faith isnt evolution. Thats where you and i diverge, i dont form my opinions on faith.
> 
> If darwin is wrong, my opinion on the afterlife is no different. Your personality is just electrical connections in the brain. The concept of a soul comes from the feeling that your personality and your mind are separate from your body. While complex, its still biochemistry none-the-less.
> 
> So if darwin's wrong im still going to be certain in what i believe happens after death: nothing. Your neurons stop firing and you will be dead.
Click to expand...


Well, since claiming they are an honest and ethical person when I know that not to be true, I do not believe the rest either.


----------



## FurthurBB

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do i have to explain the same things to you over and over. If you would have read my point by point refutation of your idiocy you would have read the part about living fossils.
> 
> Evolution says some fish evolved into terapods. It does not say all fish evolve into terapods, that would be strange.
> 
> Besides, living fossils usually live in isolated environments. If a fish lives in an underwater cavern, it wont evolve into an air breathing terapod in a billion years. The environment necessary is just not there for it to happen.
> 
> Living fossils are wonderful evidence of evolution, because we find them in environments evolution predicts we should!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> living fossils show no change which a is an argument against your theory. All organisms have mutations but all these creatures show no change what kind of nonsense are you trying to pass off ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong again!
Click to expand...


DNA code barrier, LOL!  Try chromosomes can pair properly enough for the animal to survive, but enough for ensuing reproduction.  Its a spacial thing, but those who have no knowledge of biology would of course not understand that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> does it surprise anyone that all the links are to non scientific web sites and all the authors are non scientists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have missed these guys comments.
> 
> In view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that darwin's theory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?
> 
> And is it not amazing that self-styled "scientists" hold on to their precious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight? They can not save evolution even by rejecting darwinism.
> 
> Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the british museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said: "nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." is a man in that position not a credible witness?
> 
> Prof. Beale, of king's college, london, a distinguished physiologist, said: "there is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."
> 
> prof virchow, of berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: The attempt to find the transition from the .animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal."
> 
> prof. Fleishman, of erlangen, who once accepted darwinism, but after further investigation repudiated it, said: "the darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it, in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the product of the imagination."
> 
> prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "the theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency there is not a fact known to science, tending to show that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."
> 
> dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of ny academy of medicine, said: "the darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His so called fellow animals, the primates--gorilla, orang and chimpanzee--can do nothing truly human."
> 
> sir william dawson, an eminent geologist, of canada, said: "the record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without apparent predecessors...paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what is told in scripture."
> 
> the foremost evolutionists, spencer, huxley and romanes, before their death, repudiated darwinism. Haeckel alone supported the theory and that by forged evidence.
> 
> Dr. St. George mivert, late professor of biology in the university college of kensington, calls darwinism a "puerile hypothesis."
> 
> dr. James orr, of edinburgh university, says: "the greatest scientists and theologians of europe are now pronouncing darwinism to be absolutely dead."
> 
> dr. Traas, a famous paleontologist, concludes: "the idea that mankind is descended from any simian species whatever, is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man." does this apply to h. G. Wells?
> 
> Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor of geology, in harvard university, said: "it is not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions, now inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly, by the operation of natural selection."
> 
> prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: "most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly darwinism, is an error, and can not be maintained.
> 
> Prof. Huxley, said that evolution is "not proved and not provable."
> 
> sir charles bell, prof. Of the university college of london, says: "everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fossilologist
> The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
Click to expand...


You need an updated dictionary just like your textbooks need to be updated.

Definition for fossilologist:

Web definitions:
(fossilology) paleontology: the earth science that studies fossil organisms and related remains.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? I have my own successful business. I have 8 children and 7 grand children. I have a beautiful home up on a mountain in Arizona. Have the same wife I gladly married 30 years ago.
> 
> I played football.I played on a national paintball team.
> 
> I have horses and see Gods beauty everytime we take them out for a ride. Outside of the stroke i have had a great life.
> 
> I am an ethical and honest person partly because of me but more so because the influence of my faith.
> 
> So I don't see my life as a waste either way. But I have zero doubt that there is no God and I will meet him when the time is right.
> 
> What if Darwin was wrong ? he wasted his life chasing something that may have never happened. And his wild imagination took a whole lot of people down with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you can think you see god all you want, the fact is you will die without proof. Because most likely he doesnt exist.
> 
> But what if darwin is wrong? Well see, my faith isnt evolution. Thats where you and i diverge, i dont form my opinions on faith.
> 
> If darwin is wrong, my opinion on the afterlife is no different. Your personality is just electrical connections in the brain. The concept of a soul comes from the feeling that your personality and your mind are separate from your body. While complex, its still biochemistry none-the-less.
> 
> So if darwin's wrong im still going to be certain in what i believe happens after death: nothing. Your neurons stop firing and you will be dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, since claiming they are an honest and ethical person when I know that not to be true, I do not believe the rest either.
Click to expand...


But you can believe what my signature say's and really none of you are tackling what has been presented.

Just admit it, you don't want to believe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> living fossils show no change which a is an argument against your theory. All organisms have mutations but all these creatures show no change what kind of nonsense are you trying to pass off ?
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA code barrier, LOL!  Try chromosomes can pair properly enough for the animal to survive, but enough for ensuing reproduction.  Its a spacial thing, but those who have no knowledge of biology would of course not understand that.
Click to expand...


There is barrier that will not allow members of the same family to cross breed. Explain it how you like but we creationist use the term DNA code barrier.


----------



## blu




----------



## Youwerecreated

There are limits to adaptations and that means there are limits to change. If we go beyond the limits of adaptation the organism suffers and or dies.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> There are limits to adaptations and that means there are limits to change. If we go beyond the limits of adaptation the organism suffers and or dies.


Really?



LOki said:


> [T]here is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as [you] ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE! _*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.



An insurmountable 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does your side make many different family trees if we are all related ? why not just one tree since you believe DNA similarity proves ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not assert that there are or "... make many different family trees."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in fact creationists who (in stolidly retarded denial of the genetic evidence) make many family trees based on their dopey baraminology.
Click to expand...

It is also evidence of Youwerecreated's "solid understanding" of Evolutionary Theory and Creation "Science." 

An unambiguous 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes your side claims that eldredge did not make the theory because of the lack of transitional fossils and that is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not so much.
> "PE is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one (1977).
> 
> PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972)."​Maybe it's time for you to STFU regarding what punctuated equilibrium is actually about, Junior.
Click to expand...


Another example of *CHRISTIAN* Creationist intellectual dishonesty and a 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated.



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations ans adapted organisms are not genetically stronger as Neo darwinism falsely teaches.
> 
> Example, Ranchers managing gene depletion is how ranchers breed out traits to produce meatier cows and cows that produce more milk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You example PROVES you to be unambiguously wrong. Those "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk" a far more suited to their environment--"genetically stronger" if you will--than their  root stock would be in an environment that selected for "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk."
Click to expand...

Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of the nature and role of selection in altering a population's genome, and the relationship that alteration has on morphology and/or phenoype; a
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated.



LOki said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> empirical evidence is observable evidence,list your observed evidence for macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]*RING-FUCKING-SPECIES*[/ame]
Click to expand...


A 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated; and his refusal to accept ring species as definitive evidence of macro-evolution is yet another example of *CHRISTIAN* Creationist intellectual dishonesty. A double 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, if you will.



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no one offering a list of beneficial mutations that did not lead to a loss of the origional genetic information.
> 
> 
> 
> Mutation DOES NOT necessarily, in EACH AND EVERY CASE, "lead to a loss of the original genetic information" from a species' gene pool.
> 
> When a mutation is not lethal and inheritable, that mutation NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC DIVERSITY in the species' gene pool; since you equate increased genetic diversity with increased genetic information, for you this NECESSARILY means that non-lethal *MUTATION NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC INFORMATION* in the species' gene pool.
Click to expand...


Another example of Youwerecreated's egregious lack of understanding and intellectual dishonesty; a 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you can see traits from both sides because genes have become fixed in each breed. That is because they only have genetic data to produce what they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.
> 
> No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, *apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.*
Click to expand...

Care to explain that, Youwerecreated? You've had plenty of opportunity.

Apparently not.

Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of genetics and taxonomy, a prime example of *CHRISTIAN* Creationist intellectual dishonesty, and a definitive 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are so concerned with copying and pasting why do you do it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol the only thing i copied was the URL for that link you fool. Cool little dance around my rebuttal, though.
> 
> Typical. State something that isnt true to avoid factual debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh that wasn't you copying and pasting graphs and comments from the sites. Do i need check all your postings and see which sites they come from because many times you don't give credit either.
> 
> You do Plagiarize I have noticed.
Click to expand...


With graphs? Really?

Wow what a petty argument. 

Ive seen you plagiarize more than once. Where your MLA format fool?

Pathetic.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Living fossils.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do i have to explain the same things to you over and over. If you would have read my point by point refutation of your idiocy you would have read the part about living fossils.
> 
> Evolution says some fish evolved into terapods. It does not say all fish evolve into terapods, that would be strange.
> 
> Besides, living fossils usually live in isolated environments. If a fish lives in an underwater cavern, it wont evolve into an air breathing terapod in a billion years. The environment necessary is just not there for it to happen.
> 
> Living fossils are wonderful evidence of evolution, because we find them in environments evolution predicts we should!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Giving an opinion is not refutation do you understand this ?
Click to expand...


What? Thats just a general discussion on evolution. Its not an opinion because i didnt take the time to explain the entire theory to you so you could understand it. 

What of these is wrong?

Evolution would claim that only a small portion of fish became terapods.

A school of fish in a deep underwater cavern cannot turn into a marsupial, even in a billion years, because the environment would prevent it. 

If you think either of those statements is wrong, you should stop debating evolution.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe ,maybe not.
> 
> I should have posted this article sooner.
> 
> 27. TWENTY OBJECTIONS ADMITTED
> 
> Evolutionists themselves, even including Darwin, admit as many as 20 objections to his theory. Darwin states the first four and Prof. V. L. Kellogg sums up the remaining 16 on pp. 247-52 of "Readings in Evolution." Among them are:
> 
> 1. There must have been innumerable transitional forms in the formation of new species. No convincing evidence of these missing links exists.
> 
> 2. Natural selection can not account for the instinct of animals such as that of the honey bee, "which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematics.":
> 
> 4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the formation of new species.
> 
> 5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited.
> 
> 6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance.
> 
> 7. Variation is so slight as to be imperceptible, and, therefore, cannot account for the "survival of the fittest." If the same progressive changes do not occur generally, if not universally, in the numbers of the same species in the same period, no new species can arise. Such general changes do not occur.
> 
> 8. Natural selection could not make use of initial slight changes. "What would be the advantage of the first few hairs of a mammal, or the first steps toward feathers in a bird, when these creatures were beginning to diverge from their reptilian ancestors?"
> 
> 9. Even if Darwinism should explain the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the survival of the fittest, which is far more important.
> 
> 10. Darwin says, "I am convinced that natural selection has been the most important but not the exclusive means of modification." Many scientists think it of very little importance, and that it is not true.
> 
> 11. "The fluctuating variations of Darwinism are quantitative, or plus and minus variations; whereas, the differences between species are qualitative." Growth and development in one species does not produce a new species, which must be of a different kind. Miles Darden, of Tennessee, was 90 inches tall, and weighed 1000 pounds, but remained a member of the human species, though he was as high and heavy as a horse. So did the giant Posius, over 10 feet tall, who lived in the days of Augustus.
> 
> 12. "There is a growing skepticism on the part of biologists as to the extreme fierceness of the struggle for existence and of the consequent rigor of selection." Overproduction and shortage of space and food might sometime be a factor of importance, but has it been so in the past? Has it affected the human race?
> 
> 13. Darwin proposed the theory of gemmules. Prof. H. H. Newman says, "This theory was not satisfactory even to Darwin and is now only of historical interest."
> 
> 14. Darwin's subsidiary theory of sexual selection has also been rejected by scientists as worthless.
> 
> In view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that Darwin's theory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?
> 
> And is it not amazing that self-styled "scientists" hold on to their precious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight? They can not save evolution even by rejecting Darwinism.
> 
> Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the British Museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." Is a man in that position not a credible witness?
> 
> Prof. Beale, of King's College, London, a distinguished physiologist, said: "There is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."
> 
> Prof Virchow, of Berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: The attempt to find the transition from the .animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal."
> 
> Prof. Fleishman, of Erlangen, who once accepted Darwinism, but after further investigation repudiated it, said: "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it, in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the product of the imagination."
> 
> Prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "The theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency There is not a fact known to science, tending to show that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."
> 
> Dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of NY Academy of Medicine, said: "The Darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His so called fellow animals, the primates--gorilla, orang and chimpanzee--can do nothing truly human."
> 
> Sir William Dawson, an eminent geologist, of Canada, said: "The record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without apparent predecessors...Paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what is told in Scripture."
> 
> The foremost evolutionists, Spencer, Huxley and Romanes, before their death, repudiated Darwinism. Haeckel alone supported the theory and that by forged evidence.
> 
> Dr. St. George Mivert, late professor of biology in the University College of Kensington, calls Darwinism a "puerile hypothesis."
> 
> Dr. James Orr, of Edinburgh University, says: "The greatest scientists and theologians of Europe are now pronouncing Darwinism to be absolutely dead."
> 
> Dr. Traas, a famous paleontologist, concludes: "The idea that mankind is descended from any simian species whatever, is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man." Does this apply to H. G. Wells?
> 
> Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor of Geology, in Harvard University, said: "It is not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions, now inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly, by the operation of natural selection."
> 
> Prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: "Most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly Darwinism, is an error, and can not be maintained.
> 
> Prof. Huxley, said that evolution is "not proved and not provable."
> 
> Sir Charles Bell, Prof. of the University College of London, says: "Everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."
> 
> These testimonies of scientists of the first rank are a part of a large number. Many of them and many more, are given in Prof. Townsend's "Collapse of Evolution," McCann's "God or Gorilla," Philip Mauro's "Evolution At the Bar," and other anti-evolution books. Alfred McCann, in his great work, "God or Gorilla," mentions 20 of the most prominent scholars, who do not accept Darwinism. Yet they say, "All scholars accept evolution."
> 
> 
> 
> For full article.
> 
> The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea argue against darwins 150 year old understanding of evolution, thatll make you sound smart. Learn the modern theory of evolution, and by that i mean after the discovery of genetics and proteins.
> 
> Im not going to refute that post point by point, because every time i do that you ignore it. I'm not going to waste an hour of my life teaching you biology when your going to ignore the entire post anyways, just like last time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you can't ,you don't have the evidence to.
Click to expand...


Evidence to do what?

Im not going to argue darwins idea of evolution, he was wrong about a lot. He lived in a time before DNA was discovered or the technology to image protein structure was invented. 

Im telling you that you should probably argue against the modern theory, or else your going to sound stupid.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you can think you see god all you want, the fact is you will die without proof. Because most likely he doesnt exist.
> 
> But what if darwin is wrong? Well see, my faith isnt evolution. Thats where you and i diverge, i dont form my opinions on faith.
> 
> If darwin is wrong, my opinion on the afterlife is no different. Your personality is just electrical connections in the brain. The concept of a soul comes from the feeling that your personality and your mind are separate from your body. While complex, its still biochemistry none-the-less.
> 
> So if darwin's wrong im still going to be certain in what i believe happens after death: nothing. Your neurons stop firing and you will be dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since claiming they are an honest and ethical person when I know that not to be true, I do not believe the rest either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you can believe what my signature say's and really none of you are tackling what has been presented.
> 
> Just admit it, you don't want to believe.
Click to expand...


No, i dont want to believe. 

Why would i believe in just another massive fairy tale that as consumed mankind for a few centuries. 

There is no point in believing anything. Facts my friend, facts. 

The fact is that DNA controls the organism, the organism does not control DNA. A strand of prokaryotic genome, or maybe many strands, did indeed become all of life on earth. 

Evolution would claim every living organism is the continuation of the same 3.8 billion year self replication chemical reaction, in a very basic sense. 

From a religious perspective, thats a much more moral story than christianity.


----------



## cbirch2

We wont be able to have a coherent discussion until you watch this video and understand things from about 18+ minutes. Essential. Learn about proteins

http://www.khanacademy.org/video/dna?playlist=Biology

feel free to watch the next one, on variation of species.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you observe something you can only give an opinion. You violate the science method if you can't test, study, and observe.
> 
> 
> 
> then that would mean all creation dogma is false... as you've never tested or observed or studied reading a badly written compendium of fairy tales and drawing false conclusions from them is not science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible says 10 times in genesis kinds will bring forth after their kind that has been put to the test,studied,and observed.
> 
> The bible says we were created from the dust of the groud that has been put to the test,studied,and observed.
> 
> The bible says there are springs in the oceans,that has been put to the test,studied,and observed.
> 
> Mind you this was written over 3,500 years ago by people who had no way of knowing some of these things.
> 
> You were saying ?
Click to expand...

who did the tests and observations?
what was their methodology, where are their peer reviewed papers?
and most important of all where is the empirical evidence?
if and until that is presented : all creation dogma is false... as you've never tested or observed or studied, reading a badly written compendium of fairy tales and drawing false conclusions from them is not science


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really do you know what you are talking about ?
> 
> Look for yourself.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> 
> 
> Born in Ankara in 1956, Adnan Oktar is a prominent Turkish intellectual. not a paleontologist !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about,do you ?
Click to expand...

 to any one with one working brain cell it's obvious,  the person you've put up as expert testimony, is not!
fail.


----------



## LOki

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWGJ3ydBQiE"]The Origin of the Universe[/ame]

This "theory" of the "Origin of the Universe" has all the verifiable evidence and valid logic (and then some) that the Christian Bible Creationist "theory" has for support. Clearly everything Creationists believe is false, they are baffled by this obvious truth, they just can't explain this, ... it's INEXPLICABLE!


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol the only thing i copied was the URL for that link you fool. Cool little dance around my rebuttal, though.
> 
> Typical. State something that isnt true to avoid factual debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that wasn't you copying and pasting graphs and comments from the sites. Do i need check all your postings and see which sites they come from because many times you don't give credit either.
> 
> You do Plagiarize I have noticed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With graphs? Really?
> 
> Wow what a petty argument.
> 
> Ive seen you plagiarize more than once. Where your MLA format fool?
> 
> Pathetic.
Click to expand...


The truth is i have seen you do it but it's no big deal to me you are just regurgitating what you have been taught.

Everything I know has been taught to me and some things I have learned on my own  in the job I held for 11 years.

I have been totally honest with you guys and when you know you are standing on a weak argument you get all nasty.

When I present you with evidence from the bible you get even nastier but I guess you don't have a clue why.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do i have to explain the same things to you over and over. If you would have read my point by point refutation of your idiocy you would have read the part about living fossils.
> 
> Evolution says some fish evolved into terapods. It does not say all fish evolve into terapods, that would be strange.
> 
> Besides, living fossils usually live in isolated environments. If a fish lives in an underwater cavern, it wont evolve into an air breathing terapod in a billion years. The environment necessary is just not there for it to happen.
> 
> Living fossils are wonderful evidence of evolution, because we find them in environments evolution predicts we should!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Giving an opinion is not refutation do you understand this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Thats just a general discussion on evolution. Its not an opinion because i didnt take the time to explain the entire theory to you so you could understand it.
> 
> What of these is wrong?
> 
> Evolution would claim that only a small portion of fish became terapods.
> 
> A school of fish in a deep underwater cavern cannot turn into a marsupial, even in a billion years, because the environment would prevent it.
> 
> If you think either of those statements is wrong, you should stop debating evolution.
Click to expand...


Some claims you make are factual but it is not evidence of your theory and a conclusion is made by opinion get it ? How many opinions have been proven wrong in the past that the whole science community accepted at one time ?

If what I am saying is not true they would not have to revise their text books and did you know there are known things in the text books that have been refuted and they still teach them.

When I have time some day I will point them out to you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since claiming they are an honest and ethical person when I know that not to be true, I do not believe the rest either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you can believe what my signature say's and really none of you are tackling what has been presented.
> 
> Just admit it, you don't want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, i dont want to believe.
> 
> Why would i believe in just another massive fairy tale that as consumed mankind for a few centuries.
> 
> There is no point in believing anything. Facts my friend, facts.
> 
> The fact is that DNA controls the organism, the organism does not control DNA. A strand of prokaryotic genome, or maybe many strands, did indeed become all of life on earth.
> 
> Evolution would claim every living organism is the continuation of the same 3.8 billion year self replication chemical reaction, in a very basic sense.
> 
> From a religious perspective, thats a much more moral story than christianity.
Click to expand...


What do you think you believe now if it never happened ?

What proof do you have that what I believe is a fairytale ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> We wont be able to have a coherent discussion until you watch this video and understand things from about 18+ minutes. Essential. Learn about proteins
> 
> http://www.khanacademy.org/video/dna?playlist=Biology
> 
> feel free to watch the next one, on variation of species.



I'll watch it when I have time what makes you think I know nothing about proteins ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> then that would mean all creation dogma is false... as you've never tested or observed or studied reading a badly written compendium of fairy tales and drawing false conclusions from them is not science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible says 10 times in genesis kinds will bring forth after their kind that has been put to the test,studied,and observed.
> 
> The bible says we were created from the dust of the groud that has been put to the test,studied,and observed.
> 
> The bible says there are springs in the oceans,that has been put to the test,studied,and observed.
> 
> Mind you this was written over 3,500 years ago by people who had no way of knowing some of these things.
> 
> You were saying ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who did the tests and observations?
> what was their methodology, where are their peer reviewed papers?
> and most important of all where is the empirical evidence?
> if and until that is presented : all creation dogma is false... as you've never tested or observed or studied, reading a badly written compendium of fairy tales and drawing false conclusions from them is not science
Click to expand...



 ignorance is bliss


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that wasn't you copying and pasting graphs and comments from the sites. Do i need check all your postings and see which sites they come from because many times you don't give credit either.
> 
> You do Plagiarize I have noticed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With graphs? Really?
> 
> Wow what a petty argument.
> 
> Ive seen you plagiarize more than once. Where your MLA format fool?
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth is i have seen you do it but it's no big deal to me you are just regurgitating what you have been taught.
> 
> Everything I know has been taught to me and some things I have learned on my own  in the job I held for 11 years.
> 
> I have been totally honest with you guys and when you know you are standing on a weak argument you get all nasty.
> 
> When I present you with evidence from the bible you get even nastier but I guess you don't have a clue why.
Click to expand...


The difference is that you post massive walls of text from creationist websites to explain things you cant with your own words. I post images to prove and supplement what ive already said. 

If you want me to source every single graph i post id be glad to do that. Although it would probably be easier for you to right-click and hit view image to get the url. 

Wow.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giving an opinion is not refutation do you understand this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? Thats just a general discussion on evolution. Its not an opinion because i didnt take the time to explain the entire theory to you so you could understand it.
> 
> What of these is wrong?
> 
> Evolution would claim that only a small portion of fish became terapods.
> 
> A school of fish in a deep underwater cavern cannot turn into a marsupial, even in a billion years, because the environment would prevent it.
> 
> If you think either of those statements is wrong, you should stop debating evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some claims you make are factual but it is not evidence of your theory and a conclusion is made by opinion get it ? How many opinions have been proven wrong in the past that the whole science community accepted at one time ?
> 
> If what I am saying is not true they would not have to revise their text books and did you know there are known things in the text books that have been refuted and they still teach them.
> 
> When I have time some day I will point them out to you.
Click to expand...



Dude im not making giant leaps here god damnit. 

According to natural selection, only some fish would evolve into terapods.

Some environments wont see the evolution of some species. For example, a bird will not evolve under the ocean. 

Are either of those wrong in any sense? In an evolutionary sense? In a creationist sense? In a common-sense sense?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you can believe what my signature say's and really none of you are tackling what has been presented.
> 
> Just admit it, you don't want to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, i dont want to believe.
> 
> Why would i believe in just another massive fairy tale that as consumed mankind for a few centuries.
> 
> There is no point in believing anything. Facts my friend, facts.
> 
> The fact is that DNA controls the organism, the organism does not control DNA. A strand of prokaryotic genome, or maybe many strands, did indeed become all of life on earth.
> 
> Evolution would claim every living organism is the continuation of the same 3.8 billion year self replication chemical reaction, in a very basic sense.
> 
> From a religious perspective, thats a much more moral story than christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think you believe now if it never happened ?
> 
> What proof do you have that what I believe is a fairytale ?
Click to expand...


The same proof i have that santa clause is a fairy tale. 



> What do you think you believe now if it never happened?


Huh? Well i dont exactly buy into christianity. When you look back over the years, especially the intellectuals of the last 200 years, there is an almost uniform rejection of at least mainstream christianity. Nearly none of the greatest physicists of the 20th century believed in the traditional christian god.

I believe that the 12 fermions in the standard model and 4 the gauge bosons that mediate forces between them ultimately necessitate the creation of life on earth like planets. The traditional concept of life is a lie; all we are is a very complex arrangement of matter. 







The properties of these 16 particles of the standard model (17 with higgs) might be the work of god, directly or indirectly. 

When you die there is nothing, im sorry to say. What would lead you believe otherwise? Before you were born, you werent there. Your mind is an intense electrical cascade between millions of neurons that began when you were born and grew as your brain grew. When you die that will stop. 

Its the only logical conclusion to arrive at.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We wont be able to have a coherent discussion until you watch this video and understand things from about 18+ minutes. Essential. Learn about proteins
> 
> http://www.khanacademy.org/video/dna?playlist=Biology
> 
> feel free to watch the next one, on variation of species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch it when I have time what makes you think I know nothing about proteins ?
Click to expand...


The words you type and the things you say.


----------



## cbirch2

And im sick of this "disprove god" bullshit. 

Its not on me to prove that your belief is a fairy tale. If your going to believe something thats fine but dont state it as fact because it doesnt even exist in the same category. 

Did you go through every mythology that has historically and does presently consume mankind and disprove it, before you came to embrace christianity? Or were you just born in a christian nation and did the norm?

Moron.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, i dont want to believe.
> 
> Why would i believe in just another massive fairy tale that as consumed mankind for a few centuries.
> 
> There is no point in believing anything. Facts my friend, facts.
> 
> The fact is that DNA controls the organism, the organism does not control DNA. A strand of prokaryotic genome, or maybe many strands, did indeed become all of life on earth.
> 
> Evolution would claim every living organism is the continuation of the same 3.8 billion year self replication chemical reaction, in a very basic sense.
> 
> From a religious perspective, thats a much more moral story than christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think you believe now if it never happened ?
> 
> What proof do you have that what I believe is a fairytale ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same proof i have that santa clause is a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think you believe now if it never happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Well i dont exactly buy into christianity. When you look back over the years, especially the intellectuals of the last 200 years, there is an almost uniform rejection of at least mainstream christianity. Nearly none of the greatest physicists of the 20th century believed in the traditional christian god.
> 
> I believe that the 12 fermions in the standard model and 4 the gauge bosons that mediate forces between them ultimately necessitate the creation of life on earth like planets. The traditional concept of life is a lie; all we are is a very complex arrangement of matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The properties of these 16 particles of the standard model (17 with higgs) might be the work of god, directly or indirectly.
> 
> When you die there is nothing, im sorry to say. What would lead you believe otherwise? Before you were born, you werent there. Your mind is an intense electrical cascade between millions of neurons that began when you were born and grew as your brain grew. When you die that will stop.
> 
> Its the only logical conclusion to arrive at.
Click to expand...


Isa 44:24  So says Jehovah, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb, I am Jehovah who makes all things; who stretches out the heavens alone; who spreads out the earth; who was with Me? 

Death is the end unitl the resurrection.

Thank you for acknowledging this,Which was predicted for the last days.

2Th 2:3 Give no belief to false words: because there will first be a falling away from the faith, and the revelation of the man of sin, the son of destruction

2Th 2:8  And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the breath of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming,


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We wont be able to have a coherent discussion until you watch this video and understand things from about 18+ minutes. Essential. Learn about proteins
> 
> http://www.khanacademy.org/video/dna?playlist=Biology
> 
> feel free to watch the next one, on variation of species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch it when I have time what makes you think I know nothing about proteins ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The words you type and the things you say.
Click to expand...


Think what you like.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> And im sick of this "disprove god" bullshit.
> 
> Its not on me to prove that your belief is a fairy tale. If your going to believe something thats fine but dont state it as fact because it doesnt even exist in the same category.
> 
> Did you go through every mythology that has historically and does presently consume mankind and disprove it, before you came to embrace christianity? Or were you just born in a christian nation and did the norm?
> 
> Moron.



If you make a claim then prove it ,that is how it works.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> And im sick of this "disprove god" bullshit.
> 
> Its not on me to prove that your belief is a fairy tale. If your going to believe something thats fine but dont state it as fact because it doesnt even exist in the same category.
> 
> Did you go through every mythology that has historically and does presently consume mankind and disprove it, before you came to embrace christianity? Or were you just born in a christian nation and did the norm?
> 
> Moron.



I didn't need to after a thourough study of the bible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are limits to adaptations and that means there are limits to change. If we go beyond the limits of adaptation the organism suffers and or dies.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> [T]here is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as [you] ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE! _*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An insurmountable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
> 
> It is also evidence of Youwerecreated's "solid understanding" of Evolutionary Theory and Creation "Science."
> 
> An unambiguous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of *CHRISTIAN* Creationist intellectual dishonesty and a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated.
> 
> Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of the nature and role of selection in altering a population's genome, and the relationship that alteration has on morphology and/or phenoype; a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated.
> 
> 
> 
> A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated; and his refusal to accept ring species as definitive evidence of macro-evolution is yet another example of *CHRISTIAN* Creationist intellectual dishonesty. A double
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , if you will.
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of Youwerecreated's egregious lack of understanding and intellectual dishonesty; a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.
> 
> No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, *apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to explain that, Youwerecreated? You've had plenty of opportunity.
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of genetics and taxonomy, a prime example of *CHRISTIAN* Creationist intellectual dishonesty, and a definitive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!
Click to expand...


So you think Sir Isaac Newton one of the two best scientist who ever lived was a  superstitious retard for decoding the bible ?

Look you are showing ignorance by suggesting that ring species are evidence of macro-evolution 

Don't waste my time with your ignorance.

Do you even know who and what Sir Isaac Newton is famous for ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> So you think Sir Isaac Newton one of the two best scientist who ever lived was a  superstitious retard for decoding the bible ?


No. He was a superstitious retard for asserting as certain fact that _"God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."_

There is this one question that you, Sir Isaac Newton, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you (as you ask of us). The question is to the essential point of the foundation of your "theory," yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE! _*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.

And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.

_EDIT: _Or cbirch2 will deliver the headshot when you make the demand that, "_If you make a claim then prove it ,that is how it works._"  :LOL:​




Youwerecreated said:


> Look you are showing ignorance by suggesting that ring species are evidence of macro-evolution


And it is. Look
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]*RING-FUCKING-SPECIES*[/ame]

Your assertion that micro-evolution cannot result in speciation is unambiguously refuted by the verifiable evidence; and your refusal to accept ring species as definitive evidence of macro-evolution is yet another example of Christian Creationist intellectual dishonesty.



Youwerecreated said:


> Don't waste my time with your ignorance.


Ignorance? Really? LOLsome!

Didn't your ignorant ass get punked right here?:





LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does your side make many different family trees if we are all related ? why not just one tree since you believe DNA similarity proves ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not assert that there are or "... make many different family trees."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in fact creationists who (in stolidly retarded denial of the genetic evidence) make many family trees based on their dopey baraminology.
Click to expand...

*ANSWER:* Most certainly YES!​

Didn't your ignorant ass also get punked right here?:





LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no one offering a list of beneficial mutations that did not lead to a loss of the origional genetic information.
> 
> 
> 
> Mutation DOES NOT necessarily, in EACH AND EVERY CASE, "lead to a loss of the original genetic information" from a species' gene pool.
> 
> When a mutation is not lethal and inheritable, that mutation NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC DIVERSITY in the species' gene pool; since you equate increased genetic diversity with increased genetic information, for you this NECESSARILY means that non-lethal *MUTATION NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC INFORMATION* in the species' gene pool.
Click to expand...

*ANSWER:* Most certainly YES!​

Didn't your ignorant ass get punked right here?:





LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is [the phenotype observed in ligers] from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?
> 
> 
> 
> CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.
> 
> No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, *apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.*
Click to expand...

*ANSWER:* Most certainly YES!​



Youwerecreated said:


> Do you even know who and what Sir Isaac Newton is famous for ?


I am aware of Newton, and his theory of gravity, and his heresies. What of it? Despite his superstitions, Sir Isaac Newton's brilliance does not make you any less stupid or less intellectually dishonest.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think you believe now if it never happened ?
> 
> What proof do you have that what I believe is a fairytale ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same proof i have that santa clause is a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think you believe now if it never happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Well i dont exactly buy into christianity. When you look back over the years, especially the intellectuals of the last 200 years, there is an almost uniform rejection of at least mainstream christianity. Nearly none of the greatest physicists of the 20th century believed in the traditional christian god.
> 
> I believe that the 12 fermions in the standard model and 4 the gauge bosons that mediate forces between them ultimately necessitate the creation of life on earth like planets. The traditional concept of life is a lie; all we are is a very complex arrangement of matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The properties of these 16 particles of the standard model (17 with higgs) might be the work of god, directly or indirectly.
> 
> When you die there is nothing, im sorry to say. What would lead you believe otherwise? Before you were born, you werent there. Your mind is an intense electrical cascade between millions of neurons that began when you were born and grew as your brain grew. When you die that will stop.
> 
> Its the only logical conclusion to arrive at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isa 44:24  So says Jehovah, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb, I am Jehovah who makes all things; who stretches out the heavens alone; who spreads out the earth; who was with Me?
> 
> Death is the end unitl the resurrection.
> 
> Thank you for acknowledging this,Which was predicted for the last days.
> 
> 2Th 2:3 Give no belief to false words: because there will first be a falling away from the faith, and the revelation of the man of sin, the son of destruction
> 
> 2Th 2:8  And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the breath of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming,
Click to expand...


K so tell me when you discover a particle that exists outside the standard model, mmk?

Bible verses are cool and all, but the fact is that we know what matter is made of. We can literally see it. How do you argue with the standard model??


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And im sick of this "disprove god" bullshit.
> 
> Its not on me to prove that your belief is a fairy tale. If your going to believe something thats fine but dont state it as fact because it doesnt even exist in the same category.
> 
> Did you go through every mythology that has historically and does presently consume mankind and disprove it, before you came to embrace christianity? Or were you just born in a christian nation and did the norm?
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you make a claim then prove it ,that is how it works.
Click to expand...


Exactly so you should stop all references to your god immediately and until you can provide evidence of his existence.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And im sick of this "disprove god" bullshit.
> 
> Its not on me to prove that your belief is a fairy tale. If your going to believe something thats fine but dont state it as fact because it doesnt even exist in the same category.
> 
> Did you go through every mythology that has historically and does presently consume mankind and disprove it, before you came to embrace christianity? Or were you just born in a christian nation and did the norm?
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't need to after a thorough study of the bible.
Click to expand...


Yup thats pretty much my point exactly. 

For about one thousand and six hundred years after christ people thought like you do. they all got their teachings from the bible. people thought diseases were caused by sin, the world was flat, and at the the center of the universe. 

Only as a select few people began to think for themselves and threw aside idiotic christian dogma did humanity make any progress toward a modern society. religion is a cancer and ignorance is both the cause and the symptom. Each one is a self-feeding and self-fulfilling lie that has passed from gullible generation to gullible generation. its obvious everywhere in the world today. 

I cant wait until your all gone. how about you go rapture yourself and all your friends? the world would be better


----------



## LOki

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And im sick of this "disprove god" bullshit.
> 
> Its not on me to prove that your belief is a fairy tale. If your going to believe something thats fine but dont state it as fact because it doesnt even exist in the same category.
> 
> Did you go through every mythology that has historically and does presently consume mankind and disprove it, before you came to embrace christianity? Or were you just born in a christian nation and did the norm?
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you make a claim then prove it ,that is how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly so you should stop all references to your god immediately and until you can provide evidence of his existence.
Click to expand...

And cbirch2 delivers a 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 to Youwerecreated!


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think Sir Isaac Newton one of the two best scientist who ever lived was a  superstitious retard for decoding the bible ?
> 
> 
> 
> No. He was a superstitious retard for asserting as certain fact that _"God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."_
> 
> There is this one question that you, Sir Isaac Newton, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you (as you ask of us). The question is to the essential point of the foundation of your "theory," yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE! _*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.
> 
> _EDIT: _Or cbirch2 will deliver the headshot when you make the demand that, "_If you make a claim then prove it ,that is how it works._"  :LOL:​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look you are showing ignorance by suggesting that ring species are evidence of macro-evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it is. Look
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]*RING-FUCKING-SPECIES*[/ame]
> 
> Your assertion that micro-evolution cannot result in speciation is unambiguously refuted by the verifiable evidence; and your refusal to accept ring species as definitive evidence of macro-evolution is yet another example of Christian Creationist intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> Ignorance? Really? LOLsome!
> 
> Didn't your ignorant ass get punked right here?:
> *ANSWER:* Most certainly YES!​
> 
> Didn't your ignorant ass also get punked right here?:
> *ANSWER:* Most certainly YES!​
> 
> Didn't your ignorant ass get punked right here?:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.
> 
> No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, *apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *ANSWER:* Most certainly YES!​
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know who and what Sir Isaac Newton is famous for ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am aware of Newton, and his theory of gravity, and his heresies. What of it? Despite his superstitions, Sir Isaac Newton's brilliance does not make you any less stupid or less intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...


I would say Sir Isaac Newton was much more brilliant then yourself. What did put everything into motion if not God ?

The sun the right distance from our planet. The moon the right distance and then to put them into to the correct motion and on the correct plane.

The right amount of gravity.

Yes who is not baffled by the creator of all things . All the greatest minds in the world from the past and today put together, can't figure out his creations. Do you think they could explain the creator ?

But me unlike you willingly admit that many of my beliefs are based in faith that is where your side has a problem because you think any explanation is ok and is science until you come up with a better explanation or prove the first explanation wrong.

Because an evolutionist tells me ring species are evidence of Macro-evolution when I know it's clearly not ,it's just changes within a family possibly through adaptations or cross breeding nothing that would come through mutations. It is simply absurd and I would say that person don't know the correct definition of Macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is one family producing a new destinct family get it ? like a dinosaur producing a bird the burden of proof is on you the evolutionist to show it happened through natural selection and mutations as your paradigm calls for.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same proof i have that santa clause is a fairy tale.
> 
> Huh? Well i dont exactly buy into christianity. When you look back over the years, especially the intellectuals of the last 200 years, there is an almost uniform rejection of at least mainstream christianity. Nearly none of the greatest physicists of the 20th century believed in the traditional christian god.
> 
> I believe that the 12 fermions in the standard model and 4 the gauge bosons that mediate forces between them ultimately necessitate the creation of life on earth like planets. The traditional concept of life is a lie; all we are is a very complex arrangement of matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The properties of these 16 particles of the standard model (17 with higgs) might be the work of god, directly or indirectly.
> 
> When you die there is nothing, im sorry to say. What would lead you believe otherwise? Before you were born, you werent there. Your mind is an intense electrical cascade between millions of neurons that began when you were born and grew as your brain grew. When you die that will stop.
> 
> Its the only logical conclusion to arrive at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isa 44:24  So says Jehovah, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb, I am Jehovah who makes all things; who stretches out the heavens alone; who spreads out the earth; who was with Me?
> 
> Death is the end unitl the resurrection.
> 
> Thank you for acknowledging this,Which was predicted for the last days.
> 
> 2Th 2:3 Give no belief to false words: because there will first be a falling away from the faith, and the revelation of the man of sin, the son of destruction
> 
> 2Th 2:8  And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the breath of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> K so tell me when you discover a particle that exists outside the standard model, mmk?
> 
> Bible verses are cool and all, but the fact is that we know what matter is made of. We can literally see it. How do you argue with the standard model??
Click to expand...


Wait are you saying matter had no beginning ? If you do then time had no beginning and we know the universe had a beginning so how did matter come in to existence ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And im sick of this "disprove god" bullshit.
> 
> Its not on me to prove that your belief is a fairy tale. If your going to believe something thats fine but dont state it as fact because it doesnt even exist in the same category.
> 
> Did you go through every mythology that has historically and does presently consume mankind and disprove it, before you came to embrace christianity? Or were you just born in a christian nation and did the norm?
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you make a claim then prove it ,that is how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly so you should stop all references to your god immediately and until you can provide evidence of his existence.
Click to expand...


I have provided writings of men that had no way to know what they wrote about at the time of the writing that is evidence they were inspired by a creator they got the information from the creator no other way to explain it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And im sick of this "disprove god" bullshit.
> 
> Its not on me to prove that your belief is a fairy tale. If your going to believe something thats fine but dont state it as fact because it doesnt even exist in the same category.
> 
> Did you go through every mythology that has historically and does presently consume mankind and disprove it, before you came to embrace christianity? Or were you just born in a christian nation and did the norm?
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't need to after a thorough study of the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup thats pretty much my point exactly.
> 
> For about one thousand and six hundred years after christ people thought like you do. they all got their teachings from the bible. people thought diseases were caused by sin, the world was flat, and at the the center of the universe.
> 
> Only as a select few people began to think for themselves and threw aside idiotic christian dogma did humanity make any progress toward a modern society. religion is a cancer and ignorance is both the cause and the symptom. Each one is a self-feeding and self-fulfilling lie that has passed from gullible generation to gullible generation. its obvious everywhere in the world today.
> 
> I cant wait until your all gone. how about you go rapture yourself and all your friends? the world would be better
Click to expand...


No they there were Jews before Christ and many other religions.

You had muslims and many other religions before and after Christ.

The bible is the sole reason That I and many Christians believe as we do. We are not all in complete agreement but what unites us is Christ.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And im sick of this "disprove god" bullshit.
> 
> Its not on me to prove that your belief is a fairy tale. If your going to believe something thats fine but dont state it as fact because it doesnt even exist in the same category.
> 
> Did you go through every mythology that has historically and does presently consume mankind and disprove it, before you came to embrace christianity? Or were you just born in a christian nation and did the norm?
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't need to after a thorough study of the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup thats pretty much my point exactly.
> 
> For about one thousand and six hundred years after christ people thought like you do. they all got their teachings from the bible. people thought diseases were caused by sin, the world was flat, and at the the center of the universe.
> 
> Only as a select few people began to think for themselves and threw aside idiotic christian dogma did humanity make any progress toward a modern society. religion is a cancer and ignorance is both the cause and the symptom. Each one is a self-feeding and self-fulfilling lie that has passed from gullible generation to gullible generation. its obvious everywhere in the world today.
> 
> I cant wait until your all gone. how about you go rapture yourself and all your friends? the world would be better
Click to expand...


Don't believe in the rapture but you would love for Christians to disappear now you are showing your true colors. This Creator is a problem for your faith.

Well guess what,he will even be a bigger problem soon.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isa 44:24  So says Jehovah, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb, I am Jehovah who makes all things; who stretches out the heavens alone; who spreads out the earth; who was with Me?
> 
> Death is the end unitl the resurrection.
> 
> Thank you for acknowledging this,Which was predicted for the last days.
> 
> 2Th 2:3 Give no belief to false words: because there will first be a falling away from the faith, and the revelation of the man of sin, the son of destruction
> 
> 2Th 2:8  And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the breath of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K so tell me when you discover a particle that exists outside the standard model, mmk?
> 
> Bible verses are cool and all, but the fact is that we know what matter is made of. We can literally see it. How do you argue with the standard model??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait are you saying matter had no beginning ? If you do then time had no beginning and we know the universe had a beginning so how did matter come in to existence ?
Click to expand...




> Are you saying matter had no beginning?


Well, not only have i_ never said anything even remotely similar to that_, ive continually said the _exact opposite_. 

Matter came into existence at the moment of the big bang. Interpret it however you want from there.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you make a claim then prove it ,that is how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly so you should stop all references to your god immediately and until you can provide evidence of his existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided writings of men that had no way to know what they wrote about at the time of the writing that is evidence they were inspired by a creator they got the information from the creator no other way to explain it.
Click to expand...


That is laughable evidence. 

Radiometric dating is a fairy tale but what a goat herder in the desert wrote down 2000 years ago is fact? This is how your mind works?

Wow.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't need to after a thorough study of the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup thats pretty much my point exactly.
> 
> For about one thousand and six hundred years after christ people thought like you do. they all got their teachings from the bible. people thought diseases were caused by sin, the world was flat, and at the the center of the universe.
> 
> Only as a select few people began to think for themselves and threw aside idiotic christian dogma did humanity make any progress toward a modern society. religion is a cancer and ignorance is both the cause and the symptom. Each one is a self-feeding and self-fulfilling lie that has passed from gullible generation to gullible generation. its obvious everywhere in the world today.
> 
> I cant wait until your all gone. how about you go rapture yourself and all your friends? the world would be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they there were Jews before Christ and many other religions.
> 
> You had muslims and many other religions before and after Christ.
> 
> The bible is the sole reason That I and many Christians believe as we do. We are not all in complete agreement but what unites us is Christ.
Click to expand...


Im not even talking about christianity. Thats why i said "religion is a cancer" rather than, "christianity is a cancer".

Granted, christianity is particularly bad. But every religion is the same. The jewish religion is idiotic. All of the pagan religions are idiotic. All of the Asian religions are (much less) idiotic as well. 

Every religion is the same. Its based on the belief that people thousands of years ago had a magical insight into truth rather than just an active imagination. They were ignorant goat herders, thats how the abrahamic religions started. Thats why they were first tricked by judaism, and then christianity, and then islam. Before that they were tricked by whatever idiot was preaching in their local nomadic tribe. Pathetic.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't need to after a thorough study of the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup thats pretty much my point exactly.
> 
> For about one thousand and six hundred years after christ people thought like you do. they all got their teachings from the bible. people thought diseases were caused by sin, the world was flat, and at the the center of the universe.
> 
> Only as a select few people began to think for themselves and threw aside idiotic christian dogma did humanity make any progress toward a modern society. religion is a cancer and ignorance is both the cause and the symptom. Each one is a self-feeding and self-fulfilling lie that has passed from gullible generation to gullible generation. its obvious everywhere in the world today.
> 
> I cant wait until your all gone. how about you go rapture yourself and all your friends? the world would be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't believe in the rapture but you would love for Christians to disappear now you are showing your true colors. This Creator is a problem for your faith.
> 
> Well guess what,he will even be a bigger problem soon.
Click to expand...


Lol you really think thats the problem? 

Of course! im just the infidel rejecting god, obviously your bible is the summation of my personality! These are the self-fulfilling properties built into all religions. If you just call everyone that doesnt agree with you an infidel, it provides comfort when you realize the rest of the world doesnt believe what you believe. Its how its been done for centuries, and its how the christians think now. They do not use the word infidel, they just "pray for your eternally damned soul"; as if you need help and theyre just there to provide it

In reality im just not going to believe something ive never been shown a shred of proof for. And as a science major i get very annoyed when people show they have absolutely no connection with reality. By all means believe in god, but you must reconcile that belief with certain realities. If not, well then your just not a very smart person. Surveys show that something like 98% of particle physics graduates are atheists. Since this is my original major, it might explain things a little bit better

Sorry, im not too worried about it becoming a problem. Unless the electrical connections between my neurons are transported to magical fairy tale realm with every other person that has ever lived in humanity, im not too worried about it. I worry as much about going to hell as i worry about getting a lump of coal for christmas.


----------



## cbirch2

LOki said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you make a claim then prove it ,that is how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly so you should stop all references to your god immediately and until you can provide evidence of his existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And cbirch2 delivers a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to Youwerecreated!
Click to expand...


Lol

He really did walk right into that one, didnt he? it shouldnt be that easy. 

And did you catch the total lack of a relevant response? Basically what i got from his rebuttal was "the bible is proof of the bible", while simultaneously forgetting that hes just rejected a century and a half worth of many different sciences.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly so you should stop all references to your god immediately and until you can provide evidence of his existence.
> 
> 
> 
> And cbirch2 delivers a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to Youwerecreated!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> He really did walk right into that one, didnt he? it shouldnt be that easy.
> 
> And did you catch the total lack of a relevant response? Basically what i got from his rebuttal was "the bible is proof of the bible", while simultaneously forgetting that hes just rejected a century and a half worth of many different sciences.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should look at this again.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Atleast i don't present just an opinion,i can present things that can be confirmed without a doubt.


----------



## FurthurBB

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We wont be able to have a coherent discussion until you watch this video and understand things from about 18+ minutes. Essential. Learn about proteins
> 
> http://www.khanacademy.org/video/dna?playlist=Biology
> 
> feel free to watch the next one, on variation of species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch it when I have time what makes you think I know nothing about proteins ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The words you type and the things you say.
Click to expand...


I think it is an extremely logical conclusion on your part.


----------



## FurthurBB

cbirch2 said:


> And im sick of this "disprove god" bullshit.
> 
> Its not on me to prove that your belief is a fairy tale. If your going to believe something thats fine but dont state it as fact because it doesnt even exist in the same category.
> 
> Did you go through every mythology that has historically and does presently consume mankind and disprove it, before you came to embrace christianity? Or were you just born in a christian nation and did the norm?
> 
> Moron.



See, they force us to do it by putting their god in the gaps in our knowledge.  No scientist wants to disprove any god, but every time these gaps are filled, it shows there was no god there.  I really wish they would just leave us out of it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And im sick of this "disprove god" bullshit.
> 
> Its not on me to prove that your belief is a fairy tale. If your going to believe something thats fine but dont state it as fact because it doesnt even exist in the same category.
> 
> Did you go through every mythology that has historically and does presently consume mankind and disprove it, before you came to embrace christianity? Or were you just born in a christian nation and did the norm?
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, they force us to do it by putting their god in the gaps in our knowledge.  No scientist wants to disprove any god, but every time these gaps are filled, it shows there was no god there.  I really wish they would just leave us out of it.
Click to expand...


Mans arrogance will be his downfall,just look at history for the proof.

No man has seen the beginning of the universe or life but yet they think they know when and how it happened.

Definition of SCIENTIFIC METHOD



 : principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses 

Do you see the problems with your theories according to the scientific method ?

the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses now can you explain how these methods were followed for the theory of evolution and the beginning of the universe.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> And cbirch2 delivers a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to Youwerecreated!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> He really did walk right into that one, didnt he? it shouldnt be that easy.
> 
> And did you catch the total lack of a relevant response? Basically what i got from his rebuttal was "the bible is proof of the bible", while simultaneously forgetting that hes just rejected a century and a half worth of many different sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should look at this again.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> Atleast i don't present just an opinion,i can present things that can be confirmed without a doubt.
Click to expand...


This is a joke right?



> Atleast i don't present just an opinion,i can present things that can be confirmed without a doubt.


Nothing in the link even comes close fact, its barely even opinion. You can hold that opinion, but youd be blatantly wrong. 

For example, heres an excerpt from your website. 

"2.Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements."

The proof that the bible claims this, supposedly, is Hebrews 11

"By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,  so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are  visible.          "

The bible says that the world is made of things we cant see, and thats your proof that its right? You realize the idea of an atom, an indivisible and microscope unit, was first thought of by Democritus, right? This wasnt exactly a new thought in the bible. Not to mention the bible says nothing about particles, just invisible stuff.

Thats was only the second point, i didnt have to look far.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And im sick of this "disprove god" bullshit.
> 
> Its not on me to prove that your belief is a fairy tale. If your going to believe something thats fine but dont state it as fact because it doesnt even exist in the same category.
> 
> Did you go through every mythology that has historically and does presently consume mankind and disprove it, before you came to embrace christianity? Or were you just born in a christian nation and did the norm?
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, they force us to do it by putting their god in the gaps in our knowledge.  No scientist wants to disprove any god, but every time these gaps are filled, it shows there was no god there.  I really wish they would just leave us out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mans arrogance will be his downfall,just look at history for the proof.
> 
> No man has seen the beginning of the universe or life but yet they think they know when and how it happened.
> 
> Definition of SCIENTIFIC METHOD
> 
> 
> 
> : principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
> 
> Do you see the problems with your theories according to the scientific method ?
> 
> the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses now can you explain how these methods were followed for the theory of evolution and the beginning of the universe.
Click to expand...


Do you understand the scientific method? Do you understand the concept of "observe". Ive explained this to you before. 

Gluons and quarks cannot be observed_ directly_; their existence can only be _inferred_ by *observing* their _indirect_ effects. Yet, nuclear power still exists. Strange isnt it?

The the context of the scientific method you dont have to observe the literal event. If you had to, there wouldnt be much of a need for the scientific method. The whole point of the scientific method is to explain things you dont fully have the answer to, and in a reliable way. Usually you observe small evidence for a much larger concept, not the whole concept. Einsteins General Theory of Relativity didnt involve observing spacetime bend in the presence of mass; just its indirect effects. Yet if it were wrong our satellites wouldnt orbit the earth correctly. Strange isnt it? You can judge the age of a tree by its rings even if you didnt watch it grow the whole time. 

You think your being smart and scientific by saying my evidences dont conform to the scientific method. But it just shows that you dont understand the scientific method. These evidences were first put forth by actual scientists, i just found them, so of course they conform to the scientific method. Or maybe youre just more qualified to judge what is and is not science than Ph.D's. 

Do you understand the problems with your theories? (and you realize these arent _my _theories, right?) I have yet to see you explain ERV's, you just keep saying pics or it didnt happen. The only way you can explain that away is either a massively massive coincidence, or god trying to fuck with us. Or you could just throw out all of genetics, plug your ears, and scream "pics or it didnt happen!!!!!". I suspect you'll do that.


----------



## cbirch2

Mans arrogance will be his downfall? History is the proof? What historical events are you referencing?

Religious people really, really, really should not try to use history as evidence of why their ideology is superior. What did christianity bring the world? Everyone was totally ignorant and society failed to progress. It was like this for hundreds and hundreds of years. And then once people realized christianity was retarded we had the invention of things like physics and calculus and the modern society.


----------



## FactFinder

You mean with a lttle faith in something higher than themselves. Humans could actually do something higher than themselves? Hmmmmm, imagine that?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> He really did walk right into that one, didnt he? it shouldnt be that easy.
> 
> And did you catch the total lack of a relevant response? Basically what i got from his rebuttal was "the bible is proof of the bible", while simultaneously forgetting that hes just rejected a century and a half worth of many different sciences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should look at this again.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> Atleast i don't present just an opinion,i can present things that can be confirmed without a doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a joke right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atleast i don't present just an opinion,i can present things that can be confirmed without a doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in the link even comes close fact, its barely even opinion. You can hold that opinion, but youd be blatantly wrong.
> 
> For example, heres an excerpt from your website.
> 
> "2.Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements."
> 
> The proof that the bible claims this, supposedly, is Hebrews 11
> 
> "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,  so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are  visible.          "
> 
> The bible says that the world is made of things we cant see, and thats your proof that its right? You realize the idea of an atom, an indivisible and microscope unit, was first thought of by Democritus, right? This wasnt exactly a new thought in the bible. Not to mention the bible says nothing about particles, just invisible stuff.
> 
> Thats was only the second point, i didnt have to look far.
Click to expand...


But you have to realize vocabularies of that time were not complete. They were not thourough enough to explain things the way we do today.

Science even has to be revamped to support new evidence but if the theory was wrong to begin with no matter how you explain it or add to it,it would still be wrong.

3,500 years ago man did not know nearly what we know today and that is my point what was written in the scriptures many of the things were not confirmed until today.

Man did not have the ability to see what was on the ocean floor or to see cells that make up the human body.

They didn't know what caused disease or anything about bacteria. But God gave them orders to put their waste outside of town or their camps.

The bible also said to avoid people with desease and quarantine them for the protection of the towns and villages and also taught how to make the unclean person become clean. It also described when a person was clean again.

There is so much evidence from the bible that goes ignored by secularlists.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, they force us to do it by putting their god in the gaps in our knowledge.  No scientist wants to disprove any god, but every time these gaps are filled, it shows there was no god there.  I really wish they would just leave us out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mans arrogance will be his downfall,just look at history for the proof.
> 
> No man has seen the beginning of the universe or life but yet they think they know when and how it happened.
> 
> Definition of SCIENTIFIC METHOD
> 
> 
> 
> : principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
> 
> Do you see the problems with your theories according to the scientific method ?
> 
> the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses now can you explain how these methods were followed for the theory of evolution and the beginning of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand the scientific method? Do you understand the concept of "observe". Ive explained this to you before.
> 
> Gluons and quarks cannot be observed_ directly_; their existence can only be _inferred_ by *observing* their _indirect_ effects. Yet, nuclear power still exists. Strange isnt it?
> 
> The the context of the scientific method you dont have to observe the literal event. If you had to, there wouldnt be much of a need for the scientific method. The whole point of the scientific method is to explain things you dont fully have the answer to, and in a reliable way. Usually you observe small evidence for a much larger concept, not the whole concept. Einsteins General Theory of Relativity didnt involve observing spacetime bend in the presence of mass; just its indirect effects. Yet if it were wrong our satellites wouldnt orbit the earth correctly. Strange isnt it? You can judge the age of a tree by its rings even if you didnt watch it grow the whole time.
> 
> You think your being smart and scientific by saying my evidences dont conform to the scientific method. But it just shows that you dont understand the scientific method. These evidences were first put forth by actual scientists, i just found them, so of course they conform to the scientific method. Or maybe youre just more qualified to judge what is and is not science than Ph.D's.
> 
> Do you understand the problems with your theories? (and you realize these arent _my _theories, right?) I have yet to see you explain ERV's, you just keep saying pics or it didnt happen. The only way you can explain that away is either a massively massive coincidence, or god trying to fuck with us. Or you could just throw out all of genetics, plug your ears, and scream "pics or it didnt happen!!!!!". I suspect you'll do that.
Click to expand...


Yes I do ,I posted to make sure you do. Your side looks at evidence and then explain the evidence to fiot with the theory. We are human we don't like to admit wrong so we force things to fit our presuppositions.

That is exactly why theories are not factual because they have never seen it happen so we are back to believing something out of faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Mans arrogance will be his downfall? History is the proof? What historical events are you referencing?
> 
> Religious people really, really, really should not try to use history as evidence of why their ideology is superior. What did christianity bring the world? Everyone was totally ignorant and society failed to progress. It was like this for hundreds and hundreds of years. And then once people realized christianity was retarded we had the invention of things like physics and calculus and the modern society.



Look at all the communities that were destroyed By God and his army that have been confirmed through archaeology. Look at all the powerful nations that were reduced to nearly nothing.

Look what this nation is facing,if we continue to remove God from our society and the society will continue to crumble. Israel admits that is what their downfall was several times.

The thing is it was prophecide concerning Israel but it is also prophecide Israel and the middle east will bring on armageddon and what we see in the middle east sure looks like it is being set up right in front of our eyes.


----------



## Old Rocks

LOL!!!!!!   Destroyed by God and his armies? What total nonsense. They were destroyed by the armies of nations with more soldiers and better organization and weopons than the nations that were destroyed. 

The Bible is a damned poor source for archeology, even for the region in which it was written. That has been repeatedly demonstrated.

Very early in the Christian Church's history, a very great leader warned about interpreting things by faith that were obviously nonsense, and how this would look to those that were outside of the religion. You Fundementalists are primary examples of the warning.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should look at this again.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> Atleast i don't present just an opinion,i can present things that can be confirmed without a doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a joke right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atleast i don't present just an opinion,i can present things that can be confirmed without a doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in the link even comes close fact, its barely even opinion. You can hold that opinion, but youd be blatantly wrong.
> 
> For example, heres an excerpt from your website.
> 
> "2.Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements."
> 
> The proof that the bible claims this, supposedly, is Hebrews 11
> 
> "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,  so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are  visible.          "
> 
> The bible says that the world is made of things we cant see, and thats your proof that its right? You realize the idea of an atom, an indivisible and microscope unit, was first thought of by Democritus, right? This wasnt exactly a new thought in the bible. Not to mention the bible says nothing about particles, just invisible stuff.
> 
> Thats was only the second point, i didnt have to look far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you have to realize vocabularies of that time were not complete. They were not thourough enough to explain things the way we do today.
> 
> Science even has to be revamped to support new evidence but if the theory was wrong to begin with no matter how you explain it or add to it,it would still be wrong.
> 
> 3,500 years ago man did not know nearly what we know today and that is my point what was written in the scriptures many of the things were not confirmed until today.
> 
> Man did not have the ability to see what was on the ocean floor or to see cells that make up the human body.
> 
> They didn't know what caused disease or anything about bacteria. But God gave them orders to put their waste outside of town or their camps.
> 
> The bible also said to avoid people with desease and quarantine them for the protection of the towns and villages and also taught how to make the unclean person become clean. It also described when a person was clean again.
> 
> There is so much evidence from the bible that goes ignored by secularlists.
Click to expand...


And in your mind all this is attributable to the bible? In reality most of it was common knowledge. The bible says you should quarantine diseased, and thats proof of the bible? The idea of sending away sick people, or locking a healthy family in the same house as one sick child, is almost eternal. To claim they originated from the bible is laughable. 

Even so, the predictions are hardly impressive. Its almost instinctual to shy away from a sick person; you dont need have read the bible to avoid sick people. 

Its amazing that you think the holy word of god is so great because it tells you to avoid sick people. Why not just mention penicillin? Your god seems like a retard...


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mans arrogance will be his downfall,just look at history for the proof.
> 
> No man has seen the beginning of the universe or life but yet they think they know when and how it happened.
> 
> Definition of SCIENTIFIC METHOD
> 
> 
> 
> : principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
> 
> Do you see the problems with your theories according to the scientific method ?
> 
> the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses now can you explain how these methods were followed for the theory of evolution and the beginning of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the scientific method? Do you understand the concept of "observe". Ive explained this to you before.
> 
> Gluons and quarks cannot be observed_ directly_; their existence can only be _inferred_ by *observing* their _indirect_ effects. Yet, nuclear power still exists. Strange isnt it?
> 
> The the context of the scientific method you dont have to observe the literal event. If you had to, there wouldnt be much of a need for the scientific method. The whole point of the scientific method is to explain things you dont fully have the answer to, and in a reliable way. Usually you observe small evidence for a much larger concept, not the whole concept. Einsteins General Theory of Relativity didnt involve observing spacetime bend in the presence of mass; just its indirect effects. Yet if it were wrong our satellites wouldnt orbit the earth correctly. Strange isnt it? You can judge the age of a tree by its rings even if you didnt watch it grow the whole time.
> 
> You think your being smart and scientific by saying my evidences dont conform to the scientific method. But it just shows that you dont understand the scientific method. These evidences were first put forth by actual scientists, i just found them, so of course they conform to the scientific method. Or maybe youre just more qualified to judge what is and is not science than Ph.D's.
> 
> Do you understand the problems with your theories? (and you realize these arent _my _theories, right?) I have yet to see you explain ERV's, you just keep saying pics or it didnt happen. The only way you can explain that away is either a massively massive coincidence, or god trying to fuck with us. Or you could just throw out all of genetics, plug your ears, and scream "pics or it didnt happen!!!!!". I suspect you'll do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I do ,I posted to make sure you do. Your side looks at evidence and then explain the evidence to fiot with the theory. We are human we don't like to admit wrong so we force things to fit our presuppositions.
> 
> That is exactly why theories are not factual because they have never seen it happen so we are back to believing something out of faith.
Click to expand...


"Theories are not factual".

Its almost like your scientific understand is that of an 8th grader. I remember when my 8th grade teacher had to make this distinction. Would you like to play student and teacher again?

Let me guess, you think science has some sort of rank like hypothesis < theories < laws/facts.

Buuuut no. A theory cannot ever be a fact. A theory is a framework that describes a collection of facts. This is fundamental to the understanding of why your argument on "observation" is flawed. The facts are the observations, and the theories describe those observations. You dont observe a theory for the same reason that a theory is not a fact. 

Einsteins general theory of relativity was an attempt to describe why all mass attracts all other mass, essentially to explain gravity. That observation is the basic fact (along with some other facts that differentiate it from newtonian gravity). You observe two bodies exerting force on each other. The theory that einstein used to explain that observation was the curvature of spacetime. Einstein did not witness the curvature of spacetime, he witnessed the result of it. 

In summation: theories are not facts, but that doesnt exactly bolster your argument. Theories are pretty useful, ever benefited from germ theory? In reality, it shows your basic misunderstanding of science, and why no one should take you seriously. Science doesnt claim that theories are facts, and no one is saying it does. Except maybe you.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mans arrogance will be his downfall? History is the proof? What historical events are you referencing?
> 
> Religious people really, really, really should not try to use history as evidence of why their ideology is superior. What did christianity bring the world? Everyone was totally ignorant and society failed to progress. It was like this for hundreds and hundreds of years. And then once people realized christianity was retarded we had the invention of things like physics and calculus and the modern society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the communities that were destroyed By God and his army that have been confirmed through archaeology. Look at all the powerful nations that were reduced to nearly nothing.
> 
> Look what this nation is facing,if we continue to remove God from our society and the society will continue to crumble. Israel admits that is what their downfall was several times.
> 
> The thing is it was prophecide concerning Israel but it is also prophecide Israel and the middle east will bring on armageddon and what we see in the middle east sure looks like it is being set up right in front of our eyes.
Click to expand...




You stupid mother fucker. Your ignorant ilk is whats wrong with this world and why the rest of the world hates us. Of course the conflict in israel is a sign of the end times! Why would you ever think that you were just another idiot that thought the turn of the century would herald the apocalyse? People like you are driving this country off a cliff. We must maintain a constant military presence everywhere, especially the middle east, BECAUSE JESUS WILL BE BACK SOON! We cant let gay people marry each other because god will be sad and destroy us like sodom! We shouldnt teach what biologists write in textbooks, because what a goat herder wrote in your book disagrees with it!

OMFG!

Do you seriously think that god has destroyed civilizations? 

Why doesnt he do it any more? Point me to the last civilization god destroyed. Why do you only claim god intervened in our world at times when humanity was ignorant enough to believe something like that? Doesnt it seem a little fishy to you that once humanity had become advanced enough to compile a factual history, all references to biblical intervention cease?


----------



## cbirch2

Merry day-that-the-church-decided-jesus-was-born-and-that-was-originally-a-pagan-holiday, everybody!


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mans arrogance will be his downfall? History is the proof? What historical events are you referencing?
> 
> Religious people really, really, really should not try to use history as evidence of why their ideology is superior. What did christianity bring the world? Everyone was totally ignorant and society failed to progress. It was like this for hundreds and hundreds of years. And then once people realized christianity was retarded we had the invention of things like physics and calculus and the modern society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the communities that were destroyed By God and his army that have been confirmed through archaeology. Look at all the powerful nations that were reduced to nearly nothing.
> 
> Look what this nation is facing,if we continue to remove God from our society and the society will continue to crumble. Israel admits that is what their downfall was several times.
> 
> The thing is it was prophecide concerning Israel but it is also prophecide Israel and the middle east will bring on armageddon and what we see in the middle east sure looks like it is being set up right in front of our eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You stupid mother fucker. Your ignorant ilk is whats wrong with this world and why the rest of the world hates us. Of course the conflict in israel is a sign of the end times! Why would you ever think that you were just another idiot that thought the turn of the century would herald the apocalyse? People like you are driving this country off a cliff. We must maintain a constant military presence everywhere, especially the middle east, BECAUSE JESUS WILL BE BACK SOON! We cant let gay people marry each other because god will be sad and destroy us like sodom! We shouldnt teach what biologists write in textbooks, because what a goat herder wrote in your book disagrees with it!
> 
> OMFG!
> 
> Do you seriously think that god has destroyed civilizations?
> 
> Why doesnt he do it any more? Point me to the last civilization god destroyed. Why do you only claim god intervened in our world at times when humanity was ignorant enough to believe something like that? Doesnt it seem a little fishy to you that once humanity had become advanced enough to compile a factual history, all references to biblical intervention cease?
Click to expand...


Yes he has destroyed communities. God stopped destroying communities because of the sacrifice of Christ.

The society that removes God from their society eventually crumbles.

The bible goes from creation to the final judgement and a new heaven and earth.

By the way did you get a chance to catch the Bill Orielly show ? Two years ago he had dawkins on and he asked him the dreaded question for evolutionist, yep you got it the origins of life question. Dawkins said we have no way to know the origins of life but we are working on it.

Tonight two years later he asked where are you now on the question how did life begin from non-life. Again Dawkins say's we simply have no explanation for the origins of life. 

Dawkins does not accept any abiogenesis theory.

Why do you get so angry ? Why can't you have a civil conversation ?

And don't you dare try to use the excuse that evolutionist are not concerned with the origins of life question ,because that simply is a lie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Old Rocks said:


> LOL!!!!!!   Destroyed by God and his armies? What total nonsense. They were destroyed by the armies of nations with more soldiers and better organization and weopons than the nations that were destroyed.
> 
> The Bible is a damned poor source for archeology, even for the region in which it was written. That has been repeatedly demonstrated.
> 
> Very early in the Christian Church's history, a very great leader warned about interpreting things by faith that were obviously nonsense, and how this would look to those that were outside of the religion. You Fundementalists are primary examples of the warning.



Who do you think Israel was and did in the name of God ?

The global flood, Sodom and gomorrah. Gideon and Joshua was order to take the armies of Israel and destroy many communities.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a joke right?
> 
> Nothing in the link even comes close fact, its barely even opinion. You can hold that opinion, but youd be blatantly wrong.
> 
> For example, heres an excerpt from your website.
> 
> "2.Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements."
> 
> The proof that the bible claims this, supposedly, is Hebrews 11
> 
> "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,  so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are  visible.          "
> 
> The bible says that the world is made of things we cant see, and thats your proof that its right? You realize the idea of an atom, an indivisible and microscope unit, was first thought of by Democritus, right? This wasnt exactly a new thought in the bible. Not to mention the bible says nothing about particles, just invisible stuff.
> 
> Thats was only the second point, i didnt have to look far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you have to realize vocabularies of that time were not complete. They were not thourough enough to explain things the way we do today.
> 
> Science even has to be revamped to support new evidence but if the theory was wrong to begin with no matter how you explain it or add to it,it would still be wrong.
> 
> 3,500 years ago man did not know nearly what we know today and that is my point what was written in the scriptures many of the things were not confirmed until today.
> 
> Man did not have the ability to see what was on the ocean floor or to see cells that make up the human body.
> 
> They didn't know what caused disease or anything about bacteria. But God gave them orders to put their waste outside of town or their camps.
> 
> The bible also said to avoid people with desease and quarantine them for the protection of the towns and villages and also taught how to make the unclean person become clean. It also described when a person was clean again.
> 
> There is so much evidence from the bible that goes ignored by secularlists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in your mind all this is attributable to the bible? In reality most of it was common knowledge. The bible says you should quarantine diseased, and thats proof of the bible? The idea of sending away sick people, or locking a healthy family in the same house as one sick child, is almost eternal. To claim they originated from the bible is laughable.
> 
> Even so, the predictions are hardly impressive. Its almost instinctual to shy away from a sick person; you dont need have read the bible to avoid sick people.
> 
> Its amazing that you think the holy word of god is so great because it tells you to avoid sick people. Why not just mention penicillin? Your god seems like a retard...
Click to expand...


Believe it or not that is where people got the idea of quarantine.

Because some were purposely struck with disease as punishment. But the innocent he them to be able to protect themselves.

People had to learn what was contagious and what was not contagious.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the scientific method? Do you understand the concept of "observe". Ive explained this to you before.
> 
> Gluons and quarks cannot be observed_ directly_; their existence can only be _inferred_ by *observing* their _indirect_ effects. Yet, nuclear power still exists. Strange isnt it?
> 
> The the context of the scientific method you dont have to observe the literal event. If you had to, there wouldnt be much of a need for the scientific method. The whole point of the scientific method is to explain things you dont fully have the answer to, and in a reliable way. Usually you observe small evidence for a much larger concept, not the whole concept. Einsteins General Theory of Relativity didnt involve observing spacetime bend in the presence of mass; just its indirect effects. Yet if it were wrong our satellites wouldnt orbit the earth correctly. Strange isnt it? You can judge the age of a tree by its rings even if you didnt watch it grow the whole time.
> 
> You think your being smart and scientific by saying my evidences dont conform to the scientific method. But it just shows that you dont understand the scientific method. These evidences were first put forth by actual scientists, i just found them, so of course they conform to the scientific method. Or maybe youre just more qualified to judge what is and is not science than Ph.D's.
> 
> Do you understand the problems with your theories? (and you realize these arent _my _theories, right?) I have yet to see you explain ERV's, you just keep saying pics or it didnt happen. The only way you can explain that away is either a massively massive coincidence, or god trying to fuck with us. Or you could just throw out all of genetics, plug your ears, and scream "pics or it didnt happen!!!!!". I suspect you'll do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do ,I posted to make sure you do. Your side looks at evidence and then explain the evidence to fiot with the theory. We are human we don't like to admit wrong so we force things to fit our presuppositions.
> 
> That is exactly why theories are not factual because they have never seen it happen so we are back to believing something out of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Theories are not factual".
> 
> Its almost like your scientific understand is that of an 8th grader. I remember when my 8th grade teacher had to make this distinction. Would you like to play student and teacher again?
> 
> Let me guess, you think science has some sort of rank like hypothesis < theories < laws/facts.
> 
> Buuuut no. A theory cannot ever be a fact. A theory is a framework that describes a collection of facts. This is fundamental to the understanding of why your argument on "observation" is flawed. The facts are the observations, and the theories describe those observations. You dont observe a theory for the same reason that a theory is not a fact.
> 
> Einsteins general theory of relativity was an attempt to describe why all mass attracts all other mass, essentially to explain gravity. That observation is the basic fact (along with some other facts that differentiate it from newtonian gravity). You observe two bodies exerting force on each other. The theory that einstein used to explain that observation was the curvature of spacetime. Einstein did not witness the curvature of spacetime, he witnessed the result of it.
> 
> In summation: theories are not facts, but that doesnt exactly bolster your argument. Theories are pretty useful, ever benefited from germ theory? In reality, it shows your basic misunderstanding of science, and why no one should take you seriously. Science doesnt claim that theories are facts, and no one is saying it does. Except maybe you.
Click to expand...


Theories will never be fact because they are always finding errors with the theory. Theory will never be fact because they are only an opinion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Merry day-that-the-church-decided-jesus-was-born-and-that-was-originally-a-pagan-holiday, everybody!



Some Christians celebrate Christmas some do not. I personally believe that Jesus never said celebrate his birth but to celebrate his death.

That is when he saved you and I ,but it's up to you and I to appreciate him saving our lives if we want it.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think Sir Isaac Newton one of the two best scientist who ever lived was a  superstitious retard for decoding the bible ?
> 
> 
> 
> No. He was a superstitious retard for asserting as certain fact that _"God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."_
> 
> There is this one question that you, Sir Isaac Newton, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you (as you ask of us). The question is to the essential point of the foundation of your "theory," yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE! _*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
> 
> And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.
> 
> _EDIT: _Or cbirch2 will deliver the headshot when you make the demand that, "_If you make a claim then prove it ,that is how it works._"  :LOL:​
> 
> 
> And it is. Look
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]*RING-FUCKING-SPECIES*[/ame]
> 
> Your assertion that micro-evolution cannot result in speciation is unambiguously refuted by the verifiable evidence; and your refusal to accept ring species as definitive evidence of macro-evolution is yet another example of Christian Creationist intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> Ignorance? Really? LOLsome!
> 
> Didn't your ignorant ass get punked right here?:
> *ANSWER:* Most certainly YES!​
> 
> Didn't your ignorant ass also get punked right here?:
> *ANSWER:* Most certainly YES!​
> 
> Didn't your ignorant ass get punked right here?:
> *ANSWER:* Most certainly YES!​
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know who and what Sir Isaac Newton is famous for ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am aware of Newton, and his theory of gravity, and his heresies. What of it? Despite his superstitions, Sir Isaac Newton's brilliance does not make you any less stupid or less intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say Sir Isaac Newton was much more brilliant then yourself.
Click to expand...

Your meaningless and worthless opinion is noted.



Youwerecreated said:


> What did put everything into motion if not God ?


WHAT GOD? You keep referencing this God thing, but you do not explain what this God thing is. _"If you make a claim then prove it ,that is how it works."_​


Youwerecreated said:


> The sun the right distance from our planet. The moon the right distance and then to put them into to the correct motion and on the correct plane.
> 
> The right amount of gravity.


So what? I will refer you once again to the weak anthropic principle.



Youwerecreated said:


> Yes who is not baffled by the creator of all things .


When it comes to this this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours, I'm not baffled in the least. This "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours is imaginary, and has no influence or relationship with objective reality outside of your pointy head.



Youwerecreated said:


> All the greatest minds in the world from the past and today put together, can't figure out his creations.


This "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours created nothing; there's nothing to figure out.



Youwerecreated said:


> Do you think they could explain the creator ?


Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you (as you ask of us). The question is to the essential point of the foundation of your "theory," yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE! _*What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?*_​The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity *very strongly* suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.



Youwerecreated said:


> But me unlike you willingly admit that many of my beliefs are based in faith ...


None of the beliefs I hold are faith. For me at least, the reason I don't admit to faith, is that I am incapable of faith. If it makes you feel better, think of it as being the way I was created by this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours.



Youwerecreated said:


> ...  that is where your side has a problem because you think any explanation is ok and is science until you come up with a better explanation or prove the first explanation wrong.


Scientific explanations are more intellectually  honest than the invention of this this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours, and asserting it's a better explanation than anything.



Youwerecreated said:


> Because an evolutionist tells me ring species are evidence of Macro-evolution when I know it's clearly not ,it's just changes within a family possibly through adaptations or cross breeding nothing that would come through mutations. It is simply absurd and I would say that person don't know the correct definition of Macro-evolution.
> 
> Macro-evolution is one family producing a new destinct family get it ? like a dinosaur producing a bird the burden of proof is on you the evolutionist to show it happened through natural selection and mutations as your paradigm calls for.


Moving The Goal Post.

Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution._"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."_
LINK

"*macroevolution* _The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."_
LINK

_"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."_
LINK

_"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."_

[*Macroevolution*] _is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level"._

"*mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion*
_noun Biology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."_​
Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you make a claim then prove it ,that is how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly so you should stop all references to your god immediately and until you can provide evidence of his existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided writings of men that had no way to know what they wrote about at the time of the writing that is evidence they were inspired by a creator they got the information from the creator no other way to explain it.
Click to expand...

Nostradamus "had no way to know what [he] wrote about" when he published almost 1000 predictions in the 16th century; and with him, as with your Bible "information from the creator" there *is* an explanation ... they made up some crap and sometimes they got lucky.

That's the end of it.

The fact of the matter is that the 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge you submitted are transparent rationalizations, retarded non-sequiturs and lies. Setting aside the factitious meanings attributed to these "101 Scientific Facts," the fact that you COMPLETELY IGNORE the patently obvious instances where the divinely inspired "science" in the Bible is utterly, inexcusably, unambiguously, and irredeemably wrong is proof that the significance assigned to these "101 Scientific Facts" is (like the existence of this "Creator" of yours) ENTIRELY IMAGINARY--it's *TEXAS SHARPSHOOTING* and nothing else.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Maybe you should look at this again.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> Atleast i don't present just an opinion,i can present things that can be confirmed without a doubt.


*DONE.*



Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a joke right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atleast i don't present just an opinion,i can present things that can be confirmed without a doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the link even comes close fact, its barely even opinion. You can hold that opinion, but youd be blatantly wrong.
> 
> For example, heres an excerpt from your website.
> 
> "2.Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements."
> 
> The proof that the bible claims this, supposedly, is Hebrews 11
> 
> "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,  so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are  visible.          "
> 
> The bible says that the world is made of things we cant see, and thats your proof that its right? You realize the idea of an atom, an indivisible and microscope unit, was first thought of by Democritus, right? This wasnt exactly a new thought in the bible. Not to mention the bible says nothing about particles, just invisible stuff.
> 
> Thats was only the second point, i didnt have to look far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you have to realize vocabularies of that time were not complete.
Click to expand...

So what's the excuse for this this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?



Youwerecreated said:


> They were not thourough enough to explain things the way we do today.


So what's the excuse for this this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours? How did "He" get so much of it wrong?



Youwerecreated said:


> Science even has to be revamped to support new evidence but if the theory was wrong to begin with no matter how you explain it or add to it,it would still be wrong.


That's right. 

Scientists ask, "How did this happen?"

Creationists ask, "Who caused this to happen?"

Scientists have the intellectual honesty to discard incorrect conclusions when better, or more complete, data does not support their conclusions; unlike you and your fellow Christian Creationists, who just demand that your baseless conclusions have been correct from the very beginning--regardless of all the contrary verifiable evidence and valid logic. 

Scientists allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not point to that conclusion.

Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed a creator, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence, and avoid valid the logic that contradicts their baseless preconceptions--on the basis that such evidence logic does not support their baseless conclusion.



Youwerecreated said:


> 3,500 years ago man did not know nearly what we know today and that is my point what was written in the scriptures many of the things were not confirmed until today.


So what's the excuse for this this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours? How did "He" get so much of it wrong?



Youwerecreated said:


> Man did not have the ability to see what was on the ocean floor or to see cells that make up the human body.


So what's the excuse for this this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours? How did "He" get so much of it wrong?



Youwerecreated said:


> They didn't know what caused disease or anything about bacteria.


So what's the excuse for this this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours? How did "He" get so much of it wrong?



Youwerecreated said:


> But God gave them orders to put their waste outside of town or their camps.
> 
> The bible also said to avoid people with desease and quarantine them for the protection of the towns and villages and also taught how to make the unclean person become clean. It also described when a person was clean again.


This just you working more Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.



Youwerecreated said:


> There is so much evidence from the bible that goes ignored by secularlists.


Nonsense. It's only your intellectually dishonest and invalid conclusions that are ignored.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Yes I do ,I posted to make sure you do. Your side looks at evidence and then explain the evidence to fiot with the theory.


This is a lie. Christian Creationists fit their evidence to their preconceived conclusions, scientists fit their conclusions to the evidence.



Youwerecreated said:


> We are human we don't like to admit wrong so we force things to fit our presuppositions.


The fact that Christian Creationists are human is not in dispute; neither is their dishonesty. Suggesting that all humans are as intellectually dishonest as you and your fellow Christian Creationists is just pathological projection.



Youwerecreated said:


> That is exactly why theories are not factual because they have never seen it happen so we are back to believing something out of faith.


Wrong. Valid logic counts.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mans arrogance will be his downfall? History is the proof? What historical events are you referencing?
> 
> Religious people really, really, really should not try to use history as evidence of why their ideology is superior. What did christianity bring the world? Everyone was totally ignorant and society failed to progress. It was like this for hundreds and hundreds of years. And then once people realized christianity was retarded we had the invention of things like physics and calculus and the modern society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the communities that were destroyed By God and his army that have been confirmed through archaeology.
Click to expand...

Archaeology has not confirmed in any manner that any community was ever "... destroyed By God and his army."



Youwerecreated said:


> Look at all the powerful nations that were reduced to nearly nothing.


Archaeology has not confirmed in any manner that any "... powerful nations ... were ever reduced to nearly nothing..." by "... By God and his army."



Youwerecreated said:


> Look what this nation is facing,if we continue to remove God from our society and the society will continue to crumble.


What God? Certainly not this "God" of yours; your meaningless, imaginary creator of nothing, from whom nothing of value has ever issued--or could possibly have issued.



Youwerecreated said:


> Israel admits that is what their downfall was several times.


Well, it's not as if they'd just admit that they are a bunch of superstitious retards, and *THAT*, as well as the retarded superstitions of their neighbors, are the actual reasons for all their troubles.



Youwerecreated said:


> The thing is it was prophecide concerning Israel but it is also prophecide Israel and the middle east will bring on armageddon and what we see in the middle east sure looks like it is being set up right in front of our eyes.


Yes. Despite the fact they, like you, so tenaciously cling to their retarded superstition.

Faith is both intellectually and morally bankrupt ... it is faith--not reason--that causes all the trouble in the world; faith is the real root cause of all evil.


----------



## FurthurBB

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a joke right?
> 
> Nothing in the link even comes close fact, its barely even opinion. You can hold that opinion, but youd be blatantly wrong.
> 
> For example, heres an excerpt from your website.
> 
> "2.Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements."
> 
> The proof that the bible claims this, supposedly, is Hebrews 11
> 
> "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,  so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are  visible.          "
> 
> The bible says that the world is made of things we cant see, and thats your proof that its right? You realize the idea of an atom, an indivisible and microscope unit, was first thought of by Democritus, right? This wasnt exactly a new thought in the bible. Not to mention the bible says nothing about particles, just invisible stuff.
> 
> Thats was only the second point, i didnt have to look far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you have to realize vocabularies of that time were not complete. They were not thourough enough to explain things the way we do today.
> 
> Science even has to be revamped to support new evidence but if the theory was wrong to begin with no matter how you explain it or add to it,it would still be wrong.
> 
> 3,500 years ago man did not know nearly what we know today and that is my point what was written in the scriptures many of the things were not confirmed until today.
> 
> Man did not have the ability to see what was on the ocean floor or to see cells that make up the human body.
> 
> They didn't know what caused disease or anything about bacteria. But God gave them orders to put their waste outside of town or their camps.
> 
> The bible also said to avoid people with desease and quarantine them for the protection of the towns and villages and also taught how to make the unclean person become clean. It also described when a person was clean again.
> 
> There is so much evidence from the bible that goes ignored by secularlists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in your mind all this is attributable to the bible? In reality most of it was common knowledge. The bible says you should quarantine diseased, and thats proof of the bible? The idea of sending away sick people, or locking a healthy family in the same house as one sick child, is almost eternal. To claim they originated from the bible is laughable.
> 
> Even so, the predictions are hardly impressive. Its almost instinctual to shy away from a sick person; you dont need have read the bible to avoid sick people.
> 
> Its amazing that you think the holy word of god is so great because it tells you to avoid sick people. Why not just mention penicillin? Your god seems like a retard...
Click to expand...


It is really funny!  She also thinks it is impressive that the bible says like comes from like when anyone can see that with their own eyes.  These things do not give any weight to the bible, they just show that people from the time it was written were not blind and had the ability to reason.  I don't think that was ever even in question.  Also, how can a creationist say science sees evidence and makes it fit into their theory, when it does the opposite of what science does and is exactly what "creation scientists" do.  Not only that, but it is the very reason that creation science is not science at all.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do ,I posted to make sure you do. Your side looks at evidence and then explain the evidence to fiot with the theory. We are human we don't like to admit wrong so we force things to fit our presuppositions.
> 
> That is exactly why theories are not factual because they have never seen it happen so we are back to believing something out of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Theories are not factual".
> 
> Its almost like your scientific understand is that of an 8th grader. I remember when my 8th grade teacher had to make this distinction. Would you like to play student and teacher again?
> 
> Let me guess, you think science has some sort of rank like hypothesis < theories < laws/facts.
> 
> Buuuut no. A theory cannot ever be a fact. A theory is a framework that describes a collection of facts. This is fundamental to the understanding of why your argument on "observation" is flawed. The facts are the observations, and the theories describe those observations. You dont observe a theory for the same reason that a theory is not a fact.
> 
> Einsteins general theory of relativity was an attempt to describe why all mass attracts all other mass, essentially to explain gravity. That observation is the basic fact (along with some other facts that differentiate it from newtonian gravity). You observe two bodies exerting force on each other. The theory that einstein used to explain that observation was the curvature of spacetime. Einstein did not witness the curvature of spacetime, he witnessed the result of it.
> 
> In summation: theories are not facts, but that doesnt exactly bolster your argument. Theories are pretty useful, ever benefited from germ theory? In reality, it shows your basic misunderstanding of science, and why no one should take you seriously. Science doesnt claim that theories are facts, and no one is saying it does. Except maybe you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theories will never be fact because they are always finding errors with the theory. Theory will never be fact because they are only an opinion.
Click to expand...


You never fail to show that your level of scientific understanding is below high school.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have to realize vocabularies of that time were not complete. They were not thourough enough to explain things the way we do today.
> 
> Science even has to be revamped to support new evidence but if the theory was wrong to begin with no matter how you explain it or add to it,it would still be wrong.
> 
> 3,500 years ago man did not know nearly what we know today and that is my point what was written in the scriptures many of the things were not confirmed until today.
> 
> Man did not have the ability to see what was on the ocean floor or to see cells that make up the human body.
> 
> They didn't know what caused disease or anything about bacteria. But God gave them orders to put their waste outside of town or their camps.
> 
> The bible also said to avoid people with desease and quarantine them for the protection of the towns and villages and also taught how to make the unclean person become clean. It also described when a person was clean again.
> 
> There is so much evidence from the bible that goes ignored by secularlists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in your mind all this is attributable to the bible? In reality most of it was common knowledge. The bible says you should quarantine diseased, and thats proof of the bible? The idea of sending away sick people, or locking a healthy family in the same house as one sick child, is almost eternal. To claim they originated from the bible is laughable.
> 
> Even so, the predictions are hardly impressive. Its almost instinctual to shy away from a sick person; you dont need have read the bible to avoid sick people.
> 
> Its amazing that you think the holy word of god is so great because it tells you to avoid sick people. Why not just mention penicillin? Your god seems like a retard...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe it or not that is where people got the idea of quarantine.
> 
> Because some were purposely struck with disease as punishment. But the innocent he them to be able to protect themselves.
> 
> People had to learn what was contagious and what was not contagious.
Click to expand...


Why would I believe what I already know to be false?  I will leave that to you since it seems to be your forte.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly so you should stop all references to your god immediately and until you can provide evidence of his existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have provided writings of men that had no way to know what they wrote about at the time of the writing that is evidence they were inspired by a creator they got the information from the creator no other way to explain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nostradamus "had no way to know what [he] wrote about" when he published almost 1000 predictions in the 16th century; and with him, as with your Bible "information from the creator" there *is* an explanation ... they made up some crap and sometimes they got lucky.
> 
> That's the end of it.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that the 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge you submitted are transparent rationalizations, retarded non-sequiturs and lies. Setting aside the factitious meanings attributed to these "101 Scientific Facts," the fact that you COMPLETELY IGNORE the patently obvious instances where the divinely inspired "science" in the Bible is utterly, inexcusably, unambiguously, and irredeemably wrong is proof that the significance assigned to these "101 Scientific Facts" is (like the existence of this "Creator" of yours) ENTIRELY IMAGINARY--it's *TEXAS SHARPSHOOTING* and nothing else.
Click to expand...


Come on now Nostradamus predictions were not near as clear.

And Nostradamus had no idea what he was describing and it was not near as clear as the bible predictions. He also had a chance to see what was going on in the world.

Not like the predictions made thousands of years in advance from the bible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do ,I posted to make sure you do. Your side looks at evidence and then explain the evidence to fiot with the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie. Christian Creationists fit their evidence to their preconceived conclusions, scientists fit their conclusions to the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are human we don't like to admit wrong so we force things to fit our presuppositions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that Christian Creationists are human is not in dispute; neither is their dishonesty. Suggesting that all humans are as intellectually dishonest as you and your fellow Christian Creationists is just pathological projection.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly why theories are not factual because they have never seen it happen so we are back to believing something out of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Valid logic counts.
Click to expand...


All people of science explain evidence to fit their presuppositions that is normal human behavior.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mans arrogance will be his downfall? History is the proof? What historical events are you referencing?
> 
> Religious people really, really, really should not try to use history as evidence of why their ideology is superior. What did christianity bring the world? Everyone was totally ignorant and society failed to progress. It was like this for hundreds and hundreds of years. And then once people realized christianity was retarded we had the invention of things like physics and calculus and the modern society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the communities that were destroyed By God and his army that have been confirmed through archaeology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Archaeology has not confirmed in any manner that any community was ever "... destroyed By God and his army."
> 
> Archaeology has not confirmed in any manner that any "... powerful nations ... were ever reduced to nearly nothing..." by "... By God and his army."
> 
> What God? Certainly not this "God" of yours; your meaningless, imaginary creator of nothing, from whom nothing of value has ever issued--or could possibly have issued.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel admits that is what their downfall was several times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it's not as if they'd just admit that they are a bunch of superstitious retards, and *THAT*, as well as the retarded superstitions of their neighbors, are the actual reasons for all their troubles.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is it was prophecide concerning Israel but it is also prophecide Israel and the middle east will bring on armageddon and what we see in the middle east sure looks like it is being set up right in front of our eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Despite the fact they, like you, so tenaciously cling to their retarded superstition.
> 
> Faith is both intellectually and morally bankrupt ... it is faith--not reason--that causes all the trouble in the world; faith is the real root cause of all evil.
Click to expand...


You need to look at biblical archaeology and stop being so foolish.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Come on now Nostradamus predictions were not near as clear.
> 
> And Nostradamus had no idea what he was describing and it was not near as clear as the bible predictions. He also had a chance to see what was going on in the world.
> 
> Not like the predictions made thousands of years in advance from the bible.


The fact of the matter is that the 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge you submitted are transparent rationalizations, retarded non-sequiturs and lies. Setting aside the factitious meanings attributed to these "101 Scientific Facts," the fact that you COMPLETELY IGNORE the patently obvious instances where the divinely inspired "science" in the Bible is utterly, inexcusably, unambiguously, and irredeemably wrong is proof that the significance assigned to these "101 Scientific Facts" is (like the existence of this "Creator" of yours) ENTIRELY IMAGINARY--it's *TEXAS SHARPSHOOTING* and nothing else.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do ,I posted to make sure you do. Your side looks at evidence and then explain the evidence to fiot with the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie. Christian Creationists fit their evidence to their preconceived conclusions, scientists fit their conclusions to the evidence.
> 
> The fact that Christian Creationists are human is not in dispute; neither is their dishonesty. Suggesting that all humans are as intellectually dishonest as you and your fellow Christian Creationists is just pathological projection.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly why theories are not factual because they have never seen it happen so we are back to believing something out of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Valid logic counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All people of science explain evidence to fit their presuppositions that is normal human behavior.
Click to expand...

The fact that Christian Creationists are human is not in dispute; neither is their dishonesty. Suggesting that all humans are as intellectually dishonest as you and your fellow Christian Creationists is just pathological projection.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the communities that were destroyed By God and his army that have been confirmed through archaeology.
> 
> 
> 
> Archaeology has not confirmed in any manner that any community was ever "... destroyed By God and his army."
> 
> Archaeology has not confirmed in any manner that any "... powerful nations ... were ever reduced to nearly nothing..." by "... By God and his army."
> 
> What God? Certainly not this "God" of yours; your meaningless, imaginary creator of nothing, from whom nothing of value has ever issued--or could possibly have issued.
> 
> Well, it's not as if they'd just admit that they are a bunch of superstitious retards, and *THAT*, as well as the retarded superstitions of their neighbors, are the actual reasons for all their troubles.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is it was prophecide concerning Israel but it is also prophecide Israel and the middle east will bring on armageddon and what we see in the middle east sure looks like it is being set up right in front of our eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Despite the fact they, like you, so tenaciously cling to their retarded superstition.
> 
> Faith is both intellectually and morally bankrupt ... it is faith--not reason--that causes all the trouble in the world; faith is the real root cause of all evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to look at biblical archaeology and stop being so foolish.
Click to expand...

You need to look into real archaeology performed by real archaeologists.

Real archaeology performed by real archaeologists (rather than Sunday School archaeology performed  by intellectually dishonest Christian Creationist archaeologists) has not confirmed in any manner that any community was ever "... destroyed By God and his army."

Real archaeology performed by real archaeologists (rather than Sunday School archaeology performed  by intellectually dishonest Christian Creationist archaeologists) has not confirmed in any manner that any "... powerful nations ... were ever reduced to nearly nothing..." by "... By God and his army."


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Theories are not factual".
> 
> Its almost like your scientific understand is that of an 8th grader. I remember when my 8th grade teacher had to make this distinction. Would you like to play student and teacher again?
> 
> Let me guess, you think science has some sort of rank like hypothesis < theories < laws/facts.
> 
> Buuuut no. A theory cannot ever be a fact. A theory is a framework that describes a collection of facts. This is fundamental to the understanding of why your argument on "observation" is flawed. The facts are the observations, and the theories describe those observations. You dont observe a theory for the same reason that a theory is not a fact.
> 
> Einsteins general theory of relativity was an attempt to describe why all mass attracts all other mass, essentially to explain gravity. That observation is the basic fact (along with some other facts that differentiate it from newtonian gravity). You observe two bodies exerting force on each other. The theory that einstein used to explain that observation was the curvature of spacetime. Einstein did not witness the curvature of spacetime, he witnessed the result of it.
> 
> In summation: theories are not facts, but that doesnt exactly bolster your argument. Theories are pretty useful, ever benefited from germ theory? In reality, it shows your basic misunderstanding of science, and why no one should take you seriously. Science doesnt claim that theories are facts, and no one is saying it does. Except maybe you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theories will never be fact because they are always finding errors with the theory. Theory will never be fact because they are only an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never fail to show that your level of scientific understanding is below high school.
Click to expand...


Really ? At the college level they reaffirm the scientific method.

Then you have not been paying attention junior.

And you only regurgitate what you have learned from wiki.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in your mind all this is attributable to the bible? In reality most of it was common knowledge. The bible says you should quarantine diseased, and thats proof of the bible? The idea of sending away sick people, or locking a healthy family in the same house as one sick child, is almost eternal. To claim they originated from the bible is laughable.
> 
> Even so, the predictions are hardly impressive. Its almost instinctual to shy away from a sick person; you dont need have read the bible to avoid sick people.
> 
> Its amazing that you think the holy word of god is so great because it tells you to avoid sick people. Why not just mention penicillin? Your god seems like a retard...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not that is where people got the idea of quarantine.
> 
> Because some were purposely struck with disease as punishment. But the innocent he them to be able to protect themselves.
> 
> People had to learn what was contagious and what was not contagious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I believe what I already know to be false?  I will leave that to you since it seems to be your forte.
Click to expand...


What do you know to be false ?


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theories will never be fact because they are always finding errors with the theory. Theory will never be fact because they are only an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never fail to show that your level of scientific understanding is below high school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really ? At the college level they reaffirm the scientific method.
> 
> Then you have not been paying attention junior.
> 
> And you only regurgitate what you have learned from wiki.
Click to expand...


LOL!  How easily you get lost, what about the scientific method has to do with you not knowing what theories are?  No one believes you took any college level science and the insults just show that I hit the mark.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not that is where people got the idea of quarantine.
> 
> Because some were purposely struck with disease as punishment. But the innocent he them to be able to protect themselves.
> 
> People had to learn what was contagious and what was not contagious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I believe what I already know to be false?  I will leave that to you since it seems to be your forte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you know to be false ?
Click to expand...


Look at your post and see what is false and then you will have your answer.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the communities that were destroyed By God and his army that have been confirmed through archaeology. Look at all the powerful nations that were reduced to nearly nothing.
> 
> Look what this nation is facing,if we continue to remove God from our society and the society will continue to crumble. Israel admits that is what their downfall was several times.
> 
> The thing is it was prophecide concerning Israel but it is also prophecide Israel and the middle east will bring on armageddon and what we see in the middle east sure looks like it is being set up right in front of our eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You stupid mother fucker. Your ignorant ilk is whats wrong with this world and why the rest of the world hates us. Of course the conflict in israel is a sign of the end times! Why would you ever think that you were just another idiot that thought the turn of the century would herald the apocalyse? People like you are driving this country off a cliff. We must maintain a constant military presence everywhere, especially the middle east, BECAUSE JESUS WILL BE BACK SOON! We cant let gay people marry each other because god will be sad and destroy us like sodom! We shouldnt teach what biologists write in textbooks, because what a goat herder wrote in your book disagrees with it!
> 
> OMFG!
> 
> Do you seriously think that god has destroyed civilizations?
> 
> Why doesnt he do it any more? Point me to the last civilization god destroyed. Why do you only claim god intervened in our world at times when humanity was ignorant enough to believe something like that? Doesnt it seem a little fishy to you that once humanity had become advanced enough to compile a factual history, all references to biblical intervention cease?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he has destroyed communities. God stopped destroying communities because of the sacrifice of Christ.
> 
> The society that removes God from their society eventually crumbles.
> 
> The bible goes from creation to the final judgement and a new heaven and earth.
> 
> By the way did you get a chance to catch the Bill Orielly show ? Two years ago he had dawkins on and he asked him the dreaded question for evolutionist, yep you got it the origins of life question. Dawkins said we have no way to know the origins of life but we are working on it.
> 
> Tonight two years later he asked where are you now on the question how did life begin from non-life. Again Dawkins say's we simply have no explanation for the origins of life.
> 
> Dawkins does not accept any abiogenesis theory.
> 
> Why do you get so angry ? Why can't you have a civil conversation ?
> 
> And don't you dare try to use the excuse that evolutionist are not concerned with the origins of life question ,because that simply is a lie.
Click to expand...



I get so angry because you just insinuated that the conflict in the middle east the beginning of the apocalypse. Your no better than the muslims that blow themselves up, and in fact your worse. Your happy that the world is careening off a cliff because you think its the time for christian salvation. Maybe when the world crumbles and you realize jesus hasnt come back, youll wake the fuck up.

No, god has not destroyed civilizations. The bible is not proof of the bible.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have to realize vocabularies of that time were not complete. They were not thourough enough to explain things the way we do today.
> 
> Science even has to be revamped to support new evidence but if the theory was wrong to begin with no matter how you explain it or add to it,it would still be wrong.
> 
> 3,500 years ago man did not know nearly what we know today and that is my point what was written in the scriptures many of the things were not confirmed until today.
> 
> Man did not have the ability to see what was on the ocean floor or to see cells that make up the human body.
> 
> They didn't know what caused disease or anything about bacteria. But God gave them orders to put their waste outside of town or their camps.
> 
> The bible also said to avoid people with desease and quarantine them for the protection of the towns and villages and also taught how to make the unclean person become clean. It also described when a person was clean again.
> 
> There is so much evidence from the bible that goes ignored by secularlists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in your mind all this is attributable to the bible? In reality most of it was common knowledge. The bible says you should quarantine diseased, and thats proof of the bible? The idea of sending away sick people, or locking a healthy family in the same house as one sick child, is almost eternal. To claim they originated from the bible is laughable.
> 
> Even so, the predictions are hardly impressive. Its almost instinctual to shy away from a sick person; you dont need have read the bible to avoid sick people.
> 
> Its amazing that you think the holy word of god is so great because it tells you to avoid sick people. Why not just mention penicillin? Your god seems like a retard...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe it or not that is where people got the idea of quarantine.
> 
> Because some were purposely struck with disease as punishment. But the innocent he them to be able to protect themselves.
> 
> People had to learn what was contagious and what was not contagious.
Click to expand...


No its not.

Can you prove that? Do you have absolutely any proof for that whatsoever? More likely it was common practice, and the writers of the bible included it because it was common practice. It goes back well before christ.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do ,I posted to make sure you do. Your side looks at evidence and then explain the evidence to fiot with the theory. We are human we don't like to admit wrong so we force things to fit our presuppositions.
> 
> That is exactly why theories are not factual because they have never seen it happen so we are back to believing something out of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Theories are not factual".
> 
> Its almost like your scientific understand is that of an 8th grader. I remember when my 8th grade teacher had to make this distinction. Would you like to play student and teacher again?
> 
> Let me guess, you think science has some sort of rank like hypothesis < theories < laws/facts.
> 
> Buuuut no. A theory cannot ever be a fact. A theory is a framework that describes a collection of facts. This is fundamental to the understanding of why your argument on "observation" is flawed. The facts are the observations, and the theories describe those observations. You dont observe a theory for the same reason that a theory is not a fact.
> 
> Einsteins general theory of relativity was an attempt to describe why all mass attracts all other mass, essentially to explain gravity. That observation is the basic fact (along with some other facts that differentiate it from newtonian gravity). You observe two bodies exerting force on each other. The theory that einstein used to explain that observation was the curvature of spacetime. Einstein did not witness the curvature of spacetime, he witnessed the result of it.
> 
> In summation: theories are not facts, but that doesnt exactly bolster your argument. Theories are pretty useful, ever benefited from germ theory? In reality, it shows your basic misunderstanding of science, and why no one should take you seriously. Science doesnt claim that theories are facts, and no one is saying it does. Except maybe you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theories will never be fact because they are always finding errors with the theory. Theory will never be fact because they are only an opinion.
Click to expand...


No theories will never be facts because that is not their goal 

*The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
*The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
*The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
*The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
*The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
*The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
*The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
*The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
*The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
*The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
*The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
*The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.

*Getit?

Theories explain facts. The theory of relativity explains gravity. Gravity is a fact, a simple observation. The theory is a framework that accurately describes that fact to the best of our knowledge. 

Getit?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merry day-that-the-church-decided-jesus-was-born-and-that-was-originally-a-pagan-holiday, everybody!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Christians celebrate Christmas some do not. I personally believe that Jesus never said celebrate his birth but to celebrate his death.
> 
> That is when he saved you and I ,but it's up to you and I to appreciate him saving our lives if we want it.
Click to expand...


Im not a big bible reader but i wouldnt expect to find jesus promoting any sort of annual holiday on his behalf. It would seem to me that all of those things are perversions of christianity and his teachings by the early church. Jesus would have deplored the modern day cult of personality that is the catholic church.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theories will never be fact because they are always finding errors with the theory. Theory will never be fact because they are only an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never fail to show that your level of scientific understanding is below high school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really ? At the college level they reaffirm the scientific method.
> 
> Then you have not been paying attention junior.
> 
> And you only regurgitate what you have learned from wiki.
Click to expand...


Future is right. 

Your understanding of the scientific method is laughable. A theory is an opinion so its not a fact? Thats a pretty simplistic understanding of it. 

In reality its what ive been trying to tell you the whole time. Theories can never progress past a theory and to a fact, because that isnt their purpose. Germ theory is still a theory, even though i think we all agree that bacterial and viral infections can cause disease. In science you start with the facts, you make observations. From there you create a framework of ideas that describes those facts, called a theory. The theory explains the facts, i dont know how many more times i have to say it.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> Believe it or not that is where people got the idea of quarantine.
> 
> *Because some were purposely struck with disease as punishment.* But the innocent he them to be able to protect themselves.
> 
> People had to learn what was contagious and what was not contagious.



O really? I just cant even believe it. There were outbreaks of bacteria and the idiots, not knowing that bacteria existed, decided that god must be punishing them. God does not give people bacterial infections or disease. Are you serious? How come god hasnt given anyone a disease since the discovery of bacteria? You realize that god isnt poofing _Y. pestis_ into existence and giving it to people, right?? And that we understand how diseases spread?

Really, is this what the conversation has devolved to? You dont even take the word of science on bacteria and viruses? You think god gives people disease?

I want you and everyone like you to cease existing, immediately.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never fail to show that your level of scientific understanding is below high school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? At the college level they reaffirm the scientific method.
> 
> Then you have not been paying attention junior.
> 
> And you only regurgitate what you have learned from wiki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  How easily you get lost, what about the scientific method has to do with you not knowing what theories are?  No one believes you took any college level science and the insults just show that I hit the mark.
Click to expand...


Well you can believe as you wish,the simple fact is you have not refuted anything I have said in this thread or any other thread that you come in and lob insults as rebuttals.

I know the scientific method all to well for you to pass off your B.S.

How many times must I post the equation showing you and your buddies are just educated idiots ?

Are you just a little sore that Dawkins even reveals the non-sense you believe ?

Believing that life came from non-life or intelligence came from non-intelligence just reveals how simple some of you really are.

Let me expose what you so called educated actually believe.

Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design.


Let's put you to the test and prove my point.

DNA is not just a molecule with a pattern, it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

Every code is created by a conscious mind, there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

I want you to provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occured naturally ?

Just show one.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not that is where people got the idea of quarantine.
> 
> *Because some were purposely struck with disease as punishment.* But the innocent he them to be able to protect themselves.
> 
> People had to learn what was contagious and what was not contagious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O really? I just cant even believe it. There were outbreaks of bacteria and the idiots, not knowing that bacteria existed, decided that god must be punishing them. God does not give people bacterial infections or disease. Are you serious? How come god hasnt given anyone a disease since the discovery of bacteria? You realize that god isnt poofing _Y. pestis_ into existence and giving it to people, right?? And that we understand how diseases spread?
> 
> Really, is this what the conversation has devolved to? You dont even take the word of science on bacteria and viruses? You think god gives people disease?
> 
> I want you and everyone like you to cease existing, immediately.
Click to expand...


Of course you do you are an Ideologue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I believe what I already know to be false?  I will leave that to you since it seems to be your forte.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you know to be false ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at your post and see what is false and then you will have your answer.
Click to expand...


Blowing smoke again are you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You stupid mother fucker. Your ignorant ilk is whats wrong with this world and why the rest of the world hates us. Of course the conflict in israel is a sign of the end times! Why would you ever think that you were just another idiot that thought the turn of the century would herald the apocalyse? People like you are driving this country off a cliff. We must maintain a constant military presence everywhere, especially the middle east, BECAUSE JESUS WILL BE BACK SOON! We cant let gay people marry each other because god will be sad and destroy us like sodom! We shouldnt teach what biologists write in textbooks, because what a goat herder wrote in your book disagrees with it!
> 
> OMFG!
> 
> Do you seriously think that god has destroyed civilizations?
> 
> Why doesnt he do it any more? Point me to the last civilization god destroyed. Why do you only claim god intervened in our world at times when humanity was ignorant enough to believe something like that? Doesnt it seem a little fishy to you that once humanity had become advanced enough to compile a factual history, all references to biblical intervention cease?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he has destroyed communities. God stopped destroying communities because of the sacrifice of Christ.
> 
> The society that removes God from their society eventually crumbles.
> 
> The bible goes from creation to the final judgement and a new heaven and earth.
> 
> By the way did you get a chance to catch the Bill Orielly show ? Two years ago he had dawkins on and he asked him the dreaded question for evolutionist, yep you got it the origins of life question. Dawkins said we have no way to know the origins of life but we are working on it.
> 
> Tonight two years later he asked where are you now on the question how did life begin from non-life. Again Dawkins say's we simply have no explanation for the origins of life.
> 
> Dawkins does not accept any abiogenesis theory.
> 
> Why do you get so angry ? Why can't you have a civil conversation ?
> 
> And don't you dare try to use the excuse that evolutionist are not concerned with the origins of life question ,because that simply is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I get so angry because you just insinuated that the conflict in the middle east the beginning of the apocalypse. Your no better than the muslims that blow themselves up, and in fact your worse. Your happy that the world is careening off a cliff because you think its the time for christian salvation. Maybe when the world crumbles and you realize jesus hasnt come back, youll wake the fuck up.
> 
> No, god has not destroyed civilizations. The bible is not proof of the bible.
Click to expand...


No I am not happy about death one bit, but it has to happen before it stops permanently.

I think the bible is a trusted source and have spent many years studying it.

If man had the answers to mans problems don't you think it would have been resolved by now ?

But hey if you must talk like you do go ahead and get it out,it just shows you don't have much of an argument and you are a bitter person.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in your mind all this is attributable to the bible? In reality most of it was common knowledge. The bible says you should quarantine diseased, and thats proof of the bible? The idea of sending away sick people, or locking a healthy family in the same house as one sick child, is almost eternal. To claim they originated from the bible is laughable.
> 
> Even so, the predictions are hardly impressive. Its almost instinctual to shy away from a sick person; you dont need have read the bible to avoid sick people.
> 
> Its amazing that you think the holy word of god is so great because it tells you to avoid sick people. Why not just mention penicillin? Your god seems like a retard...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not that is where people got the idea of quarantine.
> 
> Because some were purposely struck with disease as punishment. But the innocent he them to be able to protect themselves.
> 
> People had to learn what was contagious and what was not contagious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No its not.
> 
> Can you prove that? Do you have absolutely any proof for that whatsoever? More likely it was common practice, and the writers of the bible included it because it was common practice. It goes back well before christ.
Click to expand...


Up til now what ever I show you ,you scoff at.

Watch the discovery channel they present plenty of evidence that contradicts many claims that you Ideologues claim concerning archeology. For Gods sake they use the bible as a guide,yes secular archeologist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Theories are not factual".
> 
> Its almost like your scientific understand is that of an 8th grader. I remember when my 8th grade teacher had to make this distinction. Would you like to play student and teacher again?
> 
> Let me guess, you think science has some sort of rank like hypothesis < theories < laws/facts.
> 
> Buuuut no. A theory cannot ever be a fact. A theory is a framework that describes a collection of facts. This is fundamental to the understanding of why your argument on "observation" is flawed. The facts are the observations, and the theories describe those observations. You dont observe a theory for the same reason that a theory is not a fact.
> 
> Einsteins general theory of relativity was an attempt to describe why all mass attracts all other mass, essentially to explain gravity. That observation is the basic fact (along with some other facts that differentiate it from newtonian gravity). You observe two bodies exerting force on each other. The theory that einstein used to explain that observation was the curvature of spacetime. Einstein did not witness the curvature of spacetime, he witnessed the result of it.
> 
> In summation: theories are not facts, but that doesnt exactly bolster your argument. Theories are pretty useful, ever benefited from germ theory? In reality, it shows your basic misunderstanding of science, and why no one should take you seriously. Science doesnt claim that theories are facts, and no one is saying it does. Except maybe you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theories will never be fact because they are always finding errors with the theory. Theory will never be fact because they are only an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No theories will never be facts because that is not their goal
> 
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.
> 
> *Getit?
> 
> Theories explain facts. The theory of relativity explains gravity. Gravity is a fact, a simple observation. The theory is a framework that accurately describes that fact to the best of our knowledge.
> 
> Getit?
Click to expand...


Facts according to faulty assumptions.

Have so called facts been refuted ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merry day-that-the-church-decided-jesus-was-born-and-that-was-originally-a-pagan-holiday, everybody!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Christians celebrate Christmas some do not. I personally believe that Jesus never said celebrate his birth but to celebrate his death.
> 
> That is when he saved you and I ,but it's up to you and I to appreciate him saving our lives if we want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not a big bible reader but i wouldnt expect to find jesus promoting any sort of annual holiday on his behalf. It would seem to me that all of those things are perversions of christianity and his teachings by the early church. Jesus would have deplored the modern day cult of personality that is the catholic church.
Click to expand...


Passover is the celebration he expects us to celebrate.It was the origional celebration when the Angel of the Lord passed over the Jews homes and went to kill the first born of Egypt,it was the last plague in Egypt and it was the punishment pharaoh was gonna do to the Israelites and God turned it on pharaoh's people.

The lambs blood was to be around the door and the Angel would pass by that home. The Lambs blood was spilt on calvary to save us all and we were to remember the death of Christ for the pure blood that was spilt to save us all.


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> W
> Let's put you to the test and prove my point.
> 
> DNA is not just a molecule with a pattern, it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
> 
> Every code is created by a conscious mind, there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
> 
> Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
> 
> I want you to provide an empirical example of a code or language that
> occured naturally ?
> 
> Just show one.



Look like someone has taken the analogies we use in science to understand concepts just a literal too seriously.

So, DNA is a language? Go ahead. Speak or write the DNA language to me. You'll find it a wee bit difficult to speak in a combination of nucleotides. In fact, if you were smart, you'd realize that DNA isn't a literal code, but that's merely the conceptual moniker we've given it to help people to understand what constitutes DNA. You can't extend the analogy further without it breaking down.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not that is where people got the idea of quarantine.
> 
> *Because some were purposely struck with disease as punishment.* But the innocent he them to be able to protect themselves.
> 
> People had to learn what was contagious and what was not contagious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O really? I just cant even believe it. There were outbreaks of bacteria and the idiots, not knowing that bacteria existed, decided that god must be punishing them. God does not give people bacterial infections or disease. Are you serious? How come god hasnt given anyone a disease since the discovery of bacteria? You realize that god isnt poofing _Y. pestis_ into existence and giving it to people, right?? And that we understand how diseases spread?
> 
> Really, is this what the conversation has devolved to? You dont even take the word of science on bacteria and viruses? You think god gives people disease?
> 
> I want you and everyone like you to cease existing, immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you do you are an Ideologue.
Click to expand...


You just did a cool little dance around the fact that you think god infects people with bacteria. 

Moron.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he has destroyed communities. God stopped destroying communities because of the sacrifice of Christ.
> 
> The society that removes God from their society eventually crumbles.
> 
> The bible goes from creation to the final judgement and a new heaven and earth.
> 
> By the way did you get a chance to catch the Bill Orielly show ? Two years ago he had dawkins on and he asked him the dreaded question for evolutionist, yep you got it the origins of life question. Dawkins said we have no way to know the origins of life but we are working on it.
> 
> Tonight two years later he asked where are you now on the question how did life begin from non-life. Again Dawkins say's we simply have no explanation for the origins of life.
> 
> Dawkins does not accept any abiogenesis theory.
> 
> Why do you get so angry ? Why can't you have a civil conversation ?
> 
> And don't you dare try to use the excuse that evolutionist are not concerned with the origins of life question ,because that simply is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get so angry because you just insinuated that the conflict in the middle east the beginning of the apocalypse. Your no better than the muslims that blow themselves up, and in fact your worse. Your happy that the world is careening off a cliff because you think its the time for christian salvation. Maybe when the world crumbles and you realize jesus hasnt come back, youll wake the fuck up.
> 
> No, god has not destroyed civilizations. The bible is not proof of the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I am not happy about death one bit, but it has to happen before it stops permanently.
> 
> I think the bible is a trusted source and have spent many years studying it.
> 
> If man had the answers to mans problems don't you think it would have been resolved by now ?
> 
> But hey if you must talk like you do go ahead and get it out,it just shows you don't have much of an argument and you are a bitter person.
Click to expand...


Stop spouting esoteric nonsense. Talk reality you fool. 

This is not the fucking apocalypse. People like you are feeding the flames of a massive conflict because you think jesus is coming back. When you die in 40 years maybe youll realize that you let israel and palestine burn for absolutely no reason.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not that is where people got the idea of quarantine.
> 
> Because some were purposely struck with disease as punishment. But the innocent he them to be able to protect themselves.
> 
> People had to learn what was contagious and what was not contagious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No its not.
> 
> Can you prove that? Do you have absolutely any proof for that whatsoever? More likely it was common practice, and the writers of the bible included it because it was common practice. It goes back well before christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Up til now what ever I show you ,you scoff at.
> 
> Watch the discovery channel they present plenty of evidence that contradicts many claims that you Ideologues claim concerning archeology. For Gods sake they use the bible as a guide,yes secular archeologist.
Click to expand...


Dance my little fool! Dance! Dance!!!!


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theories will never be fact because they are always finding errors with the theory. Theory will never be fact because they are only an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theories will never be facts because that is not their goal
> 
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.
> 
> *Getit?
> 
> Theories explain facts. The theory of relativity explains gravity. Gravity is a fact, a simple observation. The theory is a framework that accurately describes that fact to the best of our knowledge.
> 
> Getit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts according to faulty assumptions.
> 
> Have so called facts been refuted ?
Click to expand...


Well looks like yet again youve danced around the topic of the post: the fact that you do not understand what a theory is. 

And what theories suffer from faulty assumptions? And what are those assumptions?


----------



## cbirch2

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> W
> Let's put you to the test and prove my point.
> 
> DNA is not just a molecule with a pattern, it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
> 
> Every code is created by a conscious mind, there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
> 
> Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
> 
> I want you to provide an empirical example of a code or language that
> occured naturally ?
> 
> Just show one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look like someone has taken the analogies we use in science to understand concepts just a literal too seriously.
> 
> So, DNA is a language? Go ahead. Speak or write the DNA language to me. You'll find it a wee bit difficult to speak in a combination of nucleotides. In fact, if you were smart, you'd realize that DNA isn't a literal code, but that's merely the conceptual moniker we've given it to help people to understand what constitutes DNA. You can't extend the analogy further without it breaking down.
Click to expand...


Mad thumbs up. 

Gotta know the basic units of information for both protein and nucleic acid, or else your just discussing abstract things you dont quite know about.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> W
> Let's put you to the test and prove my point.
> 
> DNA is not just a molecule with a pattern, it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
> 
> Every code is created by a conscious mind, there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
> 
> Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
> 
> I want you to provide an empirical example of a code or language that
> occured naturally ?
> 
> Just show one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look like someone has taken the analogies we use in science to understand concepts just a literal too seriously.
> 
> So, DNA is a language? Go ahead. Speak or write the DNA language to me. You'll find it a wee bit difficult to speak in a combination of nucleotides. In fact, if you were smart, you'd realize that DNA isn't a literal code, but that's merely the conceptual moniker we've given it to help people to understand what constitutes DNA. You can't extend the analogy further without it breaking down.
Click to expand...


Yep you could not do it nor can anyone because it's never happened.

Summary:
 1.Code is defined as the rules of communication between an encoder (a writer or speaker) and a decoder (a reader or listener) using agreed upon symbols.
 2.DNAs definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960&#8242;s.
 3.DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
 4. DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannons 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
 5. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code


I believe the rest of this article will reduce your argument to nothing.

Is DNA a Code?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> O really? I just cant even believe it. There were outbreaks of bacteria and the idiots, not knowing that bacteria existed, decided that god must be punishing them. God does not give people bacterial infections or disease. Are you serious? How come god hasnt given anyone a disease since the discovery of bacteria? You realize that god isnt poofing _Y. pestis_ into existence and giving it to people, right?? And that we understand how diseases spread?
> 
> Really, is this what the conversation has devolved to? You dont even take the word of science on bacteria and viruses? You think god gives people disease?
> 
> I want you and everyone like you to cease existing, immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do you are an Ideologue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just did a cool little dance around the fact that you think god infects people with bacteria.
> 
> Moron.
Click to expand...


Yes he did it with leprosy. You are right you don't read the bible.

Num 12:7  My servant Moses is not so; he is true to me in all my house: 
Num 12:8  With him I will have talk mouth to mouth, openly and not in dark sayings; and with his eyes he will see the form of the Lord: why then had you no fear of saying evil against my servant Moses? 
Num 12:9  And burning with wrath against them, the Lord went away. 
Num 12:10  And the cloud was moved from over the Tent; and straight away Miriam became a leper, as white as snow: and Aaron, looking at Miriam, saw that she was a leper. 
Num 12:11  Then Aaron said to Moses, O my lord, let not our sin be on our heads, for we have done foolishly and are sinners. 
Num 12:12  Let her not be as one dead, whose flesh is half wasted when he comes out from the body of his mother. 
Num 12:13  And Moses, crying to the Lord, said, Let my prayer come before you, O God, and make her well. 
Num 12:14  And the Lord said to Moses, If her father had put a mark of shame on her, would she not be shamed for seven days? Let her be shut up outside the tent-circle for seven days, and after that she may come in again. 
Num 12:15  So Miriam was shut up outside the tent-circle for seven days: and the people did not go forward on their journey till Miriam had come in again. 
Num 12:16  After that, the people went on from Hazeroth and put up their tents in the waste land of Paran. 

Leprosy is caused by bacteria no ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No its not.
> 
> Can you prove that? Do you have absolutely any proof for that whatsoever? More likely it was common practice, and the writers of the bible included it because it was common practice. It goes back well before christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Up til now what ever I show you ,you scoff at.
> 
> Watch the discovery channel they present plenty of evidence that contradicts many claims that you Ideologues claim concerning archeology. For Gods sake they use the bible as a guide,yes secular archeologist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dance my little fool! Dance! Dance!!!!
Click to expand...


Watch the discovery channel and you will see i am right they won't teach much of this stuff in secular schools.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No theories will never be facts because that is not their goal
> 
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.*
> *The goal of a theory is to explain facts, therefore a theory cannot be a fact.
> 
> *Getit?
> 
> Theories explain facts. The theory of relativity explains gravity. Gravity is a fact, a simple observation. The theory is a framework that accurately describes that fact to the best of our knowledge.
> 
> Getit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts according to faulty assumptions.
> 
> Have so called facts been refuted ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well looks like yet again youve danced around the topic of the post: the fact that you do not understand what a theory is.
> 
> And what theories suffer from faulty assumptions? And what are those assumptions?
Click to expand...


I am asking you, have assumed facts ever turned out to be wrong ?

You're the one dancing my little monkey.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> W
> Let's put you to the test and prove my point.
> 
> DNA is not just a molecule with a pattern, it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
> 
> Every code is created by a conscious mind, there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
> 
> Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
> 
> I want you to provide an empirical example of a code or language that
> occured naturally ?
> 
> Just show one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look like someone has taken the analogies we use in science to understand concepts just a literal too seriously.
> 
> So, DNA is a language? Go ahead. Speak or write the DNA language to me. You'll find it a wee bit difficult to speak in a combination of nucleotides. In fact, if you were smart, you'd realize that DNA isn't a literal code, but that's merely the conceptual moniker we've given it to help people to understand what constitutes DNA. You can't extend the analogy further without it breaking down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mad thumbs up.
> 
> Gotta know the basic units of information for both protein and nucleic acid, or else your just discussing abstract things you dont quite know about.
Click to expand...


I will expose your ignorance on DNA and the code for both of you.


----------



## daws101

FactFinder said:


> You mean with a lttle faith in something higher than themselves. Humans could actually do something higher than themselves? Hmmmmm, imagine that?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> W
> Let's put you to the test and prove my point.
> 
> DNA is not just a molecule with a pattern, it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
> 
> Every code is created by a conscious mind, there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
> 
> Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
> 
> I want you to provide an empirical example of a code or language that
> occured naturally ?
> 
> Just show one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look like someone has taken the analogies we use in science to understand concepts just a literal too seriously.
> 
> So, DNA is a language? Go ahead. Speak or write the DNA language to me. You'll find it a wee bit difficult to speak in a combination of nucleotides. In fact, if you were smart, you'd realize that DNA isn't a literal code, but that's merely the conceptual moniker we've given it to help people to understand what constitutes DNA. You can't extend the analogy further without it breaking down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep you could not do it nor can anyone because it's never happened.
> 
> Summary:
> 1.Code is defined as the rules of communication between an encoder (a writer or speaker) and a decoder (a reader or listener) using agreed upon symbols.
> 2.DNAs definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960&#8242;s.
> 3.DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
> 4. DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannons 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
> 5. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code
> 
> 
> I believe the rest of this article will reduce your argument to nothing.
> 
> Is DNA a Code?
Click to expand...

not a viable source.


----------



## daws101

Video: What Darwin Never Knew | Watch NOVA Online | PBS Video


this will make ywc's head explode... especially the beneficial mutations --enjoy!


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> W
> Let's put you to the test and prove my point.
> 
> DNA is not just a molecule with a pattern, it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
> 
> Every code is created by a conscious mind, there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
> 
> Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
> 
> I want you to provide an empirical example of a code or language that
> occured naturally ?
> 
> Just show one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look like someone has taken the analogies we use in science to understand concepts just a literal too seriously.
> 
> So, DNA is a language? Go ahead. Speak or write the DNA language to me. You'll find it a wee bit difficult to speak in a combination of nucleotides. In fact, if you were smart, you'd realize that DNA isn't a literal code, but that's merely the conceptual moniker we've given it to help people to understand what constitutes DNA. You can't extend the analogy further without it breaking down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep you could not do it nor can anyone because it's never happened.
Click to expand...


So no one can actually speak or write in the DNA language. And that would be because it's not a language in the sense you posit. Glad we're done he-



> Summary:
> 1.Code is defined as the rules of communication between an encoder (a &#8220;writer&#8221; or &#8220;speaker&#8221 and a decoder (a &#8220;reader&#8221; or &#8220;listener&#8221 using agreed upon symbols.
> 2.DNA&#8217;s definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960&#8242;s.
> 3.DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
> 4. DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon&#8217;s 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
> 5. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code



Oh I guess we're not, even though you admitted you can't speak or write in "DNA." This also doesn't actually answer any of my points about DNA not being a language. In fact all it does is say "no actually it's this way" without actually providing any backups, support or reasoning for saying why. We're just supposed to accept it at face value I guess. Not to mention it's yet another copy and paste. How original.

I repeat myself: if DNA is language, speak or write in it. You will find this most difficult because it is not a language in the sense you think it is.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look like someone has taken the analogies we use in science to understand concepts just a literal too seriously.
> 
> So, DNA is a language? Go ahead. Speak or write the DNA language to me. You'll find it a wee bit difficult to speak in a combination of nucleotides. In fact, if you were smart, you'd realize that DNA isn't a literal code, but that's merely the conceptual moniker we've given it to help people to understand what constitutes DNA. You can't extend the analogy further without it breaking down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep you could not do it nor can anyone because it's never happened.
> 
> Summary:
> 1.Code is defined as the rules of communication between an encoder (a writer or speaker) and a decoder (a reader or listener) using agreed upon symbols.
> 2.DNAs definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960&#8242;s.
> 3.DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
> 4. DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannons 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
> 5. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code
> 
> 
> I believe the rest of this article will reduce your argument to nothing.
> 
> Is DNA a Code?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not a viable source.
Click to expand...


Is that all you have


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Video: What Darwin Never Knew | Watch NOVA Online | PBS Video
> 
> 
> this will make ywc's head explode... especially the beneficial mutations --enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA) Part 7/8 HD - YouTube



You can't seem to stay on topic can you ? You don't realize you make arguments for intelligent design do you ? Beneficial mutations few and far between. You can speculate all you like but we know beneficial mutations do not accumulate as evolutionist claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look like someone has taken the analogies we use in science to understand concepts just a literal too seriously.
> 
> So, DNA is a language? Go ahead. Speak or write the DNA language to me. You'll find it a wee bit difficult to speak in a combination of nucleotides. In fact, if you were smart, you'd realize that DNA isn't a literal code, but that's merely the conceptual moniker we've given it to help people to understand what constitutes DNA. You can't extend the analogy further without it breaking down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep you could not do it nor can anyone because it's never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no one can actually speak or write in the DNA language. And that would be because it's not a language in the sense you posit. Glad we're done he-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Summary:
> 1.Code is defined as the rules of communication between an encoder (a writer or speaker) and a decoder (a reader or listener) using agreed upon symbols.
> 2.DNAs definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960&#8242;s.
> 3.DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
> 4. DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannons 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
> 5. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I guess we're not, even though you admitted you can't speak or write in "DNA." This also doesn't actually answer any of my points about DNA not being a language. In fact all it does is say "no actually it's this way" without actually providing any backups, support or reasoning for saying why. We're just supposed to accept it at face value I guess. Not to mention it's yet another copy and paste. How original.
> 
> I repeat myself: if DNA is language, speak or write in it. You will find this most difficult because it is not a language in the sense you think it is.
Click to expand...



The genetic code is built on three letter words called triplets or codons, written one after another along the length of the DNA strand.

Each code word is a unique combination of three letters that will eventually be interpreted as a single amino acid in a polypeptide chain. There is 64 coded words that are possible from an alphabet of four letters.

One of the words is the start signal,it begins all sequences that code for amino acid chains. Three of these code words act as stop signals that indicate that the message is over. All the other sequences code for specific amino acids.

Some amino acids are only coded for by a single word, while some others are coded for by up to four words. The genetic code is redundant. 


If the genetic code is not a language or a form of communicating how can we geneticly alter plants humans and animals ?

Can you define what DNA transcribing is ?

Here I will help you.

tran·scrip·tion (trn-skrpshn)
n.
1. The act or process of transcribing.
2. Something that has been transcribed, especially:
a. Music An adaptation of a composition.
b. A recorded radio or television program.
c. Linguistics A representation of speech sounds in phonetic symbols.
3. Biology The process by which messenger RNA is synthesized from a DNA template resulting in the transfer of genetic information from the DNA molecule to the messenger RNA.

tran·scribe/tran&#712;skr&#299;b/
Verb:
1.Put (thoughts, speech, or data) into written or printed form.
2.Transliterate (foreign characters) or write or type out (shorthand, notes, or other abbreviated forms) into ordinary characters or full...


Sorry but there is all kinds of evidence to support what I am saying and it contradicts what you are saying.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> The genetic code is built on three letter words called triplets or codons, written one after another along the length of the DNA strand.
> 
> Each code word is a unique combination of three letters that will eventually be interpreted as a single amino acid in a polypeptide chain. There is 64 coded words that are possible from an alphabet of four letters.
> 
> One of the words is the start signal,it begins all sequences that code for amino acid chains. Three of these code words act as stop signals that indicate that the message is over. All the other sequences code for specific amino acids.
> 
> Some amino acids are only coded for by a single word, while some others are coded for by up to four words. The genetic code is redundant.


You have offered a fair description of the use of the term "code" as it applies to genetics ... yet in the typically disingenuous style of Christian Creationist intellectual dishonesty, you insist the use specific to genetics and the meaning of the term elsewhere are interchangeable.



Youwerecreated said:


> If the genetic code is not a language or a form of communicating how can we geneticly alter plants humans and animals ?


Not by writing or speaking to them.



Youwerecreated said:


> Sorry but there is all kinds of evidence to support what I am saying and it contradicts what you are saying.


Yet you just can't ever bring "all kinds of" actual, verifiable, valid evidence in support what you're saying or to contradict anyone; you only bring your logically invalid assertions of fact and superstition. 

What's up with that?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do you are an Ideologue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just did a cool little dance around the fact that you think god infects people with bacteria.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he did it with leprosy. You are right you don't read the bible.
> 
> Num 12:7  My servant Moses is not so; he is true to me in all my house:
> Num 12:8  With him I will have talk mouth to mouth, openly and not in dark sayings; and with his eyes he will see the form of the Lord: why then had you no fear of saying evil against my servant Moses?
> Num 12:9  And burning with wrath against them, the Lord went away.
> Num 12:10  And the cloud was moved from over the Tent; and straight away Miriam became a leper, as white as snow: and Aaron, looking at Miriam, saw that she was a leper.
> Num 12:11  Then Aaron said to Moses, O my lord, let not our sin be on our heads, for we have done foolishly and are sinners.
> Num 12:12  Let her not be as one dead, whose flesh is half wasted when he comes out from the body of his mother.
> Num 12:13  And Moses, crying to the Lord, said, Let my prayer come before you, O God, and make her well.
> Num 12:14  And the Lord said to Moses, If her father had put a mark of shame on her, would she not be shamed for seven days? Let her be shut up outside the tent-circle for seven days, and after that she may come in again.
> Num 12:15  So Miriam was shut up outside the tent-circle for seven days: and the people did not go forward on their journey till Miriam had come in again.
> Num 12:16  After that, the people went on from Hazeroth and put up their tents in the waste land of Paran.
> 
> Leprosy is caused by bacteria no ?
Click to expand...


Yup, leprosy is caused by a _Mycobacterium_.

The bible is not proof of the bible. Those persons never even existed. 

Anyone that contracted leprosy in 4000 BC contracted it the same way its contracted now, through one of two types of bacteria. Anyone that thinks otherwise is beyond gone.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Up til now what ever I show you ,you scoff at.
> 
> Watch the discovery channel they present plenty of evidence that contradicts many claims that you Ideologues claim concerning archeology. For Gods sake they use the bible as a guide,yes secular archeologist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dance my little fool! Dance! Dance!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch the discovery channel and you will see i am right they won't teach much of this stuff in secular schools.
Click to expand...


Two things. 

1. Discovery channel is showing american chopper right now. Sorry but i preferred to take my history right after chemistry class, not right after the "sons of guns" marathon. Wow. 

2. Islam and secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are no better than the fundamentalist muslims. 

Mohammed Yusuf (Boko Haram) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <<This man says that if the koran says the earth is not a sphere, that it is not a sphere. He also does not believe that rain is evaporated water, he believes god creates it in the sky. 

Thinking god creates water in the sky and makes it rain is no different than thinking god gives someone the _Mycobacterium_ that causes leprosy. It just shows that you dont understand biology like that man doesnt understand rain.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts according to faulty assumptions.
> 
> Have so called facts been refuted ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well looks like yet again youve danced around the topic of the post: the fact that you do not understand what a theory is.
> 
> And what theories suffer from faulty assumptions? And what are those assumptions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you, have assumed facts ever turned out to be wrong ?
> 
> You're the one dancing my little monkey.
Click to expand...


Most of the facts the humanity has held, and that were then proved wrong, were religious doctrines. 

Some scientific theories have been improved upon, but generally every specific science has been successful since its start. Physics has been sucessful since newton, although einstein had to improve it for light-speed and high-gravity, things newton didnt know about. Biology came along later, but since the creation of the microscope, and when biology became a real science, it has had tremendous success. Chemistry is only a hundred or so years old, the structure of the atom hasnt been known for that long. Yet we have a total understanding of chemistry. 

On the whole science has an amazing record and religion has a horrible one. The story of humanity has been smart people continually overturning idiotic dogma.


----------



## cbirch2

I would stray away from abstracting the idea of a code too much, everyone. 

I would call DNA a code just like binary. Binary code seems like a strange concept to most people; they dont usually understand how 0's and 1's can construct the complex things you do on a computer. But these 0's and 1's arent abstract concepts: They're actually represented by the electrons, or lack thereof, inside the millions of capacitors of the memory/CPU of your computer. So everything that we think of as an abstract code is ultimately broken down into physical concepts. 

Similarly, DNA is an abstract code derived from physical concepts. Groups of nucleotides, which are just rings of carbon atoms with some extras, are used as templates for the ultimate creation of proteins by enzymes. Genes arent abstract any more than a computer program is abstract.

Electrons in capacitors make up a single bit, a group of 8 bits make up a byte. Nucleotides in a DNA strand make up a single piece of information, you could call it a bit. And a group of 3 nucleotides made up a codon, just like how 8 bits make a byte. 

These concepts are only abstract if you dont take them time to think about how the supposedly abstract concept translates into physical atoms and particles. I suspect YWC makes this mistake a lot.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look like someone has taken the analogies we use in science to understand concepts just a literal too seriously.
> 
> So, DNA is a language? Go ahead. Speak or write the DNA language to me. You'll find it a wee bit difficult to speak in a combination of nucleotides. In fact, if you were smart, you'd realize that DNA isn't a literal code, but that's merely the conceptual moniker we've given it to help people to understand what constitutes DNA. You can't extend the analogy further without it breaking down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad thumbs up.
> 
> Gotta know the basic units of information for both protein and nucleic acid, or else your just discussing abstract things you dont quite know about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will expose your ignorance on DNA and the code for both of you.
Click to expand...


Lol what!?!?!

DNA is a sequence of nucleotides that is transcribed (by enzymes like DNA polymerase) into a few types of RNA (mRNA, tRNA, rRNA), which are then transcribed into amino acids and assembled into proteins inside of ribosomes. 

So...your arguing against that?

And your a molecular biologist?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The genetic code is built on three letter words called triplets or codons, written one after another along the length of the DNA strand.
> 
> Each code word is a unique combination of three letters that will eventually be interpreted as a single amino acid in a polypeptide chain. There is 64 coded words that are possible from an alphabet of four letters.
> 
> One of the words is the start signal,it begins all sequences that code for amino acid chains. Three of these code words act as stop signals that indicate that the message is over. All the other sequences code for specific amino acids.
> 
> Some amino acids are only coded for by a single word, while some others are coded for by up to four words. The genetic code is redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> You have offered a fair description of the use of the term "code" as it applies to genetics ... yet in the typically disingenuous style of Christian Creationist intellectual dishonesty, you insist the use specific to genetics and the meaning of the term elsewhere are interchangeable.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the genetic code is not a language or a form of communicating how can we geneticly alter plants humans and animals ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not by writing or speaking to them.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but there is all kinds of evidence to support what I am saying and it contradicts what you are saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you just can't ever bring "all kinds of" actual, verifiable, valid evidence in support what you're saying or to contradict anyone; you only bring your logically invalid assertions of fact and superstition.
> 
> What's up with that?
Click to expand...


No difference from the morse code.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just did a cool little dance around the fact that you think god infects people with bacteria.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he did it with leprosy. You are right you don't read the bible.
> 
> Num 12:7  My servant Moses is not so; he is true to me in all my house:
> Num 12:8  With him I will have talk mouth to mouth, openly and not in dark sayings; and with his eyes he will see the form of the Lord: why then had you no fear of saying evil against my servant Moses?
> Num 12:9  And burning with wrath against them, the Lord went away.
> Num 12:10  And the cloud was moved from over the Tent; and straight away Miriam became a leper, as white as snow: and Aaron, looking at Miriam, saw that she was a leper.
> Num 12:11  Then Aaron said to Moses, O my lord, let not our sin be on our heads, for we have done foolishly and are sinners.
> Num 12:12  Let her not be as one dead, whose flesh is half wasted when he comes out from the body of his mother.
> Num 12:13  And Moses, crying to the Lord, said, Let my prayer come before you, O God, and make her well.
> Num 12:14  And the Lord said to Moses, If her father had put a mark of shame on her, would she not be shamed for seven days? Let her be shut up outside the tent-circle for seven days, and after that she may come in again.
> Num 12:15  So Miriam was shut up outside the tent-circle for seven days: and the people did not go forward on their journey till Miriam had come in again.
> Num 12:16  After that, the people went on from Hazeroth and put up their tents in the waste land of Paran.
> 
> Leprosy is caused by bacteria no ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, leprosy is caused by a _Mycobacterium_.
> 
> The bible is not proof of the bible. Those persons never even existed.
> 
> Anyone that contracted leprosy in 4000 BC contracted it the same way its contracted now, through one of two types of bacteria. Anyone that thinks otherwise is beyond gone.
Click to expand...


You can believe as you wish.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The genetic code is built on three letter words called triplets or codons, written one after another along the length of the DNA strand.
> 
> Each code word is a unique combination of three letters that will eventually be interpreted as a single amino acid in a polypeptide chain. There is 64 coded words that are possible from an alphabet of four letters.
> 
> One of the words is the start signal,it begins all sequences that code for amino acid chains. Three of these code words act as stop signals that indicate that the message is over. All the other sequences code for specific amino acids.
> 
> Some amino acids are only coded for by a single word, while some others are coded for by up to four words. The genetic code is redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> You have offered a fair description of the use of the term "code" as it applies to genetics ... yet in the typically disingenuous style of Christian Creationist intellectual dishonesty, you insist the use specific to genetics and the meaning of the term elsewhere are interchangeable.
> 
> Not by writing or speaking to them.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but there is all kinds of evidence to support what I am saying and it contradicts what you are saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you just can't ever bring "all kinds of" actual, verifiable, valid evidence in support what you're saying or to contradict anyone; you only bring your logically invalid assertions of fact and superstition.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No difference from the morse code.
Click to expand...


Well, to be fair you cant just compare it to any code and say "see goddidit". 

Thats sort of a massive cop out.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he did it with leprosy. You are right you don't read the bible.
> 
> Num 12:7  My servant Moses is not so; he is true to me in all my house:
> Num 12:8  With him I will have talk mouth to mouth, openly and not in dark sayings; and with his eyes he will see the form of the Lord: why then had you no fear of saying evil against my servant Moses?
> Num 12:9  And burning with wrath against them, the Lord went away.
> Num 12:10  And the cloud was moved from over the Tent; and straight away Miriam became a leper, as white as snow: and Aaron, looking at Miriam, saw that she was a leper.
> Num 12:11  Then Aaron said to Moses, O my lord, let not our sin be on our heads, for we have done foolishly and are sinners.
> Num 12:12  Let her not be as one dead, whose flesh is half wasted when he comes out from the body of his mother.
> Num 12:13  And Moses, crying to the Lord, said, Let my prayer come before you, O God, and make her well.
> Num 12:14  And the Lord said to Moses, If her father had put a mark of shame on her, would she not be shamed for seven days? Let her be shut up outside the tent-circle for seven days, and after that she may come in again.
> Num 12:15  So Miriam was shut up outside the tent-circle for seven days: and the people did not go forward on their journey till Miriam had come in again.
> Num 12:16  After that, the people went on from Hazeroth and put up their tents in the waste land of Paran.
> 
> Leprosy is caused by bacteria no ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, leprosy is caused by a _Mycobacterium_.
> 
> The bible is not proof of the bible. Those persons never even existed.
> 
> Anyone that contracted leprosy in 4000 BC contracted it the same way its contracted now, through one of two types of bacteria. Anyone that thinks otherwise is beyond gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can believe as you wish.
Click to expand...


No, thats not the end of the argument. Before you were talking about how if you make a statement, you have to prove it. Every person weve every seen with leprosy has this bacteria, we know its caused by this bacteria. If your going to claim something else then either prove it or stop talking about it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dance my little fool! Dance! Dance!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the discovery channel and you will see i am right they won't teach much of this stuff in secular schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two things.
> 
> 1. Discovery channel is showing american chopper right now. Sorry but i preferred to take my history right after chemistry class, not right after the "sons of guns" marathon. Wow.
> 
> 2. Islam and secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> You are no better than the fundamentalist muslims.
> 
> Mohammed Yusuf (Boko Haram) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <<This man says that if the koran says the earth is not a sphere, that it is not a sphere. He also does not believe that rain is evaporated water, he believes god creates it in the sky.
> 
> Thinking god creates water in the sky and makes it rain is no different than thinking god gives someone the _Mycobacterium_ that causes leprosy. It just shows that you dont understand biology like that man doesnt understand rain.
Click to expand...


Well I have several different discovery channels,and I have watched shows that cover the universe and shows that show secularlist archaeologist digging for biblical ruins To verify .there is a lot evidence from bible that hey have confirmed then you know of.

King david has been confirmed and the walls of Jericho just to name a few.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well looks like yet again youve danced around the topic of the post: the fact that you do not understand what a theory is.
> 
> And what theories suffer from faulty assumptions? And what are those assumptions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you, have assumed facts ever turned out to be wrong ?
> 
> You're the one dancing my little monkey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the facts the humanity has held, and that were then proved wrong, were religious doctrines.
> 
> Some scientific theories have been improved upon, but generally every specific science has been successful since its start. Physics has been sucessful since newton, although einstein had to improve it for light-speed and high-gravity, things newton didnt know about. Biology came along later, but since the creation of the microscope, and when biology became a real science, it has had tremendous success. Chemistry is only a hundred or so years old, the structure of the atom hasnt been known for that long. Yet we have a total understanding of chemistry.
> 
> On the whole science has an amazing record and religion has a horrible one. The story of humanity has been smart people continually overturning idiotic dogma.
Click to expand...


You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ? So you just dismiss guys like Sir Isaac Newton ?

And you are wrong. Do you realize how many things had to be revised out of secular textbooks ? The point is the science community when in agreement on evidence believe the evidence and teach as fact  until proven otherwise.

You don't see something wrong with that ? That is disengenious at the highest degree. When they still can't test ,study,and observe the origins of the universe or the origins of life,and they sure as heck can't test ,study,and observe macro-evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> I would stray away from abstracting the idea of a code too much, everyone.
> 
> I would call DNA a code just like binary. Binary code seems like a strange concept to most people; they dont usually understand how 0's and 1's can construct the complex things you do on a computer. But these 0's and 1's arent abstract concepts: They're actually represented by the electrons, or lack thereof, inside the millions of capacitors of the memory/CPU of your computer. So everything that we think of as an abstract code is ultimately broken down into physical concepts.
> 
> Similarly, DNA is an abstract code derived from physical concepts. Groups of nucleotides, which are just rings of carbon atoms with some extras, are used as templates for the ultimate creation of proteins by enzymes. Genes arent abstract any more than a computer program is abstract.
> 
> Electrons in capacitors make up a single bit, a group of 8 bits make up a byte. Nucleotides in a DNA strand make up a single piece of information, you could call it a bit. And a group of 3 nucleotides made up a codon, just like how 8 bits make a byte.
> 
> These concepts are only abstract if you dont take them time to think about how the supposedly abstract concept translates into physical atoms and particles. I suspect YWC makes this mistake a lot.




 By Mayo Clinic staff 
Genetic testing involves examining your DNA, the chemical database that carries instructions for your body's functions. Genetic testing can reveal changes or alterations in your genes that may cause illness or disease.

Genetic testing - MayoClinic.com

I think these guys agree with what I am saying.

So I will ask again name one language,code,or a form of communication that came about naturally, absent of intelligence ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have offered a fair description of the use of the term "code" as it applies to genetics ... yet in the typically disingenuous style of Christian Creationist intellectual dishonesty, you insist the use specific to genetics and the meaning of the term elsewhere are interchangeable.
> 
> Not by writing or speaking to them.
> 
> Yet you just can't ever bring "all kinds of" actual, verifiable, valid evidence in support what you're saying or to contradict anyone; you only bring your logically invalid assertions of fact and superstition.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No difference from the morse code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, to be fair you cant just compare it to any code and say "see goddidit".
> 
> Thats sort of a massive cop out.
Click to expand...


Wrong,my point is no form of communicating or language and code could come through a natural means which shows we are a product of design not a natural process.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, leprosy is caused by a _Mycobacterium_.
> 
> The bible is not proof of the bible. Those persons never even existed.
> 
> Anyone that contracted leprosy in 4000 BC contracted it the same way its contracted now, through one of two types of bacteria. Anyone that thinks otherwise is beyond gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe as you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, thats not the end of the argument. Before you were talking about how if you make a statement, you have to prove it. Every person weve every seen with leprosy has this bacteria, we know its caused by this bacteria. If your going to claim something else then either prove it or stop talking about it.
Click to expand...


Your side admits the disease can only be traced back to 3 or 4 thousand years before Christ where in the bible the disease shows up in genesis. What a coincedence and God said this disease would stay in a family line that was cursed with it.

Then in the book of leviticus God explains the disease in detail and tells the people how to deal with the disease and how to keep it from spreading to the innocent.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have offered a fair description of the use of the term "code" as it applies to genetics ... yet in the typically disingenuous style of Christian Creationist intellectual dishonesty, you insist the use specific to genetics and the meaning of the term elsewhere are interchangeable.
> 
> Not by writing or speaking to them.
> 
> Yet you just can't ever bring "all kinds of" actual, verifiable, valid evidence in support what you're saying or to contradict anyone; you only bring your logically invalid assertions of fact and superstition.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No difference from the morse code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, to be fair you cant just compare it to any code and say "see goddidit".
> 
> Thats sort of a massive cop out.
Click to expand...


No it's not. British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive to say the least.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep you could not do it nor can anyone because it's never happened.
> 
> Summary:
> 1.Code is defined as the rules of communication between an encoder (a writer or speaker) and a decoder (a reader or listener) using agreed upon symbols.
> 2.DNAs definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960&#8242;s.
> 3.DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
> 4. DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannons 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
> 5. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code
> 
> 
> I believe the rest of this article will reduce your argument to nothing.
> 
> Is DNA a Code?
> 
> 
> 
> not a viable source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that all you have
Click to expand...

that all I need... as opposed to the mountains of bullshit you pile up to bolster your nonsense..
it's not a viable source because it's biased .
it being biased is just a statement of fact.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Video: What Darwin Never Knew | Watch NOVA Online | PBS Video
> 
> 
> this will make ywc's head explode... especially the beneficial mutations --enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA) Part 7/8 HD - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't seem to stay on topic can you ? You don't realize you make arguments for intelligent design do you ? Beneficial mutations few and far between. You can speculate all you like but we know beneficial mutations do not accumulate as evolutionist claim.
Click to expand...

obviously you did not watch it...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Video: What Darwin Never Knew | Watch NOVA Online | PBS Video
> 
> 
> this will make ywc's head explode... especially the beneficial mutations --enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA) Part 7/8 HD - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't seem to stay on topic can you ? You don't realize you make arguments for intelligent design do you ? Beneficial mutations few and far between. You can speculate all you like but we know beneficial mutations do not accumulate as evolutionist claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously you did not watch it...
Click to expand...


Did , but it don't take long to see a load of baloney so I shut it off.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't seem to stay on topic can you ? You don't realize you make arguments for intelligent design do you ? Beneficial mutations few and far between. You can speculate all you like but we know beneficial mutations do not accumulate as evolutionist claim.
> 
> 
> 
> obviously you did not watch it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did , but it don't take long to see a load of baloney so I shut it off.
Click to expand...

bullshit! you did not... real science over your head?


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? At the college level they reaffirm the scientific method.
> 
> Then you have not been paying attention junior.
> 
> And you only regurgitate what you have learned from wiki.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  How easily you get lost, what about the scientific method has to do with you not knowing what theories are?  No one believes you took any college level science and the insults just show that I hit the mark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you can believe as you wish,the simple fact is you have not refuted anything I have said in this thread or any other thread that you come in and lob insults as rebuttals.
> 
> I know the scientific method all to well for you to pass off your B.S.
> 
> How many times must I post the equation showing you and your buddies are just educated idiots ?
> 
> Are you just a little sore that Dawkins even reveals the non-sense you believe ?
> 
> Believing that life came from non-life or intelligence came from non-intelligence just reveals how simple some of you really are.
> 
> Let me expose what you so called educated actually believe.
> 
> Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design.
> 
> 
> Let's put you to the test and prove my point.
> 
> DNA is not just a molecule with a pattern, it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
> 
> Every code is created by a conscious mind, there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
> 
> Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
> 
> I want you to provide an empirical example of a code or language that
> occured naturally ?
> 
> Just show one.
Click to expand...


See, you either believe what you know to be false, I have refuted with evidence every one of your ignorant suppositions that someone else spoon fed you and you do not have enough understanding of the scientific theory or science or genetics or biology or science in general to understand they were already refuted before you ever came on here to post, or you are just generally stupid and a liar.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you know to be false ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at your post and see what is false and then you will have your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blowing smoke again are you ?
Click to expand...


So, you do not understand English either?  Did you graduate from high school or drop out before you ever got there?


----------



## FurthurBB

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No its not.
> 
> Can you prove that? Do you have absolutely any proof for that whatsoever? More likely it was common practice, and the writers of the bible included it because it was common practice. It goes back well before christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Up til now what ever I show you ,you scoff at.
> 
> Watch the discovery channel they present plenty of evidence that contradicts many claims that you Ideologues claim concerning archeology. For Gods sake they use the bible as a guide,yes secular archeologist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dance my little fool! Dance! Dance!!!!
Click to expand...


Yeah, entertainment is the place to get facts if you have no education.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Up til now what ever I show you ,you scoff at.
> 
> Watch the discovery channel they present plenty of evidence that contradicts many claims that you Ideologues claim concerning archeology. For Gods sake they use the bible as a guide,yes secular archeologist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dance my little fool! Dance! Dance!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch the discovery channel and you will see i am right they won't teach much of this stuff in secular schools.
Click to expand...


Because schools are not corporations that make money off entertaining idiots.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look like someone has taken the analogies we use in science to understand concepts just a literal too seriously.
> 
> So, DNA is a language? Go ahead. Speak or write the DNA language to me. You'll find it a wee bit difficult to speak in a combination of nucleotides. In fact, if you were smart, you'd realize that DNA isn't a literal code, but that's merely the conceptual moniker we've given it to help people to understand what constitutes DNA. You can't extend the analogy further without it breaking down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad thumbs up.
> 
> Gotta know the basic units of information for both protein and nucleic acid, or else your just discussing abstract things you dont quite know about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will expose your ignorance on DNA and the code for both of you.
Click to expand...


I think you have a typo, it should say mine instead of your.


----------



## FurthurBB

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mad thumbs up.
> 
> Gotta know the basic units of information for both protein and nucleic acid, or else your just discussing abstract things you dont quite know about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will expose your ignorance on DNA and the code for both of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol what!?!?!
> 
> DNA is a sequence of nucleotides that is transcribed (by enzymes like DNA polymerase) into a few types of RNA (mRNA, tRNA, rRNA), which are then transcribed into amino acids and assembled into proteins inside of ribosomes.
> 
> So...your arguing against that?
> 
> And your a molecular biologist?
Click to expand...


Since You does not know what polymerase is or what nucleotides really are.  Are you surprised?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not a viable source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that all you have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that all I need... as opposed to the mountains of bullshit you pile up to bolster your nonsense..
> it's not a viable source because it's biased .
> it being biased is just a statement of fact.
Click to expand...


Really so you know of no language or form of communication or a code that developed naturally ?

Now you brought up your mutation argument once again let's deal with that.

Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon. 

 Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.

So here are the questions.

Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  How easily you get lost, what about the scientific method has to do with you not knowing what theories are?  No one believes you took any college level science and the insults just show that I hit the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you can believe as you wish,the simple fact is you have not refuted anything I have said in this thread or any other thread that you come in and lob insults as rebuttals.
> 
> I know the scientific method all to well for you to pass off your B.S.
> 
> How many times must I post the equation showing you and your buddies are just educated idiots ?
> 
> Are you just a little sore that Dawkins even reveals the non-sense you believe ?
> 
> Believing that life came from non-life or intelligence came from non-intelligence just reveals how simple some of you really are.
> 
> Let me expose what you so called educated actually believe.
> 
> Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design.
> 
> 
> Let's put you to the test and prove my point.
> 
> DNA is not just a molecule with a pattern, it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
> 
> Every code is created by a conscious mind, there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
> 
> Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
> 
> I want you to provide an empirical example of a code or language that
> occured naturally ?
> 
> Just show one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, you either believe what you know to be false, I have refuted with evidence every one of your ignorant suppositions that someone else spoon fed you and you do not have enough understanding of the scientific theory or science or genetics or biology or science in general to understand they were already refuted before you ever came on here to post, or you are just generally stupid and a liar.
Click to expand...


So you avoid the question.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at your post and see what is false and then you will have your answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blowing smoke again are you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you do not understand English either?  Did you graduate from high school or drop out before you ever got there?
Click to expand...


Another worthless post.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Up til now what ever I show you ,you scoff at.
> 
> Watch the discovery channel they present plenty of evidence that contradicts many claims that you Ideologues claim concerning archeology. For Gods sake they use the bible as a guide,yes secular archeologist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dance my little fool! Dance! Dance!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, entertainment is the place to get facts if you have no education.
Click to expand...


Speak for yourself you mental midget.

I'm still waiting for you to asnwer my question oh great one.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dance my little fool! Dance! Dance!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the discovery channel and you will see i am right they won't teach much of this stuff in secular schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because schools are not corporations that make money off entertaining idiots.
Click to expand...


No, schools have become a way to brainwash our young.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mad thumbs up.
> 
> Gotta know the basic units of information for both protein and nucleic acid, or else your just discussing abstract things you dont quite know about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will expose your ignorance on DNA and the code for both of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you have a typo, it should say mine instead of your.
Click to expand...


Another pointless post


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that all you have
> 
> 
> 
> that all I need... as opposed to the mountains of bullshit you pile up to bolster your nonsense..
> it's not a viable source because it's biased .
> it being biased is just a statement of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really so you know of no language or form of communication or a code that developed naturally ?
> 
> Now you brought up your mutation argument once again let's deal with that.
> 
> Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.
> 
> Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.
> 
> So here is the quesations.
> 
> Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?
Click to expand...

might wanna back off on your meds....ahhh this answer must be for post# 6290


----------



## daws101




----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you can believe as you wish,the simple fact is you have not refuted anything I have said in this thread or any other thread that you come in and lob insults as rebuttals.
> 
> I know the scientific method all to well for you to pass off your B.S.
> 
> How many times must I post the equation showing you and your buddies are just educated idiots ?
> 
> Are you just a little sore that Dawkins even reveals the non-sense you believe ?
> 
> Believing that life came from non-life or intelligence came from non-intelligence just reveals how simple some of you really are.
> 
> Let me expose what you so called educated actually believe.
> 
> Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design.
> 
> 
> Let's put you to the test and prove my point.
> 
> DNA is not just a molecule with a pattern, it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
> 
> Every code is created by a conscious mind, there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
> 
> Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
> 
> I want you to provide an empirical example of a code or language that
> occured naturally ?
> 
> Just show one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, you either believe what you know to be false, I have refuted with evidence every one of your ignorant suppositions that someone else spoon fed you and you do not have enough understanding of the scientific theory or science or genetics or biology or science in general to understand they were already refuted before you ever came on here to post, or you are just generally stupid and a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you avoid the question.
Click to expand...


No, not avoiding, I have already answered these question for you.  Why would I do it again?  So you can just start all over with the nonsense?  No thanks, it is much more fun to watch you make a fool of yourself.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blowing smoke again are you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you do not understand English either?  Did you graduate from high school or drop out before you ever got there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another worthless post.
Click to expand...


So you avoid the question.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dance my little fool! Dance! Dance!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, entertainment is the place to get facts if you have no education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself you mental midget.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to asnwer my question oh great one.
Click to expand...


Awww, I am so hurt that you do not think highly of me when I tried so hard


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the discovery channel and you will see i am right they won't teach much of this stuff in secular schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because schools are not corporations that make money off entertaining idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, schools have become a way to brainwash our young.
Click to expand...


Is that what happened to you?  You could get therapy for that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, you either believe what you know to be false, I have refuted with evidence every one of your ignorant suppositions that someone else spoon fed you and you do not have enough understanding of the scientific theory or science or genetics or biology or science in general to understand they were already refuted before you ever came on here to post, or you are just generally stupid and a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you avoid the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not avoiding, I have already answered these question for you.  Why would I do it again?  So you can just start all over with the nonsense?  No thanks, it is much more fun to watch you make a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...


The only fool is the one that avoids questions that might teach him or her something.

You know that the science community is in agreement with my view on the genetic code.

Bring on your foolish answers and I will tear them apart.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that all I need... as opposed to the mountains of bullshit you pile up to bolster your nonsense..
> it's not a viable source because it's biased .
> it being biased is just a statement of fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really so you know of no language or form of communication or a code that developed naturally ?
> 
> Now you brought up your mutation argument once again let's deal with that.
> 
> Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.
> 
> Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.
> 
> So here is the quesations.
> 
> Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> might wanna back off on your meds....ahhh this answer must be for post# 6290
Click to expand...


Are you gonna answer the questions ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


>



If you can't take the heat in the kitchen you might want to get out of the kitchen.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, entertainment is the place to get facts if you have no education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself you mental midget.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to asnwer my question oh great one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awww, I am so hurt that you do not think highly of me when I tried so hard
Click to expand...


Because nonsense is nonsense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because schools are not corporations that make money off entertaining idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, schools have become a way to brainwash our young.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what happened to you?  You could get therapy for that.
Click to expand...


They did for a while then I grew up.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really so you know of no language or form of communication or a code that developed naturally ?
> 
> Now you brought up your mutation argument once again let's deal with that.
> 
> Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.
> 
> Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.
> 
> So here is the quesations.
> 
> Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?
> 
> 
> 
> might wanna back off on your meds....ahhh this answer must be for post# 6290
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you gonna answer the questions ?
Click to expand...

wrong poster ..like i said back off your meds!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't take the heat in the kitchen you might want to get out of the kitchen.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself you mental midget.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to asnwer my question oh great one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awww, I am so hurt that you do not think highly of me when I tried so hard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because nonsense is nonsense.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> might wanna back off on your meds....ahhh this answer must be for post# 6290
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gonna answer the questions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong poster ..like i said back off your meds!
Click to expand...


Maybe you should take your meds. No I asked you questions you are avoiding.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awww, I am so hurt that you do not think highly of me when I tried so hard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because nonsense is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


There is actually evidence for a young earth. Trying to dodge my questions are you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you, have assumed facts ever turned out to be wrong ?
> 
> You're the one dancing my little monkey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the facts the humanity has held, and that were then proved wrong, were religious doctrines.
> 
> Some scientific theories have been improved upon, but generally every specific science has been successful since its start. Physics has been sucessful since newton, although einstein had to improve it for light-speed and high-gravity, things newton didnt know about. Biology came along later, but since the creation of the microscope, and when biology became a real science, it has had tremendous success. Chemistry is only a hundred or so years old, the structure of the atom hasnt been known for that long. Yet we have a total understanding of chemistry.
> 
> On the whole science has an amazing record and religion has a horrible one. The story of humanity has been smart people continually overturning idiotic dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ?
Click to expand...

No. I just have a problem with their Creator superstition.



Youwerecreated said:


> So you just dismiss guys like Sir Isaac Newton ?


No. I dismiss their superstition for being nothing but superstition.



Youwerecreated said:


> And you are wrong.


Got any valid and verifiable evidence to back that up? Any valid logic?

Didn't think so.



Youwerecreated said:


> Do you realize how many things had to be revised out of secular textbooks ?


Pretty much.

Do you realize how many of the things you believe are meaningless in reality, because your beliefs are faith? Probably not. The answer is that ALL of your beliefs that are faith are meaningless; many of them are--in fact of objective reality--just wrong. 



Youwerecreated said:


> The point is the science community when in agreement on evidence believe the evidence and teach as fact until proven otherwise.
> 
> You don't see something wrong with that ? When they still can't test ,study,and observe the origins of the universe or the origins of life,and they sure as heck can't test ,study,and observe macro-evolution.


Since scientists are, in fact of reality, currently testing, studying, and/or observing the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution despite your manifestly retarded denial of reality; no, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it to be a virtue of science and scientists, that with improving understanding of the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution consequent from the testing, studying, and/or observing performed by scientists leads them to revisions and/or adjustments of their conclusions.

The notion you are struggling to identify and grasp is the virtue of "integrity of intellectual honesty."  The reason you are struggling Youwerecreated, is that you--just like your fellow Christian Creationists--just don't have it.

If you did have integrity of intellectual honesty, you'd be appalled at your insistence that your beliefs--your convictions in your (absolute) certainty of the reality of some thing(s)--are validated solely upon the meaningless basis that you believe your beliefs to be valid.



Youwerecreated said:


> That is disengenious at the highest degree.


Nonsense. Basing one's beliefs upon verifiable evidence and valid logic; validating those beliefs against valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence; admitting to uncertainties and qualifying one's conclusions accordingly; admitting to errors when discovered in the light of better or more complete information, and adjusting one's beliefs in accord with valid logic and verifiable evidence so they conform more closely to objective reality, is in no manner disingenuous.

Let me explain to you what "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is. It is holding your preconceptions as unassailably valid without any basis or foundation in validly verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it is validating your convictions of absolute certainty by through obtuse denials of any and all contradicting evidences and/or valid logic; it is validating your evidences against your conclusions, rather than validating you conclusions against valid logic applied to verifiable evidence; it is invalidating evidence and arguments solely on the basis that they contradict your baseless preconceived conclusions.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" is your insistence upon the validity of logical fallacies to "prove" your point; it is refusing to bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point, or refusing to admit that you cannot bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point; it is your denial of the reality of the appurtenances of an objectively real existence; it is your demand that "*nothing*" is really "some(objectively real)thing" that explains everything.

What "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is, is your shameless misrepresentations of your opponent's positions, the claims and assertions of opposing experts, and the actual descriptions, claims and predictions made by the scientific theories you oppose. It is your adamant refusal to honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."

The unrevised and/or unadjusted status of your Creationism has nothing to do with its eternal consistency with reality; rather, you Creationists have imbued--without valid basis--eternal consistency in this invented Creator of yours, and you reject the validity of any reason to adjust and/or revise your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions on the basis of that invalidly asserted eternal consistency with reality. The point here is that you and the Christian Creationism community, all in agreement on your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions, assert your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions as unassailable facts of reality without any regard to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence--most especially when valid logic applied to verifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" really is *YOU*.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the facts the humanity has held, and that were then proved wrong, were religious doctrines.
> 
> Some scientific theories have been improved upon, but generally every specific science has been successful since its start. Physics has been sucessful since newton, although einstein had to improve it for light-speed and high-gravity, things newton didnt know about. Biology came along later, but since the creation of the microscope, and when biology became a real science, it has had tremendous success. Chemistry is only a hundred or so years old, the structure of the atom hasnt been known for that long. Yet we have a total understanding of chemistry.
> 
> On the whole science has an amazing record and religion has a horrible one. The story of humanity has been smart people continually overturning idiotic dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I just have a problem with their Creator superstition.
> 
> No. I dismiss their superstition for being nothing but superstition.
> 
> Got any valid and verifiable evidence to back that up? Any valid logic?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> Do you realize how many of the things you believe are meaningless in reality, because your beliefs are faith? Probably not. The answer is that ALL of your beliefs that are faith are meaningless; many of them are--in fact of objective reality--just wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is the science community when in agreement on evidence believe the evidence and teach as fact until proven otherwise.
> 
> You don't see something wrong with that ? When they still can't test ,study,and observe the origins of the universe or the origins of life,and they sure as heck can't test ,study,and observe macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since scientists are, in fact of reality, currently testing, studying, and/or observing the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution despite your manifestly retarded denial of reality; no, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it to be a virtue of science and scientists, that with improving understanding of the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution consequent from the testing, studying, and/or observing performed by scientists leads them to revisions and/or adjustments of their conclusions.
> 
> The notion you are struggling to identify and grasp is the virtue of "integrity of intellectual honesty."  The reason you are struggling Youwerecreated, is that you--just like your fellow Christian Creationists--just don't have it.
> 
> If you did have integrity of intellectual honesty, you'd be appalled at your insistence that your beliefs--your convictions in your (absolute) certainty of the reality of some thing(s)--are validated solely upon the meaningless basis that you believe your beliefs to be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is disengenious at the highest degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Basing one's beliefs upon verifiable evidence and valid logic; validating those beliefs against valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence; admitting to uncertainties and qualifying one's conclusions accordingly; admitting to errors when discovered in the light of better or more complete information, and adjusting one's beliefs in accord with valid logic and verifiable evidence so they conform more closely to objective reality, is in no manner disingenuous.
> 
> Let me explain to you what "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is. It is holding your preconceptions as unassailably valid without any basis or foundation in validly verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it is validating your convictions of absolute certainty by through obtuse denials of any and all contradicting evidences and/or valid logic; it is validating your evidences against your conclusions, rather than validating you conclusions against valid logic applied to verifiable evidence; it is invalidating evidence and arguments solely on the basis that they contradict your baseless preconceived conclusions.
> 
> "Disingenuous at the highest degree" is your insistence upon the validity of logical fallacies to "prove" your point; it is refusing to bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point, or refusing to admit that you cannot bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point; it is your denial of the reality of the appurtenances of an objectively real existence; it is your demand that "*nothing*" is really "some(objectively real)thing" that explains everything.
> 
> What "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is, is your shameless misrepresentations of your opponent's positions, the claims and assertions of opposing experts, and the actual descriptions, claims and predictions made by the scientific theories you oppose. It is your adamant refusal to honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."
> 
> The unrevised and/or unadjusted status of your Creationism has nothing to do with its eternal consistency with reality; rather, you Creationists have imbued--without valid basis--eternal consistency in this invented Creator of yours, and you reject the validity of any reason to adjust and/or revise your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions on the basis of that invalidly asserted eternal consistency with reality. The point here is that you and the Christian Creationism community, all in agreement on your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions, assert your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions as unassailable facts of reality without any regard to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence--most especially when valid logic applied to verifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise.
> 
> "Disingenuous at the highest degree" really is *YOU*.
Click to expand...


I guess you have no answers to the questions asked nor a response for the actual scientists that disagree with your so called valid logic and evidence.



No real scientist accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today. I am gonna give this to you to but I am gonna add something else for you.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive.


Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon. 

Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.

So here are the questions.

Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal? 


Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.

Now catch up with the thread.


----------



## FurthurBB

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the facts the humanity has held, and that were then proved wrong, were religious doctrines.
> 
> Some scientific theories have been improved upon, but generally every specific science has been successful since its start. Physics has been sucessful since newton, although einstein had to improve it for light-speed and high-gravity, things newton didnt know about. Biology came along later, but since the creation of the microscope, and when biology became a real science, it has had tremendous success. Chemistry is only a hundred or so years old, the structure of the atom hasnt been known for that long. Yet we have a total understanding of chemistry.
> 
> On the whole science has an amazing record and religion has a horrible one. The story of humanity has been smart people continually overturning idiotic dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I just have a problem with their Creator superstition.
> 
> No. I dismiss their superstition for being nothing but superstition.
> 
> Got any valid and verifiable evidence to back that up? Any valid logic?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> Do you realize how many of the things you believe are meaningless in reality, because your beliefs are faith? Probably not. The answer is that ALL of your beliefs that are faith are meaningless; many of them are--in fact of objective reality--just wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is the science community when in agreement on evidence believe the evidence and teach as fact until proven otherwise.
> 
> You don't see something wrong with that ? When they still can't test ,study,and observe the origins of the universe or the origins of life,and they sure as heck can't test ,study,and observe macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since scientists are, in fact of reality, currently testing, studying, and/or observing the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution despite your manifestly retarded denial of reality; no, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it to be a virtue of science and scientists, that with improving understanding of the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution consequent from the testing, studying, and/or observing performed by scientists leads them to revisions and/or adjustments of their conclusions.
> 
> The notion you are struggling to identify and grasp is the virtue of "integrity of intellectual honesty."  The reason you are struggling Youwerecreated, is that you--just like your fellow Christian Creationists--just don't have it.
> 
> If you did have integrity of intellectual honesty, you'd be appalled at your insistence that your beliefs--your convictions in your (absolute) certainty of the reality of some thing(s)--are validated solely upon the meaningless basis that you believe your beliefs to be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is disengenious at the highest degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Basing one's beliefs upon verifiable evidence and valid logic; validating those beliefs against valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence; admitting to uncertainties and qualifying one's conclusions accordingly; admitting to errors when discovered in the light of better or more complete information, and adjusting one's beliefs in accord with valid logic and verifiable evidence so they conform more closely to objective reality, is in no manner disingenuous.
> 
> Let me explain to you what "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is. It is holding your preconceptions as unassailably valid without any basis or foundation in validly verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it is validating your convictions of absolute certainty by through obtuse denials of any and all contradicting evidences and/or valid logic; it is validating your evidences against your conclusions, rather than validating you conclusions against valid logic applied to verifiable evidence; it is invalidating evidence and arguments solely on the basis that they contradict your baseless preconceived conclusions.
> 
> "Disingenuous at the highest degree" is your insistence upon the validity of logical fallacies to "prove" your point; it is refusing to bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point, or refusing to admit that you cannot bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point; it is your denial of the reality of the appurtenances of an objectively real existence; it is your demand that "*nothing*" is really "some(objectively real)thing" that explains everything.
> 
> What "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is, is your shameless misrepresentations of your opponent's positions, the claims and assertions of opposing experts, and the actual descriptions, claims and predictions made by the scientific theories you oppose. It is your adamant refusal to honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."
> 
> The unrevised and/or unadjusted status of your Creationism has nothing to do with its eternal consistency with reality; rather, you Creationists have imbued--without valid basis--eternal consistency in this invented Creator of yours, and you reject the validity of any reason to adjust and/or revise your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions on the basis of that invalidly asserted eternal consistency with reality. The point here is that you and the Christian Creationism community, all in agreement on your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions, assert your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions as unassailable facts of reality without any regard to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence--most especially when valid logic applied to verifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise.
> 
> "Disingenuous at the highest degree" really is *YOU*.
Click to expand...


Excellent post!


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ?
> 
> 
> 
> No. I just have a problem with their Creator superstition.
> 
> No. I dismiss their superstition for being nothing but superstition.
> 
> Got any valid and verifiable evidence to back that up? Any valid logic?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> Do you realize how many of the things you believe are meaningless in reality, because your beliefs are faith? Probably not. The answer is that ALL of your beliefs that are faith are meaningless; many of them are--in fact of objective reality--just wrong.
> 
> Since scientists are, in fact of reality, currently testing, studying, and/or observing the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution despite your manifestly retarded denial of reality; no, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it to be a virtue of science and scientists, that with improving understanding of the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution consequent from the testing, studying, and/or observing performed by scientists leads them to revisions and/or adjustments of their conclusions.
> 
> The notion you are struggling to identify and grasp is the virtue of "integrity of intellectual honesty."  The reason you are struggling Youwerecreated, is that you--just like your fellow Christian Creationists--just don't have it.
> 
> If you did have integrity of intellectual honesty, you'd be appalled at your insistence that your beliefs--your convictions in your (absolute) certainty of the reality of some thing(s)--are validated solely upon the meaningless basis that you believe your beliefs to be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is disengenious at the highest degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Basing one's beliefs upon verifiable evidence and valid logic; validating those beliefs against valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence; admitting to uncertainties and qualifying one's conclusions accordingly; admitting to errors when discovered in the light of better or more complete information, and adjusting one's beliefs in accord with valid logic and verifiable evidence so they conform more closely to objective reality, is in no manner disingenuous.
> 
> Let me explain to you what "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is. It is holding your preconceptions as unassailably valid without any basis or foundation in validly verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it is validating your convictions of absolute certainty by through obtuse denials of any and all contradicting evidences and/or valid logic; it is validating your evidences against your conclusions, rather than validating you conclusions against valid logic applied to verifiable evidence; it is invalidating evidence and arguments solely on the basis that they contradict your baseless preconceived conclusions.
> 
> "Disingenuous at the highest degree" is your insistence upon the validity of logical fallacies to "prove" your point; it is refusing to bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point, or refusing to admit that you cannot bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point; it is your denial of the reality of the appurtenances of an objectively real existence; it is your demand that "*nothing*" is really "some(objectively real)thing" that explains everything.
> 
> What "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is, is your shameless misrepresentations of your opponent's positions, the claims and assertions of opposing experts, and the actual descriptions, claims and predictions made by the scientific theories you oppose. It is your adamant refusal to honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."
> 
> The unrevised and/or unadjusted status of your Creationism has nothing to do with its eternal consistency with reality; rather, you Creationists have imbued--without valid basis--eternal consistency in this invented Creator of yours, and you reject the validity of any reason to adjust and/or revise your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions on the basis of that invalidly asserted eternal consistency with reality. The point here is that you and the Christian Creationism community, all in agreement on your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions, assert your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions as unassailable facts of reality without any regard to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence--most especially when valid logic applied to verifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise.
> 
> "Disingenuous at the highest degree" really is *YOU*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you have no answers to the questions asked nor a response for the actual scientists that disagree with your so called valid logic and evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> No real scientist accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today. I am gonna give this to you to but I am gonna add something else for you.
> 
> British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.
> 
> Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.
> 
> Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?
> 
> Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive.
> 
> 
> Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.
> 
> Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.
> 
> So here are the questions.
> 
> Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?
> 
> 
> Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.
> 
> Now catch up with the thread.
Click to expand...


After searching around and not very far I found that Crick absolutely believed in abiogenesis, he just thought that it would be a very rare event in the universe and once abiogenesis happened it would be seeded throughout the universe and life would survive, where it would.  A hypothesis called panspermia.  Crick also absolutely believed in evolution and had more disdain for christianity than probably any poster on this message board.  The quote also cannot be confirmed as coming from him and has been attributed to over a dozen different scientists.  Stop letting people deceive you and think for yourself.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I just have a problem with their Creator superstition.
> 
> No. I dismiss their superstition for being nothing but superstition.
> 
> Got any valid and verifiable evidence to back that up? Any valid logic?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> Do you realize how many of the things you believe are meaningless in reality, because your beliefs are faith? Probably not. The answer is that ALL of your beliefs that are faith are meaningless; many of them are--in fact of objective reality--just wrong.
> 
> Since scientists are, in fact of reality, currently testing, studying, and/or observing the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution despite your manifestly retarded denial of reality; no, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it to be a virtue of science and scientists, that with improving understanding of the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution consequent from the testing, studying, and/or observing performed by scientists leads them to revisions and/or adjustments of their conclusions.
> 
> The notion you are struggling to identify and grasp is the virtue of "integrity of intellectual honesty."  The reason you are struggling Youwerecreated, is that you--just like your fellow Christian Creationists--just don't have it.
> 
> If you did have integrity of intellectual honesty, you'd be appalled at your insistence that your beliefs--your convictions in your (absolute) certainty of the reality of some thing(s)--are validated solely upon the meaningless basis that you believe your beliefs to be valid.
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Basing one's beliefs upon verifiable evidence and valid logic; validating those beliefs against valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence; admitting to uncertainties and qualifying one's conclusions accordingly; admitting to errors when discovered in the light of better or more complete information, and adjusting one's beliefs in accord with valid logic and verifiable evidence so they conform more closely to objective reality, is in no manner disingenuous.
> 
> Let me explain to you what "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is. It is holding your preconceptions as unassailably valid without any basis or foundation in validly verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it is validating your convictions of absolute certainty by through obtuse denials of any and all contradicting evidences and/or valid logic; it is validating your evidences against your conclusions, rather than validating you conclusions against valid logic applied to verifiable evidence; it is invalidating evidence and arguments solely on the basis that they contradict your baseless preconceived conclusions.
> 
> "Disingenuous at the highest degree" is your insistence upon the validity of logical fallacies to "prove" your point; it is refusing to bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point, or refusing to admit that you cannot bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point; it is your denial of the reality of the appurtenances of an objectively real existence; it is your demand that "*nothing*" is really "some(objectively real)thing" that explains everything.
> 
> What "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is, is your shameless misrepresentations of your opponent's positions, the claims and assertions of opposing experts, and the actual descriptions, claims and predictions made by the scientific theories you oppose. It is your adamant refusal to honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."
> 
> The unrevised and/or unadjusted status of your Creationism has nothing to do with its eternal consistency with reality; rather, you Creationists have imbued--without valid basis--eternal consistency in this invented Creator of yours, and you reject the validity of any reason to adjust and/or revise your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions on the basis of that invalidly asserted eternal consistency with reality. The point here is that you and the Christian Creationism community, all in agreement on your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions, assert your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions as unassailable facts of reality without any regard to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence--most especially when valid logic applied to verifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise.
> 
> "Disingenuous at the highest degree" really is *YOU*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you have no answers to the questions asked nor a response for the actual scientists that disagree with your so called valid logic and evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> No real scientist accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today. I am gonna give this to you to but I am gonna add something else for you.
> 
> British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.
> 
> Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.
> 
> Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?
> 
> Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive.
> 
> 
> Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.
> 
> Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.
> 
> So here are the questions.
> 
> Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?
> 
> 
> Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.
> 
> Now catch up with the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After searching around and not very far I found that Crick absolutely believed in abiogenesis, he just thought that it would be a very rare event in the universe and once abiogenesis happened it would be seeded throughout the universe and life would survive, where it would.  A hypothesis called panspermia.  Crick also absolutely believed in evolution and had more disdain for christianity than probably any poster on this message board.  The quote also cannot be confirmed as coming from him and has been attributed to over a dozen different scientists.  Stop letting people deceive you and think for yourself.
Click to expand...


So you are suggesting crick was lying ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I just have a problem with their Creator superstition.
> 
> No. I dismiss their superstition for being nothing but superstition.
> 
> Got any valid and verifiable evidence to back that up? Any valid logic?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> Do you realize how many of the things you believe are meaningless in reality, because your beliefs are faith? Probably not. The answer is that ALL of your beliefs that are faith are meaningless; many of them are--in fact of objective reality--just wrong.
> 
> Since scientists are, in fact of reality, currently testing, studying, and/or observing the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution despite your manifestly retarded denial of reality; no, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it to be a virtue of science and scientists, that with improving understanding of the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution consequent from the testing, studying, and/or observing performed by scientists leads them to revisions and/or adjustments of their conclusions.
> 
> The notion you are struggling to identify and grasp is the virtue of "integrity of intellectual honesty."  The reason you are struggling Youwerecreated, is that you--just like your fellow Christian Creationists--just don't have it.
> 
> If you did have integrity of intellectual honesty, you'd be appalled at your insistence that your beliefs--your convictions in your (absolute) certainty of the reality of some thing(s)--are validated solely upon the meaningless basis that you believe your beliefs to be valid.
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Basing one's beliefs upon verifiable evidence and valid logic; validating those beliefs against valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence; admitting to uncertainties and qualifying one's conclusions accordingly; admitting to errors when discovered in the light of better or more complete information, and adjusting one's beliefs in accord with valid logic and verifiable evidence so they conform more closely to objective reality, is in no manner disingenuous.
> 
> Let me explain to you what "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is. It is holding your preconceptions as unassailably valid without any basis or foundation in validly verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it is validating your convictions of absolute certainty by through obtuse denials of any and all contradicting evidences and/or valid logic; it is validating your evidences against your conclusions, rather than validating you conclusions against valid logic applied to verifiable evidence; it is invalidating evidence and arguments solely on the basis that they contradict your baseless preconceived conclusions.
> 
> "Disingenuous at the highest degree" is your insistence upon the validity of logical fallacies to "prove" your point; it is refusing to bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point, or refusing to admit that you cannot bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point; it is your denial of the reality of the appurtenances of an objectively real existence; it is your demand that "*nothing*" is really "some(objectively real)thing" that explains everything.
> 
> What "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is, is your shameless misrepresentations of your opponent's positions, the claims and assertions of opposing experts, and the actual descriptions, claims and predictions made by the scientific theories you oppose. It is your adamant refusal to honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."
> 
> The unrevised and/or unadjusted status of your Creationism has nothing to do with its eternal consistency with reality; rather, you Creationists have imbued--without valid basis--eternal consistency in this invented Creator of yours, and you reject the validity of any reason to adjust and/or revise your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions on the basis of that invalidly asserted eternal consistency with reality. The point here is that you and the Christian Creationism community, all in agreement on your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions, assert your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions as unassailable facts of reality without any regard to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence--most especially when valid logic applied to verifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise.
> 
> "Disingenuous at the highest degree" really is *YOU*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you have no answers to the questions asked nor a response for the actual scientists that disagree with your so called valid logic and evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> No real scientist accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today. I am gonna give this to you to but I am gonna add something else for you.
> 
> British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.
> 
> Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.
> 
> Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?
> 
> Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive.
> 
> 
> Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.
> 
> Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.
> 
> So here are the questions.
> 
> Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?
> 
> 
> Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.
> 
> Now catch up with the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After searching around and not very far I found that Crick absolutely believed in abiogenesis, he just thought that it would be a very rare event in the universe and once abiogenesis happened it would be seeded throughout the universe and life would survive, where it would.  A hypothesis called panspermia.  Crick also absolutely believed in evolution and had more disdain for christianity than probably any poster on this message board.  The quote also cannot be confirmed as coming from him and has been attributed to over a dozen different scientists.  Stop letting people deceive you and think for yourself.
Click to expand...


The Nobel laureate Dr. Francis H. Crick, in his 1981 book, Life Itself insists that the probability of life's chance at origin simply defies calculation. Crick, an atheist, had this to say:



&#8220; 

What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.

&#8221; 


On this point creationists would find themselves in complete agreement. 


Origin of life - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Even in defending abiogenesis, biologist Francis Crick acknowledged in 1981:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going." 

Rest of article.

Evolution as Mythology, Part 3 (of 5): The Myth of Abiogenesis | Reasons To Believe


The Guy simply does not want to believe in a creator like many of you.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you have no answers to the questions asked nor a response for the actual scientists that disagree with your so called valid logic and evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> No real scientist accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today. I am gonna give this to you to but I am gonna add something else for you.
> 
> British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.
> 
> Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.
> 
> Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?
> 
> Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive.
> 
> 
> Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.
> 
> Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.
> 
> So here are the questions.
> 
> Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?
> 
> 
> Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.
> 
> Now catch up with the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After searching around and not very far I found that Crick absolutely believed in abiogenesis, he just thought that it would be a very rare event in the universe and once abiogenesis happened it would be seeded throughout the universe and life would survive, where it would.  A hypothesis called panspermia.  Crick also absolutely believed in evolution and had more disdain for christianity than probably any poster on this message board.  The quote also cannot be confirmed as coming from him and has been attributed to over a dozen different scientists.  Stop letting people deceive you and think for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are suggesting crick was lying ?
Click to expand...


Could you really be that daft or are you just pretending to not understand?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the discovery channel and you will see i am right they won't teach much of this stuff in secular schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things.
> 
> 1. Discovery channel is showing american chopper right now. Sorry but i preferred to take my history right after chemistry class, not right after the "sons of guns" marathon. Wow.
> 
> 2. Islam and secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> You are no better than the fundamentalist muslims.
> 
> Mohammed Yusuf (Boko Haram) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <<This man says that if the koran says the earth is not a sphere, that it is not a sphere. He also does not believe that rain is evaporated water, he believes god creates it in the sky.
> 
> Thinking god creates water in the sky and makes it rain is no different than thinking god gives someone the _Mycobacterium_ that causes leprosy. It just shows that you dont understand biology like that man doesnt understand rain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I have several different discovery channels,and I have watched shows that cover the universe and shows that show secularlist archaeologist digging for biblical ruins To verify .there is a lot evidence from bible that hey have confirmed then you know of.
> 
> King david has been confirmed and the walls of Jericho just to name a few.
Click to expand...



"I have watched shows that cover the universe"

That must be why you say things like "a spinning rock exploded", and cant understand the concept of mass-energy equivalence and the significance of particle physics at the moment of the big bang. If you dont understand the 12 fermions, the 4 bosons that carry force, and the higgs boson as well, then you cant have an actual understanding of the big bang.

And you totally ignored the fact that you think god gives people leprosy, once again.


----------



## FurthurBB

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two things.
> 
> 1. Discovery channel is showing american chopper right now. Sorry but i preferred to take my history right after chemistry class, not right after the "sons of guns" marathon. Wow.
> 
> 2. Islam and secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> You are no better than the fundamentalist muslims.
> 
> Mohammed Yusuf (Boko Haram) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <<This man says that if the koran says the earth is not a sphere, that it is not a sphere. He also does not believe that rain is evaporated water, he believes god creates it in the sky.
> 
> Thinking god creates water in the sky and makes it rain is no different than thinking god gives someone the _Mycobacterium_ that causes leprosy. It just shows that you dont understand biology like that man doesnt understand rain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I have several different discovery channels,and I have watched shows that cover the universe and shows that show secularlist archaeologist digging for biblical ruins To verify .there is a lot evidence from bible that hey have confirmed then you know of.
> 
> King david has been confirmed and the walls of Jericho just to name a few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I have watched shows that cover the universe"
> 
> That must be why you say things like "a spinning rock exploded", and cant understand the concept of mass-energy equivalence and the significance of particle physics at the moment of the big bang. If you dont understand the 12 fermions, the 4 bosons that carry force, and the higgs boson as well, then you cant have an actual understanding of the big bang.
> 
> And you totally ignored the fact that you think god gives people leprosy, once again.
Click to expand...


Maybe You thinks that god is a virologist that likes to engineer viruses.  I like to engineer viruses too, does that make me god?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you, have assumed facts ever turned out to be wrong ?
> 
> You're the one dancing my little monkey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the facts the humanity has held, and that were then proved wrong, were religious doctrines.
> 
> Some scientific theories have been improved upon, but generally every specific science has been successful since its start. Physics has been sucessful since newton, although einstein had to improve it for light-speed and high-gravity, things newton didnt know about. Biology came along later, but since the creation of the microscope, and when biology became a real science, it has had tremendous success. Chemistry is only a hundred or so years old, the structure of the atom hasnt been known for that long. Yet we have a total understanding of chemistry.
> 
> On the whole science has an amazing record and religion has a horrible one. The story of humanity has been smart people continually overturning idiotic dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ? So you just dismiss guys like Sir Isaac Newton ?
> 
> And you are wrong. Do you realize how many things had to be revised out of secular textbooks ? The point is the science community when in agreement on evidence believe the evidence and teach as fact  until proven otherwise.
> 
> You don't see something wrong with that ? That is disengenious at the highest degree. When they still can't test ,study,and observe the origins of the universe or the origins of life,and they sure as heck can't test ,study,and observe macro-evolution.
Click to expand...


Remember my post about how DNA is a code? Only someone that doesnt understand how the abstract translates into the physical nucleotides would deny evolution. 

Sure, science has retracted some things. Evolution wont be one of those things, because its stood up against all types of attacks for 150 years. People that understand how it works laugh off the things your saying, theyre mostly just a total ignorance of the process. 

And now i think were to the root of the problem. You just dont like science because it takes the role of your god in stating facts. What parts of science would you deny friend, besides evolution? Chemistry? Particle physics? Gravity? Projectile motion? Medicine? Surgery? Electricity? 

Hmmm??


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gonna answer the questions ?
> 
> 
> 
> wrong poster ..like i said back off your meds!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should take your meds. No I asked you questions you are avoiding.
Click to expand...


not my post: try #post# 6290


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would stray away from abstracting the idea of a code too much, everyone.
> 
> I would call DNA a code just like binary. Binary code seems like a strange concept to most people; they dont usually understand how 0's and 1's can construct the complex things you do on a computer. But these 0's and 1's arent abstract concepts: They're actually represented by the electrons, or lack thereof, inside the millions of capacitors of the memory/CPU of your computer. So everything that we think of as an abstract code is ultimately broken down into physical concepts.
> 
> Similarly, DNA is an abstract code derived from physical concepts. Groups of nucleotides, which are just rings of carbon atoms with some extras, are used as templates for the ultimate creation of proteins by enzymes. Genes arent abstract any more than a computer program is abstract.
> 
> Electrons in capacitors make up a single bit, a group of 8 bits make up a byte. Nucleotides in a DNA strand make up a single piece of information, you could call it a bit. And a group of 3 nucleotides made up a codon, just like how 8 bits make a byte.
> 
> These concepts are only abstract if you dont take them time to think about how the supposedly abstract concept translates into physical atoms and particles. I suspect YWC makes this mistake a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By Mayo Clinic staff
> Genetic testing involves examining your DNA, the chemical database that carries instructions for your body's functions. Genetic testing can reveal changes or alterations in your genes that may cause illness or disease.
> 
> Genetic testing - MayoClinic.com
> 
> I think these guys agree with what I am saying.
> 
> So I will ask again name one language,code,or a form of communication that came about naturally, absent of intelligence ?
Click to expand...


The problem is your definition of intelligence. 

Obviously, language and intelligence developed at the same time. Even animals are somewhat intelligent, and even animals have some form of communication. 

You realize human language is not that complex, right? Vowels are just the sounds you can say with your resonators (throat, mouth, and diaphragm), consonants require the use of enunciators (teeth, lips, tongue, jaw). Is "A" really that complex of a sound. Language certainly evolved naturally, it was not passed down by god. 

Besides, you cant just say "this code seems made by god so it is". Its just rings of carbon, remember?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No difference from the morse code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, to be fair you cant just compare it to any code and say "see goddidit".
> 
> Thats sort of a massive cop out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong,my point is no form of communicating or language and code could come through a natural means which shows we are a product of design not a natural process.
Click to expand...


Yea thats just an opinion. 

In realize we just have 26 sounds divided up into vowels and consonants based on what vocal instruments we use to say them. Language is a natural development.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe as you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, thats not the end of the argument. Before you were talking about how if you make a statement, you have to prove it. Every person weve every seen with leprosy has this bacteria, we know its caused by this bacteria. If your going to claim something else then either prove it or stop talking about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your side admits the disease can only be traced back to 3 or 4 thousand years before Christ where in the bible the disease shows up in genesis. What a coincedence and God said this disease would stay in a family line that was cursed with it.
> 
> Then in the book of leviticus God explains the disease in detail and tells the people how to deal with the disease and how to keep it from spreading to the innocent.
Click to expand...


Because most record keeping goes back about that far, there werent very many comprehensive civilizations before that point. Of course your idiotic creation myth dates back to the time of ignorance, when coherent groups of people from different lands were all trying to figure out our origin. 

Basically, religion relies on thinking a goat herder knew more than we do. 

Your not addressing the factual argument, once again. Do people sin get leprosy? Were all bacteria and viruses created like this, randomly by god? I assume god create aids in the 70's too, right? 4000 years ago bacteria spread just like they do now.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you have no answers to the questions asked nor a response for the actual scientists that disagree with your so called valid logic and evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> No real scientist accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today. I am gonna give this to you to but I am gonna add something else for you.
> 
> British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.
> 
> Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.
> 
> Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?
> 
> Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive.
> 
> 
> Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.
> 
> Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.
> 
> So here are the questions.
> 
> Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?
> 
> 
> Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.
> 
> Now catch up with the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After searching around and not very far I found that Crick absolutely believed in abiogenesis, he just thought that it would be a very rare event in the universe and once abiogenesis happened it would be seeded throughout the universe and life would survive, where it would.  A hypothesis called panspermia.  Crick also absolutely believed in evolution and had more disdain for christianity than probably any poster on this message board.  The quote also cannot be confirmed as coming from him and has been attributed to over a dozen different scientists.  Stop letting people deceive you and think for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are suggesting crick was lying ?
Click to expand...

"To produce a really good biological theory one must try to see through the clutter produced by evolution to the basic mechanisms lying beneath them, realizing that they are likely to be overlaid by other, secondary mechanisms. What seems to physicists to be a hopelessly complicated process may have been what nature found simplest, because nature could only build on what was already there. "- Francis Crick


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No difference from the morse code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, to be fair you cant just compare it to any code and say "see goddidit".
> 
> Thats sort of a massive cop out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not. British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.
> 
> Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.
> 
> Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?
> 
> Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive to say the least.
Click to expand...


Way to quote a statement that is now about 30 years old and has since been retracted

Basically hes saying he was overly pessimistic about the chances of life forming because things like ribozymes had not yet been discovered (which solves his original protein-RNA chicken-egg problem).


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the discovery channel and you will see i am right they won't teach much of this stuff in secular schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because schools are not corporations that make money off entertaining idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, schools have become a way to brainwash our young.
Click to expand...


Moron. Do you say that because you did bad in school? They arent brainwashing our young just because your too stupid to understand. 

What parts of school are right, and which parts are wrong? Is physics wrong? Maybe the value of avagodros number that was given to my by my chemistry teacher is a liberal lie. Lol. god damn.


----------



## daws101

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because schools are not corporations that make money off entertaining idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, schools have become a way to brainwash our young.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moron. Do you say that because you did bad in school? They arent brainwashing our young just because your too stupid to understand.
> 
> What parts of school are right, and which parts are wrong? Is physics wrong? Maybe the value of avagodros number that was given to my by my chemistry teacher is a liberal lie. Lol. god damn.
Click to expand...

 I guess what ywc means is it was OK when when public schools were "brainwashing kids to be racist ,sexiest, homophobic god fearing Americans.
anything other than that is the work of Satan!


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two things.
> 
> 1. Discovery channel is showing american chopper right now. Sorry but i preferred to take my history right after chemistry class, not right after the "sons of guns" marathon. Wow.
> 
> 2. Islam and secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> You are no better than the fundamentalist muslims.
> 
> Mohammed Yusuf (Boko Haram) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <<This man says that if the koran says the earth is not a sphere, that it is not a sphere. He also does not believe that rain is evaporated water, he believes god creates it in the sky.
> 
> Thinking god creates water in the sky and makes it rain is no different than thinking god gives someone the _Mycobacterium_ that causes leprosy. It just shows that you dont understand biology like that man doesnt understand rain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I have several different discovery channels,and I have watched shows that cover the universe and shows that show secularlist archaeologist digging for biblical ruins To verify .there is a lot evidence from bible that hey have confirmed then you know of.
> 
> King david has been confirmed and the walls of Jericho just to name a few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I have watched shows that cover the universe"
> 
> That must be why you say things like "a spinning rock exploded", and cant understand the concept of mass-energy equivalence and the significance of particle physics at the moment of the big bang. If you dont understand the 12 fermions, the 4 bosons that carry force, and the higgs boson as well, then you cant have an actual understanding of the big bang.
> 
> And you totally ignored the fact that you think god gives people leprosy, once again.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to duck the questions I'm asking ? By trying to change the subject. And I did show you according to the scriptures God did punish with the disease of leprosy. Don't you kind of find it funny that your side says they can track it back only so far and it just happens to be in agreement with the bible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the facts the humanity has held, and that were then proved wrong, were religious doctrines.
> 
> Some scientific theories have been improved upon, but generally every specific science has been successful since its start. Physics has been sucessful since newton, although einstein had to improve it for light-speed and high-gravity, things newton didnt know about. Biology came along later, but since the creation of the microscope, and when biology became a real science, it has had tremendous success. Chemistry is only a hundred or so years old, the structure of the atom hasnt been known for that long. Yet we have a total understanding of chemistry.
> 
> On the whole science has an amazing record and religion has a horrible one. The story of humanity has been smart people continually overturning idiotic dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ? So you just dismiss guys like Sir Isaac Newton ?
> 
> And you are wrong. Do you realize how many things had to be revised out of secular textbooks ? The point is the science community when in agreement on evidence believe the evidence and teach as fact  until proven otherwise.
> 
> You don't see something wrong with that ? That is disengenious at the highest degree. When they still can't test ,study,and observe the origins of the universe or the origins of life,and they sure as heck can't test ,study,and observe macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember my post about how DNA is a code? Only someone that doesnt understand how the abstract translates into the physical nucleotides would deny evolution.
> 
> Sure, science has retracted some things. Evolution wont be one of those things, because its stood up against all types of attacks for 150 years. People that understand how it works laugh off the things your saying, theyre mostly just a total ignorance of the process.
> 
> And now i think were to the root of the problem. You just dont like science because it takes the role of your god in stating facts. What parts of science would you deny friend, besides evolution? Chemistry? Particle physics? Gravity? Projectile motion? Medicine? Surgery? Electricity?
> 
> Hmmm??
Click to expand...


I love real science,not secular science that denies real evidence to hold on to their secular views.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I am still waiting for someone to provide a code or language or some form of communication with empirical evidence that it cane in to existence naturally absent of intelligence ? How bout mutations being the same thing as noise to a electronic signal and the questions I asked.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ?
> 
> 
> 
> No. I just have a problem with their Creator superstition.
> 
> No. I dismiss their superstition for being nothing but superstition.
> 
> Got any valid and verifiable evidence to back that up? Any valid logic?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> Do you realize how many of the things you believe are meaningless in reality, because your beliefs are faith? Probably not. The answer is that ALL of your beliefs that are faith are meaningless; many of them are--in fact of objective reality--just wrong.
> 
> Since scientists are, in fact of reality, currently testing, studying, and/or observing the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution despite your manifestly retarded denial of reality; no, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it to be a virtue of science and scientists, that with improving understanding of the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution consequent from the testing, studying, and/or observing performed by scientists leads them to revisions and/or adjustments of their conclusions.
> 
> The notion you are struggling to identify and grasp is the virtue of "integrity of intellectual honesty."  The reason you are struggling Youwerecreated, is that you--just like your fellow Christian Creationists--just don't have it.
> 
> If you did have integrity of intellectual honesty, you'd be appalled at your insistence that your beliefs--your convictions in your (absolute) certainty of the reality of some thing(s)--are validated solely upon the meaningless basis that you believe your beliefs to be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is disengenious at the highest degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Basing one's beliefs upon verifiable evidence and valid logic; validating those beliefs against valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence; admitting to uncertainties and qualifying one's conclusions accordingly; admitting to errors when discovered in the light of better or more complete information, and adjusting one's beliefs in accord with valid logic and verifiable evidence so they conform more closely to objective reality, is in no manner disingenuous.
> 
> Let me explain to you what "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is. It is holding your preconceptions as unassailably valid without any basis or foundation in validly verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it is validating your convictions of absolute certainty by through obtuse denials of any and all contradicting evidences and/or valid logic; it is validating your evidences against your conclusions, rather than validating you conclusions against valid logic applied to verifiable evidence; it is invalidating evidence and arguments solely on the basis that they contradict your baseless preconceived conclusions.
> 
> "Disingenuous at the highest degree" is your insistence upon the validity of logical fallacies to "prove" your point; it is refusing to bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point, or refusing to admit that you cannot bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point; it is your denial of the reality of the appurtenances of an objectively real existence; it is your demand that "*nothing*" is really "some(objectively real)thing" that explains everything.
> 
> What "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is, is your shameless misrepresentations of your opponent's positions, the claims and assertions of opposing experts, and the actual descriptions, claims and predictions made by the scientific theories you oppose. It is your adamant refusal to honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."
> 
> The unrevised and/or unadjusted status of your Creationism has nothing to do with its eternal consistency with reality; rather, you Creationists have imbued--without valid basis--eternal consistency in this invented Creator of yours, and you reject the validity of any reason to adjust and/or revise your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions on the basis of that invalidly asserted eternal consistency with reality. The point here is that you and the Christian Creationism community, all in agreement on your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions, assert your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions as unassailable facts of reality without any regard to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence--most especially when valid logic applied to verifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise.
> 
> "Disingenuous at the highest degree" really is *YOU*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you have no answers to the questions asked nor a response for the actual scientists that disagree with your so called valid logic and evidence.
Click to expand...

This is laughable. You are literally denying that I answered your questions as you blockquote the very answers you deny exist.

What a douche.



Youwerecreated said:


> No real scientist accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today.


Right. Superstitiously anthropomorphizing retards might embrace a theory where a "cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today", and you have certainly been laying that bullshit strawman at the feet of those who embrace the Theory of Evolution as if *they* assert a belief that a "cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today," but no real, valid scientist actually "accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today."

More importantly, no real scientist--no rational person with integrity of intellectual honesty--accepts your intellectually dishonest Christian Creationist misrepresentations of Evolution proponents and the Theory of Evolution, to say they assert that a cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today.



Youwerecreated said:


> I am gonna give this to you to but I am gonna add something else for you.


I don't accept your misrepresentations as valid or your gifts as genuine; I don't need any favors from the likes of you.



Youwerecreated said:


> British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.


I'm pretty sure you are misrepresenting Francis Crick's actual belief, ... but even if you aren't, *SO WHAT?* Francis Crick still accepted the validity of the Theory of Evolution:

			
				Francis Crick said:
			
		

> Of course it is not true that mankind is evolving at the moment only by natural selection. Ever since man was able to communicate and form societies, another form of evolution has been taking place-social evolution, which is very much faster and in many ways more effective. Nevertheless, much in our nature has evolved under the pressure of natural selection alone, and these pressures still exist today.


And he found very little validity in the alternative you present:

			
				Francis Crick said:
			
		

> The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established. This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas."





Youwerecreated said:


> Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.




			
				Francis Crick said:
			
		

> An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.
> (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)


It looks like he didn't express that he thought it was "just not possible," and it also looks like you're still full of shit.

How about that?



Youwerecreated said:


> Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?


It seems his actual answer was that his position "... should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that [life] could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."



Youwerecreated said:


> Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive.


Not at all surprising. I have pointed this out to you before, and i will point it out to you once again, without any fear that you will refuse to understand what is being explained to you.

Scientists--real scientists, practicing actual valid science--allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything they observe; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion. However, there is no ontological barrier that would prevent a real scientist--practicing actual valid science--from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything he observes if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

Christian Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of theirs, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusions. Christian Creationists have imposed upon themselves an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support their conclusions. Christian Creationists have sanctimoniously, without basis in any valid reasoning, for the purposes of promoting the illusion of their intellectual/spiritual/moral superiority, imposed upon themselves an ontological barrier preventing them from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything they observe; especially if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

The reason Christian Creationists look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions is that Christian Creationists are intentionally intellectually dishonest superstitious retards.



Youwerecreated said:


> Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.
> 
> Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.


*SO WHAT?*



Youwerecreated said:


> So here are the questions.
> 
> Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality?


Yes. *SO WHAT?*



Youwerecreated said:


> Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?


Yes, again. Again, *SO FUCKING WHAT?*.



Youwerecreated said:


> Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.
> 
> Now catch up with the thread.


No rational person could accept the strawman version of Evolution you present. Certainly, rational scientists with integrity of intellectual honesty most certainly reject disingenuous misrepresentations of the Theory of Evolution offered by intellectually dishonest Christian Creationists when they misrepresent rational scientists as rejecting the actual valid Theory of Evolution.

Actual, rational scientists (like Crick and Shannon) most likely find the actual valid theory of Evolution taught and/or presented by rational folks with integrity of intellectual honesty to be easily and substantially acceptable on intellectually valid grounds.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I just have a problem with their Creator superstition.
> 
> No. I dismiss their superstition for being nothing but superstition.
> 
> Got any valid and verifiable evidence to back that up? Any valid logic?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> Do you realize how many of the things you believe are meaningless in reality, because your beliefs are faith? Probably not. The answer is that ALL of your beliefs that are faith are meaningless; many of them are--in fact of objective reality--just wrong.
> 
> Since scientists are, in fact of reality, currently testing, studying, and/or observing the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution despite your manifestly retarded denial of reality; no, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it to be a virtue of science and scientists, that with improving understanding of the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution consequent from the testing, studying, and/or observing performed by scientists leads them to revisions and/or adjustments of their conclusions.
> 
> The notion you are struggling to identify and grasp is the virtue of "integrity of intellectual honesty."  The reason you are struggling Youwerecreated, is that you--just like your fellow Christian Creationists--just don't have it.
> 
> If you did have integrity of intellectual honesty, you'd be appalled at your insistence that your beliefs--your convictions in your (absolute) certainty of the reality of some thing(s)--are validated solely upon the meaningless basis that you believe your beliefs to be valid.
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Basing one's beliefs upon verifiable evidence and valid logic; validating those beliefs against valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence; admitting to uncertainties and qualifying one's conclusions accordingly; admitting to errors when discovered in the light of better or more complete information, and adjusting one's beliefs in accord with valid logic and verifiable evidence so they conform more closely to objective reality, is in no manner disingenuous.
> 
> Let me explain to you what "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is. It is holding your preconceptions as unassailably valid without any basis or foundation in validly verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it is validating your convictions of absolute certainty by through obtuse denials of any and all contradicting evidences and/or valid logic; it is validating your evidences against your conclusions, rather than validating you conclusions against valid logic applied to verifiable evidence; it is invalidating evidence and arguments solely on the basis that they contradict your baseless preconceived conclusions.
> 
> "Disingenuous at the highest degree" is your insistence upon the validity of logical fallacies to "prove" your point; it is refusing to bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point, or refusing to admit that you cannot bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point; it is your denial of the reality of the appurtenances of an objectively real existence; it is your demand that "*nothing*" is really "some(objectively real)thing" that explains everything.
> 
> What "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is, is your shameless misrepresentations of your opponent's positions, the claims and assertions of opposing experts, and the actual descriptions, claims and predictions made by the scientific theories you oppose. It is your adamant refusal to honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."
> 
> The unrevised and/or unadjusted status of your Creationism has nothing to do with its eternal consistency with reality; rather, you Creationists have imbued--without valid basis--eternal consistency in this invented Creator of yours, and you reject the validity of any reason to adjust and/or revise your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions on the basis of that invalidly asserted eternal consistency with reality. The point here is that you and the Christian Creationism community, all in agreement on your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions, assert your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions as unassailable facts of reality without any regard to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence--most especially when valid logic applied to verifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise.
> 
> "Disingenuous at the highest degree" really is *YOU*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you have no answers to the questions asked nor a response for the actual scientists that disagree with your so called valid logic and evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is laughable. You are literally denying that I answered your questions as you blockquote the very answers you deny exist.
> 
> What a douche.
> 
> Right. Superstitiously anthropomorphizing retards might embrace a theory where a "cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today", and you have certainly been laying that bullshit strawman at the feet of those who embrace the Theory of Evolution as if *they* assert a belief that a "cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today," but no real, valid scientist actually "accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today."
> 
> More importantly, no real scientist--no rational person with integrity of intellectual honesty--accepts your intellectually dishonest Christian Creationist misrepresentations of Evolution proponents and the Theory of Evolution, to say they assert that a cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today.
> 
> I don't accept your misrepresentations as valid or your gifts as genuine; I don't need any favors from the likes of you.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you are misrepresenting Francis Crick's actual belief, ... but even if you aren't, *SO WHAT?* Francis Crick still accepted the validity of the Theory of Evolution:​And he found very little validity in the alternative you present:​​It looks like he didn't express that he thought it was "just not possible," and it also looks like you're still full of shit.
> 
> How about that?
> 
> It seems his actual answer was that his position "... should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that [life] could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."
> 
> Not at all surprising. I have pointed this out to you before, and i will point it out to you once again, without any fear that you will refuse to understand what is being explained to you.
> 
> Scientists--real scientists, practicing actual valid science--allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything they observe; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion. However, there is no ontological barrier that would prevent a real scientist--practicing actual valid science--from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything he observes if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
> 
> Christian Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of theirs, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusions. Christian Creationists have imposed upon themselves an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support their conclusions. Christian Creationists have sanctimoniously, without basis in any valid reasoning, for the purposes of promoting the illusion of their intellectual/spiritual/moral superiority, imposed upon themselves an ontological barrier preventing them from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything they observe; especially if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
> 
> The reason Christian Creationists look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions is that Christian Creationists are intentionally intellectually dishonest superstitious retards.
> 
> *SO WHAT?*
> 
> Yes. *SO WHAT?*
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, again. Again, *SO FUCKING WHAT?*.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.
> 
> Now catch up with the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No rational person could accept the strawman version of Evolution you present. Certainly, rational scientists with integrity of intellectual honesty most certainly reject disingenuous misrepresentations of the Theory of Evolution offered by intellectually dishonest Christian Creationists when they misrepresent rational scientists as rejecting the actual valid Theory of Evolution.
> 
> Actual, rational scientists (like Crick and Shannon) most likely find the actual valid theory of Evolution taught and/or presented by rational folks with integrity of intellectual honesty to be easily and substantially acceptable on intellectually valid grounds.
Click to expand...


Then you have no idea what the theory of abiogenesis is.

Crick was directly quoted from one of his books.

Prove adding noise to a signal adds information to a signal.

Prove adding noise to a signal can improve the signal .


Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design

That is the &#8220;math&#8221; of evolution. Whether we&#8217;re considering the evolution of falcons or any other organism, the changes over time have to come from changes in the DNA. The entire plan for a falcon is contained in its DNA, a molecule with a 4-letter alphabet. A strand of DNA can have anywhere from 500 thousand letters (in the case of the smallest known parasite) to 3 billion letters (man and large animals).

Darwinism says that Random Mutation (copying errors in the DNA alphabet) produce modified falcons, and that natural selection (survival of the fittest as inferior falcons die out and superior falcons dominate) weeds out the losers. What remains is new innovations in falcon design.

That&#8217;s what Darwinism says. It&#8217;s elegantly simple. Almost intuitively obvious.

Can it be verified?

No, and yes.

One of the difficulties with Darwinism is that it evidently takes millions of years and many billions of falcons to produce significant change over time. This makes it very hard to empirically prove Darwinism in the short lifetime of a human being. Practically speaking, Darwinism doesn&#8217;t even provide us with very many testable hypotheses. Thus the vast majority of the evidence for evolution is anecdotal.

Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence based on personal experience that has not been empirically tested, and which is often used in an argument as if it had been scientifically or statistically proven. The person using anecdotal evidence may or may not be aware of the fact that, by doing so, they are generalizing. (&#8211;From Wikipedia) An example of anecdotal evidence would be &#8220;My grandma smoked and drank whiskey every day and she lived to be 95, so cigarettes and whiskey are good for you.&#8221; Not all anecdotal evidence is misleading, of course, but it&#8217;s not proof.

But with Darwin, the principle itself should be easy enough to demonstrate. I know as an engineer with a strong math background that in principle it should be easy enough to statistically answer the question:

Is the formula

Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design

Mathematically true, or false?

Hey, if we&#8217;re going to get answers to these questions, we have to ask questions that actually have a possibility of being answered in the first place. Most arguments for and against evolution are argued at an intuitive level, with only anecdotal evidence. The way most questions are asked in the origins debate, they are unanswerable. The question as I posed it is much, much simpler and can certainly be verified.

Is Natural Selection Valid?

I shouldn&#8217;t have to spend much time defending the idea that Natural Selection is a perfectly valid concept that we see proven all the time. We all know and observe every day that winners win and losers lose. We know that babies with severe birth defects often do not survive, much less thrive. We know that Natural Selection weeds out losers. Natural Selection works.

The real question is, does Random Mutation produce winners? Does it create plans for new muscles in the eye of the falcon? Does it add information to the code of DNA? That&#8217;s the question I set out to answer.

Like I said, DNA is a blueprint for life. It&#8217;s a code and a language. It has an alphabet (A = Adenine, G = Guanine, T = Thymine, C = Cytosine) and that alphabet spells out the instructions for everything. So the question is:

Can Random Mutation add information to DNA?

I decided the best way to answer this question is to make it more general: Can random mutation add information to any code or language? Can it make it more meaningful, such that Natural Selection will weed out the garbage and leave us with better and better information?

My reasoning was this: Even if Darwinism couldn&#8217;t be empirically proven in the lab (since we don&#8217;t have millions of years available to conduct an experiment), we should still be able to investigate some other part of the world where languages and codes are used.

We should be able to experimentally determine if Random Mutations add information. This could come from any number of fields &#8211; linguistics, digital signal processing, computer networking, computer aided design, language translation.

Information Theory Sheds Light on this: 1948

The questions I&#8217;m asking here are answered in a field known as &#8220;Information theory&#8221; which really began with a paper written by Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon in 1948. His paper was called &#8220;The Mathematical Theory of Communication&#8221; and it&#8217;s one of the most important papers ever published in the history of Electrical Engineering and electronic communication. Shannon&#8217;s paper literally gave birth to the digital age we now live in &#8211; not because Shannon invented digital communication, but because he defined what it was capable of.

Claude Shannon&#8217;s paper tells you how much hi-fidelity music you can put on a CD (74 minutes), or how much data you can squeeze through a 56K computer modem (not much). It tells you how much information you can successfully transmit, given a certain amount of noise and a certain speed of sending your data. It discusses error correction schemes and even defines something called &#8220;Information entropy&#8221; which is the degradation that happens when you add noise to a signal.

Shannon&#8217;s book is not for the layman, but certain parts of it are understandable by anyone and it deals with things that most people are at least somewhat familiar with. He defines various &#8220;layers&#8221; of information &#8211; which in layman&#8217;s terms would be things like alphabet, spelling, grammar and meaning &#8211; and how the upper layers are built on top of the lower layers, and how we can use this knowledge to detect and correct errors.

And in my research into the origins question, I quickly discovered that everything Claude Shannon discusses in his paper applies to DNA. (I have not encountered any geneticist or bio-informatics researcher who disagrees with this.)

DNA is a molecule, a data storage medium and digital communication protocol all rolled into one. It has a certain amount of memory. Your own DNA, in every cell of your body, contains about the same amount of information as a compact disc.

But here&#8217;s where things get interesting: In Claude Shannon&#8217;s world, Random Mutation in DNA is exactly the same as &#8220;Noise&#8221; in an electrical communication system.

This really struck a chord with me because I already knew a great deal about digital communication systems. I spent six years of my life selling exotic networking equipment to factory engineers, I&#8217;ve published dozens and dozens of magazine articles about communication networks, and In 2002 I published the book Industrial Ethernet. Now in its 2nd edition, this book explains the operation of Ethernet networks, TCP/IP protocol (the language that runs the Internet), and various networking languages that are used in modern equipment installations.

The world of electronic communication is a world of languages and codes. Every different kind of file on your computer &#8211; a Microsoft WORD document, an Excel spreadsheet, a web page in HTML, a JPG or GIF image &#8211; the difference between all these things is the language they&#8217;re written in. Microsoft WORD isn&#8217;t just a brand, it&#8217;s a language that&#8217;s been defined by Microsoft, for writing and storing documents. Same with everything else on the list &#8211; it&#8217;s a language that&#8217;s been defined by someone for a specific purpose.

So another way of asking the question is this:

&#8220;Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?&#8221;

I searched and I searched and I searched.

And the answer to that question, oddly, is a qualified no.

There is no instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of modern communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality. There is no example where noise increases the information in a signal.

None.

But remember, I said the answer is a qualified no. The answer is still yes, sometimes.

Let me explain.

Let&#8217;s take the sentence

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog

I could randomly mutate this sentence, and if I got really lucky, the sentence could become

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.

(I added a period.)

The period did add information to the sentence; it corrected a grammatical mistake.

Now this sentence is 45 characters long. With the possibility of 26 lower case letters, 26 upper case letters, spaces and periods (excluding numbers and any other characters), there are 54 possible characters.

So how many combinations of letters are possible in this sentence? A probability textbook tells us that there are 4554 possible combinations. If you punch that into your scientific calculator, you get 1.9 x 1089 possibilities. (In other words, a very big number with ninety (!) zeros. Bigger than any number anyone ever uses in everyday life.)

Which is to say that there is one chance in 1.9 x 1089 &#8211; one chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion or so &#8211; that a single random mutation could correct the grammar of this short sentence.

So yes, random mutation (noise) can add some information to a signal. Parts per trillion trillion trillion&#8230;

That is the qualification.

Obviously it is a very small qualification &#8211; so small as to be thoroughly trivial.

I thought this was way too simple.

I said to myself, &#8220;Geez, is the answer to the whole evolution question that cut-and-dried? Falcons can&#8217;t evolve because DNA mutations can only destroy information, not increase it? That seems too easy, too obvious.&#8221;

I spent several months hunting for answers all over the place, scouring more books and the Internet, looking for discussion on this topic. Surely there must be more to this question.

Claude Shannon does address it in his book. Not DNA specifically, but noise in general. Shannon says noise causes entropy. In physics, entropy is the process of useful energy becoming useless. Entropy is what happens when a candle burns down to nothing and you can&#8217;t light it anymore.

One of Shannon&#8217;s contributions to science was showing that the math equations for information entropy are exactly the same as for heat entropy. And in both cases, entropy is an irreversible process. In other words, once you add noise to a signal, it is permanently corrupted and cannot be recovered, much less improved.

Noise always degrades a signal. Always.

No exceptions.

Anybody who&#8217;s spent much time recording music knows what I mean. Cassette tapes are going out of vogue, but back in the day we used to record our CD&#8217;s onto cassettes so we could listen on our Walkman or in our car. Cassettes always add noise (tape hiss) to the music.

Companies like Dolby and DBX devised ingenious methods of noise reduction &#8211; Dolby B, Dolby C and so on &#8211; to combat this problem. They were fairly effective, but never perfect. Actually the way noise reduction works is this: The signal is boosted and equalized before it&#8217;s put on tape, then it&#8217;s equalized the opposite way and cut back to its original volume when you play it back. All it does is lessen the effects of the tape hiss; it doesn&#8217;t actually take it away.

And again, once the noise is there, it is absolutely impossible to get it back out.

And I&#8217;ve never met any engineer who ever said the signal could be better after you added noise to it. The only exception to this is something called dither which does add noise to the signal before it&#8217;s recorded, but that is done to neutralize distortions in the recording equipment. It&#8217;s &#8220;dither&#8221; in digital recording, and &#8220;bias&#8221; in analog recording. But it does not increase the information; it degrades the signal, albeit in a useful way.

So I&#8217;m hunting for a flaw in this theory. Can anyone show that noise increases the useful information in a signal?

Now I am far from the first person to discover or discuss this, and I did find people debating this topic. I found some interesting misconceptions.

For example, Claude Shannon discusses how the addition of noise increases the information in a signal. But you have to be very careful to understand what he means when he says this.

Let&#8217;s say you take your favorite CD and record it onto a cassette tape. Now you have added some noise to your favorite music. You can hear the tape hiss when you play it.

Well let&#8217;s say you get a CD burner and you play the tape back and copy the taped version back to a new CD. Now you have a CD of a tape of a CD. A copy of a copy, with tape hiss thrown in.

Well the new CD does actually have more information than the old one. It has not only the music, but the tape hiss too. Instead of silence between the songs, you&#8217;ve added tape hiss. Of course the CD player doesn&#8217;t care what it is, it just plays it. From the CD player&#8217;s point of view (CD players being totally dumb objects), yes, there is more information to send to the speakers.

But from a human point of view, there is obviously less useful information. The useful information has been compromised. Fine details you used to be able to hear are covered up by the tape hiss, never to be recovered.

All arguments you may find that cite Claude Shannon in saying that noise increases information are really saying that the tape hiss is an increase in information. Well obviously it&#8217;s an increase in useless information &#8211; at the expense of the useful information.

So What is Darwinism Really Saying?

If we go back to the falcon question, what Darwinian theory is saying is this:

Noise gets added to the signal in the DNA of billions of falcons.

Most of the time, it produces harmful mutations.

Some of the time, it adds useful information.

Natural selection weeds out the harmful mutations and only the useful ones are left.

The useful mutations make the new falcons more fit to survive.

They proliferate and then more mutations make their progeny better adapted, more competitive, with enhanced features and ability to survive.

And the evolutionary dance continues.

Sounds pretty plausible, right? I certainly thought it did.

But let&#8217;s use an analogy of something more familiar: Those cassette tapes.

You have a CD, and you make billions of cassette tape copies of it. Each copy is slightly different, because each one has different microscopic bits of tape hiss.

Most of the time the tape hiss is bad, but sometimes it is good.

People buy the good copies and return the bad ones to the music store, so only the good ones survive.

Billions more copies are made of the good ones, and the process repeats. Every few thousand generations of tapes and tape hiss, a new musical feature is added, so primitive tribal music evolves into modern jazz fusion.

Do you buy that?

I don&#8217;t.

We could make a very similar analogy with photocopies. We&#8217;ve all seen documents that were a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. They look horrible. After enough generations, they become unreadable. A copy of a copy of a copy of instructions on how to get to my house never evolve into a superior plan for getting to my house.

Information is only destroyed by noise, never enhanced by it. (Devolution, not evolution.)

So if noise is bad for music and photocopies and FM radio, how can it be good for falcon DNA?

DNA, Computers, Human Language Have Error Correction Built-In

You&#8217;d be interested to know that virtually all communication systems, including DNA, have error correction mechanisms built in. The English language is about 50% redundant &#8211; if half the words and letters are missing, you can still read it and figure out what is being said. Ethernet and TCP/IP have sophisticated error detection / correction mechanisms. If you&#8217;re downloading a file and some of the bits get corrupted, your computer detects that and tells the other computer on the Internet to re-send those bits. And DNA has sophisticated error correction mechanisms, too. Errors are always bad, never good. DNA is designed to detect mutations and correct them.

I Start Presenting This Challenge to Darwinists

There are still a whole bunch of questions we haven&#8217;t really discussed yet, but this in itself gets down to the bottom of what Darwinian evolution claims to be true. So has any advocate of Darwinian evolution ever proven that random mutation can increase information? I wanted to find out.

So in addition to extensive searching and reading, I started having email exchanges with proponents of Darwinism. I would say &#8220;Show me an example where random mutation actually increases information&#8221; and they would try. And Boy, would they ever try!

The conversation would go something like this:

They would say, &#8220;Richard Dawkins shows how evolution works in his &#8216;methinks it is like a weasel&#8217; evolutionary computer program.&#8221; (Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, shows how a random letter generator can evolve a complete sentence, if the computer program rejects erroneous letters and accepts correct ones, and it only takes 30-40 steps to do so.)

I&#8217;d say &#8220;But the desired result is pre-programmed into the experiment in the first place. All he has demonstrated is that his computer works properly, that&#8217;s all.&#8221;

So the conversation would turn to all sorts of other &#8220;Genetic Programs&#8221; which is an entire category of software where random mutations generate variations which are then selected according to certain criteria and improvements are observed. Fascinating stuff.

But that&#8217;s not the Darwinian math formula. Remember, the Darwinian formula is

Random mutation + natural selection + time = Design

But genetic programs work on this formula:

Random mutation + deliberate selection + time = Design

Deliberate selection and natural selection are not the same thing. Look, if the falcons could say &#8220;Let&#8217;s randomly mutate only the small part of our DNA that designs our eyeball muscles and nothing else for a few million years, and let&#8217;s just keep the ones that pass a quality control test&#8221; then it would work. But that&#8217;s not how evolution is claimed to work. Mutations (noise) are not selective about where they occur.

Darwinism: The Math Just Doesn&#8217;t Work

In these debates we would go back and forth about this, and sometimes the conversations would get quite emotional as the person I was talking too kept hitting dead ends in their argument.

Sometimes they&#8217;d finally sigh and say &#8220;Just because we haven&#8217;t discovered the answer to this question doesn&#8217;t mean we won&#8217;t someday.&#8221;

My reply would be &#8220;Yes, that&#8217;s absolutely right, nobody can predict what science may discover tomorrow. But for right now I can&#8217;t see how the fundamental premise of Darwinian evolution can even be said to be scientific, because the math simply does not work.&#8221;

Most of the time I&#8217;d eventually get silence. Much as we tried to make these conversations factual and friendly (they were rarely hostile), eventually the person would just stop replying to my emails. They were stumped.

Dawkins Can&#8217;t Answer It, Either

It&#8217;s interesting to note that the fanatical atheist Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous living proponent of Evolutionary theory, has never answered this question either &#8211; in fact he has studiously avoided it. There&#8217;s an article http://trueorigins.org/dawkinfo.asp where this question was posed to Dawkins, and even though six years have gone by, he never answers it. The answer he does give is a smoke-and-mirrors example at best.

There is a lot of material on this particular web page and there is a great deal of discussion about it. I did a bunch of backwards searching on Google to find every last reference to this article on the entire Internet, and nobody has successfully answered the question that it raises: &#8220;Can you produce an example of a mutation or evolutionary process that led to an increase in information?&#8221;

Many do claim to have answered it with genetic programs and the like, but if you examine their experiments carefully, you will see that none of these programs are actually examples of true Darwinian evolution. All of them without exception (including the much ballyhooed Avida softare program) use un-random mutation or un-natural selection in some way. Genetic programs are extremely useful, instructive, well worth studying. But all are examples of intelligent design, not evolution

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/darwin-half-right/


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ? So you just dismiss guys like Sir Isaac Newton ?
> 
> And you are wrong. Do you realize how many things had to be revised out of secular textbooks ? The point is the science community when in agreement on evidence believe the evidence and teach as fact  until proven otherwise.
> 
> You don't see something wrong with that ? That is disengenious at the highest degree. When they still can't test ,study,and observe the origins of the universe or the origins of life,and they sure as heck can't test ,study,and observe macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember my post about how DNA is a code? Only someone that doesnt understand how the abstract translates into the physical nucleotides would deny evolution.
> 
> Sure, science has retracted some things. Evolution wont be one of those things, because its stood up against all types of attacks for 150 years. People that understand how it works laugh off the things your saying, theyre mostly just a total ignorance of the process.
> 
> And now i think were to the root of the problem. You just dont like science because it takes the role of your god in stating facts. What parts of science would you deny friend, besides evolution? Chemistry? Particle physics? Gravity? Projectile motion? Medicine? Surgery? Electricity?
> 
> Hmmm??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love real science,not secular science that denies real evidence to hold on to their secular views.
Click to expand...


So, you only consider religious science real?  Science that deals with the supernatural, rather than the observable?


----------



## Montrovant

YWC - first, wall of text again!

Second, you seem to have ignored the multiple people who have pointed out quotes by Crick which show his acceptance of evolutionary theory.  You hold him up as someone helping to show your view is valid, then ignore or misread when someone points out that the man does, in fact, seem to hold with the very theory you are trying to argue against.

So he's a man with an impressive background who we should listen to when you think he is making your point.  When the things he say instead oppose your point, you ignore them or pretend they say something else.  And then you complain about other people not answering your questions or responding to your points?  

Even if your perspective is correct, you do such a poor job of explaining/defending it, it almost doesn't matter if it is right or wrong.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Then you have no idea what the theory of abiogenesis is.


You can always be counted upon to apply fallacious reasoning in an attempt to advance your retarded point.  Considering the verifiable evidence already presented, there is little doubt that I have are far more accurate and intellectually honest understanding of the theory abiogenesis than you do.



Youwerecreated said:


> Crick was directly quoted from one of his books.


Since I was quoting him, and providing the citation for the quote, it's a wonder to all thoughtful human beings why you'd point this out.

Particularly since the quote directly refuted your claim that Crick said the formation of DNA molecules by chance in any kind of primeval soup is just not possible.



Youwerecreated said:


> Prove adding noise to a signal adds information to a signal.


Noise stops being noise the instant it has meaning to us; it is then considered information. Perceptually we may make a distinction, but if "noise" becomes "information" simply by virtue of having meaning assigned to it by someone, then objectively, noise is information. It may be unwanted information; it may be uninteresting information; it may be distracting information; it may be annoying information; it may be misunderstood information; it may be contextually meaningless information; it may be information with some combination of any and/or all of these characteristics, but it is still information--and adding information to a signal is adding information to a signal.

But you don't have to take my word for it; Jimi Hendrix proved it:[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoAXW30mMAg"]VooDoo Chile[/ame]



Youwerecreated said:


> Prove adding noise to a signal can improve the signal .


If noise is really just unwanted signal, you can add the inverse of "noise" (which itself is "noise") to a signal, what is left over is a signal improved by having the noise cancelled out.



Youwerecreated said:


> Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design
> 
> That is the math of evolution.


No it's not. You're just making that shit up. It's just another strawman you've constructed because you cannot refute actual Evolution, and you cannot tolerate the undeniable objective superiority as an explanation for the diversity of life that the Theory of Evolution objectively enjoys over your retarded superstition.



Youwerecreated said:


> Whether were considering the evolution of falcons or any other organism, the changes over time have to come from changes in the DNA. The entire plan for a falcon is contained in its DNA, a molecule with a 4-letter alphabet. A strand of DNA can have anywhere from 500 thousand letters (in the case of the smallest known parasite) to 3 billion letters (man and large animals).
> 
> Darwinism says that Random Mutation (copying errors in the DNA alphabet) produce modified falcons, and that natural selection (survival of the fittest as inferior falcons die out and superior falcons dominate) weeds out the losers. What remains is new innovations in falcon design.
> 
> Thats what Darwinism says.


It does not, you stupid, superstitious, anthropomorphizing retard.

There is no actual plan involved, there is no actual alphabet involved, and there is *NO FUCKING DESIGN!*
--*RATIONALIZATIONS BASED ON FAULTY PREMISES SNIPPED*--​


Youwerecreated said:


> Is the formula
> 
> Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design
> 
> Mathematically true, or false?


Neither. It is mathematically and argumentatively meaningless.

--*MORE CRAP SNIPPED*--​ 


Youwerecreated said:


> The real question is, does Random Mutation produce winners?


Not necessarily, and certainly not through the deliberate application of a process/methodology, or any exercise of will of intent to attain a pre-specified goal.



Youwerecreated said:


> Does it create plans for new muscles in the eye of the falcon?


No. Mutation--random or otherwise--does not plan or create.



Youwerecreated said:


> Does it add information to the code of DNA?


Setting aside momentarily the predictable abuse of the term "code"; Absolutely.



Youwerecreated said:


> Thats the question I set out to answer.


Well, now you got it.



Youwerecreated said:


> Like I said, DNA is a blueprint for life.


No. It's *LIKE* a blueprint for life. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Its a code and a language.


No. It's *LIKE* a code; it's *LIKE* a language.



Youwerecreated said:


> It has an alphabet (A = Adenine, G = Guanine, T = Thymine, C = Cytosine) and that alphabet spells out the instructions for everything.


No. Words, letters, phrases, codes, etc. can have any meaning we assign to them; they are SYMBOLS. Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, and Cytosine ARE NOT symbols. We do not determine their meaning or their relevance. The manner and consequences of their interactions ARE NOT DETERMINED by any meaning or significance we assign to those interactions and/or consequences.

In this manner, DNA is NOTHING AT ALL LIKE an alphabet, language, code, plan, or blueprint.



Youwerecreated said:


> So the question is:
> 
> Can Random Mutation add information to DNA?


For the last fucking time, absolutely YES!



Youwerecreated said:


> I decided the best way to answer this question is to make it more general: Can random mutation add information to any code or language?


Well no, not *ANY* code or language. If you were to apply the meaning, "cannot add information" to the term, "random mutation" when it is used in a code or language, then no.

However, the meanings you wish to apply to terms are irrelevant to the case of the relationship between random mutation, DNA, genetics, and the development of an organism.



Youwerecreated said:


> Can it make it more meaningful, such that Natural Selection will weed out the garbage and leave us with better and better information?


Sure, provided you wish to honestly anthropomorphize Natural Selection such that it (and not you) assigns meaning, and it (not you) makes the judgments regarding what constitutes "garbage" and what constitutes "better and better information."

We both know that's not what you're engaged in, but rather, you wish to assert YOUR notions of meaning and meaningfulness, and assert YOUR judgments regarding what constitutes "garbage" and what constitutes "better and better information" as you apply the meaning, "cannot add information" to the term, "random mutation" when it is used in a code or language to convey information about an organism and assign judgment regarding the quality of that information.

The fact that you assign the term "noise" to a signal that is meaningless to you, or is unwanted by you; or is distracting to you, or is uninteresting to you, ... does not change the fact that what you're judging is still information. Since your judgment that "random mutation" is "noise" is not actually relevant to what "random mutation" is or its nature as information, it's pointless to go on discussing "random mutation" as if it is being applied to a process of our own design, to achieve pre-specified goals of our own choosing.

--_*SINCE THE PREMISES APPURTENANT TO CODES AND LANGUAGES DON'T EVEN APPLY ... IRRELEVANT CRAP SNIPPED*_--​ 


Youwerecreated said:


> ... Genetic Programs which is an entire category of software where random mutations generate variations which are then selected according to certain criteria and improvements are observed. Fascinating stuff.
> 
> But thats not the Darwinian math formula. Remember, the Darwinian formula is
> 
> Random mutation + natural selection + time = Design
> Remember, it's really not.​But genetic programs work on this formula:
> 
> Random mutation + deliberate selection + time = Design
> 
> Deliberate selection and natural selection are not the same thing.


Well, "Natural Selection" and "random selection" are not the same thing either.

Natural Selection is NOT random, so it's entirely legitimate to use another non-random selection criteria in an "un-natural" environment to illustrate the effect of Natural Selection in a natural environment.



Youwerecreated said:


> Look, if the falcons could say Lets randomly mutate only the small part of our DNA that designs our eyeball muscles and nothing else for a few million years, and lets just keep the ones that pass a quality control test then it would work. But thats not how evolution is claimed to work. Mutations (noise) are not selective about where they occur.


Yet, _*EVOLUTION*_ (through natural Selection) is selective about which mutations propagate. The effect is that in fact, "the [random mutations] that pass a quality control test" are the [random mutations] that are kept.



Youwerecreated said:


> Darwinism: The Math Just Doesnt Work


Really, it just turns out that the crap "math" based upon the crap premises that intellectually dishonest Christian Creationists assign to the Theory of Evolution, is the math "that just doesn't work."

--*MORE CRAP SNIPPED*--​


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember my post about how DNA is a code? Only someone that doesnt understand how the abstract translates into the physical nucleotides would deny evolution.
> 
> Sure, science has retracted some things. Evolution wont be one of those things, because its stood up against all types of attacks for 150 years. People that understand how it works laugh off the things your saying, theyre mostly just a total ignorance of the process.
> 
> And now i think were to the root of the problem. You just dont like science because it takes the role of your god in stating facts. What parts of science would you deny friend, besides evolution? Chemistry? Particle physics? Gravity? Projectile motion? Medicine? Surgery? Electricity?
> 
> Hmmm??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love real science,not secular science that denies real evidence to hold on to their secular views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you only consider religious science real?  Science that deals with the supernatural, rather than the observable?
Click to expand...


I guess you could say that, Because real science will not go against the creator of all things.

I reject Any science that tries to explain that things came in to existence naturally.

I reject Any science that rejects design.

You may argue things are not perfect that is correct. Since the fall of man we and everything thing that exists are  experiencing entropy.

Macro-evolution has never ever been observed and you are calling me cuckoo for beliving in a being with supernatural powers to create and  because you have not observed this being? But yet you believe in something that has never been observed and is contradicted by what we do observe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> YWC - first, wall of text again!
> 
> Second, you seem to have ignored the multiple people who have pointed out quotes by Crick which show his acceptance of evolutionary theory.  You hold him up as someone helping to show your view is valid, then ignore or misread when someone points out that the man does, in fact, seem to hold with the very theory you are trying to argue against.
> 
> So he's a man with an impressive background who we should listen to when you think he is making your point.  When the things he say instead oppose your point, you ignore them or pretend they say something else.  And then you complain about other people not answering your questions or responding to your points?
> 
> Even if your perspective is correct, you do such a poor job of explaining/defending it, it almost doesn't matter if it is right or wrong.



I accept evolution but not macro-evolution.

The point is the guy was such an atheist even though he knows that not one DNA molecule could have come in to existence on it's own still did not want to believe in that designer of that and many DNA molecules.

It just goes to show atheist will believe anything so they don't have to believe in the creator. What a tool, he can believe on one hand there is no way it happened naturally and then turn and defend abogenesis. What credibility do some scientists possess ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have no idea what the theory of abiogenesis is.
> 
> 
> 
> You can always be counted upon to apply fallacious reasoning in an attempt to advance your retarded point.  Considering the verifiable evidence already presented, there is little doubt that I have are far more accurate and intellectually honest understanding of the theory abiogenesis than you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crick was directly quoted from one of his books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since I was quoting him, and providing the citation for the quote, it's a wonder to all thoughtful human beings why you'd point this out.
> 
> Particularly since the quote directly refuted your claim that Crick said the formation of DNA molecules by chance in any kind of primeval soup is just not possible.
> 
> Noise stops being noise the instant it has meaning to us; it is then considered information. Perceptually we may make a distinction, but if "noise" becomes "information" simply by virtue of having meaning assigned to it by someone, then objectively, noise is information. It may be unwanted information; it may be uninteresting information; it may be distracting information; it may be annoying information; it may be misunderstood information; it may be contextually meaningless information; it may be information with some combination of any and/or all of these characteristics, but it is still information--and adding information to a signal is adding information to a signal.
> 
> But you don't have to take my word for it; Jimi Hendrix proved it:[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoAXW30mMAg"]VooDoo Chile[/ame]
> 
> If noise is really just unwanted signal, you can add the inverse of "noise" (which itself is "noise") to a signal, what is left over is a signal improved by having the noise cancelled out.
> 
> No it's not. You're just making that shit up. It's just another strawman you've constructed because you cannot refute actual Evolution, and you cannot tolerate the undeniable objective superiority as an explanation for the diversity of life that the Theory of Evolution objectively enjoys over your retarded superstition.
> 
> 
> It does not, you stupid, superstitious, anthropomorphizing retard.
> 
> There is no actual plan involved, there is no actual alphabet involved, and there is *NO FUCKING DESIGN!*
> --*RATIONALIZATIONS BASED ON FAULTY PREMISES SNIPPED*--​
> Neither. It is mathematically and argumentatively meaningless.
> 
> --*MORE CRAP SNIPPED*--​
> Not necessarily, and certainly not through the deliberate application of a process/methodology, or any exercise of will of intent to attain a pre-specified goal.
> 
> No. Mutation--random or otherwise--does not plan or create.
> 
> Setting aside momentarily the predictable abuse of the term "code"; Absolutely.
> 
> 
> Well, now you got it.
> 
> 
> No. It's *LIKE* a blueprint for life.
> 
> 
> No. It's *LIKE* a code; it's *LIKE* a language.
> 
> No. Words, letters, phrases, codes, etc. can have any meaning we assign to them; they are SYMBOLS. Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, and Cytosine ARE NOT symbols. We do not determine their meaning or their relevance. The manner and consequences of their interactions ARE NOT DETERMINED by any meaning or significance we assign to those interactions and/or consequences.
> 
> In this manner, DNA is NOTHING AT ALL LIKE an alphabet, language, code, plan, or blueprint.
> 
> For the last fucking time, absolutely YES!
> 
> Well no, not *ANY* code or language. If you were to apply the meaning, "cannot add information" to the term, "random mutation" when it is used in a code or language, then no.
> 
> However, the meanings you wish to apply to terms are irrelevant to the case of the relationship between random mutation, DNA, genetics, and the development of an organism.
> 
> Sure, provided you wish to honestly anthropomorphize Natural Selection such that it (and not you) assigns meaning, and it (not you) makes the judgments regarding what constitutes "garbage" and what constitutes "better and better information."
> 
> We both know that's not what you're engaged in, but rather, you wish to assert YOUR notions of meaning and meaningfulness, and assert YOUR judgments regarding what constitutes "garbage" and what constitutes "better and better information" as you apply the meaning, "cannot add information" to the term, "random mutation" when it is used in a code or language to convey information about an organism and assign judgment regarding the quality of that information.
> 
> The fact that you assign the term "noise" to a signal that is meaningless to you, or is unwanted by you; or is distracting to you, or is uninteresting to you, ... does not change the fact that what you're judging is still information. Since your judgment that "random mutation" is "noise" is not actually relevant to what "random mutation" is or its nature as information, it's pointless to go on discussing "random mutation" as if it is being applied to a process of our own design, to achieve pre-specified goals of our own choosing.
> 
> --_*SINCE THE PREMISES APPURTENANT TO CODES AND LANGUAGES DON'T EVEN APPLY ... IRRELEVANT CRAP SNIPPED*_--​
> Well, "Natural Selection" and "random selection" are not the same thing either.
> 
> Natural Selection is NOT random, so it's entirely legitimate to use another non-random selection criteria in an "un-natural" environment to illustrate the effect of Natural Selection in a natural environment.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, if the falcons could say &#8220;Let&#8217;s randomly mutate only the small part of our DNA that designs our eyeball muscles and nothing else for a few million years, and let&#8217;s just keep the ones that pass a quality control test&#8221; then it would work. But that&#8217;s not how evolution is claimed to work. Mutations (noise) are not selective about where they occur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, _*EVOLUTION*_ (through natural Selection) is selective about which mutations propagate. The effect is that in fact, "the [random mutations] that pass a quality control test" are the [random mutations] that are kept.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism: The Math Just Doesn&#8217;t Work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really, it just turns out that the crap "math" based upon the crap premises that intellectually dishonest Christian Creationists assign to the Theory of Evolution, is the math "that just doesn't work."
> 
> --*MORE CRAP SNIPPED*--​
Click to expand...


I don't find much in your posts to respond to.

But you just admitted that natural selection is a thinking process and it is not,eliminates the weak. Thank God for that or we would all die from harmful mutations since they do cause more harm then good. I ask you to prove otherwise,I know because I saw the efffects of mutations up close.

But that is just more evidence of design because without natural selection bad genes would spread through the whole population and we would all be deformed or dead. Why is this so hard for you people to grasp ?

But not just natural selection do we have eliminating bad genes but we have a mechanism that works to correct these errors.Then if that don't work nature eliminates them through natural selection. So God gave us a back up plan.

It's funny you guys think that these mechanisms only work to eliminate harmful mutations.

Mutations can and do mess with the information just like the noise on your radio or T.V. Mutations mess with the signal get it ?


----------



## FurthurBB

Montrovant said:


> YWC - first, wall of text again!
> 
> Second, you seem to have ignored the multiple people who have pointed out quotes by Crick which show his acceptance of evolutionary theory.  You hold him up as someone helping to show your view is valid, then ignore or misread when someone points out that the man does, in fact, seem to hold with the very theory you are trying to argue against.
> 
> So he's a man with an impressive background who we should listen to when you think he is making your point.  When the things he say instead oppose your point, you ignore them or pretend they say something else.  And then you complain about other people not answering your questions or responding to your points?
> 
> Even if your perspective is correct, you do such a poor job of explaining/defending it, it almost doesn't matter if it is right or wrong.



I do not know how anyone can read those walls of text.  I guess when you do not understand even high school level biology you have to depend on other people to do your thinking for you and that is why you need a wall of text, but it is ridiculous.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love real science,not secular science that denies real evidence to hold on to their secular views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you only consider religious science real?  Science that deals with the supernatural, rather than the observable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you could say that, Because real science will not go against the creator of all things.
> 
> I reject Any science that tries to explain that things came in to existence naturally.
> 
> I reject Any science that rejects design.
> 
> You may argue things are not perfect that is correct. Since the fall of man we and everything thing that exists are  experiencing entropy.
> 
> Macro-evolution has never ever been observed and you are calling me cuckoo for beliving in a being with supernatural powers to create and  because you have not observed this being? But yet you believe in something that has never been observed and is contradicted by what we do observe.
Click to expand...


Why do you keep posting this lie?  Do you think god needs you to lie for him/it/her/them?


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC - first, wall of text again!
> 
> Second, you seem to have ignored the multiple people who have pointed out quotes by Crick which show his acceptance of evolutionary theory.  You hold him up as someone helping to show your view is valid, then ignore or misread when someone points out that the man does, in fact, seem to hold with the very theory you are trying to argue against.
> 
> So he's a man with an impressive background who we should listen to when you think he is making your point.  When the things he say instead oppose your point, you ignore them or pretend they say something else.  And then you complain about other people not answering your questions or responding to your points?
> 
> Even if your perspective is correct, you do such a poor job of explaining/defending it, it almost doesn't matter if it is right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I accept evolution but not macro-evolution.
> 
> The point is the guy was such an atheist even though he knows that not one DNA molecule could have come in to existence on it's own still did not want to believe in that designer of that and many DNA molecules.
> 
> It just goes to show atheist will believe anything so they don't have to believe in the creator. What a tool, he can believe on one hand there is no way it happened naturally and then turn and defend abogenesis. What credibility do some scientists possess ?
Click to expand...


Another lie!  Do you think lying is moral if it makes people believe your nonsense?


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have no idea what the theory of abiogenesis is.
> 
> 
> 
> You can always be counted upon to apply fallacious reasoning in an attempt to advance your retarded point.  Considering the verifiable evidence already presented, there is little doubt that I have are far more accurate and intellectually honest understanding of the theory abiogenesis than you do.
> 
> Since I was quoting him, and providing the citation for the quote, it's a wonder to all thoughtful human beings why you'd point this out.
> 
> Particularly since the quote directly refuted your claim that Crick said the formation of DNA molecules by chance in any kind of primeval soup is just not possible.
> 
> Noise stops being noise the instant it has meaning to us; it is then considered information. Perceptually we may make a distinction, but if "noise" becomes "information" simply by virtue of having meaning assigned to it by someone, then objectively, noise is information. It may be unwanted information; it may be uninteresting information; it may be distracting information; it may be annoying information; it may be misunderstood information; it may be contextually meaningless information; it may be information with some combination of any and/or all of these characteristics, but it is still information--and adding information to a signal is adding information to a signal.
> 
> But you don't have to take my word for it; Jimi Hendrix proved it:[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoAXW30mMAg"]VooDoo Chile[/ame]
> 
> If noise is really just unwanted signal, you can add the inverse of "noise" (which itself is "noise") to a signal, what is left over is a signal improved by having the noise cancelled out.
> 
> No it's not. You're just making that shit up. It's just another strawman you've constructed because you cannot refute actual Evolution, and you cannot tolerate the undeniable objective superiority as an explanation for the diversity of life that the Theory of Evolution objectively enjoys over your retarded superstition.
> 
> 
> It does not, you stupid, superstitious, anthropomorphizing retard.
> 
> There is no actual plan involved, there is no actual alphabet involved, and there is *NO FUCKING DESIGN!*
> --*RATIONALIZATIONS BASED ON FAULTY PREMISES SNIPPED*--​
> Neither. It is mathematically and argumentatively meaningless.
> 
> --*MORE CRAP SNIPPED*--​
> Not necessarily, and certainly not through the deliberate application of a process/methodology, or any exercise of will of intent to attain a pre-specified goal.
> 
> No. Mutation--random or otherwise--does not plan or create.
> 
> Setting aside momentarily the predictable abuse of the term "code"; Absolutely.
> 
> 
> Well, now you got it.
> 
> 
> No. It's *LIKE* a blueprint for life.
> 
> 
> No. It's *LIKE* a code; it's *LIKE* a language.
> 
> No. Words, letters, phrases, codes, etc. can have any meaning we assign to them; they are SYMBOLS. Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, and Cytosine ARE NOT symbols. We do not determine their meaning or their relevance. The manner and consequences of their interactions ARE NOT DETERMINED by any meaning or significance we assign to those interactions and/or consequences.
> 
> In this manner, DNA is NOTHING AT ALL LIKE an alphabet, language, code, plan, or blueprint.
> 
> For the last fucking time, absolutely YES!
> 
> Well no, not *ANY* code or language. If you were to apply the meaning, "cannot add information" to the term, "random mutation" when it is used in a code or language, then no.
> 
> However, the meanings you wish to apply to terms are irrelevant to the case of the relationship between random mutation, DNA, genetics, and the development of an organism.
> 
> Sure, provided you wish to honestly anthropomorphize Natural Selection such that it (and not you) assigns meaning, and it (not you) makes the judgments regarding what constitutes "garbage" and what constitutes "better and better information."
> 
> We both know that's not what you're engaged in, but rather, you wish to assert YOUR notions of meaning and meaningfulness, and assert YOUR judgments regarding what constitutes "garbage" and what constitutes "better and better information" as you apply the meaning, "cannot add information" to the term, "random mutation" when it is used in a code or language to convey information about an organism and assign judgment regarding the quality of that information.
> 
> The fact that you assign the term "noise" to a signal that is meaningless to you, or is unwanted by you; or is distracting to you, or is uninteresting to you, ... does not change the fact that what you're judging is still information. Since your judgment that "random mutation" is "noise" is not actually relevant to what "random mutation" is or its nature as information, it's pointless to go on discussing "random mutation" as if it is being applied to a process of our own design, to achieve pre-specified goals of our own choosing.
> 
> --_*SINCE THE PREMISES APPURTENANT TO CODES AND LANGUAGES DON'T EVEN APPLY ... IRRELEVANT CRAP SNIPPED*_--​
> Well, "Natural Selection" and "random selection" are not the same thing either.
> 
> Natural Selection is NOT random, so it's entirely legitimate to use another non-random selection criteria in an "un-natural" environment to illustrate the effect of Natural Selection in a natural environment.
> 
> Yet, _*EVOLUTION*_ (through natural Selection) is selective about which mutations propagate. The effect is that in fact, "the [random mutations] that pass a quality control test" are the [random mutations] that are kept.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism: The Math Just Doesnt Work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really, it just turns out that the crap "math" based upon the crap premises that intellectually dishonest Christian Creationists assign to the Theory of Evolution, is the math "that just doesn't work."
> 
> --*MORE CRAP SNIPPED*--​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't find much in your posts to respond to.
> 
> But you just admitted that natural selection is a thinking process and it is not,eliminates the weak. Thank God for that or we would all die from harmful mutations since they do cause more harm then good. I ask you to prove otherwise,I know because I saw the efffects of mutations up close.
> 
> But that is just more evidence of design because without natural selection bad genes would spread through the whole population and we would all be deformed or dead. Why is this so hard for you people to grasp ?
> 
> But not just natural selection do we have eliminating bad genes but we have a mechanism that works to correct these errors.Then if that don't work nature eliminates them through natural selection. So God gave us a back up plan.
> 
> It's funny you guys think that these mechanisms only work to eliminate harmful mutations.
> 
> Mutations can and do mess with the information just like the noise on your radio or T.V. Mutations mess with the signal get it ?
Click to expand...


Are you one of those people who lie every time you open your mouth even if it is against your best interest?  Maybe it is pathological and you believe your lies.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> I don't find much in your posts to respond to.


_*TRANSLATION:*_


Youwerecreated said:


> I don't find much in your posts I can refute with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence, so I'll just make some shit up.





Youwerecreated said:


> But you just admitted that natural selection is a thinking process and it is not,eliminates the weak. Thank God for that or we would all die from harmful mutations since they do cause more harm then good. I ask you to prove otherwise,I know because I saw the efffects of mutations up close.


I made no such admission.



Youwerecreated said:


> But that is just more evidence of design ...


Your refutation of this imaginary admission you assigned to me is no evidence of "design" what-so-ever.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... because without natural selection bad genes would spread through the whole population and we would all be deformed or dead. Why is this so hard for you people to grasp ?


No one you're arguing with has any problem with grasping the mechanism of "Natural Selection."



Youwerecreated said:


> But not just natural selection do we have eliminating bad genes but we have a mechanism that works to correct these errors.Then if that don't work nature eliminates them through natural selection. So God gave us a back up plan.
> 
> It's funny you guys think that these mechanisms only work to eliminate harmful mutations.


Except no one here is saying that these mechanisms only work to eliminate harmful mutations..

Why am I not surprised that you persist with such dishonesty?



Youwerecreated said:


> Mutations can and do mess with the information just like the noise on your radio or T.V. Mutations mess with the signal get it ?


No one here fails to understand that mutations can and do alter genetic information.

Why do you suggest otherwise? Why am I not surprised that you persist with such dishonesty?


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love real science,not secular science that denies real evidence to hold on to their secular views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you only consider religious science real?  Science that deals with the supernatural, rather than the observable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you could say that, Because real science will not go against the creator of all things.
> 
> I reject Any science that tries to explain that things came in to existence naturally.
> 
> I reject Any science that rejects design.
> 
> You may argue things are not perfect that is correct. Since the fall of man we and everything thing that exists are  experiencing entropy.
> 
> Macro-evolution has never ever been observed and you are calling me cuckoo for beliving in a being with supernatural powers to create and  because you have not observed this being? But yet you believe in something that has never been observed and is contradicted by what we do observe.
Click to expand...


Science is about trying to explain the natural, observable world.  The cuckoo is for your apparent desire to mix the supernatural and science.  It is not that you believe in the supernatural, it is that you pretend the supernatural is explained through science.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you have no answers to the questions asked nor a response for the actual scientists that disagree with your so called valid logic and evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is laughable. You are literally denying that I answered your questions as you blockquote the very answers you deny exist.
> 
> What a douche.
> 
> Right. Superstitiously anthropomorphizing retards might embrace a theory where a "cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today", and you have certainly been laying that bullshit strawman at the feet of those who embrace the Theory of Evolution as if *they* assert a belief that a "cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today," but no real, valid scientist actually "accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today."
> 
> More importantly, no real scientist--no rational person with integrity of intellectual honesty--accepts your intellectually dishonest Christian Creationist misrepresentations of Evolution proponents and the Theory of Evolution, to say they assert that a cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today.
> 
> I don't accept your misrepresentations as valid or your gifts as genuine; I don't need any favors from the likes of you.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you are misrepresenting Francis Crick's actual belief, ... but even if you aren't, *SO WHAT?* Francis Crick still accepted the validity of the Theory of Evolution:​And he found very little validity in the alternative you present:​​It looks like he didn't express that he thought it was "just not possible," and it also looks like you're still full of shit.
> 
> How about that?
> 
> It seems his actual answer was that his position "... should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that [life] could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."
> 
> Not at all surprising. I have pointed this out to you before, and i will point it out to you once again, without any fear that you will refuse to understand what is being explained to you.
> 
> Scientists--real scientists, practicing actual valid science--allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything they observe; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion. However, there is no ontological barrier that would prevent a real scientist--practicing actual valid science--from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything he observes if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
> 
> Christian Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of theirs, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusions. Christian Creationists have imposed upon themselves an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support their conclusions. Christian Creationists have sanctimoniously, without basis in any valid reasoning, for the purposes of promoting the illusion of their intellectual/spiritual/moral superiority, imposed upon themselves an ontological barrier preventing them from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything they observe; especially if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
> 
> The reason Christian Creationists look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions is that Christian Creationists are intentionally intellectually dishonest superstitious retards.
> 
> *SO WHAT?*
> 
> Yes. *SO WHAT?*
> 
> Yes, again. Again, *SO FUCKING WHAT?*.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.
> 
> Now catch up with the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No rational person could accept the strawman version of Evolution you present. Certainly, rational scientists with integrity of intellectual honesty most certainly reject disingenuous misrepresentations of the Theory of Evolution offered by intellectually dishonest Christian Creationists when they misrepresent rational scientists as rejecting the actual valid Theory of Evolution.
> 
> Actual, rational scientists (like Crick and Shannon) most likely find the actual valid theory of Evolution taught and/or presented by rational folks with integrity of intellectual honesty to be easily and substantially acceptable on intellectually valid grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you have no idea what the theory of abiogenesis is.
> 
> Crick was directly quoted from one of his books.
> 
> Prove adding noise to a signal adds information to a signal.
> 
> Prove adding noise to a signal can improve the signal .
> 
> 
> Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design
> 
> That is the math of evolution. Whether were considering the evolution of falcons or any other organism, the changes over time have to come from changes in the DNA. The entire plan for a falcon is contained in its DNA, a molecule with a 4-letter alphabet. A strand of DNA can have anywhere from 500 thousand letters (in the case of the smallest known parasite) to 3 billion letters (man and large animals).
> 
> Darwinism says that Random Mutation (copying errors in the DNA alphabet) produce modified falcons, and that natural selection (survival of the fittest as inferior falcons die out and superior falcons dominate) weeds out the losers. What remains is new innovations in falcon design.
> 
> Thats what Darwinism says. Its elegantly simple. Almost intuitively obvious.
> 
> Can it be verified?
> 
> No, and yes.
> 
> One of the difficulties with Darwinism is that it evidently takes millions of years and many billions of falcons to produce significant change over time. This makes it very hard to empirically prove Darwinism in the short lifetime of a human being. Practically speaking, Darwinism doesnt even provide us with very many testable hypotheses. Thus the vast majority of the evidence for evolution is anecdotal.
> 
> Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence based on personal experience that has not been empirically tested, and which is often used in an argument as if it had been scientifically or statistically proven. The person using anecdotal evidence may or may not be aware of the fact that, by doing so, they are generalizing. (From Wikipedia) An example of anecdotal evidence would be My grandma smoked and drank whiskey every day and she lived to be 95, so cigarettes and whiskey are good for you. Not all anecdotal evidence is misleading, of course, but its not proof.
> 
> But with Darwin, the principle itself should be easy enough to demonstrate. I know as an engineer with a strong math background that in principle it should be easy enough to statistically answer the question:
> 
> Is the formula
> 
> Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design
> 
> Mathematically true, or false?
> 
> Hey, if were going to get answers to these questions, we have to ask questions that actually have a possibility of being answered in the first place. Most arguments for and against evolution are argued at an intuitive level, with only anecdotal evidence. The way most questions are asked in the origins debate, they are unanswerable. The question as I posed it is much, much simpler and can certainly be verified.
> 
> Is Natural Selection Valid?
> 
> I shouldnt have to spend much time defending the idea that Natural Selection is a perfectly valid concept that we see proven all the time. We all know and observe every day that winners win and losers lose. We know that babies with severe birth defects often do not survive, much less thrive. We know that Natural Selection weeds out losers. Natural Selection works.
> 
> The real question is, does Random Mutation produce winners? Does it create plans for new muscles in the eye of the falcon? Does it add information to the code of DNA? Thats the question I set out to answer.
> 
> Like I said, DNA is a blueprint for life. Its a code and a language. It has an alphabet (A = Adenine, G = Guanine, T = Thymine, C = Cytosine) and that alphabet spells out the instructions for everything. So the question is:
> 
> Can Random Mutation add information to DNA?
> 
> I decided the best way to answer this question is to make it more general: Can random mutation add information to any code or language? Can it make it more meaningful, such that Natural Selection will weed out the garbage and leave us with better and better information?
> 
> My reasoning was this: Even if Darwinism couldnt be empirically proven in the lab (since we dont have millions of years available to conduct an experiment), we should still be able to investigate some other part of the world where languages and codes are used.
> 
> We should be able to experimentally determine if Random Mutations add information. This could come from any number of fields  linguistics, digital signal processing, computer networking, computer aided design, language translation.
> 
> Information Theory Sheds Light on this: 1948
> 
> The questions Im asking here are answered in a field known as Information theory which really began with a paper written by Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon in 1948. His paper was called The Mathematical Theory of Communication and its one of the most important papers ever published in the history of Electrical Engineering and electronic communication. Shannons paper literally gave birth to the digital age we now live in  not because Shannon invented digital communication, but because he defined what it was capable of.
> 
> Claude Shannons paper tells you how much hi-fidelity music you can put on a CD (74 minutes), or how much data you can squeeze through a 56K computer modem (not much). It tells you how much information you can successfully transmit, given a certain amount of noise and a certain speed of sending your data. It discusses error correction schemes and even defines something called Information entropy which is the degradation that happens when you add noise to a signal.
> 
> Shannons book is not for the layman, but certain parts of it are understandable by anyone and it deals with things that most people are at least somewhat familiar with. He defines various layers of information  which in laymans terms would be things like alphabet, spelling, grammar and meaning  and how the upper layers are built on top of the lower layers, and how we can use this knowledge to detect and correct errors.
> 
> And in my research into the origins question, I quickly discovered that everything Claude Shannon discusses in his paper applies to DNA. (I have not encountered any geneticist or bio-informatics researcher who disagrees with this.)
> 
> DNA is a molecule, a data storage medium and digital communication protocol all rolled into one. It has a certain amount of memory. Your own DNA, in every cell of your body, contains about the same amount of information as a compact disc.
> 
> But heres where things get interesting: In Claude Shannons world, Random Mutation in DNA is exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.
> 
> This really struck a chord with me because I already knew a great deal about digital communication systems. I spent six years of my life selling exotic networking equipment to factory engineers, Ive published dozens and dozens of magazine articles about communication networks, and In 2002 I published the book Industrial Ethernet. Now in its 2nd edition, this book explains the operation of Ethernet networks, TCP/IP protocol (the language that runs the Internet), and various networking languages that are used in modern equipment installations.
> 
> The world of electronic communication is a world of languages and codes. Every different kind of file on your computer  a Microsoft WORD document, an Excel spreadsheet, a web page in HTML, a JPG or GIF image  the difference between all these things is the language theyre written in. Microsoft WORD isnt just a brand, its a language thats been defined by Microsoft, for writing and storing documents. Same with everything else on the list  its a language thats been defined by someone for a specific purpose.
> 
> So another way of asking the question is this:
> 
> Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?
> 
> I searched and I searched and I searched.
> 
> And the answer to that question, oddly, is a qualified no.
> 
> There is no instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of modern communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality. There is no example where noise increases the information in a signal.
> 
> None.
> 
> But remember, I said the answer is a qualified no. The answer is still yes, sometimes.
> 
> Let me explain.
> 
> Lets take the sentence
> 
> The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
> 
> I could randomly mutate this sentence, and if I got really lucky, the sentence could become
> 
> The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
> 
> (I added a period.)
> 
> The period did add information to the sentence; it corrected a grammatical mistake.
> 
> Now this sentence is 45 characters long. With the possibility of 26 lower case letters, 26 upper case letters, spaces and periods (excluding numbers and any other characters), there are 54 possible characters.
> 
> So how many combinations of letters are possible in this sentence? A probability textbook tells us that there are 4554 possible combinations. If you punch that into your scientific calculator, you get 1.9 x 1089 possibilities. (In other words, a very big number with ninety (!) zeros. Bigger than any number anyone ever uses in everyday life.)
> 
> Which is to say that there is one chance in 1.9 x 1089  one chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion or so  that a single random mutation could correct the grammar of this short sentence.
> 
> So yes, random mutation (noise) can add some information to a signal. Parts per trillion trillion trillion
> 
> That is the qualification.
> 
> Obviously it is a very small qualification  so small as to be thoroughly trivial.
> 
> I thought this was way too simple.
> 
> I said to myself, Geez, is the answer to the whole evolution question that cut-and-dried? Falcons cant evolve because DNA mutations can only destroy information, not increase it? That seems too easy, too obvious.
> 
> I spent several months hunting for answers all over the place, scouring more books and the Internet, looking for discussion on this topic. Surely there must be more to this question.
> 
> Claude Shannon does address it in his book. Not DNA specifically, but noise in general. Shannon says noise causes entropy. In physics, entropy is the process of useful energy becoming useless. Entropy is what happens when a candle burns down to nothing and you cant light it anymore.
> 
> One of Shannons contributions to science was showing that the math equations for information entropy are exactly the same as for heat entropy. And in both cases, entropy is an irreversible process. In other words, once you add noise to a signal, it is permanently corrupted and cannot be recovered, much less improved.
> 
> Noise always degrades a signal. Always.
> 
> No exceptions.
> 
> Anybody whos spent much time recording music knows what I mean. Cassette tapes are going out of vogue, but back in the day we used to record our CDs onto cassettes so we could listen on our Walkman or in our car. Cassettes always add noise (tape hiss) to the music.
> 
> Companies like Dolby and DBX devised ingenious methods of noise reduction  Dolby B, Dolby C and so on  to combat this problem. They were fairly effective, but never perfect. Actually the way noise reduction works is this: The signal is boosted and equalized before its put on tape, then its equalized the opposite way and cut back to its original volume when you play it back. All it does is lessen the effects of the tape hiss; it doesnt actually take it away.
> 
> And again, once the noise is there, it is absolutely impossible to get it back out.
> 
> And Ive never met any engineer who ever said the signal could be better after you added noise to it. The only exception to this is something called dither which does add noise to the signal before its recorded, but that is done to neutralize distortions in the recording equipment. Its dither in digital recording, and bias in analog recording. But it does not increase the information; it degrades the signal, albeit in a useful way.
> 
> So Im hunting for a flaw in this theory. Can anyone show that noise increases the useful information in a signal?
> 
> Now I am far from the first person to discover or discuss this, and I did find people debating this topic. I found some interesting misconceptions.
> 
> For example, Claude Shannon discusses how the addition of noise increases the information in a signal. But you have to be very careful to understand what he means when he says this.
> 
> Lets say you take your favorite CD and record it onto a cassette tape. Now you have added some noise to your favorite music. You can hear the tape hiss when you play it.
> 
> Well lets say you get a CD burner and you play the tape back and copy the taped version back to a new CD. Now you have a CD of a tape of a CD. A copy of a copy, with tape hiss thrown in.
> 
> Well the new CD does actually have more information than the old one. It has not only the music, but the tape hiss too. Instead of silence between the songs, youve added tape hiss. Of course the CD player doesnt care what it is, it just plays it. From the CD players point of view (CD players being totally dumb objects), yes, there is more information to send to the speakers.
> 
> But from a human point of view, there is obviously less useful information. The useful information has been compromised. Fine details you used to be able to hear are covered up by the tape hiss, never to be recovered.
> 
> All arguments you may find that cite Claude Shannon in saying that noise increases information are really saying that the tape hiss is an increase in information. Well obviously its an increase in useless information  at the expense of the useful information.
> 
> So What is Darwinism Really Saying?
> 
> If we go back to the falcon question, what Darwinian theory is saying is this:
> 
> Noise gets added to the signal in the DNA of billions of falcons.
> 
> Most of the time, it produces harmful mutations.
> 
> Some of the time, it adds useful information.
> 
> Natural selection weeds out the harmful mutations and only the useful ones are left.
> 
> The useful mutations make the new falcons more fit to survive.
> 
> They proliferate and then more mutations make their progeny better adapted, more competitive, with enhanced features and ability to survive.
> 
> And the evolutionary dance continues.
> 
> Sounds pretty plausible, right? I certainly thought it did.
> 
> But lets use an analogy of something more familiar: Those cassette tapes.
> 
> You have a CD, and you make billions of cassette tape copies of it. Each copy is slightly different, because each one has different microscopic bits of tape hiss.
> 
> Most of the time the tape hiss is bad, but sometimes it is good.
> 
> People buy the good copies and return the bad ones to the music store, so only the good ones survive.
> 
> Billions more copies are made of the good ones, and the process repeats. Every few thousand generations of tapes and tape hiss, a new musical feature is added, so primitive tribal music evolves into modern jazz fusion.
> 
> Do you buy that?
> 
> I dont.
> 
> We could make a very similar analogy with photocopies. Weve all seen documents that were a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. They look horrible. After enough generations, they become unreadable. A copy of a copy of a copy of instructions on how to get to my house never evolve into a superior plan for getting to my house.
> 
> Information is only destroyed by noise, never enhanced by it. (Devolution, not evolution.)
> 
> So if noise is bad for music and photocopies and FM radio, how can it be good for falcon DNA?
> 
> DNA, Computers, Human Language Have Error Correction Built-In
> 
> Youd be interested to know that virtually all communication systems, including DNA, have error correction mechanisms built in. The English language is about 50% redundant  if half the words and letters are missing, you can still read it and figure out what is being said. Ethernet and TCP/IP have sophisticated error detection / correction mechanisms. If youre downloading a file and some of the bits get corrupted, your computer detects that and tells the other computer on the Internet to re-send those bits. And DNA has sophisticated error correction mechanisms, too. Errors are always bad, never good. DNA is designed to detect mutations and correct them.
> 
> I Start Presenting This Challenge to Darwinists
> 
> There are still a whole bunch of questions we havent really discussed yet, but this in itself gets down to the bottom of what Darwinian evolution claims to be true. So has any advocate of Darwinian evolution ever proven that random mutation can increase information? I wanted to find out.
> 
> So in addition to extensive searching and reading, I started having email exchanges with proponents of Darwinism. I would say Show me an example where random mutation actually increases information and they would try. And Boy, would they ever try!
> 
> The conversation would go something like this:
> 
> They would say, Richard Dawkins shows how evolution works in his methinks it is like a weasel evolutionary computer program. (Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, shows how a random letter generator can evolve a complete sentence, if the computer program rejects erroneous letters and accepts correct ones, and it only takes 30-40 steps to do so.)
> 
> Id say But the desired result is pre-programmed into the experiment in the first place. All he has demonstrated is that his computer works properly, thats all.
> 
> So the conversation would turn to all sorts of other Genetic Programs which is an entire category of software where random mutations generate variations which are then selected according to certain criteria and improvements are observed. Fascinating stuff.
> 
> But thats not the Darwinian math formula. Remember, the Darwinian formula is
> 
> Random mutation + natural selection + time = Design
> 
> But genetic programs work on this formula:
> 
> Random mutation + deliberate selection + time = Design
> 
> Deliberate selection and natural selection are not the same thing. Look, if the falcons could say Lets randomly mutate only the small part of our DNA that designs our eyeball muscles and nothing else for a few million years, and lets just keep the ones that pass a quality control test then it would work. But thats not how evolution is claimed to work. Mutations (noise) are not selective about where they occur.
> 
> Darwinism: The Math Just Doesnt Work
> 
> In these debates we would go back and forth about this, and sometimes the conversations would get quite emotional as the person I was talking too kept hitting dead ends in their argument.
> 
> Sometimes theyd finally sigh and say Just because we havent discovered the answer to this question doesnt mean we wont someday.
> 
> My reply would be Yes, thats absolutely right, nobody can predict what science may discover tomorrow. But for right now I cant see how the fundamental premise of Darwinian evolution can even be said to be scientific, because the math simply does not work.
> 
> Most of the time Id eventually get silence. Much as we tried to make these conversations factual and friendly (they were rarely hostile), eventually the person would just stop replying to my emails. They were stumped.
> 
> Dawkins Cant Answer It, Either
> 
> Its interesting to note that the fanatical atheist Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous living proponent of Evolutionary theory, has never answered this question either  in fact he has studiously avoided it. Theres an article - The Problem of Information - where this question was posed to Dawkins, and even though six years have gone by, he never answers it. The answer he does give is a smoke-and-mirrors example at best.
> 
> There is a lot of material on this particular web page and there is a great deal of discussion about it. I did a bunch of backwards searching on Google to find every last reference to this article on the entire Internet, and nobody has successfully answered the question that it raises: Can you produce an example of a mutation or evolutionary process that led to an increase in information?
> 
> Many do claim to have answered it with genetic programs and the like, but if you examine their experiments carefully, you will see that none of these programs are actually examples of true Darwinian evolution. All of them without exception (including the much ballyhooed Avida softare program) use un-random mutation or un-natural selection in some way. Genetic programs are extremely useful, instructive, well worth studying. But all are examples of intelligent design, not evolution
> 
> Darwin: Brilliantly Half-Right; Tragically Half-Wrong
Click to expand...

another invalid source.
and wall of text!


----------



## daws101

FurthurBB said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC - first, wall of text again!
> 
> Second, you seem to have ignored the multiple people who have pointed out quotes by Crick which show his acceptance of evolutionary theory.  You hold him up as someone helping to show your view is valid, then ignore or misread when someone points out that the man does, in fact, seem to hold with the very theory you are trying to argue against.
> 
> So he's a man with an impressive background who we should listen to when you think he is making your point.  When the things he say instead oppose your point, you ignore them or pretend they say something else.  And then you complain about other people not answering your questions or responding to your points?
> 
> Even if your perspective is correct, you do such a poor job of explaining/defending it, it almost doesn't matter if it is right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know how anyone can read those walls of text.  I guess when you do not understand even high school level biology you have to depend on other people to do your thinking for you and that is why you need a wall of text, but it is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

 well said! 
to me the massive amount of crap ywc posts just proves the saying: "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you only consider religious science real?  Science that deals with the supernatural, rather than the observable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you could say that, Because real science will not go against the creator of all things.
> 
> I reject Any science that tries to explain that things came in to existence naturally.
> 
> I reject Any science that rejects design.
> 
> You may argue things are not perfect that is correct. Since the fall of man we and everything thing that exists are  experiencing entropy.
> 
> Macro-evolution has never ever been observed and you are calling me cuckoo for beliving in a being with supernatural powers to create and  because you have not observed this being? But yet you believe in something that has never been observed and is contradicted by what we do observe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep posting this lie?  Do you think god needs you to lie for him/it/her/them?
Click to expand...


How is it a lie ? if man thinks he knows how God did it there would be no discussion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC - first, wall of text again!
> 
> Second, you seem to have ignored the multiple people who have pointed out quotes by Crick which show his acceptance of evolutionary theory.  You hold him up as someone helping to show your view is valid, then ignore or misread when someone points out that the man does, in fact, seem to hold with the very theory you are trying to argue against.
> 
> So he's a man with an impressive background who we should listen to when you think he is making your point.  When the things he say instead oppose your point, you ignore them or pretend they say something else.  And then you complain about other people not answering your questions or responding to your points?
> 
> Even if your perspective is correct, you do such a poor job of explaining/defending it, it almost doesn't matter if it is right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I accept evolution but not macro-evolution.
> 
> The point is the guy was such an atheist even though he knows that not one DNA molecule could have come in to existence on it's own still did not want to believe in that designer of that and many DNA molecules.
> 
> It just goes to show atheist will believe anything so they don't have to believe in the creator. What a tool, he can believe on one hand there is no way it happened naturally and then turn and defend abogenesis. What credibility do some scientists possess ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie!  Do you think lying is moral if it makes people believe your nonsense?
Click to expand...


If he says the probability of a DNA  molecule being formed in a natural means is pretty much impossible then defend abiogenesis that is a contradiction.

So you think because someone because someone has a different view then you have is a liar ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can always be counted upon to apply fallacious reasoning in an attempt to advance your retarded point.  Considering the verifiable evidence already presented, there is little doubt that I have are far more accurate and intellectually honest understanding of the theory abiogenesis than you do.
> 
> Since I was quoting him, and providing the citation for the quote, it's a wonder to all thoughtful human beings why you'd point this out.
> 
> Particularly since the quote directly refuted your claim that Crick said the formation of DNA molecules by chance in any kind of primeval soup is just not possible.
> 
> Noise stops being noise the instant it has meaning to us; it is then considered information. Perceptually we may make a distinction, but if "noise" becomes "information" simply by virtue of having meaning assigned to it by someone, then objectively, noise is information. It may be unwanted information; it may be uninteresting information; it may be distracting information; it may be annoying information; it may be misunderstood information; it may be contextually meaningless information; it may be information with some combination of any and/or all of these characteristics, but it is still information--and adding information to a signal is adding information to a signal.
> 
> But you don't have to take my word for it; Jimi Hendrix proved it:VooDoo Chile
> 
> If noise is really just unwanted signal, you can add the inverse of "noise" (which itself is "noise") to a signal, what is left over is a signal improved by having the noise cancelled out.
> 
> No it's not. You're just making that shit up. It's just another strawman you've constructed because you cannot refute actual Evolution, and you cannot tolerate the undeniable objective superiority as an explanation for the diversity of life that the Theory of Evolution objectively enjoys over your retarded superstition.
> 
> 
> It does not, you stupid, superstitious, anthropomorphizing retard.
> 
> There is no actual plan involved, there is no actual alphabet involved, and there is *NO FUCKING DESIGN!*
> --*RATIONALIZATIONS BASED ON FAULTY PREMISES SNIPPED*--​
> Neither. It is mathematically and argumentatively meaningless.
> 
> --*MORE CRAP SNIPPED*--​
> Not necessarily, and certainly not through the deliberate application of a process/methodology, or any exercise of will of intent to attain a pre-specified goal.
> 
> No. Mutation--random or otherwise--does not plan or create.
> 
> Setting aside momentarily the predictable abuse of the term "code"; Absolutely.
> 
> 
> Well, now you got it.
> 
> 
> No. It's *LIKE* a blueprint for life.
> 
> 
> No. It's *LIKE* a code; it's *LIKE* a language.
> 
> No. Words, letters, phrases, codes, etc. can have any meaning we assign to them; they are SYMBOLS. Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, and Cytosine ARE NOT symbols. We do not determine their meaning or their relevance. The manner and consequences of their interactions ARE NOT DETERMINED by any meaning or significance we assign to those interactions and/or consequences.
> 
> In this manner, DNA is NOTHING AT ALL LIKE an alphabet, language, code, plan, or blueprint.
> 
> For the last fucking time, absolutely YES!
> 
> Well no, not *ANY* code or language. If you were to apply the meaning, "cannot add information" to the term, "random mutation" when it is used in a code or language, then no.
> 
> However, the meanings you wish to apply to terms are irrelevant to the case of the relationship between random mutation, DNA, genetics, and the development of an organism.
> 
> Sure, provided you wish to honestly anthropomorphize Natural Selection such that it (and not you) assigns meaning, and it (not you) makes the judgments regarding what constitutes "garbage" and what constitutes "better and better information."
> 
> We both know that's not what you're engaged in, but rather, you wish to assert YOUR notions of meaning and meaningfulness, and assert YOUR judgments regarding what constitutes "garbage" and what constitutes "better and better information" as you apply the meaning, "cannot add information" to the term, "random mutation" when it is used in a code or language to convey information about an organism and assign judgment regarding the quality of that information.
> 
> The fact that you assign the term "noise" to a signal that is meaningless to you, or is unwanted by you; or is distracting to you, or is uninteresting to you, ... does not change the fact that what you're judging is still information. Since your judgment that "random mutation" is "noise" is not actually relevant to what "random mutation" is or its nature as information, it's pointless to go on discussing "random mutation" as if it is being applied to a process of our own design, to achieve pre-specified goals of our own choosing.
> 
> --_*SINCE THE PREMISES APPURTENANT TO CODES AND LANGUAGES DON'T EVEN APPLY ... IRRELEVANT CRAP SNIPPED*_--​
> Well, "Natural Selection" and "random selection" are not the same thing either.
> 
> Natural Selection is NOT random, so it's entirely legitimate to use another non-random selection criteria in an "un-natural" environment to illustrate the effect of Natural Selection in a natural environment.
> 
> Yet, _*EVOLUTION*_ (through natural Selection) is selective about which mutations propagate. The effect is that in fact, "the [random mutations] that pass a quality control test" are the [random mutations] that are kept.
> 
> Really, it just turns out that the crap "math" based upon the crap premises that intellectually dishonest Christian Creationists assign to the Theory of Evolution, is the math "that just doesn't work."
> 
> --*MORE CRAP SNIPPED*--​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find much in your posts to respond to.
> 
> But you just admitted that natural selection is a thinking process and it is not,eliminates the weak. Thank God for that or we would all die from harmful mutations since they do cause more harm then good. I ask you to prove otherwise,I know because I saw the efffects of mutations up close.
> 
> But that is just more evidence of design because without natural selection bad genes would spread through the whole population and we would all be deformed or dead. Why is this so hard for you people to grasp ?
> 
> But not just natural selection do we have eliminating bad genes but we have a mechanism that works to correct these errors.Then if that don't work nature eliminates them through natural selection. So God gave us a back up plan.
> 
> It's funny you guys think that these mechanisms only work to eliminate harmful mutations.
> 
> Mutations can and do mess with the information just like the noise on your radio or T.V. Mutations mess with the signal get it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you one of those people who lie every time you open your mouth even if it is against your best interest?  Maybe it is pathological and you believe your lies.
Click to expand...


I don't lie,I give my opinions. Must you continue to try and insult me with your posts ?

Doesn't it make you look like a small person ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you only consider religious science real?  Science that deals with the supernatural, rather than the observable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you could say that, Because real science will not go against the creator of all things.
> 
> I reject Any science that tries to explain that things came in to existence naturally.
> 
> I reject Any science that rejects design.
> 
> You may argue things are not perfect that is correct. Since the fall of man we and everything thing that exists are  experiencing entropy.
> 
> Macro-evolution has never ever been observed and you are calling me cuckoo for beliving in a being with supernatural powers to create and  because you have not observed this being? But yet you believe in something that has never been observed and is contradicted by what we do observe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is about trying to explain the natural, observable world.  The cuckoo is for your apparent desire to mix the supernatural and science.  It is not that you believe in the supernatural, it is that you pretend the supernatural is explained through science.
Click to expand...


If God exists which I have no doubt he does,was supernatural powers used to create ? If supernatural forces were used to create how do you think science could ever come up with accurate explanations of the evidence when they rule out supernatural forces being behind the design we see ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is laughable. You are literally denying that I answered your questions as you blockquote the very answers you deny exist.
> 
> What a douche.
> 
> Right. Superstitiously anthropomorphizing retards might embrace a theory where a "cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today", and you have certainly been laying that bullshit strawman at the feet of those who embrace the Theory of Evolution as if *they* assert a belief that a "cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today," but no real, valid scientist actually "accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today."
> 
> More importantly, no real scientist--no rational person with integrity of intellectual honesty--accepts your intellectually dishonest Christian Creationist misrepresentations of Evolution proponents and the Theory of Evolution, to say they assert that a cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today.
> 
> I don't accept your misrepresentations as valid or your gifts as genuine; I don't need any favors from the likes of you.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you are misrepresenting Francis Crick's actual belief, ... but even if you aren't, *SO WHAT?* Francis Crick still accepted the validity of the Theory of Evolution:​And he found very little validity in the alternative you present:​​It looks like he didn't express that he thought it was "just not possible," and it also looks like you're still full of shit.
> 
> How about that?
> 
> It seems his actual answer was that his position "... should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that [life] could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."
> 
> Not at all surprising. I have pointed this out to you before, and i will point it out to you once again, without any fear that you will refuse to understand what is being explained to you.
> 
> Scientists--real scientists, practicing actual valid science--allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything they observe; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion. However, there is no ontological barrier that would prevent a real scientist--practicing actual valid science--from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything he observes if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
> 
> Christian Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of theirs, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusions. Christian Creationists have imposed upon themselves an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support their conclusions. Christian Creationists have sanctimoniously, without basis in any valid reasoning, for the purposes of promoting the illusion of their intellectual/spiritual/moral superiority, imposed upon themselves an ontological barrier preventing them from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything they observe; especially if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
> 
> The reason Christian Creationists look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions is that Christian Creationists are intentionally intellectually dishonest superstitious retards.
> 
> *SO WHAT?*
> 
> Yes. *SO WHAT?*
> 
> Yes, again. Again, *SO FUCKING WHAT?*.
> 
> No rational person could accept the strawman version of Evolution you present. Certainly, rational scientists with integrity of intellectual honesty most certainly reject disingenuous misrepresentations of the Theory of Evolution offered by intellectually dishonest Christian Creationists when they misrepresent rational scientists as rejecting the actual valid Theory of Evolution.
> 
> Actual, rational scientists (like Crick and Shannon) most likely find the actual valid theory of Evolution taught and/or presented by rational folks with integrity of intellectual honesty to be easily and substantially acceptable on intellectually valid grounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have no idea what the theory of abiogenesis is.
> 
> Crick was directly quoted from one of his books.
> 
> Prove adding noise to a signal adds information to a signal.
> 
> Prove adding noise to a signal can improve the signal .
> 
> 
> Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design
> 
> That is the math of evolution. Whether were considering the evolution of falcons or any other organism, the changes over time have to come from changes in the DNA. The entire plan for a falcon is contained in its DNA, a molecule with a 4-letter alphabet. A strand of DNA can have anywhere from 500 thousand letters (in the case of the smallest known parasite) to 3 billion letters (man and large animals).
> 
> Darwinism says that Random Mutation (copying errors in the DNA alphabet) produce modified falcons, and that natural selection (survival of the fittest as inferior falcons die out and superior falcons dominate) weeds out the losers. What remains is new innovations in falcon design.
> 
> Thats what Darwinism says. Its elegantly simple. Almost intuitively obvious.
> 
> Can it be verified?
> 
> No, and yes.
> 
> One of the difficulties with Darwinism is that it evidently takes millions of years and many billions of falcons to produce significant change over time. This makes it very hard to empirically prove Darwinism in the short lifetime of a human being. Practically speaking, Darwinism doesnt even provide us with very many testable hypotheses. Thus the vast majority of the evidence for evolution is anecdotal.
> 
> Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence based on personal experience that has not been empirically tested, and which is often used in an argument as if it had been scientifically or statistically proven. The person using anecdotal evidence may or may not be aware of the fact that, by doing so, they are generalizing. (From Wikipedia) An example of anecdotal evidence would be My grandma smoked and drank whiskey every day and she lived to be 95, so cigarettes and whiskey are good for you. Not all anecdotal evidence is misleading, of course, but its not proof.
> 
> But with Darwin, the principle itself should be easy enough to demonstrate. I know as an engineer with a strong math background that in principle it should be easy enough to statistically answer the question:
> 
> Is the formula
> 
> Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design
> 
> Mathematically true, or false?
> 
> Hey, if were going to get answers to these questions, we have to ask questions that actually have a possibility of being answered in the first place. Most arguments for and against evolution are argued at an intuitive level, with only anecdotal evidence. The way most questions are asked in the origins debate, they are unanswerable. The question as I posed it is much, much simpler and can certainly be verified.
> 
> Is Natural Selection Valid?
> 
> I shouldnt have to spend much time defending the idea that Natural Selection is a perfectly valid concept that we see proven all the time. We all know and observe every day that winners win and losers lose. We know that babies with severe birth defects often do not survive, much less thrive. We know that Natural Selection weeds out losers. Natural Selection works.
> 
> The real question is, does Random Mutation produce winners? Does it create plans for new muscles in the eye of the falcon? Does it add information to the code of DNA? Thats the question I set out to answer.
> 
> Like I said, DNA is a blueprint for life. Its a code and a language. It has an alphabet (A = Adenine, G = Guanine, T = Thymine, C = Cytosine) and that alphabet spells out the instructions for everything. So the question is:
> 
> Can Random Mutation add information to DNA?
> 
> I decided the best way to answer this question is to make it more general: Can random mutation add information to any code or language? Can it make it more meaningful, such that Natural Selection will weed out the garbage and leave us with better and better information?
> 
> My reasoning was this: Even if Darwinism couldnt be empirically proven in the lab (since we dont have millions of years available to conduct an experiment), we should still be able to investigate some other part of the world where languages and codes are used.
> 
> We should be able to experimentally determine if Random Mutations add information. This could come from any number of fields  linguistics, digital signal processing, computer networking, computer aided design, language translation.
> 
> Information Theory Sheds Light on this: 1948
> 
> The questions Im asking here are answered in a field known as Information theory which really began with a paper written by Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon in 1948. His paper was called The Mathematical Theory of Communication and its one of the most important papers ever published in the history of Electrical Engineering and electronic communication. Shannons paper literally gave birth to the digital age we now live in  not because Shannon invented digital communication, but because he defined what it was capable of.
> 
> Claude Shannons paper tells you how much hi-fidelity music you can put on a CD (74 minutes), or how much data you can squeeze through a 56K computer modem (not much). It tells you how much information you can successfully transmit, given a certain amount of noise and a certain speed of sending your data. It discusses error correction schemes and even defines something called Information entropy which is the degradation that happens when you add noise to a signal.
> 
> Shannons book is not for the layman, but certain parts of it are understandable by anyone and it deals with things that most people are at least somewhat familiar with. He defines various layers of information  which in laymans terms would be things like alphabet, spelling, grammar and meaning  and how the upper layers are built on top of the lower layers, and how we can use this knowledge to detect and correct errors.
> 
> And in my research into the origins question, I quickly discovered that everything Claude Shannon discusses in his paper applies to DNA. (I have not encountered any geneticist or bio-informatics researcher who disagrees with this.)
> 
> DNA is a molecule, a data storage medium and digital communication protocol all rolled into one. It has a certain amount of memory. Your own DNA, in every cell of your body, contains about the same amount of information as a compact disc.
> 
> But heres where things get interesting: In Claude Shannons world, Random Mutation in DNA is exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.
> 
> This really struck a chord with me because I already knew a great deal about digital communication systems. I spent six years of my life selling exotic networking equipment to factory engineers, Ive published dozens and dozens of magazine articles about communication networks, and In 2002 I published the book Industrial Ethernet. Now in its 2nd edition, this book explains the operation of Ethernet networks, TCP/IP protocol (the language that runs the Internet), and various networking languages that are used in modern equipment installations.
> 
> The world of electronic communication is a world of languages and codes. Every different kind of file on your computer  a Microsoft WORD document, an Excel spreadsheet, a web page in HTML, a JPG or GIF image  the difference between all these things is the language theyre written in. Microsoft WORD isnt just a brand, its a language thats been defined by Microsoft, for writing and storing documents. Same with everything else on the list  its a language thats been defined by someone for a specific purpose.
> 
> So another way of asking the question is this:
> 
> Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?
> 
> I searched and I searched and I searched.
> 
> And the answer to that question, oddly, is a qualified no.
> 
> There is no instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of modern communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality. There is no example where noise increases the information in a signal.
> 
> None.
> 
> But remember, I said the answer is a qualified no. The answer is still yes, sometimes.
> 
> Let me explain.
> 
> Lets take the sentence
> 
> The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
> 
> I could randomly mutate this sentence, and if I got really lucky, the sentence could become
> 
> The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
> 
> (I added a period.)
> 
> The period did add information to the sentence; it corrected a grammatical mistake.
> 
> Now this sentence is 45 characters long. With the possibility of 26 lower case letters, 26 upper case letters, spaces and periods (excluding numbers and any other characters), there are 54 possible characters.
> 
> So how many combinations of letters are possible in this sentence? A probability textbook tells us that there are 4554 possible combinations. If you punch that into your scientific calculator, you get 1.9 x 1089 possibilities. (In other words, a very big number with ninety (!) zeros. Bigger than any number anyone ever uses in everyday life.)
> 
> Which is to say that there is one chance in 1.9 x 1089  one chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion or so  that a single random mutation could correct the grammar of this short sentence.
> 
> So yes, random mutation (noise) can add some information to a signal. Parts per trillion trillion trillion
> 
> That is the qualification.
> 
> Obviously it is a very small qualification  so small as to be thoroughly trivial.
> 
> I thought this was way too simple.
> 
> I said to myself, Geez, is the answer to the whole evolution question that cut-and-dried? Falcons cant evolve because DNA mutations can only destroy information, not increase it? That seems too easy, too obvious.
> 
> I spent several months hunting for answers all over the place, scouring more books and the Internet, looking for discussion on this topic. Surely there must be more to this question.
> 
> Claude Shannon does address it in his book. Not DNA specifically, but noise in general. Shannon says noise causes entropy. In physics, entropy is the process of useful energy becoming useless. Entropy is what happens when a candle burns down to nothing and you cant light it anymore.
> 
> One of Shannons contributions to science was showing that the math equations for information entropy are exactly the same as for heat entropy. And in both cases, entropy is an irreversible process. In other words, once you add noise to a signal, it is permanently corrupted and cannot be recovered, much less improved.
> 
> Noise always degrades a signal. Always.
> 
> No exceptions.
> 
> Anybody whos spent much time recording music knows what I mean. Cassette tapes are going out of vogue, but back in the day we used to record our CDs onto cassettes so we could listen on our Walkman or in our car. Cassettes always add noise (tape hiss) to the music.
> 
> Companies like Dolby and DBX devised ingenious methods of noise reduction  Dolby B, Dolby C and so on  to combat this problem. They were fairly effective, but never perfect. Actually the way noise reduction works is this: The signal is boosted and equalized before its put on tape, then its equalized the opposite way and cut back to its original volume when you play it back. All it does is lessen the effects of the tape hiss; it doesnt actually take it away.
> 
> And again, once the noise is there, it is absolutely impossible to get it back out.
> 
> And Ive never met any engineer who ever said the signal could be better after you added noise to it. The only exception to this is something called dither which does add noise to the signal before its recorded, but that is done to neutralize distortions in the recording equipment. Its dither in digital recording, and bias in analog recording. But it does not increase the information; it degrades the signal, albeit in a useful way.
> 
> So Im hunting for a flaw in this theory. Can anyone show that noise increases the useful information in a signal?
> 
> Now I am far from the first person to discover or discuss this, and I did find people debating this topic. I found some interesting misconceptions.
> 
> For example, Claude Shannon discusses how the addition of noise increases the information in a signal. But you have to be very careful to understand what he means when he says this.
> 
> Lets say you take your favorite CD and record it onto a cassette tape. Now you have added some noise to your favorite music. You can hear the tape hiss when you play it.
> 
> Well lets say you get a CD burner and you play the tape back and copy the taped version back to a new CD. Now you have a CD of a tape of a CD. A copy of a copy, with tape hiss thrown in.
> 
> Well the new CD does actually have more information than the old one. It has not only the music, but the tape hiss too. Instead of silence between the songs, youve added tape hiss. Of course the CD player doesnt care what it is, it just plays it. From the CD players point of view (CD players being totally dumb objects), yes, there is more information to send to the speakers.
> 
> But from a human point of view, there is obviously less useful information. The useful information has been compromised. Fine details you used to be able to hear are covered up by the tape hiss, never to be recovered.
> 
> All arguments you may find that cite Claude Shannon in saying that noise increases information are really saying that the tape hiss is an increase in information. Well obviously its an increase in useless information  at the expense of the useful information.
> 
> So What is Darwinism Really Saying?
> 
> If we go back to the falcon question, what Darwinian theory is saying is this:
> 
> Noise gets added to the signal in the DNA of billions of falcons.
> 
> Most of the time, it produces harmful mutations.
> 
> Some of the time, it adds useful information.
> 
> Natural selection weeds out the harmful mutations and only the useful ones are left.
> 
> The useful mutations make the new falcons more fit to survive.
> 
> They proliferate and then more mutations make their progeny better adapted, more competitive, with enhanced features and ability to survive.
> 
> And the evolutionary dance continues.
> 
> Sounds pretty plausible, right? I certainly thought it did.
> 
> But lets use an analogy of something more familiar: Those cassette tapes.
> 
> You have a CD, and you make billions of cassette tape copies of it. Each copy is slightly different, because each one has different microscopic bits of tape hiss.
> 
> Most of the time the tape hiss is bad, but sometimes it is good.
> 
> People buy the good copies and return the bad ones to the music store, so only the good ones survive.
> 
> Billions more copies are made of the good ones, and the process repeats. Every few thousand generations of tapes and tape hiss, a new musical feature is added, so primitive tribal music evolves into modern jazz fusion.
> 
> Do you buy that?
> 
> I dont.
> 
> We could make a very similar analogy with photocopies. Weve all seen documents that were a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. They look horrible. After enough generations, they become unreadable. A copy of a copy of a copy of instructions on how to get to my house never evolve into a superior plan for getting to my house.
> 
> Information is only destroyed by noise, never enhanced by it. (Devolution, not evolution.)
> 
> So if noise is bad for music and photocopies and FM radio, how can it be good for falcon DNA?
> 
> DNA, Computers, Human Language Have Error Correction Built-In
> 
> Youd be interested to know that virtually all communication systems, including DNA, have error correction mechanisms built in. The English language is about 50% redundant  if half the words and letters are missing, you can still read it and figure out what is being said. Ethernet and TCP/IP have sophisticated error detection / correction mechanisms. If youre downloading a file and some of the bits get corrupted, your computer detects that and tells the other computer on the Internet to re-send those bits. And DNA has sophisticated error correction mechanisms, too. Errors are always bad, never good. DNA is designed to detect mutations and correct them.
> 
> I Start Presenting This Challenge to Darwinists
> 
> There are still a whole bunch of questions we havent really discussed yet, but this in itself gets down to the bottom of what Darwinian evolution claims to be true. So has any advocate of Darwinian evolution ever proven that random mutation can increase information? I wanted to find out.
> 
> So in addition to extensive searching and reading, I started having email exchanges with proponents of Darwinism. I would say Show me an example where random mutation actually increases information and they would try. And Boy, would they ever try!
> 
> The conversation would go something like this:
> 
> They would say, Richard Dawkins shows how evolution works in his methinks it is like a weasel evolutionary computer program. (Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, shows how a random letter generator can evolve a complete sentence, if the computer program rejects erroneous letters and accepts correct ones, and it only takes 30-40 steps to do so.)
> 
> Id say But the desired result is pre-programmed into the experiment in the first place. All he has demonstrated is that his computer works properly, thats all.
> 
> So the conversation would turn to all sorts of other Genetic Programs which is an entire category of software where random mutations generate variations which are then selected according to certain criteria and improvements are observed. Fascinating stuff.
> 
> But thats not the Darwinian math formula. Remember, the Darwinian formula is
> 
> Random mutation + natural selection + time = Design
> 
> But genetic programs work on this formula:
> 
> Random mutation + deliberate selection + time = Design
> 
> Deliberate selection and natural selection are not the same thing. Look, if the falcons could say Lets randomly mutate only the small part of our DNA that designs our eyeball muscles and nothing else for a few million years, and lets just keep the ones that pass a quality control test then it would work. But thats not how evolution is claimed to work. Mutations (noise) are not selective about where they occur.
> 
> Darwinism: The Math Just Doesnt Work
> 
> In these debates we would go back and forth about this, and sometimes the conversations would get quite emotional as the person I was talking too kept hitting dead ends in their argument.
> 
> Sometimes theyd finally sigh and say Just because we havent discovered the answer to this question doesnt mean we wont someday.
> 
> My reply would be Yes, thats absolutely right, nobody can predict what science may discover tomorrow. But for right now I cant see how the fundamental premise of Darwinian evolution can even be said to be scientific, because the math simply does not work.
> 
> Most of the time Id eventually get silence. Much as we tried to make these conversations factual and friendly (they were rarely hostile), eventually the person would just stop replying to my emails. They were stumped.
> 
> Dawkins Cant Answer It, Either
> 
> Its interesting to note that the fanatical atheist Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous living proponent of Evolutionary theory, has never answered this question either  in fact he has studiously avoided it. Theres an article - The Problem of Information - where this question was posed to Dawkins, and even though six years have gone by, he never answers it. The answer he does give is a smoke-and-mirrors example at best.
> 
> There is a lot of material on this particular web page and there is a great deal of discussion about it. I did a bunch of backwards searching on Google to find every last reference to this article on the entire Internet, and nobody has successfully answered the question that it raises: Can you produce an example of a mutation or evolutionary process that led to an increase in information?
> 
> Many do claim to have answered it with genetic programs and the like, but if you examine their experiments carefully, you will see that none of these programs are actually examples of true Darwinian evolution. All of them without exception (including the much ballyhooed Avida softare program) use un-random mutation or un-natural selection in some way. Genetic programs are extremely useful, instructive, well worth studying. But all are examples of intelligent design, not evolution
> 
> Darwin: Brilliantly Half-Right; Tragically Half-Wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another invalid source.
> and wall of text!
Click to expand...


You are so very wrong the guy is far more educated then yourself.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you could say that, Because real science will not go against the creator of all things.
> 
> I reject Any science that tries to explain that things came in to existence naturally.
> 
> I reject Any science that rejects design.
> 
> You may argue things are not perfect that is correct. Since the fall of man we and everything thing that exists are  experiencing entropy.
> 
> Macro-evolution has never ever been observed and you are calling me cuckoo for beliving in a being with supernatural powers to create and  because you have not observed this being? But yet you believe in something that has never been observed and is contradicted by what we do observe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep posting this lie?  Do you think god needs you to lie for him/it/her/them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it a lie ? if man thinks he knows how God did it there would be no discussion.
Click to expand...

 of course there would be discussion.
even among belivers there's a constant dialog about how and why god does what it does.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC - first, wall of text again!
> 
> Second, you seem to have ignored the multiple people who have pointed out quotes by Crick which show his acceptance of evolutionary theory.  You hold him up as someone helping to show your view is valid, then ignore or misread when someone points out that the man does, in fact, seem to hold with the very theory you are trying to argue against.
> 
> So he's a man with an impressive background who we should listen to when you think he is making your point.  When the things he say instead oppose your point, you ignore them or pretend they say something else.  And then you complain about other people not answering your questions or responding to your points?
> 
> Even if your perspective is correct, you do such a poor job of explaining/defending it, it almost doesn't matter if it is right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know how anyone can read those walls of text.  I guess when you do not understand even high school level biology you have to depend on other people to do your thinking for you and that is why you need a wall of text, but it is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well said!
> to me the massive amount of crap ywc posts just proves the saying: "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
Click to expand...


Refute what was said or you are simply speaking from your rectum.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have no idea what the theory of abiogenesis is.
> 
> Crick was directly quoted from one of his books.
> 
> Prove adding noise to a signal adds information to a signal.
> 
> Prove adding noise to a signal can improve the signal .
> 
> 
> Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design
> 
> That is the math of evolution. Whether were considering the evolution of falcons or any other organism, the changes over time have to come from changes in the DNA. The entire plan for a falcon is contained in its DNA, a molecule with a 4-letter alphabet. A strand of DNA can have anywhere from 500 thousand letters (in the case of the smallest known parasite) to 3 billion letters (man and large animals).
> 
> Darwinism says that Random Mutation (copying errors in the DNA alphabet) produce modified falcons, and that natural selection (survival of the fittest as inferior falcons die out and superior falcons dominate) weeds out the losers. What remains is new innovations in falcon design.
> 
> Thats what Darwinism says. Its elegantly simple. Almost intuitively obvious.
> 
> Can it be verified?
> 
> No, and yes.
> 
> One of the difficulties with Darwinism is that it evidently takes millions of years and many billions of falcons to produce significant change over time. This makes it very hard to empirically prove Darwinism in the short lifetime of a human being. Practically speaking, Darwinism doesnt even provide us with very many testable hypotheses. Thus the vast majority of the evidence for evolution is anecdotal.
> 
> Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence based on personal experience that has not been empirically tested, and which is often used in an argument as if it had been scientifically or statistically proven. The person using anecdotal evidence may or may not be aware of the fact that, by doing so, they are generalizing. (From Wikipedia) An example of anecdotal evidence would be My grandma smoked and drank whiskey every day and she lived to be 95, so cigarettes and whiskey are good for you. Not all anecdotal evidence is misleading, of course, but its not proof.
> 
> But with Darwin, the principle itself should be easy enough to demonstrate. I know as an engineer with a strong math background that in principle it should be easy enough to statistically answer the question:
> 
> Is the formula
> 
> Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design
> 
> Mathematically true, or false?
> 
> Hey, if were going to get answers to these questions, we have to ask questions that actually have a possibility of being answered in the first place. Most arguments for and against evolution are argued at an intuitive level, with only anecdotal evidence. The way most questions are asked in the origins debate, they are unanswerable. The question as I posed it is much, much simpler and can certainly be verified.
> 
> Is Natural Selection Valid?
> 
> I shouldnt have to spend much time defending the idea that Natural Selection is a perfectly valid concept that we see proven all the time. We all know and observe every day that winners win and losers lose. We know that babies with severe birth defects often do not survive, much less thrive. We know that Natural Selection weeds out losers. Natural Selection works.
> 
> The real question is, does Random Mutation produce winners? Does it create plans for new muscles in the eye of the falcon? Does it add information to the code of DNA? Thats the question I set out to answer.
> 
> Like I said, DNA is a blueprint for life. Its a code and a language. It has an alphabet (A = Adenine, G = Guanine, T = Thymine, C = Cytosine) and that alphabet spells out the instructions for everything. So the question is:
> 
> Can Random Mutation add information to DNA?
> 
> I decided the best way to answer this question is to make it more general: Can random mutation add information to any code or language? Can it make it more meaningful, such that Natural Selection will weed out the garbage and leave us with better and better information?
> 
> My reasoning was this: Even if Darwinism couldnt be empirically proven in the lab (since we dont have millions of years available to conduct an experiment), we should still be able to investigate some other part of the world where languages and codes are used.
> 
> We should be able to experimentally determine if Random Mutations add information. This could come from any number of fields  linguistics, digital signal processing, computer networking, computer aided design, language translation.
> 
> Information Theory Sheds Light on this: 1948
> 
> The questions Im asking here are answered in a field known as Information theory which really began with a paper written by Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon in 1948. His paper was called The Mathematical Theory of Communication and its one of the most important papers ever published in the history of Electrical Engineering and electronic communication. Shannons paper literally gave birth to the digital age we now live in  not because Shannon invented digital communication, but because he defined what it was capable of.
> 
> Claude Shannons paper tells you how much hi-fidelity music you can put on a CD (74 minutes), or how much data you can squeeze through a 56K computer modem (not much). It tells you how much information you can successfully transmit, given a certain amount of noise and a certain speed of sending your data. It discusses error correction schemes and even defines something called Information entropy which is the degradation that happens when you add noise to a signal.
> 
> Shannons book is not for the layman, but certain parts of it are understandable by anyone and it deals with things that most people are at least somewhat familiar with. He defines various layers of information  which in laymans terms would be things like alphabet, spelling, grammar and meaning  and how the upper layers are built on top of the lower layers, and how we can use this knowledge to detect and correct errors.
> 
> And in my research into the origins question, I quickly discovered that everything Claude Shannon discusses in his paper applies to DNA. (I have not encountered any geneticist or bio-informatics researcher who disagrees with this.)
> 
> DNA is a molecule, a data storage medium and digital communication protocol all rolled into one. It has a certain amount of memory. Your own DNA, in every cell of your body, contains about the same amount of information as a compact disc.
> 
> But heres where things get interesting: In Claude Shannons world, Random Mutation in DNA is exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.
> 
> This really struck a chord with me because I already knew a great deal about digital communication systems. I spent six years of my life selling exotic networking equipment to factory engineers, Ive published dozens and dozens of magazine articles about communication networks, and In 2002 I published the book Industrial Ethernet. Now in its 2nd edition, this book explains the operation of Ethernet networks, TCP/IP protocol (the language that runs the Internet), and various networking languages that are used in modern equipment installations.
> 
> The world of electronic communication is a world of languages and codes. Every different kind of file on your computer  a Microsoft WORD document, an Excel spreadsheet, a web page in HTML, a JPG or GIF image  the difference between all these things is the language theyre written in. Microsoft WORD isnt just a brand, its a language thats been defined by Microsoft, for writing and storing documents. Same with everything else on the list  its a language thats been defined by someone for a specific purpose.
> 
> So another way of asking the question is this:
> 
> Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?
> 
> I searched and I searched and I searched.
> 
> And the answer to that question, oddly, is a qualified no.
> 
> There is no instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of modern communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality. There is no example where noise increases the information in a signal.
> 
> None.
> 
> But remember, I said the answer is a qualified no. The answer is still yes, sometimes.
> 
> Let me explain.
> 
> Lets take the sentence
> 
> The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
> 
> I could randomly mutate this sentence, and if I got really lucky, the sentence could become
> 
> The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
> 
> (I added a period.)
> 
> The period did add information to the sentence; it corrected a grammatical mistake.
> 
> Now this sentence is 45 characters long. With the possibility of 26 lower case letters, 26 upper case letters, spaces and periods (excluding numbers and any other characters), there are 54 possible characters.
> 
> So how many combinations of letters are possible in this sentence? A probability textbook tells us that there are 4554 possible combinations. If you punch that into your scientific calculator, you get 1.9 x 1089 possibilities. (In other words, a very big number with ninety (!) zeros. Bigger than any number anyone ever uses in everyday life.)
> 
> Which is to say that there is one chance in 1.9 x 1089  one chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion or so  that a single random mutation could correct the grammar of this short sentence.
> 
> So yes, random mutation (noise) can add some information to a signal. Parts per trillion trillion trillion
> 
> That is the qualification.
> 
> Obviously it is a very small qualification  so small as to be thoroughly trivial.
> 
> I thought this was way too simple.
> 
> I said to myself, Geez, is the answer to the whole evolution question that cut-and-dried? Falcons cant evolve because DNA mutations can only destroy information, not increase it? That seems too easy, too obvious.
> 
> I spent several months hunting for answers all over the place, scouring more books and the Internet, looking for discussion on this topic. Surely there must be more to this question.
> 
> Claude Shannon does address it in his book. Not DNA specifically, but noise in general. Shannon says noise causes entropy. In physics, entropy is the process of useful energy becoming useless. Entropy is what happens when a candle burns down to nothing and you cant light it anymore.
> 
> One of Shannons contributions to science was showing that the math equations for information entropy are exactly the same as for heat entropy. And in both cases, entropy is an irreversible process. In other words, once you add noise to a signal, it is permanently corrupted and cannot be recovered, much less improved.
> 
> Noise always degrades a signal. Always.
> 
> No exceptions.
> 
> Anybody whos spent much time recording music knows what I mean. Cassette tapes are going out of vogue, but back in the day we used to record our CDs onto cassettes so we could listen on our Walkman or in our car. Cassettes always add noise (tape hiss) to the music.
> 
> Companies like Dolby and DBX devised ingenious methods of noise reduction  Dolby B, Dolby C and so on  to combat this problem. They were fairly effective, but never perfect. Actually the way noise reduction works is this: The signal is boosted and equalized before its put on tape, then its equalized the opposite way and cut back to its original volume when you play it back. All it does is lessen the effects of the tape hiss; it doesnt actually take it away.
> 
> And again, once the noise is there, it is absolutely impossible to get it back out.
> 
> And Ive never met any engineer who ever said the signal could be better after you added noise to it. The only exception to this is something called dither which does add noise to the signal before its recorded, but that is done to neutralize distortions in the recording equipment. Its dither in digital recording, and bias in analog recording. But it does not increase the information; it degrades the signal, albeit in a useful way.
> 
> So Im hunting for a flaw in this theory. Can anyone show that noise increases the useful information in a signal?
> 
> Now I am far from the first person to discover or discuss this, and I did find people debating this topic. I found some interesting misconceptions.
> 
> For example, Claude Shannon discusses how the addition of noise increases the information in a signal. But you have to be very careful to understand what he means when he says this.
> 
> Lets say you take your favorite CD and record it onto a cassette tape. Now you have added some noise to your favorite music. You can hear the tape hiss when you play it.
> 
> Well lets say you get a CD burner and you play the tape back and copy the taped version back to a new CD. Now you have a CD of a tape of a CD. A copy of a copy, with tape hiss thrown in.
> 
> Well the new CD does actually have more information than the old one. It has not only the music, but the tape hiss too. Instead of silence between the songs, youve added tape hiss. Of course the CD player doesnt care what it is, it just plays it. From the CD players point of view (CD players being totally dumb objects), yes, there is more information to send to the speakers.
> 
> But from a human point of view, there is obviously less useful information. The useful information has been compromised. Fine details you used to be able to hear are covered up by the tape hiss, never to be recovered.
> 
> All arguments you may find that cite Claude Shannon in saying that noise increases information are really saying that the tape hiss is an increase in information. Well obviously its an increase in useless information  at the expense of the useful information.
> 
> So What is Darwinism Really Saying?
> 
> If we go back to the falcon question, what Darwinian theory is saying is this:
> 
> Noise gets added to the signal in the DNA of billions of falcons.
> 
> Most of the time, it produces harmful mutations.
> 
> Some of the time, it adds useful information.
> 
> Natural selection weeds out the harmful mutations and only the useful ones are left.
> 
> The useful mutations make the new falcons more fit to survive.
> 
> They proliferate and then more mutations make their progeny better adapted, more competitive, with enhanced features and ability to survive.
> 
> And the evolutionary dance continues.
> 
> Sounds pretty plausible, right? I certainly thought it did.
> 
> But lets use an analogy of something more familiar: Those cassette tapes.
> 
> You have a CD, and you make billions of cassette tape copies of it. Each copy is slightly different, because each one has different microscopic bits of tape hiss.
> 
> Most of the time the tape hiss is bad, but sometimes it is good.
> 
> People buy the good copies and return the bad ones to the music store, so only the good ones survive.
> 
> Billions more copies are made of the good ones, and the process repeats. Every few thousand generations of tapes and tape hiss, a new musical feature is added, so primitive tribal music evolves into modern jazz fusion.
> 
> Do you buy that?
> 
> I dont.
> 
> We could make a very similar analogy with photocopies. Weve all seen documents that were a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. They look horrible. After enough generations, they become unreadable. A copy of a copy of a copy of instructions on how to get to my house never evolve into a superior plan for getting to my house.
> 
> Information is only destroyed by noise, never enhanced by it. (Devolution, not evolution.)
> 
> So if noise is bad for music and photocopies and FM radio, how can it be good for falcon DNA?
> 
> DNA, Computers, Human Language Have Error Correction Built-In
> 
> Youd be interested to know that virtually all communication systems, including DNA, have error correction mechanisms built in. The English language is about 50% redundant  if half the words and letters are missing, you can still read it and figure out what is being said. Ethernet and TCP/IP have sophisticated error detection / correction mechanisms. If youre downloading a file and some of the bits get corrupted, your computer detects that and tells the other computer on the Internet to re-send those bits. And DNA has sophisticated error correction mechanisms, too. Errors are always bad, never good. DNA is designed to detect mutations and correct them.
> 
> I Start Presenting This Challenge to Darwinists
> 
> There are still a whole bunch of questions we havent really discussed yet, but this in itself gets down to the bottom of what Darwinian evolution claims to be true. So has any advocate of Darwinian evolution ever proven that random mutation can increase information? I wanted to find out.
> 
> So in addition to extensive searching and reading, I started having email exchanges with proponents of Darwinism. I would say Show me an example where random mutation actually increases information and they would try. And Boy, would they ever try!
> 
> The conversation would go something like this:
> 
> They would say, Richard Dawkins shows how evolution works in his methinks it is like a weasel evolutionary computer program. (Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, shows how a random letter generator can evolve a complete sentence, if the computer program rejects erroneous letters and accepts correct ones, and it only takes 30-40 steps to do so.)
> 
> Id say But the desired result is pre-programmed into the experiment in the first place. All he has demonstrated is that his computer works properly, thats all.
> 
> So the conversation would turn to all sorts of other Genetic Programs which is an entire category of software where random mutations generate variations which are then selected according to certain criteria and improvements are observed. Fascinating stuff.
> 
> But thats not the Darwinian math formula. Remember, the Darwinian formula is
> 
> Random mutation + natural selection + time = Design
> 
> But genetic programs work on this formula:
> 
> Random mutation + deliberate selection + time = Design
> 
> Deliberate selection and natural selection are not the same thing. Look, if the falcons could say Lets randomly mutate only the small part of our DNA that designs our eyeball muscles and nothing else for a few million years, and lets just keep the ones that pass a quality control test then it would work. But thats not how evolution is claimed to work. Mutations (noise) are not selective about where they occur.
> 
> Darwinism: The Math Just Doesnt Work
> 
> In these debates we would go back and forth about this, and sometimes the conversations would get quite emotional as the person I was talking too kept hitting dead ends in their argument.
> 
> Sometimes theyd finally sigh and say Just because we havent discovered the answer to this question doesnt mean we wont someday.
> 
> My reply would be Yes, thats absolutely right, nobody can predict what science may discover tomorrow. But for right now I cant see how the fundamental premise of Darwinian evolution can even be said to be scientific, because the math simply does not work.
> 
> Most of the time Id eventually get silence. Much as we tried to make these conversations factual and friendly (they were rarely hostile), eventually the person would just stop replying to my emails. They were stumped.
> 
> Dawkins Cant Answer It, Either
> 
> Its interesting to note that the fanatical atheist Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous living proponent of Evolutionary theory, has never answered this question either  in fact he has studiously avoided it. Theres an article - The Problem of Information - where this question was posed to Dawkins, and even though six years have gone by, he never answers it. The answer he does give is a smoke-and-mirrors example at best.
> 
> There is a lot of material on this particular web page and there is a great deal of discussion about it. I did a bunch of backwards searching on Google to find every last reference to this article on the entire Internet, and nobody has successfully answered the question that it raises: Can you produce an example of a mutation or evolutionary process that led to an increase in information?
> 
> Many do claim to have answered it with genetic programs and the like, but if you examine their experiments carefully, you will see that none of these programs are actually examples of true Darwinian evolution. All of them without exception (including the much ballyhooed Avida softare program) use un-random mutation or un-natural selection in some way. Genetic programs are extremely useful, instructive, well worth studying. But all are examples of intelligent design, not evolution
> 
> Darwin: Brilliantly Half-Right; Tragically Half-Wrong
> 
> 
> 
> another invalid source.
> and wall of text!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so very wrong the guy is far more educated then yourself.
Click to expand...

 erroneous ASSumption.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep posting this lie?  Do you think god needs you to lie for him/it/her/them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it a lie ? if man thinks he knows how God did it there would be no discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of course there would be discussion.
> even among belivers there's a constant dialog about how and why god does what it does.
Click to expand...


But you see we have no way to explain how creation happened period.

Yeah and I guess you are right there would be plenty to speak about but if your presuppositions were more accurate we would be getting better explanations as to why or how.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another invalid source.
> and wall of text!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so very wrong the guy is far more educated then yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> erroneous ASSumption.
Click to expand...


Prove otherwise.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know how anyone can read those walls of text.  I guess when you do not understand even high school level biology you have to depend on other people to do your thinking for you and that is why you need a wall of text, but it is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> well said!
> to me the massive amount of crap ywc posts just proves the saying: "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Refute what was said or you are simply speaking from your rectum.
Click to expand...

no need. your massive steaming piles refute themselves.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so very wrong the guy is far more educated then yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> erroneous ASSumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

asked and answered


----------



## Youwerecreated

Well I am off to play in my Gold mine,cheers.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> well said!
> to me the massive amount of crap ywc posts just proves the saying: "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Refute what was said or you are simply speaking from your rectum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need. your massive steaming piles refute themselves.
Click to expand...


Evidence please ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> erroneous ASSumption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answered
Click to expand...


Nope.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it a lie ? if man thinks he knows how God did it there would be no discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> of course there would be discussion.
> even among belivers there's a constant dialog about how and why god does what it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you see we have no way to explain how creation happened period.
> 
> Yeah and I guess you are right there would be plenty to speak about but if your presuppositions were more accurate we would be getting better explanations as to why or how.
Click to expand...

it's been explained successfully, you are unwilling or unable to accept the answers.
BTW no one's presuppositions are less accurate then yours.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you could say that, Because real science will not go against the creator of all things.
> 
> I reject Any science that tries to explain that things came in to existence naturally.
> 
> I reject Any science that rejects design.
> 
> You may argue things are not perfect that is correct. Since the fall of man we and everything thing that exists are  experiencing entropy.
> 
> Macro-evolution has never ever been observed and you are calling me cuckoo for beliving in a being with supernatural powers to create and  because you have not observed this being? But yet you believe in something that has never been observed and is contradicted by what we do observe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science is about trying to explain the natural, observable world.  The cuckoo is for your apparent desire to mix the supernatural and science.  It is not that you believe in the supernatural, it is that you pretend the supernatural is explained through science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If God exists which I have no doubt he does,was supernatural powers used to create ? If supernatural forces were used to create how do you think science could ever come up with accurate explanations of the evidence when they rule out supernatural forces being behind the design we see ?
Click to expand...


There may be any number of things which can never be explained scientifically.  There may be a god that created everything.  That shouldn't mean that science should encompass the unobservable or that god should be an answer to questions which scientists are attempting to answer.  Unless god can be defined far more accurately, that beings existence is simply outside the realm of scientific inquiry.  It is not a matter of ruling out god, it is being unable to prove or test or observe or even define god.  

I have no doubt that many scientists of various fields believe in god(s).  I have no doubt that many scientists believe some sort of god(s) created the universe.  Many no doubt believe in various forms of the supernatural, religious or otherwise.  None of that explains how a study of the natural world can incorporate the supernatural.  Unless the supernatural is able to be explained in such a way it is no longer 'super', the two simply don't mix.  

Let me give this caveat : all that I have said is what I believe science is supposed to be.  We are all only human, scientists or otherwise, so certainly there are going to be times when people attempt to use supernatural explanations as scientific answers even if they shouldn't.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you could say that, Because real science will not go against the creator of all things.
> 
> I reject Any science that tries to explain that things came in to existence naturally.
> 
> I reject Any science that rejects design.
> 
> You may argue things are not perfect that is correct. Since the fall of man we and everything thing that exists are  experiencing entropy.
> 
> Macro-evolution has never ever been observed and you are calling me cuckoo for beliving in a being with supernatural powers to create and  because you have not observed this being? But yet you believe in something that has never been observed and is contradicted by what we do observe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep posting this lie?  Do you think god needs you to lie for him/it/her/them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it a lie ? if man thinks he knows how God did it there would be no discussion.
Click to expand...


Because we have witnessed macroevolution.  As you have been told at least 10 times.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I accept evolution but not macro-evolution.
> 
> The point is the guy was such an atheist even though he knows that not one DNA molecule could have come in to existence on it's own still did not want to believe in that designer of that and many DNA molecules.
> 
> It just goes to show atheist will believe anything so they don't have to believe in the creator. What a tool, he can believe on one hand there is no way it happened naturally and then turn and defend abogenesis. What credibility do some scientists possess ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie!  Do you think lying is moral if it makes people believe your nonsense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he says the probability of a DNA  molecule being formed in a natural means is pretty much impossible then defend abiogenesis that is a contradiction.
> 
> So you think because someone because someone has a different view then you have is a liar ?
Click to expand...


I think you are a liar because you have already been told that Crick not only believed in every tenet of evolution, but also believed in abiogenesis.  Also, you have been told that the quote cannot be traced back to Crick and has been attributed to at least 4 other people.  Even if he did say it, which he may have, he thought that abiogenesis would have been a rare event and after it happened the life would have been spread around on meteors or other space debris instead of popping up different places.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find much in your posts to respond to.
> 
> But you just admitted that natural selection is a thinking process and it is not,eliminates the weak. Thank God for that or we would all die from harmful mutations since they do cause more harm then good. I ask you to prove otherwise,I know because I saw the efffects of mutations up close.
> 
> But that is just more evidence of design because without natural selection bad genes would spread through the whole population and we would all be deformed or dead. Why is this so hard for you people to grasp ?
> 
> But not just natural selection do we have eliminating bad genes but we have a mechanism that works to correct these errors.Then if that don't work nature eliminates them through natural selection. So God gave us a back up plan.
> 
> It's funny you guys think that these mechanisms only work to eliminate harmful mutations.
> 
> Mutations can and do mess with the information just like the noise on your radio or T.V. Mutations mess with the signal get it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you one of those people who lie every time you open your mouth even if it is against your best interest?  Maybe it is pathological and you believe your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't lie,I give my opinions. Must you continue to try and insult me with your posts ?
> 
> Doesn't it make you look like a small person ?
Click to expand...


What I am supposed to say when someone continuously lies like you do?  You are not giving opinions when you say that macroevolution has never been witnessed when it has.  You are obviously not giving your opinion when you misrepresent what other people just said to you.  Is it an insult to call a someone a thief when they just absconded with your purse?  Is it an insult to call someone a murderer when you just witnessed them murdering someone?  I think not.


----------



## FurthurBB

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> well said!
> to me the massive amount of crap ywc posts just proves the saying: "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Refute what was said or you are simply speaking from your rectum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need. your massive steaming piles refute themselves.
Click to expand...


The sad thing is You does not even realize it because they obviously do not understand.  People who understand a subject can put things in their own words with a link to the original source.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I have several different discovery channels,and I have watched shows that cover the universe and shows that show secularlist archaeologist digging for biblical ruins To verify .there is a lot evidence from bible that hey have confirmed then you know of.
> 
> King david has been confirmed and the walls of Jericho just to name a few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I have watched shows that cover the universe"
> 
> That must be why you say things like "a spinning rock exploded", and cant understand the concept of mass-energy equivalence and the significance of particle physics at the moment of the big bang. If you dont understand the 12 fermions, the 4 bosons that carry force, and the higgs boson as well, then you cant have an actual understanding of the big bang.
> 
> And you totally ignored the fact that you think god gives people leprosy, once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to duck the questions I'm asking ? By trying to change the subject. And I did show you according to the scriptures God did punish with the disease of leprosy. Don't you kind of find it funny that your side says they can track it back only so far and it just happens to be in agreement with the bible.
Click to expand...


You proved something? 

I remember you reading a bunch of bible verses and showing it off as proof. 

God has never given anyone leprosy. 6000 years ago idiot goat-herders thought god was punishing them because they didnt understand that they had come in contact with a bacteria. they contracted leprosy just like anyone does today. 

Prove to me that god has infected someone with leprosy. And remember that the bible is not proof of the bible. If the bible says that god gave someone leprosy, that matters to me about as much as JK Rowling saying voldemort gave harry potter his scar.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ? So you just dismiss guys like Sir Isaac Newton ?
> 
> And you are wrong. Do you realize how many things had to be revised out of secular textbooks ? The point is the science community when in agreement on evidence believe the evidence and teach as fact  until proven otherwise.
> 
> You don't see something wrong with that ? That is disengenious at the highest degree. When they still can't test ,study,and observe the origins of the universe or the origins of life,and they sure as heck can't test ,study,and observe macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember my post about how DNA is a code? Only someone that doesnt understand how the abstract translates into the physical nucleotides would deny evolution.
> 
> Sure, science has retracted some things. Evolution wont be one of those things, because its stood up against all types of attacks for 150 years. People that understand how it works laugh off the things your saying, theyre mostly just a total ignorance of the process.
> 
> And now i think were to the root of the problem. You just dont like science because it takes the role of your god in stating facts. What parts of science would you deny friend, besides evolution? Chemistry? Particle physics? Gravity? Projectile motion? Medicine? Surgery? Electricity?
> 
> Hmmm??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love real science,not secular science that denies real evidence to hold on to their secular views.
Click to expand...


There is nothing other than secular science. Science is by definition secular. If your definition of "real science" is science that is biased towards one faith, then your a fucking idiot.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> I am still waiting for someone to provide a code or language or some form of communication with empirical evidence that it cane in to existence naturally absent of intelligence ? How bout mutations being the same thing as noise to a electronic signal and the questions I asked.



What the fuck!

IM POINTING YOU TO DNA YOU GOD DAMN MORON. 

*Nucleotides form naturally therefore the code for DNA forms naturally because nucleotides are the code for DNA. 

Game set match now shut the fuck up. 
*


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course there would be discussion.
> even among belivers there's a constant dialog about how and why god does what it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you see we have no way to explain how creation happened period.
> 
> Yeah and I guess you are right there would be plenty to speak about but if your presuppositions were more accurate we would be getting better explanations as to why or how.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's been explained successfully, you are unwilling or unable to accept the answers.
> BTW no one's presuppositions are less accurate then yours.
Click to expand...


Try it again,you can do it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is about trying to explain the natural, observable world.  The cuckoo is for your apparent desire to mix the supernatural and science.  It is not that you believe in the supernatural, it is that you pretend the supernatural is explained through science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God exists which I have no doubt he does,was supernatural powers used to create ? If supernatural forces were used to create how do you think science could ever come up with accurate explanations of the evidence when they rule out supernatural forces being behind the design we see ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There may be any number of things which can never be explained scientifically.  There may be a god that created everything.  That shouldn't mean that science should encompass the unobservable or that god should be an answer to questions which scientists are attempting to answer.  Unless god can be defined far more accurately, that beings existence is simply outside the realm of scientific inquiry.  It is not a matter of ruling out god, it is being unable to prove or test or observe or even define god.
> 
> I have no doubt that many scientists of various fields believe in god(s).  I have no doubt that many scientists believe some sort of god(s) created the universe.  Many no doubt believe in various forms of the supernatural, religious or otherwise.  None of that explains how a study of the natural world can incorporate the supernatural.  Unless the supernatural is able to be explained in such a way it is no longer 'super', the two simply don't mix.
> 
> Let me give this caveat : all that I have said is what I believe science is supposed to be.  We are all only human, scientists or otherwise, so certainly there are going to be times when people attempt to use supernatural explanations as scientific answers even if they shouldn't.
Click to expand...


Think about it,if your presuppositions are based on a natural process it will affect how you ;look at the evidence because you are trying to show it happened in a natural way without someone doing it through super natural power.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep posting this lie?  Do you think god needs you to lie for him/it/her/them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it a lie ? if man thinks he knows how God did it there would be no discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we have witnessed macroevolution.  As you have been told at least 10 times.
Click to expand...


There is no real scientist that will say they saw macro-evolution occurr. They have saw micro-adaptations but never macro-evolution. If you are speaking of Douglas Theobald his evidence of macro-evolution has been thouroughly refuted.

When you make a comment like this you are going agains't the science community we can not see macro-evolution in our lifetime because it takes too long.

Bacteria that Theobald said evolved was nothing more then adapting bacterium they were still bacterium.

That is not macro-evolution that is micro-adaptations.

Sorry to disappoint you but it was not macro-evolution that was observed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie!  Do you think lying is moral if it makes people believe your nonsense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he says the probability of a DNA  molecule being formed in a natural means is pretty much impossible then defend abiogenesis that is a contradiction.
> 
> So you think because someone because someone has a different view then you have is a liar ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are a liar because you have already been told that Crick not only believed in every tenet of evolution, but also believed in abiogenesis.  Also, you have been told that the quote cannot be traced back to Crick and has been attributed to at least 4 other people.  Even if he did say it, which he may have, he thought that abiogenesis would have been a rare event and after it happened the life would have been spread around on meteors or other space debris instead of popping up different places.
Click to expand...


Look in case you don't understand Crick said it would be virtually impossible for one DNA molecule to form on it's own let alone all DNA molecules needed for life but instead of believe in a designer he chose to remain ignorant and defend Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis has never been observed so you are taking that theory on faith. Everything you have just said can't be tested and confirmed through the scientific method. Until you can show amino acids forming naturally,a DNA molecule can form naturally and the genetic code in a natural enviornment that lacks oxygen it could not even be possible. I am sure you are aware of the problem of oxygen being in the enviornment ,atleast I hope so.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you one of those people who lie every time you open your mouth even if it is against your best interest?  Maybe it is pathological and you believe your lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't lie,I give my opinions. Must you continue to try and insult me with your posts ?
> 
> Doesn't it make you look like a small person ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am supposed to say when someone continuously lies like you do?  You are not giving opinions when you say that macroevolution has never been witnessed when it has.  You are obviously not giving your opinion when you misrepresent what other people just said to you.  Is it an insult to call a someone a thief when they just absconded with your purse?  Is it an insult to call someone a murderer when you just witnessed them murdering someone?  I think not.
Click to expand...


You say I am a liar because I don't support your theory, not because you can refute or answer the questions put to you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refute what was said or you are simply speaking from your rectum.
> 
> 
> 
> no need. your massive steaming piles refute themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sad thing is You does not even realize it because they obviously do not understand.  People who understand a subject can put things in their own words with a link to the original source.
Click to expand...


Yeah he dodges like you do.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I have watched shows that cover the universe"
> 
> That must be why you say things like "a spinning rock exploded", and cant understand the concept of mass-energy equivalence and the significance of particle physics at the moment of the big bang. If you dont understand the 12 fermions, the 4 bosons that carry force, and the higgs boson as well, then you cant have an actual understanding of the big bang.
> 
> And you totally ignored the fact that you think god gives people leprosy, once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to duck the questions I'm asking ? By trying to change the subject. And I did show you according to the scriptures God did punish with the disease of leprosy. Don't you kind of find it funny that your side says they can track it back only so far and it just happens to be in agreement with the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You proved something?
> 
> I remember you reading a bunch of bible verses and showing it off as proof.
> 
> God has never given anyone leprosy. 6000 years ago idiot goat-herders thought god was punishing them because they didnt understand that they had come in contact with a bacteria. they contracted leprosy just like anyone does today.
> 
> Prove to me that god has infected someone with leprosy. And remember that the bible is not proof of the bible. If the bible says that god gave someone leprosy, that matters to me about as much as JK Rowling saying voldemort gave harry potter his scar.
Click to expand...


Well according to your side they support what those supposedly ignorant goat herders wrote.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember my post about how DNA is a code? Only someone that doesnt understand how the abstract translates into the physical nucleotides would deny evolution.
> 
> Sure, science has retracted some things. Evolution wont be one of those things, because its stood up against all types of attacks for 150 years. People that understand how it works laugh off the things your saying, theyre mostly just a total ignorance of the process.
> 
> And now i think were to the root of the problem. You just dont like science because it takes the role of your god in stating facts. What parts of science would you deny friend, besides evolution? Chemistry? Particle physics? Gravity? Projectile motion? Medicine? Surgery? Electricity?
> 
> Hmmm??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love real science,not secular science that denies real evidence to hold on to their secular views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing other than secular science. Science is by definition secular. If your definition of "real science" is science that is biased towards one faith, then your a fucking idiot.
Click to expand...


Only to the Ideologues. You forget all the creationist that were first in the sciences ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for someone to provide a code or language or some form of communication with empirical evidence that it cane in to existence naturally absent of intelligence ? How bout mutations being the same thing as noise to a electronic signal and the questions I asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck!
> 
> IM POINTING YOU TO DNA YOU GOD DAMN MORON.
> 
> *Nucleotides form naturally therefore the code for DNA forms naturally because nucleotides are the code for DNA.
> 
> Game set match now shut the fuck up.
> *
Click to expand...


I am headed to church but when I get time I will refute this nonsense you said here.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to duck the questions I'm asking ? By trying to change the subject. And I did show you according to the scriptures God did punish with the disease of leprosy. Don't you kind of find it funny that your side says they can track it back only so far and it just happens to be in agreement with the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You proved something?
> 
> I remember you reading a bunch of bible verses and showing it off as proof.
> 
> God has never given anyone leprosy. 6000 years ago idiot goat-herders thought god was punishing them because they didnt understand that they had come in contact with a bacteria. they contracted leprosy just like anyone does today.
> 
> Prove to me that god has infected someone with leprosy. And remember that the bible is not proof of the bible. If the bible says that god gave someone leprosy, that matters to me about as much as JK Rowling saying voldemort gave harry potter his scar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well according to your side they support what those supposedly ignorant goat herders wrote.
Click to expand...


So since you totally avoided the question i assume your going to stop saying god gave people leprosy?


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love real science,not secular science that denies real evidence to hold on to their secular views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing other than secular science. Science is by definition secular. If your definition of "real science" is science that is biased towards one faith, then your a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only to the Ideologues. You forget all the creationist that were first in the sciences ?
Click to expand...


Science cannot be religious. Science _must _have *absolutely zero *presumptions. Science has to to unbiased in pursuit of the facts. We tried religious science, and it taught us a flat earth with the stars embedded in crystal spheres. Science doesnt reject god; science has absolutely no opinion on god until someone can prove otherwise.

Only an ideologue would reject a specific faith into science. You can be a scientists and remember the entire time that there is a god behind your work. But you cant build science around a specific religion that has no fact behind it. Science is the observation and explanation of facts, you cant just base that on things that come from a book and cant be verified.


----------



## cbirch2

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for someone to provide a code or language or some form of communication with empirical evidence that it cane in to existence naturally absent of intelligence ? How bout mutations being the same thing as noise to a electronic signal and the questions I asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck!
> 
> IM POINTING YOU TO DNA YOU GOD DAMN MORON.
> 
> *Nucleotides form naturally therefore the code for DNA forms naturally because nucleotides are the code for DNA.
> 
> Game set match now shut the fuck up.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am headed to church but when I get time I will refute this nonsense you said here.
Click to expand...


Ok well nucleotides are the basic unit of DNA code, that is fact. So your not going to refute that, or at least i really hope you arent. 

So the only thing that leaves for you to refute is the notion the nucleotides form naturally, which i think you will find difficult.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it a lie ? if man thinks he knows how God did it there would be no discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because we have witnessed macroevolution.  As you have been told at least 10 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no real scientist that will say they saw macro-evolution occurr. They have saw micro-adaptations but never macro-evolution. If you are speaking of Douglas Theobald his evidence of macro-evolution has been thouroughly refuted.
> 
> When you make a comment like this you are going agains't the science community we can not see macro-evolution in our lifetime because it takes too long.
> 
> Bacteria that Theobald said evolved was nothing more then adapting bacterium they were still bacterium.
> 
> That is not macro-evolution that is micro-adaptations.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you but it was not macro-evolution that was observed.
Click to expand...


Douglas Theobald has not been thoroughly refuted, and of course bacteria are still going to be bacteria.  Just like in ring species salamanders are still salamanders.  What would you expect them to be?


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't lie,I give my opinions. Must you continue to try and insult me with your posts ?
> 
> Doesn't it make you look like a small person ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am supposed to say when someone continuously lies like you do?  You are not giving opinions when you say that macroevolution has never been witnessed when it has.  You are obviously not giving your opinion when you misrepresent what other people just said to you.  Is it an insult to call a someone a thief when they just absconded with your purse?  Is it an insult to call someone a murderer when you just witnessed them murdering someone?  I think not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say I am a liar because I don't support your theory, not because you can refute or answer the questions put to you.
Click to expand...


2 more complete lies in the last two posts.  It is ridiculous.


----------



## FurthurBB

Filerosophila speciation experiment.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again a cool simple speciation experiment done in middle schools.


----------



## eots

Gandhi speaks on light, truth and love - YouTube


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You proved something?
> 
> I remember you reading a bunch of bible verses and showing it off as proof.
> 
> God has never given anyone leprosy. 6000 years ago idiot goat-herders thought god was punishing them because they didnt understand that they had come in contact with a bacteria. they contracted leprosy just like anyone does today.
> 
> Prove to me that god has infected someone with leprosy. And remember that the bible is not proof of the bible. If the bible says that god gave someone leprosy, that matters to me about as much as JK Rowling saying voldemort gave harry potter his scar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well according to your side they support what those supposedly ignorant goat herders wrote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So since you totally avoided the question i assume your going to stop saying god gave people leprosy?
Click to expand...


Why would I do that,the scriptures say he did.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing other than secular science. Science is by definition secular. If your definition of "real science" is science that is biased towards one faith, then your a fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only to the Ideologues. You forget all the creationist that were first in the sciences ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science cannot be religious. Science _must _have *absolutely zero *presumptions. Science has to to unbiased in pursuit of the facts. We tried religious science, and it taught us a flat earth with the stars embedded in crystal spheres. Science doesnt reject god; science has absolutely no opinion on god until someone can prove otherwise.
> 
> Only an ideologue would reject a specific faith into science. You can be a scientists and remember the entire time that there is a god behind your work. But you cant build science around a specific religion that has no fact behind it. Science is the observation and explanation of facts, you cant just base that on things that come from a book and cant be verified.
Click to expand...


Why do you say this  ?because your side believes it all happened naturally with no proof.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cbirch2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck!
> 
> IM POINTING YOU TO DNA YOU GOD DAMN MORON.
> 
> *Nucleotides form naturally therefore the code for DNA forms naturally because nucleotides are the code for DNA.
> 
> Game set match now shut the fuck up.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am headed to church but when I get time I will refute this nonsense you said here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok well nucleotides are the basic unit of DNA code, that is fact. So your not going to refute that, or at least i really hope you arent.
> 
> So the only thing that leaves for you to refute is the notion the nucleotides form naturally, which i think you will find difficult.
Click to expand...


The genetic code is a language and no language can happen absent of intelligence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we have witnessed macroevolution.  As you have been told at least 10 times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no real scientist that will say they saw macro-evolution occurr. They have saw micro-adaptations but never macro-evolution. If you are speaking of Douglas Theobald his evidence of macro-evolution has been thouroughly refuted.
> 
> When you make a comment like this you are going agains't the science community we can not see macro-evolution in our lifetime because it takes too long.
> 
> Bacteria that Theobald said evolved was nothing more then adapting bacterium they were still bacterium.
> 
> That is not macro-evolution that is micro-adaptations.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you but it was not macro-evolution that was observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Douglas Theobald has not been thoroughly refuted, and of course bacteria are still going to be bacteria.  Just like in ring species salamanders are still salamanders.  What would you expect them to be?
Click to expand...


Macro-evolution is not macro-adaptations, it is a new destinct family that evolved from a previous family.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Filerosophila speciation experiment.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Again a cool simple speciation experiment done in middle schools.



I worked with mutations of the drosophila and the mutations did not create a new organism fact is more harm came from the mutations. They were either weakened or deformed from the mutations even the mutations that caused no change shortened the lives of the flies.

We saw  an extra pair of wings that didn't work,missing antennas, missing legs,no wings I saw no mutation that improved the flies and were a benefit to them.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am headed to church but when I get time I will refute this nonsense you said here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok well nucleotides are the basic unit of DNA code, that is fact. So your not going to refute that, or at least i really hope you arent.
> 
> So the only thing that leaves for you to refute is the notion the nucleotides form naturally, which i think you will find difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The genetic code is a language and no language can happen absent of intelligence.
Click to expand...


Who is communicating with who through this 'language'?

I think you are latching too strongly onto certain terms and then applying them inappropriately.


----------



## FurthurBB

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok well nucleotides are the basic unit of DNA code, that is fact. So your not going to refute that, or at least i really hope you arent.
> 
> So the only thing that leaves for you to refute is the notion the nucleotides form naturally, which i think you will find difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The genetic code is a language and no language can happen absent of intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is communicating with who through this 'language'?
> 
> I think you are latching to strongly onto certain terms and then applying them inappropriately.
Click to expand...


And doing it on purpose because they know that used correctly it can do nothing but prove their premise wrong.  Another example of being dishonest for Jesus.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok well nucleotides are the basic unit of DNA code, that is fact. So your not going to refute that, or at least i really hope you arent.
> 
> So the only thing that leaves for you to refute is the notion the nucleotides form naturally, which i think you will find difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The genetic code is a language and no language can happen absent of intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is communicating with who through this 'language'?
> 
> I think you are latching to strongly onto certain terms and then applying them inappropriately.
Click to expand...


Communication theory requires three steps. Coding, transmitting, and decoding.

In order to reproduce itself , make a copy of itself, the cell employs an information encoding system called the genetic code 
The encoded information is stored  as you well know  in the DNA molecules inside the nucleus of a cell.


The information is stored using the genetic code and a transcription system is employed to read the information encoded by the DNA molecules .

The amount of information stored is enormous and the encoding and decoding system employed is just like communication systems designed by humans.

So whats communicating you ask.

The nucleus of the cell and the protein factory found in the endoplasmic reticulum.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The genetic code is a language and no language can happen absent of intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is communicating with who through this 'language'?
> 
> I think you are latching to strongly onto certain terms and then applying them inappropriately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And doing it on purpose because they know that used correctly it can do nothing but prove their premise wrong.  Another example of being dishonest for Jesus.
Click to expand...


You really are ignorant of the genetic code. It requires Coding, transmitting, and decoding.

Is that not the same as any code or language ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

The next qustion well it don't have meaning, yes it does the meaning is the cause and effect of the information decoded.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is communicating with who through this 'language'?
> 
> I think you are latching to strongly onto certain terms and then applying them inappropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And doing it on purpose because they know that used correctly it can do nothing but prove their premise wrong.  Another example of being dishonest for Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are ignorant of the genetic code. It requires Coding, transmitting, and decoding.
> 
> Is that not the same as any code or language ?
Click to expand...


Wow!  How is it coded, how is it transmitted?  I guess one out of three is not bad for you though.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> And doing it on purpose because they know that used correctly it can do nothing but prove their premise wrong.  Another example of being dishonest for Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are ignorant of the genetic code. It requires Coding, transmitting, and decoding.
> 
> Is that not the same as any code or language ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!  How is it coded, how is it transmitted?  I guess one out of three is not bad for you though.
Click to expand...


Oh boy


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> And doing it on purpose because they know that used correctly it can do nothing but prove their premise wrong.  Another example of being dishonest for Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are ignorant of the genetic code. It requires Coding, transmitting, and decoding.
> 
> Is that not the same as any code or language ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!  How is it coded, how is it transmitted?  I guess one out of three is not bad for you though.
Click to expand...


1. DNA tape ,Message in DNA alphabet, DNA tape,Nucleic, RNA,polymerase.

2. Encoding, DNA alphabet to mRNA alphabet,transcription.

3. channel mRNA message into RNA alphabet.

4. Noise, point mutation, genetic noise.

5. Channel,mRNA message + genetic noise.

6. Decoding translation, Genetic noise mischarged tRNA, amino aclyated tRNA, amino acyl synthetases tRNA amino acids.

7. Protein message in protein alphabet,protein tape.

You were given.

Source tape, The channel code, and then the destination alphabet.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is communicating with who through this 'language'?
> 
> I think you are latching to strongly onto certain terms and then applying them inappropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And doing it on purpose because they know that used correctly it can do nothing but prove their premise wrong.  Another example of being dishonest for Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are ignorant of the genetic code. It requires Coding, transmitting, and decoding.
> 
> Is that not the same as any code or language ?
Click to expand...

"Code" in genetics, and "code" in language mean different things--they are comparable, they are analogous, but they ARE NOT the same thing. You continue to be wrong about this, and you continue to demonstrate that you have purposefully embraced a most fundamental misunderstanding of genetics to advance your retarded point.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> And doing it on purpose because they know that used correctly it can do nothing but prove their premise wrong.  Another example of being dishonest for Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are ignorant of the genetic code. It requires Coding, transmitting, and decoding.
> 
> Is that not the same as any code or language ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Code" in genetics, and "code" in language mean different things--they are comparable, they are analogous, but they ARE NOT the same thing. You continue to be wrong about this, and you continue to demonstrate that you have purposefully embraced a most fundamental misunderstanding of genetics to advance your retarded point.
Click to expand...


No you have shown your ignorance of a code and language that can only be explained to have come into existence through intelligence.

Codes and language require intelligence.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are ignorant of the genetic code. It requires Coding, transmitting, and decoding.
> 
> Is that not the same as any code or language ?
> 
> 
> 
> "Code" in genetics, and "code" in language mean different things--they are comparable, they are analogous, but they ARE NOT the same thing. You continue to be wrong about this, and you continue to demonstrate that you have purposefully embraced a most fundamental misunderstanding of genetics to advance your retarded point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you have shown your ignorance of a code and language that can only be explained to have come into existence through intelligence.
> 
> Codes and language require intelligence.
Click to expand...

"Code" in genetics, and "code" in language *mean different things*--they are comparable, they are analogous, but *they ARE NOT the same thing*. You continue to be wrong about this, and you continue to demonstrate that you have purposefully embraced a most fundamental misunderstanding of genetics to advance your retarded point.


----------



## Photonic

Just going to leave this here.


----------



## daws101




----------



## Youwerecreated

Photonic said:


> Just going to leave this here.



Ok let's look at your example of evolution.

You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.The evidence that supports this is the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Things suddnly appear with no transitions.

We observe micro-adaptations that come about because of the enviornment but we also see when the enviornment goes back to what it was before  the organisms go back to the way it was is this evolution or just adaptations ? Example animals growing long hair in the winter and when spring returns they shed the long hair. So this micro-adaptation was built in to the DNA information it is a normal function to have this ability for animals.

Man has assigned a family for each species or breed of animals and said they are related because of morphological and DNA similarity. But are they really related ? sure some are similar enough they can cross breed but does that prove descent ?

The real problem here for evolutionist is that animals and man has appeared suddenly without showing gradualism. Here are a few questions for you.

If animals over time gradually change through evolution where are the transitional fossils ?

Why are the animals that supposedly evolved still here and the transitional species extinct ?

Why did natural selection supposedly eliminate transitional animals and not the original animal that evolved ?

Why do we see fossils that according to evolutionist are very old but we have the same organisms today and they show no change after all these years ?

Why are the supposed transitional animals extinct since they were supposedly better adapted and passed on their traits ?

Why do we not see transitional animals all over the planet since evolution is constantly happening because we know every living thing has mutations ?

So honestly with the lack of these transitions and the theory of punctuated equilibrium things do seem to have suddenly appeared. This evidence supports the creation theory not the evolution theory. Animals and man suddenly appeared because they were created and because these animals and man have the ability to adapt your theory of macro-evolution has been an extrapolation of these abilities to adapt.

Your theory needed a way for new genetic information to arrise and they assume because mutations can change information this is the way evolution happens.

But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


>



I think this better fits the evolutionist model.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just going to leave this here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's look at your example of evolution.
> 
> You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.
Click to expand...

"Suddenly" on a geologic time scale; this "suddenly" is still a time period of millions of years.



Youwerecreated said:


> The evidence that supports this is the theory of punctuated equilibrium.


A theory which does not contradict or refute gradualism, but rather enhances gradualism--as was demonstrated when your dishonest quote-mining of Gould & Elderidge was exposed.  



Youwerecreated said:


> Things suddnly appear with no transitions.


No. Over the course of millions of year WITH transitions.



Youwerecreated said:


> We observe micro-adaptations that come about because of the enviornment but we also see when the enviornment goes back to what it was before  the organisms go back to the way it was is this evolution or just adaptations ? Example animals growing long hair in the winter and when spring returns they shed the long hair. So this micro-adaptation was built in to the DNA information it is a normal function to have this ability for animals.


What you are describing here is ENTIRELY different than the speciation which HAS BEEN observed, which CONFIRMS macroevolution.



Youwerecreated said:


> Man has assigned a family for each species or breed of animals and said they are related because of morphological and DNA similarity. But are they really related ?


 The verifiable evidence strongly suggests this is so; observed speciation VERY STRONGLY supports this suggestion.



Youwerecreated said:


> sure some are similar enough they can cross breed but does that prove descent ?


This all depends upon your standard of "proof"; The verifiable evidence strongly suggests suggests common descent.



Youwerecreated said:


> The real problem here for evolutionist is that animals and man has appeared suddenly without showing gradualism.


This problem you say evolutionists have is non-existent, as the terminology you use to describe your premise is demonstrably specious.



Youwerecreated said:


> Here are a few questions for you.
> 
> If animals over time gradually change through evolution where are the transitional fossils ?


In the fossil record. There are ABUNDANT examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record.



Youwerecreated said:


> Why are the animals that supposedly evolved still here and the transitional species extinct ?


Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES the parent species to become extinct.



Youwerecreated said:


> Why did natural selection supposedly eliminate transitional animals and not the original animal that evolved ?


Because in certain cases, daughter species DID out-compete their parent species to the point of extinction.



Youwerecreated said:


> Why do we see fossils that according to evolutionist are very old but we have the same organisms today and they show no change after all these years ?


Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES a species to become extinct.



Youwerecreated said:


> Why are the supposed transitional animals extinct since they were supposedly better adapted and passed on their traits ?


The environment is dynamic, and the dynamic of a species' environment includes other species.



Youwerecreated said:


> Why do we not see transitional animals all over the planet since evolution is constantly happening because we know every living thing has mutations ?


We DO see transitional animals--RING SPECIES.



Youwerecreated said:


> So honestly with the lack of these transitions and the theory of punctuated equilibrium things do seem to have suddenly appeared.


There is NO LACK of transitional organisms, and punctuated equilibrium is compatible with gradualism, and this "suddenly" you keep disingenuously referencing is a period of time that is millions of years in duration.



Youwerecreated said:


> This evidence supports the creation theory not the evolution theory.


Even your FULLY ERRONEOUS description of punctuated equilibrium, your denial of the patently obvious existence of transitional fossils, and your refusal to acknowledge the proof of macro-evolution that ring species presents is still NO EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER supporting Creation Theory.

Even if your patent bullshit _WAS_ valid, it would only invalidate specific assertion of evolutionary theory. Even if your patent bullshit fully invalidated evolutionary theory, that refutation in no way what-so-ever is ANY evidence supporting creation theory.



Youwerecreated said:


> Animals and man suddenly appeared because they were created ...


The evidence CLEARLY contradicts this assertion that "Animals and man suddenly appeared ..." and there is no valid verifiable evidence that animal and man were created.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... and because these animals and man have the ability to adapt your theory of macro-evolution has been an extrapolation of these abilities to adapt.


And macro-evolution has been confirmed, and confirmed consistent with the theory of evolution and in direct contradiction to creation theory.



Youwerecreated said:


> Your theory needed a way for new genetic information to arrise and they assume because mutations can change information this is the way evolution happens.


No evolutionist denies that mutations can change genetic information, that such change can lead to the different expression of traits, and that the differences in genetics and expressed traits is what fundamentally determines speciation.



Youwerecreated said:


> But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.


There is nothing about mutation that requires it to express itself magically throughout a population all at once. ONLY harmful mutations can be destructive over time, however there is nothing about mutation that makes them NECESSARILY destructive; and clearly not all of them are destructive. Those that are so destructive that they are lethal have no destructive effects on a population over time at all; those that are not so destructive but impair fitness have little if any destructive effect over time on a population; and those that are not destructive simply have no destructive consequence what-so-ever on the population over time; and those that enhance fitness have a greater probability of being passed, over time, to subsequent generations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just going to leave this here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's look at your example of evolution.
> 
> You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Suddenly" on a geologic time scale; this "suddenly" is still a time period of millions of years.
> 
> A theory which does not contradict or refute gradualism, but rather enhances gradualism--as was demonstrated when your dishonest quote-mining of Gould & Elderidge was exposed.
> 
> No. Over the course of millions of year WITH transitions.
> 
> What you are describing here is ENTIRELY different than the speciation which HAS BEEN observed, which CONFIRMS macroevolution.
> 
> The verifiable evidence strongly suggests this is so; observed speciation VERY STRONGLY supports this suggestion.
> 
> This all depends upon your standard of "proof"; The verifiable evidence strongly suggests suggests common descent.
> 
> This problem you say evolutionists have is non-existent, as the terminology you use to describe your premise is demonstrably specious.
> 
> In the fossil record. There are ABUNDANT examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record.
> 
> Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES the parent species to become extinct.
> 
> Because in certain cases, daughter species DID out-compete their parent species to the point of extinction.
> 
> Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES a species to become extinct.
> 
> The environment is dynamic, and the dynamic of a species' environment includes other species.
> 
> We DO see transitional animals--RING SPECIES.
> 
> There is NO LACK of transitional organisms, and punctuated equilibrium is compatible with gradualism, and this "suddenly" you keep disingenuously referencing is a period of time that is millions of years in duration.
> 
> Even your FULLY ERRONEOUS description of punctuated equilibrium, your denial of the patently obvious existence of transitional fossils, and your refusal to acknowledge the proof of macro-evolution that ring species presents is still NO EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER supporting Creation Theory.
> 
> Even if your patent bullshit _WAS_ valid, it would only invalidate specific assertion of evolutionary theory. Even if your patent bullshit fully invalidated evolutionary theory, that refutation in no way what-so-ever is ANY evidence supporting creation theory.
> 
> The evidence CLEARLY contradicts this assertion that "Animals and man suddenly appeared ..." and there is no valid verifiable evidence that animal and man were created.
> 
> And macro-evolution has been confirmed, and confirmed consistent with the theory of evolution and in direct contradiction to creation theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your theory needed a way for new genetic information to arrise and they assume because mutations can change information this is the way evolution happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No evolutionist denies that mutations can change genetic information, that such change can lead to the different expression of traits, and that the differences in genetics and expressed traits is what fundamentally determines speciation.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing about mutation that requires it to express itself magically throughout a population all at once. ONLY harmful mutations can be destructive over time, however there is nothing about mutation that makes them NECESSARILY destructive; and clearly not all of them are destructive. Those that are so destructive that they are lethal have no destructive effects on a population over time at all; those that are not so destructive but impair fitness have little if any destructive effect over time on a population; and those that are not destructive simply have no destructive consequence what-so-ever on the population over time; and those that enhance fitness have a greater probability of being passed, over time, to subsequent generations.
Click to expand...


Nice try but I will let you look back through your post and find your contradictions.

Can you provide these transitional fossils ?

Also the transitional fossils that connects the two families,example like the one that connects reptiles and birds and Humans and whatever you claim humans evolved from.

Oh and if something evolved it means it was better adapted but yet they no longer exist why ? How did they pass their traits on if they went extinct ?

Yes the precambrian was only a few million years so how did they all evolve in such a short time scale ?

Oh and when you go through trait changes that is new genetic information. Example your side claims that our ancestors eventually got better at walking upright that would take new genetic information.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this better fits the evolutionist model.
Click to expand...

then your self imposed ignorance runs deeper than I though.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's look at your example of evolution.
> 
> You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.
> 
> 
> 
> "Suddenly" on a geologic time scale; this "suddenly" is still a time period of millions of years.
> 
> A theory which does not contradict or refute gradualism, but rather enhances gradualism--as was demonstrated when your dishonest quote-mining of Gould & Elderidge was exposed.
> 
> No. Over the course of millions of year WITH transitions.
> 
> What you are describing here is ENTIRELY different than the speciation which HAS BEEN observed, which CONFIRMS macroevolution.
> 
> The verifiable evidence strongly suggests this is so; observed speciation VERY STRONGLY supports this suggestion.
> 
> This all depends upon your standard of "proof"; The verifiable evidence strongly suggests suggests common descent.
> 
> This problem you say evolutionists have is non-existent, as the terminology you use to describe your premise is demonstrably specious.
> 
> In the fossil record. There are ABUNDANT examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record.
> 
> Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES the parent species to become extinct.
> 
> Because in certain cases, daughter species DID out-compete their parent species to the point of extinction.
> 
> Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES a species to become extinct.
> 
> The environment is dynamic, and the dynamic of a species' environment includes other species.
> 
> We DO see transitional animals--RING SPECIES.
> 
> There is NO LACK of transitional organisms, and punctuated equilibrium is compatible with gradualism, and this "suddenly" you keep disingenuously referencing is a period of time that is millions of years in duration.
> 
> Even your FULLY ERRONEOUS description of punctuated equilibrium, your denial of the patently obvious existence of transitional fossils, and your refusal to acknowledge the proof of macro-evolution that ring species presents is still NO EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER supporting Creation Theory.
> 
> Even if your patent bullshit _WAS_ valid, it would only invalidate specific assertion of evolutionary theory. Even if your patent bullshit fully invalidated evolutionary theory, that refutation in no way what-so-ever is ANY evidence supporting creation theory.
> 
> The evidence CLEARLY contradicts this assertion that "Animals and man suddenly appeared ..." and there is no valid verifiable evidence that animal and man were created.
> 
> And macro-evolution has been confirmed, and confirmed consistent with the theory of evolution and in direct contradiction to creation theory.
> 
> No evolutionist denies that mutations can change genetic information, that such change can lead to the different expression of traits, and that the differences in genetics and expressed traits is what fundamentally determines speciation.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing about mutation that requires it to express itself magically throughout a population all at once. ONLY harmful mutations can be destructive over time, however there is nothing about mutation that makes them NECESSARILY destructive; and clearly not all of them are destructive. Those that are so destructive that they are lethal have no destructive effects on a population over time at all; those that are not so destructive but impair fitness have little if any destructive effect over time on a population; and those that are not destructive simply have no destructive consequence what-so-ever on the population over time; and those that enhance fitness have a greater probability of being passed, over time, to subsequent generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but I will let you look back through your post and find your contradictions.
> 
> Can you provide these transitional fossils ?
> 
> Also the transitional fossils that connects the two families,example like the one that connects reptiles and birds and Humans and whatever you claim humans evolved from.
> 
> Oh and if something evolved it means it was better adapted but yet they no longer exist why ? How did they pass their traits on if they went extinct ?
> 
> Yes the precambrian was only a few million years so how did they all evolve in such a short time scale ?
> 
> Oh and when you go through trait changes that is new genetic information. Example your side claims that our ancestors eventually got better at walking upright that would take new genetic information.
Click to expand...

(A few) transitional fossils


----------



## Photonic

Youwerecreated said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just going to leave this here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's look at your example of evolution.
> 
> You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.The evidence that supports this is the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Things suddnly appear with no transitions.
> 
> We observe micro-adaptations that come about because of the enviornment but we also see when the enviornment goes back to what it was before  the organisms go back to the way it was is this evolution or just adaptations ? Example animals growing long hair in the winter and when spring returns they shed the long hair. So this micro-adaptation was built in to the DNA information it is a normal function to have this ability for animals.
> 
> Man has assigned a family for each species or breed of animals and said they are related because of morphological and DNA similarity. But are they really related ? sure some are similar enough they can cross breed but does that prove descent ?
> 
> The real problem here for evolutionist is that animals and man has appeared suddenly without showing gradualism. Here are a few questions for you.
> 
> If animals over time gradually change through evolution where are the transitional fossils ?
> 
> Why are the animals that supposedly evolved still here and the transitional species extinct ?
> 
> Why did natural selection supposedly eliminate transitional animals and not the original animal that evolved ?
> 
> Why do we see fossils that according to evolutionist are very old but we have the same organisms today and they show no change after all these years ?
> 
> Why are the supposed transitional animals extinct since they were supposedly better adapted and passed on their traits ?
> 
> Why do we not see transitional animals all over the planet since evolution is constantly happening because we know every living thing has mutations ?
> 
> So honestly with the lack of these transitions and the theory of punctuated equilibrium things do seem to have suddenly appeared. This evidence supports the creation theory not the evolution theory. Animals and man suddenly appeared because they were created and because these animals and man have the ability to adapt your theory of macro-evolution has been an extrapolation of these abilities to adapt.
> 
> Your theory needed a way for new genetic information to arrise and they assume because mutations can change information this is the way evolution happens.
> 
> But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.
Click to expand...


Amazing that you put all those letters into that post and still managed to miss the entire point of that post.

Cognitive dissonance much?


----------



## daws101

Photonic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just going to leave this here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's look at your example of evolution.
> 
> You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.The evidence that supports this is the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Things suddnly appear with no transitions.
> 
> We observe micro-adaptations that come about because of the enviornment but we also see when the enviornment goes back to what it was before  the organisms go back to the way it was is this evolution or just adaptations ? Example animals growing long hair in the winter and when spring returns they shed the long hair. So this micro-adaptation was built in to the DNA information it is a normal function to have this ability for animals.
> 
> Man has assigned a family for each species or breed of animals and said they are related because of morphological and DNA similarity. But are they really related ? sure some are similar enough they can cross breed but does that prove descent ?
> 
> The real problem here for evolutionist is that animals and man has appeared suddenly without showing gradualism. Here are a few questions for you.
> 
> If animals over time gradually change through evolution where are the transitional fossils ?
> 
> Why are the animals that supposedly evolved still here and the transitional species extinct ?
> 
> Why did natural selection supposedly eliminate transitional animals and not the original animal that evolved ?
> 
> Why do we see fossils that according to evolutionist are very old but we have the same organisms today and they show no change after all these years ?
> 
> Why are the supposed transitional animals extinct since they were supposedly better adapted and passed on their traits ?
> 
> Why do we not see transitional animals all over the planet since evolution is constantly happening because we know every living thing has mutations ?
> 
> So honestly with the lack of these transitions and the theory of punctuated equilibrium things do seem to have suddenly appeared. This evidence supports the creation theory not the evolution theory. Animals and man suddenly appeared because they were created and because these animals and man have the ability to adapt your theory of macro-evolution has been an extrapolation of these abilities to adapt.
> 
> Your theory needed a way for new genetic information to arrise and they assume because mutations can change information this is the way evolution happens.
> 
> But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing that you put all those letters into that post and still managed to miss the entire point of that post.
> 
> Cognitive dissonance much?
Click to expand...

 more like cognitive bias!


----------



## Photonic

daws101 said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's look at your example of evolution.
> 
> You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.The evidence that supports this is the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Things suddnly appear with no transitions.
> 
> We observe micro-adaptations that come about because of the enviornment but we also see when the enviornment goes back to what it was before  the organisms go back to the way it was is this evolution or just adaptations ? Example animals growing long hair in the winter and when spring returns they shed the long hair. So this micro-adaptation was built in to the DNA information it is a normal function to have this ability for animals.
> 
> Man has assigned a family for each species or breed of animals and said they are related because of morphological and DNA similarity. But are they really related ? sure some are similar enough they can cross breed but does that prove descent ?
> 
> The real problem here for evolutionist is that animals and man has appeared suddenly without showing gradualism. Here are a few questions for you.
> 
> If animals over time gradually change through evolution where are the transitional fossils ?
> 
> Why are the animals that supposedly evolved still here and the transitional species extinct ?
> 
> Why did natural selection supposedly eliminate transitional animals and not the original animal that evolved ?
> 
> Why do we see fossils that according to evolutionist are very old but we have the same organisms today and they show no change after all these years ?
> 
> Why are the supposed transitional animals extinct since they were supposedly better adapted and passed on their traits ?
> 
> Why do we not see transitional animals all over the planet since evolution is constantly happening because we know every living thing has mutations ?
> 
> So honestly with the lack of these transitions and the theory of punctuated equilibrium things do seem to have suddenly appeared. This evidence supports the creation theory not the evolution theory. Animals and man suddenly appeared because they were created and because these animals and man have the ability to adapt your theory of macro-evolution has been an extrapolation of these abilities to adapt.
> 
> Your theory needed a way for new genetic information to arrise and they assume because mutations can change information this is the way evolution happens.
> 
> But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that you put all those letters into that post and still managed to miss the entire point of that post.
> 
> Cognitive dissonance much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more like cognitive bias!
Click to expand...


Little bit of A, little bit of B.


----------



## daws101

Photonic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that you put all those letters into that post and still managed to miss the entire point of that post.
> 
> Cognitive dissonance much?
> 
> 
> 
> more like cognitive bias!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Little bit of A, little bit of B.
Click to expand...

 and a heap of BS.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Suddenly" on a geologic time scale; this "suddenly" is still a time period of millions of years.
> 
> A theory which does not contradict or refute gradualism, but rather enhances gradualism--as was demonstrated when your dishonest quote-mining of Gould & Elderidge was exposed.
> 
> No. Over the course of millions of year WITH transitions.
> 
> What you are describing here is ENTIRELY different than the speciation which HAS BEEN observed, which CONFIRMS macroevolution.
> 
> The verifiable evidence strongly suggests this is so; observed speciation VERY STRONGLY supports this suggestion.
> 
> This all depends upon your standard of "proof"; The verifiable evidence strongly suggests suggests common descent.
> 
> This problem you say evolutionists have is non-existent, as the terminology you use to describe your premise is demonstrably specious.
> 
> In the fossil record. There are ABUNDANT examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record.
> 
> Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES the parent species to become extinct.
> 
> Because in certain cases, daughter species DID out-compete their parent species to the point of extinction.
> 
> Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES a species to become extinct.
> 
> The environment is dynamic, and the dynamic of a species' environment includes other species.
> 
> We DO see transitional animals--RING SPECIES.
> 
> There is NO LACK of transitional organisms, and punctuated equilibrium is compatible with gradualism, and this "suddenly" you keep disingenuously referencing is a period of time that is millions of years in duration.
> 
> Even your FULLY ERRONEOUS description of punctuated equilibrium, your denial of the patently obvious existence of transitional fossils, and your refusal to acknowledge the proof of macro-evolution that ring species presents is still NO EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER supporting Creation Theory.
> 
> Even if your patent bullshit _WAS_ valid, it would only invalidate specific assertion of evolutionary theory. Even if your patent bullshit fully invalidated evolutionary theory, that refutation in no way what-so-ever is ANY evidence supporting creation theory.
> 
> The evidence CLEARLY contradicts this assertion that "Animals and man suddenly appeared ..." and there is no valid verifiable evidence that animal and man were created.
> 
> And macro-evolution has been confirmed, and confirmed consistent with the theory of evolution and in direct contradiction to creation theory.
> 
> No evolutionist denies that mutations can change genetic information, that such change can lead to the different expression of traits, and that the differences in genetics and expressed traits is what fundamentally determines speciation.
> 
> There is nothing about mutation that requires it to express itself magically throughout a population all at once. ONLY harmful mutations can be destructive over time, however there is nothing about mutation that makes them NECESSARILY destructive; and clearly not all of them are destructive. Those that are so destructive that they are lethal have no destructive effects on a population over time at all; those that are not so destructive but impair fitness have little if any destructive effect over time on a population; and those that are not destructive simply have no destructive consequence what-so-ever on the population over time; and those that enhance fitness have a greater probability of being passed, over time, to subsequent generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try but I will let you look back through your post and find your contradictions.
> 
> Can you provide these transitional fossils ?
> 
> Also the transitional fossils that connects the two families,example like the one that connects reptiles and birds and Humans and whatever you claim humans evolved from.
> 
> Oh and if something evolved it means it was better adapted but yet they no longer exist why ? How did they pass their traits on if they went extinct ?
> 
> Yes the precambrian was only a few million years so how did they all evolve in such a short time scale ?
> 
> Oh and when you go through trait changes that is new genetic information. Example your side claims that our ancestors eventually got better at walking upright that would take new genetic information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (A few) transitional fossils
Click to expand...


You have to be kidding right


----------



## Youwerecreated

Photonic said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just going to leave this here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's look at your example of evolution.
> 
> You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.The evidence that supports this is the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Things suddnly appear with no transitions.
> 
> We observe micro-adaptations that come about because of the enviornment but we also see when the enviornment goes back to what it was before  the organisms go back to the way it was is this evolution or just adaptations ? Example animals growing long hair in the winter and when spring returns they shed the long hair. So this micro-adaptation was built in to the DNA information it is a normal function to have this ability for animals.
> 
> Man has assigned a family for each species or breed of animals and said they are related because of morphological and DNA similarity. But are they really related ? sure some are similar enough they can cross breed but does that prove descent ?
> 
> The real problem here for evolutionist is that animals and man has appeared suddenly without showing gradualism. Here are a few questions for you.
> 
> If animals over time gradually change through evolution where are the transitional fossils ?
> 
> Why are the animals that supposedly evolved still here and the transitional species extinct ?
> 
> Why did natural selection supposedly eliminate transitional animals and not the original animal that evolved ?
> 
> Why do we see fossils that according to evolutionist are very old but we have the same organisms today and they show no change after all these years ?
> 
> Why are the supposed transitional animals extinct since they were supposedly better adapted and passed on their traits ?
> 
> Why do we not see transitional animals all over the planet since evolution is constantly happening because we know every living thing has mutations ?
> 
> So honestly with the lack of these transitions and the theory of punctuated equilibrium things do seem to have suddenly appeared. This evidence supports the creation theory not the evolution theory. Animals and man suddenly appeared because they were created and because these animals and man have the ability to adapt your theory of macro-evolution has been an extrapolation of these abilities to adapt.
> 
> Your theory needed a way for new genetic information to arrise and they assume because mutations can change information this is the way evolution happens.
> 
> But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing that you put all those letters into that post and still managed to miss the entire point of that post.
> 
> Cognitive dissonance much?
Click to expand...


Put up time.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try but I will let you look back through your post and find your contradictions.
> 
> Can you provide these transitional fossils ?
> 
> Also the transitional fossils that connects the two families,example like the one that connects reptiles and birds and Humans and whatever you claim humans evolved from.
> 
> Oh and if something evolved it means it was better adapted but yet they no longer exist why ? How did they pass their traits on if they went extinct ?
> 
> Yes the precambrian was only a few million years so how did they all evolve in such a short time scale ?
> 
> Oh and when you go through trait changes that is new genetic information. Example your side claims that our ancestors eventually got better at walking upright that would take new genetic information.
> 
> 
> 
> (A few) transitional fossils
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to be kidding right
Click to expand...

no more than you.. Although I do get a good laugh out of the pictures in the bible....total artistic license...based an fantasy!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's look at your example of evolution.
> 
> You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.The evidence that supports this is the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Things suddnly appear with no transitions.
> 
> We observe micro-adaptations that come about because of the enviornment but we also see when the enviornment goes back to what it was before  the organisms go back to the way it was is this evolution or just adaptations ? Example animals growing long hair in the winter and when spring returns they shed the long hair. So this micro-adaptation was built in to the DNA information it is a normal function to have this ability for animals.
> 
> Man has assigned a family for each species or breed of animals and said they are related because of morphological and DNA similarity. But are they really related ? sure some are similar enough they can cross breed but does that prove descent ?
> 
> The real problem here for evolutionist is that animals and man has appeared suddenly without showing gradualism. Here are a few questions for you.
> 
> If animals over time gradually change through evolution where are the transitional fossils ?
> 
> Why are the animals that supposedly evolved still here and the transitional species extinct ?
> 
> Why did natural selection supposedly eliminate transitional animals and not the original animal that evolved ?
> 
> Why do we see fossils that according to evolutionist are very old but we have the same organisms today and they show no change after all these years ?
> 
> Why are the supposed transitional animals extinct since they were supposedly better adapted and passed on their traits ?
> 
> Why do we not see transitional animals all over the planet since evolution is constantly happening because we know every living thing has mutations ?
> 
> So honestly with the lack of these transitions and the theory of punctuated equilibrium things do seem to have suddenly appeared. This evidence supports the creation theory not the evolution theory. Animals and man suddenly appeared because they were created and because these animals and man have the ability to adapt your theory of macro-evolution has been an extrapolation of these abilities to adapt.
> 
> Your theory needed a way for new genetic information to arrise and they assume because mutations can change information this is the way evolution happens.
> 
> But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that you put all those letters into that post and still managed to miss the entire point of that post.
> 
> Cognitive dissonance much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put up time.
Click to expand...

looks like you don't understand the term.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more like cognitive bias!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little bit of A, little bit of B.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and a heap of BS.
Click to expand...


Quotes from evolutionist concerning transitional fossils. I am sure you guys know more than these guys.

Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record.  By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory. [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), Paleontology and Uniformitariansim. Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.] 


Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460

The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred.  The fossil record doesnt even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories. [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]


Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin.  He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]


At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the official position of most Western evolutionists.  Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ...  The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.  They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance.  In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]


[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequencesmore than enough (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic.  Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these superb examples were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)?  Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)?  The only remaining explanationnot unheard of among evolutionistswould be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.] 


- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Little bit of A, little bit of B.
> 
> 
> 
> and a heap of BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotes from evolutionist concerning transitional fossils. I am sure you guys know more than these guys.
> 
> Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record.  By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory. [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), Paleontology and Uniformitariansim. Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
> 
> 
> Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460
> 
> The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
> 
> "...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
> 
> Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred.  The fossil record doesnt even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories. [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
> 
> 
> Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin.  He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
> 
> 
> At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the official position of most Western evolutionists.  Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
> 
> The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ...  The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.  They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance.  In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
> 
> 
> [It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequencesmore than enough (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic.  Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these superb examples were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)?  Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)?  The only remaining explanationnot unheard of among evolutionistswould be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
> 
> 
> - Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
Click to expand...


I'm curious why you would put any credence in the words of people who believe in evolution, whether they disagree with some specifics or not?

You seem to be saying, "Evolution is wrong.  Here are some people who believe it to be true saying it is wrong.".


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and a heap of BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quotes from evolutionist concerning transitional fossils. I am sure you guys know more than these guys.
> 
> Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record.  By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory. [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), Paleontology and Uniformitariansim. Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
> 
> 
> Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460
> 
> The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
> 
> "...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
> 
> Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred.  The fossil record doesnt even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories. [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
> 
> 
> Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin.  He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
> 
> 
> At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the official position of most Western evolutionists.  Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
> 
> The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ...  The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.  They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance.  In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
> 
> 
> [It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequencesmore than enough (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic.  Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these superb examples were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)?  Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)?  The only remaining explanationnot unheard of among evolutionistswould be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
> 
> 
> - Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious why you would put any credence in the words of people who believe in evolution, whether they disagree with some specifics or not?
> 
> You seem to be saying, "Evolution is wrong.  Here are some people who believe it to be true saying it is wrong.".
Click to expand...

 since ywc is quoting from a creationist site ,it's meaningless anyway.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Little bit of A, little bit of B.
> 
> 
> 
> and a heap of BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quotes from evolutionist concerning transitional fossils. I am sure you guys know more than these guys.
> 
> Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record.  By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory. [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), Paleontology and Uniformitariansim. Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
> 
> 
> Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460
> 
> The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
> 
> "...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
> 
> Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred.  The fossil record doesnt even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories. [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
> 
> 
> Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin.  He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
> 
> 
> At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the official position of most Western evolutionists.  Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
> 
> The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ...  The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.  They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance.  In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
> 
> 
> [It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequencesmore than enough (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic.  Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these superb examples were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)?  Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)?  The only remaining explanationnot unheard of among evolutionistswould be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
> 
> 
> - Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
Click to expand...

"I am sure you guys know more than these guys."- ywc
maybe, but that's not the point.
all we need to know is 1 fact more than you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's look at your example of evolution.
> 
> You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.
> 
> 
> 
> "Suddenly" on a geologic time scale; this "suddenly" is still a time period of millions of years.
> 
> A theory which does not contradict or refute gradualism, but rather enhances gradualism--as was demonstrated when your dishonest quote-mining of Gould & Elderidge was exposed.
> 
> No. Over the course of millions of year WITH transitions.
> 
> What you are describing here is ENTIRELY different than the speciation which HAS BEEN observed, which CONFIRMS macroevolution.
> 
> The verifiable evidence strongly suggests this is so; observed speciation VERY STRONGLY supports this suggestion.
> 
> This all depends upon your standard of "proof"; The verifiable evidence strongly suggests suggests common descent.
> 
> This problem you say evolutionists have is non-existent, as the terminology you use to describe your premise is demonstrably specious.
> 
> In the fossil record. There are ABUNDANT examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record.
> 
> Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES the parent species to become extinct.
> 
> Because in certain cases, daughter species DID out-compete their parent species to the point of extinction.
> 
> Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES a species to become extinct.
> 
> The environment is dynamic, and the dynamic of a species' environment includes other species.
> 
> We DO see transitional animals--RING SPECIES.
> 
> There is NO LACK of transitional organisms, and punctuated equilibrium is compatible with gradualism, and this "suddenly" you keep disingenuously referencing is a period of time that is millions of years in duration.
> 
> Even your FULLY ERRONEOUS description of punctuated equilibrium, your denial of the patently obvious existence of transitional fossils, and your refusal to acknowledge the proof of macro-evolution that ring species presents is still NO EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER supporting Creation Theory.
> 
> Even if your patent bullshit _WAS_ valid, it would only invalidate specific assertion of evolutionary theory. Even if your patent bullshit fully invalidated evolutionary theory, that refutation in no way what-so-ever is ANY evidence supporting creation theory.
> 
> The evidence CLEARLY contradicts this assertion that "Animals and man suddenly appeared ..." and there is no valid verifiable evidence that animal and man were created.
> 
> And macro-evolution has been confirmed, and confirmed consistent with the theory of evolution and in direct contradiction to creation theory.
> 
> No evolutionist denies that mutations can change genetic information, that such change can lead to the different expression of traits, and that the differences in genetics and expressed traits is what fundamentally determines speciation.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing about mutation that requires it to express itself magically throughout a population all at once. ONLY harmful mutations can be destructive over time, however there is nothing about mutation that makes them NECESSARILY destructive; and clearly not all of them are destructive. Those that are so destructive that they are lethal have no destructive effects on a population over time at all; those that are not so destructive but impair fitness have little if any destructive effect over time on a population; and those that are not destructive simply have no destructive consequence what-so-ever on the population over time; and those that enhance fitness have a greater probability of being passed, over time, to subsequent generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but I will let you look back through your post and find your contradictions.
Click to expand...

There are none.



Youwerecreated said:


> Can you provide these transitional fossils ?


Yes.



Youwerecreated said:


> Also the transitional fossils that connects the two families,example like the one that connects reptiles and birds and Humans and whatever you claim humans evolved from.


Yes.



Youwerecreated said:


> Oh and if something evolved it means it was better adapted but yet they no longer exist why ?


Why do you say that evolution would assert that every organism whose existence is manifestly evident no longer exists?



Youwerecreated said:


> How did they pass their traits on if they went extinct ?


They weren't extinct when they passed on their traits. You're a complete idiot, aren't you?



Youwerecreated said:


> Yes the precambrian was only a few million years so how did they all evolve in such a short time scale ?


In the precise manner that has been explained to you so very numerous times already.



Youwerecreated said:


> Oh and when you go through trait changes that is new genetic information.


It seems to be agreeable that changes in inheritable traits are the result of changes in genetic information. It also seems agreeable to assert that "new" genetic information is a change from "old" or "previous" genetic information as well as being "newly introduced" or "additional" genetic information.



Youwerecreated said:


> Example your side claims that our ancestors eventually got better at walking upright that would take new genetic information.


Yes ... and?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and a heap of BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quotes from evolutionist concerning transitional fossils. I am sure you guys know more than these guys.
> 
> Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record.  By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory. [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), Paleontology and Uniformitariansim. Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
> 
> 
> Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460
> 
> The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
> 
> "...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
> 
> Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred.  The fossil record doesnt even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories. [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
> 
> 
> Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin.  He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
> 
> 
> At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the official position of most Western evolutionists.  Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
> 
> The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ...  The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.  They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance.  In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
> 
> 
> [It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequencesmore than enough (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic.  Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these superb examples were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)?  Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)?  The only remaining explanationnot unheard of among evolutionistswould be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
> 
> 
> - Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious why you would put any credence in the words of people who believe in evolution, whether they disagree with some specifics or not?
> 
> You seem to be saying, "Evolution is wrong.  Here are some people who believe it to be true saying it is wrong.".
Click to expand...


Because that shows an honest person once they see the fossil record don't support the theory then they begin to question other things about the theory and eventually don't believe the theory.

But they all believe in small scale evolution so do creationist which is micro-adaptations they just don't believe in macro-evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quotes from evolutionist concerning transitional fossils. I am sure you guys know more than these guys.
> 
> &#8220;Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record.  By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.&#8221; [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), &#8220;Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.&#8221; Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
> 
> 
> &#8220;Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.&#8221; [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460
> 
> &#8220;The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.&#8221; [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
> 
> "...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.&#8221; [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
> 
> &#8220;Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred.  The fossil record doesn&#8217;t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.&#8221; [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
> 
> 
> &#8220;Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin.  He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.&#8221; [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
> 
> 
> &#8220;At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the &#8220;official&#8221; position of most Western evolutionists.  Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).&#8221; [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
> 
> &#8220;The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ...  The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.  They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance.  In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and &#8216;fully formed.&#8217;&#8221; [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
> 
> 
> [It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to &#8220;several&#8221; superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences&#8212;&#8220;more than enough&#8221; (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic.  Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these &#8220;superb examples&#8221; were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)?  Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)?  The only remaining explanation&#8212;not unheard of among evolutionists&#8212;would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
> 
> 
> - Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious why you would put any credence in the words of people who believe in evolution, whether they disagree with some specifics or not?
> 
> You seem to be saying, "Evolution is wrong.  Here are some people who believe it to be true saying it is wrong.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since ywc is quoting from a creationist site ,it's meaningless anyway.
Click to expand...


Prove those quotes are not accurate. They give you where the quotes came from.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and a heap of BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quotes from evolutionist concerning transitional fossils. I am sure you guys know more than these guys.
> 
> Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record.  By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory. [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), Paleontology and Uniformitariansim. Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
> 
> 
> Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460
> 
> The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
> 
> "...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
> 
> Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred.  The fossil record doesnt even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories. [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
> 
> 
> Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin.  He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
> 
> 
> At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the official position of most Western evolutionists.  Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
> 
> The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ...  The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.  They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance.  In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
> 
> 
> [It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequencesmore than enough (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic.  Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these superb examples were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)?  Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)?  The only remaining explanationnot unheard of among evolutionistswould be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
> 
> 
> - Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I am sure you guys know more than these guys."- ywc
> maybe, but that's not the point.
> all we need to know is 1 fact more than you.
Click to expand...


But you don't  and that would not mean a thing as to being right or wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Suddenly" on a geologic time scale; this "suddenly" is still a time period of millions of years.
> 
> A theory which does not contradict or refute gradualism, but rather enhances gradualism--as was demonstrated when your dishonest quote-mining of Gould & Elderidge was exposed.
> 
> No. Over the course of millions of year WITH transitions.
> 
> What you are describing here is ENTIRELY different than the speciation which HAS BEEN observed, which CONFIRMS macroevolution.
> 
> The verifiable evidence strongly suggests this is so; observed speciation VERY STRONGLY supports this suggestion.
> 
> This all depends upon your standard of "proof"; The verifiable evidence strongly suggests suggests common descent.
> 
> This problem you say evolutionists have is non-existent, as the terminology you use to describe your premise is demonstrably specious.
> 
> In the fossil record. There are ABUNDANT examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record.
> 
> Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES the parent species to become extinct.
> 
> Because in certain cases, daughter species DID out-compete their parent species to the point of extinction.
> 
> Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES a species to become extinct.
> 
> The environment is dynamic, and the dynamic of a species' environment includes other species.
> 
> We DO see transitional animals--RING SPECIES.
> 
> There is NO LACK of transitional organisms, and punctuated equilibrium is compatible with gradualism, and this "suddenly" you keep disingenuously referencing is a period of time that is millions of years in duration.
> 
> Even your FULLY ERRONEOUS description of punctuated equilibrium, your denial of the patently obvious existence of transitional fossils, and your refusal to acknowledge the proof of macro-evolution that ring species presents is still NO EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER supporting Creation Theory.
> 
> Even if your patent bullshit _WAS_ valid, it would only invalidate specific assertion of evolutionary theory. Even if your patent bullshit fully invalidated evolutionary theory, that refutation in no way what-so-ever is ANY evidence supporting creation theory.
> 
> The evidence CLEARLY contradicts this assertion that "Animals and man suddenly appeared ..." and there is no valid verifiable evidence that animal and man were created.
> 
> And macro-evolution has been confirmed, and confirmed consistent with the theory of evolution and in direct contradiction to creation theory.
> 
> No evolutionist denies that mutations can change genetic information, that such change can lead to the different expression of traits, and that the differences in genetics and expressed traits is what fundamentally determines speciation.
> 
> There is nothing about mutation that requires it to express itself magically throughout a population all at once. ONLY harmful mutations can be destructive over time, however there is nothing about mutation that makes them NECESSARILY destructive; and clearly not all of them are destructive. Those that are so destructive that they are lethal have no destructive effects on a population over time at all; those that are not so destructive but impair fitness have little if any destructive effect over time on a population; and those that are not destructive simply have no destructive consequence what-so-ever on the population over time; and those that enhance fitness have a greater probability of being passed, over time, to subsequent generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try but I will let you look back through your post and find your contradictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are none.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Why do you say that evolution would assert that every organism whose existence is manifestly evident no longer exists?
> 
> They weren't extinct when they passed on their traits. You're a complete idiot, aren't you?
> 
> In the precise manner that has been explained to you so very numerous times already.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and when you go through trait changes that is new genetic information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems to be agreeable that changes in inheritable traits are the result of changes in genetic information. It also seems agreeable to assert that "new" genetic information is a change from "old" or "previous" genetic information as well as being "newly introduced" or "additional" genetic information.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Example your side claims that our ancestors eventually got better at walking upright that would take new genetic information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes ... and?
Click to expand...


According to your theory you contradicted it with some of your explanations.

My questions show the contradictions.

Did you forget survival of the fittest ?

Do you remember how your side explains mendels findings ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try but I will let you look back through your post and find your contradictions.
> 
> 
> 
> There are none.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Why do you say that evolution would assert that every organism whose existence is manifestly evident no longer exists?
> 
> They weren't extinct when they passed on their traits. You're a complete idiot, aren't you?
> 
> In the precise manner that has been explained to you so very numerous times already.
> 
> It seems to be agreeable that changes in inheritable traits are the result of changes in genetic information. It also seems agreeable to assert that "new" genetic information is a change from "old" or "previous" genetic information as well as being "newly introduced" or "additional" genetic information.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Example your side claims that our ancestors eventually got better at walking upright that would take new genetic information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes ... and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to your theory you contradicted.
Click to expand...

Not in any manner what-so-ever.



Youwerecreated said:


> My questions show the contradictions.


They most certainly failed to demonstrate any contradictions in any manner what-so-ever.

But they did demonstrate your fundamental lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.



Youwerecreated said:


> Did you forget survival of the fittest ?


Not at all.



Youwerecreated said:


> Do you remember how your side explains mendels findings ?


Why don't you share your retarded misunderstanding, your disingenuous misapplication, your dishonest misrepresentation of "my side" with all of us?


----------



## FurthurBB

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and a heap of BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quotes from evolutionist concerning transitional fossils. I am sure you guys know more than these guys.
> 
> &#8220;Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record.  By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.&#8221; [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), &#8220;Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.&#8221; Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
> 
> 
> &#8220;Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.&#8221; [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460
> 
> &#8220;The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.&#8221; [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
> 
> "...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.&#8221; [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
> 
> &#8220;Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred.  The fossil record doesn&#8217;t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.&#8221; [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
> 
> 
> &#8220;Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin.  He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.&#8221; [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
> 
> 
> &#8220;At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the &#8220;official&#8221; position of most Western evolutionists.  Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).&#8221; [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
> 
> &#8220;The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ...  The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.  They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance.  In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and &#8216;fully formed.&#8217;&#8221; [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
> 
> 
> [It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to &#8220;several&#8221; superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences&#8212;&#8220;more than enough&#8221; (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic.  Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these &#8220;superb examples&#8221; were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)?  Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)?  The only remaining explanation&#8212;not unheard of among evolutionists&#8212;would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
> 
> 
> - Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I am sure you guys know more than these guys."- ywc
> maybe, but that's not the point.
> all we need to know is 1 fact more than you.
Click to expand...


Maybe if you try really hard you can find quotes from the 1920s by biologists that say DNA does not replicate by a semi-conservative method and then tell You that proves it doesn't.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious why you would put any credence in the words of people who believe in evolution, whether they disagree with some specifics or not?
> 
> You seem to be saying, "Evolution is wrong.  Here are some people who believe it to be true saying it is wrong.".
> 
> 
> 
> since ywc is quoting from a creationist site ,it's meaningless anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove those quotes are not accurate. They give you where the quotes came from.
Click to expand...

they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since ywc is quoting from a creationist site ,it's meaningless anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove those quotes are not accurate. They give you where the quotes came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!
Click to expand...


Show me.

Look, macro-evolution is a fairytale. The only evidence is in ones mind.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove those quotes are not accurate. They give you where the quotes came from.
> 
> 
> 
> they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me.
> 
> Look, macro-evolution is a fairytale. The only evidence is in ones mind.
Click to expand...

 no you show me ...you need to provide the transcripts,articles, videos, peer reviewed papers of the originals not  those cherry picked statements ,in their totality to know what context those statements were made.
you seem to forget that you are CON or plaintiff of this tread ,it's up to you to prove their validity,
you've done none of that, scripture and pseudo science don't cut it!


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove those quotes are not accurate. They give you where the quotes came from.
> 
> 
> 
> they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me.
> 
> Look, macro-evolution is a fairytale.
Click to expand...

Your creation story is the actual fairytale ... featuring a fairy, just to make the assertion all the more accurate.



Youwerecreated said:


> The only evidence is in ones mind.


Macro-evolution is a phenomenon well established in evidence. It's validity clearly and unambiguously demonstrated.


----------



## daws101

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me.
> 
> Look, macro-evolution is a fairytale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your creation story is the actual fairytale ... featuring a fairy, just to make the assertion all the more accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only evidence is in ones mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Macro-evolution is a phenomenon well established in evidence. It's validity clearly and unambiguously demonstrated.
Click to expand...

you mst mean PAUL.


----------



## FurthurBB

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since ywc is quoting from a creationist site ,it's meaningless anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove those quotes are not accurate. They give you where the quotes came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!
Click to expand...


It wouldn't matter if they were in context.  The newest one is 30 years old.  I teach immunology every 3rd semester.  Just a couple of years ago we knew hardly anything about the innate immune system, now you could spend the entire semester on it.  So, the answer is yes, I know a whole lot more than any biologist from the 80s and an incomprehensible amount more than any biologist from the 50s, just because so much more is known in general.  Though You (and probably the site the quotes came from) is using them in a disingenuous way, it doesn't even matter.  If you look back far enough you can find biologists disagreeing about things that are known for a fact today.  How does that have any meaning?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me.
> 
> Look, macro-evolution is a fairytale. The only evidence is in ones mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you show me ...you need to provide the transcripts,articles, videos, peer reviewed papers of the originals not  those cherry picked statements ,in their totality to know what context those statements were made.
> you seem to forget that you are CON or plaintiff of this tread ,it's up to you to prove their validity,
> you've done none of that, scripture and pseudo science don't cut it!
Click to expand...


You said they were out of context even though the soruce was provided now prove they are out of context. It was your claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me.
> 
> Look, macro-evolution is a fairytale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your creation story is the actual fairytale ... featuring a fairy, just to make the assertion all the more accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only evidence is in ones mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Macro-evolution is a phenomenon well established in evidence. It's validity clearly and unambiguously demonstrated.
Click to expand...


B.S.

Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions
about Evolution
(a rebuttal of Mark Isaaks Five Major Misconceptions FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive) 
© 2005-2007 T. Wallace.  All Rights Reserved.  

- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove those quotes are not accurate. They give you where the quotes came from.
> 
> 
> 
> they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't matter if they were in context.  The newest one is 30 years old.  I teach immunology every 3rd semester.  Just a couple of years ago we knew hardly anything about the innate immune system, now you could spend the entire semester on it.  So, the answer is yes, I know a whole lot more than any biologist from the 80s and an incomprehensible amount more than any biologist from the 50s, just because so much more is known in general.  Though You (and probably the site the quotes came from) is using them in a disingenuous way, it doesn't even matter.  If you look back far enough you can find biologists disagreeing about things that are known for a fact today.  How does that have any meaning?
Click to expand...


Some are, so what.

[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to &#8220;several&#8221; superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences&#8212;&#8220;more than enough&#8221; (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these &#8220;superb examples&#8221; were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanation&#8212;not unheard of among evolutionists&#8212;would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me.
> 
> Look, macro-evolution is a fairytale.
> 
> 
> 
> Your creation story is the actual fairytale ... featuring a fairy, just to make the assertion all the more accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only evidence is in ones mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Macro-evolution is a phenomenon well established in evidence. It's validity clearly and unambiguously demonstrated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> B.S.
> 
> Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions
> about Evolution
> (a rebuttal of Mark Isaaks Five Major Misconceptions FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive)
> © 2005-2007 T. Wallace.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> - Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
Click to expand...

Nope. Your creation story is actually the fairytale ... it central character is a fairy (or empirically indistinguishable from one), which actually makes the assertion all the more accurate.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your creation story is the actual fairytale ... featuring a fairy, just to make the assertion all the more accurate.
> 
> Macro-evolution is a phenomenon well established in evidence. It's validity clearly and unambiguously demonstrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B.S.
> 
> Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions
> about Evolution
> (a rebuttal of Mark Isaaks Five Major Misconceptions FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive)
> © 2005-2007 T. Wallace.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> - Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Your creation story is actually the fairytale ... it central character is a fairy (or empirically indistinguishable from one), which actually makes the assertion all the more accurate.
Click to expand...


We know it takes intelligence to design and build whether its a language, a car or a home. To think that an unintelligent natural process designs and builds is to go against the evidence that is all around us. So who believes in the fairytale ? No form of design or things constructed happen without a designer and builder.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> B.S.
> 
> Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions
> about Evolution
> (a rebuttal of Mark Isaak&#8217;s &#8220;Five Major Misconceptions&#8221; FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive)
> © 2005-2007 T. Wallace.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> - Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Your creation story is actually the fairytale ... it central character is a fairy (or empirically indistinguishable from one), which actually makes the assertion all the more accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know it takes intelligence to design and build whether its a language, a car or a home. To think that an unintelligent natural process designs and builds is to go against the evidence that is all around us. So who believes in the fairytale ? No form of design or things constructed happen without a designer and builder.
Click to expand...

You're now arguing that the life on this planet, or the entire universe, appears man-made to you--that is after all what you're claiming when you point to "the evidence that is all around us" that looks just like the other man-made things you cite; "a language, a car or a home."

This is a good change of strategy for you, as there is evidence of the existence of human beings and the things that they have certainly designed and built that you can bring to bear in support of this argument. I think there's stronger evidence that the universe is not man-made; if you wish, we can get into *that*, but the second you insert your invisible friend, whose existence is without basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, who is entirely imaginary, then you are the one asserting a fairytale.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Your creation story is actually the fairytale ... it central character is a fairy (or empirically indistinguishable from one), which actually makes the assertion all the more accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know it takes intelligence to design and build whether its a language, a car or a home. To think that an unintelligent natural process designs and builds is to go against the evidence that is all around us. So who believes in the fairytale ? No form of design or things constructed happen without a designer and builder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're now arguing that the life on this planet, or the entire universe, appears man-made to you--that is after all what you're claiming when you point to "the evidence that is all around us" that looks just like the other man-made things you cite; "a language, a car or a home."
> 
> This is a good change of strategy for you, as there is evidence of the existence of human beings and the things that they have certainly designed and built that you can bring to bear in support of this argument. I think there's stronger evidence that the universe is not man-made; if you wish, we can get into *that*, but the second you insert your invisible friend, whose existence is without basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, who is entirely imaginary, then you are the one asserting a fairytale.
Click to expand...


What you are implying is false. What created DNA and the genetic code ?

What created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism ?

The same reasoning can be applied biologically. There is no evidence that all these things could arise by chance,none. While there is plenty of evidence that design and construction happens through an intelligent being. You are denying logic because you refuse to admit that things that show design could not have been created because you don't believe there was a creator or because you can't prove YAHWEH is as real as you and I.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know it takes intelligence to design and build whether its a language, a car or a home. To think that an unintelligent natural process designs and builds is to go against the evidence that is all around us. So who believes in the fairytale ? No form of design or things constructed happen without a designer and builder.
> 
> 
> 
> You're now arguing that the life on this planet, or the entire universe, appears man-made to you--that is after all what you're claiming when you point to "the evidence that is all around us" that looks just like the other man-made things you cite; "a language, a car or a home."
> 
> This is a good change of strategy for you, as there is evidence of the existence of human beings and the things that they have certainly designed and built that you can bring to bear in support of this argument. I think there's stronger evidence that the universe is not man-made; if you wish, we can get into *that*, but the second you insert your invisible friend, whose existence is without basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, who is entirely imaginary, then you are the one asserting a fairytale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are implying is false. What created DNA and the genetic code ?
> 
> What created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism ?
> 
> The same reasoning can be applied biologically. There is no evidence that all these things could arise by chance,none. While there is plenty of evidence that design and construction happens through an intelligent being. You are denying logic because you refuse to admit that things that show design could not have been created because you don't believe there was a creator or because you can't prove YAHWEH is as real as you and I.
Click to expand...



DNA was not created, it naturally occurs through known chemical reactions.  Basic cells only need soap bubble like substances to keep their contents separate from the environment, soap bubble like substances  occur naturally through known chemical reactions.  Since everything to do with life and living happens through known, well studied chemical reactions, adding anything else is not logical at all.  Believing that all the life we see today started with chemical reactions and continues through chemical reactions is not ignoring logic, it is applying logic.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know it takes intelligence to design and build whether its a language, a car or a home. To think that an unintelligent natural process designs and builds is to go against the evidence that is all around us. So who believes in the fairytale ? No form of design or things constructed happen without a designer and builder.
> 
> 
> 
> You're now arguing that the life on this planet, or the entire universe, appears man-made to you--that is after all what you're claiming when you point to "the evidence that is all around us" that looks just like the other man-made things you cite; "a language, a car or a home."
> 
> This is a good change of strategy for you, as there is evidence of the existence of human beings and the things that they have certainly designed and built that you can bring to bear in support of this argument. I think there's stronger evidence that the universe is not man-made; if you wish, we can get into *that*, but the second you insert your invisible friend, whose existence is without basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, who is entirely imaginary, then you are the one asserting a fairytale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are implying is false.
Click to expand...

Do you care to demonstrate?

Didn't think so.



Youwerecreated said:


> What created DNA and the genetic code ?


Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything "created" DNA and/or the genetic code.



Youwerecreated said:


> What created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism ?


Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism.



Youwerecreated said:


> The same reasoning can be applied biologically. There is no evidence that all these things could arise by chance,none.


There's plenty of evidence of all sorts of things happening entirely by chance, without intent, specific purpose, or design.



Youwerecreated said:


> While there is plenty of evidence that design and construction happens through an intelligent being.


Right. All the evidence of designs and construction that happens through an intelligent being are human designs and constructions.

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."



Youwerecreated said:


> You are denying logic because you refuse to admit that things that show design ...


You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

You have failed to demonstrate this "design" you keep harping about. 



Youwerecreated said:


> ... could not have been created because you don't believe there was a creator ...


I don't PRESUME there was a creator. I allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion.

You have PRESUMED this Creator of yours; and having already presumed with absolute certainty the existence of this invented Creator of yours, you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless presumptions and conclusions.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... or because you can't prove YAHWEH is as real as you and I.


No. "Proof" is not the issue for me. I'm not running around demanding "proof" of anything--but you are.

You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH.

You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."

Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:
El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
Viracocha in Inca mythology;
Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
Rod in Slavic mythology;
Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology
I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're now arguing that the life on this planet, or the entire universe, appears man-made to you--that is after all what you're claiming when you point to "the evidence that is all around us" that looks just like the other man-made things you cite; "a language, a car or a home."
> 
> This is a good change of strategy for you, as there is evidence of the existence of human beings and the things that they have certainly designed and built that you can bring to bear in support of this argument. I think there's stronger evidence that the universe is not man-made; if you wish, we can get into *that*, but the second you insert your invisible friend, whose existence is without basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, who is entirely imaginary, then you are the one asserting a fairytale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are implying is false. What created DNA and the genetic code ?
> 
> What created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism ?
> 
> The same reasoning can be applied biologically. There is no evidence that all these things could arise by chance,none. While there is plenty of evidence that design and construction happens through an intelligent being. You are denying logic because you refuse to admit that things that show design could not have been created because you don't believe there was a creator or because you can't prove YAHWEH is as real as you and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DNA was not created, it naturally occurs through known chemical reactions.  Basic cells only need soap bubble like substances to keep their contents separate from the environment, soap bubble like substances  occur naturally through known chemical reactions.  Since everything to do with life and living happens through known, well studied chemical reactions, adding anything else is not logical at all.  Believing that all the life we see today started with chemical reactions and continues through chemical reactions is not ignoring logic, it is applying logic.
Click to expand...


Whoa wait a minute,how did it happen to begin with at the very beginning ?

Are you forgetting the genetic code ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're now arguing that the life on this planet, or the entire universe, appears man-made to you--that is after all what you're claiming when you point to "the evidence that is all around us" that looks just like the other man-made things you cite; "a language, a car or a home."
> 
> This is a good change of strategy for you, as there is evidence of the existence of human beings and the things that they have certainly designed and built that you can bring to bear in support of this argument. I think there's stronger evidence that the universe is not man-made; if you wish, we can get into *that*, but the second you insert your invisible friend, whose existence is without basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, who is entirely imaginary, then you are the one asserting a fairytale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are implying is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you care to demonstrate?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything "created" DNA and/or the genetic code.
> 
> Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism.
> 
> There's plenty of evidence of all sorts of things happening entirely by chance, without intent, specific purpose, or design.
> 
> Right. All the evidence of designs and construction that happens through an intelligent being are human designs and constructions.
> 
> If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate this "design" you keep harping about.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... could not have been created because you don't believe there was a creator ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't PRESUME there was a creator. I allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion.
> 
> You have PRESUMED this Creator of yours; and having already presumed with absolute certainty the existence of this invented Creator of yours, you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless presumptions and conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... or because you can't prove YAHWEH is as real as you and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. "Proof" is not the issue for me. I'm not running around demanding "proof" of anything--but you are.
> 
> You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH.
> 
> You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."
> 
> Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:
> El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
> Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
> Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
> Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
> Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
> Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
> The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
> Viracocha in Inca mythology;
> Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
> Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
> Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
> Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
> Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
> Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
> Rod in Slavic mythology;
> Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology
> I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.
Click to expand...


It's not just faith as has been demonstrated. You just dodge knowing there is no logic in your thinking. You admit it takes intelligence to build ,to design,and to create a code or language. But you don't buy it when it comes to biological design and construction which is what was necesssary or life would have never happened or would you care to demonstrate otherwise ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are implying is false.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you care to demonstrate?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything "created" DNA and/or the genetic code.
> 
> Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism.
> 
> There's plenty of evidence of all sorts of things happening entirely by chance, without intent, specific purpose, or design.
> 
> Right. All the evidence of designs and construction that happens through an intelligent being are human designs and constructions.
> 
> If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate this "design" you keep harping about.
> 
> I don't PRESUME there was a creator. I allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion.
> 
> You have PRESUMED this Creator of yours; and having already presumed with absolute certainty the existence of this invented Creator of yours, you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless presumptions and conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... or because you can't prove YAHWEH is as real as you and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. "Proof" is not the issue for me. I'm not running around demanding "proof" of anything--but you are.
> 
> You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH.
> 
> You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."
> 
> Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:
> El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
> Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
> Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
> Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
> Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
> Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
> The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
> Viracocha in Inca mythology;
> Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
> Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
> Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
> Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
> Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
> Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
> Rod in Slavic mythology;
> Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology
> I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not just faith as has been demonstrated.
Click to expand...

It has been unambiguously demonstrated that any validity your notions have regarding reality are entirely coincidental; that your notions are entirely faith and not science in any manner.



Youwerecreated said:


> You just dodge knowing there is no logic in your thinking.


The "dodge" I employ is valid logic, you imbecile.



Youwerecreated said:


> You admit it takes intelligence to build ,to design,and to create a code or language.


I admit that humans use intelligence to build, to design, and to create the codes or languages and the other things humans build, design, and create.



Youwerecreated said:


> But you don't buy it when it comes to biological design and construction which is what was necesssary or life would have never happened or would you care to demonstrate otherwise ?


Right. Life does not appear to be terribly well or purposefully "designed"; it appears to be rather fundamentally haphazard. You have failed to demonstrate this "biological design" you keep harping about

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."

You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you care to demonstrate?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything "created" DNA and/or the genetic code.
> 
> Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism.
> 
> There's plenty of evidence of all sorts of things happening entirely by chance, without intent, specific purpose, or design.
> 
> Right. All the evidence of designs and construction that happens through an intelligent being are human designs and constructions.
> 
> If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate this "design" you keep harping about.
> 
> I don't PRESUME there was a creator. I allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion.
> 
> You have PRESUMED this Creator of yours; and having already presumed with absolute certainty the existence of this invented Creator of yours, you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless presumptions and conclusions.
> 
> No. "Proof" is not the issue for me. I'm not running around demanding "proof" of anything--but you are.
> 
> You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH.
> 
> You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."
> 
> Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:
> El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
> Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
> Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
> Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
> Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
> Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
> The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
> Viracocha in Inca mythology;
> Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
> Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
> Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
> Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
> Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
> Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
> Rod in Slavic mythology;
> Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology
> I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just faith as has been demonstrated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been unambiguously demonstrated that any validity your notions have regarding reality are entirely coincidental; that your notions are entirely faith and not science in any manner.
> 
> The "dodge" I employ is valid logic, you imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You admit it takes intelligence to build ,to design,and to create a code or language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admit that humans use intelligence to build, to design, and to create the codes or languages and the other things humans build, design, and create.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't buy it when it comes to biological design and construction which is what was necesssary or life would have never happened or would you care to demonstrate otherwise ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Life does not appear to be terribly well or purposefully "designed"; it appears to be rather fundamentally haphazard. You have failed to demonstrate this "biological design" you keep harping about
> 
> If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.
Click to expand...


Imbecile ? Where is the logic that design you acknowledge is achieved through intelligence but you deny the design shown biologically was the product of intelligence 

I have broken down design for you before and everything had to be in place at the beginning or there would be no life and by your thinking everything slowly and gradually evolved. What good was an organism without key organs ? Or body limbs ?

You believe in a fairytale. Wake up loki wake up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you care to demonstrate?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything "created" DNA and/or the genetic code.
> 
> Just as I have been saying all along, I don't think anything created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism.
> 
> There's plenty of evidence of all sorts of things happening entirely by chance, without intent, specific purpose, or design.
> 
> Right. All the evidence of designs and construction that happens through an intelligent being are human designs and constructions.
> 
> If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate this "design" you keep harping about.
> 
> I don't PRESUME there was a creator. I allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion.
> 
> You have PRESUMED this Creator of yours; and having already presumed with absolute certainty the existence of this invented Creator of yours, you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless presumptions and conclusions.
> 
> No. "Proof" is not the issue for me. I'm not running around demanding "proof" of anything--but you are.
> 
> You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH.
> 
> You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."
> 
> Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:
> El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
> Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
> Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
> Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
> Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
> Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
> The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
> Viracocha in Inca mythology;
> Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
> Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
> Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
> Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
> Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
> Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
> Rod in Slavic mythology;
> Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology
> I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just faith as has been demonstrated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been unambiguously demonstrated that any validity your notions have regarding reality are entirely coincidental; that your notions are entirely faith and not science in any manner.
> 
> The "dodge" I employ is valid logic, you imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You admit it takes intelligence to build ,to design,and to create a code or language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admit that humans use intelligence to build, to design, and to create the codes or languages and the other things humans build, design, and create.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't buy it when it comes to biological design and construction which is what was necesssary or life would have never happened or would you care to demonstrate otherwise ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Life does not appear to be terribly well or purposefully "designed"; it appears to be rather fundamentally haphazard. You have failed to demonstrate this "biological design" you keep harping about
> 
> If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.
Click to expand...


If there was no purpose to life why do we have a brain to think and reason ?and to design and build ?Why do we have emotions ?Why do we have the instinct to live not die ?

Why do we all at one point wonder if God exists ? don't say you don't or never did because you would be a liar.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just faith as has been demonstrated.
> 
> 
> 
> It has been unambiguously demonstrated that any validity your notions have regarding reality are entirely coincidental; that your notions are entirely faith and not science in any manner.
> 
> The "dodge" I employ is valid logic, you imbecile.
> 
> I admit that humans use intelligence to build, to design, and to create the codes or languages and the other things humans build, design, and create.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't buy it when it comes to biological design and construction which is what was necesssary or life would have never happened or would you care to demonstrate otherwise ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Life does not appear to be terribly well or purposefully "designed"; it appears to be rather fundamentally haphazard. You have failed to demonstrate this "biological design" you keep harping about
> 
> If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was no purpose to life why do we have a brain to think and reason ?
Click to expand...

Why must the having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason? You are putting the cart before the horse in your typical logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest manner.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... and to design and build ?


We design so that the things we build work properly and predictably to achieve our pre-specified purposes.



Youwerecreated said:


> Why do we have emotions ?


An excellent question which is not answered in any way by inventing a "God", but is better explained as being a vestigial kind of intelligence that facilitates primal communication.  



Youwerecreated said:


> Why do we have the instinct to live not die ?


Because you die without regard to instincts anyway.



Youwerecreated said:


> Why do we all at one point wonder if God exists ?


Because we are told at some point that this "God" thing of yours exists, and then we discover the unambiguous discontinuity between the actual world we were born into and the world we are told this "God" thing of yours made.  

We were all born without any belief in this "God" thing of yours in the first place ... we are all born atheists. That's why we all at one point wonder if his "God" thing of yours exists.



Youwerecreated said:


> don't say you don't or never did because you would be a liar.


Careful there Cupcake, between us, I'm not the documented liar.


----------



## FurthurBB

Youwerecreated said:


> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are implying is false. What created DNA and the genetic code ?
> 
> What created the cell that contains the blueprint of a living organism ?
> 
> The same reasoning can be applied biologically. There is no evidence that all these things could arise by chance,none. While there is plenty of evidence that design and construction happens through an intelligent being. You are denying logic because you refuse to admit that things that show design could not have been created because you don't believe there was a creator or because you can't prove YAHWEH is as real as you and I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA was not created, it naturally occurs through known chemical reactions.  Basic cells only need soap bubble like substances to keep their contents separate from the environment, soap bubble like substances  occur naturally through known chemical reactions.  Since everything to do with life and living happens through known, well studied chemical reactions, adding anything else is not logical at all.  Believing that all the life we see today started with chemical reactions and continues through chemical reactions is not ignoring logic, it is applying logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa wait a minute,how did it happen to begin with at the very beginning ?
> 
> Are you forgetting the genetic code ?
Click to expand...


The genetic code happens through well studied chemical reactions.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just faith as has been demonstrated.
> 
> 
> 
> It has been unambiguously demonstrated that any validity your notions have regarding reality are entirely coincidental; that your notions are entirely faith and not science in any manner.
> 
> The "dodge" I employ is valid logic, you imbecile.
> 
> I admit that humans use intelligence to build, to design, and to create the codes or languages and the other things humans build, design, and create.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't buy it when it comes to biological design and construction which is what was necesssary or life would have never happened or would you care to demonstrate otherwise ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Life does not appear to be terribly well or purposefully "designed"; it appears to be rather fundamentally haphazard. You have failed to demonstrate this "biological design" you keep harping about
> 
> If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was no purpose to life why do we have a brain to think and reason ?and to design and build ?Why do we have emotions ?Why do we have the instinct to live not die ?
> 
> Why do we all at one point wonder if God exists ? don't say you don't or never did because you would be a liar.
Click to expand...

what's this "we" shit ?
you've spent this whole thread expounding on how your erroneous myth sets the faithful apart from "us" sinning atheists and now you use "WE" like we're all at a tent revival ,singing  "shall we gather at the river"...


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been unambiguously demonstrated that any validity your notions have regarding reality are entirely coincidental; that your notions are entirely faith and not science in any manner.
> 
> The "dodge" I employ is valid logic, you imbecile.
> 
> I admit that humans use intelligence to build, to design, and to create the codes or languages and the other things humans build, design, and create.
> 
> Right. Life does not appear to be terribly well or purposefully "designed"; it appears to be rather fundamentally haphazard. You have failed to demonstrate this "biological design" you keep harping about
> 
> If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was no purpose to life why do we have a brain to think and reason ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why must the having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason? You are putting the cart before the horse in your typical logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest manner.
> 
> We design so that the things we build work properly and predictably to achieve our pre-specified purposes.
> 
> An excellent question which is not answered in any way by inventing a "God", but is better explained as being a vestigial kind of intelligence that facilitates primal communication.
> 
> 
> Because you die without regard to instincts anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we all at one point wonder if God exists ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we are told at some point that this "God" thing of yours exists, and then we discover the unambiguous discontinuity between the actual world we were born into and the world we are told this "God" thing of yours made.
> 
> We were all born without any belief in this "God" thing of yours in the first place ... we are all born atheists. That's why we all at one point wonder if his "God" thing of yours exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't say you don't or never did because you would be a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there Cupcake, between us, I'm not the documented liar.
Click to expand...


No I  am not putting the horse before the cart. If we didn't possess the brain and many of the other organs,blood,arms,legs,or eyes, we could not function properly and go extinct.

Awfully nice of this non intelligent,natural process, to think of all the things we needed for life and to function properly no ?

God designed and built us to live forever as long as we did not sin. Now that we sinned we now grow old and die we suffer from genetic disorders because we are no longer perfect.

We humans have emotions so we know right from wrong, so we also can love and care about each other.

Yes we die anyways but that had nothing to do with the question, Dodge.

Wrong , God has put himself in our mind and hearts and some choose to believe in him and some don't. The ones that don't believe in him is because they need proof and they lack faith. But they have faith we are related to monkeys even though they have not observed the relationship and can't prove it.

Yes you're the liar you admitted it earlier in this post. So you're the cupcake that might want to ease up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FurthurBB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FurthurBB said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA was not created, it naturally occurs through known chemical reactions.  Basic cells only need soap bubble like substances to keep their contents separate from the environment, soap bubble like substances  occur naturally through known chemical reactions.  Since everything to do with life and living happens through known, well studied chemical reactions, adding anything else is not logical at all.  Believing that all the life we see today started with chemical reactions and continues through chemical reactions is not ignoring logic, it is applying logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa wait a minute,how did it happen to begin with at the very beginning ?
> 
> Are you forgetting the genetic code ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The genetic code happens through well studied chemical reactions.
Click to expand...


You are still denying the genetic code is a language full of information even though most all the science community agrees with  me on this issue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been unambiguously demonstrated that any validity your notions have regarding reality are entirely coincidental; that your notions are entirely faith and not science in any manner.
> 
> The "dodge" I employ is valid logic, you imbecile.
> 
> I admit that humans use intelligence to build, to design, and to create the codes or languages and the other things humans build, design, and create.
> 
> Right. Life does not appear to be terribly well or purposefully "designed"; it appears to be rather fundamentally haphazard. You have failed to demonstrate this "biological design" you keep harping about
> 
> If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was no purpose to life why do we have a brain to think and reason ?and to design and build ?Why do we have emotions ?Why do we have the instinct to live not die ?
> 
> Why do we all at one point wonder if God exists ? don't say you don't or never did because you would be a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what's this "we" shit ?
> you've spent this whole thread expounding on how your erroneous myth sets the faithful apart from "us" sinning atheists and now you use "WE" like we're all at a tent revival ,singing  "shall we gather at the river"...
Click to expand...


Ok you are a liar,at some point in your meaningless life you have questioned whether God really exists or not.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was no purpose to life why do we have a brain to think and reason ?
> 
> 
> 
> Why must the having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason? You are putting the cart before the horse in your typical logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest manner.
> 
> We design so that the things we build work properly and predictably to achieve our pre-specified purposes.
> 
> An excellent question which is not answered in any way by inventing a "God", but is better explained as being a vestigial kind of intelligence that facilitates primal communication.
> 
> 
> Because you die without regard to instincts anyway.
> 
> Because we are told at some point that this "God" thing of yours exists, and then we discover the unambiguous discontinuity between the actual world we were born into and the world we are told this "God" thing of yours made.
> 
> We were all born without any belief in this "God" thing of yours in the first place ... we are all born atheists. That's why we all at one point wonder if his "God" thing of yours exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't say you don't or never did because you would be a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there Cupcake, between us, I'm not the documented liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I  am not putting the horse before the cart.
Click to expand...

Really? Then why must having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason?



Youwerecreated said:


> If we didn't possess the brain and many of the other organs,blood,arms,legs,or eyes, we could not function properly and go extinct.


Oh. So *NOW* you're not putting the cart before the horse--as you clearly were previously.



Youwerecreated said:


> Awfully nice of this non intelligent,natural process, to think of all the things we needed for life and to function properly no ?


No. And I mean "NO" to your retarded, superstitious, anthropomorphizing.



Youwerecreated said:


> God designed and built us to live forever as long as we did not sin. Now that we sinned we now grow old and die we suffer from genetic disorders because we are no longer perfect.


What is this "God" thing you keep referencing? What evidence can you produce of "design" that does not require the question-begging acceptance of the existence of this "Designer" you keep referencing?



Youwerecreated said:


> We humans have emotions so we know right from wrong, so we also can love and care about each other.


"Right and wrong" is not validated emotionally, but rather rationally. "Right and wrong" when validated by emotion is "rationalizing," and is only coincidentally valid in objective reality; it usually proves incorrect in the long-run, and is ALWAYS morally meaningless.



Youwerecreated said:


> Yes we die anyways but that had nothing to do with the question, Dodge.


No dodge at all, and perfectly pertinent to the question.



Youwerecreated said:


> Wrong , God has put himself in our mind and hearts and some choose to believe in him and some don't.


Nonsense. You have literally no verifiable evidence what-so-ever to support your claim.



Youwerecreated said:


> The ones that don't believe in him is because they need proof and they lack faith.


I can agree with this; I am incapable of faith--to put it in terms you'll understand, I was "created" without the capacity to exercise faith.



Youwerecreated said:


> But they have faith we are related to monkeys even though they have not observed the relationship and can't prove it.


Remember, no evidence OR proof was required for you to hold your belief, yet you demand "proof" invalidating you beliefs as if they should be considered valid in the first place. Only you require that the relationship be "proven." The verifiable evidence, OTOH, clearly makes a very strong suggestion that the assertion of common descent between monkeys and humans is valid.

It might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.

Science allows for the existence of a creator who is responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. In so far as you practice this kind of certainty, this certainty you have is intellectual hubris.

This is why you are always demanding that we "prove" you wrong, and why you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our beliefs and assertion regarding reality. Denying evidence is like breathing air, and no more difficult for retards like you; but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof of our assertions" then we would have finally brought a REAL test of your faith--if you manage to maintain you retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourselves that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can now finally claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows. You seek to validate your retarded intellectual and moral hubris.

You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH. You can't even bring valid evidence to support the claim.

You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."

Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:
El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
Viracocha in Inca mythology;
Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
Rod in Slavic mythology;
Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology
I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.



Youwerecreated said:


> Yes you're the liar you admitted it earlier in this post.


Yet despite the clear and unambiguous opportunity you had to clearly reference this alleged lie--to quote it, and expose it for examination, you failed to do so. What's up with that Cupcake?_ANSWER_: Just like the rest of your lies, this one cannot withstand any scrutiny that uses objective reality as its standard of validation.​


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why must the having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason? You are putting the cart before the horse in your typical logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest manner.
> 
> We design so that the things we build work properly and predictably to achieve our pre-specified purposes.
> 
> An excellent question which is not answered in any way by inventing a "God", but is better explained as being a vestigial kind of intelligence that facilitates primal communication.
> 
> 
> Because you die without regard to instincts anyway.
> 
> Because we are told at some point that this "God" thing of yours exists, and then we discover the unambiguous discontinuity between the actual world we were born into and the world we are told this "God" thing of yours made.
> 
> We were all born without any belief in this "God" thing of yours in the first place ... we are all born atheists. That's why we all at one point wonder if his "God" thing of yours exists.
> 
> Careful there Cupcake, between us, I'm not the documented liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I  am not putting the horse before the cart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Then why must having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason?
> 
> Oh. So *NOW* you're not putting the cart before the horse--as you clearly were previously.
> 
> No. And I mean "NO" to your retarded, superstitious, anthropomorphizing.
> 
> What is this "God" thing you keep referencing? What evidence can you produce of "design" that does not require the question-begging acceptance of the existence of this "Designer" you keep referencing?
> 
> "Right and wrong" is not validated emotionally, but rather rationally. "Right and wrong" when validated by emotion is "rationalizing," and is only coincidentally valid in objective reality; it usually proves incorrect in the long-run, and is ALWAYS morally meaningless.
> 
> No dodge at all, and perfectly pertinent to the question.
> 
> Nonsense. You have literally no verifiable evidence what-so-ever to support your claim.
> 
> I can agree with this; I am incapable of faith--to put it in terms you'll understand, I was "created" without the capacity to exercise faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they have faith we are related to monkeys even though they have not observed the relationship and can't prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember, no evidence OR proof was required for you to hold your belief, yet you demand "proof" invalidating you beliefs as if they should be considered valid in the first place. Only you require that the relationship be "proven." The verifiable evidence, OTOH, clearly makes a very strong suggestion that the assertion of common descent between monkeys and humans is valid.
> 
> It might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.
> 
> Science allows for the existence of a creator who is responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. In so far as you practice this kind of certainty, this certainty you have is intellectual hubris.
> 
> This is why you are always demanding that we "prove" you wrong, and why you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our beliefs and assertion regarding reality. Denying evidence is like breathing air, and no more difficult for retards like you; but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof of our assertions" then we would have finally brought a REAL test of your faith--if you manage to maintain you retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourselves that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can now finally claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows. You seek to validate your retarded intellectual and moral hubris.
> 
> You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH. You can't even bring valid evidence to support the claim.
> 
> You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."
> 
> Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:
> El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
> Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
> Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
> Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
> Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
> Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
> The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
> Viracocha in Inca mythology;
> Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
> Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
> Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
> Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
> Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
> Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
> Rod in Slavic mythology;
> Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology
> I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're the liar you admitted it earlier in this post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet despite the clear and unambiguous opportunity you had to clearly reference this alleged lie--to quote it, and expose it for examination, you failed to do so. What's up with that Cupcake?_ANSWER_: Just like the rest of your lies, this one cannot withstand any scrutiny that uses objective reality as its standard of validation.​
Click to expand...


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was no purpose to life why do we have a brain to think and reason ?
> 
> 
> 
> Why must the having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason? You are putting the cart before the horse in your typical logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest manner.
> 
> We design so that the things we build work properly and predictably to achieve our pre-specified purposes.
> 
> An excellent question which is not answered in any way by inventing a "God", but is better explained as being a vestigial kind of intelligence that facilitates primal communication.
> 
> 
> Because you die without regard to instincts anyway.
> 
> Because we are told at some point that this "God" thing of yours exists, and then we discover the unambiguous discontinuity between the actual world we were born into and the world we are told this "God" thing of yours made.
> 
> We were all born without any belief in this "God" thing of yours in the first place ... we are all born atheists. That's why we all at one point wonder if his "God" thing of yours exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't say you don't or never did because you would be a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there Cupcake, between us, I'm not the documented liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I  am not putting the horse before the cart. If we didn't possess the brain and many of the other organs,blood,arms,legs,or eyes, we could not function properly and go extinct.
> 
> Awfully nice of this non intelligent,natural process, to think of all the things we needed for life and to function properly no ?
Click to expand...


It's called natural selection, and there isn't a divine force guiding it. You know what guides it? An organism not dying. If there was a mutation that impeded  the use of an organ, that mutation (unless the impediment only showed in old age or after a chance for reproduction) would never get a chance to spread it to the rest of the local gene pool. The reason is, it would die before it could find a mate and would never get a chance to carry on the mutation.



> God designed and built us to live forever as long as we did not sin. Now that we sinned we now grow old and die we suffer from genetic disorders because we are no longer perfect.



Genetic disorders arise from mutations in DNA.

By the way, have you written or spoken in the language of DNA yet?



> Wrong , God has put himself in our mind and hearts and some choose to believe in him and some don't. The ones that don't believe in him is because they need proof and they lack faith. But they have faith we are related to monkeys even though they have not observed the relationship and can't prove it.



God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that becomes more obsolete as science progresses.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I  am not putting the horse before the cart.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then why must having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason?
> 
> Oh. So *NOW* you're not putting the cart before the horse--as you clearly were previously.
> 
> No. And I mean "NO" to your retarded, superstitious, anthropomorphizing.
> 
> What is this "God" thing you keep referencing? What evidence can you produce of "design" that does not require the question-begging acceptance of the existence of this "Designer" you keep referencing?
> 
> "Right and wrong" is not validated emotionally, but rather rationally. "Right and wrong" when validated by emotion is "rationalizing," and is only coincidentally valid in objective reality; it usually proves incorrect in the long-run, and is ALWAYS morally meaningless.
> 
> No dodge at all, and perfectly pertinent to the question.
> 
> Nonsense. You have literally no verifiable evidence what-so-ever to support your claim.
> 
> I can agree with this; I am incapable of faith--to put it in terms you'll understand, I was "created" without the capacity to exercise faith.
> 
> Remember, no evidence OR proof was required for you to hold your belief, yet you demand "proof" invalidating you beliefs as if they should be considered valid in the first place. Only you require that the relationship be "proven." The verifiable evidence, OTOH, clearly makes a very strong suggestion that the assertion of common descent between monkeys and humans is valid.
> 
> It might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.
> 
> Science allows for the existence of a creator who is responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. In so far as you practice this kind of certainty, this certainty you have is intellectual hubris.
> 
> This is why you are always demanding that we "prove" you wrong, and why you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our beliefs and assertion regarding reality. Denying evidence is like breathing air, and no more difficult for retards like you; but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof of our assertions" then we would have finally brought a REAL test of your faith--if you manage to maintain you retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourselves that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can now finally claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows. You seek to validate your retarded intellectual and moral hubris.
> 
> You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH. You can't even bring valid evidence to support the claim.
> 
> You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."
> 
> Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:
> El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
> Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
> Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
> Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
> Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
> Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
> The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
> Viracocha in Inca mythology;
> Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
> Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
> Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
> Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
> Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
> Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
> Rod in Slavic mythology;
> Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology
> I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're the liar you admitted it earlier in this post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet despite the clear and unambiguous opportunity you had to clearly reference this alleged lie--to quote it, and expose it for examination, you failed to do so. What's up with that Cupcake?_ANSWER_: Just like the rest of your lies, this one cannot withstand any scrutiny that uses objective reality as its standard of validation.​
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Taking yet another 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





, Youwerecreated signifies his capitulation.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was no purpose to life why do we have a brain to think and reason ?and to design and build ?Why do we have emotions ?Why do we have the instinct to live not die ?
> 
> Why do we all at one point wonder if God exists ? don't say you don't or never did because you would be a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> what's this "we" shit ?
> you've spent this whole thread expounding on how your erroneous myth sets the faithful apart from "us" sinning atheists and now you use "WE" like we're all at a tent revival ,singing  "shall we gather at the river"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok you are a liar,at some point in your meaningless life you have questioned whether God really exists or not.
Click to expand...

another dodge! 
but to answer your question, religion it's self gave me the first hints about why there is no god.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's this "we" shit ?
> you've spent this whole thread expounding on how your erroneous myth sets the faithful apart from "us" sinning atheists and now you use "WE" like we're all at a tent revival ,singing  "shall we gather at the river"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok you are a liar,at some point in your meaningless life you have questioned whether God really exists or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another dodge!
> but to answer your question, religion it's self gave me the first hints about why there is no god.
Click to expand...


Not a dodge.

I will admit I am no fan of religion I don't believe God is either by what he says about it in the bible,especially what he says in the book of Revelations.

Abraham did not need an organized religion to have a relationship with the Almighty.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why must the having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason? You are putting the cart before the horse in your typical logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest manner.
> 
> We design so that the things we build work properly and predictably to achieve our pre-specified purposes.
> 
> An excellent question which is not answered in any way by inventing a "God", but is better explained as being a vestigial kind of intelligence that facilitates primal communication.
> 
> 
> Because you die without regard to instincts anyway.
> 
> Because we are told at some point that this "God" thing of yours exists, and then we discover the unambiguous discontinuity between the actual world we were born into and the world we are told this "God" thing of yours made.
> 
> We were all born without any belief in this "God" thing of yours in the first place ... we are all born atheists. That's why we all at one point wonder if his "God" thing of yours exists.
> 
> Careful there Cupcake, between us, I'm not the documented liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I  am not putting the horse before the cart. If we didn't possess the brain and many of the other organs,blood,arms,legs,or eyes, we could not function properly and go extinct.
> 
> Awfully nice of this non intelligent,natural process, to think of all the things we needed for life and to function properly no ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called natural selection, and there isn't a divine force guiding it. You know what guides it? An organism not dying. If there was a mutation that impeded  the use of an organ, that mutation (unless the impediment only showed in old age or after a chance for reproduction) would never get a chance to spread it to the rest of the local gene pool. The reason is, it would die before it could find a mate and would never get a chance to carry on the mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God designed and built us to live forever as long as we did not sin. Now that we sinned we now grow old and die we suffer from genetic disorders because we are no longer perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genetic disorders arise from mutations in DNA.
> 
> By the way, have you written or spoken in the language of DNA yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong , God has put himself in our mind and hearts and some choose to believe in him and some don't. The ones that don't believe in him is because they need proof and they lack faith. But they have faith we are related to monkeys even though they have not observed the relationship and can't prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that becomes more obsolete as science progresses.
Click to expand...


If you are gonna hang your hat on natural selection for making the ultimate mutation a human,then you have to admit your natural proces is indeed an intelligent designer.

Of course scientist can decode the language of the Genetic code. How do you think they can genetically modify food and organisms ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then why must having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason?
> 
> Oh. So *NOW* you're not putting the cart before the horse--as you clearly were previously.
> 
> No. And I mean "NO" to your retarded, superstitious, anthropomorphizing.
> 
> What is this "God" thing you keep referencing? What evidence can you produce of "design" that does not require the question-begging acceptance of the existence of this "Designer" you keep referencing?
> 
> "Right and wrong" is not validated emotionally, but rather rationally. "Right and wrong" when validated by emotion is "rationalizing," and is only coincidentally valid in objective reality; it usually proves incorrect in the long-run, and is ALWAYS morally meaningless.
> 
> No dodge at all, and perfectly pertinent to the question.
> 
> Nonsense. You have literally no verifiable evidence what-so-ever to support your claim.
> 
> I can agree with this; I am incapable of faith--to put it in terms you'll understand, I was "created" without the capacity to exercise faith.
> 
> Remember, no evidence OR proof was required for you to hold your belief, yet you demand "proof" invalidating you beliefs as if they should be considered valid in the first place. Only you require that the relationship be "proven." The verifiable evidence, OTOH, clearly makes a very strong suggestion that the assertion of common descent between monkeys and humans is valid.
> 
> It might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.
> 
> Science allows for the existence of a creator who is responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. In so far as you practice this kind of certainty, this certainty you have is intellectual hubris.
> 
> This is why you are always demanding that we "prove" you wrong, and why you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our beliefs and assertion regarding reality. Denying evidence is like breathing air, and no more difficult for retards like you; but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof of our assertions" then we would have finally brought a REAL test of your faith--if you manage to maintain you retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourselves that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can now finally claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows. You seek to validate your retarded intellectual and moral hubris.
> 
> You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH. You can't even bring valid evidence to support the claim.
> 
> You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."
> 
> Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the Creation "sciences" involving:
> El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
> Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
> Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
> Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
> Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
> Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
> The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
> Viracocha in Inca mythology;
> Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
> Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
> Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
> Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
> Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
> Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
> Rod in Slavic mythology;
> Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology
> I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.
> 
> Yet despite the clear and unambiguous opportunity you had to clearly reference this alleged lie--to quote it, and expose it for examination, you failed to do so. What's up with that Cupcake?_ANSWER_: Just like the rest of your lies, this one cannot withstand any scrutiny that uses objective reality as its standard of validation.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taking yet another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , Youwerecreated signifies his capitulation.
Click to expand...


You really do base your views in faith.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking yet another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , Youwerecreated signifies his capitulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really do base your views in faith.
Click to expand...

Yet again, despite the clear and unambiguous opportunity you have to clearly demonstrate your claim, you fail to do so. What's up with that Cupcake?_ANSWER:_ Just like the rest of your lies, this one cannot withstand any scrutiny that uses objective reality as its standard of validation.​


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking yet another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , Youwerecreated signifies his capitulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really do base your views in faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet again, despite the clear and unambiguous opportunity you have to clearly demonstrate your claim, you fail to do so. What's up with that Cupcake?_ANSWER:_ Just like the rest of your lies, this one cannot withstand any scrutiny that uses objective reality as its standard of validation.​
Click to expand...


Ask a question when asked questions that would be a dodge.

What do you need answered again ? Bcause I clearly showed the fallacy in your logic.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really do base your views in faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet again, despite the clear and unambiguous opportunity you have to clearly demonstrate your claim, you fail to do so. What's up with that Cupcake?_ANSWER:_ Just like the rest of your lies, this one cannot withstand any scrutiny that uses objective reality as its standard of validation.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask a question when asked questions that would be a dodge.
> 
> What do you need answered again ? Bcause I clearly showed the fallacy in your logic.
Click to expand...

You could provide a link to the exact post where you "clearly showed the fallacy in [my] logic." And yet again, despite the clear and unambiguous opportunity you have to clearly demonstrate your claim, you fail to do so. What's up with that Cupcake?_ANSWER:_ Just like the rest of your lies, this one cannot withstand any scrutiny that uses objective reality as its standard of validation.​


----------



## koshergrl

Unambiguous opportunity?


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Unambiguous opportunity?



Are you looking for another English lesson, honey?


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I  am not putting the horse before the cart. If we didn't possess the brain and many of the other organs,blood,arms,legs,or eyes, we could not function properly and go extinct.
> 
> Awfully nice of this non intelligent,natural process, to think of all the things we needed for life and to function properly no ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called natural selection, and there isn't a divine force guiding it. You know what guides it? An organism not dying. If there was a mutation that impeded  the use of an organ, that mutation (unless the impediment only showed in old age or after a chance for reproduction) would never get a chance to spread it to the rest of the local gene pool. The reason is, it would die before it could find a mate and would never get a chance to carry on the mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> Genetic disorders arise from mutations in DNA.
> 
> By the way, have you written or spoken in the language of DNA yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong , God has put himself in our mind and hearts and some choose to believe in him and some don't. The ones that don't believe in him is because they need proof and they lack faith. But they have faith we are related to monkeys even though they have not observed the relationship and can't prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that becomes more obsolete as science progresses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are gonna hang your hat on natural selection for making the ultimate mutation a human,then you have to admit your natural proces is indeed an intelligent designer.
Click to expand...


Why should I? You evidence so far is basically because you said so. Apparently you have difficulty comprehending the concept that if you have shitty survival skills, as a general rule you won't be surviving. There isn't any divine wind picking favorites.



> Of course scientist can decode the language of the Genetic code. How do you think they can genetically modify food and organisms ?



Well that's a non-sequitor that doesn't answer my question, so I'm gonna take that as a no, making your continued efforts to describe a bunch of chemicals as divinely-guided language moot.


----------



## UltimateReality

I have been lurking for a while and after reading the last few pages, I just had a chuckle. It would seem that the materialists in this thread have more answers than their high priesteses, Dawkins and Hawkins.

To assert that Natural Selection is responsible for the genetic code is simply preposterous!! No scientist, Evo or ID, actually buys into this, but several posters have managed to make it all sound so easy and simple. The for real educated propenents of Darwinism admit that they have no clue how life began or how the first copying device made it into DNA. They admit there is some yet not understood force that was around "billions and billions" of years ago that doesn't exist today. You see, folks like Mr. Loki, with all his chest pounding, arrogance, and "I have all the answers and you don't" attitude must have forgotten this one tiny little fact. Every cell "alive" on the planet today, every plant, every bacteria, came from another live cell, which came from a live cell, which came from a live cell. Nothing exists that spontaneously generated. We all came from splitsville. So you would think this simple code, this simple thing called life, that randomly assembled itself into a complex structure would be more robust. But alas, when we place a cell in a test tube filled with a precise concoction of "cellular fluid" around it and use a teeny tiny needle to pierce the membrane of the cell, all of the goo (Darwin's understanding) or what we call, micro machines and chemicals and copying mechanisms begin to spill out into the fluid. We aren't talking random amino acids or random proteins but the actual building blocks of life... DNA and RNA are there, the digital protein building codes, the codes that take two cells and turn them into trillions of hair, brain, muscle, skin, eye cells. Now my little story brings me to the great question, which is posed to all you buffoons (actually, let's keep this respectful)... to all you folks that make it sound oh so simple. Once the membrane is pierced, how many millions of years do we need to wait around before the cell becomes alive again? (That sinking feeling coming over you now is your common sense screaming from within your bones.) It will NEVER come back to life. We can shake it, radiate it, fire neutrino's at it, heat it, freeze it, heck we could even try to push all the goo back in, but that little cell is DEAD my friends. Elvis has left the building. And all the kings horses and all the kings men can't put Mr. Cell back together again. But we are supposed to believe that nature did it all by its little lonesome. I guess I have to ask, who are the real fools? Life is here and it is everywhere around us. But that "magical" unknown process that kick started it is no where to be found. And science with all its "answers" isn't any closer to unravelling the mystery.

And that brings me to my next argument. What is an idea? Can we measure it? Can we touch it? Can we prove it with science? If evolution is true, then I suspect that the God gene, that is, the gene that gives me the idea there is a God, is extremely prevalent. Isolated societies, having no contact with the outside world, when discovered strangely "worship" God or gods. Why won't this idea die???? I guess we have to look to natural selection. NS tells us that only traits that result in fitness survive. I guess the God trait has survived all of these years because it results in better fitness. That is why worldwide, people with the God trait outnumber atheists 100 to 1. So I'm not really that concerned with all you materialists on this forum. NS will have its way with you too, and sadly for you, the God gene will continue on, strong as ever.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> I have been lurking for a while and after reading the last few pages, I just had a chuckle. It would seem that the materialists in this thread have more answers than their high priesteses, Dawkins and Hawkins.
> 
> To assert that Natural Selection is responsible for the genetic code is simply preposterous!! No scientist, Evo or ID, actually buys into this, but several posters have managed to make it all sound so easy and simple. The for real educated propenents of Darwinism admit that they have no clue how life began or how the first copying device made it into DNA. They admit there is some yet not understood force that was around "billions and billions" of years ago that doesn't exist today. You see, folks like Mr. Loki, with all his chest pounding, arrogance, and "I have all the answers and you don't" attitude must have forgotten this one tiny little fact. Every cell "alive" on the planet today, every plant, every bacteria, came from another live cell, which came from a live cell, which came from a live cell. Nothing exists that spontaneously generated. We all came from splitsville. So you would think this simple code, this simple thing called life, that randomly assembled itself into a complex structure would be more robust. But alas, when we place a cell in a test tube filled with a precise concoction of "cellular fluid" around it and use a teeny tiny needle to pierce the membrane of the cell, all of the goo (Darwin's understanding) or what we call, micro machines and chemicals and copying mechanisms begin to spill out into the fluid. We aren't talking random amino acids or random proteins but the actual building blocks of life... DNA and RNA are there, the digital protein building codes, the codes that take two cells and turn them into trillions of hair, brain, muscle, skin, eye cells. Now my little story brings me to the great question, which is posed to all you buffoons (actually, let's keep this respectful)... to all you folks that make it sound oh so simple. Once the membrane is pierced, how many millions of years do we need to wait around before the cell becomes alive again? (That sinking feeling coming over you now is your common sense screaming from within your bones.) It will NEVER come back to life. We can shake it, radiate it, fire neutrino's at it, heat it, freeze it, heck we could even try to push all the goo back in, but that little cell is DEAD my friends. Elvis has left the building. And all the kings horses and all the kings men can't put Mr. Cell back together again. But we are supposed to believe that nature did it all by its little lonesome. I guess I have to ask, who are the real fools? Life is here and it is everywhere around us. But that "magical" unknown process that kick started it is no where to be found. And science with all its "answers" isn't any closer to unravelling the mystery.
> 
> And that brings me to my next argument. What is an idea? Can we measure it? Can we touch it? Can we prove it with science? If evolution is true, then I suspect that the God gene, that is, the gene that gives me the idea there is a God, is extremely prevalent. Isolated societies, having no contact with the outside world, when discovered strangely "worship" God or gods. Why won't this idea die???? I guess we have to look to natural selection. NS tells us that only traits that result in fitness survive. I guess the God trait has survived all of these years because it results in better fitness. That is why worldwide, people with the God trait outnumber atheists 100 to 1. So I'm not really that concerned with all you materialists on this forum. NS will have its way with you too, and sadly for you, the God gene will continue on, strong as ever.


LOLsome.  "... folks like Mr. Loki, with all his chest pounding, arrogance, and "I have all the answers and you don't" attitude ..."​You see, folks like me don't don't possess quite enough "... chest pounding, arrogance, and "I have all the answers and you don't" attitude ..." to express their beliefs as unqualified certainties in the manner that intellectually dishonest superstitious retards express theirs.

Have a nice chuckle there, Mr. Chucklehead.


----------



## Woyzeck

UltimateReality said:


> I have been lurking for a while and after reading the last few pages, I just had a chuckle. It would seem that the materialists in this thread have more answers than their high priesteses, Dawkins and Hawkins.



I'll never understand the repeated attempts by opponents of evolution to peg well-known figures of science like Darwin and Dawkins as akin to religious figures.



> To assert that Natural Selection is responsible for the genetic code is simply preposterous!! No scientist, Evo or ID, actually buys into this, but several posters have managed to make it all sound so easy and simple. The for real educated propenents of Darwinism admit that they have no clue how life began or how the first copying device made it into DNA. They admit there is some yet not understood force that was around "billions and billions" of years ago that doesn't exist today. You see, folks like Mr. Loki, with all his chest pounding, arrogance, and "I have all the answers and you don't" attitude must have forgotten this one tiny little fact. Every cell "alive" on the planet today, every plant, every bacteria, came from another live cell, which came from a live cell, which came from a live cell. Nothing exists that spontaneously generated. We all came from splitsville. So you would think this simple code, this simple thing called life, that randomly assembled itself into a complex structure would be more robust. But alas, when we place a cell in a test tube filled with a precise concoction of "cellular fluid" around it and use a teeny tiny needle to pierce the membrane of the cell, all of the goo (Darwin's understanding) or what we call, micro machines and chemicals and copying mechanisms begin to spill out into the fluid. We aren't talking random amino acids or random proteins but the actual building blocks of life... DNA and RNA are there, the digital protein building codes, the codes that take two cells and turn them into trillions of hair, brain, muscle, skin, eye cells. Now my little story brings me to the great question, which is posed to all you buffoons (actually, let's keep this respectful)... to all you folks that make it sound oh so simple. Once the membrane is pierced, how many millions of years do we need to wait around before the cell becomes alive again? (That sinking feeling coming over you now is your common sense screaming from within your bones.) It will NEVER come back to life. We can shake it, radiate it, fire neutrino's at it, heat it, freeze it, heck we could even try to push all the goo back in, but that little cell is DEAD my friends. Elvis has left the building. And all the kings horses and all the kings men can't put Mr. Cell back together again. But we are supposed to believe that nature did it all by its little lonesome. I guess I have to ask, who are the real fools? Life is here and it is everywhere around us. But that "magical" unknown process that kick started it is no where to be found. And science with all its "answers" isn't any closer to unravelling the mystery.



You're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. It's a separate field.



> And that brings me to my next argument. What is an idea? Can we measure it? Can we touch it? Can we prove it with science? If evolution is true, then I suspect that the God gene, that is, the gene that gives me the idea there is a God, is extremely prevalent. Isolated societies, having no contact with the outside world, when discovered strangely "worship" God or gods. Why won't this idea die???? I guess we have to look to natural selection. NS tells us that only traits that result in fitness survive. I guess the God trait has survived all of these years because it results in better fitness. That is why worldwide, people with the God trait outnumber atheists 100 to 1. So I'm not really that concerned with all you materialists on this forum. NS will have its way with you too, and sadly for you, the God gene will continue on, strong as ever.



Sometimes I wonder if creationists are deliberate profound practitioners of irony. Richard Dawkins actually discusses "idea genes." If you've been around the internet, you've heard of it. They're called memes.

There's also the irony in you wanting to apply natural selection to ideas, and declaring the 'God' trait to be supreme and stronger than the atheist trait. Any one with a knowledge of natural selection will note that an environment can change, and so changes the memes that survive in it. One could argue that in an age that knows more about the world and universe than any age before, and has come up with a rigorous system of skeptical inquiry, the god meme could no longer survive.


----------



## UltimateReality

Woyzeck said:


> I'll never understand the repeated attempts by opponents of evolution to peg well-known figures of science like Darwin and Dawkins as akin to religious figures.
> 
> You're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. It's a separate field.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if creationists are deliberate profound practitioners of irony. Richard Dawkins actually discusses "idea genes." If you've been around the internet, you've heard of it. They're called memes.
> 
> There's also the irony in you wanting to apply natural selection to ideas, and declaring the 'God' trait to be supreme and stronger than the atheist trait. Any one with a knowledge of natural selection will note that an environment can change, and so changes the memes that survive in it. One could argue that in an age that knows more about the world and universe than any age before, and has come up with a rigorous system of skeptical inquiry, the god meme could no longer survive.



Wow, aren't you Captain Obvious? I guess I wasn't too far off the mark with the arrogance thing. Materialism is a religion my friend, and your belief in Darwinism requires just as much blind faith as my belief in God. 

You would presume you are the only one that knows about abiogenisis? Panspermia, extremophiles.... yeah, I can read wikipedia too. My little story was aimed at furtherBB, who seems to think that life is so easily accomplished by undirected forces. It's not. You had to wonder if there was sarcasm and deliberate irony in that post???? If that went over your head, I wonder if you would know real science if it hit you in the face? Sparring is healthy isn't it? Darwinists love to call ID proponents Creationists as a putdown. Is it wrong that I like to call the materialists Darwinists as a jab?

As far as the God meme, those darn soviet socialists tried a little eugenics and attempted to snuff that little meme right out. But that little sucker has some staying power doesn't he? Nature abhors a vacuum. Russian Vodka could only numb the hopelessness of life without God for so long.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> You see, folks like me don't don't possess quite enough "... chest pounding, arrogance, and "I have all the answers and you don't" attitude ..." to express their beliefs as unqualified certainties in the manner that intellectually dishonest superstitious retards express theirs.
> 
> Have a nice chuckle there, Mr. Chucklehead.



And that would be why you didn't respond to the concepts in the post and immediately resorted to name calling. A simple "yeah, we have no clue how life actually started so our entire theory is pretty much built on a house of cards" would have sufficed.


----------



## Woyzeck

UltimateReality said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll never understand the repeated attempts by opponents of evolution to peg well-known figures of science like Darwin and Dawkins as akin to religious figures.
> 
> You're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. It's a separate field.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if creationists are deliberate profound practitioners of irony. Richard Dawkins actually discusses "idea genes." If you've been around the internet, you've heard of it. They're called memes.
> 
> There's also the irony in you wanting to apply natural selection to ideas, and declaring the 'God' trait to be supreme and stronger than the atheist trait. Any one with a knowledge of natural selection will note that an environment can change, and so changes the memes that survive in it. One could argue that in an age that knows more about the world and universe than any age before, and has come up with a rigorous system of skeptical inquiry, the god meme could no longer survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, aren't you Captain Obvious? I guess I wasn't too far off the mark with the arrogance thing. Materialism is a religion my friend, and your belief in Darwinism requires just as much blind faith as my belief in God.
Click to expand...


Not really. Modern evolutionary theory has a host of repeatedly replicated experiments behind it, as well as mountains of other evidence such as genetics. Equating it to faith in God would be an inaccurate statement seeing as we can't run experiments or see a load of evidence elsewhere.



> You would presume you are the only one that knows about abiogenisis? Panspermia, extremophiles.... yeah, I can read wikipedia too. My little story was aimed at furtherBB, who seems to think that life is so easily accomplished by undirected forces. It's not. You had to wonder if there was sarcasm and deliberate irony in that post???? If that went over your head, I wonder if you would know real science if it hit you in the face? Sparring is healthy isn't it? Darwinists love to call ID proponents Creationists as a putdown. Is it wrong that I like to call the materialists Darwinists as a jab?



No, but you seem to be conflating the two (evolution and abiogenesis) together.

Intelligent design is just creationism under new marketing. There really isn't anything different between the two. It's not that subtle either. Intelligent design began being used as a term right after the Supreme Court struck down creationism in public schools in the 1980s.



> As far as the God meme, those darn soviet socialists tried a little eugenics and attempted to snuff that little meme right out. But that little sucker has some staying power doesn't he? Nature abhors a vacuum. Russian Vodka could only numb the hopelessness of life without God for so long.



Someone missed my point entirely.


----------



## Woyzeck

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see, folks like me don't don't possess quite enough "... chest pounding, arrogance, and "I have all the answers and you don't" attitude ..." to express their beliefs as unqualified certainties in the manner that intellectually dishonest superstitious retards express theirs.
> 
> Have a nice chuckle there, Mr. Chucklehead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be why you didn't respond to the concepts in the post and immediately resorted to name calling. A simple "yeah, we have no clue how life actually started so our entire theory is pretty much built on a house of cards" would have sufficed.
Click to expand...


This is funny, given that a lot of your reply to me was calling me 'arrogant,' a 'Captain Obvious,' and a 'materialist.' The last one is a jab entire from your own admittance. I don't really get why creationists like to use that as an insult.


----------



## UltimateReality

Woyzeck said:


> No, but you seem to be conflating the two (evolution and abiogenesis) together.


Please enlighten me as to the specific point that one ends and the other begins.



Woyzeck said:


> Someone missed my point entirely.



Right back at you.


----------



## UltimateReality

Woyzeck said:


> This is funny, given that a lot of your reply to me was calling me 'arrogant,' a 'Captain Obvious,' and a 'materialist.' The last one is a jab entire from your own admittance. I don't really get why creationists like to use that as an insult.



Aren't forums really for entertainment anyway? It's all in good fun. It's not like you and I are going to change our stance because of what someone says here.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see, folks like me don't don't possess quite enough "... chest pounding, arrogance, and "I have all the answers and you don't" attitude ..." to express their beliefs as unqualified certainties in the manner that intellectually dishonest superstitious retards express theirs.
> 
> Have a nice chuckle there, Mr. Chucklehead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be why you didn't respond to the concepts in the post and immediately resorted to name calling.
Click to expand...

Well, if you had actually bothered to read through the last few pages of my responses to the intellectually dishonest, superstitious retards, you should have been able to surmise that you really didn't bring any new concept to the discussion--that really, you're just jumping on Youwerecreated's question-begging, special-pleading, negative-proof appeal to ignorance, strawman quote-mining bandwagon.

For example:





UltimateReality said:


> A simple "yeah, we have no clue how life actually started so our entire theory is pretty much built on a house of cards" would have sufficed.


Even a "house of cards" is more substantive in verifiable evidence and valid logic than the fairytales offered by the superstitious.  It seems that only the intellectually dishonest and superstitious demand that if you can't claim unqualified certainty about everything, then you can't claim any certainty about anything. Really, what a bunch of retards.


----------



## LOki

Woyzeck said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see, folks like me don't don't possess quite enough "... chest pounding, arrogance, and "I have all the answers and you don't" attitude ..." to express their beliefs as unqualified certainties in the manner that intellectually dishonest superstitious retards express theirs.
> 
> Have a nice chuckle there, Mr. Chucklehead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be why you didn't respond to the concepts in the post and immediately resorted to name calling. A simple "yeah, we have no clue how life actually started so our entire theory is pretty much built on a house of cards" would have sufficed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is funny, given that a lot of your reply to me was calling me 'arrogant,' a 'Captain Obvious,' and a 'materialist.' The last one is a jab entire from your own admittance. I don't really get why creationists like to use that as an insult.
Click to expand...

It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of those who possess an unqualified certainty that they are right, because they can't be proven wrong about their imaginary superfriends.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see, folks like me don't don't possess quite enough "... chest pounding, arrogance, and "I have all the answers and you don't" attitude ..." to express their beliefs as unqualified certainties in the manner that intellectually dishonest superstitious retards express theirs.
> 
> Have a nice chuckle there, Mr. Chucklehead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be why you didn't respond to the concepts in the post and immediately resorted to name calling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you had actually bothered to read through the last few pages of my responses to the intellectually dishonest, superstitious retards, you should have been able to surmise that you really didn't bring any new concept to the discussion--that really, you're just jumping on Youwerecreated's question-begging, special-pleading, negative-proof appeal to ignorance, strawman quote-mining bandwagon.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> A simple "yeah, we have no clue how life actually started so our entire theory is pretty much built on a house of cards" would have sufficed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even a "house of cards" is more substantive in verifiable evidence and valid logic than the fairytales offered by the superstitious.  It seems that only the intellectually dishonest and superstitious demand that if you can't claim unqualified certainty about everything, then you can't claim any certainty about anything. Really, what a bunch of retards.
Click to expand...


Retards , what you really hate is logic and evidence that shows something as complex as life could not happen by random chance. What you deny is what real scientist know ,the genetic code is a language that can be decoded. We all know by now there is no form of communicating a language without the use of intelligence. If anyone here is dishonest it is the ones that deny what scientist say concerning mutations,Dna,and the genetic code. You also deny that this natural process would have to be an intelligent thinker.  I am looking for an answer still for three questions let me remind you. How by random mutations did non-intelligence create intelligence ? How by random chance did non-life create life ? How by random chance did the genetic code and DNA information come about ?  Loki explain it in your own words since you make the claim to be qualified.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Remember Loki, empirical evidence that has been verified and in your own words not an old post or a source from wiki nor some biased website your words. Provide the evidence and the observation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be why you didn't respond to the concepts in the post and immediately resorted to name calling. A simple "yeah, we have no clue how life actually started so our entire theory is pretty much built on a house of cards" would have sufficed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is funny, given that a lot of your reply to me was calling me 'arrogant,' a 'Captain Obvious,' and a 'materialist.' The last one is a jab entire from your own admittance. I don't really get why creationists like to use that as an insult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of those who possess an unqualified certainty that they are right, because they can't be proven wrong about their imaginary superfriends.
Click to expand...


A natural process would think to create genders to keep the human race going ? However on the other hand you need to explain how a non-intelligent non-thinking natural process would think of such a thing. That is design oh brilliant one.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be why you didn't respond to the concepts in the post and immediately resorted to name calling.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you had actually bothered to read through the last few pages of my responses to the intellectually dishonest, superstitious retards, you should have been able to surmise that you really didn't bring any new concept to the discussion--that really, you're just jumping on Youwerecreated's question-begging, special-pleading, negative-proof appeal to ignorance, strawman quote-mining bandwagon.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> A simple "yeah, we have no clue how life actually started so our entire theory is pretty much built on a house of cards" would have sufficed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even a "house of cards" is more substantive in verifiable evidence and valid logic than the fairytales offered by the superstitious.  It seems that only the intellectually dishonest and superstitious demand that if you can't claim unqualified certainty about everything, then you can't claim any certainty about anything. Really, what a bunch of retards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Retards , what you really hate is logic and evidence that shows something as complex as life could not happen by random chance.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I'd greatly enjoy seeing such logic and evidence, provided they are valid logic and valid verifiable evidence.



Youwerecreated said:


> What you deny is what real scientist know ,the genetic code is a language that can be decoded.


Language? Translate "This is proof that the genetic code is a language." into genetic code.



Youwerecreated said:


> We all know by now there is no form of communicating a language without the use of intelligence.


And we all know that the genetic code is not a language.



Youwerecreated said:


> If anyone here is dishonest it is the ones that deny what scientist say concerning mutations,Dna,and the genetic code.


And that has proven to be you.



Youwerecreated said:


> You also deny that this natural process would have to be an intelligent thinker.


You just can't support your point without lies, can you?



Youwerecreated said:


> I am looking for an answer still for three questions let me remind you. How by random mutations did non-intelligence create intelligence ? How by random chance did non-life create life ? How by random chance did the genetic code and DNA information come about ?


If you were really looking for these answers rather than asking for them just to deny I've answered them, you would have found them.  I have responded to all of these specifically for, and directly to you several times--in fact, every time you have asked; just go back and read them ... they haven't changed.



Youwerecreated said:


> Loki explain it in your own words since you make the claim to be qualified.


Where did I "... make the claim to be qualified," and for what?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is funny, given that a lot of your reply to me was calling me 'arrogant,' a 'Captain Obvious,' and a 'materialist.' The last one is a jab entire from your own admittance. I don't really get why creationists like to use that as an insult.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of those who possess an unqualified certainty that they are right, because they can't be proven wrong about their imaginary superfriends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A natural process would think to create genders to keep the human race going ? However on the other hand you need to explain how a non-intelligent non-thinking natural process would think of such a thing. That is design oh brilliant one.
Click to expand...

You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you had actually bothered to read through the last few pages of my responses to the intellectually dishonest, superstitious retards, you should have been able to surmise that you really didn't bring any new concept to the discussion--that really, you're just jumping on Youwerecreated's question-begging, special-pleading, negative-proof appeal to ignorance, strawman quote-mining bandwagon.
> 
> For example:Even a "house of cards" is more substantive in verifiable evidence and valid logic than the fairytales offered by the superstitious.  It seems that only the intellectually dishonest and superstitious demand that if you can't claim unqualified certainty about everything, then you can't claim any certainty about anything. Really, what a bunch of retards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retards , what you really hate is logic and evidence that shows something as complex as life could not happen by random chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. I'd greatly enjoy seeing such logic and evidence, provided they are valid logic and valid verifiable evidence.
> 
> Language? Translate "This is proof that the genetic code is a language." into genetic code.
> 
> And we all know that the genetic code is not a language.
> 
> And that has proven to be you.
> 
> You just can't support your point without lies, can you?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am looking for an answer still for three questions let me remind you. How by random mutations did non-intelligence create intelligence ? How by random chance did non-life create life ? How by random chance did the genetic code and DNA information come about ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you were really looking for these answers rather than asking for them just to deny I've answered them, you would have found them.  I have responded to all of these specifically for, and directly to you several times--in fact, every time you have asked; just go back and read them ... they haven't changed.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki explain it in your own words since you make the claim to be qualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I "... make the claim to be qualified," and for what?
Click to expand...


You still deny the obvious,can you tell us the difference between the genetic code and the morsel code ? Are they both a form of communicating information that has to be decoded ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of those who possess an unqualified certainty that they are right, because they can't be proven wrong about their imaginary superfriends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A natural process would think to create genders to keep the human race going ? However on the other hand you need to explain how a non-intelligent non-thinking natural process would think of such a thing. That is design oh brilliant one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.
Click to expand...


Dodging again cupcake hostess ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retards , what you really hate is logic and evidence that shows something as complex as life could not happen by random chance.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. I'd greatly enjoy seeing such logic and evidence, provided they are valid logic and valid verifiable evidence.
> 
> Language? Translate "This is proof that the genetic code is a language." into genetic code.
> 
> And we all know that the genetic code is not a language.
> 
> And that has proven to be you.
> 
> You just can't support your point without lies, can you?
> 
> If you were really looking for these answers rather than asking for them just to deny I've answered them, you would have found them.  I have responded to all of these specifically for, and directly to you several times--in fact, every time you have asked; just go back and read them ... they haven't changed.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki explain it in your own words since you make the claim to be qualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I "... make the claim to be qualified," and for what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still deny the obvious,
Click to expand...

No.



Youwerecreated said:


> can you tell us the difference between the genetic code and the morsel code ?


Yes.



Youwerecreated said:


> Are they both a form of communicating information that has to be decoded ?


No.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A natural process would think to create genders to keep the human race going ? However on the other hand you need to explain how a non-intelligent non-thinking natural process would think of such a thing. That is design oh brilliant one.
> 
> 
> 
> You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodging again cupcake hostess ?
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of those who possess an unqualified certainty that they are right, because they can't be proven wrong about their imaginary superfriends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A natural process would think to create genders to keep the human race going ? However on the other hand you need to explain how a non-intelligent non-thinking natural process would think of such a thing. That is design oh brilliant one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.
Click to expand...


When I return home I again will show you the science community and our definitions of our language supports my view over your view. But please provide this verified and observed evidence that supports your view on earlier questions you are avoiding.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A natural process would think to create genders to keep the human race going ? However on the other hand you need to explain how a non-intelligent non-thinking natural process would think of such a thing. That is design oh brilliant one.
> 
> 
> 
> You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I return home I again will show you the science community and our definitions of our language supports my view over your view.
Click to expand...

You don't belong to the "science community"; your definitions of your language are meaningless.



Youwerecreated said:


> But please provide this verified and observed evidence that supports your view on earlier questions you are avoiding.


Since I have avoided no questions you have ever asked, I have no idea what you are referring to.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you had actually bothered to read through the last few pages of my responses to the intellectually dishonest, superstitious retards, you should have been able to surmise that you really didn't bring any new concept to the discussion--that really, you're just jumping on Youwerecreated's question-begging, special-pleading, negative-proof appeal to ignorance, strawman quote-mining bandwagon.
> 
> For example:Even a "house of cards" is more substantive in verifiable evidence and valid logic than the fairytales offered by the superstitious.  It seems that only the intellectually dishonest and superstitious demand that if you can't claim unqualified certainty about everything, then you can't claim any certainty about anything. Really, what a bunch of retards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retards , what you really hate is logic and evidence that shows something as complex as life could not happen by random chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. I'd greatly enjoy seeing such logic and evidence, provided they are valid logic and valid verifiable evidence.
> 
> Language? Translate "This is proof that the genetic code is a language." into genetic code.
> 
> And we all know that the genetic code is not a language.
> 
> And that has proven to be you.
> 
> You just can't support your point without lies, can you?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am looking for an answer still for three questions let me remind you. How by random mutations did non-intelligence create intelligence ? How by random chance did non-life create life ? How by random chance did the genetic code and DNA information come about ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you were really looking for these answers rather than asking for them just to deny I've answered them, you would have found them.  I have responded to all of these specifically for, and directly to you several times--in fact, every time you have asked; just go back and read them ... they haven't changed.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki explain it in your own words since you make the claim to be qualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I "... make the claim to be qualified," and for what?
Click to expand...


How many times must I say the same things before it sinks in, how do you think we can through genetics modify food and organisms if we can decode the the information. Until you start answering my questions and back up your claims I will ignore your posts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. I'd greatly enjoy seeing such logic and evidence, provided they are valid logic and valid verifiable evidence.
> 
> Language? Translate "This is proof that the genetic code is a language." into genetic code.
> 
> And we all know that the genetic code is not a language.
> 
> And that has proven to be you.
> 
> You just can't support your point without lies, can you?
> 
> If you were really looking for these answers rather than asking for them just to deny I've answered them, you would have found them.  I have responded to all of these specifically for, and directly to you several times--in fact, every time you have asked; just go back and read them ... they haven't changed.
> 
> Where did I "... make the claim to be qualified," and for what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still deny the obvious,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> can you tell us the difference between the genetic code and the morsel code ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they both a form of communicating information that has to be decoded ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


You are still ducking the questions, and you still deny what scientist and and our definitions say con earning the genetic code. But like I said your posts will go ignored until you start presenting verified empirical evidence that refuted my claims by the questions I asked.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I return home I again will show you the science community and our definitions of our language supports my view over your view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't belong to the "science community"; your definitions of your language are meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But please provide this verified and observed evidence that supports your view on earlier questions you are avoiding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since I have avoided no questions you have ever asked, I have no idea what you are referring to.
Click to expand...


I have a degree that says otherwise. Not to mention I worked in the field for over 11 years. What makes you qualified to speak on these matters ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retards , what you really hate is logic and evidence that shows something as complex as life could not happen by random chance.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. I'd greatly enjoy seeing such logic and evidence, provided they are valid logic and valid verifiable evidence.
> 
> Language? Translate "This is proof that the genetic code is a language." into genetic code.
> 
> And we all know that the genetic code is not a language.
> 
> And that has proven to be you.
> 
> You just can't support your point without lies, can you?
> 
> If you were really looking for these answers rather than asking for them just to deny I've answered them, you would have found them.  I have responded to all of these specifically for, and directly to you several times--in fact, every time you have asked; just go back and read them ... they haven't changed.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki explain it in your own words since you make the claim to be qualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I "... make the claim to be qualified," and for what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times must I say the same things before it sinks in, ...
Click to expand...

As long as you assert superstition, what you say will not "sink in" as fact in reality.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... how do you think we can through genetics modify food and organisms if we can decode the the information.


First, as was pointed out to you clearly before, the term "code" as used by geneticists is not the same term that is used outside of genetics. *NOT* THE SAME! Got that now, retard?

And to answer you question, genetic code is used much the same way we use the "code" of the periodic table to manipulate atoms into molecules--e.g. C = carbon, H = hydrogen, etc...



Youwerecreated said:


> Until you start answering my questions and back up your claims I will ignore your posts.


You have been ignoring my posts all along ... I have been answering you questions; you have not been answering mine.

Give each and every one of these a read before you declare that I'm the one not answering questions.

_EVIDENCE that Youwercreated is full of shit:_
See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.


----------



## Uncensored2008

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now that right there is what we call a LEVEL 10 meltdown....


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still deny the obvious,
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they both a form of communicating information that has to be decoded ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still ducking the questions, ...
Click to expand...

 No I'm not ...

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... and you still deny what scientist and and our definitions say con earning the genetic code.


No, I don't.



Youwerecreated said:


> But like I said your posts will go ignored until you start presenting verified empirical evidence that refuted my claims by the questions I asked.


I have refuted all your claims. THOROUGHLY!


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I return home I again will show you the science community and our definitions of our language supports my view over your view.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't belong to the "science community"; your definitions of your language are meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But please provide this verified and observed evidence that supports your view on earlier questions you are avoiding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since I have avoided no questions you have ever asked, I have no idea what you are referring to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a degree that says otherwise.
Click to expand...

You degree in Bible-Molecular Bible-Biology cannot be taken seriously.



Youwerecreated said:


> Not to mention I worked in the field for over 11 years.


Until you got laughed out, right?



Youwerecreated said:


> What makes you qualified to speak on these matters ?


I took actual science classes, from an actual university.


----------



## UltimateReality

What Youweredesigned is trying to express is that DNA is a quaternary digital code, not a language. It contains blueprints for the building of mulitple complex machines that make up a larger system. 

wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_numeral_system

Just like binary code in my iPod can be translated into an analog signal using a D/A converter and produce a sound wave with a transducer, so can the quaternary digital code in DNA be translated to produce a protein. But not just a single protein, it produces multiple proteins that function together in a system. "Scientist" love to talk in simple terms when they speak of the cell or proteins or amino acids. They really try to avoid mention of the system. You see, every cell in the human body is connected, otherwise when the brain died, it would go on living. Somehow every cell in the body depends on respiration to live. Talk about irreducible complexity!!! No lungs, no life!

Loki, you can keep denying the ID movement hasn't come up with any concrete science, but Dr. Stephen Meyer has formulated a falsifiable hypothesis that goes something like this... all digital code on that we observe currently in action on the planet has an intelligent source, therefore, the best explanation for the digital code we find in DNA is that it had an intelligent source. Therefore, this hypothesis is falsifiable on several different levels. If you could find a digital code in the present that did not have an intelligent source, then you could prove his hypothesis wrong. If you could prove the source of the complex code in the cell occurred from random events then you could falsify the hypothesis. Once again, even the smartest materialist won't touch the origin of life. They have no clue. There is a whole chicken and egg problem when it comes to DNA replicating itself.  

"When I was in my twenties, I read James D. Watson's "Molecular Biology of the Gene" and decided my high school experience had misled me. The understanding of life is a great subject. Biological information is the most important information we can discover, because over the next several decades it will revolutionize medicine. Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced then any software ever created." Bill Gates

I have also entertained some pretty bulletproof probability arguments on amino acids randomly floating into proteins. So far, none of the pathetic arguments against the massive unlikelihood that even one protein could occur randomly have failed. There are less protons in the known universe than 1 chance that a single protein self assembled. Back when Carl Sagan was spreading his lies about the Cosmos, materialists could get a warm and fuzzy about the fact that even massive probabilities were no problem if the "Cosmos was all there ever was, all there is, and all there ever will be". Einstein desperately wanted the universe to be infinite as well, so much so, that he refused to believe the evidence for the big bang even when it was staring him in the face. It is now pretty much widely accepted that the universe is around 14 billion years old, an incredibly small number compared to a 1 with 136 zero's behind it. Shrink that to 3.7 Billion years for the planet and then figure you had an extinction event 200 million years ago and the timeline starts getting really crushed. 

wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic%E2%80%93Jurassic_extinction_event

Or course then we have the fine tuning problem. But alas, Loki, you would buy into the multiple universe theory because it would support your anger with God. However, the multiple universe theory, if we can even elevate it to theory status, is less viable than the hypothesis laid out by Stephen Meyer above. That is where philosophy influences science. You have to deny God at all costs, even if it means coming up with supernatural, retarded stuff like string theory or multiple universe theory. For to accept that there might be a Designer, would shake you out of your blind denial and force a change in the way you are living.


----------



## UltimateReality

Loki, I actually clicked on one of your 25 you failed to note this. You were talking some jibberish about chimpanzee's. That made me think about what a joke the whole transitional species in the fossil record is. Here we have multiple humanoids alive on the planet, chimpanzees, gorilla's, monkey's, baboons, all distinct species and all still very much alive. Just simple logic would tell us there is something horribly wrong with this picture according to Darwidiot. If we consider Homo Sapien is the most advanced (duh, look around at us cockroaches spreading and taking over the planet) and that chimpanzees are our closest ancestor, one would have to logically assume that there was some step in there of a humanoid more advanced than chimpanzees and less advanced than humans. Now why isn't he still around??? Why didn't he survive and the chimps didn't? This presents some massive holes for NS!!! Now it is funny to watch the evolutionists waving their hands around and coming up with all kinds of nonsense to explain these hard questions away but bottomline, isn't the simplest explanation usually one of the best? I mean where is the logic in the fact that we have multiple distinct humanoid species alive on the planet today but none of the "inbetweeners" survived and none of their fossils survived. I hear your NS argument, but it just doesn't hold up if you have the ability to reason with regards to the evidence all around you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't belong to the "science community"; your definitions of your language are meaningless.
> 
> Since I have avoided no questions you have ever asked, I have no idea what you are referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a degree that says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You degree in Bible-Molecular Bible-Biology cannot be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention I worked in the field for over 11 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you got laughed out, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you qualified to speak on these matters ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I took actual science classes, from an actual university.
Click to expand...


Sorry to bust your bubble but the University of Arizona is an accredited school and has a good reputation in the fields of science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> What Youweredesigned is trying to express is that DNA is a quaternary digital code, not a language. It contains blueprints for the building of mulitple complex machines that make up a larger system.
> 
> wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_numeral_system
> 
> Just like binary code in my iPod can be translated into an analog signal using a D/A converter and produce a sound wave with a transducer, so can the quaternary digital code in DNA be translated to produce a protein. But not just a single protein, it produces multiple proteins that function together in a system. "Scientist" love to talk in simple terms when they speak of the cell or proteins or amino acids. They really try to avoid mention of the system. You see, every cell in the human body is connected, otherwise when the brain died, it would go on living. Somehow every cell in the body depends on respiration to live. Talk about irreducible complexity!!! No lungs, no life!
> 
> Loki, you can keep denying the ID movement hasn't come up with any concrete science, but Dr. Stephen Meyer has formulated a falsifiable hypothesis that goes something like this... all digital code on that we observe currently in action on the planet has an intelligent source, therefore, the best explanation for the digital code we find in DNA is that it had an intelligent source. Therefore, this hypothesis is falsifiable on several different levels. If you could find a digital code in the present that did not have an intelligent source, then you could prove his hypothesis wrong. If you could prove the source of the complex code in the cell occurred from random events then you could falsify the hypothesis. Once again, even the smartest materialist won't touch the origin of life. They have no clue. There is a whole chicken and egg problem when it comes to DNA replicating itself.
> 
> "When I was in my twenties, I read James D. Watson's "Molecular Biology of the Gene" and decided my high school experience had misled me. The understanding of life is a great subject. Biological information is the most important information we can discover, because over the next several decades it will revolutionize medicine. Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced then any software ever created." Bill Gates
> 
> I have also entertained some pretty bulletproof probability arguments on amino acids randomly floating into proteins. So far, none of the pathetic arguments against the massive unlikelihood that even one protein could occur randomly have failed. There are less protons in the known universe than 1 chance that a single protein self assembled. Back when Carl Sagan was spreading his lies about the Cosmos, materialists could get a warm and fuzzy about the fact that even massive probabilities were no problem if the "Cosmos was all there ever was, all there is, and all there ever will be". Einstein desperately wanted the universe to be infinite as well, so much so, that he refused to believe the evidence for the big bang even when it was staring him in the face. It is now pretty much widely accepted that the universe is around 14 billion years old, an incredibly small number compared to a 1 with 136 zero's behind it. Shrink that to 3.7 Billion years for the planet and then figure you had an extinction event 200 million years ago and the timeline starts getting really crushed.
> 
> wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic%E2%80%93Jurassic_extinction_event
> 
> Or course then we have the fine tuning problem. But alas, Loki, you would buy into the multiple universe theory because it would support your anger with God. However, the multiple universe theory, if we can even elevate it to theory status, is less viable than the hypothesis laid out by Stephen Meyer above. That is where philosophy influences science. You have to deny God at all costs, even if it means coming up with supernatural, retarded stuff like string theory or multiple universe theory. For to accept that there might be a Designer, would shake you out of your blind denial and force a change in the way you are living.



Well said.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> What Youweredesigned is trying to express is that DNA is a quaternary digital code, not a language.


You are ignoring Youwerecreated's posts then. Despite every opportunity and suggestion provided to him that he means that the genetic code is analogous to a language, he insists otherwise.



UltimateReality said:


> It contains blueprints for the building of mulitple complex machines that make up a larger system.
> 
> wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_numeral_system


I am familiar with blueprints. It is one thing to say that what DNA contains is *like* blueprints; it's an entirely different thing to say that what DNA contains *is* blueprints--do you mean that DNA/the genetic code is _analogous_ to blueprints?



UltimateReality said:


> Just like binary code in my iPod can be translated into an analog signal using a D/A converter and produce a sound wave with a transducer, so can the quaternary digital code in DNA be translated to produce a protein. But not just a single protein, it produces multiple proteins that function together in a system.


DNA-->Protein transcription is not in contention. Why do you idiots insist upon presenting such things as if they were?

I suppose your point might be to assert that DNA is a quaternary digital code ... or are you saying that DNA is analogous to a quaternary digital code?



UltimateReality said:


> "Scientist" love to talk in simple terms when they speak of the cell or proteins or amino acids. They really try to avoid mention of the system.


No they don't.



UltimateReality said:


> You see, every cell in the human body is connected, otherwise when the brain died, it would go on living.


The cells actually *DO* go on living for an appreciable amount of time.



UltimateReality said:


> Somehow every cell in the body depends on respiration to live. Talk about irreducible complexity!!! No lungs, no life!


"Somehow"?!?!? WTF do you mean "somehow"?



UltimateReality said:


> Loki, you can keep denying the ID movement hasn't come up with any concrete science, but Dr. Stephen Meyer has formulated a falsifiable hypothesis that goes something like this... all digital code on that we observe currently in action on the planet has an intelligent source, therefore, the best explanation for the digital code we find in DNA is that it had an intelligent source. Therefore, this hypothesis is falsifiable on several different levels.


Before this post of yours, I had never heard of Dr. Stephen Meyer, or this "falsifiable hypothesis" you claim he has formulated. Why don't you look up this "falsifiable hypothesis," give it a careful perusal, and if you honestly determine that it is not yet another example of a Creationist question-begging appeal to ignorance, or a special-pleading appeal to ignorance, then link to it and I'll give it my sincere attention.



UltimateReality said:


> If you could find a digital code in the present that did not have an intelligent source, then you could prove his hypothesis wrong. If you could prove the source of the complex code in the cell occurred from random events then you could falsify the hypothesis.


Looks alot like this "falsifiable hypothesis" is really a special-pleading appeal to ignorance. My offer still stands.



UltimateReality said:


> Once again, even the smartest materialist won't touch the origin of life.


This is not true.



UltimateReality said:


> They have no clue.


Nor is this. Scientists make no claims with absolute certainty. Uncertainty or conditional certainty is not the same thing as being clueless. Again, it seems that only the intellectually dishonest and superstitious demand that if you can't claim unqualified certainty about everything, then you can't claim any certainty about anything. Really, what a bunch of retards.



UltimateReality said:


> There is a whole chicken and egg problem when it comes to DNA replicating itself.


And the Creationist alternative is uniformly a superstitious question-begging appeal to ignorance, or a special-pleading appeal to ignorance.



UltimateReality said:


> "When I was in my twenties, I read James D. Watson's "Molecular Biology of the Gene" and decided my high school experience had misled me. The understanding of life is a great subject. Biological information is the most important information we can discover, because over the next several decades it will revolutionize medicine. Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced then any software ever created." Bill Gates


Are you submitting this quote to assert that Human DNA is a computer program, or that Human DNA is analagous to a computer program? The distinction may not be terribly important in the imaginary realities of superstitions and fairytales, but it is actually important in objective reality.



UltimateReality said:


> I have also entertained some pretty bulletproof probability arguments on amino acids randomly floating into proteins. So far, none of the pathetic arguments against the massive unlikelihood that even one protein could occur randomly have failed.


Well, that's just denial of reality talking there; unless you managed to wrangle "absolutely impossible" out of "massive unlikelihood." I'd be interested in seeing that.



UltimateReality said:


> There are less protons in the known universe than 1 chance that a single protein self assembled.


Oh. I see. This "massive unlikelihood" is a probability that you just made up, it's imaginary, like omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.



UltimateReality said:


> Back when Carl Sagan was spreading his lies about the Cosmos, materialists could get a warm and fuzzy about the fact that even massive probabilities were no problem if the "Cosmos was all there ever was, all there is, and all there ever will be". Einstein desperately wanted the universe to be infinite as well, so much so, that he refused to believe the evidence for the big bang even when it was staring him in the face. It is now pretty much widely accepted that the universe is around 14 billion years old, an incredibly small number compared to a 1 with 136 zero's behind it. Shrink that to 3.7 Billion years for the planet and then figure you had an extinction event 200 million years ago and the timeline starts getting really crushed.
> 
> wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic%E2%80%93Jurassic_extinction_event


You are failing to make a point here.



UltimateReality said:


> Or course then we have the fine tuning problem.


What "fine tuning problem"?



UltimateReality said:


> But alas, Loki, you would buy into the multiple universe theory because it would support your anger with God.


What anger? what God, Mr. Presumto?



UltimateReality said:


> However, the multiple universe theory, if we can even elevate it to theory status, is less viable than the hypothesis laid out by Stephen Meyer above. That is where philosophy influences science. You have to deny God at all costs, even if it means coming up with supernatural, retarded stuff like string theory or multiple universe theory. For to accept that there might be a Designer, would shake you out of your blind denial and force a change in the way you are living.


And here you tip your intellectually dishonest, pathologically projecting hand: the actual fact of reality is that science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Loki, I actually clicked on one of your 25 you failed to note this.


But you didn't spend time reading to get any facts straight, did you? You already had what I was talking about formulated in your presumptuous head beforehand, didn't you?



UltimateReality said:


> You were talking some jibberish about chimpanzee's.


Really? Was I? Or was I really _responding_ to some gibberish about chimpanzees?



UltimateReality said:


> That made me think about what a joke the whole transitional species in the fossil record is.


Oh, here it comes ... "If humans are descended from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys" or some other similarly retarded non-sequitur.



UltimateReality said:


> Here we have multiple humanoids alive on the planet, chimpanzees, gorilla's, monkey's, baboons, all distinct species and all still very much alive.


Yes. Entirely predictable and consistent with Evolutionary Theory.



UltimateReality said:


> Just simple logic would tell us there is something horribly wrong with this picture according to Darwidiot. If we consider Homo Sapien is the most advanced (duh, look around at us cockroaches spreading and taking over the planet) and that chimpanzees are our closest ancestor, one would have to logically assume that there was some step in there of a humanoid more advanced than chimpanzees and less advanced than humans.


And there is abundant evidence of such transitional species in the fossil record.



UltimateReality said:


> Now why isn't he still around???


The term you're looking for is "extinction."



UltimateReality said:


> Why didn't he survive and the chimps didn't?


The chimpanzee clearly DID survive, but I think I understand your point anyway. There is plenty of evidence of the co-existence of transitional species, so one likely explanation is that the transitional species were not so well suited to an environment where they had to compete directly with both chimpanzees AND later humanoids. That's just a rough sketch of one explanation.



UltimateReality said:


> This presents some massive holes for NS!!!


Really? It's funny that these holes are so "massive," yet you fail to actually point out their nature--you simply make the unconditional declaration that a hole exists. It's oddly reminiscent of another unconditional declaration that asshats in your superstitious camp make.



UltimateReality said:


> Now it is funny to watch the evolutionists waving their hands around and coming up with all kinds of nonsense to explain these hard questions away ...


What "hard questions"? Did you present a "hard question"? I didn't see a "hard question." I saw an easy question, and I presented a likely explanation as an answer.



UltimateReality said:


> ... but bottomline, isn't the simplest explanation usually one of the best?


Sure, provided it involves at least some verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.



UltimateReality said:


> I mean where is the logic in the fact that we have multiple distinct humanoid species alive on the planet today but none of the "inbetweeners" survived and none of their fossils survived.


Plenty of fossils of transitional humanoid species are evident.



UltimateReality said:


> I hear your NS argument, but it just doesn't hold up if you have the ability to reason with regards to the evidence all around you.


Correction: "... it just doesn't hold up if you *resolutely deny* the evidence all around you."​There, fixed that for you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Youweredesigned is trying to express is that DNA is a quaternary digital code, not a language.
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring Youwerecreated's posts then. Despite every opportunity and suggestion provided to him that he means that the genetic code is analogous to a language, he insists otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It contains blueprints for the building of mulitple complex machines that make up a larger system.
> 
> wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_numeral_system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am familiar with blueprints. It is one thing to say that what DNA contains is *like* blueprints; it's an entirely different thing to say that what DNA contains *is* blueprints--do you mean that DNA/the genetic code is _analogous_ to blueprints?
> 
> DNA-->Protein transcription is not in contention. Why do you idiots insist upon presenting such things as if they were?
> 
> I suppose your point might be to assert that DNA is a quaternary digital code ... or are you saying that DNA is analogous to a quaternary digital code?
> 
> No they don't.
> 
> The cells actually *DO* go on living for an appreciable amount of time.
> 
> "Somehow"?!?!? WTF do you mean "somehow"?
> 
> Before this post of yours, I had never heard of Dr. Stephen Meyer, or this "falsifiable hypothesis" you claim he has formulated. Why don't you look up this "falsifiable hypothesis," give it a careful perusal, and if you honestly determine that it is not yet another example of a Creationist question-begging appeal to ignorance, or a special-pleading appeal to ignorance, then link to it and I'll give it my sincere attention.
> 
> Looks alot like this "falsifiable hypothesis" is really a special-pleading appeal to ignorance. My offer still stands.
> 
> This is not true.
> 
> Nor is this. Scientists make no claims with absolute certainty. Uncertainty or conditional certainty is not the same thing as being clueless. Again, it seems that only the intellectually dishonest and superstitious demand that if you can't claim unqualified certainty about everything, then you can't claim any certainty about anything. Really, what a bunch of retards.
> 
> And the Creationist alternative is uniformly a superstitious question-begging appeal to ignorance, or a special-pleading appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Are you submitting this quote to assert that Human DNA is a computer program, or that Human DNA is analagous to a computer program? The distinction may not be terribly important in the imaginary realities of superstitions and fairytales, but it is actually important in objective reality.
> 
> Well, that's just denial of reality talking there; unless you managed to wrangle "absolutely impossible" out of "massive unlikelihood." I'd be interested in seeing that.
> 
> Oh. I see. This "massive unlikelihood" is a probability that you just made up, it's imaginary, like omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.
> 
> You are failing to make a point here.
> 
> What "fine tuning problem"?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> But alas, Loki, you would buy into the multiple universe theory because it would support your anger with God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What anger? what God, Mr. Presumto?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, the multiple universe theory, if we can even elevate it to theory status, is less viable than the hypothesis laid out by Stephen Meyer above. That is where philosophy influences science. You have to deny God at all costs, even if it means coming up with supernatural, retarded stuff like string theory or multiple universe theory. For to accept that there might be a Designer, would shake you out of your blind denial and force a change in the way you are living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And here you tip your intellectually dishonest, pathologically projecting hand: the actual fact of reality is that science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.
Click to expand...


Do blueprints have symbols giving instructions for structures ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, I actually clicked on one of your 25 you failed to note this.
> 
> 
> 
> But you didn't spend time reading to get any facts straight, did you? You already had what I was talking about formulated in your presumptuous head beforehand, didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were talking some jibberish about chimpanzee's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Was I? Or was I really _responding_ to some gibberish about chimpanzees?
> 
> 
> Oh, here it comes ... "If humans are descended from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys" or some other similarly retarded non-sequitur.
> 
> Yes. Entirely predictable and consistent with Evolutionary Theory.
> 
> And there is abundant evidence of such transitional species in the fossil record.
> 
> The term you're looking for is "extinction."
> 
> 
> The chimpanzee clearly DID survive, but I think I understand your point anyway. There is plenty of evidence of the co-existence of transitional species, so one likely explanation is that the transitional species were not so well suited to an environment where they had to compete directly with both chimpanzees AND later humanoids. That's just a rough sketch of one explanation.
> 
> Really? It's funny that these holes are so "massive," yet you fail to actually point out their nature--you simply make the unconditional declaration that a hole exists. It's oddly reminiscent of another unconditional declaration that asshats in your superstitious camp make.
> 
> What "hard questions"? Did you present a "hard question"? I didn't see a "hard question." I saw an easy question, and I presented a likely explanation as an answer.
> 
> Sure, provided it involves at least some verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean where is the logic in the fact that we have multiple distinct humanoid species alive on the planet today but none of the "inbetweeners" survived and none of their fossils survived.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of fossils of transitional humanoid species are evident.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear your NS argument, but it just doesn't hold up if you have the ability to reason with regards to the evidence all around you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correction: "... it just doesn't hold up if you *resolutely deny* the evidence all around you."​There, fixed that for you.
Click to expand...


Same old rhetoric nothing of substance.

Still waiting for your facts through verified empirical evidence.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Still waiting for your facts through verified empirical evidence.


No you're not. You're just denying their existence.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Do blueprints have symbols giving instructions for structures ?


 *YES!* *Yes they do!*

Go on dumbass! I've opened the door wide for you. Go on and assert your obvious logical fallacy--your incredible and unbelievable dumb; and expose yourself once again to be the retard we all know you are! I know you're just dying to do it! Please hurry!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok you are a liar,at some point in your meaningless life you have questioned whether God really exists or not.
> 
> 
> 
> another dodge!
> but to answer your question, religion it's self gave me the first hints about why there is no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a dodge.
> 
> I will admit I am no fan of religion I don't believe God is either by what he says about it in the bible,especially what he says in the book of Revelations.
> 
> Abraham did not need an organized religion to have a relationship with the Almighty.
Click to expand...

nice contradiction you are no fan of religion but you do belong to one.
Abraham: Joseph Blenkinsopp said that the Genesis story of Abraham has not been transmitted by oral traditions, but from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE.[10] He said that it served to assure the Israelites in exile that despite the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Davidic kingship, Yahweh's dealings with their ancestors provided a historical foundation on which hope for the future could be built.[11] Abraham's association with Mamre and Hebron, in the south, in the territory of Jerusalem and Judah, suggests that this region was the original home of his cult


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Same old rhetoric nothing of substance.
> 
> Still waiting for your facts through verified empirical evidence.



That's what I was thinking. I've never encountered someone that can use so many words to say so little like Loki can. He purports to know things even accepted science has admitted they don't have evidence for.


----------



## emilynghiem

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



I think it's a matter of 
1. learning to interpret the Bible in a consistent manner
2. TRUSTING the source of an interpretation

many conflicts are about not trusting the group associated with the person offering the interpretation

If someone can trust me NOT to be deceiving them, but to be on the side of God's truth, then when I explain that the 6,000 year timeline in the Bible refers to the LINEAGE of Adam/Eve as representing a certain tribal line of humanity (the Hebrew lineage), and there are actually tribes OUTSIDE that timeline as well, then this does not negate the Bible.

However, if 
1. someone comes at them with science with the INTENT of NEGATING the Bible
that will automatically cause rejection and clinging to the current interpretation
2. or if they don't trust this universal interpretation of the Bible as including creation and evolution equally, and the Hebrew/Adamic/Mosaic lineage equally as other tribes (including Buddhists, Constitutionalists and other secular humanists under the Gentile
fold and natural laws NOT spelled out specifically in the Bible) 
that can cause rejection also

As long as there is fear of change or control by others, that factor can cause
rejection independent of what correction could have been made. That is how people stay stuck in their current or past thinking, the fear of change because they don't trust the source and fear that some outside authority is trying to deceive or control them.


----------



## Dr Grump

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same old rhetoric nothing of substance.
> 
> Still waiting for your facts through verified empirical evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I was thinking. I've never encountered someone that can use so many words to say so little like Loki can. He purports to know things even accepted science has admitted they don't have evidence for.
Click to expand...


He has just kicked your arse every which way but sideways, and instead of skulking off and licking your wounds, you just write inane posts to your peanut gallery.

Your like-minded fool patting you on the back is not an indication that you are right, only that you are both just as misinformed/dumb/moronic/brain washed as the rest of them...


----------



## koshergrl

UR has come to the same conclusion I have. 

Loki is a bad writer, besides being redundant. He doesn't say anything, but he sure loves to string those words together. He thinks people will read his garbage and think he's REALLY important and smart.

And apparently  it worked with you.


----------



## koshergrl

I've edited copy. I can say with complete conviction...his writing is the sort of stuff that makes editors alternately laugh, and gag, and cry, then laugh again as they slog through it.


----------



## UltimateReality

Dr Grump said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same old rhetoric nothing of substance.
> 
> Still waiting for your facts through verified empirical evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I was thinking. I've never encountered someone that can use so many words to say so little like Loki can. He purports to know things even accepted science has admitted they don't have evidence for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He has just kicked your arse every which way but sideways, and instead of skulking off and licking your wounds, you just write inane posts to your peanut gallery.
> 
> Your like-minded fool patting you on the back is not an indication that you are right, only that you are both just as misinformed/dumb/moronic/brain washed as the rest of them...
Click to expand...


Loki is all smoke and mirrors my friend. He likes to call ID Theorists superstitious and believing in fairytales but methinks he is merely projecting. It is a joke to me the tiny straws evolutionists get excited about. They point to the "whale" of "evidence" to support evolution but act like giddy school girls when they "think" they've found a gnat that supports their theory... "think" being the operative word. This is what I think about Loki's so called transitional evidence...

From CSC: In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: &#8220;The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.&#8221;13 Nature science writer Henry Gee wrote in 1999 that &#8220;no fossil is buried with its birth certificate.&#8221; When we call new fossil discoveries &#8220;missing links,&#8221; *it is &#8220;as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.&#8221; Gee concluded: &#8220;To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story&#8212;amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.&#8221;*14


----------



## koshergrl

If by smoke, you are implying he is high, and by mirrors you mean he is redundant, I have to agree.


----------



## Dr Grump

UltimateReality said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I was thinking. I've never encountered someone that can use so many words to say so little like Loki can. He purports to know things even accepted science has admitted they don't have evidence for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has just kicked your arse every which way but sideways, and instead of skulking off and licking your wounds, you just write inane posts to your peanut gallery.
> 
> Your like-minded fool patting you on the back is not an indication that you are right, only that you are both just as misinformed/dumb/moronic/brain washed as the rest of them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki is all smoke and mirrors my friend. He likes to call ID Theorists superstitious and believing in fairytales but methinks he is merely projecting. It is a joke to me the tiny straws evolutionists get excited about. They point to the "whale" of "evidence" to support evolution but act like giddy school girls when they "think" they've found a gnat that supports their theory... "thinks" being the operative word. This is what I think about Loki's so called transitional evidence...
> 
> From CSC: In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.13 Nature science writer Henry Gee wrote in 1999 that no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. When we call new fossil discoveries missing links, *it is as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. Gee concluded: To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime storyamusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.[*
Click to expand...

*

It's not so much that the theory of evolution is in question - there are many questions with that theory, some of which have been proven, others not so.

It's more that some equate creationism as science, or is in the same ball park. It is not. It is based on faith. Nothing more, nothing less...*


----------



## Dr Grump

koshergrl said:


> UR has come to the same conclusion I have.
> 
> Loki is a bad writer, besides being redundant. He doesn't say anything, but he sure loves to string those words together. He thinks people will read his garbage and think he's REALLY important and smart.
> 
> And apparently  it worked with you.



Dunno about the importance. But he is smart (even if he is wrong about his stance on guns ). As stated, he is kicking these guys butts. I had to step away from this thread for a few weeks, I was cringing so much with embarassment for UR and YWC.


----------



## UltimateReality

Dr Grump said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> UR has come to the same conclusion I have.
> 
> Loki is a bad writer, besides being redundant. He doesn't say anything, but he sure loves to string those words together. He thinks people will read his garbage and think he's REALLY important and smart.
> 
> And apparently  it worked with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno about the importance. But he is smart (even if he is wrong about his stance on guns ). As stated, he is kicking these guys butts. I had to step away from this thread for a few weeks, I was cringing so much with embarassment for UR and YWC.
Click to expand...


Since my first post was only 3 days ago, I put about as much stake in you ability to know what embarrassment constitutes as I do in your ability to read a calendar.


----------



## UltimateReality

Dr Grump said:


> It is based on faith. Nothing more, nothing less...



Yes, evolution is based on faith and the flowery ability to make up stories that "sound" scientific. It is extrapolation gone wild. 

Faith is pretty much required for any thing you believe that you were not present to witness, so yes, the majority of the theory of evolution is based on faith. We could argue there is just as much evidence for God as there is the god NS based on the "evidence" and our faith.

Natural selection acting on random mutations... since it is so amazing and common, it shouldn't be too hard to find one living example right? I mean out of the billions of random mutations, NS whittled them down to the traits we see now, right. Evolutionists are fond of pointing to negative mutations which occur at a single locus, but let's hear some examples of "positive" modern day mutations that occur at a single loki, I mean locus, in multi-cell species. There should be thousands of them... I'm waiting...


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> Faith is pretty much required for any thing you believe that you were not present to witness



True -- but real scientists (and atheists) do not _believe_ in anything, even in the things they were present to witness!

When you think that a dropped pencil will fall down, it is not a faith -- it is merely an assumption based on your previous experience. But as a scientist, you must allow a possibility -- however negligible -- that the next time a dropped pencil will fly up.

Same with the Theory of Evolution, or any scientific theory. There are two requirements that any scientific theory must satisfy, and they differentiate a scientific theory from faith:
1) A scientific theory cannot be completely proven. Meaning there is always a possibility that a theory of evolution, or Newton's laws of motion will turn out to be wrong.
2) A scientific theory can be completely and utterly disproved. If tomorrow some paleontologist will find human bones among Cretaceous fossils, that will be the end of Theory of Evolution.

So an atheist, or a scientist, -- they do not_ believe_ in anything. They just 99.99999....9999% sure about some things. Including the Theory of Evolution. Or that Christian God is a fairy tale, however inspiring or influencing.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same old rhetoric nothing of substance.
> 
> Still waiting for your facts through verified empirical evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I was thinking. I've never encountered someone that can use so many words to say so little like Loki can. He purports to know things even accepted science has admitted they don't have evidence for.
Click to expand...

Really? You'd think that you would substantiate such an accusation if it had any validity.

Well, not you ... you're one of the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> UR has come to the same conclusion I have.
> 
> Loki is a bad writer, besides being redundant. He doesn't say anything, but he sure loves to string those words together. He thinks people will read his garbage and think he's REALLY important and smart.
> 
> And apparently  it worked with you.


koshergrl, this myth you've created is just hilarious. It is only in your imagination that I think of myself the way you say I do.

It's really evidence that YOU think of me the way you say I think of myself.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I was thinking. I've never encountered someone that can use so many words to say so little like Loki can. He purports to know things even accepted science has admitted they don't have evidence for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has just kicked your arse every which way but sideways, and instead of skulking off and licking your wounds, you just write inane posts to your peanut gallery.
> 
> Your like-minded fool patting you on the back is not an indication that you are right, only that you are both just as misinformed/dumb/moronic/brain washed as the rest of them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki is all smoke and mirrors my friend. He likes to call ID Theorists superstitious and believing in fairytales but methinks he is merely projecting. It is a joke to me the tiny straws evolutionists get excited about. They point to the "whale" of "evidence" to support evolution but act like giddy school girls when they "think" they've found a gnat that supports their theory... "think" being the operative word. This is what I think about Loki's so called transitional evidence...
> 
> From CSC: In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.13 Nature science writer Henry Gee wrote in 1999 that no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. When we call new fossil discoveries missing links, *it is as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. Gee concluded: To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime storyamusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.*14
Click to expand...

This is the source material from which Gee's quote was mined:





			
				Henry Gee said:
			
		

> The conventional portrait of human evolution  and, indeed, of the history of life  tends to be one of lines of ancestors and descendants. We concentrate on the events leading to modern humanity, ignoring or playing down the evolution of other animals: we prune away all branches in the tree of life except the one leading to ourselves. The result, inevitably, is a tale of progressive improvement, culminating in modern humanity. From our privileged vantage point in the present day, we look back at human ancestry and pick out the features in fossil hominids that we see in ourselves  a bigger brain, an upright stance, the use of tools, and so on. Naturally, we arrange fossil hominids in a series according to their resemblance to the human state. Homo erectus, with its humanlike, upright stance and big brain, will be closer to us than Ardipithecus ramidus or Australopithecus afarensis, which had smaller brains and more apelike features.
> 
> Because we see evolution in terms of a linear chain of ancestry and descent, we tend to ignore the possibility that some of these ancestors might have been side branches instead  collateral cousins, rather than direct ancestors. The conventional, linear view easily becomes a story in which the features of humanity are acquired in a sequence that can be discerned retrospectively  first an upright stance, then a bigger brain, then the invention of toolmaking, and so on, with ourselves as the inevitable consequence.
> 
> New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps.


It turns out that Gee was working towards a discussion of the improvements in our understanding due to cladistics.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Yes, evolution is based on faith and the flowery ability to make up stories that "sound" scientific. It is extrapolation gone wild.


Nope. This is just superstition claiming science is no more valid than itself.



UltimateReality said:


> Faith is pretty much required for any thing you believe that you were not present to witness, so yes, the majority of the theory of evolution is based on faith. We could argue there is just as much evidence for God as there is the god NS based on the "evidence" and our faith.


Nope. This is just superstition again claiming science is no more valid than itself.



UltimateReality said:


> Natural selection acting on random mutations... since it is so amazing and common, it shouldn't be too hard to find one living example right?


Right.



UltimateReality said:


> I mean out of the billions of random mutations, NS whittled them down to the traits we see now, right. Evolutionists are fond of pointing to negative mutations which occur at a single locus, but let's hear some examples of "positive" modern day mutations that occur at a single loki, I mean locus, in multi-cell species. There should be thousands of them... I'm waiting...


Youwerecreated asked, and was rewarded numerous times already. If you really think he wasn't, just ask for a link ... whereas you asshats can't be bothered, you'll discover that I can come through.
PREDICTION: The superstitious intellectually dishonest creationist retards--who are so rabidly certain they can stump me or any sensible person with their disingenuous challenges, are so much more interested in claiming that I didn't meet their dumb challenge than seeing links that describe "examples of "positive" modern day mutations"--won't ask for links, but instead claim I haven't met their dumbass challenge.


----------



## LOki

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith is pretty much required for any thing you believe that you were not present to witness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True -- but real scientists (and atheists) do not _believe_ in anything, even in the things they were present to witness!
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm pretty sure this isn't true. For instance, real scientists believe that their observations, measurements, and conclusions are subject to various errors.



ilia25 said:


> When you think that a dropped pencil will fall down, it is not a faith -- it is merely an assumption based on your previous experience. But as a scientist, you must allow a possibility -- however negligible -- that the next time a dropped pencil will fly up.
> 
> Same with the Theory of Evolution, or any scientific theory. There are two requirements that any scientific theory must satisfy, and they differentiate a scientific theory from faith:
> 1) A scientific theory cannot be completely proven. Meaning there is always a possibility that a theory of evolution, or Newton's laws of motion will turn out to be wrong.
> 2) A scientific theory can be completely and utterly disproved. If tomorrow some paleontologist will find human bones among Cretaceous fossils, that will be the end of Theory of Evolution.
> 
> So an atheist, or a scientist, -- they do not_ believe_ in anything. They just 99.99999....9999% sure about some things. Including the Theory of Evolution. Or that Christian God is a fairy tale, however inspiring or influencing.


Yes. It seems to me that you are not speaking to "belief," rather you are speaking to "certainty"; scientists do not make claims of unqualified or unconditional certainty--because real scientists believe that their observations, measurements, and conclusions are subject to various errors.

Creationists (who claim unconditional certainty, validated only by denial of reality and logical fallacy) attempt to capitalize on this clearly understood lack of absolute certainty to make the assertion that scientific conclusions are entirely baseless in any verifiable evidence and/or valid logic--that because scientists don't claim unconditional certainty about EVERYTHING, they cannot validly claim ANY amount of certainty about ANYTHING. This candid admission of scientists (that their observations, measurements, and conclusions are subject to various errors) however, speaks to an integrity of intellectual honesty that Creationists--"Christian" Creationists in particular--find impossible to even contemplate, let alone embrace.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do blueprints have symbols giving instructions for structures ?
> 
> 
> 
> *YES!* *Yes they do!*
> 
> Go on dumbass! I've opened the door wide for you. Go on and assert your obvious logical fallacy--your incredible and unbelievable dumb; and expose yourself once again to be the retard we all know you are! I know you're just dying to do it! Please hurry!
Click to expand...


You can't see what you just adfmitted to ?

I will not respond until you in your own words provide answers to my questions and give the evidence to support your assertions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another dodge!
> but to answer your question, religion it's self gave me the first hints about why there is no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a dodge.
> 
> I will admit I am no fan of religion I don't believe God is either by what he says about it in the bible,especially what he says in the book of Revelations.
> 
> Abraham did not need an organized religion to have a relationship with the Almighty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice contradiction you are no fan of religion but you do belong to one.
> Abraham: Joseph Blenkinsopp said that the Genesis story of Abraham has not been transmitted by oral traditions, but from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE.[10] He said that it served to assure the Israelites in exile that despite the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Davidic kingship, Yahweh's dealings with their ancestors provided a historical foundation on which hope for the future could be built.[11] Abraham's association with Mamre and Hebron, in the south, in the territory of Jerusalem and Judah, suggests that this region was the original home of his cult
Click to expand...


I am not a member of an organized religion that doctrine drives the meetings. Maybe I should have been clearer what organized religion is and no Abraham did not gather to worship the Almighty YAHWEH.

The main purpose of the temple was for sacrifice and prayer. The temples became corrupt that is why Jesus condemed what was going on in the temple and That is why ultimately God allowed the destruction of both temples. Because what they taught and did in the temples.

Mat 21:13  And He said to them, It is written, "My house shall be called the house of prayer"; but you have made it a den of thieves.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same old rhetoric nothing of substance.
> 
> Still waiting for your facts through verified empirical evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I was thinking. I've never encountered someone that can use so many words to say so little like Loki can. He purports to know things even accepted science has admitted they don't have evidence for.
Click to expand...


Agreed ,so many words and nothing of substance, But that is typical of Idelogues on that side.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same old rhetoric nothing of substance.
> 
> Still waiting for your facts through verified empirical evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I was thinking. I've never encountered someone that can use so many words to say so little like Loki can. He purports to know things even accepted science has admitted they don't have evidence for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He has just kicked your arse every which way but sideways, and instead of skulking off and licking your wounds, you just write inane posts to your peanut gallery.
> 
> Your like-minded fool patting you on the back is not an indication that you are right, only that you are both just as misinformed/dumb/moronic/brain washed as the rest of them...
Click to expand...



You should lay off of what that Kangaroo is drinking.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> UR has come to the same conclusion I have.
> 
> Loki is a bad writer, besides being redundant. He doesn't say anything, but he sure loves to string those words together. He thinks people will read his garbage and think he's REALLY important and smart.
> 
> And apparently  it worked with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno about the importance. But he is smart (even if he is wrong about his stance on guns ). As stated, he is kicking these guys butts. I had to step away from this thread for a few weeks, I was cringing so much with embarassment for UR and YWC.
Click to expand...


Translated ,you stuck your fingers in your ears because you couldn't handle the truth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, evolution is based on faith and the flowery ability to make up stories that "sound" scientific. It is extrapolation gone wild.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. This is just superstition claiming science is no more valid than itself.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith is pretty much required for any thing you believe that you were not present to witness, so yes, the majority of the theory of evolution is based on faith. We could argue there is just as much evidence for God as there is the god NS based on the "evidence" and our faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. This is just superstition again claiming science is no more valid than itself.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection acting on random mutations... since it is so amazing and common, it shouldn't be too hard to find one living example right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean out of the billions of random mutations, NS whittled them down to the traits we see now, right. Evolutionists are fond of pointing to negative mutations which occur at a single locus, but let's hear some examples of "positive" modern day mutations that occur at a single loki, I mean locus, in multi-cell species. There should be thousands of them... I'm waiting...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youwerecreated asked, and was rewarded numerous times already. If you really think he wasn't, just ask for a link ... whereas you asshats can't be bothered, you'll discover that I can come through.
> PREDICTION: The superstitious intellectually dishonest creationist retards--who are so rabidly certain they can stump me or any sensible person with their disingenuous challenges, are so much more interested in claiming that I didn't meet their dumb challenge than seeing links that describe "examples of "positive" modern day mutations"--won't ask for links, but instead claim I haven't met their dumbass challenge.
Click to expand...


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do blueprints have symbols giving instructions for structures ?
> 
> 
> 
> *YES!* *Yes they do!*
> 
> Go on dumbass! I've opened the door wide for you. Go on and assert your obvious logical fallacy--your incredible and unbelievable dumb; and expose yourself once again to be the retard we all know you are! I know you're just dying to do it! Please hurry!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't see what you just adfmitted to ?
Click to expand...

*YES!* *Yes I can!* And I am pretty certain that it's nothing at all what you think I've admitted to. So, your golden opportunity is still present! I've opened the door wide for you. Go on and assert your obvious logical fallacies, your predictable misrepresentations, your laughable errors of fact--your incredible and unbelievable dumb; and expose yourself once again to be the retard we all know you are.



Youwerecreated said:


> I will not respond until you in your own words provide answers to my questions and give the evidence to support your assertions.


Done. Again.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, evolution is based on faith and the flowery ability to make up stories that "sound" scientific. It is extrapolation gone wild.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. This is just superstition claiming science is no more valid than itself.
> 
> Nope. This is just superstition again claiming science is no more valid than itself.
> 
> Right.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean out of the billions of random mutations, NS whittled them down to the traits we see now, right. Evolutionists are fond of pointing to negative mutations which occur at a single locus, but let's hear some examples of "positive" modern day mutations that occur at a single loki, I mean locus, in multi-cell species. There should be thousands of them... I'm waiting...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youwerecreated asked, and was rewarded numerous times already. If you really think he wasn't, just ask for a link ... whereas you asshats can't be bothered, you'll discover that I can come through.
> PREDICTION: The superstitious intellectually dishonest creationist retards--who are so rabidly certain they can stump me or any sensible person with their disingenuous challenges, are so much more interested in claiming that I didn't meet their dumb challenge than seeing links that describe "examples of "positive" modern day mutations"--won't ask for links, but instead claim I haven't met their dumbass challenge.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Prediction validated. When will you asshats learn that your commitment to being stupid combined with your intellectual dishonesty is what makes your idiocy so transparent and predictable?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a dodge.
> 
> I will admit I am no fan of religion I don't believe God is either by what he says about it in the bible,especially what he says in the book of Revelations.
> 
> Abraham did not need an organized religion to have a relationship with the Almighty.
> 
> 
> 
> nice contradiction you are no fan of religion but you do belong to one.
> Abraham: Joseph Blenkinsopp said that the Genesis story of Abraham has not been transmitted by oral traditions, but from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE.[10] He said that it served to assure the Israelites in exile that despite the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Davidic kingship, Yahweh's dealings with their ancestors provided a historical foundation on which hope for the future could be built.[11] Abraham's association with Mamre and Hebron, in the south, in the territory of Jerusalem and Judah, suggests that this region was the original home of his cult
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a member of an organized religion that doctrine drives the meetings. Maybe I should have been clearer what organized religion is and no Abraham did not gather to worship the Almighty YAHWEH.
> 
> The main purpose of the temple was for sacrifice and prayer. The temples became corrupt that is why Jesus condemed what was going on in the temple and That is why ultimately God allowed the destruction of both temples. Because what they taught and did in the temples.
> 
> Mat 21:13  And He said to them, It is written, "My house shall be called the house of prayer"; but you have made it a den of thieves.
Click to expand...

dodge


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> your intellectual dishonesty is ...



You sure like that term. You've used it over and over and over. This is another evolutionist trick. Say things enough times and maybe people will start to believe it. 

So you are saying your un-intellectual honesty is better than my intellectual dishonesty?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> your intellectual dishonesty is ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure like that term. You've used it over and over and over. This is another evolutionist trick. Say things enough times and maybe people will start to believe it.
> 
> So you are saying your un-intellectual honesty is better than my intellectual dishonesty?
Click to expand...

cue buzzer! wrong that "trick" was in used by BELIEVERS LONG BEFORE EVOLUTION SCIENCE WAS INVENTED.
It's the oldest mass hypnosis tool in the book.
here a little test to show how well it works on people like you: "how many times a day do you: say the word god , pray  say the word jesus, or any other religion based phrase?

if it's more than once or twice a day then you've  been completely indoctrinated...


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> your intellectual dishonesty is ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure like that term.
Click to expand...

I sure do; particularly when it's so manifestly applicable.



UltimateReality said:


> You've used it over and over and over.


Because your retarded tribe gives me the opportunity to do so "... over and over and over."



UltimateReality said:


> This is another evolutionist trick.


Verifiability in objective reality is no trick.



UltimateReality said:


> Say things enough times and maybe people will start to believe it.


The actual "trick" you are referencing was invented by religion to disseminate superstitions as facts of reality.



UltimateReality said:


> So you are saying your un-intellectual honesty is better than my intellectual dishonesty?


No. I am saying my intellectual honesty is superior--both intellectually and morally--than your intellectual dishonesty.


BTW: Prediction validated.


----------



## Dr Grump

UltimateReality said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> UR has come to the same conclusion I have.
> 
> Loki is a bad writer, besides being redundant. He doesn't say anything, but he sure loves to string those words together. He thinks people will read his garbage and think he's REALLY important and smart.
> 
> And apparently  it worked with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno about the importance. But he is smart (even if he is wrong about his stance on guns ). As stated, he is kicking these guys butts. I had to step away from this thread for a few weeks, I was cringing so much with embarassment for UR and YWC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since my first post was only 3 days ago, I put about as much stake in you ability to know what embarrassment constitutes as I do in your ability to read a calendar.
Click to expand...


It was more aimed at YWC than you. Don't look at join dates. Please advise if I ever become that anally retentive...I'll shoot myself.

My point stands...you embarrass yourself with almost every post. However, your ignorance and lack of a real argument is nothing new. Anybody can debate based on faith. Putting in facts, is a whole other matter....


----------



## Dr Grump

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> UR has come to the same conclusion I have.
> 
> Loki is a bad writer, besides being redundant. He doesn't say anything, but he sure loves to string those words together. He thinks people will read his garbage and think he's REALLY important and smart.
> 
> And apparently  it worked with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno about the importance. But he is smart (even if he is wrong about his stance on guns ). As stated, he is kicking these guys butts. I had to step away from this thread for a few weeks, I was cringing so much with embarassment for UR and YWC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translated ,you stuck your fingers in your ears because you couldn't handle the truth.
Click to expand...


No, I see you offering up nothing more than your faith-based arguments. IOW, hot air and not much else. You have absolutely no proof that a god exists, that Jesus was the son of a god, or that humans just appeared out of thin air due to the benevolence of some omnipresent being.

However, micro evolution as been proven beyond doubt, and certain fossil records show that there were certain species of being that existed that are now extinct. Is Darwin's Theory proof positive of evolution? Of course not. But it's not based on some 2000 year old fairytale either.


----------



## koshergrl

Why on earth anyone would support anything that pedantic know-nothing says I'm sure I don't know.

Oh, wait, it's grump. 'nuff said.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Why on earth anyone would support anything that pedantic know-nothing says I'm sure I don't know.
> 
> Oh, wait, it's grump. 'nuff said.


 is that just an "observation" or a value judgement?


----------



## Dr Grump

koshergrl said:


> Why on earth anyone would support anything that pedantic know-nothing says I'm sure I don't know.
> 
> Oh, wait, it's grump. 'nuff said.



That's what I love about you Allie. Your eloquent and well thought out responses....


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> your intellectual dishonesty is ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure like that term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I sure do; particularly when it's so manifestly applicable.
> 
> Because your retarded tribe gives me the opportunity to do so "... over and over and over."
> 
> Verifiability in objective reality is no trick.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say things enough times and maybe people will start to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The actual "trick" you are referencing was invented by religion to disseminate superstitions as facts of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying your un-intellectual honesty is better than my intellectual dishonesty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I am saying my intellectual honesty is superior--both intellectually and morally--than your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> BTW: Prediction validated.
Click to expand...


Intellectual honesty,let's test your intellectual honesty you have been given many chances to be honest and you failed.

Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?

Can life come from non-life through a natural process ?

How come no transitional organisms are alive today but what these transitional organisms supposedly evolved from are alive,why ?

The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?


----------



## Dr Grump

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure like that term.
> 
> 
> 
> I sure do; particularly when it's so manifestly applicable.
> 
> Because your retarded tribe gives me the opportunity to do so "... over and over and over."
> 
> Verifiability in objective reality is no trick.
> 
> The actual "trick" you are referencing was invented by religion to disseminate superstitions as facts of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying your un-intellectual honesty is better than my intellectual dishonesty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I am saying my intellectual honesty is superior--both intellectually and morally--than your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> BTW: Prediction validated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intellectual honesty,let's test your intellectual honesty you have been given many chances to be honest and you failed.
> 
> Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?
> 
> Can life come from non-life through a natural process ?
> 
> How come no transitional organisms are alive today but what these transitional organisms supposedly evolved from are alive,why ?
> 
> The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?
Click to expand...


Can something appear out of thin air?

You would be quite happy to 'believe' that a god has 'always been', but he or she had to come from somewhere right? Logic dictates that. And if not, then it deserves to put in the same category as the flying spaghetti monster...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno about the importance. But he is smart (even if he is wrong about his stance on guns ). As stated, he is kicking these guys butts. I had to step away from this thread for a few weeks, I was cringing so much with embarassment for UR and YWC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translated ,you stuck your fingers in your ears because you couldn't handle the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I see you offering up nothing more than your faith-based arguments. IOW, hot air and not much else. You have absolutely no proof that a god exists, that Jesus was the son of a god, or that humans just appeared out of thin air due to the benevolence of some omnipresent being.
> 
> However, micro evolution as been proven beyond doubt, and certain fossil records show that there were certain species of being that existed that are now extinct. Is Darwin's Theory proof positive of evolution? Of course not. But it's not based on some 2000 year old fairytale either.
Click to expand...


I agree micro-evolution happens but i prefer the term Micro-adaptations since limited change comes through adapting to the enviornment. The perfect example is the galapagos finches.

When the drought was over the short beaked finch that was dying out from natural selection,made a strong comeback and the finches with the longer beaks numbers came back to where they were before the drought because of competition. Darwin made an  excellent observation but a very erroneous conclusion.

Same things happened with Darwins pigeons he kept cross breeding them getting all kinds of different colors but those same pigeons that he crossbred eventually returned to what they origionally were.

So is that evolution ? no because evolution would never revert back to what it once was.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure do; particularly when it's so manifestly applicable.
> 
> Because your retarded tribe gives me the opportunity to do so "... over and over and over."
> 
> Verifiability in objective reality is no trick.
> 
> The actual "trick" you are referencing was invented by religion to disseminate superstitions as facts of reality.
> 
> No. I am saying my intellectual honesty is superior--both intellectually and morally--than your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> BTW: Prediction validated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectual honesty,let's test your intellectual honesty you have been given many chances to be honest and you failed.
> 
> Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?
> 
> Can life come from non-life through a natural process ?
> 
> How come no transitional organisms are alive today but what these transitional organisms supposedly evolved from are alive,why ?
> 
> The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can something appear out of thin air?
> 
> You would be quite happy to 'believe' that a god has 'always been', but he or she had to come from somewhere right? Logic dictates that. And if not, then it deserves to put in the same category as the flying spaghetti monster...
Click to expand...


Typical, avoid the intellectual honesty test.

If you take a dumb ignorant teacher that is teaching a class that he does not understand will the students be more intelligent or less intelligent at the end of the class ?

See the fallacy in the thinking,it takes a good teacher that is intelligent and fully understands the subject to make the students smarter.

I revealed Loki's intellectual dishonesty and ignorance with simple logic.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure do; particularly when it's so manifestly applicable.
> 
> Because your retarded tribe gives me the opportunity to do so "... over and over and over."
> 
> Verifiability in objective reality is no trick.
> 
> The actual "trick" you are referencing was invented by religion to disseminate superstitions as facts of reality.
> 
> No. I am saying my intellectual honesty is superior--both intellectually and morally--than your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> BTW: Prediction validated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectual honesty,let's test your intellectual honesty you have been given many chances to be honest and you failed.
> 
> Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?
> 
> Can life come from non-life through a natural process ?
> 
> How come no transitional organisms are alive today but what these transitional organisms supposedly evolved from are alive,why ?
> 
> The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can something appear out of thin air?
> 
> You would be quite happy to 'believe' that a god has 'always been', but he or she had to come from somewhere right? Logic dictates that. And if not, then it deserves to put in the same category as the flying spaghetti monster...
Click to expand...


Yes,smoke and dust.


----------



## Dr Grump

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectual honesty,let's test your intellectual honesty you have been given many chances to be honest and you failed.
> 
> Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?
> 
> Can life come from non-life through a natural process ?
> 
> How come no transitional organisms are alive today but what these transitional organisms supposedly evolved from are alive,why ?
> 
> The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can something appear out of thin air?
> 
> You would be quite happy to 'believe' that a god has 'always been', but he or she had to come from somewhere right? Logic dictates that. And if not, then it deserves to put in the same category as the flying spaghetti monster...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes,smoke and dust.
Click to expand...


Um, smoke and dust do not appear out of thin air....just sayin'....


----------



## Youwerecreated

You can add condensation as well.


----------



## Dr Grump

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectual honesty,let's test your intellectual honesty you have been given many chances to be honest and you failed.
> 
> Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?
> 
> Can life come from non-life through a natural process ?
> 
> How come no transitional organisms are alive today but what these transitional organisms supposedly evolved from are alive,why ?
> 
> The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can something appear out of thin air?
> 
> You would be quite happy to 'believe' that a god has 'always been', but he or she had to come from somewhere right? Logic dictates that. And if not, then it deserves to put in the same category as the flying spaghetti monster...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical, avoid the intellectual honesty test.
> 
> If you take a dumb ignorant teacher that is teaching a class that he does not understand will the students be more intelligent or less intelligent at the end of the class ?
> 
> See the fallacy in the thinking,it takes a good teacher that is intelligent and fully understands the subject to make the students smarter.
> 
> I revealed Loki's intellectual dishonesty and ignorance with simple logic.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do if there is a god or not. There is no evidence whatsoever of a god. Nothing verifiable, nothing tangiable, nothing provable. Zip, nada, zilch, nowt! 

Loki has a reasonable grasp on what he is saying to you. He has linked, relinked and even relinked again.

You can lead a horse to water etc, etc, etc...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can something appear out of thin air?
> 
> You would be quite happy to 'believe' that a god has 'always been', but he or she had to come from somewhere right? Logic dictates that. And if not, then it deserves to put in the same category as the flying spaghetti monster...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,smoke and dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, smoke and dust do not appear out of thin air....just sayin'....
Click to expand...


Can you see the wind driving them ?


----------



## Dr Grump

Youwerecreated said:


> You can add condensation as well.



Again, doesn't appear out of thin air, and there is a perfectly rational, _scientific _explanation of how it comes about..


----------



## Dr Grump

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,smoke and dust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, smoke and dust do not appear out of thin air....just sayin'....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you see the wind driving them ?
Click to expand...


What has wind got to do with smoke and dust. And yes, I can see wind. Using one microscopic aspect of nature to prove your point is purile. For every wind example you give me, I'll give you one with humans, animals, clouds, plant life - I could go on.

Never mind that it has been proven that wind is caused by the elements of the sun heating up atoms and basically driving them crazy. You know scientists and climatoligists have done peer reviewed and TOTALLY PROVEN experiments proving this right? Just wondering...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can something appear out of thin air?
> 
> You would be quite happy to 'believe' that a god has 'always been', but he or she had to come from somewhere right? Logic dictates that. And if not, then it deserves to put in the same category as the flying spaghetti monster...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical, avoid the intellectual honesty test.
> 
> If you take a dumb ignorant teacher that is teaching a class that he does not understand will the students be more intelligent or less intelligent at the end of the class ?
> 
> See the fallacy in the thinking,it takes a good teacher that is intelligent and fully understands the subject to make the students smarter.
> 
> I revealed Loki's intellectual dishonesty and ignorance with simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do if there is a god or not. There is no evidence whatsoever of a god. Nothing verifiable, nothing tangiable, nothing provable. Zip, nada, zilch, nowt!
> 
> Loki has a reasonable grasp on what he is saying to you. He has linked, relinked and even relinked again.
> 
> You can lead a horse to water etc, etc, etc...
Click to expand...


I am asking him to do it in his own words and present the evidence.

No real scientist accepts abiogenesis as a viable theory just because some nut does,does not mean the science community supports such idiocy.

There are no peered reviews that support abiogenesis,ok I am sorry there is only one wiki


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can add condensation as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, doesn't appear out of thin air, and there is a perfectly rational, _scientific _explanation of how it comes about..
Click to expand...


If there is no air you have no condensation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, smoke and dust do not appear out of thin air....just sayin'....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the wind driving them ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has wind got to do with smoke and dust. And yes, I can see wind. Using one microscopic aspect of nature to prove your point is purile. For every wind example you give me, I'll give you one with humans, animals, clouds, plant life - I could go on.
> 
> Never mind that it has been proven that wind is caused by the elements of the sun heating up atoms and basically driving them crazy. You know scientists and climatoligists have done peer reviewed and TOTALLY PROVEN experiments proving this right? Just wondering...
Click to expand...


Moving the goalposts are we ?

So are you gonna respond to Loki's intellectual honesty test.


----------



## ilia25

Dr Grump said:


> Is Darwin's Theory proof positive of evolution? Of course not.



No scientific theory is. If you can completely prove it, it is not science anymore, it is faith.

Yet religious people see this requirement -- that any scientific theory must satisfy -- as a proof that the Theory of Evolution is false. That is why this is the first thing one should explain to them -- what the science is about. Otherwise we are talking different languages.


----------



## Dr Grump

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can add condensation as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, doesn't appear out of thin air, and there is a perfectly rational, _scientific _explanation of how it comes about..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there is no air you have no condensation.
Click to expand...


True. And it can be explained how the condensation appeared due to various chemical reactions. You can't say the same for a god...


----------



## Dr Grump

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the wind driving them ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has wind got to do with smoke and dust. And yes, I can see wind. Using one microscopic aspect of nature to prove your point is purile. For every wind example you give me, I'll give you one with humans, animals, clouds, plant life - I could go on.
> 
> Never mind that it has been proven that wind is caused by the elements of the sun heating up atoms and basically driving them crazy. You know scientists and climatoligists have done peer reviewed and TOTALLY PROVEN experiments proving this right? Just wondering...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moving the goalposts are we ?
> 
> So are you gonna respond to Loki's intellectual honesty test.
Click to expand...


no, the goalposts are yours. I'm just using them to kick your arse with your own point. Much like Loki is doing. The problem is, you don't realise/understand it....yet.


----------



## Dr Grump

ilia25 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Darwin's Theory proof positive of evolution? Of course not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No scientific theory is. If you can completely prove it, it is not science anymore, it is faith.
> 
> Yet religious people see this requirement -- that any scientific theory must satisfy -- as a proof that the Theory of Evolution is false. That is why this is the first thing one should explain to them -- what the science is about. Otherwise we are talking different languages.
Click to expand...


Not too sure I understand you. If something is completely proven scientifically (as many things are), then that is fact, not faith.

For example. Planes only fly because the air going over the top of the wing causes lift. That is a scientific fact. No drag, no lift, no flight. Pure simple scientific fact. Not faith...


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?



Yes, it is called Evolution by natural selection.



> Can life come from non-life through a natural process ?



Why not, if there are right conditions for a long time?



> How come no transitional organisms are alive today but what these transitional organisms supposedly evolved from are alive,why ?



Because they occupy different ecological niches. Apes and modern humans occupy different niches, so the both survived. But Neanderthals and Homo Erectus got extinct because they occupied the same niche as the modern humans.



> The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?



No. The offspring is similar to its parents, but not identical. So the small changes can accumulate over time until we have completely different species.


----------



## ilia25

Dr Grump said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Darwin's Theory proof positive of evolution? Of course not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No scientific theory is. If you can completely prove it, it is not science anymore, it is faith.
> 
> Yet religious people see this requirement -- that any scientific theory must satisfy -- as a proof that the Theory of Evolution is false. That is why this is the first thing one should explain to them -- what the science is about. Otherwise we are talking different languages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not too sure I understand you. If something is completely proven scientifically (as many things are), then that is fact, not faith.
> 
> For example. Planes only fly because the air going over the top of the wing causes lift. That is a scientific fact. No drag, no lift, no flight. Pure simple scientific fact. Not faith...
Click to expand...


That is the thing -- there is no such thing as a fact. Scientifically speaking, what  we call facts is something that we almost sure to be true -- like 99.9999999999....999% sure. But there is always a small chance -- however negligible -- that something else makes planes fly. That is if they do fly -- you might be dreaming them up. Like in "The Matrix" movie.

Here is Stephen Hawkings quote from "A Brief History of Time":

_"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory."_


----------



## Dr Grump

ilia25 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No scientific theory is. If you can completely prove it, it is not science anymore, it is faith.
> 
> Yet religious people see this requirement -- that any scientific theory must satisfy -- as a proof that the Theory of Evolution is false. That is why this is the first thing one should explain to them -- what the science is about. Otherwise we are talking different languages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not too sure I understand you. If something is completely proven scientifically (as many things are), then that is fact, not faith.
> 
> For example. Planes only fly because the air going over the top of the wing causes lift. That is a scientific fact. No drag, no lift, no flight. Pure simple scientific fact. Not faith...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the thing -- there is no such thing as a fact. Scientifically speaking, what  we call facts is something that we almost sure to be true -- like 99.9999999999....999% sure. But there is always a small chance -- however negligible -- that something else makes planes fly. That is if they do fly -- you might be dreaming them up. Like in "The Matrix" movie.
> 
> Here is Stephen Hawkings quote from "A Brief History of Time":
> 
> _"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory."_
Click to expand...


Humans cannont live in space without air. That is a fact. A fish cannot survive out of water. A human cannot live in water without SCUBA gear. These are boni fide facts. Now, a human may one day grow gills, but I very much doubt it. 

Don't get me wrong - I get his point and your point, but sometimes I think scientists are ornery for the sake it. Hawkings would definitely fit that category


----------



## ilia25

Dr Grump said:


> Don't get me wrong - I get his point and your point, but sometimes I think scientists are ornery for the sake it. Hawkings would definitely fit that category



Your choice 

My point is that when you say -- about anything in the world around you -- that you know it to be true, that would be an act of faith. And then all your arguments with religious people will be about which faith is better -- yours or theirs.

And make no mistake, they will be the first to point it out for you


----------



## Dr Grump

ilia25 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I get his point and your point, but sometimes I think scientists are ornery for the sake it. Hawkings would definitely fit that category
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your choice
> 
> My point is that when you say -- about anything in the world around you -- that you know it to be true, that would be an act of faith. And then all your arguments with religious people will be about which faith is better -- yours or theirs.
> 
> And make no mistake, they will be the first to point it out for you
Click to expand...


So you are saying there is no difference - or at least it is negligible - between the faith I need to believe in a god, or the faith that I can survive in space without air?


----------



## ilia25

Dr Grump said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I get his point and your point, but sometimes I think scientists are ornery for the sake it. Hawkings would definitely fit that category
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your choice
> 
> My point is that when you say -- about anything in the world around you -- that you know it to be true, that would be an act of faith. And then all your arguments with religious people will be about which faith is better -- yours or theirs.
> 
> And make no mistake, they will be the first to point it out for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying there is no difference - or at least it is negligible - between the faith I need to believe in a god, or the faith that I can survive in space without air?
Click to expand...


Well, I am pretty sure one can argue that there is a big difference between a belief in what essentially is a fairy tale, and a belief in something that is supported by your everyday experiences. Still, technically speaking, we are talking about faith in both cases. And I think one should be prepared to admit it


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure like that term.
> 
> 
> 
> I sure do; particularly when it's so manifestly applicable.
> 
> Because your retarded tribe gives me the opportunity to do so "... over and over and over."
> 
> Verifiability in objective reality is no trick.
> 
> The actual "trick" you are referencing was invented by religion to disseminate superstitions as facts of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying your un-intellectual honesty is better than my intellectual dishonesty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I am saying my intellectual honesty is superior--both intellectually and morally--than your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> BTW: Prediction validated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intellectual honesty,let's test your intellectual honesty you have been given many chances to be honest and you failed.
> 
> Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?
> 
> Can life come from non-life through a natural process ?
> 
> How come no transitional organisms are alive today but what these transitional organisms supposedly evolved from are alive,why ?
> 
> The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,smoke and dust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, smoke and dust do not appear out of thin air....just sayin'....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you see the wind driving them ?
Click to expand...

yes you can.
there are several ways ,smoke and dust denote the direction of the wind and outline it's basic shape
there are also microscopic techniques, film,
 you feel and smell the wind.
two of your three main senses informing your third.  

    so your question is bullshit!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Darwin's Theory proof positive of evolution? Of course not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No scientific theory is. If you can completely prove it, it is not science anymore, it is faith.
> 
> Yet religious people see this requirement -- that any scientific theory must satisfy -- as a proof that the Theory of Evolution is false. That is why this is the first thing one should explain to them -- what the science is about. Otherwise we are talking different languages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not too sure I understand you. If something is completely proven scientifically (as many things are), then that is fact, not faith.
> 
> For example. Planes only fly because the air going over the top of the wing causes lift. That is a scientific fact. No drag, no lift, no flight. Pure simple scientific fact. Not faith...
Click to expand...


You also could not have flight of a bird or plane if we did not have an atmosphere , is that not another coincedence ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can add condensation as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, doesn't appear out of thin air, and there is a perfectly rational, _scientific _explanation of how it comes about..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there is no air you have no condensation.
Click to expand...

if by air you mean atmosphere, all of the planets in our solar system have one. any gas or mixture of gases will condense under the right condition of pressure and temperature. 
ever here of liquid oxygen, co2?  


again it's an amazingly stupid statement


----------



## Dr Grump

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No scientific theory is. If you can completely prove it, it is not science anymore, it is faith.
> 
> Yet religious people see this requirement -- that any scientific theory must satisfy -- as a proof that the Theory of Evolution is false. That is why this is the first thing one should explain to them -- what the science is about. Otherwise we are talking different languages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not too sure I understand you. If something is completely proven scientifically (as many things are), then that is fact, not faith.
> 
> For example. Planes only fly because the air going over the top of the wing causes lift. That is a scientific fact. No drag, no lift, no flight. Pure simple scientific fact. Not faith...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You also could not have flight of a bird or plane if we did not have an atmosphere , is that not another coincedence ?
Click to expand...


Nothing coincidental about it at all....all planets have some sort of atmosphere due to their location to the Sun...No, sun, no atmosphere I'd suggest


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is called Evolution by natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can life come from non-life through a natural process ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not, if there are right conditions for a long time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come no transitional organisms are alive today but what these transitional organisms supposedly evolved from are alive,why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they occupy different ecological niches. Apes and modern humans occupy different niches, so the both survived. But Neanderthals and Homo Erectus got extinct because they occupied the same niche as the modern humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. The offspring is similar to its parents, but not identical. So the small changes can accumulate over time until we have completely different species.
Click to expand...


Oh no natural selection created intelligence 

How do you know the conditions of the earth if supposedly by theory shortly before life the earth was bombarded by meteors ?

How bout all tranitional organisms ?

Be honest now,what we see is dogs producing dogs ,humans producing humans,birds producing birds,plants producing plants. So you deny empirical evidence ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No scientific theory is. If you can completely prove it, it is not science anymore, it is faith.
> 
> Yet religious people see this requirement -- that any scientific theory must satisfy -- as a proof that the Theory of Evolution is false. That is why this is the first thing one should explain to them -- what the science is about. Otherwise we are talking different languages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not too sure I understand you. If something is completely proven scientifically (as many things are), then that is fact, not faith.
> 
> For example. Planes only fly because the air going over the top of the wing causes lift. That is a scientific fact. No drag, no lift, no flight. Pure simple scientific fact. Not faith...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You also could not have flight of a bird or plane if we did not have an atmosphere , is that not another coincedence ?
Click to expand...

 wrong again , if the pull of gravity was slightly less we could fly ,after all flying is just a very long jump.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too sure I understand you. If something is completely proven scientifically (as many things are), then that is fact, not faith.
> 
> For example. Planes only fly because the air going over the top of the wing causes lift. That is a scientific fact. No drag, no lift, no flight. Pure simple scientific fact. Not faith...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the thing -- there is no such thing as a fact. Scientifically speaking, what  we call facts is something that we almost sure to be true -- like 99.9999999999....999% sure. But there is always a small chance -- however negligible -- that something else makes planes fly. That is if they do fly -- you might be dreaming them up. Like in "The Matrix" movie.
> 
> Here is Stephen Hawkings quote from "A Brief History of Time":
> 
> _"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans cannont live in space without air. That is a fact. A fish cannot survive out of water. A human cannot live in water without SCUBA gear. These are boni fide facts. Now, a human may one day grow gills, but I very much doubt it.
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I get his point and your point, but sometimes I think scientists are ornery for the sake it. Hawkings would definitely fit that category
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is called Evolution by natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not, if there are right conditions for a long time?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they occupy different ecological niches. Apes and modern humans occupy different niches, so the both survived. But Neanderthals and Homo Erectus got extinct because they occupied the same niche as the modern humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. The offspring is similar to its parents, but not identical. So the small changes can accumulate over time until we have completely different species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no natural selection created intelligence
> 
> How do you know the conditions of the earth if supposedly by theory shortly before life the earth was bombarded by meteors ?
> 
> How bout all tranitional organisms ?
> 
> Be honest now,what we see is dogs producing dogs ,humans producing humans,birds producing birds,plants producing plants. So you deny empirical evidence ?
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I get his point and your point, but sometimes I think scientists are ornery for the sake it. Hawkings would definitely fit that category
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your choice
> 
> My point is that when you say -- about anything in the world around you -- that you know it to be true, that would be an act of faith. And then all your arguments with religious people will be about which faith is better -- yours or theirs.
> 
> And make no mistake, they will be the first to point it out for you
Click to expand...


Sorry but you posted answers to my questions that can't be verified, to believe your views would require faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, smoke and dust do not appear out of thin air....just sayin'....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the wind driving them ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes you can.
> there are several ways ,smoke and dust denote the direction of the wind and outline it's basic shape
> there are also microscopic techniques, film,
> you feel and smell the wind.
> two of your three main senses informing your third.
> 
> so your question is bullshit!
Click to expand...


No you can't see wind you can see it's effects.

God is a spirit the Hebrew word is Ruach,which means wind or spirit and we can clearly see Gods effects by his design.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I get his point and your point, but sometimes I think scientists are ornery for the sake it. Hawkings would definitely fit that category
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your choice
> 
> My point is that when you say -- about anything in the world around you -- that you know it to be true, that would be an act of faith. And then all your arguments with religious people will be about which faith is better -- yours or theirs.
> 
> And make no mistake, they will be the first to point it out for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but you posted answers to my questions that can't be verified, to believe your views would require faith.
Click to expand...


You don't need to "verify" anything in order to live you life. And my answers do not require a faith. They can be logically deducted from a simple assumption, which most people make without ever giving it a thought -- that everything you see around you really exists.

Assuming only that, you will need only logic to conclude that the Theory of Evolution almost surely is correct. Or that Christian god almost surely is a fairy tale.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, doesn't appear out of thin air, and there is a perfectly rational, _scientific _explanation of how it comes about..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no air you have no condensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if by air you mean atmosphere, all of the planets in our solar system have one. any gas or mixture of gases will condense under the right condition of pressure and temperature.
> ever here of liquid oxygen, co2?
> 
> 
> again it's an amazingly stupid statement
Click to expand...


Stupid ?

There is not one planet that can sustain life like earth in our solar system . Many of those atmospheres you speak of contain gases that would be lethal to humans and many other life forms. 

Nothing like earth.

Atmosphere of the Planets


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is called Evolution by natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not, if there are right conditions for a long time?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they occupy different ecological niches. Apes and modern humans occupy different niches, so the both survived. But Neanderthals and Homo Erectus got extinct because they occupied the same niche as the modern humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. The offspring is similar to its parents, but not identical. So the small changes can accumulate over time until we have completely different species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no natural selection created intelligence
Click to expand...


Of course it did...



> How do you know the conditions of the earth if supposedly by theory shortly before life the earth was bombarded by meteors ?



Define "shortly"? The earth might have been lifeless for several billion years, long after the intense meteor bombardment stopped, oceans had formed and so there was plenty of time.



> How bout all tranitional organisms ?



Did I just explained about the different ecological niches? Transitional organisms went extinct when they ended up in a niche occupied by more advanced species -- like Neanderthals went extinct because they ended up competing directly with the modern humans. The apes remained in a different niche, so they survived.



> Be honest now,what we see is dogs producing dogs ,humans producing humans,birds producing birds,plants producing plants. So you deny empirical evidence ?



Did you notice that puppies are never an exact copy of their parents? The difference can accumulate, that is how humans create new breeds. The natural selection does the same -- create new breeds, then new species.


----------



## Dr Grump

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no air you have no condensation.
> 
> 
> 
> if by air you mean atmosphere, all of the planets in our solar system have one. any gas or mixture of gases will condense under the right condition of pressure and temperature.
> ever here of liquid oxygen, co2?
> 
> 
> again it's an amazingly stupid statement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid ?
> 
> There is not one planet that can sustain life like earth in our solar system . Many of those atmospheres you speak of contain gases that would be lethal to humans and many other life forms.
> 
> Nothing like earth.
> 
> Atmosphere of the Planets
Click to expand...


Your point being....?


----------



## jillian

Dr Grump said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if by air you mean atmosphere, all of the planets in our solar system have one. any gas or mixture of gases will condense under the right condition of pressure and temperature.
> ever here of liquid oxygen, co2?
> 
> 
> again it's an amazingly stupid statement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid ?
> 
> There is not one planet that can sustain life like earth in our solar system . Many of those atmospheres you speak of contain gases that would be lethal to humans and many other life forms.
> 
> Nothing like earth.
> 
> Atmosphere of the Planets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point being....?
Click to expand...


his "point" is on the top of his head.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure like that term.
> 
> 
> 
> I sure do; particularly when it's so manifestly applicable.
> 
> Because your retarded tribe gives me the opportunity to do so "... over and over and over."
> 
> Verifiability in objective reality is no trick.
> 
> The actual "trick" you are referencing was invented by religion to disseminate superstitions as facts of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying your un-intellectual honesty is better than my intellectual dishonesty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I am saying my intellectual honesty is superior--both intellectually and morally--than your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> BTW: Prediction validated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intellectual honesty,let's test your intellectual honesty you have been given many chances to be honest and you failed.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. In terms you will clearly understand Youwerecreated, you have just borne false witness against me ... again.



Youwerecreated said:


> Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?


Valid logic applied the verifiable evidence supports the conclusion that intelligence is the result of the interactions of non-intelligent natural processes.



Youwerecreated said:


> Can life come from non-life through a natural process ?


Valid logic applied the verifiable evidence supports the conclusion that life is the result of the interactions of non-living natural processes.



Youwerecreated said:


> How come no transitional organisms are alive today but what these transitional organisms supposedly evolved from are alive,why ?


"How come no transitional organisms are alive today ..." ? What? ... Why what?Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you premise your incoherent question upon the assertion that, "... no transitional organisms are alive today"?

Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that a transitional species can be a parent species?

Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that a transitional species can be a daughter species?

Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that transitional species, daughter species, and/or parent species can exist at the same time?​


Youwerecreated said:


> The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?


The term "kind" is meaningless--this has been unimpeachably demonstrated--I can't agree or disagree with a meaningless assertion made (10 times) in your creation myth.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> I revealed Loki's intellectual dishonesty and ignorance with simple logic.


This is a bold assertion ... one you'd think would be substantiated with a link or something if it were valid.
PREDICTION: As there is no such post where "[Youwerecreated] revealed [my] intellectual dishonesty and ignorance with simple logic", he will not produce ANY substantiation for this claim what-so-ever. He will require us to go find it for ourselves.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is called Evolution by natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not, if there are right conditions for a long time?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they occupy different ecological niches. Apes and modern humans occupy different niches, so the both survived. But Neanderthals and Homo Erectus got extinct because they occupied the same niche as the modern humans.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The offspring is similar to its parents, but not identical. So the small changes can accumulate over time until we have completely different species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no natural selection created intelligence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it did...
> 
> 
> 
> Define "shortly"? The earth might have been lifeless for several billion years, long after the intense meteor bombardment stopped, oceans had formed and so there was plenty of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How bout all tranitional organisms ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I just explained about the different ecological niches? Transitional organisms went extinct when they ended up in a niche occupiedby more advanced species -- like Neanderthals went extinct because they ended up competing directly with the modern humans. The apes remained in a different niche, so they survived.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest now,what we see is dogs producing dogs ,humans producing humans,birds producing birds,plants producing plants. So you deny empirical evidence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you notice that puppies are never an exact copy of their parents? The difference can accumulate, that is how humans create new breeds. The natural selection does the same -- create new breeds, then new species.
Click to expand...


So what you are saying is all transitional organisms happen tro live in enviornments they could not survive in,this is an absurd explanation.

Nothging is an exact match the creator likes diversity .


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too sure I understand you. If something is completely proven scientifically (as many things are), then that is fact, not faith.
> 
> For example. Planes only fly because the air going over the top of the wing causes lift. That is a scientific fact. No drag, no lift, no flight. Pure simple scientific fact. Not faith...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also could not have flight of a bird or plane if we did not have an atmosphere , is that not another coincedence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing coincidental about it at all....all planets have some sort of atmosphere due to their location to the Sun...No, sun, no atmosphere I'd suggest
Click to expand...


The difference in our atmoshere and others is,it is such an atmosphere that it aids in the survival of life on this planet.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too sure I understand you. If something is completely proven scientifically (as many things are), then that is fact, not faith.
> 
> For example. Planes only fly because the air going over the top of the wing causes lift. That is a scientific fact. No drag, no lift, no flight. Pure simple scientific fact. Not faith...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also could not have flight of a bird or plane if we did not have an atmosphere , is that not another coincedence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong again , if the pull of gravity was slightly less we could fly ,after all flying is just a very long jump.
Click to expand...


Your missing the point it was designed such a way that birds can fly like most were designed to do.

If the pull of gravity was slightly less,i'm sorry but were we discussing gravity or the atmosphere ?

If gravity had less pull but it does not it would have an effect on other things thank you for making an argument that supports design. Not to mention less gravity would affect the planes that planets travel on.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is called Evolution by natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not, if there are right conditions for a long time?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they occupy different ecological niches. Apes and modern humans occupy different niches, so the both survived. But Neanderthals and Homo Erectus got extinct because they occupied the same niche as the modern humans.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The offspring is similar to its parents, but not identical. So the small changes can accumulate over time until we have completely different species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no natural selection created intelligence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it did...
> 
> 
> 
> Define "shortly"? The earth might have been lifeless for several billion years, long after the intense meteor bombardment stopped, oceans had formed and so there was plenty of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How bout all tranitional organisms ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I just explained about the different ecological niches? Transitional organisms went extinct when they ended up in a niche occupied by more advanced species -- like Neanderthals went extinct because they ended up competing directly with the modern humans. The apes remained in a different niche, so they survived.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest now,what we see is dogs producing dogs ,humans producing humans,birds producing birds,plants producing plants. So you deny empirical evidence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you notice that puppies are never an exact copy of their parents? The difference can accumulate, that is how humans create new breeds. The natural selection does the same -- create new breeds, then new species.
Click to expand...


When this meteor event supposedly took place it would have affected the in such a way life would have not had time to evolve like evolutionist claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if by air you mean atmosphere, all of the planets in our solar system have one. any gas or mixture of gases will condense under the right condition of pressure and temperature.
> ever here of liquid oxygen, co2?
> 
> 
> again it's an amazingly stupid statement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid ?
> 
> There is not one planet that can sustain life like earth in our solar system . Many of those atmospheres you speak of contain gases that would be lethal to humans and many other life forms.
> 
> Nothing like earth.
> 
> Atmosphere of the Planets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point being....?
Click to expand...


You can't see the importance of our atmosphere compared to others ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid ?
> 
> There is not one planet that can sustain life like earth in our solar system . Many of those atmospheres you speak of contain gases that would be lethal to humans and many other life forms.
> 
> Nothing like earth.
> 
> Atmosphere of the Planets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point being....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> his "point" is on the top of his head.
Click to expand...


You still here sweetie


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> So what you are saying is all transitional organisms happen tro live in enviornments they could not survive in,this is an absurd explanation.


No. This is not what was said, you intellectually dishonest retard.



Youwerecreated said:


> Nothging is an exact match the creator likes diversity .


What Creator? You keep mentioning this "Creator," but you fail to bring any valid verifiable evidence or valid logic to advance the assertion of this "Creator" of yours. 

Every "evidence" and every argument you present ONLY asserts that this "Creator" of yours is as objectively and verifiably real as beings that are well understood to be imaginary, ... like the Tooth Fairy. Why is that?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure do; particularly when it's so manifestly applicable.
> 
> Because your retarded tribe gives me the opportunity to do so "... over and over and over."
> 
> Verifiability in objective reality is no trick.
> 
> The actual "trick" you are referencing was invented by religion to disseminate superstitions as facts of reality.
> 
> No. I am saying my intellectual honesty is superior--both intellectually and morally--than your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> BTW: Prediction validated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectual honesty,let's test your intellectual honesty you have been given many chances to be honest and you failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. In terms you will clearly understand Youwerecreated, you have just borne false witness against me ... again.
> 
> Valid logic applied the verifiable evidence supports the conclusion that intelligence is the result of the interactions of non-intelligent natural processes.
> 
> Valid logic applied the verifiable evidence supports the conclusion that life is the result of the interactions of non-living natural processes.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come no transitional organisms are alive today but what these transitional organisms supposedly evolved from are alive,why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "How come no transitional organisms are alive today ..." ? What? ... Why what?Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you premise your incoherent question upon the assertion that, "... no transitional organisms are alive today"?
> 
> Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that a transitional species can be a parent species?
> 
> Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that a transitional species can be a daughter species?
> 
> Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that transitional species, daughter species, and/or parent species can exist at the same time?​
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term "kind" is meaningless--this has been unimpeachably demonstrated--I can't agree or disagree with a meaningless assertion made (10 times) in your creation myth.
Click to expand...


No we were spot on concerning your intellectual dishonesty. A simple yes to one of the answers would have shown you were an honest person. You are an Ideologue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is all transitional organisms happen tro live in enviornments they could not survive in,this is an absurd explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> No. This is not what was said, you intellectually dishonest retard.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothging is an exact match the creator likes diversity .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Creator? You keep mentioning this "Creator," but you fail to bring any valid verifiable evidence or valid logic to advance the assertion of this "Creator" of yours.
> 
> Every "evidence" and every argument you present ONLY asserts that this "Creator" of yours is as objectively and verifiably real as beings that are well understood to be imaginary, ... like the Tooth Fairy. Why is that?
Click to expand...


Moron,the origional question was why are all the transitional organisms no longer in existence since the ones they supposedly evolved from are. Be careful about insulting someone that has a clue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is all transitional organisms happen tro live in enviornments they could not survive in,this is an absurd explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> No. This is not what was said, you intellectually dishonest retard.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothging is an exact match the creator likes diversity .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Creator? You keep mentioning this "Creator," but you fail to bring any valid verifiable evidence or valid logic to advance the assertion of this "Creator" of yours.
> 
> Every "evidence" and every argument you present ONLY asserts that this "Creator" of yours is as objectively and verifiably real as beings that are well understood to be imaginary, ... like the Tooth Fairy. Why is that?
Click to expand...


I will not respond to a dishonest moron until said moron shows an ounce of honesty.


----------



## LOki

This was easy enough to accomplish:

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, evolution is based on faith and the flowery ability to make up stories that "sound" scientific. It is extrapolation gone wild.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. This is just superstition claiming science is no more valid than itself.
> 
> Nope. This is just superstition again claiming science is no more valid than itself.
> 
> Right.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean out of the billions of random mutations, NS whittled them down to the traits we see now, right. Evolutionists are fond of pointing to negative mutations which occur at a single locus, but let's hear some examples of "positive" modern day mutations that occur at a single loki, I mean locus, in multi-cell species. There should be thousands of them... I'm waiting...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youwerecreated asked, and was rewarded numerous times already. If you really think he wasn't, just ask for a link ... whereas you asshats can't be bothered, you'll discover that I can come through.
> *PREDICTION: The superstitious intellectually dishonest creationist retards--who are so rabidly certain they can stump me or any sensible person with their disingenuous challenges, are so much more interested in claiming that I didn't meet their dumb challenge than seeing links that describe "examples of "positive" modern day mutations"--won't ask for links, but instead claim I haven't met their dumbass challenge.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I revealed Loki's intellectual dishonesty and ignorance with simple logic.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a bold assertion ... one you'd think would be substantiated with a link or something if it were valid.
> *PREDICTION: As there is no such post where "[Youwerecreated] revealed [my] intellectual dishonesty and ignorance with simple logic", he will not produce ANY substantiation for this claim what-so-ever. He will require us to go find it for ourselves.*
Click to expand...

Which brings us to these two submissions:


Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectual honesty,let's test your intellectual honesty you have been given many chances to be honest and you failed.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. In terms you will clearly understand Youwerecreated, you have just borne false witness against me ... again.
> 
> Valid logic applied the verifiable evidence supports the conclusion that intelligence is the result of the interactions of non-intelligent natural processes.
> 
> Valid logic applied the verifiable evidence supports the conclusion that life is the result of the interactions of non-living natural processes.
> 
> "How come no transitional organisms are alive today ..." ? What? ... Why what?Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you premise your incoherent question upon the assertion that, "... no transitional organisms are alive today"?
> 
> Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that a transitional species can be a parent species?
> 
> Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that a transitional species can be a daughter species?
> 
> Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that transitional species, daughter species, and/or parent species can exist at the same time?​
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term "kind" is meaningless--this has been unimpeachably demonstrated--I can't agree or disagree with a meaningless assertion made (10 times) in your creation myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we were spot on concerning your intellectual dishonesty. A simple yes to one of the answers would have shown you were an honest person. You are an Ideologue.
Click to expand...




Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is all transitional organisms happen tro live in enviornments they could not survive in,this is an absurd explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> No. This is not what was said, you intellectually dishonest retard.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothging is an exact match the creator likes diversity .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Creator? You keep mentioning this "Creator," but you fail to bring any valid verifiable evidence or valid logic to advance the assertion of this "Creator" of yours.
> 
> Every "evidence" and every argument you present ONLY asserts that this "Creator" of yours is as objectively and verifiably real as beings that are well understood to be imaginary, ... like the Tooth Fairy. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will not respond to a dishonest moron until said moron shows an ounce of honesty.
Click to expand...

Which can be accurately translated as:

*TRANSLATION:*

			
				Youwerecreated said:
			
		

>


Youwerecreated takes yet ANOTHER 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Loki needs a reality check.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Loki needs a reality check.


Oh, I've already cashed my reality check; the reality is right up there in bold red font, Pumpkin.

It looks like your reality check is drawn (as usual) from an account with insufficient funds.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is all transitional organisms happen tro live in enviornments they could not survive in,this is an absurd explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> No. This is not what was said, you intellectually dishonest retard.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothging is an exact match the creator likes diversity .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Creator? You keep mentioning this "Creator," but you fail to bring any valid verifiable evidence or valid logic to advance the assertion of this "Creator" of yours.
> 
> Every "evidence" and every argument you present ONLY asserts that this "Creator" of yours is as objectively and verifiably real as beings that are well understood to be imaginary, ... like the Tooth Fairy. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moron,the origional question was why are all the transitional organisms no longer in existence since the ones they supposedly evolved from are. Be careful about insulting someone that has a clue.
Click to expand...


Would these be living transitional organisms YWC? :
Living Transitional Species, page 1


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is all transitional organisms happen tro live in enviornments they could not survive in,this is an absurd explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they could not survive is competition with their more advanced descendants. And they always had more advanced descendants, that is why we call them "transitional".
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the wind driving them ?
> 
> 
> 
> yes you can.
> there are several ways ,smoke and dust denote the direction of the wind and outline it's basic shape
> there are also microscopic techniques, film,
> you feel and smell the wind.
> two of your three main senses informing your third.
> 
> so your question is bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you can't see wind you can see it's effects.
> 
> God is a spirit the Hebrew word is Ruach,which means wind or spirit and we can clearly see Gods effects by his design.
Click to expand...

another steaming pile


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no air you have no condensation.
> 
> 
> 
> if by air you mean atmosphere, all of the planets in our solar system have one. any gas or mixture of gases will condense under the right condition of pressure and temperature.
> ever here of liquid oxygen, co2?
> 
> 
> again it's an amazingly stupid statement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid ?
> 
> There is not one planet that can sustain life like earth in our solar system . Many of those atmospheres you speak of contain gases that would be lethal to humans and many other life forms.
> 
> Nothing like earth.
> 
> Atmosphere of the Planets
Click to expand...

extremely stupid the post was about condensation,and always you having no real answer did the two step!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also could not have flight of a bird or plane if we did not have an atmosphere , is that not another coincedence ?
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again , if the pull of gravity was slightly less we could fly ,after all flying is just a very long jump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your missing the point it was designed such a way that birds can fly like most were designed to do.
> 
> If the pull of gravity was slightly less,i'm sorry but were we discussing gravity or the atmosphere ?
> 
> If gravity had less pull but it does not it would have an effect on other things thank you for making an argument that supports design. Not to mention less gravity would affect the planes that planets travel on.
Click to expand...

we were discussing both as one affects the other.
I did not make that argument, you intentionally misinterpreted it.
that is libelous .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is all transitional organisms happen tro live in enviornments they could not survive in,this is an absurd explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> No. This is not what was said, you intellectually dishonest retard.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothging is an exact match the creator likes diversity .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Creator? You keep mentioning this "Creator," but you fail to bring any valid verifiable evidence or valid logic to advance the assertion of this "Creator" of yours.
> 
> Every "evidence" and every argument you present ONLY asserts that this "Creator" of yours is as objectively and verifiably real as beings that are well understood to be imaginary, ... like the Tooth Fairy. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will not respond to a dishonest moron until said moron shows an ounce of honesty.
Click to expand...

dodge!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point being....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> his "point" is on the top of his head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still here sweetie
Click to expand...

sexist too... it figures !


----------



## UltimateReality

Dr Grump said:


> However, micro evolution as been proven beyond doubt



Wow! and Loki is accusing me of believing in fairytales?!?!?!


----------



## UltimateReality

Dr Grump said:


> Can something appear out of thin air?



You mean like a Quark?


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> Because they occupy different ecological niches. Apes and modern humans occupy different niches, so the both survived. But Neanderthals and Homo Erectus got extinct because they occupied the same niche as the modern humans.



Assumptive language is great, isn't it?? State something like it is a fact and maybe folks will believe it. You have absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for your statement above.

"The Cosmos is all there ever was..." Carl Sagan using ASSumptive language before being totally embarrASSed by the Big Bang theory.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> if by air you mean atmosphere, ALL of the planets in our solar system have one.



I'd saying Mercury has an atmosphere is a little of a stretch. Kind of like saying their is evidence for evolution. The amount of particles is so small and insignificant can it really qualify as an atmosphere?


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they occupy different ecological niches. Apes and modern humans occupy different niches, so the both survived. But Neanderthals and Homo Erectus got extinct because they occupied the same niche as the modern humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assumptive language is great, isn't it?? State something like it is a fact and maybe folks will believe it. You have absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for your statement above.
Click to expand...


Don't be silly! You think there's no evidence that Neanderthals were living along our ancestors, hunting the same game?


----------



## whitehall

"Scientists" today think that a carbon cloud created by (American) industry is the cause of global warming even when they have the technology that proves that global warming and the more sinister ice ages have been a factor on earth before humans ever lit a fire. Go figure. Faith is a funny thing.


----------



## ilia25

whitehall said:


> "Scientists" today think that a carbon cloud created by (American) industry is the cause of global warming even when they have the technology that proves that global warming and the more sinister ice ages have been a factor on earth before humans ever lit a fire. Go figure. Faith is a funny thing.



Troll...


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> No we were spot on concerning your intellectual dishonesty. A simple yes to one of the answers would have shown you were an honest person. You are an Ideologue.


It appears that Youwerecreated presented 4 questions as a test of my intellectual honesty.

And yes, he considered it a test, as evidenced by his own words below,





LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectual honesty,let's test your intellectual honesty you have been given many chances to be honest and you failed.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. In terms you will clearly understand Youwerecreated, you have just borne false witness against me ... again.
Click to expand...

The ironic thing here is that while I answered with full integrity of intellectual honesty; the questions Youwerecreated posed AND his response to to my answers evidence *HIS* intellectual dishonesty.

As we procede, keep in mind that, according to Youwerecreated, "[a] simple yes to one of the answers would have shown [that I am] an honest person." The response "YES," is the response he is expecting he'll have the opportunity to respond to, and that fact that I didn't say "YES" is why he has his panties in a bunch.

Let's examine the record:

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a non-intelligent natural process create intelligence ?
> 
> 
> 
> Valid logic applied the verifiable evidence supports the conclusion that intelligence is the result of the interactions of non-intelligent natural processes.
Click to expand...




LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can life come from non-life through a natural process ?
> 
> 
> 
> Valid logic applied the verifiable evidence supports the conclusion that life is the result of the interactions of non-living natural processes.
Click to expand...

At first blush, it looks like I said "YES," but didn't express it so simply for one of the many reasons Youwerecreated and his retarded tribe fatuously ascribe to vanity on my part.

The fact of the matter is that I have had plenty of experience with the retarded tribe Youwercreated belongs to, and I recognized the trap he set with these loaded questions (AKA, complex questions).

You see, I don't assert that a "non-intelligent natural process" or a non-living natural process is capable of _*CREATING*_ anything. Youwerecreated knows this, because I've said it. What Youwerecreated is NOT telling you while he's accusing me of intellectual dishonesty is that he also knows that I think (for excellent reasons) _*CREATING*_ is an intelligent process performed by living things.

Often, the term "create" is used imprecisely to simply mean "cause;" as in, "Freezing temperatures created thick ice on the pond." The term's primary meaning, however, asserts an intelligent will to purpose for creation, that is not necessarily present when using the term "cause."

So why then did I not simply say "NO"? Well, the obvious answer is that Youwerecreated would then pounce upon the opportunity to make a claim like, "So, you're saying that you think intelligence and life were created by an intelligent, living process?"(n.b.: Whenever Youwerecreated begins an analysis of what his opposition asserts with "So, you're [saying, or thinking, or etc.] ...", you can be confident that a flagrant misrepresentation is about to follow.)​Youwerecreated obviously expected me to say "YES," and is just pissed that he couldn't trap me into asserting that the processes that gave rise to life and intelligence were by definition alive and intelligent.

Only retards like those who belong to the Christian Creationist tribe would assert that their failure to trap someone with their disingenuous loaded questions is evidence of their target's intellectual dishonesty.



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come no transitional organisms are alive today but what these transitional organisms supposedly evolved from are alive,why ?
> 
> 
> 
> "How come no transitional organisms are alive today ..." ? What? ... Why what? Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you premise your incoherent question upon the assertion that, "... no transitional organisms are alive today"?
> 
> Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that a transitional species can be a parent species?
> 
> Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that a transitional species can be a daughter species?
> 
> Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that transitional species, daughter species, and/or parent species can exist at the same time?​
Click to expand...

​Seriously. There is literally no way to determine what any answer to Youwerecreated's question might mean--especially to Youwerecreated. What an incoherent cluster-fuck of a misrepresenting non-sequitur this question from his is. It's like 12 orders of magnitude of intellectual dishonesty.

Nowhere but in a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution would you see an evolutionist claiming that "... no transitional organisms are alive today ...".
Nowhere but in a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution would you see an evolutionist claiming that a daughter species CANNOT go extinct before its parent species.
Nowhere but in a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution would you see an evolutionist claiming that a parent species MUST go extinct before its daughter species.
Nowhere but in a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution would you see an evolutionist claiming that transitional species CANNOT be both daughter species and parent species.
Nowhere but in a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution would you see an evolutionist claiming that NEITHER parent species OR daughter species can be transitional species.
Nowhere but in a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution would you see an evolutionist claiming that parent and daughter species MUST directly compete with eachother for the same resources for survival.
Nowhere but in a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution would you see an evolutionist claiming that parent, and daughter species cannot co-exist at the same time.
The fact of the matter, and this has been demonstrated with EVERY exposure of Youwerecreated's quote-mining, is that nowhere but in a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution can the Christian Creationist's criticisms of Evolution be considered valid. 

Only retards like those who belong to the Christian Creationist tribe would assert that someone's refusal to accept the validity of a Christian Creationist's straw-man caricature of Evolution to be evidence of intellectual dishonesty.



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?
> 
> 
> 
> The term "kind" is meaningless--this has been unimpeachably demonstrated--I can't agree or disagree with a meaningless assertion made (10 times) in your creation myth.
Click to expand...

Youwerecreated has consistenty demonstrated that the meaning of the term "kind" (just like the meaning of the term micro/macro-evolution) is whatever he finds convenient to his point, and it's not what he finds inconvenient to his point. He remains consipcuously silent on the observation that by one of the ways he enthusiasically uses the term "kind," lions and tigers are the same kind of cat because they successfully "bring forth" (ligers). Yet male ligers and female ligers do not "bring forth"; male and female ligers are somehow NOT the same kind of cat. It's INEXPLICABLE!

Only retards like those who belong to the Christian Creationist tribe would assert that someone's suspicions regarding the a Christian Creationist's use of intentionally imprecise terms, someone's inability to answer questions using such imprecise terms, to be evidence of intellectual dishonesty.

It's now worth noting, that I have provided as usual (and consistent with intellectual honesty) not only my conclusions regarding Youwerecreated's intellectual honesty, but also the explanations, the reasoning, and the evidence (linked to their sources) to support my conclusions. It is also worth noting, that Youwerecreated simply expects that his conclusions should be accepted as valid without any explanations, reasoning, and/or evidence (certainly none linked to their sources) to support them.

I'd call his four questions a fine test of intellectual honesty; a test that I passed, and that he failed--miserably so.


----------



## koshergrl

Thank you. We had waaayyyy too much oxygen in this thread. Now it is effectively sucked away.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Thank you. We had waaayyyy too much oxygen in this thread. Now it is effectively sucked away.


We are all aware that you prefer the rarefied atmosphere of a paper-bag filled with the vapors of glue solvents.


----------



## koshergrl

Did you say something?

Rhetorical question. Please for God's sakes, don't waste bandwidth with your insanely long, boring and unnecessary answer.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> You are an Ideologue.


Also, This accusation of "Ideologue." You should look up big words before you use them and make sure they don't describe you, rather than your target.

*i·de·o·logue*&#8194; &#8194;[ahy-dee-uh-lawg, -log, id-ee-, ahy-dee-]

_*noun*_

a person who zealously advocates an ideology. 

*i·de·ol·o·gy*&#8194; &#8194;[ahy-dee-ol-uh-jee, id-ee-]

_*noun, plural -gies.*_

1.  the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.​
My position is the result of valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence. All the verifiable evidence supports my position--ALL of the verifiable evidence; *AND*, consistent with VALID logic, my position DOES NOT EXCLUDE an intelligent agency responsible for the universe as we perceive it.

You have this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours, who you assert is "proof" of creation; and you assert "creation" as "proof" of this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours. You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "God" thing of yours--and all of its attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as valid facts of reality.

EVERY "evidence" you bring to rationalize this fallacious assertion of yours also suffers from this same logical fallacy; in order to accept this "evidence of creation" you must FIRST accept the validity of this "Creator" of yours.

You validate evidence against your conclusion rather than validating your conclusion against evidence; rather than applying valid logic to verifiable evidence to reach your conclusion, you bring your conclusion to the table as if already valid, and then seek (question-begging) "evidence" to support your conclusion.

You keep saying [this thing or that] was "created," which "proves" the existence of this "Creator" of yours, but *that's just asserting invalid logic.*

Your position, ENTIRELY BASELESS in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, EXCLUDES *for no INTELLECTUALLY VALID reason* EVERY explanation that does not assert this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours.

So, who is REALLY the ideologue?


----------



## koshergrl

Oh. My. God.

*gasp*
turning blue from lack...of...oxygen...can't...breathe....


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Oh. My. God.
> 
> *gasp*
> turning blue from lack...of...oxygen...can't...breathe....


not to worry, your faith should save you.....


----------



## koshergrl

asserting invalid logic.....entirely baseless....no intellectually valid.....

Help...the god of Redundancy is getting wound up again....


----------



## koshergrl

validate evidence....valid logic...verifiable evidence...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA...

Honestly, does anyone have the stomach to count how many repeats there are in that post?


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> validate evidence....valid logic...verifiable evidence...
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA...
> 
> Honestly, does anyone have the stomach to count how many repeats there are in that post?


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an Ideologue.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, This accusation of "Ideologue." (sentence frag) You should look up big words before you use them and make sure they don't describe you, rather than your target.
> *i·de·o·logue*&#8194; &#8194;[ahy-dee-uh-lawg, -log, id-ee-, ahy-dee-]
> 
> _*noun*_
> 
> a person who zealously advocates an ideology.
> 
> *i·de·ol·o·gy*&#8194; &#8194;[ahy-dee-ol-uh-jee, id-ee-]
> 
> _*noun, plural -gies.*_
> 
> 1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group. ​My position is the result of valid logic (redundant) applied to the verifiable evidence. (Redundant) All the verifiable evidence (redundant) supports my position--ALL of the verifiable evidence; (for the love of GOD please stop using this idiotic and redundant phrase, save yourself) *AND*, consistent with VALID logic, (What is invalid logic?) my position DOES NOT EXCLUDE an intelligent agency responsible for the universe as we perceive it. (Congrats for saying absolutely nothing while keeping up a consistent and annoying buzzing).
> 
> You have this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours, (redundant, "you" and "yours") who you assert is "proof" of creation; and you assert "creation" as "proof" of this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours. (nonsense)You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) (AD NAUSEUM indeed, lol) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining (omfuckinggod...redundant) this "God" thing of yours--and all of its attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as valid facts of reality. (Redundant and retarded, plus it just doesn't make sense. "F" for grammar and syntax, idiot).
> 
> EVERY "evidence" (there is no such thing as "every evidence") you bring to rationalize this fallacious assertion of yours also suffers from this same logical fallacy; (redundant, or you are trying to win an award for inserting "fall" words as many times as possible in a sentence) in order to accept this "evidence of creation" you must FIRST accept the validity of this "Creator" of yours. (By this point, nobody, including you, knows what the fuck you are talking about.)
> 
> You validate evidence (Redundant, you idiot. Evidence doesn't require validation. It IS validation) against your conclusion rather than validating your conclusion against evidence; (BWAHAHAHAHA) rather than applying valid logic to verifiable evidence to reach your conclusion, (good lord would you stop) you bring your conclusion to the table as if already valid, and then seek (question-begging) "evidence" to support your conclusion. (Again we peter out into nothingness.)
> 
> You keep saying [this thing or that] was "created," which "proves" the existence of this "Creator" of yours, but *that's just asserting invalid logic.* (One of many favorite nonsense phrases being upchucked here).
> 
> Your position, ENTIRELY BASELESS (redundant) in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, EXCLUDES *for no INTELLECTUALLY VALID reason* EVERY explanation that does not assert this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours. (Wouldn't it be much easier to say "I don't agree with you but I really have nothing more to say that that. But wait I'll puke up a bunch of words...over and over and over, and string them together into cool mucousy gobs of nonsense, and befuddle everyone that way! That will make me look Really Smart!)
> 
> So, who is REALLY the ideologue?
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they occupy different ecological niches. Apes and modern humans occupy different niches, so the both survived. But Neanderthals and Homo Erectus got extinct because they occupied the same niche as the modern humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assumptive language is great, isn't it?? State something like it is a fact and maybe folks will believe it. You have absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for your statement above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly! You think there's no evidence that Neanderthals were living along our ancestors, hunting the same game?
Click to expand...


What is your point because neanderthals were 100% human ? How do you know they were not deformed humans ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Scientists" today think that a carbon cloud created by (American) industry is the cause of global warming even when they have the technology that proves that global warming and the more sinister ice ages have been a factor on earth before humans ever lit a fire. Go figure. Faith is a funny thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Troll...
Click to expand...


Now that is not nice.


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> Thank you. We had waaayyyy too much oxygen in this thread. Now it is effectively sucked away.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. My. God.
> 
> *gasp*
> turning blue from lack...of...oxygen...can't...breathe....
> 
> 
> 
> not to worry, your faith should save you.....
Click to expand...


This is actually a first, that I can say I totally agree with you.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi YWC Hi Loki:
I see no reason to question each other's "intellectual honesty" or intelligence/character
just because of disagreements if one has seen enough proof or not 
of EITHER "intelligent source of creating life" OR of "transitional species/evolution"

You can both look at the same examples, and either see or not see it the same way.
That is not necessarily any reason to judge one another for seeing it differently.

Either way, if you find it more beneficial to observe things OBJECTIVELY in life
WITHOUT assuming a divine creator or plan, so that you analyze things critically,
that is a perfectly fine purpose and a necessary one in studying and learning in life.

Or, if you find it easier to reconcile truths by accepting and gravitating TOWARD a perceived Creator and divine plan or will in life, that is helpful also for direction and focus.

Loki, trying to come to an understanding of what is meant by "God's plans for Creation"
it is not unlike working with the "laws of gravity" or "laws of natural healing."

We don't HAVE to "believe" these came from a divine source in order to 
take advantage and apply how these work. We don't have to "convert to a scientist" 
in order to use these natural laws for our benefit. That is not really the issue.

What matters is understanding how these processes in life work,
instead of wasting time negating or denying them, debating them with others in circles,
why not just use them as is?

If one can understand there is a "greater good will for all humanity" as a compelling force in life, toward forgiving and resolving the past in order to achieve lasting peace and justice in the future, then it is easier to reconcile one's own will and self with this higher scheme of things influencing all humanity.

If you DON'T need to know all that and how it works, then don't bother.

But for others it may help to accept this first, in order to better reconcile with higher truth and justice as a result -- instead of denying or rejecting any connection we may have with greater plans or forces operating in life.



LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure do; particularly when it's so manifestly applicable.
> 
> Because your retarded tribe gives me the opportunity to do so "... over and over and over."
> 
> Verifiability in objective reality is no trick.
> 
> The actual "trick" you are referencing was invented by religion to disseminate superstitions as facts of reality.
> 
> No. I am saying my intellectual honesty is superior--both intellectually and morally--than your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> BTW: Prediction validated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectual honesty,let's test your intellectual honesty you have been given many chances to be honest and you failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. In terms you will clearly understand Youwerecreated, you have just borne false witness against me ... again.
> 
> Valid logic applied the verifiable evidence supports the conclusion that intelligence is the result of the interactions of non-intelligent natural processes.
> 
> Valid logic applied the verifiable evidence supports the conclusion that life is the result of the interactions of non-living natural processes.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come no transitional organisms are alive today but what these transitional organisms supposedly evolved from are alive,why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "How come no transitional organisms are alive today ..." ? What? ... Why what?Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you premise your incoherent question upon the assertion that, "... no transitional organisms are alive today"?
> 
> Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that a transitional species can be a parent species?
> 
> Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that a transitional species can be a daughter species?
> 
> Upon what verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you presume that it is impossible that transitional species, daughter species, and/or parent species can exist at the same time?​
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind, Do you agree with this statement ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term "kind" is meaningless--this has been unimpeachably demonstrated--I can't agree or disagree with a meaningless assertion made (10 times) in your creation myth.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. My. God.
> 
> *gasp*
> turning blue from lack...of...oxygen...can't...breathe....
> 
> 
> 
> not to worry, your faith should save you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is actually a first, that I can say I totally agree with you.
Click to expand...

THEN YOU HAVE NO GRASP OF SARCASM OR IRONY, why dose's that not surprise me


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not to worry, your faith should save you.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually a first, that I can say I totally agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THEN YOU HAVE NO GRASP OF SARCASM OR IRONY, why dose's that not surprise me
Click to expand...


So you fault me for taking you at your word ? Sure I am good at detecting sarcasm,I saw truth in your words though. My faith will save me your faith ,well I won't speak for God and I don't have the ability to judge your heart.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. This is not what was said, you intellectually dishonest retard.
> 
> What Creator? You keep mentioning this "Creator," but you fail to bring any valid verifiable evidence or valid logic to advance the assertion of this "Creator" of yours.
> 
> Every "evidence" and every argument you present ONLY asserts that this "Creator" of yours is as objectively and verifiably real as beings that are well understood to be imaginary, ... like the Tooth Fairy. Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moron,the origional question was why are all the transitional organisms no longer in existence since the ones they supposedly evolved from are. Be careful about insulting someone that has a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would these be living transitional organisms YWC? :
> Living Transitional Species, page 1
Click to expand...


I did not see anything in there that transitioned between two species.

When I speak of transitional species I am speaking of a transitional species that connects two different family groups.

There are no living tranitional species period. That should cause any reasonable person to question why not if Macro-evolution is the cause of all the different family groups.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assumptive language is great, isn't it?? State something like it is a fact and maybe folks will believe it. You have absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for your statement above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly! You think there's no evidence that Neanderthals were living along our ancestors, hunting the same game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point because neanderthals were 100% human ? How do you know they were not deformed humans ?
Click to expand...


Because they look like a transition between apes and modern humans. Also because they predate modern humans.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly! You think there's no evidence that Neanderthals were living along our ancestors, hunting the same game?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point because neanderthals were 100% human ? How do you know they were not deformed humans ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they look like a transition between apes and modern humans. Also because they predate modern humans.
Click to expand...


Only in ones mind. They were 100% human.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point because neanderthals were 100% human ? How do you know they were not deformed humans ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they look like a transition between apes and modern humans. Also because they predate modern humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only in ones mind. They were 100% human.
Click to expand...


Yup, that's the only way one can reject the Theory of Evolution -- by denying the obvious.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they look like a transition between apes and modern humans. Also because they predate modern humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in ones mind. They were 100% human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, that's the only way one can reject the Theory of Evolution -- by denying the obvious.
Click to expand...


Let me share with you an article on neanderthal man that's causing me to pause On the idea that neanderthal man was a product of deformity. It also presents an argument agains't them being a human that evolved but devolved.

Go into it with an open mind and consider the explanation. There is evidence to support the argument.

Are Neanderthals the MISSING LINK between Man and apes?


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an Ideologue.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, This accusation of "Ideologue." (sentence frag) You should look up big words before you use them and make sure they don't describe you, rather than your target.
> *i·de·o·logue*&#8194; &#8194;[ahy-dee-uh-lawg, -log, id-ee-, ahy-dee-]
> 
> _*noun*_
> 
> a person who zealously advocates an ideology.
> 
> *i·de·ol·o·gy*&#8194; &#8194;[ahy-dee-ol-uh-jee, id-ee-]
> 
> _*noun, plural -gies.*_
> 
> 1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group. ​My position is the result of valid logic (redundant) applied to the verifiable evidence. (Redundant) All the verifiable evidence (redundant) supports my position--ALL of the verifiable evidence; (for the love of GOD please stop using this idiotic and redundant phrase, save yourself) *AND*, consistent with VALID logic, (What is invalid logic?) my position DOES NOT EXCLUDE an intelligent agency responsible for the universe as we perceive it. (Congrats for saying absolutely nothing while keeping up a consistent and annoying buzzing).
> 
> You have this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours, (redundant, "you" and "yours") who you assert is "proof" of creation; and you assert "creation" as "proof" of this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours. (nonsense)You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) (AD NAUSEUM indeed, lol) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining (omfuckinggod...redundant) this "God" thing of yours--and all of its attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as valid facts of reality. (Redundant and retarded, plus it just doesn't make sense. "F" for grammar and syntax, idiot).
> 
> EVERY "evidence" (there is no such thing as "every evidence") you bring to rationalize this fallacious assertion of yours also suffers from this same logical fallacy; (redundant, or you are trying to win an award for inserting "fall" words as many times as possible in a sentence) in order to accept this "evidence of creation" you must FIRST accept the validity of this "Creator" of yours. (By this point, nobody, including you, knows what the fuck you are talking about.)
> 
> You validate evidence (Redundant, you idiot. Evidence doesn't require validation. It IS validation) against your conclusion rather than validating your conclusion against evidence; (BWAHAHAHAHA) rather than applying valid logic to verifiable evidence to reach your conclusion, (good lord would you stop) you bring your conclusion to the table as if already valid, and then seek (question-begging) "evidence" to support your conclusion. (Again we peter out into nothingness.)
> 
> You keep saying [this thing or that] was "created," which "proves" the existence of this "Creator" of yours, but *that's just asserting invalid logic.* (One of many favorite nonsense phrases being upchucked here).
> 
> Your position, ENTIRELY BASELESS (redundant) in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, EXCLUDES *for no INTELLECTUALLY VALID reason* EVERY explanation that does not assert this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours. (Wouldn't it be much easier to say "I don't agree with you but I really have nothing more to say that that. But wait I'll puke up a bunch of words...over and over and over, and string them together into cool mucousy gobs of nonsense, and befuddle everyone that way! That will make me look Really Smart!)
> 
> So, who is REALLY the ideologue?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You're just really bad at that, aren't you?


----------



## The Irish Ram

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



The answer may  be in the first sentence of the Bible.  Created, void, recreated, then man, (who was created 6,000 years ago).  
God didn't create a void.  He created Earth,  which became a battle ground between God and Satan.   There is no timeline given between the time He created, the length of void, and the 7 day creation of an earth suitable for mankind.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, This accusation of "Ideologue." (sentence frag) You should look up big words before you use them and make sure they don't describe you, rather than your target.
> *i·de·o·logue*&#8194; &#8194;[ahy-dee-uh-lawg, -log, id-ee-, ahy-dee-]
> 
> _*noun*_
> 
> a person who zealously advocates an ideology.
> 
> *i·de·ol·o·gy*&#8194; &#8194;[ahy-dee-ol-uh-jee, id-ee-]
> 
> _*noun, plural -gies.*_
> 
> 1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group. ​My position is the result of valid logic (redundant) applied to the verifiable evidence. (Redundant) All the verifiable evidence (redundant) supports my position--ALL of the verifiable evidence; (for the love of GOD please stop using this idiotic and redundant phrase, save yourself) *AND*, consistent with VALID logic, (What is invalid logic?) my position DOES NOT EXCLUDE an intelligent agency responsible for the universe as we perceive it. (Congrats for saying absolutely nothing while keeping up a consistent and annoying buzzing).
> 
> You have this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours, (redundant, "you" and "yours") who you assert is "proof" of creation; and you assert "creation" as "proof" of this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours. (nonsense)You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) (AD NAUSEUM indeed, lol) that solely by the virtue of simply imagining (omfuckinggod...redundant) this "God" thing of yours--and all of its attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as valid facts of reality. (Redundant and retarded, plus it just doesn't make sense. "F" for grammar and syntax, idiot).
> 
> EVERY "evidence" (there is no such thing as "every evidence") you bring to rationalize this fallacious assertion of yours also suffers from this same logical fallacy; (redundant, or you are trying to win an award for inserting "fall" words as many times as possible in a sentence) in order to accept this "evidence of creation" you must FIRST accept the validity of this "Creator" of yours. (By this point, nobody, including you, knows what the fuck you are talking about.)
> 
> You validate evidence (Redundant, you idiot. Evidence doesn't require validation. It IS validation) against your conclusion rather than validating your conclusion against evidence; (BWAHAHAHAHA) rather than applying valid logic to verifiable evidence to reach your conclusion, (good lord would you stop) you bring your conclusion to the table as if already valid, and then seek (question-begging) "evidence" to support your conclusion. (Again we peter out into nothingness.)
> 
> You keep saying [this thing or that] was "created," which "proves" the existence of this "Creator" of yours, but *that's just asserting invalid logic.* (One of many favorite nonsense phrases being upchucked here).
> 
> Your position, ENTIRELY BASELESS (redundant) in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, EXCLUDES *for no INTELLECTUALLY VALID reason* EVERY explanation that does not assert this preconceived "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours. (Wouldn't it be much easier to say "I don't agree with you but I really have nothing more to say that that. But wait I'll puke up a bunch of words...over and over and over, and string them together into cool mucousy gobs of nonsense, and befuddle everyone that way! That will make me look Really Smart!)
> 
> So, who is REALLY the ideologue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just really bad at that, aren't you?
Click to expand...



The true Ideologue is the one that continues to push his Ideology even though evidence proves him wrong. That would be you and ones like you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just really bad at that, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The true Ideologue is the one that continues to push his Ideology even though evidence proves him wrong. That would be you and ones like you.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA! You have been proven wrong at every turn, and have failed to bring any evidence that proves any claim I have made wrong. What a douche!


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in ones mind. They were 100% human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that's the only way one can reject the Theory of Evolution -- by denying the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me share with you an article on neanderthal man that's causing me to pause On the idea that neanderthal man was a product of deformity. It also presents an argument agains't them being a human that evolved but devolved.
> 
> Go into it with an open mind and consider the explanation. There is evidence to support the argument.
> 
> Are Neanderthals the MISSING LINK between Man and apes?
Click to expand...


You are missing the point. I know that the Bible -- or, rather, its loose enough interpretation -- can explain Neanderthals and anything else we know about the world around us. And not a long time ago it was the best explanation -- but not anymore.

The goal of the Theory of Evolution is to explain how the humans first appeared on  this planet without involving God and his miracles. And it has been hugely successful at that -- and in particular thanks to finding the remains of Neanderthals and other transitional species. And because of the success of the Theory of Evolution we have more reasons to believe that the Bible is not a divine gift, but a collections of myth and stories written by ancient people.


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they occupy different ecological niches. Apes and modern humans occupy different niches, so the both survived. But Neanderthals and Homo Erectus got extinct because they occupied the same niche as the modern humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assumptive language is great, isn't it?? State something like it is a fact and maybe folks will believe it. You have absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for your statement above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly! You think there's no evidence that Neanderthals were living along our ancestors, hunting the same game?
Click to expand...


The evidence is sketchy at best. Anyway, you totally missed the point. You said they became extinct because of it but you really have no clue why they became exinct and you can no more prove that was the reason than I can prove there is a God.


----------



## UltimateReality

"On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties. As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form. 

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Charles Darwin

As much as you try to FORCE fossil evidence to fit, it simply doesn't. Your so-called transitional species are a joke!!! The funny thing is Darwin claimed these GRADUAL changes happened over millions of years. We know from hard evidence on positive genetic mutations the rarity with which they occur. We also know in large populations, they are lost as fast as they appear. So with Darwin's claim of gradual changes, we should have a plethora of "inbetweeners". We don't. Darwin gives several reasons for POSSIBLY why we don't find the gradually changed species but none of them hold up under real evidence, only assumptive language of the evolotutionists saying, "it is the way it was".

Here is the simple truth that is all around us that evolutionists deny. We don't find any living transitional species, not real ones that would hold up to Darwins descriptions. What we do find alot of is a single "kind" (described in the Bible). Sometimes there are wide ranges of adaptations in the specific kinds, but they are still that kind.
Let's look at dogs for instance. With intelligent direction guiding the process, we have many different breeds. We have tall ones, short ones, skinny ones, wrinkled-skin ones, ones with pug noses, ones with long snouts, short hair, long hair, long tails, short tails, big heads on little bodies, big bodies with little heads. But guess what??? They are all dogs!!! Darwinists tell us that everything alive came from a common ancestor so let's assume for an instant that elephants came from dogs. How long do you think it would take a breeder to get a fully functional elephant trunk on a dog. Remember, we are assuming an intelligent force (the breeder) could note that a small wart like structure on the dog's nose was a positive genetic mutation that could someday turn into the muscular appendage capable of grasping fruit and inserting it into its mouth. The question remains: how do we get from a piece of skin or bump on a dog's nose to the complex trunk we see on the elephant, even with intelligent intervention? The answer is we don't! And there ain't a shred of scientific evidence that could ever prove this could happen. It amazes me that so called "intelligent people" like Loki actually buy into the absurdity. It is like a mass brain washing. Not only would it be impossible for the breeder to make it happen, how much more impossible would it be for un-guided forces to recognize the lump might one day be a trunk and keep it around for a few million years to give it time to develop muscles and nerves and the associated neurons to give it the proper commands to function. This is absurdity at every level. Yet it is what a bunch of atheists masquerading as "Scientists" have fed the ignorant masses hook, line and sinker. Absolute stupidity in high places.

Now before some Einstein makes the claim that elephants didn't come from dogs, go back and read my post. I am just using this as an example. How even more stupid and completely devoid of all reason and logic is the belief that an Ecoli could become a human. Of course to Darwinists, the gods of Time and Random Mutations and Natural Selection can do some pretty darn amazing miracles. 

Again, Loki says we believe in Fairytales????? Ha!


----------



## UltimateReality

One more thing which is so utterly stupid about Dawin's statement I quoted above, if the changes are gradual over millions of years, how do the VERY, VERY, VERY slightly changed species know to kill off the unchanged species? How does natural selection tell them apart? Ummm, let's see. On the road from Ape to human, the inbetweener died because someone noticed his brow bone protruded one millimeter less or they may have noticed he had two more hair folicles than his more advanced friend. Or maybe he had a cc less brain matter than his more advanced friend, causing them to go Ape$%# and kill him. 

How can smart human beings not see the absolute stupidity of these claims? Mass brainwashing could be the only answer. You guys are on a ship of fools and you are heading in to shore so you can wave at your family. Pure stupidity.  

Here it is again for those less advanced homo sapiens. Changes happen in really, really tiny increments over really really really long periods of time but Natural Selection is able to detect these very, very, very subtle changes and throws away the ones it doesn't want and keeps the ones it does, over millions and millions of years of very, very, very tiny RANDOM POSITIVE mutations.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> "On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties. As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.
> 
> But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Charles Darwin
> 
> As much as you try to FORCE fossil evidence to fit, it simply doesn't. Your so-called transitional species are a joke!!! The funny thing is Darwin claimed these GRADUAL changes happened over millions of years. We know from hard evidence on positive genetic mutations the rarity with which they occur. We also know in large populations, they are lost as fast as they appear. So with Darwin's claim of gradual changes, we should have a plethora of "inbetweeners". We don't. Darwin gives several reasons for POSSIBLY why we don't find the gradually changed species but none of them hold up under real evidence, only assumptive language of the evolotutionists saying, "it is the way it was".
> 
> Here is the simple truth that is all around us that evolutionists deny. We don't find any living transitional species, not real ones that would hold up to Darwins descriptions. What we do find alot of is a single "kind" (described in the Bible). Sometimes there are wide ranges of adaptations in the specific kinds, but they are still that kind.
> Let's look at dogs for instance. With intelligent direction guiding the process, we have many different breeds. We have tall ones, short ones, skinny ones, wrinkled-skin ones, ones with pug noses, ones with long snouts, short hair, long hair, long tails, short tails, big heads on little bodies, big bodies with little heads. But guess what??? They are all dogs!!! Darwinists tell us that everything alive came from a common ancestor so let's assume for an instant that elephants came from dogs. How long do you think it would take a breeder to get a fully functional elephant trunk on a dog. Remember, we are assuming an intelligent force (the breeder) could note that a small wart like structure on the dog's nose was a positive genetic mutation that could someday turn into the muscular appendage capable of grasping fruit and inserting it into its mouth. The question remains: how do we get from a piece of skin or bump on a dog's nose to the complex trunk we see on the elephant, even with intelligent intervention? The answer is we don't! And there ain't a shred of scientific evidence that could ever prove this could happen. It amazes me that so called "intelligent people" like Loki actually buy into the absurdity. It is like a mass brain washing. Not only would it be impossible for the breeder to make it happen, how much more impossible would it be for un-guided forces to recognize the lump might one day be a trunk and keep it around for a few million years to give it time to develop muscles and nerves and the associated neurons to give it the proper commands to function. This is absurdity at every level. Yet it is what a bunch of atheists masquerading as "Scientists" have fed the ignorant masses hook, line and sinker. Absolute stupidity in high places.
> 
> Now before some Einstein makes the claim that elephants didn't come from dogs, go back and read my post. I am just using this as an example. How even more stupid and completely devoid of all reason and logic is the belief that an Ecoli could become a human. Of course to Darwinists, the gods of Time and Random Mutations and Natural Selection can do some pretty darn amazing miracles.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^






Youwerecreated brought all of this up already and has been pwn't numerous times. Your entire screed is premised upon a strawman caricature of evolutionary theory, and a fundamental ignorance of the topic which you criticize.  



UltimateReality said:


> Again, Loki says we believe in Fairytales????? Ha!


You certainly do.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Your entire screed is premised upon a strawman caricature of evolutionary theory, and a fundamental ignorance of the topic which you criticize.


Yeah, cause Darwin didn't say everything that I asserted in the Origin of the Species. The only ignorant one here is you. 

Instead of an intelligent response, you respond with name calling and un-substantiated assertions. Also, your silence on my post about every living thing alive today having come from a "live" cell just like itself speaks volumes. The fact that you think the double-helix just happened, tells me you fall in with the others who have no grasp of logic or reasoning, blind in your atheistic religion of materialism, unable to grasp any real scientific concepts.


----------



## UltimateReality

Dawin's Heretic

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxvAVln6HLI]Darwin's Heretic: Did the Co-Founder of Evolution Embrace Intelligent Design? - YouTube[/ame]

Funny how Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation and the ignorant Darwinists brought the "spontaneous generation" theory back to life. DNA just spontaneously generated itself. And you say ID lacks science? What a joke.


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assumptive language is great, isn't it?? State something like it is a fact and maybe folks will believe it. You have absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for your statement above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly! You think there's no evidence that Neanderthals were living along our ancestors, hunting the same game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence is sketchy at best. Anyway, you totally missed the point. You said they became extinct because of it but you really have no clue why they became exinct and you can no more prove that was the reason than I can prove there is a God.
Click to expand...


There is enough of evidence that Neanderthals were directly competing with modern humans, and that gives a perfect explanation why the went extinct. You, of course, have to keep denying the obvious facts, because this is the only way to deny the Theory of Evolution.


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> DNA just spontaneously generated itself.



No -- first much simpler RNA molecules appeared. Then the combine into DNA.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> One more thing which is so utterly stupid about Dawin's statement I quoted above, if the changes are gradual over millions of years, how do the VERY, VERY, VERY slightly changed species know to kill off the unchanged species? How does natural selection tell them apart? Ummm, let's see. On the road from Ape to human, the inbetweener died because someone noticed his brow bone protruded one millimeter less or they may have noticed he had two more hair folicles than his more advanced friend. Or maybe he had a cc less brain matter than his more advanced friend, causing them to go Ape$%# and kill him.
> 
> How can smart human beings not see the absolute stupidity of these claims? Mass brainwashing could be the only answer. You guys are on a ship of fools and you are heading in to shore so you can wave at your family. Pure stupidity.
> 
> Here it is again for those less advanced homo sapiens. Changes happen in really, really tiny increments over really really really long periods of time but Natural Selection is able to detect these very, very, very subtle changes and throws away the ones it doesn't want and keeps the ones it does, over millions and millions of years of very, very, very tiny RANDOM POSITIVE mutations.



Other than the obvious fact that the theory of evolution has progressed greatly since Darwin first wrote Origin of Species, this post is filled with ridiculous assertions.

First, natural selection is not an intelligence.  It does not detect anything.  It does not throw things away or keep anything.  It is a term describing the process whereby creatures which are better able to survive for whatever reasons do so, and therefor procreate and propagate their species, while those lesser able to survive do not.  It describes a NATURAL process, not something driven by intelligence.  To describe this process as though it is an intelligent being sorting through the world's creatures and keeping those it prefers is either disingenuous or ignorant.

Second, no one is claiming anything about minor cosmetic changes being the driving force behind natural selection.  To say that anyone believes 'On the road from Ape to human, the inbetweener died because someone noticed his brow bone protruded one millimeter less or they may have noticed he had two more hair folicles than his more advanced friend.' is, once again, either dishonest or a complete misinterpretation of evolutionary theory.

Whether evolutionary theory is correct or not, your arguments against it in this post are nothing but foolishness.  Rather than making any point about why evolution is incorrect, you are probably more likely to lead anyone reading to the conclusion they are better off assuming anything you say is wrong.


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> how do the VERY, VERY, VERY slightly changed species know to kill off the unchanged species?



They do not kill off the unchanged species, at least not directly. But the offspring of the unchanged species has a VERY VERY slightly lower chance of surviving. Or they produce slightly less offspring. Over time (thousand generations) these factors lead to a complete replacement of the original species with the more advanced ones.


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA just spontaneously generated itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No -- first much simpler RNA molecules appeared. Then the combine into DNA.
Click to expand...


So RNA spontaneously generated itself. Whatever.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Other than the obvious fact that the theory of evolution has progressed greatly since Darwin first wrote Origin of Species, this post is filled with ridiculous assertions..



This is a matter of opinion. I wouldn't call numerous holes being punched in the theory by modern scientific discoveries progression. 



Montrovant said:


> First, natural selection is not an intelligence.  It does not detect anything.  It does not throw things away or keep anything.  It is a term describing the process whereby creatures which are better able to survive for whatever reasons do so, and therefor procreate and propagate their species, while those lesser able to survive do not.  It describes a NATURAL process, not something driven by intelligence.  To describe this process as though it is an intelligent being sorting through the world's creatures and keeping those it prefers is either disingenuous or ignorant.


 The last two words here aptly describe your total inability to grasp the sarcastic point I was making about Natural Selection, i.e., the assertion by Darwinists it is some personified force capable of miracles. I was just regurgitating the idiotic claims of Darwinists regarding NS. 




Montrovant said:


> Second, no one is claiming anything about minor cosmetic changes being the driving force behind natural selection.  To say that anyone believes 'On the road from Ape to human, the inbetweener died because someone noticed his brow bone protruded one millimeter less or they may have noticed he had two more hair folicles than his more advanced friend.' is, once again, either dishonest or a complete misinterpretation of evolutionary theory.



Since when is a larger brain a cosmetic change??? Complete misinterpretation of evolutionary theory? Really. So you are disputing the claim that somewhere between the early hominids, claimed to be ancestors of homo sapien by your Darwinist spin doctors, and homo sapien himself, there did not exist a species that was a single gradual step between the two distinct hominids at specific points in earth's history that had an a) smaller brain? b) more body hair? and c) a larger brow bone? Come on man, are you that dense?? According to TOE, even though we don't have any evidence of this transitional hominid, are you claiming there were no intermediate steps? I think in your assertion of my so called foolishness and ignorance, someone other than me has been revealed as the real fool. 

Skhul and Qafzeh hominids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neadertal

Here is an article that avoids the ASSumptive language of you clowns here and correctly uses terms like "may have" and "probably", since all the things you all state as fact can't be proven by the evidence at hand.

http://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0006821.html

You can deny the Bible, but don't you think it odd it has not really been contradicted by science? I think you will find that very few Christians subscribe to the "young earth" theory. Moses is the widely accepted author of Genesis. The Creation story was more than likely handed down by the oral tradition for thousands of years (maybe even 200,000 years) and Moses was just the first guy to write the stories passed down by the elders down on paper...

"Analysis of DNA in recent human populations suggests that H. sapiens originated about 200,000 years ago in Africa from a single female ancestor, &#8216;Eve&#8217;."

The whole lucy wishful thinking fiasco makes me wonder if an marterialistic paleontologists can be trusted not to fill in the blanks with info that supports their dying theory. 

http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/human_evolution_error.php


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA just spontaneously generated itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No -- first much simpler RNA molecules appeared. Then the combine into DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So RNA spontaneously generated itself. Whatever.
Click to expand...


Yes, they have reproduced this in the lab not long ago.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire screed is premised upon a strawman caricature of evolutionary theory, and a fundamental ignorance of the topic which you criticize.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause Darwin didn't say everything that I asserted in the Origin of the Species. The only ignorant one here is you.
Click to expand...







See? You ARE an idiot.



UltimateReality said:


> Instead of an intelligent response, you respond with name calling and un-substantiated assertions.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA"]Oh yes. Your point about dogs always producing dogs ... [/ame]
Your position has already been thoroughly punked, as have been your disingenuous tactics ... Youwerecreated took the beating for you.



UltimateReality said:


> Also, your silence on my post about every living thing alive today having come from a "live" cell just like itself speaks volumes.








Right. I just don't have time to address EVERY misrepresentation and misconception every member of your retarded tribe posts.



UltimateReality said:


> The fact that you think the double-helix just happened, tells me you fall in with the others who have no grasp of logic or reasoning, blind in your atheistic religion of materialism, unable to grasp any real scientific concepts.


I don't "... think the double-helix just happened." No one does ... except in the strawman fantasies of creationists.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just really bad at that, aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The true Ideologue is the one that continues to push his Ideology even though evidence proves him wrong. That would be you and ones like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HAHAHA! You have been proven wrong at every turn, and have failed to bring any evidence that proves any claim I have made wrong. What a douche!
Click to expand...


Dreamer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that's the only way one can reject the Theory of Evolution -- by denying the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me share with you an article on neanderthal man that's causing me to pause On the idea that neanderthal man was a product of deformity. It also presents an argument agains't them being a human that evolved but devolved.
> 
> Go into it with an open mind and consider the explanation. There is evidence to support the argument.
> 
> Are Neanderthals the MISSING LINK between Man and apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are missing the point. I know that the Bible -- or, rather, its loose enough interpretation -- can explain Neanderthals and anything else we know about the world around us. And not a long time ago it was the best explanation -- but not anymore.
> 
> The goal of the Theory of Evolution is to explain how the humans first appeared on  this planet without involving God and his miracles. And it has been hugely successful at that -- and in particular thanks to finding the remains of Neanderthals and other transitional species. And because of the success of the Theory of Evolution we have more reasons to believe that the Bible is not a divine gift, but a collections of myth and stories written by ancient people.
Click to expand...


That is the problem,your presuppositions eliminate the possibility of the designer. What if you are wrong then your theory is wrong.You can argue agains't design all you want but that is what is seen. Too many coincedences for me to hold on to the theory of Macro-evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties. As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.
> 
> But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Charles Darwin
> 
> As much as you try to FORCE fossil evidence to fit, it simply doesn't. Your so-called transitional species are a joke!!! The funny thing is Darwin claimed these GRADUAL changes happened over millions of years. We know from hard evidence on positive genetic mutations the rarity with which they occur. We also know in large populations, they are lost as fast as they appear. So with Darwin's claim of gradual changes, we should have a plethora of "inbetweeners". We don't. Darwin gives several reasons for POSSIBLY why we don't find the gradually changed species but none of them hold up under real evidence, only assumptive language of the evolotutionists saying, "it is the way it was".
> 
> Here is the simple truth that is all around us that evolutionists deny. We don't find any living transitional species, not real ones that would hold up to Darwins descriptions. What we do find alot of is a single "kind" (described in the Bible). Sometimes there are wide ranges of adaptations in the specific kinds, but they are still that kind.
> Let's look at dogs for instance. With intelligent direction guiding the process, we have many different breeds. We have tall ones, short ones, skinny ones, wrinkled-skin ones, ones with pug noses, ones with long snouts, short hair, long hair, long tails, short tails, big heads on little bodies, big bodies with little heads. But guess what??? They are all dogs!!! Darwinists tell us that everything alive came from a common ancestor so let's assume for an instant that elephants came from dogs. How long do you think it would take a breeder to get a fully functional elephant trunk on a dog. Remember, we are assuming an intelligent force (the breeder) could note that a small wart like structure on the dog's nose was a positive genetic mutation that could someday turn into the muscular appendage capable of grasping fruit and inserting it into its mouth. The question remains: how do we get from a piece of skin or bump on a dog's nose to the complex trunk we see on the elephant, even with intelligent intervention? The answer is we don't! And there ain't a shred of scientific evidence that could ever prove this could happen. It amazes me that so called "intelligent people" like Loki actually buy into the absurdity. It is like a mass brain washing. Not only would it be impossible for the breeder to make it happen, how much more impossible would it be for un-guided forces to recognize the lump might one day be a trunk and keep it around for a few million years to give it time to develop muscles and nerves and the associated neurons to give it the proper commands to function. This is absurdity at every level. Yet it is what a bunch of atheists masquerading as "Scientists" have fed the ignorant masses hook, line and sinker. Absolute stupidity in high places.
> 
> Now before some Einstein makes the claim that elephants didn't come from dogs, go back and read my post. I am just using this as an example. How even more stupid and completely devoid of all reason and logic is the belief that an Ecoli could become a human. Of course to Darwinists, the gods of Time and Random Mutations and Natural Selection can do some pretty darn amazing miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated brought all of this up already and has been pwn't numerous times. Your entire screed is premised upon a strawman caricature of evolutionary theory, and a fundamental ignorance of the topic which you criticize.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Loki says we believe in Fairytales????? Ha!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You certainly do.
Click to expand...


Atleast your posts full of rhetoric and nothing of substance are growing shorter.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA just spontaneously generated itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No -- first much simpler RNA molecules appeared. Then the combine into DNA.
Click to expand...


Prove it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more thing which is so utterly stupid about Dawin's statement I quoted above, if the changes are gradual over millions of years, how do the VERY, VERY, VERY slightly changed species know to kill off the unchanged species? How does natural selection tell them apart? Ummm, let's see. On the road from Ape to human, the inbetweener died because someone noticed his brow bone protruded one millimeter less or they may have noticed he had two more hair folicles than his more advanced friend. Or maybe he had a cc less brain matter than his more advanced friend, causing them to go Ape$%# and kill him.
> 
> How can smart human beings not see the absolute stupidity of these claims? Mass brainwashing could be the only answer. You guys are on a ship of fools and you are heading in to shore so you can wave at your family. Pure stupidity.
> 
> Here it is again for those less advanced homo sapiens. Changes happen in really, really tiny increments over really really really long periods of time but Natural Selection is able to detect these very, very, very subtle changes and throws away the ones it doesn't want and keeps the ones it does, over millions and millions of years of very, very, very tiny RANDOM POSITIVE mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the obvious fact that the theory of evolution has progressed greatly since Darwin first wrote Origin of Species, this post is filled with ridiculous assertions.
> 
> First, natural selection is not an intelligence.  It does not detect anything.  It does not throw things away or keep anything.  It is a term describing the process whereby creatures which are better able to survive for whatever reasons do so, and therefor procreate and propagate their species, while those lesser able to survive do not.  It describes a NATURAL process, not something driven by intelligence.  To describe this process as though it is an intelligent being sorting through the world's creatures and keeping those it prefers is either disingenuous or ignorant.
> 
> Second, no one is claiming anything about minor cosmetic changes being the driving force behind natural selection.  To say that anyone believes 'On the road from Ape to human, the inbetweener died because someone noticed his brow bone protruded one millimeter less or they may have noticed he had two more hair folicles than his more advanced friend.' is, once again, either dishonest or a complete misinterpretation of evolutionary theory.
> 
> Whether evolutionary theory is correct or not, your arguments against it in this post are nothing but foolishness.  Rather than making any point about why evolution is incorrect, you are probably more likely to lead anyone reading to the conclusion they are better off assuming anything you say is wrong.
Click to expand...


Come on now humans are the ultimate mutation it needed a thinking process to go from apes to humans ,get real.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties. As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.
> 
> But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Charles Darwin
> 
> As much as you try to FORCE fossil evidence to fit, it simply doesn't. Your so-called transitional species are a joke!!! The funny thing is Darwin claimed these GRADUAL changes happened over millions of years. We know from hard evidence on positive genetic mutations the rarity with which they occur. We also know in large populations, they are lost as fast as they appear. So with Darwin's claim of gradual changes, we should have a plethora of "inbetweeners". We don't. Darwin gives several reasons for POSSIBLY why we don't find the gradually changed species but none of them hold up under real evidence, only assumptive language of the evolotutionists saying, "it is the way it was".
> 
> Here is the simple truth that is all around us that evolutionists deny. We don't find any living transitional species, not real ones that would hold up to Darwins descriptions. What we do find alot of is a single "kind" (described in the Bible). Sometimes there are wide ranges of adaptations in the specific kinds, but they are still that kind.
> Let's look at dogs for instance. With intelligent direction guiding the process, we have many different breeds. We have tall ones, short ones, skinny ones, wrinkled-skin ones, ones with pug noses, ones with long snouts, short hair, long hair, long tails, short tails, big heads on little bodies, big bodies with little heads. But guess what??? They are all dogs!!! Darwinists tell us that everything alive came from a common ancestor so let's assume for an instant that elephants came from dogs. How long do you think it would take a breeder to get a fully functional elephant trunk on a dog. Remember, we are assuming an intelligent force (the breeder) could note that a small wart like structure on the dog's nose was a positive genetic mutation that could someday turn into the muscular appendage capable of grasping fruit and inserting it into its mouth. The question remains: how do we get from a piece of skin or bump on a dog's nose to the complex trunk we see on the elephant, even with intelligent intervention? The answer is we don't! And there ain't a shred of scientific evidence that could ever prove this could happen. It amazes me that so called "intelligent people" like Loki actually buy into the absurdity. It is like a mass brain washing. Not only would it be impossible for the breeder to make it happen, how much more impossible would it be for un-guided forces to recognize the lump might one day be a trunk and keep it around for a few million years to give it time to develop muscles and nerves and the associated neurons to give it the proper commands to function. This is absurdity at every level. Yet it is what a bunch of atheists masquerading as "Scientists" have fed the ignorant masses hook, line and sinker. Absolute stupidity in high places.
> 
> Now before some Einstein makes the claim that elephants didn't come from dogs, go back and read my post. I am just using this as an example. How even more stupid and completely devoid of all reason and logic is the belief that an Ecoli could become a human. Of course to Darwinists, the gods of Time and Random Mutations and Natural Selection can do some pretty darn amazing miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated brought all of this up already and has been pwn't numerous times. Your entire screed is premised upon a strawman caricature of evolutionary theory, and a fundamental ignorance of the topic which you criticize.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Loki says we believe in Fairytales????? Ha!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You certainly do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atleast your posts full of rhetoric and nothing of substance are growing shorter.
Click to expand...

A prime example of the predictable Christian Creationist denial of reality, that is a necessary appurtenance of their faith: if a post fully refutes a Christian Creationist's lies and retarded assertions, then they are just "... rhetoric and nothing of substance."


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do the VERY, VERY, VERY slightly changed species know to kill off the unchanged species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do not kill off the unchanged species, at least not directly. But the offspring of the unchanged species has a VERY VERY slightly lower chance of surviving. Or they produce slightly less offspring. Over time (thousand generations) these factors lead to a complete replacement of the original species with the more advanced ones.
Click to expand...


You still don't get it. Transitional organisms should have been better adapted to the enviornment if they were to pass on their traits ,get it ? Your explanation even goes agains't your definition of Natural selection which we both can agree exists.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA just spontaneously generated itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No -- first much simpler RNA molecules appeared. Then the combine into DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So RNA spontaneously generated itself. Whatever.
Click to expand...


There is no way DNA molecules could have formed with oxygen present let alone have a cell form itself with a complete blueprint of an organism it is absurd what they believe and defies all logic.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No -- first much simpler RNA molecules appeared. Then the combine into DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So RNA spontaneously generated itself. Whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have reproduced this in the lab not long ago.
Click to expand...


Do you realize what they needed was an enviornment absent of oxygen and had electricity,and it was intelligence that actually performed the experiment ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So RNA spontaneously generated itself. Whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they have reproduced this in the lab not long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize what they needed was an enviornment absent of oxygen and had electricity,and it was intelligence that actually performed the experiment ?
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they have reproduced this in the lab not long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize what they needed was an enviornment absent of oxygen and had electricity,and it was intelligence that actually performed the experiment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Tell me what creationist were wrong about two thousand years ago ?

Your side are the ones making corrections while the bible continues to be proven out as evidence is gathered.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize what they needed was an enviornment absent of oxygen and had electricity,and it was intelligence that actually performed the experiment ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me what creationist were wrong about two thousand years ago ?
Click to expand...









Youwerecreated said:


> Your side are the ones making corrections while the bible continues to be proven out as evidence is gathered.


The Bible gets it right by accident, you just ignore or rationalize away those instances it's unmistakably wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what creationist were wrong about two thousand years ago ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your side are the ones making corrections while the bible continues to be proven out as evidence is gathered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible gets it right by accident, you just ignore or rationalize away those instances it's unmistakably wrong.
Click to expand...


I'm waiting for you to back your claim.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what creationist were wrong about two thousand years ago ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your side are the ones making corrections while the bible continues to be proven out as evidence is gathered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible gets it right by accident, you just ignore or rationalize away those instances it's unmistakably wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for you to back your claim.
Click to expand...

Clearly the Earth is not flat (resting on foundations) with a solid dome (with windows to let out the waters of the firmament) over it.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated brought all of this up already and has been pwn't numerous times. Your entire screed is premised upon a strawman caricature of evolutionary theory, and a fundamental ignorance of the topic which you criticize.
> 
> You certainly do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atleast your posts full of rhetoric and nothing of substance are growing shorter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A prime example of the predictable Christian Creationist denial of reality, that is a necessary appurtenance of their faith: if a post fully refutes a Christian Creationist's lies and retarded assertions, then they are just "... rhetoric and nothing of substance."
Click to expand...


If you think your posts refute ID, you are more delusional than I previously thought.


----------



## koshergrl

Loki doesn't think anything. One glimpse at his posts should tell you, it's all about posturing.


----------



## UltimateReality

I noticed no one said anything about the DNA evidence for an African Eve.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> I noticed no one said anything about the DNA evidence for an African Eve.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atleast your posts full of rhetoric and nothing of substance are growing shorter.
> 
> 
> 
> A prime example of the predictable Christian Creationist denial of reality, that is a necessary appurtenance of their faith: if a post fully refutes a Christian Creationist's lies and retarded assertions, then they are just "... rhetoric and nothing of substance."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think your posts refute ID, you are more delusional than I previously thought.
Click to expand...

No. My posts refute the manifestly dumbass assertions you and your retarded tribe post as refutations of the Theory of Evolution.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Loki doesn't think anything. One glimpse at his posts should tell you, it's all about posturing.


IronyLOLs!


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the obvious fact that the theory of evolution has progressed greatly since Darwin first wrote Origin of Species, this post is filled with ridiculous assertions..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a matter of opinion. I wouldn't call numerous holes being punched in the theory by modern scientific discoveries progression.
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, natural selection is not an intelligence.  It does not detect anything.  It does not throw things away or keep anything.  It is a term describing the process whereby creatures which are better able to survive for whatever reasons do so, and therefor procreate and propagate their species, while those lesser able to survive do not.  It describes a NATURAL process, not something driven by intelligence.  To describe this process as though it is an intelligent being sorting through the world's creatures and keeping those it prefers is either disingenuous or ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last two words here aptly describe your total inability to grasp the sarcastic point I was making about Natural Selection, i.e., the assertion by Darwinists it is some personified force capable of miracles. I was just regurgitating the idiotic claims of Darwinists regarding NS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, no one is claiming anything about minor cosmetic changes being the driving force behind natural selection.  To say that anyone believes 'On the road from Ape to human, the inbetweener died because someone noticed his brow bone protruded one millimeter less or they may have noticed he had two more hair folicles than his more advanced friend.' is, once again, either dishonest or a complete misinterpretation of evolutionary theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when is a larger brain a cosmetic change??? Complete misinterpretation of evolutionary theory? Really. So you are disputing the claim that somewhere between the early hominids, claimed to be ancestors of homo sapien by your Darwinist spin doctors, and homo sapien himself, there did not exist a species that was a single gradual step between the two distinct hominids at specific points in earth's history that had an a) smaller brain? b) more body hair? and c) a larger brow bone? Come on man, are you that dense?? According to TOE, even though we don't have any evidence of this transitional hominid, are you claiming there were no intermediate steps? I think in your assertion of my so called foolishness and ignorance, someone other than me has been revealed as the real fool.
> 
> Skhul and Qafzeh hominids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Here is an article that avoids the ASSumptive language of you clowns here and correctly uses terms like "may have" and "probably", since all the things you all state as fact can't be proven by the evidence at hand.
> 
> human species, origins of
> 
> You can deny the Bible, but don't you think it odd it has not really been contradicted by science? I think you will find that very few Christians subscribe to the "young earth" theory. Moses is the widely accepted author of Genesis. The Creation story was more than likely handed down by the oral tradition for thousands of years (maybe even 200,000 years) and Moses was just the first guy to write the stories passed down by the elders down on paper...
> 
> "Analysis of DNA in recent human populations suggests that H. sapiens originated about 200,000 years ago in Africa from a single female ancestor, Eve."
> 
> The whole lucy wishful thinking fiasco makes me wonder if an marterialistic paleontologists can be trusted not to fill in the blanks with info that supports their dying theory.
> 
> THE ERRORS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES BOOKLET
Click to expand...


Wow, and you continue!

Notice how I specifically quoted you saying a millimeter smaller brow and two more hair folicles?  Notice how I didn't include what you said about increased brain matter in that same post?  And yet here you are, claiming that's exactly what I did talk about.  

I would like to see instances of proponents of evolutionary theory claiming natural selection is a 'personified force'.  

Look, if you want to argue or refute my posts, that's fine; I'd appreciate it if you actually attempted to do that, rather than arguing against your own assumptions and interpretations of what I write.  I in no way refuted anything about the theory of evolution.  I merely pointed out the foolishness of your statement that 'On the road from Ape to human, the inbetweener died because someone noticed his brow bone protruded one millimeter less or they may have noticed he had two more hair folicles than his more advanced friend.'  Who is the 'someone' that 'noticed' the brow bone protruding one millimeter less, who is the 'someone' that 'noticed' two more hair folicles?  Or should I assume this is more sarcasm on your part, more of you projecting ideas onto 'Darwinists' that you have no evidence they claim?


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me share with you an article on neanderthal man that's causing me to pause On the idea that neanderthal man was a product of deformity. It also presents an argument agains't them being a human that evolved but devolved.
> 
> Go into it with an open mind and consider the explanation. There is evidence to support the argument.
> 
> Are Neanderthals the MISSING LINK between Man and apes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing the point. I know that the Bible -- or, rather, its loose enough interpretation -- can explain Neanderthals and anything else we know about the world around us. And not a long time ago it was the best explanation -- but not anymore.
> 
> The goal of the Theory of Evolution is to explain how the humans first appeared on  this planet without involving God and his miracles. And it has been hugely successful at that -- and in particular thanks to finding the remains of Neanderthals and other transitional species. And because of the success of the Theory of Evolution we have more reasons to believe that the Bible is not a divine gift, but a collections of myth and stories written by ancient people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the problem,your presuppositions eliminate the possibility of the designer.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't. It just shows that the intelligent life was bound to appear even in the absence of a designer.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA just spontaneously generated itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No -- first much simpler RNA molecules appeared. Then the combine into DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...


Can't you google?
Life&#8217;s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do the VERY, VERY, VERY slightly changed species know to kill off the unchanged species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do not kill off the unchanged species, at least not directly. But the offspring of the unchanged species has a VERY VERY slightly lower chance of surviving. Or they produce slightly less offspring. Over time (thousand generations) these factors lead to a complete replacement of the original species with the more advanced ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't get it. Transitional organisms should have been better adapted to the enviornment if they were to pass on their traits ,get it ?
Click to expand...


So?


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So RNA spontaneously generated itself. Whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they have reproduced this in the lab not long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize what they needed was an enviornment absent of oxygen and had electricity,and it was intelligence that actually performed the experiment ?
Click to expand...


All they did was re-creating the environment that was present then.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> There is no way DNA molecules could have formed with oxygen present



That is what baffles me. Like before shouting "A-ha!", have you even tried to think it out? Why do you believe that of all things it was the presence of oxygen that should have prevented DNA from assembling itself?


----------



## Photonic

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way DNA molecules could have formed with oxygen present
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what baffles me. Like before shouting "A-ha!", have you even tried to think it out? Why do you believe that of all things it was the presence of oxygen that should have prevented DNA from assembling itself?
Click to expand...


Especially since every study done indicates that Earth did not form oxygen until the appearance of cyanobacteria.


----------



## ilia25

Photonic said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way DNA molecules could have formed with oxygen present
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what baffles me. Like before shouting "A-ha!", have you even tried to think it out? Why do you believe that of all things it was the presence of oxygen that should have prevented DNA from assembling itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Especially since every study done indicates that Earth did not form oxygen until the appearance of cyanobacteria.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's why I was wondering! There is no way the guy did any research whatsoever before suggesting that nonsense about oxygen. It's like he is just throwing random words at the wall hoping that something would stick.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So RNA spontaneously generated itself. Whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they have reproduced this in the lab not long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize what they needed was an enviornment absent of oxygen and had electricity,and it was intelligence that actually performed the experiment ?
Click to expand...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOljew9j4Rk"]Youwerecreated or UltimateReality? Both?[/ame]


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> I noticed no one said anything about the DNA evidence for an African Eve.



What would you want to hear? The whole idea of finding historical/scientific confirmation of the Bible story is a nonsense. If you believe in God, you don't need any scientific proof.

"The God created the world the way it is and not the other because He knows better" -- and that gives you both complete and self-consistent explanation for anything and everything.

It is also true, that to many people the explanation above feels deeply unsatisfactory. We want to create a model of the world that is based on facts logic and can, therefore, give us useful predictions that we can trust. We need it so we can make the world a better place.


----------



## daws101

Exploring Life's Origins: A Timeline of Life's Evolution


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are disputing the claim that somewhere between the early hominids, claimed to be ancestors of homo sapien by your Darwinist spin doctors, and homo sapien himself, there did not exist a species that was a single gradual step between the two distinct hominids at specific points in earth's history that had an a) smaller brain? b) more body hair? and c) a larger brow bone?
Click to expand...


Like how you conveniently dodged this question. You are like Loki... a bunch of words and no substance.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed no one said anything about the DNA evidence for an African Eve.
Click to expand...


ahhh. A classic Darwinist blunder.. confuse adaptation with the real meaing of the word evolution, i.e. a claim a species can move from a less complexity to more complexity.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they have reproduced this in the lab not long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize what they needed was an enviornment absent of oxygen and had electricity,and it was intelligence that actually performed the experiment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOljew9j4Rk"]Youwerecreated or UltimateReality? Both?[/ame]
Click to expand...


What was the point in posting up such an ignorant video. No wonder you use so many flowery words to say absolutely nothing!! You've been listening to this clown for too long. He seems very impressed with himself but manages never to provide any real answers to the questions. What does neo-Darwinism teach if it doesn't teach that everything alive today came from a common ancestor. Someone please explain to me just how far back the TOE goes. I mean, what is the common ancestor?? A fish? An Amoeba? A Trilobite? An E'Coli? A Monkey? I mean, what does TOE claim is the first Turtle?? 

"A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed no one said anything about the DNA evidence for an African Eve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would you want to hear? The whole idea of finding historical/scientific confirmation of the Bible story is a nonsense. If you believe in God, you don't need any scientific proof.
> 
> "The God created the world the way it is and not the other because He knows better" -- and that gives you both complete and self-consistent explanation for anything and everything.
> 
> It is also true, that to many people the explanation above feels deeply unsatisfactory. We want to create a model of the world that is based on facts logic and can, therefore, give us useful predictions that we can trust. We need it so we can make the world a better place.
Click to expand...


This is funny. Your theory has no foundation for ethics. What is a "better place"?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI[/ame]


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed no one said anything about the DNA evidence for an African Eve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would you want to hear? The whole idea of finding historical/scientific confirmation of the Bible story is a nonsense. If you believe in God, you don't need any scientific proof.
> 
> "The God created the world the way it is and not the other because He knows better" -- and that gives you both complete and self-consistent explanation for anything and everything.
> 
> It is also true, that to many people the explanation above feels deeply unsatisfactory. We want to create a model of the world that is based on facts logic and can, therefore, give us useful predictions that we can trust. We need it so we can make the world a better place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is funny. Your theory has no foundation for ethics. What is a "better place"?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI]Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

*=* 





LOLsome.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible gets it right by accident, you just ignore or rationalize away those instances it's unmistakably wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for you to back your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly the Earth is not flat (resting on foundations) with a solid dome (with windows to let out the waters of the firmament) over it.
Click to expand...


Clearly you once again don't know what you are talking about. It was not just Christians who believed it.

It actually is a myth from a few Christians that your side used as evidence to put all Christians in one group on this issue.

Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth | MandM

The Myth of the Flat Earth

Myth of the Flat Earth

Who invented the idea of a flat Earth?

 Still waiting.


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed no one said anything about the DNA evidence for an African Eve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would you want to hear? The whole idea of finding historical/scientific confirmation of the Bible story is a nonsense. If you believe in God, you don't need any scientific proof.
> 
> "The God created the world the way it is and not the other because He knows better" -- and that gives you both complete and self-consistent explanation for anything and everything.
> 
> It is also true, that to many people the explanation above feels deeply unsatisfactory. We want to create a model of the world that is based on facts logic and can, therefore, give us useful predictions that we can trust. We need it so we can make the world a better place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is funny. Your theory has no foundation for ethics. What is a "better place"?
Click to expand...


Would you please stop making ridiculous claims? A better place is a place where people feel less pain and more pleasure. You do not need God's teachings to feel the difference.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> A prime example of the predictable Christian Creationist denial of reality, that is a necessary appurtenance of their faith: if a post fully refutes a Christian Creationist's lies and retarded assertions, then they are just "... rhetoric and nothing of substance."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think your posts refute ID, you are more delusional than I previously thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. My posts refute the manifestly dumbass assertions you and your retarded tribe post as refutations of the Theory of Evolution.
Click to expand...


No your posts show you as an ignorant Ideologue.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are disputing the claim that somewhere between the early hominids, claimed to be ancestors of homo sapien by your Darwinist spin doctors, and homo sapien himself, there did not exist a species that was a single gradual step between the two distinct hominids at specific points in earth's history that had an a) smaller brain? b) more body hair? and c) a larger brow bone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like how you conveniently dodged this question. You are like Loki... a bunch of words and no substance.
Click to expand...


I didn't dodge anything.  As I said, I never made any such statement, I never disputed anything of the sort.  I very specifically pointed out the apparent flaws in your statements about minor cosmetic changes (two hair folicles!).  You are attempting to add meaning to my posts that does not exist in order to further your argument.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing the point. I know that the Bible -- or, rather, its loose enough interpretation -- can explain Neanderthals and anything else we know about the world around us. And not a long time ago it was the best explanation -- but not anymore.
> 
> The goal of the Theory of Evolution is to explain how the humans first appeared on  this planet without involving God and his miracles. And it has been hugely successful at that -- and in particular thanks to finding the remains of Neanderthals and other transitional species. And because of the success of the Theory of Evolution we have more reasons to believe that the Bible is not a divine gift, but a collections of myth and stories written by ancient people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the problem,your presuppositions eliminate the possibility of the designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. It just shows that the intelligent life was bound to appear even in the absence of a designer.
Click to expand...



Nothing created gets better on it's own it is up to the designer to make things better. Your view defies logic.

Do you think my house or my car would get better if I didn't maintain them ? How bout my body ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think your posts refute ID, you are more delusional than I previously thought.
> 
> 
> 
> No. My posts refute the manifestly dumbass assertions you and your retarded tribe post as refutations of the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No your posts show you as an ignorant Ideologue.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You're just another superstitious retard without a single fact of reality in his arsenal, desperately trying to assert that magic is valid, and his belief is what determines what is real.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for you to back your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the Earth is not flat (resting on foundations) with a solid dome (with windows to let out the waters of the firmament) over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you once again don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> It actually is a myth from a few Christians that your side used as evidence to put all Christians in one group on this issue.
> 
> Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth | MandM
> 
> The Myth of the Flat Earth
> 
> Myth of the Flat Earth
> 
> Who invented the idea of a flat Earth?
> 
> Still waiting.
Click to expand...

speaking of myths:


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like how you conveniently dodged this question. You are like Loki... a bunch of words and no substance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't dodge anything.  As I said, I never made any such statement, I never disputed anything of the sort.  I very specifically pointed out the apparent flaws in your statements about minor cosmetic changes (two hair folicles!).  You are attempting to add meaning to my posts that does not exist in order to further your argument.
Click to expand...


Third dodge.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like how you conveniently dodged this question. You are like Loki... a bunch of words and no substance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't dodge anything.  As I said, I never made any such statement, I never disputed anything of the sort.  I very specifically pointed out the apparent flaws in your statements about minor cosmetic changes (two hair folicles!).  You are attempting to add meaning to my posts that does not exist in order to further your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third dodge.
Click to expand...

what's the question?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you want to hear? The whole idea of finding historical/scientific confirmation of the Bible story is a nonsense. If you believe in God, you don't need any scientific proof.
> 
> "The God created the world the way it is and not the other because He knows better" -- and that gives you both complete and self-consistent explanation for anything and everything.
> 
> It is also true, that to many people the explanation above feels deeply unsatisfactory. We want to create a model of the world that is based on facts logic and can, therefore, give us useful predictions that we can trust. We need it so we can make the world a better place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is funny. Your theory has no foundation for ethics. What is a "better place"?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI]Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *=*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOLsome.
Click to expand...


Hey, it was your boy in the video that said evolution has no foundation for ethics. Loki, do you find "proximal" meaning?


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> Nothing created gets better on it's own it is up to the designer to make things better. Your view defies logic.



What defies logic is your alleging that you never heard of the natural selection. Do you really think someone will believe it?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for you to back your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the Earth is not flat (resting on foundations) with a solid dome (with windows to let out the waters of the firmament) over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you once again don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> It actually is a myth from a few Christians that your side used as evidence to put all Christians in one group on this issue.
> 
> Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth | MandM
> 
> The Myth of the Flat Earth
> 
> Myth of the Flat Earth
> 
> Who invented the idea of a flat Earth?
> 
> Still waiting.
Click to expand...

again that's bullshit ALL CULTURES BELIEVED THE EARTH WAS FLAT AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER .
FOR CHRISTIANITY IT ONLY BECAME ROUND AFTER COLUMBUS AND THE POPE SAID IT WAS.
IT'S laughable that people who claim to be christians, don't know shit about what they purport is the truth!


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing created gets better on it's own it is up to the designer to make things better. Your view defies logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What defies logic is your alleging that you never heard of the natural selection. Do you really think someone will believe it?
Click to expand...


Do you understand the difference between vertical and horizontal? Your claims for NS defy logic.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are disputing the claim that somewhere between the early hominids, claimed to be ancestors of homo sapien by your Darwinist spin doctors, and homo sapien himself, there did not exist a species that was a single gradual step between the two distinct hominids at specific points in earth's history that had an a) smaller brain? b) more body hair? and c) a larger brow bone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like how you conveniently dodged this question. You are like Loki... a bunch of words and no substance.
Click to expand...

Seriously dude? Then step up.

Youwerecreated asked all of his dumb questions, and I answered them ... repeatedly. His only rebuttal is a denial of reality. He just can't accept that he's been thoroughly punked.

This is your chance. Ask away. Let me have them ALL!

But before you start, let me give you a heads up on what will simply not work:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQQrTZ1x2EM"]The regular Shit You Asshats Post Will Not Work[/ame]
Remember: What will not work is you submitting your-made-up-nonsense, and then proving that your-made-up-nonsense is made-up-nonsense, and then saying that doing so somehow refutes anything I assert. My answer to your-made-up-nonsense is that no one but you and your retarded tribe believes that I or anyone else asserts your-made-up-nonsense. OK ?

Rock out or STFU!
I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​


----------



## daws101

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing created gets better on it's own it is up to the designer to make things better. Your view defies logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What defies logic is your alleging that you never heard of the natural selection. Do you really think someone will believe it?
Click to expand...

in his cult they all do!


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No -- first much simpler RNA molecules appeared. Then the combine into DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't you google?
> Life&#8217;s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com
Click to expand...


You may need google but I don't.

Ok let me point out once again the problem with your so called evidence. It was done in a lab.it didn't prove it could form life.  it was done by intelligent human beings. They the intelligent beings do not know what the earth was like when they say this supposedly happened. Really life was formed in warm water where ? well you have a major problem because RNA and DNA are soluble in water oops.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do not kill off the unchanged species, at least not directly. But the offspring of the unchanged species has a VERY VERY slightly lower chance of surviving. Or they produce slightly less offspring. Over time (thousand generations) these factors lead to a complete replacement of the original species with the more advanced ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it. Transitional organisms should have been better adapted to the enviornment if they were to pass on their traits ,get it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?
Click to expand...


Why are we having this discussion when you don't see the importance of my question ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they have reproduced this in the lab not long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize what they needed was an enviornment absent of oxygen and had electricity,and it was intelligence that actually performed the experiment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All they did was re-creating the environment that was present then.
Click to expand...


How would they know that ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way DNA molecules could have formed with oxygen present
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what baffles me. Like before shouting "A-ha!", have you even tried to think it out? Why do you believe that of all things it was the presence of oxygen that should have prevented DNA from assembling itself?
Click to expand...


Because without oxygen there would be no life,cells need oxygen.


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing created gets better on it's own it is up to the designer to make things better. Your view defies logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What defies logic is your alleging that you never heard of the natural selection. Do you really think someone will believe it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between vertical and horizontal? Your claims for NS defy logic.
Click to expand...


That's how it always ends -- you have nothing to say, so you reply with random words.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Photonic said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way DNA molecules could have formed with oxygen present
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what baffles me. Like before shouting "A-ha!", have you even tried to think it out? Why do you believe that of all things it was the presence of oxygen that should have prevented DNA from assembling itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Especially since every study done indicates that Earth did not form oxygen until the appearance of cyanobacteria.
Click to expand...


Oxygen was needed for life that is why we needed a designer.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way DNA molecules could have formed with oxygen present
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what baffles me. Like before shouting "A-ha!", have you even tried to think it out? Why do you believe that of all things it was the presence of oxygen that should have prevented DNA from assembling itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because without oxygen there would be no life,cells need oxygen.
Click to expand...


No -- plants do not need oxygen.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what baffles me. Like before shouting "A-ha!", have you even tried to think it out? Why do you believe that of all things it was the presence of oxygen that should have prevented DNA from assembling itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially since every study done indicates that Earth did not form oxygen until the appearance of cyanobacteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oxygen was needed for life that is why we needed a designer.
Click to expand...


Oxygen is not needed for life, it is a byproduct of photosynthetic plants and bacteria. Only after they filled the Earth atmosphere with oxygen some other living things had evolved to make use of it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing created gets better on it's own it is up to the designer to make things better. Your view defies logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What defies logic is your alleging that you never heard of the natural selection. Do you really think someone will believe it?
Click to expand...


When did I say that


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way DNA molecules could have formed with oxygen present
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what baffles me. Like before shouting "A-ha!", have you even tried to think it out? Why do you believe that of all things it was the presence of oxygen that should have prevented DNA from assembling itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because without oxygen there would be no life,cells need oxygen.
Click to expand...

(cue buzzer) wrong the first life on earth was anaerobic :  living, active, occurring, or existing in the absence of free oxygen <anaerobic respiration> <anaerobic bacteria> b : of, relating to, or being activity in which the body incurs an oxygen debt <anaerobic exercise> 

Eubacteria and Archaebacteria: the oldest forms of life
Written by Dr. T. M. Wassenaar 
Tuesday, 06 January 2009 


Bacteria have an extremely important place in the evolution of life. Our knowledge of bacteria helps us understand, observe, and investigate evolution. This exhibits explains what we know about the origin of life on Earth and the role bacteria played and still play in this. As described in this Lecture on the Origin of Life all life originated from a common ancestor (Source: UTDallas). Our other exhibit explains how we can observe mutations in bacteria directly. 
Archaeabacteria are a diverse group of bacteria (prokaryotes that do not have a nucleus) and are considered a major group unto themselves. This group is called the Archaea (from Greek, 'old') for short and to distinguish them from the other prokaryotes, all other bacteria are then called Eubacteria.

What are Archaea? They look like bacteria and are genetically similar to bacteria, but in some aspect they are more similar to eukaryotes than to bacteria. For instance, their cell-wall does not contain peptidoglycan (a component of each bacterial cell). There are other characteristics that Archaea share with eukaryotes, however they do not have a nucleus (which all Eukaryotes have). They form a group by themselves. 
All prokaryotes thus belong to  either the Eubacteria or the Archaebacteria; what is the difference? Add the domain of the eukaryotic organisms (protists, fungi, plants, and animals) and you can classify all living organisms on Earth. Archaebacteria emerged at least 3.5 billion years ago and are amongst the oldest life forms.There are several theories about the exact phylogenetic relationship (what was derived from what) between archaea, eukaryotes, and eubacteria, as can be seen in two versions of the Tree-of-Life. New insights dictate that eubacteria and archaebacteria diverged from one another near the time of the origin of life, and that eukaryotes were derived from archaea that had eubacteria living inside them. 
Let's ignore the details. Important is that bacteria (Eu and Archae) have been on earth much longer than eukaryotes; they are probably the oldest forms of life and have populated Earth for most of the time our planet exists. Going back in evolutionary history, the Archaea evolved some 3500 million years ago. Fossiles are mostly not quite as old as that, but occasionally we do find bacterial fossiles. Compare that to the age of the first eukaryotes, 1800 million years ago, or the first animals, 600 million years. Earth is truly the planet of bacteria in this respect!

Eubacteria and Archaebacteria: the oldest forms of life | Evolution

Pink Lake
Why Call a Green Lake Pink?
In spite of its name, this lake is not pink. It inherited its name from a family who settled in the region in 1826. 

What Exactly Is a Meromictic Lake?
In most lakes, the water mixes completely each year during the spring and fall, under the influence of water density, water and air temperature, and the wind; nutrients and oxygen are distributed evenly.

However, because of it's sheltered position (surrounded by steep cliffs that protect it from the wind) and its shape (small surface area, average depth and bowl-like shape), the lakes waters do not mix. This is why it is called meromictic. Of particular note is the fact that the deepest seven metres of the lake remain without oxygen. 

Life in the Lake
In the depths of the lake, an anaerobic prehistoric organism has been able to survive. It is a pink photosynthetic bacterium that uses sulphur instead of oxygen when it transforms sunlight into energy. To maximize the amount of light it captures, without being in contact with oxygen, the colony forms a dense layer that floats seven metres from the bottom. 

After the glaciers melted, the region was covered by an arm of the Atlantic Ocean: the Champlain Sea. When it retreated it left the three-spined stickleback. This little saltwater fish (three to five centimetres long) adapted slowly to the lakes gradual desalination. In fact, it adapted so well that today it lives in the fresh water of the lake. Desalination usually takes about thirty years. However, Pink Lake is fed only by runoff waters (unique in its watershed area), and so its desalination took place over three thousand years! 
Source: Discover Ottawa & Gatineau | Canada's Capital Region...


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what baffles me. Like before shouting "A-ha!", have you even tried to think it out? Why do you believe that of all things it was the presence of oxygen that should have prevented DNA from assembling itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because without oxygen there would be no life,cells need oxygen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No -- plants do not need oxygen.
Click to expand...


That is correct your point ?


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it. Transitional organisms should have been better adapted to the enviornment if they were to pass on their traits ,get it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are we having this discussion when you don't see the importance of my question ?
Click to expand...


Your question did not make sense to me, so I asked you to elaborate on that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the Earth is not flat (resting on foundations) with a solid dome (with windows to let out the waters of the firmament) over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you once again don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> It actually is a myth from a few Christians that your side used as evidence to put all Christians in one group on this issue.
> 
> Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth | MandM
> 
> The Myth of the Flat Earth
> 
> Myth of the Flat Earth
> 
> Who invented the idea of a flat Earth?
> 
> Still waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again that's bullshit ALL CULTURES BELIEVED THE EARTH WAS FLAT AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER .
> FOR CHRISTIANITY IT ONLY BECAME ROUND AFTER COLUMBUS AND THE POPE SAID IT WAS.
> IT'S laughable that people who claim to be christians, don't know shit about what they purport is the truth!
Click to expand...


I guess you can't read.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing created gets better on it's own it is up to the designer to make things better. Your view defies logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What defies logic is your alleging that you never heard of the natural selection. Do you really think someone will believe it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I say that
Click to expand...

you said it and implied it, your belief system denies it and you spew it..what more do you need.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you once again don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> It actually is a myth from a few Christians that your side used as evidence to put all Christians in one group on this issue.
> 
> Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth | MandM
> 
> The Myth of the Flat Earth
> 
> Myth of the Flat Earth
> 
> Who invented the idea of a flat Earth?
> 
> Still waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> again that's bullshit ALL CULTURES BELIEVED THE EARTH WAS FLAT AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER .
> FOR CHRISTIANITY IT ONLY BECAME ROUND AFTER COLUMBUS AND THE POPE SAID IT WAS.
> IT'S laughable that people who claim to be christians, don't know shit about what they purport is the truth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you can't read.
Click to expand...

funny, coming from you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like how you conveniently dodged this question. You are like Loki... a bunch of words and no substance.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously dude? Then step up.
> 
> Youwerecreated asked all of his dumb questions, and I answered them ... repeatedly. His only rebuttal is a denial of reality. He just can't accept that he's been thoroughly punked.
> 
> This is your chance. Ask away. Let me have them ALL!
> 
> But before you start, let me give you a heads up on what will simply not work:
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQQrTZ1x2EM"]The regular Shit You Asshats Post Will Not Work[/ame]
> Remember: What will not work is you submitting your-made-up-nonsense, and then proving that your-made-up-nonsense is made-up-nonsense, and then saying that doing so somehow refutes anything I assert. My answer to your-made-up-nonsense is that no one but you and your retarded tribe believes that I or anyone else asserts your-made-up-nonsense. OK ?
> 
> Rock out or STFU!
> I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​
Click to expand...


Uh oh someone is getting testy because he is getting schooled. LOLsome


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because without oxygen there would be no life,cells need oxygen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No -- plants do not need oxygen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct your point ?
Click to expand...


My point is that your claim there would be no life w/o oxygen is false, to put it mildly. Just as your earlier claim that DNA could not appear on its own in the presence of oxygen.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pink Lake
> Why Call a Green Lake Pink?
> In spite of its name, this lake is not pink. It inherited its name from a family who settled in the region in 1826.
> 
> What Exactly Is a Meromictic Lake?
> In most lakes, the water mixes completely each year during the spring and fall, under the influence of water density, water and air temperature, and the wind; nutrients and oxygen are distributed evenly.
> 
> However, because of it's sheltered position (surrounded by steep cliffs that protect it from the wind) and its shape (small surface area, average depth and bowl-like shape), the lakes waters do not mix. This is why it is called meromictic. Of particular note is the fact that the deepest seven metres of the lake remain without oxygen.
> 
> Life in the Lake
> In the depths of the lake, an anaerobic prehistoric organism has been able to survive. It is a pink photosynthetic bacterium that uses sulphur instead of oxygen when it transforms sunlight into energy. To maximize the amount of light it captures, without being in contact with oxygen, the colony forms a dense layer that floats seven metres from the bottom.
> 
> After the glaciers melted, the region was covered by an arm of the Atlantic Ocean: the Champlain Sea. When it retreated it left the three-spined stickleback. This little saltwater fish (three to five centimetres long) adapted slowly to the lakes gradual desalination. In fact, it adapted so well that today it lives in the fresh water of the lake. Desalination usually takes about thirty years. However, Pink Lake is fed only by runoff waters (unique in its watershed area), and so its desalination took place over three thousand years!
> Source: Discover Ottawa & Gatineau | Canada's Capital Region...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No -- plants do not need oxygen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct your point ?
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like how you conveniently dodged this question. You are like Loki... a bunch of words and no substance.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously dude? Then step up.
> 
> Youwerecreated asked all of his dumb questions, and I answered them ... repeatedly. His only rebuttal is a denial of reality. He just can't accept that he's been thoroughly punked.
> 
> This is your chance. Ask away. Let me have them ALL!
> 
> But before you start, let me give you a heads up on what will simply not work:
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQQrTZ1x2EM"]The regular Shit You Asshats Post Will Not Work[/ame]
> Remember: What will not work is you submitting your-made-up-nonsense, and then proving that your-made-up-nonsense is made-up-nonsense, and then saying that doing so somehow refutes anything I assert. My answer to your-made-up-nonsense is that no one but you and your retarded tribe believes that I or anyone else asserts your-made-up-nonsense. OK ?
> 
> Rock out or STFU!
> I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh someone is getting testy because he is getting schooled. LOLsome
Click to expand...

by who?you! that's a lie you like to tell yourself .
like the one where you have a 12" dick!


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize what they needed was an enviornment absent of oxygen and had electricity,and it was intelligence that actually performed the experiment ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All they did was re-creating the environment that was present then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would they know that ?
Click to expand...


How would they know what? That the Sun shined back then? Or that there would be an occasional thunderstorm?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are we having this discussion when you don't see the importance of my question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your question did not make sense to me, so I asked you to elaborate on that.
Click to expand...


Because you claim there was no oxygen when life began DNA molecules cannot form in water nor with oxygen present they would decay like a body does when it dies. Oxygen speeds up all reactions...including decay so that is why the first cell containing DNA could not have formed on it's own.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again that's bullshit ALL CULTURES BELIEVED THE EARTH WAS FLAT AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER .
> FOR CHRISTIANITY IT ONLY BECAME ROUND AFTER COLUMBUS AND THE POPE SAID IT WAS.
> IT'S laughable that people who claim to be christians, don't know shit about what they purport is the truth!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you can't read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> funny, coming from you.
Click to expand...


By your answer you did not read or could not understand what you read so which is it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No -- plants do not need oxygen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that your claim there would be no life w/o oxygen is false, to put it mildly. Just as your earlier claim that DNA could not appear on its own in the presence of oxygen.
Click to expand...


You might need a few more classes before we go any further.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously dude? Then step up.
> 
> Youwerecreated asked all of his dumb questions, and I answered them ... repeatedly. His only rebuttal is a denial of reality. He just can't accept that he's been thoroughly punked.
> 
> This is your chance. Ask away. Let me have them ALL!
> 
> But before you start, let me give you a heads up on what will simply not work:
> The regular Shit You Asshats Post Will Not Work
> Remember: What will not work is you submitting your-made-up-nonsense, and then proving that your-made-up-nonsense is made-up-nonsense, and then saying that doing so somehow refutes anything I assert. My answer to your-made-up-nonsense is that no one but you and your retarded tribe believes that I or anyone else asserts your-made-up-nonsense. OK ?
> 
> Rock out or STFU!
> I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh someone is getting testy because he is getting schooled. LOLsome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> by who?you! that's a lie you like to tell yourself .
> like the one where you have a 12" dick!
Click to expand...


Grow up moron.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All they did was re-creating the environment that was present then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would they know that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would they know what? That the Sun shined back then? Or that there would be an occasional thunderstorm?
Click to expand...


The conditions of the earth ,that there was no oxygen present ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What defies logic is your alleging that you never heard of the natural selection. Do you really think someone will believe it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did I say that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you said it and implied it, your belief system denies it and you spew it..what more do you need.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Ok schools out,night.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> Because you claim there was no oxygen when life began DNA molecules cannot form in water nor with oxygen present they would decay



Um, I think I'd better refrain from commenting. I'm afraid nothing good would come from it


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like how you conveniently dodged this question. You are like Loki... a bunch of words and no substance.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously dude? Then step up.
> 
> Youwerecreated asked all of his dumb questions, and I answered them ... repeatedly. His only rebuttal is a denial of reality. He just can't accept that he's been thoroughly punked.
> 
> This is your chance. Ask away. Let me have them ALL!
> 
> But before you start, let me give you a heads up on what will simply not work:
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQQrTZ1x2EM"]The regular Shit You Asshats Post Will Not Work[/ame]
> Remember: What will not work is you submitting your-made-up-nonsense, and then proving that your-made-up-nonsense is made-up-nonsense, and then saying that doing so somehow refutes anything I assert. My answer to your-made-up-nonsense is that no one but you and your retarded tribe believes that I or anyone else asserts your-made-up-nonsense. OK ?
> 
> Rock out or STFU!
> I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh someone is getting testy because he is getting schooled. LOLsome
Click to expand...

Go back to huffing hairspray, retard. You've been thoroughly cooked.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> This is your chance. Ask away. Let me have them ALL!



You can start with answering the questions that he is dodging.


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What defies logic is your alleging that you never heard of the natural selection. Do you really think someone will believe it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between vertical and horizontal? Your claims for NS defy logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's how it always ends -- you have nothing to say, so you reply with random words.
Click to expand...


Now we are getting somewhere. Darwinist have been denying machine code in DNA for so long that now they are seeing actual perfectly structured english language questions as random words!!

A simple yes or no would suffice.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously dude? Then step up.
> 
> Youwerecreated asked all of his dumb questions, and I answered them ... repeatedly. His only rebuttal is a denial of reality. He just can't accept that he's been thoroughly punked.
> 
> This is your chance. Ask away. Let me have them ALL!
> 
> But before you start, let me give you a heads up on what will simply not work:
> The regular Shit You Asshats Post Will Not Work
> Remember: What will not work is you submitting your-made-up-nonsense, and then proving that your-made-up-nonsense is made-up-nonsense, and then saying that doing so somehow refutes anything I assert. My answer to your-made-up-nonsense is that no one but you and your retarded tribe believes that I or anyone else asserts your-made-up-nonsense. OK ?
> 
> Rock out or STFU!
> I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh someone is getting testy because he is getting schooled. LOLsome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> by who?you! that's a lie you like to tell yourself .
> like the one where you have a 12" dick!
Click to expand...


This is mature.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like how you conveniently dodged this question. You are like Loki... a bunch of words and no substance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't dodge anything.  As I said, I never made any such statement, I never disputed anything of the sort.  I very specifically pointed out the apparent flaws in your statements about minor cosmetic changes (two hair folicles!).  You are attempting to add meaning to my posts that does not exist in order to further your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third dodge.
Click to expand...


There was never a first dodge!  Are you honestly this dense?

You asked if I was disputing a claim.....I replied that I never disputed anything of the sort.  In other words, no, I am not disputing it.  In fact, I wasn't even discussing it!  You brought it up by ascribing beliefs or arguments to me I never put forward.  

If you want to once again claim I am dodging something, after I have yet again answered you, despite the fact the question has nothing to do with my original post to you, I certainly can't stop you.  It will simply be further evidence that you either cannot comprehend fairly simply posts, or that you are determined to push this straw man in hopes of 'winning'.  Either way it has nothing to do with what I've posted.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh someone is getting testy because he is getting schooled. LOLsome
> 
> 
> 
> by who?you! that's a lie you like to tell yourself .
> like the one where you have a 12" dick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is mature.
Click to expand...


I have to agree, this was pretty ridiculous.  I know this thread gets frustrating, but that was silly.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is your chance. Ask away. Let me have them ALL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can start with answering the questions that he is dodging.
Click to expand...


I believe these are the questions he is talking about :


			
				UltimateReality said:
			
		

> Since when is a larger brain a cosmetic change??? Complete misinterpretation of evolutionary theory? Really. So you are disputing the claim that somewhere between the early hominids, claimed to be ancestors of homo sapien by your Darwinist spin doctors, and homo sapien himself, there did not exist a species that was a single gradual step between the two distinct hominids at specific points in earth's history that had an a) smaller brain? b) more body hair? and c) a larger brow bone? Come on man, are you that dense?? According to TOE, even though we don't have any evidence of this transitional hominid, are you claiming there were no intermediate steps?



Of course, since I pretty clearly did not say a larger brain was cosmetic, instead it was the ridiculous 'millimeter smaller brow' and 'two hair folicles', the first question is moot.  I also didn't dispute or claim anything about evolutionary steps between modern humans and our ancestors. 

What began this, back on page 207 or thereabouts, was UR posting that something saw an ancestor of modern humans with a millimeter smaller brow, or with 2 more hair folicles, and decided to kill it off.  I replied that that post was ridiculous and a gross misrepresentation of evolutionary theory.  From that, somehow, we got to the quote above. 

*To be fair, he also said he was being sarcastic about at least some of the post I took issue with, but even if the whole thing was extremely poor sarcasm I think my point was still valid.  You can feel free to go look back at them and decide for yourself.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is your chance. Ask away. Let me have them ALL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can start with answering the questions that he is dodging.
Click to expand...

Post the question. Link to it.
I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously dude? Then step up.
> 
> Youwerecreated asked all of his dumb questions, and I answered them ... repeatedly. His only rebuttal is a denial of reality. He just can't accept that he's been thoroughly punked.
> 
> This is your chance. Ask away. Let me have them ALL!
> 
> But before you start, let me give you a heads up on what will simply not work:
> The regular Shit You Asshats Post Will Not Work
> Remember: What will not work is you submitting your-made-up-nonsense, and then proving that your-made-up-nonsense is made-up-nonsense, and then saying that doing so somehow refutes anything I assert. My answer to your-made-up-nonsense is that no one but you and your retarded tribe believes that I or anyone else asserts your-made-up-nonsense. OK ?
> 
> Rock out or STFU!
> I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh someone is getting testy because he is getting schooled. LOLsome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go back to huffing hairspray, retard. You've been thoroughly cooked.
Click to expand...


Blah blah blah.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you claim there was no oxygen when life began DNA molecules cannot form in water nor with oxygen present they would decay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, I think I'd better refrain from commenting. I'm afraid nothing good would come from it
Click to expand...


Let me point out another flaw in your thinking. You asserted that modern day humans evolved from neanderthals how is that since the neanderthals had larger brains ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you claim there was no oxygen when life began DNA molecules cannot form in water nor with oxygen present they would decay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, I think I'd better refrain from commenting. I'm afraid nothing good would come from it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me point out another flaw in your thinking. You asserted that modern day humans evolved from neanderthals how is that since the neanderthals had larger brains ?
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, I think I'd better refrain from commenting. I'm afraid nothing good would come from it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point out another flaw in your thinking. You asserted that modern day humans evolved from neanderthals how is that since the neanderthals had larger brains ?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Do you realize how dumb your posts are ?


----------



## koshergrl

There's nothing more pathetic than someone who truly believes that empty words can hide a lack of wit.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point out another flaw in your thinking. You asserted that modern day humans evolved from neanderthals how is that since the neanderthals had larger brains ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize how dumb your posts are ?
Click to expand...

Do you realize how dumb you have to be to miss the point?


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> There's nothing more pathetic than someone who truly believes that empty words can hide a lack of wit.


More ironyLOLs!


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially since every study done indicates that Earth did not form oxygen until the appearance of cyanobacteria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oxygen was needed for life that is why we needed a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oxygen is not needed for life, it is a byproduct of photosynthetic plants and bacteria. Only after they filled the Earth atmosphere with oxygen some other living things had evolved to make use of it.
Click to expand...


This statement shows complete ignorance and lack of understanding of the global climate system. In your scenario, the plants just continue releasing oxygen until there is no more carbon dioxide left and they die off. There are delicate symbiotic relationships that have been designed into the earth. Your explanation is an extremely oversimplified description which is typical of the fairy tales your side promotes.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't dodge anything.  As I said, I never made any such statement, I never disputed anything of the sort.  I very specifically pointed out the apparent flaws in your statements about minor cosmetic changes (two hair folicles!).  You are attempting to add meaning to my posts that does not exist in order to further your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was never a first dodge!  Are you honestly this dense?
> 
> You asked if I was disputing a claim.....I replied that I never disputed anything of the sort.  In other words, no, I am not disputing it.  In fact, I wasn't even discussing it!  You brought it up by ascribing beliefs or arguments to me I never put forward.
> 
> If you want to once again claim I am dodging something, after I have yet again answered you, despite the fact the question has nothing to do with my original post to you, I certainly can't stop you.  It will simply be further evidence that you either cannot comprehend fairly simply posts, or that you are determined to push this straw man in hopes of 'winning'.  Either way it has nothing to do with what I've posted.
Click to expand...


I'll tell you one thing I learned from my years in law enforcement is that you never argue with a drunk. I'm having a little dejavu here. You questioned the accuracy of my statements as they related to my understanding of your platform. I questioned how they were inaccurate and then you spewed a bunch of useless nouns and verbs and never answered anything. I'm done responding to Dodgers, oh and Yankees too.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is your chance. Ask away. Let me have them ALL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can start with answering the questions that he is dodging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post the question. Link to it.
> I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​
Click to expand...


Montrovant posted it directly above you. Since Darwinism is about gradual change over millions of years, my point was to go from a hairy, large brow-boned hominid to the modern form of homo sapien, the brow bone obviously had to shrink and body hair had to be lost. It is ridiculous to think that natural selection would weed these individuals out that had minor changes no other hominid would notice. The sarcasm is... would NS really eliminate what I call the "inbetweener", especially when he or she was in the early stages of being in between? Basically, logic has to throw Darwinism out because it just can't fit with the dating of the fossils we find and the lack of transitional fossils. What we find in nature is punctuated equilibrium. If we are to believe in evolutionary theory, we have to believe that massive structural changes happened to organisms in EXTREMELY short periods (in the big scheme of earth's history) and then just as quickly stopped happening. Homo Sapien appears on the scene suddenly. But where were his great, great grandparents to the nth power while they were transitioning from the ape like hominids evolutionists get all giddy about? Why is there so much evidence fossil evidence for Neandertal and Homo Sapien, but none of the transitional species that came from their common ancestor and why didn't the guy with a 1mm less brow bone and less hair survive when it would be preposterous to believe that nature, other hominids, or natural selection could tell them apart? If we are to believe evolutionary theory, what accelerated the changes needed to go from one very diverse species to another with no evidence of anything in between? If we follow Darwin's own writings, in light of this evidence, we have to throw out his theory because the gradual change doesn't fit. It doesn't fit with the fossil record, and if we follow the hard line about random genetic mutations causing the species to have more "fitness" we can't logically explain the rapid change and abrupt stasis we find. 

There it is, all in black and white, for you folks that totally missed the sarcastic simplified version. Doh!!!


----------



## LOki

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like how you conveniently dodged this question. You are like Loki... a bunch of words and no substance.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously dude? Then step up.
> 
> Youwerecreated asked all of his dumb questions, and I answered them ... repeatedly. His only rebuttal is a denial of reality. He just can't accept that he's been thoroughly punked.
> 
> This is your chance. Ask away. Let me have them ALL!
> 
> But before you start, let me give you a heads up on what will simply not work:
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQQrTZ1x2EM"]The regular Shit You Asshats Post Will Not Work[/ame]
> Remember: What will not work is you submitting your-made-up-nonsense, and then proving that your-made-up-nonsense is made-up-nonsense, and then saying that doing so somehow refutes anything I assert. My answer to your-made-up-nonsense is that no one but you and your retarded tribe believes that I or anyone else asserts your-made-up-nonsense. OK ?
> 
> Rock out or STFU!
> I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​
Click to expand...

It seems rather obvious at this point that prohibiting you from posing questions premised upon your-made-up-nonsense also prohibits you from re-post these questions you claim are being "dodged."


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can start with answering the questions that he is dodging.
> 
> 
> 
> Post the question. Link to it.
> I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Montrovant posted it directly above you. Since Darwinism is about gradual change over millions of years, my point was to go from a hairy, large brow-boned hominid to the modern form of homo sapien, the brow bone obviously had to shrink and body hair had to be lost. It is ridiculous to think that natural selection would weed these individuals out that had minor changes no other hominid would notice. The sarcasm is... would NS really eliminate what I call the "inbetweener", especially when he or she was in the early stages of being in between? Basically, logic has to throw Darwinism out because it just can't fit with the dating of the fossils we find and the lack of transitional fossils. What we find in nature is punctuated equilibrium. If we are to believe in evolutionary theory, we have to believe that massive structural changes happened to organisms in EXTREMELY short periods (in the big scheme of earth's history) and then just as quickly stopped happening. Homo Sapien appears on the scene suddenly. But where were his great, great grandparents to the nth power while they were transitioning from the ape like hominids evolutionists get all giddy about? Why is there so much evidence fossil evidence for Neandertal and Homo Sapien, but none of the transitional species that came from their common ancestor and why didn't the guy with a 1mm less brow bone and less hair survive when it would be preposterous to believe that nature, other hominids, or natural selection could tell them apart? If we are to believe evolutionary theory, what accelerated the changes needed to go from one very diverse species to another with no evidence of anything in between? If we follow Darwin's own writings, in light of this evidence, we have to throw out his theory because the gradual change doesn't fit. It doesn't fit with the fossil record, and if we follow the hard line about random genetic mutations causing the species to have more "fitness" we can't logically explain the rapid change and abrupt stasis we find.
> 
> There it is, all in black and white, for you folks that totally missed the sarcastic simplified version. Doh!!!
Click to expand...

Clearly you ask rhetorical questions (premised upon your-made-up-nonsense strawman version of evolutionary theory), but are you asking questions you actually expect answers for? If so, why don't you just level up and post them like an intellectually honest person?


----------



## koshergrl

made up nonsense strawman version...

What on earth would someone who uses such an idiotic phrase know about the "intellectual honesty" that he keeps carping about?


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> made up nonsense strawman version...
> 
> What on earth would someone who uses such an idiotic phrase know about the "intellectual honesty" that he keeps carping about?


Someone who does not present a refutation of a misrepresentation of an assertion to be a refutation of the actual assertion; someone who does not edit the quotes to create the illusion that the source cited agrees with their conclusions when they clearly don't; someone who does not engage in the ad-hominem logical fallacy to support their position, is someone who practices intellectual honesty and might know quite a bit about intellectual honesty.

The real question koshergrl, is what on earth would *you* know about it?PREDICTION: koshergrl (and others of her retarded tribe) will seize upon this citing my use of the term "retarded" as an example. What they will prove they fail to understand is that an ad-hominem attack is not the same thing as an ad-hominem argument. An ad-hominem attack may be impolite, but it's not necessarily invalid since it can be a conclusion that follows from valid premises. The ad-hominem argument is what koshergrl engages in--she asserts that I'm an idiot, and then declares from that position that anything I post is idiotic.​


----------



## koshergrl

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> made up nonsense strawman version...
> 
> What on earth would someone who uses such an idiotic phrase know about the "intellectual honesty" that he keeps carping about?
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who does not present a refutation of a misrepresentation of an assertion to be a refutation of the actual assertion; someone who does not edit the quotes to create the illusion that the source cited agrees with their conclusions when they clearly don't; someone who does not engage in the ad-hominem logical fallacy to support their position, is someone who practices intellectual honesty and might know quite a bit about intellectual honesty.
> 
> The real question koshergrl, is what on earth would *you* know about it?
> PREDICTION: koshergrl (and others of her retarded tribe) will seize upon this citing my use of the term "retarded" as an example. What they will prove they fail to understand is that an ad-hominem attack is not the same thing as an ad-hominem argument. An ad-hominem attack may be impolite, but it's not necessarily invalid since it can be a conclusion that follows from valid premises. The ad-hominem argument is what koshergrl engages in--she asserts that I'm an idiot, and then declares from that position that anything I post is idiotic.​
Click to expand...

 


Surely you know the extent of your idiocy. At this point I have to believe you're just being silly. Nobody is that bad a writer, or that incredibly stupid.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> made up nonsense strawman version...
> 
> What on earth would someone who uses such an idiotic phrase know about the "intellectual honesty" that he keeps carping about?
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who does not present a refutation of a misrepresentation of an assertion to be a refutation of the actual assertion; someone who does not edit the quotes to create the illusion that the source cited agrees with their conclusions when they clearly don't; someone who does not engage in the ad-hominem logical fallacy to support their position, is someone who practices intellectual honesty and might know quite a bit about intellectual honesty.
> 
> The real question koshergrl, is what on earth would *you* know about it?
> PREDICTION: koshergrl (and others of her retarded tribe) will seize upon this citing my use of the term "retarded" as an example. What they will prove they fail to understand is that an ad-hominem attack is not the same thing as an ad-hominem argument. An ad-hominem attack may be impolite, but it's not necessarily invalid since it can be a conclusion that follows from valid premises. *The ad-hominem argument is what koshergrl engages in--she asserts that I'm an idiot, and then declares from that position that anything I post is idiotic.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you know the extent of your idiocy. At this point I have to believe you're just being silly. Nobody is that bad a writer, or that incredibly stupid.
Click to expand...

I nailed half of that one.


----------



## koshergrl

Sooo...you're going back and changing what you are quoted saying, and pretending that it means something?


----------



## koshergrl

I think there might be a rule against that.


----------



## HUGGY

There is no god...therefore no creation.

That is all.


----------



## koshergrl

That's right, everybody has always existed.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you can't read.
> 
> 
> 
> funny, coming from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your answer you did not read or could not understand what you read so which is it ?
Click to expand...

it's neither.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> That's right, everybody has always existed.


what proof do you have that we haven't?
about the same as god existing.
 the Mormons believe that "we" were all in a heavenly holding area waiting to be born.
while there, they believe, we chose our parents.
if they are correct,  we have always existed.


----------



## koshergrl

I'm pretty sure I haven't always existed.


----------



## koshergrl

But if the fact that something hasn't been disproven is all it takes to make it worthy of your faith in it, thanks, I'll continue to believe in God.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you once again don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> It actually is a myth from a few Christians that your side used as evidence to put all Christians in one group on this issue.
> 
> Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth | MandM
> 
> The Myth of the Flat Earth
> 
> Myth of the Flat Earth
> 
> Who invented the idea of a flat Earth?
> 
> Still waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> again that's bullshit ALL CULTURES BELIEVED THE EARTH WAS FLAT AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER .
> FOR CHRISTIANITY IT ONLY BECAME ROUND AFTER COLUMBUS AND THE POPE SAID IT WAS.
> IT'S laughable that people who claim to be christians, don't know shit about what they purport is the truth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you can't read.
Click to expand...

Flat Earth Theory
by Abby Cessna on December 28, 2009


Model of a flat Earth
The flat Earth theory was believed by many cultures around the world including Ancient Egyptian and Babylonian cultures as well as China up to the last few hundred years. The flat Earth theory states that the world is a flat disk rather than a sphere. As early as the fourth century B.C. however, philosophers and scientists realized that the Earth was actually a sphere.  Aristotle was one Greek philosopher who advocated that Earth was a sphere. This debate has raged on in many cultures throughout the centuries.  Now, some believe that most educated people since around the fourth century B.C. and on realized that the Earth was a sphere, and that the belief that the flat earth theory was widespread is just a myth that took root in the 19th century. It is now thought by many, including the Historical Association based in England, that Columbus did not believe the Earth was flat and that this story was merely a myth spread by Washington Irving in his book about Columbus.



Many people who believe in the flat Earth theory turn to the Bible in order to back up their theory. They quote various passages in order to back up their theories and interpret certain passages literally. Not all of them rely on the Bible though or simply on the Bible. Samuel Shenton who formed the Flat Earth Society, one of the most modern flat earth groups, believed that his beliefs could be proven using common sense and science. The Flat Earth Society was one of the most modern flat Earth organizations in the past century, but that too faded when its last president died in 2001. The name is still being used, although the new organization or organizations are not necessarily linked to the old society.

Those who adhere to the flat Earth theory have certain answers to criticisms of their theory. Charles Johnson, who was a president of the Flat Earth Society, said that the Moon landing was also a hoax and that it was scripted and filmed on a set in Hollywood. Gravity is seen as a mystical force  that does not exist  to many who believe in the flat Earth theory. Charles Johnson accepted Aristotles idea that things naturally fall downwards. Adherents to the flat Earth theory have often been criticized and parodied. Some of the web sites that use the name are simply satires.

Flat Earth Theory


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> I'm pretty sure I haven't always existed.


where's your evidence?


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> But if the fact that something hasn't been disproven is all it takes to make it worthy of your faith in it, thanks, I'll continue to believe in God.


do you always miss the point this much?

btw belief proves nothing but belief.


----------



## koshergrl

I don't need evidence.

apparently, neither do you.


----------



## koshergrl

Though God tells us he knew us before we were formed, which implies perhaps we have existed much longer than most of us acknowledge...


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you claim there was no oxygen when life began DNA molecules cannot form in water nor with oxygen present they would decay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, I think I'd better refrain from commenting. I'm afraid nothing good would come from it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me point out another flaw in your thinking. You asserted that modern day humans evolved from neanderthals how is that since the neanderthals had larger brains ?
Click to expand...


Fist, modern humans did not evolve from Neanderthals, they were different branches, sharing a common ancestor. Second, modern humans are smarter than Neanderthals because the structure of their brains is different.

I have a question to you as well -- why are you keep asking about things that you can read in any textbook?


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> I don't need evidence.
> 
> apparently, neither do you.


 that's an assuption...and it's wrong.


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oxygen was needed for life that is why we needed a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oxygen is not needed for life, it is a byproduct of photosynthetic plants and bacteria. Only after they filled the Earth atmosphere with oxygen some other living things had evolved to make use of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This statement shows complete ignorance and lack of understanding of the global climate system. In your scenario, the plants just continue releasing oxygen until there is no more carbon dioxide left and they die off. There are delicate symbiotic relationships that have been designed into the earth. Your explanation is an extremely oversimplified description which is typical of the fairy tales your side promotes.
Click to expand...


You are an idiot -- my explanation was of the origin of oxygen in the atmosphere, not of the "global climate system".


----------



## daws101

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, I think I'd better refrain from commenting. I'm afraid nothing good would come from it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point out another flaw in your thinking. You asserted that modern day humans evolved from neanderthals how is that since the neanderthals had larger brains ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fist, modern humans did not evolve from Neanderthals, they were different branches, sharing a common ancestor. Second, modern humans are smarter than Neanderthals because the structure of their brains is different.
> 
> I have a question to you as well -- why are you keep asking about things that you can read in any textbook?
Click to expand...

because ywc is prejudiced against what "he" calls biased books.
that is any science that is not based in the creationist dogma or creationist pseudo science.


----------



## HUGGY

koshergrl said:


> That's right, everybody has always existed.



No...they have not you ignorant cow.  Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.


----------



## koshergrl

You have evidence of that?


----------



## HUGGY

koshergrl said:


> You have evidence of that?



Yes *we all* have evidense of that.  Don't let that slow you down in your fantasy world though.


----------



## koshergrl

Then you can cite it.


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, everybody has always existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...they have not you ignorant cow.  Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.
Click to expand...

go easy, that's above her pay grade!


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> The sarcasm is... would NS really eliminate what I call the "inbetweener", especially when he or she was in the early stages of being in between?



Yes, it would -- a slightly better adapted individuals will slowly preempt the others. The less the difference, the slower is process, but it keeps going.


----------



## koshergrl

Still waiting for that evidence that everybody has.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Still waiting for that evidence that everybody has.


What Are We Made Of?
By Jonathan Atteberry, HowStuffWorks.com

Protons, Neutrons and Electrons Only Part of the Picture

What are we made of? The question has rankled scientists and philosophers for millennia, and even with the amazing progress made in fields like particle physics and astronomy, we are left with only a partial answer. We know, of course, that the visible world is composed of protons, neutrons and electrons that combine to form atoms of different elements, and we know those elements are the building blocks of the planets and stars that give rise to solar systems and galaxies.

What we didn't know until very recently, however, is that those protons, neutrons and electrons appear to form less than 5 percent of the universe, and questions remain about how these building blocks arose. If regular matter represents only a small slice of the universe, what is the rest of the universe made of?

Such questions prompted the construction of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) beneath the border between France and Switzerland. As the world's largest particle accelerator, experts designed the LHC to recreate conditions that occurred shortly after the very foundation of universe itself. Here are a few of the mysteries scientists hope the LHC and other particle accelerators can shed light on.

What Are We Made Of? : Through The Wormhole : Science Channel


----------



## ilia25

koshergrl said:


> thanks, I'll continue to believe in God.



Which one?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again that's bullshit ALL CULTURES BELIEVED THE EARTH WAS FLAT AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER .
> FOR CHRISTIANITY IT ONLY BECAME ROUND AFTER COLUMBUS AND THE POPE SAID IT WAS.
> IT'S laughable that people who claim to be christians, don't know shit about what they purport is the truth!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you can't read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flat Earth Theory
> by Abby Cessna on December 28, 2009
> 
> 
> Model of a flat Earth
> The flat Earth theory was believed by many cultures around the world including Ancient Egyptian and Babylonian cultures as well as China up to the last few hundred years. The flat Earth theory states that the world is a flat disk rather than a sphere. As early as the fourth century B.C. however, philosophers and scientists realized that the Earth was actually a sphere.  Aristotle was one Greek philosopher who advocated that Earth was a sphere. This debate has raged on in many cultures throughout the centuries.  Now, some believe that most educated people since around the fourth century B.C. and on realized that the Earth was a sphere, and that the belief that the flat earth theory was widespread is just a myth that took root in the 19th century. It is now thought by many, including the Historical Association based in England, that Columbus did not believe the Earth was flat and that this story was merely a myth spread by Washington Irving in his book about Columbus.
> 
> 
> 
> Many people who believe in the flat Earth theory turn to the Bible in order to back up their theory. They quote various passages in order to back up their theories and interpret certain passages literally. Not all of them rely on the Bible though or simply on the Bible. Samuel Shenton who formed the Flat Earth Society, one of the most modern flat earth groups, believed that his beliefs could be proven using common sense and science. The Flat Earth Society was one of the most modern flat Earth organizations in the past century, but that too faded when its last president died in 2001. The name is still being used, although the new organization or organizations are not necessarily linked to the old society.
> 
> Those who adhere to the flat Earth theory have certain answers to criticisms of their theory. Charles Johnson, who was a president of the Flat Earth Society, said that the Moon landing was also a hoax and that it was scripted and filmed on a set in Hollywood. Gravity is seen as a mystical force  that does not exist  to many who believe in the flat Earth theory. Charles Johnson accepted Aristotles idea that things naturally fall downwards. Adherents to the flat Earth theory have often been criticized and parodied. Some of the web sites that use the name are simply satires.
> 
> Flat Earth Theory
Click to expand...


So what you posted contradicted your claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, I think I'd better refrain from commenting. I'm afraid nothing good would come from it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point out another flaw in your thinking. You asserted that modern day humans evolved from neanderthals how is that since the neanderthals had larger brains ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fist, modern humans did not evolve from Neanderthals, they were different branches, sharing a common ancestor. Second, modern humans are smarter than Neanderthals because the structure of their brains is different.
> 
> I have a question to you as well -- why are you keep asking about things that you can read in any textbook?
Click to expand...


They may not have had the technology of today but that does not mean humans today were more intelligent then neanderthals. Where do you get the evidence for all your assertions ? Have you ever seen the brain of a neanderthal ?

You are a person of faith admit it.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> Sooo...you're going back and changing what you are quoted saying, and pretending that it means something?


I didn't go back and change anything that I said.


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> I think there might be a rule against that.


You might think there's a rule about exposing your bullshit, but there isn't.

Sorry about your retarded luck.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oxygen is not needed for life, it is a byproduct of photosynthetic plants and bacteria. Only after they filled the Earth atmosphere with oxygen some other living things had evolved to make use of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement shows complete ignorance and lack of understanding of the global climate system. In your scenario, the plants just continue releasing oxygen until there is no more carbon dioxide left and they die off. There are delicate symbiotic relationships that have been designed into the earth. Your explanation is an extremely oversimplified description which is typical of the fairy tales your side promotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot -- my explanation was of the origin of oxygen in the atmosphere, not of the "global climate system".
Click to expand...


Careful with the insults you have said some pretty dumb things you cannot support.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, everybody has always existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...they have not you ignorant cow.  Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.
Click to expand...


One day it rained on rocks and poof we had life,so what your saying is life evolved from a rock 

You don't have a clue of what you are talking about. First off,RNA and DNA could not form in water nor when they were exposed to oxygen why is this so hard for your side to grasp ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have evidence of that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes *we all* have evidense of that.  Don't let that slow you down in your fantasy world though.
Click to expand...


I guess you don't want to present this evidence,typical.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, everybody has always existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...they have not you ignorant cow.  Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> go easy, that's above her pay grade!
Click to expand...


This coming from someone probably unemployed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that evidence that everybody has.
> 
> 
> 
> What Are We Made Of?
> By Jonathan Atteberry, HowStuffWorks.com
> 
> Protons, Neutrons and Electrons Only Part of the Picture
> 
> What are we made of? The question has rankled scientists and philosophers for millennia, and even with the amazing progress made in fields like particle physics and astronomy, we are left with only a partial answer. We know, of course, that the visible world is composed of protons, neutrons and electrons that combine to form atoms of different elements, and we know those elements are the building blocks of the planets and stars that give rise to solar systems and galaxies.
> 
> What we didn't know until very recently, however, is that those protons, neutrons and electrons appear to form less than 5 percent of the universe, and questions remain about how these building blocks arose. If regular matter represents only a small slice of the universe, what is the rest of the universe made of?
> 
> Such questions prompted the construction of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) beneath the border between France and Switzerland. As the world's largest particle accelerator, experts designed the LHC to recreate conditions that occurred shortly after the very foundation of universe itself. Here are a few of the mysteries scientists hope the LHC and other particle accelerators can shed light on.
> 
> What Are We Made Of? : Through The Wormhole : Science Channel
Click to expand...


You will believe anything,talk about fantasy land.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks, I'll continue to believe in God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one?
Click to expand...


There is only one God and one holy book that can stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## Inquisitor

Baron said:


> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours




What I like about the Creation theory timeline is the idea that Noah's ark made ground 2200-2400 BC. 

This leaves 4 men and 4 women to populate the earth. 

The strange thing is that we have numerous contiuous culturs prior to 2000 BC.  These cultures do not have a break - extinction from a global flood - and most have continuous language (contrary to the tower of Babel story). 

We have continuous culture in China, India, South America, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Africa, Europe and so on. 

Now Noah and sons lived a good 400 years after the flood. Shem was still alive when Abraham was born and died just before Joseph who went into Egypt around 1700 BC.

The Egyptians have all kinds of stories about their origins. None record that one of the fathers of all humanity was still alive in 1800 BC. 

The Sumerians also have creation stories written in 2400 .. one actually mentions a local flood where a Noah managed to save some of his belongings on a barge.  No meantion of this fellow being father of all humanity though. 

It does mention King Sargon however and talks about how he united the city states of mesopotamia into one of the first world Empires. 

To think that Noah and sons managed mutate into all the different aforementioned races and cultures we find existing on the earth prior to 2000 has got to be one of the most absurd ideas ever.   How on Earth did they get to South America  and turn into Indians ?

The ability of folks to live in abject denial of reality is truly amazing to me.


----------



## Inquisitor

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks, I'll continue to believe in God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is only one God and one holy book that can stand up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...


I believe in God and am a Christian but not even ministers (ones that have attended a proper seminary - 8 years including learning Hebrew, Latin, and Greek) believe the Bible stands up to rigorous intelectual scrutiny. 

If it did one would not need the concept of "Faith".


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> made up nonsense strawman version...
> 
> What on earth would someone who uses such an idiotic phrase know about the "intellectual honesty" that he keeps carping about?
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who does not present a refutation of a misrepresentation of an assertion to be a refutation of the actual assertion; someone who does not edit the quotes to create the illusion that the source cited agrees with their conclusions when they clearly don't; someone who does not engage in the ad-hominem logical fallacy to support their position, is someone who practices intellectual honesty and might know quite a bit about intellectual honesty.
> 
> The real question koshergrl, is what on earth would *you* know about it?PREDICTION: koshergrl (and others of her retarded tribe) will seize upon this citing my use of the term "retarded" as an example. What they will prove they fail to understand is that an ad-hominem attack is not the same thing as an ad-hominem argument. An ad-hominem attack may be impolite, but it's not necessarily invalid since it can be a conclusion that follows from valid premises. The ad-hominem argument is what koshergrl engages in--she asserts that I'm an idiot, and then declares from that position that anything I post is idiotic.​
Click to expand...


Turtles all the way down...


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, everybody has always existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...they have not you ignorant cow.  Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.
Click to expand...


So now you are channeling Carl Sagan???


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that evidence that everybody has.
> 
> 
> 
> What Are We Made Of?
> By Jonathan Atteberry, HowStuffWorks.com
> 
> Protons, Neutrons and Electrons Only Part of the Picture
> 
> What are we made of? The question has rankled scientists and philosophers for millennia, and even with the amazing progress made in fields like particle physics and astronomy, we are left with only a partial answer. We know, of course, that the visible world is composed of protons, neutrons and electrons that combine to form atoms of different elements, and we know those elements are the building blocks of the planets and stars that give rise to solar systems and galaxies.
> 
> What we didn't know until very recently, however, is that those protons, neutrons and electrons appear to form less than 5 percent of the universe, and questions remain about how these building blocks arose. If regular matter represents only a small slice of the universe, what is the rest of the universe made of?
> 
> Such questions prompted the construction of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) beneath the border between France and Switzerland. As the world's largest particle accelerator, experts designed the LHC to recreate conditions that occurred shortly after the very foundation of universe itself. Here are a few of the mysteries scientists hope the LHC and other particle accelerators can shed light on.
> 
> What Are We Made Of? : Through The Wormhole : Science Channel
Click to expand...


Yeah, how is the search for the "god particle" working out??


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, everybody has always existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...they have not you ignorant cow.  Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you are channeling Carl Sagan???
Click to expand...


 You are just chock full of fantasy ideas eh Sport?  Sorry ...I don't subscibe to ANY hocus pocus made up fairy tales.  Why do guys like you give yourselves names with words like "reality" in them?  Who do you think you are fooling?  You can call youself anything you want but faith is a fantasy you happen to believe.  Why the over reaching?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post the question. Link to it.
> I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant posted it directly above you. Since Darwinism is about gradual change over millions of years, my point was to go from a hairy, large brow-boned hominid to the modern form of homo sapien, the brow bone obviously had to shrink and body hair had to be lost. It is ridiculous to think that natural selection would weed these individuals out that had minor changes no other hominid would notice. The sarcasm is... would NS really eliminate what I call the "inbetweener", especially when he or she was in the early stages of being in between? Basically, logic has to throw Darwinism out because it just can't fit with the dating of the fossils we find and the lack of transitional fossils. What we find in nature is punctuated equilibrium. If we are to believe in evolutionary theory, we have to believe that massive structural changes happened to organisms in EXTREMELY short periods (in the big scheme of earth's history) and then just as quickly stopped happening. Homo Sapien appears on the scene suddenly. But where were his great, great grandparents to the nth power while they were transitioning from the ape like hominids evolutionists get all giddy about? Why is there so much evidence fossil evidence for Neandertal and Homo Sapien, but none of the transitional species that came from their common ancestor and why didn't the guy with a 1mm less brow bone and less hair survive when it would be preposterous to believe that nature, other hominids, or natural selection could tell them apart? If we are to believe evolutionary theory, what accelerated the changes needed to go from one very diverse species to another with no evidence of anything in between? If we follow Darwin's own writings, in light of this evidence, we have to throw out his theory because the gradual change doesn't fit. It doesn't fit with the fossil record, and if we follow the hard line about random genetic mutations causing the species to have more "fitness" we can't logically explain the rapid change and abrupt stasis we find.
> 
> There it is, all in black and white, for you folks that totally missed the sarcastic simplified version. Doh!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you ask rhetorical questions (premised upon your-made-up-nonsense strawman version of evolutionary theory), but are you asking questions you actually expect answers for? If so, why don't you just level up and post them like an intellectually honest person?
Click to expand...


Loki, here is what I have learned about you in the short time I have been posting here. First, you like to post up video's of a very "intelligent sounding" IGNORANT englishman who says a whole lot of nothing, makes circular arguments out of circular arguments, manufactures strawmen out of left over straws and then doesn't even bother to tear them down, says he is the know all on the theory of evolution, but never really tells us what it really is, if it is what Darwin laid out in the origin of the species or something else. He speaks in assumptive language (typical) as if he has all the secrets and knows everything there is to know. He spews a wild donkey guess on how the first cell formed, which is just speculation and not based in any science I know of. You sadly seem to think he knows something and proudly display his stupidity as if we can all learn some deeper meaning about so many of the problematic issues facing the TOE if we just watch him. So I wasted 10 minutes of my life watching a comepletely worthless video, which I promise you I will not do again. 

Second, I have learned that you are an exquisite chess player. You will never allow yourself to get too many steps into an argument where you would have to admit you don't actually know the answer, or have to admit, yes, the theory of evolution has a ways to go to really explain that one. Nope, you just rest comfortably, thinking the TOE has everything figured out and there are no valid questions. All problems solved... nothing to see here. You remind me of alot of Christians that don't like to ask hard questions about the Old Testament. You live in your little comfortable mind, never wandering into a gray area that would show weakness in your belief. You absolutely flee from any topic where you might have to admit you just don't know or conveniently just ignore the hard questions. You are, in effect, your own version of a strawman. You've built yourself up in your mind and dad burn it you'll be damned if you let anyone actually back you into a corner where you have to admit TOE doesn't have ALL the answers. You are a sad, sad, little man. 

You see, the simple response to the actual questions I asked (they were not rhetorical BTW) is "we simply don't have enough scientific evidence to give a definitive answer. Our theory has some holes in it but we are working on them. 

The real information can be found for anyone who cares to read. 

Modern evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The difference between the clowns on here and the REAL scientists is the REAL scientists willingness to say... "We think that is the way it happened." A doofus in this very thread used assumptive language and stated as fact that oxygen came from Cyanibacteria. The REAL scientist are careful to say, "we think the oxygen came from Cyanobacteria." Or one example cited in the Wiki article below, says "caused PROBABLY by". 

"Our understanding of the evolution of the Earth's atmosphere has progressed. The substitution of oxygen for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which occurred in the Proterozoic, caused probably by cyanobacteria in the form of stromatolites, caused changes leading to the evolution of aerobic organisms.[32][33]"

You see your precious theory doesn't have it all figured out. Darwin is being proven wrong everyday.

"Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually NONEXISTENT in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species."

"Mayr later complimented Eldredge and Gould's paper, stating that evolutionary stasis had been "unexpected by most evolutionary biologists" and that punctuated equilibrium "had a major impact on paleontology and evolutionary biology."[7]"

You see, whether or not you peeps on here want to admit it, there are still some HUGE hurdles for Darwinists to match their theories to the ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE presented in the fossil record. You guys can pretend all you want in this thread but you don't really have to go to far to get the real story (not like Wiki should be entirely trusted but humor me here)

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Much speculation has been devoted to the issue:

"Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain the putative causes of stasis. Gould was initially attracted to I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis. However this hypothesis was rejected over time,[22] as evidence accumulated against it.[23] Other plausible mechanisms which have been suggested include: habitat tracking,[24][25] stabilizing selection,[26] the Stenseth-Maynard Smith stability hypothesis,[27] constraints imposed by the nature of subdivided populations,[26] and normalizing clade selection.[28]"

"The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most speciesfrom their initial appearance until their extinctionhas long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation.[62][63] When presenting his ideas against the prevailing influences of catastrophism and progressive creationism, which envisaged species being supernaturally created at intervals, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of his 1844 Essay, "Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false."[64]"

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."[38] Although there exist some debate over how long the punctuations last, supporters of punctuated equilibrium generally place the figure between 50,000 and 100,000 years.[39]"

Even your high priest has some things to say about it which contradict the actual scientists:

"Richard Dawkins believes that the apparent gaps represented in the fossil record document migratory events rather than evolutionary events. According to Dawkins, evolution certainly occurred but "probably gradually" elsewhere.[51] However, the punctuational equilibrium model may still be inferred from both the observance of stasis and documented examples of rapid and episodic speciation events documented in the fossil record.[52]"

My point is, what you have is a bunch of atheists presented with a total lack of HARD EVIDENCE in the fossil record, waving their hands about and saying, "Well maybe this is what happened. Or maybe it happened that way". 

I wouldn't actually call this a solid theory that you materialists disciples seem so much more convinced of than the actual qualified people doing the science. 

Oh and YES!!! I cut and pasted from Wiki!!! How 'bout one of them there Alligator awards???


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...they have not you ignorant cow.  Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are channeling Carl Sagan???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just chock full of fantasy ideas eh Sport?  Sorry ...I don't subscibe to ANY hocus pocus made up fairy tales.  Why do guys like you give yourselves names with words like "reality" in them?  Who do you think you are fooling?  You can call youself anything you want but faith is a fantasy you happen to believe.  Why the over reaching?
Click to expand...


I think I hear your momma calling. Isn't it past your bedtime?? Tell me HUGGY, when you huggy your blanky, do you dream of the super nova's that made you exploding?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE9dEAx5Sgw&feature=player_detailpage"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE9dEAx5Sgw&feature=player_detailpage[/ame]


----------



## The Irish Ram

Science says you can't produce something from nothing. 
What existed before the big bang?


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks, I'll continue to believe in God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is only one God and one holy book that can stand up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...


If that's so, then why 2/3 of humanity disagree with that statement?


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point out another flaw in your thinking. You asserted that modern day humans evolved from neanderthals how is that since the neanderthals had larger brains ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fist, modern humans did not evolve from Neanderthals, they were different branches, sharing a common ancestor. Second, modern humans are smarter than Neanderthals because the structure of their brains is different.
> 
> I have a question to you as well -- why are you keep asking about things that you can read in any textbook?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They may not have had the technology of today but that does not mean humans today were more intelligent then neanderthals. Where do you get the evidence for all your assertions ? Have you ever seen the brain of a neanderthal ?
> 
> You are a person of faith admit it.
Click to expand...


1. There is plenty of evidence -- for example, Neanderthals did not have throwing weapons.
2. I don't do assertions. I merely explain how the world looks based on known facts and logic.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, everybody has always existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...they have not you ignorant cow.  Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One day it rained on rocks and poof we had life,so what your saying is life evolved from a rock
> 
> You don't have a clue of what you are talking about. First off,RNA and DNA could not form in water nor when they were exposed to oxygen why is this so hard for your side to grasp ?
Click to expand...


Is it hard for you to grasp that there was no free oxygen on Earth when the first RNA molecule had formed? And why it could not form in water?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post the question. Link to it.
> *I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant posted it directly above you. Since Darwinism is about gradual change over millions of years, my point was to go from a hairy, large brow-boned hominid to the modern form of homo sapien, the brow bone obviously had to shrink and body hair had to be lost. It is ridiculous to think that natural selection would weed these individuals out that had minor changes no other hominid would notice. The sarcasm is... would NS really eliminate what I call the "inbetweener", especially when he or she was in the early stages of being in between? Basically, logic has to throw Darwinism out because it just can't fit with the dating of the fossils we find and the lack of transitional fossils. What we find in nature is punctuated equilibrium. If we are to believe in evolutionary theory, we have to believe that massive structural changes happened to organisms in EXTREMELY short periods (in the big scheme of earth's history) and then just as quickly stopped happening. Homo Sapien appears on the scene suddenly. But where were his great, great grandparents to the nth power while they were transitioning from the ape like hominids evolutionists get all giddy about? Why is there so much evidence fossil evidence for Neandertal and Homo Sapien, but none of the transitional species that came from their common ancestor and why didn't the guy with a 1mm less brow bone and less hair survive when it would be preposterous to believe that nature, other hominids, or natural selection could tell them apart? If we are to believe evolutionary theory, what accelerated the changes needed to go from one very diverse species to another with no evidence of anything in between? If we follow Darwin's own writings, in light of this evidence, we have to throw out his theory because the gradual change doesn't fit. It doesn't fit with the fossil record, and if we follow the hard line about random genetic mutations causing the species to have more "fitness" we can't logically explain the rapid change and abrupt stasis we find.
> 
> There it is, all in black and white, for you folks that totally missed the sarcastic simplified version. Doh!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you ask rhetorical questions (premised upon your-made-up-nonsense strawman version of evolutionary theory), but are you asking questions you actually expect answers for? If so, why don't you just level up and post them like an intellectually honest person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki, here is what I have learned about you ...
> 
> *--CRAP INCLUDING ULTIMATEREALITY'S MADE UP NONSENSE SNIPPED--*​
Click to expand...


Prediction validated.

_EDIT: I couldn't let it slide._​


UltimateReality said:


> Loki, here is what I have learned about you in the short time I have been posting here. First, you like to post up video's of a very "intelligent sounding" IGNORANT englishman ...


Argumentum Ad-hominem.



UltimateReality said:


> who says a whole lot of nothing, makes circular arguments out of circular arguments, ...


Exposing circular arguments is not making circular arguments.



UltimateReality said:


> ... manufactures strawmen out of left over straws and then doesn't even bother to tear them down, ....


Exposing strawmen is not making strawmen.



UltimateReality said:


> ... says he is the know all on the theory of evolution, ...


A lie.



UltimateReality said:


> ... but never really tells us what it really is, ...


Primarily because he's discussing the creationist strawmen.



UltimateReality said:


> ... if it is what Darwin laid out in the origin of the species or something else.


If you think the 150 year old version of evolution is what is currently understood to be the Theory of Evolution, and that 150 year old version is what you're attacking, then my friend, what you're attacking is a strawman.



UltimateReality said:


> He speaks in assumptive language (typical) as if he has all the secrets and knows everything there is to know.


Strawman.



UltimateReality said:


> He spews a wild donkey guess on how the first cell formed, which is just speculation and not based in any science I know of.


It is well understood to be (informed) speculation, and your ignorance of science is an important point you should consider before you criticize any science.



UltimateReality said:


> You sadly seem to think he knows something and proudly display his stupidity as if we can all learn some deeper meaning about so many of the problematic issues facing the TOE if we just watch him.


No. I presented that vid to show you examples of the typical strawmen that are clearly not acceptable premises for intellectually honest inquiry.

It  was clearly too much for you to bear.



UltimateReality said:


> So I wasted 10 minutes of my life watching a comepletely worthless video, which I promise you I will not do again.


I'm not at all sorry that your intellectual dishonesty was so butthurt.



UltimateReality said:


> Second, I have learned that you are an exquisite chess player. You will never allow yourself to get too many steps into an argument where you would have to admit you don't actually know the answer, or have to admit, yes, the theory of evolution has a ways to go to really explain that one.


An obvious lie.



UltimateReality said:


> Nope, you just rest comfortably, thinking the TOE has everything figured out and there are no valid questions. All problems solved... nothing to see here.


Another obvious lie.



UltimateReality said:


> You remind me of alot of Christians that don't like to ask hard questions about the Old Testament.


Projection.



UltimateReality said:


> You live in your little comfortable mind, never wandering into a gray area that would show weakness in your belief.


More projection.



UltimateReality said:


> You absolutely flee from any topic where you might have to admit you just don't know or conveniently just ignore the hard questions.


Yet another obvious lie.



UltimateReality said:


> You are, in effect, your own version of a strawman.  You've built yourself up in your mind and dad burn it you'll be damned if you let anyone actually back you into a corner where you have to admit TOE doesn't have ALL the answers. You are a sad, sad, little man.


Hilarious projection.



UltimateReality said:


> You see, the simple response to the actual questions I asked (they were not rhetorical BTW) is "we simply don't have enough scientific evidence to give a definitive answer. Our theory has some holes in it but we are working on them.


I have never claimed that I (or science) assert any unconditional certainty ... in fact I have CLEARLY expressed otherwise.

And now you've earned earned your credentials, you're an intellectually dishonest retard.

CONGRATULATIONS!


----------



## ilia25

The Irish Ram said:


> Science says you can't produce something from nothing.
> What existed before the big bang?



Science also says that time did not exist before the Big Bang. So asking what existed before is like asking what exists to the south of the south pole.


----------



## The Irish Ram

ilia25 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science says you can't produce something from nothing.
> What existed before the big bang?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science also says that time did not exist before the Big Bang. So asking what existed before is like asking what exists to the south of the south pole.
Click to expand...


But, to ask what exists south of the south pole, confirms that there is a south pole.
If science believes that you can't produce something from nothing and that time did not exist before the big bang, then I want to know what it was that ran into each other?
Did two nothings bang together to form a something?


----------



## LOki

The Irish Ram said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science says you can't produce something from nothing.
> What existed before the big bang?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science also says that time did not exist before the Big Bang. So asking what existed before is like asking what exists to the south of the south pole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, to ask what exists south of the south pole, confirms that there is a south pole.
> If science believes that you can't produce something from nothing and that time did not exist before the big bang, then I want to know what it was that ran into each other?
> Did two nothings bang together to form a something?
Click to expand...

HAHA! What two things (nothings?) are you talking about?

Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that *you make* is going to get anywhere?


----------



## The Irish Ram

LOki said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science also says that time did not exist before the Big Bang. So asking what existed before is like asking what exists to the south of the south pole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, to ask what exists south of the south pole, confirms that there is a south pole.
> If science believes that you can't produce something from nothing and that time did not exist before the big bang, then I want to know what it was that ran into each other?
> Did two nothings bang together to form a something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HAHA! What two things (nothings?) are you talking about?
> 
> Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that *you make* is going to get anywhere?
Click to expand...


Hi LOki, Thank you for crediting me with the First Law of Thermodynamics, but I am afraid Newton beat me to it.  It's not my claim.   But my question is,  if nothing existed before the Big Bang then what the hell banged together to create everything, even time?   
And if something did exist, and was capable of running into each other, then time had to exist before the big bang. 1 second before "they" banged into each other, "they" were hurling toward each other.  There is a time line.


----------



## LOki

The Irish Ram said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, to ask what exists south of the south pole, confirms that there is a south pole.
> If science believes that you can't produce something from nothing and that time did not exist before the big bang, then I want to know what it was that ran into each other?
> Did two nothings bang together to form a something?
> 
> 
> 
> HAHA! What two things (nothings?) are you talking about?
> 
> Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that *you make* is going to get anywhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi LOki, Thank you for crediting me with the First Law of Thermodynamics, but I am afraid Newton beat me to it.  It's not my claim.   But my question is,  *if nothing existed before the Big Bang* then what the hell banged together to create everything, even time?
Click to expand...

Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that *you make* is going to get anywhere?



The Irish Ram said:


> And *if something did exist, and was capable of running into each other,* then time had to exist before the big bang. 1 second before "they" banged into each other, "*they*" were hurling toward each other.  There is a time line.


Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that *you make* is going to get anywhere?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Inquisitor said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one God and one holy book that can stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in God and am a Christian but not even ministers (ones that have attended a proper seminary - 8 years including learning Hebrew, Latin, and Greek) believe the Bible stands up to rigorous intelectual scrutiny.
> 
> If it did one would not need the concept of "Faith".
Click to expand...


It takes faith to believe in someone we have never seen. It takes faith to believe in creation. It takes faith to believe that one day he will cleanse the earth of all sin and the earth is filled with God fearing people. It takes faith to believe in the miracles recorded in the bible.

Now if there is a God that did all these things surely he preserved an accurate account of his word. I have over thirteen different bibles and I find no contradictions with any of them. I have my Greek and Hebrew interlinears.

Yes it does take faith,apparently you do not have faith in the bible by your comment. The true problem is not Gods word but those who try to force the bible to support their views. So please don't try and tell me biblical scholars that are true believers believe the same as you.

I'm not trying to make this personal but I am asking what faith do you have in God if you do not believe his words can't stand up to scrutiny ? Because the bible does not answer all my questions does not mean I can't trust it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...they have not you ignorant cow.  Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are channeling Carl Sagan???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just chock full of fantasy ideas eh Sport?  Sorry ...I don't subscibe to ANY hocus pocus made up fairy tales.  Why do guys like you give yourselves names with words like "reality" in them?  Who do you think you are fooling?  You can call youself anything you want but faith is a fantasy you happen to believe.  Why the over reaching?
Click to expand...


Sorry to break it to you but you do subscribe to hocus pocus if you subscribe to macro-evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one God and one holy book that can stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's so, then why 2/3 of humanity disagree with that statement?
Click to expand...


I hate bringing this up.

Joh 16:11  concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. 

2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.

Mat 7:13  Go in by the narrow door; for wide is the door and open is the way which goes to destruction, and great numbers go in by it. 
Mat 7:14  For narrow is the door and hard the road to life, and only a small number make discovery of it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fist, modern humans did not evolve from Neanderthals, they were different branches, sharing a common ancestor. Second, modern humans are smarter than Neanderthals because the structure of their brains is different.
> 
> I have a question to you as well -- why are you keep asking about things that you can read in any textbook?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They may not have had the technology of today but that does not mean humans today were more intelligent then neanderthals. Where do you get the evidence for all your assertions ? Have you ever seen the brain of a neanderthal ?
> 
> You are a person of faith admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. There is plenty of evidence -- for example, Neanderthals did not have throwing weapons.
> 2. I don't do assertions. I merely explain how the world looks based on known facts and logic.
Click to expand...


That still does not support the your claim that neanderthals were less intelligent. A simple no would have answered the question that have you ever studied the brain of a neanderthal. And sometimes things are not the way they appear.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...they have not you ignorant cow.  Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One day it rained on rocks and poof we had life,so what your saying is life evolved from a rock
> 
> You don't have a clue of what you are talking about. First off,RNA and DNA could not form in water nor when they were exposed to oxygen why is this so hard for your side to grasp ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it hard for you to grasp that there was no free oxygen on Earth when the first RNA molecule had formed? And why it could not form in water?
Click to expand...


Prove there was no free oxygen when life began. You are relying on speculation not fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science says you can't produce something from nothing.
> What existed before the big bang?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science also says that time did not exist before the Big Bang. So asking what existed before is like asking what exists to the south of the south pole.
Click to expand...


How do you know noting existed outside our universe ?

Where did matter come from in that case ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

The Irish Ram said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, to ask what exists south of the south pole, confirms that there is a south pole.
> If science believes that you can't produce something from nothing and that time did not exist before the big bang, then I want to know what it was that ran into each other?
> Did two nothings bang together to form a something?
> 
> 
> 
> HAHA! What two things (nothings?) are you talking about?
> 
> Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that *you make* is going to get anywhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi LOki, Thank you for crediting me with the First Law of Thermodynamics, but I am afraid Newton beat me to it.  It's not my claim.   But my question is,  if nothing existed before the Big Bang then what the hell banged together to create everything, even time?
> And if something did exist, and was capable of running into each other, then time had to exist before the big bang. 1 second before "they" banged into each other, "they" were hurling toward each other.  There is a time line.
Click to expand...


Yep,one day nothing blew up and created all we see.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> HAHA! What two things (nothings?) are you talking about?
> 
> Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that *you make* is going to get anywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi LOki, Thank you for crediting me with the First Law of Thermodynamics, but I am afraid Newton beat me to it.  It's not my claim.   But my question is,  *if nothing existed before the Big Bang* then what the hell banged together to create everything, even time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that *you make* is going to get anywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> And *if something did exist, and was capable of running into each other,* then time had to exist before the big bang. 1 second before "they" banged into each other, "*they*" were hurling toward each other.  There is a time line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think asking someone to explain a claim that *you make* is going to get anywhere?
Click to expand...



Typical Loki response.


----------



## cooky

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant posted it directly above you. Since Darwinism is about gradual change over millions of years, my point was to go from a hairy, large brow-boned hominid to the modern form of homo sapien, the brow bone obviously had to shrink and body hair had to be lost. It is ridiculous to think that natural selection would weed these individuals out that had minor changes no other hominid would notice. The sarcasm is... would NS really eliminate what I call the "inbetweener", especially when he or she was in the early stages of being in between? Basically, logic has to throw Darwinism out because it just can't fit with the dating of the fossils we find and the lack of transitional fossils. What we find in nature is punctuated equilibrium. If we are to believe in evolutionary theory, we have to believe that massive structural changes happened to organisms in EXTREMELY short periods (in the big scheme of earth's history) and then just as quickly stopped happening. Homo Sapien appears on the scene suddenly. But where were his great, great grandparents to the nth power while they were transitioning from the ape like hominids evolutionists get all giddy about? Why is there so much evidence fossil evidence for Neandertal and Homo Sapien, but none of the transitional species that came from their common ancestor and why didn't the guy with a 1mm less brow bone and less hair survive when it would be preposterous to believe that nature, other hominids, or natural selection could tell them apart? If we are to believe evolutionary theory, what accelerated the changes needed to go from one very diverse species to another with no evidence of anything in between? If we follow Darwin's own writings, in light of this evidence, we have to throw out his theory because the gradual change doesn't fit. It doesn't fit with the fossil record, and if we follow the hard line about random genetic mutations causing the species to have more "fitness" we can't logically explain the rapid change and abrupt stasis we find.
> 
> There it is, all in black and white, for you folks that totally missed the sarcastic simplified version. Doh!!!



While the fossil record incomete in a great many respects there are numerous examples of hominid transition species. The homo genus is represented by more than a dozen different species which lived from >1mya to present. Additionally, the austrolapithicus genus is represented by numerous species some of which are more than 5my old. Evolutionis occurs by more than one process- it can be slow, fast, complex and simple- but it is NOT random. most assuredley, darwin was incorrect about some aspects of the ancestry of life however that does not diminish his great contributions to science. There are no absolute truths or facts in science and there is quite a bit science can not explain. However, the Theory that all life shares common asncestry is all but universally accepted as all evidence known to date supports this conlusion. I would encouragee everyone to study the TOE as most arguments against it are based on misconceptions. As a biologist i would b happy to answer any questions you mighthave as best i can


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one God and one holy book that can stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's so, then why 2/3 of humanity disagree with that statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate bringing this up.
> 
> Joh 16:11  concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
> 
> 2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.
> 
> Mat 7:13  Go in by the narrow door; for wide is the door and open is the way which goes to destruction, and great numbers go in by it.
> Mat 7:14  For narrow is the door and hard the road to life, and only a small number make discovery of it.
Click to expand...


That's bull, there is no hardship in following Christian faith (unless one is born in a remote Afgan village --what about them, BTW?). Most people are not Christians only because they see it as a fairy tale.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science says you can't produce something from nothing.
> What existed before the big bang?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science also says that time did not exist before the Big Bang. So asking what existed before is like asking what exists to the south of the south pole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know noting existed outside our universe ?
> 
> Where did matter come from in that case ?
Click to expand...


1. We don't know whether there is nothing outside our universe.
2. Matter particles appear out of nothing and disappear into nothing all the time according to the principle of uncertainty. Our universe just happens to be on a bigger side.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's so, then why 2/3 of humanity disagree with that statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate bringing this up.
> 
> Joh 16:11  concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
> 
> 2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.
> 
> Mat 7:13  Go in by the narrow door; for wide is the door and open is the way which goes to destruction, and great numbers go in by it.
> Mat 7:14  For narrow is the door and hard the road to life, and only a small number make discovery of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's bull, there is no hardship in following Christian faith (unless one is born in a remote Afgan village --what about them, BTW?). Most people are not Christian only because they see it as a fairy tale.
Click to expand...


Wrong the gospels are being preached in every land just like the scriptures say. The bible is printed in every language out there.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's so, then why 2/3 of humanity disagree with that statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate bringing this up.
> 
> Joh 16:11  concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
> 
> 2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.
> 
> Mat 7:13  Go in by the narrow door; for wide is the door and open is the way which goes to destruction, and great numbers go in by it.
> Mat 7:14  For narrow is the door and hard the road to life, and only a small number make discovery of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's bull, there is no hardship in following Christian faith (unless one is born in a remote Afgan village --what about them, BTW?). Most people are not Christian only because they see it as a fairy tale.
Click to expand...


Many will find out the hard way that it is not a fairy-tale.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day it rained on rocks and poof we had life,so what your saying is life evolved from a rock
> 
> You don't have a clue of what you are talking about. First off,RNA and DNA could not form in water nor when they were exposed to oxygen why is this so hard for your side to grasp ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it hard for you to grasp that there was no free oxygen on Earth when the first RNA molecule had formed? And why it could not form in water?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove there was no free oxygen when life began. You are relying on speculation not fact.
Click to expand...


There is one thing you need to understand about science -- it does not provide absolute proof of anything. It is all "speculations", although the right word is "theory".

So please, stop faulting TOE for being a theory.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate bringing this up.
> 
> Joh 16:11  concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
> 
> 2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.
> 
> Mat 7:13  Go in by the narrow door; for wide is the door and open is the way which goes to destruction, and great numbers go in by it.
> Mat 7:14  For narrow is the door and hard the road to life, and only a small number make discovery of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's bull, there is no hardship in following Christian faith (unless one is born in a remote Afgan village --what about them, BTW?). Most people are not Christian only because they see it as a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong the gospels are being preached in every land just like the scriptures say. The bible is printed in every language out there.
Click to expand...


Well they are not very convincing, those preachers, aren't they? Why? Why did God make Christianity looking as a fairy tale to most people?


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate bringing this up.
> 
> Joh 16:11  concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
> 
> 2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.
> 
> Mat 7:13  Go in by the narrow door; for wide is the door and open is the way which goes to destruction, and great numbers go in by it.
> Mat 7:14  For narrow is the door and hard the road to life, and only a small number make discovery of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's bull, there is no hardship in following Christian faith (unless one is born in a remote Afgan village --what about them, BTW?). Most people are not Christian only because they see it as a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many will find out the hard way that it is not a fairy-tale.
Click to expand...


That's the God's plan, in His infinite mercy?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science also says that time did not exist before the Big Bang. So asking what existed before is like asking what exists to the south of the south pole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know noting existed outside our universe ?
> 
> Where did matter come from in that case ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. We don't know whether there is nothing outside our universe.
> 2. Matter particles appear out of nothing and disappear into nothing all the time according to the principle of uncertainty. Our universe just happens to be on a bigger side.
Click to expand...


No, matter doe's not form on it's own, it either existed or it did not exist.

That is right about something existing outside our universe. Evidently something does because someone had to create the matter within our universe.

They put an age on our universe but whenever the universe came into existence as far as man is concerned that is when time started but we don't know that answer for sure.

mat·ter/&#712;mat&#601;r/
Noun:
Physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, esp. as


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know noting existed outside our universe ?
> 
> Where did matter come from in that case ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. We don't know whether there is nothing outside our universe.
> 2. Matter particles appear out of nothing and disappear into nothing all the time according to the principle of uncertainty. Our universe just happens to be on a bigger side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, matter doe's not form on it's own, it either existed or it did not exist.
Click to expand...


Countless experiments show otherwise.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it hard for you to grasp that there was no free oxygen on Earth when the first RNA molecule had formed? And why it could not form in water?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove there was no free oxygen when life began. You are relying on speculation not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is one thing you need to understand about science -- it does not provide absolute proof of anything. It is all "speculations", although the right word is "theory".
> 
> So please, stop faulting TOE for being a theory.
Click to expand...


Really ? I hold a degree in molecular biology thanks for educatiing me  in the science method. You think because someone does not agree with you they are not educated in science.

My job for eleven years was to study the effects of mutations and that is exactly why I know the theory of Neo Darwinism to be nonsense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's bull, there is no hardship in following Christian faith (unless one is born in a remote Afgan village --what about them, BTW?). Most people are not Christian only because they see it as a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the gospels are being preached in every land just like the scriptures say. The bible is printed in every language out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well they are not very convincing, those preachers, aren't they? Why? Why did God make Christianity looking as a fairy tale to most people?
Click to expand...


You don't get it, what I posted were part prohecies, This has taken place.

Mat 24:14  And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come. 

About the many that will go on the road to destruction is also a prophecy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's bull, there is no hardship in following Christian faith (unless one is born in a remote Afgan village --what about them, BTW?). Most people are not Christian only because they see it as a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the gospels are being preached in every land just like the scriptures say. The bible is printed in every language out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well they are not very convincing, those preachers, aren't they? Why? Why did God make Christianity looking as a fairy tale to most people?
Click to expand...


The true person of God will hear the gospel and respond positively


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's bull, there is no hardship in following Christian faith (unless one is born in a remote Afgan village --what about them, BTW?). Most people are not Christian only because they see it as a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many will find out the hard way that it is not a fairy-tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the God's plan, in His infinite mercy?
Click to expand...


His mercy is to allow you to continue sinning and choose the road before you.

It's called freewill but he is a just God and no sin goes unpunished.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. We don't know whether there is nothing outside our universe.
> 2. Matter particles appear out of nothing and disappear into nothing all the time according to the principle of uncertainty. Our universe just happens to be on a bigger side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, matter doe's not form on it's own, it either existed or it did not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Countless experiments show otherwise.
Click to expand...


Particles have to be formed by something.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong the gospels are being preached in every land just like the scriptures say. The bible is printed in every language out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well they are not very convincing, those preachers, aren't they? Why? Why did God make Christianity looking as a fairy tale to most people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The true person of God will hear the gospel and respond positively
Click to expand...


So what prevents most people from becoming "The true person of God"? Wrong upbringing? Or are the born that way? Or maybe they just have the ability to reason?


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove there was no free oxygen when life began. You are relying on speculation not fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is one thing you need to understand about science -- it does not provide absolute proof of anything. It is all "speculations", although the right word is "theory".
> 
> So please, stop faulting TOE for being a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really ? I hold a degree in molecular biology thanks for educatiing me  in the science method.
Click to expand...


Forgive me if I don't believe you. A person holding a degree would know that free oxygen is very active and quickly bonds with other elements. So in order to have it in the atmosphere you need some process that constantly resupplies it, and the only known process is the life itself.

As a matter of fact, you don't even need a degree to know that -- unless you were sleeping through the high school.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you can't read.
> 
> 
> 
> Flat Earth Theory
> by Abby Cessna on December 28, 2009
> 
> 
> Model of a flat Earth
> The flat Earth theory was believed by many cultures around the world including Ancient Egyptian and Babylonian cultures as well as China up to the last few hundred years. The flat Earth theory states that the world is a flat disk rather than a sphere. As early as the fourth century B.C. however, philosophers and scientists realized that the Earth was actually a sphere.  Aristotle was one Greek philosopher who advocated that Earth was a sphere. This debate has raged on in many cultures throughout the centuries.  Now, some believe that most educated people since around the fourth century B.C. and on realized that the Earth was a sphere, and that the belief that the flat earth theory was widespread is just a myth that took root in the 19th century. It is now thought by many, including the Historical Association based in England, that Columbus did not believe the Earth was flat and that this story was merely a myth spread by Washington Irving in his book about Columbus.
> 
> 
> 
> Many people who believe in the flat Earth theory turn to the Bible in order to back up their theory. They quote various passages in order to back up their theories and interpret certain passages literally. Not all of them rely on the Bible though or simply on the Bible. Samuel Shenton who formed the Flat Earth Society, one of the most modern flat earth groups, believed that his beliefs could be proven using common sense and science. The Flat Earth Society was one of the most modern flat Earth organizations in the past century, but that too faded when its last president died in 2001. The name is still being used, although the new organization or organizations are not necessarily linked to the old society.
> 
> Those who adhere to the flat Earth theory have certain answers to criticisms of their theory. Charles Johnson, who was a president of the Flat Earth Society, said that the Moon landing was also a hoax and that it was scripted and filmed on a set in Hollywood. Gravity is seen as a mystical force  that does not exist  to many who believe in the flat Earth theory. Charles Johnson accepted Aristotles idea that things naturally fall downwards. Adherents to the flat Earth theory have often been criticized and parodied. Some of the web sites that use the name are simply satires.
> 
> Flat Earth Theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you posted contradicted your claim.
Click to expand...

ARE YOU THAT THICK?The flat Earth theory was believed by many cultures around the world including Ancient Egyptian and Babylonian cultures as well as China up to the last few hundred years.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many will find out the hard way that it is not a fairy-tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the God's plan, in His infinite mercy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His mercy is to allow you to continue sinning and choose the road before you.
> 
> It's called freewill but he is a just God and no sin goes unpunished.
Click to expand...


How come that Christianity looking as a 2000-year-old myth is MY sin?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...they have not you ignorant cow.  Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> go easy, that's above her pay grade!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This coming from someone probably unemployed.
Click to expand...

WRONG AGAIN !Not surprising...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that evidence that everybody has.
> 
> 
> 
> What Are We Made Of?
> By Jonathan Atteberry, HowStuffWorks.com
> 
> Protons, Neutrons and Electrons Only Part of the Picture
> 
> What are we made of? The question has rankled scientists and philosophers for millennia, and even with the amazing progress made in fields like particle physics and astronomy, we are left with only a partial answer. We know, of course, that the visible world is composed of protons, neutrons and electrons that combine to form atoms of different elements, and we know those elements are the building blocks of the planets and stars that give rise to solar systems and galaxies.
> 
> What we didn't know until very recently, however, is that those protons, neutrons and electrons appear to form less than 5 percent of the universe, and questions remain about how these building blocks arose. If regular matter represents only a small slice of the universe, what is the rest of the universe made of?
> 
> Such questions prompted the construction of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) beneath the border between France and Switzerland. As the world's largest particle accelerator, experts designed the LHC to recreate conditions that occurred shortly after the very foundation of universe itself. Here are a few of the mysteries scientists hope the LHC and other particle accelerators can shed light on.
> 
> What Are We Made Of? : Through The Wormhole : Science Channel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will believe anything,talk about fantasy land.
Click to expand...

mr.swaggering  ignorance adds more proof of his extreme stupidity.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate bringing this up.
> 
> Joh 16:11  concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
> 
> 2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.
> 
> Mat 7:13  Go in by the narrow door; for wide is the door and open is the way which goes to destruction, and great numbers go in by it.
> Mat 7:14  For narrow is the door and hard the road to life, and only a small number make discovery of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's bull, there is no hardship in following Christian faith (unless one is born in a remote Afgan village --what about them, BTW?). Most people are not Christian only because they see it as a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many will find out the hard way that it is not a fairy-tale.
Click to expand...

there's that bullshit threat again! it is a fairytale of the 1st magnitude.
there is no evidence  (outside of the bible, a known non credible source) that god did any of the things he /she/or it is credited to have done.
the bible has all the classic markers of a fairytale.
1." in the beginning" =  "a long time ago in a land far away" 
2. jesus, moses, Noah etc = a hero or heroes        
2. mary = a princess (both are fictitious virgins )
4. satan= monster or villain or both.
5. miracles = magic 
6. disasters, plagues 
if you can't see the parallels then you are intentionally dodging them.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They may not have had the technology of today but that does not mean humans today were more intelligent then neanderthals. Where do you get the evidence for all your assertions ? Have you ever seen the brain of a neanderthal ?
> 
> You are a person of faith admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is plenty of evidence -- for example, Neanderthals did not have throwing weapons.
> 2. I don't do assertions. I merely explain how the world looks based on known facts and logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That still does not support the your claim that neanderthals were less intelligent. A simple no would have answered the question that have you ever studied the brain of a neanderthal. And sometimes things are not the way they appear.
Click to expand...

Neanderthals had bigger brains as they had more massive bodies. If bigger brains meant more intelligence, then human males and females would be of much different intelligence.

What's important is the ratio of the mass of the body to the size of the brain. On that measures humans and Neanderthals were about the same.

Looking at Neanderthal artifacts it's clear that over their 300,000 year span then didn't change much. Same tools, same hunting etc. They only hunted big game and never got past a thrusting spear. Humans developed the atlatal, sewing, art and decoration.

Given this, plus that humans survived, Humans were smarter.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove there was no free oxygen when life began. You are relying on speculation not fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is one thing you need to understand about science -- it does not provide absolute proof of anything. It is all "speculations", although the right word is "theory".
> 
> So please, stop faulting TOE for being a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really ? I hold a degree in molecular biology thanks for educatiing me  in the science method. You think because someone does not agree with you they are not educated in science.
> 
> My job for eleven years was to study the effects of mutations and that is exactly why I know the theory of Neo Darwinism to be nonsense.
Click to expand...

still telling that lie and expecting someone to believe it
it's  alot  like the definition of insanity.....


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well they are not very convincing, those preachers, aren't they? Why? Why did God make Christianity looking as a fairy tale to most people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The true person of God will hear the gospel and respond positively
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what prevents most people from becoming "The true person of God"? Wrong upbringing? Or are the born that way? Or maybe they just have the ability to reason?
Click to expand...


Some cases ignorance of the truth,some choose not to believe.

Reason this, something does not come from nothing.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true person of God will hear the gospel and respond positively
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what prevents most people from becoming "The true person of God"? Wrong upbringing? Or are the born that way? Or maybe they just have the ability to reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some cases ignorance of the truth,some choose not to believe.
> 
> Reason this, something does not come from nothing.
Click to expand...

 prove it!


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is one thing you need to understand about science -- it does not provide absolute proof of anything. It is all "speculations", although the right word is "theory".
> 
> So please, stop faulting TOE for being a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? I hold a degree in molecular biology thanks for educatiing me  in the science method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forgive me if I don't believe you. A person holding a degree would know that free oxygen is very active and quickly bonds with other elements. So in order to have it in the atmosphere you need some process that constantly resupplies it, and the only known process is the life itself.
> 
> As a matter of fact, you don't even need a degree to know that -- unless you were sleeping through the high school.
Click to expand...


You would not be the first to question my education in this forum, no offense taken.


Ask yourself, you have no proof oxygen was not present at the beginning of life and you know that life could not exist without it. So why do you believe something so absurd ? I get to kill both you and the "dummy daws" in the same post, how sweet.


Dictionary Definition of oxygen

oxygen n : a nonmetallic bivalent element that is normally a colorless odorless tasteless nonflammable diatomic gas; constitutes 21 percent of the atmosphere by volume; the most abundant element in the earth's crust [syn: O, atomic number 8]

Definition of OXYGEN

1: a reactive element that is found in water, in most rocks and minerals, in numerous organic compounds, and as a colorless tasteless odorless diatomic gas constituting 21 percent of the atmosphere, that is capable of combining with all elements except the inert gases, that is active in physiological processes, and that is involved especially in combustion 

The most abundant element in the earths crust you were saying ?

Ask yourself why does this planet have the only breathable oxygen when we know other planets have oxygen and it just so happens that there is no life on these other planets.

Now getting to your other rediculous and absurd comment. Particles are appear out of nothing  yes there are particles in the air but they are formed from matter. Gases that fill the air are matter,yes oxygen and other Gases in the air are matter so the particles in the air are formed from matter. Wow you can't even use google before making such an ignorant comment ?

I love it even more the biggest doubter of my education" DAWS" just got schooled by someone that supposedly slept through high school and has no education,what does that say for him and you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flat Earth Theory
> by Abby Cessna on December 28, 2009
> 
> 
> Model of a flat Earth
> The flat Earth theory was believed by many cultures around the world including Ancient Egyptian and Babylonian cultures as well as China up to the last few hundred years. The flat Earth theory states that the world is a flat disk rather than a sphere. As early as the fourth century B.C. however, philosophers and scientists realized that the Earth was actually a sphere.  Aristotle was one Greek philosopher who advocated that Earth was a sphere. This debate has raged on in many cultures throughout the centuries.  Now, some believe that most educated people since around the fourth century B.C. and on realized that the Earth was a sphere, and that the belief that the flat earth theory was widespread is just a myth that took root in the 19th century. It is now thought by many, including the Historical Association based in England, that Columbus did not believe the Earth was flat and that this story was merely a myth spread by Washington Irving in his book about Columbus.
> 
> 
> 
> Many people who believe in the flat Earth theory turn to the Bible in order to back up their theory. They quote various passages in order to back up their theories and interpret certain passages literally. Not all of them rely on the Bible though or simply on the Bible. Samuel Shenton who formed the Flat Earth Society, one of the most modern flat earth groups, believed that his beliefs could be proven using common sense and science. The Flat Earth Society was one of the most modern flat Earth organizations in the past century, but that too faded when its last president died in 2001. The name is still being used, although the new organization or organizations are not necessarily linked to the old society.
> 
> Those who adhere to the flat Earth theory have certain answers to criticisms of their theory. Charles Johnson, who was a president of the Flat Earth Society, said that the Moon landing was also a hoax and that it was scripted and filmed on a set in Hollywood. Gravity is seen as a mystical force  that does not exist  to many who believe in the flat Earth theory. Charles Johnson accepted Aristotles idea that things naturally fall downwards. Adherents to the flat Earth theory have often been criticized and parodied. Some of the web sites that use the name are simply satires.
> 
> Flat Earth Theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you posted contradicted your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ARE YOU THAT THICK?The flat Earth theory was believed by many cultures around the world including Ancient Egyptian and Babylonian cultures as well as China up to the last few hundred years.
Click to expand...


Are you moving the goal posts again dummy ? You tried equating the view to Christians when there was only a few Christians believe that the earth was flat and were ignored by the Church because the scriptures speak of a circular earth. Oh and I had to repeat it again,the four corners of the earth was a metaphor, meaning entire earth. 

You are the one that gave me minus reputation points and what was that for ?you said the reason was for inorance not ignorance 

I am gonna right you off like Loki as a fish too small and ignore your posts. Take a few more classes and get back to me.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the God's plan, in His infinite mercy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His mercy is to allow you to continue sinning and choose the road before you.
> 
> It's called freewill but he is a just God and no sin goes unpunished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come that Christianity looking as a 2000-year-old myth is MY sin?
Click to expand...


Take it up with God.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is plenty of evidence -- for example, Neanderthals did not have throwing weapons.
> 2. I don't do assertions. I merely explain how the world looks based on known facts and logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That still does not support the your claim that neanderthals were less intelligent. A simple no would have answered the question that have you ever studied the brain of a neanderthal. And sometimes things are not the way they appear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neanderthals had bigger brains as they had more massive bodies. If bigger brains meant more intelligence, then human males and females would be of much different intelligence.
> 
> What's important is the ratio of the mass of the body to the size of the brain. On that measures humans and Neanderthals were about the same.
> 
> Looking at Neanderthal artifacts it's clear that over their 300,000 year span then didn't change much. Same tools, same hunting etc. They only hunted big game and never got past a thrusting spear. Humans developed the atlatal, sewing, art and decoration.
> 
> Given this, plus that humans survived, Humans were smarter.
Click to expand...


Didn't imply bigger brains meant itelligence are you that thick ?

What I am implying is how did she know the intelligence of the neanderthal never examing a neanderthal brain. I was also implying why would the brain get smaller if we evolved from neanderthals. I thought she implied modern humans evolved from neanderthals.

Neanderthals were 100% human.

I promise I will not waste my time with trying to explain your misrepresentation of me. You will go ignored unless you say something of substance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is one thing you need to understand about science -- it does not provide absolute proof of anything. It is all "speculations", although the right word is "theory".
> 
> So please, stop faulting TOE for being a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? I hold a degree in molecular biology thanks for educatiing me  in the science method. You think because someone does not agree with you they are not educated in science.
> 
> My job for eleven years was to study the effects of mutations and that is exactly why I know the theory of Neo Darwinism to be nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still telling that lie and expecting someone to believe it
> it's  alot  like the definition of insanity.....
Click to expand...


Schooled you fool,you had better hope I have a superior education.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what prevents most people from becoming "The true person of God"? Wrong upbringing? Or are the born that way? Or maybe they just have the ability to reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some cases ignorance of the truth,some choose not to believe.
> 
> Reason this, something does not come from nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> prove it!
Click to expand...


Ok little fish, do you believe muslim children are taught Christianity ?

Are you really this stupid,everything is made up of matter.





mat·ter
&#8194; &#8194;[mat-er] Show IPA 

noun 
1. 
the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed: the matter of which the earth is made. 

2. 
physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, especially as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like. 

3. 
something that occupies space. 

4. 
a particular kind of substance: coloring matter. 

5. 
a situation, state, affair, or business: a trivial matter Science Course Online 
USADegreePrograms.com 
Get Your Online Science Degree in 18 months. Financial Aid Option. 
Ad

verb (used without object) 
19. 
to be of importance; signify: It matters little. 

20. 
Pathology . to suppurate. 






















Matter is always a great word to know. 

So is polypeptide. Does it mean: 

chain of amino acids linked together by peptide bonds, molecular weight of up to about 10,000







nucleic acid that carries instructions from the nuclear DNA into the cytoplasm

 LEARN MORE UNUSUAL WORDS WITH WORD DYNAMO... 

Idioms 
21. 
a matter of life and death, something of vital or crucial importance. 

22. 
as a matter of fact, in reality; actually; in fact: As a matter of fact, there is no substance to that rumor. 

23. 
for that matter, as far as that is concerned; as for that: For that matter, you are no better qualified to judge than I. Also, for the matter of that. 

24. 
no matter, 
a. 
regardless or irrespective of: We'll never finish on time, no matter how hard we work. 

b. 
it is unimportant; it makes no difference: No matter, this string will do as well as any other. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin: 
1175&#8211;1225; Middle English mater ( e ), materie  < Anglo-French, Old French mat ( i ) ere, materie  < Latin m&#257;teria  woody part of a tree, material, substance, derivative of m&#257;ter mother1 

Related forms 
mat·ter·ful, adjective 

mat·ter·less, adjective 

non·mat·ter, noun 


Can be confused: &#8194;madder, matter (see synonym note at the current entry ). 


Synonyms 
1. Matter, material, stuff, substance  refer to that of which physical objects are composed (though all these terms are also used abstractly). Matter,  as distinct from mind and spirit, is a broad word that applies to anything perceived, or known to be occupying space: solid matter; gaseous matter. Material  usually means some definite kind, quality, or quantity of matter, especially as intended for use: woolen material; a house built of good materials. Stuff,  a less technical word, with approximately the same meanings as material,  is characterized by being on an informal level when it refers to physical objects ( Dynamite is queer stuff ), and on a literary or poetic one when it is used abstractly ( the stuff that dreams are made on ). Substance  is the matter that composes a thing, thought of in relation to its essential properties: a sticky substance. 5.  question. 7.  concern. 8.  moment. 11.  subject, topic. 19.  count. 




Example Sentences

The sun could be a net for dark matter, a new study suggests. 
These experts assert that tickling is more than a laughing matter. 
So I said there are three things that matter. 
EXPAND



















Explore the Visual Thesaurus »

Related Words for : matter

substance, count, weigh, affair, thing

View more related words »




Dictionary.com Unabridged





matt
&#8194; &#8194;[mat] Show IPA 

adjective, noun, verb (used with object) 
matte1 . 

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012. 
Cite This Source 
|
 Link To matter 

Collins



World English Dictionary



matter  (&#712;mæt&#601 







&#8212; n  (sometimes foll by of or  for ) 



1. 

that which makes up something, esp a physical object; material 



2. 

substance that occupies space and has mass, as distinguished from substance that is mental, spiritual, etc 



3. 

substance of a specified type: vegetable matter ; reading matter 



4. 

thing; affair; concern; question: a matter of taste ; several matters to attend to ; no laughing matter 



5. 

a quantity or amount: a matter of a few pence 



6. 

the content of written or verbal material as distinct from its style or form 



7. 

( used with a negative ) importance; consequence 



8. 

philosophy  (in the writings of Aristotle and the Scholastics) that which is itself formless but can receive form and become substance 



9. 

philosophy  (in the Cartesian tradition) one of two basic modes of existence, the other being mind : matter being extended in space as well as time 



10. 

printing 





a.type set up, either standing or for use 





b.copy to be set in type 



11. 

a secretion or discharge, such as pus 



12. 

law 





a.something to be proved 





b.statements or allegations to be considered by a court 



13. 

for that matter  as regards that 



14. 

See grey matter 



15. 

no matter 





a.regardless of; irrespective of: no matter what the excuse, you must not be late 





b. ( sentence substitute ) it is unimportant 



16. 

the matter  wrong; the trouble: there's nothing the matter 







&#8212; vb 



17. 

to be of consequence or importance 



18. 

to form and discharge pus 







[C13 (n), C16 (vb): from Latin m&#257;teria  cause, substance, esp wood, or a substance that produces something else; related to m&#257;ter  mother] 



Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 
Cite This Source 






Etymonline



Word Origin & History

matter 

c.1300, "material of thought, speech, or expression," from Anglo-Norm. matere, from L. materia "substance from which something is made," also "hard inner wood of a tree" (cf. Port. madeira "wood"), perhaps from mater "origin, source, mother." Or, on another theory, it represents *dmateria, from PIE root 
EXPAND


Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper 
Cite This Source 


American Heritage



Medical Dictionary

matter  mat·ter (m&#257;t'&#601;r) 
n. 

 Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses. 


 A specific type of substance. 


 Discharge or waste, such as pus or feces, from a living organism. 



The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
 Cite This Source 


American Heritage



Science Dictionary



matter  (m&#257;t'&#601;r) Pronunciation Key  
Something that has mass. Most of the matter in the universe is composed of atoms  which are themselves composed of subatomic particles . See also energy, state of matter.



The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved. 
Cite This Source 


American Heritage



Cultural Dictionary


matter definition 


In physics, something that has mass and is distinct from energy. ( See phases of matter.) 

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 
Cite This Source 


American Heritage



Idioms & Phrases

matter 

In addition to the idioms beginning with matter, also see crux of the matter; for that matter; gray matter; mince matters; mind over matter; no joke (laughing matter); no matter; the matter. 


The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997. Published by Houghton Mifflin. 
Cite This Source 








Word Dynamo By Dictionary.com



Searching for matter? 
How many words do you actually know?

FIND OUT





Related Words

conflict of laws substance back matter biomass issue puzzle 

question subject matter vacuum antimatter between biochemistry 

MORE 


Slang

as a matter of fact 




Idioms & Phrases


matter

crux of the matter

for that matter
 gray matter
 mince matters
MORE 
Image for matter
 Matching Quote
 "Spirit borrows from matter the perceptions on which it feeds and restores them to matter in the form of movements which it has stamped with its own freedom."
 -Henri Bergson 
MORE


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true person of God will hear the gospel and respond positively
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what prevents most people from becoming "The true person of God"? Wrong upbringing? Or are the born that way? Or maybe they just have the ability to reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some cases ignorance of the truth
Click to expand...


Impossible -- most people who are not Christians have access to the Bible and its preachers. So they know the message, they just aren't interested.



> some choose not to believe.



How can you choose not to believe that the sky is blue? How can you choose not to believe that if you drop a pencil, it will fall on the floor?

You can lie about your beliefs, but you can't choose what you sincerely believe is truth. So when most people conclude that Christianity is a myth, it is not because they choose to be that way. It is merely the way they experience the world around them -- they just don't see any evidence that the God is out there!


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what prevents most people from becoming "The true person of God"? Wrong upbringing? Or are the born that way? Or maybe they just have the ability to reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some cases ignorance of the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Impossible -- most people who are not Christians have access to the Bible and its preachers. So they know the message, they just aren't interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some choose not to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you choose not to believe that the sky is blue? How can you choose not to believe that if you drop a pencil, it will fall on the floor?
> 
> You can lie about your beliefs, but you can't choose what you sincerely believe is truth. So when most people conclude that Christianity is a myth, it is not because they choose to be that way. It is merely the way they experience the world around them -- they just don't see any evidence that the God is out there!
Click to expand...


Well if you are gonna close your eyes to the design that surrounds you ,so be it


----------



## Youwerecreated

School is out.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> His mercy is to allow you to continue sinning and choose the road before you.
> 
> It's called freewill but he is a just God and no sin goes unpunished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come that Christianity looking as a 2000-year-old myth is MY sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take it up with God.
Click to expand...


In other words, you don't have an answer. And that explains why people like me don't believe in your God -- because neither you, nor any other Christian can explain why your God says one thing, but does completely opposite.

Your God wants people to become Christians, but then he makes sure that Christianity look like a fairy tale. Why?


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some cases ignorance of the truth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible -- most people who are not Christians have access to the Bible and its preachers. So they know the message, they just aren't interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some choose not to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you choose not to believe that the sky is blue? How can you choose not to believe that if you drop a pencil, it will fall on the floor?
> 
> You can lie about your beliefs, but you can't choose what you sincerely believe is truth. So when most people conclude that Christianity is a myth, it is not because they choose to be that way. It is merely the way they experience the world around them -- they just don't see any evidence that the God is out there!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you are gonna close your eyes to the design that surrounds you ,so be it
Click to expand...


OK, I will make it simple for you. Most people live with the eyes wide open -- otherwise they will be stumbling over every rock and bumping into every light post. They look into the Universe, but they don't see God in it because he either do not exists, or because He is hiding!

Why can't he just come to Manhattan, part the waters in the Upper Bay to garb the people attention and tell them what is going on? He had no problems doing that thousands years ago, so why not now?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come that Christianity looking as a 2000-year-old myth is MY sin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't have an answer. And that explains why people like me don't believe in your God -- because neither you, nor any other Christian can explain why your God says one thing, but does completely opposite.
> 
> Your God wants people to become Christians, but then he makes sure that Christianity look like a fairy tale. Why?
Click to expand...


The only ones that try to make it look like a fairytale is some who can't bring themselves to believe in a higher power and miracles are a problem for them as well.

Besides it is by faith and belief that we are saved.

Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 

Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."

Rom. 3:22, "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction." 

Rom. 3:26, "for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." 

Rom. 10:9-10, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved;  10for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." 



Mat 14:28  And Peter answered Him and said, LORD, if it is You, tell me to come to You on the water. 
Mat 14:29  And He said, Come. And when Peter had come down out of the boat, he walked on the water to go to Jesus. 
Mat 14:30  But seeing that the wind was strong, he was afraid. And beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me! 
Mat 14:31  And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and caught him; and said to him, Little-faith! Why did you doubt? 

Mat 17:14  And when they came to the crowd, a man came to Him, kneeling down to Him and saying, 
Mat 17:15  Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and grievously vexed; for oftentimes he falls into the fire, and often into the water. 
Mat 17:16  And I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him. 
Mat 17:17  Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you? Bring him here to Me. 
Mat 17:18  And Jesus rebuked the demon, and he departed out of him. And the child was cured from that very hour. 
Mat 17:19  Then the disciples came to Jesus apart, and said, Why could we not cast him out? 
Mat 17:20  And Jesus said to them, Because of your unbelief. For truly I say to you, If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Move from here to there. And it shall move. And nothing shall be impossible to you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible -- most people who are not Christians have access to the Bible and its preachers. So they know the message, they just aren't interested.
> 
> 
> 
> How can you choose not to believe that the sky is blue? How can you choose not to believe that if you drop a pencil, it will fall on the floor?
> 
> You can lie about your beliefs, but you can't choose what you sincerely believe is truth. So when most people conclude that Christianity is a myth, it is not because they choose to be that way. It is merely the way they experience the world around them -- they just don't see any evidence that the God is out there!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you are gonna close your eyes to the design that surrounds you ,so be it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, I will make it simple for you. Most people live with the eyes wide open -- otherwise they will be stumbling over every rock and bumping into every light post. They look into the Universe, but they don't see God in it because he either do not exists, or because He is hiding!
> 
> Why can't he just come to Manhattan, part the waters in the Upper Bay to garb the people attention and tell them what is going on? He had no problems doing that thousands years ago, so why not now?
Click to expand...


Rerally,not according to God.

2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them. 

The god of this world is satan.


----------



## Montrovant

YWC!  Wall of text!  At least get rid of some of the unnecessary spacing in there next time, please


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate bringing this up.
> 
> Joh 16:11  concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
> 
> 2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.
> 
> Mat 7:13  Go in by the narrow door; for wide is the door and open is the way which goes to destruction, and great numbers go in by it.
> Mat 7:14  For narrow is the door and hard the road to life, and only a small number make discovery of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's bull, there is no hardship in following Christian faith (unless one is born in a remote Afgan village --what about them, BTW?). Most people are not Christian only because they see it as a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many will find out the hard way that it is not a fairy-tale.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? I hold a degree in molecular biology thanks for educatiing me  in the science method. You think because someone does not agree with you they are not educated in science.
> 
> My job for eleven years was to study the effects of mutations and that is exactly why I know the theory of Neo Darwinism to be nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> still telling that lie and expecting someone to believe it
> it's  alot  like the definition of insanity.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schooled you fool,you had better hope I have a superior education.
Click to expand...

if by schooled, you mean providing hours of amusement by showcasing swaggering ignorance then yes, you schooled me.
any other definition of that you might have had in mind is false.
BTW hope has nothing to do with it ,since it's laughingly obvious you have no education past high school (I have a sneaking suspicion that you didn't graduate)makes any body's education, including mine (masters degree)far superior to yours, almost to the point of excess .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some cases ignorance of the truth,some choose not to believe.
> 
> Reason this, something does not come from nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> prove it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok little fish, do you believe muslim children are taught Christianity ?
> 
> Are you really this stupid,everything is made up of matter.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------EDITED FOR MEANINGLESS CONTENT----------------------------
> FAILED PROOF OF CONCEPT
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't have an answer. And that explains why people like me don't believe in your God -- because neither you, nor any other Christian can explain why your God says one thing, but does completely opposite.
> 
> Your God wants people to become Christians, but then he makes sure that Christianity look like a fairy tale. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only ones that try to make it look like a fairytale is some who can't bring themselves to believe in a higher power and miracles are a problem for them as well.
> 
> Besides it is by faith and belief that we are saved.
> 
> Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
> 
> Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
> 
> John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."
> 
> Rom. 3:22, "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction."
> 
> Rom. 3:26, "for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
> 
> Rom. 10:9-10, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved;  10for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
> 
> 
> 
> Mat 14:28  And Peter answered Him and said, LORD, if it is You, tell me to come to You on the water.
> Mat 14:29  And He said, Come. And when Peter had come down out of the boat, he walked on the water to go to Jesus.
> Mat 14:30  But seeing that the wind was strong, he was afraid. And beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me!
> Mat 14:31  And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and caught him; and said to him, Little-faith! Why did you doubt?
> 
> Mat 17:14  And when they came to the crowd, a man came to Him, kneeling down to Him and saying,
> Mat 17:15  Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and grievously vexed; for oftentimes he falls into the fire, and often into the water.
> Mat 17:16  And I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him.
> Mat 17:17  Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you? Bring him here to Me.
> Mat 17:18  And Jesus rebuked the demon, and he departed out of him. And the child was cured from that very hour.
> Mat 17:19  Then the disciples came to Jesus apart, and said, Why could we not cast him out?
> Mat 17:20  And Jesus said to them, Because of your unbelief. For truly I say to you, If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Move from here to there. And it shall move. And nothing shall be impossible to you.
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't have an answer. SO STFU!


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you are gonna close your eyes to the design that surrounds you ,so be it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I will make it simple for you. Most people live with the eyes wide open -- otherwise they will be stumbling over every rock and bumping into every light post. They look into the Universe, but they don't see God in it because he either do not exists, or because He is hiding!
> 
> Why can't he just come to Manhattan, part the waters in the Upper Bay to garb the people attention and tell them what is going on? He had no problems doing that thousands years ago, so why not now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rerally,not according to God.
> 
> 2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.
> 
> The god of this world is satan.
Click to expand...


Again, if my mind is blinded by satan, then how can it be MY sin? I am the victim here, not the perpetrator!

And the question remains -- how come the real God, omnipotent no less, allows satan to blind me? Having free will would have no difference if I can't make the right choice because I was blinded by satan! CICO, as any good designer would say. And God is supposed to be a good designer, isn't it?


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it hard for you to grasp that there was no free oxygen on Earth when the first RNA molecule had formed? And why it could not form in water?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove there was no free oxygen when life began. You are relying on speculation not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is one thing you need to understand about science -- it does not provide absolute proof of anything. It is all "speculations", although the right word is "theory".
> 
> So please, stop faulting TOE for being a theory.
Click to expand...


Then please stop presenting it as the FACT of evolution. I think we could "all just get along" if this happened. Instead, materialists regularly state speculation as fact.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many will find out the hard way that it is not a fairy-tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the God's plan, in His infinite mercy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His mercy is to allow you to continue sinning and choose the road before you.
> 
> It's called freewill but he is a just God and no sin goes unpunished.
Click to expand...


Under the TOE, there is no such thing as free will. This is a really great way not to accept any personal responsibility for your actions. No choice. No God. No accountability. So we went from "the devil made me do it" to "my genes made me to it". Here we see how we can get so far off track ethically with materialistic religion. Should we be appalled at the man who abducts other men, sodomizes them, and then hacks them into little pieces and puts them in his freezer? Heck no under the TOE. HE did not have free will. He was just a "product of his environment" (NS).

You see I just can't help it.... but hey... "I'm on the right track baby, I was born this way."


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the God's plan, in His infinite mercy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His mercy is to allow you to continue sinning and choose the road before you.
> 
> It's called freewill but he is a just God and no sin goes unpunished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under the TOE, there is no such thing as free will. This is a really great way not to accept any personal responsibility for your actions. No choice. No God. No accountability. So we went from "the devil made me do it" to "my genes made me to it". Here we see how we can get so far off track ethically with materialistic religion. Should we be appalled at the man who abducts other men, sodomizes them, and then hacks them into little pieces and puts them in his freezer? Heck no under the TOE. HE did not have free will. He was just a "product of his environment" (NS).
> 
> You see I just can't help it.... but hey... "I'm on the right track baby, I was born this way."
Click to expand...


Wow, you really are .  

Any chance you could detail how the theory of evolution makes the claim there is no such thing as free will?

We don't even need to get into the question of whether a god who created everything and knows everything that ever has or ever will happen makes free will an impossibility. 

EDIT : Just to be clear, before you say that natural selection is your answer, natural selection does not make any claims about free will that I know of.


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what prevents most people from becoming "The true person of God"? Wrong upbringing? Or are the born that way? Or maybe they just have the ability to reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some cases ignorance of the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Impossible -- most people who are not Christians have access to the Bible and its preachers. So they know the message, they just aren't interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some choose not to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you choose not to believe that the sky is blue? How can you choose not to believe that if you drop a pencil, it will fall on the floor?
> 
> You can lie about your beliefs, but you can't choose what you sincerely believe is truth. So when most people conclude that Christianity is a myth, it is not because they choose to be that way. It is merely the way they experience the world around them -- they just don't see any evidence that the God is out there!
Click to expand...


Maybe you just choose not to see it...

Psalm 19

 1 The heavens declare the glory of God; 
   the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 
2 Day after day they pour forth speech; 
   night after night they reveal knowledge. 
3 They have no speech, they use no words; 
   no sound is heard from them. 
4 Yet their voice* goes out into all the earth, 
   their words to the ends of the world.*


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove there was no free oxygen when life began. You are relying on speculation not fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is one thing you need to understand about science -- it does not provide absolute proof of anything. It is all "speculations", although the right word is "theory".
> 
> So please, stop faulting TOE for being a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then please stop presenting it as the FACT of evolution. I think we could "all just get along" if this happened. Instead, materialists regularly state speculation as fact.
Click to expand...


We are not presenting it as a fact. We just say there is 0.00000.....000001 chance of it not being true, end even less chance of Christianity being something more than a myth.

A proposition that the display, which you are reading this words from actually exists is a theory. And a proposition that the Earth is flat is also a theory. But the former is infinitely more useful than the latter. Same is true about TOE and science vs any religion.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> His mercy is to allow you to continue sinning and choose the road before you.
> 
> It's called freewill but he is a just God and no sin goes unpunished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under the TOE, there is no such thing as free will. This is a really great way not to accept any personal responsibility for your actions. No choice. No God. No accountability. So we went from "the devil made me do it" to "my genes made me to it". Here we see how we can get so far off track ethically with materialistic religion. Should we be appalled at the man who abducts other men, sodomizes them, and then hacks them into little pieces and puts them in his freezer? Heck no under the TOE. HE did not have free will. He was just a "product of his environment" (NS).
> 
> You see I just can't help it.... but hey... "I'm on the right track baby, I was born this way."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are .
> 
> Any chance you could detail how the theory of evolution makes the claim there is no such thing as free will?
> 
> We don't even need to get into the question of whether a god who created everything and knows everything that ever has or ever will happen makes free will an impossibility.
> 
> EDIT : Just to be clear, before you say that natural selection is your answer, natural selection does not make any claims about free will that I know of.
Click to expand...


That's understandable. You should know what you believe...

William B. Provine

Will Provine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Watch for 3 minutes...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI]Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is one thing you need to understand about science -- it does not provide absolute proof of anything. It is all "speculations", although the right word is "theory".
> 
> So please, stop faulting TOE for being a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then please stop presenting it as the FACT of evolution. I think we could "all just get along" if this happened. Instead, materialists regularly state speculation as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not presenting it as a fact. We just say there is 0.00000.....000001 chance of it not being true, end even less chance of Christianity being something more than a myth.
Click to expand...


Well, hallelujah!!! I'll take those odds. They are way better than the one in  1 x 10(n=80) chance that amino acids self-assembled.


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some cases ignorance of the truth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible -- most people who are not Christians have access to the Bible and its preachers. So they know the message, they just aren't interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some choose not to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you choose not to believe that the sky is blue? How can you choose not to believe that if you drop a pencil, it will fall on the floor?
> 
> You can lie about your beliefs, but you can't choose what you sincerely believe is truth. So when most people conclude that Christianity is a myth, it is not because they choose to be that way. It is merely the way they experience the world around them -- they just don't see any evidence that the God is out there!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you just choose not to see it...
Click to expand...


Again, I cannot make that choice. A healthy person is not capable of choosing what his eyes see, what laws of logic to use, what facts to ignore or imagine. You can only lie about it.

And even if I was capable of making that choice, why would I make it? Religion is a great thing, it can give you inner peace, sense of belonging and what not. That is why it remains popular.

The problem is not that my eyes are closed -- it is the opposite. I know too much, enough to see any religion for what it really is.


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then please stop presenting it as the FACT of evolution. I think we could "all just get along" if this happened. Instead, materialists regularly state speculation as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not presenting it as a fact. We just say there is 0.00000.....000001 chance of it not being true, end even less chance of Christianity being something more than a myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, hallelujah!!! I'll take those odds. They are way better than the one in  1 x 10(n=80) chance that amino acids self-assembled.
Click to expand...


How did you come up with that number?


----------



## Inquisitor

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it hard for you to grasp that there was no free oxygen on Earth when the first RNA molecule had formed? And why it could not form in water?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove there was no free oxygen when life began. You are relying on speculation not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is one thing you need to understand about science -- it does not provide absolute proof of anything. It is all "speculations", although the right word is "theory".
> 
> So please, stop faulting TOE for being a theory.
Click to expand...


There are many theories in Science, but also many facts. 

Science, for the most part relies on empirical evidence.   Gravity for example.  If you think gravity is speculation try dropping a heavy object on your foot. 

There are many "theories" about exactly what Gravity is and these involve speculation. 

That gravity exists is fact.


----------



## ilia25

Inquisitor said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove there was no free oxygen when life began. You are relying on speculation not fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is one thing you need to understand about science -- it does not provide absolute proof of anything. It is all "speculations", although the right word is "theory".
> 
> So please, stop faulting TOE for being a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many theories in Science, but also many facts.
> 
> Science, for the most part relies on empirical evidence.   Gravity for example.  If you think gravity is speculation try dropping a heavy object on your foot.
Click to expand...


I know that dropping something heavy on your foot probably is not a good idea. What science says is that you can't be 100% sure about that. Or about anything. If anything, it can all be in your head.


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> Here we see how we can get so far off track ethically with materialistic religion.



1. Stop calling materialistic view a religion -- that is a bull. Having no faith means you are not following any religion.
2. You can get off track ethically with Christianity as well, and much easier than with atheistic view (how many people commit atrocities believing they are serving God?)

And recognizing that an environment or a mental illness can lead people to making bad choices in not unethical. Even most Christians now get it.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Under the TOE, there is no such thing as free will. This is a really great way not to accept any personal responsibility for your actions. No choice. No God. No accountability. So we went from "the devil made me do it" to "my genes made me to it". Here we see how we can get so far off track ethically with materialistic religion. Should we be appalled at the man who abducts other men, sodomizes them, and then hacks them into little pieces and puts them in his freezer? Heck no under the TOE. HE did not have free will. He was just a "product of his environment" (NS).
> 
> You see I just can't help it.... but hey... "I'm on the right track baby, I was born this way."


100% made-up-nonsense.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under the TOE, there is no such thing as free will. This is a really great way not to accept any personal responsibility for your actions. No choice. No God. No accountability. So we went from "the devil made me do it" to "my genes made me to it". Here we see how we can get so far off track ethically with materialistic religion. Should we be appalled at the man who abducts other men, sodomizes them, and then hacks them into little pieces and puts them in his freezer? Heck no under the TOE. HE did not have free will. He was just a "product of his environment" (NS).
> 
> You see I just can't help it.... but hey... "I'm on the right track baby, I was born this way."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are .
> 
> Any chance you could detail how the theory of evolution makes the claim there is no such thing as free will?
> 
> We don't even need to get into the question of whether a god who created everything and knows everything that ever has or ever will happen makes free will an impossibility.
> 
> EDIT : Just to be clear, before you say that natural selection is your answer, natural selection does not make any claims about free will that I know of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's understandable. You should know what you believe...
> 
> William B. Provine
> 
> Will Provine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Watch for 3 minutes...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI]Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


So this particular man thinks that there is no free will, therefor it is a tenet of evolutionary theory?  I'm sorry, but that's a stretch.  Even in the video, it says that the lack of free will is his personal conclusion.  What we have here is someone taking evolutionary theory and concluding, based on it, that certain things not covered by the theory are true.  He doesn't even give a good explanation for how it flows from evolutionary theory that free will doesn't exist.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under the TOE, there is no such thing as free will. This is a really great way not to accept any personal responsibility for your actions. No choice. No God. No accountability. So we went from "the devil made me do it" to "my genes made me to it". Here we see how we can get so far off track ethically with materialistic religion. Should we be appalled at the man who abducts other men, sodomizes them, and then hacks them into little pieces and puts them in his freezer? Heck no under the TOE. HE did not have free will. He was just a "product of his environment" (NS).
> 
> You see I just can't help it.... but hey... "I'm on the right track baby, I was born this way."
> 
> 
> 
> 100% made-up-nonsense.
Click to expand...


Why don't you post an intellectually honest rebuttal? Or do you only know how to spew words without a point?

Like I said before, your boy Provine said it, not me. So if I am citing an actual materialistic high priest, I supposet that is a strawman too. pffff. Whatever.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are .
> 
> Any chance you could detail how the theory of evolution makes the claim there is no such thing as free will?
> 
> We don't even need to get into the question of whether a god who created everything and knows everything that ever has or ever will happen makes free will an impossibility.
> 
> EDIT : Just to be clear, before you say that natural selection is your answer, natural selection does not make any claims about free will that I know of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's understandable. You should know what you believe...
> 
> William B. Provine
> 
> Will Provine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Watch for 3 minutes...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI]Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So this particular man thinks that there is no free will, therefor it is a tenet of evolutionary theory?  I'm sorry, but that's a stretch.  Even in the video, it says that the lack of free will is his personal conclusion.  What we have here is someone taking evolutionary theory and concluding, based on it, that certain things not covered by the theory are true.  He doesn't even give a good explanation for how it flows from evolutionary theory that free will doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


This guy is a well respected Materialist High Priest. He is widely known for dissing ID Theorists. He is an evolutionary biology historian professor at Cornell. The credentials don't get much better than these. The real truth is, the same thing you bag on Christians for, i.e., not knowing their doctrine, is rampant in your religion. You Materialists don't know what you believe!!! Please man, learn your doctrines!!


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's understandable. You should know what you believe...
> 
> William B. Provine
> 
> Will Provine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Watch for 3 minutes...
> 
> Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this particular man thinks that there is no free will, therefor it is a tenet of evolutionary theory?  I'm sorry, but that's a stretch.  Even in the video, it says that the lack of free will is his personal conclusion.  What we have here is someone taking evolutionary theory and concluding, based on it, that certain things not covered by the theory are true.  He doesn't even give a good explanation for how it flows from evolutionary theory that free will doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This guy is a well respected Materialist High Priest. He is widely known for dissing ID Theorists. He is a evolutionary biology historian professor at Cornell. The credentials don't get much better than these. The real truth is, the same thing you bag on Christians for, i.e., not knowing their doctrine, is rampant in your religion. You Materialists don't know what you believe!!! Please man, learn your doctrines!!
Click to expand...


Perhaps you aren't grasping this.  His belief that free will doesn't exist is NOT part of evolutionary theory.  According to this video, at least, it is a conclusion he draws based on evolutionary theory.  He also concludes there is no god and there is no afterlife, are you claiming those, too, are part of evolutionary theory?

Are the personal beliefs of every scientist considered part of the branch of science they study?  Are the personal beliefs of every biblical scholar part of the bible?  You are mixing the man's personal views with a scientific theory even though he never claimed those views are part of the theory.

Also, I'd love to see your examples of me 'bagging on Christians' for not knowing their doctrine.  Further, evolution is not my religion.  

Get back to me when you have a relevant, non-straw man post.


----------



## newpolitics

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



My belief:

We are belief-run creatures. It is simply a matter of what information reaches a developing brain first:  fact or fiction. Once beliefs are set in stone at an early age, they are very difficult to remove, and no amount of logic or actual real-world empirical truth can budge them, because they become a part of the identity structure, and once that happens, its all over. This is especially true with religious beliefs, because they inform identity and perform a social purpose (church). With so many important functions being serviced by such identity and core-beliefs, they become impossible to remove unless through something traumatic. It is tragic that we are so susceptible to our own minds, and capable of being so oblivious to the world around, but such is the way it was throughout our evolution. There was no incentive to be scientific, because there was no science yet until only recently. The only incentive we had was to learn to get along with eachother in our hunter-gather group, in other words: to cooperate. This was the ultimate end, and so beliefs that facilitate this are rewarded. This includes the unifying function of spiritual beliefs, which brought people together on a deep level, easily, regardless of whether those beliefs corresponded with the physical reality and history of the universe. So, this is where we are today. Run by false beliefs, and defending them to the death. Beliefs and our affinity for them cause all of the problems we have as humans. If we were simply more humble, and not so convinced of our own righteousness in terms of religion and politics, we could all get along a lot better.

I think that within the mind of a person holding young earth creation beliefs, they think that following a literal interpretation of the bible will score them points with Jesus, basically. It is a test of faith to not question anything, or take a less literal interpretation of the book. They think therefore, that they will be 'preferred' over other Christians who do not hold such a literal view.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under the TOE, there is no such thing as free will. This is a really great way not to accept any personal responsibility for your actions. No choice. No God. No accountability. So we went from "the devil made me do it" to "my genes made me to it". Here we see how we can get so far off track ethically with materialistic religion. Should we be appalled at the man who abducts other men, sodomizes them, and then hacks them into little pieces and puts them in his freezer? Heck no under the TOE. HE did not have free will. He was just a "product of his environment" (NS).
> 
> You see I just can't help it.... but hey... "I'm on the right track baby, I was born this way."
> 
> 
> 
> 100% made-up-nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you post an intellectually honest rebuttal? Or do you only know how to spew words without a point?
> 
> Like I said before, your boy Provine said it, not me. So if I am citing an actual materialistic high priest, I supposet that is a strawman too. pffff. Whatever.
Click to expand...

There was nothing intellectually dishonest about my rebuttal.

However ... 

I did not respond to what Provine said. I clearly  responded to what *you* said. You made NO citation of Povine in the post I responded to, nor any post prior.

Nor have you disavowed your post since (except, perhaps now). So Jackass, you indeed said all that you clearly said, and it is still 100% made-up-nonsense ... including your notions of material high priesthood.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't have an answer. And that explains why people like me don't believe in your God -- because neither you, nor any other Christian can explain why your God says one thing, but does completely opposite.
> 
> Your God wants people to become Christians, but then he makes sure that Christianity look like a fairy tale. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones that try to make it look like a fairytale is some who can't bring themselves to believe in a higher power and miracles are a problem for them as well.
> 
> Besides it is by faith and belief that we are saved.
> 
> Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
> 
> Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
> 
> John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."
> 
> Rom. 3:22, "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction."
> 
> Rom. 3:26, "for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
> 
> Rom. 10:9-10, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved;  10for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
> 
> 
> 
> Mat 14:28  And Peter answered Him and said, LORD, if it is You, tell me to come to You on the water.
> Mat 14:29  And He said, Come. And when Peter had come down out of the boat, he walked on the water to go to Jesus.
> Mat 14:30  But seeing that the wind was strong, he was afraid. And beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me!
> Mat 14:31  And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and caught him; and said to him, Little-faith! Why did you doubt?
> 
> Mat 17:14  And when they came to the crowd, a man came to Him, kneeling down to Him and saying,
> Mat 17:15  Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and grievously vexed; for oftentimes he falls into the fire, and often into the water.
> Mat 17:16  And I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him.
> Mat 17:17  Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you? Bring him here to Me.
> Mat 17:18  And Jesus rebuked the demon, and he departed out of him. And the child was cured from that very hour.
> Mat 17:19  Then the disciples came to Jesus apart, and said, Why could we not cast him out?
> Mat 17:20  And Jesus said to them, Because of your unbelief. For truly I say to you, If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Move from here to there. And it shall move. And nothing shall be impossible to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you don't have an answer. SO STFU!
Click to expand...


How old are you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I will make it simple for you. Most people live with the eyes wide open -- otherwise they will be stumbling over every rock and bumping into every light post. They look into the Universe, but they don't see God in it because he either do not exists, or because He is hiding!
> 
> Why can't he just come to Manhattan, part the waters in the Upper Bay to garb the people attention and tell them what is going on? He had no problems doing that thousands years ago, so why not now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rerally,not according to God.
> 
> 2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.
> 
> The god of this world is satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if my mind is blinded by satan, then how can it be MY sin? I am the victim here, not the perpetrator!
> 
> And the question remains -- how come the real God, omnipotent no less, allows satan to blind me? Having free will would have no difference if I can't make the right choice because I was blinded by satan! CICO, as any good designer would say. And God is supposed to be a good designer, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Because people allow themselves to be blinded. Just like they allow themselves to be possessed and or lead down the wrong road. You are involved in a vital issue whether you like hearing it or not.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is one thing you need to understand about science -- it does not provide absolute proof of anything. It is all "speculations", although the right word is "theory".
> 
> So please, stop faulting TOE for being a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then please stop presenting it as the FACT of evolution. I think we could "all just get along" if this happened. Instead, materialists regularly state speculation as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not presenting it as a fact. We just say there is 0.00000.....000001 chance of it not being true, end even less chance of Christianity being something more than a myth.
> 
> A proposition that the display, which you are reading this words from actually exists is a theory. And a proposition that the Earth is flat is also a theory. But the former is infinitely more useful than the latter. Same is true about TOE and science vs any religion.
Click to expand...


If your presuppositions are wrong,you are wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we see how we can get so far off track ethically with materialistic religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Stop calling materialistic view a religion -- that is a bull. Having no faith means you are not following any religion.
> 2. You can get off track ethically with Christianity as well, and much easier than with atheistic view (how many people commit atrocities believing they are serving God?)
> 
> And recognizing that an environment or a mental illness can lead people to making bad choices in not unethical. Even most Christians now get it.
Click to expand...


Oh but you are because much of the evidence you believe in is speculation and to hold on to the views takes faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My belief:
> 
> We are belief-run creatures. It is simply a matter of what information reaches a developing brain first:  fact or fiction. Once beliefs are set in stone at an early age, they are very difficult to remove, and no amount of logic or actual real-world empirical truth can budge them, because they become a part of the identity structure, and once that happens, its all over. This is especially true with religious beliefs, because they inform identity and perform a social purpose (church). With so many important functions being serviced by such identity and core-beliefs, they become impossible to remove unless through something traumatic. It is tragic that we are so susceptible to our own minds, and capable of being so oblivious to the world around, but such is the way it was throughout our evolution. There was no incentive to be scientific, because there was no science yet until only recently. The only incentive we had was to learn to get along with eachother in our hunter-gather group, in other words: to cooperate. This was the ultimate end, and so beliefs that facilitate this are rewarded. This includes the unifying function of spiritual beliefs, which brought people together on a deep level, easily, regardless of whether those beliefs corresponded with the physical reality and history of the universe. So, this is where we are today. Run by false beliefs, and defending them to the death. Beliefs and our affinity for them cause all of the problems we have as humans. If we were simply more humble, and not so convinced of our own righteousness in terms of religion and politics, we could all get along a lot better.
> 
> I think that within the mind of a person holding young earth creation beliefs, they think that following a literal interpretation of the bible will score them points with Jesus, basically. It is a test of faith to not question anything, or take a less literal interpretation of the book. They think therefore, that they will be 'preferred' over other Christians who do not hold such a literal view.
Click to expand...


No difference from the Ideologues of macro-evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% made-up-nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you post an intellectually honest rebuttal? Or do you only know how to spew words without a point?
> 
> Like I said before, your boy Provine said it, not me. So if I am citing an actual materialistic high priest, I supposet that is a strawman too. pffff. Whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was nothing intellectually dishonest about my rebuttal.
> 
> However ...
> 
> I did not respond to what Provine said. I clearly  responded to what *you* said. You made NO citation of Povine in the post I responded to, nor any post prior.
> 
> Nor have you disavowed your post since (except, perhaps now). So Jackass, you indeed said all that you clearly said, and it is still 100% made-up-nonsense ... including your notions of material high priesthood.
Click to expand...


You are delusional if you don't think that the science community is not affected greatly by the likes of Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald. These are your high priests of your religion.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you post an intellectually honest rebuttal? Or do you only know how to spew words without a point?
> 
> Like I said before, your boy Provine said it, not me. So if I am citing an actual materialistic high priest, I supposet that is a strawman too. pffff. Whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing intellectually dishonest about my rebuttal.
> 
> However ...
> 
> I did not respond to what Provine said. I clearly  responded to what *you* said. You made NO citation of Povine in the post I responded to, nor any post prior.
> 
> Nor have you disavowed your post since (except, perhaps now). So Jackass, you indeed said all that you clearly said, and it is still 100% made-up-nonsense ... including your notions of material high priesthood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you don't think that the science community is not affected greatly by the likes of Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald. These are your high priests of your religion.
Click to expand...


So, are you now expanding things to say that not only is evolution a religion, all of science is religion?  That the seeming implication of this post.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> Because people allow themselves to be blinded. Just like they allow themselves to be possessed and or lead down the wrong road.



How exactly people allow themselves to be blinded? By giving an explicit permission to satan? Or just by watching Discovery channel?


----------



## ilia25

Montrovant said:


> So, are you now expanding things to say that not only is evolution a religion, all of science is religion?  That the seeming implication of this post.



That is their favorite trick -- though they mostly use it on themselves. You know, if science is just another religion, then it is a matter of personal preference what to believe.

Of course it is impossible to explain what the scientific method is about to the likes of youwerecreated. They just say "thanks, I have a degree" and the next thing they are repeating the same "science is religion" bull.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove there was no free oxygen when life began. You are relying on speculation not fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is one thing you need to understand about science -- it does not provide absolute proof of anything. It is all "speculations", although the right word is "theory".
> 
> So please, stop faulting TOE for being a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then please stop presenting it as the FACT of evolution. I think we could "all just get along" if this happened. Instead, materialists regularly state speculation as fact.
Click to expand...

the toe is fact, it exists, just has your belief in an invisible sky god exists..
the difference being that there is evidence for the TOE and none for the sky god, except for the belief in said sky god.
it's is also fact that belief proves nothing but belief .   
it's no evidence of the thing believed in


----------



## ilia25

newpolitics said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My belief:
> 
> We are belief-run creatures. It is simply a matter of what information reaches a developing brain first:  fact or fiction.
Click to expand...


If it were that simple there would be no atheists out there  Many people with religious upbringing eventually become atheists once they get to know this world. Unfortunately, it works both ways -- many people that were raised atheists become religious.

I think people become atheists simply because they are better at building a consistent model of the world around them.


----------



## daws101

ilia25 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My belief:
> 
> We are belief-run creatures. It is simply a matter of what information reaches a developing brain first:  fact or fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it were that simple there would be no atheists out there  Many people with religious upbringing eventually become atheists once they get to know this world. Unfortunately, it works both ways -- many people that were raised atheists become religious.
> 
> I think people become atheists simply because they are better at building a consistent model of the world around them.
Click to expand...

you're going straight to hell! blasphemer!


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you post an intellectually honest rebuttal? Or do you only know how to spew words without a point?
> 
> Like I said before, your boy Provine said it, not me. So if I am citing an actual materialistic high priest, I supposet that is a strawman too. pffff. Whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing intellectually dishonest about my rebuttal.
> 
> However ...
> 
> I did not respond to what Provine said. I clearly  responded to what *you* said. You made NO citation of Povine in the post I responded to, nor any post prior.
> 
> Nor have you disavowed your post since (except, perhaps now). So Jackass, you indeed said all that you clearly said, and it is still 100% made-up-nonsense ... including your notions of material high priesthood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you don't think that the science community is not affected greatly by the likes of Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald.
Click to expand...

So what if Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald have a great effect upon "the science community"?



Youwerecreated said:


> These are your high priests of your religion.


It's disingenuous to assert that science is a religion with high priests. It is nothing but a lame attempt to assert that science has no greater relevance to reality than superstition.


----------



## The Irish Ram

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing intellectually dishonest about my rebuttal.
> 
> However ...
> 
> I did not respond to what Provine said. I clearly  responded to what *you* said. You made NO citation of Povine in the post I responded to, nor any post prior.
> 
> Nor have you disavowed your post since (except, perhaps now). So Jackass, you indeed said all that you clearly said, and it is still 100% made-up-nonsense ... including your notions of material high priesthood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you don't think that the science community is not affected greatly by the likes of Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what if Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald have a great effect upon "the science community"?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are your high priests of your religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's disingenuous to assert that science is a religion with high priests. It is nothing but a lame attempt to assert that science has no greater relevance to reality than superstition.
Click to expand...

Science is only as relevent as it's next discovery.  
Oh look! Strings........


----------



## LOki

The Irish Ram said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you don't think that the science community is not affected greatly by the likes of Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald.
> 
> 
> 
> So what if Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald have a great effect upon "the science community"?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are your high priests of your religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's disingenuous to assert that science is a religion with high priests. It is nothing but a lame attempt to assert that science has no greater relevance to reality than superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is only as relevent as it's next discovery.
> Oh look! Strings........
Click to expand...

Modern medicine = irrelevant. Please demonstrate.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Modern medicine= chemotherapy
Tomorrow's medicine= cancer vacine


----------



## LOki

The Irish Ram said:


> Modern medicine= chemotherapy
> Tomorrow's medicine= cancer vacine


Looks like tomorrows science is irrelevant today, and yesterday's science is still relevant.


----------



## The Irish Ram

LOki said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern medicine= chemotherapy
> Tomorrow's medicine= cancer vaccine
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like tomorrows science is irrelevant today, and yesterday's science is still relevant.
Click to expand...


Yesterday's science wasn't very relevant to the last kid that contracted polio.  He stayed crippled.  A vaccine was relevant to me.  I never contracted polio.  
Your approach is  kind of like the sign in the café:
All meals free, tomorrow.  
Today's chemotherapy is only relevant until a vaccine is discovered.
Calamine lotion was relevant for the itch of chickenpox only until a pox vaccine made it irrelevant. 
There was no relevance to the scientific view that the sun circled the earth.  Relevance arrived with the scientific discovery that the earth circled the sun.  

Science is as relevant as it's next discovery.  Not that prior discoveries aren't important or relevant at the time, but they are only relevant until something better, or more relevant is discovered. 

OH look! 10 dimensions!


----------



## newpolitics

LOki said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern medicine= chemotherapy
> Tomorrow's medicine= cancer vacine
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like tomorrows science is irrelevant today, and yesterday's science is still relevant.
Click to expand...


It is amusing to watch people trying their best to discredit science, simply because it is a threat to their own belief structures, which I assume are based on the bible. It is actually really pathetic, but hey, whatever floats your boat.


----------



## The Irish Ram

newpolitics said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern medicine= chemotherapy
> Tomorrow's medicine= cancer vaccine
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like tomorrows science is irrelevant today, and yesterday's science is still relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is amusing to watch people trying their best to discredit science, simply because it is a threat to their own belief structures, which I assume are based on the bible. It is actually really pathetic, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Click to expand...


Is that directed at me?  Do you think I am anti science?  I'm not.  I love science and think it compliments the Bible very well.  And thank God for research.  It makes us better, less sick, less stupid, faster, cleaner, prettier. Now my make-up makes me look better without having to use whale sperm. Science is a good thing.

So do you disagree with my belief that science is only as relevant as it's next discovery or are you still pouring gunpowder in your wounds, and charting your path, as the sun circles the earth?


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing intellectually dishonest about my rebuttal.
> 
> However ...
> 
> I did not respond to what Provine said. I clearly  responded to what *you* said. You made NO citation of Povine in the post I responded to, nor any post prior.
> 
> Nor have you disavowed your post since (except, perhaps now). So Jackass, you indeed said all that you clearly said, and it is still 100% made-up-nonsense ... including your notions of material high priesthood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you don't think that the science community is not affected greatly by the likes of Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald. These are your high priests of your religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, are you now expanding things to say that not only is evolution a religion, all of science is religion?  That the seeming implication of this post.
Click to expand...


Come on guys, do you really not know this stuff? Materialism is a world view just like Theism is. Evolutionary theory is component of Materialism. It is also safe to say that all Materialists believe in Evolution by default. 

Materialism: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you now expanding things to say that not only is evolution a religion, all of science is religion?  That the seeming implication of this post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is their favorite trick -- though they mostly use it on themselves. You know, if science is just another religion, then it is a matter of personal preference what to believe.
Click to expand...


Aha, methinks you are confusing the theory of evolution with actual science.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing intellectually dishonest about my rebuttal.
> 
> However ...
> 
> I did not respond to what Provine said. I clearly  responded to what *you* said. You made NO citation of Povine in the post I responded to, nor any post prior.
> 
> Nor have you disavowed your post since (except, perhaps now). So Jackass, you indeed said all that you clearly said, and it is still 100% made-up-nonsense ... including your notions of material high priesthood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you don't think that the science community is not affected greatly by the likes of Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what if Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald have a great effect upon "the science community"?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are your high priests of your religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's disingenuous to assert that science is a religion with high priests. It is nothing but a lame attempt to assert that science has no greater relevance to reality than superstition.
Click to expand...


And there you go doing it too!! You are confusing your materialist beliefs and the theory of evolution with actual science. Nice try homeslice.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern medicine= chemotherapy
> Tomorrow's medicine= cancer vacine
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like tomorrows science is irrelevant today, and yesterday's science is still relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is amusing to watch people trying their best to discredit science, simply because it is a threat to their own belief structures, which I assume are based on the bible. It is actually really pathetic, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Click to expand...


Wow, you get the golden Loki award. Science is continually supporting Theism. It is the theory of evolution that is being called into question everyday. Oh well, you can just throw out that part that doesn't have any evidence or call it something different when your tennents are proven wrong. Christianity doesn't have that luxury so it is amazing that even with modern science it is becoming even more relevant.

 I'm sorry to say, as much as they believe it in their twisted simple minds, Materialists do not have the market cornerned on science. In fact, in the timeline of the history of man, 99.9999 of the knowledge of science we have was gained by men who believed in God. It is amazing the delusions of grandeur you Materialists have!!! There is alot more to science than your pathetic TOE!!! Can you say... living in a bubble??


----------



## UltimateReality

From Dembski:
"As a probabilist, I've had to do my share of combinatorics, a branch of mathematics concerned with counting possibilities. The problem is that in genetics and proteomics, the possible gene and protein products are immense, and so the challenge, always, is to find some biologically meaningful path through these combinatorial spaces. So, when Shapiro invokes natural processes that operate in combinatorial fashion, he is in fact explaining nothing about protein evolution but merely restating the problem. The problem is how to navigate through those vast oceans of combinatorial possibility that are genes and proteins. Saying that this happens in "combinatorial fashion" adds no insight.

In the past, I always had the sense that despite my disagreements with him, Shapiro was an independent thinker willing to take on the sacred cows of science. His recent replies suggest someone who is posturing and gesturing to maintain the intellectual high ground. And yet, on closer scrutiny, he is merely playing to the gallery of the scientific mainstream, which is so committed to naturalism that they couldn't discover a real instance of intelligence in nature if it hit them over the head (which it does repeatedly)."


----------



## UltimateReality

Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality  
He spews a wild donkey guess on how the first cell formed, which is just speculation and not based in any science I know of.

Loki:
"It is well understood to be (informed) speculation, and your ignorance of science is an important point you should consider before you criticize any science"

This is truly sad that you consider his speculation science. If it really happened the way he says in the video  it should be easy enough to do multiple experiments (real science) to confirm his speculations. Whoa! Wait a second!!! You mean he can't prove his speculations about the first cell with an experiment. Please don't think I am joyful that so many people like you Loki are misled. Quite the contrary. I think it is very sad, very sad indeed. It is even more said that you point to the ID theorists as the ones being brainwashed by their religion when you are so lost in your own "magic" explanations dressed up as "science" you can't see it. 

And don't think I haven't noticed...  you haven't answered anything.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8&feature=related]David Berlinski - Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Loki, please watch this short video and then give the non-strawman example he asks for at the end..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGaUEAkqhMY&feature=related]Dr. David Berlinski: Random Mutations (Clip 7) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you don't think that the science community is not affected greatly by the likes of Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald. These are your high priests of your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you now expanding things to say that not only is evolution a religion, all of science is religion?  That the seeming implication of this post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on guys, do you really not know this stuff? Materialism is a world view just like Theism is. Evolutionary theory is component of Materialism. It is also safe to say that all Materialists believe in Evolution by default.
> 
> Materialism: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
Click to expand...


And once again, you seem to be projecting beliefs onto people without a valid reason to do so.  Are you really suggesting that belief in the theory of evolution equates to materialism?  That no one with religious or supernatural beliefs accepts evolution?

Further, I wonder just how wide a definition you are using for religion.  Just what falls within whatever definition you are using?  In my post I asked YWC if he was equating science with religion.  You didn't directly answer the question, but you quoted my post and went on to talk about evolution being a facet of materialism and compared it with theism, so are you saying that yet, science is a religion?  Are you saying that only evolution within science is a religion?

Evolution can be correct at the same time as god(s) exist.  There is no inherent conflict.


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not presenting it as a fact. We just say there is 0.00000.....000001 chance of it not being true, end even less chance of Christianity being something more than a myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, hallelujah!!! I'll take those odds. They are way better than the one in  1 x 10(n=80) chance that amino acids self-assembled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did you come up with that number?
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE&feature=related]DNA by Design: "Doing the Math" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you now expanding things to say that not only is evolution a religion, all of science is religion?  That the seeming implication of this post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on guys, do you really not know this stuff? Materialism is a world view just like Theism is. Evolutionary theory is component of Materialism. It is also safe to say that all Materialists believe in Evolution by default.
> 
> Materialism: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again, you seem to be projecting beliefs onto people without a valid reason to do so.  Are you really suggesting that belief in the theory of evolution equates to materialism?  That no one with religious or supernatural beliefs accepts evolution?
> 
> Further, I wonder just how wide a definition you are using for religion.  Just what falls within whatever definition you are using?
Click to expand...


Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. If the shoe fits...


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Are you saying that only evolution within science is a religion?
> Evolution can be correct at the same time as god(s) exist.  There is no inherent conflict.



Many would disagree. Quote from Dr. Michael Ruse "But I am coming here and saying, I think that philosophically that one should be sensitive to what I think history shows, namely, that evolution, just as much as religion -- or at least, leave "just as much," let me leave that phrase -- evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically. I guess we all knew that, but I think that we're all much more sensitive to these facts now. And I think that the way to deal with creationism, but the way to deal with evolution also, is not to deny these facts, but to recognize them, and to see where we can go, as we move on from there."


----------



## LOki

The Irish Ram said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern medicine= chemotherapy
> Tomorrow's medicine= cancer vaccine
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like tomorrows science is irrelevant today, and yesterday's science is still relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yesterday's science wasn't very relevant to the last kid that contracted polio.  He stayed crippled.  A vaccine was relevant to me.  I never contracted polio.
> Your approach is  kind of like the sign in the café:
> All meals free, tomorrow.
Click to expand...

No. This is literally your point.



The Irish Ram said:


> Today's chemotherapy is only relevant until a vaccine is discovered.


No. It's relevant because it works in objective reality; chemotherapy is not faith healing.



The Irish Ram said:


> Calamine lotion was relevant for the itch of chickenpox only until a pox vaccine made it irrelevant.


No. Calamine lotion is still relevant because it still work on the itch of chicken pox; it's not faith healing.



The Irish Ram said:


> There was no relevance to the scientific view that the sun circled the earth.


No. The view that the sun circled the earth was not relevant to reality; it's not scientific, its superstitious.



The Irish Ram said:


> Relevance arrived with the scientific discovery that the earth circled the sun.


No. You put the cart before the horse. The scientific discovery that the earth circles the sun is relevant to reality because, in fact of objective reality, the sun actually circles the earth. 



The Irish Ram said:


> Science is as relevant as it's next discovery.Not that prior discoveries aren't important or relevant at the time, but they are only relevant until something better, or more relevant is discovered.


Science has relevance to reality because objective reality is its validating criteria. Science is not superstition.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you don't think that the science community is not affected greatly by the likes of Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald.
> 
> 
> 
> So what if Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald have a great effect upon "the science community"?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are your high priests of your religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's disingenuous to assert that science is a religion with high priests. It is nothing but a lame attempt to assert that science has no greater relevance to reality than superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you go doing it too!! You are confusing your materialist beliefs and the theory of evolution with actual science. Nice try homeslice.
Click to expand...

More made-up-nonsense.

Your retard credentials remain intact. Congratulations!


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like tomorrows science is irrelevant today, and yesterday's science is still relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is amusing to watch people trying their best to discredit science, simply because it is a threat to their own belief structures, which I assume are based on the bible. It is actually really pathetic, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you get the golden Loki award. Science is continually supporting Theism.
Click to expand...

 No. There is no evidence for a god, so there is no scientific support for the existence of a god. There is no logically valid neccessity to assert the existence of a god, so there is no scientific support for the existence of a god.



UltimateReality said:


> It is the theory of evolution that is being called into question everyday.


Of course. Everybody knows this. Every scientific theory is called into question everyday. That's the way science works. Science invites such questioning ... that's one reason why it's not religion.



UltimateReality said:


> Oh well, you can just throw out that part that doesn't have any evidence or call it something different when your tennents are proven wrong.


Intellectually honesty requires a scientist to accept the possibility of error, and discard erroneous beliefs in the light of better evidence and/or better understanding of the evidence.



UltimateReality said:


> Christianity doesn't have that luxury so it is amazing that even with modern science it is becoming even more relevant.


Christianity has no relevance in science.



UltimateReality said:


> I'm sorry to say, as much as they believe it in their twisted simple minds, Materialists do not have the market cornerned on science.


Of course not. Physicalists have a much stronger influence in the market of science. Idealists--particularly those of a spiritualist persuasion--and their superstitions have no currency in the market of science.



UltimateReality said:


> In fact, in the timeline of the history of man, 99.9999 of the knowledge of science we have was gained by men who believed in God


Entirely irrelevant.



UltimateReality said:


> It is amazing the delusions of grandeur you Materialists have!!! There is alot more to science than your pathetic TOE!!! Can you say... living in a bubble??


I take it back. I was in error.

It is amazing the delusions of grandeur the superstitious have!!! In fact, in the timeline of the history of man, 99.9999 of the knowledge of science we have was gained by men who invalidated retarded superstitions.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on guys, do you really not know this stuff? Materialism is a world view just like Theism is. Evolutionary theory is component of Materialism. It is also safe to say that all Materialists believe in Evolution by default.
> 
> Materialism: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, you seem to be projecting beliefs onto people without a valid reason to do so.  Are you really suggesting that belief in the theory of evolution equates to materialism?  That no one with religious or supernatural beliefs accepts evolution?
> 
> Further, I wonder just how wide a definition you are using for religion.  Just what falls within whatever definition you are using?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. If the shoe fits...
Click to expand...

I'll get back to you on those Berlinski videos, but what I understand of his position already, he operates from *faulty premises*.

And apparently, so do you.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on guys, do you really not know this stuff? Materialism is a world view just like Theism is. Evolutionary theory is component of Materialism. It is also safe to say that all Materialists believe in Evolution by default.
> 
> Materialism: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, you seem to be projecting beliefs onto people without a valid reason to do so.  Are you really suggesting that belief in the theory of evolution equates to materialism?  That no one with religious or supernatural beliefs accepts evolution?
> 
> Further, I wonder just how wide a definition you are using for religion.  Just what falls within whatever definition you are using?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. If the shoe fits...
Click to expand...


Ah.  So of course, you use the widest, least meaningful definition in order to shoehorn evolution into the definition.  By that definition, pretty much anything can be religion.  It does not, however, mean that evolution is the same as Christianity, or Hinduism, or Judaism, etc.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, you seem to be projecting beliefs onto people without a valid reason to do so.  Are you really suggesting that belief in the theory of evolution equates to materialism?  That no one with religious or supernatural beliefs accepts evolution?
> 
> Further, I wonder just how wide a definition you are using for religion.  Just what falls within whatever definition you are using?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. If the shoe fits...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll get back to you on those Berlinski videos, but what I understand of his position already, he operates from *faulty premises*.
Click to expand...


Of course he does.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, you seem to be projecting beliefs onto people without a valid reason to do so.  Are you really suggesting that belief in the theory of evolution equates to materialism?  That no one with religious or supernatural beliefs accepts evolution?
> 
> Further, I wonder just how wide a definition you are using for religion.  Just what falls within whatever definition you are using?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. If the shoe fits...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah.  So of course, you use the widest, least meaningful definition in order to shoehorn evolution into the definition.  By that definition, pretty much anything can be religion.  It does not, however, mean that evolution is the same as Christianity, or Hinduism, or Judaism, etc.
Click to expand...


So you're the definition Nazi now??? The TOE is baseless in any real science. It is a religion and you know it and it is full of intellectual dishonesty at every level, just like Loki.


----------



## UltimateReality

Why are Darwinists so angry?? I know from law enforcement people get really upset and angry when they feel threatened. ... things that make you go "hmm".

Loki and others assertions that there is no scientific evidence for a designer is an ABSOLUTE lie. Do we Theists believe that God is the designer? Yes. Can we scientifically prove that God is the origin of the design we find in nature? No. Can we prove that an intelligent agent is responsible for the design in nature? We can present a valid scientific argument in the same way Materialists present current evidence as rationale for events that happen in the distant past and call it scientific theory. It is so preposterous to me that people call ID Creationism when the ID proponents do everything they can to keep God out of the arguments. By strictly keeping to a scientific argument, they are called sneaky or accused of having an agenda or being called "intellectually dishonest" (puke). We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Yes, we believe the designer is God. But no, identifying the designer has no place in a scientific argument. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFhMxAsMDvk]Eugenie Scott vs Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing intellectually dishonest about my rebuttal.
> 
> However ...
> 
> I did not respond to what Provine said. I clearly  responded to what *you* said. You made NO citation of Povine in the post I responded to, nor any post prior.
> 
> Nor have you disavowed your post since (except, perhaps now). So Jackass, you indeed said all that you clearly said, and it is still 100% made-up-nonsense ... including your notions of material high priesthood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you don't think that the science community is not affected greatly by the likes of Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald. These are your high priests of your religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, are you now expanding things to say that not only is evolution a religion, all of science is religion?  That the seeming implication of this post.
Click to expand...


No,only the parts that say we are and everything we see is a product of a non-intelligent natural process,and of course all the dating methods. Let's not forget all the speulations that can't be backed evidence as well.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because people allow themselves to be blinded. Just like they allow themselves to be possessed and or lead down the wrong road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly people allow themselves to be blinded? By giving an explicit permission to satan? Or just by watching Discovery channel?
Click to expand...


By warping their conscience as to what's right and wrong. If people can't see the design around them they are just simply blind.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My belief:
> 
> We are belief-run creatures. It is simply a matter of what information reaches a developing brain first:  fact or fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it were that simple there would be no atheists out there  Many people with religious upbringing eventually become atheists once they get to know this world. Unfortunately, it works both ways -- many people that were raised atheists become religious.
> 
> I think people become atheists simply because they are better at building a consistent model of the world around them.
Click to expand...


That is not true there has always been atheists. People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> My belief:
> 
> We are belief-run creatures. It is simply a matter of what information reaches a developing brain first:  fact or fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were that simple there would be no atheists out there  Many people with religious upbringing eventually become atheists once they get to know this world. Unfortunately, it works both ways -- many people that were raised atheists become religious.
> 
> I think people become atheists simply because they are better at building a consistent model of the world around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're going straight to hell! blasphemer!
Click to expand...


Now if you only understood what hell really is.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> My belief:
> 
> We are belief-run creatures. It is simply a matter of what information reaches a developing brain first:  fact or fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were that simple there would be no atheists out there  Many people with religious upbringing eventually become atheists once they get to know this world. Unfortunately, it works both ways -- many people that were raised atheists become religious.
> 
> I think people become atheists simply because they are better at building a consistent model of the world around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true there has always been atheists. People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.
Click to expand...


Atheism became much more popular during the Enlightenment because for the first time, there was another explanation for things other than that being handed down by the church, the bible, and religion. 

We don't need religion to explain the physical universe. We have science. It is far more logical, and lacks any superstition. Unfortunately, it requires a lot of study, and those who don't understand it, think they can easily deny it. But to those who understand the basic workings of science, it is a beautiful system of natural explanations for a natural world. It is simple in its attempt at explaining things, and utterly apolitical. the same can not be said for intelligent design.


----------



## newpolitics

The Irish Ram said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like tomorrows science is irrelevant today, and yesterday's science is still relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is amusing to watch people trying their best to discredit science, simply because it is a threat to their own belief structures, which I assume are based on the bible. It is actually really pathetic, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that directed at me?  Do you think I am anti science?  I'm not.  I love science and think it compliments the Bible very well.  And thank God for research.  It makes us better, less sick, less stupid, faster, cleaner, prettier. Now my make-up makes me look better without having to use whale sperm. Science is a good thing.
> 
> So do you disagree with my belief that science is only as relevant as it's next discovery or are you still pouring gunpowder in your wounds, and charting your path, as the sun circles the earth?
Click to expand...


 Yes, I did think you were anti-science, and realize now that I was mistaken.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My belief:
> 
> We are belief-run creatures. It is simply a matter of what information reaches a developing brain first:  fact or fiction. Once beliefs are set in stone at an early age, they are very difficult to remove, and no amount of logic or actual real-world empirical truth can budge them, because they become a part of the identity structure, and once that happens, its all over. This is especially true with religious beliefs, because they inform identity and perform a social purpose (church). With so many important functions being serviced by such identity and core-beliefs, they become impossible to remove unless through something traumatic. It is tragic that we are so susceptible to our own minds, and capable of being so oblivious to the world around, but such is the way it was throughout our evolution. There was no incentive to be scientific, because there was no science yet until only recently. The only incentive we had was to learn to get along with eachother in our hunter-gather group, in other words: to cooperate. This was the ultimate end, and so beliefs that facilitate this are rewarded. This includes the unifying function of spiritual beliefs, which brought people together on a deep level, easily, regardless of whether those beliefs corresponded with the physical reality and history of the universe. So, this is where we are today. Run by false beliefs, and defending them to the death. Beliefs and our affinity for them cause all of the problems we have as humans. If we were simply more humble, and not so convinced of our own righteousness in terms of religion and politics, we could all get along a lot better.
> 
> I think that within the mind of a person holding young earth creation beliefs, they think that following a literal interpretation of the bible will score them points with Jesus, basically. It is a test of faith to not question anything, or take a less literal interpretation of the book. They think therefore, that they will be 'preferred' over other Christians who do not hold such a literal view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No difference from the Ideologues of macro-evolution.
Click to expand...


SO? I believe in macro-evolution, %100. Science can and will explain everything. Religion is mad-made. You are essentially worshipping men when you worship god, or worshipping yourself rather, because it is your mind that craves such a higher power, like a drug, to explain away the chaos. Don't act so high and mighty christian. You're reliance on something so outdated to explain the natural universe is merely comical.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing intellectually dishonest about my rebuttal.
> 
> However ...
> 
> I did not respond to what Provine said. I clearly  responded to what *you* said. You made NO citation of Povine in the post I responded to, nor any post prior.
> 
> Nor have you disavowed your post since (except, perhaps now). So Jackass, you indeed said all that you clearly said, and it is still 100% made-up-nonsense ... including your notions of material high priesthood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you don't think that the science community is not affected greatly by the likes of Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what if Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald have a great effect upon "the science community"?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are your high priests of your religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's disingenuous to assert that science is a religion with high priests. It is nothing but a lame attempt to assert that science has no greater relevance to reality than superstition.
Click to expand...


Because they are severe Ideologues when it comes to macro-evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern medicine= chemotherapy
> Tomorrow's medicine= cancer vacine
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like tomorrows science is irrelevant today, and yesterday's science is still relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is amusing to watch people trying their best to discredit science, simply because it is a threat to their own belief structures, which I assume are based on the bible. It is actually really pathetic, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Click to expand...


No ones trying to discredit real science, just pseudoscience.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Thanks newpolitics.  I am a Christian, but not at the expense of science.  I don't think that either can be ignored, so as to propel the other into the winner's circle.  Personally, I think the smarter we get, the closer we get to the design of God. That's all.


----------



## ilia25

The Irish Ram said:


> I love science and think it compliments the Bible very well



Everything compliments the Bible very well, even things like murder -- and that is why it remains ever popular. So science does not disprove the Bible (it is impossible), what science does is making the Bible irrelevant. It is not needed anymore to explain what we see around us, where we came form. And we certainly don't need it to make this world a better place to live for all people.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because people allow themselves to be blinded. Just like they allow themselves to be possessed and or lead down the wrong road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly people allow themselves to be blinded? By giving an explicit permission to satan? Or just by watching Discovery channel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By warping their conscience as to what's right and wrong.
Click to expand...


What does it mean? What one has to do in order to "wrap his conscience", and why would one do it?



> If people can't see the design around them they are just simply blind.



You can repeat that "people are blind" all you want, but you are not answering question -- who's fault it that people are blind? What went wrong and why?


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.



Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly people allow themselves to be blinded? By giving an explicit permission to satan? Or just by watching Discovery channel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By warping their conscience as to what's right and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it mean? What one has to do in order to "wrap his conscience", and why would one do it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If people can't see the design around them they are just simply blind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can repeat that "people are blind" all you want, but you are not answering question -- who's fault it that people are blind? What went wrong and why?
Click to expand...


I can't help noticing you didn't respond to the probability argument video by Stephen Meyer.


----------



## The Irish Ram

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?
Click to expand...


I have faith that air exists. I can't see it, but I believe that it exists and is keeping me alive. 
I know there is a breeze today.  The leaves are moving.
I can't see the wind, but I have faith it is there. I can see it's effect.


----------



## ilia25

The Irish Ram said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have faith that air exists.
Click to expand...


Well, I don't  And neither should you.

The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> I can't help noticing you didn't respond to the probability argument video by Stephen Meyer.



Meyer pretends that he does not understand how the evolution works. According to him, TOE claims that complex proteins appear by chance. Whereas TOE postulates that complex things evolve from simple ones.

The honest attempt to come up with the probability of life appearing on its own should asses the probability of random formation of a simplest molecules capable of replicating itself. And those molecules are NOT proteins at all, much less the complex ones, which Meyer calls "minimally functional".

And Meyer knows that -- he consciously lies because he is either paid to do so, or he thinks that the goal justifies the means.


----------



## The Irish Ram

ilia25 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have faith that air exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't  And neither should you.
> 
> The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.
Click to expand...


[Well, I don't  And neither should you.] 
To achieve faith, hold your breath.  
I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.  
A theory is a hypothesis put to the test.  If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law.  I have faith that air exists  even though I can't see it.  I can see its effect on my lungs.  
There I go again, breathing....  If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.   We're good together, don't ya think? 

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


----------



## InDoctriNation

The Irish Ram said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have faith that air exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't  And neither should you.
> 
> The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
> A theory is a hypothesis put to the test.  If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law.  I have faith that air exists  even though I can't see it.  I can see its effect on my lungs.
> There I go again, breathing....  If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
> We're good together, don't ya think?
Click to expand...


You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.


----------



## ilia25

The Irish Ram said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have faith that air exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't  And neither should you.
> 
> The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [Well, I don't  And neither should you.]
> To achieve faith, hold your breath.
> I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died.
Click to expand...


What I meant to say is that you do not know whether that unfortunate incident really happened. You cannot tell the difference between what you really see and your dreams. So everything around you can be a figment of your imagination, and you can never tell whether it is, or it isn't.


----------



## The Irish Ram

InDoctriNation said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't  And neither should you.
> 
> The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
> A theory is a hypothesis put to the test.  If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law.  I have faith that air exists  even though I can't see it.  I can see its effect on my lungs.
> There I go again, breathing....  If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
> We're good together, don't ya think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.
Click to expand...


The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven. 
Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.   
We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative.  If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.  

ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream?  One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe.  I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.


----------



## newpolitics

The Irish Ram said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
> A theory is a hypothesis put to the test.  If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law.  I have faith that air exists  even though I can't see it.  I can see its effect on my lungs.
> There I go again, breathing....  If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
> We're good together, don't ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
> Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
> We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative.  If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.
> 
> ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream?  One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe.  I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.
Click to expand...


Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence  in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.


----------



## The Irish Ram

newpolitics said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
> Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
> We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative.  If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.
> 
> ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream?  One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe.  I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence  in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.
Click to expand...


Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam.  I get common descent, honest.   
I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested.  Before that it was guesswork, or theory.


----------



## ilia25

The Irish Ram said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
> A theory is a hypothesis put to the test.  If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law.  I have faith that air exists  even though I can't see it.  I can see its effect on my lungs.
> There I go again, breathing....  If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
> We're good together, don't ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
> Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
> We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative.  If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.
> 
> ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream?  One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe.  I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.
Click to expand...


Can you tell the difference between the reality and dream if everything in the dream is not different from reality? Can you imagine yourself dreaming such a dream right now, and if not -- why not? Actually, that question is beside the point -- the point is that science allows such a possibility.

Also, what you call "laws" are really theories. For example, a theory of gravity explains how objects _should_ attract each other, but it does not say that they actually _will_ behave like it prescribes. It is still useful as long as you expect it to hold.


----------



## newpolitics

The Irish Ram said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
> Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
> We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative.  If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.
> 
> ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream?  One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe.  I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence  in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam.  I get common descent, honest.
> I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested.  Before that it was guesswork, or theory.
Click to expand...


Gravity might as well be a law, but technically, it is still a theory. 

Without the bible, no one would have ever had the idea to talk about Adam and Eve, so to me, this calls into question the credibility of the bible itself, and not scientific inquiry and TOE. If one looks at comparative religion and mythology, this is not difficult to do. I don't want to get into it, but lets just say, one COULD look at comparative religion studies and easily conclude that the bible is not the word of god. I am not trying to challenge your faith, but to those unmarried to religious notions, it is easy to come to this conclusion, that the bible is not divine, by looking at and comparing mythologies in and around the time the bible was written.


----------



## Montrovant

The Irish Ram said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
> Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
> We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative.  If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.
> 
> ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream?  One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe.  I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence  in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam.  I get common descent, honest.
> I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested.  Before that it was guesswork, or theory.
Click to expand...


As I understand things, it is both.  There is a law of gravity, which is basically, 'gravity happens'.  Then there is the theory of gravity, which tries to explain why it happens.

I'm sure someone else in the thread can either better explain it or show why I am wrong.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Montrovant said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence  in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam.  I get common descent, honest.
> I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested.  Before that it was guesswork, or theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand things, it is both.  There is a law of gravity, which is basically, 'gravity happens'.  Then there is the theory of gravity, which tries to explain why it happens.
> 
> I'm sure someone else in the thread can either better explain it or show why I am wrong.
Click to expand...


That is very interesting.  I'd like to know more.


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help noticing you didn't respond to the probability argument video by Stephen Meyer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer pretends that he does not understand how the evolution works. According to him, TOE claims that complex proteins appear by chance. Whereas TOE postulates that complex things evolve from simple ones.
> 
> The honest attempt to come up with the probability of life appearing on its own should asses the probability of random formation of a simplest molecules capable of replicating itself. And those molecules are NOT proteins at all, much less the complex ones, which Meyer calls "minimally functional".
> 
> And Meyer knows that -- he consciously lies because he is either paid to do so, or he thinks that the goal justifies the means.
Click to expand...


Maybe it's less sinister than you think. Maybe he's just not stupid enough to fall into the chicken/egg argument you are referring to above. What kind of scientific experiments can you cite that have been done on simple molecules randomly copying themselves?


----------



## UltimateReality

InDoctriNation said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't  And neither should you.
> 
> The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
> A theory is a hypothesis put to the test.  If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law.  I have faith that air exists  even though I can't see it.  I can see its effect on my lungs.
> There I go again, breathing....  If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
> We're good together, don't ya think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.
Click to expand...


Please enlighten me. What specific area of genetics validates the TOE? Can you please cite some peer reviewed studies?


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't  And neither should you.
> 
> The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Well, I don't  And neither should you.]
> To achieve faith, hold your breath.
> I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I meant to say is that you do not know whether that unfortunate incident really happened. You cannot tell the difference between what you really see and your dreams. So everything around you can be a figment of your imagination, and you can never tell whether it is, or it isn't.
Click to expand...


Can't you pinch yourself??


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
> Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
> We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative.  If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.
> 
> ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream?  One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe.  I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence  in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.
Click to expand...


Either that, or the Intelligent Designer used common parts in the assembly of the wide range of species we see today. Not unlike the commonality of parts that make up Toyota's, Chevy's, and BMW's.

Funny you claim this is part of Evolutionary theory, because this is the very assertion I made that Loki said he was too pompous to answer because I was strawmanning. So which is it, do me, the Monkey's and Watermelons share a common ancestor or not?


----------



## UltimateReality

The Irish Ram said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
> Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
> We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative.  If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.
> 
> ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream?  One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe.  I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence  in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam.  I get common descent, honest.
> I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested.  Before that it was guesswork, or theory.
Click to expand...


Gravity is no longer law because it can't explain the observed movement of the galaxies. It ALWAYS applies here on earth, but out in space, not so much, that is, if we aren't trapped in some simulation like The Truman Show. 

Here you go. We make up Invisible Forces that we see the effects of but can no more prove than we can prove there is a God. But we still believe in these invisible forces more than God. This force is Dark Vade... I mean, Dark Matter. 

Galaxy rotation curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence  in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam.  I get common descent, honest.
> I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested.  Before that it was guesswork, or theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gravity might as well be a law, but technically, it is still a theory.
> 
> Without the bible, no one would have ever had the idea to talk about Adam and Eve, so to me, this calls into question the credibility of the bible itself
Click to expand...


Funny, DNA studies have shown we all came from a single, female ancestor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Before you get all excited and tell me I don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is and what it means, let's just cut to the chase...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

"TMRCA of all living humans

Estimating time to MRCA of all humans based on the common genealogical usage of the term 'ancestor' is much harder and less accurate compared to estimates of Patrilineal and matrilineal MRCAs. Researchers must trace ancestry along both female and male parental lines, and rely on historical and archaeological records.

Depending on the survival of isolated lineages without admixture from modern migrations and taking into account long-isolated peoples, such as historical societies in central Africa, Australia and remote islands in the South Pacific, the human MRCA was generally assumed to have lived in the Upper Paleolithic period. With the advent of mathematical models and computer simulations, researchers now find that the MRCA of all humans lived remarkably recently, between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago."

Funny, this is when the Bible says there was a great flood and only a few people survived. One guy posted up that we were really stupid to believe that all the races could have come from this one dude in the boat. 

"The paper suggests, "No matter the languages we speak or the color of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who first domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forests of North and South America, and who labored to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu".[4]

An assumption that there are no isolated populations is questionable in view of the existence of various uncontacted peoples, who are suspected to have been isolated for many millennia, including the Sentinelese who have been isolated from the western world and also from the Asian mainland."



Then there was the guy a few posts ago that said modern discoveries don't coincide with the Bible. Hmmm.


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help noticing you didn't respond to the probability argument video by Stephen Meyer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer pretends that he does not understand how the evolution works. According to him, TOE claims that complex proteins appear by chance. Whereas TOE postulates that complex things evolve from simple ones.
> 
> The honest attempt to come up with the probability of life appearing on its own should asses the probability of random formation of a simplest molecules capable of replicating itself. And those molecules are NOT proteins at all, much less the complex ones, which Meyer calls "minimally functional".
> 
> And Meyer knows that -- he consciously lies because he is either paid to do so, or he thinks that the goal justifies the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe it's less sinister than you think. Maybe he's just not stupid enough to fall into the chicken/egg argument you are referring to above.
Click to expand...


It is no chicken/egg, the evolution goes from simple organisms to more complex. The simplest molecules were the result of random reactions.



> What kind of scientific experiments can you cite that have been done on simple molecules randomly copying themselves?



Google RNA world. Actually don't bother, I just did:
Exploring Life's Origins: A Timeline of Life's Evolution

Anyway, the simplest replicating molecules probably were RNA. As for the proteins, any high school student should know that they cannot replicate themselves. Until last century, each protein on Earth was synthesized by RNA machines like those found in cells today. Therefore calculating the chances of a protein randomly forming, as Meyer does, is an exercise in stupidity -- we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened.

But Meyer does it anyway, because he needs to trick his audience into believing that the life appearing randomly is statistically impossible.


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer pretends that he does not understand how the evolution works. According to him, TOE claims that complex proteins appear by chance. Whereas TOE postulates that complex things evolve from simple ones.
> 
> The honest attempt to come up with the probability of life appearing on its own should asses the probability of random formation of a simplest molecules capable of replicating itself. And those molecules are NOT proteins at all, much less the complex ones, which Meyer calls "minimally functional".
> 
> And Meyer knows that -- he consciously lies because he is either paid to do so, or he thinks that the goal justifies the means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's less sinister than you think. Maybe he's just not stupid enough to fall into the chicken/egg argument you are referring to above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is no chicken/egg, the evolution goes from simple organisms to more complex. The simplest molecules were the result of random reactions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of scientific experiments can you cite that have been done on simple molecules randomly copying themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google RNA world. Actually don't bother, I just did:
> Exploring Life's Origins: A Timeline of Life's Evolution
> 
> Anyway, the simplest replicating molecules probably were RNA. As for the proteins, any high school student should know that they cannot replicate themselves. Until last century, each protein on Earth was synthesized by RNA machines like those found in cells today. Therefore calculating the chances of a protein randomly forming, as Meyer does, is an exercise in stupidity -- we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened.
> 
> But Meyer does it anyway, because he needs to trick his audience into believing that the life appearing randomly is statistically impossible.
Click to expand...


I'm confused. You say the simplest molecules PROBABLY were RNA. Then you say we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened. You have presented a circular argument so here is your strawman, if proteins weren't randomly formed, and then functional proteins didn't exist, how did RNA know what to build after it started copying itself and turned into DNA? Come on people!!! Are you really falling for this stuff??

A little about RNA from Professor Walton...

 &#9632; Statistically, the chance of forming even one &#8220;useful&#8221; RNA sequence can be shown to be essentially zero in the lifetime of the earth.
 &#9632; The complexity of the first self-replicating system, and the information needed to build it, imply intelligent design.
 &#9632; Hope of beating the colossal odds against random formation of replicating RNA is based on ideology rather than science.
 &#9632; As lab experiments on model replicators become more complex they demonstrate the need for input from intelligent mind(s).
 &#9632; Acceptance of an early earth atmosphere free of oxygen atoms strains belief beyond breaking point!
 &#9632; No chemically or geologically plausible routes to nucleotides or RNA strands have been developed.
 &#9632; Geological field work shows no support for a &#8220;prebiotic soup.&#8221; It favors little change in the atmosphere over time. Living things have been present since the first crustal rocks.

And I ask again.... who believes in Fairytales??

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-big-picture-56-minutes-that-may-change-your-life/

"Alonso and Szostak&#8217;s origin-of-life scenario: a brilliant example of Intelligent Design

But wait, there&#8217;s more! Apparently results obtained by (human) Intellligent Design also count automatically as evidence for unguided evolution on the primordial Earth, four billion years ago! How can methodological naturalists possibly lose, with a strategy like that? To quote Alonso and Szostak:

We started with trillions of random RNA sequences. Then we selected the ones that had catalytic properties, and we made copies of those. At each round of copying some of the new RNA strands underwent mutations that turned them into more efficient catalysts, and once again we singled those out for the next round of copying. By this directed evolution we were able to produce ribozymes that can catalyze the copying of relatively short strands of other RNAs, although they fall far short of being able to copy polymers with their own sequences into progeny RNAs. (pp. 58-59) (Emphases mine &#8211; VJT.)

I would like to commend the authors for their honesty in this passage. Lesser scientists than they might have glossed over these awkward facts, but Alonso and Szostak were decent enough to acknowledge that nothing short of Intelligent Design can make their favored scenario work, at this point in time."


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence  in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam.  I get common descent, honest.
> I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested.  Before that it was guesswork, or theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gravity is no longer law because it can't explain the observed movement of the galaxies. It ALWAYS applies here on earth, but out in space, not so much, that is, if we aren't trapped in some simulation like The Truman Show.
> 
> Here you go. We make up Invisible Forces that we see the effects of but can no more prove than we can prove there is a God. But we still believe in these invisible forces more than God. This force is Dark Vade... I mean, Dark Matter.
> 
> Galaxy rotation curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Actually its dark energy, and it is not the first time a theory has been made before it can be directly observed, and been found to be correct. 

To say that Dark energy affects the gravity as 'law' or theory is quite idiotic. It is another force, simply, that is stronger than gravity, and counter-acts it. People with so little understanding of such basic things are in no position to judge something they know nothing about.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. If the shoe fits...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll get back to you on those Berlinski videos, but what I understand of his position already, he operates from *faulty premises*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course he does.
Click to expand...

Well then. No point in wasting time on those videos then.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. If the shoe fits...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.  So of course, you use the widest, least meaningful definition in order to shoehorn evolution into the definition.  By that definition, pretty much anything can be religion.  It does not, however, mean that evolution is the same as Christianity, or Hinduism, or Judaism, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're the definition Nazi now??? The TOE is baseless in any real science.
Click to expand...

Another lie.




UltimateReality said:


> It is a religion and you know it and it is full of intellectual dishonesty at every level, just like Loki.


Another lie, and ... bearing false witness.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Why are Darwinists so angry?? I know from law enforcement people get really upset and angry when they feel threatened. ... things that make you go "hmm".


There is a threat. The superstitious, like law enforcement officers, have an over-developed sense of entitlement to exercise violence when their position can't be validated by reason.



UltimateReality said:


> Loki and others assertions that there is no scientific evidence for a designer is an ABSOLUTE lie.


Of course you're not about to demonstrate that this is a lie.



UltimateReality said:


> Do we Theists believe that God is the designer? Yes. Can we scientifically prove that God is the origin of the design we find in nature? No.


Then just submit some evidence; evidence that does not require the question-begging presumption of a designer, in order that the "evidence" can be considered evidence of a designer.



UltimateReality said:


> Can we prove that an intelligent agent is responsible for the design in nature?


No. I You're not being asked to. You're just being asked to submit some evidence; evidence that does not require the question-begging presumption of an intelligent agent, in order that the "evidence" can be considered evidence of an intelligent agent.



UltimateReality said:


> We can present a valid scientific argument in the same way Materialists present current evidence as rationale for events that happen in the distant past and call it scientific theory.


Then do it. Just don't submit some question-begging and/or special-pleading argument and insist that it is valid. Ok?



UltimateReality said:


> It is so preposterous to me that people call ID Creationism when the ID proponents do everything they can to keep God out of the arguments.


No one is fooled by transparent euphemisms.



UltimateReality said:


> By strictly keeping to a scientific argument, they are called sneaky or accused of having an agenda or being called "intellectually dishonest" (puke).


False premise. Intelligent Design does not submit a scientific argument. ID is a transparent euphemism for Creationism; an intellectually dishonest attempt to dress Creationism in the vocabulary of science.



UltimateReality said:


> We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Yes, we believe the designer is God. But no, identifying the designer has no place in a scientific argument.


Neither is asserting the existence of this "Designer" of yours as a premise of the argument that concludes that this "Designer" of your exists.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because people allow themselves to be blinded. Just like they allow themselves to be possessed and or lead down the wrong road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly people allow themselves to be blinded? By giving an explicit permission to satan? Or just by watching Discovery channel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By warping their conscience as to what's right and wrong. If people can't see the design around them they are just simply blind.
Click to expand...


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> My belief:
> 
> We are belief-run creatures. It is simply a matter of what information reaches a developing brain first:  fact or fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were that simple there would be no atheists out there  Many people with religious upbringing eventually become atheists once they get to know this world. Unfortunately, it works both ways -- many people that were raised atheists become religious.
> 
> I think people become atheists simply because they are better at building a consistent model of the world around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true there has always been atheists. People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.
Click to expand...

A bold assertion that you will certainly not bother to demonstrate.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you don't think that the science community is not affected greatly by the likes of Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald.
> 
> 
> 
> So what if Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald have a great effect upon "the science community"?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are your high priests of your religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's disingenuous to assert that science is a religion with high priests. It is nothing but a lame attempt to assert that science has no greater relevance to reality than superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are severe Ideologues when it comes to macro-evolution.
Click to expand...

"Ideologue" is an awfully big word to be used by someone who can't read without moving his lips.

You should look up the definition of the terms you use to indict others, to make sure that you have not already indicted yourself.


----------



## LOki

The Irish Ram said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have faith that air exists. I can't see it, but I believe that it exists and is keeping me alive.
> I know there is a breeze today.  The leaves are moving.
> I can't see the wind, but I have faith it is there. I can see it's effect.
Click to expand...

If your belief is founded upon and validated by evidence, then you are not exercising faith.


----------



## LOki

InDoctriNation said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't  And neither should you.
> 
> The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
> A theory is a hypothesis put to the test.  If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law.  I have faith that air exists  even though I can't see it.  I can see its effect on my lungs.
> There I go again, breathing....  If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
> We're good together, don't ya think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.
Click to expand...

*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to InDoctriNation again.*​


----------



## LOki

The Irish Ram said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
> A theory is a hypothesis put to the test.  If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law.  I have faith that air exists  even though I can't see it.  I can see its effect on my lungs.
> There I go again, breathing....  If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
> We're good together, don't ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
> Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
Click to expand...

You have a basic misunderstanding of what the terms "scientific theory" and "scientific law" mean.



The Irish Ram said:


> We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative.  If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.


This strawman assertion exposes your fundamental misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
> A theory is a hypothesis put to the test.  If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law.  I have faith that air exists  even though I can't see it.  I can see its effect on my lungs.
> There I go again, breathing....  If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
> We're good together, don't ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please enlighten me. What specific area of genetics validates the TOE? Can you please cite some peer reviewed studies?
Click to expand...

Really? Do we have to start with everything that posits that phenotype is the result of genotype, and that an organism's genotype is determined neither by the organism's act of will or behavior? Is that where we have to begin? High-school biology class?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
> Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
> We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative.  If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.
> 
> ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream?  One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe.  I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence  in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either that, or the Intelligent Designer used common parts in the assembly of the wide range of species we see today. Not unlike the commonality of parts that make up Toyota's, Chevy's, and BMW's.
> 
> Funny you claim this is part of Evolutionary theory, because this is the very assertion I made that Loki said he was too pompous to answer because I was strawmanning.
Click to expand...

I wasn't being pompous, you retard. And you were asserting a strawman.



UltimateReality said:


> So which is it, do me, the Monkey's and Watermelons share a common ancestor or not?


The evidence suggests that they do.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam.  I get common descent, honest.
> I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested.  Before that it was guesswork, or theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity might as well be a law, but technically, it is still a theory.
> 
> Without the bible, no one would have ever had the idea to talk about Adam and Eve, so to me, this calls into question the credibility of the bible itself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, DNA studies have shown we all came from a single, female ancestor.
> 
> Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Before you get all excited and tell me I don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is and what it means, let's just cut to the chase...
> 
> Most recent common ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "TMRCA of all living humans
> 
> Estimating time to MRCA of all humans based on the common genealogical usage of the term 'ancestor' is much harder and less accurate compared to estimates of Patrilineal and matrilineal MRCAs. Researchers must trace ancestry along both female and male parental lines, and rely on historical and archaeological records.
> 
> Depending on the survival of isolated lineages without admixture from modern migrations and taking into account long-isolated peoples, such as historical societies in central Africa, Australia and remote islands in the South Pacific, the human MRCA was generally assumed to have lived in the Upper Paleolithic period. With the advent of mathematical models and computer simulations, researchers now find that the MRCA of all humans lived remarkably recently, between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago."
> 
> Funny, this is when the Bible says there was a great flood and only a few people survived. One guy posted up that we were really stupid to believe that all the races could have come from this one dude in the boat.
> 
> "The paper suggests, "No matter the languages we speak or the color of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who first domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forests of North and South America, and who labored to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu".[4]
> 
> An assumption that there are no isolated populations is questionable in view of the existence of various uncontacted peoples, who are suspected to have been isolated for many millennia, including the Sentinelese who have been isolated from the western world and also from the Asian mainland."
> 
> 
> 
> Then there was the guy a few posts ago that said modern discoveries don't coincide with the Bible. Hmmm.
Click to expand...

You don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means.

The TMRCA of all living humans is not the same as the TMRCA of all humans.

Sorry about your luck.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> It is another force, simply, that is stronger than gravity, and counter-acts it.



Assumptive language. No scientific experimental basis for this claim. Try again, homeslice.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> ALL THE USUAL USELESS DRIBBLE DELETED.
> 
> Then do it. Just don't submit some question-begging and/or special-pleading argument and insist that it is valid. Ok?



It has already been done and shown to you. You are just in TOTAL DENIAL. The argument is based on the same scientific method Lyell and Darwin used.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please enlighten me. What specific area of genetics validates the TOE? Can you please cite some peer reviewed studies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Do we have to start with everything that posits that phenotype is the result of genotype, and that an organism's genotype is determined neither by the organism's act of will or behavior? Is that where we have to begin? High-school biology class?
Click to expand...


Question answered with a question. Nice avoidance technique.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity might as well be a law, but technically, it is still a theory.
> 
> Without the bible, no one would have ever had the idea to talk about Adam and Eve, so to me, this calls into question the credibility of the bible itself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, DNA studies have shown we all came from a single, female ancestor.
> 
> Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Before you get all excited and tell me I don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is and what it means, let's just cut to the chase...
> 
> Most recent common ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "TMRCA of all living humans
> 
> Estimating time to MRCA of all humans based on the common genealogical usage of the term 'ancestor' is much harder and less accurate compared to estimates of Patrilineal and matrilineal MRCAs. Researchers must trace ancestry along both female and male parental lines, and rely on historical and archaeological records.
> 
> Depending on the survival of isolated lineages without admixture from modern migrations and taking into account long-isolated peoples, such as historical societies in central Africa, Australia and remote islands in the South Pacific, the human MRCA was generally assumed to have lived in the Upper Paleolithic period. With the advent of mathematical models and computer simulations, researchers now find that the MRCA of all humans lived remarkably recently, between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago."
> 
> Funny, this is when the Bible says there was a great flood and only a few people survived. One guy posted up that we were really stupid to believe that all the races could have come from this one dude in the boat.
> 
> "The paper suggests, "No matter the languages we speak or the color of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who first domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forests of North and South America, and who labored to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu".[4]
> 
> An assumption that there are no isolated populations is questionable in view of the existence of various uncontacted peoples, who are suspected to have been isolated for many millennia, including the Sentinelese who have been isolated from the western world and also from the Asian mainland."
> 
> 
> 
> Then there was the guy a few posts ago that said modern discoveries don't coincide with the Bible. Hmmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means.
> 
> The TMRCA of all living humans is not the same as the TMRCA of all humans.
> 
> Sorry about your luck.
Click to expand...


This is about the most ignorant post you have made yet. And your point is what??? What we see is a bottleneck that coincides with a Biblical story. You're statement above is completely stupid and irrelevant. Is that the best you got?

I can't be the only one that sees through your condescending writing style that puffs you up and camo's your total lack of knowledge. You plagurize statements you have no understanding of. Example of Projection: Loki calling everyone else Intellectually Dishonest. Nice try, homeslice.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional if you don't think that the science community is not affected greatly by the likes of Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald. These are your high priests of your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you now expanding things to say that not only is evolution a religion, all of science is religion?  That the seeming implication of this post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on guys, do you really not know this stuff? Materialism is a world view just like Theism is. Evolutionary theory is component of Materialism. It is also safe to say that all Materialists believe in Evolution by default.
> 
> Materialism: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
Click to expand...

is there any empirical evidence to prove otherwise?.......no


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were that simple there would be no atheists out there  Many people with religious upbringing eventually become atheists once they get to know this world. Unfortunately, it works both ways -- many people that were raised atheists become religious.
> 
> I think people become atheists simply because they are better at building a consistent model of the world around them.
> 
> 
> 
> you're going straight to hell! blasphemer!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now if you only understood what hell really is.
Click to expand...

like you do!!!! again you miss the point.....there is no hell just as there is no heaven.


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's less sinister than you think. Maybe he's just not stupid enough to fall into the chicken/egg argument you are referring to above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is no chicken/egg, the evolution goes from simple organisms to more complex. The simplest molecules were the result of random reactions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of scientific experiments can you cite that have been done on simple molecules randomly copying themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google RNA world. Actually don't bother, I just did:
> Exploring Life's Origins: A Timeline of Life's Evolution
> 
> Anyway, the simplest replicating molecules probably were RNA. As for the proteins, any high school student should know that they cannot replicate themselves. Until last century, each protein on Earth was synthesized by RNA machines like those found in cells today. Therefore calculating the chances of a protein randomly forming, as Meyer does, is an exercise in stupidity -- we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened.
> 
> But Meyer does it anyway, because he needs to trick his audience into believing that the life appearing randomly is statistically impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm confused. You say the simplest molecules PROBABLY were RNA. Then you say we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened.
Click to expand...


You sure are confused. The event that everyone knows that is never happened is a spontaneous random formation of a complex protein. And the fact that Meyer was calculating the odds of that happening shows him as a dishonest person.

We have all reasons to believe that the life started when the first self replicating RNA appeared. It could have been created by a 30-40 nucleotides long RNA.



> if proteins weren't randomly formed, and then functional proteins didn't exist, how did RNA know what to build after it started copying itself and turned into DNA?



Natural selection.



> &#9632; Statistically, the chance of forming even one &#8220;useful&#8221; RNA sequence can be shown to be essentially zero in the lifetime of the earth.



Well, so why doesn't he show it? Similar to the way Meyer showed that the random formation of complex protein is very unlikely?

Also "very unlikely" does not mean it never happens. There are 3 * 100 * 10^22 stars in the Universe. That is a lot of Earth like planets and a lot of chemical reactions that took place during last billions years. Plus, if there are/were other Universes, who knows how many of them -- so it is possible that we were just lucky. By this logic you can explain any miracle. For example, if in the next minute you will fall right through the concrete floor you are sting on, it might be because you were just lucky (or unlucky) to live on some planet of some universe at the moment when this freak accident occurred (because although it is very unlikely, it is possible according to Quantum Mechanics). Life on Earth could be such an unlikely accident.


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is no chicken/egg, the evolution goes from simple organisms to more complex. The simplest molecules were the result of random reactions.
> 
> 
> 
> Google RNA world. Actually don't bother, I just did:
> Exploring Life's Origins: A Timeline of Life's Evolution
> 
> Anyway, the simplest replicating molecules probably were RNA. As for the proteins, any high school student should know that they cannot replicate themselves. Until last century, each protein on Earth was synthesized by RNA machines like those found in cells today. Therefore calculating the chances of a protein randomly forming, as Meyer does, is an exercise in stupidity -- we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened.
> 
> But Meyer does it anyway, because he needs to trick his audience into believing that the life appearing randomly is statistically impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused. You say the simplest molecules PROBABLY were RNA. Then you say we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure are confused. The event that everyone knows that is never happened is a spontaneous random formation of a complex protein. And the fact that Meyer was calculating the odds of that happening shows him as a dishonest person.
> 
> We have all reasons to believe that the life started when the first self replicating RNA appeared. It could have been created by a 30-40 nucleotides long RNA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if proteins weren't randomly formed, and then functional proteins didn't exist, how did RNA know what to build after it started copying itself and turned into DNA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9632; Statistically, the chance of forming even one &#8220;useful&#8221; RNA sequence can be shown to be essentially zero in the lifetime of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, so why doesn't he show it? Similar to the way Meyer showed that the random formation of complex protein is very unlikely?
> 
> Also "very unlikely" does not mean it never happens. There are 3 * 100 * 10^22 stars in the Universe. That is a lot of Earth like planets and a lot of chemical reactions that took place during last billions years. Plus, if there are/were other Universes, who knows how many of them -- so it is possible that we were just lucky. By this logic you can explain any miracle. For example, if in the next minute you will fall right through the concrete floor you are sting on, it might be because you were just lucky (or unlucky) to live on some planet of some universe at the moment when this freak accident occurred (because although it is very unlikely, it is possible according to Quantum Mechanics). Life on Earth could be such an unlikely accident.
Click to expand...


Multiple Universe Theory=Fairytale

First, you obviously didn't listen to Meyers argument because he never calculates probabilities of proteins. He calculates probabilities of amino acids forming. DNA contains instructions for building amino acids into functional proteins. 

Second: "the relevance of ribozyme engineering to naturalistic theories of the origin of life is doubtful at best, primarily because of the necessity for intelligent intervention in the synthesis of the randomized RNA; then again in the selection of a few functional RNA molecules out of that mixture; then, finally, in the amplification of those few functional RNA molecules" [1] 

Just because you rephrase it, it doesn't change your chicken/egg scenario and the stupidity of this argument. Let me pose a different question: if I have 150 bicycle parts lying on my living room floor and I have the instructions on how to assemble the bicycle parts into a working bicycle, is the bicycle more complex than the instructions? Are the chances of missing one part in the completed bicycle the same as missing one step in the instructions? Please help me understand how RNA became DNA became comples blueprint for complex Amino Acids became complex functional proteins. Other than fairy tale speculations, please cite a peer reviewed study that proposes experiments to test your hypothesis? I already listed an example of one above. At least the scientist were intellectually honest and admitted it required quite a bit of intelligent agent interference to work. 

Here is a nice elementary school explanation...

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004535/amino_acids.html

What you present about RNA is nice story, but it lacks the serious arguments that make it totally implausible. If you want to continue living in fairytale land like Loki because you don't really want to question your faith in the TOE, then by all means, do so. But don't come on here acting like it has all been figured out because RNA world has some SERIOUS PROBLEMS. If you want to actually educate yourself on the plethora of reasons it doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, you can start here...

[1]  http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/stephen_meyer_responds_to_flet030901.html


----------



## UltimateReality

On more failure for random, positive mutations...

A Blind Man Carrying a Legless Man Can Safely Cross the Street: Experimentally Confirming the Limits to Darwinian Evolution - Evolution News & Views


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> On more failure for random, positive mutations...
> 
> A Blind Man Carrying a Legless Man Can Safely Cross the Street: Experimentally Confirming the Limits to Darwinian Evolution - Evolution News & Views



There is NO DEBATE about evolution. You want to make one, but its settled. Evolution properly explains our existence. Sorry! you missed the bus.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> On more failure for random, positive mutations...
> 
> A Blind Man Carrying a Legless Man Can Safely Cross the Street: Experimentally Confirming the Limits to Darwinian Evolution - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO DEBATE about evolution.
Click to expand...


Congratulations!! You just received the Loki "Stick your head in the stand" and "If I don't look at it maybe it won't see me" awards. You obviously didn't miss the bus, but caught a ride on the short bus and missed the science. If you want to choose to believe in fairytales that is fine. But don't come on here pretending to be interested in the truth.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> On more failure for random, positive mutations...
> 
> A Blind Man Carrying a Legless Man Can Safely Cross the Street: Experimentally Confirming the Limits to Darwinian Evolution - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO DEBATE about evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congratulations!! You just received the Loki "Stick your head in the stand" and "If I don't look at it maybe it won't see me" awards. You obviously didn't miss the bus, but caught a ride on the short bus and missed the science. If you want to choose to believe in fairytales that is fine. But don't come on here pretending to be interested in the truth.
Click to expand...


Please don't talk to me about me about fairytales or truth when you believe in the bible.


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused. You say the simplest molecules PROBABLY were RNA. Then you say we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure are confused. The event that everyone knows that is never happened is a spontaneous random formation of a complex protein. And the fact that Meyer was calculating the odds of that happening shows him as a dishonest person.
> 
> We have all reasons to believe that the life started when the first self replicating RNA appeared. It could have been created by a 30-40 nucleotides long RNA.
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9632; Statistically, the chance of forming even one &#8220;useful&#8221; RNA sequence can be shown to be essentially zero in the lifetime of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, so why doesn't he show it? Similar to the way Meyer showed that the random formation of complex protein is very unlikely?
> 
> Also "very unlikely" does not mean it never happens. There are 3 * 100 * 10^22 stars in the Universe. That is a lot of Earth like planets and a lot of chemical reactions that took place during last billions years. Plus, if there are/were other Universes, who knows how many of them -- so it is possible that we were just lucky. By this logic you can explain any miracle. For example, if in the next minute you will fall right through the concrete floor you are sting on, it might be because you were just lucky (or unlucky) to live on some planet of some universe at the moment when this freak accident occurred (because although it is very unlikely, it is possible according to Quantum Mechanics). Life on Earth could be such an unlikely accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Multiple Universe Theory=Fairytale
Click to expand...


No, because they could exist.



> First, you obviously didn't listen to Meyers argument because he never calculates probabilities of proteins. He calculates probabilities of amino acids forming



Don't be silly -- amino acids are very simple molecules that are randomly created all over the place. Literally -- recently they were found in deep space. No, Meyers was talking about random creation of a complex protein. Which nobody would do in good faith.



> Second: "the relevance of ribozyme engineering to naturalistic theories of the origin of life is doubtful at best, primarily because of the necessity for intelligent intervention in the synthesis of the randomized RNA"



Sure, "ribozyme could not have been created naturally because it can only be created by the intelligent designer" -- that was the strongest argument against TOE I heard so far  That's not even BS, it is simply laughable.



> Please help me understand how RNA became DNA became comples blueprint for complex Amino Acids became complex functional proteins.



The same way humans evolved from a protocell -- by natural selection.



> Other than fairy tale speculations



By this rate one can call every single scientific theory "a fairy tale speculation". All I can say that fairy-tale, or not, TOE and RNA world hypotheses are way more convincing than Meyer's blatant dishonesty. Or any other proponents of intelligent design.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALL THE USUAL USELESS DRIBBLE DELETED.
> 
> Then do it. Just don't submit some question-begging and/or special-pleading argument and insist that it is valid. Ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has already been done and shown to you. You are just in TOTAL DENIAL.
Click to expand...

Without exception, every argument ever presented by anybody for the existence of a creator has been an exercise in question-begging and/or special pleading.



UltimateReality said:


> The argument is based on the same scientific method Lyell and Darwin used.


No it's not. not in any manner what-so-ever. The evidence presented to support the Intelligent Design argument REQUIRES unquestioned acceptance and belief in the existence of a designer--it is question-begging. The Intelligent Design argument REQUIRES unquestioned acceptance and belief in a Designer that is exempt from the validating criteria that his design requires--it is special pleading.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please enlighten me. What specific area of genetics validates the TOE? Can you please cite some peer reviewed studies?
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Do we have to start with everything that posits that phenotype is the result of genotype, and that an organism's genotype is determined neither by the organism's act of will or behavior? Is that where we have to begin? High-school biology class?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Question answered with a question. Nice avoidance technique.
Click to expand...

Oh. I see you were confused by the question marks.Start with everything that posits that phenotype is the result of genotype, and that an organism's genotype is determined neither by the organism's act of will or behavior. That is where we have to begin; high-school biology class.​There. Fixed that for you.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, DNA studies have shown we all came from a single, female ancestor.
> 
> Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Before you get all excited and tell me I don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is and what it means, let's just cut to the chase...
> 
> Most recent common ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "TMRCA of all living humans
> 
> Estimating time to MRCA of all humans based on the common genealogical usage of the term 'ancestor' is much harder and less accurate compared to estimates of Patrilineal and matrilineal MRCAs. Researchers must trace ancestry along both female and male parental lines, and rely on historical and archaeological records.
> 
> Depending on the survival of isolated lineages without admixture from modern migrations and taking into account long-isolated peoples, such as historical societies in central Africa, Australia and remote islands in the South Pacific, the human MRCA was generally assumed to have lived in the Upper Paleolithic period. With the advent of mathematical models and computer simulations, researchers now find that the MRCA of all humans lived remarkably recently, between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago."
> 
> Funny, this is when the Bible says there was a great flood and only a few people survived. One guy posted up that we were really stupid to believe that all the races could have come from this one dude in the boat.
> 
> "The paper suggests, "No matter the languages we speak or the color of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who first domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forests of North and South America, and who labored to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu".[4]
> 
> An assumption that there are no isolated populations is questionable in view of the existence of various uncontacted peoples, who are suspected to have been isolated for many millennia, including the Sentinelese who have been isolated from the western world and also from the Asian mainland."
> 
> 
> 
> Then there was the guy a few posts ago that said modern discoveries don't coincide with the Bible. Hmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means.
> 
> The TMRCA of all living humans is not the same as the TMRCA of all humans.
> 
> Sorry about your luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is about the most ignorant post you have made yet. And your point is what??? What we see is a bottleneck that coincides with a Biblical story. You're statement above is completely stupid and irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Really? You don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means, and that means my statement above is completely stupid and irrelevant? You are deeply retarded.



UltimateReality said:


> Is that the best you got?


No. Your assertion requires no better rebuttal.



UltimateReality said:


> I can't be the only one that sees through your condescending writing style that puffs you up and camo's your total lack of knowledge.


You are not the only one who imagines condescension when they read posts in a writing style that presumes readers with an IQ greater than 50.



UltimateReality said:


> You plagurize statements you have no understanding of.


I plagiarize statements? Demonstrate.



UltimateReality said:


> Example of Projection: Loki calling everyone else Intellectually Dishonest. Nice try, homeslice.


More patently obvious made-up nonsense from UltimateReality.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Really? You don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means, and that means my statement above is completely stupid and irrelevant? You are deeply retarded.



Wow, predictable is your middle name. Obviously you missed this little statement from the post before your totally predictable response... too funny. Now who is the mental midget?

UltimateReality said, "Before you get all excited and tell me I don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is and what it means, let's just cut to the chase..."


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> More patently obvious made-up nonsense from UltimateReality.



Projection.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> More patently obvious made-up nonsense from UltimateReality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projection.
Click to expand...

Demonstrate.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means, and that means my statement above is completely stupid and irrelevant? You are deeply retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, predictable is your middle name. Obviously you missed this little statement from the post before your totally predictable response... too funny. Now who is the mental midget?
> 
> UltimateReality said, "Before you get all excited and tell me I don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is and what it means, let's just cut to the chase..."
Click to expand...

Right. Then you proceeded to demonstrate that you didn't know what who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means; the irony was not at all lost for the rest of us.

Also this: Population


----------



## Youwerecreated

The Irish Ram said:


> Thanks newpolitics.  I am a Christian, but not at the expense of science.  I don't think that either can be ignored, so as to propel the other into the winner's circle.  Personally, I think the smarter we get, the closer we get to the design of God. That's all.



I always believed in a creator however I did question the existence in God  in college. I completely believed what I was being taught in college,but after the study of mutations there was no doubt life did not simply happen through natural occurrences. It brought me back to the creator I was blindly accepting things that was never verfied or could be verified.

You hit it out of the park, great response.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love science and think it compliments the Bible very well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything compliments the Bible very well, even things like murder -- and that is why it remains ever popular. So science does not disprove the Bible (it is impossible), what science does is making the Bible irrelevant. It is not needed anymore to explain what we see around us, where we came form. And we certainly don't need it to make this world a better place to live for all people.
Click to expand...


This is a very sad thing considering what we see happening all around us. Prophecy being fulfilled and you and people who think like you don't even see it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly people allow themselves to be blinded? By giving an explicit permission to satan? Or just by watching Discovery channel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By warping their conscience as to what's right and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it mean? What one has to do in order to "wrap his conscience", and why would one do it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If people can't see the design around them they are just simply blind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can repeat that "people are blind" all you want, but you are not answering question -- who's fault it that people are blind? What went wrong and why?
Click to expand...


What went wrong and still is going wrong people are choosing satans world over God's world.

Some people see sin as innocent ,there is nothing wrong with it so that is how the conscience gets warped and people don't even realize that is happening.

Your side can't even explain or verify where this conscience came from and they can't explain this voice inside us teaching us right from wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?
Click to expand...


For starters macro-evolution,it has never been observed.

Abiogenesis has never been observed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have faith that air exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't  And neither should you.
> 
> The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.
Click to expand...


I just don't get your reasoning,what would hap[pen if someone cut oxygen on to a human or animal ?

So when I have personally viewed tornados That was just my imagination ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

InDoctriNation said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't  And neither should you.
> 
> The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
> A theory is a hypothesis put to the test.  If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law.  I have faith that air exists  even though I can't see it.  I can see its effect on my lungs.
> There I go again, breathing....  If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
> We're good together, don't ya think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.
Click to expand...


The differences between creationist and evolutionist is common sense and reasoning. Creationist don't use their wild imagination then try to prove their wild speculations wrong. They try to reson out why and how something works.

I now mine for precious metals.I look and test ground for precious metals if they are present that is where I mine If precious metals are not present I keep looking until I find them. But that is only half of it,once I find the precious metals I try to find the source of the metals found in the placer deposits. I don't try to disprove there is no precious metals present.

Evolutionist have it backwards.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InDoctriNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
> Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
> We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative.  If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.
> 
> ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream?  One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe.  I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you tell the difference between the reality and dream if everything in the dream is not different from reality? Can you imagine yourself dreaming such a dream right now, and if not -- why not? Actually, that question is beside the point -- the point is that science allows such a possibility.
> 
> Also, what you call "laws" are really theories. For example, a theory of gravity explains how objects _should_ attract each other, but it does not say that they actually _will_ behave like it prescribes. It is still useful as long as you expect it to hold.
Click to expand...


Easily when you are awake.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence  in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam.  I get common descent, honest.
> I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested.  Before that it was guesswork, or theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I understand things, it is both.  There is a law of gravity, which is basically, 'gravity happens'.  Then there is the theory of gravity, which tries to explain why it happens.
> 
> I'm sure someone else in the thread can either better explain it or show why I am wrong.
Click to expand...


Why it happens is because the designer wanted life on this planet,and keep the moon and sun on the proper planes as well as our planet.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.  So of course, you use the widest, least meaningful definition in order to shoehorn evolution into the definition.  By that definition, pretty much anything can be religion.  It does not, however, mean that evolution is the same as Christianity, or Hinduism, or Judaism, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're the definition Nazi now??? The TOE is baseless in any real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a religion and you know it and it is full of intellectual dishonesty at every level, just like Loki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another lie, and ... bearing false witness.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly people allow themselves to be blinded? By giving an explicit permission to satan? Or just by watching Discovery channel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By warping their conscience as to what's right and wrong. If people can't see the design around them they are just simply blind.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were that simple there would be no atheists out there  Many people with religious upbringing eventually become atheists once they get to know this world. Unfortunately, it works both ways -- many people that were raised atheists become religious.
> 
> I think people become atheists simply because they are better at building a consistent model of the world around them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true there has always been atheists. People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A bold assertion that you will certainly not bother to demonstrate.
Click to expand...


I have and so have others


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have faith that air exists. I can't see it, but I believe that it exists and is keeping me alive.
> I know there is a breeze today.  The leaves are moving.
> I can't see the wind, but I have faith it is there. I can see it's effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your belief is founded upon and validated by evidence, then you are not exercising faith.
Click to expand...


What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?

What is your evidence for macro-evolution ?

What is your evidence that there is no designer ?

What is your evidence that all living organisms are related ?

Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're going straight to hell! blasphemer!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you only understood what hell really is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> like you do!!!! again you miss the point.....there is no hell just as there is no heaven.
Click to expand...


Look up a few terms and you see there definitely is a hell but it's not what you think it is.

Start with the terms sheol and hades.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO DEBATE about evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations!! You just received the Loki "Stick your head in the stand" and "If I don't look at it maybe it won't see me" awards. You obviously didn't miss the bus, but caught a ride on the short bus and missed the science. If you want to choose to believe in fairytales that is fine. But don't come on here pretending to be interested in the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don't talk to me about me about fairytales or truth when you believe in the bible.
Click to expand...


Do you have evidence as to why the bible should be shunned ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means, and that means my statement above is completely stupid and irrelevant? You are deeply retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, predictable is your middle name. Obviously you missed this little statement from the post before your totally predictable response... too funny. Now who is the mental midget?
> 
> UltimateReality said, "Before you get all excited and tell me I don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is and what it means, let's just cut to the chase..."
Click to expand...


I love that term for him


----------



## whitehall

Let it go bigots. The origin of the world isn't as important as what? Giving America's freaking treasure away because some crackpot scientists said we were responsible for bad weather in Africa.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have faith that air exists. I can't see it, but I believe that it exists and is keeping me alive.
> I know there is a breeze today.  The leaves are moving.
> I can't see the wind, but I have faith it is there. I can see it's effect.
> 
> 
> 
> If your belief is founded upon and validated by evidence, then you are not exercising faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?
Click to expand...

That life is a natural process that is reliant upon the interactions of observable/testable/verifiable natural processes for its maintenance and propagation.



Youwerecreated said:


> What is your evidence for macro-evolution ?


Evidence such as the emergence of nylon-eating bacteria, ring species, and the fossil record.



Youwerecreated said:


> What is your evidence that there is no designer ?


The absence of evidence that there is a designer.



Youwerecreated said:


> What is your evidence that all living organisms are related ?


Without asserting absolute congruency, the common elements they share in metabolic biochemical and reproductive processes.



Youwerecreated said:


> Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?


What do you mean by "validate these questions"?


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have faith that air exists. I can't see it, but I believe that it exists and is keeping me alive.
> I know there is a breeze today.  The leaves are moving.
> I can't see the wind, but I have faith it is there. I can see it's effect.
> 
> 
> 
> If your belief is founded upon and validated by evidence, then you are not exercising faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?
Click to expand...


You're asking what's the proof that life started?

I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.

The question is basic, it's embarrassing.



> What is your evidence for macro-evolution ?



Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?



> What is your evidence that there is no designer ?



What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.



> What is your evidence that all living organisms are related ?



To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.



> Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?



Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your belief is founded upon and validated by evidence, then you are not exercising faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That life is a natural process that is reliant upon the interactions of observable/testable/verifiable natural processes for its maintenance and propagation.
> 
> Evidence such as the emergence of nylon-eating bacteria, ring species, and the fossil record.
> 
> The absence of evidence that there is a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence that all living organisms are related ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without asserting absolute congruency, the common elements they share in metabolic biochemical and reproductive processes.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean by "validate these questions"?
Click to expand...


 sorry those are just faulty conclusions because they come from faulty presuppositions.

You really don't want to use the fossil record as evidence for gradualism trust me.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your belief is founded upon and validated by evidence, then you are not exercising faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're asking what's the proof that life started?
> 
> I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.
> 
> The question is basic, it's embarrassing.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?
> 
> 
> 
> What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence that all living organisms are related ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.
Click to expand...


Nope what is your evidence that life through a natural process started spontaneously ? What is embarrassing is that some men of science would believe it was possible.

Similarity does not prove different groups  of organisms are related.

I have presented it many times we have diversity within each family of organisms because of genetic drift that cause small changes within a population.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your belief is founded upon and validated by evidence, then you are not exercising faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're asking what's the proof that life started?
> 
> I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.
> 
> The question is basic, it's embarrassing.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?
> 
> 
> 
> What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence that all living organisms are related ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.
Click to expand...


You can also add that poof God created things as they are and gave them the ability to adapt. Darwin and many since have made erroneous conclusions ever since seeing these natural occurrences that was put into motion by the creator.


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking what's the proof that life started?
> 
> I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.
> 
> The question is basic, it's embarrassing.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?
> 
> 
> 
> What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope what is your evidence that life through a natural process started spontaneously ? What is embarrassing is that some men of science would believe it was possible.
Click to expand...


You asked about abiogenesis, the start of life, not spontaneous generation.



> Similarity does not prove different groups  of organisms are related.



Why doesn't it?



> I have presented it many times we have diversity within each family of organisms because of genetic drift that cause small changes within a population.



Your evidence to disprove evolution is a concept derived from the theory of evolution?


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking what's the proof that life started?
> 
> I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.
> 
> The question is basic, it's embarrassing.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?
> 
> 
> 
> What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can also add that poof God created things as they are and gave them the ability to adapt. Darwin and many since have made erroneous conclusions ever since seeing these natural occurrences that was put into motion by the creator.
Click to expand...


Which you have zero evidence for. As I said before, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking what's the proof that life started?
> 
> I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.
> 
> The question is basic, it's embarrassing.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?
> 
> 
> 
> What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope what is your evidence that life through a natural process started spontaneously ? What is embarrassing is that some men of science would believe it was possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked about abiogenesis, the start of life, not spontaneous generation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Similarity does not prove different groups  of organisms are related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have presented it many times we have diversity within each family of organisms because of genetic drift that cause small changes within a population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your evidence to disprove evolution is a concept derived from the theory of evolution?
Click to expand...


From a biological stance we are similar because we are made up of similar substances but our genes carry vastly different genetic information. Your side is reaching by assuming we are related because we are made up of similar substances. That also is circular reasoning that your side complains about creationist that we use circular reasoning.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking what's the proof that life started?
> 
> I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.
> 
> The question is basic, it's embarrassing.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?
> 
> 
> 
> What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can also add that poof God created things as they are and gave them the ability to adapt. Darwin and many since have made erroneous conclusions ever since seeing these natural occurrences that was put into motion by the creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you have zero evidence for. As I said before, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Click to expand...


The theory of punctuated equilibrium was started because the cambrian organisms appeared suddenly not gradually,that fits with the creation model. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are one in the same.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?
> 
> 
> 
> That life is a natural process that is reliant upon the interactions of observable/testable/verifiable natural processes for its maintenance and propagation.
> 
> Evidence such as the emergence of nylon-eating bacteria, ring species, and the fossil record.
> 
> The absence of evidence that there is a designer.
> 
> Without asserting absolute congruency, the common elements they share in metabolic biochemical and reproductive processes.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean by "validate these questions"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry those are just faulty conclusions because they come from faulty presuppositions.
Click to expand...

Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify my "faulty presuppositions."

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."



Youwerecreated said:


> You really don't want to use the fossil record as evidence for gradualism trust me.


You didn't ask me about gradualism, did you? I believe the actual issue was macro-evolution, yes?

Douche.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Similarity does not prove different groups  of organisms are related.


You didn't ask for proof, you disingenuous retard, you asked for evidence.



Youwerecreated said:


> I have presented it many times we have diversity within each family of organisms because of genetic drift that cause small changes within a population.


No one is disputing the existence or role of genetic drift, you retard.


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope what is your evidence that life through a natural process started spontaneously ? What is embarrassing is that some men of science would believe it was possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked about abiogenesis, the start of life, not spontaneous generation.
> 
> 
> 
> Why doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have presented it many times we have diversity within each family of organisms because of genetic drift that cause small changes within a population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your evidence to disprove evolution is a concept derived from the theory of evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From a biological stance we are similar because we are made up of similar substances but our genes carry vastly different genetic information. Your side is reaching by assuming we are related because we are made up of similar substances. That also is circular reasoning that your side complains about creationist that we use circular reasoning.
Click to expand...


Our genes are not similar, only our 'substances' are. Whatever that is meant to mean. But our DNA is 98% identical to that of a chimps and other monkeys.

So I really don't get your point. You can say we're not related all you want, but genetic similarities exist, even if you want to ignore it.


----------



## Woyzeck

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can also add that poof God created things as they are and gave them the ability to adapt. Darwin and many since have made erroneous conclusions ever since seeing these natural occurrences that was put into motion by the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which you have zero evidence for. As I said before, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The theory of punctuated equilibrium was started because the cambrian organisms appeared suddenly not gradually,that fits with the creation model. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are one in the same.
Click to expand...


And the evidence for your god assertion quoted above is...?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> The theory of punctuated equilibrium was started because the cambrian organisms appeared suddenly not gradually,that fits with the creation model. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are one in the same.


The theory of punctuated equilibrium is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution, and in no way invalidates gradualism ... at least according to those who proposed punctuated equilibrium.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love science and think it compliments the Bible very well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything compliments the Bible very well, even things like murder -- and that is why it remains ever popular. So science does not disprove the Bible (it is impossible), what science does is making the Bible irrelevant. It is not needed anymore to explain what we see around us, where we came form. And we certainly don't need it to make this world a better place to live for all people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a very sad thing considering what we see happening all around us. Prophecy being fulfilled and you and people who think like you don't even see it.
Click to expand...

another bullshit statement! that same statement has been spewed by believers since it was made up!
to be to be a truly prophetic event. that event would have to EXACTLY MATCH THE PROPHECY NONE EVER HAVE .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you only understood what hell really is.
> 
> 
> 
> like you do!!!! again you miss the point.....there is no hell just as there is no heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look up a few terms and you see there definitely is a hell but it's not what you think it is.
> 
> Start with the terms sheol and hades.
Click to expand...

DODGE, i KNOW THOSE TERMS.
YOU OR ANY BODY ELSE  HAVE NO EXPERIENCE OR FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE THAT HELL EXISTS 
WHEN YOU SAY YOU DO YOU'RE PILING IT HIGH AND DEEP!

 The best discription of hell is : hell is the absence of reason...


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means, and that means my statement above is completely stupid and irrelevant? You are deeply retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, predictable is your middle name. Obviously you missed this little statement from the post before your totally predictable response... too funny. Now who is the mental midget?
> 
> UltimateReality said, "Before you get all excited and tell me I don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is and what it means, let's just cut to the chase..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Then you proceeded to demonstrate that you didn't know what who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means; the irony was not at all lost for the rest of us.
> 
> Also this: Population
Click to expand...


Have you not been reading anything I've said?? Obviously not by the retarded video you posted. I am not a young earth Creationists. I am here arguing ID theory, not Noah and the ark. I do throw in some curious SCIENCE facts that fit with the Biblical accounts ocasionally to show the bias that exists against any science that fits.


----------



## UltimateReality

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your belief is founded upon and validated by evidence, then you are not exercising faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're asking what's the proof that life started?
> 
> I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.
> 
> The question is basic, it's embarrassing.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?
> 
> 
> 
> What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence that all living organisms are related ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.
Click to expand...


Wow, for someone who pretends to be so intelligent, it is funny to me you missed the context of the Abiogenesis question. I knew exactly what he meant. What is your evidence that Abiogenesis occurred through a naturistic process? The answer is NONE. 

Using DNA to prove all organisms are related is laughable. If you mean we all have the same basic design, then you would be correct. However, if we apply Lyell's and Darwin's scientific methodologies to the question of DNA, we have to study modern information theory. DNA is a quaternary digital code. If we attempt to find the evidence for functional digital code in the world around us, i.e., digital instructions or machine code for assembling complex machines, we always find the source is an intelligent agent. Lyell said if you want to know what happened in the distant past then you study the present. In the present, the source of micro machines, information copying and retrieval digital systems, and digital code is always a "mind" or intelligent agent. We don't find complex computer programs arising from mistakes in the basic 0's and 1's. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that NS could produce the complex machine code we find in DNA. And you accuse Christians of believing in fairytales? HA!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking what's the proof that life started?
> 
> I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.
> 
> The question is basic, it's embarrassing.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?
> 
> 
> 
> What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can also add that poof God created things as they are and gave them the ability to adapt. Darwin and many since have made erroneous conclusions ever since seeing these natural occurrences that was put into motion by the creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you have zero evidence for. As I said before, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Click to expand...


Well it's this simple Woyzeck,you can believe everything is a product of chance and coincidence or you can believe everything came about by a designer,your choice.

There is evidence of design there is zero evidence of everything happening on it's own with no one guiding the creation of the universe and life.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence for Abiogenesis ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking what's the proof that life started?
> 
> I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.
> 
> The question is basic, it's embarrassing.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?
> 
> 
> 
> What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you validate these questions with this validated evidence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope what is your evidence that life through a natural process started spontaneously ? What is embarrassing is that some men of science would believe it was possible.
Click to expand...


Funny, no one bothered to read this or comment. 

The RNA World: A Critique - Origins & Design 17:1. Mills, Gordon and Kenyon, Dean

The funny thing is they claim Materialism isn't a religion. Yet, when faced with total scientific evidence which invalidate their beliefs, they just ignore it and continue to claim RNA world explains everything basing their belief on... you guessed it... faith!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> That life is a natural process that is reliant upon the interactions of observable/testable/verifiable natural processes for its maintenance and propagation.
> 
> Evidence such as the emergence of nylon-eating bacteria, ring species, and the fossil record.
> 
> The absence of evidence that there is a designer.
> 
> Without asserting absolute congruency, the common elements they share in metabolic biochemical and reproductive processes.
> 
> What do you mean by "validate these questions"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry those are just faulty conclusions because they come from faulty presuppositions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify my "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't want to use the fossil record as evidence for gradualism trust me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask me about gradualism, did you? I believe the actual issue was macro-evolution, yes?
> 
> Douche.
Click to expand...


Yes I have identified your faulty presuppositions by the questions I have asked You.

Of course because the fossil record is a problem for your theory because of the lack of evidence for gradualism.


----------



## UltimateReality

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking what's the proof that life started?
> 
> I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.
> 
> The question is basic, it's embarrassing.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?
> 
> 
> 
> What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can also add that poof God created things as they are and gave them the ability to adapt. Darwin and many since have made erroneous conclusions ever since seeing these natural occurrences that was put into motion by the creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you have zero evidence for. As I said before, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Click to expand...


Hey, zero evidence doesn't stop scientists from believing in fairytales like the Multiple Universe fantasy. A theory soley invented as a feeble attempt to poke holes in the fact that the fine tuning of our universe screams intelligent designer. "It's like someone monkeyed with the physics." I never understood why it would be easier to believe in an infinite number of random universes than it would to just believe in an Alien Being (alien to us) who is infinite and exists outside of matter, space, time and energy (just like another one of the supposed multiple universes) I really don't see how one argument in this instance is more viable than the other.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Similarity does not prove different groups  of organisms are related.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't ask for proof, you disingenuous retard, you asked for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have presented it many times we have diversity within each family of organisms because of genetic drift that cause small changes within a population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is disputing the existence or role of genetic drift, you retard.
Click to expand...


Proof comes from evidence nitwit.

That is right and I have explained to you why there are changes in small populations and it is through genetic drift not mutations.

The retard is not I.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked about abiogenesis, the start of life, not spontaneous generation.
> 
> 
> 
> Why doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence to disprove evolution is a concept derived from the theory of evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a biological stance we are similar because we are made up of similar substances but our genes carry vastly different genetic information. Your side is reaching by assuming we are related because we are made up of similar substances. That also is circular reasoning that your side complains about creationist that we use circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our genes are not similar, only our 'substances' are. Whatever that is meant to mean. But our DNA is 98% identical to that of a chimps and other monkeys.
> 
> So I really don't get your point. You can say we're not related all you want, but genetic similarities exist, even if you want to ignore it.
Click to expand...


Don't keep spewing that lie that our DNA is 98% identical to a chimp that you have read. They mapped the genome the closest they can come up with so far is 95% similar. And they are finding more and more differences eventually the number will rise.

Even if the number don't rise the information that you seem to ignore is vastly different between a human and a chimp.

2 OR 5 % of the almost 4 billion base pairs of DNA is a huge difference get it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of punctuated equilibrium was started because the cambrian organisms appeared suddenly not gradually,that fits with the creation model. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of punctuated equilibrium is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution, and in no way invalidates gradualism ... at least according to those who proposed punctuated equilibrium.
Click to expand...


Not if you believe in gradualism and that is what your theory teaches. 

Think will you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> like you do!!!! again you miss the point.....there is no hell just as there is no heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look up a few terms and you see there definitely is a hell but it's not what you think it is.
> 
> Start with the terms sheol and hades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DODGE, i KNOW THOSE TERMS.
> YOU OR ANY BODY ELSE  HAVE NO EXPERIENCE OR FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE THAT HELL EXISTS
> WHEN YOU SAY YOU DO YOU'RE PILING IT HIGH AND DEEP!
> 
> The best discription of hell is : hell is the absence of reason...
Click to expand...


Wrong, world of the dead,in other words the grave.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, predictable is your middle name. Obviously you missed this little statement from the post before your totally predictable response... too funny. Now who is the mental midget?
> 
> UltimateReality said, "Before you get all excited and tell me I don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is and what it means, let's just cut to the chase..."
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Then you proceeded to demonstrate that you didn't know what who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means; the irony was not at all lost for the rest of us.
> 
> Also this: Population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you not been reading anything I've said?? Obviously not by the retarded video you posted. I am not a young earth Creationists. I am here arguing ID theory, not Noah and the ark. I do throw in some curious SCIENCE facts that fit with the Biblical accounts ocasionally to show the bias that exists against any science that fits.
Click to expand...


To be honest I believbe in ID and creationism.

I don't know for sure how long creation took and how long the earth has existed ,but I believe without a doubt that the universe and life did not happen by chance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking what's the proof that life started?
> 
> I would think given the fact that life needs a planet to start on, and the planet itself is younger then universe and had to come together itself would be proof enough that life had a beginning.
> 
> The question is basic, it's embarrassing.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides the examples LOki and myself have been giving you for a considerable amount of time now?
> 
> 
> 
> What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> To add on to what LOki gave you, there's also the DNA similarity all organisms on earth have with each other. As well as numerous evolutionary traits and appendages and so on being commonplace among many species.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We have been. For some time now, really. If there's anyone who needs to find validated evidence to prove a point here it's you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope what is your evidence that life through a natural process started spontaneously ? What is embarrassing is that some men of science would believe it was possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, no one bothered to read this or comment.
> 
> The RNA World: A Critique - Origins & Design 17:1. Mills, Gordon and Kenyon, Dean
> 
> The funny thing is they claim Materialism isn't a religion. Yet, when faced with total scientific evidence which invalidate their beliefs, they just ignore it and continue to claim RNA world explains everything basing their belief on... you guessed it... faith!!
Click to expand...


Yes that article presents too many questions and problems for them to repond to.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Then you proceeded to demonstrate that you didn't know what who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means; the irony was not at all lost for the rest of us.
> 
> Also this: Population
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you not been reading anything I've said?? Obviously not by the retarded video you posted. I am not a young earth Creationists. I am here arguing ID theory, not Noah and the ark. I do throw in some curious SCIENCE facts that fit with the Biblical accounts ocasionally to show the bias that exists against any science that fits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest I believbe in ID and creationism.
> 
> I don't know for sure how long creation took and how long the earth has existed ,but *I believe without a doubt *that the universe and life did not happen by chance.
Click to expand...


All of the science...All of the dogma crushed by truth and reason... All of the willfull lies by the churches...and you have NO doubt.  Not any?  None?  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqZOYgUolC4]Green Day - American Idiot [Official Music Video] - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> What went wrong and still is going wrong people are choosing satans world over God's world.



What is telling is that you do not dare to tell who's at fault here -- no matter ho many times I asked. Is it the people themselves consciously choose to follow satan? Or if satan blinded them against their will, why God allowed this?



> Some people see sin as innocent ,there is nothing wrong with it so that is how the conscience gets warped and people don't even realize that is happening.



Why most people don't realize? Because God created them this way, or because God failed to show them, or because God allows satan to blind them?



> Your side can't even explain or verify where this conscience came from and they can't explain this voice inside us teaching us right from wrong.



Of course it can.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For starters macro-evolution,it has never been observed.
Click to expand...


So what, there is more than enough indirect evidence. This is not a faith, this is the best explanation of what we see -- which still can be wrong.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry those are just faulty conclusions because they come from faulty presuppositions.
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify my "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't want to use the fossil record as evidence for gradualism trust me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask me about gradualism, did you? I believe the actual issue was macro-evolution, yes?
> 
> Douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I have identified your faulty presuppositions by the questions I have asked You.
Click to expand...

No, you asked some questions, identifying only that you forgot I had answered those questions a dozen times already.

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."



Youwerecreated said:


> Of course because the fossil record is a problem for your theory because of the lack of evidence for gradualism.


Evolution and gradualism are not the same thing, and evolution is not dependent upon gradualism for validity. The fossil record really does not invalidate gradualism either. 

Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify this "problem."

Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "problem."


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Similarity does not prove different groups  of organisms are related.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't ask for proof, you disingenuous retard, you asked for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have presented it many times we have diversity within each family of organisms because of genetic drift that cause small changes within a population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is disputing the existence or role of genetic drift, you retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof comes from evidence nitwit.
Click to expand...

Not for Creationists, retard.



Youwerecreated said:


> That is right and I have explained to you why there are changes in small populations and it is through genetic drift not mutations.
> 
> The retard is not I.


Yes. I am aware that you insist that among all the various ways that a difference in genotype might arise, it is only those differences in genotype caused by mutation that cannot possibly lead to differences in phenotype.

You're so deeply retarded.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of punctuated equilibrium was started because the cambrian organisms appeared suddenly not gradually,that fits with the creation model. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of punctuated equilibrium is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution, and in no way invalidates gradualism ... at least according to those who proposed punctuated equilibrium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if you believe in gradualism and that is what your theory teaches.
> 
> Think will you.
Click to expand...

Since the theory of punctuated equilibrium is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution and in no way invalidates gradualism, what's your point?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What went wrong and still is going wrong people are choosing satans world over God's world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is telling is that you do not dare to tell who's at fault here -- no matter ho many times I asked. Is it the people themselves consciously choose to follow satan? Or if satan blinded them against their will, why God allowed this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people see sin as innocent ,there is nothing wrong with it so that is how the conscience gets warped and people don't even realize that is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why most people don't realize? Because God created them this way, or because God failed to show them, or because God allows satan to blind them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your side can't even explain or verify where this conscience came from and they can't explain this voice inside us teaching us right from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it can.
Click to expand...


I thought I made the answer clear. It is the person who uses free will and decides the path they go down. Satan does does blind us with distraction but we allow ourselves to be distracted by satan.

Wrong, God has provided us a way to help in our decision making,it's called the conscience and his word. People have to start taking responsibility for their choices.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters macro-evolution,it has never been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what, there is more than enough indirect evidence. This is not a faith, this is the best explanation of what we see -- which still can be wrong.
Click to expand...


No, It's human nature to look at evidence and it explain in a way to support our presuppositions. Some of the honest scientist speak out against the theory because of the lack of evidence and they see the new evidence that becomes a problem for the theory.

Especially the origins of life question.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify my "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> You didn't ask me about gradualism, did you? I believe the actual issue was macro-evolution, yes?
> 
> Douche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have identified your faulty presuppositions by the questions I have asked You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you asked some questions, identifying only that you forgot I had answered those questions a dozen times already.
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course because the fossil record is a problem for your theory because of the lack of evidence for gradualism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution and gradualism are not the same thing, and evolution is not dependent upon gradualism for validity. The fossil record really does not invalidate gradualism either.
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify this "problem."
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "problem."
Click to expand...


Oh no you havn't you have linked to people trying to explain the answer to the question and it still lacked evidence.

Even evoluitionist admit your side should not use fossil evidence as support of the theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify my "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> You didn't ask me about gradualism, did you? I believe the actual issue was macro-evolution, yes?
> 
> Douche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have identified your faulty presuppositions by the questions I have asked You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you asked some questions, identifying only that you forgot I had answered those questions a dozen times already.
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course because the fossil record is a problem for your theory because of the lack of evidence for gradualism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution and gradualism are not the same thing, and evolution is not dependent upon gradualism for validity. The fossil record really does not invalidate gradualism either.
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify this "problem."
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "problem."
Click to expand...


Evolution is not gradualism 

Sorry Loki but you are barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't ask for proof, you disingenuous retard, you asked for evidence.
> 
> No one is disputing the existence or role of genetic drift, you retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof comes from evidence nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for Creationists, retard.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is right and I have explained to you why there are changes in small populations and it is through genetic drift not mutations.
> 
> The retard is not I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. I am aware that you insist that among all the various ways that a difference in genotype might arise, it is only those differences in genotype caused by mutation that cannot possibly lead to differences in phenotype.
> 
> You're so deeply retarded.
Click to expand...


Back up your claim moron.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of punctuated equilibrium is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution, and in no way invalidates gradualism ... at least according to those who proposed punctuated equilibrium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you believe in gradualism and that is what your theory teaches.
> 
> Think will you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the theory of punctuated equilibrium is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution and in no way invalidates gradualism, what's your point?
Click to expand...


Explain how they are compatible ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Woyzeck another thing your side ignores is, since the Genome project mapped the Genome they have discovered there is no junk DNA how do you explain that ?

While you are at it,explain all the organs that was once thought to serve no purpose are now considered to serve a purpose ?


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What went wrong and still is going wrong people are choosing satans world over God's world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is telling is that you do not dare to tell who's at fault here -- no matter ho many times I asked. Is it the people themselves consciously choose to follow satan? Or if satan blinded them against their will, why God allowed this?
> 
> 
> 
> Why most people don't realize? Because God created them this way, or because God failed to show them, or because God allows satan to blind them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your side can't even explain or verify where this conscience came from and they can't explain this voice inside us teaching us right from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought I made the answer clear. It is the person who uses free will and decides the path they go down.
Click to expand...


The question was WHY most of people use their free will to make what you think are wrong decisions? What motivates them?



> Satan does does blind us with distraction but we allow ourselves to be distracted by satan.



Why would anyone allow himself to be distracted by satan?



> Wrong, God has provided us a way to help in our decision making,it's called the conscience and his word.



And WHY what God provided is apparently not enough for the most people?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify my "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> You didn't ask me about gradualism, did you? I believe the actual issue was macro-evolution, yes?
> 
> Douche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have identified your faulty presuppositions by the questions I have asked You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you asked some questions, identifying only that you forgot I had answered those questions a dozen times already.
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course because the fossil record is a problem for your theory because of the lack of evidence for gradualism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution and gradualism are not the same thing, and evolution is not dependent upon gradualism for validity. The fossil record really does not invalidate gradualism either.
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify this "problem."
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "problem."
Click to expand...


Loki, you move the goalpost so many times I'm not even sure you know where the field is anymore!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

On RNA World...

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you..."


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> On RNA World...
> 
> "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you..."


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look up a few terms and you see there definitely is a hell but it's not what you think it is.
> 
> Start with the terms sheol and hades.
> 
> 
> 
> DODGE, i KNOW THOSE TERMS.
> YOU OR ANY BODY ELSE  HAVE NO EXPERIENCE OR FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE THAT HELL EXISTS
> WHEN YOU SAY YOU DO YOU'RE PILING IT HIGH AND DEEP!
> 
> The best discription of hell is : hell is the absence of reason...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, world of the dead,in other words the grave.
Click to expand...

another one wizzes right past you...i'll make it easy " of all the man made disciption of hell this is the best: hell is the absence of reason.
your version presupposes that consciousness survives death and that hell actually exists.
also Hades ( /&#712;he&#618;di&#720;z/; from Greek &#8077;&#948;&#951;&#962; (older form &#7944;&#989;&#943;&#948;&#951;&#962, Had&#275;s, originally &#7949;&#953;&#948;&#951;&#962;, Haid&#275;s or &#902;&#912;&#948;&#951;&#962;, Aid&#275;s (Doric &#7944;&#912;&#948;&#945;&#962; Aidas), meaning "the unseen"[1]) was the ancient Greek god of the underworld. The genitive &#8077;&#948;&#959;&#965;, Haidou, was an elision to denote locality: "[the house/dominion] of Hades". Eventually, the nominative came to designate the abode of the dead.
so again your ignorance shines!


----------



## The Irish Ram

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is telling is that you do not dare to tell who's at fault here -- no matter ho many times I asked. Is it the people themselves consciously choose to follow satan? Or if satan blinded them against their will, why God allowed this?
> 
> 
> 
> Why most people don't realize? Because God created them this way, or because God failed to show them, or because God allows satan to blind them?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I made the answer clear. It is the person who uses free will and decides the path they go down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was WHY most of people use their free will to make what you think are wrong decisions? What motivates them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan does does blind us with distraction but we allow ourselves to be distracted by satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone allow himself to be distracted by satan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, God has provided us a way to help in our decision making,it's called the conscience and his word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And WHY what God provided is apparently not enough for the most people?
Click to expand...


Some people do choose to follow Satan. This goes back to an argument between God and Satan concerning the will of God's children, < we are unique in that respect.  Angels stand, His children sit at His table.  It is Satan's contention that if God gave us a choice, we would dis Him for Satan every time.
 Satan is so skillful, that we can be led like puppies and we don't  even know he's there, or that what he is proposing is considered sin.  So as not to be taken advantage of, God (in his instruction manual)  explains how to avoid "slings and arrows" from Satan by putting on the armor of God for complete protection.  An absence of knowledge leaves us vulnerable, which is why we are urged to study his word.  He did not leave us on our own when dealing with Satan because he knows we are no match.  
Knowledge exposes Satan.  The more you know about Satan, the quicker you realize when he's there.  

Satan motivates bad decisions.

We allow our selves to be distracted by ignorance on how not to be distracted, and a corrupt human spirit that desires earthly things.  Hence:  Put the human spirit to death daily and your chances of being mislead decrease dramatically.

What God provided is more than enough, we just don't bother to acquaint ourselves with His instruction, or we decide to ignore it in favor of,  or a desire for, immediate gratification.


----------



## daws101

The Irish Ram said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I made the answer clear. It is the person who uses free will and decides the path they go down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question was WHY most of people use their free will to make what you think are wrong decisions? What motivates them?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone allow himself to be distracted by satan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, God has provided us a way to help in our decision making,it's called the conscience and his word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And WHY what God provided is apparently not enough for the most people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people do choose to follow Satan. This goes back to an argument between God and Satan concerning the will of God's children, < we are unique in that respect.  Angels stand, His children sit at His table.  It is Satan's contention that if God gave us a choice, we would dis Him for Satan every time.
> Satan is so skillful, that we can be led like puppies and we don't  even know he's there, or that what he is proposing is considered sin.  So as not to be taken advantage of, God (in his instruction manual)  explains how to avoid "slings and arrows" from Satan by putting on the armor of God for complete protection.  An absence of knowledge leaves us vulnerable, which is why we are urged to study his word.  He did not leave us on our own when dealing with Satan because he knows we are no match.
> Knowledge exposes Satan.  The more you know about Satan, the quicker you realize when he's there.
> 
> Satan motivates bad decisions.
> 
> We allow our selves to be distracted by ignorance on how not to be distracted, and a corrupt human spirit that desires earthly things.  Hence:  Put the human spirit to death daily and your chances of being mislead decrease dramatically.
> 
> What God provided is more than enough, we just don't bother to acquaint ourselves with His instruction, or we decide to ignore it in favor of,  or a desire for, immediate gratification.
Click to expand...


----------



## ilia25

The Irish Ram said:


> So as not to be taken advantage of, God (in his instruction manual) explains how to avoid "slings and arrows" from Satan by putting on the armor of God for complete protection.



My question is why most people who has access to the Bible and its Christian teaching find it so unconvincing? Why God did such a poor job at writing the "instruction manual" that it fails to resolve the very issue it was created for?

And it is not like God was facing an impossible task -- I can imagine countless things that God could have done in order to convince me and other people that Christianity is the way. Instead, He made the Bible look as 1000s years old fairy tale (no offence), and He put all fossils and other evidence that make TOE look as plausible, as any scientific theory can possibly be!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> DODGE, i KNOW THOSE TERMS.
> YOU OR ANY BODY ELSE  HAVE NO EXPERIENCE OR FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE THAT HELL EXISTS
> WHEN YOU SAY YOU DO YOU'RE PILING IT HIGH AND DEEP!
> 
> The best discription of hell is : hell is the absence of reason...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, world of the dead,in other words the grave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another one wizzes right past you...i'll make it easy " of all the man made disciption of hell this is the best: hell is the absence of reason.
> your version presupposes that consciousness survives death and that hell actually exists.
> also Hades ( /&#712;he&#618;di&#720;z/; from Greek &#8077;&#948;&#951;&#962; (older form &#7944;&#989;&#943;&#948;&#951;&#962, Had&#275;s, originally &#7949;&#953;&#948;&#951;&#962;, Haid&#275;s or &#902;&#912;&#948;&#951;&#962;, Aid&#275;s (Doric &#7944;&#912;&#948;&#945;&#962; Aidas), meaning "the unseen"[1]) was the ancient Greek god of the underworld. The genitive &#8077;&#948;&#959;&#965;, Haidou, was an elision to denote locality: "[the house/dominion] of Hades". Eventually, the nominative came to designate the abode of the dead.
> so again your ignorance shines!
Click to expand...


Someone calling someone ignorant that does not know what he is talking about is priceless 

Some people have taken a few verses out of context and present that hell is  Gods place for torment or torture when it is only the grave and it's described as a state of sleep until the resurrection. God does not torment people nor torture people. That is a misrepresentation of the scriptures. Hell and hades are two different lanuages that mean the same thing.



Psa 139:8  If I go up into Heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. 

Psa 139:8  IfH518 I ascend upH5266 into heaven,H8064 thouH859 art there:H8033 if I make my bedH3331 in hell,H7585 behold,H2009 thou art there. 

Hell
H7585
&#1513;&#1473;&#1488;&#1500;    &#1513;&#1473;&#1488;&#1493;&#1500;
she'o&#770;l  she'o&#770;l
sheh-ole', sheh-ole'
From H7592; hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranian retreat), including its accessories and inmates: - grave, hell, pit.

Here Jonah refers to the belly of the fish as sheol because he thought he was gonna die.

Jon 2:2  and he said, I cried to Jehovah from my distress. And He answered me. Out of the belly of Sheol I cried for help, and You heard my voice. 


Jon 2:2  And said,H559 I criedH7121 by reason of mine afflictionH4480 H6869 untoH413 the LORD,H3068 and he heardH6030 me; out of the bellyH4480 H990 of hellH7585 criedH7768 I, and thou heardestH8085 my voice.H6963 

When you die you go to the grave and your thoughts perish,you are no more until the resurrection. Death is a state of sleep,there is no more life for the dead until the resurrection.

Psa 146:4  His breath goes forth; he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. 

Now Jesus speaking of the state of the dead.

Joh 11:11  He said these things; and after that He said to them, Our friend Lazarus sleeps. But I go so that I may awaken him out of sleep. 
Joh 11:12  Then His disciples said, Lord, if he sleeps, he will get well. 
Joh 11:13  But Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He had spoken of taking rest in sleep. 
Joh 11:14  Then Jesus said to them plainly, Lazarus is dead. 


Joh 11:17  Then when Jesus came, He found him already being held in the tomb four days. 
Joh 11:18  And Bethany was near Jerusalem, fifteen stadia away. 
Joh 11:19  And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary in order to comfort them concerning their brother. 
Joh 11:20  Then when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she met Him. But Mary was sitting in the house. 
Joh 11:21  Then Martha said to Jesus, Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. 
Joh 11:22  But I know that even now, whatever You will ask of God, God will give You. 
Joh 11:23  Jesus said to her, Your brother shall rise again. 
Joh 11:24  Martha said to Him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. 
Joh 11:25  Jesus said to her, I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live. 
Joh 11:26  And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this? 
Joh 11:27  She said to Him, Yes, Lord, I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who has come into the world. 
Joh 11:28  And saying these things, she went away and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Teacher has come and calls you. 
Joh 11:29  As soon as she heard, she arose quickly and came to him. 
Joh 11:30  Now Jesus had not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met Him. 
Joh 11:31  Then the Jews who were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw that Mary rose up hastily and went out, they followed her, saying, She is going to the tomb to weep there. 
Joh 11:32  Then when Mary had come where Jesus was, seeing Him, Mary fell down at His feet, saying to Him, Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. 
Joh 11:33  Then when He saw her weeping, and also the Jews who came with her weeping, Jesus groaned in the spirit and troubled Himself. 
Joh 11:34  And He said, Where have you laid him? They said to Him, Lord, come and see. 
Joh 11:35  Jesus wept. 
Joh 11:36  Then the Jews said, Behold how He loved him! 
Joh 11:37  And some of them said, Was not this Man who opened the eyes of the blind able also to cause that even this one should not have died? 
Joh 11:38  Then Jesus, groaning in Himself again, came to the tomb. And it was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. 
Joh 11:39  Jesus said, Take away the stone. Martha, the sister of him who died, said to Him, Lord, by this time he stinks. For it is the fourth day. 
Joh 11:40  Jesus answered her, Did I not say to you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God? 
Joh 11:41  Then they took away the stone where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up His eyes and said, Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. 
Joh 11:42  And I know that You hear Me always, but because of the people who stand by I said it, so that they may believe that You have sent Me. 
Joh 11:43  And saying these things, He cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, Here! Outside! 
Joh 11:44  And he who had died came out, bound hand and foot with sheets, and his face was bound with a cloth. Jesus said to them, Untie him and let him go! 
Joh 11:45  Then many of the Jews who came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on Him. 

Believers will be resurrected to life like lazarus on judgment day. There will be believers who will never die because they will be alive at his second coming.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as not to be taken advantage of, God (in his instruction manual) explains how to avoid "slings and arrows" from Satan by putting on the armor of God for complete protection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question is why most people who has access to the Bible and its Christian teaching find it so unconvincing? Why God did such a poor job at writing the "instruction manual" that it fails to resolve the very issue it was created for?
> 
> And it is not like God was facing an impossible task -- I can imagine countless things that God could have done in order to convince me and other people that Christianity is the way. Instead, He made the Bible look as 1000s years old fairy tale (no offence), and He put all fossils and other evidence that make TOE look as plausible, as any scientific theory can possibly be!
Click to expand...


The bible was not designed to give you all the answers to life. It gives you history both good and bad. It helps you in making proper decisions and living a good life,and for kickers God gave you a conscience to help guide you. No one is perfect and we fall short of pleasing God but we can have forgivness.

Satan blinds peoples minds to sound reason. You see you are trusting in the teachings of man rather then the teachings of God that is why you see fairy tales in the bible. You fail to understand all things are possible with God.

Mat 19:26  But Jesus looked on them and said to them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was WHY most of people use their free will to make what you think are wrong decisions? What motivates them?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone allow himself to be distracted by satan?
> 
> 
> 
> And WHY what God provided is apparently not enough for the most people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people do choose to follow Satan. This goes back to an argument between God and Satan concerning the will of God's children, < we are unique in that respect.  Angels stand, His children sit at His table.  It is Satan's contention that if God gave us a choice, we would dis Him for Satan every time.
> Satan is so skillful, that we can be led like puppies and we don't  even know he's there, or that what he is proposing is considered sin.  So as not to be taken advantage of, God (in his instruction manual)  explains how to avoid "slings and arrows" from Satan by putting on the armor of God for complete protection.  An absence of knowledge leaves us vulnerable, which is why we are urged to study his word.  He did not leave us on our own when dealing with Satan because he knows we are no match.
> Knowledge exposes Satan.  The more you know about Satan, the quicker you realize when he's there.
> 
> Satan motivates bad decisions.
> 
> We allow our selves to be distracted by ignorance on how not to be distracted, and a corrupt human spirit that desires earthly things.  Hence:  Put the human spirit to death daily and your chances of being mislead decrease dramatically.
> 
> What God provided is more than enough, we just don't bother to acquaint ourselves with His instruction, or we decide to ignore it in favor of,  or a desire for, immediate gratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Laugh now, because the bible is clear on what the non-believer will be doing on the day of judgment.

Rev 6:15  And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains. 
Rev 6:16  And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; 
Rev 6:17  for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand?


----------



## The Irish Ram

ilia25 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as not to be taken advantage of, God (in his instruction manual) explains how to avoid "slings and arrows" from Satan by putting on the armor of God for complete protection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question is why most people who has access to the Bible and its Christian teaching find it so unconvincing? Why God did such a poor job at writing the "instruction manual" that it fails to resolve the very issue it was created for?
> 
> And it is not like God was facing an impossible task -- I can imagine countless things that God could have done in order to convince me and other people that Christianity is the way. Instead, He made the Bible look as 1000s years old fairy tale (no offence), and He put all fossils and other evidence that make TOE look as plausible, as any scientific theory can possibly be!
Click to expand...


The Bible is an incredibly hard read, and you can study it for a lifetime and still not be able to pull it all together.  But you can read it once and get started.  The more studying you do the less unconvincing it becomes.    To lay it all at our feet would remove faith from the equation. God would rather we feel his presence than to acknowledge it.  He has given what he feels is necessary for us to get through this phase of our soul's existence.   And,  to make sense of what he DID give us,  he promises to grant us the wisdom to understand it, if we ask for her.  We rarely ask.  
Science, fossils, cosmos, will all come together with 100% accuracy, when we get smart enough to make the connections.  We are getting there.
For instance:
The body of Jesus was a flesh and bone body, but was glorified, after his death and no longer subject to gravity.  What he was seen doing in that glorified body proved that there were at LEAST 6 dimensions.  We have recently come to the scientific reality that there are probably more than the 4 dimensions we have figured out thus far.  Ten most likely and if there are ten, then an infinite number of dimensions is now a possibility.  The Bible had already revealed that to "those who have ears."   Look how long it took "science" to catch up.


----------



## UltimateReality

A positive, testable case for Intelligent Design:

A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design - Evolution News & Views

Let's see if Loki can come up with an actual logical argument to rebutt this. Or see if he just throws out common fallacies as the reason it isn't true without any detailed explanation for how the argument is a fallacy like he always does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> A positive, testable case for Intelligent Design:
> 
> A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design - Evolution News & Views
> 
> Let's see if Loki can come up with an actual logical argument to rebutt this. Or see if he just throws out common fallacies as the reason it isn't true without any detailed explanation for how the argument is a fallacy like he always does.
> 
> Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I would be interested in hearing his view on this,but he is still running from the RNA article and  showing how punctuated equilibrium is compatible with gradualism. Talk about opposing views.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have identified your faulty presuppositions by the questions I have asked You.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you asked some questions, identifying only that you forgot I had answered those questions a dozen times already.
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course because the fossil record is a problem for your theory because of the lack of evidence for gradualism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution and gradualism are not the same thing, and evolution is not dependent upon gradualism for validity. The fossil record really does not invalidate gradualism either.
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify this "problem."
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "problem."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no you havn't you have linked to people trying to explain the answer to the question and it still lacked evidence.
Click to expand...

No. *I* answered you questions in my own words, and you STILL have not identified any "faulty presuppositions" those answers were based upon.



Youwerecreated said:


> Even evoluitionist admit your side should not use fossil evidence as support of the theory.


Oh, I'm sure you can disingenuously misquote or otherwise misrepresent some evolutionist to support your point, but then I'll just expose your intellectual dishonesty and prove you wrong again.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have identified your faulty presuppositions by the questions I have asked You.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you asked some questions, identifying only that you forgot I had answered those questions a dozen times already.
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course because the fossil record is a problem for your theory because of the lack of evidence for gradualism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution and gradualism are not the same thing, and evolution is not dependent upon gradualism for validity. The fossil record really does not invalidate gradualism either.
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify this "problem."
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "problem."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is not gradualism
> 
> Sorry Loki but you are barking up the wrong tree.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. You are by demanding that they are the same thing.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof comes from evidence nitwit.
> 
> 
> 
> Not for Creationists, retard.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is right and I have explained to you why there are changes in small populations and it is through genetic drift not mutations.
> 
> The retard is not I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. I am aware that you insist that among all the various ways that a difference in genotype might arise, it is only those differences in genotype caused by mutation that cannot possibly lead to differences in phenotype.
> 
> You're so deeply retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back up your claim moron.
Click to expand...

Which claim? The claim that Creationists don't require evidence to claim they have proof, or that you insist that among all the various ways that a difference in genotype might arise, it is only those differences in genotype caused by mutation that cannot possibly lead to differences in phenotype?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you believe in gradualism and that is what your theory teaches.
> 
> Think will you.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the theory of punctuated equilibrium is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution and in no way invalidates gradualism, what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how they are compatible ?
Click to expand...

If you actually read Eldridge & Gould, you'd have your answer, but it boils down to this; evolution describes incremental (gradual, if you will) genetic (hence, physical) changes within populations of organisms; these changes lead to differentiation into separate identifiable populations. Punctuated Equilibrium posits that the rate of differentiation is not necessarily constant ... but it's still gradual.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Woyzeck another thing your side ignores is, since the Genome project mapped the Genome they have discovered there is no junk DNA how do you explain that ?
> 
> While you are at it,explain all the organs that was once thought to serve no purpose are now considered to serve a purpose ?


Wrong.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have identified your faulty presuppositions by the questions I have asked You.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you asked some questions, identifying only that you forgot I had answered those questions a dozen times already.
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course because the fossil record is a problem for your theory because of the lack of evidence for gradualism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution and gradualism are not the same thing, and evolution is not dependent upon gradualism for validity. The fossil record really does not invalidate gradualism either.
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify this "problem."
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "problem."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki, you move the goalpost so many times I'm not even sure you know where the field is anymore!!!
Click to expand...

I don't move the goal posts asshole.

You do. From asking for evidence to claiming it's not proof; from asserting a baseless criticism of Evolution to a baseless criticism of gradualism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you asked some questions, identifying only that you forgot I had answered those questions a dozen times already.
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> Evolution and gradualism are not the same thing, and evolution is not dependent upon gradualism for validity. The fossil record really does not invalidate gradualism either.
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify this "problem."
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "problem."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no you havn't you have linked to people trying to explain the answer to the question and it still lacked evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. *I* answered you questions in my own words, and you STILL have not identified any "faulty presuppositions" those answers were based upon.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even evoluitionist admit your side should not use fossil evidence as support of the theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I'm sure you can disingenuously misquote or otherwise misrepresent some evolutionist to support your point, but then I'll just expose your intellectual dishonesty and prove you wrong again.
Click to expand...


If you can't see your faulty presuppositions by the questions I asked you ,that is on you.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> On RNA World...
> 
> "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you..."



Böhler, C., P. E. Nielsen, and L. E. Orgel. 1995. Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature 376: 578-581. See also: Piccirilli, J. A., 1995. RNA seeks its maker. Nature 376: 548-549.

Jeffares, D. C., A. M. Poole and D. Penny. 1998. Relics from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 18-36.

Leipe, D. D., L. Aravind, and E. V. Koonin. 1999. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Research 27: 3389-3401.

Levy, Matthew and Andrew D. Ellington. 2003. Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(11): 6416-6421.

Poole, A. M., D. C. Jeffares, and D. Penny. 1998. The path from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you asked some questions, identifying only that you forgot I had answered those questions a dozen times already.
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> Evolution and gradualism are not the same thing, and evolution is not dependent upon gradualism for validity. The fossil record really does not invalidate gradualism either.
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify this "problem."
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "problem."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not gradualism
> 
> Sorry Loki but you are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm not. You are by demanding that they are the same thing.
Click to expand...


Do you understand the theory of evolution ?

Is it gradual change over time or not ?

When the fossil record shows no gradual change over time,you don't see that as a problem for your theory ?

So I will ask you again. how are punctuated equilibrium and gradualism compatible with each other ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Woyzeck another thing your side ignores is, since the Genome project mapped the Genome they have discovered there is no junk DNA how do you explain that ?
> 
> While you are at it,explain all the organs that was once thought to serve no purpose are now considered to serve a purpose ?
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...


These switches are part of what scientists used to call "junk DNA." How has the view of junk DNA changed in the past decade?

When I first started working in genetics, the focus was largely on genes. But we've learned that genes only make up a little less than two percent of our DNA. The vast majority of these three billion letters in our DNA aren't sending signals about how to make proteins.

At first, the thought was that there was just a bunch of junk in there. But within less than a decade, the way that we think about this so-called junk DNA has really changed. Encoded in those pieces is information about how to turn genes on and off&#8212;these switches&#8212;as well as features that affect the structure of the DNA. And the structure of the DNA is tightly linked to its function&#8212;you can't copy a gene or turn a gene on if it's closed in a tight structure.

NOVA | The DNA of Human Evolution

What is funny as they still spew their theory even though their so called junk DNA is not junk DNA they can't bring themselves to admit that this can't happen on it's own without design .Once called junk DNA is actually working at switching on and off genes. That sounds like evidence for design to me.

So much for your chimp and human similarity argument. She admitted that only 2% of our DNA comes from our genes but then say's we are 99% similar. Once they study where all our DNA comes from then they can be more honest with the similarity number between a chimps and humans DNA.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the theory of punctuated equilibrium is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution and in no way invalidates gradualism, what's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how they are compatible ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you actually read Eldridge & Gould, you'd have your answer, but it boils down to this; evolution describes incremental (gradual, if you will) genetic (hence, physical) changes within populations of organisms; these changes lead to differentiation into separate identifiable populations. Punctuated Equilibrium posits that the rate of differentiation is not necessarily constant ... but it's still gradual.
Click to expand...


All we see are small scale changes within a family,not one family evolving into a new family. Once again this is Micro-evolution not Macro-evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> On RNA World...
> 
> "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Böhler, C., P. E. Nielsen, and L. E. Orgel. 1995. Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature 376: 578-581. See also: Piccirilli, J. A., 1995. RNA seeks its maker. Nature 376: 548-549.
> 
> Jeffares, D. C., A. M. Poole and D. Penny. 1998. Relics from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 18-36.
> 
> Leipe, D. D., L. Aravind, and E. V. Koonin. 1999. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Research 27: 3389-3401.
> 
> Levy, Matthew and Andrew D. Ellington. 2003. Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(11): 6416-6421.
> 
> Poole, A. M., D. C. Jeffares, and D. Penny. 1998. The path from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17.
Click to expand...


Evidently you did not read the article.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you asked some questions, identifying only that you forgot I had answered those questions a dozen times already.
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "faulty presuppositions."
> 
> Evolution and gradualism are not the same thing, and evolution is not dependent upon gradualism for validity. The fossil record really does not invalidate gradualism either.
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity to do so, you fail to identify this "problem."
> 
> Since your track record is unambiguous on this account, we'll just proceed knowing you can't identify any such "problem."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, you move the goalpost so many times I'm not even sure you know where the field is anymore!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't move the goal posts asshole.
> 
> You do. From asking for evidence to claiming it's not proof; from asserting a baseless criticism of Evolution to a baseless criticism of gradualism.
Click to expand...


You think because you provide an article with an explanation that proves your point,but your articles fail to point to the evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for Creationists, retard.
> 
> Yes. I am aware that you insist that among all the various ways that a difference in genotype might arise, it is only those differences in genotype caused by mutation that cannot possibly lead to differences in phenotype.
> 
> You're so deeply retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back up your claim moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which claim? The claim that Creationists don't require evidence to claim they have proof, or that you insist that among all the various ways that a difference in genotype might arise, it is only those differences in genotype caused by mutation that cannot possibly lead to differences in phenotype?
Click to expand...


Will you please stop with the nonsense that mutations cause evolutionary change. 

Like I said before we can account for many defects due to mutations and point out very few benefits from mutations.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, world of the dead,in other words the grave.
> 
> 
> 
> another one wizzes right past you...i'll make it easy " of all the man made disciption of hell this is the best: hell is the absence of reason.
> your version presupposes that consciousness survives death and that hell actually exists.
> also Hades ( /&#712;he&#618;di&#720;z/; from Greek &#8077;&#948;&#951;&#962; (older form &#7944;&#989;&#943;&#948;&#951;&#962, Had&#275;s, originally &#7949;&#953;&#948;&#951;&#962;, Haid&#275;s or &#902;&#912;&#948;&#951;&#962;, Aid&#275;s (Doric &#7944;&#912;&#948;&#945;&#962; Aidas), meaning "the unseen"[1]) was the ancient Greek god of the underworld. The genitive &#8077;&#948;&#959;&#965;, Haidou, was an elision to denote locality: "[the house/dominion] of Hades". Eventually, the nominative came to designate the abode of the dead.
> so again your ignorance shines!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone calling someone ignorant that does not know what he is talking about is priceless
> 
> EDITED FOR MEANINGLESS BABBLE----------------
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people do choose to follow Satan. This goes back to an argument between God and Satan concerning the will of God's children, < we are unique in that respect.  Angels stand, His children sit at His table.  It is Satan's contention that if God gave us a choice, we would dis Him for Satan every time.
> Satan is so skillful, that we can be led like puppies and we don't  even know he's there, or that what he is proposing is considered sin.  So as not to be taken advantage of, God (in his instruction manual)  explains how to avoid "slings and arrows" from Satan by putting on the armor of God for complete protection.  An absence of knowledge leaves us vulnerable, which is why we are urged to study his word.  He did not leave us on our own when dealing with Satan because he knows we are no match.
> Knowledge exposes Satan.  The more you know about Satan, the quicker you realize when he's there.
> 
> Satan motivates bad decisions.
> 
> We allow our selves to be distracted by ignorance on how not to be distracted, and a corrupt human spirit that desires earthly things.  Hence:  Put the human spirit to death daily and your chances of being mislead decrease dramatically.
> 
> What God provided is more than enough, we just don't bother to acquaint ourselves with His instruction, or we decide to ignore it in favor of,  or a desire for, immediate gratification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laugh now, because the bible is clear on what the non-believer will be doing on the day of judgment.
> 
> Rev 6:15  And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains.
> Rev 6:16  And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
> Rev 6:17  for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand?
Click to expand...

------REVELATIONS  A NUT JOB'S RAMBLING


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not gradualism
> 
> Sorry Loki but you are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not. You are by demanding that they are the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand the theory of evolution ?
Click to expand...

Yes. It bears no resemblance to your strawman version however.



Youwerecreated said:


> Is it gradual change over time or not ?


Yes it is; that is not in dispute.



Youwerecreated said:


> When the fossil record shows no gradual change over time,you don't see that as a problem for your theory ?


*IF* the fossil record showed no gradual change over time, that would pose a problem for *part* of the theory. Yet since the fossil record *DOES* show strong evidence of gradual changes, the "problem" you suggest does not really exist. 



Youwerecreated said:


> So I will ask you again. how are punctuated equilibrium and gradualism compatible with each other ?


Again, evolution describes incremental (gradual, if you will) genetic (hence, physical) changes (over time) within populations of organisms; these changes (over time) lead to differentiation into separate identifiable populations. Punctuated Equilibrium posits that the rate of differentiation is not necessarily constant ... but it's still gradual change over time.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how they are compatible ?
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually read Eldridge & Gould, you'd have your answer, but it boils down to this; evolution describes incremental (gradual, if you will) genetic (hence, physical) changes within populations of organisms; these changes lead to differentiation into separate identifiable populations. Punctuated Equilibrium posits that the rate of differentiation is not necessarily constant ... but it's still gradual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All we see are small scale changes within a family,not one family evolving into a new family.
Click to expand...

The unit of evolution is the species. Evolution DOES NOT posit that one family will evolve into another family. YOU STRAWMAN IS INVALID!



Youwerecreated said:


> Once again this is Micro-evolution not Macro-evolution.


No. It's not. One family evolving into a new family is a Christian Creationist strawman.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, you move the goalpost so many times I'm not even sure you know where the field is anymore!!!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't move the goal posts asshole.
> 
> You do. From asking for evidence to claiming it's not proof; from asserting a baseless criticism of Evolution to a baseless criticism of gradualism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think because you provide an article with an explanation that proves your point,but your articles fail to point to the evidence.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> On RNA World...
> 
> "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Böhler, C., P. E. Nielsen, and L. E. Orgel. 1995. Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature 376: 578-581. See also: Piccirilli, J. A., 1995. RNA seeks its maker. Nature 376: 548-549.
> 
> Jeffares, D. C., A. M. Poole and D. Penny. 1998. Relics from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 18-36.
> 
> Leipe, D. D., L. Aravind, and E. V. Koonin. 1999. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Research 27: 3389-3401.
> 
> Levy, Matthew and Andrew D. Ellington. 2003. Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(11): 6416-6421.
> 
> Poole, A. M., D. C. Jeffares, and D. Penny. 1998. The path from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17.
Click to expand...


The newest study you list is 9 years old!!! No wonder you still believe all the hocus pocus. You aren't current on the latest findings.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually read Eldridge & Gould, you'd have your answer, but it boils down to this; evolution describes incremental (gradual, if you will) genetic (hence, physical) changes within populations of organisms; these changes lead to differentiation into separate identifiable populations. Punctuated Equilibrium posits that the rate of differentiation is not necessarily constant ... but it's still gradual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All we see are small scale changes within a family,not one family evolving into a new family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unit of evolution is the species. Evolution DOES NOT posit that one family will evolve into another family. YOU STRAWMAN IS INVALID!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again this is Micro-evolution not Macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's not. One family evolving into a new family is a Christian Creationist strawman.
Click to expand...


This is such an outrageous lie!!! You are the intellectually dishonest one!!! Loki, you are as bad as a Christian that picks and chooses what they will and will not believe from the BIble. I can assure that your goalposts all over the place do not fit with the current EXPERTS in the field. You have made up your own version and call EVERYTHING a strawman. How convenient!!! You are full of trickery and deceit! No one knows or cares what you believe but I think it is obvious to all that you don't know what you believe, and whatever you believe doe NOT CONCUR with current neo-darwinisist views.


----------



## UltimateReality

Jeopardy music playing in the background... Where is Loki's response on the ID testable theory? Cat got your tongue?

And once again the master chess player Loki conveniently ignores posting anything that will back him into the perverbial corner where he has to admit his theory has holes.


----------



## UltimateReality

I wonder how NS produced this little gem...

Illustra Media - Metamorphosis


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Jeopardy music playing in the background... Where is Loki's response on the ID testable theory? Cat got your tongue?
> 
> And once again the master chess player Loki conveniently ignores posting anything that will back him into the perverbial corner where he has to admit his theory has holes.


I'm not ignoring it, I'm working 14s with 3 hours of road time added.

But I'll give you the heads up ... Lusk fails to establish the design; he just reasserts that everything is designed.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> All we see are small scale changes within a family,not one family evolving into a new family.
> 
> 
> 
> The unit of evolution is the species. Evolution DOES NOT posit that one family will evolve into another family. YOU STRAWMAN IS INVALID!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again this is Micro-evolution not Macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's not. One family evolving into a new family is a Christian Creationist strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is such an outrageous lie!!! You are the intellectually dishonest one!!! Loki, you are as bad as a Christian that picks and chooses what they will and will not believe from the BIble. I can assure that your goalposts all over the place do not fit with the current EXPERTS in the field. You have made up your own version and call EVERYTHING a strawman. How convenient!!! You are full of trickery and deceit! No one knows or cares what you believe but I think it is obvious to all that you don't know what you believe, and whatever you believe doe NOT CONCUR with current neo-darwinisist views.
Click to expand...

Demonstrate.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> I wonder how NS produced this little gem...
> 
> Illustra Media - Metamorphosis


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not. You are by demanding that they are the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the theory of evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. It bears no resemblance to your strawman version however.
> 
> Yes it is; that is not in dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the fossil record shows no gradual change over time,you don't see that as a problem for your theory ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *IF* the fossil record showed no gradual change over time, that would pose a problem for *part* of the theory. Yet since the fossil record *DOES* show strong evidence of gradual changes, the "problem" you suggest does not really exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I will ask you again. how are punctuated equilibrium and gradualism compatible with each other ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, evolution describes incremental (gradual, if you will) genetic (hence, physical) changes (over time) within populations of organisms; these changes (over time) lead to differentiation into separate identifiable populations. Punctuated Equilibrium posits that the rate of differentiation is not necessarily constant ... but it's still gradual change over time.
Click to expand...


You are not getting it Loki,creatures supposedly from the cambrian appeared suddenly. Creatures from the precambrian showed no gradual change at all.

I have presented to you on several occasions living fossils,that the living fossils today match the fossils that were supoosedly dated back some 400 million years ago and there is no change.

If mutations do as you claim they should have showed change but they didn't There are many examples of this evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually read Eldridge & Gould, you'd have your answer, but it boils down to this; evolution describes incremental (gradual, if you will) genetic (hence, physical) changes within populations of organisms; these changes lead to differentiation into separate identifiable populations. Punctuated Equilibrium posits that the rate of differentiation is not necessarily constant ... but it's still gradual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All we see are small scale changes within a family,not one family evolving into a new family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unit of evolution is the species. Evolution DOES NOT posit that one family will evolve into another family. YOU STRAWMAN IS INVALID!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again this is Micro-evolution not Macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's not. One family evolving into a new family is a Christian Creationist strawman.
Click to expand...


So you dont think dinosaurs and birds are two different families ?

You don't think humans and apes are two different families ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unit of evolution is the species. Evolution DOES NOT posit that one family will evolve into another family. YOU STRAWMAN IS INVALID!
> 
> No. It's not. One family evolving into a new family is a Christian Creationist strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is such an outrageous lie!!! You are the intellectually dishonest one!!! Loki, you are as bad as a Christian that picks and chooses what they will and will not believe from the BIble. I can assure that your goalposts all over the place do not fit with the current EXPERTS in the field. You have made up your own version and call EVERYTHING a strawman. How convenient!!! You are full of trickery and deceit! No one knows or cares what you believe but I think it is obvious to all that you don't know what you believe, and whatever you believe doe NOT CONCUR with current neo-darwinisist views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Demonstrate.
Click to expand...


By saying that Neodarwinism and punctuated equilibrium are compatible. One constitutes minor change over large spans of time,one constitutes massive changes by suddenly appearing showing no gradualism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

What is real funny I read where a science teacher tried explaining punctuated equilibrium and comparing the growth of a child experiencing growth patterns,where they will remain a certain height for a period of time then all of a sudden have a growth spurt.

Let me point out the problem with this reasoning,it's already contained in the Genes how tall a peron will be. Neo darwinism asserts that evolution happens through random mutations.

The second problem with this reasoning is that there is a big difference in time spans of the growth of the child versus the evolution of a creature. This is faulty reasoning and a failure of an explanation to try and  make punctuated equilibrium non contradictory towards Neodarwinism.

This is exactly how people are brainwashed into believing something that is totally absurd agains't the evidence.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> What is real funny I read where a science teacher tried explaining punctuated equilibrium and comparing the growth of a child experiencing growth patterns,where they will remain a certain height for a period of time then all of a sudden have a growth spurt.
> 
> Let me point out the problem with this reasoning,it's already contained in the Genes how tall a peron will be. Neo darwinism asserts that evolution happens through random mutations.
> 
> The second problem with this reasoning is that there is a big difference in time spans of the growth of the child versus the evolution of a creature. This is faulty reasoning and a failure of an explanation to try and  make punctuated equilibrium non contradictory towards Neodarwinism.
> 
> This is exactly how people are brainwashed into believing something that is totally absurd agains't the evidence.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the theory of evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It bears no resemblance to your strawman version however.
> 
> Yes it is; that is not in dispute.
> 
> *IF* the fossil record showed no gradual change over time, that would pose a problem for *part* of the theory. Yet since the fossil record *DOES* show strong evidence of gradual changes, the "problem" you suggest does not really exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I will ask you again. how are punctuated equilibrium and gradualism compatible with each other ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, evolution describes incremental (gradual, if you will) genetic (hence, physical) changes (over time) within populations of organisms; these changes (over time) lead to differentiation into separate identifiable populations. Punctuated Equilibrium posits that the rate of differentiation is not necessarily constant ... but it's still gradual change over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not getting it Loki,creatures supposedly from the cambrian appeared suddenly.
Click to expand...

How many times must it be pointed out to you that "suddenly" is a relative term?

The "suddenly" you are referencing spans *MILLIONS* of years.

Do you get that?



Youwerecreated said:


> Creatures from the precambrian showed no gradual change at all.


WTF are you talking about?



Youwerecreated said:


> I have presented to you on several occasions living fossils,that the living fossils today match the fossils that were supoosedly dated back some 400 million years ago and there is no change.


And I have pointed out to you each and every time that the phenomenon you are describing is FULLY CONSISTENT WITH EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.

Do you get that now?



Youwerecreated said:


> If mutations do as you claim they should have showed change but they didn't.


WRONG.

Before you discuss Evolutionary Theory, you should make an honest attempt to understand it. You should stop looking for that understanding from the strawman descriptions Christian Creationists disingenuously generate.



Youwerecreated said:


> There are many examples of this evidence.


And you may continue to produce them, and I will continue to point out your obvious misunderstanding of what your evidence really supports.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> All we see are small scale changes within a family,not one family evolving into a new family.
> 
> 
> 
> The unit of evolution is the species. Evolution DOES NOT posit that one family will evolve into another family. YOU STRAWMAN IS INVALID!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again this is Micro-evolution not Macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's not. One family evolving into a new family is a Christian Creationist strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you dont think dinosaurs and birds are two different families ?
Click to expand...

I think some dinosaurs and all birds belong the same taxonomic class, but different taxonomic families.



Youwerecreated said:


> You don't think humans and apes are two different families ?


Humans and great ape belong to the same taxonomic family.

Regardless of how I think birds, dinosaurs, apes and humans are classified taxonomically, there is one thing that is certain; evolution does not posit family evolving into a new family. One family evolving into a new family is a Christian Creationist strawman.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is such an outrageous lie!!! You are the intellectually dishonest one!!! Loki, you are as bad as a Christian that picks and chooses what they will and will not believe from the BIble. I can assure that your goalposts all over the place do not fit with the current EXPERTS in the field. You have made up your own version and call EVERYTHING a strawman. How convenient!!! You are full of trickery and deceit! No one knows or cares what you believe but I think it is obvious to all that you don't know what you believe, and whatever you believe doe NOT CONCUR with current neo-darwinisist views.
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By saying that Neodarwinism and punctuated equilibrium are compatible. One constitutes minor change over large spans of time,one constitutes massive changes by suddenly appearing showing no gradualism.
Click to expand...

WRONG.

One asserts gradual change over long periods of time, and the other asserts gradual change at varying rates over long periods of time.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> What is real funny I read where a science teacher tried explaining punctuated equilibrium and comparing the growth of a child experiencing growth patterns,where they will remain a certain height for a period of time then all of a sudden have a growth spurt.


*YES!* Growth still happens gradually, but at different rates at different times for different reasons. YES! EXACTLY RIGHT!

NOT EVER does a 3 foot tall child instantly become a 4 foot tall child; the child still grows gradually. Punctuated Equilibrium asserts that evolution occurs gradually. Punctuated Equilibrium is NOT a refutation of gradualism, it does NOT contradict gradualism; Punctuated Equilibrium ENHANCES gradualism.



Youwerecreated said:


> Let me point out the problem with this reasoning,it's already contained in the Genes how tall a peron will be. Neo darwinism asserts that evolution happens through random mutations.


Non-Sequitur.



Youwerecreated said:


> The second problem with this reasoning is that there is a big difference in time spans of the growth of the child versus the evolution of a creature.


Individual creatures do not evolve.



Youwerecreated said:


> This is faulty reasoning and a failure of an explanation to try and  make punctuated equilibrium non contradictory towards Neodarwinism.


No. It is your manifestly faulty notions of evolution and punctuated equilibrium that are contradictory.



Youwerecreated said:


> This is exactly how people are brainwashed into believing something that is totally absurd agains't the evidence.


No. You have OBVIOUSLY been brainwashed into believing that the Theory of Evolution and Punctuated Equilibrium describe, assert, and predict things that they CLEARLY do not.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is real funny I read where a science teacher tried explaining punctuated equilibrium and comparing the growth of a child experiencing growth patterns,where they will remain a certain height for a period of time then all of a sudden have a growth spurt.
> 
> 
> 
> *YES!* Growth still happens gradually, but at different rates at different times for different reasons. YES! EXACTLY RIGHT!
> 
> NOT EVER does a 3 foot tall child instantly become a 4 foot tall child; the child still grows gradually. Punctuated Equilibrium asserts that evolution occurs gradually. Punctuated Equilibrium is NOT a refutation of gradualism, it does NOT contradict gradualism; Punctuated Equilibrium ENHANCES gradualism.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point out the problem with this reasoning,it's already contained in the Genes how tall a peron will be. Neo darwinism asserts that evolution happens through random mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-Sequitur.
> 
> Individual creatures do not evolve.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is faulty reasoning and a failure of an explanation to try and  make punctuated equilibrium non contradictory towards Neodarwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It is your manifestly faulty notions of evolution and punctuated equilibrium that are contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly how people are brainwashed into believing something that is totally absurd agains't the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You have OBVIOUSLY been brainwashed into believing that the Theory of Evolution and Punctuated Equilibrium describe, assert, and predict things that they CLEARLY do not.
Click to expand...


Does the Loki version of neo-darwinism not claim that all complex species like humans, dogs, cats, and birds came from a single cell ancestor? And that if you go far enough back, there is a common ancestor to all the aforementioned species?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is real funny I read where a science teacher tried explaining punctuated equilibrium and comparing the growth of a child experiencing growth patterns,where they will remain a certain height for a period of time then all of a sudden have a growth spurt.
> 
> 
> 
> *YES!* Growth still happens gradually, but at different rates at different times for different reasons. YES! EXACTLY RIGHT!
> 
> NOT EVER does a 3 foot tall child instantly become a 4 foot tall child; the child still grows gradually. Punctuated Equilibrium asserts that evolution occurs gradually. Punctuated Equilibrium is NOT a refutation of gradualism, it does NOT contradict gradualism; Punctuated Equilibrium ENHANCES gradualism.
> 
> Non-Sequitur.
> 
> Individual creatures do not evolve.
> 
> No. It is your manifestly faulty notions of evolution and punctuated equilibrium that are contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly how people are brainwashed into believing something that is totally absurd agains't the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You have OBVIOUSLY been brainwashed into believing that the Theory of Evolution and Punctuated Equilibrium describe, assert, and predict things that they CLEARLY do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the Loki version of neo-darwinism not claim that all complex species like humans, dogs, cats, and birds came from a single cell ancestor? And that if you go far enough back, there is a common ancestor to all the aforementioned species?
Click to expand...

Sure. What of it?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *YES!* Growth still happens gradually, but at different rates at different times for different reasons. YES! EXACTLY RIGHT!
> 
> NOT EVER does a 3 foot tall child instantly become a 4 foot tall child; the child still grows gradually. Punctuated Equilibrium asserts that evolution occurs gradually. Punctuated Equilibrium is NOT a refutation of gradualism, it does NOT contradict gradualism; Punctuated Equilibrium ENHANCES gradualism.
> 
> Non-Sequitur.
> 
> Individual creatures do not evolve.
> 
> No. It is your manifestly faulty notions of evolution and punctuated equilibrium that are contradictory.
> 
> No. You have OBVIOUSLY been brainwashed into believing that the Theory of Evolution and Punctuated Equilibrium describe, assert, and predict things that they CLEARLY do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Loki version of neo-darwinism not claim that all complex species like humans, dogs, cats, and birds came from a single cell ancestor? And that if you go far enough back, there is a common ancestor to all the aforementioned species?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure. What of it?
Click to expand...



Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Loki version of neo-darwinism not claim that all complex species like humans, dogs, cats, and birds came from a single cell ancestor? And that if you go far enough back, there is a common ancestor to all the aforementioned species?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. What of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.
Click to expand...

bullshit!


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Loki version of neo-darwinism not claim that all complex species like humans, dogs, cats, and birds came from a single cell ancestor? And that if you go far enough back, there is a common ancestor to all the aforementioned species?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. What of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.
Click to expand...

~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *YES!* Growth still happens gradually, but at different rates at different times for different reasons. YES! EXACTLY RIGHT!
> 
> NOT EVER does a 3 foot tall child instantly become a 4 foot tall child; the child still grows gradually. Punctuated Equilibrium asserts that evolution occurs gradually. Punctuated Equilibrium is NOT a refutation of gradualism, it does NOT contradict gradualism; Punctuated Equilibrium ENHANCES gradualism.
> 
> Non-Sequitur.
> 
> Individual creatures do not evolve.
> 
> No. It is your manifestly faulty notions of evolution and punctuated equilibrium that are contradictory.
> 
> No. You have OBVIOUSLY been brainwashed into believing that the Theory of Evolution and Punctuated Equilibrium describe, assert, and predict things that they CLEARLY do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Loki version of neo-darwinism not claim that all complex species like humans, dogs, cats, and birds came from a single cell ancestor? And that if you go far enough back, there is a common ancestor to all the aforementioned species?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure. What of it?
Click to expand...


Man you like splitting hairs just so you can scream strawman. I think that is your favorite word. You are obtuse.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. What of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.
Click to expand...


Poor deflection, not to mention, totally inaccurate and bearing no basis in the fossil record.


----------



## UltimateReality

For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Loki version of neo-darwinism not claim that all complex species like humans, dogs, cats, and birds came from a single cell ancestor? And that if you go far enough back, there is a common ancestor to all the aforementioned species?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. What of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man you like splitting hairs just so you can scream strawman.
Click to expand...

Explain yourself.



UltimateReality said:


> I think that is your favorite word.


It's your favorite rhetorical device.



UltimateReality said:


> You are obtuse.


You are stupid.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> ~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor deflection, not to mention, totally inaccurate ...
Click to expand...

You mean plenty accurate.



UltimateReality said:


> ... and bearing no basis in the fossil record.


Or any basis in pie making. It's not like the fossil record is the only source of evidence to draw from.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..
> 
> CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
> 
> There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.



I was curious about this, so did some quick searching.  Here's a short article from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes _Science_) which states the first ID article published in a peer-reviewed publication was done controversially, at best. :
AAAS - AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion - Evolution Resources

Here's a pretty scathing article about the overall publication of ID articles in peer-reviewed publications.  I offer it only to show an extreme end of an opposing point of view, as it is simply an opinion blog.
Intelligent Design in Peer Reviewed Publications | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

I am under the impression the large majority of the science community considers ID to be non-scientific, whether it may be true or not.  Most of what I've seen (which, I admit, is limited) seems to use human intelligence as the measure to determine if something was intelligently designed.  In other words, the argument is something like, "Everything designed by humans shows feature X.  If we see something in nature with feature X, it must be designed by an intelligence.".  I'm unaware of any method to test for intelligent design accepted by the majority of scientists.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. What of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit!
Click to expand...


Is that all you have junior,are you forgetting the theory of punctuated equilibrium ? Stasis is evidence agains't all of these so called variations that lead to macro-evolution. The rate of change would have had to been very fast to produce all the living organism's that once lived.

If life was evolving that fast we would see it happening before our eyes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. What of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.
Click to expand...


Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.

If all organism's are related that means every family had to evolve from the first family group in succession unless you are saying cross breeding was a means of family variations. I am giving you a reality check.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> ~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor deflection, not to mention, totally inaccurate and bearing no basis in the fossil record.
Click to expand...


He does not realize the planet is supposedly 4 to 4.5 billion years old, life did not appear until 2 billion years ago, Talk about faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. What of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man you like splitting hairs just so you can scream strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is your favorite word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's your favorite rhetorical device.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are stupid.
Click to expand...


Careful about calling someone stupid,you don't even understand the theory or theories supporting evolution well enough to debate it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..
> 
> CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
> 
> There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was curious about this, so did some quick searching.  Here's a short article from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes _Science_) which states the first ID article published in a peer-reviewed publication was done controversially, at best. :
> AAAS - AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion - Evolution Resources
> 
> Here's a pretty scathing article about the overall publication of ID articles in peer-reviewed publications.  I offer it only to show an extreme end of an opposing point of view, as it is simply an opinion blog.
> Intelligent Design in Peer Reviewed Publications | The Sensuous Curmudgeon
> 
> I am under the impression the large majority of the science community considers ID to be non-scientific, whether it may be true or not.  Most of what I've seen (which, I admit, is limited) seems to use human intelligence as the measure to determine if something was intelligently designed.  In other words, the argument is something like, "Everything designed by humans shows feature X.  If we see something in nature with feature X, it must be designed by an intelligence.".  I'm unaware of any method to test for intelligent design accepted by the majority of scientists.
Click to expand...


Montrovant,do you really expect the evolutionist to agree with intelligent design people. They are to heavily invested in saying everything happened through natural processes absent of an Intelligen Designer.

The point being is that your side wants to claim the ID scientists are not real scientists and they have no empirical evidence for their theory and that is just false. The more evidence discovered the less viable the theory of evolution becomes. I am speaking of macro-evolution because micro-evolution is a fact and neither side denies it.

What evolutionist observe are micro-evolutionary change, and it does happen naturally and that is why they go further with their explanations because they reason if micro-evolution can happen why not macro-evolution.

Because the creator used the same type of substances to create all,that is why evolutionist claim we are all related. But what they ignore is DNA information is vastly different and that is why we seem related but yet we are vastly different. Now that they know there is litlle to no junk DNA they have to explain why is all our DNA being used for  something but yet there is no junk DNA where they can reason the junk DNA is left over from our ancestors,and they simply are not in use anymore.

But of course you will find opposing views to what I have stated but the evidence is left for each person to agree with evolutionists explanations or not. Many of us have decided that everything we see did not simply happen by chance.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> ~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.
> 
> If all organism's are related that means every family had to evolve from the first family group in succession unless you are saying cross breeding was a means of family variations. I am giving you a reality check.
Click to expand...


And that couldn't have happened in 2 billion years?  Once life starts it's been shown repeatedly, that it's hard to keep it down.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> ~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.
> 
> If all organism's are related that means every family had to evolve from the first family group in succession unless you are saying cross breeding was a means of family variations. I am giving you a reality check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that couldn't have happened in 2 billion years?  Once life starts it's been shown repeatedly, that it's hard to keep it down.
Click to expand...


Every living oranism that had to evolve not near enough time. You are talking many changes from one group to another. We have living organism's alive today that show no change from fossils of their ancestors that was dated back to over 400 million years ago.

With that evidence it is just another obstacle for the evolutionist to get around. For it to be even viable changes would have to happen in such a short time we would see it happening today.

Scientist have estimasted that currently their are 5 to 100 million different organism's that live on the planet today. They have also estimated billions of organism's have gone extinct.

Sorry but the theory is just not viable when measured agains't the evidence.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.
> 
> If all organism's are related that means every family had to evolve from the first family group in succession unless you are saying cross breeding was a means of family variations. I am giving you a reality check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that couldn't have happened in 2 billion years?  Once life starts it's been shown repeatedly, that it's hard to keep it down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every living oranism that had to evolve not near enough time. You are talking many changes from one group to another. We have living organism's alive today that show no change from fossils of their ancestors that was dated back to over 400 million years ago.
> 
> With that evidence it is just another obstacle for the evolutionist to get around. For it to be even viable changes would have to happen in such a short time we would see it happening today.
> 
> Scientist have estimasted that currently their are 5 to 100 million different organism's that live on the planet today. They have also estimated billions of organism's have gone extinct.
> 
> Sorry but the theory is just not viable when measured agains't the evidence.
Click to expand...


Calling 2 billion years a "short time" is ridiculous.  That's why you keep coming back to "we don't see it today".  You have no conception of how long a time that is.  I don't see an obstacle to get around, I see someone who who reached a conclusion and is constructing a proof out of bit and pieces and irrelevancies.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..
> 
> CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
> 
> There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was curious about this, so did some quick searching.  Here's a short article from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes _Science_) which states the first ID article published in a peer-reviewed publication was done controversially, at best. :
> AAAS - AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion - Evolution Resources
> 
> Here's a pretty scathing article about the overall publication of ID articles in peer-reviewed publications.  I offer it only to show an extreme end of an opposing point of view, as it is simply an opinion blog.
> Intelligent Design in Peer Reviewed Publications | The Sensuous Curmudgeon
> 
> I am under the impression the large majority of the science community considers ID to be non-scientific, whether it may be true or not.  Most of what I've seen (which, I admit, is limited) seems to use human intelligence as the measure to determine if something was intelligently designed.  In other words, the argument is something like, "Everything designed by humans shows feature X.  If we see something in nature with feature X, it must be designed by an intelligence.".  I'm unaware of any method to test for intelligent design accepted by the majority of scientists.
Click to expand...


If you took the time to read some of the descriptions of the studies, not every study points to the Designer. Many of the studies point out the SERIOUS FLAWS in the so called EVOLUTIONARY science with the Designer being the more appropriate alternative explanation.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> ~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.
Click to expand...


... the 2 billion does not take into account some extinction events that started the process over or severely set it back if you are looking at it from a darwinists perspective.


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> ~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.
> 
> If all organism's are related that means every family had to evolve from the first family group in succession unless you are saying cross breeding was a means of family variations. I am giving you a reality check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that couldn't have happened in 2 billion years?  Once life starts it's been shown repeatedly, that it's hard to keep it down.
Click to expand...


And did you ever stop for a moment and wonder why that is? Life does not spontaneously happen anymore. Everything alive today received that spark millions of years ago. I guess this begs the question, if it doesn't happen so easily now, I mean, not even if we try to force it, how do you think it became so tenacious?


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that couldn't have happened in 2 billion years?  Once life starts it's been shown repeatedly, that it's hard to keep it down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every living oranism that had to evolve not near enough time. You are talking many changes from one group to another. We have living organism's alive today that show no change from fossils of their ancestors that was dated back to over 400 million years ago.
> 
> With that evidence it is just another obstacle for the evolutionist to get around. For it to be even viable changes would have to happen in such a short time we would see it happening today.
> 
> Scientist have estimasted that currently their are 5 to 100 million different organism's that live on the planet today. They have also estimated billions of organism's have gone extinct.
> 
> Sorry but the theory is just not viable when measured agains't the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling 2 billion years a "short time" is ridiculous.  That's why you keep coming back to "we don't see it today".  You have no conception of how long a time that is.  I don't see an obstacle to get around, I see someone who who reached a conclusion and is constructing a proof out of bit and pieces and irrelevancies.
Click to expand...


2 Billion a short time ridiculous??? Einstein and Carl Sagan wanted to believe the universe was infinite. How does 2 billion years rate on the infinity scale??? I can imagine exactly how long 2 billion years is. If human history (10,000 years) can be represented by a one foot long time line on the ground, then 2 billion would extend back 37.87 miles, about my daily commute to the office. Now how much change has happened in 10,000 years? Let's see... weather, wooly mammoths and sabertooth tigers? So 200,000 times that amount of time is enough to overcome some serious probabity arguments?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..
> 
> CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
> 
> There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.


it's a creationist site....therefore breaking the first rule of science objectivity .....so it pseudoscience.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..
> 
> CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
> 
> There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.



The Discovery Institute is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. Founded in 1990, the institute describes its purpose as promoting "ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty."[2] Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.[3][4][5][6][7]

A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis",[8] through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[9][10][11] In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[8][10][12] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy,[13] describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[14][15] It was the Federal Court's opinion that Intelligent Design was merely a redressing of Creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.

Discovery Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that all you have junior,are you forgetting the theory of punctuated equilibrium ? Stasis is evidence agains't all of these so called variations that lead to macro-evolution. The rate of change would have had to been very fast to produce all the living organism's that once lived.
> 
> If life was evolving that fast we would see it happening before our eyes.
Click to expand...

that's all I need..but you keep yammering.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..
> 
> CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
> 
> There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was curious about this, so did some quick searching.  Here's a short article from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes _Science_) which states the first ID article published in a peer-reviewed publication was done controversially, at best. :
> AAAS - AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion - Evolution Resources
> 
> Here's a pretty scathing article about the overall publication of ID articles in peer-reviewed publications.  I offer it only to show an extreme end of an opposing point of view, as it is simply an opinion blog.
> Intelligent Design in Peer Reviewed Publications | The Sensuous Curmudgeon
> 
> I am under the impression the large majority of the science community considers ID to be non-scientific, whether it may be true or not.  Most of what I've seen (which, I admit, is limited) seems to use human intelligence as the measure to determine if something was intelligently designed.  In other words, the argument is something like, "Everything designed by humans shows feature X.  If we see something in nature with feature X, it must be designed by an intelligence.".  I'm unaware of any method to test for intelligent design accepted by the majority of scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Montrovant,do you really expect the evolutionist to agree with intelligent design people. They are to heavily invested in saying everything happened through natural processes absent of an Intelligen Designer.
> 
> The point being is that your side wants to claim the ID scientists are not real scientists and they have no empirical evidence for their theory and that is just false. The more evidence discovered the less viable the theory of evolution becomes. I am speaking of macro-evolution because micro-evolution is a fact and neither side denies it.
> 
> What evolutionist observe are micro-evolutionary change, and it does happen naturally and that is why they go further with their explanations because they reason if micro-evolution can happen why not macro-evolution.
> 
> Because the creator used the same type of substances to create all,that is why evolutionist claim we are all related. But what they ignore is DNA information is vastly different and that is why we seem related but yet we are vastly different. Now that they know there is litlle to no junk DNA they have to explain why is all our DNA being used for  something but yet there is no junk DNA where they can reason the junk DNA is left over from our ancestors,and they simply are not in use anymore.
> 
> But of course you will find opposing views to what I have stated but the evidence is left for each person to agree with evolutionists explanations or not. Many of us have decided that everything we see did not simply happen by chance.
Click to expand...

another dodge!


----------



## whitehall

So-called "creationists" have been maligned by bigots for years, it's nothing new. The bigots try to distort the argument but the issue really centers around the Constitutional right to say the word "God" in school without risking arrest. You could say that the left wing religion of "man-made global warming" is far more insidious than creationism. Warmers operate on faith and they seem to think the world started either... #1 the day George Bush was inaugurated or #2 about 150 years ago when the industrial revolution started. Warmers toss out evidence, fudge figures and and pay shaman priests disguised as "scientists" to come up with outlandish theories that the left accepts on faith. You could laugh at the left's greenie religion if it was harmless but it ain't. Greenie religion is an extortion scheme designed to ruin the United States of America.


----------



## Montrovant

whitehall said:


> So-called "creationists" have been maligned by bigots for years, it's nothing new. The bigots try to distort the argument but the issue really centers around the Constitutional right to say the word "God" in school without risking arrest. You could say that the left wing religion of "man-made global warming" is far more insidious than creationism. Warmers operate on faith and they seem to think the world started either... #1 the day George Bush was inaugurated or #2 about 150 years ago when the industrial revolution started. Warmers toss out evidence, fudge figures and and pay shaman priests disguised as "scientists" to come up with outlandish theories that the left accepts on faith. You could laugh at the left's greenie religion if it was harmless but it ain't. Greenie religion is an extortion scheme designed to ruin the United States of America.





Let's not mistake a discussion about the merits of evolution, intelligent design, etc. for some sort of political argument.  This has nothing to do with the constitution, AGW, or whatever other ridiculous arguments you want to turn this into.


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> ~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... the 2 billion does not take into account some extinction events that started the process over or severely set it back if you are looking at it from a darwinists perspective.
Click to expand...


Right, so 2 billion years is plenty of time, unless there's a theory of "Recreation" to explain where the next set of life came from after the major extictions.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..
> 
> CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
> 
> There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Discovery Institute is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. Founded in 1990, the institute describes its purpose as promoting "ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty."[2] Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.[3][4][5][6][7]
> 
> A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis",[8] through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[9][10][11] In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[8][10][12] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy,[13] describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[14][15] It was the Federal Court's opinion that Intelligent Design was merely a redressing of Creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.
> 
> Discovery Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I am well aware of who and what the Discovery Institute is. But I love the obvious bias for the "anyone can edit" Wiki comments!!! I regularly quote Wiki, but with the understanding it is relativism on steroids, and info can be manipulated with ease, unlike the old hard printed Britanica sets.

Is this the same Federal court that has shredded the Constitution and stripped American's of their CREATOR ENDOWED inalienable rights? Here are a few comments on Dover rover...

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/its_time_for_so054551.html


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So-called "creationists" have been maligned by bigots for years, it's nothing new. The bigots try to distort the argument but the issue really centers around the Constitutional right to say the word "God" in school without risking arrest. You could say that the left wing religion of "man-made global warming" is far more insidious than creationism. Warmers operate on faith and they seem to think the world started either... #1 the day George Bush was inaugurated or #2 about 150 years ago when the industrial revolution started. Warmers toss out evidence, fudge figures and and pay shaman priests disguised as "scientists" to come up with outlandish theories that the left accepts on faith. You could laugh at the left's greenie religion if it was harmless but it ain't. Greenie religion is an extortion scheme designed to ruin the United States of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not mistake a discussion about the merits of evolution, intelligent design, etc. for some sort of political argument.  This has nothing to do with the constitution, AGW, or whatever other ridiculous arguments you want to turn this into.
Click to expand...


Really? You need to open your eyes. Evolutionionary theory, Materialism, and Atheism are intertwined. TOE is more philosophy than science, and you are just proving you are part of the left wing brainwashed flock.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So-called "creationists" have been maligned by bigots for years, it's nothing new. The bigots try to distort the argument but the issue really centers around the Constitutional right to say the word "God" in school without risking arrest. You could say that the left wing religion of "man-made global warming" is far more insidious than creationism. Warmers operate on faith and they seem to think the world started either... #1 the day George Bush was inaugurated or #2 about 150 years ago when the industrial revolution started. Warmers toss out evidence, fudge figures and and pay shaman priests disguised as "scientists" to come up with outlandish theories that the left accepts on faith. You could laugh at the left's greenie religion if it was harmless but it ain't. Greenie religion is an extortion scheme designed to ruin the United States of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not mistake a discussion about the merits of evolution, intelligent design, etc. for some sort of political argument.  This has nothing to do with the constitution, AGW, or whatever other ridiculous arguments you want to turn this into.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You need to open your eyes. Evolutionionary theory, Materialism, and Atheism are intertwined. TOE is more philosophy than science, and you are just proving you are part of the left wing brainwashed flock.
Click to expand...


If you truly think that anyone who believes (even conditionally) in the theory of evolution is a materialist and an atheist, well, there's no point talking to you.  If you think anyone who considers discussion about evolution and ID to be just one of science a brainwashed left winger, once again, no real point talking to you.


----------



## FactFinder

*Creationists *

and...what the F' does an ape know about it? Were you here 6000 years ago? Do you trust scientific dating mechanisms when they were not here either and have no standard to test their supposed accurate instruments against? Where's the calibration come from? Imagination?


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not mistake a discussion about the merits of evolution, intelligent design, etc. for some sort of political argument.  This has nothing to do with the constitution, AGW, or whatever other ridiculous arguments you want to turn this into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You need to open your eyes. Evolutionionary theory, Materialism, and Atheism are intertwined. TOE is more philosophy than science, and you are just proving you are part of the left wing brainwashed flock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you truly think that anyone who believes (even conditionally) in the theory of evolution is a materialist and an atheist, well, there's no point talking to you.  If you think anyone who considers discussion about evolution and ID to be just one of science a brainwashed left winger, once again, no real point talking to you.
Click to expand...


Sorry. I should have been more clear. The global warming thing comes from a socialist and communist agenda and is anti-capitalism. It tends to be aligned with the same folks preaching the TOE.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> ~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... the 2 billion does not take into account some extinction events that started the process over or severely set it back if you are looking at it from a darwinists perspective.
Click to expand...


Very good point.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..
> 
> CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
> 
> There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.
> 
> 
> 
> it's a creationist site....therefore breaking the first rule of science objectivity .....so it pseudoscience.
Click to expand...


pseudoscience is not practiced by the ones that are rational with their explanations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that all you have junior,are you forgetting the theory of punctuated equilibrium ? Stasis is evidence agains't all of these so called variations that lead to macro-evolution. The rate of change would have had to been very fast to produce all the living organism's that once lived.
> 
> If life was evolving that fast we would see it happening before our eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's all I need..but you keep yammering.
Click to expand...


You call it yammering because you chose not to believe evolutionist have it so wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

whitehall said:


> So-called "creationists" have been maligned by bigots for years, it's nothing new. The bigots try to distort the argument but the issue really centers around the Constitutional right to say the word "God" in school without risking arrest. You could say that the left wing religion of "man-made global warming" is far more insidious than creationism. Warmers operate on faith and they seem to think the world started either... #1 the day George Bush was inaugurated or #2 about 150 years ago when the industrial revolution started. Warmers toss out evidence, fudge figures and and pay shaman priests disguised as "scientists" to come up with outlandish theories that the left accepts on faith. You could laugh at the left's greenie religion if it was harmless but it ain't. Greenie religion is an extortion scheme designed to ruin the United States of America.



Either the evidence supports your theory or it does not.I don't have to distort anything. Your theory defies rational thinking.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... the 2 billion does not take into account some extinction events that started the process over or severely set it back if you are looking at it from a darwinists perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, so 2 billion years is plenty of time, unless there's a theory of "Recreation" to explain where the next set of life came from after the major extictions.
Click to expand...


No,if life had to start all over again from an extinction event and if it was that easy it would be contantly happening. It took over 2 billlion years for life to begin when the planet supposedly came into existence.


----------



## cooky

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.
> 
> If all organism's are related that means every family had to evolve from the first family group in succession unless you are saying cross breeding was a means of family variations. I am giving you a reality check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that couldn't have happened in 2 billion years?  Once life starts it's been shown repeatedly, that it's hard to keep it down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every living oranism that had to evolve not near enough time. You are talking many changes from one group to another. We have living organism's alive today that show no change from fossils of their ancestors that was dated back to over 400 million years ago.
> 
> With that evidence it is just another obstacle for the evolutionist to get around. For it to be even viable changes would have to happen in such a short time we would see it happening today.
> 
> Scientist have estimasted that currently their are 5 to 100 million different organism's that live on the planet today. They have also estimated billions of organism's have gone extinct.
> 
> Sorry but the theory is just not viable when measured agains't the evidence.
Click to expand...


The TOE doesnt include an explanation of how life began on the planet. In a Scientific circles, the two most widely accepted hypothesis for how life began on earth are abiogenesis and panspermia. It is not definitely known how long life has existed on the planet. The earliest 'credible' evidence of life consists of microfossils/biomarkers found in the akili formation- a gealogic formation in greenland containing evidence of microorganisms that date to ~3.87bya. It is widely accepted that the earth was to hot to support life for the first 500-600 million years as the planets heat of formation was such that liquid water could not exist- preventing the existence of life as we know it. Consequently, if the microfossils in the akili formation are bonafide it would suggest that life on earth began on earth VERY SOON after there was liquid water on the planet. 

Evolution is a non-random process driven by a number of different mechanisms. As such it may occur rapidly on large scale i.e. punctuated equilibrium or very slowly i.e. (Selachimorpha ) sharks. In the context of human evolution, there are more than a dozen known species in the Homo genus, the oldest of which date back to almost 2 million years ago. However, most of the known represenatives of the homo genus occured in the last 1 million years. In my opinion just the fossil record for the Homo genus is powerful evidence for the evolution.

Genus Homo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Homo

While the sequencing of the human genome has revealed a great deal human genetics there is still quite a bit about human DNA/RNA that we do not understand. It is not known how many protein coding genes are in the human genome. It is estimated that 1.5% of the genome consists of genes encoding proteins of which amounts to 20,000-25,000 different genes. As such, only about 1.5% of the human genome codes for protein. The other 98.5% non-coding RNA genes, regulatory sequences, introns, and noncoding DNA. Our understanding of non coding DNA, sometimes referred to as junk DNA, has in many instances been found to serve regulatory or structural purposes though it is still thought that a large component of human DNA is functional useless.

As a scientist I get frustrated by the assertion that the TOE is a conspiracy designed to purge god from society that is built from fraudulent science. The TOE is constantly changing as new discoveries are made. As such, there are instances where significant changes are made to the theory. However, no data has been published that challenges the primary tenet of the TOE- the common descent of all life from a common ancestor.

It is not known how life began and there are many aspects of the history of life on earth that is not known. However, in my opinion the evidence for the TOE is overwhelming.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cooky said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that couldn't have happened in 2 billion years?  Once life starts it's been shown repeatedly, that it's hard to keep it down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every living oranism that had to evolve not near enough time. You are talking many changes from one group to another. We have living organism's alive today that show no change from fossils of their ancestors that was dated back to over 400 million years ago.
> 
> With that evidence it is just another obstacle for the evolutionist to get around. For it to be even viable changes would have to happen in such a short time we would see it happening today.
> 
> Scientist have estimasted that currently their are 5 to 100 million different organism's that live on the planet today. They have also estimated billions of organism's have gone extinct.
> 
> Sorry but the theory is just not viable when measured agains't the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The TOE doesnt include an explanation of how life began on the planet. In a Scientific circles, the two most widely accepted hypothesis for how life began on earth are abiogenesis and panspermia. It is not definitely known how long life has existed on the planet. The earliest 'credible' evidence of life consists of microfossils/biomarkers found in the akili formation- a gealogic formation in greenland containing evidence of microorganisms that date to ~3.87bya. It is widely accepted that the earth was to hot to support life for the first 500-600 million years as the planets heat of formation was such that liquid water could not exist- preventing the existence of life as we know it. Consequently, if the microfossils in the akili formation are bonafide it would suggest that life on earth began on earth VERY SOON after there was liquid water on the planet.
> 
> Evolution is a non-random process driven by a number of different mechanisms. As such it may occur rapidly on large scale i.e. punctuated equilibrium or very slowly i.e. (Selachimorpha ) sharks. In the context of human evolution, there are more than a dozen known species in the Homo genus, the oldest of which date back to almost 2 million years ago. However, most of the known represenatives of the homo genus occured in the last 1 million years. In my opinion just the fossil record for the Homo genus is powerful evidence for the evolution.
> 
> Genus Homo
> Template:Homo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> While the sequencing of the human genome has revealed a great deal human genetics there is still quite a bit about human DNA/RNA that we do not understand. It is not known how many protein coding genes are in the human genome. It is estimated that 1.5% of the genome consists of genes encoding proteins of which amounts to 20,000-25,000 different genes. As such, only about 1.5% of the human genome codes for protein. The other 98.5% non-coding RNA genes, regulatory sequences, introns, and noncoding DNA. Our understanding of non coding DNA, sometimes referred to as junk DNA, has in many instances been found to serve regulatory or structural purposes though it is still thought that a large component of human DNA is functional useless.
> 
> As a scientist I get frustrated by the assertion that the TOE is a conspiracy designed to purge god from society that is built from fraudulent science. The TOE is constantly changing as new discoveries are made. As such, there are instances where significant changes are made to the theory. However, no data has been published that challenges the primary tenet of the TOE- the common descent of all life from a common ancestor.
> 
> It is not known how life began and there are many aspects of the history of life on earth that is not known. However, in my opinion the evidence for the TOE is overwhelming.
Click to expand...


Look it is clear there is a movement within the scienctific community to explain everything is a product of chance and a natural process absent of a creator,to deny this fact is to deny a fact. I'm Not saying all scientists deny a creator that simply is not true.

So if evolutionist have no idea when or how life started how is the evidence overwhelmingly supporting their theory ? Why do you think evolutionist have accurate knowledge and creationist and ID are wrong ?

Is not evidence explained in a way to support presuppositions ?

The more holes that get poked in the theories supporting macro-evolution the less credeibility the theory seems to possess. The same can be said for the ones who defend it ,atleast attempt it.

I do like your honesty admitting evolutionist don't know when or how life started and it also presents problems for their extinction events They use to explain away evidence contradictory to creation and design.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the 2 billion does not take into account some extinction events that started the process over or severely set it back if you are looking at it from a darwinists perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so 2 billion years is plenty of time, unless there's a theory of "Recreation" to explain where the next set of life came from after the major extictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,if life had to start all over again from an extinction event and if it was that easy it would be contantly happening. It took over 2 billlion years for life to begin when the planet supposedly came into existence.
Click to expand...


Life didn't have to come back into existence.  While up to 95% died in some extinctions, that isn't 100% and it didn't have to start from scratch.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so 2 billion years is plenty of time, unless there's a theory of "Recreation" to explain where the next set of life came from after the major extictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,if life had to start all over again from an extinction event and if it was that easy it would be contantly happening. It took over 2 billlion years for life to begin when the planet supposedly came into existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life didn't have to come back into existence.  While up to 95% died in some extinctions, that isn't 100% and it didn't have to start from scratch.
Click to expand...


Say's who ? Do we need to list the extinction events that affected the entire planet that was proposed by evolutionist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so 2 billion years is plenty of time, unless there's a theory of "Recreation" to explain where the next set of life came from after the major extictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,if life had to start all over again from an extinction event and if it was that easy it would be contantly happening. It took over 2 billlion years for life to begin when the planet supposedly came into existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life didn't have to come back into existence.  While up to 95% died in some extinctions, that isn't 100% and it didn't have to start from scratch.
Click to expand...


Your side knows how devastating extinction events are to your theory,they just can't bring themselves to admit if these events happened that it did not destroy all life.

Earth's Big Five Mass Extinction Events

But yet your side rejects the global flood theory from the bible that has evidence to support it over the entire earth. Notice how little they know of these supposed extinction events they want to believe happened.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,if life had to start all over again from an extinction event and if it was that easy it would be contantly happening. It took over 2 billlion years for life to begin when the planet supposedly came into existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life didn't have to come back into existence.  While up to 95% died in some extinctions, that isn't 100% and it didn't have to start from scratch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your side knows how devastating extinction events are to your theory,they just can't bring themselves to admit if these events happened that it did not destroy all life.
> 
> Earth's Big Five Mass Extinction Events
> 
> But yet your side rejects the global flood theory from the bible that has evidence to support it over the entire earth. Notice how little they know of these supposed extinction events they want to believe happened.
Click to expand...


There's no evidence a that a Global Flood caused even one of those extinctions, much less 5 seperated by 100s of millions of years.  Don't get your first sentence.  Could you rephrase it?  It sounds like we're refusing to admit something, but I'm not clear as to exacly what.


----------



## cooky

Youwerecreated said:


> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look it is clear there is a movement within the scienctific community to explain everything is a product of chance and a natural process absent of a creator,to deny this fact is to deny a fact. I'm Not saying all scientists deny a creator that simply is not true.
> 
> So if evolutionist have no idea when or how life started how is the evidence overwhelmingly supporting their theory ? Why do you think evolutionist have accurate knowledge and creationist and ID are wrong ?
> 
> Is not evidence explained in a way to support presuppositions ?
> 
> The more holes that get poked in the theories supporting macro-evolution the less credeibility the theory seems to possess. The same can be said for the ones who defend it ,atleast attempt it.
> 
> I do like your honesty admitting evolutionist don't know when or how life started and it also presents problems for their extinction events They use to explain away evidence contradictory to creation and design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with your belief that scientists are trying to denude our culture of divinity. I would argue that in the context of god, science is neutral as there is no scientific evidence that either proves or disproves the existence of a creator. Im not sure what lead you to conclude that modern science is anti god but I strongly suspect that it is to some extent a result of the tremendous disconnect between what conclusions scientist are actually publishing and the way their conclusions are reported in popular media. Non scientific media sources blatantly distort the actual findingS of scientists to support non scientific agendas. Such distortions occur in every controversial scientific debate and are commites by all sides.
> 
> A common misconception about the TOE is that it covers the origin of life. It does not. The origin of life on earth can only be explained by several hypothesis that are based on woefully incomplete datasets. The most commonly accepted hypothesis-abiogenesis- is far from convincing. The link concerning the problems with this hypothesis in an RNA world eloquently explains some of the tremendous flaws inherent in that hypothesis
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## koshergrl

I don't think (most) scientists have an intent to do anything to the culture of divinity. Many scientists are Christian, in fact.

It's the bozos like Poki and JS who have just a smattering of knowledge (and most of it comes directly off cable television), who think they are "learned" in science, and then go off half-cocked, spouting idiocies and retardisms that they think make them appear intelligent and scholarly...

When really all they do is illustrate, over and over, their inability to grasp large concepts. It also illustrates, over and over, their bigotry and narrow mindedness...

In The Last Battle by CS Lewis there's a great description of non-believers. They are embodied in the Black Dwarves. The dwarves are taken with distrust after being bamboozled by an ass dressed in a lionskin, who pretends to be Aslan and instructs them to do all sorts of ungodly things. The dwarves find out they've been had, and instead of recognizing their own part in the situation, wash their hands of ALL belief and allegiance to the divine (Aslan = God). They appear throughout the book, chanting "The dwarves are for the dwarves!" and indiscriminately killing those of both evil and good forces (they singlehandedly wipe out whole battalion of talking horses)....

Anyway, at the end of the world (Narnia) when Aslan is raising people from the dead and judging each being, he comes to the dwarves, who before this time had been imprisoned in a dark barn.

He stands in front of them, he breathes on them, he puts a feast before them...but they continue to believe they're in a filthy, dark barn, eating moldy bread and filthy straw. 

They come across as anything but learned, wise or intelligent. And that's what the most rabid of the non-believers remind me of. They think they're so clever...but they're just ignorant and blind. And not just about things of God. They're ignorant about the very things they profess to have all this knowledge about. But they can't see it. They're so enamored of themselves, they're completely blind to it.


----------



## HUGGY

koshergrl said:


> I don't think (most) scientists have an intent to do anything to the culture of divinity. Many scientists are Christian, in fact.
> 
> It's the bozos like Poki and JS who have just a smattering of knowledge (and most of it comes directly off cable television), who think they are "learned" in science, and then go off half-cocked, spouting idiocies and retardisms that they think make them appear intelligent and scholarly...
> 
> When really all they do is illustrate, over and over, their inability to grasp large concepts. It also illustrates, over and over, their bigotry and narrow mindedness...
> 
> In The Last Battle by CS Lewis there's a great description of non-believers. They are embodied in the Black Dwarves. The dwarves are taken with distrust after being bamboozled by an ass dressed in a lionskin, who pretends to be Aslan and instructs them to do all sorts of ungodly things. The dwarves find out they've been had, and instead of recognizing their own part in the situation, wash their hands of ALL belief and allegiance to the divine (Aslan = God). They appear throughout the book, chanting "The dwarves are for the dwarves!" and indiscriminately killing those of both evil and good forces (they singlehandedly wipe out whole battalion of talking horses)....
> 
> Anyway, at the end of the world (Narnia) when Aslan is raising people from the dead and judging each being, he comes to the dwarves, who before this time had been imprisoned in a dark barn.
> 
> He stands in front of them, he breathes on them, he puts a feast before them...but they continue to believe they're in a filthy, dark barn, eating moldy bread and filthy straw.
> 
> They come across as anything but learned, wise or intelligent. And that's what the most rabid of the non-believers remind me of. They think they're so clever...but they're just ignorant and blind. And not just about things of God. They're ignorant about the very things they profess to have all this knowledge about. But they can't see it. They're so enamored of themselves, they're completely blind to it.



You *REALLY ARE *bat shit crazy.  And your brain operates like this without LSD?  Fascinating!


----------



## koshergrl

Are you admitting that you're an unread ignoramus now?


----------



## HUGGY

koshergrl said:


> Are you admitting that you're an unread ignoramus now?



Hey twat!  I watched the 700 Club this morning...That makes me at least as informed as you are.


----------



## koshergrl

I don't watch the 700 club. I spend my time reading, mostly.

I'm sorry you've never heard of one of the most popular and widely read works of literature ever penned. It makes me sad for you. I thought everybody had heard of the Chronicles of Narnia, and I honestly believed most English speaking people had at some point read them, or at least skimmed them..or at least HEARD of them...


#9 of a list of the 21 best selling books of all time:
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/arts/literature/21-best-sellers9.htm


----------



## HUGGY

koshergrl said:


> I don't watch the 700 club. I spend my time reading, mostly.
> 
> I'm sorry you've never heard of one of the most popular and wide-spread works of children literature ever penned. It makes me sad for you. I thought everybody had heard of the *Chronicles of Narnia*, and I honestly believed most English speaking people had at some point read them, or at least skimmed them..or at least HEARD of them...
> 
> 
> #9 of a list of the 21 best selling books of all time:
> HowStuffWorks "The 21 Best-selling Books of All Time"



The Chronicles of Narnia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope... not really ever been a fantasy reader.  I've always believed, and my parents encouraged my belief, that there was more to learn in the real world than in make believe.

Maybe my siblings dabbled ito it but they never mentioned that works.  I was more of a back woods kid...exploring the "wonders" of nature up on my families 150 acre farm on Orcas Island.  I read a lot but steered pretty clear of childish fantasy.


----------



## koshergrl

That's too bad. The humanities are invaluable in creating well rounded, sane, and free thinking people. Plus our ability to see beyond concrete reality is what separates us from other animals...i.e., it's what makes us "human".

I won a full ride college scholarship for a paper I wrote about the humanities. I encourage you to broaden your scope a bit.


----------



## HUGGY

koshergrl said:


> That's too bad. The humanities are invaluable in creating well rounded, sane, and free thinking people. Plus our ability to see beyond concrete reality is what separates us from other animals...i.e., it's what makes us "human".
> 
> I won a full ride college scholarship for a paper I wrote about the humanities. I encourage you to broaden your scope a bit.



OK...I wrote a book called "The Pilot" about my exploits as a pilot in the world of International Drug Smuggling.  Nobody offered me a scholarship for it.    Maybe it was because the content was about lots of sex, drugs and international crime.  I don't think they teach any courses in those subjects..  

I'm 62.  You have no idea how "broad" my scope has been.    

Maybe some kid would be open to your way of seeing the world.  Me... not so much.


----------



## koshergrl

Kids are just inexperienced. In older people, we call such willfull narrow mindedness "ignorance".


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..
> 
> CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
> 
> There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Discovery Institute is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. Founded in 1990, the institute describes its purpose as promoting "ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty."[2] Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.[3][4][5][6][7]
> 
> A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis",[8] through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[9][10][11] In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[8][10][12] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy,[13] describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[14][15] It was the Federal Court's opinion that Intelligent Design was merely a redressing of Creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.
> 
> Discovery Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am well aware of who and what the Discovery Institute is. But I love the obvious bias for the "anyone can edit" Wiki comments!!! I regularly quote Wiki, but with the understanding it is relativism on steroids, and info can be manipulated with ease, unlike the old hard printed Britanica sets.
> 
> Is this the same Federal court that has shredded the Constitution and stripped American's of their CREATOR ENDOWED inalienable rights? Here are a few comments on Dover rover...
> 
> It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views
Click to expand...

dodge


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..
> 
> CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
> 
> There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.
> 
> 
> 
> it's a creationist site....therefore breaking the first rule of science objectivity .....so it pseudoscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pseudoscience is not practiced by the ones that are rational with their explanations.
Click to expand...

megadodge!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that all you have junior,are you forgetting the theory of punctuated equilibrium ? Stasis is evidence agains't all of these so called variations that lead to macro-evolution. The rate of change would have had to been very fast to produce all the living organism's that once lived.
> 
> If life was evolving that fast we would see it happening before our eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> that's all I need..but you keep yammering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call it yammering because you chose not to believe evolutionist have it so wrong.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mA-57ZkL6Q]Bill Maher New Rules_03_02_12_Atheism and Unbapism of Edward Davies .flv - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> I don't watch the 700 club. I spend my time reading, mostly.
> 
> I'm sorry you've never heard of one of the most popular and widely read works of literature ever penned. It makes me sad for you. I thought everybody had heard of the Chronicles of Narnia, and I honestly believed most English speaking people had at some point read them, or at least skimmed them..or at least HEARD of them...
> 
> 
> #9 of a list of the 21 best selling books of all time:
> HowStuffWorks "The 21 Best-selling Books of All Time"



While I've heard of (and possibly read, I can't remember for certain as it would have been quite a few years ago) Narnia, I thought it would only be fair to point out that a number of the books on that list I had never heard of.  Then again, there were quite a few foreign entries, so that would explain it to some extent. 

I also find it strangely annoying that so many of the books on the list are from Harry Potter.


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch the 700 club. I spend my time reading, mostly.
> 
> I'm sorry you've never heard of one of the most popular and widely read works of literature ever penned. It makes me sad for you. I thought everybody had heard of the Chronicles of Narnia, and I honestly believed most English speaking people had at some point read them, or at least skimmed them..or at least HEARD of them...
> 
> 
> #9 of a list of the 21 best selling books of all time:
> HowStuffWorks "The 21 Best-selling Books of All Time"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I've heard of (and possibly read, I can't remember for certain as it would have been quite a few years ago) Narnia, I thought it would only be fair to point out that a number of the books on that list I had never heard of.  Then again, there were quite a few foreign entries, so that would explain it to some extent.
> 
> I also find it strangely annoying that so many of the books on the list are from Harry Potter.
Click to expand...

now that is scary!


----------



## koshergrl

It is scary, and sad.

A lot of the books you have never heard of are probably books that are popular in other highly-populated countries...Japan, China, etc.


----------



## koshergrl

When I was looking at lists of books, I ran across an interesting one that was a list of books that all men should read...it was a pretty good one too...

100 Must Read Books: The Man&#8217;s Essential Library | The Art of Manliness


----------



## koshergrl

In Harry Potter's defense, they are pretty riveting books. But sadly lacking in any underlying message that I could derive. I love the use of language in them, though. CS Lewis' books, besides being a fascinating dissertation on Christian romanticism, offers up some pretty stunning lessons in mannerly behavior, what constitutes goodness, and honor, and strength of character, and how to face up to situations that are perhaps difficult or ugly, in a way that will allow you to maintain your own sense of self while at the same time recognizing that everybody makes mistakes (a basic tenet of Christianity).

CS Lewis was just an incredible person all around. I read those books every few years, and every time I love them.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> When I was looking at lists of books, I ran across an interesting one that was a list of books that all men should read...it was a pretty good one too...
> 
> 100 Must Read Books: The Mans Essential Library | The Art of Manliness



got 75% of those here in my library


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> In Harry Potter's defense, they are pretty riveting books. But sadly lacking in any underlying message that I could derive. I love the use of language in them, though. CS Lewis' books, besides being a fascinating dissertation on Christian romanticism, offers up some pretty stunning lessons in mannerly behavior, what constitutes goodness, and honor, and strength of character, and how to face up to situations that are perhaps difficult or ugly, in a way that will allow you to maintain your own sense of self while at the same time recognizing that everybody makes mistakes (a basic tenet of Christianity).
> 
> CS Lewis was just an incredible person all around. I read those books every few years, and every time I love them.


 the harry potter books and the narnia collection are for kids...
if you want adult fantasy then the hobbit and lord of the rings trilogy are the only ways to go.

   BTW CS LEWIS AND JRR TOLKIEN WERE LIFE LONG FRIENDS AND COLLEGE PROF'S 
FUNNY HOW TO PEOPLE CAN START IN THE SAME PLACE AND END UP SO DIFFERENT.


----------



## koshergrl

They were written for children, but I make it a point to read what kids are reading. Likewise I make it a point to read works being touted as good literature, regardless of the intended audience. (I was a lit major in another life. I spent an entire year immersed in Shakespeare, lol...and quite a bit of time immersed in World and English lit as well.) I read the Harry Potter books when they first came out, at the same time all the kids did..how could I not? 

I read the Chronicles of Narnia as a child, and I still enjoy them.

I've read the trilogy of the rings, a few times....and I think The Hobbit was actually written for a younger crowd. Yes, I knew Tolkein and Lewis were friends.

I don't find them so dissimilar...they both wrote from a Christian viewpoint, and their works have the same thread running through them...there is an Ultimate Truth, that there is evil, and that good must persevere, in the face of great adversity and pain...

"British author Colin Duriez, who wrote the article "Tollers and Jack" in issue #78 of Christian History, explains why this is so in his forthcoming book [ame="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587680262/christianitytoda"]Tolkien and C. S. Lewis: The Gift of Friendship[/ame]. Duriez tells the story of how these two brilliant authors met, discovered their common love for mythical tales, and pledged to bring such stories into the mainstream of public reading taste. Tolkien and Lewis shared the belief that through myth and legend&#8212;for centuries the mode many cultures had used to communicate their deepest truths&#8212;a taste of the Christian gospel's "True Myth" could be smuggled past the barriers and biases of secularized readers. "

"Early in their relationship, in 1936, after Tolkien had written the children's story The Hobbit, the two men had a momentous conversation about their desire to bring such stories to a wider audience (see below, at the end of this interview, for Duriez's re-creation of that conversation). They actually decided to divide the territory&#8212;Lewis would take "space travel," Tolkien "time travel." 

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2003/aug29.html


----------



## ilia25

koshergrl said:


> He stands in front of them, he breathes on them, he puts a feast before them...but they continue to believe they're in a filthy, dark barn, eating moldy bread and filthy straw.



It's no surprise that this is how a Christian would want the atheists being like. And of course this is just another fairy tale -- but the religious people never had troubles believing in those, did they?


----------



## koshergrl

Huh?


----------



## koshergrl

Oh, I see what you're saying. It makes no sense of course because we benefit nothing by portraying atheists that way.

And really, anyone who reads the posts of the ignorami on this site professing to be atheists can't miss the similarity. It's actually quite comical.


----------



## ilia25

koshergrl said:


> Huh?



You seem to believe that atheists are so blind and ignorant that they will not see God even if he stands in front of them. And that is not true.


----------



## koshergrl

Sure it is. How will you recognize something you don't believe in?


----------



## koshergrl

Besides which, he's standing in front of you now, and you still deny him. That was Lewis' point.


----------



## ilia25

koshergrl said:


> Sure it is. How will you recognize something you don't believe in?



You think I would recognize hell if I end up in it?


----------



## koshergrl

Yes indeed. And I think you'll know exactly where you are and be begging to access heaven.

And you will be denied, if you don't accept Christ before you're sent there.


----------



## ilia25

koshergrl said:


> Yes indeed. And I think you'll know exactly where you are and be begging to access heaven.
> 
> And you will be denied, if you don't accept Christ before you're sent there.



So this is what you are saying -- atheists, as a rule, cannot recognize something they don't believe in, unless that something is hell?


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Yes indeed. And I think you'll know exactly where you are and be begging to access heaven.
> 
> And you will be denied, if you don't accept Christ before you're sent there.


another empty threat...


----------



## HUGGY

koshergrl said:


> Yes indeed. And I think you'll know exactly where you are and be begging to access heaven.
> 
> And you will be denied, if you don't accept Christ before you're sent there.



I'll step in right here...  You don't know a blink of wisdom enough to decide what I should, read, think, want or not want in any religion or do in my life.

You are clearly not at a loss for words but you make no sense.  You got a full ride through college on the merit of one fucking paper?  Please...

In a way you remind me of my dear and departed mom.  She graduated from the University of Washington with a 4.0 at 19 years old.  She could speak several foreign languages.  AND with all that ability to digest information and spit it back out to the aclaim of her teachers and professors she was hands down one of the dumbest humans I ever met.  She was EXTREMELY fortunate her dad died and left her many millions of dollars in the early fifties.  

Like you she was so full of herself that she spent most of her time communicating with others telling them what they should think and what was and what was not proper for them to do.  She spent most of the money she and my siblings and I had been given suing her brother because HE didn't like being cut out of thier dads will.  So he went after the millions that were supposed to be MY and my sister and brothers inheritance and my genious mother spent ALL of it..about 7 million dollars on lawyers and fighting his play for that money until the day he commited suicide.  He did that when he figured out that after years of court battles there was NOTHING left to fight over.  At least nothing he could get his hands on.  My mom BRAGGED about how she WON!!!  Then over the years she tried and failed at numeroud crackpot money making schemes, lawsuits with people she didn't agree with and her efforts to prove how smart she was ALL failed and cost her many more millions.  Not to worry..her dad left her dozens of huge valuable properties and also bought her and her kids the place up on Orcas Island.  

Trust me .. I have had my very fill of know it all self righteous bitches.  Don't get me wrong ..I have known many fine women.  Loved several of them.  But I also learned an important lesson early on about the worth of education and how it can translate or not into something of meaning in one's life and affect those around the "genius".  Don't think I do not/did not love my mom...you only get one.  I learned to not equate her insanity and stupidity  with the reasons one loves his mother.

In short...you can read a million books and still be a world class idiot.  You can learn to spell every word in a dictionary and learn every rule of grammar and put the words together like a well writen piece of literature and STILL be a complete fool...  

I'm probably wasting my time here but if you are ever honest with yourself you know what I'm talkng about. You know that for the most part you are full of shit.

Now back to religion.  If Christ or God or the tooth fairy want my attention I'm not that hard to find.  I am a long way from stupid compared to most people.  You and a million like you can not convince me to believe a lie...a half truth ..or just some made up jibberish you choose to worship.  Stop wasting your time and my attention.  I learned to figure out truth from deception from a gifted wordsmith.  You are an amature.  I don't give a rats ass if it gives you pleasure convincing weak minded people with your mundane nonsense.  I don't want to know what you know.  I don't like liars and fools.  You are not a blood relative therefore you get no special consideration.  If I were you I would get real sick and disgusted with  myself and put the barrel of a pistol in my mouth and pull the trigger.   Lucky for me I am immune to the intentional/unintentional manipulation from people like you.

Are we clear?


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life didn't have to come back into existence.  While up to 95% died in some extinctions, that isn't 100% and it didn't have to start from scratch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your side knows how devastating extinction events are to your theory,they just can't bring themselves to admit if these events happened that it did not destroy all life.
> 
> Earth's Big Five Mass Extinction Events
> 
> But yet your side rejects the global flood theory from the bible that has evidence to support it over the entire earth. Notice how little they know of these supposed extinction events they want to believe happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no evidence a that a Global Flood caused even one of those extinctions, much less 5 seperated by 100s of millions of years.  Don't get your first sentence.  Could you rephrase it?  It sounds like we're refusing to admit something, but I'm not clear as to exacly what.
Click to expand...


There is plenty of evidence supporting a global flood. I don't believe in any of these extinction events other than the global flood. I don't believe that the earth was completely lifeless either because God protected the animals and humans to preserve his creation. Atleast God saved two of every kind to repopoulate the earth other then humans.

I was pointing out that your side was making claims about extinction events that they don't know anythging about like when it happened what survived. Talking about making something up as they go.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cooky said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with your belief that scientists are trying to denude our culture of divinity. I would argue that in the context of god, science is neutral as there is no scientific evidence that either proves or disproves the existence of a creator. Im not sure what lead you to conclude that modern science is anti god but I strongly suspect that it is to some extent a result of the tremendous disconnect between what conclusions scientist are actually publishing and the way their conclusions are reported in popular media. Non scientific media sources blatantly distort the actual findingS of scientists to support non scientific agendas. Such distortions occur in every controversial scientific debate and are commites by all sides.
> 
> A common misconception about the TOE is that it covers the origin of life. It does not. The origin of life on earth can only be explained by several hypothesis that are based on woefully incomplete datasets. The most commonly accepted hypothesis-abiogenesis- is far from convincing. The link concerning the problems with this hypothesis in an RNA world eloquently explains some of the tremendous flaws inherent in that hypothesis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this is what I alluded to,however people like dawkins and a few of the other well knowns in science are very biased and try to keep design out of the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think (most) scientists have an intent to do anything to the culture of divinity. Many scientists are Christian, in fact.
> 
> It's the bozos like Poki and JS who have just a smattering of knowledge (and most of it comes directly off cable television), who think they are "learned" in science, and then go off half-cocked, spouting idiocies and retardisms that they think make them appear intelligent and scholarly...
> 
> When really all they do is illustrate, over and over, their inability to grasp large concepts. It also illustrates, over and over, their bigotry and narrow mindedness...
> 
> In The Last Battle by CS Lewis there's a great description of non-believers. They are embodied in the Black Dwarves. The dwarves are taken with distrust after being bamboozled by an ass dressed in a lionskin, who pretends to be Aslan and instructs them to do all sorts of ungodly things. The dwarves find out they've been had, and instead of recognizing their own part in the situation, wash their hands of ALL belief and allegiance to the divine (Aslan = God). They appear throughout the book, chanting "The dwarves are for the dwarves!" and indiscriminately killing those of both evil and good forces (they singlehandedly wipe out whole battalion of talking horses)....
> 
> Anyway, at the end of the world (Narnia) when Aslan is raising people from the dead and judging each being, he comes to the dwarves, who before this time had been imprisoned in a dark barn.
> 
> He stands in front of them, he breathes on them, he puts a feast before them...but they continue to believe they're in a filthy, dark barn, eating moldy bread and filthy straw.
> 
> They come across as anything but learned, wise or intelligent. And that's what the most rabid of the non-believers remind me of. They think they're so clever...but they're just ignorant and blind. And not just about things of God. They're ignorant about the very things they profess to have all this knowledge about. But they can't see it. They're so enamored of themselves, they're completely blind to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You *REALLY ARE *bat shit crazy.  And your brain operates like this without LSD?  Fascinating!
Click to expand...


You 're a foul mouth that knows very little on this issue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that you're an unread ignoramus now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey twat!  I watched the 700 Club this morning...That makes me at least as informed as you are.
Click to expand...


Really,your posts show otherwise.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch the 700 club. I spend my time reading, mostly.
> 
> I'm sorry you've never heard of one of the most popular and wide-spread works of children literature ever penned. It makes me sad for you. I thought everybody had heard of the *Chronicles of Narnia*, and I honestly believed most English speaking people had at some point read them, or at least skimmed them..or at least HEARD of them...
> 
> 
> #9 of a list of the 21 best selling books of all time:
> HowStuffWorks "The 21 Best-selling Books of All Time"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chronicles of Narnia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Nope... not really ever been a fantasy reader.  I've always believed, and my parents encouraged my belief, that there was more to learn in the real world than in make believe.
> 
> Maybe my siblings dabbled ito it but they never mentioned that works.  I was more of a back woods kid...exploring the "wonders" of nature up on my families 150 acre farm on Orcas Island.  I read a lot but steered pretty clear of childish fantasy.
Click to expand...


Wow are you and Loki suffering from the same disease ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's too bad. The humanities are invaluable in creating well rounded, sane, and free thinking people. Plus our ability to see beyond concrete reality is what separates us from other animals...i.e., it's what makes us "human".
> 
> I won a full ride college scholarship for a paper I wrote about the humanities. I encourage you to broaden your scope a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK...I wrote a book called "The Pilot" about my exploits as a pilot in the world of International Drug Smuggling.  Nobody offered me a scholarship for it.    Maybe it was because the content was about lots of sex, drugs and international crime.  I don't think they teach any courses in those subjects..
> 
> I'm 62.  You have no idea how "broad" my scope has been.
> 
> Maybe some kid would be open to your way of seeing the world.  Me... not so much.
Click to expand...


Thats it! you not only were a drug smuggler,but you were a user.


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> Sure it is. How will you recognize something you don't believe in?



I hate to break it to them,the reason they can't see God is he is a spirit and has not personally reavealed himself to them. The scriptures say you know me by my creation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is. How will you recognize something you don't believe in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think I would recognize hell if I end up in it?
Click to expand...


No because you will be dead.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes indeed. And I think you'll know exactly where you are and be begging to access heaven.
> 
> And you will be denied, if you don't accept Christ before you're sent there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll step in right here...  You don't know a blink of wisdom enough to decide what I should, read, think, want or not want in any religion or do in my life.
> 
> You are clearly not at a loss for words but you make no sense.  You got a full ride through college on the merit of one fucking paper?  Please...
> 
> In a way you remind me of my dear and departed mom.  She graduated from the University of Washington with a 4.0 at 19 years old.  She could speak several foreign languages.  AND with all that ability to digest information and spit it back out to the aclaim of her teachers and professors she was hands down one of the dumbest humans I ever met.  She was EXTREMELY fortunate her dad died and left her many millions of dollars in the early fifties.
> 
> Like you she was so full of herself that she spent most of her time communicating with others telling them what they should think and what was and what was not proper for them to do.  She spent most of the money she and my siblings and I had been given suing her brother because HE didn't like being cut out of thier dads will.  So he went after the millions that were supposed to be MY and my sister and brothers inheritance and my genious mother spent ALL of it..about 7 million dollars on lawyers and fighting his play for that money until the day he commited suicide.  He did that when he figured out that after years of court battles there was NOTHING left to fight over.  At least nothing he could get his hands on.  My mom BRAGGED about how she WON!!!  Then over the years she tried and failed at numeroud crackpot money making schemes, lawsuits with people she didn't agree with and her efforts to prove how smart she was ALL failed and cost her many more millions.  Not to worry..her dad left her dozens of huge valuable properties and also bought her and her kids the place up on Orcas Island.
> 
> Trust me .. I have had my very fill of know it all self righteous bitches.  Don't get me wrong ..I have known many fine women.  Loved several of them.  But I also learned an important lesson early on about the worth of education and how it can translate or not into something of meaning in one's life and affect those around the "genius".  Don't think I do not/did not love my mom...you only get one.  I learned to not equate her insanity and stupidity  with the reasons one loves his mother.
> 
> In short...you can read a million books and still be a world class idiot.  You can learn to spell every word in a dictionary and learn every rule of grammar and put the words together like a well writen piece of literature and STILL be a complete fool...
> 
> I'm probably wasting my time here but if you are ever honest with yourself you know what I'm talkng about. You know that for the most part you are full of shit.
> 
> Now back to religion.  If Christ or God or the tooth fairy want my attention I'm not that hard to find.  I am a long way from stupid compared to most people.  You and a million like you can not convince me to believe a lie...a half truth ..or just some made up jibberish you choose to worship.  Stop wasting your time and my attention.  I learned to figure out truth from deception from a gifted wordsmith.  You are an amature.  I don't give a rats ass if it gives you pleasure convincing weak minded people with your mundane nonsense.  I don't want to know what you know.  I don't like liars and fools.  You are not a blood relative therefore you get no special consideration.  If I were you I would get real sick and disgusted with  myself and put the barrel of a pistol in my mouth and pull the trigger.   Lucky for me I am immune to the intentional/unintentional manipulation from people like you.
> 
> Are we clear?
Click to expand...


Oh dear, did someone piss in your cheerios ?


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes indeed. And I think you'll know exactly where you are and be begging to access heaven.
> 
> And you will be denied, if you don't accept Christ before you're sent there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll step in right here...  You don't know a blink of wisdom enough to decide what I should, read, think, want or not want in any religion or do in my life.
> 
> You are clearly not at a loss for words but you make no sense.  You got a full ride through college on the merit of one fucking paper?  Please...
> 
> In a way you remind me of my dear and departed mom.  She graduated from the University of Washington with a 4.0 at 19 years old.  She could speak several foreign languages.  AND with all that ability to digest information and spit it back out to the aclaim of her teachers and professors she was hands down one of the dumbest humans I ever met.  She was EXTREMELY fortunate her dad died and left her many millions of dollars in the early fifties.
> 
> Like you she was so full of herself that she spent most of her time communicating with others telling them what they should think and what was and what was not proper for them to do.  She spent most of the money she and my siblings and I had been given suing her brother because HE didn't like being cut out of thier dads will.  So he went after the millions that were supposed to be MY and my sister and brothers inheritance and my genious mother spent ALL of it..about 7 million dollars on lawyers and fighting his play for that money until the day he commited suicide.  He did that when he figured out that after years of court battles there was NOTHING left to fight over.  At least nothing he could get his hands on.  My mom BRAGGED about how she WON!!!  Then over the years she tried and failed at numeroud crackpot money making schemes, lawsuits with people she didn't agree with and her efforts to prove how smart she was ALL failed and cost her many more millions.  Not to worry..her dad left her dozens of huge valuable properties and also bought her and her kids the place up on Orcas Island.
> 
> Trust me .. I have had my very fill of know it all self righteous bitches.  Don't get me wrong ..I have known many fine women.  Loved several of them.  But I also learned an important lesson early on about the worth of education and how it can translate or not into something of meaning in one's life and affect those around the "genius".  Don't think I do not/did not love my mom...you only get one.  I learned to not equate her insanity and stupidity  with the reasons one loves his mother.
> 
> In short...you can read a million books and still be a world class idiot.  You can learn to spell every word in a dictionary and learn every rule of grammar and put the words together like a well writen piece of literature and STILL be a complete fool...
> 
> I'm probably wasting my time here but if you are ever honest with yourself you know what I'm talkng about. You know that for the most part you are full of shit.
> 
> Now back to religion.  If Christ or God or the tooth fairy want my attention I'm not that hard to find.  I am a long way from stupid compared to most people.  You and a million like you can not convince me to believe a lie...a half truth ..or just some made up jibberish you choose to worship.  Stop wasting your time and my attention.  I learned to figure out truth from deception from a gifted wordsmith.  You are an amature.  I don't give a rats ass if it gives you pleasure convincing weak minded people with your mundane nonsense.  I don't want to know what you know.  I don't like liars and fools.  You are not a blood relative therefore you get no special consideration.  If I were you I would get real sick and disgusted with  myself and put the barrel of a pistol in my mouth and pull the trigger.   Lucky for me I am immune to the intentional/unintentional manipulation from people like you.
> 
> Are we clear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh dear, did someone piss in your cheerios ?
Click to expand...


No...  But I will be happy to piss in yours.


----------



## UltimateReality

cooky said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with your belief that scientists are trying to denude our culture of divinity. I would argue that in the context of god, science is neutral as there is no scientific evidence that either proves or disproves the existence of a creator. Im not sure what lead you to conclude that modern science is anti god but I strongly suspect that it is to some extent a result of the tremendous disconnect between what conclusions scientist are actually publishing and the way their conclusions are reported in popular media. Non scientific media sources blatantly distort the actual findingS of scientists to support non scientific agendas. Such distortions occur in every controversial scientific debate and are commites by all sides.
> 
> A common misconception about the TOE is that it covers the origin of life. It does not. The origin of life on earth can only be explained by several hypothesis that are based on woefully incomplete datasets. The most commonly accepted hypothesis-abiogenesis- is far from convincing. The link concerning the problems with this hypothesis in an RNA world eloquently explains some of the tremendous flaws inherent in that hypothesis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your honesty on this thread is refreshing. This thread reminds me of being a cop... you start thinking that everyone is a criminal because everyone you come in contact with is. You forget you are only seeing a small percentage of society. You have conveyed what I have been arguing since I started posting on here, that is, many people use science to support their materialistic religion. You are absolutely correct in the assertion the media distorts the findings to support an atheistic agenda. You also have prominent individuals like Dawkins and Hawking that use science at every turn to espouse their atheistic beliefs. Add to that a whole internet culture continually quoting and mis-quoting what the REAL current scientific findings are. Loki has posted numerous links and video's to folks that pretend they have all the answers, but are so far from the current findings and thought it is obvious their agenda is more important than the actual science.
> 
> While there is also a small percentage of Christians that are very close minded, I like to think that I am very open minded. There are definitely things in the Old Testament I struggle with. I am willing to ask the hard questions about the Bible although for some Christians, they would rather stay in their comfortable boxes. When I think of the great expanse of the universe, my mind cannot even begin to comprehend the size and how small I really am. How much more in awe am I of the Creator!!! That reliazation should make all believers tremble in fear. But yet, even in the Old Testament, we find Job questioning the Almighty God. We find Jonah arguing with God. I believe God likes questions. I think questions are good for Christians and for scientists. Progress can only happen when we are willing to admit we don't have all the answers. I guess that really is my main aggravation with some posters and advocates of materialism. Their pride rarely allows them to admit that they don't have all the answers, that they just "don't know" and there is no good explanation for the findings if they stick to strictly a naturalistic veiwpoint. I also believe that while there are many open minded scientists, many of the organizations that represent them don't like questions. Again, they are arrogant in their stance that they are right and everyone else is wrong. I am talking about organizations that are government sponsored like the National Center for Science Education, whose atheistic bias is preached at every opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Discovery Institute is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. Founded in 1990, the institute describes its purpose as promoting "ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty."[2] Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.[3][4][5][6][7]
> 
> A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis",[8] through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[9][10][11] In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[8][10][12] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy,[13] describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[14][15] It was the Federal Court's opinion that Intelligent Design was merely a redressing of Creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.
> 
> Discovery Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am well aware of who and what the Discovery Institute is. But I love the obvious bias for the "anyone can edit" Wiki comments!!! I regularly quote Wiki, but with the understanding it is relativism on steroids, and info can be manipulated with ease, unlike the old hard printed Britanica sets.
> 
> Is this the same Federal court that has shredded the Constitution and stripped American's of their CREATOR ENDOWED inalienable rights? Here are a few comments on Dover rover...
> 
> It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dodge
Click to expand...


Chevy.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> In a way you remind me of my dear and departed mom.  She graduated from the University of Washington with a 4.0 at 19 years old.  She could speak several foreign languages.  AND with all that ability to digest information and spit it back out to the aclaim of her teachers and professors she was hands down one of the dumbest humans I ever met.  She was EXTREMELY fortunate her dad died and left her many millions of dollars in the early fifties.



Wow and there we have it. 62 years old and still dealing with mommie issues. She was stupid and wound up with millions. You are a legend in your own mind but you find yourself 62 and broke. And I bet your mom didn't leave you a dime. You just supported my view that your seething anger has rotted your soul and left you in the Godless place you find yourself. You wouldn't read childish books but you hold onto your childhood issues. Maybe a few childhood books would start you on your road to healing all that bitterness in your heart.


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a way you remind me of my dear and departed mom.  She graduated from the University of Washington with a 4.0 at 19 years old.  She could speak several foreign languages.  AND with all that ability to digest information and spit it back out to the aclaim of her teachers and professors she was hands down one of the dumbest humans I ever met.  She was EXTREMELY fortunate her dad died and left her many millions of dollars in the early fifties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow and there we have it. 62 years old and still dealing with mommie issues. She was stupid and wound up with millions. You are a legend in your own mind but you find yourself 62 and broke. And I bet your mom didn't leave you a dime. You just supported my view that your seething anger has rotted your soul and left you in the Godless place you find yourself. You wouldn't read childish books but you hold onto your childhood issues. Maybe a few childhood books would start you on your road to healing all that bitterness in your heart.
Click to expand...


No...She was stupid and blew many millions...some of them my millions.  I think that would piss anyone off.

We are all in a godless place.  You are just too stupid to acknowledge it.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your side knows how devastating extinction events are to your theory,they just can't bring themselves to admit if these events happened that it did not destroy all life.
> 
> Earth's Big Five Mass Extinction Events
> 
> But yet your side rejects the global flood theory from the bible that has evidence to support it over the entire earth. Notice how little they know of these supposed extinction events they want to believe happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no evidence a that a Global Flood caused even one of those extinctions, much less 5 seperated by 100s of millions of years.  Don't get your first sentence.  Could you rephrase it?  It sounds like we're refusing to admit something, but I'm not clear as to exacly what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence supporting a global flood. I don't believe in any of these extinction events other than the global flood. I don't believe that the earth was completely lifeless either because God protected the animals and humans to preserve his creation. Atleast God saved two of every kind to repopoulate the earth other then humans.
> 
> I was pointing out that your side was making claims about extinction events that they don't know anythging about like when it happened what survived. Talking about making something up as they go.
Click to expand...

Take an elementary Geology class. The fossils layers could NOT have been put down by one global flood. A global flood as described in the Bible would only put down one layer with all kinds of fossils mixed in. We don't see that, though. We see an organized fossil record, with simple organisms at the bottom (Older layers), and more complex as you go up.

And LMAO about the dinosaurs. The earth has changed a lot in 65 million years since the dinosaurs died. Deserts have came and gone, rivers have dried up, mountains have been raised, and seas have dried up. The Sahara desert was once a jungle. The earth has changed. You are a moron.


----------



## ilia25

Youwerecreated said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is. How will you recognize something you don't believe in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think I would recognize hell if I end up in it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No because you will be dead.
Click to expand...


That is not what you said before, when you were threatening nonbelievers with hell 

You have to keep changing the tune 'cause no matter what is your current explanation, it does not hold water.


----------



## ilia25

UltimateReality said:


> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your honesty on this thread is refreshing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your being an idiot is not refreshing at all. I mean honestly, what would you call a person, who keep repeating that lacking faith in anything is just another religion? An open minded?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## HUGGY

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your being an idiot is not refreshing at all. I mean honestly, what would you call a person, who keep repeating that lacking faith in anything is just another religion? An open minded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many atheists have faith in themselves and a certainty, a belief, that humanity will grow out of it's foolish childish fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## koshergrl

Unfortunately, they're wrong.


----------



## HUGGY

koshergrl said:


> Unfortunately, they're wrong.



It may take several more generations but thankfully your kind is a dying breed.


----------



## koshergrl

Naw, we don't die that easily.


----------



## HUGGY

koshergrl said:


> Naw, we don't die that easily.



Maybe...but you do die eventually!


----------



## koshergrl

I have 4 children though, lol...


----------



## Political Junky

Just saw a sign at a Gingrich event that said, "God not Gov't". That is scary stuff to see Americans who would gladly embrace theocracy.

Church Leaders Encouraged to Rely on God, Not Gov't, Christian News


----------



## UltimateReality

ilia25 said:


> And your being an idiot is not refreshing at all. I mean honestly, what would you call a person, who keep repeating that lacking faith in anything is just another religion? An open minded?



Is this post supposed to make sense? The grammar is horrendous.

Better??


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> I have 4 children though, lol...



LOL, she's got you there! 

Unless the kids end up renouncing belief at some point.....

I doubt we'll ever see humanity without religion.  I question whether we'll ever see humanity without a large portion with some religious beliefs.  What I do think we'll continue to see is religions changing as the times change; whether that is adaption within current religions or new religions becoming popular, I think too many people have a need to believe in something beyond themselves for it to die out.  It's not inherently a bad thing, despite the fact I don't like religion; it's all in what people do in the name of their beliefs that matters.

In 1000 years, maybe Jedi will be the major religion of humanity, but I still expect there will be a ton of believers if we are still here as a species.


----------



## newpolitics

Political Junky said:


> Just saw a sign at a Gingrich event that said, "God not Gov't". That is scary stuff to see Americans who would gladly embrace theocracy.
> 
> Church Leaders Encouraged to Rely on God, Not Gov't, Christian News



People who would mandate objective deference to their idea of god are really scary. It is terrifying to see the people who supposedly represent the party of individual liberty be so willing to hand it all over to 'God,' because all it means is handing power over to the dictator we deem can talk to or listen to God the 'best.'


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll step in right here...  You don't know a blink of wisdom enough to decide what I should, read, think, want or not want in any religion or do in my life.
> 
> You are clearly not at a loss for words but you make no sense.  You got a full ride through college on the merit of one fucking paper?  Please...
> 
> In a way you remind me of my dear and departed mom.  She graduated from the University of Washington with a 4.0 at 19 years old.  She could speak several foreign languages.  AND with all that ability to digest information and spit it back out to the aclaim of her teachers and professors she was hands down one of the dumbest humans I ever met.  She was EXTREMELY fortunate her dad died and left her many millions of dollars in the early fifties.
> 
> Like you she was so full of herself that she spent most of her time communicating with others telling them what they should think and what was and what was not proper for them to do.  She spent most of the money she and my siblings and I had been given suing her brother because HE didn't like being cut out of thier dads will.  So he went after the millions that were supposed to be MY and my sister and brothers inheritance and my genious mother spent ALL of it..about 7 million dollars on lawyers and fighting his play for that money until the day he commited suicide.  He did that when he figured out that after years of court battles there was NOTHING left to fight over.  At least nothing he could get his hands on.  My mom BRAGGED about how she WON!!!  Then over the years she tried and failed at numeroud crackpot money making schemes, lawsuits with people she didn't agree with and her efforts to prove how smart she was ALL failed and cost her many more millions.  Not to worry..her dad left her dozens of huge valuable properties and also bought her and her kids the place up on Orcas Island.
> 
> Trust me .. I have had my very fill of know it all self righteous bitches.  Don't get me wrong ..I have known many fine women.  Loved several of them.  But I also learned an important lesson early on about the worth of education and how it can translate or not into something of meaning in one's life and affect those around the "genius".  Don't think I do not/did not love my mom...you only get one.  I learned to not equate her insanity and stupidity  with the reasons one loves his mother.
> 
> In short...you can read a million books and still be a world class idiot.  You can learn to spell every word in a dictionary and learn every rule of grammar and put the words together like a well writen piece of literature and STILL be a complete fool...
> 
> I'm probably wasting my time here but if you are ever honest with yourself you know what I'm talkng about. You know that for the most part you are full of shit.
> 
> Now back to religion.  If Christ or God or the tooth fairy want my attention I'm not that hard to find.  I am a long way from stupid compared to most people.  You and a million like you can not convince me to believe a lie...a half truth ..or just some made up jibberish you choose to worship.  Stop wasting your time and my attention.  I learned to figure out truth from deception from a gifted wordsmith.  You are an amature.  I don't give a rats ass if it gives you pleasure convincing weak minded people with your mundane nonsense.  I don't want to know what you know.  I don't like liars and fools.  You are not a blood relative therefore you get no special consideration.  If I were you I would get real sick and disgusted with  myself and put the barrel of a pistol in my mouth and pull the trigger.   Lucky for me I am immune to the intentional/unintentional manipulation from people like you.
> 
> Are we clear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, did someone piss in your cheerios ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...  But I will be happy to piss in yours.
Click to expand...


Sorry I don't eat cheerios.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a way you remind me of my dear and departed mom.  She graduated from the University of Washington with a 4.0 at 19 years old.  She could speak several foreign languages.  AND with all that ability to digest information and spit it back out to the aclaim of her teachers and professors she was hands down one of the dumbest humans I ever met.  She was EXTREMELY fortunate her dad died and left her many millions of dollars in the early fifties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow and there we have it. 62 years old and still dealing with mommie issues. She was stupid and wound up with millions. You are a legend in your own mind but you find yourself 62 and broke. And I bet your mom didn't leave you a dime. You just supported my view that your seething anger has rotted your soul and left you in the Godless place you find yourself. You wouldn't read childish books but you hold onto your childhood issues. Maybe a few childhood books would start you on your road to healing all that bitterness in your heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...She was stupid and blew many millions...some of them my millions.  I think that would piss anyone off.
> 
> We are all in a godless place.  You are just too stupid to acknowledge it.  Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


Did you do something to earn the money ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no evidence a that a Global Flood caused even one of those extinctions, much less 5 seperated by 100s of millions of years.  Don't get your first sentence.  Could you rephrase it?  It sounds like we're refusing to admit something, but I'm not clear as to exacly what.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence supporting a global flood. I don't believe in any of these extinction events other than the global flood. I don't believe that the earth was completely lifeless either because God protected the animals and humans to preserve his creation. Atleast God saved two of every kind to repopoulate the earth other then humans.
> 
> I was pointing out that your side was making claims about extinction events that they don't know anythging about like when it happened what survived. Talking about making something up as they go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take an elementary Geology class. The fossils layers could NOT have been put down by one global flood. A global flood as described in the Bible would only put down one layer with all kinds of fossils mixed in. We don't see that, though. We see an organized fossil record, with simple organisms at the bottom (Older layers), and more complex as you go up.
> 
> And LMAO about the dinosaurs. The earth has changed a lot in 65 million years since the dinosaurs died. Deserts have came and gone, rivers have dried up, mountains have been raised, and seas have dried up. The Sahara desert was once a jungle. The earth has changed. You are a moron.
Click to expand...


What's funny is your ignorace concerning the fossil record and how these fossils were layed down out of order then try to explain the evidence away.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think I would recognize hell if I end up in it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No because you will be dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what you said before, when you were threatening nonbelievers with hell
> 
> You have to keep changing the tune 'cause no matter what is your current explanation, it does not hold water.
Click to expand...


You must of confused me with someone else. I don't use Hell as a threat because it is reality.

People who die go there but some will go there and never return from it after the final judgment.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ilia25 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your being an idiot is not refreshing at all. I mean honestly, what would you call a person, who keep repeating that lacking faith in anything is just another religion? An open minded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many atheists have faith in themselves and a certainty, a belief, that humanity will grow out of it's foolish childish fantasies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your excuse ?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow and there we have it. 62 years old and still dealing with mommie issues. She was stupid and wound up with millions. You are a legend in your own mind but you find yourself 62 and broke. And I bet your mom didn't leave you a dime. You just supported my view that your seething anger has rotted your soul and left you in the Godless place you find yourself. You wouldn't read childish books but you hold onto your childhood issues. Maybe a few childhood books would start you on your road to healing all that bitterness in your heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...She was stupid and blew many millions...some of them my millions.  I think that would piss anyone off.
> 
> We are all in a godless place.  You are just too stupid to acknowledge it.  Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you do something to earn the money ?
Click to expand...


Seems to me the churches do pretty well stealing peoples inheritance also.

Are you a communist?  All property belongs to the state?  Fuck you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, they're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may take several more generations but thankfully your kind is a dying breed.
Click to expand...


Oh you are so wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, we don't die that easily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe...but you do die eventually!
Click to expand...


We all do.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...She was stupid and blew many millions...some of them my millions.  I think that would piss anyone off.
> 
> We are all in a godless place.  You are just too stupid to acknowledge it.  Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you do something to earn the money ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems to me the churches do pretty well stealing peoples inheritance also.
> 
> Are you a communist?  All property belongs to the state?  Fuck you.
Click to expand...


Nope , ditto bonehead.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you do something to earn the money ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me the churches do pretty well stealing peoples inheritance also.
> 
> Are you a communist?  All property belongs to the state?  Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope , ditto bonehead.
Click to expand...


Go fuck yourself god boy.


----------



## UltimateReality

Political Junky said:


> Just saw a sign at a Gingrich event that said, "God not Gov't". That is scary stuff to see Americans who would gladly embrace theocracy.
> 
> Church Leaders Encouraged to Rely on God, Not Gov't, Christian News



It's scary to see people who don't understand Creator endowed rights can never be taken away by mere humans. When the State becomes god, guess what happens to your State-endowed rights and liberties???


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me the churches do pretty well stealing peoples inheritance also.
> 
> Are you a communist?  All property belongs to the state?  Fuck you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope , ditto bonehead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself god boy.
Click to expand...


He's an angry elf.


----------



## cooky

UltimateReality said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this post supposed to make sense? The grammar is horrendous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just an FYI, that quote is not from me...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me the churches do pretty well stealing peoples inheritance also.
> 
> Are you a communist?  All property belongs to the state?  Fuck you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope , ditto bonehead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself god boy.
Click to expand...


Why would I do that foul mouth,I have very beautiful wife.

Don't know why I even respond to you


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope , ditto bonehead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself god boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's an angry elf.
Click to expand...


Tough guy on a pc


----------



## Youwerecreated

cooky said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just an FYI, that quote is not from me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably the over educated DAWS
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Unfortunately, they're wrong.


and you can provide proof of this specious speculation?
other than unprovable biblical sources?


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Naw, we don't die that easily.


just keep telling yourself that.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this post supposed to make sense? The grammar is horrendous.
> 
> 
> 
> a grammar nazi too, the ultimate dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have 4 children though, lol...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, she's got you there!
> 
> Unless the kids end up renouncing belief at some point.....
> 
> I doubt we'll ever see humanity without religion.  I question whether we'll ever see humanity without a large portion with some religious beliefs.  What I do think we'll continue to see is religions changing as the times change; whether that is adaption within current religions or new religions becoming popular, I think too many people have a need to believe in something beyond themselves for it to die out.  It's not inherently a bad thing, despite the fact I don't like religion; it's all in what people do in the name of their beliefs that matters.
> 
> In 1000 years, maybe Jedi will be the major religion of humanity, but I still expect there will be a ton of believers if we are still here as a species.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably the over educated DAWS
> 
> 
> 
> not me, making more bogus assumptions ,the mark of true ignorance.
> 
> 
> your jealousy is  laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just saw a sign at a Gingrich event that said, "God not Gov't". That is scary stuff to see Americans who would gladly embrace theocracy.
> 
> Church Leaders Encouraged to Rely on God, Not Gov't, Christian News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's scary to see people who don't understand Creator endowed rights can never be taken away by mere humans. When the State becomes god, guess what happens to your State-endowed rights and liberties???
Click to expand...

another baseless ASSumption.......


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just saw a sign at a Gingrich event that said, "God not Gov't". That is scary stuff to see Americans who would gladly embrace theocracy.
> 
> Church Leaders Encouraged to Rely on God, Not Gov't, Christian News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's scary to see people who don't understand Creator endowed rights can never be taken away by mere humans. When the State becomes god, guess what happens to your State-endowed rights and liberties???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another baseless ASSumption.......
Click to expand...


Commie.


----------



## UltimateReality

cooky said:


> Just an FYI, that quote is not from me...



Yep, there is some bad cut and pasting going on. The original comment I made was incorrectly attributed to Youwerecreated.


----------



## Obamerican

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's scary to see people who don't understand Creator endowed rights can never be taken away by mere humans. When the State becomes god, guess what happens to your State-endowed rights and liberties???
> 
> 
> 
> another baseless ASSumption.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commie.
Click to expand...

Bible thumper.


----------



## UltimateReality

"Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was quoted in USA Today in March 2005 saying that ID theorists "aren't published because they don't have scientific data." The same year, Dan Abrams on MSNBC said to Eugenie Scott "My understanding is that there is not a single peer-reviewed article out there that supports intelligent design," and Dr. Scott replied, "You are not wrong. You are correct." (David Boze and I discuss Dr. Scott's claim in a recent ID the Future podcast, and you can watch the amusing clip and Stephen Meyer's rebuttal on YouTube here.)

Later in 2005, Dr. Scott and her colleagues with the NCSE and ACLU convinced Judge Jones to rule that "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory" and "ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals." In case you missed that, he also claimed ID is "failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals" and that "ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications."

Though Judge Jones's findings were false when he made them in 2005, many have used his ruling as an excuse to perpetuate these false criticisms of ID. For example, Lauri Lebo -- a journalist who made a career out of bashing ID after the Dover case -- wrote in early 2011 that "there is no such thing as ID research, which has not yet produced one single legitimate peer reviewed paper." Likewise, Michigan State University law professor Frank Ravitch claimed in his 2011 book Marketing Intelligent Design that "ID proponents make no attempt to falsify their ultimate hypothesis" and "ID advocates ... have failed to engage in experiments that could support or contravene evolution through natural selection." There's hardly an end to the list of ID critics who have made similar, equally inaccurate claims."

Full Article: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/as_the_intellig056101.html


----------



## UltimateReality

Obamerican said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another baseless ASSumption.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bible thumper.
Click to expand...


Please tell me you are not a supporter of Obama?? I didn't think anyone in America was still ignorant enough to think this man is good for our Country.

He is an Obamonation unto the Lord!!!


----------



## Obamerican

UltimateReality said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commie.
> 
> 
> 
> Bible thumper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please tell me you are not a supporter of Obama?? I didn't think anyone in America was still ignorant enough to think this man is good for our Country.
Click to expand...

Nope. My name is from making fun of someone else that use to be on this board. Obama is out of his league and a total moron. Thanks for asking though.


----------



## UltimateReality

Our Founders would think the TOE proponents were pretty stupid. They held "these truths" to be self-evident, as in, totally obvious to even the most dimwitted people. What were the truths that were SOOOOO obvious?  That all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR (capital C) with certain unalienable rights.


----------



## UltimateReality

Obamerican said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bible thumper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me you are not a supporter of Obama?? I didn't think anyone in America was still ignorant enough to think this man is good for our Country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. My name is from making fun of someone else that use to be on this board. Obama is out of his league and a total moron. Thanks for asking though.
Click to expand...


Thanks for clearing that up. I couldn't figure out if the picture was making fun of gun- toting "rednecks" like myself or the name was making fun of Obama.


----------



## UltimateReality

Exactly what I was saying the other day. Wiki is Relativsm on steroids!! Not even an encyclopedia can be counted on to be accurrate anymore since information in 0's and 1's can be easily manipulated!! The darwinists and historical revisionists love the internet!!

"As anyone knows who's followed the popular Darwinist blogging sites, Darwinism is an ideological movement seemingly rich in believers unhindered by responsibilities to family or work or both, with little better to do day and night than engage in (usually anonymous) skirmishes on the Internet. Editing the Wiki article, our South African friend inserted references to the 50-plus peer-reviewed articles from our updated list of pro-ID scientific literature. Sure enough, within just 30 minutes, someone had erased his additions and substituted snide and again false language to the effect that:

The Discovery Institute insists that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals.... Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, stating that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Rather, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with peer review that lacks impartiality and rigor, consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.
This is preposterous, as anyone who has looked at the list of papers would have to honestly admit. Our South African friend went a few rounds with the Wikipedia editors but, last time I checked, without ultimate success. They kept erasing or editing his edits. The main Wiki article on intelligent design still falsely reports, "The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal."

Full article here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/wikipedia_and_t055991.html


----------



## UltimateReality

At least the Library of Congress still has some facts up about the role religion played in the founding of this great nation. I wonder how long it will last with the "electronic-book-burning" nazi's manipulating the internet. 

Religion and the Federal Government: PART 1 (Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, Library of Congress Exhibition)

A few quotes:

In this letter Adams tells Jefferson that "Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." 

on Sunday, January 3, 1802, John Leland preached a sermon on the text "Behold a greater than Solomon is here. Jef[ferso]n was present." Thomas Jefferson attended this church service IN CONGRESS, just two days after issuing the Danbury Baptist letter. Leland, a celebrated Baptist minister, had moved from Orange County, Virginia, and was serving a congregation in Cheshire, Massachusetts, from which he had delivered to Jefferson a gift of a "mammoth cheese," weighing 1235 pounds.

Wow, they actually have the real letters scanned in!! How long before they are disposed of and the Christian heritage of this nation is completely wiped from the face of the earth???


----------



## UltimateReality

Mr. Limpet had it wrong???

Darwin's God: Did Fish Evolve From Terrestrial Creatures? Science 1, Mr. Limpet 0


----------



## Political Junky

UltimateReality said:


> At least the Library of Congress still has some facts up about the role religion played in the founding of this great nation. I wonder how long it will last with the "electronic-book-burning" nazi's manipulating the internet.
> 
> Religion and the Federal Government: PART 1 (Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, Library of Congress Exhibition)
> 
> A few quotes:
> 
> In this letter Adams tells Jefferson that "Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell."
> 
> on Sunday, January 3, 1802, John Leland preached a sermon on the text "Behold a greater than Solomon is here. Jef[ferso]n was present." Thomas Jefferson attended this church service IN CONGRESS, just two days after issuing the Danbury Baptist letter. Leland, a celebrated Baptist minister, had moved from Orange County, Virginia, and was serving a congregation in Cheshire, Massachusetts, from which he had delivered to Jefferson a gift of a "mammoth cheese," weighing 1235 pounds.
> 
> Wow, they actually have the real letters scanned in!! How long before they are disposed of and the Christian heritage of this nation is completely wiped from the face of the earth???


The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas *Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.[1]*
Jefferson Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> Our Founders would think the TOE proponents were pretty stupid. They held "these truths" to be self-evident, as in, totally obvious to even the most dimwitted people. What were the truths that were SOOOOO obvious?  That all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR (capital C) with certain unalienable rights.



I agree those are great words, but the reality is that you need a government to enforce them.  Without one you're only rights are to sit back and watch me eat YOUR kill, if I'm stronger than you, with the hope that I'll leave you some scraps.


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founders would think the TOE proponents were pretty stupid. They held "these truths" to be self-evident, as in, totally obvious to even the most dimwitted people. What were the truths that were SOOOOO obvious?  That all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR (capital C) with certain unalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree those are great words, but the reality is that you need a government to enforce them.  Without one you're only rights are to sit back and watch me eat YOUR kill, if I'm stronger than you, with the hope that I'll leave you some scraps.
Click to expand...


We are supposed to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The government isn't some etherial entity. It is just people like you and me and they put their pants on one leg at a time. What gives one group of people the right to have there way over another group just because they make up the government... absolutely nothing. 

I am a proud member of Oathkeepers...

Oath Keepers » Blog Archive » Declaration Of Orders We Will Not Obey


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founders would think the TOE proponents were pretty stupid. They held "these truths" to be self-evident, as in, totally obvious to even the most dimwitted people. What were the truths that were SOOOOO obvious?  That all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR (capital C) with certain unalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree those are great words, but the reality is that you need a government to enforce them.  Without one you're only rights are to sit back and watch me eat YOUR kill, if I'm stronger than you, with the hope that I'll leave you some scraps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are supposed to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The government isn't some etherial entity. It is just people like you and me and they put their pants on one leg at a time. What gives one group of people the right to have there way over another group just because they make up the government... absolutely nothing.
> 
> I am a proud member of Oathkeepers...
> 
> Oath Keepers » Blog Archive » Declaration Of Orders We Will Not Obey
Click to expand...


Ya...no chance your little club of naive do gooders isn't being watched.  

What you are doing is making it easy for the true masters of the shadow government to know WHO to give thier orders to.  You don't think your e-mails, blogs and tweets are being read?  They wouldn't do it to arrest you ya goofy fuck...they would do it to know who they can and cannot trust to *OBEY*.

You were more of a threat to the abuse of power before you started this little confessional.

If you were serious about your mission you would do it the old fashioned way with face to face or timed random telephone contact that cannot be documented.  There are still plenty of land line telephones in spite of the government removing payphones down to a number that can be easily monitored.  I suggest you take a hard look at your membership and start a new layer of organization that only makes secure contacts.  I have no doubt that there are rats and doubles in your group.  If you REALLY are true to what you say in your dotorg you need to take your enemy more seriously and knock off this sophomoric junior dick tracy approach to organization.  There is a GPS and a BUG in your "official" decoder ring Sport.

You will be useless in a real emergency because YOU will NOT get the MEMO.  Your only hope of being "in the loop" is if you have not been detected as one who WILL NOT OBEY.

In the words of my good friend Archie Bell...  You need to tighten up..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wro3bqi4Eb8]Archie Bell & The Drells - Tighten up (1968) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree those are great words, but the reality is that you need a government to enforce them.  Without one you're only rights are to sit back and watch me eat YOUR kill, if I'm stronger than you, with the hope that I'll leave you some scraps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are supposed to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The government isn't some etherial entity. It is just people like you and me and they put their pants on one leg at a time. What gives one group of people the right to have there way over another group just because they make up the government... absolutely nothing.
> 
> I am a proud member of Oathkeepers...
> 
> Oath Keepers » Blog Archive » Declaration Of Orders We Will Not Obey
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya...no chance your little club of naive do gooders isn't being watched.
> 
> What you are doing is making it easy for the true masters of the shadow government to know WHO to give thier orders to.  You don't think your e-mails, blogs and tweets are being read?  They wouldn't do it to arrest you ya goofy fuck...they would do it to know who they can and cannot trust to *OBEY*.
> 
> You were more of a threat to the abuse of power before you started this little confessional.
> 
> If you were serious about your mission you would do it the old fashioned way with face to face or timed random telephone contact that cannot be documented.  There are still plenty of land line telephones in spite of the government removing payphones down to a number that can be easily monitored.  I suggest you take a hard look at your membership and start a new layer of organization that only makes secure contacts.  I have no doubt that there are rats and doubles in your group.  If you REALLY are true to what you say in your dotorg you need to take your enemy more seriously and knock off this sophomoric junior dick tracy approach to organization.  There is a GPS and a BUG in your "official" decoder ring Sport.
> 
> You will be useless in a real emergency because YOU will NOT get the MEMO.  Your only hope of being "in the loop" is if you have not been detected as one who WILL NOT OBEY.
> 
> In the words of my good friend Archie Bell...  You need to tighten up..
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wro3bqi4Eb8]Archie Bell & The Drells - Tighten up (1968) - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Wow, did that go straight over your head. The purpose of Oathkeepers is not to be a subversive group operating in the shadows. The purpose is education (!!), that is, the education of SWORN, active duty military and law enforcement personnel on what the Constitution actually says and that they are not required to obey un-Constitutional orders based on their SWORN Oath to defend and protect it. So for your paranoid information, the purpose is one of a preventative nature. Instead of hiding and cowering in fear, we are out in the open, educating the actual folks that would be asked to carry out unlawful orders and oppress the American people.

Of course that brings me to the real beauty of being a Christian... I FEAR NO ONE. I also DO NOT FEAR DEATH, not in an Islamic Extremist kind of way, but in a compassionate, freedom loving, God loving way, not worried that this life is all I have kind of way. I have not resigned the Oath I took as a police officer. Nor have I forsaken the tools of that trade.  

Matthew 10:   ...26 &#8220;So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 *Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.* Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father&#8217;s care.* 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don&#8217;t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

Of course I am on some watch list. There is some major brainwashing going on with law enforcement at the federal level. Forget freedom of religion or freedom of speech, if you are a Christian, don't believe in abortion, believe in the Constituition, voted for Ron Paul, own a gun, or are a returning veteran then the feds think you are a nut job. Funny, this describes about 65% of Americans...

Actual copy here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

http://www.wnd.com/2009/04/94803/*


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are supposed to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The government isn't some etherial entity. It is just people like you and me and they put their pants on one leg at a time. What gives one group of people the right to have there way over another group just because they make up the government... absolutely nothing.
> 
> I am a proud member of Oathkeepers...
> 
> Oath Keepers » Blog Archive » Declaration Of Orders We Will Not Obey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya...no chance your little club of naive do gooders isn't being watched.
> 
> What you are doing is making it easy for the true masters of the shadow government to know WHO to give thier orders to.  You don't think your e-mails, blogs and tweets are being read?  They wouldn't do it to arrest you ya goofy fuck...they would do it to know who they can and cannot trust to *OBEY*.
> 
> You were more of a threat to the abuse of power before you started this little confessional.
> 
> If you were serious about your mission you would do it the old fashioned way with face to face or timed random telephone contact that cannot be documented.  There are still plenty of land line telephones in spite of the government removing payphones down to a number that can be easily monitored.  I suggest you take a hard look at your membership and start a new layer of organization that only makes secure contacts.  I have no doubt that there are rats and doubles in your group.  If you REALLY are true to what you say in your dotorg you need to take your enemy more seriously and knock off this sophomoric junior dick tracy approach to organization.  There is a GPS and a BUG in your "official" decoder ring Sport.
> 
> You will be useless in a real emergency because YOU will NOT get the MEMO.  Your only hope of being "in the loop" is if you have not been detected as one who WILL NOT OBEY.
> 
> In the words of my good friend Archie Bell...  You need to tighten up..
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wro3bqi4Eb8]Archie Bell & The Drells - Tighten up (1968) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, did that go straight over your head. The purpose of Oathkeepers is not to be a subversive group operating in the shadows. The purpose is education (!!), that is, the education of SWORN, active duty military and law enforcement personnel on what the Constitution actually says and that they are not required to obey un-Constitutional orders based on their SWORN Oath to defend and protect it. So for your paranoid information, the purpose is one of a preventative nature. Instead of hiding and cowering in fear, we are out in the open, educating the actual folks that would be asked to carry out unlawful orders and oppress the American people.
> 
> Of course that brings me to the real beauty of being a Christian... I FEAR NO ONE. I also DO NOT FEAR DEATH, not in an Islamic Extremist kind of way, but in a compassionate, freedom loving, God loving way, not worried that this life is all I have kind of way. I have not resigned the Oath I took as a police officer. Nor have I forsaken the tools of that trade.
> 
> Matthew 10:   ...26 So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 *Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.* Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Fathers care.* 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So dont be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
> 
> Of course I am on some watch list. There is some major brainwashing going on with law enforcement at the federal level. Forget freedom of religion or freedom of speech, if you are a Christian, don't believe in abortion, believe in the Constituition, voted for Ron Paul, own a gun, or are a returning veteran then the feds think you are a nut job. Funny, this describes about 65% of Americans...
> 
> Actual copy here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
> 
> Homeland Security on guard for &#8216;right-wing extremists&#8217;*
Click to expand...

*

Ya...OK.. Whatever.  There IS a standing arrangement with many key businesses in how to act in case a Marshall law type situation is invoked.  This is no insignificant arrangement.

I read your site info and it is about as paranoid as it gets.  I get it that good men would want to defend the constitution and the peoples rights above any unlawful government policy especially in the wake of some ginned up pretense.

You can ignore my input.  My own expertise is quite opposite of yours as I smuggled drugs successfully for several decades as a courier and later as a pilot.  I took my "job" very seriously and as you might imagine NOT BEING DETECTED was my most important skill.  I was never caught with any contraband.

I tried to pass on a few helpfull ideas because I believe you guys have your hearts in the right place.

Nevermind.  Just keep believing that god is your co-pilot and everything will be answered in your prayers.  Good luck.*


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya...no chance your little club of naive do gooders isn't being watched.
> 
> What you are doing is making it easy for the true masters of the shadow government to know WHO to give thier orders to.  You don't think your e-mails, blogs and tweets are being read?  They wouldn't do it to arrest you ya goofy fuck...they would do it to know who they can and cannot trust to *OBEY*.
> 
> You were more of a threat to the abuse of power before you started this little confessional.
> 
> If you were serious about your mission you would do it the old fashioned way with face to face or timed random telephone contact that cannot be documented.  There are still plenty of land line telephones in spite of the government removing payphones down to a number that can be easily monitored.  I suggest you take a hard look at your membership and start a new layer of organization that only makes secure contacts.  I have no doubt that there are rats and doubles in your group.  If you REALLY are true to what you say in your dotorg you need to take your enemy more seriously and knock off this sophomoric junior dick tracy approach to organization.  There is a GPS and a BUG in your "official" decoder ring Sport.
> 
> You will be useless in a real emergency because YOU will NOT get the MEMO.  Your only hope of being "in the loop" is if you have not been detected as one who WILL NOT OBEY.
> 
> In the words of my good friend Archie Bell...  You need to tighten up..
> 
> Archie Bell & The Drells - Tighten up (1968) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, did that go straight over your head. The purpose of Oathkeepers is not to be a subversive group operating in the shadows. The purpose is education (!!), that is, the education of SWORN, active duty military and law enforcement personnel on what the Constitution actually says and that they are not required to obey un-Constitutional orders based on their SWORN Oath to defend and protect it. So for your paranoid information, the purpose is one of a preventative nature. Instead of hiding and cowering in fear, we are out in the open, educating the actual folks that would be asked to carry out unlawful orders and oppress the American people.
> 
> Of course that brings me to the real beauty of being a Christian... I FEAR NO ONE. I also DO NOT FEAR DEATH, not in an Islamic Extremist kind of way, but in a compassionate, freedom loving, God loving way, not worried that this life is all I have kind of way. I have not resigned the Oath I took as a police officer. Nor have I forsaken the tools of that trade.
> 
> Matthew 10:   ...26 So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 *Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.* Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Fathers care.* 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So dont be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
> 
> Of course I am on some watch list. There is some major brainwashing going on with law enforcement at the federal level. Forget freedom of religion or freedom of speech, if you are a Christian, don't believe in abortion, believe in the Constituition, voted for Ron Paul, own a gun, or are a returning veteran then the feds think you are a nut job. Funny, this describes about 65% of Americans...
> 
> Actual copy here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
> 
> Homeland Security on guard for right-wing extremists*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Ya...OK.. Whatever.  There IS a standing arrangement with many key businesses in how to act in case a Marshall law type situation is invoked.  This is no insignificant arrangement.
> 
> I read your site info and it is about as paranoid as it gets.  I get it that good men would want to defend the constitution and the peoples rights above any unlawful government policy especially in the wake of some ginned up pretense.
> 
> You can ignore my input.  My own expertise is quite opposite of yours as I smuggled drugs successfully for several decades as a courier and later as a pilot.  I took my "job" very seriously and as you might imagine NOT BEING DETECTED was my most important skill.  I was never caught with any contraband.
> 
> I tried to pass on a few helpfull ideas because I believe you guys have your hearts in the right place.
> 
> Nevermind.  Just keep believing that god is your co-pilot and everything will be answered in your prayers.  Good luck.*
Click to expand...

*

How would you know God is not his co-pilot ?  

I't's funny how Loki disappeared and questions go ignored put to the  atheistic evolutionist and the evolutionist in general.*


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> not me, making more bogus assumptions ,the mark of true ignorance.
> 
> 
> your jealousy is  laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it looked familiar.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just saw a sign at a Gingrich event that said, "God not Gov't". That is scary stuff to see Americans who would gladly embrace theocracy.
> 
> Church Leaders Encouraged to Rely on God, Not Gov't, Christian News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's scary to see people who don't understand Creator endowed rights can never be taken away by mere humans. When the State becomes god, guess what happens to your State-endowed rights and liberties???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another baseless ASSumption.......
Click to expand...


Really ? open your eyes.

This Government has evolved to a point if our forefathers were alive today there would be another revolution.

It's remarkable how our government resembles the government of England ,when our people set out for America to be free from government oppression.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya...no chance your little club of naive do gooders isn't being watched.
> 
> What you are doing is making it easy for the true masters of the shadow government to know WHO to give thier orders to.  You don't think your e-mails, blogs and tweets are being read?  They wouldn't do it to arrest you ya goofy fuck...they would do it to know who they can and cannot trust to *OBEY*.
> 
> You were more of a threat to the abuse of power before you started this little confessional.
> 
> If you were serious about your mission you would do it the old fashioned way with face to face or timed random telephone contact that cannot be documented.  There are still plenty of land line telephones in spite of the government removing payphones down to a number that can be easily monitored.  I suggest you take a hard look at your membership and start a new layer of organization that only makes secure contacts.  I have no doubt that there are rats and doubles in your group.  If you REALLY are true to what you say in your dotorg you need to take your enemy more seriously and knock off this sophomoric junior dick tracy approach to organization.  There is a GPS and a BUG in your "official" decoder ring Sport.
> 
> You will be useless in a real emergency because YOU will NOT get the MEMO.  Your only hope of being "in the loop" is if you have not been detected as one who WILL NOT OBEY.
> 
> In the words of my good friend Archie Bell...  You need to tighten up..
> 
> Archie Bell & The Drells - Tighten up (1968) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, did that go straight over your head. The purpose of Oathkeepers is not to be a subversive group operating in the shadows. The purpose is education (!!), that is, the education of SWORN, active duty military and law enforcement personnel on what the Constitution actually says and that they are not required to obey un-Constitutional orders based on their SWORN Oath to defend and protect it. So for your paranoid information, the purpose is one of a preventative nature. Instead of hiding and cowering in fear, we are out in the open, educating the actual folks that would be asked to carry out unlawful orders and oppress the American people.
> 
> Of course that brings me to the real beauty of being a Christian... I FEAR NO ONE. I also DO NOT FEAR DEATH, not in an Islamic Extremist kind of way, but in a compassionate, freedom loving, God loving way, not worried that this life is all I have kind of way. I have not resigned the Oath I took as a police officer. Nor have I forsaken the tools of that trade.
> 
> Matthew 10:   ...26 So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 *Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.* Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Fathers care.* 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So dont be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
> 
> Of course I am on some watch list. There is some major brainwashing going on with law enforcement at the federal level. Forget freedom of religion or freedom of speech, if you are a Christian, don't believe in abortion, believe in the Constituition, voted for Ron Paul, own a gun, or are a returning veteran then the feds think you are a nut job. Funny, this describes about 65% of Americans...
> 
> Actual copy here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
> 
> Homeland Security on guard for right-wing extremists*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Ya...OK.. Whatever.  There IS a standing arrangement with many key businesses in how to act in case a Marshall law type situation is invoked.  This is no insignificant arrangement.
> 
> I read your site info and it is about as paranoid as it gets.  I get it that good men would want to defend the constitution and the peoples rights above any unlawful government policy especially in the wake of some ginned up pretense.
> 
> You can ignore my input.  My own expertise is quite opposite of yours as I smuggled drugs successfully for several decades as a courier and later as a pilot.  I took my "job" very seriously and as you might imagine NOT BEING DETECTED was my most important skill.  I was never caught with any contraband.
> 
> I tried to pass on a few helpfull ideas because I believe you guys have your hearts in the right place.
> 
> Nevermind.  Just keep believing that god is your co-pilot and everything will be answered in your prayers.  Good luck.*
Click to expand...

*

God is actually my pilot. I like to let him have the driver's seat as much as possible although my sinful nature tries to jump back in there from time to time.*


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, did that go straight over your head. The purpose of Oathkeepers is not to be a subversive group operating in the shadows. The purpose is education (!!), that is, the education of SWORN, active duty military and law enforcement personnel on what the Constitution actually says and that they are not required to obey un-Constitutional orders based on their SWORN Oath to defend and protect it. So for your paranoid information, the purpose is one of a preventative nature. Instead of hiding and cowering in fear, we are out in the open, educating the actual folks that would be asked to carry out unlawful orders and oppress the American people.
> 
> Of course that brings me to the real beauty of being a Christian... I FEAR NO ONE. I also DO NOT FEAR DEATH, not in an Islamic Extremist kind of way, but in a compassionate, freedom loving, God loving way, not worried that this life is all I have kind of way. I have not resigned the Oath I took as a police officer. Nor have I forsaken the tools of that trade.
> 
> Matthew 10:   ...26 So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 *Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.* Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Fathers care.* 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So dont be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
> 
> Of course I am on some watch list. There is some major brainwashing going on with law enforcement at the federal level. Forget freedom of religion or freedom of speech, if you are a Christian, don't believe in abortion, believe in the Constituition, voted for Ron Paul, own a gun, or are a returning veteran then the feds think you are a nut job. Funny, this describes about 65% of Americans...
> 
> Actual copy here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
> 
> Homeland Security on guard for right-wing extremists*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Ya...OK.. Whatever.  There IS a standing arrangement with many key businesses in how to act in case a Marshall law type situation is invoked.  This is no insignificant arrangement.
> 
> I read your site info and it is about as paranoid as it gets.  I get it that good men would want to defend the constitution and the peoples rights above any unlawful government policy especially in the wake of some ginned up pretense.
> 
> You can ignore my input.  My own expertise is quite opposite of yours as I smuggled drugs successfully for several decades as a courier and later as a pilot.  I took my "job" very seriously and as you might imagine NOT BEING DETECTED was my most important skill.  I was never caught with any contraband.
> 
> I tried to pass on a few helpfull ideas because I believe you guys have your hearts in the right place.
> 
> Nevermind.  Just keep believing that god is your co-pilot and everything will be answered in your prayers.  Good luck.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> God is actually my pilot. I like to let him have the driver's seat as much as possible although my sinful nature tries to jump back in there from time to time.*
Click to expand...

*

Perfect!  Nothing is so settling as an armed guy walking around that "hears voices". 

Son Of Sam comes to mind...

I've never given the planes controls "over to god" but I do like to play this Stones tune when I'm taking off from or landing in a dangerous clandestine airstrip..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJDnJ0vXUgw]Rolling Stones - Gimme Shelter - YouTube[/ame]*


----------



## koshergrl

Why do anti-Christians always pretend that believers hear actual voices when they say they talk to God and take their cues from Him? Are you really so dim that you don't understand the way Christianity is manifested among believers? I know they've explained it enough times to you. Why do you insist of pretending it's something other than it is? Do you hate us that much?


----------



## UltimateReality

No audible voices here. In fact, even feelings can be misleading when it comes to knowing what God's will is for my life. I am doing "Experiencing God" right now and it is a great study.

By the way, I'm not sure how much of your drug running is a delusion or real, but I retired as a police sergeant and I did 6 years on our department SWAT team. I can tell you that while police management could be a tad on the lib, ideological side, there were some great, honest, line officers who demonstrated a high level of integrity and not the conspiracy theory garbage the media and paranoid peeps like Huggy might have you believe. I also had a chance to do some joint ops with the FBI and I will tell you the feds are scary, in their imcompetence and their "just following orders" mentality.


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> Why do anti-Christians always pretend that believers hear actual voices when they say they talk to God and take their cues from Him? Are you really so dim that you don't understand the way Christianity is manifested among believers? I know they've explained it enough times to you. Why do you insist of pretending it's something other than it is? Do you hate us that much?



I've seen different Christians describe 'talking to god' in different ways.  And you have to remember, to a non-believer, having a feeling about something and determining it is 'god's will' may be as strange as an actual conversation with god.

That said, HUGGY is obviously intentionally being confrontational.  I wouldn't be surprised if I agree with a lot of his views on religion (I am, in fact, pretty strongly anti-religion), but I disagree with his presentation.  

And for everyone, not just kg....are we going to completely skip past evolution and get into government or other subjects now?


----------



## koshergrl

You know, I'm able to comprehend the finer points of another's faith...anti-Christians are soooo convinced they are the ultimate in intelligence and insight that I find it really difficult to believe they are too ignorant to understand the not-so-fine-point of exactly what a Christian means when they say they talk to God, or when they say God tells them something.

God SPEAKS TO US THROUGH THE BIBLE, aka "The Word" and as our conscience. We do not actually hear THE VOICE OF GOD as an audible, actual voice booming from the sky.

Please quit pretending that is what we claim.

Now you can talk about whatever you want.


----------



## UltimateReality

Yes, we are quite a bit off topic. The government discussion is just a prime example of how the greatest nation the earth has ever seen is breaking down due to the elimination of God by the atheistic/darwinist agenda.


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> No audible voices here. In fact, even feelings can be misleading when it comes to knowing what God's will is for my life. I am doing "Experiencing God" right now and it is a great study.
> 
> By the way, I'm not sure how much of your drug running is a delusion or real, but I retired as a police sergeant and I did 6 years on our department SWAT team. I can tell you that while police management could be a tad on the lib, ideological side, there were some great, honest, line officers who demonstrated a high level of integrity and not the conspiracy theory garbage the media and paranoid *peeps like Huggy might have you believe.* I also had a chance to do some joint ops with the FBI and I will tell you the feds are scary, in their imcompetence and their "just following orders" mentality.



I never said the average cop is paranoid.

I was refering to YOUR link.  The whole premise of that site is in assuming there will be some massive abuse of the leadership of our country or some agency within our country..maybe even the military that is supposed to start rounding up and or killing civilians.  AND YOU GUYS PROMISE cross your hearts and hope to die not to follow such orders.  Have I misrepresented anything?  Most people would call that paranoid godboy.

Actually there is a semi-secret plan in place as I mentioned earlier to do just that.  

So whether you know it or not your so called "Promise to NOT OBEY" has some merit.

You have no more obligation to believe I am a retired smuggler.. than I ..that you are a retired cop.

I will co-sign what you said about the FBI though.  It must be hard to find college educated people that are that stupid.  Worse than them is the DEA.  Those guys are just organized criminals with badges.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are supposed to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The government isn't some etherial entity. It is just people like you and me and they put their pants on one leg at a time. What gives one group of people the right to have there way over another group just because they make up the government... absolutely nothing.
> 
> I am a proud member of Oathkeepers...
> 
> Oath Keepers » Blog Archive » Declaration Of Orders We Will Not Obey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya...no chance your little club of naive do gooders isn't being watched.
> 
> What you are doing is making it easy for the true masters of the shadow government to know WHO to give thier orders to.  You don't think your e-mails, blogs and tweets are being read?  They wouldn't do it to arrest you ya goofy fuck...they would do it to know who they can and cannot trust to *OBEY*.
> 
> You were more of a threat to the abuse of power before you started this little confessional.
> 
> If you were serious about your mission you would do it the old fashioned way with face to face or timed random telephone contact that cannot be documented.  There are still plenty of land line telephones in spite of the government removing payphones down to a number that can be easily monitored.  I suggest you take a hard look at your membership and start a new layer of organization that only makes secure contacts.  I have no doubt that there are rats and doubles in your group.  If you REALLY are true to what you say in your dotorg you need to take your enemy more seriously and knock off this sophomoric junior dick tracy approach to organization.  There is a GPS and a BUG in your "official" decoder ring Sport.
> 
> You will be useless in a real emergency because YOU will NOT get the MEMO.  Your only hope of being "in the loop" is if you have not been detected as one who WILL NOT OBEY.
> 
> In the words of my good friend Archie Bell...  You need to tighten up..
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wro3bqi4Eb8]Archie Bell & The Drells - Tighten up (1968) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, did that go straight over your head. The purpose of Oathkeepers is not to be a subversive group operating in the shadows. The purpose is education (!!), that is, the education of SWORN, active duty military and law enforcement personnel on what the Constitution actually says and that they are not required to obey un-Constitutional orders based on their SWORN Oath to defend and protect it. So for your paranoid information, the purpose is one of a preventative nature. Instead of hiding and cowering in fear, we are out in the open, educating the actual folks that would be asked to carry out unlawful orders and oppress the American people.
> 
> Of course that brings me to the real beauty of being a Christian... I FEAR NO ONE. I also DO NOT FEAR DEATH, not in an Islamic Extremist kind of way, but in a compassionate, freedom loving, God loving way, not worried that this life is all I have kind of way. I have not resigned the Oath I took as a police officer. Nor have I forsaken the tools of that trade.
> 
> Matthew 10:   ...26 So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 *Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.* Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Fathers care.* 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So dont be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
> 
> Of course I am on some watch list. There is some major brainwashing going on with law enforcement at the federal level. Forget freedom of religion or freedom of speech, if you are a Christian, don't believe in abortion, believe in the Constituition, voted for Ron Paul, own a gun, or are a returning veteran then the feds think you are a nut job. Funny, this describes about 65% of Americans...
> 
> Actual copy here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
> 
> Homeland Security on guard for &#8216;right-wing extremists&#8217;*
Click to expand...

*THIS IS A MASSIVE STEAMING PILE :" I FEAR NO ONE. I also DO NOT FEAR DEATH, " -UR
All Christians fear death ,if you didn't you would not have so much dogma about heaven and hell.
as to "I fear no one" it's laughable....if you actually feared no one ,then you would not feel the need to broadcast it....by doing so, it's rock solid proof that you live in fear.*


----------



## koshergrl

That's right. You don't know what you think, only Christian haters know what you're REALLY thinking....cuz they can read your mind!


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> That's right. You don't know what you think, only Christian haters know what you're REALLY thinking....cuz they can read your mind!


sorry but I don't speak gibberish?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya...no chance your little club of naive do gooders isn't being watched.
> 
> What you are doing is making it easy for the true masters of the shadow government to know WHO to give thier orders to.  You don't think your e-mails, blogs and tweets are being read?  They wouldn't do it to arrest you ya goofy fuck...they would do it to know who they can and cannot trust to *OBEY*.
> 
> You were more of a threat to the abuse of power before you started this little confessional.
> 
> If you were serious about your mission you would do it the old fashioned way with face to face or timed random telephone contact that cannot be documented.  There are still plenty of land line telephones in spite of the government removing payphones down to a number that can be easily monitored.  I suggest you take a hard look at your membership and start a new layer of organization that only makes secure contacts.  I have no doubt that there are rats and doubles in your group.  If you REALLY are true to what you say in your dotorg you need to take your enemy more seriously and knock off this sophomoric junior dick tracy approach to organization.  There is a GPS and a BUG in your "official" decoder ring Sport.
> 
> You will be useless in a real emergency because YOU will NOT get the MEMO.  Your only hope of being "in the loop" is if you have not been detected as one who WILL NOT OBEY.
> 
> In the words of my good friend Archie Bell...  You need to tighten up..
> 
> Archie Bell & The Drells - Tighten up (1968) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, did that go straight over your head. The purpose of Oathkeepers is not to be a subversive group operating in the shadows. The purpose is education (!!), that is, the education of SWORN, active duty military and law enforcement personnel on what the Constitution actually says and that they are not required to obey un-Constitutional orders based on their SWORN Oath to defend and protect it. So for your paranoid information, the purpose is one of a preventative nature. Instead of hiding and cowering in fear, we are out in the open, educating the actual folks that would be asked to carry out unlawful orders and oppress the American people.
> 
> Of course that brings me to the real beauty of being a Christian... I FEAR NO ONE. I also DO NOT FEAR DEATH, not in an Islamic Extremist kind of way, but in a compassionate, freedom loving, God loving way, not worried that this life is all I have kind of way. I have not resigned the Oath I took as a police officer. Nor have I forsaken the tools of that trade.
> 
> Matthew 10:   ...26 &#8220;So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 *Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.* Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father&#8217;s care.* 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don&#8217;t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
> 
> Of course I am on some watch list. There is some major brainwashing going on with law enforcement at the federal level. Forget freedom of religion or freedom of speech, if you are a Christian, don't believe in abortion, believe in the Constituition, voted for Ron Paul, own a gun, or are a returning veteran then the feds think you are a nut job. Funny, this describes about 65% of Americans...
> 
> Actual copy here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
> 
> Homeland Security on guard for &#8216;right-wing extremists&#8217;*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *THIS IS A MASSIVE STEAMING PILE :" I FEAR NO ONE. I also DO NOT FEAR DEATH, " -UR
> All Christians fear death ,if you didn't you would not have so much dogma about heaven and hell.
> as to "I fear no one" it's laughable....if you actually feared no one ,then you would not feel the need to broadcast it....by doing so, it's rock solid proof that you live in fear.*
Click to expand...

*

You are projecting like Loki.

I used to worry about the pain of death when I was a cop, but then I my experience with trauma made me realize that even the pain isn't remembered after it is all over. The human body is amazing at blocking massive trauma out of your mind.

Recent pic of UltimateReality. I'm an Obama stereotype. Here I am clinging to my gun and religion. Just for the record, I was going to vote for Herman Cain until he dropped out.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us*


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, did that go straight over your head. The purpose of Oathkeepers is not to be a subversive group operating in the shadows. The purpose is education (!!), that is, the education of SWORN, active duty military and law enforcement personnel on what the Constitution actually says and that they are not required to obey un-Constitutional orders based on their SWORN Oath to defend and protect it. So for your paranoid information, the purpose is one of a preventative nature. Instead of hiding and cowering in fear, we are out in the open, educating the actual folks that would be asked to carry out unlawful orders and oppress the American people.
> 
> Of course that brings me to the real beauty of being a Christian... I FEAR NO ONE. I also DO NOT FEAR DEATH, not in an Islamic Extremist kind of way, but in a compassionate, freedom loving, God loving way, not worried that this life is all I have kind of way. I have not resigned the Oath I took as a police officer. Nor have I forsaken the tools of that trade.
> 
> Matthew 10:   ...26 &#8220;So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 *Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.* Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father&#8217;s care.* 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don&#8217;t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
> 
> Of course I am on some watch list. There is some major brainwashing going on with law enforcement at the federal level. Forget freedom of religion or freedom of speech, if you are a Christian, don't believe in abortion, believe in the Constituition, voted for Ron Paul, own a gun, or are a returning veteran then the feds think you are a nut job. Funny, this describes about 65% of Americans...
> 
> Actual copy here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
> 
> Homeland Security on guard for &#8216;right-wing extremists&#8217;*
> 
> 
> 
> *THIS IS A MASSIVE STEAMING PILE :" I FEAR NO ONE. I also DO NOT FEAR DEATH, " -UR
> All Christians fear death ,if you didn't you would not have so much dogma about heaven and hell.
> as to "I fear no one" it's laughable....if you actually feared no one ,then you would not feel the need to broadcast it....by doing so, it's rock solid proof that you live in fear.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> You are projecting like Loki.
> 
> I used to worry about the pain of death when I was a cop, but then I my experience with trauma made me realize that even the pain isn't remembered after it is all over. The human body is amazing at blocking massive trauma out of your mind.
> 
> Recent pic of UltimateReality. I'm an Obama stereotype. Here I am clinging to my gun and religion. Just for the record, I was going to vote for Herman Cain until he dropped out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us*
Click to expand...

*

If that's recent you are too young to retire.  So what happened? My pic is just under 5 years old.  I don't give a fuck if you recognise me or not.  

I don't believe you are retired..  You are in good cop shape and stand like you are on the clock even when you are just target practicing.  Also there is no need to pixilate your eyes for here unless you are hiding who you are.  In fact I've NEVER in millions of views on this and the last political message board seen someone pixilate thier eyes to hide thier identity.  So..you want everyone to know you are/were a cop/sgt did you saw...swat guy and just out of the blue you turn into godboy and start cruizin a rough and tumble political messageboard posting links to a bizzar club of cops/military/maybe mercinary dudes site where it is SUPPOSED to be clear that you are harmless to average everyday Americans cuz you PROMISE??  

There are so many holes in your story that it makes mine EASY to believe.  HUGGY was a smuggler?  Sure anybody can do it...take pilot lessons ...take a vacation in Colombia and meet the right peeps.. Steal a nice long range twin and you are in business..Fuck anybody could do it.  

You are a retired thirty year old after being a cop for 5 years..  Ya makes sense...cops are gettin paid a lot more than they used to...and the retirement benefits!!!!   Put in a nickle and you are set fore life.  

One... you are lying out your ass about SOMETHING

Two..You shot a kid and went nutz and that accounts for the godboy schtick.

Three..You are fishing for who knows what working for who knows who and this is part of your job... 

Did somebody threaten Barry again?  Tell the truth you are secret service right?

I'm guessin You no more believe in god than I do.  BUT the dood you are after is a for real god freak and this is the only place he communicates right?

And that silly Promise not to obey site is spozed to convince us of what?  You are stiffer than Mittens dood..  The least you should have done is get some tats and piercings..

NEUBARTH!!!!!  or is it CHESSWARSNOW!!!!!!

You have company!!!

    

So Mr. Reality...  Why are you here?  


Who ya workin for now?

*


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THIS IS A MASSIVE STEAMING PILE :" I FEAR NO ONE. I also DO NOT FEAR DEATH, " -UR
> All Christians fear death ,if you didn't you would not have so much dogma about heaven and hell.
> as to "I fear no one" it's laughable....if you actually feared no one ,then you would not feel the need to broadcast it....by doing so, it's rock solid proof that you live in fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are projecting like Loki.
> 
> I used to worry about the pain of death when I was a cop, but then I my experience with trauma made me realize that even the pain isn't remembered after it is all over. The human body is amazing at blocking massive trauma out of your mind.
> 
> Recent pic of UltimateReality. I'm an Obama stereotype. Here I am clinging to my gun and religion. Just for the record, I was going to vote for Herman Cain until he dropped out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's recent you are too young to retire.  So what happened? My pic is just under 5 years old.  I don't give a fuck if you recognise me or not.
> 
> I don't believe you are retired..  You are in good cop shape and stand like you are on the clock even when you are just target practicing.  Also there is no need to pixilate your eyes for here unless you are hiding who you are.  In fact I've NEVER in millions of views on this and the last political message board seen someone pixilate thier eyes to hide thier identity.  So..you want everyone to know you are/were a cop/sgt did you saw...swat guy and just out of the blue you turn into godboy and start cruizin a rough and tumble political messageboard posting links to a bizzar club of cops/military/maybe mercinary dudes site where it is SUPPOSED to be clear that you are harmless to average everyday Americans cuz you PROMISE??
> 
> There are so many holes in your story that it makes mine EASY to believe.  HUGGY was a smuggler?  Sure anybody can do it...take pilot lessons ...take a vacation in Colombia and meet the right peeps.. Steal a nice long range twin and you are in business..Fuck anybody could do it.
> 
> You are a retired thirty year old after being a cop for 5 years..  Ya makes sense...cops are gettin paid a lot more than they used to...and the retirement benefits!!!!   Put in a nickle and you are set fore life.
> 
> One... you are lying out your ass about SOMETHING
> 
> Two..You shot a kid and went nutz and that accounts for the godboy schtick.
> 
> Three..You are fishing for who knows what working for who knows who and this is part of your job...
> 
> Did somebody threaten Barry again?  Tell the truth you are secret service right?
> 
> I'm guessin You no more believe in god than I do.  BUT the dood you are after is a for real god freak and this is the only place he communicates right?
> 
> And that silly Promise not to obey site is spozed to convince us of what?  You are stiffer than Mittens dood..  The least you should have done is get some tats and piercings..
> 
> NEUBARTH!!!!!  or is it CHESSWARSNOW!!!!!!
> 
> You have company!!!
> 
> 
> 
> So Mr. Reality...  Why are you here?
> 
> 
> Who ya workin for now?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0qb1eh-Qig]Heartbreaker Rolling Stones Dictatures - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Paranoia will destroy ya!!! I took retirement at 10 years to actually go make some real money selling industrial and commercial AC equipment. I wouldn't call 25% of your averaged pay for the last three years on the department actually stellar money. And thanks for the compliment... I am 43 in that picture, 45 now. I am very much a Christian and I got interested in sites like this after going through the Truth Project at my church. Geez, man!! You need to lay off the methamphetamines!!! 

Make up all the stuff in your head you want to about me blurring my face, but I don't necessarilly think it is prudent to have full disclosure with a bunch of strangers on the internet in this day and age.

I didn't mean to get you all worked up. I really just posted a pic of myself because Daws seems to think that one human claiming he doesn't fear any other humans to be preposterous. When I was on SWAT, I knew the worst that could happen to me was I could get shot. I also had the capability to shoot back. I carry 24/7 now. Actually, the thought of getting shot doesn't really distress me in the least, but now that I think about it, I had a root canal not too long ago and the Endodontists was having a very difficult time getting me numb. So maybe saying I don't fear anyone was a little bit of a stretch.  

Oh and another thing I came to grips with as a cop was there were a few situations I looked back on and knew if the perp had really wanted to off me, there really wasn't anything I could have done about it. It was only by the grace of God that I made it through.


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are projecting like Loki.
> 
> I used to worry about the pain of death when I was a cop, but then I my experience with trauma made me realize that even the pain isn't remembered after it is all over. The human body is amazing at blocking massive trauma out of your mind.
> 
> Recent pic of UltimateReality. I'm an Obama stereotype. Here I am clinging to my gun and religion. Just for the record, I was going to vote for Herman Cain until he dropped out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's recent you are too young to retire.  So what happened? My pic is just under 5 years old.  I don't give a fuck if you recognise me or not.
> 
> I don't believe you are retired..  You are in good cop shape and stand like you are on the clock even when you are just target practicing.  Also there is no need to pixilate your eyes for here unless you are hiding who you are.  In fact I've NEVER in millions of views on this and the last political message board seen someone pixilate thier eyes to hide thier identity.  So..you want everyone to know you are/were a cop/sgt did you saw...swat guy and just out of the blue you turn into godboy and start cruizin a rough and tumble political messageboard posting links to a bizzar club of cops/military/maybe mercinary dudes site where it is SUPPOSED to be clear that you are harmless to average everyday Americans cuz you PROMISE??
> 
> There are so many holes in your story that it makes mine EASY to believe.  HUGGY was a smuggler?  Sure anybody can do it...take pilot lessons ...take a vacation in Colombia and meet the right peeps.. Steal a nice long range twin and you are in business..Fuck anybody could do it.
> 
> You are a retired thirty year old after being a cop for 5 years..  Ya makes sense...cops are gettin paid a lot more than they used to...and the retirement benefits!!!!   Put in a nickle and you are set fore life.
> 
> One... you are lying out your ass about SOMETHING
> 
> Two..You shot a kid and went nutz and that accounts for the godboy schtick.
> 
> Three..You are fishing for who knows what working for who knows who and this is part of your job...
> 
> Did somebody threaten Barry again?  Tell the truth you are secret service right?
> 
> I'm guessin You no more believe in god than I do.  BUT the dood you are after is a for real god freak and this is the only place he communicates right?
> 
> And that silly Promise not to obey site is spozed to convince us of what?  You are stiffer than Mittens dood..  The least you should have done is get some tats and piercings..
> 
> NEUBARTH!!!!!  or is it CHESSWARSNOW!!!!!!
> 
> You have company!!!
> 
> 
> 
> So Mr. Reality...  Why are you here?
> 
> 
> Who ya workin for now?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0qb1eh-Qig]Heartbreaker Rolling Stones Dictatures - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paranoia will destroy ya!!! I took retirement at 10 years to actually go make some real money selling industrial and commercial AC equipment. I wouldn't call 25% of your averaged pay for the last three years on the department actually stellar money. And thanks for the compliment... I am 43 in that picture, 45 now. I am very much a Christian and I got interested in sites like this after going through the Truth Project at my church. Geez, man!! *You need to lay off the methamphetamines!!! *
> Make up all the stuff in your head you want to about me blurring my face, but I don't necessarilly think it is prudent to have full disclosure with a bunch of strangers on the internet in this day and age.
Click to expand...


Don't do speed.  Don't do any drugs not prescribed by my doc.  Don't drink more than a beer a week and only if it is warm outside.  Do drink a lot of coffee.  OK I suppose you could be 45 with a baby face.  But that goofy site still troubles me.  Cop to AC salesman?  Huh? Weak.   More likely ya stumbled onto some crooks hidden million dollar stash and went back later and kept it.  Cops get cynical...THEY ALL DO.  Some show it more than others but they ALL start seeing people as not worthy of thier respect.  Cops ALL stick together with other cops..  You quit all that comraderie to sell AC?  Now?  In THIS economy where businesses are not investing in ANYTHING?

Ya OK Sport..whatever you say...  YUUUZZZ a Christian..  an ya promise not to kill any civilians..  What a good Sport!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya...no chance your little club of naive do gooders isn't being watched.
> 
> What you are doing is making it easy for the true masters of the shadow government to know WHO to give thier orders to.  You don't think your e-mails, blogs and tweets are being read?  They wouldn't do it to arrest you ya goofy fuck...they would do it to know who they can and cannot trust to *OBEY*.
> 
> You were more of a threat to the abuse of power before you started this little confessional.
> 
> If you were serious about your mission you would do it the old fashioned way with face to face or timed random telephone contact that cannot be documented.  There are still plenty of land line telephones in spite of the government removing payphones down to a number that can be easily monitored.  I suggest you take a hard look at your membership and start a new layer of organization that only makes secure contacts.  I have no doubt that there are rats and doubles in your group.  If you REALLY are true to what you say in your dotorg you need to take your enemy more seriously and knock off this sophomoric junior dick tracy approach to organization.  There is a GPS and a BUG in your "official" decoder ring Sport.
> 
> You will be useless in a real emergency because YOU will NOT get the MEMO.  Your only hope of being "in the loop" is if you have not been detected as one who WILL NOT OBEY.
> 
> In the words of my good friend Archie Bell...  You need to tighten up..
> 
> Archie Bell & The Drells - Tighten up (1968) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, did that go straight over your head. The purpose of Oathkeepers is not to be a subversive group operating in the shadows. The purpose is education (!!), that is, the education of SWORN, active duty military and law enforcement personnel on what the Constitution actually says and that they are not required to obey un-Constitutional orders based on their SWORN Oath to defend and protect it. So for your paranoid information, the purpose is one of a preventative nature. Instead of hiding and cowering in fear, we are out in the open, educating the actual folks that would be asked to carry out unlawful orders and oppress the American people.
> 
> Of course that brings me to the real beauty of being a Christian... I FEAR NO ONE. I also DO NOT FEAR DEATH, not in an Islamic Extremist kind of way, but in a compassionate, freedom loving, God loving way, not worried that this life is all I have kind of way. I have not resigned the Oath I took as a police officer. Nor have I forsaken the tools of that trade.
> 
> Matthew 10:   ...26 &#8220;So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 *Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.* Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father&#8217;s care.* 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don&#8217;t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
> 
> Of course I am on some watch list. There is some major brainwashing going on with law enforcement at the federal level. Forget freedom of religion or freedom of speech, if you are a Christian, don't believe in abortion, believe in the Constituition, voted for Ron Paul, own a gun, or are a returning veteran then the feds think you are a nut job. Funny, this describes about 65% of Americans...
> 
> Actual copy here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
> 
> Homeland Security on guard for &#8216;right-wing extremists&#8217;*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *THIS IS A MASSIVE STEAMING PILE :" I FEAR NO ONE. I also DO NOT FEAR DEATH, " -UR
> All Christians fear death ,if you didn't you would not have so much dogma about heaven and hell.
> as to "I fear no one" it's laughable....if you actually feared no one ,then you would not feel the need to broadcast it....by doing so, it's rock solid proof that you live in fear.*
Click to expand...

*

Everyone fears death at the moment,you can see it even in the animal kingdom the instinct  to survive.

Only people that are mentally ill or people that have no reason to live do not fear death.*


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, did that go straight over your head. The purpose of Oathkeepers is not to be a subversive group operating in the shadows. The purpose is education (!!), that is, the education of SWORN, active duty military and law enforcement personnel on what the Constitution actually says and that they are not required to obey un-Constitutional orders based on their SWORN Oath to defend and protect it. So for your paranoid information, the purpose is one of a preventative nature. Instead of hiding and cowering in fear, we are out in the open, educating the actual folks that would be asked to carry out unlawful orders and oppress the American people.
> 
> Of course that brings me to the real beauty of being a Christian... I FEAR NO ONE. I also DO NOT FEAR DEATH, not in an Islamic Extremist kind of way, but in a compassionate, freedom loving, God loving way, not worried that this life is all I have kind of way. I have not resigned the Oath I took as a police officer. Nor have I forsaken the tools of that trade.
> 
> Matthew 10:   ...26 So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 *Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.* Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Fathers care.* 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So dont be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
> 
> Of course I am on some watch list. There is some major brainwashing going on with law enforcement at the federal level. Forget freedom of religion or freedom of speech, if you are a Christian, don't believe in abortion, believe in the Constituition, voted for Ron Paul, own a gun, or are a returning veteran then the feds think you are a nut job. Funny, this describes about 65% of Americans...
> 
> Actual copy here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
> 
> Homeland Security on guard for right-wing extremists*
> 
> 
> 
> *THIS IS A MASSIVE STEAMING PILE :" I FEAR NO ONE. I also DO NOT FEAR DEATH, " -UR
> All Christians fear death ,if you didn't you would not have so much dogma about heaven and hell.
> as to "I fear no one" it's laughable....if you actually feared no one ,then you would not feel the need to broadcast it....by doing so, it's rock solid proof that you live in fear.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Everyone fears death at the moment,you can see it even in the animal kingdom the extinct to survive.
> 
> Only people that are mentally ill or people that have no reason to live do not fear death.*
Click to expand...

*

That is one of the things about those tha proclaim ABSOLUTE FAITH that seems hypocritical.  If your faith is so unshakable ... it seems you would welcome the opportunity for god to take you to heaven.  The way y'all talk about it...seems like a real good time up there floatin around with the halos and wings on..

It's only the atheists that should fear death...we know ...when it's over...it's over.*


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THIS IS A MASSIVE STEAMING PILE :" I FEAR NO ONE. I also DO NOT FEAR DEATH, " -UR
> All Christians fear death ,if you didn't you would not have so much dogma about heaven and hell.
> as to "I fear no one" it's laughable....if you actually feared no one ,then you would not feel the need to broadcast it....by doing so, it's rock solid proof that you live in fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Everyone fears death *at the moment,you can see it even in the animal kingdom the extinct to survive.
> 
> Only people that are mentally ill or people that have no reason to live do not fear death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is one of the things about those tha proclaim ABSOLUTE FAITH that seems hypocritical.  If your faith is so unshakable ... it seems you would welcome the opportunity for god to take you to heaven.  The way y'all talk about it...seems like a real good time up there floatin around with the halos and wings on..
> 
> It's only the atheists that should fear death...we know ...when it's over...it's over.
Click to expand...


That is where you are wrong death is separation from God until the resurrection,but not only are you separated from God,you're separated from your loved ones and the life most of us enjoy living. Better days are ahead when God finally takes over but that does not change the instinct that that God put into our brains.

What is the reason for so many near death conversions ?


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Everyone fears death *at the moment,you can see it even in the animal kingdom the extinct to survive.
> 
> Only people that are mentally ill or people that have no reason to live do not fear death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is one of the things about those tha proclaim ABSOLUTE FAITH that seems hypocritical.  If your faith is so unshakable ... it seems you would welcome the opportunity for god to take you to heaven.  The way y'all talk about it...seems like a real good time up there floatin around with the halos and wings on..
> 
> It's only the atheists that should fear death...we know ...when it's over...it's over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is where you are wrong death is separation from God until the resurrection,but not only are you separated from God,you're separated from your loved ones and the life most of us enjoy living. Better days are ahead when God finally takes over but that does not change the instinct that that God put into our brains.
> 
> What is the reason for so many near death conversions ?
Click to expand...


Temporary insanity?  People do a lot of whack shit when they freak out.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is one of the things about those tha proclaim ABSOLUTE FAITH that seems hypocritical.  If your faith is so unshakable ... it seems you would welcome the opportunity for god to take you to heaven.  The way y'all talk about it...seems like a real good time up there floatin around with the halos and wings on..
> 
> It's only the atheists that should fear death...we know ...when it's over...it's over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is where you are wrong death is separation from God until the resurrection,but not only are you separated from God,you're separated from your loved ones and the life most of us enjoy living. Better days are ahead when God finally takes over but that does not change the instinct that that God put into our brains.
> 
> What is the reason for so many near death conversions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Temporary insanity?  People do a lot of whack shit when they freak out.
Click to expand...


What is the reason for this temporary insanity as you call it ?


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is where you are wrong death is separation from God until the resurrection,but not only are you separated from God,you're separated from your loved ones and the life most of us enjoy living. Better days are ahead when God finally takes over but that does not change the instinct that that God put into our brains.
> 
> What is the reason for so many near death conversions ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Temporary insanity?  People do a lot of whack shit when they freak out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the reason for this temporary insanity as you call it ?
Click to expand...


An overdose of adrenaline..lack of oxegen to the brain..extreme pain..


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Temporary insanity?  People do a lot of whack shit when they freak out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the reason for this temporary insanity as you call it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An overdose of adrenaline..lack of oxegen to the brain..extreme pain..
Click to expand...



You are unable to be honest and admit,it is out of fear.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I guess they are finally seeing the fallacy in their logic and views.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> I guess they are finally seeing the fallacy in their logic and views.



I hope you are not referring to evolutionists. The only fallacy in logic and views comes from the creationist camp, who have NO EVIDENCE to support their conclusions, yet talk like their shit don't stink.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess they are finally seeing the fallacy in their logic and views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you are not referring to evolutionists. The only fallacy in logic and views comes from the creationist camp, who have NO EVIDENCE to support their conclusions, yet talk like their shit don't stink.
Click to expand...


Well of course I am speaking of evolutionists, When it gets to hot in the kitchen they go to the cooler.

There is evidence all around you that our universe and life did not come about on it's own.

I don't use those terms but when you are right, you are right,the truth in any matter contradicts the lie.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess they are finally seeing the fallacy in their logic and views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you are not referring to evolutionists. The only fallacy in logic and views comes from the creationist camp, who have NO EVIDENCE to support their conclusions, yet talk like their shit don't stink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well of course I am speaking of evolutionists, When it gets to hot in the kitchen they go to the cooler.
> 
> *There is evidence all around you that our universe and life did not come about on it's own*.
> 
> I don't use those terms but when you are right, you are right,the truth in any matter contradicts the lie.
Click to expand...



No there is not.  What there is... is men that have always lived in fear and have brought along that fear into the 21st century and this discussion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you are not referring to evolutionists. The only fallacy in logic and views comes from the creationist camp, who have NO EVIDENCE to support their conclusions, yet talk like their shit don't stink.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course I am speaking of evolutionists, When it gets to hot in the kitchen they go to the cooler.
> 
> *There is evidence all around you that our universe and life did not come about on it's own*.
> 
> I don't use those terms but when you are right, you are right,the truth in any matter contradicts the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No there is not.  What there is... is men that have always lived in fear and have brought along that fear into the 21st century and this discussion.
Click to expand...


If you want to ignore the evidence of design go ahead but you are using poor judgment by doing so.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course I am speaking of evolutionists, When it gets to hot in the kitchen they go to the cooler.
> 
> *There is evidence all around you that our universe and life did not come about on it's own*.
> 
> I don't use those terms but when you are right, you are right,the truth in any matter contradicts the lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No there is not.  What there is... is men that have always lived in fear and have brought along that fear into the 21st century and this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to ignore the evidence of design go ahead but you are using poor judgment by doing so.
Click to expand...


I am using the best scientific judgement available.  You and those like you cling desperatly to a 2000 year old myth and thru it's vaguries continue to build on the myth to try to add credibility to a failed and false premise.

I get it that you are commited to the big lie...and do not see it as such.  I do not expect you to ever recognise what would destroy you mentally to accept.  But to allow your fantasy pawned off as fact to go unchallenged to me is unthinkable.

Our difference really boils down to this.  You NEED to believe in a god therefore creation.  I do not really care how it all came to be but follow only the best vidence available.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> No there is not.  What there is... is men that have always lived in fear and have brought along that fear into the 21st century and this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to ignore the evidence of design go ahead but you are using poor judgment by doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am using the best scientific judgement available.  You and those like you cling desperatly to a 2000 year old myth and thru it's vaguries continue to build on the myth to try to add credibility to a failed and false premise.
> 
> I get it that you are commited to the big lie...and do not see it as such.  I do not expect you to ever recognise what would destroy you mentally to accept.  But to allow your fantasy pawned off as fact to go unchallenged to me is unthinkable.
> 
> Our difference really boils down to this.  You NEED to believe in a god therefore creation.  I do not really care how it all came to be but follow only the best vidence available.
Click to expand...


The best evidence available should point you towards life being a product of design. This planet and the benefits it receives from other planets and the plane it's on should point you to design.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to ignore the evidence of design go ahead but you are using poor judgment by doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am using the best scientific judgement available.  You and those like you cling desperatly to a 2000 year old myth and thru it's vaguries continue to build on the myth to try to add credibility to a failed and false premise.
> 
> I get it that you are commited to the big lie...and do not see it as such.  I do not expect you to ever recognise what would destroy you mentally to accept.  But to allow your fantasy pawned off as fact to go unchallenged to me is unthinkable.
> 
> Our difference really boils down to this.  You NEED to believe in a god therefore creation.  I do not really care how it all came to be but follow only the best vidence available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The best evidence available should point you towards life being a product of design. This planet and the benefits it receives from other planets and the plane it's on should point you to design.
Click to expand...


No more so than seeing a top spinning and knowing that not for the effect of the friction of the surface upon which it is spinning and the resistance of the molucules of our "air" it would obviously go on spinning like the plane of our sun and planets.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am using the best scientific judgement available.  You and those like you cling desperatly to a 2000 year old myth and thru it's vaguries continue to build on the myth to try to add credibility to a failed and false premise.
> 
> I get it that you are commited to the big lie...and do not see it as such.  I do not expect you to ever recognise what would destroy you mentally to accept.  But to allow your fantasy pawned off as fact to go unchallenged to me is unthinkable.
> 
> Our difference really boils down to this.  You NEED to believe in a god therefore creation.  I do not really care how it all came to be but follow only the best vidence available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best evidence available should point you towards life being a product of design. This planet and the benefits it receives from other planets and the plane it's on should point you to design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more so than seeing a top spinning and knowing that not for the effect of the friction of the surface upon which it is spinning and the resistance of the molucules of our "air" it would obviously go on spinning like the plane of our sun and planets.
Click to expand...


Until when? It is blown away by a Red Giant?


----------



## UltimateReality

When I was in church this morning, the lady in front of me had about a 4 month old baby. Watching the baby the thought came over me that it is the darwinists who have to be completely insane to look at the miracle of a baby and think that it is the product of random forces. The absurdity of this concept makes me think they are totallly delusional in their denial of an Intelligent source to life. The real irony is they look at the design proponents and think they are crazy.


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best evidence available should point you towards life being a product of design. This planet and the benefits it receives from other planets and the plane it's on should point you to design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more so than seeing a top spinning and knowing that not for the effect of the friction of the surface upon which it is spinning and the resistance of the molucules of our "air" it would obviously go on spinning like the plane of our sun and planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until when? It is blown away by a Red Giant?
Click to expand...


Ya eventually.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> When I was in church this morning, the lady in front of me had about a 4 month old baby. Watching the baby the thought came over me that it is the darwinists who have to be completely insane to look at the miracle of a baby and think that it is the product of random forces. The absurdity of this concept makes me think they are totallly delusional in their denial. The real irony is they look at the design proponents and think they are crazy.



WoW!!! You looked at a baby?!! NO WAYYY!!!!  You had a thought? OMG!!!!

C'mon. Is this the basis for your argument against evolution, that a baby exists? We all used to be babies. While this is amazing thing no doubt, where do you get god from this? You have just betrayed the shallowness of your critical process in contemplating  the theory of evolution, because if you think that by looking at a baby, you have debunked the theory, then you are seriously delusional in your thinking. Just stick to your faith and guns...


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in church this morning, the lady in front of me had about a 4 month old baby. Watching the baby the thought came over me that it is the darwinists who have to be completely insane to look at the miracle of a baby and think that it is the product of random forces. The absurdity of this concept makes me think they are totallly delusional in their denial. The real irony is they look at the design proponents and think they are crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WoW!!! You looked at a baby?!! NO WAYYY!!!!  You had a thought? OMG!!!!
> 
> C'mon. Is this the basis for your argument against evolution, that a baby exists? We all used to be babies. While this is amazing thing no doubt, where do you get god from this? You have just betrayed the shallowness of your critical process in contemplating  the theory of evolution, because if you think that by looking at a baby, you have debunked the theory, then you are seriously delusional in your thinking. Just stick to your faith and guns...
Click to expand...


More just astonished that so many dimwits could argue something so stupid against something so obvious.


----------



## Political Junky

The best evidence from the period when the Bible was written is that the Earth is flat and 6,000 years old.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Political Junky said:


> The best evidence from the period when the Bible was written is that the Earth is flat and 6,000 years old.



Get your facts straight. Do you do like others and lump all believers with the same beliefs ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Political Junky said:


> The best evidence from the period when the Bible was written is that the Earth is flat and 6,000 years old.



Do you realize how ignorant this argument is ?

I repeat, no one knows for sure the accurate age of this planet.

No one knows for sure when life began on this planet.

Did I say it clear enough this time ? no not even your side knows the answers to these questions.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best evidence from the period when the Bible was written is that the Earth is flat and 6,000 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize how ignorant this argument is ?
> 
> I repeat, no one knows for sure the accurate age of this planet.
> 
> No one knows for sure when life began on this planet.
> 
> Did I say it clear enough this time ? no not even your side knows the answers to these questions.
Click to expand...


No one knows the "accurate" age of the planet?  SSOOOoooo..THAT leaves the door open that it could be 6000 years old?

No one knows when life began exactly?  So Adam and Eve could be just as plausible as any possibility?

There is no "ignorant" like Christian ignorant.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best evidence from the period when the Bible was written is that the Earth is flat and 6,000 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize how ignorant this argument is ?
> 
> I repeat, no one knows for sure the accurate age of this planet.
> 
> No one knows for sure when life began on this planet.
> 
> Did I say it clear enough this time ? no not even your side knows the answers to these questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one knows the "accurate" age of the planet?  SSOOOoooo..THAT leaves the door open that it could be 6000 years old?
> 
> No one knows when life began exactly?  So Adam and Eve could be just as plausible as any possibility?
> 
> There is no "ignorant" like Christian ignorant.
Click to expand...


So if no one knows how long ago life started on earth or how old the earth is, any number you hang your hat on is speculation and is not a fact.

Once again your view is based on faith through speculation and your presuppositions. How is your view any more viable then the bibles account ?


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize how ignorant this argument is ?
> 
> I repeat, no one knows for sure the accurate age of this planet.
> 
> No one knows for sure when life began on this planet.
> 
> Did I say it clear enough this time ? no not even your side knows the answers to these questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows the "accurate" age of the planet?  SSOOOoooo..THAT leaves the door open that it could be 6000 years old?
> 
> No one knows when life began exactly?  So Adam and Eve could be just as plausible as any possibility?
> 
> There is no "ignorant" like Christian ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if no one knows how long ago life started on earth or how old the earth is, any number you hang your hat on is speculation and is not a fact.
> 
> Once again your view is based on faith through speculation and your presuppositions. How is your view any more viable then the bibles account ?
Click to expand...


So you do not accept ANY science?  That is in fact proof of your willfull ignorance.

SOOOoo....*Radio Carbon Dating *is a lie?   Or just a "theory"?

Radio Carbon Dating "Wiki"

"Radiocarbon dating (sometimes simply known as carbon dating) is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.[1] Raw, i.e. uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), "Present" being defined as 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates. One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites. When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere (a small difference occurs because of isotope fractionation, but this is corrected after laboratory analysis[citation needed]). After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals) the 14C fraction of this organic material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated.

The technique of radiocarbon dating was developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago in 1949. Emilio Segrè asserted in his autobiography that Enrico Fermi suggested the concept to Libby in a seminar at Chicago that year. Libby estimated that the steady state radioactivity concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram. In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this work. He demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately estimating the age of wood from a series of samples for which the age was known, including an ancient Egyptian royal barge of 1850 BC.[2][3]"

So if you are too stupid to "get it"....you just fall back on the most rediculous theory that exists?..the bible?

RCD can/does with some degree of reliable accuracy date materials back to nearly 60,000 years.  

That is just for starters...  where do you "hang your hat" on RCD?  You DO know that the ocean floors "grow" along lines ...."trenches" where new mantle wells up as magma and along the continents dives back down beneath the crust in most cases and just crushes up against other continents resulting in the lifting of crust resulting in mountain ranges..You deny this?  How do they know this is true?  Radio Carbon Dating of the material at the bottom of the oceans.   

What you do is deny all scientific fact and disengenuously lable all such fact as "theory" so you can further the lie you perpetrate and equate your fairy tale with wrongfully labled facts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows the "accurate" age of the planet?  SSOOOoooo..THAT leaves the door open that it could be 6000 years old?
> 
> No one knows when life began exactly?  So Adam and Eve could be just as plausible as any possibility?
> 
> There is no "ignorant" like Christian ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if no one knows how long ago life started on earth or how old the earth is, any number you hang your hat on is speculation and is not a fact.
> 
> Once again your view is based on faith through speculation and your presuppositions. How is your view any more viable then the bibles account ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you do not accept ANY science?  That is in fact proof of your willfull ignorance.
> 
> SOOOoo....*Radio Carbon Dating *is a lie?   Or just a "theory"?
> 
> Radio Carbon Dating "Wiki"
> 
> "Radiocarbon dating (sometimes simply known as carbon dating) is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.[1] Raw, i.e. uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), "Present" being defined as 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates. One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites. When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere (a small difference occurs because of isotope fractionation, but this is corrected after laboratory analysis[citation needed]). After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals) the 14C fraction of this organic material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated.
> 
> The technique of radiocarbon dating was developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago in 1949. Emilio Segrè asserted in his autobiography that Enrico Fermi suggested the concept to Libby in a seminar at Chicago that year. Libby estimated that the steady state radioactivity concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram. In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this work. He demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately estimating the age of wood from a series of samples for which the age was known, including an ancient Egyptian royal barge of 1850 BC.[2][3]"
> 
> So if you are too stupid to "get it"....you just fall back on the most rediculous theory that exists?..the bible?
> 
> RCD can/does with some degree of reliable accuracy date materials back to nearly 60,000 years.
> 
> That is just for starters...  where do you "hang your hat" on RCD?  You DO know that the ocean floors "grow" along lines ...."trenches" where new mantle wells up as magma and along the continents dives back down beneath the crust in most cases and just crushes up against other continents resulting in the lifting of crust resulting in mountain ranges..You deny this?  How do they know this is true?  Radio Carbon Dating of the material at the bottom of the oceans.
> 
> What you do is deny all scientific fact and disengenuously lable all such fact as "theory" so you can further the lie you perpetrate and equate your fairy tale with wrongfully labled facts.
Click to expand...


Dating methods are only as accurate as the presuppositions and speculation,none of us were there.

I accept legitmate science that can be verified not left to presuppositions affecting the conclusion or vivid imaginations.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Dating methods are only as accurate as the presuppositions and speculation,none of us were there.
> 
> I accept legitmate science that can be verified not left to presuppositions affecting the conclusion or vivid imaginations.



Do you understand that, by that logic, you cannot trust anything that didn't happen in the lifetime of someone alive today?  After all, none of us were there!  Even if there is some sort of written record, since none of us were there, there is no way to verify the accuracy of those records!

I'm sorry, but saying dating methods that don't involve someone being there are inherently inaccurate is just silly.  Now, perhaps our dating methods ARE inaccurate; your inability to accept the reality around you as having been constant before your time is no reason to think so, however.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if no one knows how long ago life started on earth or how old the earth is, any number you hang your hat on is speculation and is not a fact.
> 
> Once again your view is based on faith through speculation and your presuppositions. How is your view any more viable then the bibles account ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you do not accept ANY science?  That is in fact proof of your willfull ignorance.
> 
> SOOOoo....*Radio Carbon Dating *is a lie?   Or just a "theory"?
> 
> Radio Carbon Dating "Wiki"
> 
> "Radiocarbon dating (sometimes simply known as carbon dating) is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.[1] Raw, i.e. uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), "Present" being defined as 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates. One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites. When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere (a small difference occurs because of isotope fractionation, but this is corrected after laboratory analysis[citation needed]). After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals) the 14C fraction of this organic material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated.
> 
> The technique of radiocarbon dating was developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago in 1949. Emilio Segrè asserted in his autobiography that Enrico Fermi suggested the concept to Libby in a seminar at Chicago that year. Libby estimated that the steady state radioactivity concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram. In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this work. He demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately estimating the age of wood from a series of samples for which the age was known, including an ancient Egyptian royal barge of 1850 BC.[2][3]"
> 
> So if you are too stupid to "get it"....you just fall back on the most rediculous theory that exists?..the bible?
> 
> RCD can/does with some degree of reliable accuracy date materials back to nearly 60,000 years.
> 
> That is just for starters...  where do you "hang your hat" on RCD?  You DO know that the ocean floors "grow" along lines ...."trenches" where new mantle wells up as magma and along the continents dives back down beneath the crust in most cases and just crushes up against other continents resulting in the lifting of crust resulting in mountain ranges..You deny this?  How do they know this is true?  Radio Carbon Dating of the material at the bottom of the oceans.
> 
> What you do is deny all scientific fact and disengenuously lable all such fact as "theory" so you can further the lie you perpetrate and equate your fairy tale with wrongfully labled facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dating methods are only as accurate as the presuppositions and speculation,*none of us were there.*
> 
> *I accept legitmate science that can be verified not left to presuppositions affecting the conclusion or vivid imaginations*.
Click to expand...


By your crazy logic you have no business believing anything in the bible either.  YOU WERE NOT THERE!!!!  

You mean by "vivid imaginations"...like everything in the bibles?



What an idiot!


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize how ignorant this argument is ?
> 
> I repeat, no one knows for sure the accurate age of this planet.
> 
> No one knows for sure when life began on this planet.
> 
> Did I say it clear enough this time ? no not even your side knows the answers to these questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows the "accurate" age of the planet?  SSOOOoooo..THAT leaves the door open that it could be 6000 years old?
> 
> No one knows when life began exactly?  So Adam and Eve could be just as plausible as any possibility?
> 
> There is no "ignorant" like Christian ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if no one knows how long ago life started on earth or how old the earth is, any number you hang your hat on is speculation and is not a fact.
> 
> Once again your view is based on faith through speculation and your presuppositions. How is your view any more viable then the bibles account ?
Click to expand...


AAHHHHHHHHH. watching you debate makes me want to pull my hair out, of which there is a lot, mind you.

If we have faith, then it is faith in the physical universe: faith that when you combine hydrogen and oxygen, it will form H20 under the right conditions... faith that a hammer will fall to the ground everytime.... faith that there are such things as quarks and atoms and molecules and that these fundamental building blocks of our structure guide and cause everything we see around us... faith in physical reality

Sure, to the extent that we simply can not control things with our minds, this may be called faith, but it is not the same faith as believing a super-natural being supersedes all physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and all other natural sciences somehow. That is some serious faith that actually defies logic in the face of so much evidence that our physical reality is guided by inherent natural forces that exist everywhere all the time.


----------



## HUGGY

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows the "accurate" age of the planet?  SSOOOoooo..THAT leaves the door open that it could be 6000 years old?
> 
> No one knows when life began exactly?  So Adam and Eve could be just as plausible as any possibility?
> 
> There is no "ignorant" like Christian ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if no one knows how long ago life started on earth or how old the earth is, any number you hang your hat on is speculation and is not a fact.
> 
> Once again your view is based on faith through speculation and your presuppositions. How is your view any more viable then the bibles account ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AAHHHHHHHHH. watching you debate makes me want to pull my hair out, of which there is a lot, mind you.
> 
> If we have faith, then it is faith in the physical universe: faith that when you combine hydrogen and oxygen, it will form H20 under the right conditions... faith that a hammer will fall to the ground everytime.... faith that there are such things as quarks and atoms and molecules and that these fundamental building blocks of our structure guide and cause everything we see around us... faith in physical reality
> 
> Sure, to the extent that we simply can not control things with our minds, this may be called faith, but it is not the same faith as believing a super-natural being supersedes all physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and all other natural sciences somehow. *That is some serious faith that actually defies logic in the face of so much evidence that our physical reality is guided by inherent natural forces that exist everywhere all the time*.
Click to expand...


AKA..Bat Shit Crazy.


----------



## koshergrl

Who said that natural forces don't exist?

We just believe they are orchestrated by God.

Which of course, they are.


----------



## HUGGY

koshergrl said:


> Who said that natural forces don't exist?
> 
> We just believe they are orchestrated by God.
> 
> Which of course, they are.



Does it bother you that in the fantasy cartoon world in which you exist..your thought bubble is empty?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dating methods are only as accurate as the presuppositions and speculation,none of us were there.
> 
> I accept legitmate science that can be verified not left to presuppositions affecting the conclusion or vivid imaginations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that, by that logic, you cannot trust anything that didn't happen in the lifetime of someone alive today?  After all, none of us were there!  Even if there is some sort of written record, since none of us were there, there is no way to verify the accuracy of those records!
> 
> I'm sorry, but saying dating methods that don't involve someone being there are inherently inaccurate is just silly.  Now, perhaps our dating methods ARE inaccurate; your inability to accept the reality around you as having been constant before your time is no reason to think so, however.
Click to expand...


No It's not silly, it is factually accurate to say what I said. It's not like we are determining a death that happened recently. There have been many documented cases of objects being dated  by several different scientists coming up with a different age. There have been many cases different parts of the same object showed different ages. Do I need to repost it for you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you do not accept ANY science?  That is in fact proof of your willfull ignorance.
> 
> SOOOoo....*Radio Carbon Dating *is a lie?   Or just a "theory"?
> 
> Radio Carbon Dating "Wiki"
> 
> "Radiocarbon dating (sometimes simply known as carbon dating) is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.[1] Raw, i.e. uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), "Present" being defined as 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates. One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites. When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere (a small difference occurs because of isotope fractionation, but this is corrected after laboratory analysis[citation needed]). After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals) the 14C fraction of this organic material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated.
> 
> The technique of radiocarbon dating was developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago in 1949. Emilio Segrè asserted in his autobiography that Enrico Fermi suggested the concept to Libby in a seminar at Chicago that year. Libby estimated that the steady state radioactivity concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram. In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this work. He demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately estimating the age of wood from a series of samples for which the age was known, including an ancient Egyptian royal barge of 1850 BC.[2][3]"
> 
> So if you are too stupid to "get it"....you just fall back on the most rediculous theory that exists?..the bible?
> 
> RCD can/does with some degree of reliable accuracy date materials back to nearly 60,000 years.
> 
> That is just for starters...  where do you "hang your hat" on RCD?  You DO know that the ocean floors "grow" along lines ...."trenches" where new mantle wells up as magma and along the continents dives back down beneath the crust in most cases and just crushes up against other continents resulting in the lifting of crust resulting in mountain ranges..You deny this?  How do they know this is true?  Radio Carbon Dating of the material at the bottom of the oceans.
> 
> What you do is deny all scientific fact and disengenuously lable all such fact as "theory" so you can further the lie you perpetrate and equate your fairy tale with wrongfully labled facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dating methods are only as accurate as the presuppositions and speculation,*none of us were there.*
> 
> *I accept legitmate science that can be verified not left to presuppositions affecting the conclusion or vivid imaginations*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your crazy logic you have no business believing anything in the bible either.  YOU WERE NOT THERE!!!!
> 
> You mean by "vivid imaginations"...like everything in the bibles?
> 
> 
> 
> What an idiot!
Click to expand...


But you see I don't have a problem admitting many of my views on the bible are based in faith. Your side seems to have a problem admitting their views are based in faith not science you moron.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows the "accurate" age of the planet?  SSOOOoooo..THAT leaves the door open that it could be 6000 years old?
> 
> No one knows when life began exactly?  So Adam and Eve could be just as plausible as any possibility?
> 
> There is no "ignorant" like Christian ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if no one knows how long ago life started on earth or how old the earth is, any number you hang your hat on is speculation and is not a fact.
> 
> Once again your view is based on faith through speculation and your presuppositions. How is your view any more viable then the bibles account ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AAHHHHHHHHH. watching you debate makes me want to pull my hair out, of which there is a lot, mind you.
> 
> If we have faith, then it is faith in the physical universe: faith that when you combine hydrogen and oxygen, it will form H20 under the right conditions... faith that a hammer will fall to the ground everytime.... faith that there are such things as quarks and atoms and molecules and that these fundamental building blocks of our structure guide and cause everything we see around us... faith in physical reality
> 
> Sure, to the extent that we simply can not control things with our minds, this may be called faith, but it is not the same faith as believing a super-natural being supersedes all physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and all other natural sciences somehow. That is some serious faith that actually defies logic in the face of so much evidence that our physical reality is guided by inherent natural forces that exist everywhere all the time.
Click to expand...


Things you believe in science that lack evidence to support the view is based in faith. Don't have your own standard for faith ,there is no difference.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if no one knows how long ago life started on earth or how old the earth is, any number you hang your hat on is speculation and is not a fact.
> 
> Once again your view is based on faith through speculation and your presuppositions. How is your view any more viable then the bibles account ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AAHHHHHHHHH. watching you debate makes me want to pull my hair out, of which there is a lot, mind you.
> 
> If we have faith, then it is faith in the physical universe: faith that when you combine hydrogen and oxygen, it will form H20 under the right conditions... faith that a hammer will fall to the ground everytime.... faith that there are such things as quarks and atoms and molecules and that these fundamental building blocks of our structure guide and cause everything we see around us... faith in physical reality
> 
> Sure, to the extent that we simply can not control things with our minds, this may be called faith, but it is not the same faith as believing a super-natural being supersedes all physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and all other natural sciences somehow. *That is some serious faith that actually defies logic in the face of so much evidence that our physical reality is guided by inherent natural forces that exist everywhere all the time*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AKA..Bat Shit Crazy.
Click to expand...


Coming from someone who did too much drugs.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> AAHHHHHHHHH. watching you debate makes me want to pull my hair out, of which there is a lot, mind you.
> 
> If we have faith, then it is faith in the physical universe: faith that when you combine hydrogen and oxygen, it will form H20 under the right conditions... faith that a hammer will fall to the ground everytime.... faith that there are such things as quarks and atoms and molecules and that these fundamental building blocks of our structure guide and cause everything we see around us... faith in physical reality
> 
> Sure, to the extent that we simply can not control things with our minds, this may be called faith, but it is not the same faith as believing a super-natural being supersedes all physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and all other natural sciences somehow. *That is some serious faith that actually defies logic in the face of so much evidence that our physical reality is guided by inherent natural forces that exist everywhere all the time*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AKA..Bat Shit Crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from someone who did too much drugs.
Click to expand...


No such thing if you take care of yourself at the same time.

Huggy won't be drownin in his bathtub any time soon....


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> After all, none of us were there!  Even if there is some sort of written record, since none of us were there, there is no way to verify the accuracy of those records!



So based on these statements, I am guessing you accept the written accounts of the ressurection of Christ??


----------



## UltimateReality

While we are on the subject of faith, and your side's supposed oh so much trust in experiments and "real" science, looks like Higgs is about to go the way of Zeus, i.e, becoming a myth...

"The LHC has done an impressive job of investigating and leaving in tatters the SUSY/extra-dimensional speculative universe that has dominated particle theory for much of the last thirty years, and this is likely to be one of its main legacies. These fields will undoubtedly continue to play a large role in particle theory, no matter how bad the experimental situation gets, as their advocates argue &#8220;Never, never, never give up!&#8221;" 

Not Even Wrong


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> After all, none of us were there!  Even if there is some sort of written record, since none of us were there, there is no way to verify the accuracy of those records!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So based on these statements, I am guessing you accept the written accounts of the ressurection of Christ??
Click to expand...


Memo to godboy:  When people are dead for over 24 hours ..they stay dead.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> After all, none of us were there!  Even if there is some sort of written record, since none of us were there, there is no way to verify the accuracy of those records!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So based on these statements, I am guessing you accept the written accounts of the ressurection of Christ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Memo to godboy:  When people are dead for over 24 hours ..they stay dead.
Click to expand...


So if they are only dead for 23 hours, there's a chance?


----------



## newpolitics

koshergrl said:


> Who said that natural forces don't exist?
> 
> We just believe they are orchestrated by God.
> 
> Which of course, they are.



You don't know what you believe. You read a book and listened to a guy speak when you were little, and was told by everyone in the community that this was the 'truth.' You never actually questioned it for yourself. This makes you a sheep. A docile, follower of whatever information flew your way at the developmentally appropriate time as to make a lasting impression on your belief system. That's all this is. Don't think anything you believe has anything to do with reality, you dumbass.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that natural forces don't exist?
> 
> We just believe they are orchestrated by God.
> 
> Which of course, they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you believe. You read a book and listened to a guy speak when you were little, and was told by everyone in the community that this was the 'truth.' You never actually questioned it for yourself. This makes you a sheep. A docile, follower of whatever information flew your way at the developmentally appropriate time as to make a lasting impression on your belief system. That's all this is. Don't think anything you believe has anything to do with reality, you dumbass.
Click to expand...


Is this how people on your side of the debate act when they are not doing so well ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dating methods are only as accurate as the presuppositions and speculation,none of us were there.
> 
> I accept legitmate science that can be verified not left to presuppositions affecting the conclusion or vivid imaginations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that, by that logic, you cannot trust anything that didn't happen in the lifetime of someone alive today?  After all, none of us were there!  Even if there is some sort of written record, since none of us were there, there is no way to verify the accuracy of those records!
> 
> I'm sorry, but saying dating methods that don't involve someone being there are inherently inaccurate is just silly.  Now, perhaps our dating methods ARE inaccurate; your inability to accept the reality around you as having been constant before your time is no reason to think so, however.
Click to expand...



Do you realize in determing even a recent death it is hard to pinpoint an accurate time of death ? do you understand one of the determining factors to even get close to the actual time of death is either by witnessing the death or the last time they were seen alive.

You think dating methods for millions of years are accurate


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that natural forces don't exist?
> 
> We just believe they are orchestrated by God.
> 
> Which of course, they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you believe. You read a book and listened to a guy speak when you were little, and was told by everyone in the community that this was the 'truth.' You never actually questioned it for yourself. This makes you a sheep. A docile, follower of whatever information flew your way at the developmentally appropriate time as to make a lasting impression on your belief system. That's all this is. Don't think anything you believe has anything to do with reality, you dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this how people on your side of the debate act when they are not doing so well ?
Click to expand...


Oh just shut up. You don't have an argument. Go to church and stay out of the debate forums.


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So based on these statements, I am guessing you accept the written accounts of the ressurection of Christ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Memo to godboy:  When people are dead for over 24 hours ..they stay dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they are only dead for 23 hours, there's a chance?
Click to expand...


I've heard of people being revived after as long as 40 minutes if they drowned in near freezing water.  That is with no other associated trauma.  Massive blood loss and broken bones with the introduction of wholesale infection through broken skin and vital organs.  Once the heart stops with no adrenaline or electro shock ...no CPR?  I doubt any human ever has auto revived under such circumstance.  

So what happened to the body..?

One..it was never put in the cave ..taken to a communal grave meant for crimminals.

two...and most likely...it was removed by the Jews as not to be buried with any honor or martyr value.

Chances of a ressurection as depicted in bible...zero.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you believe. You read a book and listened to a guy speak when you were little, and was told by everyone in the community that this was the 'truth.' You never actually questioned it for yourself. This makes you a sheep. A docile, follower of whatever information flew your way at the developmentally appropriate time as to make a lasting impression on your belief system. That's all this is. Don't think anything you believe has anything to do with reality, you dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this how people on your side of the debate act when they are not doing so well ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh just shut up. You don't have an argument. Go to church and stay out of the debate forums.
Click to expand...


If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. I have been debating these issues for many years there is nothing new you can bring to the table that can't be shown as rediculous and totally illogical,junior.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Memo to godboy:  When people are dead for over 24 hours ..they stay dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if they are only dead for 23 hours, there's a chance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard of people being revived after as long as 40 minutes if they drowned in near freezing water.  That is with no other associated trauma.  Massive blood loss and broken bones with the introduction of wholesale infection through broken skin and vital organs.  Once the heart stops with no adrenaline or electro shock ...no CPR?  I doubt any human ever has auto revived under such circumstance.
> 
> So what happened to the body..?
> 
> One..it was never put in the cave ..taken to a communal grave meant for crimminals.
> 
> two...and most likely...it was removed by the Jews as not to be buried with any honor or martyr value.
> 
> Chances of a ressurection as depicted in bible...zero.
Click to expand...


It would be a miracle if there were no permanent damage.

Well there were more then one witness to the fact of the resurrection ,are they all liars ?

The bible has proven to be reliable and Josephus the historian wrote about Christ and the resurrection.




Two References to Jesus

Josephus' writings cover a number of figures familiar to Bible readers. He discusses John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, and the Pharisees. As for Jesus, there are two references to him in Antiquities. I will recount them in the order in which they appear.

First, in a section in Book 18 dealing with various actions of Pilate, the extant texts refer to Jesus and his ministry. This passage is known as the Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF".

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1

The Testimonium Flavianum

It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial authenticity of the TF.

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm


----------



## Poli_Sigh

According to Genesis, God created earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th.  Only a delusional human could make up such nonsensical crap especially the part about God resting on the 7th?  God(s) doesn't (don't) rest, or need to.


----------



## cooky

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dating methods are only as accurate as the presuppositions and speculation,none of us were there.
> 
> I accept legitmate science that can be verified not left to presuppositions affecting the conclusion or vivid imaginations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that, by that logic, you cannot trust anything that didn't happen in the lifetime of someone alive today?  After all, none of us were there!  Even if there is some sort of written record, since none of us were there, there is no way to verify the accuracy of those records!
> 
> I'm sorry, but saying dating methods that don't involve someone being there are inherently inaccurate is just silly.  Now, perhaps our dating methods ARE inaccurate; your inability to accept the reality around you as having been constant before your time is no reason to think so, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No It's not silly, it is factually accurate to say what I said. It's not like we are determining a death that happened recently. There have been many documented cases of objects being dated  by several different scientists coming up with a different age. There have been many cases different parts of the same object showed different ages. Do I need to repost it for you ?
Click to expand...


Radioisotopic dating methods provide very reliable and accurate measurement when they are applied appropriately. By measuring the decay of more than one radioactive isotope allows researchers to calibrate and corroborate their instrumentz and results. Naturally, these protocols arent full proof as nothing os but more often than not they produce datasets with very high confidence inyervals.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Poli_Sigh said:


> According to Genesis, God created earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th.  Only a delusional human could make up such nonsensical crap especially the part about God resting on the 7th?  God(s) doesn't (don't) rest, or need to.



Bad translation.

While it is true that many translations of the Bible such as the New Revised Version Standard (NRSV), the King James' Version (KJV) and others render the word Shavat as "rested" a more accurate translation of Shavat is "abstained," i.e., "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because He abstained from all His work which God created to make" (Gen. 2:4). Nachmanides (12th century) interpreted these words to mean "he ceased to perform all His creative work."

Why the need to abstain? Obviously it wasn't because of tiredness! God's resting from creation teaches us that as human beings created in the image of God, we too need to make time for rest and purposely abstain from interfering with creation one day of the week. The passion to create can sometimes be dangerous &#8212; especially for a technological society that prides itself on its ability to create, manipulate and control the world around it.


Why Would A God Need to Rest on the Seventh Day?


Joh 5:17

(ASV)  But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work. 

(BBE)  But his answer was: My Father is still working even now, and so I am working. 

(CEV)  But Jesus said, "My Father has never stopped working, and that is why I keep on working." 

(KJV)  But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. 

(KJV+)  ButG1161 JesusG2424 answeredG611 them,G846 MyG3450 FatherG3962 workethG2038 hitherto,G2193 G737 and IG2504 work.G2038 

(MKJV)  But Jesus answered them, My Father works until now, and I work.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cooky said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that, by that logic, you cannot trust anything that didn't happen in the lifetime of someone alive today?  After all, none of us were there!  Even if there is some sort of written record, since none of us were there, there is no way to verify the accuracy of those records!
> 
> I'm sorry, but saying dating methods that don't involve someone being there are inherently inaccurate is just silly.  Now, perhaps our dating methods ARE inaccurate; your inability to accept the reality around you as having been constant before your time is no reason to think so, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No It's not silly, it is factually accurate to say what I said. It's not like we are determining a death that happened recently. There have been many documented cases of objects being dated  by several different scientists coming up with a different age. There have been many cases different parts of the same object showed different ages. Do I need to repost it for you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Radioisotopic dating methods provide very reliable and accurate measurement when they are applied appropriately. By measuring the decay of more than one radioactive isotope allows researchers to calibrate and corroborate their instrumentz and results. Naturally, these protocols arent full proof as nothing os but more often than not they produce datasets with very high confidence inyervals.
Click to expand...


You still need mans presuppopsitions and correct interpretations of the evidence. I don't trust man to figure these things out accurately,their biased views have a tendency to get in the way. They can't even give an exact time of death of a person recently unless it was witnessed.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if they are only dead for 23 hours, there's a chance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard of people being revived after as long as 40 minutes if they drowned in near freezing water.  That is with no other associated trauma.  Massive blood loss and broken bones with the introduction of wholesale infection through broken skin and vital organs.  Once the heart stops with no adrenaline or electro shock ...no CPR?  I doubt any human ever has auto revived under such circumstance.
> 
> So what happened to the body..?
> 
> One..it was never put in the cave ..taken to a communal grave meant for crimminals.
> 
> two...and most likely...it was removed by the Jews as not to be buried with any honor or martyr value.
> 
> Chances of a ressurection as depicted in bible...zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be a miracle if there were no permanent damage.
> 
> Well there were more then one witness to the fact of the resurrection ,are they all liars ?
> 
> The bible has proven to be reliable and Josephus the historian wrote about Christ and the resurrection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two References to Jesus
> 
> Josephus' writings cover a number of figures familiar to Bible readers. He discusses John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, and the Pharisees. As for Jesus, there are two references to him in Antiquities. I will recount them in the order in which they appear.
> 
> First, in a section in Book 18 dealing with various actions of Pilate, the extant texts refer to Jesus and his ministry. This passage is known as the Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF".
> 
> Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.
> 
> Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3
> 
> Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.
> 
> But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.
> 
> Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1
> 
> The Testimonium Flavianum
> 
> It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial authenticity of the TF.
> 
> Did Josephus Refer to Jesus
Click to expand...


Yes.  ALL liars.  If the Jeebus was still alive there would have been hundreds of witnesses.  There would have been MAJOR panic among the romans.  Either he would have been recaptured and crucified AGAIN or released and given some kind of special place as a living god because no man had ever been dead for three days.  In short it would have been an immediate big time on the spot game changer.

Yup...ALL liars.


----------



## Poli_Sigh

Youwerecreated said:


> Poli_Sigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Genesis, God created earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th.  Only a delusional human could make up such nonsensical crap especially the part about God resting on the 7th?  God(s) doesn't (don't) rest, or need to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad translation.
> 
> While it is true that many translations of the Bible such as the New Revised Version Standard (NRSV), the King James' Version (KJV) and others render the word Shavat as "rested" a more accurate translation of Shavat is "abstained," i.e., "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because He abstained from all His work which God created to make" (Gen. 2:4). Nachmanides (12th century) interpreted these words to mean "he ceased to perform all His creative work."
> 
> Why the need to abstain? Obviously it wasn't because of tiredness! God's resting from creation teaches us that as human beings created in the image of God, we too need to make time for rest and purposely abstain from interfering with creation one day of the week. The passion to create can sometimes be dangerous  especially for a technological society that prides itself on its ability to create, manipulate and control the world around it.
> 
> 
> Why Would A God Need to Rest on the Seventh Day?
> 
> 
> Joh 5:17
> 
> (ASV)  But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work.
> 
> (BBE)  But his answer was: My Father is still working even now, and so I am working.
> 
> (CEV)  But Jesus said, "My Father has never stopped working, and that is why I keep on working."
> 
> (KJV)  But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
> 
> (KJV+)  ButG1161 JesusG2424 answeredG611 them,G846 MyG3450 FatherG3962 workethG2038 hitherto,G2193 G737 and IG2504 work.G2038
> 
> (MKJV)  But Jesus answered them, My Father works until now, and I work.
Click to expand...


Just what the world needed, a damned English Monarch reinterpreting the Bible.  Sorry, if I don't buy into the creation story as bearing any resemblance to fact living or dead.  Don't misunderstand me, the Bible is a great work - part fact, part fiction.  It give us a historical look at life on earth thousands of years ago. Its pages are filled with wondrous stories of men and women who show us that lives filled with love, compassion, understanding, tolerance and humility lead to happiness and peace of mind.

But it is quite impossible for 20th or 21st Century man to forget that it is the work of men of God, not God Himself.  

Man doesn't have clue one what God would have done on the 7th day after creating the world.  However, since men tire easily especially after 6 days of back breaking hard work, resting on the 7th sounded like a pretty good idea to him, but that's not God's idea.  

That God exists is a belief held world-wide by the majority of people who come from all walks of life and faiths.  However, Who He, She, It is and what His, Her, or Its plan is for the world remains a Divine Mystery to mankind.  And no matter how many times anyone reads their Bible, that Mystery is never revealed.  Just some followers of certain religions have this mistaken notion that they're belief system is closer to the truth than another.  And what is even more disturbing, is the lengths to which many religious sects are willing to go to prove they don't know what the hell they're talking about.  That's not the humility of faith that's the arrogance of men.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dating methods are only as accurate as the presuppositions and speculation,none of us were there.
> 
> I accept legitmate science that can be verified not left to presuppositions affecting the conclusion or vivid imaginations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that, by that logic, you cannot trust anything that didn't happen in the lifetime of someone alive today?  After all, none of us were there!  Even if there is some sort of written record, since none of us were there, there is no way to verify the accuracy of those records!
> 
> I'm sorry, but saying dating methods that don't involve someone being there are inherently inaccurate is just silly.  Now, perhaps our dating methods ARE inaccurate; your inability to accept the reality around you as having been constant before your time is no reason to think so, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize in determing even a recent death it is hard to pinpoint an accurate time of death ? do you understand one of the determining factors to even get close to the actual time of death is either by witnessing the death or the last time they were seen alive.
> 
> You think dating methods for millions of years are accurate
Click to expand...


Are you saying that the dating methods for recently deceased corpses is the same as the dating methods for thousands or millions of years old fossils?

Are you saying that radiometric dating claims to be as accurate as forensic science giving a time of death?

Whether our dating methods are accurate or not is not dependent upon whether something has been witnessed.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> After all, none of us were there!  Even if there is some sort of written record, since none of us were there, there is no way to verify the accuracy of those records!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So based on these statements, I am guessing you accept the written accounts of the ressurection of Christ??
Click to expand...


Based on my statements which are a response to YWC's posts you guess that?  Well, have fun with that.


----------



## UltimateReality

Poli_Sigh said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poli_Sigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Genesis, God created earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th.  Only a delusional human could make up such nonsensical crap especially the part about God resting on the 7th?  God(s) doesn't (don't) rest, or need to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad translation.
> 
> While it is true that many translations of the Bible such as the New Revised Version Standard (NRSV), the King James' Version (KJV) and others render the word Shavat as "rested" a more accurate translation of Shavat is "abstained," i.e., "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because He abstained from all His work which God created to make" (Gen. 2:4). Nachmanides (12th century) interpreted these words to mean "he ceased to perform all His creative work."
> 
> Why the need to abstain? Obviously it wasn't because of tiredness! God's resting from creation teaches us that as human beings created in the image of God, we too need to make time for rest and purposely abstain from interfering with creation one day of the week. The passion to create can sometimes be dangerous &#8212; especially for a technological society that prides itself on its ability to create, manipulate and control the world around it.
> 
> 
> Why Would A God Need to Rest on the Seventh Day?
> 
> 
> Joh 5:17
> 
> (ASV)  But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work.
> 
> (BBE)  But his answer was: My Father is still working even now, and so I am working.
> 
> (CEV)  But Jesus said, "My Father has never stopped working, and that is why I keep on working."
> 
> (KJV)  But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
> 
> (KJV+)  ButG1161 JesusG2424 answeredG611 them,G846 MyG3450 FatherG3962 workethG2038 hitherto,G2193 G737 and IG2504 work.G2038
> 
> (MKJV)  But Jesus answered them, My Father works until now, and I work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just what the world needed, a damned English Monarch reinterpreting the Bible.  Sorry, if I don't buy into the creation story as bearing any resemblance to fact living or dead.  Don't misunderstand me, the Bible is a great work - part fact, part fiction.  It give us a historical look at life on earth thousands of years ago. Its pages are filled with wondrous stories of men and women who show us that lives filled with love, compassion, understanding, tolerance and humility lead to happiness and peace of mind.
> 
> But it is quite impossible for 20th or 21st Century man to forget that it is the work of men of God, not God Himself.
> 
> Man doesn't have clue one what God would have done on the 7th day after creating the world.  However, since men tire easily especially after 6 days of back breaking hard work, resting on the 7th sounded like a pretty good idea to him, but that's not God's idea.
> 
> That God exists is a belief held world-wide by the majority of people who come from all walks of life and faiths.  However, Who He, She, It is and what His, Her, or Its plan is for the world remains a Divine Mystery to mankind.  And no matter how many times anyone reads their Bible, that Mystery is never revealed.  Just some followers of certain religions have this mistaken notion that they're belief system is closer to the truth than another.  And what is even more disturbing, is the lengths to which many religious sects are willing to go to prove they don't know what the hell they're talking about.  That's not the humility of faith that's the arrogance of men.
Click to expand...


The 7-day description of Creation in the Bible is not meant to be taken as literal 24 hour periods. If you actually read the account, the word day is used prior to the earth's rotation being established.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> After all, none of us were there!  Even if there is some sort of written record, since none of us were there, there is no way to verify the accuracy of those records!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So based on these statements, I am guessing you accept the written accounts of the ressurection of Christ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on my statements which are a response to YWC's posts you guess that?  Well, have fun with that.
Click to expand...


I guess everyone posting failed to gleen the sarcasm of my response. This is classic case of having it your way when it suits your point but denying the same concept when it is something you don't agree with.

This is all a mute point for me anyway. I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe in a 13.7 Billion year old universe and roughly 4 billion year old earth.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you believe. You read a book and listened to a guy speak when you were little, and was told by everyone in the community that this was the 'truth.' You never actually questioned it for yourself. This makes you a sheep. A docile, follower of whatever information flew your way at the developmentally appropriate time as to make a lasting impression on your belief system. That's all this is. Don't think anything you believe has anything to do with reality, you dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this how people on your side of the debate act when they are not doing so well ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh just shut up. You don't have an argument. Go to church and stay out of the debate forums.
Click to expand...


Hey, I hate to point out the obvious here, but you are posting in a thread titled "Religion and Ethics/Creationists" in case you somehow missed that.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So based on these statements, I am guessing you accept the written accounts of the ressurection of Christ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on my statements which are a response to YWC's posts you guess that?  Well, have fun with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess everyone posting failed to gleen the sarcasm of my response. This is classic case of having it your way when it suits your point but denying the same concept when it is something you don't agree with.
> 
> This is all a mute point for me anyway. I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe in a 13.7 Billion year old universe and roughly 4 billion year old earth.
Click to expand...


I guessed there was sarcasm, but in this thread, it's best not to assume!


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard of people being revived after as long as 40 minutes if they drowned in near freezing water.  That is with no other associated trauma.  Massive blood loss and broken bones with the introduction of wholesale infection through broken skin and vital organs.  Once the heart stops with no adrenaline or electro shock ...no CPR?  I doubt any human ever has auto revived under such circumstance.
> 
> So what happened to the body..?
> 
> One..it was never put in the cave ..taken to a communal grave meant for crimminals.
> 
> two...and most likely...it was removed by the Jews as not to be buried with any honor or martyr value.
> 
> Chances of a ressurection as depicted in bible...zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a miracle if there were no permanent damage.
> 
> Well there were more then one witness to the fact of the resurrection ,are they all liars ?
> 
> The bible has proven to be reliable and Josephus the historian wrote about Christ and the resurrection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two References to Jesus
> 
> Josephus' writings cover a number of figures familiar to Bible readers. He discusses John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, and the Pharisees. As for Jesus, there are two references to him in Antiquities. I will recount them in the order in which they appear.
> 
> First, in a section in Book 18 dealing with various actions of Pilate, the extant texts refer to Jesus and his ministry. This passage is known as the Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF".
> 
> Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.
> 
> Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3
> 
> Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.
> 
> But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.
> 
> Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1
> 
> The Testimonium Flavianum
> 
> It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial authenticity of the TF.
> 
> Did Josephus Refer to Jesus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  ALL liars.  If the Jeebus was still alive there would have been hundreds of witnesses.  There would have been MAJOR panic among the romans.  Either he would have been recaptured and crucified AGAIN or released and given some kind of special place as a living god because no man had ever been dead for three days.  In short it would have been an immediate big time on the spot game changer.
> 
> Yup...ALL liars.
Click to expand...


Uh he was a spirit that only materialized to his closest followers, and it was recorded in the scriptures.

Need to read the scriptures before you pass judgment he didn't appear to be seen by everyone. But notice the words of Josephus. Apparently there were many witnesses of his acts that were passed onto Josephus.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Poli_Sigh said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poli_Sigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Genesis, God created earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th.  Only a delusional human could make up such nonsensical crap especially the part about God resting on the 7th?  God(s) doesn't (don't) rest, or need to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad translation.
> 
> While it is true that many translations of the Bible such as the New Revised Version Standard (NRSV), the King James' Version (KJV) and others render the word Shavat as "rested" a more accurate translation of Shavat is "abstained," i.e., "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because He abstained from all His work which God created to make" (Gen. 2:4). Nachmanides (12th century) interpreted these words to mean "he ceased to perform all His creative work."
> 
> Why the need to abstain? Obviously it wasn't because of tiredness! God's resting from creation teaches us that as human beings created in the image of God, we too need to make time for rest and purposely abstain from interfering with creation one day of the week. The passion to create can sometimes be dangerous &#8212; especially for a technological society that prides itself on its ability to create, manipulate and control the world around it.
> 
> 
> Why Would A God Need to Rest on the Seventh Day?
> 
> 
> Joh 5:17
> 
> (ASV)  But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work.
> 
> (BBE)  But his answer was: My Father is still working even now, and so I am working.
> 
> (CEV)  But Jesus said, "My Father has never stopped working, and that is why I keep on working."
> 
> (KJV)  But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
> 
> (KJV+)  ButG1161 JesusG2424 answeredG611 them,G846 MyG3450 FatherG3962 workethG2038 hitherto,G2193 G737 and IG2504 work.G2038
> 
> (MKJV)  But Jesus answered them, My Father works until now, and I work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just what the world needed, a damned English Monarch reinterpreting the Bible.  Sorry, if I don't buy into the creation story as bearing any resemblance to fact living or dead.  Don't misunderstand me, the Bible is a great work - part fact, part fiction.  It give us a historical look at life on earth thousands of years ago. Its pages are filled with wondrous stories of men and women who show us that lives filled with love, compassion, understanding, tolerance and humility lead to happiness and peace of mind.
> 
> But it is quite impossible for 20th or 21st Century man to forget that it is the work of men of God, not God Himself.
> 
> Man doesn't have clue one what God would have done on the 7th day after creating the world.  However, since men tire easily especially after 6 days of back breaking hard work, resting on the 7th sounded like a pretty good idea to him, but that's not God's idea.
> 
> That God exists is a belief held world-wide by the majority of people who come from all walks of life and faiths.  However, Who He, She, It is and what His, Her, or Its plan is for the world remains a Divine Mystery to mankind.  And no matter how many times anyone reads their Bible, that Mystery is never revealed.  Just some followers of certain religions have this mistaken notion that they're belief system is closer to the truth than another.  And what is even more disturbing, is the lengths to which many religious sects are willing to go to prove they don't know what the hell they're talking about.  That's not the humility of faith that's the arrogance of men.
Click to expand...


I am no fan of organized religion and mans interpretations are grosely wrong sometimes. The key is faith and believing But with the help of prayer and study the truth is there for all to see. There was a reason for the parables it was so those truly seeking him and knows what he expects from us and what will happen in the future dilligently study the scriptures.

The word does answer alot of questions but not to the point that faith is not needed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that, by that logic, you cannot trust anything that didn't happen in the lifetime of someone alive today?  After all, none of us were there!  Even if there is some sort of written record, since none of us were there, there is no way to verify the accuracy of those records!
> 
> I'm sorry, but saying dating methods that don't involve someone being there are inherently inaccurate is just silly.  Now, perhaps our dating methods ARE inaccurate; your inability to accept the reality around you as having been constant before your time is no reason to think so, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize in determing even a recent death it is hard to pinpoint an accurate time of death ? do you understand one of the determining factors to even get close to the actual time of death is either by witnessing the death or the last time they were seen alive.
> 
> You think dating methods for millions of years are accurate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the dating methods for recently deceased corpses is the same as the dating methods for thousands or millions of years old fossils?
> 
> Are you saying that radiometric dating claims to be as accurate as forensic science giving a time of death?
> 
> Whether our dating methods are accurate or not is not dependent upon whether something has been witnessed.
Click to expand...


No what I am saying is how are they anymore reliable then the methods being used in determining a recent death. Besides we know they are not accurate it has been shown many times the current dating methods that is.

Really, because that is the only way of knowing the actual time of death  is by it being witnessed.

So if we say a fosssil is 100,000 years old that is believable but a person is said to have died between 8 am and 4 pm does not cause one to pause about deteriming the age of a fossil ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So based on these statements, I am guessing you accept the written accounts of the ressurection of Christ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on my statements which are a response to YWC's posts you guess that?  Well, have fun with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess everyone posting failed to gleen the sarcasm of my response. This is classic case of having it your way when it suits your point but denying the same concept when it is something you don't agree with.
> 
> This is all a mute point for me anyway. I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe in a 13.7 Billion year old universe and roughly 4 billion year old earth.
Click to expand...


I do know this it is written in the scriptures a day is a thousand years to God so was it mans days or Gods days for creation ? 12,000 years by Gods calendar.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a miracle if there were no permanent damage.
> 
> Well there were more then one witness to the fact of the resurrection ,are they all liars ?
> 
> The bible has proven to be reliable and Josephus the historian wrote about Christ and the resurrection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two References to Jesus
> 
> Josephus' writings cover a number of figures familiar to Bible readers. He discusses John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, and the Pharisees. As for Jesus, there are two references to him in Antiquities. I will recount them in the order in which they appear.
> 
> First, in a section in Book 18 dealing with various actions of Pilate, the extant texts refer to Jesus and his ministry. This passage is known as the Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF".
> 
> Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.
> 
> Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3
> 
> Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.
> 
> But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.
> 
> Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1
> 
> The Testimonium Flavianum
> 
> It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial authenticity of the TF.
> 
> Did Josephus Refer to Jesus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  ALL liars.  If the Jeebus was still alive there would have been hundreds of witnesses.  There would have been MAJOR panic among the romans.  Either he would have been recaptured and crucified AGAIN or released and given some kind of special place as a living god because no man had ever been dead for three days.  In short it would have been an immediate big time on the spot game changer.
> 
> Yup...ALL liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh he was a spirit that only materialized to his closest followers, and it was recorded in the scriptures.
> 
> Need to read the scriptures before you pass judgment he didn't appear to be seen by everyone. But notice the words of Josephus. Apparently there were many witnesses of his acts that were passed onto Josephus.
Click to expand...


UH...OK.  It has been many years since I read a bible but I recall something about the "stone" covering the entrance was moved... No body of Jeebus inside..stuff like that..

So NOW this was all about Ghosts?  Nobody actually saw what they thought was an actual Jeebus?

So if it was ghosts...what happened to the corpse?


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize in determing even a recent death it is hard to pinpoint an accurate time of death ? do you understand one of the determining factors to even get close to the actual time of death is either by witnessing the death or the last time they were seen alive.
> 
> You think dating methods for millions of years are accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the dating methods for recently deceased corpses is the same as the dating methods for thousands or millions of years old fossils?
> 
> Are you saying that radiometric dating claims to be as accurate as forensic science giving a time of death?
> 
> Whether our dating methods are accurate or not is not dependent upon whether something has been witnessed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No what I am saying is how are they anymore reliable then the methods being used in determining a recent death. Besides we know they are not accurate it has been shown many times the current dating methods that is.
> 
> Really, because that is the only way of knowing the actual time of death  is by it being witnessed.
> 
> So if we say a fosssil is 100,000 years old that is believable but a person is said to have died between 8 am and 4 pm does not cause one to pause about deteriming the age of a fossil ?
Click to expand...


If we used the same dating methods in the different situations, it would certainly make more sense to compare them.  Would you be upset with an estimated size of our solar system because it isn't accurate to the meter?  These are different measurements taken in different ways.

Just because there are no witnesses doesn't mean it is impossible to come up with an accurate time of death.  Just because there were no witnesses doesn't mean it's impossible to come up with a (fairly) accurate age to fossils.  I'm not sure why you seem to think that, without witnesses, any dating method is completely useless.  If you think the science behind radiometric dating is wrong, that's fine, but claiming a need for witnesses is just ridiculous.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  ALL liars.  If the Jeebus was still alive there would have been hundreds of witnesses.  There would have been MAJOR panic among the romans.  Either he would have been recaptured and crucified AGAIN or released and given some kind of special place as a living god because no man had ever been dead for three days.  In short it would have been an immediate big time on the spot game changer.
> 
> Yup...ALL liars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh he was a spirit that only materialized to his closest followers, and it was recorded in the scriptures.
> 
> Need to read the scriptures before you pass judgment he didn't appear to be seen by everyone. But notice the words of Josephus. Apparently there were many witnesses of his acts that were passed onto Josephus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UH...OK.  It has been many years since I read a bible but I recall something about the "stone" covering the entrance was moved... No body of Jeebus inside..stuff like that..
> 
> So NOW this was all about Ghosts?  Nobody actually saw what they thought was an actual Jeebus?
> 
> So if it was ghosts...what happened to the corpse?
Click to expand...


The scriptures do not say what happened to the corpse. You are asking a question that any answer would be only speculation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the dating methods for recently deceased corpses is the same as the dating methods for thousands or millions of years old fossils?
> 
> Are you saying that radiometric dating claims to be as accurate as forensic science giving a time of death?
> 
> Whether our dating methods are accurate or not is not dependent upon whether something has been witnessed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No what I am saying is how are they anymore reliable then the methods being used in determining a recent death. Besides we know they are not accurate it has been shown many times the current dating methods that is.
> 
> Really, because that is the only way of knowing the actual time of death  is by it being witnessed.
> 
> So if we say a fosssil is 100,000 years old that is believable but a person is said to have died between 8 am and 4 pm does not cause one to pause about deteriming the age of a fossil ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we used the same dating methods in the different situations, it would certainly make more sense to compare them.  Would you be upset with an estimated size of our solar system because it isn't accurate to the meter?  These are different measurements taken in different ways.
> 
> Just because there are no witnesses doesn't mean it is impossible to come up with an accurate time of death.  Just because there were no witnesses doesn't mean it's impossible to come up with a (fairly) accurate age to fossils.  I'm not sure why you seem to think that, without witnesses, any dating method is completely useless.  If you think the science behind radiometric dating is wrong, that's fine, but claiming a need for witnesses is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...


The only answers I accept from mans sciences are facts that can actually be accurately supported by evidence.

I have already answered the really important question to myself and that is did life come through a designer or a natural process called evolution.

I have seen no real science contradict the bible that is one of many reasons why I feel I can trust in the bible.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> The only answers I accept from mans sciences are facts that can actually be accurately supported by evidence.
> 
> I have already answered the really important question to myself and that is did life come through a designer or a natural process called evolution.
> 
> I have seen no real science contradict the bible that is one of many reasons why I feel I can trust in the bible.



The problem, at least for me, is that based on your posts, I get the feeling you do not trust any science that contradicts the bible, rather than not having seen *real* science that does so.  When you say things like witnesses are the only viable dating method, it causes doubt about your ability to recognize what is real science.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on my statements which are a response to YWC's posts you guess that?  Well, have fun with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess everyone posting failed to gleen the sarcasm of my response. This is classic case of having it your way when it suits your point but denying the same concept when it is something you don't agree with.
> 
> This is all a mute point for me anyway. I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe in a 13.7 Billion year old universe and roughly 4 billion year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do know this it is written in the scriptures a day is a thousand years to God so was it mans days or Gods days for creation ? 12,000 years by Gods calendar.
Click to expand...


Again, in the Creation story, a 24 hour period was not established prior to the use of a day as describing a Creation event. I don't think you can take that literally. I also don't think you should take the statement you quoted above out of context.

2 Peter 3:

3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, Where is this coming he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation. 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by Gods word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. 

 8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 

 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.[a] 

The first part of the quote is a day is like a thousand years... read, our single 24-hour day is like a thousand years to God. So was the earth created in 7 God Days or 7 Earth Days? I think the point you are missing is that the Designer transcends time. He operates outside of time. The word day in Genesis is used to denote a period of time metaphorically, not an actual day. This is confirmed by science that even time began at the Big Bang. Also, the description in verse 10 is also confirmed by science. Our sun will eventually become a Red Giant, destroying the earth by fire.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only answers I accept from mans sciences are facts that can actually be accurately supported by evidence.
> 
> I have already answered the really important question to myself and that is did life come through a designer or a natural process called evolution.
> 
> I have seen no real science contradict the bible that is one of many reasons why I feel I can trust in the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem, at least for me, is that based on your posts, I get the feeling you do not trust any science that contradicts the bible, rather than not having seen *real* science that does so.  When you say things like witnesses are the only viable dating method, it causes doubt about your ability to recognize what is real science.
Click to expand...


Real science and things to be believed from science is through the process of verification.

No one can verify when life began because they were not there.

No one can verify how life started.

No one can verify how the universe started.

No one can verify how this planet was perfectly setup for life.

So pretty much science dealing with the past is not trustworthy.

You can look at the past and see what happened but you don't know when and how exactly it happened.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess everyone posting failed to gleen the sarcasm of my response. This is classic case of having it your way when it suits your point but denying the same concept when it is something you don't agree with.
> 
> This is all a mute point for me anyway. I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe in a 13.7 Billion year old universe and roughly 4 billion year old earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do know this it is written in the scriptures a day is a thousand years to God so was it mans days or Gods days for creation ? 12,000 years by Gods calendar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, in the Creation story, a 24 hour period was not established prior to the use of a day as describing a Creation event. I don't think you can take that literally. I also don't think you should take the statement you quoted above out of context.
> 
> 2 Peter 3:
> 
> 3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, &#8220;Where is this &#8216;coming&#8217; he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.&#8221; 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God&#8217;s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
> 
> 8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
> 
> 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.[a]
> 
> The first part of the quote is a day is like a thousand years... read, our single 24-hour day is like a thousand years to God. So was the earth created in 7 God Days or 7 Earth Days? I think the point you are missing is that the Designer transcends time. He operates outside of time. The word day in Genesis is used to denote a period of time metaphorically, not an actual day. This is confirmed by science that even time began at the Big Bang. Also, the description in verse 10 is also confirmed by science. Our sun will eventually become a Red Giant, destroying the earth by fire.
Click to expand...


I would think it is in God days.

The Big Bang could have been caused by God when creation began but there is no way to know for sure when that was,this is the creationist in me coming out now.

Just because God is eternal does not mean he has no calendar for events.

Mat 24:36  But of that day and hour no one knows, no, not the angels of Heaven, but only My Father.

So which day is the metaphor or was neither one a metaphor ?

Maybe God used his length of a day for creation and mans length of a day for setting things straight.


----------



## UltimateReality

ID Theory is falsifiable...

"What is non-substantive about asking whether design exists and whether it can be reliably detected? That is a perfectly reasonable, objective, scientific question. It is done all the time in archaeology, forensics, IP litigation, etc. Are you seriously claiming that detection of design in these areas is lacking all substance? You are still hung up on this ID=creationism meme that you can&#8217;t seem to get free of."

Uncommon Descent | Q: LYO challenges: &#8220;give me a fact, real or hypothetical, any fact at all about the world which would falsify ID&#8221; A: If CSI were demonstrably to come from blind chance and necessity it would (but, with high empirical re

Funny how when I started posting up real, ID science, all the haters went silent.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> ID Theory is falsifiable...
> 
> "What is non-substantive about asking whether design exists and whether it can be reliably detected? That is a perfectly reasonable, objective, scientific question. It is done all the time in archaeology, forensics, IP litigation, etc. Are you seriously claiming that detection of design in these areas is lacking all substance? You are still hung up on this ID=creationism meme that you can&#8217;t seem to get free of."
> 
> Uncommon Descent | Q: LYO challenges: &#8220;give me a fact, real or hypothetical, any fact at all about the world which would falsify ID&#8221; A: If CSI were demonstrably to come from blind chance and necessity it would (but, with high empirical re
> 
> Funny how when I started posting up real, ID science, all the haters went silent.


sorry but Id CREATIONISIM ARE NOT SCIENCE


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID Theory is falsifiable...
> 
> "What is non-substantive about asking whether design exists and whether it can be reliably detected? That is a perfectly reasonable, objective, scientific question. It is done all the time in archaeology, forensics, IP litigation, etc. Are you seriously claiming that detection of design in these areas is lacking all substance? You are still hung up on this ID=creationism meme that you cant seem to get free of."
> 
> Uncommon Descent | Q: LYO challenges: give me a fact, real or hypothetical, any fact at all about the world which would falsify ID A: If CSI were demonstrably to come from blind chance and necessity it would (but, with high empirical re
> 
> Funny how when I started posting up real, ID science, all the haters went silent.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry but Id CREATIONISIM ARE NOT SCIENCE
Click to expand...



Back your claim.

Some of the very first scientists were creationist and they used their presuppositions in explaining evidence the same as the secular scientists of today.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID Theory is falsifiable...
> 
> "What is non-substantive about asking whether design exists and whether it can be reliably detected? That is a perfectly reasonable, objective, scientific question. It is done all the time in archaeology, forensics, IP litigation, etc. Are you seriously claiming that detection of design in these areas is lacking all substance? You are still hung up on this ID=creationism meme that you cant seem to get free of."
> 
> Uncommon Descent | Q: LYO challenges: give me a fact, real or hypothetical, any fact at all about the world which would falsify ID A: If CSI were demonstrably to come from blind chance and necessity it would (but, with high empirical re
> 
> Funny how when I started posting up real, ID science, all the haters went silent.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry but Id CREATIONISIM ARE NOT SCIENCE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back your claim.
> 
> Some of the very first scientists were creationist and they used their presuppositions in explaining evidence the same as the secular scientists of today.
Click to expand...

a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever 
Found in South Africa, the meaning of this colorful 100,000-year-old relic is a mystery 

Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - msnbc.com


----------



## HUGGY

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry but Id CREATIONISIM ARE NOT SCIENCE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back your claim.
> 
> Some of the very first scientists were creationist and they used their presuppositions in explaining evidence the same as the secular scientists of today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever
> Found in South Africa, the meaning of this colorful 100,000-year-old relic is a mystery
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - msnbc.com
Click to expand...


Science is continually finding stuff that tosses "known" beliefs on it's head.  They recently found mastadon bones deep in a lake bed covered in small boulders (with no other boulders anywhere near) that had tool markings on the ribs.  Carbon dating placed these tool marked ribs as old as 100,000 years old.  I can't remember what state they were in..Wyoming or Montana I think.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back your claim.
> 
> Some of the very first scientists were creationist and they used their presuppositions in explaining evidence the same as the secular scientists of today.
> 
> 
> 
> a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever
> Found in South Africa, the meaning of this colorful 100,000-year-old relic is a mystery
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - msnbc.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is continually finding stuff that tosses "known" beliefs on it's head.  They recently found mastadon bones deep in a lake bed covered in small boulders (with no other boulders anywhere near) that had tool markings on the ribs.  Carbon dating placed these tool marked ribs as old as 100,000 years old.  I can't remember what state they were in..Wyoming or Montana I think.
Click to expand...


So what does that tell you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry but Id CREATIONISIM ARE NOT SCIENCE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back your claim.
> 
> Some of the very first scientists were creationist and they used their presuppositions in explaining evidence the same as the secular scientists of today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever
> Found in South Africa, the meaning of this colorful 100,000-year-old relic is a mystery
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - msnbc.com
Click to expand...


Still relying on mans dating methods that are spawned by man presuppositions.

But they still can't be accurate enough to tell us the time and date  of a death of someone recent unless they observe the time and day of the recent death.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever
> Found in South Africa, the meaning of this colorful 100,000-year-old relic is a mystery
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - msnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science is continually finding stuff that tosses "known" beliefs on it's head.  They recently found mastadon bones deep in a lake bed covered in small boulders (with no other boulders anywhere near) that had tool markings on the ribs.  Carbon dating placed these tool marked ribs as old as 100,000 years old.  I can't remember what state they were in..Wyoming or Montana I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what does that tell you ?
Click to expand...


That there is a God?  That the earth is 6000 years old?   and  these mastadons were placed there by Jeebus before God invented a lot of gravity..hence the boulders.  

That Jeebus ate mastadon meat?  Then got shrunk down by gawd and stuffed up Mary's twat and then Joseph was pissed cuz he wasn't havin it...  He being the cautious one was sure his wife was a fuckin tramp. But...he didn.t want to stone the biach cuz he looked in a mirror and figured ...a lying bitch is probably all he could land anyway.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is continually finding stuff that tosses "known" beliefs on it's head.  They recently found mastadon bones deep in a lake bed covered in small boulders (with no other boulders anywhere near) that had tool markings on the ribs.  Carbon dating placed these tool marked ribs as old as 100,000 years old.  I can't remember what state they were in..Wyoming or Montana I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what does that tell you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That there is a God?  That the earth is 6000 years old?   and  these mastadons were placed there by Jeebus before God invented a lot of gravity..hence the boulders.
> 
> That Jeebus ate mastadon meat?  Then got shrunk down by gawd and stuffed up Mary's twat and then Joseph was pissed cuz he wasn't havin it...  He being the cautious one was sure his wife was a fuckin tramp. But...he didn.t want to stone the biach cuz he looked in a mirror and figured ...a lying bitch is probably all he could land anyway.
Click to expand...


You fail in your explanations of evidence and God.


----------



## UltimateReality

Huggy is a star example of the fact there are no atheists, only people who are incredibly angry at God.


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> Huggy is a star example of the fact there are no atheists, only people who are incredibly angry at God.



How can HUGGY be incredibly angry at something that does not exist?  

HUGGY is incredibly angry at the level of stupidity embedded in the human culture.

HUGGY is incredibly happy just to be here and help you goofs break out of your fantasy zombie cloud fairy nonsense.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Huggy is a star example of the fact there are no atheists, only people who are incredibly angry at God.



Angry at what God? We are angry at the assholes who try and tell the rest of us about him, yet can't listen to logic or reason, or apply it to their own beliefs.


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> *Huggy is a star *example of the fact there are no atheists, only people who are incredibly angry at God.



How nice of you to notice!   I would like to thank the acadamy and all of the little people....


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back your claim.
> 
> Some of the very first scientists were creationist and they used their presuppositions in explaining evidence the same as the secular scientists of today.
> 
> 
> 
> a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever
> Found in South Africa, the meaning of this colorful 100,000-year-old relic is a mystery
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - msnbc.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still relying on mans dating methods that are spawned by man presuppositions.
> 
> But they still can't be accurate enough to tell us the time and date  of a death of someone recent unless they observe the time and day of the recent death.
Click to expand...


And this might be important, if when dating fossils scientists claimed the ability to accurately determine age to the hour.

Your comparison of dating methods continues to be extremely foolish.


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever
> Found in South Africa, the meaning of this colorful 100,000-year-old relic is a mystery
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - msnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still relying on mans dating methods that are spawned by man presuppositions.
> 
> But they still can't be accurate enough to tell us the time and date  of a death of someone recent unless they observe the time and day of the recent death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this might be important, if when dating fossils scientists claimed the ability to accurately determine age to the hour.
> 
> Your comparison of dating methods continues to be extremely foolish.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back your claim.
> 
> Some of the very first scientists were creationist and they used their presuppositions in explaining evidence the same as the secular scientists of today.
> 
> 
> 
> a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever
> Found in South Africa, the meaning of this colorful 100,000-year-old relic is a mystery
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - msnbc.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still relying on mans dating methods that are spawned by man presuppositions.
> 
> But they still can't be accurate enough to tell us the time and date  of a death of someone recent unless they observe the time and day of the recent death.
Click to expand...

that's man's ..
and how does one presuppose time?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huggy is a star example of the fact there are no atheists, only people who are incredibly angry at God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angry at what God? We are angry at the assholes who try and tell the rest of us about him, yet can't listen to logic or reason, or apply it to their own beliefs.
Click to expand...


Tell me you were not being serious.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever
> Found in South Africa, the meaning of this colorful 100,000-year-old relic is a mystery
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - msnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still relying on mans dating methods that are spawned by man presuppositions.
> 
> But they still can't be accurate enough to tell us the time and date  of a death of someone recent unless they observe the time and day of the recent death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this might be important, if when dating fossils scientists claimed the ability to accurately determine age to the hour.
> 
> Your comparison of dating methods continues to be extremely foolish.
Click to expand...


Not foolish, but logical and reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever
> Found in South Africa, the meaning of this colorful 100,000-year-old relic is a mystery
> 
> Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - msnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still relying on mans dating methods that are spawned by man presuppositions.
> 
> But they still can't be accurate enough to tell us the time and date  of a death of someone recent unless they observe the time and day of the recent death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's man's ..
> and how does one presuppose time?
Click to expand...


So you don't understand dating methods,should have known it.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Huggy is a star *example of the fact there are no atheists, only people who are incredibly angry at God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How nice of you to notice!   I would like to thank the acadamy and all of the little people....
Click to expand...





You aren't just a star...   you're a SUPERSTAR!!!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still relying on mans dating methods that are spawned by man presuppositions.
> 
> But they still can't be accurate enough to tell us the time and date  of a death of someone recent unless they observe the time and day of the recent death.
> 
> 
> 
> that's man's ..
> and how does one presuppose time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't understand dating methods,should have known it.
Click to expand...

ahh.... wrong the rub here is you don't understand the question.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huggy is a star example of the fact there are no atheists, only people who are incredibly angry at God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angry at what God? We are angry at the assholes who try and tell the rest of us about him, yet can't listen to logic or reason, or apply it to their own beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me you were not being serious.
Click to expand...


 I'm pretty fuckin serious.


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Angry at what God? We are angry at the assholes who try and tell the rest of us about him, yet can't listen to logic or reason, or apply it to their own beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me you were not being serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty fuckin serious.
Click to expand...

be careful you might just get saved ..without your consent!


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still relying on mans dating methods that are spawned by man presuppositions.
> 
> But they still can't be accurate enough to tell us the time and date  of a death of someone recent unless they observe the time and day of the recent death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this might be important, if when dating fossils scientists claimed the ability to accurately determine age to the hour.
> 
> Your comparison of dating methods continues to be extremely foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not foolish, but logical and reality.
Click to expand...


So it is logical to compare a dating method that deals with tens or hundreds of thousands of years, or one that deals with millions of years, with a method that deals with hours?  And it is logical to assume that, since the one method is only accurate under certain circumstances, the other, completely different method cannot be accurate?

Finding a time of death for a body is completely different from dating a fossil.  If you cannot see that, you are clearly being foolish.  Go do just a minimal internet search on fossil dating methods and the methods for determining time of death.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Huggy is a star *example of the fact there are no atheists, only people who are incredibly angry at God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How nice of you to notice!   I would like to thank the acadamy and all of the little people....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't just a star...   you're a SUPERSTAR!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's man's ..
> and how does one presuppose time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't understand dating methods,should have known it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ahh.... wrong the rub here is you don't understand the question.
Click to expand...


Alright let's just show how you don't understand your own question shall we.

If you start with the assumption that life has not been around for very long let's say 12,000 years it will Affect how your dating methods work.

If you presuppose that life has been on this planet for a very long time the same will happen.

If you presuppose the universe and the earth is very old it to will be affected by the dating methnods used.

Let me give you a few articles that point out presuppositions used in dating methods.

Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis

RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS - Do they prove the earth is billions of years old?

www.answers101.org/articles/isotipicdating.pdf


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Angry at what God? We are angry at the assholes who try and tell the rest of us about him, yet can't listen to logic or reason, or apply it to their own beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me you were not being serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty fuckin serious.
Click to expand...


It can be easily shown logic can be used on both sides.

You are very seriously wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this might be important, if when dating fossils scientists claimed the ability to accurately determine age to the hour.
> 
> Your comparison of dating methods continues to be extremely foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not foolish, but logical and reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it is logical to compare a dating method that deals with tens or hundreds of thousands of years, or one that deals with millions of years, with a method that deals with hours?  And it is logical to assume that, since the one method is only accurate under certain circumstances, the other, completely different method cannot be accurate?
> 
> Finding a time of death for a body is completely different from dating a fossil.  If you cannot see that, you are clearly being foolish.  Go do just a minimal internet search on fossil dating methods and the methods for determining time of death.
Click to expand...


This should show how rediculous your view is that dating methods are so reliable.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this might be important, if when dating fossils scientists claimed the ability to accurately determine age to the hour.
> 
> Your comparison of dating methods continues to be extremely foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not foolish, but logical and reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it is logical to compare a dating method that deals with tens or hundreds of thousands of years, or one that deals with millions of years, with a method that deals with hours?  And it is logical to assume that, since the one method is only accurate under certain circumstances, the other, completely different method cannot be accurate?
> 
> Finding a time of death for a body is completely different from dating a fossil.  If you cannot see that, you are clearly being foolish.  Go do just a minimal internet search on fossil dating methods and the methods for determining time of death.
Click to expand...


So you are saying presuppositions are not used in dating methods ?


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not foolish, but logical and reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it is logical to compare a dating method that deals with tens or hundreds of thousands of years, or one that deals with millions of years, with a method that deals with hours?  And it is logical to assume that, since the one method is only accurate under certain circumstances, the other, completely different method cannot be accurate?
> 
> Finding a time of death for a body is completely different from dating a fossil.  If you cannot see that, you are clearly being foolish.  Go do just a minimal internet search on fossil dating methods and the methods for determining time of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying presuppositions are not used in dating methods ?
Click to expand...


No, I am saying that determining time of death is irrelevant when discussing the validity of radiometric dating methods.

I am saying that when you compare the two and try to use the accuracy of forensic time of death determinations to say something about the accuracy of radiometric dating, you are being ridiculous.

I will also say that the presupposition used in radiometric dating would seem to be that the rate of decay remains constant; or put another way, that physics has remained constant.  If you consider that an unfair assumption, that's your own issue.  

I will also say that I believe your own presuppositions prevent you from being able to look at dating methods with anything approaching objectivity.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is logical to compare a dating method that deals with tens or hundreds of thousands of years, or one that deals with millions of years, with a method that deals with hours?  And it is logical to assume that, since the one method is only accurate under certain circumstances, the other, completely different method cannot be accurate?
> 
> Finding a time of death for a body is completely different from dating a fossil.  If you cannot see that, you are clearly being foolish.  Go do just a minimal internet search on fossil dating methods and the methods for determining time of death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying presuppositions are not used in dating methods ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am saying that determining time of death is irrelevant when discussing the validity of radiometric dating methods.
> 
> I am saying that when you compare the two and try to use the accuracy of forensic time of death determinations to say something about the accuracy of radiometric dating, you are being ridiculous.
> 
> I will also say that the presupposition used in radiometric dating would seem to be that the rate of decay remains constant; or put another way, that physics has remained constant.  If you consider that an unfair assumption, that's your own issue.
> 
> I will also say that I believe your own presuppositions prevent you from being able to look at dating methods with anything approaching objectivity.
Click to expand...


If all things remained constant you would have an argument but that is not the case.

For one we don't know the enviornment of 6,000 years ago let alone millions or billions of years ago.

The moon is slowly receding from earth and the earths rotation is gradually slowing according to scientists. If this is the case would that not affect the enviornment ? If it's been slowing for billions of years would that not be an effect on the enviornment billions of years ago.

The point is they are using presuppositions and circular reasoning with their dating methods. Not being able to prove any of their assumptions about the enviornment many years ago. The only one being silly here is the one ignoring changes going on with the moon and sun and thinking that would not affect the enviornment. I guess you have not considered the changes with the polar ice caps ?

So silly is believing how old a fossil is but can't be exact about the time of death of a person from an enviornment that you do know and can prove what it was like.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying presuppositions are not used in dating methods ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am saying that determining time of death is irrelevant when discussing the validity of radiometric dating methods.
> 
> I am saying that when you compare the two and try to use the accuracy of forensic time of death determinations to say something about the accuracy of radiometric dating, you are being ridiculous.
> 
> I will also say that the presupposition used in radiometric dating would seem to be that the rate of decay remains constant; or put another way, that physics has remained constant.  If you consider that an unfair assumption, that's your own issue.
> 
> I will also say that I believe your own presuppositions prevent you from being able to look at dating methods with anything approaching objectivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If all things remained constant you would have an argument but that is not the case.
> 
> For one we don't know the enviornment of 6,000 years ago let alone millions or billions of years ago.
> 
> The moon is slowly receding from earth and the earths rotation is gradually slowing according to scientists. If this is the case would that not affect the enviornment ? If it's been slowing for billions of years would that not be an effect on the enviornment billions of years ago.
> 
> The point is they are using presuppositions and circular reasoning with their dating methods. Not being able to prove any of their assumptions about the enviornment many years ago. The only one being silly here is the one ignoring changes going on with the moon and sun and thinking that would not affect the enviornment. I guess you have not considered the changes with the polar ice caps ?
> 
> So silly is believing how old a fossil is but can't be exact about the time of death of a person from an enviornment that you do know and can prove what it was like.
Click to expand...


Once again, YOU ARE COMPARING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATING.  First, the accuracy of radiometric dating is not a matter of hours, as is the case for trying to determine time of death.  Have you ever seen someone claim they can accurately determine the age of a fossil to the hour?  No?  Then stop trying to make it seem as though that's the case!  Second, why do you say time of death determinations can't be exact?  By what reasoning do you come to this conclusion?  Is it because they aren't accurate to the second, or to the minute?  You keep saying time of death determinations are inaccurate but fail to provide any evidence that is the case.  As I understand it there are a number of different types of evidence used to determine time of death which are accurate within certain time frames. 

As far as your speculation about the changing environment and it's affect on dating, here's an article about experiments done to see if certain environmental changes (specifically to do with the sun) might skew the results :
Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable
This would seem to indicate that scientists involved with dating DO try to take into account the possibility of different environments having an affect on the accuracy of radiometric dating.

So you have provided no evidence and only the vaguest speculation that observed decay rates are not constant, which is your rationale for the inaccuracy of radiometric dating; you have provided no evidence or even a reason why you consider time of death determinations to be inaccurate; you have provided no real link between these two completely different dating methods to explain how they support your arguments; and you have seemingly ignored how your own presuppositions about the age of the earth, based on your religious belief, make it difficult if not impossible for you to credit most fossil dating methods in the first place.  Perhaps you should work on your arguments a bit before you post.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't understand dating methods,should have known it.
> 
> 
> 
> ahh.... wrong the rub here is you don't understand the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alright let's just show how you don't understand your own question shall we.
> 
> If you start with the assumption that life has not been around for very long let's say 12,000 years it will Affect how your dating methods work.
> 
> If you presuppose that life has been on this planet for a very long time the same will happen.
> 
> If you presuppose the universe and the earth is very old it to will be affected by the dating methnods used.
> 
> Let me give you a few articles that point out presuppositions used in dating methods.
> 
> Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis
> 
> RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS - Do they prove the earth is billions of years old?
> 
> www.answers101.org/articles/isotipicdating.pdf
Click to expand...

since all your "answers" are based a psudo science false premise they are meaning less.
you are still dodging my question, how does one presuppose time? 

Definition of PRESUPPOSE
transitive verb
1: to suppose beforehand 
2: to require as an antecedent in logic or fact 
 pre·sup·po·si·tion \(&#716pr&#275;-&#716;s&#601;-p&#601;-&#712;zi-sh&#601;n\ noun


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am saying that determining time of death is irrelevant when discussing the validity of radiometric dating methods.
> 
> I am saying that when you compare the two and try to use the accuracy of forensic time of death determinations to say something about the accuracy of radiometric dating, you are being ridiculous.
> 
> I will also say that the presupposition used in radiometric dating would seem to be that the rate of decay remains constant; or put another way, that physics has remained constant.  If you consider that an unfair assumption, that's your own issue.
> 
> I will also say that I believe your own presuppositions prevent you from being able to look at dating methods with anything approaching objectivity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all things remained constant you would have an argument but that is not the case.
> 
> For one we don't know the enviornment of 6,000 years ago let alone millions or billions of years ago.
> 
> The moon is slowly receding from earth and the earths rotation is gradually slowing according to scientists. If this is the case would that not affect the enviornment ? If it's been slowing for billions of years would that not be an effect on the enviornment billions of years ago.
> 
> The point is they are using presuppositions and circular reasoning with their dating methods. Not being able to prove any of their assumptions about the enviornment many years ago. The only one being silly here is the one ignoring changes going on with the moon and sun and thinking that would not affect the enviornment. I guess you have not considered the changes with the polar ice caps ?
> 
> So silly is believing how old a fossil is but can't be exact about the time of death of a person from an enviornment that you do know and can prove what it was like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, YOU ARE COMPARING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATING.  First, the accuracy of radiometric dating is not a matter of hours, as is the case for trying to determine time of death.  Have you ever seen someone claim they can accurately determine the age of a fossil to the hour?  No?  Then stop trying to make it seem as though that's the case!  Second, why do you say time of death determinations can't be exact?  By what reasoning do you come to this conclusion?  Is it because they aren't accurate to the second, or to the minute?  You keep saying time of death determinations are inaccurate but fail to provide any evidence that is the case.  As I understand it there are a number of different types of evidence used to determine time of death which are accurate within certain time frames.
> 
> As far as your speculation about the changing environment and it's affect on dating, here's an article about experiments done to see if certain environmental changes (specifically to do with the sun) might skew the results :
> Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable
> This would seem to indicate that scientists involved with dating DO try to take into account the possibility of different environments having an affect on the accuracy of radiometric dating.
> 
> So you have provided no evidence and only the vaguest speculation that observed decay rates are not constant, which is your rationale for the inaccuracy of radiometric dating; you have provided no evidence or even a reason why you consider time of death determinations to be inaccurate; you have provided no real link between these two completely different dating methods to explain how they support your arguments; and you have seemingly ignored how your own presuppositions about the age of the earth, based on your religious belief, make it difficult if not impossible for you to credit most fossil dating methods in the first place.  Perhaps you should work on your arguments a bit before you post.
Click to expand...


First off i am on record saying I don't know how old the earth is and how long life has been on the earth. I am not ignoring different methods are used in trying to determine the time of death of a person. Common sense has to come into play though. If they can't perfect determining the time of death of a person what makes you think they can perfect the dating methods that determine the age of a fossil or a rock ?

Why do I need a link to show that they say a person died between this time and that time,that is not exact nor are dating methods.

If you look back through time the age of the earth has changed,how long life has been on this planet has changed, The age of the universe has changed. But evolutionists knew that according to the theory of evolution that it could not happen in such a short period of time. That is where their presuppositions determine the age of fossils and rocks.

We know it don't take long for fossils and rocks to form and that is a fact.

So faith plays a role in your views as well as mine.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If all things remained constant you would have an argument but that is not the case.
> 
> For one we don't know the enviornment of 6,000 years ago let alone millions or billions of years ago.
> 
> The moon is slowly receding from earth and the earths rotation is gradually slowing according to scientists. If this is the case would that not affect the enviornment ? If it's been slowing for billions of years would that not be an effect on the enviornment billions of years ago.
> 
> The point is they are using presuppositions and circular reasoning with their dating methods. Not being able to prove any of their assumptions about the enviornment many years ago. The only one being silly here is the one ignoring changes going on with the moon and sun and thinking that would not affect the enviornment. I guess you have not considered the changes with the polar ice caps ?
> 
> So silly is believing how old a fossil is but can't be exact about the time of death of a person from an enviornment that you do know and can prove what it was like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, YOU ARE COMPARING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATING.  First, the accuracy of radiometric dating is not a matter of hours, as is the case for trying to determine time of death.  Have you ever seen someone claim they can accurately determine the age of a fossil to the hour?  No?  Then stop trying to make it seem as though that's the case!  Second, why do you say time of death determinations can't be exact?  By what reasoning do you come to this conclusion?  Is it because they aren't accurate to the second, or to the minute?  You keep saying time of death determinations are inaccurate but fail to provide any evidence that is the case.  As I understand it there are a number of different types of evidence used to determine time of death which are accurate within certain time frames.
> 
> As far as your speculation about the changing environment and it's affect on dating, here's an article about experiments done to see if certain environmental changes (specifically to do with the sun) might skew the results :
> Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable
> This would seem to indicate that scientists involved with dating DO try to take into account the possibility of different environments having an affect on the accuracy of radiometric dating.
> 
> So you have provided no evidence and only the vaguest speculation that observed decay rates are not constant, which is your rationale for the inaccuracy of radiometric dating; you have provided no evidence or even a reason why you consider time of death determinations to be inaccurate; you have provided no real link between these two completely different dating methods to explain how they support your arguments; and you have seemingly ignored how your own presuppositions about the age of the earth, based on your religious belief, make it difficult if not impossible for you to credit most fossil dating methods in the first place.  Perhaps you should work on your arguments a bit before you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off i am on record saying I don't know how old the earth is and how long life has been on the earth. I am not ignoring different methods are used in trying to determine the time of death of a person. Common sense has to come into play though. If they can't perfect determining the time of death of a person what makes you think they can perfect the dating methods that determine the age of a fossil or a rock ?
> 
> Why do I need a link to show that they say a person died between this time and that time,that is not exact nor are dating methods.
> 
> If you look back through time the age of the earth has changed,how long life has been on this planet has changed, The age of the universe has changed. But evolutionists knew that according to the theory of evolution that it could not happen in such a short period of time. That is where their presuppositions determine the age of fossils and rocks.
> 
> We know it don't take long for fossils and rocks to form and that is a fact.
> 
> So faith plays a role in your views as well as mine.
Click to expand...


Holy crap!  Stop repeating the same ridiculousness, please!

No one has claimed perfection in either radiometric dating or time of death determination.  However, the fact that we cannot perfectly determine the instant someone died has nothing to do with fossil dating methods!  NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!  If we were able to 'perfectly' determine the timing of either type of dating, it would not matter to the other.

How is it common sense to say, "These two methods of determining time are not only completely different in method, but involve extremely different measurements of time.  However, because one is not perfect, it must mean the other is not perfect, either.  Even though no one has claimed either to be perfect."  

If you believe that radioactive decay is not constant, fine.  That doesn't mean blaming evolutionists for the discovery of radiation and the discovery of how certain isotopes break down at a steady rate makes sense.  

Oh, and you say you don't know the age of the earth....does that mean you could accept it's age at billions of years?  Could you accept that life has been around for billions of years?  Everything I recall from you would make me believe otherwise.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh.... wrong the rub here is you don't understand the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alright let's just show how you don't understand your own question shall we.
> 
> If you start with the assumption that life has not been around for very long let's say 12,000 years it will Affect how your dating methods work.
> 
> If you presuppose that life has been on this planet for a very long time the same will happen.
> 
> If you presuppose the universe and the earth is very old it to will be affected by the dating methnods used.
> 
> Let me give you a few articles that point out presuppositions used in dating methods.
> 
> Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis
> 
> RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS - Do they prove the earth is billions of years old?
> 
> www.answers101.org/articles/isotipicdating.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since all your "answers" are based a psudo science false premise they are meaning less.
> you are still dodging my question, how does one presuppose time?
> 
> Definition of PRESUPPOSE
> transitive verb
> 1: to suppose beforehand
> 2: to require as an antecedent in logic or fact
>  pre·sup·po·si·tion \(&#716pr&#275;-&#716;s&#601;-p&#601;-&#712;zi-sh&#601;n\ noun
Click to expand...


You got it answered.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright let's just show how you don't understand your own question shall we.
> 
> If you start with the assumption that life has not been around for very long let's say 12,000 years it will Affect how your dating methods work.
> 
> If you presuppose that life has been on this planet for a very long time the same will happen.
> 
> If you presuppose the universe and the earth is very old it to will be affected by the dating methnods used.
> 
> Let me give you a few articles that point out presuppositions used in dating methods.
> 
> Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis
> 
> RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS - Do they prove the earth is billions of years old?
> 
> www.answers101.org/articles/isotipicdating.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> since all your "answers" are based a psudo science false premise they are meaning less.
> you are still dodging my question, how does one presuppose time?
> 
> Definition of PRESUPPOSE
> transitive verb
> 1: to suppose beforehand
> 2: to require as an antecedent in logic or fact
>  pre·sup·po·si·tion \(&#716pr&#275;-&#716;s&#601;-p&#601;-&#712;zi-sh&#601;n\ noun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got it answered.
Click to expand...

 right!


----------



## HUGGY

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, YOU ARE COMPARING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATING.  First, the accuracy of radiometric dating is not a matter of hours, as is the case for trying to determine time of death.  Have you ever seen someone claim they can accurately determine the age of a fossil to the hour?  No?  Then stop trying to make it seem as though that's the case!  Second, why do you say time of death determinations can't be exact?  By what reasoning do you come to this conclusion?  Is it because they aren't accurate to the second, or to the minute?  You keep saying time of death determinations are inaccurate but fail to provide any evidence that is the case.  As I understand it there are a number of different types of evidence used to determine time of death which are accurate within certain time frames.
> 
> As far as your speculation about the changing environment and it's affect on dating, here's an article about experiments done to see if certain environmental changes (specifically to do with the sun) might skew the results :
> Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable
> This would seem to indicate that scientists involved with dating DO try to take into account the possibility of different environments having an affect on the accuracy of radiometric dating.
> 
> So you have provided no evidence and only the vaguest speculation that observed decay rates are not constant, which is your rationale for the inaccuracy of radiometric dating; you have provided no evidence or even a reason why you consider time of death determinations to be inaccurate; you have provided no real link between these two completely different dating methods to explain how they support your arguments; and you have seemingly ignored how your own presuppositions about the age of the earth, based on your religious belief, make it difficult if not impossible for you to credit most fossil dating methods in the first place.  Perhaps you should work on your arguments a bit before you post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off i am on record saying I don't know how old the earth is and how long life has been on the earth. I am not ignoring different methods are used in trying to determine the time of death of a person. Common sense has to come into play though. If they can't perfect determining the time of death of a person what makes you think they can perfect the dating methods that determine the age of a fossil or a rock ?
> 
> Why do I need a link to show that they say a person died between this time and that time,that is not exact nor are dating methods.
> 
> If you look back through time the age of the earth has changed,how long life has been on this planet has changed, The age of the universe has changed. But evolutionists knew that according to the theory of evolution that it could not happen in such a short period of time. That is where their presuppositions determine the age of fossils and rocks.
> 
> We know it don't take long for fossils and rocks to form and that is a fact.
> 
> So faith plays a role in your views as well as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy crap!  Stop repeating the same ridiculousness, please!
> 
> *No one has claimed perfection in either radiometric dating or time of death determination.  However, the fact that we cannot perfectly determine the instant someone died has nothing to do with fossil dating methods!  NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!  If we were able to 'perfectly' determine the timing of either type of dating, it would not matter to the other*.
> 
> How is it common sense to say, "These two methods of determining time are not only completely different in method, but involve extremely different measurements of time.  However, because one is not perfect, it must mean the other is not perfect, either.  Even though no one has claimed either to be perfect."
> 
> If you believe that radioactive decay is not constant, fine.  That doesn't mean blaming evolutionists for the discovery of radiation and the discovery of how certain isotopes break down at a steady rate makes sense.
> 
> Oh, and you say you don't know the age of the earth....does that mean you could accept it's age at billions of years?  Could you accept that life has been around for billions of years?  Everything I recall from you would make me believe otherwise.
Click to expand...


Here godsquad I got this...  

Fuck You....  All theory and possible tiny imperfection is the domain of the lord.  You don't know ANYTHING until you have given yourself to GOD!!!!!!!!!!! or Jesus...  all of ours lord and savior ............whether you like it or not you fucking creten!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Just sayin...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, YOU ARE COMPARING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATING.  First, the accuracy of radiometric dating is not a matter of hours, as is the case for trying to determine time of death.  Have you ever seen someone claim they can accurately determine the age of a fossil to the hour?  No?  Then stop trying to make it seem as though that's the case!  Second, why do you say time of death determinations can't be exact?  By what reasoning do you come to this conclusion?  Is it because they aren't accurate to the second, or to the minute?  You keep saying time of death determinations are inaccurate but fail to provide any evidence that is the case.  As I understand it there are a number of different types of evidence used to determine time of death which are accurate within certain time frames.
> 
> As far as your speculation about the changing environment and it's affect on dating, here's an article about experiments done to see if certain environmental changes (specifically to do with the sun) might skew the results :
> Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable
> This would seem to indicate that scientists involved with dating DO try to take into account the possibility of different environments having an affect on the accuracy of radiometric dating.
> 
> So you have provided no evidence and only the vaguest speculation that observed decay rates are not constant, which is your rationale for the inaccuracy of radiometric dating; you have provided no evidence or even a reason why you consider time of death determinations to be inaccurate; you have provided no real link between these two completely different dating methods to explain how they support your arguments; and you have seemingly ignored how your own presuppositions about the age of the earth, based on your religious belief, make it difficult if not impossible for you to credit most fossil dating methods in the first place.  Perhaps you should work on your arguments a bit before you post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off i am on record saying I don't know how old the earth is and how long life has been on the earth. I am not ignoring different methods are used in trying to determine the time of death of a person. Common sense has to come into play though. If they can't perfect determining the time of death of a person what makes you think they can perfect the dating methods that determine the age of a fossil or a rock ?
> 
> Why do I need a link to show that they say a person died between this time and that time,that is not exact nor are dating methods.
> 
> If you look back through time the age of the earth has changed,how long life has been on this planet has changed, The age of the universe has changed. But evolutionists knew that according to the theory of evolution that it could not happen in such a short period of time. That is where their presuppositions determine the age of fossils and rocks.
> 
> We know it don't take long for fossils and rocks to form and that is a fact.
> 
> So faith plays a role in your views as well as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy crap!  Stop repeating the same ridiculousness, please!
> 
> No one has claimed perfection in either radiometric dating or time of death determination.  However, the fact that we cannot perfectly determine the instant someone died has nothing to do with fossil dating methods!  NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!  If we were able to 'perfectly' determine the timing of either type of dating, it would not matter to the other.
> 
> How is it common sense to say, "These two methods of determining time are not only completely different in method, but involve extremely different measurements of time.  However, because one is not perfect, it must mean the other is not perfect, either.  Even though no one has claimed either to be perfect."
> 
> If you believe that radioactive decay is not constant, fine.  That doesn't mean blaming evolutionists for the discovery of radiation and the discovery of how certain isotopes break down at a steady rate makes sense.
> 
> Oh, and you say you don't know the age of the earth....does that mean you could accept it's age at billions of years?  Could you accept that life has been around for billions of years?  Everything I recall from you would make me believe otherwise.
Click to expand...


So why do you put so much faith in the dating methods if you admit they are not accurate ? your theory requires alot of time to have taken place why do you think  science dating dating methods keep giving more and more time ? Because they knew as the more they learned that the theory required more and more time how did they get this more time ?

I don't know how long life has existed and old the universe is but I do have the bible giving me a timetable somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000 years is what I believe.

I trust in the word of God more then mans opinions. The bible has proven to be trustworthy.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off i am on record saying I don't know how old the earth is and how long life has been on the earth. I am not ignoring different methods are used in trying to determine the time of death of a person. Common sense has to come into play though. If they can't perfect determining the time of death of a person what makes you think they can perfect the dating methods that determine the age of a fossil or a rock ?
> 
> Why do I need a link to show that they say a person died between this time and that time,that is not exact nor are dating methods.
> 
> If you look back through time the age of the earth has changed,how long life has been on this planet has changed, The age of the universe has changed. But evolutionists knew that according to the theory of evolution that it could not happen in such a short period of time. That is where their presuppositions determine the age of fossils and rocks.
> 
> We know it don't take long for fossils and rocks to form and that is a fact.
> 
> So faith plays a role in your views as well as mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy crap!  Stop repeating the same ridiculousness, please!
> 
> No one has claimed perfection in either radiometric dating or time of death determination.  However, the fact that we cannot perfectly determine the instant someone died has nothing to do with fossil dating methods!  NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!  If we were able to 'perfectly' determine the timing of either type of dating, it would not matter to the other.
> 
> How is it common sense to say, "These two methods of determining time are not only completely different in method, but involve extremely different measurements of time.  However, because one is not perfect, it must mean the other is not perfect, either.  Even though no one has claimed either to be perfect."
> 
> If you believe that radioactive decay is not constant, fine.  That doesn't mean blaming evolutionists for the discovery of radiation and the discovery of how certain isotopes break down at a steady rate makes sense.
> 
> Oh, and you say you don't know the age of the earth....does that mean you could accept it's age at billions of years?  Could you accept that life has been around for billions of years?  Everything I recall from you would make me believe otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why do you put so much faith in the dating methods if you admit they are not accurate ? your theory requires alot of time to have taken place why do you think  science dating dating methods keep giving more and more time ? Because they knew as the more they learned that the theory required more and more time how did they get this more time ?
> 
> I don't know how long life has existed and old the universe is but I do have the bible giving me a timetable somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000 years is what I believe.
> 
> I trust in the word of God more then mans opinions. The bible has proven to be trustworthy.
Click to expand...


Your disingenuousness, misdirection and lies seem to know no bounds.

Go back a few posts and you say you are 'on record' that you don't know the age of the earth.  Here you are claiming the earth is between 6-12000 years old.  Well, which is it?

You say dating methods keep giving more and more time.  Do you have evidence for this?  Are you saying radiometric dating methods keep giving more and more time, or are you comparing those methods to something like Kelvin's estimate of the age of the earth?  Or are you just making shit up?

Who admitted inaccuracy?  All I said was dating methods are not perfect, which is what you seem to need.  That doesn't mean they aren't accurate within a certain degree.  I just means we can't determine things to the exact instant.

As I said before, your presuppositions prevent you from looking objectively at any fossil dating methods currently employed.  If the earth is no older than 12000 years, you cannot believe any dating method that gives an age older than that.  You complain that these methods are based on the theory of evolution needing the earth to be that old (while providing absolutely zero evidence that is the case) yet ignore your own belief-based bias.  

You should just boil all your silly attempts to disprove science down to a single argument, "My interpretation of the bible is the truth.".  It would be a much more honest argument.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy crap!  Stop repeating the same ridiculousness, please!
> 
> No one has claimed perfection in either radiometric dating or time of death determination.  However, the fact that we cannot perfectly determine the instant someone died has nothing to do with fossil dating methods!  NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!  If we were able to 'perfectly' determine the timing of either type of dating, it would not matter to the other.
> 
> How is it common sense to say, "These two methods of determining time are not only completely different in method, but involve extremely different measurements of time.  However, because one is not perfect, it must mean the other is not perfect, either.  Even though no one has claimed either to be perfect."
> 
> If you believe that radioactive decay is not constant, fine.  That doesn't mean blaming evolutionists for the discovery of radiation and the discovery of how certain isotopes break down at a steady rate makes sense.
> 
> Oh, and you say you don't know the age of the earth....does that mean you could accept it's age at billions of years?  Could you accept that life has been around for billions of years?  Everything I recall from you would make me believe otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you put so much faith in the dating methods if you admit they are not accurate ? your theory requires alot of time to have taken place why do you think  science dating dating methods keep giving more and more time ? Because they knew as the more they learned that the theory required more and more time how did they get this more time ?
> 
> I don't know how long life has existed and old the universe is but I do have the bible giving me a timetable somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000 years is what I believe.
> 
> I trust in the word of God more then mans opinions. The bible has proven to be trustworthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your disingenuousness, misdirection and lies seem to know no bounds.
> 
> Go back a few posts and you say you are 'on record' that you don't know the age of the earth.  Here you are claiming the earth is between 6-12000 years old.  Well, which is it?
> 
> You say dating methods keep giving more and more time.  Do you have evidence for this?  Are you saying radiometric dating methods keep giving more and more time, or are you comparing those methods to something like Kelvin's estimate of the age of the earth?  Or are you just making shit up?
> 
> Who admitted inaccuracy?  All I said was dating methods are not perfect, which is what you seem to need.  That doesn't mean they aren't accurate within a certain degree.  I just means we can't determine things to the exact instant.
> 
> As I said before, your presuppositions prevent you from looking objectively at any fossil dating methods currently employed.  If the earth is no older than 12000 years, you cannot believe any dating method that gives an age older than that.  You complain that these methods are based on the theory of evolution needing the earth to be that old (while providing absolutely zero evidence that is the case) yet ignore your own belief-based bias.
> 
> You should just boil all your silly attempts to disprove science down to a single argument, "My interpretation of the bible is the truth.".  It would be a much more honest argument.
Click to expand...


Those words are kinda strong don't you think ? did i hit a nerve or something ?

You see the difference between you and I is that I don't have a problem admitting my views are based in faith in the bible.

Don't know which timeframe God was going by his or mans for creation days.

No if you have seen me in these threads I brought many more arguments then just this to the debate, so who is being disingenuous ?


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you put so much faith in the dating methods if you admit they are not accurate ? your theory requires alot of time to have taken place why do you think  science dating dating methods keep giving more and more time ? Because they knew as the more they learned that the theory required more and more time how did they get this more time ?
> 
> I don't know how long life has existed and old the universe is but I do have the bible giving me a timetable somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000 years is what I believe.
> 
> I trust in the word of God more then mans opinions. The bible has proven to be trustworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your disingenuousness, misdirection and lies seem to know no bounds.
> 
> Go back a few posts and you say you are 'on record' that you don't know the age of the earth.  Here you are claiming the earth is between 6-12000 years old.  Well, which is it?
> 
> You say dating methods keep giving more and more time.  Do you have evidence for this?  Are you saying radiometric dating methods keep giving more and more time, or are you comparing those methods to something like Kelvin's estimate of the age of the earth?  Or are you just making shit up?
> 
> Who admitted inaccuracy?  All I said was dating methods are not perfect, which is what you seem to need.  That doesn't mean they aren't accurate within a certain degree.  I just means we can't determine things to the exact instant.
> 
> As I said before, your presuppositions prevent you from looking objectively at any fossil dating methods currently employed.  If the earth is no older than 12000 years, you cannot believe any dating method that gives an age older than that.  You complain that these methods are based on the theory of evolution needing the earth to be that old (while providing absolutely zero evidence that is the case) yet ignore your own belief-based bias.
> 
> You should just boil all your silly attempts to disprove science down to a single argument, "My interpretation of the bible is the truth.".  It would be a much more honest argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those words are kinda strong don't you think ? did i hit a nerve or something ?
> 
> You see the difference between you and I is that I don't have a problem admitting my views are based in faith in the bible.
> 
> Don't know which timeframe God was going by his or mans for creation days.
> 
> No if you have seen me in these threads I brought many more arguments then just this to the debate, so who is being disingenuous ?
Click to expand...


Almost 4000 posts into this thread, and however many more you've done in other threads, your attempts to disprove various branches of science are getting tiring.

You've used that 'difference between us is I admit my faith' line before.  It's just not true.  You have, many times, tried to argue that a particular type of scientific study or measurement is wrong, and your arguments are never, "My faith tells me this is wrong.".  As I said, that would be more honest.  Instead, you try to say those things which go against your faith are not science.

Of course I've seen you in these threads, I've replied to you plenty of times.  Yes, you've used more arguments than just the comparison of dating methods to time of death determinations.  However, almost all the arguments you have attempted to use have been similar in nature; without evidence or a great deal of rational connection.

Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, while I consider it foolish, is fine.  Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, and creating or clinging to any pseudo-scientific explanation for why that contradictory science is wrong, is annoying.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your disingenuousness, misdirection and lies seem to know no bounds.
> 
> Go back a few posts and you say you are 'on record' that you don't know the age of the earth.  Here you are claiming the earth is between 6-12000 years old.  Well, which is it?
> 
> You say dating methods keep giving more and more time.  Do you have evidence for this?  Are you saying radiometric dating methods keep giving more and more time, or are you comparing those methods to something like Kelvin's estimate of the age of the earth?  Or are you just making shit up?
> 
> Who admitted inaccuracy?  All I said was dating methods are not perfect, which is what you seem to need.  That doesn't mean they aren't accurate within a certain degree.  I just means we can't determine things to the exact instant.
> 
> As I said before, your presuppositions prevent you from looking objectively at any fossil dating methods currently employed.  If the earth is no older than 12000 years, you cannot believe any dating method that gives an age older than that.  You complain that these methods are based on the theory of evolution needing the earth to be that old (while providing absolutely zero evidence that is the case) yet ignore your own belief-based bias.
> 
> You should just boil all your silly attempts to disprove science down to a single argument, "My interpretation of the bible is the truth.".  It would be a much more honest argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those words are kinda strong don't you think ? did i hit a nerve or something ?
> 
> You see the difference between you and I is that I don't have a problem admitting my views are based in faith in the bible.
> 
> Don't know which timeframe God was going by his or mans for creation days.
> 
> No if you have seen me in these threads I brought many more arguments then just this to the debate, so who is being disingenuous ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Almost 4000 posts into this thread, and however many more you've done in other threads, your attempts to disprove various branches of science are getting tiring.
> 
> You've used that 'difference between us is I admit my faith' line before.  It's just not true.  You have, many times, tried to argue that a particular type of scientific study or measurement is wrong, and your arguments are never, "My faith tells me this is wrong.".  As I said, that would be more honest.  Instead, you try to say those things which go against your faith are not science.
> 
> Of course I've seen you in these threads, I've replied to you plenty of times.  Yes, you've used more arguments than just the comparison of dating methods to time of death determinations.  However, almost all the arguments you have attempted to use have been similar in nature; without evidence or a great deal of rational connection.
> 
> Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, while I consider it foolish, is fine.  Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, and creating or clinging to any pseudo-scientific explanation for why that contradictory science is wrong, is annoying.
Click to expand...


Not trying to prove science wrong. Real science supports my views not yours. Real science is not faith based and a lot of what you believe are.

There is no real science that contradicts what I believe. Here let's administer the honesty test again. The bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind is that not supported by what we observe ?


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those words are kinda strong don't you think ? did i hit a nerve or something ?
> 
> You see the difference between you and I is that I don't have a problem admitting my views are based in faith in the bible.
> 
> Don't know which timeframe God was going by his or mans for creation days.
> 
> No if you have seen me in these threads I brought many more arguments then just this to the debate, so who is being disingenuous ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost 4000 posts into this thread, and however many more you've done in other threads, your attempts to disprove various branches of science are getting tiring.
> 
> You've used that 'difference between us is I admit my faith' line before.  It's just not true.  You have, many times, tried to argue that a particular type of scientific study or measurement is wrong, and your arguments are never, "My faith tells me this is wrong.".  As I said, that would be more honest.  Instead, you try to say those things which go against your faith are not science.
> 
> Of course I've seen you in these threads, I've replied to you plenty of times.  Yes, you've used more arguments than just the comparison of dating methods to time of death determinations.  However, almost all the arguments you have attempted to use have been similar in nature; without evidence or a great deal of rational connection.
> 
> Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, while I consider it foolish, is fine.  Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, and creating or clinging to any pseudo-scientific explanation for why that contradictory science is wrong, is annoying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not trying to prove science wrong. Real science supports my views not yours. Real science is not faith based and a lot of what you believe are.
> 
> There is no real science that contradicts what I believe. Here let's administer the honesty test again. The bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind is that not supported by what we observe ?
Click to expand...


Here we go again.  'Real' science supports my views.  Not 'I base my views on science', rather, you determine what science is 'real' based on what you already believe.  In other words, the science is not 'real' because you don't want it to be, not because of any flaw in data or methodology.  

You've asked that question before on multiple occasions, and it's been answered more than once.  I'm not going to bother getting into yet another drawn out discussion about your interpretations of biblical scripture.  You are, obviously, free to believe whatever you want.  Just realize that what you have not done is prove any of the science which goes against your beliefs to be wrong.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those words are kinda strong don't you think ? did i hit a nerve or something ?
> 
> You see the difference between you and I is that I don't have a problem admitting my views are based in faith in the bible.
> 
> Don't know which timeframe God was going by his or mans for creation days.
> 
> No if you have seen me in these threads I brought many more arguments then just this to the debate, so who is being disingenuous ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost 4000 posts into this thread, and however many more you've done in other threads, your attempts to disprove various branches of science are getting tiring.
> 
> You've used that 'difference between us is I admit my faith' line before.  It's just not true.  You have, many times, tried to argue that a particular type of scientific study or measurement is wrong, and your arguments are never, "My faith tells me this is wrong.".  As I said, that would be more honest.  Instead, you try to say those things which go against your faith are not science.
> 
> Of course I've seen you in these threads, I've replied to you plenty of times.  Yes, you've used more arguments than just the comparison of dating methods to time of death determinations.  However, almost all the arguments you have attempted to use have been similar in nature; without evidence or a great deal of rational connection.
> 
> Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, while I consider it foolish, is fine.  Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, and creating or clinging to any pseudo-scientific explanation for why that contradictory science is wrong, is annoying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not trying to prove science wrong. Real science supports my views not yours. Real science is not faith based and a lot of what you believe are.
> 
> There is no real science that contradicts what I believe. Here let's administer the honesty test again. The bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind is that not supported by what we observe ?
Click to expand...

yes there is... all REAL SCIENCE contradicts what you believe.
your belief is based on an unprovable false premise .
your belief begins with a PRE conceived conclusion ,that you have no evidence for 
real science starts with evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost 4000 posts into this thread, and however many more you've done in other threads, your attempts to disprove various branches of science are getting tiring.
> 
> You've used that 'difference between us is I admit my faith' line before.  It's just not true.  You have, many times, tried to argue that a particular type of scientific study or measurement is wrong, and your arguments are never, "My faith tells me this is wrong.".  As I said, that would be more honest.  Instead, you try to say those things which go against your faith are not science.
> 
> Of course I've seen you in these threads, I've replied to you plenty of times.  Yes, you've used more arguments than just the comparison of dating methods to time of death determinations.  However, almost all the arguments you have attempted to use have been similar in nature; without evidence or a great deal of rational connection.
> 
> Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, while I consider it foolish, is fine.  Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, and creating or clinging to any pseudo-scientific explanation for why that contradictory science is wrong, is annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to prove science wrong. Real science supports my views not yours. Real science is not faith based and a lot of what you believe are.
> 
> There is no real science that contradicts what I believe. Here let's administer the honesty test again. The bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind is that not supported by what we observe ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go again.  'Real' science supports my views.  Not 'I base my views on science', rather, you determine what science is 'real' based on what you already believe.  In other words, the science is not 'real' because you don't want it to be, not because of any flaw in data or methodology.
> 
> You've asked that question before on multiple occasions, and it's been answered more than once.  I'm not going to bother getting into yet another drawn out discussion about your interpretations of biblical scripture.  You are, obviously, free to believe whatever you want.  Just realize that what you have not done is prove any of the science which goes against your beliefs to be wrong.
Click to expand...


Really ? because there is no prroof how old the universe is nor how long life has existed on this planet.

There is no proof for macro-evolution ,none.

There is proof of adaptations but no proof that adaptations can produce a new family of organisms.

You know my question is right to the point that kinds reproduce their own kind. Science does support my view but it does not support your view that kinds reproduce other kinds,why is it that science does not support your view ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost 4000 posts into this thread, and however many more you've done in other threads, your attempts to disprove various branches of science are getting tiring.
> 
> You've used that 'difference between us is I admit my faith' line before.  It's just not true.  You have, many times, tried to argue that a particular type of scientific study or measurement is wrong, and your arguments are never, "My faith tells me this is wrong.".  As I said, that would be more honest.  Instead, you try to say those things which go against your faith are not science.
> 
> Of course I've seen you in these threads, I've replied to you plenty of times.  Yes, you've used more arguments than just the comparison of dating methods to time of death determinations.  However, almost all the arguments you have attempted to use have been similar in nature; without evidence or a great deal of rational connection.
> 
> Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, while I consider it foolish, is fine.  Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, and creating or clinging to any pseudo-scientific explanation for why that contradictory science is wrong, is annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to prove science wrong. Real science supports my views not yours. Real science is not faith based and a lot of what you believe are.
> 
> There is no real science that contradicts what I believe. Here let's administer the honesty test again. The bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind is that not supported by what we observe ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes there is... all REAL SCIENCE contradicts what you believe.
> your belief is based on an unprovable false premise .
> your belief begins with a PRE conceived conclusion ,that you have no evidence for
> real science starts with evidence.
Click to expand...


You are wrong no matter how many times you try to spin out of what you are hit with.

Let's see if you can explain what came first the chicken or the egg ? then explain how it came into existence on it's own.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to prove science wrong. Real science supports my views not yours. Real science is not faith based and a lot of what you believe are.
> 
> There is no real science that contradicts what I believe. Here let's administer the honesty test again. The bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind is that not supported by what we observe ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go again.  'Real' science supports my views.  Not 'I base my views on science', rather, you determine what science is 'real' based on what you already believe.  In other words, the science is not 'real' because you don't want it to be, not because of any flaw in data or methodology.
> 
> You've asked that question before on multiple occasions, and it's been answered more than once.  I'm not going to bother getting into yet another drawn out discussion about your interpretations of biblical scripture.  You are, obviously, free to believe whatever you want.  Just realize that what you have not done is prove any of the science which goes against your beliefs to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really ? because there is no prroof how old the universe is nor how long life has existed on this planet.
> 
> There is no proof for macro-evolution ,none.
> 
> There is proof of adaptations but no proof that adaptations can produce a new family of organisms.
> 
> You know my question is right to the point that kinds reproduce their own kind. Science does support my view but it does not support your view that kinds reproduce other kinds,why is it that science does not support your view ?
Click to expand...


None of which has anything to do with radiometric dating, or your ridiculous assertion that an inability to determine time of death to the instant somehow equates to a complete refutation of radiometric dating methods.

The age of the universe and the amount of time life has been on the planet are nothing but estimates.  I have no problem acknowledging that.

There may not be proof of macro-evolution, the way you seem to mean it, but there is certainly evidence.  You don't find it compelling, fine.  Your point of view seems to be one of 'if I didn't see it, it didn't happen', though, and that is pretty silly.  

Again, 4000 posts into this thread, we don't need to go over the same bs again.  You don't believe in evolution.  You don't believe that isotopes decay at the same rate when mankind isn't there to watch.  You don't believe a tree falling makes a noise when no one is there to hear it.  And you apparently are unwilling to accept that any of your disbelief is rooted entirely in your faith, instead claiming the science isn't 'real'.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to prove science wrong. Real science supports my views not yours. Real science is not faith based and a lot of what you believe are.
> 
> There is no real science that contradicts what I believe. Here let's administer the honesty test again. The bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind is that not supported by what we observe ?
> 
> 
> 
> yes there is... all REAL SCIENCE contradicts what you believe.
> your belief is based on an unprovable false premise .
> your belief begins with a PRE conceived conclusion ,that you have no evidence for
> real science starts with evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong no matter how many times you try to spin out of what you are hit with.
> 
> Let's see if you can explain what came first the chicken or the egg ? then explain how it came into existence on it's own.
Click to expand...

most creatures on earth lay eggs or the eggs gestate inside some animals.(including humans) 
there are exceptions   
Source: How do Sharks Give Birth? - Answers.Ask.com
Most sharks give birth to live young, but some lay eggs. Depending on the species they can have between 1 and 135 babies at a time. I'd hate to be in the water when those 135 hungry babies are born!You can find more information here: http:/... Read More »
the platypus (a mammal)lays eggs.
birds including chickens (all decendants of dinosaurs) lay eggs.

the point is that eggs and chickens are one in the same.
you can't have one without the other.
All animals that lay eggs EVOLVED.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go again.  'Real' science supports my views.  Not 'I base my views on science', rather, you determine what science is 'real' based on what you already believe.  In other words, the science is not 'real' because you don't want it to be, not because of any flaw in data or methodology.
> 
> You've asked that question before on multiple occasions, and it's been answered more than once.  I'm not going to bother getting into yet another drawn out discussion about your interpretations of biblical scripture.  You are, obviously, free to believe whatever you want.  Just realize that what you have not done is prove any of the science which goes against your beliefs to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? because there is no prroof how old the universe is nor how long life has existed on this planet.
> 
> There is no proof for macro-evolution ,none.
> 
> There is proof of adaptations but no proof that adaptations can produce a new family of organisms.
> 
> You know my question is right to the point that kinds reproduce their own kind. Science does support my view but it does not support your view that kinds reproduce other kinds,why is it that science does not support your view ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which has anything to do with radiometric dating, or your ridiculous assertion that an inability to determine time of death to the instant somehow equates to a complete refutation of radiometric dating methods.
> 
> The age of the universe and the amount of time life has been on the planet are nothing but estimates.  I have no problem acknowledging that.
> 
> There may not be proof of macro-evolution, the way you seem to mean it, but there is certainly evidence.  You don't find it compelling, fine.  Your point of view seems to be one of 'if I didn't see it, it didn't happen', though, and that is pretty silly.
> 
> Again, 4000 posts into this thread, we don't need to go over the same bs again.  You don't believe in evolution.  You don't believe that isotopes decay at the same rate when mankind isn't there to watch.  You don't believe a tree falling makes a noise when no one is there to hear it.  And you apparently are unwilling to accept that any of your disbelief is rooted entirely in your faith, instead claiming the science isn't 'real'.
Click to expand...


Never said when a tree falls in the forest it does not make any noise. Why do you use something that is a fact with something that has never been observed or can never be verified. So you are relying on someone's opinion that it happened the way you believe it happened. But with no observation you are relying on faith to believe such a thing. Bottomline man cannot prove many things you believe you have to rely on faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes there is... all REAL SCIENCE contradicts what you believe.
> your belief is based on an unprovable false premise .
> your belief begins with a PRE conceived conclusion ,that you have no evidence for
> real science starts with evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong no matter how many times you try to spin out of what you are hit with.
> 
> Let's see if you can explain what came first the chicken or the egg ? then explain how it came into existence on it's own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> most creatures on earth lay eggs or the eggs gestate inside some animals.(including humans)
> there are exceptions
> Source: How do Sharks Give Birth? - Answers.Ask.com
> Most sharks give birth to live young, but some lay eggs. Depending on the species they can have between 1 and 135 babies at a time. I'd hate to be in the water when those 135 hungry babies are born!You can find more information here: http:/... Read More »
> the platypus (a mammal)lays eggs.
> birds including chickens (all decendants of dinosaurs) lay eggs.
> 
> the point is that eggs and chickens are one in the same.
> you can't have one without the other.
> All animals that lay eggs EVOLVED.
Click to expand...


Now answer the question. You are wrong again if the chicken was created male and female eventually you have the egg. If you have no chicken male and female you have no egg. So once again creation makes more logical sense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Before you make a comment fertilized egg where you get offspring.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong no matter how many times you try to spin out of what you are hit with.
> 
> Let's see if you can explain what came first the chicken or the egg ? then explain how it came into existence on it's own.
> 
> 
> 
> most creatures on earth lay eggs or the eggs gestate inside some animals.(including humans)
> there are exceptions
> Source: How do Sharks Give Birth? - Answers.Ask.com
> Most sharks give birth to live young, but some lay eggs. Depending on the species they can have between 1 and 135 babies at a time. I'd hate to be in the water when those 135 hungry babies are born!You can find more information here: http:/... Read More »
> the platypus (a mammal)lays eggs.
> birds including chickens (all decendants of dinosaurs) lay eggs.
> 
> the point is that eggs and chickens are one in the same.
> you can't have one without the other.
> All animals that lay eggs EVOLVED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now answer the question. You are wrong again if the chicken was created male and female eventually you have the egg. If you have no chicken male and female you have no egg. So once again creation makes more logical sense.
Click to expand...

cue buzzer...ever heard of animals that change sex?ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2009)  Most animals, like humans, have separate sexes  they are born, live out their lives and reproduce as one sex or the other. However, some animals live as one sex in part of their lifetime and then switch to the other sex, a phenomenon called sequential hermaphroditism. What remains a puzzle, according to Yale scientists, is why the phenomenon is so rare, since their analysis shows the biological "costs" of changing sexes rarely outweigh the advantages.
Why Don't More Animals Change Their Sex?


                                    OR
 Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it is reproduction which does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization. A more stringent definition is agamogenesis which is reproduction without the fusion of gametes. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as the archaea, bacteria, and protists. Many plants and fungi reproduce asexually as well.

While all prokaryotes reproduce asexually (without the formation and fusion of gametes), mechanisms for lateral gene transfer such as conjugation, transformation and transduction are sometimes likened to sexual reproduction.[1] A complete lack of sexual reproduction is relatively rare among multicellular organisms, particularly animals. It is not entirely understood why the ability to reproduce sexually is so common among them. Current hypotheses [2] suggest that asexual reproduction may have short term benefits when rapid population growth is important or in stable environments, while sexual reproduction offers a net advantage by allowing more rapid generation of genetic diversity, allowing adaptation to changing environments. Developmental constraints[3] may underlie why few animals have relinquished sexual reproduction completely in their life-cycles.

Asexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the point is you don't need a male and female to reproduce or lay eggs..
either that's evolution or god is fucking with us...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Before you make a comment fertilized egg where you get offspring.


I don't speak pseudo English...


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? because there is no prroof how old the universe is nor how long life has existed on this planet.
> 
> There is no proof for macro-evolution ,none.
> 
> There is proof of adaptations but no proof that adaptations can produce a new family of organisms.
> 
> You know my question is right to the point that kinds reproduce their own kind. Science does support my view but it does not support your view that kinds reproduce other kinds,why is it that science does not support your view ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which has anything to do with radiometric dating, or your ridiculous assertion that an inability to determine time of death to the instant somehow equates to a complete refutation of radiometric dating methods.
> 
> The age of the universe and the amount of time life has been on the planet are nothing but estimates.  I have no problem acknowledging that.
> 
> There may not be proof of macro-evolution, the way you seem to mean it, but there is certainly evidence.  You don't find it compelling, fine.  Your point of view seems to be one of 'if I didn't see it, it didn't happen', though, and that is pretty silly.
> 
> Again, 4000 posts into this thread, we don't need to go over the same bs again.  You don't believe in evolution.  You don't believe that isotopes decay at the same rate when mankind isn't there to watch.  You don't believe a tree falling makes a noise when no one is there to hear it.  And you apparently are unwilling to accept that any of your disbelief is rooted entirely in your faith, instead claiming the science isn't 'real'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said when a tree falls in the forest it does not make any noise. Why do you use something that is a fact with something that has never been observed or can never be verified. So you are relying on someone's opinion that it happened the way you believe it happened. But with no observation you are relying on faith to believe such a thing. Bottomline man cannot prove many things you believe you have to rely on faith.
Click to expand...


The tree falling thing I used as an example of your thinking.  Are you saying the rate of isotope decay has never been observed?  

Let me put it this way.  If the rate of decay of a particular isotope has been observed, and is always constant; if the rate is the same no matter where the isotope is found or what environment it is found in; if tests have been done to see if environmental changes have any effect on the decay rate; if all those things are true, does your argument not become, "No one is there to see it in the past, so it can't be treated as accurate."?  Is that not pretty much the same as saying, "No one was around to hear the tree fall, so no one knows if it made a sound."?  In both cases there is a lack of direct observational data.  Why do you accept the one but not the other as fact?  

Whatever the case, your use of the word faith is not quite the same as when used in terms of spiritual belief.


----------



## Azrael

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



I don't believe it's that young,
but I also believe that God created it.
After all whats a day to a God any way?
If shes all powerful then her concept of time would not be linear but all encompassing n she would exist in time always.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> most creatures on earth lay eggs or the eggs gestate inside some animals.(including humans)
> there are exceptions
> Source: How do Sharks Give Birth? - Answers.Ask.com
> Most sharks give birth to live young, but some lay eggs. Depending on the species they can have between 1 and 135 babies at a time. I'd hate to be in the water when those 135 hungry babies are born!You can find more information here: http:/... Read More »
> the platypus (a mammal)lays eggs.
> birds including chickens (all decendants of dinosaurs) lay eggs.
> 
> the point is that eggs and chickens are one in the same.
> you can't have one without the other.
> All animals that lay eggs EVOLVED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now answer the question. You are wrong again if the chicken was created male and female eventually you have the egg. If you have no chicken male and female you have no egg. So once again creation makes more logical sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> cue buzzer...ever heard of animals that change sex?ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2009)  Most animals, like humans, have separate sexes  they are born, live out their lives and reproduce as one sex or the other. However, some animals live as one sex in part of their lifetime and then switch to the other sex, a phenomenon called sequential hermaphroditism. What remains a puzzle, according to Yale scientists, is why the phenomenon is so rare, since their analysis shows the biological "costs" of changing sexes rarely outweigh the advantages.
> Why Don't More Animals Change Their Sex?
> 
> 
> OR
> Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it is reproduction which does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization. A more stringent definition is agamogenesis which is reproduction without the fusion of gametes. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as the archaea, bacteria, and protists. Many plants and fungi reproduce asexually as well.
> 
> While all prokaryotes reproduce asexually (without the formation and fusion of gametes), mechanisms for lateral gene transfer such as conjugation, transformation and transduction are sometimes likened to sexual reproduction.[1] A complete lack of sexual reproduction is relatively rare among multicellular organisms, particularly animals. It is not entirely understood why the ability to reproduce sexually is so common among them. Current hypotheses [2] suggest that asexual reproduction may have short term benefits when rapid population growth is important or in stable environments, while sexual reproduction offers a net advantage by allowing more rapid generation of genetic diversity, allowing adaptation to changing environments. Developmental constraints[3] may underlie why few animals have relinquished sexual reproduction completely in their life-cycles.
> 
> Asexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> the point is you don't need a male and female to reproduce or lay eggs..
> either that's evolution or god is fucking with us...
Click to expand...


So you are gonna avoid the obvious answer to the question by presenting so called evidence you can't prove happened with the chicken.

You are spinning again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you make a comment fertilized egg where you get offspring.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't speak pseudo English...
Click to expand...


No you believe in pseudo science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of which has anything to do with radiometric dating, or your ridiculous assertion that an inability to determine time of death to the instant somehow equates to a complete refutation of radiometric dating methods.
> 
> The age of the universe and the amount of time life has been on the planet are nothing but estimates.  I have no problem acknowledging that.
> 
> There may not be proof of macro-evolution, the way you seem to mean it, but there is certainly evidence.  You don't find it compelling, fine.  Your point of view seems to be one of 'if I didn't see it, it didn't happen', though, and that is pretty silly.
> 
> Again, 4000 posts into this thread, we don't need to go over the same bs again.  You don't believe in evolution.  You don't believe that isotopes decay at the same rate when mankind isn't there to watch.  You don't believe a tree falling makes a noise when no one is there to hear it.  And you apparently are unwilling to accept that any of your disbelief is rooted entirely in your faith, instead claiming the science isn't 'real'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said when a tree falls in the forest it does not make any noise. Why do you use something that is a fact with something that has never been observed or can never be verified. So you are relying on someone's opinion that it happened the way you believe it happened. But with no observation you are relying on faith to believe such a thing. Bottomline man cannot prove many things you believe you have to rely on faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tree falling thing I used as an example of your thinking.  Are you saying the rate of isotope decay has never been observed?
> 
> Let me put it this way.  If the rate of decay of a particular isotope has been observed, and is always constant; if the rate is the same no matter where the isotope is found or what environment it is found in; if tests have been done to see if environmental changes have any effect on the decay rate; if all those things are true, does your argument not become, "No one is there to see it in the past, so it can't be treated as accurate."?  Is that not pretty much the same as saying, "No one was around to hear the tree fall, so no one knows if it made a sound."?  In both cases there is a lack of direct observational data.  Why do you accept the one but not the other as fact?
> 
> Whatever the case, your use of the word faith is not quite the same as when used in terms of spiritual belief.
Click to expand...


You know there are many factors in considering the rate of decay for anything.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> most creatures on earth lay eggs or the eggs gestate inside some animals.(including humans)
> there are exceptions
> Source: How do Sharks Give Birth? - Answers.Ask.com
> Most sharks give birth to live young, but some lay eggs. Depending on the species they can have between 1 and 135 babies at a time. I'd hate to be in the water when those 135 hungry babies are born!You can find more information here: http:/... Read More »
> the platypus (a mammal)lays eggs.
> birds including chickens (all decendants of dinosaurs) lay eggs.
> 
> the point is that eggs and chickens are one in the same.
> you can't have one without the other.
> All animals that lay eggs EVOLVED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now answer the question. You are wrong again if the chicken was created male and female eventually you have the egg. If you have no chicken male and female you have no egg. So once again creation makes more logical sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> cue buzzer...ever heard of animals that change sex?ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2009) &#8212; Most animals, like humans, have separate sexes &#8212; they are born, live out their lives and reproduce as one sex or the other. However, some animals live as one sex in part of their lifetime and then switch to the other sex, a phenomenon called sequential hermaphroditism. What remains a puzzle, according to Yale scientists, is why the phenomenon is so rare, since their analysis shows the biological "costs" of changing sexes rarely outweigh the advantages.
> Why Don't More Animals Change Their Sex?
> 
> 
> OR
> Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it is reproduction which does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization. A more stringent definition is agamogenesis which is reproduction without the fusion of gametes. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as the archaea, bacteria, and protists. Many plants and fungi reproduce asexually as well.
> 
> While all prokaryotes reproduce asexually (without the formation and fusion of gametes), mechanisms for lateral gene transfer such as conjugation, transformation and transduction are sometimes likened to sexual reproduction.[1] A complete lack of sexual reproduction is relatively rare among multicellular organisms, particularly animals. It is not entirely understood why the ability to reproduce sexually is so common among them. Current hypotheses [2] suggest that asexual reproduction may have short term benefits when rapid population growth is important or in stable environments, while sexual reproduction offers a net advantage by allowing more rapid generation of genetic diversity, allowing adaptation to changing environments. Developmental constraints[3] may underlie why few animals have relinquished sexual reproduction completely in their life-cycles.
> 
> Asexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> the point is you don't need a male and female to reproduce or lay eggs..
> either that's evolution or god is fucking with us...
Click to expand...


So you are trying to suggest the first chicken accomplished the fertilization of the egg through asexual fertilization ? please forgive me  So in other words the chicken came first meaning it was created complete.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Azrael said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe it's that young,
> but I also believe that God created it.
> After all whats a day to a God any way?
> If shes all powerful then her concept of time would not be linear but all encompassing n she would exist in time always.
Click to expand...


But the word does mention the length of a day to God, It's not mans 24 hour period.


----------



## Douger

The Gawds, yes plural-look in your script, showed up and did another DNA modification 6000 or so years ago. The experiment was an epic failure, as were the first two. Let's hope the Mayans were right.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now answer the question. You are wrong again if the chicken was created male and female eventually you have the egg. If you have no chicken male and female you have no egg. So once again creation makes more logical sense.
> 
> 
> 
> cue buzzer...ever heard of animals that change sex?ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2009)  Most animals, like humans, have separate sexes  they are born, live out their lives and reproduce as one sex or the other. However, some animals live as one sex in part of their lifetime and then switch to the other sex, a phenomenon called sequential hermaphroditism. What remains a puzzle, according to Yale scientists, is why the phenomenon is so rare, since their analysis shows the biological "costs" of changing sexes rarely outweigh the advantages.
> Why Don't More Animals Change Their Sex?
> 
> 
> OR
> Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it is reproduction which does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization. A more stringent definition is agamogenesis which is reproduction without the fusion of gametes. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as the archaea, bacteria, and protists. Many plants and fungi reproduce asexually as well.
> 
> While all prokaryotes reproduce asexually (without the formation and fusion of gametes), mechanisms for lateral gene transfer such as conjugation, transformation and transduction are sometimes likened to sexual reproduction.[1] A complete lack of sexual reproduction is relatively rare among multicellular organisms, particularly animals. It is not entirely understood why the ability to reproduce sexually is so common among them. Current hypotheses [2] suggest that asexual reproduction may have short term benefits when rapid population growth is important or in stable environments, while sexual reproduction offers a net advantage by allowing more rapid generation of genetic diversity, allowing adaptation to changing environments. Developmental constraints[3] may underlie why few animals have relinquished sexual reproduction completely in their life-cycles.
> 
> Asexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> the point is you don't need a male and female to reproduce or lay eggs..
> either that's evolution or god is fucking with us...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are trying to suggest the first chicken accomplished the fertilization of the egg through asexual fertilization ? please forgive me  So in other words the chicken came first meaning it was created complete.
Click to expand...

no,  but there is no doubt that you would see it that way...chickens like all other egg laying animals come from a common ancestor. so your ASSUMPTION that the first chicken self fertilized is as ignorant as it is stupid.
you also conveniently leave out that chickens are domesticated animals and that humans have been breeding them for at least ten thousand years.
the point is, what species of bird was what we now call chickens.
keep in mind birds are descendant from dinosaurs


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> cue buzzer...ever heard of animals that change sex?ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2009) &#8212; Most animals, like humans, have separate sexes &#8212; they are born, live out their lives and reproduce as one sex or the other. However, some animals live as one sex in part of their lifetime and then switch to the other sex, a phenomenon called sequential hermaphroditism. What remains a puzzle, according to Yale scientists, is why the phenomenon is so rare, since their analysis shows the biological "costs" of changing sexes rarely outweigh the advantages.
> Why Don't More Animals Change Their Sex?
> 
> 
> OR
> Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it is reproduction which does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization. A more stringent definition is agamogenesis which is reproduction without the fusion of gametes. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as the archaea, bacteria, and protists. Many plants and fungi reproduce asexually as well.
> 
> While all prokaryotes reproduce asexually (without the formation and fusion of gametes), mechanisms for lateral gene transfer such as conjugation, transformation and transduction are sometimes likened to sexual reproduction.[1] A complete lack of sexual reproduction is relatively rare among multicellular organisms, particularly animals. It is not entirely understood why the ability to reproduce sexually is so common among them. Current hypotheses [2] suggest that asexual reproduction may have short term benefits when rapid population growth is important or in stable environments, while sexual reproduction offers a net advantage by allowing more rapid generation of genetic diversity, allowing adaptation to changing environments. Developmental constraints[3] may underlie why few animals have relinquished sexual reproduction completely in their life-cycles.
> 
> Asexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> the point is you don't need a male and female to reproduce or lay eggs..
> either that's evolution or god is fucking with us...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are trying to suggest the first chicken accomplished the fertilization of the egg through asexual fertilization ? please forgive me  So in other words the chicken came first meaning it was created complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no,  but there is no doubt that you would see it that way...chickens like all other egg laying animals come from a common ancestor. so your ASSUMPTION that the first chicken self fertilized is as ignorant as it is stupid.
> you also conveniently leave out that chickens are domesticated animals and that humans have been breeding them for at least ten thousand years.
> the point is, what species of bird was what we now call chickens.
> keep in mind birds are descendant from dinosaurs
Click to expand...


No it just shows you as ignorant and disingenuous in debating.

Prove the chicken came from dinosaurs,this should be interesting.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are trying to suggest the first chicken accomplished the fertilization of the egg through asexual fertilization ? please forgive me  So in other words the chicken came first meaning it was created complete.
> 
> 
> 
> no,  but there is no doubt that you would see it that way...chickens like all other egg laying animals come from a common ancestor. so your ASSUMPTION that the first chicken self fertilized is as ignorant as it is stupid.
> you also conveniently leave out that chickens are domesticated animals and that humans have been breeding them for at least ten thousand years.
> the point is, what species of bird was what we now call chickens.
> keep in mind birds are descendant from dinosaurs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it just shows you as ignorant and disingenuous in debating.
> 
> Prove the chicken came from dinosaurs,this should be interesting.
Click to expand...


your first sentence is just more evidence that you're a liar.
as to the second : The origin of birds has historically been a contentious topic within evolutionary biology. However, most researchers now support the view that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era.

A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany. Birds share many unique skeletal features with dinosaurs.[1] Moreover, fossils of more than twenty species of dinosaur have been collected which preserve feathers. There are even very small dinosaurs, such as Microraptor and Anchiornis, which have long, vaned, arm and leg feathers forming wings. The Jurassic basal avialan Pedopenna also shows these long foot feathers. Witmer (2009) has concluded that this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that avian evolution went through a four-winged stage.[2]

Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors. The ground-breaking discovery of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue allowed a molecular comparison of cellular anatomy and protein sequencing of collagen tissue, both of which demonstrated that T. rex and birds are more closely related to each other than either is to Alligator.[3] A second molecular study robustly supported the relationship of birds to dinosaurs, though it did not place birds within Theropoda, as expected. This study utilized eight additional collagen sequences extracted from a femur of Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a hadrosaur.[4]

Origin of birds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no,  but there is no doubt that you would see it that way...chickens like all other egg laying animals come from a common ancestor. so your ASSUMPTION that the first chicken self fertilized is as ignorant as it is stupid.
> you also conveniently leave out that chickens are domesticated animals and that humans have been breeding them for at least ten thousand years.
> the point is, what species of bird was what we now call chickens.
> keep in mind birds are descendant from dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it just shows you as ignorant and disingenuous in debating.
> 
> Prove the chicken came from dinosaurs,this should be interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your first sentence is just more evidence that you're a liar.
> as to the second : The origin of birds has historically been a contentious topic within evolutionary biology. However, most researchers now support the view that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era.
> 
> A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany. Birds share many unique skeletal features with dinosaurs.[1] Moreover, fossils of more than twenty species of dinosaur have been collected which preserve feathers. There are even very small dinosaurs, such as Microraptor and Anchiornis, which have long, vaned, arm and leg feathers forming wings. The Jurassic basal avialan Pedopenna also shows these long foot feathers. Witmer (2009) has concluded that this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that avian evolution went through a four-winged stage.[2]
> 
> Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors. The ground-breaking discovery of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue allowed a molecular comparison of cellular anatomy and protein sequencing of collagen tissue, both of which demonstrated that T. rex and birds are more closely related to each other than either is to Alligator.[3] A second molecular study robustly supported the relationship of birds to dinosaurs, though it did not place birds within Theropoda, as expected. This study utilized eight additional collagen sequences extracted from a femur of Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a hadrosaur.[4]
> 
> Origin of birds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


This is your proof  what a brilliant mind.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it just shows you as ignorant and disingenuous in debating.
> 
> Prove the chicken came from dinosaurs,this should be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your first sentence is just more evidence that you're a liar.
> as to the second : The origin of birds has historically been a contentious topic within evolutionary biology. However, most researchers now support the view that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era.
> 
> A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany. Birds share many unique skeletal features with dinosaurs.[1] Moreover, fossils of more than twenty species of dinosaur have been collected which preserve feathers. There are even very small dinosaurs, such as Microraptor and Anchiornis, which have long, vaned, arm and leg feathers forming wings. The Jurassic basal avialan Pedopenna also shows these long foot feathers. Witmer (2009) has concluded that this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that avian evolution went through a four-winged stage.[2]
> 
> Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors. The ground-breaking discovery of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue allowed a molecular comparison of cellular anatomy and protein sequencing of collagen tissue, both of which demonstrated that T. rex and birds are more closely related to each other than either is to Alligator.[3] A second molecular study robustly supported the relationship of birds to dinosaurs, though it did not place birds within Theropoda, as expected. This study utilized eight additional collagen sequences extracted from a femur of Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a hadrosaur.[4]
> 
> Origin of birds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is your proof  what a brilliant mind.
Click to expand...

is this your retort? what an ignorant asshole! 
a classic non answer !


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your first sentence is just more evidence that you're a liar.
> as to the second : The origin of birds has historically been a contentious topic within evolutionary biology. However, most researchers now support the view that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era.
> 
> A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany. Birds share many unique skeletal features with dinosaurs.[1] Moreover, fossils of more than twenty species of dinosaur have been collected which preserve feathers. There are even very small dinosaurs, such as Microraptor and Anchiornis, which have long, vaned, arm and leg feathers forming wings. The Jurassic basal avialan Pedopenna also shows these long foot feathers. Witmer (2009) has concluded that this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that avian evolution went through a four-winged stage.[2]
> 
> Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors. The ground-breaking discovery of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue allowed a molecular comparison of cellular anatomy and protein sequencing of collagen tissue, both of which demonstrated that T. rex and birds are more closely related to each other than either is to Alligator.[3] A second molecular study robustly supported the relationship of birds to dinosaurs, though it did not place birds within Theropoda, as expected. This study utilized eight additional collagen sequences extracted from a femur of Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a hadrosaur.[4]
> 
> Origin of birds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your proof  what a brilliant mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is this your retort? what an ignorant asshole!
> a classic non answer !
Click to expand...


You have not heard wiki can kill brain cells ? I guess I'm little late in warning you. But I would still like you to answer the questions asked of you.


----------



## Obamerican

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is your proof  what a brilliant mind.
> 
> 
> 
> is this your retort? what an ignorant asshole!
> a classic non answer !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not heard wiki can kill brain cells ? I guess I'm little late in warning you. But I would still like you to answer the questions asked of you.
Click to expand...

I know, I know. You don't trust Wiki because it can be edited by man. Yet you believe the Bible, that wasn't written by God, was inspired by Him. So, it seems that the Bible could've been "edited" as well. Why is the Bible more believable than Wiki?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Obamerican said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> is this your retort? what an ignorant asshole!
> a classic non answer !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not heard wiki can kill brain cells ? I guess I'm little late in warning you. But I would still like you to answer the questions asked of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, I know. You don't trust Wiki because it can be edited by man. Yet you believe the Bible, that wasn't written by God, was inspired by Him. So, it seems that the Bible could've been "edited" as well. Why is the Bible more believable than Wiki?
Click to expand...


Because the bible contains things written about that at the time man had no way of knowing,some of these things written about were not confirmed until modern day science.

Like mountains at the bottom of the ocean. Like springs at the bottom of the ocean. Like the water cycle for the earth. Like man was made up of things unseen by the human eye. That man was made up of igredients of the ground.

More and more city's are being discovered through the aid of the bible. I own over thirteen different bibles that came from various manuscripts and they do not contradict each other. They may say things a little different but still carry the same meaning.

The bible has been around much longer and has passed every attack. The only time and reason bibles are revised because of new languages and new words that say things clearer for today's languages.

The bible is in every language known to man and that was a prophecy fulfilled not to mention many others that have been fulfilled.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is your proof  what a brilliant mind.
> 
> 
> 
> is this your retort? what an ignorant asshole!
> a classic non answer !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not heard wiki can kill brain cells ? I guess I'm little late in warning you. But I would still like you to answer the questions asked of you.
Click to expand...

asked and answered ...but your self imposed ignorance makes you blind.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not heard wiki can kill brain cells ? I guess I'm little late in warning you. But I would still like you to answer the questions asked of you.
> 
> 
> 
> I know, I know. You don't trust Wiki because it can be edited by man. Yet you believe the Bible, that wasn't written by God, was inspired by Him. So, it seems that the Bible could've been "edited" as well. Why is the Bible more believable than Wiki?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the bible contains things written about that at the time man had no way of knowing,some of these things written about were not confirmed until modern day science.
> 
> Like mountains at the bottom of the ocean. Like springs at the bottom of the ocean. Like the water cycle for the earth. Like man was made up of things unseen by the human eye. That man was made up of igredients of the ground.
> 
> More and more city's are being discovered through the aid of the bible. I own over thirteen different bibles that came from various manuscripts and they do not contradict each other. They may say things a little different but still carry the same meaning.
> 
> The bible has been around much longer and has passed every attack. The only time and reason bibles are revised because of new languages and new words that say things clearer for today's languages.
> 
> The bible is in every language known to man and that was a prophecy fulfilled not to mention many others that have been fulfilled.
Click to expand...

http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png


"I own over thirteen different bibles that came from various manuscripts and they do not contradict each other."-YWC
:LOL::LOL: OF COURSE THEY DON'T CONTRADICT EACH OTHER! BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN THE SAME CONTRADICTIONS... 

How often do we hear people &#8220;explaining&#8221; religious beliefs by stating &#8221;The Bible says so,&#8221; as if the Bible fell out of the sky, pre-translated to English by God Himself?  It&#8217;s not that simple, according to an impressive and clearly-written book that should be required reading for anyone who claims to know &#8220;what the Bible says.&#8221;

The 2005 bestseller, Misquoting Jesus, was not written by a raving atheist.  Rather, it was written by a fellow who had a born-again experience in high school, then went on to attend the ultraconservative Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.  Bart Ehrman didn&#8217;t stop there, however.  He wanted to become an evangelical voice with credentials that would enable him to teach in secular settings.  It was for this reason that he continued his education at Wheaton and, eventually, Princeton, picking up the ability to read the New Testament in its original Greek in the process.

As a result of his disciplined study, Ehrman increasingly questioned the fundamentalist approach that the &#8220;Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  It contains no mistakes.&#8221;  Through his studies, Ehrman determined that the Bible was not free of mistakes:

We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.

Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrman&#8217;s startling answers : Dangerous Intersection

OWNING  13 BIBLES SAY ALOT ABOUT YOU NONE OF VERY ENCOURAGING ... 



"We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways."


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, I know. You don't trust Wiki because it can be edited by man. Yet you believe the Bible, that wasn't written by God, was inspired by Him. So, it seems that the Bible could've been "edited" as well. Why is the Bible more believable than Wiki?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the bible contains things written about that at the time man had no way of knowing,some of these things written about were not confirmed until modern day science.
> 
> Like mountains at the bottom of the ocean. Like springs at the bottom of the ocean. Like the water cycle for the earth. Like man was made up of things unseen by the human eye. That man was made up of igredients of the ground.
> 
> More and more city's are being discovered through the aid of the bible. I own over thirteen different bibles that came from various manuscripts and they do not contradict each other. They may say things a little different but still carry the same meaning.
> 
> The bible has been around much longer and has passed every attack. The only time and reason bibles are revised because of new languages and new words that say things clearer for today's languages.
> 
> The bible is in every language known to man and that was a prophecy fulfilled not to mention many others that have been fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png
> 
> 
> "I own over thirteen different bibles that came from various manuscripts and they do not contradict each other."-YWC
> :LOL::LOL: OF COURSE THEY DON'T CONTRADICT EACH OTHER! BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN THE SAME CONTRADICTIONS...
> 
> How often do we hear people explaining religious beliefs by stating The Bible says so, as if the Bible fell out of the sky, pre-translated to English by God Himself?  Its not that simple, according to an impressive and clearly-written book that should be required reading for anyone who claims to know what the Bible says.
> 
> The 2005 bestseller, Misquoting Jesus, was not written by a raving atheist.  Rather, it was written by a fellow who had a born-again experience in high school, then went on to attend the ultraconservative Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.  Bart Ehrman didnt stop there, however.  He wanted to become an evangelical voice with credentials that would enable him to teach in secular settings.  It was for this reason that he continued his education at Wheaton and, eventually, Princeton, picking up the ability to read the New Testament in its original Greek in the process.
> 
> As a result of his disciplined study, Ehrman increasingly questioned the fundamentalist approach that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  It contains no mistakes.  Through his studies, Ehrman determined that the Bible was not free of mistakes:
> 
> We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.
> 
> Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrmans startling answers : Dangerous Intersection
> 
> OWNING  13 BIBLES SAY ALOT ABOUT YOU NONE OF VERY ENCOURAGING ...
> 
> 
> 
> "We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways."
Click to expand...


I'm sorry you are so dense you can't understand why I would have all the different versions and the Greek and Hebrew concordance.

Some versions I don't doubt they interpret in a way to support their doctrines. But with even the biased versions you can still get to the truth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> is this your retort? what an ignorant asshole!
> a classic non answer !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not heard wiki can kill brain cells ? I guess I'm little late in warning you. But I would still like you to answer the questions asked of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answered ...but your self imposed ignorance makes you blind.
Click to expand...


Tell me in your own words what was first the Chicken or the egg ?

Explain to me how the first egg or chicken came about and reproduced the same kind of organism ?

Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Daws i'm gonna start calling you the spin-meister.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the bible contains things written about that at the time man had no way of knowing,some of these things written about were not confirmed until modern day science.
> 
> Like mountains at the bottom of the ocean. Like springs at the bottom of the ocean. Like the water cycle for the earth. Like man was made up of things unseen by the human eye. That man was made up of igredients of the ground.
> 
> More and more city's are being discovered through the aid of the bible. I own over thirteen different bibles that came from various manuscripts and they do not contradict each other. They may say things a little different but still carry the same meaning.
> 
> The bible has been around much longer and has passed every attack. The only time and reason bibles are revised because of new languages and new words that say things clearer for today's languages.
> 
> The bible is in every language known to man and that was a prophecy fulfilled not to mention many others that have been fulfilled.
> 
> 
> 
> http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png
> 
> 
> "I own over thirteen different bibles that came from various manuscripts and they do not contradict each other."-YWC
> :LOL::LOL: OF COURSE THEY DON'T CONTRADICT EACH OTHER! BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN THE SAME CONTRADICTIONS...
> 
> How often do we hear people explaining religious beliefs by stating The Bible says so, as if the Bible fell out of the sky, pre-translated to English by God Himself?  Its not that simple, according to an impressive and clearly-written book that should be required reading for anyone who claims to know what the Bible says.
> 
> The 2005 bestseller, Misquoting Jesus, was not written by a raving atheist.  Rather, it was written by a fellow who had a born-again experience in high school, then went on to attend the ultraconservative Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.  Bart Ehrman didnt stop there, however.  He wanted to become an evangelical voice with credentials that would enable him to teach in secular settings.  It was for this reason that he continued his education at Wheaton and, eventually, Princeton, picking up the ability to read the New Testament in its original Greek in the process.
> 
> As a result of his disciplined study, Ehrman increasingly questioned the fundamentalist approach that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  It contains no mistakes.  Through his studies, Ehrman determined that the Bible was not free of mistakes:
> 
> We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.
> 
> Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrmans startling answers : Dangerous Intersection
> 
> OWNING  13 BIBLES SAY ALOT ABOUT YOU NONE OF VERY ENCOURAGING ...
> 
> 
> 
> "We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you are so dense you can't understand why I would have all the different versions and the Greek and Hebrew concordance.
> 
> Some versions I don't doubt they interpret in a way to support their doctrines. But with even the biased versions you can still get to the truth.
Click to expand...

another rationalization.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not heard wiki can kill brain cells ? I guess I'm little late in warning you. But I would still like you to answer the questions asked of you.
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered ...but your self imposed ignorance makes you blind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me in your own words what was first the Chicken or the egg ?
> 
> Explain to me how the first egg or chicken came about and reproduced the same kind of organism ?
> 
> Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?
Click to expand...

asked and answered ....as stated before,
already have, asexual reproduction....the egg whether laded or held in the uterus was fertilized by the parent as the parent has both sperm and egg...  
BTW there was no first chicken in the sense that you are attempting to spin it.
whatever dinosaur/bird species  chickens (with the help of man) evolved from were laying eggs for millions of years..   


"Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?"-ywc

is this your, had a little too much to drink question?
It makes no sense, not that anything you post ever does. 

anyway, without the male ,as in all sexual reproduction there are no fertilized eggs
if there is no hen there are no eggs ..unless god miracles  some up! I like mine over easy!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png
> 
> 
> "I own over thirteen different bibles that came from various manuscripts and they do not contradict each other."-YWC
> :LOL::LOL: OF COURSE THEY DON'T CONTRADICT EACH OTHER! BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN THE SAME CONTRADICTIONS...
> 
> How often do we hear people explaining religious beliefs by stating The Bible says so, as if the Bible fell out of the sky, pre-translated to English by God Himself?  Its not that simple, according to an impressive and clearly-written book that should be required reading for anyone who claims to know what the Bible says.
> 
> The 2005 bestseller, Misquoting Jesus, was not written by a raving atheist.  Rather, it was written by a fellow who had a born-again experience in high school, then went on to attend the ultraconservative Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.  Bart Ehrman didnt stop there, however.  He wanted to become an evangelical voice with credentials that would enable him to teach in secular settings.  It was for this reason that he continued his education at Wheaton and, eventually, Princeton, picking up the ability to read the New Testament in its original Greek in the process.
> 
> As a result of his disciplined study, Ehrman increasingly questioned the fundamentalist approach that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  It contains no mistakes.  Through his studies, Ehrman determined that the Bible was not free of mistakes:
> 
> We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.
> 
> Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrmans startling answers : Dangerous Intersection
> 
> OWNING  13 BIBLES SAY ALOT ABOUT YOU NONE OF VERY ENCOURAGING ...
> 
> 
> 
> "We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you are so dense you can't understand why I would have all the different versions and the Greek and Hebrew concordance.
> 
> Some versions I don't doubt they interpret in a way to support their doctrines. But with even the biased versions you can still get to the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another rationalization.
Click to expand...


What do you expect from a logical and rational thinking person ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered ...but your self imposed ignorance makes you blind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me in your own words what was first the Chicken or the egg ?
> 
> Explain to me how the first egg or chicken came about and reproduced the same kind of organism ?
> 
> Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answered ....as stated before,
> already have, asexual reproduction....the egg whether laded or held in the uterus was fertilized by the parent as the parent has both sperm and egg...
> BTW there was no first chicken in the sense that you are attempting to spin it.
> whatever dinosaur/bird species  chickens (with the help of man) evolved from were laying eggs for millions of years..
> 
> 
> "Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?"-ywc
> 
> is this your, had a little too much to drink question?
> It makes no sense, not that anything you post ever does.
> 
> anyway, without the male ,as in all sexual reproduction there are no fertilized eggs
> if there is no hen there are no eggs ..unless god miracles  some up! I like mine over easy!
Click to expand...


So you are saying chickens self fertilized their eggs. what proof do you have this happened ?

One had to come first the chicken or the egg which is it ?

A new species just does not pop into existence even by evolutionists explanations so if you have no evidence proving hens can fertilize their own eggs your view is based on what ?

Why do we have roosters to fertilize eggs now ? or both sexes for any groups of organisms to sexually reproduce and keep the group of organisms population going ?

You lack evidence to support your view and critical thinking.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you are so dense you can't understand why I would have all the different versions and the Greek and Hebrew concordance.
> 
> Some versions I don't doubt they interpret in a way to support their doctrines. But with even the biased versions you can still get to the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> another rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you expect from a logical and rational thinking person ?
Click to expand...

I would expect a logical rational person to know the difference efinition of RATIONAL

1a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior> 
2: involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times 
3: relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers <a rational root of an equation> 

ra·tio·nal·ize verb 
\&#712;rash-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z, &#712;ra-sh&#601;-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z\
ra·tio·nal·izedra·tio·nal·iz·ing
Definition of RATIONALIZE
transitive verb
1: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem> 



you fail!!!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me in your own words what was first the Chicken or the egg ?
> 
> Explain to me how the first egg or chicken came about and reproduced the same kind of organism ?
> 
> Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered ....as stated before,
> already have, asexual reproduction....the egg whether laded or held in the uterus was fertilized by the parent as the parent has both sperm and egg...
> BTW there was no first chicken in the sense that you are attempting to spin it.
> whatever dinosaur/bird species  chickens (with the help of man) evolved from were laying eggs for millions of years..
> 
> 
> "Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?"-ywc
> 
> is this your, had a little too much to drink question?
> It makes no sense, not that anything you post ever does.
> 
> anyway, without the male ,as in all sexual reproduction there are no fertilized eggs
> if there is no hen there are no eggs ..unless god miracles  some up! I like mine over easy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying chickens self fertilized their eggs. what proof do you have this happened ?
> 
> One had to come first the chicken or the egg which is it ?
> 
> A new species just does not pop into existence even by evolutionists explanations so if you have no evidence proving hens can fertilize their own eggs your view is based on what ?
> 
> Why do we have roosters to fertilize eggs now ? or both sexes for any groups of organisms to sexually reproduce and keep the group of organisms population going ?
> 
> You lack evidence to support your view and critical thinking.
Click to expand...

asked and answered epic fail...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered ...but your self imposed ignorance makes you blind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me in your own words what was first the Chicken or the egg ?
> 
> Explain to me how the first egg or chicken came about and reproduced the same kind of organism ?
> 
> Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answered ....as stated before,
> already have, asexual reproduction....the egg whether laded or held in the uterus was fertilized by the parent as the parent has both sperm and egg...
> BTW there was no first chicken in the sense that you are attempting to spin it.
> whatever dinosaur/bird species  chickens (with the help of man) evolved from were laying eggs for millions of years..
> 
> 
> "Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?"-ywc
> 
> is this your, had a little too much to drink question?
> It makes no sense, not that anything you post ever does.
> 
> anyway, without the male ,as in all sexual reproduction there are no fertilized eggs
> if there is no hen there are no eggs ..unless god miracles  some up! I like mine over easy!
Click to expand...


The right answer is God created both the rooster and the hen and that is how you get fertilized eggs and offspring.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another rationalization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you expect from a logical and rational thinking person ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would expect a logical rational person to know the difference efinition of RATIONAL
> 
> 1a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>
> 2: involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times
> 3: relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers <a rational root of an equation>
> 
> ra·tio·nal·ize verb
> \&#712;rash-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z, &#712;ra-sh&#601;-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z\
> ra·tio·nal·izedra·tio·nal·iz·ing
> Definition of RATIONALIZE
> transitive verb
> 1: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
> 
> 
> 
> you fail!!!
Click to expand...


It's clear you know the definition but you don't apply the definition properly.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered ....as stated before,
> already have, asexual reproduction....the egg whether laded or held in the uterus was fertilized by the parent as the parent has both sperm and egg...
> BTW there was no first chicken in the sense that you are attempting to spin it.
> whatever dinosaur/bird species  chickens (with the help of man) evolved from were laying eggs for millions of years..
> 
> 
> "Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?"-ywc
> 
> is this your, had a little too much to drink question?
> It makes no sense, not that anything you post ever does.
> 
> anyway, without the male ,as in all sexual reproduction there are no fertilized eggs
> if there is no hen there are no eggs ..unless god miracles  some up! I like mine over easy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying chickens self fertilized their eggs. what proof do you have this happened ?
> 
> One had to come first the chicken or the egg which is it ?
> 
> A new species just does not pop into existence even by evolutionists explanations so if you have no evidence proving hens can fertilize their own eggs your view is based on what ?
> 
> Why do we have roosters to fertilize eggs now ? or both sexes for any groups of organisms to sexually reproduce and keep the group of organisms population going ?
> 
> You lack evidence to support your view and critical thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answered epic fail...
Click to expand...


On your part.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me in your own words what was first the Chicken or the egg ?
> 
> Explain to me how the first egg or chicken came about and reproduced the same kind of organism ?
> 
> Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered ....as stated before,
> already have, asexual reproduction....the egg whether laded or held in the uterus was fertilized by the parent as the parent has both sperm and egg...
> BTW there was no first chicken in the sense that you are attempting to spin it.
> whatever dinosaur/bird species  chickens (with the help of man) evolved from were laying eggs for millions of years..
> 
> 
> "Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?"-ywc
> 
> is this your, had a little too much to drink question?
> It makes no sense, not that anything you post ever does.
> 
> anyway, without the male ,as in all sexual reproduction there are no fertilized eggs
> if there is no hen there are no eggs ..unless god miracles  some up! I like mine over easy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right answer is God created both the rooster and the hen and that is how you get fertilized eggs and offspring.
Click to expand...

you have no evidence of that, so it's conjecture at best,
on the other hand there is millions of years of evidence that egg producing creatures were doing so long before chickens evolved .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you expect from a logical and rational thinking person ?
> 
> 
> 
> I would expect a logical rational person to know the difference efinition of RATIONAL
> 
> 1a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>
> 2: involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times
> 3: relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers <a rational root of an equation>
> 
> ra·tio·nal·ize verb
> \&#712;rash-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z, &#712;ra-sh&#601;-n&#601;-&#716;l&#299;z\
> ra·tio·nal·izedra·tio·nal·iz·ing
> Definition of RATIONALIZE
> transitive verb
> 1: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
> 
> 
> 
> you fail!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's clear you know the definition but you don't apply the definition properly.
Click to expand...

how so?


----------



## Urbanguerrilla

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me in your own words what was first the Chicken or the egg ?
> 
> Explain to me how the first egg or chicken came about and reproduced the same kind of organism ?
> 
> Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered ....as stated before,
> already have, asexual reproduction....the egg whether laded or held in the uterus was fertilized by the parent as the parent has both sperm and egg...
> BTW there was no first chicken in the sense that you are attempting to spin it.
> whatever dinosaur/bird species  chickens (with the help of man) evolved from were laying eggs for millions of years..
> 
> 
> "Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?"-ywc
> 
> is this your, had a little too much to drink question?
> It makes no sense, not that anything you post ever does.
> 
> anyway, without the male ,as in all sexual reproduction there are no fertilized eggs
> if there is no hen there are no eggs ..unless god miracles  some up! I like mine over easy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right answer is God created both the rooster and the hen and that is how you get fertilized eggs and offspring.
Click to expand...


Which god was it..Thor, Zeus or Lug


----------



## daws101

Urbanguerrilla said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered ....as stated before,
> already have, asexual reproduction....the egg whether laded or held in the uterus was fertilized by the parent as the parent has both sperm and egg...
> BTW there was no first chicken in the sense that you are attempting to spin it.
> whatever dinosaur/bird species  chickens (with the help of man) evolved from were laying eggs for millions of years..
> 
> 
> "Tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?"-ywc
> 
> is this your, had a little too much to drink question?
> It makes no sense, not that anything you post ever does.
> 
> anyway, without the male ,as in all sexual reproduction there are no fertilized eggs
> if there is no hen there are no eggs ..unless god miracles  some up! I like mine over easy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right answer is God created both the rooster and the hen and that is how you get fertilized eggs and offspring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which god was it..Thor, Zeus or Lug
Click to expand...

crom conan's fav..


----------



## konradv

The egg came first.  It's parents were end-stage proto-chickens.


----------



## UltimateReality

Imagine a super advanced factory that assembles a mind boglingly complex machine in a matter of days. This machine is so advanced it has done what no super computer has yet been able to do... learn. The factory is so complex that the micro machines make nano-technology look like a tinker toy. And this factory, all fits inside a space the size of a large watermelon...

Mathematician Alexander Tsiaras on Human Development: "It's a Mystery, It's Magic, It's Divinity" - Evolution News & Views


----------



## Youwerecreated

urbanguerrilla said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered ....as stated before,
> already have, asexual reproduction....the egg whether laded or held in the uterus was fertilized by the parent as the parent has both sperm and egg...
> Btw there was no first chicken in the sense that you are attempting to spin it.
> Whatever dinosaur/bird species  chickens (with the help of man) evolved from were laying eggs for millions of years..
> 
> 
> "tell me how an egg becomes fertilized if both the rooster and the hen was not involved ?"-ywc
> 
> is this your, had a little too much to drink question?
> It makes no sense, not that anything you post ever does.
> 
> Anyway, without the male ,as in all sexual reproduction there are no fertilized eggs
> if there is no hen there are no eggs ..unless god miracles  some up! I like mine over easy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the right answer is god created both the rooster and the hen and that is how you get fertilized eggs and offspring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which god was it..thor, zeus or lug
Click to expand...


Yahweh


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> The egg came first.  It's parents were end-stage proto-chickens.



Still having a problem with such a simple question ?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hypocritical Evolutionists...

Darwin's God: Here&#8217;s How Evolutionists Hypocritically Criticize Others


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hypocritical Evolutionists...
> 
> Darwin's God: Heres How Evolutionists Hypocritically Criticize Others



I think they already figured out the hen and rooster came first not the egg supporting creation.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocritical Evolutionists...
> 
> Darwin's God: Heres How Evolutionists Hypocritically Criticize Others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they already figured out the hen and rooster came first not the egg supporting creation.
Click to expand...

nope. that just another lie you tell yourself!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocritical Evolutionists...
> 
> Darwin's God: Heres How Evolutionists Hypocritically Criticize Others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they already figured out the hen and rooster came first not the egg supporting creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope. that just another lie you tell yourself!
Click to expand...


Still no explanation that makes any rational sense.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they already figured out the hen and rooster came first not the egg supporting creation.
> 
> 
> 
> nope. that just another lie you tell yourself!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no explanation that makes any rational sense.
Click to expand...

really? that might mean something of you were rational and not rationalizing:  a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem> 


why did you resurrect this thread.....easter? ironic as it's the most pagan of holidays..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope. that just another lie you tell yourself!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no explanation that makes any rational sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? that might mean something of you were rational and not rationalizing:  a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
> 
> 
> why did you resurrect this thread.....easter? ironic as it's the most pagan of holidays..
Click to expand...


Just to watch people like you squirm.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no explanation that makes any rational sense.
> 
> 
> 
> really? that might mean something of you were rational and not rationalizing:  a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
> 
> 
> why did you resurrect this thread.....easter? ironic as it's the most pagan of holidays..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to watch people like you squirm.
Click to expand...

then you have a real problem..since your posts only add to hilarity of watching you making a hemorrhoid ridden asshole of yourself.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? that might mean something of you were rational and not rationalizing:  a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
> 
> 
> why did you resurrect this thread.....easter? ironic as it's the most pagan of holidays..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to watch people like you squirm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then you have a real problem..since your posts only add to hilarity of watching you making a hemorrhoid ridden asshole of yourself.
Click to expand...


Really,because i can offer answers to your questions but you on the other hand run from the challenge.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to watch people like you squirm.
> 
> 
> 
> then you have a real problem..since your posts only add to hilarity of watching you making a hemorrhoid ridden asshole of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really,because i can offer answers to your questions but you on the other hand run from the challenge.
Click to expand...

no you can't, as any answer you have has no basis in reality.
those kind of bullshit answers are far worse then no answer at all. 
please provide proof that I have run.....?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> then you have a real problem..since your posts only add to hilarity of watching you making a hemorrhoid ridden asshole of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really,because i can offer answers to your questions but you on the other hand run from the challenge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you can't, as any answer you have has no basis in reality.
> those kind of bullshit answers are far worse then no answer at all.
> please provide proof that I have run.....?
Click to expand...


Offer proof I did not answer questions from your side ?

When we got to a deep subject you ran and only was a cheer leader apparently because your knowledge on the theory was lacking.

When we discussed genetics and mutations you were no where to be found, Other then to thank people who attempted answering my questions.

What would you like to discuss ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really,because i can offer answers to your questions but you on the other hand run from the challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> no you can't, as any answer you have has no basis in reality.
> those kind of bullshit answers are far worse then no answer at all.
> please provide proof that I have run.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Offer proof I did not answer questions from your side ?
> 
> When we got to a deep subject you ran and only was a cheer leader apparently because your knowledge on the theory was lacking.
> 
> When we discussed genetics and mutations you were no where to be found, Other then to thank people who attempted answering my questions.
> 
> What would you like to discuss ?
Click to expand...

dodge! not suprising.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no you can't, as any answer you have has no basis in reality.
> those kind of bullshit answers are far worse then no answer at all.
> please provide proof that I have run.....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Offer proof I did not answer questions from your side ?
> 
> When we got to a deep subject you ran and only was a cheer leader apparently because your knowledge on the theory was lacking.
> 
> When we discussed genetics and mutations you were no where to be found, Other then to thank people who attempted answering my questions.
> 
> What would you like to discuss ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dodge! not suprising.
Click to expand...


I am open to discuss anything you like concerning evolution or creation,poop or get off the pot.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Offer proof I did not answer questions from your side ?
> 
> When we got to a deep subject you ran and only was a cheer leader apparently because your knowledge on the theory was lacking.
> 
> When we discussed genetics and mutations you were no where to be found, Other then to thank people who attempted answering my questions.
> 
> What would you like to discuss ?
> 
> 
> 
> dodge! not suprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am open to discuss anything you like concerning evolution or creation,poop or get off the pot.
Click to expand...

what you're open to is pontificating on fantasy..
poop ....really ?


----------



## starcraftzzz

People who believe in Creationism are pretty much the same people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, they are ignorant idiots who deny reality because they can't accept the fact that a bunch of humans who wrote the bible thousands of years ago were wrong about a lot of things


----------



## Youwerecreated

starcraftzzz said:


> People who believe in Creationism are pretty much the same people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, they are ignorant idiots who deny reality because they can't accept the fact that a bunch of humans who wrote the bible thousands of years ago were wrong about a lot of things



I don't know the age of the earth nor do you, now what ?  Tell us where the bible is wrong please. I'm your worst enemy I hold a degree in science. let's get it on.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> dodge! not suprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am open to discuss anything you like concerning evolution or creation,poop or get off the pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you're open to is pontificating on fantasy..
> poop ....really ?
Click to expand...


Run child run.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who believe in Creationism are pretty much the same people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, they are ignorant idiots who deny reality because they can't accept the fact that a bunch of humans who wrote the bible thousands of years ago were wrong about a lot of things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the age of the earth nor do you, now what ?  Tell us where the bible is wrong please. I'm your worst enemy I hold a degree in science. let's get it on.
Click to expand...

 you hold no degree! why do you keep telling that lie there is no degree in "science" you assclown...
there are however degrees in the sciences ...astrophysics,biology,paleontology..ect...
if god, he or she exsited you'd be sent to hell not just for lying ,but for doing it so badly.    







Bible dealbreakers: Bad science | No Forbidden Questions


----------



## jillian

Youwerecreated said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who believe in Creationism are pretty much the same people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, they are ignorant idiots who deny reality because they can't accept the fact that a bunch of humans who wrote the bible thousands of years ago were wrong about a lot of things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the age of the earth nor do you, now what ?  Tell us where the bible is wrong please. I'm your worst enemy I hold a degree in science. let's get it on.
Click to expand...


no one who holds a degree in any of the sciences would claim the earth is 6000 years old.

you aren't anyone's worst enemy but your own ...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who believe in Creationism are pretty much the same people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, they are ignorant idiots who deny reality because they can't accept the fact that a bunch of humans who wrote the bible thousands of years ago were wrong about a lot of things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the age of the earth nor do you, now what ?  Tell us where the bible is wrong please. I'm your worst enemy I hold a degree in science. let's get it on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you hold no degree! why do you keep telling that lie there is no degree in "science" you assclown...
> there are however degrees in the sciences ...astrophysics,biology,paleontology..ect...
> if god, he or she exsited you'd be sent to hell not just for lying ,but for doing it so badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bible dealbreakers: Bad science | No Forbidden Questions
Click to expand...


Listen you moron ,you have no clue what my major was in. I have my masters in molecular biology. Now would you like to discuss my major ? Why don't you poop or get off the toilet butthead.


----------



## Youwerecreated

jillian said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who believe in Creationism are pretty much the same people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, they are ignorant idiots who deny reality because they can't accept the fact that a bunch of humans who wrote the bible thousands of years ago were wrong about a lot of things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the age of the earth nor do you, now what ?  Tell us where the bible is wrong please. I'm your worst enemy I hold a degree in science. let's get it on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one who holds a degree in any of the sciences would claim the earth is 6000 years old.
> 
> you aren't anyone's worst enemy but your own ...
Click to expand...


Are you people illiterate ? I said I don't know the age of this planet nor does any man. Do you realize how many creationist hold all the different degrees in the various fields of science that believe in a young earth not like most of the brainwashed children that major in the fields of science ? Look if you people wish to discuss our views in depth go for it just don't tell me what I would and wouldn't do. So what would you like to discuss ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who believe in Creationism are pretty much the same people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, they are ignorant idiots who deny reality because they can't accept the fact that a bunch of humans who wrote the bible thousands of years ago were wrong about a lot of things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the age of the earth nor do you, now what ?  Tell us where the bible is wrong please. I'm your worst enemy I hold a degree in science. let's get it on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you hold no degree! why do you keep telling that lie there is no degree in "science" you assclown...
> there are however degrees in the sciences ...astrophysics,biology,paleontology..ect...
> if god, he or she exsited you'd be sent to hell not just for lying ,but for doing it so badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bible dealbreakers: Bad science | No Forbidden Questions
Click to expand...


Since you won't start it here we go.

Here is a very simple question for you that presents a problem for evolutionist.

Is there any known molecule that can reproduce itself ?


----------



## cooky

Youwerecreated said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who believe in Creationism are pretty much the same people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, they are ignorant idiots who deny reality because they can't accept the fact that a bunch of humans who wrote the bible thousands of years ago were wrong about a lot of things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the age of the earth nor do you, now what ?  Tell us where the bible is wrong please. I'm your worst enemy I hold a degree in science. let's get it on.
Click to expand...


The age of the Earth has been quantified through radiometric dating of meteorites, moon rocks, and geologic samples collected here on earth as well as by determining the relative mass and luminosity of the sun. A multi-disciplinary analysis of many different samples has produced age calculations that strongly agree with one another.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cooky said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who believe in Creationism are pretty much the same people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, they are ignorant idiots who deny reality because they can't accept the fact that a bunch of humans who wrote the bible thousands of years ago were wrong about a lot of things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the age of the earth nor do you, now what ?  Tell us where the bible is wrong please. I'm your worst enemy I hold a degree in science. let's get it on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The age of the Earth has been quantified through radiometric dating of meteorites, moon rocks, and geologic samples collected here on earth as well as by determining the relative mass and luminosity of the sun. A multi-disciplinary analysis of many different samples has produced age calculations that strongly agree with one another.
Click to expand...


Dating methods are no more reliable then determining the time of death of someone who died recently unless it was witnessed and documented.if you wish to trust in that non-sense be my guest.


----------



## churchmouse

starcraftzzz said:


> People who believe in Creationism are pretty much the same people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, they are ignorant idiots who deny reality because they can't accept the fact that a bunch of humans who wrote the bible thousands of years ago were wrong about a lot of things



Then show me what that "first cause" was?

Prove to me (which you can't but try for laughs) that there was no intelligent designer.

To do so you would need all the knowledge in the universeand you don't have it. No scientist does eitherso where does that leave us? Science can not begin to tackle this issue. 

Why don't you try...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the age of the earth nor do you, now what ?  Tell us where the bible is wrong please. I'm your worst enemy I hold a degree in science. let's get it on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The age of the Earth has been quantified through radiometric dating of meteorites, moon rocks, and geologic samples collected here on earth as well as by determining the relative mass and luminosity of the sun. A multi-disciplinary analysis of many different samples has produced age calculations that strongly agree with one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dating methods are no more reliable then determining the time of death of someone who died recently unless it was witnessed and documented.if you wish to trust in that non-sense be my guest.
Click to expand...

once again claiming facts not in evidence ....your distrust of the dating systems is no evidence they are inaccurate and you have no credible evidence to prove otherwise .....since creationism is not a science it is not valid to any argument about evolution..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The age of the Earth has been quantified through radiometric dating of meteorites, moon rocks, and geologic samples collected here on earth as well as by determining the relative mass and luminosity of the sun. A multi-disciplinary analysis of many different samples has produced age calculations that strongly agree with one another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dating methods are no more reliable then determining the time of death of someone who died recently unless it was witnessed and documented.if you wish to trust in that non-sense be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> once again claiming facts not in evidence ....your distrust of the dating systems is no evidence they are inaccurate and you have no credible evidence to prove otherwise .....since creationism is not a science it is not valid to any argument about evolution..
Click to expand...


SO you are deflecting to avoid the question I asked you ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dating methods are no more reliable then determining the time of death of someone who died recently unless it was witnessed and documented.if you wish to trust in that non-sense be my guest.
> 
> 
> 
> once again claiming facts not in evidence ....your distrust of the dating systems is no evidence they are inaccurate and you have no credible evidence to prove otherwise .....since creationism is not a science it is not valid to any argument about evolution..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO you are deflecting to avoid the question I asked you ?
Click to expand...

hardly ....I'm playing you ...for the asshat you are....dance puppet dance!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> once again claiming facts not in evidence ....your distrust of the dating systems is no evidence they are inaccurate and you have no credible evidence to prove otherwise .....since creationism is not a science it is not valid to any argument about evolution..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO you are deflecting to avoid the question I asked you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hardly ....I'm playing you ...for the asshat you are....dance puppet dance!
Click to expand...


It was a very simple question that is very revealing.

The only asshat is the


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO you are deflecting to avoid the question I asked you ?
> 
> 
> 
> hardly ....I'm playing you ...for the asshat you are....dance puppet dance!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a very simple question that is very revealing.
> 
> The only asshat is the
Click to expand...

a lying dancer?


----------



## vlad

So boring so lame no passion


----------



## amrchaos

I wonder

Do Creationist realize that the "Big Bang" theory was proposed by a catholic preists and adopted by the Catholic church with little regards to "evolution"?

I guess the creationists do not know of the Catholic church long and storied history in astronomy and physics.  Come to think about it, the Catholics pratically described the make-up of the Earths atmosphere--Clouds, Air and, oh yes, no heavenly city waiting to descend.  

Remember, that is not the "evolutionists" that made these discoveries, but Catholic scientists studying the world about them.  All funded by the Catholic church!


----------



## UltimateReality

amrchaos said:


> I wonder
> 
> Do Creationist realize that the "Big Bang" theory was proposed by a catholic preists and adopted by the Catholic church with little regards to "evolution"?
> 
> I guess the creationists do not know of the Catholic church long and storied history in astronomy and physics.  Come to think about it, the Catholics pratically described the make-up of the Earths atmosphere--Clouds, Air and, oh yes, no heavenly city waiting to descend.
> 
> Remember, that is not the "evolutionists" that made these discoveries, but Catholic scientists studying the world about them.  All funded by the Catholic church!



Any your point is? The Big Bang Theory proves Creation. It has nothing to do with the Darwinian Myth. The bozo's that bag on Creationists can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that there are two camps on this topic. Young Earth Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents. I fall into the second camp and believe God created the universe out of nothing (Big Bang) and I believe the bang bonged roughly 13.7 Billion years ago.


----------



## Youwerecreated

amrchaos said:


> I wonder
> 
> Do Creationist realize that the "Big Bang" theory was proposed by a catholic preists and adopted by the Catholic church with little regards to "evolution"?
> 
> I guess the creationists do not know of the Catholic church long and storied history in astronomy and physics.  Come to think about it, the Catholics pratically described the make-up of the Earths atmosphere--Clouds, Air and, oh yes, no heavenly city waiting to descend.
> 
> Remember, that is not the "evolutionists" that made these discoveries, but Catholic scientists studying the world about them.  All funded by the Catholic church!



Only catholics agree with catholic doctrines. Even some of them don't fully agree with their doctrines.

If the big bang happened God caused it.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder
> 
> Do Creationist realize that the "Big Bang" theory was proposed by a catholic preists and adopted by the Catholic church with little regards to "evolution"?
> 
> I guess the creationists do not know of the Catholic church long and storied history in astronomy and physics.  Come to think about it, the Catholics pratically described the make-up of the Earths atmosphere--Clouds, Air and, oh yes, no heavenly city waiting to descend.
> 
> Remember, that is not the "evolutionists" that made these discoveries, but Catholic scientists studying the world about them.  All funded by the Catholic church!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only catholics agree with catholic doctrines. Even some of them don't fully agree with their doctrines.
> 
> If the big bang happened God caused it.
Click to expand...

speculation not fact! 
of course the secular big bang theory is speculation also with one huge exception, evidence!


----------



## UltimateReality

I was pondering the weather the other day after it didn't do what the news said it was going to do. Then I started thinking, why aren't we able to model and predict the weather better? Why can't we simply study evidence and trends, apply a few laws of physics, and come up with a formula that is right 99% of the time? I will tell you why. Becasue the weather is totally RANDOM. Then I thought to myself, why are people so blinded by the fact that the digital code in human beings is NOT RANDOM. In fact, it was another Catholic who figured out the whole gene thing and guess what, once he cracked the code, his predictions were right 100% of the time. The code screams intelligent source!! Yet, blind-faith Darwinist continue with their pathetic belief it is as random as the weather. Really sad.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> I was pondering the weather the other day after it didn't do what the news said it was going to do. Then I started thinking, why aren't we able to model and predict the weather better? Why can't we simply study evidence and trends, apply a few laws of physics, and come up with a formula that is right 99% of the time? I will tell you why. Becasue the weather is totally RANDOM. Then I thought to myself, why are people so blinded by the fact that the digital code in human beings is NOT RANDOM. In fact, it was another Catholic who figured out the whole gene thing and guess what, once he cracked the code, his predictions were right 100% of the time. The code screams intelligent source!! Yet, blind-faith Darwinist continue with their pathetic belief it is as random as the weather. Really sad.



First, weather is not totally random.  If it were, you would never know if you were going to get a hailstorm, 120 degree heat and dry, snow, etc. no matter where you were.  Obviously that's not true.

Second, even if it IS random, if god created the earth why wouldn't there be as much evidence of intelligence in the weather as there is in genes?


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was pondering the weather the other day after it didn't do what the news said it was going to do. Then I started thinking, why aren't we able to model and predict the weather better? Why can't we simply study evidence and trends, apply a few laws of physics, and come up with a formula that is right 99% of the time? I will tell you why. Becasue the weather is totally RANDOM. Then I thought to myself, why are people so blinded by the fact that the digital code in human beings is NOT RANDOM. In fact, it was another Catholic who figured out the whole gene thing and guess what, once he cracked the code, his predictions were right 100% of the time. The code screams intelligent source!! Yet, blind-faith Darwinist continue with their pathetic belief it is as random as the weather. Really sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, weather is not totally random.  If it were, you would never know if you were going to get a hailstorm, 120 degree heat and dry, snow, etc. no matter where you were.  Obviously that's not true.
> 
> Second, even if it IS random, if god created the earth why wouldn't there be as much evidence of intelligence in the weather as there is in genes?
Click to expand...


This is a common response I will answer with another question: What make uniquely qualified to decide how God should do anything? Why would you ASSume that the way you think things should be is the way God would or should have done them? This is exactly the complete and utter HUMAN ARROGANCE that led to the TOE in the first place. It is also the sin of Lucifer, who thought he could do a better job than God. We all know how that panned out.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was pondering the weather the other day after it didn't do what the news said it was going to do. Then I started thinking, why aren't we able to model and predict the weather better? Why can't we simply study evidence and trends, apply a few laws of physics, and come up with a formula that is right 99% of the time? I will tell you why. Becasue the weather is totally RANDOM. Then I thought to myself, why are people so blinded by the fact that the digital code in human beings is NOT RANDOM. In fact, it was another Catholic who figured out the whole gene thing and guess what, once he cracked the code, his predictions were right 100% of the time. The code screams intelligent source!! Yet, blind-faith Darwinist continue with their pathetic belief it is as random as the weather. Really sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, weather is not totally random.  If it were, you would never know if you were going to get a hailstorm, 120 degree heat and dry, snow, etc. no matter where you were.  Obviously that's not true.
> 
> Second, even if it IS random, if god created the earth why wouldn't there be as much evidence of intelligence in the weather as there is in genes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a common response I will answer with another question: What make uniquely qualified to decide how God should do anything? Why would you ASSume that the way you think things should be is the way God would or should have done them? This is exactly the complete and utter HUMAN ARROGANCE that led to the TOE in the first place. It is also the sin of Lucifer, who thought he could do a better job than God. We all know how that panned out.
Click to expand...

first of all, who is "uniquely" ?

since you have the same amount of evidence for Lucifer that you do for god (none)  your ASSUMPTION THAT THE PAIR EXIST IS EVEN MORE ARROGANT!


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was pondering the weather the other day after it didn't do what the news said it was going to do. Then I started thinking, why aren't we able to model and predict the weather better? Why can't we simply study evidence and trends, apply a few laws of physics, and come up with a formula that is right 99% of the time? I will tell you why. Becasue the weather is totally RANDOM. Then I thought to myself, why are people so blinded by the fact that the digital code in human beings is NOT RANDOM. In fact, it was another Catholic who figured out the whole gene thing and guess what, once he cracked the code, his predictions were right 100% of the time. The code screams intelligent source!! Yet, blind-faith Darwinist continue with their pathetic belief it is as random as the weather. Really sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, weather is not totally random.  If it were, you would never know if you were going to get a hailstorm, 120 degree heat and dry, snow, etc. no matter where you were.  Obviously that's not true.
> 
> Second, even if it IS random, if god created the earth why wouldn't there be as much evidence of intelligence in the weather as there is in genes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a common response I will answer with another question: What make uniquely qualified to decide how God should do anything? Why would you ASSume that the way you think things should be is the way God would or should have done them? This is exactly the complete and utter HUMAN ARROGANCE that led to the TOE in the first place. It is also the sin of Lucifer, who thought he could do a better job than God. We all know how that panned out.
Click to expand...


Isn't it just as arrogant to assume that because YOU think something required intelligence, it must have been done by god?

I would agree that, if there is a god, any assumptions about that being's motives or abilities are unlikely to be based in any real knowledge.  However, when you start talking about how something was clearly created by god, you are assuming you know how god works (beyond assuming that there is a god in the first place, assuming there is only one, etc.).  

So, you make an assumption about what god has done, I ask why that same assumption wouldn't hold true in other areas, and then you claim I am being arrogant?  Ok then.  You started off with a false assumption (that weather is totally random, which I'll point out you didn't address), I ask why, if an intelligence created everything, it would leave weather totally random but not life, and you respond with, basically, "You can't know how god works.".  If I can't know how god works, I can't know if he would have directed life or left it to random chance, either.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, weather is not totally random.  If it were, you would never know if you were going to get a hailstorm, 120 degree heat and dry, snow, etc. no matter where you were.  Obviously that's not true.
> 
> Second, even if it IS random, if god created the earth why wouldn't there be as much evidence of intelligence in the weather as there is in genes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a common response I will answer with another question: What make uniquely qualified to decide how God should do anything? Why would you ASSume that the way you think things should be is the way God would or should have done them? This is exactly the complete and utter HUMAN ARROGANCE that led to the TOE in the first place. It is also the sin of Lucifer, who thought he could do a better job than God. We all know how that panned out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it just as arrogant to assume that because YOU think something required intelligence, it must have been done by god?
> 
> I would agree that, if there is a god, any assumptions about that being's motives or abilities are unlikely to be based in any real knowledge.  However, when you start talking about how something was clearly created by god, you are assuming you know how god works (beyond assuming that there is a god in the first place, assuming there is only one, etc.).
> 
> So, you make an assumption about what god has done, I ask why that same assumption wouldn't hold true in other areas, and then you claim I am being arrogant?  Ok then.  You started off with a false assumption (that weather is totally random, which I'll point out you didn't address), I ask why, if an intelligence created everything, it would leave weather totally random but not life, and you respond with, basically, "You can't know how god works.".  If I can't know how god works, I can't know if he would have directed life or left it to random chance, either.
Click to expand...


Wow! Aren't you mister captain obvious. I thought the transparency of my point would be more evident but it is obvious by you mirroring back what I mirrored you, it went right over your head. You now are assuming that I assumed the same thing you were assuming. As far as the reference of God with a capital G, there is the small detail that you are in the Creationist thread. I don't assume to have proof of the Judeo-Christian God I believe is the Designer and my response was more argumentitive in nature. Let's just say there is as much proof that Intelligent Design is responsible for the complex features we see as there is proof of the Darwinian Myth.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hey! Why come the Darwinist fools never talk about the origins of plant life. The earth is teaming with it. So when the first complex DNA self-assembled itself, when did it choose to become a plant or an animal. Maybe our common ancestor is a flower, or seaweed, or some nasty mold. Maybe it's just like Avatar and we are all connected to the trees. 

Ohhh yahuh! Theres that pesky origin of life thing the Darwinian fools have absolutely no explanation for. What was the last poster saying about proof??


----------



## UltimateReality

Hmm, let's see. Highly intelligent scientist believe in something that is invisible, that they can't prove, that no super sensitive device has ever been able to capture, merely because they can see its effects???? Really? A mysterious force or thing that is invisible and can't be measured or proven?

"We see how the rotation of galaxies is affect by something that weighs a lot but is invisible. We also see how the gas in galaxy clusters doesn't move as it would if there were only visible matter present. So we know it's there. The question is simply what it is."

One step closer to dark matter in universe

Kind of reminds me of people who believe in invisible stuff because they see the digital code in every cell which was left behind by the invisible Being that made it.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hey! Why come the Darwinist fools never talk about the origins of plant life. The earth is teaming with it. So when the first complex DNA self-assembled itself, when did it choose to become a plant or an animal. Maybe our common ancestor is a flower, or seaweed, or some nasty mold. Maybe it's just like Avatar and we are all connected to the trees.
> 
> Ohhh yahuh! Theres that pesky origin of life thing the Darwinian fools have absolutely no explanation for. What was the last poster saying about proof??


because the origin of life on earth, is a different subject /science.it's only creationists in your self perpetuating ignorance try to blur the line between the two.
a common trick used by scam artist's and religious nut jobs since Darwin first proposed the theory ...


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey! Why come the Darwinist fools never talk about the origins of plant life. The earth is teaming with it. So when the first complex DNA self-assembled itself, when did it choose to become a plant or an animal. Maybe our common ancestor is a flower, or seaweed, or some nasty mold. Maybe it's just like Avatar and we are all connected to the trees.
> 
> Ohhh yahuh! Theres that pesky origin of life thing the Darwinian fools have absolutely no explanation for. What was the last poster saying about proof??
> 
> 
> 
> because the origin of life on earth, is a different subject /science.it's only creationists in your self perpetuating ignorance try to blur the line between the two.
> a common trick used by scam artist's and religious nut jobs since Darwin first proposed the theory ...
Click to expand...


Then answer me one question if it is so cut and dry Mr. Smarty Pants, how far back do you go?  Where is the line? Where does the origin of life issue stop and evolutionary theory begin? What is the common ancestor you are so fond of referring to if you have it so figured out? So typical... continually call Intelligent Design proponents Creationists, as if it is a putdown somehow inferring their beliefs are soley based on religion, and with a complete lack of understanding that ID theory relies on science alone, and then act like a baby when ID theorists keep bringing up the point on how you have ZERO answers for the origin of life. What you seem complete inept at understanding is that your stupid theory is based on a house of cards. You claim common ancestry but you can't definitively say when or where that started. So how can you build an entire world view on an unknown? Oh wait, that is what you accuse us of doing. Nevermind.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey! Why come the Darwinist fools never talk about the origins of plant life. The earth is teaming with it. So when the first complex DNA self-assembled itself, when did it choose to become a plant or an animal. Maybe our common ancestor is a flower, or seaweed, or some nasty mold. Maybe it's just like Avatar and we are all connected to the trees.
> 
> Ohhh yahuh! Theres that pesky origin of life thing the Darwinian fools have absolutely no explanation for. What was the last poster saying about proof??
> 
> 
> 
> because the origin of life on earth, is a different subject /science.it's only creationists in your self perpetuating ignorance try to blur the line between the two.
> a common trick used by scam artist's and religious nut jobs since Darwin first proposed the theory ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then answer me one question if it is so cut and dry Mr. Smarty Pants, how far back do you go?  Where is the line? Where does the origin of life issue stop and evolutionary theory begin? What is the common ancestor you are so fond of referring to if you have it so figured out? So typical... continually call Intelligent Design proponents Creationists, as if it is a putdown somehow inferring their beliefs are soley based on religion, and with a complete lack of understanding that ID theory relies on science alone, and then act like a baby when ID theorists keep bringing up the point on how you have ZERO answers for the origin of life. What you seem complete inept at understanding is that your stupid theory is based on a house of cards. You claim common ancestry but you can't definitively say when or where that started. So how can you build an entire world view on an unknown? Oh wait, that is what you accuse us of doing. Nevermind.
Click to expand...

you go back as far as it takes.. 

you can stow this bullshit:"continually call Intelligent Design proponents Creationists" right now.
it's a ploy to sound legitimate and it don't fly! 
you CREATIONISTS are the only ones claiming to have a definitive answer, with no solid evidence ,besides being totally non scientific  it screams of desperation.


----------



## koshergrl

Not to me.

What is desperate is frantically proclaiming you believe in liberty, while doing everything within your power to limit it.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Not to me.
> 
> What is desperate is frantically proclaiming you believe in liberty, while doing everything within your power to limit it.


really no one is trying to take your freedom to be ignorant and believe in fantasy...


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hmm, let's see. Highly intelligent scientist believe in something that is invisible, that they can't prove, that no super sensitive device has ever been able to capture, merely because they can see its effects???? Really? A mysterious force or thing that is invisible and can't be measured or proven?
> 
> "We see how the rotation of galaxies is affect by something that weighs a lot but is invisible. We also see how the gas in galaxy clusters doesn't move as it would if there were only visible matter present. So we know it's there. The question is simply what it is."
> 
> One step closer to dark matter in universe
> 
> Kind of reminds me of people who believe in invisible stuff because they see the digital code in every cell which was left behind by the invisible Being that made it.



You are making very good points.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey! Why come the Darwinist fools never talk about the origins of plant life. The earth is teaming with it. So when the first complex DNA self-assembled itself, when did it choose to become a plant or an animal. Maybe our common ancestor is a flower, or seaweed, or some nasty mold. Maybe it's just like Avatar and we are all connected to the trees.
> 
> Ohhh yahuh! Theres that pesky origin of life thing the Darwinian fools have absolutely no explanation for. What was the last poster saying about proof??
> 
> 
> 
> because the origin of life on earth, is a different subject /science.it's only creationists in your self perpetuating ignorance try to blur the line between the two.
> a common trick used by scam artist's and religious nut jobs since Darwin first proposed the theory ...
Click to expand...


Listen numb nuts, according to your view everything came about naturally that includes Macro-evolution.

The origins question needs to be answered whether you believe in evolution or not.

Don't you think maybe if life began naturally that makes origins connected with evolution ? quit with your nonsense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey! Why come the Darwinist fools never talk about the origins of plant life. The earth is teaming with it. So when the first complex DNA self-assembled itself, when did it choose to become a plant or an animal. Maybe our common ancestor is a flower, or seaweed, or some nasty mold. Maybe it's just like Avatar and we are all connected to the trees.
> 
> Ohhh yahuh! Theres that pesky origin of life thing the Darwinian fools have absolutely no explanation for. What was the last poster saying about proof??
> 
> 
> 
> because the origin of life on earth, is a different subject /science.it's only creationists in your self perpetuating ignorance try to blur the line between the two.
> a common trick used by scam artist's and religious nut jobs since Darwin first proposed the theory ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then answer me one question if it is so cut and dry Mr. Smarty Pants, how far back do you go?  Where is the line? Where does the origin of life issue stop and evolutionary theory begin? What is the common ancestor you are so fond of referring to if you have it so figured out? So typical... continually call Intelligent Design proponents Creationists, as if it is a putdown somehow inferring their beliefs are soley based on religion, and with a complete lack of understanding that ID theory relies on science alone, and then act like a baby when ID theorists keep bringing up the point on how you have ZERO answers for the origin of life. What you seem complete inept at understanding is that your stupid theory is based on a house of cards. You claim common ancestry but you can't definitively say when or where that started. So how can you build an entire world view on an unknown? Oh wait, that is what you accuse us of doing. Nevermind.
Click to expand...


He and most all evolutionist since they have no answer for the question use silly little jabs like his to avoid the question, and are not smart enough to figure out macroevolution would have to be connected with the origins of life since they deny the creator and believe life came about naturally through evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> because the origin of life on earth, is a different subject /science.it's only creationists in your self perpetuating ignorance try to blur the line between the two.
> a common trick used by scam artist's and religious nut jobs since Darwin first proposed the theory ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then answer me one question if it is so cut and dry Mr. Smarty Pants, how far back do you go?  Where is the line? Where does the origin of life issue stop and evolutionary theory begin? What is the common ancestor you are so fond of referring to if you have it so figured out? So typical... continually call Intelligent Design proponents Creationists, as if it is a putdown somehow inferring their beliefs are soley based on religion, and with a complete lack of understanding that ID theory relies on science alone, and then act like a baby when ID theorists keep bringing up the point on how you have ZERO answers for the origin of life. What you seem complete inept at understanding is that your stupid theory is based on a house of cards. You claim common ancestry but you can't definitively say when or where that started. So how can you build an entire world view on an unknown? Oh wait, that is what you accuse us of doing. Nevermind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you go back as far as it takes..
> 
> you can stow this bullshit:"continually call Intelligent Design proponents Creationists" right now.
> it's a ploy to sound legitimate and it don't fly!
> you CREATIONISTS are the only ones claiming to have a definitive answer, with no solid evidence ,besides being totally non scientific  it screams of desperation.
Click to expand...


Can you prove our answers are wrong ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to me.
> 
> What is desperate is frantically proclaiming you believe in liberty, while doing everything within your power to limit it.
> 
> 
> 
> really no one is trying to take your freedom to be ignorant and believe in fantasy...
Click to expand...


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey! Why come the Darwinist fools never talk about the origins of plant life. The earth is teaming with it. So when the first complex DNA self-assembled itself, when did it choose to become a plant or an animal. Maybe our common ancestor is a flower, or seaweed, or some nasty mold. Maybe it's just like Avatar and we are all connected to the trees.
> 
> Ohhh yahuh! Theres that pesky origin of life thing the Darwinian fools have absolutely no explanation for. What was the last poster saying about proof??
> 
> 
> 
> because the origin of life on earth, is a different subject /science.it's only creationists in your self perpetuating ignorance try to blur the line between the two.
> a common trick used by scam artist's and religious nut jobs since Darwin first proposed the theory ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen numb nuts, according to your view everything came about naturally that includes Macro-evolution.
> 
> The origins question needs to be answered whether you believe in evolution or not.
> 
> Don't you think maybe if life began naturally that makes origins connected with evolution ? quit with your nonsense.
Click to expand...


Since believing that life came about through random process, or that life was created by a god, or that aliens put life on the planet, or any other idea does nothing to confirm or deny evolution......no, they aren't particularly connected.  At least, not in the way you seem to want to imply.


----------



## sublime

There has to be some form of Creationism. There is no way that this solar system, planet, atmosphere and complex life happened by accident. I cannot rise from bed and step outside without looking in amazement at this wonderful planet that we call home. 

If you want to believe that it's all 'luck' and we evolved from single celled organisms, to lung fish, to monkeys to humans, that's your choice. I don't see it that way.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> because the origin of life on earth, is a different subject /science.it's only creationists in your self perpetuating ignorance try to blur the line between the two.
> a common trick used by scam artist's and religious nut jobs since Darwin first proposed the theory ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen numb nuts, according to your view everything came about naturally that includes Macro-evolution.
> 
> The origins question needs to be answered whether you believe in evolution or not.
> 
> Don't you think maybe if life began naturally that makes origins connected with evolution ? quit with your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since believing that life came about through random process, or that life was created by a god, or that aliens put life on the planet, or any other idea does nothing to confirm or deny evolution......no, they aren't particularly connected.  At least, not in the way you seem to want to imply.
Click to expand...


This is very easy to dispute,a cell if it came about through a natural process it evolved no ? they are very connected.

Look this is very simple,the things that formed a cell had to evolve if you believe there is no designer.


----------



## PredFan

sublime said:


> There has to be some form of Creationism. There is no way that this solar system, planet, atmosphere and complex life happened by accident. I cannot rise from bed and step outside without looking in amazement at this wonderful planet that we call home.
> 
> If you want to believe that it's all 'luck' and we evolved from single celled organisms, to lung fish, to monkeys to humans, that's your choice. I don't see it that way.



I believe in the fact of evolution, and I cannot rise from bed and step outside without looking in amazement at this wonderful planet that we call home.


----------



## Youwerecreated

PredFan said:


> sublime said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has to be some form of Creationism. There is no way that this solar system, planet, atmosphere and complex life happened by accident. I cannot rise from bed and step outside without looking in amazement at this wonderful planet that we call home.
> 
> If you want to believe that it's all 'luck' and we evolved from single celled organisms, to lung fish, to monkeys to humans, that's your choice. I don't see it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in the fact of evolution, and I cannot rise from bed and step outside without looking in amazement at this wonderful planet that we call home.
Click to expand...


I gave the reason why life did not evolve or came about in a natural process but still evolutionist ignore the evidence.


----------



## Dr.Drock

sublime said:


> There has to be some form of Creationism. There is no way that this solar system, planet, atmosphere and complex life happened by accident. I cannot rise from bed and step outside without looking in amazement at this wonderful planet that we call home.
> 
> If you want to believe that it's all 'luck' and we evolved from single celled organisms, to lung fish, to monkeys to humans, that's your choice. I don't see it that way.



Sad that when you're ignorant of something, you have to assume a fantasy of yours to fill in your ignorance.

I'm ignorant of dark matter, doesn't mean i just assume a supernatural force is blowing out a candle and that's the end result.


----------



## Douger

PredFan said:


> sublime said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has to be some form of Creationism. There is no way that this solar system, planet, atmosphere and complex life happened by accident. I cannot rise from bed and step outside without looking in amazement at this wonderful planet that we call home.
> 
> If you want to believe that it's all 'luck' and we evolved from single celled organisms, to lung fish, to monkeys to humans, that's your choice. I don't see it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in the fact of evolution, and I cannot rise from bed and step outside without looking in amazement at this wonderful planet that we call home.
Click to expand...

Me too ! Utter amazement !
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzz6TWNRUAc]China Pollution - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3QYgRyRbbo]HUNGRY & HOMELESS KIDS, PHILIPPINES - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## sublime

Dr.Drock said:


> sublime said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has to be some form of Creationism. There is no way that this solar system, planet, atmosphere and complex life happened by accident. I cannot rise from bed and step outside without looking in amazement at this wonderful planet that we call home.
> 
> If you want to believe that it's all 'luck' and we evolved from single celled organisms, to lung fish, to monkeys to humans, that's your choice. I don't see it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sad that when you're ignorant of something, you have to assume a fantasy of yours to fill in your ignorance.
> 
> I'm ignorant of dark matter, doesn't mean i just assume a supernatural force is blowing out a candle and that's the end result.
Click to expand...


Ignorant of what I ask?

Can you prove beyond all doubt that there is no God? That there is no intelligent design in the creation of the universe?

No you can not.

So one could say that you have a fantasy of evolution that has some serious gaps that have yet to be filled and will likely never be filled in. 

The odds that everything it takes to support complex life on this planet happened as the result of chance are astronomical.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> because the origin of life on earth, is a different subject /science.it's only creationists in your self perpetuating ignorance try to blur the line between the two.
> a common trick used by scam artist's and religious nut jobs since Darwin first proposed the theory ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then answer me one question if it is so cut and dry Mr. Smarty Pants, how far back do you go?  Where is the line? Where does the origin of life issue stop and evolutionary theory begin? What is the common ancestor you are so fond of referring to if you have it so figured out? So typical... continually call Intelligent Design proponents Creationists, as if it is a putdown somehow inferring their beliefs are soley based on religion, and with a complete lack of understanding that ID theory relies on science alone, and then act like a baby when ID theorists keep bringing up the point on how you have ZERO answers for the origin of life. What you seem complete inept at understanding is that your stupid theory is based on a house of cards. You claim common ancestry but you can't definitively say when or where that started. So how can you build an entire world view on an unknown? Oh wait, that is what you accuse us of doing. Nevermind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you go back as far as it takes..
> 
> you can stow this bullshit:"continually call Intelligent Design proponents Creationists" right now.
> it's a ploy to sound legitimate and it don't fly!
> you CREATIONISTS are the only ones claiming to have a definitive answer, with no solid evidence ,besides being totally non scientific  it screams of desperation.
Click to expand...


Blah, Blah, Blah... we're scientific and you're not. Same old tired Darwinists party line.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> because the origin of life on earth, is a different subject /science.it's only creationists in your self perpetuating ignorance try to blur the line between the two.
> a common trick used by scam artist's and religious nut jobs since Darwin first proposed the theory ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then answer me one question if it is so cut and dry Mr. Smarty Pants, how far back do you go?  Where is the line? Where does the origin of life issue stop and evolutionary theory begin? What is the common ancestor you are so fond of referring to if you have it so figured out? So typical... continually call Intelligent Design proponents Creationists, as if it is a putdown somehow inferring their beliefs are soley based on religion, and with a complete lack of understanding that ID theory relies on science alone, and then act like a baby when ID theorists keep bringing up the point on how you have ZERO answers for the origin of life. What you seem complete inept at understanding is that your stupid theory is based on a house of cards. You claim common ancestry but you can't definitively say when or where that started. So how can you build an entire world view on an unknown? Oh wait, that is what you accuse us of doing. Nevermind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He and most all evolutionist since they have no answer for the question use silly little jabs like his to avoid the question, and are not smart enough to figure out macroevolution would have to be connected with the origins of life since they deny the creator and believe life came about naturally through evolution.
Click to expand...


You are correct. His correct response to my questions of "where is the line between the origins of life and when evolution began" is "we have no freaking idea". That is also the correct response to who the common ancester is. Is it a tree? Is it a flower? Is it an Ecoli? Again, the correct response is "Our theory really doesn't have an answer for those questions. We really don't even have enough "scientific" evidence to go more than a few million years back."


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> because the origin of life on earth, is a different subject /science.it's only creationists in your self perpetuating ignorance try to blur the line between the two.
> a common trick used by scam artist's and religious nut jobs since Darwin first proposed the theory ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen numb nuts, according to your view everything came about naturally that includes Macro-evolution.
> 
> The origins question needs to be answered whether you believe in evolution or not.
> 
> Don't you think maybe if life began naturally that makes origins connected with evolution ? quit with your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since believing that life came about through random process, or that life was created by a god, or that aliens put life on the planet, or any other idea does nothing to confirm or deny evolution......no, they aren't particularly connected.  At least, not in the way you seem to want to imply.
Click to expand...


Again, this is a total DODGE!! There is all this talk of common ancestry but when pressed, you don't even have a clue what that means. Looks like a bad case of blind faith to me.


----------



## Gadawg73

There are around 10,000 colleges and universities in the world.
All but a handfull of them teach evolution as fact.
Tens of thousands of tests have been conducted for over 100 years using the scientific method on the theory of evolution.
When one tests with the scientific method they test to attempt to prove their theory WRONG.
To date there are ZERO experiments done using the scientific method on evolution that have been proven wrong.
That is why all but about 5 or 6 of those 10,000 colleges and universities teach evolution as fact.
Respectfully, anyone that believes intelligent design and creationsim are on the same scientific playing field as evolutionary theory is either in deep denial because of religous beliefs, uneducated or both.


----------



## UltimateReality

Dr.Drock said:


> sublime said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has to be some form of Creationism. There is no way that this solar system, planet, atmosphere and complex life happened by accident. I cannot rise from bed and step outside without looking in amazement at this wonderful planet that we call home.
> 
> If you want to believe that it's all 'luck' and we evolved from single celled organisms, to lung fish, to monkeys to humans, that's your choice. I don't see it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sad that when you're ignorant of something, you have to assume a fantasy of yours to fill in your ignorance.
> 
> I'm ignorant of dark matter, doesn't mean i just assume a supernatural force is blowing out a candle and that's the end result.
Click to expand...


I'm not totally sure I get your point on this. Really the argument always boils down to the Darwinian religion versus some form of a God-based religion. Many Darwinians can accept the possibility of other life forms in the universe. They can accept the existence of multi-verses (which are supernatural by the way since there will never be a way to prove this theory). Funny they just can't accept that a super advanced Being could exist outside of space, time, matter and energy. They can't accept that a Being (our puny finite minds seem unwilling to acknowledge) has left behind evidence of Its existence in the form of a complex, ordered, digitial code in every living thing. They hate the fact we live in the "just right" universe. The big bang is now widely accepted and we know our universe is finite. In fact, Hawkings now believes that even time itself began at the big bang. 

So pick your fairy tale, Natural Selection and Multiverses, or Super Intelligent (call It an Alien if you want)Being who exists outside space, time, matter and energy but used a science as yet unknown to us to start the universe and then act in it periodically from time to time by depositing new designs.  But lets all be adults and admit that your fairy tale takes just as much faith as mine.


----------



## UltimateReality

sublime said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sublime said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has to be some form of Creationism. There is no way that this solar system, planet, atmosphere and complex life happened by accident. I cannot rise from bed and step outside without looking in amazement at this wonderful planet that we call home.
> 
> If you want to believe that it's all 'luck' and we evolved from single celled organisms, to lung fish, to monkeys to humans, that's your choice. I don't see it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sad that when you're ignorant of something, you have to assume a fantasy of yours to fill in your ignorance.
> 
> I'm ignorant of dark matter, doesn't mean i just assume a supernatural force is blowing out a candle and that's the end result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorant of what I ask?
> 
> Can you prove beyond all doubt that there is no God? That there is no intelligent design in the creation of the universe?
> 
> No you can not.
> 
> So one could say that you have a fantasy of evolution that has some serious gaps that have yet to be filled and will likely never be filled in.
> 
> The odds that everything it takes to support complex life on this planet happened as the result of chance are astronomical.
Click to expand...


Thats not even accounting for the "lifespark" that has been passed for millions of years and somehow still exists in everyone of us. I've mentioned it on here before but I love the cellular test tube experiment. Bascially, take a cell, place it in a test tube with the exact alkalinity and make up of cellular fluid. Puncture the membrane and allow the "LIVE" contents of the cell to spill into the cellular fluid. Now we wait. How long before the cellular components re-arrange themselves and come back to life? Any logical human being would tell you NEVER. Yet, not like the stupid theories where all the building blocks come together in some soup, we have all the necessary components already there!!! All the proteins, the digital DNA code, the RNA, the mitochondria.... there all there. Okay, forget waiting. Let's hit it with some radiation. How about some Neutrino's? UV light? Let's get our medical scopes and micro-tweezers and all manner of micro machines. Let's put it all back inside the cell. Will it come back to life? You tell me. Life doesn't happen on this planet any more. It gets passed. If it expires before it is passed, it doesn't go on. Life had a beginning. Cells are part of complex systems. In humans, if the heart stops functioning, the rest of the cells die too. Why? The "lifespark" mystery will never be solved. Darwinians can't prove it. Theists can't prove it. So stop trying to act like you are so much more "scientific".


----------



## Gadawg73

Great reading. Explains it all.


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> There are around 10,000 colleges and universities in the world.
> All but a handfull of them teach evolution as fact.
> Tens of thousands of tests have been conducted for over 100 years using the scientific method on the theory of evolution.
> When one tests with the scientific method they test to attempt to prove their theory WRONG.
> To date there are ZERO experiments done using the scientific method on evolution that have been proven wrong.
> That is why all but about 5 or 6 of those 10,000 colleges and universities teach evolution as fact.
> Respectfully, anyone that believes intelligent design and creationsim are on the same scientific playing field as evolutionary theory is either in deep denial because of religous beliefs, uneducated or both.



Dude, you obviously haven't done alot of reading or been exposed to the mountain of scientific evidence that is piling up against evolution. And why would you? You are obviously a product of these same universities that censor any information that is destructive to the Darwinian party line. You are the one that is trapped and can't see outside of your box. You have been manipulated by a system that doesn't allow hard questions and suppresses the truth when it doesn't fit the Darwinian dogma. If you want to free yourself from your ignorance that evolution has never been disproven you can start at these places. Don't be a fool. Open your mind...

"You can&#8217;t criticize evolution because that would be against the law. It&#8217;s incredible, but evolutionists legislate the truth of their theory. They&#8217;ll sue, lie to judges, falsify histories, oppose academic freedom, control funding, blackball skeptics and create laws that not only enforce evolution but outlaw even criticism of their non scientific ideas." Don't forget they fiercely remove the truth from Wikipedia as quickly as it is posted up. 

Darwin's God

Evolution News & Views: Intelligent Design Archives

Uncommon Descent | Serving The Intelligent Design Community


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> View attachment 18488
> 
> Great reading. Explains it all.



Explains it all???? Oh my!!!! My poor young friend, it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. You've been brainwashed!!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

This has random mutation written all over it. This is what you get when only the good stuff survives... WHATEVER!!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqESR7E4b_8&feature=player_embedded]DNA Replication - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are around 10,000 colleges and universities in the world.
> All but a handfull of them teach evolution as fact.
> Tens of thousands of tests have been conducted for over 100 years using the scientific method on the theory of evolution.
> When one tests with the scientific method they test to attempt to prove their theory WRONG.
> To date there are ZERO experiments done using the scientific method on evolution that have been proven wrong.
> That is why all but about 5 or 6 of those 10,000 colleges and universities teach evolution as fact.
> Respectfully, anyone that believes intelligent design and creationsim are on the same scientific playing field as evolutionary theory is either in deep denial because of religous beliefs, uneducated or both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you obviously haven't done alot of reading or been exposed to the mountain of scientific evidence that is piling up against evolution. And why would you? You are obviously a product of these same universities that censor any information that is destructive to the Darwinian party line. You are the one that is trapped and can't see outside of your box. You have been manipulated by a system that doesn't allow hard questions and suppresses the truth when it doesn't fit the Darwinian dogma. If you want to free yourself from your ignorance that evolution has never been disproven you can start at these places. Don't be a fool. Open your mind...
> 
> "You cant criticize evolution because that would be against the law. Its incredible, but evolutionists legislate the truth of their theory. Theyll sue, lie to judges, falsify histories, oppose academic freedom, control funding, blackball skeptics and create laws that not only enforce evolution but outlaw even criticism of their non scientific ideas." Don't forget they fiercely remove the truth from Wikipedia as quickly as it is posted up.
> 
> Darwin's God
> 
> Evolution News & Views: Intelligent Design Archives
> 
> Uncommon Descent | Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Click to expand...


What evidence against evolution? Please. You have no idea what you are talking about it. You maintain a pre-supposition that the bible is true, so are unable to see anything that is actually true, such as evidence.


----------



## konradv

sublime said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sublime said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has to be some form of Creationism. There is no way that this solar system, planet, atmosphere and complex life happened by accident. I cannot rise from bed and step outside without looking in amazement at this wonderful planet that we call home.
> 
> If you want to believe that it's all 'luck' and we evolved from single celled organisms, to lung fish, to monkeys to humans, that's your choice. I don't see it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sad that when you're ignorant of something, you have to assume a fantasy of yours to fill in your ignorance.
> 
> I'm ignorant of dark matter, doesn't mean i just assume a supernatural force is blowing out a candle and that's the end result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorant of what I ask?
> 
> Can you prove beyond all doubt that there is no God? That there is no intelligent design in the creation of the universe?
> 
> No you can not.
> 
> So one could say that you have a fantasy of evolution that has some serious gaps that have yet to be filled and will likely never be filled in.
> 
> The odds that everything it takes to support complex life on this planet happened as the result of chance are astronomical.
Click to expand...


Astronomical, as on an astronomical scale?  That's what billions of years can do.  Plus, it isn't all chance.  There are Laws of Chemistry and Physics which govern the interactions and make them more likely than you let on.  Chemistry anf time worked miracles.


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> sublime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad that when you're ignorant of something, you have to assume a fantasy of yours to fill in your ignorance.
> 
> I'm ignorant of dark matter, doesn't mean i just assume a supernatural force is blowing out a candle and that's the end result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant of what I ask?
> 
> Can you prove beyond all doubt that there is no God? That there is no intelligent design in the creation of the universe?
> 
> No you can not.
> 
> So one could say that you have a fantasy of evolution that has some serious gaps that have yet to be filled and will likely never be filled in.
> 
> The odds that everything it takes to support complex life on this planet happened as the result of chance are astronomical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Astronomical, as on an astronomical scale?  That's what billions of years can do.  Plus, it isn't all chance.  There are Laws of Chemistry and Physics which govern the interactions and make them more likely than you let on.  Chemistry anf time worked miracles.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah. Time. Time makes the impossible possible. This is a funny stance since no one in your camp seems to be able to identify when the origin of life ends and when evolution begins or what the mysterious common ancestor is. You pathetic theory doesn't even no where its coming from much so how can you apply time as the miracle worker of all miracle workers? You are foolish and deceived and this stance is definitely not based on any of your so called scientific evidence. What a joke.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are around 10,000 colleges and universities in the world.
> All but a handfull of them teach evolution as fact.
> Tens of thousands of tests have been conducted for over 100 years using the scientific method on the theory of evolution.
> When one tests with the scientific method they test to attempt to prove their theory WRONG.
> To date there are ZERO experiments done using the scientific method on evolution that have been proven wrong.
> That is why all but about 5 or 6 of those 10,000 colleges and universities teach evolution as fact.
> Respectfully, anyone that believes intelligent design and creationsim are on the same scientific playing field as evolutionary theory is either in deep denial because of religous beliefs, uneducated or both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you obviously haven't done alot of reading or been exposed to the mountain of scientific evidence that is piling up against evolution. And why would you? You are obviously a product of these same universities that censor any information that is destructive to the Darwinian party line. You are the one that is trapped and can't see outside of your box. You have been manipulated by a system that doesn't allow hard questions and suppresses the truth when it doesn't fit the Darwinian dogma. If you want to free yourself from your ignorance that evolution has never been disproven you can start at these places. Don't be a fool. Open your mind...
> 
> "You can&#8217;t criticize evolution because that would be against the law. It&#8217;s incredible, but evolutionists legislate the truth of their theory. They&#8217;ll sue, lie to judges, falsify histories, oppose academic freedom, control funding, blackball skeptics and create laws that not only enforce evolution but outlaw even criticism of their non scientific ideas." Don't forget they fiercely remove the truth from Wikipedia as quickly as it is posted up.
> 
> Darwin's God
> 
> Evolution News & Views: Intelligent Design Archives
> 
> Uncommon Descent | Serving The Intelligent Design Community
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence against evolution? Please. You have no idea what you are talking about it. You maintain a pre-supposition that the bible is true, so are unable to see anything that is actually true, such as evidence.
Click to expand...


Wow, this is about your most ignorant response to date. You obviously didn't check out any of the links so that you could speak intelligently on the subject. You are so blind you won't even take the time to read opposing viewpoints. Now that is FAITH my Darwinian friend!!!!

Here.  I will make it simple for you and just post up ONE recent scientific discovery that disproves evolution. It is literally a 45 second read for the lazy ones here. This is basically a case of when what you said would disprove evolution is discovered, then just make up something different. That is the way it works in your religion. 

Darwin's God: Getting Crushed: Evolutionists Are Now Saying That Some Species Have a Reputation For &#8220;Doing Things Their Own Way&#8221;


----------



## koshergrl

If you are using the term "evolution" to mean one species morphing into another, there is no proof that it happens in the FIRST place. How can one "disprove" something that has never been observed to have happened, ever, at any time? In other words, you can't disprove a thing that wasn't proven to begin with.


----------



## Gadawg73

UltimateReality said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are around 10,000 colleges and universities in the world.
> All but a handfull of them teach evolution as fact.
> Tens of thousands of tests have been conducted for over 100 years using the scientific method on the theory of evolution.
> When one tests with the scientific method they test to attempt to prove their theory WRONG.
> To date there are ZERO experiments done using the scientific method on evolution that have been proven wrong.
> That is why all but about 5 or 6 of those 10,000 colleges and universities teach evolution as fact.
> Respectfully, anyone that believes intelligent design and creationsim are on the same scientific playing field as evolutionary theory is either in deep denial because of religous beliefs, uneducated or both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you obviously haven't done alot of reading or been exposed to the mountain of scientific evidence that is piling up against evolution. And why would you? You are obviously a product of these same universities that censor any information that is destructive to the Darwinian party line. You are the one that is trapped and can't see outside of your box. You have been manipulated by a system that doesn't allow hard questions and suppresses the truth when it doesn't fit the Darwinian dogma. If you want to free yourself from your ignorance that evolution has never been disproven you can start at these places. Don't be a fool. Open your mind...
> 
> "You can&#8217;t criticize evolution because that would be against the law. It&#8217;s incredible, but evolutionists legislate the truth of their theory. They&#8217;ll sue, lie to judges, falsify histories, oppose academic freedom, control funding, blackball skeptics and create laws that not only enforce evolution but outlaw even criticism of their non scientific ideas." Don't forget they fiercely remove the truth from Wikipedia as quickly as it is posted up.
> 
> Darwin's God
> 
> Evolution News & Views: Intelligent Design Archives
> 
> Uncommon Descent | Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Click to expand...


If you want to see some lies in open court "dude" then educate yourself and go read the Bush appointed conservative Republican Judges' INDEPENDENT ruling on Intelligent design.
_Dover v. Kitzmiller_
The Judge scolded your team for distorting, slanting and telling lies in open court and in deposititions in this case. Perjury charges were almost brought after the case.
And your team went down in a blaze of flames and why?
Because you have NO evidence and always come back with the rank rhetoric as illustrated by your post above.
This court ruled that your team promotes creationsim fraudulently masking it as intelligent design and imposes their mandates to teach it as fact without any foundation OTHER THAN religous purposes ONLY.
Got it? 
As Judge Jonses stated in this case "witnesses time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID policy."

Pretty hard for your team to move the ball there Moe when your own team exposes you folk for the frauds that you are.

Punt. 
You can never win on lies so go ahead and admit all you have is a religous argument ONLY. 
We all know there is nothing whatsoever scientific about any of your arguments.


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> go read the Bush appointed conservative Republican Judges' INDEPENDENT ruling on Intelligent design.
> _Dover v. Kitzmiller_



Yeah, cause we know judges in America are always un-biased. Don't be a fool. There are two sides to every story...

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/its_time_for_so054551.html



Gadawg73 said:


> You can never win on lies so go ahead and admit all you have is a religous argument ONLY.
> We all know there is nothing whatsoever scientific about any of your arguments.



You're projecting again.

Yeah, you've read alot and now you know. Unfortunately, everything you have read that has made you such an expert was carefully selected for you. Evidence of your brainwashing and lies...

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/wikipedia_and_t055991.html


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg,

Not like you would ever spend an hour enlightening yourself but this would be a great start...

Centre for Intelligent Design Lecture 2011 by Stephen Meyer on &#39;Signature in the Cell&#39;. - YouTube


----------



## UltimateReality

Yeah, your theory isn't in crisis.

"Some of the Altenberg 16 or A-16, as I like to call them, have hinted that they&#8217;re trying to steer science in a more honest direction, that is, by addressing non-centrality of the gene. They say that the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", also called neo-Darwinism &#8211; which cobbled together the budding field of population genetics and paleontology, etc., 70 years ago &#8211; also marginalized the inquiry into morphology. And that it is then &#8211; in the 1930s and 1940s &#8211; that the seeds of corruption were planted and an Evolution industry born.

      I broke the story about the Altenberg affair last March with the assistance of Alastair Thompson and the team at Scoop Media, the independent news agency based in New Zealand. (Chapter 2, "Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?")

      But will the A-16 deliver? Will they help rid us of the natural selection "survival of the fittest" mentality that has plagued civilization for a century and a half, and on which Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are based, now that the cat is out of the bag that selection is politics not science? That selection cannot be measured exactly. That it is not the mechanism of evolution. That it is an abstract rusty tool left over from 19th century British imperial exploits.

      Or will the A-16 tip-toe around the issue, appease the Darwin industry and protect foundation grants?"

Gadawg, I thought you said all scientist agreed on evolution... OOPS!!!!

Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry | Scoop News

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/the_most_produc057081.html


----------



## Gadawg73

UltimateReality said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> go read the Bush appointed conservative Republican Judges' INDEPENDENT ruling on Intelligent design.
> _Dover v. Kitzmiller_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause we know judges in America are always un-biased. Don't be a fool. There are two sides to every story...
> 
> It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can never win on lies so go ahead and admit all you have is a religous argument ONLY.
> We all know there is nothing whatsoever scientific about any of your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're projecting again.
> 
> Yeah, you've read alot and now you know. Unfortunately, everything you have read that has made you such an expert was carefully selected for you. Evidence of your brainwashing and lies...
> 
> Wikipedia and the Sociology of Darwinian Belief - Evolution News & Views
Click to expand...


White flag acknowledged from your lines.
Unconditional surrender accepted.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey! Why come the Darwinist fools never talk about the origins of plant life. The earth is teaming with it. So when the first complex DNA self-assembled itself, when did it choose to become a plant or an animal. Maybe our common ancestor is a flower, or seaweed, or some nasty mold. Maybe it's just like Avatar and we are all connected to the trees.
> 
> Ohhh yahuh! Theres that pesky origin of life thing the Darwinian fools have absolutely no explanation for. What was the last poster saying about proof??
> 
> 
> 
> because the origin of life on earth, is a different subject /science.it's only creationists in your self perpetuating ignorance try to blur the line between the two.
> a common trick used by scam artist's and religious nut jobs since Darwin first proposed the theory ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen numb nuts, according to your view everything came about naturally that includes Macro-evolution.
> 
> The origins question needs to be answered whether you believe in evolution or not.
> 
> Don't you think maybe if life began naturally that makes origins connected with evolution ? quit with your nonsense.
Click to expand...


the only nonsense on this thread is yours.
if you are implying that natural means unaffected by undue influences aka a god. then yes I do.
as to origins: do you understand the concept of parameters?
or conditions?
there is no logical reason not to expect life to develop NATURALLY IF THE PROPER CONDITIONS ARE MET.
you have no evidence that these conditions were manufactured (and unnatural process ) by an intelligence.
 for all you know this is the way it happened  : [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1OZCHixR0]2001 a space odyssey - YouTube[/ame]
BTW notice how the "god" makes only a tiny change, a suggestion really to change the already occurring evolution.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then answer me one question if it is so cut and dry Mr. Smarty Pants, how far back do you go?  Where is the line? Where does the origin of life issue stop and evolutionary theory begin? What is the common ancestor you are so fond of referring to if you have it so figured out? So typical... continually call Intelligent Design proponents Creationists, as if it is a putdown somehow inferring their beliefs are soley based on religion, and with a complete lack of understanding that ID theory relies on science alone, and then act like a baby when ID theorists keep bringing up the point on how you have ZERO answers for the origin of life. What you seem complete inept at understanding is that your stupid theory is based on a house of cards. You claim common ancestry but you can't definitively say when or where that started. So how can you build an entire world view on an unknown? Oh wait, that is what you accuse us of doing. Nevermind.
> 
> 
> 
> you go back as far as it takes..
> 
> you can stow this bullshit:"continually call Intelligent Design proponents Creationists" right now.
> it's a ploy to sound legitimate and it don't fly!
> you CREATIONISTS are the only ones claiming to have a definitive answer, with no solid evidence ,besides being totally non scientific  it screams of desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you prove our answers are wrong ?
Click to expand...

asked and answered


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then answer me one question if it is so cut and dry Mr. Smarty Pants, how far back do you go?  Where is the line? Where does the origin of life issue stop and evolutionary theory begin? What is the common ancestor you are so fond of referring to if you have it so figured out? So typical... continually call Intelligent Design proponents Creationists, as if it is a putdown somehow inferring their beliefs are soley based on religion, and with a complete lack of understanding that ID theory relies on science alone, and then act like a baby when ID theorists keep bringing up the point on how you have ZERO answers for the origin of life. What you seem complete inept at understanding is that your stupid theory is based on a house of cards. You claim common ancestry but you can't definitively say when or where that started. So how can you build an entire world view on an unknown? Oh wait, that is what you accuse us of doing. Nevermind.
> 
> 
> 
> you go back as far as it takes..
> 
> you can stow this bullshit:"continually call Intelligent Design proponents Creationists" right now.
> it's a ploy to sound legitimate and it don't fly!
> you CREATIONISTS are the only ones claiming to have a definitive answer, with no solid evidence ,besides being totally non scientific  it screams of desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah, Blah, Blah... we're scientific and you're not. Same old tired Darwinists party line.
Click to expand...

brilliant retort fonz!  don't shit your depends while throwing this tantrum!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> because the origin of life on earth, is a different subject /science.it's only creationists in your self perpetuating ignorance try to blur the line between the two.
> a common trick used by scam artist's and religious nut jobs since Darwin first proposed the theory ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen numb nuts, according to your view everything came about naturally that includes Macro-evolution.
> 
> The origins question needs to be answered whether you believe in evolution or not.
> 
> Don't you think maybe if life began naturally that makes origins connected with evolution ? quit with your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the only nonsense on this thread is yours.
> if you are implying that natural means unaffected by undue influences aka a god. then yes I do.
> as to origins: do you understand the concept of parameters?
> or conditions?
> there is no logical reason not to expect life to develop NATURALLY IF THE PROPER CONDITIONS ARE MET.
> you have no evidence that these conditions were manufactured (and unnatural process ) by an intelligence.
> for all you know this is the way it happened  : [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1OZCHixR0]2001 a space odyssey - YouTube[/ame]
> BTW notice how the "god" makes only a tiny change, a suggestion really to change the already occurring evolution.
Click to expand...


Only an imbecile can't see design in nature.

The only observed evolution is microevolution because of the vast Dna information and this evolution only occurs within a family,not from one family to another.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen numb nuts, according to your view everything came about naturally that includes Macro-evolution.
> 
> The origins question needs to be answered whether you believe in evolution or not.
> 
> Don't you think maybe if life began naturally that makes origins connected with evolution ? quit with your nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the only nonsense on this thread is yours.
> if you are implying that natural means unaffected by undue influences aka a god. then yes I do.
> as to origins: do you understand the concept of parameters?
> or conditions?
> there is no logical reason not to expect life to develop NATURALLY IF THE PROPER CONDITIONS ARE MET.
> you have no evidence that these conditions were manufactured (and unnatural process ) by an intelligence.
> for all you know this is the way it happened  : [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1OZCHixR0]2001 a space odyssey - YouTube[/ame]
> BTW notice how the "god" makes only a tiny change, a suggestion really to change the already occurring evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only an imbecile can't see design in nature.
> 
> The only observed evolution is microevolution because of the vast Dna information and this evolution only occurs within a family,not from one family to another.
Click to expand...

you have no proof that the design you bather on about is nothing more then an ongoing NATURAL PROCESS DUE TO THE CONDITIONS.
ONLY AN ILLITERATE ASSHOLE ATTEMPTING TO RATIONALIZE A FANTASY WOULD CLAIM THAT AS FACT.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the only nonsense on this thread is yours.
> if you are implying that natural means unaffected by undue influences aka a god. then yes I do.
> as to origins: do you understand the concept of parameters?
> or conditions?
> there is no logical reason not to expect life to develop NATURALLY IF THE PROPER CONDITIONS ARE MET.
> you have no evidence that these conditions were manufactured (and unnatural process ) by an intelligence.
> for all you know this is the way it happened  : 2001 a space odyssey - YouTube
> BTW notice how the "god" makes only a tiny change, a suggestion really to change the already occurring evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only an imbecile can't see design in nature.
> 
> The only observed evolution is microevolution because of the vast Dna information and this evolution only occurs within a family,not from one family to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no proof that the design you bather on about is nothing more then an ongoing NATURAL PROCESS DUE TO THE CONDITIONS.
> ONLY AN ILLITERATE ASSHOLE ATTEMPTING TO RATIONALIZE A FANTASY WOULD CLAIM THAT AS FACT.
Click to expand...


You think you have proof?? You are more delusional than I thought. The theory Stephen Meyer lays out is the best explanation for the complex code we find. But that would take an hour of your life to actually listen to the TOTALLY SCIENTIFIC argument he lays out. You won't listen to it and comment, because you just rather argue and name call. So in your total ignorance of the VERY SOLID theory that is presented, it is you that apears as an ignorant, illiterate, sphincter: 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs]http://youtu.be/NbluTDb1Nfs[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the only nonsense on this thread is yours.
> if you are implying that natural means unaffected by undue influences aka a god. then yes I do.
> as to origins: do you understand the concept of parameters?
> or conditions?
> there is no logical reason not to expect life to develop NATURALLY IF THE PROPER CONDITIONS ARE MET.
> you have no evidence that these conditions were manufactured (and unnatural process ) by an intelligence.
> for all you know this is the way it happened  : 2001 a space odyssey - YouTube
> BTW notice how the "god" makes only a tiny change, a suggestion really to change the already occurring evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only an imbecile can't see design in nature.
> 
> The only observed evolution is microevolution because of the vast Dna information and this evolution only occurs within a family,not from one family to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no proof that the design you bather on about is nothing more then an ongoing NATURAL PROCESS DUE TO THE CONDITIONS.
> ONLY AN ILLITERATE ASSHOLE ATTEMPTING TO RATIONALIZE A FANTASY WOULD CLAIM THAT AS FACT.
Click to expand...


By the way you still have not answered my question,why ? If you want to get into this natural process I have given you a chance with the question I asked you. Like I said poop or get off the pot.


----------



## newpolitics

koshergrl said:


> If you are using the term "evolution" to mean one species morphing into another, there is no proof that it happens in the FIRST place. How can one "disprove" something that has never been observed to have happened, ever, at any time? In other words, you can't disprove a thing that wasn't proven to begin with.



speciation has been viewed in the lab with quickly reproducing species such as flies or bugs. you separate two populations. over time they evolve sufficiently to where they can not recombine, and are hence two species by definition. you extrapolate this out over millions of years and you get two populations that are distinctly different. Extrapolate that even further and across different geological terrain and climate, and you get the change we see across the animal kingdom. We have plenty of evidence of this happening in the fossil record. All fossils are transitional forms.  evolution makes a lot of sense if you are not hanging onto pre-suppositions about the christian god and christian creationism being true.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are using the term "evolution" to mean one species morphing into another, there is no proof that it happens in the FIRST place. How can one "disprove" something that has never been observed to have happened, ever, at any time? In other words, you can't disprove a thing that wasn't proven to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> speciation has been viewed in the lab with quickly reproducing species such as flies or bugs. you separate two populations. over time they evolve sufficiently to where they can not recombine, and are hence two species by definition. you extrapolate this out over millions of years and you get two populations that are distinctly different. Extrapolate that even further and across different geological terrain and climate, and you get the change we see across the animal kingdom. We have plenty of evidence of this happening in the fossil record. All fossils are transitional forms.  evolution makes a lot of sense if you are not hanging onto pre-suppositions about the christian god and christian creationism being true.
Click to expand...


Everything you just stated sounds like a fairy tale. Please cite specific studies and not rampant speculation based on pre-suppositions about Darwinism being true.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are using the term "evolution" to mean one species morphing into another, there is no proof that it happens in the FIRST place. How can one "disprove" something that has never been observed to have happened, ever, at any time? In other words, you can't disprove a thing that wasn't proven to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> speciation has been viewed in the lab with quickly reproducing species such as flies or bugs. you separate two populations. over time they evolve sufficiently to where they can not recombine, and are hence two species by definition. you extrapolate this out over millions of years and you get two populations that are distinctly different. Extrapolate that even further and across different geological terrain and climate, and you get the change we see across the animal kingdom. We have plenty of evidence of this happening in the fossil record. All fossils are transitional forms.  evolution makes a lot of sense if you are not hanging onto pre-suppositions about the christian god and christian creationism being true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything you just stated sounds like a fairy tale. Please cite specific studies and not rampant speculation based on pre-suppositions about Darwinism being true.
Click to expand...


In what way does this sound like a fairy tale? This sounds like a viable explanation for the change that occurs over time in species. You find it to be a fairytale because of your pre-supposition that a designer exists, so you simply refute any evidence brought to you. Anyhow, all you have to do is wikipedia speciation and you get an example:

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Artificial speciation

New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[18] Domestic cattle, on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they readily produce fertile offspring with them.[19]
The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.[20] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).[21]
Diane Dodd was also able to show how reproductive isolation can develop from mating preferences in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose.[22]"


So, demonstrated in a lab is speciation. Of course you will refute this because it will not be your standard of evidence, because of your pre-supposition about there being an intelligent designer, and proving speciation to occur would weaken the argument that there needs to be a designer, if not, destroy it. Speciation is only one piece of evidence, by the way.

Do you have any evidence that your designer exists? No. None. You rely on the "god of the gaps" while refuting any evidence about evolution. So, you can see reality how you want to, that is your choice, but there is only one right answer. So far, your case has ZERO evidence, while the evidence for evolution is plentiful, and applicable to the real world. It is used in biology everyday. Creationism can only be used except to vindicate faith, which does not attest to its veracity whatsoever.


----------



## Gadawg73

Proven fact per Dover v. Kitzmiller ruling that intelligent design is re-packaged creationism.

Should both be taught in school? Absolutely.
In religion and philosophy classes but never science class as it IS NOT science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> speciation has been viewed in the lab with quickly reproducing species such as flies or bugs. you separate two populations. over time they evolve sufficiently to where they can not recombine, and are hence two species by definition. you extrapolate this out over millions of years and you get two populations that are distinctly different. Extrapolate that even further and across different geological terrain and climate, and you get the change we see across the animal kingdom. We have plenty of evidence of this happening in the fossil record. All fossils are transitional forms.  evolution makes a lot of sense if you are not hanging onto pre-suppositions about the christian god and christian creationism being true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you just stated sounds like a fairy tale. Please cite specific studies and not rampant speculation based on pre-suppositions about Darwinism being true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what way does this sound like a fairy tale? This sounds like a viable explanation for the change that occurs over time in species. You find it to be a fairytale because of your pre-supposition that a designer exists, so you simply refute any evidence brought to you. Anyhow, all you have to do is wikipedia speciation and you get an example:
> 
> Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Artificial speciation
> 
> New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[18] Domestic cattle, on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they readily produce fertile offspring with them.[19]
> The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.[20] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).[21]
> Diane Dodd was also able to show how reproductive isolation can develop from mating preferences in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose.[22]"
> 
> 
> So, demonstrated in a lab is speciation. Of course you will refute this because it will not be your standard of evidence, because of your pre-supposition about there being an intelligent designer, and proving speciation to occur would weaken the argument that there needs to be a designer, if not, destroy it. Speciation is only one piece of evidence, by the way.
> 
> Do you have any evidence that your designer exists? No. None. You rely on the "god of the gaps" while refuting any evidence about evolution. So, you can see reality how you want to, that is your choice, but there is only one right answer. So far, your case has ZERO evidence, while the evidence for evolution is plentiful, and applicable to the real world. It is used in biology everyday. Creationism can only be used except to vindicate faith, which does not attest to its veracity whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Microevolurion yes macro no. Of course you can have what you call speciation within a family because the gene pool is so vast with information. Why do you think there are  so many different breeds of horses,dogs,and cats ? This is not macroevolution this is microevolution. Why do you think everyone has their own set of finger prints ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Gadawg73 said:


> Proven fact per Dover v. Kitzmiller ruling that intelligent design is re-packaged creationism.
> 
> Should both be taught in school? Absolutely.
> In religion and philosophy classes but never science class as it IS NOT science.



You mean men of science that believe in design through creation can't crossbreed animals and call it what it really is ?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you just stated sounds like a fairy tale. Please cite specific studies and not rampant speculation based on pre-suppositions about Darwinism being true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what way does this sound like a fairy tale? This sounds like a viable explanation for the change that occurs over time in species. You find it to be a fairytale because of your pre-supposition that a designer exists, so you simply refute any evidence brought to you. Anyhow, all you have to do is wikipedia speciation and you get an example:
> 
> Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Artificial speciation
> 
> New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[18] Domestic cattle, on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they readily produce fertile offspring with them.[19]
> The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.[20] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).[21]
> Diane Dodd was also able to show how reproductive isolation can develop from mating preferences in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose.[22]"
> 
> 
> So, demonstrated in a lab is speciation. Of course you will refute this because it will not be your standard of evidence, because of your pre-supposition about there being an intelligent designer, and proving speciation to occur would weaken the argument that there needs to be a designer, if not, destroy it. Speciation is only one piece of evidence, by the way.
> 
> Do you have any evidence that your designer exists? No. None. You rely on the "god of the gaps" while refuting any evidence about evolution. So, you can see reality how you want to, that is your choice, but there is only one right answer. So far, your case has ZERO evidence, while the evidence for evolution is plentiful, and applicable to the real world. It is used in biology everyday. Creationism can only be used except to vindicate faith, which does not attest to its veracity whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Microevolurion yes macro no. Of course you can have what you call speciation within a family because the gene pool is so vast with information. Why do you think there are  so many different breeds of horses,dogs,and cats ? This is not macroevolution this is microevolution. Why do you think everyone has their own set of finger prints ?
Click to expand...


microevolution vs macroevolution is a false dichotomy invented by creationists. "macroevolution" is simply an extension of "microevolution", if left to evolve over a larger period of time from a common ancestor and in different conditions.

what speciation demonstrates is what you would called "macroevolution". The examples you provided are poor. Dogs, horses, etc... are still part of the same species because they can still mate and produce viable offspring. Speciation refers to when two animals can no longer mate and produce offsprings, hence are now on seperate "tracks" of evolution whose differences will only increase as each respective population responds to their respective geography and climate. It is important to note that this response to distinct geography and climate, which drives selective pressure, is what drives the change, because it makes certain traits more desirable than others. For instance, if it is a very hot and sunny climate (the sahara or its equivalent), survivability may optimized by lessening body surface and hence body mass to lessen any moisture lost to the heat, and we see this in nature, as desert climates tend to produce smaller animals. So, animals that are smaller and less massive would survive better, and their genes would be passed on with greater frequency, than others who would die off because they are losing too much moisture. 

your entire argument is an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. you maintain a claim that there is a creator. the burden of proof, therefore, is on you to substantiate that claim. trying to put holes in the current theories that are based on evidence is fallacious because the current theory of evolution does not maintain that another, unseen player is at work. evolution and science is based on observable evidence. there is zero evidence for god, and nothing in observation points to a god. creationists rely on using an argument from ignorance, or basically, a god of the gaps. the bible does not count as evidence, because it does not prove god. it is a book. if it were, then which religion would be true? there are thousands, none of them having any evidence for the existence of the super-natural deity (or deities) they claim. religion and god is man-made.

here is some reading for you on micro vs macro evolution. this article did not inform my position. 

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what way does this sound like a fairy tale? This sounds like a viable explanation for the change that occurs over time in species. You find it to be a fairytale because of your pre-supposition that a designer exists, so you simply refute any evidence brought to you. Anyhow, all you have to do is wikipedia speciation and you get an example:
> 
> Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Artificial speciation
> 
> New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[18] Domestic cattle, on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they readily produce fertile offspring with them.[19]
> The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.[20] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).[21]
> Diane Dodd was also able to show how reproductive isolation can develop from mating preferences in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose.[22]"
> 
> 
> So, demonstrated in a lab is speciation. Of course you will refute this because it will not be your standard of evidence, because of your pre-supposition about there being an intelligent designer, and proving speciation to occur would weaken the argument that there needs to be a designer, if not, destroy it. Speciation is only one piece of evidence, by the way.
> 
> Do you have any evidence that your designer exists? No. None. You rely on the "god of the gaps" while refuting any evidence about evolution. So, you can see reality how you want to, that is your choice, but there is only one right answer. So far, your case has ZERO evidence, while the evidence for evolution is plentiful, and applicable to the real world. It is used in biology everyday. Creationism can only be used except to vindicate faith, which does not attest to its veracity whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Microevolurion yes macro no. Of course you can have what you call speciation within a family because the gene pool is so vast with information. Why do you think there are  so many different breeds of horses,dogs,and cats ? This is not macroevolution this is microevolution. Why do you think everyone has their own set of finger prints ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> microevolution vs macroevolution is a false dichotomy invented by creationists. "macroevolution" is simply an extension of "microevolution", if left to evolve over a larger period of time from a common ancestor and in different conditions.
> 
> what speciation demonstrates is what you would called "macroevolution". The examples you provided are poor. Dogs, horses, etc... are still part of the same species because they can still mate and produce viable offspring. Speciation refers to when two animals can no longer mate and produce offsprings, hence are now on seperate "tracks" of evolution whose differences will only increase as each respective population responds to their respective geography and climate. It is important to note that this response to distinct geography and climate, which drives selective pressure, is what drives the change, because it makes certain traits more desirable than others. For instance, if it is a very hot and sunny climate (the sahara or its equivalent), survivability may optimized by lessening body surface and hence body mass to lessen any moisture lost to the heat, and we see this in nature, as desert climates tend to produce smaller animals. So, animals that are smaller and less massive would survive better, and their genes would be passed on with greater frequency, than others who would die off because they are losing too much moisture.
> 
> your entire argument is an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. you maintain a claim that there is a creator. the burden of proof, therefore, is on you to substantiate that claim. trying to put holes in the current theories that are based on evidence is fallacious because the current theory of evolution does not maintain that another, unseen player is at work. evolution and science is based on observable evidence. there is zero evidence for god, and nothing in observation points to a god. creationists rely on using an argument from ignorance, or basically, a god of the gaps. the bible does not count as evidence, because it does not prove god. it is a book. if it were, then which religion would be true? there are thousands, none of them having any evidence for the existence of the super-natural deity (or deities) they claim. religion and god is man-made.
> 
> here is some reading for you on micro vs macro evolution. this article did not inform my position.
> 
> Microevolution vs Macroevolution: Is There A Difference Between Microevolution & Macroevolution?
Click to expand...


Wrong again careful who you call ignorant especially when you are wrong. Both terms came from evolutionist. Your false premise as well as the ones teaching you is that one leads to the other. One has been observed and one has not. When you have a vast genepool you can have features change from crossbreeding and inbreeding. Because you can have offspring that don't look like the parents but it does have features from both parents does not show evolution. I give you the truth with a simple answer you resort to insults and rhetoric. The problem is you are spewing nonsense from what dummy taught another. Please do yourself a favor and learn the difference between micro and macro so you know when you are being filled with junk knowledge.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> You find it to be a fairytale because of your pre-supposition that ....., so you simply refute any evidence brought to you.



Can I get a mirror please???? How many times are you going to accuse me of the thing you are doing???

As far as the examples you gave, are you really that dense??? Every instance you cited was caused or manipulated by... here, wait for it... it's coming... an intelligent agent you Bozo!!! Let's see your evidence from nature that is occurring without interference from an intelligent agent.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You find it to be a fairytale because of your pre-supposition that ....., so you simply refute any evidence brought to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I get a mirror please???? How many times are you going to accuse me of the thing you are doing???
> 
> As far as the examples you gave, are you really that dense??? Every instance you cited was caused or manipulated by... here, wait for it... it's coming... an intelligent agent you Bozo!!!
Click to expand...


Yep he was not bright enough to see they were products of man's creation. That is  exactly why we have so many different breeds of domestic animals.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Do you have any evidence that your designer exists?



Yes, I do!!! Scientific Evidence!! If you would actually listen to the Stephen Meyer video I linked to, you might enlighten your blinded, ignorant mind to a VALID SCIENTIFIC hypothesis for Designer that fits way better than your god of Natural Selection. I won't hold my breath though. You'd just rather keep stating the same thing over and over and over (ad naseum) with NO evidence, completely out of pure stupidity and ignorance because you won't bother to entertain an argument that goes against your materialistic religion. Watch the video and then put up some counter arguments and I might listen to you. Otherwise, your programmed regurgitation of the Darinists' religious handbook will be henceforth from now on, ignored. My gosh man, try to have a thought for yourself instead of just repeating things others have said. 

If you won't listen to the whole video, at least go to 1:13:40 where an audience member asks the question, "What is science?" I think the answer absolutely has to prevent you from making the same ignorant mistake you keep doing by stating that you have scientific evidence. You don't. What you continue to present is a demarcation argument and it could just as easily be applied to the theory of evolution to disqualify it. It would also disqualify a great number of physics theories and we would not have a Hadron Collider if scientists had applied your simple minded thinking to the problem. Do you really want to go there. Funny how you present things like you know when many before you have put much thought and argument into the same issue without resolution. There is nothing more annoying than ignorant people who are arrogant!!!!  Do yourself a favor and educate yourself Mr. Wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Microevolurion yes macro no. Of course you can have what you call speciation within a family because the gene pool is so vast with information. Why do you think there are  so many different breeds of horses,dogs,and cats ? This is not macroevolution this is microevolution. Why do you think everyone has their own set of finger prints ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> microevolution vs macroevolution is a false dichotomy invented by creationists. "macroevolution" is simply an extension of "microevolution", if left to evolve over a larger period of time from a common ancestor and in different conditions.
> 
> what speciation demonstrates is what you would called "macroevolution". The examples you provided are poor. Dogs, horses, etc... are still part of the same species because they can still mate and produce viable offspring. Speciation refers to when two animals can no longer mate and produce offsprings, hence are now on seperate "tracks" of evolution whose differences will only increase as each respective population responds to their respective geography and climate. It is important to note that this response to distinct geography and climate, which drives selective pressure, is what drives the change, because it makes certain traits more desirable than others. For instance, if it is a very hot and sunny climate (the sahara or its equivalent), survivability may optimized by lessening body surface and hence body mass to lessen any moisture lost to the heat, and we see this in nature, as desert climates tend to produce smaller animals. So, animals that are smaller and less massive would survive better, and their genes would be passed on with greater frequency, than others who would die off because they are losing too much moisture.
> 
> your entire argument is an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. you maintain a claim that there is a creator. the burden of proof, therefore, is on you to substantiate that claim. trying to put holes in the current theories that are based on evidence is fallacious because the current theory of evolution does not maintain that another, unseen player is at work. evolution and science is based on observable evidence. there is zero evidence for god, and nothing in observation points to a god. creationists rely on using an argument from ignorance, or basically, a god of the gaps. the bible does not count as evidence, because it does not prove god. it is a book. if it were, then which religion would be true? there are thousands, none of them having any evidence for the existence of the super-natural deity (or deities) they claim. religion and god is man-made.
> 
> here is some reading for you on micro vs macro evolution. this article did not inform my position.
> 
> Microevolution vs Macroevolution: Is There A Difference Between Microevolution & Macroevolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again careful who you call ignorant especially when you are wrong. Both terms came from evolutionist. Your false premise as well as the ones teaching you is that one leads to the other. One has been observed and one has not. When you have a vast genepool you can have features change from crossbreeding and inbreeding. Because you can have offspring that don't look like the parents but it does have features from both parents does not show evolution. I give you the truth with a simple answer you resort to insults and rhetoric. The problem is you are spewing nonsense from what dummy taught another. Please do yourself a favor and learn the difference between micro and macro so you know when you are being filled with junk knowledge.
Click to expand...


I didn't insult you (now I will). You have just shown yourself to be ignorant in stating that I called you ignorant. I didn't. I said you were using an argument from ignorance, which is a debate fallacy.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to reality. You're pre-suppositions are based on a book. I don't have any pre-suppositions except to find truth through observable evidence. There is no evidence for god, so.... I have no reason to believe in him. end of story. You can keep going in circles, but there is not much that can be discussed. You don't care about the truth. You care about yourself. That is sad. This is called ego.


----------



## koshergrl

Did you observe the evidence yourself?

Or did you...read a book?

If you read a book, your silliness is just..well, silly.


----------



## Gadawg73

Why did the creationists/intelligent design proponents have to lie in open court attempting to "prove" their case?
When there is no evidence, lie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Gadawg73 said:


> Why did the creationists/intelligent design proponents have to lie in open court attempting to "prove" their case?
> When there is no evidence, lie.



I am not sure they did lie but when I get home I would love to read the manuscripts of the proceedings. But there has been manufactured evidence from your side and lying as well. Please provide the link I would like to read it myself. I am not near my pc I am on my phone.  But I am secure in my views and my views are not just based on the bible. Everyone is influenced by their presuppositions. To say they don't affect the way they interpret evidence are not being honest. I have not seen anyone's rebuttal to ultimate reality's challenge. Did any of you watch the video with the ID speaker at Cambridge University ? Or is it we only read your stuff and respond and you guys don't bother reading opposing views ?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only an imbecile can't see design in nature.
> 
> The only observed evolution is microevolution because of the vast Dna information and this evolution only occurs within a family,not from one family to another.
> 
> 
> 
> you have no proof that the design you bather on about is nothing more then an ongoing NATURAL PROCESS DUE TO THE CONDITIONS.
> ONLY AN ILLITERATE ASSHOLE ATTEMPTING TO RATIONALIZE A FANTASY WOULD CLAIM THAT AS FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think you have proof?? You are more delusional than I thought. The theory Stephen Meyer lays out is the best explanation for the complex code we find. But that would take an hour of your life to actually listen to the TOTALLY SCIENTIFIC argument he lays out. You won't listen to it and comment, because you just rather argue and name call. So in your total ignorance of the VERY SOLID theory that is presented, it is you that apears as an ignorant, illiterate, sphincter:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs]http://youtu.be/NbluTDb1Nfs[/ame]
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

koshergrl said:


> Did you observe the evidence yourself?
> 
> Or did you...read a book?
> 
> If you read a book, your silliness is just..well, silly.



I read books that don't lay claim to supernatural events that defy everything we know about the universe. I read about things that are based upon natural laws and existence as part of our universe. Miracles are not natural, and have never been shown or proven. They are qualified as such only by the observer, but there is no objective verifiable proof they have EVER happened, including any done by the supposed jesus, who isn't even proved to have existed. There is no evidence he really did.


----------



## Gadawg73

Youwerecreated said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the creationists/intelligent design proponents have to lie in open court attempting to "prove" their case?
> When there is no evidence, lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure they did lie but when I get home I would love to read the manuscripts of the proceedings. But there has been manufactured evidence from your and lying as well. Please provide the link I would like to read it myself. I am not near my pc I am on my phone.  But I am secure in my views and my views are not just based on the bible. Everyone o don't care who it is,is influenced by their presuppositions. To say they don't affect the way they interpret evidence are not being honest. I have not seen anyone's rebuttal to ultimate reality's challenge. Did any of you watch the video with the ID speaker at Cambridge University ? Or is it we only read your stuff and respond and you guys don't bother reading opposing views ?
Click to expand...


So you are now calling me a liar.
Some Christian you are Moe. 
LOSER.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you observe the evidence yourself?
> 
> Or did you...read a book?
> 
> If you read a book, your silliness is just..well, silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read books that don't lay claim to supernatural events that defy everything we know about the universe. I read about things that are based upon natural laws and existence as part of our universe. Miracles are not natural, and have never been shown or proven. They are qualified as such only by the observer, but there is no objective verifiable proof they have EVER happened, including any done by the supposed jesus, who isn't even proved to have existed. There is no evidence he really did.
Click to expand...


This statement shows your total ignorance on what the Intelligent Design arguemnt is. Why are you so AFRAID to listen to the Stephen Meyer lecture???


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the creationists/intelligent design proponents have to lie in open court attempting to "prove" their case?
> When there is no evidence, lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure they did lie but when I get home I would love to read the manuscripts of the proceedings. But there has been manufactured evidence from your and lying as well. Please provide the link I would like to read it myself. I am not near my pc I am on my phone.  But I am secure in my views and my views are not just based on the bible. Everyone o don't care who it is,is influenced by their presuppositions. To say they don't affect the way they interpret evidence are not being honest. I have not seen anyone's rebuttal to ultimate reality's challenge. Did any of you watch the video with the ID speaker at Cambridge University ? Or is it we only read your stuff and respond and you guys don't bother reading opposing views ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are now calling me a liar.
> Some Christian you are Moe.
> LOSER.
Click to expand...


I will call you a liar. Remember, we "Creationist" nutbags are all crazy with our religion. You are obviously possessed by Satan, the father of lies, liar. So there you go. There, so now you can put me in my little box. Make you feel better??


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no proof that the design you bather on about is nothing more then an ongoing NATURAL PROCESS DUE TO THE CONDITIONS.
> ONLY AN ILLITERATE ASSHOLE ATTEMPTING TO RATIONALIZE A FANTASY WOULD CLAIM THAT AS FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think you have proof?? You are more delusional than I thought. The theory Stephen Meyer lays out is the best explanation for the complex code we find. But that would take an hour of your life to actually listen to the TOTALLY SCIENTIFIC argument he lays out. You won't listen to it and comment, because you just rather argue and name call. So in your total ignorance of the VERY SOLID theory that is presented, it is you that apears as an ignorant, illiterate, sphincter:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs]http://youtu.be/NbluTDb1Nfs[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Four laughing smiley faces. Now those are the types of intelligent responses we have come to know and love from Darwinists. Insert face palm here.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think you have proof?? You are more delusional than I thought. The theory Stephen Meyer lays out is the best explanation for the complex code we find. But that would take an hour of your life to actually listen to the TOTALLY SCIENTIFIC argument he lays out. You won't listen to it and comment, because you just rather argue and name call. So in your total ignorance of the VERY SOLID theory that is presented, it is you that apears as an ignorant, illiterate, sphincter:
> 
> http://youtu.be/NbluTDb1Nfs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Four laughing smiley faces. Now those are the types of intelligent responses we have come to know and love from Darwinists. Insert face palm here.
Click to expand...


I watched the whole thing. His entire premise is based on an argument from ignorance fallacy, that because we can't prove that abiogenesis happened (yet), god did it. This is not proof of god in any way. You can't look at a lack of evidence for any current theories in science and say god did it. That is not evidence. There is no direct evidence for an intelligent designer. Only a lack of evidence for abiogenesis. This is a god of gaps philosophy.


----------



## Gadawg73

UltimateReality said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure they did lie but when I get home I would love to read the manuscripts of the proceedings. But there has been manufactured evidence from your and lying as well. Please provide the link I would like to read it myself. I am not near my pc I am on my phone.  But I am secure in my views and my views are not just based on the bible. Everyone o don't care who it is,is influenced by their presuppositions. To say they don't affect the way they interpret evidence are not being honest. I have not seen anyone's rebuttal to ultimate reality's challenge. Did any of you watch the video with the ID speaker at Cambridge University ? Or is it we only read your stuff and respond and you guys don't bother reading opposing views ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are now calling me a liar.
> Some Christian you are Moe.
> LOSER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will call you a liar. Remember, we "Creationist" nutbags are all crazy with our religion. You are obviously possessed by Satan, the father of lies, liar. So there you go. There, so now you can put me in my little box. Make you feel better??
Click to expand...


No, but if it makes you feel better have at it.
I have been shot at, beat up and left for dead.
I BELIEVE IN CREATION.
But creation is not science.
My religous faith, unlike yours which is so weak you have to argue iT as something it isn't, is so strong I do not need science to validate it. 
Beliefs are never science.
YOU can NEVER disprove my religous beliefs. Why? Because they ARE BELIEFS.
You can never PROVE my religous beliefs. Why? Because they are BELIEFS.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no proof that the design you bather on about is nothing more then an ongoing NATURAL PROCESS DUE TO THE CONDITIONS.
> ONLY AN ILLITERATE ASSHOLE ATTEMPTING TO RATIONALIZE A FANTASY WOULD CLAIM THAT AS FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think you have proof?? You are more delusional than I thought. The theory Stephen Meyer lays out is the best explanation for the complex code we find. But that would take an hour of your life to actually listen to the TOTALLY SCIENTIFIC argument he lays out. You won't listen to it and comment, because you just rather argue and name call. So in your total ignorance of the VERY SOLID theory that is presented, it is you that apears as an ignorant, illiterate, sphincter:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs]http://youtu.be/NbluTDb1Nfs[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Only laughing no rebuttal ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you observe the evidence yourself?
> 
> Or did you...read a book?
> 
> If you read a book, your silliness is just..well, silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read books that don't lay claim to supernatural events that defy everything we know about the universe. I read about things that are based upon natural laws and existence as part of our universe. Miracles are not natural, and have never been shown or proven. They are qualified as such only by the observer, but there is no objective verifiable proof they have EVER happened, including any done by the supposed jesus, who isn't even proved to have existed. There is no evidence he really did.
Click to expand...


There is nothing about the origins of life that happens naturally unless you would like to point it out ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Gadawg73 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the creationists/intelligent design proponents have to lie in open court attempting to "prove" their case?
> When there is no evidence, lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure they did lie but when I get home I would love to read the manuscripts of the proceedings. But there has been manufactured evidence from your and lying as well. Please provide the link I would like to read it myself. I am not near my pc I am on my phone.  But I am secure in my views and my views are not just based on the bible. Everyone o don't care who it is,is influenced by their presuppositions. To say they don't affect the way they interpret evidence are not being honest. I have not seen anyone's rebuttal to ultimate reality's challenge. Did any of you watch the video with the ID speaker at Cambridge University ? Or is it we only read your stuff and respond and you guys don't bother reading opposing views ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are now calling me a liar.
> Some Christian you are Moe.
> LOSER.
Click to expand...


I'm not calling you a liar and never have,but i have reason to not trust people on your side's interpretation.


----------



## Gadawg73

Youwerecreated said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure they did lie but when I get home I would love to read the manuscripts of the proceedings. But there has been manufactured evidence from your and lying as well. Please provide the link I would like to read it myself. I am not near my pc I am on my phone.  But I am secure in my views and my views are not just based on the bible. Everyone o don't care who it is,is influenced by their presuppositions. To say they don't affect the way they interpret evidence are not being honest. I have not seen anyone's rebuttal to ultimate reality's challenge. Did any of you watch the video with the ID speaker at Cambridge University ? Or is it we only read your stuff and respond and you guys don't bother reading opposing views ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are now calling me a liar.
> Some Christian you are Moe.
> LOSER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not calling you a liar and never have,but i have reason to not trust people on your side's interpretation.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. No worries.
But I still disagree with you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Four laughing smiley faces. Now those are the types of intelligent responses we have come to know and love from Darwinists. Insert face palm here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the whole thing. His entire premise is based on an argument from ignorance fallacy, that because we can't prove that abiogenesis happened (yet), god did it. This is not proof of god in any way. You can't look at a lack of evidence for any current theories in science and say god did it. That is not evidence. There is no direct evidence for an intelligent designer. Only a lack of evidence for abiogenesis. This is a god of gaps philosophy.
Click to expand...


How is it a fallacy if your side has not proven life can spontaneously come into existence through a natural process ?

Listen carefully life can not come into existence on it's own with no direction if you believe such nonsense you require more faith to believe in that then i need to believe in the designer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Gadawg73 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are now calling me a liar.
> Some Christian you are Moe.
> LOSER.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not calling you a liar and never have,but i have reason to not trust people on your side's interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough. No worries.
> But I still disagree with you.
Click to expand...


You always have


----------



## Youwerecreated

Last night when I got home I turned on the science network,it seems there Is a group of evolutionist from Europe calling for a new theory concerning evolution because they are admitting the problems with the Neo darwinism theory.

I have said this several times that Neo Darwinism would eventually be discarded for a new theory because it is not a viable theory.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Youwerecreated said:


> Last night when I got home I turned on the science network,it seems there Is a group of evolutionist from Europe calling for a new theory concerning evolution because they are admitting the problems with the Neo darwinism theory.
> 
> I have said this several times that Neo Darwinism would eventually be discarded for a new theory because it is not a viable theory.



Well the debate on this stuff is like any debate. Whatever is the subject is at a disadvantage. People talk about creationism more than evolution with a critical eye, so they are going to pick it apart, but when you look at evolution, it's just as easy to pick it apart. Same with the Big Bang theory.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Four laughing smiley faces. Now those are the types of intelligent responses we have come to know and love from Darwinists. Insert face palm here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the whole thing. His entire premise is based on an argument from ignorance fallacy, that because we can't prove that abiogenesis happened (yet), god did it. This is not proof of god in any way. You can't look at a lack of evidence for any current theories in science and say god did it. That is not evidence. There is no direct evidence for an intelligent designer. Only a lack of evidence for abiogenesis. This is a god of gaps philosophy.
Click to expand...


Funny, I don't remember him mentioning God. He said that everywhere we find instructional information in the present world, it has an intelligent source. His argument is that the best explanation for the information we find in DNA is an intelligent agent. No mention of God. Guess that went right over your brainwashed head.


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are now calling me a liar.
> Some Christian you are Moe.
> LOSER.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will call you a liar. Remember, we "Creationist" nutbags are all crazy with our religion. You are obviously possessed by Satan, the father of lies, liar. So there you go. There, so now you can put me in my little box. Make you feel better??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but if it makes you feel better have at it.
> I have been shot at, beat up and left for dead.
> I BELIEVE IN CREATION.
> But creation is not science.
> My religous faith, unlike yours which is so weak you have to argue iT as something it isn't, is so strong I do not need science to validate it.
> Beliefs are never science.
> YOU can NEVER disprove my religous beliefs. Why? Because they ARE BELIEFS.
> You can never PROVE my religous beliefs. Why? Because they are BELIEFS.
Click to expand...


Your are committing logical fallacies. Study up and get back to us. Having faith doesn't mean you have BLIND faith. Blind watchmakers maybe, but not blind faith.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think you have proof?? You are more delusional than I thought. The theory Stephen Meyer lays out is the best explanation for the complex code we find. But that would take an hour of your life to actually listen to the TOTALLY SCIENTIFIC argument he lays out. You won't listen to it and comment, because you just rather argue and name call. So in your total ignorance of the VERY SOLID theory that is presented, it is you that apears as an ignorant, illiterate, sphincter:
> 
> http://youtu.be/NbluTDb1Nfs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Four laughing smiley faces. Now those are the types of intelligent responses we have come to know and love from Darwinists. Insert face palm here.
Click to expand...

the reply fits the presentation....it has no vaildity..  as it is based on a bias an unprovable premise.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think you have proof?? You are more delusional than I thought. The theory Stephen Meyer lays out is the best explanation for the complex code we find. But that would take an hour of your life to actually listen to the TOTALLY SCIENTIFIC argument he lays out. You won't listen to it and comment, because you just rather argue and name call. So in your total ignorance of the VERY SOLID theory that is presented, it is you that apears as an ignorant, illiterate, sphincter:
> 
> http://youtu.be/NbluTDb1Nfs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only laughing no rebuttal ?
Click to expand...

laughter is the rebuttal..the ignorance gene is strong with this one.


----------



## daws101

why is it so important for creationists to prove a god exists?
since you folks claim to have the answer that everything is god's  work.
if your faith is so strong no other proof should be necessary?
why the urgency ? are you under a time constraint ?
the the evil evolutionists are in no hurry... 
your belief system says the end is coming...some day...
why not wait? if you are right, then everyone will know it and you can be as arrogant about it as you want.
(you might piss off Jesus though)
or could it be that the EVIL evolutionists might be on to something and it's eats at a place in the back of your mind like an Itch you can't scratch.
or is it the terror of the idea that there is no god that makes you grasp at anything that promotes your pov,no matter how misguided or silly ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only laughing no rebuttal ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> laughter is the rebuttal..the ignorance gene is strong with this one.
Click to expand...


Yes you are very ignorant. Do you have an answer for my question yet I have given you plenty of time to answer it ?


----------



## KevinWestern

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Four laughing smiley faces. Now those are the types of intelligent responses we have come to know and love from Darwinists. Insert face palm here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the whole thing. His entire premise is based on an argument from ignorance fallacy, that because we can't prove that abiogenesis happened (yet), god did it. This is not proof of god in any way. You can't look at a lack of evidence for any current theories in science and say god did it. That is not evidence. There is no direct evidence for an intelligent designer. Only a lack of evidence for abiogenesis. This is a god of gaps philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it a fallacy if your side has not proven life can spontaneously come into existence through a natural process ?
> 
> Listen carefully life can not come into existence on it's own with no direction if you believe such nonsense you require more faith to believe in that then i need to believe in the designer.
Click to expand...


As I mentioned before, I don&#8217;t think evolution can explain _where _exactly life came from, how it started (from &#8220;nothingness&#8221, and why everything exists in the first place. But I still think evolution can explain a lot of the variations of life within our planet (in my opinion). That said&#8230;

Just to clarify: (1) do &#8220;creationists&#8221; believe that a god created everything in one swoop, many ages ago, and everything kind of remained the same throughout time (ie humans were present at the creation of the universe)? Or can a creationist believe that god created a universe, and then various forms of life evolved from one another over time?

Also, (2) do &#8220;creationists&#8221; (in the context of this specific discussion here) believe that it was the _Judeo/Christian God_ &#8211; specifically &#8211; who created everything (as described by the Old Testament/New Testament), or simply &#8220;a god&#8221; or some all powerful (yet undefined) figure/being?


I've always been confused on what a "creationist" specifically believes, and hopefully one of you could shed some light...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only laughing no rebuttal ?
> 
> 
> 
> laughter is the rebuttal..the ignorance gene is strong with this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are very ignorant. Do you have an answer for my question yet I have given you plenty of time to answer it ?
Click to expand...

you have my answer.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> why is it so important for creationists to prove a god exists?
> since you folks claim to have the answer that everything is god's  work.
> if your faith is so strong no other proof should be necessary?
> why the urgency ? are you under a time constraint ?
> the the evil evolutionists are in no hurry...
> your belief system says the end is coming...some day...
> why not wait? if you are right, then everyone will know it and you can be as arrogant about it as you want.
> (you might piss off Jesus though)
> or could it be that the EVIL evolutionists might be on to something and it's eats at a place in the back of your mind like an Itch you can't scratch.
> or is it the terror of the idea that there is no god that makes you grasp at anything that promotes your pov,no matter how misguided or silly ?



There is no arrogance here... only compassion for those who have been so gravely misled.


----------



## UltimateReality

KevinWestern said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the whole thing. His entire premise is based on an argument from ignorance fallacy, that because we can't prove that abiogenesis happened (yet), god did it. This is not proof of god in any way. You can't look at a lack of evidence for any current theories in science and say god did it. That is not evidence. There is no direct evidence for an intelligent designer. Only a lack of evidence for abiogenesis. This is a god of gaps philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it a fallacy if your side has not proven life can spontaneously come into existence through a natural process ?
> 
> Listen carefully life can not come into existence on it's own with no direction if you believe such nonsense you require more faith to believe in that then i need to believe in the designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I mentioned before, I don&#8217;t think evolution can explain _where _exactly life came from, how it started (from &#8220;nothingness&#8221, and why everything exists in the first place. But I still think evolution can explain a lot of the variations of life within our planet (in my opinion). That said&#8230;
> 
> Just to clarify: (1) do &#8220;creationists&#8221; believe that a god created everything in one swoop, many ages ago, and everything kind of remained the same throughout time (ie humans were present at the creation of the universe)? Or can a creationist believe that god created a universe, and then various forms of life evolved from one another over time?
> 
> Also, (2) do &#8220;creationists&#8221; (in the context of this specific discussion here) believe that it was the _Judeo/Christian God_ &#8211; specifically &#8211; who created everything (as described by the Old Testament/New Testament), or simply &#8220;a god&#8221; or some all powerful (yet undefined) figure/being?
> 
> 
> I've always been confused on what a "creationist" specifically believes, and hopefully one of you could shed some light...
Click to expand...


I am not a Creationist, so I cannot comment on what tennants are assumed to fall under that label. I assume they are referring to someone who believes in a literal seven 24-hour creation as outlined in the book of Genesis. As an ID proponent, I believe the scientific discussions of origins can not include religious thought. For me personally, I believe the Designer is the Judeo Christian God, but that is my religious opinion, not a scientific one. The problem with many on this forum is they like to play the came of mixing science with religion. ID theory is purely from a scientific standpoint. The attackers love to mix ID and Creationism as they whine ID is not science. If we do not involve God in the conversation, keeping it purely to observable phenomena, Darwinists accuse us of having a hidden agenda and trying to inject religion covertly. If we acknowledge God, then the scream we are not scientific. The preverbial damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. ID Theorists believe that a Being who exists outside of space, time, matter and energy is reponsible for the big bang and the "creation" of the something we know as the cosmos out of nothing. They also believe that throughout history, i.e. from the beginning of the bang 13.7 Billion years ago, that Intelligent Agent has acted to engineer new life forms on our planet. This theory does lend itself to Theism, in which God acts within the cosmos, as opposed to Deism, which claims God set everything in motion and walked away. New discoveries daily in the Genetic realm continue to rock the foundations of Neo Darwinists thought and are more likely explainable by an Intelligent agent acting at specific times in history, ie, the Cambrian explosion for example. Take Homo Sapien for instance. He/she appears very suddenly on the planet, with most fossil evidence at best dating back 15,000 to 20,000 years (I'm talking about SOLID evidence, not tiny skull pieces extrapolated with clay into an homo sapien cranium). So I do believe in the Creation story, I just don't believe in a literal seven 24-hour period creation. Moses is generally credited with being the author of Genesis. Prior to that time, the Creation story was handed down by an oral tradition. I think the Israelites at the time knew it was not a literal story, although a small faction of modern Christians cling to the 7day CReation in light of a mountain of scientific evidence against it. Even though I am not a literal Creationists, I think it is funny they are accused of the "God of the gaps" thinking when the theory of evolution continues to make up a mountain of BS to fill in the gaps, when daily discoveries poke holes in the theory!! The TOE has become a breeding ground, as an angry DAWS101 proves above, for materialist hell bent on irradicating God from our current thought, and they do so to their own detriment. They are really  very angry and arrogant, a really bad combo. They deny God in arrogance, and pretend that the TOE has an answer for everything. Real Scientists know it doesn't!! But to accept God, would force a change in their behaviour. If we accept that a Designer designed us, and we see evidence for the intent of the design like reproduction, then interfering with gestation (abortion) or inserting a reproductive organ into an excrement orifice, become acts that go against the intent of the Design. You wouldn't use a blow dryer as a toothbrush would you?

In my many discussions with Materialists, I have come to the conclusion there are no true atheists, only folks that are incredibly angry with God. If they really weren't so mad at God, they would feel no need to go on their zealous rants trying to destroy others belief systems, crossing lines that have absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with HATE. They are like the cornered victim, who doesn't look at the direction of an approaching animal ready to attack, thinking "If I don't look at him maybe he will go away". Your DNA is programmed to seek the Designer. Every culture, even the most remote, have the concept of the Creator. To become a materialists requires some serious denial.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it a fallacy if your side has not proven life can spontaneously come into existence through a natural process ?
> 
> Listen carefully life can not come into existence on it's own with no direction if you believe such nonsense you require more faith to believe in that then i need to believe in the designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned before, I dont think evolution can explain _where _exactly life came from, how it started (from nothingness), and why everything exists in the first place. But I still think evolution can explain a lot of the variations of life within our planet (in my opinion). That said
> 
> Just to clarify: (1) do creationists believe that a god created everything in one swoop, many ages ago, and everything kind of remained the same throughout time (ie humans were present at the creation of the universe)? Or can a creationist believe that god created a universe, and then various forms of life evolved from one another over time?
> 
> Also, (2) do creationists (in the context of this specific discussion here) believe that it was the _Judeo/Christian God_  specifically  who created everything (as described by the Old Testament/New Testament), or simply a god or some all powerful (yet undefined) figure/being?
> 
> 
> I've always been confused on what a "creationist" specifically believes, and hopefully one of you could shed some light...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a Creationist, so I cannot comment on what tennants are assumed to fall under that label. I assume they are referring to someone who believes in a literal seven 24-hour creation as outlined in the book of Genesis. As an ID proponent, I believe the scientific discussions of origins can not include religious thought. For me personally, I believe the Designer is the Judeo Christian God, but that is my religious opinion, not a scientific one. The problem with many on this forum is they like to play the came of mixing science with religion. ID theory is purely from a scientific standpoint. The attackers love to mix ID and Creationism as they whine ID is not science. If we do not involve God in the conversation, keeping it purely to observable phenomena, Darwinists accuse us of having a hidden agenda and trying to inject religion covertly. If we acknowledge God, then the scream we are not scientific. The preverbial damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. ID Theorists believe that a Being who exists outside of space, time, matter and energy is reponsible for the big bang and the "creation" of the something we know as the cosmos out of nothing. They also believe that throughout history, i.e. from the beginning of the bang 13.7 Billion years ago, that Intelligent Agent has acted to engineer new life forms on our planet. This theory does lend itself to Theism, in which God acts within the cosmos, as opposed to Deism, which claims God set everything in motion and walked away. New discoveries daily in the Genetic realm continue to rock the foundations of Neo Darwinists thought and are more likely explainable by an Intelligent agent acting at specific times in history, ie, the Cambrian explosion for example. Take Homo Sapien for instance. He/she appears very suddenly on the planet, with most fossil evidence at best dating back 15,000 to 20,000 years (I'm talking about SOLID evidence, not tiny skull pieces extrapolated with clay into an homo sapien cranium). So I do believe in the Creation story, I just don't believe in a literal seven 24-hour period creation. Moses is generally credited with being the author of Genesis. Prior to that time, the Creation story was handed down by an oral tradition. I think the Israelites at the time knew it was not a literal story, although a small faction of modern Christians cling to the 7day CReation in light of a mountain of scientific evidence against it. Even though I am not a literal Creationists, I think it is funny they are accused of the "God of the gaps" thinking when the theory of evolution continues to make up a mountain of BS to fill in the gaps, when daily discoveries poke holes in the theory!! The TOE has become a breeding ground, as an angry DAWS101 proves above, for materialist hell bent on irradicating God from our current thought, and they do so to their own detriment. They are really  very angry and arrogant, a really bad combo. They deny God in arrogance, and pretend that the TOE has an answer for everything. Real Scientists know it doesn't!! But to accept God, would force a change in their behaviour. If we accept that a Designer designed us, and we see evidence for the intent of the design like reproduction, then interfering with gestation (abortion) or inserting a reproductive organ into an excrement orifice, become acts that go against the intent of the Design. You wouldn't use a blow dryer as a toothbrush would you?
> 
> In my many discussions with Materialists, I have come to the conclusion there are no true atheists, only folks that are incredibly angry with God. If they really weren't so mad at God, they would feel no need to go on their zealous rants trying to destroy others belief systems, crossing lines that have absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with HATE. They are like the cornered victim, who doesn't look at the direction of an approaching animal ready to attack, thinking "If I don't look at him maybe he will go away". Your DNA is programmed to seek the Designer. Every culture, even the most remote, have the concept of the Creator. To become a materialists requires some serious denial.
Click to expand...


I think many of us have yet to see evidence that ID really is science.  Too often it seems that ID boils down to, "Well, when WE create something this is how it acts.  Since these things in nature act in the same or similar ways, and since our intelligence is behind our creations, there must be an intelligence which created the things in nature.".  That isn't compelling to me.

I also think it is telling that you've come to the conclusion EVERYONE believes in god.  That is absolutely ridiculous on multiple levels.  It assumes a monotheistic belief, after assuming there must be some belief to begin with.  Just because you believe in god, just because someone dislikes your or all religion, in no way means they, too, believe in god.

You can feel free to provide evidence of how DNA is programmed to 'seek the creator'.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned before, I don&#8217;t think evolution can explain _where _exactly life came from, how it started (from &#8220;nothingness&#8221, and why everything exists in the first place. But I still think evolution can explain a lot of the variations of life within our planet (in my opinion). That said&#8230;
> 
> Just to clarify: (1) do &#8220;creationists&#8221; believe that a god created everything in one swoop, many ages ago, and everything kind of remained the same throughout time (ie humans were present at the creation of the universe)? Or can a creationist believe that god created a universe, and then various forms of life evolved from one another over time?
> 
> Also, (2) do &#8220;creationists&#8221; (in the context of this specific discussion here) believe that it was the _Judeo/Christian God_ &#8211; specifically &#8211; who created everything (as described by the Old Testament/New Testament), or simply &#8220;a god&#8221; or some all powerful (yet undefined) figure/being?
> 
> 
> I've always been confused on what a "creationist" specifically believes, and hopefully one of you could shed some light...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Creationist, so I cannot comment on what tennants are assumed to fall under that label. I assume they are referring to someone who believes in a literal seven 24-hour creation as outlined in the book of Genesis. As an ID proponent, I believe the scientific discussions of origins can not include religious thought. For me personally, I believe the Designer is the Judeo Christian God, but that is my religious opinion, not a scientific one. The problem with many on this forum is they like to play the came of mixing science with religion. ID theory is purely from a scientific standpoint. The attackers love to mix ID and Creationism as they whine ID is not science. If we do not involve God in the conversation, keeping it purely to observable phenomena, Darwinists accuse us of having a hidden agenda and trying to inject religion covertly. If we acknowledge God, then the scream we are not scientific. The preverbial damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. ID Theorists believe that a Being who exists outside of space, time, matter and energy is reponsible for the big bang and the "creation" of the something we know as the cosmos out of nothing. They also believe that throughout history, i.e. from the beginning of the bang 13.7 Billion years ago, that Intelligent Agent has acted to engineer new life forms on our planet. This theory does lend itself to Theism, in which God acts within the cosmos, as opposed to Deism, which claims God set everything in motion and walked away. New discoveries daily in the Genetic realm continue to rock the foundations of Neo Darwinists thought and are more likely explainable by an Intelligent agent acting at specific times in history, ie, the Cambrian explosion for example. Take Homo Sapien for instance. He/she appears very suddenly on the planet, with most fossil evidence at best dating back 15,000 to 20,000 years (I'm talking about SOLID evidence, not tiny skull pieces extrapolated with clay into an homo sapien cranium). So I do believe in the Creation story, I just don't believe in a literal seven 24-hour period creation. Moses is generally credited with being the author of Genesis. Prior to that time, the Creation story was handed down by an oral tradition. I think the Israelites at the time knew it was not a literal story, although a small faction of modern Christians cling to the 7day CReation in light of a mountain of scientific evidence against it. Even though I am not a literal Creationists, I think it is funny they are accused of the "God of the gaps" thinking when the theory of evolution continues to make up a mountain of BS to fill in the gaps, when daily discoveries poke holes in the theory!! The TOE has become a breeding ground, as an angry DAWS101 proves above, for materialist hell bent on irradicating God from our current thought, and they do so to their own detriment. They are really  very angry and arrogant, a really bad combo. They deny God in arrogance, and pretend that the TOE has an answer for everything. Real Scientists know it doesn't!! But to accept God, would force a change in their behaviour. If we accept that a Designer designed us, and we see evidence for the intent of the design like reproduction, then interfering with gestation (abortion) or inserting a reproductive organ into an excrement orifice, become acts that go against the intent of the Design. You wouldn't use a blow dryer as a toothbrush would you?
> 
> In my many discussions with Materialists, I have come to the conclusion there are no true atheists, only folks that are incredibly angry with God. If they really weren't so mad at God, they would feel no need to go on their zealous rants trying to destroy others belief systems, crossing lines that have absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with HATE. They are like the cornered victim, who doesn't look at the direction of an approaching animal ready to attack, thinking "If I don't look at him maybe he will go away". Your DNA is programmed to seek the Designer. Every culture, even the most remote, have the concept of the Creator. To become a materialists requires some serious denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think many of us have yet to see evidence that ID really is science.  Too often it seems that ID boils down to, "Well, when WE create something this is how it acts.  Since these things in nature act in the same or similar ways, and since our intelligence is behind our creations, there must be an intelligence which created the things in nature.".  That isn't compelling to me.
> 
> I also think it is telling that you've come to the conclusion EVERYONE believes in god.  That is absolutely ridiculous on multiple levels.  It assumes a monotheistic belief, after assuming there must be some belief to begin with.  Just because you believe in god, just because someone dislikes your or all religion, in no way means they, too, believe in god.
> 
> You can feel free to provide evidence of how DNA is programmed to 'seek the creator'.
Click to expand...


It really goes something like "Using Darwin's scientific method, which is studying the present to learn about the distance past, everywhere we find functional, ie, digital code in the present, it ALWAYS comes from an intelligent source, not from random generation. Therefore, the best explanation for digital code in DNA is not a random process, which we have ZERO evidence for, but the best explanation for the digital code in DNA is an intelligent agent."

Isolated cultures is the only evidence I have for humans always believing in a higher power. But now that you brought it up, how about some modern day evidence of natural selection in action IN NATURE producing VERTICAL change.  Please don't cite examples of adaptation but actual evolution. Please don't supply examples that have resulted from influence by intelligent agents.

Even Darwin himself, when presented with this evidence below, would not have been ignorant enough to accept that his was the result of natural selection acting on random mutations...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqESR7E4b_8&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqESR7E4b_8&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

"Lets consider a few examples. To begin with, virtually all of the vast quantities of genetic material within our cells contains information that is highly specific and meaningful. Tanyan Barak and Murat Gunel (Yale University) studied a Turkish mental patient whose brain lacked some of the normal convolutions in his cerebral cortex. Genetic analysis of the part of his genome that determines brain structure revealed that out of 3 billion (total) base-pair letters, only two of the letters had been omitted. This mistake was the cause of his malformed brain and mental illness. One could then wonder whether consciousness is the result of unguided neo-Darwinistic evolutionary processes or whether the brain and the information coding for its formation exhibits intelligent design."

" Finally, consider Trilobites. These organisms have been extinct for 250 million years, but studies of their fossilized eyes reveal a lens made of two transparent materials: calcite and chitin, each having a different index of refraction. After passing through the calcite portion, the image must be corrected by the chitin portion in order to be sharply focused on the eyes photoreceptor cells. To design such a lens today, an optical engineer would have to apply Fermats principle, Abbes sine law, Snells laws of refraction and the optics of birefringent crystals. Is this an example of an unguided evolutionary process or an example of engineering design? Think about it and decide for yourself."

AITSE


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Four laughing smiley faces. Now those are the types of intelligent responses we have come to know and love from Darwinists. Insert face palm here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the reply fits the presentation....it has no vaildity..  as it is based on a bias an unprovable premise.
Click to expand...


Are you sure you don't mean Neo Darwinism ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

KevinWestern said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the whole thing. His entire premise is based on an argument from ignorance fallacy, that because we can't prove that abiogenesis happened (yet), god did it. This is not proof of god in any way. You can't look at a lack of evidence for any current theories in science and say god did it. That is not evidence. There is no direct evidence for an intelligent designer. Only a lack of evidence for abiogenesis. This is a god of gaps philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it a fallacy if your side has not proven life can spontaneously come into existence through a natural process ?
> 
> Listen carefully life can not come into existence on it's own with no direction if you believe such nonsense you require more faith to believe in that then i need to believe in the designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I mentioned before, I dont think evolution can explain _where _exactly life came from, how it started (from nothingness), and why everything exists in the first place. But I still think evolution can explain a lot of the variations of life within our planet (in my opinion). That said
> 
> Just to clarify: (1) do creationists believe that a god created everything in one swoop, many ages ago, and everything kind of remained the same throughout time (ie humans were present at the creation of the universe)? Or can a creationist believe that god created a universe, and then various forms of life evolved from one another over time?
> 
> Also, (2) do creationists (in the context of this specific discussion here) believe that it was the _Judeo/Christian God_  specifically  who created everything (as described by the Old Testament/New Testament), or simply a god or some all powerful (yet undefined) figure/being?
> 
> 
> I've always been confused on what a "creationist" specifically believes, and hopefully one of you could shed some light...
Click to expand...


Evolution theory is contrary to the scriptures.

God created each family of organisms with the ability to adapt if we try to go beyond those limits that breed or family can go extinct.

I believe many breeds within a family simply can happen over time because of the vast genepool. But i don't believe one family can evolve into a destinct new family.

I believe all offspring are the product of several generations of parents and grand parents genes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> laughter is the rebuttal..the ignorance gene is strong with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are very ignorant. Do you have an answer for my question yet I have given you plenty of time to answer it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have my answer.
Click to expand...


I never saw your answer.


----------



## KevinWestern

UltimateReality said:


> I am not a Creationist, so I cannot comment on what tennants are assumed to fall under that label. I assume they are referring to someone who believes in a literal seven 24-hour creation as outlined in the book of Genesis. As an ID proponent, I believe the scientific discussions of origins can not include religious thought. For me personally, I believe the Designer is the Judeo Christian God, but that is my religious opinion, not a scientific one. The problem with many on this forum is they like to play the came of mixing science with religion. ID theory is purely from a scientific standpoint. The attackers love to mix ID and Creationism as they whine ID is not science. If we do not involve God in the conversation, keeping it purely to observable phenomena, Darwinists accuse us of having a hidden agenda and trying to inject religion covertly. If we acknowledge God, then the scream we are not scientific. The preverbial damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. ID Theorists believe that a Being who exists outside of space, time, matter and energy is reponsible for the big bang and the "creation" of the something we know as the cosmos out of nothing. They also believe that throughout history, i.e. from the beginning of the bang 13.7 Billion years ago, that Intelligent Agent has acted to engineer new life forms on our planet. This theory does lend itself to Theism, in which God acts within the cosmos, as opposed to Deism, which claims God set everything in motion and walked away. New discoveries daily in the Genetic realm continue to rock the foundations of Neo Darwinists thought and are more likely explainable by an Intelligent agent acting at specific times in history, ie, the Cambrian explosion for example. Take Homo Sapien for instance. He/she appears very suddenly on the planet, with most fossil evidence at best dating back 15,000 to 20,000 years (I'm talking about SOLID evidence, not tiny skull pieces extrapolated with clay into an homo sapien cranium). So I do believe in the Creation story, I just don't believe in a literal seven 24-hour period creation. Moses is generally credited with being the author of Genesis. Prior to that time, the Creation story was handed down by an oral tradition. I think the Israelites at the time knew it was not a literal story, although a small faction of modern Christians cling to the 7day CReation in light of a mountain of scientific evidence against it. Even though I am not a literal Creationists, I think it is funny they are accused of the "God of the gaps" thinking when the theory of evolution continues to make up a mountain of BS to fill in the gaps, when daily discoveries poke holes in the theory!! The TOE has become a breeding ground, as an angry DAWS101 proves above, for materialist hell bent on irradicating God from our current thought, and they do so to their own detriment. They are really  very angry and arrogant, a really bad combo. They deny God in arrogance, and pretend that the TOE has an answer for everything. Real Scientists know it doesn't!! But to accept God, would force a change in their behaviour. If we accept that a Designer designed us, and we see evidence for the intent of the design like reproduction, then interfering with gestation (abortion) or inserting a reproductive organ into an excrement orifice, become acts that go against the intent of the Design. You wouldn't use a blow dryer as a toothbrush would you?
> 
> In my many discussions with Materialists, I have come to the conclusion there are no true atheists, only folks that are incredibly angry with God. If they really weren't so mad at God, they would feel no need to go on their zealous rants trying to destroy others belief systems, crossing lines that have absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with HATE. They are like the cornered victim, who doesn't look at the direction of an approaching animal ready to attack, thinking "If I don't look at him maybe he will go away". Your DNA is programmed to seek the Designer. Every culture, even the most remote, have the concept of the Creator. To become a materialists requires some serious denial.



Thanks for the long and detailed response, and for elaborating on the difference between &#8216;Creationism&#8217; and &#8216;Intelligent Design&#8217;. Though I may not agree with all of it, it's a good and thoughtful response.

Regarding your Atheist comment, I disagree. Just as there are people who are absolutely certain that there exists a god, and are absolutely sure they know very specific things about that god (Christians, Muslims, Mormons), there exists people on the flipside who are absolutely certain that there _doesn&#8217;t _exist a god. And given the *extraordinarily limited scope of our collective knowledge* as human beings, I consider this *absolutism on both sides foolish* and border-lining on _arrogance_.  

As for me, I totally think it&#8217;s possible that a &#8216;designer&#8217; exists in some way. Personally, I tend to hold more of a &#8220;deist&#8221; view of things, where (if there exists a god), everything was set in motion by that being and then just &#8220;let loose&#8221; to a large degree, but I acknowledge that a &#8220;theist&#8221; approach is just as plausible. These types of things can&#8217;t be proven or dis-proven, so we all kind of just have to keep an open mind about it. I don't believe in a specific god, however I am open to the possibility of a god existing. 

Again, what I have a problem with is the absolutism. God created this or that in exactly seven days, then turned on the lights, then set a bush on fire, and there exists a heaven and a hell, and this is what you need to do to get to heaven, ect. How can one claim to know all of these types of things with such certainty, even in the face of _real life _evidence that points to the contrary? Just doesn't make sense to me...

I think our best approach to explaining the Universe should at least _start _with scientific roots, such as how you point out that humans seemed to have appeared very suddenly on the planet based on X evidence. From there, you can kind of build out your additional theories. But I say people should at least use reality (or what we can observe as reality) as the basis for the discussion, otherwise there's no purpose in discussing the first place because you're not going to get anywhere!
.
.
.
.


----------



## KevinWestern

Youwerecreated said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it a fallacy if your side has not proven life can spontaneously come into existence through a natural process ?
> 
> Listen carefully life can not come into existence on it's own with no direction if you believe such nonsense you require more faith to believe in that then i need to believe in the designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned before, I don&#8217;t think evolution can explain _where _exactly life came from, how it started (from &#8220;nothingness&#8221, and why everything exists in the first place. But I still think evolution can explain a lot of the variations of life within our planet (in my opinion). That said&#8230;
> 
> Just to clarify: (1) do &#8220;creationists&#8221; believe that a god created everything in one swoop, many ages ago, and everything kind of remained the same throughout time (ie humans were present at the creation of the universe)? Or can a creationist believe that god created a universe, and then various forms of life evolved from one another over time?
> 
> Also, (2) do &#8220;creationists&#8221; (in the context of this specific discussion here) believe that it was the _Judeo/Christian God_ &#8211; specifically &#8211; who created everything (as described by the Old Testament/New Testament), or simply &#8220;a god&#8221; or some all powerful (yet undefined) figure/being?
> 
> 
> I've always been confused on what a "creationist" specifically believes, and hopefully one of you could shed some light...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution theory is contrary to the scriptures.
> 
> God created each family of organisms with the ability to adapt if we try to go beyond those limits that breed or family can go extinct.
> 
> I believe many breeds within a family simply can happen over time because of the vast genepool. But i don't believe one family can evolve into a destinct new family.
> 
> I believe all offspring are the product of several generations of parents and grand parents genes.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the response. 

So is it fair to say that a &#8220;creationist&#8221; holds a much more _specific _view of how the universe was created (as you reference scripture) than say an &#8220;intelligent design&#8221; person?


----------



## UltimateReality

KevinWestern said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned before, I don&#8217;t think evolution can explain _where _exactly life came from, how it started (from &#8220;nothingness&#8221, and why everything exists in the first place. But I still think evolution can explain a lot of the variations of life within our planet (in my opinion). That said&#8230;
> 
> Just to clarify: (1) do &#8220;creationists&#8221; believe that a god created everything in one swoop, many ages ago, and everything kind of remained the same throughout time (ie humans were present at the creation of the universe)? Or can a creationist believe that god created a universe, and then various forms of life evolved from one another over time?
> 
> Also, (2) do &#8220;creationists&#8221; (in the context of this specific discussion here) believe that it was the _Judeo/Christian God_ &#8211; specifically &#8211; who created everything (as described by the Old Testament/New Testament), or simply &#8220;a god&#8221; or some all powerful (yet undefined) figure/being?
> 
> 
> I've always been confused on what a "creationist" specifically believes, and hopefully one of you could shed some light...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution theory is contrary to the scriptures.
> 
> God created each family of organisms with the ability to adapt if we try to go beyond those limits that breed or family can go extinct.
> 
> I believe many breeds within a family simply can happen over time because of the vast genepool. But i don't believe one family can evolve into a destinct new family.
> 
> I believe all offspring are the product of several generations of parents and grand parents genes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the response.
> 
> So is it fair to say that a &#8220;creationist&#8221; holds a much more _specific _view of how the universe was created (as you reference scripture) than say an &#8220;intelligent design&#8221; person?
Click to expand...


The premise of Intelligent Design is to furnish arguments for the existence of Designer, or designer with a small d, based purely on the scientific method. Although ID theory could have religious implications, in its pure form, it should not base any hypothesis on religious foundations, only pure observable phenomena. Now the haters love to try and mix Creationism and ID theory together in an attempt to discredit the science, but one is a religious argument and the other is a scientific argument. They ignore some of the very valid scientific arguments and use diversionary tactics, saying you are just trying to get religion into the schools and you are pushing your religion. As I explained before, there is no winning the argument either way with them. If you don't mention you believe God is the designer, they accuse you of a cover up. If you admit it, they accuse you of pushing religion and not science.

Other than theories, more than likely a larger portion of ID proponents time is spent calling out evolutionists on fudged data or forcing scientific discoveries to fit the TOE when there is absolutely no logical correlation that can be drawn without severe suspension of disbelief. They also defend those that have been persecuted in the scientific community simple because they asked the wrong questions, or wouldn't go along with the Darwinists party line. It is amazing to me that Evolutionists arrogantly act like they have the market cornered on "real" science when most of the great scientific discoveries in the last 3000 years were made by Theists. Newton, Lemaitre, Hubble, Mendel, and Eratosthenes come to mind. If you are interested in opposing veiwpoints, here are two great blogs...

Uncommon Descent | Serving The Intelligent Design Community

There are also some "lively" discussions that occur in the comment section of this blog.

This guy is great at pointing out how often Darwinists insert metaphysical concepts into their arguments while accusing IDers of not doing "real" science. The basis of his blog is that Darwinists are just as "religious" as Theists based on things they interject into their arguments. Although they love to deny it, Materialism is a world view just like Deism and Theism. Evolutionary thought is the basis of the Materialist world view which claims that matter is the only reality. 

Darwin's God


----------



## UltimateReality

"Personally, I think the *chimp-like to human conversion *would have to have taken many more years than any protein conversion, *if it happened at all*. A few years back Durrett and Schmidt published two papers in which they estimated how long it would take to get a single mutation, and then a second mutation to produce an eight base DNA binding site somewhere within a thousand base region near a gene. They stipulated that within the thousand base region there already was a sequence with six out of eight bases matching the target. The reason they chose to examine DNA binding sites? Many evolutionists think that evolution happens by changing gene expression, and changing gene expression most often requires changes to the regulatory regions around genes."


"Each trait requires multiple mutations to achieve a beneficial change. And many of the traits must occur together to be of any benefit. Take, for example, the changes required for upright bipedalism. Hips, legs, feet, spine, ribcage, skull all need to work together to allow free and efficient motion. All must be changed. But changing the hips before changing the angle of the legs would not be helpful. Changing to upright posture without lengthening the neck and setting the skull atop the spine would not work."

Full article here:

The Real Barrier to Unguided Human Evolution - Evolution News & Views


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is it so important for creationists to prove a god exists?
> since you folks claim to have the answer that everything is god's  work.
> if your faith is so strong no other proof should be necessary?
> why the urgency ? are you under a time constraint ?
> the the evil evolutionists are in no hurry...
> your belief system says the end is coming...some day...
> why not wait? if you are right, then everyone will know it and you can be as arrogant about it as you want.
> (you might piss off Jesus though)
> or could it be that the EVIL evolutionists might be on to something and it's eats at a place in the back of your mind like an Itch you can't scratch.
> or is it the terror of the idea that there is no god that makes you grasp at anything that promotes your pov,no matter how misguided or silly ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no arrogance here... only compassion for those who have been so gravely misled.
Click to expand...

 the answer alone is arrogant, it assumes that your belief is superior and some wrong doing has taken place, you have no proof of either.
do you have some sort of comprehension disability?
belief only proves belief,it is not evidence of the thing believed in.
in other words it's an opinion and opinions are like assholes everybody has one.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Four laughing smiley faces. Now those are the types of intelligent responses we have come to know and love from Darwinists. Insert face palm here.
> 
> 
> 
> the reply fits the presentation....it has no vaildity..  as it is based on a bias an unprovable premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure you don't mean Neo Darwinism ?
Click to expand...

I'm sure I don't ...even though you wish (like your belief) i DID!


----------



## Youwerecreated

KevinWestern said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned before, I dont think evolution can explain _where _exactly life came from, how it started (from nothingness), and why everything exists in the first place. But I still think evolution can explain a lot of the variations of life within our planet (in my opinion). That said
> 
> Just to clarify: (1) do creationists believe that a god created everything in one swoop, many ages ago, and everything kind of remained the same throughout time (ie humans were present at the creation of the universe)? Or can a creationist believe that god created a universe, and then various forms of life evolved from one another over time?
> 
> Also, (2) do creationists (in the context of this specific discussion here) believe that it was the _Judeo/Christian God_  specifically  who created everything (as described by the Old Testament/New Testament), or simply a god or some all powerful (yet undefined) figure/being?
> 
> 
> I've always been confused on what a "creationist" specifically believes, and hopefully one of you could shed some light...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution theory is contrary to the scriptures.
> 
> God created each family of organisms with the ability to adapt if we try to go beyond those limits that breed or family can go extinct.
> 
> I believe many breeds within a family simply can happen over time because of the vast genepool. But i don't believe one family can evolve into a destinct new family.
> 
> I believe all offspring are the product of several generations of parents and grand parents genes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the response.
> 
> So is it fair to say that a creationist holds a much more _specific _view of how the universe was created (as you reference scripture) than say an intelligent design person?
Click to expand...


In my view the intelligence that created life is God. I believe in some of the views of an ID person scientifically but I also disagree with some of their views. I believe in some of the views of creationism but I also disagree with some views of creationism. I believe life is older then what creationists say but much younger then the ID people believe. So I would be half and half.  God says according to the scriptures that a 1,000 years is a day to God that each day of creation took a thousand years.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the reply fits the presentation....it has no vaildity..  as it is based on a bias an unprovable premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure you don't mean Neo Darwinism ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure I don't ...even though you wish (like your belief) i DID!
Click to expand...


Well Neo is losing more and more credibility with more and more evidence being discovered.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution theory is contrary to the scriptures.
> 
> God created each family of organisms with the ability to adapt if we try to go beyond those limits that breed or family can go extinct.
> 
> I believe many breeds within a family simply can happen over time because of the vast genepool. But i don't believe one family can evolve into a destinct new family.
> 
> I believe all offspring are the product of several generations of parents and grand parents genes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the response.
> 
> So is it fair to say that a creationist holds a much more _specific _view of how the universe was created (as you reference scripture) than say an intelligent design person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my view the intelligence that created life is God. I believe in some of the views of an ID person scientifically but I also disagree with some of their views. I believe in some of the views of creationism but I also disagree with some views of creationism. I believe life is older then what creationists say but much younger then the ID people believe. So I would be half and half.  God says according to the scriptures that a 1,000 years is a day to God that each day of creation took a thousand years.
Click to expand...

you got that ass backwards.
the scriptures SAY that god said...either way it's wrong.
if anything, since the planet was spining faster in the past, days and nights were shorter.
which brings up the question of the moon..
it's been proven that the moon is moving away from the earth at a steady rate.
in your reader digest version of earth's existence, the moon would have to have been moving faster away from the earth then, slow down to be where it is now.


The Moon's orbit (its circular path around the Earth) is indeed getting larger, at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year. (The Moon's orbit has a radius of 384,000 km.) I wouldn't say that the Moon is getting closer to the Sun, specifically, though--it is getting farther from the Earth, so, when it's in the part of its orbit closest to the Sun, it's closer, but when it's in the part of its orbit farthest from the Sun, it's farther away. 

The reason for the increase is that the Moon raises tides on the Earth. Because the side of the Earth that faces the Moon is closer, it feels a stronger pull of gravity than the center of the Earth. Similarly, the part of the Earth facing away from the Moon feels less gravity than the center of the Earth. This effect stretches the Earth a bit, making it a little bit oblong. We call the parts that stick out "tidal bulges." The actual solid body of the Earth is distorted a few centimeters, but the most noticable effect is the tides raised on the ocean. 

Now, all mass exerts a gravitational force, and the tidal bulges on the Earth exert a gravitational pull on the Moon. Because the Earth rotates faster (once every 24 hours) than the Moon orbits (once every 27.3 days) the bulge tries to "speed up" the Moon, and pull it ahead in its orbit. The Moon is also pulling back on the tidal bulge of the Earth, slowing the Earth's rotation. Tidal friction, caused by the movement of the tidal bulge around the Earth, takes energy out of the Earth and puts it into the Moon's orbit, making the Moon's orbit bigger (but, a bit pardoxically, the Moon actually moves slower!). 

The Earth's rotation is slowing down because of this. One hundred years from now, the day will be 2 milliseconds longer than it is now. 

This same process took place billions of years ago--but the Moon was slowed down by the tides raised on it by the Earth. That's why the Moon always keeps the same face pointed toward the Earth. Because the Earth is so much larger than the Moon, this process, called tidal locking, took place very quickly, in a few tens of millions of years. 

Many physicists considered the effects of tides on the Earth-Moon system. However, George Howard Darwin (Charles Darwin's son) was the first person to work out, in a mathematical way, how the Moon's orbit would evolve due to tidal friction, in the late 19th century. He is usually credited with the invention of the modern theory of tidal evolution. 
Curious About Astronomy: Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure you don't mean Neo Darwinism ?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure I don't ...even though you wish (like your belief) i DID!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Neo is losing more and more credibility with more and more evidence being discovered.
Click to expand...

that's an odd statement, since your evidence is not evidence, and your source is bias and not objective it has no credibility to start with.
 also can't you tell when a post not directed to you?--asshat!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the response.
> 
> So is it fair to say that a creationist holds a much more _specific _view of how the universe was created (as you reference scripture) than say an intelligent design person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my view the intelligence that created life is God. I believe in some of the views of an ID person scientifically but I also disagree with some of their views. I believe in some of the views of creationism but I also disagree with some views of creationism. I believe life is older then what creationists say but much younger then the ID people believe. So I would be half and half.  God says according to the scriptures that a 1,000 years is a day to God that each day of creation took a thousand years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you got that ass backwards.
> the scriptures SAY that god said...either way it's wrong.
> if anything, since the planet was spining faster in the past, days and nights were shorter.
> which brings up the question of the moon..
> it's been proven that the moon is moving away from the earth at a steady rate.
> in your reader digest version of earth's existence, the moon would have to have been moving faster away from the earth then, slow down to be where it is now.
> 
> 
> The Moon's orbit (its circular path around the Earth) is indeed getting larger, at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year. (The Moon's orbit has a radius of 384,000 km.) I wouldn't say that the Moon is getting closer to the Sun, specifically, though--it is getting farther from the Earth, so, when it's in the part of its orbit closest to the Sun, it's closer, but when it's in the part of its orbit farthest from the Sun, it's farther away.
> 
> The reason for the increase is that the Moon raises tides on the Earth. Because the side of the Earth that faces the Moon is closer, it feels a stronger pull of gravity than the center of the Earth. Similarly, the part of the Earth facing away from the Moon feels less gravity than the center of the Earth. This effect stretches the Earth a bit, making it a little bit oblong. We call the parts that stick out "tidal bulges." The actual solid body of the Earth is distorted a few centimeters, but the most noticable effect is the tides raised on the ocean.
> 
> Now, all mass exerts a gravitational force, and the tidal bulges on the Earth exert a gravitational pull on the Moon. Because the Earth rotates faster (once every 24 hours) than the Moon orbits (once every 27.3 days) the bulge tries to "speed up" the Moon, and pull it ahead in its orbit. The Moon is also pulling back on the tidal bulge of the Earth, slowing the Earth's rotation. Tidal friction, caused by the movement of the tidal bulge around the Earth, takes energy out of the Earth and puts it into the Moon's orbit, making the Moon's orbit bigger (but, a bit pardoxically, the Moon actually moves slower!).
> 
> The Earth's rotation is slowing down because of this. One hundred years from now, the day will be 2 milliseconds longer than it is now.
> 
> This same process took place billions of years ago--but the Moon was slowed down by the tides raised on it by the Earth. That's why the Moon always keeps the same face pointed toward the Earth. Because the Earth is so much larger than the Moon, this process, called tidal locking, took place very quickly, in a few tens of millions of years.
> 
> Many physicists considered the effects of tides on the Earth-Moon system. However, George Howard Darwin (Charles Darwin's son) was the first person to work out, in a mathematical way, how the Moon's orbit would evolve due to tidal friction, in the late 19th century. He is usually credited with the invention of the modern theory of tidal evolution.
> Curious About Astronomy: Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered?
Click to expand...


I have what ass backwards ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure I don't ...even though you wish (like your belief) i DID!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Neo is losing more and more credibility with more and more evidence being discovered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's an odd statement, since your evidence is not evidence, and your source is bias and not objective it has no credibility to start with.
> also can't you tell when a post not directed to you?--asshat!
Click to expand...


You quoted me ,sometimes I respond to your idiotic and uneducated comments. I know your theory better then you and mine too.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my view the intelligence that created life is God. I believe in some of the views of an ID person scientifically but I also disagree with some of their views. I believe in some of the views of creationism but I also disagree with some views of creationism. I believe life is older then what creationists say but much younger then the ID people believe. So I would be half and half.  God says according to the scriptures that a 1,000 years is a day to God that each day of creation took a thousand years.
> 
> 
> 
> you got that ass backwards.
> the scriptures SAY that god said...either way it's wrong.
> if anything, since the planet was spining faster in the past, days and nights were shorter.
> which brings up the question of the moon..
> it's been proven that the moon is moving away from the earth at a steady rate.
> in your reader digest version of earth's existence, the moon would have to have been moving faster away from the earth then, slow down to be where it is now.
> 
> 
> The Moon's orbit (its circular path around the Earth) is indeed getting larger, at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year. (The Moon's orbit has a radius of 384,000 km.) I wouldn't say that the Moon is getting closer to the Sun, specifically, though--it is getting farther from the Earth, so, when it's in the part of its orbit closest to the Sun, it's closer, but when it's in the part of its orbit farthest from the Sun, it's farther away.
> 
> The reason for the increase is that the Moon raises tides on the Earth. Because the side of the Earth that faces the Moon is closer, it feels a stronger pull of gravity than the center of the Earth. Similarly, the part of the Earth facing away from the Moon feels less gravity than the center of the Earth. This effect stretches the Earth a bit, making it a little bit oblong. We call the parts that stick out "tidal bulges." The actual solid body of the Earth is distorted a few centimeters, but the most noticable effect is the tides raised on the ocean.
> 
> Now, all mass exerts a gravitational force, and the tidal bulges on the Earth exert a gravitational pull on the Moon. Because the Earth rotates faster (once every 24 hours) than the Moon orbits (once every 27.3 days) the bulge tries to "speed up" the Moon, and pull it ahead in its orbit. The Moon is also pulling back on the tidal bulge of the Earth, slowing the Earth's rotation. Tidal friction, caused by the movement of the tidal bulge around the Earth, takes energy out of the Earth and puts it into the Moon's orbit, making the Moon's orbit bigger (but, a bit pardoxically, the Moon actually moves slower!).
> 
> The Earth's rotation is slowing down because of this. One hundred years from now, the day will be 2 milliseconds longer than it is now.
> 
> This same process took place billions of years ago--but the Moon was slowed down by the tides raised on it by the Earth. That's why the Moon always keeps the same face pointed toward the Earth. Because the Earth is so much larger than the Moon, this process, called tidal locking, took place very quickly, in a few tens of millions of years.
> 
> Many physicists considered the effects of tides on the Earth-Moon system. However, George Howard Darwin (Charles Darwin's son) was the first person to work out, in a mathematical way, how the Moon's orbit would evolve due to tidal friction, in the late 19th century. He is usually credited with the invention of the modern theory of tidal evolution.
> Curious About Astronomy: Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have what ass backwards ?
Click to expand...

this ..."God says according to the scriptures"


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Neo is losing more and more credibility with more and more evidence being discovered.
> 
> 
> 
> that's an odd statement, since your evidence is not evidence, and your source is bias and not objective it has no credibility to start with.
> also can't you tell when a post not directed to you?--asshat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You quoted me ,sometimes I respond to your idiotic and uneducated comments. I know your theory better then you and mine too.
Click to expand...

that's false declaratory statement .
you as always have no evidence to base your bullshit on.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> this process, called tidal locking, took place very quickly, in a few tens of millions of years.



Ahhh, there you go with the assumptive language thinking no one would catch it. I'm sure what you meant to say was "scientist BELIEVE this process took place very quickly". Maybe your comprehension disability is getting the best of you. 

"belief only proves belief,it is not evidence of the thing believed in."

*I love how you completely failed to respond to the lack of evidence for unguided human evolution post*, rather choosing to engage in other logical fallacies. Did you notice how KevinWestern presented an opposing viewpoint with calm, intelligent speech, as well as respect for others viewpoints? Did you see how said respect illicited a very thoughtful and respectful response?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure I don't ...even though you wish (like your belief) i DID!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Neo is losing more and more credibility with more and more evidence being discovered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's an odd statement, since your evidence is not evidence, and your source is bias and not objective it has no credibility to start with.
> also can't you tell when a post not directed to you?--asshat!
Click to expand...


Here you go. You need this the most of anyone on here, regular offender of Ad Hominem, confirmation bias (all evolutionists love this one) and Begging the Question...

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/


----------



## UltimateReality

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=259r-iDckjQ&feature=player_embedded]Evolution is a Natural Process Running Backward - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Ahhhh, Creation. You won't want to miss this. To be enjoyed by Creationists and Darwinists alike...

MAke sure you go full screen...

Magnifying the Universe


----------



## UltimateReality

Reminds me of DAWS101...


"The earliest cells were unstable chemical systems that survived by combining a handful of shaky carbon-based assemblies together, researchers say."

How do &#8220;researchers&#8221; know that the earliest cells were unstable chemical systems that survived by combining a handful of shaky carbon-based assemblies together? They know no such thing. They just made it all up. All evidence suggests that the earliest cells must have been highly sophisticated information-processing systems. There is no known chemical or stochastic mechanism that can accomplish this task.

The most important point is to notice the rhetoric: The earliest cells *were*&#8230; This is a statement of certitude &#8212; essentially a *statement of fact*.

The title of the article referenced above is: How the first life on Earth struggled to survive. An honest title would be: *Yet more unsupported speculation about how the first life on Earth struggled to survive.*

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/utterly-unsupported-speculation-presented-as-fact/


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you got that ass backwards.
> the scriptures SAY that god said...either way it's wrong.
> if anything, since the planet was spining faster in the past, days and nights were shorter.
> which brings up the question of the moon..
> it's been proven that the moon is moving away from the earth at a steady rate.
> in your reader digest version of earth's existence, the moon would have to have been moving faster away from the earth then, slow down to be where it is now.
> 
> 
> The Moon's orbit (its circular path around the Earth) is indeed getting larger, at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year. (The Moon's orbit has a radius of 384,000 km.) I wouldn't say that the Moon is getting closer to the Sun, specifically, though--it is getting farther from the Earth, so, when it's in the part of its orbit closest to the Sun, it's closer, but when it's in the part of its orbit farthest from the Sun, it's farther away.
> 
> The reason for the increase is that the Moon raises tides on the Earth. Because the side of the Earth that faces the Moon is closer, it feels a stronger pull of gravity than the center of the Earth. Similarly, the part of the Earth facing away from the Moon feels less gravity than the center of the Earth. This effect stretches the Earth a bit, making it a little bit oblong. We call the parts that stick out "tidal bulges." The actual solid body of the Earth is distorted a few centimeters, but the most noticable effect is the tides raised on the ocean.
> 
> Now, all mass exerts a gravitational force, and the tidal bulges on the Earth exert a gravitational pull on the Moon. Because the Earth rotates faster (once every 24 hours) than the Moon orbits (once every 27.3 days) the bulge tries to "speed up" the Moon, and pull it ahead in its orbit. The Moon is also pulling back on the tidal bulge of the Earth, slowing the Earth's rotation. Tidal friction, caused by the movement of the tidal bulge around the Earth, takes energy out of the Earth and puts it into the Moon's orbit, making the Moon's orbit bigger (but, a bit pardoxically, the Moon actually moves slower!).
> 
> The Earth's rotation is slowing down because of this. One hundred years from now, the day will be 2 milliseconds longer than it is now.
> 
> This same process took place billions of years ago--but the Moon was slowed down by the tides raised on it by the Earth. That's why the Moon always keeps the same face pointed toward the Earth. Because the Earth is so much larger than the Moon, this process, called tidal locking, took place very quickly, in a few tens of millions of years.
> 
> Many physicists considered the effects of tides on the Earth-Moon system. However, George Howard Darwin (Charles Darwin's son) was the first person to work out, in a mathematical way, how the Moon's orbit would evolve due to tidal friction, in the late 19th century. He is usually credited with the invention of the modern theory of tidal evolution.
> Curious About Astronomy: Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have what ass backwards ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this ..."God says according to the scriptures"
Click to expand...


That is purposefully done so I don't put words in God's mouth. To make sure if there was a mistake in translation I am not speaking for God.

I have no reason to believe there are no mistakes except other then when translating from one language to another.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's an odd statement, since your evidence is not evidence, and your source is bias and not objective it has no credibility to start with.
> also can't you tell when a post not directed to you?--asshat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted me ,sometimes I respond to your idiotic and uneducated comments. I know your theory better then you and mine too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's false declaratory statement .
> you as always have no evidence to base your bullshit on.
Click to expand...


I have with the bible by pointing out that the bible had foreknowledge before certain things were known to science. So what would you like to discuss concerning your theory ?


----------



## Dr Grump

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted me ,sometimes I respond to your idiotic and uneducated comments. I know your theory better then you and mine too.
> 
> 
> 
> that's false declaratory statement .
> you as always have no evidence to base your bullshit on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have with the bible by pointing out that the bible had foreknowledge before certain things were known to science. So what would you like to discuss concerning your theory ?
Click to expand...


I call BS.
examples please...


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Evolution is a Natural Process Running Backward - YouTube



To much logic on here for some.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Dr Grump said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's false declaratory statement .
> you as always have no evidence to base your bullshit on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have with the bible by pointing out that the bible had foreknowledge before certain things were known to science. So what would you like to discuss concerning your theory ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call BS.
> examples please...
Click to expand...


101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge 

        Psalm 19:1-3  The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. 
Jeremiah 10:12  He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.

Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. 

Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts. That book is the Bible.
This booklet presents 101 scientific facts found in the Scriptures. Many of these facts were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece to the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator. How does this affect you? The last several pages provide the answer  you need to read them carefully.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  1.
The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.

Visit:
Modern Science In An Ancient (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.
Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Visit:
All About Atoms (Jefferson Lab)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.
The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.

Visit:
The Arks perfect dimensions (Answers In Genesis)
Safety investigation of Noahs Ark in a seaway (Answers In Genesis)
Noahs Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.
When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.

Visit:
-Why do I need to wash my hands? 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.
Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.
Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

Visit:
Springs of the Ocean (ICR)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.
There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

Visit:
Numerical Simulations Of Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8.
Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creators presence  in Your presence is fullness of joy (Psalm 16:11).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9.
Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.

Visit:
Life in the Blood (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.
The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe  namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.

Visit:
Things You May Not Know About Evolution (ICR)
Creation - Evolution (ICR)
Evolution and the Bible (ICR)
The Fossil Record: Intermediate Links (ChristianAnswers.net)
Archaeopteryx A Feathered Reptile? (ChristianAnswers.net)
The Ape-Man: Missing Link (ChristianAnswers.net)
Biological Evolution Darwin's Finches (ChristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11.
Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwins theory of the survival of the fittest.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12.
Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.

Visit:
What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg? (ICR)
The Egg/Chicken Conundrum (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13.
Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

Visit:
Things that are Made (ICR)
Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality (ICR)
Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories (ICR)
The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14.
Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.

Visit:
The elements of the periodic table sorted by their presence in human body. (Lenntech)
The Bible is a Textbook of Science (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.
The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16.
The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)Then God said, Let there be light (energy). No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17.
The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18.
The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.

Visit:
Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth 
Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19.
Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20.
Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow in the cloud as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets  which act as a prism  separating white light into its color spectrum.

Visit:
What causes a rainbow? (CristianAnswers.net)
The Rainbow And The Cloud (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago  God declared this four millennia ago!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22.
Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the paths of the seas. In the 19th century Matthew Maury  the father of oceanography  after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maurys data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23.
Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body, and that those who commit homosexual sin would receive in themselves the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.

Visit
Sex Habits Linked to Early Death, Disability (Fox News)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24.
Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25.
Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars  thats a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26.
The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along  He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27.
The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28.
Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.

Visit:
Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality (ICR)
Is Creation One of the Traditional Values? (ICR)
Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism (ICR)
Would China Benefit from Christianity? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29.
The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was Gods judgment on mans wickedness.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30.
Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.

Visit:
The Origin of Coal (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31.
The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent  just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

32.
Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the fountains of the great deep were broken up. This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.

Visit:
Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

33.
Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often  By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.

Visit:
Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

34.
Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

Visit:
Is the unborn human less than human? (CristianAnswers.net)
Cloning: Redefining When Life Begins Exposing Flaws in the Preembryo-Embryo Distinction (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

35.
God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an intricate unity in the womb.

Visit:
Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

36.
DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Visit:
Curiously Wrought (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

37.
God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

Visit:
One Blood: The biblical answer to racism (CristianAnswers.net) 
Where Did The Races Come From? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

38.
Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Visit:
Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR) 
On the Origin of Language (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39.
Origin of the different races explained (Genesis 11). As Noahs descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

Visit:
Where did the human races come from? (CristianAnswers.net)
Evolution and Modern Racism (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

40.
God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along  there are healing compounds found in plants.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

41.
Healthy dietary laws (Leviticus 11:9-12). Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales. We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

42.
The Bible warns against eating birds of prey (Leviticus 11:13-19). Scientists now recognize that those birds which eat carrion (putrefying flesh), often spread disease.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

43.
Avoid swine (Deuteronomy 14:8). Not so long ago, science learned that eating undercooked pork causes an infection of parasites called trichinosis. Now consider this: the Bible forbid the eating of swine more than 3,000 years before we learned how to cook pork safely.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. (NCBI)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44.
Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, Gods Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as Mother and naturalism is enshrined.

Visit:
Earth Day, Environmentalism, and the Bible (ICR)
The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
The Hyper-Environmentalists (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

45.
Black holes and dark matter anticipated (Matthew 25:30; Jude 1:13; Isaiah 50:3). Cosmologists now speculate that over 98% of the known universe is comprised of dark matter, with dark energy and black holes. A black holes gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls outer darkness or the blackness of darkness forever.

Visit:
The Outer Darkness (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

46.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God  resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is grow(ing) old like a garment (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ChrisitanAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

47.
Cains wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry  therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.

Visit:
Where did Cain get his wife? (CristianAnswers.net)
Cain's Wife: It Really Does Matter! (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48.
Incest laws established (Leviticus 18:6). To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common. Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice. The reason is simple  the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses day the genetic errors had swelled. Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed.

Visit:
The Blind Gunman (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

49.
Genetic mixing of different seeds forbidden (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9). The Bible warns against mixing seeds  as this will result in an inferior or dangerous crop. There is now growing evidence that unnatural, genetically engineered crops may be harmful.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

50.
Hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Jeremiah 10:13; Amos 9:6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man (Job 36:27-28). The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

51.
The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity  the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit  just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

52.
Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Visit:
Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day (Apologetics Press)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

53.
God has given us just the right amount of water to sustain life (Isaiah 40:12). We now recognize that if there was significantly more or less water, the earth would not support life as we know it.

Visit:
The Anthropic Principle: Is the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life? (ChristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

54.
The earth was designed for biological life (Isaiah 45:18). Scientists have discovered that the most fundamental characteristics of our earth and cosmos are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist. This is called the Anthropic Principle and it agrees with the Bible which states that God formed the earth to be inhabited.

Visit:
The Earth: Unique in All the Universe (ICR)
Design in Nature: The Anthropic Principle (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

55.
The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Eisntein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago  the universe is expanding!

Visit:
The Battle for the Cosmic Center (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

56.
Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, Gods life, created all life.

Visit:
Chemical Evolution: Spontaneous generation; Stanley Miller Experiment (ChristianAnswers.net)
Evolution is Biologically Impossible (ICR)
The Myth Of Chemical Evolution (ICR)
Virgil's Aeneid, by Chance Alone? (ICR)
The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

57.
Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).

Visit:
How did bad things come about? (CristianAnswers.net)
Extinction (ICR)
Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

58.
Light travels in a path (Job 38:19). Light is said to have a way [Hebrew: derek, literally a traveled path or road]. Until the 17th century it was believed that light was transmitted instantaneously. We now know that light is a form of energy that travels at ~186,000 miles per second in a straight line. Indeed, there is a way of light.

Visit:
Light travels in a path was foretold in the Bible hundreds of years before scientists discovered it (creationists.org)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

59.
Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established a weight for the wind. In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

60.
Jet stream anticipated (Ecclesiastes 1:6). At a time when it was thought that winds blew straight, the Bible declares The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit. King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago. Now consider this: it was not until World War II that airmen discovered the jet stream circuit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

61.
Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

62.
Each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the advent of the telescope, the Bible declared what only God and the angels knew  each star varies in size and intensity!

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

63.
The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing  electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send lightnings which indeed speak when they arrive.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

64.
Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, A merry heart does good, like medicine. For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.

Visit:
Benefits of Laughter (Personal-Development.com)
Humor and Laughter: Health Benefits and Online Sources (helpguide.org)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

65.
Intense sorrow or stress is harmful to your health (Proverbs 18:14; Mark 14:34). Researchers have studied individuals with no prior medical problems who showed symptoms of stress cardiomyopathy including chest pain, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, and even heart failure  following a stressful incident.

Visit:
The Physical Dangers of Stress (Fitness Article)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

66.
Microorganisms anticipated (Exodus 22:31). The Bible warns Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the LORD (Leviticus 22:8). Today we understand that a decaying carcass is full of disease causing germs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

67.
The Bible cautions against consuming fat (Leviticus 7:23). Only in recent decades has the medical community determined that fat clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

68.
Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:12). A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood. However, the Creator repeatedly told His people to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:20; 21:25). Of course, modern science reveals that consuming raw blood is dangerous.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

69.
The Bible describes dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24). In 1842, Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosaur, meaning terrible lizard, after discovering large reptilian-like fossils. However in the Book of Job, written 4,000 years earlier, God describes the behemoth as: the largest of all land creatures, plant eating (herbivore), with great strength in its hips and legs, powerful stomach muscles, a tail like a cedar tree, and bones like bars of iron. This is an accurate description of sauropods  the largest known dinosaur family.

Visit:
The Great Dinosaur Mystery (CristianAnswers.net)
How Do The Dinosaurs Fit In? (ICR)
Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood? (ICR)
Dragons in Paradise (ICR)
Leviathan (ICR)
Dinosaurs And The Bible (ICR)
Dinosaur Mania and Our Children (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

70.
Pleasure explained (Psalm 36:8). Evolution cannot explain pleasure  even the most complex chemicals do not experience bliss. However, the Bible states that God gives us richly all things to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17). Pleasure is a gift from God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

71.
Life is more than matter and energy (Genesis 2:7; Job 12:7-10). We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Even though its body may be perfectly intact, and air and energy are reintroduced to spark life, the body remains dead. Scripture agrees with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. Life cannot be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone  as evolutionists would lead us to believe.

Visit:
Breath And Spirit (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

72.
Origin of music explained (Psalm 40:3). Evolution cannot explain the origin of music. The Bible says that every good gift comes from God (James 1:17). This includes joyful melodies. God has given both man and angels the gift of music-making (Genesis 4:21; Ezekiel 28:13). Singing is intended to express rejoicing in and worship of the Lord (Job 38:7; Psalm 95:1-2).

Visit:
Music or Evolution
Musicevidence of creation (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

73.
Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with Gods Word.

Visit:
Ancient civilizations and modern man (Answers In Genesis)
The mystery of ancient man (Answers In Genesis)
Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

74.
Cavemen described in the Bible (Job 30:1-8). Four thousand years ago, Job describes certain vile men who were driven from society to forage among the bushes for survival and who live in the clefts of the valleys, (and) in caves of the earth and the rocks. Therefore cavemen were simply outcasts and vagabounds  not our primitive ancestors as evolutionists speculate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

75.
Environmental devastation of the planet foreseen (Revelation 11:18). Though evolution imagines that things should be getting better, the Bible foresaw what is really occurring today: pollution, destruction and corrupt dominion.

Visit:
Creation and the Environment (ICR)
The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

76.
The seed of a plant contains its life (Genesis 1:11; 29). As stated in the Book of Genesis, we now recognize that inside the humble seed is life itself. Within the seed is a tiny factory of amazing complexity. No scientist can build a synthetic seed and no seed is simple!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

77.
A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells give their lives to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

78.
The order of creation agrees with true science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v. 6), then soil (v. 9), and then He created plant life (v. 11).

Visit:
What is the order of events in the biblical Creation? (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

79.
God created lights in the heavens for signs and seasons, and for days and years (Genesis 1:14-16). We now know that a year is the time required for the earth to travel once around the sun. The seasons are caused by the changing position of the earth in relation to the sun. The moons phases follow one another in clock-like precision  constituting the lunar calendar Evolution teaches that the cosmos evolved by random chance, yet the Bible agrees with the observable evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

80.
The Bible speaks of heaven and the highest heavens (Deuteronomy 10:14). Long before the Hubble Space Telescope, Scripture spoke of the heaven of heavens and the third heaven (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Corinthians 12:2). We now know that the heavens consist of our immediate atmosphere and the vast reaches of outer space  as well as Gods wonderful abode.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

81.
Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him  pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

82.
Man is fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). We are only beginning to probe the complexity of the DNA molecule, the eye, the brain, and all the intricate components of life. No human invention compares to the marvelous wonders of Gods creation.

Visit:
Mankind- The Pinnacle of God's Creation (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

83.
Beauty understood (Genesis 1:31; 2:9; Job 40:10; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Matthew 6:28-30). Beauty surrounds us: radiant sunsets, majestic mountains, brightly colored flowers, glowing gems, soothing foliage, brilliantly adorned birds, etc. Beauty is a mystery to the evolutionist. However, Scripture reveals that God creates beautiful things for our benefit and His glory.

Visit:
Beauty (oldpaths.com)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

84.
Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Physicists do not understand what binds the atoms nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that all things consist  or are held together by the Creator  Jesus Christ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

85.
Atomic fission anticipated (2 Peter 3:10-12). Scripture states that the elements will melt with fervent heat when the earth and the heavens are dissolved by fire. Today we understand that if the elements of the atom are loosed, there would be an enormous release of heat and energy (radiation).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

86.
The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

87.
Safe drinking water (Leviticus 11:33-36). God forbade drinking from vessels or stagnant water that had been contaminated by coming into contact with a dead animal. It is only in the last 100 years that medical science has learned that contaminated water can cause typhoid and cholera.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

88.
Pest control (Leviticus 25:1-24). Farmers are plagued today with insects. Yet God gave a sure-fire remedy to control pests centuries ago. Moses commanded Israel to set aside one year in seven when no crops were raised. Insects winter in the stalks of last years harvest, hatch in the spring, and are perpetuated by laying eggs in the new crop. If the crop is denied one year in seven, the pests have nothing to subsist upon, and are thereby controlled.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

89.
Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if Gods commands were followed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

90.
Animal instincts understood (Job 39; Proverbs 30:24-28; Jeremiah 8:7). A newly hatched spider weaves an intricate web without being taught. A recently emerged butterfly somehow knows to navigate a 2,500-mile migration route without a guide. God explains that He has endowed each creature with specific knowledge. Scripture, not evolution, explains animal instincts.

Visit:
Instinct, Wise Behavior, Unlearned Knowledge And Abilities (oldpaths.com)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

91.
Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in Gods image.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

92.
Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science). True science agrees with the Creators Word.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

93.
Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews  which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.

Visit:
DNA Evidence And The Book Of Mormon (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

94.
Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

95.
Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, Gods Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.

Visit:
Is Man a "Higher" Animal? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

96.
The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donors character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

97.
The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted  introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98.
Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die  The soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of Gods Law. To see if you will die, please review Gods Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then youre an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creators name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy  and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99.
Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death  which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100.
Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person  free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

101.
The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away (Revelation 21:4).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bible is inspired by the Creator. Therefore it is no surprise that lifes ultimate questions are answered within its pages. The Bible reveals the purpose of our existence. Scripture alone explains where our conscience came from. And no other source explains the root cause of death. Seeing that all die, wouldnt it be wise to search for the remedy in the only book that proves it was inspired by God? The Bible offers the only remedy for sin, suffering, and death. Gods Word presents the only perfect, sinless Savior  one who died for our sins and rose from the dead. Jesus is the Creator (John 1; Colossians 1). He said I and My Father are one (John 10:30). He said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:6). And He promises His followers: I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish (John 10:28). Your eternal destiny will be determined by your choice. There is only one provision for sin. Jesus died in your place. Only by faith in Christs finished work will you be saved. This is Gods free gift offered to all. Please do not let pride, religion, opinions, or love for sin separate you from God. No sin is worth an eternity in hell. Please heed Jesus words  Repent, and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15). If you do, you will live in heaven with our awesome Creator forever!



Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge


----------



## KevinWestern

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted me ,sometimes I respond to your idiotic and uneducated comments. I know your theory better then you and mine too.
> 
> 
> 
> that's false declaratory statement .
> you as always have no evidence to base your bullshit on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have with the bible by pointing out that the bible had foreknowledge before certain things were known to science. So what would you like to discuss concerning your theory ?
Click to expand...


With all due respect, I don't think the Bible constitutes as "evidence".

If we were to accept Biblical passages as evidence, wouldn't we have to then accept the creation stories of all each of the world's religions as well, under that precedent?


----------



## Youwerecreated

KevinWestern said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's false declaratory statement .
> you as always have no evidence to base your bullshit on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have with the bible by pointing out that the bible had foreknowledge before certain things were known to science. So what would you like to discuss concerning your theory ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect, I don't think the Bible constitutes as "evidence".
> 
> If we were to accept Biblical passages as evidence, wouldn't we have to then accept the creation stories of all each of the world's religions as well, under that precedent?
Click to expand...


No, there are no holy writings that compares to the information given in the bible that has been confirmed through modern day science. There is much evidence the bible was inspired by the creator by giving knowledge that was not known to man at the time of the writings.


----------



## KevinWestern

Youwerecreated said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have with the bible by pointing out that the bible had foreknowledge before certain things were known to science. So what would you like to discuss concerning your theory ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, I don't think the Bible constitutes as "evidence".
> 
> If we were to accept Biblical passages as evidence, wouldn't we have to then accept the creation stories of all each of the world's religions as well, under that precedent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there are no holy writings that compares to the information given in the bible that has been confirmed through modern day science. There is much evidence the bible was inspired by the creator by giving knowledge that was not known to man at the time of the writings.
Click to expand...


Would you be able to provide some specific examples, just for the sake of the argument?


----------



## Youwerecreated

KevinWestern said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, I don't think the Bible constitutes as "evidence".
> 
> If we were to accept Biblical passages as evidence, wouldn't we have to then accept the creation stories of all each of the world's religions as well, under that precedent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there are no holy writings that compares to the information given in the bible that has been confirmed through modern day science. There is much evidence the bible was inspired by the creator by giving knowledge that was not known to man at the time of the writings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you be able to provide some specific examples, just for the sake of the argument?
Click to expand...


Blood is the source of life and health.

Oceans containing springs.

When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water.

There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor.

Which came first, proteins or DNA.

Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health.

DNA anticipated.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God  resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is grow(ing) old like a garment (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.


Medical quarantine instituted.

Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in Gods image.

Pseudo-science anticipated .

You can quickly look at what was posted earlier for further explanation.


----------



## KevinWestern

Youwerecreated said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there are no holy writings that compares to the information given in the bible that has been confirmed through modern day science. There is much evidence the bible was inspired by the creator by giving knowledge that was not known to man at the time of the writings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be able to provide some specific examples, just for the sake of the argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blood is the source of life and health.
> 
> Oceans containing springs.
> 
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water.
> 
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor.
> 
> Which came first, proteins or DNA.
> 
> Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health.
> 
> DNA anticipated.
> 
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God &#8211; resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is &#8220;grow(ing) old like a garment&#8221; (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.
> 
> 
> Medical quarantine instituted.
> 
> Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in God&#8217;s image.
> 
> Pseudo-science anticipated .
> 
> You can quickly look at what was posted earlier for further explanation.
Click to expand...


Interesting, indeed, but it's still not a wholly convincing argument (in my opinion). I mean, the Egyptians seemed to know things way beyond their years (as did other cultures like the Mayans), so d*o you take their creation stories literally too*? You know what I mean?

As a side note I don't think we give the ancient peoples (from all around the globe) enough credit sometimes, as a whole, but that's a different topic...

Also, Animals do have consciences. Here's proof:

Guilty Dog


----------



## Montrovant

Argh!

YWC, posting that same huge wall of text *again*?  Do you not care, or are you being intentionally rude, or have you forgotten discussing the rudeness of doing it?


----------



## UltimateReality

KevinWestern said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's false declaratory statement .
> you as always have no evidence to base your bullshit on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have with the bible by pointing out that the bible had foreknowledge before certain things were known to science. So what would you like to discuss concerning your theory ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect, I don't think the Bible constitutes as "evidence".
> 
> If we were to accept Biblical passages as evidence, wouldn't we have to then accept the creation stories of all each of the world's religions as well, under that precedent?
Click to expand...


I would say that within certain contexts, the Bible should absolutely be taken as evidence. It is every bit as valid as any other historical document, although for some reason, it is the most persecuted historical document. No one really questions who the author of the Illiad and the Odyssey is or when it was written and the time difference between when it is widely accepted to be written and the oldest known manuscript is much longer than the same time period for many of the books of the Bible. The Bible is an assembly of 66 different books, written by real men to real people at real times in history. It is amazing that all the books rarely contradict each other. Lest you say that it was manipulated post writing, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed what many had known and that is the copies were dead on and had not been manipulated in thousands of years.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Argh!
> 
> YWC, posting that same huge wall of text *again*?  Do you not care, or are you being intentionally rude, or have you forgotten discussing the rudeness of doing it?



Actually, I had never seen that before and read the whole thing. So I guess it all depends on your perspective.


----------



## UltimateReality

I have another curious quote from the Bible, that up until recently, was not substantiated. 

1 Corinthians 2:7 (NIV)
No, we declare God&#8217;s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory *before time began*.

Stephen Hawkins has theorized that even time began at the big bang. Before the bang, time did not exist. Prior to this, the majority of scientists accepted that time was infinite backwards and forwards.


----------



## KevinWestern

UltimateReality said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have with the bible by pointing out that the bible had foreknowledge before certain things were known to science. So what would you like to discuss concerning your theory ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, I don't think the Bible constitutes as "evidence".
> 
> If we were to accept Biblical passages as evidence, wouldn't we have to then accept the creation stories of all each of the world's religions as well, under that precedent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say that within certain contexts, the Bible should absolutely be taken as evidence. It is every bit as valid as any other historical document, although for some reason, it is the most persecuted historical document. No one really questions who the author of the Illiad and the Odyssey is or when it was written and the time difference between when it is widely accepted to be written and the oldest known manuscript is much longer than the same time period for many of the books of the Bible. The Bible is an assembly of 66 different books, written by real men to real people at real times in history. It is amazing that all the books rarely contradict each other. Lest you say that it was manipulated post writing, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed what many had known and that is the copies were dead on and had not been manipulated in thousands of years.
Click to expand...


Sure, the Bible can be used as a historical document (just like any other) to describe how that culture functioned, operated, ect, on a day to day basis, but when we enter into the realm of science (such as explaining how old the earth is) I don't think that the document holds much ground. Just because 60 authors in 589 AD - for example - said that the earth was flat doesn't make that assertion true. What it does tell us is what those people at that time _thought at the time to be true_, but doesn't hold up as "scientific evidence" in explaining the earth's origins today, via modern methods. 

Do you know what I mean?
.
.
.


----------



## KevinWestern

UltimateReality said:


> I have another curious quote from the Bible, that up until recently, was not substantiated.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 2:7 (NIV)
> No, we declare Gods wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory *before time began*.
> 
> Stephen Hawkins has theorized that even time began at the big bang. Before the bang, time did not exist. Prior to this, the majority of scientists accepted that time was infinite backwards and forwards.




Ah, a bit of a stretch here (actually a really big stretch). Sounds to me like the orator was simply stating that God is timeless, existing before history, before time, ect, and wasn't trying to make a scientific assertion here. 

It sounds to me like it was a figure of speech.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Argh!
> 
> YWC, posting that same huge wall of text *again*?  Do you not care, or are you being intentionally rude, or have you forgotten discussing the rudeness of doing it?



I guess i should have just posted the link.


----------



## Youwerecreated

KevinWestern said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have another curious quote from the Bible, that up until recently, was not substantiated.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 2:7 (NIV)
> No, we declare Gods wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory *before time began*.
> 
> Stephen Hawkins has theorized that even time began at the big bang. Before the bang, time did not exist. Prior to this, the majority of scientists accepted that time was infinite backwards and forwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, a bit of a stretch here (actually a really big stretch). Sounds to me like the orator was simply stating that God is timeless, existing before history, before time, ect, and wasn't trying to make a scientific assertion here.
> 
> It sounds to me like it was a figure of speech.
Click to expand...


According to man time began with the universe so if the universe had a beginning where did all the matter come from for the big bang ? If there was nothing before the big bang what caused the big bang ?

We are talking about a being that lives outside of time.

The scriptures say God spoke everything into existence. Man can't test God or his method of creation that is why they have no explanation for the origins of life they can only test what exists at this time.

We have the bible that is in line with many findings in modern day science and the writings were written down before man possessed the knowledge. Is that coicedence or evidence that the bible was inspired by the one whom created all things ?

The big question is how would one create something from nothing there is only one explanation for this question.


----------



## KevinWestern

Youwerecreated said:


> We have the bible that is in line with many findings in modern day science and the writings were written down before man possessed the knowledge. Is that coicedence or evidence that the bible was inspired by the one whom created all things ?



But just as I mentioned before, the Mayans and Egyptians - for example - are two examples of non-Christian cultures who also possessed knowledge seemingly way beyond their time; do you take their creation stories literally as well? And if not, why not? Why put all your coins in the Christian barrel? 





Youwerecreated said:


> The big question is how would one create something from nothing there is only one explanation for this question.



I don't know. In fact, no one has that answer. As I mentioned, there certainly could exist a god. As for the specifics about that god, how am I supposed to know? Why should I trust the Christian texts over any of the other ones?


----------



## Youwerecreated

KevinWestern said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the bible that is in line with many findings in modern day science and the writings were written down before man possessed the knowledge. Is that coicedence or evidence that the bible was inspired by the one whom created all things ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But just as I mentioned before, the Mayans and Egyptians - for example - are two examples of non-Christian cultures who also possessed knowledge seemingly way beyond their time; do you take their creation stories literally as well? And if not, why not? Why put all your coins in the Christian barrel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big question is how would one create something from nothing there is only one explanation for this question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. In fact, no one has that answer. As I mentioned, there certainly could exist a god. As for the specifics about that god, how am I supposed to know? Why should I trust the Christian texts over any of the other ones?
Click to expand...


Well the Egyptians and Mayans had knowledge of building and astronomy but still nothing that compares to the information in the bible. Egyptians believed they were Gods and would enter the after world. As far as we know when you are dead you are dead thats what the bible also say's.

The Mayans made a huge prediction and if we live beyond 2012 you can dismiss them to. But no i don't believe in the Egyptian gods nor whatever the Mayans believed in. I have no reason after studying the bible for over 40 years.


----------



## KevinWestern

Youwerecreated said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the bible that is in line with many findings in modern day science and the writings were written down before man possessed the knowledge. Is that coicedence or evidence that the bible was inspired by the one whom created all things ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But just as I mentioned before, the Mayans and Egyptians - for example - are two examples of non-Christian cultures who also possessed knowledge seemingly way beyond their time; do you take their creation stories literally as well? And if not, why not? Why put all your coins in the Christian barrel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big question is how would one create something from nothing there is only one explanation for this question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. In fact, no one has that answer. As I mentioned, there certainly could exist a god. As for the specifics about that god, how am I supposed to know? Why should I trust the Christian texts over any of the other ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the Egyptians and Mayans had knowledge of building and astronomy but still nothing that compares to the information in the bible. Egyptians believed they were Gods and would enter the after world. As far as we know when you are dead you are dead thats what the bible also say's.
> 
> The Mayans made a huge prediction and if we live beyond 2012 you can dismiss them to. But no i don't believe in the Egyptian gods nor whatever the Mayans believed in. I have no reason after studying the bible for over 40 years.
Click to expand...


I just need to correct you in that the Mayans DID NOT predict the end of the world in 2012; that is just a poor interpretation of the Mayan's "long count" calendar by modern man. 

_You want to know why the Mayan calendar is so amazing?_

It&#8217;s about 12,000 years long (I don&#8217;t know exact length though) and was broken into 5 sections. Each section, starting with the first, is shorter than the one preceding it. And the theory goes that as human life enters the shorter and shorter &#8220;sections&#8221; of the calendar, it will evolve and change at an increasingly more rapid pace. 

We are now living in the final 125 years of that long count calendar (the first section was about 5,000 years in length). Think about how rapidly humans and technology have evolved in the past 125 years.

Coincidence? Awesome guess on the part of the Mayans *12,000 years ago*? 

That's a lot more incredible than the bible saying that the "oceans contain springs", if you ask me.....

What do you think?

.
.
.


----------



## Bill Angel

Youwerecreated said:


> We are talking about a being that lives outside of time.
> 
> The scriptures say God spoke everything into existence. Man can't test God or his method of creation that is why they have no explanation for the origins of life they can only test what exists at this time.
> 
> We have the bible that is in line with many findings in modern day science and the writings were written down before man possessed the knowledge. Is that coicedence or evidence that the bible was inspired by the one whom created all things ?
> 
> The big question is how would one create something from nothing there is only one explanation for this question.



Actually the universe could have been created from nothing, literally. 
An excellent book on this subject is "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss.
According to current cosmological theories, the universe could literally have been created from nothing, with no need for the intervention of a Creator to set the process in motion.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this process, called tidal locking, took place very quickly, in a few tens of millions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, there you go with the assumptive language thinking no one would catch it. I'm sure what you meant to say was "scientist BELIEVE this process took place very quickly". Maybe your comprehension disability is getting the best of you.
> 
> "belief only proves belief,it is not evidence of the thing believed in."
> 
> *I love how you completely failed to respond to the lack of evidence for unguided human evolution post*, rather choosing to engage in other logical fallacies. Did you notice how KevinWestern presented an opposing viewpoint with calm, intelligent speech, as well as respect for others viewpoints? Did you see how said respect illicited a very thoughtful and respectful response?
Click to expand...

this just sream's of desperation
since I'm not KevinWestern....  blow me !

as to this :this process, called tidal locking, took place very quickly, in a few tens of millions of years. [/quote] you reacted like a puppet..
even worse you're not even original..
and the this:  I'm sure what you meant to say was "scientist BELIEVE this process took place very quickly". and you talk about assumption....and you're not an arrogant dick head....is'nt lying a sin?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this process, called tidal locking, took place very quickly, in a few tens of millions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, there you go with the assumptive language thinking no one would catch it. I'm sure what you meant to say was "scientist BELIEVE this process took place very quickly". Maybe your comprehension disability is getting the best of you.
> 
> "belief only proves belief,it is not evidence of the thing believed in."
> 
> *I love how you completely failed to respond to the lack of evidence for unguided human evolution post*, rather choosing to engage in other logical fallacies. Did you notice how KevinWestern presented an opposing viewpoint with calm, intelligent speech, as well as respect for others viewpoints? Did you see how said respect illicited a very thoughtful and respectful response?this just sream's of desperation
> since I'm not KevinWestern....  blow me !
> 
> as to this :this process, called tidal locking, took place very quickly, in a few tens of millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you reacted like a puppet..
> even worse you're not even original..
> and the this:  I'm sure what you meant to say was "scientist BELIEVE this process took place very quickly". and you talk about assumption....and you're not an arrogant dick head....is'nt lying a sin?
Click to expand...


Please refrain from consuming large amounts of alcohol before posting. Come back when you are sober.


----------



## Youwerecreated

KevinWestern said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> But just as I mentioned before, the Mayans and Egyptians - for example - are two examples of non-Christian cultures who also possessed knowledge seemingly way beyond their time; do you take their creation stories literally as well? And if not, why not? Why put all your coins in the Christian barrel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. In fact, no one has that answer. As I mentioned, there certainly could exist a god. As for the specifics about that god, how am I supposed to know? Why should I trust the Christian texts over any of the other ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Egyptians and Mayans had knowledge of building and astronomy but still nothing that compares to the information in the bible. Egyptians believed they were Gods and would enter the after world. As far as we know when you are dead you are dead thats what the bible also say's.
> 
> The Mayans made a huge prediction and if we live beyond 2012 you can dismiss them to. But no i don't believe in the Egyptian gods nor whatever the Mayans believed in. I have no reason after studying the bible for over 40 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just need to correct you in that the Mayans DID NOT predict the end of the world in 2012; that is just a poor interpretation of the Mayan's "long count" calendar by modern man.
> 
> _You want to know why the Mayan calendar is so amazing?_
> 
> Its about 12,000 years long (I dont know exact length though) and was broken into 5 sections. Each section, starting with the first, is shorter than the one preceding it. And the theory goes that as human life enters the shorter and shorter sections of the calendar, it will evolve and change at an increasingly more rapid pace.
> 
> We are now living in the final 125 years of that long count calendar (the first section was about 5,000 years in length). Think about how rapidly humans and technology have evolved in the past 125 years.
> 
> Coincidence? Awesome guess on the part of the Mayans *12,000 years ago*?
> 
> That's a lot more incredible than the bible saying that the "oceans contain springs", if you ask me.....
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> .
> .
> .
Click to expand...


What they predicted was a cataclysmic event that would be rough for the survival of all living things.

I respectfully disagree with you. I have watched many documentaries about the Mayans there seems to be disagreement between different groups concerning the views on the Mayans.

The Mayans also have carvings and drawings of dinosaurs that they supposedly never saw because according to evolurionist they went extinct long before humans were around. And they are accurate drawings of dinosaurs we have unearthed just in the last few centuries.

So did Mayans and many other cultures see dinosaurs before they went extinct ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Bill Angel said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about a being that lives outside of time.
> 
> The scriptures say God spoke everything into existence. Man can't test God or his method of creation that is why they have no explanation for the origins of life they can only test what exists at this time.
> 
> We have the bible that is in line with many findings in modern day science and the writings were written down before man possessed the knowledge. Is that coicedence or evidence that the bible was inspired by the one whom created all things ?
> 
> The big question is how would one create something from nothing there is only one explanation for this question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the universe could have been created from nothing, literally.
> An excellent book on this subject is "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss.
> According to current cosmological theories, the universe could literally have been created from nothing, with no need for the intervention of a Creator to set the process in motion.
Click to expand...


Sorry I don't buy it you can't create anything from nothing it is beyond mans ability and even a natural process's ability.

Everything exists because of matter if there was no matter how could anything come into existence ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this process, called tidal locking, took place very quickly, in a few tens of millions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, there you go with the assumptive language thinking no one would catch it. I'm sure what you meant to say was "scientist BELIEVE this process took place very quickly". Maybe your comprehension disability is getting the best of you.
> 
> "belief only proves belief,it is not evidence of the thing believed in."
> 
> *I love how you completely failed to respond to the lack of evidence for unguided human evolution post*, rather choosing to engage in other logical fallacies. Did you notice how KevinWestern presented an opposing viewpoint with calm, intelligent speech, as well as respect for others viewpoints? Did you see how said respect illicited a very thoughtful and respectful response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this just sream's of desperation
> since I'm not KevinWestern....  blow me !
> 
> as to this :this process, called tidal locking, took place very quickly, in a few tens of millions of years.
Click to expand...

 you reacted like a puppet..
even worse you're not even original..
and the this:  I'm sure what you meant to say was "scientist BELIEVE this process took place very quickly". and you talk about assumption....and you're not an arrogant dick head....is'nt lying a sin?[/QUOTE]

Can you speak respectfully no one really takes you seriously. You are one of those I would say is on the fringe=Adjective.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, there you go with the assumptive language thinking no one would catch it. I'm sure what you meant to say was "scientist BELIEVE this process took place very quickly". Maybe your comprehension disability is getting the best of you.
> 
> "belief only proves belief,it is not evidence of the thing believed in."
> 
> *I love how you completely failed to respond to the lack of evidence for unguided human evolution post*, rather choosing to engage in other logical fallacies. Did you notice how KevinWestern presented an opposing viewpoint with calm, intelligent speech, as well as respect for others viewpoints? Did you see how said respect illicited a very thoughtful and respectful response?this just sream's of desperation
> since I'm not KevinWestern....  blow me !
> 
> as to this :this process, called tidal locking, took place very quickly, in a few tens of millions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> you reacted like a puppet..
> even worse you're not even original..
> and the this:  I'm sure what you meant to say was "scientist BELIEVE this process took place very quickly". and you talk about assumption....and you're not an arrogant dick head....is'nt lying a sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please refrain from consuming large amounts of alcohol before posting. Come back when you are sober.
Click to expand...

another false assumption ..but thanks for playing!


----------



## Montrovant

Is there a link or maybe a show you could name I could watch to see the Mayan dinosaur pictures?  That's something I'd like to see.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Egyptians and Mayans had knowledge of building and astronomy but still nothing that compares to the information in the bible. Egyptians believed they were Gods and would enter the after world. As far as we know when you are dead you are dead thats what the bible also say's.
> 
> The Mayans made a huge prediction and if we live beyond 2012 you can dismiss them to. But no i don't believe in the Egyptian gods nor whatever the Mayans believed in. I have no reason after studying the bible for over 40 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just need to correct you in that the Mayans DID NOT predict the end of the world in 2012; that is just a poor interpretation of the Mayan's "long count" calendar by modern man.
> 
> _You want to know why the Mayan calendar is so amazing?_
> 
> Its about 12,000 years long (I dont know exact length though) and was broken into 5 sections. Each section, starting with the first, is shorter than the one preceding it. And the theory goes that as human life enters the shorter and shorter sections of the calendar, it will evolve and change at an increasingly more rapid pace.
> 
> We are now living in the final 125 years of that long count calendar (the first section was about 5,000 years in length). Think about how rapidly humans and technology have evolved in the past 125 years.
> 
> Coincidence? Awesome guess on the part of the Mayans *12,000 years ago*?
> 
> That's a lot more incredible than the bible saying that the "oceans contain springs", if you ask me.....
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they predicted was a cataclysmic event that would be rough for the survival of all living things.
> 
> I respectfully disagree with you. I have watched many documentaries about the Mayans there seems to be disagreement between different groups concerning the views on the Mayans.
> 
> The Mayans also have carvings and drawings of dinosaurs that they supposedly never saw because according to evolurionist they went extinct long before humans were around. And they are accurate drawings of dinosaurs we have unearthed just in the last few centuries.
> 
> So did Mayans and many other cultures see dinosaurs before they went extinct ?
Click to expand...

mayans and dinosaurs? you gotta be fuccking kidding, but since you're ignorant enough to think that this:Thunderbirds - Answers in Genesis is a valid  Paleolithic source...too funny!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, there you go with the assumptive language thinking no one would catch it. I'm sure what you meant to say was "scientist BELIEVE this process took place very quickly". Maybe your comprehension disability is getting the best of you.
> 
> "belief only proves belief,it is not evidence of the thing believed in."
> 
> *I love how you completely failed to respond to the lack of evidence for unguided human evolution post*, rather choosing to engage in other logical fallacies. Did you notice how KevinWestern presented an opposing viewpoint with calm, intelligent speech, as well as respect for others viewpoints? Did you see how said respect illicited a very thoughtful and respectful response?
> 
> 
> 
> this just sream's of desperation
> since I'm not KevinWestern....  blow me !
> 
> as to this :this process, called tidal locking, took place very quickly, in a few tens of millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you reacted like a puppet..
> even worse you're not even original..
> and the this:  I'm sure what you meant to say was "scientist BELIEVE this process took place very quickly". and you talk about assumption....and you're not an arrogant dick head....is'nt lying a sin?
Click to expand...


Can you speak respectfully no one really takes you seriously. You are one of those I would say is on the fringe=Adjective.[/QUOTE]I have no respect and no patients with liars like you.  it's laughably ironic that you say I'm on the fringe!! got a mirror ?


----------



## Bill Angel

Youwerecreated said:


> Bill Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about a being that lives outside of time.
> 
> The scriptures say God spoke everything into existence. Man can't test God or his method of creation that is why they have no explanation for the origins of life they can only test what exists at this time.
> 
> We have the bible that is in line with many findings in modern day science and the writings were written down before man possessed the knowledge. Is that coicedence or evidence that the bible was inspired by the one whom created all things ?
> 
> The big question is how would one create something from nothing there is only one explanation for this question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the universe could have been created from nothing, literally.
> An excellent book on this subject is "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss.
> According to current cosmological theories, the universe could literally have been created from nothing, with no need for the intervention of a Creator to set the process in motion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't buy it you can't create anything from nothing it is beyond mans ability and even a natural process's ability.
> 
> Everything exists because of matter if there was no matter how could anything come into existence ?
Click to expand...


Because empty space isn't really empty... it is filled with "dark energy". When the universe started (in the Big Bang) matter spontanously emerged from this dark energy. Cosmologists believe that the universe is actually composed of 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter, and only about 5% of matter that we actually directly know about, like the stars and the galaxies. 

 Here is a video by Lawrence M. Krauss titled 'A Universe From Nothing' [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo"]'A Universe From Nothing' [/ame]


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> Is there a link or maybe a show you could name I could watch to see the Mayan dinosaur pictures?  That's something I'd like to see.


me thinks someone is playing fast and loose with their interpretation of Mayan mythology !


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Is there a link or maybe a show you could name I could watch to see the Mayan dinosaur pictures?  That's something I'd like to see.



The science channel did a show on it. There were carvings on rocks and their temples.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Bill Angel said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the universe could have been created from nothing, literally.
> An excellent book on this subject is "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss.
> According to current cosmological theories, the universe could literally have been created from nothing, with no need for the intervention of a Creator to set the process in motion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't buy it you can't create anything from nothing it is beyond mans ability and even a natural process's ability.
> 
> Everything exists because of matter if there was no matter how could anything come into existence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because empty space isn't really empty... it is filled with "dark energy". When the universe started (in the Big Bang) matter spontanously emerged from this dark energy. Cosmologists believe that the universe is actually composed of 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter, and only about 5% of matter that we actually directly know about, like the stars and the galaxies.
> 
> Here is a video by Lawrence M. Krauss titled 'A Universe From Nothing' [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo"]'A Universe From Nothing' [/ame]
Click to expand...


Too much time on his hands to think this up. Oh and when the biggest Ideologue of them all is behind it dawkins not very credible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this just sream's of desperation
> since I'm not KevinWestern....  blow me !
> 
> as to this :this process, called tidal locking, took place very quickly, in a few tens of millions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> you reacted like a puppet..
> even worse you're not even original..
> and the this:  I'm sure what you meant to say was "scientist BELIEVE this process took place very quickly". and you talk about assumption....and you're not an arrogant dick head....is'nt lying a sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you speak respectfully no one really takes you seriously. You are one of those I would say is on the fringe=Adjective.
Click to expand...

I have no respect and no patients with liars like you.  it's laughably ironic that you say I'm on the fringe!! got a mirror ?[/QUOTE]

What did I lie about ? No wonder you are so angry you are a liar.


----------



## Youwerecreated

This guy sounds just like some of you morons, talk about fairytales. What is he shooting for some sort of brownie button from his hero dawkins ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Bill Angel said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the universe could have been created from nothing, literally.
> An excellent book on this subject is "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss.
> According to current cosmological theories, the universe could literally have been created from nothing, with no need for the intervention of a Creator to set the process in motion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't buy it you can't create anything from nothing it is beyond mans ability and even a natural process's ability.
> 
> Everything exists because of matter if there was no matter how could anything come into existence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because empty space isn't really empty... it is filled with "dark energy". When the universe started (in the Big Bang) matter spontanously emerged from this dark energy. Cosmologists believe that the universe is actually composed of 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter, and only about 5% of matter that we actually directly know about, like the stars and the galaxies.
> 
> Here is a video by Lawrence M. Krauss titled 'A Universe From Nothing' [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo"]'A Universe From Nothing' [/ame]
Click to expand...


Having a sound understaning of our knowledge of atoms has achieved so far, is that there is no possible way that electrons are able to stay in orbit around its nucleus.

So we've learned enough to realize we don't know much at all.

I guess that means its time for another fairytale... 

http://creationwiki.org/The_universe's_energy_can't_come_from_nothing_(Talk.Origins)


----------



## Youwerecreated

A debate where your fellow didn't do so well.

William Lane Craig Debates Lawrence Krauss &#8211; Is There (Sufficient) Evidence for God? A Comprehensive Review « The Reactionary Researcher Blog


----------



## UltimateReality

Bill Angel said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the universe could have been created from nothing, literally.
> An excellent book on this subject is "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss.
> According to current cosmological theories, the universe could literally have been created from nothing, with no need for the intervention of a Creator to set the process in motion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't buy it you can't create anything from nothing it is beyond mans ability and even a natural process's ability.
> 
> Everything exists because of matter if there was no matter how could anything come into existence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because empty space isn't really empty... it is filled with "dark energy". When the universe started (in the Big Bang) matter spontanously emerged from this dark energy. Cosmologists believe that the universe is actually composed of 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter, and only about 5% of matter that we actually directly know about, like the stars and the galaxies.
> 
> Here is a video by Lawrence M. Krauss titled 'A Universe From Nothing' [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo"]'A Universe From Nothing' [/ame]
Click to expand...


Lawrence has an atheistic agenda, so I take everything he says with a grain of salt. I really do appreciate you not using assumptive language and admitting it is a *belief* of science. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for dark matter or dark energy other than the fact that the observation of the behavior of celestial bodies does not fit the current gravitational model. Therefore, dark matter and dark energy provide a possible solution for the movement of the galaxies, but it is just a possible explanation, not science. In fact, there isn't a single viable expeiriment that has validated this theory although billions of dollars are being spent in an attempt to. As it stands right, they might as well be talking about God, and thus, all the materialists should be applying all the same arguments they do against God to Dark Matter and Dark Energy... oh and Darth Vader. 

You guys know I love sarcasm and irony, so I just have to say it. So you're asking me to believe in an invisible force that no one can prove exists and we can't prove doesn't exist?

What Higgs result means for dark matter conspiracy - physics-math - 21 December 2011 - New Scientist


----------



## konradv

ID?  Found it.  From there it was evolution.

Baryon asymmetry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Bill Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't buy it you can't create anything from nothing it is beyond mans ability and even a natural process's ability.
> 
> Everything exists because of matter if there was no matter how could anything come into existence ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because empty space isn't really empty... it is filled with "dark energy". When the universe started (in the Big Bang) matter spontanously emerged from this dark energy. Cosmologists believe that the universe is actually composed of 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter, and only about 5% of matter that we actually directly know about, like the stars and the galaxies.
> 
> Here is a video by Lawrence M. Krauss titled 'A Universe From Nothing' [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo"]'A Universe From Nothing' [/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lawrence has an atheistic agenda, so I take everything he says with a grain of salt. I really do appreciate you not using assumptive language and admitting it is a *belief* of science. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for dark matter or dark energy other than the fact that the observation of the behavior of celestial bodies does not fit the current gravitational model. Therefore, dark matter and dark energy provide a possible solution for the movement of the galaxies, but it is just a possible explanation, not science. In fact, there isn't a single viable expeiriment that has validated this theory although billions of dollars are being spent in an attempt to. As it stands right, they might as well be talking about God, and thus, all the materialists should be applying all the same arguments they do against God to Dark Matter and Dark Energy... oh and Darth Vader.
> 
> You guys know I love sarcasm and irony, so I just have to say it. So you're asking me to believe in an invisible force that no one can prove exists and we can't prove doesn't exist?
> 
> What Higgs result means for dark matter conspiracy - physics-math - 21 December 2011 - New Scientist
Click to expand...

speaking of agendas....!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because empty space isn't really empty... it is filled with "dark energy". When the universe started (in the Big Bang) matter spontanously emerged from this dark energy. Cosmologists believe that the universe is actually composed of 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter, and only about 5% of matter that we actually directly know about, like the stars and the galaxies.
> 
> Here is a video by Lawrence M. Krauss titled 'A Universe From Nothing' 'A Universe From Nothing'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lawrence has an atheistic agenda, so I take everything he says with a grain of salt. I really do appreciate you not using assumptive language and admitting it is a *belief* of science. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for dark matter or dark energy other than the fact that the observation of the behavior of celestial bodies does not fit the current gravitational model. Therefore, dark matter and dark energy provide a possible solution for the movement of the galaxies, but it is just a possible explanation, not science. In fact, there isn't a single viable expeiriment that has validated this theory although billions of dollars are being spent in an attempt to. As it stands right, they might as well be talking about God, and thus, all the materialists should be applying all the same arguments they do against God to Dark Matter and Dark Energy... oh and Darth Vader.
> 
> You guys know I love sarcasm and irony, so I just have to say it. So you're asking me to believe in an invisible force that no one can prove exists and we can't prove doesn't exist?
> 
> What Higgs result means for dark matter conspiracy - physics-math - 21 December 2011 - New Scientist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> speaking of agendas....!
Click to expand...


Speaking of much verbage but no substance!!


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> ID?  Found it.  From there it was evolution.
> 
> Baryon asymmetry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I love these types of problems!!! I like the explanation that involves a whole other antimatter universe in which an antimatter Daws101 is arguing with an antimatter Youwerecreated on an antimatter internet.


----------



## UltimateReality

"Rousseau was a deist who, by the time he published his thoughts on intelligent design in Emile (1762), had largely rejected Christianity. I bring this up because of the historical interest but also to point out the absurdity of the criticism that portrays ID as a recent invention of the Christian Right."

Rousseau wrote: "In vain do those who deny the unity of intention manifested in the relations of all the parts of this great whole, in vain do they conceal their nonsense under abstractions, co-ordinations, general principles, symbolic expressions; whatever they do I find it impossible to conceive of a system of entities so firmly ordered unless I believe in an intelligence that orders them. It is not in my power to believe that passive and dead matter can have brought forth living and feeling beings, that blind chance has brought forth intelligent beings, that that which does not think has brought forth thinking beings."

Reason, not Revelation: Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Watchmaker - Evolution News & Views


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lawrence has an atheistic agenda, so I take everything he says with a grain of salt. I really do appreciate you not using assumptive language and admitting it is a *belief* of science. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for dark matter or dark energy other than the fact that the observation of the behavior of celestial bodies does not fit the current gravitational model. Therefore, dark matter and dark energy provide a possible solution for the movement of the galaxies, but it is just a possible explanation, not science. In fact, there isn't a single viable expeiriment that has validated this theory although billions of dollars are being spent in an attempt to. As it stands right, they might as well be talking about God, and thus, all the materialists should be applying all the same arguments they do against God to Dark Matter and Dark Energy... oh and Darth Vader.
> 
> You guys know I love sarcasm and irony, so I just have to say it. So you're asking me to believe in an invisible force that no one can prove exists and we can't prove doesn't exist?
> 
> What Higgs result means for dark matter conspiracy - physics-math - 21 December 2011 - New Scientist
> 
> 
> 
> speaking of agendas....!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of much verbage but no substance!!
Click to expand...

 "you're talking a lot, but you're  not saying anything" David Burnie /the talking heads.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID?  Found it.  From there it was evolution.
> 
> Baryon asymmetry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love these types of problems!!! I like the explanation that involves a whole other antimatter universe in which an antimatter Daws101 is arguing with an antimatter Youwerecreated on an antimatter internet.
Click to expand...

 you may love them, but your arrogance precludes you from solving them!
The positively charged antimatter sub-atomic particle called the "positron" does exist. It's been created and it's effects have been observed (for a very short period of time) thanks to some of the particle accelerators on the earth. It's like an electron, only it has a positive charge. I doubt there are any antimatter sources anywhere near enough to us, or massive enough, to be seen with the human eye, though

Does antimatter exist? - Yahoo! Answers

also,  you've just demonstrated a logical fallacy. in the antimatter universe YOU & YWC would be arguing AGAINST CREATIONISM & I would be arguing for it.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID?  Found it.  From there it was evolution.
> 
> Baryon asymmetry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love these types of problems!!! I like the explanation that involves a whole other antimatter universe in which an antimatter Daws101 is arguing with an antimatter Youwerecreated on an antimatter internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you may love them, but your arrogance precludes you from solving them!
> The positively charged antimatter sub-atomic particle called the "positron" does exist. It's been created and it's effects have been observed (for a very short period of time) thanks to some of the particle accelerators on the earth. It's like an electron, only it has a positive charge. I doubt there are any antimatter sources anywhere near enough to us, or massive enough, to be seen with the human eye, though
> 
> Does antimatter exist? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> also,  you've just demonstrated a logical fallacy. in the antimatter universe YOU & YWC would be arguing AGAINST CREATIONISM & I would be arguing for it.
Click to expand...


There you go again, thinking Darwinists have the monopoly on science. I will repeat it ad naseum... we are where we are in science today because of logical thinking Creationists like Newton and others. 

Hey,  and just because we were made of antimatter, doesn't mean we would have lost all of our common sense and you would have gained some.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> speaking of agendas....!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of much verbage but no substance!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "you're talking a lot, but you're  not saying anything" David Burnie /the talking heads.
Click to expand...


You may ask yourself, well, how did I get here?

You may ask yourself, am I right, am I wrong? And when its all over...

You may say to yourself, My God, what have I done???

We must use the present to figure out what happened in the distant past because it is...

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of much verbage but no substance!!
> 
> 
> 
> "you're talking a lot, but you're  not saying anything" David Burnie /the talking heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may ask yourself, well, how did I get here?
> 
> You may ask yourself, am I right, am I wrong? And when its all over...
> 
> You may say to yourself, My God, what have I done???
> 
> We must use the present to figure out what happened in the distant past because it is...
> 
> Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
Click to expand...


 I actually liked that song. The keys to that song is "watching these day's go by"


----------



## Youwerecreated

These something from nothing views without purpose and intent are  hilarious.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you're talking a lot, but you're  not saying anything" David Burnie /the talking heads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may ask yourself, well, how did I get here?
> 
> You may ask yourself, am I right, am I wrong? And when its all over...
> 
> You may say to yourself, My God, what have I done???
> 
> We must use the present to figure out what happened in the distant past because it is...
> 
> Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually liked that song. The keys to that song is "watching these day's go by"
Click to expand...

that's letting the days go by...and it's not about what you wish it was about!


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> These something from nothing views without purpose and intent are  hilarious.



But something from nothing with purpose and intent is completely reasonable?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love these types of problems!!! I like the explanation that involves a whole other antimatter universe in which an antimatter Daws101 is arguing with an antimatter Youwerecreated on an antimatter internet.
> 
> 
> 
> you may love them, but your arrogance precludes you from solving them!
> The positively charged antimatter sub-atomic particle called the "positron" does exist. It's been created and it's effects have been observed (for a very short period of time) thanks to some of the particle accelerators on the earth. It's like an electron, only it has a positive charge. I doubt there are any antimatter sources anywhere near enough to us, or massive enough, to be seen with the human eye, though
> 
> Does antimatter exist? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> also,  you've just demonstrated a logical fallacy. in the antimatter universe YOU & YWC would be arguing AGAINST CREATIONISM & I would be arguing for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, thinking Darwinists have the monopoly on science. I will repeat it ad naseum... we are where we are in science today because of logical thinking Creationists like Newton and others.
> 
> Hey,  and just because we were made of antimatter, doesn't mean we would have lost all of our common sense and you would have gained some.
Click to expand...

three  logical fallacies in a row! 

1.  Newton ( 25 December 1642 &#8211; 20 March 1727) was not a creationist, the pseudo science of CREATIONISM HAD NOT EVEN BEEN INVENTED YET . 
In its modern form, creationism sprung up around the same time as evolution, as a response to defend against what was seen as a threat to their faith.
The people who developed both are either not known in the first case, or many and varied in the second.
Read more: Who invented creationism

he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.) 
your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority .  

Charles Darwin (12 February 1809 &#8211; 19 April 1882) to was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[3] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[4] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[5] 

but NOT THE FIRST TO PROPOSE THE IDEA OF EVOLUTION: The proposal that one type of animal could descend from an animal of another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.[10][11] In contrast to these materialistic views, Aristotle understood all natural things, not only living things, as being imperfect actualisations of different fixed natural possibilities, known as "forms", "ideas", or (in Latin translations) "species".[12][13] This was part of his teleological understanding of nature in which all things have an intended role to play in a divine cosmic order. Variations of this idea became the standard understanding of the Middle Ages, and were integrated into Christian learning, but Aristotle did not demand that real types of animals corresponded one-for-one with exact metaphysical forms, and specifically gave examples of how new types of living things could come to be.[14]

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
as to your profound ignorance about anti matter if this anti matter universe did exist
(you do know what anti means?--one that is opposed)
  your  laughable "common sense" would be reversed or opposite of what it is now, you would have no choice in the matter.  or anti matter!


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> These something from nothing views without purpose and intent are  hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But something from nothing with purpose and intent is completely reasonable?
Click to expand...

well ya!..... dude


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> These something from nothing views without purpose and intent are  hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But something from nothing with purpose and intent is completely reasonable?
Click to expand...


Can't believe you missed the obvious point Montrovant. The only way something comes from nothing are magical moments. Then add in intent and design it makes all the sense in the world.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> These something from nothing views without purpose and intent are  hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But something from nothing with purpose and intent is completely reasonable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't believe you missed the obvious point Montrovant. The only way something comes from nothing are magical moments. Then add in intent and design it makes all the sense in the world.
Click to expand...

so Walt Disney is god?



if magic did exist then the laws of physics would be much different the they really are ..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you may love them, but your arrogance precludes you from solving them!
> The positively charged antimatter sub-atomic particle called the "positron" does exist. It's been created and it's effects have been observed (for a very short period of time) thanks to some of the particle accelerators on the earth. It's like an electron, only it has a positive charge. I doubt there are any antimatter sources anywhere near enough to us, or massive enough, to be seen with the human eye, though
> 
> Does antimatter exist? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> also,  you've just demonstrated a logical fallacy. in the antimatter universe YOU & YWC would be arguing AGAINST CREATIONISM & I would be arguing for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, thinking Darwinists have the monopoly on science. I will repeat it ad naseum... we are where we are in science today because of logical thinking Creationists like Newton and others.
> 
> Hey,  and just because we were made of antimatter, doesn't mean we would have lost all of our common sense and you would have gained some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> three  logical fallacies in a row!
> 
> 1.  Newton ( 25 December 1642  20 March 1727) was not a creationist, the pseudo science of CREATIONISM HAD NOT EVEN BEEN INVENTED YET .
> In its modern form, creationism sprung up around the same time as evolution, as a response to defend against what was seen as a threat to their faith.
> The people who developed both are either not known in the first case, or many and varied in the second.
> Read more: Who invented creationism
> 
> he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority .
> 
> Charles Darwin (12 February 1809  19 April 1882) to was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[3] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[4] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[5]
> 
> but NOT THE FIRST TO PROPOSE THE IDEA OF EVOLUTION: The proposal that one type of animal could descend from an animal of another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.[10][11] In contrast to these materialistic views, Aristotle understood all natural things, not only living things, as being imperfect actualisations of different fixed natural possibilities, known as "forms", "ideas", or (in Latin translations) "species".[12][13] This was part of his teleological understanding of nature in which all things have an intended role to play in a divine cosmic order. Variations of this idea became the standard understanding of the Middle Ages, and were integrated into Christian learning, but Aristotle did not demand that real types of animals corresponded one-for-one with exact metaphysical forms, and specifically gave examples of how new types of living things could come to be.[14]
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> as to your profound ignorance about anti matter if this anti matter universe did exist
> (you do know what anti means?--one that is opposed)
> your  laughable "common sense" would be reversed or opposite of what it is now, you would have no choice in the matter.  or anti matter!
Click to expand...


Newton definitely believed in a creator. Anyone who believes in a creator believes in creation no ?

Don't start with genetics when you have no clue of what you are talking about.

If you do know what you are talking about please point out one trait in humans and prove it came about through mutation and the trait did not exist in the genepool already ? ok pumpkin.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> But something from nothing with purpose and intent is completely reasonable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't believe you missed the obvious point Montrovant. The only way something comes from nothing are magical moments. Then add in intent and design it makes all the sense in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so Walt Disney is god?
Click to expand...


No but he had intelligence that lead to design. So you gonna use the same argument for engineers as well ?

The real question is where did the intelligence come from ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, thinking Darwinists have the monopoly on science. I will repeat it ad naseum... we are where we are in science today because of logical thinking Creationists like Newton and others.
> 
> Hey,  and just because we were made of antimatter, doesn't mean we would have lost all of our common sense and you would have gained some.
> 
> 
> 
> three  logical fallacies in a row!
> 
> 1.  Newton ( 25 December 1642  20 March 1727) was not a creationist, the pseudo science of CREATIONISM HAD NOT EVEN BEEN INVENTED YET .
> In its modern form, creationism sprung up around the same time as evolution, as a response to defend against what was seen as a threat to their faith.
> The people who developed both are either not known in the first case, or many and varied in the second.
> Read more: Who invented creationism
> 
> he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority .
> 
> Charles Darwin (12 February 1809  19 April 1882) to was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[3] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[4] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[5]
> 
> but NOT THE FIRST TO PROPOSE THE IDEA OF EVOLUTION: The proposal that one type of animal could descend from an animal of another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.[10][11] In contrast to these materialistic views, Aristotle understood all natural things, not only living things, as being imperfect actualisations of different fixed natural possibilities, known as "forms", "ideas", or (in Latin translations) "species".[12][13] This was part of his teleological understanding of nature in which all things have an intended role to play in a divine cosmic order. Variations of this idea became the standard understanding of the Middle Ages, and were integrated into Christian learning, but Aristotle did not demand that real types of animals corresponded one-for-one with exact metaphysical forms, and specifically gave examples of how new types of living things could come to be.[14]
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> as to your profound ignorance about anti matter if this anti matter universe did exist
> (you do know what anti means?--one that is opposed)
> your  laughable "common sense" would be reversed or opposite of what it is now, you would have no choice in the matter.  or anti matter!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newton definitely believed in a creator. Anyone who believes in a creator believes in creation no ?
> 
> Don't start with genetics when you have no clue of what you are talking about.
> 
> If you do know what you are talking about please point out one trait in humans and prove it came about through mutation and the trait did not exist in the genepool already ? ok pumpkin.
Click to expand...

try actually comprehending what you read :"he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.) 
your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority ." 

in other: WORDS NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BELIEVE IN CREATION AS IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW AT THE TIME. YOU ASS CLOWN.
IF NEWTON HAD THE SAME ACCESS TO THE SAME INFO THAT DARWIN HAD AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HUNG FOR HERESY MY GUESS IS HIS  BELIEF WOULD BE DIFFERENT...
also NEWTON was a practitioner of the" black arts" not good advertising for your fairy tale.

btw  it's you who has no clue....


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't believe you missed the obvious point Montrovant. The only way something comes from nothing are magical moments. Then add in intent and design it makes all the sense in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> so Walt Disney is god?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No but he had intelligence that lead to design. So you gonna use the same argument for engineers as well ?
> 
> The real question is where did the intelligence come from ?
Click to expand...

 being  that I hold a degree in technical theatre (the equivalent to a mechanical engineering degree) would have to say yes..

define intelligence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> three  logical fallacies in a row!
> 
> 1.  Newton ( 25 December 1642  20 March 1727) was not a creationist, the pseudo science of CREATIONISM HAD NOT EVEN BEEN INVENTED YET .
> In its modern form, creationism sprung up around the same time as evolution, as a response to defend against what was seen as a threat to their faith.
> The people who developed both are either not known in the first case, or many and varied in the second.
> Read more: Who invented creationism
> 
> he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority .
> 
> Charles Darwin (12 February 1809  19 April 1882) to was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[3] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[4] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[5]
> 
> but NOT THE FIRST TO PROPOSE THE IDEA OF EVOLUTION: The proposal that one type of animal could descend from an animal of another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.[10][11] In contrast to these materialistic views, Aristotle understood all natural things, not only living things, as being imperfect actualisations of different fixed natural possibilities, known as "forms", "ideas", or (in Latin translations) "species".[12][13] This was part of his teleological understanding of nature in which all things have an intended role to play in a divine cosmic order. Variations of this idea became the standard understanding of the Middle Ages, and were integrated into Christian learning, but Aristotle did not demand that real types of animals corresponded one-for-one with exact metaphysical forms, and specifically gave examples of how new types of living things could come to be.[14]
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> as to your profound ignorance about anti matter if this anti matter universe did exist
> (you do know what anti means?--one that is opposed)
> your  laughable "common sense" would be reversed or opposite of what it is now, you would have no choice in the matter.  or anti matter!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newton definitely believed in a creator. Anyone who believes in a creator believes in creation no ?
> 
> Don't start with genetics when you have no clue of what you are talking about.
> 
> If you do know what you are talking about please point out one trait in humans and prove it came about through mutation and the trait did not exist in the genepool already ? ok pumpkin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> try actually comprehending what you read :"he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority ."
> 
> in other: WORDS NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BELIEVE IN CREATION AS IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW AT THE TIME. YOU ASS CLOWN.
> IF NEWTON HAD THE SAME ACCESS TO THE SAME INFO THAT DARWIN HAD AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HUNG FOR HERESY MY GUESS IS HIS  BELIEF WOULD BE DIFFERENT...
> also NEWTON was a practitioner of the" black arts" not good advertising for your fairy tale.
> 
> btw  it's you who has no clue....
Click to expand...


Wrong he had a choice to believe as he wished. So can you prove all humans when Newton was on the earth believed in a creator  ?

I knew you couldn't answer the question so your beliefs are based on what ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so Walt Disney is god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but he had intelligence that lead to design. So you gonna use the same argument for engineers as well ?
> 
> The real question is where did the intelligence come from ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> being  that I hold a degree in technical theatre (the equivalent to a mechanical engineering degree) would have to say yes..
> 
> define intelligence.
Click to expand...


Being able to put knowledge and wisdom to work for you.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newton definitely believed in a creator. Anyone who believes in a creator believes in creation no ?
> 
> Don't start with genetics when you have no clue of what you are talking about.
> 
> If you do know what you are talking about please point out one trait in humans and prove it came about through mutation and the trait did not exist in the genepool already ? ok pumpkin.
> 
> 
> 
> try actually comprehending what you read :"he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority ."
> 
> in other: WORDS NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BELIEVE IN CREATION AS IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW AT THE TIME. YOU ASS CLOWN.
> IF NEWTON HAD THE SAME ACCESS TO THE SAME INFO THAT DARWIN HAD AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HUNG FOR HERESY MY GUESS IS HIS  BELIEF WOULD BE DIFFERENT...
> also NEWTON was a practitioner of the" black arts" not good advertising for your fairy tale.
> 
> btw  it's you who has no clue....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong he had a choice to believe as he wished. So can you prove all humans when Newton was on the earth believed in a creator  ?
> 
> I knew you couldn't answer the question so your beliefs are based on what ?
Click to expand...



Newton ( 25 December 1642  20 March 1727)fyi the 1600's were the 17th century!
no he did not. once again  your astounding ignorance of history shines: "Definition as impossible or impermanent Before the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted in the western world that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called theistic innatismthe notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial.[37]

as to other cultures ALL had creation myths.

need to wipe my hands after handing you your ass ..

"I knew you couldn't answer the question so your beliefs are based on what?"-ywc
what question?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> three  logical fallacies in a row!
> 
> 1.  Newton ( 25 December 1642  20 March 1727) was not a creationist, the pseudo science of CREATIONISM HAD NOT EVEN BEEN INVENTED YET .
> In its modern form, creationism sprung up around the same time as evolution, as a response to defend against what was seen as a threat to their faith.
> The people who developed both are either not known in the first case, or many and varied in the second.
> Read more: Who invented creationism
> 
> he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority .
> 
> Charles Darwin (12 February 1809  19 April 1882) to was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[3] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[4] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[5]
> 
> but NOT THE FIRST TO PROPOSE THE IDEA OF EVOLUTION: The proposal that one type of animal could descend from an animal of another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.[10][11] In contrast to these materialistic views, Aristotle understood all natural things, not only living things, as being imperfect actualisations of different fixed natural possibilities, known as "forms", "ideas", or (in Latin translations) "species".[12][13] This was part of his teleological understanding of nature in which all things have an intended role to play in a divine cosmic order. Variations of this idea became the standard understanding of the Middle Ages, and were integrated into Christian learning, but Aristotle did not demand that real types of animals corresponded one-for-one with exact metaphysical forms, and specifically gave examples of how new types of living things could come to be.[14]
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> as to your profound ignorance about anti matter if this anti matter universe did exist
> (you do know what anti means?--one that is opposed)
> your  laughable "common sense" would be reversed or opposite of what it is now, you would have no choice in the matter.  or anti matter!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newton definitely believed in a creator. Anyone who believes in a creator believes in creation no ?
> 
> Don't start with genetics when you have no clue of what you are talking about.
> 
> If you do know what you are talking about please point out one trait in humans and prove it came about through mutation and the trait did not exist in the genepool already ? ok pumpkin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> try actually comprehending what you read :"he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority ."
> 
> in other: WORDS NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BELIEVE IN CREATION AS IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW AT THE TIME. YOU ASS CLOWN.
> IF NEWTON HAD THE SAME ACCESS TO THE SAME INFO THAT DARWIN HAD AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HUNG FOR HERESY MY GUESS IS HIS  BELIEF WOULD BE DIFFERENT...
> also NEWTON was a practitioner of the" black arts" not good advertising for your fairy tale.
> 
> btw  it's you who has no clue....
Click to expand...


Let me help you stop spreading misinformation Mr. Engineer.

I'll use your source agains't you.

When did Atheism begin


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> try actually comprehending what you read :"he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority ."
> 
> in other: WORDS NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BELIEVE IN CREATION AS IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW AT THE TIME. YOU ASS CLOWN.
> IF NEWTON HAD THE SAME ACCESS TO THE SAME INFO THAT DARWIN HAD AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HUNG FOR HERESY MY GUESS IS HIS  BELIEF WOULD BE DIFFERENT...
> also NEWTON was a practitioner of the" black arts" not good advertising for your fairy tale.
> 
> btw  it's you who has no clue....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong he had a choice to believe as he wished. So can you prove all humans when Newton was on the earth believed in a creator  ?
> 
> I knew you couldn't answer the question so your beliefs are based on what ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Newton ( 25 December 1642  20 March 1727)fyi the 1600's were the 17th century!
> no he did not. once again  your astounding ignorance of history shines: "Definition as impossible or impermanent Before the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted in the western world that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called theistic innatismthe notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial.[37]
> 
> as to other cultures ALL had creation myths.
> 
> need to wipe my hands after handing you your ass ..
> 
> "I knew you couldn't answer the question so your beliefs are based on what?"-ywc
> what question?
Click to expand...


You are one ignorant bastard,you are dismissed.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but he had intelligence that lead to design. So you gonna use the same argument for engineers as well ?
> 
> The real question is where did the intelligence come from ?
> 
> 
> 
> being  that I hold a degree in technical theatre (the equivalent to a mechanical engineering degree) would have to say yes..
> 
> define intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being able to put knowledge and wisdom to work for you.
Click to expand...

by that definition ALL SENTIENT LIFE ON EARTH IS INTELLIGENT..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newton definitely believed in a creator. Anyone who believes in a creator believes in creation no ?
> 
> Don't start with genetics when you have no clue of what you are talking about.
> 
> If you do know what you are talking about please point out one trait in humans and prove it came about through mutation and the trait did not exist in the genepool already ? ok pumpkin.
> 
> 
> 
> try actually comprehending what you read :"he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority ."
> 
> in other: WORDS NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BELIEVE IN CREATION AS IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW AT THE TIME. YOU ASS CLOWN.
> IF NEWTON HAD THE SAME ACCESS TO THE SAME INFO THAT DARWIN HAD AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HUNG FOR HERESY MY GUESS IS HIS  BELIEF WOULD BE DIFFERENT...
> also NEWTON was a practitioner of the" black arts" not good advertising for your fairy tale.
> 
> btw  it's you who has no clue....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me help you stop spreading misinformation Mr. Engineer.
> 
> I'll use your source agains't you.
> 
> When did Atheism begin
Click to expand...

actually you just reinforced my argument.. thanks!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> being  that I hold a degree in technical theatre (the equivalent to a mechanical engineering degree) would have to say yes..
> 
> define intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to put knowledge and wisdom to work for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> by that definition ALL SENTIENT LIFE ON EARTH IS INTELLIGENT..
Click to expand...


Really,animals run out in front of cars and why do so many go extinct ?

I find your ignorance very amusing.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong he had a choice to believe as he wished. So can you prove all humans when Newton was on the earth believed in a creator  ?
> 
> I knew you couldn't answer the question so your beliefs are based on what ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newton ( 25 December 1642  20 March 1727)fyi the 1600's were the 17th century!
> no he did not. once again  your astounding ignorance of history shines: "Definition as impossible or impermanent Before the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted in the western world that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called theistic innatismthe notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial.[37]
> 
> as to other cultures ALL had creation myths.
> 
> need to wipe my hands after handing you your ass ..
> 
> "I knew you couldn't answer the question so your beliefs are based on what?"-ywc
> what question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one ignorant bastard,you are dismissed.
Click to expand...

you've pulled up your skirts and ran away.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to put knowledge and wisdom to work for you.
> 
> 
> 
> by that definition ALL SENTIENT LIFE ON EARTH IS INTELLIGENT..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really,animals run out in front of cars and why do so many go extinct ?
> 
> I find your ignorance very amusing.
Click to expand...

so do people! your point?


"why do so many go extinct" ?-ywc
do you mean since humans have been on earth or before?

odd since you are the embodiment of the word!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newton ( 25 December 1642  20 March 1727)fyi the 1600's were the 17th century!
> no he did not. once again  your astounding ignorance of history shines: "Definition as impossible or impermanent Before the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted in the western world that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called theistic innatismthe notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial.[37]
> 
> as to other cultures ALL had creation myths.
> 
> need to wipe my hands after handing you your ass ..
> 
> "I knew you couldn't answer the question so your beliefs are based on what?"-ywc
> what question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one ignorant bastard,you are dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you've pulled up your skirts and ran away.
Click to expand...


I think everyone that just read your responses to me knows who had their ass handed to who, You bore me.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> by that definition ALL SENTIENT LIFE ON EARTH IS INTELLIGENT..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really,animals run out in front of cars and why do so many go extinct ?
> 
> I find your ignorance very amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so do people! your point?
> 
> 
> "why do so many go extinct" ?-ywc
> do you mean since humans have been on earth or before?
> 
> odd since you are the embodiment of the word!
Click to expand...


Animals do it out of ignorance all the time.People do it to commit suicide or they are just stupid or to young to know the difference.

So do you really want to compare animals intelligence to a human's intellgence ?

By the way are you still ignoring my question or can you give an honest answer ?


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> These something from nothing views without purpose and intent are  hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But something from nothing with purpose and intent is completely reasonable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't believe you missed the obvious point Montrovant. The only way something comes from nothing are magical moments. Then add in intent and design it makes all the sense in the world.
Click to expand...


So magic is a reasonable argument, got it!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> by that definition ALL SENTIENT LIFE ON EARTH IS INTELLIGENT..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really,animals run out in front of cars and why do so many go extinct ?
> 
> I find your ignorance very amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so do people! your point?
> 
> 
> "why do so many go extinct" ?-ywc
> do you mean since humans have been on earth or before?
> 
> odd since you are the embodiment of the word!
Click to expand...


"why do so many go extinct" ?-ywc

It's pretty simple because most animals do not migrate to enviornments they can survive in.

But hey lets look at their intelligence.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkg0E8c71IQ&NR=1&feature=endscreen]Serengeti: Battle at the Mara river; Great migration in the Serengeti - YouTube[/ame]

Hey our buddy is getting chomped on lets keep crossing.  compare intelligence of a human with an animal


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really,animals run out in front of cars and why do so many go extinct ?
> 
> I find your ignorance very amusing.
> 
> 
> 
> so do people! your point?
> 
> 
> "why do so many go extinct" ?-ywc
> do you mean since humans have been on earth or before?
> 
> odd since you are the embodiment of the word!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Animals do it out ignorance all the time.People do it to commit suicide or they are just stupid or to young to know the difference.
> 
> So do you really want to compare animals intelligence to a human's intellgence ?
> 
> By the way are you still ignoring my question or can you give an honest answer ?
Click to expand...

wrong again animals are not ignorant of traffic or to be more accurate they are no less ignorant then humans. 

"People do it to commit suicide or they are just stupid or to young to know the difference."-ywc 
you've just described ignorance.

 "So do you really want to compare animals intelligence to a human's intellgence ?"-ywc

I thought we were? 

let's see, humans use tools.(fire included )
certain aninmal and bird species use tools.
 humans build structures.
certain aninmal, bird and insect species build structures.
humans have language (writing included) 
all animals communicate, in essence language.
all animals except for the great apes (including man ) have built in offensive capabilities.
humans kill for sport 
humans  murder
the only other animals that murder are our closest relatives .
these being some of the benchmarks for intelligence  indicating  that humans are only marginally more intelligent then most of the higher animals .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really,animals run out in front of cars and why do so many go extinct ?
> 
> I find your ignorance very amusing.
> 
> 
> 
> so do people! your point?
> 
> 
> "why do so many go extinct" ?-ywc
> do you mean since humans have been on earth or before?
> 
> odd since you are the embodiment of the word!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "why do so many go extinct" ?-ywc
> 
> It's pretty simple because most animals do not migrate to enviornments they can survive in.
> 
> But hey lets look at their intelligence.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkg0E8c71IQ&NR=1&feature=endscreen]Serengeti: Battle at the Mara river; Great migration in the Serengeti - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Hey our buddy is getting chomped on lets keep crossing.  compare intelligence of a human with an animal
Click to expand...

that's not an answer to this question:do you mean since humans have been on earth or before?-daws

that's no answer either if ther were another crossing the buffalo would use it.
but then again the lions would be there too!

"It's pretty simple because most animals do not migrate to enviornments they can survive in."ywc.

funny in reality they do just the opposite!

 now what was that you were yammering on about intellegence in humans !


----------



## diocoses

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so do people! your point?
> 
> 
> "why do so many go extinct" ?-ywc
> do you mean since humans have been on earth or before?
> 
> odd since you are the embodiment of the word!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Animals do it out ignorance all the time.People do it to commit suicide or they are just stupid or to young to know the difference.
> 
> So do you really want to compare animals intelligence to a human's intellgence ?
> 
> By the way are you still ignoring my question or can you give an honest answer ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong again animals are not ignorant of traffic or to be more accurate they are no less ignorant then humans.
> 
> "People do it to commit suicide or they are just stupid or to young to know the difference."-ywc
> you've just described ignorance.
> 
> "So do you really want to compare animals intelligence to a human's intellgence ?"-ywc
> 
> I thought we were?
> 
> let's see, humans use tools.(fire included )
> certain aninmal and bird species use tools.
> humans build structures.
> certain aninmal, bird and insect species build structures.
> humans have language (writing included)
> all animals communicate, in essence language.
> all animals except for the great apes (including man ) have built in offensive capabilities.
> humans kill for sport
> humans  murder
> the only other animals that murder are our closest relatives .
> these being some of the benchmarks for intelligence  indicating  that humans are only marginally more intelligent then most of the higher animals .
Click to expand...

Humans created government out of anarchy
Humans care about things, such as art, other than mere survival
Humans have largely defined and unraveled the laws of the natural world
Humans are able to discuss intelligence and religion instantly with each other half a globe away... need I go on?
Of course there's a difference between animals and humans on an intellectual level, but who, if anybody, gave us this difference is an entirely different point altogether.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> These something from nothing views without purpose and intent are  hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But something from nothing with purpose and intent is completely reasonable?
Click to expand...


Sure. Have you ever heard of an idea???


----------



## AMERICANMALE444

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



I doubt you have faith in Jesus Christ. That's why. Once you accept Him, all things become clear. You read the Bible differently as a true Christian than an atheist or agnostic. They don't have the accompanying faith that strengthens and binds Scripture together into a total, complete life changing package.

You don't need excuses from biased human  media sources to understand the Truth. God's truth is reveled truth, therefore the search for "scientific truth" of which none really exists, is unnecessary in light of the Bible.

But again, as a non-christian, I doubt you would get this. Maybe you should try a Bible study if you're interested in understand the Bible better? THere's groups all over the great nation! Check it out!


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> These something from nothing views without purpose and intent are  hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But something from nothing with purpose and intent is completely reasonable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Have you ever heard of an idea???
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure YWC was speaking about the beginning of the universe, or possibly the beginning of life, with his statement.  

An idea doesn't come from nothing, a person is required for an idea.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> 1.  Newton ( 25 December 1642 &#8211; 20 March 1727) was not a creationist, the pseudo science of CREATIONISM HAD NOT EVEN BEEN INVENTED YET .



Daws, are you really this ignorant? Creationism is not science, it is religion. It consists of a religious belief that God created the world in seven days. Intelligent Design is based on science.

Definist Fallacy, Persuasive Definition Fallacy



daws101 said:


> your  laughable "common sense" would be reversed or opposite of what it is now, you would have no choice in the matter.  or anti matter!



In your total and complete utter IGNORANCE, you totally missed the fact I was joking. 

Quoting out of Context Fallacy, Strawman Fallacy


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> But something from nothing with purpose and intent is completely reasonable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Have you ever heard of an idea???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure YWC was speaking about the beginning of the universe, or possibly the beginning of life, with his statement.
> 
> An idea doesn't come from nothing, a person is required for an idea.
Click to expand...


Or an intelligent agent, right?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> three  logical fallacies in a row!
> 
> 1.  Newton ( 25 December 1642 &#8211; 20 March 1727) was not a creationist, the pseudo science of CREATIONISM HAD NOT EVEN BEEN INVENTED YET .
> In its modern form, creationism sprung up around the same time as evolution, as a response to defend against what was seen as a threat to their faith.
> The people who developed both are either not known in the first case, or many and varied in the second.
> Read more: Who invented creationism
> 
> he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority .
> 
> Charles Darwin (12 February 1809 &#8211; 19 April 1882) to was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[3] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[4] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[5]
> 
> but NOT THE FIRST TO PROPOSE THE IDEA OF EVOLUTION: The proposal that one type of animal could descend from an animal of another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.[10][11] In contrast to these materialistic views, Aristotle understood all natural things, not only living things, as being imperfect actualisations of different fixed natural possibilities, known as "forms", "ideas", or (in Latin translations) "species".[12][13] This was part of his teleological understanding of nature in which all things have an intended role to play in a divine cosmic order. Variations of this idea became the standard understanding of the Middle Ages, and were integrated into Christian learning, but Aristotle did not demand that real types of animals corresponded one-for-one with exact metaphysical forms, and specifically gave examples of how new types of living things could come to be.[14]
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> as to your profound ignorance about anti matter if this anti matter universe did exist
> (you do know what anti means?--one that is opposed)
> your  laughable "common sense" would be reversed or opposite of what it is now, you would have no choice in the matter.  or anti matter!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newton definitely believed in a creator. Anyone who believes in a creator believes in creation no ?
> 
> Don't start with genetics when you have no clue of what you are talking about.
> 
> If you do know what you are talking about please point out one trait in humans and prove it came about through mutation and the trait did not exist in the genepool already ? ok pumpkin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> try actually comprehending what you read :"he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority ."
> 
> in other: WORDS NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BELIEVE IN CREATION AS IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW AT THE TIME. YOU ASS CLOWN.
> IF NEWTON HAD THE SAME ACCESS TO THE SAME INFO THAT DARWIN HAD AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HUNG FOR HERESY MY GUESS IS HIS  BELIEF WOULD BE DIFFERENT...
> also NEWTON was a practitioner of the" black arts" not good advertising for your fairy tale.
> 
> btw  it's you who has no clue....
Click to expand...


Man you are thick. Look up the definition of belief. No one can force you to believe anything.

It was against the law to be an atheist during Newton's lifetime. Newton believed in Creation. Therefore, Newton believed in Creation because it was against the law to believe otherwise.

Youwerecreated for the steal... name that fallacy!!!!!


----------



## diocoses

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newton definitely believed in a creator. Anyone who believes in a creator believes in creation no ?
> 
> Don't start with genetics when you have no clue of what you are talking about.
> 
> If you do know what you are talking about please point out one trait in humans and prove it came about through mutation and the trait did not exist in the genepool already ? ok pumpkin.
> 
> 
> 
> try actually comprehending what you read :"he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority ."
> 
> in other: WORDS NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BELIEVE IN CREATION AS IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW AT THE TIME. YOU ASS CLOWN.
> IF NEWTON HAD THE SAME ACCESS TO THE SAME INFO THAT DARWIN HAD AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HUNG FOR HERESY MY GUESS IS HIS  BELIEF WOULD BE DIFFERENT...
> also NEWTON was a practitioner of the" black arts" not good advertising for your fairy tale.
> 
> btw  it's you who has no clue....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man you are thick. Look up the definition of belief. No one can force you to believe anything.
> 
> It was against the law to be an atheist during Newton's lifetime. Newton believed in Creation. Therefore, Newton believed in Creation because it was against the law to believe otherwise.
> 
> Youwerecreated for the steal... name that fallacy!!!!!
Click to expand...


Parents force their children to believe things all the time, usually though brainwashing them at a very young age until they know nothing else than what the parent believes in. Yeah, every seen a muslim come out of a southern evengelical family? theres a reason for that, and its not just a coincidence.


----------



## UltimateReality

It's the Post Hoc Fallacy.


----------



## UltimateReality

diocoses said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> try actually comprehending what you read :"he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority ."
> 
> in other: WORDS NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BELIEVE IN CREATION AS IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW AT THE TIME. YOU ASS CLOWN.
> IF NEWTON HAD THE SAME ACCESS TO THE SAME INFO THAT DARWIN HAD AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HUNG FOR HERESY MY GUESS IS HIS  BELIEF WOULD BE DIFFERENT...
> also NEWTON was a practitioner of the" black arts" not good advertising for your fairy tale.
> 
> btw  it's you who has no clue....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man you are thick. Look up the definition of belief. No one can force you to believe anything.
> 
> It was against the law to be an atheist during Newton's lifetime. Newton believed in Creation. Therefore, Newton believed in Creation because it was against the law to believe otherwise.
> 
> Youwerecreated for the steal... name that fallacy!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parents force their children to believe things all the time, usually though brainwashing them at a very young age until they know nothing else than what the parent believes in. Yeah, every seen a muslim come out of a southern evengelical family? theres a reason for that, and its not just a coincidence.
Click to expand...


Educational institutions force students to believe things all the time, usually through brainwashing for twelve to sixteen years of their life until they won't consider anything else than what they were taught. They then spend hours trying to fit everything they observe into the brainwashed premise they were programmed with.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so Walt Disney is god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but he had intelligence that lead to design. So you gonna use the same argument for engineers as well ?
> 
> The real question is where did the intelligence come from ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> being  that I hold a degree in technical theatre (the equivalent to a mechanical engineering degree) would have to say yes..
> 
> define intelligence.
Click to expand...


That's weird, because your writing seems to be at about a 3rd grade level.


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newton definitely believed in a creator. Anyone who believes in a creator believes in creation no ?
> 
> Don't start with genetics when you have no clue of what you are talking about.
> 
> If you do know what you are talking about please point out one trait in humans and prove it came about through mutation and the trait did not exist in the genepool already ? ok pumpkin.
> 
> 
> 
> try actually comprehending what you read :"he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority ."
> 
> in other: WORDS NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BELIEVE IN CREATION AS IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW AT THE TIME. YOU ASS CLOWN.
> IF NEWTON HAD THE SAME ACCESS TO THE SAME INFO THAT DARWIN HAD AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HUNG FOR HERESY MY GUESS IS HIS  BELIEF WOULD BE DIFFERENT...
> also NEWTON was a practitioner of the" black arts" not good advertising for your fairy tale.
> 
> btw  it's you who has no clue....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man you are thick. Look up the definition of belief. *No one can force you to believe anything.*
> 
> It was against the law to be an atheist during Newton's lifetime. Newton believed in Creation. Therefore, Newton believed in Creation because it was against the law to believe otherwise.
> 
> Youwerecreated for the steal... name that fallacy!!!!!
Click to expand...


You are an idiot. 

No one in THIS country at THIS time in our human history can make you believe in anything which is why religion is dying now as it should be.  This was not the case thruout time.  Sure people could always THINK what they wanted but most of the time that we as humans have been organized into society you could and would be killed for not publicly parroting the beliefs of those in power.

Daws makes you look like a fool whether you see it or not.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> But something from nothing with purpose and intent is completely reasonable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't believe you missed the obvious point Montrovant. The only way something comes from nothing are magical moments. Then add in intent and design it makes all the sense in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So magic is a reasonable argument, got it!
Click to expand...


Perfectly reasonable considering mans limitations that there is a being out there that has abilities beyond our comprehension.

Life didn't create itself, it is irrational to think it could. That the planets perfectly alligned themselves and one planet that has everything to sustain life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so do people! your point?
> 
> 
> "why do so many go extinct" ?-ywc
> do you mean since humans have been on earth or before?
> 
> odd since you are the embodiment of the word!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Animals do it out ignorance all the time.People do it to commit suicide or they are just stupid or to young to know the difference.
> 
> So do you really want to compare animals intelligence to a human's intellgence ?
> 
> By the way are you still ignoring my question or can you give an honest answer ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong again animals are not ignorant of traffic or to be more accurate they are no less ignorant then humans.
> 
> "People do it to commit suicide or they are just stupid or to young to know the difference."-ywc
> you've just described ignorance.
> 
> "So do you really want to compare animals intelligence to a human's intellgence ?"-ywc
> 
> I thought we were?
> 
> let's see, humans use tools.(fire included )
> certain aninmal and bird species use tools.
> humans build structures.
> certain aninmal, bird and insect species build structures.
> humans have language (writing included)
> all animals communicate, in essence language.
> all animals except for the great apes (including man ) have built in offensive capabilities.
> humans kill for sport
> humans  murder
> the only other animals that murder are our closest relatives .
> these being some of the benchmarks for intelligence  indicating  that humans are only marginally more intelligent then most of the higher animals .
Click to expand...


To compare any animal's intelligence to a humans intelligence is a bad comparioson. That is like trying to compare the most intelligent person to the creator we are on different levels.

But you might ask yourself where did intelligence come from ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so do people! your point?
> 
> 
> "why do so many go extinct" ?-ywc
> do you mean since humans have been on earth or before?
> 
> odd since you are the embodiment of the word!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "why do so many go extinct" ?-ywc
> 
> It's pretty simple because most animals do not migrate to enviornments they can survive in.
> 
> But hey lets look at their intelligence.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkg0E8c71IQ&NR=1&feature=endscreen]Serengeti: Battle at the Mara river; Great migration in the Serengeti - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Hey our buddy is getting chomped on lets keep crossing.  compare intelligence of a human with an animal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's not an answer to this question:do you mean since humans have been on earth or before?-daws
> 
> that's no answer either if ther were another crossing the buffalo would use it.
> but then again the lions would be there too!
> 
> "It's pretty simple because most animals do not migrate to enviornments they can survive in."ywc.
> 
> funny in reality they do just the opposite!
> 
> now what was that you were yammering on about intellegence in humans !
Click to expand...


If that were true there would be less extinctions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> But something from nothing with purpose and intent is completely reasonable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Have you ever heard of an idea???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure YWC was speaking about the beginning of the universe, or possibly the beginning of life, with his statement.
> 
> An idea doesn't come from nothing, a person is required for an idea.
Click to expand...


There is your designer argument.


----------



## Youwerecreated

diocoses said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> try actually comprehending what you read :"he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority ."
> 
> in other: WORDS NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BELIEVE IN CREATION AS IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW AT THE TIME. YOU ASS CLOWN.
> IF NEWTON HAD THE SAME ACCESS TO THE SAME INFO THAT DARWIN HAD AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HUNG FOR HERESY MY GUESS IS HIS  BELIEF WOULD BE DIFFERENT...
> also NEWTON was a practitioner of the" black arts" not good advertising for your fairy tale.
> 
> btw  it's you who has no clue....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man you are thick. Look up the definition of belief. No one can force you to believe anything.
> 
> It was against the law to be an atheist during Newton's lifetime. Newton believed in Creation. Therefore, Newton believed in Creation because it was against the law to believe otherwise.
> 
> Youwerecreated for the steal... name that fallacy!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parents force their children to believe things all the time, usually though brainwashing them at a very young age until they know nothing else than what the parent believes in. Yeah, every seen a muslim come out of a southern evengelical family? theres a reason for that, and its not just a coincidence.
Click to expand...


When they are grown they have choice to believe as they do,many muslims have become Christians and Christians have become muslims. It's true that we are influenced by our parents  but when we reach the age to make our own decisions we do. Just like you have children that grow up in a atheistic home and become believers and you can say it the other way around. Bottomline, God allows us to chose our path.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but he had intelligence that lead to design. So you gonna use the same argument for engineers as well ?
> 
> The real question is where did the intelligence come from ?
> 
> 
> 
> being  that I hold a degree in technical theatre (the equivalent to a mechanical engineering degree) would have to say yes..
> 
> define intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's weird, because your writing seems to be at about a 3rd grade level.
Click to expand...


Writing is one of my weak points to,i think faster then i write.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Have you ever heard of an idea???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure YWC was speaking about the beginning of the universe, or possibly the beginning of life, with his statement.
> 
> An idea doesn't come from nothing, a person is required for an idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is your designer argument.
Click to expand...


Except that the definition of idea is based on intelligence.  The definition of life or the universe is not.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> try actually comprehending what you read :"he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority ."
> 
> in other: WORDS NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BELIEVE IN CREATION AS IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW AT THE TIME. YOU ASS CLOWN.
> IF NEWTON HAD THE SAME ACCESS TO THE SAME INFO THAT DARWIN HAD AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HUNG FOR HERESY MY GUESS IS HIS  BELIEF WOULD BE DIFFERENT...
> also NEWTON was a practitioner of the" black arts" not good advertising for your fairy tale.
> 
> btw  it's you who has no clue....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man you are thick. Look up the definition of belief. *No one can force you to believe anything.*
> 
> It was against the law to be an atheist during Newton's lifetime. Newton believed in Creation. Therefore, Newton believed in Creation because it was against the law to believe otherwise.
> 
> Youwerecreated for the steal... name that fallacy!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> No one in THIS country at THIS time in our human history can make you believe in anything which is why religion is dying now as it should be.  This was not the case thruout time.  Sure people could always THINK what they wanted but most of the time that we as humans have been organized into society you could and would be killed for not publicly parroting the beliefs of those in power.
> 
> Dabs makes you look like a fool whether you see it or not.
Click to expand...


Some of your post is correct. We were warned in the scriptures that in the last days this would happen. God is separating the sheep from the goats.

The scriptures say that many would listen to foolish babblings of men and fall away from the truth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure YWC was speaking about the beginning of the universe, or possibly the beginning of life, with his statement.
> 
> An idea doesn't come from nothing, a person is required for an idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is your designer argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that the definition of idea is based on intelligence.  The definition of life or the universe is not.
Click to expand...


Well if one designed everything we see he must have possessed that intelligence that would bring about ideas and action.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> try actually comprehending what you read :"he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority ."
> 
> in other: WORDS NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BELIEVE IN CREATION AS IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW AT THE TIME. YOU ASS CLOWN.
> IF NEWTON HAD THE SAME ACCESS TO THE SAME INFO THAT DARWIN HAD AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HUNG FOR HERESY MY GUESS IS HIS  BELIEF WOULD BE DIFFERENT...
> also NEWTON was a practitioner of the" black arts" not good advertising for your fairy tale.
> 
> btw  it's you who has no clue....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man you are thick. Look up the definition of belief. *No one can force you to believe anything.*
> 
> It was against the law to be an atheist during Newton's lifetime. Newton believed in Creation. Therefore, Newton believed in Creation because it was against the law to believe otherwise.
> 
> Youwerecreated for the steal... name that fallacy!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> No one in THIS country at THIS time in our human history can make you believe in anything which is why religion is dying now as it should be.  This was not the case thruout time.  Sure people could always THINK what they wanted but most of the time that we as humans have been organized into society you could and would be killed for not publicly parroting the beliefs of those in power.
> 
> Dabs makes you look like a fool whether you see it or not.
Click to expand...


From one mental giant to another.

Do you know what confirmation bias is???


----------



## daws101

AMERICANMALE444 said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you have faith in Jesus Christ. That's why. Once you accept Him, all things become clear. You read the Bible differently as a true Christian than an atheist or agnostic. They don't have the accompanying faith that strengthens and binds Scripture together into a total, complete life changing package.
> 
> You don't need excuses from biased human  media sources to understand the Truth. God's truth is reveled truth, therefore the search for "scientific truth" of which none really exists, is unnecessary in light of the Bible.
> 
> But again, as a non-christian, I doubt you would get this. Maybe you should try a Bible study if you're interested in understand the Bible better? THere's groups all over the great nation! Check it out!
Click to expand...

 indoctrination at it's finest...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newton definitely believed in a creator. Anyone who believes in a creator believes in creation no ?
> 
> Don't start with genetics when you have no clue of what you are talking about.
> 
> If you do know what you are talking about please point out one trait in humans and prove it came about through mutation and the trait did not exist in the genepool already ? ok pumpkin.
> 
> 
> 
> try actually comprehending what you read :"he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority ."
> 
> in other: WORDS NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BELIEVE IN CREATION AS IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW AT THE TIME. YOU ASS CLOWN.
> IF NEWTON HAD THE SAME ACCESS TO THE SAME INFO THAT DARWIN HAD AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HUNG FOR HERESY MY GUESS IS HIS  BELIEF WOULD BE DIFFERENT...
> also NEWTON was a practitioner of the" black arts" not good advertising for your fairy tale.
> 
> btw  it's you who has no clue....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man you are thick. Look up the definition of belief. No one can force you to believe anything.
> 
> It was against the law to be an atheist during Newton's lifetime. Newton believed in Creation. Therefore, Newton believed in Creation because it was against the law to believe otherwise.
> 
> Youwerecreated for the steal... name that fallacy!!!!!
Click to expand...

I never mentioned force in your desperation you grasp at straws: Notes on Religion in 16th Century Europe 


Atheism 
The word "atheist" in the 1500s was commonly used to denote a libertine rather to claim that one did not believe in God. To be described as an atheist was an insult. As the French historian Lucien Febve wrote, there were "conceptual difficulties" in the 1500s in denying the existence of God. "Every activity of the day ... was saturated with religious beliefs and institutions." And asking someone whether he believed in God was to suggest the possibility that he did not and must have been as insulting as asking if he were a sodomite or murderer. Peter Watson in his book Ideas agrees with Febve. Watson writes that "One reason Montaigne never really doubted that there was a God was because to do so in his lifetime was next to impossible." 

Atheism was little more tolerated in the late 1600s, as indicated by the Enlightenment's John Locke claiming that atheism was not at all to be tolerated because, promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but he had intelligence that lead to design. So you gonna use the same argument for engineers as well ?
> 
> The real question is where did the intelligence come from ?
> 
> 
> 
> being  that I hold a degree in technical theatre (the equivalent to a mechanical engineering degree) would have to say yes..
> 
> define intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's weird, because your writing seems to be at about a 3rd grade level.
Click to expand...

why did I know you'd say that, another childish shot from the school of I know you are but what am I..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't believe you missed the obvious point Montrovant. The only way something comes from nothing are magical moments. Then add in intent and design it makes all the sense in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So magic is a reasonable argument, got it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perfectly reasonable considering mans limitations that there is a being out there that has abilities beyond our comprehension.
> 
> Life didn't create itself, it is irrational to think it could. That the planets perfectly alligned themselves and one planet that has everything to sustain life.
Click to expand...

 another series of famous false declarations by YWC.

"Life didn't create itself"..YWC 
"the planets perfectly alligned themselves and one planet that has everything to sustain life"- YWC 

"Perfectly reasonable considering mans limitations that there is a being out there that has abilities beyond our comprehension."YWC


YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THESE STATEMENTS ARE FACT.
AT BEST THEY ARE OPINION .

AT WORST THEY ARE confirmation bias : Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE FIND WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR EVEN WHEN IT'S NOT THERE .


----------



## M14 Shooter

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> Meh. It baffles me.


Believing in creation does not necessitate the belief that the earth is 6000yrs old.
That probably baffles you as well.


----------



## daws101

M14 Shooter said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> Believing in creation does not necessitate the belief that the earth is 6000yrs old.
> That probably baffles you as well.
Click to expand...

I'm not baffled in the least.!


----------



## M14 Shooter

daws101 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> Believing in creation does not necessitate the belief that the earth is 6000yrs old.
> That probably baffles you as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not baffled in the least.!
Click to expand...

You arent the OP.


----------



## daws101

M14 Shooter said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believing in creation does not necessitate the belief that the earth is 6000yrs old.
> That probably baffles you as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not baffled in the least.!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You arent the OP.
Click to expand...

right ....sorry


----------



## M14 Shooter

LOki said:


> What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?
> 
> And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.


Your claim is unsound, as absence of proof is not proof of absence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So magic is a reasonable argument, got it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly reasonable considering mans limitations that there is a being out there that has abilities beyond our comprehension.
> 
> Life didn't create itself, it is irrational to think it could. That the planets perfectly alligned themselves and one planet that has everything to sustain life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another series of famous false declarations by YWC.
> 
> "Life didn't create itself"..YWC
> "the planets perfectly alligned themselves and one planet that has everything to sustain life"- YWC
> 
> "Perfectly reasonable considering mans limitations that there is a being out there that has abilities beyond our comprehension."YWC
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THESE STATEMENTS ARE FACT.
> AT BEST THEY ARE OPINION .
> 
> AT WORST THEY ARE confirmation bias : Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
> 
> A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.
> 
> Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.
> 
> Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE FIND WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR EVEN WHEN IT'S NOT THERE .
Click to expand...


Exactly my point,many of of my beliefs are based in faith. If you want to call it opinion that is fine but that is what your views are based in.

That is exactly why I asked you to point out a trait in humans you can prove came from mutations. Then you need to prove that trait did not exist already in the gene pool.

If you can't then are your views based on empirical evidence or is it just an opinion based on no evidence ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> Believing in creation does not necessitate the belief that the earth is 6000yrs old.
> That probably baffles you as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not baffled in the least.!
Click to expand...


Evidently you do since you used that argument against creation. One of your biggest problems you stereotype far too much. You stereotyped Newton.

You are trying to spin out of your assertion that Newton had no choice but to believe in creation. I posted a link to your favorite source saying that atheism beliefs have been around very long,long before Newton was born.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> These something from nothing views without purpose and intent are  hilarious.



What, Where or When is nothing supposed to be or supposed to have been? There is no such thing as "nothing".  Small to infinitely small is still something.  

Your delusions are the nearest thing to nothing as they have no form other than in the minds of the delusional.


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man you are thick. Look up the definition of belief. *No one can force you to believe anything.*
> 
> It was against the law to be an atheist during Newton's lifetime. Newton believed in Creation. Therefore, Newton believed in Creation because it was against the law to believe otherwise.
> 
> Youwerecreated for the steal... name that fallacy!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> No one in THIS country at THIS time in our human history can make you believe in anything which is why religion is dying now as it should be.  This was not the case thruout time.  Sure people could always THINK what they wanted but most of the time that we as humans have been organized into society you could and would be killed for not publicly parroting the beliefs of those in power.
> 
> Dabs makes you look like a fool whether you see it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From one mental giant to another.
> 
> Do you know what confirmation bias is???
Click to expand...


My bad.  I was REAL tired when I offered that post.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> These something from nothing views without purpose and intent are  hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, Where or When is nothing supposed to be or supposed to have been? There is no such thing as "nothing".  Small to infinitely small is still something.
> 
> Your delusions are the nearest thing to nothing as they have no form other than in the minds of the delusional.
Click to expand...


When did time begin ?


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> These something from nothing views without purpose and intent are  hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, Where or When is nothing supposed to be or supposed to have been? There is no such thing as "nothing".  Small to infinitely small is still something.
> 
> Your delusions are the nearest thing to nothing as they have no form other than in the minds of the delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did time begin ?
Click to expand...


Many of the brightest minds believe that time started with the big bang.  Before THAT?  Who knows?  Who could know? Our minds may not be wired to make any sense of what if anything or any "when" before that any better than a cow could understand the moon landing.  

Giving up and assigning all things not understood to "god" won't do though.  That's lazy stinking thinking.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, Where or When is nothing supposed to be or supposed to have been? There is no such thing as "nothing".  Small to infinitely small is still something.
> 
> Your delusions are the nearest thing to nothing as they have no form other than in the minds of the delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did time begin ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of the brightest minds believe that time started with the big bang.  Before THAT?  Who knows?  Who could know? Our minds may not be wired to make any sense of what if anything or any "when" before that any better than a cow could understand the moon landing.
> 
> Giving up and assigning all things not understood to "god" won't do though.  That's lazy stinking thinking.
Click to expand...


So if time had a beginning,at one point there was no matter no matter what size it was. You can't have matter absent of time. So nothing blew up and created all we see. You are saying I'm suffering from delusions because because I believe before time there was no matter following laws of science ?


----------



## Duped

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, Where or When is nothing supposed to be or supposed to have been? There is no such thing as "nothing".  Small to infinitely small is still something.
> 
> Your delusions are the nearest thing to nothing as they have no form other than in the minds of the delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did time begin ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of the brightest minds believe that time started with the big bang.  Before THAT?  Who knows?  Who could know? Our minds may not be wired to make any sense of what if anything or any "when" before that any better than a cow could understand the moon landing.
> 
> Giving up and assigning all things not understood to "god" won't do though.  That's lazy stinking thinking.
Click to expand...

 Many of the brightest minds believe God is tangible!


----------



## HUGGY

Duped said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did time begin ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the brightest minds believe that time started with the big bang.  Before THAT?  Who knows?  Who could know? Our minds may not be wired to make any sense of what if anything or any "when" before that any better than a cow could understand the moon landing.
> 
> Giving up and assigning all things not understood to "god" won't do though.  That's lazy stinking thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of the brightest minds believe God is tangible!
Click to expand...


Really?  Compared to who?  Name them and thier relative brightness.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> try actually comprehending what you read :"he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
> your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority ."
> 
> in other: WORDS NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BELIEVE IN CREATION AS IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW AT THE TIME. YOU ASS CLOWN.
> IF NEWTON HAD THE SAME ACCESS TO THE SAME INFO THAT DARWIN HAD AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HUNG FOR HERESY MY GUESS IS HIS  BELIEF WOULD BE DIFFERENT...
> also NEWTON was a practitioner of the" black arts" not good advertising for your fairy tale.
> 
> btw  it's you who has no clue....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man you are thick. Look up the definition of belief. No one can force you to believe anything.
> 
> It was against the law to be an atheist during Newton's lifetime. Newton believed in Creation. Therefore, Newton believed in Creation because it was against the law to believe otherwise.
> 
> Youwerecreated for the steal... name that fallacy!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never mentioned force in your desperation you grasp at straws: Notes on Religion in 16th Century Europe
> 
> 
> Atheism
> The word "atheist" in the 1500s was commonly used to denote a libertine rather to claim that one did not believe in God. To be described as an atheist was an insult. As the French historian Lucien Febve wrote, there were "conceptual difficulties" in the 1500s in denying the existence of God. "Every activity of the day ... was saturated with religious beliefs and institutions." And asking someone whether he believed in God was to suggest the possibility that he did not and must have been as insulting as asking if he were a sodomite or murderer. Peter Watson in his book Ideas agrees with Febve. Watson writes that "One reason Montaigne never really doubted that there was a God was because to do so in his lifetime was next to impossible."
> 
> Atheism was little more tolerated in the late 1600s, as indicated by the Enlightenment's John Locke claiming that atheism was not at all to be tolerated because, promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.
Click to expand...


Nice verbage to detract from your initial logical fallacy. Still doesn't change the fact that your argument about Newton was WRONG.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So magic is a reasonable argument, got it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly reasonable considering mans limitations that there is a being out there that has abilities beyond our comprehension.
> 
> Life didn't create itself, it is irrational to think it could. That the planets perfectly alligned themselves and one planet that has everything to sustain life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another series of famous false declarations by YWC.
> 
> "Life didn't create itself"..YWC
> "the planets perfectly alligned themselves and one planet that has everything to sustain life"- YWC
> 
> "Perfectly reasonable considering mans limitations that there is a being out there that has abilities beyond our comprehension."YWC
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THESE STATEMENTS ARE FACT.
> AT BEST THEY ARE OPINION .
> 
> AT WORST THEY ARE confirmation bias : Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
> 
> A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.
> 
> Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.
> 
> Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE FIND WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR EVEN WHEN IT'S NOT THERE .
Click to expand...


Way to go Daws!!! Did you happen to notice I mentioned confirmation bias 5 posts above yours. Nice technique. See it in my post, go look it up and figure out what it means, and then turn it back on us. Doh!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> Giving up and assigning all things not understood to "god" won't do though.  That's lazy stinking thinking.



Lazy thinking, or the best explanation for the evidence at hand. I find it so funny that folks can believe in magical multiple universes but they can't believe in an alien being that is so advanced, it exists outside of space, time, matter and energy. At least with the latter theory, we can look at the digital code and see evidence for implentation by an intelligent agent. What evidence do we have for multiple universes??? Other than a rebuttal to the Creationist's argument for fine tuning???


----------



## UltimateReality

"Science cannot know all the alternative explanations for the origin of the species. When evolutionists conclude evolution is a fact via the process of elimination, they are making a subtle but crucial non scientific assumption&#8212;that they know all the alternative explanations.

So all of these powerful evolutionary arguments for the fact of evolution are non scientific. In other words, evolution has extremely powerful and compelling arguments, but the cost of building such a powerful case is that the idea is not scientific.

Without these powerful proofs, evolution would lie exposed to the many scientific problems and contradictions. The idea that the world, and all of biology, spontaneously arose is, from a strictly scientific perspective, extremely unlikely. But evolution is shielded from such problems by its powerful non scientific proofs."

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/evolution-for-dummies-in-750-words.html


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giving up and assigning all things not understood to "god" won't do though.  That's lazy stinking thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lazy thinking, or the best explanation for the evidence at hand. I find it so funny that folks can believe in magical multiple universes but they can't believe in an alien being that is so advanced, it exists outside of space, time, matter and energy. At least with the latter theory, we can look at the digital code and see evidence for implentation by an intelligent agent. What evidence do we have for multiple universes??? Other than a rebuttal to the Creationist's argument for fine tuning???
Click to expand...


Why must one believe either?  

I think it's ironic that you post about evolutionists incorrectly using the process of elimination to prove the ToE, right after you seem to assume everyone must believe either in god or multiple universes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giving up and assigning all things not understood to "god" won't do though.  That's lazy stinking thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lazy thinking, or the best explanation for the evidence at hand. I find it so funny that folks can believe in magical multiple universes but they can't believe in an alien being that is so advanced, it exists outside of space, time, matter and energy. At least with the latter theory, we can look at the digital code and see evidence for implentation by an intelligent agent. What evidence do we have for multiple universes??? Other than a rebuttal to the Creationist's argument for fine tuning???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why must one believe either?
> 
> I think it's ironic that you post about evolutionists incorrectly using the process of elimination to prove the ToE, right after you seem to assume everyone must believe either in god or multiple universes.
Click to expand...


Are you saying time and matter are eternal ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the brightest minds believe that time started with the big bang.  Before THAT?  Who knows?  Who could know? Our minds may not be wired to make any sense of what if anything or any "when" before that any better than a cow could understand the moon landing.
> 
> Giving up and assigning all things not understood to "god" won't do though.  That's lazy stinking thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the brightest minds believe God is tangible!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Compared to who?  Name them and thier relative brightness.
Click to expand...


You can start here.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Seventh-Day-Scientists-Academics-Explain/dp/0890513767/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1307657605&sr=8-3]Amazon.com: On the Seventh Day: Forty Scientists and Academics Explain Why They Believe in God (9780890513767): John Ashton: Books[/ame]


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lazy thinking, or the best explanation for the evidence at hand. I find it so funny that folks can believe in magical multiple universes but they can't believe in an alien being that is so advanced, it exists outside of space, time, matter and energy. At least with the latter theory, we can look at the digital code and see evidence for implentation by an intelligent agent. What evidence do we have for multiple universes??? Other than a rebuttal to the Creationist's argument for fine tuning???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why must one believe either?
> 
> I think it's ironic that you post about evolutionists incorrectly using the process of elimination to prove the ToE, right after you seem to assume everyone must believe either in god or multiple universes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying time and matter are eternal ?
Click to expand...


What I'm saying is I have no idea.  I don't know how everything started, what came before, any of that.  That doesn't mean it was a god, it certainly doesn't mean it was your god.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why must one believe either?
> 
> I think it's ironic that you post about evolutionists incorrectly using the process of elimination to prove the ToE, right after you seem to assume everyone must believe either in god or multiple universes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying time and matter are eternal ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is I have no idea.  I don't know how everything started, what came before, any of that.  That doesn't mean it was a god, it certainly doesn't mean it was your god.
Click to expand...


Ok you said you don't know how everything started. To me that means there is a beginning. There is overwhelming evidence that something can't come from nothing.

Chaos could not have created this planet and the order of the sun,moon,and the earth.

Chaos could not have created the first cell or the substances that make up the cell. Chaos could not form the cell how could it form life ?

If you rule out a designer what do you base that ruling on ?

Don't you think it is kinda foolish on the parts of many to rule out the designer ?

All complex structures had a designer and builder so why would anyone rule out a designer for this universe and life ?

Where you get your confidence there is no God and creator baffles me.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying time and matter are eternal ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is I have no idea.  I don't know how everything started, what came before, any of that.  That doesn't mean it was a god, it certainly doesn't mean it was your god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok you said you don't know how everything started. To me that means there is a beginning. There is overwhelming evidence that something can't come from nothing.
> 
> Chaos could not have created this planet and the order of the sun,moon,and the earth.
> 
> Chaos could not have created the first cell or the substances that make up the cell. Chaos could not form the cell how could it form life ?
> 
> If you rule out a designer what do you base that ruling on ?
> 
> Don't you think it is kinda foolish on the parts of many to rule out the designer ?
> 
> All complex structures had a designer and builder so why would anyone rule out a designer for this universe and life ?
> 
> Where you get your confidence there is no God and creator baffles me.
Click to expand...


I haven't ruled out a designer.  I also haven't assumed I know that there is one, or that if there is one, I know anything about it.

I haven't ruled out everything being a product of chance, either.

I don't know if everything started or if the universe has always been.

You are insistent that I must have some firm belief about how the universe came to be.  I do not, nor am I ashamed of my ignorance.  We, as a species, know very little about the universe.  I don't know why people feel the need to seem so sure about things for which they have little or no evidence, be it a secular or religious view.

A perfect example is your oft-repeated claim that there is no other life in the universe.  

You make very assured statements on the nature of the universe (all complex structures have a designer, life cannot arise from chaos, etc.) without any actual evidence.

The difference between us, at least in this conversation, seems to be that I am perfectly willing to admit and accept my ignorance, whereas you seem determined to claim knowledge of just about everything.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giving up and assigning all things not understood to "god" won't do though.  That's lazy stinking thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lazy thinking, or the best explanation for the evidence at hand. I find it so funny that folks can believe in magical multiple universes but they can't believe in an alien being that is so advanced, it exists outside of space, time, matter and energy. At least with the latter theory, we can look at the digital code and see evidence for implentation by an intelligent agent. What evidence do we have for multiple universes??? Other than a rebuttal to the Creationist's argument for fine tuning???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why must one believe either?
> 
> I think it's ironic that you post about evolutionists incorrectly using the process of elimination to prove the ToE, right after you seem to assume everyone must believe either in god or multiple universes.
Click to expand...


I didn't assume that. I am saying the same folks that believe in multiple universes without any evidence attack ID theorists for believing in God without any evidence. Then I go on to provide some evidence that would have an intelligent agent as the best current explanation with the evidence we have.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is I have no idea.  I don't know how everything started, what came before, any of that.  That doesn't mean it was a god, it certainly doesn't mean it was your god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok you said you don't know how everything started. To me that means there is a beginning. There is overwhelming evidence that something can't come from nothing.
> 
> Chaos could not have created this planet and the order of the sun,moon,and the earth.
> 
> Chaos could not have created the first cell or the substances that make up the cell. Chaos could not form the cell how could it form life ?
> 
> If you rule out a designer what do you base that ruling on ?
> 
> Don't you think it is kinda foolish on the parts of many to rule out the designer ?
> 
> All complex structures had a designer and builder so why would anyone rule out a designer for this universe and life ?
> 
> Where you get your confidence there is no God and creator baffles me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't ruled out a designer.  I also haven't assumed I know that there is one, or that if there is one, I know anything about it.
> 
> I haven't ruled out everything being a product of chance, either.
> 
> I don't know if everything started or if the universe has always been.
> 
> You are insistent that I must have some firm belief about how the universe came to be.  I do not, nor am I ashamed of my ignorance.  We, as a species, know very little about the universe.  I don't know why people feel the need to seem so sure about things for which they have little or no evidence, be it a secular or religious view.
> 
> A perfect example is your oft-repeated claim that there is no other life in the universe.
> 
> You make very assured statements on the nature of the universe (all complex structures have a designer, life cannot arise from chaos, etc.) without any actual evidence.
> 
> The difference between us, at least in this conversation, seems to be that I am perfectly willing to admit and accept my ignorance, whereas you seem determined to claim knowledge of just about everything.
Click to expand...


Think what you like but I have said why I am so confident in my views,It's very simple the evidence of complex organisms and structures needing help to come about.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the brightest minds believe God is tangible!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Compared to who?  Name them and thier relative brightness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can start here.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Seventh-Day-Scientists-Academics-Explain/dp/0890513767/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1307657605&sr=8-3]Amazon.com: On the Seventh Day: Forty Scientists and Academics Explain Why They Believe in God (9780890513767): John Ashton: Books[/ame]
Click to expand...


Knowing how to write a thesis does not make anyone "among the brightest". There are more PHD's than millionaires.  Would you say millionaires are among the richest people on the planet?

Rather than start with the mediocre intellects why not start at or near the top and count the top one hundred of the brightest minds and investigate how many of them believe in god?


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Compared to who?  Name them and thier relative brightness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can start here.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Seventh-Day-Scientists-Academics-Explain/dp/0890513767/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1307657605&sr=8-3]Amazon.com: On the Seventh Day: Forty Scientists and Academics Explain Why They Believe in God (9780890513767): John Ashton: Books[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing how to write a thesis does not make anyone "among the brightest". There are more PHD's than millionaires.  Would you say millionaires are among the richest people on the planet?
> 
> Rather than start with the mediocre intellects why not start at or near the top and count the top one hundred of the brightest minds and investigate how many of them believe in god?
Click to expand...


Are these scientist impressive enough for you Huggy ? Oh and do watch the video of DR. Collins on the same page.

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God


----------



## diocoses

The smartest man in the world right now - Stephen Hawking - does not believe in god, or even the afterlife, but that should still in no way define what you believe. Hell, even if every smart person that ever lived didn't believe in god, doesn't mean you are forced to. Decide for your own, don't just follow the authority.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can start here.
> 
> Amazon.com: On the Seventh Day: Forty Scientists and Academics Explain Why They Believe in God (9780890513767): John Ashton: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing how to write a thesis does not make anyone "among the brightest". There are more PHD's than millionaires.  Would you say millionaires are among the richest people on the planet?
> 
> Rather than start with the mediocre intellects why not start at or near the top and count the top one hundred of the brightest minds and investigate how many of them believe in god?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are these scientist impressive enough for you Huggy ? Oh and do watch the video of DR. Collins on the same page.
> 
> Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
Click to expand...


Not very many "sciences" prepare even the brightest for coming to grips with a serious discussion of the possibility or existance of a god.  I would have to narrow the search to the top 100 brains that have the best information involving the abilities atributed to "god" such as all of tha claims of the bible...the creation or beginning of life..the creation or beginning of the universe...stuff like that.  The top minds in anthropology, bilology..astro and molecular physisits.. theoreticists  People like Hawking..

PS..studying the religious dogma like the "bible"...etc..is not science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

diocoses said:


> The smartest man in the world right now - Stephen Hawking - does not believe in god, or even the afterlife, but that should still in no way define what you believe. Hell, even if every smart person that ever lived didn't believe in god, doesn't mean you are forced to. Decide for your own, don't just follow the authority.



Nope the smartest person in the world today is not hawking it's a woman named  Marilyn Mach vos Savant. Her I.Q. is 220. She is married to the man that designed the artificial heart.

Personally I feel sorry for hawking because of his condition but he has accomplished nothing. He is glorified because of his condition and an atheist and his study of black holes and he supposedly discovered black holes leak matter putting into doubt whether black holes are what they were once thought to be. The science community can't agree whether black holes even exist.

I feel hawking has taken too many drugs for his condition.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing how to write a thesis does not make anyone "among the brightest". There are more PHD's than millionaires.  Would you say millionaires are among the richest people on the planet?
> 
> Rather than start with the mediocre intellects why not start at or near the top and count the top one hundred of the brightest minds and investigate how many of them believe in god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are these scientist impressive enough for you Huggy ? Oh and do watch the video of DR. Collins on the same page.
> 
> Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not very many "sciences" prepare even the brightest for coming to grips with a serious discussion of the possibility or existance of a god.  I would have to narrow the search to the top 100 brains that have the best information involving the abilities atributed to "god" such as all of tha claims of the bible...the creation or beginning of life..the creation or beginning of the universe...stuff like that.  The top minds in anthropology, bilology..astro and molecular physisits.. theoreticists  People like Hawking..
> 
> PS..studying the religious dogma like the "bible"...etc..is not science.
Click to expand...


Hawking is an Ideologue like dawkins. Studying black holes made him famous and the science community is not in agreement on black holes.

It isn't science to suggest something can come from nothing either.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> diocoses said:
> 
> 
> 
> The smartest man in the world right now - Stephen Hawking - does not believe in god, or even the afterlife, but that should still in no way define what you believe. Hell, even if every smart person that ever lived didn't believe in god, doesn't mean you are forced to. Decide for your own, don't just follow the authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope the smartest person in the world today is not hawking it's a woman named  Marilyn Mach vos Savant. Her I.Q. is 220. She is married to the man that designed the artificial heart.
> 
> Personally I feel sorry for hawking because of his condition but he has accomplished nothing. He is glorified because of his condition and an atheist and his study of black holes and he supposedly discovered black holes leak matter putting into doubt whether black holes are what they were once thought to be. The science community can't agree whether black holes even exist.
> 
> I feel hawking has taken too many drugs for his condition.
Click to expand...


I am pretty confident that a)there is no definitive way to determine the smartest person and b)even if there were, it would be pretty much impossible to test all of the world's population to find them.

I wonder what you consider to be accomplishments that Hawkings has done none of them.  Even if you disagree with his conclusions or beliefs, that doesn't mean he has accomplished nothing.


----------



## KevinWestern

Just a few things. 

1.) No person on this planet has any idea whether or not there exists a god. Totally up in the air.
2.) If a god exists, no person on this planet knows any specific details about him/her.
3.) If you claim that a god does indeed exist and that you know things about him/her, you are simply just referencing man-made documents, and this just leads you back to square one. 

In summary, what I'm trying to say is that when it comes to the origins of the universe, *not a single human on this planet knows the answer*. Everything is just speculation. And that's a fact.

Sometimes there are just things that we don't know, and will likely not know for a very, very long time.......
.
.
.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> diocoses said:
> 
> 
> 
> The smartest man in the world right now - Stephen Hawking - does not believe in god, or even the afterlife, but that should still in no way define what you believe. Hell, even if every smart person that ever lived didn't believe in god, doesn't mean you are forced to. Decide for your own, don't just follow the authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope the smartest person in the world today is not hawking it's a woman named  Marilyn Mach vos Savant. Her I.Q. is 220. She is married to the man that designed the artificial heart.
> 
> Personally I feel sorry for hawking because of his condition but he has accomplished nothing. He is glorified because of his condition and an atheist and his study of black holes and he supposedly discovered black holes leak matter putting into doubt whether black holes are what they were once thought to be. The science community can't agree whether black holes even exist.
> 
> I feel hawking has taken too many drugs for his condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pretty confident that a)there is no definitive way to determine the smartest person and b)even if there were, it would be pretty much impossible to test all of the world's population to find them.
> 
> I wonder what you consider to be accomplishments that Hawkings has done none of them.  Even if you disagree with his conclusions or beliefs, that doesn't mean he has accomplished nothing.
Click to expand...


I just don't put hawking in the same category as an Einstein,Mendel or Newton.

Well as we know of I named the smartest person known. I wonder why hawking said whoever brags about an I.Q. is a loser. I guess that is because he was hit with a 12 year old maybe having a Higher I.Q. then himself. But he won't take the test.

Tell me his accomplishments then if you want to put this guy on high ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

KevinWestern said:


> Just a few things.
> 
> 1.) No person on this planet has any idea whether or not there exists a god. Totally up in the air.
> 2.) If a god exists, no person on this planet knows any specific details about him/her.
> 3.) If you claim that a god does indeed exist and that you know things about him/her, you are simply just referencing man-made documents, and this just leads you back to square one.
> 
> In summary, what I'm trying to say is that when it comes to the origins of the universe, *not a single human on this planet knows the answer*. Everything is just speculation. And that's a fact.
> 
> Sometimes there are just things that we don't know, and will likely not know for a very, very long time.......
> .
> .
> .



But we do have the ability to reason on the evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

The highest I.Q of 228 was recorded by Marilyn Mach vos Savant as I said earlier. She said it is best to believe in God for the simple reason you can gain everlasting life. If he does not exist you only turn to dust. But she held back on her religous beliefs.

I didn't start this argument huffy did.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> diocoses said:
> 
> 
> 
> The smartest man in the world right now - Stephen Hawking - does not believe in god, or even the afterlife, but that should still in no way define what you believe. Hell, even if every smart person that ever lived didn't believe in god, doesn't mean you are forced to. Decide for your own, don't just follow the authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope the smartest person in the world today is not hawking it's a woman named  Marilyn Mach vos Savant. Her I.Q. is 220. She is married to the man that designed the artificial heart.
> 
> Personally I feel sorry for hawking because of his condition but he has accomplished nothing. He is glorified because of his condition and an atheist and his study of black holes and he supposedly discovered black holes leak matter putting into doubt whether black holes are what they were once thought to be. The science community can't agree whether black holes even exist.
> 
> I feel hawking has taken too many drugs for his condition.
Click to expand...


There is no way to measure a 220 I Q.  Hawkings accomplishments are no fluke:

*Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA (born 8 January 1942) is a British theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author. His key scientific works to date have included providing, with Roger Penrose, theorems regarding gravitational singularities in the framework of general relativity, and the theoretical prediction that black holes should emit radiation, which is today known as Hawking radiation (or sometimes as BekensteinHawking radiation).

He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology.

*

I believe he would make my list of brains qualified to make an informed opinion of the existance of god.

Now on to a subject you obviously personally know nothing about....  drugs.

Drugs can clearly be abused.  Of that there should be no doubt.  That said much of the knowledge of and participation in human inquest of our environment and the human condition has involved risk by those explorers.  Reaching out into the un known requires a state of not "knowing" at times like a baby...an infant ..does not know..with an open un preprogrammed mind.  Some drugs can be a benefit in removing inhabitions to that end.

LSD for one example can be quite helpful in becoming more enlightened as it opens the minds ability to explore more possible ideas than the brain of a maturing human can do on it's own.  Our "normal" experiences build up walls to learning as we adopt strategies for physical self preservation and "getting along" in society.  LSD temporarily releases those learned responsibilities allowing the brain to move freely in the theoretical...making associations not possible under "normal" conditions.  Stating that having experienced such free thought as a disqualifier is stupid.  That is like stating that a proffesional aircraft test pilot has no business driving a fork lift in a warehouse.  That stated.. LSD is not for everybody.  Some people are more fragile mentally than others and the release of the inhibitions that safely glue thier lives together can be more than disturbing..even permanently and fatally.  I don't recommend the ingestion of LSD to anyone before an honest evaluation of the risk of having any possible thought or nightmare vision pop into thier head.   For those of stronger mental stuff..I say go for it.  The mental experiences can be the most enlightening of your life.  Unlike the common sleeping "dream" state where most people do not remember what they saw..with LSD you will remember vividly and be able to take your stunning realizations back into reality for future use.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> diocoses said:
> 
> 
> 
> The smartest man in the world right now - Stephen Hawking - does not believe in god, or even the afterlife, but that should still in no way define what you believe. Hell, even if every smart person that ever lived didn't believe in god, doesn't mean you are forced to. Decide for your own, don't just follow the authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope the smartest person in the world today is not hawking it's a woman named  Marilyn Mach vos Savant. Her I.Q. is 220. She is married to the man that designed the artificial heart.
> 
> Personally I feel sorry for hawking because of his condition but he has accomplished nothing. He is glorified because of his condition and an atheist and his study of black holes and he supposedly discovered black holes leak matter putting into doubt whether black holes are what they were once thought to be. The science community can't agree whether black holes even exist.
> 
> I feel hawking has taken too many drugs for his condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no way to measure a 220 I Q.  Hawkings accomplishments are no fluke:
> 
> *Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA (born 8 January 1942) is a British theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author. His key scientific works to date have included providing, with Roger Penrose, theorems regarding gravitational singularities in the framework of general relativity, and the theoretical prediction that black holes should emit radiation, which is today known as Hawking radiation (or sometimes as BekensteinHawking radiation).
> 
> He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology.
> 
> *
> 
> I believe he would make my list of brains qualified to make an informed opinion of the existance of god.
> 
> Now on to a subject you obviously personally know nothing about....  drugs.
> 
> Drugs can clearly be abused.  Of that there should be no doubt.  That said much of the knowledge of and participation in human inquest of our environment and the human condition has involved risk by those explorers.  Reaching out into the un known requires a state of not "knowing" at times like a baby...an infant ..does not know..with an open un preprogrammed mind.  Some drugs can be a benefit in removing inhabitions to that end.
> 
> LSD for one example can be quite helpful in becoming more enlightened as it opens the minds ability to explore more possible ideas than the brain of a maturing human can do on it's own.  Our "normal" experiences build up walls to learning as we adopt strategies for physical self preservation and "getting along" in society.  LSD temporarily releases those learned responsibilities allowing the brain to move freely in the theoretical...making associations not possible under "normal" conditions.  Stating that having experienced such free thought as a disqualifier is stupid.  That is like stating that a proffesional aircraft test pilot has no business driving a fork lift in a warehouse.  That stated.. LSD is not for everybody.  Some people are more fragile mentally than others and the release of the inhibitions that safely glue thier lives together can be more than disturbing..even permanently and fatally.  I don't recommend the ingestion of LSD to anyone before an honest evaluation of the risk of having any possible thought or nightmare vision pop into thier head.   For those of stronger mental stuff..I say go for it.  The mental experiences can be the most enlightening of your life.  Unlike the common sleeping "dream" state where most people do not remember what they saw..with LSD you will remember vividly and be able to take your stunning realizations back into reality for future use.
Click to expand...


Sorry fella you are once again wrong. Hawking's I.Q. is not known but it has been suggested to be around 180 and Einsteins Was suggested to be around 190.


Like i said Hawking's accomplishments are no comparison to Einsteins,Mendels,and Newtons.


----------



## Youwerecreated

By the way huggy none of these intelligent people can prove or disprove God's existence so what is your point ?

You are so bitter about God you remind me of a Dawkins or Hawking student mainly because of their atheistic views.

It just pisses you off to think intelliget people believe in creation doesn't it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Huggy.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U09O9DXWdHc]Marilyn Mach Vos Savant - Feb. 1986 Air date - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope the smartest person in the world today is not hawking it's a woman named  Marilyn Mach vos Savant. Her I.Q. is 220. She is married to the man that designed the artificial heart.
> 
> Personally I feel sorry for hawking because of his condition but he has accomplished nothing. He is glorified because of his condition and an atheist and his study of black holes and he supposedly discovered black holes leak matter putting into doubt whether black holes are what they were once thought to be. The science community can't agree whether black holes even exist.
> 
> I feel hawking has taken too many drugs for his condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am pretty confident that a)there is no definitive way to determine the smartest person and b)even if there were, it would be pretty much impossible to test all of the world's population to find them.
> 
> I wonder what you consider to be accomplishments that Hawkings has done none of them.  Even if you disagree with his conclusions or beliefs, that doesn't mean he has accomplished nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just don't put hawking in the same category as an Einstein,Mendel or Newton.
> 
> Well as we know of I named the smartest person known. I wonder why hawking said whoever brags about an I.Q. is a loser. I guess that is because he was hit with a 12 year old maybe having a Higher I.Q. then himself. But he won't take the test.
> 
> Tell me his accomplishments then if you want to put this guy on high ?
Click to expand...


IQ is neither a definitive number (you can get different IQ numbers from the same person depending on different factors) nor a true measurement of intelligence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am pretty confident that a)there is no definitive way to determine the smartest person and b)even if there were, it would be pretty much impossible to test all of the world's population to find them.
> 
> I wonder what you consider to be accomplishments that Hawkings has done none of them.  Even if you disagree with his conclusions or beliefs, that doesn't mean he has accomplished nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't put hawking in the same category as an Einstein,Mendel or Newton.
> 
> Well as we know of I named the smartest person known. I wonder why hawking said whoever brags about an I.Q. is a loser. I guess that is because he was hit with a 12 year old maybe having a Higher I.Q. then himself. But he won't take the test.
> 
> Tell me his accomplishments then if you want to put this guy on high ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IQ is neither a definitive number (you can get different IQ numbers from the same person depending on different factors) nor a true measurement of intelligence.
Click to expand...


That is true but she kept taking tests and the her I.Q. kept getting higher and higher.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> By the way huggy none of these intelligent people can prove or disprove God's existence so what is your point ?
> 
> You are so bitter about God you remind me of a Dawkins or Hawking student mainly because of their atheistic views.
> 
> It just *pisses you off *to think intelliget people believe in creation doesn't it ?



Not really.  At least not for that reason.  No honest reflection of what it all means if anything disturbs me in the slightest.  You mistakenly substitute my devout hatred for the mindless zombie-like montra of the "believers" that have nothing but self righteous indignation ..even more a violent hatred of non believers that do not conform to thier misguided faith.

My feelings towards the walking dead is more generated out of self preservation and a vendetta for what they have perpetrated on my fellow human beings over the centuries and beyond that.  I have no less hatred for the Romans and Greeks and those before them that persecuted and murdered the thoughts and lives of the free thinkers of those ages.  

The genisis of my thoughts on what we are doesn't attempt to destroy us...  all religion is evil at conception and deed and does harm to free thinkers by increments or outright butchery.  I do not cower to this threat.  I claim my right to my mental and physical space with a clear warning that trespassing on my ground has consequences equal to and with preparation to overcome and vanquish anything the mindless believers can come up with.  I am willing ..no happy..to fight fire with fire and whatever advantage makes me the one left standing.

Angry?  I would much rather lay on a hammock in the Mexican Pacific sipping a margaurita being massaged by a native beauty with no evil thoughts whatsoever but that isn't the hand we have been dealt is it.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't put hawking in the same category as an Einstein,Mendel or Newton.
> 
> Well as we know of I named the smartest person known. I wonder why hawking said whoever brags about an I.Q. is a loser. I guess that is because he was hit with a 12 year old maybe having a Higher I.Q. then himself. But he won't take the test.
> 
> Tell me his accomplishments then if you want to put this guy on high ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IQ is neither a definitive number (you can get different IQ numbers from the same person depending on different factors) nor a true measurement of intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true but she kept taking tests and the her I.Q. kept getting higher and higher.
Click to expand...


Oh, I don't doubt that IQ can be a decent indicator of general intelligence, and therefor the woman is truly smart.  It's just a very inexact measurement, at best, which makes it not very authoritative when trying to determine the smartest person (ignoring my other point about the inability to test everyone).


----------



## PredFan

One of the most effective indicators of intelligence:

Belief in:

creationism = ignorance
evolution = intelligence


----------



## Youwerecreated

PredFan said:


> One of the most effective indicators of intelligence:
> 
> Belief in:
> 
> creationism = ignorance
> evolution = intelligence



Your posts = ignorance.

Since you insist can you point out any trait in humans that came from a mutation and prove it ? and of course you need to prove that this trait did not already exist in the gene pool.

Come evolutionist prove your intelligence.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most effective indicators of intelligence:
> 
> Belief in:
> 
> creationism = ignorance
> evolution = intelligence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your posts = ignorance.
> 
> Since you insist can you point out any trait in humans that came from a mutation and prove it ? and of course you need to prove that this trait did not already exist in the gene pool.
> 
> Come evolutionist prove your intelligence.
Click to expand...


Got to give it up for your tenacity  a tough nut you are but as with all hard shelled fruit you will crack and open up to the truth.


----------



## BadJesus

What you perceive as reality is nothing really more than a vivid dream that you perceive as being "real." You created it all. There's a signpost up ahead, next stop, The Twilight Zone...


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most effective indicators of intelligence:
> 
> Belief in:
> 
> creationism = ignorance
> evolution = intelligence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your posts = ignorance.
> 
> Since you insist can you point out any trait in humans that came from a mutation and prove it ? and of course you need to prove that this trait did not already exist in the gene pool.
> 
> Come evolutionist prove your intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got to give it up for your tenacity  a tough nut you are but as with all hard shelled fruit you will crack and open up to the truth.
Click to expand...


No Huggy,I once shared some of your views but I was able to question those views and did not like the answers and eventually realized how wrong I was.

Many theories rely on assumptions lacking empirical evidence some just make more sense through deductive reasoning. That is why I believe in a designer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

BadJesus said:


> What you perceive as reality is nothing really more than a vivid dream that you perceive as being "real." You created it all. There's a signpost up ahead, next stop, The Twilight Zone...



I guess if you smoke enough doobies you can look at it that way, No drugs here though.


----------



## BadJesus

Youwerecreated said:


> BadJesus said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you perceive as reality is nothing really more than a vivid dream that you perceive as being "real." You created it all. There's a signpost up ahead, next stop, The Twilight Zone...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if you smoke enough doobies you can look at it that way, No drugs here though.
Click to expand...


Weed isn't a drug it's a plant, which has never killed anyone unlike Aspirin and alcohol. In most religious and metaphysical belief systems once researched and interpreted more properly than what you've likely been told, the cannabis is the Goddess, Venus, whose color is green, the shiva, the sativa.  In Christianity she would be the Tree of Life and the Virgin Mary Jane, and the oil they talk about using in private. 

Go check out some string theory and quantum physics concepts... I think there's a book called "The Holographic Universe" as well that might be good.


----------



## Montrovant

BadJesus said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BadJesus said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you perceive as reality is nothing really more than a vivid dream that you perceive as being "real." You created it all. There's a signpost up ahead, next stop, The Twilight Zone...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if you smoke enough doobies you can look at it that way, No drugs here though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Weed isn't a drug it's a plant*, which has never killed anyone unlike Aspirin and alcohol. In most religious and metaphysical belief systems once researched and interpreted more properly than what you've likely been told, the cannabis is the Goddess, Venus, whose color is green, the shiva, the sativa.  In Christianity she would be the Tree of Life and the Virgin Mary Jane, and the oil they talk about using in private.
> 
> Go check out some string theory and quantum physics concepts... I think there's a book called "The Holographic Universe" as well that might be good.
Click to expand...


I've never understood why people say this.  What does being a plant have to do with whether or not marijuana is a drug?  What is the definition of drug that does not include plants?


----------



## HUGGY

Montrovant said:


> BadJesus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if you smoke enough doobies you can look at it that way, No drugs here though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Weed isn't a drug it's a plant*, which has never killed anyone unlike Aspirin and alcohol. In most religious and metaphysical belief systems once researched and interpreted more properly than what you've likely been told, the cannabis is the Goddess, Venus, whose color is green, the shiva, the sativa.  In Christianity she would be the Tree of Life and the Virgin Mary Jane, and the oil they talk about using in private.
> 
> Go check out some string theory and quantum physics concepts... I think there's a book called "The Holographic Universe" as well that might be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never understood why people say this.  What does being a plant have to do with whether or not marijuana is a drug?  What is the definition of drug that does not include plants?
Click to expand...


Synthetic.


----------



## BadJesus

Montrovant said:


> BadJesus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if you smoke enough doobies you can look at it that way, No drugs here though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Weed isn't a drug it's a plant*, which has never killed anyone unlike Aspirin and alcohol. In most religious and metaphysical belief systems once researched and interpreted more properly than what you've likely been told, the cannabis is the Goddess, Venus, whose color is green, the shiva, the sativa.  In Christianity she would be the Tree of Life and the Virgin Mary Jane, and the oil they talk about using in private.
> 
> Go check out some string theory and quantum physics concepts... I think there's a book called "The Holographic Universe" as well that might be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never understood why people say this.  What does being a plant have to do with whether or not marijuana is a drug?  What is the definition of drug that does not include plants?
Click to expand...


Marijuana is one of the most beneficial plants on the planet. If one were a creationist they'd have to ask themselves "was god wrong?" in making marijuana... did he screw up and forget to put up his stash?


----------



## Montrovant

HUGGY said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BadJesus said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Weed isn't a drug it's a plant*, which has never killed anyone unlike Aspirin and alcohol. In most religious and metaphysical belief systems once researched and interpreted more properly than what you've likely been told, the cannabis is the Goddess, Venus, whose color is green, the shiva, the sativa.  In Christianity she would be the Tree of Life and the Virgin Mary Jane, and the oil they talk about using in private.
> 
> Go check out some string theory and quantum physics concepts... I think there's a book called "The Holographic Universe" as well that might be good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never understood why people say this.  What does being a plant have to do with whether or not marijuana is a drug?  What is the definition of drug that does not include plants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Synthetic.
Click to expand...


I don't think something must be synthetic to be a drug.


----------



## Montrovant

BadJesus said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BadJesus said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Weed isn't a drug it's a plant*, which has never killed anyone unlike Aspirin and alcohol. In most religious and metaphysical belief systems once researched and interpreted more properly than what you've likely been told, the cannabis is the Goddess, Venus, whose color is green, the shiva, the sativa.  In Christianity she would be the Tree of Life and the Virgin Mary Jane, and the oil they talk about using in private.
> 
> Go check out some string theory and quantum physics concepts... I think there's a book called "The Holographic Universe" as well that might be good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never understood why people say this.  What does being a plant have to do with whether or not marijuana is a drug?  What is the definition of drug that does not include plants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marijuana is one of the most beneficial plants on the planet. If one were a creationist they'd have to ask themselves "was god wrong?" in making marijuana... did he screw up and forget to put up his stash?
Click to expand...


Whether Marijuana is one of the most beneficial plants is open to debate.


----------



## BadJesus

Montrovant said:


> BadJesus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never understood why people say this.  What does being a plant have to do with whether or not marijuana is a drug?  What is the definition of drug that does not include plants?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marijuana is one of the most beneficial plants on the planet. If one were a creationist they'd have to ask themselves "was god wrong?" in making marijuana... did he screw up and forget to put up his stash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether Marijuana is one of the most beneficial plants is open to debate.
Click to expand...


Not rlly...


----------



## Montrovant

BadJesus said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BadJesus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marijuana is one of the most beneficial plants on the planet. If one were a creationist they'd have to ask themselves "was god wrong?" in making marijuana... did he screw up and forget to put up his stash?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether Marijuana is one of the most beneficial plants is open to debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not rlly...
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing how to write a thesis does not make anyone "among the brightest". There are more PHD's than millionaires.  Would you say millionaires are among the richest people on the planet?
> 
> Rather than start with the mediocre intellects why not start at or near the top and count the top one hundred of the brightest minds and investigate how many of them believe in god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are these scientist impressive enough for you Huggy ? Oh and do watch the video of DR. Collins on the same page.
> 
> Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not very many "sciences" prepare even the brightest for coming to grips with a serious discussion of the possibility or existance of a god.  I would have to narrow the search to the top 100 brains that have the best information involving the abilities atributed to "god" such as all of tha claims of the bible...the creation or beginning of life..the creation or beginning of the universe...stuff like that.  The top minds in anthropology, bilology..astro and molecular physisits.. theoreticists  People like Hawking..
> 
> PS..studying the religious dogma like the "bible"...etc..is not science.
Click to expand...


This whole put up or shut up thing is amusing to me. This re-enforces my belief in the arrogoance of Darwinists who think that they are so smart and only stupid, un-educated people still believe in God. Nothing is more aggravating to me than ignorant people who are arrogant.


----------



## UltimateReality

Let's just switch a few words around here and see what happens...



KevinWestern said:


> Just a few things.
> 
> 1.) No person on this planet has any concrete evidence on whether or not evolution is really responsible for all the current species. Totally up in the air.
> 2.) If a evolution exists, no one has ever witnessed a modern example of it.
> 3.) If you claim that evolution does indeed exist and that you know specifically that it caused this or that in a species, you are simply just referencing man-made ideas about what might have happened, and this just leads you back to square one.
> 
> In summary, what I'm trying to say is that when it comes to the origins of life, *Evolution has no clue how it all began or even speculates about who the first common ancestor is*. Everything is just speculation. And that's a fact.
> 
> Sometimes there are just things that we don't know, and will likely not know for a very, very long time.......
> .
> .
> .



"The resolution of the debate about the creative powers of natural selection is dead simple and utterly trivial to figure out.

1) Natural selection throws stuff out. Throwing stuff out has no creative power.

2) Existing biological information, mixed and matched, can be filtered by natural selection, as in sexual reproduction, but nothing inherently new is created.

3) Random errors can produce survivability quotients, but only in circumstances in which overall functional degradation supports survival in a pathological environment (e.g., bacterial antibiotic resistance), and only given massive probabilistic resources and a few trivial mutational events capable of producing the survival advantage.

4) Random errors are inherently entropic, and the more complex a functionally-integrated system becomes, the more destructive random errors become. Anyone with any experience in even the most elementary engineering enterprise knows this.

Yet, we are expected by Darwinists to believe that throwing a sufficient number of monkey wrenches into the complex machinery of living systems, over a long enough period of time, can turn a microbe into Mozart.

This is transparent lunacy." From Uncommon Descent


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope the smartest person in the world today is not hawking it's a woman named  Marilyn Mach vos Savant. Her I.Q. is 220. She is married to the man that designed the artificial heart.
> 
> Personally I feel sorry for hawking because of his condition but he has accomplished nothing. He is glorified because of his condition and an atheist and his study of black holes and he supposedly discovered black holes leak matter putting into doubt whether black holes are what they were once thought to be. The science community can't agree whether black holes even exist.
> 
> I feel hawking has taken too many drugs for his condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way to measure a 220 I Q.  Hawkings accomplishments are no fluke:
> 
> *Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA (born 8 January 1942) is a British theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author. His key scientific works to date have included providing, with Roger Penrose, theorems regarding gravitational singularities in the framework of general relativity, and the theoretical prediction that black holes should emit radiation, which is today known as Hawking radiation (or sometimes as BekensteinHawking radiation).
> 
> He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology.
> 
> *
> 
> I believe he would make my list of brains qualified to make an informed opinion of the existance of god.
> 
> Now on to a subject you obviously personally know nothing about....  drugs.
> 
> Drugs can clearly be abused.  Of that there should be no doubt.  That said much of the knowledge of and participation in human inquest of our environment and the human condition has involved risk by those explorers.  Reaching out into the un known requires a state of not "knowing" at times like a baby...an infant ..does not know..with an open un preprogrammed mind.  Some drugs can be a benefit in removing inhabitions to that end.
> 
> LSD for one example can be quite helpful in becoming more enlightened as it opens the minds ability to explore more possible ideas than the brain of a maturing human can do on it's own.  Our "normal" experiences build up walls to learning as we adopt strategies for physical self preservation and "getting along" in society.  LSD temporarily releases those learned responsibilities allowing the brain to move freely in the theoretical...making associations not possible under "normal" conditions.  Stating that having experienced such free thought as a disqualifier is stupid.  That is like stating that a proffesional aircraft test pilot has no business driving a fork lift in a warehouse.  That stated.. LSD is not for everybody.  Some people are more fragile mentally than others and the release of the inhibitions that safely glue thier lives together can be more than disturbing..even permanently and fatally.  I don't recommend the ingestion of LSD to anyone before an honest evaluation of the risk of having any possible thought or nightmare vision pop into thier head.   For those of stronger mental stuff..I say go for it.  The mental experiences can be the most enlightening of your life.  Unlike the common sleeping "dream" state where most people do not remember what they saw..with LSD you will remember vividly and be able to take your stunning realizations back into reality for future use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry fella you are once again wrong. Hawking's I.Q. is not known but it has been suggested to be around 180 and Einsteins Was suggested to be around 190.
> 
> 
> Like i said Hawking's accomplishments are no comparison to Einsteins,Mendels,and Newtons.
Click to expand...


Under evolutionary theory, Hawkins should have been pitched at birth or hunted and eaten. You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way huggy none of these intelligent people can prove or disprove God's existence so what is your point ?
> 
> You are so bitter about God you remind me of a Dawkins or Hawking student mainly because of their atheistic views.
> 
> It just *pisses you off *to think intelliget people believe in creation doesn't it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no less hatred for the Romans and Greeks and those before them that persecuted and murdered the thoughts and lives of the free thinkers of those ages.
Click to expand...


So I'm going to ASSume your hatred includes the atheistic governments of the 20th century that murdered millions of people, including one notorious guy that thought he could help natural selection along by getting rid of everyone that wasn't blond haired and blue eyed?


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> IQ is neither a definitive number (you can get different IQ numbers from the same person depending on different factors) nor a true measurement of intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true but she kept taking tests and the her I.Q. kept getting higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't doubt that IQ can be a decent indicator of general intelligence, and therefor the woman is truly smart.  It's just a very inexact measurement, at best, which makes it not very authoritative when trying to determine the smartest person (ignoring my other point about the inability to test everyone).
Click to expand...


You and Huggy are engaging in the "No True Scottsman Fallacy." This is a form of the "Moving the Goalpost Fallacy."


----------



## UltimateReality

BadJesus said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BadJesus said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Weed isn't a drug it's a plant*, which has never killed anyone unlike Aspirin and alcohol. In most religious and metaphysical belief systems once researched and interpreted more properly than what you've likely been told, the cannabis is the Goddess, Venus, whose color is green, the shiva, the sativa.  In Christianity she would be the Tree of Life and the Virgin Mary Jane, and the oil they talk about using in private.
> 
> Go check out some string theory and quantum physics concepts... I think there's a book called "The Holographic Universe" as well that might be good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never understood why people say this.  What does being a plant have to do with whether or not marijuana is a drug?  What is the definition of drug that does not include plants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marijuana is one of the most beneficial plants on the planet. If one were a creationist they'd have to ask themselves "was god wrong?" in making marijuana... did he screw up and forget to put up his stash?
Click to expand...


Here we go with a another fallacy. Are you really assuming just because a plant exists that we should smoke it?? Hey, God created poison ivy too. Maybe you should replace your toilet paper with it.


----------



## BadJesus

UltimateReality said:


> BadJesus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never understood why people say this.  What does being a plant have to do with whether or not marijuana is a drug?  What is the definition of drug that does not include plants?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marijuana is one of the most beneficial plants on the planet. If one were a creationist they'd have to ask themselves "was god wrong?" in making marijuana... did he screw up and forget to put up his stash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go with a another fallacy. Are you really assuming just because a plant exists that we should smoke it?? Hey, God created poison ivy too. Maybe you should replace your toilet paper with it.
Click to expand...


Actually eating it is the way to go if you can afford it.


----------



## BadJesus

If you believe in the bible creation myth then maybe you should look at where those tales came from which was Ancient Egypt, the Greeks borrowed the belief system of the Egyptians too except they'd admit to it. The Egyptians probably took it from the Sumerians or from some other belief system that did. In the Greek creation myth CHAOS created everything. In the Old Testament the "Lord" character is a Saturnalian fellow , the EL or Saturn... who if you look up the traits for, one of the major traits for Saturn is CHAOS... CHAOS created everything and Chaos is beautiful.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true but she kept taking tests and the her I.Q. kept getting higher and higher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't doubt that IQ can be a decent indicator of general intelligence, and therefor the woman is truly smart.  It's just a very inexact measurement, at best, which makes it not very authoritative when trying to determine the smartest person (ignoring my other point about the inability to test everyone).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Huggy are engaging in the "No True Scottsman Fallacy." This is a form of the "Moving the Goalpost Fallacy."
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, how is my simple argument that there is no accurate way to determine who the smartest person in the world is in any way related to your post or HUGGY?

I think you are mistaking what I've been saying.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way to measure a 220 I Q.  Hawkings accomplishments are no fluke:
> 
> *Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA (born 8 January 1942) is a British theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author. His key scientific works to date have included providing, with Roger Penrose, theorems regarding gravitational singularities in the framework of general relativity, and the theoretical prediction that black holes should emit radiation, which is today known as Hawking radiation (or sometimes as BekensteinHawking radiation).
> 
> He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology.
> 
> *
> 
> I believe he would make my list of brains qualified to make an informed opinion of the existance of god.
> 
> Now on to a subject you obviously personally know nothing about....  drugs.
> 
> Drugs can clearly be abused.  Of that there should be no doubt.  That said much of the knowledge of and participation in human inquest of our environment and the human condition has involved risk by those explorers.  Reaching out into the un known requires a state of not "knowing" at times like a baby...an infant ..does not know..with an open un preprogrammed mind.  Some drugs can be a benefit in removing inhabitions to that end.
> 
> LSD for one example can be quite helpful in becoming more enlightened as it opens the minds ability to explore more possible ideas than the brain of a maturing human can do on it's own.  Our "normal" experiences build up walls to learning as we adopt strategies for physical self preservation and "getting along" in society.  LSD temporarily releases those learned responsibilities allowing the brain to move freely in the theoretical...making associations not possible under "normal" conditions.  Stating that having experienced such free thought as a disqualifier is stupid.  That is like stating that a proffesional aircraft test pilot has no business driving a fork lift in a warehouse.  That stated.. LSD is not for everybody.  Some people are more fragile mentally than others and the release of the inhibitions that safely glue thier lives together can be more than disturbing..even permanently and fatally.  I don't recommend the ingestion of LSD to anyone before an honest evaluation of the risk of having any possible thought or nightmare vision pop into thier head.   For those of stronger mental stuff..I say go for it.  The mental experiences can be the most enlightening of your life.  Unlike the common sleeping "dream" state where most people do not remember what they saw..with LSD you will remember vividly and be able to take your stunning realizations back into reality for future use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry fella you are once again wrong. Hawking's I.Q. is not known but it has been suggested to be around 180 and Einsteins Was suggested to be around 190.
> 
> 
> Like i said Hawking's accomplishments are no comparison to Einsteins,Mendels,and Newtons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under evolutionary theory, Hawkins should have been pitched at birth or hunted and eaten. You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> BadJesus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never understood why people say this.  What does being a plant have to do with whether or not marijuana is a drug?  What is the definition of drug that does not include plants?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marijuana is one of the most beneficial plants on the planet. If one were a creationist they'd have to ask themselves "was god wrong?" in making marijuana... did he screw up and forget to put up his stash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go with a another fallacy. Are you really assuming just because a plant exists that we should smoke it?? Hey, God created poison ivy too. Maybe you should replace your toilet paper with it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

BadJesus said:


> If you believe in the bible creation myth then maybe you should look at where those tales came from which was Ancient Egypt, the Greeks borrowed the belief system of the Egyptians too except they'd admit to it. The Egyptians probably took it from the Sumerians or from some other belief system that did. In the Greek creation myth CHAOS created everything. In the Old Testament the "Lord" character is a Saturnalian fellow , the EL or Saturn... who if you look up the traits for, one of the major traits for Saturn is CHAOS... CHAOS created everything and Chaos is beautiful.



Oh boy, Secularlist believe Chaos created all things depends on which camp you are in ,some believe everything came about by random mistakes and chance. do you believe the big bang produced Chaos ?


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way huggy none of these intelligent people can prove or disprove God's existence so what is your point ?
> 
> You are so bitter about God you remind me of a Dawkins or Hawking student mainly because of their atheistic views.
> 
> It just *pisses you off *to think intelliget people believe in creation doesn't it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no less hatred for the Romans and Greeks and those before them that persecuted and murdered the thoughts and lives of the free thinkers of those ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I'm going to ASSume your hatred includes the atheistic governments of the 20th century that murdered millions of people, including one notorious guy that thought he could help natural selection along by getting rid of everyone that wasn't blond haired and blue eyed?
Click to expand...


I am an avid follower of history on the tube and screen.  Have been for most of my 63 years.  Can't say I've cracked many books on history but times have changed and information is so much simpler to access via electrons.  A guess would ball park the time I've spent watching and listening to experts and proffessors video and documentary lecture is well into the multi hundreds of hours of study.

Still I make no claim to be the last word on Nazi-ism.  From what I have gathered though I wouldn't call Hitler an athiest.  No more so than one could call the Klu Klux Klan an atheist organization.  Even the Russian revolution that lead to the suedo communistic Soviet Union wasn't done in the name of atheism.  Atheism was more of a by-product of the movement as it was bent on cleaning house on the old ways in favor a new experiment to bring Russia out of a feudal and desperately poor group of people.  Christianity is still very much alive and well all through Russia and the former eastern bloc.  

The systematic murder of the chosen enemy of Nazi Germany was horrific but I don't see it as an attack on religion per se.  It was very much a fight BETWEEN religions..Christians and Jews.  The outcome was clearly never intended to eliminate "god".


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no less hatred for the Romans and Greeks and those before them that persecuted and murdered the thoughts and lives of the free thinkers of those ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm going to ASSume your hatred includes the atheistic governments of the 20th century that murdered millions of people, including one notorious guy that thought he could help natural selection along by getting rid of everyone that wasn't blond haired and blue eyed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am an avid follower of history on the tube and screen.  Have been for most of my 63 years.  Can't say I've cracked many books on history but times have changed and information is so much simpler to access via electrons.  A guess would ball park the time I've spent watching and listening to experts and proffessors video and documentary lecture is well into the multi hundreds of hours of study.
> 
> Still I make no claim to be the last word on Nazi-ism.  From what I have gathered though I wouldn't call Hitler an athiest.  No more so than one could call the Klu Klux Klan an atheist organization.  Even the Russian revolution that lead to the suedo communistic Soviet Union wasn't done in the name of atheism.  Atheism was more of a by-product of the movement as it was bent on cleaning house on the old ways in favor a new experiment to bring Russia out of a feudal and desperately poor group of people.  Christianity is still very much alive and well all through Russia and the former eastern bloc.
> 
> The systematic murder of the chosen enemy of Nazi Germany was horrific but I don't see it as an attack on religion per se.  It was very much a fight BETWEEN religions..Christians and Jews.  The outcome was clearly never intended to eliminate "god".
Click to expand...


I am no fan of organized religion they are simply creations of man. God made it clear they suffer destruction just like the nonbeliever and the evil of the earth. These religions are referred to as Babylon the great and she is called by God the great harlot. This great harlot committed fornication and idolatry with the kings of the earth. They committed despicable acts in the name of God,but should God be blamed by the acts of men ?

God warns us to get out of her unless we want to share in her destruction. God is separating the sheep from the goats. He is reading our hearts and he is calling us out from atheism and all false religions. Is there one true religion no. What unites us is our heart condition and eventually our faith in the Almighty and believing in his son.

It is not religion that saves us, it is our hearts and faith in God that saves us. To help us make wise choices you have to pray and open the scriptures to actually see what they say. Satan has been using religion to mislead many and we can see that by what religions teach and do.

Revelations chapter 18 speaks of this great harlot.

Joh 8:44  You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and did not abide in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it. 

Mat 7:13  Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby. 
Mat 7:14  For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it. 
Mat 7:15  Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. 
Mat 7:16  By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 
Mat 7:17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 
Mat 7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 
Mat 7:19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 
Mat 7:20  Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 
Mat 7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. 
Mat 7:22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? 
Mat 7:23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm going to ASSume your hatred includes the atheistic governments of the 20th century that murdered millions of people, including one notorious guy that thought he could help natural selection along by getting rid of everyone that wasn't blond haired and blue eyed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am an avid follower of history on the tube and screen.  Have been for most of my 63 years.  Can't say I've cracked many books on history but times have changed and information is so much simpler to access via electrons.  A guess would ball park the time I've spent watching and listening to experts and proffessors video and documentary lecture is well into the multi hundreds of hours of study.
> 
> Still I make no claim to be the last word on Nazi-ism.  From what I have gathered though I wouldn't call Hitler an athiest.  No more so than one could call the Klu Klux Klan an atheist organization.  Even the Russian revolution that lead to the suedo communistic Soviet Union wasn't done in the name of atheism.  Atheism was more of a by-product of the movement as it was bent on cleaning house on the old ways in favor a new experiment to bring Russia out of a feudal and desperately poor group of people.  Christianity is still very much alive and well all through Russia and the former eastern bloc.
> 
> The systematic murder of the chosen enemy of Nazi Germany was horrific but I don't see it as an attack on religion per se.  It was very much a fight BETWEEN religions..Christians and Jews.  The outcome was clearly never intended to eliminate "god".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am no fan of organized religion they are simply creations of man. God made it clear they suffer destruction just like the nonbeliever and the evil of the earth. These religions are referred to as Babylon the great and she is called by God the great harlot. This great harlot committed fornication and idolatry with the kings of the earth. They committed despicable acts in the name of God,but should God be blamed by the acts of men ?
> 
> God warns us to get out of her unless we want to share in her destruction. God is separating the sheep from the goats. He is reading our hearts and he is calling us out from atheism and all false religions. Is there one true religion no. What unites us is our heart condition and eventually our faith in the Almighty and believing in his son.
> 
> It is not religion that saves us, it is our hearts and faith in God that saves us. To help us make wise choices you have to pray and open the scriptures to actually see what they say. Satan has been using religion to mislead many and we can see that by what religions teach and do.
> 
> Revelations chapter 18 speaks of this great harlot.
> 
> Joh 8:44  You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and did not abide in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it.
> 
> Mat 7:13  Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby.
> Mat 7:14  For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it.
> Mat 7:15  Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.
> Mat 7:16  By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
> Mat 7:17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
> Mat 7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
> Mat 7:19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
> Mat 7:20  Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
> Mat 7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.
> Mat 7:22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?
> Mat 7:23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Click to expand...


Wildly off topic for this thread and string of replies. 

The above reply is also all too self serving and contradictory.

All religion is organized the moment someone picks up a bible and chooses how it should be interpreted to others.  You claim one on one with god is the only way and then ignore the prime condition and spout scripture.  Odd.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an avid follower of history on the tube and screen.  Have been for most of my 63 years.  Can't say I've cracked many books on history but times have changed and information is so much simpler to access via electrons.  A guess would ball park the time I've spent watching and listening to experts and proffessors video and documentary lecture is well into the multi hundreds of hours of study.
> 
> Still I make no claim to be the last word on Nazi-ism.  From what I have gathered though I wouldn't call Hitler an athiest.  No more so than one could call the Klu Klux Klan an atheist organization.  Even the Russian revolution that lead to the suedo communistic Soviet Union wasn't done in the name of atheism.  Atheism was more of a by-product of the movement as it was bent on cleaning house on the old ways in favor a new experiment to bring Russia out of a feudal and desperately poor group of people.  Christianity is still very much alive and well all through Russia and the former eastern bloc.
> 
> The systematic murder of the chosen enemy of Nazi Germany was horrific but I don't see it as an attack on religion per se.  It was very much a fight BETWEEN religions..Christians and Jews.  The outcome was clearly never intended to eliminate "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am no fan of organized religion they are simply creations of man. God made it clear they suffer destruction just like the nonbeliever and the evil of the earth. These religions are referred to as Babylon the great and she is called by God the great harlot. This great harlot committed fornication and idolatry with the kings of the earth. They committed despicable acts in the name of God,but should God be blamed by the acts of men ?
> 
> God warns us to get out of her unless we want to share in her destruction. God is separating the sheep from the goats. He is reading our hearts and he is calling us out from atheism and all false religions. Is there one true religion no. What unites us is our heart condition and eventually our faith in the Almighty and believing in his son.
> 
> It is not religion that saves us, it is our hearts and faith in God that saves us. To help us make wise choices you have to pray and open the scriptures to actually see what they say. Satan has been using religion to mislead many and we can see that by what religions teach and do.
> 
> Revelations chapter 18 speaks of this great harlot.
> 
> Joh 8:44  You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and did not abide in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it.
> 
> Mat 7:13  Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby.
> Mat 7:14  For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it.
> Mat 7:15  Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.
> Mat 7:16  By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
> Mat 7:17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
> Mat 7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
> Mat 7:19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
> Mat 7:20  Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
> Mat 7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.
> Mat 7:22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?
> Mat 7:23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wildly off topic for this thread and string of replies.
> 
> The above reply is also all too self serving and contradictory.
> 
> All religion is organized the moment someone picks up a bible and chooses how it should be interpreted to others.  You claim one on one with god is the only way and then ignore the prime condition and spout scripture.  Odd.
Click to expand...


Not really,I don't attend a dogmatic church. Very few sermons I have heard from the church I attend that you can come away with more than one view.

The scriptures don't contradict themselves with study that can clearly be seen you can tell the difference between metaphor and what's real.

Wildly off topic how ? this thread is about creationism religion has a part in creationism.

The point I was making if I didn't make it clear enough is all Christians are linked together by the nonbelievers.You lock in on the ones that did things in the name of God or for their own sick Ideology that was horrible, thinking this is true Christianity.

God is reaching out to all walks of life calling all of his people to him. I am sorry you see that view as self assuming. People with the right heart condition will hear his voice and listen to his words and draw close to him those who do not have the right heart condition will ignore his voice and words.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an avid follower of history on the tube and screen.  Have been for most of my 63 years.  Can't say I've cracked many books on history but times have changed and information is so much simpler to access via electrons.  A guess would ball park the time I've spent watching and listening to experts and proffessors video and documentary lecture is well into the multi hundreds of hours of study.
> 
> Still I make no claim to be the last word on Nazi-ism.  From what I have gathered though I wouldn't call Hitler an athiest.  No more so than one could call the Klu Klux Klan an atheist organization.  Even the Russian revolution that lead to the suedo communistic Soviet Union wasn't done in the name of atheism.  Atheism was more of a by-product of the movement as it was bent on cleaning house on the old ways in favor a new experiment to bring Russia out of a feudal and desperately poor group of people.  Christianity is still very much alive and well all through Russia and the former eastern bloc.
> 
> The systematic murder of the chosen enemy of Nazi Germany was horrific but I don't see it as an attack on religion per se.  It was very much a fight BETWEEN religions..Christians and Jews.  The outcome was clearly never intended to eliminate "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am no fan of organized religion they are simply creations of man. God made it clear they suffer destruction just like the nonbeliever and the evil of the earth. These religions are referred to as Babylon the great and she is called by God the great harlot. This great harlot committed fornication and idolatry with the kings of the earth. They committed despicable acts in the name of God,but should God be blamed by the acts of men ?
> 
> God warns us to get out of her unless we want to share in her destruction. God is separating the sheep from the goats. He is reading our hearts and he is calling us out from atheism and all false religions. Is there one true religion no. What unites us is our heart condition and eventually our faith in the Almighty and believing in his son.
> 
> It is not religion that saves us, it is our hearts and faith in God that saves us. To help us make wise choices you have to pray and open the scriptures to actually see what they say. Satan has been using religion to mislead many and we can see that by what religions teach and do.
> 
> Revelations chapter 18 speaks of this great harlot.
> 
> Joh 8:44  You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and did not abide in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it.
> 
> Mat 7:13  Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby.
> Mat 7:14  For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it.
> Mat 7:15  Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.
> Mat 7:16  By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
> Mat 7:17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
> Mat 7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
> Mat 7:19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
> Mat 7:20  Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
> Mat 7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.
> Mat 7:22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?
> Mat 7:23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wildly off topic for this thread and string of replies.
> 
> The above reply is also all too self serving and contradictory.
> 
> All religion is organized the moment someone picks up a bible and chooses how it should be interpreted to others.  You claim one on one with god is the only way and then ignore the prime condition and spout scripture.  Odd.
Click to expand...


No one has all the right answers and that is not the important thing. The relationship between you and the creator is what really matters. A relationship with God is a one on one relationship period, end of story.


Joh 10:27  My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am no fan of organized religion they are simply creations of man. God made it clear they suffer destruction just like the nonbeliever and the evil of the earth. These religions are referred to as Babylon the great and she is called by God the great harlot. This great harlot committed fornication and idolatry with the kings of the earth. They committed despicable acts in the name of God,but should God be blamed by the acts of men ?
> 
> *God warns us *to get out of her unless we want to share in her destruction. God is separating the sheep from the goats. He is reading our hearts and he is calling us out from atheism and all false religions. Is there one true religion no. What unites us is our heart condition and eventually our faith in the Almighty and believing in his son.
> 
> It is not religion that saves us, it is our hearts and faith in God that saves us. To help us make wise choices you have to pray and open the scriptures to actually see what they say. Satan has been using religion to mislead many and we can see that by what religions teach and do.
> 
> Revelations chapter 18 speaks of this great harlot.
> 
> Joh 8:44  You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and did not abide in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it.
> 
> Mat 7:13  Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby.
> Mat 7:14  For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it.
> Mat 7:15  Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.
> Mat 7:16  By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
> Mat 7:17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
> Mat 7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
> Mat 7:19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
> Mat 7:20  Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
> Mat 7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.
> Mat 7:22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?
> Mat 7:23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildly off topic for this thread and string of replies.
> 
> The above reply is also all too self serving and contradictory.
> 
> All religion is organized the moment someone picks up a bible and chooses how it should be interpreted to others.  You claim one on one with god is the only way and then ignore the prime condition and spout scripture.  Odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really,I don't attend a dogmatic church. Very few sermons I have heard from the church I attend that you can come away with more than one view.
> 
> The scriptures don't contradict themselves with study that can clearly be seen you can tell the difference between metaphor and what's real.
> 
> Wildly off topic how ? this thread is about creationism religion has a part in creationism.
> 
> The point I was making if I didn't make it clear enough is all Christians are linked together by the nonbelievers.You lock in on the ones that did things in the name of God or for their own sick Ideology that was horrible, thinking this is true Christianity.
> 
> *God is reaching out *to all walks of life calling all of his people to him. I am sorry you see that view as self assuming. People with the right heart condition will hear his voice and listen to his words and draw close to him those who do not have the right heart condition will ignore his voice and words.
Click to expand...


God *IS* doing no such thing.  Stone tablets?  Hearsay about Jesus?  Your god is at best lazy.  I am reaching out at this moment with more clairity than your god.  Have you considered the possibility that there might have been a god 2000 years ago but he died.  If he were all that and still around he should have no problem being clear and direct.  If he is playing some "game" screw him.  I don't like game players.  If your god thinks my love and attention is so desireable I'm easy to find.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wildly off topic for this thread and string of replies.
> 
> The above reply is also all too self serving and contradictory.
> 
> All religion is organized the moment someone picks up a bible and chooses how it should be interpreted to others.  You claim one on one with god is the only way and then ignore the prime condition and spout scripture.  Odd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really,I don't attend a dogmatic church. Very few sermons I have heard from the church I attend that you can come away with more than one view.
> 
> The scriptures don't contradict themselves with study that can clearly be seen you can tell the difference between metaphor and what's real.
> 
> Wildly off topic how ? this thread is about creationism religion has a part in creationism.
> 
> The point I was making if I didn't make it clear enough is all Christians are linked together by the nonbelievers.You lock in on the ones that did things in the name of God or for their own sick Ideology that was horrible, thinking this is true Christianity.
> 
> *God is reaching out *to all walks of life calling all of his people to him. I am sorry you see that view as self assuming. People with the right heart condition will hear his voice and listen to his words and draw close to him those who do not have the right heart condition will ignore his voice and words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God *IS* doing no such thing.  Stone tablets?  Hearsay about Jesus?  Your god is at best lazy.  I am reaching out at this moment with more clairity than your god.  Have you considered the possibility that there might have been a god 2000 years ago but he died.  If he were all that and still around he should have no problem being clear and direct.  If he is playing some "game" screw him.  I don't like game players.  If your god thinks my love and attention is so desireable I'm easy to find.
Click to expand...


If you were reaching out to him you would find him Huggy and I am certain he knows your address.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly reasonable considering mans limitations that there is a being out there that has abilities beyond our comprehension.
> 
> Life didn't create itself, it is irrational to think it could. That the planets perfectly alligned themselves and one planet that has everything to sustain life.
> 
> 
> 
> another series of famous false declarations by YWC.
> 
> "Life didn't create itself"..YWC
> "the planets perfectly alligned themselves and one planet that has everything to sustain life"- YWC
> 
> "Perfectly reasonable considering mans limitations that there is a being out there that has abilities beyond our comprehension."YWC
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THESE STATEMENTS ARE FACT.
> AT BEST THEY ARE OPINION .
> 
> AT WORST THEY ARE confirmation bias : Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
> 
> A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.
> 
> Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.
> 
> Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE FIND WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR EVEN WHEN IT'S NOT THERE .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly my point,many of of my beliefs are based in faith. If you want to call it opinion that is fine but that is what your views are based in.
> 
> That is exactly why I asked you to point out a trait in humans you can prove came from mutations. Then you need to prove that trait did not exist already in the gene pool.
> 
> If you can't then are your views based on empirical evidence or is it just an opinion based on no evidence ?
Click to expand...

faith is an opinion with lot's of wish-full thinking thrown.
once again you assume that my views are based in a kind of faith. and that assumption is base less.


Human Evolution and Frameshift Mutations 
By Geoff  April 3, 2009 

How did humans evolve from early primates? How did human like traits such as a smaller jaw relative to apes and hairlessness pop up when they dont appear in the wild in any real frequency? The typical explanation for why humans have smaller jaws than early primates is that our diets changed and our brains got bigger, pressures that caused a smaller jaw. But theres another way to look at this  what if our diets changed and our brains got bigger due to proto-human society dealing and adapting to an increasingly frequent and nearly catastrophic mutation of the jaw?

Myosin Heavy Chain 16
The human and chimpanzee genomes have both been mapped, so we are able to make comparisons between them. This is extremely useful, as chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor, but genetic lines split apart approximately 7 million years ago. So examining the differences may tell us something about how humans evolved.



There is a protein called myosin heavy chain 16 (aka MYH16) which in chimpanzees and other non-human primates is expressed almost exclusively in their powerful jaw muscles. These strong jaws are an adult trait  a logically complex one that would be more sensitive to random mutations.

And thats exactly what seems to have happened. Non-human primates have DNA that codes for the complete MYH16 protein. The corresponding part of human DNA is missing a random chunk  which causes a frameshift mutation.

Frameshift Mutations
What is a frameshift mutation? Well, first lets find out how we build proteins. We have a strand of messenger RNA (imagine a long tape with letters on it) which a ribosome (hell, imagine a tiny elf) uses to produce proteins. The critical thing to consider is that a ribosome builds a protein by reading three nucleotides at a time, and these three nucleotides code for a certain amino acid. These amino acids are chained together to produce proteins. Some combinations of three nucleotides can also act as punctuation marks.



So our wee elf looks closely at the long tape of letters, and starts off with the first three. His frame, the little chunk he works on, is three letters long. This frame is an instruction to build a certain amino acid, which he makes. He then goes along the tape, three letters at a time, making an amino acid each time that he sticks onto the last. This will eventually create a long chain of amino acids that we call a protein. But each frame doesnt need to code for just an amino acid  it can also code for other instructions (those punctuation marks) starting or stopping this chaining process.

Now you may have guessed what a frameshift mutation is by now  its where a single letter in our tape disappears, or a new random one gets thrown in, causing our frame to get shifted slightly. This means that the resulting triplets after this error will be horribly wrong. Its like the difference between


HEY MAN HOW ARE YOU BRO and
HEY MAN HWA REY OUB RO_ or HEY MAN HOQ WAR EYO UBR O__

if one were to speak in sentences containing only three letter words. The first sentence makes sense if we parse three letters at a time. The two others have a random letter removed, and a random letter added in. If we parse them three letters at a time, the sentence turns into garbage halfway through! The resulting nonsense (or malformed protein) is a result of a random insertion or deletion of information (nucleotides) and our frame, the manner in which we interpret it.

Consequences
So a frameshift mutation occured in early humans that affected the production of the protein MYH16. This protein is involved in the strong powerful jaws that primates have, but not humans. We often think of mutations as a simple little blip in the genetic code, but the way our bodies parse this code can cause cascading effects. Instead of MYH16 having a slightly different amino acid in a random spot from a random mutation, the specified amino acids after the mutation will change completely!

So you might think that well have some odd protein thats mostly normal, and the parts after the mutation affected by the frameshift will be wonky. But  and this is an important but  the triplets code for punctuation marks too, remember? In this MYH16 mutation, it turns out that this frameshift caused a punctuation mark (aka a stop codon) to just pop up  so the protein is cut off far sooner than it should be! Not too good for any traits relying on that protein. 

Look at the differences between these gorilla and human skulls below. The large bony ridges on the gorilla skull on the left are where the larger jaw muscles attach  otherwise they would literally tear off of the skull. You can also see how the gorilla skull seems empty on the sides  thats because it is filled with large jaw muscles, reducing space available for the brain. The red tinted parts are where the jaw muscles attach  you can see how much more anchoring a gorillas jaw muscle requires.

And this is where it gets interesting. This mutation in our human ancestors happened approximately 2.4 million years ago. Right before our ancestors stopped looking like primates and started looking like us. If you lacked the protein that operated a powerful jaw muscle, you could not carry a large jawbone around and use it effectively. If you cant carry a large jawbone around, there is strong selection pressure for those with smaller jaws to survive. If your jaw gets smaller, then the loading of the jaw on the skull decreases  bony ridges disappear, and the skull can get larger and lighter since it doesnt need to be as strong. A larger and lighter skull can accommodate a bigger brain.

It appears that a random mutation, flipping a single bit of genetic information, has beautifully complex cascading results. Viewing the world as a hostile agent of noise and fury, winding down to an eventual death by entropy is wrong. You can fold a piece of paper, give it to a child, and have them cut crude holes in it with cheap scissors  and when you unfold it, the snowflake is beautiful. 

So too can randomness be folded and twisted by logical structures in biology and physics  and the result is our amazing world.

Human Evolution and Frameshift Mutations | gmilburn.ca


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believing in creation does not necessitate the belief that the earth is 6000yrs old.
> That probably baffles you as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not baffled in the least.!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently you do since you used that argument against creation. One of your biggest problems you stereotype far too much. You stereotyped Newton.
> 
> You are trying to spin out of your assertion that Newton had no choice but to believe in creation. I posted a link to your favorite source saying that atheism beliefs have been around very long,long before Newton was born.
Click to expand...

and that link just strengthened my point, I did not stereotype Newton,  you have..I posted SEVERAL TIMES WHY NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE IN WHAT HE BELIEVED.

Notes on Religion in 16th Century Europe 


Atheism 
The word "atheist" in the 1500s was commonly used to denote a libertine rather to claim that one did not believe in God. To be described as an atheist was an insult. As the French historian Lucien Febve wrote, there were "conceptual difficulties" in the 1500s in denying the existence of God. "Every activity of the day ... was saturated with religious beliefs and institutions." And asking someone whether he believed in God was to suggest the possibility that he did not and must have been as insulting as asking if he were a sodomite or murderer. Peter Watson in his book Ideas agrees with Febve. Watson writes that "One reason Montaigne never really doubted that there was a God was because to do so in his lifetime was next to impossible." 

Atheism was little more tolerated in the late 1600s, as indicated by the Enlightenment's John Locke claiming that atheism was &#8220;not at all to be tolerated&#8221; because, &#8220;promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.&#8221;


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying time and matter are eternal ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is I have no idea.  I don't know how everything started, what came before, any of that.  That doesn't mean it was a god, it certainly doesn't mean it was your god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok you said you don't know how everything started. To me that means there is a beginning. There is overwhelming evidence that something can't come from nothing.
> 
> Chaos could not have created this planet and the order of the sun,moon,and the earth.
> 
> Chaos could not have created the first cell or the substances that make up the cell. Chaos could not form the cell how could it form life ?
> 
> If you rule out a designer what do you base that ruling on ?
> 
> Don't you think it is kinda foolish on the parts of many to rule out the designer ?
> 
> All complex structures had a designer and builder so why would anyone rule out a designer for this universe and life ?
> 
> Where you get your confidence there is no God and creator baffles me.
Click to expand...

wow! a whole post of false declarations !


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly reasonable considering mans limitations that there is a being out there that has abilities beyond our comprehension.
> 
> Life didn't create itself, it is irrational to think it could. That the planets perfectly alligned themselves and one planet that has everything to sustain life.
> 
> 
> 
> another series of famous false declarations by YWC.
> 
> "Life didn't create itself"..YWC
> "the planets perfectly alligned themselves and one planet that has everything to sustain life"- YWC
> 
> "Perfectly reasonable considering mans limitations that there is a being out there that has abilities beyond our comprehension."YWC
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THESE STATEMENTS ARE FACT.
> AT BEST THEY ARE OPINION .
> 
> AT WORST THEY ARE confirmation bias : Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
> 
> A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.
> 
> Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.
> 
> Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE FIND WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR EVEN WHEN IT'S NOT THERE .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way to go Daws!!! Did you happen to notice I mentioned confirmation bias 5 posts above yours. Nice technique. See it in my post, go look it up and figure out what it means, and then turn it back on us. Doh!!!
Click to expand...


lol! major assumption is wrong as always.
I have been using the cognative /conformation bias  in conspiracy theory threads on the net looong before you quite recently began to use it on this thread.


----------



## daws101

montrovant said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> what i'm saying is i have no idea.  I don't know how everything started, what came before, any of that.  That doesn't mean it was a god, it certainly doesn't mean it was your god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok you said you don't know how everything started. To me that means there is a beginning. There is overwhelming evidence that something can't come from nothing.
> 
> Chaos could not have created this planet and the order of the sun,moon,and the earth.
> 
> Chaos could not have created the first cell or the substances that make up the cell. Chaos could not form the cell how could it form life ?
> 
> If you rule out a designer what do you base that ruling on ?
> 
> Don't you think it is kinda foolish on the parts of many to rule out the designer ?
> 
> All complex structures had a designer and builder so why would anyone rule out a designer for this universe and life ?
> 
> Where you get your confidence there is no god and creator baffles me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i haven't ruled out a designer.  I also haven't assumed i know that there is one, or that if there is one, i know anything about it.
> 
> I haven't ruled out everything being a product of chance, either.
> 
> I don't know if everything started or if the universe has always been.
> 
> You are insistent that i must have some firm belief about how the universe came to be.  I do not, nor am i ashamed of my ignorance.  We, as a species, know very little about the universe.  I don't know why people feel the need to seem so sure about things for which they have little or no evidence, be it a secular or religious view.
> 
> A perfect example is your oft-repeated claim that there is no other life in the universe.
> 
> You make very assured statements on the nature of the universe (all complex structures have a designer, life cannot arise from chaos, etc.) without any actual evidence.
> 
> The difference between us, at least in this conversation, seems to be that i am perfectly willing to admit and accept my ignorance, whereas you seem determined to claim knowledge of just about everything.
Click to expand...

bump!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way huggy none of these intelligent people can prove or disprove God's existence so what is your point ?
> 
> You are so bitter about God you remind me of a Dawkins or Hawking student mainly because of their atheistic views.
> 
> It just *pisses you off *to think intelliget people believe in creation doesn't it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no less hatred for the Romans and Greeks and those before them that persecuted and murdered the thoughts and lives of the free thinkers of those ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I'm going to ASSume your hatred includes the atheistic governments of the 20th century that murdered millions of people, including one notorious guy that thought he could help natural selection along by getting rid of everyone that wasn't blond haired and blue eyed?
Click to expand...

CUE BUZZER! SORRY... BUT THE NAZIS WERE NOT ATHIEISTS!
"I'll take asshats for the win alex!"


   Myth:
Atheism is more dangerous than religion because atheists like Adolf Hitler killed millions in the name of their atheistic ideologies like Nazism. That's far more than have been killed in the name of religion. 



Response:
A popular image of the Nazis is that they were fundamentally anti-Christian while devout Christians were anti-Nazi. The truth is that German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God. 

Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism? Was the Nazi Party Based on an Atheist, Anti-Christian Ideology?

Was Adolf Hitler an Atheist?
Adolf Hitler was baptized in a Catholic Church in 1889 and was never be excommunicated or in any other way officially censured by the Catholic Church. Hitler frequently referred to God and Christianity in his various speeches and writings. In one 1933 speech, he said that "To do justice to God and our own conscience, we have turned once more to the German Volk." In another he said: "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." 

In a 1922 speech, he said: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ...And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."


----------



## UltimateReality

My confirmation bias as a rebuttal to your confirmation bias...

"Hitler was born in a Catholic, Austrian family. In time Hitler rejected Catholicism and Christianity in large part because of the influence of a fanatical &#8220;atheist&#8221; by the name of *Friedrick Nietzsche*. Nietzsche was an influential German philosopher of the 1800&#8217;s who saw Christ and Christianity as an abhorrent expression of weakness. A true leader, in Nietzsche&#8217;s view, had to be a &#8220;Superman,&#8221; free from the shackles of religion and ready and willing to use cruelty to achieve power and control over the masses.

&#8220;Thus...Nietzsche offered grounds for the reprehensible Nazi ideology of a superior race exercising its will to power as it saw fit. Hitler was living out what Nietzsche had envisioned, trying to prove himself to be the Übermensch and the precursor of the Master race. He despised weakness as much as Nietzsche did and wanted to "transvalue" the current social values into something that supported the aggressive instinct. He wanted to become, as Nietzsche called it, a "lord of the earth."_

*Hitler was so enamored with Nietzsche that he gave his fellow fascist dictator Mussolini a set of all of Nietzsche&#8217;s works during one of their meetings*. Nietzsche&#8217;s works may have helped solidify Mussolini&#8217;s atheism and his cruelty." Aetheismexposed.com 

     Hitler&#8217;s other mentor was a Renaissance political writer by the name of Machiavelli. Machiavelli&#8217;s very influential work, The Prince, was Hitler&#8217;s bedtime reading[ii]. Machiavelli had no place for Christian morality and openly encouraged leaders to use deceit and cruelty to gain and to retain power. Machiavelli acknowledged a divinity, but in his teachings one cannot see any glimmer of support for the Christian God or for Christian principles. 

Machiavelli argues that Christianity fosters the wrong civic virtues. The Christian learns humility, denial and contempt of the mundane things of this world. Christianity he says fosters submissiveness and indifference to one's duties and responsibilities as a citizen.[iii]

     Thus the two greatest forces that shaped Hitler&#8217;s mind and that moulded his proud, arrogant and cruel spirit were both &#8220;anti-Christian.&#8221;  Nietzsche, the major force that shaped Hitler&#8217;s unstoppable cruelty, was undeniably an atheist.

     Did Hitler, therefore, believe in some kind of undefined Divinity? It appears that he did; but we must say so with some reservation, *as he may have used references to God to ingratiate himself with the majority of Germans who professed to be Catholics or Lutherans. *After all, Machiavelli instructs that, most of all, a successful leader must "appear" religious.[iv] Thus it is conceivable that Hitler may have put this principle into practice.

      Therefore, though Hitler may have not been an atheist, one thing can be asserted with absolute certainty: Hitler had no place in his life and politics for the Christian God, as his beastly cruelty clearly manifested.  It is relevant to mention that Hitler's evil actions were surpassed by the *arch-atheist, Stalin*._


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> My confirmation bias as a rebuttal to your confirmation bias...
> 
> since I have no conformation bias as proven by actual evidence  the body of this post has been deleted !


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> My confirmation bias as a rebuttal to your confirmation bias...
> 
> since I have no conformation bias as proven by actual evidence  the body of this post has been deleted !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so in denial!!! You go looking on the internet and find articles that support your worldview. Well looky there, I just found one on Hitler that supported my world view. Say what you want about Hitler, but his ACTIONS, not his words, scream Atheism. You may think you want a world without God, but I don't think you can imagine the horror. Most of you attackers on here have had negative experiences with Christians, but the majority of Christians have been responsible for MUCH good in the world. I am not Catholic but I don't suppose you even have a clue about how much the Catholic Charities actually do... Or charities like Compassion or World Hunger, etc. You can hate all you want, but Christ taught to deny yourself. America now teaches it is all about self. Only when you behave selflessly do you exemplify what it means to be a Christian. The teachings of Christ are spot on, even if you have been twisted up by a few misguided fringe nutjobs. For what profit a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul? No greater love is there than to lay down your life for your friends. Putting others needs before your own, that is the key to true happiness.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

"The "uncertainty" of this[Multi-Universe Theory], to put it mildly, is obviously a problem: the other universes may be out there but we have no opportunity of observing or inferring their existence. This disturbs many physicists who are adjusting to the idea of the multiverse. Not only must we accept that basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove.

Sound familiar? Theologians are accustomed to taking some beliefs on faith. Scientists are not. All we can do is hope that the same theories that predict the multiverse also produce many other predictions that we can test here in our own universe. But the other universes themselves will almost certainly remain a conjecture."

In <em>Harper's Magazine</em>, Contrasting Intelligent Design and the Multiverse - Evolution News & Views


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> My confirmation bias as a rebuttal to your confirmation bias...
> 
> since I have no conformation bias as proven by actual evidence  the body of this post has been deleted !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so in denial!!! You go looking on the internet and find articles that support your worldview. Well looky there, I just found one on Hitler that supported my world view. Say what you want about Hitler, but his ACTIONS, not his words, scream Atheism. You may think you want a world without God, but I don't think you can imagine the horror. Most of you attackers on here have had negative experiences with Christians, but the majority of Christians have been responsible for MUCH good in the world. I am not Catholic but I don't suppose you even have a clue about how much the Catholic Charities actually do... Or charities like Compassion or World Hunger, etc. You can hate all you want, but Christ taught to deny yourself. America now teaches it is all about self. Only when you behave selflessly do you exemplify what it means to be a Christian. The teachings of Christ are spot on, even if you have been twisted up by a few misguided fringe nutjobs. For what profit a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul? No greater love is there than to lay down your life for your friends. Putting others needs before your own, that is the key to true happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are just rationalizing your conformation bias..and topping it off with some old fashioned(but still bullshit) proselytizing..
> Christians also have been in the forefront of culture distruction, wars (many since the religion was invented)
> racism, etc..
> I knew there would be at point when your pseudo scientific ramblings would run out.
> BTW Jesus also said "when rebuffed  withdraw..."
> would you, if It was proven that god never existed  change your behavior for the worse ,IE. murder ,steal, rape?
> or would you keep the same moral compass you developed under a fantasy god?
> 
> people like you have always given me the distinct impression that without a god, imaginary or otherwise you'd go batshit and do a dahlmer or start shooting in to crowds from roof tops.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so in denial!!! You go looking on the internet and find articles that support your worldview. Well looky there, I just found one on Hitler that supported my world view. Say what you want about Hitler, but his ACTIONS, not his words, scream Atheism. You may think you want a world without God, but I don't think you can imagine the horror. Most of you attackers on here have had negative experiences with Christians, but the majority of Christians have been responsible for MUCH good in the world. I am not Catholic but I don't suppose you even have a clue about how much the Catholic Charities actually do... Or charities like Compassion or World Hunger, etc. You can hate all you want, but Christ taught to deny yourself. America now teaches it is all about self. Only when you behave selflessly do you exemplify what it means to be a Christian. The teachings of Christ are spot on, even if you have been twisted up by a few misguided fringe nutjobs. For what profit a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul? No greater love is there than to lay down your life for your friends. Putting others needs before your own, that is the key to true happiness.
> 
> 
> 
> you are just rationalizing your conformation bias..and topping it off with some old fashioned(but still bullshit) proselytizing..
> Christians also have been in the forefront of culture distruction, wars (many since the religion was invented)
> racism, etc..
> I knew there would be at point when your pseudo scientific ramblings would run out.
> BTW Jesus also said "when rebuffed  withdraw..."
> would you, if It was proven that god never existed  change your behavior for the worse ,IE. murder ,steal, rape?
> or would you keep the same moral compass you developed under a fantasy god?
> 
> people like you have always given me the distinct impression that without a god, imaginary or otherwise you'd go batshit and do a dahlmer or start shooting in to crowds from roof tops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just keep on keeping on in the delusional reality you've created for yourself. If that is what you need to do to justify your existence, by all means don't let me intrude on that.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not baffled in the least.!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently you do since you used that argument against creation. One of your biggest problems you stereotype far too much. You stereotyped Newton.
> 
> You are trying to spin out of your assertion that Newton had no choice but to believe in creation. I posted a link to your favorite source saying that atheism beliefs have been around very long,long before Newton was born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and that link just strengthened my point, I did not stereotype Newton,  you have..I posted SEVERAL TIMES WHY NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE IN WHAT HE BELIEVED.
> 
> Notes on Religion in 16th Century Europe
> 
> 
> Atheism
> The word "atheist" in the 1500s was commonly used to denote a libertine rather to claim that one did not believe in God. To be described as an atheist was an insult. As the French historian Lucien Febve wrote, there were "conceptual difficulties" in the 1500s in denying the existence of God. "Every activity of the day ... was saturated with religious beliefs and institutions." And asking someone whether he believed in God was to suggest the possibility that he did not and must have been as insulting as asking if he were a sodomite or murderer. Peter Watson in his book Ideas agrees with Febve. Watson writes that "One reason Montaigne never really doubted that there was a God was because to do so in his lifetime was next to impossible."
> 
> Atheism was little more tolerated in the late 1600s, as indicated by the Enlightenment's John Locke claiming that atheism was not at all to be tolerated because, promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.
Click to expand...


Are you gonna continue to try and hide your ignorance ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is I have no idea.  I don't know how everything started, what came before, any of that.  That doesn't mean it was a god, it certainly doesn't mean it was your god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok you said you don't know how everything started. To me that means there is a beginning. There is overwhelming evidence that something can't come from nothing.
> 
> Chaos could not have created this planet and the order of the sun,moon,and the earth.
> 
> Chaos could not have created the first cell or the substances that make up the cell. Chaos could not form the cell how could it form life ?
> 
> If you rule out a designer what do you base that ruling on ?
> 
> Don't you think it is kinda foolish on the parts of many to rule out the designer ?
> 
> All complex structures had a designer and builder so why would anyone rule out a designer for this universe and life ?
> 
> Where you get your confidence there is no God and creator baffles me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow! a whole post of false declarations !
Click to expand...


Ignorance comes out again. If your world was not created through Chaos it was created through order now you are coming around.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no less hatred for the Romans and Greeks and those before them that persecuted and murdered the thoughts and lives of the free thinkers of those ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm going to ASSume your hatred includes the atheistic governments of the 20th century that murdered millions of people, including one notorious guy that thought he could help natural selection along by getting rid of everyone that wasn't blond haired and blue eyed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CUE BUZZER! SORRY... BUT THE NAZIS WERE NOT ATHIEISTS!
> "I'll take asshats for the win alex!"
> 
> 
> Myth:
> Atheism is more dangerous than religion because atheists like Adolf Hitler killed millions in the name of their atheistic ideologies like Nazism. That's far more than have been killed in the name of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Response:
> A popular image of the Nazis is that they were fundamentally anti-Christian while devout Christians were anti-Nazi. The truth is that German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God.
> 
> Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism? Was the Nazi Party Based on an Atheist, Anti-Christian Ideology?
> 
> Was Adolf Hitler an Atheist?
> Adolf Hitler was baptized in a Catholic Church in 1889 and was never be excommunicated or in any other way officially censured by the Catholic Church. Hitler frequently referred to God and Christianity in his various speeches and writings. In one 1933 speech, he said that "To do justice to God and our own conscience, we have turned once more to the German Volk." In another he said: "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
> 
> In a 1922 speech, he said: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ...And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."
Click to expand...


Why did hitler Murder fellow Christians if he were a Christian ?


----------



## koshergrl

Hitler was no Christian.


----------



## Caractacus

koshergrl said:


> Hitler was no Christian.



He was a baptised Catholic, not that that stopped him from breaking just about all of the moral tenets of the Church. The only Christianity that he seems to have supported was the Positive Christianity that was popular at the time in Germany (i.e. ideals of racial purity combined with Christianity).


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are just rationalizing your conformation bias..and topping it off with some old fashioned(but still bullshit) proselytizing..
> Christians also have been in the forefront of culture distruction, wars (many since the religion was invented)
> racism, etc..
> I knew there would be at point when your pseudo scientific ramblings would run out.
> BTW Jesus also said "when rebuffed  withdraw..."
> would you, if It was proven that god never existed  change your behavior for the worse ,IE. murder ,steal, rape?
> or would you keep the same moral compass you developed under a fantasy god?
> 
> people like you have always given me the distinct impression that without a god, imaginary or otherwise you'd go batshit and do a dahlmer or start shooting in to crowds from roof tops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep on keeping on in the delusional reality you've created for yourself. If that is what you need to do to justify your existence, by all means don't let me intrude on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take a slice of Daws reality...  Hold the ice cream.
Click to expand...


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm going to ASSume your hatred includes the atheistic governments of the 20th century that murdered millions of people, including one notorious guy that thought he could help natural selection along by getting rid of everyone that wasn't blond haired and blue eyed?
> 
> 
> 
> CUE BUZZER! SORRY... BUT THE NAZIS WERE NOT ATHIEISTS!
> "I'll take asshats for the win alex!"
> 
> 
> Myth:
> Atheism is more dangerous than religion because atheists like Adolf Hitler killed millions in the name of their atheistic ideologies like Nazism. That's far more than have been killed in the name of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Response:
> A popular image of the Nazis is that they were fundamentally anti-Christian while devout Christians were anti-Nazi. The truth is that German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God.
> 
> Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism? Was the Nazi Party Based on an Atheist, Anti-Christian Ideology?
> 
> Was Adolf Hitler an Atheist?
> Adolf Hitler was baptized in a Catholic Church in 1889 and was never be excommunicated or in any other way officially censured by the Catholic Church. Hitler frequently referred to God and Christianity in his various speeches and writings. In one 1933 speech, he said that "To do justice to God and our own conscience, we have turned once more to the German Volk." In another he said: "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
> 
> In a 1922 speech, he said: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ...And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did hitler Murder fellow Christians if he were a Christian ?
Click to expand...


Much of christanity designates others as "the wrong kind of christian".  Romney will find this out in November.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are just rationalizing your conformation bias..and topping it off with some old fashioned(but still bullshit) proselytizing..
> Christians also have been in the forefront of culture distruction, wars (many since the religion was invented)
> racism, etc..
> I knew there would be at point when your pseudo scientific ramblings would run out.
> BTW Jesus also said "when rebuffed  withdraw..."
> would you, if It was proven that god never existed  change your behavior for the worse ,IE. murder ,steal, rape?
> or would you keep the same moral compass you developed under a fantasy god?
> 
> people like you have always given me the distinct impression that without a god, imaginary or otherwise you'd go batshit and do a dahlmer or start shooting in to crowds from roof tops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep on keeping on in the delusional reality you've created for yourself. If that is what you need to do to justify your existence, by all means don't let me intrude on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false assumption...the only delusions I see are your's.
> I exist I need no justification for that, it simply is.
> 
> it's people like you who need to justify.
> 
> 
> you never did answer this question:would you, if It was proven that god never existed  change your behavior for the worse ,IE. murder ,steal, rape?
> or would you keep the same moral compass you developed under a fantasy god?
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently you do since you used that argument against creation. One of your biggest problems you stereotype far too much. You stereotyped Newton.
> 
> You are trying to spin out of your assertion that Newton had no choice but to believe in creation. I posted a link to your favorite source saying that atheism beliefs have been around very long,long before Newton was born.
> 
> 
> 
> and that link just strengthened my point, I did not stereotype Newton,  you have..I posted SEVERAL TIMES WHY NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE IN WHAT HE BELIEVED.
> 
> Notes on Religion in 16th Century Europe
> 
> 
> Atheism
> The word "atheist" in the 1500s was commonly used to denote a libertine rather to claim that one did not believe in God. To be described as an atheist was an insult. As the French historian Lucien Febve wrote, there were "conceptual difficulties" in the 1500s in denying the existence of God. "Every activity of the day ... was saturated with religious beliefs and institutions." And asking someone whether he believed in God was to suggest the possibility that he did not and must have been as insulting as asking if he were a sodomite or murderer. Peter Watson in his book Ideas agrees with Febve. Watson writes that "One reason Montaigne never really doubted that there was a God was because to do so in his lifetime was next to impossible."
> 
> Atheism was little more tolerated in the late 1600s, as indicated by the Enlightenment's John Locke claiming that atheism was not at all to be tolerated because, promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you gonna continue to try and hide your ignorance ?
Click to expand...

not hiding anything 
it's laughable that you call others ignorant!
MAYANS AND DINOSAURS!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok you said you don't know how everything started. To me that means there is a beginning. There is overwhelming evidence that something can't come from nothing.
> 
> Chaos could not have created this planet and the order of the sun,moon,and the earth.
> 
> Chaos could not have created the first cell or the substances that make up the cell. Chaos could not form the cell how could it form life ?
> 
> If you rule out a designer what do you base that ruling on ?
> 
> Don't you think it is kinda foolish on the parts of many to rule out the designer ?
> 
> All complex structures had a designer and builder so why would anyone rule out a designer for this universe and life ?
> 
> Where you get your confidence there is no God and creator baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> wow! a whole post of false declarations !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance comes out again. If your world was not created through Chaos it was created through order now you are coming around.
Click to expand...

wow! aNOTHER whole post of false declarations !


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> so i'm going to assume your hatred includes the atheistic governments of the 20th century that murdered millions of people, including one notorious guy that thought he could help natural selection along by getting rid of everyone that wasn't blond haired and blue eyed?
> 
> 
> 
> cue buzzer! Sorry... But the nazis were not athieists!
> "i'll take asshats for the win alex!"
> 
> 
> myth:
> Atheism is more dangerous than religion because atheists like adolf hitler killed millions in the name of their atheistic ideologies like nazism. That's far more than have been killed in the name of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Response:
> A popular image of the nazis is that they were fundamentally anti-christian while devout christians were anti-nazi. The truth is that german christians supported the nazis because they believed that adolf hitler was a gift to the german people from god.
> 
> hitler was an atheist who killed millions in the name of atheism, secularism? Was the nazi party based on an atheist, anti-christian ideology?
> 
> was adolf hitler an atheist?
> Adolf hitler was baptized in a catholic church in 1889 and was never be excommunicated or in any other way officially censured by the catholic church. Hitler frequently referred to god and christianity in his various speeches and writings. In one 1933 speech, he said that "to do justice to god and our own conscience, we have turned once more to the german volk." in another he said: "we were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: We have stamped it out."
> 
> in a 1922 speech, he said: "my feeling as a christian points me to my lord and savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, god's truth! Was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a christian and as a man i read through the passage which tells us how the lord at last rose in his might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion i recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that he had to shed his blood upon the cross. As a christian i have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but i have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ...and if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a christian i have also a duty to my own people. And when i look on my people i see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When i go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then i believe i would be no christian, but a very devil, if i felt no pity for them, if i did not, as did our lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why did hitler murder fellow christians if he were a christian ?
Click to expand...

 really? Christians never kill each other?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> cue buzzer! Sorry... But the nazis were not athieists!
> "i'll take asshats for the win alex!"
> 
> 
> myth:
> Atheism is more dangerous than religion because atheists like adolf hitler killed millions in the name of their atheistic ideologies like nazism. That's far more than have been killed in the name of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Response:
> A popular image of the nazis is that they were fundamentally anti-christian while devout christians were anti-nazi. The truth is that german christians supported the nazis because they believed that adolf hitler was a gift to the german people from god.
> 
> hitler was an atheist who killed millions in the name of atheism, secularism? Was the nazi party based on an atheist, anti-christian ideology?
> 
> was adolf hitler an atheist?
> Adolf hitler was baptized in a catholic church in 1889 and was never be excommunicated or in any other way officially censured by the catholic church. Hitler frequently referred to god and christianity in his various speeches and writings. In one 1933 speech, he said that "to do justice to god and our own conscience, we have turned once more to the german volk." in another he said: "we were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: We have stamped it out."
> 
> in a 1922 speech, he said: "my feeling as a christian points me to my lord and savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, god's truth! Was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a christian and as a man i read through the passage which tells us how the lord at last rose in his might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion i recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that he had to shed his blood upon the cross. As a christian i have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but i have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ...and if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a christian i have also a duty to my own people. And when i look on my people i see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When i go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then i believe i would be no christian, but a very devil, if i felt no pity for them, if i did not, as did our lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why did hitler murder fellow christians if he were a christian ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? Christians never kill each other?
Click to expand...


True Christians do not. remember they are the small crowd on the small road leading to everlasting life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CUE BUZZER! SORRY... BUT THE NAZIS WERE NOT ATHIEISTS!
> "I'll take asshats for the win alex!"
> 
> 
> Myth:
> Atheism is more dangerous than religion because atheists like Adolf Hitler killed millions in the name of their atheistic ideologies like Nazism. That's far more than have been killed in the name of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Response:
> A popular image of the Nazis is that they were fundamentally anti-Christian while devout Christians were anti-Nazi. The truth is that German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God.
> 
> Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism? Was the Nazi Party Based on an Atheist, Anti-Christian Ideology?
> 
> Was Adolf Hitler an Atheist?
> Adolf Hitler was baptized in a Catholic Church in 1889 and was never be excommunicated or in any other way officially censured by the Catholic Church. Hitler frequently referred to God and Christianity in his various speeches and writings. In one 1933 speech, he said that "To do justice to God and our own conscience, we have turned once more to the German Volk." In another he said: "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
> 
> In a 1922 speech, he said: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ...And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did hitler Murder fellow Christians if he were a Christian ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of christanity designates others as "the wrong kind of christian".  Romney will find this out in November.
Click to expand...


True Christians are not out murdering or killing other true Christians. It don't make a Christian a Christian because he is a member of man made church. Remember what Jesus said about taking up the sword and that was against an enemy.

Mat 26:52  Then Jesus said to him, Put up your sword again into its place; for all who take the sword shall perish with a sword.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> why did hitler murder fellow christians if he were a christian ?
> 
> 
> 
> really? Christians never kill each other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True Christians do not. remember they are the small crowd on the small road leading to everlasting life.
Click to expand...

bullshit, onward christian solders marching as to war? 

ExChristian.Net - Articles: How many people have been killed by Christians since Biblical times?


20th Century Church Atrocities 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------








&#8226;Catholic extermination camps
Surprisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliç, a practicing Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!
In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar -
orthodox-Christian Serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdienst der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did 
nothing to prevent them. [MV] 




&#8226;Catholic terror in Vietnam
In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters; the Viet Minh; - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-Buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]
Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.
The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read: 



"Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."



Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of Buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of Buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - ; mostly in street riots ; - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].
To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life. 





&#8226;Christianity kills the cat
On July 1, 1976, Anneliese Michel, a 23-year-old student of a teachers college in Germany, died: she starved herself to death. For months she had been haunted by demonic visions and apparitions, and for months two Catholic priests - with explicit approval of the Catholic bishop of Würzburg - additionally pestered and tormented the wretched girl with their exorcist rituals. After her death in Klingenberg hospital - her body was littered with wounds - her parents, both of them 
fanatical Catholics, were sentenced to six months for not having called for medical help. None of the priests was punished: on the contrary, Miss Michel's grave today is a place of pilgrimage and worship for a number of similarly faithful Catholics (in the seventeenth century Würzburg was notorious for it's extensive witch burnings).
This case is only the tip of an iceberg of such evil superstition and has become known only because of its lethal outcome. [SP80]



I posted just the more modern events... out of kindness


----------



## BadJesus

Youwerecreated said:


> True Christians do not. remember they are the small crowd on the small road leading to everlasting life.



Still lying to yourself huh... this is where your eternal life bullshit and your trinity garbage came from... an INTOXICATING DRINK... made from the stalks of 3 plants and PERSONIFIED AS A DEITY... 

Soma (Sanskrit &#2360;&#2379;&#2350; sóma), or Haoma (Avestan), from Proto-Indo-Iranian *sauma-, was a ritual drink of importance among the early Indo-Iranians, and the subsequent Vedic and greater Persian cultures. It is frequently mentioned in the Rigveda, whose Soma Mandala contains 114 hymns, many praising its energizing qualities. In the Avesta, Haoma has the entire Yat 20 and Yasna 9-11 dedicated to it.

The Rigveda calls the plant the "God for Gods" seemingly giving him precedence above Indra and the other Gods (RV 9.42[1])

It is described as prepared by extracting juice from the stalks of a certain plant. In both Vedic and Zoroastrian tradition, the name of the drink and the plant are the same, and the three forming a religious or mythological unity.


The Rigveda (8.48.3, tr. Griffith) states,
a áp&#257;ma sómam am&#341;t&#257; abh&#363;mâganma jyótir ávid&#257;ma devân
c kí&#7747; n&#363;nám asmân k&#7771;&#7751;avad ár&#257;ti&#7717; kím u dh&#363;rtír am&#7771;ta mártyasya
We have drunk Soma and become immortal; we have attained the light, the Gods discovered.
Now what may foeman's malice do to harm us? What, O Immortal, mortal man's deception?



You'll know when you've found it and you aren't even close lolz..


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> why did hitler murder fellow christians if he were a christian ?
> 
> 
> 
> really? Christians never kill each other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True Christians do not. remember they are the small crowd on the small road leading to everlasting life.
Click to expand...


Interesting point.  According to reports on what Jeebus said...his truest followers don't go to church/temples at all.  Soooo... by Jeebiz standards 99 percent of modern day christians are not true followers.  So who speaks for the son of god again?  If you attend church you are clearly not qualified.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? Christians never kill each other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True Christians do not. remember they are the small crowd on the small road leading to everlasting life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit, onward christian solders marching as to war?
> 
> ExChristian.Net - Articles: How many people have been killed by Christians since Biblical times?
> 
> 
> 20th Century Church Atrocities
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8226;Catholic extermination camps
> Surprisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliç, a practicing Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!
> In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar -
> orthodox-Christian Serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdienst der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did
> nothing to prevent them. [MV]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8226;Catholic terror in Vietnam
> In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters; the Viet Minh; - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-Buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]
> Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.
> The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:
> 
> 
> 
> "Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of Buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of Buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - ; mostly in street riots ; - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].
> To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8226;Christianity kills the cat
> On July 1, 1976, Anneliese Michel, a 23-year-old student of a teachers college in Germany, died: she starved herself to death. For months she had been haunted by demonic visions and apparitions, and for months two Catholic priests - with explicit approval of the Catholic bishop of Würzburg - additionally pestered and tormented the wretched girl with their exorcist rituals. After her death in Klingenberg hospital - her body was littered with wounds - her parents, both of them
> fanatical Catholics, were sentenced to six months for not having called for medical help. None of the priests was punished: on the contrary, Miss Michel's grave today is a place of pilgrimage and worship for a number of similarly faithful Catholics (in the seventeenth century Würzburg was notorious for it's extensive witch burnings).
> This case is only the tip of an iceberg of such evil superstition and has become known only because of its lethal outcome. [SP80]
> 
> 
> 
> I posted just the more modern events... out of kindness
Click to expand...


You are speaking to a person that is anti war,I believe a person has the right to defend him or herself but I don't believe God is ok with his people going to war and fighting for your government.

Like I said before mans religion will be judged. In ww2 you had catholics killing catholics can't they see how wrong that was ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

BadJesus said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> True Christians do not. remember they are the small crowd on the small road leading to everlasting life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still lying to yourself huh... this is where your eternal life bullshit and your trinity garbage came from... an INTOXICATING DRINK... made from the stalks of 3 plants and PERSONIFIED AS A DEITY...
> 
> Soma (Sanskrit &#2360;&#2379;&#2350; sóma), or Haoma (Avestan), from Proto-Indo-Iranian *sauma-, was a ritual drink of importance among the early Indo-Iranians, and the subsequent Vedic and greater Persian cultures. It is frequently mentioned in the Rigveda, whose Soma Mandala contains 114 hymns, many praising its energizing qualities. In the Avesta, Haoma has the entire Yat 20 and Yasna 9-11 dedicated to it.
> 
> The Rigveda calls the plant the "God for Gods" seemingly giving him precedence above Indra and the other Gods (RV 9.42[1])
> 
> It is described as prepared by extracting juice from the stalks of a certain plant. In both Vedic and Zoroastrian tradition, the name of the drink and the plant are the same, and the three forming a religious or mythological unity.
> 
> 
> The Rigveda (8.48.3, tr. Griffith) states,
> a áp&#257;ma sómam am&#341;t&#257; abh&#363;mâganma jyótir ávid&#257;ma devân
> c kí&#7747; n&#363;nám asmân k&#7771;&#7751;avad ár&#257;ti&#7717; kím u dh&#363;rtír am&#7771;ta mártyasya
> We have drunk Soma and become immortal; we have attained the light, the Gods discovered.
> Now what may foeman's malice do to harm us? What, O Immortal, mortal man's deception?
> 
> 
> 
> You'll know when you've found it and you aren't even close lolz..
Click to expand...


I don't believe in the Catholic doctrine the trinity. You guys like to stereotype don't you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? Christians never kill each other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True Christians do not. remember they are the small crowd on the small road leading to everlasting life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting point.  According to reports on what Jeebus said...his truest followers don't go to church/temples at all.  Soooo... by Jeebiz standards 99 percent of modern day christians are not true followers.  So who speaks for the son of god again?  If you attend church you are clearly not qualified.
Click to expand...


Any true Christian can speak the gospels and represent God. The bible and holy spirit is what guides us. We have to pay attention to his words or run the risk of being mislead. Mans churches are a black eye on the creator.

The church I attend is nondenominational and they don't stress doctrine. We have trinitarians and non trinitarians,people who believe the traditional hell and people who believe it is the grave. What unites us the belief in Christ our faith in God. Our views don;'t save us but our faith does.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> True Christians do not. remember they are the small crowd on the small road leading to everlasting life.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit, onward christian solders marching as to war?
> 
> ExChristian.Net - Articles: How many people have been killed by Christians since Biblical times?
> 
> 
> 20th Century Church Atrocities
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catholic extermination camps
> Surprisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliç, a practicing Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!
> In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar -
> orthodox-Christian Serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdienst der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did
> nothing to prevent them. [MV]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catholic terror in Vietnam
> In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters; the Viet Minh; - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-Buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]
> Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.
> The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:
> 
> 
> 
> "Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of Buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of Buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - ; mostly in street riots ; - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].
> To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity kills the cat
> On July 1, 1976, Anneliese Michel, a 23-year-old student of a teachers college in Germany, died: she starved herself to death. For months she had been haunted by demonic visions and apparitions, and for months two Catholic priests - with explicit approval of the Catholic bishop of Würzburg - additionally pestered and tormented the wretched girl with their exorcist rituals. After her death in Klingenberg hospital - her body was littered with wounds - her parents, both of them
> fanatical Catholics, were sentenced to six months for not having called for medical help. None of the priests was punished: on the contrary, Miss Michel's grave today is a place of pilgrimage and worship for a number of similarly faithful Catholics (in the seventeenth century Würzburg was notorious for it's extensive witch burnings).
> This case is only the tip of an iceberg of such evil superstition and has become known only because of its lethal outcome. [SP80]
> 
> 
> 
> I posted just the more modern events... out of kindness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are speaking to a person that is anti war,I believe a person has the right to defend him or herself but I don't believe God is ok with his people going to war and fighting for your government.
> 
> Like I said before mans religion will be judged. In ww2 you had catholics killing catholics can't they see how wrong that was ?
Click to expand...

there you go again making false proclamations you have no proof that religion Will be judge by any one other then it adherents.


"I don't believe God is ok with his people going to war and fighting for your government."YWC

(spit take) ANOTHER CLASSIC !
REALLY? EVER HEARD THE PHRASE "SILENCE EQUALS CONSENT"?
SINCE GOD IS NOT BEING FORCED TO NOT ACT ON HIS PERCEIVED BUT UNPROVEN DISAPPROVAL OF WAR, LOGIC WOULD SAY THAT 1. GOD ENJOYS WAR
2.GOD IS POWERLESS TO STOP IT. 
3.GOD DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT, .   
4.GOD DOESN'T EXIST.

isn't it your government too?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> BadJesus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> True Christians do not. remember they are the small crowd on the small road leading to everlasting life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still lying to yourself huh... this is where your eternal life bullshit and your trinity garbage came from... an INTOXICATING DRINK... made from the stalks of 3 plants and PERSONIFIED AS A DEITY...
> 
> Soma (Sanskrit &#2360;&#2379;&#2350; sóma), or Haoma (Avestan), from Proto-Indo-Iranian *sauma-, was a ritual drink of importance among the early Indo-Iranians, and the subsequent Vedic and greater Persian cultures. It is frequently mentioned in the Rigveda, whose Soma Mandala contains 114 hymns, many praising its energizing qualities. In the Avesta, Haoma has the entire Yat 20 and Yasna 9-11 dedicated to it.
> 
> The Rigveda calls the plant the "God for Gods" seemingly giving him precedence above Indra and the other Gods (RV 9.42[1])
> 
> It is described as prepared by extracting juice from the stalks of a certain plant. In both Vedic and Zoroastrian tradition, the name of the drink and the plant are the same, and the three forming a religious or mythological unity.
> 
> 
> The Rigveda (8.48.3, tr. Griffith) states,
> a áp&#257;ma sómam am&#341;t&#257; abh&#363;mâganma jyótir ávid&#257;ma devân
> c kí&#7747; n&#363;nám asmân k&#7771;&#7751;avad ár&#257;ti&#7717; kím u dh&#363;rtír am&#7771;ta mártyasya
> We have drunk Soma and become immortal; we have attained the light, the Gods discovered.
> Now what may foeman's malice do to harm us? What, O Immortal, mortal man's deception?
> 
> 
> 
> You'll know when you've found it and you aren't even close lolz..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in the Catholic doctrine the trinity. You guys like to stereotype don't you ?
Click to expand...

no you only believe in what supports you ignorance.
nobody is stereotyping with the exception of you.
your answer was a dodge.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> True Christians do not. remember they are the small crowd on the small road leading to everlasting life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting point.  According to reports on what Jeebus said...his truest followers don't go to church/temples at all.  Soooo... by Jeebiz standards 99 percent of modern day christians are not true followers.  So who speaks for the son of god again?  If you attend church you are clearly not qualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any true Christian can speak the gospels and represent God. The bible and holy spirit is what guides us. We have to pay attention to his words or run the risk of being mislead. Mans churches are a black eye on the creator.
> 
> The church I attend is nondenominational and they don't stress doctrine. We have trinitarians and non trinitarians,people who believe the traditional hell and people who believe it is the grave. What unites us the belief in Christ our faith in God. Our views don;'t save us but our faith does.
Click to expand...

the Youwerecreated ministries airs every moring at    4:00am cst..check you local listings..


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BadJesus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still lying to yourself huh... this is where your eternal life bullshit and your trinity garbage came from... an INTOXICATING DRINK... made from the stalks of 3 plants and PERSONIFIED AS A DEITY...
> 
> Soma (Sanskrit &#2360;&#2379;&#2350; sóma), or Haoma (Avestan), from Proto-Indo-Iranian *sauma-, was a ritual drink of importance among the early Indo-Iranians, and the subsequent Vedic and greater Persian cultures. It is frequently mentioned in the Rigveda, whose Soma Mandala contains 114 hymns, many praising its energizing qualities. In the Avesta, Haoma has the entire Yat 20 and Yasna 9-11 dedicated to it.
> 
> The Rigveda calls the plant the "God for Gods" seemingly giving him precedence above Indra and the other Gods (RV 9.42[1])
> 
> It is described as prepared by extracting juice from the stalks of a certain plant. In both Vedic and Zoroastrian tradition, the name of the drink and the plant are the same, and the three forming a religious or mythological unity.
> 
> 
> The Rigveda (8.48.3, tr. Griffith) states,
> a áp&#257;ma sómam am&#341;t&#257; abh&#363;mâganma jyótir ávid&#257;ma devân
> c kí&#7747; n&#363;nám asmân k&#7771;&#7751;avad ár&#257;ti&#7717; kím u dh&#363;rtír am&#7771;ta mártyasya
> We have drunk Soma and become immortal; we have attained the light, the Gods discovered.
> Now what may foeman's malice do to harm us? What, O Immortal, mortal man's deception?
> 
> 
> 
> You'll know when you've found it and you aren't even close lolz..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in the Catholic doctrine the trinity. You guys like to stereotype don't you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you only believe in what supports you ignorance.
> nobody is stereotyping with the exception of you.
> your answer was a dodge.
Click to expand...


Wow, aren't you the hypocrite!!! You are totally guilty of twisting the truth to justify your stance. I'm not falling for it and anyone with a sliver of intelligence isn't either.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep on keeping on in the delusional reality you've created for yourself. If that is what you need to do to justify your existence, by all means don't let me intrude on that.
> 
> 
> 
> you never did answer this question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've ignored at least 10 posts of mine that pose a question and now all of a sudden you are the answer police???? Why don't you go back about 20 pages and start responding to my posts and then I will answer your question.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in the Catholic doctrine the trinity. You guys like to stereotype don't you ?
> 
> 
> 
> no you only believe in what supports you ignorance.
> nobody is stereotyping with the exception of you.
> your answer was a dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, aren't you the hypocrite!!! You are totally guilty of twisting the truth to justify your stance. I'm not falling for it and anyone with a sliver of intelligence isn't either.
Click to expand...

right ,when you get some actual intelligence ,it will suprise how silly you answer was!
or you'll still be rationalizing the shit out of your dogma..


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> you never did answer this question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've ignored at least 10 posts of mine that pose a question and now all of a sudden you are the answer police???? Why don't you go back about 20 pages and start responding to my posts and then I will answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you've posted nothing that from my pov that needed and answer from me .....you asked questions you already had the kind of answers that you wanted.
Click to expand...


----------



## bayoubill

Baron said:


> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube



geez... I love Jesus and I love science... but this guy is an embarrassment on both counts...


----------



## daws101

bayoubill said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geez... I love Jesus and I love science... but this guy is an embarrassment on both counts...
Click to expand...

how do you "flash" someone down the toilet without science.
there would be no toilets without science.
wonder why god didn't miracle the m up while he was at it?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in the Catholic doctrine the trinity. You guys like to stereotype don't you ?
> 
> 
> 
> no you only believe in what supports you ignorance.
> nobody is stereotyping with the exception of you.
> your answer was a dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, aren't you the hypocrite!!! You are totally guilty of twisting the truth to justify your stance. I'm not falling for it and anyone with a sliver of intelligence isn't either.
Click to expand...

please show proof where I twisted the truth?

this should be fun!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no you only believe in what supports you ignorance.
> nobody is stereotyping with the exception of you.
> your answer was a dodge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, aren't you the hypocrite!!! You are totally guilty of twisting the truth to justify your stance. I'm not falling for it and anyone with a sliver of intelligence isn't either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please show proof where I twisted the truth?
> 
> this should be fun!
Click to expand...


We can start with the past 281 pages.


----------



## UltimateReality

This article pretty much boils it down. You have to be totally devoid of any intelligence to believe evolution is responsible for the magnificent creatures we see on the planet. What is astonishing is that so many, in their attempt to deny God and pretend that they are in control of their own destiny, have given up all logical sense to embrace the highest ignorance in the myth of Darwinism. If you can read this article and still believe in the Darwinists party line, then you are a foolish, foolish man, devoid of any logic or reasoning skills. You can go on denying God, but you are going to need to come up with a completely NEW theory other than the joke Darwin proposed. Daws, he asks numerous questions in this article, especially in the section on Fitness. I would welcome your answers to even one of them. Some excerpts...

"This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological &#8212; it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: *the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce*.... But what is really ridiculous is to suggest that empirical work, simply by virtue of being empirical work, offers a proper test of any particular theory. Certainly the work of evolutionary biologists has brought us many wonderful insights into the lives of organisms &#8212; insights of the sort that were being gained long before Darwin."

"Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain &#8212; namely, the organism&#8217;s fitness &#8212; cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable. *How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration."* And thus the MYTH of Darwinism in a nutshell!!!!!

"Dennett&#8217;s contention that through the microscope we &#8220;witness the birth of agency, in the first macromolecules that have enough complexity to &#8216;do things&#8217;&#8221; is itself an illusion. Neither he nor anyone else has ever witnessed the birth of such agency through a microscope or any other instrument &#8212; a fact that many decades of unrestrained speculation about the creation of life some billions of years ago does nothing to change. What we see through the microscope is what we see with our unaided eyes: life comes from life. Living cells, with all their displays of agency, come from other living cells. Open any journal of any sub-sub-subdiscipline of biology, and you will immediately be overwhelmed by suggestions of agency even at the lowest levels. Molecules, we are told to a fault, are bent on regulating, signaling, stimulating, responding, controlling, assisting, suppressing, healing, repairing, sensing, coordinating &#8212; and all in a way that can be understood only contextually. There is nothing at any level of observation, whether above or below macromolecules, that is not caught up in the meaningful life of the organism as a whole."

Such, then, is the living reality that Dawkins refers to as the &#8220;appearance of design&#8221; or the &#8220;illusion of design and planning.&#8221;[6] It is also what Dennett has in mind when he writes, &#8220;All the Design in the universe can be explained as the product of a process that is ultimately bereft of intelligence, in other words an algorithmic process that weds randomness and selection to produce ... all the intelligence that exists.&#8221;[7] (Dawkins and Dennett sometimes seem fixated upon design, presumably as a result of *their severely constraining preoccupation with religion *and *[FYI, the author disassociates himself from ID and Creationism so there went that argument DAWS]* with the &#8220;creationism&#8221; or &#8220;intelligent design&#8221; promulgated by some religious folks. Although the word has its legitimate uses, you will not find me speaking of design, simply because &#8212; as I&#8217;ve made abundantly clear in previous articles &#8212; organisms cannot be understood as having been designed, machine-like, whether by an engineer-God or a Blind Watchmaker elevated to god-like status."

"In fact, we are no longer free to imagine that evolution waits around for &#8220;accidents&#8221; to knock genes askew so as to provide new material for natural selection to work on. *The genome of every organism is actively and insistently remodeled as an expression of its context. Genetic sequences get rewritten, reshuffled, duplicated, turned backward, &#8220;invented&#8221; from scratch, and otherwise revised in a way that prominently advertises the organism&#8217;s accomplished skill in matters of genomic change.* The illustrations of this skill are so extensive in the contemporary literature that there is no way to review it adequately here."

"And then, finally, we must be sure to pay no heed to the fact that the fitness, against which we have assumed our notion of randomness could be defined, is one of the *most obscure, ill-formed concepts in all of science."*

This &#8220;something random&#8221; looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. *It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a &#8220;Randomness of the gaps,&#8221; demanding an extraordinarily blind faith.* 

The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness


----------



## bayoubill

UltimateReality said:


> This article pretty much boils it down. You have to be totally devoid of any intelligence to believe evolution is responsible for the magnificent creatures we see on the planet. What is astonishing is that so many, in their attempt to deny God and pretend that they are in control of their own destiny, have given up all logical sense to embrace the highest ignorance in the myth of Darwinism. If you can read this article and still believe in the Darwinists party line, then you are a foolish, foolish man, devoid of any logic or reasoning skills. You can go on denying God, but you are going to need to come up with a completely NEW theory other than the joke Darwin proposed. Daws, he asks numerous questions in this article, especially in the section on Fitness. I would welcome your answers to even one of them. Some excerpts...
> 
> "This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological &#8212; it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: *the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce*.... But what is really ridiculous is to suggest that empirical work, simply by virtue of being empirical work, offers a proper test of any particular theory. Certainly the work of evolutionary biologists has brought us many wonderful insights into the lives of organisms &#8212; insights of the sort that were being gained long before Darwin."
> 
> "Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain &#8212; namely, the organism&#8217;s fitness &#8212; cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable. *How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration."* And thus the MYTH of Darwinism in a nutshell!!!!!
> 
> "Dennett&#8217;s contention that through the microscope we &#8220;witness the birth of agency, in the first macromolecules that have enough complexity to &#8216;do things&#8217;&#8221; is itself an illusion. Neither he nor anyone else has ever witnessed the birth of such agency through a microscope or any other instrument &#8212; a fact that many decades of unrestrained speculation about the creation of life some billions of years ago does nothing to change. What we see through the microscope is what we see with our unaided eyes: life comes from life. Living cells, with all their displays of agency, come from other living cells. Open any journal of any sub-sub-subdiscipline of biology, and you will immediately be overwhelmed by suggestions of agency even at the lowest levels. Molecules, we are told to a fault, are bent on regulating, signaling, stimulating, responding, controlling, assisting, suppressing, healing, repairing, sensing, coordinating &#8212; and all in a way that can be understood only contextually. There is nothing at any level of observation, whether above or below macromolecules, that is not caught up in the meaningful life of the organism as a whole."
> 
> Such, then, is the living reality that Dawkins refers to as the &#8220;appearance of design&#8221; or the &#8220;illusion of design and planning.&#8221;[6] It is also what Dennett has in mind when he writes, &#8220;All the Design in the universe can be explained as the product of a process that is ultimately bereft of intelligence, in other words an algorithmic process that weds randomness and selection to produce ... all the intelligence that exists.&#8221;[7] (Dawkins and Dennett sometimes seem fixated upon design, presumably as a result of *their severely constraining preoccupation with religion *and *[FYI, the author disassociates himself from ID and Creationism so there went that argument DAWS]* with the &#8220;creationism&#8221; or &#8220;intelligent design&#8221; promulgated by some religious folks. Although the word has its legitimate uses, you will not find me speaking of design, simply because &#8212; as I&#8217;ve made abundantly clear in previous articles &#8212; organisms cannot be understood as having been designed, machine-like, whether by an engineer-God or a Blind Watchmaker elevated to god-like status."
> 
> "In fact, we are no longer free to imagine that evolution waits around for &#8220;accidents&#8221; to knock genes askew so as to provide new material for natural selection to work on. *The genome of every organism is actively and insistently remodeled as an expression of its context. Genetic sequences get rewritten, reshuffled, duplicated, turned backward, &#8220;invented&#8221; from scratch, and otherwise revised in a way that prominently advertises the organism&#8217;s accomplished skill in matters of genomic change.* The illustrations of this skill are so extensive in the contemporary literature that there is no way to review it adequately here."
> 
> "And then, finally, we must be sure to pay no heed to the fact that the fitness, against which we have assumed our notion of randomness could be defined, is one of the *most obscure, ill-formed concepts in all of science."*
> 
> This &#8220;something random&#8221; looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. *It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a &#8220;Randomness of the gaps,&#8221; demanding an extraordinarily blind faith.*
> 
> The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness



I believe there is order in the universe...

I believe that, behind that order, there's a mysterious force beyond our understanding... for the sake of simplicity (among other things), I refer to that mysterious force as "god"...

I believe that "evolution", as commonly described and understood, is a valid concept...

I believe that evolution is derived from the order inherent in the Universe... and that, therefore, evolution is a godly thing...


----------



## Montrovant

bayoubill said:


> I believe there is order in the universe...
> 
> I believe that, behind that order, there's a mysterious force beyond our understanding... for the sake of simplicity (among other things), I refer to that mysterious force as "god"...
> 
> I believe that "evolution", as commonly described and understood, is a valid concept...
> 
> I believe that evolution is derived from the order inherent in the Universe... and that, therefore, evolution is a godly thing...



As evidenced by bill's post, there is no reason to assume that belief in evolution is dependent on disbelief in god.  Plenty of people who believe in god also believe that evolution occurs.  The idea that the two are inherently connected is false.  It is only religious belief that directly contradicts evolutionary theory that causes conflict, not all religious belief; and is only religious belief that directly contradicts evolutionary theory that those who ascribe to evolution would necessarily try to disprove, not all religious belief.

I'm not sure why you think that 'so many' are attempting to deny god, when so many claim to believe in god, including many who believe in evolutionary theory.

EDIT : The 'you' I am referring to is UltimateReality.  I didn't quote the previous post for brevity's sake, but then forgot that it might leave it unclear who I was speaking to.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there is order in the universe...
> 
> I believe that, behind that order, there's a mysterious force beyond our understanding... for the sake of simplicity (among other things), I refer to that mysterious force as "god"...
> 
> I believe that "evolution", as commonly described and understood, is a valid concept...
> 
> I believe that evolution is derived from the order inherent in the Universe... and that, therefore, evolution is a godly thing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by bill's post, there is no reason to assume that belief in evolution is dependent on disbelief in god.  Plenty of people who believe in god also believe that evolution occurs.  The idea that the two are inherently connected is false.  It is only religious belief that directly contradicts evolutionary theory that causes conflict, not all religious belief; and is only religious belief that directly contradicts evolutionary theory that those who ascribe to evolution would necessarily try to disprove, not all religious belief.
> 
> I'm not sure why you think that 'so many' are attempting to deny god, when so many claim to believe in god, including many who believe in evolutionary theory.
> 
> EDIT : The 'you' I am referring to is UltimateReality.  I didn't quote the previous post for brevity's sake, but then forgot that it might leave it unclear who I was speaking to.
Click to expand...


Respectfully,You can say that unless you read the scriptures.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there is order in the universe...
> 
> I believe that, behind that order, there's a mysterious force beyond our understanding... for the sake of simplicity (among other things), I refer to that mysterious force as "god"...
> 
> I believe that "evolution", as commonly described and understood, is a valid concept...
> 
> I believe that evolution is derived from the order inherent in the Universe... and that, therefore, evolution is a godly thing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by bill's post, there is no reason to assume that belief in evolution is dependent on disbelief in god.  Plenty of people who believe in god also believe that evolution occurs.  The idea that the two are inherently connected is false.  It is only religious belief that directly contradicts evolutionary theory that causes conflict, not all religious belief; and is only religious belief that directly contradicts evolutionary theory that those who ascribe to evolution would necessarily try to disprove, not all religious belief.
> 
> I'm not sure why you think that 'so many' are attempting to deny god, when so many claim to believe in god, including many who believe in evolutionary theory.
> 
> EDIT : The 'you' I am referring to is UltimateReality.  I didn't quote the previous post for brevity's sake, but then forgot that it might leave it unclear who I was speaking to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Respectfully,You can say that unless you read the scriptures.
Click to expand...


The bible is as open to interpretation as any religious text.  See the number of different sects of Christianity as evidence that not everyone will read the scriptures and get the same meaning from them.


----------



## Caractacus

bayoubill said:


> geez... I love Jesus and I love science... but this guy is an embarrassment on both counts...



Jesus never once mentions the creation of the world but his followers sure seem to know a helluva alot about how the world was made. Why, you think they know more than God hisself...


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there is order in the universe...
> 
> I believe that, behind that order, there's a mysterious force beyond our understanding... for the sake of simplicity (among other things), I refer to that mysterious force as "god"...
> 
> I believe that "evolution", as commonly described and understood, is a valid concept...
> 
> I believe that evolution is derived from the order inherent in the Universe... and that, therefore, evolution is a godly thing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by bill's post, there is no reason to assume that belief in evolution is dependent on disbelief in god.  Plenty of people who believe in god also believe that evolution occurs.  The idea that the two are inherently connected is false.  It is only religious belief that directly contradicts evolutionary theory that causes conflict, not all religious belief; and is only religious belief that directly contradicts evolutionary theory that those who ascribe to evolution would necessarily try to disprove, not all religious belief.
> 
> I'm not sure why you think that 'so many' are attempting to deny god, when so many claim to believe in god, including many who believe in evolutionary theory.
> 
> EDIT : The 'you' I am referring to is UltimateReality.  I didn't quote the previous post for brevity's sake, but then forgot that it might leave it unclear who I was speaking to.
Click to expand...


It is astonishing to me that with all the points made in that article, you locked onto my purely religious commentary preceding quotes for the article. Let's just forget my religious bias for a second... did you happen to see how utterly flawed the theory of evolution is at its very core???

*"Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain &#8212; namely, the organism&#8217;s fitness &#8212; cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness?"*

I would like someone to comment on what the accepted definition of fitness is, since the whole theory hinges on this!!! Did you catch the part about it not being testable? 

I am always a little aggravated when religious folks don't know what they believe. You talk of many different ways of interpreting the Bible but the absolute irony is that in the posts preceding this one, several of you have preached what appears to be your own interpretation of Darwinism. Do you not see that Darwinism as taught in the schools and by the prophet Dawkins, has denial of the Creator at its core? You may have reconciled yourself somehow to believe in both God and evolution, but that is not what the party line teaches. "It's turtles all the way down." The Darwinian lie is foisted on us by Materialists. Materialism is a religion, with metaphysical tennants, maded up of folks who believe that matter is the ONLY reality. *To claim that God or some Intelligent Agent, or some as yet undiscovered mysterious force, can exist in harmony with the TOE is based on an absolute lack of understanding of what the theory teaches, or a gross mis-interpretation, or even worse, total ignorance of Evolutionary theory's basic tennants because one has never questioned anything regarding the "fact" of evolution for themselves.* I suppose you could be a Deist and believe God started it and evolution did the rest but again this belief, as evidenced above, is not based on any real sciene. I have to wonder how so many could have been misled by such a baseless, scienceless theory unless something more sinister is going on, but that is my personal opinion based on my religious beliefs. For example, I have asked many times on this forum for someone to provide me with evidence on what the TOE teaches is the common ancestor. Or I've asked for someone to point out the specific point at which origin of life questions or theory ends, and Darwinism begins. *No one has ever responded. *

Don't buy for one second that just because you believe in Evolution you are not religious. Materialism is a religion my friends. It takes just as much faith to believe, especially when the house of cards is starting to fall because folks are daring to ask simple questions that should have been asked along time ago. The theory has serious issues and I'll say it one more time, I can't possible understand why so many have flocked to believe with so little REAL SCIENTIFIC evidence unless there is an underlying motivation to irradicate God. How else could the masses have been so duped????? So called intelligent men will accept any willy nilly explanation to continue to force fit the theory to reality. At some point it is almost like mass hypnosis has occurred.

*DAWS*, please point me to some viable information on the testability of fitness as it relates to the crux of the whole critical pillar of evolutionary theory, i.e., natural selection. I am blown away that, as in the explanation of the Giraffe's long neck (which is just one of thousands of "we think this is why" explanations evolutionary theory proposes), somewhere along the way smart men accepted the hypothesis about high food sources as fact without so much as any thought, questions, further investigation, study, or experiment. Simply astonishing!!! It's like the whole TOE has been taken on blind faith, without so much as one legitimate experiment to confirm natural selection is capable of the miracles claimed for it. 

It truly is the "randomness of the gaps" religion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> As evidenced by bill's post, there is no reason to assume that belief in evolution is dependent on disbelief in god.  Plenty of people who believe in god also believe that evolution occurs.  The idea that the two are inherently connected is false.  It is only religious belief that directly contradicts evolutionary theory that causes conflict, not all religious belief; and is only religious belief that directly contradicts evolutionary theory that those who ascribe to evolution would necessarily try to disprove, not all religious belief.
> 
> I'm not sure why you think that 'so many' are attempting to deny god, when so many claim to believe in god, including many who believe in evolutionary theory.
> 
> EDIT : The 'you' I am referring to is UltimateReality.  I didn't quote the previous post for brevity's sake, but then forgot that it might leave it unclear who I was speaking to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully,You can say that unless you read the scriptures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible is as open to interpretation as any religious text.  See the number of different sects of Christianity as evidence that not everyone will read the scriptures and get the same meaning from them.
Click to expand...


Because they didn't study it enough. Every doctrine that is tought it either can be verified or disqualified through a thourough study of the scriptures.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Caractacus said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> geez... I love Jesus and I love science... but this guy is an embarrassment on both counts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus never once mentions the creation of the world but his followers sure seem to know a helluva alot about how the world was made. Why, you think they know more than God hisself...
Click to expand...


I have to disagree with you.

He created all things in the beginning.

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
Joh 1:2  He was in the beginning with God. 
Joh 1:3  All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. 


You can read the genesis account for more details.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality : calling evolution a religion doesn't make it so.

YWC : believing you know the only correct way to interpret scripture doesn't make it so.


----------



## Caractacus

Youwerecreated said:


> I have to disagree with you.
> 
> He created all things in the beginning.
> 
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
> Joh 1:2  He was in the beginning with God.
> Joh 1:3  All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
> 
> 
> You can read the genesis account for more details.



I'm not going to be tricked by that bit of "Word" play, which is merely an English translation of a Greek philosophical term (Logos, or Word, first used by Heraclitus of Ephesus). Anyone with a halfway decent education in the classics (i.e. comparative religion, history, philosophy, etc.) can blow the nebulous assertions in the Bible out of the water. 

As an example:

Logos-as-Son-of-God, first synthesized by Philo Judaeus, who was influeced by the Stoics.
Trinities of gods, a universal component of the ancient heathen mythology.

Etc.

I guess Jesus must've been a Greek philosopher or a hierophant of the heathen mysteries then? If not why do the doctrines of Greek philosophers, pagan cults, etc. keep showing up in the New Testament?

As to Genesis, the creation tale is standard fare for ancient Near Eastern creation fables, save that a single divine force rather than a pantheon of deities is the First Cause.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, aren't you the hypocrite!!! You are totally guilty of twisting the truth to justify your stance. I'm not falling for it and anyone with a sliver of intelligence isn't either.
> 
> 
> 
> please show proof where I twisted the truth?
> 
> this should be fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can start with the past 281 pages.
Click to expand...

so you have no evidence, just your dogma..Ok works for me !


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality : calling evolution a religion doesn't make it so.
> 
> YWC : believing you know the only correct way to interpret scripture doesn't make it so.



I didn't call evolution a religion. I called Materialism a religion. Evolution is a tennant of Materialism. Seriously, that is all you could come up with in response???


----------



## daws101

Who We Are 
The Nature Institute, founded in 1998, is a small, independent not-for-profit organization in upstate New York with a proven track record for incisive and thoughtful research studies, publications, and education programs. The Institute serves as a local, national, and international forum for research, education, and the exchange of ideas about the re-visioning of science and technology in an effort to realign humanity with nature. Biologist and Institute founder and director Craig Holdrege, senior researcher and publications' editor Steve Talbott, associate researcher Henrike Holdrege, and affiliate researchers Michael D'Aleo, Johannes Wirz, and Ronald Brady (deceased) have authored books and articles while also speaking at conferences, leading workshops, training teachers, and lecturing widely. 


The Nature Institute - About Us


.Religion & SpiritualityOctober 21, 2010
Add a commentChancellor Merkel: Are we talking about the same Goethe?
Linda Van Slyke
Albany Interfaith Spirituality Examiner 
+.Germany&#8217;s Chancellor Angela Merkel invoked the &#8220;sacred&#8221; name of Goethe recently when defending her uni-cultural views before a sympathetic audience of Christian Democratic Union (CDU) members.

According to Berlin&#8217;s AFP, Merkel announced that Germany has the right to &#8220;make demands&#8221; on immigrants &#8220;such as mastering the language of Goethe&#8230;&#8221; shortly after she also proclaimed this:  We feel tied to Christian values. Those who don&#8217;t accept them don&#8217;t have a place here.

All this begs the question: Just what was the language of Goethe?  Assuming that &#8220;language&#8221; is not just phonics and syntax, a glance at Goethe&#8217;s own philosophical/theological sayings and writings could perhaps help to answer that question.

Although Goethe was born into a Lutheran family, he spent a lifetime grappling with his conflicted feelings about Christianity.  When he was 32, he described himself as &#8220;not anti-Christian, nor un-Christian, but most decidedly non-Christian.&#8221;  However, Eckermann - in his book Conversations with Goethe - portrayed 
(his boss) Goethe as being so enthusiastic about Christianity as to call it the &#8220;ultimate religion.&#8221;

As did his own character Faust, Goethe seems to have struggled throughout a lifetime of ambivalence concerning religion. As did Faust in Part Two, Goethe seems to have made some kind of peace with all this towards the end of his days. In a letter dated only a year before his death, Goethe wrote enthusiastically about the Hypsistarians &#8220;&#8230;who, hemmed in between heathens, Jews and Christians, declared that they would treasure, admire, and honor the best, the most perfect that might come to their knowledge, and in as much as it must have a close connection to the Godhead, pay it reverence&#8230;&#8221; 

Sounds like Goethe&#8217;s own words and views might have been greatly removed from the homogeneous society that Chancellor Merkel seems to be aiming towards. Although duly hinted at, the true &#8220;language of Goethe&#8221; seems nowhere to be found within Merkel&#8217;s recent rhetoric.

Did you know&#8230;


The Nature Institute in Ghent NY does seem to have a handle on Goethe&#8217;s true language. Click here for a description of their Goethean approach to seeing nature as a living whole.

If you found this informative, you might also like...

Felix Mendelssohn:  A midsummer night's dilemma

once again UR uses a bias source THAT HAS NO EMPERICAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT'S CLAIM!
in other words  it's creationism  with a face lift!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Who We Are
> The Nature Institute, founded in 1998, is a small, independent not-for-profit organization in upstate New York with a proven track record for incisive and thoughtful research studies, publications, and education programs. The Institute serves as a local, national, and international forum for research, education, and the exchange of ideas about the re-visioning of science and technology in an effort to realign humanity with nature. Biologist and Institute founder and director Craig Holdrege, senior researcher and publications' editor Steve Talbott, associate researcher Henrike Holdrege, and affiliate researchers Michael D'Aleo, Johannes Wirz, and Ronald Brady (deceased) have authored books and articles while also speaking at conferences, leading workshops, training teachers, and lecturing widely.
> 
> 
> The Nature Institute - About Us



*Avoiding the Issue* 
A reasoner who is supposed to address an issue but instead goes off on a tangent has committed the fallacy of avoiding the issue. Also called missing the point, straying off the subject, digressing, and not sticking to the issue.

Example:


A city official is charged with corruption for awarding contracts to his wifes consulting firm. In speaking to a reporter about why he is innocent, the city official talks only about his wifes conservative wardrobe, the familys lovable dog, and his own accomplishments in supporting Little League baseball.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who We Are
> The Nature Institute, founded in 1998, is a small, independent not-for-profit organization in upstate New York with a proven track record for incisive and thoughtful research studies, publications, and education programs. The Institute serves as a local, national, and international forum for research, education, and the exchange of ideas about the re-visioning of science and technology in an effort to realign humanity with nature. Biologist and Institute founder and director Craig Holdrege, senior researcher and publications' editor Steve Talbott, associate researcher Henrike Holdrege, and affiliate researchers Michael D'Aleo, Johannes Wirz, and Ronald Brady (deceased) have authored books and articles while also speaking at conferences, leading workshops, training teachers, and lecturing widely.
> 
> 
> The Nature Institute - About Us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Avoiding the Issue*
> A reasoner who is supposed to address an issue but instead goes off on a tangent has committed the fallacy of avoiding the issue. Also called missing the point, straying off the subject, digressing, and not sticking to the issue.
> 
> Example:
> 
> 
> A city official is charged with corruption for awarding contracts to his wifes consulting firm. In speaking to a reporter about why he is innocent, the city official talks only about his wifes conservative wardrobe, the familys lovable dog, and his own accomplishments in supporting Little League baseball.
Click to expand...

wrong as always ! the issue here is credibility of the evidence...or a lack of it in your case.
you constantly post speculation, myth and fantasy and try to play it off as fact.
all in an effort to rationalize the non rational .


----------



## UltimateReality

Caractacus said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree with you.
> 
> He created all things in the beginning.
> 
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
> Joh 1:2  He was in the beginning with God.
> Joh 1:3  All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
> 
> 
> You can read the genesis account for more details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to be tricked by that bit of "Word" play, which is merely an English translation of a Greek philosophical term (Logos, or Word, first used by Heraclitus of Ephesus). Anyone with a halfway decent education in the classics (i.e. comparative religion, history, philosophy, etc.) can blow the nebulous assertions in the Bible out of the water.
> 
> As an example:
> 
> Logos-as-Son-of-God, first synthesized by Philo Judaeus, who was influeced by the Stoics.
> Trinities of gods, a universal component of the ancient heathen mythology.
> 
> Etc.
> 
> I guess Jesus must've been a Greek philosopher or a hierophant of the heathen mysteries then? If not why do the doctrines of Greek philosophers, pagan cults, etc. keep showing up in the New Testament?
> 
> As to Genesis, the creation tale is standard fare for ancient Near Eastern creation fables, save that a single divine force rather than a pantheon of deities is the First Cause.
Click to expand...


John the author borrowed the use of the term "Word" not only from the vocabulary of the Old Testament but also from Greek Philosophy, in which the term was essentially impersonal, signifying the rational principle of "divine reason", "mind", or even "wisdom".  John, however, imbued  the term entirely with Old Testament and Christian meaning, where God's Word is His powerful self expression in Creation, wisdom, revelation and salvation, and made it refer to a person, i.e., Jesus the Christ. Greek philosophical usage is not the exclusive background of John's thought. Strategically, the term "Word" serves as a bridge word to reach not only Jews, but also Greeks. Both would have been familiar with it.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> you constantly post speculation, myth and fantasy and try to play it off as fact.



Projecting. This is exactly what evolution theorists do. 

You haven't responded to one single point in the article, I'm assuming, because you can't. You are just as blind and brainwashed as the rest. You wouldn't denounce evolution of Darwin appeared to you in the flesh and told you it was all a trick he made up.


----------



## UltimateReality

What most of you haters, and many Christians, do is violate the principle of Hermenutics. Throughout history, people have used the Bible erroneously to prove their point. Folks on this forum are notorious for quoting scripture out of context, not only the context of the specific book, but in relation to the whole Bible. They have no understanding of how the New Revalation relates to the Old. The also have no understanding of the historical context.The funny thing about this is they seem totally oblivious to history. Up until the 19th century, countless men had devoted their entire lives to the study of the Bible. Many of the points brought up here have already been discussed and wrestled with for centuries, but you all act like you are bringing up some new point or revelation. That is just pure arrogance and most of you really are at the center of your own universe, totally oblivious to anything outside your little box. Many are the product of Historical Revisionism and the dumbing down of our education system. It must be this lack of teaching of critical thought that made it so easy to pass of the seriously flawed TOE to so many mindless individuals. The lack of questions being brought against the Darwin fable are alarming. 

Five main principles of Biblical Hermenutics(1):

1. *The Literal Principle*: Usus Loquendi

2. *A Historical Principle*: Now, when the Scripture was written, they understood what was said clearly. Just like the Constitution: when it was written everybody understood what they meant. Here we are a few hundred years later trying to figure out what they meant. Why? Because history is different. Time has passed. Culture has changed. Circumstances have changed, and even language has changed.

3. *Grammatical Principle*: You go to a text of Scripture and you have to approach it grammatically. This is called syntax. Lexigraphy is the study of words, syntax is the study of the relationship of words. You have to learn about verbs and adverbs and adjectives and you have to learn about infinitives and participles and you have to learn about prepositions. You have to learn about conjugating verbs and you have to learn about cases for nouns and substantives. Ablative and genitive and all of that, accusative, nominative. You learn all of the structure of language.

4. *The Synthesis Principle*: The Old Reformers used the expression "Scriptura Intra Pratatum" (sp.). What that means is that Scripture is its own interpreter. And you use the Synthesis Principle. What does that mean? That I always interpret a given passage in the Bible in the light of the rest of the Bible.

5. *The Practical Principle*: The final question you ask, you go through this whole process, starting out, "All right what's the literal meaning here?" Then you move to, "What's the historical background? The context? What are all the grammatical components here? How does this synthesize with the rest of Scripture? And then the last question you ask is, "So what? What does it mean to me? What does it have to do with me?

Then #6 which is purely a religious principle:

6. *The Holy Spirit Principle*: It basically infers that the Holy Spirit can speak to us through scripture. 

One of my favorite mis-interpretations of the Bible is the Catholics claim that Jesus handed the Christian church to Peter, who is basically credited with being the founder of the Catholic church. It hinges on the statement in the Bible in which Jesus says, "Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Catholics think Jesus was talking to Petra, because his name means rock, but they miss the whole context of WHERE this statement was made. Jesus was standing in front of a large ROCK at Cesari of Philippi. It was a rock cliff where many pagan rituals were performed. When taken in the context of location, Christ was saying the church would be born from the conversion of the pagan worshipers. Then it should be no coincidence that all the Christian holidays were formerly pagan holidays. It should be noted that the cave was commonly referred to as the gates of hell.

Lion Tracks Photo QnA -- Caesarea Philippi (Banias, Panias, Panium) in Israel. Site of question "Who do you say that I am?" by Jesus.

Gates of Hell | Follow The Rabbi

Banias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hermeneutics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(1) Borrowed from Jon MacArthur: Charismatic Chaos


----------



## Youwerecreated

Caractacus said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree with you.
> 
> He created all things in the beginning.
> 
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
> Joh 1:2  He was in the beginning with God.
> Joh 1:3  All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
> 
> 
> You can read the genesis account for more details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to be tricked by that bit of "Word" play, which is merely an English translation of a Greek philosophical term (Logos, or Word, first used by Heraclitus of Ephesus). Anyone with a halfway decent education in the classics (i.e. comparative religion, history, philosophy, etc.) can blow the nebulous assertions in the Bible out of the water.
> 
> As an example:
> 
> Logos-as-Son-of-God, first synthesized by Philo Judaeus, who was influeced by the Stoics.
> Trinities of gods, a universal component of the ancient heathen mythology.
> 
> Etc.
> 
> I guess Jesus must've been a Greek philosopher or a hierophant of the heathen mysteries then? If not why do the doctrines of Greek philosophers, pagan cults, etc. keep showing up in the New Testament?
> 
> As to Genesis, the creation tale is standard fare for ancient Near Eastern creation fables, save that a single divine force rather than a pantheon of deities is the First Cause.
Click to expand...


No word games on my part just quoting the scriptures,and no Jesus was not a Greek philosopher nor were his followers.

The scriptures are all we have to go by and we believe the scriptures through faith. But there are some things spoken of that can be put to the test concerning science. Archaeologist are aiding them in finding cities of old,imagine that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality : calling evolution a religion doesn't make it so.
> 
> YWC : believing you know the only correct way to interpret scripture doesn't make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't call evolution a religion. I called Materialism a religion. Evolution is a tennant of Materialism. Seriously, that is all you could come up with in response???
Click to expand...


It definitely is an Ideology.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who We Are
> The Nature Institute, founded in 1998, is a small, independent not-for-profit organization in upstate New York with a proven track record for incisive and thoughtful research studies, publications, and education programs. The Institute serves as a local, national, and international forum for research, education, and the exchange of ideas about the re-visioning of science and technology in an effort to realign humanity with nature. Biologist and Institute founder and director Craig Holdrege, senior researcher and publications' editor Steve Talbott, associate researcher Henrike Holdrege, and affiliate researchers Michael D'Aleo, Johannes Wirz, and Ronald Brady (deceased) have authored books and articles while also speaking at conferences, leading workshops, training teachers, and lecturing widely.
> 
> 
> The Nature Institute - About Us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Avoiding the Issue*
> A reasoner who is supposed to address an issue but instead goes off on a tangent has committed the fallacy of avoiding the issue. Also called missing the point, straying off the subject, digressing, and not sticking to the issue.
> 
> Example:
> 
> 
> A city official is charged with corruption for awarding contracts to his wifes consulting firm. In speaking to a reporter about why he is innocent, the city official talks only about his wifes conservative wardrobe, the familys lovable dog, and his own accomplishments in supporting Little League baseball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong as always ! the issue here is credibility of the evidence...or a lack of it in your case.
> you constantly post speculation, myth and fantasy and try to play it off as fact.
> all in an effort to rationalize the non rational .
Click to expand...


Did you make the claim that atheism didn't exist in the time of Newton ? That is a myth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you constantly post speculation, myth and fantasy and try to play it off as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting. This is exactly what evolution theorists do.
> 
> You haven't responded to one single point in the article, I'm assuming, because you can't. You are just as blind and brainwashed as the rest. You wouldn't denounce evolution of Darwin appeared to you in the flesh and told you it was all a trick he made up.
Click to expand...


You could not hit the nail more squarely.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> What most of you haters, and many Christians, do is violate the principle of Hermenutics. Throughout history, people have used the Bible erroneously to prove their point. Folks on this forum are notorious for quoting scripture out of context, not only the context of the specific book, but in relation to the whole Bible. They have no understanding of how the New Revalation relates to the Old. The also have no understanding of the historical context.The funny thing about this is they seem totally oblivious to history. Up until the 19th century, countless men had devoted their entire lives to the study of the Bible. Many of the points brought up here have already been discussed and wrestled with for centuries, but you all act like you are bringing up some new point or revelation. That is just pure arrogance and most of you really are at the center of your own universe, totally oblivious to anything outside your little box. Many are the product of Historical Revisionism and the dumbing down of our education system. It must be this lack of teaching of critical thought that made it so easy to pass of the seriously flawed TOE to so many mindless individuals. The lack of questions being brought against the Darwin fable are alarming.
> 
> Five main principles of Biblical Hermenutics(1):
> 
> 1. *The Literal Principle*: Usus Loquendi
> 
> 2. *A Historical Principle*: Now, when the Scripture was written, they understood what was said clearly. Just like the Constitution: when it was written everybody understood what they meant. Here we are a few hundred years later trying to figure out what they meant. Why? Because history is different. Time has passed. Culture has changed. Circumstances have changed, and even language has changed.
> 
> 3. *Grammatical Principle*: You go to a text of Scripture and you have to approach it grammatically. This is called syntax. Lexigraphy is the study of words, syntax is the study of the relationship of words. You have to learn about verbs and adverbs and adjectives and you have to learn about infinitives and participles and you have to learn about prepositions. You have to learn about conjugating verbs and you have to learn about cases for nouns and substantives. Ablative and genitive and all of that, accusative, nominative. You learn all of the structure of language.
> 
> 4. *The Synthesis Principle*: The Old Reformers used the expression "Scriptura Intra Pratatum" (sp.). What that means is that Scripture is its own interpreter. And you use the Synthesis Principle. What does that mean? That I always interpret a given passage in the Bible in the light of the rest of the Bible.
> 
> 5. *The Practical Principle*: The final question you ask, you go through this whole process, starting out, "All right what's the literal meaning here?" Then you move to, "What's the historical background? The context? What are all the grammatical components here? How does this synthesize with the rest of Scripture? And then the last question you ask is, "So what? What does it mean to me? What does it have to do with me?
> 
> Then #6 which is purely a religious principle:
> 
> 6. *The Holy Spirit Principle*: It basically infers that the Holy Spirit can speak to us through scripture.
> 
> One of my favorite mis-interpretations of the Bible is the Catholics claim that Jesus handed the Christian church to Peter, who is basically credited with being the founder of the Catholic church. It hinges on the statement in the Bible in which Jesus says, "Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Catholics think Jesus was talking to Petra, because his name means rock, but they miss the whole context of WHERE this statement was made. Jesus was standing in front of a large ROCK at Cesari of Philippi. It was a rock cliff where many pagan rituals were performed. When taken in the context of location, Christ was saying the church would be born from the conversion of the pagan worshipers. Then it should be no coincidence that all the Christian holidays were formerly pagan holidays. It should be noted that the cave was commonly referred to as the gates of hell.
> 
> Lion Tracks Photo QnA -- Caesarea Philippi (Banias, Panias, Panium) in Israel. Site of question "Who do you say that I am?" by Jesus.
> 
> Gates of Hell | Follow The Rabbi
> 
> Banias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hermeneutics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> (1) Borrowed from Jon MacArthur: Charismatic Chaos



I have been studying the word for over 40 years I have no reason to doubt what I have learned.

The scriptures are for:

2Ti 3:16  Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. 
2Ti 3:17  That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality : calling evolution a religion doesn't make it so.
> 
> YWC : believing you know the only correct way to interpret scripture doesn't make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't call evolution a religion. I called Materialism a religion. Evolution is a tennant of Materialism. Seriously, that is all you could come up with in response???
Click to expand...


How much response do I need for the baseless accusation that belief in evolution is based on denial of god?  How much response do I need to you assuming you know what others believe as well as you ascribing connections or characteristics to the theory of evolution that aren't there?


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality : calling evolution a religion doesn't make it so.
> 
> YWC : believing you know the only correct way to interpret scripture doesn't make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't call evolution a religion. I called Materialism a religion. Evolution is a tennant of Materialism. Seriously, that is all you could come up with in response???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much response do I need for the baseless accusation that belief in evolution is based on denial of god?  How much response do I need to you assuming you know what others believe as well as you ascribing connections or characteristics to the theory of evolution that aren't there?
Click to expand...


That is your interpretation (ha!!), but not in alignment with the most outspoken proponents like Hawkins and Dawkins, or thousands of others including many who post here.

You say it is baseless but I believe you just need to open your mind and look at the evidence. Evolutionary theory is every bit the product of denial of the Creator, just as much as the Multi-universe theory is a response to the Fine Tuning argument which puts God as the Master Tuner. Your denial of these facts is the only baseless claim here.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I can show how absurd it is to believe in abiogenesis it's so absurd the only explanation is an intelligent designer. I have tried this before but I think it just went over peoples head but The formation of Amino Acids and Proteins are the evidence of the creator.

There is no way life could have come into existence without being created. There is just no way an unintelligent process could create life.


----------



## blu

Youwerecreated said:


> I can show how absurd it is to believe in abiogenesis it's so absurd the only explanation is an intelligent designer. I have tried this before but I think it just went over peoples head but The formation of Amino Acids and Proteins are the evidence of the creator.
> 
> There is no way life could have come into existence without being created. There is just no way an unintelligent process could create life.



how does amino acid show the need for a creator?

religious nuts just cling on to whatever science hasn't proven yet in order to justify their illogical belief in god.

First it was the rain & sun god, then the crop god, and on and on all the while science disproved their nonsense.

What will the nutbags do when science has proven everything and their creationist garbage is finally put to rest for good?


----------



## UltimateReality

blu said:


> how does amino acid show the need for a creator?



The odds my friend. Arrogance and ignorance.... a really bad combination.


----------



## Youwerecreated

blu said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can show how absurd it is to believe in abiogenesis it's so absurd the only explanation is an intelligent designer. I have tried this before but I think it just went over peoples head but The formation of Amino Acids and Proteins are the evidence of the creator.
> 
> There is no way life could have come into existence without being created. There is just no way an unintelligent process could create life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how does amino acid show the need for a creator?
> 
> religious nuts just cling on to whatever science hasn't proven yet in order to justify their illogical belief in god.
> 
> First it was the rain & sun god, then the crop god, and on and on all the while science disproved their nonsense.
> 
> What will the nutbags do when science has proven everything and their creationist garbage is finally put to rest for good?
Click to expand...


I explained this to you in the other thread blu.


----------



## Youwerecreated

blu said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can show how absurd it is to believe in abiogenesis it's so absurd the only explanation is an intelligent designer. I have tried this before but I think it just went over peoples head but The formation of Amino Acids and Proteins are the evidence of the creator.
> 
> There is no way life could have come into existence without being created. There is just no way an unintelligent process could create life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how does amino acid show the need for a creator?
> 
> religious nuts just cling on to whatever science hasn't proven yet in order to justify their illogical belief in god.
> 
> First it was the rain & sun god, then the crop god, and on and on all the while science disproved their nonsense.
> 
> What will the nutbags do when science has proven everything and their creationist garbage is finally put to rest for good?
Click to expand...


Here in case you missed it.

Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.

Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.

Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you constantly post speculation, myth and fantasy and try to play it off as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting. This is exactly what evolution theorists do.
> 
> You haven't responded to one single point in the article, I'm assuming, because you can't. You are just as blind and brainwashed as the rest. You wouldn't denounce evolution of Darwin appeared to you in the flesh and told you it was all a trick he made up.
Click to expand...

nothing to respond to since it's all speculation ..what's the point?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Caractacus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree with you.
> 
> He created all things in the beginning.
> 
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
> Joh 1:2  He was in the beginning with God.
> Joh 1:3  All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
> 
> 
> You can read the genesis account for more details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to be tricked by that bit of "Word" play, which is merely an English translation of a Greek philosophical term (Logos, or Word, first used by Heraclitus of Ephesus). Anyone with a halfway decent education in the classics (i.e. comparative religion, history, philosophy, etc.) can blow the nebulous assertions in the Bible out of the water.
> 
> As an example:
> 
> Logos-as-Son-of-God, first synthesized by Philo Judaeus, who was influeced by the Stoics.
> Trinities of gods, a universal component of the ancient heathen mythology.
> 
> Etc.
> 
> I guess Jesus must've been a Greek philosopher or a hierophant of the heathen mysteries then? If not why do the doctrines of Greek philosophers, pagan cults, etc. keep showing up in the New Testament?
> 
> As to Genesis, the creation tale is standard fare for ancient Near Eastern creation fables, save that a single divine force rather than a pantheon of deities is the First Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John the author borrowed the use of the term "Word" not only from the vocabulary of the Old Testament but also from Greek Philosophy, in which the term was essentially impersonal, signifying the rational principle of "divine reason", "mind", or even "wisdom".  John, however, imbued  the term entirely with Old Testament and Christian meaning, where God's Word is His powerful self expression in Creation, wisdom, revelation and salvation, and made it refer to a person, i.e., Jesus the Christ. Greek philosophical usage is not the exclusive background of John's thought. Strategically, the term "Word" serves as a bridge word to reach not only Jews, but also Greeks. Both would have been familiar with it.
Click to expand...




how arrogant of john: "John, however, imbued the term entirely with Old Testament and Christian meaning"-UR


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> nothing to respond to since it's all speculation ..what's the point?



Exactly!!! That is exactly what the article said about the TOE! Finally you get it.


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing to respond to since it's all speculation ..what's the point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly!!! That is exactly what the article said about the toe! Finally you get it.
Click to expand...

got it the first time ,the only problem is toe is not speculation...you have no evidence proving it is. Just speculation  and no hard evidence to validate your claim of a intelligent creator..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Avoiding the Issue*
> A reasoner who is supposed to address an issue but instead goes off on a tangent has committed the fallacy of avoiding the issue. Also called missing the point, straying off the subject, digressing, and not sticking to the issue.
> 
> Example:
> 
> 
> A city official is charged with corruption for awarding contracts to his wifes consulting firm. In speaking to a reporter about why he is innocent, the city official talks only about his wifes conservative wardrobe, the familys lovable dog, and his own accomplishments in supporting Little League baseball.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong as always ! the issue here is credibility of the evidence...or a lack of it in your case.
> you constantly post speculation, myth and fantasy and try to play it off as fact.
> all in an effort to rationalize the non rational .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you make the claim that atheism didn't exist in the time of Newton ? That is a myth.
Click to expand...

no  not the way you are attepmting to spin it.
I said newton was NOT A CREATIONIST!
may be I should have said (since you have a comprehension deficit) that CREATIONISM  AS YOU AS YOU KNOW IT DID NOT EXIST:Creation Science or scientific creationism[1] is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.[2][3] It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution.[4] It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide.[5] The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex nihilo"; the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 10,000 years; the belief that mankind and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed "baraminological" kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth.[6] As a result, creation science also challenges the geologic and astrophysical evidence for the age and origins of Earth and Universe, which creation scientists acknowledge are irreconcilable to the account in the Book of Genesis.[4] Creation science proponents often refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" or as "Darwinian evolution".

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[7][8] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[9][10]

AS TO ATHEISM I never said it did not exist  what I posted was this :and that link just strengthened my point, I did not stereotype Newton, you have..I posted SEVERAL TIMES WHY NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE IN WHAT HE BELIEVED.

Notes on Religion in 16th Century Europe 


Atheism 
The word "atheist" in the 1500s was commonly used to denote a libertine rather to claim that one did not believe in God. To be described as an atheist was an insult. As the French historian Lucien Febve wrote, there were "conceptual difficulties" in the 1500s in denying the existence of God. "Every activity of the day ... was saturated with religious beliefs and institutions." And asking someone whether he believed in God was to suggest the possibility that he did not and must have been as insulting as asking if he were a sodomite or murderer. Peter Watson in his book Ideas agrees with Febve. Watson writes that "One reason Montaigne never really doubted that there was a God was because to do so in his lifetime was next to impossible." 

Atheism was little more tolerated in the late 1600s, as indicated by the Enlightenment's John Locke claiming that atheism was not at all to be tolerated because, promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.


and this:1. Newton ( 25 December 1642  20 March 1727) was not a creationist, the pseudo science of CREATIONISM HAD NOT EVEN BEEN INVENTED YET . 
In its modern form, creationism sprung up around the same time as evolution, as a response to defend against what was seen as a threat to their faith.
The people who developed both are either not known in the first case, or many and varied in the second.
Read more: Who invented creationism

he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.) 
your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority . 

 'nuff said


----------



## UltimateReality

"When you ask an evolutionist how profoundly complex biological designs, that even today confound our best scientists and engineers, evolved, they will explain that the organic wonder increased the fitness of the organism in which it evolved. In other words, the new design fulfilled a need. They will explain this in great detail, as though that suffices as an explanation to the question. The brain evolved because it was needed.

Likewise, when you ask a cosomologist how the universe was finely tuned, they will explain that it must be finely tuned because, as British physicist Brandon Carter explained, we are here to observe it. If it weren&#8217;t finely tuned, it wouldn&#8217;t be observed because life would be impossible. Simply put, our universe is what it is because we are here.

It would be like hitting a thousand jackpots in a row in Las Vegas and explaining it by referring to the money you collected. True, if you hadn&#8217;t hit those jackpots you couldn&#8217;t have collected the money, but that doesn&#8217;t explain the astronomically unlikely event."

Darwin's God: Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can show how absurd it is to believe in abiogenesis it's so absurd the only explanation is an intelligent designer. I have tried this before but I think it just went over peoples head but The formation of Amino Acids and Proteins are the evidence of the creator.
> 
> There is no way life could have come into existence without being created. There is just no way an unintelligent process could create life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how does amino acid show the need for a creator?
> 
> religious nuts just cling on to whatever science hasn't proven yet in order to justify their illogical belief in god.
> 
> First it was the rain & sun god, then the crop god, and on and on all the while science disproved their nonsense.
> 
> What will the nutbags do when science has proven everything and their creationist garbage is finally put to rest for good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here in case you missed it.
> 
> Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.
> 
> It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.
> 
> Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.
> 
> Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.
Click to expand...


Here:

Uncommon Descent | For non-biologists: Why proteins are not easily recombined


----------



## Caractacus

UltimateReality said:


> John the author borrowed the use of the term "Word" not only from the vocabulary of the Old Testament but also from Greek Philosophy, in which the term was essentially impersonal, signifying the rational principle of "divine reason", "mind", or even "wisdom".  John, however, imbued  the term entirely with Old Testament and Christian meaning, where God's Word is His powerful self expression in Creation, wisdom, revelation and salvation, and made it refer to a person, i.e., Jesus the Christ. Greek philosophical usage is not the exclusive background of John's thought. Strategically, the term "Word" serves as a bridge word to reach not only Jews, but also Greeks. Both would have been familiar with it.



Philosophical terms were used by Christians within a specific and narrow context (as compared to the rather flexible usage that the no-Christians applied to these terms), often bungling the ideas with their confusing theological notions (i.e. that the supreme God became a man and displayed himself on a cross to die and so on), facts attested to in the surviving fragments of early anti-Christian critics and their literary opponents.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> how does amino acid show the need for a creator?
> 
> religious nuts just cling on to whatever science hasn't proven yet in order to justify their illogical belief in god.
> 
> First it was the rain & sun god, then the crop god, and on and on all the while science disproved their nonsense.
> 
> What will the nutbags do when science has proven everything and their creationist garbage is finally put to rest for good?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here in case you missed it.
> 
> Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.
> 
> It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.
> 
> Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.
> 
> Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here:
> 
> Uncommon Descent | For non-biologists: Why proteins are not easily recombined
Click to expand...


A little more thourough


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> how does amino acid show the need for a creator?
> 
> religious nuts just cling on to whatever science hasn't proven yet in order to justify their illogical belief in god.
> 
> First it was the rain & sun god, then the crop god, and on and on all the while science disproved their nonsense.
> 
> What will the nutbags do when science has proven everything and their creationist garbage is finally put to rest for good?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here in case you missed it.
> 
> Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.
> 
> It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.
> 
> Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.
> 
> Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here:
> 
> Uncommon Descent | For non-biologists: Why proteins are not easily recombined
Click to expand...

and of course your sources are far from objective!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here in case you missed it.
> 
> Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.
> 
> It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.
> 
> Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.
> 
> Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here:
> 
> Uncommon Descent | For non-biologists: Why proteins are not easily recombined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and of course your sources are far from objective!
Click to expand...


Might want to get the beam out of your eye before you go after the spec in someone else's. So you're saying you are objective???? That is the funniest thing I have heard all day.


----------



## UltimateReality

"Recently, the notion that most of the universe is composed of dark matter took an evidential hit. Live Science said, &#8220;A sprawling collection of galaxies and star clusters surrounding our own Milky Way is challenging long-standing theories on the existence of dark matter, the mysterious substance thought to pervade the universe.&#8221; According to a survey of satellite galaxies of the Milky Way conducted at the University of Bonn, dark matter theories fail to account for the arrangement of matter in a region spanning 10 times our galaxy&#8217;s diameter. The astronomers extended the impact of their findings to the entire universe:"

Uncommon Descent | If you have been an ardent believer in dark matter, revise your expectations, maybe


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here:
> 
> Uncommon Descent | For non-biologists: Why proteins are not easily recombined
> 
> 
> 
> and of course your sources are far from objective!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might want to get the beam out of your eye before you go after the spec in someone else's. So you're saying you are objective???? That is the funniest thing I have heard all day.
Click to expand...


Now that was funny  but he just does not get which theory  this evidence supports. How much harder this makes it for evolutionist to come up with a way for life to just start with no direction from a designer.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and of course your sources are far from objective!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might want to get the beam out of your eye before you go after the spec in someone else's. So you're saying you are objective???? That is the funniest thing I have heard all day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that was funny  but he just does not get which theory  this evidence supports. How much harder this makes it for evolutionist to come up with a way for life to just start with no direction from a designer.
Click to expand...


Are you STILL connecting evolution and the beginning of life?  Separate issues!


----------



## HUGGY

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here in case you missed it.
> 
> Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.
> 
> It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.
> 
> Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.
> 
> Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here:
> 
> Uncommon Descent | For non-biologists: Why proteins are not easily recombined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and of course your sources are far from objective!
Click to expand...


Gods words as defined by goat herders don't need to be objective.  His game...his rules.  If you don't like it find yourself some godless planet to live on.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might want to get the beam out of your eye before you go after the spec in someone else's. So you're saying you are objective???? That is the funniest thing I have heard all day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that was funny  but he just does not get which theory  this evidence supports. How much harder this makes it for evolutionist to come up with a way for life to just start with no direction from a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you STILL connecting evolution and the beginning of life?  Separate issues!
Click to expand...


You can believe as you wish and that is what you have been taught but it's not the case.

For life to begin if what you believe is true the amino acids, the proteins,and other things to form the cell had to evolve to form life. The reason why you are taught that they are two separate issue is because they have no answer for the origins question and like to avoid the question.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here:
> 
> Uncommon Descent | For non-biologists: Why proteins are not easily recombined
> 
> 
> 
> and of course your sources are far from objective!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gods words as defined by goat herders don't need to be objective.  His game...his rules.  If you don't like it find yourself some godless planet to live on.
Click to expand...


It shows your ignorance to suggest early man were just ignorant goat herders. Modern day scientist have no clue how early man could build temples and the pyramids without modern day technology.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and of course your sources are far from objective!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods words as defined by goat herders don't need to be objective.  His game...his rules.  If you don't like it find yourself some godless planet to live on.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It shows your ignorance to suggest early man were just ignorant goat herders. Modern day scientist have no clue how early man could build temples and the pyramids without modern day technology.
Click to expand...










Egyptologists Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass have been trying to solve the puzzle of where the 20,000 or 30,000 laborers who are thought to have built the Pyramids lived. Ultimately, they hope to learn more about the workforce, their daily lives, and perhaps where they came from. In the meantime, Lehner has been excavating the bakeries that presumably fed this army of workers, while Hawass has been unearthing the cemetery for this grand labor force.

The two scholars believe that Giza housed a skeleton crew of workers who labored on the Pyramids year-round. But during the late summer and early autumn months, when the Nile flooded surrounding fields, a large labor force would appear at Giza to put in time on the Pyramids. These farmers and local villagers gathered at Giza to work for their god-kings, to build their monuments to the hereafter. This would ensure their own afterlife and would also benefit the future and prosperity of Egypt as a whole. They may well have been willing workers, a labor force working for ample rations, for the benefit of man, king, and country.

In the following interviews, Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass address the long-standing question of who actually built the Pyramids at Giza:


"Every time I go back to Giza my respect increases for those people and that society, that they could do it," Mark Lehner, here standing atop the Khufu Pyramid, says of the ancient Egyptians who built the Pyramids. Enlarge 
Photo credit: © WGBH Educational Foundation


INTERVIEW WITH MARK LEHNER, Archeologist, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and Harvard Semitic Museum

People power
NOVA: In your extensive work and research at Giza have you ever once questioned whether humans built the Pyramids?
Mark Lehner: No. But have I ever questioned whether they had divine or super-intelligent inspiration? I first went to Egypt in 1972 and ended up living there 13 years. I was imbued with ideas of Atlantis and Edgar Cayce and so on. So I went over, starting from that point of view, but everything I saw told me, day by day, year by year, that they were very human and the marks of humanity are everywhere on them.

And you see there's this curious reversal where sometimes New Age theorists say that Egyptologists and archeologists are denigrating the ancient culture. They sometimes put up a scarecrow argument that we say they were primitive. And the New Agers sometimes want to say these were very technologically sophisticated people who built these things; they were not primitive. Well, actually there's a certain irony here, because they say they were very sophisticated technological civilizations and societies that built the Pyramids and the Sphinx, and yet they weren't the ones that we find. So to me, it's these suggestions that are really denigrating the people whose names, bodies, family relationships, tools, and bakeries we actually find.

Everything that I have found convinces me more and more that indeed it is this society that built the Sphinx and the Pyramids. Every time I go back to Giza my respect increases for those people and that society, that they could do it. You see, to me it's even more fascinating that they did this. And that by doing this they contributed something to the human career and its overall development. Rather than just copping out and saying, "There's no way they could have done this." I think that denigrates the people whose evidence we actually find.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/who-built-the-pyramids.html


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that was funny  but he just does not get which theory  this evidence supports. How much harder this makes it for evolutionist to come up with a way for life to just start with no direction from a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you STILL connecting evolution and the beginning of life?  Separate issues!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can believe as you wish and that is what you have been taught but it's not the case.
> 
> For life to begin if what you believe is true the amino acids, the proteins,and other things to form the cell had to evolve to form life. The reason why you are taught that they are two separate issue is because they have no answer for the origins question and like to avoid the question.
Click to expand...


First, you don't know what I believe.  You are, as usual, assuming you do.

Second, evolution is about how life forms change over time.  It doesn't matter if they were placed here by a god, or aliens, or formed spontaneously; evolution is still going to describe the changes they undergo.  

I think you have things backwards.  I think the reason you want to combine the two issues is because there is no sure answer for how life began.  If evolution and the origins of life are two separate issues, you can't try to discredit one by pointing out flaws or lack of explanation in the other.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gods words as defined by goat herders don't need to be objective.  His game...his rules.  If you don't like it find yourself some godless planet to live on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It shows your ignorance to suggest early man were just ignorant goat herders. Modern day scientist have no clue how early man could build temples and the pyramids without modern day technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egyptologists Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass have been trying to solve the puzzle of where the 20,000 or 30,000 laborers who are thought to have built the Pyramids lived. Ultimately, they hope to learn more about the workforce, their daily lives, and perhaps where they came from. In the meantime, Lehner has been excavating the bakeries that presumably fed this army of workers, while Hawass has been unearthing the cemetery for this grand labor force.
> 
> The two scholars believe that Giza housed a skeleton crew of workers who labored on the Pyramids year-round. But during the late summer and early autumn months, when the Nile flooded surrounding fields, a large labor force would appear at Giza to put in time on the Pyramids. These farmers and local villagers gathered at Giza to work for their god-kings, to build their monuments to the hereafter. This would ensure their own afterlife and would also benefit the future and prosperity of Egypt as a whole. They may well have been willing workers, a labor force working for ample rations, for the benefit of man, king, and country.
> 
> In the following interviews, Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass address the long-standing question of who actually built the Pyramids at Giza:
> 
> 
> "Every time I go back to Giza my respect increases for those people and that society, that they could do it," Mark Lehner, here standing atop the Khufu Pyramid, says of the ancient Egyptians who built the Pyramids. Enlarge
> Photo credit: © WGBH Educational Foundation
> 
> 
> INTERVIEW WITH MARK LEHNER, Archeologist, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and Harvard Semitic Museum
> 
> People power
> NOVA: In your extensive work and research at Giza have you ever once questioned whether humans built the Pyramids?
> Mark Lehner: No. But have I ever questioned whether they had divine or super-intelligent inspiration? I first went to Egypt in 1972 and ended up living there 13 years. I was imbued with ideas of Atlantis and Edgar Cayce and so on. So I went over, starting from that point of view, but everything I saw told me, day by day, year by year, that they were very human and the marks of humanity are everywhere on them.
> 
> And you see there's this curious reversal where sometimes New Age theorists say that Egyptologists and archeologists are denigrating the ancient culture. They sometimes put up a scarecrow argument that we say they were primitive. And the New Agers sometimes want to say these were very technologically sophisticated people who built these things; they were not primitive. Well, actually there's a certain irony here, because they say they were very sophisticated technological civilizations and societies that built the Pyramids and the Sphinx, and yet they weren't the ones that we find. So to me, it's these suggestions that are really denigrating the people whose names, bodies, family relationships, tools, and bakeries we actually find.
> 
> Everything that I have found convinces me more and more that indeed it is this society that built the Sphinx and the Pyramids. Every time I go back to Giza my respect increases for those people and that society, that they could do it. You see, to me it's even more fascinating that they did this. And that by doing this they contributed something to the human career and its overall development. Rather than just copping out and saying, "There's no way they could have done this." I think that denigrates the people whose evidence we actually find.
> 
> 
> NOVA | Who Built the Pyramids?
Click to expand...


B.S. is your name. Do you realize how many different theories there are on how they got built ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you STILL connecting evolution and the beginning of life?  Separate issues!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe as you wish and that is what you have been taught but it's not the case.
> 
> For life to begin if what you believe is true the amino acids, the proteins,and other things to form the cell had to evolve to form life. The reason why you are taught that they are two separate issue is because they have no answer for the origins question and like to avoid the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you don't know what I believe.  You are, as usual, assuming you do.
> 
> Second, evolution is about how life forms change over time.  It doesn't matter if they were placed here by a god, or aliens, or formed spontaneously; evolution is still going to describe the changes they undergo.
> 
> I think you have things backwards.  I think the reason you want to combine the two issues is because there is no sure answer for how life began.  If evolution and the origins of life are two separate issues, you can't try to discredit one by pointing out flaws or lack of explanation in the other.
Click to expand...


Evolution is the explanation it is linked with the origins question.

So you don't believe as miller and urey who believed in prebiotic evolution ?

But anyhow this is solid evidence that a cell could not form without a designer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gods words as defined by goat herders don't need to be objective.  His game...his rules.  If you don't like it find yourself some godless planet to live on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It shows your ignorance to suggest early man were just ignorant goat herders. Modern day scientist have no clue how early man could build temples and the pyramids without modern day technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egyptologists Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass have been trying to solve the puzzle of where the 20,000 or 30,000 laborers who are thought to have built the Pyramids lived. Ultimately, they hope to learn more about the workforce, their daily lives, and perhaps where they came from. In the meantime, Lehner has been excavating the bakeries that presumably fed this army of workers, while Hawass has been unearthing the cemetery for this grand labor force.
> 
> The two scholars believe that Giza housed a skeleton crew of workers who labored on the Pyramids year-round. But during the late summer and early autumn months, when the Nile flooded surrounding fields, a large labor force would appear at Giza to put in time on the Pyramids. These farmers and local villagers gathered at Giza to work for their god-kings, to build their monuments to the hereafter. This would ensure their own afterlife and would also benefit the future and prosperity of Egypt as a whole. They may well have been willing workers, a labor force working for ample rations, for the benefit of man, king, and country.
> 
> In the following interviews, Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass address the long-standing question of who actually built the Pyramids at Giza:
> 
> 
> "Every time I go back to Giza my respect increases for those people and that society, that they could do it," Mark Lehner, here standing atop the Khufu Pyramid, says of the ancient Egyptians who built the Pyramids. Enlarge
> Photo credit: © WGBH Educational Foundation
> 
> 
> INTERVIEW WITH MARK LEHNER, Archeologist, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and Harvard Semitic Museum
> 
> People power
> NOVA: In your extensive work and research at Giza have you ever once questioned whether humans built the Pyramids?
> Mark Lehner: No. But have I ever questioned whether they had divine or super-intelligent inspiration? I first went to Egypt in 1972 and ended up living there 13 years. I was imbued with ideas of Atlantis and Edgar Cayce and so on. So I went over, starting from that point of view, but everything I saw told me, day by day, year by year, that they were very human and the marks of humanity are everywhere on them.
> 
> And you see there's this curious reversal where sometimes New Age theorists say that Egyptologists and archeologists are denigrating the ancient culture. They sometimes put up a scarecrow argument that we say they were primitive. And the New Agers sometimes want to say these were very technologically sophisticated people who built these things; they were not primitive. Well, actually there's a certain irony here, because they say they were very sophisticated technological civilizations and societies that built the Pyramids and the Sphinx, and yet they weren't the ones that we find. So to me, it's these suggestions that are really denigrating the people whose names, bodies, family relationships, tools, and bakeries we actually find.
> 
> Everything that I have found convinces me more and more that indeed it is this society that built the Sphinx and the Pyramids. Every time I go back to Giza my respect increases for those people and that society, that they could do it. You see, to me it's even more fascinating that they did this. And that by doing this they contributed something to the human career and its overall development. Rather than just copping out and saying, "There's no way they could have done this." I think that denigrates the people whose evidence we actually find.
> 
> 
> NOVA | Who Built the Pyramids?
Click to expand...


What tools were used in the construction of the pyramids ?did I make myself clear ?

Even though they did not have iron tools or modern instruments, the pyramids were constructed with amazing architectural accuracy. No other monument can inspire wonder like the pyramids, especially when you consider that they are over four and a half thousand years old.

These people were pretty intelligent no ?

The Pyramids of Egypt


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe as you wish and that is what you have been taught but it's not the case.
> 
> For life to begin if what you believe is true the amino acids, the proteins,and other things to form the cell had to evolve to form life. The reason why you are taught that they are two separate issue is because they have no answer for the origins question and like to avoid the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you don't know what I believe.  You are, as usual, assuming you do.
> 
> Second, evolution is about how life forms change over time.  It doesn't matter if they were placed here by a god, or aliens, or formed spontaneously; evolution is still going to describe the changes they undergo.
> 
> I think you have things backwards.  I think the reason you want to combine the two issues is because there is no sure answer for how life began.  If evolution and the origins of life are two separate issues, you can't try to discredit one by pointing out flaws or lack of explanation in the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is the explanation it is linked with the origins question.
> 
> So you don't believe as miller and urey who believed in prebiotic evolution ?
> 
> But anyhow this is solid evidence that a cell could not form without a designer.
Click to expand...


Evolution is separate from the origin of life.  How life forms change over time has nothing to do with what started them.  If god put a bunch of life on the planet, that does nothing to confirm or deny evolution.  If life came about through random action, that does nothing to confirm or deny evolution.  Your desire to make them the same doesn't change this.

I have no firm belief as to how life began.  I haven't seen evidence of any particular answer I find compelling.

You may feel the evidence is solid that life could not form without a designer.  Others disagree.  I am in the disagree camp.


----------



## Montrovant

In the vein of building the pyramids, here's a little video of a man who moves around Stonehenge sized rocks by himself.

It's interesting, and shows how moving and placing pretty massive stones (as in the pyramids) does not require modern technology.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K7q20VzwVs]Simple building. Stonehenge Reloaded by only one white man!! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you STILL connecting evolution and the beginning of life?  Separate issues!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe as you wish and that is what you have been taught but it's not the case.
> 
> For life to begin if what you believe is true the amino acids, the proteins,and other things to form the cell had to evolve to form life. The reason why you are taught that they are two separate issue is because they have no answer for the origins question and like to avoid the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you don't know what I believe.  You are, as usual, assuming you do.
> 
> Second, evolution is about how life forms change over time.  It doesn't matter if they were placed here by a god, or aliens, or formed spontaneously; evolution is still going to describe the changes they undergo.
> 
> I think you have things backwards.  I think the reason you want to combine the two issues is because there is no sure answer for how life began.  If evolution and the origins of life are two separate issues, you can't try to discredit one by pointing out flaws or lack of explanation in the other.
Click to expand...


bump


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It shows your ignorance to suggest early man were just ignorant goat herders. Modern day scientist have no clue how early man could build temples and the pyramids without modern day technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egyptologists Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass have been trying to solve the puzzle of where the 20,000 or 30,000 laborers who are thought to have built the Pyramids lived. Ultimately, they hope to learn more about the workforce, their daily lives, and perhaps where they came from. In the meantime, Lehner has been excavating the bakeries that presumably fed this army of workers, while Hawass has been unearthing the cemetery for this grand labor force.
> 
> The two scholars believe that Giza housed a skeleton crew of workers who labored on the Pyramids year-round. But during the late summer and early autumn months, when the Nile flooded surrounding fields, a large labor force would appear at Giza to put in time on the Pyramids. These farmers and local villagers gathered at Giza to work for their god-kings, to build their monuments to the hereafter. This would ensure their own afterlife and would also benefit the future and prosperity of Egypt as a whole. They may well have been willing workers, a labor force working for ample rations, for the benefit of man, king, and country.
> 
> In the following interviews, Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass address the long-standing question of who actually built the Pyramids at Giza:
> 
> 
> "Every time I go back to Giza my respect increases for those people and that society, that they could do it," Mark Lehner, here standing atop the Khufu Pyramid, says of the ancient Egyptians who built the Pyramids. Enlarge
> Photo credit: © WGBH Educational Foundation
> 
> 
> INTERVIEW WITH MARK LEHNER, Archeologist, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and Harvard Semitic Museum
> 
> People power
> NOVA: In your extensive work and research at Giza have you ever once questioned whether humans built the Pyramids?
> Mark Lehner: No. But have I ever questioned whether they had divine or super-intelligent inspiration? I first went to Egypt in 1972 and ended up living there 13 years. I was imbued with ideas of Atlantis and Edgar Cayce and so on. So I went over, starting from that point of view, but everything I saw told me, day by day, year by year, that they were very human and the marks of humanity are everywhere on them.
> 
> And you see there's this curious reversal where sometimes New Age theorists say that Egyptologists and archeologists are denigrating the ancient culture. They sometimes put up a scarecrow argument that we say they were primitive. And the New Agers sometimes want to say these were very technologically sophisticated people who built these things; they were not primitive. Well, actually there's a certain irony here, because they say they were very sophisticated technological civilizations and societies that built the Pyramids and the Sphinx, and yet they weren't the ones that we find. So to me, it's these suggestions that are really denigrating the people whose names, bodies, family relationships, tools, and bakeries we actually find.
> 
> Everything that I have found convinces me more and more that indeed it is this society that built the Sphinx and the Pyramids. Every time I go back to Giza my respect increases for those people and that society, that they could do it. You see, to me it's even more fascinating that they did this. And that by doing this they contributed something to the human career and its overall development. Rather than just copping out and saying, "There's no way they could have done this." I think that denigrates the people whose evidence we actually find.
> 
> 
> NOVA | Who Built the Pyramids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> B.S. is your name. Do you realize how many different theories there are on how they got built ?
Click to expand...

just copping out and saying, "There's no way they could have done this." I think that denigrates the people whose evidence we actually find.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It shows your ignorance to suggest early man were just ignorant goat herders. Modern day scientist have no clue how early man could build temples and the pyramids without modern day technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egyptologists Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass have been trying to solve the puzzle of where the 20,000 or 30,000 laborers who are thought to have built the Pyramids lived. Ultimately, they hope to learn more about the workforce, their daily lives, and perhaps where they came from. In the meantime, Lehner has been excavating the bakeries that presumably fed this army of workers, while Hawass has been unearthing the cemetery for this grand labor force.
> 
> The two scholars believe that Giza housed a skeleton crew of workers who labored on the Pyramids year-round. But during the late summer and early autumn months, when the Nile flooded surrounding fields, a large labor force would appear at Giza to put in time on the Pyramids. These farmers and local villagers gathered at Giza to work for their god-kings, to build their monuments to the hereafter. This would ensure their own afterlife and would also benefit the future and prosperity of Egypt as a whole. They may well have been willing workers, a labor force working for ample rations, for the benefit of man, king, and country.
> 
> In the following interviews, Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass address the long-standing question of who actually built the Pyramids at Giza:
> 
> 
> "Every time I go back to Giza my respect increases for those people and that society, that they could do it," Mark Lehner, here standing atop the Khufu Pyramid, says of the ancient Egyptians who built the Pyramids. Enlarge
> Photo credit: © WGBH Educational Foundation
> 
> 
> INTERVIEW WITH MARK LEHNER, Archeologist, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and Harvard Semitic Museum
> 
> People power
> NOVA: In your extensive work and research at Giza have you ever once questioned whether humans built the Pyramids?
> Mark Lehner: No. But have I ever questioned whether they had divine or super-intelligent inspiration? I first went to Egypt in 1972 and ended up living there 13 years. I was imbued with ideas of Atlantis and Edgar Cayce and so on. So I went over, starting from that point of view, but everything I saw told me, day by day, year by year, that they were very human and the marks of humanity are everywhere on them.
> 
> And you see there's this curious reversal where sometimes New Age theorists say that Egyptologists and archeologists are denigrating the ancient culture. They sometimes put up a scarecrow argument that we say they were primitive. And the New Agers sometimes want to say these were very technologically sophisticated people who built these things; they were not primitive. Well, actually there's a certain irony here, because they say they were very sophisticated technological civilizations and societies that built the Pyramids and the Sphinx, and yet they weren't the ones that we find. So to me, it's these suggestions that are really denigrating the people whose names, bodies, family relationships, tools, and bakeries we actually find.
> 
> Everything that I have found convinces me more and more that indeed it is this society that built the Sphinx and the Pyramids. Every time I go back to Giza my respect increases for those people and that society, that they could do it. You see, to me it's even more fascinating that they did this. And that by doing this they contributed something to the human career and its overall development. Rather than just copping out and saying, "There's no way they could have done this." I think that denigrates the people whose evidence we actually find.
> 
> 
> NOVA | Who Built the Pyramids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What tools were used in the construction of the pyramids ?did I make myself clear ?
> 
> Even though they did not have iron tools or modern instruments, the pyramids were constructed with amazing architectural accuracy. No other monument can inspire wonder like the pyramids, especially when you consider that they are over four and a half thousand years old.
> 
> These people were pretty intelligent no ?
> 
> The Pyramids of Egypt
Click to expand...

 no but they did have bronze and other stones that were as tools.
they also used wedges and hot water to split stones.
you get accuracy by practice. the evidence proves a couple thousand of it (5500 bce to 30 bce) 
you do realize that the pyramids at Giza are the newest pyramids not the oldest..


again you make a subjective declaration "No other monument can inspire wonder like the pyramids,"

have you ever been there? I have.
ever been to Angkor watt? I have and it's far more intricate.



These people were pretty intelligent no- ywc ...yes, what's your point ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egyptologists Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass have been trying to solve the puzzle of where the 20,000 or 30,000 laborers who are thought to have built the Pyramids lived. Ultimately, they hope to learn more about the workforce, their daily lives, and perhaps where they came from. In the meantime, Lehner has been excavating the bakeries that presumably fed this army of workers, while Hawass has been unearthing the cemetery for this grand labor force.
> 
> The two scholars believe that Giza housed a skeleton crew of workers who labored on the Pyramids year-round. But during the late summer and early autumn months, when the Nile flooded surrounding fields, a large labor force would appear at Giza to put in time on the Pyramids. These farmers and local villagers gathered at Giza to work for their god-kings, to build their monuments to the hereafter. This would ensure their own afterlife and would also benefit the future and prosperity of Egypt as a whole. They may well have been willing workers, a labor force working for ample rations, for the benefit of man, king, and country.
> 
> In the following interviews, Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass address the long-standing question of who actually built the Pyramids at Giza:
> 
> 
> "Every time I go back to Giza my respect increases for those people and that society, that they could do it," Mark Lehner, here standing atop the Khufu Pyramid, says of the ancient Egyptians who built the Pyramids. Enlarge
> Photo credit: © WGBH Educational Foundation
> 
> 
> INTERVIEW WITH MARK LEHNER, Archeologist, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and Harvard Semitic Museum
> 
> People power
> NOVA: In your extensive work and research at Giza have you ever once questioned whether humans built the Pyramids?
> Mark Lehner: No. But have I ever questioned whether they had divine or super-intelligent inspiration? I first went to Egypt in 1972 and ended up living there 13 years. I was imbued with ideas of Atlantis and Edgar Cayce and so on. So I went over, starting from that point of view, but everything I saw told me, day by day, year by year, that they were very human and the marks of humanity are everywhere on them.
> 
> And you see there's this curious reversal where sometimes New Age theorists say that Egyptologists and archeologists are denigrating the ancient culture. They sometimes put up a scarecrow argument that we say they were primitive. And the New Agers sometimes want to say these were very technologically sophisticated people who built these things; they were not primitive. Well, actually there's a certain irony here, because they say they were very sophisticated technological civilizations and societies that built the Pyramids and the Sphinx, and yet they weren't the ones that we find. So to me, it's these suggestions that are really denigrating the people whose names, bodies, family relationships, tools, and bakeries we actually find.
> 
> Everything that I have found convinces me more and more that indeed it is this society that built the Sphinx and the Pyramids. Every time I go back to Giza my respect increases for those people and that society, that they could do it. You see, to me it's even more fascinating that they did this. And that by doing this they contributed something to the human career and its overall development. Rather than just copping out and saying, "There's no way they could have done this." I think that denigrates the people whose evidence we actually find.
> 
> 
> NOVA | Who Built the Pyramids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What tools were used in the construction of the pyramids ?did I make myself clear ?
> 
> Even though they did not have iron tools or modern instruments, the pyramids were constructed with amazing architectural accuracy. No other monument can inspire wonder like the pyramids, especially when you consider that they are over four and a half thousand years old.
> 
> These people were pretty intelligent no ?
> 
> The Pyramids of Egypt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no but they did have bronze and other stones that were as tools.
> they also used wedges and hot water to split stones.
> you get accuracy by practice. the evidence proves a couple thousand of it (5500 bce to 30 bce)
> you do realize that the pyramids at Giza are the newest pyramids not the oldest..
> 
> 
> again you make a subjective declaration "No other monument can inspire wonder like the pyramids,"
> 
> have you ever been there? I have.
> ever been to Angkor watt? I have and it's far more intricate.
> 
> 
> 
> These people were pretty intelligent no- ywc ...yes, what's your point ?
Click to expand...


Some of you seem to think that early man were ignorant goat herders I was showing they were not. That was my point they and the ones who wrote the bible were not ignorant goat herders. You can read all the Wikipedia you want and you still will not know how they built the pyramids and the tools that were used.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, you don't know what I believe.  You are, as usual, assuming you do.
> 
> Second, evolution is about how life forms change over time.  It doesn't matter if they were placed here by a god, or aliens, or formed spontaneously; evolution is still going to describe the changes they undergo.
> 
> I think you have things backwards.  I think the reason you want to combine the two issues is because there is no sure answer for how life began.  If evolution and the origins of life are two separate issues, you can't try to discredit one by pointing out flaws or lack of explanation in the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is the explanation it is linked with the origins question.
> 
> So you don't believe as miller and urey who believed in prebiotic evolution ?
> 
> But anyhow this is solid evidence that a cell could not form without a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is separate from the origin of life.  How life forms change over time has nothing to do with what started them.  If god put a bunch of life on the planet, that does nothing to confirm or deny evolution.  If life came about through random action, that does nothing to confirm or deny evolution.  Your desire to make them the same doesn't change this.
> 
> I have no firm belief as to how life began.  I haven't seen evidence of any particular answer I find compelling.
> 
> You may feel the evidence is solid that life could not form without a designer.  Others disagree.  I am in the disagree camp.
Click to expand...


I think we've already adressed this. Without an agreed upon definition of fitness that is more than mere speculation, the theory of evolution has absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever. So even with origin of life questions out of the picture, the lack of scientific evidence of natural selection is alarming. It makes for a nice fairy tale to support a materialistic world view though even if there isn't any scientific evidence to back it up. "We think the beaks got longer because..." or "We think the neck is longer because..." does not equate to scientific evidence, but is only mere speculation. There is not one single proof known of natural selection in action, no not one.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you STILL connecting evolution and the beginning of life?  Separate issues!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe as you wish and that is what you have been taught but it's not the case.
> 
> For life to begin if what you believe is true the amino acids, the proteins,and other things to form the cell had to evolve to form life. The reason why you are taught that they are two separate issue is because they have no answer for the origins question and like to avoid the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you don't know what I believe.  You are, as usual, assuming you do.
> 
> Second, evolution is about how life forms change over time.  It doesn't matter if they were placed here by a god, or aliens, or formed spontaneously; evolution is still going to describe the changes they undergo.
> 
> I think you have things backwards.  I think the reason you want to combine the two issues is because there is no sure answer for how life began.  If evolution and the origins of life are two separate issues, you can't try to discredit one by pointing out flaws or lack of explanation in the other.
Click to expand...


No sure answer??? Are you smoking crack? There isn't any explanation at all that is even remotely close for how life began. By your statement I assyoume you mean there *IS* a sure answer for evolution, which is tragic that reasonably intelligent people like yourself have been so deceived by a speculative science with no "sure" evidence.  So now your "think it happened this way" trumps my "think it happened this way." We think the dinosaurs were killed off by an asteroid impact. That is, until new evidence reveals they farted themselves into oblivion...

Dinosaur "Farts" Caused Global Warming, Extinction?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvopmcc86kU&feature=player_embedded]Dinosaur farts - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is the explanation it is linked with the origins question.
> 
> So you don't believe as miller and urey who believed in prebiotic evolution ?
> 
> But anyhow this is solid evidence that a cell could not form without a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is separate from the origin of life.  How life forms change over time has nothing to do with what started them.  If god put a bunch of life on the planet, that does nothing to confirm or deny evolution.  If life came about through random action, that does nothing to confirm or deny evolution.  Your desire to make them the same doesn't change this.
> 
> I have no firm belief as to how life began.  I haven't seen evidence of any particular answer I find compelling.
> 
> You may feel the evidence is solid that life could not form without a designer.  Others disagree.  I am in the disagree camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we've already adressed this. Without an agreed upon definition of fitness that is more than mere speculation, the theory of evolution has absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever. So even with origin of life questions out of the picture, the lack of scientific evidence of natural selection is alarming. It makes for a nice fairy tale to support a materialistic world view though even if there isn't any scientific evidence to back it up. "We think the beaks got longer because..." or "We think the neck is longer because..." does not equate to scientific evidence, but is only mere speculation. There is not one single proof known of natural selection in action, no not one.
Click to expand...


Not sure if any of this constitutes a proof, but here you go anyway :

Curiosity "10 Examples of Natural Selection"

As to the definition of fitness, it would basically be the animal best able to survive and reproduce.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe as you wish and that is what you have been taught but it's not the case.
> 
> For life to begin if what you believe is true the amino acids, the proteins,and other things to form the cell had to evolve to form life. The reason why you are taught that they are two separate issue is because they have no answer for the origins question and like to avoid the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you don't know what I believe.  You are, as usual, assuming you do.
> 
> Second, evolution is about how life forms change over time.  It doesn't matter if they were placed here by a god, or aliens, or formed spontaneously; evolution is still going to describe the changes they undergo.
> 
> I think you have things backwards.  I think the reason you want to combine the two issues is because there is no sure answer for how life began.  If evolution and the origins of life are two separate issues, you can't try to discredit one by pointing out flaws or lack of explanation in the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sure answer??? Are you smoking crack? There isn't any explanation at all that is even remotely close for how life began. By your statement I assyoume you mean there *IS* a sure answer for evolution, which is tragic that reasonably intelligent people like yourself have been so deceived by a speculative science with no "sure" evidence.  So now your "think it happened this way" trumps my "think it happened this way." We think the dinosaurs were killed off by an asteroid impact. That is, until new evidence reveals they farted themselves into oblivion...
> 
> Dinosaur "Farts" Caused Global Warming, Extinction?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvopmcc86kU&feature=player_embedded]Dinosaur farts - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


What I'm saying is that ideas about the origin of life are, so far as I'm aware, entirely speculative.  Evolution, on the other hand, has evidence.  You may disagree about what the evidence means, perhaps along the lines of YWC's belief that micro-evolution occurs where macro-evolution does not, but there is at least evidence of SOME amount of evolution.

On the other hand, I have yet to see anything I would consider evidence of design.  There is speculation, but since humans are (for the most part) the only being we have seen design anything, and we have not yet created life, I don't think we have enough of a reference.  That doesn't mean life couldn't have been designed, simply that I have not seen any compelling evidence that is the case.  

Anyway, the point of my post was that evolution and the origin of life are not the same topic.  Attempts to discredit evolutionary theory by pointing out we don't know how life began are disingenuous at best.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, you don't know what I believe.  You are, as usual, assuming you do.
> 
> Second, evolution is about how life forms change over time.  It doesn't matter if they were placed here by a god, or aliens, or formed spontaneously; evolution is still going to describe the changes they undergo.
> 
> I think you have things backwards.  I think the reason you want to combine the two issues is because there is no sure answer for how life began.  If evolution and the origins of life are two separate issues, you can't try to discredit one by pointing out flaws or lack of explanation in the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sure answer??? Are you smoking crack? There isn't any explanation at all that is even remotely close for how life began. By your statement I assyoume you mean there *IS* a sure answer for evolution, which is tragic that reasonably intelligent people like yourself have been so deceived by a speculative science with no "sure" evidence.  So now your "think it happened this way" trumps my "think it happened this way." We think the dinosaurs were killed off by an asteroid impact. That is, until new evidence reveals they farted themselves into oblivion...
> 
> Dinosaur "Farts" Caused Global Warming, Extinction?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvopmcc86kU&feature=player_embedded]Dinosaur farts - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is that ideas about the origin of life are, so far as I'm aware, entirely speculative.  Evolution, on the other hand, has evidence.  You may disagree about what the evidence means, perhaps along the lines of YWC's belief that micro-evolution occurs where macro-evolution does not, but there is at least evidence of SOME amount of evolution..
Click to expand...


Please provide an example of observed vertical change in a living, observable species, i.e., a species moving to more complexity, not less. We can't even agree on what evolution means vs. adaptation.



Montrovant said:


> On the other hand, I have yet to see anything I would consider evidence of design.  There is speculation, but since humans are (for the most part) the only being we have seen design anything, and we have not yet created life, I don't think we have enough of a reference.  That doesn't mean life couldn't have been designed, simply that I have not seen any compelling evidence that is the case.
> 
> Anyway, the point of my post was that evolution and the origin of life are not the same topic.  Attempts to discredit evolutionary theory by pointing out we don't know how life began are disingenuous at best.



I disagree. The most vehement Materialists extend origin of life arguments into the TOE. You say evolution and origin of life are not the same topic so could you please tell me where the line is and answer the following questions: Who/what is the mythical common ancestor? At what definitive point does the origin of life school of thought end and evolution begin? Where does Darwin's tree of life begin?? Just because you don't consider it evidence of design, Dr. Stephen Meyer has laid out a perfectly sound scientific theory on ID. As far as the ambiguous "fitness" the pathetic so called scientific theory clings to:

"This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological &#8212; it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce.... But what is really ridiculous is to suggest that empirical work, simply by virtue of being empirical work, offers a proper test of any particular theory. Certainly the work of evolutionary biologists has brought us many wonderful insights into the lives of organisms &#8212; insights of the sort that were being gained long before Darwin."

"Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain &#8212; *namely, the organism&#8217;s fitness &#8212; cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable.* How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration." 

"And then, finally, we must be sure to pay no heed to the fact that the fitness, against which we have assumed our notion of randomness could be defined, is one of the most obscure, ill-formed concepts in all of science."

"This &#8220;something random&#8221; looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a &#8220;Randomness of the gaps,&#8221; demanding an extraordinarily blind faith."

Excerpts from The New Atlantis


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is separate from the origin of life.  How life forms change over time has nothing to do with what started them.  If god put a bunch of life on the planet, that does nothing to confirm or deny evolution.  If life came about through random action, that does nothing to confirm or deny evolution.  Your desire to make them the same doesn't change this.
> 
> I have no firm belief as to how life began.  I haven't seen evidence of any particular answer I find compelling.
> 
> You may feel the evidence is solid that life could not form without a designer.  Others disagree.  I am in the disagree camp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we've already adressed this. Without an agreed upon definition of fitness that is more than mere speculation, the theory of evolution has absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever. So even with origin of life questions out of the picture, the lack of scientific evidence of natural selection is alarming. It makes for a nice fairy tale to support a materialistic world view though even if there isn't any scientific evidence to back it up. "We think the beaks got longer because..." or "We think the neck is longer because..." does not equate to scientific evidence, but is only mere speculation. There is not one single proof known of natural selection in action, no not one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if any of this constitutes a proof, but here you go anyway :
> 
> Curiosity "10 Examples of Natural Selection"
> 
> As to the definition of fitness, it would basically be the animal best able to survive and reproduce.
Click to expand...


All 10 of those examples are speculative at best. Notice the use of phrases like "might have" and   The finch example is the biggest joke ever foisted on thinking people. Is anyone asking questions like, "what prevents the large beak bird from eating the small soft seeds? Why would the small beak birds come back? Please point me to the scientific study documenting the diet of the birds through sampling the contents of their stomach. Or the experimental data on the population counts of small beak versus large beak birds? Even if if the fantasy actually could be documented scientifically, this change is not vertical!!! I wouldn't call beak size changes evolution. I would call that adaptation. Would you agree that a human is more advanced that an Ameoba? Would you agree that a negro is more advanced than a causcasian? I wouldn't. Just because one's skin has ADAPTED to more UV rays does not get you from a microbe to a mircrobioligists. The emperor has no clothes. It is funny that you folks can't see how ignorant you really sound by the preposterous, scientifically baseless examples you profess. 

From your so called scientific excellent examples:

As a result, rat snakes have had to adapt to their local environments in an effort to avoid detection and hunt more effectively. (Come on guys!!! Are you really this brainwashed??? Did anyone notice the *BRIGHT ORANGE snake *against the brown leaf background sticking out like a sore thumb??) Who are the snakes predators?? What are the different snakes diet? Where is the scientific evidence that color affects fitness at all???

The differences in their beaks* might be *the most important aspect of their survival. (Note: fitness is only speculated in this example. Where is the empirical scientific evidence?)

According to experts, the brightness of the plumage *might signal *to females that the animal has high-quality genes.

I can't even figure out how the warrior ant example proves fitness or natural selection???

Without this change, the deer mouse would be easily spotted by predators against the area's light terrain. Just one single gene had to change for the mouse's coat to become lighter. What's even more impressive? The change took only about 8,000 years, which is the equivalent to seconds in the evolutionary scale. [8,000 years is an eternity for a fast reproducing species on the run from a predator. Also, where is the scientific evidence the sand hill mouse came from the woods?] Again, mostly speculation!!! 

*Every single time the experiment was tried*, the bacteria would evolve until it was able to consume nylon [source: Michigan State University]. This is a very simple example of natural selection, where the most basic forms of life can adapt to whatever food the environment offers. OHH MY GOSH. Apply some logic here people!!! If every single time the bacteria adapted, where is the natural selection happening. Please tell me at least ONE of the species of bacteria DIDN't adapt to eating nylon!!

The lizards with the longest legs were able to climb better, escape the ground when floods or storms came, and reach food that wasn't available down below. *TOTAL SPECULATION like the Giraffe neck fantasy!!!!*

And the finest example of SCIENTIFIC Evidence yet!! The mutation *probably happened *over hundreds of generations as a result of the constant exposure to malaria and people contracting and surviving it.

Might have, probably did, could have, bet you it did, blah, blah, blah. Wake up people!!! You've been duped!!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

God, please let the scales fall from their eyes so they might see their folly in all its glory...

"although this DNA is preferentially transferred (be it vertically or laterally) within a given genetic world, there is some inter-world transfer of DNA molecules occurring, leading to exchanges among different DNA vehicles (2.5% of the DNA families). This observation indicates that the changes accumulated relatively independently in the molecules of any of these worlds (i.e., the results of molecular evolution for different regimes of selective pressures and for different historical constraints) do regularly cross into another world. In principle, selected (or drifting) DNA molecules with their special adaptations can then invade and impact a new genetic world. Deciphering the rules of transitions of transfer between genetic worlds could then become a central question, prompting an integrated study of genetic evolution. In any case, the picture of the evolution of the natural genetic biodiversity should not be considered complete without the DNA molecules of any of these worlds. It implies that no general model of genetic evolution can be universally valid. Rather, many evolutionary models of the genetic biodiversity should legitimately coexist: DNA molecules change in some phages differently than they do in plasmids, or in populations of prokaryotic chromosomes. *Sequencing and making trees out of the molecular data cannot hope to adequately deal with this disconnected network of genetic diversity.* In the future, *a plurality of evolutionary research fields will be required to understand the evolution of the various genetic worlds*.

Don&#8217;t worry if you don&#8217;t follow all those details, *for this is not science but rather story-telling*. These conclusions are not motivated by the scientific data but rather by the conviction that *evolution must be true, in spite of the data."*


Darwin's God: Here is Evolution&#8217;s Version of the Multiverse


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, you don't know what I believe.  You are, as usual, assuming you do.
> 
> Second, evolution is about how life forms change over time.  It doesn't matter if they were placed here by a god, or aliens, or formed spontaneously; evolution is still going to describe the changes they undergo.
> 
> I think you have things backwards.  I think the reason you want to combine the two issues is because there is no sure answer for how life began.  If evolution and the origins of life are two separate issues, you can't try to discredit one by pointing out flaws or lack of explanation in the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sure answer??? Are you smoking crack? There isn't any explanation at all that is even remotely close for how life began. By your statement I assyoume you mean there *IS* a sure answer for evolution, which is tragic that reasonably intelligent people like yourself have been so deceived by a speculative science with no "sure" evidence.  So now your "think it happened this way" trumps my "think it happened this way." We think the dinosaurs were killed off by an asteroid impact. That is, until new evidence reveals they farted themselves into oblivion...
> 
> Dinosaur "Farts" Caused Global Warming, Extinction?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvopmcc86kU&feature=player_embedded]Dinosaur farts - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is that ideas about the origin of life are, so far as I'm aware, entirely speculative.  Evolution, on the other hand, has evidence.  You may disagree about what the evidence means, perhaps along the lines of YWC's belief that micro-evolution occurs where macro-evolution does not, but there is at least evidence of SOME amount of evolution.
> 
> On the other hand, I have yet to see anything I would consider evidence of design.  There is speculation, but since humans are (for the most part) the only being we have seen design anything, and we have not yet created life, I don't think we have enough of a reference.  That doesn't mean life couldn't have been designed, simply that I have not seen any compelling evidence that is the case.
> 
> Anyway, the point of my post was that evolution and the origin of life are not the same topic.  Attempts to discredit evolutionary theory by pointing out we don't know how life began are disingenuous at best.
Click to expand...


Well I prefer to call it micro-adaptations because for instance the finch that was being wiped out because of their environment that darwin observed while the other finches that were better adapted for drought flourished. But when the rains came the shorter beak finch made a strong comeback.

All organisms have the ability to adapt but there are limits to adaptation when a group of organisms go beyond the limits they can go extinct.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> God, please let the scales fall from their eyes so they might see their folly in all its glory...
> 
> "although this DNA is preferentially transferred (be it vertically or laterally) within a given genetic world, there is some inter-world transfer of DNA molecules occurring, leading to exchanges among different DNA vehicles (2.5% of the DNA families). This observation indicates that the changes accumulated relatively independently in the molecules of any of these worlds (i.e., the results of molecular evolution for different regimes of selective pressures and for different historical constraints) do regularly cross into another world. In principle, selected (or drifting) DNA molecules with their special adaptations can then invade and impact a new genetic world. Deciphering the rules of transitions of transfer between genetic worlds could then become a central question, prompting an integrated study of genetic evolution. In any case, the picture of the evolution of the natural genetic biodiversity should not be considered complete without the DNA molecules of any of these worlds. It implies that no general model of genetic evolution can be universally valid. Rather, many evolutionary models of the genetic biodiversity should legitimately coexist: DNA molecules change in some phages differently than they do in plasmids, or in populations of prokaryotic chromosomes. *Sequencing and making trees out of the molecular data cannot hope to adequately deal with this disconnected network of genetic diversity.* In the future, *a plurality of evolutionary research fields will be required to understand the evolution of the various genetic worlds*.
> 
> Dont worry if you dont follow all those details, *for this is not science but rather story-telling*. These conclusions are not motivated by the scientific data but rather by the conviction that *evolution must be true, in spite of the data."*
> 
> 
> Darwin's God: Here is Evolutions Version of the Multiverse



I believe that microadaptations do happen change within a family but not from one family to a new family = Macro-evolution.

I believe most animals and humans were created as they are with very little change except the ability to adapt to their enviroment.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What tools were used in the construction of the pyramids ?did I make myself clear ?
> 
> Even though they did not have iron tools or modern instruments, the pyramids were constructed with amazing architectural accuracy. No other monument can inspire wonder like the pyramids, especially when you consider that they are over four and a half thousand years old.
> 
> These people were pretty intelligent no ?
> 
> The Pyramids of Egypt
> 
> 
> 
> no but they did have bronze and other stones that were as tools.
> they also used wedges and hot water to split stones.
> you get accuracy by practice. the evidence proves a couple thousand of it (5500 bce to 30 bce)
> you do realize that the pyramids at Giza are the newest pyramids not the oldest..
> 
> 
> again you make a subjective declaration "No other monument can inspire wonder like the pyramids,"
> 
> have you ever been there? I have.
> ever been to Angkor watt? I have and it's far more intricate.
> 
> 
> 
> These people were pretty intelligent no- ywc ...yes, what's your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of you seem to think that early man were ignorant goat herders I was showing they were not. That was my point they and the ones who wrote the bible were not ignorant goat herders. You can read all the Wikipedia you want and you still will not know how they built the pyramids and the tools that were used.
Click to expand...

bullshit!


Tools Used in Building a Pyramid
X Nancy Hayden Nancy Hayden has been a professional writer since 1994. She began her career in theater as an actor and designer before becoming an improviser and sketch writer at The Second City Theater. Hayden uses her experience in improvisation to write about team-building skills for corporate groups. 

By Nancy Hayden, eHow Contributor 
 Some believe the Great Pyramid of Giza took 100,000 men 20 years to build. The pyramids of Egypt are truly a wonder of architecture and engineering. The great pyramid of Giza is as tall as a 50-story building. Constructing a building like that today would be an impressive feat, to say nothing of building it thousands of years ago. The pyramids were constructed with the most rudimentary of tools. They stand today as a true testament to man's determination and ability. 

Tools were archaic during the time that the pyramids were built. Conceptually, they were engineered to accomplish the same tasks as today's tools, but the resources available were limited. The ingenuity of the men of the time, however, is apparent. Something harder than stone was needed to break the stones. Gold and copper were the two available metal alloys at the time. Gold was too soft to break stone, so copper was used to make chisels and saws to break into the bedrock and cut stones. Copper was also used to make an adze, a piece with a wooden handle used to file and shape the stone. A rudimentary drill was also used. These were comprised of pointed copper with a wooden handle. A piece of wood was attached at the center in the shape of a cross, and it slid back and forth like a bow. This would spin the copper piece being used as a drill bit.

Stones
Stones were not only the building blocks being used to create pyramids, they served as important tools as well. The two main stone types used in construction were limestone and granite. Low-grade limestone was used in creating the inner walls, while smoother white limestone was used on the outer walls. It is believed that the lesser limestone was more readily available. In the case of the Great Pyramid, the fine white limestone is believed to have been quarried from as far as eight miles away. The key in making the stones was to use a tool of harder stone to get softer stone. Hammers or balls made of granite were used to break the softer limestone. Transporting the stones was another tricky task. Sleds of wood were employed, and animals or slaves would drag the sleds by straps to haul the massive stones.

Leveling and Lifting
The pyramids are truly a marvel of engineering. The sides of the Great Pyramid are so geometrically precise that they all rise at the exact same angle and line up perfectly with the four points on the compass. Leveling the ground to construct these pyramids was itself a challenge. Levels, as we know them, did not exist. The Egyptians knew, though, that water always settles to its own level. Channels were dug around the site and filled with water. When the water leveled, rocks and sand were used to fill in the channels. All of this was done as a "tool" in the same way we would use a level today. Ramps were crucial tools used in pyramid construction. With no elevators and even without the wheel for a pulley system, ramps had to be built and added as the pyramids grew higher and higher. The heavy stones would be dragged up the ramps


Read more: Tools Used in Building a Pyramid | eHow.com Tools Used in Building a Pyramid | eHow.com

you must like having your ass handed to you. 


That was my point they and the ones who wrote the bible were not ignorant goat herders.-ywc
the problem with that statement is that the people who wrote the bible ,more accurately complied and edited it were not there when the events described happened.
 no first hand  written accounts exist.
so any statement on the intelligence or education of the people written about in the bible are subjective..and have been embellished.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no but they did have bronze and other stones that were as tools.
> they also used wedges and hot water to split stones.
> you get accuracy by practice. the evidence proves a couple thousand of it (5500 bce to 30 bce)
> you do realize that the pyramids at Giza are the newest pyramids not the oldest..
> 
> 
> again you make a subjective declaration "No other monument can inspire wonder like the pyramids,"
> 
> have you ever been there? I have.
> ever been to Angkor watt? I have and it's far more intricate.
> 
> 
> 
> These people were pretty intelligent no- ywc ...yes, what's your point ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of you seem to think that early man were ignorant goat herders I was showing they were not. That was my point they and the ones who wrote the bible were not ignorant goat herders. You can read all the Wikipedia you want and you still will not know how they built the pyramids and the tools that were used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> 
> Tools Used in Building a Pyramid
> X Nancy Hayden Nancy Hayden has been a professional writer since 1994. She began her career in theater as an actor and designer before becoming an improviser and sketch writer at The Second City Theater. Hayden uses her experience in improvisation to write about team-building skills for corporate groups.
> 
> By Nancy Hayden, eHow Contributor
> Some believe the Great Pyramid of Giza took 100,000 men 20 years to build. The pyramids of Egypt are truly a wonder of architecture and engineering. The great pyramid of Giza is as tall as a 50-story building. Constructing a building like that today would be an impressive feat, to say nothing of building it thousands of years ago. The pyramids were constructed with the most rudimentary of tools. They stand today as a true testament to man's determination and ability.
> 
> Tools were archaic during the time that the pyramids were built. Conceptually, they were engineered to accomplish the same tasks as today's tools, but the resources available were limited. The ingenuity of the men of the time, however, is apparent. Something harder than stone was needed to break the stones. Gold and copper were the two available metal alloys at the time. Gold was too soft to break stone, so copper was used to make chisels and saws to break into the bedrock and cut stones. Copper was also used to make an adze, a piece with a wooden handle used to file and shape the stone. A rudimentary drill was also used. These were comprised of pointed copper with a wooden handle. A piece of wood was attached at the center in the shape of a cross, and it slid back and forth like a bow. This would spin the copper piece being used as a drill bit.
> 
> Stones
> Stones were not only the building blocks being used to create pyramids, they served as important tools as well. The two main stone types used in construction were limestone and granite. Low-grade limestone was used in creating the inner walls, while smoother white limestone was used on the outer walls. It is believed that the lesser limestone was more readily available. In the case of the Great Pyramid, the fine white limestone is believed to have been quarried from as far as eight miles away. The key in making the stones was to use a tool of harder stone to get softer stone. Hammers or balls made of granite were used to break the softer limestone. Transporting the stones was another tricky task. Sleds of wood were employed, and animals or slaves would drag the sleds by straps to haul the massive stones.
> 
> Leveling and Lifting
> The pyramids are truly a marvel of engineering. The sides of the Great Pyramid are so geometrically precise that they all rise at the exact same angle and line up perfectly with the four points on the compass. Leveling the ground to construct these pyramids was itself a challenge. Levels, as we know them, did not exist. The Egyptians knew, though, that water always settles to its own level. Channels were dug around the site and filled with water. When the water leveled, rocks and sand were used to fill in the channels. All of this was done as a "tool" in the same way we would use a level today. Ramps were crucial tools used in pyramid construction. With no elevators and even without the wheel for a pulley system, ramps had to be built and added as the pyramids grew higher and higher. The heavy stones would be dragged up the ramps
> 
> 
> Read more: Tools Used in Building a Pyramid | eHow.com Tools Used in Building a Pyramid | eHow.com
> 
> you must like having your ass handed to you.
> 
> 
> That was my point they and the ones who wrote the bible were not ignorant goat herders.-ywc
> the problem with that statement is that the people who wrote the bible ,more accurately complied and edited it were not there when the events described happened.
> no first hand  written accounts exist.
> so any statement on the intelligence or education of the people written about in the bible are subjective..and have been embellished.
Click to expand...


Some of the authors are not known and some of the books were written within 30 to 40 years after the death of Christ. Besides if they were inspired writings it does not matter when they were written.

Now to your copy and paste, do you know the difference between opinion and fact ? You really can't be this dim can you ?

Copper and gold are too soft some source you have. Breaking up bedrock would require a very hard steel.

Ask me how I know it would take atleast a hard steel.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no but they did have bronze and other stones that were as tools.
> they also used wedges and hot water to split stones.
> you get accuracy by practice. the evidence proves a couple thousand of it (5500 bce to 30 bce)
> you do realize that the pyramids at Giza are the newest pyramids not the oldest..
> 
> 
> again you make a subjective declaration "No other monument can inspire wonder like the pyramids,"
> 
> have you ever been there? I have.
> ever been to Angkor watt? I have and it's far more intricate.
> 
> 
> 
> These people were pretty intelligent no- ywc ...yes, what's your point ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of you seem to think that early man were ignorant goat herders I was showing they were not. That was my point they and the ones who wrote the bible were not ignorant goat herders. You can read all the Wikipedia you want and you still will not know how they built the pyramids and the tools that were used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> 
> Tools Used in Building a Pyramid
> X Nancy Hayden Nancy Hayden has been a professional writer since 1994. She began her career in theater as an actor and designer before becoming an improviser and sketch writer at The Second City Theater. Hayden uses her experience in improvisation to write about team-building skills for corporate groups.
> 
> By Nancy Hayden, eHow Contributor
> Some believe the Great Pyramid of Giza took 100,000 men 20 years to build. The pyramids of Egypt are truly a wonder of architecture and engineering. The great pyramid of Giza is as tall as a 50-story building. Constructing a building like that today would be an impressive feat, to say nothing of building it thousands of years ago. The pyramids were constructed with the most rudimentary of tools. They stand today as a true testament to man's determination and ability.
> 
> Tools were archaic during the time that the pyramids were built. Conceptually, they were engineered to accomplish the same tasks as today's tools, but the resources available were limited. The ingenuity of the men of the time, however, is apparent. Something harder than stone was needed to break the stones. Gold and copper were the two available metal alloys at the time. Gold was too soft to break stone, so copper was used to make chisels and saws to break into the bedrock and cut stones. Copper was also used to make an adze, a piece with a wooden handle used to file and shape the stone. A rudimentary drill was also used. These were comprised of pointed copper with a wooden handle. A piece of wood was attached at the center in the shape of a cross, and it slid back and forth like a bow. This would spin the copper piece being used as a drill bit.
> 
> Stones
> Stones were not only the building blocks being used to create pyramids, they served as important tools as well. The two main stone types used in construction were limestone and granite. Low-grade limestone was used in creating the inner walls, while smoother white limestone was used on the outer walls. It is believed that the lesser limestone was more readily available. In the case of the Great Pyramid, the fine white limestone is believed to have been quarried from as far as eight miles away. The key in making the stones was to use a tool of harder stone to get softer stone. Hammers or balls made of granite were used to break the softer limestone. Transporting the stones was another tricky task. Sleds of wood were employed, and animals or slaves would drag the sleds by straps to haul the massive stones.
> 
> Leveling and Lifting
> The pyramids are truly a marvel of engineering. The sides of the Great Pyramid are so geometrically precise that they all rise at the exact same angle and line up perfectly with the four points on the compass. Leveling the ground to construct these pyramids was itself a challenge. Levels, as we know them, did not exist. The Egyptians knew, though, that water always settles to its own level. Channels were dug around the site and filled with water. When the water leveled, rocks and sand were used to fill in the channels. All of this was done as a "tool" in the same way we would use a level today. Ramps were crucial tools used in pyramid construction. With no elevators and even without the wheel for a pulley system, ramps had to be built and added as the pyramids grew higher and higher. The heavy stones would be dragged up the ramps
> 
> 
> Read more: Tools Used in Building a Pyramid | eHow.com Tools Used in Building a Pyramid | eHow.com
> 
> you must like having your ass handed to you.
> 
> 
> That was my point they and the ones who wrote the bible were not ignorant goat herders.-ywc
> the problem with that statement is that the people who wrote the bible ,more accurately complied and edited it were not there when the events described happened.
> no first hand  written accounts exist.
> so any statement on the intelligence or education of the people written about in the bible are subjective..and have been embellished.
Click to expand...


You can pretty much ignore your source because steel is available in Egypt.

Don't you grow weary of trying to take on someone that is always several steps ahead of you


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of you seem to think that early man were ignorant goat herders I was showing they were not. That was my point they and the ones who wrote the bible were not ignorant goat herders. You can read all the Wikipedia you want and you still will not know how they built the pyramids and the tools that were used.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> 
> Tools Used in Building a Pyramid
> X Nancy Hayden Nancy Hayden has been a professional writer since 1994. She began her career in theater as an actor and designer before becoming an improviser and sketch writer at The Second City Theater. Hayden uses her experience in improvisation to write about team-building skills for corporate groups.
> 
> By Nancy Hayden, eHow Contributor
> Some believe the Great Pyramid of Giza took 100,000 men 20 years to build. The pyramids of Egypt are truly a wonder of architecture and engineering. The great pyramid of Giza is as tall as a 50-story building. Constructing a building like that today would be an impressive feat, to say nothing of building it thousands of years ago. The pyramids were constructed with the most rudimentary of tools. They stand today as a true testament to man's determination and ability.
> 
> Tools were archaic during the time that the pyramids were built. Conceptually, they were engineered to accomplish the same tasks as today's tools, but the resources available were limited. The ingenuity of the men of the time, however, is apparent. Something harder than stone was needed to break the stones. Gold and copper were the two available metal alloys at the time. Gold was too soft to break stone, so copper was used to make chisels and saws to break into the bedrock and cut stones. Copper was also used to make an adze, a piece with a wooden handle used to file and shape the stone. A rudimentary drill was also used. These were comprised of pointed copper with a wooden handle. A piece of wood was attached at the center in the shape of a cross, and it slid back and forth like a bow. This would spin the copper piece being used as a drill bit.
> 
> Stones
> Stones were not only the building blocks being used to create pyramids, they served as important tools as well. The two main stone types used in construction were limestone and granite. Low-grade limestone was used in creating the inner walls, while smoother white limestone was used on the outer walls. It is believed that the lesser limestone was more readily available. In the case of the Great Pyramid, the fine white limestone is believed to have been quarried from as far as eight miles away. The key in making the stones was to use a tool of harder stone to get softer stone. Hammers or balls made of granite were used to break the softer limestone. Transporting the stones was another tricky task. Sleds of wood were employed, and animals or slaves would drag the sleds by straps to haul the massive stones.
> 
> Leveling and Lifting
> The pyramids are truly a marvel of engineering. The sides of the Great Pyramid are so geometrically precise that they all rise at the exact same angle and line up perfectly with the four points on the compass. Leveling the ground to construct these pyramids was itself a challenge. Levels, as we know them, did not exist. The Egyptians knew, though, that water always settles to its own level. Channels were dug around the site and filled with water. When the water leveled, rocks and sand were used to fill in the channels. All of this was done as a "tool" in the same way we would use a level today. Ramps were crucial tools used in pyramid construction. With no elevators and even without the wheel for a pulley system, ramps had to be built and added as the pyramids grew higher and higher. The heavy stones would be dragged up the ramps
> 
> 
> Read more: Tools Used in Building a Pyramid | eHow.com Tools Used in Building a Pyramid | eHow.com
> 
> you must like having your ass handed to you.
> 
> 
> That was my point they and the ones who wrote the bible were not ignorant goat herders.-ywc
> the problem with that statement is that the people who wrote the bible ,more accurately complied and edited it were not there when the events described happened.
> no first hand  written accounts exist.
> so any statement on the intelligence or education of the people written about in the bible are subjective..and have been embellished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the authors are not known and some of the books were written within 30 to 40 years after the death of Christ. Besides if they were inspired writings it does not matter when they were written.
> 
> Now to your copy and paste, do you know the difference between opinion and fact ? You really can't be this dim can you ?
> 
> Copper and gold are too soft some source you have. Breaking up bedrock would require a very hard steel.
> 
> Ask me how I know it would take atleast a hard steel.
Click to expand...

stop trying to bullshit  around your ignorance,

Quarry Tools
The Egyptians used several different tools to cut the stone in the quarries. They used chisels, pickaxes, saws and drills made from copper and bronze, and hammers and chisels from hard rock such as dolerite. They used these to remove the material from the bedrock. They cut and shaped the stone into squares with copper and bronze chisels. They used wooden blocks, levers and sledges to move the blocks, using mud and water as a lubricant to ease the moving of the large stones. Often they transported the stone by boat to the building site.

Read more: What Are the Tools & Materials to Build Pyramids? | eHow.com What Are the Tools & Materials to Build Pyramids? | eHow.com



aks me how i know this THE TOOLS DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUS POSTS WERE FOUND AT THE WORKERS CAMP. IT'S CALLED HARD EVIDENCE,,,ONLY A BRAIN DEAD FUCK UP WOULD DEBATE THAT...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of you seem to think that early man were ignorant goat herders I was showing they were not. That was my point they and the ones who wrote the bible were not ignorant goat herders. You can read all the Wikipedia you want and you still will not know how they built the pyramids and the tools that were used.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> 
> Tools Used in Building a Pyramid
> X Nancy Hayden Nancy Hayden has been a professional writer since 1994. She began her career in theater as an actor and designer before becoming an improviser and sketch writer at The Second City Theater. Hayden uses her experience in improvisation to write about team-building skills for corporate groups.
> 
> By Nancy Hayden, eHow Contributor
> Some believe the Great Pyramid of Giza took 100,000 men 20 years to build. The pyramids of Egypt are truly a wonder of architecture and engineering. The great pyramid of Giza is as tall as a 50-story building. Constructing a building like that today would be an impressive feat, to say nothing of building it thousands of years ago. The pyramids were constructed with the most rudimentary of tools. They stand today as a true testament to man's determination and ability.
> 
> Tools were archaic during the time that the pyramids were built. Conceptually, they were engineered to accomplish the same tasks as today's tools, but the resources available were limited. The ingenuity of the men of the time, however, is apparent. Something harder than stone was needed to break the stones. Gold and copper were the two available metal alloys at the time. Gold was too soft to break stone, so copper was used to make chisels and saws to break into the bedrock and cut stones. Copper was also used to make an adze, a piece with a wooden handle used to file and shape the stone. A rudimentary drill was also used. These were comprised of pointed copper with a wooden handle. A piece of wood was attached at the center in the shape of a cross, and it slid back and forth like a bow. This would spin the copper piece being used as a drill bit.
> 
> Stones
> Stones were not only the building blocks being used to create pyramids, they served as important tools as well. The two main stone types used in construction were limestone and granite. Low-grade limestone was used in creating the inner walls, while smoother white limestone was used on the outer walls. It is believed that the lesser limestone was more readily available. In the case of the Great Pyramid, the fine white limestone is believed to have been quarried from as far as eight miles away. The key in making the stones was to use a tool of harder stone to get softer stone. Hammers or balls made of granite were used to break the softer limestone. Transporting the stones was another tricky task. Sleds of wood were employed, and animals or slaves would drag the sleds by straps to haul the massive stones.
> 
> Leveling and Lifting
> The pyramids are truly a marvel of engineering. The sides of the Great Pyramid are so geometrically precise that they all rise at the exact same angle and line up perfectly with the four points on the compass. Leveling the ground to construct these pyramids was itself a challenge. Levels, as we know them, did not exist. The Egyptians knew, though, that water always settles to its own level. Channels were dug around the site and filled with water. When the water leveled, rocks and sand were used to fill in the channels. All of this was done as a "tool" in the same way we would use a level today. Ramps were crucial tools used in pyramid construction. With no elevators and even without the wheel for a pulley system, ramps had to be built and added as the pyramids grew higher and higher. The heavy stones would be dragged up the ramps
> 
> 
> Read more: Tools Used in Building a Pyramid | eHow.com Tools Used in Building a Pyramid | eHow.com
> 
> you must like having your ass handed to you.
> 
> 
> That was my point they and the ones who wrote the bible were not ignorant goat herders.-ywc
> the problem with that statement is that the people who wrote the bible ,more accurately complied and edited it were not there when the events described happened.
> no first hand  written accounts exist.
> so any statement on the intelligence or education of the people written about in the bible are subjective..and have been embellished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretty much ignore your source because steel is available in Egypt.
> 
> Don't you grow weary of trying to take on someone that is always several steps ahead of you
Click to expand...

if that statement weren't another one of your false declarations you might be onto something, since it is you must really enjoy flagellating yourself with your hubris !


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> 
> Tools Used in Building a Pyramid
> X Nancy Hayden Nancy Hayden has been a professional writer since 1994. She began her career in theater as an actor and designer before becoming an improviser and sketch writer at The Second City Theater. Hayden uses her experience in improvisation to write about team-building skills for corporate groups.
> 
> By Nancy Hayden, eHow Contributor
> Some believe the Great Pyramid of Giza took 100,000 men 20 years to build. The pyramids of Egypt are truly a wonder of architecture and engineering. The great pyramid of Giza is as tall as a 50-story building. Constructing a building like that today would be an impressive feat, to say nothing of building it thousands of years ago. The pyramids were constructed with the most rudimentary of tools. They stand today as a true testament to man's determination and ability.
> 
> Tools were archaic during the time that the pyramids were built. Conceptually, they were engineered to accomplish the same tasks as today's tools, but the resources available were limited. The ingenuity of the men of the time, however, is apparent. Something harder than stone was needed to break the stones. Gold and copper were the two available metal alloys at the time. Gold was too soft to break stone, so copper was used to make chisels and saws to break into the bedrock and cut stones. Copper was also used to make an adze, a piece with a wooden handle used to file and shape the stone. A rudimentary drill was also used. These were comprised of pointed copper with a wooden handle. A piece of wood was attached at the center in the shape of a cross, and it slid back and forth like a bow. This would spin the copper piece being used as a drill bit.
> 
> Stones
> Stones were not only the building blocks being used to create pyramids, they served as important tools as well. The two main stone types used in construction were limestone and granite. Low-grade limestone was used in creating the inner walls, while smoother white limestone was used on the outer walls. It is believed that the lesser limestone was more readily available. In the case of the Great Pyramid, the fine white limestone is believed to have been quarried from as far as eight miles away. The key in making the stones was to use a tool of harder stone to get softer stone. Hammers or balls made of granite were used to break the softer limestone. Transporting the stones was another tricky task. Sleds of wood were employed, and animals or slaves would drag the sleds by straps to haul the massive stones.
> 
> Leveling and Lifting
> The pyramids are truly a marvel of engineering. The sides of the Great Pyramid are so geometrically precise that they all rise at the exact same angle and line up perfectly with the four points on the compass. Leveling the ground to construct these pyramids was itself a challenge. Levels, as we know them, did not exist. The Egyptians knew, though, that water always settles to its own level. Channels were dug around the site and filled with water. When the water leveled, rocks and sand were used to fill in the channels. All of this was done as a "tool" in the same way we would use a level today. Ramps were crucial tools used in pyramid construction. With no elevators and even without the wheel for a pulley system, ramps had to be built and added as the pyramids grew higher and higher. The heavy stones would be dragged up the ramps
> 
> 
> Read more: Tools Used in Building a Pyramid | eHow.com Tools Used in Building a Pyramid | eHow.com
> 
> you must like having your ass handed to you.
> 
> 
> That was my point they and the ones who wrote the bible were not ignorant goat herders.-ywc
> the problem with that statement is that the people who wrote the bible ,more accurately complied and edited it were not there when the events described happened.
> no first hand  written accounts exist.
> so any statement on the intelligence or education of the people written about in the bible are subjective..and have been embellished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the authors are not known and some of the books were written within 30 to 40 years after the death of Christ. Besides if they were inspired writings it does not matter when they were written.
> 
> Now to your copy and paste, do you know the difference between opinion and fact ? You really can't be this dim can you ?
> 
> Copper and gold are too soft some source you have. Breaking up bedrock would require a very hard steel.
> 
> Ask me how I know it would take atleast a hard steel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop trying to bullshit  around your ignorance,
> 
> Quarry Tools
> The Egyptians used several different tools to cut the stone in the quarries. They used chisels, pickaxes, saws and drills made from copper and bronze, and hammers and chisels from hard rock such as dolerite. They used these to remove the material from the bedrock. They cut and shaped the stone into squares with copper and bronze chisels. They used wooden blocks, levers and sledges to move the blocks, using mud and water as a lubricant to ease the moving of the large stones. Often they transported the stone by boat to the building site.
> 
> Read more: What Are the Tools & Materials to Build Pyramids? | eHow.com What Are the Tools & Materials to Build Pyramids? | eHow.com
> 
> 
> 
> aks me how i know this THE TOOLS DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUS POSTS WERE FOUND AT THE WORKERS CAMP. IT'S CALLED HARD EVIDENCE,,,ONLY A BRAIN DEAD FUCK UP WOULD DEBATE THAT...
Click to expand...


I am part owner in a mining company you are absolutely out of your mind to think the tools you described could carve solid rock or cut through the bedrock for the foundation, Not saying some of tools you mentioned were not used in some fashion but not for the major job of cutting through stone.

What are picks made out of ? what are chisels made out of ? what are hammers made out of ? what are saws and most blades made out of ? Whether they had to import steel and iron they could not do that job without those metals.

You were saying nitwit ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> 
> Tools Used in Building a Pyramid
> X Nancy Hayden Nancy Hayden has been a professional writer since 1994. She began her career in theater as an actor and designer before becoming an improviser and sketch writer at The Second City Theater. Hayden uses her experience in improvisation to write about team-building skills for corporate groups.
> 
> By Nancy Hayden, eHow Contributor
> Some believe the Great Pyramid of Giza took 100,000 men 20 years to build. The pyramids of Egypt are truly a wonder of architecture and engineering. The great pyramid of Giza is as tall as a 50-story building. Constructing a building like that today would be an impressive feat, to say nothing of building it thousands of years ago. The pyramids were constructed with the most rudimentary of tools. They stand today as a true testament to man's determination and ability.
> 
> Tools were archaic during the time that the pyramids were built. Conceptually, they were engineered to accomplish the same tasks as today's tools, but the resources available were limited. The ingenuity of the men of the time, however, is apparent. Something harder than stone was needed to break the stones. Gold and copper were the two available metal alloys at the time. Gold was too soft to break stone, so copper was used to make chisels and saws to break into the bedrock and cut stones. Copper was also used to make an adze, a piece with a wooden handle used to file and shape the stone. A rudimentary drill was also used. These were comprised of pointed copper with a wooden handle. A piece of wood was attached at the center in the shape of a cross, and it slid back and forth like a bow. This would spin the copper piece being used as a drill bit.
> 
> Stones
> Stones were not only the building blocks being used to create pyramids, they served as important tools as well. The two main stone types used in construction were limestone and granite. Low-grade limestone was used in creating the inner walls, while smoother white limestone was used on the outer walls. It is believed that the lesser limestone was more readily available. In the case of the Great Pyramid, the fine white limestone is believed to have been quarried from as far as eight miles away. The key in making the stones was to use a tool of harder stone to get softer stone. Hammers or balls made of granite were used to break the softer limestone. Transporting the stones was another tricky task. Sleds of wood were employed, and animals or slaves would drag the sleds by straps to haul the massive stones.
> 
> Leveling and Lifting
> The pyramids are truly a marvel of engineering. The sides of the Great Pyramid are so geometrically precise that they all rise at the exact same angle and line up perfectly with the four points on the compass. Leveling the ground to construct these pyramids was itself a challenge. Levels, as we know them, did not exist. The Egyptians knew, though, that water always settles to its own level. Channels were dug around the site and filled with water. When the water leveled, rocks and sand were used to fill in the channels. All of this was done as a "tool" in the same way we would use a level today. Ramps were crucial tools used in pyramid construction. With no elevators and even without the wheel for a pulley system, ramps had to be built and added as the pyramids grew higher and higher. The heavy stones would be dragged up the ramps
> 
> 
> Read more: Tools Used in Building a Pyramid | eHow.com Tools Used in Building a Pyramid | eHow.com
> 
> you must like having your ass handed to you.
> 
> 
> That was my point they and the ones who wrote the bible were not ignorant goat herders.-ywc
> the problem with that statement is that the people who wrote the bible ,more accurately complied and edited it were not there when the events described happened.
> no first hand  written accounts exist.
> so any statement on the intelligence or education of the people written about in the bible are subjective..and have been embellished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can pretty much ignore your source because steel is available in Egypt.
> 
> Don't you grow weary of trying to take on someone that is always several steps ahead of you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if that statement weren't another one of your false declarations you might be onto something, since it is you must really enjoy flagellating yourself with your hubris !
Click to expand...


Google can be your friend nitwit.

Beshay Steel, Egypt | Home


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> 
> Tools Used in Building a Pyramid
> X Nancy Hayden Nancy Hayden has been a professional writer since 1994. She began her career in theater as an actor and designer before becoming an improviser and sketch writer at The Second City Theater. Hayden uses her experience in improvisation to write about team-building skills for corporate groups.
> 
> By Nancy Hayden, eHow Contributor
> Some believe the Great Pyramid of Giza took 100,000 men 20 years to build. The pyramids of Egypt are truly a wonder of architecture and engineering. The great pyramid of Giza is as tall as a 50-story building. Constructing a building like that today would be an impressive feat, to say nothing of building it thousands of years ago. The pyramids were constructed with the most rudimentary of tools. They stand today as a true testament to man's determination and ability.
> 
> Tools were archaic during the time that the pyramids were built. Conceptually, they were engineered to accomplish the same tasks as today's tools, but the resources available were limited. The ingenuity of the men of the time, however, is apparent. Something harder than stone was needed to break the stones. Gold and copper were the two available metal alloys at the time. Gold was too soft to break stone, so copper was used to make chisels and saws to break into the bedrock and cut stones. Copper was also used to make an adze, a piece with a wooden handle used to file and shape the stone. A rudimentary drill was also used. These were comprised of pointed copper with a wooden handle. A piece of wood was attached at the center in the shape of a cross, and it slid back and forth like a bow. This would spin the copper piece being used as a drill bit.
> 
> Stones
> Stones were not only the building blocks being used to create pyramids, they served as important tools as well. The two main stone types used in construction were limestone and granite. Low-grade limestone was used in creating the inner walls, while smoother white limestone was used on the outer walls. It is believed that the lesser limestone was more readily available. In the case of the Great Pyramid, the fine white limestone is believed to have been quarried from as far as eight miles away. The key in making the stones was to use a tool of harder stone to get softer stone. Hammers or balls made of granite were used to break the softer limestone. Transporting the stones was another tricky task. Sleds of wood were employed, and animals or slaves would drag the sleds by straps to haul the massive stones.
> 
> Leveling and Lifting
> The pyramids are truly a marvel of engineering. The sides of the Great Pyramid are so geometrically precise that they all rise at the exact same angle and line up perfectly with the four points on the compass. Leveling the ground to construct these pyramids was itself a challenge. Levels, as we know them, did not exist. The Egyptians knew, though, that water always settles to its own level. Channels were dug around the site and filled with water. When the water leveled, rocks and sand were used to fill in the channels. All of this was done as a "tool" in the same way we would use a level today. Ramps were crucial tools used in pyramid construction. With no elevators and even without the wheel for a pulley system, ramps had to be built and added as the pyramids grew higher and higher. The heavy stones would be dragged up the ramps
> 
> 
> Read more: Tools Used in Building a Pyramid | eHow.com Tools Used in Building a Pyramid | eHow.com
> 
> you must like having your ass handed to you.
> 
> 
> That was my point they and the ones who wrote the bible were not ignorant goat herders.-ywc
> the problem with that statement is that the people who wrote the bible ,more accurately complied and edited it were not there when the events described happened.
> no first hand  written accounts exist.
> so any statement on the intelligence or education of the people written about in the bible are subjective..and have been embellished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the authors are not known and some of the books were written within 30 to 40 years after the death of Christ. Besides if they were inspired writings it does not matter when they were written.
> 
> Now to your copy and paste, do you know the difference between opinion and fact ? You really can't be this dim can you ?
> 
> Copper and gold are too soft some source you have. Breaking up bedrock would require a very hard steel.
> 
> Ask me how I know it would take atleast a hard steel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THE TOOLS DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUS POSTS WERE FOUND AT THE WORKERS CAMP.
Click to expand...


You're the tool. Ha, ha.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can pretty much ignore your source because steel is available in Egypt.
> 
> Don't you grow weary of trying to take on someone that is always several steps ahead of you
> 
> 
> 
> if that statement weren't another one of your false declarations you might be onto something, since it is you must really enjoy flagellating yourself with your hubris !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google can be your friend nitwit.
> 
> Beshay Steel, Egypt | Home
Click to expand...

so your saying that an  obviously modern steel company existed in  egypt 5000 years ago?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the authors are not known and some of the books were written within 30 to 40 years after the death of Christ. Besides if they were inspired writings it does not matter when they were written.
> 
> Now to your copy and paste, do you know the difference between opinion and fact ? You really can't be this dim can you ?
> 
> Copper and gold are too soft some source you have. Breaking up bedrock would require a very hard steel.
> 
> Ask me how I know it would take atleast a hard steel.
> 
> 
> 
> stop trying to bullshit  around your ignorance,
> 
> Quarry Tools
> The Egyptians used several different tools to cut the stone in the quarries. They used chisels, pickaxes, saws and drills made from copper and bronze, and hammers and chisels from hard rock such as dolerite. They used these to remove the material from the bedrock. They cut and shaped the stone into squares with copper and bronze chisels. They used wooden blocks, levers and sledges to move the blocks, using mud and water as a lubricant to ease the moving of the large stones. Often they transported the stone by boat to the building site.
> 
> Read more: What Are the Tools & Materials to Build Pyramids? | eHow.com What Are the Tools & Materials to Build Pyramids? | eHow.com
> 
> 
> 
> aks me how i know this THE TOOLS DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUS POSTS WERE FOUND AT THE WORKERS CAMP. IT'S CALLED HARD EVIDENCE,,,ONLY A BRAIN DEAD FUCK UP WOULD DEBATE THAT...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am part owner in a mining company you are absolutely out of your mind to think the tools you described could carve solid rock or cut through the bedrock for the foundation, Not saying some of tools you mentioned were not used in some fashion but not for the major job of cutting through stone.
> 
> What are picks made out of ? what are chisels made out of ? what are hammers made out of ? what are saws and most blades made out of ? Whether they had to import steel and iron they could not do that job without those metals.
> 
> You were saying nitwit ?
Click to expand...

 since the first crude forms of steel were not invented until 200 bce.  and the 
The pyramids in Egypt were built during the reign of various Pharoahs dating from around 2700 BC to 1500 BC. then you have a big fucking    problem!


Ancient Rock Cutting Tools
X Lisa Magloff Since graduating with a degree in biology, Lisa Magloff has worked in many countries. Accordingly, she specializes in writing about science and travel and has written for publications as diverse as the "Snowmass Sun" and "Caterer Middle East." With numerous published books and newspaper and magazine articles to her credit, Magloff has an eclectic knowledge of everything from cooking to nuclear reactor maintenance. 

By Lisa Magloff, eHow Contributor 
 The pyramid builders in Egypt cut rock with copper saws and stone drills. Ancient peoples, including the Egyptians and Greeks, built large stone buildings using ingenious tools made without hardened iron or steel. Many of these ancient rock-cutting tools have been in use for thousands of years. Some used friction to cut through very hard rock or stone, such as marble and granite. Use of these these tools often involved a great deal of back-breaking labor. 

Egyptian Bow Drill
The ancient Egyptians used a tool called a bow drill to cut rock. A bow drill looks a bit like a violin bow, with the string wrapped around a wood or copper tube. A drill bit made of hard stone was inserted into one end of the tube. One end of the bow was wider than the other, to create a handhold. The worker moved the bow back and forth in a sawing motion, which rotated the tube and the drill bit very quickly, thereby drilling a hole. Once many holes were drilled, the rock could be split with wedges or carved out with chisels.

Egyptian Slabbing Saw
The ancient Egyptians also used the slabbing saw to cut large slabs of rock. Egyptian slabbing saws were serrated on one edge of the blade and were designed to be pulled, not pushed. The ancient Egyptians did not have steel saws like the ones we use today. Instead, slabbing saws were made out of copper, and later out of bronze and iron. These metals alone are not strong enough to cut hard stones such as basalt or granite. In order to cut these stones, the saws were combined with an abrasive, such as small chunks of minerals or crystals. These were sometimes embedded in the metal when the saw was cast; otherwise they were rubbed onto the stone, under the saw, during cutting


Read more: Ancient Rock Cutting Tools | eHow.com Ancient Rock Cutting Tools | eHow.com


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the authors are not known and some of the books were written within 30 to 40 years after the death of Christ. Besides if they were inspired writings it does not matter when they were written.
> 
> Now to your copy and paste, do you know the difference between opinion and fact ? You really can't be this dim can you ?
> 
> Copper and gold are too soft some source you have. Breaking up bedrock would require a very hard steel.
> 
> Ask me how I know it would take atleast a hard steel.
> 
> 
> 
> THE TOOLS DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUS POSTS WERE FOUND AT THE WORKERS CAMP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the tool. Ha, ha.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if that statement weren't another one of your false declarations you might be onto something, since it is you must really enjoy flagellating yourself with your hubris !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google can be your friend nitwit.
> 
> Beshay Steel, Egypt | Home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so your saying that an  obviously modern steel company existed in  egypt 5000 years ago?
Click to expand...


No but my point is that those metals were not the only metals availble to them,they mined metals and you can't have gold or copper without smelting them which you can't have gold without iron and nickel.

Could early Egyptians separate out the metals properly to make them pure I don't know. But they had to have stroger metals to cut through stone.

Both limestone and granite are very strong rock.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop trying to bullshit  around your ignorance,
> 
> Quarry Tools
> The Egyptians used several different tools to cut the stone in the quarries. They used chisels, pickaxes, saws and drills made from copper and bronze, and hammers and chisels from hard rock such as dolerite. They used these to remove the material from the bedrock. They cut and shaped the stone into squares with copper and bronze chisels. They used wooden blocks, levers and sledges to move the blocks, using mud and water as a lubricant to ease the moving of the large stones. Often they transported the stone by boat to the building site.
> 
> Read more: What Are the Tools & Materials to Build Pyramids? | eHow.com What Are the Tools & Materials to Build Pyramids? | eHow.com
> 
> 
> 
> aks me how i know this THE TOOLS DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUS POSTS WERE FOUND AT THE WORKERS CAMP. IT'S CALLED HARD EVIDENCE,,,ONLY A BRAIN DEAD FUCK UP WOULD DEBATE THAT...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am part owner in a mining company you are absolutely out of your mind to think the tools you described could carve solid rock or cut through the bedrock for the foundation, Not saying some of tools you mentioned were not used in some fashion but not for the major job of cutting through stone.
> 
> What are picks made out of ? what are chisels made out of ? what are hammers made out of ? what are saws and most blades made out of ? Whether they had to import steel and iron they could not do that job without those metals.
> 
> You were saying nitwit ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since the first crude forms of steel were not invented until 200 bce.  and the
> The pyramids in Egypt were built during the reign of various Pharoahs dating from around 2700 BC to 1500 BC. then you have a big fucking    problem!
> 
> 
> Ancient Rock Cutting Tools
> X Lisa Magloff Since graduating with a degree in biology, Lisa Magloff has worked in many countries. Accordingly, she specializes in writing about science and travel and has written for publications as diverse as the "Snowmass Sun" and "Caterer Middle East." With numerous published books and newspaper and magazine articles to her credit, Magloff has an eclectic knowledge of everything from cooking to nuclear reactor maintenance.
> 
> By Lisa Magloff, eHow Contributor
> The pyramid builders in Egypt cut rock with copper saws and stone drills. Ancient peoples, including the Egyptians and Greeks, built large stone buildings using ingenious tools made without hardened iron or steel. Many of these ancient rock-cutting tools have been in use for thousands of years. Some used friction to cut through very hard rock or stone, such as marble and granite. Use of these these tools often involved a great deal of back-breaking labor.
> 
> Egyptian Bow Drill
> The ancient Egyptians used a tool called a bow drill to cut rock. A bow drill looks a bit like a violin bow, with the string wrapped around a wood or copper tube. A drill bit made of hard stone was inserted into one end of the tube. One end of the bow was wider than the other, to create a handhold. The worker moved the bow back and forth in a sawing motion, which rotated the tube and the drill bit very quickly, thereby drilling a hole. Once many holes were drilled, the rock could be split with wedges or carved out with chisels.
> 
> Egyptian Slabbing Saw
> The ancient Egyptians also used the slabbing saw to cut large slabs of rock. Egyptian slabbing saws were serrated on one edge of the blade and were designed to be pulled, not pushed. The ancient Egyptians did not have steel saws like the ones we use today. Instead, slabbing saws were made out of copper, and later out of bronze and iron. These metals alone are not strong enough to cut hard stones such as basalt or granite. In order to cut these stones, the saws were combined with an abrasive, such as small chunks of minerals or crystals. These were sometimes embedded in the metal when the saw was cast; otherwise they were rubbed onto the stone, under the saw, during cutting
> 
> 
> Read more: Ancient Rock Cutting Tools | eHow.com Ancient Rock Cutting Tools | eHow.com
Click to expand...


You have no idea about metallurgy do you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE TOOLS DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUS POSTS WERE FOUND AT THE WORKERS CAMP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the tool. Ha, ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Their copper had to be mixed with the other metals to make them strong enough that is why I laugh at your sources and all who claim they did it with just copper.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google can be your friend nitwit.
> 
> Beshay Steel, Egypt | Home
> 
> 
> 
> so your saying that an  obviously modern steel company existed in  egypt 5000 years ago?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No but my point is that those metals were not the only metals availble to them,they mined metals and you can't have gold or copper without smelting them which you can't have gold without iron and nickel.
> 
> Could early Egyptians separate out the metals properly to make them pure I don't know. But they had to have stroger metals to cut through stone.
> 
> Both limestone and granite are very strong rock.
Click to expand...

first you were absolutly sure that the Egyptians USED IRON AND STEEL TO BUILD THE PYRAMIDS   THEN YOU SAY THAT THEY DID USE COPPER AND BRONZE BUT FOR ONLY MENIAL JOBS. 
CONVENIENTLY YOU LEFT OUT THE FACT THAT OTHER STONE WAS USED AS A TOOL...THE POINT IS  THEY DID NOT HAVE IRON OR STEEL AS ALREADY PROVEN .
YOUR CLAIM THAT THEY HAD TO HAVE STRONGER METALS TO CUT STONE HAS NO BASIS IN FACT, AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am part owner in a mining company you are absolutely out of your mind to think the tools you described could carve solid rock or cut through the bedrock for the foundation, not saying some of tools you mentioned were not used in some fashion but not for the major job of cutting through stone.
> 
> What are picks made out of ? What are chisels made out of ? What are hammers made out of ? What are saws and most blades made out of ? Whether they had to import steel and iron they could not do that job without those metals.
> 
> You were saying nitwit ?
> 
> 
> 
> since the first crude forms of steel were not invented until 200 bce.  And the
> the pyramids in egypt were built during the reign of various pharoahs dating from around 2700 bc to 1500 bc. Then you have a big fucking    problem!
> 
> 
> Ancient rock cutting tools
> x lisa magloff since graduating with a degree in biology, lisa magloff has worked in many countries. Accordingly, she specializes in writing about science and travel and has written for publications as diverse as the "snowmass sun" and "caterer middle east." with numerous published books and newspaper and magazine articles to her credit, magloff has an eclectic knowledge of everything from cooking to nuclear reactor maintenance.
> 
> By lisa magloff, ehow contributor
> the pyramid builders in egypt cut rock with copper saws and stone drills. Ancient peoples, including the egyptians and greeks, built large stone buildings using ingenious tools made without hardened iron or steel. Many of these ancient rock-cutting tools have been in use for thousands of years. Some used friction to cut through very hard rock or stone, such as marble and granite. Use of these these tools often involved a great deal of back-breaking labor.
> 
> Egyptian bow drill
> the ancient egyptians used a tool called a bow drill to cut rock. A bow drill looks a bit like a violin bow, with the string wrapped around a wood or copper tube. A drill bit made of hard stone was inserted into one end of the tube. One end of the bow was wider than the other, to create a handhold. The worker moved the bow back and forth in a sawing motion, which rotated the tube and the drill bit very quickly, thereby drilling a hole. Once many holes were drilled, the rock could be split with wedges or carved out with chisels.
> 
> Egyptian slabbing saw
> the ancient egyptians also used the slabbing saw to cut large slabs of rock. Egyptian slabbing saws were serrated on one edge of the blade and were designed to be pulled, not pushed. The ancient egyptians did not have steel saws like the ones we use today. Instead, slabbing saws were made out of copper, and later out of bronze and iron. These metals alone are not strong enough to cut hard stones such as basalt or granite. In order to cut these stones, the saws were combined with an abrasive, such as small chunks of minerals or crystals. These were sometimes embedded in the metal when the saw was cast; otherwise they were rubbed onto the stone, under the saw, during cutting
> 
> 
> read more: Ancient rock cutting tools | ehow.com ancient rock cutting tools | ehow.com
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have no idea about metallurgy do you ?
Click to expand...

another false claim!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop trying to bullshit  around your ignorance,
> 
> Quarry Tools
> The Egyptians used several different tools to cut the stone in the quarries. They used chisels, pickaxes, saws and drills made from copper and bronze, and hammers and chisels from hard rock such as dolerite. They used these to remove the material from the bedrock. They cut and shaped the stone into squares with copper and bronze chisels. They used wooden blocks, levers and sledges to move the blocks, using mud and water as a lubricant to ease the moving of the large stones. Often they transported the stone by boat to the building site.
> 
> Read more: What Are the Tools & Materials to Build Pyramids? | eHow.com What Are the Tools & Materials to Build Pyramids? | eHow.com
> 
> 
> 
> aks me how i know this THE TOOLS DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUS POSTS WERE FOUND AT THE WORKERS CAMP. IT'S CALLED HARD EVIDENCE,,,ONLY A BRAIN DEAD FUCK UP WOULD DEBATE THAT...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am part owner in a mining company you are absolutely out of your mind to think the tools you described could carve solid rock or cut through the bedrock for the foundation, Not saying some of tools you mentioned were not used in some fashion but not for the major job of cutting through stone.
> 
> What are picks made out of ? what are chisels made out of ? what are hammers made out of ? what are saws and most blades made out of ? Whether they had to import steel and iron they could not do that job without those metals.
> 
> You were saying nitwit ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since the first crude forms of steel were not invented until 200 bce.  and the
> The pyramids in Egypt were built during the reign of various Pharoahs dating from around 2700 BC to 1500 BC. then you have a big fucking    problem!
> 
> 
> Ancient Rock Cutting Tools
> X Lisa Magloff Since graduating with a degree in biology, Lisa Magloff has worked in many countries. Accordingly, she specializes in writing about science and travel and has written for publications as diverse as the "Snowmass Sun" and "Caterer Middle East." With numerous published books and newspaper and magazine articles to her credit, Magloff has an eclectic knowledge of everything from cooking to nuclear reactor maintenance.
> 
> By Lisa Magloff, eHow Contributor
> The pyramid builders in Egypt cut rock with copper saws and stone drills. Ancient peoples, including the Egyptians and Greeks, built large stone buildings using ingenious tools made without hardened iron or steel. Many of these ancient rock-cutting tools have been in use for thousands of years. Some used friction to cut through very hard rock or stone, such as marble and granite. Use of these these tools often involved a great deal of back-breaking labor.
> 
> Egyptian Bow Drill
> The ancient Egyptians used a tool called a bow drill to cut rock. A bow drill looks a bit like a violin bow, with the string wrapped around a wood or copper tube. A drill bit made of hard stone was inserted into one end of the tube. One end of the bow was wider than the other, to create a handhold. The worker moved the bow back and forth in a sawing motion, which rotated the tube and the drill bit very quickly, thereby drilling a hole. Once many holes were drilled, the rock could be split with wedges or carved out with chisels.
> 
> Egyptian Slabbing Saw
> The ancient Egyptians also used the slabbing saw to cut large slabs of rock. Egyptian slabbing saws were serrated on one edge of the blade and were designed to be pulled, not pushed. The ancient Egyptians did not have steel saws like the ones we use today. Instead, slabbing saws were made out of copper, and later out of bronze and iron. These metals alone are not strong enough to cut hard stones such as basalt or granite. In order to cut these stones, the saws were combined with an abrasive, such as small chunks of minerals or crystals. These were sometimes embedded in the metal when the saw was cast; otherwise they were rubbed onto the stone, under the saw, during cutting
> 
> 
> Read more: Ancient Rock Cutting Tools | eHow.com Ancient Rock Cutting Tools | eHow.com
Click to expand...


What you are posting is only speculation.





Why Did Ancient Cultures Build these Amazing Stone Monuments? 


So, there are all these amazing megalithic stone monuments found all over the world, built over the millennia by civilizations as varied as the locations in which they are found, and as the monuments themselves. Unfortunately, in most cases we don't really know why (or even how) they built these monuments, since the cultures have disappeared and mostly left no written accounts of their purpose or anything behind. And in many cases we don't even know why they were abandoned. 

Mysterious Monuments and Who Built Them


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the tool. Ha, ha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their copper had to be mixed with the other metals to make them strong enough that is why I laugh at your sources and all who claim they did it with just copper.
Click to expand...

OR DID THE STRENGTH COME FROM IMPURTIES IN THE ORE?
NONE OF THE SOURCES CLAIM IT WAS PURE COPPER ...ONLY YOU DID, RATIONALIZE MUCH?


IN ANY CASE IT WAS NOT IRON OR STEEL AS YOU FIRST CLAIMED.
You can stop bullshiting your way out if it any time now.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so your saying that an  obviously modern steel company existed in  egypt 5000 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but my point is that those metals were not the only metals availble to them,they mined metals and you can't have gold or copper without smelting them which you can't have gold without iron and nickel.
> 
> Could early Egyptians separate out the metals properly to make them pure I don't know. But they had to have stroger metals to cut through stone.
> 
> Both limestone and granite are very strong rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> first you were absolutly sure that the Egyptians USED IRON AND STEEL TO BUILD THE PYRAMIDS   THEN YOU SAY THAT THEY DID USE COPPER AND BRONZE BUT FOR ONLY MENIAL JOBS.
> CONVENIENTLY YOU LEFT OUT THE FACT THAT OTHER STONE WAS USED AS AS TOOL...THE POINT IS  THEY DID NOT HAVE IRON OR STEEL AS ALREADY PROVEN .
> YOUR CLAIM THAT THEY HAD TO HAVE STRONGER METALS TO CUT STONE HAS NO BASIS IN FACT, AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.
Click to expand...


Like i said you are basing it off speculation and someones opinion if you had any kind of understanding of metals  you would know they run together. And several different metals make up one particular metal.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since the first crude forms of steel were not invented until 200 bce.  And the
> the pyramids in egypt were built during the reign of various pharoahs dating from around 2700 bc to 1500 bc. Then you have a big fucking    problem!
> 
> 
> Ancient rock cutting tools
> x lisa magloff since graduating with a degree in biology, lisa magloff has worked in many countries. Accordingly, she specializes in writing about science and travel and has written for publications as diverse as the "snowmass sun" and "caterer middle east." with numerous published books and newspaper and magazine articles to her credit, magloff has an eclectic knowledge of everything from cooking to nuclear reactor maintenance.
> 
> By lisa magloff, ehow contributor
> the pyramid builders in egypt cut rock with copper saws and stone drills. Ancient peoples, including the egyptians and greeks, built large stone buildings using ingenious tools made without hardened iron or steel. Many of these ancient rock-cutting tools have been in use for thousands of years. Some used friction to cut through very hard rock or stone, such as marble and granite. Use of these these tools often involved a great deal of back-breaking labor.
> 
> Egyptian bow drill
> the ancient egyptians used a tool called a bow drill to cut rock. A bow drill looks a bit like a violin bow, with the string wrapped around a wood or copper tube. A drill bit made of hard stone was inserted into one end of the tube. One end of the bow was wider than the other, to create a handhold. The worker moved the bow back and forth in a sawing motion, which rotated the tube and the drill bit very quickly, thereby drilling a hole. Once many holes were drilled, the rock could be split with wedges or carved out with chisels.
> 
> Egyptian slabbing saw
> the ancient egyptians also used the slabbing saw to cut large slabs of rock. Egyptian slabbing saws were serrated on one edge of the blade and were designed to be pulled, not pushed. The ancient egyptians did not have steel saws like the ones we use today. Instead, slabbing saws were made out of copper, and later out of bronze and iron. These metals alone are not strong enough to cut hard stones such as basalt or granite. In order to cut these stones, the saws were combined with an abrasive, such as small chunks of minerals or crystals. These were sometimes embedded in the metal when the saw was cast; otherwise they were rubbed onto the stone, under the saw, during cutting
> 
> 
> read more: Ancient rock cutting tools | ehow.com ancient rock cutting tools | ehow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have no idea about metallurgy do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false claim!
Click to expand...


Explain the process of metallurgy ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am part owner in a mining company you are absolutely out of your mind to think the tools you described could carve solid rock or cut through the bedrock for the foundation, Not saying some of tools you mentioned were not used in some fashion but not for the major job of cutting through stone.
> 
> What are picks made out of ? what are chisels made out of ? what are hammers made out of ? what are saws and most blades made out of ? Whether they had to import steel and iron they could not do that job without those metals.
> 
> You were saying nitwit ?
> 
> 
> 
> since the first crude forms of steel were not invented until 200 bce.  and the
> The pyramids in Egypt were built during the reign of various Pharoahs dating from around 2700 BC to 1500 BC. then you have a big fucking    problem!
> 
> 
> Ancient Rock Cutting Tools
> X Lisa Magloff Since graduating with a degree in biology, Lisa Magloff has worked in many countries. Accordingly, she specializes in writing about science and travel and has written for publications as diverse as the "Snowmass Sun" and "Caterer Middle East." With numerous published books and newspaper and magazine articles to her credit, Magloff has an eclectic knowledge of everything from cooking to nuclear reactor maintenance.
> 
> By Lisa Magloff, eHow Contributor
> The pyramid builders in Egypt cut rock with copper saws and stone drills. Ancient peoples, including the Egyptians and Greeks, built large stone buildings using ingenious tools made without hardened iron or steel. Many of these ancient rock-cutting tools have been in use for thousands of years. Some used friction to cut through very hard rock or stone, such as marble and granite. Use of these these tools often involved a great deal of back-breaking labor.
> 
> Egyptian Bow Drill
> The ancient Egyptians used a tool called a bow drill to cut rock. A bow drill looks a bit like a violin bow, with the string wrapped around a wood or copper tube. A drill bit made of hard stone was inserted into one end of the tube. One end of the bow was wider than the other, to create a handhold. The worker moved the bow back and forth in a sawing motion, which rotated the tube and the drill bit very quickly, thereby drilling a hole. Once many holes were drilled, the rock could be split with wedges or carved out with chisels.
> 
> Egyptian Slabbing Saw
> The ancient Egyptians also used the slabbing saw to cut large slabs of rock. Egyptian slabbing saws were serrated on one edge of the blade and were designed to be pulled, not pushed. The ancient Egyptians did not have steel saws like the ones we use today. Instead, slabbing saws were made out of copper, and later out of bronze and iron. These metals alone are not strong enough to cut hard stones such as basalt or granite. In order to cut these stones, the saws were combined with an abrasive, such as small chunks of minerals or crystals. These were sometimes embedded in the metal when the saw was cast; otherwise they were rubbed onto the stone, under the saw, during cutting
> 
> 
> Read more: Ancient Rock Cutting Tools | eHow.com Ancient Rock Cutting Tools | eHow.com
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are posting is only speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Ancient Cultures Build these Amazing Stone Monuments?
> 
> 
> So, there are all these amazing megalithic stone monuments found all over the world, built over the millennia by civilizations as varied as the locations in which they are found, and as the monuments themselves. Unfortunately, in most cases we don't really know why (or even how) they built these monuments, since the cultures have disappeared and mostly left no written accounts of their purpose or anything behind. And in many cases we don't even know why they were abandoned.
> 
> Mysterious Monuments and Who Built Them
Click to expand...

once again you're rationallizing....what I posted is fact as there is empirical to support it..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their copper had to be mixed with the other metals to make them strong enough that is why I laugh at your sources and all who claim they did it with just copper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OR DID THE STRENGTH COME FROM IMPURTIES IN THE ORE?
> NONE OF THE SOURCES CLAIM IT WAS PURE COPPER ...ONLY YOU DID, RATIONALIZE MUCH?
> 
> 
> IN ANY CASE IT WAS NOT IRON OR STEEL AS YOU FIRST CLAIMED.
> You can stop bullshiting your way out if it any time now.
Click to expand...


Copper is a metal clearly defined they did not mention where the strength of these copper tools came from. It sure as heck was not pure copper no way no how.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but my point is that those metals were not the only metals availble to them,they mined metals and you can't have gold or copper without smelting them which you can't have gold without iron and nickel.
> 
> Could early Egyptians separate out the metals properly to make them pure I don't know. But they had to have stroger metals to cut through stone.
> 
> Both limestone and granite are very strong rock.
> 
> 
> 
> first you were absolutly sure that the Egyptians USED IRON AND STEEL TO BUILD THE PYRAMIDS   THEN YOU SAY THAT THEY DID USE COPPER AND BRONZE BUT FOR ONLY MENIAL JOBS.
> CONVENIENTLY YOU LEFT OUT THE FACT THAT OTHER STONE WAS USED AS AS TOOL...THE POINT IS  THEY DID NOT HAVE IRON OR STEEL AS ALREADY PROVEN .
> YOUR CLAIM THAT THEY HAD TO HAVE STRONGER METALS TO CUT STONE HAS NO BASIS IN FACT, AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said you are basing it off speculation and someones opinion if you had any kind of understanding of metals  you would know they run together. And several different metals make up one particular metal.
Click to expand...

wow! you know some sixth grade science!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since the first crude forms of steel were not invented until 200 bce.  and the
> The pyramids in Egypt were built during the reign of various Pharoahs dating from around 2700 BC to 1500 BC. then you have a big fucking    problem!
> 
> 
> Ancient Rock Cutting Tools
> X Lisa Magloff Since graduating with a degree in biology, Lisa Magloff has worked in many countries. Accordingly, she specializes in writing about science and travel and has written for publications as diverse as the "Snowmass Sun" and "Caterer Middle East." With numerous published books and newspaper and magazine articles to her credit, Magloff has an eclectic knowledge of everything from cooking to nuclear reactor maintenance.
> 
> By Lisa Magloff, eHow Contributor
> The pyramid builders in Egypt cut rock with copper saws and stone drills. Ancient peoples, including the Egyptians and Greeks, built large stone buildings using ingenious tools made without hardened iron or steel. Many of these ancient rock-cutting tools have been in use for thousands of years. Some used friction to cut through very hard rock or stone, such as marble and granite. Use of these these tools often involved a great deal of back-breaking labor.
> 
> Egyptian Bow Drill
> The ancient Egyptians used a tool called a bow drill to cut rock. A bow drill looks a bit like a violin bow, with the string wrapped around a wood or copper tube. A drill bit made of hard stone was inserted into one end of the tube. One end of the bow was wider than the other, to create a handhold. The worker moved the bow back and forth in a sawing motion, which rotated the tube and the drill bit very quickly, thereby drilling a hole. Once many holes were drilled, the rock could be split with wedges or carved out with chisels.
> 
> Egyptian Slabbing Saw
> The ancient Egyptians also used the slabbing saw to cut large slabs of rock. Egyptian slabbing saws were serrated on one edge of the blade and were designed to be pulled, not pushed. The ancient Egyptians did not have steel saws like the ones we use today. Instead, slabbing saws were made out of copper, and later out of bronze and iron. These metals alone are not strong enough to cut hard stones such as basalt or granite. In order to cut these stones, the saws were combined with an abrasive, such as small chunks of minerals or crystals. These were sometimes embedded in the metal when the saw was cast; otherwise they were rubbed onto the stone, under the saw, during cutting
> 
> 
> Read more: Ancient Rock Cutting Tools | eHow.com Ancient Rock Cutting Tools | eHow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are posting is only speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Ancient Cultures Build these Amazing Stone Monuments?
> 
> 
> So, there are all these amazing megalithic stone monuments found all over the world, built over the millennia by civilizations as varied as the locations in which they are found, and as the monuments themselves. Unfortunately, in most cases we don't really know why (or even how) they built these monuments, since the cultures have disappeared and mostly left no written accounts of their purpose or anything behind. And in many cases we don't even know why they were abandoned.
> 
> Mysterious Monuments and Who Built Them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> once again you're rationallizing....what I posted is fact as there is empirical to support it..
Click to expand...


Like I said you are only quoting an opinion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> first you were absolutly sure that the Egyptians USED IRON AND STEEL TO BUILD THE PYRAMIDS   THEN YOU SAY THAT THEY DID USE COPPER AND BRONZE BUT FOR ONLY MENIAL JOBS.
> CONVENIENTLY YOU LEFT OUT THE FACT THAT OTHER STONE WAS USED AS AS TOOL...THE POINT IS  THEY DID NOT HAVE IRON OR STEEL AS ALREADY PROVEN .
> YOUR CLAIM THAT THEY HAD TO HAVE STRONGER METALS TO CUT STONE HAS NO BASIS IN FACT, AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like i said you are basing it off speculation and someones opinion if you had any kind of understanding of metals  you would know they run together. And several different metals make up one particular metal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow! you know some sixth grade science!
Click to expand...


Sorry I had to get down to your level.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> first you were absolutly sure that the Egyptians USED IRON AND STEEL TO BUILD THE PYRAMIDS   THEN YOU SAY THAT THEY DID USE COPPER AND BRONZE BUT FOR ONLY MENIAL JOBS.
> CONVENIENTLY YOU LEFT OUT THE FACT THAT OTHER STONE WAS USED AS AS TOOL...THE POINT IS  THEY DID NOT HAVE IRON OR STEEL AS ALREADY PROVEN .
> YOUR CLAIM THAT THEY HAD TO HAVE STRONGER METALS TO CUT STONE HAS NO BASIS IN FACT, AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like i said you are basing it off speculation and someones opinion if you had any kind of understanding of metals  you would know they run together. And several different metals make up one particular metal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow! you know some sixth grade science!
Click to expand...


When we do core drilling in granite we use titanium drill bits and they don't last very long.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their copper had to be mixed with the other metals to make them strong enough that is why I laugh at your sources and all who claim they did it with just copper.
> 
> 
> 
> OR DID THE STRENGTH COME FROM IMPURTIES IN THE ORE?
> NONE OF THE SOURCES CLAIM IT WAS PURE COPPER ...ONLY YOU DID, RATIONALIZE MUCH?
> 
> 
> IN ANY CASE IT WAS NOT IRON OR STEEL AS YOU FIRST CLAIMED.
> You can stop bullshiting your way out if it any time now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Copper is a metal clearly defined they did not mention where the strength of these copper tools came from. It sure as heck was not pure copper no way no how.
Click to expand...

it does'nt matter, it was not iron or steel as you first claimed . it could have been atomantium or tourbonium... it is not what you so confedently said it was.
if you were an intelligent person you'd have given up on the speculation or opinion bullshit  

btw is it speculation or opinion they are not the same.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like i said you are basing it off speculation and someones opinion if you had any kind of understanding of metals  you would know they run together. And several different metals make up one particular metal.
> 
> 
> 
> wow! you know some sixth grade science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we do core drilling in granite we use titanium drill bits and they don't last very long.
Click to expand...

yes that what we do. they did not. 
again your using modern tools as an example and it's bogus


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since the first crude forms of steel were not invented until 200 bce.  and the
> The pyramids in Egypt were built during the reign of various Pharoahs dating from around 2700 BC to 1500 BC. then you have a big fucking    problem!
> 
> 
> Ancient Rock Cutting Tools
> X Lisa Magloff Since graduating with a degree in biology, Lisa Magloff has worked in many countries. Accordingly, she specializes in writing about science and travel and has written for publications as diverse as the "Snowmass Sun" and "Caterer Middle East." With numerous published books and newspaper and magazine articles to her credit, Magloff has an eclectic knowledge of everything from cooking to nuclear reactor maintenance.
> 
> By Lisa Magloff, eHow Contributor
> The pyramid builders in Egypt cut rock with copper saws and stone drills. Ancient peoples, including the Egyptians and Greeks, built large stone buildings using ingenious tools made without hardened iron or steel. Many of these ancient rock-cutting tools have been in use for thousands of years. Some used friction to cut through very hard rock or stone, such as marble and granite. Use of these these tools often involved a great deal of back-breaking labor.
> 
> Egyptian Bow Drill
> The ancient Egyptians used a tool called a bow drill to cut rock. A bow drill looks a bit like a violin bow, with the string wrapped around a wood or copper tube. A drill bit made of hard stone was inserted into one end of the tube. One end of the bow was wider than the other, to create a handhold. The worker moved the bow back and forth in a sawing motion, which rotated the tube and the drill bit very quickly, thereby drilling a hole. Once many holes were drilled, the rock could be split with wedges or carved out with chisels.
> 
> Egyptian Slabbing Saw
> The ancient Egyptians also used the slabbing saw to cut large slabs of rock. Egyptian slabbing saws were serrated on one edge of the blade and were designed to be pulled, not pushed. The ancient Egyptians did not have steel saws like the ones we use today. Instead, slabbing saws were made out of copper, and later out of bronze and iron. These metals alone are not strong enough to cut hard stones such as basalt or granite. In order to cut these stones, the saws were combined with an abrasive, such as small chunks of minerals or crystals. These were sometimes embedded in the metal when the saw was cast; otherwise they were rubbed onto the stone, under the saw, during cutting
> 
> 
> Read more: Ancient Rock Cutting Tools | eHow.com Ancient Rock Cutting Tools | eHow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are posting is only speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Ancient Cultures Build these Amazing Stone Monuments?
> 
> 
> So, there are all these amazing megalithic stone monuments found all over the world, built over the millennia by civilizations as varied as the locations in which they are found, and as the monuments themselves. Unfortunately, in most cases we don't really know why (or even how) they built these monuments, since the cultures have disappeared and mostly left no written accounts of their purpose or anything behind. And in many cases we don't even know why they were abandoned.
> 
> Mysterious Monuments and Who Built Them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> once again you're rationallizing....what I posted is fact as there is empirical to support it..
Click to expand...


You have tools you can't prove what they were used for. I don't think they will melt them down to find out what is in that copper to give it the strength needed.

How did we go from me bringing up the pyramids as proof that early man were not ignorant goat herders  to this ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow! you know some sixth grade science!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we do core drilling in granite we use titanium drill bits and they don't last very long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes that what we do. they did not.
> again your using modern tools as an example and it's bogus
Click to expand...


No it is obvious copper could not do what your source stated.


----------



## Youwerecreated

For your listening pleasure Daws sorry I have been rude at times.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P--Sxx5VjN8&feature=related]What do I know of Holy? - Addison Road - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we do core drilling in granite we use titanium drill bits and they don't last very long.
> 
> 
> 
> yes that what we do. they did not.
> again your using modern tools as an example and it's bogus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is obvious copper could not do what your source stated.
Click to expand...

but it did!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are posting is only speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Ancient Cultures Build these Amazing Stone Monuments?
> 
> 
> So, there are all these amazing megalithic stone monuments found all over the world, built over the millennia by civilizations as varied as the locations in which they are found, and as the monuments themselves. Unfortunately, in most cases we don't really know why (or even how) they built these monuments, since the cultures have disappeared and mostly left no written accounts of their purpose or anything behind. And in many cases we don't even know why they were abandoned.
> 
> Mysterious Monuments and Who Built Them
> 
> 
> 
> once again you're rationallizing....what I posted is fact as there is empirical to support it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have tools you can't prove what they were used for. I don't think they will melt them down to find out what is in that copper to give it the strength needed.
> 
> How did we go from me bringing up the pyramids as proof that early man were not ignorant goat herders  to this ?
Click to expand...

bullshit! the tools were found at the site and were shown to match the cuts, grooves and stone splitting they were designed for.
also the tools  were recreated using the same materials and techniques  the ancient tools 
used and they worked.
there is no need to melt anything down .
in REAL science there is this new fangled gadget call a  spectrograph it's been around since 1884.
it gives an accurate reading of the purity of any given metal...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> For your listening pleasure Daws sorry I have been rude at times.
> 
> What do I know of Holy? - Addison Road - YouTube


instead of some unnecessary preaching ,why don't you just man up and admit you were wrong.
it a sure fire way to earn my respect...you should try it sometime


----------



## bayoubill

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



me too... but it don't bother me none that some folks insist on believing that...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your listening pleasure Daws sorry I have been rude at times.
> 
> What do I know of Holy? - Addison Road - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> instead of some unnecessary preaching ,why don't you just man up and admit you were wrong.
> it a sure fire way to earn my respect...you should try it sometime
Click to expand...


When I think I am wrong I will admit to it but just because someone found some copper tools there is no way you can get me to believe copper was the only metal used in constructing the pyramids.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your listening pleasure Daws sorry I have been rude at times.
> 
> What do I know of Holy? - Addison Road - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> instead of some unnecessary preaching ,why don't you just man up and admit you were wrong.
> it a sure fire way to earn my respect...you should try it sometime
Click to expand...


I will concede you have superior evidence for your view then I have for mine.

Now lets get back to the my question to you that you have ignored. How did life begin ? How did the first cell form if it was not by a designer ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your listening pleasure Daws sorry I have been rude at times.
> 
> What do I know of Holy? - Addison Road - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> instead of some unnecessary preaching ,why don't you just man up and admit you were wrong.
> it a sure fire way to earn my respect...you should try it sometime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will concede you have superior evidence for your view then I have for mine.
> 
> Now lets get back to the my question to you that you have ignored. How did life begin ? How did the first cell form if it was not by a designer ?
Click to expand...

asked and answered


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your listening pleasure Daws sorry I have been rude at times.
> 
> What do I know of Holy? - Addison Road - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> instead of some unnecessary preaching ,why don't you just man up and admit you were wrong.
> it a sure fire way to earn my respect...you should try it sometime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I think I am wrong I will admit to it but just because someone found some copper tools there is no way you can get me to believe copper was the only metal used in constructing the pyramids.
Click to expand...

the power of denial is strong with this one!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> instead of some unnecessary preaching ,why don't you just man up and admit you were wrong.
> it a sure fire way to earn my respect...you should try it sometime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will concede you have superior evidence for your view then I have for mine.
> 
> Now lets get back to the my question to you that you have ignored. How did life begin ? How did the first cell form if it was not by a designer ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answered
Click to expand...


Refresh my memory,I don't believe you offered an explanation for my question. If you provided the answer please post it again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> instead of some unnecessary preaching ,why don't you just man up and admit you were wrong.
> it a sure fire way to earn my respect...you should try it sometime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I think I am wrong I will admit to it but just because someone found some copper tools there is no way you can get me to believe copper was the only metal used in constructing the pyramids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the power of denial is strong with this one!
Click to expand...


Well I know that copper is extremely soft and I just can't imagine it being strong enough to do what the Egyptians did in the construction of the pyramids. But my whole reason for posting the pyramids was to show they were extremely smart people and that is obvious especially if they did only use copper tools. God even when I lose I win. Remember you made the claim that early man was ignorant goat herders that lived in caves.

I shot that theory down eh ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Daws I think one time you used the theory of Abiogenesis as to how life started then when I poked holes in that theory you admitted that you did not know how life started. But then you said that does not mean a designer was needed and I showed that a designer was needed and proved it.

Let's pick it up from there why did you change your mind about Abiogenesis ? Is your answer still you have no clue how life started ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> instead of some unnecessary preaching ,why don't you just man up and admit you were wrong.
> it a sure fire way to earn my respect...you should try it sometime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I think I am wrong I will admit to it but just because someone found some copper tools there is no way you can get me to believe copper was the only metal used in constructing the pyramids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the power of denial is strong with this one!
Click to expand...


I do owe you an apology sort of,it was not you that made the ignorant goat herder comment recently that was HUGGY you just thanked him for his comment. I guess if I look further through your posts I can find where you made that comment.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I think I am wrong I will admit to it but just because someone found some copper tools there is no way you can get me to believe copper was the only metal used in constructing the pyramids.
> 
> 
> 
> the power of denial is strong with this one!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I know that copper is extremely soft and I just can't imagine it being strong enough to do what the Egyptians did in the construction of the pyramids. But my whole reason for posting the pyramids was to show they were extremely smart people and that is obvious especially if they did only use copper tools. God even when I lose I win. Remember you made the claim that early man was ignorant goat herders that lived in caves.
> 
> I shot that theory down eh ?
Click to expand...

no. sadly most people even today are ignorant  and you just proved that in spades.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Daws I think one time you used the theory of Abiogenesis as to how life started then when I poked holes in that theory you admitted that you did not know how life started. But then you said that does not mean a designer was needed and I showed that a designer was needed and proved it.
> 
> Let's pick it up from there why did you change your mind about Abiogenesis ? Is your answer still you have no clue how life started ?


you assume that I changed my mind on abogenesis. what I said was  NO ONE KNOWS HOW LIFE ON EARTH BEGAN INCLUDING YOU AND ALL YOUR CREATIONIST ASS HATS.
YOU PROVED NOTHING AS YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE JUST SPECIOUS SPECULATION.


----------



## UltimateReality

UltimateReality said:


> Please provide an example of observed vertical change in a living, observable species, i.e., a species moving to more complexity, not less. We can't even agree on what evolution means vs. adaptation.
> 
> Who/what is the mythical common ancestor?
> 
> At what definitive point does the origin of life school of thought end and evolution begin?
> 
> Where does Darwin's tree of life begin??



Since Montrevant went silent, perhaps Huggy or Dawsy would like to take a shot at these?


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> As to the definition of fitness, it would basically be the animal best able to survive and reproduce.



Ahhh. The famous Darwinian circular reasoning. Animinals survive and reproduce because they are the type of animals that survive and reproduce. This, my friend, does not constitute an agreed upon scientific definition of fitness. And the TOE comes crashing down as the foundation for the house of cards is revealed to be totally bogus.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to the definition of fitness, it would basically be the animal best able to survive and reproduce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh. The famous Darwinian circular reasoning. Animinals survive and reproduce because they are the type of animals that survive and reproduce. This, my friend, does not constitute an agreed upon scientific definition of fitness. And the TOE comes crashing down as the foundation for the house of cards is revealed to be totally bogus.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, how exactly does that work?

Certain characteristics can make an organism better able or more likely to survive and reproduce.  Obviously, those organism that survive and reproduce are the ones that pass on their dna.  

The problem is that there are so many varied characteristics and it is not always obvious what affect one may have.  I don't see how the fact that there is no specific formula for what will make something more likely to survive and reproduce invalidates the theory of evolution.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide an example of observed vertical change in a living, observable species, i.e., a species moving to more complexity, not less. We can't even agree on what evolution means vs. adaptation.
> 
> Who/what is the mythical common ancestor?
> 
> At what definitive point does the origin of life school of thought end and evolution begin?
> 
> Where does Darwin's tree of life begin??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Montrevant went silent, perhaps Huggy or Dawsy would like to take a shot at these?
Click to expand...


I do not feel a need to try and explain or prove evolutionary theory to you.  I have more than once admitted I am a layman about the subject.  You're free to disbelieve it if you like.  What bothers me is the insistence that ID is a scientific theory or that evolution is based entirely on either lies or faith.

I will, however, answer one of those questions.  The origin of life ends and evolution begins once life exists.  The first is about HOW life came about, the second is about WHAT happens once there is life.  Even if, as you seem to believe, evolution is completely wrong and abiogenesis nothing but a fantasy, that's still true.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws I think one time you used the theory of Abiogenesis as to how life started then when I poked holes in that theory you admitted that you did not know how life started. But then you said that does not mean a designer was needed and I showed that a designer was needed and proved it.
> 
> Let's pick it up from there why did you change your mind about Abiogenesis ? Is your answer still you have no clue how life started ?
> 
> 
> 
> you assume that I changed my mind on abogenesis. what I said was  NO ONE KNOWS HOW LIFE ON EARTH BEGAN INCLUDING YOU AND ALL YOUR CREATIONIST ASS HATS.
> YOU PROVED NOTHING AS YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE JUST SPECIOUS SPECULATION.
Click to expand...


What I presented showed the impossibility of the theory of abiogenesis.

Look what you are up against.

Right-Handed (Dextro) Amino Acids


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide an example of observed vertical change in a living, observable species, i.e., a species moving to more complexity, not less. We can't even agree on what evolution means vs. adaptation.
> 
> Who/what is the mythical common ancestor?
> 
> At what definitive point does the origin of life school of thought end and evolution begin?
> 
> Where does Darwin's tree of life begin??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Montrevant went silent, perhaps Huggy or Dawsy would like to take a shot at these?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not feel a need to try and explain or prove evolutionary theory to you.  I have more than once admitted I am a layman about the subject.  You're free to disbelieve it if you like.  What bothers me is the insistence that ID is a scientific theory or that evolution is based entirely on either lies or faith.
> 
> I will, however, answer one of those questions.  The origin of life ends and evolution begins once life exists.  The first is about HOW life came about, the second is about WHAT happens once there is life.  Even if, as you seem to believe, evolution is completely wrong and abiogenesis nothing but a fantasy, that's still true.
Click to expand...

bump!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws I think one time you used the theory of Abiogenesis as to how life started then when I poked holes in that theory you admitted that you did not know how life started. But then you said that does not mean a designer was needed and I showed that a designer was needed and proved it.
> 
> Let's pick it up from there why did you change your mind about Abiogenesis ? Is your answer still you have no clue how life started ?
> 
> 
> 
> you assume that I changed my mind on abogenesis. what I said was  NO ONE KNOWS HOW LIFE ON EARTH BEGAN INCLUDING YOU AND ALL YOUR CREATIONIST ASS HATS.
> YOU PROVED NOTHING AS YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE JUST SPECIOUS SPECULATION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I presented showed the impossibility of the theory of abiogenesis.
> 
> Look what you are up against.
> 
> Right-Handed (Dextro) Amino Acids
Click to expand...

bias source with no actual evidence 

what you presented is an opinion that fits your pov it isn't evidence and doesn't  invalidate the theory, you only wish it did. 
what you posted( What I presented showed the impossibility of the theory of abogenesis.-ywc) as always, was a declaratory statement with no basis in fact!


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to the definition of fitness, it would basically be the animal best able to survive and reproduce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh. The famous Darwinian circular reasoning. Animinals survive and reproduce because they are the type of animals that survive and reproduce. This, my friend, does not constitute an agreed upon scientific definition of fitness. And the TOE comes crashing down as the foundation for the house of cards is revealed to be totally bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, how exactly does that work?
> 
> Certain characteristics can make an organism better able or more likely to survive and reproduce.  Obviously, those organism that survive and reproduce are the ones that pass on their dna.
> 
> The problem is that there are so many varied characteristics and it is not always obvious what affect one may have.  I don't see how the fact that there is no specific formula for what will make something more likely to survive and reproduce invalidates the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...


You must first come up with criteria science can agree on and there isn't such a criteria. Therefore, all the jiberish is just speculation. It isn't testable or scientifically provable!!! The current theory is NOT SCIENCE!


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide an example of observed vertical change in a living, observable species, i.e., a species moving to more complexity, not less. We can't even agree on what evolution means vs. adaptation.
> 
> Who/what is the mythical common ancestor?
> 
> At what definitive point does the origin of life school of thought end and evolution begin?
> 
> Where does Darwin's tree of life begin??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Montrevant went silent, perhaps Huggy or Dawsy would like to take a shot at these?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not feel a need to try and explain or prove evolutionary theory to you.  I have more than once admitted I am a layman about the subject.  You're free to disbelieve it if you like.  What bothers me is the insistence that ID is a scientific theory or that evolution is based entirely on either lies or faith.
> 
> I will, however, answer one of those questions.  The origin of life ends and evolution begins once life exists.  The first is about HOW life came about, the second is about WHAT happens once there is life.  Even if, as you seem to believe, evolution is completely wrong and abiogenesis nothing but a fantasy, that's still true.
Click to expand...


So what is this ambiguous life you speak of. Is the DNA molecule life?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you assume that I changed my mind on abogenesis. what I said was  NO ONE KNOWS HOW LIFE ON EARTH BEGAN INCLUDING YOU AND ALL YOUR CREATIONIST ASS HATS.
> YOU PROVED NOTHING AS YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE JUST SPECIOUS SPECULATION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I presented showed the impossibility of the theory of abiogenesis.
> 
> Look what you are up against.
> 
> Right-Handed (Dextro) Amino Acids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bias source with no actual evidence
> 
> what you presented is an opinion that fits your pov it isn't evidence and doesn't  invalidate the theory, you only wish it did.
> what you posted( What I presented showed the impossibility of the theory of abogenesis.-ywc) as always, was a declaratory statement with no basis in fact!
Click to expand...


Pot calling the kettle....


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh. The famous Darwinian circular reasoning. Animinals survive and reproduce because they are the type of animals that survive and reproduce. This, my friend, does not constitute an agreed upon scientific definition of fitness. And the TOE comes crashing down as the foundation for the house of cards is revealed to be totally bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, how exactly does that work?
> 
> Certain characteristics can make an organism better able or more likely to survive and reproduce.  Obviously, those organism that survive and reproduce are the ones that pass on their dna.
> 
> The problem is that there are so many varied characteristics and it is not always obvious what affect one may have.  I don't see how the fact that there is no specific formula for what will make something more likely to survive and reproduce invalidates the theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must first come up with criteria science can agree on and there isn't such a criteria. Therefore, all the jiberish is just speculation. It isn't testable or scientifically provable!!! The current theory is NOT SCIENCE!
Click to expand...


If we were speaking of the theory of fitness, you might be correct.  However, we are not.  Just because the definition of one word isn't to your liking does not mean that evolutionary theory is incorrect or even that it is not falsifiable.

Fitness is just a term used to describe what happens; that some organism live and reproduce while others do not.  Use something else, make up your own word, it doesn't matter.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Montrevant went silent, perhaps Huggy or Dawsy would like to take a shot at these?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not feel a need to try and explain or prove evolutionary theory to you.  I have more than once admitted I am a layman about the subject.  You're free to disbelieve it if you like.  What bothers me is the insistence that ID is a scientific theory or that evolution is based entirely on either lies or faith.
> 
> I will, however, answer one of those questions.  The origin of life ends and evolution begins once life exists.  The first is about HOW life came about, the second is about WHAT happens once there is life.  Even if, as you seem to believe, evolution is completely wrong and abiogenesis nothing but a fantasy, that's still true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what is this ambiguous life you speak of. Is the DNA molecule life?
Click to expand...


Life | Define Life at Dictionary.com

Life - Medical Definition and More from Merriam-Webster

I'll admit there is some ambiguity with questions about whether a virus is alive, whether an AI can ever be considered alive, etc.  Of course, if you are going to argue that life was designed, you have just as much need to define it as if you argue it came about through random events.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you assume that I changed my mind on abogenesis. what I said was  NO ONE KNOWS HOW LIFE ON EARTH BEGAN INCLUDING YOU AND ALL YOUR CREATIONIST ASS HATS.
> YOU PROVED NOTHING AS YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE JUST SPECIOUS SPECULATION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I presented showed the impossibility of the theory of abiogenesis.
> 
> Look what you are up against.
> 
> Right-Handed (Dextro) Amino Acids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bias source with no actual evidence
> 
> what you presented is an opinion that fits your pov it isn't evidence and doesn't  invalidate the theory, you only wish it did.
> what you posted( What I presented showed the impossibility of the theory of abogenesis.-ywc) as always, was a declaratory statement with no basis in fact!
Click to expand...


You do not look into matter before typing,what do you mean there are no left or right handed amino acids. Who is not biased when they support an opinion ?

If you think this is a response you are just wrong.

ABIOGEnESIS is a joke most scientist would laugh you out of the lab.

The miller and urey experiment failed. They tried it once and had to modify the experiment to get what little they got.  Do you realise it took intelligence for the hypothsis to even be tested ? Do you realize they said there was no oxygen or it could not have happened ? do you realize rocks contain oxygen ? Your theory is a joke.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, how exactly does that work?
> 
> Certain characteristics can make an organism better able or more likely to survive and reproduce.  Obviously, those organism that survive and reproduce are the ones that pass on their dna.
> 
> The problem is that there are so many varied characteristics and it is not always obvious what affect one may have.  I don't see how the fact that there is no specific formula for what will make something more likely to survive and reproduce invalidates the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must first come up with criteria science can agree on and there isn't such a criteria. Therefore, all the jiberish is just speculation. It isn't testable or scientifically provable!!! The current theory is NOT SCIENCE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were speaking of the theory of fitness, you might be correct.  However, we are not.  Just because the definition of one word isn't to your liking does not mean that evolutionary theory is incorrect or even that it is not falsifiable.
> 
> Fitness is just a term used to describe what happens; that some organism live and reproduce while others do not.  Use something else, make up your own word, it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


Living fossils refute evolution sinbce your side claims evolution is contiuing and has never stopped.


Living-Fossils.com

Living-Fossils.com


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must first come up with criteria science can agree on and there isn't such a criteria. Therefore, all the jiberish is just speculation. It isn't testable or scientifically provable!!! The current theory is NOT SCIENCE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we were speaking of the theory of fitness, you might be correct.  However, we are not.  Just because the definition of one word isn't to your liking does not mean that evolutionary theory is incorrect or even that it is not falsifiable.
> 
> Fitness is just a term used to describe what happens; that some organism live and reproduce while others do not.  Use something else, make up your own word, it doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Living fossils refute evolution sinbce your side claims evolution is contiuing and has never stopped.
> 
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
Click to expand...


This isn't a 'your side, my side' argument, although it can sometimes appear that way.  People have varied beliefs, even among those that believe in evolution or among those that do not.  When you consistently use phrases like 'your side' it makes me think you are being lazy and trying to just group everyone who disagrees with you together so you don't need to argue with them, instead arguing what you assume they believe.

It's the same when believers in evolution lump everyone who doesn't believe together and assumes they all are young-Earth creationists.  

Anyway, I don't see how the so-called living fossils refute evolution in any way.  As far as I know, there is nothing in evolution that claims a species MUST change, or that changes REQUIRE older species to die out.  Look at sharks, or crocodiles.  They are believed to have remained mostly the same for millions of years.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I presented showed the impossibility of the theory of abiogenesis.
> 
> Look what you are up against.
> 
> Right-Handed (Dextro) Amino Acids
> 
> 
> 
> bias source with no actual evidence
> 
> what you presented is an opinion that fits your pov it isn't evidence and doesn't  invalidate the theory, you only wish it did.
> what you posted( What I presented showed the impossibility of the theory of abogenesis.-ywc) as always, was a declaratory statement with no basis in fact!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot calling the kettle....
Click to expand...

only in your dreams. I've never said there was no creative force...what I have said repeatedly is there is no evidence for an Intelligent creator.
nothing you have presented rises any where close to the level of evidence needed to disprove either abogenesis or evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we were speaking of the theory of fitness, you might be correct.  However, we are not.  Just because the definition of one word isn't to your liking does not mean that evolutionary theory is incorrect or even that it is not falsifiable.
> 
> Fitness is just a term used to describe what happens; that some organism live and reproduce while others do not.  Use something else, make up your own word, it doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Living fossils refute evolution sinbce your side claims evolution is contiuing and has never stopped.
> 
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't a 'your side, my side' argument, although it can sometimes appear that way.  People have varied beliefs, even among those that believe in evolution or among those that do not.  When you consistently use phrases like 'your side' it makes me think you are being lazy and trying to just group everyone who disagrees with you together so you don't need to argue with them, instead arguing what you assume they believe.
> 
> It's the same when believers in evolution lump everyone who doesn't believe together and assumes they all are young-Earth creationists.
> 
> Anyway, I don't see how the so-called living fossils refute evolution in any way.  As far as I know, there is nothing in evolution that claims a species MUST change, or that changes REQUIRE older species to die out.  Look at sharks, or crocodiles.  They are believed to have remained mostly the same for millions of years.
Click to expand...


Yes that has been what most evolutionist believe organisms never stop evolving. They say evolution has never stopped if that is the case Why are living fossils showing no change after many millions and in some cases billions of years, according to dating methods. I do lump believers of macroevolution together.

I need to pin you down forgive me not trying to be rude but I need to know what do you say the mechanism is that causes evoluition ?


----------



## daws101

God and Evolution
July 27th, 2009religionclergy
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services91en español

by Peter M. J. Hess, Director, Religious Community Outreach, NCSE
Can I believe in God and Evolution? This question is often provoked by a more specific one: "Do you believe in creation or in evolution?" When the issue is framed in this fashion, we are forced to choose between an apparently atheistic evolutionary worldview and a scientifically naïve creationism. Unfortunately, much of the public has accepted this framing; according to a recent international survey by the British Council and Ipsos MORI, 27% of American adults believe that it is impossible to "believe in a god and still hold the view that life on earth, including human life, evolved over time as a result of natural selection." Another 19% expressed uncertainty on the issue.[1]

Nonetheless, according to a 1997 survey by Edward J Larson and Larry Witham, roughly 40% of American scientists are theistic evolutionists themselves![3] A 2009 survey by the Pew Research Center confirmed this finding, with half of the responding scientists identifying as religious and only 2% rejecting evolution.[2]

In fact, the "creation or evolution" dichotomy is needless and false, based upon a category mistake. For example, if I held up an grapefruit and asked, "Is this fruit yellow or is it spherical?", the sentence would make no sense, because "yellow" and "spherical" are not contradictory, but complementary descriptions of the fruit. 

The question "Do you believe in creation or evolution?" has the same problem. Like color and shape, "creation" and "evolution" do not occupy competing categories, but are complementary ways of looking at the universe. "Creation" is a philosophical concept: it is the belief that the universe depends for its existence upon something or some being outside itself. As a philosophical term, "creation" is an empirically untestable belief that makes no claims about how or when the world came to be, or even whether creation was a determinate "act" or an event in time. It is a philosophical tenet compatible with the theological doctrines of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and other monotheistic religions. (A contrary and equally untestable philosophical assertion would be that the universe is uncreated, or self-subsistent.)

By contrast, "evolution" is in the scientific category. It is a statement about physical reality, not a metaphysical claim. Evolution, in its most general sense, is the inference that the universe has changed over time - that stars and galaxies and planets and living things on Earth are different now than they were in the past. In biology, evolution is the principle that all life is related through descent with modification from common ancestors. Science is the process of explaining phenomena by testing explanations against the natural world. The important element is testing, rather than accepting an explanation based on authority or personal preference. Science also restricts itself to explaining things through natural, rather than supernatural, mechanisms. Biologists cannot explain how the modern horse descended from a Hyracotherium-like ancestor by saying "God did it." They can, however, examine evidence from living as well as fossil horses and devise testable hypotheses about the relationship between them. To date, the hypotheses best supported by evidence are invariably those which agree with evolutionary theory.

Of course, religious claims that are empirically testable can come into conflict with scientific theories. For instance, young-earth creationists argue that the universe was created several thousand years ago, that all the lineages of living creatures on Earth were created in their present form (at least up to the poorly-defined level of "kind") shortly thereafter, and that these claims are supported by empirical evidence, such as the fossil record and observed stellar physics. These fact claims are clearly contradicted by mainstream paleontology, cosmology, geology and biogeography. However, the theological aspect of young-earth creationismthe assertions about the nature of God, and the reasons why that God created the universe and permitted it to develop in a particular waycannot be addressed by science. By their nature, such claims can only beand have beenaddressed by philosophers and theologians. 

The science of evolution does not make claims about God's existence or non-existence, any more than do other scientific theories such as gravitation, atomic structure, or plate tectonics. Just like gravity, the theory of evolution is compatible with theism, atheism, and agnosticism. Can someone accept evolution as the most compelling explanation for biological diversity, and also accept the idea that God works through evolution? Many religious people do.

God and Evolution | NCSE


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, how exactly does that work?
> 
> Certain characteristics can make an organism better able or more likely to survive and reproduce.  Obviously, those organism that survive and reproduce are the ones that pass on their dna.
> 
> The problem is that there are so many varied characteristics and it is not always obvious what affect one may have.  I don't see how the fact that there is no specific formula for what will make something more likely to survive and reproduce invalidates the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must first come up with criteria science can agree on and there isn't such a criteria. Therefore, all the jiberish is just speculation. It isn't testable or scientifically provable!!! The current theory is NOT SCIENCE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were speaking of the theory of fitness, you might be correct.  However, we are not.  Just because the definition of one word isn't to your liking does not mean that evolutionary theory is incorrect or even that it is not falsifiable.
> 
> Fitness is just a term used to describe what happens; that some organism live and reproduce while others do not.  Use something else, make up your own word, it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


It absolutely matters!!! I have posted on it here previously. The whole principle of Natural Selection rests solely on what Fitness actually is. Don't be a fool.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bias source with no actual evidence
> 
> what you presented is an opinion that fits your pov it isn't evidence and doesn't  invalidate the theory, you only wish it did.
> what you posted( What I presented showed the impossibility of the theory of abogenesis.-ywc) as always, was a declaratory statement with no basis in fact!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot calling the kettle....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in your dreams. I've never said there was no creative force...what I have said repeatedly is there is no evidence for an Intelligent creator.
> nothing you have presented rises any where close to the level of evidence needed to disprove either abogenesis or evolution.
Click to expand...


How can you disprove speculation that isn't based in science?? We think the giraffe's neck is longer because the shorter necked ones couldn't reach the high fruit. You think? You think? You are going to have to come up with better than that before you can even begin to call the TOE science. Don't be a fool.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> God and Evolution
> July 27th, 2009religionclergy
> Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services91en español
> 
> by Peter M. J. Hess, Director, Religious Community Outreach, NCSE
> Can I believe in God and Evolution? This question is often provoked by a more specific one: "Do you believe in creation or in evolution?" When the issue is framed in this fashion, we are forced to choose between an apparently atheistic evolutionary worldview and a scientifically naïve creationism. Unfortunately, much of the public has accepted this framing; according to a recent international survey by the British Council and Ipsos MORI, 27% of American adults believe that it is impossible to "believe in a god and still hold the view that life on earth, including human life, evolved over time as a result of natural selection." Another 19% expressed uncertainty on the issue.[1]
> 
> Nonetheless, according to a 1997 survey by Edward J Larson and Larry Witham, roughly 40% of American scientists are theistic evolutionists themselves![3] A 2009 survey by the Pew Research Center confirmed this finding, with half of the responding scientists identifying as religious and only 2% rejecting evolution.[2]
> 
> In fact, the "creation or evolution" dichotomy is needless and false, based upon a category mistake. For example, if I held up an grapefruit and asked, "Is this fruit yellow or is it spherical?", the sentence would make no sense, because "yellow" and "spherical" are not contradictory, but complementary descriptions of the fruit.
> 
> The question "Do you believe in creation or evolution?" has the same problem. Like color and shape, "creation" and "evolution" do not occupy competing categories, but are complementary ways of looking at the universe. "Creation" is a philosophical concept: it is the belief that the universe depends for its existence upon something or some being outside itself. As a philosophical term, "creation" is an empirically untestable belief that makes no claims about how or when the world came to be, or even whether creation was a determinate "act" or an event in time. It is a philosophical tenet compatible with the theological doctrines of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and other monotheistic religions. (A contrary and equally untestable philosophical assertion would be that the universe is uncreated, or self-subsistent.)
> 
> By contrast, "evolution" is in the scientific category. It is a statement about physical reality, not a metaphysical claim. Evolution, in its most general sense, is the inference that the universe has changed over time - that stars and galaxies and planets and living things on Earth are different now than they were in the past. In biology, evolution is the principle that all life is related through descent with modification from common ancestors. Science is the process of explaining phenomena by testing explanations against the natural world. The important element is testing, rather than accepting an explanation based on authority or personal preference. Science also restricts itself to explaining things through natural, rather than supernatural, mechanisms. Biologists cannot explain how the modern horse descended from a Hyracotherium-like ancestor by saying "God did it." They can, however, examine evidence from living as well as fossil horses and devise testable hypotheses about the relationship between them. To date, the hypotheses best supported by evidence are invariably those which agree with evolutionary theory.
> 
> Of course, religious claims that are empirically testable can come into conflict with scientific theories. For instance, young-earth creationists argue that the universe was created several thousand years ago, that all the lineages of living creatures on Earth were created in their present form (at least up to the poorly-defined level of "kind") shortly thereafter, and that these claims are supported by empirical evidence, such as the fossil record and observed stellar physics. These fact claims are clearly contradicted by mainstream paleontology, cosmology, geology and biogeography. However, the theological aspect of young-earth creationism&#8212;the assertions about the nature of God, and the reasons why that God created the universe and permitted it to develop in a particular way&#8212;cannot be addressed by science. By their nature, such claims can only be&#8212;and have been&#8212;addressed by philosophers and theologians.
> 
> The science of evolution does not make claims about God's existence or non-existence, any more than do other scientific theories such as gravitation, atomic structure, or plate tectonics. Just like gravity, the theory of evolution is compatible with theism, atheism, and agnosticism. Can someone accept evolution as the most compelling explanation for biological diversity, and also accept the idea that God works through evolution? Many religious people do.
> 
> God and Evolution | NCSE



Blah, blah, blah. Since I am not a Creationists this argument is mute. Even if I didn't subscribe to the science of ID I would not believe in the bogus myth of Evolution. There is simply no evidence for it other than speculation. All the fossil evidence points against it. People love to refer to adaptation as evolution but this is a fallacy.  Show me how a microbe becomes a microbiologist, not how a bird's beak gets longer or shorter due to drought. Show me the bird that grew thumbs or started using tools to construct an F-16 fighter.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Blah, blah, blah. Since I am not a Creationists this argument is mute. Even if I didn't subscribe to *the science of ID* I would not believe in the bogus myth of Evolution. There is simply no evidence for it other than speculation. All the fossil evidence points against it. People love to refer to adaptation as evolution but this is a fallacy.  Show me how a microbe becomes a microbiologist, not how a bird's beak gets longer or shorter due to drought. Show me the bird that grew thumbs or started using tools to construct an F-16 fighter.



Whether evolution is correct or not, whether it is science or merely speculation, I have yet to see any science to ID.  ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened.  Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind.  No, we don't mean god....really, we don't!".


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pot calling the kettle....
> 
> 
> 
> only in your dreams. I've never said there was no creative force...what I have said repeatedly is there is no evidence for an Intelligent creator.
> nothing you have presented rises any where close to the level of evidence needed to disprove either abogenesis or evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you disprove speculation that isn't based in science?? We think the giraffe's neck is longer because the shorter necked ones couldn't reach the high fruit. You think? You think? You are going to have to come up with better than that before you can even begin to call the TOE science. Don't be a fool.
Click to expand...

lol! more rationalizing!
the toe is science..


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah. Since I am not a Creationists this argument is mute. Even if I didn't subscribe to *the science of ID* I would not believe in the bogus myth of Evolution. There is simply no evidence for it other than speculation. All the fossil evidence points against it. People love to refer to adaptation as evolution but this is a fallacy.  Show me how a microbe becomes a microbiologist, not how a bird's beak gets longer or shorter due to drought. Show me the bird that grew thumbs or started using tools to construct an F-16 fighter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether evolution is correct or not, whether it is science or merely speculation, I have yet to see any science to ID.  ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened.  Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind.  No, we don't mean god....really, we don't!".
Click to expand...


We know enough to know it couldn't happen with a natural unintelligent process. Unless you want to base the view on a mountain of precise coincedences.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in your dreams. I've never said there was no creative force...what I have said repeatedly is there is no evidence for an Intelligent creator.
> nothing you have presented rises any where close to the level of evidence needed to disprove either abogenesis or evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you disprove speculation that isn't based in science?? We think the giraffe's neck is longer because the shorter necked ones couldn't reach the high fruit. You think? You think? You are going to have to come up with better than that before you can even begin to call the TOE science. Don't be a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol! more rationalizing!
> the toe is science..
Click to expand...


Do you expect anyone here to take you seriously ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you disprove speculation that isn't based in science?? We think the giraffe's neck is longer because the shorter necked ones couldn't reach the high fruit. You think? You think? You are going to have to come up with better than that before you can even begin to call the TOE science. Don't be a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> lol! more rationalizing!
> the toe is science..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you expect anyone here to take you seriously ?
Click to expand...

Evolutionary Biology: Evolutionary Biology: Is there evidence against evolution? 
 ...
There isn't any evidence against evolution, as Malcolm Sargeant says.

There are, however, open questions, a great many of them.  Any open question is an opportunity to find evidence against evolution.  

Piecing together the history of evolution is like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle with 99% of the pieces missing and no picture on the box.  We think we've got a very good idea because the pieces we've found so far tell a very coherent story.  New pieces sometime require minor rearrangement, usually in places where we knew all along that we were guessing, and the new arrangement always confirms the overall picture.  

In theory, any new piece could come along and change that.  In practice, none ever has; not even close.

Overenthusiastic creationists like to point to a few of the open questions as if they were somehow proof that evolution could not have occurred.  These are, universally, simply wrong.  In most cases, they're simply being obtuse: evolutionary explanations exist, and they're simply repeating the story they heard because it tells them what they want to hear.  In some cases, there are genuine open questions, but open questions don't challenge evolution unless you have a better explanation.  And since their answer is always "An invisible guy from the sky came along and did it!", they're pretty much ignored by anybody with a shred of intellectual integrity.  The same explanation applies to everything you don't otherwise know, and such an all-purpose explanation ends up not explaining anything.

Evolutionary Biology: Is there evidence against evolution? - Quora



their answer is always "An invisible guy from the sky came along and did it!", they're pretty much ignored by anybody with a shred of intellectual integrity.

I could ask you the same question and you would not like the answer,


----------



## daws101

Evolutionary Biology: Evolutionary Biology: What kind of evidence would falsify evolution?This is a follow-up to "Evolutionary Biology: Is there evidence against evolution 
  The canonical example is the "fossil rabbit in the Precambrian".  It's famous enough to have its own Wikipedia page:

Pre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...

The gist: mammals could not possibly have formed until long after vertebrates.  It should be impossible to find a mammal fossil among rocks that were older than a few hundred million years ago, and the Precambrian era was 10 times older than that.

Strictly, science likes its results repeatable, and a single Precambrian fossil rabbit would be subject to serious scrutiny to rule out other possibilities: hoaxes, mis-dating, misidentification, etc.  But any fossil that was seriously anachronistic would be highly touted and analyzed because of its massive implications.

The Precambrian rabbit is just one extreme example of an anachronistic fossil, designed to maximize the differences between the earliest and latest eras.  A dinosaur chomping on Fred Flintstone's leg would serve just as well, or many other possibilities.  Anything that throws a serious monkey wrench in the chronological order.

Another broad category would be "irreducible complexities", a biological structure that could not have formed from modification of other, earlier structures.  These are harder to demonstrate, because the fact is that we don't completely understand how many structures work right in front of us.  Biology is both incredibly complex and incredibly tiny, so "I don't understand the evolution of this" is a tiny subset of "I don't understand how this works."  

Many purported irreducible complexities have been promulgated.  In every case, biologists have managed to come up with a convincing explanation of how such a structure might have evolved. (Convincing, that is, to everybody who isn't ideologically wedded to disproving evolution from the get-go, since they can take "I don't understand biology" as proof that nobody understands biology.)

People seeking to disprove evolution should actually have an easy task.  If there were rabbits in the Precambrian, it shouldn't be difficult to find not just one, but more than one.  People desperately hoping to find the irreducible complexity should be given pause by the vast number of reducible complexities: why should anything capable of causing an irreducible complexity have created mostly reducible ones?

Still, the hunt will go on, because science is subject to disproof, and ideology is not.  The former can be diverted by evidence, while the latter goes on forever.


Evolutionary Biology: What kind of evidence would falsify evolution? - Quora


----------



## Youwerecreated

Daws I already refuted prebiotic evolution,since that didn't happen you wouldn't have life without a designer.

Variations happens within a family got that but that in no way qualifies for macro-evolution.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Daws I already refuted prebiotic evolution,since that didn't happen you wouldn't have life without a designer.
> 
> Variations happens within a family got that but that in no way qualifies for macro-evolution.


another declaratory with no basis in fact.
as always you posted bullshit you refuted nothing..


Characterizing the Missing Era of Prebiotic Evolution POSTED BY: Sara Imari Walker 

  4-13- 12
The origin of life is a really tough question to answer. In part because it requires piecing together seemingly disparate phenomena ranging from the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids and other organics in meteorites and on ancient Earth, to understanding how lipids self-assemble and how molecular self-replication works (which turns out the be incredibly hard!) just to name a few pieces of the puzzle. Because of the wide breadth of topics involved in understanding the origin of life, origins research is a lot like a giant jigsaw puzzle, with a lot of pieces that need to be fit together. Compounding this challenge, it is unclear just how similar to biological processes the abiotic processes that led to the first living organisms should be, i.e.  would we recognize prelife if we saw it? Given these challenges it has been incredibly difficult to outline a plausible and consistent sequence of events leading from nonlife to life: many of the puzzle pieces are now in place but we cant quite see the full picture yet.

Despite these challenges, astrobiologists have managed to be clever enough to identify some of the key steps leading from nonlife to life. In particular, it is well recognized that a critical stage in the origin of life was the emergence of the first functional biopolymers  things that may have been akin to very primitive RNA or peptides (peptides are short sequences of amino acids much less complex than modern proteins). This early stage in evolution is relatively uncharacterized given that we know very little about the first biopolymers, the nature of which has obscured by literally billions of years of ensuing evolutionary history. It therefore presents a missing era of prebiotic evolution, wedged right in between prebiotic synthesis and the latter stages of evolution based on the evolutionary refinement of already established molecular assemblies. At the Center for Chemical Evolution based at Georgia Tech, this key stage is a major focus of research. So Martha Grover, Nick Hud, and I therefore set out to develop a model to attempt to tackle characterizing how functional evolution may have been initiated during this period of history deep within our biospheres past. 

The idea we started with is pretty simple  use basic physical and chemical conditions, likely to occur on prebiotic Earth, and follow the dynamics of random populations of polymer sequences over time. We choose dehydration-hydration cycling to drive periods of polymer formation and degradation, since in the absence of the sophisticated enzymes of modern life, prelife would have had to rely on the environment for at least some of its tricks. Because we dont know the exact nature of the first biopolymers, we focused on exploring the dynamics under a variety of physical and chemical conditions (i.e. kinetic rate constants and diffusivities) and some interesting things popped out. For one, stringent maintenance of sequence information doesnt appear to be of critical importance at this stage like it is in modern life, which for example must preserve genomic information from generation to generation. Very early on, the search for functional sequences may be the more crucial issue, and highly dynamic chemistries do that best. Studying these kinds of systems therefore gives us a window into what chemical systems might be best to study in the lab. Perhaps most interestingly, evolution in such systems appears to be dramatically different than that governed by strictly Darwinian processes, which dominant most of the biosphere today. In particular, these early stages may have been dominated by collective evolution of system-wide polymer aggregates as shown in the figure.



The results are not exactly intuitive when extrapolating backward in time from modern evolutionary biology, but one can start to envision how evolution of these simple chemical systems may have led to the modern biosphere we observe billions of years later. It is interesting to think that the processes dominating this early stage of prelife might not look much like modern biology at all! But perhaps we could identify prelife if we did find it. Working toward better characterizing this missing era in prebiotic evolution may allow us to lay down one more piece in the puzzle as we work to finally see the full picture of how life got started on our planet. As is the case with most of the natural world, I am sure this picture will be a masterpiece. 

You can learn more by checking out our recently published paper at PLoSOne
PLoS ONE: Universal Sequence Replication, Reversible Polymerization and Early Functional Biopolymers: A Model for the Initiation of Prebiotic Sequence Evolution 

if you had really refuted any thing then theses actual scientists did not get the message  


PaleBlue.you | PaleBlueBlog


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws I already refuted prebiotic evolution,since that didn't happen you wouldn't have life without a designer.
> 
> Variations happens within a family got that but that in no way qualifies for macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> another declaratory with no basis in fact.
> as always you posted bullshit you refuted nothing..
> 
> 
> Characterizing the Missing Era of Prebiotic Evolution POSTED BY: Sara Imari Walker
> 
> 4-13- 12
> The origin of life is a really tough question to answer. In part because it requires piecing together seemingly disparate phenomena ranging from the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids and other organics in meteorites and on ancient Earth, to understanding how lipids self-assemble and how molecular self-replication works (which turns out the be incredibly hard!) just to name a few pieces of the puzzle. Because of the wide breadth of topics involved in understanding the origin of life, origins research is a lot like a giant jigsaw puzzle, with a lot of pieces that need to be fit together. Compounding this challenge, it is unclear just how similar to biological processes the abiotic processes that led to the first living organisms should be, i.e.  would we recognize prelife if we saw it? Given these challenges it has been incredibly difficult to outline a plausible and consistent sequence of events leading from nonlife to life: many of the puzzle pieces are now in place but we cant quite see the full picture yet.
> 
> Despite these challenges, astrobiologists have managed to be clever enough to identify some of the key steps leading from nonlife to life. In particular, it is well recognized that a critical stage in the origin of life was the emergence of the first functional biopolymers  things that may have been akin to very primitive RNA or peptides (peptides are short sequences of amino acids much less complex than modern proteins). This early stage in evolution is relatively uncharacterized given that we know very little about the first biopolymers, the nature of which has obscured by literally billions of years of ensuing evolutionary history. It therefore presents a missing era of prebiotic evolution, wedged right in between prebiotic synthesis and the latter stages of evolution based on the evolutionary refinement of already established molecular assemblies. At the Center for Chemical Evolution based at Georgia Tech, this key stage is a major focus of research. So Martha Grover, Nick Hud, and I therefore set out to develop a model to attempt to tackle characterizing how functional evolution may have been initiated during this period of history deep within our biospheres past.
> 
> The idea we started with is pretty simple  use basic physical and chemical conditions, likely to occur on prebiotic Earth, and follow the dynamics of random populations of polymer sequences over time. We choose dehydration-hydration cycling to drive periods of polymer formation and degradation, since in the absence of the sophisticated enzymes of modern life, prelife would have had to rely on the environment for at least some of its tricks. Because we dont know the exact nature of the first biopolymers, we focused on exploring the dynamics under a variety of physical and chemical conditions (i.e. kinetic rate constants and diffusivities) and some interesting things popped out. For one, stringent maintenance of sequence information doesnt appear to be of critical importance at this stage like it is in modern life, which for example must preserve genomic information from generation to generation. Very early on, the search for functional sequences may be the more crucial issue, and highly dynamic chemistries do that best. Studying these kinds of systems therefore gives us a window into what chemical systems might be best to study in the lab. Perhaps most interestingly, evolution in such systems appears to be dramatically different than that governed by strictly Darwinian processes, which dominant most of the biosphere today. In particular, these early stages may have been dominated by collective evolution of system-wide polymer aggregates as shown in the figure.
> 
> 
> 
> The results are not exactly intuitive when extrapolating backward in time from modern evolutionary biology, but one can start to envision how evolution of these simple chemical systems may have led to the modern biosphere we observe billions of years later. It is interesting to think that the processes dominating this early stage of prelife might not look much like modern biology at all! But perhaps we could identify prelife if we did find it. Working toward better characterizing this missing era in prebiotic evolution may allow us to lay down one more piece in the puzzle as we work to finally see the full picture of how life got started on our planet. As is the case with most of the natural world, I am sure this picture will be a masterpiece.
> 
> You can learn more by checking out our recently published paper at PLoSOne
> PLoS ONE: Universal Sequence Replication, Reversible Polymerization and Early Functional Biopolymers: A Model for the Initiation of Prebiotic Sequence Evolution
> 
> if you had really refuted any thing then theses actual scientists did not get the message
> 
> 
> PaleBlue.you | PaleBlueBlog
Click to expand...


More baseless speculation daws, talk about b.s. are any of you willing to step out and give me the mechanism that drives evolution ? Not a tough question after all macroevolution is a fact no ? If it is fact surely we would know the mechanism.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah. Since I am not a Creationists this argument is mute. Even if I didn't subscribe to *the science of ID* I would not believe in the bogus myth of Evolution. There is simply no evidence for it other than speculation. All the fossil evidence points against it. People love to refer to adaptation as evolution but this is a fallacy.  Show me how a microbe becomes a microbiologist, not how a bird's beak gets longer or shorter due to drought. Show me the bird that grew thumbs or started using tools to construct an F-16 fighter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether evolution is correct or not, whether it is science or merely speculation, I have yet to see any science to ID.  ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened.  Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind.  No, we don't mean god....really, we don't!".
Click to expand...


This statement basically shows your ignorance of current ID Theory. Stephen Meyer has developed an entirely scientific theory based on Charles Lyell and Darwins methodology, which basically says, if we want to study the distant past, we don't pull some crazy idea out of the sky. We study what is happening in the present. Meyer is a Geophysicist by trade and in order to make predictions about what the tectonic plates looked like millions of years ago, we study how they are moving today, in the present. His theory goes something like this: everywhere we find functional code in the present, it has an intelligent agent as its source. The binary code, which most of our modern technology is based on, was devised by an intelligent agent, a human in this instance. Meyer then goes onto state that when we examine DNA, we are immediately struck by the similarities to modern information technology. There is massive storage capability, copying, coding and decoding, all going on in the cell. In fact, the quadranary code in DNA is even more complex than the binary code. Meyer also points out that there is much confusion about the structure of DNA as it relates to the chemistry. He states that DNA isn't about the chemistry, but the code. He compares it to a newspaper and says we all realize a newspaper isn't about the chemistry of the ink or the pulp but about how that chemistry is used to convey a message. If you trace that message all the way back past the printing press and the components that make up a newspaper, you find that the message didn't even come from someone's hand or fingers punching letters on a keyboard. Nope, the message came from someone's mind or thoughts. It came from an intelligent agent. So in DNA here we have this vastly complex code and the only other place we find code like this in the present, we learn it has an intelliegent agent as its source. So do we make up some stupid theory and claim wind and erosion did it? Or do we claim that we started with some chemistry and over millions of years it turned into code and then the code that was harmful or didn't do anything wasn't copied but the good code was copied until we came up with a super computer. This would be counter-intuitive to the very method Lyell and Darwin used. Of course we don't do that. We see that the very best explanation for that code in DNA is an intelligent source. But hey, if you want to keep grasping at bird beaks as proof that a virus turned into a man, then go right ahead. But the jokes on you. There is more evidence that the best explanation fits here. Not some whacky myth based on zealous materialist religion nutballs.

I really am convinced you don't want to be enlightened. For to become enlightened would mean you would have to change your world view and start contemplating things you don't want to think about or face. I have posted the link to Meyers hypothesis on here several times. Instead of taking an hour out of your life to hear the hypothesis laid out, you had rather just remain in your ignorance and stick to the claim "ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened.  Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind." which is so horribly wrong it is pathetic. It is part of the brainwashing you've succumbed to which trys to paint ID theorists as Creationists, which is dishonest and manipulative to say the least. ID never makes a claim as to who the intelligent agent is, although some who hold ID theory in high regard believe it is the God described in the Bible, there are just as many who are Jewish or other religions other than Christian that embrace the science behind it. In fact, the TOE haters love to try to say ID theorists that don't admit they are talking about God are being disingenuous. Then when they do admit their beliefs, the haters claim it isn't science. True ID Theory sticks to science and is not polluted like Darwinism with the mysticism of materialism.  Here is the link one more time. *Your choice: an hour of your life or continue you in your ignorance.* If you choose to watch this and enlighten yourself on what *REAL ID Theory *purports, I would welcome your comments.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs&feature=player_embedded]Centre for Intelligent Design Lecture 2011 by Stephen Meyer on 'Signature in the Cell'. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah. Since I am not a Creationists this argument is mute. Even if I didn't subscribe to *the science of ID* I would not believe in the bogus myth of Evolution. There is simply no evidence for it other than speculation. All the fossil evidence points against it. People love to refer to adaptation as evolution but this is a fallacy.  Show me how a microbe becomes a microbiologist, not how a bird's beak gets longer or shorter due to drought. Show me the bird that grew thumbs or started using tools to construct an F-16 fighter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether evolution is correct or not, whether it is science or merely speculation, I have yet to see any science to ID.  ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened.  Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind.  No, we don't mean god....really, we don't!".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know enough to know it couldn't happen with a natural unintelligent process. Unless you want to base the view on a mountain of precise coincedences.
Click to expand...


Coincidences that built up over billions of years.  I think you overstate the unlikeliness and ignore the evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether evolution is correct or not, whether it is science or merely speculation, I have yet to see any science to ID.  ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened.  Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind.  No, we don't mean god....really, we don't!".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know enough to know it couldn't happen with a natural unintelligent process. Unless you want to base the view on a mountain of precise coincedences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coincidences that built up over billions of years.  I think you overstate the unlikeliness and ignore the evidence.
Click to expand...


First you can't prove billions of years secondly I responded to you in the other thread. You don't need just one mutation you need millions of mutations that spread through the population.

We have over 5,000 genetic disorders floating around in the gene pool,why is not the whole population not affected by these disorders ? if it's that easy for new traits to pass through the entire population as you say.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Let me point out an article dealing with mutations.

Chapter 7: Are Mutations Part of the


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah. Since I am not a Creationists this argument is mute. Even if I didn't subscribe to *the science of ID* I would not believe in the bogus myth of Evolution. There is simply no evidence for it other than speculation. All the fossil evidence points against it. People love to refer to adaptation as evolution but this is a fallacy.  Show me how a microbe becomes a microbiologist, not how a bird's beak gets longer or shorter due to drought. Show me the bird that grew thumbs or started using tools to construct an F-16 fighter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether evolution is correct or not, whether it is science or merely speculation, I have yet to see any science to ID.  ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened.  Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind.  No, we don't mean god....really, we don't!".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This statement basically shows your ignorance of current ID Theory. Stephen Meyer has developed an entirely scientific theory based on Charles Lyell and Darwins methodology, which basically says, if we want to study the distant past, we don't pull some crazy idea out of the sky. We study what is happening in the present. Meyer is a Geophysicist by trade and in order to make predictions about what the tectonic plates looked like millions of years ago, we study how they are moving today, in the present. His theory goes something like this: everywhere we find functional code in the present, it has an intelligent agent as its source. The binary code, which most of our modern technology is based on, was devised by an intelligent agent, a human in this instance. Meyer then goes onto state that when we examine DNA, we are immediately struck by the similarities to modern information technology. There is massive storage capability, copying, coding and decoding, all going on in the cell. In fact, the quadranary code in DNA is even more complex than the binary code. Meyer also points out that there is much confusion about the structure of DNA as it relates to the chemistry. He states that DNA isn't about the chemistry, but the code. He compares it to a newspaper and says we all realize a newspaper isn't about the chemistry of the ink or the pulp but about how that chemistry is used to convey a message. If you trace that message all the way back past the printing press and the components that make up a newspaper, you find that the message didn't even come from someone's hand or fingers punching letters on a keyboard. Nope, the message came from someone's mind or thoughts. It came from an intelligent agent. So in DNA here we have this vastly complex code and the only other place we find code like this in the present, we learn it has an intelliegent agent as its source. So do we make up some stupid theory and claim wind and erosion did it? Or do we claim that we started with some chemistry and over millions of years it turned into code and then the code that was harmful or didn't do anything wasn't copied but the good code was copied until we came up with a super computer. This would be counter-intuitive to the very method Lyell and Darwin used. Of course we don't do that. We see that the very best explanation for that code in DNA is an intelligent source. But hey, if you want to keep grasping at bird beaks as proof that a virus turned into a man, then go right ahead. But the jokes on you. There is more evidence that the best explanation fits here. Not some whacky myth based on zealous materialist religion nutballs.
> 
> I really am convinced you don't want to be enlightened. For to become enlightened would mean you would have to change your world view and start contemplating things you don't want to think about or face. I have posted the link to Meyers hypothesis on here several times. Instead of taking an hour out of your life to hear the hypothesis laid out, you had rather just remain in your ignorance and stick to the claim "ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened.  Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind." which is so horribly wrong it is pathetic. It is part of the brainwashing you've succumbed to which trys to paint ID theorists as Creationists, which is dishonest and manipulative to say the least. ID never makes a claim as to who the intelligent agent is, although some who hold ID theory in high regard believe it is the God described in the Bible, there are just as many who are Jewish or other religions other than Christian that embrace the science behind it. In fact, the TOE haters love to try to say ID theorists that don't admit they are talking about God are being disingenuous. Then when they do admit their beliefs, the haters claim it isn't science. True ID Theory sticks to science and is not polluted like Darwinism with the mysticism of materialism.  Here is the link one more time. *Your choice: an hour of your life or continue you in your ignorance.* If you choose to watch this and enlighten yourself on what *REAL ID Theory *purports, I would welcome your comments.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs&feature=player_embedded]Centre for Intelligent Design Lecture 2011 by Stephen Meyer on 'Signature in the Cell'. - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I watched a much briefer excerpt of Meyer describing his theory of ID.  Basically, he said, "We have only seen intelligence create this complexity.  Therefore, we should reasonably assume that intelligence is behind everything of a certain complexity.".  I've never been impressed with the complexity argument.  Without getting into that, however, it doesn't seem like a matter of science.  A question of logic or reason, perhaps, but not a testable, falsifiable scientific theory.

I have no problem with someone saying that evolution is driven by intelligence, as Meyer seems to do.  Apparently he believes in changes in life forms over time, he just doesn't believe it happened in a completely random manner.  That's fine, I can get that belief.  That does not, however, make it science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether evolution is correct or not, whether it is science or merely speculation, I have yet to see any science to ID.  ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened.  Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind.  No, we don't mean god....really, we don't!".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement basically shows your ignorance of current ID Theory. Stephen Meyer has developed an entirely scientific theory based on Charles Lyell and Darwins methodology, which basically says, if we want to study the distant past, we don't pull some crazy idea out of the sky. We study what is happening in the present. Meyer is a Geophysicist by trade and in order to make predictions about what the tectonic plates looked like millions of years ago, we study how they are moving today, in the present. His theory goes something like this: everywhere we find functional code in the present, it has an intelligent agent as its source. The binary code, which most of our modern technology is based on, was devised by an intelligent agent, a human in this instance. Meyer then goes onto state that when we examine DNA, we are immediately struck by the similarities to modern information technology. There is massive storage capability, copying, coding and decoding, all going on in the cell. In fact, the quadranary code in DNA is even more complex than the binary code. Meyer also points out that there is much confusion about the structure of DNA as it relates to the chemistry. He states that DNA isn't about the chemistry, but the code. He compares it to a newspaper and says we all realize a newspaper isn't about the chemistry of the ink or the pulp but about how that chemistry is used to convey a message. If you trace that message all the way back past the printing press and the components that make up a newspaper, you find that the message didn't even come from someone's hand or fingers punching letters on a keyboard. Nope, the message came from someone's mind or thoughts. It came from an intelligent agent. So in DNA here we have this vastly complex code and the only other place we find code like this in the present, we learn it has an intelliegent agent as its source. So do we make up some stupid theory and claim wind and erosion did it? Or do we claim that we started with some chemistry and over millions of years it turned into code and then the code that was harmful or didn't do anything wasn't copied but the good code was copied until we came up with a super computer. This would be counter-intuitive to the very method Lyell and Darwin used. Of course we don't do that. We see that the very best explanation for that code in DNA is an intelligent source. But hey, if you want to keep grasping at bird beaks as proof that a virus turned into a man, then go right ahead. But the jokes on you. There is more evidence that the best explanation fits here. Not some whacky myth based on zealous materialist religion nutballs.
> 
> I really am convinced you don't want to be enlightened. For to become enlightened would mean you would have to change your world view and start contemplating things you don't want to think about or face. I have posted the link to Meyers hypothesis on here several times. Instead of taking an hour out of your life to hear the hypothesis laid out, you had rather just remain in your ignorance and stick to the claim "ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened.  Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind." which is so horribly wrong it is pathetic. It is part of the brainwashing you've succumbed to which trys to paint ID theorists as Creationists, which is dishonest and manipulative to say the least. ID never makes a claim as to who the intelligent agent is, although some who hold ID theory in high regard believe it is the God described in the Bible, there are just as many who are Jewish or other religions other than Christian that embrace the science behind it. In fact, the TOE haters love to try to say ID theorists that don't admit they are talking about God are being disingenuous. Then when they do admit their beliefs, the haters claim it isn't science. True ID Theory sticks to science and is not polluted like Darwinism with the mysticism of materialism.  Here is the link one more time. *Your choice: an hour of your life or continue you in your ignorance.* If you choose to watch this and enlighten yourself on what *REAL ID Theory *purports, I would welcome your comments.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs&feature=player_embedded]Centre for Intelligent Design Lecture 2011 by Stephen Meyer on 'Signature in the Cell'. - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched a much briefer excerpt of Meyer describing his theory of ID.  Basically, he said, "We have only seen intelligence create this complexity.  Therefore, we should reasonably assume that intelligence is behind everything of a certain complexity.".  I've never been impressed with the complexity argument.  Without getting into that, however, it doesn't seem like a matter of science.  A question of logic or reason, perhaps, but not a testable, falsifiable scientific theory.
> 
> I have no problem with someone saying that evolution is driven by intelligence, as Meyer seems to do.  Apparently he believes in changes in life forms over time, he just doesn't believe it happened in a completely random manner.  That's fine, I can get that belief.  That does not, however, make it science.
Click to expand...


Maybe scientist should,because it is illogical to believe that precise coincedences happen time after time.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Maybe scientist should,because it is illogical to believe that precise coincedences happen time after time.



Perhaps, but your definition of precision differs from others', I think.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether evolution is correct or not, whether it is science or merely speculation, I have yet to see any science to ID.  ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened.  Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind.  No, we don't mean god....really, we don't!".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement basically shows your ignorance of current ID Theory. Stephen Meyer has developed an entirely scientific theory based on Charles Lyell and Darwins methodology, which basically says, if we want to study the distant past, we don't pull some crazy idea out of the sky. We study what is happening in the present. Meyer is a Geophysicist by trade and in order to make predictions about what the tectonic plates looked like millions of years ago, we study how they are moving today, in the present. His theory goes something like this: everywhere we find functional code in the present, it has an intelligent agent as its source. The binary code, which most of our modern technology is based on, was devised by an intelligent agent, a human in this instance. Meyer then goes onto state that when we examine DNA, we are immediately struck by the similarities to modern information technology. There is massive storage capability, copying, coding and decoding, all going on in the cell. In fact, the quadranary code in DNA is even more complex than the binary code. Meyer also points out that there is much confusion about the structure of DNA as it relates to the chemistry. He states that DNA isn't about the chemistry, but the code. He compares it to a newspaper and says we all realize a newspaper isn't about the chemistry of the ink or the pulp but about how that chemistry is used to convey a message. If you trace that message all the way back past the printing press and the components that make up a newspaper, you find that the message didn't even come from someone's hand or fingers punching letters on a keyboard. Nope, the message came from someone's mind or thoughts. It came from an intelligent agent. So in DNA here we have this vastly complex code and the only other place we find code like this in the present, we learn it has an intelliegent agent as its source. So do we make up some stupid theory and claim wind and erosion did it? Or do we claim that we started with some chemistry and over millions of years it turned into code and then the code that was harmful or didn't do anything wasn't copied but the good code was copied until we came up with a super computer. This would be counter-intuitive to the very method Lyell and Darwin used. Of course we don't do that. We see that the very best explanation for that code in DNA is an intelligent source. But hey, if you want to keep grasping at bird beaks as proof that a virus turned into a man, then go right ahead. But the jokes on you. There is more evidence that the best explanation fits here. Not some whacky myth based on zealous materialist religion nutballs.
> 
> I really am convinced you don't want to be enlightened. For to become enlightened would mean you would have to change your world view and start contemplating things you don't want to think about or face. I have posted the link to Meyers hypothesis on here several times. Instead of taking an hour out of your life to hear the hypothesis laid out, you had rather just remain in your ignorance and stick to the claim "ID seems to be, basically, "We don't know how this could have happened.  Therefore, it was an eternal, massively powerful being of some kind." which is so horribly wrong it is pathetic. It is part of the brainwashing you've succumbed to which trys to paint ID theorists as Creationists, which is dishonest and manipulative to say the least. ID never makes a claim as to who the intelligent agent is, although some who hold ID theory in high regard believe it is the God described in the Bible, there are just as many who are Jewish or other religions other than Christian that embrace the science behind it. In fact, the TOE haters love to try to say ID theorists that don't admit they are talking about God are being disingenuous. Then when they do admit their beliefs, the haters claim it isn't science. True ID Theory sticks to science and is not polluted like Darwinism with the mysticism of materialism.  Here is the link one more time. *Your choice: an hour of your life or continue you in your ignorance.* If you choose to watch this and enlighten yourself on what *REAL ID Theory *purports, I would welcome your comments.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs&feature=player_embedded]Centre for Intelligent Design Lecture 2011 by Stephen Meyer on 'Signature in the Cell'. - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched a much briefer excerpt of Meyer describing his theory of ID.  Basically, he said, "We have only seen intelligence create this complexity.  Therefore, we should reasonably assume that intelligence is behind everything of a certain complexity.".  I've never been impressed with the complexity argument.  Without getting into that, however, it doesn't seem like a matter of science.  A question of logic or reason, perhaps, but not a testable, falsifiable scientific theory.
> 
> I have no problem with someone saying that evolution is driven by intelligence, as Meyer seems to do.  Apparently he believes in changes in life forms over time, he just doesn't believe it happened in a completely random manner.  That's fine, I can get that belief.  That does not, however, make it science.
Click to expand...


Guess your oversimplified version didn't flesh out all the details. His argument *was not about complexity*, but actual *digital code*. And his method was to use Lyell's and Darwin's method to arrive at the argument. So *to say his theory is not science is to also discredit the theory of evolution*.... a classic case of trying to have your cake and eat it to. That is fine. You've made it clear you have no desire to know the REAL truth or investigate things further. You are as pathetic as people who follow religion with *blind faith*. The same saying that "if Jesus Christ showed up and told you Christianity was fake you wouldn't believe it" applies here. If Charles Darwin showed up and told you he made it all up, you would still cling to it. I will not waste any more time with you. It is pretty obvious you don't care to REALLY investigate what ID is all about.

The last hope you have is to move the cursor on the video to 1:13:40 where an audience member asks "What is Science?" and Meyer responds.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Guess your oversimplified version didn't flesh out all the details. His argument *was not about complexity*, but actual *digital code*. And his method was to use Lyell's and Darwin's method to arrive at the argument. So *to say his theory is not science is to also discredit the theory of evolution*.... a classic case of trying to have your cake and eat it to. That is fine. You've made it clear you have no desire to know the REAL truth or investigate things further. You are as pathetic as people who follow religion with *blind faith*. The same saying that "if Jesus Christ showed up and told you Christianity was fake you wouldn't believe it" applies here. If Charles Darwin showed up and told you he made it all up, you would still cling to it. I will not waste any more time with you. It is pretty obvious you don't care to REALLY investigate what ID is all about.



My oversimplified version was Meyer himself!

You seem to think that, if I reject ID (in the same way you reject evolution, mind) I am close-minded and not willing to listen.  Fine, believe what you want.  If you don't think it's possible for someone to look at ID and understand what ID proponents are saying and still reject it, that's your problem, not mine.

Here's Meyer himself speaking :
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_yiUoEfCgI]Stephen Meyer describes his definition of Intelligent Design from Signature In The Cell - YouTube[/ame]

Perhaps complexity isn't the correct word.  He does, however, seem to say that since we know humans can create information like we see in cells, and we do it through our intelligence, it must be an intelligence that created the cells.  We don't know how it could happen undirected.  That still sounds like inserting god (and really, in the end, isn't that what the intelligence must be?) where we are ignorant.  Humanity doesn't understand how something happens?  Must be god.

Here also is an small article which purports to refute some of Meyer's ideas from his book, _Signature in the Cell_.  Having not read the book, I won't claim accuracy in the article.  I wonder if you have read the book and can speak at all to the accuracy of the quotes used and the rebuttals given?


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know enough to know it couldn't happen with a natural unintelligent process. Unless you want to base the view on a mountain of precise coincedences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coincidences that built up over billions of years.  I think you overstate the unlikeliness and ignore the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you can't prove billions of years secondly I responded to you in the other thread. You don't need just one mutation you need millions of mutations that spread through the population.
> 
> We have over 5,000 genetic disorders floating around in the gene pool,why is not the whole population not affected by these disorders ? if it's that easy for new traits to pass through the entire population as you say.
Click to expand...


How did you get different populations with different mutations, if an individual can only reproduce one like itself?  Traits WILL spread within a population.  Those you mention are either ones confined to a specific group, making isolation the reason it's rare in the general population, OR it's in the general population, making your objection moot BTW, and is rare because it's deleterious.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Let me point out an article dealing with mutations.
> 
> Chapter 7: Are Mutations Part of the


bias source, no objective evidence = invalid.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws I already refuted prebiotic evolution,since that didn't happen you wouldn't have life without a designer.
> 
> Variations happens within a family got that but that in no way qualifies for macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> another declaratory with no basis in fact.
> as always you posted bullshit you refuted nothing..
> 
> 
> Characterizing the Missing Era of Prebiotic Evolution POSTED BY: Sara Imari Walker
> 
> 4-13- 12
> The origin of life is a really tough question to answer. In part because it requires piecing together seemingly disparate phenomena ranging from the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids and other organics in meteorites and on ancient Earth, to understanding how lipids self-assemble and how molecular self-replication works (which turns out the be incredibly hard!) just to name a few pieces of the puzzle. Because of the wide breadth of topics involved in understanding the origin of life, origins research is a lot like a giant jigsaw puzzle, with a lot of pieces that need to be fit together. Compounding this challenge, it is unclear just how similar to biological processes the abiotic processes that led to the first living organisms should be, i.e.  would we recognize prelife if we saw it? Given these challenges it has been incredibly difficult to outline a plausible and consistent sequence of events leading from nonlife to life: many of the puzzle pieces are now in place but we cant quite see the full picture yet.
> 
> Despite these challenges, astrobiologists have managed to be clever enough to identify some of the key steps leading from nonlife to life. In particular, it is well recognized that a critical stage in the origin of life was the emergence of the first functional biopolymers  things that may have been akin to very primitive RNA or peptides (peptides are short sequences of amino acids much less complex than modern proteins). This early stage in evolution is relatively uncharacterized given that we know very little about the first biopolymers, the nature of which has obscured by literally billions of years of ensuing evolutionary history. It therefore presents a missing era of prebiotic evolution, wedged right in between prebiotic synthesis and the latter stages of evolution based on the evolutionary refinement of already established molecular assemblies. At the Center for Chemical Evolution based at Georgia Tech, this key stage is a major focus of research. So Martha Grover, Nick Hud, and I therefore set out to develop a model to attempt to tackle characterizing how functional evolution may have been initiated during this period of history deep within our biospheres past.
> 
> The idea we started with is pretty simple  use basic physical and chemical conditions, likely to occur on prebiotic Earth, and follow the dynamics of random populations of polymer sequences over time. We choose dehydration-hydration cycling to drive periods of polymer formation and degradation, since in the absence of the sophisticated enzymes of modern life, prelife would have had to rely on the environment for at least some of its tricks. Because we dont know the exact nature of the first biopolymers, we focused on exploring the dynamics under a variety of physical and chemical conditions (i.e. kinetic rate constants and diffusivities) and some interesting things popped out. For one, stringent maintenance of sequence information doesnt appear to be of critical importance at this stage like it is in modern life, which for example must preserve genomic information from generation to generation. Very early on, the search for functional sequences may be the more crucial issue, and highly dynamic chemistries do that best. Studying these kinds of systems therefore gives us a window into what chemical systems might be best to study in the lab. Perhaps most interestingly, evolution in such systems appears to be dramatically different than that governed by strictly Darwinian processes, which dominant most of the biosphere today. In particular, these early stages may have been dominated by collective evolution of system-wide polymer aggregates as shown in the figure.
> 
> 
> 
> The results are not exactly intuitive when extrapolating backward in time from modern evolutionary biology, but one can start to envision how evolution of these simple chemical systems may have led to the modern biosphere we observe billions of years later. It is interesting to think that the processes dominating this early stage of prelife might not look much like modern biology at all! But perhaps we could identify prelife if we did find it. Working toward better characterizing this missing era in prebiotic evolution may allow us to lay down one more piece in the puzzle as we work to finally see the full picture of how life got started on our planet. As is the case with most of the natural world, I am sure this picture will be a masterpiece.
> 
> You can learn more by checking out our recently published paper at PLoSOne
> PLoS ONE: Universal Sequence Replication, Reversible Polymerization and Early Functional Biopolymers: A Model for the Initiation of Prebiotic Sequence Evolution
> 
> if you had really refuted any thing then theses actual scientists did not get the message
> 
> 
> PaleBlue.you | PaleBlueBlog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More baseless speculation daws, talk about b.s. are any of you willing to step out and give me the mechanism that drives evolution ? Not a tough question after all macroevolution is a fact no ? If it is fact surely we would know the mechanism.
Click to expand...



What are the mechanisms of evolution?In: Biology [In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] When a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and develop into new species. Anatomical similarities, geographical distribution of similar species and the fossil record indicate that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor through a long series of these divergence events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth.[2]
Evolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare. A trait is a particular characteristic such as eye color, height, or a behavior that is expressed when an organism's genes interact with its environment. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable differences (variation) in their traits. The main cause of variation is mutation, which changes the sequence of a gene. Altered genes are then inherited by offspring. There can sometimes also be transfer of genes between species.
Two main processes cause variants to become more common or rare in a population. One is natural selection, which causes traits that aid survival and reproduction to become more common, and traits that hinder survival and reproduction to become more rare.[1][3] Natural selection occurs because only a few individuals in each generation will survive, since resources are limited and organisms produce many more offspring than their environment can support. Over many generations mutations produce successive, small, random changes in traits, which are then filtered by natural selection and the beneficial changes retained. This adjusts traits so they become suited to an organism's environment: these adjustments are called adaptations.[4] Not every trait, however, is an adaptation. Another cause of evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces entirely random changes in how common traits are in a population. Genetic drift comes from the role that chance plays in whether a trait will be passed on to the next generation.
Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology began in the mid-nineteenth century, when research into the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species changed over time.[5][6] However, the mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theories of natural selection were independently proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. In 1859, Darwin's seminal work On the Origin of Species brought the new theories of evolution by natural selection to a wide audience,[7] leading to the overwhelming acceptance of evolution among scientists.[8][9][10][11] In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[12] which connected the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research and providing a unifying explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth.[9][10][13] Evolution is therefore applied and studied in fields as diverse as ecology, psychology, paleontology, philosophy, medicine, agriculture and conservation biology.


Read more: What are the mechanisms of evolution


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws I already refuted prebiotic evolution,since that didn't happen you wouldn't have life without a designer.
> 
> Variations happens within a family got that but that in no way qualifies for macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> another declaratory with no basis in fact.
> as always you posted bullshit you refuted nothing..
> 
> 
> Characterizing the &#8220;Missing Era&#8221; of Prebiotic Evolution POSTED BY: Sara Imari Walker
> 
> 4-13- 12
> The origin of life is a really tough question to answer. In part because it requires piecing together seemingly disparate phenomena ranging from the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids and other organics in meteorites and on ancient Earth, to understanding how lipids self-assemble and how molecular self-replication works (which turns out the be incredibly hard!) just to name a few pieces of the puzzle. Because of the wide breadth of topics involved in understanding the origin of life, origins research is a lot like a giant jigsaw puzzle, with a lot of pieces that need to be fit together. Compounding this challenge, it is unclear just how similar to biological processes the abiotic processes that led to the first living organisms should be, i.e. &#8211; would we recognize &#8220;prelife&#8221; if we saw it? Given these challenges it has been incredibly difficult to outline a plausible and consistent sequence of events leading from nonlife to life: many of the puzzle pieces are now in place but we can&#8217;t quite see the full picture yet.
> 
> Despite these challenges, astrobiologists have managed to be clever enough to identify some of the key steps leading from nonlife to life. In particular, it is well recognized that a critical stage in the origin of life was the emergence of the first functional biopolymers &#8211; things that may have been akin to very primitive RNA or peptides (peptides are short sequences of amino acids much less complex than modern proteins). This early stage in evolution is relatively uncharacterized given that we know very little about the first biopolymers, the nature of which has obscured by literally billions of years of ensuing evolutionary history. It therefore presents a &#8220;missing era&#8221; of prebiotic evolution, wedged right in between prebiotic synthesis and the latter stages of evolution based on the evolutionary refinement of already established molecular assemblies. At the Center for Chemical Evolution based at Georgia Tech, this key stage is a major focus of research. So Martha Grover, Nick Hud, and I therefore set out to develop a model to attempt to tackle characterizing how functional evolution may have been initiated during this period of history deep within our biosphere&#8217;s past.
> 
> The idea we started with is pretty simple &#8211; use basic physical and chemical conditions, likely to occur on prebiotic Earth, and follow the dynamics of random populations of polymer sequences over time. We choose dehydration-hydration cycling to drive periods of polymer formation and degradation, since in the absence of the sophisticated enzymes of modern life, prelife would have had to rely on the environment for at least some of its tricks. Because we don&#8217;t know the exact nature of the first biopolymers, we focused on exploring the dynamics under a variety of physical and chemical conditions (i.e. kinetic rate constants and diffusivities) and some interesting things popped out. For one, stringent maintenance of sequence information doesn&#8217;t appear to be of critical importance at this stage like it is in modern life, which for example must preserve genomic information from generation to generation. Very early on, the search for functional sequences may be the more crucial issue, and highly dynamic chemistries do that best. Studying these kinds of systems therefore gives us a window into what chemical systems might be best to study in the lab. Perhaps most interestingly, evolution in such systems appears to be dramatically different than that governed by strictly Darwinian processes, which dominant most of the biosphere today. In particular, these early stages may have been dominated by collective evolution of system-wide polymer aggregates as shown in the figure.
> 
> 
> 
> The results are not exactly intuitive when extrapolating backward in time from modern evolutionary biology, but one can start to envision how evolution of these simple chemical systems may have led to the modern biosphere we observe billions of years later. It is interesting to think that the processes dominating this early stage of prelife might not look much like modern biology at all! But perhaps we could identify prelife if we did find it. Working toward better characterizing this &#8220;missing era&#8221; in prebiotic evolution may allow us to lay down one more piece in the puzzle as we work to finally see the full picture of how life got started on our planet. As is the case with most of the natural world, I am sure this picture will be a masterpiece.
> 
> You can learn more by checking out our recently published paper at PLoSOne
> PLoS ONE: Universal Sequence Replication, Reversible Polymerization and Early Functional Biopolymers: A Model for the Initiation of Prebiotic Sequence Evolution
> 
> if you had really refuted any thing then theses actual scientists did not get the message
> 
> 
> PaleBlue.you | PaleBlueBlog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More baseless speculation daws, talk about b.s. are any of you willing to step out and give me the mechanism that drives evolution ? Not a tough question after all macroevolution is a fact no ? If it is fact surely we would know the mechanism.
Click to expand...

project much?

here's the  experiment :http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0034166


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coincidences that built up over billions of years.  I think you overstate the unlikeliness and ignore the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you can't prove billions of years secondly I responded to you in the other thread. You don't need just one mutation you need millions of mutations that spread through the population.
> 
> We have over 5,000 genetic disorders floating around in the gene pool,why is not the whole population not affected by these disorders ? if it's that easy for new traits to pass through the entire population as you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did you get different populations with different mutations, if an individual can only reproduce one like itself?  Traits WILL spread within a population.  Those you mention are either ones confined to a specific group, making isolation the reason it's rare in the general population, OR it's in the general population, making your objection moot BTW, and is rare because it's deleterious.
Click to expand...


If you follow the creation model for humans there is actually only one race the human race. All genes came from one set of parents. In some cases a mutant gene starts in one particular group that is why that genetic disorder is more common in that group like sickle cell.

What a human will look like is affected by the region of the world they live in.

So the gene pool was vast enough to create all the different colors and features of man. Mutant genes can and do happen in all living organism's and in all groups. Some of them do nothing some of them cause harm,some of them albeit rare cause a small benefit but these are very rare.

When we reproduce we are breeding Genetic information out to the point we only possess the DNA to reproduce what our DNA line produces which also is determined by the region of the world we live in. If races mix you can see traits from both sides in some ways.

It's like purebred dogs  once they crossed many different breeds to a point they got the traits they wanted in a new breed, breeders would stop and only breed that breed to each other. And as more offspring are reproduced the genes from all the breeds that took to create that new breed eventually has been bred out of them to the point the offspring and later generations can only reproduce what they are.

This is why if there is no crossing from one group to another zebras will produce zebras only. boxers will only produce boxers. White people will only produce white people. Don't mean to insult anyone just trying to make it clear.

Why do we maintain different traits in each race of man because most stick to their kind their region and their kind.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe scientist should,because it is illogical to believe that precise coincedences happen time after time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but your definition of precision differs from others', I think.
Click to expand...


Precision from amino acids all of them are left handed In living organism's would that qualify for precision ? There are too many cases for precision in nature to name them all.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another declaratory with no basis in fact.
> as always you posted bullshit you refuted nothing..
> 
> 
> Characterizing the Missing Era of Prebiotic Evolution POSTED BY: Sara Imari Walker
> 
> 4-13- 12
> The origin of life is a really tough question to answer. In part because it requires piecing together seemingly disparate phenomena ranging from the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids and other organics in meteorites and on ancient Earth, to understanding how lipids self-assemble and how molecular self-replication works (which turns out the be incredibly hard!) just to name a few pieces of the puzzle. Because of the wide breadth of topics involved in understanding the origin of life, origins research is a lot like a giant jigsaw puzzle, with a lot of pieces that need to be fit together. Compounding this challenge, it is unclear just how similar to biological processes the abiotic processes that led to the first living organisms should be, i.e.  would we recognize prelife if we saw it? Given these challenges it has been incredibly difficult to outline a plausible and consistent sequence of events leading from nonlife to life: many of the puzzle pieces are now in place but we cant quite see the full picture yet.
> 
> Despite these challenges, astrobiologists have managed to be clever enough to identify some of the key steps leading from nonlife to life. In particular, it is well recognized that a critical stage in the origin of life was the emergence of the first functional biopolymers  things that may have been akin to very primitive RNA or peptides (peptides are short sequences of amino acids much less complex than modern proteins). This early stage in evolution is relatively uncharacterized given that we know very little about the first biopolymers, the nature of which has obscured by literally billions of years of ensuing evolutionary history. It therefore presents a missing era of prebiotic evolution, wedged right in between prebiotic synthesis and the latter stages of evolution based on the evolutionary refinement of already established molecular assemblies. At the Center for Chemical Evolution based at Georgia Tech, this key stage is a major focus of research. So Martha Grover, Nick Hud, and I therefore set out to develop a model to attempt to tackle characterizing how functional evolution may have been initiated during this period of history deep within our biospheres past.
> 
> The idea we started with is pretty simple  use basic physical and chemical conditions, likely to occur on prebiotic Earth, and follow the dynamics of random populations of polymer sequences over time. We choose dehydration-hydration cycling to drive periods of polymer formation and degradation, since in the absence of the sophisticated enzymes of modern life, prelife would have had to rely on the environment for at least some of its tricks. Because we dont know the exact nature of the first biopolymers, we focused on exploring the dynamics under a variety of physical and chemical conditions (i.e. kinetic rate constants and diffusivities) and some interesting things popped out. For one, stringent maintenance of sequence information doesnt appear to be of critical importance at this stage like it is in modern life, which for example must preserve genomic information from generation to generation. Very early on, the search for functional sequences may be the more crucial issue, and highly dynamic chemistries do that best. Studying these kinds of systems therefore gives us a window into what chemical systems might be best to study in the lab. Perhaps most interestingly, evolution in such systems appears to be dramatically different than that governed by strictly Darwinian processes, which dominant most of the biosphere today. In particular, these early stages may have been dominated by collective evolution of system-wide polymer aggregates as shown in the figure.
> 
> 
> 
> The results are not exactly intuitive when extrapolating backward in time from modern evolutionary biology, but one can start to envision how evolution of these simple chemical systems may have led to the modern biosphere we observe billions of years later. It is interesting to think that the processes dominating this early stage of prelife might not look much like modern biology at all! But perhaps we could identify prelife if we did find it. Working toward better characterizing this missing era in prebiotic evolution may allow us to lay down one more piece in the puzzle as we work to finally see the full picture of how life got started on our planet. As is the case with most of the natural world, I am sure this picture will be a masterpiece.
> 
> You can learn more by checking out our recently published paper at PLoSOne
> PLoS ONE: Universal Sequence Replication, Reversible Polymerization and Early Functional Biopolymers: A Model for the Initiation of Prebiotic Sequence Evolution
> 
> if you had really refuted any thing then theses actual scientists did not get the message
> 
> 
> PaleBlue.you | PaleBlueBlog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More baseless speculation daws, talk about b.s. are any of you willing to step out and give me the mechanism that drives evolution ? Not a tough question after all macroevolution is a fact no ? If it is fact surely we would know the mechanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are the mechanisms of evolution?In: Biology [In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] When a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and develop into new species. Anatomical similarities, geographical distribution of similar species and the fossil record indicate that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor through a long series of these divergence events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth.[2]
> Evolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare. A trait is a particular characteristic such as eye color, height, or a behavior that is expressed when an organism's genes interact with its environment. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable differences (variation) in their traits. The main cause of variation is mutation, which changes the sequence of a gene. Altered genes are then inherited by offspring. There can sometimes also be transfer of genes between species.
> Two main processes cause variants to become more common or rare in a population. One is natural selection, which causes traits that aid survival and reproduction to become more common, and traits that hinder survival and reproduction to become more rare.[1][3] Natural selection occurs because only a few individuals in each generation will survive, since resources are limited and organisms produce many more offspring than their environment can support. Over many generations mutations produce successive, small, random changes in traits, which are then filtered by natural selection and the beneficial changes retained. This adjusts traits so they become suited to an organism's environment: these adjustments are called adaptations.[4] Not every trait, however, is an adaptation. Another cause of evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces entirely random changes in how common traits are in a population. Genetic drift comes from the role that chance plays in whether a trait will be passed on to the next generation.
> Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology began in the mid-nineteenth century, when research into the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species changed over time.[5][6] However, the mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theories of natural selection were independently proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. In 1859, Darwin's seminal work On the Origin of Species brought the new theories of evolution by natural selection to a wide audience,[7] leading to the overwhelming acceptance of evolution among scientists.[8][9][10][11] In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[12] which connected the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research and providing a unifying explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth.[9][10][13] Evolution is therefore applied and studied in fields as diverse as ecology, psychology, paleontology, philosophy, medicine, agriculture and conservation biology.
> 
> 
> Read more: What are the mechanisms of evolution
Click to expand...


All you had to do is look up and copy and paste the definition for the modern day theory of evolution,it's called Neo Darwinism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another declaratory with no basis in fact.
> as always you posted bullshit you refuted nothing..
> 
> 
> Characterizing the Missing Era of Prebiotic Evolution POSTED BY: Sara Imari Walker
> 
> 4-13- 12
> The origin of life is a really tough question to answer. In part because it requires piecing together seemingly disparate phenomena ranging from the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids and other organics in meteorites and on ancient Earth, to understanding how lipids self-assemble and how molecular self-replication works (which turns out the be incredibly hard!) just to name a few pieces of the puzzle. Because of the wide breadth of topics involved in understanding the origin of life, origins research is a lot like a giant jigsaw puzzle, with a lot of pieces that need to be fit together. Compounding this challenge, it is unclear just how similar to biological processes the abiotic processes that led to the first living organisms should be, i.e.  would we recognize prelife if we saw it? Given these challenges it has been incredibly difficult to outline a plausible and consistent sequence of events leading from nonlife to life: many of the puzzle pieces are now in place but we cant quite see the full picture yet.
> 
> Despite these challenges, astrobiologists have managed to be clever enough to identify some of the key steps leading from nonlife to life. In particular, it is well recognized that a critical stage in the origin of life was the emergence of the first functional biopolymers  things that may have been akin to very primitive RNA or peptides (peptides are short sequences of amino acids much less complex than modern proteins). This early stage in evolution is relatively uncharacterized given that we know very little about the first biopolymers, the nature of which has obscured by literally billions of years of ensuing evolutionary history. It therefore presents a missing era of prebiotic evolution, wedged right in between prebiotic synthesis and the latter stages of evolution based on the evolutionary refinement of already established molecular assemblies. At the Center for Chemical Evolution based at Georgia Tech, this key stage is a major focus of research. So Martha Grover, Nick Hud, and I therefore set out to develop a model to attempt to tackle characterizing how functional evolution may have been initiated during this period of history deep within our biospheres past.
> 
> The idea we started with is pretty simple  use basic physical and chemical conditions, likely to occur on prebiotic Earth, and follow the dynamics of random populations of polymer sequences over time. We choose dehydration-hydration cycling to drive periods of polymer formation and degradation, since in the absence of the sophisticated enzymes of modern life, prelife would have had to rely on the environment for at least some of its tricks. Because we dont know the exact nature of the first biopolymers, we focused on exploring the dynamics under a variety of physical and chemical conditions (i.e. kinetic rate constants and diffusivities) and some interesting things popped out. For one, stringent maintenance of sequence information doesnt appear to be of critical importance at this stage like it is in modern life, which for example must preserve genomic information from generation to generation. Very early on, the search for functional sequences may be the more crucial issue, and highly dynamic chemistries do that best. Studying these kinds of systems therefore gives us a window into what chemical systems might be best to study in the lab. Perhaps most interestingly, evolution in such systems appears to be dramatically different than that governed by strictly Darwinian processes, which dominant most of the biosphere today. In particular, these early stages may have been dominated by collective evolution of system-wide polymer aggregates as shown in the figure.
> 
> 
> 
> The results are not exactly intuitive when extrapolating backward in time from modern evolutionary biology, but one can start to envision how evolution of these simple chemical systems may have led to the modern biosphere we observe billions of years later. It is interesting to think that the processes dominating this early stage of prelife might not look much like modern biology at all! But perhaps we could identify prelife if we did find it. Working toward better characterizing this missing era in prebiotic evolution may allow us to lay down one more piece in the puzzle as we work to finally see the full picture of how life got started on our planet. As is the case with most of the natural world, I am sure this picture will be a masterpiece.
> 
> You can learn more by checking out our recently published paper at PLoSOne
> PLoS ONE: Universal Sequence Replication, Reversible Polymerization and Early Functional Biopolymers: A Model for the Initiation of Prebiotic Sequence Evolution
> 
> if you had really refuted any thing then theses actual scientists did not get the message
> 
> 
> PaleBlue.you | PaleBlueBlog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More baseless speculation daws, talk about b.s. are any of you willing to step out and give me the mechanism that drives evolution ? Not a tough question after all macroevolution is a fact no ? If it is fact surely we would know the mechanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> project much?
> 
> here's the  experiment :PLoS ONE: Universal Sequence Replication, Reversible Polymerization and Early Functional Biopolymers: A Model for the Initiation of Prebiotic Sequence Evolution
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess your oversimplified version didn't flesh out all the details. His argument *was not about complexity*, but actual *digital code*. And his method was to use Lyell's and Darwin's method to arrive at the argument. So *to say his theory is not science is to also discredit the theory of evolution*.... a classic case of trying to have your cake and eat it to. That is fine. You've made it clear you have no desire to know the REAL truth or investigate things further. You are as pathetic as people who follow religion with *blind faith*. The same saying that "if Jesus Christ showed up and told you Christianity was fake you wouldn't believe it" applies here. If Charles Darwin showed up and told you he made it all up, you would still cling to it. I will not waste any more time with you. It is pretty obvious you don't care to REALLY investigate what ID is all about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My oversimplified version was Meyer himself!
> 
> You seem to think that, if I reject ID (in the same way you reject evolution, mind) I am close-minded and not willing to listen.  Fine, believe what you want.  If you don't think it's possible for someone to look at ID and understand what ID proponents are saying and still reject it, that's your problem, not mine.
> 
> Here's Meyer himself speaking :
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_yiUoEfCgI]Stephen Meyer describes his definition of Intelligent Design from Signature In The Cell - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Perhaps complexity isn't the correct word.  He does, however, seem to say that since we know humans can create information like we see in cells, and we do it through our intelligence, it must be an intelligence that created the cells.  We don't know how it could happen undirected.  That still sounds like inserting god (and really, in the end, isn't that what the intelligence must be?) where we are ignorant.  Humanity doesn't understand how something happens?  Must be god.
> 
> Here also is an small article which purports to refute some of Meyer's ideas from his book, _Signature in the Cell_.  Having not read the book, I won't claim accuracy in the article.  I wonder if you have read the book and can speak at all to the accuracy of the quotes used and the rebuttals given?
Click to expand...


I said nothing of you rejecting ID. I said you were mis-informed and not willing to take the time to explore it yourself. You don't care to and you wouldn't change your mind anyway if presented with the truth.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> What are the mechanisms of evolution?In: Biology [In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] When a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and develop into new species. Anatomical similarities, geographical distribution of similar species and the fossil record indicate that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor through a long series of these divergence events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth.[2] ]



Regurgitating the Materialists party line does not make it anymore true. There isn't a shred of scientific evidence, in the fossil record or from a microbiological standpoint, to even come close to proving the statements above. In fact, the majority of fossil evidence goes completely against Darwins theory. This is speculation at best. The traits had to exist in the first place before they could be passed on.  The is not one piece of fossil evidence that can't show gradual steps, i.e. more than 100 steps, of a species evolving into another species. Show me the photos-not the stupid drawings!!! Show me the evidence!!! There is none-just speculation based on faulty premises. 



daws101 said:


> Evolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare. A trait is a particular characteristic such as eye color, height, or a behavior that is expressed when an organism's genes interact with its environment. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable differences (variation) in their traits. The main cause of variation is mutation, which changes the sequence of a gene. Altered genes are then inherited by offspring. There can sometimes also be transfer of genes between species.
> Two main processes cause variants to become more common or rare in a population. One is natural selection, which causes traits that aid survival and reproduction to become more common, and traits that hinder survival and reproduction to become more rare.[1][3]



Here we go again. The giraffe survived because his long neck made it easier for him to eat high hanging fruit. This is SOOOO STUPID. It is all speculation. Not a single scientific study has been done to evaluate what constitutes fitness or what trait would lend more survival than another. Nice try. Nice fairy tale. 



daws101 said:


> Natural selection occurs because only a few individuals in each generation will survive, since resources are limited and organisms produce many more offspring than their environment can support. Over many generations mutations produce successive, small, random changes in traits, which are then filtered by natural selection and the beneficial changes retained. This adjusts traits so they become suited to an organism's environment: these adjustments are called adaptations.[4] Not every trait, however, is an adaptation. Another cause of evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces entirely random changes in how common traits are in a population. Genetic drift comes from the role that chance plays in whether a trait will be passed on to the next generation.
> Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology began in the mid-nineteenth century, when research into the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species changed over time.[5][6] However, the mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theories of natural selection were independently proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. In 1859, Darwin's seminal work On the Origin of Species brought the new theories of evolution by natural selection to a wide audience,[7] leading to the overwhelming acceptance of evolution among scientists.[8][9][10][11] In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[12] which connected the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research and providing a unifying explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth.[9][10][13] Evolution is therefore applied and studied in fields as diverse as ecology, psychology, paleontology, philosophy, medicine, agriculture and conservation biology.
> 
> 
> Read more: What are the mechanisms of evolution



Wiki-what a reliable source!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Wiki, and DAWS, need to catch up!!!

*This sort of undirected process has been the evolutionary dogma for the past century*. In what was known as the Modern Synthesis, biological adaptation was described as resulting from blind variations resulting, for instance, from genetic rearrangements or *unguided mutations*. *No thanks to evolution *we are now beginning to understand the *real version *of biological adaptation. What we are seeing is an incredibly complex adaptation machine that tweaks the designs of organisms in response to environmental pressures.

It is not a simple story as there are a variety of different ways such adaptations can occur. These mechanisms, broadly labeled as epigenetic inheritance, can regulate the expression of genes as well as redesign the genes. The bottom line is that *the adaptations are not unguided, they benefit the organism, and they are extremely complex*. *The evolutionary story is completely wrong.* As one evolutionist admitted, the Modern Synthesis:


"states that variations are blind, are genetic (nucleic acid-based), and that saltational events do not significantly contribute to evolutionary change. The epigenetic perspective challenges all these assumptions, and it seems that a new extended theory, informed by developmental studies and epigenetic inheritance, and incorporating Darwinian, Lamarckian, and saltational frameworks, is going to replace the Modern Synthesis version of evolution."

Darwin's God: Here's a New Technique For Mapping DNA Information Which Exposes Yet More Evolutionary Foolishness


----------



## UltimateReality

"In fact, *it is impossible to construct a realistic evolutionary tree using all the data*. Evolutionists routinely construct evolutionary trees using a select, more cooperative, subset of the data. And even then the resulting trees are unrealistic. That is, *they require evolutionary change for which there is no known mechanism.* This is true even according to evolutionists who are quite liberal in allowing for speculation.

Darwins TREE OF LIFE is history, along with your Wiki article. 

Darwin's God: This Paper Discusses Problems With the Evolutionary Tree That You Didn&#8217;t Learn in Biology Class


----------



## UltimateReality

*"Jerry Coyne, in his polemic Why Evolution is True, scoffs at those 91 percent who find his analysis unconvincing. He writes, &#8220;True, breeders haven&#8217;t turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven&#8217;t turned a bacterium into an amoeba &#8230; but it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection.&#8221;


Of course these are, in fact, serious objections; Dr. Coyne doesn&#8217;t get to choose what data is and isn&#8217;t objectionable to others. Major speciation via undirected processes is the crux of the Darwinian narrative. If it can&#8217;t be replicated, this objection is an example of what logicians call a &#8220;defeater.&#8221; If you, an intelligent actor using skill, can&#8217;t breed a cat into a different genera, then presumably and reasonably nature can&#8217;t do this either.

Unless, of course, nature gets her a whiff of that ol&#8217; Darwinian magic."*

And yet, we are expected to believe that Natural Selection can turn a virus into a vixen if we just give it enough time. 

Uncommon Descent | Jerry Coyne: The fact that a cat can&#8217;t be turned into a dog is not a serious objection to Darwinism!


----------



## UltimateReality

Remember all those nice stories about the tree of life, that were based merely on speculation, but were taken as fact by the blind Darwinists. Well REAL science has just begun starting to disprove the myths...

"The study is the first genomic-scale analysis addressing the phylogenetic position of turtles, using over 1000 loci from representatives of all major reptile lineages including tuatara (lizard-like reptiles found only in New Zealand). *Earlier studies of morphological traits positioned turtles at the base of the reptile tree with lizards*, snakes and tuatara (lepidosaurs), whereas *molecular analyses typically allied turtles with crocodiles and birds *(archosaurs).

Doesn&#8217;t this raise some questions about conventional accounts of evolution? *Or do we still pretend we didn&#8217;t notice?*


----------



## Youwerecreated

Ultimatereality I enjoy your posts.

And that site you posted.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> More baseless speculation daws, talk about b.s. are any of you willing to step out and give me the mechanism that drives evolution ? Not a tough question after all macroevolution is a fact no ? If it is fact surely we would know the mechanism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the mechanisms of evolution?In: Biology [In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] When a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and develop into new species. Anatomical similarities, geographical distribution of similar species and the fossil record indicate that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor through a long series of these divergence events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth.[2]
> Evolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare. A trait is a particular characteristic such as eye color, height, or a behavior that is expressed when an organism's genes interact with its environment. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable differences (variation) in their traits. The main cause of variation is mutation, which changes the sequence of a gene. Altered genes are then inherited by offspring. There can sometimes also be transfer of genes between species.
> Two main processes cause variants to become more common or rare in a population. One is natural selection, which causes traits that aid survival and reproduction to become more common, and traits that hinder survival and reproduction to become more rare.[1][3] Natural selection occurs because only a few individuals in each generation will survive, since resources are limited and organisms produce many more offspring than their environment can support. Over many generations mutations produce successive, small, random changes in traits, which are then filtered by natural selection and the beneficial changes retained. This adjusts traits so they become suited to an organism's environment: these adjustments are called adaptations.[4] Not every trait, however, is an adaptation. Another cause of evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces entirely random changes in how common traits are in a population. Genetic drift comes from the role that chance plays in whether a trait will be passed on to the next generation.
> Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology began in the mid-nineteenth century, when research into the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species changed over time.[5][6] However, the mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theories of natural selection were independently proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. In 1859, Darwin's seminal work On the Origin of Species brought the new theories of evolution by natural selection to a wide audience,[7] leading to the overwhelming acceptance of evolution among scientists.[8][9][10][11] In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[12] which connected the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research and providing a unifying explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth.[9][10][13] Evolution is therefore applied and studied in fields as diverse as ecology, psychology, paleontology, philosophy, medicine, agriculture and conservation biology.
> 
> 
> Read more: What are the mechanisms of evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you had to do is look up and copy and paste the definition for the modern day theory of evolution,it's called Neo Darwinism.
Click to expand...

another non answer freshly extracted from your dripping anal aperture!


----------



## PredFan

Creationism: A belief based on a fairy tale.

Evolution: A theory based on facts.


----------



## daws101

PredFan said:


> Creationism: A belief based on a fairy tale.
> 
> Evolution: A theory based on facts.


 yes, but only materialistic facts!


----------



## Youwerecreated

PredFan said:


> Creationism: A belief based on a fairy tale.
> 
> Evolution: A theory based on facts.



What facts are you speaking of ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism: A belief based on a fairy tale.
> 
> Evolution: A theory based on facts.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, but only materialistic facts!
Click to expand...


What are these materialistic facts ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

You evolutionists use the term fact loosely.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are the mechanisms of evolution?In: Biology [In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] When a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and develop into new species. Anatomical similarities, geographical distribution of similar species and the fossil record indicate that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor through a long series of these divergence events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth.[2]
> Evolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare. A trait is a particular characteristic such as eye color, height, or a behavior that is expressed when an organism's genes interact with its environment. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable differences (variation) in their traits. The main cause of variation is mutation, which changes the sequence of a gene. Altered genes are then inherited by offspring. There can sometimes also be transfer of genes between species.
> Two main processes cause variants to become more common or rare in a population. One is natural selection, which causes traits that aid survival and reproduction to become more common, and traits that hinder survival and reproduction to become more rare.[1][3] Natural selection occurs because only a few individuals in each generation will survive, since resources are limited and organisms produce many more offspring than their environment can support. Over many generations mutations produce successive, small, random changes in traits, which are then filtered by natural selection and the beneficial changes retained. This adjusts traits so they become suited to an organism's environment: these adjustments are called adaptations.[4] Not every trait, however, is an adaptation. Another cause of evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces entirely random changes in how common traits are in a population. Genetic drift comes from the role that chance plays in whether a trait will be passed on to the next generation.
> Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology began in the mid-nineteenth century, when research into the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species changed over time.[5][6] However, the mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theories of natural selection were independently proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. In 1859, Darwin's seminal work On the Origin of Species brought the new theories of evolution by natural selection to a wide audience,[7] leading to the overwhelming acceptance of evolution among scientists.[8][9][10][11] In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[12] which connected the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research and providing a unifying explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth.[9][10][13] Evolution is therefore applied and studied in fields as diverse as ecology, psychology, paleontology, philosophy, medicine, agriculture and conservation biology.
> 
> 
> Read more: What are the mechanisms of evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you had to do is look up and copy and paste the definition for the modern day theory of evolution,it's called Neo Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another non answer freshly extracted from your dripping anal aperture!
Click to expand...


What question did you ask


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you had to do is look up and copy and paste the definition for the modern day theory of evolution,it's called Neo Darwinism.
> 
> 
> 
> another non answer freshly extracted from your dripping anal aperture!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What question did you ask
Click to expand...

none, but you responded any way.
it's hilarious when you talk about copy and paste!
did you have to look it up. ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another non answer freshly extracted from your dripping anal aperture!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What question did you ask
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> none, but you responded any way.
> it's hilarious when you talk about copy and paste!
> did you have to look it up. ?
Click to expand...


Look what up ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What question did you ask
> 
> 
> 
> none, but you responded any way.
> it's hilarious when you talk about copy and paste!
> did you have to look it up. ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look what up ?
Click to expand...


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> Ultimatereality I enjoy your posts.
> 
> And that site you posted.



This is a much better site.

Evolution of DNA


----------



## UltimateReality

A candid article where, unlike evolutionists, scientists admit do they not have all the answers instead of just making shtuff up and filling in the blanks... they actually admit they really don't have ANY answers!!!!

CEH


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> A candid article where, unlike evolutionists, scientists admit do they not have all the answers instead of just making shtuff up and filling in the blanks... they actually admit they really don't have ANY answers!!!!
> 
> CEH



FAIL!  The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> A candid article where, unlike evolutionists, scientists admit do they not have all the answers instead of just making shtuff up and filling in the blanks... they actually admit they really don't have ANY answers!!!!
> 
> CEH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FAIL!  The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.
Click to expand...


The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> A candid article where, unlike evolutionists, scientists admit do they not have all the answers instead of just making shtuff up and filling in the blanks... they actually admit they really don't have ANY answers!!!!
> 
> CEH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FAIL!  The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.
Click to expand...

since it not real science but pseudoscience it not valid any way..
even the title is an oxoymoron...


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimatereality I enjoy your posts.
> 
> And that site you posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a much better site.
> 
> Evolution of DNA
Click to expand...


Dna evolving now that's funny ,same problem exists for Dna evolving as it exists for amino acids and proteins.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> A candid article where, unlike evolutionists, scientists admit do they not have all the answers instead of just making shtuff up and filling in the blanks... they actually admit they really don't have ANY answers!!!!
> 
> CEH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FAIL!  The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.
Click to expand...


I'm gonna keep making this question until someone can answer it. Point out the trait that can be proven it came about through the current mechanism for evolution then prove the trait never existed in the gene pool.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> FAIL!  The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since it not real science but pseudoscience it not valid any way..
> even the title is an oxoymoron...
Click to expand...


You made this claim many times,please provide the pseudoscience that ID and creationists advocates use in their research ? You do realise theories are not facts but are opinions with lots of holes don't you ? However there real science being done that don't require the theory of evolution ,astronomy, or astrology.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> since it not real science but pseudoscience it not valid any way..
> even the title is an oxoymoron...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made this claim many times,please provide the pseudoscience that ID and creationists advocates use in their research ? You do realise theories are not facts but are opinions with lots of holes don't you ? However there real science being done that don't require the theory of evolution ,astronomy, or astrology.
Click to expand...


I think it is beholden upon the creationists and ID proponents to show that whatever they are doing is based in science, not the other way around (not to speak for daws).

As I'm certain has been posted many a time, scientific theories are not merely opinion.  You may think evolution does not live up to being a theory, but when you say theories in science are just opinions, you are perpetuating a falsehood.


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since it not real science but pseudoscience it not valid any way..
> even the title is an oxoymoron...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made this claim many times,please provide the pseudoscience that ID and creationists advocates use in their research ? You do realise theories are not facts but are opinions with lots of holes don't you ? However there real science being done that don't require the theory of evolution ,astronomy, or astrology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is beholden upon the creationists and ID proponents to show that whatever they are doing is based in science, not the other way around (not to speak for daws).
> 
> As I'm certain has been posted many a time, scientific theories are not merely opinion.  You may think evolution does not live up to being a theory, but when you say theories in science are just opinions, you are perpetuating a falsehood.
Click to expand...

bump,


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> A candid article where, unlike evolutionists, scientists admit do they not have all the answers instead of just making shtuff up and filling in the blanks... they actually admit they really don't have ANY answers!!!!
> 
> CEH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FAIL!  The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm gonna keep making this question until someone can answer it. Point out the trait that can be proven it came about through the current mechanism for evolution then prove the trait never existed in the gene pool.
Click to expand...

this question has been answerd everytime you've claimed to ask it. 

the answer to this question :"Point out the trait that can be proven it came about through the current mechanism for evolution then prove the trait never existed in the gene pool"

is right here: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I91Huv4jbCk]What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA Documentary) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since it not real science but pseudoscience it not valid any way..
> even the title is an oxoymoron...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made this claim many times,please provide the pseudoscience that ID and creationists advocates use in their research ? You do realise theories are not facts but are opinions with lots of holes don't you ? However there real science being done that don't require the theory of evolution ,astronomy, or astrology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is beholden upon the creationists and ID proponents to show that whatever they are doing is based in science, not the other way around (not to speak for daws).
> 
> As I'm certain has been posted many a time, scientific theories are not merely opinion.  You may think evolution does not live up to being a theory, but when you say theories in science are just opinions, you are perpetuating a falsehood.
Click to expand...


This won't hurt much,maybe. But we see the same evidence. We know of the same evidence. We just come to different conclusions of the evidence. We practice pseudoscience because we have different conclusions ? If pseudoscience is believing things that can't be tested most theories are pseudoscience. You might want to think things through before you become so judgmental.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> FAIL!  The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna keep making this question until someone can answer it. Point out the trait that can be proven it came about through the current mechanism for evolution then prove the trait never existed in the gene pool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this question has been answerd everytime you've claimed to ask it.
> 
> the answer to this question :"Point out the trait that can be proven it came about through the current mechanism for evolution then prove the trait never existed in the gene pool"
> 
> is right here: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I91Huv4jbCk]What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA Documentary) - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Don't be silly,the original question was a trait in humans. Oh and for your information you need to name the mutation since that is according to your theory is what causes the trait change then natural selection makes it become the norm in the gene pool. Now give me the
 Name of the mutation and prove this trait didn't already exist in the gene pool. what is your answer ?


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> A candid article where, unlike evolutionists, scientists admit do they not have all the answers instead of just making shtuff up and filling in the blanks... they actually admit they really don't have ANY answers!!!!
> 
> CEH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FAIL!  The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.
Click to expand...


Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence.  The topic is creationism.  I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> FAIL!  The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence.  The topic is creationism.  I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.
Click to expand...


Can a computer program itself ? Who or what could have programmed the brain ?

Was it an intelligent being that programmed the computer or an undirected unintelligent natural process ?


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence.  The topic is creationism.  I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can a computer program itself ? Who or what could have programmed the brain ?
> 
> Was it an intelligent being that programmed the computer or an undirected unintelligent natural process ?
Click to expand...


That argument is getting pretty tired YWC.  Because humans have designed some things, everything must have been designed....it's not a very good argument at all.  Or perhaps because humans have designed some complex things, all complex things must have been designed....still not a good argument.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence.  The topic is creationism.  I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can a computer program itself ? Who or what could have programmed the brain ?
> 
> Was it an intelligent being that programmed the computer or an undirected unintelligent natural process ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That argument is getting pretty tired YWC.  Because humans have designed some things, everything must have been designed....it's not a very good argument at all.  Or perhaps because humans have designed some complex things, all complex things must have been designed....still not a good argument.
Click to expand...


Look at the big picture. Language like the genetic code comes from intelligence. There is no   evidence of a language or programming that comes from a natural means.The rea argument as a tired because it is a logical argument. there is no logical argument for a language or something that needed programming in a natural means,only through intelligence.I am not gonna throw solid reasoning for illogical reasoning why do you ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna keep making this question until someone can answer it. Point out the trait that can be proven it came about through the current mechanism for evolution then prove the trait never existed in the gene pool.
> 
> 
> 
> this question has been answerd everytime you've claimed to ask it.
> 
> the answer to this question :"Point out the trait that can be proven it came about through the current mechanism for evolution then prove the trait never existed in the gene pool"
> 
> is right here: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I91Huv4jbCk]What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA Documentary) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly,the original question was a trait in humans. Oh and for your information you need to name the mutation since that is according to your theory is what causes the trait change then natural selection makes it become the norm in the gene pool. Now give me the
> Name of the mutation and prove this trait didn't already exist in the gene pool. what is your answer ?
Click to expand...

as always deny.
if you fast forward the clip to 1:31 :23 your question Will be answered.
but you won't simply because you really don't want an answer.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a computer program itself ? Who or what could have programmed the brain ?
> 
> Was it an intelligent being that programmed the computer or an undirected unintelligent natural process ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That argument is getting pretty tired YWC.  Because humans have designed some things, everything must have been designed....it's not a very good argument at all.  Or perhaps because humans have designed some complex things, all complex things must have been designed....still not a good argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the big picture. Language like the genetic code comes from intelligence. There is no   evidence of a language or programming that comes from a natural means.The rea argument as a tired because it is a logical argument. there is no logical argument for a language or something that needed programming in a natural means,only through intelligence.I am not gonna throw solid reasoning for illogical reasoning why do you ?
Click to expand...


You have decided the genetic code comes from intelligence.  There is no evidence of an intelligence which would have created it; there is no evidence that shows it simply could not have occurred through a natural process; there is a lack of evidence.  The only intelligent creations we have to compare with are our own.  Perhaps if we had some other intelligence we could observe this would be a different argument, but as of now, we just do not have a large enough reference point to make that kind of determination.

Everything is not comparable to humanity.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence.  The topic is creationism.  I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can a computer program itself ? Who or what could have programmed the brain ?
> 
> Was it an intelligent being that programmed the computer or an undirected unintelligent natural process ?
Click to expand...


There are no natural processes that could possibly result in a computer.  There are processes that can lead to more and more complex molecules and biological systems.  I'm afraid your analogy doesn't hold water.  Perhaps you should be reading the site below instead of answersgenesis.

Evolution of DNA


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a computer program itself ? Who or what could have programmed the brain ?
> 
> Was it an intelligent being that programmed the computer or an undirected unintelligent natural process ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That argument is getting pretty tired YWC.  Because humans have designed some things, everything must have been designed....it's not a very good argument at all.  Or perhaps because humans have designed some complex things, all complex things must have been designed....still not a good argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the big picture. Language like the genetic code comes from intelligence. There is no   evidence of a language or programming that comes from a natural means.The rea argument as a tired because it is a logical argument. there is no logical argument for a language or something that needed programming in a natural means,only through intelligence.I am not gonna throw solid reasoning for illogical reasoning why do you ?
Click to expand...


Are you saying languages developed unnaturally?


----------



## daws101

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> That argument is getting pretty tired YWC.  Because humans have designed some things, everything must have been designed....it's not a very good argument at all.  Or perhaps because humans have designed some complex things, all complex things must have been designed....still not a good argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the big picture. Language like the genetic code comes from intelligence. There is no   evidence of a language or programming that comes from a natural means.The rea argument as a tired because it is a logical argument. there is no logical argument for a language or something that needed programming in a natural means,only through intelligence.I am not gonna throw solid reasoning for illogical reasoning why do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying languages developed unnaturally?
Click to expand...

his whole argument is based on non natural events..
contradictory at best ,as god is credited with creating nature..


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> That argument is getting pretty tired YWC.  Because humans have designed some things, everything must have been designed....it's not a very good argument at all.  Or perhaps because humans have designed some complex things, all complex things must have been designed....still not a good argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the big picture. Language like the genetic code comes from intelligence. There is no   evidence of a language or programming that comes from a natural means.The rea argument as a tired because it is a logical argument. there is no logical argument for a language or something that needed programming in a natural means,only through intelligence.I am not gonna throw solid reasoning for illogical reasoning why do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have decided the genetic code comes from intelligence.  There is no evidence of an intelligence which would have created it; there is no evidence that shows it simply could not have occurred through a natural process; there is a lack of evidence.  The only intelligent creations we have to compare with are our own.  Perhaps if we had some other intelligence we could observe this would be a different argument, but as of now, we just do not have a large enough reference point to make that kind of determination.
> 
> Everything is not comparable to humanity.
Click to expand...


Evidence can infer conclusions correct ? You have to use that same method for all scientific theories no ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence.  The topic is creationism.  I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can a computer program itself ? Who or what could have programmed the brain ?
> 
> Was it an intelligent being that programmed the computer or an undirected unintelligent natural process ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no natural processes that could possibly result in a computer.  There are processes that can lead to more and more complex molecules and biological systems.  I'm afraid your analogy doesn't hold water.  Perhaps you should be reading the site below instead of answersgenesis.
> 
> Evolution of DNA
Click to expand...


I read from both sides sites so I can keep up with what is going on. I am no longer involved in the fields of science,left it a while ago.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> That argument is getting pretty tired YWC.  Because humans have designed some things, everything must have been designed....it's not a very good argument at all.  Or perhaps because humans have designed some complex things, all complex things must have been designed....still not a good argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the big picture. Language like the genetic code comes from intelligence. There is no   evidence of a language or programming that comes from a natural means.The rea argument as a tired because it is a logical argument. there is no logical argument for a language or something that needed programming in a natural means,only through intelligence.I am not gonna throw solid reasoning for illogical reasoning why do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying languages developed unnaturally?
Click to expand...


Languages were developed by intelligent thinking beings.


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> FAIL!  The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence.  The topic is creationism.  I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.
Click to expand...


I'm still failing to see your point. So now cosmology isn't relevant to ID and Creationism??? I guess I was thinking you were staring as Captain Obvious when you said the article doesn't have anything to do with Biotic Evolution. The response above was my polite one. This is how I should have responded.... NO DUH!


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence.  The topic is creationism.  I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can a computer program itself ? Who or what could have programmed the brain ?
> 
> Was it an intelligent being that programmed the computer or an undirected unintelligent natural process ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That argument is getting pretty tired YWC.  Because humans have designed some things, everything must have been designed....it's not a very good argument at all.  Or perhaps because humans have designed some complex things, all complex things must have been designed....still not a good argument.
Click to expand...


You still FAIL. ID doesn't propose anything you've stated above. I really think it is pointless for you to keep commenting on what ID theory is when you refuse to actually educate yourself. My response... a snowflake is complex, but once again you completely fail to grasp what the REAL theory is.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this question has been answerd everytime you've claimed to ask it.
> 
> the answer to this question :"Point out the trait that can be proven it came about through the current mechanism for evolution then prove the trait never existed in the gene pool"
> 
> is right here: What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA Documentary) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly,the original question was a trait in humans. Oh and for your information you need to name the mutation since that is according to your theory is what causes the trait change then natural selection makes it become the norm in the gene pool. Now give me the
> Name of the mutation and prove this trait didn't already exist in the gene pool. what is your answer ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as always deny.
> if you fast forward the clip to 1:31 :23 your question Will be answered.
> but you won't simply because you really don't want an answer.
Click to expand...


I watched the clip. I am very sensitive to assumptive language now that I refuse to no longer be brainwashed like the masses. Here are just a few of the assumptive phrases I heard "The answer MAY have come from a suprising source", "This STEADMAN BELIEVES is the key", "MIGHT HAVE BEEN", etc. All of their hypotheses start by already knowing the answer, which is a huge "no no" in science. Their unscientific belief that humans mutated into their current form drives the results of their beliefs. All of the evidence given after 1:31:23 could just as easily be used to prove something more believeable, something that we do have scientific evidence of, that is, destructive mutations. We can just as easily apply their reasoning and evidence to propose that apes and chimpanzees are the results of destructive mutations acting on Homo Sapiens. Once you open your mind from the blindness that is evolutionary theory you can start to see things in a different light. It is shocking to me that the show a child with a malformed brain, which is the result of a destructive gene. This child is from a Homo Sapien, but due to this destructive gene, his brain will never develop fully. Now these Einsteins use this measurable and scientifically verifiable piece evidence and, here comes the hat trick, they apply it BACKWARDS, stating this is evidence of how small brained primates MAY (noticed I said MAY) have evolved into Humans. Also please notice that they mention nothing of the fact current genetic vidence is shedding more and more light on the fact that there is actually more evidence to prove we didn't come from any of the known primate fossils. Notice that just sneakily infer that humans came from apes or chimpanzees, which isn't based in any modern science. 

To borrow from DAWS "People believe in evolutionary theories because the truth "is either too simple or too remote"".

If I just look at the example of the disabled child in the video above without any pre-conceived evolutionary brainwashing, I could correctly conclude that Chimpanzee's must be the evolutionary result of a harmful mutation in humans.

From Wiki..

"Though many human fossils have been found, *chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005*[No chimpanzee fossils described until 2005!!!! Wow, see what happens when scientists do their work with the myth of evolution in their heads!!!]. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa do not overlap with the major human fossil sites in East Africa. However, chimpanzee fossils have now been reported from Kenya. This would indicate both humans and members of the Pan clade were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene.[7]"

Now it seems to me these scientists propose some interesting hypothesese that are testable!!! So we do the same dna experiment on the chimpanzee and find out which gene controls his brain growth. Then we fracture his skull (in a good way) to allow is brain to expand. This seems like a stupidly easy experiment to perform, especially based on how easy they make it look that a chimpanzee turned into a man in just a few easy mutations, you know, *because we see this going on all the time in a population of 7 billion people.* I'm going to start reading the Enquirer again so I make sure I don't miss the story with the headline *"Strange Mutation Causes Child to Grow super Skull and Brain in remote part of Africa. With his super powerful brain is able to resolve the Nuclear Fusion problem so now we all have cheap, clean energy". *Is it just me or are you guys so blind to the evolutionary brainwashing that this NOVA program doesn't make you laugh hysterically like it is a comedy with this dumbass scientists come up with this stuff. Are you hearing me?? They are basically inferring in the video that the leap from chimp to human is no longer such a huge mystery because it could have happened with only a few small isolated mutations. Are you guys for real??? Please DAWS, Montrevant, somebody please tell me you don't actually buy into this foolishness??? Maybe you've seen one too many sequels of X MEN!!!!

Finally, the video makes this classic evolutionary blunder which Cornelius so elegantly describes in his blog:

"First, they make the circular claim that &#8220;ape-human transitional fossils are discovered at an ever increasing rate.&#8221; That, of course, simply begs the question. *Every freshman knows you cannot argue for the truth of a proposition by presupposing the proposition in the first place.* Yes fossils are discovered. But if you are arguing that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, then you cannot begin with the evolutionary assumption that the fossils are &#8220;transitional.&#8221; Philosophers call this a &#8220;theory-laden&#8221; observation.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the big picture. Language like the genetic code comes from intelligence. There is no   evidence of a language or programming that comes from a natural means.The rea argument as a tired because it is a logical argument. there is no logical argument for a language or something that needed programming in a natural means,only through intelligence.I am not gonna throw solid reasoning for illogical reasoning why do you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying languages developed unnaturally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Languages were developed by intelligent thinking beings.
Click to expand...


Actually, most modern studies are concluding the ability for language is programmed into your dna. The speed at which a child grasps their language, or any language for that matter is proving there are complex programs and processes already in place from the getgo. Their is absolutely no archaelogical or fossil evidence to the contrary.


----------



## UltimateReality

"If you are new to the evolution debate you might wonder why evolutionists do not simply acknowledge the painfully obvious fact that evolution is not a fact. It is not as sure gravity and in fact there are significant questions and problems with evolution. Why don&#8217;t evolutionists admit to the truth of how the science bears on their theory?

The answer is that evolution is not about the science. At issue here is not merely the status of another scientific theory. Evolutionists won&#8217;t be swayed by the evidence because doing so&#8212;and confessing that evolution is not overwhelmingly supported by the evidence&#8212;would immediately expose evolutionists to all kinds of possibilities which they simply cannot accept. An evolutionist can no more change his mind than could a cultist. *Evolution is underwritten by a religious worldview&#8212;it is a metaphysical theory*, not a scientific theory. As such it may lose every battle, but it cannot lose the war."

Darwin's God: When I Pointed Out the Evolutionary Tree Has Failed Two Professors Gave Me Pushback


----------



## Big Black Dog

Creationists

I wish some creationist would go to the kitchen and create me a ham and cheese sammich.


----------



## UltimateReality

Big Black Dog said:


> Creationists
> 
> I wish some creationist would go to the kitchen and create me a ham and cheese sammich.



Bravo!! That is the kind of intelligent response we've all come to know and love from the knuckle dragging evolutionists.

*"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."
- Amos Bronson Alcott (1799-1888) American educator*


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrevant,

Description of debate very relevant to your assertions...

From "Evolution News and Views":

"Following Dr. Ayala's opening statement, Dr. Craig commenced his presentation by carefully setting out the *definition of ID as the study of legitimate design inferences*. Craig stipulated that, were Ayala to attempt to refute the inference to design with respect to biological systems, he would need to do one of two things. Either Ayala would need to directly challenge the legitimacy of the explanatory filter (presumably by demonstrating that it incorporates false positives) or demonstrate that the systems featured in biology do not meet the criteria of the explanatory filter. Setting aside the discussions pertaining to the tenability of universal common ancestry, Craig set about to argue that *Ayala's attempts to disqualify ID on scientific grounds were doomed because he had failed to demonstrate, in his published work, that the dual forces of random mutation and natural selection, are causally sufficient to account for macroevolution.* He also argued that Ayala's more *numerous attempts to disqualify ID on theological grounds are completely irrelevant to the process of drawing a design inference from biological phenomena, because none of the arguments for ID aspire to show that the designer possesses the qualities of omnibenevolence or omnipotence.* After all, Craig argued, a design inference is still warranted with respect to a medieval torture rack, regardless of the malevolent purposes of the system's design. *Questions pertaining to the nature of the designer are for natural theology, not for the scientific research program of ID.* This is what distinguishes the modern concept of ID from the Watchmaker argument of William Paley's Natural Theology.


Amazingly, Dr. Ayala completely avoided the arguments that had been presented and instead opted to construct his case against ID on theological grounds. This approach had a taint of irony, as the theologian attempted to focus the debate on science, while the scientist attempted to focus the debate on theology. Ayala's few scientific points, such as the claim that Behe used the eye as an example of an irreducibly complex system, significantly misconstrued the position of proponents of ID."

Typical Strawman!!!!


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a computer program itself ? Who or what could have programmed the brain ?
> 
> Was it an intelligent being that programmed the computer or an undirected unintelligent natural process ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That argument is getting pretty tired YWC.  Because humans have designed some things, everything must have been designed....it's not a very good argument at all.  Or perhaps because humans have designed some complex things, all complex things must have been designed....still not a good argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still FAIL. ID doesn't propose anything you've stated above. I really think it is pointless for you to keep commenting on what ID theory is when you refuse to actually educate yourself. My response... a snowflake is complex, but once again you completely fail to grasp what the REAL theory is.
Click to expand...


The fail here is yours.

As should have been clear from the post I quoted, I wasn't commenting on ID theory but on YWC's statements.  I'm not sure how you didn't see that unless you don't bother to read quoted posts.

You seem to be allowing your opinion of my grasp of ID theory to color your reading of all my posts, whether they concern ID or not.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrevant,
> 
> Description of debate very relevant to your assertions...
> 
> From "Evolution News and Views":
> 
> "Following Dr. Ayala's opening statement, Dr. Craig commenced his presentation by carefully setting out the *definition of ID as the study of legitimate design inferences*. Craig stipulated that, were Ayala to attempt to refute the inference to design with respect to biological systems, he would need to do one of two things. Either Ayala would need to directly challenge the legitimacy of the explanatory filter (presumably by demonstrating that it incorporates false positives) or demonstrate that the systems featured in biology do not meet the criteria of the explanatory filter. Setting aside the discussions pertaining to the tenability of universal common ancestry, Craig set about to argue that *Ayala's attempts to disqualify ID on scientific grounds were doomed because he had failed to demonstrate, in his published work, that the dual forces of random mutation and natural selection, are causally sufficient to account for macroevolution.* He also argued that Ayala's more *numerous attempts to disqualify ID on theological grounds are completely irrelevant to the process of drawing a design inference from biological phenomena, because none of the arguments for ID aspire to show that the designer possesses the qualities of omnibenevolence or omnipotence.* After all, Craig argued, a design inference is still warranted with respect to a medieval torture rack, regardless of the malevolent purposes of the system's design. *Questions pertaining to the nature of the designer are for natural theology, not for the scientific research program of ID.* This is what distinguishes the modern concept of ID from the Watchmaker argument of William Paley's Natural Theology.
> 
> 
> Amazingly, Dr. Ayala completely avoided the arguments that had been presented and instead opted to construct his case against ID on theological grounds. This approach had a taint of irony, as the theologian attempted to focus the debate on science, while the scientist attempted to focus the debate on theology. Ayala's few scientific points, such as the claim that Behe used the eye as an example of an irreducibly complex system, significantly misconstrued the position of proponents of ID."
> 
> Typical Strawman!!!!



I don't know this Dr. Ayala and certainly haven't claimed to accept any of his/her conclusions about anything.

So, that said, I think the relevant part of what you just posted is the idea of the 'legitimacy of the explanatory filter'.  My issue with ID as science is that I have not seen what I consider a legitimate test or filter or meter, etc. to determine if something was created through intelligence.  The excerpt you provided does not give the method to determine intelligence used, nor does it provide any of the Dr. Ayala's comments so one might know if the Dr. was unwilling or unable to reasonably question said method, nor does it even tell us what kind of Dr. this Ayala is or why he/she should be able to argue against ID with any authority.  Even if Ayala failed utterly to discredit ID it does not provide legitimacy to it as a valid science.

If you can provide a (relatively) simple explanation of the method used to determine if something was designed by intelligence, I'd appreciate it.  Being able to make such a determination seems to be the most important, perhaps the only, part of ID 'science'.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly,the original question was a trait in humans. Oh and for your information you need to name the mutation since that is according to your theory is what causes the trait change then natural selection makes it become the norm in the gene pool. Now give me the
> Name of the mutation and prove this trait didn't already exist in the gene pool. what is your answer ?
> 
> 
> 
> as always deny.
> if you fast forward the clip to 1:31 :23 your question Will be answered.
> but you won't simply because you really don't want an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the clip. I am very sensitive to assumptive language now that I refuse to no longer be brainwashed like the masses. Here are just a few of the assumptive phrases I heard "The answer MAY have come from a suprising source", "This STEADMAN BELIEVES is the key", "MIGHT HAVE BEEN", etc. All of their hypotheses start by already knowing the answer, which is a huge "no no" in science. Their unscientific belief that humans mutated into their current form drives the results of their beliefs. All of the evidence given after 1:31:23 could just as easily be used to prove something more believeable, something that we do have scientific evidence of, that is, destructive mutations. We can just as easily apply their reasoning and evidence to propose that apes and chimpanzees are the results of destructive mutations acting on Homo Sapiens. Once you open your mind from the blindness that is evolutionary theory you can start to see things in a different light. It is shocking to me that the show a child with a malformed brain, which is the result of a destructive gene. This child is from a Homo Sapien, but due to this destructive gene, his brain will never develop fully. Now these Einsteins use this measurable and scientifically verifiable piece evidence and, here comes the hat trick, they apply it BACKWARDS, stating this is evidence of how small brained primates MAY (noticed I said MAY) have evolved into Humans. Also please notice that they mention nothing of the fact current genetic vidence is shedding more and more light on the fact that there is actually more evidence to prove we didn't come from any of the known primate fossils. Notice that just sneakily infer that humans came from apes or chimpanzees, which isn't based in any modern science.
> 
> To borrow from DAWS "People believe in evolutionary theories because the truth "is either too simple or too remote"".
> 
> If I just look at the example of the disabled child in the video above without any pre-conceived evolutionary brainwashing, I could correctly conclude that Chimpanzee's must be the evolutionary result of a harmful mutation in humans.
> 
> From Wiki..
> 
> "Though many human fossils have been found, *chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005*[No chimpanzee fossils described until 2005!!!! Wow, see what happens when scientists do their work with the myth of evolution in their heads!!!]. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa do not overlap with the major human fossil sites in East Africa. However, chimpanzee fossils have now been reported from Kenya. This would indicate both humans and members of the Pan clade were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene.[7]"
> 
> Now it seems to me these scientists propose some interesting hypothesese that are testable!!! So we do the same dna experiment on the chimpanzee and find out which gene controls his brain growth. Then we fracture his skull (in a good way) to allow is brain to expand. This seems like a stupidly easy experiment to perform, especially based on how easy they make it look that a chimpanzee turned into a man in just a few easy mutations, you know, *because we see this going on all the time in a population of 7 billion people.* I'm going to start reading the Enquirer again so I make sure I don't miss the story with the headline *"Strange Mutation Causes Child to Grow super Skull and Brain in remote part of Africa. With his super powerful brain is able to resolve the Nuclear Fusion problem so now we all have cheap, clean energy". *Is it just me or are you guys so blind to the evolutionary brainwashing that this NOVA program doesn't make you laugh hysterically like it is a comedy with this dumbass scientists come up with this stuff. Are you hearing me?? They are basically inferring in the video that the leap from chimp to human is no longer such a huge mystery because it could have happened with only a few small isolated mutations. Are you guys for real??? Please DAWS, Montrevant, somebody please tell me you don't actually buy into this foolishness??? Maybe you've seen one too many sequels of X MEN!!!!
> 
> Finally, the video makes this classic evolutionary blunder which Cornelius so elegantly describes in his blog:
> 
> "First, they make the circular claim that ape-human transitional fossils are discovered at an ever increasing rate. That, of course, simply begs the question. *Every freshman knows you cannot argue for the truth of a proposition by presupposing the proposition in the first place.* Yes fossils are discovered. But if you are arguing that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, then you cannot begin with the evolutionary assumption that the fossils are transitional. Philosophers call this a theory-laden observation.
Click to expand...


I pointed this out earlier,but a mutation to cause evolutionary change must become the norm in the population. He only thought the video answered the question.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Montrevant,
> 
> Description of debate very relevant to your assertions...
> 
> From "Evolution News and Views":
> 
> "Following Dr. Ayala's opening statement, Dr. Craig commenced his presentation by carefully setting out the *definition of ID as the study of legitimate design inferences*. Craig stipulated that, were Ayala to attempt to refute the inference to design with respect to biological systems, he would need to do one of two things. Either Ayala would need to directly challenge the legitimacy of the explanatory filter (presumably by demonstrating that it incorporates false positives) or demonstrate that the systems featured in biology do not meet the criteria of the explanatory filter. Setting aside the discussions pertaining to the tenability of universal common ancestry, Craig set about to argue that *Ayala's attempts to disqualify ID on scientific grounds were doomed because he had failed to demonstrate, in his published work, that the dual forces of random mutation and natural selection, are causally sufficient to account for macroevolution.* He also argued that Ayala's more *numerous attempts to disqualify ID on theological grounds are completely irrelevant to the process of drawing a design inference from biological phenomena, because none of the arguments for ID aspire to show that the designer possesses the qualities of omnibenevolence or omnipotence.* After all, Craig argued, a design inference is still warranted with respect to a medieval torture rack, regardless of the malevolent purposes of the system's design. *Questions pertaining to the nature of the designer are for natural theology, not for the scientific research program of ID.* This is what distinguishes the modern concept of ID from the Watchmaker argument of William Paley's Natural Theology.
> 
> 
> Amazingly, Dr. Ayala completely avoided the arguments that had been presented and instead opted to construct his case against ID on theological grounds. This approach had a taint of irony, as the theologian attempted to focus the debate on science, while the scientist attempted to focus the debate on theology. Ayala's few scientific points, such as the claim that Behe used the eye as an example of an irreducibly complex system, significantly misconstrued the position of proponents of ID."
> 
> Typical Strawman!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know this Dr. Ayala and certainly haven't claimed to accept any of his/her conclusions about anything.
> 
> So, that said, I think the relevant part of what you just posted is the idea of the 'legitimacy of the explanatory filter'.  My issue with ID as science is that I have not seen what I consider a legitimate test or filter or meter, etc. to determine if something was created through intelligence.  The excerpt you provided does not give the method to determine intelligence used, nor does it provide any of the Dr. Ayala's comments so one might know if the Dr. was unwilling or unable to reasonably question said method, nor does it even tell us what kind of Dr. this Ayala is or why he/she should be able to argue against ID with any authority.  Even if Ayala failed utterly to discredit ID it does not provide legitimacy to it as a valid science.
> 
> If you can provide a (relatively) simple explanation of the method used to determine if something was designed by intelligence, I'd appreciate it.  Being able to make such a determination seems to be the most important, perhaps the only, part of ID 'science'.
Click to expand...


*It was contained in the Meyer video you FAILed to watch. *


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying languages developed unnaturally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Languages were developed by intelligent thinking beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, most modern studies are concluding the ability for language is programmed into your dna. The speed at which a child grasps their language, or any language for that matter is proving there are complex programs and processes already in place from the getgo. Their is absolutely no archaelogical or fossil evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...


No, it's proof that a baby's brain is busily making connections, while in adults not so much.  You're looking for the proof in the wrong places.


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence.  The topic is creationism.  I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still failing to see your point. *So now cosmology isn't relevant to ID and Creationism???* I guess I was thinking you were staring as Captain Obvious when you said the article doesn't have anything to do with Biotic Evolution. The response above was my polite one. This is how I should have responded.... NO DUH!
Click to expand...


It doesn't, if you're positing biotic creationism on earth.  One doesn't have anything to do with the other.  As for ID it's an unprovable theory with no evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence.  The topic is creationism.  I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still failing to see your point. *So now cosmology isn't relevant to ID and Creationism???* I guess I was thinking you were staring as Captain Obvious when you said the article doesn't have anything to do with Biotic Evolution. The response above was my polite one. This is how I should have responded.... NO DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't, if you're positing biotic creationism on earth.  One doesn't have anything to do with the other.  As for ID it's an unprovable theory with no evidence.
Click to expand...


No scientific theory is provable. we are arguing opinions that is it which theory better fits the evidence ?

I would bet undirected chaos would  remain in chaos and could not produce the order that we can see.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Montrevant,
> 
> Description of debate very relevant to your assertions...
> 
> From "Evolution News and Views":
> 
> "Following Dr. Ayala's opening statement, Dr. Craig commenced his presentation by carefully setting out the *definition of ID as the study of legitimate design inferences*. Craig stipulated that, were Ayala to attempt to refute the inference to design with respect to biological systems, he would need to do one of two things. Either Ayala would need to directly challenge the legitimacy of the explanatory filter (presumably by demonstrating that it incorporates false positives) or demonstrate that the systems featured in biology do not meet the criteria of the explanatory filter. Setting aside the discussions pertaining to the tenability of universal common ancestry, Craig set about to argue that *Ayala's attempts to disqualify ID on scientific grounds were doomed because he had failed to demonstrate, in his published work, that the dual forces of random mutation and natural selection, are causally sufficient to account for macroevolution.* He also argued that Ayala's more *numerous attempts to disqualify ID on theological grounds are completely irrelevant to the process of drawing a design inference from biological phenomena, because none of the arguments for ID aspire to show that the designer possesses the qualities of omnibenevolence or omnipotence.* After all, Craig argued, a design inference is still warranted with respect to a medieval torture rack, regardless of the malevolent purposes of the system's design. *Questions pertaining to the nature of the designer are for natural theology, not for the scientific research program of ID.* This is what distinguishes the modern concept of ID from the Watchmaker argument of William Paley's Natural Theology.
> 
> 
> Amazingly, Dr. Ayala completely avoided the arguments that had been presented and instead opted to construct his case against ID on theological grounds. This approach had a taint of irony, as the theologian attempted to focus the debate on science, while the scientist attempted to focus the debate on theology. Ayala's few scientific points, such as the claim that Behe used the eye as an example of an irreducibly complex system, significantly misconstrued the position of proponents of ID."
> 
> Typical Strawman!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know this Dr. Ayala and certainly haven't claimed to accept any of his/her conclusions about anything.
> 
> So, that said, I think the relevant part of what you just posted is the idea of the 'legitimacy of the explanatory filter'.  My issue with ID as science is that I have not seen what I consider a legitimate test or filter or meter, etc. to determine if something was created through intelligence.  The excerpt you provided does not give the method to determine intelligence used, nor does it provide any of the Dr. Ayala's comments so one might know if the Dr. was unwilling or unable to reasonably question said method, nor does it even tell us what kind of Dr. this Ayala is or why he/she should be able to argue against ID with any authority.  Even if Ayala failed utterly to discredit ID it does not provide legitimacy to it as a valid science.
> 
> If you can provide a (relatively) simple explanation of the method used to determine if something was designed by intelligence, I'd appreciate it.  Being able to make such a determination seems to be the most important, perhaps the only, part of ID 'science'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It was contained in the Meyer video you FAILed to watch. *
Click to expand...


And, what, you are unable or unwilling to post a short description?  You are only going to post youtube videos more than an hour long and then complain when people don't watch them?

Have fun with that.  I'm sure you'll convince many people of the veracity of your belief.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as always deny.
> if you fast forward the clip to 1:31 :23 your question Will be answered.
> but you won't simply because you really don't want an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the clip. I am very sensitive to assumptive language now that I refuse to no longer be brainwashed like the masses. Here are just a few of the assumptive phrases I heard "The answer MAY have come from a suprising source", "This STEADMAN BELIEVES is the key", "MIGHT HAVE BEEN", etc. All of their hypotheses start by already knowing the answer, which is a huge "no no" in science. Their unscientific belief that humans mutated into their current form drives the results of their beliefs. All of the evidence given after 1:31:23 could just as easily be used to prove something more believeable, something that we do have scientific evidence of, that is, destructive mutations. We can just as easily apply their reasoning and evidence to propose that apes and chimpanzees are the results of destructive mutations acting on Homo Sapiens. Once you open your mind from the blindness that is evolutionary theory you can start to see things in a different light. It is shocking to me that the show a child with a malformed brain, which is the result of a destructive gene. This child is from a Homo Sapien, but due to this destructive gene, his brain will never develop fully. Now these Einsteins use this measurable and scientifically verifiable piece evidence and, here comes the hat trick, they apply it BACKWARDS, stating this is evidence of how small brained primates MAY (noticed I said MAY) have evolved into Humans. Also please notice that they mention nothing of the fact current genetic vidence is shedding more and more light on the fact that there is actually more evidence to prove we didn't come from any of the known primate fossils. Notice that just sneakily infer that humans came from apes or chimpanzees, which isn't based in any modern science.
> 
> To borrow from DAWS "People believe in evolutionary theories because the truth "is either too simple or too remote"".
> 
> If I just look at the example of the disabled child in the video above without any pre-conceived evolutionary brainwashing, I could correctly conclude that Chimpanzee's must be the evolutionary result of a harmful mutation in humans.
> 
> From Wiki..
> 
> "Though many human fossils have been found, *chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005*[No chimpanzee fossils described until 2005!!!! Wow, see what happens when scientists do their work with the myth of evolution in their heads!!!]. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa do not overlap with the major human fossil sites in East Africa. However, chimpanzee fossils have now been reported from Kenya. This would indicate both humans and members of the Pan clade were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene.[7]"
> 
> Now it seems to me these scientists propose some interesting hypothesese that are testable!!! So we do the same dna experiment on the chimpanzee and find out which gene controls his brain growth. Then we fracture his skull (in a good way) to allow is brain to expand. This seems like a stupidly easy experiment to perform, especially based on how easy they make it look that a chimpanzee turned into a man in just a few easy mutations, you know, *because we see this going on all the time in a population of 7 billion people.* I'm going to start reading the Enquirer again so I make sure I don't miss the story with the headline *"Strange Mutation Causes Child to Grow super Skull and Brain in remote part of Africa. With his super powerful brain is able to resolve the Nuclear Fusion problem so now we all have cheap, clean energy". *Is it just me or are you guys so blind to the evolutionary brainwashing that this NOVA program doesn't make you laugh hysterically like it is a comedy with this dumbass scientists come up with this stuff. Are you hearing me?? They are basically inferring in the video that the leap from chimp to human is no longer such a huge mystery because it could have happened with only a few small isolated mutations. Are you guys for real??? Please DAWS, Montrevant, somebody please tell me you don't actually buy into this foolishness??? Maybe you've seen one too many sequels of X MEN!!!!
> 
> Finally, the video makes this classic evolutionary blunder which Cornelius so elegantly describes in his blog:
> 
> "First, they make the circular claim that ape-human transitional fossils are discovered at an ever increasing rate. That, of course, simply begs the question. *Every freshman knows you cannot argue for the truth of a proposition by presupposing the proposition in the first place.* Yes fossils are discovered. But if you are arguing that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, then you cannot begin with the evolutionary assumption that the fossils are transitional. Philosophers call this a theory-laden observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pointed this out earlier,but a mutation to cause evolutionary change must become the norm in the population. He only thought the video answered the question.
Click to expand...

obviously you did not watch the clip .
the mutation found is in every human on earth and is the norm!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly,the original question was a trait in humans. Oh and for your information you need to name the mutation since that is according to your theory is what causes the trait change then natural selection makes it become the norm in the gene pool. Now give me the
> Name of the mutation and prove this trait didn't already exist in the gene pool. what is your answer ?
> 
> 
> 
> as always deny.
> if you fast forward the clip to 1:31 :23 your question Will be answered.
> but you won't simply because you really don't want an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the clip.
> 
> edited for massive rationalization...
> 
> 
> 
> From Wiki..
> 
> "Though many human fossils have been found, chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005[No chimpanzee fossils described until 2005!!!! Wow, see what happens when scientists do their work with the myth of evolution in their heads!!!]. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa do not overlap with the major human fossil sites in East Africa. However, chimpanzee fossils have now been reported from Kenya. This would indicate both humans and members of the Pan clade were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene.[7]"
> 
> link?
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the clip. I am very sensitive to assumptive language now that I refuse to no longer be brainwashed like the masses. Here are just a few of the assumptive phrases I heard "The answer MAY have come from a suprising source", "This STEADMAN BELIEVES is the key", "MIGHT HAVE BEEN", etc. All of their hypotheses start by already knowing the answer, which is a huge "no no" in science. Their unscientific belief that humans mutated into their current form drives the results of their beliefs. All of the evidence given after 1:31:23 could just as easily be used to prove something more believeable, something that we do have scientific evidence of, that is, destructive mutations. We can just as easily apply their reasoning and evidence to propose that apes and chimpanzees are the results of destructive mutations acting on Homo Sapiens. Once you open your mind from the blindness that is evolutionary theory you can start to see things in a different light. It is shocking to me that the show a child with a malformed brain, which is the result of a destructive gene. This child is from a Homo Sapien, but due to this destructive gene, his brain will never develop fully. Now these Einsteins use this measurable and scientifically verifiable piece evidence and, here comes the hat trick, they apply it BACKWARDS, stating this is evidence of how small brained primates MAY (noticed I said MAY) have evolved into Humans. Also please notice that they mention nothing of the fact current genetic vidence is shedding more and more light on the fact that there is actually more evidence to prove we didn't come from any of the known primate fossils. Notice that just sneakily infer that humans came from apes or chimpanzees, which isn't based in any modern science.
> 
> To borrow from DAWS "People believe in evolutionary theories because the truth "is either too simple or too remote"".
> 
> If I just look at the example of the disabled child in the video above without any pre-conceived evolutionary brainwashing, I could correctly conclude that Chimpanzee's must be the evolutionary result of a harmful mutation in humans.
> 
> From Wiki..
> 
> "Though many human fossils have been found, *chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005*[No chimpanzee fossils described until 2005!!!! Wow, see what happens when scientists do their work with the myth of evolution in their heads!!!]. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa do not overlap with the major human fossil sites in East Africa. However, chimpanzee fossils have now been reported from Kenya. This would indicate both humans and members of the Pan clade were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene.[7]"
> 
> Now it seems to me these scientists propose some interesting hypothesese that are testable!!! So we do the same dna experiment on the chimpanzee and find out which gene controls his brain growth. Then we fracture his skull (in a good way) to allow is brain to expand. This seems like a stupidly easy experiment to perform, especially based on how easy they make it look that a chimpanzee turned into a man in just a few easy mutations, you know, *because we see this going on all the time in a population of 7 billion people.* I'm going to start reading the Enquirer again so I make sure I don't miss the story with the headline *"Strange Mutation Causes Child to Grow super Skull and Brain in remote part of Africa. With his super powerful brain is able to resolve the Nuclear Fusion problem so now we all have cheap, clean energy". *Is it just me or are you guys so blind to the evolutionary brainwashing that this NOVA program doesn't make you laugh hysterically like it is a comedy with this dumbass scientists come up with this stuff. Are you hearing me?? They are basically inferring in the video that the leap from chimp to human is no longer such a huge mystery because it could have happened with only a few small isolated mutations. Are you guys for real??? Please DAWS, Montrevant, somebody please tell me you don't actually buy into this foolishness??? Maybe you've seen one too many sequels of X MEN!!!!
> 
> Finally, the video makes this classic evolutionary blunder which Cornelius so elegantly describes in his blog:
> 
> "First, they make the circular claim that ape-human transitional fossils are discovered at an ever increasing rate. That, of course, simply begs the question. *Every freshman knows you cannot argue for the truth of a proposition by presupposing the proposition in the first place.* Yes fossils are discovered. But if you are arguing that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, then you cannot begin with the evolutionary assumption that the fossils are transitional. Philosophers call this a theory-laden observation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed this out earlier,but a mutation to cause evolutionary change must become the norm in the population. He only thought the video answered the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously you did not watch the clip .
> the mutation found is in every human on earth and is the norm!
Click to expand...

Let me explain something to you. Not every human possesses the same mutation. We might possess the same gene. But a mutation is a copying error of the Dna. God created us with the same substances. I will be home tonight and will watch the video tonight. See what you are misunderstanding and respond. Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death. Slowly as our Dna replicates copying errors happen I believe it is the loss of genetic information is what causes us age and die.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the clip. I am very sensitive to assumptive language now that I refuse to no longer be brainwashed like the masses. Here are just a few of the assumptive phrases I heard "The answer MAY have come from a suprising source", "This STEADMAN BELIEVES is the key", "MIGHT HAVE BEEN", etc. All of their hypotheses start by already knowing the answer, which is a huge "no no" in science. Their unscientific belief that humans mutated into their current form drives the results of their beliefs. All of the evidence given after 1:31:23 could just as easily be used to prove something more believeable, something that we do have scientific evidence of, that is, destructive mutations. We can just as easily apply their reasoning and evidence to propose that apes and chimpanzees are the results of destructive mutations acting on Homo Sapiens. Once you open your mind from the blindness that is evolutionary theory you can start to see things in a different light. It is shocking to me that the show a child with a malformed brain, which is the result of a destructive gene. This child is from a Homo Sapien, but due to this destructive gene, his brain will never develop fully. Now these Einsteins use this measurable and scientifically verifiable piece evidence and, here comes the hat trick, they apply it BACKWARDS, stating this is evidence of how small brained primates MAY (noticed I said MAY) have evolved into Humans. Also please notice that they mention nothing of the fact current genetic vidence is shedding more and more light on the fact that there is actually more evidence to prove we didn't come from any of the known primate fossils. Notice that just sneakily infer that humans came from apes or chimpanzees, which isn't based in any modern science.
> 
> To borrow from DAWS "People believe in evolutionary theories because the truth "is either too simple or too remote"".
> 
> If I just look at the example of the disabled child in the video above without any pre-conceived evolutionary brainwashing, I could correctly conclude that Chimpanzee's must be the evolutionary result of a harmful mutation in humans.
> 
> From Wiki..
> 
> "Though many human fossils have been found, *chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005*[No chimpanzee fossils described until 2005!!!! Wow, see what happens when scientists do their work with the myth of evolution in their heads!!!]. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa do not overlap with the major human fossil sites in East Africa. However, chimpanzee fossils have now been reported from Kenya. This would indicate both humans and members of the Pan clade were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene.[7]"
> 
> Now it seems to me these scientists propose some interesting hypothesese that are testable!!! So we do the same dna experiment on the chimpanzee and find out which gene controls his brain growth. Then we fracture his skull (in a good way) to allow is brain to expand. This seems like a stupidly easy experiment to perform, especially based on how easy they make it look that a chimpanzee turned into a man in just a few easy mutations, you know, *because we see this going on all the time in a population of 7 billion people.* I'm going to start reading the Enquirer again so I make sure I don't miss the story with the headline *"Strange Mutation Causes Child to Grow super Skull and Brain in remote part of Africa. With his super powerful brain is able to resolve the Nuclear Fusion problem so now we all have cheap, clean energy". *Is it just me or are you guys so blind to the evolutionary brainwashing that this NOVA program doesn't make you laugh hysterically like it is a comedy with this dumbass scientists come up with this stuff. Are you hearing me?? They are basically inferring in the video that the leap from chimp to human is no longer such a huge mystery because it could have happened with only a few small isolated mutations. Are you guys for real??? Please DAWS, Montrevant, somebody please tell me you don't actually buy into this foolishness??? Maybe you've seen one too many sequels of X MEN!!!!
> 
> Finally, the video makes this classic evolutionary blunder which Cornelius so elegantly describes in his blog:
> 
> "First, they make the circular claim that ape-human transitional fossils are discovered at an ever increasing rate. That, of course, simply begs the question. *Every freshman knows you cannot argue for the truth of a proposition by presupposing the proposition in the first place.* Yes fossils are discovered. But if you are arguing that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, then you cannot begin with the evolutionary assumption that the fossils are transitional. Philosophers call this a theory-laden observation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed this out earlier,but a mutation to cause evolutionary change must become the norm in the population. He only thought the video answered the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously you did not watch the clip .
> the mutation found is in every human on earth and is the norm!
Click to expand...


Daws ,the accumulation of mutations cause aging this is a fact I observed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this question has been answerd everytime you've claimed to ask it.
> 
> the answer to this question :"Point out the trait that can be proven it came about through the current mechanism for evolution then prove the trait never existed in the gene pool"
> 
> is right here: What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA Documentary) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly,the original question was a trait in humans. Oh and for your information you need to name the mutation since that is according to your theory is what causes the trait change then natural selection makes it become the norm in the gene pool. Now give me the
> Name of the mutation and prove this trait didn't already exist in the gene pool. what is your answer ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as always deny.
> if you fast forward the clip to 1:31 :23 your question Will be answered.
> but you won't simply because you really don't want an answer.
Click to expand...



Ok I watched your video. This mutation is harmful to families. The gene that causes the brain to grow proves nothing towards evolution. It's a defective mutation in humans that prevents proper growth of the brain.

Should this gene be present in both apes and men of course it should because it is the gene that determines the size of the brain. Chimps have smaller brains so what we knew this a long time ago. But does the size of the brain matter ?


----------



## FactFinder

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



Mostly because noone has shown me , other than some theoretical basis, how one calibrates a carbon stamp to reality. In other words, you have to take in faith what some freaking scientist is saying over what Jesus said. Seeing how man is generally self interested and Jesus was not. I prefer to believe Jesus.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know this Dr. Ayala and certainly haven't claimed to accept any of his/her conclusions about anything.
> 
> So, that said, I think the relevant part of what you just posted is the idea of the 'legitimacy of the explanatory filter'.  My issue with ID as science is that I have not seen what I consider a legitimate test or filter or meter, etc. to determine if something was created through intelligence.  The excerpt you provided does not give the method to determine intelligence used, nor does it provide any of the Dr. Ayala's comments so one might know if the Dr. was unwilling or unable to reasonably question said method, nor does it even tell us what kind of Dr. this Ayala is or why he/she should be able to argue against ID with any authority.  Even if Ayala failed utterly to discredit ID it does not provide legitimacy to it as a valid science.
> 
> If you can provide a (relatively) simple explanation of the method used to determine if something was designed by intelligence, I'd appreciate it.  Being able to make such a determination seems to be the most important, perhaps the only, part of ID 'science'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It was contained in the Meyer video you FAILed to watch. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, what, you are unable or unwilling to post a short description?
Click to expand...


Done ad nauseum. No more time for the slow among us.


----------



## FactFinder

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It was contained in the Meyer video you FAILed to watch. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, what, you are unable or unwilling to post a short description?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Done ad nauseum. No more time for the slow among us.
Click to expand...


Let's see a video or just look around me. I think what I see is evidence enough. Some man stuck in a 70  to 100 year time stamp in relation to infinity has little influence on me as he is likely to be stuck in his very small time/space continuum. Stuff that has endured for some thousands of years carries a bit more weight with me.


----------



## UltimateReality

FactFinder said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, what, you are unable or unwilling to post a short description?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Done ad nauseum. No more time for the slow among us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see a video or just look around me. I think what I see is evidence enough. Some man stuck in a 70  to 100 year time stamp in relation to infinity has little influence on me as he is likely to be stuck in his very small time/space continuum. Stuff that has endured for some thousands of years carries a bit more weight with me.
Click to expand...


You should really get up to date on current science. The whole belief in infinity went out with the Big Bang Theory. Most, if not all, scientists no longer accept the infinite universe theory which Einstein clung to for so long. It is now widely accepted that the universe had a beginning some 13.7 Billion years ago. Even Hawking now believes that even TIME began at the Big Bang.

*"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."
- Amos Bronson Alcott (1799-1888) American educator*


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It was contained in the Meyer video you FAILed to watch. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, what, you are unable or unwilling to post a short description?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Done ad nauseum. No more time for the slow among us.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I don't remember seeing you post a description of a test whereby we determine something is designed rather than naturally occurring.  You can say that you have, but I have not seen such a thing.  Pointing to the hour and a half long youtube video you posted is not a short description of such a test.


----------



## konradv

FactFinder said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly because noone has shown me , other than some theoretical basis, how one calibrates a carbon stamp to reality. In other words, you have to take in faith what some freaking scientist is saying over what Jesus said. Seeing how man is generally self interested and Jesus was not. I prefer to believe Jesus.
Click to expand...


When did Jesus say anything about evolution?  You don't have to have faith in the scientists, just that the Laws of Nature are consistent.  Denying that only leads to the conclusion that God lies to us.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed this out earlier,but a mutation to cause evolutionary change must become the norm in the population. He only thought the video answered the question.
> 
> 
> 
> obviously you did not watch the clip .
> the mutation found is in every human on earth and is the norm!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me explain something to you. Not every human possesses the same mutation. We might possess the same gene. But a mutation is a copying error of the Dna. God created us with the same substances. I will be home tonight and will watch the video tonight. See what you are misunderstanding and respond. Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death. Slowly as our Dna replicates copying errors happen I believe it is the loss of genetic information is what causes us age and die.
Click to expand...

another steaming pile of non provable bullshit what you belive does has no bering on the question you posed..  

this statement :"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death"-ywc
is laughable.
you don't have a theory you have speculation, why?   you have no testable evidence  (no evidence at all) that god exists.
so any speculation of what god would or would not do is just specious and invalid..


Letters to Nature
Nature 428, 415-418 (25 March 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature02358; Received 5 April 2003; Accepted 20 January 2004


Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage
Hansell H. Stedman1,3, Benjamin W. Kozyak1, Anthony Nelson1, Danielle M. Thesier2, Leonard T. Su1, David W. Low1,5, Charles R. Bridges1, Joseph B. Shrager1,3, Nancy Minugh-Purvis2,4,5 & Marilyn A. Mitchell1

1.Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA 
2.Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA 
3.the Pennsylvania Muscle Institute, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA 
4.Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA 
5.Division of Plastic Surgery, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA 
Correspondence to: Hansell H. Stedman1,3 Email: hstedman@mail.med.upenn.edu 


Top of pagePowerful masticatory muscles are found in most primates, including chimpanzees and gorillas, and were part of a prominent adaptation of Australopithecus and Paranthropus, extinct genera of the family Hominidae1, 2. In contrast, masticatory muscles are considerably smaller in both modern and fossil members of Homo. The evolving hominid masticatory apparatus&#8212;traceable to a Late Miocene, chimpanzee-like morphology3&#8212;shifted towards a pattern of gracilization nearly simultaneously with accelerated encephalization in early Homo 4. Here, we show that the gene encoding the predominant myosin heavy chain (MYH) expressed in these muscles was inactivated by a frameshifting mutation after the lineages leading to humans and chimpanzees diverged. Loss of this protein isoform is associated with marked size reductions in individual muscle fibres and entire masticatory muscles. Using the coding sequence for the myosin rod domains as a molecular clock, we estimate that this mutation appeared approximately 2.4 million years ago, predating the appearance of modern human body size5 and emigration of Homo from Africa6. This represents the first proteomic distinction between humans and chimpanzees that can be correlated with a traceable anatomic imprint in the fossil record.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6981/abs/nature02358.html



MYH16 geneFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The MYH16 gene encodes a protein called myosin heavy chain 16 which is a muscle protein in mammals. At least in primates, it is a specialized muscle protein found only in the temporalis and masseter muscles of the jaw.[1][2] Myosin heavy chain proteins are important in muscle contraction, and if they are missing, the muscles will be smaller.[1] In non-human primates, MYH16 is functional and the animals have powerful jaw muscles. In humans, the MYH16 gene has a mutation which causes the protein not to function.[3] Although the exact importance of this change in accounting for differences between humans and apes is not yet clear, such a change may be related to increased brain size and finer control of the jaw which facilitates speech.[1] It is not clear how the MYH16 mutation relates to other changes to the jaw and skull in early human evolution (for example, whether the MYH16 mutation happened first and led to other changes, or whether the MYH16 mutation happened after other changes made the MYH16 protein no longer necessary).[1]

The initial discovery of the human MYH16 mutation was published in 2004 by a team at the University of Pennsylvania led by Hansell H. Stedman.[2] The date of the mutation has variously been estimated at about 2.4 million years ago[2] or 5.3 million years ago.[4]

The MYH16 gene is present in dogs,[4] but does not appear to be present in mice.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MYH16_gene


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, what, you are unable or unwilling to post a short description?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Done ad nauseum. No more time for the slow among us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't remember seeing you post a description of a test whereby we determine something is designed rather than naturally occurring.  You can say that you have, but I have not seen such a thing.  Pointing to the hour and a half long youtube video you posted is not a short description of such a test.
Click to expand...


Ditto. I don't remember you responding to what the agreed upon scientific definition of fitness is. Or having provided me with one experiment where even any definition of fitness was proven to be responsible for the mutation surviving and being passed to a descendant. 

However, I will respond that humans intuitively know and recognize design. Archeologists do it all the time. That is how they differentiate ancient man-made artifacts from wind and erosion. How do they know the Rosetta Stone was the result of intelligence and not acts of nature? Why does an acheologists recognize an arrowhead as being man made and not just a weird shaped rock? How does one determine Mt. Rushmore is man made and not the result of erosion? Why do we think Stonehenge was arranged by humans?? How do we know humans are responsible for cave paintings? Why don't we think crop circles occur by some natural phenomenom? How will SETI differentiate a signal from another world from static? Why would we think the mysterious shapes in the peruvian desert are the work of an intelligent agent and not nature?

Living in Peru » Travel : We know who drew these giant shapes in Peru's desert -- but why?

*&#8220;The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."       -Dr. Who*


----------



## UltimateReality

Yet even more evidence of design...

"Let me untangle the rhetoric. The reason why knots in folded proteins are unlikely is because they are hard to achieve, without resulting in misfolded proteins, aggregation, and possible disease states. Even though it&#8217;s *unlikely they evolved*&#8212;let&#8217;s make that *highly unlikely*&#8212;we know knotted proteins must have evolved somehow, simply because they exist."

Uncommon Descent | Proteins have slip knots, like a shoelace bow?


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> Yet even more evidence of design...
> 
> "Let me untangle the rhetoric. The reason why knots in folded proteins are unlikely is because they are hard to achieve, without resulting in misfolded proteins, aggregation, and possible disease states. Even though its *unlikely they evolved*lets make that *highly unlikely*we know knotted proteins must have evolved somehow, simply because they exist."
> 
> Uncommon Descent | Proteins have slip knots, like a shoelace bow?



Seems that those who don't believe they evolved are just lacking imagination.  Even if they were designed they'd have to follow the Rules of Chemistry.  If they do follow rules, what need is there to postulate a designer?  Simply quoting a comment of dubious origin, proves nothing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> obviously you did not watch the clip .
> the mutation found is in every human on earth and is the norm!
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain something to you. Not every human possesses the same mutation. We might possess the same gene. But a mutation is a copying error of the Dna. God created us with the same substances. I will be home tonight and will watch the video tonight. See what you are misunderstanding and respond. Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death. Slowly as our Dna replicates copying errors happen I believe it is the loss of genetic information is what causes us age and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another steaming pile of non provable bullshit what you belive does has no bering on the question you posed..
> 
> this statement :"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death"-ywc
> is laughable.
> you don't have a theory you have speculation, why?   you have no testable evidence  (no evidence at all) that god exists.
> so any speculation of what god would or would not do is just specious and invalid..
> 
> 
> Letters to Nature
> Nature 428, 415-418 (25 March 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature02358; Received 5 April 2003; Accepted 20 January 2004
> 
> 
> Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage
> Hansell H. Stedman1,3, Benjamin W. Kozyak1, Anthony Nelson1, Danielle M. Thesier2, Leonard T. Su1, David W. Low1,5, Charles R. Bridges1, Joseph B. Shrager1,3, Nancy Minugh-Purvis2,4,5 & Marilyn A. Mitchell1
> 
> 1.Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> 2.Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> 3.the Pennsylvania Muscle Institute, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> 4.Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> 5.Division of Plastic Surgery, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> Correspondence to: Hansell H. Stedman1,3 Email: hstedman@mail.med.upenn.edu
> 
> 
> Top of pagePowerful masticatory muscles are found in most primates, including chimpanzees and gorillas, and were part of a prominent adaptation of Australopithecus and Paranthropus, extinct genera of the family Hominidae1, 2. In contrast, masticatory muscles are considerably smaller in both modern and fossil members of Homo. The evolving hominid masticatory apparatustraceable to a Late Miocene, chimpanzee-like morphology3shifted towards a pattern of gracilization nearly simultaneously with accelerated encephalization in early Homo 4. Here, we show that the gene encoding the predominant myosin heavy chain (MYH) expressed in these muscles was inactivated by a frameshifting mutation after the lineages leading to humans and chimpanzees diverged. Loss of this protein isoform is associated with marked size reductions in individual muscle fibres and entire masticatory muscles. Using the coding sequence for the myosin rod domains as a molecular clock, we estimate that this mutation appeared approximately 2.4 million years ago, predating the appearance of modern human body size5 and emigration of Homo from Africa6. This represents the first proteomic distinction between humans and chimpanzees that can be correlated with a traceable anatomic imprint in the fossil record.
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6981/abs/nature02358.html
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0D_k4lYrdo]Evolution: Jaw Muscle and Brain Cavity Size - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> MYH16 geneFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The MYH16 gene encodes a protein called myosin heavy chain 16 which is a muscle protein in mammals. At least in primates, it is a specialized muscle protein found only in the temporalis and masseter muscles of the jaw.[1][2] Myosin heavy chain proteins are important in muscle contraction, and if they are missing, the muscles will be smaller.[1] In non-human primates, MYH16 is functional and the animals have powerful jaw muscles. In humans, the MYH16 gene has a mutation which causes the protein not to function.[3] Although the exact importance of this change in accounting for differences between humans and apes is not yet clear, such a change may be related to increased brain size and finer control of the jaw which facilitates speech.[1] It is not clear how the MYH16 mutation relates to other changes to the jaw and skull in early human evolution (for example, whether the MYH16 mutation happened first and led to other changes, or whether the MYH16 mutation happened after other changes made the MYH16 protein no longer necessary).[1]
> 
> The initial discovery of the human MYH16 mutation was published in 2004 by a team at the University of Pennsylvania led by Hansell H. Stedman.[2] The date of the mutation has variously been estimated at about 2.4 million years ago[2] or 5.3 million years ago.[4]
> 
> The MYH16 gene is present in dogs,[4] but does not appear to be present in mice.[5]
> 
> MYH16 gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Do you know the difference between theory and fact ?

Have you not read where I said many times similarity proves nothing ?

What separates all living organism's is the DNA information. How do you explain similar genes performing the same tasks but producing much different groups of organism's ?

Learn to think before you type or paste someones opinion.

You only need about 200,000 beneficial mutations to accumulate while not having any other mutations in the process, to turn a chimp into a human. In a very short window and this is by theory. It never happened.

Listen very carefully,you need a net gain of information without the loss of information for evolution to take place. Mutations that do anything at all lose the origional information. MNutations are errors and the mutations that do anything at all lose information, Got it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

One other thing daws all primate fossils are either 100% human or from the ape family there is no common ancestor fossil.


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet even more evidence of design...
> 
> "Let me untangle the rhetoric. The reason why knots in folded proteins are unlikely is because they are hard to achieve, without resulting in misfolded proteins, aggregation, and possible disease states. Even though its *unlikely they evolved*lets make that *highly unlikely*we know knotted proteins must have evolved somehow, simply because they exist."
> 
> Uncommon Descent | Proteins have slip knots, like a shoelace bow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems that those who don't believe they evolved are just lacking imagination.  Even if they were designed they'd have to follow the Rules of Chemistry.  If they do follow rules, what need is there to postulate a designer?  Simply quoting a comment of dubious origin, proves nothing.
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with imagination. It has to do with probability and chance. It is so ironic to me that Darwinists call Christians the brainwashed ones.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Done ad nauseum. No more time for the slow among us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't remember seeing you post a description of a test whereby we determine something is designed rather than naturally occurring.  You can say that you have, but I have not seen such a thing.  Pointing to the hour and a half long youtube video you posted is not a short description of such a test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto. I don't remember you responding to what the agreed upon scientific definition of fitness is. Or having provided me with one experiment where even any definition of fitness was proven to be responsible for the mutation surviving and being passed to a descendant.
> 
> However, I will respond that humans intuitively know and recognize design. Archeologists do it all the time. That is how they differentiate ancient man-made artifacts from wind and erosion. How do they know the Rosetta Stone was the result of intelligence and not acts of nature? Why does an acheologists recognize an arrowhead as being man made and not just a weird shaped rock? How does one determine Mt. Rushmore is man made and not the result of erosion? Why do we think Stonehenge was arranged by humans?? How do we know humans are responsible for cave paintings? Why don't we think crop circles occur by some natural phenomenom? How will SETI differentiate a signal from another world from static? Why would we think the mysterious shapes in the peruvian desert are the work of an intelligent agent and not nature?
> 
> Living in Peru » Travel : We know who drew these giant shapes in Peru's desert -- but why?
> 
> *The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."       -Dr. Who*
Click to expand...


I did respond to the fitness question, but I don't know if there is an agreed upon scientific definition.  If the only thing evolution postulated was that some organisms are more fit than others, it would be more of an issue.  

With ID, the only thing that I can see that makes it anything other than already established fields of science is that it postulates a designer is responsible for the creation of certain things.  That being the case, if there's only one thing that differentiates ID from already established science, that one thing needs to be clearly defined and observable/testable.  

And as I've said many times, determining if something was created by humans is different from determining if something was created by intelligence.  Unless we have observed examples of another intelligence designing things, as we do with humanity, the comparison fails.  We can look at things we already know to be human-designed and compare them to archeological finds to see if they match, thereby concluding something was made by man.  What do we compare, say, DNA to?  Something man-made?  That would indicate man created DNA.  Do we compare it to something god created?  To something aliens created?  There is no basis for comparison for non-terrestrial intelligence, which is what ID proposes, so I don't see how you can test for it.  If there is no test, and there is nothing else that differentiates ID from other scientific fields, how is ID a separate branch of scientific inquiry?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain something to you. Not every human possesses the same mutation. We might possess the same gene. But a mutation is a copying error of the Dna. God created us with the same substances. I will be home tonight and will watch the video tonight. See what you are misunderstanding and respond. Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death. Slowly as our Dna replicates copying errors happen I believe it is the loss of genetic information is what causes us age and die.
> 
> 
> 
> another steaming pile of non provable bullshit what you belive does has no bering on the question you posed..
> 
> this statement :"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death"-ywc
> is laughable.
> you don't have a theory you have speculation, why?   you have no testable evidence  (no evidence at all) that god exists.
> so any speculation of what god would or would not do is just specious and invalid..
> 
> 
> Letters to Nature
> Nature 428, 415-418 (25 March 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature02358; Received 5 April 2003; Accepted 20 January 2004
> 
> 
> Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage
> Hansell H. Stedman1,3, Benjamin W. Kozyak1, Anthony Nelson1, Danielle M. Thesier2, Leonard T. Su1, David W. Low1,5, Charles R. Bridges1, Joseph B. Shrager1,3, Nancy Minugh-Purvis2,4,5 & Marilyn A. Mitchell1
> 
> 1.Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> 2.Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> 3.the Pennsylvania Muscle Institute, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> 4.Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> 5.Division of Plastic Surgery, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> Correspondence to: Hansell H. Stedman1,3 Email: hstedman@mail.med.upenn.edu
> 
> 
> Top of pagePowerful masticatory muscles are found in most primates, including chimpanzees and gorillas, and were part of a prominent adaptation of Australopithecus and Paranthropus, extinct genera of the family Hominidae1, 2. In contrast, masticatory muscles are considerably smaller in both modern and fossil members of Homo. The evolving hominid masticatory apparatustraceable to a Late Miocene, chimpanzee-like morphology3shifted towards a pattern of gracilization nearly simultaneously with accelerated encephalization in early Homo 4. Here, we show that the gene encoding the predominant myosin heavy chain (MYH) expressed in these muscles was inactivated by a frameshifting mutation after the lineages leading to humans and chimpanzees diverged. Loss of this protein isoform is associated with marked size reductions in individual muscle fibres and entire masticatory muscles. Using the coding sequence for the myosin rod domains as a molecular clock, we estimate that this mutation appeared approximately 2.4 million years ago, predating the appearance of modern human body size5 and emigration of Homo from Africa6. This represents the first proteomic distinction between humans and chimpanzees that can be correlated with a traceable anatomic imprint in the fossil record.
> 
> Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage : Abstract : Nature
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0D_k4lYrdo]Evolution: Jaw Muscle and Brain Cavity Size - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> MYH16 geneFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The MYH16 gene encodes a protein called myosin heavy chain 16 which is a muscle protein in mammals. At least in primates, it is a specialized muscle protein found only in the temporalis and masseter muscles of the jaw.[1][2] Myosin heavy chain proteins are important in muscle contraction, and if they are missing, the muscles will be smaller.[1] In non-human primates, MYH16 is functional and the animals have powerful jaw muscles. In humans, the MYH16 gene has a mutation which causes the protein not to function.[3] Although the exact importance of this change in accounting for differences between humans and apes is not yet clear, such a change may be related to increased brain size and finer control of the jaw which facilitates speech.[1] It is not clear how the MYH16 mutation relates to other changes to the jaw and skull in early human evolution (for example, whether the MYH16 mutation happened first and led to other changes, or whether the MYH16 mutation happened after other changes made the MYH16 protein no longer necessary).[1]
> 
> The initial discovery of the human MYH16 mutation was published in 2004 by a team at the University of Pennsylvania led by Hansell H. Stedman.[2] The date of the mutation has variously been estimated at about 2.4 million years ago[2] or 5.3 million years ago.[4]
> 
> The MYH16 gene is present in dogs,[4] but does not appear to be present in mice.[5]
> 
> MYH16 gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the difference between theory and fact ?
> 
> Have you not read where I said many times similarity proves nothing ?
> 
> What separates all living organism's is the DNA information. How do you explain similar genes performing the same tasks but producing much different groups of organism's ?
> 
> Learn to think before you type or paste someones opinion.
> 
> You only need about 200,000 beneficial mutations to accumulate while not having any other mutations in the process, to turn a chimp into a human. In a very short window and this is by theory. It never happened.
> 
> Listen very carefully,you need a net gain of information without the loss of information for evolution to take place. Mutations that do anything at all lose the origional information. MNutations are errors and the mutations that do anything at all lose information, Got it ?
Click to expand...

can you rationalize any harder...this MYH16 gene is in humans only and it is a mutation. untill you can SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE  CAUSE AND EFFECT that differers  and disproves that fact you both of you are talking out you collective asses.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> One other thing daws all primate fossils are either 100% human or from the ape family there is no common ancestor fossil.


right!
coming from the guy who said this:"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death. Slowly as our Dna replicates copying errors happen I believe it is the loss of genetic information is what causes us age and die." 
and you expect to be taken seriously !


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> One other thing daws all primate fossils are either 100% human or from the ape family there is no common ancestor fossil.


bullshit!


Chimpanzee-human last common ancestorFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last species, a species of African apes, that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor.

The CHLCA is generally used as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human genetic studies where chimpanzees are used as an outgroup. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for molecular TMRCA (Time to most recent common ancestor) determination because the two species of the genus Pan, the Bonobos and the Chimpanzee, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.

Contents [hide] 
1 Time estimates
2 Pan Prior
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References


[edit] Time estimatesThe age of the CHLCA is an estimate. The fossil find of Ardipithecus kadabba, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and Orrorin tugenensis are closest in age and expected morphology of the CHLCA and suggest the LCA is older than 7 million years. The earliest studies of apes suggest the CHLCA may have been as old as 25 million years; however, protein studies in the 1970s suggested the CHLCA was less than 8 million years in age. Genetic methods based on Orangutan/Human and Gibbon/Human LCA times were then used to estimate a Chimpanzee/Human LCA of 6 million years, and LCA times between 5 and 7 million years ago are currently used in the literature.[note 1]

 One no longer has the option of considering a fossil older than about eight million years as a hominid no matter what it looks like.  
V. Sarich, Background for man[1]


Because chimps and humans share a matrilineal ancestor, establishing the geological age of that last ancestor allows the estimation of the mutation rate. However, fossils of the exact last common ancestor would be an extremely rare find. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for mt-TMRCA determination because chimpanzees are the species most genetically similar to humans. However, there are no known fossils that represent that CHLCA. It is believed that there are no proto-chimpanzee fossils or proto-gorilla fossils that have been clearly identified. However, Richard Dawkins, in his book "The Ancestor's Tale," proposes that robust australopithecines such as Paranthropus are the ancestors of gorillas, whereas some of the gracile australopithecines are the ancestors of chimpanzees (see Homininae).

 In effect, there is now not a priori reason to presume that human-chimpanzee split times are especially recent, and the fossil evidence is now fully compatible with older chimpanzee-human divergence dates [7 to 10 Ma...  
White et al. (2009), [2]


Some researchers tried to estimate the age of the CHLCA (TCHLCA) using biopolymer structures which differ slightly between closely related animals. Among these researchers, Allan C. Wilson and Vincent Sarich were pioneers in the development of the molecular clock for humans. Working on protein sequences they eventually determined that apes were closer to humans than some paleontologists perceived based on the fossil record.[note 2] Later Vincent Sarich concluded that the TCHLCA was no greater than 8 million years in age, with a favored range between 4 and 6 million years before present.

This paradigmatic age has stuck with molecular anthropology until the late 1990s, when others began questioning the certainty of the assumption. Currently, the estimation of the TCHLCA is less certain, and there is genetic as well as paleontological support for increasing TCHLCA. A 13 million year TCHLCA is one proposed age.[2][3]

once again talking out your ass!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another steaming pile of non provable bullshit what you belive does has no bering on the question you posed..
> 
> this statement :"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death"-ywc
> is laughable.
> you don't have a theory you have speculation, why?   you have no testable evidence  (no evidence at all) that god exists.
> so any speculation of what god would or would not do is just specious and invalid..
> 
> 
> Letters to Nature
> Nature 428, 415-418 (25 March 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature02358; Received 5 April 2003; Accepted 20 January 2004
> 
> 
> Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage
> Hansell H. Stedman1,3, Benjamin W. Kozyak1, Anthony Nelson1, Danielle M. Thesier2, Leonard T. Su1, David W. Low1,5, Charles R. Bridges1, Joseph B. Shrager1,3, Nancy Minugh-Purvis2,4,5 & Marilyn A. Mitchell1
> 
> 1.Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> 2.Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> 3.the Pennsylvania Muscle Institute, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> 4.Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> 5.Division of Plastic Surgery, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> Correspondence to: Hansell H. Stedman1,3 Email: hstedman@mail.med.upenn.edu
> 
> 
> Top of pagePowerful masticatory muscles are found in most primates, including chimpanzees and gorillas, and were part of a prominent adaptation of Australopithecus and Paranthropus, extinct genera of the family Hominidae1, 2. In contrast, masticatory muscles are considerably smaller in both modern and fossil members of Homo. The evolving hominid masticatory apparatustraceable to a Late Miocene, chimpanzee-like morphology3shifted towards a pattern of gracilization nearly simultaneously with accelerated encephalization in early Homo 4. Here, we show that the gene encoding the predominant myosin heavy chain (MYH) expressed in these muscles was inactivated by a frameshifting mutation after the lineages leading to humans and chimpanzees diverged. Loss of this protein isoform is associated with marked size reductions in individual muscle fibres and entire masticatory muscles. Using the coding sequence for the myosin rod domains as a molecular clock, we estimate that this mutation appeared approximately 2.4 million years ago, predating the appearance of modern human body size5 and emigration of Homo from Africa6. This represents the first proteomic distinction between humans and chimpanzees that can be correlated with a traceable anatomic imprint in the fossil record.
> 
> Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage : Abstract : Nature
> 
> 
> Evolution: Jaw Muscle and Brain Cavity Size - YouTube
> 
> MYH16 geneFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The MYH16 gene encodes a protein called myosin heavy chain 16 which is a muscle protein in mammals. At least in primates, it is a specialized muscle protein found only in the temporalis and masseter muscles of the jaw.[1][2] Myosin heavy chain proteins are important in muscle contraction, and if they are missing, the muscles will be smaller.[1] In non-human primates, MYH16 is functional and the animals have powerful jaw muscles. In humans, the MYH16 gene has a mutation which causes the protein not to function.[3] Although the exact importance of this change in accounting for differences between humans and apes is not yet clear, such a change may be related to increased brain size and finer control of the jaw which facilitates speech.[1] It is not clear how the MYH16 mutation relates to other changes to the jaw and skull in early human evolution (for example, whether the MYH16 mutation happened first and led to other changes, or whether the MYH16 mutation happened after other changes made the MYH16 protein no longer necessary).[1]
> 
> The initial discovery of the human MYH16 mutation was published in 2004 by a team at the University of Pennsylvania led by Hansell H. Stedman.[2] The date of the mutation has variously been estimated at about 2.4 million years ago[2] or 5.3 million years ago.[4]
> 
> The MYH16 gene is present in dogs,[4] but does not appear to be present in mice.[5]
> 
> MYH16 gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the difference between theory and fact ?
> 
> Have you not read where I said many times similarity proves nothing ?
> 
> What separates all living organism's is the DNA information. How do you explain similar genes performing the same tasks but producing much different groups of organism's ?
> 
> Learn to think before you type or paste someones opinion.
> 
> You only need about 200,000 beneficial mutations to accumulate while not having any other mutations in the process, to turn a chimp into a human. In a very short window and this is by theory. It never happened.
> 
> Listen very carefully,you need a net gain of information without the loss of information for evolution to take place. Mutations that do anything at all lose the origional information. MNutations are errors and the mutations that do anything at all lose information, Got it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> can you rationalize any harder...this MYH16 gene is in humans only and it is a mutation. untill you can SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE  CAUSE AND EFFECT that differers  and disproves that fact you both of you are talking out you collective asses.
Click to expand...


So by your reasoning as well as the ones making these claims that this gene is a mutation is pure nonsense. All it shows is this gene causes a jaw with less strength and the right size brain.

We have a problem why do neanderthals have bigger brains then modern day humans ? By your reasoning and argument we are devolving.

So tell me what gene determines the jaw strength and brain size in primates other then humans ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One other thing daws all primate fossils are either 100% human or from the ape family there is no common ancestor fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> right!
> coming from the guy who said this:"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death. Slowly as our Dna replicates copying errors happen I believe it is the loss of genetic information is what causes us age and die."
> and you expect to be taken seriously !
Click to expand...


I studied flies for eleven years and the mutatiing offspring indeed all had shorter lifespans.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One other thing daws all primate fossils are either 100% human or from the ape family there is no common ancestor fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> 
> Chimpanzee-human last common ancestorFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last species, a species of African apes, that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor.
> 
> The CHLCA is generally used as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human genetic studies where chimpanzees are used as an outgroup. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for molecular TMRCA (Time to most recent common ancestor) determination because the two species of the genus Pan, the Bonobos and the Chimpanzee, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.
> 
> Contents [hide]
> 1 Time estimates
> 2 Pan Prior
> 3 See also
> 4 Notes
> 5 References
> 
> 
> [edit] Time estimatesThe age of the CHLCA is an estimate. The fossil find of Ardipithecus kadabba, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and Orrorin tugenensis are closest in age and expected morphology of the CHLCA and suggest the LCA is older than 7 million years. The earliest studies of apes suggest the CHLCA may have been as old as 25 million years; however, protein studies in the 1970s suggested the CHLCA was less than 8 million years in age. Genetic methods based on Orangutan/Human and Gibbon/Human LCA times were then used to estimate a Chimpanzee/Human LCA of 6 million years, and LCA times between 5 and 7 million years ago are currently used in the literature.[note 1]
> 
>  One no longer has the option of considering a fossil older than about eight million years as a hominid no matter what it looks like. 
> V. Sarich, Background for man[1]
> 
> 
> Because chimps and humans share a matrilineal ancestor, establishing the geological age of that last ancestor allows the estimation of the mutation rate. However, fossils of the exact last common ancestor would be an extremely rare find. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for mt-TMRCA determination because chimpanzees are the species most genetically similar to humans. However, there are no known fossils that represent that CHLCA. It is believed that there are no proto-chimpanzee fossils or proto-gorilla fossils that have been clearly identified. However, Richard Dawkins, in his book "The Ancestor's Tale," proposes that robust australopithecines such as Paranthropus are the ancestors of gorillas, whereas some of the gracile australopithecines are the ancestors of chimpanzees (see Homininae).
> 
>  In effect, there is now not a priori reason to presume that human-chimpanzee split times are especially recent, and the fossil evidence is now fully compatible with older chimpanzee-human divergence dates [7 to 10 Ma... 
> White et al. (2009), [2]
> 
> 
> Some researchers tried to estimate the age of the CHLCA (TCHLCA) using biopolymer structures which differ slightly between closely related animals. Among these researchers, Allan C. Wilson and Vincent Sarich were pioneers in the development of the molecular clock for humans. Working on protein sequences they eventually determined that apes were closer to humans than some paleontologists perceived based on the fossil record.[note 2] Later Vincent Sarich concluded that the TCHLCA was no greater than 8 million years in age, with a favored range between 4 and 6 million years before present.
> 
> This paradigmatic age has stuck with molecular anthropology until the late 1990s, when others began questioning the certainty of the assumption. Currently, the estimation of the TCHLCA is less certain, and there is genetic as well as paleontological support for increasing TCHLCA. A 13 million year TCHLCA is one proposed age.[2][3]
> 
> once again talking out your ass!
Click to expand...


There is sucker born every minute. They always make these claims only to be proven wrong at a later date.

It


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another steaming pile of non provable bullshit what you belive does has no bering on the question you posed..
> 
> this statement :"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death"-ywc
> is laughable.
> you don't have a theory you have speculation, why?   you have no testable evidence  (no evidence at all) that god exists.
> so any speculation of what god would or would not do is just specious and invalid..
> 
> 
> Letters to Nature
> Nature 428, 415-418 (25 March 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature02358; Received 5 April 2003; Accepted 20 January 2004
> 
> 
> Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage
> Hansell H. Stedman1,3, Benjamin W. Kozyak1, Anthony Nelson1, Danielle M. Thesier2, Leonard T. Su1, David W. Low1,5, Charles R. Bridges1, Joseph B. Shrager1,3, Nancy Minugh-Purvis2,4,5 & Marilyn A. Mitchell1
> 
> 1.Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> 2.Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> 3.the Pennsylvania Muscle Institute, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> 4.Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> 5.Division of Plastic Surgery, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
> Correspondence to: Hansell H. Stedman1,3 Email: hstedman@mail.med.upenn.edu
> 
> 
> Top of pagePowerful masticatory muscles are found in most primates, including chimpanzees and gorillas, and were part of a prominent adaptation of Australopithecus and Paranthropus, extinct genera of the family Hominidae1, 2. In contrast, masticatory muscles are considerably smaller in both modern and fossil members of Homo. The evolving hominid masticatory apparatus&#8212;traceable to a Late Miocene, chimpanzee-like morphology3&#8212;shifted towards a pattern of gracilization nearly simultaneously with accelerated encephalization in early Homo 4. Here, we show that the gene encoding the predominant myosin heavy chain (MYH) expressed in these muscles was inactivated by a frameshifting mutation after the lineages leading to humans and chimpanzees diverged. Loss of this protein isoform is associated with marked size reductions in individual muscle fibres and entire masticatory muscles. Using the coding sequence for the myosin rod domains as a molecular clock, we estimate that this mutation appeared approximately 2.4 million years ago, predating the appearance of modern human body size5 and emigration of Homo from Africa6. This represents the first proteomic distinction between humans and chimpanzees that can be correlated with a traceable anatomic imprint in the fossil record.
> 
> Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage : Abstract : Nature
> 
> 
> Evolution: Jaw Muscle and Brain Cavity Size - YouTube
> 
> MYH16 geneFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The MYH16 gene encodes a protein called myosin heavy chain 16 which is a muscle protein in mammals. At least in primates, it is a specialized muscle protein found only in the temporalis and masseter muscles of the jaw.[1][2] Myosin heavy chain proteins are important in muscle contraction, and if they are missing, the muscles will be smaller.[1] In non-human primates, MYH16 is functional and the animals have powerful jaw muscles. In humans, the MYH16 gene has a mutation which causes the protein not to function.[3] Although the exact importance of this change in accounting for differences between humans and apes is not yet clear, such a change may be related to increased brain size and finer control of the jaw which facilitates speech.[1] It is not clear how the MYH16 mutation relates to other changes to the jaw and skull in early human evolution (for example, whether the MYH16 mutation happened first and led to other changes, or whether the MYH16 mutation happened after other changes made the MYH16 protein no longer necessary).[1]
> 
> The initial discovery of the human MYH16 mutation was published in 2004 by a team at the University of Pennsylvania led by Hansell H. Stedman.[2] The date of the mutation has variously been estimated at about 2.4 million years ago[2] or 5.3 million years ago.[4]
> 
> The MYH16 gene is present in dogs,[4] but does not appear to be present in mice.[5]
> 
> MYH16 gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the difference between theory and fact ?
> 
> Have you not read where I said many times similarity proves nothing ?
> 
> What separates all living organism's is the DNA information. How do you explain similar genes performing the same tasks but producing much different groups of organism's ?
> 
> Learn to think before you type or paste someones opinion.
> 
> You only need about 200,000 beneficial mutations to accumulate while not having any other mutations in the process, to turn a chimp into a human. In a very short window and this is by theory. It never happened.
> 
> Listen very carefully,you need a net gain of information without the loss of information for evolution to take place. Mutations that do anything at all lose the origional information. MNutations are errors and the mutations that do anything at all lose information, Got it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> can you rationalize any harder...this MYH16 gene is in humans only and it is a mutation. untill you can SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE  CAUSE AND EFFECT that differers  and disproves that fact you both of you are talking out you collective asses.
Click to expand...


You are making a case for creation and not evolution. They are using circular reasoning by saying since this gene only exists in humans it was a mutation.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1116


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the difference between theory and fact ?
> 
> Have you not read where I said many times similarity proves nothing ?
> 
> What separates all living organism's is the DNA information. How do you explain similar genes performing the same tasks but producing much different groups of organism's ?
> 
> Learn to think before you type or paste someones opinion.
> 
> You only need about 200,000 beneficial mutations to accumulate while not having any other mutations in the process, to turn a chimp into a human. In a very short window and this is by theory. It never happened.
> 
> Listen very carefully,you need a net gain of information without the loss of information for evolution to take place. Mutations that do anything at all lose the origional information. MNutations are errors and the mutations that do anything at all lose information, Got it ?
> 
> 
> 
> can you rationalize any harder...this MYH16 gene is in humans only and it is a mutation. untill you can SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE  CAUSE AND EFFECT that differers  and disproves that fact you both of you are talking out you collective asses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making a case for creation and not evolution. They are using circular reasoning by saying since this gene only exists in humans it was a mutation.
> 
> Apologetics Press - Weak Jaws Equal Bigger Brains?
Click to expand...

bias....link invalid.
the gene is only mutated in human if you had watched either of the 2 clips I provided    
you would have known that.

 While studying human muscle disease, Stedman, a gastrointestinal surgeon, found a new version of a gene that encodes for a muscle-fueling protein called myosin. "Myosin is the most abundant protein in muscle," explains Stedman. "It's the motor protein that generates all the force. The body is able to make a wide range of different myosins, and each one has a different gene. The surprise came in finding that one of themwinds up having a mutation that cripples its ability to make a functional myosinin all humans, as far as we can tell."
Missing DNA Link: Science Videos - Science News - ScienCentral



What makes us human?
 How to turn an ape into a human


Why are we so different from other animals? How did we get such a big brain? Why can we talk? Until recently, these questions were nearly impossible to answer. But now, scientists are starting to figure them out.

How are they doing it? By comparing our DNA to the DNA of other species like apes, dogs or fish.

All species have their own sequence of DNA; that is what makes them separate species. The idea is that if we can figure out what the differences are, then we'll be able to figure out what sets us apart. The DNA sequence most useful in answering the question of what makes us human is the chimpanzee's.

About 6 to 8 million years ago, two groups of apes became separated. They stayed separated long enough to evolve into two different species, humans and chimpanzees. This evolution was a gradual process resulting from small changes in DNA over time. In other words, all of the changes that make us biologically different from the chimp are at the DNA level.

That's easy then, just figure out the differences and you're done, right? Well, no, it's actually much harder than that. First, about 1.5 % of our DNA is different from that of the chimpanzee. This might not sound like much but since our DNA is made up of 3 billion base pairs that means there are 45 million differences between our DNA sequence and that of the chimps.

The second problem is that not all of these changes are responsible for making us humans. There are lots of changes that have nothing to do with turning an ape into a human.

So as you can probably guess, finding out which of those 45 million differences were needed to make us stand upright or get bigger brains is actually pretty daunting. In two different types of studies, scientists have recently found DNA differences that may have made our distant ape ancestors more human.

The two studies start by figuring out DNA changes or mutations that have happened within the last 6 million years. The scientists argue that these mutations somehow helped our ancestors and also made them more human like. The first mutation is in the MYH16 gene and may have allowed our brains to grow bigger. The second mutation is in the FOXP2 gene and may have helped us acquire language.

What makes us human? | Understanding Genetics


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> can you rationalize any harder...this MYH16 gene is in humans only and it is a mutation. untill you can SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE  CAUSE AND EFFECT that differers  and disproves that fact you both of you are talking out you collective asses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are making a case for creation and not evolution. They are using circular reasoning by saying since this gene only exists in humans it was a mutation.
> 
> Apologetics Press - Weak Jaws Equal Bigger Brains?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bias....link invalid.
> the gene is only mutated in human if you had watched either of the 2 clips I provided
> you would have known that.
> 
> While studying human muscle disease, Stedman, a gastrointestinal surgeon, found a new version of a gene that encodes for a muscle-fueling protein called myosin. "Myosin is the most abundant protein in muscle," explains Stedman. "It's the motor protein that generates all the force. The body is able to make a wide range of different myosins, and each one has a different gene. The surprise came in finding that one of themwinds up having a mutation that cripples its ability to make a functional myosinin all humans, as far as we can tell."
> Missing DNA Link: Science Videos - Science News - ScienCentral
> 
> 
> 
> What makes us human?
> How to turn an ape into a human
> 
> 
> Why are we so different from other animals? How did we get such a big brain? Why can we talk? Until recently, these questions were nearly impossible to answer. But now, scientists are starting to figure them out.
> 
> How are they doing it? By comparing our DNA to the DNA of other species like apes, dogs or fish.
> 
> All species have their own sequence of DNA; that is what makes them separate species. The idea is that if we can figure out what the differences are, then we'll be able to figure out what sets us apart. The DNA sequence most useful in answering the question of what makes us human is the chimpanzee's.
> 
> About 6 to 8 million years ago, two groups of apes became separated. They stayed separated long enough to evolve into two different species, humans and chimpanzees. This evolution was a gradual process resulting from small changes in DNA over time. In other words, all of the changes that make us biologically different from the chimp are at the DNA level.
> 
> That's easy then, just figure out the differences and you're done, right? Well, no, it's actually much harder than that. First, about 1.5 % of our DNA is different from that of the chimpanzee. This might not sound like much but since our DNA is made up of 3 billion base pairs that means there are 45 million differences between our DNA sequence and that of the chimps.
> 
> The second problem is that not all of these changes are responsible for making us humans. There are lots of changes that have nothing to do with turning an ape into a human.
> 
> So as you can probably guess, finding out which of those 45 million differences were needed to make us stand upright or get bigger brains is actually pretty daunting. In two different types of studies, scientists have recently found DNA differences that may have made our distant ape ancestors more human.
> 
> The two studies start by figuring out DNA changes or mutations that have happened within the last 6 million years. The scientists argue that these mutations somehow helped our ancestors and also made them more human like. The first mutation is in the MYH16 gene and may have allowed our brains to grow bigger. The second mutation is in the FOXP2 gene and may have helped us acquire language.
> 
> What makes us human? | Understanding Genetics
Click to expand...


Biased source.

They are saying this so called mutation happened millions of years ago how  convenient, naturally they will say it happened about the time of the so called divergence happened to stay consistent with their theory. That is not science that is pure B.S. someone trying to make a name for himself.

They have no evidence to draw that conclusion zero, none. You want to remain brainwashed be my guest.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't remember seeing you post a description of a test whereby we determine something is designed rather than naturally occurring.  You can say that you have, but I have not seen such a thing.  Pointing to the hour and a half long youtube video you posted is not a short description of such a test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto. I don't remember you responding to what the agreed upon scientific definition of fitness is. Or having provided me with one experiment where even any definition of fitness was proven to be responsible for the mutation surviving and being passed to a descendant.
> 
> However, I will respond that humans intuitively know and recognize design. Archeologists do it all the time. That is how they differentiate ancient man-made artifacts from wind and erosion. How do they know the Rosetta Stone was the result of intelligence and not acts of nature? Why does an acheologists recognize an arrowhead as being man made and not just a weird shaped rock? How does one determine Mt. Rushmore is man made and not the result of erosion? Why do we think Stonehenge was arranged by humans?? How do we know humans are responsible for cave paintings? Why don't we think crop circles occur by some natural phenomenom? How will SETI differentiate a signal from another world from static? Why would we think the mysterious shapes in the peruvian desert are the work of an intelligent agent and not nature?
> 
> Living in Peru » Travel : We know who drew these giant shapes in Peru's desert -- but why?
> 
> *&#8220;The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."       -Dr. Who*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did respond to the fitness question, but I don't know if there is an agreed upon scientific definition.  If the only thing evolution postulated was that some organisms are more fit than others, it would be more of an issue.
> 
> With ID, the only thing that I can see that makes it anything other than already established fields of science is that it postulates a designer is responsible for the creation of certain things.  That being the case, if there's only one thing that differentiates ID from already established science, that one thing needs to be clearly defined and observable/testable.
> 
> And as I've said many times, determining if something was created by humans is different from determining if something was created by intelligence.  Unless we have observed examples of another intelligence designing things, as we do with humanity, the comparison fails.  We can look at things we already know to be human-designed and compare them to archeological finds to see if they match, thereby concluding something was made by man.  What do we compare, say, DNA to?  Something man-made?  That would indicate man created DNA.  Do we compare it to something god created?  To something aliens created?  There is no basis for comparison for non-terrestrial intelligence, which is what ID proposes, so I don't see how you can test for it.  If there is no test, and there is nothing else that differentiates ID from other scientific fields, how is ID a separate branch of scientific inquiry?
Click to expand...


You have totally failed to grasp the concept. Darwin and Lyell both said if we want to understand the distant past, we don't come up with some wacky explanation, we look at what is happening in the present. You really are making it more difficult that it is. In the present, the only source we find for digital code is an intelligent agent, that is, in the case of the binary code, a human is the designer. Therefore, the only known source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. Using Darwin's and Lyell's methodology, we can conclude that the digital code in dna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_numeral_system ) must have had an intelligent source. Unlike Creationism, ID does not get into theological discussions or postulations about who the intelligent source of dna is, only that the best explanation based on the present is that DNA had an intelligent source, and is not from some random process. In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

From Wiki:

"A binary code is a way of representing text or computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular symbol or instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 256 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different symbols, letters or instructions.

In computing and telecommunication, binary codes are used for any of a variety of methods of encoding data, such as character strings, into bit strings. Those methods may be fixed-width or variable-width. In a fixed-width binary code, each letter, digit, or other character, is represented by a bit string of the same length; that bit string, interpreted as a binary number, is usually displayed in code tables in octal, decimal or hexadecimal notation. There are many character sets and many character encodings for them."

*Yeah, cause the ID argument takes a severe leap in logic... DUH, only if you are blinded and brainwashed by Darwinism!!!!*"

Also from Wiki:

DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing."

"DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer."

"Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).

[edit] Data transmissionQuaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits."


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> The first mutation is in the MYH16 gene and *may have *allowed our brains to grow bigger. The second mutation is in the FOXP2 gene and *may have *helped us acquire language.



Ah yes. And let the assumptive language rule!! A whole theory based on might haves and could haves. And this is SCIENCE????


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> [Why are we so different from other animals? How did we get such a big brain? Why can we talk? Until recently, these questions were nearly impossible to answer. But now, scientists are starting to figure them out.



Salvo Magazine A Sound Barrier by Denyse O'Leary


----------



## Montrovant

You have missed my point.  Whether ID is a reasonable conclusion or not is not the issue.  The problem is whether or not it is a field of scientific study.  

Coming to the conclusion that there was a designer is different from either testing that idea or observing it.  

I don't agree with the conclusion, but my agreement or disagreement is immaterial to this point.


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet even more evidence of design...
> 
> "Let me untangle the rhetoric. The reason why knots in folded proteins are unlikely is because they are hard to achieve, without resulting in misfolded proteins, aggregation, and possible disease states. Even though its *unlikely they evolved*lets make that *highly unlikely*we know knotted proteins must have evolved somehow, simply because they exist."
> 
> Uncommon Descent | Proteins have slip knots, like a shoelace bow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems that those who don't believe they evolved are just lacking imagination.  Even if they were designed they'd have to follow the Rules of Chemistry.  If they do follow rules, what need is there to postulate a designer?  Simply quoting a comment of dubious origin, proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with imagination. It has to do with probability and chance. It is so ironic to me that Darwinists call Christians the brainwashed ones.
Click to expand...


Probability and chance are multiplied greatly, when you're talking billions of years.  Remember, it only has to happen once in a relatively small area to get the ball rolling.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One other thing daws all primate fossils are either 100% human or from the ape family there is no common ancestor fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> right!
> coming from the guy who said this:"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death. Slowly as our Dna replicates copying errors happen I believe it is the loss of genetic information is what causes us age and die."
> and you expect to be taken seriously !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I studied flies for eleven years and the mutatiing offspring indeed all had shorter lifespans.
Click to expand...


Every last one?  That sounds too incredible to believe!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are making a case for creation and not evolution. They are using circular reasoning by saying since this gene only exists in humans it was a mutation.
> 
> Apologetics Press - Weak Jaws Equal Bigger Brains?
> 
> 
> 
> bias....link invalid.
> the gene is only mutated in human if you had watched either of the 2 clips I provided
> you would have known that.
> 
> While studying human muscle disease, Stedman, a gastrointestinal surgeon, found a new version of a gene that encodes for a muscle-fueling protein called myosin. "Myosin is the most abundant protein in muscle," explains Stedman. "It's the motor protein that generates all the force. The body is able to make a wide range of different myosins, and each one has a different gene. The surprise came in finding that one of them&#8230;winds up having a mutation that cripples its ability to make a functional myosin&#8230;in all humans, as far as we can tell."
> Missing DNA Link: Science Videos - Science News - ScienCentral
> 
> 
> 
> What makes us human?
> How to turn an ape into a human
> 
> 
> Why are we so different from other animals? How did we get such a big brain? Why can we talk? Until recently, these questions were nearly impossible to answer. But now, scientists are starting to figure them out.
> 
> How are they doing it? By comparing our DNA to the DNA of other species like apes, dogs or fish.
> 
> All species have their own sequence of DNA; that is what makes them separate species. The idea is that if we can figure out what the differences are, then we'll be able to figure out what sets us apart. The DNA sequence most useful in answering the question of what makes us human is the chimpanzee's.
> 
> About 6 to 8 million years ago, two groups of apes became separated. They stayed separated long enough to evolve into two different species, humans and chimpanzees. This evolution was a gradual process resulting from small changes in DNA over time. In other words, all of the changes that make us biologically different from the chimp are at the DNA level.
> 
> That's easy then, just figure out the differences and you're done, right? Well, no, it's actually much harder than that. First, about 1.5 % of our DNA is different from that of the chimpanzee. This might not sound like much but since our DNA is made up of 3 billion base pairs that means there are 45 million differences between our DNA sequence and that of the chimps.
> 
> The second problem is that not all of these changes are responsible for making us humans. There are lots of changes that have nothing to do with turning an ape into a human.
> 
> So as you can probably guess, finding out which of those 45 million differences were needed to make us stand upright or get bigger brains is actually pretty daunting. In two different types of studies, scientists have recently found DNA differences that may have made our distant ape ancestors more human.
> 
> The two studies start by figuring out DNA changes or mutations that have happened within the last 6 million years. The scientists argue that these mutations somehow helped our ancestors and also made them more human like. The first mutation is in the MYH16 gene and may have allowed our brains to grow bigger. The second mutation is in the FOXP2 gene and may have helped us acquire language.
> 
> What makes us human? | Understanding Genetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biased source.
> 
> They are saying this so called mutation happened millions of years ago how  convenient, naturally they will say it happened about the time of the so called divergence happened to stay consistent with their theory. That is not science that is pure B.S. someone trying to make a name for himself.
> 
> They have no evidence to draw that conclusion zero, none. You want to remain brainwashed be my guest.
Click to expand...

once again you're talking out your ass http://sapientfridge.org/chromosome_count/science_papers/myosin_gene_mutation.pdf


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first mutation is in the MYH16 gene and *may have *allowed our brains to grow bigger. The second mutation is in the FOXP2 gene and *may have *helped us acquire language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes. And let the assumptive language rule!! A whole theory based on might haves and could haves. And this is SCIENCE????
Click to expand...

funny you should say that because you fairy tale assumes facts not in evidence from start to finish.
and no the theory is supported by the evidence.
unless or until you have theory supported by better evidence(I.E. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD)THEN YOU'RE JUST FARTING FARY TALES, FRESHLY PULLED FROM YOU ASSES AND YOU CALL I T SCIENCE!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Why are we so different from other animals? How did we get such a big brain? Why can we talk? Until recently, these questions were nearly impossible to answer. But now, scientists are starting to figure them out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salvo Magazine A Sound Barrier by Denyse O'Leary
Click to expand...

FSJ - The Fellowship of St. James bias source invalid .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One other thing daws all primate fossils are either 100% human or from the ape family there is no common ancestor fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> 
> Chimpanzee-human last common ancestorFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last species, a species of African apes, that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor.
> 
> The CHLCA is generally used as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human genetic studies where chimpanzees are used as an outgroup. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for molecular TMRCA (Time to most recent common ancestor) determination because the two species of the genus Pan, the Bonobos and the Chimpanzee, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.
> 
> Contents [hide]
> 1 Time estimates
> 2 Pan Prior
> 3 See also
> 4 Notes
> 5 References
> 
> 
> [edit] Time estimatesThe age of the CHLCA is an estimate. The fossil find of Ardipithecus kadabba, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and Orrorin tugenensis are closest in age and expected morphology of the CHLCA and suggest the LCA is older than 7 million years. The earliest studies of apes suggest the CHLCA may have been as old as 25 million years; however, protein studies in the 1970s suggested the CHLCA was less than 8 million years in age. Genetic methods based on Orangutan/Human and Gibbon/Human LCA times were then used to estimate a Chimpanzee/Human LCA of 6 million years, and LCA times between 5 and 7 million years ago are currently used in the literature.[note 1]
> 
> &#8220; One no longer has the option of considering a fossil older than about eight million years as a hominid no matter what it looks like. &#8221;
> &#8212;V. Sarich, Background for man[1]
> 
> 
> Because chimps and humans share a matrilineal ancestor, establishing the geological age of that last ancestor allows the estimation of the mutation rate. However, fossils of the exact last common ancestor would be an extremely rare find. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for mt-TMRCA determination because chimpanzees are the species most genetically similar to humans. However, there are no known fossils that represent that CHLCA. It is believed that there are no proto-chimpanzee fossils or proto-gorilla fossils that have been clearly identified. However, Richard Dawkins, in his book "The Ancestor's Tale," proposes that robust australopithecines such as Paranthropus are the ancestors of gorillas, whereas some of the gracile australopithecines are the ancestors of chimpanzees (see Homininae).
> 
> &#8220; In effect, there is now not a priori reason to presume that human-chimpanzee split times are especially recent, and the fossil evidence is now fully compatible with older chimpanzee-human divergence dates [7 to 10 Ma... &#8221;
> &#8212;White et al. (2009), [2]
> 
> 
> Some researchers tried to estimate the age of the CHLCA (TCHLCA) using biopolymer structures which differ slightly between closely related animals. Among these researchers, Allan C. Wilson and Vincent Sarich were pioneers in the development of the molecular clock for humans. Working on protein sequences they eventually determined that apes were closer to humans than some paleontologists perceived based on the fossil record.[note 2] Later Vincent Sarich concluded that the TCHLCA was no greater than 8 million years in age, with a favored range between 4 and 6 million years before present.
> 
> This paradigmatic age has stuck with molecular anthropology until the late 1990s, when others began questioning the certainty of the assumption. Currently, the estimation of the TCHLCA is less certain, and there is genetic as well as paleontological support for increasing TCHLCA. A 13 million year TCHLCA is one proposed age.[2][3]
> 
> once again talking out your ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is sucker born every minute. They always make these claims only to be proven wrong at a later date.
> 
> It
Click to expand...

  btw P.T. BARNUM NEVER SAID THAT, no one knows who did.
it is however more proof that you ,to quote afriend of mine"are speaking from non knowledge"
as is your bigoted link!


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> right!
> coming from the guy who said this:"Don't forget my theory is that God used the loss of genetic information as the means to carry out his punishment for sin which is death. Slowly as our Dna replicates copying errors happen I believe it is the loss of genetic information is what causes us age and die."
> and you expect to be taken seriously !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I studied flies for eleven years and the mutatiing offspring indeed all had shorter lifespans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every last one?  That sounds too incredible to believe!
Click to expand...


Yes,every offspring that had induced mutations died prematurely.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> 
> Chimpanzee-human last common ancestorFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last species, a species of African apes, that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor.
> 
> The CHLCA is generally used as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human genetic studies where chimpanzees are used as an outgroup. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for molecular TMRCA (Time to most recent common ancestor) determination because the two species of the genus Pan, the Bonobos and the Chimpanzee, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.
> 
> Contents [hide]
> 1 Time estimates
> 2 Pan Prior
> 3 See also
> 4 Notes
> 5 References
> 
> 
> [edit] Time estimatesThe age of the CHLCA is an estimate. The fossil find of Ardipithecus kadabba, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and Orrorin tugenensis are closest in age and expected morphology of the CHLCA and suggest the LCA is older than 7 million years. The earliest studies of apes suggest the CHLCA may have been as old as 25 million years; however, protein studies in the 1970s suggested the CHLCA was less than 8 million years in age. Genetic methods based on Orangutan/Human and Gibbon/Human LCA times were then used to estimate a Chimpanzee/Human LCA of 6 million years, and LCA times between 5 and 7 million years ago are currently used in the literature.[note 1]
> 
> &#8220; One no longer has the option of considering a fossil older than about eight million years as a hominid no matter what it looks like. &#8221;
> &#8212;V. Sarich, Background for man[1]
> 
> 
> Because chimps and humans share a matrilineal ancestor, establishing the geological age of that last ancestor allows the estimation of the mutation rate. However, fossils of the exact last common ancestor would be an extremely rare find. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for mt-TMRCA determination because chimpanzees are the species most genetically similar to humans. However, there are no known fossils that represent that CHLCA. It is believed that there are no proto-chimpanzee fossils or proto-gorilla fossils that have been clearly identified. However, Richard Dawkins, in his book "The Ancestor's Tale," proposes that robust australopithecines such as Paranthropus are the ancestors of gorillas, whereas some of the gracile australopithecines are the ancestors of chimpanzees (see Homininae).
> 
> &#8220; In effect, there is now not a priori reason to presume that human-chimpanzee split times are especially recent, and the fossil evidence is now fully compatible with older chimpanzee-human divergence dates [7 to 10 Ma... &#8221;
> &#8212;White et al. (2009), [2]
> 
> 
> Some researchers tried to estimate the age of the CHLCA (TCHLCA) using biopolymer structures which differ slightly between closely related animals. Among these researchers, Allan C. Wilson and Vincent Sarich were pioneers in the development of the molecular clock for humans. Working on protein sequences they eventually determined that apes were closer to humans than some paleontologists perceived based on the fossil record.[note 2] Later Vincent Sarich concluded that the TCHLCA was no greater than 8 million years in age, with a favored range between 4 and 6 million years before present.
> 
> This paradigmatic age has stuck with molecular anthropology until the late 1990s, when others began questioning the certainty of the assumption. Currently, the estimation of the TCHLCA is less certain, and there is genetic as well as paleontological support for increasing TCHLCA. A 13 million year TCHLCA is one proposed age.[2][3]
> 
> once again talking out your ass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is sucker born every minute. They always make these claims only to be proven wrong at a later date.
> 
> It
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> btw P.T. BARNUM NEVER SAID THAT, no one knows who did.
> it is however more proof that you ,to quote afriend of mine"are speaking from non knowledge"
> as is your bigoted link!
Click to expand...


They have no proof this was a mutation , faulty assumptions lead to faulty conclusions.

Still waiting for you to answer the question which gene in other primates determines  the jaw and size of the brain ?

If you do not answer this question I am done reading your links and you not understanding what you posted. Don't quote me unless you answer my questions.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> You have missed my point.  Whether ID is a reasonable conclusion or not is not the issue.  The problem is whether or not it is a field of scientific study.
> 
> Coming to the conclusion that there was a designer is different from either testing that idea or observing it.
> 
> I don't agree with the conclusion, but my agreement or disagreement is immaterial to this point.



The point is not that you agree with the conclusion. The point is the theory is just as valid as darwinism since it uses the same methodology and it is just as scientifically viable based on the evidence, or as evolutionary theory is so fond of quoting, based on the LACK of evidence for any other viable alternative.


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems that those who don't believe they evolved are just lacking imagination.  Even if they were designed they'd have to follow the Rules of Chemistry.  If they do follow rules, what need is there to postulate a designer?  Simply quoting a comment of dubious origin, proves nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with imagination. It has to do with probability and chance. It is so ironic to me that Darwinists call Christians the brainwashed ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probability and chance are multiplied greatly, when you're talking billions of years.  Remember, it only has to happen once in a relatively small area to get the ball rolling.
Click to expand...


You worship the god of chance. I worship the God of the Bible. They are both fairy tales to the opposing party.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first mutation is in the MYH16 gene and *may have *allowed our brains to grow bigger. The second mutation is in the FOXP2 gene and *may have *helped us acquire language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes. And let the assumptive language rule!! A whole theory based on might haves and could haves. And this is SCIENCE????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> funny you should say that because you fairy tale assumes facts not in evidence from start to finish.
> and no the theory is supported by the evidence.
> unless or until you have theory supported by better evidence(I.E. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD)THEN YOU'RE JUST FARTING FARY TALES, FRESHLY PULLED FROM YOU ASSES AND YOU CALL I T SCIENCE!
Click to expand...


This is where your ignorance really stands out. ID Theory seeks the best explanation. No where currently do we have machines self assembling and digital code writing itself. Because that is really what you are saying isn't it, whether you claim the randomness god, you are still claiming the digital code in DNA wrote itself. Please provide a modern example of some type of lanquage or *functional* digital code occurring in our lifetime that does not have an intelligent agent as its source.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Why are we so different from other animals? How did we get such a big brain? Why can we talk? Until recently, these questions were nearly impossible to answer. But now, scientists are starting to figure them out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salvo Magazine A Sound Barrier by Denyse O'Leary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FSJ - The Fellowship of St. James bias source invalid .
Click to expand...


I guess that pretty much disqualifies your entire theory. The incredible bias shown by scientist performing experiments to seek an outcome they already supposedly know is the answer is the epitomy of bias and preposterousness!!!! (is that a word?)


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have missed my point.  Whether ID is a reasonable conclusion or not is not the issue.  The problem is whether or not it is a field of scientific study.
> 
> Coming to the conclusion that there was a designer is different from either testing that idea or observing it.
> 
> I don't agree with the conclusion, but my agreement or disagreement is immaterial to this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is not that you agree with the conclusion. The point is the theory is just as valid as darwinism since it uses the same methodology and it is just as scientifically viable based on the evidence, or as evolutionary theory is so fond of quoting, based on the LACK of evidence for any other viable alternative.
Click to expand...


The reason why they won't accept it as just as viable theory is the heads of the scientific community are either atheist and think they are intelligent enough to answer these questions without a designer or because they can't prove Gods existence or they can't test how he did it.

Which really means they can't know how he did it because they won't believe there is a being that willed all that we see into existence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes. And let the assumptive language rule!! A whole theory based on might haves and could haves. And this is SCIENCE????
> 
> 
> 
> funny you should say that because you fairy tale assumes facts not in evidence from start to finish.
> and no the theory is supported by the evidence.
> unless or until you have theory supported by better evidence(I.E. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD)THEN YOU'RE JUST FARTING FARY TALES, FRESHLY PULLED FROM YOU ASSES AND YOU CALL I T SCIENCE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where your ignorance really stands out. ID Theory seeks the best explanation. No where currently do we have machines self assembling and digital code writing itself. Because that is really what you are saying isn't it, whether you claim the randomness god, you are still claiming the digital code in DNA wrote itself. Please provide a modern example of some type of lanquage or *functional* digital code occurring in our lifetime that does not have an intelligent agent as its source.
Click to expand...



He can't because there are none.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I studied flies for eleven years and the mutatiing offspring indeed all had shorter lifespans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every last one?  That sounds too incredible to believe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes,every offspring that had induced mutations died prematurely.
Click to expand...


Sounds like something else going on here, like poor lab skills.  You must talking about your personal experience only, because in well-designed experiments, that just doesn't happen.  Not all mutations are deleterious, so there must be another explanation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every last one?  That sounds too incredible to believe!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,every offspring that had induced mutations died prematurely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something else going on here, like poor lab skills.  You must talking about your personal experience only, because in well-designed experiments, that just doesn't happen.  Not all mutations are deleterious, so there must be another explanation.
Click to expand...


Poor lab skills I think not.

We caused mutations through radiation and vaginal sponge baths. Which caused mutations in both the parents and offspring. When your origional DNA information is lost it causes problems.

I think that is a major reason why we age and die.


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every last one?  That sounds too incredible to believe!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,every offspring that had induced mutations died prematurely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something else going on here, like poor lab skills.  You must talking about your personal experience only, because in well-designed experiments, that just doesn't happen.  Not all mutations are deleterious, so there must be another explanation.
Click to expand...


Can you hear yourself talking? This comment shows a severe case of classic Darwinist brainwashing. "That result simply can't be right because it doesn't fit with my theory. Do the experiment again, wait... not just again...as many times as you need to to make it fit the "fact" of evolution."

You guys are utterly lost and you can't even see it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

To add since man has been on the earth we have constantly had mutations and as more and more generations passed the average lifespan decreased. Through research and advanced medicine treatment we have increased the lifespan again but not near what it once was.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,every offspring that had induced mutations died prematurely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something else going on here, like poor lab skills.  You must talking about your personal experience only, because in well-designed experiments, that just doesn't happen.  Not all mutations are deleterious, so there must be another explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you hear yourself talking? This comment shows a severe case of classic Darwinist brainwashing. "That result simply can't be right because it doesn't fit with my theory. Do the experiment again, wait... not just again...as many times as you need to to make it fit the "fact" of evolution."
> 
> You guys are utterly lost and you can't even see it.
Click to expand...


I use to be one of the brainwashed until I saw it for myself.

11 years of this evidence convinced me that mutations are a dead end but I always felt a higher power was resposible for life.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,every offspring that had induced mutations died prematurely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something else going on here, like poor lab skills.  You must talking about your personal experience only, because in well-designed experiments, that just doesn't happen.  Not all mutations are deleterious, so there must be another explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you hear yourself talking? This comment shows a severe case of classic Darwinist brainwashing. "That result simply can't be right because it doesn't fit with my theory. Do the experiment again, wait... not just again...as many times as you need to to make it fit the "fact" of evolution."
> 
> You guys are utterly lost and you can't even see it.
Click to expand...


Actually, I thought he was saying that other experiments of that kind have different results.  If YWC's results are completely outside the norm, it's not unreasonable to wonder if the methods might have caused a different outcome.


----------



## Govmule4

Youwerecreated said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still not worthy to bet my life on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence, exactly, would you accept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.
Click to expand...


This doesn't make sense, if the scientist is bias then so is the caveman/time traveler that would be recording the age of the earth for you. I don't think you really know what evidence would convince you of a theory. As of now, people are untrustworthy because their bias, and science is untrustworthy because people are bias. Either admit all people, including those who wrote the bible as well as scientists, are bias and untrustworthy or admit your crazy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Govmule4 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence, exactly, would you accept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't make sense, if the scientist is bias then so is the caveman/time traveler that would be recording the age of the earth for you. I don't think you really know what evidence would convince you of a theory. As of now, people are untrustworthy because their bias, and science is untrustworthy because people are bias. Either admit all people, including those who wrote the bible as well as scientists, are bias and untrustworthy or admit your crazy.
Click to expand...


Everyone has views and they are biased by their views.

But I was once biased about evolution but my time in the lab brought about view changes.


----------



## Govmule4

Youwerecreated said:


> Govmule4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make sense, if the scientist is bias then so is the caveman/time traveler that would be recording the age of the earth for you. I don't think you really know what evidence would convince you of a theory. As of now, people are untrustworthy because their bias, and science is untrustworthy because people are bias. Either admit all people, including those who wrote the bible as well as scientists, are bias and untrustworthy or admit your crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone has views and they are biased by their views.
> 
> But I was once biased about evolution but my time in the lab brought about view changes.
Click to expand...


If everyone is bias, than I ask how is someone being there an "accurate way to determine the age of an object."


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> To add since man has been on the earth we have constantly had mutations and as more and more generations passed the average lifespan decreased. Through research and advanced medicine treatment we have increased the lifespan again but not near what it once was.



Do you have anything to base this on, other than some ages listed in the bible?

In other words, is there any objective evidence that humanity used to live longer, or is it just your personal belief?


----------



## daws101

Govmule4 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Govmule4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make sense, if the scientist is bias then so is the caveman/time traveler that would be recording the age of the earth for you. I don't think you really know what evidence would convince you of a theory. As of now, people are untrustworthy because their bias, and science is untrustworthy because people are bias. Either admit all people, including those who wrote the bible as well as scientists, are bias and untrustworthy or admit your crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has views and they are biased by their views.
> 
> But I was once biased about evolution but my time in the lab brought about view changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If everyone is bias, than I ask how is someone being there an "accurate way to determine the age of an object."
Click to expand...

he has no answer, if you had'nt noticed everytime they are given an answer they move the goal posts.


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To add since man has been on the earth we have constantly had mutations and as more and more generations passed the average lifespan decreased. Through research and advanced medicine treatment we have increased the lifespan again but not near what it once was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have anything to base this on, other than some ages listed in the bible?
> 
> In other words, is there any objective evidence that humanity used to live longer, or is it just your personal belief?
Click to expand...

was this before or after the last ice age?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have missed my point.  Whether ID is a reasonable conclusion or not is not the issue.  The problem is whether or not it is a field of scientific study.
> 
> Coming to the conclusion that there was a designer is different from either testing that idea or observing it.
> 
> I don't agree with the conclusion, but my agreement or disagreement is immaterial to this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is not that you agree with the conclusion. The point is the theory is just as valid as darwinism since it uses the same methodology and it is just as scientifically viable based on the evidence, or as evolutionary theory is so fond of quoting, based on the LACK of evidence for any other viable alternative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ID does not use the same methodology as "Darwinism" so, it is not as scientifically viable, because it is uses no method. It is an unfalsifiable conclusion based on the evidence we do have. It is an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. How many times does this have to be said before you believe it? All the IDers are saying is, this seems too amazing to me, so there must be a designer. THAT'S IT! And, because these people have degrees, they can call it a theory. It's nonsense.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Govmule4 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Govmule4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make sense, if the scientist is bias then so is the caveman/time traveler that would be recording the age of the earth for you. I don't think you really know what evidence would convince you of a theory. As of now, people are untrustworthy because their bias, and science is untrustworthy because people are bias. Either admit all people, including those who wrote the bible as well as scientists, are bias and untrustworthy or admit your crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has views and they are biased by their views.
> 
> But I was once biased about evolution but my time in the lab brought about view changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If everyone is bias, than I ask how is someone being there an "accurate way to determine the age of an object."
Click to expand...


It was actually observed if that is denied That would be dishonest. Both sides are biased ,it is human nature.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To add since man has been on the earth we have constantly had mutations and as more and more generations passed the average lifespan decreased. Through research and advanced medicine treatment we have increased the lifespan again but not near what it once was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have anything to base this on, other than some ages listed in the bible?
> 
> In other words, is there any objective evidence that humanity used to live longer, or is it just your personal belief?
Click to expand...


There are several theories.

Some believe everythiong began to decay and our atmosphere started decaying allowing in more radiation,by the radiation can cause mutations.

Some believe the mutations are the reason for shorter lifespans. I'm one of them.

others believe this.

Why Did Old Testament Genesis People Biblical Characters Live Longer than Today Aging Process Telomere Genetic Research Analysis Greater Longevity Ancient Genesis Biblical World Explanation Factors for Greater Age at Death Prolonging Life Genome Chro


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is not that you agree with the conclusion. The point is the theory is just as valid as darwinism since it uses the same methodology and it is just as scientifically viable based on the evidence, or as evolutionary theory is so fond of quoting, based on the LACK of evidence for any other viable alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ID does not use the same methodology as "Darwinism" so, it is not as scientifically viable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhh, yes it does. Darwin's method was to study the present to understand the distant past. That is EXACTLY what ID theory does. Funny that you and DAWS just lay down unsupported statements without any substance. Where's the beef?? It is funny how you just remain silent when I ask the really hard questions.
> 
> Copied from previous post for your review and comment:
> 
> You have totally failed to grasp the concept. Darwin and Lyell both said if we want to understand the distant past, we don't come up with some wacky explanation, we look at what is happening in the present. You really are making it more difficult that it is. In the present, the only source we find for digital code is an intelligent agent, that is, in the case of the binary code, a human is the designer. Therefore, the only known source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. Using Darwin's and Lyell's methodology, we can conclude that the digital code in dna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_numeral_system ) must have had an intelligent source. Unlike Creationism, ID does not get into theological discussions or postulations about who the intelligent source of dna is, only that the best explanation based on the present is that DNA had an intelligent source, and is not from some random process. In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> "A binary code is a way of representing text or computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular symbol or instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 256 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different symbols, letters or instructions.
> 
> In computing and telecommunication, binary codes are used for any of a variety of methods of encoding data, such as character strings, into bit strings. Those methods may be fixed-width or variable-width. In a fixed-width binary code, each letter, digit, or other character, is represented by a bit string of the same length; that bit string, interpreted as a binary number, is usually displayed in code tables in octal, decimal or hexadecimal notation. There are many character sets and many character encodings for them."
> 
> Yeah, cause the ID argument takes a severe leap in logic... DUH, only if you are blinded and brainwashed by Darwinism!!!!"
> 
> Also from Wiki:
> 
> DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing."
> 
> "DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer."
> 
> "Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]
> 
> For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
> 
> [edit] Data transmissionQuaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits."
Click to expand...


----------



## Montrovant

Next you will tell us that ID uses the same methodology as all other types of science because they all draw conclusions from data.  

Using vague general statements does not a scientific field of study make.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID does not use the same methodology as "Darwinism" so, it is not as scientifically viable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhh, yes it does. Darwin's method was to study the present to understand the distant past. That is EXACTLY what ID theory does. Funny that you and DAWS just lay down unsupported statements without any substance. Where's the beef?? It is funny how you just remain silent when I ask the really hard questions.
> 
> Copied from previous post for your review and comment:
> 
> You have totally failed to grasp the concept. Darwin and Lyell both said if we want to understand the distant past, we don't come up with some wacky explanation, we look at what is happening in the present. You really are making it more difficult that it is. In the present, the only source we find for digital code is an intelligent agent, that is, in the case of the binary code, a human is the designer. Therefore, the only known source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. Using Darwin's and Lyell's methodology, we can conclude that the digital code in dna (Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) must have had an intelligent source. Unlike Creationism, ID does not get into theological discussions or postulations about who the intelligent source of dna is, only that the best explanation based on the present is that DNA had an intelligent source, and is not from some random process. In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> "A binary code is a way of representing text or computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular symbol or instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 256 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different symbols, letters or instructions.
> 
> In computing and telecommunication, binary codes are used for any of a variety of methods of encoding data, such as character strings, into bit strings. Those methods may be fixed-width or variable-width. In a fixed-width binary code, each letter, digit, or other character, is represented by a bit string of the same length; that bit string, interpreted as a binary number, is usually displayed in code tables in octal, decimal or hexadecimal notation. There are many character sets and many character encodings for them."
> 
> Yeah, cause the ID argument takes a severe leap in logic... DUH, only if you are blinded and brainwashed by Darwinism!!!!"
> 
> Also from Wiki:
> 
> DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing."
> 
> "DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer."
> 
> "Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]
> 
> For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
> 
> [edit] Data transmissionQuaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any empirical evidence to prove that a sentient force is responsible?
> 
> dumb ass statements like this :In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too."DON'T HELP WITH YOUR HUGE CREDIBILITY PROBLEM
> 
> since engines and circuit board are not biological YOUR FALSE COMPARISON TO  BIOLOGICAL /CHEMICAL REACTIONS IN CELLS IS LAUGHABLE.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhh, yes it does. Darwin's method was to study the present to understand the distant past. That is EXACTLY what ID theory does. Funny that you and DAWS just lay down unsupported statements without any substance. Where's the beef?? It is funny how you just remain silent when I ask the really hard questions.
> 
> Copied from previous post for your review and comment:
> 
> You have totally failed to grasp the concept. Darwin and Lyell both said if we want to understand the distant past, we don't come up with some wacky explanation, we look at what is happening in the present. You really are making it more difficult that it is. In the present, the only source we find for digital code is an intelligent agent, that is, in the case of the binary code, a human is the designer. Therefore, the only known source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. Using Darwin's and Lyell's methodology, we can conclude that the digital code in dna (Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) must have had an intelligent source. Unlike Creationism, ID does not get into theological discussions or postulations about who the intelligent source of dna is, only that the best explanation based on the present is that DNA had an intelligent source, and is not from some random process. In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> "A binary code is a way of representing text or computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular symbol or instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 256 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different symbols, letters or instructions.
> 
> In computing and telecommunication, binary codes are used for any of a variety of methods of encoding data, such as character strings, into bit strings. Those methods may be fixed-width or variable-width. In a fixed-width binary code, each letter, digit, or other character, is represented by a bit string of the same length; that bit string, interpreted as a binary number, is usually displayed in code tables in octal, decimal or hexadecimal notation. There are many character sets and many character encodings for them."
> 
> Yeah, cause the ID argument takes a severe leap in logic... DUH, only if you are blinded and brainwashed by Darwinism!!!!"
> 
> Also from Wiki:
> 
> DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing."
> 
> "DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer."
> 
> "Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]
> 
> For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
> 
> [edit] Data transmissionQuaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits."
> 
> 
> 
> any empirical evidence to prove that a sentient force is responsible?
> 
> dumb ass statements like this :In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too."DON'T HELP WITH YOUR HUGE CREDIBILITY PROBLEM
> 
> since engines and circuit board are not biological YOUR FALSE COMPARISON TO  BIOLOGICAL /CHEMICAL REACTIONS IN CELLS IS LAUGHABLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Methinks the lady doth protest too much...

Darwin's God: The Awesome Power Behind Evolution: It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species

If it is so laughable that a higher intelligence might be responsible for the evidence we find in biology, why do darwinists argue so much against it. To do so gives the arguments merit.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> any empirical evidence to prove that a sentient force is responsible?
> 
> dumb ass statements like this :In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too."DON'T HELP WITH YOUR HUGE CREDIBILITY PROBLEM
> 
> since engines and circuit board are not biological YOUR FALSE COMPARISON TO  BIOLOGICAL /CHEMICAL REACTIONS IN CELLS IS LAUGHABLE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure which response to laugh at more. Neither of these responses deserve one of my own. You argue pure ridiculousness and ignorance. Keep on arguing against your own deluded perception of what scientists claim. You will always think your right, because your strawman is wrong.
Click to expand...


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".



Of course they're different.  There are no scientific laws that could lead to the self-assembly of a machine or computer.  There are laws of Chemistry and Physics which can explain the assembly of life.

Evolution of DNA


----------



## Montrovant

Apparently man made machines are the same as living organisms now?  The things you learn on the interwebz....


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're different.  There are no scientific laws that could lead to the self-assembly of a machine or computer.  There are laws of Chemistry and Physics which can explain the assembly of life.
> 
> Evolution of DNA
Click to expand...


No it doesn't unless you believe in miracles.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Apparently man made machines are the same as living organisms now?  The things you learn on the interwebz....



Yes they are because they could not happen by chance. It stands to reason they both had a designer and a builder.


----------



## daws101

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're different.  There are no scientific laws that could lead to the self-assembly of a machine or computer.  There are laws of Chemistry and Physics which can explain the assembly of life.
> 
> Evolution of DNA
Click to expand...

he'll still deny it no matter how many ways it's explained to him .
living things grow (not self assemble) assembly requires individual parts.
the only other non biologic "thing" that grows are crystals.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're different.  There are no scientific laws that could lead to the self-assembly of a machine or computer.  There are laws of Chemistry and Physics which can explain the assembly of life.
> 
> Evolution of DNA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't unless you believe in miracles.
Click to expand...

what sort of miracles?
 you have no proof that a god exsists no matter how hard you wish one did.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently man made machines are the same as living organisms now?  The things you learn on the interwebz....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they are because they could not happen by chance. It stands to reason they both had a designer and a builder.
Click to expand...

false declaratory statement.
" reason : a statement offered in explanation or justification"
in other words wow that's convenient!


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Apparently man made machines are the same as living organisms now?  The things you learn on the interwebz....



What is "living"? What is "life"?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're different.  There are no scientific laws that could lead to the self-assembly of a machine or computer.  There are laws of Chemistry and Physics which can explain the assembly of life.
> 
> Evolution of DNA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he'll still deny it no matter how many ways it's explained to him .
> living things grow (not self assemble) assembly requires individual parts.
> the only other non biologic "thing" that grows are crystals.
Click to expand...


This gets more stupid by the minute. You really are blinded by Darwinism. Next thing you're going to tell me is that cells are made up of plasma, that they don't consist of individual tiny parts... oh wait! You already just did that... doh!!!

Your absolute blind denial is alarming...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ey7Emmddf7Y


----------



## UltimateReality

"With that in mind, evolutionists expect us to believe that these people walked this earth for 100 times the length of all recorded history (during which humans went from living in villages to walking on the moon and launching NuStar) without ever figuring out how to plant a farm or ride a horse or discover America.  Let the folly of that Darwinian tall tale simmer between your ears."

CEH

Sadly, most of you posting here are the product of a dumbed down education system and the viewing of mythical tales passed off as documentary's, which aren't even updated years later when the nonsense they preach is outdated and flat out wrong.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're different.  There are no scientific laws that could lead to the self-assembly of a machine or computer.  There are laws of Chemistry and Physics which can explain the assembly of life.
> 
> Evolution of DNA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't unless you believe in miracles.
Click to expand...


You apparently didn't read the cite.  No miracles, just science.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".


Do you understand that it "all just happened spontaneously" is precisely the argument you are forwarding in connection with your gods?


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're different.  There are no scientific laws that could lead to the self-assembly of a machine or computer.  There are laws of Chemistry and Physics which can explain the assembly of life.
> 
> Evolution of DNA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't unless you believe in miracles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You apparently didn't read the cite.  No miracles, just science.
Click to expand...


Nature is a miracle, it's the explanations where most theories go wrong.

To say DNA evolves is just idiotic,all that is happening is the vast gene pool is at work. Plus you have different lineages constantly crossing and producing offspring that can look different.

Look at all the different looking dogs you get in mutts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that it "all just happened spontaneously" is precisely the argument you are forwarding in connection with your gods?
Click to expand...


No we don't rule out the designer because he can't be put to the test ,studied,or observed.

We don't make things up that go against natural laws of nature.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't unless you believe in miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently didn't read the cite.  No miracles, just science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature is a miracle, it's the explanations where most theories go wrong.
> 
> To say DNA evolves is just idiotic,all that is happening is the vast gene pool is at work. Plus you have different lineages constantly crossing and producing offspring that can look different.
> 
> Look at all the different looking dogs you get in mutts.
Click to expand...


Why wouldn't DNA evolve?  If mutations, fusions, transfections, etc. provided enhanced survival, they would grow in the gene pool and a new DNA form and new species would evolve.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that it "all just happened spontaneously" is precisely the argument you are forwarding in connection with your gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we don't rule out the designer because he can't be put to the test ,studied,or observed.
> 
> We don't make things up that go against natural laws of nature.
Click to expand...


The designer isn't ruled out by science, but since He can't be tested, He has no place in the study of evolution.  It's not required.  Even if God did breath in the initial spark, that doesn't effect the study or theories of how evolution proceded in the slightest.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> No we don't rule out the designer because he can't be put to the test ,studied,or observed.
> 
> We don't make things up that go against natural laws of nature.



 My environment is non-sentient and it is discoverable as to the mechanism. Your environment has to account for an eternal sentient being (which you will never be able to fully account for), and you have to come up with reasons as to why he wouldn't tell you the truth about how it all began in his communications with you.

That's a tall order, especially when it's admitted the only ways of proving things is not available to that environment.

Empirical trust in a process (science) that will assiduously test and challenge, there's a HUGE difference. Theistic principles are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant. By the way, which scripture (faith)? Are we discussing, the catechism of the Papacy? Those church fathers? Or Luther and Protestantism? Perhaps that of Pentecostals? Or 7th Day Adventists.

One cannot even make an intelligent and verifiable choice as to the varieties of "belief", let alone use the theism of Islam to be the foundation of principles to determine knowledge. Religious beliefs are faith-based and as such detour around a need for proof, and thus cannot serve as the guidelines for knowledge (outside of their own assertions).


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently didn't read the cite.  No miracles, just science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nature is a miracle, it's the explanations where most theories go wrong.
> 
> To say DNA evolves is just idiotic,all that is happening is the vast gene pool is at work. Plus you have different lineages constantly crossing and producing offspring that can look different.
> 
> Look at all the different looking dogs you get in mutts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't DNA evolve?  If mutations, fusions, transfections, etc. provided enhanced survival, they would grow in the gene pool and a new DNA form and new species would evolve.
Click to expand...


Key word is if,but do they ? Remember you must have a net gain of new information for anything to evolve. Origional information can't be lost and that is what happens if a mutation causes any kind of change.

Beneficial mutations must accumulate without other mutations getting in the way. It's also fighting a losing battle for that reason alone but they also are fighting against natural selection and mechanism's correcting the error and that is what mutations are errors.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that it "all just happened spontaneously" is precisely the argument you are forwarding in connection with your gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't rule out the designer because he can't be put to the test ,studied,or observed.
> 
> We don't make things up that go against natural laws of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The designer isn't ruled out by science, but since He can't be tested, He has no place in the study of evolution.  It's not required.  Even if God did breath in the initial spark, that doesn't effect the study or theories of how evolution proceded in the slightest.
Click to expand...


Since you can't study God does not mean macroevolution took place. If he did create he did not use evolution to get his diversity there is no evidence backing the claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't rule out the designer because he can't be put to the test ,studied,or observed.
> 
> We don't make things up that go against natural laws of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My environment is non-sentient and it is discoverable as to the mechanism. Your environment has to account for an eternal sentient being (which you will never be able to fully account for), and you have to come up with reasons as to why he wouldn't tell you the truth about how it all began in his communications with you.
> 
> That's a tall order, especially when it's admitted the only ways of proving things is not available to that environment.
> 
> Empirical trust in a process (science) that will assiduously test and challenge, there's a HUGE difference. Theistic principles are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant. By the way, which scripture (faith)? Are we discussing, the catechism of the Papacy? Those church fathers? Or Luther and Protestantism? Perhaps that of Pentecostals? Or 7th Day Adventists.
> 
> One cannot even make an intelligent and verifiable choice as to the varieties of "belief", let alone use the theism of Islam to be the foundation of principles to determine knowledge. Religious beliefs are faith-based and as such detour around a need for proof, and thus cannot serve as the guidelines for knowledge (outside of their own assertions).
Click to expand...


There is plenty of scientific evidence that would cause one to infer a designer. You want to infer a natural unintelligent and undirected process is the reason for all things have you ever stopped and considered all the timely coincedences and miracles needed to believe such a theory ?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're different.  There are no scientific laws that could lead to the self-assembly of a machine or computer.  There are laws of Chemistry and Physics which can explain the assembly of life.
> 
> Evolution of DNA
> 
> 
> 
> he'll still deny it no matter how many ways it's explained to him .
> living things grow (not self assemble) assembly requires individual parts.
> the only other non biologic "thing" that grows are crystals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This gets more stupid by the minute. You really are blinded by Darwinism. Next thing you're going to tell me is that cells are made up of plasma, that they don't consist of individual tiny parts... oh wait! You already just did that... doh!!!
> 
> Your absolute blind denial is alarming...
> 
> Bacterial Flagellum - YouTube
Click to expand...

never said or implied that, assembly and growth are two separate things.
 has anyone ever seen a tree go to the branch store to buy a kit of new branches  to replace worn or broken ones ?

  ever seen an engine grow new spark plugs?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:
			
		

> There is plenty of scientific evidence that would cause one to infer a designer. You want to infer a natural unintelligent and undirected process is the reason for all things have you ever stopped and considered all the timely coincedences and miracles needed to believe such a theory ?



I have never come across any evidence that would "infer" a designer. Evidence for Zeus? Yes. 

 I'll be accused of "religion-bashing" by some more than likely, of being "prideful and vain" by pointing these things out, but it all comes down to what is more likely, so consider the following:

A god created existence in only 6 days, but did so in such a way to make it look immensely old and left massive clues to support that belief... and this god put forth a test to only two humans without (at least in terms of the Judeo-Christian god) giving them either the ability to make a considered choice nor did he bother to tell them the consequences would extend to every person born after them... and this god then inspired a book but did not allow the original to last in case the condemned-to damnation humans worship those texts... and allowed copies of copies to multiply so that huge civilizations would clash with one another over interpretations... and this god then comes down to earth as a human to act as a mediator to experience human weakness and pain and sin that he created in the first place anyway, and he's letting billions upon billions of people suffer thusly and choose eternal damnation on an ongoing basis in order to satisfy this need to experience the aforementioned... and finally in a climactic battle wherein agony and suffering will spread over the globe this god will battle his nemesis that he himself created and could blink to make disappear if he really wanted to...

or

Existence is natural, patterns form out of the exchange of energy, life evolved in some places, competition for that life implemented social structures, sentience ignited that social structure to a more and more complicated degree... and allowed for technology to extend the perceptions of humans to further and further reaches, chipping away at old, perhaps poetic and elegant but nonetheless outdated beliefs created by a ruling class that knew the power of ignorance and fear in people made them vastly more controllable?


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> "With that in mind, evolutionists expect us to believe that these people walked this earth for 100 times the length of all recorded history (during which humans went from living in villages to walking on the moon and launching NuStar) without ever figuring out how to plant a farm or ride a horse or discover America.  Let the folly of that Darwinian tall tale simmer between your ears."
> 
> CEH
> 
> Sadly, most of you posting here are the product of a dumbed down education system and the viewing of mythical tales passed off as documentary's, which aren't even updated years later when the nonsense they preach is outdated and flat out wrong.



Wait, is your argument that sudden changes in the way humanity lives due to new invention can't happen, or that it's unreasonable to think they happen?

Have you, perhaps, heard of the industrial revolution?


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "With that in mind, evolutionists expect us to believe that these people walked this earth for 100 times the length of all recorded history (during which humans went from living in villages to walking on the moon and launching NuStar) without ever figuring out how to plant a farm or ride a horse or discover America.  Let the folly of that Darwinian tall tale simmer between your ears."
> 
> CEH
> 
> Sadly, most of you posting here are the product of a dumbed down education system and the viewing of mythical tales passed off as documentary's, which aren't even updated years later when the nonsense they preach is outdated and flat out wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, is your argument that sudden changes in the way humanity lives due to new invention can't happen, or that it's unreasonable to think they happen?
> 
> Have you, perhaps, heard of the industrial revolution?
Click to expand...

it's another Darwinist lie!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of scientific evidence that would cause one to infer a designer. You want to infer a natural unintelligent and undirected process is the reason for all things have you ever stopped and considered all the timely coincedences and miracles needed to believe such a theory ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never come across any evidence that would "infer" a designer. Evidence for Zeus? Yes.
> 
> I'll be accused of "religion-bashing" by some more than likely, of being "prideful and vain" by pointing these things out, but it all comes down to what is more likely, so consider the following:
> 
> A god created existence in only 6 days, but did so in such a way to make it look immensely old and left massive clues to support that belief... and this god put forth a test to only two humans without (at least in terms of the Judeo-Christian god) giving them either the ability to make a considered choice nor did he bother to tell them the consequences would extend to every person born after them... and this god then inspired a book but did not allow the original to last in case the condemned-to damnation humans worship those texts... and allowed copies of copies to multiply so that huge civilizations would clash with one another over interpretations... and this god then comes down to earth as a human to act as a mediator to experience human weakness and pain and sin that he created in the first place anyway, and he's letting billions upon billions of people suffer thusly and choose eternal damnation on an ongoing basis in order to satisfy this need to experience the aforementioned... and finally in a climactic battle wherein agony and suffering will spread over the globe this god will battle his nemesis that he himself created and could blink to make disappear if he really wanted to...
> 
> or
> 
> Existence is natural, patterns form out of the exchange of energy, life evolved in some places, competition for that life implemented social structures, sentience ignited that social structure to a more and more complicated degree... and allowed for technology to extend the perceptions of humans to further and further reaches, chipping away at old, perhaps poetic and elegant but nonetheless outdated beliefs created by a ruling class that knew the power of ignorance and fear in people made them vastly more controllable?
Click to expand...


If you have spent anytime at all in biology yes you have.

Why do all cells possess left handed amino acids when left and right handed amino acids could easily connect ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "With that in mind, evolutionists expect us to believe that these people walked this earth for 100 times the length of all recorded history (during which humans went from living in villages to walking on the moon and launching NuStar) without ever figuring out how to plant a farm or ride a horse or discover America.  Let the folly of that Darwinian tall tale simmer between your ears."
> 
> CEH
> 
> Sadly, most of you posting here are the product of a dumbed down education system and the viewing of mythical tales passed off as documentary's, which aren't even updated years later when the nonsense they preach is outdated and flat out wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, is your argument that sudden changes in the way humanity lives due to new invention can't happen, or that it's unreasonable to think they happen?
> 
> Have you, perhaps, heard of the industrial revolution?
Click to expand...


What's your point ? it still took designers and builders.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "With that in mind, evolutionists expect us to believe that these people walked this earth for 100 times the length of all recorded history (during which humans went from living in villages to walking on the moon and launching NuStar) without ever figuring out how to plant a farm or ride a horse or discover America.  Let the folly of that Darwinian tall tale simmer between your ears."
> 
> CEH
> 
> Sadly, most of you posting here are the product of a dumbed down education system and the viewing of mythical tales passed off as documentary's, which aren't even updated years later when the nonsense they preach is outdated and flat out wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, is your argument that sudden changes in the way humanity lives due to new invention can't happen, or that it's unreasonable to think they happen?
> 
> Have you, perhaps, heard of the industrial revolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point ? it still took designers and builders.
Click to expand...

what's yours?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that it "all just happened spontaneously" is precisely the argument you are forwarding in connection with your gods?
Click to expand...


Negative. That is not precisely the argument.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't rule out the designer because he can't be put to the test ,studied,or observed.
> 
> We don't make things up that go against natural laws of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My environment is non-sentient and it is discoverable as to the mechanism. Your environment has to account for an eternal sentient being (which you will never be able to fully account for), and you have to come up with reasons as to why he wouldn't tell you the truth about how it all began in his communications with you.
> 
> That's a tall order, especially when it's admitted the only ways of proving things is not available to that environment.
> 
> Empirical trust in a process (science) that will assiduously test and challenge, there's a HUGE difference. Theistic principles are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant. By the way, which scripture (faith)? Are we discussing, the catechism of the Papacy? Those church fathers? Or Luther and Protestantism? Perhaps that of Pentecostals? Or 7th Day Adventists.
> 
> One cannot even make an intelligent and verifiable choice as to the varieties of "belief", let alone use the theism of Islam to be the foundation of principles to determine knowledge. Religious beliefs are faith-based and as such detour around a need for proof, and thus cannot serve as the guidelines for knowledge (outside of their own assertions).
Click to expand...


Hollie, 

You are obviously jumping into the discussion late. While Creationism is a philosophical argument, ID Theory is not. ID is scientific theory that does not attempt to mix mysticism with science. It in no way makes any claim to the identity of the designer or his/her/it's attributes. Your argument above is not related to anything I have stated in this thread and is therefore a strawman, so feel free to continue to rip your strawman apart.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> he'll still deny it no matter how many ways it's explained to him .
> living things grow (not self assemble) assembly requires individual parts.
> the only other non biologic "thing" that grows are crystals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This gets more stupid by the minute. You really are blinded by Darwinism. Next thing you're going to tell me is that cells are made up of plasma, that they don't consist of individual tiny parts... oh wait! You already just did that... doh!!!
> 
> Your absolute blind denial is alarming...
> 
> Bacterial Flagellum - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> never said or implied that, assembly and growth are two separate things.
> has anyone ever seen a tree go to the branch store to buy a kit of new branches  to replace worn or broken ones ?
> 
> ever seen an engine grow new spark plugs?
Click to expand...


Nope, but I've seen a computer come up with new code. Regardless, you are now arguing against yourself. If evolution happened so easily and randomly, why can't we reproduce life. Heck we can't even place all the real, parts we just removed from one cell into a test tube and get it to come to life. This is the real absurdity of your Materialistic religion.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of scientific evidence that would cause one to infer a designer. You want to infer a natural unintelligent and undirected process is the reason for all things have you ever stopped and considered all the timely coincedences and miracles needed to believe such a theory ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never come across any evidence that would "infer" a designer. Evidence for Zeus? Yes.
> 
> I'll be accused of "religion-bashing" by some more than likely, of being "prideful and vain" by pointing these things out, but it all comes down to what is more likely, so consider the following:
> 
> A god created existence in only 6 days, but did so in such a way to make it look immensely old and left massive clues to support that belief... and this god put forth a test to only two humans without (at least in terms of the Judeo-Christian god) giving them either the ability to make a considered choice nor did he bother to tell them the consequences would extend to every person born after them... and this god then inspired a book but did not allow the original to last in case the condemned-to damnation humans worship those texts... and allowed copies of copies to multiply so that huge civilizations would clash with one another over interpretations... and this god then comes down to earth as a human to act as a mediator to experience human weakness and pain and sin that he created in the first place anyway, and he's letting billions upon billions of people suffer thusly and choose eternal damnation on an ongoing basis in order to satisfy this need to experience the aforementioned... and finally in a climactic battle wherein agony and suffering will spread over the globe this god will battle his nemesis that he himself created and could blink to make disappear if he really wanted to...
> 
> or
> 
> Existence is natural, patterns form out of the exchange of energy, life evolved in some places, competition for that life implemented social structures, sentience ignited that social structure to a more and more complicated degree... and allowed for technology to extend the perceptions of humans to further and further reaches, chipping away at old, perhaps poetic and elegant but nonetheless outdated beliefs created by a ruling class that knew the power of ignorance and fear in people made them vastly more controllable?
Click to expand...


The second description is your religion. It's called Materialism-look it up. You believe matter is the only reality. However, in your ignorance, you fail to realize it takes more faith to believe the statements above than the faith required for a Theistic worldview.

*"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."
- Amos Bronson Alcott (1799-1888) American educator*


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> If you have spent anytime at all in biology yes you have.
> 
> Why do all cells possess left handed amino acids when left and right handed amino acids could easily connect ?



Ive spent much time in biology. It seems odd that you would need to spend any time at all in biology when the gods did it should suffice. Biology is closely linked to that science of evilution so be careful  science has a way of illuminating those dark recesses of the supernatural.

I was really hoping that a ID'er / creationist would step forward and provide us with the evidence that would allow us to "infer" a god or gods. That hasn't happened. I was really hoping that you or another IDer would step up to the plate to defend creationism / ID. I was hoping Creationists would finally propose their *General Creation Theory*...but after these pages of posts, not a single one has. In that sense, how disappointing that we dont have a consensus of creationists.

As we know (well, as some of us know), It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to an unseen designer or one or more gods. If any I.D.er's have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. ID'ers / Supernaturalists are trying to shift the burden of proof. Intelligent Design advocates are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... natural explanations are all that we they have evidence of. And those answers do very well. The laws of nature must act some way... they happen to act as they do. So what? Does anyone have any evidence that they could act any other way? 

Therefore, I have no _faith_ in the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no _faith_ in math. I have no _faith_ in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> The second description is your religion. It's called Materialism-look it up. You believe matter is the only reality. However, in your ignorance, you fail to realize it takes more faith to believe the statements above than the faith required for a Theistic worldview.
> 
> *"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."
> - Amos Bronson Alcott (1799-1888) American educator*



There are a number of flaws in your claim. First, materialism is not a religion. Since that was your claim, please identify for us the established traditions, rituals and practices of materialism; those with a relevant parallel to belief in the supernatural. Are there various houses of materialism where materialists of various beliefs congregate to sing, praise, handle snakes, petition a supernatural enforcer of materialism with appropriate behavior in exchange for favors and carnal rewards? Do tell.

Lastly, I agree that it takes faith to believe in a god or gods who purposely lies and refuses to be honest with you. Why cant your gods be honest with you?

So let's look at this from another perspective. When you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion... or ignorant of facts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have spent anytime at all in biology yes you have.
> 
> Why do all cells possess left handed amino acids when left and right handed amino acids could easily connect ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ive spent much time in biology. It seems odd that you would need to spend any time at all in biology when the gods did it should suffice. Biology is closely linked to that science of evilution so be careful  science has a way of illuminating those dark recesses of the supernatural.
> 
> I was really hoping that a ID'er / creationist would step forward and provide us with the evidence that would allow us to "infer" a god or gods. That hasn't happened. I was really hoping that you or another IDer would step up to the plate to defend creationism / ID. I was hoping Creationists would finally propose their *General Creation Theory*...but after these pages of posts, not a single one has. In that sense, how disappointing that we dont have a consensus of creationists.
> 
> As we know (well, as some of us know), It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to an unseen designer or one or more gods. If any I.D.er's have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. ID'ers / Supernaturalists are trying to shift the burden of proof. Intelligent Design advocates are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... natural explanations are all that we they have evidence of. And those answers do very well. The laws of nature must act some way... they happen to act as they do. So what? Does anyone have any evidence that they could act any other way?
> 
> Therefore, I have no _faith_ in the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no _faith_ in math. I have no _faith_ in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are.
Click to expand...


We can't even produce a working cell and you want me to tell you how God did it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second description is your religion. It's called Materialism-look it up. You believe matter is the only reality. However, in your ignorance, you fail to realize it takes more faith to believe the statements above than the faith required for a Theistic worldview.
> 
> *"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."
> - Amos Bronson Alcott (1799-1888) American educator*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a number of flaws in your claim. First, &#8220;materialism&#8221; is not a religion. Since that was your claim, please identify for us the established traditions, rituals and practices of &#8220;materialism&#8221;; those with a relevant parallel to belief in the supernatural. Are there various &#8220;houses of materialism&#8221; where materialists of various beliefs congregate to sing, praise, handle snakes, petition a supernatural enforcer of materialism with appropriate behavior in exchange for favors and carnal rewards? Do tell.
> 
> Lastly, I agree that it takes faith to believe in a god or gods who purposely lies and refuses to be honest with you. Why can&#8217;t your gods be honest with you?
> 
> So&#8230; let's look at this from another perspective. When you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion... or ignorant of facts.
Click to expand...


Interpreting evidence to fit with the any theory you accept even though it contradicts other known laws of nature.

One of your problems is you have never felt God and many have. There is no doubt once you do feel him.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> We can't even produce a working cell and you want me to tell you how God did it.



Be sure to thank your gods for the blueprint for that cancer cell. That was truly a masterstroke of "design".


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Interpreting evidence to fit with the any theory you accept even though it contradicts other known laws of nature.


That makes no sense.



> One of your problems is you have never felt God and many have. There is no doubt once you do feel him.


But I have felt god... at least I thought it was god... turned out to be Bronchitis, instead.

Such is the fallacy of using "feelings" to interpret our surroundings.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This gets more stupid by the minute. You really are blinded by Darwinism. Next thing you're going to tell me is that cells are made up of plasma, that they don't consist of individual tiny parts... oh wait! You already just did that... doh!!!
> 
> Your absolute blind denial is alarming...
> 
> Bacterial Flagellum - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> never said or implied that, assembly and growth are two separate things.
> has anyone ever seen a tree go to the branch store to buy a kit of new branches  to replace worn or broken ones ?
> 
> ever seen an engine grow new spark plugs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, but I've seen a computer come up with new code. Regardless, you are now arguing against yourself. If evolution happened so easily and randomly, why can't we reproduce life. Heck we can't even place all the real, parts we just removed from one cell into a test tube and get it to come to life. This is the real absurdity of your Materialistic religion.
Click to expand...

the real absurdity here is you having no proof of anything outside  material existence and claiming you know there is and inferring you know how it works!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second description is your religion. It's called Materialism-look it up. You believe matter is the only reality. However, in your ignorance, you fail to realize it takes more faith to believe the statements above than the faith required for a Theistic worldview.
> 
> *"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."
> - Amos Bronson Alcott (1799-1888) American educator*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a number of flaws in your claim. First, materialism is not a religion. Since that was your claim, please identify for us the established traditions, rituals and practices of materialism; those with a relevant parallel to belief in the supernatural. Are there various houses of materialism where materialists of various beliefs congregate to sing, praise, handle snakes, petition a supernatural enforcer of materialism with appropriate behavior in exchange for favors and carnal rewards? Do tell.
> 
> Lastly, I agree that it takes faith to believe in a god or gods who purposely lies and refuses to be honest with you. Why cant your gods be honest with you?
> 
> So let's look at this from another perspective. When you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion... or ignorant of facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interpreting evidence to fit with the any theory you accept even though it contradicts other known laws of nature.
> 
> One of your problems is you have never felt God and many have. There is no doubt once you do feel him.
Click to expand...

 WHAT DOD YOU KNOW ABOUT the laws of nature as you've claimed numerous times "god did it" and by definition that's not natural.

 "One of your problems is you have never felt God and many have. There is no doubt once you do feel him"-ywc 
the above is a HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE STATEMENT..
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ,THAT "FEELING" IS ANY MORE THAN A HIGH  EMF (ELECTRO MAGNETIC FIELD)

 Even more intriguing is the phenomenon of Electro Magnetic Fields (EMF) and its influence on the brain. Researchers have found that areas of a house said to be haunted actually have fluctuating EMFs. The EMFs interfere with normal brain chemistry to produce feelings that there is something else present in the room. Though some believers have stated that it is the ghosts that cause the EMF fluctuations, scientists such as Michael Persinger have been able to artificially produce sensations of other worldly beings by exposing the brain to fluctuating magnetic fields. Persinger is perhaps most famous for his God Helmet which can artificially cause the wearer to experience supernatural phenomenon, and even feel the presence of god.

The human brain is a powerful supercomputer, used to filter through vast amounts of information and interpret it all. Its complex chemistry can be effected by outside forces, through use of drugs for example, and reality can therefore become twisted. Though I am no neural surgeon my basic understanding of how the brain works allowed me properly interpret my horrific experience.

Thanks to science I was able to understand and cope with a traumatic experience. I did not need the services of an exorcist, and I did not need to pray to Jesus. And science allowed me to communicate this to others. A friend of mine told me about an eerie experience that he had. He and his flatmate experienced exactly the same dream in the course of one night. In the morning they compared notes and concluded that they had been abducted by aliens! But I suppose if the earths natural magnetic field fluctuates (which I am assured it does), and sleep paralysis is common, then this is the most reasonable explanation for my friends apparent abduction. Indeed one commonly cited explanation of alien abductions is sleep paralysis.

I am certain that science will continue to explore the murky regions of the brain and will continue to pull the monsters out from under our beds.

EMF | god-proof.com




WYC if that's not proselytizing what is? 
you say you never proselytize....I just busted you in another lie!


----------



## Montrovant

The fact that humanity cannot yet create or manipulate something is no argument for a designer or god.  In fact, if anything, it is an argument against it; the only intelligent design we have observable evidence of is from terrestrial life, and for the most part humanity.  

ID and creationism proponents seem to like to say things along the lines of, 'we don't find this in nature, so it must be intelligently designed'.  They fail to mention, of course, that the very thing they are almost always discussing IS, in fact, found in nature!

Life may be a product of design.  I still have seen no evidence of scientific process being used to determine this.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "With that in mind, evolutionists expect us to believe that these people walked this earth for 100 times the length of all recorded history (during which humans went from living in villages to walking on the moon and launching NuStar) without ever figuring out how to plant a farm or ride a horse or discover America.  Let the folly of that Darwinian tall tale simmer between your ears."
> 
> CEH
> 
> Sadly, most of you posting here are the product of a dumbed down education system and the viewing of mythical tales passed off as documentary's, which aren't even updated years later when the nonsense they preach is outdated and flat out wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, is your argument that sudden changes in the way humanity lives due to new invention can't happen, or that it's unreasonable to think they happen?
> 
> Have you, perhaps, heard of the industrial revolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point ? it still took designers and builders.
Click to expand...


My point, if you had read what you quoted, is that the idea UltimateReality posted, in which humanity must not have been around for long before farming and horse-riding became commonplace, seems to be debunked by more recent human history.  It had nothing to do with your reply.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have spent anytime at all in biology yes you have.
> 
> Why do all cells possess left handed amino acids when left and right handed amino acids could easily connect ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I&#8217;ve spent much time in biology. It seems odd that you would need to spend any time at all in biology when &#8220;the gods did it&#8221; should suffice. Biology is closely linked to that science of &#8220;evilution&#8221; so be careful &#8211; science has a way of illuminating those dark recesses of the supernatural.
> 
> I was really hoping that a ID'er / creationist would step forward and provide us with the evidence that would allow us to "infer" a god or gods. That hasn't happened. I was really hoping that you or another ID&#8217;er would step up to the plate to defend creationism / ID. I was hoping Creationists would finally propose their *General Creation Theory*...but after these pages of posts, not a single one has. In that sense, how disappointing that we don&#8217;t have a consensus of creationists.
Click to expand...


Umm, yeah. Because there is a consensus among Materialist Darwinists... right.



Hollie said:


> As we know (well, as some of us know), It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to an unseen designer or one or more gods. If any I.D.er's have evidence that something shows signs of being designed



A typical view of the Darwinist lot!!! Just because you are ignorant of it means it doesn't exist, right??? Stephen Meyer has presented, and quite eloquently so, an ID theory based on Darwin and Lyell's methodology. If you truly searched, you could find. 



Hollie said:


> (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. ID'ers / Supernaturalists are trying to shift the burden of proof. Intelligent Design advocates are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... natural explanations are all that we they have evidence of. And those answers do very well. The laws of nature must act some way... they happen to act as they do. So what? Does anyone have any evidence that they could act any other way?
> 
> Therefore, I have no _faith_ in the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no _faith_ in math. I have no _faith_ in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are.



They are as they are until someone discovers something different. Let's look at some other "scientific evidence". Since America began its crusade to eradicate God, are American's more or less healthy physically and mentally? What does the evidence support? Sadly, you are still in the minority. A overwhelming majority of Americans still believe in God, even though most have abandoned His principles.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indespensible supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. ... [L]et us with caution indulge the opposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." -*-George Washington (1796)*

"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take His place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner.&#8221;

- Ravi Zacharias


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second description is your religion. It's called Materialism-look it up. You believe matter is the only reality. However, in your ignorance, you fail to realize it takes more faith to believe the statements above than the faith required for a Theistic worldview.
> 
> *"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."
> - Amos Bronson Alcott (1799-1888) American educator*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a number of flaws in your claim. First, materialism is not a religion. Since that was your claim, please identify for us the established traditions, rituals and practices of materialism; those with a relevant parallel to belief in the supernatural. Are there various houses of materialism where materialists of various beliefs congregate to sing, praise, handle snakes, petition a supernatural enforcer of materialism with appropriate behavior in exchange for favors and carnal rewards? Do tell.
> 
> Lastly, I agree that it takes faith to believe in a god or gods who purposely lies and refuses to be honest with you. Why cant your gods be honest with you?
> 
> So let's look at this from another perspective. When you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion... or ignorant of facts.
Click to expand...


You are quickly earning the nickname Strawman Hollie. The assertions above are neither true nor commonly accepted in religious thought, but feel free to go ahead and tear them down if it makes you feel better. Once again, it would be amusing if it wasn't so sad, that is, when ignorant people suffer the false notion they are knowledgeable with no awareness of their deep ignorance. 

I'm guessing your opinion of the so-called scientists who came up with the Multi-universe theory would suffer the same disdain from you. When you say you believe in other universerses that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of our realm in an asserted other realm, that we cannot understand or even describe... I would say these scientists qualify as being under a delusion... or ignorant of facts.


----------



## UltimateReality

"While the multiverse hypothesis has been around for a couple of decades, only in recent years has the mainstream media popularized the notion. And when a name like Stephen Hawking pops up in connection with this idea, eyes open wider and ears perk up.

Hawking and colleague Thomas Hertog propose in the June 23, 2006, edition of Physical Review D (see abstract): a "top-down" approach to cosmic history, where the observer starts with the present and works backward to find a pathway to the universe's history. (Most observational cosmologists adopt a "bottom-up" approach, looking back to the beginning and constructing a history from there.) It gets technical for a layperson, but essentially the top downers find a window of opportunity (really, a window of the unknown) in the ever-so-brief period between zero and a millionth of a trillionth of a second after the universe began. Here a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics allows that many histories of the universe converged. In other words, many universes existed, each with their own histories, and they somehow contributed to the beginning of this universe. Therefore the universe resulted from no unique beginning. The universe is here and we are here because these histories worked out just right. We're lucky.

The multiverse idea rests on several questionable assumptions. One is that its appeal to a particular interpretation:  the "many worlds interpretation" of quantum mechanics is correct. This interpretation holds that the reality behind the uncertainty in quantum effects means that multiple histories do indeed exist. (Again, those of us who aren't physicists might look like we just bit into a lemon here.) Before we charge the brilliant Hawking with wild speculation, however, it is important to note that Hawking and Hertog's variation on multiverse theory represents a proposal, not a model. They offer caveats to that effect, admitting that the idea is not yet testable."

I'd also like to offer a Caveat. I admit the idea of God is not YET testable.

Reasons To Believe : Does Hawking Believe in Multiple Universes?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can't even produce a working cell and you want me to tell you how God did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be sure to thank your gods for the blueprint for that cancer cell. That was truly a masterstroke of "design".
Click to expand...


Hollie, the "mysterious" cancer cell is really just a bad copy of your normal cell. Christian Theology provides ample explanation for the destruction and pain we see in nature. Like most atheists, you wrestle with mystical and theological questions you struggle to answer so your answer is to turn to Materialism to make sense of your horrible, painful, meaningless life. If you really want to truly enlighten yourself, this is a great place to start...

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Lewis-Signature-Classics-Christianity-Screwtape/dp/0060653027/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1340335897&sr=8-2&keywords=cs+lewis+collection]Amazon.com: C. S. Lewis Signature Classics: Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, A Grief Observed, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, and The Great Divorce (Boxed Set) (9780060653026): C. S. Lewis: Books[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interpreting evidence to fit with the any theory you accept even though it contradicts other known laws of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of your problems is you have never felt God and many have. There is no doubt once you do feel him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I have felt god... at least I thought it was god... turned out to be Bronchitis, instead.
> 
> Such is the fallacy of using "feelings" to interpret our surroundings.
Click to expand...


How do you know without a shadow of a doubt it was bronchitis? Did you swab your lungs and grow the culture yourself? No my dear, I'm betting you $100 you took it on *faith* from your doctor. HA!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> never said or implied that, assembly and growth are two separate things.
> has anyone ever seen a tree go to the branch store to buy a kit of new branches  to replace worn or broken ones ?
> 
> ever seen an engine grow new spark plugs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but I've seen a computer come up with new code. Regardless, you are now arguing against yourself. If evolution happened so easily and randomly, why can't we reproduce life. Heck we can't even place all the real, parts we just removed from one cell into a test tube and get it to come to life. This is the real absurdity of your Materialistic religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the real absurdity here is you having no proof of anything outside  material existence and claiming you know there is and inferring you know how it works!
Click to expand...


Strawman fallacy. I never made such a claim. Try again spanky.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a number of flaws in your claim. First, materialism is not a religion. Since that was your claim, please identify for us the established traditions, rituals and practices of materialism; those with a relevant parallel to belief in the supernatural. Are there various houses of materialism where materialists of various beliefs congregate to sing, praise, handle snakes, petition a supernatural enforcer of materialism with appropriate behavior in exchange for favors and carnal rewards? Do tell.
> 
> Lastly, I agree that it takes faith to believe in a god or gods who purposely lies and refuses to be honest with you. Why cant your gods be honest with you?
> 
> So let's look at this from another perspective. When you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion... or ignorant of facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpreting evidence to fit with the any theory you accept even though it contradicts other known laws of nature.
> 
> One of your problems is you have never felt God and many have. There is no doubt once you do feel him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT DOD YOU KNOW ABOUT the laws of nature as you've claimed numerous times "god did it" and by definition that's not natural.
> 
> "One of your problems is you have never felt God and many have. There is no doubt once you do feel him"-ywc
> the above is a HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE STATEMENT..
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ,THAT "FEELING" IS ANY MORE THAN A HIGH  EMF (ELECTRO MAGNETIC FIELD)
> 
> Even more intriguing is the phenomenon of Electro Magnetic Fields (EMF) and its influence on the brain. Researchers have found that areas of a house said to be haunted actually have fluctuating EMFs. The EMFs interfere with normal brain chemistry to produce feelings that there is something else present in the room. Though some believers have stated that it is the ghosts that cause the EMF fluctuations, scientists such as Michael Persinger have been able to artificially produce sensations of other worldly beings by exposing the brain to fluctuating magnetic fields. Persinger is perhaps most famous for his God Helmet which can artificially cause the wearer to experience supernatural phenomenon, and even feel the presence of god.
> 
> The human brain is a powerful supercomputer, used to filter through vast amounts of information and interpret it all. Its complex chemistry can be effected by outside forces, through use of drugs for example, and reality can therefore become twisted. Though I am no neural surgeon my basic understanding of how the brain works allowed me properly interpret my horrific experience.
> 
> Thanks to science I was able to understand and cope with a traumatic experience. I did not need the services of an exorcist, and I did not need to pray to Jesus. And science allowed me to communicate this to others. A friend of mine told me about an eerie experience that he had. He and his flatmate experienced exactly the same dream in the course of one night. In the morning they compared notes and concluded that they had been abducted by aliens! But I suppose if the earths natural magnetic field fluctuates (which I am assured it does), and sleep paralysis is common, then this is the most reasonable explanation for my friends apparent abduction. Indeed one commonly cited explanation of alien abductions is sleep paralysis.
> 
> I am certain that science will continue to explore the murky regions of the brain and will continue to pull the monsters out from under our beds.
> 
> EMF | god-proof.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WYC if that's not proselytizing what is?
> you say you never proselytize....I just busted you in another lie!
Click to expand...


How do you really know what you are experiencing is REAL?? Maybe your trapped in the Matrix Neo???

 Even your recollection of your traumatic event is not real. Every time you pull up the memory your brain alters it and fills in information that isn't accurate. Check out the article on memories in this months WIRED magazine.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> The fact that humanity cannot yet create or manipulate something is no argument for a designer or god.  In fact, if anything, it is an argument against it; the only intelligent design we have observable evidence of is from terrestrial life, and for the most part humanity.
> 
> ID and creationism proponents seem to like to say things along the lines of, 'we don't find this in nature, so it must be intelligently designed'.  They fail to mention, of course, that the very thing they are almost always discussing IS, in fact, found in nature!
> 
> Life may be a product of design.  I still have seen no evidence of scientific process being used to determine this.



The real problem is that life is not easily "created". In fact, right now it has proven impossible to duplicate. Every thing alive on the planet today got its life spark from the distant, distant past. It was passed through thousands of generations. Yet, Evolutionary theory would have us believe it occurs easily, even randomly, yet no evidence exists. That is the real fallacy of Darwinism isn't it, to behave as if the mystery has been solved and that the theory is fact. *It hasn't and its not. *


----------



## buckeye45_73

Sophist said:


> Creationists based their beliefs on a book 3000 years old... Darwin had his theories at around the mid 1800's. Millions of the smartest people in the world advocate the fact that the world is at least older than 6000. I don't know but given the facts I vote for the scientists.
> 
> Creationists then say: But it's highly unlikely the world was created from a simultaneous explosion into what it is today...
> 
> My reply: Well it is highly unlikely that the single specific sperm cell that fertilized the egg within your mother's womb was able to make the creature that you call yourself today yet it happened didn't it?



Pretty weak arguement, since you really have to say the universes just exploded, I guess it said, what the hell. Then you you have to have the perfect conditions for life on Earth, then you have to have a process that starts off with bacteria and ends with humans? uh....that's as much belief as christians or muslims. And as for scientists, I'll stick with DeCartes, Newton, Galileo, Pasteur, MAx Planck, Kelvin, Compton, Copernicus, you know christians. 
As for the creationist, it makes more sense, but I'm not sure where they're getting the 6000 year figure from?

Even Einstein believed in God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> That was a poorly executed sidestep. If youre not prepared to address comments directed at your arguments, dont raise a nonsense issue that youre unprepared to defend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A typical view of the Darwinist lot!!! Just because you are ignorant of it means it doesn't exist, right??? Stephen Meyer has presented, and quite eloquently so, an ID theory based on Darwin and Lyell's methodology. If you truly searched, you could find.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you, like others, tend to recoil at challenges to your belief in the supernatural but weak attempts at insults with slogans such as Darwinists, only further degrade credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are as they are until someone discovers something different. Let's look at some other "scientific evidence". Since America began its crusade to eradicate God, are American's more or less healthy physically and mentally? What does the evidence support? Sadly, you are still in the minority. A overwhelming majority of Americans still believe in God, even though most have abandoned His principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Copying and pasting irrelevancies does nothing to defend to your sidestepping.
> You were offered an opportunity to substantiate your incredible claims of supernaturalism and you did an Olympic quality backstroke.
> 
> As to abandoning "his" principles, that's not such a bad thing to happen.
> 
> It is important for believers (and especially the fundie / Bible thumping / The-gods-did-it-screaming variety) accept that the history of their beliefs have caused much of the damage the world has seen, and not the other way around. Medicine, science, philosophy have all suffered because of the actions of men who were believers. It's too simplistic and irresponisble to shrug and say, "That's not god's fault, that's man's fault for being corrupt". By your own ideology god created man, and gave man the abilities he has -- ultimately, man didn't create Satan, god did. Man didn't create sin, god did (unless you claim that man is so powerful as to have been able to create Satan-- but of course, Satan was "evil" before man was created-- have you ever read the Adam and Eve story?)
> 
> According to the bible, god wiped out the vast majority of life on earth and left only Noah and his family (and apparently more animals than the Titanic could have carried). He promised never to destroy the world again by water, so next time (the Armageddon) he plans to use fire. God slaughters thousands and thousands by what the bible says, and he plans to slaughter billions more. Never has their been so evil a villain in all literature than Yahweh-- he kills relentlessly (Read the book of Joshua and try to imagine all those "rotten apple" kids and women-- all except those virgins, who were allowed to be taken away and raped by god's soldiers, the Hebrews)
> 
> 
> It has been part of human culture to invent supernatural agents to explain that which could not already be explained. Whenever there is a gap in our knowledge, it was tempting for cultures and societies to simply throw up their hands in defeat and say 'Godidit' (or more frequently 'Thegodsdidit'). Kings, rulers, pharaohs and "scholars" etc made use of this idea, by claiming for themselves a special ability to receive messages or to translate the true meaning from a divine supernatural ruler, even though the best evidence for their existence was simply the fact that there were some things we didn't understand. Societies grew, codified rituals, passed on these ideas from parent to child with severe warnings for not believing - such as eternal burning and torment and unrealistic 'carrots' for believing e.g an eternity of sensual gratification and so giant structures and substructures grew which evolved (yes, evolved) into the religions we see today.
> 
> Monotheism is currently in vogue for religions. Multi-god religions have been replaced by a one-stop-shopping god of convenience.
> 
> Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, and it will eventually go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.
> 
> You can always depend on religion that way. Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> The real problem is that life is not easily "created". In fact, right now it has proven impossible to duplicate. Every thing alive on the planet today got its life spark from the distant, distant past. It was passed through thousands of generations. Yet, Evolutionary theory would have us believe it occurs easily, even randomly, yet no evidence exists. That is the real fallacy of Darwinism isn't it, to behave as if the mystery has been solved and that the theory is fact. *It hasn't and its not. *


I'd suggest you avoid discussions involving science as you tend to stumble over your own comments with a lack of understanding some very basic principles of science. 

Evidence supporting the fact of evolution is not in dispute within the scientific community. You tend to make bellicose statements which are invariably false.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> How do you know without a shadow of a doubt it was bronchitis? Did you swab your lungs and grow the culture yourself? No my dear, I'm betting you $100 you took it on *faith* from your doctor. HA!



I didn't need blind faith in the supernatural to understand that trust in the modern science of medicine would cure disease.

Here's an experiment that will assist you in establishing the reality you are having problems coming to terms with:

 Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that humanity cannot yet create or manipulate something is no argument for a designer or god.  In fact, if anything, it is an argument against it; the only intelligent design we have observable evidence of is from terrestrial life, and for the most part humanity.
> 
> ID and creationism proponents seem to like to say things along the lines of, 'we don't find this in nature, so it must be intelligently designed'.  They fail to mention, of course, that the very thing they are almost always discussing IS, in fact, found in nature!
> 
> Life may be a product of design.  I still have seen no evidence of scientific process being used to determine this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real problem is that life is not easily "created". In fact, right now it has proven impossible to duplicate. Every thing alive on the planet today got its life spark from the distant, distant past. It was passed through thousands of generations. Yet, Evolutionary theory would have us believe it occurs easily, even randomly, yet no evidence exists. That is the real fallacy of Darwinism isn't it, to behave as if the mystery has been solved and that the theory is fact. *It hasn't and its not. *
Click to expand...


I was unaware that evolutionary theory claimed the creation of life is easy.  In fact, I don't think evolutionary theory concerns itself with the creation of life at all, rather it is about what happens once life has already arisen.

Further, even if you want to claim abiogenesis as part of evolution, I have not seen it described as easy.  Random, yes, but not easy.  And once again, the fact that humanity has not recreated the events that may have occurred to begin life is no argument against the possibility.  The things humanity has not done FAR outweigh the things we have.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know without a shadow of a doubt it was bronchitis? Did you swab your lungs and grow the culture yourself? No my dear, I'm betting you $100 you took it on *faith* from your doctor. HA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't need blind faith in the supernatural to understand that trust in the modern science of medicine would cure disease.
> 
> Here's an experiment that will assist you in establishing the reality you are having problems coming to terms with:
> 
> Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.
Click to expand...


Medicine while it has come a long way it still really is just a band-aid where we eventually die as promised in the book of genesis. Now if we could figure a way to deal with the over 5,000 genetic disorders that are the result of mutations which is supposedly one of the engines of evolution. That my dear Hollie is a very strong argument against the theory of macro-evolution. I believe in micro-adaptations but do not believe in macro. Between other neutral , harmful mutations and mechanisms correcting the errors genetic information would be interrupted to a point that your theory could not happen as evolutionist claim.


----------



## typicalusguy

To believe in the theory of evolution (or as I like to call it, the Church of Evo) is to believe that a tornado striking a junkyard could result in the formation of a 747 in perfect working order.

Talk about faith-based lunacy...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that humanity cannot yet create or manipulate something is no argument for a designer or god.  In fact, if anything, it is an argument against it; the only intelligent design we have observable evidence of is from terrestrial life, and for the most part humanity.
> 
> ID and creationism proponents seem to like to say things along the lines of, 'we don't find this in nature, so it must be intelligently designed'.  They fail to mention, of course, that the very thing they are almost always discussing IS, in fact, found in nature!
> 
> Life may be a product of design.  I still have seen no evidence of scientific process being used to determine this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real problem is that life is not easily "created". In fact, right now it has proven impossible to duplicate. Every thing alive on the planet today got its life spark from the distant, distant past. It was passed through thousands of generations. Yet, Evolutionary theory would have us believe it occurs easily, even randomly, yet no evidence exists. That is the real fallacy of Darwinism isn't it, to behave as if the mystery has been solved and that the theory is fact. *It hasn't and its not. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was unaware that evolutionary theory claimed the creation of life is easy.  In fact, I don't think evolutionary theory concerns itself with the creation of life at all, rather it is about what happens once life has already arisen.
> 
> Further, even if you want to claim abiogenesis as part of evolution, I have not seen it described as easy.  Random, yes, but not easy.  And once again, the fact that humanity has not recreated the events that may have occurred to begin life is no argument against the possibility.  The things humanity has not done FAR outweigh the things we have.
Click to expand...


The term random when used with any genesis I find hilarious. Not meaning to be rude but it is funny once you consider all the parameters when discussing origins.


----------



## Youwerecreated

typicalusguy said:


> To believe in the theory of evolution (or as I like to call it, the Church of Evo) is to believe that a tornado striking a junkyard could result in the formation of a 747 in perfect working order.
> 
> Talk about faith-based lunacy...




Nail meet hammer.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a poorly executed sidestep. If youre not prepared to address comments directed at your arguments, dont raise a nonsense issue that youre unprepared to defend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, aren't you the Strawman calling the Scarecrow stuffed.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> I understand that you, like others, tend to recoil at challenges to your belief in the supernatural but weak attempts at insults with slogans such as Darwinists, only further degrade credibility.



You are in total denial, aren't you?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Wow, aren't you the Strawman calling the Scarecrow stuffed.


Responding, as you have a habit of doing, with nothing more than childish attempts at insults reflects poorly on you.


----------



## Hollie

typicalusguy said:


> To believe in the theory of evolution (or as I like to call it, the Church of Evo) is to believe that a tornado striking a junkyard could result in the formation of a 747 in perfect working order.
> 
> Talk about faith-based lunacy...


That is s misunderstanding of the fact and theory of evolution. 

_Origin of Species_ accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the factual case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.

His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.

Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection." Contrary to your false characterization that evo can "assemble machinery into an airliner," Natural Selection makes no such requirement and negates coincidence completely. Evolution instead proposes the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.

What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> It is important for believers (and especially the fundie / Bible thumping / The-gods-did-it-screaming variety) accept that the history of their beliefs have caused much of the damage the world has seen, and not the other way around.



This is the common *canned response* of folks who subscribe to your religious views and has been cut and pasted here ad nauseum. Please cite specific statistics to back up your claim. When quoting your statistics, please differentiate the offenders who were following their own agendas and the ones who were actually following the REAL teachings of Christ as found in the New Testament. If you had actually studied the religions you quote unsubstantiated information on, you might understand that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have a common beginning. Abraham is the father of Isaac, who is the father of the Jewish religion. He is also the father of Ishmael, who is the father of the Arab nation, and the religion of Muhammad.  What distinguishes Christianity from these three religions is the teachings of Christ. So Darwinists (folks who follow the teachings of the prophet Charles Darwin) like yourself, tend to have a totally misunderstanding of Christianity and the significance of the New Testament. This ignorance allows them to build up Strawmen that have no basis in the actual teachings of Christianity, so they can feel good about proving their made up tenants of a religion they are totally unfamiliar with wrong. Please leave and come back once you've educated yourself. Your tired, repetitive dribble has been cut and pasted here numerous times. Had you read the last 300 pages, you might realize you are adding nothing to the discussion. Also, several pages back is a video link to Stephen Meyer talking about what ID Theory is or isn't. Take an hour of your life and listen to that one or continue being ignorant... your choice. Finally, had you read the last several pages of this thread, you would have noted that, while I respect Youwerecreated's beliefs, I don't don's subscribe to the "young earth" Creationist viewpoint. This viewpoint is based in the Genealogy of Christ that is outlined in the Bible but there are opposing arguments, as in everything, for an explanation on why that does not lock the Bible into a 6,000 year old history.


----------



## typicalusguy

So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?

Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> typicalusguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> To believe in the theory of evolution (or as I like to call it, the Church of Evo) is to believe that a tornado striking a junkyard could result in the formation of a 747 in perfect working order.
> 
> Talk about faith-based lunacy...
> 
> 
> 
> That is s misunderstanding of the fact and theory of evolution.
> 
> _Origin of Species_ accomplished two very different things.
> 
> First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the factual case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.
> 
> His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.
> 
> Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection." Contrary to your false characterization that evo can "assemble machinery into an airliner," Natural Selection makes no such requirement and negates coincidence completely. Evolution instead proposes the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.
> 
> What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.
Click to expand...


Wow, you really need to get out of the house more often. The whole theory of evolution rests on the pillar of "fitness" and the survivability of traits that contributed to fitness. However, scientist can't even come up with a testable definition for fitness. The make up neat stories about how longer beaks allowed finches to survive or the Giraffe's long neck allowed it to continue to eat when low hanging fruit was gone, but these are fairy tales, not backed by one shred of scientific evidence. Your whole theory is based on a lie and a sham. You obviously haven't done much reading in the last 2 years. Your regurgitated false facts I learned in high school before I graduated in 1984!!!!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is important for believers (and especially the fundie / Bible thumping / The-gods-did-it-screaming variety) accept that the history of their beliefs have caused much of the damage the world has seen, and not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the common *canned response* of folks who subscribe to your religious views and has been cut and pasted here ad nauseum. Please cite specific statistics to back up your claim. When quoting your statistics, please differentiate the offenders who were following their own agendas and the ones who were actually following the REAL teachings of Christ as found in the New Testament. If you had actually studied the religions you quote unsubstantiated information on, you might understand that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have a common beginning. Abraham is the father of Isaac, who is the father of the Jewish religion. He is also the father of Ishmael, who is the father of the Arab nation, and the religion of Muhammad.  What distinguishes Christianity from these three religions is the teachings of Christ. So Darwinists (folks who follow the teachings of the prophet Charles Darwin) like yourself, tend to have a totally misunderstanding of Christianity and the significance of the New Testament. This ignorance allows them to build up Strawmen that have no basis in the actual teachings of Christianity, so they can feel good about proving their made up tenants of a religion they are totally unfamiliar with wrong. Please leave and come back once you've educated yourself. Your tired, repetitive dribble has been cut and pasted here numerous times. Had you read the last 300 pages, you might realize you are adding nothing to the discussion. Also, several pages back is a video link to Stephen Meyer talking about what ID Theory is or isn't. Take an hour of your life and listen to that one or continue being ignorant... your choice. Finally, had you read the last several pages of this thread, you would have noted that, while I respect Youwerecreated's beliefs, I don't don's subscribe to the "young earth" Creationist viewpoint. This viewpoint is based in the Genealogy of Christ that is outlined in the Bible but there are opposing arguments, as in everything, for an explanation on why that does not lock the Bible into a 6,000 year old history.
Click to expand...

And what was it that you were scolded about, re: bible thumping


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real problem is that life is not easily "created". In fact, right now it has proven impossible to duplicate. Every thing alive on the planet today got its life spark from the distant, distant past. It was passed through thousands of generations. Yet, Evolutionary theory would have us believe it occurs easily, even randomly, yet no evidence exists. That is the real fallacy of Darwinism isn't it, to behave as if the mystery has been solved and that the theory is fact. *It hasn't and its not. *
> 
> 
> 
> I'd suggest you avoid discussions involving science as you tend to stumble over your own comments with a lack of understanding some very basic principles of science.
> 
> Evidence supporting the fact of evolution is not in dispute within the scientific community. You tend to make bellicose statements which are invariably false.
Click to expand...


Ha, ha, ha!!! I just fell off my chair laughing so hard. You are really brainwashed!!! Do you ever read any opposing material? Or just cut and paste your regurgitated party lines? You are showing a real penchant for lack of any thought of your own.


----------



## konradv

typicalusguy said:


> To believe in the theory of evolution (or as I like to call it, the Church of Evo) is to believe that a tornado striking a junkyard could result in the formation of a 747 in perfect working order.
> 
> Talk about faith-based lunacy...



No it doesn't.  While there are chemical laws which govern which atoms can combine and in what order, the are no such rules for 747s.  That's an old comment with zero leverage as a scientific statement.  I wonder about the actual, rather than the claimed, scientific acumen of those who thank you.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know without a shadow of a doubt it was bronchitis? Did you swab your lungs and grow the culture yourself? No my dear, I'm betting you $100 you took it on *faith* from your doctor. HA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't need blind faith in the supernatural to understand that trust in the modern science of medicine would cure disease.
> 
> Here's an experiment that will assist you in establishing the reality you are having problems coming to terms with:
> 
> Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.
Click to expand...


The sidestep caller sidesteps. HMMMM.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> typicalusguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> To believe in the theory of evolution (or as I like to call it, the Church of Evo) is to believe that a tornado striking a junkyard could result in the formation of a 747 in perfect working order.
> 
> Talk about faith-based lunacy...
> 
> 
> 
> That is s misunderstanding of the fact and theory of evolution.
> 
> _Origin of Species_ accomplished two very different things.
> 
> First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the factual case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.
> 
> His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.
> 
> Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection." Contrary to your false characterization that evo can "assemble machinery into an airliner," Natural Selection makes no such requirement and negates coincidence completely. Evolution instead proposes the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.
> 
> What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you really need to get out of the house more often. The whole theory of evolution rests on the pillar of "fitness" and the survivability of traits that contributed to fitness. However, scientist can't even come up with a testable definition for fitness. The make up neat stories about how longer beaks allowed finches to survive or the Giraffe's long neck allowed it to continue to eat when low hanging fruit was gone, but these are fairy tales, not backed by one shred of scientific evidence. Your whole theory is based on a lie and a sham. You obviously haven't done much reading in the last 2 years.
> Your regurgitated false facts I learned in high school before I graduated in 1984!!!!
Click to expand...

You're wholly deficient in your understanding of evolution and science. You should sit on the sidelines, read and make attempts to understand what is presented to you... then go out and thump people with your bibles.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know without a shadow of a doubt it was bronchitis? Did you swab your lungs and grow the culture yourself? No my dear, I'm betting you $100 you took it on *faith* from your doctor. HA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't need blind faith in the supernatural to understand that trust in the modern science of medicine would cure disease.
> 
> Here's an experiment that will assist you in establishing the reality you are having problems coming to terms with:
> 
> Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sidestep caller sidesteps. HMMMM.
Click to expand...

You obviously missed the assignment you were directed to complete. Can't respond? That was anticipated.


----------



## konradv

typicalusguy said:


> So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?
> 
> Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?



That's the problem, there are only millions.  Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time.  The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic.  There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record.  What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> ...that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts.



Wrong!!! Please cite on modern day, substantiated example of natural selection in action. Please don't quote the moth example which has long since been debunked, or the pathetic finch fairytale. Please do not quote any postulations which include assumptive language like "may have", "might have" or "could have". What I'm asking for is REAL example where a TESTABLE definition of fitness resulted in a trait resulting in a species surviving. Testable perhaps would be a survey of the population without the trait and then later data showing the percentage of the population of the species with the new trait increased.  It would also be nice if you could include the genomic backup for the mutation that resulted in the trait that resulted in higher fitness. Any mutations that result in disease or lesser fitness are unacceptable. 

Hollie, here is your chance!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is important for believers (and especially the fundie / Bible thumping / The-gods-did-it-screaming variety) accept that the history of their beliefs have caused much of the damage the world has seen, and not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the common *canned response* of folks who subscribe to your religious views and has been cut and pasted here ad nauseum. Please cite specific statistics to back up your claim. When quoting your statistics, please differentiate the offenders who were following their own agendas and the ones who were actually following the REAL teachings of Christ as found in the New Testament. If you had actually studied the religions you quote unsubstantiated information on, you might understand that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have a common beginning. Abraham is the father of Isaac, who is the father of the Jewish religion. He is also the father of Ishmael, who is the father of the Arab nation, and the religion of Muhammad.  What distinguishes Christianity from these three religions is the teachings of Christ. So Darwinists (folks who follow the teachings of the prophet Charles Darwin) like yourself, tend to have a totally misunderstanding of Christianity and the significance of the New Testament. This ignorance allows them to build up Strawmen that have no basis in the actual teachings of Christianity, so they can feel good about proving their made up tenants of a religion they are totally unfamiliar with wrong. Please leave and come back once you've educated yourself. Your tired, repetitive dribble has been cut and pasted here numerous times. Had you read the last 300 pages, you might realize you are adding nothing to the discussion. Also, several pages back is a video link to Stephen Meyer talking about what ID Theory is or isn't. Take an hour of your life and listen to that one or continue being ignorant... your choice. Finally, had you read the last several pages of this thread, you would have noted that, while I respect Youwerecreated's beliefs, I don't don's subscribe to the "young earth" Creationist viewpoint. This viewpoint is based in the Genealogy of Christ that is outlined in the Bible but there are opposing arguments, as in everything, for an explanation on why that does not lock the Bible into a 6,000 year old history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what was it that you were scolded about, re: bible thumping
Click to expand...


Sidestep. I'm still waiting for your statistics.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is s misunderstanding of the fact and theory of evolution.
> 
> _Origin of Species_ accomplished two very different things.
> 
> First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the factual case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.
> 
> His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.
> 
> Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection." Contrary to your false characterization that evo can "assemble machinery into an airliner," Natural Selection makes no such requirement and negates coincidence completely. Evolution instead proposes the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.
> 
> What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really need to get out of the house more often. The whole theory of evolution rests on the pillar of "fitness" and the survivability of traits that contributed to fitness. However, scientist can't even come up with a testable definition for fitness. The make up neat stories about how longer beaks allowed finches to survive or the Giraffe's long neck allowed it to continue to eat when low hanging fruit was gone, but these are fairy tales, not backed by one shred of scientific evidence. Your whole theory is based on a lie and a sham. You obviously haven't done much reading in the last 2 years.
> Your regurgitated false facts I learned in high school before I graduated in 1984!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're wholly deficient in your understanding of evolution and science. You should sit on the sidelines, read and make attempts to understand what is presented to you... then go out and thump people with your bibles.
Click to expand...


My Bible is on my iPhone. Can I just hit people with it?

Okay Hollie, now I sincerely apologize for manipulating you and I will concede that play time is over. It is really easy to come on here and call out folks for "sidestepping" and name calling and put downs, but when pushed, even you have resorted to this behavior. I won't put you down any more but just keep in mind that old glass houses saying as you continue to post. You got that calling you a Darwinist was a ploy to make you realize that calling Christians Bible Thumpers is just as offensive. Also, calling ID Theorists Creationists is also just as offensive. Whether you want to believe it or not, proponents of the TOE regularly mix Material Mysticism with science.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the common *canned response* of folks who subscribe to your religious views and has been cut and pasted here ad nauseum. Please cite specific statistics to back up your claim. When quoting your statistics, please differentiate the offenders who were following their own agendas and the ones who were actually following the REAL teachings of Christ as found in the New Testament. If you had actually studied the religions you quote unsubstantiated information on, you might understand that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have a common beginning. Abraham is the father of Isaac, who is the father of the Jewish religion. He is also the father of Ishmael, who is the father of the Arab nation, and the religion of Muhammad.  What distinguishes Christianity from these three religions is the teachings of Christ. So Darwinists (folks who follow the teachings of the prophet Charles Darwin) like yourself, tend to have a totally misunderstanding of Christianity and the significance of the New Testament. This ignorance allows them to build up Strawmen that have no basis in the actual teachings of Christianity, so they can feel good about proving their made up tenants of a religion they are totally unfamiliar with wrong. Please leave and come back once you've educated yourself. Your tired, repetitive dribble has been cut and pasted here numerous times. Had you read the last 300 pages, you might realize you are adding nothing to the discussion. Also, several pages back is a video link to Stephen Meyer talking about what ID Theory is or isn't. Take an hour of your life and listen to that one or continue being ignorant... your choice. Finally, had you read the last several pages of this thread, you would have noted that, while I respect Youwerecreated's beliefs, I don't don's subscribe to the "young earth" Creationist viewpoint. This viewpoint is based in the Genealogy of Christ that is outlined in the Bible but there are opposing arguments, as in everything, for an explanation on why that does not lock the Bible into a 6,000 year old history.
> 
> 
> 
> And what was it that you were scolded about, re: bible thumping
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sidestep. I'm still waiting for your statistics.
Click to expand...

You have your assignment to complete. Go thump elsewhere.


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> typicalusguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?
> 
> Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, there are only millions.  Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time.  The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic.  There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record.  What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?
Click to expand...


A resounding yes!!! The Bible teaches this... a stepped Creation. What separates a Deist from a Theist is the belief that, unlike the Deist God who set everything in motion and walked away, the Theist God continues to move and act within Creation. I believe God planted a new model, Homo Sapien, squarely on the planet at a specific point in history. The fossil evidence *currently supports his VERY SUDDEN appearance.* Archaeology may find evidence to the contrary, which could call many Theist belief systems into question, but as for now, there simply isn't ANY fossil evidence to the contrary, and some that was SLIGHTLY to the contrary, has shown to have been a fraud.


----------



## typicalusguy

konradv said:


> typicalusguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?
> 
> Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, there are only millions.  Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time.  The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic.  There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record.  What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?
Click to expand...


I'd be happy with a single example.


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> typicalusguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?
> 
> Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, there are only millions.  Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time.  The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic.  There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record.  What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A resounding yes!!! The Bible teaches this... a stepped Creation. What separates a Deist from a Theist is the belief that, unlike the Deist God who set everything in motion and walked away, the Theist God continues to move and act within Creation. I believe God planted a new model, Homo Sapien, squarely on the planet at a specific point in history. The fossil evidence *currently supports his VERY SUDDEN appearance.* Archaeology may find evidence to the contrary, which could call many Theist belief systems into question, but as for now, there simply isn't ANY fossil evidence to the contrary, and some that was SLIGHTLY to the contrary, has shown to have been a fraud.
Click to expand...


A very sudden appearance doesn't prove anything.  That's explained by Punctuated Equilibrium.  Using your theory it's not just Man that was created at a certain time, but innumerable other species, too.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> typicalusguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?
> 
> Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, there are only millions.  Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time.  The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic.  There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record.  What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?
Click to expand...


Maybe those transitional fossils don't exist. Things were created as they are, after all, stasis is shown in the fossil record. Gould and eldredge had it right until they tried to explain the stasis in the fossil record away.

Sudden appearance is creation. Why don't we see new forms of life popping up all over the globe if it happened the way evolutionist claim ?


----------



## konradv

typicalusguy said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> typicalusguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?
> 
> Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, there are only millions.  Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time.  The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic.  There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record.  What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be happy with a single example.
Click to expand...


The evolution of the horse is quite well worked out.  Sorry, they didn't find every last fossil.  

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> typicalusguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?
> 
> Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, there are only millions.  Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time.  The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic.  There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record.  What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe those transitional fossils don't exist. Things were created as they are, after all, stasis is shown in the fossil record. Gould and eldredge had it right until they tried to explain the stasis in the fossil record away.
> 
> Sudden appearance is creation. Why don't we new forms of life popping up all over globe if it happened the way evolutionist claim ?
Click to expand...


Because it's not observable on the human time scale.  I'm extremely dubious about your claimed scientific acumen, as the question borders on the moronic.  We're talking 100s of thousands to millions of years and you ask why we can't see it?  Even Methuselah wouldn't have seen it!


----------



## UltimateReality

typicalusguy said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> typicalusguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?
> 
> Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, there are only millions.  Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time.  The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic.  There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record.  What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be happy with a single example.
Click to expand...


Homo Sapien. The very best un-disputed fossil evidence puts him here about 17,000 to 19,000 years ago.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Same ol same ol,well time to enjoy the beach.


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, there are only millions.  Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time.  The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic.  There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record.  What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A resounding yes!!! The Bible teaches this... a stepped Creation. What separates a Deist from a Theist is the belief that, unlike the Deist God who set everything in motion and walked away, the Theist God continues to move and act within Creation. I believe God planted a new model, Homo Sapien, squarely on the planet at a specific point in history. The fossil evidence *currently supports his VERY SUDDEN appearance.* Archaeology may find evidence to the contrary, which could call many Theist belief systems into question, but as for now, there simply isn't ANY fossil evidence to the contrary, and some that was SLIGHTLY to the contrary, has shown to have been a fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A very sudden appearance doesn't prove anything.  That's explained by Punctuated Equilibrium.  Using your theory it's not just Man that was created at a certain time, but innumerable other species, too.
Click to expand...


Have you read Origin of the Species?!?!? Punctuated Equilibrium theory violates Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Although I would agree with you that PE fits the evidence while the TOE does not!!


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> typicalusguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, there are only millions.  Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time.  The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic.  There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record.  What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy with a single example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homo Sapien. The very best un-disputed fossil evidence puts him here about 17,000 to 19,000 years ago.
Click to expand...


Got a cite for your "undisputed" evidence?  Why do I get the feeling you'll "dispute" any other evidence, just to prove your point.


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> typicalusguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, there are only millions.  Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time.  The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic.  There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record.  What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy with a single example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evolution of the horse is quite well worked out.  Sorry, they didn't find every last fossil.
> 
> Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


While I appreciate you quoting Wiki, the information there is not reliable and majorly manipulated. I always use a disclaimer when citing it as a reference. 

"It's hardly news to observe that Wikipedia is biased against intelligent design (ID). Michael Egnor recently exposed how Wikipedians removed statements discussing how biological machines can be reverse-engineered, like human machines (an observation which has strong pro-ID implications). Errors persist from the very beginning of Wikipedia's entry on ID, with very first paragraph stating, "ID's primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God." I'm pretty sure that notable ID-friendly scientists like Mike Gene would ardently dispute that statement on many levels."

Did an Anti-ID Wikipedia Editor Shut Down a Darwin-Dissenter? - Evolution News & Views


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Same ol same ol,well time to enjoy the beach.



If you're not opposed to a bit of enlightenment:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

It's the best site on web.


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> typicalusguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy with a single example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homo Sapien. The very best un-disputed fossil evidence puts him here about 17,000 to 19,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got a cite for your "undisputed" evidence?  Why do I get the feeling you'll "dispute" any other evidence, just to prove your point.
Click to expand...


When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> A resounding yes!!! The Bible teaches this... a stepped Creation. What separates a Deist from a Theist is the belief that, unlike the Deist God who set everything in motion and walked away, the Theist God continues to move and act within Creation. I believe God planted a new model, Homo Sapien, squarely on the planet at a specific point in history. The fossil evidence *currently supports his VERY SUDDEN appearance.* Archaeology may find evidence to the contrary, which could call many Theist belief systems into question, but as for now, there simply isn't ANY fossil evidence to the contrary, and some that was SLIGHTLY to the contrary, has shown to have been a fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A very sudden appearance doesn't prove anything.  That's explained by Punctuated Equilibrium.  Using your theory it's not just Man that was created at a certain time, but innumerable other species, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read Origin of the Species?!?!? Punctuated Equilibrium theory violates Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Although I would agree with you that PE fits the evidence while the TOE does not!!
Click to expand...


It's not a new theory, but a refinement of the old.  Nothing about Darwin's theory contradicts PE.  They just had different ideas about the time course.  If he were alive today, I'm sure Darwin would embrace PE as a better explanation for what's found in the fossil record, like Newton would have applauded Einstein.


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homo Sapien. The very best un-disputed fossil evidence puts him here about 17,000 to 19,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got a cite for your "undisputed" evidence?  Why do I get the feeling you'll "dispute" any other evidence, just to prove your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?
Click to expand...


What's bogus is your saying they "make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull".  What they're doing is making the clay fit with the pieces they have.


----------



## konradv

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same ol same ol,well time to enjoy the beach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not opposed to a bit of enlightenment:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> It's the best site on web.
Click to expand...


Have you checked out this site?  Wondering what you thought.

Evolution of DNA


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> typicalusguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy with a single example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evolution of the horse is quite well worked out.  Sorry, they didn't find every last fossil.
> 
> Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I appreciate you quoting Wiki, the information there is not reliable and majorly manipulated. I always use a disclaimer when citing it as a reference.
> 
> "It's hardly news to observe that Wikipedia is biased against intelligent design (ID). Michael Egnor recently exposed how Wikipedians removed statements discussing how biological machines can be reverse-engineered, like human machines (an observation which has strong pro-ID implications). Errors persist from the very beginning of Wikipedia's entry on ID, with very first paragraph stating, "ID's primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God." I'm pretty sure that notable ID-friendly scientists like Mike Gene would ardently dispute that statement on many levels."
> 
> Did an Anti-ID Wikipedia Editor Shut Down a Darwin-Dissenter? - Evolution News & Views
Click to expand...


Sorry, but the Evolution of the Horse timeline was published long before Wiki came into existence.  You can't use that dodge.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same ol same ol,well time to enjoy the beach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not opposed to a bit of enlightenment:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> It's the best site on web.
Click to expand...


All that site does is prove that Darwin's Theory needs some serious revisiting. If *GRADUAL *changes occur over millions of years, we should be able to find more than just punctuated examples. There are HUGE gaps in the primate evidence presented on this site. 

Hollie, here is an alternate description of your "fact" of evolution:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8&feature=related]David Berlinski - Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie,

Instead of blindly accepting your religion, it is always good to study opposing viewpoints.

"Although on the face of it, the whale transition seems to be a relatively nice progression of forms, the main problem is that the transition takes place in far too narrow a window of time for it to be reasonably attributed to a Darwinian process.

    The sheer force of this conundrum is only properly appreciated when one considers the multiple feats of anatomical novelty, innovative engineering and genetic rewiring necessary to change a terrestrial mammal like Pakicetus into a fully aquatic whale. Indeed, evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg has argued that even many of the relatively minor changes are extremely unlikely to have occurred in the timeframe allowed. Consider the following small sample of necessary modifications: &#8230;"

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/whale-evolution-time-frame-too-narrow-for-a-darwinian-process/


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqdvhL3pgM]Dr. David Berlinski: What Does It Take for Change? (Clip 5) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> typicalusguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, there are only millions.  Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time.  The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic.  There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record.  What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy with a single example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evolution of the horse is quite well worked out.  Sorry, they didn't find every last fossil.
> 
> Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Re the horse series in current Korean &#8220;past-sell-by-date&#8221; Darwin textbooks &#8230; | Uncommon Descent


----------



## typicalusguy

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same ol same ol,well time to enjoy the beach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not opposed to a bit of enlightenment:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> It's the best site on web.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All that site does is prove that Darwin's Theory needs some serious revisiting. If *GRADUAL *changes occur over millions of years, we should be able to find more than just punctuated examples. There are HUGE gaps in the primate evidence presented on this site.
> 
> Hollie, here is an alternate description of your "fact" of evolution:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8&feature=related]David Berlinski - Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I'd hate to be on the wrong side of that intellectual beating.


----------



## konradv

typicalusguy said:


> I'd hate to be on the wrong side of that intellectual beating.



You are.


----------



## typicalusguy

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got a cite for your "undisputed" evidence?  Why do I get the feeling you'll "dispute" any other evidence, just to prove your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's bogus is your saying they "make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull".  What they're doing is making the clay fit with the pieces they have.
Click to expand...


My favorite is the one where Darwinists created the "missing link" from a pig's tooth.

I forget which fraud that was (there have been so many) was it Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man?


----------



## konradv

typicalusguy said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's bogus is your saying they "make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull".  What they're doing is making the clay fit with the pieces they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My favorite is the one where Darwinists created the "missing link" from a pig's tooth.
> 
> I forget which fraud that was (there have been so many) was it Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man?
Click to expand...


That's you've got, a 100+ year-old hoax?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same ol same ol,well time to enjoy the beach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not opposed to a bit of enlightenment:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> It's the best site on web.
Click to expand...


Oh no not talkorigins.

You have fossils found in the wrong strata but yet they try to piece a puzzle together that never existed.

How do you know that many of the fossils found are not just extinct organisms ? How do you know they were products of evolution ?

Explain to me many living fossils living today relatives dated way back in time show no change since evolution is always happening ? Every group of organisms have mutations why no change ?

Here is your chance to be enlightened.

Living-Fossils.com

Why is there no evolutionary change since evolution never stops and all groups of organisms have mutations ?

Refuting Evolution 2 -- chapter 8: Argument: The fossil record supports evolution

Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got a cite for your "undisputed" evidence?  Why do I get the feeling you'll "dispute" any other evidence, just to prove your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's bogus is your saying they "make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull".  What they're doing is making the clay fit with the pieces they have.
Click to expand...


Sorry but with many fossils they find bone fragments and use their imagination and plaster that is a fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evolution of the horse is quite well worked out.  Sorry, they didn't find every last fossil.
> 
> Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I appreciate you quoting Wiki, the information there is not reliable and majorly manipulated. I always use a disclaimer when citing it as a reference.
> 
> "It's hardly news to observe that Wikipedia is biased against intelligent design (ID). Michael Egnor recently exposed how Wikipedians removed statements discussing how biological machines can be reverse-engineered, like human machines (an observation which has strong pro-ID implications). Errors persist from the very beginning of Wikipedia's entry on ID, with very first paragraph stating, "ID's primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God." I'm pretty sure that notable ID-friendly scientists like Mike Gene would ardently dispute that statement on many levels."
> 
> Did an Anti-ID Wikipedia Editor Shut Down a Darwin-Dissenter? - Evolution News & Views
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Evolution of the Horse timeline was published long before Wiki came into existence.  You can't use that dodge.
Click to expand...


How do you prove they were products of evolution ?


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's bogus is your saying they "make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull".  What they're doing is making the clay fit with the pieces they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but with many fossils they find bone fragments and use their imagination and plaster that is a fact.
Click to expand...


Sure they use their imagination.  That's not the point.  The post we're talking about claimed that they "use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull".


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I appreciate you quoting Wiki, the information there is not reliable and majorly manipulated. I always use a disclaimer when citing it as a reference.
> 
> "It's hardly news to observe that Wikipedia is biased against intelligent design (ID). Michael Egnor recently exposed how Wikipedians removed statements discussing how biological machines can be reverse-engineered, like human machines (an observation which has strong pro-ID implications). Errors persist from the very beginning of Wikipedia's entry on ID, with very first paragraph stating, "ID's primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God." I'm pretty sure that notable ID-friendly scientists like Mike Gene would ardently dispute that statement on many levels."
> 
> Did an Anti-ID Wikipedia Editor Shut Down a Darwin-Dissenter? - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Evolution of the Horse timeline was published long before Wiki came into existence.  You can't use that dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you prove they were products of evolution ?
Click to expand...


Species weren't there and them they were.  Unless we're talking multiple creations, I don't see another explanation.  Since we see species appear for over a billion years, even saying that God's "day" is different from ours, there aren't enough days to get the whole creation story done.


----------



## typicalusguy

konradv said:


> typicalusguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's bogus is your saying they "make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull".  What they're doing is making the clay fit with the pieces they have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite is the one where Darwinists created the "missing link" from a pig's tooth.
> 
> I forget which fraud that was (there have been so many) was it Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's you've got, a 100+ year-old hoax?
Click to expand...


They let the hoax linger 100 years in classrooms? i thought they admitted it after only 60 years.

In any event, the Church of Evo poisoned children's minds for decades with their frauds.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> You have fossils found in the wrong strata but yet they try to piece a puzzle together that never existed.
> 
> How do you know that many of the fossils found are not just extinct organisms ? How do you know they were products of evolution ?
> 
> Explain to me many living fossils living today relatives dated way back in time show no change since evolution is always happening ? Every group of organisms have mutations why no change ?
> 
> Why is there no evolutionary change since evolution never stops and all groups of organisms have mutations ?



If fossils are found in the wrong strata, it's usually because of some geological activity and aren't used in the explanation of what happened in the stratum in question.

We assume organisms are the product of evolution, because their appearance and disappearance occurs all through earth's biologic history and would require a "multiple creation" theory to make sense.

Organisms don't change, if a mutation provides no significant advantage.  No mutated sub-population will occur, if there's no weaning out of the old or acquiring the ability to develop a new niche.  This most commonly occurs in the most stable of ecological niches.

Your last comment doesn't make sense.  It would require me to say there was no evolution, when I obviously believe there has been and by extension, is still ongoing.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Have you read Origin of the Species?!?!? Punctuated Equilibrium theory violates Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Although I would agree with you that PE fits the evidence while the TOE does not!!



Only in the world of of fundie Christian apologetics does Punctuated Equilibrium violate Darwin's Theory of Evolution.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie, here is an alternate description of your "fact" of evolution:



Honestly, that was terrible.

Berlinski is not a biologist, and his degrees do not coincide with the knowledge necessary to develop a thriving biological dissertation on life origins. Do you find it at all strange that you require an individual not schooled in the biological sciences to offer apologetics for creationism / ID?

His degrees are, as usual with creationists, suspiciously detached from the sciences most needed to establish an understanding of the very area in which they seek to explore.

Another red flag is association with the Discovery Institute. These Charlatans have been exposed as such.

There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian/Muslim creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It would be easier to take seriously your protests here were your arguments not so tightly in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute. But that is not the case.

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique. However, those of the science loathing persuasion typically copy and paste from creationist websites noted previously.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?


This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?

Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?
> 
> Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?
Click to expand...


Why do you think believers loathe science ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?
> 
> Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?
Click to expand...


How do you get a net gain of DNA information if the previous information is no longer ?

Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?
> 
> Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you get a net gain of DNA information if the previous information is no longer ?
> 
> Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?
Click to expand...


Why must there always be a gain?  Couldn't it just be different rather than more?

Also (and I know my knowledge about the function of DNA is limited, at best) could it be that a change in DNA could cause more functions/features to form then previously without needing any 'more' to be there?  Put another way, if a strand of DNA causes your eye color, is it possible that changing that strand might both change eye color AND give better vision?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?
> 
> Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get a net gain of DNA information if the previous information is no longer ?
> 
> Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why must there always be a gain?  Couldn't it just be different rather than more?
> 
> Also (and I know my knowledge about the function of DNA is limited, at best) could it be that a change in DNA could cause more functions/features to form then previously without needing any 'more' to be there?  Put another way, if a strand of DNA causes your eye color, is it possible that changing that strand might both change eye color AND give better vision?
Click to expand...


No because a function is lost.

It's just this simple,let's say the offspring loses an arm due to a mutation what could the offspring gain from the mutation that would benefit the offspring ?

Can a human benefit from the loss of any function ? and what function would be a benefit this person that lost a function ?


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?
> 
> Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How do you get a net gain of DNA information* if the previous information is no longer ?
> 
> Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?
Click to expand...


Fusion and transfection are two examples of how DNA can gain information.  If you're the scientist you say you are, you should know that.

Also, if a gene mutates the information isn't gone.  It still resides in the other copy of the chromosome.  Something you also should know!!!


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> No because a function is lost.
> 
> It's just this simple,let's say the offspring loses an arm due to a mutation what could the offspring gain from the mutation that would benefit the offspring ?
> 
> Can a human benefit from the loss of any function ? and what function would be a benefit this person that lost a function ?



Actually, you are absolutely wrong about that. Mutations are ubiquitous. Every human being (you included) has between 100 and 200 unique new mutations. I guess the Charlatans at the Discovery Institute forgot to teach you that. 

The sickle-cell anemia mutation occurs at the rate of about 10^-5 per generation. If that mutation occurs in a human living in a region where Malaria is prevalent, it will beneficially protect that person (and any descendents) from Malaria.

That said, this is only a minor, almost irrelevant example of the role of mutation in evolution. The primary role of mutations is to increase genetic variability. 

All 200 or so of your personal mutations are point mutations on your DNA, i.e. a change to a single base pair in a single DNA codon. If they occur on a length of DNA that is actually a gene (as opposed to &#8220;junk DNA&#8221, they will (at most) change a single amino acid on a single protein. I say &#8220;at most&#8221; because the DNA code is redundant, and about a quarter of even these mutations are completely silent.

These variations in our proteins are the expression of our genetic variability as a species. They are the reason that we come in different shapes, sizes, colors and all the other differences in our bodies and abilities. And this variation is the raw material upon which natural selection acts. If it is beneficial to be taller, then natural selection will favor those variations that increase height and eliminate those that reduce it.

But the eliminated variations are constantly being replenished by each generation&#8217;s new mutations. This includes some mutations that will reduce height (and be eliminated quickly) and some mutations that will increase height, even beyond the original variation of the population. In this way, over time, organisms can evolve completely beyond the limitations of their original variation. This is how mutation creates genetic novelty.

Do a bit of research and you will find that over the last several decades, the average height of the Japanese youngster has increased dramatically. The children often tower over the parents.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No because a function is lost.
> 
> It's just this simple,let's say the offspring loses an arm due to a mutation what could the offspring gain from the mutation that would benefit the offspring ?
> 
> Can a human benefit from the loss of any function ? and what function would be a benefit this person that lost a function ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are absolutely wrong about that. Mutations are ubiquitous. Every human being (you included) has between 100 and 200 unique new mutations. I guess the Charlatans at the Discovery Institute forgot to teach you that.
> 
> The sickle-cell anemia mutation occurs at the rate of about 10^-5 per generation. If that mutation occurs in a human living in a region where Malaria is prevalent, it will beneficially protect that person (and any descendents) from Malaria.
> 
> That said, this is only a minor, almost irrelevant example of the role of mutation in evolution. The primary role of mutations is to increase genetic variability.
> 
> All 200 or so of your personal mutations are point mutations on your DNA, i.e. a change to a single base pair in a single DNA codon. If they occur on a length of DNA that is actually a gene (as opposed to junk DNA), they will (at most) change a single amino acid on a single protein. I say at most because the DNA code is redundant, and about a quarter of even these mutations are completely silent.
> 
> These variations in our proteins are the expression of our genetic variability as a species. They are the reason that we come in different shapes, sizes, colors and all the other differences in our bodies and abilities. And this variation is the raw material upon which natural selection acts. If it is beneficial to be taller, then natural selection will favor those variations that increase height and eliminate those that reduce it.
> 
> But the eliminated variations are constantly being replenished by each generations new mutations. This includes some mutations that will reduce height (and be eliminated quickly) and some mutations that will increase height, even beyond the original variation of the population. In this way, over time, organisms can evolve completely beyond the limitations of their original variation. This is how mutation creates genetic novelty.
> 
> Do a bit of research and you will find that over the last several decades, the average height of the Japanese youngster has increased dramatically. The children often tower over the parents.
Click to expand...


This is funny I attended the University of Arizona. You gave the typical answer on a so called beneficial mutation The sickle-cell anemia mutation.

I also see you are not up to date on the human genome project because they declare there is no junk DNA.



mutations

Scientific data - High Rate of Deleterious Mutations

The Myth of Beneficial Mutations - CSI


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?
> 
> Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How do you get a net gain of DNA information* if the previous information is no longer ?
> 
> Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fusion and transfection are two examples of how DNA can gain information.  If you're the scientist you say you are, you should know that.
> 
> Also, if a gene mutates the information isn't gone.  It still resides in the other copy of the chromosome.  Something you also should know!!!
Click to expand...


Yes when a gene mutates the information is not lost in the other chromosome which is why it makes it all that much tougher for the mutated gene to become fixed in the gene pool. Good thing no ? or harmful mutations would pass on to us all.

What I'm saying is you can get new information but it has to be a net gain of information that does not come from mutations.

New genetic information can arise from simply crossing different lineages but you don't get new information that produces let's say humans that would produce non humans or or dogs producing non dogs and so on.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> Yes when a gene mutates the information is not lost in the other chromosome which is why it makes it all that much tougher for the mutated gene to become fixed in the gene pool. Good thing no ? or harmful mutations would pass on to us all.
> 
> What I'm saying is you can get new information but it has to be a net gain of information that does not come from mutations.
> 
> New genetic information can arise from simply crossing different lineages but you don't get new information that produces let's say humans that would produce non humans or non dogs and so on.



You're still taking as a given that all mutations are bad.  The bad ones would drop out as individuals died earlier, while the good ones would spread.  Even at 1000:1, bad:good, this weeding out vs concentration is more than enough to explain evolution.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is funny I attended the University of Arizona. You gave the typical answer on a so called beneficial mutation The sickle-cell anemia mutation.
> 
> I also see you are not up to date on the human genome project because they declare there is no junk DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny, in a mordant sort of way, that when the arguments from creationist websites crash to the ground in flames you bail on any refutation seeking only to find shelter in a different creationist website.
> 
> It's actually telling that the arguments you link to, such as those from the Discovery Institute, are furthered by non-scientists. I would no sooner accept facts on evolutiony science from a Psychologist than I would facts on geology from a hamburger flipper at McDonalds.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes when a gene mutates the information is not lost in the other chromosome which is why it makes it all that much tougher for the mutated gene to become fixed in the gene pool. Good thing no ? or harmful mutations would pass on to us all.
> 
> What I'm saying is you can get new information but it has to be a net gain of information that does not come from mutations.
> 
> New genetic information can arise from simply crossing different lineages but you don't get new information that produces let's say humans that would produce non humans or non dogs and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still taking as a given that all mutations are bad.  The bad ones would drop out as individuals died earlier, while the good ones would spread.  Even at 1000:1, bad:good, this weeding out vs concentration is more than enough to explain evolution.
Click to expand...


No i'm not,I am saying most mutations that cause a change to a gene are usually harmful most mutations do nothing at all because of the mechanism that corrects these errors.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?




Im afraid you have chosen to abandon any bit of credibility with references to such Fundie Charlatan organizations as the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)

The main entity for championing creationism, the Institute for Creation Research, requires its scientists (sic) to sign a prequalifying document that insists that nothing they discover is permitted to go against biblical scripture. If this is not a complete violation of the tenets of science then nothing is. Here is the key to their contradictory stance towards science:

Foundational Principles

Principles of Scientific Creationism

 The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.

 The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator. 

 Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions). 

 The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life. 

 The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.

 Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.

 The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.

 Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.

 Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically. 
Principles of Biblical Creationism 

 The Creator of the universe is a triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is only one eternal and transcendent God, the source of all being and meaning, and He exists in three Persons, each of whom participated in the work of creation.

 The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.

 All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false. All things that now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation.

 The first human beings, Adam and Eve, were specially created by God, and all other men and women are their descendants. In Adam, mankind was instructed to exercise "dominion" over all other created organisms, and over the earth itself (an implicit commission for true science, technology, commerce, fine art, and education), but the temptation by Satan and the entrance of sin brought God's curse on that dominion and on mankind, culminating in death and separation from God as the natural and proper consequence.

 The biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and Fall of man, the Curse on the Creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human government), and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel.

 The alienation of man from his Creator because of sin can only be remedied by the Creator Himself, who became man in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, through miraculous conception and virgin birth. In Christ were indissolubly united perfect sinless humanity and full deity, so that His substitutionary death is the only necessary and sufficient price of man's redemption. That the redemption was completely efficacious is assured by His bodily resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven; the resurrection of Christ is thus the focal point of history, assuring the consummation of God's purposes in creation.

The final restoration of creation's perfection is yet future, but individuals can immediately be restored to fellowship with their Creator on the basis of His redemptive work on their behalf, receiving forgiveness and eternal life solely through personal trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, accepting Him not only as estranged Creator, but also as reconciling Redeemer and coming King. Those who reject Him, however, or who neglect to believe on Him, thereby continue in their state of rebellion and must ultimately be consigned to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

 The eventual accomplishment of God's eternal purposes in creation, with the removal of His curse and the restoration of all things to divine perfection, will take place at the personal bodily return to earth of Jesus Christ to judge and purge sin and to establish His eternal kingdom.

 Each believer should participate in the "ministry of reconciliation" by seeking both to bring individuals back to God in Christ (the "Great Commission") and to "subdue the earth" for God's glory (the Edenic-Noahic Commission). The three institutions established by the Creator for the implementation of His purposes in this world (home, government, church) should be honored and supported as such.



Apparently, to be a "good Christian" one must have no sense of personal or academic integrity.

It's laughable. And you want that to be the standard taught in schools? Fine. Do it in Christian Madrassahs while the rest of us move along with progress and science. I have no desire to see a nation of kids being raised with thinking that dates only up to the 17th century. I already see enough of that in Islamic countries.

Pathetic!


----------



## typicalusguy

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How do you get a net gain of DNA information* if the previous information is no longer ?
> 
> Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fusion and transfection are two examples of how DNA can gain information.  If you're the scientist you say you are, you should know that.
> 
> Also, if a gene mutates the information isn't gone.  It still resides in the other copy of the chromosome.  Something you also should know!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes when a gene mutates the information is not lost in the other chromosome which is why it makes it all that much tougher for the mutated gene to become fixed in the gene pool. Good thing no ? or harmful mutations would pass on to us all.
> 
> What I'm saying is you can get new information but it has to be a net gain of information that does not come from mutations.
> 
> New genetic information can arise from simply crossing different lineages but you don't get new information that produces let's say humans that would produce non humans or or dogs producing non dogs and so on.
Click to expand...


I find this answer by Richard Dawkins 'instructive' in regards to genomes and genetic mutations. Try and keep a straight face in the beginning of the clip.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX7Htg2HxkA&feature=related]Famous atheist is stumped - He avoids answering the question - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny, in a mordant sort of way, that when the arguments from creationist websites crash to the ground in flames you bail on any refutation seeking only to find shelter in a different creationist website.
> 
> It's actually telling that the arguments you link to, such as those from the Discovery Institute, are furthered by non-scientists. I would no sooner accept facts on evolutiony science from a Psychologist than I would facts on geology from a hamburger flipper at McDonalds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My job for 11 years was studying mutations and cells. I never saw a permanent trait change from induced mutations. I did see many defects and flies dying prematurely. Over time any kind of changes did happen did not spread through the population and we eventually wound up with the flies we started with.
> 
> Stop with the rhetoric. Creationist that do the same research do hold degrees in the sciences and look at the same evidence just different conclusions. I once believed as you do but I saw the evidence first hand which caused me to believe as I do.
> 
> This is also what happened with darwins finches and pigeons.
> 
> Creationist do not continue to try and keep proving mutations do what evolutionist claim. They actually think logically. I believe creationist are more accurate with their conclusions and therefore their explanations.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

typicalusguy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fusion and transfection are two examples of how DNA can gain information.  If you're the scientist you say you are, you should know that.
> 
> Also, if a gene mutates the information isn't gone.  It still resides in the other copy of the chromosome.  Something you also should know!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes when a gene mutates the information is not lost in the other chromosome which is why it makes it all that much tougher for the mutated gene to become fixed in the gene pool. Good thing no ? or harmful mutations would pass on to us all.
> 
> What I'm saying is you can get new information but it has to be a net gain of information that does not come from mutations.
> 
> New genetic information can arise from simply crossing different lineages but you don't get new information that produces let's say humans that would produce non humans or or dogs producing non dogs and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find this answer by Richard Dawkins 'instructive' in regards to genomes and genetic mutations. Try and keep a straight face in the beginning of the clip.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX7Htg2HxkA&feature=related]Famous atheist is stumped - He avoids answering the question - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Sorry for some reason I can't view the video but when I return home I will watch it.

I consider dawkins and hawking as Ideologues.

Hollie speaks of fundies but ignores the ones on her side.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My job for 11 years was studying mutations and cells. I never saw a permanent trait change from induced mutations. I did see many defects and flies dying prematurely. Over time any kind of changes did happen did not spread through the population and we eventually wound up with the flies we started with.
> 
> Stop with the rhetoric. Creationist that do the same research do hold degrees in the sciences and look at the same evidence just different conclusions. I once believed as you do but I saw the evidence first hand which caused me to believe as I do.
> 
> This is also what happened with darwins finches and pigeons.
> 
> Creationist do not continue to try and keep proving mutations do what evolutionist claim. They actually think logically. I believe creationist are more accurate with their conclusions and therefore their explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to believe that anyone with integrity would allow themselves to be duped by such charlatans that roam the halls of the Institute Creation Research.
> 
> You have consistently avoided taking any responsibility for the false claims and junk science that has been abandoned since the 17th century but is still forwarded by the ICR.
> 
> Scientific investigation might be described as a progressive enterprise built around the competition of ideas. Where are the theistic ones? What I find remarkable is how consistent the god did it arguments really are. They are not similar, they are identical. And since so many of them are identically false, it is almost inconceivable that anyone could take them seriously.
> 
> That is why it is laughable when you post link after link to various creationist webites. Without an understanding of the subject matter you dump onto various threads, it becomes an exercise in copying and pasting for scramble from one creationist website to the next, mining more material that is copied and pasted, often contradicting material copied and pasted earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> I consider dawkins and hawking as Ideologues.
> 
> Hollie speaks of fundies but ignores the ones on her side.



This is another of the flaws that permeates the attitudes of fundies. It&#8217;s not an issue of &#8220;taking sides&#8221;, it&#8217;s an issue of facts, evidence and the integrity of the data.

Science is the process of discovery. Fundies will want to twist data to fit their preconceived ideas and simply scream the four word &#8220;The Gods Did It&#8221;, and proceed on as though you have answered the query when what you actually have done is to further your religious dogma by retreating from any further investigation. The Principles of Scientific Creationism furthered by the Institute for Creation Research demonstrate precisely that. It&#8217;s a complete and utter abandonment of any ethical or academic standard.

It is the fundies and charlatans who establish the &#8220;us vs. them&#8221; mentality because they are besieged on all sides by facts which dismantle their falsified and manufactured claims.
History shows us that religious institutions, (in particular the Christian Church), have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. I think people are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were say, 400 years ago. In large part that&#8217;s because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions. 

Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days because they predict a solar eclipse or a drought.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My job for 11 years was studying mutations and cells. I never saw a permanent trait change from induced mutations. I did see many defects and flies dying prematurely. Over time any kind of changes did happen did not spread through the population and we eventually wound up with the flies we started with.
> 
> Stop with the rhetoric. Creationist that do the same research do hold degrees in the sciences and look at the same evidence just different conclusions. I once believed as you do but I saw the evidence first hand which caused me to believe as I do.
> 
> This is also what happened with darwins finches and pigeons.
> 
> Creationist do not continue to try and keep proving mutations do what evolutionist claim. They actually think logically. I believe creationist are more accurate with their conclusions and therefore their explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry YWC, but if creationists work like those from the site you linked, and specifically ignore any science which doesn't coincide with their interpretation of biblical teaching, that is far from thinking logically.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?
> 
> Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think believers loathe science ?
Click to expand...


Because she is a Darwinist cult member. For her, science started in 1856. She is conveniently denying 4500 years of scientific discovery made by believers of the Creator. Haven't you noticed this is totally common on here by members of her cult. How many times have Darwinists posted inferences on here that belief in God and good science are somehow mutually exclusive. The "god did it" quote has been used on here more times than I can count. You think these people could come up with some new material and actually have a thought process of their own.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins.



Hollie, your whole post is the ad Hominem fallacy. Instead addressing Belinski's arguments, you attack his qualifications... A typical ploy by Darwinists. I guarantee the man is 10 times smarter than you. 

As for your post above, you are correct when it comes to Creationism but not ID Theory. By continuing to make the statement you are either a liar or jus ignorant. Here is a video outlining an ID scientific theory. I am 99% sure you won't watch it, because your anger with Christians and God is hard to hide and your underlying agenda prevents you from having an open mind to other truths. There is a certain amount of arrogance that comes with denial of God, which is where the whole "fact of evolution" comes from with such a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I see through you. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]Check out this video on YouTube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry YWC, but if creationists work like those from the site you linked, and specifically ignore any science which doesn't coincide with their interpretation of biblical teaching, that is far from thinking logically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement could be equally applied to the evolutionists camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to believe that anyone with integrity would allow themselves to be duped by such charlatans that roam the halls of the Institute Creation Research.
> 
> You have consistently avoided taking any responsibility for the false claims and junk science that has been abandoned since the 17th century but is still forwarded by the ICR.
> 
> Scientific investigation might be described as a progressive enterprise built around the competition of ideas. Where are the theistic ones? What I find remarkable is how consistent the god did it arguments really are. They are not similar, they are identical. And since so many of them are identically false, it is almost inconceivable that anyone could take them seriously.
> 
> That is why it is laughable when you post link after link to various creationist webites. Without an understanding of the subject matter you dump onto various threads, it becomes an exercise in copying and pasting for scramble from one creationist website to the next, mining more material that is copied and pasted, often contradicting material copied and pasted earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've seen in the lab agrees with famous evolutionist pierre grasse AND A FEW OTHERS.
> 
> Pierre-Paul Grassé also wrote the following:
>  	Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.6
> 
> "The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur .... There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it."
> 
> Grasse, Pierre-Paul
> 
> "The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation ... is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection .... the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles .... The finding of a suitable mate for the 'hopeless monster' and the establishment of reproductive isolation from the normal members of the parental population seem to me insurmountable difficulties."
> 
> Mayr, Ernst (1970)
> 
> 
> "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutation that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation. ...
> 
> It is nevertheless to be inferred that all the superbly interadapted genes of any present-day organism arose through just this process of accidental natural mutation."
> 
> Muller, H. J.
> 
> "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
> 
> Lewontin, Richard
> 
> Comment: Despite the evidence that Muller cites in his first sentence, his philosophical naturalism forces him to infer that all genetic information has arisen by purely random mutations. As Pierre Paul Grasse has noted, "Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped (p. 107)
> 
> Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977)
> 
> 
> Now you are gonna say we have learned a lot since then. I tell you  I saw the same things and have not been duped as you say. Some heavy hitters disagree with you and point out what is going on in the biology community.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, your whole post is the ad Hominem fallacy. Instead addressing Belinski's arguments, you attack his qualifications... A typical ploy by Darwinists. I guarantee the man is 10 times smarter than you.
> 
> As for your post above, you are correct when it comes to Creationism but not ID Theory. By continuing to make the statement you are either a liar or jus ignorant. Here is a video outlining an ID scientific theory. I am 99% sure you won't watch it, because your anger with Christians and God is hard to hide and your underlying agenda prevents you from having an open mind to other truths. There is a certain amount of arrogance that comes with denial of God, which is where the whole "fact of evolution" comes from with such a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I see through you.
Click to expand...


You're an angry guy. And yes, I "attack" the qualifications of Berlinski because in connection with the biological sciences, geology, etc., he has no qualifications. Your comment is thus a bit of an oxymoron.   

But first, it's a bit difficult to refute a youtube video. It's not as though Berlinski is available to defend his comments. You and the other guy seem to believe that your only obligation in supporting your position is to copy and paste from creationist websites. Your position is  predictable because you have predefined your conclusions in spite of the data dismantling it. 

Secondly, why would I take Berlinski seriously when representing the ICR, he is explicitly pressing a religious agenda and explicitly ignoring what data will refute his position as a shill for the ICR? 

I don't see any arrogance that comes from denial of god, (your particular god). I see arrogance in your insistence that I am required to accept your position and ignore the facts dismantling it. I find arrogance in you, using your religion like a bloody truncheon to make me believe or else. Or else what?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry YWC, but if creationists work like those from the site you linked, and specifically ignore any science which doesn't coincide with their interpretation of biblical teaching, that is far from thinking logically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I worked in the field it was not with creationist or ID proponents but I have come to agree with their explanations over the agenda driven atheistic evolutionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've seen in the lab agrees with famous evolutionist pierre grasse AND A FEW OTHERS.
> 
> Pierre-Paul Grassé also wrote the following:
>  	Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.6
> 
> "The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur .... There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it."
> 
> Grasse, Pierre-Paul
> 
> "The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation ... is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection .... the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles .... The finding of a suitable mate for the 'hopeless monster' and the establishment of reproductive isolation from the normal members of the parental population seem to me insurmountable difficulties."
> 
> Mayr, Ernst (1970)
> 
> 
> "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutation that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation. ...
> 
> It is nevertheless to be inferred that all the superbly interadapted genes of any present-day organism arose through just this process of accidental natural mutation."
> 
> Muller, H. J.
> 
> "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
> 
> Lewontin, Richard
> 
> Comment: Despite the evidence that Muller cites in his first sentence, his philosophical naturalism forces him to infer that all genetic information has arisen by purely random mutations. As Pierre Paul Grasse has noted, "Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped (p. 107)
> 
> Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977)
> 
> 
> Now you are gonna say we have learned a lot since then. I tell you  I saw the same things and have not been duped as you say. Some heavy hitters disagree with you and point out what is going on in the biology community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm familiar with several of the "quotes" you mined. You might want to review some sources which you will stumble over as part of your "quote mining".
> 
> Be careful though, you fall into the creationist trap of selectively "quote mining" from creationist sources that will alter the "quotes" you are "quoting".
> 
> Yours is a common tactic of creationists hacks who, like your bretheren at the ICR will lie, cheat and steal to press your creationist agenda.
> 
> Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I worked in the field it was not with creationist or ID proponents but I have come to agree with their explanations over the agenda driven atheistic evolutionist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "atheistic evolutionist"?
> 
> Has it gotten so bad for you that juvenile name-calling is you last resort?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement could be equally applied to the evolutionists camp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if any scientists refuse to look at evidence because it might refute evolution, you are correct.
> 
> However, it appears that this Institute for Creation Research actually makes it part of their mission to ignore anything that might contradict their interpretations of the bible.  I am unaware of any scientific group with a mandate of ignoring anything which might refute the theory of evolution.  If such groups exist, they are just as outside the realm of science as the ICR.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Luddly Neddite

cbirch2 said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO WITH A HERMAN CAIN BANNER FOR HIS SIGNATURE!!!! LMAO!!!
> 
> that was the most ridiculous video ive ever watched. your very simple.
Click to expand...

Here's another -

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVAzYIbh2Qg]U.S. State Senator: Earth Is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, your whole post is the ad Hominem fallacy. Instead addressing Belinski's arguments, you attack his qualifications... A typical ploy by Darwinists. I guarantee the man is 10 times smarter than you.
> 
> As for your post above, you are correct when it comes to Creationism but not ID Theory. By continuing to make the statement you are either a liar or jus ignorant. Here is a video outlining an ID scientific theory. I am 99% sure you won't watch it, because your anger with Christians and God is hard to hide and your underlying agenda prevents you from having an open mind to other truths. There is a certain amount of arrogance that comes with denial of God, which is where the whole "fact of evolution" comes from with such a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I see through you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an angry guy. And yes, I "attack" the qualifications of Berlinski because in connection with the biological sciences, geology, etc., he has no qualifications. Your comment is thus a bit of an oxymoron.
> 
> But first, it's a bit difficult to refute a youtube video. It's not as though Berlinski is available to defend his comments. You and the other guy seem to believe that your only obligation in supporting your position is to copy and paste from creationist websites. Your position is  predictable because you have predefined your conclusions in spite of the data dismantling it.
> 
> Secondly, why would I take Berlinski seriously when representing the ICR, he is explicitly pressing a religious agenda and explicitly ignoring what data will refute his position as a shill for the ICR?
> 
> I don't see any arrogance that comes from denial of god, (your particular god). I see arrogance in your insistence that I am required to accept your position and ignore the facts dismantling it. I find arrogance in you, using your religion like a bloody truncheon to make me believe or else. Or else what?
Click to expand...


I'm not angry, just passionate. There is no oxymoron there, only an ad Hominem fallacy. Go look it up. And if you want to go there, what makes you qualified?

Here, I will give you a little hint... Pick one of Berlinski's statements in the video that you don't agree with and then provide data to support an argument against the statement. You see? Refuting a YouTube video really isn't that complicated. 

By the way, nice touch on the cut and paste accusation but if you check back several posts I accused you of that first so it loses a little when you repeat it back to me. All of the arguments you've presented have been repeated here numerous times so my response is yawn. It would be so refreshing if instead of repeating the same old Christian put downs and canned evolution dribble, someone could actually update themselves on current iD Theory and present some thoughtful and intellectual arguments. Sadly Hollie, you haven't presented anything new. 

I guess you need to figure out what motivates you to come on here an show us Creasionists/ID Theorists how stupid we are and how much more intellectually superior you are.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview | Creation Museum
A Visit to the Creation Museum, 11/10/07 - a set on Flickr

Is this the place that has the dinosaur with a saddle on it?

Freaky.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?
> 
> Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?
Click to expand...


You are so funny!!! Science loathing, ha. Do you realize how completely redneck ignorant you sound right now? Do you realize how many millions of Christians are responsible for the technology you see all around you? Do you know not the volumes of scientific literature that have been written by Men who believed in God?  Have you picked up a history book and seen that this Christian nation we live in has produced more wealth and ingenuity, and irradicted more poverty than any nation the world has ever seen? You are either really brainwashed or really foolish. I don't think I can even respond to you anymore because your hatred has clouded your judgement so bad.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No because a function is lost.
> 
> It's just this simple,let's say the offspring loses an arm due to a mutation what could the offspring gain from the mutation that would benefit the offspring ?
> 
> Can a human benefit from the loss of any function ? and what function would be a benefit this person that lost a function ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are absolutely wrong about that. Mutations are ubiquitous. Every human being (you included) has between 100 and 200 unique new mutations. I guess the Charlatans at the Discovery Institute forgot to teach you that.
> 
> The sickle-cell anemia mutation occurs at the rate of about 10^-5 per generation. If that mutation occurs in a human living in a region where Malaria is prevalent, it will beneficially protect that person (and any descendents) from Malaria.
> 
> That said, this is only a minor, almost irrelevant example of the role of mutation in evolution. The primary role of mutations is to increase genetic variability.
> 
> All 200 or so of your personal mutations are point mutations on your DNA, i.e. a change to a single base pair in a single DNA codon. If they occur on a length of DNA that is actually a gene (as opposed to &#8220;junk DNA&#8221, they will (at most) change a single amino acid on a single protein. I say &#8220;at most&#8221; because the DNA code is redundant, and about a quarter of even these mutations are completely silent.
> 
> These variations in our proteins are the expression of our genetic variability as a species. They are the reason that we come in different shapes, sizes, colors and all the other differences in our bodies and abilities. And this variation is the raw material upon which natural selection acts. If it is beneficial to be taller, then natural selection will favor those variations that increase height and eliminate those that reduce it.
> 
> But the eliminated variations are constantly being replenished by each generation&#8217;s new mutations. This includes some mutations that will reduce height (and be eliminated quickly) and some mutations that will increase height, even beyond the original variation of the population. In this way, over time, organisms can evolve completely beyond the limitations of their original variation. This is how mutation creates genetic novelty.
> 
> Do a bit of research and you will find that over the last several decades, the average height of the Japanese youngster has increased dramatically. The children often tower over the parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is funny I attended the University of Arizona. You gave the typical answer on a so called beneficial mutation The sickle-cell anemia mutation.
> 
> I also see you are not up to date on the human genome project because they declare there is no junk DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> mutations
> 
> Scientific data - High Rate of Deleterious Mutations
> 
> The Myth of Beneficial Mutations - CSI
Click to expand...


Hey YWCA, I went to U of A too. Studied mechanical engineering. What years were you there? I was 84 to 88. I actually sold the HVAC equipment on TGEN here in Phoenix and a guy that goes to our church is a researching there. And he is not even science loathing!


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes when a gene mutates the information is not lost in the other chromosome which is why it makes it all that much tougher for the mutated gene to become fixed in the gene pool. Good thing no ? or harmful mutations would pass on to us all.
> 
> What I'm saying is you can get new information but it has to be a net gain of information that does not come from mutations.
> 
> New genetic information can arise from simply crossing different lineages but you don't get new information that produces let's say humans that would produce non humans or non dogs and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still taking as a given that all mutations are bad.  The bad ones would drop out as individuals died earlier, while the good ones would spread.  Even at 1000:1, bad:good, this weeding out vs concentration is more than enough to explain evolution.
Click to expand...


What is your testable scientific definition of fitness which determines which mutations are good and which ones are bad?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny, in a mordant sort of way, that when the arguments from creationist websites crash to the ground in flames you bail on any refutation seeking only to find shelter in a different creationist website.
> 
> It's actually telling that the arguments you link to, such as those from the Discovery Institute, are furthered by non-scientists. I would no sooner accept facts on evolutiony science from a Psychologist than I would facts on geology from a hamburger flipper at McDonalds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ad Hominem ad nauseum
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to believe that anyone with integrity would allow themselves to be duped by such charlatans that roam the halls of the Institute Creation Research.
> 
> You have consistently avoided taking any responsibility for the false claims and junk science that has been abandoned since the 17th century but is still forwarded by the ICR.
> 
> Scientific investigation might be described as a progressive enterprise built around the competition of ideas. Where are the theistic ones? What I find remarkable is how consistent the god did it arguments really are. They are not similar, they are identical. And since so many of them are identically false, it is almost inconceivable that anyone could take them seriously.
> 
> That is why it is laughable when you post link after link to various creationist webites. Without an understanding of the subject matter you dump onto various threads, it becomes an exercise in copying and pasting for scramble from one creationist website to the next, mining more material that is copied and pasted, often contradicting material copied and pasted earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is pathetic is your blindness. While you accuse Creationists of doing the EXACT same thing Evolutionists do, I.e., start with a premise and force the data to fit. You are truly lost in your bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I consider dawkins and hawking as Ideologues.
> 
> Hollie speaks of fundies but ignores the ones on her side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another of the flaws that permeates the attitudes of fundies. Its not an issue of taking sides, its an issue of facts, evidence and the integrity of the data.
> 
> Science is the process of discovery. Fundies will want to twist data to fit their preconceived ideas and simply scream the four word The Gods Did It, and proceed on as though you have answered the query when what you actually have done is to further your religious dogma by retreating from any further investigation. The Principles of Scientific Creationism furthered by the Institute for Creation Research demonstrate precisely that. Its a complete and utter abandonment of any ethical or academic standard.
> 
> It is the fundies and charlatans who establish the us vs. them mentality because they are besieged on all sides by facts which dismantle their falsified and manufactured claims.
> History shows us that religious institutions, (in particular the Christian Church), have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. I think people are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were say, 400 years ago. In large part thats because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions.
> 
> Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days because they predict a solar eclipse or a drought.
Click to expand...


Blah, blah, discriminatory hate, blah, blah, anger, blah,blah blah, mass generalizations blah blah


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Blah, blah, discriminatory hate, blah, blah, anger, blah,blah blah, mass generalizations blah blah



Somehow, I didn't find _blah,blah blah_ to encapsulate a compelling argument.

One of the many parts of the creationist argument you left out was the inability of peer review. As of today, ID is only a hypothesis, whereas evolution has theory status and factual data to present. Further, if ID cannot make testable predictions (as evolution does), then it has little or no usefulness as a scientific theory. 

I also believe that attempting to censor ID does more to support it, because now you give its supporters fodder for yet more conspiracy theories, as we can see by reading this thread and others.

No, the answer is to allow the supporters of ID to publish a peer reviewed paper, and to examine it thoroughly. I have already seen the scientific and legal community has already dismissed ID / creationism as not meeting the standard of the Scientific Method  and we have already seen that these examinations of ID / creationism prove it as either false or useless from a scientific point of view. And there is little difference. Even if a hypothesis might be true, but is unable to make predictions, or is unfalsifiable (or unverifiable), then it is useless, which makes it false by default.

Take it out or leave it in per your desire. In any event, gods / supernaturalism are outside the realm of science.

Science is a process that will assiduously test and challenge, there's the difference. Theistic principles are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant.

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon or men rise from the dead?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, discriminatory hate, blah, blah, anger, blah,blah blah, mass generalizations blah blah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, I didn't find _blah,blah blah_ to encapsulate a compelling argument.
> 
> One of the many parts of the creationist argument you left out was the inability of peer review. As of today, ID is only a hypothesis, whereas evolution has theory status and factual data to present. Further, if ID cannot make testable predictions (as evolution does), then it has little or no usefulness as a scientific theory.
> 
> I also believe that attempting to censor ID does more to support it, because now you give its supporters fodder for yet more conspiracy theories, as we can see by reading this thread and others.
> 
> No, the answer is to allow the supporters of ID to publish a peer reviewed paper, and to examine it thoroughly. I have already seen the scientific and legal community has already dismissed ID / creationism as not meeting the standard of the Scientific Method  and we have already seen that these examinations of ID / creationism prove it as either false or useless from a scientific point of view. And there is little difference. Even if a hypothesis might be true, but is unable to make predictions, or is unfalsifiable (or unverifiable), then it is useless, which makes it false by default.
> 
> Take it out or leave it in per your desire. In any event, gods / supernaturalism are outside the realm of science.
> 
> Science is a process that will assiduously test and challenge, there's the difference. Theistic principles are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant.
> 
> In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon or men rise from the dead?
Click to expand...


The blah blah blah was regarding your tired rehash. There have been many peer reviewed ID papers. 
Why do you assume all Theists are Christians? Berlinski's is Jewish, and not even a practicing one.

Finally, either you are thick are you having reading comprehension issues. I am advocating ID Theory. Creationism is a religious belief. I'm not sue why you keep intermixing the two. ID makes no mystical claims.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> The blah blah blah was regarding your tired rehash. There have been many peer reviewed ID papers.
> Why do you assume all Theists are Christians? Berlinski's is Jewish, and not even a practicing one.
> 
> Finally, either you are thick are you having reading comprehension issues. I am advocating ID Theory. Creationism is a religious belief. I'm not sue why you keep intermixing the two. ID makes no mystical claims.




The following is from a 2007 article.

Creationists launch peer-reviewed journal | News Blogs - CNET News

Creationists are adapting another element of the traditional scientific realm to their cause: the peer-reviewed journal.

The Institute for Creation Research, a prominent believer that the scientific method can validate a literal reading of the Bible's account of the creation of the universe, Earth and humanity, has begun soliciting papers for the International Journal for Creation Research.

Peer review, in which a scientist's paper is scrutinized by a group of colleagues, is designed to find errors and weed out half-baked ideas. And although some have criticized peer review for rejecting new ideas just because they're too radical for the establishment to stomach, in the long run, science has marched along through various paradigm shifts.
The IJCR, though, has a few extra requirements to make sure scientific findings stay subordinate to creationist tenets.

"IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global flood, the nonevolutionary origin of the species, and other evidences that correlate to the biblical accounts," according to the institute's description.

In the call for papers, it adds, "*Papers can be in any scientific, or social scientific, field, but must be from a young-earth perspective and aim to assist the development of the creation model of origins." And the three or more people who reviewer each paper are advised that each paper must "provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of scripture."*


If not mystical, "who" or what is the intellegent (supernatural) designer in your theory?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> "atheistic evolutionist"?
> 
> Has it gotten so bad for you that juvenile name-calling is you last resort?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that name calling? Most lay folks like yourself that come here to argue have blindly subscribed to the "fact" of evolution in their zealous need to deny God. There are really no true atheist only folks angry with God.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The blah blah blah was regarding your tired rehash. There have been many peer reviewed ID papers.
> Why do you assume all Theists are Christians? Berlinski's is Jewish, and not even a practicing one.
> 
> Finally, either you are thick are you having reading comprehension issues. I am advocating ID Theory. Creationism is a religious belief. I'm not sue why you keep intermixing the two. ID makes no mystical claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is from a 2007 article.
> 
> Creationists launch peer-reviewed journal | News Blogs - CNET News
> 
> Creationists are adapting another element of the traditional scientific realm to their cause: the peer-reviewed journal.
> 
> The Institute for Creation Research, a prominent believer that the scientific method can validate a literal reading of the Bible's account of the creation of the universe, Earth and humanity, has begun soliciting papers for the International Journal for Creation Research.
> 
> Peer review, in which a scientist's paper is scrutinized by a group of colleagues, is designed to find errors and weed out half-baked ideas. And although some have criticized peer review for rejecting new ideas just because they're too radical for the establishment to stomach, in the long run, science has marched along through various paradigm shifts.
> The IJCR, though, has a few extra requirements to make sure scientific findings stay subordinate to creationist tenets.
> 
> "IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global flood, the nonevolutionary origin of the species, and other evidences that correlate to the biblical accounts," according to the institute's description.
> 
> In the call for papers, it adds, "*Papers can be in any scientific, or social scientific, field, but must be from a young-earth perspective and aim to assist the development of the creation model of origins." And the three or more people who reviewer each paper are advised that each paper must "provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of scripture."*
> 
> 
> If not mystical, "who" or what is the intellegent (supernatural) designer in your theory?
Click to expand...


Seriously? I've stated peviously I am not a young earth Creationists and I don't know anything about ICR nor have I ever visited their website. Boy do you lump everyone into the same mold. I suppose you believe all blacks are on welfare too.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm familiar with several of the "quotes" you mined. You might want to review some sources which you will stumble over as part of your "quote mining".
> 
> Be careful though, you fall into the creationist trap of selectively "quote mining" from creationist sources that will alter the "quotes" you are "quoting".
> 
> Yours is a common tactic of creationists hacks who, like your bretheren at the ICR will lie, cheat and steal to press your creationist agenda.
> 
> Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ? you hate hearing evolutionists that are in a better situation to actually know about what they are saying agreeing with me a believer.
> 
> Take hack and shove it lady, I have made my credentials known. What are your credentials ?
> 
> Just admit it,the truth hurts.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> "atheistic evolutionist"?
> 
> Has it gotten so bad for you that juvenile name-calling is you last resort?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, if the shoe fits wear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if any scientists refuse to look at evidence because it might refute evolution, you are correct.
> 
> However, it appears that this Institute for Creation Research actually makes it part of their mission to ignore anything that might contradict their interpretations of the bible.  I am unaware of any scientific group with a mandate of ignoring anything which might refute the theory of evolution.  If such groups exist, they are just as outside the realm of science as the ICR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry partner but God comes first with believers,the same can be said for non-believers.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, your whole post is the ad Hominem fallacy. Instead addressing Belinski's arguments, you attack his qualifications... A typical ploy by Darwinists. I guarantee the man is 10 times smarter than you.
> 
> As for your post above, you are correct when it comes to Creationism but not ID Theory. By continuing to make the statement you are either a liar or jus ignorant. Here is a video outlining an ID scientific theory. I am 99% sure you won't watch it, because your anger with Christians and God is hard to hide and your underlying agenda prevents you from having an open mind to other truths. There is a certain amount of arrogance that comes with denial of God, which is where the whole "fact of evolution" comes from with such a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I see through you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an angry guy. And yes, I "attack" the qualifications of Berlinski because in connection with the biological sciences, geology, etc., he has no qualifications. Your comment is thus a bit of an oxymoron.
> 
> But first, it's a bit difficult to refute a youtube video. It's not as though Berlinski is available to defend his comments. You and the other guy seem to believe that your only obligation in supporting your position is to copy and paste from creationist websites. Your position is  predictable because you have predefined your conclusions in spite of the data dismantling it.
> 
> Secondly, why would I take Berlinski seriously when representing the ICR, he is explicitly pressing a religious agenda and explicitly ignoring what data will refute his position as a shill for the ICR?
> 
> I don't see any arrogance that comes from denial of god, (your particular god). I see arrogance in your insistence that I am required to accept your position and ignore the facts dismantling it. I find arrogance in you, using your religion like a bloody truncheon to make me believe or else. Or else what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not angry, just passionate. There is no oxymoron there, only an ad Hominem fallacy. Go look it up. And if you want to go there, what makes you qualified?
> 
> Here, I will give you a little hint... Pick one of Berlinski's statements in the video that you don't agree with and then provide data to support an argument against the statement. You see? Refuting a YouTube video really isn't that complicated.
> 
> By the way, nice touch on the cut and paste accusation but if you check back several posts I accused you of that first so it loses a little when you repeat it back to me. All of the arguments you've presented have been repeated here numerous times so my response is yawn. It would be so refreshing if instead of repeating the same old Christian put downs and canned evolution dribble, someone could actually update themselves on current iD Theory and present some thoughtful and intellectual arguments. Sadly Hollie, you haven't presented anything new.
> 
> I guess you need to figure out what motivates you to come on here an show us Creasionists/ID Theorists how stupid we are and how much more intellectually superior you are.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are absolutely wrong about that. Mutations are ubiquitous. Every human being (you included) has between 100 and 200 unique new mutations. I guess the Charlatans at the Discovery Institute forgot to teach you that.
> 
> The sickle-cell anemia mutation occurs at the rate of about 10^-5 per generation. If that mutation occurs in a human living in a region where Malaria is prevalent, it will beneficially protect that person (and any descendents) from Malaria.
> 
> That said, this is only a minor, almost irrelevant example of the role of mutation in evolution. The primary role of mutations is to increase genetic variability.
> 
> All 200 or so of your personal mutations are point mutations on your DNA, i.e. a change to a single base pair in a single DNA codon. If they occur on a length of DNA that is actually a gene (as opposed to junk DNA), they will (at most) change a single amino acid on a single protein. I say at most because the DNA code is redundant, and about a quarter of even these mutations are completely silent.
> 
> These variations in our proteins are the expression of our genetic variability as a species. They are the reason that we come in different shapes, sizes, colors and all the other differences in our bodies and abilities. And this variation is the raw material upon which natural selection acts. If it is beneficial to be taller, then natural selection will favor those variations that increase height and eliminate those that reduce it.
> 
> But the eliminated variations are constantly being replenished by each generations new mutations. This includes some mutations that will reduce height (and be eliminated quickly) and some mutations that will increase height, even beyond the original variation of the population. In this way, over time, organisms can evolve completely beyond the limitations of their original variation. This is how mutation creates genetic novelty.
> 
> Do a bit of research and you will find that over the last several decades, the average height of the Japanese youngster has increased dramatically. The children often tower over the parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is funny I attended the University of Arizona. You gave the typical answer on a so called beneficial mutation The sickle-cell anemia mutation.
> 
> I also see you are not up to date on the human genome project because they declare there is no junk DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> mutations
> 
> Scientific data - High Rate of Deleterious Mutations
> 
> The Myth of Beneficial Mutations - CSI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey YWCA, I went to U of A too. Studied mechanical engineering. What years were you there? I was 84 to 88. I actually sold the HVAC equipment on TGEN here in Phoenix and a guy that goes to our church is a researching there. And he is not even science loathing!
Click to expand...


1981 to 1985

Probably when most of these  ignorant kids were born.


----------



## Hollie

[/QUOTE]

If you're incapable of responding to the salient points, you should consider not participating in these discussions.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry partner but God comes first with believers,the same can be said for non-believers.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the gods come first with non-believers? Doesn't the term "non-believer" suggest "non-believer"?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ? you hate hearing evolutionists that are in a better situation to actually know about what they are saying agreeing with me a believer.
> 
> Take hack and shove it lady, I have made my credentials known. What are your credentials ?
> 
> Just admit it,the truth hurts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally underwhelmed... but impressed with the teenage bravado. Really, I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? I've stated peviously I am not a young earth Creationists and I don't know anything about ICR nor have I ever visited their website. Boy do you lump everyone into the same mold. I suppose you believe all blacks are on welfare too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So "who" or "what" created the "young earth".
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


>



If you're incapable of responding to the salient points, you should consider not participating in these discussions.[/QUOTE]

Obviously, forums are meant to be a source of entrtainment as well as informative. 

Hollie, did you enjoy my comment about the gentleman at my church being a researcher at TGEN? According to your fried worldview, I suppose you would discriminate against science-loathing, ignorant, Creationist Chrstians from holding such positions. It's a wonder how he gets any mapping done at all, you know being that he is such a science hater and all. Let me guess, you are a lesbian and part of the occupy movement as well?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? I've stated peviously I am not a young earth Creationists and I don't know anything about ICR nor have I ever visited their website. Boy do you lump everyone into the same mold. I suppose you believe all blacks are on welfare too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So "who" or "what" created the "young earth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would I know? I believe the earth is 4 billion years old, as do he folks at the discovery institute.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie, did you enjoy my comment about the gentleman at my church being a researcher at TGEN? According to your fried worldview, I suppose you would discriminate against science-loathing, ignorant, Creationist Chrstians from holding such positions. It's a wonder how he gets any mapping done at all, you know being that he is such a science hater and all. Let me guess, you are a lesbian and part of the occupy movement as well?



I'll ignore the lesbian reference as desperation on your part.

ID is part of what I like to call "The Self Destructing Creation Model." Earlier, creationists made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was (as you may recall) originally called "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more ambiguous, and frankly more pathetic.

In the same way, when creationists find themselves unable to deal with the multiple independent sources of evidence for evolution that include the fossils, the genetic comparisons, comparative anatomy, biogeography, ecology etc., they retreat further and further towards the subject of abiogenesis. But how does that help them?

Does a god that created bacteria and then let everything else evolve from there conform any better with the record of Genesis than no god at all? Either way, the Bible still cannot be taken literally. Adam and Eve are still an allegory. Biblical history is still a myth. 

It is not the issue of abiogenesis that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is irrelevant to the actual disagreement with science, and most creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And specifically, the issue is about the evolution of human beings, not the origin of the first cell.

Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian (and now Muslim) vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus even other Christians and Muslims who have no trouble with the scientific perspective.

Organisms still evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. And the evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry partner but God comes first with believers,the same can be said for non-believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is not with god coming first, the problem is ignoring evidence that contradicts a non-scientific belief and calling it science.
> 
> Believe what you will, but when you want to call it science and teach it as such, ignoring things that refute your interpretation of the bible just doesn't cut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that name calling? Most lay folks like yourself that come here to argue have blindly subscribed to the "fact" of evolution in their zealous need to deny God. There are really no true atheist only folks angry with God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The quote function has gotten screwy, that wasn't my post!
> 
> I do want to comment on the last part of your post, though.  Why do you think there are no true atheists?  What assures you that people MUST believe in some sort of god?  It seems silly, even arrogant, to say that no one truly disbelieves.  Your statement also seems to imply that people don't disbelieve, they are only angry at the god in which YOU believe.  The Christian god is not the only god believed in.  The Abrahamic religions are not the only religions.  Millions of people are believers in some sort of god or gods without believing in the god of Abraham.  You seem to not only dismiss atheists, but anyone who doesn't believe in your god.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, did you enjoy my comment about the gentleman at my church being a researcher at TGEN? According to your fried worldview, I suppose you would discriminate against science-loathing, ignorant, Creationist Chrstians from holding such positions. It's a wonder how he gets any mapping done at all, you know being that he is such a science hater and all. Let me guess, you are a lesbian and part of the occupy movement as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ignore the lesbian reference as desperation on your part.
> 
> ID is part of what I like to call "The Self Destructing Creation Model." Earlier, creationists made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was (as you may recall) originally called "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more ambiguous, and frankly more pathetic.
> 
> In the same way, when creationists find themselves unable to deal with the multiple independent sources of evidence for evolution that include the fossils, the genetic comparisons, comparative anatomy, biogeography, ecology etc., they retreat further and further towards the subject of abiogenesis. But how does that help them?
> 
> Does a god that created bacteria and then let everything else evolve from there conform any better with the record of Genesis than no god at all? Either way, the Bible still cannot be taken literally. Adam and Eve are still an allegory. Biblical history is still a myth.
> 
> It is not the issue of abiogenesis that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is irrelevant to the actual disagreement with science, and most creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And specifically, the issue is about the evolution of human beings, not the origin of the first cell.
> 
> Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian (and now Muslim) vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus even other Christians and Muslims who have no trouble with the scientific perspective.
> 
> Organisms still evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. And the evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists.
Click to expand...


I'm not really sure how all the statements above, some of them grossly inaccurate, related to your view of Christians doing fabulous work in the scientific community. I would like to clarify my comment on you being a lesbian. I have found that the anger some homosexuals face from so called Christians, who are not following the teachings of Christ, causes them to abandon their religious views. The guilt and shame associated with early homosexual feelings in our predominantly Judeo Christian culture, many times causes homosexuals to abandon their religious beliefs as a coping mechanism to deal with their guilt. While Christianity condemns homosexuality as a sin, Christ calls us to love and reach out to sinners, including homosexuals, not stand on the street corner with degrading signs that say "God hates fags". My experience has been that many who have been subjected to this abuse by so called fundamentalist Christians, or from rigid Christian parents who withhold love or disown once they come out, tend to go the other direction violently, going on a crusade to "teach those Christians a lesson once and for all and destroy their pathetic beliefs with all my science smarts." Evolution becomes just the avenue they need to prove the antagonist in their life wrong and deny God. Your posts contain just that type of hatred and anger, so I was just curious if my prediction was correct. Now I was a cop for 10 years, and I do find it somewhat curious you did not deny your were a lesbian, but sidestepped the issue. If you would answer one question though, were you raised in a Christian home?


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The quote function has gotten screwy, that wasn't my post!
> 
> I do want to comment on the last part of your post, though.  Why do you think there are no true atheists?  What assures you that people MUST believe in some sort of god?  It seems silly, even arrogant, to say that no one truly disbelieves.  Your statement also seems to imply that people don't disbelieve, they are only angry at the god in which YOU believe.  The Christian god is not the only god believed in.  The Abrahamic religions are not the only religions.  Millions of people are believers in some sort of god or gods without believing in the god of Abraham.  You seem to not only dismiss atheists, but anyone who doesn't believe in your god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am no longer speaking from a scientific stance, but a philosophical one now. Without God their is no Universal truth, no basis for morals. The point of my little saying is that most folks claiming atheism rarely behave like TRUE atheists. They still hold back with an inner uncertainty that deep down they might be wrong about the existence of a higher power. This uncertainty keeps them from living a truly free from God of the Bible existence. That little thing science still can't explain called a conscience keeps them from really living out their beliefs. William Provine during a debate admitted the evolutionary philosophical tennants that necessarily spring forth from belief in evolution:
> 
> *"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear &#8230; There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That&#8217;s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."*
> 
> Does a lion ponder the family the antelope left behind while he consumes his flesh? Darwinist make up all kinds of neat fairy tales about ethics and morals and how they developed but they are speculation. So the question is, if no one was looking, and you could get away with some truly evil sh-- that would benefit you in some monetary or positional way, would you do it? If it meant your family, your offspring, would survive and carry your genes forward, but someone else had to suffer, if you wouldn't get caught, would you go for it?
> 
> Regarding Abiogenisis, it is funny how evolutionists are always saying how scientific they are when the whole theory is the most non-scientific area of science currently studied. Berlinski addresses this in the video when comparing it to physics. It is laced with Materialistic mysticism that the most zealous of that worldview seem blind to see or accept. It is also really convenient that they don't dare touch abiogenesis, They speak of a common ancestor, but no one can seem to define what type of organism this common ancestor is. Is it a single cell organism? A virus? What? Someone please tell me, what is the definitive line where abiogenisis ends and evolution starts. I have never gotten an answer but for folks that have everything figured out, this shouldn't be that hard to define.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> I'm not really sure how all the statements above, some of them grossly inaccurate, related to your view of Christians doing fabulous work in the scientific community. I would like to clarify my comment on you being a lesbian. I have found that the anger some homosexuals face from so called Christians, who are not following the teachings of Christ, causes them to abandon their religious views. The guilt and shame associated with early homosexual feelings in our predominantly Judeo Christian culture, many times causes homosexuals to abandon their religious beliefs as a coping mechanism to deal with their guilt. While Christianity condemns homosexuality as a sin, Christ calls us to love and reach out to sinners, including homosexuals, not stand on the street corner with degrading signs that say "God hates fags". My experience has been that many overcompensate, going on a crusade to "teach those Christians a lesson once and for all and destroy their pathetic beliefs with all my science smarts." Your posts contain just that type of hatred and anger, so I was just curious if my prediction was correct. Now I was a cop for 10 years, and I do find it somewhat curious you did not deny your were a lesbian, but sidestepped the issue. If you would answer one question though, were you raised in a Christian home?



So... because your arguments have become flaming wreckage, you must compensate by spewing hate?  Intellectually honest people use facts to conceive their educated opinions, not defend their preconceived ones. But, of course, intellectual honesty isn't for everyone.

Wallowing in self pity will help you not. The debasement was brought on by the impotence which you exhibit. Employ introspection and you shall understand why your cycle of self hate causes you such angst. Fix that which makes you a slave to ignorance and retrogression and you shall be a slave no more


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure how all the statements above, some of them grossly inaccurate, related to your view of Christians doing fabulous work in the scientific community. I would like to clarify my comment on you being a lesbian. I have found that the anger some homosexuals face from so called Christians, who are not following the teachings of Christ, causes them to abandon their religious views. The guilt and shame associated with early homosexual feelings in our predominantly Judeo Christian culture, many times causes homosexuals to abandon their religious beliefs as a coping mechanism to deal with their guilt. While Christianity condemns homosexuality as a sin, Christ calls us to love and reach out to sinners, including homosexuals, not stand on the street corner with degrading signs that say "God hates fags". My experience has been that many overcompensate, going on a crusade to "teach those Christians a lesson once and for all and destroy their pathetic beliefs with all my science smarts." Your posts contain just that type of hatred and anger, so I was just curious if my prediction was correct. Now I was a cop for 10 years, and I do find it somewhat curious you did not deny your were a lesbian, but sidestepped the issue. If you would answer one question though, were you raised in a Christian home?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... because your arguments have become flaming wreckage, you must compensate by spewing hate?  Intellectually honest people use facts to conceive their educated opinions, not defend their preconceived ones. But, of course, intellectual honesty isn't for everyone.
> 
> Wallowing in self pity will help you not. The debasement was brought on by the impotence which you exhibit. Employ introspection and you shall understand why your cycle of self hate causes you such angst. Fix that which makes you a slave to ignorance and retrogression and you shall be a slave no more&#8230;
Click to expand...


Huh? You are talking about yourself, right? Spewing hate? Answer the the simple question- Were you raised in a Christian home??? That post obviously hit a nerve. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. I think it is you who is in need of introspection.

It is also nice that you are so immature as to think that you somehow know me. Have you ever heard of Queer Creek in Tempe? It is a common hangout for gay men to engage in anonymous sex with eachother. There is  a ministry that reaches out to them in Christ's love and seeks to help them out of their destructive lifestyle. Some of the men are victims of horrific sexual abuse as children and need intense counseling to come to grips with what drives them. Because most in the park are at the experimental stage, they still suffer from incredible guilt and shame... shame over things that happened to them that no one should ever have to suffer.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> I am no longer speaking from a scientific stance, but a philosophical one now. Without God their is no Universal truth, no basis for morals. .



It seems odd to be lectured by a fundie creationist about morals, especially in regard to your behavior within these preceding posts.  If you look at the history of Christianity (and to be fair, I would have to include Judaism and Islam) you will realize that these religious institutions have no monopoly of morality. The deeds that they (sometimes) condemn now are the same ones that they performed in antiquity. No institution in history has changed its moral stance as much as the religious institutions. 

Your straw man caricature of humanistic morals (rather- the lack thereof) is rather offensive. Humanistic ethics are based on compassion and reason, and are far more moral than those based on the bribery of future reward or the fear of future torture. Would you want your child to do the right thing because he knew it was the right thing to do, or because he wanted a reward and feared a punishment? 

Actually, man's ethics and morality beats out the gods by light-years. God tacitly and obviously approves of slavery (Jesus speaks of servants to a Master and never thinks to condemn the injustice of one man owning another)-- man finds it repulsive. God not only approves of war, he ignites them left and right -- man creates a United Nations in an attempt to stop war. God commits genocide without blinking an eye -- man imprisons mass murderers and is repulsed by wanton slaughter. God not only approves of raping young women, he specifically rewards his soldiers with them.

Ultimately, your observations and value system regarding morality seems a bit skewed to me. If you told me that you have "felt" the presence of the gods and their moral compass, well, that's fine but to me, that has relatively little impact unless of course you knew for certain that another of those "god of love" humanity wiping floods or virgin slaughters, or one of those long nights accompanied with the sacrificial lamb's blood being painted on the door thingys was to be visited upon us. If that's about to happen umm call me, (it didn't work out so well for the lambs).

But in the meantime, feel free to threaten others with your gods - that is certainly part of the history of Christiandom.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Huh? You are talking about yourself, right? Spewing hate? Answer the the simple question- Were you raised in a Christian home??? That post obviously hit a nerve. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. I think it is you who is in need of introspection.
> 
> It is also nice that you are so immature as to think that you somehow know me. Have you ever heard of Queer Creek in Tempe? It is a common hangout for gay men to engage in anonymous sex with eachother. There is  a ministry that reaches out to them in Christ's love and seeks to help them out of their destructive lifestyle. Some of the men are victims of horrific sexual abuse as children and need intense counseling to come to grips with what drives them. Because most in the park are at the experimental stage, they still suffer from incredible guilt and shame... shame over things that happened to them that no one should ever have to suffer.



You have a peculiar fascination with the gay lifestyle. 

As with many fundie creationists, you view the universe as a physical projection of a moral construct, the focus of which is, of course, themselves. "It's all about me." It's a singularly utilitarian form of narcissism in which concessions are grudgingly conceded to obvious human limitations and perfected selves imaged in the form of flawless gods with absolute moral standards to which the fallible must aspire. 

When Kurt Vonnegut asked the seemingly seminal question, "What are people for?", he bypassed the significant possibility: People aren't for. However, Kurt's 'Great Commandment' of the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent which I paraphrase, "Take care of the People; let the Gods take care of Themselves" should be rendered in lapidary permanence outside every public building.

My suggestion: Eschew ill-fitting, off-the-rack hand-me-downs. You have equal access to a fancied spirit world and, thus, are entirely qualified to create your own fetching, custom-fitted, designer religion. Otherwise, Vonnegut's contribution to the religion business is well worth considering.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? You are talking about yourself, right? Spewing hate? Answer the the simple question- Were you raised in a Christian home??? That post obviously hit a nerve. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. I think it is you who is in need of introspection.
> 
> It is also nice that you are so immature as to think that you somehow know me. Have you ever heard of Queer Creek in Tempe? It is a common hangout for gay men to engage in anonymous sex with eachother. There is  a ministry that reaches out to them in Christ's love and seeks to help them out of their destructive lifestyle. Some of the men are victims of horrific sexual abuse as children and need intense counseling to come to grips with what drives them. Because most in the park are at the experimental stage, they still suffer from incredible guilt and shame... shame over things that happened to them that no one should ever have to suffer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a peculiar fascination with the gay lifestyle.
> 
> As with many fundie creationists, you view the universe as a physical projection of a moral construct, the focus of which is, of course, themselves. "It's all about me." It's a singularly utilitarian form of narcissism in which concessions are grudgingly conceded to obvious human limitations and perfected selves imaged in the form of flawless gods with absolute moral standards to which the fallible must aspire.
> 
> When Kurt Vonnegut asked the seemingly seminal question, "What are people for?", he bypassed the significant possibility: People aren't for. However, Kurt's 'Great Commandment' of the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent which I paraphrase, "Take care of the People; let the Gods take care of Themselves" should be rendered in lapidary permanence outside every public building.
> 
> My suggestion: Eschew ill-fitting, off-the-rack hand-me-downs. You have equal access to a fancied spirit world and, thus, are entirely qualified to create your own fetching, custom-fitted, designer religion. Otherwise, Vonnegut's contribution to the religion business is well worth considering.
Click to expand...


Were you raised in a Christian home?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems odd to be lectured by a fundie creationist about morals, especially in regard to your behavior within these preceding posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please enlighten me on what behavior you find so offensive? I ask you if you are a Lesbian and you find that offensive? Why would that be offensive to anyone in our current culture in the United States where gay marriage is being promoted and approved at every turn? You just got done spewing pages of all kinds of hate for Bible-thumping, intolerant Christians so I am a little surprised you would be shocked at me perfectly fitting your stereotypical mold of all Christians?
> 
> And once again your post is an *EPIC FAIL*, showing a complete, utter lack of understanding of basic Christian teachings and the role of the NEW TESTAMENT. But feel free to go ahead and keep posting the same ignorant dribble over and over and over and over. It will not unburden you of *YOUR* voracious anger towards God.
> 
> Finally, William Provine is a staunch evolutionist apologist. Those comments about morals and free will came from your side, not mine. Of course you didn't address any of them in your post as usual.
> 
> Were you raised in a Christian home?
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? You are talking about yourself, right? Spewing hate? Answer the the simple question- Were you raised in a Christian home??? That post obviously hit a nerve. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. I think it is you who is in need of introspection.
> 
> It is also nice that you are so immature as to think that you somehow know me. Have you ever heard of Queer Creek in Tempe? It is a common hangout for gay men to engage in anonymous sex with eachother. There is  a ministry that reaches out to them in Christ's love and seeks to help them out of their destructive lifestyle. Some of the men are victims of horrific sexual abuse as children and need intense counseling to come to grips with what drives them. Because most in the park are at the experimental stage, they still suffer from incredible guilt and shame... shame over things that happened to them that no one should ever have to suffer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a peculiar fascination with the gay lifestyle.
> 
> As with many fundie creationists, you view the universe as a physical projection of a moral construct, the focus of which is, of course, themselves. "It's all about me." It's a singularly utilitarian form of narcissism in which concessions are grudgingly conceded to obvious human limitations and perfected selves imaged in the form of flawless gods with absolute moral standards to which the fallible must aspire.
> 
> When Kurt Vonnegut asked the seemingly seminal question, "What are people for?", he bypassed the significant possibility: People aren't for. However, Kurt's 'Great Commandment' of the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent which I paraphrase, "Take care of the People; let the Gods take care of Themselves" should be rendered in lapidary permanence outside every public building.
> 
> My suggestion: Eschew ill-fitting, off-the-rack hand-me-downs. You have equal access to a fancied spirit world and, thus, are entirely qualified to create your own fetching, custom-fitted, designer religion. Otherwise, Vonnegut's contribution to the religion business is well worth considering.
Click to expand...


Hollie, Google is not such a mystery as to motivate one to *eschew plagiarism.* While musings from 2010 might not be considered lapidary in the world wide web, if you are going to quote people, the intellectually honest thing to do would be to put it in quotes and provide a link, such like my link to RuggedTouch's third post down, which can be found here...

How can there be freewill? - Page 13


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> You just got done spewing pages of all kinds of hate for Bible-thumping, intolerant Christians so I am a little surprised you would be shocked at me perfectly fitting your stereotypical mold of all Christians?



I'm not shocked at all.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Finally, William Provine is a staunch evolutionist apologist. Those comments about morals and free will came from your side, not mine. Of course you didn't address any of them in your post as usual.


"Evolutionist apologist"?

This sounds more like fundie-speak as a vehicle to denigrate the science that fundie Creationists find so repulsive. I really find it absurd that fundie creationists will hope to lecture others on morals when their own moral compass is in such disrepair.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, William Provine is a staunch evolutionist apologist. Those comments about morals and free will came from your side, not mine. Of course you didn't address any of them in your post as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> "Evolutionist apologist"?
> 
> This sounds more like fundie-speak as a vehicle to denigrate the science that fundie Creationists find so repulsive. I really find it absurd that fundie creationists will hope to lecture others on morals when their own moral compass is in such disrepair.
Click to expand...


So are these your own words? Or someone else's you cut and pasted from the Understanding Islam forum?

Were you raised in a Christian home? By your silence I will assume you were, and that my assertions for your motivations for posting here are spot on.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, William Provine is a staunch evolutionist apologist. Those comments about morals and free will came from your side, not mine. Of course you didn't address any of them in your post as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> "Evolutionist apologist"?
> 
> This sounds more like fundie-speak as a vehicle to denigrate the science that fundie Creationists find so repulsive. I really find it absurd that fundie creationists will hope to lecture others on morals when their own moral compass is in such disrepair.
Click to expand...



Hollie, I have a few questions for you.

1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?

2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?

3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?

4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?

5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?

These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, William Provine is a staunch evolutionist apologist. Those comments about morals and free will came from your side, not mine. Of course you didn't address any of them in your post as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> "Evolutionist apologist"?
> 
> This sounds more like fundie-speak as a vehicle to denigrate the science that fundie Creationists find so repulsive. I really find it absurd that fundie creationists will hope to lecture others on morals when their own moral compass is in such disrepair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, I have a few questions for you.
> 
> 1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?
> 
> 2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?
> 
> 3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?
> 
> 4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?
> 
> 5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?
> 
> These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.
Click to expand...


It's difficult to take your questions seriously when your agenda ("evolutionists"?) is in such lock step... or is it Goose Step... with the charlatans at the ICR. 

I haven't done a search but I suspect your questions are premanufactured and can be found at the ICR website. 

I have no reason to believe that you have any familiarity or have had any study program involving any of the biological sciences. That is why you have posted silly youtube videos demanding that I "refute" them. That's the danger you create for youself. When you press a fundie religious agenda wherein you specifically use falsified data, where you specifically reject any and all facts and evidence that refutes such agenda and when you hurl such juvenile attempts at insult with terms as "evolutionist", Darwinist, etc., it becomes abundantly clear that your only agenda is to browbeat people with your gods.


----------



## Truthmatters

The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, William Provine is a staunch evolutionist apologist. Those comments about morals and free will came from your side, not mine. Of course you didn't address any of them in your post as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> "Evolutionist apologist"?
> 
> This sounds more like fundie-speak as a vehicle to denigrate the science that fundie Creationists find so repulsive. I really find it absurd that fundie creationists will hope to lecture others on morals when their own moral compass is in such disrepair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, I have a few questions for you.
> 
> 1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?
> 
> 2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?
> 
> 3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?
> 
> 4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?
> 
> 5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?
> 
> These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.
Click to expand...


If I might interject, I think part of the problem is you are looking at evolution as a linear change from 'bad' to 'good'.  That is not the idea at all.  Evolution, as I understand it, proposes that things change, not that they are changing on the way to some sort of perfect state.  The changes which work for whatever environment the particular creature is in will be passed on, but that doesn't make them better in an absolute sense.  Rather they may be better for that particular environment.  

So, as to why some creatures show little change over long periods of time, the answer can be simply that few changes have occurred which provide a greater survivability.  Either they creature is already very well suited to survive and reproduce, or the environment in which it lives has undergone little change, or some combination of these.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Evolutionist apologist"?
> 
> This sounds more like fundie-speak as a vehicle to denigrate the science that fundie Creationists find so repulsive. I really find it absurd that fundie creationists will hope to lecture others on morals when their own moral compass is in such disrepair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, I have a few questions for you.
> 
> 1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?
> 
> 2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?
> 
> 3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolution even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?
> 
> 4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?
> 
> 5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?
> 
> These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's difficult to take your questions seriously when your agenda ("evolutionists"?) is in such lock step... or is it Goose Step... with the charlatans at the ICR.
> 
> I haven't done a search but I suspect your questions are premanufactured and can be found at the ICR website.
> 
> I have no reason to believe that you have any familiarity or have had any study program involving any of the biological sciences. That is why you have posted silly youtube videos demanding that I "refute" them. That's the danger you create for youself. When you press a fundie religious agenda wherein you specifically use falsified data, where you specifically reject any and all facts and evidence that refutes such agenda and when you hurl such juvenile attempts at insult with terms as "evolutionist", Darwinist, etc., it becomes abundantly clear that your only agenda is to browbeat people with your gods.
Click to expand...


Hollie these are not questions manufactured from ICR or any religious site. These questions are my own and they came from my own reasoning from my readings and my own research from the lab.

These questions have nothing to do with God and I didn't bring God into this post you just did. You want to talk science, this is science. I am just pointing out how your side come to some crazy and unsupported conclusions. I am asking rational questions that you can come to a logical answer or will you do what fundies do on your side and ignore the questions and start blaming my questions on me being a believer ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Truthmatters said:


> The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf



From your source.

"It appears that life first emerged at least 3.8 billion years ago, approximately 750 million years after Earth was formed (Figure 1.1). How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Nonetheless, several types of experiments provide important evidence bearing on some steps of the process."

It appears and How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory.

Don't sound very convincing does it ?

I have already touched on why it could not have happened naturally.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Evolutionist apologist"?
> 
> This sounds more like fundie-speak as a vehicle to denigrate the science that fundie Creationists find so repulsive. I really find it absurd that fundie creationists will hope to lecture others on morals when their own moral compass is in such disrepair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, I have a few questions for you.
> 
> 1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?
> 
> 2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?
> 
> 3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?
> 
> 4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?
> 
> 5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?
> 
> These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I might interject, I think part of the problem is you are looking at evolution as a linear change from 'bad' to 'good'.  That is not the idea at all.  Evolution, as I understand it, proposes that things change, not that they are changing on the way to some sort of perfect state.  The changes which work for whatever environment the particular creature is in will be passed on, but that doesn't make them better in an absolute sense.  Rather they may be better for that particular environment.
> 
> So, as to why some creatures show little change over long periods of time, the answer can be simply that few changes have occurred which provide a greater survivability.  Either they creature is already very well suited to survive and reproduce, or the environment in which it lives has undergone little change, or some combination of these.
Click to expand...


How would you apply this thinking to Homo Sapiens, who are VERY poorly suited to just about any environment, requiring skins of other animals in order not to freeze to death, and requiring implements formed from other objects to even have the ability to hunt prey.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, I have a few questions for you.
> 
> 1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?
> 
> 2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?
> 
> 3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolution even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?
> 
> 4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?
> 
> 5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?
> 
> These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's difficult to take your questions seriously when your agenda ("evolutionists"?) is in such lock step... or is it Goose Step... with the charlatans at the ICR.
> 
> I haven't done a search but I suspect your questions are premanufactured and can be found at the ICR website.
> 
> I have no reason to believe that you have any familiarity or have had any study program involving any of the biological sciences. That is why you have posted silly youtube videos demanding that I "refute" them. That's the danger you create for youself. When you press a fundie religious agenda wherein you specifically use falsified data, where you specifically reject any and all facts and evidence that refutes such agenda and when you hurl such juvenile attempts at insult with terms as "evolutionist", Darwinist, etc., it becomes abundantly clear that your only agenda is to browbeat people with your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie these are not questions manufactured from ICR or any religious site. These questions are my own and they came from my own reasoning from my readings and my own research from the lab.
> 
> These questions have nothing to do with God and I didn't bring God into this post you just did. You want to talk science, this is science. I am just pointing out how your side come to some crazy and unsupported conclusions. I am asking rational questions that you can come to a logical answer or will you do what fundies do on your side and ignore the questions and start blaming my questions on me being a believer ?
Click to expand...


I think it is pretty odd Hollie is calling you out on this since she cut and pasted verbatim from another forum and pretended it was her own words. In case you guys missed that, go back and check her post and check the link I posted on page 312 post 4679. *Her comments on Kurt Vonnegut were STOLEN from another forum.* which makes me think it is worthless to continue to debate her.

I also think it odd she hasn't responded to the question of whether or not she was raised in a Christian home. This is pertinent to her agenda, Christian Bashing, and not the healthy exchange of ideas in an intellectual debate.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie these are not questions manufactured from ICR or any religious site. These questions are my own and they came from my own reasoning from my readings and my own research from the lab.
> 
> These questions have nothing to do with God and I didn't bring God into this post you just did. You want to talk science, this is science. I am just pointing out how your side come to some crazy and unsupported conclusions. I am asking rational questions that you can come to a logical answer or will you do what fundies do on your side and ignore the questions and start blaming my questions on me being a believer ?



What are &#8220;fundies on my side&#8221;? What questions do those fundies on my ignore?

You seem to have no knowledge regarding the process of peer review that separates science form religious claims.

Here again, you display an insensate hatred for science and the process of discovery that defines science. 

Here&#8217;s some data regarding the science &#8220;fundies&#8221; 
Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"* July 23, 1998

Notice that &#8220;Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.&#8221;


Interesting, no? Nearly 95% of scientists involved in the biological sciences (roughly similar numbers for physicists and astronomers) held no belief in god(s). 



Strange how those &#8220;fundies&#8221; are the ones who actually have study and training in their fields of knowledge.

Strange how you post youtube videos of a psychologist, associated with the charlatans at the ICR, who you suggest is an authority on science. Yet, you demanded that I &#8220;refute&#8221; the youtube video you posted.

Strange, that!




More recently (2009):

Scientists and Belief - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

It seems that only one third of scientists hold a belief in god(s). Of course, there are many gods so that the number of scientists who believe in your particular god(s) may well reflect the results of the 1998 data. 

Strange how you think that the advances in medical science, for example, are "some crazy and unsupported conclusions". Last I heard, advances in the science of cell biology have helped to cure disease... even disease caused by you gods's blueprint for the cancer cell.

Oh, those evil scientists, if only they understood that prayer and following the advise of those at the ICR would cure disease.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> I also think it odd she hasn't responded to the question of whether or not she was raised in a Christian home. This is pertinent to her agenda, Christian Bashing, and not the healthy exchange of ideas in an intellectual debate.


It's not odd at all that spamming the thread is your only contribution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Evolutionist apologist"?
> 
> This sounds more like fundie-speak as a vehicle to denigrate the science that fundie Creationists find so repulsive. I really find it absurd that fundie creationists will hope to lecture others on morals when their own moral compass is in such disrepair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, I have a few questions for you.
> 
> 1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?
> 
> 2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?
> 
> 3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?
> 
> 4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?
> 
> 5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?
> 
> These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I might interject, I think part of the problem is you are looking at evolution as a linear change from 'bad' to 'good'.  That is not the idea at all.  Evolution, as I understand it, proposes that things change, not that they are changing on the way to some sort of perfect state.  The changes which work for whatever environment the particular creature is in will be passed on, but that doesn't make them better in an absolute sense.  Rather they may be better for that particular environment.
> 
> So, as to why some creatures show little change over long periods of time, the answer can be simply that few changes have occurred which provide a greater survivability.  Either they creature is already very well suited to survive and reproduce, or the environment in which it lives has undergone little change, or some combination of these.
Click to expand...


This is not an answer to my question. If mutant genes are so common and they would have to be common for any kind of evolution to take one kind and you end up with a new kind it would take many mutations.

I don't know why they believe the DNA of a chimp is only 1% difference from a human but we will run with their figure. 1% of three billion base pairs of DNA come to 30 million mutations that it would take for a chimp to produce a human. These are conservative numbers. Now this is the mountain that mutations would have to climb for every group of organisms evolving into a new distinct group.

With that many mutations happening we should see every group of organisms showing change easily within the time frame that evolutionist give with their dating methods. But yet that is not what is seen. We are seeing no change at all in the fossils.

And every one of these mutations would have to become the norm in the gene pool of a population. It takes a great amount of faith to believe this theory once someone knows and understands the specifics.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, I have a few questions for you.
> 
> 1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?
> 
> 2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?
> 
> 3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?
> 
> 4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?
> 
> 5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?
> 
> These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I might interject, I think part of the problem is you are looking at evolution as a linear change from 'bad' to 'good'.  That is not the idea at all.  Evolution, as I understand it, proposes that things change, not that they are changing on the way to some sort of perfect state.  The changes which work for whatever environment the particular creature is in will be passed on, but that doesn't make them better in an absolute sense.  Rather they may be better for that particular environment.
> 
> So, as to why some creatures show little change over long periods of time, the answer can be simply that few changes have occurred which provide a greater survivability.  Either they creature is already very well suited to survive and reproduce, or the environment in which it lives has undergone little change, or some combination of these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not an answer to my question. If mutant genes are so common and they would have to be common for any kind of evolution to take one kind and you end up with a new kind it would take many mutations.
> 
> I don't know why they believe the DNA of a chimp is only 1% difference from a human but we will run with their figure. 1% of three billion base pairs of DNA come to 30 million mutations that it would take for a chimp to produce a human. These are conservative numbers. Now this is the mountain that mutations would have to climb for every group of organisms evolving into a new distinct group.
> 
> With that many mutations happening we should see every group of organisms showing change easily within the time frame that evolutionist give with their dating methods. But yet that is not what is seen. We are seeing no change at all in the fossils.
Click to expand...


Why didn't the gods simply make chimpanzee and human genes qualitatively and quantitatively different and thus "prove" his / their existence?

Have you considered that your gods have played a cruel joke on you?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie these are not questions manufactured from ICR or any religious site. These questions are my own and they came from my own reasoning from my readings and my own research from the lab.
> 
> These questions have nothing to do with God and I didn't bring God into this post you just did. You want to talk science, this is science. I am just pointing out how your side come to some crazy and unsupported conclusions. I am asking rational questions that you can come to a logical answer or will you do what fundies do on your side and ignore the questions and start blaming my questions on me being a believer ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are fundies on my side? What questions do those fundies on my ignore?
> 
> You seem to have no knowledge regarding the process of peer review that separates science form religious claims.
> 
> Here again, you display an insensate hatred for science and the process of discovery that defines science.
> 
> Heres some data regarding the science fundies
> Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"* July 23, 1998
> 
> Notice that Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.
> 
> 
> Interesting, no? Nearly 95% of scientists involved in the biological sciences (roughly similar numbers for physicists and astronomers) held no belief in god(s).
> 
> 
> 
> Strange how those fundies are the ones who actually have study and training in their fields of knowledge.
> 
> Strange how you post youtube videos of a psychologist, associated with the charlatans at the ICR, who you suggest is an authority on science. Yet, you demanded that I refute the youtube video you posted.
> 
> Strange, that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More recently (2009):
> 
> Scientists and Belief - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
> 
> It seems that only one third of scientists hold a belief in god(s). Of course, there are many gods so that the number of scientists who believe in your particular god(s) may well reflect the results of the 1998 data.
> 
> Strange how you think that the advances in medical science, for example, are "some crazy and unsupported conclusions". Last I heard, advances in the science of cell biology have helped to cure disease... even disease caused by you gods's blueprint for the cancer cell.
> 
> Oh, those evil scientists, if only they understood that prayer and following the advise of those at the ICR would cure disease.
Click to expand...


You still don't get it,Neo darwinism is a religious belief. It takes a great amount of faith to accept this theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I might interject, I think part of the problem is you are looking at evolution as a linear change from 'bad' to 'good'.  That is not the idea at all.  Evolution, as I understand it, proposes that things change, not that they are changing on the way to some sort of perfect state.  The changes which work for whatever environment the particular creature is in will be passed on, but that doesn't make them better in an absolute sense.  Rather they may be better for that particular environment.
> 
> So, as to why some creatures show little change over long periods of time, the answer can be simply that few changes have occurred which provide a greater survivability.  Either they creature is already very well suited to survive and reproduce, or the environment in which it lives has undergone little change, or some combination of these.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an answer to my question. If mutant genes are so common and they would have to be common for any kind of evolution to take one kind and you end up with a new kind it would take many mutations.
> 
> I don't know why they believe the DNA of a chimp is only 1% difference from a human but we will run with their figure. 1% of three billion base pairs of DNA come to 30 million mutations that it would take for a chimp to produce a human. These are conservative numbers. Now this is the mountain that mutations would have to climb for every group of organisms evolving into a new distinct group.
> 
> With that many mutations happening we should see every group of organisms showing change easily within the time frame that evolutionist give with their dating methods. But yet that is not what is seen. We are seeing no change at all in the fossils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why didn't the gods simply make chimpanzee and human genes qualitatively and quantitatively different and thus "prove" his / their existence?
> 
> Have you considered that your gods have played a cruel joke on you?
Click to expand...


Here let me explain it. It is predictable that the creator would use the same substances and genetic code to produce all living things. The bad assumption is concluding since all living things have similarities they must all be related.

Does a builder of a homes always use mostly the same tools and same products to build new homes even though they may look different ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I might interject, I think part of the problem is you are looking at evolution as a linear change from 'bad' to 'good'.  That is not the idea at all.  Evolution, as I understand it, proposes that things change, not that they are changing on the way to some sort of perfect state.  The changes which work for whatever environment the particular creature is in will be passed on, but that doesn't make them better in an absolute sense.  Rather they may be better for that particular environment.
> 
> So, as to why some creatures show little change over long periods of time, the answer can be simply that few changes have occurred which provide a greater survivability.  Either they creature is already very well suited to survive and reproduce, or the environment in which it lives has undergone little change, or some combination of these.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an answer to my question. If mutant genes are so common and they would have to be common for any kind of evolution to take one kind and you end up with a new kind it would take many mutations.
> 
> I don't know why they believe the DNA of a chimp is only 1% difference from a human but we will run with their figure. 1% of three billion base pairs of DNA come to 30 million mutations that it would take for a chimp to produce a human. These are conservative numbers. Now this is the mountain that mutations would have to climb for every group of organisms evolving into a new distinct group.
> 
> With that many mutations happening we should see every group of organisms showing change easily within the time frame that evolutionist give with their dating methods. But yet that is not what is seen. We are seeing no change at all in the fossils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why didn't the gods simply make chimpanzee and human genes qualitatively and quantitatively different and thus "prove" his / their existence?
> 
> Have you considered that your gods have played a cruel joke on you?
Click to expand...


Or maybe your side is simply wrong.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> You still don't get it,Neo darwinism is a religious belief. It takes a great amount of faith to accept this theory.



It's been explained to you both tediously and repeatedly that Darwin's theory of evolution has science status and factual data to support the theory and predictions.

Your continued juvenile tantrums, replete with juvenile attempts at slander with terms such as Darwinism, and your insistence that only through the intervention of one or more gods could we account for life on this planet only provides you with the same, non-existent credibility of your charlatan homies at the ICR. 

I am convinced that the worst thing that has happened to the fundie creationism propaganda industry is the advent of the web. While providing the fundie conspiracy theorists and charlatans with a wider audience to abuse, it has also provided them with a greater audience for their loony conspiracies, twisted theories and junk science.

Yes ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Or maybe your side is simply wrong.



Not wrong. That is why your saliva-slinging tirades of science-loathing, ICR whiplash inducing conspiracies are so comical.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Here let me explain it. It is predictable that the creator would use the same substances and genetic code to produce all living things. The bad assumption is concluding since all living things have similarities they must all be related.
> 
> Does a builder of a homes always use mostly the same tools and same products to build new homes even though they may look different ?



False assumptions and bad analogies. 

However, with DNA mapping, we can find similarities that connect species. In case you missed it, it was that detestable science which provided the knowledge to map DNA. 

Why are your gods such incompetent "designers"? Or, why do your gods hate their "creation"? 

Have you read the Noah tale? Only Noah and his immediate fanily were alive after your gods murdered their children - because they were a disappointment. It was left to Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the earth. That suggests some rather... sordid... events were to unfold... you know... family members and procreation and such.

But.... but..... but.... but.....but....


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe your side is simply wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not wrong. That is why your saliva-slinging tirades of science-loathing, ICR whiplash inducing conspiracies are so comical.
Click to expand...


You are sounding like a broken record Hollie. You don't seem able to stay focused long enough to respond to the questions.

Either that or you don't know enough about population genetics and mutations to respond. You don't have to say anything just stand on your rhetoric but you are not exhibiting a science discussion which is your cretique of creationist and ID proponents.

Maybe you should try considering the evidence rather then attack someone for their views in faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it,Neo darwinism is a religious belief. It takes a great amount of faith to accept this theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been explained to you both tediously and repeatedly that Darwin's theory of evolution has science status and factual data to support the theory and predictions.
> 
> Your continued juvenile tantrums, replete with juvenile attempts at slander with terms such as Darwinism, and your insistence that only through the intervention of one or more gods could we account for life on this planet only provides you with the same, non-existent credibility of your charlatan homies at the ICR.
> 
> I am convinced that the worst thing that has happened to the fundie creationism propaganda industry is the advent of the web. While providing the fundie conspiracy theorists and charlatans with a wider audience to abuse, it has also provided them with a greater audience for their loony conspiracies, twisted theories and junk science.
> 
> Yes ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.
Click to expand...


I don't need Neo explained to me.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here let me explain it. It is predictable that the creator would use the same substances and genetic code to produce all living things. The bad assumption is concluding since all living things have similarities they must all be related.
> 
> Does a builder of a homes always use mostly the same tools and same products to build new homes even though they may look different ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False assumptions and bad analogies.
> 
> However, with DNA mapping, we can find similarities that connect species. In case you missed it, it was that detestable science which provided the knowledge to map DNA.
> 
> Why are your gods such incompetent "designers"? Or, why do your gods hate their "creation"?
> 
> Have you read the Noah tale? Only Noah and his immediate fanily were alive after your gods murdered their children - because they were a disappointment. It was left to Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the earth. That suggests some rather... sordid... events were to unfold... you know... family members and procreation and such.
> 
> But.... but..... but.... but.....but....
Click to expand...


I am leaving for home to Arizona from California do me a favor and point out my faulty assumptions. I will respond when I get the chance.  Try to9 stay focused and keep it on science ok,that is not too much to ask is it ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Maybe you should try considering the evidence rather then attack someone for their views in faith.


Odd that you should make such a claim when you drench your posts with "Darwinists", "evolutionists", etc.

As for evidence, you simply link to creationist websites which further fraudulent information.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> I don't need Neo explained to me.


There is no such entity or ideology. You need "'splainin" that you're using terms promoted by the fundie creationist websites you promote.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here let me explain it. It is predictable that the creator would use the same substances and genetic code to produce all living things. The bad assumption is concluding since all living things have similarities they must all be related.
> 
> Does a builder of a homes always use mostly the same tools and same products to build new homes even though they may look different ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False assumptions and bad analogies.
> 
> However, with DNA mapping, we can find similarities that connect species. In case you missed it, it was that detestable science which provided the knowledge to map DNA.
> 
> Why are your gods such incompetent "designers"? Or, why do your gods hate their "creation"?
> 
> Have you read the Noah tale? Only Noah and his immediate fanily were alive after your gods murdered their children - because they were a disappointment. It was left to Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the earth. That suggests some rather... sordid... events were to unfold... you know... family members and procreation and such.
> 
> But.... but..... but.... but.....but....
Click to expand...


You are such a hypocrite. You take offense to the word Darwinist- right here under the darwinism definition... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/darwinism, but then you use the term "gods" to a gentleman that obviously subscribes to a monotheistic belief system. Not only are you a hypocrite, but you are a Liar with an agenda.


----------



## UltimateReality

TWO BIG Questions Hollie still hasn't responded to:

Did you plagiarize another forum poster?

Were you raised in a Christian home?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here let me explain it. It is predictable that the creator would use the same substances and genetic code to produce all living things. The bad assumption is concluding since all living things have similarities they must all be related.
> 
> Does a builder of a homes always use mostly the same tools and same products to build new homes even though they may look different ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False assumptions and bad analogies.
> 
> However, with DNA mapping, we can find similarities that connect species. In case you missed it, it was that detestable science which provided the knowledge to map DNA.
> 
> Why are your gods such incompetent "designers"? Or, why do your gods hate their "creation"?
> 
> Have you read the Noah tale? Only Noah and his immediate fanily were alive after your gods murdered their children - because they were a disappointment. It was left to Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the earth. That suggests some rather... sordid... events were to unfold... you know... family members and procreation and such.
> 
> But.... but..... but.... but.....but....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am leaving for home to Arizona from California do me a favor and point out my faulty assumptions. I will respond when I get the chance.  Try to9 stay focused and keep it on science ok,that is not too much to ask is it ?
Click to expand...


Do you mean that revolting _evilutionary_ science you insist is false? 

I was hoping you would have offered some science testimony to support your sectarian version of gods but not once have you managed to do so. 

It's apparent your entire promotion in these threads is to vilify the science you despise. It's also apparent that your agenda, as well as that of the ICR, is to vilify science in the hope that, that will bolster your promotion of gods. 

That's a failed agenda. Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not going to occur given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.

All of the failed attempts to negate evolution add nothing to Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right".


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie, remember when I said you bring nothing new to this thread?? You've been following this flow chart, haven't you???


----------



## UltimateReality

In 2011, the* ID movement counted its 50th peer-reviewed scientific paper *and new publications continue to appear. The current boom goes back to 2004, when Discovery Institute senior fellow Stephen Meyer published a groundbreaking paper advocating ID in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. There are multiple hubs of ID-related research.

The list and descriptions are here:

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)


----------



## UltimateReality

Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness, BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

This research, published by molecular biologist Ann Gauger of the Biologic Institute, Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior started by breaking a gene in the bacterium Escherichia coli required for synthesizing the amino acid tryptophan. When the gene was broken in just one place, random mutations in the bacterias genome were capable of fixing the gene. But when two mutations were required to restore function, Darwinian evolution could not do the job. *Such results show that it is extremely unlikely for blind and unguided Darwinian processes to find rare amino-acid sequences that yield functional proteins.* In essence, functional proteins are multi-mutation features in the extreme.


----------



## UltimateReality

Sad thing about Hollie's total ignorance is she thinks everything is all figured out. It's not. Truly objective Science generally points away from Darwinism.

Citing skeptics of neo-Darwinism such as Behe and "the *almost 900 scientists of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism*," the paper notes that:

    Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why -- even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements -- all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western world instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective "micromutations" (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by "larger mutations" ... and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) *instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species...*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness, BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).
> 
> This research, published by molecular biologist Ann Gauger of the Biologic Institute, Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior started by breaking a gene in the bacterium Escherichia coli required for synthesizing the amino acid tryptophan. When the gene was broken in just one place, random mutations in the bacterias genome were capable of fixing the gene. But when two mutations were required to restore function, Darwinian evolution could not do the job. *Such results show that it is extremely unlikely for blind and unguided Darwinian processes to find rare amino-acid sequences that yield functional proteins.* In essence, functional proteins are multi-mutation features in the extreme.


Thereby negating all of the biology that we know. Hey - if you read it on the internet, it must be true and because you used large, bolded text, we're now convinced.  

Therefore, we have proved "The gods did it". 

Time for another global flood.


----------



## UltimateReality

David L. Abel, The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP), Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6(27) (2009).

Materialists *(HOLLIE) *often vaguely appeal to vast periods of time and boundless probabilistic resources in the universe to make their scenarios sound plausible. But is mere possibility sufficient justification to assert scientific plausibility? This peer-reviewed article in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling answers that question, arguing that [m]ere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility because [a] precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. The paper observes that Combinatorial imaginings and hypothetical scenarios can be endlessly argued simply on the grounds that they are theoretically possible, but then argues that the unwillingness of materialists to consider certain origin of life models to be false is actually stopping the progress of science, since at some point our reluctance to exclude any possibility becomes stultifying to operational science. The paper observes that Just because a hypothesis is possible should not grant that hypothesis scientific respectability, an important rejoinder to materialists who propose speculative stories about self-organization or co-option to explain the origin of biological complexity. The author then rigorously calculates the Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM), incorporating the maximum probabilistic resources available for the universe, galaxy, solar system, and the earth:

    c&#8486;u = Universe = 10log13 reactions/sec X 10log17 secs X 10log78 atoms = 10log108
    c&#8486;g = Galaxy = 10log13 X 10log17 X 10log66 = 10log96
    c&#8486;s = Solar System = 10log13 X 10log17 X 10log55 = 10log85
    c&#8486;e = Earth = 10log13 X 10log17 X 10log40 = 10log70


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, &#8220;Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,&#8221; BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).
> 
> This research, published by molecular biologist Ann Gauger of the Biologic Institute, Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior started by breaking a gene in the bacterium Escherichia coli required for synthesizing the amino acid tryptophan. When the gene was broken in just one place, random mutations in the bacteria&#8217;s genome were capable of &#8220;fixing&#8221; the gene. But when two mutations were required to restore function, Darwinian evolution could not do the job. *Such results show that it is extremely unlikely for blind and unguided Darwinian processes to find rare amino-acid sequences that yield functional proteins.* In essence, functional proteins are multi-mutation features in the extreme.
> 
> 
> 
> Thereby negating all of the biology that we know. Hey - if you read it on the internet, it must be true and because you used large, bolded text, we're now convinced.
> 
> Therefore, we have proved "The gods did it".
> 
> Time for another global flood.
Click to expand...


How does that negate biology? Please explain? (i'm guessing all we'll get is crickets chirping again since Materialist Darwinist Plagiarist Hollie has no thoughts of her own.)


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, &#8220;Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,&#8221; BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).
> 
> This research, published by molecular biologist Ann Gauger of the Biologic Institute, Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior started by breaking a gene in the bacterium Escherichia coli required for synthesizing the amino acid tryptophan. When the gene was broken in just one place, random mutations in the bacteria&#8217;s genome were capable of &#8220;fixing&#8221; the gene. But when two mutations were required to restore function, Darwinian evolution could not do the job. *Such results show that it is extremely unlikely for blind and unguided Darwinian processes to find rare amino-acid sequences that yield functional proteins.* In essence, functional proteins are multi-mutation features in the extreme.
> 
> 
> 
> Thereby negating all of the biology that we know. Hey - if you read it on the internet, it must be true and because you used large, bolded text, we're now convinced.
> 
> Therefore, we have proved "The gods did it".
> 
> Time for another global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does that negate biology? Please explain? (i'm guessing all we'll get is crickets chirping again since Materialist Darwinist Plagiarist Hollie has no thoughts of her own.)
Click to expand...


The bold text convinced me. And Michael Behe, another tired, used-up crank who is rolled out by creationist hacks to babble about hack creationism.

Let me guess, you and the other guy are the same poster, different accounts, and scour creationist websites for material to dump into thread upon thread.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, I have a few questions for you.
> 
> 1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?
> 
> 2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?
> 
> 3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?
> 
> 4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?
> 
> 5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?
> 
> These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I might interject, I think part of the problem is you are looking at evolution as a linear change from 'bad' to 'good'.  That is not the idea at all.  Evolution, as I understand it, proposes that things change, not that they are changing on the way to some sort of perfect state.  The changes which work for whatever environment the particular creature is in will be passed on, but that doesn't make them better in an absolute sense.  Rather they may be better for that particular environment.
> 
> So, as to why some creatures show little change over long periods of time, the answer can be simply that few changes have occurred which provide a greater survivability.  Either they creature is already very well suited to survive and reproduce, or the environment in which it lives has undergone little change, or some combination of these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you apply this thinking to Homo Sapiens, who are VERY poorly suited to just about any environment, requiring skins of other animals in order not to freeze to death, and requiring implements formed from other objects to even have the ability to hunt prey.
Click to expand...


It seems fairly obvious to me that the answer would be that our intellect, ability to reason, and use of tools (thank you, opposeable thumbs! ) were and are a greater boon to humans as a species than other traits.  If, for instance, a previous version of humanity had not had the intelligence and ability to use the skins of animals to keep warm, or to find/build shelter, they would have died....and their traits would not have been passed on.  Because they were able to thrive even without thick(er) fur, or sharp claws, or whatever traits they lacked that others had, they lived, reproduced, and passed their greater intelligence on to their progeny.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality, how many of the 50 peer-reviewed articles you mentioned were published in creationist or ID journals?  I ask because I recall seeing somewhere that there had been a few ID articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, but that the large majority were published in journals from ID organizations such as the Discovery Institute or did not actually make any claims about a designer.

In a related question, how many of the 900 scientists you mention in the dissent from evolution are in scientific fields related to evolution?  There are many fields of scientific study, and some have only a passing relationship to evolution, if even that.  Just as Hollie showing statistics about biologists not believing in god doesn't really mean anything, saying 900 scientists agreed to sign a disagreement with evolution is meaningless if we don't know what type of science they study.  

Whatever the case may be, what I have seen is that the vast majority of scientists in fields relating to evolutionary theory accept it as being sound.  Perhaps that is a blindness on their part, an institutional desire not to be proven wrong; until I see a lot more than 50 (possible) peer-reviewed ID articles and 900 scientists (from unknown fields) disagreeing, I will need to see some pretty compelling evidence to believe in the validity of ID as a field of scientific study.  As usual, that doesn't deny the possible existence of a designer, merely my inability to see it as a form of scientific research.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I might interject, I think part of the problem is you are looking at evolution as a linear change from 'bad' to 'good'.  That is not the idea at all.  Evolution, as I understand it, proposes that things change, not that they are changing on the way to some sort of perfect state.  The changes which work for whatever environment the particular creature is in will be passed on, but that doesn't make them better in an absolute sense.  Rather they may be better for that particular environment.
> 
> So, as to why some creatures show little change over long periods of time, the answer can be simply that few changes have occurred which provide a greater survivability.  Either they creature is already very well suited to survive and reproduce, or the environment in which it lives has undergone little change, or some combination of these.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you apply this thinking to Homo Sapiens, who are VERY poorly suited to just about any environment, requiring skins of other animals in order not to freeze to death, and requiring implements formed from other objects to even have the ability to hunt prey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems fairly obvious to me that the answer would be that our intellect, ability to reason, and use of tools (thank you, opposeable thumbs! ) were and are a greater boon to humans as a species than other traits.  If, for instance, a previous version of humanity had not had the intelligence and ability to use the skins of animals to keep warm, or to find/build shelter, they would have died....and their traits would not have been passed on.  Because they were able to thrive even without thick(er) fur, or sharp claws, or whatever traits they lacked that others had, they lived, reproduced, and passed their greater intelligence on to their progeny.
Click to expand...


But I guess the real question and mystery is, if evolution is true, how did this happen gradually?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thereby negating all of the biology that we know. Hey - if you read it on the internet, it must be true and because you used large, bolded text, we're now convinced.
> 
> Therefore, we have proved "The gods did it".
> 
> Time for another global flood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that negate biology? Please explain? (i'm guessing all we'll get is crickets chirping again since Materialist Darwinist Plagiarist Hollie has no thoughts of her own.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bold text convinced me. And Michael Behe, another tired, used-up crank who is rolled out by creationist hacks to babble about hack creationism.
> 
> Let me guess, you and the other guy are the same poster, different accounts, and scour creationist websites for material to dump into thread upon thread.
Click to expand...


Speaking of scouring websites, what's the deal with cut and pasting the other thread and passing it off as your own? I guess if evolution has taught us one thing, it is that human's are not above burying their head in the sand, like you are doing right now, and hoping that I will stop asking you the questions you don't want to provide answers to. It's a good thing you can hide behind the anonymity of the internet and have that "no one knows me" courage. The same thing happens on my firearm forums. 

Your statements above are not explanations for why you believe the findings negate biology. They are just useless sarcasm. It is sad that you need to quote others to sound intelligent. If I were you I would start by studying the various fallacies that occur in debate. Once you have brushed up on those, hopefully you will be much less likely to commit them so atrociously. 

Were you raised in a Christian home and abandoned your faith when you started struggling with same sex attraction?


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality, how many of the 50 peer-reviewed articles you mentioned were published in creationist or ID journals?  I ask because I recall seeing somewhere that there had been a few ID articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, but that the large majority were published in journals from ID organizations such as the Discovery Institute or did not actually make any claims about a designer.
> 
> In a related question, how many of the 900 scientists you mention in the dissent from evolution are in scientific fields related to evolution?  There are many fields of scientific study, and some have only a passing relationship to evolution, if even that.  Just as Hollie showing statistics about biologists not believing in god doesn't really mean anything, saying 900 scientists agreed to sign a disagreement with evolution is meaningless if we don't know what type of science they study.
> 
> Whatever the case may be, what I have seen is that the vast majority of scientists in fields relating to evolutionary theory accept it as being sound.  Perhaps that is a blindness on their part, an institutional desire not to be proven wrong; until I see a lot more than 50 (possible) peer-reviewed ID articles and 900 scientists (from unknown fields) disagreeing, I will need to see some pretty compelling evidence to believe in the validity of ID as a field of scientific study.  As usual, that doesn't deny the possible existence of a designer, merely my inability to see it as a form of scientific research.



ID Theory is a relatively new field of study which by most accounts got its start in 2004. Since then it has been widely ridiculed so I would say 50 such papers is quite an accomplishment. I'm not really sure what would be considered an ID publication. The link I provided showed all the publications and volumes for the papers quoted. An internet search could probably dig deeper as to who is behind the journals. Its not like they are trying to hid who which ones they are. Some a quick glance I noted:

The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85

Journal Description
The premier review journal in biology, The Quarterly Review of Biology has since 1926 presented insightful historical, philosophical, and technical treatments of important biological topics. The QRB publishes outstanding review articles of generous length that are guided by an expansive, inclusive, and often humanistic understanding of biology. Beyond the core biological sciences, the QRB is also an important review journal for scholars in related areas, which include policy studies and the history and philosophy of science. A comprehensive section of reviews on new biological books provides educators and researchers alike with information on the latest publications in the life sciences. 

BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(4) [ID Journal, but if they are presenting scientific arguments, are they lest scientific because they aren't trying to fit everything to the TOE?]

BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life. Because questions having to do with the role and origin of information in living systems are at the heart of the scientific controversy over ID, these topics&#8212;viewed from all angles and perspectives&#8212;are central to the journal's scope.

To achieve its aim, BIO-Complexity is founded on the principle of critical exchange that makes science work.  Specifically, the journal enlists editors and reviewers with scientific expertise in relevant fields who hold a wide range of views on the merit of ID, but who agree on the importance of science for resolving controversies of this kind. Our editors use expert peer review, guided by their own judgement, to decide whether submitted work merits consideration and critique. BIO-Complexity aims not merely to publish work that meets this standard, but also to provide expert critical commentary on it.

Life, Vol. 2:106-134 (2012).

The Open Cybernetics and Systemics Journal, Vol. 4:14-27 (January 20, 2010).

Frontiers in Bioscience, Vol. 14:2959-2969 (January 1, 2010).

The journal "Frontiers in Bioscience" is a modern forum for scientific communication. Data and information that are useful to investigators in any discipline in biology and medicine including biochemistry, microbiology, parasitology, virology, immunology, biotechnology, and bioinformatics will be published after they have been peer reviewed. This will include reviews and research articles in basic science and clinical science, as well as technical notes and protocols. Other materials that have not been traditionally published as peer reviewed articles will also be considered for publication. This will include, rare images ,videos and sounds, and assimilated data in the form of a database on any subject in medicine and biology. The journal will include useful search strategies of internet and databases related to biology and medicine, links to medically relevant journals and the guidelines to authors of scientific journals and as well as information regarding manufacturers' products and links to manufacturers' homepages. Other items that will be posted are book reviews, as well as a list of conferences. 

International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics:

The International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics acts as a channel of communication for researchers from around the world working on a variety of studies involving nature and its significance to modern scientific thought and design. These studies have demonstrated the rich diversity of the natural world. Ecodynamics in particular aims to relate ecosystems to evolutionary thermodynamics in order to arrive at satisfactory solutions for sustainable development. The International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics also opens new avenues for understanding the relationship between arts and sciences.

Have you seen the movie Expelled? There is a real militant prejudice to eliminate any one that questions the party line of Darwinism so I am not shocked by your comments above.


----------



## UltimateReality

Here is the list of the 900 who dissented and their titles. I'd say mcuh more than half are involved in biology, chemistry or anthropology.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

I guess for me the most aggravating thing about folks like Hollie is the attitude that it is the "fact" of evolution. No one seems willing to admit there are just as much personal beliefs influencing the materialists as there are the theists, it's just that the materialists are in total denial. That is why I am fond of putting up this quote...

*To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant - Amos Bronson Alcot*

Theist admit their motivations. It's no secret to be a Theist is to accept there is something more than matter. It is quite amazing to me that even in light of all the modern scientific discovery, the Bible's basic claims still fit. We believe that God is outside of matter, space, time and energy. The Bible teaches He has always existed. Even if we study Hawkins claims for the Big Bang, he now postulates than even time itself began at the Big Bang, which is incredibly hard to comprehend. What I like to call the ACDC paradox, who made who?, is only solved if the Designer exists outside of spacetime. You see, if you subscribe to the fact that we were designed by Aliens, then the question of who made them arises and leads to a paradox that goes back infinitely. But if the Creator has always existed, as God told Moses,  I AM, the paradox is solved. 

My only hope is that folks would return to actual science and where the evidence leads, not continue to try and make the evidence fit an outdated theory that obviously has some VERY SERIOUS problems when the details are delved into.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Here is the list of the 900 who dissented and their titles. I'd say mcuh more than half are involved in biology, chemistry or anthropology.
> 
> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
> 
> I guess for me the most aggravating thing about folks like Hollie is the attitude that it is the "fact" of evolution. No one seems willing to admit there are just as much personal beliefs influencing the materialists as there are the theists, it's just that the materialists are in total denial. That is why I am fond of putting up this quote...
> 
> 
> My only hope is that folks would return to actual science and where the evidence leads, not continue to try and make the evidence fit an outdated theory that obviously has some VERY SERIOUS problems when the details are delved into.


There is little disagreement among mainstream scientists as to the veracity of the data and the facts of evolution. I understand you will refuse to accept information that contradicts Christian creationist claims but that is no reason to think that science will accept claims of supernaturalism.

Since it was you claim, please show us the data where personal beliefs of scientists have established scientific protocol.

Secondly, did you look at the names of those on the editorial board of BIO-Complexity?

It's simply a roll call of charlatans associated with the Discovery Institute, the ICR and other fundie creationist organizations.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> David L. Abel,


I'm familiar with David Abel with the fundie ID / creationist site _Uncommon descent_

One of the gem quotes on the site is:

But one thing is clear right now: Adam and Eve have not been disproven by science, and those who claim otherwise are misrepresenting the scientific evidence. 

My comment is thus: Adam and Eve _have_ been disproven by science. Can you disprove it?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the list of the 900 who dissented and their titles. I'd say mcuh more than half are involved in biology, chemistry or anthropology.
> 
> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
> 
> I guess for me the most aggravating thing about folks like Hollie is the attitude that it is the "fact" of evolution. No one seems willing to admit there are just as much personal beliefs influencing the materialists as there are the theists, it's just that the materialists are in total denial. That is why I am fond of putting up this quote...
> 
> 
> My only hope is that folks would return to actual science and where the evidence leads, not continue to try and make the evidence fit an outdated theory that obviously has some VERY SERIOUS problems when the details are delved into.
> 
> 
> 
> There is little disagreement among mainstream scientists as to the veracity of the data and the facts of evolution. I understand you will refuse to accept information that contradicts Christian creationist claims but that is no reason to think that science will accept claims of supernaturalism.
> 
> Since it was you claim, please show us the data where personal beliefs of scientists have established scientific protocol.
> 
> Secondly, did you look at the names of those on the editorial board of BIO-Complexity?
> 
> It's simply a roll call of charlatans associated with the Discovery Institute, the ICR and other fundie creationist organizations.
Click to expand...


Umm, did you happen to actually read the brackets next to Bio Complexity where I show it is an ID Theory journal??? Just because you lie and try to hide the truth doesn't mean everyone does. 

Oh and you seem hopelessly caught in a black and white universe, where someone either has to accept the TOE or God. This is NOT the case. Just because 900 scientists are beginning to realize the hoax that is Darwinism, doesn't mean their only other option is to convert to Christianity and start singing Kum ba ya. You really are hopelessly blind and brainwashed.

And you still haven't answered my questions. Were you raised in a Christian Home?? Do have some serious anger issues with your parents?


----------



## Hollie

The Fruitlessness of ID Research

By Jeffrey Shallit on November 30, 2009 8:37 AM| 81 Comments

The Fruitlessness of ID "Research" - The Panda's Thumb



> Scientists point out, quite rightly, that the religio-political charade known as intelligent design (ID) is not good science. But how do we know this?
> 
> One of the hallmarks of science is that it is fruitful. A good scientific paper will usually lead to much work along the same lines, work that confirms and extends the results, and work that produces more new ideas inspired by the paper. Although citation counts are not completely reliable metrics for evaluating scientific papers, they do give some general information about what papers are considered important.
> 
> ID advocates like to point to lists of peer-reviewed publications advocating their position. Upon closer examination, their lists are misleading, packed with publications that are either not in scientific journals, or that appeared in venues of questionable quality, or papers whose relationship to ID is tangential at best. Today, however, Id like to look at a different issue: the fruitfulness of intelligent design. Lets take a particular ID publication, one that was trumpeted by ID advocates as a breakthrough, and see how much further scientific work it inspired.
> 
> The paper I have in mind is Stephen Meyers paper The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,
> CSC - Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
> 
> which was published, amid some controversy, in the relatively obscure journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004. Critics pointed out that the paper was not suited to the journal, which is usually devoted to taxonomic issues, and that the paper was riddled with mistakes
> Meyer's Hopeless Monster - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> and misleading claims. In response, the editors of the journal issued a disclaimer repudiating the paper.
> 
> Putting these considerations aside, what I want to do here is look at every scientific publication that has cited Meyers paper to determine whether his work can fairly said to be fruitful. I used the ISI Web of Science Database to do a cited reference search on his article. This database, which used to be called Science Citation Index, is generally acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive available. The search I did included Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Even such a search will miss some papers, of course, but it will still give a general idea of how much the scientific community has been inspired by Meyers work.
> 
> I found exactly 9 citations to Meyers paper in this database. Of these, counting generously, exactly 1 is a scientific research paper that cites Meyer approvingly.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> David L. Abel,
> 
> 
> 
> I'm familiar with David Abel with the fundie ID / creationist site _Uncommon descent_
> 
> One of the gem quotes on the site is:
> 
> &#8220;But one thing is clear right now: Adam and Eve have not been disproven by science, and those who claim otherwise are misrepresenting the scientific evidence.&#8221;
> 
> My comment is thus: Adam and Eve _have_ been disproven by science. Can you disprove it?
Click to expand...


Can you hear yourself right now? Don't you not know what a double negative is? 

Go look up the word falsifiable as it relates to scientific theory and get back with me Spanky.

I know this is WAAAAAYY over your head, but I have posted it here anyway...

"Some evolutionary biologists try to explain this discordance between the HLA-DRB1 trees by arguing that this proves that these genes have their origin in deep time, before the lineages of chimps, humans and macaques separated, and that it is the exon 2 data that defines the gene&#8217;s history. Others think that there has been cross-species shuffling of ancient peptide-binding motifs between different exon 2 sequences over time, but leaving the intron lineages unchanged. It is not clear, however, how such a patchwork cross-species assortment of exon 2 sequences could have been acquired without disrupting the species-specific introns. Furthermore, this would require that the incipient species&#8217; populations intermingled for a prolonged period of time. The intermingling is highly unlikely to have lasted for thirty million years, though, which is the last time macaques, chimps, and humans supposedly shared a common ancestor. And the fact that the intron sequences do associate by species, with branch lengths as long or longer than the exon branch lengths, argues that many of these intronic lineages have been evolving independently for quite a while, indeed some as long as thirty to forty million years. Therefore this phylogenetic discordance is something that cannot be explained by common ancestry, especially when one considers an additional piece of information: The HLA-DRB1 region of chromosome six shows little or no signs of recombination."

From Wiki:

"Genetic evidence suggests that all humans alive today, despite apparent variety, are descended from a very small population, perhaps between 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago.[28] Note that this is an estimate of ancestors, not of total human population. Isolated human populations that eventually died out without descendants may have also existed in numbers that cannot be estimated by geneticists."


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> The Fruitlessness of ID Research
> 
> By Jeffrey Shallit on November 30, 2009 8:37 AM| 81 Comments
> 
> The Fruitlessness of ID "Research" - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists point out, quite rightly, that the religio-political charade known as intelligent design (ID) is not good science. But how do we know this?
> 
> One of the hallmarks of science is that it is fruitful. A good scientific paper will usually lead to much work along the same lines, work that confirms and extends the results, and work that produces more new ideas inspired by the paper. Although citation counts are not completely reliable metrics for evaluating scientific papers, they do give some general information about what papers are considered important.
> 
> ID advocates like to point to lists of peer-reviewed publications advocating their position. Upon closer examination, their lists are misleading, packed with publications that are either not in scientific journals, or that appeared in venues of questionable quality, or papers whose relationship to ID is tangential at best. Today, however, Id like to look at a different issue: the fruitfulness of intelligent design. Lets take a particular ID publication, one that was trumpeted by ID advocates as a breakthrough, and see how much further scientific work it inspired.
> 
> The paper I have in mind is Stephen Meyers paper The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,
> CSC - Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
> 
> which was published, amid some controversy, in the relatively obscure journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004. Critics pointed out that the paper was not suited to the journal, which is usually devoted to taxonomic issues, and that the paper was riddled with mistakes
> Meyer's Hopeless Monster - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> and misleading claims. In response, the editors of the journal issued a disclaimer repudiating the paper.
> 
> Putting these considerations aside, what I want to do here is look at every scientific publication that has cited Meyers paper to determine whether his work can fairly said to be fruitful. I used the ISI Web of Science Database to do a cited reference search on his article. This database, which used to be called Science Citation Index, is generally acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive available. The search I did included Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Even such a search will miss some papers, of course, but it will still give a general idea of how much the scientific community has been inspired by Meyers work.
> 
> I found exactly 9 citations to Meyers paper in this database. Of these, counting generously, exactly 1 is a scientific research paper that cites Meyer approvingly.
Click to expand...


What kind of home were you raised in?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> David L. Abel,
> 
> 
> 
> I'm familiar with David Abel with the fundie ID / creationist site _Uncommon descent_
> 
> One of the gem quotes on the site is:
> 
> &#8220;But one thing is clear right now: Adam and Eve have not been disproven by science, and those who claim otherwise are misrepresenting the scientific evidence.&#8221;
> 
> My comment is thus: Adam and Eve _have_ been disproven by science. Can you disprove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you object to the above.
> 
> Leprechauns have similarly not been disproven by science. I was playing a bit of a game with you.
> 
> It's a common tactic of the ID / creationist crowd to defend their claims (because all else fails), with the silly,  " but you haven't disproved it", drop ten and punt.
> 
> Well, I have disproved it. I've disproved ID. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Thanks. I'll await your disproof.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fruitlessness of ID Research
> 
> By Jeffrey Shallit on November 30, 2009 8:37 AM| 81 Comments
> 
> The Fruitlessness of ID "Research" - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists point out, quite rightly, that the religio-political charade known as intelligent design (ID) is not good science. But how do we know this?
> 
> One of the hallmarks of science is that it is fruitful. A good scientific paper will usually lead to much work along the same lines, work that confirms and extends the results, and work that produces more new ideas inspired by the paper. Although citation counts are not completely reliable metrics for evaluating scientific papers, they do give some general information about what papers are considered important.
> 
> ID advocates like to point to lists of peer-reviewed publications advocating their position. Upon closer examination, their lists are misleading, packed with publications that are either not in scientific journals, or that appeared in venues of questionable quality, or papers whose relationship to ID is tangential at best. Today, however, Id like to look at a different issue: the fruitfulness of intelligent design. Lets take a particular ID publication, one that was trumpeted by ID advocates as a breakthrough, and see how much further scientific work it inspired.
> 
> The paper I have in mind is Stephen Meyers paper The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,
> CSC - Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
> 
> which was published, amid some controversy, in the relatively obscure journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004. Critics pointed out that the paper was not suited to the journal, which is usually devoted to taxonomic issues, and that the paper was riddled with mistakes
> Meyer's Hopeless Monster - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> and misleading claims. In response, the editors of the journal issued a disclaimer repudiating the paper.
> 
> Putting these considerations aside, what I want to do here is look at every scientific publication that has cited Meyers paper to determine whether his work can fairly said to be fruitful. I used the ISI Web of Science Database to do a cited reference search on his article. This database, which used to be called Science Citation Index, is generally acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive available. The search I did included Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Even such a search will miss some papers, of course, but it will still give a general idea of how much the scientific community has been inspired by Meyers work.
> 
> I found exactly 9 citations to Meyers paper in this database. Of these, counting generously, exactly 1 is a scientific research paper that cites Meyer approvingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of home were you raised in?
Click to expand...


Nothing sends a fundie ID / creationist into sidestepping and backstroking like facts.


----------



## UltimateReality

"Remember when evolution was a fact? Remember when your high school biology teacher explained the origin of life from a muddy pond (or maybe ocean vent) was beyond any doubt? Remember when the National Academy of Science declared that For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells? [1] Remember when Carl Zimmer wrote that scientists have found compelling evidence that life could have evolved into a DNA-based microbe in a series of steps.

Well, err, that was all wrong. Truth be told, there never was any such compelling evidence. There never was any proof that life arose spontaneouslyfrom a warm little pond, ocean vent, or anywhere else for that matter.

In fact, as one evolutionist admitted, there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem. That doesnt exactly qualify as a fact."


1. National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2d ed. (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999) 6. 

Darwin's God


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm familiar with David Abel with the fundie ID / creationist site _Uncommon descent_
> 
> One of the gem quotes on the site is:
> 
> &#8220;But one thing is clear right now: Adam and Eve have not been disproven by science, and those who claim otherwise are misrepresenting the scientific evidence.&#8221;
> 
> My comment is thus: Adam and Eve _have_ been disproven by science. Can you disprove it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you object to the above.
> 
> Leprechauns have similarly not been disproven by science. I was playing a bit of a game with you.
> 
> It's a common tactic of the ID / creationist crowd to defend their claims (because all else fails), with the silly,  " but you haven't disproved it", drop ten and punt.
> 
> Well, I have disproved it. I've disproved ID. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Thanks. I'll await your disproof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how can evolutionists proclaim evolution to be a fact with such fervor? There seems to be a glaring mismatch between the evidence and the truth claims of evolutionists. The answer is that *evolutionists use contrastive reasoning*. Evolution is not claimed to be a fact based on how well it fits the evidence, but rather on how poorly the alternative fits the evidence. *Evolution is proved by the process of elimination*.
> 
> For example, evolutionists explain that nature&#8217;s apparently useless or harmful designs make no sense except on evolution. *Such harmful designs are actually not predicted by evolution.* They are low probability on evolution, but such harmful designs are at least understandable given evolution&#8217;s lack of planning. The designs may be low probability, but not altogether impossible.
> 
> But if the species were intelligently designed, then these useless or harmful designs make no sense. So we might say that evolution is proved not by positive evidences, but by negative evidences. And in fact the worse the evidence, the better for evolution, because such negative evidences are even worse for the alternative.
> 
> Indeed, there are no demonstrations of the fact of evolution that do not appeal to such contrastive reasoning. Evolutionists have a great many proofs for the fact of evolution, but they always entail some form of this contrastive reasoning. Here is how philosopher Eliott Sober explains contrastive reasoning:
> 
> This last result provides a reminder of how important the contrastive framework is for evaluating evidence. It seems to offend against common sense to say that E is stronger evidence for the common-ancestry hypothesis the lower the value is of [the probability of E given the common-ancestry hypothesis]. This seems tantamount to saying that the evidence better supports a hypothesis the more miraculous the evidence would be if the hypothesis were true. Have we entered a Lewis Carroll world in which down is up? No, the point is that, in the models we have examined, the ratio [the probability of E given the common-ancestry hypothesis divided by the probability of E given the separate-ancestry hypothesis] goes up as [the probability of E given the common-ancestry hypothesis] goes down. &#8230; When the likelihoods of the two hypotheses are linked in this way, it is a point in favor of the common-ancestry hypothesis that it says that the evidence is very improbable. [Evidence and Evolution, p. 314]
> 
> 
> These evolutionary arguments and conclusions are very powerful. It seems that the evolutionist&#8217;s argument is compelling. The species must have arisen spontaneously via evolutionary mechanisms. But in all of this there is a catch.
> 
> Science cannot know all the alternative explanations for the origin of the species. *When evolutionists conclude evolution is a fact via the process of elimination, they are making a subtle but crucial non scientific assumption*&#8212;that they know all the alternative explanations.
> 
> So all of these powerful evolutionary arguments for the fact of evolution are non scientific. In other words, evolution has extremely powerful and compelling arguments, but the cost of building such a powerful case is that the idea is not scientific.
> 
> Without these powerful proofs, evolution would lie exposed to the many scientific problems and contradictions. The idea that the world, and all of biology, spontaneously arose is, from a strictly scientific perspective, extremely unlikely. *But evolution is shielded from such problems by its powerful non scientific proofs.*
> 
> This non scientific aspect of evolution is immense and would be difficult to underestimate. It has dramatically altered the very perception of science and its evidence. For given the fact of evolution, *all of biology is interpreted according to the idea.* The many scientific problems with evolution become more friendly &#8220;research problems.&#8221; And the theory becomes immune to scientific skepticism.
> 
> http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/evolution-for-dummies-in-750-words.html
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Question: Why does someone who doesn't believe in God so fervently try to prove to others He does not exist? I mean, if you don't believe in God, why do care that a bunch of ignoramus's cling to their myth? Why do you care if they wallow in their "sad devotion to an ancient religion"? I mean, what is there to prove? Are you concerned they are going to poison science? 

History proves believers in God are not "science-loathing" as Darwinist claim. 

From Wikipedia:

Sir Isaac Newton (January 4, 1643 &#8211; March 31, 1727 or in Old Style: December 25, 1642 &#8211; March 20, 1727) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, alchemist, inventor, *theologian* and natural philosopher. He is *often regarded as the most influential scientist in history* and is most famous for discovering the Laws of Gravity.
Contents

*"It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion. And therefore as they would understand the frame of the world must endeavor to reduce their knowledge to all possible simplicity, so must it be in seeking to understand these visions." *

I just trying to understand the motivation. There are those on this forum than are sincerely looking for answers and open minded to some lines of logic, but then there are always the attackers, who seem hell bent on antisemitism and Christian bashing. I guess I'm trying to understand, what is their point?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should try considering the evidence rather then attack someone for their views in faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Odd that you should make such a claim when you drench your posts with "Darwinists", "evolutionists", etc.
> 
> As for evidence, you simply link to creationist websites which further fraudulent information.
Click to expand...


Here is a thought why don't you show my information and the creationist websites fraudulent information.

You are not listening,pay attention address my questions or take your drivel somewhere else. Is this DAWS in hiding ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need Neo explained to me.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such entity or ideology. You need "'splainin" that you're using terms promoted by the fundie creationist websites you promote.
Click to expand...


You have never heard of Neo darwinism


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False assumptions and bad analogies.
> 
> However, with DNA mapping, we can find similarities that connect species. In case you missed it, it was that detestable science which provided the knowledge to map DNA.
> 
> Why are your gods such incompetent "designers"? Or, why do your gods hate their "creation"?
> 
> Have you read the Noah tale? Only Noah and his immediate fanily were alive after your gods murdered their children - because they were a disappointment. It was left to Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the earth. That suggests some rather... sordid... events were to unfold... you know... family members and procreation and such.
> 
> But.... but..... but.... but.....but....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am leaving for home to Arizona from California do me a favor and point out my faulty assumptions. I will respond when I get the chance.  Try to9 stay focused and keep it on science ok,that is not too much to ask is it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean that revolting _evilutionary_ science you insist is false?
> 
> I was hoping you would have offered some science testimony to support your sectarian version of gods but not once have you managed to do so.
> 
> It's apparent your entire promotion in these threads is to vilify the science you despise. It's also apparent that your agenda, as well as that of the ICR, is to vilify science in the hope that, that will bolster your promotion of gods.
> 
> That's a failed agenda. Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not going to occur given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.
> 
> All of the failed attempts to negate evolution add nothing to Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right".
Click to expand...


I am beginning to question your honesty and integrity along with your education in science. No offense but you can't seem to stay away from regurgitating your atheistic websites.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness, BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).
> 
> This research, published by molecular biologist Ann Gauger of the Biologic Institute, Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior started by breaking a gene in the bacterium Escherichia coli required for synthesizing the amino acid tryptophan. When the gene was broken in just one place, random mutations in the bacterias genome were capable of fixing the gene. But when two mutations were required to restore function, Darwinian evolution could not do the job. *Such results show that it is extremely unlikely for blind and unguided Darwinian processes to find rare amino-acid sequences that yield functional proteins.* In essence, functional proteins are multi-mutation features in the extreme.
> 
> 
> 
> Thereby negating all of the biology that we know. Hey - if you read it on the internet, it must be true and because you used large, bolded text, we're now convinced.
> 
> Therefore, we have proved "The gods did it".
> 
> Time for another global flood.
Click to expand...


Hey ,what biology have you really discussed ? I gave you the chance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thereby negating all of the biology that we know. Hey - if you read it on the internet, it must be true and because you used large, bolded text, we're now convinced.
> 
> Therefore, we have proved "The gods did it".
> 
> Time for another global flood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that negate biology? Please explain? (i'm guessing all we'll get is crickets chirping again since Materialist Darwinist Plagiarist Hollie has no thoughts of her own.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bold text convinced me. And Michael Behe, another tired, used-up crank who is rolled out by creationist hacks to babble about hack creationism.
> 
> Let me guess, you and the other guy are the same poster, different accounts, and scour creationist websites for material to dump into thread upon thread.
Click to expand...



Just another crazy atheist that offers nothing in the way of science but bitterness.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fruitlessness of ID Research
> 
> By Jeffrey Shallit on November 30, 2009 8:37 AM| 81 Comments
> 
> The Fruitlessness of ID "Research" - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of home were you raised in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing sends a fundie ID / creationist into sidestepping and backstroking like facts.
Click to expand...


In case you forgot.

Hollie, I have a few questions for you.

1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?

2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?

3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but bit is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?

4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?

5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?

These are questions I asked you and you never responded to them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie, it seems you ignored the part where I brought up the Genome project where they discovered what once was considered junk DNA, it seems it is not junk DNA. Just more DNA information that will further separate humans from all organisms.

That is why I don't believe the 1% difference between human and chimp DNA, Your thoughts ?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID does not use the same methodology as "Darwinism" so, it is not as scientifically viable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhh, yes it does. Darwin's method was to study the present to understand the distant past. That is EXACTLY what ID theory does. Funny that you and DAWS just lay down unsupported statements without any substance. Where's the beef?? It is funny how you just remain silent when I ask the really hard questions.
> 
> Copied from previous post for your review and comment:
> 
> You have totally failed to grasp the concept. Darwin and Lyell both said if we want to understand the distant past, we don't come up with some wacky explanation, we look at what is happening in the present. You really are making it more difficult that it is. In the present, the only source we find for digital code is an intelligent agent, that is, in the case of the binary code, a human is the designer. Therefore, the only known source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. Using Darwin's and Lyell's methodology, we can conclude that the digital code in dna (Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) must have had an intelligent source. Unlike Creationism, ID does not get into theological discussions or postulations about who the intelligent source of dna is, only that the best explanation based on the present is that DNA had an intelligent source, and is not from some random process. In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> "A binary code is a way of representing text or computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular symbol or instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 256 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different symbols, letters or instructions.
> 
> In computing and telecommunication, binary codes are used for any of a variety of methods of encoding data, such as character strings, into bit strings. Those methods may be fixed-width or variable-width. In a fixed-width binary code, each letter, digit, or other character, is represented by a bit string of the same length; that bit string, interpreted as a binary number, is usually displayed in code tables in octal, decimal or hexadecimal notation. There are many character sets and many character encodings for them."
> 
> Yeah, cause the ID argument takes a severe leap in logic... DUH, only if you are blinded and brainwashed by Darwinism!!!!"
> 
> Also from Wiki:
> 
> DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing."
> 
> "DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer."
> 
> "Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]
> 
> For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
> 
> [edit] Data transmissionQuaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have mischaracterized "Darwin's Method" or better and more properly known as the scientific method, because it was not invented by Darwin, he merely used it.
> 
> The Oxford English Dictionary: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
> 
> Necessarily, any scientific inquiry has to be done in the present, and is sometimes about the past, but this is not what characterizes or defines it. It is simply a contextual implication. So, I didn't bother to read the rest of your post, because you premise is false, as you can not properly define that which you are trying to explain.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should try considering the evidence rather then attack someone for their views in faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Odd that you should make such a claim when you drench your posts with "Darwinists", "evolutionists", etc.
> 
> As for evidence, you simply link to creationist websites which further fraudulent information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a thought why don't you show my information and the creationist websites fraudulent information.
> 
> You are not listening,pay attention address my questions or take your drivel somewhere else. Is this DAWS in hiding ?
Click to expand...


Yeah, come to think of it, DAWS is curiously absent from the bashing.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhh, yes it does. Darwin's method was to study the present to understand the distant past. That is EXACTLY what ID theory does. Funny that you and DAWS just lay down unsupported statements without any substance. Where's the beef?? It is funny how you just remain silent when I ask the really hard questions.
> 
> Copied from previous post for your review and comment:
> 
> You have totally failed to grasp the concept. Darwin and Lyell both said if we want to understand the distant past, we don't come up with some wacky explanation, we look at what is happening in the present. You really are making it more difficult that it is. In the present, the only source we find for digital code is an intelligent agent, that is, in the case of the binary code, a human is the designer. Therefore, the only known source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. Using Darwin's and Lyell's methodology, we can conclude that the digital code in dna (Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) must have had an intelligent source. Unlike Creationism, ID does not get into theological discussions or postulations about who the intelligent source of dna is, only that the best explanation based on the present is that DNA had an intelligent source, and is not from some random process. In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> "A binary code is a way of representing text or computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular symbol or instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 256 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different symbols, letters or instructions.
> 
> In computing and telecommunication, binary codes are used for any of a variety of methods of encoding data, such as character strings, into bit strings. Those methods may be fixed-width or variable-width. In a fixed-width binary code, each letter, digit, or other character, is represented by a bit string of the same length; that bit string, interpreted as a binary number, is usually displayed in code tables in octal, decimal or hexadecimal notation. There are many character sets and many character encodings for them."
> 
> Yeah, cause the ID argument takes a severe leap in logic... DUH, only if you are blinded and brainwashed by Darwinism!!!!"
> 
> Also from Wiki:
> 
> DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing."
> 
> "DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer."
> 
> "Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]
> 
> For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
> 
> [edit] Data transmissionQuaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have mischaracterized "Darwin's Method" or better and more properly known as the scientific method, because it was not invented by Darwin, he merely used it.
> 
> The Oxford English Dictionary: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
> 
> Necessarily, any scientific inquiry has to be done in the present, and is sometimes about the past, but this is not what characterizes or defines it. It is simply a contextual implication. So, I didn't bother to read the rest of your post, because you premise is false, as you can not properly define that which you are trying to explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statement about my mis-characterization is wrong, as is your assertion that my premise is not properly defined. What you have failed to grasp is that I'm not talking about all scientific method, but only that method which Mr. Darwin used to develop the theory of evolution. Let's consult the Evolutinary-biased Wikipedia, just so no one can accuse me of using an ID Theory biased website.
> 
> "*Sir Charles Lyell*, 1st Baronet, Kt FRS (14 November 1797 &#8211; 22 February 1875) was a British lawyer and the foremost geologist of his day. He is best known as the author of Principles of Geology, which popularised James Hutton's concepts of uniformitarianism &#8211; the idea that the earth was shaped by slow-moving forces still in operation today. *Lyell was a close and influential friend of Charles Darwin.*"
> 
> And here my friend, is the principles that necessarily abide, and are the method by which Stephen Meyer makes his intelligent source argument for the digital code in DNA. Also, from Wikipedia...
> 
> "Principles of Geology, Lyell's first book, was also his *most famous, most influential, and most important.* First published in three volumes in 1830&#8211;33, it established Lyell's credentials as an important geological theorist and propounded the doctrine of uniformitarianism.[8] It was a work of synthesis, backed by his own personal observations on his travels.
> 
> The central argument in Principles was that *the present is the key to the past* &#8211; a concept of the Scottish Enlightenment which David Hume had stated as "all inferences from experience suppose ... that the future will resemble the past", and James Hutton had described when he wrote in 1788 that "from what has actually been, we have data for concluding with regard to that which is to happen thereafter."[9]
> 
> And wait for it, wait for it, here is the foundation for Darwin's Natural Selection theory. He studied the present in the Galapagos to make inferences about what happened in the distant past.
> [Continued from above] *Geological remains from the distant past can, and should, be explained by reference to geological processes now in operation and thus directly observable."*
> 
> Darwin applied this same line of thinking to Biology as has Stephen Meyer (who happens to be a Geo-physicists by trade) to the digital code. Do you not think it curious that man had already begun to understand binary code as being able to be used in computers as far back as 1937, long before the discovery of the information technology was discovered in DNA?
> 
> All I can say is... Bam.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

What Meyer is asking, and brilliantly I might add, is what do we observe in the present regarding digital code and information storage, transmission and retrieval? In Darwin's day, they thought the cell was a blob of plasma. No we know they are tiny factories, with data storage, transmission, copy and retrieval capabilities. They also contain micro-machines responsible for protein assembly. They are incredibly complex, with not just one process happening at a given time, but multi-layer functions all occurring at the same time and working in concert to achieve the end result.  

Do we find complex, functional digital code randomly generated itself in the present? NO!!! Do we find any random process resulting in complex systems? NO!!! When we look at the few pathetic examples of natural selection, the so-called ICONS of EVOLUTION, we are left with an empty feeling as in "is that all your got?!?!?!" Meyers claim is that every source of functional, digital code we observe in the present, has an intelligent agent as its source. Therefore, since we don't see complex systems self-assembling and random processes puking out complex digital code in the present, how can we make such assertions about the distant past? We can't and call it science. 

Just so we are all square, ID Theory never tries to identify the Designer. That is a philosophical and religious question to grapple with, not a scientific one, but we can assert that the BEST EXPLANATION for the digital code in DNA is an intelligent source, based on what we observe in the present. It really is such a simple theory that a 3rd grader should be able to grasp it.

Can you really watch this and as a logical, thinking human being somehow convince yourself that his "just happened" randomly, because the parts that didn't work didn't make it??? 

mRNA Translation (Advanced) - YouTube


----------



## UltimateReality

Oh and before you say Meyer, as a Geophysicist has no business proposing this theory on DNA, you might want to read this little snippet from Wiki regarding Charles Darwin...

"Darwin's early interest in nature led him to neglect his medical education at the University of Edinburgh; instead, he helped to investigate marine invertebrates. Studies at the University of Cambridge encouraged his passion for natural science.[9] His five-year voyage on HMS Beagle established him as an *eminent geologist *whose observations and* theories supported Charles Lyell's uniformitarian ideas*, and publication of his journal of the voyage made him famous as a popular author.[10]"

Puzzled by the geographical distribution of wildlife and fossils he collected on the voyage, Darwin began detailed investigations and in 1838 conceived his theory of natural selection.[11] Although he discussed his ideas with several naturalists, he needed time for extensive research and *his geological work had priority.*[12]


----------



## UltimateReality

"You are looking at an assembly line of amazing miniature biochemical machines that are pulling apart the dna double helix and cranking out a copy of each strand."

"DNA's most extraordinary secret-how a simple code is turned into flesh and blood"

"the building blocks to make the RNA enter through an intake hole."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yqESR7E4b_8


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> .
> 
> Just so we are all square, ID Theory never tries to identify the Designer. That is a philosophical and religious question to grapple with, not a scientific one,



This is one of the falsehoods used by the creationst crowd. It's a cynical attempt to offer appearances that ID is separate from fundie creationsim when it is not. It is no surprise that ID / creationists use the same sources for their falsified "scientific" claims. That's because the arguments are precisely the same. What theses groups fail to understand  is that there is no evidence for any "designer", and further no apparent design that a designer is needed to solve. The operation of natural law serves as a perfectly adequate explanation for the universe as we know it.

It's impossible to miss the statements (and impossible to give credibility) wherein ID / creationists will claim that " ... is a philosophical and religious question to grapple with, not a scientific one".

It is truly laughable. A religious claim by definition implies a god, gods, or similar supernatural agent. ID'ers / creationists will offer these statements not understanding that they confound and dismantle their own arguments with contradictory and self refuting statements.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Oh and before you say Meyer, as a Geophysicist has no business proposing this theory on DNA, you might want to read this little snippet from Wiki regarding Charles Darwin...



You make the mistake of excusing Meyer as a religious hack with nonsensical references. 

As is so often the case with ID'ers / creationists, (Meyer included), their fields of study often have no connection to their claimed "amazing discoveries" and falsified "reports". 

It really is an embarassment that ID'ers / creationists are reduced to using non-scientists, using non-scientific methods to further religious claims. This is precisely why the few organizations that promote ID / creationism are ridiculed by the mainstream science as not to be taken seriously. This is also why peer-review is absent among the ID / creationism community. Science doesn't support pre-conceived agendas that narrowly refine data to fit pre-conceived results and as we've seen, the ID / creationism community is notorious for falsifying data and making sure that no information which might contradict their loopy claims gets past the censors.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I guess Hollie wishes not to discuss science, not surprising.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> I guess Hollie wishes not to discuss science, not surprising.



You poor thing.

If you science to offer that would be fine. However, "science" that is culled from creationist websites is not science. I've shown you repeatedly that the sites you link to have a predefined agenda of pressing supernaturalism and do so by falsifying and / or explicitly ignoring data that refuted their religious claims. 

Funding creationist websites are promoting religion, not science. Your need to promote an agenda that is utterly hostile to science has been demonstrated within this thread.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and before you say Meyer, as a Geophysicist has no business proposing this theory on DNA, you might want to read this little snippet from Wiki regarding Charles Darwin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make the mistake of excusing Meyer as a religious hack with nonsensical references.
> 
> As is so often the case with ID'ers / creationists, (Meyer included), their fields of study often have no connection to their claimed "amazing discoveries" and falsified "reports".
Click to expand...


Hollie, are your really so stupid or so blinded by your anger that you failed to make the logic leap here? Darwin was a geologist. You seem to have no issue that his theory applies to biology. Therefore, you can't have it one way when it suits you and call others out for the same thing when it does not. I anticipated your CANNED response before you made it and you still missed it!!!! GEEEZZ!!! How old are you? Your writing style is about that of a 19-year-old.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> This is also why peer-review is absent among the ID / creationism community.



Another false claim previously proven wrong a few posts back with substantiated info easily verifiable on the internet, one publication of which has been around since 1926, pre-dating the Creationists and ID Theory movements.



Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Hollie wishes not to discuss science, not surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You poor thing.
> 
> If you science to offer that would be fine. However, "science" that is culled from creationist websites is not science. I've shown you repeatedly that the sites you link to have a predefined agenda of pressing supernaturalism and do so by falsifying and / or explicitly ignoring data that refuted their religious claims.
> 
> Funding creationist websites are promoting religion, not science. Your need to promote an agenda that is utterly hostile to science has been demonstrated within this thread.
Click to expand...


So what of Newton, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time? Will you discount his theories because he was a fundie? You ignorance of history is appalling. I should have stopped responding to you when I said I was going to before. You are so blind that it really reminds me of arguing with a drunk when I was a cop. Both are exercises in futility. I will waste no more time with you since you cannot even present, or follow, a logical thought. Have a nice fundamentalist Materialist purposeless existence. 

YWC, I would suggest you don't entertain this any longer as well. Dust off your feet and head to the next town.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Another false claim previously proven wrong a few posts back with substantiated info easily verifiable on the internet, one publication of which has been around since 1926, pre-dating the Creationists and ID Theory movements.
> 
> 
> So what of Newton, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time? Will you discount his theories because he was a fundie? You ignorance of history is appalling. I should have stopped responding to you when I said I was going to before. You are so blind that it really reminds me of arguing with a drunk when I was a cop. Both are exercises in futility. I will waste no more time with you since you cannot even present, or follow, a logical thought. Have a nice fundamentalist Materialist purposeless existence.
> 
> YWC, I would suggest you don't entertain this any longer as well. Dust off your feet and head to the next town.


You will be surprised to learn that we can actually perform repeatable tests, make predictions and confirm the results surrounding gravity. 

How do we test the environment of gods. Not just your gods but what we might find to be the true gods.

You might want to dust off your shoes and find a way to present an argument that doesn't require you screeching "because I say so".


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and before you say Meyer, as a Geophysicist has no business proposing this theory on DNA, you might want to read this little snippet from Wiki regarding Charles Darwin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make the mistake of excusing Meyer as a religious hack with nonsensical references.
> 
> As is so often the case with ID'ers / creationists, (Meyer included), their fields of study often have no connection to their claimed "amazing discoveries" and falsified "reports".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, are your really so stupid or so blinded by your anger that you failed to make the logic leap here? Darwin was a geologist. You seem to have no issue that his theory applies to biology. Therefore, you can't have it one way when it suits you and call others out for the same thing when it does not. I anticipated your CANNED response before you made it and you still missed it!!!! GEEEZZ!!! How old are you? Your writing style is about that of a 19-year-old.
Click to expand...


 It's a shame that your comments are now reduced to calling people stupid because your arguments fall apart. It's convenient to vent your frustration at others but your frustration is ultimately a product of your inability to make convincing claims. Since your claims presume the requirement for a prior committment to creationist dogma, you're at an obvious disadvantage. Basically, my "carma" just ran over your dogma.

While we know that from your perspective, rejecting the claims of creationism implies we're stupid, you have offered nothing to refute  the vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, there are large collections of transitional fossils which provide a timeline of the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, mammals from reptiles, whales from land dwellers etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such connections at the biological and chemical level. 

Similar evidence comes from ecology, geology, anatomy, population genetics and related fields. That's just the outline. But against all the above, you counter with "The Gods Did It". Although not every bone from every animal that has lived for millions of years has not been recovered or  preserved, the processes of evolution have left behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare, contrast and examine the features and structures of living organisms. Doing so, we find an order to the organisms that establishes a definable hierarchy of characteristics. This was known even before Darwin. We know that skeletal structures of many animals have changed over vast time scales. We can use processes such as carbon dating to establish timelines and compare the fossil evidence at different ages and see how these skeletal structures have changed. We apply these technologies to better understand biology, cell development, genetics,and so on.

The reason why fundie creationist Christians refuse to accept and ignore the science before them is because they must have a literal Adam and Eve. Genesis, and subsequent scripture, defines all human beings as being born totally depraved with Original Sin, and because of that, the requirement of Salvation through Christ.  That was the reason for the crucifixion. This is crucial to fundamentalist Christians and why their hatred and revulsion for science runs so deep. 

Believe what you wish regarding gods, you are free to believe what you like. But you cannot brute force you gods into the realm of science for resolution as science cannot examine the supernatural.


----------



## koshergrl

Sure. Link all these transitional fossils.

*Turning on the elevator music* and waiting.


----------



## koshergrl

Ok time for another.

I thought you'd have those links all ready at hand and stuff:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rl3yVq6rrg]Walk Don&#39;t Run &#39;64 - The Ventures - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?
> 
> Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How do you get a net gain of DNA information* if the previous information is no longer ?
> 
> Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fusion and transfection are two examples of how DNA can gain information.  If you're the scientist you say you are, you should know that.
> 
> Also, if a gene mutates the information isn't gone.  It still resides in the other copy of the chromosome.  Something you also should know!!!
Click to expand...

 ywc is not a scientist neither is ur....


----------



## koshergrl

Calling transitional fossils...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j7uAimpx3k]Baker Street (full-length stereo with lyrics)[/ame]


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is funny I attended the University of Arizona. You gave the typical answer on a so called beneficial mutation The sickle-cell anemia mutation.
> 
> I also see you are not up to date on the human genome project because they declare there is no junk DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> mutations
> 
> Scientific data - High Rate of Deleterious Mutations
> 
> The Myth of Beneficial Mutations - CSI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey YWCA, I went to U of A too. Studied mechanical engineering. What years were you there? I was 84 to 88. I actually sold the HVAC equipment on TGEN here in Phoenix and a guy that goes to our church is a researching there. And he is not even science loathing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1981 to 1985
> 
> Probably when most of these  ignorant kids were born.
Click to expand...

 says the most ignorant person on this thread..
only an obsessive asshat woud fuck up a vacation here in california in june at the beach by texting ...your wife must be proud!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey YWCA, I went to U of A too. Studied mechanical engineering. What years were you there? I was 84 to 88. I actually sold the HVAC equipment on TGEN here in Phoenix and a guy that goes to our church is a researching there. And he is not even science loathing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1981 to 1985
> 
> Probably when most of these  ignorant kids were born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the most ignorant person on this thread..
> only an obsessive asshat woud fuck up a vacation here in california in june at the beach by texting ...your wife must be proud!
Click to expand...


DAWS, where you been? You missed all the fun with your fundie evolutionist sister Holly over the weekend.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1981 to 1985
> 
> Probably when most of these  ignorant kids were born.
> 
> 
> 
> says the most ignorant person on this thread..
> only an obsessive asshat woud fuck up a vacation here in california in june at the beach by texting ...your wife must be proud!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DAWS, where you been? You missed all the fun with your fundie evolutionist sister Holly over the weekend.
Click to expand...

I have a life....been reading this thread....your asses must be sore from all that kicking...


----------



## daws101

With the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin this week, people around the world are celebrating his role as the father of evolutionary theory. Events and press releases are geared, in part, to combat false claims made by some who would discredit the theory. 

One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false. 

As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians. 



These animals sound wild, but the fossil record  which is far from complete  is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero discussed those fossils last month at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, along with transitional fossils that were announced since the book was published, including the "fishibian" and the "frogamander." 

At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving. 

Here is a short list of transitional fossils documented by Prothero and that add to the mountain of evidence for Charles Darwin's theory. A lot of us relate most to fossils of life closely related to humans, so the list focuses on mammals and other vertebrates, including dinosaurs. 

Mammals, including us 

It is now clear that the evolutionary tree for early and modern humans looks more like a bush than the line represented in cartoons. All the hominid fossils found to date form a complex nexus of specimens, Prothero says, but Sahelanthropus tchadensis, found in 2001 and 2002, threw everyone for a loop because it walked upright 7 million years ago on two feet but is quite chimp-like in its skull size, teeth, brow ridges and face. It could be a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, but many paleoanthropologists will remain unsure until more fossils are found. Previously, the earliest ancestor of our Homo genus found in the fossil record dated back 6 million years. 
-Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology's New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length. 
Manatees, also called sea cows, are marine mammals that have flippers and a down-turned snout for grazing in warm shallow waters. In 2001, scientists discovered the fossil of a "walking manatee," Pezosiren portelli, which had feet rather than flippers and walked on land during the Eocene epoch (54.8 million years ago to 33.7 million years ago) in what is now Jamaica. Along with skull features like manatees (such as horizontal tooth replacement, like a conveyor belt), it also had heavy ribs for ballast, showing that it also had an aquatic lifestyle, like hippos. 
Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago). The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene of Egypt. It looked more like a small hippo than an elephant and probably lacked a long trunk, but it had short upper and lower tusks, the teeth of a primitive mastodon and ear features found only in other proboscideans. 
The Dimetrodon was a big predatory reptile with a tail and a large sail or fin-back. It is often mistaken for a dinosaur, but it's actually part of our mammalian lineage and more closely related to mammals than reptiles, which is seen in its specialized teeth for stabbing meat and skull features that only mammals and their ancestors had. It probably moved around like a lizard and had a jawbone made of multiple bones, like a reptile. 
Dinosaurs and birds 

The classic fossil of Archaeopteryx, sometimes called the first bird, has a wishbone (fully fused clavicle) which is only found in modern birds and some dinosaurs. But it also shows impressions from feathers on its body, as seen on many of the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved. Its body, capable of flight or gliding, also had many of dinosaur features  teeth (no birds alive today have teeth), a long bony tail (tails on modern birds are entirely feathers, not bony), long hind legs and toes, and a specialized hand with long bony fingers (unlike modern bird wings in which the fingers are fused into a single element), Prothero said. 
Sinornis was a bird that also has long bony fingers and teeth, like those seen in dinosaurs and not seen in modern birds. 
Yinlong is a small bipedal dinosaur which shares features with two groups of dinosaurs known to many kids  ceratopsians, the beaked dinosaurs like Triceratops, and pachycephalosaurs, known for having a thick dome of bone in their skulls protecting their brains. Yinlong has the thick rostral bone that is otherwise unique to ceratopsians dinosaurs, and the thick skull roof found in the pachycephalosaurs. 
Anchisaurus is a primitive sauropod dinosaur that has a lot of lizard-like features. It was only 8 feet long (the classic sauropods later on could be more than 100-feet long), had a short neck (sauropods are known for their long necks, while lizards are not), and delicate limbs and feet, unlike dinosaurs. Its spine was like that of a sauropod. The early sauropods were bipedal, while the latter were stood on all fours. Anchisaurus was probably capable of both stances, Prothero wrote. 
Fish, frogs, turtles 

Tiktaalik, aka the fishibian or the fishapod, is a large scaled fish that shows a perfect transition between fins and feet, aquatic and land animals. It had fish-like scales, as well as fish-like fin rays and jaw and mouth elements, but it had a shortened skull roof and mobile neck to catch prey, an ear that could hear in both land and water, and a wrist joint that is like those seen in land animals. 
Last year, scientists announced the discovery of Gerobatrachus hottorni, aka the frogamander. Technically, it's a toothed amphibian, but it shows the common origins of frogs and salamanders, scientists say, with a wide skull and large ear drum (like frogs) and two fused ankle bones as seen in salamanders. 
A creature on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China's coastal waters 200 million years ago. It had a belly shell but its back was basically bare of armor. Odontochelys had an elongated, pointed snout. Most modern turtles have short snouts. In addition, the roof of its mouth, along with the upper and lower jaws, was equipped with teeth, which the researchers said is a primitive feature for turtles whose mugs are now tipped with beaks but contain no teeth. 


Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory | LiveScience


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is also why peer-review is absent among the ID / creationism community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another false claim previously proven wrong a few posts back with substantiated info easily verifiable on the internet, one publication of which has been around since 1926, pre-dating the Creationists and ID Theory movements.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Hollie wishes not to discuss science, not surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You poor thing.
> 
> If you science to offer that would be fine. However, "science" that is culled from creationist websites is not science. I've shown you repeatedly that the sites you link to have a predefined agenda of pressing supernaturalism and do so by falsifying and / or explicitly ignoring data that refuted their religious claims.
> 
> Funding creationist websites are promoting religion, not science. Your need to promote an agenda that is utterly hostile to science has been demonstrated within this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what of Newton, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time? Will you discount his theories because he was a fundie? You ignorance of history is appalling. I should have stopped responding to you when I said I was going to before. You are so blind that it really reminds me of arguing with a drunk when I was a cop. Both are exercises in futility. I will waste no more time with you since you cannot even present, or follow, a logical thought. Have a nice fundamentalist Materialist purposeless existence.
> 
> YWC, I would suggest you don't entertain this any longer as well. Dust off your feet and head to the next town.
Click to expand...


Yeah I pretty much did that with DAWS and Hollie is next on the list. The problem is neither one know enough to see the legitimacy of our questions put to them. It seems most of the time only montrovant and konradv are coherent and understand the questions and answers given them.

They can even be civil most of the time but Hollie and Daws forget it, they have an ax to grind for some reason and they are stuck on taking shots rather then focus on legitimate issues that are presented to them. I think mostly is they don';t have a clue how to respond.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How do you get a net gain of DNA information* if the previous information is no longer ?
> 
> Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fusion and transfection are two examples of how DNA can gain information.  If you're the scientist you say you are, you should know that.
> 
> Also, if a gene mutates the information isn't gone.  It still resides in the other copy of the chromosome.  Something you also should know!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ywc is not a scientist neither is ur....
Click to expand...


That is correct but worked closely with them I was a lab Tech. Mr. Theatre guy probably havn't done well at that either have you.

I would be curious what you really do for a living.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey YWCA, I went to U of A too. Studied mechanical engineering. What years were you there? I was 84 to 88. I actually sold the HVAC equipment on TGEN here in Phoenix and a guy that goes to our church is a researching there. And he is not even science loathing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1981 to 1985
> 
> Probably when most of these  ignorant kids were born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the most ignorant person on this thread..
> only an obsessive asshat woud fuck up a vacation here in california in june at the beach by texting ...your wife must be proud!
Click to expand...


I get a little down time and my wife and daughters don't wait for Daddy to lead them around by the nose.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> says the most ignorant person on this thread..
> only an obsessive asshat woud fuck up a vacation here in california in june at the beach by texting ...your wife must be proud!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DAWS, where you been? You missed all the fun with your fundie evolutionist sister Holly over the weekend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a life....been reading this thread....your asses must be sore from all that kicking...
Click to expand...


That is right theatre don't pay well when your not good enough so you have no computer and can't get to one until work or school eh.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> With the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin this week, people around the world are celebrating his role as the father of evolutionary theory. Events and press releases are geared, in part, to combat false claims made by some who would discredit the theory.
> 
> One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.
> 
> As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.
> 
> 
> 
> These animals sound wild, but the fossil record &#8212; which is far from complete &#8212; is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero discussed those fossils last month at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, along with transitional fossils that were announced since the book was published, including the "fishibian" and the "frogamander."
> 
> At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving.
> 
> Here is a short list of transitional fossils documented by Prothero and that add to the mountain of evidence for Charles Darwin's theory. A lot of us relate most to fossils of life closely related to humans, so the list focuses on mammals and other vertebrates, including dinosaurs.
> 
> Mammals, including us
> 
> &#8226;It is now clear that the evolutionary tree for early and modern humans looks more like a bush than the line represented in cartoons. All the hominid fossils found to date form a complex nexus of specimens, Prothero says, but Sahelanthropus tchadensis, found in 2001 and 2002, threw everyone for a loop because it walked upright 7 million years ago on two feet but is quite chimp-like in its skull size, teeth, brow ridges and face. It could be a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, but many paleoanthropologists will remain unsure until more fossils are found. Previously, the earliest ancestor of our Homo genus found in the fossil record dated back 6 million years.
> &#8226;-Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology's New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length.
> &#8226;Manatees, also called sea cows, are marine mammals that have flippers and a down-turned snout for grazing in warm shallow waters. In 2001, scientists discovered the fossil of a "walking manatee," Pezosiren portelli, which had feet rather than flippers and walked on land during the Eocene epoch (54.8 million years ago to 33.7 million years ago) in what is now Jamaica. Along with skull features like manatees (such as horizontal tooth replacement, like a conveyor belt), it also had heavy ribs for ballast, showing that it also had an aquatic lifestyle, like hippos.
> &#8226;Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago). The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene of Egypt. It looked more like a small hippo than an elephant and probably lacked a long trunk, but it had short upper and lower tusks, the teeth of a primitive mastodon and ear features found only in other proboscideans.
> &#8226;The Dimetrodon was a big predatory reptile with a tail and a large sail or fin-back. It is often mistaken for a dinosaur, but it's actually part of our mammalian lineage and more closely related to mammals than reptiles, which is seen in its specialized teeth for stabbing meat and skull features that only mammals and their ancestors had. It probably moved around like a lizard and had a jawbone made of multiple bones, like a reptile.
> Dinosaurs and birds
> 
> &#8226;The classic fossil of Archaeopteryx, sometimes called the first bird, has a wishbone (fully fused clavicle) which is only found in modern birds and some dinosaurs. But it also shows impressions from feathers on its body, as seen on many of the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved. Its body, capable of flight or gliding, also had many of dinosaur features &#8212; teeth (no birds alive today have teeth), a long bony tail (tails on modern birds are entirely feathers, not bony), long hind legs and toes, and a specialized hand with long bony fingers (unlike modern bird wings in which the fingers are fused into a single element), Prothero said.
> &#8226;Sinornis was a bird that also has long bony fingers and teeth, like those seen in dinosaurs and not seen in modern birds.
> &#8226;Yinlong is a small bipedal dinosaur which shares features with two groups of dinosaurs known to many kids &#8212; ceratopsians, the beaked dinosaurs like Triceratops, and pachycephalosaurs, known for having a thick dome of bone in their skulls protecting their brains. Yinlong has the thick rostral bone that is otherwise unique to ceratopsians dinosaurs, and the thick skull roof found in the pachycephalosaurs.
> &#8226;Anchisaurus is a primitive sauropod dinosaur that has a lot of lizard-like features. It was only 8 feet long (the classic sauropods later on could be more than 100-feet long), had a short neck (sauropods are known for their long necks, while lizards are not), and delicate limbs and feet, unlike dinosaurs. Its spine was like that of a sauropod. The early sauropods were bipedal, while the latter were stood on all fours. Anchisaurus was probably capable of both stances, Prothero wrote.
> Fish, frogs, turtles
> 
> &#8226;Tiktaalik, aka the fishibian or the fishapod, is a large scaled fish that shows a perfect transition between fins and feet, aquatic and land animals. It had fish-like scales, as well as fish-like fin rays and jaw and mouth elements, but it had a shortened skull roof and mobile neck to catch prey, an ear that could hear in both land and water, and a wrist joint that is like those seen in land animals.
> &#8226;Last year, scientists announced the discovery of Gerobatrachus hottorni, aka the frogamander. Technically, it's a toothed amphibian, but it shows the common origins of frogs and salamanders, scientists say, with a wide skull and large ear drum (like frogs) and two fused ankle bones as seen in salamanders.
> &#8226;A creature on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China's coastal waters 200 million years ago. It had a belly shell but its back was basically bare of armor. Odontochelys had an elongated, pointed snout. Most modern turtles have short snouts. In addition, the roof of its mouth, along with the upper and lower jaws, was equipped with teeth, which the researchers said is a primitive feature for turtles whose mugs are now tipped with beaks but contain no teeth.
> 
> 
> Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory | LiveScience



You are predictable Daws.

Characteristics 

The specimen found consisted of a skull and several bone fragments, namely, the shoulder, wrist, and fin, among others. According to evolutionists, the Tiktaalik was an intermediate form between sea and land animals. This conclusion was reached because of Tiktaalik's similarities to both fish and tetrapods. For instance, it is assumed to have had the scales and gills of a fish and yet also to have had tetrapod limbs and lungs, as well as a mobile neck. Its alleged half-fish and half-tetrapod characteristics included limb bones and joints which resembled those of a tetrapod but had fins rather than toes on the "feet".

For all these features, however, it is clear that Tiktaalik was simply a fish; its lobed fins appear better suited for swimming in water rather than crawling on land, and other fish, such as the Coelacanth, were also thought to be "missing links" until they were discovered to be some form of fish. It has been placed by evolutionists alongside Archaeopteryx, but they fail to see that neither animal was a transitional form; archaeopteryx was a full bird, tiktaalik was a full fish

Tiktaalik - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science


Reconstruction of Tiktaalik

The above image is from the National Science Foundation, a U.S. Government agency to fund science. While reconstructions such as this one appear to show what the species in question really looked like, the true appearance of Tiktaalik is unknown. For example, the difference in appearance between the head and the "shoudler" area is speculative. So is the implication in the image that Tiktaalik walked on land. It is just as likely that it used its robust fins to "walk" on the sea floor, helping it to catch prey in an alligator-like manner. While the tail is included in the image, the tail and rear fins have not been found.

http://conservapedia.com/Tiktaalik


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is also why peer-review is absent among the ID / creationism community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another false claim previously proven wrong a few posts back with substantiated info easily verifiable on the internet, one publication of which has been around since 1926, pre-dating the Creationists and ID Theory movements.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You poor thing.
> 
> If you science to offer that would be fine. However, "science" that is culled from creationist websites is not science. I've shown you repeatedly that the sites you link to have a predefined agenda of pressing supernaturalism and do so by falsifying and / or explicitly ignoring data that refuted their religious claims.
> 
> Funding creationist websites are promoting religion, not science. Your need to promote an agenda that is utterly hostile to science has been demonstrated within this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what of Newton, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time? Will you discount his theories because he was a fundie? You ignorance of history is appalling. I should have stopped responding to you when I said I was going to before. You are so blind that it really reminds me of arguing with a drunk when I was a cop. Both are exercises in futility. I will waste no more time with you since you cannot even present, or follow, a logical thought. Have a nice fundamentalist Materialist purposeless existence.
> 
> YWC, I would suggest you don't entertain this any longer as well. Dust off your feet and head to the next town.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah I pretty much did that with DAWS and Hollie is next on the list. The problem is neither one know enough to see the legitimacy of our questions put to them. It seems most of the time only montrovant and konradv are coherent and understand the questions and answers given them.
> 
> They can even be civil most of the time but Hollie and Daws forget it, they have an ax to grind for some reason and they are stuck on taking shots rather then focus on legitimate issues that are presented to them. I think mostly is they don';t have a clue how to respond.
Click to expand...


For all the chest heaving and posturing, I've yet to see you defend your claims to supernaturalism.

But yes, I do expect that you should take the ICR charlatan road show to where travelling carnivals set up their rides and attractions.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin this week, people around the world are celebrating his role as the father of evolutionary theory. Events and press releases are geared, in part, to combat false claims made by some who would discredit the theory.
> 
> One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.
> 
> As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.
> 
> 
> 
> These animals sound wild, but the fossil record  which is far from complete  is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero discussed those fossils last month at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, along with transitional fossils that were announced since the book was published, including the "fishibian" and the "frogamander."
> 
> At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving.
> 
> Here is a short list of transitional fossils documented by Prothero and that add to the mountain of evidence for Charles Darwin's theory. A lot of us relate most to fossils of life closely related to humans, so the list focuses on mammals and other vertebrates, including dinosaurs.
> 
> Mammals, including us
> 
> It is now clear that the evolutionary tree for early and modern humans looks more like a bush than the line represented in cartoons. All the hominid fossils found to date form a complex nexus of specimens, Prothero says, but Sahelanthropus tchadensis, found in 2001 and 2002, threw everyone for a loop because it walked upright 7 million years ago on two feet but is quite chimp-like in its skull size, teeth, brow ridges and face. It could be a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, but many paleoanthropologists will remain unsure until more fossils are found. Previously, the earliest ancestor of our Homo genus found in the fossil record dated back 6 million years.
> -Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology's New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length.
> Manatees, also called sea cows, are marine mammals that have flippers and a down-turned snout for grazing in warm shallow waters. In 2001, scientists discovered the fossil of a "walking manatee," Pezosiren portelli, which had feet rather than flippers and walked on land during the Eocene epoch (54.8 million years ago to 33.7 million years ago) in what is now Jamaica. Along with skull features like manatees (such as horizontal tooth replacement, like a conveyor belt), it also had heavy ribs for ballast, showing that it also had an aquatic lifestyle, like hippos.
> Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago). The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene of Egypt. It looked more like a small hippo than an elephant and probably lacked a long trunk, but it had short upper and lower tusks, the teeth of a primitive mastodon and ear features found only in other proboscideans.
> The Dimetrodon was a big predatory reptile with a tail and a large sail or fin-back. It is often mistaken for a dinosaur, but it's actually part of our mammalian lineage and more closely related to mammals than reptiles, which is seen in its specialized teeth for stabbing meat and skull features that only mammals and their ancestors had. It probably moved around like a lizard and had a jawbone made of multiple bones, like a reptile.
> Dinosaurs and birds
> 
> The classic fossil of Archaeopteryx, sometimes called the first bird, has a wishbone (fully fused clavicle) which is only found in modern birds and some dinosaurs. But it also shows impressions from feathers on its body, as seen on many of the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved. Its body, capable of flight or gliding, also had many of dinosaur features  teeth (no birds alive today have teeth), a long bony tail (tails on modern birds are entirely feathers, not bony), long hind legs and toes, and a specialized hand with long bony fingers (unlike modern bird wings in which the fingers are fused into a single element), Prothero said.
> Sinornis was a bird that also has long bony fingers and teeth, like those seen in dinosaurs and not seen in modern birds.
> Yinlong is a small bipedal dinosaur which shares features with two groups of dinosaurs known to many kids  ceratopsians, the beaked dinosaurs like Triceratops, and pachycephalosaurs, known for having a thick dome of bone in their skulls protecting their brains. Yinlong has the thick rostral bone that is otherwise unique to ceratopsians dinosaurs, and the thick skull roof found in the pachycephalosaurs.
> Anchisaurus is a primitive sauropod dinosaur that has a lot of lizard-like features. It was only 8 feet long (the classic sauropods later on could be more than 100-feet long), had a short neck (sauropods are known for their long necks, while lizards are not), and delicate limbs and feet, unlike dinosaurs. Its spine was like that of a sauropod. The early sauropods were bipedal, while the latter were stood on all fours. Anchisaurus was probably capable of both stances, Prothero wrote.
> Fish, frogs, turtles
> 
> Tiktaalik, aka the fishibian or the fishapod, is a large scaled fish that shows a perfect transition between fins and feet, aquatic and land animals. It had fish-like scales, as well as fish-like fin rays and jaw and mouth elements, but it had a shortened skull roof and mobile neck to catch prey, an ear that could hear in both land and water, and a wrist joint that is like those seen in land animals.
> Last year, scientists announced the discovery of Gerobatrachus hottorni, aka the frogamander. Technically, it's a toothed amphibian, but it shows the common origins of frogs and salamanders, scientists say, with a wide skull and large ear drum (like frogs) and two fused ankle bones as seen in salamanders.
> A creature on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China's coastal waters 200 million years ago. It had a belly shell but its back was basically bare of armor. Odontochelys had an elongated, pointed snout. Most modern turtles have short snouts. In addition, the roof of its mouth, along with the upper and lower jaws, was equipped with teeth, which the researchers said is a primitive feature for turtles whose mugs are now tipped with beaks but contain no teeth.
> 
> 
> Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory | LiveScience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are predictable Daws.
> 
> Characteristics
> 
> The specimen found consisted of a skull and several bone fragments, namely, the shoulder, wrist, and fin, among others. According to evolutionists, the Tiktaalik was an intermediate form between sea and land animals. This conclusion was reached because of Tiktaalik's similarities to both fish and tetrapods. For instance, it is assumed to have had the scales and gills of a fish and yet also to have had tetrapod limbs and lungs, as well as a mobile neck. Its alleged half-fish and half-tetrapod characteristics included limb bones and joints which resembled those of a tetrapod but had fins rather than toes on the "feet".
> 
> For all these features, however, it is clear that Tiktaalik was simply a fish; its lobed fins appear better suited for swimming in water rather than crawling on land, and other fish, such as the Coelacanth, were also thought to be "missing links" until they were discovered to be some form of fish. It has been placed by evolutionists alongside Archaeopteryx, but they fail to see that neither animal was a transitional form; archaeopteryx was a full bird, tiktaalik was a full fish
> 
> Tiktaalik - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> 
> Reconstruction of Tiktaalik
> 
> The above image is from the National Science Foundation, a U.S. Government agency to fund science. While reconstructions such as this one appear to show what the species in question really looked like, the true appearance of Tiktaalik is unknown. For example, the difference in appearance between the head and the "shoudler" area is speculative. So is the implication in the image that Tiktaalik walked on land. It is just as likely that it used its robust fins to "walk" on the sea floor, helping it to catch prey in an alligator-like manner. While the tail is included in the image, the tail and rear fins have not been found.
> 
> Tiktaalik - Conservapedia
Click to expand...


Can we expect that the biological scientists at creationwiki are actually grocery store baggers who contribute to "creationwiki"?

It's just so typical that the "scientists" representing creationist claims have no education or training in the subject matter they write about.

I suppose that when contributing to a fundie creationist website, signing an agreement not to publish material in conflict with creationist propaganda tends to limit the quality of the contributor.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ;DAWS, where you been? You missed all the fun with your fundie evolutionist sister Holly over the weekend.


I don't think "fun" is the correct term. There's not a lot of fun involved in dealing with creationist zealots. It's even less fun when the creationist zealots use tactics - calling their propaganda "Intelligent Design", which has long ago been derided (and dismissed) as just another term for creationist quackery.

Many may not be aware of this but ducks have evolved very rapidly over the last several decades. As the creationist movement has sought to promote their agenda of quackery using different titles for the same, tired appeals to the gods, the public has noticed that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it's a duck.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fusion and transfection are two examples of how DNA can gain information.  If you're the scientist you say you are, you should know that.
> 
> Also, if a gene mutates the information isn't gone.  It still resides in the other copy of the chromosome.  Something you also should know!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ywc is not a scientist neither is ur....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct but worked closely with them I was a lab Tech. Mr. Theatre guy probably havn't done well at that either have you.
> 
> I would be curious what you really do for a living.
Click to expand...


And I'm a retried police officer, who is falling back on my college education in mechanical engineering and now selling commercial and industrial HVAC equipment. I am open to providing info and I'm not trying to "trick" anyone. I do believe there is some valid science that occurs in the field of biology and anthropology. I just wonder how much farther along we would be if we weren't trying to force fit everything into the TOE, even when it doesn't make sense. Just a few questions that have never been answered for me:

Where does abiogenisis end and evolution start? What level of complexity does the common ancestor have? Why is there no agreed up definition of fitness? Yet the whole theory is based on random mutations surviving due to fitness? Why has no one corrected Darwin's tree of life even though genetics disproved it years ago?


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> The above image is from the National Science Foundation, a U.S. Government agency to fund science. While reconstructions such as this one appear to show what the species in question really looked like, the true appearance of Tiktaalik is unknown. For example, the difference in appearance between the head and the "shoudler" area is speculative.



Much like the entire theory of evolution. It is the only realm of science where "may haves" and "might haves" rule as fact. The finches "might have" survived due to their longer beaks which helped them get to food and water the short beak finches couldn't get to. I'm not sure why an actual scientific experiment couldn't be done to determine this. Instead they just call it fact and display it as an Icon of Evolution. Why couldn't they isolate some long and short beak finches and see which ones survive under which conditions? God knows its not like the Evolutionists don't have the funding!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin this week, people around the world are celebrating his role as the father of evolutionary theory. Events and press releases are geared, in part, to combat false claims made by some who would discredit the theory.
> 
> One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.
> 
> As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.
> 
> 
> 
> These animals sound wild, but the fossil record &#8212; which is far from complete &#8212; is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero discussed those fossils last month at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, along with transitional fossils that were announced since the book was published, including the "fishibian" and the "frogamander."
> 
> At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving.
> 
> Here is a short list of transitional fossils documented by Prothero and that add to the mountain of evidence for Charles Darwin's theory. A lot of us relate most to fossils of life closely related to humans, so the list focuses on mammals and other vertebrates, including dinosaurs.
> 
> Mammals, including us
> 
> &#8226;It is now clear that the evolutionary tree for early and modern humans looks more like a bush than the line represented in cartoons. All the hominid fossils found to date form a complex nexus of specimens, Prothero says, but Sahelanthropus tchadensis, found in 2001 and 2002, threw everyone for a loop because it walked upright 7 million years ago on two feet but is quite chimp-like in its skull size, teeth, brow ridges and face. It could be a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, but many paleoanthropologists will remain unsure until more fossils are found. Previously, the earliest ancestor of our Homo genus found in the fossil record dated back 6 million years.
> &#8226;-Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology's New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length.
> &#8226;Manatees, also called sea cows, are marine mammals that have flippers and a down-turned snout for grazing in warm shallow waters. In 2001, scientists discovered the fossil of a "walking manatee," Pezosiren portelli, which had feet rather than flippers and walked on land during the Eocene epoch (54.8 million years ago to 33.7 million years ago) in what is now Jamaica. Along with skull features like manatees (such as horizontal tooth replacement, like a conveyor belt), it also had heavy ribs for ballast, showing that it also had an aquatic lifestyle, like hippos.
> &#8226;Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago). The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene of Egypt. It looked more like a small hippo than an elephant and probably lacked a long trunk, but it had short upper and lower tusks, the teeth of a primitive mastodon and ear features found only in other proboscideans.
> &#8226;The Dimetrodon was a big predatory reptile with a tail and a large sail or fin-back. It is often mistaken for a dinosaur, but it's actually part of our mammalian lineage and more closely related to mammals than reptiles, which is seen in its specialized teeth for stabbing meat and skull features that only mammals and their ancestors had. It probably moved around like a lizard and had a jawbone made of multiple bones, like a reptile.
> Dinosaurs and birds
> 
> &#8226;The classic fossil of Archaeopteryx, sometimes called the first bird, has a wishbone (fully fused clavicle) which is only found in modern birds and some dinosaurs. But it also shows impressions from feathers on its body, as seen on many of the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved. Its body, capable of flight or gliding, also had many of dinosaur features &#8212; teeth (no birds alive today have teeth), a long bony tail (tails on modern birds are entirely feathers, not bony), long hind legs and toes, and a specialized hand with long bony fingers (unlike modern bird wings in which the fingers are fused into a single element), Prothero said.
> &#8226;Sinornis was a bird that also has long bony fingers and teeth, like those seen in dinosaurs and not seen in modern birds.
> &#8226;Yinlong is a small bipedal dinosaur which shares features with two groups of dinosaurs known to many kids &#8212; ceratopsians, the beaked dinosaurs like Triceratops, and pachycephalosaurs, known for having a thick dome of bone in their skulls protecting their brains. Yinlong has the thick rostral bone that is otherwise unique to ceratopsians dinosaurs, and the thick skull roof found in the pachycephalosaurs.
> &#8226;Anchisaurus is a primitive sauropod dinosaur that has a lot of lizard-like features. It was only 8 feet long (the classic sauropods later on could be more than 100-feet long), had a short neck (sauropods are known for their long necks, while lizards are not), and delicate limbs and feet, unlike dinosaurs. Its spine was like that of a sauropod. The early sauropods were bipedal, while the latter were stood on all fours. Anchisaurus was probably capable of both stances, Prothero wrote.
> Fish, frogs, turtles
> 
> &#8226;Tiktaalik, aka the fishibian or the fishapod, is a large scaled fish that shows a perfect transition between fins and feet, aquatic and land animals. It had fish-like scales, as well as fish-like fin rays and jaw and mouth elements, but it had a shortened skull roof and mobile neck to catch prey, an ear that could hear in both land and water, and a wrist joint that is like those seen in land animals.
> &#8226;Last year, scientists announced the discovery of Gerobatrachus hottorni, aka the frogamander. Technically, it's a toothed amphibian, but it shows the common origins of frogs and salamanders, scientists say, with a wide skull and large ear drum (like frogs) and two fused ankle bones as seen in salamanders.
> &#8226;A creature on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China's coastal waters 200 million years ago. It had a belly shell but its back was basically bare of armor. Odontochelys had an elongated, pointed snout. Most modern turtles have short snouts. In addition, the roof of its mouth, along with the upper and lower jaws, was equipped with teeth, which the researchers said is a primitive feature for turtles whose mugs are now tipped with beaks but contain no teeth.
> 
> 
> Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory | LiveScience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are predictable Daws.
> 
> Characteristics
> 
> The specimen found consisted of a skull and several bone fragments, namely, the shoulder, wrist, and fin, among others. According to evolutionists, the Tiktaalik was an intermediate form between sea and land animals. This conclusion was reached because of Tiktaalik's similarities to both fish and tetrapods. For instance, it is assumed to have had the scales and gills of a fish and yet also to have had tetrapod limbs and lungs, as well as a mobile neck. Its alleged half-fish and half-tetrapod characteristics included limb bones and joints which resembled those of a tetrapod but had fins rather than toes on the "feet".
> 
> For all these features, however, it is clear that Tiktaalik was simply a fish; its lobed fins appear better suited for swimming in water rather than crawling on land, and other fish, such as the Coelacanth, were also thought to be "missing links" until they were discovered to be some form of fish. It has been placed by evolutionists alongside Archaeopteryx, but they fail to see that neither animal was a transitional form; archaeopteryx was a full bird, tiktaalik was a full fish
> 
> Tiktaalik - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> 
> Reconstruction of Tiktaalik
> 
> The above image is from the National Science Foundation, a U.S. Government agency to fund science. While reconstructions such as this one appear to show what the species in question really looked like, the true appearance of Tiktaalik is unknown. For example, the difference in appearance between the head and the "shoudler" area is speculative. So is the implication in the image that Tiktaalik walked on land. It is just as likely that it used its robust fins to "walk" on the sea floor, helping it to catch prey in an alligator-like manner. While the tail is included in the image, the tail and rear fins have not been found.
> 
> Tiktaalik - Conservapedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we expect that the biological scientists at creationwiki are actually grocery store baggers who contribute to "creationwiki"?
> 
> It's just so typical that *the "scientists" representing creationist claims have no education or training in the subject matter they write about.*
> 
> I suppose that when contributing to a fundie creationist website, signing an agreement not to publish material in conflict with creationist propaganda tends to limit the quality of the contributor.
Click to expand...


See what I mean Youwerecreated? I posted a list with 900, count'em 900 PHD scientists the majority of who's fields are in biology and anthropology stating they weren't buying Darwinism. Of course she conveniently ignores that and states the same thing over and over, ad nauseum. This post right here confirms she is just trying to be manipulative and get a rise out of anyone who will engage her. Maybe DAWS and her should get together. Maybe she could go to one of his frat parties.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin this week, people around the world are celebrating his role as the father of evolutionary theory. Events and press releases are geared, in part, to combat false claims made by some who would discredit the theory.
> 
> One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.
> 
> As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.
> 
> 
> 
> These animals sound wild, but the fossil record &#8212; which is far from complete &#8212; is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero discussed those fossils last month at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, along with transitional fossils that were announced since the book was published, including the "fishibian" and the "frogamander."
> 
> At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving.
> 
> Here is a short list of transitional fossils documented by Prothero and that add to the mountain of evidence for Charles Darwin's theory. A lot of us relate most to fossils of life closely related to humans, so the list focuses on mammals and other vertebrates, including dinosaurs.
> 
> Mammals, including us
> 
> &#8226;It is now clear that the evolutionary tree for early and modern humans looks more like a bush than the line represented in cartoons. All the hominid fossils found to date form a complex nexus of specimens, Prothero says, but Sahelanthropus tchadensis, found in 2001 and 2002, threw everyone for a loop because it walked upright 7 million years ago on two feet but is quite chimp-like in its skull size, teeth, brow ridges and face. It could be a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, but many paleoanthropologists will remain unsure until more fossils are found. Previously, the earliest ancestor of our Homo genus found in the fossil record dated back 6 million years.
> &#8226;-Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology's New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length.
> &#8226;Manatees, also called sea cows, are marine mammals that have flippers and a down-turned snout for grazing in warm shallow waters. In 2001, scientists discovered the fossil of a "walking manatee," Pezosiren portelli, which had feet rather than flippers and walked on land during the Eocene epoch (54.8 million years ago to 33.7 million years ago) in what is now Jamaica. Along with skull features like manatees (such as horizontal tooth replacement, like a conveyor belt), it also had heavy ribs for ballast, showing that it also had an aquatic lifestyle, like hippos.
> &#8226;Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago). The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene of Egypt. It looked more like a small hippo than an elephant and probably lacked a long trunk, but it had short upper and lower tusks, the teeth of a primitive mastodon and ear features found only in other proboscideans.
> &#8226;The Dimetrodon was a big predatory reptile with a tail and a large sail or fin-back. It is often mistaken for a dinosaur, but it's actually part of our mammalian lineage and more closely related to mammals than reptiles, which is seen in its specialized teeth for stabbing meat and skull features that only mammals and their ancestors had. It probably moved around like a lizard and had a jawbone made of multiple bones, like a reptile.
> Dinosaurs and birds
> 
> &#8226;The classic fossil of Archaeopteryx, sometimes called the first bird, has a wishbone (fully fused clavicle) which is only found in modern birds and some dinosaurs. But it also shows impressions from feathers on its body, as seen on many of the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved. Its body, capable of flight or gliding, also had many of dinosaur features &#8212; teeth (no birds alive today have teeth), a long bony tail (tails on modern birds are entirely feathers, not bony), long hind legs and toes, and a specialized hand with long bony fingers (unlike modern bird wings in which the fingers are fused into a single element), Prothero said.
> &#8226;Sinornis was a bird that also has long bony fingers and teeth, like those seen in dinosaurs and not seen in modern birds.
> &#8226;Yinlong is a small bipedal dinosaur which shares features with two groups of dinosaurs known to many kids &#8212; ceratopsians, the beaked dinosaurs like Triceratops, and pachycephalosaurs, known for having a thick dome of bone in their skulls protecting their brains. Yinlong has the thick rostral bone that is otherwise unique to ceratopsians dinosaurs, and the thick skull roof found in the pachycephalosaurs.
> &#8226;Anchisaurus is a primitive sauropod dinosaur that has a lot of lizard-like features. It was only 8 feet long (the classic sauropods later on could be more than 100-feet long), had a short neck (sauropods are known for their long necks, while lizards are not), and delicate limbs and feet, unlike dinosaurs. Its spine was like that of a sauropod. The early sauropods were bipedal, while the latter were stood on all fours. Anchisaurus was probably capable of both stances, Prothero wrote.
> Fish, frogs, turtles
> 
> &#8226;Tiktaalik, aka the fishibian or the fishapod, is a large scaled fish that shows a perfect transition between fins and feet, aquatic and land animals. It had fish-like scales, as well as fish-like fin rays and jaw and mouth elements, but it had a shortened skull roof and mobile neck to catch prey, an ear that could hear in both land and water, and a wrist joint that is like those seen in land animals.
> &#8226;Last year, scientists announced the discovery of Gerobatrachus hottorni, aka the frogamander. Technically, it's a toothed amphibian, but it shows the common origins of frogs and salamanders, scientists say, with a wide skull and large ear drum (like frogs) and two fused ankle bones as seen in salamanders.
> &#8226;A creature on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China's coastal waters 200 million years ago. It had a belly shell but its back was basically bare of armor. Odontochelys had an elongated, pointed snout. Most modern turtles have short snouts. In addition, the roof of its mouth, along with the upper and lower jaws, was equipped with teeth, which the researchers said is a primitive feature for turtles whose mugs are now tipped with beaks but contain no teeth.
> 
> 
> Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory | LiveScience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are predictable Daws.
> 
> Characteristics
> 
> The specimen found consisted of a skull and several bone fragments, namely, the shoulder, wrist, and fin, among others. According to evolutionists, the Tiktaalik was an intermediate form between sea and land animals. This conclusion was reached because of Tiktaalik's similarities to both fish and tetrapods. For instance, it is assumed to have had the scales and gills of a fish and yet also to have had tetrapod limbs and lungs, as well as a mobile neck. Its alleged half-fish and half-tetrapod characteristics included limb bones and joints which resembled those of a tetrapod but had fins rather than toes on the "feet".
> 
> For all these features, however, it is clear that Tiktaalik was simply a fish; its lobed fins appear better suited for swimming in water rather than crawling on land, and other fish, such as the Coelacanth, were also thought to be "missing links" until they were discovered to be some form of fish. It has been placed by evolutionists alongside Archaeopteryx, but they fail to see that neither animal was a transitional form; archaeopteryx was a full bird, tiktaalik was a full fish
> 
> Tiktaalik - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> 
> Reconstruction of Tiktaalik
> 
> The above image is from the National Science Foundation, a U.S. Government agency to fund science. While reconstructions such as this one appear to show what the species in question really looked like, the true appearance of Tiktaalik is unknown. For example, the difference in appearance between the head and the "shoudler" area is speculative. So is the implication in the image that Tiktaalik walked on land. It is just as likely that it used its robust fins to "walk" on the sea floor, helping it to catch prey in an alligator-like manner. While the tail is included in the image, the tail and rear fins have not been found.
> 
> Tiktaalik - Conservapedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we expect that the biological scientists at creationwiki are actually grocery store baggers who contribute to "creationwiki"?
> 
> It's just so typical that the "scientists" representing creationist claims have no education or training in the subject matter they write about.
> 
> I suppose that when contributing to a fundie creationist website, signing an agreement not to publish material in conflict with creationist propaganda tends to limit the quality of the contributor.
Click to expand...









Jonathan Sarfati









Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati (b. October 1, 1964

) is a renowned creationist, physical chemist, spectroscopist, and chess master. He is most famous for taking an uncompromising stance on the origins of the universe, the earth, and life, and defending Scripture in a straightforward manner against any attempt to "reconcile" it with "scientific data" that contradict it.

Life and career 

Jonathan Sarfati was born in Ararat, Australia in 1964. He moved to New Zealand as a child and received his early education there.[1] He graduated from Victoria University of Wellington with a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted, and a Ph.D. in Chemistry, based on his thesis: A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules. He has also had papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals including co-authoring in the journal Nature on high-temperature superconductors in 1987, when he was 22 [2].

Degrees 
B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry (with condensed matter and nuclear physics papers substituted)
 Ph.D. in Spectroscopy (Chemistry) 

What are your credentials ?


----------



## UltimateReality

So here I am sitting in my office because my wife is entertaining her women's group at our house tonight and I have my dog with me because he is harassing them. I just tried to tell him to go get his bone in the corner. Then I pointed and said, "Go get your bone". Unfortunately, instead of looking where I am pointing, he just keeps hopelessly looking at my finger. Then the epiphany came to me that DAWS and Holly are alot like my puppy. They just can't seem to look where I am pointing, and only keep focusing on my finger.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are predictable Daws.
> 
> Characteristics
> 
> The specimen found consisted of a skull and several bone fragments, namely, the shoulder, wrist, and fin, among others. According to evolutionists, the Tiktaalik was an intermediate form between sea and land animals. This conclusion was reached because of Tiktaalik's similarities to both fish and tetrapods. For instance, it is assumed to have had the scales and gills of a fish and yet also to have had tetrapod limbs and lungs, as well as a mobile neck. Its alleged half-fish and half-tetrapod characteristics included limb bones and joints which resembled those of a tetrapod but had fins rather than toes on the "feet".
> 
> For all these features, however, it is clear that Tiktaalik was simply a fish; its lobed fins appear better suited for swimming in water rather than crawling on land, and other fish, such as the Coelacanth, were also thought to be "missing links" until they were discovered to be some form of fish. It has been placed by evolutionists alongside Archaeopteryx, but they fail to see that neither animal was a transitional form; archaeopteryx was a full bird, tiktaalik was a full fish
> 
> Tiktaalik - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> 
> Reconstruction of Tiktaalik
> 
> The above image is from the National Science Foundation, a U.S. Government agency to fund science. While reconstructions such as this one appear to show what the species in question really looked like, the true appearance of Tiktaalik is unknown. For example, the difference in appearance between the head and the "shoudler" area is speculative. So is the implication in the image that Tiktaalik walked on land. It is just as likely that it used its robust fins to "walk" on the sea floor, helping it to catch prey in an alligator-like manner. While the tail is included in the image, the tail and rear fins have not been found.
> 
> Tiktaalik - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we expect that the biological scientists at creationwiki are actually grocery store baggers who contribute to "creationwiki"?
> 
> It's just so typical that *the "scientists" representing creationist claims have no education or training in the subject matter they write about.*
> 
> I suppose that when contributing to a fundie creationist website, signing an agreement not to publish material in conflict with creationist propaganda tends to limit the quality of the contributor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See what I mean Youwerecreated? I posted a list with 900, count'em 900 PHD scientists the majority of who's fields are in biology and anthropology stating they weren't buying Darwinism. Of course she conveniently ignores that and states the same thing over and over, ad nauseum. This post right here confirms she is just trying to be manipulative and get a rise out of anyone who will engage her. Maybe DAWS and her should get together. Maybe she could go to one of his frat parties.
Click to expand...


She is arguing over the guy responsible for the article having degrees in Chemistry and Physics.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> So here I am sitting in my office because my wife is entertaining her women's group at our house tonight and I have my dog with me because he is harassing them. I just tried to tell him to go get his bone in the corner. Then I pointed and said, "Go get your bone". Unfortunately, instead of looking where I am pointing, he just keeps hopelessly looking at my finger. Then the epiphany came to me that DAWS and Holly are alot like my puppy. They just can't seem to look where I am pointing, and only keep focusing on my finger.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> With the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin this week, people around the world are celebrating his role as the father of evolutionary theory. Events and press releases are geared, in part, to combat false claims made by some who would discredit the theory.
> 
> One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.
> 
> As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.
> 
> 
> 
> These animals sound wild, but the fossil record  which is far from complete  is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero discussed those fossils last month at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, along with transitional fossils that were announced since the book was published, including the "fishibian" and the "frogamander."
> 
> At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving.
> 
> Here is a short list of transitional fossils documented by Prothero and that add to the mountain of evidence for Charles Darwin's theory. A lot of us relate most to fossils of life closely related to humans, so the list focuses on mammals and other vertebrates, including dinosaurs.
> 
> Mammals, including us
> 
> It is now clear that the evolutionary tree for early and modern humans looks more like a bush than the line represented in cartoons. All the hominid fossils found to date form a complex nexus of specimens, Prothero says, but Sahelanthropus tchadensis, found in 2001 and 2002, threw everyone for a loop because it walked upright 7 million years ago on two feet but is quite chimp-like in its skull size, teeth, brow ridges and face. It could be a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, but many paleoanthropologists will remain unsure until more fossils are found. Previously, the earliest ancestor of our Homo genus found in the fossil record dated back 6 million years.
> -Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology's New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length.
> Manatees, also called sea cows, are marine mammals that have flippers and a down-turned snout for grazing in warm shallow waters. In 2001, scientists discovered the fossil of a "walking manatee," Pezosiren portelli, which had feet rather than flippers and walked on land during the Eocene epoch (54.8 million years ago to 33.7 million years ago) in what is now Jamaica. Along with skull features like manatees (such as horizontal tooth replacement, like a conveyor belt), it also had heavy ribs for ballast, showing that it also had an aquatic lifestyle, like hippos.
> Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago). The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene of Egypt. It looked more like a small hippo than an elephant and probably lacked a long trunk, but it had short upper and lower tusks, the teeth of a primitive mastodon and ear features found only in other proboscideans.
> The Dimetrodon was a big predatory reptile with a tail and a large sail or fin-back. It is often mistaken for a dinosaur, but it's actually part of our mammalian lineage and more closely related to mammals than reptiles, which is seen in its specialized teeth for stabbing meat and skull features that only mammals and their ancestors had. It probably moved around like a lizard and had a jawbone made of multiple bones, like a reptile.
> Dinosaurs and birds
> 
> The classic fossil of Archaeopteryx, sometimes called the first bird, has a wishbone (fully fused clavicle) which is only found in modern birds and some dinosaurs. But it also shows impressions from feathers on its body, as seen on many of the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved. Its body, capable of flight or gliding, also had many of dinosaur features  teeth (no birds alive today have teeth), a long bony tail (tails on modern birds are entirely feathers, not bony), long hind legs and toes, and a specialized hand with long bony fingers (unlike modern bird wings in which the fingers are fused into a single element), Prothero said.
> Sinornis was a bird that also has long bony fingers and teeth, like those seen in dinosaurs and not seen in modern birds.
> Yinlong is a small bipedal dinosaur which shares features with two groups of dinosaurs known to many kids  ceratopsians, the beaked dinosaurs like Triceratops, and pachycephalosaurs, known for having a thick dome of bone in their skulls protecting their brains. Yinlong has the thick rostral bone that is otherwise unique to ceratopsians dinosaurs, and the thick skull roof found in the pachycephalosaurs.
> Anchisaurus is a primitive sauropod dinosaur that has a lot of lizard-like features. It was only 8 feet long (the classic sauropods later on could be more than 100-feet long), had a short neck (sauropods are known for their long necks, while lizards are not), and delicate limbs and feet, unlike dinosaurs. Its spine was like that of a sauropod. The early sauropods were bipedal, while the latter were stood on all fours. Anchisaurus was probably capable of both stances, Prothero wrote.
> Fish, frogs, turtles
> 
> Tiktaalik, aka the fishibian or the fishapod, is a large scaled fish that shows a perfect transition between fins and feet, aquatic and land animals. It had fish-like scales, as well as fish-like fin rays and jaw and mouth elements, but it had a shortened skull roof and mobile neck to catch prey, an ear that could hear in both land and water, and a wrist joint that is like those seen in land animals.
> Last year, scientists announced the discovery of Gerobatrachus hottorni, aka the frogamander. Technically, it's a toothed amphibian, but it shows the common origins of frogs and salamanders, scientists say, with a wide skull and large ear drum (like frogs) and two fused ankle bones as seen in salamanders.
> A creature on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China's coastal waters 200 million years ago. It had a belly shell but its back was basically bare of armor. Odontochelys had an elongated, pointed snout. Most modern turtles have short snouts. In addition, the roof of its mouth, along with the upper and lower jaws, was equipped with teeth, which the researchers said is a primitive feature for turtles whose mugs are now tipped with beaks but contain no teeth.
> 
> 
> Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory | LiveScience



For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Asian origin of distant human ancestors? | Uncommon Descent

Re the horse series in current Korean &#8220;past-sell-by-date&#8221; Darwin textbooks &#8230; | Uncommon Descent

Darwin's God: Of Turtles and the Closing of the Evolutionary Mind

If turtles are closer to birds than to lizards and snakes, genetically, then &#8230; | Uncommon Descent


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we expect that the biological scientists at creationwiki are actually grocery store baggers who contribute to "creationwiki"?
> 
> It's just so typical that *the "scientists" representing creationist claims have no education or training in the subject matter they write about.*
> 
> I suppose that when contributing to a fundie creationist website, signing an agreement not to publish material in conflict with creationist propaganda tends to limit the quality of the contributor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean Youwerecreated? I posted a list with 900, count'em 900 PHD scientists the majority of who's fields are in biology and anthropology stating they weren't buying Darwinism. Of course she conveniently ignores that and states the same thing over and over, ad nauseum. This post right here confirms she is just trying to be manipulative and get a rise out of anyone who will engage her. Maybe DAWS and her should get together. Maybe she could go to one of his frat parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is arguing over the guy responsible for the article having degrees in Chemistry and Physics.
Click to expand...


I think we should start a campaign to disqualify Darwin since he came up with a theory that was outside his field.


----------



## UltimateReality

Can EVO FUNDIES really ignore this type of SCIENTIFIC DATA???

"But if we fast-forward two more decades, it becomes clear that the consistent picture that everyone expected -- all genes confirming the same pattern of species relationships -- is not to be. What we have instead is something of a mess, as James Degnan and Noah Rosenberg made clear in a paper published in 20093:

    Many of the first studies to examine the conflicting signal of different genes have found considerable discordance across gene trees: studies of hominids, pines, cichlids, finches, grasshoppers and fruit flies have all detected genealogical discordance so widespread that no single tree topology predominates.

And despite consistent attempts to portray this as something less than a crisis for evolutionary theory, the news found its way into the popular press. That same year, The Telegraph jumped on the story with an article titled, *"Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading,' claim scientists"*4."

"Indeed, it becomes so easy to construct *utterly fictitious evolutionary histories* when we drop the expectation of consistency that such a move ought to be viewed as undermining the whole exercise of *phylogenetic reconstruction.* Whisky, kerosene and milk have no common pedigree, but that wouldn't stop us from concocting one if we were to lower the standard in that way. The only prospect of elevating tree-building to something more than a game, then, is that it might uncover a strikingly consistent pattern of relationship between species. And the sobering truth is -- it doesn't."

Theory Creep: The Quiet Shift in Evolutionary Thought - Evolution News & Views


----------



## UltimateReality

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/science_and_hum_2061191.html

Douglas Axe concurs. In Chapter 2 of the book, he writes,

    So, if this humanity thing is on a level of its own, how reasonable do you suppose it is to chalk it up to *Darwin's little engine*? It's one thing to say that chimps and humans are similar enough that their likeness calls for careful explanation (few would argue with that), but as we've now seen it's quite another to say that they are similar enough for *Darwin's engine to have traversed the gap between them.* To insist on that is to ignore the evidence. A comparison of the complete human and chimp genomes has identified twenty distinct gene families, each with multiple genes, that are present in humans but absent from chimps and other mammals. That's a huge gap when you compare it to the single in-family gene transition that we examined.

Wow!! We really have come full circle!!! Instead of the God of the gaps, we now have the *Darwin of the gaps*!!!!


----------



## Hollie

My goodness but thegodsdiditist is on quite a cut and paste tear. 
Im afraid that cutting and pasting the entirety of fundie creationist websites (material you dont understand and material umm created by the Christianity addled folks at the ICR and other hack organizations is not going to help. The gargantuan text  now theres a stroke of genius. Do you realize that you present yourself as a stereotypical screaming, bible thumping, hair-on-fire zealot?

You see, ultimately, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own well creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and quote mining Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies. Its a common tactic of fundies to dump entire pages of cut and pasted nonsense and then walk away without any ability to defend their cutting and pasting.

Its just a pathetic thing to see such that the Christian creationist / ID / young earth industry churning out false claims and lies is represented by such charlatans and the cut and paste crowd.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So here I am sitting in my office because my wife is entertaining her women's group at our house tonight and I have my dog with me because he is harassing them. I just tried to tell him to go get his bone in the corner. Then I pointed and said, "Go get your bone". Unfortunately, instead of looking where I am pointing, he just keeps hopelessly looking at my finger. Then the epiphany came to me that DAWS and Holly are alot like my puppy. They just can't seem to look where I am pointing, and only keep focusing on my finger.
Click to expand...


Childish insults as a way to cover your tracks for not presenting a defendable argument. 

How sad.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean Youwerecreated? I posted a list with 900, count'em 900 PHD scientists the majority of who's fields are in biology and anthropology stating they weren't buying Darwinism. Of course she conveniently ignores that and states the same thing over and over, ad nauseum. This post right here confirms she is just trying to be manipulative and get a rise out of anyone who will engage her. Maybe DAWS and her should get together. Maybe she could go to one of his frat parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is arguing over the guy responsible for the article having degrees in Chemistry and Physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we should start a campaign to disqualify Darwin since he came up with a theory that was outside his field.
Click to expand...


I agree, however Darwin was atleast honest in what he thought he observed and gave reasons that would make his theory invalid.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Can EVO FUNDIES really ignore this type of SCIENTIFIC DATA???
> 
> "But if we fast-forward two more decades, it becomes clear that the consistent picture that everyone expected -- all genes confirming the same pattern of species relationships -- is not to be. What we have instead is something of a mess, as James Degnan and Noah Rosenberg made clear in a paper published in 20093:
> 
> Many of the first studies to examine the conflicting signal of different genes have found considerable discordance across gene trees: studies of hominids, pines, cichlids, finches, grasshoppers and fruit flies have all detected genealogical discordance so widespread that no single tree topology predominates.
> 
> And despite consistent attempts to portray this as something less than a crisis for evolutionary theory, the news found its way into the popular press. That same year, The Telegraph jumped on the story with an article titled, *"Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading,' claim scientists"*4."
> 
> "Indeed, it becomes so easy to construct *utterly fictitious evolutionary histories* when we drop the expectation of consistency that such a move ought to be viewed as undermining the whole exercise of *phylogenetic reconstruction.* Whisky, kerosene and milk have no common pedigree, but that wouldn't stop us from concocting one if we were to lower the standard in that way. The only prospect of elevating tree-building to something more than a game, then, is that it might uncover a strikingly consistent pattern of relationship between species. And the sobering truth is -- it doesn't."
> 
> Theory Creep: The Quiet Shift in Evolutionary Thought - Evolution News & Views



Genetics have never been a friend to the evolutionist they have just moved the goal posts on what mendel showed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> My goodness but thegodsdiditist is on quite a cut and paste tear.
> Im afraid that cutting and pasting the entirety of fundie creationist websites (material you dont understand and material umm created by the Christianity addled folks at the ICR and other hack organizations is not going to help. The gargantuan text  now theres a stroke of genius. Do you realize that you present yourself as a stereotypical screaming, bible thumping, hair-on-fire zealot?
> 
> You see, ultimately, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own well creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and quote mining Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies. Its a common tactic of fundies to dump entire pages of cut and pasted nonsense and then walk away without any ability to defend their cutting and pasting.
> 
> Its just a pathetic thing to see such that the Christian creationist / ID / young earth industry churning out false claims and lies is represented by such charlatans and the cut and paste crowd.



You don't stray to far from your rhetoric do you ?


----------



## catzmeow

Youwerecreated said:


> You don't stray to far from your rhetoric do you ?



Ironic post is ironic.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So here I am sitting in my office because my wife is entertaining her women's group at our house tonight and I have my dog with me because he is harassing them. I just tried to tell him to go get his bone in the corner. Then I pointed and said, "Go get your bone". Unfortunately, instead of looking where I am pointing, he just keeps hopelessly looking at my finger. Then the epiphany came to me that DAWS and Holly are alot like my puppy. They just can't seem to look where I am pointing, and only keep focusing on my finger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Childish insults as a way to cover your tracks for not presenting a defendable argument.
> 
> How sad.
Click to expand...


I have not seen you take on any of my questions to you what are you talking about?


----------



## Youwerecreated

catzmeow said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't stray to far from your rhetoric do you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic post is ironic.
Click to expand...


Are you paying attention or just doing a hit and run.

Our questions go ignored while we answer questions put to us. There is no irony coming from me. I am trying to get her humming bird butt to cover her alligator mouth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

catzmeow said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't stray to far from your rhetoric do you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic post is ironic.
Click to expand...


Do you want a list of everything science I have discussed in this and other threads.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is arguing over the guy responsible for the article having degrees in Chemistry and Physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should start a campaign to disqualify Darwin since he came up with a theory that was outside his field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, however Darwin was atleast honest in what he thought he observed and gave reasons that would make his theory invalid.
Click to expand...


... and, all those scientists are wrong. You employ another logical fallacy: appeal to authority. it doesn't matter if every scientist on the planet eventually disagreed with evolution. If evolution still has empirical validity and can be demonstrated in repeatable fashion, then it still stands. There is one truth. Either a god exists or it doesn't.  You two don't want to look at the evidence, because you can't swallow any worldview that doesn't include god, even though evolution and god are not mutually exclusive, unless your a fundie, in which case, you're simply regurgitating something that was indoctrinated into when you were little and haven't applied rational thought to your own beliefs. Instead, you continually point your finger at the outside world, instead of inward.


----------



## catzmeow

Youwerecreated said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't stray to far from your rhetoric do you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic post is ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want a list of everything science I have discussed in this and other threads.
Click to expand...


No, you're clearly right.  The earth is 10,000 years old, man walked with the dinosaurs, and evolution is a satanic myth right from the pits of hell.



I figured out when you first appeared on this board that you weren't capable of anything but regurgitation of sources whose limitations you don't even understand.  So, i treat you in the same way I do the crazy religious dude screaming on the street corner.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should start a campaign to disqualify Darwin since he came up with a theory that was outside his field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, however Darwin was atleast honest in what he thought he observed and gave reasons that would make his theory invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... and, all those scientists are wrong. You employ another logical fallacy: appeal to authority. it doesn't matter if every scientist on the planet eventually disagreed with evolution. If evolution still has empirical validity and can be demonstrated in repeatable fashion, then it still stands. There is one truth. Either a god exists or it doesn't.  You two don't want to look at the evidence, because you can't swallow any worldview that doesn't include god, even though evolution and god are not mutually exclusive, unless your a fundie, in which case, you're simply regurgitating something that was indoctrinated into when you were little and haven't applied rational thought to your own beliefs. Instead, you continually point your finger at the outside world, instead of inward.
Click to expand...


Many of their assumptions and conclusions are clearly wrong yes.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, however Darwin was atleast honest in what he thought he observed and gave reasons that would make his theory invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and, all those scientists are wrong. You employ another logical fallacy: appeal to authority. it doesn't matter if every scientist on the planet eventually disagreed with evolution. If evolution still has empirical validity and can be demonstrated in repeatable fashion, then it still stands. There is one truth. Either a god exists or it doesn't.  You two don't want to look at the evidence, because you can't swallow any worldview that doesn't include god, even though evolution and god are not mutually exclusive, unless your a fundie, in which case, you're simply regurgitating something that was indoctrinated into when you were little and haven't applied rational thought to your own beliefs. Instead, you continually point your finger at the outside world, instead of inward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of their assumptions and conclusions are clearly wrong yes.
Click to expand...


Yes, the scientists who disagree with evolution are clearly wrong. I'm glad we can agree. I was responding you a post you made about 900 scientists who disagree with evolution, and where you tried to use that as evidence that evolution is false. That is not evidence. That is an appeal to authority. The presence of those 900 does not invalidate evolution. It simply represents an opinion held by some and has no bearing on the truth of our universe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

catzmeow said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic post is ironic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want a list of everything science I have discussed in this and other threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're clearly right.  The earth is 10,000 years old, man walked with the dinosaurs, and evolution is a satanic myth right from the pits of hell.
> 
> 
> 
> I figured out when you first appeared on this board that you weren't capable of anything but regurgitation of sources whose limitations you don't even understand.  So, i treat you in the same way I do the crazy religious dude screaming on the street corner.
Click to expand...


Really,then maybe you will step up and answer these questions.

1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?

2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?

3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but it is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?

4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?

5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all of them after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?

These are questions I asked and they go ignored why ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and, all those scientists are wrong. You employ another logical fallacy: appeal to authority. it doesn't matter if every scientist on the planet eventually disagreed with evolution. If evolution still has empirical validity and can be demonstrated in repeatable fashion, then it still stands. There is one truth. Either a god exists or it doesn't.  You two don't want to look at the evidence, because you can't swallow any worldview that doesn't include god, even though evolution and god are not mutually exclusive, unless your a fundie, in which case, you're simply regurgitating something that was indoctrinated into when you were little and haven't applied rational thought to your own beliefs. Instead, you continually point your finger at the outside world, instead of inward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of their assumptions and conclusions are clearly wrong yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the scientists who disagree with evolution are clearly wrong. I'm glad we can agree. I was responding you a post you made about 900 scientists who disagree with evolution, and where you tried to use that as evidence that evolution is false. That is not evidence. That is an appeal to authority. The presence of those 900 does not invalidate evolution. It simply represents an opinion held by some and has no bearing on the truth of our universe.
Click to expand...


That was weak NP.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness but thegodsdiditist is on quite a cut and paste tear.
> Im afraid that cutting and pasting the entirety of fundie creationist websites (material you dont understand and material umm created by the Christianity addled folks at the ICR and other hack organizations is not going to help. The gargantuan text  now theres a stroke of genius. Do you realize that you present yourself as a stereotypical screaming, bible thumping, hair-on-fire zealot?
> 
> You see, ultimately, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own well creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and quote mining Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies. Its a common tactic of fundies to dump entire pages of cut and pasted nonsense and then walk away without any ability to defend their cutting and pasting.
> 
> Its just a pathetic thing to see such that the Christian creationist / ID / young earth industry churning out false claims and lies is represented by such charlatans and the cut and paste crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't stray to far from your rhetoric do you ?
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised you offered spam as opposed to actually responding to the salient points. Your only contribution toward supporting creationist falsehoods is to cut and paste from websites which promote falsehoods to those gullible enough to accept it.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of their assumptions and conclusions are clearly wrong yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the scientists who disagree with evolution are clearly wrong. I'm glad we can agree. I was responding you a post you made about 900 scientists who disagree with evolution, and where you tried to use that as evidence that evolution is false. That is not evidence. That is an appeal to authority. The presence of those 900 does not invalidate evolution. It simply represents an opinion held by some and has no bearing on the truth of our universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was weak NP.
Click to expand...

No. It wasn't. Like your creationist cohort, you're really not well equipped to respond without the ability to cut and paste from creationist websites.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of their assumptions and conclusions are clearly wrong yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the scientists who disagree with evolution are clearly wrong. I'm glad we can agree. I was responding you a post you made about 900 scientists who disagree with evolution, and where you tried to use that as evidence that evolution is false. That is not evidence. That is an appeal to authority. The presence of those 900 does not invalidate evolution. It simply represents an opinion held by some and has no bearing on the truth of our universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was weak NP.
Click to expand...


Okay. Do you actually have a response, or was that it? Because, that was weak.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> My goodness but thegodsdiditist is on quite a cut and paste tear.
> Im afraid that cutting and pasting the entirety of fundie creationist websites (material you dont understand and material umm created by the Christianity addled folks at the ICR and other hack organizations is not going to help. The gargantuan text  now theres a stroke of genius. Do you realize that you present yourself as a stereotypical screaming, bible thumping, hair-on-fire zealot?
> 
> You see, ultimately, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own well creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and quote mining Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies. Its a common tactic of fundies to dump entire pages of cut and pasted nonsense and then walk away without any ability to defend their cutting and pasting.
> 
> Its just a pathetic thing to see such that the Christian creationist / ID / young earth industry churning out false claims and lies is represented by such charlatans and the cut and paste crowd.



I think big fonts and I cannot lie..


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So here I am sitting in my office because my wife is entertaining her women's group at our house tonight and I have my dog with me because he is harassing them. I just tried to tell him to go get his bone in the corner. Then I pointed and said, "Go get your bone". Unfortunately, instead of looking where I am pointing, he just keeps hopelessly looking at my finger. Then the epiphany came to me that DAWS and Holly are alot like my puppy. They just can't seem to look where I am pointing, and only keep focusing on my finger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Childish insults as a way to cover your tracks for not presenting a defendable argument.
> 
> How sad.
Click to expand...


You know, since you've abandoned the religion of your youth, the right thing to do would be to give all your *Christ*mas presents back.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should start a campaign to disqualify Darwin since he came up with a theory that was outside his field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, however Darwin was atleast honest in what he thought he observed and gave reasons that would make his theory invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... and, all those scientists are wrong. You employ another logical fallacy: appeal to authority. it doesn't matter if every scientist on the planet eventually disagreed with evolution. If evolution still has empirical validity and can be demonstrated in repeatable fashion, then it still stands. There is one truth. Either a god exists or it doesn't.  You two don't want to look at the evidence, because you can't swallow any worldview that doesn't include god, even though evolution and god are not mutually exclusive, unless your a fundie, in which case, you're simply regurgitating something that was indoctrinated into when you were little and haven't applied rational thought to your own beliefs. Instead, you continually point your finger at the outside world, instead of inward.
Click to expand...


Wow, you too have succumb to Holly Jolly's Black and White disease and have once again mixed science with religion. Whether or not God exists is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one. Your religious belief that He does not exists drives your need to validate the TOE at all costs, even when it is crumbling before your very eyes. There is a third option you have not considered, since you are blinded by your Materialist world view (I didn't say religion because to want to get Jolly Holly in a wad), is to realize that the TOE is hopelessly flawed, and start to actually do some REAL SCIENCE, not speculative musings, and look for a different mechanism that could have resulted in the complex biological features we see in nature. It is this all or nothing way of thinking, that clouds the thinking of the Materialist scientist among us and keeps biology in the dark ages. Stop worrying that if you give up on Darwin it has religious implications and start doing some REAL SCIENCE. There are not just two options in this debate.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Childish insults as a way to cover your tracks for not presenting a defendable argument.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, since you've abandoned the religion of your youth, the right thing to do would be to give all your *Christ*mas presents back.
Click to expand...


That was pointless. If your intention is to spam the thread and make no effort to address posts directed at your comments you should avoid participating.


----------



## UltimateReality

catzmeow said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't stray to far from your rhetoric do you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic post is ironic.
Click to expand...


If you had followed this thread, you would note that while YWC is driven by his belief in Creation, he can actually process information and respond to opposing viewpoints. Holleee just keeps posting the same thing over and over (she isn't the first and she won't be the last to stop by and dump the rehearsed anti-Christian canned attacks and arguments), which is totally irrelevant to the discussions at hand.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> unless your a fundie



Really? Now you're stealing Hollie's material? You are a sad, little man.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't stray to far from your rhetoric do you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic post is ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had followed this thread, you would note that while YWC is driven by his belief in Creation, he can actually process information and respond to opposing viewpoints. Holleee just keeps posting the same thing over and over (she isn't the first and she won't be the last to stop by and dump the rehearsed anti-Christian canned attacks and arguments), which is totally irrelevant to the discussions at hand.
Click to expand...


Your frustration is the result of an inability to defend crestionist claims to the supernatural. It's telling that you earlier objected to "attacks" against creationism and later, "attacks" against ID which you hoped to separate from both Christianity and creationism. 

The problem you have is that you feel your claims are insulated from criticism or critique. When you post in a public discussion board, its naive to think that your opinions (and creationism / ID is only opinion) won't be subject to scrutiny.


----------



## UltimateReality

catzmeow said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic post is ironic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want a list of everything science I have discussed in this and other threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're clearly right.  The earth is 10,000 years old, man walked with the dinosaurs, and evolution is a satanic myth right from the pits of hell.
> 
> 
> 
> I figured out when you first appeared on this board that you weren't capable of anything but regurgitation of sources whose limitations you don't even understand.  So, i treat you in the same way I do the crazy religious dude screaming on the street corner.
Click to expand...


It is apparent you have entered the conversation really late. You would have noted that YWC and I disagree on several pertinent points, but can show mutual respect for each other. I subscribe to ID Theory, which does not mix religion and science and makes no metaphysical claims. My religious beliefs are, however, Christian, but I do not believe the Creation story in Genesis was ever meant to be taken literally, just like I don't actually think Christ meant for me to gouge out my eye if it causes me to sin, even though most translations would present this as a command that Christ gave. However, religiously speaking, I believe there are important principles that necessarily abide in the Creation story. They are: God created the Universe; the Spirit of God was present during Creation; God exists outside space, matter, time and energy; and Humans are fallen and are born sinful creatures.   

This does not affect my ability to think logically about the science involved. What does continue to aggravate me is the arrogant thinking of Materialists that they aren't also driven by metaphysical beliefs. They cling to Darwinism not because it is good science, but because they mistakenly believe that to admit it is an EPIC FAIL, would mean they would have to alter their Materialist worldview to a Theistic one. This "religious belief" is the prime mover in the force fitting of science to the outcome of Darwinism. The disturbing thing is that, just like Holly, they deny their metaphysical motivations, which leaves them in blindness when attempting to find the truth about origins. "To be ignorant of ones ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." Until the Materialists begin to identify their metaphysical motivations, we will be hopelessly lost in clinging to a theory that is just flat out wrong and is not supported by REAL science.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic post is ironic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had followed this thread, you would note that while YWC is driven by his belief in Creation, he can actually process information and respond to opposing viewpoints. Holleee just keeps posting the same thing over and over (she isn't the first and she won't be the last to stop by and dump the rehearsed anti-Christian canned attacks and arguments), which is totally irrelevant to the discussions at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your frustration is the result of an inability to defend crestionist claims to the supernatural. It's telling that you earlier objected to "attacks" against creationism and later, "attacks" against ID which you hoped to separate from both Christianity and creationism.
> 
> The problem you have is that you feel your claims are insulated from criticism or critique. When you post in a public discussion board, its naive to think that your opinions (and creationism / ID is only opinion) won't be subject to scrutiny.
Click to expand...


Projecting.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Wow, you too have succumb to Holly Jolly's Black and White disease and have once again mixed science with religion. Whether or not God exists is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.
> That is clearly false.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and, all those scientists are wrong. You employ another logical fallacy: appeal to authority. it doesn't matter if every scientist on the planet eventually disagreed with evolution. If evolution still has empirical validity and can be demonstrated in repeatable fashion, then it still stands. There is one truth. Either a god exists or it doesn't.  You two don't want to look at the evidence, because you can't swallow any worldview that doesn't include god, even though evolution and god are not mutually exclusive, unless your a fundie, in which case, you're simply regurgitating something that was indoctrinated into when you were little and haven't applied rational thought to your own beliefs. Instead, you continually point your finger at the outside world, instead of inward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of their assumptions and conclusions are clearly wrong yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the scientists who disagree with evolution are clearly wrong. I'm glad we can agree. I was responding you a post you made about 900 scientists who disagree with evolution, and where you tried to use that as evidence that evolution is false.
Click to expand...


Your reading comprehension is off. I posted that. Your assumption above is incorrect. Therefore, you've wasted several posts trying to tear down the strawman. The reason I posted the list of 900, was not to prove evolution is false. Had you actually take the time to read the post, I was responding to Holly's assumption that ALL "real" scientists believe evolution is a fact, and that the ones who don't are not in the fields of anthropology and biology. The list of 900 Phd'd scientist with doctorates in anthropology and biology, obviously shows that *Hollie's argument is incorrect*. Real sorry you mis-read that and wasted your time.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want a list of everything science I have discussed in this and other threads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're clearly right.  The earth is 10,000 years old, man walked with the dinosaurs, and evolution is a satanic myth right from the pits of hell.
> 
> 
> 
> I figured out when you first appeared on this board that you weren't capable of anything but regurgitation of sources whose limitations you don't even understand.  So, i treat you in the same way I do the crazy religious dude screaming on the street corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really,then maybe you will step up and answer these questions.
> 
> 1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?
> 
> 2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?
> 
> 3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but it is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?
> 
> 4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?
> 
> 5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all of them after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?
> 
> These are questions I asked and they go ignored why ?
Click to expand...


While they are at it, I still want to know where they consider abiogenisis to end and evolution to start? I also want to know what level of complexity the mythical common ancestor is believed to have.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is also why peer-review is absent among the ID / creationism community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another false claim previously proven wrong a few posts back with substantiated info easily verifiable on the internet, one publication of which has been around since 1926, pre-dating the Creationists and ID Theory movements.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You poor thing.
> 
> If you science to offer that would be fine. However, "science" that is culled from creationist websites is not science. I've shown you repeatedly that the sites you link to have a predefined agenda of pressing supernaturalism and do so by falsifying and / or explicitly ignoring data that refuted their religious claims.
> 
> Funding creationist websites are promoting religion, not science. Your need to promote an agenda that is utterly hostile to science has been demonstrated within this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what of Newton, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time? Will you discount his theories because he was a fundie? You ignorance of history is appalling. I should have stopped responding to you when I said I was going to before. You are so blind that it really reminds me of arguing with a drunk when I was a cop. Both are exercises in futility. I will waste no more time with you since you cannot even present, or follow, a logical thought. Have a nice fundamentalist Materialist purposeless existence.
> 
> YWC, I would suggest you don't entertain this any longer as well. Dust off your feet and head to the next town.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah I pretty much did that with DAWS and Hollie is next on the list. The problem is neither one know enough to see the legitimacy of our questions put to them. It seems most of the time only montrovant and konradv are coherent and understand the questions and answers given them.
> 
> They can even be civil most of the time but Hollie and Daws forget it, they have an ax to grind for some reason and they are stuck on taking shots rather then focus on legitimate issues that are presented to them. I think mostly is they don';t have a clue how to respond.
Click to expand...

and you'd be wrong, the only thing you done with me is amuse me.
when you post a legitimate issue I'll answer the best I can, so far all you've done is yammer dogma and misrepresent science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness but thegodsdidit&#8217;ist is on quite a cut and paste tear.
> I&#8217;m afraid that cutting and pasting the entirety of fundie creationist websites (material you don&#8217;t understand and material&#8230; umm &#8220;created&#8221; by the Christianity addled folks at the ICR and other hack organizations is not going to help. The gargantuan text &#8211; now there&#8217;s a stroke of genius. Do you realize that you present yourself as a stereotypical screaming, bible thumping, hair-on-fire zealot?
> 
> You see, ultimately, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own&#8230; well&#8230; creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and &#8220;quote mining&#8221; Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies. It&#8217;s a common tactic of fundies to dump entire pages of cut and pasted nonsense and then walk away without any ability to defend their cutting and pasting.
> 
> It&#8217;s just a pathetic thing to see such that the Christian creationist / ID / young earth industry churning out false claims and lies is represented by such charlatans and the cut and paste crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't stray to far from your rhetoric do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not surprised you offered spam as opposed to actually responding to the salient points. Your only contribution toward supporting creationist falsehoods is to cut and paste from websites which promote falsehoods to those gullible enough to accept it.
Click to expand...


You are a Liar and just to stupid to grasp the questions put to you. These are clear problems for your precious theory that you don't understand yourself and with just a little thought and understanding of the subject anyone can see these problems.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness but thegodsdidit&#8217;ist is on quite a cut and paste tear.
> I&#8217;m afraid that cutting and pasting the entirety of fundie creationist websites (material you don&#8217;t understand and material&#8230; umm &#8220;created&#8221; by the Christianity addled folks at the ICR and other hack organizations is not going to help. The gargantuan text &#8211; now there&#8217;s a stroke of genius. Do you realize that you present yourself as a stereotypical screaming, bible thumping, hair-on-fire zealot?
> 
> You see, ultimately, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own&#8230; well&#8230; creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and &#8220;quote mining&#8221; Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies. It&#8217;s a common tactic of fundies to dump entire pages of cut and pasted nonsense and then walk away without any ability to defend their cutting and pasting.
> 
> It&#8217;s just a pathetic thing to see such that the Christian creationist / ID / young earth industry churning out false claims and lies is represented by such charlatans and the cut and paste crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't stray to far from your rhetoric do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not surprised you offered spam as opposed to actually responding to the salient points. Your only contribution toward supporting creationist falsehoods is to cut and paste from websites which promote falsehoods to those gullible enough to accept it.
Click to expand...


I tire of this accusation. Especially since you never responded to plagiarizing a poster on another forum, after cutting and pasting his comments verbatim, and passing them off as your own.

*For those of you that missed it, here are Hollies "own words" from page 312*:

"As with many fundie creationists, you view the universe as a physical projection of a moral construct, the focus of which is, of course, themselves. "It's all about me." It's a singularly utilitarian form of narcissism in which concessions are grudgingly conceded to obvious human limitations and perfected selves imaged in the form of flawless gods with absolute moral standards to which the fallible must aspire.

When Kurt Vonnegut asked the seemingly seminal question, "What are people for?", he bypassed the significant possibility: People aren't for. However, Kurt's 'Great Commandment' of the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent which I paraphrase, "Take care of the People; let the Gods take care of Themselves" should be rendered in lapidary permanence outside every public building.

My suggestion: Eschew ill-fitting, off-the-rack hand-me-downs. You have equal access to a fancied spirit world and, thus, are entirely qualified to create your own fetching, custom-fitted, designer religion. Otherwise, Vonnegut's contribution to the religion business is well worth considering."

*And here is a post from RuggedTouch's post from December 2010:*

"Thumpers view the universe as a physical projection of a moral construct, the focus of which is, of course, themselves. "It's all about me." It's a singularly utilitarian form of narcissism in which concessions are grudgingly conceded to obvious human limitations and perfected selves imaged in the form of flawless gods with absolute moral standards to which the fallible must aspire.

When Kurt Vonnegut asked the seemingly seminal question, "What are people for?", he bypassed the significant possibility: People aren't for. However, Kurt's 'Great Commandment' of the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent which I paraphrase, "Take care of the People; let the Gods take care of Themselves" should be rendered in lapidary permanence outside every public building.

The thread's query "What religion should I follow and why?" might with equal validity be rendered "Whose religion..." since all religions were the constructs of other humans.

My suggestion: Eschew ill-fitting, off-the-rack hand-me-downs. You have equal access to a fancied spirit world and, thus, are entirely qualified to create your own fetching, custom-fitted, designer religion. Otherwise, Vonnegut's contribution to the religion business is well worth considering."

How can there be freewill? - Page 13

*I think you can pretty much stop with the cut and paste accusation now. In fact, this pretty much negates anything you post as being a thought of your own, liar.*


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the scientists who disagree with evolution are clearly wrong. I'm glad we can agree. I was responding you a post you made about 900 scientists who disagree with evolution, and where you tried to use that as evidence that evolution is false. That is not evidence. That is an appeal to authority. The presence of those 900 does not invalidate evolution. It simply represents an opinion held by some and has no bearing on the truth of our universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was weak NP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It wasn't. Like your creationist cohort, you're really not well equipped to respond without the ability to cut and paste from creationist websites.
Click to expand...


Shut up stupid.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and, all those scientists are wrong. You employ another logical fallacy: appeal to authority. it doesn't matter if every scientist on the planet eventually disagreed with evolution. If evolution still has empirical validity and can be demonstrated in repeatable fashion, then it still stands. There is one truth. Either a god exists or it doesn't.  You two don't want to look at the evidence, because you can't swallow any worldview that doesn't include god, even though evolution and god are not mutually exclusive, unless your a fundie, in which case, you're simply regurgitating something that was indoctrinated into when you were little and haven't applied rational thought to your own beliefs. Instead, you continually point your finger at the outside world, instead of inward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of their assumptions and conclusions are clearly wrong yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the scientists who disagree with evolution are clearly wrong. I'm glad we can agree. I was responding you a post you made about 900 scientists who disagree with evolution, and where you tried to use that as evidence that evolution is false. That is not evidence. That is an appeal to authority. The presence of those 900 does not invalidate evolution. It simply represents an opinion held by some and has no bearing on the truth of our universe.
Click to expand...


By the way, you never responded to my post on Darwin and Meyer's methodology. Any comments??


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the scientists who disagree with evolution are clearly wrong. I'm glad we can agree. I was responding you a post you made about 900 scientists who disagree with evolution, and where you tried to use that as evidence that evolution is false. That is not evidence. That is an appeal to authority. The presence of those 900 does not invalidate evolution. It simply represents an opinion held by some and has no bearing on the truth of our universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was weak NP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay. Do you actually have a response, or was that it? Because, that was weak.
Click to expand...


You only opened up yourself to questions with your pos. Please demonstrate how scientists that disagree with macroevolution are wrong. No one denies change within a family so clearly you are talking about macroevolution.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fusion and transfection are two examples of how DNA can gain information.  If you're the scientist you say you are, you should know that.
> 
> Also, if a gene mutates the information isn't gone.  It still resides in the other copy of the chromosome.  Something you also should know!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ywc is not a scientist neither is ur....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct but worked closely with them I was a lab Tech. Mr. Theatre guy probably havn't done well at that either have you.
> 
> I would be curious what you really do for a living.
Click to expand...

lab tech so you did the grunt work? 

it's a good thing I'm fluent in gibberish or this statement" Mr. Theatre guy probably havn't done well at that either have you."- ywc) would make no sense at all.
you been told what I do for a living ...Lighting/set design ,construction sound design,FX.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Childish insults as a way to cover your tracks for not presenting a defendable argument.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, since you've abandoned the religion of your youth, the right thing to do would be to give all your *Christ*mas presents back.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Childish insults as a way to cover your tracks for not presenting a defendable argument.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, since you've abandoned the religion of your youth, the right thing to do would be to give all your *Christ*mas presents back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was pointless. If your intention is to spam the thread and make no effort to address posts directed at your comments you should avoid participating.
Click to expand...


Projecting.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was weak NP.
> 
> 
> 
> No. It wasn't. Like your creationist cohort, you're really not well equipped to respond without the ability to cut and paste from creationist websites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut up stupid.
Click to expand...

That was your most compelling post to date.


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1981 to 1985
> 
> probably when most of these  ignorant kids were born.
> 
> 
> 
> says the most ignorant person on this thread..
> Only an obsessive asshat woud fuck up a vacation here in california in june at the beach by texting ...your wife must be proud!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i get a little down time and my wife and daughters don't wait for daddy to lead them around by the nose.
Click to expand...

thanks for proving my point!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic post is ironic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had followed this thread, you would note that while YWC is driven by his belief in Creation, he can actually process information and respond to opposing viewpoints. Holleee just keeps posting the same thing over and over (she isn't the first and she won't be the last to stop by and dump the rehearsed anti-Christian canned attacks and arguments), which is totally irrelevant to the discussions at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your frustration is the result of an inability to defend crestionist claims to the supernatural. It's telling that you earlier objected to "attacks" against creationism and later, "attacks" against ID which you hoped to separate from both Christianity and creationism.
> 
> The problem you have is that you feel your claims are insulated from criticism or critique. When you post in a public discussion board, its naive to think that your opinions (and creationism / ID is only opinion) won't be subject to scrutiny.
Click to expand...


Please continue. I want to hear more.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another false claim previously proven wrong a few posts back with substantiated info easily verifiable on the internet, one publication of which has been around since 1926, pre-dating the Creationists and ID Theory movements.
> 
> 
> 
> So what of Newton, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time? Will you discount his theories because he was a fundie? You ignorance of history is appalling. I should have stopped responding to you when I said I was going to before. You are so blind that it really reminds me of arguing with a drunk when I was a cop. Both are exercises in futility. I will waste no more time with you since you cannot even present, or follow, a logical thought. Have a nice fundamentalist Materialist purposeless existence.
> 
> YWC, I would suggest you don't entertain this any longer as well. Dust off your feet and head to the next town.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I pretty much did that with DAWS and Hollie is next on the list. The problem is neither one know enough to see the legitimacy of our questions put to them. It seems most of the time only montrovant and konradv are coherent and understand the questions and answers given them.
> 
> They can even be civil most of the time but Hollie and Daws forget it, they have an ax to grind for some reason and they are stuck on taking shots rather then focus on legitimate issues that are presented to them. I think mostly is they don';t have a clue how to respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you'd be wrong, the only thing you done with me is amuse me.
> when you post a legitimate issue I'll answer the best I can, so far all you've done is yammer dogma and misrepresent science.
Click to expand...


Why don't you take a shot at just my two above. I always hear evolutionists say their theories don't apply to abiogenisis and they always talk about the "common ancestor". How far back is this common ancestor? Since we have so many transitional fossils, can't we trace back and at least get some idea of what it looks like? I have searched the internet but can't find any evolutionist that has answers to these questions, even though they state both principles as facts.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> DAWS, where you been? You missed all the fun with your fundie evolutionist sister Holly over the weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a life....been reading this thread....your asses must be sore from all that kicking...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is right theatre don't pay well when your not good enough so you have no computer and can't get to one until work or school eh.
Click to expand...

WRONG AGAIN  I do very  VERY WELL so well in fact I make my own hours and turn down gigs for lack of time to do them.
never drink while posting asshat!


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're clearly right.  The earth is 10,000 years old, man walked with the dinosaurs, and evolution is a satanic myth right from the pits of hell.
> 
> 
> 
> I figured out when you first appeared on this board that you weren't capable of anything but regurgitation of sources whose limitations you don't even understand.  So, i treat you in the same way I do the crazy religious dude screaming on the street corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really,then maybe you will step up and answer these questions.
> 
> 1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?
> 
> 2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?
> 
> 3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but it is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?
> 
> 4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?
> 
> 5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all of them after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?
> 
> These are questions I asked and they go ignored why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While they are at it, I still want to know where they consider abiogenisis to end and evolution to start? I also want to know what level of complexity the mythical common ancestor is believed to have.
Click to expand...


Me to, but most of them don't realize it  took chemical evolution for it to happen and there to be no designer.

So really it is the same natural process they are clinging to but have no evidence of it ever taking place.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It wasn't. Like your creationist cohort, you're really not well equipped to respond without the ability to cut and paste from creationist websites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was your most compelling post to date.
Click to expand...


I wholeheartedly agree with you for once!!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another false claim previously proven wrong a few posts back with substantiated info easily verifiable on the internet, one publication of which has been around since 1926, pre-dating the Creationists and ID Theory movements.
> 
> 
> 
> So what of Newton, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time? Will you discount his theories because he was a fundie? You ignorance of history is appalling. I should have stopped responding to you when I said I was going to before. You are so blind that it really reminds me of arguing with a drunk when I was a cop. Both are exercises in futility. I will waste no more time with you since you cannot even present, or follow, a logical thought. Have a nice fundamentalist Materialist purposeless existence.
> 
> YWC, I would suggest you don't entertain this any longer as well. Dust off your feet and head to the next town.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I pretty much did that with DAWS and Hollie is next on the list. The problem is neither one know enough to see the legitimacy of our questions put to them. It seems most of the time only montrovant and konradv are coherent and understand the questions and answers given them.
> 
> They can even be civil most of the time but Hollie and Daws forget it, they have an ax to grind for some reason and they are stuck on taking shots rather then focus on legitimate issues that are presented to them. I think mostly is they don';t have a clue how to respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you'd be wrong, the only thing you done with me is amuse me.
> when you post a legitimate issue I'll answer the best I can, so far all you've done is yammer dogma and misrepresent science.
Click to expand...


I already blew you off  don't waste my time quoting me I am about to to do the same thing to your nearest ancestor Hollie.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a life....been reading this thread....your asses must be sore from all that kicking...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is right theatre don't pay well when your not good enough so you have no computer and can't get to one until work or school eh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WRONG AGAIN  I do very  VERY WELL so well in fact I make my own hours and turn down gigs for lack of time to do them.
> never drink while posting asshat!
Click to expand...


Oh no, here we go. Folks in cardboard, umm, I mean, glass houses should not throw stones.


----------



## Youwerecreated

You can't have a civil conversation with them So I chose to get a shot or two into them before I bid them farewell.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin this week, people around the world are celebrating his role as the father of evolutionary theory. Events and press releases are geared, in part, to combat false claims made by some who would discredit the theory.
> 
> One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.
> 
> As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.
> 
> 
> 
> These animals sound wild, but the fossil record  which is far from complete  is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero discussed those fossils last month at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, along with transitional fossils that were announced since the book was published, including the "fishibian" and the "frogamander."
> 
> At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving.
> 
> Here is a short list of transitional fossils documented by Prothero and that add to the mountain of evidence for Charles Darwin's theory. A lot of us relate most to fossils of life closely related to humans, so the list focuses on mammals and other vertebrates, including dinosaurs.
> 
> Mammals, including us
> 
> It is now clear that the evolutionary tree for early and modern humans looks more like a bush than the line represented in cartoons. All the hominid fossils found to date form a complex nexus of specimens, Prothero says, but Sahelanthropus tchadensis, found in 2001 and 2002, threw everyone for a loop because it walked upright 7 million years ago on two feet but is quite chimp-like in its skull size, teeth, brow ridges and face. It could be a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, but many paleoanthropologists will remain unsure until more fossils are found. Previously, the earliest ancestor of our Homo genus found in the fossil record dated back 6 million years.
> -Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology's New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length.
> Manatees, also called sea cows, are marine mammals that have flippers and a down-turned snout for grazing in warm shallow waters. In 2001, scientists discovered the fossil of a "walking manatee," Pezosiren portelli, which had feet rather than flippers and walked on land during the Eocene epoch (54.8 million years ago to 33.7 million years ago) in what is now Jamaica. Along with skull features like manatees (such as horizontal tooth replacement, like a conveyor belt), it also had heavy ribs for ballast, showing that it also had an aquatic lifestyle, like hippos.
> Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago). The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene of Egypt. It looked more like a small hippo than an elephant and probably lacked a long trunk, but it had short upper and lower tusks, the teeth of a primitive mastodon and ear features found only in other proboscideans.
> The Dimetrodon was a big predatory reptile with a tail and a large sail or fin-back. It is often mistaken for a dinosaur, but it's actually part of our mammalian lineage and more closely related to mammals than reptiles, which is seen in its specialized teeth for stabbing meat and skull features that only mammals and their ancestors had. It probably moved around like a lizard and had a jawbone made of multiple bones, like a reptile.
> Dinosaurs and birds
> 
> The classic fossil of Archaeopteryx, sometimes called the first bird, has a wishbone (fully fused clavicle) which is only found in modern birds and some dinosaurs. But it also shows impressions from feathers on its body, as seen on many of the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved. Its body, capable of flight or gliding, also had many of dinosaur features  teeth (no birds alive today have teeth), a long bony tail (tails on modern birds are entirely feathers, not bony), long hind legs and toes, and a specialized hand with long bony fingers (unlike modern bird wings in which the fingers are fused into a single element), Prothero said.
> Sinornis was a bird that also has long bony fingers and teeth, like those seen in dinosaurs and not seen in modern birds.
> Yinlong is a small bipedal dinosaur which shares features with two groups of dinosaurs known to many kids  ceratopsians, the beaked dinosaurs like Triceratops, and pachycephalosaurs, known for having a thick dome of bone in their skulls protecting their brains. Yinlong has the thick rostral bone that is otherwise unique to ceratopsians dinosaurs, and the thick skull roof found in the pachycephalosaurs.
> Anchisaurus is a primitive sauropod dinosaur that has a lot of lizard-like features. It was only 8 feet long (the classic sauropods later on could be more than 100-feet long), had a short neck (sauropods are known for their long necks, while lizards are not), and delicate limbs and feet, unlike dinosaurs. Its spine was like that of a sauropod. The early sauropods were bipedal, while the latter were stood on all fours. Anchisaurus was probably capable of both stances, Prothero wrote.
> Fish, frogs, turtles
> 
> Tiktaalik, aka the fishibian or the fishapod, is a large scaled fish that shows a perfect transition between fins and feet, aquatic and land animals. It had fish-like scales, as well as fish-like fin rays and jaw and mouth elements, but it had a shortened skull roof and mobile neck to catch prey, an ear that could hear in both land and water, and a wrist joint that is like those seen in land animals.
> Last year, scientists announced the discovery of Gerobatrachus hottorni, aka the frogamander. Technically, it's a toothed amphibian, but it shows the common origins of frogs and salamanders, scientists say, with a wide skull and large ear drum (like frogs) and two fused ankle bones as seen in salamanders.
> A creature on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China's coastal waters 200 million years ago. It had a belly shell but its back was basically bare of armor. Odontochelys had an elongated, pointed snout. Most modern turtles have short snouts. In addition, the roof of its mouth, along with the upper and lower jaws, was equipped with teeth, which the researchers said is a primitive feature for turtles whose mugs are now tipped with beaks but contain no teeth.
> 
> 
> Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory | LiveScience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are predictable Daws.
> 
> Characteristics
> 
> The specimen found consisted of a skull and several bone fragments, namely, the shoulder, wrist, and fin, among others. According to evolutionists, the Tiktaalik was an intermediate form between sea and land animals. This conclusion was reached because of Tiktaalik's similarities to both fish and tetrapods. For instance, it is assumed to have had the scales and gills of a fish and yet also to have had tetrapod limbs and lungs, as well as a mobile neck. Its alleged half-fish and half-tetrapod characteristics included limb bones and joints which resembled those of a tetrapod but had fins rather than toes on the "feet".
> 
> For all these features, however, it is clear that Tiktaalik was simply a fish; its lobed fins appear better suited for swimming in water rather than crawling on land, and other fish, such as the Coelacanth, were also thought to be "missing links" until they were discovered to be some form of fish. It has been placed by evolutionists alongside Archaeopteryx, but they fail to see that neither animal was a transitional form; archaeopteryx was a full bird, tiktaalik was a full fish
> 
> Tiktaalik - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> 
> Reconstruction of Tiktaalik
> 
> The above image is from the National Science Foundation, a U.S. Government agency to fund science. While reconstructions such as this one appear to show what the species in question really looked like, the true appearance of Tiktaalik is unknown. For example, the difference in appearance between the head and the "shoudler" area is speculative. So is the implication in the image that Tiktaalik walked on land. It is just as likely that it used its robust fins to "walk" on the sea floor, helping it to catch prey in an alligator-like manner. While the tail is included in the image, the tail and rear fins have not been found.
> 
> Tiktaalik - Conservapedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we expect that the biological scientists at creationwiki are actually grocery store baggers who contribute to "creationwiki"?
> 
> It's just so typical that the "scientists" representing creationist claims have no education or training in the subject matter they write about.
> 
> I suppose that when contributing to a fundie creationist website, signing an agreement not to publish material in conflict with creationist propaganda tends to limit the quality of the contributor.
Click to expand...

it does not matter to ywc that his source material is not credible, 
the contributors (lol!) have yet to produce any evidence at all to counter the actual evidence presented by paleontologists, geologists..etc...he is however very adept at pulling thing out of his ass, tossing them at the wall and seeing what sticks.


----------



## Youwerecreated

No science talk they only Bloviate.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are predictable Daws.
> 
> Characteristics
> 
> The specimen found consisted of a skull and several bone fragments, namely, the shoulder, wrist, and fin, among others. According to evolutionists, the Tiktaalik was an intermediate form between sea and land animals. This conclusion was reached because of Tiktaalik's similarities to both fish and tetrapods. For instance, it is assumed to have had the scales and gills of a fish and yet also to have had tetrapod limbs and lungs, as well as a mobile neck. Its alleged half-fish and half-tetrapod characteristics included limb bones and joints which resembled those of a tetrapod but had fins rather than toes on the "feet".
> 
> For all these features, however, it is clear that Tiktaalik was simply a fish; its lobed fins appear better suited for swimming in water rather than crawling on land, and other fish, such as the Coelacanth, were also thought to be "missing links" until they were discovered to be some form of fish. It has been placed by evolutionists alongside Archaeopteryx, but they fail to see that neither animal was a transitional form; archaeopteryx was a full bird, tiktaalik was a full fish
> 
> Tiktaalik - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> 
> Reconstruction of Tiktaalik
> 
> The above image is from the National Science Foundation, a U.S. Government agency to fund science. While reconstructions such as this one appear to show what the species in question really looked like, the true appearance of Tiktaalik is unknown. For example, the difference in appearance between the head and the "shoudler" area is speculative. So is the implication in the image that Tiktaalik walked on land. It is just as likely that it used its robust fins to "walk" on the sea floor, helping it to catch prey in an alligator-like manner. While the tail is included in the image, the tail and rear fins have not been found.
> 
> Tiktaalik - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we expect that the biological scientists at creationwiki are actually grocery store baggers who contribute to "creationwiki"?
> 
> It's just so typical that the "scientists" representing creationist claims have no education or training in the subject matter they write about.
> 
> I suppose that when contributing to a fundie creationist website, signing an agreement not to publish material in conflict with creationist propaganda tends to limit the quality of the contributor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it does not matter to ywc that his source material is not credible,
> the contributors (lol!) have yet to produce any evidence at all to counter the actual evidence presented by paleontologists, geologists..etc...he is however very adept at pulling thing out of his ass, tossing them at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Click to expand...


You would not know credible if it bit you in the butt. Mr. theatre man, you better stick to what you know.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> No science talk they only Bloviate.



It bugs me I get frustrated enough that my sinful nature comes out and I resort to put downs and name calling. Too bad I'm not a post modernistic humanist and all GOOD on the inside. Then I wouldn't be subject to such failures. 

The internet always comes with that bravado, since it is impersonal. I guarantee if we all posted up links to our facebook pages, the conversations would take a VERY CIVIL turn.

Romans 7 (NIV):

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. *For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do*. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18* I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.*[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do&#8212;this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God&#8217;s law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24* What a wretched man I am!* Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God&#8212;through Jesus Christ our Lord!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I pretty much did that with DAWS and Hollie is next on the list. The problem is neither one know enough to see the legitimacy of our questions put to them. It seems most of the time only montrovant and konradv are coherent and understand the questions and answers given them.
> 
> They can even be civil most of the time but Hollie and Daws forget it, they have an ax to grind for some reason and they are stuck on taking shots rather then focus on legitimate issues that are presented to them. I think mostly is they don';t have a clue how to respond.
> 
> 
> 
> and you'd be wrong, the only thing you done with me is amuse me.
> when you post a legitimate issue I'll answer the best I can, so far all you've done is yammer dogma and misrepresent science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you take a shot at just my two above. I always hear evolutionists say their theories don't apply to abiogenisis and they always talk about the "common ancestor". How far back is this common ancestor? Since we have so many transitional fossils, can't we trace back and at least get some idea of what it looks like? I have searched the internet but can't find any evolutionist that has answers to these questions, even though they state both principles as facts.
Click to expand...

asked and answered several times....


----------



## UltimateReality

NP, what of our discussion of Meyers?

DAWS, do you have insight to my two questions?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I pretty much did that with DAWS and Hollie is next on the list. The problem is neither one know enough to see the legitimacy of our questions put to them. It seems most of the time only montrovant and konradv are coherent and understand the questions and answers given them.
> 
> They can even be civil most of the time but Hollie and Daws forget it, they have an ax to grind for some reason and they are stuck on taking shots rather then focus on legitimate issues that are presented to them. I think mostly is they don';t have a clue how to respond.
> 
> 
> 
> and you'd be wrong, the only thing you done with me is amuse me.
> when you post a legitimate issue I'll answer the best I can, so far all you've done is yammer dogma and misrepresent science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already blew you off  don't waste my time quoting me I am about to to do the same thing to your nearest ancestor Hollie.
Click to expand...

awww... are you gonna cry too? 
put your man pants on..


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you'd be wrong, the only thing you done with me is amuse me.
> when you post a legitimate issue I'll answer the best I can, so far all you've done is yammer dogma and misrepresent science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you take a shot at just my two above. I always hear evolutionists say their theories don't apply to abiogenisis and they always talk about the "common ancestor". How far back is this common ancestor? Since we have so many transitional fossils, can't we trace back and at least get some idea of what it looks like? I have searched the internet but can't find any evolutionist that has answers to these questions, even though they state both principles as facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answered several times....
Click to expand...


Please point me to the page number. I don't remember this.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is right theatre don't pay well when your not good enough so you have no computer and can't get to one until work or school eh.
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN  I do very  VERY WELL so well in fact I make my own hours and turn down gigs for lack of time to do them.
> never drink while posting asshat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no, here we go. Folks in cardboard, umm, I mean, glass houses should not throw stones.
Click to expand...

projecting? air conditioning salesman.....


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we expect that the biological scientists at creationwiki are actually grocery store baggers who contribute to "creationwiki"?
> 
> It's just so typical that the "scientists" representing creationist claims have no education or training in the subject matter they write about.
> 
> I suppose that when contributing to a fundie creationist website, signing an agreement not to publish material in conflict with creationist propaganda tends to limit the quality of the contributor.
> 
> 
> 
> it does not matter to ywc that his source material is not credible,
> the contributors (lol!) have yet to produce any evidence at all to counter the actual evidence presented by paleontologists, geologists..etc...he is however very adept at pulling thing out of his ass, tossing them at the wall and seeing what sticks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would not know credible if it bit you in the butt. Mr. theatre man, you better stick to what you know.
Click to expand...

really? nice dodge ....show me a fossil that has god's bar code on it.


----------



## jillian

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we expect that the biological scientists at creationwiki are actually grocery store baggers who contribute to "creationwiki"?
> 
> It's just so typical that the "scientists" representing creationist claims have no education or training in the subject matter they write about.
> 
> I suppose that when contributing to a fundie creationist website, signing an agreement not to publish material in conflict with creationist propaganda tends to limit the quality of the contributor.
> 
> 
> 
> it does not matter to ywc that his source material is not credible,
> the contributors (lol!) have yet to produce any evidence at all to counter the actual evidence presented by paleontologists, geologists..etc...he is however very adept at pulling thing out of his ass, tossing them at the wall and seeing what sticks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would not know credible if it bit you in the butt. Mr. theatre man, you better stick to what you know.
Click to expand...



ironic post is ironic.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No science talk they only Bloviate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It bugs me I get frustrated enough that my sinful nature comes out and I resort to put downs and name calling. Too bad I'm not a post modernistic humanist and all GOOD on the inside. Then I wouldn't be subject to such failures.
> 
> The internet always comes with that bravado, since it is impersonal. I guarantee if we all posted up links to our facebook pages, the conversations would take a VERY CIVIL turn.
> 
> Romans 7 (NIV):
> 
> 14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. *For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do*. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18* I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.*[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to dothis I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
> 
> 21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in Gods law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24* What a wretched man I am!* Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to Godthrough Jesus Christ our Lord!
Click to expand...

bi passing the meaningless bible yammering....
you don't know shit about face book then conversations there are just as uncivilized has here...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you take a shot at just my two above. I always hear evolutionists say their theories don't apply to abiogenisis and they always talk about the "common ancestor". How far back is this common ancestor? Since we have so many transitional fossils, can't we trace back and at least get some idea of what it looks like? I have searched the internet but can't find any evolutionist that has answers to these questions, even though they state both principles as facts.
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered several times....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point me to the page number. I don't remember this.
Click to expand...

it's there by several posters on several pages in this thread .do your own work 
the I don't remember ploy ain't cutting it...
you just hate the answer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered several times....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please point me to the page number. I don't remember this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's there by several posters on several pages in this thread .do your own work
> the I don't remember ploy ain't cutting it...
> you just hate the answer.
Click to expand...


This is code for I don't remember what I copied and pasted that I think answered these questions.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please point me to the page number. I don't remember this.
> 
> 
> 
> it's there by several posters on several pages in this thread .do your own work
> the I don't remember ploy ain't cutting it...
> you just hate the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is code for I don't remember what I copied and pasted that I think answered these questions.
Click to expand...

wrong as always! it's the straight shit..prove me wrong, go back through this thread and see how many times your "common ancestor" question has been answered..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's there by several posters on several pages in this thread .do your own work
> the I don't remember ploy ain't cutting it...
> you just hate the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is code for I don't remember what I copied and pasted that I think answered these questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong as always! it's the straight shit..prove me wrong, go back through this thread and see how many times your "common ancestor" question has been answered..
Click to expand...


What was my common ancestor question ?


----------



## daws101




----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


>



I knew many women in science that were extremely intelligent but Hollie is not one of them.

What was my common ancestor question ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


>



Let me help you out Daws.

We can prove descent with humans through genetic markers. We can't prove descent between two groups where there are too many gaps. Example,chimp and human. Going by evolutionist numbers there is atleast a difference in 30 million base pairs of DNA.

The reason we can prove descent in humans is because there are no gaps in base pairs of DNA in humans. But 30 million you are projecting because of some similarity. We can prove descent in animals through the same method.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew many women in science that were extremely intelligent but Hollie is not one of them.
> 
> What was my common ancestor question ?
Click to expand...


Its false to claim that you were ever in science. Creation science has never been science. 

Just because you have had your ass handed to you by a girl doesn't mean you're totally emasculated. Not totally.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you out Daws.
> 
> We can prove descent with humans through genetic markers. We can't prove descent between two groups where there are too many gaps. Example,chimp and human. Going by evolutionist numbers there is atleast a difference in 30 million base pairs of DNA.
> 
> The reason we can prove descent in humans is because there are no gaps in base pairs of DNA in humans. But 30 million you are projecting because of some similarity. We can prove descent in animals through the same method.
Click to expand...

your help is unnecessary and not factual, but it is amusing...
besides I thought you were "blowing" us off..
backpedal much?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you out Daws.
> 
> We can prove descent with humans through genetic markers. We can't prove descent between two groups where there are too many gaps. Example,chimp and human. Going by evolutionist numbers there is atleast a difference in 30 million base pairs of DNA.
> 
> The reason we can prove descent in humans is because there are no gaps in base pairs of DNA in humans. But 30 million you are projecting because of some similarity. We can prove descent in animals through the same method.
Click to expand...

another declarative not based in fact statement.
why? if you take OUT WE can't prove (or the god did it factor)     what are we left with.
two  related  species  humans and chimps who's dna is 98% the same.
THAT IS NOT SOME SIMILARITIES   THAT'S MOST.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered several times....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please point me to the page number. I don't remember this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's there by several posters on several pages in this thread .do your own work
> the I don't remember ploy ain't cutting it...
> you just hate the answer.
Click to expand...


My two questions have never been answered. Nice try with the old "several posts" back trick. I have searched high and low on the internet and the answer does not exist, so it was a trick question. Do you think it is kind of stupid that evolutionists can't delineate a starting point for their theory? Do you think it is science to constantly talk about a common ancestor that is a myth, because no one has ever definitively made any predictions about the mythical common ancestor?


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you out Daws.
> 
> We can prove descent with humans through genetic markers. We can't prove descent between two groups where there are too many gaps. Example,chimp and human. Going by evolutionist numbers there is atleast a difference in 30 million base pairs of DNA.
> 
> The reason we can prove descent in humans is because there are no gaps in base pairs of DNA in humans. But 30 million you are projecting because of some similarity. We can prove descent in animals through the same method.
Click to expand...


So the common ancestry evolutionists are always referring to is a sham???? Who is he/it/she? Why can't they use all the dna evidence and supposed transitional fossils to at least make a prediction about what species this was that we all somehow arose from? DAWS, your stupid theory is a myth and you are stupid for buying into the myth.

Now this is the part where someone should chime in and state that my argument is a strawman, because evolutionary theory really doesn't say we all came from one species if we go far enough back. Then I will ask, "then what does evolutionary theory really say about common ancestry?" and then crickets will chirp and no one will cut and paste up and I wiill be right back where I started before I asked the question.


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> please point me to the page number. I don't remember this.
> 
> 
> 
> it's there by several posters on several pages in this thread .do your own work
> the i don't remember ploy ain't cutting it...
> You just hate the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> my two questions have never been answered. Nice try with the old "several posts" back trick. I have searched high and low on the internet and the answer does not exist, so it was a trick question. Do you think it is kind of stupid that evolutionists can't delineate a starting point for their theory? Do you think it is science to constantly talk about a common ancestor that is a myth, because no one has ever definitively made any predictions about the mythical common ancestor?
Click to expand...

so instead of checking thread that has the answers, you went the long way round to avoid it, am i right?


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> let me help you out daws.
> 
> We can prove descent with humans through genetic markers. We can't prove descent between two groups where there are too many gaps. Example,chimp and human. Going by evolutionist numbers there is atleast a difference in 30 million base pairs of dna.
> 
> The reason we can prove descent in humans is because there are no gaps in base pairs of dna in humans. But 30 million you are projecting because of some similarity. We can prove descent in animals through the same method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so the common ancestry evolutionists are always referring to is a sham???? Who is he/it/she? Why can't you use all your dna evidence and supposed transitional fossils to at least make a prediction about what species this was that we all somehow arose from? Your stupid theory is a myth and you are stupid for buying into the myth.
Click to expand...

from the stupid school of retorts!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew many women in science that were extremely intelligent but Hollie is not one of them.
> 
> What was my common ancestor question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its false to claim that you were ever in science. Creation science has never been science.
> 
> Just because you have had your ass handed to you by a girl doesn't mean you're totally emasculated. Not totally.
Click to expand...


Why are you still posting here lying plagiarizer?


----------



## UltimateReality

While that cartoon is a nice characterature, this is more what comes to my mind when I think of Hollie...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew many women in science that were extremely intelligent but Hollie is not one of them.
> 
> What was my common ancestor question ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its false to claim that you were ever in science. Creation science has never been science.
> 
> Just because you have had your ass handed to you by a girl doesn't mean you're totally emasculated. Not totally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you still posting here lying plagiarizer?
Click to expand...

Angry Wannabes seems to define the humiliated fundie crowd. 

Creationism has failed. ID has failed. You folks in the charlatan crowd need a different set of smoke and mirrors... or is it gods and demons?

Just copy and paste more altered /  falsified material from the ICR. It interesting to watch you destroy your own credibility. It's what the gods want.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew many women in science that were extremely intelligent but Hollie is not one of them.
> 
> What was my common ancestor question ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its false to claim that you were ever in science. Creation science has never been science.
> 
> Just because you have had your ass handed to you by a girl doesn't mean you're totally emasculated. Not totally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you still posting here lying plagiarizer?
Click to expand...

Angry Wannabes seems to define the humiliated fundie crowd. 

Creationism has failed. ID has failed. You folks in the charlatan crowd need a different set of smoke and mirrors... or is it gods and demons?

Just copy and paste more altered /  falsified material from the ICR. It's interesting to watch you destroy your own credibility. It's what the gods want.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you out Daws.
> 
> We can prove descent with humans through genetic markers. We can't prove descent between two groups where there are too many gaps. Example,chimp and human. Going by evolutionist numbers there is atleast a difference in 30 million base pairs of DNA.
> 
> The reason we can prove descent in humans is because there are no gaps in base pairs of DNA in humans. But 30 million you are projecting because of some similarity. We can prove descent in animals through the same method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the common ancestry evolutionists are always referring to is a sham???? Who is he/it/she? Why can't they use all the dna evidence and supposed transitional fossils to at least make a prediction about what species this was that we all somehow arose from? DAWS, your stupid theory is a myth and you are stupid for buying into the myth.
> 
> Now this is the part where someone should chime in and state that my argument is a strawman, because evolutionary theory really doesn't say we all came from one species if we go far enough back. Then I will ask, "then what does evolutionary theory really say about common ancestry?" and then crickets will chirp and no one will cut and paste up and I wiill be right back where I started before I asked the question.
Click to expand...

 Flat Earth Society graduate.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you out Daws.
> 
> We can prove descent with humans through genetic markers. We can't prove descent between two groups where there are too many gaps. Example,chimp and human. Going by evolutionist numbers there is atleast a difference in 30 million base pairs of DNA.
> 
> The reason we can prove descent in humans is because there are no gaps in base pairs of DNA in humans. But 30 million you are projecting because of some similarity. We can prove descent in animals through the same method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another declarative not based in fact statement.
> why? if you take OUT WE can't prove (or the god did it factor)     what are we left with.
> two  related  species  humans and chimps who's dna is 98% the same.
> THAT IS NOT SOME SIMILARITIES   THAT'S MOST.
Click to expand...


I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying !% you saying 98 % so that means 2% difference now that makes it 60 million base pairs of DNA.

But since the genome project where they mapped the human genome they discovered that the so called junk DNA is no longer Junk DNA so that 2% difference is probably much higher.

But thanks the gaps just got wider by your ignorance of what I was talking about.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please point me to the page number. I don't remember this.
> 
> 
> 
> it's there by several posters on several pages in this thread .do your own work
> the I don't remember ploy ain't cutting it...
> you just hate the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My two questions have never been answered. Nice try with the old "several posts" back trick. I have searched high and low on the internet and the answer does not exist, so it was a trick question. Do you think it is kind of stupid that evolutionists can't delineate a starting point for their theory? Do you think it is science to constantly talk about a common ancestor that is a myth, because no one has ever definitively made any predictions about the mythical common ancestor?
Click to expand...


Look at my previous post , by his own ignorance he is helping my argument.

He don't have a clue what he is talking about.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> While that cartoon is a nice characterature, this is more what comes to my mind when I think of Hollie...



Oh boy I know it's not right to laugh but too late.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its false to claim that you were ever in science. Creation science has never been science.
> 
> Just because you have had your ass handed to you by a girl doesn't mean you're totally emasculated. Not totally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you still posting here lying plagiarizer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Angry Wannabes seems to define the humiliated fundie crowd.
> 
> Creationism has failed. ID has failed. You folks in the charlatan crowd need a different set of smoke and mirrors... or is it gods and demons?
> 
> Just copy and paste more altered /  falsified material from the ICR. It interesting to watch you destroy your own credibility. It's what the gods want.
Click to expand...


Can you come up with something of substance ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you out Daws.
> 
> We can prove descent with humans through genetic markers. We can't prove descent between two groups where there are too many gaps. Example,chimp and human. Going by evolutionist numbers there is atleast a difference in 30 million base pairs of DNA.
> 
> The reason we can prove descent in humans is because there are no gaps in base pairs of DNA in humans. But 30 million you are projecting because of some similarity. We can prove descent in animals through the same method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the common ancestry evolutionists are always referring to is a sham???? Who is he/it/she? Why can't they use all the dna evidence and supposed transitional fossils to at least make a prediction about what species this was that we all somehow arose from? DAWS, your stupid theory is a myth and you are stupid for buying into the myth.
> 
> Now this is the part where someone should chime in and state that my argument is a strawman, because evolutionary theory really doesn't say we all came from one species if we go far enough back. Then I will ask, "then what does evolutionary theory really say about common ancestry?" and then crickets will chirp and no one will cut and paste up and I wiill be right back where I started before I asked the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flat Earth Society graduate.
Click to expand...


We both attended the University of Arizona ,where and what degree did you earn ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hmm found this article.





CONCLUSION

Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see &#8220;A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution&#8221. Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:

The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the &#8220;pentadactyl&#8221; [five bone&#8212;BH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale&#8212;and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).

Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differences&#8212;differences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.

Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapiens&#8212;wise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).

Read the rest of the article.

Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hmm found this article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:
> 
> The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the pentadactyl [five boneBH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whaleand this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).
> 
> Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differencesdifferences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.
> 
> Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapienswise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).
> 
> Read the rest of the article.
> 
> Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?



Are you surprised that those who shill for fundie creation websites where there are requirements that works cannot conflict with Christian dogma will find "evidence" that supports Christian creationist claims?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you still posting here lying plagiarizer?
> 
> 
> 
> Angry Wannabes seems to define the humiliated fundie crowd.
> 
> Creationism has failed. ID has failed. You folks in the charlatan crowd need a different set of smoke and mirrors... or is it gods and demons?
> 
> Just copy and paste more altered /  falsified material from the ICR. It interesting to watch you destroy your own credibility. It's what the gods want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you come up with something of substance ?
Click to expand...

Your endless copying and pasting from christian creationist websites is designed to have a premanufactured conclusion. Nothing you post is objective. It's been manufactured to reach a predefined conclusion.

That's as dishonest and silly a tactic as I can imagine.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the common ancestry evolutionists are always referring to is a sham???? Who is he/it/she? Why can't they use all the dna evidence and supposed transitional fossils to at least make a prediction about what species this was that we all somehow arose from? DAWS, your stupid theory is a myth and you are stupid for buying into the myth.
> 
> Now this is the part where someone should chime in and state that my argument is a strawman, because evolutionary theory really doesn't say we all came from one species if we go far enough back. Then I will ask, "then what does evolutionary theory really say about common ancestry?" and then crickets will chirp and no one will cut and paste up and I wiill be right back where I started before I asked the question.
> 
> 
> 
> Flat Earth Society graduate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We both attended the University of Arizona ,where and what degree did you earn ?
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware the Flat Earth Society had a franchise in Arizona.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> While that cartoon is a nice characterature, this is more what comes to my mind when I think of Hollie...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy I know it's not right to laugh but too late.
Click to expand...


You missed it. She's laughing at the creationist addled fundie and what comes out of the ICR.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> While that cartoon is a nice characterature, this is more what comes to my mind when I think of Hollie...


wow that's adult! 
you must be a real ladies man...the inflatable kind that is .
thanks for proving that ex cops have trouble with women.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you out Daws.
> 
> We can prove descent with humans through genetic markers. We can't prove descent between two groups where there are too many gaps. Example,chimp and human. Going by evolutionist numbers there is atleast a difference in 30 million base pairs of DNA.
> 
> The reason we can prove descent in humans is because there are no gaps in base pairs of DNA in humans. But 30 million you are projecting because of some similarity. We can prove descent in animals through the same method.
> 
> 
> 
> another declarative not based in fact statement.
> why? if you take OUT WE can't prove (or the god did it factor)     what are we left with.
> two  related  species  humans and chimps who's dna is 98% the same.
> THAT IS NOT SOME SIMILARITIES   THAT'S MOST.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying !% you saying 98 % so that means 2% difference now that makes it 60 million base pairs of DNA.
> 
> But since the genome project where they mapped the human genome they discovered that the so called junk DNA is no longer Junk DNA so that 2% difference is probably much higher.
> 
> But thanks the gaps just got wider by your ignorance of what I was talking about.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you're bullshiting about..2% by any statistical mesure is meaningless... 

and your still wrong :In constructing an evolutionary tree of life, scientists have granted themselves and the rest of us humans a genus, Homo, all to ourselves. But there&#8217;s no getting around the fact that we&#8217;re in the same family with chimpanzees and other primates. 

The genetic codes of chimps and humans are 99 percent identical. Measured by differences in DNA, the chimp, Pan troglodytes, is the closest living relative to our own species, Homo sapiens. The comparison to an ape might make a few people squirm, but researchers now are happily comparing chimps and humans more closely than ever before.


Katie Pollard
The goal is to find out more about ourselves. What is it about our genes that enables us to develop uniquely human capabilities? And what can we learn about familiar human vulnerabilities that we do not share with our primate cousins? The secrets are in the DNA, scientists believe.

In her own search for answers, Katie Pollard, PhD, has been buoyed by a decade&#8217;s worth of advances in computer power and in the tools used to map DNA at an ever faster clip. Pollard, an associate professor with the UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the UCSF Institute for Human Genetics, as well as an associate investigator with the Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, has created software programs &#8211; mathematical algorithms &#8211; to tease out vital information from DNA. 

Thus equipped, Pollard is probing the places in the genetic code where base pairs &#8211; the coupled DNA alphabet building blocks that form the famous double-helix -- differ between the two species. No stretch of DNA escapes scrutiny &#8211; she&#8217;s looking at the entire genome.

15 Million Differences
&#8220;Only one in 100 base pairs is different, which doesn&#8217;t sound like much,&#8221; says Pollard. &#8220;But when you consider that the genome is 3 billion base pairs long, that means there are 15 million human-specific letters of code that are not shared by the chimp. That&#8217;s more than anybody can look through manually.&#8221;



there are 15 million human-specific letters of code that are not shared by the chimp

What Makes Us Human? Studies of Chimp and Human DNA May Tell Us | www.ucsf.edu


this is the site where you got your misinformation:Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More. - Answers in Genesis

with a tag line like this:  believing it,defending it ,proclaiming it. just screams of desperation.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hmm found this article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:
> 
> The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the pentadactyl [five boneBH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whaleand this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).
> 
> Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differencesdifferences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.
> 
> Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapienswise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).
> 
> Read the rest of the article.
> 
> Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?


 NOT VALID NOT SCIENCE .....
What We Believe

The following principles of truth are accepted by those who actively participate in this work:

1.God exists, and man can know that God exists, by means of His manifold revelations, both in nature and through the inspired Word of God, the Holy Bible.
2.The entire material Universe was specially created by this almighty God in 6 days of approximately 24-hours each, as revealed in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11.
3.Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate a relatively young Earth, in contrast to evolutionary views of a multi-billion-year age for the Earth.
4.Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate that many of the Earths features must be viewed in light of a universal, catastrophic flood (i.e., the Noahic Flood as described in Genesis 6-8).
5.All compromising theories such as theistic evolution, progressive creationism, threshold evolution, the gap theory, the modified gap theory, the day-age theory, the non-world view, etc., are denied and opposed as patently false.
6.Christianity is the one true religion; Jesus Christ is the only divine Son of God, resurrected Lord, and Savior of all who lovingly obey Him.
7.The 66 books of the Bible are fully and verbally inspired of God; hence, they are inerrant and authoritative, and a complete guide for moral and religious conduct.
8.Salvation is by means of obedience to the Gospel system, involving faith in God and Christ, repentance from sin, confession of faith, and immersion in water for remission of past sins, coupled with a life of growing consecration and dedication.
9.Those enjoying salvation are members of the one true church, which is the body of Christ.     


AND ABOVE ALL NOT OBJECTIVE....


----------



## Montrovant

Whatever reasonable discussion has previously existed in this thread has clearly gone the way of the dinosaur.....


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> Whatever reasonable discussion has previously existed in this thread has clearly gone the way of the dinosaur.....



does comedy have to be reasonable?


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hmm found this article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:
> 
> The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the pentadactyl [five boneBH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whaleand this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).
> 
> Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differencesdifferences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.
> 
> Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapienswise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).
> 
> Read the rest of the article.
> 
> Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?



God definitely has a sense of humor. Use different genes to create the same types of structures. Do you ever get the feeling he is totally messing with these people?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm found this article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:
> 
> The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the pentadactyl [five boneBH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whaleand this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).
> 
> Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differencesdifferences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.
> 
> Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapienswise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).
> 
> Read the rest of the article.
> 
> Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you surprised that those who shill for fundie creation websites where there are requirements that works cannot conflict with Christian dogma will find "evidence" that supports Christian creationist claims?
Click to expand...


Sort of. Please tell me more.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Angry Wannabes seems to define the humiliated fundie crowd.
> 
> Creationism has failed. ID has failed. You folks in the charlatan crowd need a different set of smoke and mirrors... or is it gods and demons?
> 
> Just copy and paste more altered /  falsified material from the ICR. It interesting to watch you destroy your own credibility. It's what the gods want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you come up with something of substance ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your endless copying and pasting from christian creationist websites is designed to have a premanufactured conclusion. Nothing you post is objective. It's been manufactured to reach a predefined conclusion.
> 
> That's as dishonest and silly a tactic as I can imagine.
Click to expand...


I thought we put your whole cut and paste accusation thing to rest a few posts back. I guess like most fundamentalist Darwinist, you think if you ignore it long enough, the truth will go away.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> While that cartoon is a nice characterature, this is more what comes to my mind when I think of Hollie...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow that's adult!
> you must be a real ladies man...the inflatable kind that is .
> thanks for proving that ex cops have trouble with women.
Click to expand...


Ad hominem.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you come up with something of substance ?
> 
> 
> 
> Your endless copying and pasting from christian creationist websites is designed to have a premanufactured conclusion. Nothing you post is objective. It's been manufactured to reach a predefined conclusion.
> 
> That's as dishonest and silly a tactic as I can imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought we put your whole cut and paste accusation thing to rest a few posts back. I guess like most fundamentalist Darwinist, you think if you ignore it long enough, the truth will go away.
Click to expand...

 truth is subjective....and subjective to change.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Whatever reasonable discussion has previously existed in this thread has clearly gone the way of the dinosaur.....



But it is quite entertaining, no?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm found this article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:
> 
> The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the pentadactyl [five boneBH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whaleand this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).
> 
> Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differencesdifferences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.
> 
> Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapienswise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).
> 
> Read the rest of the article.
> 
> Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you surprised that those who shill for fundie creation websites where there are requirements that works cannot conflict with Christian dogma will find "evidence" that supports Christian creationist claims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of. Please tell me more.
Click to expand...


OK. Take a moment and read through the site where your article came from. 

Are you completely oblivious to the fact that these sites have no credibility? Do you understand that one must abandon any sense of professional integrity to quote-mine data from web sites managed by fundie creationists who have no interest in being objective or critical?

Do you understand that the ridicule directed at these sites is reflected on you as a promoter of falsehoods and lies?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> While that cartoon is a nice characterature, this is more what comes to my mind when I think of Hollie...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow that's adult!
> you must be a real ladies man...the inflatable kind that is .
> thanks for proving that ex cops have trouble with women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ad hominem.
Click to expand...

and this: post# 4858 this thread, isn't   
it may be ad hominem but that does not make it any less fact


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your endless copying and pasting from christian creationist websites is designed to have a premanufactured conclusion. Nothing you post is objective. It's been manufactured to reach a predefined conclusion.
> 
> That's as dishonest and silly a tactic as I can imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we put your whole cut and paste accusation thing to rest a few posts back. I guess like most fundamentalist Darwinist, you think if you ignore it long enough, the truth will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> truth is subjective....and subjective to change.
Click to expand...


Moral relativist!!! Next thing you will tell me is that child molestation is okay in certain circumstances. And why not? I mean, you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel.

Here is definitive proof chimpanzees are our closest relative...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm found this article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:
> 
> The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the pentadactyl [five boneBH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whaleand this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).
> 
> Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differencesdifferences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.
> 
> Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapienswise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).
> 
> Read the rest of the article.
> 
> Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God definitely has a sense of humor. Use different genes to create the same types of structures. Do you ever get the feeling he is totally messing with these people?
Click to expand...


Your article was from: Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?

From the "About AP" section.

What We Believe

The following principles of truth are accepted by those who actively participate in this work:
1.God exists, and man can know that God exists, by means of His manifold revelations, both in nature and through the inspired Word of God, the Holy Bible.
2.The entire material Universe was specially created by this almighty God in 6 days of approximately 24-hours each, as revealed in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11.
3.Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate a relatively young Earth, in contrast to evolutionary views of a multi-billion-year age for the Earth.
4.Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate that many of the Earths features must be viewed in light of a universal, catastrophic flood (i.e., the Noahic Flood as described in Genesis 6-8).
5.All compromising theories such as theistic evolution, progressive creationism, threshold evolution, the gap theory, the modified gap theory, the day-age theory, the non-world view, etc., are denied and opposed as patently false.
6.Christianity is the one true religion; Jesus Christ is the only divine Son of God, resurrected Lord, and Savior of all who lovingly obey Him.
7.The 66 books of the Bible are fully and verbally inspired of God; hence, they are inerrant and authoritative, and a complete guide for moral and religious conduct.
8.Salvation is by means of obedience to the Gospel system, involving faith in God and Christ, repentance from sin, confession of faith, and immersion in water for remission of past sins, coupled with a life of growing consecration and dedication.
9.Those enjoying salvation are members of the one true church, which is the body of Christ.  

The above is nearly a duplicate to be found on the various sites that are copied and pasted.

It's as though one must explicitly abandon any sense of personal integrity, personal honor or professional integrity to be associated with these fundie groups.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you surprised that those who shill for fundie creation websites where there are requirements that works cannot conflict with Christian dogma will find "evidence" that supports Christian creationist claims?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of. Please tell me more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK. Take a moment and read through the site where your article came from.
> 
> Are you completely oblivious to the fact that these sites have no credibility? Do you understand that one must abandon any sense of professional integrity to quote-mine data from web sites managed by fundie creationists who have no interest in being objective or critical?
> 
> Do you understand that the ridicule directed at these sites is reflected on you as a promoter of falsehoods and lies?
Click to expand...


Interesting. Can you provide more examples?


----------



## daws101

ywc and his date ur vist:Virtual Tour | Creation Museum


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we put your whole cut and paste accusation thing to rest a few posts back. I guess like most fundamentalist Darwinist, you think if you ignore it long enough, the truth will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> truth is subjective....and subjective to change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moral relativist!!! Next thing you will tell me is that child molestation is okay in certain circumstances. And why not? I mean, you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel.
> 
> Here is definitive proof chimpanzees are our closest relative...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k]Bloodhound Gang - The Bad Touch - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

awwww you're  so cute when you pitch a fit.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of. Please tell me more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Take a moment and read through the site where your article came from.
> 
> Are you completely oblivious to the fact that these sites have no credibility? Do you understand that one must abandon any sense of professional integrity to quote-mine data from web sites managed by fundie creationists who have no interest in being objective or critical?
> 
> Do you understand that the ridicule directed at these sites is reflected on you as a promoter of falsehoods and lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. Can you provide more examples?
Click to expand...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk41Gbjljfo]XTC-Dear God - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of. Please tell me more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Take a moment and read through the site where your article came from.
> 
> Are you completely oblivious to the fact that these sites have no credibility? Do you understand that one must abandon any sense of professional integrity to quote-mine data from web sites managed by fundie creationists who have no interest in being objective or critical?
> 
> Do you understand that the ridicule directed at these sites is reflected on you as a promoter of falsehoods and lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. Can you provide more examples?
Click to expand...


You've provided them.

The falsehoods and errors these buffoons have inflicted will, fortunately, not continue long after they have skulked away in disgrace.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> While that cartoon is a nice characterature, this is more what comes to my mind when I think of Hollie...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy I know it's not right to laugh but too late.
Click to expand...


How unbelievably immature. Are you both in second grade? Grow up.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Take a moment and read through the site where your article came from.
> 
> Are you completely oblivious to the fact that these sites have no credibility? Do you understand that one must abandon any sense of professional integrity to quote-mine data from web sites managed by fundie creationists who have no interest in being objective or critical?
> 
> Do you understand that the ridicule directed at these sites is reflected on you as a promoter of falsehoods and lies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Can you provide more examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've provided them.
> 
> The falsehoods and errors these buffoons have inflicted will, fortunately, not continue long after they have skulked away in disgrace.
Click to expand...


Please expand on this line of reasoning.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> While that cartoon is a nice characterature, this is more what comes to my mind when I think of Hollie...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy I know it's not right to laugh but too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How unbelievably immature. Are you both in second grade? Grow up.
Click to expand...


I will, right after I get your response on the Meyer Darwin comments.


----------



## UltimateReality

"For Hume and the evolutionists there are two possibilities: Design and complexity arise on their own via natural law, or there is an infinite regress of &#8220;designers.&#8221;

Given these two absurdities the evolutionists, of course, choose law. But this is not the key move, for at this point the metaphysical fire fight is long over. The key move&#8212;and metaphysical heavy lifting&#8212;came at the earlier stage where the alternatives were defined. Remember, he who defines the debate wins the debate.

Science doesn&#8217;t tell us that there are two possibilities. It doesn&#8217;t tell us that design and complexity either arose on their own or else there is an infinite regress of designers. That is a metaphysical assertion&#8212;one of many that underwrite the evolution research program.

Amazingly evolutionists claim they are just &#8220;doing science&#8221; as they fire off these metaphysical salvos. Religion drives science, and it matters."

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/heres-what-alex-philo-filippenko-really.html


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Can you provide more examples?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've provided them.
> 
> The falsehoods and errors these buffoons have inflicted will, fortunately, not continue long after they have skulked away in disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please expand on this line of reasoning.
Click to expand...


The fundie line of reasoning begins and dead ends at "The gods did it".

Yes, they're dishonest for requiring a prior committment to Christian apologetis and then requires that all evidence (belief in a 6,000 year old planet and, well, you know the rest of that nonsense).

The Flat Earth Academy / Harun Yahya / fundie creationists are largely fossilized remnants of 17th century fear and superstition.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy I know it's not right to laugh but too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How unbelievably immature. Are you both in second grade? Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will, right after I get your response on the Meyer Darwin comments.
Click to expand...


I don't know what you're talking about, and It definitely wouldn't make a difference. You have no case. Evolution is a fact. It is demonstrable. NOTHING ABOUT RELIGION is demonstrable. Not one single thing. There is zero evidence for God, yet you act like you actually have a case. It is fucking laughable. Go away.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> "For Hume and the evolutionists there are two possibilities: Design and complexity arise on their own via natural law, or there is an infinite regress of &#8220;designers.&#8221;
> 
> Given these two absurdities the evolutionists, of course, choose law. But this is not the key move, for at this point the metaphysical fire fight is long over. The key move&#8212;and metaphysical heavy lifting&#8212;came at the earlier stage where the alternatives were defined. Remember, he who defines the debate wins the debate.
> 
> Science doesn&#8217;t tell us that there are two possibilities. It doesn&#8217;t tell us that design and complexity either arose on their own or else there is an infinite regress of designers. That is a metaphysical assertion&#8212;one of many that underwrite the evolution research program.
> 
> Amazingly evolutionists claim they are just &#8220;doing science&#8221; as they fire off these metaphysical salvos. Religion drives science, and it matters."
> 
> Darwin's God: Here&#8217;s What Alex &#8220;Philo&#8221; Filippenko Really Said Last Weekend at SETICon 2



 "Cornelius" - Another knucklehead fundie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another declarative not based in fact statement.
> why? if you take OUT WE can't prove (or the god did it factor)     what are we left with.
> two  related  species  humans and chimps who's dna is 98% the same.
> THAT IS NOT SOME SIMILARITIES   THAT'S MOST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying !% you saying 98 % so that means 2% difference now that makes it 60 million base pairs of DNA.
> 
> But since the genome project where they mapped the human genome they discovered that the so called junk DNA is no longer Junk DNA so that 2% difference is probably much higher.
> 
> But thanks the gaps just got wider by your ignorance of what I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know exactly what you're bullshiting about..2% by any statistical mesure is meaningless...
> 
> and your still wrong :In constructing an evolutionary tree of life, scientists have granted themselves and the rest of us humans a genus, Homo, all to ourselves. But theres no getting around the fact that were in the same family with chimpanzees and other primates.
> 
> The genetic codes of chimps and humans are 99 percent identical. Measured by differences in DNA, the chimp, Pan troglodytes, is the closest living relative to our own species, Homo sapiens. The comparison to an ape might make a few people squirm, but researchers now are happily comparing chimps and humans more closely than ever before.
> 
> 
> Katie Pollard
> The goal is to find out more about ourselves. What is it about our genes that enables us to develop uniquely human capabilities? And what can we learn about familiar human vulnerabilities that we do not share with our primate cousins? The secrets are in the DNA, scientists believe.
> 
> In her own search for answers, Katie Pollard, PhD, has been buoyed by a decades worth of advances in computer power and in the tools used to map DNA at an ever faster clip. Pollard, an associate professor with the UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the UCSF Institute for Human Genetics, as well as an associate investigator with the Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, has created software programs  mathematical algorithms  to tease out vital information from DNA.
> 
> Thus equipped, Pollard is probing the places in the genetic code where base pairs  the coupled DNA alphabet building blocks that form the famous double-helix -- differ between the two species. No stretch of DNA escapes scrutiny  shes looking at the entire genome.
> 
> 15 Million Differences
> Only one in 100 base pairs is different, which doesnt sound like much, says Pollard. But when you consider that the genome is 3 billion base pairs long, that means there are 15 million human-specific letters of code that are not shared by the chimp. Thats more than anybody can look through manually.
> 
> 
> 
> there are 15 million human-specific letters of code that are not shared by the chimp
> 
> What Makes Us Human? Studies of Chimp and Human DNA May Tell Us | www.ucsf.edu
> 
> 
> this is the site where you got your misinformation:Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More. - Answers in Genesis
> 
> with a tag line like this:  believing it,defending it ,proclaiming it. just screams of desperation.
Click to expand...


Who is right ?

Chimp genetic code opens human frontiers - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm found this article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:
> 
> The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the pentadactyl [five boneBH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whaleand this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).
> 
> Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differencesdifferences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.
> 
> Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapienswise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).
> 
> Read the rest of the article.
> 
> Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
> 
> 
> 
> NOT VALID NOT SCIENCE .....
> What We Believe
> 
> The following principles of truth are accepted by those who actively participate in this work:
> 
> 1.God exists, and man can know that God exists, by means of His manifold revelations, both in nature and through the inspired Word of God, the Holy Bible.
> 2.The entire material Universe was specially created by this almighty God in 6 days of approximately 24-hours each, as revealed in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11.
> 3.Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate a relatively young Earth, in contrast to evolutionary views of a multi-billion-year age for the Earth.
> 4.Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate that many of the Earths features must be viewed in light of a universal, catastrophic flood (i.e., the Noahic Flood as described in Genesis 6-8).
> 5.All compromising theories such as theistic evolution, progressive creationism, threshold evolution, the gap theory, the modified gap theory, the day-age theory, the non-world view, etc., are denied and opposed as patently false.
> 6.Christianity is the one true religion; Jesus Christ is the only divine Son of God, resurrected Lord, and Savior of all who lovingly obey Him.
> 7.The 66 books of the Bible are fully and verbally inspired of God; hence, they are inerrant and authoritative, and a complete guide for moral and religious conduct.
> 8.Salvation is by means of obedience to the Gospel system, involving faith in God and Christ, repentance from sin, confession of faith, and immersion in water for remission of past sins, coupled with a life of growing consecration and dedication.
> 9.Those enjoying salvation are members of the one true church, which is the body of Christ.
> 
> 
> AND ABOVE ALL NOT OBJECTIVE....
Click to expand...


I don't care how objective a person claims they are it's just simply not true we are all biased, it is human nature.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Whatever reasonable discussion has previously existed in this thread has clearly gone the way of the dinosaur.....



Agreed.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm found this article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:
> 
> The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the pentadactyl [five boneBH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whaleand this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).
> 
> Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differencesdifferences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.
> 
> Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapienswise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).
> 
> Read the rest of the article.
> 
> Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
> 
> 
> 
> NOT VALID NOT SCIENCE .....
> What We Believe
> 
> The following principles of truth are accepted by those who actively participate in this work:
> 
> 1.God exists, and man can know that God exists, by means of His manifold revelations, both in nature and through the inspired Word of God, the Holy Bible.
> 2.The entire material Universe was specially created by this almighty God in 6 days of approximately 24-hours each, as revealed in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11.
> 3.Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate a relatively young Earth, in contrast to evolutionary views of a multi-billion-year age for the Earth.
> 4.Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate that many of the Earths features must be viewed in light of a universal, catastrophic flood (i.e., the Noahic Flood as described in Genesis 6-8).
> 5.All compromising theories such as theistic evolution, progressive creationism, threshold evolution, the gap theory, the modified gap theory, the day-age theory, the non-world view, etc., are denied and opposed as patently false.
> 6.Christianity is the one true religion; Jesus Christ is the only divine Son of God, resurrected Lord, and Savior of all who lovingly obey Him.
> 7.The 66 books of the Bible are fully and verbally inspired of God; hence, they are inerrant and authoritative, and a complete guide for moral and religious conduct.
> 8.Salvation is by means of obedience to the Gospel system, involving faith in God and Christ, repentance from sin, confession of faith, and immersion in water for remission of past sins, coupled with a life of growing consecration and dedication.
> 9.Those enjoying salvation are members of the one true church, which is the body of Christ.
> 
> 
> AND ABOVE ALL NOT OBJECTIVE....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care how objective a person claims they are it's just simply not true we are all biased, it is human nature.
Click to expand...

You're hoping to excuse the bias that requires the creationist crowd to force fit information to support a predefined conclusion. 

The peer review requirement of science will subvert creationist bias. Creationism is not science. That is why creationism cannot meet the standard of the scientific method.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm found this article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:
> 
> The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the pentadactyl [five boneBH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whaleand this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).
> 
> Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differencesdifferences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.
> 
> Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapienswise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).
> 
> Read the rest of the article.
> 
> Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God definitely has a sense of humor. Use different genes to create the same types of structures. Do you ever get the feeling he is totally messing with these people?
Click to expand...


I think he does and he gave it to all men. Certain times of the year in African can't recall the tree's name but the fruit rotts and falls off the tree. It firments and many different groups of animals come in and eat that fruit and makes them very drunk.

Wow I never laughed so hard in my life seeing giraffes and zebras staggering or chimps passing out with a female snuggled up with the male with her head on the males shoulder. I believe it was on the discovery channel but it is funny.

2Ti 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; 
2Ti 4:4  and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm found this article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:
> 
> The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the pentadactyl [five boneBH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whaleand this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).
> 
> Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differencesdifferences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.
> 
> Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapienswise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).
> 
> Read the rest of the article.
> 
> Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God definitely has a sense of humor. Use different genes to create the same types of structures. Do you ever get the feeling he is totally messing with these people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he does and he gave it to all men. Certain times of the year in African can't recall the tree's name but the fruit rotts and falls off the tree. It firments and many different groups of animals come in and eat that fruit and makes them very drunk.
> 
> Wow I never laughed so hard in my life seeing giraffes and zebras staggering or chimps passing out with a female snuggled up with the male with her head on the males shoulder. I believe it was on the discovery channel but it is funny.
> 
> 2Ti 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;
> 2Ti 4:4  and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.
Click to expand...


Some might think that the gods might get a chuckle out of that chromosome damage - birth defect thing. That seems cruel, not funny.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we put your whole cut and paste accusation thing to rest a few posts back. I guess like most fundamentalist Darwinist, you think if you ignore it long enough, the truth will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> truth is subjective....and subjective to change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moral relativist!!! Next thing you will tell me is that child molestation is okay in certain circumstances. And why not? I mean, you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel.
> 
> Here is definitive proof chimpanzees are our closest relative...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k]Bloodhound Gang - The Bad Touch - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


That seems like the popular theme for the past couple hundred years.

If people can't see the huge jump it took to throw humans in the same group as gorillas to me that is just a vivid imagination at work.

How can we have DNA similarity with many groups of animals but the DNA information is vastly different. If they can't see that they are truly proving the words at 2nd timothy .


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> ywc and his date ur vist:Virtual Tour | Creation Museum



If you saw my wife she is about as close as one can get to the beauty of faith hill not meaning to brag.

She liked intelligent but tough men,not only am I very good looking, but  I also played football and tournament paintball.

Not for sissy theatre guys.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> While that cartoon is a nice characterature, this is more what comes to my mind when I think of Hollie...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy I know it's not right to laugh but too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How unbelievably immature. Are you both in second grade? Grow up.
Click to expand...


Just having a little fun.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> truth is subjective....and subjective to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moral relativist!!! Next thing you will tell me is that child molestation is okay in certain circumstances. And why not? I mean, you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel.
> 
> Here is definitive proof chimpanzees are our closest relative...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k]Bloodhound Gang - The Bad Touch - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That seems like the popular theme for the past couple hundred years.
> 
> If people can't see the huge jump it took to throw humans in the same group as gorillas to me that is just a vivid imagination at work.
> 
> How can we have DNA similarity with many groups of animals but the DNA information is vastly different. If they can't see that they are truly the words at 2nd timothy correct.
Click to expand...


If you believe the hacks at the ICR instead of the peer reviewed science, you will always have your foot in the bucket of fear and superstition.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy I know it's not right to laugh but too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How unbelievably immature. Are you both in second grade? Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just having a little fun.
Click to expand...


Yeah - your gods' creations. That's some sense of humor you have there.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've provided them.
> 
> The falsehoods and errors these buffoons have inflicted will, fortunately, not continue long after they have skulked away in disgrace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please expand on this line of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fundie line of reasoning begins and dead ends at "The gods did it".
> 
> Yes, they're dishonest for requiring a prior committment to Christian apologetis and then requires that all evidence (belief in a 6,000 year old planet and, well, you know the rest of that nonsense).
> 
> The Flat Earth Academy / Harun Yahya / fundie creationists are largely fossilized remnants of 17th century fear and superstition.
Click to expand...


That is a pretty sound conclusion when you consider the alternative that a natural, unintelligent,undirected process was the reason for all life, and all that it created kept improving and improving.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOT VALID NOT SCIENCE .....
> What We Believe
> 
> The following principles of truth are accepted by those who actively participate in this work:
> 
> 1.God exists, and man can know that God exists, by means of His manifold revelations, both in nature and through the inspired Word of God, the Holy Bible.
> 2.The entire material Universe was specially created by this almighty God in 6 days of approximately 24-hours each, as revealed in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11.
> 3.Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate a relatively young Earth, in contrast to evolutionary views of a multi-billion-year age for the Earth.
> 4.Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate that many of the Earths features must be viewed in light of a universal, catastrophic flood (i.e., the Noahic Flood as described in Genesis 6-8).
> 5.All compromising theories such as theistic evolution, progressive creationism, threshold evolution, the gap theory, the modified gap theory, the day-age theory, the non-world view, etc., are denied and opposed as patently false.
> 6.Christianity is the one true religion; Jesus Christ is the only divine Son of God, resurrected Lord, and Savior of all who lovingly obey Him.
> 7.The 66 books of the Bible are fully and verbally inspired of God; hence, they are inerrant and authoritative, and a complete guide for moral and religious conduct.
> 8.Salvation is by means of obedience to the Gospel system, involving faith in God and Christ, repentance from sin, confession of faith, and immersion in water for remission of past sins, coupled with a life of growing consecration and dedication.
> 9.Those enjoying salvation are members of the one true church, which is the body of Christ.
> 
> 
> AND ABOVE ALL NOT OBJECTIVE....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care how objective a person claims they are it's just simply not true we are all biased, it is human nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're hoping to excuse the bias that requires the creationist crowd to force fit information to support a predefined conclusion.
> 
> The peer review requirement of science will subvert creationist bias. Creationism is not science. That is why creationism cannot meet the standard of the scientific method.
Click to expand...


No I wish we could be objective and remove all bias but it's not possible so we are down to which theory makes the most sense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How unbelievably immature. Are you both in second grade? Grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will, right after I get your response on the Meyer Darwin comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about, and It definitely wouldn't make a difference. You have no case. Evolution is a fact. It is demonstrable. NOTHING ABOUT RELIGION is demonstrable. Not one single thing. There is zero evidence for God, yet you act like you actually have a case. It is fucking laughable. Go away.
Click to expand...


Like I said before, that term "fact" gets thrown around so much from your side it's like part of your proof for your theory. If you say it is a fact enough people will start believing it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> God definitely has a sense of humor. Use different genes to create the same types of structures. Do you ever get the feeling he is totally messing with these people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he does and he gave it to all men. Certain times of the year in African can't recall the tree's name but the fruit rotts and falls off the tree. It firments and many different groups of animals come in and eat that fruit and makes them very drunk.
> 
> Wow I never laughed so hard in my life seeing giraffes and zebras staggering or chimps passing out with a female snuggled up with the male with her head on the males shoulder. I believe it was on the discovery channel but it is funny.
> 
> 2Ti 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;
> 2Ti 4:4  and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some might think that the gods might get a chuckle out of that chromosome damage - birth defect thing. That seems cruel, not funny.
Click to expand...


Explain ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please expand on this line of reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie line of reasoning begins and dead ends at "The gods did it".
> 
> Yes, they're dishonest for requiring a prior committment to Christian apologetis and then requires that all evidence (belief in a 6,000 year old planet and, well, you know the rest of that nonsense).
> 
> The Flat Earth Academy / Harun Yahya / fundie creationists are largely fossilized remnants of 17th century fear and superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a pretty sound conclusion when you consider the alternative that a natural, unintelligent,undirected process was the reason for all life, and all that it created kept improving and improving.
Click to expand...


That's a thoroughly fraudulent conclusion. Not all life was fit for survival, thus not all life kept improving. 

Unfortunately, you know nothing of even the most basic principles of biology and the life sciences. It's a shame that ignorance and fraud is seen as a virtue by the fundie / Christian apologetic cult.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he does and he gave it to all men. Certain times of the year in African can't recall the tree's name but the fruit rotts and falls off the tree. It firments and many different groups of animals come in and eat that fruit and makes them very drunk.
> 
> Wow I never laughed so hard in my life seeing giraffes and zebras staggering or chimps passing out with a female snuggled up with the male with her head on the males shoulder. I believe it was on the discovery channel but it is funny.
> 
> 2Ti 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;
> 2Ti 4:4  and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some might think that the gods might get a chuckle out of that chromosome damage - birth defect thing. That seems cruel, not funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain ?
Click to expand...

The gods did it. 

If you feel better about yourself for ridiculing those with health problems, I'm happy for you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral relativist!!! Next thing you will tell me is that child molestation is okay in certain circumstances. And why not? I mean, you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel.
> 
> Here is definitive proof chimpanzees are our closest relative...
> 
> Bloodhound Gang - The Bad Touch - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That seems like the popular theme for the past couple hundred years.
> 
> If people can't see the huge jump it took to throw humans in the same group as gorillas to me that is just a vivid imagination at work.
> 
> How can we have DNA similarity with many groups of animals but the DNA information is vastly different. If they can't see that they are truly the words at 2nd timothy correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe the hacks at the ICR instead of the peer reviewed science, you will always have your foot in the bucket of fear and superstition.
Click to expand...


Man knows very little about nature that is a fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie line of reasoning begins and dead ends at "The gods did it".
> 
> Yes, they're dishonest for requiring a prior committment to Christian apologetis and then requires that all evidence (belief in a 6,000 year old planet and, well, you know the rest of that nonsense).
> 
> The Flat Earth Academy / Harun Yahya / fundie creationists are largely fossilized remnants of 17th century fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a pretty sound conclusion when you consider the alternative that a natural, unintelligent,undirected process was the reason for all life, and all that it created kept improving and improving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a thoroughly fraudulent conclusion. Not all life was fit for survival, thus not all life kept improving.
> 
> Unfortunately, you know nothing of even the most basic principles of biology and the life sciences. It's a shame that ignorance and fraud is seen as a virtue by the fundie / Christian apologetic cult.
Click to expand...


That is true animals did go extinct but could it have been due to man not being good stewards of the earth ? The buffalo was one that almost went extinct due to over hunting.

How many species were wiped out due to natural disasters ?

How bout drought was that one of the reasons for many extinctions ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That seems like the popular theme for the past couple hundred years.
> 
> If people can't see the huge jump it took to throw humans in the same group as gorillas to me that is just a vivid imagination at work.
> 
> How can we have DNA similarity with many groups of animals but the DNA information is vastly different. If they can't see that they are truly the words at 2nd timothy correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe the hacks at the ICR instead of the peer reviewed science, you will always have your foot in the bucket of fear and superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man knows very little about nature that is a fact.
Click to expand...


Embrace your ignorance and your maintenance of same.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some might think that the gods might get a chuckle out of that chromosome damage - birth defect thing. That seems cruel, not funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gods did it.
> 
> If you feel better about yourself for ridiculing those with health problems, I'm happy for you.
Click to expand...


I don't believe in gods I believe in the one and only true God, the Almighty creator.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie line of reasoning begins and dead ends at "The gods did it".
> 
> Yes, they're dishonest for requiring a prior committment to Christian apologetis and then requires that all evidence (belief in a 6,000 year old planet and, well, you know the rest of that nonsense).
> 
> The Flat Earth Academy / Harun Yahya / fundie creationists are largely fossilized remnants of 17th century fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a pretty sound conclusion when you consider the alternative that a natural, unintelligent,undirected process was the reason for all life, and all that it created kept improving and improving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a thoroughly fraudulent conclusion. Not all life was fit for survival, thus not all life kept improving.
> 
> Unfortunately, you know nothing of even the most basic principles of biology and the life sciences. It's a shame that ignorance and fraud is seen as a virtue by the fundie / Christian apologetic cult.
Click to expand...


Why do you avoid my biological questions then make this assertion ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe the hacks at the ICR instead of the peer reviewed science, you will always have your foot in the bucket of fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man knows very little about nature that is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Embrace your ignorance and your maintenance of same.
Click to expand...


You can't be serious.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a pretty sound conclusion when you consider the alternative that a natural, unintelligent,undirected process was the reason for all life, and all that it created kept improving and improving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a thoroughly fraudulent conclusion. Not all life was fit for survival, thus not all life kept improving.
> O
> Unfortunately, you know nothing of even the most basic principles of biology and the life sciences. It's a shame that ignorance and fraud is seen as a virtue by the fundie / Christian apologetic cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true animals did go extinct but could it have been due to man not being good stewards of the earth ? The buffalo was one that almost went extinct due to over hunting.
> 
> How many species were wiped out due to natural disasters ?
> 
> How bout drought was that one of the reasons for many extinctions ?
Click to expand...

I've never seen Noah's ledger so the question is difficult to answer. 

Would a good steward of the earth necessarily want to wipe most life from it?


----------



## Youwerecreated

The bible states several thousand years ago that only the fool say's in his heart there is no God and then a little later in time predicts man would turn to fables.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a thoroughly fraudulent conclusion. Not all life was fit for survival, thus not all life kept improving.
> O
> Unfortunately, you know nothing of even the most basic principles of biology and the life sciences. It's a shame that ignorance and fraud is seen as a virtue by the fundie / Christian apologetic cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true animals did go extinct but could it have been due to man not being good stewards of the earth ? The buffalo was one that almost went extinct due to over hunting.
> 
> How many species were wiped out due to natural disasters ?
> 
> How bout drought was that one of the reasons for many extinctions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never seen Noah's ledger so the question is difficult to answer.
> 
> Would a good steward of the earth necessarily want to wipe most life from it?
Click to expand...


No,but it was scientist who created the atom bomb and many other weapons of mass destruction.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true animals did go extinct but could it have been due to man not being good stewards of the earth ? The buffalo was one that almost went extinct due to over hunting.
> 
> How many species were wiped out due to natural disasters ?
> 
> How bout drought was that one of the reasons for many extinctions ?
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen Noah's ledger so the question is difficult to answer.
> 
> Would a good steward of the earth necessarily want to wipe most life from it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,but it was scientist who created the atom bomb and many other weapons of mass destruction.
Click to expand...

Nothing happens 'cept for the will of the gods.


----------



## newpolitics

Some realtime discussions on creationism/evolution between atheists and fundamentalists.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQeiKYqCETk&feature=g-vrec]The Fundamentalist Argument for Creationism - The Atheist Experience #483 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmJQxFoHfLw&feature=related]Crushing A Creationist - The Atheist Experience #478 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP-ENz2Lr7M&feature=related]A case for Intelligent Design? - The Atheist Experience #660 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Go away.



Umm, the last time I checked, you were posting in the Creationist thread.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> The bible states several thousand years ago that only the fool say's in his heart there is no God and then a little later in time predicts man would turn to fables.



The bible states many things which are untrue.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How unbelievably immature. Are you both in second grade? Grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just having a little fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah - your gods' creations. That's some sense of humor you have there.
Click to expand...


Since God doesn't exist, why do you care?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie line of reasoning begins and dead ends at "The gods did it".
> 
> Yes, they're dishonest for requiring a prior committment to Christian apologetis and then requires that all evidence (belief in a 6,000 year old planet and, well, you know the rest of that nonsense).
> 
> The Flat Earth Academy / Harun Yahya / fundie creationists are largely fossilized remnants of 17th century fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a pretty sound conclusion when you consider the alternative that a natural, unintelligent,undirected process was the reason for all life, and all that it created kept improving and improving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a thoroughly fraudulent conclusion. Not all life was fit for survival, thus not all life kept improving.
> 
> Unfortunately, you know nothing of even the most basic principles of biology and the life sciences. It's a shame that ignorance and fraud is seen as a virtue by the fundie / Christian apologetic cult.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you mean by that. Tell me more.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen Noah's ledger so the question is difficult to answer.
> 
> Would a good steward of the earth necessarily want to wipe most life from it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,but it was scientist who created the atom bomb and many other weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing happens 'cept for the will of the gods.
Click to expand...


This is Darwinism doctrine, not Christian. If evolution is true, you have no free will, only free willy.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Some realtime discussions on creationism/evolution between atheists and fundamentalists.
> 
> The Fundamentalist Argument for Creationism - The Atheist Experience #483 - YouTube
> 
> Crushing A Creationist - The Atheist Experience #478 - YouTube
> 
> A case for Intelligent Design? - The Atheist Experience #660 - YouTube



And Hollie says Atheism isn't a religion... HA!!!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a pretty sound conclusion when you consider the alternative that a natural, unintelligent,undirected process was the reason for all life, and all that it created kept improving and improving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a thoroughly fraudulent conclusion. Not all life was fit for survival, thus not all life kept improving.
> 
> Unfortunately, you know nothing of even the most basic principles of biology and the life sciences. It's a shame that ignorance and fraud is seen as a virtue by the fundie / Christian apologetic cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by that. Tell me more.
Click to expand...

Or, you could just read it again. 

It what the gods want you to do.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some realtime discussions on creationism/evolution between atheists and fundamentalists.
> 
> The Fundamentalist Argument for Creationism - The Atheist Experience #483 - YouTube
> 
> Crushing A Creationist - The Atheist Experience #478 - YouTube
> 
> A case for Intelligent Design? - The Atheist Experience #660 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Hollie says Atheism isn't a religion... HA!!!
Click to expand...

Atheism is not a religion. It's simply a rejection of the gods which humans have currently and previously configured.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,but it was scientist who created the atom bomb and many other weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing happens 'cept for the will of the gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is Darwinism doctrine, not Christian. If evolution is true, you have no free will, only free willy.
Click to expand...


That was inept.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just having a little fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - your gods' creations. That's some sense of humor you have there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since God doesn't exist, why do you care?
Click to expand...


Because people such as yourself build worldviews upon fear and superstition. Trembling in fear before a supernatural entity can cause a maladjusted personality.  If you had your way, creation science and the built in falsehoods, lies and factual errors that are promoted with it would be in public school syllabus.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - your gods' creations. That's some sense of humor you have there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since God doesn't exist, why do you care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because people such as yourself build worldviews upon fear and superstition. Trembling in fear before a supernatural entity can cause a maladjusted personality.  If you had your way, creation science and the built in falsehoods, lies and factual errors that are promoted with it would be in public school syllabus.
Click to expand...


People believing and placing faith in the almighty won't have to face Trembling fear in the end.

Rev 6:15  And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains. 
Rev 6:16  And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; 
Rev 6:17  for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - your gods' creations. That's some sense of humor you have there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since God doesn't exist, why do you care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because people such as yourself build worldviews upon fear and superstition. Trembling in fear before a supernatural entity can cause a maladjusted personality.  If you had your way, creation science and the built in falsehoods, lies and factual errors that are promoted with it would be in public school syllabus.
Click to expand...


That already exists but because of a guilty conscience.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible states several thousand years ago that only the fool say's in his heart there is no God and then a little later in time predicts man would turn to fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible states many things which are untrue.
Click to expand...


Like what ?

Did you know the bible mentions many things that at the time of the writing's men did not possess the ability know these things until modern day technology.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a thoroughly fraudulent conclusion. Not all life was fit for survival, thus not all life kept improving.
> 
> Unfortunately, you know nothing of even the most basic principles of biology and the life sciences. It's a shame that ignorance and fraud is seen as a virtue by the fundie / Christian apologetic cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by that. Tell me more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or, you could just read it again.
> 
> It what the gods want you to do.
Click to expand...


I guess I don't really understand what you're saying.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since God doesn't exist, why do you care?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because people such as yourself build worldviews upon fear and superstition. Trembling in fear before a supernatural entity can cause a maladjusted personality.  If you had your way, creation science and the built in falsehoods, lies and factual errors that are promoted with it would be in public school syllabus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People believing and placing faith in the almighty won't have to face Trembling fear in the end.
> 
> Rev 6:15  And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains.
> Rev 6:16  And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
> Rev 6:17  for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand?
Click to expand...




"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
_-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814_


"Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes ... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself. All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude....

Of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness around the idea of a priest as no mortal could deserve ... the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from episcopal fingers."
_-- John Adams, "A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law," printed in the Boston Gazette, August 1765_

"The Church of Rome has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of ignorant or wicked priests."
_-- John Adams, Diary and Autobiography_


"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

_SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short_


"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." 
_--Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281_

"I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith." 
-_-Thomas Jefferson to Michael Megear, 1823. ME 15:434_

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." 
_--Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800._

"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." 
_--Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78_

"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." 
_--Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173_


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by that. Tell me more.
> 
> 
> 
> Or, you could just read it again.
> 
> It what the gods want you to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I don't really understand what you're saying.
Click to expand...


Yes you do.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible states several thousand years ago that only the fool say's in his heart there is no God and then a little later in time predicts man would turn to fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible states many things which are untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like what ?
> 
> Did you know the bible mentions many things that at the time of the writing's men did not possess the ability know these things until modern day technology.
Click to expand...


I've never seen a single, verifiable instance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because people such as yourself build worldviews upon fear and superstition. Trembling in fear before a supernatural entity can cause a maladjusted personality.  If you had your way, creation science and the built in falsehoods, lies and factual errors that are promoted with it would be in public school syllabus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People believing and placing faith in the almighty won't have to face Trembling fear in the end.
> 
> Rev 6:15  And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains.
> Rev 6:16  And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
> Rev 6:17  for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
> _-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814_
> 
> 
> "Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes ... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself. All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude....
> 
> Of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness around the idea of a priest as no mortal could deserve ... the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from episcopal fingers."
> _-- John Adams, "A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law," printed in the Boston Gazette, August 1765_
> 
> "The Church of Rome has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of ignorant or wicked priests."
> _-- John Adams, Diary and Autobiography_
> 
> 
> "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
> 
> _SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
> by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short_
> 
> 
> "Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science."
> _--Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281_
> 
> "I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith."
> -_-Thomas Jefferson to Michael Megear, 1823. ME 15:434_
> 
> "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man."
> _--Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800._
> 
> "I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another."
> _--Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78_
> 
> "The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
> _--Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173_
Click to expand...




Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 14:8 The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible states many things which are untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like what ?
> 
> Did you know the bible mentions many things that at the time of the writing's men did not possess the ability know these things until modern day technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never seen a single, verifiable instance.
Click to expand...


You made a claim now back it up.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - your gods' creations. That's some sense of humor you have there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since God doesn't exist, why do you care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because people such as yourself build worldviews upon fear and superstition. Trembling in fear before a supernatural entity can cause a maladjusted personality.  If you had your way, creation science and the built in falsehoods, lies and factual errors that are promoted with it would be in public school syllabus.
Click to expand...


It used to be in America, and we were better off. You really should pick up a history book sometime for goodness sake. 

I wouldn't expect you to recognize the names of these men since you are the obvious product of our dumbed down education system, but there was a time when TRUTH reigned in this very nation you live in.

"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people." * Noah Webster.* 

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." J*ohn Adams*

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." *John Adams*

"I have myself, for many years, made it a practice to read through the Bible once ever year.... My custom is, to read four to five chapters every morning immediately after rising from my bed. I employs about an hour of my time...." *John Quincy Adams
*
"Principally, and first of all, I resign my soul to the Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying on the merits of Jesus Christ for the pardon of my sins." *Samuel Adams*

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God Governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

"We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest." *Ben Franklin
*
"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man." *Alexander Hamiliton
*
"In circumstances dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that, whilst every prudent Measure should be taken to ward off the impending Judgements....All confidence must be withheld from the Means we use; and reposed only on that GOD who rules in the Armies of Heaven, and without whose Blessing the best human Counsels are but Foolishness--and all created Power Vanity;" *John Hancock*

"It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." *Patrick Henry*

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." *Thomas Jefferson
*
"The patriot who feels himself in the service of God, who acknowledges Him in all his ways, has the promise of Almighty direction, and will find His Word in his greatest darkness, a lantern to his feet and a lamp unto his paths.' He will therefore seek to establish for his country in the eyes of the world, such a character as shall make her not unworthy of the name of a Christian nation...."* Francis Scott Key
*
"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ." *James Madison*

"The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Where, some say, is the king of America? I'll tell you, friend, He reigns above." *Thomas Paine*

And one of my absolute favorites!!!

"The thing that separates the American Christian from every other person on earth is the fact that he would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!" *George Washington
*
"...it would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes...."
*George Washington*

"Atheist are the real Terrorists, rotting our nation from within. It was Christianity, and Christianity alone that birthed the greatest nation the earth has ever seen." Ultimatereality 2012


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible states many things which are untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like what ?
> 
> Did you know the bible mentions many things that at the time of the writing's men did not possess the ability know these things until modern day technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never seen a single, verifiable instance.
Click to expand...


At the risk of offending montrovant here is a link.


101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

There you go.


----------



## UltimateReality

Here is a link to an excellent and reliable source, the* Library of Congress.* Here you can educate yourself on the role of Christianity in America, and read how they even *held church services in the House of Representatives!!!!*

Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

Of course the Atheist Historical Revisionists are trying to wipe this history out of America, but I will not be fooled.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because people such as yourself build worldviews upon fear and superstition. Trembling in fear before a supernatural entity can cause a maladjusted personality.  If you had your way, creation science and the built in falsehoods, lies and factual errors that are promoted with it would be in public school syllabus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People believing and placing faith in the almighty won't have to face Trembling fear in the end.
> 
> Rev 6:15  And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains.
> Rev 6:16  And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
> Rev 6:17  for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
> _-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814_
> 
> 
> "Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes ... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself. All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude....
> 
> Of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness around the idea of a priest as no mortal could deserve ... the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from episcopal fingers."
> _-- John Adams, "A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law," printed in the Boston Gazette, August 1765_
> 
> "The Church of Rome has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of ignorant or wicked priests."
> _-- John Adams, Diary and Autobiography_
> 
> 
> "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
> 
> _SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
> by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short_
> 
> 
> "Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science."
> _--Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281_
> 
> "I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith."
> -_-Thomas Jefferson to Michael Megear, 1823. ME 15:434_
> 
> "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man."
> _--Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800._
> 
> "I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another."
> _--Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78_
> 
> "The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
> _--Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173_
Click to expand...


I would expect this total lack of understanding of history from you. Let me give you a little history lesson. These men were protestants who fled from England to get out from under the Church of England and the requirement that it was the official religion. So I'm not sure what your point is other than your foolish misunderstanding of history. But just in case you forgot why the Pilgrims came here, why don't you read for yourself ...

Mayflower Compact:

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. *Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith,* and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience."

Excuse me, why did they come to America??? Yeah, that's what I thought.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing happens 'cept for the will of the gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is Darwinism doctrine, not Christian. If evolution is true, you have no free will, only free willy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was inept.
Click to expand...


I guess I don't get your point.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like what ?
> 
> Did you know the bible mentions many things that at the time of the writing's men did not possess the ability know these things until modern day technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a single, verifiable instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the risk of offending montrovant here is a link.
> 
> 
> 101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> There you go.
Click to expand...


You certainly don't offend me by posting that link!  The only thing that bothers me is when you copy/paste the whole thing into the thread.  The link is great!  

It's not the content that I've had issue with in the past, only the size.  

Although I do still disagree with many of the conclusions drawn.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Here is a link to an excellent and reliable source, the* Library of Congress.* Here you can educate yourself on the role of Christianity in America, and read how they even *held church services in the House of Representatives!!!!*
> 
> Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
> 
> Of course the Atheist Historical Revisionists are trying to wipe this history out of America, but I will not be fooled.



For all your attempts at forcing creationist ideology onto the Founders of the Constitution, that document is entirely free of God and Jesus. 

The Founders designed a framework of society that was to be built with tolerance for the widest possible expression of points of view as was possible, and of course this evolves with time. And the genius of the U.S. Constitution -- and the most defining proof that it was not meant to be religious in nature is the FF's acknowledgement that secular models are flexible and religions are dogmatic and inflexible. The FF's envisioned a social order or construct that evolves and flexes as it progresses into the future. Religions simply don't function that way. 

It has never been denied that men's religious beliefs were part and parcel of the Founding of the country. However, the wording of the Constitution is clearly meant to encompass numerous beliefs. Which is why a deistic term like "Creator" was used and the quite obvious lack of reference to Jesus or Yahweh or god. Do yourself a favor and look through the Constitution for the words "God" or Jesus. You will not find them.

By the way, holding a church service in the House of Representatives!!!!!!!!!! are we to be impressed?

Presidents say the word "god" during state of the union addresses. We call that free speech. Sorry, but even using multiple exclamation points after your comment didn't get the reaction you were hoping for. Try using large, bolded text, instead.


----------



## Hollie

Montrovant said:


> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge



"Eternal Productions"? 

Does that come with a jingle?

When the site references "science facts", do they acknowledge a waiver / release similar to the ICR such that the "science" they pander cannot contradict the bible?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a single, verifiable instance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the risk of offending montrovant here is a link.
> 
> 
> 101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly don't offend me by posting that link!  The only thing that bothers me is when you copy/paste the whole thing into the thread.  The link is great!
> 
> It's not the content that I've had issue with in the past, only the size.
> 
> Although I do still disagree with many of the conclusions drawn.
Click to expand...


Just thinking of you my friend.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Eternal Productions"?
> 
> Does that come with a jingle?
> 
> When the site references "science facts", do they acknowledge a waiver / release similar to the ICR such that the "science" they pander cannot contradict the bible?
Click to expand...


Well if you would like to take each issue of foreknowledge on I'm ok with that. But are you not in the least bit curious where the information came from with mans knowledge being limited by technology  ? If it was just man that wrote and inspired the bible how did they know such things ?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a link to an excellent and reliable source, the* Library of Congress.* Here you can educate yourself on the role of Christianity in America, and read how they even *held church services in the House of Representatives!!!!*
> 
> Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
> 
> Of course the Atheist Historical Revisionists are trying to wipe this history out of America, but I will not be fooled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders designed a framework of society that was to be built with tolerance for the widest possible expression of points of view as was possible
Click to expand...


This is the only point you got right, and the one you follow the least.

I noticed your response to the founders quotes was curiously absent. I'm guessing it is because you didn't know who those people were.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a link to an excellent and reliable source, the* Library of Congress.* Here you can educate yourself on the role of Christianity in America, and read how they even *held church services in the House of Representatives!!!!*
> 
> Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
> 
> Of course the Atheist Historical Revisionists are trying to wipe this history out of America, but I will not be fooled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders designed a framework of society that was to be built with tolerance for the widest possible expression of points of view as was possible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the only point you got right, and the one you follow the least.
Click to expand...


Not true. You're infuriated that your attempts to force your beliefs on others is a failed exercise. You're infuriated that your subjective and falsified claims are dismissed as just that: falsified. You're infuriated at being taken to task for the biased, invented claims that share a remarkable degree of consistent fraud across creationist websites and ideology.

If you want to undestand intolerance, understand why the Founding Fathers chose to specifically exclude religious admonitions in the Constitution. They were well aware of religious intolerance (Christian religious intolerance) as some of the FF's had fled religious tyranny in England and knew the dangers of religious totalitarianism.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders designed a framework of society that was to be built with tolerance for the widest possible expression of points of view as was possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the only point you got right, and the one you follow the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. You're infuriated that your attempts to force your beliefs on others is a failed exercise. You're infuriated that your subjective and falsified claims are dismissed as just that: falsified. You're infuriated at being taken to task for the biased, invented claims that share a remarkable degree of consistent fraud across creationist websites and ideology.
> 
> If you want to undestand intolerance, understand why the Founding Fathers chose to specifically exclude religious admonitions in the Constitution. They were well aware of religious intolerance (Christian religious intolerance) as some of the FF's had fled religious tyranny in England and knew the dangers of religious totalitarianism.
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight, are you saying I'm infuriated?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the only point you got right, and the one you follow the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. You're infuriated that your attempts to force your beliefs on others is a failed exercise. You're infuriated that your subjective and falsified claims are dismissed as just that: falsified. You're infuriated at being taken to task for the biased, invented claims that share a remarkable degree of consistent fraud across creationist websites and ideology.
> 
> If you want to undestand intolerance, understand why the Founding Fathers chose to specifically exclude religious admonitions in the Constitution. They were well aware of religious intolerance (Christian religious intolerance) as some of the FF's had fled religious tyranny in England and knew the dangers of religious totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, are you saying I'm infuriated?
Click to expand...


In a single word - 400 years ago, you and those like you would be toasting marshallows over the burning embers of someone you had just burned at the stake for blasphemy.

Such is the genius of the U.S. Constitution. Could the FF's have envisioned Christian Science? Or Scientology? Or Mormonism? Yes and no. They knew that religions and even sub-sects of religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards their own doctrines and poorly disposed towards competitive beliefs systems. We don't have to make any assumptions regarding the intent of the FF's  -- even if some of them were Christians (and some of 'em were), their intent was clear: the state is disallowed from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Thus, the First Amendment.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. You're infuriated that your attempts to force your beliefs on others is a failed exercise. You're infuriated that your subjective and falsified claims are dismissed as just that: falsified. You're infuriated at being taken to task for the biased, invented claims that share a remarkable degree of consistent fraud across creationist websites and ideology.
> 
> If you want to undestand intolerance, understand why the Founding Fathers chose to specifically exclude religious admonitions in the Constitution. They were well aware of religious intolerance (Christian religious intolerance) as some of the FF's had fled religious tyranny in England and knew the dangers of religious totalitarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, are you saying I'm infuriated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a single word - 400 years ago, you and those like you would be toasting marshallows over the burning embers of someone you had just burned at the stake for blasphemy.
> 
> Such is the genius of the U.S. Constitution. Could the FF's have envisioned Christian Science? Or Scientology? Or Mormonism? Yes and no. They knew that religions and even sub-sects of religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards their own doctrines and poorly disposed towards competitive beliefs systems. We don't have to make any assumptions regarding the intent of the FF's  -- even if some of them were Christians (and some of 'em were), their intent was clear: the state is disallowed from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Thus, the First Amendment.
Click to expand...


The constitution I believe is soon to be replaced. Me being a believer in the scriptures think that we are living close to the end of mans rule. I believe that this country as will all countries will need an administration that will hand over all power and authority to the United Nations.

I felt there is no way Obama could win at this point unless by an act of God. I believe if Obama wins it is for this reason to hand over authority to the United Nations. If this happens our constitution will mean nothing. 

We are witnessing a time that will never be forgotten.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, are you saying I'm infuriated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a single word - 400 years ago, you and those like you would be toasting marshallows over the burning embers of someone you had just burned at the stake for blasphemy.
> 
> Such is the genius of the U.S. Constitution. Could the FF's have envisioned Christian Science? Or Scientology? Or Mormonism? Yes and no. They knew that religions and even sub-sects of religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards their own doctrines and poorly disposed towards competitive beliefs systems. We don't have to make any assumptions regarding the intent of the FF's  -- even if some of them were Christians (and some of 'em were), their intent was clear: the state is disallowed from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Thus, the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution I believe is soon to be replaced. Me being a believer in the scriptures think that we are living close to the end of mans rule. I believe that this country as will all countries will need an administration that will hand over all power and authority to the United Nations.
> 
> I felt there is no way Obama could win at this point unless by an act of God. I believe if Obama wins it is for this reason to hand over authority to the United Nations. If this happens our constitution will mean nothing.
> 
> We are witnessing a time that will never be forgotten.
Click to expand...


Funny that Hollie even thinks the US will be around 400 years from now, at least in its current form. And I can point to one cause for it all... Godlessness. 

Guest Post: Americans Are Being Prepared For Full Spectrum Tyranny | ZeroHedge


----------



## Montrovant

And now it is time to slide over to the conspiracy theories forum.....Obama is going to hand control of the country to the UN?  

This thread has just spiraled out of control recently.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> And now it is time to slide over to the conspiracy theories forum.....Obama is going to hand control of the country to the UN?
> 
> This thread has just spiraled out of control recently.




I can share my view with you in a thread I just started.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...a-message-to-believers-and-non-believers.html


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a single word - 400 years ago, you and those like you would be toasting marshallows over the burning embers of someone you had just burned at the stake for blasphemy.
> 
> Such is the genius of the U.S. Constitution. Could the FF's have envisioned Christian Science? Or Scientology? Or Mormonism? Yes and no. They knew that religions and even sub-sects of religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards their own doctrines and poorly disposed towards competitive beliefs systems. We don't have to make any assumptions regarding the intent of the FF's  -- even if some of them were Christians (and some of 'em were), their intent was clear: the state is disallowed from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Thus, the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution I believe is soon to be replaced. Me being a believer in the scriptures think that we are living close to the end of mans rule. I believe that this country as will all countries will need an administration that will hand over all power and authority to the United Nations.
> 
> I felt there is no way Obama could win at this point unless by an act of God. I believe if Obama wins it is for this reason to hand over authority to the United Nations. If this happens our constitution will mean nothing.
> 
> We are witnessing a time that will never be forgotten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that Hollie even thinks the US will be around 400 years from now, at least in its current form. And I can point to one cause for it all... Godlessness.
> 
> Guest Post: Americans Are Being Prepared For Full Spectrum Tyranny | ZeroHedge
Click to expand...


God is allowing man to think he can rule in mans best interest.

I just started this thread. I do have views that I can share about whats going on in my opinion.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...a-message-to-believers-and-non-believers.html


----------



## Youwerecreated

Holder is probably wishing that the mandate by Obama's administration was not upheld he is really gonna feel the heat now.


----------



## Hollie

Montrovant said:


> And now it is time to slide over to the conspiracy theories forum.....Obama is going to hand control of the country to the UN?
> 
> This thread has just spiraled out of control recently.



You realize what you started, right?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now it is time to slide over to the conspiracy theories forum.....Obama is going to hand control of the country to the UN?
> 
> This thread has just spiraled out of control recently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize what you started, right?
Click to expand...


God is not just the God of America.

I will stand corrected if my prediction proves to be wrong.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying !% you saying 98 % so that means 2% difference now that makes it 60 million base pairs of DNA.
> 
> But since the genome project where they mapped the human genome they discovered that the so called junk DNA is no longer Junk DNA so that 2% difference is probably much higher.
> 
> But thanks the gaps just got wider by your ignorance of what I was talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what you're bullshiting about..2% by any statistical mesure is meaningless...
> 
> and your still wrong :In constructing an evolutionary tree of life, scientists have granted themselves and the rest of us humans a genus, Homo, all to ourselves. But theres no getting around the fact that were in the same family with chimpanzees and other primates.
> 
> The genetic codes of chimps and humans are 99 percent identical. Measured by differences in DNA, the chimp, Pan troglodytes, is the closest living relative to our own species, Homo sapiens. The comparison to an ape might make a few people squirm, but researchers now are happily comparing chimps and humans more closely than ever before.
> 
> 
> Katie Pollard
> The goal is to find out more about ourselves. What is it about our genes that enables us to develop uniquely human capabilities? And what can we learn about familiar human vulnerabilities that we do not share with our primate cousins? The secrets are in the DNA, scientists believe.
> 
> In her own search for answers, Katie Pollard, PhD, has been buoyed by a decades worth of advances in computer power and in the tools used to map DNA at an ever faster clip. Pollard, an associate professor with the UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the UCSF Institute for Human Genetics, as well as an associate investigator with the Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, has created software programs  mathematical algorithms  to tease out vital information from DNA.
> 
> Thus equipped, Pollard is probing the places in the genetic code where base pairs  the coupled DNA alphabet building blocks that form the famous double-helix -- differ between the two species. No stretch of DNA escapes scrutiny  shes looking at the entire genome.
> 
> 15 Million Differences
> Only one in 100 base pairs is different, which doesnt sound like much, says Pollard. But when you consider that the genome is 3 billion base pairs long, that means there are 15 million human-specific letters of code that are not shared by the chimp. Thats more than anybody can look through manually.
> 
> 
> 
> there are 15 million human-specific letters of code that are not shared by the chimp
> 
> What Makes Us Human? Studies of Chimp and Human DNA May Tell Us | www.ucsf.edu
> 
> 
> this is the site where you got your misinformation:Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More. - Answers in Genesis
> 
> with a tag line like this:  believing it,defending it ,proclaiming it. just screams of desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is right ?
> 
> Chimp genetic code opens human frontiers - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com
Click to expand...

since creation is never mentioned in the article, what's your point? 

are you trying  and failing to infer that the genetic difference us and chimps are a god did it moment..?


----------



## UltimateReality

People love to ignore things that could stress them out. Their denial is a coping mechanism. It is called confirmation bias. Montrevant, don't be blind like Hollie. The information is not that hard to find if you look. 

You think other religions aren't at work in the UN?? Those who think otherwise are foolish and uninformed.

"The Lucis Trust is a nonprofit service organization incorporated in the United States in 1922 by Alice Bailey and her husband Foster Bailey, to act as a fiduciary trust for the publishing of twenty-four books of esoteric philosophy published under Alice Bailey's name, and to fund and administer activities concerned with the establishment of "right human relations". These include the Arcane School, a school for esoteric training, World Goodwill, Triangles, a lending library, The Beacon magazine, as well as the publishing company.

Founded as the *Lucifer* Publishing Company in the early 1920s, the name was changed in 1925 to the Lucis Publishing Company. In Latin lucern ferre translates to *"light-bearer"* and lucis means of light. The Lucis Trust has always maintained the same name.[1] It has headquarters in New York City, London, and Geneva.

The objectives of the Lucis Trust as stated in its charter are: "To encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy, science and art; to encourage every line of thought tending to the broadening of human sympathies and interests, and the expansion of ethical religious and educational literature; to assist or to engage in activities for the relief of suffering and for human betterment; and, in general, to further worthy efforts for humanitarian and educational ends."

*The World Goodwill group, founded in 1932, has been recognized by the United Nations as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), and is represented during regular briefing sessions for NGOs at the United Nations. *The Lucis Trust has consultative status (roster level) with the United Nations Economic and Social Council.[2]

The Trust is established in Great Britain under the title "Lucis Trust Ltd.", in Switzerland as "Lucis Trust Association", and in Holland as the "Lucis Trust Stichting."

Lucis Trust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lucis - Home

Robert Muller (March 11, 1923 &#8211; September 20, 2010) was an international civil servant with the United Nations. Assistant Secretary-General for 40 years, his ideas about world government, world peace and spirituality led to the increased representation of religions in the UN, especially of New Age Movement. He was known by some as "the philosopher of the United Nations".[1] WIKI

On the WCC:

"I urge all educators and governments to have a look at this curriculum. *It is not the product of my mind, but of the United Nations,* the recent first universal organization which thinks for the entire planet and humanity. RobertMuller.org

Aquarius Papers - Global Astrology: Dr. Robert Muller - RIP to One of the Greatest Peacemakers of the 20th Century

What is Lucis Trust???

The effect of human meditation at this time is to change conditions, to invoke the *higher spiritual potencies,* to work with concentration&#8212;both vertically and horizontally&#8212;within the world of spiritual energies and within the world of human affairs. The ultimate result of effective meditation in the consciousness of the individual is enlightenment and illumination&#8212;leading to an increased ability to cooperate in the creative and redemptive purposes of our planetary life.

Please join us in the *United Nations Meditation Room* on the following dates in 2012 promptly at noon.
Open to the Public; Use the United Nations Visitor's Entrance at 46th Street and 1st Avenue. 

The United Nations

We live in the information age. Inform yourself!!! Most Christians are even unaware of the* Satanic movement within the UN.*


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> truth is subjective....and subjective to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moral relativist!!! Next thing you will tell me is that child molestation is okay in certain circumstances. And why not? I mean, you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel.
> 
> Here is definitive proof chimpanzees are our closest relative...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k]Bloodhound Gang - The Bad Touch - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That seems like the popular theme for the past couple hundred years.
> 
> If people can't see the huge jump it took to throw humans in the same group as gorillas to me that is just a vivid imagination at work.
> 
> How can we have DNA similarity with many groups of animals but the DNA information is vastly different. If they can't see that they are truly proving the words at 2nd timothy .
Click to expand...

another meaningless rationalization..once again you're over playing your hand.


----------



## UltimateReality

To Dr. Robert Muller

Rosalynn and I are pleased to congratulate you on receiving the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's 2002 World Citizenship Award. Since your *prizewinning essay on world governance,* written 54 years ago, you have devoted much of your life to the peacekeeping efforts of the United Nations, directly assisting three secretaries general. Your schools and books emphasize the increasing importance of global education. Your courageous leadership for peace is certainly worthy of this fine recognition.

With warm best wishes,



Sincerely,

Jimmy Carter





Dr. Robert Muller
Chancellor Emeritus
United Nations University for Peace
Costa Rica


----------



## UltimateReality

2 Corinthians 11

12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 *And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.* 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.


----------



## UltimateReality

In Observance of World Invocation Day
*To Invoke and Evoke Healing Energies for the United Nations and Planet Earth*

Friday, 5 June 2009; 1:00 p.m.&#8212;3:30 p.m.
United Nations Church Center, 2nd Floor Conference Room
United Nations, New York

"The International Year of Reconciliation can become a vehicle for creating a fraternal human society, based on values such as truth and justice and for restoring the unity of mankind."
Permanent Mission of Nicaragua to the United Nations

"Some day a scientific study will be made of the great world prayers, spiritual statements and invocative appeals and their relation to world events; this relationship will become illuminatingly apparent and the result will be a closer linking of earth and the spiritual centres of Love and Life."
The Rays and the Initiations, *Alice A Bailey *


----------



## UltimateReality

Sorry Montrevant, Someone else opened up the can. And the worms just keep coming!!! 

Biblical prophesy just a coincidence??? Hey, you decide. Next thing you are going to tell me is the World Banks are involved in this and conspiracy theories about The Council of Foreign Relations is part of the banking cartels push for the NWO.

"*Luci's Trust* is sponsored by among others Robert McNamara, former minister of Defence in the USA, *president of the World Bank*, member of the *Rockefeller Foundation*, and Thomas Watson (IBM, former ambassador in Moscow). Luci's Trust sponsors among others the following organizations: UN, Greenpeace Int., Greenpeace USA, Amnesty Int. and UNICEF.

The United Nations has long been one of the foremost world harbingers for the "New Spirituality" and the gathering "New World Order" based on ancient occult and freemasonic principles. Seven years after the birth of the UN, a book was published by the theosophist and founder of the Lucis Trust, Alice Bailey, claiming that "Evidence of the growth of the human intellect along the needed receptive lines [for the preparation of the New Age] can be seen in the "planning" of various nations and in the efforts of the United Nations to formulate a world plan... From the very start of this unfoldment, three occult factors have governed the development of all these plans". [Alice B. Bailey, Discipleship in the New Age (Lucis Press, 1955), Vol. II, p.35.]

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/lucistrust.html

http://www.lucistrust.org/en/service_activities/the_great_invocation__1

"The Great Invocation
A Mantram for the New Age and for all Humanity

From the point of Light within the Mind of God
Let light stream forth into the minds of men.
Let Light descend on Earth.

From the point of Love within the Heart of God
Let love stream forth into the hearts of men.
May Christ return to Earth.

From the centre where the Will of God is known
Let purpose guide the little wills of men &#8211;
The purpose which the Masters know and serve.

From the centre which we call the race of men
Let the Plan of Love and Light work out
And may it seal the door where evil dwells.

Let Light and Love and Power restore the Plan on Earth.

Many religions believe in a World Teacher or Saviour, knowing him under such names as the Christ, the Lord Maitreya, the Imam Mahdi, the Bodhisattva, and the Messiah, and these terms are used in some of the Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and Jewish versions of the Great Invocation.

Men and women of goodwill throughout the world are using this Invocation in their own language. Will you join them in using the Invocation every day - with thought and dedication?

By using the Invocation and encouraging others to use it, no particular group or organisation is sponsored. It belongs to all humanity."

*Alice tends to leave out the first name of the christ she is waiting for. his first name is "ANTI"!!!*


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> 2 Corinthians 11
> 
> 12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 *And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.* 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.



That's why we're watching you..., *CLOSELY!*


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Corinthians 11
> 
> 12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 *And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.* 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we're watching you..., *CLOSELY!*
Click to expand...


You should be watching whoever buys into satans one world government, the United Nations.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ywc and his date ur vist:Virtual Tour | Creation Museum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you saw my wife she is about as close as one can get to the beauty of faith hill not meaning to brag.
> 
> She liked intelligent but tough men,not only am I very good looking, but  I also played football and tournament paintball.
> 
> Not for sissy theatre guys.
Click to expand...

 right! your wife looks like faith hill like olive oil looks like Angelina jolie...


if this statement is true:"She liked intelligent but tough men,not only am I very good looking, but  I also played football and tournament paintball."
 since you'er missing the key components of intelligence ,looks and toughness, she must have been either knocked up or drunk to marry you.
any asshole can play football, paint ball isn't even a sport (It is fun though).
sissy ? lol....lol... have you ever climbed a 60' truss carrying 100 pound of cable in a stiff wind? 
have you ever had to cross an 80'span  50' in the air above a concrete stage  on a catwalk that is only 12"wide and and tied together with 70 year old hemp and no hand rails?
and you call me a sissy.
btw I grew up in the marines!


----------



## UltimateReality

Council on Foreign Relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Website

It has an extensive website, Council on Foreign Relations, featuring links to its history, fellows' biographical information, think tank, the *David Rockefeller* Studies Program, Independent Task Force reports[11] and other reports, CFR books, expert interviews, meeting transcripts, audio, and videos, Emmy award-winning multimedia Crisis Guides and timelines, Foreign Affairs, and many other publications, biographies of notable directors and other board members, corporate members, and press releases.[2]"

"Vietnam created a rift within the organization. When Hamilton Fish Armstrong announced in 1970 that he would be leaving the helm of Foreign Affairs after 45 years, *new chairman David Rockefeller *approached a family friend, William Bundy, to take over the position. Anti-war advocates within the Council rose in protest against this appointment, claiming that Bundy's hawkish record in the State and Defense Departments and the CIA precluded him from taking over an independent journal. Some considered Bundy a war criminal for his prior actions.[7]

Members of the Council on Foreign Relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Notable historical members*

    Notable historical members

    Kenneth Bacon (American journalist)
    Conrad Black (International Advisory Board member)
    Tom Braden (former CIA agent and liberal journalist)
    George Wildman Ball (American diplomat)
    Spruille Braden (American diplomat, businessman)
    McGeorge Bundy (National Security advisor for Presidents John F. Kennedy & Lyndon B. Johnson)
    William Bundy (Central Intelligence Agency agent, historian)
*William F. Buckley, Jr* (commentator, publisher, founder of the National Review)
    Jonathan Bingham (Democratic congressman from New York, diplomat)
    Paul Cravath (lawyer, one of the founders of the Council on Foreign Relations)
    Monica Crowley (former Richard Nixon aide, radio host, and columnist)
    John Chafee (former Secretary of the Navy, and Republican senator from Rhode Island)
    Warren Christopher (former United States Secretary of State)
    Thomas E. Dewey (47th governor of New York, former Republican nominee for President in 1944 and 1948)
    Michael Raoul Duval (attorney for Richard Nixon & Gerald Ford)
    C. Douglas Dillon (57th Secretary of the Treasury of the United States under John F. Kennedy & Lyndon Johnson, under-secretary of state under Dwight D. Eisenhower)
    Allen Dulles (former Director of the CIA)
    John Foster Dulles (52nd Secretary of State of the United States under Ike Eisenhower)
    Lawrence Eagleburger (former United States Secretary of State under President George H. W. Bush)
    Jeffrey E. Epstein (financier)[7]
*Gerald Ford *(38th President of the United States of America)
    Geraldine Ferraro (former Democratic New York congresswoman, first woman on a major party presidential ticket in 1984)
*Alexander Haig *(United States Army General, 59th Secretary of State of the United States under Ronald Reagan)
    Sidney Harman (businessman, owner of Newsweek)
    Armand Hammer (businessman, investor)
    W. Averell Harriman (48th Governor of New York, diplomat, 11th United States Secretary of Commerce under Harry S Truman)
    H. John Heinz III (former Republican United States Senator from Pennsylvania)
*Herbert Hoover* (31st President of the United States)
    Henry Hyde (former Republican congressman from Illinois)
    Sergei Karaganov (International Advisory Board member)
    Irving Kristol (journalist, writer, dubbed "The godfather of neoconservatism, father of Bill Kristol)
    Jack Kemp (Hall of Fame quarterback, Republican congressman from New York, 9th United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Bush-41, 1996 Republican Vice-Presidential nominee)
    George Kennan (diplomat, historian)
    Jeane Kirkpatrick (diplomat, 16th United States Ambassador to the United Nations)
    Ivy Lee (founding father of public relations)
    Robert A. Lovett (4th Secretary of Defense of the United States under Truman)
    Robert Matsui (former Democratic Party congressman from California)
    John J. McCloy (lawyer, banker)
    Charles Peter McColough (businessman)
    Robert McNamara (8th Secretary of Defense under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, 5th President of the World Bank)
    Daniel Patrick Moynihan (diplomat, former Democratic Senator from New York)
    Edmund Muskie (58th Secretary of State of the United States)
*Richard M. Nixon *(37th President of the United States)
    Paul Nitze (Secretary of the Navy under Lyndon Johnson)
* Nelson Rockefeller* (41st Vice-President of the United States, and Governor of New York)
* John D. Rockefeller 3rd*
    Felix Rohatyn (investment banker)
    Mark B. Rosenberg (President of Florida International University)
    Eugene Rostow (former dean of Yale law, legal scholar)
    Walt Rostow (7th National Security advisor to Lyndon Johnson)
    Dean Rusk (54th Secretary of State of the United States under Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson)
    Abraham A. Ribicoff (former Democratic United States Senator from Connecticut)
    William V. Roth, Jr. (former Republican United States Senator of Delaware).
*Carl Sagan *(American scientist)
    Arthur Schlesinger (historian, academic)
    Raymond P. Shafer (former Republican governor of Pennsylvania)
    Tony Snow (former press secretary to George W. Bush, journalist, radio talk-show host)
    Ron Silver (actor, director, producer, co-founded One Jerusalem)
    Strobe Talbott (diplomat, chairman of Brookings Institution, journalist)
    Cyrus Vance (57th Secretary of State of the United States under Jimmy Carter)
    Vernon A. Walters (United States Army General, 17th U.S. ambassador of the U.N.)
    John Wheeler III (Vietnam veteran, military consultant, presidential aide; found murdered on Dec. 31, 2010)
    Paul Warburg (banker)
*Caspar Weinberger* (15th Secretary of Defense for the United States under Ronald Reagan)
    Albert Wohlstetter
    Roberta Wohlstetter

*This is a private club. Not affiliated with the US Government in anyway except for its membership.*


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ywc and his date ur vist:Virtual Tour | Creation Museum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you saw my wife she is about as close as one can get to the beauty of faith hill not meaning to brag.
> 
> She liked intelligent but tough men,not only am I very good looking, but  I also played football and tournament paintball.
> 
> Not for sissy theatre guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right! your wife looks like faith hill like olive oil looks like Angelina jolie...
> 
> 
> if this statement is true:"She liked intelligent but tough men,not only am I very good looking, but  I also played football and tournament paintball."
> the since your missing the key components of intelligence ,looks and toughness, she must have been either knocked up or drunk to marry you.
> an asshole can play football, paint ball isn't even a sport (It is fun though).
> sissy ? lol....lol... have you ever climbed a 60' truss carrying 100 pound of cable in a stiff wind?
> have you ever had to cross an 80'span  50' in the air above a concrete stage  on a catwalk that is only 12"wide and and tied together with 70 year old hemp and no hand rails?
> and you call me a sissy.
> btw I grew up in the marines!
Click to expand...


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I assure you my wife looks alot like her.

I married a very beautiful valley girl.

I still play you come on out to the next nppl event in huntington beach and I will give you lessons and then tell me it is not a sport, This is not recball.


----------



## UltimateReality

DAWS101 Signature line:

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan. *Council of Foreign Relations member*

Evolution is a Conspiracy Theory


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, are you saying I'm infuriated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a single word - 400 years ago, you and those like you would be toasting marshallows over the burning embers of someone you had just burned at the stake for blasphemy.
> 
> Such is the genius of the U.S. Constitution. Could the FF's have envisioned Christian Science? Or Scientology? Or Mormonism? Yes and no. They knew that religions and even sub-sects of religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards their own doctrines and poorly disposed towards competitive beliefs systems. We don't have to make any assumptions regarding the intent of the FF's  -- even if some of them were Christians (and some of 'em were), their intent was clear: the state is disallowed from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Thus, the First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution I believe is soon to be replaced. Me being a believer in the scriptures think that we are living close to the end of mans rule. I believe that this country as will all countries will need an administration that will hand over all power and authority to the United Nations.
> 
> I felt there is no way Obama could win at this point unless by an act of God. I believe if Obama wins it is for this reason to hand over authority to the United Nations. If this happens our constitution will mean nothing.
> 
> We are witnessing a time that will never be forgotten.
Click to expand...

and you want to be taken seriously!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a single word - 400 years ago, you and those like you would be toasting marshallows over the burning embers of someone you had just burned at the stake for blasphemy.
> 
> Such is the genius of the U.S. Constitution. Could the FF's have envisioned Christian Science? Or Scientology? Or Mormonism? Yes and no. They knew that religions and even sub-sects of religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards their own doctrines and poorly disposed towards competitive beliefs systems. We don't have to make any assumptions regarding the intent of the FF's  -- even if some of them were Christians (and some of 'em were), their intent was clear: the state is disallowed from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Thus, the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution I believe is soon to be replaced. Me being a believer in the scriptures think that we are living close to the end of mans rule. I believe that this country as will all countries will need an administration that will hand over all power and authority to the United Nations.
> 
> I felt there is no way Obama could win at this point unless by an act of God. I believe if Obama wins it is for this reason to hand over authority to the United Nations. If this happens our constitution will mean nothing.
> 
> We are witnessing a time that will never be forgotten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you want to be taken seriously!!
Click to expand...


Daws ,if I am right which I think I am,you will soon see. If I am wrong I will admit to it, But if I am right you might want to change your thinking.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Daws I don't need to be taken serious that is up to the individual I am just warning people ahead of time.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you saw my wife she is about as close as one can get to the beauty of faith hill not meaning to brag.
> 
> She liked intelligent but tough men,not only am I very good looking, but  I also played football and tournament paintball.
> 
> Not for sissy theatre guys.
> 
> 
> 
> right! your wife looks like faith hill like olive oil looks like Angelina jolie...
> 
> 
> if this statement is true:"She liked intelligent but tough men,not only am I very good looking, but  I also played football and tournament paintball."
> the since your missing the key components of intelligence ,looks and toughness, she must have been either knocked up or drunk to marry you.
> an asshole can play football, paint ball isn't even a sport (It is fun though).
> sissy ? lol....lol... have you ever climbed a 60' truss carrying 100 pound of cable in a stiff wind?
> have you ever had to cross an 80'span  50' in the air above a concrete stage  on a catwalk that is only 12"wide and and tied together with 70 year old hemp and no hand rails?
> and you call me a sissy.
> btw I grew up in the marines!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I assure you my wife looks alot like her.
> 
> I married a very beautiful valley girl.
> 
> I still play you come on out to the next nppl event in huntington beach and I will give you lessons and then tell me it is not a sport, This is not recball.
Click to expand...

in your eyes! love does wonder for imperfection! 

I have played paint ball many times lessons not necessary.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> DAWS101 Signature line:
> 
> extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan. *Council of Foreign Relations member*
> 
> Evolution is a Conspiracy Theory


do they hand out tin hats along with domga at your church?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution I believe is soon to be replaced. Me being a believer in the scriptures think that we are living close to the end of mans rule. I believe that this country as will all countries will need an administration that will hand over all power and authority to the United Nations.
> 
> I felt there is no way Obama could win at this point unless by an act of God. I believe if Obama wins it is for this reason to hand over authority to the United Nations. If this happens our constitution will mean nothing.
> 
> We are witnessing a time that will never be forgotten.
> 
> 
> 
> and you want to be taken seriously!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws ,if I am right which I think I am,you will soon see. If I am wrong I will admit to it, But if I am right you might want to change your thinking.
Click to expand...

and there's the rub  ...you believe you're right, thinking has nothing to do with it. 
you've yet to admit anything I'll not hold my breath


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ywc and his date ur vist:Virtual Tour | Creation Museum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you saw my wife she is about as close as one can get to the beauty of faith hill not meaning to brag.
> 
> She liked intelligent but tough men,not only am I very good looking, but  I also played football and tournament paintball.
> 
> Not for sissy theatre guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right! your wife looks like faith hill like olive oil looks like Angelina jolie...
> 
> 
> if this statement is true:"She liked intelligent but tough men,not only am I very good looking, but  I also played football and tournament paintball."
> the since your missing the key components of intelligence ,looks and toughness, she must have been either knocked up or drunk to marry you.
> an asshole can play football, paint ball isn't even a sport (It is fun though).
> sissy ? lol....lol... have you ever climbed a 60' truss carrying 100 pound of cable in a stiff wind?
> have you ever had to cross an 80'span  50' in the air above a concrete stage  on a catwalk that is only 12"wide and and tied together with 70 year old hemp and no hand rails?
> and you call me a sissy.
> btw I grew up in the marines!
Click to expand...


Watch and learn this is the kind of paintball I play.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toaas90yVbA]Paintball- NPPL Huntington Beach. BBB Productions - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT1Cs0XqOBc]PSP World Cup 2009 Paintball Experience Extended Teaser 2 - HD - YouTube[/ame]

Yeah very fun  but no whimps allowed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> right! your wife looks like faith hill like olive oil looks like Angelina jolie...
> 
> 
> if this statement is true:"She liked intelligent but tough men,not only am I very good looking, but  I also played football and tournament paintball."
> the since your missing the key components of intelligence ,looks and toughness, she must have been either knocked up or drunk to marry you.
> an asshole can play football, paint ball isn't even a sport (It is fun though).
> sissy ? lol....lol... have you ever climbed a 60' truss carrying 100 pound of cable in a stiff wind?
> have you ever had to cross an 80'span  50' in the air above a concrete stage  on a catwalk that is only 12"wide and and tied together with 70 year old hemp and no hand rails?
> and you call me a sissy.
> btw I grew up in the marines!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I assure you my wife looks alot like her.
> 
> I married a very beautiful valley girl.
> 
> I still play you come on out to the next nppl event in huntington beach and I will give you lessons and then tell me it is not a sport, This is not recball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in your eyes! love does wonder for imperfection!
> 
> I have played paint ball many times lessons not necessary.
Click to expand...


Cool I'll let you know when the next tournament is played in your neck of the woods and you can show me how it is done.


----------



## Montrovant

First : I'm glad I don't play paintball anymore.  I don't like the way the game is played now.  Lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint....bleh.  I liked it when you actually had to pull the trigger for every ball.   People still did some of the same tactics, but it wasn't quite the same.  Now it seems to be about how much paint you can shoot!

Next : What the shit is with all the crazy?!   We've gone from arguing whether creationism, ID, or evolution are valid to talking about how Obama is going to cede control of the US government to the UN (which, I might point out, he does not have the power to do), to the UN is a secret satanic society?  The  grows strong in here.

I'm sorry, but when you go off into eots or 9/11insidejob type nuttiness, I lose nearly all possibility of taking you seriously about anything.  I may just unsubscribe this thread; it's becoming way too ridiculous lately.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a single word - 400 years ago, you and those like you would be toasting marshallows over the burning embers of someone you had just burned at the stake for blasphemy.
> 
> Such is the genius of the U.S. Constitution. Could the FF's have envisioned Christian Science? Or Scientology? Or Mormonism? Yes and no. They knew that religions and even sub-sects of religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards their own doctrines and poorly disposed towards competitive beliefs systems. We don't have to make any assumptions regarding the intent of the FF's  -- even if some of them were Christians (and some of 'em were), their intent was clear: the state is disallowed from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Thus, the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution I believe is soon to be replaced. Me being a believer in the scriptures think that we are living close to the end of mans rule. I believe that this country as will all countries will need an administration that will hand over all power and authority to the United Nations.
> 
> I felt there is no way Obama could win at this point unless by an act of God. I believe if Obama wins it is for this reason to hand over authority to the United Nations. If this happens our constitution will mean nothing.
> 
> We are witnessing a time that will never be forgotten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you want to be taken seriously!!
Click to expand...


Your generation has a bad case of normalcy bias. Look it up.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> First : I'm glad I don't play paintball anymore.  I don't like the way the game is played now.  Lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint....bleh.  I liked it when you actually had to pull the trigger for every ball.   People still did some of the same tactics, but it wasn't quite the same.  Now it seems to be about how much paint you can shoot!
> 
> Next : What the shit is with all the crazy?!   We've gone from arguing whether creationism, ID, or evolution are valid to talking about how Obama is going to cede control of the US government to the UN (which, I might point out, he does not have the power to do), to the UN is a secret satanic society?  The  grows strong in here.
> 
> I'm sorry, but when you go off into eots or 9/11insidejob type nuttiness, I lose nearly all possibility of taking you seriously about anything.  I may just unsubscribe this thread; it's becoming way too ridiculous lately.



Did you actually read any of the material? It is all from credible sources. No conspiracy websites. Stick your head in the sand. You also have a bad case of normalcy bias. The UN is whack!!

Are you denying the Lucifer Group exists and denying they have NGO status at the UN???


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> First : I'm glad I don't play paintball anymore.  I don't like the way the game is played now.  Lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint....bleh.  I liked it when you actually had to pull the trigger for every ball.   People still did some of the same tactics, but it wasn't quite the same.  Now it seems to be about how much paint you can shoot!
> 
> Next : What the shit is with all the crazy?!   We've gone from arguing whether creationism, ID, or evolution are valid to talking about how Obama is going to cede control of the US government to the UN (which, I might point out, he does not have the power to do), to the UN is a secret satanic society?  The  grows strong in here.
> 
> I'm sorry, but when you go off into eots or 9/11insidejob type nuttiness, I lose nearly all possibility of taking you seriously about anything.  I may just unsubscribe this thread; it's becoming way too ridiculous lately.



Montrovant this is as close to reality you will get concerning macroevolution being possible how this thread evolved


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> First : I'm glad I don't play paintball anymore.  I don't like the way the game is played now.  Lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint....bleh.  I liked it when you actually had to pull the trigger for every ball.   People still did some of the same tactics, but it wasn't quite the same.  Now it seems to be about how much paint you can shoot!
> 
> Next : What the shit is with all the crazy?!   We've gone from arguing whether creationism, ID, or evolution are valid to talking about how Obama is going to cede control of the US government to the UN (which, I might point out, he does not have the power to do), to the UN is a secret satanic society?  The  grows strong in here.
> 
> I'm sorry, but when you go off into eots or 9/11insidejob type nuttiness, I lose nearly all possibility of taking you seriously about anything.  I may just unsubscribe this thread; it's becoming way too ridiculous lately.



It takes talent to bunker your enemy with guns blazing and getting from bunker to bunker safely. What a rush, you don't know what you are missing.

Besides if you don't like shooting so much you can always play pump.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution I believe is soon to be replaced. Me being a believer in the scriptures think that we are living close to the end of mans rule. I believe that this country as will all countries will need an administration that will hand over all power and authority to the United Nations.
> 
> I felt there is no way Obama could win at this point unless by an act of God. I believe if Obama wins it is for this reason to hand over authority to the United Nations. If this happens our constitution will mean nothing.
> 
> We are witnessing a time that will never be forgotten.
> 
> 
> 
> and you want to be taken seriously!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your generation has a bad case of normalcy bias. Look it up.
Click to expand...

my generation?
hey asshat i'm 52 a boomer.
the norm for this world is chaos and conflict always has been always will be ,


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, the last time I checked, you were posting in the Creationist thread.
Click to expand...


Did you write the code for this website? Do you own this place? No. This place is not "yours." Again, you are acting like a child.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution I believe is soon to be replaced. Me being a believer in the scriptures think that we are living close to the end of mans rule. I believe that this country as will all countries will need an administration that will hand over all power and authority to the United Nations.
> 
> I felt there is no way Obama could win at this point unless by an act of God. I believe if Obama wins it is for this reason to hand over authority to the United Nations. If this happens our constitution will mean nothing.
> 
> We are witnessing a time that will never be forgotten.
> 
> 
> 
> and you want to be taken seriously!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws ,if I am right which I think I am,you will soon see. If I am wrong I will admit to it, But if I am right you might want to change your thinking.
Click to expand...



ooooo.... pascal's wager! Way to use fear to coerce people to believe what you do.


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you want to be taken seriously!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws ,if I am right which I think I am,you will soon see. If I am wrong I will admit to it, But if I am right you might want to change your thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ooooo.... pascal's wager! Way to use fear to coerce people to believe what you do.
Click to expand...


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> First : I'm glad I don't play paintball anymore.  I don't like the way the game is played now.  Lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint....bleh.  I liked it when you actually had to pull the trigger for every ball.   People still did some of the same tactics, but it wasn't quite the same.  Now it seems to be about how much paint you can shoot!
> 
> Next : What the shit is with all the crazy?!   We've gone from arguing whether creationism, ID, or evolution are valid to talking about how Obama is going to cede control of the US government to the UN (which, I might point out, he does not have the power to do), to the UN is a secret satanic society?  The  grows strong in here.
> 
> I'm sorry, but when you go off into eots or 9/11insidejob type nuttiness, I lose nearly all possibility of taking you seriously about anything.  I may just unsubscribe this thread; it's becoming way too ridiculous lately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes talent to bunker your enemy with guns blazing and getting from bunker to bunker safely. What a rush, you don't know what you are missing.
> 
> Besides if you don't like shooting so much you can always play pump.
Click to expand...


I used an automag when I played.  I still have it up in a closet somewhere, although I don't have a tank for it.  It's been a good 10 years since I last played, I think.

I wouldn't say today's paintball doesn't take skill or talent.  I just don't like the way it's played.  Not my style is all.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> First : I'm glad I don't play paintball anymore.  I don't like the way the game is played now.  Lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint....bleh.  I liked it when you actually had to pull the trigger for every ball.   People still did some of the same tactics, but it wasn't quite the same.  Now it seems to be about how much paint you can shoot!
> 
> Next : What the shit is with all the crazy?!   We've gone from arguing whether creationism, ID, or evolution are valid to talking about how Obama is going to cede control of the US government to the UN (which, I might point out, he does not have the power to do), to the UN is a secret satanic society?  The  grows strong in here.
> 
> I'm sorry, but when you go off into eots or 9/11insidejob type nuttiness, I lose nearly all possibility of taking you seriously about anything.  I may just unsubscribe this thread; it's becoming way too ridiculous lately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you actually read any of the material? It is all from credible sources. No conspiracy websites. Stick your head in the sand. You also have a bad case of normalcy bias. The UN is whack!!
> 
> Are you denying the Lucifer Group exists and denying they have NGO status at the UN???
Click to expand...


Just because the UN sucks doesn't mean it's run by a bunch of satanists. 

What I'm denying is the idea that the world is so Christian-oriented.  The UN is satanic?  Really?  

Oh, and I wouldn't call sources that make such claims credible.

I also deny that the information you provided in any way shows a satanism movement in the UN.  At best it would show a new-age kind of movement.  I hate to tell you this, but the two are not the same thing!  Only a foolish belief that the world revolves around your religious beliefs would convince you that new-age equates to satanism.

You want to claim that meditation and new-age spirituality are satanism, then expect to be taken seriously in other areas?  I think you misunderstand the ideas and personality your posts portray.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> First : I'm glad I don't play paintball anymore.  I don't like the way the game is played now.  Lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint....bleh.  I liked it when you actually had to pull the trigger for every ball.   People still did some of the same tactics, but it wasn't quite the same.  Now it seems to be about how much paint you can shoot!
> 
> Next : What the shit is with all the crazy?!   We've gone from arguing whether creationism, ID, or evolution are valid to talking about how Obama is going to cede control of the US government to the UN (which, I might point out, he does not have the power to do), to the UN is a secret satanic society?  The  grows strong in here.
> 
> I'm sorry, but when you go off into eots or 9/11insidejob type nuttiness, I lose nearly all possibility of taking you seriously about anything.  I may just unsubscribe this thread; it's becoming way too ridiculous lately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes talent to bunker your enemy with guns blazing and getting from bunker to bunker safely. What a rush, you don't know what you are missing.
> 
> Besides if you don't like shooting so much you can always play pump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used an automag when I played.  I still have it up in a closet somewhere, although I don't have a tank for it.  It's been a good 10 years since I last played, I think.
> 
> I wouldn't say today's paintball doesn't take skill or talent.  I just don't like the way it's played.  Not my style is all.
Click to expand...


Yeah I started out with an automag and autococker. I needed something to replace football and paintball it was.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> First : I'm glad I don't play paintball anymore.  I don't like the way the game is played now.  Lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint....bleh.  I liked it when you actually had to pull the trigger for every ball.   People still did some of the same tactics, but it wasn't quite the same.  Now it seems to be about how much paint you can shoot!
> 
> Next : What the shit is with all the crazy?!   We've gone from arguing whether creationism, ID, or evolution are valid to talking about how Obama is going to cede control of the US government to the UN (which, I might point out, he does not have the power to do), to the UN is a secret satanic society?  The  grows strong in here.
> 
> I'm sorry, but when you go off into eots or 9/11insidejob type nuttiness, I lose nearly all possibility of taking you seriously about anything.  I may just unsubscribe this thread; it's becoming way too ridiculous lately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you actually read any of the material? It is all from credible sources. No conspiracy websites. Stick your head in the sand. You also have a bad case of normalcy bias. The UN is whack!!
> 
> Are you denying the Lucifer Group exists and denying they have NGO status at the UN???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because the UN sucks doesn't mean it's run by a bunch of satanists.
> 
> What I'm denying is the idea that the world is so Christian-oriented.  The UN is satanic?  Really?
> 
> Oh, and I wouldn't call sources that make such claims credible.
> 
> I also deny that the information you provided in any way shows a satanism movement in the UN.  At best it would show a new-age kind of movement.  I hate to tell you this, but the two are not the same thing!  Only a foolish belief that the world revolves around your religious beliefs would convince you that new-age equates to satanism.
> 
> You want to claim that meditation and new-age spirituality are satanism, then expect to be taken seriously in other areas?  I think you misunderstand the ideas and personality your posts portray.
Click to expand...


Judaism,Christianity,and Islam acknowledge satan don't know of any other faiths that do.

Who ever thought that the arab countries would ever participate in the United Nations but they are there. So it has already begun they are a governing body and they get involved in the worlds affairs. They eventually will gain more authority.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> First : I'm glad I don't play paintball anymore.  I don't like the way the game is played now.  Lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint, lay down a line of paint....bleh.  I liked it when you actually had to pull the trigger for every ball.   People still did some of the same tactics, but it wasn't quite the same.  Now it seems to be about how much paint you can shoot!
> 
> Next : What the shit is with all the crazy?!   We've gone from arguing whether creationism, ID, or evolution are valid to talking about how Obama is going to cede control of the US government to the UN (which, I might point out, he does not have the power to do), to the UN is a secret satanic society?  The  grows strong in here.
> 
> I'm sorry, but when you go off into eots or 9/11insidejob type nuttiness, I lose nearly all possibility of taking you seriously about anything.  I may just unsubscribe this thread; it's becoming way too ridiculous lately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you actually read any of the material? It is all from credible sources. No conspiracy websites. Stick your head in the sand. You also have a bad case of normalcy bias. The UN is whack!!
> 
> Are you denying the Lucifer Group exists and denying they have NGO status at the UN???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because the UN sucks doesn't mean it's run by a bunch of satanists.
> 
> What I'm denying is the idea that the world is so Christian-oriented.  The UN is satanic?  Really?
> 
> Oh, and I wouldn't call sources that make such claims credible.
> 
> I also deny that the information you provided in any way shows a satanism movement in the UN.  At best it would show a new-age kind of movement.  I hate to tell you this, but the two are not the same thing!  Only a foolish belief that the world revolves around your religious beliefs would convince you that new-age equates to satanism.
> 
> You want to claim that meditation and new-age spirituality are satanism, then expect to be taken seriously in other areas?  I think you misunderstand the ideas and personality your posts portray.
Click to expand...


I had so much hope for you. But sadly I think you are in denial too. Robert Muller was Asst. Secretary General of the UN and served there for 40 years. How can a site can be more credible than his own personal website? Robertmuller.org. Go read some of his writings. He was very much influenced by Alice Bailey and the Lucis Trust, and he very much influenced the direction of the UN. And they were a prime driver of the New Age movement and of spiritulizing the UN. You can paste up your crazy emoticon all day, but I am a retired police officer and trained investigator. I know how to follow an information trail and if logic is applied, the conclusions drawn are more than compelling. 

By the way, I'm not holding my bottle of glue in this pic, but here's a somewhat recent photo of this washed up 46-year-old retired cop turned AC Salesman. I've lost a few pounds since this was taken after marrying my 41 year old hardcore gym wife who has put pressure on me to stay in shape.


----------



## Montrovant

I've seen that pic on this site before!   Oh, if only I could remember who claimed to be that person.......dammit!  I just am not sure.   Maybe Neubarth?  The crazy, 'Satan is destroying the world' spiel would fit!  

You can take your trained police investigator claims and try to anonymously impress someone else with them.  I don't know why you've decided to show off the nuttiness recently, but there it is.  Have fun trying to convince people how the crystal-wearing, meditating, goddess-loving new-agers are a satanic cult in control of the world!


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you actually read any of the material? It is all from credible sources. No conspiracy websites. Stick your head in the sand. You also have a bad case of normalcy bias. The UN is whack!!
> 
> Are you denying the Lucifer Group exists and denying they have NGO status at the UN???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the UN sucks doesn't mean it's run by a bunch of satanists.
> 
> What I'm denying is the idea that the world is so Christian-oriented.  The UN is satanic?  Really?
> 
> Oh, and I wouldn't call sources that make such claims credible.
> 
> I also deny that the information you provided in any way shows a satanism movement in the UN.  At best it would show a new-age kind of movement.  I hate to tell you this, but the two are not the same thing!  Only a foolish belief that the world revolves around your religious beliefs would convince you that new-age equates to satanism.
> 
> You want to claim that meditation and new-age spirituality are satanism, then expect to be taken seriously in other areas?  I think you misunderstand the ideas and personality your posts portray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had so much hope for you. But sadly I think you are in denial too. Robert Muller was Asst. Secretary General of the UN and served there for 40 years. How can a site can be more credible than his own personal website? Robertmuller.org. Go read some of his writings. He was very much influenced by Alice Bailey and the Lucis Trust, and he very much influenced the direction of the UN. And they were a prime driver of the New Age movement and of spiritulizing the UN. You can paste up your crazy emoticon all day, but I am a retired police officer and trained investigator. I know how to follow an information trail and if logic is applied, the conclusions drawn are more than compelling.
> 
> By the way, I'm not holding my bottle of glue in this pic, but here's a somewhat recent photo of this washed up 46-year-old retired cop turned AC Salesman. I've lost a few pounds since this was taken after marrying my 41 year old hardcore gym wife who has put pressure on me to stay in shape.
Click to expand...


Can't play paintball with that


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> I've seen that pic on this site before!   Oh, if only I could remember who claimed to be that person.......dammit!  I just am not sure.   Maybe Neubarth?  The crazy, 'Satan is destroying the world' spiel would fit!
> 
> You can take your trained police investigator claims and try to anonymously impress someone else with them.  I don't know why you've decided to show off the nuttiness recently, but there it is.  Have fun trying to convince people how the crystal-wearing, meditating, goddess-loving new-agers are a satanic cult in control of the world!



Yeah it was who you just quoted,ultimate reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> I've seen that pic on this site before!   Oh, if only I could remember who claimed to be that person.......dammit!  I just am not sure.   Maybe Neubarth?  The crazy, 'Satan is destroying the world' spiel would fit!
> 
> You can take your trained police investigator claims and try to anonymously impress someone else with them.  I don't know why you've decided to show off the nuttiness recently, but there it is.  Have fun trying to convince people how the crystal-wearing, meditating, goddess-loving new-agers are a satanic cult in control of the world!



Monty as the days of Noah so shall be the end time. The book of revelations helps you understand the signs of the times.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen that pic on this site before!   Oh, if only I could remember who claimed to be that person.......dammit!  I just am not sure.   Maybe Neubarth?  The crazy, 'Satan is destroying the world' spiel would fit!
> 
> You can take your trained police investigator claims and try to anonymously impress someone else with them.  I don't know why you've decided to show off the nuttiness recently, but there it is.  Have fun trying to convince people how the crystal-wearing, meditating, goddess-loving new-agers are a satanic cult in control of the world!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monty as the days of Noah so shall be the end time. The book of revelations helps you understand the signs of the times.
Click to expand...


I think there are real reasons to be concerned about you with such a pattern of statements. 

All ribbing aside, have you considered talking to a trusted clergyman?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen that pic on this site before!   Oh, if only I could remember who claimed to be that person.......dammit!  I just am not sure.   Maybe Neubarth?  The crazy, 'Satan is destroying the world' spiel would fit!
> 
> You can take your trained police investigator claims and try to anonymously impress someone else with them.  I don't know why you've decided to show off the nuttiness recently, but there it is.  Have fun trying to convince people how the crystal-wearing, meditating, goddess-loving new-agers are a satanic cult in control of the world!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monty as the days of Noah so shall be the end time. The book of revelations helps you understand the signs of the times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think there are real reasons to be concerned about you with such a pattern of statements.
> 
> All ribbing aside, have you considered talking to a trusted clergyman?
Click to expand...


People who go against the norm are seen this way. I don't have anything to do with organised religion. I attend a non-denominational church who do not stress doctrine. I read the bible and have for many years trying to unlock it's true message I may be right or wrong on some views but I have put a lot of time into the bible. Since I was ten years old I am 50 now. I drifted away when I went to college even became a doubter but returned as I matured and realized the information contained in the scriptures.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen that pic on this site before!   Oh, if only I could remember who claimed to be that person.......dammit!  I just am not sure.   Maybe Neubarth?  The crazy, 'Satan is destroying the world' spiel would fit!
> 
> You can take your trained police investigator claims and try to anonymously impress someone else with them.  I don't know why you've decided to show off the nuttiness recently, but there it is.  Have fun trying to convince people how the crystal-wearing, meditating, goddess-loving new-agers are a satanic cult in control of the world!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it was who you just quoted,ultimate reality.
Click to expand...


Clearly you didn't understand my post.  I have seen that exact same picture posted on USMB before, by a poster with a different username.  It may have even had a similar story to go along with it.  Whether UltimateReality is an older poster under a new username, or someone's sock, or just pulled the same pic off the web, I don't know.  Whatever the case may be, it's funny how quickly he has decided to wallow in the crazy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen that pic on this site before!   Oh, if only I could remember who claimed to be that person.......dammit!  I just am not sure.   Maybe Neubarth?  The crazy, 'Satan is destroying the world' spiel would fit!
> 
> You can take your trained police investigator claims and try to anonymously impress someone else with them.  I don't know why you've decided to show off the nuttiness recently, but there it is.  Have fun trying to convince people how the crystal-wearing, meditating, goddess-loving new-agers are a satanic cult in control of the world!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it was who you just quoted,ultimate reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you didn't understand my post.  I have seen that exact same picture posted on USMB before, by a poster with a different username.  It may have even had a similar story to go along with it.  Whether UltimateReality is an older poster under a new username, or someone's sock, or just pulled the same pic off the web, I don't know.  Whatever the case may be, it's funny how quickly he has decided to wallow in the crazy.
Click to expand...


I have seen it before and it was ultimate reality that claimed to be the person.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it was who you just quoted,ultimate reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you didn't understand my post.  I have seen that exact same picture posted on USMB before, by a poster with a different username.  It may have even had a similar story to go along with it.  Whether UltimateReality is an older poster under a new username, or someone's sock, or just pulled the same pic off the web, I don't know.  Whatever the case may be, it's funny how quickly he has decided to wallow in the crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen it before and it was ultimate reality that claimed to be the person.
Click to expand...


UR has only been here since January of this year.  I'm pretty sure it was before that I've seen it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you didn't understand my post.  I have seen that exact same picture posted on USMB before, by a poster with a different username.  It may have even had a similar story to go along with it.  Whether UltimateReality is an older poster under a new username, or someone's sock, or just pulled the same pic off the web, I don't know.  Whatever the case may be, it's funny how quickly he has decided to wallow in the crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen it before and it was ultimate reality that claimed to be the person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UR has only been here since January of this year.  I'm pretty sure it was before that I've seen it.
Click to expand...


Well I am sure you are aware of the 2nd thing that goes as we age 

I'm sure reality will respond.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> I've seen that pic on this site before!   Oh, if only I could remember who claimed to be that person.......dammit!  I just am not sure.   Maybe Neubarth?  The crazy, 'Satan is destroying the world' spiel would fit!
> 
> You can take your trained police investigator claims and try to anonymously impress someone else with them.  I don't know why you've decided to show off the nuttiness recently, but there it is.  Have fun trying to convince people how the crystal-wearing, meditating, goddess-loving new-agers are a satanic cult in control of the world!



You saw my picture on this thread doof. Back when Loki was active here. Go ahead and bury your head in the sand and ignore the evidence for the UN. You'll fit right in with the fundie evo crowd because that is what they do best. 

Here is another pic from the same day so smoke that in your pipe...

Oh and YWC, I think if you click on the image it will take you to my album and you can see some of my other, umm, "hardware".






[/URL]  Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]


----------



## UltimateReality

Oops, what's that?? Just my framed police sergeant pic next to montrovant's post with his baseless claim that I am not who I say I am.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Oops, what's that?? Just my framed police sergeant pic next to montrovant's post with his baseless claim that I am not who I say I am.



LOL, all you needed to do was give me a post number or link to the previous time you posted the pic, but I guess these posts work, too.

I can only guess that your recent posts about Satanism in the UN, in reminding me of another poster, caused me to think that other poster also used the picture.  

I'm happy to apologize to you and anyone else who has read my posts on the subject.  This appears to be entirely my mistake and my false memory.

This doesn't in any way change my opinion about Satanism in the UN, but I'll eat my crow and take my lumps about the picture.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the UN sucks doesn't mean it's run by a bunch of satanists.
> 
> What I'm denying is the idea that the world is so Christian-oriented.  The UN is satanic?  Really?
> 
> Oh, and I wouldn't call sources that make such claims credible.
> 
> I also deny that the information you provided in any way shows a satanism movement in the UN.  At best it would show a new-age kind of movement.  I hate to tell you this, but the two are not the same thing!  Only a foolish belief that the world revolves around your religious beliefs would convince you that new-age equates to satanism.
> 
> You want to claim that meditation and new-age spirituality are satanism, then expect to be taken seriously in other areas?  I think you misunderstand the ideas and personality your posts portray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had so much hope for you. But sadly I think you are in denial too. Robert Muller was Asst. Secretary General of the UN and served there for 40 years. How can a site can be more credible than his own personal website? Robertmuller.org. Go read some of his writings. He was very much influenced by Alice Bailey and the Lucis Trust, and he very much influenced the direction of the UN. And they were a prime driver of the New Age movement and of spiritulizing the UN. You can paste up your crazy emoticon all day, but I am a retired police officer and trained investigator. I know how to follow an information trail and if logic is applied, the conclusions drawn are more than compelling.
> 
> By the way, I'm not holding my bottle of glue in this pic, but here's a somewhat recent photo of this washed up 46-year-old retired cop turned AC Salesman. I've lost a few pounds since this was taken after marrying my 41 year old hardcore gym wife who has put pressure on me to stay in shape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't play paintball with that
Click to expand...

right if you believe that...this is a picture of me in 1977...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






some other things, since UR so called face obscured,  as every cop should know it's not evidence.
2. the person in the pics appers to be much younger then 46. 
or it could be satan !


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen that pic on this site before!   Oh, if only I could remember who claimed to be that person.......dammit!  I just am not sure.   Maybe Neubarth?  The crazy, 'Satan is destroying the world' spiel would fit!
> 
> You can take your trained police investigator claims and try to anonymously impress someone else with them.  I don't know why you've decided to show off the nuttiness recently, but there it is.  Have fun trying to convince people how the crystal-wearing, meditating, goddess-loving new-agers are a satanic cult in control of the world!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You saw my picture on this thread doof. Back when Loki was active here. Go ahead and bury your head in the sand and ignore the evidence for the UN. You'll fit right in with the fundie evo crowd because that is what they do best.
> 
> Here is another pic from the same day so smoke that in your pipe...
> 
> Oh and YWC, I think if you click on the image it will take you to my album and you can see some of my other, umm, "hardware".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]  Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]
Click to expand...


Yes loki was loki and I remember now.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen that pic on this site before!   Oh, if only I could remember who claimed to be that person.......dammit!  I just am not sure.   Maybe Neubarth?  The crazy, 'Satan is destroying the world' spiel would fit!
> 
> You can take your trained police investigator claims and try to anonymously impress someone else with them.  I don't know why you've decided to show off the nuttiness recently, but there it is.  Have fun trying to convince people how the crystal-wearing, meditating, goddess-loving new-agers are a satanic cult in control of the world!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You saw my picture on this thread doof. Back when Loki was active here. Go ahead and bury your head in the sand and ignore the evidence for the UN. You'll fit right in with the fundie evo crowd because that is what they do best.
> 
> Here is another pic from the same day so smoke that in your pipe...
> 
> Oh and YWC, I think if you click on the image it will take you to my album and you can see some of my other, umm, "hardware".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]  Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]
Click to expand...


Wow that kinda looks like the superstition mountains.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had so much hope for you. But sadly I think you are in denial too. Robert Muller was Asst. Secretary General of the UN and served there for 40 years. How can a site can be more credible than his own personal website? Robertmuller.org. Go read some of his writings. He was very much influenced by Alice Bailey and the Lucis Trust, and he very much influenced the direction of the UN. And they were a prime driver of the New Age movement and of spiritulizing the UN. You can paste up your crazy emoticon all day, but I am a retired police officer and trained investigator. I know how to follow an information trail and if logic is applied, the conclusions drawn are more than compelling.
> 
> By the way, I'm not holding my bottle of glue in this pic, but here's a somewhat recent photo of this washed up 46-year-old retired cop turned AC Salesman. I've lost a few pounds since this was taken after marrying my 41 year old hardcore gym wife who has put pressure on me to stay in shape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't play paintball with that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right if you believe that...this is a picture of me in 1977...
Click to expand...


Daws you are an Idiot.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't play paintball with that
> 
> 
> 
> right if you believe that...this is a picture of me in 1977...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws you are an Idiot.
Click to expand...

proving once again you have no Idea what you're talking about ,fact is I looked very much like that in the 70's
same eye color my hair was a bit longer even had a shirt that looked like that.

the thing is neither the person in that picture or myself look at all like jesus..


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen that pic on this site before!   Oh, if only I could remember who claimed to be that person.......dammit!  I just am not sure.   Maybe Neubarth?  The crazy, 'Satan is destroying the world' spiel would fit!
> 
> You can take your trained police investigator claims and try to anonymously impress someone else with them.  I don't know why you've decided to show off the nuttiness recently, but there it is.  Have fun trying to convince people how the crystal-wearing, meditating, goddess-loving new-agers are a satanic cult in control of the world!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You saw my picture on this thread doof. Back when Loki was active here. Go ahead and bury your head in the sand and ignore the evidence for the UN. You'll fit right in with the fundie evo crowd because that is what they do best.
> 
> Here is another pic from the same day so smoke that in your pipe...
> 
> Oh and YWC, I think if you click on the image it will take you to my album and you can see some of my other, umm, "hardware".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]  Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow that kinda looks like the superstition mountains.
Click to expand...


Because they are.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had so much hope for you. But sadly I think you are in denial too. Robert Muller was Asst. Secretary General of the UN and served there for 40 years. How can a site can be more credible than his own personal website? Robertmuller.org. Go read some of his writings. He was very much influenced by Alice Bailey and the Lucis Trust, and he very much influenced the direction of the UN. And they were a prime driver of the New Age movement and of spiritulizing the UN. You can paste up your crazy emoticon all day, but I am a retired police officer and trained investigator. I know how to follow an information trail and if logic is applied, the conclusions drawn are more than compelling.
> 
> By the way, I'm not holding my bottle of glue in this pic, but here's a somewhat recent photo of this washed up 46-year-old retired cop turned AC Salesman. I've lost a few pounds since this was taken after marrying my 41 year old hardcore gym wife who has put pressure on me to stay in shape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't play paintball with that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right if you believe that...this is a picture of me in 1977...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some other things, since UR so called face obscured,  as every cop should know it's not evidence.
> 2. the person in the pics appers to be much younger then 46.
> or it could be satan !
Click to expand...


Ever hear of the photo shop smudge feature? As a retired cop, I am still a little paranoid about strangers knowing my identity. I still have my Motor Vehicle records sealed as well. The sarge pic was taken in 1999 when I was promoted. The shooting pic in the desert was taken 3 years ago when I was 43 and thanks, I am actually in better shape than I was in in that picture. I credit my youthful appearance to all that clean Christian living.   And just so no one questions the age of that pic, my Toyota Tundra is a 2008


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> right if you believe that...this is a picture of me in 1977...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws you are an Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proving once again you have no Idea what you're talking about ,fact is I looked very much like that in the 70's
> same eye color my hair was a bit longer even had a shirt that looked like that.
> 
> the thing is neither the person in that picture or myself look at all like jesus..
Click to expand...


I'm not sure why they always feminize Christ in paintings. Since he was a carpenter, I'm guessing he wasn't the skinny dude the always portray him to be.


----------



## UltimateReality

"The significance of convergent evolution for Darwinism is this: Life forms usually do not randomly evolve a complex trait and pass it on (natural selection acting on random mutation, as Darwin taught). They do not create a great, tidy, and non-goal directed tree of life."

Muscle cell myosin developed in unicellular organisms long before animals | Uncommon Descent


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> "The significance of convergent evolution for Darwinism is this: Life forms usually do not randomly evolve a complex trait and pass it on (natural selection acting on random mutation, as Darwin taught). They do not create a great, tidy, and non-goal directed tree of life."
> 
> Muscle cell myosin developed in unicellular organisms long before animals | Uncommon Descent



The article includes the statement:  



> Jellyfish are over 600 million years old, and...



And what? How does anyone resolve 600 million year old life on the planet with a 6,000 year old (creationist worldview) earth?


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You saw my picture on this thread doof. Back when Loki was active here. Go ahead and bury your head in the sand and ignore the evidence for the UN. You'll fit right in with the fundie evo crowd because that is what they do best.
> 
> Here is another pic from the same day so smoke that in your pipe...
> 
> Oh and YWC, I think if you click on the image it will take you to my album and you can see some of my other, umm, "hardware".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]  Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that kinda looks like the superstition mountains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are.
Click to expand...


Dang, I'm right more then I am wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws you are an Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> proving once again you have no Idea what you're talking about ,fact is I looked very much like that in the 70's
> same eye color my hair was a bit longer even had a shirt that looked like that.
> 
> the thing is neither the person in that picture or myself look at all like jesus..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why they always feminize Christ in paintings. Since he was a carpenter, I'm guessing he wasn't the skinny dude the always portray him to be.
Click to expand...


And he probably didn't have that long hair either. They want him to look like some of the weirdest people on the planet ,the hippies.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The significance of convergent evolution for Darwinism is this: Life forms usually do not randomly evolve a complex trait and pass it on (natural selection acting on random mutation, as Darwin taught). They do not create a great, tidy, and non-goal directed tree of life."
> 
> Muscle cell myosin developed in unicellular organisms long before animals | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article includes the statement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jellyfish are over 600 million years old, and...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what? How does anyone resolve 600 million year old life on the planet with a 6,000 year old (creationist worldview) earth?
Click to expand...


You can't with any view.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> proving once again you have no Idea what you're talking about ,fact is I looked very much like that in the 70's
> same eye color my hair was a bit longer even had a shirt that looked like that.
> 
> the thing is neither the person in that picture or myself look at all like jesus..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why they always feminize Christ in paintings. Since he was a carpenter, I'm guessing he wasn't the skinny dude the always portray him to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he probably didn't have that long hair either. They want him to look like some of the weirdest people on the planet ,the hippies.
Click to expand...


I think Jesus has been portrayed like that since long before hippies existed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why they always feminize Christ in paintings. Since he was a carpenter, I'm guessing he wasn't the skinny dude the always portray him to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he probably didn't have that long hair either. They want him to look like some of the weirdest people on the planet ,the hippies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Jesus has been portrayed like that since long before hippies existed.
Click to expand...


Well good point.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Well I am off to practice,thank God with these temps we are doing night practices. But I have to drive from Prescott to Phoenix.

You guys have a great day will talk to you soon.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The significance of convergent evolution for Darwinism is this: Life forms usually do not randomly evolve a complex trait and pass it on (natural selection acting on random mutation, as Darwin taught). They do not create a great, tidy, and non-goal directed tree of life."
> 
> Muscle cell myosin developed in unicellular organisms long before animals | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article includes the statement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jellyfish are over 600 million years old, and...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what? How does anyone resolve 600 million year old life on the planet with a 6,000 year old (creationist worldview) earth?
Click to expand...


They don't. Go back to sleep.


----------



## UltimateReality

City building Tornado's. Maybe the watch in the forest was made by a tornado and not the watchmaker. 

"The Earth is an open system, tornados derive their energy from the sun, and while turning rubble into houses and cars represents a decrease in entropy, the increase in entropy outside the Earth far exceeds the decrease seen in this video, so there is no conflict with the second law. This is the traditional argument used by Asimov, Dawkins and many others, and it is the one I have been primarily criticizing, particularly in my AML paper, "A Second Look at the Second Law." My arguments seem to have been effective, because I rarely hear this silly argument any more. Critics seem to have been forced more and more to fall back on secondary objections now. Since I have dealt with this "compensation" argument thoroughly in the above links, I will deal mainly with the secondary objections here."

Why Tornados Running Backward Do Not Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics - Evolution News & Views


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> City building Tornado's. Maybe the watch in the forest was made by a tornado and not the watchmaker.
> 
> "The Earth is an open system, tornados derive their energy from the sun, and while turning rubble into houses and cars represents a decrease in entropy, the increase in entropy outside the Earth far exceeds the decrease seen in this video, so there is no conflict with the second law. This is the traditional argument used by Asimov, Dawkins and many others, and it is the one I have been primarily criticizing, particularly in my AML paper, "A Second Look at the Second Law." My arguments seem to have been effective, because I rarely hear this silly argument any more. Critics seem to have been forced more and more to fall back on secondary objections now. Since I have dealt with this "compensation" argument thoroughly in the above links, I will deal mainly with the secondary objections here."
> 
> Why Tornados Running Backward Do Not Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics - Evolution News & Views



They hate common sense UR. Their ability to reason get's tossed out of the window.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> City building Tornado's. Maybe the watch in the forest was made by a tornado and not the watchmaker.
> 
> "The Earth is an open system, tornados derive their energy from the sun, and while turning rubble into houses and cars represents a decrease in entropy, the increase in entropy outside the Earth far exceeds the decrease seen in this video, so there is no conflict with the second law. This is the traditional argument used by Asimov, Dawkins and many others, and it is the one I have been primarily criticizing, particularly in my AML paper, "A Second Look at the Second Law." My arguments seem to have been effective, because I rarely hear this silly argument any more. Critics seem to have been forced more and more to fall back on secondary objections now. Since I have dealt with this "compensation" argument thoroughly in the above links, I will deal mainly with the secondary objections here."
> 
> Why Tornados Running Backward Do Not Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They hate common sense UR. Their ability to reason get's tossed out of the window.
Click to expand...


the irony is thick


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The significance of convergent evolution for Darwinism is this: Life forms usually do not randomly evolve a complex trait and pass it on (natural selection acting on random mutation, as Darwin taught). They do not create a great, tidy, and non-goal directed &#8220;tree of life&#8221;."
> 
> Muscle cell myosin developed in unicellular organisms long before animals | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article includes the statement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jellyfish are over 600 million years old, and...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what? How does anyone resolve 600 million year old life on the planet with a 6,000 year old (creationist worldview) earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't. Go back to sleep.
Click to expand...


Your fellow ID'ers / creationists generally insist on a 6,000 year old earth. There's a lot of fudging the numbers that takes place to redefine Genesis with "time periods" but that seems dishonest to me.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The article includes the statement:
> 
> 
> 
> And what? How does anyone resolve 600 million year old life on the planet with a 6,000 year old (creationist worldview) earth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't. Go back to sleep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fellow ID'ers / creationists generally insist on a 6,000 year old earth. There's a lot of fudging the numbers that takes place to redefine Genesis with "time periods" but that seems dishonest to me.
Click to expand...


No, they don't. ID'ers believe in a 13.7 Billion year old universe and a 4 billion year old earth.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't. Go back to sleep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fellow ID'ers / creationists generally insist on a 6,000 year old earth. There's a lot of fudging the numbers that takes place to redefine Genesis with "time periods" but that seems dishonest to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't. ID'ers believe in a 13.7 Billion year old universe and a 4 billion year old earth.
Click to expand...


So why the requirement for gods?


----------



## newpolitics

Here's a proof for you believers. It's a spin off of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, but one that actually makes sense.

1.Everything that exists has a cause.
2. God has no cause.
3. God does not exist.


----------



## newpolitics

Here's a proof for you believers. It's a spin off of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, but one that actually makes sense.

1.Everything that exists has a cause.
2. God has no cause.
3. God does not exist.


----------



## daniel20

newpolitics said:


> Here's a proof for you believers. It's a spin off of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, but one that actually makes sense.
> 
> 1.Everything that exists has a cause.
> 2. God has no cause.
> 3. God does not exist.



I totally agree with you man, i also remember aother famous Quote of Epicurus
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fellow ID'ers / creationists generally insist on a 6,000 year old earth. There's a lot of fudging the numbers that takes place to redefine Genesis with "time periods" but that seems dishonest to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't. ID'ers believe in a 13.7 Billion year old universe and a 4 billion year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why the requirement for gods?
Click to expand...


I let you figure that one out.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Here's a proof for you believers. It's a spin off of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, but one that actually makes sense.
> 
> 1.Everything that exists has a cause.
> 2. God has no cause.
> 3. God does not exist.



This is fallacy that doesn't take into account two very important things:

God has always existed.

God exists outside of matter, space, time, and energy. 

Before you get your panties in a wad, Einstein missed the evidence pointing to the big bang because he believed in an *eternal universe*. Einstein believed the *universe had always existed* and had no beginning. So the concept that something has no beginning is not foreign to science.


----------



## UltimateReality

daniel20 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a proof for you believers. It's a spin off of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, but one that actually makes sense.
> 
> 1.Everything that exists has a cause.
> 2. God has no cause.
> 3. God does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree with you man, i also remember aother famous Quote of Epicurus
> "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Click to expand...


You guys aren't the first to grapple with these theological arguments, and you won't be the last. God allows evil because he created us as free agents. The necessary construct of the TOE is you do not have Free Will. Even now, you don't really have a choice to respond to me. You are just an organism reacting to stimuli, with the response already programmed into your genetic makeup. For you, free will is just an illusion.

http://evolutionaryphilosophy.com/2009/04/20/conscious-evolution-and-freewill/

Evolutionary philosophy?!?!? What the freak? Hollie, I thought evolution was just science and nothing more.


----------



## Montrovant

What part of the theory of evolution requires a lack of free will?

I read your link, it did not say evolution requires a lack of free will.

Also, to flip things around, if there is a god, and god knows everything that ever has or ever will occur, there is no free will.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't. ID'ers believe in a 13.7 Billion year old universe and a 4 billion year old earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the requirement for gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I let you figure that one out.
Click to expand...


 I'm not surprised at your answer. The timeframes described for earth history and for the age of the universe (which those evil scientists have factual data to support) , make your gods and all gods superfluous. While creationists / I'D'ers (one and the same), will reel and deny the fact of "evilution", there is no credible argument to deny the science fact. What we have is credible data to support the theory of fitness for survival and adaptation over time. Immense time scales only add to support the theory. 

Even if one or more gods (and all the asserted gods share the same credibility as your gods) provided the first spark of life, an absent, uninvolved and disinterested god(s) is/are synonymous with "nonexistence". What slather nonexistence  with a host of human attributes ?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a proof for you believers. It's a spin off of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, but one that actually makes sense.
> 
> 1.Everything that exists has a cause.
> 2. God has no cause.
> 3. God does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is fallacy that doesn't take into account two very important things:
> 
> God has always existed.
> 
> God exists outside of matter, space, time, and energy.
> 
> Before you get your panties in a wad, Einstein missed the evidence pointing to the big bang because he believed in an *eternal universe*. Einstein believed the *universe had always existed* and had no beginning. So the concept that something has no beginning is not foreign to science.
Click to expand...

 
"God has no cause" is synonymous with "God has always existed" since it follows logically. God's location is of no importance or mentioned in this proof and does nothing to testify against its validity.

Who cares what Einstein believed (he did not believe in a personal god, btw), aside from what could be demonstrated (E=MC2 is demonstrable and can be shown when looking at nuclear blasts, as well as his predictions of black holes being proven to exist). You are using an argument from Authority, and again, is a logical fallacy. Besides, his beliefs were in lockstep with many people of that time because they lacked any evidence or models that would lead them to believe otherwise. So again, you're post is moot.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> daniel20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a proof for you believers. It's a spin off of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, but one that actually makes sense.
> 
> 1.Everything that exists has a cause.
> 2. God has no cause.
> 3. God does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree with you man, i also remember aother famous Quote of Epicurus
> "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys aren't the first to grapple with these theological arguments, and you won't be the last. God allows evil because he created us as free agents. The necessary construct of the TOE is you do not have Free Will. Even now, you don't really have a choice to respond to me. You are just an organism reacting to stimuli, with the response already programmed into your genetic makeup. For you, free will is just an illusion.
> 
> Conscious Evolution and Free Will? « Evolutionary Philosophy
> 
> Evolutionary philosophy?!?!? What the freak? Hollie, I thought evolution was just science and nothing more.
Click to expand...


You're little explanation of using free will is completely insufficient to explain the presence of evil, IF your god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Inherent contradictions necessarily exist if he knows the future, is all powerful, yet can not stop the world from evil or can not get rid of his own creation, the devil, if you believe in that. He would have known adam was going to fall from grace, and all of the evil that was to fall, yet let it happen anyway, then created a loophole for his inability to do anything about, by bringing down his own son, and demanding only belief in him, without any respect to conduct towards others. The whole idea of christianity sets up a morally bankrupt ideology that tricks people into believing they are evil (original sin) and offering the antidote (Jesus). Only someone raised in this situation or so desperate to be saved from themselves (addicts) could possibly use this belief structure and not see it for what it is: manipulative.


----------



## onecut39

Baron said:


> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube



Well that was ( choke chuckle) informative.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why the requirement for gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I let you figure that one out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised at your answer. The timeframes described for earth history and for the age of the universe (which those evil scientists have factual data to support) , make your gods and all gods superfluous. While creationists / I'D'ers (one and the same), will reel and deny the fact of "evilution", there is no credible argument to deny the science fact. What we have is credible data to support the theory of fitness for survival and adaptation over time. Immense time scales only add to support the theory.
> 
> Even if one or more gods (and all the asserted gods share the same credibility as your gods) provided the first spark of life, an absent, uninvolved and disinterested god(s) is/are synonymous with "nonexistence". What slather nonexistence  with a host of human attributes ?
Click to expand...


Yep, you're right Hollie. My bad.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a proof for you believers. It's a spin off of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, but one that actually makes sense.
> 
> 1.Everything that exists has a cause.
> 2. God has no cause.
> 3. God does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is fallacy that doesn't take into account two very important things:
> 
> God has always existed.
> 
> God exists outside of matter, space, time, and energy.
> 
> Before you get your panties in a wad, Einstein missed the evidence pointing to the big bang because he believed in an *eternal universe*. Einstein believed the *universe had always existed* and had no beginning. So the concept that something has no beginning is not foreign to science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "God has no cause" is synonymous with "God has always existed" since it follows logically. God's location is of no importance or mentioned in this proof and does nothing to testify against its validity.
> 
> Who cares what Einstein believed (he did not believe in a personal god, btw) *UR: I know this and it only bolsters to support my argument of his "scientific" claim*, aside from what could be demonstrated (E=MC2 is demonstrable and can be shown when looking at nuclear blasts, as well as his predictions of black holes being proven to exist). You are using an argument from Authority, and again, is a logical fallacy. Besides, his beliefs were in lockstep with many people of that time because they lacked any evidence or models that would lead them to believe otherwise. So again, you're post is moot.
Click to expand...


You show your lack of understanding in the argument I was making and have incorrectly attempted to dismiss it with the wrong fallacy. I wasn't arguing on the credibility of Einstein. My point was that Einstein, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time, missed the "scientific" evidence that would allowed him to discover the big bang. Your assertion that he lacked evidence is a lie or gross misrepresentation. All of his measurements pointed to the Universe having a beginning, but since he did not believe in God, his prejudice would not allow him to accept the fact the universe had a beginning. You see if the universe had a beginning, then it would have to have a cause. If it has always existed, there is no necessity for the causal relationship. Therefore, your logic has again suffered an epic fail. The causal necessity is not applicable if the result in question is not a result, since it has always been.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daniel20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree with you man, i also remember aother famous Quote of Epicurus
> "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys aren't the first to grapple with these theological arguments, and you won't be the last. God allows evil because he created us as free agents. The necessary construct of the TOE is you do not have Free Will. Even now, you don't really have a choice to respond to me. You are just an organism reacting to stimuli, with the response already programmed into your genetic makeup. For you, free will is just an illusion.
> 
> [url=http://evolutionaryphilosophy.com/2009/04/20/conscious-evolution-and-freewill/]Conscious Evolution and Free Will? « Evolutionary Philosophy[/URL]
> 
> Evolutionary philosophy?!?!? What the freak? Hollie, I thought evolution was just science and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're little explanation of using free will is completely insufficient to explain the presence of evil, IF your god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Inherent contradictions necessarily exist if he knows the future, is all powerful, yet can not stop the world from evil or can not get rid of his own creation, the devil, if you believe in that. He would have known adam was going to fall from grace, and all of the evil that was to fall, yet let it happen anyway, then created a loophole for his inability to do anything about, by bringing down his own son, and demanding only belief in him, without any respect to conduct towards others. The whole idea of christianity sets up a morally bankrupt ideology that tricks people into believing they are evil (original sin) and offering the antidote (Jesus). Only someone raised in this situation or so desperate to be saved from themselves (addicts) could possibly use this belief structure and not see it for what it is: manipulative.
Click to expand...


So it obvious you reject the claim that man is born sinful. That leaves you with a humanistic viewpoint that man is good. So how do you account for evil in the world? How do fathers on meth pour gas on their 4-year-old daughters and burn them alive in the desert? How does a man abuct other men, rape and kill them, and then keep their body parts in his fridge? Because they are essentially good, right?

Sadly, you appear to be the product of the last 50 years of lib education in this country. Next thing I know you will be quoting Maslow. It doesn't surprise me, as would not your next post modernistic arguments seeded with moral relativism. Without absolute truth, anything goes. First gay marriage, and then child molestation in some instances.

Here's Wil Provine, materialist fundamentalist evolutionist priest, discussing free will, with some Hollie hate for Christians thrown in for good measure. His comments are so transparent it is obvious he was raised Christian and is now gay.

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/popups/media_player.aspx?MediaId={43D992B1-CC13-469C-ACDB-163D867C468C}

Post Modernism and Moral Relativsm explained...


http://www.focusonthefamily.com/popups/media_player.aspx?MediaId={946FB172-7C12-40DA-BCFF-9CD343967201}


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is fallacy that doesn't take into account two very important things:
> 
> God has always existed.
> 
> God exists outside of matter, space, time, and energy.
> 
> Before you get your panties in a wad, Einstein missed the evidence pointing to the big bang because he believed in an *eternal universe*. Einstein believed the *universe had always existed* and had no beginning. So the concept that something has no beginning is not foreign to science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "God has no cause" is synonymous with "God has always existed" since it follows logically. God's location is of no importance or mentioned in this proof and does nothing to testify against its validity.
> 
> Who cares what Einstein believed (he did not believe in a personal god, btw) *UR: I know this and it only bolsters to support my argument of his "scientific" claim*, aside from what could be demonstrated (E=MC2 is demonstrable and can be shown when looking at nuclear blasts, as well as his predictions of black holes being proven to exist). You are using an argument from Authority, and again, is a logical fallacy. Besides, his beliefs were in lockstep with many people of that time because they lacked any evidence or models that would lead them to believe otherwise. So again, you're post is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You show your lack of understanding in the argument I was making and have incorrectly attempted to dismiss it with the wrong fallacy. I wasn't arguing on the credibility of Einstein. My point was that Einstein, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time, missed the "scientific" evidence that would allowed him to discover the big bang. Your assertion that he lacked evidence is a lie or gross misrepresentation. All of his measurements pointed to the Universe having a beginning, but since he did not believe in God, his prejudice would not allow him to accept the fact the universe had a beginning. You see if the universe had a beginning, then it would have to have a cause. If it has always existed, there is no necessity for the causal relationship. Therefore, your logic has again suffered an epic fail. The causal necessity is not applicable if the result in question is not a result, since it has always been.
Click to expand...


You are asserting the universe has always existed. You have zero evidence. There is evidence of the big bang, such as backround microwave radiation from the big bang itself. this is where everything you say falls apart- the fact that the big bang is supported by evidence, and predictions from the model are accurate to what we see today- the universe is continually expanding. Everything we see in the universe follows logically from a model put forth from the big bang happening. You have zero evidence for any of your claims, and they rest purely on an attempt to prove your presupposition that the bible is accurate and true, which can not ever be demonstrated and is not supported by evidence.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> What part of the theory of evolution requires a lack of free will?
> 
> I read your link, it did not say evolution requires a lack of free will.
> 
> Also, to flip things around, if there is a god, and god knows everything that ever has or ever will occur, there is no free will.



I can flip it. Your argument is not logical. Stated another way, you are saying knowledge negates choice. If I tell you I am going to rob a bank later tonight, does your knowledge it is going to happen remove my choice to not go through with it? And if God knows I'm going to change my mind and stay home, has he decided for me? Or does he merely have foreknowledge of my choice?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys aren't the first to grapple with these theological arguments, and you won't be the last. God allows evil because he created us as free agents. The necessary construct of the TOE is you do not have Free Will. Even now, you don't really have a choice to respond to me. You are just an organism reacting to stimuli, with the response already programmed into your genetic makeup. For you, free will is just an illusion.
> 
> [url=http://evolutionaryphilosophy.com/2009/04/20/conscious-evolution-and-freewill/]Conscious Evolution and Free Will? « Evolutionary Philosophy[/URL]
> 
> Evolutionary philosophy?!?!? What the freak? Hollie, I thought evolution was just science and nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're little explanation of using free will is completely insufficient to explain the presence of evil, IF your god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Inherent contradictions necessarily exist if he knows the future, is all powerful, yet can not stop the world from evil or can not get rid of his own creation, the devil, if you believe in that. He would have known adam was going to fall from grace, and all of the evil that was to fall, yet let it happen anyway, then created a loophole for his inability to do anything about, by bringing down his own son, and demanding only belief in him, without any respect to conduct towards others. The whole idea of christianity sets up a morally bankrupt ideology that tricks people into believing they are evil (original sin) and offering the antidote (Jesus). Only someone raised in this situation or so desperate to be saved from themselves (addicts) could possibly use this belief structure and not see it for what it is: manipulative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it obvious you reject the claim that man is born sinful. That leaves you with a humanistic viewpoint that man is good. So how do you account for evil in the world? How do fathers on meth pour gas on their 4-year-old daughters and burn them alive in the desert? How does a man abuct other men, rape and kill them, and then keep their body parts in his fridge? Because they are essentially good, right?
> 
> Sadly, you appear to be the product of the last 50 years of lib education in this country. Next thing I know you will be quoting Maslow. It doesn't surprise me, as would not your next post modernistic arguments seeded with moral relativism. Without absolute truth, anything goes. First gay marriage, and then child molestation in some instances.
> 
> Here's Wil Provine, materialist fundamentalist evolutionist priest, discussing free will, with some Hollie hate for Christians thrown in for good measure. His comments are so transparent it is obvious he was raised Christian and is now gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Postmodernism and Relativism - The Truth Project
Click to expand...


your logic is one big argument from ignorance, once again, this time applied to morality instead of evolution or creation. You can't account for morality without god, so you assert God to make it true. I don't pretend to know what morality is for certain, nor did I say humans are 'good' so I don't appreciate your sarcastic ramblings.  I suspect that morality is an emergent property of being conscious beings with the ability to recollect the past and anticipate the future, while being aware of other beings who have that same capacity and with whom we must share space on this earth for the duration of our consciousness. Therefore, it is in our own best interest to behave in a way that doesn't return to us harm, but instead brings up good things. Moral behavior, therefore, can be reduced to individual pyschologies and incentives that are seen with respect to behavior. In other words, programming from childhood and upbringing, and continually fine-tuned throughout our adult life. For example, if a person already hates themselves, there is no incentive to engage in 'good' behavior, because any good behavior that is brought about in return will not be perceived as indicative of his/her character, but as foreign to their self-image. Therefore, their patterns of behavior will follow a line of self-destruction as a result of their thought patterns, which come from the past. Hence, the reason for the existence of psychotherapy. The golden rule is a good template. Consequentialism is another way to look at it. But, simply asserting God solves nothing, considering that god an immoral asshole who advocates slavery and murder as evidenced in the old testament. (If you attempt to claim the superiority of the new testament, you violate the definition of god as being all-knowing, all-powerful, and never-changing)


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> "God has no cause" is synonymous with "God has always existed" since it follows logically. God's location is of no importance or mentioned in this proof and does nothing to testify against its validity.
> 
> Who cares what Einstein believed (he did not believe in a personal god, btw) *UR: I know this and it only bolsters to support my argument of his "scientific" claim*, aside from what could be demonstrated (E=MC2 is demonstrable and can be shown when looking at nuclear blasts, as well as his predictions of black holes being proven to exist). You are using an argument from Authority, and again, is a logical fallacy. Besides, his beliefs were in lockstep with many people of that time because they lacked any evidence or models that would lead them to believe otherwise. So again, you're post is moot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You show your lack of understanding in the argument I was making and have incorrectly attempted to dismiss it with the wrong fallacy. I wasn't arguing on the credibility of Einstein. My point was that Einstein, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time, missed the "scientific" evidence that would allowed him to discover the big bang. Your assertion that he lacked evidence is a lie or gross misrepresentation. All of his measurements pointed to the Universe having a beginning, but since he did not believe in God, his prejudice would not allow him to accept the fact the universe had a beginning. You see if the universe had a beginning, then it would have to have a cause. If it has always existed, there is no necessity for the causal relationship. Therefore, your logic has again suffered an epic fail. The causal necessity is not applicable if the result in question is not a result, since it has always been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asserting the universe has always existed. You have zero evidence. There is evidence of the big bang, such as backround microwave radiation from the big bang itself. this is where everything you say falls apart- the fact that the big bang is supported by evidence, and predictions from the model are accurate to what we see today- the universe is continually expanding. Everything we see in the universe follows logically from a model put forth from the big bang happening. You have zero evidence for any of your claims, and they rest purely on an attempt to prove your presupposition that the bible is accurate and true, which can not ever be demonstrated and is not supported by evidence.
Click to expand...


Are you actually reading my posts????? I never asserted the universe has always existed. I am asserting if it was as Einstein believed, an eternal universe that has always existed, there is no requirement for a cause. The same logic can be applied to God who has always existed. The causal argument can not be applied. But since we know the universe had a beginning and has not always existed, a cause necessarily follows as a requirement. This gives Hawkins fits. Because any argument he presents for a cause of the universe is technically supernatural, and would have the same merit as "God did it". 

By the way, regarding your statement at the end, just because you lay down what you think is truth in a childish tantrum, does not require it to be so.


----------



## Political Junky

onecut39 said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that was ( choke chuckle) informative.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1msS71xL00&feature=related]Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube[/ame]

Ohhhh, a "chemist" in a white coat, who believes in the talking snake theory of creation.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're little explanation of using free will is completely insufficient to explain the presence of evil, IF your god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Inherent contradictions necessarily exist if he knows the future, is all powerful, yet can not stop the world from evil or can not get rid of his own creation, the devil, if you believe in that. He would have known adam was going to fall from grace, and all of the evil that was to fall, yet let it happen anyway, then created a loophole for his inability to do anything about, by bringing down his own son, and demanding only belief in him, without any respect to conduct towards others. The whole idea of christianity sets up a morally bankrupt ideology that tricks people into believing they are evil (original sin) and offering the antidote (Jesus). Only someone raised in this situation or so desperate to be saved from themselves (addicts) could possibly use this belief structure and not see it for what it is: manipulative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it obvious you reject the claim that man is born sinful. That leaves you with a humanistic viewpoint that man is good. So how do you account for evil in the world? How do fathers on meth pour gas on their 4-year-old daughters and burn them alive in the desert? How does a man abuct other men, rape and kill them, and then keep their body parts in his fridge? Because they are essentially good, right?
> 
> Sadly, you appear to be the product of the last 50 years of lib education in this country. Next thing I know you will be quoting Maslow. It doesn't surprise me, as would not your next post modernistic arguments seeded with moral relativism. Without absolute truth, anything goes. First gay marriage, and then child molestation in some instances.
> 
> Here's Wil Provine, materialist fundamentalist evolutionist priest, discussing free will, with some Hollie hate for Christians thrown in for good measure. His comments are so transparent it is obvious he was raised Christian and is now gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Postmodernism and Relativism - The Truth Project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your logic is one big argument from ignorance, once again, this time applied to morality instead of evolution or creation. You can't account for morality without god, so you assert God to make it true. I don't pretend to know what morality is for certain, nor did I say humans are 'good' so I don't appreciate your sarcastic ramblings.  I suspect that morality is an emergent property of being conscious beings with the ability to recollect the past and anticipate the future, while being aware of other beings who have that same capacity and with whom we must share space on this earth for the duration of our consciousness. Therefore, it is in our own best interest to behave in a way that doesn't return to us harm, but instead brings up good things. Moral behavior, therefore, can be reduced to individual pyschologies and incentives that are seen with respect to behavior. In other words, programming from childhood and upbringing, and continually fine-tuned throughout our adult life. For example, if a person already hates themselves, there is no incentive to engage in 'good' behavior, because any good behavior that is brought about in return will not be perceived as indicative of his/her character, but as foreign to their self-image. Therefore, their patterns of behavior will follow a line of self-destruction as a result of their thought patterns, which come from the past. Hence, the reason for the existence of psychotherapy. The golden rule is a good template. Consequentialism is another way to look at it. But, simply asserting God solves nothing, considering that god an immoral asshole who advocates slavery and murder as evidenced in the old testament. (If you attempt to claim the superiority of the new testament, you violate the definition of god as being all-knowing, all-powerful, and never-changing)
Click to expand...


You didn't answer my questions:

Do YOU believe man is born good or born evil as the Bible teaches? 

How do you account for evil in the world? Do lions kill anything they will not eat? Do animals use sexual acts for violence?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're little explanation of using free will is completely insufficient to explain the presence of evil, IF your god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Inherent contradictions necessarily exist if he knows the future, is all powerful, yet can not stop the world from evil or can not get rid of his own creation, the devil, if you believe in that. He would have known adam was going to fall from grace, and all of the evil that was to fall, yet let it happen anyway, then created a loophole for his inability to do anything about, by bringing down his own son, and demanding only belief in him, without any respect to conduct towards others. The whole idea of christianity sets up a morally bankrupt ideology that tricks people into believing they are evil (original sin) and offering the antidote (Jesus). Only someone raised in this situation or so desperate to be saved from themselves (addicts) could possibly use this belief structure and not see it for what it is: manipulative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it obvious you reject the claim that man is born sinful. That leaves you with a humanistic viewpoint that man is good. So how do you account for evil in the world? How do fathers on meth pour gas on their 4-year-old daughters and burn them alive in the desert? How does a man abuct other men, rape and kill them, and then keep their body parts in his fridge? Because they are essentially good, right?
> 
> Sadly, you appear to be the product of the last 50 years of lib education in this country. Next thing I know you will be quoting Maslow. It doesn't surprise me, as would not your next post modernistic arguments seeded with moral relativism. Without absolute truth, anything goes. First gay marriage, and then child molestation in some instances.
> 
> Here's Wil Provine, materialist fundamentalist evolutionist priest, discussing free will, with some Hollie hate for Christians thrown in for good measure. His comments are so transparent it is obvious he was raised Christian and is now gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Postmodernism and Relativism - The Truth Project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your logic is one big argument from ignorance, once again, this time applied to morality instead of evolution or creation. You can't account for morality without god, so you assert God to make it true. I don't pretend to know what morality is for certain, nor did I say humans are 'good' so I don't appreciate your sarcastic ramblings.  I suspect that morality is an emergent property of being conscious beings with the ability to recollect the past and anticipate the future, while being aware of other beings who have that same capacity and with whom we must share space on this earth for the duration of our consciousness. Therefore, it is in our own best interest to behave in a way that doesn't return to us harm, but instead brings up good things. Moral behavior, therefore, can be reduced to individual pyschologies and incentives that are seen with respect to behavior. In other words, programming from childhood and upbringing, and continually fine-tuned throughout our adult life. For example, if a person already hates themselves, there is no incentive to engage in 'good' behavior, because any good behavior that is brought about in return will not be perceived as indicative of his/her character, but as foreign to their self-image. Therefore, their patterns of behavior will follow a line of self-destruction as a result of their thought patterns, which come from the past. Hence, the reason for the existence of psychotherapy. The golden rule is a good template. Consequentialism is another way to look at it. But, simply asserting God solves nothing, considering that god an immoral asshole who advocates slavery and murder as evidenced in the old testament. (If you attempt to claim the superiority of the new testament, you violate the definition of god as being all-knowing, all-powerful, and never-changing)
Click to expand...


You fail again to understand Christianity. The Old Testament, while inspired scripture, makes a great many assertions about God from man's viewpoint. It wasn't until God became flesh and dwelt among us did we have the complete revelation and understanding of God's nature, as outline in the New Testament from the words of God himself. This argument from ignorance of the Christian religion is tiresome and has been repeated ad nauseum. Please get some new material.


----------



## UltimateReality

An interesting take on humanism, man is good..

Dr. Dalrymple: Rousseau - The Truth Project

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/popups/media_player.aspx?MediaId={AB739919-6DEC-4D49-A87B-5FF951AC0D3C}


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You show your lack of understanding in the argument I was making and have incorrectly attempted to dismiss it with the wrong fallacy. I wasn't arguing on the credibility of Einstein. My point was that Einstein, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time, missed the "scientific" evidence that would allowed him to discover the big bang. Your assertion that he lacked evidence is a lie or gross misrepresentation. All of his measurements pointed to the Universe having a beginning, but since he did not believe in God, his prejudice would not allow him to accept the fact the universe had a beginning. You see if the universe had a beginning, then it would have to have a cause. If it has always existed, there is no necessity for the causal relationship. Therefore, your logic has again suffered an epic fail. The causal necessity is not applicable if the result in question is not a result, since it has always been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are asserting the universe has always existed. You have zero evidence. There is evidence of the big bang, such as backround microwave radiation from the big bang itself. this is where everything you say falls apart- the fact that the big bang is supported by evidence, and predictions from the model are accurate to what we see today- the universe is continually expanding. Everything we see in the universe follows logically from a model put forth from the big bang happening. You have zero evidence for any of your claims, and they rest purely on an attempt to prove your presupposition that the bible is accurate and true, which can not ever be demonstrated and is not supported by evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you actually reading my posts????? I never asserted the universe has always existed. I am asserting if it was as Einstein believed, an eternal universe that has always existed, there is no requirement for a cause. The same logic can be applied to God who has always existed. The causal argument can not be applied. But since we know the universe had a beginning and has not always existed, a cause necessarily follows as a requirement. This gives Hawkins fits. Because any argument he presents for a cause of the universe is technically supernatural, and would have the same merit as "God did it".
> 
> By the way, regarding your statement at the end, just because you lay down what you think is truth in a childish tantrum, does not require it to be so.
Click to expand...


Who cares that Einstein missed 'the big bang?' It's not like he didn't have enough on his mind. it seems like you are criticizing him for not being smart enough to see a big bang, and then attributing that to his supposed pre-supposition that a god doesn't exist, both of which are incredibly arrogant to do. You're really not making any sense anyway, and the point you are trying to make is very unclear. Are you essentially trying to push through a cosmological argument? This has been centuries in the making and you are trying to sound like you are the first one. Yes, I know about the cosmological argument. It doesn't prove a supernatural being. You can not say that the first cause was necessarily supernatural. Moreover, it is logically fallacious to assert our knowledge of logic onto something outside of time and space. Logical rules necessarily fall apart before the big bang, since only logic and reason are emergent only with the properties of our known universe. Therefore, you can not even assert that the universe had to have a cause. You do not know that. As I said, even if you want to take the cosmological argument, you can not assert that the first cause was God, because then you immediately fall into an infinite regress. What caused God? What caused that? What caused that? and so on... it gets you nowhere. If you're arbitrary definition of god is that he always existed, then that 'logically' falls apart as well by the proof I already put down.

1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God has no cause
3. God does not exist

Would you mind being a little less arrogant, please? It's pretty godamn annoying.


----------



## UltimateReality

Is humankind born into sin, or is mankind essentially good? You decide...

Depravity of Man - The Truth Project


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it obvious you reject the claim that man is born sinful. That leaves you with a humanistic viewpoint that man is good. So how do you account for evil in the world? How do fathers on meth pour gas on their 4-year-old daughters and burn them alive in the desert? How does a man abuct other men, rape and kill them, and then keep their body parts in his fridge? Because they are essentially good, right?
> 
> Sadly, you appear to be the product of the last 50 years of lib education in this country. Next thing I know you will be quoting Maslow. It doesn't surprise me, as would not your next post modernistic arguments seeded with moral relativism. Without absolute truth, anything goes. First gay marriage, and then child molestation in some instances.
> 
> Here's Wil Provine, materialist fundamentalist evolutionist priest, discussing free will, with some Hollie hate for Christians thrown in for good measure. His comments are so transparent it is obvious he was raised Christian and is now gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Postmodernism and Relativism - The Truth Project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your logic is one big argument from ignorance, once again, this time applied to morality instead of evolution or creation. You can't account for morality without god, so you assert God to make it true. I don't pretend to know what morality is for certain, nor did I say humans are 'good' so I don't appreciate your sarcastic ramblings.  I suspect that morality is an emergent property of being conscious beings with the ability to recollect the past and anticipate the future, while being aware of other beings who have that same capacity and with whom we must share space on this earth for the duration of our consciousness. Therefore, it is in our own best interest to behave in a way that doesn't return to us harm, but instead brings up good things. Moral behavior, therefore, can be reduced to individual pyschologies and incentives that are seen with respect to behavior. In other words, programming from childhood and upbringing, and continually fine-tuned throughout our adult life. For example, if a person already hates themselves, there is no incentive to engage in 'good' behavior, because any good behavior that is brought about in return will not be perceived as indicative of his/her character, but as foreign to their self-image. Therefore, their patterns of behavior will follow a line of self-destruction as a result of their thought patterns, which come from the past. Hence, the reason for the existence of psychotherapy. The golden rule is a good template. Consequentialism is another way to look at it. But, simply asserting God solves nothing, considering that god an immoral asshole who advocates slavery and murder as evidenced in the old testament. (If you attempt to claim the superiority of the new testament, you violate the definition of god as being all-knowing, all-powerful, and never-changing)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fail again to understand Christianity. The Old Testament, while inspired scripture, makes a great many assertions about God from man's viewpoint. It wasn't until God became flesh and dwelt among us did we have the complete revelation and understanding of God's nature, as outline in the New Testament from the words of God himself. This argument from ignorance of the Christian religion is tiresome and has been repeated ad nauseum. Please get some new material.
Click to expand...


Do you understand how stupid this makes your god?

"God didn't who god was until he made himself human." Wow. That is a far cry from an all knowing god.  You believe in some stupid shit. I am not arguing from ignorance. I am assessing the claims of christians about their own religion, and finding them ridiculous and absurd. You probably think I made an argument from ignorance because you presuppose christianity is true and accurate, which it isn't. It is you who are incorrect in labeling this a fallacy. Do you even know what an argument from ignorance is? It sounds like you are just trying to call me ignorant because you think you know the bible better than me. Haha. They are two different things. nice try though.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Is humankind born into sin, or is mankind essentially good? You decide...
> 
> Depravity of Man - The Truth Project



You're need to place our existence into a neatly folded dichotomy of good and evil is pathologically immature. Worse is your then attempt to use your assessment of whether we are good or evil as evidence that a god must necessarily exist. Again, an argument from ignorance. You are terrible.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Logical rules necessarily fall apart before the big bang, since only logic and reason are emergent only with the properties of our known universe.



This doesn't stop science from proposing the multi-universe theory or from Hawkins doing Nat Geo specials on what caused the big bang.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is humankind born into sin, or is mankind essentially good? You decide...
> 
> Depravity of Man - The Truth Project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're need to place our existence into a neatly folded dichotomy of good and evil is pathologically immature. Worse is your then attempt to use your assessment of whether we are good or evil as evidence that a god must necessarily exist. Again, an argument from ignorance. You are terrible.
Click to expand...


And you are terribly dodging the questions put to you.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually reading my posts????? I never asserted the universe has always existed. I am asserting if it was as Einstein believed, an eternal universe that has always existed, there is no requirement for a cause. The same logic can be applied to God who has always existed. The causal argument can not be applied. But since we know the universe had a beginning and has not always existed, a cause necessarily follows as a requirement. This gives Hawkins fits. Because any argument he presents for a cause of the universe is technically supernatural, and would have the same merit as "God did it".
> 
> By the way, regarding your statement at the end, just because you lay down what you think is truth in a childish tantrum, does not require it to be so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares that Einstein missed 'the big bang?' It's not like he didn't have enough on his mind. it seems like you are criticizing him for not being smart enough to see a big bang, and then attributing that to his supposed pre-supposition that a god doesn't exist, both of which are incredibly arrogant to do. You're really not making any sense anyway, and the point you are trying to make is very unclear. Are you essentially trying to push through a cosmological argument? This has been centuries in the making and you are trying to sound like you are the first one. Yes, I know about the cosmological argument. It doesn't prove a supernatural being. You can not say that the first cause was necessarily supernatural. Moreover, it is logically fallacious to assert our knowledge of logic onto something outside of time and space. Logical rules necessarily fall apart before the big bang, since only logic and reason are emergent only with the properties of our known universe. Therefore, you can not even assert that the universe had to have a cause. You do not know that. As I said, even if you want to take the cosmological argument, you can not assert that the first cause was God, because then you immediately fall into an infinite regress. What caused God? What caused that? What caused that? and so on... it gets you nowhere. If you're arbitrary definition of god is that he always existed, then that 'logically' falls apart as well by the proof I already put down.
> 
> 1. Everything that exists has a cause
> 2. God has no cause
> 3. God does not exist
> 
> Would you mind being a little less arrogant, please? It's pretty godamn annoying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it my arrogance? Or you inability to carry on a logical discussion. First, your 1, 2, 3 argument is flawed because *point 1. is not true.* I proved that above. Second, without going into the details again, my assertion is Einsteins personal bias prevented him from discovering the big bang, because he refused to believe the scientific evidence that was contrary to his belief system, that of a universe that had always existed. Lastly, I used Einsteins assertion for an always existing universe not needing a cause to bolster my argument against point 1. of your fallacious argument above.
Click to expand...


You can not demonstrate that it was Einstein's personal bias that prevented him from discovering the big bang, so stop asserting this. It is preposterous and proves nothing even if you could demonstrate. You would only be demonstrating something to do with human psychology, not any cosmological truths.  Further, you can't presume to known why Einstein did anything, so stop trying. It is supremely ignorant. Anyway, You are using an appeal to Authority to bolster your argument in using Einstein, as you have just admitted by saying so. It doesn't matter what Einstein said about the Universe if it was not demonstrable. 

It is apparent you know nothing of Einstein anyway, as he did believe in a god (Spinoza's god), just not your god.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> "God didn't who god was until he made himself human."



I'm sorry dude but I can't have a logical discussion with you if you are going to mis-quote me. This is not what I said. I said... *Man did not have an full understanding *of who God was until God became man and dwelt among us. You are building a strawman. No part of Christian theology states that God entered man's hand and wrote down the Bible for him. This is a totally ignorant understanding of the religion. Christians believe that scripture is inspired by God with the exception of the direct quotes attributed to Jesus while he was here on earth, which can be considered the direct Word of God. Inspired is used in the context of Divine influence. I think you are failing to grasp the Bible is the assembly of 66 books with many different authors. The New Testament even consists of letters written to real churches containing real people at a real time in history. All books of the Bible must be interpreted using the principles of hermeneutics.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares that Einstein missed 'the big bang?' It's not like he didn't have enough on his mind. it seems like you are criticizing him for not being smart enough to see a big bang, and then attributing that to his supposed pre-supposition that a god doesn't exist, both of which are incredibly arrogant to do. You're really not making any sense anyway, and the point you are trying to make is very unclear. Are you essentially trying to push through a cosmological argument? This has been centuries in the making and you are trying to sound like you are the first one. Yes, I know about the cosmological argument. It doesn't prove a supernatural being. You can not say that the first cause was necessarily supernatural. Moreover, it is logically fallacious to assert our knowledge of logic onto something outside of time and space. Logical rules necessarily fall apart before the big bang, since only logic and reason are emergent only with the properties of our known universe. Therefore, you can not even assert that the universe had to have a cause. You do not know that. As I said, even if you want to take the cosmological argument, you can not assert that the first cause was God, because then you immediately fall into an infinite regress. What caused God? What caused that? What caused that? and so on... it gets you nowhere. If you're arbitrary definition of god is that he always existed, then that 'logically' falls apart as well by the proof I already put down.
> 
> 1. Everything that exists has a cause
> 2. God has no cause
> 3. God does not exist
> 
> Would you mind being a little less arrogant, please? It's pretty godamn annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it my arrogance? Or you inability to carry on a logical discussion. First, your 1, 2, 3 argument is flawed because *point 1. is not true.* I proved that above. Second, without going into the details again, my assertion is Einsteins personal bias prevented him from discovering the big bang, because he refused to believe the scientific evidence that was contrary to his belief system, that of a universe that had always existed. Lastly, I used Einsteins assertion for an always existing universe not needing a cause to bolster my argument against point 1. of your fallacious argument above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can not demonstrate that it was Einstein's personal bias that prevented him from discovering the big bang, so stop asserting this. It is preposterous and proves nothing even if you could demonstrate. You would only be demonstrating something to do with human psychology, not any cosmological truths.  Further, you can't presume to known why Einstein did anything, so stop trying. It is supremely ignorant. Anyway, You are using an appeal to Authority to bolster your argument in using Einstein, as you have just admitted by saying so. It doesn't matter what Einstein said about the Universe if it was not demonstrable.
> 
> It is apparent you know nothing of Einstein anyway, as he did believe in a god (Spinoza's god), just not your god.
Click to expand...


Your thoughts on my questions for you?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> your logic is one big argument from ignorance, once again, this time applied to morality instead of evolution or creation. You can't account for morality without god, so you assert God to make it true. I don't pretend to know what morality is for certain, nor did I say humans are 'good' so I don't appreciate your sarcastic ramblings.  I suspect that morality is an emergent property of being conscious beings with the ability to recollect the past and anticipate the future, while being aware of other beings who have that same capacity and with whom we must share space on this earth for the duration of our consciousness. Therefore, it is in our own best interest to behave in a way that doesn't return to us harm, but instead brings up good things. Moral behavior, therefore, can be reduced to individual pyschologies and incentives that are seen with respect to behavior. In other words, programming from childhood and upbringing, and continually fine-tuned throughout our adult life. For example, if a person already hates themselves, there is no incentive to engage in 'good' behavior, because any good behavior that is brought about in return will not be perceived as indicative of his/her character, but as foreign to their self-image. Therefore, their patterns of behavior will follow a line of self-destruction as a result of their thought patterns, which come from the past. Hence, the reason for the existence of psychotherapy. The golden rule is a good template. Consequentialism is another way to look at it. But, simply asserting God solves nothing, considering that god an immoral asshole who advocates slavery and murder as evidenced in the old testament. (If you attempt to claim the superiority of the new testament, you violate the definition of god as being all-knowing, all-powerful, and never-changing)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fail again to understand Christianity. The Old Testament, while inspired scripture, makes a great many assertions about God from man's viewpoint. It wasn't until God became flesh and dwelt among us did we have the complete revelation and understanding of God's nature, as outline in the New Testament from the words of God himself. This argument from ignorance of the Christian religion is tiresome and has been repeated ad nauseum. Please get some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand how stupid this makes your god?
> 
> "God didn't who god was until he made himself human." Wow. That is a far cry from an all knowing god.  You believe in some stupid shit. I am not arguing from ignorance. I am assessing the claims of christians about their own religion, and finding them ridiculous and absurd. You probably think I made an argument from ignorance because you presuppose christianity is true and accurate, which it isn't. It is you who are incorrect in labeling this a fallacy. Do you even know what an argument from ignorance is? It sounds like you are just trying to call me ignorant because you think you know the bible better than me. Haha. They are two different things. nice try though.
Click to expand...


And by the way, I didn't call you ignorant. I said you were ignorant of the teachings of Christianity.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fail again to understand Christianity. The Old Testament, while inspired scripture, makes a great many assertions about God from man's viewpoint. It wasn't until God became flesh and dwelt among us did we have the complete revelation and understanding of God's nature, as outline in the New Testament from the words of God himself. This argument from ignorance of the Christian religion is tiresome and has been repeated ad nauseum. Please get some new material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand how stupid this makes your god?
> 
> "God didn't who god was until he made himself human." Wow. That is a far cry from an all knowing god.  You believe in some stupid shit. I am not arguing from ignorance. I am assessing the claims of christians about their own religion, and finding them ridiculous and absurd. You probably think I made an argument from ignorance because you presuppose christianity is true and accurate, which it isn't. It is you who are incorrect in labeling this a fallacy. Do you even know what an argument from ignorance is? It sounds like you are just trying to call me ignorant because you think you know the bible better than me. Haha. They are two different things. nice try though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by the way, I didn't call you ignorant. I said you were ignorant of the teaches of Christianity.
Click to expand...


Sorry, that's what I meant


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it my arrogance? Or you inability to carry on a logical discussion. First, your 1, 2, 3 argument is flawed because *point 1. is not true.* I proved that above. Second, without going into the details again, my assertion is Einsteins personal bias prevented him from discovering the big bang, because he refused to believe the scientific evidence that was contrary to his belief system, that of a universe that had always existed. Lastly, I used Einsteins assertion for an always existing universe not needing a cause to bolster my argument against point 1. of your fallacious argument above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can not demonstrate that it was Einstein's personal bias that prevented him from discovering the big bang, so stop asserting this. It is preposterous and proves nothing even if you could demonstrate. You would only be demonstrating something to do with human psychology, not any cosmological truths.  Further, you can't presume to known why Einstein did anything, so stop trying. It is supremely ignorant. Anyway, You are using an appeal to Authority to bolster your argument in using Einstein, as you have just admitted by saying so. It doesn't matter what Einstein said about the Universe if it was not demonstrable.
> 
> It is apparent you know nothing of Einstein anyway, as he did believe in a god (Spinoza's god), just not your god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your thoughts on my questions for you?
Click to expand...


I certainly won't concede that it is my inability to have a logical discussion. I could impress the same accusation upon you, and I would conclusively say that it is your inability to have a logical discussion, which stems from your presuppositions that the bible must be true, simply because you believe it.

 I don't agree that point 1 is untrue. The only thing that could counter this, is god, but using god is invalid, because we have no proof of his existence. Here, I might be using an argument from ignorance, but I am simply asking if you know of anything that exists that does not have a cause to back up your claim that point 1 is untrue?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> "God didn't who god was until he made himself human."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry dude but I can't have a logical discussion with you if you are going to mis-quote me. This is not what I said. I said... *Man did not have an full understanding *of who God was until God became man and dwelt among us. You are building a strawman. No part of Christian theology states that God entered man's hand and wrote down the Bible for him. This is a totally ignorant understanding of the religion. Christians believe that scripture is inspired by God with the exception of the direct quotes attributed to Jesus while he was here on earth, which can be considered the direct Word of God. Inspired is used in the context of Divine influence. I think you are failing to grasp the Bible is the assembly of 66 books with many different authors. The New Testament even consists of letters written to real churches containing real people at a real time in history. All books of the Bible must be interpreted using the principles of hermeneutics.
Click to expand...


I meant to say, "God didn't know who god was until he made himself human," and I wasn't quoting you, I was para-phrasing your story. Also, I am not building a strawman. In fact, quite the contrary. It seems that you are.  I never claimed, insinuated, or inferrred that God guided the hands of the authors. I never mentioned authorship once during this disccusion. Am I mistaken here? Seriously, how did you get to authorship from where we were?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> You can not demonstrate that it was Einstein's personal bias that prevented him from discovering the big bang, so stop asserting this. It is preposterous and proves nothing even if you could demonstrate. You would only be demonstrating something to do with human psychology, not any cosmological truths.  Further, you can't presume to known why Einstein did anything, so stop trying. It is supremely ignorant.



I think it is you that is supremely ignorant to this topic. First, I don't just make stuff up... I read. Everything I've quoted about Einstein is generally accepted to be true. I am giving you paraphrased historical accounts about Einstein based on his own quotes from his journals. I'd say your anger and stubbornness is blinding you..

"Twelve years later, Hubble's discovery of other galaxies racing away from ours, their light waves stretched and reddened by the expansion of space-time, vanquished the static universe. It also *eliminated any need for a cosmological constant to hold the galaxies steady.* During his 1931 California visit, Einstein acknowledged as much. "The red shift of distant nebulae has smashed my old construction like a hammer blow," he declared. *He reputedly told a colleague that the cosmological constant was his biggest blunder.*

"With or without that extra ingredient, the basic recipe for the expanding universe was Einstein's. But it was left to others to identify one revolutionary implication: a moment of cosmic creation. In 1931 the Belgian priest and astrophysicist Georges Lemaître put the fleeing galaxies into reverse and imagined them eons ago merged in a fireball of dazzling brilliance&#8212;a "primeval atom," as he put it. "The evolution of the world can be compared to a display of fireworks that has just ended: some few red wisps, ashes and smoke," wrote Lemaître. From this poetic scenario arose today's big bang.

Many were appalled by this concept. "*The notion of a beginning&#8230; is repugnant to me,*" said British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington in 1931. But evidence in its favor slowly gathered, climaxing in 1964, when scientists at Bell Telephone Laboratories discovered that the cosmos is awash in a sea of microwave radiation, the remnant glow of the universe's thunderous launch. Ever since then the image of the big bang has shaped and directed the work of cosmologists as strongly as Ptolemy's celestial spheres influenced astronomers in the Middle Ages."

General Relativity Article, Dark Matter Information, Cosmic Scaffolding Facts -- National Geographic


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> "God didn't who god was until he made himself human."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry dude but I can't have a logical discussion with you if you are going to mis-quote me. This is not what I said. I said... *Man did not have an full understanding *of who God was until God became man and dwelt among us. You are building a strawman. No part of Christian theology states that God entered man's hand and wrote down the Bible for him. This is a totally ignorant understanding of the religion. Christians believe that scripture is inspired by God with the exception of the direct quotes attributed to Jesus while he was here on earth, which can be considered the direct Word of God. Inspired is used in the context of Divine influence. I think you are failing to grasp the Bible is the assembly of 66 books with many different authors. The New Testament even consists of letters written to real churches containing real people at a real time in history. All books of the Bible must be interpreted using the principles of hermeneutics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant to say, "God didn't know who god was until he made himself human," and I wasn't quoting you, I was para-phrasing your story. Also, I am not building a strawman. In fact, quite the contrary. It seems that you are.  I never claimed, insinuated, or inferrred that God guided the hands of the authors. I never mentioned authorship once during this disccusion. Am I mistaken here? Seriously, how did you get to authorship from where we were?
Click to expand...


Based on your statements. The inference is that God wrote the Old Testament about himself. Any third party observer can see that glaring theme in your argument. God didn't write it. Man did. God inspired scripture. You are also claiming that man's understanding of God in the Old Testament is God's understanding of God.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can not demonstrate that it was Einstein's personal bias that prevented him from discovering the big bang, so stop asserting this. It is preposterous and proves nothing even if you could demonstrate. You would only be demonstrating something to do with human psychology, not any cosmological truths.  Further, you can't presume to known why Einstein did anything, so stop trying. It is supremely ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is you that is supremely ignorant to this topic. First, I don't just make stuff up... I read. Everything I've quoted about Einstein is generally accepted to be true. I am giving you paraphrased historical accounts about Einstein based on his own quotes from his journals. I'd say your anger and stubbornness is blinding you..
> 
> Twelve years later, Hubble's discovery of other galaxies racing away from ours, their light waves stretched and reddened by the expansion of space-time, vanquished the static universe. It also *eliminated any need for a cosmological constant to hold the galaxies steady.* During his 1931 California visit, Einstein acknowledged as much. "The red shift of distant nebulae has smashed my old construction like a hammer blow," he declared. *He reputedly told a colleague that the cosmological constant was his biggest blunder.*
> 
> "With or without that extra ingredient, the basic recipe for the expanding universe was Einstein's. But it was left to others to identify one revolutionary implication: a moment of cosmic creation. In 1931 the Belgian priest and astrophysicist Georges Lemaître put the fleeing galaxies into reverse and imagined them eons ago merged in a fireball of dazzling brilliance&#8212;a "primeval atom," as he put it. "The evolution of the world can be compared to a display of fireworks that has just ended: some few red wisps, ashes and smoke," wrote Lemaître. From this poetic scenario arose today's big bang.
> 
> Many were appalled by this concept. "*The notion of a beginning&#8230; is repugnant to me,*" said British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington in 1931. But evidence in its favor slowly gathered, climaxing in 1964, when scientists at Bell Telephone Laboratories discovered that the cosmos is awash in a sea of microwave radiation, the remnant glow of the universe's thunderous launch. Ever since then the image of the big bang has shaped and directed the work of cosmologists as strongly as Ptolemy's celestial spheres influenced astronomers in the Middle Ages."
> 
> General Relativity Article, Dark Matter Information, Cosmic Scaffolding Facts -- National Geographic
Click to expand...


So, what is your point in all of this? I am failing to understand Einstein's disposition with the respect to the big bang as having any real bearing on this discussion. 

Regardless, what you have written confirms what I said, that Einstein lived mostly before the theory of the big bang, and so his views of the cosmos necessarily were void of anything involving it. When confronted with the idea of a big bang, he admitted his 'cosmological constant was his biggest blunder.' He changed his views when confronted with the evidence, as should we all. WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING THIS?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry dude but I can't have a logical discussion with you if you are going to mis-quote me. This is not what I said. I said... *Man did not have an full understanding *of who God was until God became man and dwelt among us. You are building a strawman. No part of Christian theology states that God entered man's hand and wrote down the Bible for him. This is a totally ignorant understanding of the religion. Christians believe that scripture is inspired by God with the exception of the direct quotes attributed to Jesus while he was here on earth, which can be considered the direct Word of God. Inspired is used in the context of Divine influence. I think you are failing to grasp the Bible is the assembly of 66 books with many different authors. The New Testament even consists of letters written to real churches containing real people at a real time in history. All books of the Bible must be interpreted using the principles of hermeneutics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I meant to say, "God didn't know who god was until he made himself human," and I wasn't quoting you, I was para-phrasing your story. Also, I am not building a strawman. In fact, quite the contrary. It seems that you are.  I never claimed, insinuated, or inferrred that God guided the hands of the authors. I never mentioned authorship once during this disccusion. Am I mistaken here? Seriously, how did you get to authorship from where we were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on your statements. The inference is that God wrote the Old Testament about himself. Any third party observer can see that glaring theme in your argument. God didn't write it. Man did. God inspired scripture. You are also claiming that man's understanding of God in the Old Testament is God's understanding of God.
Click to expand...


So you're saying the bible isn't indicative of God's moral code? That all of the slavery, rape and murder wasn't what god 'meant'? Then why do you take it as such? You can't pick and choose the parts of the bible you want to be true, but that is what you have to do with a book as morally spotted as the bible. Then you claim that it was merely divinely inspired and not actually authored directly, but this doesn't get you away from whether the book is the inspired word of god, and therefore whether the moral code is that of God's. Either it is or it isn't. It doesn't matter who wrote it or how. The bible contains its own moral inconsistencies.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can not demonstrate that it was Einstein's personal bias that prevented him from discovering the big bang, so stop asserting this. It is preposterous and proves nothing even if you could demonstrate. You would only be demonstrating something to do with human psychology, not any cosmological truths.  Further, you can't presume to known why Einstein did anything, so stop trying. It is supremely ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is you that is supremely ignorant to this topic. First, I don't just make stuff up... I read. Everything I've quoted about Einstein is generally accepted to be true. I am giving you paraphrased historical accounts about Einstein based on his own quotes from his journals. I'd say your anger and stubbornness is blinding you..
> 
> Twelve years later, Hubble's discovery of other galaxies racing away from ours, their light waves stretched and reddened by the expansion of space-time, vanquished the static universe. It also *eliminated any need for a cosmological constant to hold the galaxies steady.* During his 1931 California visit, Einstein acknowledged as much. "The red shift of distant nebulae has smashed my old construction like a hammer blow," he declared. *He reputedly told a colleague that the cosmological constant was his biggest blunder.*
> 
> "With or without that extra ingredient, the basic recipe for the expanding universe was Einstein's. But it was left to others to identify one revolutionary implication: a moment of cosmic creation. In 1931 the Belgian priest and astrophysicist Georges Lemaître put the fleeing galaxies into reverse and imagined them eons ago merged in a fireball of dazzling brilliance&#8212;a "primeval atom," as he put it. "The evolution of the world can be compared to a display of fireworks that has just ended: some few red wisps, ashes and smoke," wrote Lemaître. From this poetic scenario arose today's big bang.
> 
> Many were appalled by this concept. "*The notion of a beginning&#8230; is repugnant to me,*" said British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington in 1931. But evidence in its favor slowly gathered, climaxing in 1964, when scientists at Bell Telephone Laboratories discovered that the cosmos is awash in a sea of microwave radiation, the remnant glow of the universe's thunderous launch. Ever since then the image of the big bang has shaped and directed the work of cosmologists as strongly as Ptolemy's celestial spheres influenced astronomers in the Middle Ages."
> 
> General Relativity Article, Dark Matter Information, Cosmic Scaffolding Facts -- National Geographic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what is your point in all of this? I am failing to understand Einstein's disposition with the respect to the big bang as having any real bearing on this discussion.
> 
> Regardless, what you have written confirms what I said, that Einstein lived mostly before the theory of the big bang, and so his views of the cosmos necessarily were void of anything involving it. When confronted with the idea of a big bang, he admitted his 'cosmological constant was his biggest blunder.' He changed his views when confronted with the evidence, as should we all. WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING THIS?
Click to expand...


This... 





newpolitics said:


> Here, I might be using an argument from ignorance, but I am simply asking if you know of anything that exists that does not have a cause to back up your claim that point 1 is untrue?



But really, I don't need Einstein. The argument you are referring to has been around for ages and was originated by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, although what you present is the bastardized evolutionistic version which is popularly misquoted by Darwinists. It was originally several logical arguments *for* the existence of God. Really, you and Hollie should pick up a history book every once in a while. 

Thomas Aquinas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Google "first cause argument" or "arguments for the existence of God" for more info.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I meant to say, "God didn't know who god was until he made himself human," and I wasn't quoting you, I was para-phrasing your story. Also, I am not building a strawman. In fact, quite the contrary. It seems that you are.  I never claimed, insinuated, or inferrred that God guided the hands of the authors. I never mentioned authorship once during this disccusion. Am I mistaken here? Seriously, how did you get to authorship from where we were?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on your statements. The inference is that God wrote the Old Testament about himself. Any third party observer can see that glaring theme in your argument. God didn't write it. Man did. God inspired scripture. You are also claiming that man's understanding of God in the Old Testament is God's understanding of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying the bible isn't indicative of God's moral code? That all of the slavery, rape and murder wasn't what god 'meant'? Then why do you take it as such? You can't pick and choose the parts of the bible you want to be true, but that is what you have to do with a book as morally spotted as the bible. Then you claim that it was merely divinely inspired and not actually authored directly, but this doesn't get you away from whether the book is the inspired word of god, and therefore whether the moral code is that of God's. Either it is or it isn't. It doesn't matter who wrote it or how. The bible contains its own moral inconsistencies.
Click to expand...


*Honestly, I have some problems reconciling some of the stories in the Old Testament.* But this is not Christianity. It is pathetic how the angry atheists, the ones that once believed but now have a mission to destroy Christianity, always quote the Old Testament. How about the teachings of the New Testament: Love your enemies, turn the other cheek, take care of the poor, do not lie, do not engage in sexual immorality, love one another. What about the B attitudes? The Good Samaritan? Paul's conversion?

Last time I checked, I know of no Christians advocating Genocide so these arguments are just SO STUPID. In fact, Christians advocate just the opposite. They are active all over the world helping feed and minister to the poor. They are active here in our country defending the Genocide on the unborn. Atheists argue this same pathetic argument all the time, but the actions of Christians speak louder than atheist rhetoric. The statistics are there to show that Christians are more charitable than atheists. And why would that shock us? Atheists are about themselves. They are their own reality. My church just today raised $50,000 to feed Lepers in India through Harvest India. Yes, you heard me right, there are still Leper colonies in India.

Harvest India

http://cschandler.com/leprosyproject.html

Our church has also funded a dormitory for 150 orphans in Kenya on which construction was just completed. That country has been ravaged by AIDS and left millions of children without parents.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haMLTjLh-rA&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haMLTjLh-rA&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

Our Videos

This doesn't even scratch the surface of the ministries our little Church in Arizona is involved in. 

You come here all angry to set us straight and tell me how much bad Christianity has done in the world. But this is a skewed worldview, not at all an accurate portrayal of modern day Christians. It is seethed with anger and hate and discrimination against Christians. It is about a once strong society founded on Christian principles turning on the very pillars of that foundation and rejecting God. The national debt is spiraling out of control and government bankruptcy is inevitable. Jesus is removing the lampstand from America, and very hard times are coming.

*What are you doing to help the hurting and the poor? What personal sacrifices are you making for another human or humans?*


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> You didn't answer my questions:
> 
> Do YOU believe man is born good or born evil as the Bible teaches?
> 
> How do you account for evil in the world? Do lions kill anything they will not eat? Do animals use sexual acts for violence?



Actually, I think I've seen/read about lions killing things they don't eat.  Maybe it's just a cat thing, as I've certainly seen housecats kill without eating what they've killed.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Is humankind born into sin, or is mankind essentially good? You decide...
> 
> Depravity of Man - The Truth Project



Are those the only 2 options?


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is humankind born into sin, or is mankind essentially good? You decide...
> 
> Depravity of Man - The Truth Project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those the only 2 options?
Click to expand...


Throw out a 3rd. Those are just the two MAIN world views.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is humankind born into sin, or is mankind essentially good? You decide...
> 
> Depravity of Man - The Truth Project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those the only 2 options?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Throw out a 3rd. Those are just the two MAIN world views.
Click to expand...


Well, how about mankind is neither good nor evil by nature?  That we are fairly neutral, and can go either way based on a combination of choices, genetics and upbringing/environment?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws you are an Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> proving once again you have no Idea what you're talking about ,fact is I looked very much like that in the 70's
> same eye color my hair was a bit longer even had a shirt that looked like that.
> 
> the thing is neither the person in that picture or myself look at all like jesus..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why they always feminize Christ in paintings. Since he was a carpenter, I'm guessing he wasn't the skinny dude the always portray him to be.
Click to expand...

do you always miss the elephant in the room?
jesus was not a white guy ....the diet of the pesants of that time is not well documented .
it's a fairly good bet he was not fat and likely not very tall.
like all ignorant people you don't know the difference between beautifaction and feminized 
I was skinny still tall and a carpenter  so what's your point?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> proving once again you have no Idea what you're talking about ,fact is I looked very much like that in the 70's
> same eye color my hair was a bit longer even had a shirt that looked like that.
> 
> the thing is neither the person in that picture or myself look at all like jesus..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why they always feminize Christ in paintings. Since he was a carpenter, I'm guessing he wasn't the skinny dude the always portray him to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he probably didn't have that long hair either. They want him to look like some of the weirdest people on the planet ,the hippies.
Click to expand...

once again you ignorance and bigotry shines!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a proof for you believers. It's a spin off of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, but one that actually makes sense.
> 
> 1.Everything that exists has a cause.
> 2. God has no cause.
> 3. God does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is fallacy that doesn't take into account two very important things:
> 
> God has always existed.
> 
> God exists outside of matter, space, time, and energy.
> 
> Before you get your panties in a wad, Einstein missed the evidence pointing to the big bang because he believed in an *eternal universe*. Einstein believed the *universe had always existed* and had no beginning. So the concept that something has no beginning is not foreign to science.
Click to expand...

so Einstein was wrong.
you are also wrong because you cannot prove 1. god exists 2. without that proof the rest is a steaming pile of shitty assumptions.
it's another declaratory statement with no basis in fact..


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys aren't the first to grapple with these theological arguments, and you won't be the last. God allows evil because he created us as free agents. The necessary construct of the TOE is you do not have Free Will. Even now, you don't really have a choice to respond to me. You are just an organism reacting to stimuli, with the response already programmed into your genetic makeup. For you, free will is just an illusion.
> 
> [url=http://evolutionaryphilosophy.com/2009/04/20/conscious-evolution-and-freewill/]Conscious Evolution and Free Will? « Evolutionary Philosophy[/URL]
> 
> Evolutionary philosophy?!?!? What the freak? Hollie, I thought evolution was just science and nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're little explanation of using free will is completely insufficient to explain the presence of evil, IF your god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Inherent contradictions necessarily exist if he knows the future, is all powerful, yet can not stop the world from evil or can not get rid of his own creation, the devil, if you believe in that. He would have known adam was going to fall from grace, and all of the evil that was to fall, yet let it happen anyway, then created a loophole for his inability to do anything about, by bringing down his own son, and demanding only belief in him, without any respect to conduct towards others. The whole idea of christianity sets up a morally bankrupt ideology that tricks people into believing they are evil (original sin) and offering the antidote (Jesus). Only someone raised in this situation or so desperate to be saved from themselves (addicts) could possibly use this belief structure and not see it for what it is: manipulative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it obvious you reject the claim that man is born sinful. That leaves you with a humanistic viewpoint that man is good. So how do you account for evil in the world? How do fathers on meth pour gas on their 4-year-old daughters and burn them alive in the desert? How does a man abuct other men, rape and kill them, and then keep their body parts in his fridge? Because they are essentially good, right?
> 
> Sadly, you appear to be the product of the last 50 years of lib education in this country. Next thing I know you will be quoting Maslow. It doesn't surprise me, as would not your next post modernistic arguments seeded with moral relativism. Without absolute truth, anything goes. First gay marriage, and then child molestation in some instances.
> 
> Here's Wil Provine, materialist fundamentalist evolutionist priest, discussing free will, with some Hollie hate for Christians thrown in for good measure. His comments are so transparent it is obvious he was raised Christian and is now gay.
> 
> Will Provine: Naturalistic Implications - The Truth Project
> 
> Post Modernism and Moral Relativsm explained...
> 
> 
> On Postmodernism and Relativism - The Truth Project
Click to expand...


focus on the family  fuuuuuuuuuuuuck me!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it obvious you reject the claim that man is born sinful. That leaves you with a humanistic viewpoint that man is good. So how do you account for evil in the world? How do fathers on meth pour gas on their 4-year-old daughters and burn them alive in the desert? How does a man abuct other men, rape and kill them, and then keep their body parts in his fridge? Because they are essentially good, right?
> 
> Sadly, you appear to be the product of the last 50 years of lib education in this country. Next thing I know you will be quoting Maslow. It doesn't surprise me, as would not your next post modernistic arguments seeded with moral relativism. Without absolute truth, anything goes. First gay marriage, and then child molestation in some instances.
> 
> Here's Wil Provine, materialist fundamentalist evolutionist priest, discussing free will, with some Hollie hate for Christians thrown in for good measure. His comments are so transparent it is obvious he was raised Christian and is now gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Postmodernism and Relativism - The Truth Project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your logic is one big argument from ignorance, once again, this time applied to morality instead of evolution or creation. You can't account for morality without god, so you assert God to make it true. I don't pretend to know what morality is for certain, nor did I say humans are 'good' so I don't appreciate your sarcastic ramblings.  I suspect that morality is an emergent property of being conscious beings with the ability to recollect the past and anticipate the future, while being aware of other beings who have that same capacity and with whom we must share space on this earth for the duration of our consciousness. Therefore, it is in our own best interest to behave in a way that doesn't return to us harm, but instead brings up good things. Moral behavior, therefore, can be reduced to individual pyschologies and incentives that are seen with respect to behavior. In other words, programming from childhood and upbringing, and continually fine-tuned throughout our adult life. For example, if a person already hates themselves, there is no incentive to engage in 'good' behavior, because any good behavior that is brought about in return will not be perceived as indicative of his/her character, but as foreign to their self-image. Therefore, their patterns of behavior will follow a line of self-destruction as a result of their thought patterns, which come from the past. Hence, the reason for the existence of psychotherapy. The golden rule is a good template. Consequentialism is another way to look at it. But, simply asserting God solves nothing, considering that god an immoral asshole who advocates slavery and murder as evidenced in the old testament. (If you attempt to claim the superiority of the new testament, you violate the definition of god as being all-knowing, all-powerful, and never-changing)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my questions:
> 
> Do YOU believe man is born good or born evil as the Bible teaches?
> 
> How do you account for evil in the world? Do lions kill anything they will not eat? Do animals use sexual acts for violence?
Click to expand...

yes some do..lions will kill for sport . domestic cats will spend hours torturing their catch.
dogs mount each other to assert sexual dominance.
most all animals will fight over territory or food (including humans)
dolphins bully and kill un desirable pod members.
our closest  relatives murder, rape ant abuse their young and each other (just like us).
 the logical conclusion if you believe in god is he  put evil in all of his creations.   
 why?    

may be he likes to watch?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> proving once again you have no Idea what you're talking about ,fact is I looked very much like that in the 70's
> same eye color my hair was a bit longer even had a shirt that looked like that.
> 
> the thing is neither the person in that picture or myself look at all like jesus..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why they always feminize Christ in paintings. Since he was a carpenter, I'm guessing he wasn't the skinny dude the always portray him to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you always miss the elephant in the room?
> jesus was not a white guy ....the diet of the pesants of that time is not well documented .
> it's a fairly good bet he was not fat and likely not very tall.
> like all ignorant people you don't know the difference between beautifaction and feminized
> I was skinny still tall and a carpenter  so what's your point?
Click to expand...


"was" being the operative word. 

The point is, he didn't have power tools.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> What part of the theory of evolution requires a lack of free will?
> 
> I read your link, it did not say evolution requires a lack of free will.
> 
> Also, to flip things around, if there is a god, and god knows everything that ever has or ever will occur, there is no free will.



Whether you like it or not everyone has a choice, That is free will.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why the requirement for gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I let you figure that one out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised at your answer. The timeframes described for earth history and for the age of the universe (which those evil scientists have factual data to support) , make your gods and all gods superfluous. While creationists / I'D'ers (one and the same), will reel and deny the fact of "evilution", there is no credible argument to deny the science fact. What we have is credible data to support the theory of fitness for survival and adaptation over time. Immense time scales only add to support the theory.
> 
> Even if one or more gods (and all the asserted gods share the same credibility as your gods) provided the first spark of life, an absent, uninvolved and disinterested god(s) is/are synonymous with "nonexistence". What slather nonexistence  with a host of human attributes ?
Click to expand...



There is also factual data that presents problems for the theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> "God didn't who god was until he made himself human."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry dude but I can't have a logical discussion with you if you are going to mis-quote me. This is not what I said. I said... *Man did not have an full understanding *of who God was until God became man and dwelt among us. You are building a strawman. No part of Christian theology states that God entered man's hand and wrote down the Bible for him. This is a totally ignorant understanding of the religion. Christians believe that scripture is inspired by God with the exception of the direct quotes attributed to Jesus while he was here on earth, which can be considered the direct Word of God. Inspired is used in the context of Divine influence. I think you are failing to grasp the Bible is the assembly of 66 books with many different authors. The New Testament even consists of letters written to real churches containing real people at a real time in history. All books of the Bible must be interpreted using the principles of hermeneutics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant to say, "God didn't know who god was until he made himself human," and I wasn't quoting you, I was para-phrasing your story. Also, I am not building a strawman. In fact, quite the contrary. It seems that you are.  I never claimed, insinuated, or inferrred that God guided the hands of the authors. I never mentioned authorship once during this disccusion. Am I mistaken here? Seriously, how did you get to authorship from where we were?
Click to expand...


How do you figure God didn't know who he was until he made himself a man ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why they always feminize Christ in paintings. Since he was a carpenter, I'm guessing he wasn't the skinny dude the always portray him to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he probably didn't have that long hair either. They want him to look like some of the weirdest people on the planet ,the hippies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> once again you ignorance and bigotry shines!
Click to expand...


They were weird, and how is that being a bigot not that I care that is a term used alot from california liberals.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are those the only 2 options?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Throw out a 3rd. Those are just the two MAIN world views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, how about mankind is neither good nor evil by nature?  That we are fairly neutral, and can go either way based on a combination of choices, genetics and upbringing/environment?
Click to expand...


Come on monty, look at the atrocities of man sometimes by an order from a man.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> proving once again you have no Idea what you're talking about ,fact is I looked very much like that in the 70's
> same eye color my hair was a bit longer even had a shirt that looked like that.
> 
> the thing is neither the person in that picture or myself look at all like jesus..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why they always feminize Christ in paintings. Since he was a carpenter, I'm guessing he wasn't the skinny dude the always portray him to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you always miss the elephant in the room?
> jesus was not a white guy ....the diet of the pesants of that time is not well documented .
> it's a fairly good bet he was not fat and likely not very tall.
> like all ignorant people you don't know the difference between beautifaction and feminized
> I was skinny still tall and a carpenter  so what's your point?
Click to expand...


This is the line of thinking that created macro-evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a proof for you believers. It's a spin off of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, but one that actually makes sense.
> 
> 1.Everything that exists has a cause.
> 2. God has no cause.
> 3. God does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is fallacy that doesn't take into account two very important things:
> 
> God has always existed.
> 
> God exists outside of matter, space, time, and energy.
> 
> Before you get your panties in a wad, Einstein missed the evidence pointing to the big bang because he believed in an *eternal universe*. Einstein believed the *universe had always existed* and had no beginning. So the concept that something has no beginning is not foreign to science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so Einstein was wrong.
> you are also wrong because you cannot prove 1. god exists 2. without that proof the rest is a steaming pile of shitty assumptions.
> it's another declaratory statement with no basis in fact..
Click to expand...


Same could be said for many scientific theories but creation just fits better with the evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're little explanation of using free will is completely insufficient to explain the presence of evil, IF your god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Inherent contradictions necessarily exist if he knows the future, is all powerful, yet can not stop the world from evil or can not get rid of his own creation, the devil, if you believe in that. He would have known adam was going to fall from grace, and all of the evil that was to fall, yet let it happen anyway, then created a loophole for his inability to do anything about, by bringing down his own son, and demanding only belief in him, without any respect to conduct towards others. The whole idea of christianity sets up a morally bankrupt ideology that tricks people into believing they are evil (original sin) and offering the antidote (Jesus). Only someone raised in this situation or so desperate to be saved from themselves (addicts) could possibly use this belief structure and not see it for what it is: manipulative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it obvious you reject the claim that man is born sinful. That leaves you with a humanistic viewpoint that man is good. So how do you account for evil in the world? How do fathers on meth pour gas on their 4-year-old daughters and burn them alive in the desert? How does a man abuct other men, rape and kill them, and then keep their body parts in his fridge? Because they are essentially good, right?
> 
> Sadly, you appear to be the product of the last 50 years of lib education in this country. Next thing I know you will be quoting Maslow. It doesn't surprise me, as would not your next post modernistic arguments seeded with moral relativism. Without absolute truth, anything goes. First gay marriage, and then child molestation in some instances.
> 
> Here's Wil Provine, materialist fundamentalist evolutionist priest, discussing free will, with some Hollie hate for Christians thrown in for good measure. His comments are so transparent it is obvious he was raised Christian and is now gay.
> 
> Will Provine: Naturalistic Implications - The Truth Project
> 
> Post Modernism and Moral Relativsm explained...
> 
> 
> On Postmodernism and Relativism - The Truth Project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> focus on the family  fuuuuuuuuuuuuck me!
Click to expand...


Daws you are one sick person and did to many drugs you pervert.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> your logic is one big argument from ignorance, once again, this time applied to morality instead of evolution or creation. You can't account for morality without god, so you assert God to make it true. I don't pretend to know what morality is for certain, nor did I say humans are 'good' so I don't appreciate your sarcastic ramblings.  I suspect that morality is an emergent property of being conscious beings with the ability to recollect the past and anticipate the future, while being aware of other beings who have that same capacity and with whom we must share space on this earth for the duration of our consciousness. Therefore, it is in our own best interest to behave in a way that doesn't return to us harm, but instead brings up good things. Moral behavior, therefore, can be reduced to individual pyschologies and incentives that are seen with respect to behavior. In other words, programming from childhood and upbringing, and continually fine-tuned throughout our adult life. For example, if a person already hates themselves, there is no incentive to engage in 'good' behavior, because any good behavior that is brought about in return will not be perceived as indicative of his/her character, but as foreign to their self-image. Therefore, their patterns of behavior will follow a line of self-destruction as a result of their thought patterns, which come from the past. Hence, the reason for the existence of psychotherapy. The golden rule is a good template. Consequentialism is another way to look at it. But, simply asserting God solves nothing, considering that god an immoral asshole who advocates slavery and murder as evidenced in the old testament. (If you attempt to claim the superiority of the new testament, you violate the definition of god as being all-knowing, all-powerful, and never-changing)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my questions:
> 
> Do YOU believe man is born good or born evil as the Bible teaches?
> 
> How do you account for evil in the world? Do lions kill anything they will not eat? Do animals use sexual acts for violence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes some do..lions will kill for sport . domestic cats will spend hours torturing their catch.
> dogs mount each other to assert sexual dominance.
> most all animals will fight over territory or food (including humans)
> dolphins bully and kill un desirable pod members.
> our closest  relatives murder, rape ant abuse their young and each other (just like us).
> the logical conclusion if you believe in god is he  put evil in all of his creations.
> why?
> 
> may be he likes to watch?
Click to expand...


Wow how moronic,you can read a dogs's mind what is he doing when your dog does it to your leg ?


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Throw out a 3rd. Those are just the two MAIN world views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, how about mankind is neither good nor evil by nature?  That we are fairly neutral, and can go either way based on a combination of choices, genetics and upbringing/environment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on monty, look at the atrocities of man sometimes by an order from a man.
Click to expand...


Look at the altruism of man.  The point is that both sides of the coin are represented.  Some are and do evil, some are and do good.  Most of us, I think, are toward the middle.  We are good at times, evil at times, but not often to extremes either way.

There's always the question of just what constitutes good and evil, of course, but that's a whole other discussion.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my questions:
> 
> Do YOU believe man is born good or born evil as the Bible teaches?
> 
> How do you account for evil in the world? Do lions kill anything they will not eat? Do animals use sexual acts for violence?
> 
> 
> 
> yes some do..lions will kill for sport . domestic cats will spend hours torturing their catch.
> dogs mount each other to assert sexual dominance.
> most all animals will fight over territory or food (including humans)
> dolphins bully and kill un desirable pod members.
> our closest  relatives murder, rape ant abuse their young and each other (just like us).
> the logical conclusion if you believe in god is he  put evil in all of his creations.
> why?
> 
> may be he likes to watch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow how moronic,you can read a dogs's mind what is he doing when your dog does it to your leg ?
Click to expand...


Are you saying that without telepathy we cannot determine the reason for another creature's actions?  I'll grant you that there's always the possibility of being wrong, but I also think it can be more than wild guesswork.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, how about mankind is neither good nor evil by nature?  That we are fairly neutral, and can go either way based on a combination of choices, genetics and upbringing/environment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on monty, look at the atrocities of man sometimes by an order from a man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the altruism of man.  The point is that both sides of the coin are represented.  Some are and do evil, some are and do good.  Most of us, I think, are toward the middle.  We are good at times, evil at times, but not often to extremes either way.
> 
> There's always the question of just what constitutes good and evil, of course, but that's a whole other discussion.
Click to expand...


According to whose morals you are following. We think evil things all the time by nature. Our mind can be our worst enemy at times.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes some do..lions will kill for sport . domestic cats will spend hours torturing their catch.
> dogs mount each other to assert sexual dominance.
> most all animals will fight over territory or food (including humans)
> dolphins bully and kill un desirable pod members.
> our closest  relatives murder, rape ant abuse their young and each other (just like us).
> the logical conclusion if you believe in god is he  put evil in all of his creations.
> why?
> 
> may be he likes to watch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow how moronic,you can read a dogs's mind what is he doing when your dog does it to your leg ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that without telepathy we cannot determine the reason for another creature's actions?  I'll grant you that there's always the possibility of being wrong, but I also think it can be more than wild guesswork.
Click to expand...


Key here is the assumption can be wrong. I still want to know what a dog is doing when he humps Daws leg


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a proof for you believers. It's a spin off of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, but one that actually makes sense.
> 
> 1.Everything that exists has a cause.
> 2. God has no cause.
> 3. God does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is fallacy that doesn't take into account two very important things:
> 
> God has always existed.
> 
> God exists outside of matter, space, time, and energy.
> 
> Before you get your panties in a wad, Einstein missed the evidence pointing to the big bang because he believed in an *eternal universe*. Einstein believed the *universe had always existed* and had no beginning. So the concept that something has no beginning is not foreign to science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so Einstein was wrong.
> you are also wrong because you cannot prove 1. god exists 2. without that proof the rest is a steaming pile of shitty assumptions.
> it's another declaratory statement with no basis in fact..
Click to expand...


Daws, I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suite either. This argument that the atheist bastardized is from the 13th century and was a logical argument FOR the existence of God by Thomas Aquinos. Nice try though, jumping on the NP bandwagon.

The only steaming pile here is the rotting McDonalds wrappers laying around your computer.


----------



## UltimateReality

UltimateReality said:


> *What are you doing to help the hurting and the poor? What personal sacrifices are you making for another human or humans?*



By the way Daws, Hollie and NP, this *wasn't* a rhetorical question.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What are you doing to help the hurting and the poor? What personal sacrifices are you making for another human or humans?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way Daws, Hollie and NP, this *wasn't* a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...


I donate to two charities monthly, one for child prostitution and one for children international. I'm an ethical vegan in order boycott factory farms, where the most egregious and completely accepted form a slavery still currently exists (watch Earthlings at Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth). I volunteer at an animal shelter weekly in NYC. I volunteered two weeks in New Orleans to help rebuild houses in the Ninth Ward, and worked an entire service year in Boston to help underprivileged youth after I got out of high school. What do you do?


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on your statements. The inference is that God wrote the Old Testament about himself. Any third party observer can see that glaring theme in your argument. God didn't write it. Man did. God inspired scripture. You are also claiming that man's understanding of God in the Old Testament is God's understanding of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the bible isn't indicative of God's moral code? That all of the slavery, rape and murder wasn't what god 'meant'? Then why do you take it as such? You can't pick and choose the parts of the bible you want to be true, but that is what you have to do with a book as morally spotted as the bible. Then you claim that it was merely divinely inspired and not actually authored directly, but this doesn't get you away from whether the book is the inspired word of god, and therefore whether the moral code is that of God's. Either it is or it isn't. It doesn't matter who wrote it or how. The bible contains its own moral inconsistencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Honestly, I have some problems reconciling some of the stories in the Old Testament.* But this is not Christianity. It is pathetic how the angry atheists, the ones that once believed but now have a mission to destroy Christianity, always quote the Old Testament. How about the teachings of the New Testament: Love your enemies, turn the other cheek, take care of the poor, do not lie, do not engage in sexual immorality, love one another. What about the B attitudes? The Good Samaritan? Paul's conversion?
> 
> Last time I checked, I know of no Christians advocating Genocide so these arguments are just SO STUPID. In fact, Christians advocate just the opposite. They are active all over the world helping feed and minister to the poor. They are active here in our country defending the Genocide on the unborn. Atheists argue this same pathetic argument all the time, but the actions of Christians speak louder than atheist rhetoric. The statistics are there to show that Christians are more charitable than atheists. And why would that shock us? Atheists are about themselves. They are their own reality. My church just today raised $50,000 to feed Lepers in India through Harvest India. Yes, you heard me right, there are still Leper colonies in India.
> 
> Harvest India
> 
> Leprosy Project
> 
> Our church has also funded a dormitory for 150 orphans in Kenya on which construction was just completed. That country has been ravaged by AIDS and left millions of children without parents.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haMLTjLh-rA&feature=player_embedded]Huruma Children&#39;s Home - Ngong 2012 Documentary - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Our Videos
> 
> This doesn't even scratch the surface of the ministries our little Church in Arizona is involved in.
> 
> You come here all angry to set us straight and tell me how much bad Christianity has done in the world. But this is a skewed worldview, not at all an accurate portrayal of modern day Christians. It is seethed with anger and hate and discrimination against Christians. It is about a once strong society founded on Christian principles turning on the very pillars of that foundation and rejecting God. The national debt is spiraling out of control and government bankruptcy is inevitable. Jesus is removing the lampstand from America, and very hard times are coming.
> 
> *What are you doing to help the hurting and the poor? What personal sacrifices are you making for another human or humans?*
Click to expand...


Considering a very large percentage of the population identifies as Christian, I'm not sure how the country is rejecting god or Christian principles.  I've seen multiple polls putting the Christian population of the US at 75-80%.  Yet more believe in god in some other tradition or without a particular religious affiliation.  Are the atheists (who, in the same polls, make up less than 2% of the population) the only ones with any power or influence?  Or is this another case of someone looking at all the Christians in the country and deciding they are not REAL Christians?

And of course, whether Christians in the modern world are good, charitable people has nothing at all to do with whether there are inconsistencies or questionable morality in the bible.  The fact that the great evils done in the name of the Christian god are mostly in the past also does not influence the contents of scripture.

I'm not defending newpolitics' views, just highlighting that pointing to Christian charity in no way answers questions about moral dilemmas in the bible.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I let you figure that one out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised at your answer. The timeframes described for earth history and for the age of the universe (which those evil scientists have factual data to support) , make your gods and all gods superfluous. While creationists / I'D'ers (one and the same), will reel and deny the fact of "evilution", there is no credible argument to deny the science fact. What we have is credible data to support the theory of fitness for survival and adaptation over time. Immense time scales only add to support the theory.
> 
> Even if one or more gods (and all the asserted gods share the same credibility as your gods) provided the first spark of life, an absent, uninvolved and disinterested god(s) is/are synonymous with "nonexistence". What slather nonexistence  with a host of human attributes ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is also factual data that presents problems for the theory.
Click to expand...

 That makes no sense at all. There is simply no evidence for supernatural "creation". All of the natural world that we understand adheres to completely natural phenomenon. If you have evidence for something in the natural world that is not natural, ie: supernatural, please let us know what that is. 

I think this is the greatest problem with those who reject science and knowledge and instead rely on faith and supernaturalism. Faith is the process of making claims and holding opinions in the absence of knowledge. If something is known and/or understood, then we have knowledge and faith is not required.

To claim that something is unknowable or unfathomable creates an environment wherein you decide to forever remain ignorant of the natural world you live in. You have chosen not to learn and discover and thus you do not pursue knowledge. You are defining that faith must be maintained because:

knowledge would supersede faith, questioning religious dogma is often defined as losing ones faith,


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the bible isn't indicative of God's moral code? That all of the slavery, rape and murder wasn't what god 'meant'? Then why do you take it as such? You can't pick and choose the parts of the bible you want to be true, but that is what you have to do with a book as morally spotted as the bible. Then you claim that it was merely divinely inspired and not actually authored directly, but this doesn't get you away from whether the book is the inspired word of god, and therefore whether the moral code is that of God's. Either it is or it isn't. It doesn't matter who wrote it or how. The bible contains its own moral inconsistencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Honestly, I have some problems reconciling some of the stories in the Old Testament.* But this is not Christianity. It is pathetic how the angry atheists, the ones that once believed but now have a mission to destroy Christianity, always quote the Old Testament. How about the teachings of the New Testament: Love your enemies, turn the other cheek, take care of the poor, do not lie, do not engage in sexual immorality, love one another. What about the B attitudes? The Good Samaritan? Paul's conversion?
> 
> Last time I checked, I know of no Christians advocating Genocide so these arguments are just SO STUPID. In fact, Christians advocate just the opposite. They are active all over the world helping feed and minister to the poor. They are active here in our country defending the Genocide on the unborn. Atheists argue this same pathetic argument all the time, but the actions of Christians speak louder than atheist rhetoric. The statistics are there to show that Christians are more charitable than atheists. And why would that shock us? Atheists are about themselves. They are their own reality. My church just today raised $50,000 to feed Lepers in India through Harvest India. Yes, you heard me right, there are still Leper colonies in India.
> 
> Harvest India
> 
> Leprosy Project
> 
> Our church has also funded a dormitory for 150 orphans in Kenya on which construction was just completed. That country has been ravaged by AIDS and left millions of children without parents.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haMLTjLh-rA&feature=player_embedded]Huruma Children's Home - Ngong 2012 Documentary - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Our Videos
> 
> This doesn't even scratch the surface of the ministries our little Church in Arizona is involved in.
> 
> You come here all angry to set us straight and tell me how much bad Christianity has done in the world. But this is a skewed worldview, not at all an accurate portrayal of modern day Christians. It is seethed with anger and hate and discrimination against Christians. It is about a once strong society founded on Christian principles turning on the very pillars of that foundation and rejecting God. The national debt is spiraling out of control and government bankruptcy is inevitable. Jesus is removing the lampstand from America, and very hard times are coming.
> 
> *What are you doing to help the hurting and the poor? What personal sacrifices are you making for another human or humans?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering a very large percentage of the population identifies as Christian, I'm not sure how the country is rejecting god or Christian principles.  I've seen multiple polls putting the Christian population of the US at 75-80%.  Yet more believe in god in some other tradition or without a particular religious affiliation.  Are the atheists (who, in the same polls, make up less than 2% of the population) the only ones with any power or influence?  Or is this another case of someone looking at all the Christians in the country and deciding they are not REAL Christians?
> 
> And of course, whether Christians in the modern world are good, charitable people has nothing at all to do with whether there are inconsistencies or questionable morality in the bible.  The fact that the great evils done in the name of the Christian god are mostly in the past also does not influence the contents of scripture.
> 
> I'm not defending newpolitics' views, just highlighting that pointing to Christian charity in no way answers questions about moral dilemmas in the bible.
Click to expand...


It's pretty simple really,a large amount of the educated bought in to what they were taught in school even though some claim to be Christian. God does not come first to them no matter what they say.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised at your answer. The timeframes described for earth history and for the age of the universe (which those evil scientists have factual data to support) , make your gods and all gods superfluous. While creationists / I'D'ers (one and the same), will reel and deny the fact of "evilution", there is no credible argument to deny the science fact. What we have is credible data to support the theory of fitness for survival and adaptation over time. Immense time scales only add to support the theory.
> 
> Even if one or more gods (and all the asserted gods share the same credibility as your gods) provided the first spark of life, an absent, uninvolved and disinterested god(s) is/are synonymous with "nonexistence". What slather nonexistence  with a host of human attributes ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is also factual data that presents problems for the theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense at all. There is simply no evidence for supernatural "creation". All of the natural world that we understand adheres to completely natural phenomenon. If you have evidence for something in the natural world that is not natural, ie: supernatural, please let us know what that is.
> 
> I think this is the greatest problem with those who reject science and knowledge and instead rely on faith and supernaturalism. Faith is the process of making claims and holding opinions in the absence of knowledge. If something is known and/or understood, then we have knowledge and faith is not required.
> 
> To claim that something is unknowable or unfathomable creates an environment wherein you decide to forever remain ignorant of the natural world you live in. You have chosen not to learn and discover and thus you do not pursue knowledge. You are defining that faith must be maintained because:
> 
> knowledge would supersede faith, questioning religious dogma is often defined as losing one&#8217;s faith,
Click to expand...


I might have misunderstood your point that is true that alot of kids in college are buying in to naturalism because that is what they are being taught. Please stop saying believers reject science,we reject ideological s cience or in another term  pseudoscience.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is also factual data that presents problems for the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense at all. There is simply no evidence for supernatural "creation". All of the natural world that we understand adheres to completely natural phenomenon. If you have evidence for something in the natural world that is not natural, ie: supernatural, please let us know what that is.
> 
> I think this is the greatest problem with those who reject science and knowledge and instead rely on faith and supernaturalism. Faith is the process of making claims and holding opinions in the absence of knowledge. If something is known and/or understood, then we have knowledge and faith is not required.
> 
> To claim that something is unknowable or unfathomable creates an environment wherein you decide to forever remain ignorant of the natural world you live in. You have chosen not to learn and discover and thus you do not pursue knowledge. You are defining that faith must be maintained because:
> 
> knowledge would supersede faith, questioning religious dogma is often defined as losing ones faith,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I might have misunderstood your point that is true that alot of kids in college are buying in to naturalism because that is what they are being taught. Please stop saying believers reject science,we reject ideological s cience or in another term  pseudoscience.
Click to expand...

So then, do tell us what evidence you have for supernatural creationism. It's a question you refuse to answer. I know precisely why that is, but if you have such evidence, let's  put it before peer review. This is how science is challenged to substantiate claims. I don't know of any means or methods whereby science can substantiate you claims of gods, demons or other oddities that go bump in the night. Hating science because it illuminates those dark, superstitious areas of the mind is not a detriment to humanity. Embracing fear and superstition, is.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering a very large percentage of the population identifies as Christian, I'm not sure how the country is rejecting god or Christian principles.  I've seen multiple polls putting the Christian population of the US at 75-80%.  Yet more believe in god in some other tradition or without a particular religious affiliation.  Are the atheists (who, in the same polls, make up less than 2% of the population) the only ones with any power or influence?  Or is this another case of someone looking at all the Christians in the country and deciding they are not REAL Christians?
> 
> And of course, whether Christians in the modern world are good, charitable people has nothing at all to do with whether there are inconsistencies or questionable morality in the bible.  The fact that the great evils done in the name of the Christian god are mostly in the past also does not influence the contents of scripture.
> 
> I'm not defending newpolitics' views, just highlighting that pointing to Christian charity in no way answers questions about moral dilemmas in the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty simple really,a large amount of the educated bought in to what they were taught in school even though some claim to be Christian. God does not come first to them no matter what they say.
Click to expand...


Here's one vote for 'they aren't real Christians'.

So much easier to dismiss the beliefs of others, isn't it?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense at all. There is simply no evidence for supernatural "creation". All of the natural world that we understand adheres to completely natural phenomenon. If you have evidence for something in the natural world that is not natural, ie: supernatural, please let us know what that is.
> 
> I think this is the greatest problem with those who reject science and knowledge and instead rely on faith and supernaturalism. Faith is the process of making claims and holding opinions in the absence of knowledge. If something is known and/or understood, then we have knowledge and faith is not required.
> 
> To claim that something is unknowable or unfathomable creates an environment wherein you decide to forever remain ignorant of the natural world you live in. You have chosen not to learn and discover and thus you do not pursue knowledge. You are defining that faith must be maintained because:
> 
> knowledge would supersede faith, questioning religious dogma is often defined as losing ones faith,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I might have misunderstood your point that is true that alot of kids in college are buying in to naturalism because that is what they are being taught. Please stop saying believers reject science,we reject ideological s cience or in another term  pseudoscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, do tell us what evidence you have for supernatural creationism. It's a question you refuse to answer. I know precisely why that is, but if you have such evidence, let's  put it before peer review. This is how science is challenged to substantiate claims. I don't know of any means or methods whereby science can substantiate you claims of gods, demons or other oddities that go bump in the night. Hating science because it illuminates those dark, superstitious areas of the mind is not a detriment to humanity. Embracing fear and superstition, is.
Click to expand...


Part faith and part complexity. I don't believe chaos can create order. A cell forms through order not chaos.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering a very large percentage of the population identifies as Christian, I'm not sure how the country is rejecting god or Christian principles.  I've seen multiple polls putting the Christian population of the US at 75-80%.  Yet more believe in god in some other tradition or without a particular religious affiliation.  Are the atheists (who, in the same polls, make up less than 2% of the population) the only ones with any power or influence?  Or is this another case of someone looking at all the Christians in the country and deciding they are not REAL Christians?
> 
> And of course, whether Christians in the modern world are good, charitable people has nothing at all to do with whether there are inconsistencies or questionable morality in the bible.  The fact that the great evils done in the name of the Christian god are mostly in the past also does not influence the contents of scripture.
> 
> I'm not defending newpolitics' views, just highlighting that pointing to Christian charity in no way answers questions about moral dilemmas in the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty simple really,a large amount of the educated bought in to what they were taught in school even though some claim to be Christian. God does not come first to them no matter what they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's one vote for 'they aren't real Christians'.
> 
> So much easier to dismiss the beliefs of others, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Not really it's not me it's the bible that declares it.

Heb 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

Mat 6:33  But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense at all. There is simply no evidence for supernatural "creation". All of the natural world that we understand adheres to completely natural phenomenon. If you have evidence for something in the natural world that is not natural, ie: supernatural, please let us know what that is.
> 
> I think this is the greatest problem with those who reject science and knowledge and instead rely on faith and supernaturalism. Faith is the process of making claims and holding opinions in the absence of knowledge. If something is known and/or understood, then we have knowledge and faith is not required.
> 
> To claim that something is unknowable or unfathomable creates an environment wherein you decide to forever remain ignorant of the natural world you live in. You have chosen not to learn and discover and thus you do not pursue knowledge. You are defining that faith must be maintained because:
> 
> knowledge would supersede faith, questioning religious dogma is often defined as losing one&#8217;s faith,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I might have misunderstood your point that is true that alot of kids in college are buying in to naturalism because that is what they are being taught. Please stop saying believers reject science,we reject ideological s cience or in another term  pseudoscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, do tell us what evidence you have for supernatural creationism. It's a question you refuse to answer. I know precisely why that is, but if you have such evidence, let's  put it before peer review. This is how science is challenged to substantiate claims. I don't know of any means or methods whereby science can substantiate you claims of gods, demons or other oddities that go bump in the night. Hating science because it illuminates those dark, superstitious areas of the mind is not a detriment to humanity. Embracing fear and superstition, is.
Click to expand...


Hollie, you continue to ignore numerous posts and fail to comment on them. I listed 50 peer reviewed studies and a link to a scientific argument for ID based on Darwins and Lyell's scientific method. Serious evidence has been presented to you but you keep stating the same incorrect thing over an Dover again. Just because you are ignoring something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> It's pretty simple really,a large amount of the educated bought in to what they were taught in school even though some claim to be Christian. God does not come first to them no matter what they say.



I find it odd that you claim someone needs to be telepathic to ascribe reasons to animal behavior, but you feel qualified to know the beliefs of humans in contradiction to what they say.

Is your name Xavier?*

*geek reference!


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty simple really,a large amount of the educated bought in to what they were taught in school even though some claim to be Christian. God does not come first to them no matter what they say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one vote for 'they aren't real Christians'.
> 
> So much easier to dismiss the beliefs of others, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really it's not me it's the bible that declares it.
> 
> Heb 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
> 
> Mat 6:33  But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you.
Click to expand...


John 14:15 If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 

James 2:18 (NIV) But someone will say, You have faith; I have deeds. Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty simple really,a large amount of the educated bought in to what they were taught in school even though some claim to be Christian. God does not come first to them no matter what they say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it odd that you claim someone needs to be telepathic to ascribe reasons to animal behavior, but you feel qualified to know the beliefs of humans in contradiction to what they say.
> 
> Is your name Xavier?*
> 
> *geek reference!
Click to expand...


No telepathy needed. My wife is constantly harping on peoples words and actions. Which do you think speaks louder?

That is not to say that Christians don't fail miserably. We are constantly trying to shed our sinful nature. But we should be "running the race". When you fall, you don't stay down. You get back up and keep on trying, striving to be more like Christ.


----------



## UltimateReality

Here is a morden day parable (story that has a deeper, metaphorical meaning) that captures Christianity perfectly. It comes from an unlikely source, *ESPN.* Christ died so that we may live. If you really understand the breadth of what Christ did on the cross, if forces a change in the way you live...

Ray of Hope: Jason Ray - ESPN Video - ESPN


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Here is a morden day parable (story that has a deeper, metaphorical meaning) that captures Christianity perfectly. It comes from an unlikely source, *ESPN.* Christ died so that we may live. If you really understand the breadth of what Christ did on the cross, if forces a change in the way you live...
> 
> Ray of Hope: Jason Ray - ESPN Video - ESPN



My wife and I just watched the video,this put a lump in my throat and my wife had tears in her eyes.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a morden day parable (story that has a deeper, metaphorical meaning) that captures Christianity perfectly. It comes from an unlikely source, *ESPN.* Christ died so that we may live. If you really understand the breadth of what Christ did on the cross, if forces a change in the way you live...
> 
> Ray of Hope: Jason Ray - ESPN Video - ESPN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife and I just watched the video,this put a lump in my throat and my wife had tears in her eyes.
Click to expand...


what does this 'parable' have anything to do with other than modern science? Nothing. I won't deny that its a touching story, and shared between you two christians, it may give you a special feeling, but as far as reality goes, this does nothing to demonstrate anything other than the fact that we are emotional beings terrified of death.

FYI, I'm an organ donor, and an atheist. I don't see why that ever should not be the case. Everyone should be an organ donor. There is no reason not to. It doesn't matter. You're fucking dead.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a morden day parable (story that has a deeper, metaphorical meaning) that captures Christianity perfectly. It comes from an unlikely source, *ESPN.* Christ died so that we may live. If you really understand the breadth of what Christ did on the cross, if forces a change in the way you live...
> 
> Ray of Hope: Jason Ray - ESPN Video - ESPN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife and I just watched the video,this put a lump in my throat and my wife had tears in her eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what does this 'parable' have anything to do with other than modern science? Nothing.
Click to expand...


Did you read the definition of parable? The story is very similar to the story of Christ. Jason Ray died so that others could live. His sacrifice gave the recipients a fresh start just as Christ's sacrifice give those who accept him new life. Many Christians can start to take what Christ did for granted. Did you notice that most of the organ recipients said there was not a day that went by that they didn't think about Jason and what he had done for them? Did you notice the heart recipient say Jason heart lives on in me? How much more amazing that God humbled himself to become a man and made the choice to die for us?

Galatians 2:20 (NIV) I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

1 John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a morden day parable (story that has a deeper, metaphorical meaning) that captures Christianity perfectly. It comes from an unlikely source, *ESPN.* Christ died so that we may live. If you really understand the breadth of what Christ did on the cross, if forces a change in the way you live...
> 
> Ray of Hope: Jason Ray - ESPN Video - ESPN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife and I just watched the video,this put a lump in my throat and my wife had tears in her eyes.
Click to expand...


Really powerful, huh? Especially for a believer who gets the deeper meaning.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logical rules necessarily fall apart before the big bang, since only logic and reason are emergent only with the properties of our known universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't stop science from proposing the multi-universe theory or from Hawkins doing Nat Geo specials on what caused the big bang.
Click to expand...


argument from authority


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logical rules necessarily fall apart before the big bang, since only logic and reason are emergent only with the properties of our known universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't stop science from proposing the multi-universe theory or from Hawkins doing Nat Geo specials on what caused the big bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> argument from authority
Click to expand...


Actually from assumptions that can't be proven or disproven that may be why they make it sound so convinicing. Man is in a position of ignorance when it comes to the genesis of the universe and life.

I can reason complexity because we see it happening all around us. I can't reson purpsoseful chance and coincedence. I can't reason a non-thinking process creating everything necessary for life,like blood,important organs,oxygen,the sun and moon,an atmosphere,and a lot of water, And last but not least all the parts needed to form a cell coming together to form life. I do believe in miracles but only directed miracles.

I just can't reason chaos becomes order never and no one can give me an example of such a thing.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My wife and I just watched the video,this put a lump in my throat and my wife had tears in her eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what does this 'parable' have anything to do with other than modern science? Nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the definition of parable? The story is very similar to the story of Christ. Jason Ray died so that others could live. His sacrifice gave the recipients a fresh start just as Christ's sacrifice give those who accept him new life. Many Christians can start to take what Christ did for granted. Did you notice that most of the organ recipients said there was not a day that went by that they didn't think about Jason and what he had done for them? Did you notice the heart recipient say Jason heart lives on in me? How much more amazing that God humbled himself to become a man and made the choice to die for us?
> 
> Galatians 2:20 (NIV) I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
> 
> 1 John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.
Click to expand...


I thought Jason Ray died in an accident, without any choice?  He died so that others could live?  No, that's not it at all.  His organ donation allowed others to live, but that isn't WHY he died.  Unless, perhaps, you are saying that god killed him so that his organs would go to others?

As to god humbling himself and sacrificing himself, I've never quite understood the reasoning there.  He's god....so how much of a sacrifice is it?  He can't actually die!  Is it humbling?  I can't say I know how becoming human would be for an all-powerful being....and was he not god while Jesus was alive?  Was the universe running without direction during that time?  And finally, if you believe god knows everything that was, is, and will be, then he already knew what would happen when he decided to create life and mankind, so it's not much of a sacrifice or humbling experience.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logical rules necessarily fall apart before the big bang, since only logic and reason are emergent only with the properties of our known universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't stop science from proposing the multi-universe theory or from Hawkins doing Nat Geo specials on what caused the big bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> argument from authority
Click to expand...


You need to cool it with your new found "guide to logical fallacies 101" handbook because your true understanding of them is internet shallow. The statement about Hawkins was a *comment,* not an argument. But while we are on the topic, your assertion that logic and reason are only emergent with the properties of our universe is a metaphysical claim. This is a classic blunder of evolutionists. I referred to it in a quote about Contrastive reasoning on page 316 of this thread. Your argument above *"makes a subtle but crucial non scientific assumption."*


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> what does this 'parable' have anything to do with other than modern science? Nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the definition of parable? The story is very similar to the story of Christ. Jason Ray died so that others could live. His sacrifice gave the recipients a fresh start just as Christ's sacrifice give those who accept him new life. Many Christians can start to take what Christ did for granted. Did you notice that most of the organ recipients said there was not a day that went by that they didn't think about Jason and what he had done for them? Did you notice the heart recipient say Jason heart lives on in me? How much more amazing that God humbled himself to become a man and made the choice to die for us?
> 
> Galatians 2:20 (NIV) I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
> 
> 1 John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought Jason Ray died in an accident, without any choice?  He died so that others could live?  No, that's not it at all.  His organ donation allowed others to live, but that isn't WHY he died.  Unless, perhaps, you are saying that god killed him so that his organs would go to others?
> 
> As to god humbling himself and sacrificing himself, I've never quite understood the reasoning there.  He's god....so how much of a sacrifice is it?  He can't actually die!  Is it humbling?  I can't say I know how becoming human would be for an all-powerful being....and was he not god while Jesus was alive?  Was the universe running without direction during that time?  And finally, if you believe god knows everything that was, is, and will be, then he already knew what would happen when he decided to create life and mankind, so it's not much of a sacrifice or humbling experience.
Click to expand...


So you wouldn't mind being locked up and water boarded for awhile, and then being sodomized by 25 inmates as long as you knew you wouldn't really be injured and be able to walk free and alive a week later?


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the definition of parable? The story is very similar to the story of Christ. Jason Ray died so that others could live. His sacrifice gave the recipients a fresh start just as Christ's sacrifice give those who accept him new life. Many Christians can start to take what Christ did for granted. Did you notice that most of the organ recipients said there was not a day that went by that they didn't think about Jason and what he had done for them? Did you notice the heart recipient say Jason heart lives on in me? How much more amazing that God humbled himself to become a man and made the choice to die for us?
> 
> Galatians 2:20 (NIV) I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
> 
> 1 John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Jason Ray died in an accident, without any choice?  He died so that others could live?  No, that's not it at all.  His organ donation allowed others to live, but that isn't WHY he died.  Unless, perhaps, you are saying that god killed him so that his organs would go to others?
> 
> As to god humbling himself and sacrificing himself, I've never quite understood the reasoning there.  He's god....so how much of a sacrifice is it?  He can't actually die!  Is it humbling?  I can't say I know how becoming human would be for an all-powerful being....and was he not god while Jesus was alive?  Was the universe running without direction during that time?  And finally, if you believe god knows everything that was, is, and will be, then he already knew what would happen when he decided to create life and mankind, so it's not much of a sacrifice or humbling experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't mind being locked up and water boarded for awhile, and then being sodomized by 25 inmates as long as you knew you wouldn't really be injured and be able to walk free and alive a week later?
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with anything?  I'm not god.

Again, all powerful, eternal being cannot die.  For all we know, even if Jesus died as the bible describes and he was the son of god, he could have not felt pain.  Even if he felt the pain just as a normal human, what does that mean to an all powerful, eternal being?  

And again, if god knows everything that is, was or will be, than doesn't it mean he planned it this way all along?


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Jason Ray died in an accident, without any choice?  He died so that others could live?  No, that's not it at all.  His organ donation allowed others to live, but that isn't WHY he died.  Unless, perhaps, you are saying that god killed him so that his organs would go to others?
> 
> As to god humbling himself and sacrificing himself, I've never quite understood the reasoning there.  He's god....so how much of a sacrifice is it?  He can't actually die!  Is it humbling?  I can't say I know how becoming human would be for an all-powerful being....and was he not god while Jesus was alive?  Was the universe running without direction during that time?  And finally, if you believe god knows everything that was, is, and will be, then he already knew what would happen when he decided to create life and mankind, so it's not much of a sacrifice or humbling experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't mind being locked up and water boarded for awhile, and then being sodomized by 25 inmates as long as you knew you wouldn't really be injured and be able to walk free and alive a week later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?  I'm not god.
> 
> Again, all powerful, eternal being cannot die.  For all we know, even if Jesus died as the bible describes and he was the son of god, he could have not felt pain.  Even if he felt the pain just as a normal human, what does that mean to an all powerful, eternal being?
> 
> And again, if god knows everything that is, was or will be, than doesn't it mean he planned it this way all along?
Click to expand...


I don't think God planned it. But I do think knowing the outcome, he made the choice to proceed with creating the earth, because He knew in the end He would be loved by us and good would triumph. You are not the first to wrestle with these questions. Theologians have been thinking on these things for centuries. *"Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk." CS Lewis*

http://newcreationperson.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/if-god-is-omniscient-why-did-he-create-the-world-knowing-it-would-fall-into-sin/

Here is what you miss... Jesus humbled himself to become a man, with all the fears, pain, and bodily functions of a human. He had a mother and father he loved. He struggled with everything normal humans struggle with. He even asked the Father if there was anyway he could get out of dying and accomplish the same thing. The cup represents his death. Just the night before, Christ had used a cup of wine to symbolize his blood that would be shed on the cross. 

Matthew 26:36: Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, &#8220;Sit here while I go over there and pray.&#8221; 37 He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and* he began to be sorrowful and troubled*. 38 Then he said to them, &#8220;*My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow *to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.&#8221;

39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, &#8220;*My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. *Yet not as I will, but as you will.&#8221;

40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. &#8220;Couldn&#8217;t you men keep watch with me for one hour?&#8221; he asked Peter. 41 &#8220;Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. *The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.*&#8221;

If you really want a true understanding of how it went down, I think Mel Gibsons Passion of the Christ follows the story in the Bible very closely.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhLx7i2KNbE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhLx7i2KNbE[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

C.S. Lewis Quotes &#8211; 
"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." &#8211; Mere Christianity

"Now that I am a Christian *I do have moods in which the whole thing looks improbable*: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable." &#8211; Mere Christianity

Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself. &#8211; The Problem of Pain

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? - Mere Christianity


----------



## UltimateReality

Glassyeyedave:

"I see more than one question being asked here.

One question is, did God know that man would fall into sin before He created him?

The second question is, if he knew that man was going to sin, why did he make him anyway?

Anyhow this is how I see this conversation.

Well did God know that man would fall into sin before He created them? We know that He did, not because of an orthodox position as the source of our confidence, rather it is because it is part of our gospel.

Our gospel does not teach that Christ died around 33 AD. Our gospel teaches us that Christ died before the foundation of the world.

(Rev 13:8 NIV) All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast&#8211;all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the *Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.*

Paul teaches us that we had the hope of salvation promised to mankind before mankind was ever created.

(Titus 1:1-2 NIV) Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God&#8217;s elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness&#8211;a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie,* promised before the beginning of time*, [Hawkins now believes that even time itself began at the Big Bang. There was no time before the universe.]

Not only do we have a promise of salvation before time began, even our reward was prepared for us who believe, even before man was created

(Mat 25:34 NIV) &#8220;Then the King will say to those on his right, &#8216;Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

Even names are written in the book of life before the foundation of the world. Names of people who do not exist. Sounds kind of detailed for God if He is not omniscient.

(Rev 17:8 NIV) The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.

So it is true when scripture says:

(Heb 4:4 NIV) For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: &#8220;And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.&#8221;

Furthermore it is true when scripture says:

(Heb 13:8 NIV) Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

We are all familiar with other scripture that speaks of how God changes not. These are all testimony to our gospel. *Our gospel is not that God knew that man would sin. Our gospel is that God provided for a sinful man before he was even created, so that sinful man would have a hope of salvation.*

This ties directly into the other question. Why would God create man knowing He was going to sin?

God has done something for sinful man before sinful man was ever created. As Paul says this act of God&#8217;s love towards us is a promise of salvation before the world began. Paul tells us that God created us that we would do more than seek him, but reach out to Him and fin Him.

(Acts 17:26-27 NIV) From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

But this not the end game to the question why? Rather it is the means to the reason why.

By God providing for us before the foundation of the world and His planting us here on the earth to reach out to Him and find Him. It achieves the purpose of why God created man knowing that he would fall into sin.

(Eph 2:6-7 NIV) And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

God started all this because it pleases Him to show the incomparable riches of His grace and kindness to us in Christ who are a fallen creature. Bottom line, this is why scripture says Christ endured the cross because of the joy set before Him, because He desires to demonstrate His grace and love to us.

(Heb 12:2 NIV) Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

To me the question isn&#8217;t a tricky one to answer, for God&#8217;s word is clear about His understanding, His work, His provision, His motivation and why we should worship such a loving God.

I personally do not agree that God&#8217;s whole purpose of creation was to manifest His glory. I see it rather as a manifestation of His love expressed in His grace. Just because His glory is manifest in His creation, doesn&#8217;t mean it was the purpose. To me it is like saying the purpose of the race car is to magnify those companies who sponsor the car. The purpose is not is what we easily see, but what is revealed in the mystery of our gospel. This being God expressing His love to a sinful mankind through His grace.

Scripture does not say, for God so purposed His glory to be displayed that He sent His son, as it appears you have said. Maybe I misunderstood. But I see God sending His Son in the greatest expression of His love towards us in His grace

Am I out in left field on this one Carl? Well WoundedEgo, am I? As one who does not know everything and does not have the education you have, it seems as if you two are arguing all around the topic but not discussing the topic."

If God is Omniscient, Why Did He Create the World Knowing it Would Fall into Sin? « A NEW CREATION


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't stop science from proposing the multi-universe theory or from Hawkins doing Nat Geo specials on what caused the big bang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argument from authority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to cool it with your new found "guide to logical fallacies 101" handbook because your true understanding of them is internet shallow. The statement about Hawkins was a *comment,* not an argument. But while we are on the topic, your assertion that logic and reason are only emergent with the properties of our universe is a metaphysical claim. This is a classic blunder of evolutionists. I referred to it in a quote about Contrastive reasoning on page 316 of this thread. Your argument above *"makes a subtle but crucial non scientific assumption."*
Click to expand...



Everytime you demonstrate a logical fallacy, I am going to call you out. It is simply necessary in order to have a logical discussion. Don't ask for special pleading.

edit: oh, sorry... it was an appeal to authority. Yet, you were trying to make a point by writing what you did, in an attempt to bolster your argument.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why they always feminize Christ in paintings. Since he was a carpenter, I'm guessing he wasn't the skinny dude the always portray him to be.
> 
> 
> 
> do you always miss the elephant in the room?
> jesus was not a white guy ....the diet of the pesants of that time is not well documented .
> it's a fairly good bet he was not fat and likely not very tall.
> like all ignorant people you don't know the difference between beautifaction and feminized
> I was skinny still tall and a carpenter  so what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the line of thinking that created macro-evolution.
Click to expand...

guess you never under stood the concept that keeping your mouth shut and let everyone think you're a fool...rather than opening it and leaving no doubt ....works!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is fallacy that doesn't take into account two very important things:
> 
> God has always existed.
> 
> God exists outside of matter, space, time, and energy.
> 
> Before you get your panties in a wad, Einstein missed the evidence pointing to the big bang because he believed in an *eternal universe*. Einstein believed the *universe had always existed* and had no beginning. So the concept that something has no beginning is not foreign to science.
> 
> 
> 
> so Einstein was wrong.
> you are also wrong because you cannot prove 1. god exists 2. without that proof the rest is a steaming pile of shitty assumptions.
> it's another declaratory statement with no basis in fact..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same could be said for many scientific theories but creation just fits better with the evidence.
Click to expand...

declaratory statement with no basis in fact


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it obvious you reject the claim that man is born sinful. That leaves you with a humanistic viewpoint that man is good. So how do you account for evil in the world? How do fathers on meth pour gas on their 4-year-old daughters and burn them alive in the desert? How does a man abuct other men, rape and kill them, and then keep their body parts in his fridge? Because they are essentially good, right?
> 
> Sadly, you appear to be the product of the last 50 years of lib education in this country. Next thing I know you will be quoting Maslow. It doesn't surprise me, as would not your next post modernistic arguments seeded with moral relativism. Without absolute truth, anything goes. First gay marriage, and then child molestation in some instances.
> 
> Here's Wil Provine, materialist fundamentalist evolutionist priest, discussing free will, with some Hollie hate for Christians thrown in for good measure. His comments are so transparent it is obvious he was raised Christian and is now gay.
> 
> Will Provine: Naturalistic Implications - The Truth Project
> 
> Post Modernism and Moral Relativsm explained...
> 
> 
> On Postmodernism and Relativism - The Truth Project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> focus on the family  fuuuuuuuuuuuuck me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws you are one sick person and did to many drugs you pervert.
Click to expand...



right !  n July 21st, 2011 at 10:19 am

Focus on the Family has a long record of telling untruths about LGBT people and our families. Truth Wins Outs Respect my Research project has video footage of respected scholars making statements about how various representatives of Christian Right organizations (including Focus on the Family) deliberately misuse science to demonize us. Focus on the Family has done all of the things that SPLC used to designate Family Research Council (also co-founded by James Dobson, by the way) a hate group, including implying that LGBT people are more likely to be sexual predators of children.

When are you going to finally designate Focus on the Family as a hate group? This is LONG overdue.

U.S. Senator Catches Anti-Gay Testifier Misrepresenting Study | Hatewatch | Southern Poverty Law Center


that's: too many and I did just enough..
as to sick and perverted as always you're talking out your ass!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What are you doing to help the hurting and the poor? What personal sacrifices are you making for another human or humans?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way Daws, Hollie and NP, this *wasn't* a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

among other things  I am doing a great service to mankind by presents logic and reason when you present paranoid delusional pseudo science and dogma.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my questions:
> 
> Do YOU believe man is born good or born evil as the Bible teaches?
> 
> How do you account for evil in the world? Do lions kill anything they will not eat? Do animals use sexual acts for violence?
> 
> 
> 
> yes some do..lions will kill for sport . domestic cats will spend hours torturing their catch.
> dogs mount each other to assert sexual dominance.
> most all animals will fight over territory or food (including humans)
> dolphins bully and kill un desirable pod members.
> our closest  relatives murder, rape ant abuse their young and each other (just like us).
> the logical conclusion if you believe in god is he  put evil in all of his creations.
> why?
> 
> may be he likes to watch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow how moronic,you can read a dogs's mind what is he doing when your dog does it to your leg ?
Click to expand...

another non answer answer since you are unable to disprove any of the statement ....here's your ass again!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> focus on the family  fuuuuuuuuuuuuck me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws you are one sick person and did to many drugs you pervert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> right !  n July 21st, 2011 at 10:19 am
> 
> Focus on the Family has a long record of telling untruths about LGBT people and our families. Truth Wins Out&#8217;s &#8220;Respect my Research&#8221; project has video footage of respected scholars making statements about how various representatives of Christian Right organizations (including Focus on the Family) deliberately misuse science to demonize us. Focus on the Family has done all of the things that SPLC used to designate Family Research Council (also co-founded by James Dobson, by the way) a hate group, including implying that LGBT people are more likely to be sexual predators of children.
> 
> When are you going to finally designate Focus on the Family as a hate group? This is LONG overdue.
> 
> U.S. Senator Catches Anti-Gay Testifier Misrepresenting Study | Hatewatch | Southern Poverty Law Center
> 
> 
> that's: too many and I did just enough..
> as to sick and perverted as always you're talking out your ass!
Click to expand...


Southern Poverty Law Center?? What a joke!! That is worse than me linking to Focus on the Family.

Now here is what is classic about your response... You immediately discount the Wil Provine video because it is on a FOTF website. I take it you didn't listen to it but spent more time trying to dig up dirt on FOTF from bias sources. Had you watched the video and not been so blind, you'd have seen that Provine is a SUPER PRO EVOLUTION Professor who hates Christians. He is just like you but because you are so blinded you missed the video because of the source. Unbelievable!!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you always miss the elephant in the room?
> jesus was not a white guy ....the diet of the pesants of that time is not well documented .
> it's a fairly good bet he was not fat and likely not very tall.
> like all ignorant people you don't know the difference between beautifaction and feminized
> I was skinny still tall and a carpenter  so what's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the line of thinking that created macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> guess you never under stood the concept that keeping your mouth shut and let everyone think you're a fool...rather than opening it and leaving no doubt ....works!
Click to expand...


Projecting.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What are you doing to help the hurting and the poor? What personal sacrifices are you making for another human or humans?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way Daws, Hollie and NP, this *wasn't* a rhetorical question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> among other things  I am doing a great service to mankind by presents logic and reason when you present paranoid delusional pseudo science and dogma.
Click to expand...


Really Daws ? I have a series of questions to ask you I will go one at a time and if you can answer these questions absent of conjecture,I will believe you are a person of science and might even change my mind about evolution.

1.Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans ?
Remember no conjecture ,Explain how these Molecular Machines evolved.


----------



## Youwerecreated

While we are waiting on Daws, came across this interesting story about an atheist.

From Skepticism to Worship 

An ex-atheist finds faith in God after more than twenty years of skepticism. Learn about the discoveries that led to Jesus Christ.
by A.S.A. Jones

I was a devout atheist for over twenty years. In July of 1998, I finally managed to see the biblical truths that had managed to elude me. The following is an account of how I went from hardcore skepticism to hardcore worship of the Savior, Jesus Christ.

RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES THE GOD OF MY YOUTH
I was raised a Roman Catholic in a home where the name of Jesus Christ and God was never mentioned. I was encouraged to attend catechism and church every weekend, but the concept of God was never made completely real to me. I entertained the notion as any child would, but I just wasn't into the imaginary friend scene and by the time I was thirteen, I had concluded that God was merely a vicious adult version of the Easter bunny. I abandoned the lie, informed my upset parents that I would no longer be attending church, and began seeking truth.

In the absence of a religious belief to answer life's questions, I turned my mental energy to science. Science had an awesome track record of solving many problems and its resulting technology had provided tangible benefits to all of mankind. Science was the answer! I reasoned that if we could educate our populations and continue to make advances in medicine, agriculture and energy production, we would one day have the mythical Eden as our reality.
I threw myself into my studies, determined to become a scientific messiah who would one day deliver people from the bondage of disease. At the age of sixteen, my IQ and my grades made me eligible for my high school's early release program and I began my studies in biology and chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh.

RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES MY COMPASSION FOR OTHERS
I graduated from college with high honors and my prized science degree, but I had lost any motivation to apply that knowledge. I recalled staring at a swarming mass of termites one sunny day, thinking that, from a comparative distance, there was little difference between them and us. I smashed a few dozen with my shoe and ground them into the dirt. What did it matter if these died? What did it matter if they all died? People died every day. The end result would always be death for both the individuals and, eventually, the species.

Humanity had become nothing more to me than an organized network of molecules and enzymes. I viewed people as mere organisms going through their daily routines of metabolizing nutrients and expelling wastes, ovulating their eggs and ejaculating their semen. I knew the psychology of humans almost as well as their anatomies. The hidden things that pulled them this way and that were very evident to me. They were like guinea pigs, only more predictable, and my chief form of entertainment was to see how skillfully I could manipulate them. I knew that I was supposed to care about them, but I didn't. I couldn't. If mankind's goal was to alleviate its own suffering, a bullet to the head was more efficient and made more sense in my thinking than screwing around with medication or disease control.

What was the point of prolonging any one life? What difference did it make if a girl didn't live to marry or her mother live to see it? Of what value were temporary emotional experiences? They were simply the biochemistry of the brain reacting to sensory input and, upon that individual's death, any remaining memory of that experience would be thrown away along with the person who had experienced it. My extreme point of view had reduced people into throwaway metabolic units; I had become as cold and indifferent as the logic that I exalted.

If my education would benefit anyone, it would benefit me. I passed up an offer of a low paying research position for a secure and higher paying job in a chemistry lab. My brain rotted there for 40 hours a week for 10 years.

RATIONAL THOUGHT TURNS FROM SCIENCE TO PHILOSOPHY
Science had done nothing to answer the questions that raged in my head. Why should I care? How much should I care? Should I care at all? What is my purpose in life? Is there a purpose? How can I love people? Should I love people? Which people should I love? How can I forgive people? Should I forgive people? Have I done what is right? Have I done what is wrong? Is there a right or a wrong?

I turned to philosophy. I started with Jean-Paul Sartre's "Being and Nothingness". This man had won a Nobel Prize for basically taking white and logically demonstrating how it was really black. I tried several other atheist philosophers who tried to assign meaning to a life created by chance and I decided that they were all full of crap. If our life is the result of randomness and chance, it is meaningless, no matter how we try to convince ourselves otherwise.

That was fine with me. I was prepared to live my life by this truth and discovered that the prospect of a life without meaning can be a very freeing experience. I set out to take advantage of moral relativism and effectively destroyed any of my remaining conscience. Friends, let me tell you, I fell far, far away, but I didn't know it. I busied myself with one diversion after another, trying to fill my life with meaningless activity in order to forget how meaningless it was. In my desperation, I grew self-righteous and indignant. I was secretly envious of the morons who seemed blissfully unaware of their own meaninglessness. I wanted to shake them awake and get them to see how worthless their lives really were.

MY PHILOSOPHY TURNS ANTI-CHRISTIAN
The worst idiots were the Christians. I hated them because, in their ignorance of naturalism, they failed to see that there was no reason for the rest of the world to believe in their god, live by their standards or give a damn about what they had to say, yet there they were, acting as if they had a copyright on truth. Their pretentiousness sickened me, despite my being equally pretentious toward them. After all, I was justified in my pretentiousness! At least I could give logical reasons for not believing in the supernatural. I would challenge them to give reasons for believing in something that couldn't be seen and they would reply, "You can't see the wind but it's there." I would then try to explain to them that wind was created by differences in pressure and that there was plenty of scientific proof for the existence of wind but none for their god. Even the most intelligent Christians I knew had a difficult time articulating their reason for faith.
Most of the explanations I heard rested on the Bible's authority. "The Bible says... the Bible says... the Bible says." Who cared what the Bible said? I certainly didn't. "It's all a bunch of made up, superstitious baloney. Can't you see?" and I would then go into pagan origins, etc., and try to demonstrate that Jesus was a manufactured myth. I ended up knowing the Bible inside and out just to be able to debate against it.

My anti-Christian arguments became my ultimate diversion to a hopeless life. I learned that religious debate wasn't as much about truth as it was about language and presentation. I began seeing flaws in my own logic while trying to demonstrate certain instances of Biblical errancy, but that didn't keep me on the bench. To justify my desire to destroy Christianity, I had to find reasons to discredit it. I railed against its hypocrisy, the behavior of its followers, the wars fought in its name and I questioned the motives of its bloody god and the religion's effective outcome. In short, I began seeing it as the supreme evil, despite the fact that my own view of moral relativism did not permit a logical defense of the concept of evil.

THE PARADOX OF BIBLICAL JABBERWOCKY
One night, I was very tired and alone in my study. I didn't reach, as I usually did, for a book of religious argument. I grabbed Lewis Carroll's "Through The Looking Glass", plopped myself down in a comfy chair and sleepily began reading. I skimmed through the pages and stopped at Humpty Dumpty's explanation of 'Jabberwocky' to Alice. A thought occurred to me that if I were to read 'Jabberwocky' the same way I read the bible, it wouldn't make any sense at all. I put Carroll's book aside, folded my hands and stared at the wall, lost in thought.

The Bible didn't make sense to me. But why did it make sense to others? What were they seeing that I didn't? Did they so desperately want there to be a God that they had deluded themselves into thinking that there was one? It was New Year's Day, 1998. I made a resolution to read the entire Bible again, only this time I was going to read it as I would poetry or fiction, and not as a proposal of fact.

In the months that followed, I kept my resolution and I began noticing a change in my way of interpreting the Bible. Intellectually, I found that my mind could logically accept two very different interpretations of almost everything I was reading. One interpretation of any verse or passage would render the whole story as nonsensical. But the other interpretation allowed the whole story to make sense.

If my mind was capable of accepting interpretations that allowed the whole book to make sense, then what was it in me that wanted it not to make sense? This book was reading me as surely as I was reading it. What was I doing when I condemned this god for commanding Moses to kill? Was I arrogantly making my morality superior to that of the being who allegedly authored all of morality? Was I condemning the actions of an entire nation, which was trapped in a kill or be killed situation? What was it in me that wanted to express outrage at Jesus Christ for telling me that I had to give away everything to be considered worthy to follow him? Was it my own selfishness?

For weeks, I was on a high, the type of high that comes about by feeling that one is on the edge of making some sort of profound discovery. I wasn't sure what I was discovering but my perception of this world was changing. In July, I read these words of Jesus Christ, understanding them for the first time after having read them for years; "Who do you say I am?"

I SEE IT!
What I had to say about who Christ was, said more about me than it did about Him.
At this moment, I saw it. I saw what the truth of the Bible was! And I was humbled. More than humbled, I was broken. The truth wasn't about cud chewing bunnies or how much precipitation fell during Noah's flood. It was the truth about human nature and our efforts to rise above it! It was the truth about human spirit being led by divine spirit! It was the truth about each of us, imperfect in our love for one another, needing to be made complete by the perfect love of God! The truth was about how one man, without sin, had died for us so that we could live! The truth of the Bible was and is JESUS CHRIST!

The moment I was made aware of my despicable nature, I realized that Jesus had died for me. I never had recognized sin and, therefore, thought that Christ had died for nothing. But this man was able to see the horrible nature present in all of humanity and yet he had sacrificed himself to save us from ourselves. In a very real sense, my sinful nature had caused the death of an innocent man. I never believed in hell prior to this, but one of my first thoughts, after seeing how hellish a person that I was, was that I deserved to be in it.
I had been a fool. I had paraded around, thinking myself to be the sophisticate, oblivious to the trail of toilet paper clinging to my shoe. For the first time in my life, I became aware of my soul and how dirty it was when the light of Christ fell upon it. My accusing finger turned around and pointed right back at me. I sucked! Christianity wasn't what was wrong with the world! A lack of education wasn't what was wrong with the world! I was what was wrong with the world. I began praying for forgiveness to a god whose existence I had thought was intellectually indefensible. But He was very, very real.

The more I emptied myself of myself, the clearer the truth became. It had been my own selfish sin that had kept me from seeing it before. Jesus Christ became my God and my grand obsession, and for many months, I spent hours with my mind locked in meditation, trying to connect with Him in a more tangible way. I wasn't disappointed. There is a point that one can reach in prayer where there is nothing at all left of oneself, and it is in that moment that God makes Himself known.

A NEW CREATURE
I had been dead for years but now I was born again! I no longer saw people as a sum of their components or this life as a meaningless exercise, but I now saw both as something more valid than my rational thought had allowed. I had spent most of my years examining life, crouched over and focused on the microscope of logic, incapable of seeing the Big Picture that was going on around me.

For me, Biblical truth wasn't verified through historical accuracy, inerrancy or reliability of the Gospels, because my initial assumptions didn't include these things. I saw divine inspiration in the actual content of the words attributed to Jesus Christ. The fact that I, or anyone, was capable of understanding spiritual matters became my evidence for the soul.

Learning the things of the spirit dramatically changed my attitude and my outlook on life. It wasn't that the information available to me had changed, but that my perception had changed and as a result, I was changed. I was dead, but Christ woke me up! He saved me from my selfish self and I have given myself to Him because I am thankful for that which He has given me and hopeful for that which He has promised.

Sounds like many on this board except the accepting your LORD.

A.S.A. Jones
I wasn't born again yesterday.
09/01/02
http://www.ex-atheist.com 

From skepticism to worship


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way Daws, Hollie and NP, this *wasn't* a rhetorical question.
> 
> 
> 
> among other things  I am doing a great service to mankind by presents logic and reason when you present paranoid delusional pseudo science and dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really Daws ? I have a series of questions to ask you I will go one at a time and if you can answer these questions absent of conjecture,I will believe you are a person of science and might even change my mind about evolution.
> 
> 1.Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans ?
> Remember no conjecture ,Explain how these Molecular Machines evolved.
Click to expand...


If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells?


----------



## Montrovant

I've tried to read the Bible as I would any other book.....it's too damn boring.   There just no enjoyment reading about the lineage of Moses, or the specifications of the arc, etc.  Add in the extremely dated language and it is certainly not a pleasant way to spend an afternoon.

That doesn't say anything about it's validity, just that as easy to read, enjoyable literature goes, the Bible is far, far down the list. 

Oh, and I'd also point out that the story you posted, YWC, is an example of how personal interpretation plays such a major role in Christianity (and, I imagine, pretty much all major religions).  An all powerful, all knowing god would, of course, realize this; if that god is a loving god, as the Bible claims, I can't imagine such a being would truly put such stock in the specifics of people's faith.  When even adherents of the same religion can vehemently disagree about what that religion means/says/requires, it seems both unreasonable and inconsistent with the idea of a loving god for there to be much in the way of specific requirements to avoid punishment or attain reward.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> I've tried to read the Bible as I would any other book.....it's too damn boring.   There just no enjoyment reading about the lineage of Moses, or the specifications of the arc, etc.  Add in the extremely dated language and it is certainly not a pleasant way to spend an afternoon.
> 
> That doesn't say anything about it's validity, just that as easy to read, enjoyable literature goes, the Bible is far, far down the list.
> 
> Oh, and I'd also point out that the story you posted, YWC, is an example of how personal interpretation plays such a major role in Christianity (and, I imagine, pretty much all major religions).  An all powerful, all knowing god would, of course, realize this; if that god is a loving god, as the Bible claims, I can't imagine such a being would truly put such stock in the specifics of people's faith.  When even adherents of the same religion can vehemently disagree about what that religion means/says/requires, it seems both unreasonable and inconsistent with the idea of a loving god for there to be much in the way of specific requirements to avoid punishment or attain reward.



Your personal interpretation just played a major role in what you just stated. It's funny, because part of the struggle with man and God is man's constant desire to play God. Man puts himself as the god of his own life. Usually this is interrupted by some catastrophic event that forces him back to reality that he has NO Control. It is so weird. What you posted above is a common argument made by atheists. You think religion is bogus because YOU would do it different or better than God. You ask questions like, if God was really real, why does this happen this way or that happen that way. People of the same religion don't agree so God must not exist. This is an incredibly flawed argument basically from the fact that the Bible teaches man is flawed. If we follow what the Bible actually says about man, we wouldn't even expect religious folks to agree as much as they do.


----------



## UltimateReality

Now close your eyes for a second and start to imagine. Can you imagine a time when you will not exist? Can you imagine what it feels like to be fully dead? Not a dream like or sleep like dead, but a "totally ceasing to exist"- like dead? Can you imagine it for yourself? Can you imagine being no more and not even being able to have a thought that you are no more because your brain that could generate that thought is dead? Does the thought of dying make you nervous? Why? Are you afraid of the pain of death? Or is there a little tinge of doubt that you might be wrong about ceasing to exist when you are dead and the unsure feeling of what really happens after you die? If you have given yourself over to the materialistic notion there is no life after death, why does the doubt sometimes haunt you? Why the fear? And just what is consciousness? 

Just wondering...


----------



## UltimateReality

Have you ever stopped to ponder what a cruel joke evolution has played on us with our minds? I mean how bogus that natural selection of random mutations resulted in us having this need to belong. I mean, really, why should we be concerned about meaning in life? Why do we wonder what our purpose is? Why is it so hard to accept, deep in are atheistic bones that we have NO PURPOSE? Why does that haunt us so bad? Since we are one in a trillion, we really are just accidental. None of us should be here according to the odds but here we sit, really for no reason other than a neat little process called evolution. It doesn't matter that we are here and it won't matter when we are gone. Another species will take our place. And many years from now, if you are one of the lucky ones, someone might dig up your bones and proudly display them in a museum. But the you that is you will be long gone by then and who cares, really? Nature has truly played a cruel trick on his, evolving us to the point where deep inside we really think it matters if we live or die. It doesn't. In two generations, if you don't do something noteworthy, no one will even remember your name. In 3 generations no one will care at all about you other than being ticked off maybe that you contributed to global warming with your miserable 70 or 80 years belching out the filth that is carbon dioxide. And why should it matter if only matter... matters? So when life starts to get you down, just remember, the pain will be over soon. You will be over soon. And in the blink of an eye later, no one will care whether you lived or died, laughed or cried. 

"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
*Signifying nothing.*" Macbeth, William Shakespeare


----------



## UltimateReality

One of my favorite evolutionary movie lines of all time!!! If you don't want to watch the whole thing, slide the cursor over to 2:43

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoAPKt7kbD0]The Unforgiven - Clint Eastwood - We all have it coming Kid - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Prison Planet.com » 70 Reasons To Mourn For America


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> One of my favorite evolutionary movie lines of all time!!! If you don't want to watch the whole thing, slide the cursor over to 2:43
> 
> The Unforgiven - Clint Eastwood - We all have it coming Kid - YouTube



You do realize that in Hollywood movies, not everything is real, right?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> among other things  I am doing a great service to mankind by presents logic and reason when you present paranoid delusional pseudo science and dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really Daws ? I have a series of questions to ask you I will go one at a time and if you can answer these questions absent of conjecture,I will believe you are a person of science and might even change my mind about evolution.
> 
> 1.Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans ?
> Remember no conjecture ,Explain how these Molecular Machines evolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells?
Click to expand...


Well that is an obvious no  But thanks for acknowledging someone designed these machines.

So I guess daws is not gonna explain the process of how molecular machines evolved.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> I've tried to read the Bible as I would any other book.....it's too damn boring.   There just no enjoyment reading about the lineage of Moses, or the specifications of the arc, etc.  Add in the extremely dated language and it is certainly not a pleasant way to spend an afternoon.
> 
> That doesn't say anything about it's validity, just that as easy to read, enjoyable literature goes, the Bible is far, far down the list.
> 
> Oh, and I'd also point out that the story you posted, YWC, is an example of how personal interpretation plays such a major role in Christianity (and, I imagine, pretty much all major religions).  An all powerful, all knowing god would, of course, realize this; if that god is a loving god, as the Bible claims, I can't imagine such a being would truly put such stock in the specifics of people's faith.  When even adherents of the same religion can vehemently disagree about what that religion means/says/requires, it seems both unreasonable and inconsistent with the idea of a loving god for there to be much in the way of specific requirements to avoid punishment or attain reward.



That is true, interpretation is a large part of why there are so many different denominations. I guess that God left it up to us to interpret and some day will reveal the complete truth to us all.

I think it is awfully arrogant for someone to claim to know the exact truth. Mans doctrine is mans doctrine period nothing more or nothing less. What unites Christians is the belief in Christ and God.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of my favorite evolutionary movie lines of all time!!! If you don't want to watch the whole thing, slide the cursor over to 2:43
> 
> The Unforgiven - Clint Eastwood - We all have it coming Kid - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that in Hollywood movies, not everything is real, right?
Click to expand...


But a lot of hollywood movies are based on real life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> among other things  I am doing a great service to mankind by presents logic and reason when you present paranoid delusional pseudo science and dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really Daws ? I have a series of questions to ask you I will go one at a time and if you can answer these questions absent of conjecture,I will believe you are a person of science and might even change my mind about evolution.
> 
> 1.Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans ?
> Remember no conjecture ,Explain how these Molecular Machines evolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells?
Click to expand...


That kinda reminds me of what the strong atheist and strong advocate for evolution Dawkins said. Things in nature only give the appearance to have been designed. I appeciate him acknowledging that things have the appearance of being designed. The obvious question is how does he know it's only an appearance,how does he know they were not designed ?


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've tried to read the Bible as I would any other book.....it's too damn boring.   There just no enjoyment reading about the lineage of Moses, or the specifications of the arc, etc.  Add in the extremely dated language and it is certainly not a pleasant way to spend an afternoon.
> 
> That doesn't say anything about it's validity, just that as easy to read, enjoyable literature goes, the Bible is far, far down the list.
> 
> Oh, and I'd also point out that the story you posted, YWC, is an example of how personal interpretation plays such a major role in Christianity (and, I imagine, pretty much all major religions).  An all powerful, all knowing god would, of course, realize this; if that god is a loving god, as the Bible claims, I can't imagine such a being would truly put such stock in the specifics of people's faith.  When even adherents of the same religion can vehemently disagree about what that religion means/says/requires, it seems both unreasonable and inconsistent with the idea of a loving god for there to be much in the way of specific requirements to avoid punishment or attain reward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal interpretation just played a major role in what you just stated. It's funny, because part of the struggle with man and God is man's constant desire to play God. Man puts himself as the god of his own life. Usually this is interrupted by some catastrophic event that forces him back to reality that he has NO Control. It is so weird. What you posted above is a common argument made by atheists. You think religion is bogus because YOU would do it different or better than God. You ask questions like, if God was really real, why does this happen this way or that happen that way. People of the same religion don't agree so God must not exist. This is an incredibly flawed argument basically from the fact that the Bible teaches man is flawed. If we follow what the Bible actually says about man, we wouldn't even expect religious folks to agree as much as they do.
Click to expand...


First, I am not an atheist, at least in the sense of denying the possibility of god.  I'd fall more into the agnostic camp, but an agnostic who disbelieves the major religions of the world.

Second, you misrepresented what I said.  I am not talking about what I would do better than god.  I am using the claims of Christians about the nature of god, or claims of the Bible about the nature of god, and trying to apply that to other claims about the actions of god.  If god is, as so often claimed, loving and merciful, then the idea of eternal hell makes no sense.  The idea that people will be punished because they got the wrong impression from a translation of a translation, especially when there are multiple translations of translations to choose from, doesn't make sense.  That would not be loving and merciful in the human sense of those words.

Now, if god is loving and merciful by his own standards, rather than humanity's, that is different.  However, that would also mean that calling god loving and merciful is meaningless.

The main point is that with many anti-religious arguments the non-believers use the claims from the religion, not some trite 'I can do it better than god' argument.  When a religion makes claims about god, it would help if all those claims fit together.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've tried to read the Bible as I would any other book.....it's too damn boring.   There just no enjoyment reading about the lineage of Moses, or the specifications of the arc, etc.  Add in the extremely dated language and it is certainly not a pleasant way to spend an afternoon.
> 
> That doesn't say anything about it's validity, just that as easy to read, enjoyable literature goes, the Bible is far, far down the list.
> 
> Oh, and I'd also point out that the story you posted, YWC, is an example of how personal interpretation plays such a major role in Christianity (and, I imagine, pretty much all major religions).  An all powerful, all knowing god would, of course, realize this; if that god is a loving god, as the Bible claims, I can't imagine such a being would truly put such stock in the specifics of people's faith.  When even adherents of the same religion can vehemently disagree about what that religion means/says/requires, it seems both unreasonable and inconsistent with the idea of a loving god for there to be much in the way of specific requirements to avoid punishment or attain reward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal interpretation just played a major role in what you just stated. It's funny, because part of the struggle with man and God is man's constant desire to play God. Man puts himself as the god of his own life. Usually this is interrupted by some catastrophic event that forces him back to reality that he has NO Control. It is so weird. What you posted above is a common argument made by atheists. You think religion is bogus because YOU would do it different or better than God. You ask questions like, if God was really real, why does this happen this way or that happen that way. People of the same religion don't agree so God must not exist. This is an incredibly flawed argument basically from the fact that the Bible teaches man is flawed. If we follow what the Bible actually says about man, we wouldn't even expect religious folks to agree as much as they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I am not an atheist, at least in the sense of denying the possibility of god.  I'd fall more into the agnostic camp, but an agnostic who disbelieves the major religions of the world.
> 
> Second, you misrepresented what I said.  I am not talking about what I would do better than god.  I am using the claims of Christians about the nature of god, or claims of the Bible about the nature of god, and trying to apply that to other claims about the actions of god.  If god is, as so often claimed, loving and merciful, then the idea of eternal hell makes no sense.  The idea that people will be punished because they got the wrong impression from a translation of a translation, especially when there are multiple translations of translations to choose from, doesn't make sense.  That would not be loving and merciful in the human sense of those words.
> 
> Now, if god is loving and merciful by his own standards, rather than humanity's, that is different.  However, that would also mean that calling god loving and merciful is meaningless.
> 
> The main point is that with many anti-religious arguments the non-believers use the claims from the religion, not some trite 'I can do it better than god' argument.  When a religion makes claims about god, it would help if all those claims fit together.
Click to expand...


I have a great deal hope for you my friend. All a person has to do is reach out to God he will reach back and reveal himself to you. I know it sounds strange,but that is what many do and their faith grows.

Does any religious organization have the whole truth absolutely not. We are constantly reading and learning. But some of the major doctrines can be tested against the scriptures to see if it holds up. Still does not mean one can have the absolute truth.

After 40 years of studying the bible I am still being corrected in my views. I don't trust organized religion just don't.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of my favorite evolutionary movie lines of all time!!! If you don't want to watch the whole thing, slide the cursor over to 2:43
> 
> The Unforgiven - Clint Eastwood - We all have it coming Kid - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that in Hollywood movies, not everything is real, right?
Click to expand...


I didn't know that. It doesn't change the fact that you still got it comin' kid.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've tried to read the Bible as I would any other book.....it's too damn boring.   There just no enjoyment reading about the lineage of Moses, or the specifications of the arc, etc.  Add in the extremely dated language and it is certainly not a pleasant way to spend an afternoon.
> 
> That doesn't say anything about it's validity, just that as easy to read, enjoyable literature goes, the Bible is far, far down the list.
> 
> Oh, and I'd also point out that the story you posted, YWC, is an example of how personal interpretation plays such a major role in Christianity (and, I imagine, pretty much all major religions).  An all powerful, all knowing god would, of course, realize this; if that god is a loving god, as the Bible claims, I can't imagine such a being would truly put such stock in the specifics of people's faith.  When even adherents of the same religion can vehemently disagree about what that religion means/says/requires, it seems both unreasonable and inconsistent with the idea of a loving god for there to be much in the way of specific requirements to avoid punishment or attain reward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal interpretation just played a major role in what you just stated. It's funny, because part of the struggle with man and God is man's constant desire to play God. Man puts himself as the god of his own life. Usually this is interrupted by some catastrophic event that forces him back to reality that he has NO Control. It is so weird. What you posted above is a common argument made by atheists. You think religion is bogus because YOU would do it different or better than God. You ask questions like, if God was really real, why does this happen this way or that happen that way. People of the same religion don't agree so God must not exist. This is an incredibly flawed argument basically from the fact that the Bible teaches man is flawed. If we follow what the Bible actually says about man, we wouldn't even expect religious folks to agree as much as they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I am not an atheist, at least in the sense of denying the possibility of god.  I'd fall more into the agnostic camp, but an agnostic who disbelieves the major religions of the world.
> 
> Second, you misrepresented what I said.  I am not talking about what I would do better than god.  I am using the claims of Christians about the nature of god, or claims of the Bible about the nature of god, and trying to apply that to other claims about the actions of god.  If god is, as so often claimed, loving and merciful, then the idea of eternal hell makes no sense.  The idea that people will be punished because they got the wrong impression from a translation of a translation, especially when there are multiple translations of translations to choose from, doesn't make sense.  That would not be loving and merciful in the human sense of those words.
> 
> Now, if god is loving and merciful by his own standards, rather than humanity's, that is different.  However, that would also mean that calling god loving and merciful is meaningless.
> 
> The main point is that with many anti-religious arguments the non-believers use the claims from the religion, not some trite 'I can do it better than god' argument.  When a religion makes claims about god, it would help if all those claims fit together.
Click to expand...


In a perfect world, they would all fit together. I know folks put up a lot of garbage on here and make alot of suggestions for reading but there is a book that has caused quite the stir in the Christian community. It is a book about hell. I'm not sure I can escape from my baptist roots and get past the eternal damnation thing, but Bell asks some very interesting questions. I'm on the fence on this one.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Love-Wins-About-Heaven-Person/dp/0062049658/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341597243&sr=8-1&keywords=love+wins+rob+bell[/ame]

&#8220;In Love Wins, Rob Bell tackles the old heaven-and-hell question and offers a courageous alternative answer. Thousands of readers will find freedom and hope and a new way of understanding the biblical story - from beginning to end.&#8221; (Brian D. McLaren, author of A New Kind of Christianity and Naked Spirituality )

&#8220;It isn&#8217;t easy to develop a biblical imagination that takes in the comprehensive and eternal work of Christ . . . Rob Bell goes a long way in helping us acquire just such an imagination--without a trace of soft sentimentality and without compromising an inch of evangelical conviction.&#8221; (Eugene H. Peterson, Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology, Regent College, and author of The Message and The Pastor )

&#8220;A bold, prophetic and poetic masterpiece. I don&#8217;t know any writer who expresses the inexpressible love of God as powerfully and as beautifully as Rob Bell! No one who seriously engages this book will put it down unchanged. A &#8216;must read&#8217; book!&#8221; (Greg Boyd, senior pastor at Woodland Hills Church and author of The Myth of a Christian Nation )

&#8220;One of the nation&#8217;s rock-star-popular young pastors, Rob Bell, has stuck a pitchfork in how Christians talk about damnation.&#8221; (USA Today )

&#8220;Claiming that some versions of Jesus should be rejected, particularly those used to intimidate and inspire fear or hatred, Bell persuasively interprets the Bible as a message of love and redemption. . . . His style is characteristically concise and oral, his tone passionate and unabashedly positive.&#8221; (Publishers Weekly )

&#8220;Bell fights every impulse in our culture to domesticate Jesus [and] challenges the reader to be open to surprise, mystery and all of the unanswerables. . . . Bell has given theologically suspicious Christians new courage to bet their life on Jesus Christ.&#8221; (Christian Century )

*&#8220;This attention-getter of a book ignited a heated popular conversation about whether God saves people like Gandhi or sends him and billions of other non-Christians to a fiery and painful place in the afterlife.&#8221; (Publishers Weekly, Best Books of the Year )*

&#8220;Love Wins will make Christians re-examine their faith and will help them reclaim a vital and exciting vision of heaven and God&#8217;s love.&#8221; (Relevant )

&#8220;Bell is at the forefront of a rethinking of Christianity in America.&#8221; (Time magazine )

&#8220;One of the country&#8217;s most influential evangelical pastors.&#8221; (New York Times )


----------



## UltimateReality

Here is another great book by Bell that gets to the heart of Christianity, and not the fundie version.

Velvet Elvis

This one has the look inside feature so you can get an idea of what it is about by reading a few pages... Make sure you read the Epilogue. 

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Velvet-Elvis-Repainting-Christian-Faith/dp/0310273080/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1341597497&sr=1-1&keywords=velvet+elvis+rob+bell]Amazon.com: Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith (9780310273080): Rob Bell: Books[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal interpretation just played a major role in what you just stated. It's funny, because part of the struggle with man and God is man's constant desire to play God. Man puts himself as the god of his own life. Usually this is interrupted by some catastrophic event that forces him back to reality that he has NO Control. It is so weird. What you posted above is a common argument made by atheists. You think religion is bogus because YOU would do it different or better than God. You ask questions like, if God was really real, why does this happen this way or that happen that way. People of the same religion don't agree so God must not exist. This is an incredibly flawed argument basically from the fact that the Bible teaches man is flawed. If we follow what the Bible actually says about man, we wouldn't even expect religious folks to agree as much as they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I am not an atheist, at least in the sense of denying the possibility of god.  I'd fall more into the agnostic camp, but an agnostic who disbelieves the major religions of the world.
> 
> Second, you misrepresented what I said.  I am not talking about what I would do better than god.  I am using the claims of Christians about the nature of god, or claims of the Bible about the nature of god, and trying to apply that to other claims about the actions of god.  If god is, as so often claimed, loving and merciful, then the idea of eternal hell makes no sense.  The idea that people will be punished because they got the wrong impression from a translation of a translation, especially when there are multiple translations of translations to choose from, doesn't make sense.  That would not be loving and merciful in the human sense of those words.
> 
> Now, if god is loving and merciful by his own standards, rather than humanity's, that is different.  However, that would also mean that calling god loving and merciful is meaningless.
> 
> The main point is that with many anti-religious arguments the non-believers use the claims from the religion, not some trite 'I can do it better than god' argument.  When a religion makes claims about god, it would help if all those claims fit together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a great deal hope for you my friend. All a person has to do is reach out to God he will reach back and reveal himself to you. I know it sounds strange,but that is what many do and their faith grows.
> 
> Does any religious organization have the whole truth absolutely not. We are constantly reading and learning. But some of the major doctrines can be tested against the scriptures to see if it holds up. Still does not mean one can have the absolute truth.
> 
> After 40 years of studying the bible I am still being corrected in my views. I don't trust organized religion just don't.
Click to expand...


And what is Truth??? I will give you a hint. The answer is right in front of you...


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really Daws ? I have a series of questions to ask you I will go one at a time and if you can answer these questions absent of conjecture,I will believe you are a person of science and might even change my mind about evolution.
> 
> 1.Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans ?
> Remember no conjecture ,Explain how these Molecular Machines evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that is an obvious no  But thanks for acknowledging someone designed these machines.
> 
> So I guess daws is not gonna explain the process of how molecular machines evolved.
Click to expand...


More reading, less posting.

Evolution of DNA


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is an obvious no  But thanks for acknowledging someone designed these machines.
> 
> So I guess daws is not gonna explain the process of how molecular machines evolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More reading, less posting.
> 
> Evolution of DNA
Click to expand...


Yes more reading less posting I said absent of conjecture. So explain how molecular machines evolved absent of conjecture..


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really Daws ? I have a series of questions to ask you I will go one at a time and if you can answer these questions absent of conjecture,I will believe you are a person of science and might even change my mind about evolution.
> 
> 1.Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans ?
> Remember no conjecture ,Explain how these Molecular Machines evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That kinda reminds me of what the strong atheist and strong advocate for evolution Dawkins said. Things in nature only give the appearance to have been designed. I appeciate him acknowledging that things have the appearance of being designed. The obvious question is how does he know it's only an appearance,how does he know they were not designed ?
Click to expand...


Simple. There is no evidence for a designer. Second, Dawkins does not 'know,' and never claims to know with absolute certainty. He simply sees no evidence for a creator and uses natural explanations to explain the phenomena we see. So far, its working a whole lot better than religion.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That kinda reminds me of what the strong atheist and strong advocate for evolution Dawkins said. Things in nature only give the appearance to have been designed. I appeciate him acknowledging that things have the appearance of being designed. The obvious question is how does he know it's only an appearance,how does he know they were not designed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple. There is no evidence for a designer. Second, Dawkins does not 'know,' and never claims to know with absolute certainty. He simply sees no evidence for a creator and uses natural explanations to explain the phenomena we see. So far, its working a whole lot better than religion.
Click to expand...


How do you figure?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That kinda reminds me of what the strong atheist and strong advocate for evolution Dawkins said. Things in nature only give the appearance to have been designed. I appeciate him acknowledging that things have the appearance of being designed. The obvious question is how does he know it's only an appearance,how does he know they were not designed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple. There is no evidence for a designer. Second, Dawkins does not 'know,' and never claims to know with absolute certainty. He simply sees no evidence for a creator and uses natural explanations to explain the phenomena we see. So far, its working a whole lot better than religion.
Click to expand...


You are right Dawkins does not know but he admits the appearance is design. Does a natural, uintelligent process design things ?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That kinda reminds me of what the strong atheist and strong advocate for evolution Dawkins said. Things in nature only give the appearance to have been designed. I appeciate him acknowledging that things have the appearance of being designed. The obvious question is how does he know it's only an appearance,how does he know they were not designed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple. There is no evidence for a designer. Second, Dawkins does not 'know,' and never claims to know with absolute certainty. He simply sees no evidence for a creator and uses natural explanations to explain the phenomena we see. So far, its working a whole lot better than religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right Dawkins does not know but he admits the appearance is design. Does a natural, uintelligent process design things ?
Click to expand...


You have no positive evidence for a designer. All you have is: it looks designed because that is familiar to us, because we have the capability to design things our own things, and compare what we design to the universe around us, and conclude that the universe was also designed. Our ability to design and implement technology and any similarity those technologies have to the universe is not evidence of a creator by a long shot. It is a biased perception based on our own capabilities as a species to design our own tools, technologies, which is merely an emergent and evolving property of our intellectual ability, which is a product of evolution, a natural process without design.

 The appearance of a designer does not mean a designer necessarily created it. That is a subjective judgement, whether something has the appearance of a creator, so in a sense is a circular assessment. You already assume there is a creator, and then look for it in the universe, and anything that resembles order seems to validate your premise that there is a creator, hence you conclude there is a creator. That is circular. You have to take out your presupposition that there is a creator in your premise, then you can see the universe from a neutral standpoint. I don't think you are willing or able to do that. This is the problem with theologians. It seems as though their premise with respect to the universe subconsciously always contains God, and so they can never assess scientific claims on their own merit, because it always contradicts their premise, and so are merely always trying to contradict or disprove science as a way to vindicate their premise. I see this more as a psychological need to keep their belief system in check, because beliefs largely inform our identity, and their destruction is scary. Science threatens creationists, so they desperately find ways to counter it, however, they use illogical arguments because their need to do this is emotional, not logical. This is my opinion, obviously. Hence, the issue is psychological, not philosophical.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple. There is no evidence for a designer. Second, Dawkins does not 'know,' and never claims to know with absolute certainty. He simply sees no evidence for a creator and uses natural explanations to explain the phenomena we see. So far, its working a whole lot better than religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right Dawkins does not know but he admits the appearance is design. Does a natural, uintelligent process design things ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no positive evidence for a designer. All you have is: it looks designed because that is familiar to us, because we have the capability to design things our own things, and compare what we design to the universe around us, and conclude that the universe was also designed. Our ability to design and implement technology and any similarity those technologies have to the universe is not evidence of a creator by a long shot. It is a biased perception based on our own capabilities as a species to design our own tools, technologies, which is merely an emergent and evolving property of our intellectual ability, which is a product of evolution, a natural process without design.
> 
> The appearance of a designer does not mean a designer necessarily created it. That is a subjective judgement, whether something has the appearance of a creator, so in a sense is a circular assessment. You already assume there is a creator, and then look for it in the universe, and anything that resembles order seems to validate your premise that there is a creator, hence you conclude there is a creator. That is circular. You have to take out your presupposition that there is a creator in your premise, then you can see the universe from a neutral standpoint. I don't think you are willing or able to do that. This is the problem with theologians. It seems as though their premise with respect to the universe subconsciously always contains God, and so they can never assess scientific claims on their own merit, because it always contradicts their premise, and so are merely always trying to contradict or disprove science as a way to vindicate their premise. I see this more as a psychological need to keep their belief system in check, because beliefs largely inform our identity, and their destruction is scary. Science threatens creationists, so they desperately find ways to counter it, however, they use illogical arguments because their need to do this is emotional, not logical. This is my opinion, obviously. Hence, the issue is psychological, not philosophical.
Click to expand...


You have zero evidence for the origins of life through a natural process. There is no scientific evidence supporting the origins of life. There are far to many holes in the theory of evolution to take it serious.

The most foolish remark I have seen you make is say science threatens creationists 

Oh and atleast Dawkins can detect design.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right Dawkins does not know but he admits the appearance is design. Does a natural, uintelligent process design things ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no positive evidence for a designer. All you have is: it looks designed because that is familiar to us, because we have the capability to design things our own things, and compare what we design to the universe around us, and conclude that the universe was also designed. Our ability to design and implement technology and any similarity those technologies have to the universe is not evidence of a creator by a long shot. It is a biased perception based on our own capabilities as a species to design our own tools, technologies, which is merely an emergent and evolving property of our intellectual ability, which is a product of evolution, a natural process without design.
> 
> The appearance of a designer does not mean a designer necessarily created it. That is a subjective judgement, whether something has the appearance of a creator, so in a sense is a circular assessment. You already assume there is a creator, and then look for it in the universe, and anything that resembles order seems to validate your premise that there is a creator, hence you conclude there is a creator. That is circular. You have to take out your presupposition that there is a creator in your premise, then you can see the universe from a neutral standpoint. I don't think you are willing or able to do that. This is the problem with theologians. It seems as though their premise with respect to the universe subconsciously always contains God, and so they can never assess scientific claims on their own merit, because it always contradicts their premise, and so are merely always trying to contradict or disprove science as a way to vindicate their premise. I see this more as a psychological need to keep their belief system in check, because beliefs largely inform our identity, and their destruction is scary. Science threatens creationists, so they desperately find ways to counter it, however, they use illogical arguments because their need to do this is emotional, not logical. This is my opinion, obviously. Hence, the issue is psychological, not philosophical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have zero evidence for the origins of life through a natural process. There is no scientific evidence supporting the origins of life. There are far to many holes in the theory of evolution to take it serious.
> 
> The most foolish remark I have seen you make is say science threatens creationists
> 
> Oh and atleast Dawkins can detect design.
Click to expand...


I make that remark, because your behavior, and creationists in general, are characterized not by asserting your own truth and proving it on its own merit (there is zero evidence for any god claims), but trying to assert its truth merely by poking holes in evolution or abiogensis. That is a sign of insecurity, which is indicative of being threatened. Hence, it is plausible to assume that creationists are threatened by science, and feel an emotional need to remove that threat, no matter how illogical their arguments in trying to do so. This is evidenced, to me, by the illogic in their arguments, which we see repeatedly, the most common usually being an argument of ignorance, or one from personal incredulity, or a strawman of evolution, etc...

You also have zero evidence for the origins of life via a creator, because you can not demonstrate that a god exists, or that this god created all things, or created humans. You have a book, which is not evidence of anything other than that a human wrote those words down at one point. All you have is an idea that is emotionally and existentially satisfying and offers you a piece of mind- that god created everything, and this is purportedly the same god that gives you an eternal afterlife as reward for belief in him. Hmmm... such a coincidence, however it is not a testament to its veracity.

 By its very nature, abiogenesis is something that would provide little to no evidence, and you wouldn't expect it to. The entire landscape of the earth 3.5 billion years ago probably exists nowhere on our planets surface anymore, because it has been cycled below via plate tectonics and subducted into magma, where any evidence of the first microscopic cells would be destroyed. I could be wrong, but that seems likely, and that is not an excuse for a lack of evidence or a way to skirt the burden of proof, that is a fact that plate tectonics continually recycle our landscape. 3.5 billion years seems like plenty of time for an entire makeover. Abiogenesis remains a viable naturalistic explanation for the creation of self-replicating and self-organizing molecules into what we know as the first cell. Once you have that primitive cell or self-replicating entity, evolution takes over and the possibility of arriving where we are today is entirely feasible. There is no reason and no evidence to assert a supernatural being in abiogensis. Everything else is our existing universe is explainable through natural phenomena, so why should this be any different? It shouldn't. There exists a natural explanation. Just because there is no evidence right now or may never be, does not mean a creator is a better explanation or is more valid. That is a  copout, made to serve your beliefs, not reality.

As to your last question, it is a flawed and unanswerable. I am inclined to say no, because design implies a purpose with a plan for a final product, in this case, I presume you are asserting that is us. There was no final product in evolution, us being that. Humans evolved in drought conditions where we almost went extinct. The reason we are so smart and social, which seem to go hand in hand, is because we need problem solving as well as cooperation to survive in such terrible conditions. The human species during this time, almost went extinct, evidenced by the relatively little genetic variation in our DNA across all humans as compared with the genetic variation found in other species. We all come from a relatively small amount of people (this is not testament to the veracity of adam and eve, so don't try that. it was more than two people).


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no positive evidence for a designer. All you have is: it looks designed because that is familiar to us, because we have the capability to design things our own things, and compare what we design to the universe around us, and conclude that the universe was also designed. Our ability to design and implement technology and any similarity those technologies have to the universe is not evidence of a creator by a long shot. It is a biased perception based on our own capabilities as a species to design our own tools, technologies, which is merely an emergent and evolving property of our intellectual ability, which is a product of evolution, a natural process without design.
> 
> The appearance of a designer does not mean a designer necessarily created it. That is a subjective judgement, whether something has the appearance of a creator, so in a sense is a circular assessment. You already assume there is a creator, and then look for it in the universe, and anything that resembles order seems to validate your premise that there is a creator, hence you conclude there is a creator. That is circular. You have to take out your presupposition that there is a creator in your premise, then you can see the universe from a neutral standpoint. I don't think you are willing or able to do that. This is the problem with theologians. It seems as though their premise with respect to the universe subconsciously always contains God, and so they can never assess scientific claims on their own merit, because it always contradicts their premise, and so are merely always trying to contradict or disprove science as a way to vindicate their premise. I see this more as a psychological need to keep their belief system in check, because beliefs largely inform our identity, and their destruction is scary. Science threatens creationists, so they desperately find ways to counter it, however, they use illogical arguments because their need to do this is emotional, not logical. This is my opinion, obviously. Hence, the issue is psychological, not philosophical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have zero evidence for the origins of life through a natural process. There is no scientific evidence supporting the origins of life. There are far to many holes in the theory of evolution to take it serious.
> 
> The most foolish remark I have seen you make is say science threatens creationists
> 
> Oh and atleast Dawkins can detect design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I make that remark, because your behavior, and creationists in general, are characterized not by asserting your own truth and proving it on its own merit (there is zero evidence for any god claims), but trying to assert its truth merely by poking holes in evolution or abiogensis. That is a sign of insecurity, which is indicative of being threatened. Hence, it is plausible to assume that creationists are threatened by science, and feel an emotional need to remove that threat, no matter how illogical their arguments in trying to do so. This is evidenced, to me, by the illogic in their arguments, which we see repeatedly, the most common usually being an argument of ignorance, or one from personal incredulity, or a strawman of evolution, etc...
> 
> You also have zero evidence for the origins of life via a creator, because you can not demonstrate that a god exists, or that this god created all things, or created humans. You have a book, which is not evidence of anything other than that a human wrote those words down at one point. All you have is an idea that is emotionally and existentially satisfying and offers you a piece of mind- that god created everything, and this is purportedly the same god that gives you an eternal afterlife as reward for belief in him. Hmmm... such a coincidence, however it is not a testament to its veracity.
> 
> By its very nature, abiogenesis is something that would provide little to no evidence, and you wouldn't expect it to. The entire landscape of the earth 3.5 billion years ago probably exists nowhere on our planets surface anymore, because it has been cycled below via plate tectonics and subducted into magma, where any evidence of the first microscopic cells would be destroyed. I could be wrong, but that seems likely, and that is not an excuse for a lack of evidence or a way to skirt the burden of proof, that is a fact that plate tectonics continually recycle our landscape. 3.5 billion years seems like plenty of time for an entire makeover. Abiogenesis remains a viable naturalistic explanation for the creation of self-replicating and self-organizing molecules into what we know as the first cell. Once you have that primitive cell or self-replicating entity, evolution takes over and the possibility of arriving where we are today is entirely feasible. There is no reason and no evidence to assert a supernatural being in abiogensis. Everything else is our existing universe is explainable through natural phenomena, so why should this be any different? It shouldn't. There exists a natural explanation. Just because there is no evidence right now or may never be, does not mean a creator is a better explanation or is more valid. That is a  copout, made to serve your beliefs, not reality.
> 
> As to your last question, it is a flawed and unanswerable. I am inclined to say no, because design implies a purpose with a plan for a final product, in this case, I presume you are asserting that is us. There was no final product in evolution, us being that. Humans evolved in drought conditions where we almost went extinct. The reason we are so smart and social, which seem to go hand in hand, is because we need problem solving as well as cooperation to survive in such terrible conditions. The human species during this time, almost went extinct, evidenced by the relatively little genetic variation in our DNA across all humans as compared with the genetic variation found in other species. We all come from a relatively small amount of people (this is not testament to the veracity of adam and eve, so don't try that. it was more than two people).
Click to expand...


What is really funny NP is that most all of your claims about Creationists above could be applied to evolutionists. They discount any science that doesn't conform to their beloved theory. Their motivations are not scientific, but metaphysical. Because their real motivations are about denying the Creator, they work feverishly to find "scientific" evidence to support their materialistic worldview. We Creationists/ID Theorists admit we have bias and are always sensitive to overcoming it. Being aware of it gives us the perspective to do something about it when evaluating scientific data. But the truly sad thing is the Darwinists are totally ignorant to their bias, therefore, they are blind to things that should be catching their attention and directing their scientific pursuits in different directions based on the evidence. How can they even move forward or over come their bias if they are in total denial about it?

*To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant - Amos Bronson Alcot*


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have zero evidence for the origins of life through a natural process. There is no scientific evidence supporting the origins of life. There are far to many holes in the theory of evolution to take it serious.
> 
> The most foolish remark I have seen you make is say science threatens creationists
> 
> Oh and atleast Dawkins can detect design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I make that remark, because your behavior, and creationists in general, are characterized not by asserting your own truth and proving it on its own merit (there is zero evidence for any god claims), but trying to assert its truth merely by poking holes in evolution or abiogensis. That is a sign of insecurity, which is indicative of being threatened. Hence, it is plausible to assume that creationists are threatened by science, and feel an emotional need to remove that threat, no matter how illogical their arguments in trying to do so. This is evidenced, to me, by the illogic in their arguments, which we see repeatedly, the most common usually being an argument of ignorance, or one from personal incredulity, or a strawman of evolution, etc...
> 
> You also have zero evidence for the origins of life via a creator, because you can not demonstrate that a god exists, or that this god created all things, or created humans. You have a book, which is not evidence of anything other than that a human wrote those words down at one point. All you have is an idea that is emotionally and existentially satisfying and offers you a piece of mind- that god created everything, and this is purportedly the same god that gives you an eternal afterlife as reward for belief in him. Hmmm... such a coincidence, however it is not a testament to its veracity.
> 
> By its very nature, abiogenesis is something that would provide little to no evidence, and you wouldn't expect it to. The entire landscape of the earth 3.5 billion years ago probably exists nowhere on our planets surface anymore, because it has been cycled below via plate tectonics and subducted into magma, where any evidence of the first microscopic cells would be destroyed. I could be wrong, but that seems likely, and that is not an excuse for a lack of evidence or a way to skirt the burden of proof, that is a fact that plate tectonics continually recycle our landscape. 3.5 billion years seems like plenty of time for an entire makeover. Abiogenesis remains a viable naturalistic explanation for the creation of self-replicating and self-organizing molecules into what we know as the first cell. Once you have that primitive cell or self-replicating entity, evolution takes over and the possibility of arriving where we are today is entirely feasible. There is no reason and no evidence to assert a supernatural being in abiogensis. Everything else is our existing universe is explainable through natural phenomena, so why should this be any different? It shouldn't. There exists a natural explanation. Just because there is no evidence right now or may never be, does not mean a creator is a better explanation or is more valid. That is a  copout, made to serve your beliefs, not reality.
> 
> As to your last question, it is a flawed and unanswerable. I am inclined to say no, because design implies a purpose with a plan for a final product, in this case, I presume you are asserting that is us. There was no final product in evolution, us being that. Humans evolved in drought conditions where we almost went extinct. The reason we are so smart and social, which seem to go hand in hand, is because we need problem solving as well as cooperation to survive in such terrible conditions. The human species during this time, almost went extinct, evidenced by the relatively little genetic variation in our DNA across all humans as compared with the genetic variation found in other species. We all come from a relatively small amount of people (this is not testament to the veracity of adam and eve, so don't try that. it was more than two people).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is really funny NP is that most all of your claims about Creationists above could be applied to evolutionists. They discount any science that doesn't conform to their beloved theory. The motivations are not scientific, but metaphysical. Because their real motivations are about denying the Creator, they work feverishly to find "scientific" evidence to support their materialistic worldview. We Creationists/ID Theorists admit we have bias and are always sensitive to overcoming it, but the truly sad thing is the Darwinists are totally ignorant to their bias, therefore, they are blind to things that should be catching their attention and directing their scientific pursuits in different directions based on evidence.
> 
> *To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant - Amos Bronson Alcot*
Click to expand...


There is no evidence for a god, therefore it is not considered in science as having explanatory power. There is no bias, as you claim, there is simply no evidence. This is REALLY simple. You're asserting that scientists motivations are metaphysical makes no sense because the methodology employed by scientists, namely the Scientific Method, doesn't allow for this, because by definition, nothing metaphysical would show evidence in the physical realm. It is you that is asserting an additional being to the universe. The burden of proof falls on you to prove a creator. You can not do that, therefore it is not taken as an explanation of the things we see.


----------



## newpolitics

There is no pre-supposition inherent in the scientific method. Scientists may have their own presuppositions individually, but the scientific method will bear that out every time. That is what makes it so beautiful.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Why are libs so insecure about "creationism?" Who cares. It's what some people believe. It doesn't fucking hurt you. If you believe that an asteroid hit the planet and somehow life formed, why the fuck would that be a big thing to me? Get the fuck over yourself libs. You're like the vain asshole who spends half the fucking day looking at himself in a mirror.


----------



## newpolitics

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Why are libs so insecure about "creationism?" Who cares. It's what some people believe. It doesn't fucking hurt you. If you believe that an asteroid hit the planet and somehow life formed, why the fuck would that be a big thing to me? Get the fuck over yourself libs. You're like the vain asshole who spends half the fucking day looking at himself in a mirror.




Because dickheads, not unlike yourself, are trying to change school curriculums and brainwash children into doubting science, logic, and reason, all based on religious fervor which provides zero evidence for any of its supernatural claims. In other words, it is nonsensical bullshit established to vindicate insecure christians of their faith, which is a direct violation of the first amendment, in case you've forgotten what country you live in. I'm going to go look in the mirror... you should try it. You might be able to see how much of an asshole you are.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

newpolitics said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are libs so insecure about "creationism?" Who cares. It's what some people believe. It doesn't fucking hurt you. If you believe that an asteroid hit the planet and somehow life formed, why the fuck would that be a big thing to me? Get the fuck over yourself libs. You're like the vain asshole who spends half the fucking day looking at himself in a mirror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because dickheads, not unlike yourself, are trying to change school curriculums and brainwash children into doubting science, logic, and reason, all based on religious fervor which provides zero evidence for any of its supernatural claims. In other words, it is nonsensical bullshit established to vindicate insecure christians of their faith, which is a direct violation of the first amendment, in case you've forgotten what country you live in. I'm going to go look in the mirror... you should try it. You might be able to see how much of an asshole you are.
Click to expand...


I'm trying to change school ciriculums? That's f'ing retarded. When I was in school, I learned a lot about "the theory of evolution" and I moved on. And I learned about it in some detail. I do remember vague mentions that others believed in creationism (don't even know if it was called that). It wasn't a big fucking deal either. I just took it as some people are trying to explain the origins of our existence and that's natural. Next time, don't put words in my mouth cocksucker.

And the truth is that assholes like you are the ones trying toe suppress free speech. You don't even want the fucking mention of creationism in schools and you want the big bang theory and evolution and whatever else taught as facts; something that fucking defies science you pansy ass bitch butt hugging fuck face.


----------



## newpolitics

TheGreatGatsby said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are libs so insecure about "creationism?" Who cares. It's what some people believe. It doesn't fucking hurt you. If you believe that an asteroid hit the planet and somehow life formed, why the fuck would that be a big thing to me? Get the fuck over yourself libs. You're like the vain asshole who spends half the fucking day looking at himself in a mirror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because dickheads, not unlike yourself, are trying to change school curriculums and brainwash children into doubting science, logic, and reason, all based on religious fervor which provides zero evidence for any of its supernatural claims. In other words, it is nonsensical bullshit established to vindicate insecure christians of their faith, which is a direct violation of the first amendment, in case you've forgotten what country you live in. I'm going to go look in the mirror... you should try it. You might be able to see how much of an asshole you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to change school ciriculums? That's f'ing retarded. When I was in school, I learned a lot about "the theory of evolution" and I moved on. And I learned about it in some detail. I do remember vague mentions that others believed in creationism (don't even know if it was called that). It wasn't a big fucking deal either. I just took it as some people are trying to explain the origins of our existence and that's natural. Next time, don't put words in my mouth cocksucker.
> 
> And the truth is that assholes like you are the ones trying toe suppress free speech. You don't even want the fucking mention of creationism in schools and you want the big bang theory and evolution and whatever else taught as facts; something that fucking defies science you pansy ass bitch butt hugging fuck face.
Click to expand...


Those were a lot of big words. I'm not sure if I understand. So, you're saying I'm a pansy ass bitch, and a butt hugging fuck face? Whoa. That sounds bad. Do you think I should go see a doctor? I think I'm covered under Obamacare.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

newpolitics said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because dickheads, not unlike yourself, are trying to change school curriculums and brainwash children into doubting science, logic, and reason, all based on religious fervor which provides zero evidence for any of its supernatural claims. In other words, it is nonsensical bullshit established to vindicate insecure christians of their faith, which is a direct violation of the first amendment, in case you've forgotten what country you live in. I'm going to go look in the mirror... you should try it. You might be able to see how much of an asshole you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to change school ciriculums? That's f'ing retarded. When I was in school, I learned a lot about "the theory of evolution" and I moved on. And I learned about it in some detail. I do remember vague mentions that others believed in creationism (don't even know if it was called that). It wasn't a big fucking deal either. I just took it as some people are trying to explain the origins of our existence and that's natural. Next time, don't put words in my mouth cocksucker.
> 
> And the truth is that assholes like you are the ones trying toe suppress free speech. You don't even want the fucking mention of creationism in schools and you want the big bang theory and evolution and whatever else taught as facts; something that fucking defies science you pansy ass bitch butt hugging fuck face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those were a lot of big words. I'm not sure if I understand. So, you're saying I'm a pansy ass bitch, and a butt hugging fuck face? Whoa. That sounds bad. Do you think I should go see a doctor? I think I'm covered under Obamacare.
Click to expand...


Since you clearly are only a troll, I'll be setting you to ignore now.


----------



## newpolitics

TheGreatGatsby said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to change school ciriculums? That's f'ing retarded. When I was in school, I learned a lot about "the theory of evolution" and I moved on. And I learned about it in some detail. I do remember vague mentions that others believed in creationism (don't even know if it was called that). It wasn't a big fucking deal either. I just took it as some people are trying to explain the origins of our existence and that's natural. Next time, don't put words in my mouth cocksucker.
> 
> And the truth is that assholes like you are the ones trying toe suppress free speech. You don't even want the fucking mention of creationism in schools and you want the big bang theory and evolution and whatever else taught as facts; something that fucking defies science you pansy ass bitch butt hugging fuck face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those were a lot of big words. I'm not sure if I understand. So, you're saying I'm a pansy ass bitch, and a butt hugging fuck face? Whoa. That sounds bad. Do you think I should go see a doctor? I think I'm covered under Obamacare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you clearly are only a troll, I'll be setting you to ignore now.
Click to expand...


cool. peace.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is an obvious no  But thanks for acknowledging someone designed these machines.
> 
> So I guess daws is not gonna explain the process of how molecular machines evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More reading, less posting.
> 
> Evolution of DNA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes more reading less posting I said absent of conjecture. So explain how molecular machines evolved absent of conjecture..
Click to expand...


Conjecture?  I'd say an explanation based on the Laws of Chemistry.  You keep asking for how life could have started minus creation.  It's been offered, but you don't seem to have the courtesy to debunk it scientifically.  You just ask for more.  It's like the fossil record, no amount of evidence will ever be enough because you're apparently intellectually dishonest.


----------



## bobgnote

_Look at THIS!  346 pages, where some of the creationists are still posting!  I just got to get me some "Crationists," given creationist fucktards managed to keep Darwin out of curriculum, until 1958, when the Soviets launched Sputnik.  The more I read, from creationists, the more I realize it's time to rally, with the players and post some Carvey vids and history.

We re-green, or we lose the human habitat, to global climate change.  See all the fires, droughts, floods, extreme storms, and coming sea level rise?  You creationists are burning fossil fuels and whacking trees with chainsaws, with zero guilt or remorse, using you shit-rants about "God," to justify you awesome, destructive ignorance.

Some of you are Christians, lacking a Pope, so go see how Benedict now claims those ignorant of AGW are lacking religion, vis-a-vis atheism.  Nice try, poopleman.

I have to subscribe to this thread, so I'm just checking in_.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> More reading, less posting.
> 
> Evolution of DNA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes more reading less posting I said absent of conjecture. So explain how molecular machines evolved absent of conjecture..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conjecture?  I'd say an explanation based on the Laws of Chemistry.  You keep asking for how life could have started minus creation.  It's been offered, but you don't seem to have the courtesy to debunk it scientifically.  You just ask for more.  It's like the fossil record, no amount of evidence will ever be enough because you're apparently intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...


What do you think conjecture is ? Yes I have ,you would have to believe in miracles to believe that only left handed amino acids connected to form life. You would have to believe in miracles to believe molecular machines slowly evolved. There are many more examples as well that has been covered. Yet this question you use laws for an explanation and not something that can be repeated by man. You give only an opinion of what is observed. The same problem exist's for cells you can observe them forming but can't duplicate the process so you really don't know how they form. You sure as heck can't explain how they evolved.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I make that remark, because your behavior, and creationists in general, are characterized not by asserting your own truth and proving it on its own merit (there is zero evidence for any god claims), but trying to assert its truth merely by poking holes in evolution or abiogensis. That is a sign of insecurity, which is indicative of being threatened. Hence, it is plausible to assume that creationists are threatened by science, and feel an emotional need to remove that threat, no matter how illogical their arguments in trying to do so. This is evidenced, to me, by the illogic in their arguments, which we see repeatedly, the most common usually being an argument of ignorance, or one from personal incredulity, or a strawman of evolution, etc...
> 
> You also have zero evidence for the origins of life via a creator, because you can not demonstrate that a god exists, or that this god created all things, or created humans. You have a book, which is not evidence of anything other than that a human wrote those words down at one point. All you have is an idea that is emotionally and existentially satisfying and offers you a piece of mind- that god created everything, and this is purportedly the same god that gives you an eternal afterlife as reward for belief in him. Hmmm... such a coincidence, however it is not a testament to its veracity.
> 
> By its very nature, abiogenesis is something that would provide little to no evidence, and you wouldn't expect it to. The entire landscape of the earth 3.5 billion years ago probably exists nowhere on our planets surface anymore, because it has been cycled below via plate tectonics and subducted into magma, where any evidence of the first microscopic cells would be destroyed. I could be wrong, but that seems likely, and that is not an excuse for a lack of evidence or a way to skirt the burden of proof, that is a fact that plate tectonics continually recycle our landscape. 3.5 billion years seems like plenty of time for an entire makeover. Abiogenesis remains a viable naturalistic explanation for the creation of self-replicating and self-organizing molecules into what we know as the first cell. Once you have that primitive cell or self-replicating entity, evolution takes over and the possibility of arriving where we are today is entirely feasible. There is no reason and no evidence to assert a supernatural being in abiogensis. Everything else is our existing universe is explainable through natural phenomena, so why should this be any different? It shouldn't. There exists a natural explanation. Just because there is no evidence right now or may never be, does not mean a creator is a better explanation or is more valid. That is a  copout, made to serve your beliefs, not reality.
> 
> As to your last question, it is a flawed and unanswerable. I am inclined to say no, because design implies a purpose with a plan for a final product, in this case, I presume you are asserting that is us. There was no final product in evolution, us being that. Humans evolved in drought conditions where we almost went extinct. The reason we are so smart and social, which seem to go hand in hand, is because we need problem solving as well as cooperation to survive in such terrible conditions. The human species during this time, almost went extinct, evidenced by the relatively little genetic variation in our DNA across all humans as compared with the genetic variation found in other species. We all come from a relatively small amount of people (this is not testament to the veracity of adam and eve, so don't try that. it was more than two people).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is really funny NP is that most all of your claims about Creationists above could be applied to evolutionists. They discount any science that doesn't conform to their beloved theory. The motivations are not scientific, but metaphysical. Because their real motivations are about denying the Creator, they work feverishly to find "scientific" evidence to support their materialistic worldview. We Creationists/ID Theorists admit we have bias and are always sensitive to overcoming it, but the truly sad thing is the Darwinists are totally ignorant to their bias, therefore, they are blind to things that should be catching their attention and directing their scientific pursuits in different directions based on evidence.
> 
> *To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant - Amos Bronson Alcot*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence for a god, therefore it is not considered in science as having explanatory power. There is no bias, as you claim, there is simply no evidence. This is REALLY simple. You're asserting that scientists motivations are metaphysical makes no sense because the methodology employed by scientists, namely the Scientific Method, doesn't allow for this, because by definition, nothing metaphysical would show evidence in the physical realm. It is you that is asserting an additional being to the universe. The burden of proof falls on you to prove a creator. You can not do that, therefore it is not taken as an explanation of the things we see.
Click to expand...


You totally miss the point entirely. Forget the Design argument for a moment. Since their metaphysical beliefs demand they support the TOE, their science is skewed by prejudice. Everything that fits the TOE is kept. Everything that doesn't is thrown out or explained away. The so-called science is an assembly of "evidence" that fits. No doubt you can't see this because even you are unaware of your own bias.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> There is no pre-supposition inherent in the scientific method. Scientists may have their own presuppositions individually, but the scientific method will bear that out every time. That is what makes it so beautiful.



Hogwash. You are living in dreamland my friend. Anything that humans are involved in will be skewed based on their own perspectives and prejudices. That is why you must constantly ask yourself, *"What is Truth?"*


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> More reading, less posting.
> 
> Evolution of DNA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes more reading less posting I said absent of conjecture. So explain how molecular machines evolved absent of conjecture..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conjecture?  I'd say an explanation based on the Laws of Chemistry.  You keep asking for how life could have started minus creation.  It's been offered, but you don't seem to have the courtesy to debunk it scientifically.  You just ask for more.  It's like the fossil record, no amount of evidence will ever be enough because you're apparently intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...


You too are living in fantasy land if you believe any explanation has come even close to explaining the origin of life. Let me explain to you how real science works since you all have been so retarded by the TOE speculation to fact methodology. Here goes: You come up with a hypothesis and then start doing experiments to prove or disprove your hypothesis. In real science, we don't come up with neat stories about finch beaks and giraffe necks that experimental data has not confirmed or denied. We test. If your postulations about the origins of life are so good, why isn't anyone moving from "we *think* this *might have* been responsible" to this experiment shows that bombarding amino acids with neutrino's caused them to self assemble into a dna-like structure. Or here, we have assembled a protein in the lab out of right-handed amino acids which is fully functioning just like the original. If it is so figured out, why don't we see documented experimental evidence coming out everyday? In fact, why can't scientist even produce a protein through a naturalistic process in the lab? I will tell you why. Because it is all BS and you are a fool for buying into it. The TOE has done more to set science back with its assumptive language and its *UNTESTED "might haves" and "could haves"*. It has created a whole lot of buffoons who buy into the madness to support their metaphysical beliefs which include denial of the Creator.


----------



## UltimateReality

bobgnote said:


> _Look at THIS!  346 pages, where some of the creationists are still posting!  I just got to get me some "Crationists," given creationist fucktards managed to keep Darwin out of curriculum, until 1958, when the Soviets launched Sputnik.  The more I read, from creationists, the more I realize it's time to rally, with the players and post some Carvey vids and history.
> 
> We re-green, or we lose the human habitat, to global climate change.  See all the fires, droughts, floods, extreme storms, and coming sea level rise?  You creationists are burning fossil fuels and whacking trees with chainsaws, with zero guilt or remorse, using you shit-rants about "God," to justify you awesome, destructive ignorance.
> 
> Some of you are Christians, lacking a Pope, so go see how Benedict now claims those ignorant of AGW are lacking religion, vis-a-vis atheism.  Nice try, poopleman.
> 
> I have to subscribe to this thread, so I'm just checking in_.



Wow, another Einstein checking in. And I'm guessing you don't shop at Walmart for cheap crap either, right? So its okay to totally devalue and polute someone else's country as long as it isn't ours? Oh, what's that? An iPhone in your pocket? Yeah, that's what I thought. You need to get away from the computer more often UN lacky boy. Climate change nonsensical science is about control, nothing more and nothing less.


----------



## bobgnote

UltimateReality said:


> Wow, another Einstein checking in. And I'm guessing you don't shop at Walmart for cheap crap either, right? So its okay to totally devalue and polute someone else's country as long as it isn't ours? Oh, what's that? An iPhone in your pocket? Yeah, that's what I thought. You need to get away from the computer more often UN lacky boy. Climate change nonsensical science is about control, nothing more and nothing less.



_Hi, *URanallyretarded*!  FYI, I shop at Walmart, for all kinds of convenient bargains, and I browse USMB, since the rules let me flame wingpunk-fucktards, like YOU, you ranting bitch.

WTF are you queer-ranting about, bitch?  If there were not a drug war, for you anal retards to trip on, Henry Ford would have made all the plastic out of hemp, a CO2-neutral biomass source.  By 1941, he had an indestructible version, shown on YouTube, getting hammered, with a sledge.  How's that, up your stinky pussy?

Develop your hypothesis, about global climate change, try to distinguish, between climate change and global warming, and re climate change, warming is affecting change, so we will get more powerful storms, more floods, droughts, wildfires, desertification, and sea level rise.

When you are a creationist fucktard, your level of science doesn't include more than rants, so you don't use facts and issues, laid out, according to the scientific method.

While you are guessing, the planet IS heating up, and kindly notice your freaky heaters who let their irrational side get the better of them turned tricks and shot speed, to shove their dose of HIV, all the way, through AIDS and death. 

Your bath-houses are closed, and the churches need to follow, queer._


----------



## Youwerecreated

bobgnote said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, another Einstein checking in. And I'm guessing you don't shop at Walmart for cheap crap either, right? So its okay to totally devalue and polute someone else's country as long as it isn't ours? Oh, what's that? An iPhone in your pocket? Yeah, that's what I thought. You need to get away from the computer more often UN lacky boy. Climate change nonsensical science is about control, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Hi, *URanallyretarded*!  FYI, I shop at Walmart, for all kinds of convenient bargains, and I browse USMB, since the rules let me flame wingpunk-fucktards, like YOU, you ranting bitch.
> 
> WTF are you queer-ranting about, bitch?  If there were not a drug war, for you anal retards to trip on, Henry Ford would have made all the plastic out of hemp, a CO2-neutral biomass source.  By 1941, he had an indestructible version, shown on YouTube, getting hammered, with a sledge.  How's that, up your stinky pussy?
> 
> Develop your hypothesis, about global climate change, try to distinguish, between climate change and global warming, and re climate change, warming is affecting change, so we will get more powerful storms, more floods, droughts, wildfires, desertification, and sea level rise.
> 
> When you are a creationist fucktard, your level of science doesn't include more than rants, so you don't use facts and issues, laid out, according to the scientific method.
> 
> While you are guessing, the planet IS heating up, and kindly notice your freaky heaters who let their irrational side get the better of them turned tricks and shot speed, to shove their dose of HIV, all the way, through AIDS and death.
> 
> Your bath-houses are closed, and the churches need to follow, queer._
Click to expand...


What are you 15 years old ?does your momma know you talk like this on the internet tough guy ?

I was not taught creationism nor do I think ultimatereality was either. For one he is an ID advocate I am the creationist. The University of Arizona does not have that class that I am aware of we both attended the bear down University. I worked in a lab for 11 years then I grew up.

Many people educated in the sciences do not agree with theories atheist hold dear.


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes more reading less posting I said absent of conjecture. So explain how molecular machines evolved absent of conjecture..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture?  I'd say an explanation based on the Laws of Chemistry.  You keep asking for how life could have started minus creation.  It's been offered, but you don't seem to have the courtesy to debunk it scientifically.  You just ask for more.  It's like the fossil record, no amount of evidence will ever be enough because you're apparently intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You too are living in fantasy land if you believe any explanation has come even close to explaining the origin of life. Let me explain to you how real science works since you all have been so retarded by the TOE speculation to fact methodology. Here goes: You come up with a hypothesis and then start doing experiments to prove or disprove your hypothesis. In real science, we don't come up with neat stories about finch beaks and giraffe necks that experimental data has not confirmed or denied. We test. If your postulations about the origins of life are so good, why isn't anyone moving from "we *think* this *might have* been responsible" to this experiment shows that bombarding amino acids with neutrino's caused them to self assemble into a dna-like structure. Or here, we have assembled a protein in the lab out of right-handed amino acids which is fully functioning just like the original. If it is so figured out, why don't we see documented experimental evidence coming out everyday? In fact, why can't scientist even produce a protein through a naturalistic process in the lab? I will tell you why. Because it is all BS and you are a fool for buying into it. The TOE has done more to set science back with its assumptive language and its *UNTESTED "might haves" and "could haves"*. It has created a whole lot of buffoons who buy into the madness to support their metaphysical beliefs which include denial of the Creator.
Click to expand...


Don't need a lecture from you.  My entire career 35+ years has been in science at a major university.  You apparently haven't read any of the site I posted or are aware that the types of experiments you describe are done daily.  Results however don't come out daily, which you'd realize, if you weren't so caught up in your own prejudices.  To do what you ask would take all the human lifetimes there ever were.  Call it conjecture, if you will.  I call it plausible and in line with what we what we know about chemistry.

Absence of the evidence you want, isn't evidence of the the incorrectness of evolution.  You're blinded by your insistence that there must have been a Creation akin to Genesis.  I'll give you one line, "Let there be light(The Big Bang)".


----------



## newpolitics

Scientists have found the Higgs Boson just three days ago. This is another example of a purely theoretical framework based purely on math showing results in reality as predicted by a mathematical model. This, by the way, is what happened with black holes and general relativity as well. Black holes were postulated as mere theoretical entities within the mathmatetical equations of general relativity but had no empirical evidence. Black holes are now known to exist at the center of every single galaxy, so there are about three hundred billion of them, at least. Therefore, the argument that, for instance, string theory and multiverses are entirely unfounded because it is only based on math, is fallacious. This universe is written in the language of math. I am not saying string theory is necessarily true, as it is still highly theoretical as both general relativity and the Higgs boson once were, but mathematical proofs are powerful and can map to reality quite effectively, as demonstrated thus far in our history.


"God Particle" Found? "Historic Milestone" From Higgs Boson Hunters


----------



## UltimateReality

bobgnote said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, another Einstein checking in. And I'm guessing you don't shop at Walmart for cheap crap either, right? So its okay to totally devalue and polute someone else's country as long as it isn't ours? Oh, what's that? An iPhone in your pocket? Yeah, that's what I thought. You need to get away from the computer more often UN lacky boy. Climate change nonsensical science is about control, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Hi, *URanallyretarded*!  FYI, I shop at Walmart, for all kinds of convenient bargains, and I browse USMB, since the rules let me flame wingpunk-fucktards, like YOU, you ranting bitch.
> 
> WTF are you queer-ranting about, bitch?  If there were not a drug war, for you anal retards to trip on, Henry Ford would have made all the plastic out of hemp, a CO2-neutral biomass source.  By 1941, he had an indestructible version, shown on YouTube, getting hammered, with a sledge.  How's that, up your stinky pussy?
> 
> Develop your hypothesis, about global climate change, try to distinguish, between climate change and global warming, and re climate change, warming is affecting change, so we will get more powerful storms, more floods, droughts, wildfires, desertification, and sea level rise.
> 
> When you are a creationist fucktard, your level of science doesn't include more than rants, so you don't use facts and issues, laid out, according to the scientific method.
> 
> While you are guessing, the planet IS heating up, and kindly notice your freaky heaters who let their irrational side get the better of them turned tricks and shot speed, to shove their dose of HIV, all the way, through AIDS and death.
> 
> Your bath-houses are closed, and the churches need to follow, queer._
Click to expand...


I really can't even respond to this. Not a single intelligent thought in the entire post.


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture?  I'd say an explanation based on the Laws of Chemistry.  You keep asking for how life could have started minus creation.  It's been offered, but you don't seem to have the courtesy to debunk it scientifically.  You just ask for more.  It's like the fossil record, no amount of evidence will ever be enough because you're apparently intellectually dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You too are living in fantasy land if you believe any explanation has come even close to explaining the origin of life. Let me explain to you how real science works since you all have been so retarded by the TOE speculation to fact methodology. Here goes: You come up with a hypothesis and then start doing experiments to prove or disprove your hypothesis. In real science, we don't come up with neat stories about finch beaks and giraffe necks that experimental data has not confirmed or denied. We test. If your postulations about the origins of life are so good, why isn't anyone moving from "we *think* this *might have* been responsible" to this experiment shows that bombarding amino acids with neutrino's caused them to self assemble into a dna-like structure. Or here, we have assembled a protein in the lab out of right-handed amino acids which is fully functioning just like the original. If it is so figured out, why don't we see documented experimental evidence coming out everyday? In fact, why can't scientist even produce a protein through a naturalistic process in the lab? I will tell you why. Because it is all BS and you are a fool for buying into it. The TOE has done more to set science back with its assumptive language and its *UNTESTED "might haves" and "could haves"*. It has created a whole lot of buffoons who buy into the madness to support their metaphysical beliefs which include denial of the Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't need a lecture from you.  My entire career 35+ years has been in science at a major university.  You apparently haven't read any of the site I posted or are aware that the types of experiments you describe are done daily.  Results however don't come out daily, which you'd realize, if you weren't so caught up in your own prejudices.  To do what you ask would take all the human lifetimes there ever were.  Call it conjecture, if you will.  I call it plausible and in line with what we what we know about chemistry.
> 
> Absence of the evidence you want, isn't evidence of the the incorrectness of evolution.  You're blinded by your insistence that there must have been a Creation akin to Genesis.  I'll give you one line, "Let there be light(The Big Bang)".
Click to expand...


So if it happened so easily, why no success at reproducing it? I think your pathetic link wants to try to simplify an EXTREMELY complex process. They still really have no clue. RNA world turned out to be a farce.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Scientists have found the Higgs Boson just three days ago.



Really?? I read many of the reports and they still don't sound totally convinced. It is a really weird press release, maybe needed to pacify the folks that threw billions at the super hardon collider.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Therefore, the argument that, for instance, string theory and multiverses are entirely unfounded because it is only based on math, is fallacious.



And there we have it. You making a metaphysical claim and then trying to say that math is the reason it could be true. Yes, and math is the reason God could be true too. How does it feel here in the boat with me?


----------



## bobgnote

Youwerecreated said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, another Einstein checking in. And I'm guessing you don't shop at Walmart for cheap crap either, right? So its okay to totally devalue and polute someone else's country as long as it isn't ours? Oh, what's that? An iPhone in your pocket? Yeah, that's what I thought. You need to get away from the computer more often UN lacky boy. Climate change nonsensical science is about control, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Hi, *URanallyretarded*!  FYI, I shop at Walmart, for all kinds of convenient bargains, and I browse USMB, since the rules let me flame wingpunk-fucktards, like YOU, you ranting bitch.
> 
> WTF are you queer-ranting about, bitch?  If there were not a drug war, for you anal retards to trip on, Henry Ford would have made all the plastic out of hemp, a CO2-neutral biomass source.  By 1941, he had an indestructible version, shown on YouTube, getting hammered, with a sledge.  How's that, up your stinky pussy?
> 
> Develop your hypothesis, about global climate change, try to distinguish, between climate change and global warming, and re climate change, warming is affecting change, so we will get more powerful storms, more floods, droughts, wildfires, desertification, and sea level rise.
> 
> When you are a creationist fucktard, your level of science doesn't include more than rants, so you don't use facts and issues, laid out, according to the scientific method.
> 
> While you are guessing, the planet IS heating up, and kindly notice your freaky heaters who let their irrational side get the better of them turned tricks and shot speed, to shove their dose of HIV, all the way, through AIDS and death.
> 
> Your bath-houses are closed, and the churches need to follow, queer._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you 15 years old ?does your momma know you talk like this on the internet tough guy ?
> 
> I was not taught creationism nor do I think ultimatereality was either. For one he is an ID advocate I am the creationist. The University of Arizona does not have that class that I am aware of we both attended the bear down University. I worked in a lab for 11 years then I grew up.
> 
> Many people educated in the sciences do not agree with theories atheist hold dear.
Click to expand...


_If you were believable, I'd say you got into a PAC-12 U, but you'd have to take off, after the first week of classes.  Since your English-US isn't good enough for high schools, what the fuck are you doing, telling me you got into UA?  Don't they have any standards?  Dunces down, for Mr.Hugh, looks like.

What the fuck do YOU know, about "most people," you downie?  Eat shit and write something intelligible, you miserable queer, who should have been aborted._


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, the argument that, for instance, string theory and multiverses are entirely unfounded because it is only based on math, is fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there we have it. You making a metaphysical claim and then trying to say that math is the reason it could be true. Yes, and math is the reason God could be true too. How does it feel here in the boat with me?
Click to expand...


How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, the argument that, for instance, string theory and multiverses are entirely unfounded because it is only based on math, is fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there we have it. You making a metaphysical claim and then trying to say that math is the reason it could be true. Yes, and math is the reason God could be true too. How does it feel here in the boat with me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.
Click to expand...


Well one way is music, which is VERY mathematical and has absolutely no evolutionary reason to exist at all. Fine tuning of the universe is another way.


----------



## UltimateReality

bobgnote said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Hi, *URanallyretarded*!  FYI, I shop at Walmart, for all kinds of convenient bargains, and I browse USMB, since the rules let me flame wingpunk-fucktards, like YOU, you ranting bitch.
> 
> WTF are you queer-ranting about, bitch?  If there were not a drug war, for you anal retards to trip on, Henry Ford would have made all the plastic out of hemp, a CO2-neutral biomass source.  By 1941, he had an indestructible version, shown on YouTube, getting hammered, with a sledge.  How's that, up your stinky pussy?
> 
> Develop your hypothesis, about global climate change, try to distinguish, between climate change and global warming, and re climate change, warming is affecting change, so we will get more powerful storms, more floods, droughts, wildfires, desertification, and sea level rise.
> 
> When you are a creationist fucktard, your level of science doesn't include more than rants, so you don't use facts and issues, laid out, according to the scientific method.
> 
> While you are guessing, the planet IS heating up, and kindly notice your freaky heaters who let their irrational side get the better of them turned tricks and shot speed, to shove their dose of HIV, all the way, through AIDS and death.
> 
> Your bath-houses are closed, and the churches need to follow, queer._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you 15 years old ?does your momma know you talk like this on the internet tough guy ?
> 
> I was not taught creationism nor do I think ultimatereality was either. For one he is an ID advocate I am the creationist. The University of Arizona does not have that class that I am aware of we both attended the bear down University. I worked in a lab for 11 years then I grew up.
> 
> Many people educated in the sciences do not agree with theories atheist hold dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _If you were believable, I'd say you got into a PAC-12 U, but you'd have to take off, after the first week of classes.  Since your English-US isn't good enough for high schools, what the fuck are you doing, telling me you got into UA?  Don't they have any standards?  Dunces down, for Mr.Hugh, looks like.
> 
> What the fuck do YOU know, about "most people," you downie?  Eat shit and write something intelligible, you miserable queer, who should have been aborted._
Click to expand...


I love internet courage. I guarantee you if we were having this conversation in person, you wouldn't be talking this way. Grow up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

bobgnote said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Hi, *URanallyretarded*!  FYI, I shop at Walmart, for all kinds of convenient bargains, and I browse USMB, since the rules let me flame wingpunk-fucktards, like YOU, you ranting bitch.
> 
> WTF are you queer-ranting about, bitch?  If there were not a drug war, for you anal retards to trip on, Henry Ford would have made all the plastic out of hemp, a CO2-neutral biomass source.  By 1941, he had an indestructible version, shown on YouTube, getting hammered, with a sledge.  How's that, up your stinky pussy?
> 
> Develop your hypothesis, about global climate change, try to distinguish, between climate change and global warming, and re climate change, warming is affecting change, so we will get more powerful storms, more floods, droughts, wildfires, desertification, and sea level rise.
> 
> When you are a creationist fucktard, your level of science doesn't include more than rants, so you don't use facts and issues, laid out, according to the scientific method.
> 
> While you are guessing, the planet IS heating up, and kindly notice your freaky heaters who let their irrational side get the better of them turned tricks and shot speed, to shove their dose of HIV, all the way, through AIDS and death.
> 
> Your bath-houses are closed, and the churches need to follow, queer._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you 15 years old ?does your momma know you talk like this on the internet tough guy ?
> 
> I was not taught creationism nor do I think ultimatereality was either. For one he is an ID advocate I am the creationist. The University of Arizona does not have that class that I am aware of we both attended the bear down University. I worked in a lab for 11 years then I grew up.
> 
> Many people educated in the sciences do not agree with theories atheist hold dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _If you were believable, I'd say you got into a PAC-12 U, but you'd have to take off, after the first week of classes.  Since your English-US isn't good enough for high schools, what the fuck are you doing, telling me you got into UA?  Don't they have any standards?  Dunces down, for Mr.Hugh, looks like.
> 
> What the fuck do YOU know, about "most people," you downie?  Eat shit and write something intelligible, you miserable queer, who should have been aborted._
Click to expand...


You are an english major trying to discuss science  You have not said anything of substance at all. If you want to get into the specifics of science do so otherwise your resposes are not worthy of a reply.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, the argument that, for instance, string theory and multiverses are entirely unfounded because it is only based on math, is fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there we have it. You making a metaphysical claim and then trying to say that math is the reason it could be true. Yes, and math is the reason God could be true too. How does it feel here in the boat with me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.
Click to expand...


Well if you consider the evidence for design against the evidence of an unintelligent natural process creating everything we see,mathematics will be more supportive of a designer rather then this natural process you subscribe to.


----------



## bobgnote

Youwerecreated said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you 15 years old ?does your momma know you talk like this on the internet tough guy ?
> 
> I was not taught creationism nor do I think ultimatereality was either. For one he is an ID advocate I am the creationist. The University of Arizona does not have that class that I am aware of we both attended the bear down University. I worked in a lab for 11 years then I grew up.
> 
> Many people educated in the sciences do not agree with theories atheist hold dear.
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do YOU know, about "most people," you downie?  Eat shit and write something intelligible, you miserable queer, who should have been aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an english major trying to discuss science  You have not said anything of substance at all. If you want to get into the specifics of science do so otherwise your resposes are not worthy of a reply.
Click to expand...


_*Youwerecornholed*, I didn't tell you anything, about my academic background, which did wrap up, at a major university.  If you want to suck off your butt-buddy *URanallyretarded*, you don't need to get in a pissing contest, with a skunk, which is what you two queers went and did.

Eat shit, BITCHES.  I guarantee, we wouldn't have any conversations.  What you are is butt-buddies, backing each other up, since you like how your heads feel, up each others' assholes.  What the fuck do YOU want to write about, queers?  I checked in, you got oppositional, you are blow-buddies from some kind of downie-boy zone, so EAT SHIT.

I learned about stupid people, like you, so I don't like to talk to you, in person.  I think we know you don't get to talk to real people.  When I meet fucktards, like you, there is no further wordy business.  You either fuck off, or you don't.  If you DON'T, then we see who the cops believe._



UltimateReality said:


> I love internet courage. I guarantee you if we were having this conversation in person, you wouldn't be talking this way. Grow up.



_Eat shit, you miserable cocksucker.  You guarantee WHAT, punkhole_?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there we have it. You making a metaphysical claim and then trying to say that math is the reason it could be true. Yes, and math is the reason God could be true too. How does it feel here in the boat with me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well one way is music, which is VERY mathematical and has absolutely no evolutionary reason to exist at all. Fine tuning of the universe is another way.
Click to expand...


Why do you think that music points to gods?

It sounds a bit like your earlier argument - being ridiculous - has caused you to plow new furrows into the absurd.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there we have it. You making a metaphysical claim and then trying to say that math is the reason it could be true. Yes, and math is the reason God could be true too. How does it feel here in the boat with me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you consider the evidence for design against the evidence of an unintelligent natural process creating everything we see,mathematics will be more supportive of a designer rather then this natural process you subscribe to.
Click to expand...


That's ridiculous. There's no reason to believe that is true. There is nothing in mathematics that supports supernaturalism.


----------



## koshergrl

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you consider the evidence for design against the evidence of an unintelligent natural process creating everything we see,mathematics will be more supportive of a designer rather then this natural process you subscribe to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous. There's no reason to believe that is true. There is nothing in mathematics that supports supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


Tell that to these guys, who are Orthodox:

Nova ScienceNow


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the line of thinking that created macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> guess you never under stood the concept that keeping your mouth shut and let everyone think you're a fool...rather than opening it and leaving no doubt ....works!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projecting.
Click to expand...

 ironic coming from someone who is a master at saying stupid shit!


----------



## Youwerecreated

bobgnote said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do YOU know, about "most people," you downie?  Eat shit and write something intelligible, you miserable queer, who should have been aborted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an english major trying to discuss science  You have not said anything of substance at all. If you want to get into the specifics of science do so otherwise your resposes are not worthy of a reply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*Youwerecornholed*, I didn't tell you anything, about my academic background, which did wrap up, at a major university.  If you want to suck off your butt-buddy *URanallyretarded*, you don't need to get in a pissing contest, with a skunk, which is what you two queers went and did.
> 
> Eat shit, BITCHES.  I guarantee, we wouldn't have any conversations.  What you are is butt-buddies, backing each other up, since you like how your heads feel, up each others' assholes.  What the fuck do YOU want to write about, queers?  I checked in, you got oppositional, you are blow-buddies from some kind of downie-boy zone, so EAT SHIT.
> 
> I learned about stupid people, like you, so I don't like to talk to you, in person.  I think we know you don't get to talk to real people.  When I meet fucktards, like you, there is no further wordy business.  You either fuck off, or you don't.  If you DON'T, then we see who the cops believe._
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love internet courage. I guarantee you if we were having this conversation in person, you wouldn't be talking this way. Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Eat shit, you miserable cocksucker.  You guarantee WHAT, punkhole_?
Click to expand...


You prove our case with every post


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you consider the evidence for design against the evidence of an unintelligent natural process creating everything we see,mathematics will be more supportive of a designer rather then this natural process you subscribe to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous. There's no reason to believe that is true. There is nothing in mathematics that supports supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


No, but it supports a designer, and mathematics does not support naturalism. The biggest problem for your side is coming up with a viable theory for the origins question. Only the brainwashed believes in any current theory concerning origins.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Have you ever stopped to ponder what a cruel joke evolution has played on us with our minds? I mean how bogus that natural selection of random mutations resulted in us having this need to belong. I mean, really, why should we be concerned about meaning in life? Why do we wonder what our purpose is? Why is it so hard to accept, deep in are atheistic bones that we have NO PURPOSE? Why does that haunt us so bad? Since we are one in a trillion, we really are just accidental. None of us should be here according to the odds but here we sit, really for no reason other than a neat little process called evolution. It doesn't matter that we are here and it won't matter when we are gone. Another species will take our place. And many years from now, if you are one of the lucky ones, someone might dig up your bones and proudly display them in a museum. But the you that is you will be long gone by then and who cares, really? Nature has truly played a cruel trick on his, evolving us to the point where deep inside we really think it matters if we live or die. It doesn't. In two generations, if you don't do something noteworthy, no one will even remember your name. In 3 generations no one will care at all about you other than being ticked off maybe that you contributed to global warming with your miserable 70 or 80 years belching out the filth that is carbon dioxide. And why should it matter if only matter... matters? So when life starts to get you down, just remember, the pain will be over soon. You will be over soon. And in the blink of an eye later, no one will care whether you lived or died, laughed or cried.
> 
> "To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
> Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
> To the last syllable of recorded time,
> And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
> The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
> Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
> That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
> And then is heard no more: it is a tale
> Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
> *Signifying nothing.*" Macbeth, William Shakespeare


lol! is this totally out of context or what.
obviously you've never seen or read Macbeth..

the only realavent part is: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really Daws ? I have a series of questions to ask you I will go one at a time and if you can answer these questions absent of conjecture,I will believe you are a person of science and might even change my mind about evolution.
> 
> 1.Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans ?
> Remember no conjecture ,Explain how these Molecular Machines evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that is an obvious no  But thanks for acknowledging someone designed these machines.
> 
> So I guess daws is not gonna explain the process of how molecular machines evolved.
Click to expand...

you first, I need a good laugh!
BTW those sooo called questions of yours have been asked and answered in this thread many many times, either you will not accept the answers or dementia is setting in.


----------



## Youwerecreated

koshergrl said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you consider the evidence for design against the evidence of an unintelligent natural process creating everything we see,mathematics will be more supportive of a designer rather then this natural process you subscribe to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous. There's no reason to believe that is true. There is nothing in mathematics that supports supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to these guys, who are Orthodox:
> 
> Nova ScienceNow
Click to expand...


Great post.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right Dawkins does not know but he admits the appearance is design. Does a natural, uintelligent process design things ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no positive evidence for a designer. All you have is: it looks designed because that is familiar to us, because we have the capability to design things our own things, and compare what we design to the universe around us, and conclude that the universe was also designed. Our ability to design and implement technology and any similarity those technologies have to the universe is not evidence of a creator by a long shot. It is a biased perception based on our own capabilities as a species to design our own tools, technologies, which is merely an emergent and evolving property of our intellectual ability, which is a product of evolution, a natural process without design.
> 
> The appearance of a designer does not mean a designer necessarily created it. That is a subjective judgement, whether something has the appearance of a creator, so in a sense is a circular assessment. You already assume there is a creator, and then look for it in the universe, and anything that resembles order seems to validate your premise that there is a creator, hence you conclude there is a creator. That is circular. You have to take out your presupposition that there is a creator in your premise, then you can see the universe from a neutral standpoint. I don't think you are willing or able to do that. This is the problem with theologians. It seems as though their premise with respect to the universe subconsciously always contains God, and so they can never assess scientific claims on their own merit, because it always contradicts their premise, and so are merely always trying to contradict or disprove science as a way to vindicate their premise. I see this more as a psychological need to keep their belief system in check, because beliefs largely inform our identity, and their destruction is scary. Science threatens creationists, so they desperately find ways to counter it, however, they use illogical arguments because their need to do this is emotional, not logical. This is my opinion, obviously. Hence, the issue is psychological, not philosophical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have zero evidence for the origins of life through a natural process. There is no scientific evidence supporting the origins of life. There are far to many holes in the theory of evolution to take it serious.
> 
> The most foolish remark I have seen you make is say science threatens creationists
> 
> Oh and atleast Dawkins can detect design.
Click to expand...

that's not what Dawkins said you are intentionally misinterpreting to support your fantasy.
the appearance of design is not evidence of  god driven anything.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is an obvious no  But thanks for acknowledging someone designed these machines.
> 
> So I guess daws is not gonna explain the process of how molecular machines evolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you first, I need a good laugh!
> BTW those sooo called questions of yours have been asked and answered in this thread many many times, either you will not accept the answers or dementia is setting in.
Click to expand...


No it hasn't. The thing is you swallow explanations hook,line and sinker not having the ability to know from factual evidence or evidence based on conjecture.

Tell me in your own words how molecular machines evolved ?


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> therefore, the argument that, for instance, string theory and multiverses are entirely unfounded because it is only based on math, is fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and there we have it. You making a metaphysical claim and then trying to say that math is the reason it could be true. Yes, and math is the reason god could be true too. How does it feel here in the boat with me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how has math ever pointed to god? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.
Click to expand...

what would be the mathematical symbol for god?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there we have it. You making a metaphysical claim and then trying to say that math is the reason it could be true. Yes, and math is the reason God could be true too. How does it feel here in the boat with me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well one way is music, which is VERY mathematical and has absolutely no evolutionary reason to exist at all. Fine tuning of the universe is another way.
Click to expand...

what the fuck!
When we treat of sexual selection we shall see that primeval man, or rather some early progenitor of man, probably first used his voice in producing true musical cadences, that is in singing, as do some of the gibbon-apes at the present day; and we may conclude from a widely-spread analogy, that this power would have been especially exerted during the courtship of the sexes,--would have expressed various emotions, such as love, jealousy, triumph,--and would have served as a challenge to rivals. It is, therefore, probable that the imitation of musical cries by articulate sounds may have given rise to words expressive of various complex emotions."[1]
This theory of a musical protolanguage has been revived and re-discovered repeatedly, often without attribution to Darwin.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you 15 years old ?does your momma know you talk like this on the internet tough guy ?
> 
> I was not taught creationism nor do I think ultimatereality was either. For one he is an ID advocate I am the creationist. The University of Arizona does not have that class that I am aware of we both attended the bear down University. I worked in a lab for 11 years then I grew up.
> 
> Many people educated in the sciences do not agree with theories atheist hold dear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _If you were believable, I'd say you got into a PAC-12 U, but you'd have to take off, after the first week of classes.  Since your English-US isn't good enough for high schools, what the fuck are you doing, telling me you got into UA?  Don't they have any standards?  Dunces down, for Mr.Hugh, looks like.
> 
> What the fuck do YOU know, about "most people," you downie?  Eat shit and write something intelligible, you miserable queer, who should have been aborted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love internet courage. I guarantee you if we were having this conversation in person, you wouldn't be talking this way. Grow up.
Click to expand...

and you'd be wrong as always ...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no positive evidence for a designer. All you have is: it looks designed because that is familiar to us, because we have the capability to design things our own things, and compare what we design to the universe around us, and conclude that the universe was also designed. Our ability to design and implement technology and any similarity those technologies have to the universe is not evidence of a creator by a long shot. It is a biased perception based on our own capabilities as a species to design our own tools, technologies, which is merely an emergent and evolving property of our intellectual ability, which is a product of evolution, a natural process without design.
> 
> The appearance of a designer does not mean a designer necessarily created it. That is a subjective judgement, whether something has the appearance of a creator, so in a sense is a circular assessment. You already assume there is a creator, and then look for it in the universe, and anything that resembles order seems to validate your premise that there is a creator, hence you conclude there is a creator. That is circular. You have to take out your presupposition that there is a creator in your premise, then you can see the universe from a neutral standpoint. I don't think you are willing or able to do that. This is the problem with theologians. It seems as though their premise with respect to the universe subconsciously always contains God, and so they can never assess scientific claims on their own merit, because it always contradicts their premise, and so are merely always trying to contradict or disprove science as a way to vindicate their premise. I see this more as a psychological need to keep their belief system in check, because beliefs largely inform our identity, and their destruction is scary. Science threatens creationists, so they desperately find ways to counter it, however, they use illogical arguments because their need to do this is emotional, not logical. This is my opinion, obviously. Hence, the issue is psychological, not philosophical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have zero evidence for the origins of life through a natural process. There is no scientific evidence supporting the origins of life. There are far to many holes in the theory of evolution to take it serious.
> 
> The most foolish remark I have seen you make is say science threatens creationists
> 
> Oh and atleast Dawkins can detect design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's not what Dawkins said you are intentionally misinterpreting to support your fantasy.
> the appearance of design is not evidence of  god driven anything.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9P8RUkVYXk]Richard Dawkins shocks world by admitting strong evidence for God exists! - YouTube[/ame]



Richard Dawkins put his statement about biology right there on page one: &#8220;Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.&#8221; {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1} 

He enlarges on this thought: &#8220;We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose&#8230; any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.&#8221; {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21} 

Dawkins added that if anyone saw a machine on some other planet, he would know life had existed on that planet because machines are designed by intelligent beings. {p.2.} I must add, there are many molecular machines in living things. Their moving parts work together to do the work of every cell. Most of us would interpret all this as telling us that living things really were designed. Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. He goes on to use imagination, speculation, philosophy, and his wonderful story telling ability to undercut the evidence." 

Appearance of Design

Crick and many others agree with Dawkins.

You were saying ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is an obvious no  But thanks for acknowledging someone designed these machines.
> 
> So I guess daws is not gonna explain the process of how molecular machines evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> you first, I need a good laugh!
> BTW those sooo called questions of yours have been asked and answered in this thread many many times, either you will not accept the answers or dementia is setting in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it hasn't. The thing is you swallow explanations hook,line and sinker not having the ability to know from factual evidence or evidence based on conjecture.
> 
> Tell me in your own words how molecular machines evolved ?
Click to expand...

 asked and answerd .
what would you now about my abilities? you consistently make  erroneous assumptions on what is fact and what is not, the very pinnacle of hubris.
I'll repeat this again, you have no credible evidence of the existence of Id or god.
therefore EVERYTHING YOU POST IS CONJECTURE AND SPECULATION NOT FACT.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have zero evidence for the origins of life through a natural process. There is no scientific evidence supporting the origins of life. There are far to many holes in the theory of evolution to take it serious.
> 
> The most foolish remark I have seen you make is say science threatens creationists
> 
> Oh and atleast Dawkins can detect design.
> 
> 
> 
> that's not what Dawkins said you are intentionally misinterpreting to support your fantasy.
> the appearance of design is not evidence of  god driven anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9P8RUkVYXk]Richard Dawkins shocks world by admitting strong evidence for God exists! - YouTube[/ame] Richard Dawkins put his statement about biology right there on page one: &#8220;Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.&#8221; {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
> 
> He enlarges on this thought: &#8220;We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose&#8230; any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.&#8221; {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21}
> 
> Dawkins added that if anyone saw a machine on some other planet, he would know life had existed on that planet because machines are designed by intelligent beings. {p.2.} I must add, there are many molecular machines in living things. Their moving parts work together to do the work of every cell. Most of us would interpret all this as telling us that living things really were designed. Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. He goes on to use imagination, speculation, philosophy, and his wonderful story telling ability to undercut the evidence."
> 
> Appearance of Design
> 
> Crick and many others agree with Dawkins.
> 
> You were saying ?
Click to expand...

Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were.   hey aren't you the guy that yammers on about similarity not being proof.....is that only when it works against you...BULLSHIT show me Dawkins actual statement not some asshole's interpretation .


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's not what Dawkins said you are intentionally misinterpreting to support your fantasy.
> the appearance of design is not evidence of  god driven anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9P8RUkVYXk]Richard Dawkins shocks world by admitting strong evidence for God exists! - YouTube[/ame] Richard Dawkins put his statement about biology right there on page one: &#8220;Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.&#8221; {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
> 
> He enlarges on this thought: &#8220;We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose&#8230; any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.&#8221; {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21}
> 
> Dawkins added that if anyone saw a machine on some other planet, he would know life had existed on that planet because machines are designed by intelligent beings. {p.2.} I must add, there are many molecular machines in living things. Their moving parts work together to do the work of every cell. Most of us would interpret all this as telling us that living things really were designed. Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. He goes on to use imagination, speculation, philosophy, and his wonderful story telling ability to undercut the evidence."
> 
> Appearance of Design
> 
> Crick and many others agree with Dawkins.
> 
> You were saying ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were.   hey aren't you the guy that yammers on about similarity not being proof.....is that only when it works against you...BULLSHIT show me Dawkins actual statement not some asshole's interpretation .
Click to expand...


You are in denial he admitted there is a strong case for God  he is not the only one. Daws it just takes time to realize and admit you are simply wrong. If you have watched the video it gives you the details of the debate but you didn't did you ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Dawkins shocks world by admitting strong evidence for God exists! - YouTube Richard Dawkins put his statement about biology right there on page one: Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
> 
> He enlarges on this thought: We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object. {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21}
> 
> Dawkins added that if anyone saw a machine on some other planet, he would know life had existed on that planet because machines are designed by intelligent beings. {p.2.} I must add, there are many molecular machines in living things. Their moving parts work together to do the work of every cell. Most of us would interpret all this as telling us that living things really were designed. Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. He goes on to use imagination, speculation, philosophy, and his wonderful story telling ability to undercut the evidence."
> 
> Appearance of Design
> 
> Crick and many others agree with Dawkins.
> 
> You were saying ?
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were.   hey aren't you the guy that yammers on about similarity not being proof.....is that only when it works against you...BULLSHIT show me Dawkins actual statement not some asshole's interpretation .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are in denial he admitted there is a strong case for God  he is not the only one. Daws it just takes time to realize and admit you are simply wrong. If you have watched the video it gives you the details of the debate but you didn't did you ?
Click to expand...

yes I did .
when dawkins said :living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. that ends the debate, the rest is intentional misinterpreting....
your wish that I was wrong is just one more symptom of your desperate hubris.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were.   hey aren't you the guy that yammers on about similarity not being proof.....is that only when it works against you...BULLSHIT show me Dawkins actual statement not some asshole's interpretation .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are in denial he admitted there is a strong case for God  he is not the only one. Daws it just takes time to realize and admit you are simply wrong. If you have watched the video it gives you the details of the debate but you didn't did you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes I did .
> when dawkins said :living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. that ends the debate, the rest is intentional misinterpreting....
> your wish that I was wrong is just one more symptom of your desperate hubris.
Click to expand...


Ok now for the question. If things appear to be designed for a purpose how would dawkinks know they were not designed for a purpose ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in denial he admitted there is a strong case for God  he is not the only one. Daws it just takes time to realize and admit you are simply wrong. If you have watched the video it gives you the details of the debate but you didn't did you ?
> 
> 
> 
> yes I did .
> when dawkins said :living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. that ends the debate, the rest is intentional misinterpreting....
> your wish that I was wrong is just one more symptom of your desperate hubris.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok now for the question. If things appear to be designed for a purpose how would dawkinks know they were not designed for a purpose ?
Click to expand...

 really? since there is no evidence of a  designer there is no reason to think there is.
ever heard the term form follows fuction?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes I did .
> when dawkins said :living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. that ends the debate, the rest is intentional misinterpreting....
> your wish that I was wrong is just one more symptom of your desperate hubris.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok now for the question. If things appear to be designed for a purpose how would dawkinks know they were not designed for a purpose ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? since there is no evidence of a  designer there is no reason to think there is.
> ever heard the term form follows fuction?
Click to expand...


So you know more then dawkins ? he already admitted they appear to have been created,is that not reason to question his presuppositions ? But it is funny you can't bring yourself to admit the evidence for design.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Dawkins shocks world by admitting strong evidence for God exists! - YouTube Richard Dawkins put his statement about biology right there on page one: Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
> 
> He enlarges on this thought: We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object. {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21}
> 
> Dawkins added that if anyone saw a machine on some other planet, he would know life had existed on that planet because machines are designed by intelligent beings. {p.2.} I must add, there are many molecular machines in living things. Their moving parts work together to do the work of every cell. Most of us would interpret all this as telling us that living things really were designed. Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. He goes on to use imagination, speculation, philosophy, and his wonderful story telling ability to undercut the evidence."
> 
> Appearance of Design
> 
> Crick and many others agree with Dawkins.
> 
> You were saying ?
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were.   hey aren't you the guy that yammers on about similarity not being proof.....is that only when it works against you...BULLSHIT show me Dawkins actual statement not some asshole's interpretation .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are in denial he admitted there is a strong case for God  he is not the only one. Daws it just takes time to realize and admit you are simply wrong. If you have watched the video it gives you the details of the debate but you didn't did you ?
Click to expand...


Why is it that you are falling over yourself with the claim that "Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed"?

There is nothing about "design", that necessarily implies your currently configured god(s).  Secondly, why is it that you think Richard Dawkins is an authority on what your god(s) would have designed?


----------



## Hollie

koshergrl said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you consider the evidence for design against the evidence of an unintelligent natural process creating everything we see,mathematics will be more supportive of a designer rather then this natural process you subscribe to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous. There's no reason to believe that is true. There is nothing in mathematics that supports supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to these guys, who are Orthodox:
> 
> Nova ScienceNow
Click to expand...


I didn't see anything in the video that demonstrates mathematics supporting supernaturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were.   hey aren't you the guy that yammers on about similarity not being proof.....is that only when it works against you...BULLSHIT show me Dawkins actual statement not some asshole's interpretation .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are in denial he admitted there is a strong case for God  he is not the only one. Daws it just takes time to realize and admit you are simply wrong. If you have watched the video it gives you the details of the debate but you didn't did you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are falling over yourself with the claim that "Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed"?
> 
> There is nothing about "design", that necessarily implies your currently configured god(s).  Secondly, why is it that you think Richard Dawkins is an authority on what your god(s) would have designed?
Click to expand...


I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?

How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.

DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.

I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous. There's no reason to believe that is true. There is nothing in mathematics that supports supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to these guys, who are Orthodox:
> 
> Nova ScienceNow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't see anything in the video that demonstrates mathematics supporting supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


Does design ring a bell ?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there we have it. You making a metaphysical claim and then trying to say that math is the reason it could be true. Yes, and math is the reason God could be true too. How does it feel here in the boat with me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well one way is music, which is VERY mathematical and has absolutely no evolutionary reason to exist at all. Fine tuning of the universe is another way.
Click to expand...


Music, like the rest of the physical universe, can be expressed in mathematical terms. None of that math elucidates what would be a god. 

The anthropic principle, or the idea of a fine tuned universe, is not evidence for god.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well one way is music, which is VERY mathematical and has absolutely no evolutionary reason to exist at all. Fine tuning of the universe is another way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Music, like the rest of the physical universe, can be expressed in mathematical terms. None of that math elucidates what would be a god.
> 
> The anthropic principle, or the idea of a fine tuned universe, is not evidence for god.
Click to expand...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4uG3qC6KBw&feature=plcp]Agnostic Richard Dawkins destroyed in debate by wiser Christian professor - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well one way is music, which is VERY mathematical and has absolutely no evolutionary reason to exist at all. Fine tuning of the universe is another way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Music, like the rest of the physical universe, can be expressed in mathematical terms. None of that math elucidates what would be a god.
> 
> The anthropic principle, or the idea of a fine tuned universe, is not evidence for god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4uG3qC6KBw&feature=plcp]Agnostic Richard Dawkins destroyed in debate by wiser Christian professor - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Thank you for the link.  I don't think Dawkins got destroyed one bit. He may not be the best debater, and the christian guy was a good talker who I enjoyed listening to, but he didn't destroy Dawkins, in my opinion. They both had good points.


----------



## UltimateReality

bobgnote said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do YOU know, about "most people," you downie?  Eat shit and write something intelligible, you miserable queer, who should have been aborted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an english major trying to discuss science  You have not said anything of substance at all. If you want to get into the specifics of science do so otherwise your resposes are not worthy of a reply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*Youwerecornholed*, I didn't tell you anything, about my academic background, which did wrap up, at a major university.  If you want to suck off your butt-buddy *URanallyretarded*, you don't need to get in a pissing contest, with a skunk, which is what you two queers went and did.
> 
> Eat shit, BITCHES.  I guarantee, we wouldn't have any conversations.  What you are is butt-buddies, backing each other up, since you like how your heads feel, up each others' assholes.  What the fuck do YOU want to write about, queers?  I checked in, you got oppositional, you are blow-buddies from some kind of downie-boy zone, so EAT SHIT.
> 
> I learned about stupid people, like you, so I don't like to talk to you, in person.  I think we know you don't get to talk to real people.  When I meet fucktards, like you, there is no further wordy business.  You either fuck off, or you don't.  If you DON'T, then we see who the cops believe._
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love internet courage. I guarantee you if we were having this conversation in person, you wouldn't be talking this way. Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Eat shit, you miserable cocksucker.  You guarantee WHAT, punkhole_?
Click to expand...


Guarantee you would be way more polite. It's amazing to me your mother doesn't monitor your computer use. Or that you can find time between popping zits or digging corn out of your braces to spout off profanity on the internet. This is the last response you will get from me. I'm done playing your silly game.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> guess you never under stood the concept that keeping your mouth shut and let everyone think you're a fool...rather than opening it and leaving no doubt ....works!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ironic coming from someone who is a master at saying stupid shit!
Click to expand...


Before going after the spec in my eye, you might want to work on the log in your own.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is an obvious no  But thanks for acknowledging someone designed these machines.
> 
> So I guess daws is not gonna explain the process of how molecular machines evolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you first, I need a good laugh!
> BTW those sooo called questions of yours have been asked and answered in this thread many many times, either you will not accept the answers or dementia is setting in.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter how many times you say something OVER AND OVER it doesn't make it true. The questions haven't been answered.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there we have it. You making a metaphysical claim and then trying to say that math is the reason it could be true. Yes, and math is the reason god could be true too. How does it feel here in the boat with me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how has math ever pointed to god? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what would be the mathematical symbol for god?
Click to expand...


The alpha and omega.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous. There's no reason to believe that is true. There is nothing in mathematics that supports supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to these guys, who are Orthodox:
> 
> Nova ScienceNow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't see anything in the video that demonstrates mathematics supporting supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


So you believe Unicorns are real???


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well one way is music, which is VERY mathematical and has absolutely no evolutionary reason to exist at all. Fine tuning of the universe is another way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Music, like the rest of the physical universe, can be expressed in mathematical terms. None of that math elucidates what would be a god.
> 
> The anthropic principle, or the idea of a fine tuned universe, is not evidence for god.
Click to expand...


Then why did the Materialists quickly come up with the multi-verse theory to discount the logical explanation the universe had purpose in its design? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.


----------



## UltimateReality

Yeah Daws, because this mathematical relationship just happen to exist after the ape man started calling his mate.

Harmonics Research: Mathematics of Music | Laura Heischberg

According to legend, the way Pythagoras discovered that musical notes could be translated into mathematical equations was when one day he passed blacksmiths at work, and thought that the sounds emanating from their anvils being hit were beautiful and harmonious and decided that whatever scientific law caused this to happen must be mathematical and could be applied to music. He went to the blacksmiths to learn how this had happened by looking at their tools, he discovered that it was because the hammers were "simple ratios of each other, one was half the size of the first, another was 2/3 the size, and so on."

This legend has since proven to be false by virtue of the fact that these ratios are only relevant to string length (such as the string of a monochord), and not to hammer weight.[48][49] However, it may be that Pythagoras was indeed responsible for discovering these properties of string length.

Pythagoreans elaborated on a theory of numbers, the exact meaning of which is still debated among scholars. Another belief attributed to Pythagoras was that of the "harmony of the spheres". Thus the planets and stars moved according to mathematical equations, which corresponded to musical notes and thus produced a symphony.[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Music, like the rest of the physical universe, can be expressed in mathematical terms. None of that math elucidates what would be a god.
> 
> The anthropic principle, or the idea of a fine tuned universe, is not evidence for god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4uG3qC6KBw&feature=plcp]Agnostic Richard Dawkins destroyed in debate by wiser Christian professor - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for the link.  I don't think Dawkins got destroyed one bit. He may not be the best debater, and the christian guy was a good talker who I enjoyed listening to, but he didn't destroy Dawkins, in my opinion. They both had good points.
Click to expand...


I should have posted the whole debate that was just a part of the debate.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How has math ever pointed to God? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well one way is music, which is VERY mathematical and has absolutely no evolutionary reason to exist at all. Fine tuning of the universe is another way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what the fuck!
> When we treat of sexual selection we shall see that primeval man,* or *rather some early progenitor of man *[WHICH ONE]*, *probably* first used his voice in producing true musical cadences, that is in singing, as do some of the gibbon-apes at the present day; and *we may conclude* from a widely-spread analogy* [NOT EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE]*, that this power would have been especially exerted during the courtship of the sexes,--would have expressed various emotions, such as love, jealousy, triumph,--and would have served as a challenge to rivals. It is, therefore, *probable* that the imitation of musical cries by articulate sounds may have given rise to words expressive of various complex emotions."[1]
> This theory of a musical protolanguage has been revived and re-discovered repeatedly, often without attribution to Darwin.
Click to expand...


Language is one of those things that defies Darwinism. I have bolded the *assumptive language* above. Plenty of other species have had enough time to go from mating noises to audible words. Without language, well, you are just another monkey.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agnostic Richard Dawkins destroyed in debate by wiser Christian professor - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the link.  I don't think Dawkins got destroyed one bit. He may not be the best debater, and the christian guy was a good talker who I enjoyed listening to, but he didn't destroy Dawkins, in my opinion. They both had good points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should have posted the whole debate that was just a part of the debate.
Click to expand...


It's fine. I saw the link to the full debate. I've watched enough of these. It's always the same arguments brought up over and over again. Theists will always fall short of being able to meet their burden of proof. That doesn't necessarily mean that god doesn't exist, and I admit that. However, they try to get around this with logical arguments, and some are extremely impressive at it like William Lane Craig, but that will never get them to proving god exists empirically or to an convincing degree. Nothing, short of revelation from a god could convince me. Even then, that wouldn't demonstrate creationist claims about the origins of life to be true. So, the debate rages on...


----------



## Sgt.Belote

*No one can prove when and how the earth was created, Nor how old it is. The only scientific means of figuring it out would be PREDICTING its age by the earliest predictions of when something was. Example fossles and things of that nature. Science is all a bunch of theories and guesses. Hardly any of it is proven set in stone fact. So it leaves you to your beliefs of which you can not question anyones beliefs because even yours is questionable. Just know that people have the right to figure things out for their selves and what they feel and think is on them and not to be judged by others. Because no one here was alive back then and your theories are as good as anyone elses. Its all just a guess.  *


----------



## konradv

Sgt.Belote said:


> *No one can prove when and how the earth was created, Nor how old it is. The only scientific means of figuring it out would be PREDICTING its age by the earliest predictions of when something was. Example fossles and things of that nature. Science is all a bunch of theories and guesses. Hardly any of it is proven set in stone fact. So it leaves you to your beliefs of which you can not question anyones beliefs because even yours is questionable. Just know that people have the right to figure things out for their selves and what they feel and think is on them and not to be judged by others. Because no one here was alive back then and your theories are as good as anyone elses. Its all just a guess.  *



Sorry, but scientific theories aren't guesses.  They're an explanation based on facts and experimentation.  The age of the earth, for example, isn't a guess, but a calculation based on known half-lives of radioactive species.  Theories are meant to be questioned.  Saying we can't question yours is just anti-intellectual BS.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well one way is music, which is VERY mathematical and has absolutely no evolutionary reason to exist at all. Fine tuning of the universe is another way.
> 
> 
> 
> what the fuck!
> When we treat of sexual selection we shall see that primeval man,* or *rather some early progenitor of man *[WHICH ONE]*, *probably* first used his voice in producing true musical cadences, that is in singing, as do some of the gibbon-apes at the present day; and *we may conclude* from a widely-spread analogy* [NOT EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE]*, that this power would have been especially exerted during the courtship of the sexes,--would have expressed various emotions, such as love, jealousy, triumph,--and would have served as a challenge to rivals. It is, therefore, *probable* that the imitation of musical cries by articulate sounds may have given rise to words expressive of various complex emotions."[1]
> This theory of a musical protolanguage has been revived and re-discovered repeatedly, often without attribution to Darwin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Language is one of those things that defies Darwinism. I have bolded the *assumptive language* above. Plenty of other species have had enough time to go from mating noises to audible words. Without language, well, you are just another monkey.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The above is another spectacular display of your ignorance regarding "Darwinism". Your revulsion for science and process of science causes you to employ the tactics of your fellow science loathing fundies at the ICR who similarly denigrate the work of Darwin. While you consistently seek to misrepresent the work of Darwin, I'll spell it out again so as to allow readers to understand your science loathing agenda: Darwin theory sought to explain the principles of natural selection, adaptation and fitness for survival. 

Promoting blatant lies in furtherance of your religious agenda is a common tactic among Creationist fundies. Fortunately, your lies are typically exposed as such.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in denial he admitted there is a strong case for God  he is not the only one. Daws it just takes time to realize and admit you are simply wrong. If you have watched the video it gives you the details of the debate but you didn't did you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are falling over yourself with the claim that "Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed"?
> 
> There is nothing about "design", that necessarily implies your currently configured god(s).  Secondly, why is it that you think Richard Dawkins is an authority on what your god(s) would have designed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?
> 
> How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.
> 
> DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.
> 
> I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.
Click to expand...


 Your assignment of god-like qualities to Dawkins is your malfunction, not mine. Dawkins, like many others who can make compelling arguments against the existence of your gods and "the gods" in general, is being honest in an admission that conclusive proof of non-existence for your gods and the gods of others doesn't exist. 

I suspect that Richard Dawkins would object to your implication that he acknowledges your gods. To claim that Dawkins is on "your side" is both arrogant and self serving - qualities that seem to define creationist fundies. You could always invite Dawkins to provide his opinion as to what side he is on.  It just seems fair to provide him an opportunity to express his views as opposed to you "speaking" on his behalf.

Let's suppose that Dawkins had an epiphany and tomorrow, chose to believe that David Koresh was god incarnate and had risen from the ashes. So what? Dawkins could hallelujah down the street and proclaim the second coming of Koresh and the emergence of Koresh'ianity. That would no more prove Koresh as a god than it would prove your currently configured gods. 


Lastly, you're taking the same false liberties with your alleged Francis Krick comment as you did with your comment that Dawkins was on "your side".

I always find it remarkable how fundie creationists are so willing to lie and misrepresent in desperate attempts to force their beliefs on others.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Sgt.Belote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No one can prove when and how the earth was created, Nor how old it is. The only scientific means of figuring it out would be PREDICTING its age by the earliest predictions of when something was. Example fossles and things of that nature. Science is all a bunch of theories and guesses. Hardly any of it is proven set in stone fact. So it leaves you to your beliefs of which you can not question anyones beliefs because even yours is questionable. Just know that people have the right to figure things out for their selves and what they feel and think is on them and not to be judged by others. Because no one here was alive back then and your theories are as good as anyone elses. Its all just a guess.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but scientific theories aren't guesses.  They're an explanation based on facts and experimentation.  The age of the earth, for example, isn't a guess, but a calculation based on known half-lives of radioactive species.  Theories are meant to be questioned.  Saying we can't question yours is just anti-intellectual BS.
Click to expand...


Assumptions are used in dating methods he was correct.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what the fuck!
> When we treat of sexual selection we shall see that primeval man,* or *rather some early progenitor of man *[WHICH ONE]*, *probably* first used his voice in producing true musical cadences, that is in singing, as do some of the gibbon-apes at the present day; and *we may conclude* from a widely-spread analogy* [NOT EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE]*, that this power would have been especially exerted during the courtship of the sexes,--would have expressed various emotions, such as love, jealousy, triumph,--and would have served as a challenge to rivals. It is, therefore, *probable* that the imitation of musical cries by articulate sounds may have given rise to words expressive of various complex emotions."[1]
> This theory of a musical protolanguage has been revived and re-discovered repeatedly, often without attribution to Darwin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Language is one of those things that defies Darwinism. I have bolded the *assumptive language* above. Plenty of other species have had enough time to go from mating noises to audible words. Without language, well, you are just another monkey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. The above is another spectacular display of your ignorance regarding "Darwinism". Your revulsion for science and process of science causes you to employ the tactics of your fellow science loathing fundies at the ICR who similarly denigrate the work of Darwin. While you consistently seek to misrepresent the work of Darwin, I'll spell it out again so as to allow readers to understand your science loathing agenda: Darwin theory sought to explain the principles of natural selection, adaptation and fitness for survival.
> 
> Promoting blatant lies in furtherance of your religious agenda is a common tactic among Creationist fundies. Fortunately, your lies are typically exposed as such.
Click to expand...


You are just plain wrong about creationist being science loathing.


----------



## bobgnote

Environmental Problems: A Creationist Perspective - Our Biblical Heritage

Introduction



> Though man has always impacted the environment, sometimes detrimentally, it has only been relatively recently, with the coming of industrialization, that he has had the capacity to seriously damage the natural order and to do so on a global basis. These environmental concerns include problems of air, water and land quality which are vital. not only to continued industrialization and a high standard of living, but also to our health and general well-being. These issues have been greatly discussed in the various media over the past decade and are familiar to most Americans.
> 
> Yet with the rise of such problems has come a search for their causes. One cause which has been suggested is man's attitude to nature and the factors which shape this attitude.
> 
> In looking at Western countries, some researchers have concluded that many of the environmentally destructive attitudes have been shaped by man's religious beliefs which are essentially Biblical. They believe that the Judeo-Christian ethic implies that nature exists solely to serve man, to be dispensed with as he pleases; or that a dichotomy of man vs. nature is encouraged. In this part of the article. we will examine briefly some aspects of this charge and review some pertinent Scriptures to see if the Bible requires or encourages environmentally destructive attitudes.



-------------------

_In the course of this article, the writer makes a case, for proper stewardship, according to passages, in the Bible.

Do any creationists see, how cars and chainsaws accelerated GHG concentrations?

Do creationists understand the greenhouse effect, whereby atmospheric molecules, of three atoms or more cause a blanketing, to trap infrared radiation, near the surface?

Do creationists understand, how more CO2 is outgassing, with CH4, from warming lands and waters, to tip global warming, to RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING?

Do creationists understand, how CLIMATE CHANGE is reflected, by more wildfires, droughts, desertification, floods, storms, oceanic acidification, anoxia, and sea level rise?

Do creationists do any better, than Republicans, at understanding this, or better, than Democrats, at giving a crap, how the extinction rate is 100x normal, and we will engage Mass Extinction Event 6?

Yeah, somebody needs to be nice to trees, even if somebody made up mass delusion media, about a fictitious "God," to get'r'done.

BTW, the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, according to a lot of scientific media.

Human civilization corresponds, to the Holocene warming period, which was supposed to end, any time now, but somebody got out the cars and factories and chainsaws, to send CO2 levels, way UP, to 400 ppm and climbing, when the usual Pleistocene-Holocene maximum is always 280 ppm.

Do creationists understand, how temperature is going to go UP, to keep up with CO2 and CH4, which is at levels, higher than either the PETM or P/T extinctions?

Does anyone think "God" will get it on, to intervene, against extinctions?  You might want to check page 1, of the Qu'ran, to get some kind of suspicion, how "God" is some guy, who can do a butt-scope on you and play with your mind, like he made all of it._


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Language is one of those things that defies Darwinism. I have bolded the *assumptive language* above. Plenty of other species have had enough time to go from mating noises to audible words. Without language, well, you are just another monkey.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The above is another spectacular display of your ignorance regarding "Darwinism". Your revulsion for science and process of science causes you to employ the tactics of your fellow science loathing fundies at the ICR who similarly denigrate the work of Darwin. While you consistently seek to misrepresent the work of Darwin, I'll spell it out again so as to allow readers to understand your science loathing agenda: Darwin theory sought to explain the principles of natural selection, adaptation and fitness for survival.
> 
> Promoting blatant lies in furtherance of your religious agenda is a common tactic among Creationist fundies. Fortunately, your lies are typically exposed as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just plain wrong about creationist being science loathing.
Click to expand...

Not at all. To purposely misrepresent, skew and falsifying the science that describes Darwin's methodology and to use such terms as "Darwinism", is to denigrate the biology, anthropology and physical sciences that confirm his theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are falling over yourself with the claim that "Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed"?
> 
> There is nothing about "design", that necessarily implies your currently configured god(s).  Secondly, why is it that you think Richard Dawkins is an authority on what your god(s) would have designed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?
> 
> How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.
> 
> DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.
> 
> I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your assignment of god-like qualities to Dawkins is your malfunction, not mine. Dawkins, like many others who can make compelling arguments against the existence of your gods and "the gods" in general, is being honest in an admission that conclusive proof of non-existence for your gods and the gods of others doesn't exist.
> 
> I suspect that Richard Dawkins would object to your implication that he acknowledges your gods. To claim that Dawkins is on "your side" is both arrogant and self serving - qualities that seem to define creationist fundies. You could always invite Dawkins to provide his opinion as to what side he is on.  It just seems fair to provide him an opportunity to express his views as opposed to you "speaking" on his behalf.
> 
> Let's suppose that Dawkins had an epiphany and tomorrow, chose to believe that David Koresh was god incarnate and had risen from the ashes. So what? Dawkins could hallelujah down the street and proclaim the second coming of Koresh and the emergence of Koresh'ianity. That would no more prove Koresh as a god than it would prove your currently configured gods.
> 
> 
> Lastly, you're taking the same false liberties with your alleged Francis Krick comment as you did with your comment that Dawkins was on "your side".
> 
> I always find it remarkable how fundie creationists are so willing to lie and misrepresent in desperate attempts to force their beliefs on others.
Click to expand...


Trust me Dawkins is not godlike. It was dawkins words not mine where he admits thAT Jesus once existed. It was dawkins words where he admits to evidence of design. It was Dawkins words where he admits the possibility of God. It was Dawkins who is no longer an atheist,he is now an agnostic. Why is that because he can't deny the fact of design in nature.

It's DR. Francis Crick and he most certainly made those comments even though he was an evolutionist.

My point is they know design when they see it ,and so do we. So we are only on the same side on that issue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The above is another spectacular display of your ignorance regarding "Darwinism". Your revulsion for science and process of science causes you to employ the tactics of your fellow science loathing fundies at the ICR who similarly denigrate the work of Darwin. While you consistently seek to misrepresent the work of Darwin, I'll spell it out again so as to allow readers to understand your science loathing agenda: Darwin theory sought to explain the principles of natural selection, adaptation and fitness for survival.
> 
> Promoting blatant lies in furtherance of your religious agenda is a common tactic among Creationist fundies. Fortunately, your lies are typically exposed as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just plain wrong about creationist being science loathing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. To purposely misrepresent, skew and falsifying the science that describes Darwin's methodology and to use such terms as "Darwinism", is to denigrate the biology, anthropology and physical sciences that confirm his theory.
Click to expand...


Do you want to see an evolutionist deliberately misquote a creationist and the evidence. This evolutionist makes bad arguments and he does not know his bible. The evolution that Christians accept is microevolution not macroevolution. He is disengenuious.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDTcv4zYKU&feature=plcp]The Genesis Debate - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are falling over yourself with the claim that "Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed"?
> 
> There is nothing about "design", that necessarily implies your currently configured god(s).  Secondly, why is it that you think Richard Dawkins is an authority on what your god(s) would have designed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?
> 
> How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.
> 
> DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.
> 
> I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your assignment of god-like qualities to Dawkins is your malfunction, not mine. Dawkins, like many others who can make compelling arguments against the existence of your gods and "the gods" in general, is being honest in an admission that conclusive proof of non-existence for your gods and the gods of others doesn't exist.
> 
> I suspect that Richard Dawkins would object to your implication that he acknowledges your gods. To claim that Dawkins is on "your side" is both arrogant and self serving - qualities that seem to define creationist fundies. You could always invite Dawkins to provide his opinion as to what side he is on.  It just seems fair to provide him an opportunity to express his views as opposed to you "speaking" on his behalf.
> 
> Let's suppose that Dawkins had an epiphany and tomorrow, chose to believe that David Koresh was god incarnate and had risen from the ashes. So what? Dawkins could hallelujah down the street and proclaim the second coming of Koresh and the emergence of Koresh'ianity. That would no more prove Koresh as a god than it would prove your currently configured gods.
> 
> 
> Lastly, you're taking the same false liberties with your alleged Francis Krick comment as you did with your comment that Dawkins was on "your side".
> 
> I always find it remarkable how fundie creationists are so willing to lie and misrepresent in desperate attempts to force their beliefs on others.
Click to expand...


In the debate I posted to you, this is the evidence he deliberately ignored and admitted ignorance on and even got sarcastic over.

Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds - Answers in Genesis


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just plain wrong about creationist being science loathing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. To purposely misrepresent, skew and falsifying the science that describes Darwin's methodology and to use such terms as "Darwinism", is to denigrate the biology, anthropology and physical sciences that confirm his theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want to see an evolutionist deliberately misquote a creationist and the evidence. This evolutionist makes bad arguments and he does not know his bible. The evolution that Christians accept is microevolution not macroevolution. He is disengenuious.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDTcv4zYKU&feature=plcp]The Genesis Debate - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that you were tasked with speaking on behalf of Christianity and what creationist Christians believe. Such a weighty burden you bear. 

Whether an "evilutionist"  is or is not fluent with bible verses is really unimportant to science, unless you're prepared to offer proof of the claims to supernaturalism within the bible. 

So, present to us your claims of miracles and supernaturalism and we can present those for peer reviewed science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?
> 
> How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.
> 
> DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.
> 
> I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your assignment of god-like qualities to Dawkins is your malfunction, not mine. Dawkins, like many others who can make compelling arguments against the existence of your gods and "the gods" in general, is being honest in an admission that conclusive proof of non-existence for your gods and the gods of others doesn't exist.
> 
> I suspect that Richard Dawkins would object to your implication that he acknowledges your gods. To claim that Dawkins is on "your side" is both arrogant and self serving - qualities that seem to define creationist fundies. You could always invite Dawkins to provide his opinion as to what side he is on.  It just seems fair to provide him an opportunity to express his views as opposed to you "speaking" on his behalf.
> 
> Let's suppose that Dawkins had an epiphany and tomorrow, chose to believe that David Koresh was god incarnate and had risen from the ashes. So what? Dawkins could hallelujah down the street and proclaim the second coming of Koresh and the emergence of Koresh'ianity. That would no more prove Koresh as a god than it would prove your currently configured gods.
> 
> 
> Lastly, you're taking the same false liberties with your alleged Francis Krick comment as you did with your comment that Dawkins was on "your side".
> 
> I always find it remarkable how fundie creationists are so willing to lie and misrepresent in desperate attempts to force their beliefs on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust me Dawkins is not godlike. It was dawkins words not mine where he admits thAT Jesus once existed. It was dawkins words where he admits to evidence of design. It was Dawkins words where he admits the possibility of God. It was Dawkins who is no longer an atheist,he is now an agnostic. Why is that because he can't deny the fact of design in nature.
> 
> It's DR. Francis Crick and he most certainly made those comments even though he was an evolutionist.
> 
> My point is they know design when they see it ,and so do we. So we are only on the same side on that issue.
Click to expand...

There is no fact of supernatural design in nature. Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented a single fact confirming supernatural design. 

If you are reduced to lies as the means supportive of your claims, doesn't that suggest you are grasping at straws?


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sgt.Belote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No one can prove when and how the earth was created, Nor how old it is. The only scientific means of figuring it out would be PREDICTING its age by the earliest predictions of when something was. Example fossles and things of that nature. Science is all a bunch of theories and guesses. Hardly any of it is proven set in stone fact. So it leaves you to your beliefs of which you can not question anyones beliefs because even yours is questionable. Just know that people have the right to figure things out for their selves and what they feel and think is on them and not to be judged by others. Because no one here was alive back then and your theories are as good as anyone elses. Its all just a guess.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but scientific theories aren't guesses.  They're an explanation based on facts and experimentation.  The age of the earth, for example, isn't a guess, but a calculation based on known half-lives of radioactive species.  Theories are meant to be questioned.  Saying we can't question yours is just anti-intellectual BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assumptions are used in dating methods he was correct.
Click to expand...


Isotope half-lives are known quantities confirmed by experimentation, NOT assumptions.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Language is one of those things that defies Darwinism. I have bolded the *assumptive language* above. Plenty of other species have had enough time to go from mating noises to audible words. Without language, well, you are just another monkey.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The above is another spectacular display of your ignorance regarding "Darwinism". Your revulsion for science and process of science causes you to employ the tactics of your fellow science loathing fundies at the ICR who similarly denigrate the work of Darwin. While you consistently seek to misrepresent the work of Darwin, I'll spell it out again so as to allow readers to understand your science loathing agenda: Darwin theory sought to explain the principles of natural selection, adaptation and fitness for survival.
> 
> Promoting blatant lies in furtherance of your religious agenda is a common tactic among Creationist fundies. Fortunately, your lies are typically exposed as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just plain wrong about creationist being science loathing.
Click to expand...


I stopped responding to her repetitive programed posts last week.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented a single fact confirming supernatural design



What about the multi-verses?


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but scientific theories aren't guesses.  They're an explanation based on facts and experimentation.  The age of the earth, for example, isn't a guess, but a calculation based on known half-lives of radioactive species.  Theories are meant to be questioned.  Saying we can't question yours is just anti-intellectual BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assumptions are used in dating methods he was correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isotope half-lives are known quantities confirmed by experimentation, NOT assumptions.
Click to expand...


Wow, you really don't get this. They are confirmed by experimentation for the known ages of the items they were experimented on. Do you have any clue what 3.7 billion years looks like? Let's draw a timeline on the ground and assume human history is roughly 10,000 years. Let's let 10,000 years be represented by one foot. Now get in your car and drive *70 miles* to the beginning of the earth. Are you telling me the things you observe in that one foot can be taken to be absolutely accurate for the whole 70 miles?? What if after a million years, something starts to change with regards to the half life of carbon. Experiements confirm a linear relationship for an extremely small part of the line we are looking at.  Science as it relates to the distant past is a *best guess* based on what we can confirm in human history's "microscopic" time period when compared to the Huge time period that accounts for the history of the earth. But just for the record, I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe in the 3.7 billion year old earth. 

But even more preposterous is you are telling me you believe things that no human has ever witnessed. I guess you have more faith than you think.


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented a single fact confirming supernatural design
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the multi-verses?
Click to expand...


I thought you quit responding last week!


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assumptions are used in dating methods he was correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isotope half-lives are known quantities confirmed by experimentation, NOT assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you really don't get this. They are confirmed by experimentation for the known ages of the items they were experimented on. Do you have any clue what 3.7 billion years looks like? Let's draw a timeline on the ground and assume human history is roughly 10,000 years. Let's let 10,000 years be represented by one foot. Now get in your car and drive *70 miles* to the beginning of the earth. *Are you telling me the things you observe in that one foot can be taken to be absolutely accurate for the whole 70 miles??* What if after a million years, something starts to change with regards to the half life of carbon. Experiements confirm a linear relationship for an extremely small part of the line we are looking at.  Science as it relates to the distant past is a *best guess* based on what we can confirm in human history's "microscopic" time period based on the history of the earth. But just for the record, I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe in the 3.7 billion year old earth.
> 
> But even more preposterous is you are telling me you believe things that no human has ever witnessed. I guess you have more faith than you think.
Click to expand...


When you do good science one foot can represent 10,000 miles.

We have to assume the half-life doesn't change.  It doesn't for shorter-lived species, why should we assume it does so for longer ones?  

I believe in evolution because, if I didn't, I'd have to say God lies to us.  How did the fossils get there?  We have remarkable brains.  I think God expects us to use them.  

BTW, the earth is believed to be 4.5 billion years old, calling into even more doubt your knowledge of the subject.


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented a single fact confirming supernatural design
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the multi-verses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you quit responding last week!
Click to expand...


Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, ehh? I said I stopped responding to her repetitive, programmed posts, the ones where she keeps posting the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented a single fact confirming supernatural design
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the multi-verses?
Click to expand...


It seems you're selective in your "stopped responding"... for convenience's sake.

What about the multi-verses? Poorly configured side-step.

Where are the facts confirming supernatural design?


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isotope half-lives are known quantities confirmed by experimentation, NOT assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really don't get this. They are confirmed by experimentation for the known ages of the items they were experimented on. Do you have any clue what 3.7 billion years looks like? Let's draw a timeline on the ground and assume human history is roughly 10,000 years. Let's let 10,000 years be represented by one foot. Now get in your car and drive *70 miles* to the beginning of the earth. *Are you telling me the things you observe in that one foot can be taken to be absolutely accurate for the whole 70 miles??* What if after a million years, something starts to change with regards to the half life of carbon. Experiements confirm a linear relationship for an extremely small part of the line we are looking at.  Science as it relates to the distant past is a *best guess* based on what we can confirm in human history's "microscopic" time period based on the history of the earth. But just for the record, I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe in the 3.7 billion year old earth.
> 
> But even more preposterous is you are telling me you believe things that no human has ever witnessed. I guess you have more faith than you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you do good science one foot can represent 10,000 miles.
> 
> We have to assume the half-life doesn't change.  It doesn't for shorter-lived species, why should we assume it does so for longer ones?
> 
> I believe in evolution because, if I didn't, I'd have to say God lies to us.  How did the fossils get there?  We have remarkable brains.  I think God expects us to use them.
> 
> BTW, the earth is believed to be 4.5 billion years old, calling into even more doubt your knowledge of the subject.
Click to expand...


A simple mistake because the last time I did the math on the timeline I was doing it for age of the universe, which is BELIEVED to be 13.7 Billion years old. I merely carried the wrong number forward. So with the correct age of the earth, you would have to drive 85 miles!!! One foot out of  85 miles is what you are working with.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented a single fact confirming supernatural design
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the multi-verses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems you're selective in your "stopped responding"... for convenience's sake.
> 
> What about the multi-verses? Poorly configured side-step.
> 
> Where are the facts confirming supernatural design?
Click to expand...


I stopped responding because you keep presenting the same arguments over and over when you have been shown to be *100% WRONG.*. Just like the list of peer reviewed ID papers you keep ignoring.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok now for the question. If things appear to be designed for a purpose how would dawkinks know they were not designed for a purpose ?
> 
> 
> 
> really? since there is no evidence of a  designer there is no reason to think there is.
> ever heard the term form follows fuction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know more then dawkins ? he already admitted they appear to have been created,is that not reason to question his presuppositions ? But it is funny you can't bring yourself to admit the evidence for design.
Click to expand...

first you're making false statements.
1. I never said I knew more then dawkins..SO YOUR PSEUDO QUESTION IS MEANINGLESS.
 2. THE WORD "APPEAR" IS THE OPERATIVE ONE,it does not in any way indicate evidence of supernatural design .
what's I find funny, is you seem to forget I'm in the business of illusion .
on any given day I make things that "appear" to be one thing  but in reality are something else all together.
3. presuppositions.. do you really know what this word means.
it seems not.  if Dawkins supposed anything  it would have been if a designer  were  involved there would be evidence,  not the appearance of evidence where none existed.
it seems that in your  desperate obsessive quest to prove what but definition is not provable is to falsely fill in the inexplicable gaps in existence with opinions of assholes riding motorcycles        

btw I can not admit to evidence where there is none.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in denial he admitted there is a strong case for God  he is not the only one. Daws it just takes time to realize and admit you are simply wrong. If you have watched the video it gives you the details of the debate but you didn't did you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are falling over yourself with the claim that "Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed"?
> 
> There is nothing about "design", that necessarily implies your currently configured god(s).  Secondly, why is it that you think Richard Dawkins is an authority on what your god(s) would have designed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?
> 
> How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.
> 
> DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.
> 
> I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.
Click to expand...

bullshit!  what Dawkins really said :This just in: Dawkins is consistent
By Ian
Sometimes journalists are good, sometimes they are just plain lazy.

Richard Dawkins is world-renowned for his staunch atheism; so much that it eclipses his work in the field of evolutionary biology, his long, illustrious career with the University of Oxford, and his creepy, meme-worthy resemblance to Emma Watson. Indeed, if you know anything about Richard Dawkins, its probably that hes an atheist. Maybe its a sign of old age (hes pushing 70), maybe he was genuinely flattered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, his sparring-partner last night, or perhaps he was just feeling generous. Either way, last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted that he cant be certain that there is no God.
The insincere shock journalism stems from a conversation between Dawkins and Williams. Specifically the article notes:

Slow down there, were not talking conversion. But for the first time, Dawkins is actually admitting that he leans a little agnostic. Sharing an Oxford stage with Dr. Williams, Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of seven certain of his atheism. I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low, he said. Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, asked: Why dont you call yourself an agnostic? to which Dawkins answered that he did.
Slow down there (because phrases like this make a journalist sound classy), this is definitely not the first time for any such admission.

In fact, anyone who actually made it through the first two chapters of The God Delusion will find this quote (from page 51 of the hardcover) that defines his position after outlining his scale of 1 (strong theist) to 7 (strong atheist):

I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7  I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. [Emphasis mine]
Its like the media sees this frank and consistent admission as somehow equivalent to the Pope admitting that maybe Jesus never really existed or that perhaps Mary wasnt a virgin (of course there was a proper amount of press over revelations of Mother Teresas personal doubts). Dawkins, like all new atheists, has admitted that there is a vanishingly small chance that theyre in error. Something the devoutly religious rarely concede.

Finally, we can also dissect the semantics of the words atheist and agnostic to realize they are not really in contradiction. [A]theism deals with beliefs while [a]gnosticism deals with knowledge. So if one knows there is a God, he is a gnostic theist. This has been summarized effectively in a simple chart:



Dawkins admitting the limits of his knowledge is not a change of position. It is not the end of the New Atheism. It is most definitely not a gotcha moment that the pro-religious media seems to think will restore religions dominant place in society

.agnostic, atheism, atheist, media, richard dawkins 


This just in: Dawkins is consistent


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> how has math ever pointed to god? God does not show up in any equations, anywhere, ever. We are not even in the same ocean, let alone the same boat.
> 
> 
> 
> what would be the mathematical symbol for god?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The alpha and omega.
Click to expand...

being that those are not mathmatical symbols they only prove your ignorance


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. To purposely misrepresent, skew and falsifying the science that describes Darwin's methodology and to use such terms as "Darwinism", is to denigrate the biology, anthropology and physical sciences that confirm his theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to see an evolutionist deliberately misquote a creationist and the evidence. This evolutionist makes bad arguments and he does not know his bible. The evolution that Christians accept is microevolution not macroevolution. He is disengenuious.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDTcv4zYKU&feature=plcp]The Genesis Debate - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't aware that you were tasked with speaking on behalf of Christianity and what creationist Christians believe. Such a weighty burden you bear.
> 
> Whether an "evilutionist"  is or is not fluent with bible verses is really unimportant to science, unless you're prepared to offer proof of the claims to supernaturalism within the bible.
> 
> So, present to us your claims of miracles and supernaturalism and we can present those for peer reviewed science.
Click to expand...


He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?

Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but scientific theories aren't guesses.  They're an explanation based on facts and experimentation.  The age of the earth, for example, isn't a guess, but a calculation based on known half-lives of radioactive species.  Theories are meant to be questioned.  Saying we can't question yours is just anti-intellectual BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assumptions are used in dating methods he was correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isotope half-lives are known quantities confirmed by experimentation, NOT assumptions.
Click to expand...


Come on now konradv, assumptions are used in the final tally in all dating methods and sometimes in the beginnig of dating methods.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented a single fact confirming supernatural design
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the multi-verses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you quit responding last week!
Click to expand...


Not to you, Hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isotope half-lives are known quantities confirmed by experimentation, NOT assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really don't get this. They are confirmed by experimentation for the known ages of the items they were experimented on. Do you have any clue what 3.7 billion years looks like? Let's draw a timeline on the ground and assume human history is roughly 10,000 years. Let's let 10,000 years be represented by one foot. Now get in your car and drive *70 miles* to the beginning of the earth. *Are you telling me the things you observe in that one foot can be taken to be absolutely accurate for the whole 70 miles??* What if after a million years, something starts to change with regards to the half life of carbon. Experiements confirm a linear relationship for an extremely small part of the line we are looking at.  Science as it relates to the distant past is a *best guess* based on what we can confirm in human history's "microscopic" time period based on the history of the earth. But just for the record, I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe in the 3.7 billion year old earth.
> 
> But even more preposterous is you are telling me you believe things that no human has ever witnessed. I guess you have more faith than you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you do good science one foot can represent 10,000 miles.
> 
> We have to assume the half-life doesn't change.  It doesn't for shorter-lived species, why should we assume it does so for longer ones?
> 
> I believe in evolution because, if I didn't, I'd have to say God lies to us.  How did the fossils get there?  We have remarkable brains.  I think God expects us to use them.
> 
> BTW, the earth is believed to be 4.5 billion years old, calling into even more doubt your knowledge of the subject.
Click to expand...


You want to believe something remains constant when it suits you even though real scientist admit the universe is drifting towards chaos and entropy ,not order. So now you want us to believe the atmoshere and this planet has remained constant for the entire existence of this planet. Do you see a problem with your reasoning


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to see an evolutionist deliberately misquote a creationist and the evidence. This evolutionist makes bad arguments and he does not know his bible. The evolution that Christians accept is microevolution not macroevolution. He is disengenuious.
> 
> The Genesis Debate - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that you were tasked with speaking on behalf of Christianity and what creationist Christians believe. Such a weighty burden you bear.
> 
> Whether an "evilutionist"  is or is not fluent with bible verses is really unimportant to science, unless you're prepared to offer proof of the claims to supernaturalism within the bible.
> 
> So, present to us your claims of miracles and supernaturalism and we can present those for peer reviewed science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?
> 
> Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?
Click to expand...

Identify for us why your YouTube video should convince anyone that it features the "top evilutionist"?  What body, group or association has assigned the title "top evilutionist"?

Nothing in the YouTube video speaks to confirming supernaturalism or miracles. Do you believe that the processes of heat and pressure acting on carbon is somehow miraculous or supernatural?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are falling over yourself with the claim that "Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed"?
> 
> There is nothing about "design", that necessarily implies your currently configured god(s).  Secondly, why is it that you think Richard Dawkins is an authority on what your god(s) would have designed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?
> 
> How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.
> 
> DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.
> 
> I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit!  what Dawkins really said :This just in: Dawkins is consistent
> By Ian
> Sometimes journalists are good, sometimes they are just plain lazy.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is world-renowned for his staunch atheism; so much that it eclipses his work in the field of evolutionary biology, his long, illustrious career with the University of Oxford, and his creepy, meme-worthy resemblance to Emma Watson. Indeed, if you know anything about Richard Dawkins, its probably that hes an atheist. Maybe its a sign of old age (hes pushing 70), maybe he was genuinely flattered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, his sparring-partner last night, or perhaps he was just feeling generous. Either way, last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted that he cant be certain that there is no God.
> The insincere shock journalism stems from a conversation between Dawkins and Williams. Specifically the article notes:
> 
> Slow down there, were not talking conversion. But for the first time, Dawkins is actually admitting that he leans a little agnostic. Sharing an Oxford stage with Dr. Williams, Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of seven certain of his atheism. I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low, he said. Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, asked: Why dont you call yourself an agnostic? to which Dawkins answered that he did.
> Slow down there (because phrases like this make a journalist sound classy), this is definitely not the first time for any such admission.
> 
> In fact, anyone who actually made it through the first two chapters of The God Delusion will find this quote (from page 51 of the hardcover) that defines his position after outlining his scale of 1 (strong theist) to 7 (strong atheist):
> 
> I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7  I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. [Emphasis mine]
> Its like the media sees this frank and consistent admission as somehow equivalent to the Pope admitting that maybe Jesus never really existed or that perhaps Mary wasnt a virgin (of course there was a proper amount of press over revelations of Mother Teresas personal doubts). Dawkins, like all new atheists, has admitted that there is a vanishingly small chance that theyre in error. Something the devoutly religious rarely concede.
> 
> Finally, we can also dissect the semantics of the words atheist and agnostic to realize they are not really in contradiction. [A]theism deals with beliefs while [a]gnosticism deals with knowledge. So if one knows there is a God, he is a gnostic theist. This has been summarized effectively in a simple chart:
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins admitting the limits of his knowledge is not a change of position. It is not the end of the New Atheism. It is most definitely not a gotcha moment that the pro-religious media seems to think will restore religions dominant place in society
> 
> .agnostic, atheism, atheist, media, richard dawkins
> 
> 
> This just in: Dawkins is consistent
Click to expand...


Those comments were in his book and he is no longer an atheist. Go on to your spin sites if you must but he is on record in video and his book.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what would be the mathematical symbol for god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The alpha and omega.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> being that those are not mathmatical symbols they only prove your ignorance
Click to expand...


How can they not be ? one represents the beginning and the other the end. This is the time for the beginning of creation til the judgment of man.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that you were tasked with speaking on behalf of Christianity and what creationist Christians believe. Such a weighty burden you bear.
> 
> Whether an "evilutionist"  is or is not fluent with bible verses is really unimportant to science, unless you're prepared to offer proof of the claims to supernaturalism within the bible.
> 
> So, present to us your claims of miracles and supernaturalism and we can present those for peer reviewed science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?
> 
> Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Identify for us why your YouTube video should convince anyone that it features the "top evilutionist"?  What body, group or association has assigned the title "top evilutionist"?
> 
> Nothing in the YouTube video speaks to confirming supernaturalism or miracles. Do you believe that the processes of heat and pressure acting on carbon is somehow miraculous or supernatural?
Click to expand...


I will do like ultimatereality,if you can't watch a video and see it for yourself you have no business trying to debate it. This is my last post to you.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to see an evolutionist deliberately misquote a creationist and the evidence. This evolutionist makes bad arguments and he does not know his bible. The evolution that Christians accept is microevolution not macroevolution. He is disengenuious.
> 
> The Genesis Debate - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that you were tasked with speaking on behalf of Christianity and what creationist Christians believe. Such a weighty burden you bear.
> 
> Whether an "evilutionist"  is or is not fluent with bible verses is really unimportant to science, unless you're prepared to offer proof of the claims to supernaturalism within the bible.
> 
> So, present to us your claims of miracles and supernaturalism and we can present those for peer reviewed science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?
> 
> Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?
Click to expand...

 well lets see?
Coelacanth fossils have been found in rock strata dating from the Mid Devonian (approximately 370 million years ago) to sedimentary rock laid down at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago)

Article Source: The Coelacanth - An Amazing Fish - A Relic From the Earth's Ancient Past

 because they lived when the dinosaurs did and are still living today!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alpha and omega.
> 
> 
> 
> being that those are not mathmatical symbols they only prove your ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can they not be ? one represents the beginning and the other the end. This is the time for the beginning of creation til the judgment of man.
Click to expand...

what an asshole.
you cannot add subtract multiply or divided them.
and you don't proselytize! also they are the  first and last letters of the greek alphabet


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?
> 
> Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?
> 
> 
> 
> Identify for us why your YouTube video should convince anyone that it features the "top evilutionist"?  What body, group or association has assigned the title "top evilutionist"?
> 
> Nothing in the YouTube video speaks to confirming supernaturalism or miracles. Do you believe that the processes of heat and pressure acting on carbon is somehow miraculous or supernatural?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will do like ultimatereality,if you can't watch a video and see it for yourself you have no business trying to debate it. This is my last post to you.
Click to expand...

Why do you think I'm tasked with debating a YouTube video? It's ludicrous for anyone to believe that you are to be taken seriously when you post YouTube videos in place of an argument you are unprepared to defend.

In spite of your behavior that rivals a petulant child, I'll be pleased to critique your claims to supernaturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that you were tasked with speaking on behalf of Christianity and what creationist Christians believe. Such a weighty burden you bear.
> 
> Whether an "evilutionist"  is or is not fluent with bible verses is really unimportant to science, unless you're prepared to offer proof of the claims to supernaturalism within the bible.
> 
> So, present to us your claims of miracles and supernaturalism and we can present those for peer reviewed science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?
> 
> Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well lets see?
> Coelacanth fossils have been found in rock strata dating from the Mid Devonian (approximately 370 million years ago) to sedimentary rock laid down at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago)
> 
> Article Source: The Coelacanth - An Amazing Fish - A Relic From the Earth's Ancient Past
> 
> because they lived when the dinosaurs did and are still living today!
Click to expand...


Evolutionist are not sure exactly how the dinosaurs went extinct except the most common explanation was asteroidsand meteors . So how did any creature survive asteroids and meteors ? do you understand the damage that asteroids would do to this planet ? It's kind of a stretch of the imagination to think all dinosaurs went extinct across the entire planet but other animals and fish survived.

Besides there is no global wide evidence of asteroid and meteor damage to the planet.

Pictures of meteor crater in Arizona.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...W7jJzZDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1526&bih=1061


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> being that those are not mathmatical symbols they only prove your ignorance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can they not be ? one represents the beginning and the other the end. This is the time for the beginning of creation til the judgment of man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what an asshole.
> you cannot add subtract multiply or divided them.
> and you don't proselytize!
Click to expand...


We can't calculate time ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?
> 
> Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see?
> Coelacanth fossils have been found in rock strata dating from the Mid Devonian (approximately 370 million years ago) to sedimentary rock laid down at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago)
> 
> Article Source: The Coelacanth - An Amazing Fish - A Relic From the Earth's Ancient Past
> 
> because they lived when the dinosaurs did and are still living today!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolutionist are not sure exactly how the dinosaurs went extinct except the most common explanation was asteroidsand meteors . So how did any creature survive asteroids and meteors ? do you understand the damage that asteroids would do to this planet ? It's kind of a stretch of the imagination to think all dinosaurs went extinct across the entire planet but other animals and fish survived.
> 
> Besides there is no global wide evidence of asteroid and meteor damage to the planet.
> 
> Pictures of meteor crater in Arizona.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...W7jJzZDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1526&bih=1061
Click to expand...

Ocean dwelling creatures would be largely protected from the extremes of the surface environment.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that you are falling over yourself with the claim that "Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed"?
> 
> There is nothing about "design", that necessarily implies your currently configured god(s).  Secondly, why is it that you think Richard Dawkins is an authority on what your god(s) would have designed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?
> 
> How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.
> 
> DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.
> 
> I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit!  what Dawkins really said :This just in: Dawkins is consistent
> By Ian
> Sometimes journalists are good, sometimes they are just plain lazy.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is world-renowned for his staunch atheism; so much that it eclipses his work in the field of evolutionary biology, his long, illustrious career with the University of Oxford, and his creepy, meme-worthy resemblance to Emma Watson. Indeed, if you know anything about Richard Dawkins, its probably that hes an atheist. Maybe its a sign of old age (hes pushing 70), maybe he was genuinely flattered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, his sparring-partner last night, or perhaps he was just feeling generous. Either way, last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted that he cant be certain that there is no God.
> The insincere shock journalism stems from a conversation between Dawkins and Williams. Specifically the article notes:
> 
> Slow down there, were not talking conversion. But for the first time, Dawkins is actually admitting that he leans a little agnostic. Sharing an Oxford stage with Dr. Williams, Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of seven certain of his atheism. I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low, he said. Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, asked: Why dont you call yourself an agnostic? to which Dawkins answered that he did.
> Slow down there (because phrases like this make a journalist sound classy), this is definitely not the first time for any such admission.
> 
> In fact, anyone who actually made it through the first two chapters of The God Delusion will find this quote (from page 51 of the hardcover) that defines his position after outlining his scale of 1 (strong theist) to 7 (strong atheist):
> 
> I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7  I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. [Emphasis mine]
> Its like the media sees this frank and consistent admission as somehow equivalent to the Pope admitting that maybe Jesus never really existed or that perhaps Mary wasnt a virgin (of course there was a proper amount of press over revelations of Mother Teresas personal doubts). Dawkins, like all new atheists, has admitted that there is a vanishingly small chance that theyre in error. Something the devoutly religious rarely concede.
> 
> Finally, we can also dissect the semantics of the words atheist and agnostic to realize they are not really in contradiction. [A]theism deals with beliefs while [a]gnosticism deals with knowledge. So if one knows there is a God, he is a gnostic theist. This has been summarized effectively in a simple chart:
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins admitting the limits of his knowledge is not a change of position. It is not the end of the New Atheism. It is most definitely not a gotcha moment that the pro-religious media seems to think will restore religions dominant place in society
> 
> .agnostic, atheism, atheist, media, richard dawkins
> 
> 
> This just in: Dawkins is consistent
Click to expand...


Is dawkins an athiest ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wNE9aXaUG4&feature=watch_response]Is Dawkins still an atheist? - YouTube[/ame]

Now watch your hero get schooled ,complete debate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw]Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate - Has Science Buried God? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?
> 
> Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see?
> Coelacanth fossils have been found in rock strata dating from the Mid Devonian (approximately 370 million years ago) to sedimentary rock laid down at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago)
> 
> Article Source: The Coelacanth - An Amazing Fish - A Relic From the Earth's Ancient Past
> 
> because they lived when the dinosaurs did and are still living today!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolutionist are not sure exactly how the dinosaurs went extinct except the most common explanation was asteroidsand meteors . So how did any creature survive asteroids and meteors ? do you understand the damage that asteroids would do to this planet ? It's kind of a stretch of the imagination to think all dinosaurs went extinct across the entire planet but other animals and fish survived.
> 
> Besides there is no global wide evidence of asteroid and meteor damage to the planet.
> 
> Pictures of meteor crater in Arizona.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...W7jJzZDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1526&bih=1061
Click to expand...

There actually is evidence of an enormous meteor impact crater. Your pals at the ICR may have kept that from you.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?
> 
> How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.
> 
> DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.
> 
> I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!  what Dawkins really said :This just in: Dawkins is consistent
> By Ian
> Sometimes journalists are good, sometimes they are just plain lazy.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is world-renowned for his staunch atheism; so much that it eclipses his work in the field of evolutionary biology, his long, illustrious career with the University of Oxford, and his creepy, meme-worthy resemblance to Emma Watson. Indeed, if you know anything about Richard Dawkins, its probably that hes an atheist. Maybe its a sign of old age (hes pushing 70), maybe he was genuinely flattered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, his sparring-partner last night, or perhaps he was just feeling generous. Either way, last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted that he cant be certain that there is no God.
> The insincere shock journalism stems from a conversation between Dawkins and Williams. Specifically the article notes:
> 
> Slow down there, were not talking conversion. But for the first time, Dawkins is actually admitting that he leans a little agnostic. Sharing an Oxford stage with Dr. Williams, Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of seven certain of his atheism. I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low, he said. Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, asked: Why dont you call yourself an agnostic? to which Dawkins answered that he did.
> Slow down there (because phrases like this make a journalist sound classy), this is definitely not the first time for any such admission.
> 
> In fact, anyone who actually made it through the first two chapters of The God Delusion will find this quote (from page 51 of the hardcover) that defines his position after outlining his scale of 1 (strong theist) to 7 (strong atheist):
> 
> I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7  I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. [Emphasis mine]
> Its like the media sees this frank and consistent admission as somehow equivalent to the Pope admitting that maybe Jesus never really existed or that perhaps Mary wasnt a virgin (of course there was a proper amount of press over revelations of Mother Teresas personal doubts). Dawkins, like all new atheists, has admitted that there is a vanishingly small chance that theyre in error. Something the devoutly religious rarely concede.
> 
> Finally, we can also dissect the semantics of the words atheist and agnostic to realize they are not really in contradiction. [A]theism deals with beliefs while [a]gnosticism deals with knowledge. So if one knows there is a God, he is a gnostic theist. This has been summarized effectively in a simple chart:
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins admitting the limits of his knowledge is not a change of position. It is not the end of the New Atheism. It is most definitely not a gotcha moment that the pro-religious media seems to think will restore religions dominant place in society
> 
> .agnostic, atheism, atheist, media, richard dawkins
> 
> 
> This just in: Dawkins is consistent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is dawkins an athiest ?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wNE9aXaUG4&feature=watch_response]Is Dawkins still an atheist? - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Now watch your hero get schooled ,complete debate.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw]Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate - Has Science Buried God? - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

If Dawkins is not an atheist, that would absolutely prove your gods.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?
> 
> How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.
> 
> DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.
> 
> I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!  what Dawkins really said :This just in: Dawkins is consistent
> By Ian
> Sometimes journalists are good, sometimes they are just plain lazy.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is world-renowned for his staunch atheism; so much that it eclipses his work in the field of evolutionary biology, his long, illustrious career with the University of Oxford, and his creepy, meme-worthy resemblance to Emma Watson. Indeed, if you know anything about Richard Dawkins, its probably that hes an atheist. Maybe its a sign of old age (hes pushing 70), maybe he was genuinely flattered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, his sparring-partner last night, or perhaps he was just feeling generous. Either way, last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted that he cant be certain that there is no God.
> The insincere shock journalism stems from a conversation between Dawkins and Williams. Specifically the article notes:
> 
> Slow down there, were not talking conversion. But for the first time, Dawkins is actually admitting that he leans a little agnostic. Sharing an Oxford stage with Dr. Williams, Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of seven certain of his atheism. I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low, he said. Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, asked: Why dont you call yourself an agnostic? to which Dawkins answered that he did.
> Slow down there (because phrases like this make a journalist sound classy), this is definitely not the first time for any such admission.
> 
> In fact, anyone who actually made it through the first two chapters of The God Delusion will find this quote (from page 51 of the hardcover) that defines his position after outlining his scale of 1 (strong theist) to 7 (strong atheist):
> 
> I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7  I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. [Emphasis mine]
> Its like the media sees this frank and consistent admission as somehow equivalent to the Pope admitting that maybe Jesus never really existed or that perhaps Mary wasnt a virgin (of course there was a proper amount of press over revelations of Mother Teresas personal doubts). Dawkins, like all new atheists, has admitted that there is a vanishingly small chance that theyre in error. Something the devoutly religious rarely concede.
> 
> Finally, we can also dissect the semantics of the words atheist and agnostic to realize they are not really in contradiction. [A]theism deals with beliefs while [a]gnosticism deals with knowledge. So if one knows there is a God, he is a gnostic theist. This has been summarized effectively in a simple chart:
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins admitting the limits of his knowledge is not a change of position. It is not the end of the New Atheism. It is most definitely not a gotcha moment that the pro-religious media seems to think will restore religions dominant place in society
> 
> .agnostic, atheism, atheist, media, richard dawkins
> 
> 
> This just in: Dawkins is consistent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those comments were in his book and he is no longer an atheist. Go on to your spin sites if you must but he is on record in video and his book.
Click to expand...

he's a agnostic


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?
> 
> Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see?
> Coelacanth fossils have been found in rock strata dating from the Mid Devonian (approximately 370 million years ago) to sedimentary rock laid down at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago)
> 
> Article Source: The Coelacanth - An Amazing Fish - A Relic From the Earth's Ancient Past
> 
> because they lived when the dinosaurs did and are still living today!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolutionist are not sure exactly how the dinosaurs went extinct except the most common explanation was asteroidsand meteors . So how did any creature survive asteroids and meteors ? do you understand the damage that asteroids would do to this planet ? It's kind of a stretch of the imagination to think all dinosaurs went extinct across the entire planet but other animals and fish survived.
> 
> Besides there is no global wide evidence of asteroid and meteor damage to the planet.
> 
> Pictures of meteor crater in Arizona.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...W7jJzZDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1526&bih=1061
Click to expand...

you can't really be this ignorant .

Evidence for the Asteroid Impact Hypothesis

Impact Crater
This 150-kilometer-wide crater lies just off the Yucatan peninsula. Scientists calculate that it was blasted into Earth by a 10-kilometer-wide asteroid or comet traveling 30 kilometers per second -- 150 times faster than a jet airliner.

Scientists have concluded that the impact that created this crater occurred 65 million years ago. The date corresponds perfectly to the date of the dinosaur extinction.

Rare Metal
The metal iridium, which is similar to platinum, is very rare on Earth's surface but is more common in asteroids and in molten rock deep within the planet.

Scientists have discovered levels of iridium 30 times greater than average in the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the layer of sedimentary rock laid down at the time of the dinosaur extinction.

Melted Rock
These pieces of once-molten rock, called impact ejecta, are evidence of an explosion powerful enough to instantly melt bedrock and propel it more than a hundred miles from its origin.

Ranging in size from large chunks to tiny beads, impact ejecta are common at or near the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the geological layer that defines the dinosaur extinction.

Fractured Crystals
These crystals, often called "shocked quartz," show a distinctive pattern of fracturing caused by high-energy impacts or explosions.

Some scientists maintain that the fracture pattern in these quartz crystals could only have been caused by a massive asteroid or comet impact. The pattern is prevalent in quartz found at or near the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the geological layer deposited at the time of the extinction.

Fossil Record
A gradual decline in the number of dinosaur species would likely mirror an equally gradual cause of their ultimate extinction. Conversely, a sudden "now you see them, now you don't" end to the dinosaurs implies a catastrophic cause. Depending on location and interpretation, the fossil record seems to say different things.

Some paleontologists see evidence in the fossil record that dinosaurs were doing quite well prior to the end of the Cretaceous -- that they were in no way declining in abundance when the impact occurred.
Evolution: Extinction: What Killed the Dinosaurs?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm falling all over myself because Dawkins admits God and design is a possibility ? why does this worry you ?
> 
> How bout DR. Francis Crick comments saying that the DNA molecue could not possibly come about through a random natural process of evolution. He also said the genetic code is a miracle and thought it was designed to replicate itself. Guess what ? it does.
> 
> DR.Francis Crick is famous for being one of the scientists that discovered the genetic code.
> 
> I don't need to fall all over myself your side's authorities on the issue agree with our side.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!  what Dawkins really said :This just in: Dawkins is consistent
> By Ian
> Sometimes journalists are good, sometimes they are just plain lazy.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is world-renowned for his staunch atheism; so much that it eclipses his work in the field of evolutionary biology, his long, illustrious career with the University of Oxford, and his creepy, meme-worthy resemblance to Emma Watson. Indeed, if you know anything about Richard Dawkins, its probably that hes an atheist. Maybe its a sign of old age (hes pushing 70), maybe he was genuinely flattered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, his sparring-partner last night, or perhaps he was just feeling generous. Either way, last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted that he cant be certain that there is no God.
> The insincere shock journalism stems from a conversation between Dawkins and Williams. Specifically the article notes:
> 
> Slow down there, were not talking conversion. But for the first time, Dawkins is actually admitting that he leans a little agnostic. Sharing an Oxford stage with Dr. Williams, Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of seven certain of his atheism. I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low, he said. Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, asked: Why dont you call yourself an agnostic? to which Dawkins answered that he did.
> Slow down there (because phrases like this make a journalist sound classy), this is definitely not the first time for any such admission.
> 
> In fact, anyone who actually made it through the first two chapters of The God Delusion will find this quote (from page 51 of the hardcover) that defines his position after outlining his scale of 1 (strong theist) to 7 (strong atheist):
> 
> I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7  I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. [Emphasis mine]
> Its like the media sees this frank and consistent admission as somehow equivalent to the Pope admitting that maybe Jesus never really existed or that perhaps Mary wasnt a virgin (of course there was a proper amount of press over revelations of Mother Teresas personal doubts). Dawkins, like all new atheists, has admitted that there is a vanishingly small chance that theyre in error. Something the devoutly religious rarely concede.
> 
> Finally, we can also dissect the semantics of the words atheist and agnostic to realize they are not really in contradiction. [A]theism deals with beliefs while [a]gnosticism deals with knowledge. So if one knows there is a God, he is a gnostic theist. This has been summarized effectively in a simple chart:
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins admitting the limits of his knowledge is not a change of position. It is not the end of the New Atheism. It is most definitely not a gotcha moment that the pro-religious media seems to think will restore religions dominant place in society
> 
> .agnostic, atheism, atheist, media, richard dawkins
> 
> 
> This just in: Dawkins is consistent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is dawkins an athiest ?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wNE9aXaUG4&feature=watch_response]Is Dawkins still an atheist? - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Now watch your hero get schooled ,complete debate.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw]Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate - Has Science Buried God? - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

already watched it long before you posted it 
and only a desperate obsessive mind would claim a "victory for our side".
the reality is two very intelligent men debating, who won and who lost is subjective.
it is also no no evidence for god.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can they not be ? one represents the beginning and the other the end. This is the time for the beginning of creation til the judgment of man.
> 
> 
> 
> what an asshole.
> you cannot add subtract multiply or divided them.
> and you don't proselytize!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can't calculate time ?
Click to expand...

false  premise.  as they are letters and not numbers, they are useless in calculation.


----------



## bobgnote

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?
> 
> Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see?
> Coelacanth fossils have been found in rock strata dating from the Mid Devonian (approximately 370 million years ago) to sedimentary rock laid down at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago)
> 
> Article Source: The Coelacanth - An Amazing Fish - A Relic From the Earth's Ancient Past
> 
> because they lived when the dinosaurs did and are still living today!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolutionist are not sure exactly how the dinosaurs went extinct except the most common explanation was asteroidsand meteors . So how did any creature survive asteroids and meteors ? do you understand the damage that asteroids would do to this planet ? It's kind of a stretch of the imagination to think all dinosaurs went extinct across the entire planet but other animals and fish survived.
> 
> Besides there is no global wide evidence of asteroid and meteor damage to the planet.
Click to expand...


The KT extinction

Cretaceous

Heard of the Chicxulub Crater?  It is the K-T or K-Pg wound, to the Earth, which encompasses a large area, of the Yucatan Peninsula, into the Gulf of Mexico.

There went the dinosaurs.  Crocodilians survived because they can get into water, hibernate in caves or dried mud, eat dead things, and their young can eat insects.

Heard of CHAINSAWS?  Humans are pushing the CO2 up, via burning sequestered carbon, but with CHAINSAWS, humans are reducing CO2 metabolizers, so we are now in the grip, of RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING.  We are entering Mass Extinction Event 6, which will challenge the K-T and P-T extinctions, for ranking, in the all-time top killers.

When you aren't too bright, you ignore what man has done.  You ignore how God is an invention, to control people, but people don't want rational control, so people like the Pope have to proclaim, how atheism is responsible, for skepticism, against global warming.  Nice try, Benedict.


----------



## bobgnote

_WTF is this, *youwere*?_


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what would be the mathematical symbol for god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The alpha and omega.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> being that those are not mathmatical symbols they only prove your ignorance
Click to expand...


Omigosh!! Can I just say OMIGOSH again? You just proved my famous quote. And you can't even spell mathematical!!!

*&#8220;To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.&#8221;*

Those symbols are most certainly used in trigonometry ALL THE TIME. You want me to post up a hundred or so links? Now who has egg on their face??

Greek Alphabet (PRIME)


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did why do objects dated very old much older then a carbon -14 test would cover still have carbon-14 ? Did you notice the response top the evolutionist concerning the diamonds ?
> 
> Why are coelacanth fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs ?
> 
> 
> 
> Identify for us why your YouTube video should convince anyone that it features the "top evilutionist"?  What body, group or association has assigned the title "top evilutionist"?
> 
> Nothing in the YouTube video speaks to confirming supernaturalism or miracles. Do you believe that the processes of heat and pressure acting on carbon is somehow miraculous or supernatural?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will do like ultimatereality,if you can't watch a video and see it for yourself you have no business trying to debate it. This is my last post to you.
Click to expand...


It's funny. Folks are so locked into their worldview, they won't even take the time to view an alternate viewpoint. I think they just rather argue. Hollie is not interested in even looking at anything that presents evidence against her hate view.


----------



## UltimateReality

bobgnote said:


> _WTF is this, *youwere*?_



One of the pictures they show you at your psychiatric appointments?


----------



## UltimateReality

bobgnote said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see?
> Coelacanth fossils have been found in rock strata dating from the Mid Devonian (approximately 370 million years ago) to sedimentary rock laid down at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago)
> 
> Article Source: The Coelacanth - An Amazing Fish - A Relic From the Earth's Ancient Past
> 
> because they lived when the dinosaurs did and are still living today!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist are not sure exactly how the dinosaurs went extinct except the most common explanation was asteroidsand meteors . So how did any creature survive asteroids and meteors ? do you understand the damage that asteroids would do to this planet ? It's kind of a stretch of the imagination to think all dinosaurs went extinct across the entire planet but other animals and fish survived.
> 
> Besides there is no global wide evidence of asteroid and meteor damage to the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The KT extinction
> 
> Cretaceous
> 
> Heard of the Chicxulub Crater?  It is the K-T or K-Pg wound, to the Earth, which encompasses a large area, of the Yucatan Peninsula, into the Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> There went the dinosaurs.  Crocodilians survived because they can get into water, hibernate in caves or dried mud, eat dead things, and their young can eat insects.
> 
> Heard of CHAINSAWS?  Humans are pushing the CO2 up, via burning sequestered carbon, but with CHAINSAWS, humans are reducing CO2 metabolizers, so we are now in the grip, of RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING.  We are entering Mass Extinction Event 6, which will challenge the K-T and P-T extinctions, for ranking, in the all-time top killers.
> 
> When you aren't too bright, you ignore what man has done.  You ignore how God is an invention, to control people, but people don't want rational control, so people like the Pope have to proclaim, how atheism is responsible, for skepticism, against global warming.  Nice try, Benedict.
Click to expand...


I ignored your babble but the article on KT was an interesting read. I wonder why no one proposed that the asteroid impact could have caused volcanic eruptions at the same time. That kind of jolt to the earth could have cracked all kinds of fissures resulting in mass amounts of volcanoes worldwide.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!  what Dawkins really said :This just in: Dawkins is consistent
> By Ian
> Sometimes journalists are good, sometimes they are just plain lazy.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is world-renowned for his staunch atheism; so much that it eclipses his work in the field of evolutionary biology, his long, illustrious career with the University of Oxford, and his creepy, meme-worthy resemblance to Emma Watson. Indeed, if you know anything about Richard Dawkins, its probably that hes an atheist. Maybe its a sign of old age (hes pushing 70), maybe he was genuinely flattered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, his sparring-partner last night, or perhaps he was just feeling generous. Either way, last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted that he cant be certain that there is no God.
> The insincere shock journalism stems from a conversation between Dawkins and Williams. Specifically the article notes:
> 
> Slow down there, were not talking conversion. But for the first time, Dawkins is actually admitting that he leans a little agnostic. Sharing an Oxford stage with Dr. Williams, Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of seven certain of his atheism. I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low, he said. Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, asked: Why dont you call yourself an agnostic? to which Dawkins answered that he did.
> Slow down there (because phrases like this make a journalist sound classy), this is definitely not the first time for any such admission.
> 
> In fact, anyone who actually made it through the first two chapters of The God Delusion will find this quote (from page 51 of the hardcover) that defines his position after outlining his scale of 1 (strong theist) to 7 (strong atheist):
> 
> I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7  I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. [Emphasis mine]
> Its like the media sees this frank and consistent admission as somehow equivalent to the Pope admitting that maybe Jesus never really existed or that perhaps Mary wasnt a virgin (of course there was a proper amount of press over revelations of Mother Teresas personal doubts). Dawkins, like all new atheists, has admitted that there is a vanishingly small chance that theyre in error. Something the devoutly religious rarely concede.
> 
> Finally, we can also dissect the semantics of the words atheist and agnostic to realize they are not really in contradiction. [A]theism deals with beliefs while [a]gnosticism deals with knowledge. So if one knows there is a God, he is a gnostic theist. This has been summarized effectively in a simple chart:
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins admitting the limits of his knowledge is not a change of position. It is not the end of the New Atheism. It is most definitely not a gotcha moment that the pro-religious media seems to think will restore religions dominant place in society
> 
> .agnostic, atheism, atheist, media, richard dawkins
> 
> 
> This just in: Dawkins is consistent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those comments were in his book and he is no longer an atheist. Go on to your spin sites if you must but he is on record in video and his book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he's a agnostic
Click to expand...


I said he was an agnostic several pages ago and you said bullshit ! So now that he is no longer an atheist he must be evolving.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Identify for us why your YouTube video should convince anyone that it features the "top evilutionist"?  What body, group or association has assigned the title "top evilutionist"?
> 
> Nothing in the YouTube video speaks to confirming supernaturalism or miracles. Do you believe that the processes of heat and pressure acting on carbon is somehow miraculous or supernatural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will do like ultimatereality,if you can't watch a video and see it for yourself you have no business trying to debate it. This is my last post to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny. Folks are so locked into their worldview, they won't even take the time to view an alternate viewpoint. I think they just rather argue.
Click to expand...


What's funny, (sad) is that you are forever consigned to youtube videos as a means to promote and defend your irrationally based world of the supernatural. The problem that befuddles you is that your arguments originate from charlatans and snake oil salesmen representing the ICR and such other fundie creationist sites. Both they and you typify the science loathing variety of fundies who seek at every turn to vilify the science they are terrified of. The reason for this is a deep concern that because the process of evolution is so overwhelmingly confirmed by theory and evidence and impossible to refute that most supernauralists have a justified fear that their entire worldview of the supernatural is irreperably dismantled. That is unquestionably why fundie creationists hold such a visceral hatred for science in general and evolutionary science in particular. 

In the realm of the rational, natural worldview, it is the scientific community which is experimenting, exploring, and unfolding new discoveries. I feel a need to remind you that the worldview of the supernaturalist, (your worldview), is replete with claims of supernatural objects and events that exist nowhere in the natural world but exist exclusively in the supernatural / irrational world. If we are going to come to terms with providing explanations for the experiences and the events that occur within our wholly natural world, where do you think we should look for understanding: science or irrationality?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see?
> Coelacanth fossils have been found in rock strata dating from the Mid Devonian (approximately 370 million years ago) to sedimentary rock laid down at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago)
> 
> Article Source: The Coelacanth - An Amazing Fish - A Relic From the Earth's Ancient Past
> 
> because they lived when the dinosaurs did and are still living today!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist are not sure exactly how the dinosaurs went extinct except the most common explanation was asteroidsand meteors . So how did any creature survive asteroids and meteors ? do you understand the damage that asteroids would do to this planet ? It's kind of a stretch of the imagination to think all dinosaurs went extinct across the entire planet but other animals and fish survived.
> 
> Besides there is no global wide evidence of asteroid and meteor damage to the planet.
> 
> Pictures of meteor crater in Arizona.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...W7jJzZDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1526&bih=1061
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you can't really be this ignorant .
> 
> Evidence for the Asteroid Impact Hypothesis
> 
> Impact Crater
> This 150-kilometer-wide crater lies just off the Yucatan peninsula. Scientists calculate that it was blasted into Earth by a 10-kilometer-wide asteroid or comet traveling 30 kilometers per second -- 150 times faster than a jet airliner.
> 
> Scientists have concluded that the impact that created this crater occurred 65 million years ago. The date corresponds perfectly to the date of the dinosaur extinction.
> 
> Rare Metal
> The metal iridium, which is similar to platinum, is very rare on Earth's surface but is more common in asteroids and in molten rock deep within the planet.
> 
> Scientists have discovered levels of iridium 30 times greater than average in the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the layer of sedimentary rock laid down at the time of the dinosaur extinction.
> 
> Melted Rock
> These pieces of once-molten rock, called impact ejecta, are evidence of an explosion powerful enough to instantly melt bedrock and propel it more than a hundred miles from its origin.
> 
> Ranging in size from large chunks to tiny beads, impact ejecta are common at or near the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the geological layer that defines the dinosaur extinction.
> 
> Fractured Crystals
> These crystals, often called "shocked quartz," show a distinctive pattern of fracturing caused by high-energy impacts or explosions.
> 
> Some scientists maintain that the fracture pattern in these quartz crystals could only have been caused by a massive asteroid or comet impact. The pattern is prevalent in quartz found at or near the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the geological layer deposited at the time of the extinction.
> 
> Fossil Record
> A gradual decline in the number of dinosaur species would likely mirror an equally gradual cause of their ultimate extinction. Conversely, a sudden "now you see them, now you don't" end to the dinosaurs implies a catastrophic cause. Depending on location and interpretation, the fossil record seems to say different things.
> 
> Some paleontologists see evidence in the fossil record that dinosaurs were doing quite well prior to the end of the Cretaceous -- that they were in no way declining in abundance when the impact occurred.
> Evolution: Extinction: What Killed the Dinosaurs?
Click to expand...


Ignorant ? that killed every living dinosaur across the globe ?

You do understand what a theory is don't you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!  what Dawkins really said :This just in: Dawkins is consistent
> By Ian
> Sometimes journalists are good, sometimes they are just plain lazy.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is world-renowned for his staunch atheism; so much that it eclipses his work in the field of evolutionary biology, his long, illustrious career with the University of Oxford, and his creepy, meme-worthy resemblance to Emma Watson. Indeed, if you know anything about Richard Dawkins, its probably that hes an atheist. Maybe its a sign of old age (hes pushing 70), maybe he was genuinely flattered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, his sparring-partner last night, or perhaps he was just feeling generous. Either way, last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted that he cant be certain that there is no God.
> The insincere shock journalism stems from a conversation between Dawkins and Williams. Specifically the article notes:
> 
> Slow down there, were not talking conversion. But for the first time, Dawkins is actually admitting that he leans a little agnostic. Sharing an Oxford stage with Dr. Williams, Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of seven certain of his atheism. I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low, he said. Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, asked: Why dont you call yourself an agnostic? to which Dawkins answered that he did.
> Slow down there (because phrases like this make a journalist sound classy), this is definitely not the first time for any such admission.
> 
> In fact, anyone who actually made it through the first two chapters of The God Delusion will find this quote (from page 51 of the hardcover) that defines his position after outlining his scale of 1 (strong theist) to 7 (strong atheist):
> 
> I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7  I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. [Emphasis mine]
> Its like the media sees this frank and consistent admission as somehow equivalent to the Pope admitting that maybe Jesus never really existed or that perhaps Mary wasnt a virgin (of course there was a proper amount of press over revelations of Mother Teresas personal doubts). Dawkins, like all new atheists, has admitted that there is a vanishingly small chance that theyre in error. Something the devoutly religious rarely concede.
> 
> Finally, we can also dissect the semantics of the words atheist and agnostic to realize they are not really in contradiction. [A]theism deals with beliefs while [a]gnosticism deals with knowledge. So if one knows there is a God, he is a gnostic theist. This has been summarized effectively in a simple chart:
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins admitting the limits of his knowledge is not a change of position. It is not the end of the New Atheism. It is most definitely not a gotcha moment that the pro-religious media seems to think will restore religions dominant place in society
> 
> .agnostic, atheism, atheist, media, richard dawkins
> 
> 
> This just in: Dawkins is consistent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those comments were in his book and he is no longer an atheist. Go on to your spin sites if you must but he is on record in video and his book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he's a agnostic
Click to expand...


I knew you would see it my way. So much for bullshit eh ?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist are not sure exactly how the dinosaurs went extinct except the most common explanation was asteroidsand meteors . So how did any creature survive asteroids and meteors ? do you understand the damage that asteroids would do to this planet ? It's kind of a stretch of the imagination to think all dinosaurs went extinct across the entire planet but other animals and fish survived.
> 
> Besides there is no global wide evidence of asteroid and meteor damage to the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KT extinction
> 
> Cretaceous
> 
> Heard of the Chicxulub Crater?  It is the K-T or K-Pg wound, to the Earth, which encompasses a large area, of the Yucatan Peninsula, into the Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> There went the dinosaurs.  Crocodilians survived because they can get into water, hibernate in caves or dried mud, eat dead things, and their young can eat insects.
> 
> Heard of CHAINSAWS?  Humans are pushing the CO2 up, via burning sequestered carbon, but with CHAINSAWS, humans are reducing CO2 metabolizers, so we are now in the grip, of RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING.  We are entering Mass Extinction Event 6, which will challenge the K-T and P-T extinctions, for ranking, in the all-time top killers.
> 
> When you aren't too bright, you ignore what man has done.  You ignore how God is an invention, to control people, but people don't want rational control, so people like the Pope have to proclaim, how atheism is responsible, for skepticism, against global warming.  Nice try, Benedict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ignored your babble but the article on KT was an interesting read. I wonder why no one proposed that the asteroid impact could have caused volcanic eruptions at the same time. That kind of jolt to the earth could have cracked all kinds of fissures resulting in mass amounts of volcanoes worldwide.
Click to expand...


So why not scour youtube for a video to answer that question? 

Why do you think that, "That kind of jolt to the earth could have cracked all kinds of fissures resulting in mass amounts of volcanoes worldwide". 

The earth has been struck by enormous space objects previously (Australia - do a search), with no indication of "all kinds of cracks and fissures....."

You can choose to sit, deaf and dumb and screech "the gods did it", but in the meantime, wander over the the ICR website and let us know how there is an apparent mis-match with a 6,000 year old earth and rock solid evidence (rock solid... nevermind), of planetary bombardment dating back millions of years.

Your gods are pointing and laughing at you.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist are not sure exactly how the dinosaurs went extinct except the most common explanation was asteroidsand meteors . So how did any creature survive asteroids and meteors ? do you understand the damage that asteroids would do to this planet ? It's kind of a stretch of the imagination to think all dinosaurs went extinct across the entire planet but other animals and fish survived.
> 
> Besides there is no global wide evidence of asteroid and meteor damage to the planet.
> 
> Pictures of meteor crater in Arizona.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...W7jJzZDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1526&bih=1061
> 
> 
> 
> you can't really be this ignorant .
> 
> Evidence for the Asteroid Impact Hypothesis
> 
> Impact Crater
> This 150-kilometer-wide crater lies just off the Yucatan peninsula. Scientists calculate that it was blasted into Earth by a 10-kilometer-wide asteroid or comet traveling 30 kilometers per second -- 150 times faster than a jet airliner.
> 
> Scientists have concluded that the impact that created this crater occurred 65 million years ago. The date corresponds perfectly to the date of the dinosaur extinction.
> 
> Rare Metal
> The metal iridium, which is similar to platinum, is very rare on Earth's surface but is more common in asteroids and in molten rock deep within the planet.
> 
> Scientists have discovered levels of iridium 30 times greater than average in the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the layer of sedimentary rock laid down at the time of the dinosaur extinction.
> 
> Melted Rock
> These pieces of once-molten rock, called impact ejecta, are evidence of an explosion powerful enough to instantly melt bedrock and propel it more than a hundred miles from its origin.
> 
> Ranging in size from large chunks to tiny beads, impact ejecta are common at or near the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the geological layer that defines the dinosaur extinction.
> 
> Fractured Crystals
> These crystals, often called "shocked quartz," show a distinctive pattern of fracturing caused by high-energy impacts or explosions.
> 
> Some scientists maintain that the fracture pattern in these quartz crystals could only have been caused by a massive asteroid or comet impact. The pattern is prevalent in quartz found at or near the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the geological layer deposited at the time of the extinction.
> 
> Fossil Record
> A gradual decline in the number of dinosaur species would likely mirror an equally gradual cause of their ultimate extinction. Conversely, a sudden "now you see them, now you don't" end to the dinosaurs implies a catastrophic cause. Depending on location and interpretation, the fossil record seems to say different things.
> 
> Some paleontologists see evidence in the fossil record that dinosaurs were doing quite well prior to the end of the Cretaceous -- that they were in no way declining in abundance when the impact occurred.
> Evolution: Extinction: What Killed the Dinosaurs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorant ? that killed every living dinosaur across the globe ?
> 
> You do understand what a theory is don't you ?
Click to expand...

And it all happened 6,000 years ago.

A wonder to behold.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The alpha and omega.
> 
> 
> 
> being that those are not mathmatical symbols they only prove your ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Omigosh!! Can I just say OMIGOSH again? You just proved my famous quote. And you can't even spell mathematical!!!
> 
> *To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.*
> 
> Those symbols are most certainly used in trigonometry ALL THE TIME. You want me to post up a hundred or so links? Now who has egg on their face??
> 
> Greek Alphabet (PRIME)
Click to expand...


While the alpha and omega symbols are used in various mathematics, from what I can discern they have no set meaning.

So while, yes, you are correct that they are often mathematical symbols, they certainly do not indicate god. 

I would imagine that god would need to be better defined before any kind of math would point to god's existence.  Perhaps there could be something that points to a designer for life, but even then that wouldn't necessarily be god, and certainly wouldn't have to be god as you believe in it.  I think the Christian concept of god is too outside the realm of human experience, too far beyond what we can see or know, to be explained through science.  Perhaps that will change at some future point, but for now, IMO, it is the case.


----------



## Youwerecreated

bobgnote said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see?
> Coelacanth fossils have been found in rock strata dating from the Mid Devonian (approximately 370 million years ago) to sedimentary rock laid down at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago)
> 
> Article Source: The Coelacanth - An Amazing Fish - A Relic From the Earth's Ancient Past
> 
> because they lived when the dinosaurs did and are still living today!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist are not sure exactly how the dinosaurs went extinct except the most common explanation was asteroidsand meteors . So how did any creature survive asteroids and meteors ? do you understand the damage that asteroids would do to this planet ? It's kind of a stretch of the imagination to think all dinosaurs went extinct across the entire planet but other animals and fish survived.
> 
> Besides there is no global wide evidence of asteroid and meteor damage to the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The KT extinction
> 
> Cretaceous
> 
> Heard of the Chicxulub Crater?  It is the K-T or K-Pg wound, to the Earth, which encompasses a large area, of the Yucatan Peninsula, into the Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> There went the dinosaurs.  Crocodilians survived because they can get into water, hibernate in caves or dried mud, eat dead things, and their young can eat insects.
> 
> Heard of CHAINSAWS?  Humans are pushing the CO2 up, via burning sequestered carbon, but with CHAINSAWS, humans are reducing CO2 metabolizers, so we are now in the grip, of RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING.  We are entering Mass Extinction Event 6, which will challenge the K-T and P-T extinctions, for ranking, in the all-time top killers.
> 
> When you aren't too bright, you ignore what man has done.  You ignore how God is an invention, to control people, but people don't want rational control, so people like the Pope have to proclaim, how atheism is responsible, for skepticism, against global warming.  Nice try, Benedict.
Click to expand...


Do you people always post the first article that disputes what I say ? dear little ol me.

Far more likely is that the iridium enrichment came from volcanic activity, not outer space. Volcanoes do produce iridium and spread it out. 

As a result of these and other problems, some evolutionary scientists do not accept the impact theory.


GEOLOGIC TABLE
The geologic table summarizes the earth&#8217;s rock layers. According to secular scientists, they record millions of years of history, but the Bible indicates that the layers were laid over the past 6,000 years.
 THE K-T BOUNDARY
This visible boundary between two layers of strata (Cretaceous and Tertiary) is thought to be the result of a mass extinction. 




Other Theories

If the impact theory is not correct, then how is the disappearance of dinosaurs to be explained? Some scientists have suggested that the world&#8217;s climate suddenly became too cold. Others have suggested that their numbers declined as dinosaurs ate each other. A few theories have been wacky, such as the suggestion that dinosaurs died out from a plague of indigestion. 

There is another possibility, ignored in secular science journals. While the impact theory admits the possibility of a global catastrophe resulting from an asteroid or comet, the Bible describes a very different global catastrophe that could have caused the &#8220;K-T extinction event&#8221;&#8212;the worldwide Flood of Genesis 6&#8211;9. 

The Bible says that &#8220;all fountains of the great deep were broken up&#8221; (Genesis 7:11). The breakup of the earth&#8217;s crust would certainly have caused volcanoes on an unprecedented scale during the Flood, explaining the iridium in the K-T boundary. The bulk of the world&#8217;s fossils would have formed as a result of this catastrophe. 

While pairs of every kind of dinosaur survived the Flood on board the Ark, it appears that their population never grew large in the new world. Like so many other kinds of animals, their small populations finally went extinct for a variety of reasons typical of many animals, including climate changes, diseases, decrease in food supply, and humans. 

Starting with the Bible, it is easy to make sense of the mass kill of dinosaurs found in the fossil record. 

Paul Taylor graduated with his B.Sc. in chemistry from Nottingham University and his master&#8217;s in science education from Cardiff University. Paul taught science for 17 years in a state school but is now a proficient writer and speaker for Answers in Genesis&#8211;UK.

Dinosaur Killer - Answers in Genesis

Read the whole article they address your theory that is just one of the theories idiot.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will do like ultimatereality,if you can't watch a video and see it for yourself you have no business trying to debate it. This is my last post to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny. Folks are so locked into their worldview, they won't even take the time to view an alternate viewpoint. I think they just rather argue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny, (sad) is that you are forever consigned to youtube videos as a means to promote and defend your irrationally based world of the supernatural. The problem that befuddles you is that your arguments originate from charlatans and snake oil salesmen representing the ICR and such other fundie creationist sites. Both they and you typify the science loathing variety of fundies who seek at every turn to vilify the science they are terrified of. The reason for this is a deep concern that because the process of evolution is so overwhelmingly confirmed by theory and evidence and impossible to refute that most supernauralists have a justified fear that their entire worldview of the supernatural is irreperably dismantled. That is unquestionably why fundie creationists hold such a visceral hatred for science in general and evolutionary science in particular.
> 
> In the realm of the rational, natural worldview, it is the scientific community which is experimenting, exploring, and unfolding new discoveries. I feel a need to remind you that the worldview of the supernaturalist, (your worldview), is replete with claims of supernatural objects and events that exist nowhere in the natural world but exist exclusively in the supernatural / irrational world. If we are going to come to terms with providing explanations for the experiences and the events that occur within our wholly natural world, where do you think we should look for understanding: science or irrationality?
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight, what your saying is there are no peer reviewed ID papers? And you cut and paste other peoples quotes from the internet?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist are not sure exactly how the dinosaurs went extinct except the most common explanation was asteroidsand meteors . So how did any creature survive asteroids and meteors ? do you understand the damage that asteroids would do to this planet ? It's kind of a stretch of the imagination to think all dinosaurs went extinct across the entire planet but other animals and fish survived.
> 
> Besides there is no global wide evidence of asteroid and meteor damage to the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KT extinction
> 
> Cretaceous
> 
> Heard of the Chicxulub Crater?  It is the K-T or K-Pg wound, to the Earth, which encompasses a large area, of the Yucatan Peninsula, into the Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> There went the dinosaurs.  Crocodilians survived because they can get into water, hibernate in caves or dried mud, eat dead things, and their young can eat insects.
> 
> Heard of CHAINSAWS?  Humans are pushing the CO2 up, via burning sequestered carbon, but with CHAINSAWS, humans are reducing CO2 metabolizers, so we are now in the grip, of RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING.  We are entering Mass Extinction Event 6, which will challenge the K-T and P-T extinctions, for ranking, in the all-time top killers.
> 
> When you aren't too bright, you ignore what man has done.  You ignore how God is an invention, to control people, but people don't want rational control, so people like the Pope have to proclaim, how atheism is responsible, for skepticism, against global warming.  Nice try, Benedict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you people always post the first article that disputes what I say ? dear little ol me.
> 
> Far more likely is that the iridium enrichment came from volcanic activity, not outer space. Volcanoes do produce iridium and spread it out.
> 
> As a result of these and other problems, some evolutionary scientists do not accept the impact theory.
> 
> 
> GEOLOGIC TABLE
> The geologic table summarizes the earths rock layers. According to secular scientists, they record millions of years of history, but the Bible indicates that the layers were laid over the past 6,000 years.
> THE K-T BOUNDARY
> This visible boundary between two layers of strata (Cretaceous and Tertiary) is thought to be the result of a mass extinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other Theories
> 
> If the impact theory is not correct, then how is the disappearance of dinosaurs to be explained? Some scientists have suggested that the worlds climate suddenly became too cold. Others have suggested that their numbers declined as dinosaurs ate each other. A few theories have been wacky, such as the suggestion that dinosaurs died out from a plague of indigestion.
> 
> There is another possibility, ignored in secular science journals. While the impact theory admits the possibility of a global catastrophe resulting from an asteroid or comet, the Bible describes a very different global catastrophe that could have caused the K-T extinction eventthe worldwide Flood of Genesis 69.
> 
> The Bible says that all fountains of the great deep were broken up (Genesis 7:11). The breakup of the earths crust would certainly have caused volcanoes on an unprecedented scale during the Flood, explaining the iridium in the K-T boundary. The bulk of the worlds fossils would have formed as a result of this catastrophe.
> 
> While pairs of every kind of dinosaur survived the Flood on board the Ark, it appears that their population never grew large in the new world. Like so many other kinds of animals, their small populations finally went extinct for a variety of reasons typical of many animals, including climate changes, diseases, decrease in food supply, and humans.
> 
> Starting with the Bible, it is easy to make sense of the mass kill of dinosaurs found in the fossil record.
> 
> Paul Taylor graduated with his B.Sc. in chemistry from Nottingham University and his masters in science education from Cardiff University. Paul taught science for 17 years in a state school but is now a proficient writer and speaker for Answers in GenesisUK.
> 
> Dinosaur Killer - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Read the whole article they address your theory that is just one of the theories idiot.
Click to expand...

Oh sweet heyzeus H. Christ - an Ark'ist.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> being that those are not mathmatical symbols they only prove your ignorance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Omigosh!! Can I just say OMIGOSH again? You just proved my famous quote. And you can't even spell mathematical!!!
> 
> *To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.*
> 
> Those symbols are most certainly used in trigonometry ALL THE TIME. You want me to post up a hundred or so links? Now who has egg on their face??
> 
> Greek Alphabet (PRIME)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the alpha and omega symbols are used in various mathematics, from what I can discern they have no set meaning.
> 
> So while, yes, you are correct that they are often mathematical symbols, they certainly do not indicate god.
> 
> I would imagine that god would need to be better defined before any kind of math would point to god's existence.  Perhaps there could be something that points to a designer for life, but even then that wouldn't necessarily be god, and certainly wouldn't have to be god as you believe in it.  I think the Christian concept of god is too outside the realm of human experience, too far beyond what we can see or know, to be explained through science.  Perhaps that will change at some future point, but for now, IMO, it is the case.
Click to expand...


I was actually just being clever when I responded Alpha and Omega, because these words are used to describe God in the Bible and they are used in math. They are commonly accepted mathematical symbols and have been so since the time of the Greeks. I never said they indicated God but Daws looks pretty foolish trying to call me ignorant when his own lack of exposure to math is evident by his post. That is all.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny. Folks are so locked into their worldview, they won't even take the time to view an alternate viewpoint. I think they just rather argue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny, (sad) is that you are forever consigned to youtube videos as a means to promote and defend your irrationally based world of the supernatural. The problem that befuddles you is that your arguments originate from charlatans and snake oil salesmen representing the ICR and such other fundie creationist sites. Both they and you typify the science loathing variety of fundies who seek at every turn to vilify the science they are terrified of. The reason for this is a deep concern that because the process of evolution is so overwhelmingly confirmed by theory and evidence and impossible to refute that most supernauralists have a justified fear that their entire worldview of the supernatural is irreperably dismantled. That is unquestionably why fundie creationists hold such a visceral hatred for science in general and evolutionary science in particular.
> 
> In the realm of the rational, natural worldview, it is the scientific community which is experimenting, exploring, and unfolding new discoveries. I feel a need to remind you that the worldview of the supernaturalist, (your worldview), is replete with claims of supernatural objects and events that exist nowhere in the natural world but exist exclusively in the supernatural / irrational world. If we are going to come to terms with providing explanations for the experiences and the events that occur within our wholly natural world, where do you think we should look for understanding: science or irrationality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, what your saying is there are no peer reviewed ID papers? And you cut and paste other peoples quotes from the internet?
Click to expand...


There are papers published by creationists and reviewed by creationists. But of course, that's just silly.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KT extinction
> 
> Cretaceous
> 
> Heard of the Chicxulub Crater?  It is the K-T or K-Pg wound, to the Earth, which encompasses a large area, of the Yucatan Peninsula, into the Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> There went the dinosaurs.  Crocodilians survived because they can get into water, hibernate in caves or dried mud, eat dead things, and their young can eat insects.
> 
> Heard of CHAINSAWS?  Humans are pushing the CO2 up, via burning sequestered carbon, but with CHAINSAWS, humans are reducing CO2 metabolizers, so we are now in the grip, of RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING.  We are entering Mass Extinction Event 6, which will challenge the K-T and P-T extinctions, for ranking, in the all-time top killers.
> 
> When you aren't too bright, you ignore what man has done.  You ignore how God is an invention, to control people, but people don't want rational control, so people like the Pope have to proclaim, how atheism is responsible, for skepticism, against global warming.  Nice try, Benedict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you people always post the first article that disputes what I say ? dear little ol me.
> 
> Far more likely is that the iridium enrichment came from volcanic activity, not outer space. Volcanoes do produce iridium and spread it out.
> 
> As a result of these and other problems, some evolutionary scientists do not accept the impact theory.
> 
> 
> GEOLOGIC TABLE
> The geologic table summarizes the earths rock layers. According to secular scientists, they record millions of years of history, but the Bible indicates that the layers were laid over the past 6,000 years.
> THE K-T BOUNDARY
> This visible boundary between two layers of strata (Cretaceous and Tertiary) is thought to be the result of a mass extinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other Theories
> 
> If the impact theory is not correct, then how is the disappearance of dinosaurs to be explained? Some scientists have suggested that the worlds climate suddenly became too cold. Others have suggested that their numbers declined as dinosaurs ate each other. A few theories have been wacky, such as the suggestion that dinosaurs died out from a plague of indigestion.
> 
> There is another possibility, ignored in secular science journals. While the impact theory admits the possibility of a global catastrophe resulting from an asteroid or comet, the Bible describes a very different global catastrophe that could have caused the K-T extinction eventthe worldwide Flood of Genesis 69.
> 
> The Bible says that all fountains of the great deep were broken up (Genesis 7:11). The breakup of the earths crust would certainly have caused volcanoes on an unprecedented scale during the Flood, explaining the iridium in the K-T boundary. The bulk of the worlds fossils would have formed as a result of this catastrophe.
> 
> While pairs of every kind of dinosaur survived the Flood on board the Ark, it appears that their population never grew large in the new world. Like so many other kinds of animals, their small populations finally went extinct for a variety of reasons typical of many animals, including climate changes, diseases, decrease in food supply, and humans.
> 
> Starting with the Bible, it is easy to make sense of the mass kill of dinosaurs found in the fossil record.
> 
> Paul Taylor graduated with his B.Sc. in chemistry from Nottingham University and his masters in science education from Cardiff University. Paul taught science for 17 years in a state school but is now a proficient writer and speaker for Answers in GenesisUK.
> 
> Dinosaur Killer - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Read the whole article they address your theory that is just one of the theories idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh sweet heyzeus H. Christ - an Ark'ist.
Click to expand...


Is that statement meant to be derogatory against Hispanics?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny, (sad) is that you are forever consigned to youtube videos as a means to promote and defend your irrationally based world of the supernatural. The problem that befuddles you is that your arguments originate from charlatans and snake oil salesmen representing the ICR and such other fundie creationist sites. Both they and you typify the science loathing variety of fundies who seek at every turn to vilify the science they are terrified of. The reason for this is a deep concern that because the process of evolution is so overwhelmingly confirmed by theory and evidence and impossible to refute that most supernauralists have a justified fear that their entire worldview of the supernatural is irreperably dismantled. That is unquestionably why fundie creationists hold such a visceral hatred for science in general and evolutionary science in particular.
> 
> In the realm of the rational, natural worldview, it is the scientific community which is experimenting, exploring, and unfolding new discoveries. I feel a need to remind you that the worldview of the supernaturalist, (your worldview), is replete with claims of supernatural objects and events that exist nowhere in the natural world but exist exclusively in the supernatural / irrational world. If we are going to come to terms with providing explanations for the experiences and the events that occur within our wholly natural world, where do you think we should look for understanding: science or irrationality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, what your saying is there are no peer reviewed ID papers? And you cut and paste other peoples quotes from the internet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are papers published by creationists and reviewed by creationists. But of course, that's just silly.
Click to expand...


Kind of like when Brainwashed Darwinist review other Darwinist papers, right? Yep, that's what I thought. Try some better comparison next time home slice. And by the way, Darwinist comes up in my spell checker so there.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you people always post the first article that disputes what I say ? dear little ol me.
> 
> Far more likely is that the iridium enrichment came from volcanic activity, not outer space. Volcanoes do produce iridium and spread it out.
> 
> As a result of these and other problems, some evolutionary scientists do not accept the impact theory.
> 
> 
> GEOLOGIC TABLE
> The geologic table summarizes the earths rock layers. According to secular scientists, they record millions of years of history, but the Bible indicates that the layers were laid over the past 6,000 years.
> THE K-T BOUNDARY
> This visible boundary between two layers of strata (Cretaceous and Tertiary) is thought to be the result of a mass extinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other Theories
> 
> If the impact theory is not correct, then how is the disappearance of dinosaurs to be explained? Some scientists have suggested that the worlds climate suddenly became too cold. Others have suggested that their numbers declined as dinosaurs ate each other. A few theories have been wacky, such as the suggestion that dinosaurs died out from a plague of indigestion.
> 
> There is another possibility, ignored in secular science journals. While the impact theory admits the possibility of a global catastrophe resulting from an asteroid or comet, the Bible describes a very different global catastrophe that could have caused the K-T extinction eventthe worldwide Flood of Genesis 69.
> 
> The Bible says that all fountains of the great deep were broken up (Genesis 7:11). The breakup of the earths crust would certainly have caused volcanoes on an unprecedented scale during the Flood, explaining the iridium in the K-T boundary. The bulk of the worlds fossils would have formed as a result of this catastrophe.
> 
> While pairs of every kind of dinosaur survived the Flood on board the Ark, it appears that their population never grew large in the new world. Like so many other kinds of animals, their small populations finally went extinct for a variety of reasons typical of many animals, including climate changes, diseases, decrease in food supply, and humans.
> 
> Starting with the Bible, it is easy to make sense of the mass kill of dinosaurs found in the fossil record.
> 
> Paul Taylor graduated with his B.Sc. in chemistry from Nottingham University and his masters in science education from Cardiff University. Paul taught science for 17 years in a state school but is now a proficient writer and speaker for Answers in GenesisUK.
> 
> Dinosaur Killer - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Read the whole article they address your theory that is just one of the theories idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sweet heyzeus H. Christ - an Ark'ist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that statement meant to be derogatory against Hispanics?
Click to expand...


I just find it difficult to imagine anyone accepting the literal Noah - global flood - pairs of animals, silliness.

But I'm sure you have a handy youtube video....


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, what your saying is there are no peer reviewed ID papers? And you cut and paste other peoples quotes from the internet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are papers published by creationists and reviewed by creationists. But of course, that's just silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind of like when Brainwashed Darwinist review other Darwinist papers, right? Yep, that's what I thought. Try some better comparison next time home slice. And by the way, Darwinist comes up in my spell checker so there.
Click to expand...


You somehow missed the junior high school lectures regarding the concept of peer review.

That you found "Darwinist" in your spell checker simply means that there are similar science loathing fundies such as yourself.

Review the integrity of your spell checker. There's no need to capitalize the "B" in brainwashed. 

So... you lied about your spell checker, eh?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are papers published by creationists and reviewed by creationists. But of course, that's just silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like when Brainwashed Darwinist review other Darwinist papers, right? Yep, that's what I thought. Try some better comparison next time home slice. And by the way, Darwinist comes up in my spell checker so there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You somehow missed the junior high school lectures regarding the concept of peer review.
> 
> That you found "Darwinist" in your spell checker simply means that there are similar science loathing fundies such as yourself.
> 
> Review the integrity of your spell checker. There's no need to capitalize the "B" in brainwashed.
> 
> So... you lied about your spell checker, eh?
Click to expand...


I find it shocking that evolutionists can be so confident when they can't even come up with a mechanism for self-replication of dna in the cell.

[Do you guys like my Hollie technique? Quote someone's post and then post a response that has absolutely no relevance to the quote.]


----------



## UltimateReality

"Two questions then arise: (1) How many mutations would it take to turn an australopithecine species into a Homo erectus? And (2) If there are only one and a half million years between A. afarensis and H. erectus, can neo-Darwinism produce the necessary changes in the time allotted? How many mutations would it take?

Bramble and Lieberman13 count sixteen features of the human body that first appear in H. erectus or H. sapiens. These features are necessary to stabilize the head, permit counter-rotation of the torso with the head and hips, stabilize the trunk, absorb shock and transfer energy during running. Many of these changes must occur together to be of any benefit.

Is there enough time to get sixteen anatomical changes by a neo- Darwinian process? Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population."

More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn&#8217;t happen the way Darwin said | Uncommon Descent


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like when Brainwashed Darwinist review other Darwinist papers, right? Yep, that's what I thought. Try some better comparison next time home slice. And by the way, Darwinist comes up in my spell checker so there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You somehow missed the junior high school lectures regarding the concept of peer review.
> 
> That you found "Darwinist" in your spell checker simply means that there are similar science loathing fundies such as yourself.
> 
> Review the integrity of your spell checker. There's no need to capitalize the "B" in brainwashed.
> 
> So... you lied about your spell checker, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it shocking that evolutionists can be so confident when they can't even come up with a mechanism for self-replication of dna in the cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really find it shocking? You might also find it shocking that _Evilutionists_ don't necessarily study the precise mechanisms of DNA biology. A biologist might be better trained for that. But then, why bother studying evilution or biology when it's much simpler to sit glassy-eyed and slack-jawed and leave it all up to the gods.
> 
> Don't you pals at the ICR have a youtube video explaining that? It just needs to be a 10 second teaser flashing out "The Gods Didi It".
> 
> I just find it odd that you hope to use the work of science in an attempt to demonize the science you have such revulsion for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Do you guys like my Hollie technique? Quote someone's post and then post a response that has absolutely no relevance to the quote.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you losing track of what you have posted?
> 
> I'll require you to continue posting only links to youtube videos.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> "Two questions then arise: (1) How many mutations would it take to turn an australopithecine species into a Homo erectus? And (2) If there are only one and a half million years between A. afarensis and H. erectus, can neo-Darwinism produce the necessary changes in the time allotted? How many mutations would it take?
> 
> Bramble and Lieberman13 count sixteen features of the human body that first appear in H. erectus or H. sapiens. These features are necessary to stabilize the head, permit counter-rotation of the torso with the head and hips, stabilize the trunk, absorb shock and transfer energy during running. Many of these changes must occur together to be of any benefit.
> 
> Is there enough time to get sixteen anatomical changes by a neo- Darwinian process? Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population."
> 
> More from Ann Gauger on why humans didnt happen the way Darwin said | Uncommon Descent




From the "About" page of Uncommon Descent:


> Uncommon Descent holds that
> 
> Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution  an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.




As we know, "ID" is fundie code for creationism. The creationist lobby has been thrown out of courts in several U.S. states for attempting to force Christian creationism down the throats of school boards. Their tactics were then revised to abandon "creationism" with a nre term: "Intelligent Design". That tactic has met a similarly negative response from the courts who have thrown out ID as simply recycled creationist musings.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> "Two questions then arise: (1) How many mutations would it take to turn an australopithecine species into a Homo erectus? And (2) If there are only one and a half million years between A. afarensis and H. erectus, can neo-Darwinism produce the necessary changes in the time allotted? How many mutations would it take?
> 
> Bramble and Lieberman13 count sixteen features of the human body that first appear in H. erectus or H. sapiens. These features are necessary to stabilize the head, permit counter-rotation of the torso with the head and hips, stabilize the trunk, absorb shock and transfer energy during running. Many of these changes must occur together to be of any benefit.
> 
> Is there enough time to get sixteen anatomical changes by a neo- Darwinian process? Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population."
> 
> More from Ann Gauger on why humans didnt happen the way Darwin said | Uncommon Descent



Encyclopedia of American Loons: #140: Ann Gauger



> #140: Ann Gauger
> 
> Gauger has a PhD in zoology and is a signatory of Discovery Institutes 2005 petition Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Shes currently associated with the Discovery affiliated creationist think-tank the Biologic Institute whose goal is to perform real research on ID and which has yet to produce a single publication supporting ID creationism despite big budgets and numerous employed scientists.
> 
> A rather infamous incident occurred when Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium, 2007, in Boston, Massachusetts. She discussed leaky growth in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner, a real scientist, asked the obvious question: So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab? at which point the moderator halted questioning - Gauger has earlier argued that any evolutionary change is non-adaptive.


----------



## koshergrl

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Two questions then arise: (1) How many mutations would it take to turn an australopithecine species into a Homo erectus? And (2) If there are only one and a half million years between A. afarensis and H. erectus, can neo-Darwinism produce the necessary changes in the time allotted? How many mutations would it take?
> 
> Bramble and Lieberman13 count sixteen features of the human body that first appear in H. erectus or H. sapiens. These features are necessary to stabilize the head, permit counter-rotation of the torso with the head and hips, stabilize the trunk, absorb shock and transfer energy during running. Many of these changes must occur together to be of any benefit.
> 
> Is there enough time to get sixteen anatomical changes by a neo- Darwinian process? Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population."
> 
> More from Ann Gauger on why humans didnt happen the way Darwin said | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the "About" page of Uncommon Descent:
> 
> 
> 
> Uncommon Descent holds that
> 
> Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution  an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As we know, "ID" is fundie code for creationism. The creationist lobby has been thrown out of courts in several U.S. states for attempting to force Christian creationism down the throats of school boards. Their tactics were then revised to abandon "creationism" with a nre term: "Intelligent Design". That tactic has met a similarly negative response from the courts who have thrown out ID as simply recycled creationist musings.
Click to expand...


Examples, please. Cite and source.


----------



## Hollie

koshergrl said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Two questions then arise: (1) How many mutations would it take to turn an australopithecine species into a Homo erectus? And (2) If there are only one and a half million years between A. afarensis and H. erectus, can neo-Darwinism produce the necessary changes in the time allotted? How many mutations would it take?
> 
> Bramble and Lieberman13 count sixteen features of the human body that first appear in H. erectus or H. sapiens. These features are necessary to stabilize the head, permit counter-rotation of the torso with the head and hips, stabilize the trunk, absorb shock and transfer energy during running. Many of these changes must occur together to be of any benefit.
> 
> Is there enough time to get sixteen anatomical changes by a neo- Darwinian process? Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population."
> 
> More from Ann Gauger on why humans didnt happen the way Darwin said | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the "About" page of Uncommon Descent:
> 
> 
> 
> Uncommon Descent holds that
> 
> Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution  an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As we know, "ID" is fundie code for creationism. The creationist lobby has been thrown out of courts in several U.S. states for attempting to force Christian creationism down the throats of school boards. Their tactics were then revised to abandon "creationism" with a nre term: "Intelligent Design". That tactic has met a similarly negative response from the courts who have thrown out ID as simply recycled creationist musings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Examples, please. Cite and source.
Click to expand...

Start here:

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | NCSE


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the "About" page of Uncommon Descent:
> 
> As we know, "ID" is fundie code for creationism. The creationist lobby has been thrown out of courts in several U.S. states for attempting to force Christian creationism down the throats of school boards. Their tactics were then revised to abandon "creationism" with a nre term: "Intelligent Design". That tactic has met a similarly negative response from the courts who have thrown out ID as simply recycled creationist musings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examples, please. Cite and source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start here:
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | NCSE
Click to expand...


So we have brainwashed people in the courts that have been taught the same crap.

Let's see how rediculous your theory is.

1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?



Three Devastating Questions To Ask Evolutionists & Three Points Which Destroy The Theory Of Evolution And Show That Intelligent Design Is A Reality


Almost as bad as your view on the evolution of the giraffes neck he would have starved to death waiting.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You somehow missed the junior high school lectures regarding the concept of peer review.
> 
> That you found "Darwinist" in your spell checker simply means that there are similar science loathing fundies such as yourself.
> 
> Review the integrity of your spell checker. There's no need to capitalize the "B" in brainwashed.
> 
> So... you lied about your spell checker, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really find it shocking? You might also find it shocking that _Evilutionists_ don't necessarily study the precise mechanisms of DNA biology. A biologist might be better trained for that. But then, why bother studying evilution or biology when it's much simpler to sit glassy-eyed and slack-jawed and leave it all up to the gods.
> 
> Don't you pals at the ICR have a youtube video explaining that? It just needs to be a 10 second teaser flashing out "The Gods Didi It".
> 
> I just find it odd that you hope to use the work of science in an attempt to demonize the science you have such revulsion for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Do you guys like my Hollie technique? Quote someone's post and then post a response that has absolutely no relevance to the quote.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you losing track of what you have posted?
> 
> I'll require you to continue posting only links to youtube videos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe I could just copy what someone else said on another forum and pass it off as my own.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Examples, please. Cite and source.
> 
> 
> 
> Start here:
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | NCSE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we have brainwashed people in the courts that have been taught the same crap.
Click to expand...

It's a shame, isn't it? 

We have a multitude of court cases wherein judges have consistently held that creationism is not science and does not belong in a school syllabus. 

Fortunately, we have a legal system that protects me and others from science loathing, hate promoting fundie creationists.

Thanks, Isis.  





> Let's see how rediculous your theory is.
> 
> 1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?
> 
> 2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?
> 
> 3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?
> 
> 
> 
> Three Devastating Questions To Ask Evolutionists & Three Points Which Destroy The Theory Of Evolution And Show That Intelligent Design Is A Reality
> 
> 
> Almost as bad as your view on the evolution of the giraffes neck he would have starved to death waiting.



Read this: The Evilution of Chicken Lips

you'resostupidyou'llbelieveanything.com


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really find it shocking? You might also find it shocking that _Evilutionists_ don't necessarily study the precise mechanisms of DNA biology. A biologist might be better trained for that. But then, why bother studying evilution or biology when it's much simpler to sit glassy-eyed and slack-jawed and leave it all up to the gods.
> 
> Don't you pals at the ICR have a youtube video explaining that? It just needs to be a 10 second teaser flashing out "The Gods Didi It".
> 
> I just find it odd that you hope to use the work of science in an attempt to demonize the science you have such revulsion for.
> 
> 
> Are you losing track of what you have posted?
> 
> I'll require you to continue posting only links to youtube videos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe I could just copy what someone else said on another forum and pass it off as my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You frequently do, of course.
> 
> Like others, I've posted on other boards. I just don't have a habit of posting goofy youtube videos in place of understanding the subject matter I comment on.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really find it shocking? You might also find it shocking that _Evilutionists_ don't necessarily study the precise mechanisms of DNA biology. A biologist might be better trained for that. But then, why bother studying evilution or biology when it's much simpler to sit glassy-eyed and slack-jawed and leave it all up to the gods.
> 
> Don't you pals at the ICR have a youtube video explaining that? It just needs to be a 10 second teaser flashing out "The Gods Didi It".
> 
> I just find it odd that you hope to use the work of science in an attempt to demonize the science you have such revulsion for.
> 
> 
> Are you losing track of what you have posted?
> 
> I'll require you to continue posting only links to youtube videos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... it must be a marvelous thing to promote the falsehoods and idiocy of Ann Gauger as a source for creationist nonsense when she is a card carrying member of the _American Loons_.
> 
> Chuckle.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start here:
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | NCSE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have brainwashed people in the courts that have been taught the same crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a shame, isn't it?
> 
> We have a multitude of court cases wherein judges have consistently held that creationism is not science and does not belong in a school syllabus.
> 
> Fortunately, we have a legal system that protects me and others from science loathing, hate promoting fundie creationists.
> 
> Thanks, Isis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see how rediculous your theory is.
> 
> 1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?
> 
> 2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?
> 
> 3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?
> 
> 
> 
> Three Devastating Questions To Ask Evolutionists & Three Points Which Destroy The Theory Of Evolution And Show That Intelligent Design Is A Reality
> 
> 
> Almost as bad as your view on the evolution of the giraffes neck he would have starved to death waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read this: The Evilution of Chicken Lips
> 
> you'resostupidyou'llbelieveanything.com
Click to expand...


What these questions show is that the evolutionist are so busy looking for a mechanism and erasing the certainty of the agent/God, hoping for a natural process  to be the source for all life. These questions show the impossibility of life just evolving that it needed a designer.

I posted similar questions of my own in another thread and I got the same kind of response the unwillingness of your side to admit it is highly unlikely for life to just pop into existence through a natural, unguided,natural process,that life and this great universe was most certainly designed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe I could just copy what someone else said on another forum and pass it off as my own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You frequently do, of course.
> 
> Like others, I've posted on other boards. I just don't have a habit of posting goofy youtube videos in place of understanding the subject matter I comment on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the questions put to you for a reason,what is that reason ?
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... it must be a marvelous thing to promote the falsehoods and idiocy of Ann Gauger as a source for creationist nonsense when she is a card carrying member of the _American Loons_.
> 
> Chuckle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chuckle is on you when we consult reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You frequently do, of course.
> 
> Like others, I've posted on other boards. I just don't have a habit of posting goofy youtube videos in place of understanding the subject matter I comment on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the questions put to you for a reason,what is that reason ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no intention of feeling a need to "refute" the endless YouTube videos you post.
> 
> Posting YouTube videos that are churned out by fundie creationists are often self-refuting in the sense that they are prepared with a purpose of furthering an agenda. They are not without a certain comedic content but totally predictable in their message and intended audience.
> 
> It was you who hoped to further a rather predictable agenda by hand waving off the bums rush given to fundie creationists - consistently- by the judiciary which - consistently - ruling that creationism and its remanufactured stepchild: ID, is not science and has no business in public school classrooms.
> 
> Floating conspiracy theories that the judiciary is "brainwashed" is one of the truly desperate and despicable tactics of the fundie crowd.
> 
> You are refusing to address questions put before you. Why?
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we have brainwashed people in the courts that have been taught the same crap.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame, isn't it?
> 
> We have a multitude of court cases wherein judges have consistently held that creationism is not science and does not belong in a school syllabus.
> 
> Fortunately, we have a legal system that protects me and others from science loathing, hate promoting fundie creationists.
> 
> Thanks, Isis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see how rediculous your theory is.
> 
> 1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?
> 
> 2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?
> 
> 3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?
> 
> 
> 
> Three Devastating Questions To Ask Evolutionists & Three Points Which Destroy The Theory Of Evolution And Show That Intelligent Design Is A Reality
> 
> 
> Almost as bad as your view on the evolution of the giraffes neck he would have starved to death waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read this: The Evilution of Chicken Lips
> 
> you'resostupidyou'llbelieveanything.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What these questions show is that the evolutionist are so busy looking for a mechanism and erasing the certainty of the agent/God, hoping for a natural process  to be the source for all life. These questions show the impossibility of life just evolving that it needed a designer.
> 
> I posted similar questions of my own in another thread and I got the same kind of response the unwillingness of your side to admit it is highly unlikely for life to just pop into existence through a natural, unguided,natural process,that life and this great universe was most certainly designed.
Click to expand...

As usual, you make bellicose claims as to a certainty of your god(s) when no certainty exists. 
It's comically tragic that you insist on beating people with your creationist propaganda while never understanding that your claims are unfounded and never being able to provide a single bit of verifiable evidence for your claim to gods.

You have no clue that you are the worst type of representative for the creationist crowd and you just alienate people by thumping them with your bible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start here:
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | NCSE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have brainwashed people in the courts that have been taught the same crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a shame, isn't it?
> 
> We have a multitude of court cases wherein judges have consistently held that creationism is not science and does not belong in a school syllabus.
> 
> Fortunately, we have a legal system that protects me and others from science loathing, hate promoting fundie creationists.
> 
> Thanks, Isis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see how rediculous your theory is.
> 
> 1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?
> 
> 2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?
> 
> 3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?
> 
> 
> 
> Three Devastating Questions To Ask Evolutionists & Three Points Which Destroy The Theory Of Evolution And Show That Intelligent Design Is A Reality
> 
> 
> Almost as bad as your view on the evolution of the giraffes neck he would have starved to death waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read this: The Evilution of Chicken Lips
> 
> you'resostupidyou'llbelieveanything.com
Click to expand...


Here let me unlock the atheist riddle for you. What came first the chicken or the egg ? Well of course it was the chicken but worse yet it had to be two chickens male and female. The hen could lay eggs but they would simply rott away producing no offspring.

The rooster is needed because the rooster fertilised the eggs which could now produce offspring.

That is why God created male and female for reproduction.

Gen 1:27  And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female. 

Gen 6:19  And you shall bring into the ark two of every kind, of every living thing of all flesh, to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 

Noah was not instructed to bring plants on the ark except for food. God knew they would survive and reproduce and produce what we see today.

If you try to argue against this you are trying to argue against a proven fact.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The chuckle is on you when we consult reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I "consult" reality every day. That reality consistently adheres to natural processes.
> 
> Nowhere do we see unnatural or supernatural processes. It's only in the strange, abnormal world of nonsensical, creationist claims that we are told of supernatural forced and processes that have a habit if never being extant.
> 
> That's because you dwell in a fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the questions put to you for a reason,what is that reason ?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no intention of feeling a need to "refute" the endless YouTube videos you post.
> 
> Posting YouTube videos that are churned out by fundie creationists are often self-refuting in the sense that they are prepared with a purpose of furthering an agenda. They are not without a certain comedic content but totally predictable in their message and intended audience.
> 
> It was you who hoped to further a rather predictable agenda by hand waving off the bums rush given to fundie creationists - consistently- by the judiciary which - consistently - ruling that creationism and its remanufactured stepchild: ID, is not science and has no business in public school classrooms.
> 
> Floating conspiracy theories that the judiciary is "brainwashed" is one of the truly desperate and despicable tactics of the fundie crowd.
> 
> You are refusing to address questions put before you. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh but these questions did not come from a video. These are logical questions testing your honesty and the reality you live in.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame, isn't it?
> 
> We have a multitude of court cases wherein judges have consistently held that creationism is not science and does not belong in a school syllabus.
> 
> Fortunately, we have a legal system that protects me and others from science loathing, hate promoting fundie creationists.
> 
> Thanks, Isis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read this: The Evilution of Chicken Lips
> 
> you'resostupidyou'llbelieveanything.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What these questions show is that the evolutionist are so busy looking for a mechanism and erasing the certainty of the agent/God, hoping for a natural process  to be the source for all life. These questions show the impossibility of life just evolving that it needed a designer.
> 
> I posted similar questions of my own in another thread and I got the same kind of response the unwillingness of your side to admit it is highly unlikely for life to just pop into existence through a natural, unguided,natural process,that life and this great universe was most certainly designed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you make bellicose claims as to a certainty of your god(s) when no certainty exists.
> It's comically tragic that you insist on beating people with your creationist propaganda while never understanding that your claims are unfounded and never being able to provide a single bit of verifiable evidence for your claim to gods.
> 
> You have no clue that you are the worst type of representative for the creationist crowd and you just alienate people by thumping them with your bible.
Click to expand...


Like I said before you dismiss the notion of the active agent/God because you can't explain him and vacate reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I "consult" reality every day. That reality consistently adheres to natural processes.
> 
> Nowhere do we see unnatural or supernatural processes. It's only in the strange, abnormal world of nonsensical, creationist claims that we are told of supernatural forced and processes that have a habit if never being extant.
> 
> That's because you dwell in a fantasy world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You only think you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only think you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another conspiracy theory. How predictable.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What these questions show is that the evolutionist are so busy looking for a mechanism and erasing the certainty of the agent/God, hoping for a natural process  to be the source for all life. These questions show the impossibility of life just evolving that it needed a designer.
> 
> I posted similar questions of my own in another thread and I got the same kind of response the unwillingness of your side to admit it is highly unlikely for life to just pop into existence through a natural, unguided,natural process,that life and this great universe was most certainly designed.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you make bellicose claims as to a certainty of your god(s) when no certainty exists.
> It's comically tragic that you insist on beating people with your creationist propaganda while never understanding that your claims are unfounded and never being able to provide a single bit of verifiable evidence for your claim to gods.
> 
> You have no clue that you are the worst type of representative for the creationist crowd and you just alienate people by thumping them with your bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said before you dismiss the notion of the active agent/God because you can't explain him and vacate reality.
Click to expand...

You should read your posts. It is you who is insisting that supernatural realms exist and those realms are commanded by gods. You just consistently refuse to provide a mechanism for us to examine those realms. Further, you insist that your gods are definable but refuse to provide a mechanism whereby we can access these gods and make them discoverable.

As always, you make grandiose claims that are completely groundless.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What these questions show is that the evolutionist are so busy looking for a mechanism and erasing the certainty of the agent/God, hoping for a natural process  to be the source for all life. These questions show the impossibility of life just evolving that it needed a designer.
> 
> I posted similar questions of my own in another thread and I got the same kind of response the unwillingness of your side to admit it is highly unlikely for life to just pop into existence through a natural, unguided,natural process,that life and this great universe was most certainly designed.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you make bellicose claims as to a certainty of your god(s) when no certainty exists.
> It's comically tragic that you insist on beating people with your creationist propaganda while never understanding that your claims are unfounded and never being able to provide a single bit of verifiable evidence for your claim to gods.
> 
> You have no clue that you are the worst type of representative for the creationist crowd and you just alienate people by thumping them with your bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said before you dismiss the notion of the active agent/God because you can't explain him and vacate reality.
Click to expand...

how is it that I am vacating reality when you are insisting that there is a supernatural reality that is inaccessible to us.


You're telling us that you have access to a supernatural reality that is the -real- reality.

Wow!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another conspiracy theory. How predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is a very tough thing for the brainwashed to consider when they want to believe someting that never happened or was impossible to happen. Your reality is because you can't prove God exists it must have happened naturally. Well you can clearly see the problems believing as you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you make bellicose claims as to a certainty of your god(s) when no certainty exists.
> It's comically tragic that you insist on beating people with your creationist propaganda while never understanding that your claims are unfounded and never being able to provide a single bit of verifiable evidence for your claim to gods.
> 
> You have no clue that you are the worst type of representative for the creationist crowd and you just alienate people by thumping them with your bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before you dismiss the notion of the active agent/God because you can't explain him and vacate reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should read your posts. It is you who is insisting that supernatural realms exist and those realms are commanded by gods. You just consistently refuse to provide a mechanism for us to examine those realms. Further, you insist that your gods are definable but refuse to provide a mechanism whereby we can access these gods and make them discoverable.
> 
> As always, you make grandiose claims that are completely groundless.
Click to expand...


You are right they are very simple examples of reality but are a better and the right explanation how life came to be.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you make bellicose claims as to a certainty of your god(s) when no certainty exists.
> It's comically tragic that you insist on beating people with your creationist propaganda while never understanding that your claims are unfounded and never being able to provide a single bit of verifiable evidence for your claim to gods.
> 
> You have no clue that you are the worst type of representative for the creationist crowd and you just alienate people by thumping them with your bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before you dismiss the notion of the active agent/God because you can't explain him and vacate reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how is it that I am vacating reality when you are insisting that there is a supernatural reality that is inaccessible to us.
> 
> 
> You're telling us that you have access to a supernatural reality that is the -real- reality.
> 
> Wow!
Click to expand...


Then give a better explanation, that makes sense through reality of what came first the chicken or the egg ? if i am in error.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no intention of feeling a need to "refute" the endless YouTube videos you post.
> 
> Posting YouTube videos that are churned out by fundie creationists are often self-refuting in the sense that they are prepared with a purpose of furthering an agenda. They are not without a certain comedic content but totally predictable in their message and intended audience.
> 
> It was you who hoped to further a rather predictable agenda by hand waving off the bums rush given to fundie creationists - consistently- by the judiciary which - consistently - ruling that creationism and its remanufactured stepchild: ID, is not science and has no business in public school classrooms.
> 
> Floating conspiracy theories that the judiciary is "brainwashed" is one of the truly desperate and despicable tactics of the fundie crowd.
> 
> You are refusing to address questions put before you. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but these questions did not come from a video. These are logical questions testing your honesty and the reality you live in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logical questions? Consider your behavior for a moment.
> 
> You have posted that the many cases of creationists being summarily booted out of public classrooms is because the judges are all brainwashed. Yet, here you are questioning the honesty of others and their perceptions of reality.
> 
> Are you on mind altering meds?
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... it must be a marvelous thing to promote the falsehoods and idiocy of Ann Gauger as a source for creationist nonsense when she is a card carrying member of the _American Loons_.
> 
> Chuckle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do the Darwinists hate science so much? Why can't they follow accepted methods of the other sciences instead of just making speculation turn into fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the questions put to you for a reason,what is that reason ?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no intention of feeling a need to "refute" the endless YouTube videos you post.
> 
> Posting YouTube videos that are churned out by fundie creationists are often self-refuting in the sense that they are prepared with a purpose of furthering an agenda. They are not without a certain comedic content but totally predictable in their message and intended audience.
> 
> It was you who hoped to further a rather predictable agenda by hand waving off the bums rush given to fundie creationists - consistently- by the judiciary which - consistently - ruling that creationism and its remanufactured stepchild: ID, is not science and has no business in public school classrooms.
> 
> Floating conspiracy theories that the judiciary is "brainwashed" is one of the truly desperate and despicable tactics of the fundie crowd.
> 
> You are refusing to address questions put before you. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, you are so blind. It is funny that you call out Creationists for the exact same things Darwinists do but you seem totally unaware of it, or you are in total denial. At least the Creationists aren't militant like the Darwinists who try to stomp out every one that questions their party line. You're just another lacky Darwinist Nazi, who doesn't believe any dissenting opinions should be heard. Hollie's world, like Darwins world, is alot like Orwell's 1984... We will tell you what to think. Don't ask questions.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the questions put to you for a reason,what is that reason ?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no intention of feeling a need to "refute" the endless YouTube videos you post.
> 
> Posting YouTube videos that are churned out by fundie creationists are often self-refuting in the sense that they are prepared with a purpose of furthering an agenda. They are not without a certain comedic content but totally predictable in their message and intended audience.
> 
> It was you who hoped to further a rather predictable agenda by hand waving off the bums rush given to fundie creationists - consistently- by the judiciary which - consistently - ruling that creationism and its remanufactured stepchild: ID, is not science and has no business in public school classrooms.
> 
> Floating conspiracy theories that the judiciary is "brainwashed" is one of the truly desperate and despicable tactics of the fundie crowd.
> 
> You are refusing to address questions put before you. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The youtube video I posted was of your lord and savior Wil Provine, not a Creationists.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another conspiracy theory. How predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, why do you hate Christians and Mexicans so much???
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no intention of feeling a need to "refute" the endless YouTube videos you post.
> 
> Posting YouTube videos that are churned out by fundie creationists are often self-refuting in the sense that they are prepared with a purpose of furthering an agenda. They are not without a certain comedic content but totally predictable in their message and intended audience.
> 
> It was you who hoped to further a rather predictable agenda by hand waving off the bums rush given to fundie creationists - consistently- by the judiciary which - consistently - ruling that creationism and its remanufactured stepchild: ID, is not science and has no business in public school classrooms.
> 
> Floating conspiracy theories that the judiciary is "brainwashed" is one of the truly desperate and despicable tactics of the fundie crowd.
> 
> You are refusing to address questions put before you. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you are so blind. It is funny that you call out Creationists for the exact same things Darwinists do but you seem totally unaware of it, or you are in total denial. At least the Creationists aren't militant like the Darwinists who try to stomp out every one that questions their party line. You're just another lacky Darwinist Nazi, who doesn't believe any dissenting opinions should be heard. Hollie's world, like Darwins world, is alot like Orwell's 1984... We will tell you what to think. Don't ask questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should know by this point that its all just one big conspiracy.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, why do you hate Christians and Mexicans so much???
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you trading sexual favors to men on the street in exchange for crack cocaine?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

I have no idea what the quote system is doing. It is definitely messed up ,must have suffered a mutation.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> I have no idea what the quote system is doing. It is definitely messed up ,must have suffered a mutation.



I happens from time to time, I think it's probably just a matter of one number or bracket getting accidentally left out in a post.

But I do get your pun.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those comments were in his book and he is no longer an atheist. Go on to your spin sites if you must but he is on record in video and his book.
> 
> 
> 
> he's a agnostic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said he was an agnostic several pages ago and you said bullshit ! So now that he is no longer an atheist he must be evolving.
Click to expand...

again you intensionally misunderstand


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist are not sure exactly how the dinosaurs went extinct except the most common explanation was asteroidsand meteors . So how did any creature survive asteroids and meteors ? do you understand the damage that asteroids would do to this planet ? It's kind of a stretch of the imagination to think all dinosaurs went extinct across the entire planet but other animals and fish survived.
> 
> Besides there is no global wide evidence of asteroid and meteor damage to the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KT extinction
> 
> Cretaceous
> 
> Heard of the Chicxulub Crater?  It is the K-T or K-Pg wound, to the Earth, which encompasses a large area, of the Yucatan Peninsula, into the Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> There went the dinosaurs.  Crocodilians survived because they can get into water, hibernate in caves or dried mud, eat dead things, and their young can eat insects.
> 
> Heard of CHAINSAWS?  Humans are pushing the CO2 up, via burning sequestered carbon, but with CHAINSAWS, humans are reducing CO2 metabolizers, so we are now in the grip, of RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING.  We are entering Mass Extinction Event 6, which will challenge the K-T and P-T extinctions, for ranking, in the all-time top killers.
> 
> When you aren't too bright, you ignore what man has done.  You ignore how God is an invention, to control people, but people don't want rational control, so people like the Pope have to proclaim, how atheism is responsible, for skepticism, against global warming.  Nice try, Benedict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ignored your babble but the article on KT was an interesting read. I wonder why no one proposed that the asteroid impact could have caused volcanic eruptions at the same time. That kind of jolt to the earth could have cracked all kinds of fissures resulting in mass amounts of volcanoes worldwide.
Click to expand...

could have, but there is no evidence supporting that view.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist are not sure exactly how the dinosaurs went extinct except the most common explanation was asteroidsand meteors . So how did any creature survive asteroids and meteors ? do you understand the damage that asteroids would do to this planet ? It's kind of a stretch of the imagination to think all dinosaurs went extinct across the entire planet but other animals and fish survived.
> 
> Besides there is no global wide evidence of asteroid and meteor damage to the planet.
> 
> Pictures of meteor crater in Arizona.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...W7jJzZDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1526&bih=1061
> 
> 
> 
> you can't really be this ignorant .
> 
> Evidence for the Asteroid Impact Hypothesis
> 
> Impact Crater
> This 150-kilometer-wide crater lies just off the Yucatan peninsula. Scientists calculate that it was blasted into Earth by a 10-kilometer-wide asteroid or comet traveling 30 kilometers per second -- 150 times faster than a jet airliner.
> 
> Scientists have concluded that the impact that created this crater occurred 65 million years ago. The date corresponds perfectly to the date of the dinosaur extinction.
> 
> Rare Metal
> The metal iridium, which is similar to platinum, is very rare on Earth's surface but is more common in asteroids and in molten rock deep within the planet.
> 
> Scientists have discovered levels of iridium 30 times greater than average in the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the layer of sedimentary rock laid down at the time of the dinosaur extinction.
> 
> Melted Rock
> These pieces of once-molten rock, called impact ejecta, are evidence of an explosion powerful enough to instantly melt bedrock and propel it more than a hundred miles from its origin.
> 
> Ranging in size from large chunks to tiny beads, impact ejecta are common at or near the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the geological layer that defines the dinosaur extinction.
> 
> Fractured Crystals
> These crystals, often called "shocked quartz," show a distinctive pattern of fracturing caused by high-energy impacts or explosions.
> 
> Some scientists maintain that the fracture pattern in these quartz crystals could only have been caused by a massive asteroid or comet impact. The pattern is prevalent in quartz found at or near the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the geological layer deposited at the time of the extinction.
> 
> Fossil Record
> A gradual decline in the number of dinosaur species would likely mirror an equally gradual cause of their ultimate extinction. Conversely, a sudden "now you see them, now you don't" end to the dinosaurs implies a catastrophic cause. Depending on location and interpretation, the fossil record seems to say different things.
> 
> Some paleontologists see evidence in the fossil record that dinosaurs were doing quite well prior to the end of the Cretaceous -- that they were in no way declining in abundance when the impact occurred.
> Evolution: Extinction: What Killed the Dinosaurs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorant ? that killed every living dinosaur across the globe ?
> 
> You do understand what a theory is don't you ?
Click to expand...

yes I do,  too bad you have no idea what a theory is 
your last statement is a prime example of your ignorance or out and out stupidty.
you are as always attempting to dumb things down. 
no one has ever said the impact killed all the dinosaurs all at once, It's one of the lies you tell yourself when fact overrides your fantasy.
what the evidence shows is the impact caused a titanic amount  of dust and debris to be thrown miles in to the atmosphere (just like volcanoes ) blocking the sun and changing the temperature thus changing the climate, none of this happened instantly. 
first, most of the plants died then the plant eaters died then the predators died.
to put it simply the dinosaurs died of starvation NOT BY BEING VAPORIZED.
HERE AN EXAMPLE what killed more people when we a-bombed  Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
the blast?
or the radiation left by the blast or the fires caused by the blast? 
ever heard of cause and effect?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> he's a agnostic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said he was an agnostic several pages ago and you said bullshit ! So now that he is no longer an atheist he must be evolving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again you intensionally misunderstand
Click to expand...


That would be you Daws.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what the quote system is doing. It is definitely messed up ,must have suffered a mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I happens from time to time, I think it's probably just a matter of one number or bracket getting accidentally left out in a post.
> 
> But I do get your pun.
Click to expand...


I thought I would just slip that in but you are probably the only one here on the dark side that would understand that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can't really be this ignorant .
> 
> Evidence for the Asteroid Impact Hypothesis
> 
> Impact Crater
> This 150-kilometer-wide crater lies just off the Yucatan peninsula. Scientists calculate that it was blasted into Earth by a 10-kilometer-wide asteroid or comet traveling 30 kilometers per second -- 150 times faster than a jet airliner.
> 
> Scientists have concluded that the impact that created this crater occurred 65 million years ago. The date corresponds perfectly to the date of the dinosaur extinction.
> 
> Rare Metal
> The metal iridium, which is similar to platinum, is very rare on Earth's surface but is more common in asteroids and in molten rock deep within the planet.
> 
> Scientists have discovered levels of iridium 30 times greater than average in the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the layer of sedimentary rock laid down at the time of the dinosaur extinction.
> 
> Melted Rock
> These pieces of once-molten rock, called impact ejecta, are evidence of an explosion powerful enough to instantly melt bedrock and propel it more than a hundred miles from its origin.
> 
> Ranging in size from large chunks to tiny beads, impact ejecta are common at or near the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the geological layer that defines the dinosaur extinction.
> 
> Fractured Crystals
> These crystals, often called "shocked quartz," show a distinctive pattern of fracturing caused by high-energy impacts or explosions.
> 
> Some scientists maintain that the fracture pattern in these quartz crystals could only have been caused by a massive asteroid or comet impact. The pattern is prevalent in quartz found at or near the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the geological layer deposited at the time of the extinction.
> 
> Fossil Record
> A gradual decline in the number of dinosaur species would likely mirror an equally gradual cause of their ultimate extinction. Conversely, a sudden "now you see them, now you don't" end to the dinosaurs implies a catastrophic cause. Depending on location and interpretation, the fossil record seems to say different things.
> 
> Some paleontologists see evidence in the fossil record that dinosaurs were doing quite well prior to the end of the Cretaceous -- that they were in no way declining in abundance when the impact occurred.
> Evolution: Extinction: What Killed the Dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant ? that killed every living dinosaur across the globe ?
> 
> You do understand what a theory is don't you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes I do,  too bad you have no idea what a theory is
> your last statement is a prime example of your ignorance or out and out stupidty.
> you are as always attempting to dumb things down.
> no one has ever said the impact killed all the dinosaurs all at once, It's one of the lies you tell yourself when fact overrides your fantasy.
> what the evidence shows is the impact caused a titanic amount  of dust and debris to be thrown miles in to the atmosphere (just like volcanoes ) blocking the sun and changing the temperature thus changing the climate, none of this happened instantly.
> first, most of the plants died then the plant eaters died then the predators died.
> to put it simply the dinosaurs died of starvation NOT BY BEING VAPORIZED.
> HERE AN EXAMPLE what killed more people when we a-bombed  Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> the blast?
> or the radiation left by the blast or the fires caused by the blast?
> ever heard of cause and effect?
Click to expand...


You and the other guy acted like that theory is fact and there are no other theories on the subject. You proved that by calling me ignorant remember ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant ? that killed every living dinosaur across the globe ?
> 
> You do understand what a theory is don't you ?
> 
> 
> 
> yes I do,  too bad you have no idea what a theory is
> your last statement is a prime example of your ignorance or out and out stupidty.
> you are as always attempting to dumb things down.
> no one has ever said the impact killed all the dinosaurs all at once, It's one of the lies you tell yourself when fact overrides your fantasy.
> what the evidence shows is the impact caused a titanic amount  of dust and debris to be thrown miles in to the atmosphere (just like volcanoes ) blocking the sun and changing the temperature thus changing the climate, none of this happened instantly.
> first, most of the plants died then the plant eaters died then the predators died.
> to put it simply the dinosaurs died of starvation NOT BY BEING VAPORIZED.
> HERE AN EXAMPLE what killed more people when we a-bombed  Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> the blast?
> or the radiation left by the blast or the fires caused by the blast?
> ever heard of cause and effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and the other guy acted like that theory is fact and there are no other theories on the subject. You proved that by calling me ignorant remember ?
Click to expand...

really? hummm.. maybe that's because there is evidence to corroborate it ..
unlike you fairy tales from non answers in Genesis.. that have no evidence to back the conjecture...presented in them 
so yes, you are ignorant and what you present is not a vaible theory.
btw the way nice dodge!


----------



## daws101

no one has ever said the impact killed all the dinosaurs all at once, It's one of the lies you tell yourself when fact overrides your fantasy.
what the evidence shows is the impact caused a titanic amount of dust and debris to be thrown miles in to the atmosphere (just like volcanoes ) blocking the sun and changing the temperature thus changing the climate, none of this happened instantly. 
first, most of the plants died then the plant eaters died then the predators died.
to put it simply the dinosaurs died of starvation NOT BY BEING VAPORIZED.
HERE AN EXAMPLE what killed more people when we a-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
the blast?
or the radiation left by the blast or the fires caused by the blast? 
ever heard of cause and effect?


can you refute this using a real credible   scientific theory?
without resorting to bible babble and creationist pseudoscience?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said he was an agnostic several pages ago and you said bullshit ! So now that he is no longer an atheist he must be evolving.
> 
> 
> 
> again you intensionally misunderstand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be you Daws.
Click to expand...

another dodge


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KT extinction
> 
> Cretaceous
> 
> Heard of the Chicxulub Crater?  It is the K-T or K-Pg wound, to the Earth, which encompasses a large area, of the Yucatan Peninsula, into the Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> There went the dinosaurs.  Crocodilians survived because they can get into water, hibernate in caves or dried mud, eat dead things, and their young can eat insects.
> 
> Heard of CHAINSAWS?  Humans are pushing the CO2 up, via burning sequestered carbon, but with CHAINSAWS, humans are reducing CO2 metabolizers, so we are now in the grip, of RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING.  We are entering Mass Extinction Event 6, which will challenge the K-T and P-T extinctions, for ranking, in the all-time top killers.
> 
> When you aren't too bright, you ignore what man has done.  You ignore how God is an invention, to control people, but people don't want rational control, so people like the Pope have to proclaim, how atheism is responsible, for skepticism, against global warming.  Nice try, Benedict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ignored your babble but the article on KT was an interesting read. I wonder why no one proposed that the asteroid impact could have caused volcanic eruptions at the same time. That kind of jolt to the earth could have cracked all kinds of fissures resulting in mass amounts of volcanoes worldwide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> could have, but there is no evidence supporting that view.
Click to expand...


Well that never stopped the evolutionists.  You left yourself wide open.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> I have no idea what the quote system is doing. It is definitely messed up ,must have suffered a mutation.



Actually, its Holly error. She is deleting copy and missing the brackets. There are remnants at the top. She is basically losing the original information due to copying errors.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again you intensionally misunderstand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you Daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another dodge
Click to expand...


Or Chevy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what the quote system is doing. It is definitely messed up ,must have suffered a mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, its Holly error. She is deleting copy and missing the brackets. There are remnants at the top. She is basically losing the original information due to copying errors.
Click to expand...


Yep,mutation.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what the quote system is doing. It is definitely messed up ,must have suffered a mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, its Holly error. She is deleting copy and missing the brackets. There are remnants at the top. She is basically losing the original information due to copying errors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep,mutation.
Click to expand...


If you boys have not evolved far enough to operate electronic equipment, it's back to the trees until you learn how.


----------



## Youwerecreated

The conversation kinda dries up when you add reality through rational thought to the conversation.

Oh and Hollie that last comment was not directed at you.


----------



## bobgnote

Youwerecreated said:


> The conversation kinda dries up when you add reality through rational thought to the conversation.
> 
> Oh and Hollie that last comment was not directed at you.



_Truth be told, *Youwerecornholed*, you are too queer, to just go out and be gay, with your buddy, *URanallyretarded*.  So you smear up USMB.

When you do THAT, you don't get to snit at somebody, who comments.  Use the Private Message function, when you want to get crazy, with *URanal* or somebody, without getting pissed on, which you deserve, for suggesting the electronics or Hollie are down, when you and your blow-buddy are so obviously shitty down-boys.

I believe Hollie would be welcome, at any thread where I post.  Normally, tards take up most of the pages.  We need you, on the out and about, Hollie.

Creationists and their blow-buddies suck._


----------



## Youwerecreated

bobgnote said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conversation kinda dries up when you add reality through rational thought to the conversation.
> 
> Oh and Hollie that last comment was not directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Truth be told, *Youwerecornholed*, you are too queer, to just go out and be gay, with your buddy, *URanallyretarded*.  So you smear up USMB.
> 
> When you do THAT, you don't get to snit at somebody, who comments.  Use the Private Message function, when you want to get crazy, with *URanal* or somebody, without getting pissed on, which you deserve, for suggesting the electronics or Hollie are down, when you and your blow-buddy are so obviously shitty down-boys.
> 
> I believe Hollie would be welcome, at any thread where I post.  Normally, tards take up most of the pages.  We need you, on the out and about, Hollie.
> 
> Creationists and their blow-buddies suck._
Click to expand...


Sore loser.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ignored your babble but the article on KT was an interesting read. I wonder why no one proposed that the asteroid impact could have caused volcanic eruptions at the same time. That kind of jolt to the earth could have cracked all kinds of fissures resulting in mass amounts of volcanoes worldwide.
> 
> 
> 
> could have, but there is no evidence supporting that view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that never stopped the evolutionists.  You left yourself wide open.
Click to expand...

sorry but you took the bait as you have no evidence at all....ever.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> The conversation kinda dries up when you add reality through rational thought to the conversation.
> 
> Oh and Hollie that last comment was not directed at you.


 and you did this when?
on the rationality scale of 1-10 your score is .0001
on the rationalizing scale of 1-10 your score is off the scale.
you would'nt know reality if it bitched slapped you and it does every day.


----------



## daws101

One day Jesus and Moses went to play golf.
On the first tee Moses hits one straight down the fairway on to the green, 5' from the hole.
 Jesus steps up and slices his ball into the rough.
Moses smiles.
Jesus gazes up to the sky ,the clouds darken, lighting crackles,it begins to rain.
A small rivulet forms under Jess's ball and carries it down to the water hazard where a fish swallows  it .
just then a hawk plummets out of the sky ,snatching up the fish.
The Hawk flies over the green .
the ball drops from the fishes mouth and land's in the hole.
Jesus smiles.
Moses says" ARE YOU GONNA FUCK AROUND OR PLAY GOLF! "


----------



## UltimateReality

bobgnote said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conversation kinda dries up when you add reality through rational thought to the conversation.
> 
> Oh and Hollie that last comment was not directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Truth be told, *Youwerecornholed*, you are too queer, to just go out and be gay, with your buddy, *URanallyretarded*.  So you smear up USMB.
> 
> When you do THAT, you don't get to snit at somebody, who comments.  Use the Private Message function, when you want to get crazy, with *URanal* or somebody, without getting pissed on, which you deserve, for suggesting the electronics or Hollie are down, when you and your blow-buddy are so obviously shitty down-boys.
> 
> I believe Hollie would be welcome, at any thread where I post.  Normally, tards take up most of the pages.  We need you, on the out and about, Hollie.
> 
> Creationists and their blow-buddies suck._
Click to expand...


God loves you and sent his Son to die for you.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conversation kinda dries up when you add reality through rational thought to the conversation.
> 
> Oh and Hollie that last comment was not directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Truth be told, *Youwerecornholed*, you are too queer, to just go out and be gay, with your buddy, *URanallyretarded*.  So you smear up USMB.
> 
> When you do THAT, you don't get to snit at somebody, who comments.  Use the Private Message function, when you want to get crazy, with *URanal* or somebody, without getting pissed on, which you deserve, for suggesting the electronics or Hollie are down, when you and your blow-buddy are so obviously shitty down-boys.
> 
> I believe Hollie would be welcome, at any thread where I post.  Normally, tards take up most of the pages.  We need you, on the out and about, Hollie.
> 
> Creationists and their blow-buddies suck._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God loves you and sent his Son to die for you.
Click to expand...

 any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conversation kinda dries up when you add reality through rational thought to the conversation.
> 
> Oh and Hollie that last comment was not directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> and you did this when?
> on the rationality scale of 1-10 your score is .0001
> on the rationalizing scale of 1-10 your score is off the scale.
> you would'nt know reality if it bitched slapped you and it does every day.
Click to expand...


The questions that went ignored by your side proves what I said. Same old rhetoric,nothing of substance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> One day Jesus and Moses went to play golf.
> On the first tee Moses hits one straight down the fairway on to the green, 5' from the hole.
> Jesus steps up and slices his ball into the rough.
> Moses smiles.
> Jesus gazes up to the sky ,the clouds darken, lighting crackles,it begins to rain.
> A small rivulet forms under Jess's ball and carries it down to the water hazard where a fish swallows  it .
> just then a hawk plummets out of the sky ,snatching up the fish.
> The Hawk flies over the green .
> the ball drops from the fishes mouth and land's in the hole.
> Jesus smiles.
> Moses says" ARE YOU GONNA FUCK AROUND OR PLAY GOLF! "



More rhetoric to avoid the questions put to you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Truth be told, *Youwerecornholed*, you are too queer, to just go out and be gay, with your buddy, *URanallyretarded*.  So you smear up USMB.
> 
> When you do THAT, you don't get to snit at somebody, who comments.  Use the Private Message function, when you want to get crazy, with *URanal* or somebody, without getting pissed on, which you deserve, for suggesting the electronics or Hollie are down, when you and your blow-buddy are so obviously shitty down-boys.
> 
> I believe Hollie would be welcome, at any thread where I post.  Normally, tards take up most of the pages.  We need you, on the out and about, Hollie.
> 
> Creationists and their blow-buddies suck._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God loves you and sent his Son to die for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?
Click to expand...


So you didn't watch the debate I posted and you said you did. Dawkins admitted that Jesus existed and was crucified.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conversation kinda dries up when you add reality through rational thought to the conversation.
> 
> Oh and Hollie that last comment was not directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> and you did this when?
> on the rationality scale of 1-10 your score is .0001
> on the rationalizing scale of 1-10 your score is off the scale.
> you would'nt know reality if it bitched slapped you and it does every day.
Click to expand...


Here are the questions again.

1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?

Also explained how the chicken came before the egg. As far as we know it takes an already existing organism to produce an egg but it also needs both male and female to produce a fertilised egg to where the egg would produce off spring. How could an egg come first without an existing organism and start a new species ?


----------



## bobgnote

_We may suspect the persistent eruptions, at the Indian Deccan Traps were possibly if not probably caused, by the same meteorite, which caused the Chicxolub Crater, 65 m.y.a.

We may suspect the persistent eruptions, at the Siberian Traps were caused by some carbonaceous meteorite, 251-253 m.y.a., to exacerbate extinctions, already going on, during the P/T event.

When some astral body strikes the Earth, and volcanic eruptions go on, for a million years or more, hey!  That impact may have something to do, with really massive eruptions, elsewhere, on Earth._


----------



## Youwerecreated

bobgnote said:


> _We may suspect the persistent eruptions, at the Indian Deccan Traps were possibly if not probably caused, by the same meteorite, which caused the Chicxolub Crater, 65 m.y.a.
> 
> We may suspect the persistent eruptions, at the Siberian Traps were caused by some carbonaceous meteorite, 251-253 m.y.a., to exacerbate extinctions, already going on, during the P/T event.
> 
> When some astral body strikes the Earth, and volcanic eruptions go on, for a million years or more, hey!  That impact may have something to do, with really massive eruptions, elsewhere, on Earth._



Hey using an assumtive theory to prove a point  ? Priceless.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conversation kinda dries up when you add reality through rational thought to the conversation.
> 
> Oh and Hollie that last comment was not directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> and you did this when?
> on the rationality scale of 1-10 your score is .0001
> on the rationalizing scale of 1-10 your score is off the scale.
> you would'nt know reality if it bitched slapped you and it does every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The questions that went ignored by your side proves what I said. Same old rhetoric,nothing of substance.
Click to expand...

what question (laughs)would that be?
if it was ignored the most likely reason is it's nothing of substance,  Same old rhetoric,
such as the egg fallacy or the man made vs nature.
in reality it proves nothing except your need to believe it does .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> God loves you and sent his Son to die for you.
> 
> 
> 
> any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you didn't watch the debate I posted and you said you did. Dawkins admitted that Jesus existed and was crucified.
Click to expand...

yes I did. what Dawkins admitted was true.
Jesus existed ....the rest you have no proof of.
there is no objective evidence that Jesus was the son of god 
or that god even exists.
what Dawkins said is no evidence of god or sin.
but your obsession precludes you from seeing it.
belief proves nothing but belief , it is no evidence or indicator that the thing believed in exists


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conversation kinda dries up when you add reality through rational thought to the conversation.
> 
> Oh and Hollie that last comment was not directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> and you did this when?
> on the rationality scale of 1-10 your score is .0001
> on the rationalizing scale of 1-10 your score is off the scale.
> you would'nt know reality if it bitched slapped you and it does every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are the questions again.
> 
> 1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?
> 
> 2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?
> 
> 3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?
> 
> Also explained how the chicken came before the egg. As far as we know it takes an already existing organism to produce an egg but it also needs both male and female to produce a fertilised egg to where the egg would produce off spring. How could an egg come first without an existing organism and start a new species ?
Click to expand...

asked and answerd and you got your ass handed to you.

BTW YWC plagiarized those questions from a creationist site http://shatteredparadigm.blogspot.com/2008/08/three-devastating-questions-to-ask.html
and is attempting to perpetrate a fraud..


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> God loves you and sent his Son to die for you.
> 
> 
> 
> any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you didn't watch the debate I posted and you said you did. Dawkins admitted that Jesus existed and was crucified.
Click to expand...


You have this fascination with Richard Dawkins that seems to define your belief system. 

Whether or not Jesus existed and whether or not he was crucified is immaterial in connection with proving your gods. Similarly, Dawkins admitting or not admitting to the above is immaterial. Crucifixion was not uncommon during the period when Jesus was said to be crucified. Let's take a leap of faith and allow you and Dawkins the positive assertion that a man named Jesus was crucified. Now what? You are still left with the irresolvable dilemma of an earth that has existed for billions of years and a biological / fossil record that is similarly in irresolvable conflict with a 6,000 year of earth.

Your best efforts to resolve these dilemmas involved posting YouTube videos hosted by people representing the ICR and similar groups who have, as a matter of their policy statements, that their representatives shall not produce data that is in conflict with Biblical teaching. That's just absurd.

You seem to hang on every word that Dawkins utters as though his words will define legitimacy for your belief.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _We may suspect the persistent eruptions, at the Indian Deccan Traps were possibly if not probably caused, by the same meteorite, which caused the Chicxolub Crater, 65 m.y.a.
> 
> We may suspect the persistent eruptions, at the Siberian Traps were caused by some carbonaceous meteorite, 251-253 m.y.a., to exacerbate extinctions, already going on, during the P/T event.
> 
> When some astral body strikes the Earth, and volcanic eruptions go on, for a million years or more, hey!  That impact may have something to do, with really massive eruptions, elsewhere, on Earth._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey using an assumtive theory to prove a point  ? Priceless.
Click to expand...

assuming is only wrong when you have no evidence to prove it.
for you that would mean everything...


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _We may suspect the persistent eruptions, at the Indian Deccan Traps were possibly if not probably caused, by the same meteorite, which caused the Chicxolub Crater, 65 m.y.a.
> 
> We may suspect the persistent eruptions, at the Siberian Traps were caused by some carbonaceous meteorite, 251-253 m.y.a., to exacerbate extinctions, already going on, during the P/T event.
> 
> When some astral body strikes the Earth, and volcanic eruptions go on, for a million years or more, hey!  That impact may have something to do, with really massive eruptions, elsewhere, on Earth._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey using an assumtive theory to prove a point  ? Priceless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> assuming is only wrong when you have no evidence to prove it.
> for you that would mean everything...
Click to expand...

Exactly. The discovery of the undersea crater sparked predictions that
evidence for the meteor impact could be found in the geologic record. 

That evidence was found.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you did this when?
> on the rationality scale of 1-10 your score is .0001
> on the rationalizing scale of 1-10 your score is off the scale.
> you would'nt know reality if it bitched slapped you and it does every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the questions again.
> 
> 1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?
> 
> 2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?
> 
> 3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?
> 
> Also explained how the chicken came before the egg. As far as we know it takes an already existing organism to produce an egg but it also needs both male and female to produce a fertilised egg to where the egg would produce off spring. How could an egg come first without an existing organism and start a new species ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answerd and you got your ass handed to you.
Click to expand...


Another DODGE!

If they were answered atleast one of your buddies would have answered them,so I think you are making things up again,typical


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you didn't watch the debate I posted and you said you did. Dawkins admitted that Jesus existed and was crucified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have this fascination with Richard Dawkins that seems to define your belief system.
> 
> Whether or not Jesus existed and whether or not he was crucified is immaterial in connection with proving your gods. Similarly, Dawkins admitting or not admitting to the above is immaterial. Crucifixion was not uncommon during the period when Jesus was said to be crucified. Let's take a leap of faith and allow you and Dawkins the positive assertion that a man named Jesus was crucified. Now what? You are still left with the irresolvable dilemma of an earth that has existed for billions of years and a biological / fossil record that is similarly in irresolvable conflict with a 6,000 year of earth.
> 
> Your best efforts to resolve these dilemmas involved posting YouTube videos hosted by people representing the ICR and similar groups who have, as a matter of their policy statements, that their representatives shall not produce data that is in conflict with Biblical teaching. That's just absurd.
> 
> You seem to hang on every word that Dawkins utters as though his words will define legitimacy for your belief.
Click to expand...


No it was Daws until he renounced atheism.


----------



## daws101

ScienceMain article: Evolution
The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[12][13] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.

Not any mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.

The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.

This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.

A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first

Chicken or the eggFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search  
Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth centuryThe chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]

Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. It could be considered that in this approach lies the most fundamental nature of the question. A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens. However, the metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the famous Colebrook equation
Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you did this when?
> on the rationality scale of 1-10 your score is .0001
> on the rationalizing scale of 1-10 your score is off the scale.
> you would'nt know reality if it bitched slapped you and it does every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the questions again.
> 
> 1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?
> 
> 2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?
> 
> 3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?
> 
> Also explained how the chicken came before the egg. As far as we know it takes an already existing organism to produce an egg but it also needs both male and female to produce a fertilised egg to where the egg would produce off spring. How could an egg come first without an existing organism and start a new species ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answerd and you got your ass handed to you.
> 
> BTW YWC plagiarized those questions from a creationist site Three Devastating Questions To Ask Evolutionists & Three Points Which Destroy The Theory Of Evolution And Show That Intelligent Design Is A Reality
> and is attempting to perpetrate a fraud..
Click to expand...


Somebody is getting it handed to them.

 When  I origionally posted those questions I linked the site 

But I did ask similar questions in another thread that were my own.

Post 
#5314


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you didn't watch the debate I posted and you said you did. Dawkins admitted that Jesus existed and was crucified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have this fascination with Richard Dawkins that seems to define your belief system.
> 
> Whether or not Jesus existed and whether or not he was crucified is immaterial in connection with proving your gods. Similarly, Dawkins admitting or not admitting to the above is immaterial. Crucifixion was not uncommon during the period when Jesus was said to be crucified. Let's take a leap of faith and allow you and Dawkins the positive assertion that a man named Jesus was crucified. Now what? You are still left with the irresolvable dilemma of an earth that has existed for billions of years and a biological / fossil record that is similarly in irresolvable conflict with a 6,000 year of earth.
> 
> Your best efforts to resolve these dilemmas involved posting YouTube videos hosted by people representing the ICR and similar groups who have, as a matter of their policy statements, that their representatives shall not produce data that is in conflict with Biblical teaching. That's just absurd.
> 
> You seem to hang on every word that Dawkins utters as though his words will define legitimacy for your belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it was Daws until he renounced atheism.
Click to expand...


Predictable. I've noticed a pattern whereby pressing you with facts causes you to beg off from offering any coherent response and you're left only to sputter snide remarks.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the questions again.
> 
> 1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?
> 
> 2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?
> 
> 3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?
> 
> Also explained how the chicken came before the egg. As far as we know it takes an already existing organism to produce an egg but it also needs both male and female to produce a fertilised egg to where the egg would produce off spring. How could an egg come first without an existing organism and start a new species ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd and you got your ass handed to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another DODGE!
> 
> If they were answered at least one of your buddies would have answered them,so I think you are making things up again,typical :LOL:
Click to expand...

still lying to yourself ,you and I had this debate in this thread a while back, either you have memory problems  or are too chicken shit  (pun intended)to go back through it and see


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> ScienceMain article: Evolution
> The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[12][13] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.
> 
> Not any mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.
> 
> The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.
> 
> This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.
> 
> A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first
> 
> Chicken or the eggFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
> Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth centuryThe chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]
> 
> Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. It could be considered that in this approach lies the most fundamental nature of the question. A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens. However, the metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"
> 
> An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the famous Colebrook equation
> Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Prove your assumption ?my assumption has been proven through observation.

What about the other questions ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you didn't watch the debate I posted and you said you did. Dawkins admitted that Jesus existed and was crucified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have this fascination with Richard Dawkins that seems to define your belief system.
> 
> Whether or not Jesus existed and whether or not he was crucified is immaterial in connection with proving your gods. Similarly, Dawkins admitting or not admitting to the above is immaterial. Crucifixion was not uncommon during the period when Jesus was said to be crucified. Let's take a leap of faith and allow you and Dawkins the positive assertion that a man named Jesus was crucified. Now what? You are still left with the irresolvable dilemma of an earth that has existed for billions of years and a biological / fossil record that is similarly in irresolvable conflict with a 6,000 year of earth.
> 
> Your best efforts to resolve these dilemmas involved posting YouTube videos hosted by people representing the ICR and similar groups who have, as a matter of their policy statements, that their representatives shall not produce data that is in conflict with Biblical teaching. That's just absurd.
> 
> You seem to hang on every word that Dawkins utters as though his words will define legitimacy for your belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it was Daws until he renounced atheism.
Click to expand...

 Daws ? I never renounced atheism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd and you got your ass handed to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another DODGE!
> 
> If they were answered at least one of your buddies would have answered them,so I think you are making things up again,typical :LOL:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still lying to yourself ,you and I had this debate in this thread a while back, either you have memory problems  or are too chicken shit  (pun intended)to go back through it and see
Click to expand...


Only the chicken and the egg question. You pasted an answer that is based on nothing more than an assumption. My opinion can be proven through direct observation you lose again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd and you got your ass handed to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another DODGE!
> 
> If they were answered at least one of your buddies would have answered them,so I think you are making things up again,typical :LOL:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still lying to yourself ,you and I had this debate in this thread a while back, either you have memory problems  or are too chicken shit  (pun intended)to go back through it and see
Click to expand...


There is a an ignorant liar here but it's not me.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceMain article: Evolution
> The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[12][13] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.
> 
> Not any mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.
> 
> The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.
> 
> This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.
> 
> A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first
> 
> Chicken or the eggFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
> Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth centuryThe chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]
> 
> Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. It could be considered that in this approach lies the most fundamental nature of the question. A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens. However, the metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"
> 
> An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the famous Colebrook equation
> Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove your assumption ?my assumption has been proven through observation.
> 
> What about the other questions ?
Click to expand...

those are not assumptions. it's you who needs to prove that your assumptions are correct.
what obsevations ? 
are you basing you conjecture on watching chickens fuck?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have this fascination with Richard Dawkins that seems to define your belief system.
> 
> Whether or not Jesus existed and whether or not he was crucified is immaterial in connection with proving your gods. Similarly, Dawkins admitting or not admitting to the above is immaterial. Crucifixion was not uncommon during the period when Jesus was said to be crucified. Let's take a leap of faith and allow you and Dawkins the positive assertion that a man named Jesus was crucified. Now what? You are still left with the irresolvable dilemma of an earth that has existed for billions of years and a biological / fossil record that is similarly in irresolvable conflict with a 6,000 year of earth.
> 
> Your best efforts to resolve these dilemmas involved posting YouTube videos hosted by people representing the ICR and similar groups who have, as a matter of their policy statements, that their representatives shall not produce data that is in conflict with Biblical teaching. That's just absurd.
> 
> You seem to hang on every word that Dawkins utters as though his words will define legitimacy for your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it was Daws until he renounced atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Daws ? I never renounced atheism.
Click to expand...


No but your buddy Dawkins has.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceMain article: Evolution
> The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[12][13] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.
> 
> Not any mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.
> 
> The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.
> 
> This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.
> 
> A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first
> 
> Chicken or the eggFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
> Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth centuryThe chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]
> 
> Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. It could be considered that in this approach lies the most fundamental nature of the question. A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens. However, the metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"
> 
> An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the famous Colebrook equation
> Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove your assumption ?my assumption has been proven through observation.
> 
> What about the other questions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those are not assumptions. it's you who needs to prove that your assumptions are correct.
> what obsevations ?
> are you basing you conjecture on watching chickens fuck?
Click to expand...


Fully fertile eggs come from sexual reproduction from a male and female or hen and rooster.

How can evidence get any stronger ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceMain article: Evolution
> The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[12][13] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.
> 
> Not any mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.
> 
> The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.
> 
> This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.
> 
> A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first
> 
> Chicken or the eggFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
> Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth centuryThe chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]
> 
> Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. It could be considered that in this approach lies the most fundamental nature of the question. A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens. However, the metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"
> 
> An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the famous Colebrook equation
> Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove your assumption ?my assumption has been proven through observation.
> 
> What about the other questions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those are not assumptions. it's you who needs to prove that your assumptions are correct.
> what obsevations ?
> are you basing you conjecture on watching chickens fuck?
Click to expand...


Now you have been reduced to a foul mouth idiot. How does a chicken egg become fertile ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it was Daws until he renounced atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> Daws ? I never renounced atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No but your buddy Dawkins has.
Click to expand...

still wrong: agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> 


proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove your assumption ?my assumption has been proven through observation.
> 
> What about the other questions ?
> 
> 
> 
> those are not assumptions. it's you who needs to prove that your assumptions are correct.
> what obsevations ?
> are you basing you conjecture on watching chickens fuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fully fertile eggs come from sexual reproduction from a male and female or hen and rooster.
> 
> How can evidence get any stronger ?
Click to expand...

 evidence of what? that chickens make eggs ?
wow!
 that's a ground breaking obsevation!
you forget that chickens were not the first creatures to lay eggs.
also you conveniently left out asexual reproducing!
either way it's no proof of god.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove your assumption ?my assumption has been proven through observation.
> 
> What about the other questions ?
> 
> 
> 
> those are not assumptions. it's you who needs to prove that your assumptions are correct.
> what obsevations ?
> are you basing you conjecture on watching chickens fuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you have been reduced to a foul mouth idiot. How does a chicken egg become fertile ?
Click to expand...

 by two fucking chickens how else!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws ? I never renounced atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but your buddy Dawkins has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still wrong: agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
> 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
> 2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
> 
> 
> proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.
Click to expand...



Lookie here you are exposing your own ignorance.


a·the·ist
&#8194; &#8194;[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA 

noun 
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin: 
156575;  < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist

Related forms 
an·ti·a·the·ist, noun, adjective 

pro·a·the·ist, noun, adjective 


Can be confused: &#8194;1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym note at the current entry ); 2. atheist, theist, deist. 


Synonyms 
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic  refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist  is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic  is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel  means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic  doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds. 


I love debating a dummy.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another DODGE!
> 
> If they were answered at least one of your buddies would have answered them,so I think you are making things up again,typical :LOL:
> 
> 
> 
> still lying to yourself ,you and I had this debate in this thread a while back, either you have memory problems  or are too chicken shit  (pun intended)to go back through it and see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the chicken and the egg question. You pasted an answer that is based on nothing more than an assumption. My opinion can be proven through direct observation you lose again.
Click to expand...

of what? chickens fucking? fly vagina's?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> those are not assumptions. it's you who needs to prove that your assumptions are correct.
> what obsevations ?
> are you basing you conjecture on watching chickens fuck?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fully fertile eggs come from sexual reproduction from a male and female or hen and rooster.
> 
> How can evidence get any stronger ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> evidence of what? that chickens make eggs ?
> wow!
> that's a ground breaking obsevation!
> you forget that chickens were not the first creatures to lay eggs.
> also you conveniently left out asexual reproducing!
> either way it's no proof of god.
Click to expand...


So give me proof of any creature that has laid an egg and a new family was born ?

Prove any new family came through sexual reproduction the burden of proof is on you since you admitted how chicken eggs are produced.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the questions again.
> 
> 1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?
> 
> 2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?
> 
> 3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?
> 
> Also explained how the chicken came before the egg. As far as we know it takes an already existing organism to produce an egg but it also needs both male and female to produce a fertilised egg to where the egg would produce off spring. How could an egg come first without an existing organism and start a new species ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd and you got your ass handed to you.
> 
> BTW YWC plagiarized those questions from a creationist site Three Devastating Questions To Ask Evolutionists & Three Points Which Destroy The Theory Of Evolution And Show That Intelligent Design Is A Reality
> and is attempting to perpetrate a fraud..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somebody is getting it handed to them.
> 
> When  I origionally posted those questions I linked the site
> 
> But I did ask similar questions in another thread that were my own.
> 
> Post
> #5314
Click to expand...

Well, that was predictable. When I followed your link, I was confronted with Malcolm Muggeridge, a journalist and convert to Christianity. 

As is the case so frequently with the creationist crowd, the references you cite have a consistent lack of training, study or background in the subject they comment on.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> still lying to yourself ,you and I had this debate in this thread a while back, either you have memory problems  or are too chicken shit  (pun intended)to go back through it and see
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the chicken and the egg question. You pasted an answer that is based on nothing more than an assumption. My opinion can be proven through direct observation you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of what? chickens fucking? fly vagina's?
Click to expand...


Oh someone is getting frustrated.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but your buddy Dawkins has.
> 
> 
> 
> still wrong: agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
> 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
> 2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
> 
> 
> proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lookie here you are exposing your own ignorance.
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> &#8194; &#8194;[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
> 
> noun
> a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Origin:
> 156575;  < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist
> 
> Related forms
> an·ti·a·the·ist, noun, adjective
> 
> pro·a·the·ist, noun, adjective
> 
> 
> Can be confused: &#8194;1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym note at the current entry ); 2. atheist, theist, deist.
> 
> 
> Synonyms
> Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic  refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist  is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic  is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel  means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic  doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
> 
> 
> I love debating a dummy.
Click to expand...

then you must be the dummy :agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> the definitions are virtually the same!

either way they are both not christians!  

proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd and you got your ass handed to you.
> 
> BTW YWC plagiarized those questions from a creationist site Three Devastating Questions To Ask Evolutionists & Three Points Which Destroy The Theory Of Evolution And Show That Intelligent Design Is A Reality
> and is attempting to perpetrate a fraud..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody is getting it handed to them.
> 
> When  I origionally posted those questions I linked the site
> 
> But I did ask similar questions in another thread that were my own.
> 
> Post
> #5314
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, that was predictable. When I followed your link, I was confronted with Malcolm Muggeridge, a journalist and convert to Christianity.
> 
> As is the case so frequently with the creationist crowd, the references you cite have a consistent lack of training, study or background in the subject they comment on.
Click to expand...


I don't care what you think of the source I care about your responses. You can't save Daws from his stupidity.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fully fertile eggs come from sexual reproduction from a male and female or hen and rooster.
> 
> How can evidence get any stronger ?
> 
> 
> 
> evidence of what? that chickens make eggs ?
> wow!
> that's a ground breaking obsevation!
> you forget that chickens were not the first creatures to lay eggs.
> also you conveniently left out asexual reproducing!
> either way it's no proof of god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So give me proof of any creature that has laid an egg and a new family was born ?
> 
> Prove any new family came through sexual reproduction the burden of proof is on you since you admitted how chicken eggs are produced.
Click to expand...

Your question makes no sense.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody is getting it handed to them.
> 
> When  I origionally posted those questions I linked the site
> 
> But I did ask similar questions in another thread that were my own.
> 
> Post
> #5314
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was predictable. When I followed your link, I was confronted with Malcolm Muggeridge, a journalist and convert to Christianity.
> 
> As is the case so frequently with the creationist crowd, the references you cite have a consistent lack of training, study or background in the subject they comment on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care what you think of the source I care about your responses. You can't save Daws from his stupidity.
Click to expand...

You're getting frothy over chickens laying eggs?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fully fertile eggs come from sexual reproduction from a male and female or hen and rooster.
> 
> How can evidence get any stronger ?
> 
> 
> 
> evidence of what? that chickens make eggs ?
> wow!
> that's a ground breaking obsevation!
> you forget that chickens were not the first creatures to lay eggs.
> also you conveniently left out asexual reproducing!
> either way it's no proof of god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So give me proof of any creature that has laid an egg and a new family was born ?
> 
> Prove any new family came through sexual reproduction the burden of proof is on you since you admitted how chicken eggs are produced.
Click to expand...

so chickens fuck ? that's not an admission it's fact. 
what do you mean by "family" species or individuals ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> still wrong: agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
> 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
> 2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
> 
> 
> proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lookie here you are exposing your own ignorance.
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> &#8194; &#8194;[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
> 
> noun
> a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Origin:
> 156575;  < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist
> 
> Related forms
> an·ti·a·the·ist, noun, adjective
> 
> pro·a·the·ist, noun, adjective
> 
> 
> Can be confused: &#8194;1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym note at the current entry ); 2. atheist, theist, deist.
> 
> 
> Synonyms
> Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic  refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist  is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic  is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel  means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic  doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
> 
> 
> I love debating a dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then you must be the dummy :agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
> 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
> 2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> the definitions are virtually the same!
> 
> either way they are both not christians!
> 
> proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.
Click to expand...


You can't be this ignorant.

You have only showed yourself to be clueless. I never said he was a Christian and you know that,getting desperate are you ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the chicken and the egg question. You pasted an answer that is based on nothing more than an assumption. My opinion can be proven through direct observation you lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> of what? chickens fucking? fly vagina's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh someone is getting frustrated.
Click to expand...

must be you I'm having a great time watching you make an ass of yourself.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> evidence of what? that chickens make eggs ?
> wow!
> that's a ground breaking obsevation!
> you forget that chickens were not the first creatures to lay eggs.
> also you conveniently left out asexual reproducing!
> either way it's no proof of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So give me proof of any creature that has laid an egg and a new family was born ?
> 
> Prove any new family came through sexual reproduction the burden of proof is on you since you admitted how chicken eggs are produced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your question makes no sense.
Click to expand...


If you can't keep up with the thread not my fault.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody is getting it handed to them.
> 
> When  I origionally posted those questions I linked the site
> 
> But I did ask similar questions in another thread that were my own.
> 
> Post
> #5314
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was predictable. When I followed your link, I was confronted with Malcolm Muggeridge, a journalist and convert to Christianity.
> 
> As is the case so frequently with the creationist crowd, the references you cite have a consistent lack of training, study or background in the subject they comment on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care what you think of the source I care about your responses. You can't save Daws from his stupidity.
Click to expand...

You're hoping to discredit the science of evilution by using a journalist as your source. 

Do you not see that as being in an indefensible position.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> of what? chickens fucking? fly vagina's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh someone is getting frustrated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> must be you I'm having a great time watching you make an ass of yourself.
Click to expand...


You are a bad liar to.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So give me proof of any creature that has laid an egg and a new family was born ?
> 
> Prove any new family came through sexual reproduction the burden of proof is on you since you admitted how chicken eggs are produced.
> 
> 
> 
> Your question makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't keep up with the thread not my fault.
Click to expand...

I'm current with the thread. Your evidence for gods has some connection with chickens, eggs and a journalist named Malcolm Muggeridge


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was predictable. When I followed your link, I was confronted with Malcolm Muggeridge, a journalist and convert to Christianity.
> 
> As is the case so frequently with the creationist crowd, the references you cite have a consistent lack of training, study or background in the subject they comment on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you think of the source I care about your responses. You can't save Daws from his stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're hoping to discredit the science of evilution by using a journalist as your source.
> 
> Do you not see that as being in an indefensible position.
Click to expand...


Can you respond to the questions ? I have provided my own similar questions in another thread just can't remember which one. It points out the madness of your theory.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you think of the source I care about your responses. You can't save Daws from his stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> You're hoping to discredit the science of evilution by using a journalist as your source.
> 
> Do you not see that as being in an indefensible position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you respond to the questions ? I have provided my own similar questions in another thread just can't remember which one. It points out the madness of your theory.
Click to expand...


What theory is suffering from madness?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your question makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't keep up with the thread not my fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm current with the thread. Your evidence for gods has some connection with chickens, eggs and a journalist named Malcolm Muggeridge
Click to expand...


Oh boy, I could of had a V-8 moment.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lookie here you are exposing your own ignorance.
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> &#8194; &#8194;[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
> 
> noun
> a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Origin:
> 156575;  < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist
> 
> Related forms
> an·ti·a·the·ist, noun, adjective
> 
> pro·a·the·ist, noun, adjective
> 
> 
> Can be confused: &#8194;1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym note at the current entry ); 2. atheist, theist, deist.
> 
> 
> Synonyms
> Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic  refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist  is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic  is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel  means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic  doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
> 
> 
> I love debating a dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> then you must be the dummy :agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
> 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
> 2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> the definitions are virtually the same!
> 
> either way they are both not christians!
> 
> proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't be this ignorant.
> 
> You have only showed yourself to be clueless. I never said he was a Christian and you know that,getting desperate are you ?
Click to expand...

really ? then why did you post virtually the same definition that I did (after I did)?
what point are you trying to make?
that being an agnostic is somehow better than being an atheist?
or do you like arguing minutia ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're hoping to discredit the science of evilution by using a journalist as your source.
> 
> Do you not see that as being in an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you respond to the questions ? I have provided my own similar questions in another thread just can't remember which one. It points out the madness of your theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What theory is suffering from madness?
Click to expand...


Macroevolution, are you serious ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody is getting it handed to them.
> 
> When  I origionally posted those questions I linked the site
> 
> But I did ask similar questions in another thread that were my own.
> 
> Post
> #5314
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was predictable. When I followed your link, I was confronted with Malcolm Muggeridge, a journalist and convert to Christianity.
> 
> As is the case so frequently with the creationist crowd, the references you cite have a consistent lack of training, study or background in the subject they comment on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care what you think of the source I care about your responses. You can't save Daws from his stupidity.
Click to expand...

 awwww. getting your ass kicked...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> then you must be the dummy :agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
> 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
> 2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> the definitions are virtually the same!
> 
> either way they are both not christians!
> 
> proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be this ignorant.
> 
> You have only showed yourself to be clueless. I never said he was a Christian and you know that,getting desperate are you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really ? then why did you post virtually the same definition that I did (after I did)?
> what point are you trying to make?
> that being an agnostic is somehow better than being an atheist?
> or do you like arguing minutia ?
Click to expand...


It very clearly explained the difference between an atheist and agnostic. Enough schooling for the day I have things to do.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't keep up with the thread not my fault.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm current with the thread. Your evidence for gods has some connection with chickens, eggs and a journalist named Malcolm Muggeridge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy, I could of had a V-8 moment.
Click to expand...


... could have had...

You could have had an opportunity to offer more than a journalist as someone to corroborate your claims to gods... via chickens and eggs.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh someone is getting frustrated.
> 
> 
> 
> must be you I'm having a great time watching you make an ass of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a bad liar to.
Click to expand...

how am I lying?
you are doing a fine job of making an ass of yourself.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be this ignorant.
> 
> You have only showed yourself to be clueless. I never said he was a Christian and you know that,getting desperate are you ?
> 
> 
> 
> really ? then why did you post virtually the same definition that I did (after I did)?
> what point are you trying to make?
> that being an agnostic is somehow better than being an atheist?
> or do you like arguing minutia ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It very clearly explained the difference between an atheist and agnostic. Enough schooling for the day I have things to do.
Click to expand...

you just keep telling yourself that.
for all practical purposes there is no difference...


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Truth be told, *Youwerecornholed*, you are too queer, to just go out and be gay, with your buddy, *URanallyretarded*.  So you smear up USMB.
> 
> When you do THAT, you don't get to snit at somebody, who comments.  Use the Private Message function, when you want to get crazy, with *URanal* or somebody, without getting pissed on, which you deserve, for suggesting the electronics or Hollie are down, when you and your blow-buddy are so obviously shitty down-boys.
> 
> I believe Hollie would be welcome, at any thread where I post.  Normally, tards take up most of the pages.  We need you, on the out and about, Hollie.
> 
> Creationists and their blow-buddies suck._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God loves you and sent his Son to die for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?
Click to expand...


How about multiple eyewitness accounts?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you didn't watch the debate I posted and you said you did. Dawkins admitted that Jesus existed and was crucified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have this fascination with Richard Dawkins that seems to define your belief system.
> 
> Whether or not Jesus existed and whether or not he was crucified is immaterial in connection with proving your gods. Similarly, Dawkins admitting or not admitting to the above is immaterial. Crucifixion was not uncommon during the period when Jesus was said to be crucified. Let's take a leap of faith and allow you and Dawkins the positive assertion that a man named Jesus was crucified. Now what? You are still left with the irresolvable dilemma of an earth that has existed for billions of years and a biological / fossil record that is similarly in irresolvable conflict with a 6,000 year of earth.
> 
> Your best efforts to resolve these dilemmas involved posting YouTube videos hosted by people representing the ICR and similar groups who have, as a matter of their policy statements, that their representatives shall not produce data that is in conflict with Biblical teaching. That's just absurd.
> 
> You seem to hang on every word that Dawkins utters as though his words will define legitimacy for your belief.
Click to expand...


Holly, you are clueless. Dawkins is YOUR high priest, not YWC's.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> God loves you and sent his Son to die for you.
> 
> 
> 
> any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about multiple eyewitness accounts?
Click to expand...


We also have multiple eyewitness accounts from people who have seen Bigfoot, UFO's, and images of Jesus in store windows. 

They're all true, of course.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you didn't watch the debate I posted and you said you did. Dawkins admitted that Jesus existed and was crucified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have this fascination with Richard Dawkins that seems to define your belief system.
> 
> Whether or not Jesus existed and whether or not he was crucified is immaterial in connection with proving your gods. Similarly, Dawkins admitting or not admitting to the above is immaterial. Crucifixion was not uncommon during the period when Jesus was said to be crucified. Let's take a leap of faith and allow you and Dawkins the positive assertion that a man named Jesus was crucified. Now what? You are still left with the irresolvable dilemma of an earth that has existed for billions of years and a biological / fossil record that is similarly in irresolvable conflict with a 6,000 year of earth.
> 
> Your best efforts to resolve these dilemmas involved posting YouTube videos hosted by people representing the ICR and similar groups who have, as a matter of their policy statements, that their representatives shall not produce data that is in conflict with Biblical teaching. That's just absurd.
> 
> You seem to hang on every word that Dawkins utters as though his words will define legitimacy for your belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holly, you are clueless. Dawkins is YOUR high priest, not YWC's.
Click to expand...


You really don't know what you're writing about.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> ScienceMain article: Evolution
> The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[12][13] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.
> 
> Not any mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.
> 
> The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.
> 
> This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.
> 
> A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first
> 
> Chicken or the eggFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
> Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth centuryThe chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]
> 
> Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. It could be considered that in this approach lies the most fundamental nature of the question. A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens. However, the metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"
> 
> An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the famous Colebrook equation
> Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Daws, did you actually read what you just quoted? And you think Creationists are smoking crack? Please tell me this post is your attempt at humor. The chicken/egg question is metaphorical to all species that employ eggs in reproduction. The underlying question is really, "How does a species reproduce itself before it is a species?" It is a paradox silly. A Chicken can't exist in the form we know it unless it was hatched from an egg. But you can't have an egg unless a chicken laid it. So the fact someone actually spent time to outline this argument tells me it must be a silly joke. An animal that wasn't a chicken laid the first chicken egg? Seriously, how do you buy into this stuff?

So what about the butterfly? How does evolution explain that away? How could it evolve inside the cocoon, when there are no forces of natural selection to act on it?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have this fascination with Richard Dawkins that seems to define your belief system.
> 
> Whether or not Jesus existed and whether or not he was crucified is immaterial in connection with proving your gods. Similarly, Dawkins admitting or not admitting to the above is immaterial. Crucifixion was not uncommon during the period when Jesus was said to be crucified. Let's take a leap of faith and allow you and Dawkins the positive assertion that a man named Jesus was crucified. Now what? You are still left with the irresolvable dilemma of an earth that has existed for billions of years and a biological / fossil record that is similarly in irresolvable conflict with a 6,000 year of earth.
> 
> Your best efforts to resolve these dilemmas involved posting YouTube videos hosted by people representing the ICR and similar groups who have, as a matter of their policy statements, that their representatives shall not produce data that is in conflict with Biblical teaching. That's just absurd.
> 
> You seem to hang on every word that Dawkins utters as though his words will define legitimacy for your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holly, you are clueless. Dawkins is YOUR high priest, not YWC's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really don't know what you're writing about.
Click to expand...


And you didn't bother to watch the video, did you? You don't know the difference between Dawkins and Hawkins.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm current with the thread. Your evidence for gods has some connection with chickens, eggs and a journalist named Malcolm Muggeridge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, I could of had a V-8 moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... could have had...
> 
> You could have had an opportunity to offer more than a journalist as someone to corroborate your claims to gods... via chickens and eggs.
Click to expand...


Malcolm Muggeridge just a journalist? Holly, where do you come up with this stuff?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was predictable. When I followed your link, I was confronted with Malcolm Muggeridge, a journalist and convert to Christianity.
> 
> As is the case so frequently with the creationist crowd, the references you cite have a consistent lack of training, study or background in the subject they comment on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you think of the source I care about your responses. You can't save Daws from his stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're getting frothy over chickens laying eggs?
Click to expand...


I like mine scrambled. I'm just saying.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws ? I never renounced atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but your buddy Dawkins has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still wrong: agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
> 1: a person who holds the view that any *ultimate reality* (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
> 2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
> 
> 
> proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.
Click to expand...


Daws, I'm flattered. Really. But you can know me any time you want. Let's go grab a beer some time.


----------



## Hollie

> The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.



The above has a peculiar theme something like oh , I dont know, _descent with modification_.

Those gods  theyre such kidders. They left all these clues demonstrating evolutionary concepts such as _fitness for survival, adaptation_ and the gods even gave us DNA to confirm the above yet all along, they've just been snapping their magic digits and planting new species just to play tricks on us.

OK gods, good one, you got us.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holly, you are clueless. Dawkins is YOUR high priest, not YWC's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't know what you're writing about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you didn't bother to watch the video, did you? You don't know the difference between Dawkins and Hawkins.
Click to expand...


You're confusing the two. Do a search on both names and report back to us what you find.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't know what you're writing about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you didn't bother to watch the video, did you? You don't know the difference between Dawkins and Hawkins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confusing the two. Do a search on both names and report back to us what you find.
Click to expand...


Here it is reaaaalll slow in plain English. YOU don't know the difference between the two men. YOU need to do the search and educate yourself.


----------



## UltimateReality

Daws, I can't believe you argued the same point YWC made back at him for 5 pages. I think Holly is rubbing off on you. 

Post up all the definitions you want but the worldview is simple. The atheist says there is no God. The Agnostic is undecided and says, "I can't say there is. I can't say there isn't." This is much like the canned response Navy Seamen use when asked about Nuclear weapons on their boats. "I can *neither confirm nor deny the presence* of nuclear weapons aboard the USS Perkins." An atheist would say there absolutely are not any nuclear weapons on my boat.


----------



## UltimateReality

"Evolutionists could respond by arguing that the reason the natural code is universal and conserved is that other codes were displaced early on; then, the surviving code was optimized by natural selection over millions of years for efficiency and fidelity. Aside from the fact that there is no evidence for such a dodge, *it begs the question of the origin of those codes.* Without a code (and numerous functional molecular machines to read and translate it) DNA would be no more than a noisy scaffold of random base pairs, signifying nothing. Similarly, the new synthetic 5SICs-NaM base pair, even if copied with high fidelity, would be useless -- like an obstruction or mutation -- unless the engineers labored further to make it mean something, to assign it a function. Even then, the rest of the *system would have to recognize the information* and coordinate the function."

"DNA is just a molecule until it is put to use in an informational system. So it is with silicon, or with the steam-powered metal contraption Charles Babbage envisioned in the 19th century. Natural DNA was copying itself with high efficiency and greater than 99.9999% fidelity long before engineers applied their minds to the problem of autonomic information storage and retrieval. Our experience with designing information systems -- first in metal, then silicon, and now with DNA -- gives compelling force to the inference that natural "biological information storage and retrieval" is the product of intelligent design."

With New Research, the Genetic Code Looks More and More Like a Deliberate Choice - Evolution News & Views


----------



## UltimateReality

"*The "molecular machine" revolution coincides with the rise of the intelligent design movement. *In 1985, Michael Denton suggested the machine metaphor in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Profoundly influenced by that book, Behe in Darwin's Black Box (1996) proposed the concept of irreducible complexity, giving a shot in the arm to those already questioning the adequacy of Darwinian mechanisms. By the time of the release of Unlocking in 2002, the cat was out of the bag. Everybody, ID supporter or not, had already been talking for years in terms of molecular machines. Even the anti-ID NAS president Bruce Alberts was telling his colleagues in 1998 that to prepare the next generation of molecular biologists, we need to teach them to view the cell as a collection of protein machines; it's the "biology of the future," he said."

Over time, it seems increasingly likely that exposure to the workings of cellular machines -- indeed, to their exquisite perfection -- will make clear to all that *Darwinism was an unnecessary and useless historical distraction, to be discarded in the rush to understand and imitate the machinery of life.*

Holly has it all bas ackwards. It is Darwinism that stifles science. My estimate is that in 20 years people will look back and wonder how so many could have been fooled by something so stupid as the TOE.


----------



## UltimateReality

People sometimes ask me* if evolutionists are at all changing their minds *given the overwhelming scientific evidence against their *religious mandate*. The answer of course is no. But there are some evolutionists, well one anyway, that at least acknowledges some of the evidence. 

Darwin's God: The Evolutionist Speaks: Savor the Irony


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you didn't bother to watch the video, did you? You don't know the difference between Dawkins and Hawkins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing the two. Do a search on both names and report back to us what you find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here it is reaaaalll slow in plain English. YOU don't know the difference between the two men. YOU need to do the search and educate yourself.
Click to expand...


You're just embarrassed at having confused the two.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> People sometimes ask me* if evolutionists are at all changing their minds *given the overwhelming scientific evidence against their *religious mandate*. The answer of course is no. But there are some evolutionists, well one anyway, that at least acknowledges some of the evidence.
> 
> Darwin's God: The Evolutionist Speaks: Savor the Irony



Evolution is science, not a religion. Yours is a common confusion shared by the science loathing, science illiterate crowd.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> "Evolutionists could respond by arguing that the reason the natural code is universal and conserved is that other codes were displaced early on; then, the surviving code was optimized by natural selection over millions of years for efficiency and fidelity. Aside from the fact that there is no evidence for such a dodge, *it begs the question of the origin of those codes.* Without a code (and numerous functional molecular machines to read and translate it) DNA would be no more than a noisy scaffold of random base pairs, signifying nothing. Similarly, the new synthetic 5SICs-NaM base pair, even if copied with high fidelity, would be useless -- like an obstruction or mutation -- unless the engineers labored further to make it mean something, to assign it a function. Even then, the rest of the *system would have to recognize the information* and coordinate the function."
> 
> "DNA is just a molecule until it is put to use in an informational system. So it is with silicon, or with the steam-powered metal contraption Charles Babbage envisioned in the 19th century. Natural DNA was copying itself with high efficiency and greater than 99.9999% fidelity long before engineers applied their minds to the problem of autonomic information storage and retrieval. Our experience with designing information systems -- first in metal, then silicon, and now with DNA -- gives compelling force to the inference that natural "biological information storage and retrieval" is the product of intelligent design."
> 
> With New Research, the Genetic Code Looks More and More Like a Deliberate Choice - Evolution News & Views



Creationism is religion, not science. Copying and pasting from websites that are pressing a religious agenda only devalues your claims.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> "*The "molecular machine" revolution coincides with the rise of the intelligent design movement. *In 1985, Michael Denton suggested the machine metaphor in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Profoundly influenced by that book, Behe in Darwin's Black Box (1996) proposed the concept of irreducible complexity, giving a shot in the arm to those already questioning the adequacy of Darwinian mechanisms. By the time of the release of Unlocking in 2002, the cat was out of the bag. Everybody, ID supporter or not, had already been talking for years in terms of molecular machines. Even the anti-ID NAS president Bruce Alberts was telling his colleagues in 1998 that to prepare the next generation of molecular biologists, we need to teach them to view the cell as a collection of protein machines; it's the "biology of the future," he said."
> 
> Over time, it seems increasingly likely that exposure to the workings of cellular machines -- indeed, to their exquisite perfection -- will make clear to all that *Darwinism was an unnecessary and useless historical distraction, to be discarded in the rush to understand and imitate the machinery of life.*
> 
> Holly has it all bas ackwards. It is Darwinism that stifles science. My estimate is that in 20 years people will look back and wonder how so many could have been fooled by something so stupid as the TOE.



Michael Behe is a hack. Among the many reasons why religious zealots are subject to such ridicule is because of charlatans such as Behe.


----------



## newpolitics

It is understandable why christians think science is derived from authority, because their religion, and for fundamentalists, their entire worldview, is derived from authority, so it is a simple projection of their only understanding of reality onto science. They have to make science fit into their models of realilty. Without a working knowledge of how science works and why, authority seems like the only rule of thumb to go by. This is evident in their reliance on textual documents from two thousand years ago with no historical reliability to completely guide their life. This is considered to be virtuous, because the bible rewards faith as being virtuous, hence a reward and of itself. It is a manipulative religion that produces delusion to reality, sorry to say. This is truly my opinion, especially of christianity.

creationist quote mining

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfFXH3VqcCM&feature=g-high-rec]Creationist quote mine collapse - YouTube[/ame]

I really think this show is useful in showing the actual dialogue between atheists and theists. When logic and reason are applied, theists have no ability to justify their faith. It is telling to watch, of just how unjustified religious beliefs really are when confronted directly with logic, reason, science, and rational thinking.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> must be you I'm having a great time watching you make an ass of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a bad liar to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how am I lying?
> you are doing a fine job of making an ass of yourself.
Click to expand...


Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?

Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.

I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.

Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about multiple eyewitness accounts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We also have multiple eyewitness accounts from people who have seen Bigfoot, UFO's, and images of Jesus in store windows.
> 
> They're all true, of course.
Click to expand...


So now you are calling most farmers and scientist nuts ? I knew you loathe real science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holly, you are clueless. Dawkins is YOUR high priest, not YWC's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't know what you're writing about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you didn't bother to watch the video, did you? You don't know the difference between Dawkins and Hawkins.
Click to expand...


She didn't know what Neo darwinism was either


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you didn't bother to watch the video, did you? You don't know the difference between Dawkins and Hawkins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing the two. Do a search on both names and report back to us what you find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here it is reaaaalll slow in plain English. YOU don't know the difference between the two men. YOU need to do the search and educate yourself.
Click to expand...


Daws should follow her lead.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> People sometimes ask me* if evolutionists are at all changing their minds *given the overwhelming scientific evidence against their *religious mandate*. The answer of course is no. But there are some evolutionists, well one anyway, that at least acknowledges some of the evidence.
> 
> Darwin's God: The Evolutionist Speaks: Savor the Irony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is science, not a religion. Yours is a common confusion shared by the science loathing, science illiterate crowd.
Click to expand...


No evolution has put a black eye on science once the loons took over. Promoting a theory that contradicts observed evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*The "molecular machine" revolution coincides with the rise of the intelligent design movement. *In 1985, Michael Denton suggested the machine metaphor in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Profoundly influenced by that book, Behe in Darwin's Black Box (1996) proposed the concept of irreducible complexity, giving a shot in the arm to those already questioning the adequacy of Darwinian mechanisms. By the time of the release of Unlocking in 2002, the cat was out of the bag. Everybody, ID supporter or not, had already been talking for years in terms of molecular machines. Even the anti-ID NAS president Bruce Alberts was telling his colleagues in 1998 that to prepare the next generation of molecular biologists, we need to teach them to view the cell as a collection of protein machines; it's the "biology of the future," he said."
> 
> Over time, it seems increasingly likely that exposure to the workings of cellular machines -- indeed, to their exquisite perfection -- will make clear to all that *Darwinism was an unnecessary and useless historical distraction, to be discarded in the rush to understand and imitate the machinery of life.*
> 
> Holly has it all bas ackwards. It is Darwinism that stifles science. My estimate is that in 20 years people will look back and wonder how so many could have been fooled by something so stupid as the TOE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Behe is a hack. Among the many reasons why religious zealots are subject to such ridicule is because of charlatans such as Behe.
Click to expand...


Behe is not a hack,he is someone that can actually see design in nature along with a few popular evolutionists.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*The "molecular machine" revolution coincides with the rise of the intelligent design movement. *In 1985, Michael Denton suggested the machine metaphor in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Profoundly influenced by that book, Behe in Darwin's Black Box (1996) proposed the concept of irreducible complexity, giving a shot in the arm to those already questioning the adequacy of Darwinian mechanisms. By the time of the release of Unlocking in 2002, the cat was out of the bag. Everybody, ID supporter or not, had already been talking for years in terms of molecular machines. Even the anti-ID NAS president Bruce Alberts was telling his colleagues in 1998 that to prepare the next generation of molecular biologists, we need to teach them to view the cell as a collection of protein machines; it's the "biology of the future," he said."
> 
> Over time, it seems increasingly likely that exposure to the workings of cellular machines -- indeed, to their exquisite perfection -- will make clear to all that *Darwinism was an unnecessary and useless historical distraction, to be discarded in the rush to understand and imitate the machinery of life.*
> 
> Holly has it all bas ackwards. It is Darwinism that stifles science. My estimate is that in 20 years people will look back and wonder how so many could have been fooled by something so stupid as the TOE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Behe is a hack. Among the many reasons why religious zealots are subject to such ridicule is because of charlatans such as Behe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Behe is not a hack,he is someone that can actually see design in nature along with a few popular evolutionists.
Click to expand...

Behe may think he sees many things. People think they see Bigfoot and UFO's. 

Have you ever been curious as to why the creationist community is a fringe group of frequently non-scientists who have been dismissed by the scientific community, given the bums-rush out of the public school system by the judiciary, sideline by the mainstream public and become a laughing stock of wacky conspiracies?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> People sometimes ask me* if evolutionists are at all changing their minds *given the overwhelming scientific evidence against their *religious mandate*. The answer of course is no. But there are some evolutionists, well one anyway, that at least acknowledges some of the evidence.
> 
> Darwin's God: The Evolutionist Speaks: Savor the Irony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is science, not a religion. Yours is a common confusion shared by the science loathing, science illiterate crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No evolution has put a black eye on science once the loons took over. Promoting a theory that contradicts observed evidence.
Click to expand...

That's so silly.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Behe is a hack. Among the many reasons why religious zealots are subject to such ridicule is because of charlatans such as Behe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behe is not a hack,he is someone that can actually see design in nature along with a few popular evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Behe may think he sees many things. People think they see Bigfoot and UFO's.
> 
> Have you ever been curious as to why the creationist community is a fringe group of frequently non-scientists who have been dismissed by the scientific community, given the bums-rush out of the public school system by the judiciary, sideline by the mainstream public and become a laughing stock of wacky conspiracies?
Click to expand...


Same old rhetoric Hollie. Can you post without being disengenuous ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is science, not a religion. Yours is a common confusion shared by the science loathing, science illiterate crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No evolution has put a black eye on science once the loons took over. Promoting a theory that contradicts observed evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's so silly.
Click to expand...


Hollie do you think it's a coincedence that many prominent evolutionist are making comments that are not positive for the theory of naturalism ? from Pierre Grasse,Francis Crick,to Dawkins have all made comments as to intelligence behind the creation of functions whether it's about the genetic code,Molecular structures or about the universe.

I predict the day will come where many theories including macroevolution will go away.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No evolution has put a black eye on science once the loons took over. Promoting a theory that contradicts observed evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie do you think it's a coincedence that many prominent evolutionist are making comments that are not positive for the theory of naturalism ? from Pierre Grasse,Francis Crick,to Dawkins have all made comments as to intelligence behind the creation of functions whether it's about the genetic code,Molecular structures or about the universe.
> 
> I predict the day will come where many theories including macroevolution will go away.
Click to expand...


Even should the current theory of evolution be replaced, it will not be with creationism, as that is not science.

Also, I think you, too, are being disingenuous when you make it sound like Dawkins has admitted life was designed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie do you think it's a coincedence that many prominent evolutionist are making comments that are not positive for the theory of naturalism ? from Pierre Grasse,Francis Crick,to Dawkins have all made comments as to intelligence behind the creation of functions whether it's about the genetic code,Molecular structures or about the universe.
> 
> I predict the day will come where many theories including macroevolution will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even should the current theory of evolution be replaced, it will not be with creationism, as that is not science.
> 
> Also, I think you, too, are being disingenuous when you make it sound like Dawkins has admitted life was designed.
Click to expand...


No, not any part of nature should be designed unless the natural process is an intelligent thinker right ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie do you think it's a coincedence that many prominent evolutionist are making comments that are not positive for the theory of naturalism ? from Pierre Grasse,Francis Crick,to Dawkins have all made comments as to intelligence behind the creation of functions whether it's about the genetic code,Molecular structures or about the universe.
> 
> I predict the day will come where many theories including macroevolution will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even should the current theory of evolution be replaced, it will not be with creationism, as that is not science.
> 
> Also, I think you, too, are being disingenuous when you make it sound like Dawkins has admitted life was designed.
Click to expand...


Montrovant,how does dawkins know that things only appear to have been designed and they were not designed ? Why do they appear to have been designed ?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> God loves you and sent his Son to die for you.
> 
> 
> 
> any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about multiple eyewitness accounts?
Click to expand...

nope. eyewitness accounts are only viable when they match physical evidence.
also since the alleged eyewitnesses cannot be interviewed or reexamined (since they've been dead for around a thousand years) their testimony cannot be verified.
(thanks for playing)


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie do you think it's a coincedence that many prominent evolutionist are making comments that are not positive for the theory of naturalism ? from Pierre Grasse,Francis Crick,to Dawkins have all made comments as to intelligence behind the creation of functions whether it's about the genetic code,Molecular structures or about the universe.
> 
> I predict the day will come where many theories including macroevolution will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even should the current theory of evolution be replaced, it will not be with creationism, as that is not science.
> 
> Also, I think you, too, are being disingenuous when you make it sound like Dawkins has admitted life was designed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Montrovant,how does dawkins know that things only appear to have been designed and they were not designed ? Why do they appear to have been designed ?
Click to expand...


I'm not trying to speak for Dawkins.  It is you who seems to want to do that.  His saying something has the appearance of design is not the same as his saying it was designed.  If you have a quote from him saying, "this was designed" that's another story.  

Based on everything I've ever seen from the man, I find it hard to believe he has decided there is a designer without some pretty conclusive evidence.

Whether he is right or wrong in his beliefs is beside the point; I'm only bringing up what you have said about him, not the veracity of his claims.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about multiple eyewitness accounts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope. eyewitness accounts are only viable when they match physical evidence.
> also since the alleged eyewitnesses cannot be interviewed or reexamined (since they've been dead for around a thousand years) their testimony cannot be verified.
> (thanks for playing)
Click to expand...


Give it up Daws. To be able to properly explain something in science you must be able to test ,study and observe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even should the current theory of evolution be replaced, it will not be with creationism, as that is not science.
> 
> Also, I think you, too, are being disingenuous when you make it sound like Dawkins has admitted life was designed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant,how does dawkins know that things only appear to have been designed and they were not designed ? Why do they appear to have been designed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to speak for Dawkins.  It is you who seems to want to do that.  His saying something has the appearance of design is not the same as his saying it was designed.  If you have a quote from him saying, "this was designed" that's another story.
> 
> Based on everything I've ever seen from the man, I find it hard to believe he has decided there is a designer without some pretty conclusive evidence.
> 
> Whether he is right or wrong in his beliefs is beside the point; I'm only bringing up what you have said about him, not the veracity of his claims.
Click to expand...


You avoided the questions that dawkins comment caused to be raised. If you look at a watch or a car there is no doubt they were designed but biological organisms and structures are much more complex. Why would you draw the line at watches or cars or any other thing you know a mind designed ?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceMain article: Evolution
> The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[12][13] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.
> 
> Not any mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.
> 
> The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.
> 
> This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.
> 
> A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first
> 
> Chicken or the eggFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
> Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth centuryThe chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]
> 
> Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. It could be considered that in this approach lies the most fundamental nature of the question. A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens. However, the metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"
> 
> An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the famous Colebrook equation
> Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, did you actually read what you just quoted? And you think Creationists are smoking crack? Please tell me this post is your attempt at humor. The chicken/egg question is metaphorical to all species that employ eggs in reproduction. The underlying question is really, "How does a species reproduce itself before it is a species?" It is a paradox silly. A Chicken can't exist in the form we know it unless it was hatched from an egg. But you can't have an egg unless a chicken laid it. So the fact someone actually spent time to outline this argument tells me it must be a silly joke. An animal that wasn't a chicken laid the first chicken egg? Seriously, how do you buy into this stuff?
> 
> So what about the butterfly? How does evolution explain that away? How could it evolve inside the cocoon, when there are no forces of natural selection to act on it?
Click to expand...

I love it when you try to play the intellectual....
chickens are not the only creatures that lay eggs.. 

 A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a bad liar to.
> 
> 
> 
> how am I lying?
> you are doing a fine job of making an ass of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?
> 
> Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.
> 
> I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.
> 
> Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.
Click to expand...

your obsession with minutia is chronic ...By James Kirk Wall, February 27, 2012 at 7:22 am  I have much respect for Richard Dawkins who cured my ignorance regarding the difference between a breed and a species. As an agnostic I was deeply offended by his criticism of the term in his book The God Delusion where Dawkins reduces the meaning to a probability number on a scale and asks the question if we should be agnostic about fairies. 

It had been my hope that Dawkins would correct what I believe was an insult to all agnostics and the very legacies of Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin. In a discussion between Dawkins and Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on February 23rd I received my wish. Richard Dawkins proclaimed himself to be an agnostic in this debate at Oxford University. He clarifies that I dont know does not constitute a 50/50 chance. 

I am very grateful for Dawkins clarification. The greatest confusion I get from people is this notion that agnosticism entails 50/50 credibility to Christianity or any other religion. I will use three examples of why this understanding is completely absurd.
Just because you dont know what made that noise last night doesnt mean theres a 50/50 chance it was an alien from Venus.
Just because we dont know who will win the World Series this year doesnt mean theres a 50/50 chance it will be the Chicago Cubs.
Just because we dont know who will win the 2012 Presidential Election doesnt mean theres a 50/50 chance it will be Lady Gaga (although her chances may be improving.) 

Does the fact that Richard Dawkins referred to himself as an agnostic rather than an atheist mean that hes changed his position on anything? I dont believe so; I think he just has a better understanding of what agnosticism is per what Thomas Huxley had intended the term to be. Some may argue that with all of the anti- theological statements Dawkins has made, he should be classified as an atheist. Lets examine the following theology crushing rhetoric. 

"I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions."

*"Wherever bibliolatry has prevailed, bigotry and cruelty have accompanied it."

"For those who look upon ignorance as one of the chief sources of evil; and hold veracity, not merely in act, but in thought, to be the one condition of true progress, whether moral or intellectual, it is clear that the biblical idol must go the way of all other idols."

*"Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain."

These statements were actually not made by Dawkins; they were made by Thomas Henry Huxley long before any of us were even born. The admission of ignorance is the foundation of Socratic wisdom and modern science, but this must be combined with probability and common sense.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Are agnostics atheists? What Socrates stated over 2,400 years ago is still true today. Its all about a definition of terms. If atheist is strictly defined as no god, then agnostics are under the atheist umbrella along with many other self-labels that do not constitute the god word. If someone believes in the divinity of a god they would very likely not refer to themselves as an agnostic. 

Are agnostics in between atheist and theist? This is another common misconception. Agnosticism is anti-dogmatisms. There is nothing more dogmatic than someone who believes to possess undisputable divine knowledge. This makes agnosticism closer to atheism, and a term that can be better thought of as somewhere in between atheism and deism. 

Is an agnostic an atheist without balls? This comes from a stereotype that was addressed earlier. A notion that I dont know implied a 50/50 fence sitting chance that the god of Abraham or other myths were real. Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley and Robert Ingersoll were self-proclaimed agnostics. Any disrespect to the agnostic term is disrespect to the legacies of these three men who were critical players in the battle of science over superstition. 

Can someone only be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? This comes from the recent popularity of a 2D belief and knowledge graph and a notion that atheism is purely about belief and agnosticism is purely about knowledge. This concept has become very popular on internet definitions and YouTube videos. This is not something that I subscribe to. Agnosticism is not an erroneous knowledge number on a chart, it is a philosophy that a belief should be fortified with knowledge to the best of our ability and that any belief that cannot reasonably withstand scrutiny should be humbly abandoned. 

Is agnostic defined as someone who believes that the truth about god is unknowable? The answer is no. Some mistakes can haunt us for a very long time. Huxley initially used the term unknowable, but later recognized that mistake. It is contradictory to say that we dont know, but do know that any knowledge will never be obtained. Huxley corrected that mistake, but dictionaries even to this day have not.

What is the definition of god? God through an agnostic lens would be some kind of self-aware greater intelligence that was responsible for the physical and biological universe and is currently beyond our senses or philosophies. Note - If such a greater intelligence does exist but is not interactive in our daily lives, the practical impact would be no different than if there was none at all.

Reference 

Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams, The Archbishop of Canterbury, discuss Human Beings & Ultimate Origin, February 23rd, 2012, Oxford University, moderated by Anthony Kenny.
(140 in the video)
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0]Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury discuss human nature & ultimate origin - YouTube[/ame]

The Huxley File
Created by Charles Blinderman,
Professor of English and Adjunct Professor of Biology,
and David Joyce,
Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science,
Clark University
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about multiple eyewitness accounts?
> 
> 
> 
> nope. eyewitness accounts are only viable when they match physical evidence.
> also since the alleged eyewitnesses cannot be interviewed or reexamined (since they've been dead for around a thousand years) their testimony cannot be verified.
> (thanks for playing)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it up Daws. To be able to properly explain something in science you must be able to test ,study and observe.
Click to expand...

..reading comp problems?
the above post encompasses testing obseving...etc 
also the above post refutes this statement" How about multiple eyewitness accounts"
asshat!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceMain article: Evolution
> The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[12][13] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.
> 
> Not any mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.
> 
> The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.
> 
> This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.
> 
> A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first
> 
> Chicken or the eggFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
> Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth centuryThe chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]
> 
> Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. It could be considered that in this approach lies the most fundamental nature of the question. A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens. However, the metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"
> 
> An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the famous Colebrook equation
> Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, did you actually read what you just quoted? And you think Creationists are smoking crack? Please tell me this post is your attempt at humor. The chicken/egg question is metaphorical to all species that employ eggs in reproduction. The underlying question is really, "How does a species reproduce itself before it is a species?" It is a paradox silly. A Chicken can't exist in the form we know it unless it was hatched from an egg. But you can't have an egg unless a chicken laid it. So the fact someone actually spent time to outline this argument tells me it must be a silly joke. An animal that wasn't a chicken laid the first chicken egg? Seriously, how do you buy into this stuff?
> 
> So what about the butterfly? How does evolution explain that away? How could it evolve inside the cocoon, when there are no forces of natural selection to act on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love it when you try to play the intellectual....
> chickens are not the only creatures that lay eggs..
> 
> A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first
Click to expand...


Prove it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how am I lying?
> you are doing a fine job of making an ass of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?
> 
> Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.
> 
> I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.
> 
> Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your obsession with minutia is chronic ...By James Kirk Wall, February 27, 2012 at 7:22 am  I have much respect for Richard Dawkins who cured my ignorance regarding the difference between a breed and a species. As an agnostic I was deeply offended by his criticism of the term in his book The God Delusion where Dawkins reduces the meaning to a probability number on a scale and asks the question if we should be agnostic about fairies.
> 
> It had been my hope that Dawkins would correct what I believe was an insult to all agnostics and the very legacies of Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin. In a discussion between Dawkins and Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on February 23rd I received my wish. Richard Dawkins proclaimed himself to be an agnostic in this debate at Oxford University. He clarifies that I dont know does not constitute a 50/50 chance.
> 
> I am very grateful for Dawkins clarification. The greatest confusion I get from people is this notion that agnosticism entails 50/50 credibility to Christianity or any other religion. I will use three examples of why this understanding is completely absurd.
> Just because you dont know what made that noise last night doesnt mean theres a 50/50 chance it was an alien from Venus.
> Just because we dont know who will win the World Series this year doesnt mean theres a 50/50 chance it will be the Chicago Cubs.
> Just because we dont know who will win the 2012 Presidential Election doesnt mean theres a 50/50 chance it will be Lady Gaga (although her chances may be improving.)
> 
> Does the fact that Richard Dawkins referred to himself as an agnostic rather than an atheist mean that hes changed his position on anything? I dont believe so; I think he just has a better understanding of what agnosticism is per what Thomas Huxley had intended the term to be. Some may argue that with all of the anti- theological statements Dawkins has made, he should be classified as an atheist. Lets examine the following theology crushing rhetoric.
> 
> "I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions."
> 
> *"Wherever bibliolatry has prevailed, bigotry and cruelty have accompanied it."
> 
> "For those who look upon ignorance as one of the chief sources of evil; and hold veracity, not merely in act, but in thought, to be the one condition of true progress, whether moral or intellectual, it is clear that the biblical idol must go the way of all other idols."
> 
> *"Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain."
> 
> These statements were actually not made by Dawkins; they were made by Thomas Henry Huxley long before any of us were even born. The admission of ignorance is the foundation of Socratic wisdom and modern science, but this must be combined with probability and common sense.
> 
> FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
> 
> Are agnostics atheists? What Socrates stated over 2,400 years ago is still true today. Its all about a definition of terms. If atheist is strictly defined as no god, then agnostics are under the atheist umbrella along with many other self-labels that do not constitute the god word. If someone believes in the divinity of a god they would very likely not refer to themselves as an agnostic.
> 
> Are agnostics in between atheist and theist? This is another common misconception. Agnosticism is anti-dogmatisms. There is nothing more dogmatic than someone who believes to possess undisputable divine knowledge. This makes agnosticism closer to atheism, and a term that can be better thought of as somewhere in between atheism and deism.
> 
> Is an agnostic an atheist without balls? This comes from a stereotype that was addressed earlier. A notion that I dont know implied a 50/50 fence sitting chance that the god of Abraham or other myths were real. Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley and Robert Ingersoll were self-proclaimed agnostics. Any disrespect to the agnostic term is disrespect to the legacies of these three men who were critical players in the battle of science over superstition.
> 
> Can someone only be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? This comes from the recent popularity of a 2D belief and knowledge graph and a notion that atheism is purely about belief and agnosticism is purely about knowledge. This concept has become very popular on internet definitions and YouTube videos. This is not something that I subscribe to. Agnosticism is not an erroneous knowledge number on a chart, it is a philosophy that a belief should be fortified with knowledge to the best of our ability and that any belief that cannot reasonably withstand scrutiny should be humbly abandoned.
> 
> Is agnostic defined as someone who believes that the truth about god is unknowable? The answer is no. Some mistakes can haunt us for a very long time. Huxley initially used the term unknowable, but later recognized that mistake. It is contradictory to say that we dont know, but do know that any knowledge will never be obtained. Huxley corrected that mistake, but dictionaries even to this day have not.
> 
> What is the definition of god? God through an agnostic lens would be some kind of self-aware greater intelligence that was responsible for the physical and biological universe and is currently beyond our senses or philosophies. Note - If such a greater intelligence does exist but is not interactive in our daily lives, the practical impact would be no different than if there was none at all.
> 
> Reference
> 
> Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams, The Archbishop of Canterbury, discuss Human Beings & Ultimate Origin, February 23rd, 2012, Oxford University, moderated by Anthony Kenny.
> (140 in the video)
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0]Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury discuss human nature & ultimate origin - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> The Huxley File
> Created by Charles Blinderman,
> Professor of English and Adjunct Professor of Biology,
> and David Joyce,
> Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science,
> Clark University
> http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/
Click to expand...


By definition an atheist and an agnostic hold different views. This is hilarious, the desperation to try and save face. Do you expect anyone to ever take you serious again ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope. eyewitness accounts are only viable when they match physical evidence.
> also since the alleged eyewitnesses cannot be interviewed or reexamined (since they've been dead for around a thousand years) their testimony cannot be verified.
> (thanks for playing)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give it up Daws. To be able to properly explain something in science you must be able to test ,study and observe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..reading comp problems?
> the above post encompasses testing obseving...etc
> also the above post refutes this statement" How about multiple eyewitness accounts"
> asshat!
Click to expand...


Chicken eggs when fertilized produce chickens.

Egg Layers,All turtles All tortoises All crocodilians Some lizards Iguanas Water dragons Geckos Veiled chameleons Panther chameleons Monitors Snakes All pythons Kingsnakes Milksnakes Rat snakes Corn snakes 
LivebearersSome lizards Solomon Island skink Blue-tongue skink Shingle backed skink Some chameleons Jackson's chameleon Some snakes All boas All vipers Garter snakes 

All eggs have to be fertilized.

All have been tested,studied and observed. What has not been observed, a fertilized egg not producing what the parents are.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, did you actually read what you just quoted? And you think Creationists are smoking crack? Please tell me this post is your attempt at humor. The chicken/egg question is metaphorical to all species that employ eggs in reproduction. The underlying question is really, "How does a species reproduce itself before it is a species?" It is a paradox silly. A Chicken can't exist in the form we know it unless it was hatched from an egg. But you can't have an egg unless a chicken laid it. So the fact someone actually spent time to outline this argument tells me it must be a silly joke. An animal that wasn't a chicken laid the first chicken egg? Seriously, how do you buy into this stuff?
> 
> So what about the butterfly? How does evolution explain that away? How could it evolve inside the cocoon, when there are no forces of natural selection to act on it?
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when you try to play the intellectual....
> chickens are not the only creatures that lay eggs..
> 
> A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...

no need.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?
> 
> Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.
> 
> I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.
> 
> Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.
> 
> 
> 
> your obsession with minutia is chronic ...By James Kirk Wall, February 27, 2012 at 7:22 am  I have much respect for Richard Dawkins who cured my ignorance regarding the difference between a breed and a species. As an agnostic I was deeply offended by his criticism of the term in his book The God Delusion where Dawkins reduces the meaning to a probability number on a scale and asks the question if we should be agnostic about fairies.
> 
> It had been my hope that Dawkins would correct what I believe was an insult to all agnostics and the very legacies of Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin. In a discussion between Dawkins and Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on February 23rd I received my wish. Richard Dawkins proclaimed himself to be an agnostic in this debate at Oxford University. He clarifies that I dont know does not constitute a 50/50 chance.
> 
> I am very grateful for Dawkins clarification. The greatest confusion I get from people is this notion that agnosticism entails 50/50 credibility to Christianity or any other religion. I will use three examples of why this understanding is completely absurd.
> Just because you dont know what made that noise last night doesnt mean theres a 50/50 chance it was an alien from Venus.
> Just because we dont know who will win the World Series this year doesnt mean theres a 50/50 chance it will be the Chicago Cubs.
> Just because we dont know who will win the 2012 Presidential Election doesnt mean theres a 50/50 chance it will be Lady Gaga (although her chances may be improving.)
> 
> Does the fact that Richard Dawkins referred to himself as an agnostic rather than an atheist mean that hes changed his position on anything? I dont believe so; I think he just has a better understanding of what agnosticism is per what Thomas Huxley had intended the term to be. Some may argue that with all of the anti- theological statements Dawkins has made, he should be classified as an atheist. Lets examine the following theology crushing rhetoric.
> 
> "I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions."
> 
> *"Wherever bibliolatry has prevailed, bigotry and cruelty have accompanied it."
> 
> "For those who look upon ignorance as one of the chief sources of evil; and hold veracity, not merely in act, but in thought, to be the one condition of true progress, whether moral or intellectual, it is clear that the biblical idol must go the way of all other idols."
> 
> *"Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain."
> 
> These statements were actually not made by Dawkins; they were made by Thomas Henry Huxley long before any of us were even born. The admission of ignorance is the foundation of Socratic wisdom and modern science, but this must be combined with probability and common sense.
> 
> FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
> 
> Are agnostics atheists? What Socrates stated over 2,400 years ago is still true today. Its all about a definition of terms. If atheist is strictly defined as no god, then agnostics are under the atheist umbrella along with many other self-labels that do not constitute the god word. If someone believes in the divinity of a god they would very likely not refer to themselves as an agnostic.
> 
> Are agnostics in between atheist and theist? This is another common misconception. Agnosticism is anti-dogmatisms. There is nothing more dogmatic than someone who believes to possess undisputable divine knowledge. This makes agnosticism closer to atheism, and a term that can be better thought of as somewhere in between atheism and deism.
> 
> Is an agnostic an atheist without balls? This comes from a stereotype that was addressed earlier. A notion that I dont know implied a 50/50 fence sitting chance that the god of Abraham or other myths were real. Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley and Robert Ingersoll were self-proclaimed agnostics. Any disrespect to the agnostic term is disrespect to the legacies of these three men who were critical players in the battle of science over superstition.
> 
> Can someone only be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? This comes from the recent popularity of a 2D belief and knowledge graph and a notion that atheism is purely about belief and agnosticism is purely about knowledge. This concept has become very popular on internet definitions and YouTube videos. This is not something that I subscribe to. Agnosticism is not an erroneous knowledge number on a chart, it is a philosophy that a belief should be fortified with knowledge to the best of our ability and that any belief that cannot reasonably withstand scrutiny should be humbly abandoned.
> 
> Is agnostic defined as someone who believes that the truth about god is unknowable? The answer is no. Some mistakes can haunt us for a very long time. Huxley initially used the term unknowable, but later recognized that mistake. It is contradictory to say that we dont know, but do know that any knowledge will never be obtained. Huxley corrected that mistake, but dictionaries even to this day have not.
> 
> What is the definition of god? God through an agnostic lens would be some kind of self-aware greater intelligence that was responsible for the physical and biological universe and is currently beyond our senses or philosophies. Note - If such a greater intelligence does exist but is not interactive in our daily lives, the practical impact would be no different than if there was none at all.
> 
> Reference
> 
> Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams, The Archbishop of Canterbury, discuss Human Beings & Ultimate Origin, February 23rd, 2012, Oxford University, moderated by Anthony Kenny.
> (140 in the video)
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0]Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury discuss human nature & ultimate origin - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> The Huxley File
> Created by Charles Blinderman,
> Professor of English and Adjunct Professor of Biology,
> and David Joyce,
> Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science,
> Clark University
> http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition an atheist and an agnostic hold different views. This is hilarious, the desperation to try and save face. Do you expect anyone to ever take you serious again ?
Click to expand...

right! below is the truest definiton of an agnostic:

Are agnostics atheists? What Socrates stated over 2,400 years ago is still true today. Its all about a definition of terms. If atheist is strictly defined as no god, then agnostics are under the atheist umbrella along with many other self-labels that do not constitute the god word. If someone believes in the divinity of a god they would very likely not refer to themselves as an agnostic. 

as allways you lose
 the only desperation here is yours..
your delusion is so powerful that you can't admit when you're whipped


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give it up Daws. To be able to properly explain something in science you must be able to test ,study and observe.
> 
> 
> 
> ..reading comp problems?
> the above post encompasses testing obseving...etc
> also the above post refutes this statement" How about multiple eyewitness accounts"
> asshat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chicken eggs when fertilized produce chickens.
> 
> Egg Layers,All turtles All tortoises All crocodilians Some lizards Iguanas Water dragons Geckos Veiled chameleons Panther chameleons Monitors Snakes All pythons Kingsnakes Milksnakes Rat snakes Corn snakes
> LivebearersSome lizards Solomon Island skink Blue-tongue skink Shingle backed skink Some chameleons Jackson's chameleon Some snakes All boas All vipers Garter snakes
> 
> All eggs have to be fertilized.
> 
> All have been tested,studied and observed. What has not been observed, a fertilized egg not producing what the parents are.
Click to expand...

another non sense answer...what does chicken fucking have to do with the viability of eyewitness testimony?

but to answer you meaningless question.... "What has not been observed, a fertilized egg not producing what the parents are".... OK. SO WHAT IT'S NO PROOF OF A GOD ID. OR ANY OTHER SUPERNATURAL EVENT...it would be if a humming bird lay eggs and elephants hatched out !
an event like that might make me a believer ...
NAW!
SO THE  GREAT OBSERVATION IS THAT BIRDS MAKE BIRDS SNAKES MAKE SNAKES.

again it no proof of god ...or that evolution does not happen.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when you try to play the intellectual....
> chickens are not the only creatures that lay eggs..
> 
> A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need.
Click to expand...


That is right you believe what you wish to believe. Your claim is the basis of your argument but you don't need to prove it ? When did evolution stop ? because I have never heard of anything happening as you claimed it happened.

Just admit it, you can't prove it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your obsession with minutia is chronic ...By James Kirk Wall, February 27, 2012 at 7:22 am  I have much respect for Richard Dawkins who cured my ignorance regarding the difference between a breed and a species. As an agnostic I was deeply offended by his criticism of the term in his book The God Delusion where Dawkins reduces the meaning to a probability number on a scale and asks the question if we should be agnostic about fairies.
> 
> It had been my hope that Dawkins would correct what I believe was an insult to all agnostics and the very legacies of Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin. In a discussion between Dawkins and Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on February 23rd I received my wish. Richard Dawkins proclaimed himself to be an agnostic in this debate at Oxford University. He clarifies that I dont know does not constitute a 50/50 chance.
> 
> I am very grateful for Dawkins clarification. The greatest confusion I get from people is this notion that agnosticism entails 50/50 credibility to Christianity or any other religion. I will use three examples of why this understanding is completely absurd.
> Just because you dont know what made that noise last night doesnt mean theres a 50/50 chance it was an alien from Venus.
> Just because we dont know who will win the World Series this year doesnt mean theres a 50/50 chance it will be the Chicago Cubs.
> Just because we dont know who will win the 2012 Presidential Election doesnt mean theres a 50/50 chance it will be Lady Gaga (although her chances may be improving.)
> 
> Does the fact that Richard Dawkins referred to himself as an agnostic rather than an atheist mean that hes changed his position on anything? I dont believe so; I think he just has a better understanding of what agnosticism is per what Thomas Huxley had intended the term to be. Some may argue that with all of the anti- theological statements Dawkins has made, he should be classified as an atheist. Lets examine the following theology crushing rhetoric.
> 
> "I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions."
> 
> *"Wherever bibliolatry has prevailed, bigotry and cruelty have accompanied it."
> 
> "For those who look upon ignorance as one of the chief sources of evil; and hold veracity, not merely in act, but in thought, to be the one condition of true progress, whether moral or intellectual, it is clear that the biblical idol must go the way of all other idols."
> 
> *"Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain."
> 
> These statements were actually not made by Dawkins; they were made by Thomas Henry Huxley long before any of us were even born. The admission of ignorance is the foundation of Socratic wisdom and modern science, but this must be combined with probability and common sense.
> 
> FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
> 
> Are agnostics atheists? What Socrates stated over 2,400 years ago is still true today. Its all about a definition of terms. If atheist is strictly defined as no god, then agnostics are under the atheist umbrella along with many other self-labels that do not constitute the god word. If someone believes in the divinity of a god they would very likely not refer to themselves as an agnostic.
> 
> Are agnostics in between atheist and theist? This is another common misconception. Agnosticism is anti-dogmatisms. There is nothing more dogmatic than someone who believes to possess undisputable divine knowledge. This makes agnosticism closer to atheism, and a term that can be better thought of as somewhere in between atheism and deism.
> 
> Is an agnostic an atheist without balls? This comes from a stereotype that was addressed earlier. A notion that I dont know implied a 50/50 fence sitting chance that the god of Abraham or other myths were real. Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley and Robert Ingersoll were self-proclaimed agnostics. Any disrespect to the agnostic term is disrespect to the legacies of these three men who were critical players in the battle of science over superstition.
> 
> Can someone only be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? This comes from the recent popularity of a 2D belief and knowledge graph and a notion that atheism is purely about belief and agnosticism is purely about knowledge. This concept has become very popular on internet definitions and YouTube videos. This is not something that I subscribe to. Agnosticism is not an erroneous knowledge number on a chart, it is a philosophy that a belief should be fortified with knowledge to the best of our ability and that any belief that cannot reasonably withstand scrutiny should be humbly abandoned.
> 
> Is agnostic defined as someone who believes that the truth about god is unknowable? The answer is no. Some mistakes can haunt us for a very long time. Huxley initially used the term unknowable, but later recognized that mistake. It is contradictory to say that we dont know, but do know that any knowledge will never be obtained. Huxley corrected that mistake, but dictionaries even to this day have not.
> 
> What is the definition of god? God through an agnostic lens would be some kind of self-aware greater intelligence that was responsible for the physical and biological universe and is currently beyond our senses or philosophies. Note - If such a greater intelligence does exist but is not interactive in our daily lives, the practical impact would be no different than if there was none at all.
> 
> Reference
> 
> Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams, The Archbishop of Canterbury, discuss Human Beings & Ultimate Origin, February 23rd, 2012, Oxford University, moderated by Anthony Kenny.
> (140 in the video)
> Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury discuss human nature & ultimate origin - YouTube
> 
> The Huxley File
> Created by Charles Blinderman,
> Professor of English and Adjunct Professor of Biology,
> and David Joyce,
> Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science,
> Clark University
> http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition an atheist and an agnostic hold different views. This is hilarious, the desperation to try and save face. Do you expect anyone to ever take you serious again ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right! below is the truest definiton of an agnostic:
> 
> Are agnostics atheists? What Socrates stated over 2,400 years ago is still true today. Its all about a definition of terms. If atheist is strictly defined as no god, then agnostics are under the atheist umbrella along with many other self-labels that do not constitute the god word. If someone believes in the divinity of a god they would very likely not refer to themselves as an agnostic.
> 
> as allways you lose
> the only desperation here is yours..
> your delusion is so powerful that you can't admit when you're whipped
Click to expand...


The first atheist were Christians because they refused to worship the pagan gods and worshipped the one true God,their own God. The term atheos was used for Christians that refused to worship the pagan gods.

The term atheist was coined around the 15th century. The term agnostic was coined by a biologist in the 18th century. The term atheist means there is no God or gods. The term agnostic means you can't say there is a god or you can't say there is not a god.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..reading comp problems?
> the above post encompasses testing obseving...etc
> also the above post refutes this statement" How about multiple eyewitness accounts"
> asshat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chicken eggs when fertilized produce chickens.
> 
> Egg Layers,All turtles All tortoises All crocodilians Some lizards Iguanas Water dragons Geckos Veiled chameleons Panther chameleons Monitors Snakes All pythons Kingsnakes Milksnakes Rat snakes Corn snakes
> LivebearersSome lizards Solomon Island skink Blue-tongue skink Shingle backed skink Some chameleons Jackson's chameleon Some snakes All boas All vipers Garter snakes
> 
> All eggs have to be fertilized.
> 
> All have been tested,studied and observed. What has not been observed, a fertilized egg not producing what the parents are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another non sense answer...what does chicken fucking have to do with the viability of eyewitness testimony?
> 
> but to answer you meaningless question.... "What has not been observed, a fertilized egg not producing what the parents are".... OK. SO WHAT IT'S NO PROOF OF A GOD ID. OR ANY OTHER SUPERNATURAL EVENT...it would be if a humming bird lay eggs and elephants hatched out !
> an event like that might make me a believer ...
> NAW!
> SO THE  GREAT OBSERVATION IS THAT BIRDS MAKE BIRDS SNAKES MAKE SNAKES.
> 
> again it no proof of god ...or that evolution does not happen.
Click to expand...


Again the basis of your argument is one group of organisms produced an egg and that egg produced a new group of organisms. That is the basis of your argument and you need to prove that happened for it to be a viable theory.

I have said it all along genetics are an enemy of your theory because you got one thing right. Chickens produce chickens and snakes produce snakes. Dogs produce dogs so on and so on. Because these animals only have the genetic information to reproduce what they themselves are.

Don't use your sarcasm with me, you are the one that made this argument.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Oh and Daws the evidence for God the creator is design, which many on your side admit to.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Evolutionists could respond by arguing that the reason the natural code is universal and conserved is that other codes were displaced early on; then, the surviving code was optimized by natural selection over millions of years for efficiency and fidelity. Aside from the fact that there is no evidence for such a dodge, *it begs the question of the origin of those codes.* Without a code (and numerous functional molecular machines to read and translate it) DNA would be no more than a noisy scaffold of random base pairs, signifying nothing. Similarly, the new synthetic 5SICs-NaM base pair, even if copied with high fidelity, would be useless -- like an obstruction or mutation -- unless the engineers labored further to make it mean something, to assign it a function. Even then, the rest of the *system would have to recognize the information* and coordinate the function."
> 
> "DNA is just a molecule until it is put to use in an informational system. So it is with silicon, or with the steam-powered metal contraption Charles Babbage envisioned in the 19th century. Natural DNA was copying itself with high efficiency and greater than 99.9999% fidelity long before engineers applied their minds to the problem of autonomic information storage and retrieval. Our experience with designing information systems -- first in metal, then silicon, and now with DNA -- gives compelling force to the inference that natural "biological information storage and retrieval" is the product of intelligent design."
> 
> With New Research, the Genetic Code Looks More and More Like a Deliberate Choice - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism is religion, not science. Copying and pasting from websites that are pressing a religious agenda only devalues your claims.
Click to expand...


And not actually addressing the ideas put forth, but instead discrediting it based on the source, devalues your intelligence.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*The "molecular machine" revolution coincides with the rise of the intelligent design movement. *In 1985, Michael Denton suggested the machine metaphor in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Profoundly influenced by that book, Behe in Darwin's Black Box (1996) proposed the concept of irreducible complexity, giving a shot in the arm to those already questioning the adequacy of Darwinian mechanisms. By the time of the release of Unlocking in 2002, the cat was out of the bag. Everybody, ID supporter or not, had already been talking for years in terms of molecular machines. Even the anti-ID NAS president Bruce Alberts was telling his colleagues in 1998 that to prepare the next generation of molecular biologists, we need to teach them to view the cell as a collection of protein machines; it's the "biology of the future," he said."
> 
> Over time, it seems increasingly likely that exposure to the workings of cellular machines -- indeed, to their exquisite perfection -- will make clear to all that *Darwinism was an unnecessary and useless historical distraction, to be discarded in the rush to understand and imitate the machinery of life.*
> 
> Holly has it all bas ackwards. It is Darwinism that stifles science. My estimate is that in 20 years people will look back and wonder how so many could have been fooled by something so stupid as the TOE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Behe is a hack. Among the many reasons why religious zealots are subject to such ridicule is because of charlatans such as Behe.
Click to expand...


I would call this an Ad Hominem fallacy but you really didn't argue anything. Just about all of your responses fall into this category in which you don't argue against the point on the basis of scientifc evidence, but attack the source. This make you the most science loathing poster here and shows a total lack of intelligence on your part since you seem incapable of posting a logical response based on sound evidence.

*Ad Hominem*

Your reasoning contains this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself. It is a form of the Genetic Fallacy.

Example:

    What she says about Johannes Kepler&#8217;s astronomy of the 1600&#8242;s must be just so much garbage. Do you realize she&#8217;s only fourteen years old?

This attack may undermine the arguer&#8217;s credibility as a scientific authority, *but it does not undermine her reasoning.* *That reasoning should stand or fall on the scientific evidence*, not on the arguer&#8217;s age or anything else about her personally.

If the fallacious reasoner points out irrelevant circumstances that the reasoner is in, the fallacy is a circumstantial ad hominem. Tu Quoque and Two Wrongs Make a Right are other types of the ad hominem fallacy.

The major difficulty with labeling a piece of reasoning as an ad hominem fallacy is deciding whether the personal attack is relevant. For example, attacks on a person for their actually immoral sexual conduct are irrelevant to the quality of their mathematical reasoning, but they are relevant to arguments promoting the person for a leadership position in the church. Unfortunately, many attacks are not so easy to classify, such as an attack pointing out that the candidate for church leadership, while in the tenth grade, intentionally tripped a fellow student and broke his collar bone.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie do you think it's a coincedence that many prominent evolutionist are making comments that are not positive for the theory of naturalism ? from Pierre Grasse,Francis Crick,to Dawkins have all made comments as to intelligence behind the creation of functions whether it's about the genetic code,Molecular structures or about the universe.
> 
> I predict the day will come where many theories including macroevolution will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even should the current theory of evolution be replaced, it will not be with creationism, as that is not science.
> 
> Also, I think you, too, are being disingenuous when you make it sound like Dawkins has admitted life was designed.
Click to expand...


I didn't hear YWC say that. I think yours, Daws and Holly's prejudicial filter is skewing what you hear. I heard him say Dawkins said the structures *APPEARED* to be design.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about multiple eyewitness accounts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope. eyewitness accounts are only viable when they match physical evidence.
> also since the alleged eyewitnesses cannot be interviewed or reexamined (since they've been dead for around a thousand years) their testimony cannot be verified.
> (thanks for playing)
Click to expand...


This is historical revisionism at its very core. If we apply that logic to any history, we should pitch all the history books. Hitler really didn't give the orders that resulting in millions of Jews dying. Abraham Lincoln wasn't shot by John Wilkes Booth. etc. etc. A large part of history is based on eye witness accounts that were documented at the time and lack total modern evidence of any kind.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceMain article: Evolution
> The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[12][13] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.
> 
> Not any mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.
> 
> The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.
> 
> This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.
> 
> A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first
> 
> Chicken or the eggFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
> Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth centuryThe chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]
> 
> Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. It could be considered that in this approach lies the most fundamental nature of the question. A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens. However, the metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"
> 
> An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the famous Colebrook equation
> Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, did you actually read what you just quoted? And you think Creationists are smoking crack? Please tell me this post is your attempt at humor. The chicken/egg question is metaphorical to all species that employ eggs in reproduction. The underlying question is really, "How does a species reproduce itself before it is a species?" It is a paradox silly. A Chicken can't exist in the form we know it unless it was hatched from an egg. But you can't have an egg unless a chicken laid it. So the fact someone actually spent time to outline this argument tells me it must be a silly joke. An animal that wasn't a chicken laid the first chicken egg? Seriously, how do you buy into this stuff?
> 
> So what about the butterfly? How does evolution explain that away? How could it evolve inside the cocoon, when there are no forces of natural selection to act on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love it when you try to play the intellectual....
> chickens are not the only creatures that lay eggs..
> 
> A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first
Click to expand...


This is UN-intellectual!!!! That is just a retro paradox as we move the question back in time... Which came first, the ancestral egg laying chicken-type bird or the ancestral chicken-like bird? Are you really so oblivious to how incredibly stupid this argument is?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a bad liar to.
> 
> 
> 
> how am I lying?
> you are doing a fine job of making an ass of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?
> 
> Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.
> 
> I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.
> 
> Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.
Click to expand...


Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god

Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists

Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Evolutionists could respond by arguing that the reason the natural code is universal and conserved is that other codes were displaced early on; then, the surviving code was optimized by natural selection over millions of years for efficiency and fidelity. Aside from the fact that there is no evidence for such a dodge, *it begs the question of the origin of those codes.* Without a code (and numerous functional molecular machines to read and translate it) DNA would be no more than a noisy scaffold of random base pairs, signifying nothing. Similarly, the new synthetic 5SICs-NaM base pair, even if copied with high fidelity, would be useless -- like an obstruction or mutation -- unless the engineers labored further to make it mean something, to assign it a function. Even then, the rest of the *system would have to recognize the information* and coordinate the function."
> 
> "DNA is just a molecule until it is put to use in an informational system. So it is with silicon, or with the steam-powered metal contraption Charles Babbage envisioned in the 19th century. Natural DNA was copying itself with high efficiency and greater than 99.9999% fidelity long before engineers applied their minds to the problem of autonomic information storage and retrieval. Our experience with designing information systems -- first in metal, then silicon, and now with DNA -- gives compelling force to the inference that natural "biological information storage and retrieval" is the product of intelligent design."
> 
> With New Research, the Genetic Code Looks More and More Like a Deliberate Choice - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism is religion, not science. Copying and pasting from websites that are pressing a religious agenda only devalues your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And not actually addressing the ideas put forth, but instead discrediting it based on the source, devalues your intelligence.
Click to expand...

Nobody has unlimited time to spend on message boards. I also have no interest in "refuting" post after post of YouTube videos. I have less than no interest in spending time being barrage with dishonest claims from religious fundies making absolute claims of authority to subject matters they have no training in.

As is so often the case with religious fundies representing such organizations as the ICR (which, btw is a religious front for Christian fundies), they will twist, falsifying and manipulate data to fit their preconceptions. It's simply dishonest and manipulative to bring to the table data that has been carefully altered to fit a preconceived conclusion. 

That directly calls into question your honesty and credibility when you insist on shilling for these groups.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how am I lying?
> you are doing a fine job of making an ass of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?
> 
> Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.
> 
> I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.
> 
> Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god
> 
> Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists
> 
> Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.
Click to expand...


Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?
> 
> Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.
> 
> I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.
> 
> Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god
> 
> Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists
> 
> Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.
Click to expand...

Act like a grown up. If you have something to covey to daws, write it out. This is a message board. You write out stuff.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?
> 
> Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.
> 
> I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.
> 
> Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god
> 
> Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists
> 
> Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.
Click to expand...

I'm actually fascinated by your preoccupation with Dawkins. It seems that you assign to him a position of authority as it relates to your religious belief. Basically, your feverish, sweaty, chest heaving preoccupation with Dawkins belies the fact that you find his arguments convincing so that any hint of movement on his part (agnostic to atheist) is seen falsely as validation of your religion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god
> 
> Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists
> 
> Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Act like a grown up. If you have something to covey to daws, write it out. This is a message board. You write out stuff.
Click to expand...


Have you not been reading the thread ? I have written it out, I even gave him a history lesson.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?
> 
> Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.
> 
> I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.
> 
> Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god
> 
> Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists
> 
> Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.
Click to expand...


It's not a change in position, because they are not mutually exclusive, as I just pointed out. They almost have nothing to do with one another, at least as far as holding positions go. You can be any combination of the two: agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. He doesn't claim to know that necessarily, no god could ever exist, but does not believe the claims that any gods do exist.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.
> 
> 
> 
> Act like a grown up. If you have something to covey to daws, write it out. This is a message board. You write out stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you not been reading the thread ? I have written it out, I even gave him a history lesson.
Click to expand...


I am current with the thread. Why are telling me or anyone else to tell daws, anything.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god
> 
> Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists
> 
> Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a change in position, because they are not mutually exclusive, as I just pointed out. They almost have nothing to do with one another, at least as far as holding positions go. You can be any combination of the two: agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. He doesn't claim to know that necessarily, no god could ever exist, but does not believe the claims that any gods do exist.
Click to expand...


Mutually exclusive means the two positions are contradictory to each other. Why is this hard for you guys to grasp ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Act like a grown up. If you have something to covey to daws, write it out. This is a message board. You write out stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you not been reading the thread ? I have written it out, I even gave him a history lesson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am current with the thread. Why are telling me or anyone else to tell daws, anything.
Click to expand...


Nevermind


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a change in position, because they are not mutually exclusive, as I just pointed out. They almost have nothing to do with one another, at least as far as holding positions go. You can be any combination of the two: agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. He doesn't claim to know that necessarily, no god could ever exist, but does not believe the claims that any gods do exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutually exclusive means the two positions are contradictory to each other. Why is this hard for you guys to grasp ?
Click to expand...


which is why I said they are NOT mutually exclusive. How hard is it to actually read what I wrote?


The point is, that Dawkins hasn't changed his position. He's always been an atheist. He may have gone from gnostic atheism to agnostic atheism, but I don't even believe that, because to be a gnostic atheist (or gnostic theist) is to claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does or does not exist. This is epistemically impossible to claim, and so a gnostic position should never be taken. We are all agnostic, technically, because a god has never been proven to exist conclusively or empirically. Testimonial evidence does not count (although I realize that to the observer, they may claim to know that a god exists, so might consider themselves a gnostic.)  Dawkins knows this. He may, in fact, believe that no god exists, but that is different than not believing that a god does exist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god
> 
> Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists
> 
> Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a change in position, because they are not mutually exclusive, as I just pointed out. They almost have nothing to do with one another, at least as far as holding positions go. You can be any combination of the two: agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. He doesn't claim to know that necessarily, no god could ever exist, but does not believe the claims that any gods do exist.
Click to expand...


If dawkins claims to be an atheist at one point and then claims to be agnostic later, how can you say that is not a change in postions ? you can't be both.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a change in position, because they are not mutually exclusive, as I just pointed out. They almost have nothing to do with one another, at least as far as holding positions go. You can be any combination of the two: agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. He doesn't claim to know that necessarily, no god could ever exist, but does not believe the claims that any gods do exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If dawkins claims to be an atheist at one point and then claims to be agnostic later, how can you say that is not a change in postions ? you can't be both.
Click to expand...


Do you not read? Read what I WROTE. I'm not going over this whole thing again. They are NOT mutually exclusive, so you CAN be both. One has to do with knowledge, the other with belief. Knowledge is a subset of belief.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a change in position, because they are not mutually exclusive, as I just pointed out. They almost have nothing to do with one another, at least as far as holding positions go. You can be any combination of the two: agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. He doesn't claim to know that necessarily, no god could ever exist, but does not believe the claims that any gods do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutually exclusive means the two positions are contradictory to each other. Why is this hard for you guys to grasp ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which is why I said they are NOT mutually exclusive. How hard is it to actually read what I wrote?
> 
> 
> The point is, that Dawkins hasn't changed his position. He's always been an atheist. He may have gone from gnostic atheism to agnostic atheism, but I don't even believe that, because to be a gnostic atheist (or gnostic theist) is to claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does or does not exist. This is epistemically impossible to claim, and so a gnostic position should never be taken. We are all agnostic, technically, because a god has never been proven to exist conclusively or empirically. Testimonial evidence does not count, although I realize that to the observer, they may claim to know that a god exists, so might consider themselves a gnostic.  Dawkins knows this. He may, in fact, believe that no god exists, but that is different than not believing that a god does exist.
Click to expand...


Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a change in position, because they are not mutually exclusive, as I just pointed out. They almost have nothing to do with one another, at least as far as holding positions go. You can be any combination of the two: agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. He doesn't claim to know that necessarily, no god could ever exist, but does not believe the claims that any gods do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If dawkins claims to be an atheist at one point and then claims to be agnostic later, how can you say that is not a change in postions ? you can't be both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not read? Read what I WROTE. I'm not going over this whole thing again. They are NOT mutually exclusive, so you CAN be both. One has to do with knowledge, the other with belief. Knowledge is a subset of belief.
Click to expand...


You can't be both unless you want to contradict yourself.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutually exclusive means the two positions are contradictory to each other. Why is this hard for you guys to grasp ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which is why I said they are NOT mutually exclusive. How hard is it to actually read what I wrote?
> 
> 
> The point is, that Dawkins hasn't changed his position. He's always been an atheist. He may have gone from gnostic atheism to agnostic atheism, but I don't even believe that, because to be a gnostic atheist (or gnostic theist) is to claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does or does not exist. This is epistemically impossible to claim, and so a gnostic position should never be taken. We are all agnostic, technically, because a god has never been proven to exist conclusively or empirically. Testimonial evidence does not count, although I realize that to the observer, they may claim to know that a god exists, so might consider themselves a gnostic.  Dawkins knows this. He may, in fact, believe that no god exists, but that is different than not believing that a god does exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.
Click to expand...

He has already proved things are not designed. Prove he hasn't.

FYI, the above was a lesson in the "prove it isn't" paradigm that crushes the typical religious insistence that "my gods are true until you prove they aren't".

Ok, I've proved your gods are false. Prove I haven't.

Thanks.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutually exclusive means the two positions are contradictory to each other. Why is this hard for you guys to grasp ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which is why I said they are NOT mutually exclusive. How hard is it to actually read what I wrote?
> 
> 
> The point is, that Dawkins hasn't changed his position. He's always been an atheist. He may have gone from gnostic atheism to agnostic atheism, but I don't even believe that, because to be a gnostic atheist (or gnostic theist) is to claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does or does not exist. This is epistemically impossible to claim, and so a gnostic position should never be taken. We are all agnostic, technically, because a god has never been proven to exist conclusively or empirically. Testimonial evidence does not count, although I realize that to the observer, they may claim to know that a god exists, so might consider themselves a gnostic.  Dawkins knows this. He may, in fact, believe that no god exists, but that is different than not believing that a god does exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.
Click to expand...


You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle) 

I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position

Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist). 

http://www.slideshare.net/Reconcile2.0/beliefs-versus-knowledge


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> which is why I said they are NOT mutually exclusive. How hard is it to actually read what I wrote?
> 
> 
> The point is, that Dawkins hasn't changed his position. He's always been an atheist. He may have gone from gnostic atheism to agnostic atheism, but I don't even believe that, because to be a gnostic atheist (or gnostic theist) is to claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does or does not exist. This is epistemically impossible to claim, and so a gnostic position should never be taken. We are all agnostic, technically, because a god has never been proven to exist conclusively or empirically. Testimonial evidence does not count, although I realize that to the observer, they may claim to know that a god exists, so might consider themselves a gnostic.  Dawkins knows this. He may, in fact, believe that no god exists, but that is different than not believing that a god does exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has already proved things are not designed. Prove he hasn't.
> 
> FYI, the above was a lesson in the "prove it isn't" paradigm that crushes the typical religious insistence that "my gods are true until you prove they aren't".
> 
> Ok, I've proved your gods are false. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


You are living in a dream world.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.
> 
> 
> 
> He has already proved things are not designed. Prove he hasn't.
> 
> FYI, the above was a lesson in the "prove it isn't" paradigm that crushes the typical religious insistence that "my gods are true until you prove they aren't".
> 
> Ok, I've proved your gods are false. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are living in a dream world.
Click to expand...

You forwarded a ridiculous argument: the "prove it isn't" argument and you were scolded for doing so. 

Accept responsibility for what you write out. Next time you make such a ridiculous argument you'll get a time out.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> which is why I said they are NOT mutually exclusive. How hard is it to actually read what I wrote?
> 
> 
> The point is, that Dawkins hasn't changed his position. He's always been an atheist. He may have gone from gnostic atheism to agnostic atheism, but I don't even believe that, because to be a gnostic atheist (or gnostic theist) is to claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does or does not exist. This is epistemically impossible to claim, and so a gnostic position should never be taken. We are all agnostic, technically, because a god has never been proven to exist conclusively or empirically. Testimonial evidence does not count, although I realize that to the observer, they may claim to know that a god exists, so might consider themselves a gnostic.  Dawkins knows this. He may, in fact, believe that no god exists, but that is different than not believing that a god does exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)
> 
> I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position
> 
> Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).
> 
> Beliefs versus Knowledge
Click to expand...


Definition of ATHEISM
1

archaic: ungodliness, wickedness 
2

 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity 



1ag·nos·tic
 noun \ag-&#712;näs-tik, &#601;g-\







Definition of AGNOSTIC
1

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 

You are spinning it just like Daws.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has already proved things are not designed. Prove he hasn't.
> 
> FYI, the above was a lesson in the "prove it isn't" paradigm that crushes the typical religious insistence that "my gods are true until you prove they aren't".
> 
> Ok, I've proved your gods are false. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in a dream world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forwarded a ridiculous argument: the "prove it isn't" argument and you were scolded for doing so.
> 
> Accept responsibility for what you write out. Next time you make such a ridiculous argument you'll get a time out.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> which is why I said they are NOT mutually exclusive. How hard is it to actually read what I wrote?
> 
> 
> The point is, that Dawkins hasn't changed his position. He's always been an atheist. He may have gone from gnostic atheism to agnostic atheism, but I don't even believe that, because to be a gnostic atheist (or gnostic theist) is to claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does or does not exist. This is epistemically impossible to claim, and so a gnostic position should never be taken. We are all agnostic, technically, because a god has never been proven to exist conclusively or empirically. Testimonial evidence does not count, although I realize that to the observer, they may claim to know that a god exists, so might consider themselves a gnostic.  Dawkins knows this. He may, in fact, believe that no god exists, but that is different than not believing that a god does exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)
> 
> I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position
> 
> Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).
> 
> Beliefs versus Knowledge
Click to expand...


Do you believe God exists ?

Are you an atheist ?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.
> 
> 
> 
> He has already proved things are not designed. Prove he hasn't.
> 
> FYI, the above was a lesson in the "prove it isn't" paradigm that crushes the typical religious insistence that "my gods are true until you prove they aren't".
> 
> Ok, I've proved your gods are false. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are living in a dream world.
Click to expand...


Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:  

1. Things look designed
2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
3. Therefore, there must be a creator.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)
> 
> I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position
> 
> Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).
> 
> Beliefs versus Knowledge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe God exists ?
> 
> Are you an atheist ?
Click to expand...


No. Yes, which necessarily follows from the first question. Hopefully, you'd know that by now. You didn't need to ask the second question.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has already proved things are not designed. Prove he hasn't.
> 
> FYI, the above was a lesson in the "prove it isn't" paradigm that crushes the typical religious insistence that "my gods are true until you prove they aren't".
> 
> Ok, I've proved your gods are false. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in a dream world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:
> 
> 1. Things look designed
> 2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
> 3. Therefore, there must be a creator.
Click to expand...


Like professor lennox said in his debate with dawkins God is the agent of design. You can't exclude the agent on any design. How do you know it was not designed if it appears to have been designed for a purpose ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)
> 
> I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position
> 
> Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).
> 
> Beliefs versus Knowledge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe God exists ?
> 
> Are you an atheist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Yes, which necessarily follows from the first question. Hopefully, you'd know that by now. You didn't need to ask the second question.
Click to expand...


Are you an agnostic ?


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has already proved things are not designed. Prove he hasn't.
> 
> FYI, the above was a lesson in the "prove it isn't" paradigm that crushes the typical religious insistence that "my gods are true until you prove they aren't".
> 
> Ok, I've proved your gods are false. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in a dream world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:
> 
> 1. Things look designed
> 2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
> 3. Therefore, there must be a creator.
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial. 

Do seas spontaneously part?  Do bushes spontaneously erupt in flames? Do humans ever spontaneously regenerate lost limbs? Those would be pretty unnatural acts but they never occur.


It's a simple request but remains firmly unanswered by the religious folks.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)
> 
> I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position
> 
> Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).
> 
> Beliefs versus Knowledge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe God exists ?
> 
> Are you an atheist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Yes, which necessarily follows from the first question. Hopefully, you'd know that by now. You didn't need to ask the second question.
Click to expand...


Let me rephrase the first question.

Is there a God ?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)
> 
> I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position
> 
> Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).
> 
> Beliefs versus Knowledge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definition of ATHEISM
> 1
> 
> archaic: ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> 
> a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
> 
> 
> 
> 1ag·nos·tic
> noun \ag-&#712;näs-tik, &#601;g-\
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of AGNOSTIC
> 1
> 
> : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
> 
> You are spinning it just like Daws.
Click to expand...


Your source is terrible. Anyway, Notice, that in this definition for atheism, it talks about BELIEF. IN the definition for agnostic, it talks about knowledge. 

When this source says: 

 "broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god," they are simply incorrect, even by their own definition. It is an internally contradictory definition. In the first part of the definition, it talks about knowledge. In the second part, it talks about belief, and also about non-commitment to a belief... that is atheism. 

Also, when it says atheism is the "doctrine" that there is no deity... that is just hilariously false.

What is your source on this? It's really bad. I suspect the discovery institute or Ken Hamm. Although, to be fair, there is a lot of misinformation about these two terms and some sources may incorrectly cite these falsehoods or "street definitions" as the true definition, when in fact, they are not. 

wikipedia:

Put simply theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with (absence of) rational claims to asserting knowledge.

It's as simple as that.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe God exists ?
> 
> Are you an atheist ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Yes, which necessarily follows from the first question. Hopefully, you'd know that by now. You didn't need to ask the second question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you an agnostic ?
Click to expand...


Yes


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in a dream world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:
> 
> 1. Things look designed
> 2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
> 3. Therefore, there must be a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like professor lennox said in his debate with dawkins God is the agent of design. You can't exclude the agent on any design. How do you know it was not designed if it appears to have been designed for a purpose ?
Click to expand...

The argument for design is easily excluded when there is no evidence to support the claim. You're promoting religious belief which hangs on supposition and faith. Science has standards of proof (to acknowledge the term "proof" is not consistent with the scientific paradigm) and verification. 

There is nothing in nature that appears to have been designed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)
> 
> I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position
> 
> Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).
> 
> Beliefs versus Knowledge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of ATHEISM
> 1
> 
> archaic: ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> 
> a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
> 
> 
> 
> 1ag·nos·tic
> noun \ag-&#712;näs-tik, &#601;g-\
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of AGNOSTIC
> 1
> 
> : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
> 
> You are spinning it just like Daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your source is terrible. Anyway, Notice, that in this definition for atheism, it talks about BELIEF. IN the definition for agnostic, it talks about knowledge.
> 
> When this source says:
> 
> "broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god," they are simply incorrect, even by their own definition. It is an internally contradictory definition. In the first part of the definition, it talks about knowledge. In the second part, it talks about belief, and also about non-commitment to a belief... that is atheism.
> 
> Also, when it says atheism is the "doctrine" that there is no deity... that is just hilariously false.
> 
> What is your source on this? It's really bad. I suspect the discovery institute or Ken Hamm. Although, to be fair, there is a lot of misinformation about these two terms and some sources may incorrectly cite these falsehoods or "street definitions" as the true definition, when in fact, they are not.
> 
> wikipedia:
> 
> Put simply theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with (absence of) rational claims to asserting knowledge.
> 
> It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...


Let's not play word games,I want to know your position.

Is there a God ?

Are you on the fence whether God exists ?

Quit spinning and answer the questions yes or no is the answer, Not an explanation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Yes, which necessarily follows from the first question. Hopefully, you'd know that by now. You didn't need to ask the second question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you an agnostic ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes
Click to expand...


You can't be both because one is unwilling to take a position and the other has a firm position.


----------



## newpolitics

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in a dream world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:
> 
> 1. Things look designed
> 2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
> 3. Therefore, there must be a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial.
> 
> Do seas spontaneously part?  Do bushes spontaneously erupt in flames? Do humans ever spontaneously regenerate lost limbs? Those would be pretty unnatural acts but they never occur.
> 
> 
> It's a simple request but remains firmly unanswered by the religious folks.
Click to expand...


You're correct. That is why it is not science, and it never will be. They are sneaking creationism through the backdoor with "Intelligent Design" and actually believe it is a science. The problem is that it is an unfalsifiable claim, again, because you can't test or falsify the hypothesis that it is an intelligent designer, and it provides zero predictive power. It's simply giving up on the idea that natural explanations are possible, and actually suggests that we stop looking for any more answers, because we have found the answer: it is an invisible being that can't be tested in any way. The total absurdity of this proposition is really tough to imagine when you sit back and look at where we are in history, with all we can accomplish. I find it an insult to science and the scientific method, and even moreso that these people want to call it science. It resembles nothing of science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:
> 
> 1. Things look designed
> 2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
> 3. Therefore, there must be a creator.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial.
> 
> Do seas spontaneously part?  Do bushes spontaneously erupt in flames? Do humans ever spontaneously regenerate lost limbs? Those would be pretty unnatural acts but they never occur.
> 
> 
> It's a simple request but remains firmly unanswered by the religious folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're correct. That is why it is not science, and it never will be. They are sneaking creationism through the backdoor with "Intelligent Design" and actually believe it is a science. The problem is that it is an unfalsifiable claim, again, because you can't test or falsify the hypothesis that it is an intelligent designer, and it provides zero predictive power. It's simply giving up on the idea that natural explanations are possible, and actually suggests that we stop looking for any more answers, because we have found the answer: it is an invisible being that can't be tested in any way. The total absurdity of this proposition is really tough to imagine when you sit back and look at where we are in history, with all we can accomplish. I find it an insult to science and the scientific method, and even moreso that these people want to call it science. It resembles nothing of science.
Click to expand...


Sorry to tell you this,creationist were the first scientist,atheists were the ones to sneak in the door.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you an agnostic ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't be both because one is unwilling to take a position and the other has a firm position.
Click to expand...


No! That is not the definition of an Agnostic!!! HOW MANY TIMES MUST I EXPLAIN THIS? 

I will not debate you on this any further. You are unable to follow this discussion, and I will not waste my time. I have explained extensively the definitions and concepts of these terms, but you seem not to be able to follow or choose not to.

I am an agnostic atheist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

NP

Let's not play word games,I want to know your position.

Is there a God ?

Are you on the fence whether God exists ?

Quit spinning and answer the questions yes or no is the answer, Not an explanation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be both because one is unwilling to take a position and the other has a firm position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No! That is not the definition of an Agnostic!!! HOW MANY TIMES MUST I EXPLAIN THIS?
> 
> I will not debate you on this any further. You are unable to follow this discussion, and I will not waste my time. I have explained extensively the definitions and concepts of these terms, but you seem not to be able to follow or choose not to.
> 
> I am an agnostic atheist.
Click to expand...


You know the difference between the two terms and that is why you are avoiding an answer to the proper phrasing of the questions.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial.
> 
> Do seas spontaneously part?  Do bushes spontaneously erupt in flames? Do humans ever spontaneously regenerate lost limbs? Those would be pretty unnatural acts but they never occur.
> 
> 
> It's a simple request but remains firmly unanswered by the religious folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're correct. That is why it is not science, and it never will be. They are sneaking creationism through the backdoor with "Intelligent Design" and actually believe it is a science. The problem is that it is an unfalsifiable claim, again, because you can't test or falsify the hypothesis that it is an intelligent designer, and it provides zero predictive power. It's simply giving up on the idea that natural explanations are possible, and actually suggests that we stop looking for any more answers, because we have found the answer: it is an invisible being that can't be tested in any way. The total absurdity of this proposition is really tough to imagine when you sit back and look at where we are in history, with all we can accomplish. I find it an insult to science and the scientific method, and even moreso that these people want to call it science. It resembles nothing of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to tell you this,creationist were the first scientist,atheists were the ones to sneak in the door.
Click to expand...


really? no way? I had no idea that before there was a natural explanation for things, people didn't know there was a natural explanation for things...


----------



## Youwerecreated

NP ,you once said God is a fairytale that is a firm position.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial.
> 
> Do seas spontaneously part?  Do bushes spontaneously erupt in flames? Do humans ever spontaneously regenerate lost limbs? Those would be pretty unnatural acts but they never occur.
> 
> 
> It's a simple request but remains firmly unanswered by the religious folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're correct. That is why it is not science, and it never will be. They are sneaking creationism through the backdoor with "Intelligent Design" and actually believe it is a science. The problem is that it is an unfalsifiable claim, again, because you can't test or falsify the hypothesis that it is an intelligent designer, and it provides zero predictive power. It's simply giving up on the idea that natural explanations are possible, and actually suggests that we stop looking for any more answers, because we have found the answer: it is an invisible being that can't be tested in any way. The total absurdity of this proposition is really tough to imagine when you sit back and look at where we are in history, with all we can accomplish. I find it an insult to science and the scientific method, and even moreso that these people want to call it science. It resembles nothing of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to tell you this,creationist were the first scientist,atheists were the ones to sneak in the door.
Click to expand...

And with consistency, you sidestep and retreat when asked to provide a single verifiable "unnatural" event or circumstance.

Do you realize that pretending these questions are not asked and pretending that others do not see your denials is an embarrassment for you? Or at least it should be. You seem completely disinterested in the credibility of your argument.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're correct. That is why it is not science, and it never will be. They are sneaking creationism through the backdoor with "Intelligent Design" and actually believe it is a science. The problem is that it is an unfalsifiable claim, again, because you can't test or falsify the hypothesis that it is an intelligent designer, and it provides zero predictive power. It's simply giving up on the idea that natural explanations are possible, and actually suggests that we stop looking for any more answers, because we have found the answer: it is an invisible being that can't be tested in any way. The total absurdity of this proposition is really tough to imagine when you sit back and look at where we are in history, with all we can accomplish. I find it an insult to science and the scientific method, and even moreso that these people want to call it science. It resembles nothing of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to tell you this,creationist were the first scientist,atheists were the ones to sneak in the door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really? no way? I had no idea that before there was a natural explanation for things, people didn't know there was a natural explanation for things...
Click to expand...


What modern day evolutionist have done is discovered mechanisms that work naturally,and they extrapolate from that they came about naturally denying they could have been designed to happen naturally. A watch was designed but it does what it was designed to do.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're correct. That is why it is not science, and it never will be. They are sneaking creationism through the backdoor with "Intelligent Design" and actually believe it is a science. The problem is that it is an unfalsifiable claim, again, because you can't test or falsify the hypothesis that it is an intelligent designer, and it provides zero predictive power. It's simply giving up on the idea that natural explanations are possible, and actually suggests that we stop looking for any more answers, because we have found the answer: it is an invisible being that can't be tested in any way. The total absurdity of this proposition is really tough to imagine when you sit back and look at where we are in history, with all we can accomplish. I find it an insult to science and the scientific method, and even moreso that these people want to call it science. It resembles nothing of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to tell you this,creationist were the first scientist,atheists were the ones to sneak in the door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And with consistency, you sidestep and retreat when asked to provide a single verifiable "unnatural" event or circumstance.
> 
> Do you realize that pretending these questions are not asked and pretending that others do not see your denials is an embarrassment for you? Or at least it should be. You seem completely disinterested in the credibility of your argument.
Click to expand...


So you are saying things can't be designed to act naturally ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

So why are you changing the discussion to avoid answering the questions asked to NP ?


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're correct. That is why it is not science, and it never will be. They are sneaking creationism through the backdoor with "Intelligent Design" and actually believe it is a science. The problem is that it is an unfalsifiable claim, again, because you can't test or falsify the hypothesis that it is an intelligent designer, and it provides zero predictive power. It's simply giving up on the idea that natural explanations are possible, and actually suggests that we stop looking for any more answers, because we have found the answer: it is an invisible being that can't be tested in any way. The total absurdity of this proposition is really tough to imagine when you sit back and look at where we are in history, with all we can accomplish. I find it an insult to science and the scientific method, and even moreso that these people want to call it science. It resembles nothing of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to tell you this,creationist were the first scientist,atheists were the ones to sneak in the door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really? no way? I had no idea that before there was a natural explanation for things, people didn't know there was a natural explanation for things...
Click to expand...

So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....

What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?

Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be both because one is unwilling to take a position and the other has a firm position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No! That is not the definition of an Agnostic!!! HOW MANY TIMES MUST I EXPLAIN THIS?
> 
> I will not debate you on this any further. You are unable to follow this discussion, and I will not waste my time. I have explained extensively the definitions and concepts of these terms, but you seem not to be able to follow or choose not to.
> 
> I am an agnostic atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know the difference between the two terms and that is why you are avoiding an answer to the proper phrasing of the questions.
Click to expand...


Wait, so you're saying there are three options with respect to belief: 

1. I believe
2. I don't believe
3. ?

If you can fill in that third one, then I'll grant you your definition.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to tell you this,creationist were the first scientist,atheists were the ones to sneak in the door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? no way? I had no idea that before there was a natural explanation for things, people didn't know there was a natural explanation for things...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....
> 
> What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?
> 
> Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.
Click to expand...


The first cell was formed unnaturally because they once did not exist. Once the first cell was formed it produced more cells.

The universe once did not exist it formed unnaturally.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? no way? I had no idea that before there was a natural explanation for things, people didn't know there was a natural explanation for things...
> 
> 
> 
> So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....
> 
> What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?
> 
> Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first cell was formed unnaturally because they once did not exist. Once the first cell was formed it produced more cells.
Click to expand...


you have zero evidence to make that claim, especially if you are asserting an unnatural cause in all of this


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No! That is not the definition of an Agnostic!!! HOW MANY TIMES MUST I EXPLAIN THIS?
> 
> I will not debate you on this any further. You are unable to follow this discussion, and I will not waste my time. I have explained extensively the definitions and concepts of these terms, but you seem not to be able to follow or choose not to.
> 
> I am an agnostic atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know the difference between the two terms and that is why you are avoiding an answer to the proper phrasing of the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, so you're saying there are three options with respect to belief:
> 
> 1. I believe
> 2. I don't believe
> 3. ?
> 
> If you can fill in that third one, then I'll grant you your definition.
Click to expand...


3. You are not sure to believe


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to tell you this,creationist were the first scientist,atheists were the ones to sneak in the door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? no way? I had no idea that before there was a natural explanation for things, people didn't know there was a natural explanation for things...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What modern day evolutionist have done is discovered mechanisms that work naturally,and they extrapolate from that they came about naturally denying they could have been designed to happen naturally. A watch was designed but it does what it was designed to do.
Click to expand...

Do you proof read? Something could have been designed to happen naturally?

Try and think this through - there is no need to design something that happens naturally as that would be a (grab onto a firmly anchored desk), naturally occurring object.

I'm trying to understand how you conceptulalize "something being designed to happen naturally". Would a designer design something to happen unnaturally? What purpose would be served by an unnatural design? I suppose we humans could design a watch that runs "backward in time" but that would still be a completely natural object - just an irrational, pointless exercise.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the difference between the two terms and that is why you are avoiding an answer to the proper phrasing of the questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, so you're saying there are three options with respect to belief:
> 
> 1. I believe
> 2. I don't believe
> 3. ?
> 
> If you can fill in that third one, then I'll grant you your definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3. You are not sure to believe
Click to expand...


If you are not sure whether you believe, then you don't believe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....
> 
> What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?
> 
> Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first cell was formed unnaturally because they once did not exist. Once the first cell was formed it produced more cells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have zero evidence to make that claim, especially if you are asserting an unnatural cause in all of this
Click to expand...


Then give the explanation how the first cell formed naturally, you would be the first to do so if you can.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first cell was formed unnaturally because they once did not exist. Once the first cell was formed it produced more cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have zero evidence to make that claim, especially if you are asserting an unnatural cause in all of this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then give the explanation how the first cell formed naturally, you would be the first to do so if you can.
Click to expand...


I don't have one, and I don't need one. Doesn't make you right, just because I don't have an explanation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, so you're saying there are three options with respect to belief:
> 
> 1. I believe
> 2. I don't believe
> 3. ?
> 
> If you can fill in that third one, then I'll grant you your definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. You are not sure to believe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are not sure whether you believe, then you don't believe.
Click to expand...


No you don't know whether God exists or not. Three different firm positions.

1. I believe
2. I don't believe
3. Not sure what to believe

Not sure does not mean you don't believe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have zero evidence to make that claim, especially if you are asserting an unnatural cause in all of this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then give the explanation how the first cell formed naturally, you would be the first to do so if you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have one, and I don't need one. Doesn't make you right, just because I don't have an explanation.
Click to expand...


Then consider your question answered.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god
> 
> Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists
> 
> Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm actually fascinated by your preoccupation with Dawkins. It seems that you assign to him a position of authority as it relates to your religious belief. Basically, your feverish, sweaty, chest heaving preoccupation with Dawkins belies the fact that you find his arguments convincing so that any hint of movement on his part (agnostic to atheist) is seen falsely as validation of your religion.
Click to expand...


This is your dumbest, most uninformed post yet!!! You really need to listen to some of Dawkins speeches so you don't sound like such an ignoramus.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? no way? I had no idea that before there was a natural explanation for things, people didn't know there was a natural explanation for things...
> 
> 
> 
> So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....
> 
> What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?
> 
> Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first cell was formed unnaturally because they once did not exist. Once the first cell was formed it produced more cells.
> 
> The universe once did not exist it formed unnaturally.
Click to expand...

As I expected, you cannot point us to one unnatural event so you're left to denying the challenge is even posed.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. You are not sure to believe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are not sure whether you believe, then you don't believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't know whether God exists or not. Three different firm positions.
> 
> 1. I believe
> 2. I don't believe
> 3. Not sure what to believe
> 
> Not sure does not mean you don't believe.
Click to expand...


 "I am not sure that a god exists" means I do not possess knowledge or claim to know that a god exists, therefore am unsure. This has to do with knowledge, not belief, and thus, eludes to agnosticism or gnosticism, and proves my point. 

Think of it this way:

Take any object, thing, idea, or belief. It either exists or it doesn't. It cannot exist and not exist at the same time, and there isn't a third option. These are the three immutable laws of logic:

1. The Law of Identity  (A=A)
2. The Law of Non-Contradiction (A can not equal not A at the same time)
3. The Law of Excluded Middle (there is no third option)

Therefore, either a belief exists, or it doesn't exist. It can't be neither, and it can't be both at the same time. There isn't a third option. We are talking about a dichotomy here, because we are talking about the existence of something.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has already proved things are not designed. Prove he hasn't.
> 
> FYI, the above was a lesson in the "prove it isn't" paradigm that crushes the typical religious insistence that "my gods are true until you prove they aren't".
> 
> Ok, I've proved your gods are false. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in a dream world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:
> 
> 1. Things look designed
> 2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
> 3. Therefore, there must be a creator.
Click to expand...


Evolutionists Argument:

1. Things look designed.
2. We can't possibly accept that anything outside are limited worldview, as in, an Intelligent Agent is responsible.
3. Therefore, it must be some random process that we can't measure or test, or witness a modern example of. 
4. Therefore, therefore, even when our evidence is shown to be totally false, we must continue with the party line, cramming our so called science in even when it doesn't fit the TOE, so that we can continue to deny the most logical explanation, an explanation that would force us to change our lives and reconcile with evil in the world.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....
> 
> What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?
> 
> Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first cell was formed unnaturally because they once did not exist. Once the first cell was formed it produced more cells.
> 
> The universe once did not exist it formed unnaturally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I expected, you cannot point us to one unnatural event so you're left to denying the challenge is even posed.
Click to expand...


If something never existed it came into existence unnaturally,it never existed in nature.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in a dream world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:
> 
> 1. Things look designed
> 2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
> 3. Therefore, there must be a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial.
> 
> Do seas spontaneously part?  Do bushes spontaneously erupt in flames? Do humans ever spontaneously regenerate lost limbs? Those would be pretty unnatural acts but they never occur.
> 
> 
> It's a simple request but remains firmly unanswered by the religious folks.
Click to expand...


Can you measure a thought?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm actually fascinated by your preoccupation with Dawkins. It seems that you assign to him a position of authority as it relates to your religious belief. Basically, your feverish, sweaty, chest heaving preoccupation with Dawkins belies the fact that you find his arguments convincing so that any hint of movement on his part (agnostic to atheist) is seen falsely as validation of your religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is your dumbest, most uninformed post yet!!! You really need to listen to some of Dawkins speeches so you don't sound like such an ignoramus.
Click to expand...

Settle down or its a time out, sweety.

Have your read your own posts? Go back through this thread and identify for us how many times your referenced Dawkins. 

If Dawkins proclaims today that he has embraced Christianity, that won't suddenly validate your gods.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:
> 
> 1. Things look designed
> 2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
> 3. Therefore, there must be a creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like professor lennox said in his debate with dawkins God is the agent of design. You can't exclude the agent on any design. How do you know it was not designed if it appears to have been designed for a purpose ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument for design is easily excluded when there is no evidence to support the claim. You're promoting religious belief which hangs on supposition and faith. Science has standards of proof (to acknowledge the term "proof" is not consistent with the scientific paradigm) and verification.
> 
> There is nothing in nature that appears to have been designed.
Click to expand...


You're just plain ignorant. You can stomp your feet up and down all you want and make outrageous claims but they will never be true. DNA is a digital code, more complicated than our intelligent agent created binary code. The information is stored and retrieved and used to assemble proteins and micro machines. You are in TOTAL DENIAL if you can't see the appearance of design here.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No! That is not the definition of an Agnostic!!! HOW MANY TIMES MUST I EXPLAIN THIS?
> 
> I will not debate you on this any further. You are unable to follow this discussion, and I will not waste my time. I have explained extensively the definitions and concepts of these terms, but you seem not to be able to follow or choose not to.
> 
> I am an agnostic atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know the difference between the two terms and that is why you are avoiding an answer to the proper phrasing of the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, so you're saying there are three options with respect to belief:
> 
> 1. I believe
> 2. I don't believe
> 3. ?
> 
> If you can fill in that third one, then I'll grant you your definition.
Click to expand...


1. I believe=Theism
2. I don't believe=atheism
3. I'm not sure what to believe=agnostic=can't say either way


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to tell you this,creationist were the first scientist,atheists were the ones to sneak in the door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? no way? I had no idea that before there was a natural explanation for things, people didn't know there was a natural explanation for things...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....
> 
> What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?
> 
> Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.
Click to expand...


Digital code inside a cell.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in a dream world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:
> 
> 1. Things look designed
> 2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
> 3. Therefore, there must be a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolutionists Argument:
> 
> 1. Things look designed.
> 2. We can't possibly accept that anything outside are limited worldview, as in, an Intelligent Agent is responsible.
> 3. Therefore, it must be some random process that we can't measure or test, or witness a modern example of.
> 4. Therefore, therefore, even when our evidence is shown to be totally false, we must continue with the party line, cramming our so called science in even when it doesn't fit the TOE, so that we can continue to deny the most logical explanation, an explanation that would force us to change our lives and reconcile with evil in the world.
Click to expand...


Aside from that being a horribly constructed argument, as far as your second "premise," we have no reason to accept anything outside of the natural universe as being causal in this instance, because we have never seen any supernatural causes for anything and have no way to test or verify their existence. It is not a matter of limiting our worldview, it is simply a matter of using what evidence we have, and following that. Nothing in the evidence points to a supernatural creator. ID proponents will argue otherwise, but their worldview demands that a creator exist, so they are obligated to find it, even when the evidence doesn't indicate it. So, they find the holes in scientific explanation, and insert their hypothesis. That which you are accusing scientists of is actually what ID proponents are entirely guilty of.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? no way? I had no idea that before there was a natural explanation for things, people didn't know there was a natural explanation for things...
> 
> 
> 
> So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....
> 
> What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?
> 
> Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Digital code inside a cell.
Click to expand...


That's not evidence for a creator. It's not digital code either, but even if it was, that's still not evidence for a creator.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have zero evidence to make that claim, especially if you are asserting an unnatural cause in all of this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then give the explanation how the first cell formed naturally, you would be the first to do so if you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have one, and I don't need one. Doesn't make you right, just because I don't have an explanation.
Click to expand...


Your people haven't even come close to an explanation. Yet you claim you have it all figured out. That is why they call it the "Miracle" of life. To say it arose spontaneously would deny all logic and reasoning. A self-replicating, ALIVE cell is what you seek to produce through a natural process. Now get to the lab and get busy. If it happened so easily on our planet, can it be that hard to make it happen again???


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:
> 
> 1. Things look designed
> 2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
> 3. Therefore, there must be a creator.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial.
> 
> Do seas spontaneously part?  Do bushes spontaneously erupt in flames? Do humans ever spontaneously regenerate lost limbs? Those would be pretty unnatural acts but they never occur.
> 
> 
> It's a simple request but remains firmly unanswered by the religious folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you measure a thought?
Click to expand...

Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.

Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?

Nicely done.

You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....
> 
> What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?
> 
> Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first cell was formed unnaturally because they once did not exist. Once the first cell was formed it produced more cells.
> 
> The universe once did not exist it formed unnaturally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I expected, you cannot point us to one unnatural event so you're left to denying the challenge is even posed.
Click to expand...


That sound like a Holly technique. 

Holly, I don't have time to respond to all your cut and pastes. I'm just too busy.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm actually fascinated by your preoccupation with Dawkins. It seems that you assign to him a position of authority as it relates to your religious belief. Basically, your feverish, sweaty, chest heaving preoccupation with Dawkins belies the fact that you find his arguments convincing so that any hint of movement on his part (agnostic to atheist) is seen falsely as validation of your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your dumbest, most uninformed post yet!!! You really need to listen to some of Dawkins speeches so you don't sound like such an ignoramus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Settle down or its a time out, sweety.
> 
> Have your read your own posts? Go back through this thread and identify for us how many times your referenced Dawkins.
> 
> If Dawkins proclaims today that he has embraced Christianity, that won't suddenly validate your gods.
Click to expand...


I've read them, but obviously you haven't. You are getting me confused with YWC. Now in your attempt to make me look stupid, you just made yourself look stupid...

Here is your new nickname from this point forward since you never responded to my post...

Ad Hollimen.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> That which you are accusing scientists of is actually what ID proponents are entirely guilty of.



Right back at you...


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then give the explanation how the first cell formed naturally, you would be the first to do so if you can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have one, and I don't need one. Doesn't make you right, just because I don't have an explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your people haven't even come close to an explanation. Yet you claim you have it all figured out. That is why they call it the "Miracle" of life. To say it arose spontaneously would deny all logic and reasoning. A self-replicating, ALIVE cell is what you seek to produce through a natural process. Now get to the lab and get busy. If it happened so easily on our planet, can it be that hard to make it happen again???
Click to expand...


Who said it was easy? It took very specific conditions, and a long time. The first unicellular organisms likely didn't arise for one BILLION years after the formation of the planet, and multi-cellular organisms didn't evolve for another BILLION years after that. What about that makes you think scientists should just be able to create that in a lab? That's laughably absurd. We've demonstrated, with the Miller-Urey experiments, that amino acids necessary to build proteins can be synthesized in the lab, and demonstrated that it was possible for this to happen naturally.

Miller


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then give the explanation how the first cell formed naturally, you would be the first to do so if you can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have one, and I don't need one. Doesn't make you right, just because I don't have an explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your people haven't even come close to an explanation. Yet you claim you have it all figured out. That is why they call it the "Miracle" of life. To say it arose spontaneously would deny all logic and reasoning. A self-replicating, ALIVE cell is what you seek to produce through a natural process. Now get to the lab and get busy. If it happened so easily on our planet, can it be that hard to make it happen again???
Click to expand...

Who is the "your people" you refer to?

For that matter, your gods have not done what you are claiming "your people" have not done.

No design - no gods required. Again you make your gods irrelevant and superfluous.

Nicely done.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That which you are accusing scientists of is actually what ID proponents are entirely guilty of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right back at you...
Click to expand...


Except, ID isn't science. The scientific method simply follows the evidence, and doesn't allow for what you are suggesting.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial.
> 
> Do seas spontaneously part?  Do bushes spontaneously erupt in flames? Do humans ever spontaneously regenerate lost limbs? Those would be pretty unnatural acts but they never occur.
> 
> 
> It's a simple request but remains firmly unanswered by the religious folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you measure a thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.
> 
> Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?
> 
> Nicely done.
> 
> You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.
Click to expand...


Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is your dumbest, most uninformed post yet!!! You really need to listen to some of Dawkins speeches so you don't sound like such an ignoramus.
> 
> 
> 
> Settle down or its a time out, sweety.
> 
> Have your read your own posts? Go back through this thread and identify for us how many times your referenced Dawkins.
> 
> If Dawkins proclaims today that he has embraced Christianity, that won't suddenly validate your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read them, but obviously you haven't. You are getting me confused with YWC. Now in your attempt to make me look stupid, you just made yourself look stupid...
> 
> Here is your new nickname from this point forward since you never responded to my post...
> 
> Ad Hollimen.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. I've made the point before - same poster, different login.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That which you are accusing scientists of is actually what ID proponents are entirely guilty of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right back at you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except, ID isn't science. The scientific method simply follows the evidence, and doesn't allow for what you are suggesting.
Click to expand...


You are getting confused semantically. The THEORY of evolution isn't science either. People use the scientific method in an attempt to show it is valid, but it isn't science. Just like people use the scientific method to show that ID Theory is valid.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Settle down or its a time out, sweety.
> 
> Have your read your own posts? Go back through this thread and identify for us how many times your referenced Dawkins.
> 
> If Dawkins proclaims today that he has embraced Christianity, that won't suddenly validate your gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read them, but obviously you haven't. You are getting me confused with YWC. Now in your attempt to make me look stupid, you just made yourself look stupid...
> 
> Here is your new nickname from this point forward since you never responded to my post...
> 
> Ad Hollimen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no. I've made the point before - same poster, different login.
Click to expand...


Yeah, cause YWC posted pics up of himself as a cop. I remember that.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you measure a thought?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.
> 
> Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?
> 
> Nicely done.
> 
> You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...
Click to expand...

Your claims to miracles are pointless. 

There are no miracles required to spark the building blocks of life.

No one is required to accept your bellicose, unfounded claims to supernaturalism.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....
> 
> What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?
> 
> Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Digital code inside a cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not evidence for a creator. It's not digital code either, but even if it was, that's still not evidence for a creator.
Click to expand...


How can you not say it is digital code? You really are in denial. Here you are... from anti-ID Wiki...

*Genetics

Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
Data transmission

Quaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits.
*
Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right back at you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, ID isn't science. The scientific method simply follows the evidence, and doesn't allow for what you are suggesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are getting confused semantically. The THEORY of evolution isn't science either. People use the scientific method in an attempt to show it is valid, but it isn't science. Just like people use the scientific method to show that ID Theory is valid.
Click to expand...


ID is not theory, its a religious claim. 

Evolution is theory supported by fact and evidence. Thumping people with your bible doesn't validate your claims. They're false.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you measure a thought?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.
> 
> Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?
> 
> Nicely done.
> 
> You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...
Click to expand...


"Miracle" is a subjective term, and meaningless therefore as an objective reference to an observed phenomenon. Second, just because we can't reproduce the origin of life in a lab, doesn't mean a god did it. You are nearing another logical fallacy, and one which embodies the entire intelligent design theory:

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

(wikipedia.org)


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Digital code inside a cell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not evidence for a creator. It's not digital code either, but even if it was, that's still not evidence for a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you not say it is digital code? You really are in denial. Here you are... from anti-ID Wiki...
> 
> *Genetics
> 
> Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]
> 
> For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
> Data transmission
> 
> Quaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits.
> *
> Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Explain to us in your own words what that means.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have one, and I don't need one. Doesn't make you right, just because I don't have an explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your people haven't even come close to an explanation. Yet you claim you have it all figured out. That is why they call it the "Miracle" of life. To say it arose spontaneously would deny all logic and reasoning. A self-replicating, ALIVE cell is what you seek to produce through a natural process. Now get to the lab and get busy. If it happened so easily on our planet, can it be that hard to make it happen again???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it was easy? It took very specific conditions, and a long time. The first unicellular organisms likely didn't arise for one BILLION years after the formation of the planet, and multi-cellular organisms didn't evolve for another BILLION years after that. What about that makes you think scientists should just be able to create that in a lab? That's laughably absurd. We've demonstrated, with the Miller-Urey experiments, that amino acids necessary to build proteins can be synthesized in the lab, and demonstrated that it was possible for this to happen naturally.
> 
> Miller
Click to expand...


Miller has been refuted many times. Next!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have one, and I don't need one. Doesn't make you right, just because I don't have an explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your people haven't even come close to an explanation. Yet you claim you have it all figured out. That is why they call it the "Miracle" of life. To say it arose spontaneously would deny all logic and reasoning. A self-replicating, ALIVE cell is what you seek to produce through a natural process. Now get to the lab and get busy. If it happened so easily on our planet, can it be that hard to make it happen again???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is the "your people" you refer to?
> 
> For that matter, your gods have not done what you are claiming "your people" have not done.
> 
> No design - no gods required. Again you make your gods irrelevant and superfluous.
> 
> Nicely done.
Click to expand...


Your argument is devoid of all logic. You are not even making sense anymore.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.
> 
> Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?
> 
> Nicely done.
> 
> You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claims to miracles are pointless.
> 
> There are no miracles required to spark the building blocks of life.
> 
> No one is required to accept your bellicose, unfounded claims to supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


Even you just said spark. Interesting.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your people haven't even come close to an explanation. Yet you claim you have it all figured out. That is why they call it the "Miracle" of life. To say it arose spontaneously would deny all logic and reasoning. A self-replicating, ALIVE cell is what you seek to produce through a natural process. Now get to the lab and get busy. If it happened so easily on our planet, can it be that hard to make it happen again???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it was easy? It took very specific conditions, and a long time. The first unicellular organisms likely didn't arise for one BILLION years after the formation of the planet, and multi-cellular organisms didn't evolve for another BILLION years after that. What about that makes you think scientists should just be able to create that in a lab? That's laughably absurd. We've demonstrated, with the Miller-Urey experiments, that amino acids necessary to build proteins can be synthesized in the lab, and demonstrated that it was possible for this to happen naturally.
> 
> Miller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Miller has been refuted many times. Next!!
Click to expand...


No, it hasn't at all. I don't know who told you that, although I am guessing it was a creationist pseudo-scientist. Don't believe everything you hear from people who have a very specific agenda. (I already know what you're going to say)


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not evidence for a creator. It's not digital code either, but even if it was, that's still not evidence for a creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you not say it is digital code? You really are in denial. Here you are... from anti-ID Wiki...
> 
> *Genetics
> 
> Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]
> 
> For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
> Data transmission
> 
> Quaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits.
> *
> Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain to us in your own words what that means.
Click to expand...


Ad Hollimen, don't even go there. I took several computer science classes at the U of A and I don't need to school some child on Binary code or Quaternary code or bits and bytes or information retrieval systems. Go school your ignorant self.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your people haven't even come close to an explanation. Yet you claim you have it all figured out. That is why they call it the "Miracle" of life. To say it arose spontaneously would deny all logic and reasoning. A self-replicating, ALIVE cell is what you seek to produce through a natural process. Now get to the lab and get busy. If it happened so easily on our planet, can it be that hard to make it happen again???
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the "your people" you refer to?
> 
> For that matter, your gods have not done what you are claiming "your people" have not done.
> 
> No design - no gods required. Again you make your gods irrelevant and superfluous.
> 
> Nicely done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument is devoid of all logic. You are not even making sense anymore.
Click to expand...

How is that? Your claim, under a different log in was that a designer would design natural things. Thus, a designer of natural things is irrelevant, superfluous and unnecessary in a natural world.

Read what you posted, a page or two back. You completely dismantled your own argument.


----------



## newpolitics

Hmmm... it really doesn't seem like the Miller-Urey Experiment was refuted. I think what you are referring to is the idea that the experiment simulated the conditions on the earth billions of years ago. They were incorrect about the conditions, but the experiment still demonstrated that building amino acids is entirely possible using only a few inputs, and therefore, possible on the primitive earth.

The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or Urey&#8211;Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller&#8211;Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller&#8211;Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.

(wikipedia)


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.
> 
> Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?
> 
> Nicely done.
> 
> You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Miracle" is a subjective term, and meaningless therefore as an objective reference to an observed phenomenon. Second, just because we can't reproduce the origin of life in a lab, doesn't mean a god did it. You are nearing another logical fallacy, and one which embodies the entire intelligent design theory:
> 
> Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
> 
> (wikipedia.org)
Click to expand...


You think so, but that is because you are not educated on the ID argument and choose to wallow in your ignorance of what you perceive it to be. I've said it before, ID doesn't argue religious viewpoints. It uses Lyell and Darwins method of studying the present to learn about the past. The only origin of digital code we see in the present is an intelligent agent. Therefore, when we find digital code in the cell, we can conclude that an intelligent agent is the best explanation for its source, not some random process never seen in the present that can't be tested. Or the EVo's choose not to test. ID is strictly a scientific theory. It does not make metaphysical claims and can't make guesses about who the intelligent agent is, because would be considered religion and not science. What it does do is provide the best scientific explanation, based on present evidence, for the source of the digital code in DNA.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Hmmm... it really doesn't seem like the Miller-Urey Experiment was refuted. I think what you are referring to is the idea that the experiment simulated the conditions on the earth billions of years ago. They were incorrect about the conditions, but the experiment still demonstrated that building amino acids is entirely possible using only a few inputs, and therefore, possible on the primitive earth.



This! What good is it if you can't show it ocurred through a legitimate natural process!! You have just proven ID Theory my friend!!! An intelligent agent can come up with a process to produce amino acids in the lab but there is no mechanism for it to happen naturally. 

Oh and funny how now one has even tried to come up with accurate conditions since 1952!!!! *60 years ago!!!*, or if they have, hey haven't been successful!!!


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Miracle" is a subjective term, and meaningless therefore as an objective reference to an observed phenomenon. Second, just because we can't reproduce the origin of life in a lab, doesn't mean a god did it. You are nearing another logical fallacy, and one which embodies the entire intelligent design theory:
> 
> Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
> 
> (wikipedia.org)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think so, but that is because you are not educated on the ID argument and choose to wallow in your ignorance of what you perceive it to be. I've said it before, ID doesn't argue religious viewpoints. It uses Lyell and Darwins method of studying the present to learn about the past. The only origin of digital code we see in the present is an intelligent agent. Therefore, when we find digital code in the cell, we can conclude that an intelligent agent is the best explanation for its source, not some random process never seen in the present that can't be tested. Or the EVo's choose not to test. ID is strictly a scientific theory. It does not make metaphysical claims and can't make guesses about who the intelligent agent is, because would be considered religion and not science. What it does do is provide the best scientific explanation, based on present evidence, for the source of the digital code in DNA.
Click to expand...


How do you test your hypothesis that the complexity of the cell is the product of an intelligent designer? Please, answer me this question. Do they have any experiments now undergoing to test this, and come up with testable, repeatable results?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Miracle" is a subjective term, and meaningless therefore as an objective reference to an observed phenomenon. Second, just because we can't reproduce the origin of life in a lab, doesn't mean a god did it. You are nearing another logical fallacy, and one which embodies the entire intelligent design theory:
> 
> Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
> 
> (wikipedia.org)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think so, but that is because you are not educated on the ID argument and choose to wallow in your ignorance of what you perceive it to be. I've said it before, ID doesn't argue religious viewpoints. It uses Lyell and Darwins method of studying the present to learn about the past. The only origin of digital code we see in the present is an intelligent agent. Therefore, when we find digital code in the cell, we can conclude that an intelligent agent is the best explanation for its source, not some random process never seen in the present that can't be tested. Or the EVo's choose not to test. ID is strictly a scientific theory. It does not make metaphysical claims and can't make guesses about who the intelligent agent is, because would be considered religion and not science. What it does do is provide the best scientific explanation, based on present evidence, for the source of the digital code in DNA.
Click to expand...

ID is the successor to creationism which was the failed attempt to introduce fundamentalist Christian dogma into the public school syllabus.

ID is a religious invocation. 

Stop the lies.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... it really doesn't seem like the Miller-Urey Experiment was refuted. I think what you are referring to is the idea that the experiment simulated the conditions on the earth billions of years ago. They were incorrect about the conditions, but the experiment still demonstrated that building amino acids is entirely possible using only a few inputs, and therefore, possible on the primitive earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This! What good is it if you can't show it didn't occur through a legitimate natural process!! You have just proven ID Theory my friend!!! An intelligent agent can come up with a process to produce amino acids in the lab but there is no mechanism for it to happen naturally.
> 
> Oh and funny how now one has even tried to come up with accurate conditions since 1952!!!! *60 years ago!!!*, or if they have, hey haven't been successful!!!
Click to expand...


 Because he was wrong about the conditions on the earth 3.5 Billion years ago, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened naturally. How dishonest of you to jump to that conclusion. 

If you actually read what is written, it says: 

" There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. *Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original MillerUrey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.*"


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....
> 
> What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?
> 
> Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Digital code inside a cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not evidence for a creator. It's not digital code either, but even if it was, that's still not evidence for a creator.
Click to expand...


The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
 2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
 3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
 occurs naturally, youve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall


Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial.
> 
> Do seas spontaneously part?  Do bushes spontaneously erupt in flames? Do humans ever spontaneously regenerate lost limbs? Those would be pretty unnatural acts but they never occur.
> 
> 
> It's a simple request but remains firmly unanswered by the religious folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you measure a thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.
> 
> Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?
> 
> Nicely done.
> 
> You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.
Click to expand...


The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
 2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
 3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
 occurs naturally, youve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall


Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have one, and I don't need one. Doesn't make you right, just because I don't have an explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your people haven't even come close to an explanation. Yet you claim you have it all figured out. That is why they call it the "Miracle" of life. To say it arose spontaneously would deny all logic and reasoning. A self-replicating, ALIVE cell is what you seek to produce through a natural process. Now get to the lab and get busy. If it happened so easily on our planet, can it be that hard to make it happen again???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it was easy? It took very specific conditions, and a long time. The first unicellular organisms likely didn't arise for one BILLION years after the formation of the planet, and multi-cellular organisms didn't evolve for another BILLION years after that. What about that makes you think scientists should just be able to create that in a lab? That's laughably absurd. We've demonstrated, with the Miller-Urey experiments, that amino acids necessary to build proteins can be synthesized in the lab, and demonstrated that it was possible for this to happen naturally.
> 
> Miller
Click to expand...


No he didn't do I Really have to waste time shooting this down again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That which you are accusing scientists of is actually what ID proponents are entirely guilty of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right back at you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except, ID isn't science. The scientific method simply follows the evidence, and doesn't allow for what you are suggesting.
Click to expand...


ID evidence is most certainly science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.
> 
> Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?
> 
> Nicely done.
> 
> You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claims to miracles are pointless.
> 
> There are no miracles required to spark the building blocks of life.
> 
> No one is required to accept your bellicose, unfounded claims to supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


Not according to Crick one of the persons That discovered the genetic code. He said it was miracle because he could not bring himself to admit a mind created the code.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it was easy? It took very specific conditions, and a long time. The first unicellular organisms likely didn't arise for one BILLION years after the formation of the planet, and multi-cellular organisms didn't evolve for another BILLION years after that. What about that makes you think scientists should just be able to create that in a lab? That's laughably absurd. We've demonstrated, with the Miller-Urey experiments, that amino acids necessary to build proteins can be synthesized in the lab, and demonstrated that it was possible for this to happen naturally.
> 
> Miller
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miller has been refuted many times. Next!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it hasn't at all. I don't know who told you that, although I am guessing it was a creationist pseudo-scientist. Don't believe everything you hear from people who have a very specific agenda. (I already know what you're going to say)
Click to expand...


No one in the science community accepts what he did as proof that a cell could for naturally. He did not even create a cell,he created a few molecules. His hypothesis included no free oxygen so many years ago he has no way to know that. One of many assumptions based on conjecture.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right back at you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, ID isn't science. The scientific method simply follows the evidence, and doesn't allow for what you are suggesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ID evidence is most certainly science.
Click to expand...


ID is actually a conspiracy among a very few fundie Christians who were humiliated under the "Creationist" label. These charlatans manufacture and manipulate data so as to further a religious agenda. 

I posted the pre-qualifying agreement that the ICR requires its "scientists" to sign, that no findings or publication that is contrary to Christian dogma is allowed.

What a bunch of hacks.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Hmmm... it really doesn't seem like the Miller-Urey Experiment was refuted. I think what you are referring to is the idea that the experiment simulated the conditions on the earth billions of years ago. They were incorrect about the conditions, but the experiment still demonstrated that building amino acids is entirely possible using only a few inputs, and therefore, possible on the primitive earth.
> 
> The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or UreyMiller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]
> After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the MillerUrey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original MillerUrey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.
> 
> (wikipedia)



Another wiki soldier


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Miller has been refuted many times. Next!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it hasn't at all. I don't know who told you that, although I am guessing it was a creationist pseudo-scientist. Don't believe everything you hear from people who have a very specific agenda. (I already know what you're going to say)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one in the science community accepts what he did as proof that a cell could for naturally. He did not even create a cell,he created a few molecules. His hypothesis included no free oxygen so many years ago he has no way to know that. One of many assumptions based on conjecture.
Click to expand...

Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... it really doesn't seem like the Miller-Urey Experiment was refuted. I think what you are referring to is the idea that the experiment simulated the conditions on the earth billions of years ago. They were incorrect about the conditions, but the experiment still demonstrated that building amino acids is entirely possible using only a few inputs, and therefore, possible on the primitive earth.
> 
> The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or UreyMiller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]
> After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the MillerUrey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original MillerUrey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.
> 
> (wikipedia)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another wiki soldier
Click to expand...

Read through this thread and advise as to the number of your posts reference Silo.

Thanks.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it hasn't at all. I don't know who told you that, although I am guessing it was a creationist pseudo-scientist. Don't believe everything you hear from people who have a very specific agenda. (I already know what you're going to say)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the science community accepts what he did as proof that a cell could for naturally. He did not even create a cell,he created a few molecules. His hypothesis included no free oxygen so many years ago he has no way to know that. One of many assumptions based on conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."
Click to expand...


Give me one well known evolutionist that accepts the miller urey experiment as viable evidence that a cell could form naturally. Most of them admit ignorance when it comes to the origins question.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the science community accepts what he did as proof that a cell could for naturally. He did not even create a cell,he created a few molecules. His hypothesis included no free oxygen so many years ago he has no way to know that. One of many assumptions based on conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me one well known evolutionist that accepts the miller urey experiment as viable evidence that a cell could form naturally. Most of them admit ignorance when it comes to the origins question.
Click to expand...


Your comment is ignorant. First, your juvenile attempt at a slight with "evolutionist" speaks volumes about your disgust for science. Secondly, evolution is not a study of haw life began. You are not aware of even the most basic principles of evolutionary science.


----------



## bobgnote

_When ID is valid, an intelligent manipulator will come up with his religious believers, who can understand the greenhouse effect, AGW, resulting climate change, and related, impending climate disasters.

Until the manipulator can get his DDDs to understand the greenhouse effect, whereby atmospheric molecules of three atoms or more contribute to global warming, I won't believe in ID.

Somebody is just fucking around, intelligent or not.  In many cases, NOT.  ID needs to back down.  The human designer is CRIME, which pays.  So crime will pay, for some, while others do TIME.

In the same way, Romanesque Christianity is buggering around, with media, designed of, for, and by Popes, who are long-dead.  Can the Romanesque bastards listen, to Benedict, who claims people who don't believe in global warming are ATHEISTS?

If you are deep into ID, *you need to find a smart Pope*, if you are Christian._


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me one well known evolutionist that accepts the miller urey experiment as viable evidence that a cell could form naturally. Most of them admit ignorance when it comes to the origins question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment is ignorant. First, your juvenile attempt at a slight with "evolutionist" speaks volumes about your disgust for science. Secondly, evolution is not a study of haw life began. You are not aware of even the most basic principles of evolutionary science.
Click to expand...


So now you don't want to discuss the formation of the first cell.

Let's get back to the miller urey experiment.

If we granted you your wish that there was no oxygen on the early earth that was hypothesized by the miller urey experiment for a naturalistic origin of life. If the assumption that there was no oxygen in the origional atmosphere, this raises a problem for your assumption Was true ,The ozone is made of oxygen, it wouldn't exist, the ultraviolet rays from the sun would destroy any biological molecules.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me one well known evolutionist that accepts the miller urey experiment as viable evidence that a cell could form naturally. Most of them admit ignorance when it comes to the origins question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment is ignorant. First, your juvenile attempt at a slight with "evolutionist" speaks volumes about your disgust for science. Secondly, evolution is not a study of haw life began. You are not aware of even the most basic principles of evolutionary science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you don't want to discuss the formation of the first cell.
> 
> Let's get back to the miller urey experiment.
> 
> If we granted you your wish that there was no oxygen on the early earth that was hypothesized by the miller urey experiment for a naturalistic origin of life. If the assumption that there was no oxygen in the origional atmosphere, this raises a problem for your assumption. The ozone is made of oxygen, it wouldn't exist, the ultraviolet rays from the sun would destroy any biological molecules.
Click to expand...

You're making a number of assumptions (predefining the conditions) to skew the data in the hope of predefining your conclusion. 

You've learned well from the hacks at religious based websites.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims to miracles are pointless. I
> 
> There are no miracles required to spark the building blocks of life.
> 
> No one is required to accept your bellicose, unfounded claims to supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Even you just said spark. Interesting.
Click to expand...

Even I just said spark. It's a noun. Interesting!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you not say it is digital code? You really are in denial. Here you are... from anti-ID Wiki...
> 
> *Genetics
> 
> Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]
> 
> For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
> Data transmission
> 
> Quaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits.
> *
> Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to us in your own words what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ad Hollimen, don't even go there. I took several computer science classes at the U of A and I don't need to school some child on Binary code or Quaternary code or bits and bytes or information retrieval systems. Go school your ignorant self.
Click to expand...

So.... You have no clue and a feverish web search turned up nothing.

Oh the pain!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it hasn't at all. I don't know who told you that, although I am guessing it was a creationist pseudo-scientist. Don't believe everything you hear from people who have a very specific agenda. (I already know what you're going to say)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the science community accepts what he did as proof that a cell could for naturally. He did not even create a cell,he created a few molecules. His hypothesis included no free oxygen so many years ago he has no way to know that. One of many assumptions based on conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."
Click to expand...


Well that was an exaggerated comment on my part,but it is a rediculous thought that is how life started.



 Francis Crick on Origin of Life 


"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

- Francis Crick



Today, Millers experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled Lifes Crucible:

Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Millers atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. Its a problem, he sighs with exasperation. How do you make polymers? Thats not so easy.223

As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled The Emergence of Life on Earth, the following comments appear:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
 Thats bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules  the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.224

In brief, neither Millers experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:

All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.225

References:

218 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.

219 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.

220 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth, Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.

221 New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.

222 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.

223 Lifes Crucible, Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)

224 The Rise of Life on Earth, National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)

225 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added

Miller&#8217;s Experiment « Mazin&#8217;s Blog


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment is ignorant. First, your juvenile attempt at a slight with "evolutionist" speaks volumes about your disgust for science. Secondly, evolution is not a study of haw life began. You are not aware of even the most basic principles of evolutionary science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you don't want to discuss the formation of the first cell.
> 
> Let's get back to the miller urey experiment.
> 
> If we granted you your wish that there was no oxygen on the early earth that was hypothesized by the miller urey experiment for a naturalistic origin of life. If the assumption that there was no oxygen in the origional atmosphere, this raises a problem for your assumption. The ozone is made of oxygen, it wouldn't exist, the ultraviolet rays from the sun would destroy any biological molecules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making a number of assumptions (predefining the conditions) to skew the data in the hope of predefining your conclusion.
> 
> You've learned well from the hacks at religious based websites.
Click to expand...


You don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the science community accepts what he did as proof that a cell could for naturally. He did not even create a cell,he created a few molecules. His hypothesis included no free oxygen so many years ago he has no way to know that. One of many assumptions based on conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that was an exaggerated comment on my part,but it is a rediculous thought that is how life started.
> 
> 
> 
> Francis Crick on Origin of Life
> 
> 
> "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."
> 
> - Francis Crick
> 
> 
> 
> Today, Millers experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled Lifes Crucible:
> 
> Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Millers atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. Its a problem, he sighs with exasperation. How do you make polymers? Thats not so easy.223
> 
> As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled The Emergence of Life on Earth, the following comments appear:
> 
> Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
> Thats bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules  the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.224
> 
> In brief, neither Millers experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:
> 
> All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.225
> 
> References:
> 
> 218 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.
> 
> 219 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.
> 
> 220 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth, Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.
> 
> 221 New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.
> 
> 222 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.
> 
> 223 Lifes Crucible, Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)
> 
> 224 The Rise of Life on Earth, National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)
> 
> 225 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added
> 
> Millers Experiment « Mazins Blog
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, what research shows it was impossible for life to emerge by chance?  Remember, our inability to recreate it does not mean it could not happen.  Also remember, our inability to explain it does not mean it could not happen.  So I'm looking for research that actually shows it is impossible, not research which fails to adequately explain how it could have happened.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you measure a thought?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.
> 
> Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?
> 
> Nicely done.
> 
> You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:
> 
> 1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
> 2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
> 3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
> 
> If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
> occurs naturally, youve toppled my proof. All you need is one.
> 
> Perry Marshall
> 
> 
> Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists
Click to expand...


If DNA is a code, then it is an example of a code occurring naturally.  This argument should more accurately be 'no OTHER code occurs naturally, so DNA must not either'.  Even then it seems an inaccurate analogy.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims to miracles are pointless.
> 
> There are no miracles required to spark the building blocks of life.
> 
> No one is required to accept your bellicose, unfounded claims to supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to Crick one of the persons That discovered the genetic code. He said it was miracle because he could not bring himself to admit a mind created the code.
Click to expand...


According to the quote you later posted by Crick, he does not actually say it is a miracle.  What he says is that it appears somewhat like a miracle because we have not yet gained the knowledge or understanding to explain it.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... it really doesn't seem like the Miller-Urey Experiment was refuted. I think what you are referring to is the idea that the experiment simulated the conditions on the earth billions of years ago. They were incorrect about the conditions, but the experiment still demonstrated that building amino acids is entirely possible using only a few inputs, and therefore, possible on the primitive earth.
> 
> The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or UreyMiller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]
> After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the MillerUrey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original MillerUrey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.
> 
> (wikipedia)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another wiki soldier
Click to expand...


Like UltimateReality?

Oh, wait, is it ok for him to use wiki because he called it anti-ID?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one in the science community accepts what he did as proof that a cell could for naturally. He did not even create a cell,he created a few molecules. His hypothesis included no free oxygen so many years ago he has no way to know that. One of many assumptions based on conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that was an exaggerated comment on my part,but it is a rediculous thought that is how life started.
> 
> 
> 
> Francis Crick on Origin of Life
> 
> 
> "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."
> 
> - Francis Crick
> 
> 
> 
> Today, Millers experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled Lifes Crucible:
> 
> Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Millers atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. Its a problem, he sighs with exasperation. How do you make polymers? Thats not so easy.223
> 
> As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled The Emergence of Life on Earth, the following comments appear:
> 
> Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
> Thats bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules  the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.224
> 
> In brief, neither Millers experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:
> 
> All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.225
> 
> References:
> 
> 218 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.
> 
> 219 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.
> 
> 220 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth, Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.
> 
> 221 New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.
> 
> 222 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.
> 
> 223 Lifes Crucible, Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)
> 
> 224 The Rise of Life on Earth, National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)
> 
> 225 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added
> 
> Millers Experiment « Mazins Blog
Click to expand...

I couldn't help but notice that the long quote appears prominately in all the expected Christian creationist websites and even Harun Yahya's site.


----------



## Hollie

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.
> 
> Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?
> 
> Nicely done.
> 
> You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:
> 
> 1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
> 2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
> 3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
> 
> If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
> occurs naturally, youve toppled my proof. All you need is one.
> 
> Perry Marshall
> 
> 
> Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If DNA is a code, then it is an example of a code occurring naturally.  This argument should more accurately be 'no OTHER code occurs naturally, so DNA must not either'.  Even then it seems an inaccurate analogy.
Click to expand...


IF DNA code was designed by a supernatural designer, why would he purposely design a code that was subject to damage? 

Why such shoddy design?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except, ID isn't science. The scientific method simply follows the evidence, and doesn't allow for what you are suggesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are getting confused semantically. The THEORY of evolution isn't science either. People use the scientific method in an attempt to show it is valid, but it isn't science. Just like people use the scientific method to show that ID Theory is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ID is not theory, its a religious claim.
> 
> Evolution is theory supported by fact and evidence. Thumping people with your bible doesn't validate your claims. They're false.
Click to expand...


Pecking people with your finch beak does not validate your claims either. They are based on pseudo science.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the "your people" you refer to?
> 
> For that matter, your gods have not done what you are claiming "your people" have not done.
> 
> No design - no gods required. Again you make your gods irrelevant and superfluous.
> 
> Nicely done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is devoid of all logic. You are not even making sense anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that? Your claim, under a different log in was that a designer would design natural things. Thus, a designer of natural things is irrelevant, superfluous and unnecessary in a natural world.
> 
> Read what you posted, a page or two back. You completely dismantled your own argument.
Click to expand...


Duhhh, that is because we are not the same person. If you had been with this thread from the beginning you would have seen that YWC and I don't always see eye to eye. He is a young earth Creationists. I believe in a 4.5 billion year old earth. Just because you can't read doesn't make us the same poster so quit confusing the issue by responding to the wrong person.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> How do you test your hypothesis that* the complexity of the cell is the product of an intelligent designer*?



Well, first, you have incorrectly stated the ID hypothesis above and built a strawman for the purposes of asking a question to tear down your strawman. The hypothesis is, "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as its source". This is the scientific hypothesis you have to work with. We can, as part of our argument, logically continue: DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, DNA must have an intelligent agent as its source. But the first statement is the one you have to work with scientifically.

(by the way, 99% of your stupid theory isn't testable but we will ignore that for the moment)  Here is the Hypothesis: "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as it's source." The theory is *testable*: We look for instances of functional digital code on the planet and then attempt to verify it's source. The more times we discover the source is an intelligent agent, the more evidence we have to prove our theory. The theory is *falsifiable*: If we find a functional digital code that self generated, or is the result of random forces in action with the bad code dropping out, then the theory is falsified. So far, the theory stands!

The EVo nuts have been unsuccessful at proposing any process for the original digital dna code. Absent of any other legitimate explanation for it's origins, we must defer to the best explanation of what we know about digital code for sure, i.e., it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. So if this was REAL science, and not the Darwin religiously motivated sham that it is, this theory should stand until such time as an Evomaniac discovers a natural process which produces DNA and is testable and repeatable. This doesn't count a bunch of the typical Darwin BS of "this *could have* happened" or "this *might have been* how it went down." We need a process in a test tube that pukes out functional, digital code that is repeatable. Much like this intelligent agent is sending bits and bytes your direction as we speak and you are decoding it on your end to receive a functional message. 

Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are getting confused semantically. The THEORY of evolution isn't science either. People use the scientific method in an attempt to show it is valid, but it isn't science. Just like people use the scientific method to show that ID Theory is valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ID is not theory, its a religious claim.
> 
> Evolution is theory supported by fact and evidence. Thumping people with your bible doesn't validate your claims. They're false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pecking people with your finch beak does not validate your claims either. They are based on pseudo science.
Click to expand...


Yes of course. I suppose the entirety of the field of sciences is wrong, At least most of it. A 6,000 year old earth proposed by the charlatans at the ICR would necessarily negate a great deal of science.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think so, but that is because you are not educated on the ID argument and choose to wallow in your ignorance of what you perceive it to be. I've said it before, ID doesn't argue religious viewpoints. It uses Lyell and Darwins method of studying the present to learn about the past. The only origin of digital code we see in the present is an intelligent agent. Therefore, when we find digital code in the cell, we can conclude that an intelligent agent is the best explanation for its source, not some random process never seen in the present that can't be tested. Or the EVo's choose not to test. ID is strictly a scientific theory. It does not make metaphysical claims and can't make guesses about who the intelligent agent is, because would be considered religion and not science. What it does do is provide the best scientific explanation, based on present evidence, for the source of the digital code in DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you test your hypothesis that the complexity of the cell is the product of an intelligent designer? Please, answer me this question. Do they have any experiments now undergoing to test this, and come up with testable, repeatable results?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the theory isn't testable? (by the way, 99% of your stupid theory isn't testable but we will ignore that for the moment)  Here is the Hypothesis: "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as it's source." The theory is *testable*: We look for instances of functional digital code on the planet and then attempt to verify it's source. The more times we discover the source is an intelligent agent, the more evidence we have to prove our theory. The theory is *falsifiable*: If we find a functional digital code that self generated, or is the result of random forces in action with the bad code dropping out, then the theory is falsified. So far, the theory stands!
> 
> The EVo nuts have been unsuccessful at proposing any process for the original digital dna code. Absent of any other legitimate explanation for it's origins, we must defer to the best explanation of what we know about digital code for sure, i.e., it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. So if this was REAL science, and not the Darwin religiously motivated sham that it is, this theory should stand until such time as an Evomaniac discovers a natural process which produces DNA and is testable and repeatable. This doesn't count a bunch of the typical Darwin BS of "this *could have* happened" or "this *might have been* how it went down." We need a process in a test tube that pukes out functional, digital code that is repeatable. Much like this intelligent agent is sending bits and bytes your direction as we speak and you are decoding it on your end to receive a functional message.
> 
> Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!
Click to expand...


What's to rebut?

You make claims wherein you hope to vilify science but you offer nothing but religious invocations.

Religion is not science. You talk "at" people about "real" science but you do so by thumping them with your bible.

I'm not impressed.

Oh, and the juvenile name-calling. Are you 12 years old?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you test your hypothesis that the complexity of the cell is the product of an intelligent designer? Please, answer me this question. Do they have any experiments now undergoing to test this, and come up with testable, repeatable results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the theory isn't testable? (by the way, 99% of your stupid theory isn't testable but we will ignore that for the moment)  Here is the Hypothesis: "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as it's source." The theory is *testable*: We look for instances of functional digital code on the planet and then attempt to verify it's source. The more times we discover the source is an intelligent agent, the more evidence we have to prove our theory. The theory is *falsifiable*: If we find a functional digital code that self generated, or is the result of random forces in action with the bad code dropping out, then the theory is falsified. So far, the theory stands!
> 
> The EVo nuts have been unsuccessful at proposing any process for the original digital dna code. Absent of any other legitimate explanation for it's origins, we must defer to the best explanation of what we know about digital code for sure, i.e., it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. So if this was REAL science, and not the Darwin religiously motivated sham that it is, this theory should stand until such time as an Evomaniac discovers a natural process which produces DNA and is testable and repeatable. This doesn't count a bunch of the typical Darwin BS of "this *could have* happened" or "this *might have been* how it went down." We need a process in a test tube that pukes out functional, digital code that is repeatable. Much like this intelligent agent is sending bits and bytes your direction as we speak and you are decoding it on your end to receive a functional message.
> 
> Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's to rebut?
> 
> 
> You make claims wherein you hope to vilify science but you offer nothing but religious invocations.
> 
> Religion is not science. You talk "at" people about "real" science but you do so by thumping them with your bible.
> 
> I'm not impressed.
Click to expand...


Typical. I knew you wouldn't present an argument to the stated hypothesis. You have effectively been silenced because you have no argument. You have nothing to say because the argument stands until you come up with some real evidence to discount it. So instead of wasting your time here. Get to the lab and get cracking!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Do they have any experiments now undergoing to test this, and come up with testable, repeatable results?



Sadly for you, no. The evo's haven't been able to even come up with a decent theory for the origin of dna by a non intelligent process, much less begin to perform experiments to support their hypothesis.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Oh, and the juvenile name-calling. Are you 12 years old?



Actually 13, but I've been posing as a 46-year-old man on this forum for some time now so people will take my savant butt serious.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the theory isn't testable? (by the way, 99% of your stupid theory isn't testable but we will ignore that for the moment)  Here is the Hypothesis: "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as it's source." The theory is *testable*: We look for instances of functional digital code on the planet and then attempt to verify it's source. The more times we discover the source is an intelligent agent, the more evidence we have to prove our theory. The theory is *falsifiable*: If we find a functional digital code that self generated, or is the result of random forces in action with the bad code dropping out, then the theory is falsified. So far, the theory stands!
> 
> The EVo nuts have been unsuccessful at proposing any process for the original digital dna code. Absent of any other legitimate explanation for it's origins, we must defer to the best explanation of what we know about digital code for sure, i.e., it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. So if this was REAL science, and not the Darwin religiously motivated sham that it is, this theory should stand until such time as an Evomaniac discovers a natural process which produces DNA and is testable and repeatable. This doesn't count a bunch of the typical Darwin BS of "this *could have* happened" or "this *might have been* how it went down." We need a process in a test tube that pukes out functional, digital code that is repeatable. Much like this intelligent agent is sending bits and bytes your direction as we speak and you are decoding it on your end to receive a functional message.
> 
> Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's to rebut?
> 
> 
> You make claims wherein you hope to vilify science but you offer nothing but religious invocations.
> 
> Religion is not science. You talk "at" people about "real" science but you do so by thumping them with your bible.
> 
> I'm not impressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. I knew you wouldn't present an argument to the stated hypothesis. You have effectively been silenced because you have no argument. You have nothing to say because the argument stands until you come up with some real evidence to discount it. So instead of wasting your time here. Get to the lab and get cracking!!!
Click to expand...


You never presented an argument. You make silly statements demanding that your arguments are true while presenting no vidence to support them. You then rattle on that your claims are factual until others disprove them. No one is obligated to play the games of a 12 year old.  

You made bellicose statements, totally unsupported that are simply boilerplate Christian creationist dogma.

You end your posts with silly challenges and name calling that make you appear to be a goofy 12 year old.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID is not theory, its a religious claim.
> 
> Evolution is theory supported by fact and evidence. Thumping people with your bible doesn't validate your claims. They're false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pecking people with your finch beak does not validate your claims either. They are based on pseudo science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes of course. I suppose the entirety of the field of sciences is wrong, At least most of it. A 6,000 year old earth proposed by the charlatans at the ICR would necessarily negate a great deal of science.
Click to expand...


You're thick. Repeat it as many times as you like. I don't subscribe to the young earth view, no matter how many times you respond to an argument that I'm not making.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:
> 
> 1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
> 2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
> 3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
> 
> If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
> occurs naturally, youve toppled my proof. All you need is one.
> 
> Perry Marshall
> 
> 
> Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If DNA is a code, then it is an example of a code occurring naturally.  This argument should more accurately be 'no OTHER code occurs naturally, so DNA must not either'.  Even then it seems an inaccurate analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF DNA code was designed by a supernatural designer, why would he purposely design a code that was subject to damage?
> 
> Why such shoddy design?
Click to expand...


Entropy is the method to how we pay for our sins,mutations are just one of many ways that God administered punishment to sinful man.

Good thing man has not been on the planet as long as evolutionist claim,we now have around 5,000 genetic disorders and counting in around 6,000 years.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> You made bellicose statements,



Bellicose. Isn't about the third time you've used this in the last 5 posts? Hollyman, it doesn't matter how many big words you look up in the dictionary, you still don't sound intelligent.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pecking people with your finch beak does not validate your claims either. They are based on pseudo science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course. I suppose the entirety of the field of sciences is wrong, At least most of it. A 6,000 year old earth proposed by the charlatans at the ICR would necessarily negate a great deal of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're thick. Repeat it as many times as you like. I don't subscribe to the young earth view, no matter how many times you respond to an argument that I'm not making.
Click to expand...


Fall to the floor and kick and stomp your feet if you like. Using your religious views to try and inflict blunt force trauma on others is pointless.

Religion is not science. It's that simple. You can't bring yourself to understand that claims to "the gods did it" are meaningless in the real world of science, exploration and discovery.


----------



## UltimateReality

hollie said:


> you never presented an argument.



*All functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source.*


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that was an exaggerated comment on my part,but it is a rediculous thought that is how life started.
> 
> 
> 
> Francis Crick on Origin of Life
> 
> 
> "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."
> 
> - Francis Crick
> 
> 
> 
> Today, Millers experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled Lifes Crucible:
> 
> Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Millers atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. Its a problem, he sighs with exasperation. How do you make polymers? Thats not so easy.223
> 
> As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled The Emergence of Life on Earth, the following comments appear:
> 
> Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
> Thats bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules  the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.224
> 
> In brief, neither Millers experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:
> 
> All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.225
> 
> References:
> 
> 218 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.
> 
> 219 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.
> 
> 220 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth, Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.
> 
> 221 New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.
> 
> 222 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.
> 
> 223 Lifes Crucible, Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)
> 
> 224 The Rise of Life on Earth, National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)
> 
> 225 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added
> 
> Millers Experiment « Mazins Blog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what research shows it was impossible for life to emerge by chance?  Remember, our inability to recreate it does not mean it could not happen.  Also remember, our inability to explain it does not mean it could not happen.  So I'm looking for research that actually shows it is impossible, not research which fails to adequately explain how it could have happened.
Click to expand...


I gave you the explanation of right and left handed amino acids,coincedence ?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made bellicose statements,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bellicose. Isn't about the third time you've used this in the last 5 posts? Hollyman, it doesn't matter how many big words you look up in the dictionary, you still don't sound intelligent.
Click to expand...


You're now reduced to blathering like a child who has been scolded.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you never presented an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *All functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source.*
Click to expand...


That's a statement derived from your religious beliefs.

That's a major part of issues with being taken seriously. You don't know what an argument is.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.
> 
> Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?
> 
> Nicely done.
> 
> You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:
> 
> 1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
> 2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
> 3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
> 
> If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
> occurs naturally, youve toppled my proof. All you need is one.
> 
> Perry Marshall
> 
> 
> Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If DNA is a code, then it is an example of a code occurring naturally.  This argument should more accurately be 'no OTHER code occurs naturally, so DNA must not either'.  Even then it seems an inaccurate analogy.
Click to expand...


Not at all,where did the genetic information originate from ? What language was not developed by a mind ?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me one well known evolutionist that accepts the miller urey experiment as viable evidence that a cell could form naturally. Most of them admit ignorance when it comes to the origins question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment is ignorant. First, your juvenile attempt at a slight with "evolutionist" speaks volumes about your disgust for science. Secondly, evolution is not a study of haw life began. You are not aware of even the most basic principles of evolutionary science.
Click to expand...


And neither are you!!!! If you were, you could answer the two questions I've posed numerous times on this thread regarding origins and evolution. None of your evo fools can seem to answer them so nice try at sounding scientific.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims to miracles are pointless.
> 
> There are no miracles required to spark the building blocks of life.
> 
> No one is required to accept your bellicose, unfounded claims to supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to Crick one of the persons That discovered the genetic code. He said it was miracle because he could not bring himself to admit a mind created the code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the quote you later posted by Crick, he does not actually say it is a miracle.  What he says is that it appears somewhat like a miracle because we have not yet gained the knowledge or understanding to explain it.
Click to expand...


Monty be real.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that was an exaggerated comment on my part,but it is a rediculous thought that is how life started.
> 
> 
> 
> Francis Crick on Origin of Life
> 
> 
> "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."
> 
> - Francis Crick
> 
> 
> 
> Today, Millers experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled Lifes Crucible:
> 
> Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Millers atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. Its a problem, he sighs with exasperation. How do you make polymers? Thats not so easy.223
> 
> As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled The Emergence of Life on Earth, the following comments appear:
> 
> Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
> Thats bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules  the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.224
> 
> In brief, neither Millers experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:
> 
> All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.225
> 
> References:
> 
> 218 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.
> 
> 219 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.
> 
> 220 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth, Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.
> 
> 221 New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.
> 
> 222 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.
> 
> 223 Lifes Crucible, Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)
> 
> 224 The Rise of Life on Earth, National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)
> 
> 225 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added
> 
> Millers Experiment « Mazins Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what research shows it was impossible for life to emerge by chance?  Remember, our inability to recreate it does not mean it could not happen.  Also remember, our inability to explain it does not mean it could not happen.  So I'm looking for research that actually shows it is impossible, not research which fails to adequately explain how it could have happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you the explanation of right and left handed amino acids,coincedence ?
Click to expand...


You posted an article of which you knew nothing of its content. 

 Are you suggesting that right and left handed amino acids prove your gods?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> *Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original MillerUrey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.*"



Please provide links to a few.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... it really doesn't seem like the Miller-Urey Experiment was refuted. I think what you are referring to is the idea that the experiment simulated the conditions on the earth billions of years ago. They were incorrect about the conditions, but the experiment still demonstrated that building amino acids is entirely possible using only a few inputs, and therefore, possible on the primitive earth.
> 
> The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or UreyMiller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]
> After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the MillerUrey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original MillerUrey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.
> 
> (wikipedia)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another wiki soldier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like UltimateReality?
> 
> Oh, wait, is it ok for him to use wiki because he called it anti-ID?
Click to expand...


I just don't care for wiki because anyone can be putting faulty information on the site. Maybe UR wants your guys to feel comfortable.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me one well known evolutionist that accepts the miller urey experiment as viable evidence that a cell could form naturally. Most of them admit ignorance when it comes to the origins question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment is ignorant. First, your juvenile attempt at a slight with "evolutionist" speaks volumes about your disgust for science. Secondly, evolution is not a study of haw life began. You are not aware of even the most basic principles of evolutionary science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither are you!!!! If you were, you could answer the two questions I've posed numerous times on this thread regarding origins and evolution. None of your evo fools can seem to answer them so nice try at sound scientific.
Click to expand...


Actually, you posted material mined from Christian creationist websites with a predefined agenda of supporting a religious view. Religion is not science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pecking people with your finch beak does not validate your claims either. They are based on pseudo science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course. I suppose the entirety of the field of sciences is wrong, At least most of it. A 6,000 year old earth proposed by the charlatans at the ICR would necessarily negate a great deal of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're thick. Repeat it as many times as you like. I don't subscribe to the young earth view, no matter how many times you respond to an argument that I'm not making.
Click to expand...


Yes, you and I disagree on this subject.


----------



## UltimateReality

bobgnote said:


> _When ID is valid, an intelligent manipulator will come up with his religious believers, who can understand the greenhouse effect, AGW, resulting climate change, and related, impending climate disasters.
> 
> Until the manipulator can get his DDDs to understand the greenhouse effect, whereby atmospheric molecules of three atoms or more contribute to global warming, I won't believe in ID.
> 
> Somebody is just fucking around, intelligent or not.  In many cases, NOT.  ID needs to back down.  The human designer is CRIME, which pays.  So crime will pay, for some, while others do TIME.
> 
> In the same way, Romanesque Christianity is buggering around, with media, designed of, for, and by Popes, who are long-dead.  Can the Romanesque bastards listen, to Benedict, who claims people who don't believe in global warming are ATHEISTS?
> 
> If you are deep into ID, *you need to find a smart Pope*, if you are Christian._



For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to us in your own words what that means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ad Hollimen, don't even go there. I took several computer science classes at the U of A and I don't need to school some child on Binary code or Quaternary code or bits and bytes or information retrieval systems. Go school your ignorant self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So.... You have no clue and a feverish web search turned up nothing.
> 
> Oh the pain!
Click to expand...


Here it is in my own words slick. *DNA is digital code.* Are you happy now?


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original MillerUrey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide links to a few.
Click to expand...


I heard someone used what they think today the early atmosphere was rteally like and the same test did not produce one molecule.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> 
> _When ID is valid, an intelligent manipulator will come up with his religious believers, who can understand the greenhouse effect, AGW, resulting climate change, and related, impending climate disasters.
> 
> Until the manipulator can get his DDDs to understand the greenhouse effect, whereby atmospheric molecules of three atoms or more contribute to global warming, I won't believe in ID.
> 
> Somebody is just fucking around, intelligent or not.  In many cases, NOT.  ID needs to back down.  The human designer is CRIME, which pays.  So crime will pay, for some, while others do TIME.
> 
> In the same way, Romanesque Christianity is buggering around, with media, designed of, for, and by Popes, who are long-dead.  Can the Romanesque bastards listen, to Benedict, who claims people who don't believe in global warming are ATHEISTS?
> 
> If you are deep into ID, *you need to find a smart Pope*, if you are Christian._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.
Click to expand...


There's that self-hating, angry, regressive spirit we all know and detest.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that was an exaggerated comment on my part,but it is a rediculous thought that is how life started.
> 
> 
> 
> Francis Crick on Origin of Life
> 
> 
> "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."
> 
> - Francis Crick
> 
> 
> 
> Today, Millers experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled Lifes Crucible:
> 
> Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Millers atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. Its a problem, he sighs with exasperation. How do you make polymers? Thats not so easy.223
> 
> As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled The Emergence of Life on Earth, the following comments appear:
> 
> Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
> Thats bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules  the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.224
> 
> In brief, neither Millers experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:
> 
> All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.225
> 
> References:
> 
> 218 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.
> 
> 219 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.
> 
> 220 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth, Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.
> 
> 221 New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.
> 
> 222 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.
> 
> 223 Lifes Crucible, Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)
> 
> 224 The Rise of Life on Earth, National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)
> 
> 225 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added
> 
> Millers Experiment « Mazins Blog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what research shows it was impossible for life to emerge by chance?  Remember, our inability to recreate it does not mean it could not happen.  Also remember, our inability to explain it does not mean it could not happen.  So I'm looking for research that actually shows it is impossible, not research which fails to adequately explain how it could have happened.
Click to expand...


Well get busy then!!!


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... it really doesn't seem like the Miller-Urey Experiment was refuted. I think what you are referring to is the idea that the experiment simulated the conditions on the earth billions of years ago. They were incorrect about the conditions, but the experiment still demonstrated that building amino acids is entirely possible using only a few inputs, and therefore, possible on the primitive earth.
> 
> The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or UreyMiller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]
> After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the MillerUrey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original MillerUrey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.
> 
> (wikipedia)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another wiki soldier
Click to expand...


And you're sources are... answeringenesis.com? Or Kent Hovind? Wow. You really got me there.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you never presented an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *All functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a statement derived from your religious beliefs.
> 
> That's a major part of issues with being taken seriously. You don't know what an argument is.
Click to expand...


Then present any kind of code that was developed absent of a mind ?


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims to miracles are pointless.
> 
> There are no miracles required to spark the building blocks of life.
> 
> No one is required to accept your bellicose, unfounded claims to supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to Crick one of the persons That discovered the genetic code. He said it was miracle because he could not bring himself to admit a mind created the code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the quote you later posted by Crick, he does not actually say it is a miracle.  What he says is that it appears somewhat like a miracle because we have not yet gained the knowledge or understanding to explain it.
Click to expand...


Oh no!! Here we go again!! Someone says "appears" and the whole thread goes south.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.
> 
> Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?
> 
> Nicely done.
> 
> You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:
> 
> 1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
> 2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
> 3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
> 
> If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
> occurs naturally, you&#8217;ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.
> 
> Perry Marshall
> 
> 
> Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If DNA is a code, then it is an example of a code occurring naturally.  This argument should more accurately be 'no OTHER code occurs naturally, so DNA must not either'.  Even then it seems an inaccurate analogy.
Click to expand...


I explained this in a later post, which is now a previous post to this one. Your statement that DNA occurs naturally is not valid. It does not occur naturally. Everything, and I mean, EVERYTHING that is alive on this planet today, is the result of the code being passed down for BILLIONS of years. *It is up to the evo's to come up with a testable and falsifiable theory regarding the origin of the first dna.*


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... it really doesn't seem like the Miller-Urey Experiment was refuted. I think what you are referring to is the idea that the experiment simulated the conditions on the earth billions of years ago. They were incorrect about the conditions, but the experiment still demonstrated that building amino acids is entirely possible using only a few inputs, and therefore, possible on the primitive earth.
> 
> The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or UreyMiller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]
> After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the MillerUrey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original MillerUrey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.
> 
> (wikipedia)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another wiki soldier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're sources are... answeringenesis.com? Or Kent Hovind? Wow. You really got me there.
Click to expand...


Nope ,I can speak for myself,I have used answers in genesis,but I have also used your fellow evolutionists,yeah I Got you there.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you never presented an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *All functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source.*
Click to expand...


This is simply untrue. It is true for the only other instance we've we seen, because we created that instance (a binary code- it is not digital. that is a play on words to make it seem more designed. digital code uses binary coding, but the language is not the same. Digital coding has very specific meanings that don't translate to DNA). That doesn't mean the information in DNA came from a creator. It simply doesn't. If this is the basis for your argument and that of the ID proponents, then you have no evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to Crick one of the persons That discovered the genetic code. He said it was miracle because he could not bring himself to admit a mind created the code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the quote you later posted by Crick, he does not actually say it is a miracle.  What he says is that it appears somewhat like a miracle because we have not yet gained the knowledge or understanding to explain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no!! Here we go again!! Someone says "appears" and the whole thread goes south.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that was an exaggerated comment on my part,but it is a rediculous thought that is how life started.
> 
> 
> 
> Francis Crick on Origin of Life
> 
> 
> "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."
> 
> - Francis Crick
> 
> 
> 
> Today, Millers experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled Lifes Crucible:
> 
> Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Millers atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. Its a problem, he sighs with exasperation. How do you make polymers? Thats not so easy.223
> 
> As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled The Emergence of Life on Earth, the following comments appear:
> 
> Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
> Thats bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules  the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.224
> 
> In brief, neither Millers experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:
> 
> All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.225
> 
> References:
> 
> 218 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.
> 
> 219 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.
> 
> 220 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth, Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.
> 
> 221 New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.
> 
> 222 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.
> 
> 223 Lifes Crucible, Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)
> 
> 224 The Rise of Life on Earth, National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)
> 
> 225 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added
> 
> Millers Experiment « Mazins Blog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't help but notice that the long quote appears prominately in all the expected Christian creationist websites and even Harun Yahya's site.
Click to expand...


Ad Hollyman Fallacy for the upteenth time!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:
> 
> 1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
> 2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
> 3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
> 
> If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
> occurs naturally, youve toppled my proof. All you need is one.
> 
> Perry Marshall
> 
> 
> Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If DNA is a code, then it is an example of a code occurring naturally.  This argument should more accurately be 'no OTHER code occurs naturally, so DNA must not either'.  Even then it seems an inaccurate analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF DNA code was designed by a supernatural designer, why would he purposely design a code that was subject to damage?
> 
> Why such shoddy design?
Click to expand...


You ask a religious, not a scientific question, so here is your religious answer. The original DNA code was not subject to errors, thus allowing Adam and Eve to exist in the garden forever. With sin, the code was corrupted, and thus physical death became a reality. It is the copying errors that cause aging. Next question!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course. I suppose the entirety of the field of sciences is wrong, At least most of it. A 6,000 year old earth proposed by the charlatans at the ICR would necessarily negate a great deal of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're thick. Repeat it as many times as you like. I don't subscribe to the young earth view, no matter how many times you respond to an argument that I'm not making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fall to the floor and kick and stomp your feet if you like. Using your religious views to try and inflict blunt force trauma on others is pointless.
> 
> Religion is not science. It's that simple. You can't bring yourself to understand that claims to "the gods did it" are meaningless in the real world of science, exploration and discovery.
Click to expand...


I'll say it REAAAALLL SLOOOOOWWWWWWW, again. I am not here posing as a Creationist. I am sticking strictly to scientifically verifiable theories and evidence. You must be a south pole evolutionist. Call me Creationist one more time...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made bellicose statements,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bellicose. Isn't about the third time you've used this in the last 5 posts? Hollyman, it doesn't matter how many big words you look up in the dictionary, you still don't sound intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're now reduced to blathering like a child who has been scolded.
Click to expand...


You can also be condescending. You still don't sound like a grown up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you never presented an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *All functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is simply untrue. It is true for the only other instance we've we seen, because we created that instance (a binary code- it is not digital. that is a play on words to make it seem more designed. digital code uses binary coding, but the language is not the same. Digital coding has very specific meanings that don't translate to DNA). That doesn't mean the information in DNA came from a creator. It simply doesn't. If this is the basis for your argument and that of the ID proponents, then you have no evidence.
Click to expand...
















The 4 nucleotides (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) are the alphabet of the genetic code, which is the language of the recipe book.  

Each word in the language of genetics is 3 letters long and is called a codon.  A sentence composed of codons spells out the ingredients needed to make a protein.  

 The ingredients of proteins are molecules called amino acids.
 Only 20 different amino acids needed to make all the proteins in the body. Each 3-letter code represents the instruction to add a particular amino acid.   


A lot of the amino acids used come from the food we eat, whilst others are made in the by our own cells. Those that we can make ourselves are called non-essential amino acids, whilst those we get from our diet are essential amino acids.

There are some codons in the genetic code that dont stand for an amino acid. Instead theyre like the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and the full stop at the end. Theyre called the start and stop codons and indeed tell the machinery making the protein to start and stop building.

The genetic code - the language of genetics






DNA contains the genetic instructions for all living organisms

Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions. Within the nucleus of almost every one of these cells are long molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is like an organic blueprint or book of recipes. Your DNA is a genetic code that contains all the instructions needed to make an organism like you, to renew your cells and to keep your body functioning properly.




Nucleotides are the rungs in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the words and sentences of your genetic code


The language of life

DNA molecules are found within the nuclei of your cells and are really long chains of building blocks called nucleotides. These chains form the iconic twisting ladder structure (the double-helix) that was discovered by the Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. Nucleotides are the rungs in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the words and sentences of your genetic code, in which nucleotides are the letters. Nucleotides come in four different versions, adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, usually represented by the letters A, T, C and G, respectively. The human genetic code consists of about 3 billion of these four kinds of nucleotides. Each of your cells contains two copies of this genetic code, one inherited from your mother and the other from your father.

DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme

You will find mountains of literature supporting our view over yours.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that was an exaggerated comment on my part,but it is a rediculous thought that is how life started.
> 
> 
> 
> Francis Crick on Origin of Life
> 
> 
> "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."
> 
> - Francis Crick
> 
> 
> 
> Today, Millers experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled Lifes Crucible:
> 
> Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Millers atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. Its a problem, he sighs with exasperation. How do you make polymers? Thats not so easy.223
> 
> As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled The Emergence of Life on Earth, the following comments appear:
> 
> Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
> Thats bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules  the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.224
> 
> In brief, neither Millers experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:
> 
> All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.225
> 
> References:
> 
> 218 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.
> 
> 219 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.
> 
> 220 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth, Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.
> 
> 221 New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.
> 
> 222 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.
> 
> 223 Lifes Crucible, Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)
> 
> 224 The Rise of Life on Earth, National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)
> 
> 225 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added
> 
> Millers Experiment « Mazins Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what research shows it was impossible for life to emerge by chance?  Remember, our inability to recreate it does not mean it could not happen.  Also remember, our inability to explain it does not mean it could not happen.  So I'm looking for research that actually shows it is impossible, not research which fails to adequately explain how it could have happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well get busy then!!!
Click to expand...


Here again and as usual, you're at a disadvantage. Duane Gish whos name appears frequently in your references is a card carrying member of the ICR. 

Its obvious what his intended goal is as a representative of a fundie religious organization. 

He makes no pretence of being either objective or truthful. Why should anyone take his comments as truth when he is under written agreement with the ICR that limits his writing to a narrowly defined agenda defined by a religious organization. 

He's actually announcing his bias up front. And by using the ICR as you're typical source of support, you're announcing your bias as well.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you never presented an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *All functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a statement derived from your religious beliefs.
> 
> That's a major part of issues with being taken seriously. You don't know what an argument is.
Click to expand...


Regardless of your ad hominem attacks against me that make you think no one notices you aren't presenting any opposing viewpoint, here is the full argument repeated. Feel free to start presenting a logical, opposing argument anytime. Or better yet, some scientific evidence that refutes these statements.

*ALL functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source. DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, an intelligent agent must have been the source of DNA.*


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply untrue. It is true for the only other instance we've we seen, because we created that instance (a binary code- it is not digital. that is a play on words to make it seem more designed. digital code uses binary coding, but the language is not the same. Digital coding has very specific meanings that don't translate to DNA). That doesn't mean the information in DNA came from a creator. It simply doesn't. If this is the basis for your argument and that of the ID proponents, then you have no evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4 nucleotides (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) are the alphabet of the genetic code, which is the language of the recipe book.
> 
> Each word in the language of genetics is 3 letters long and is called a codon.  A sentence composed of codons spells out the ingredients needed to make a protein.
> 
> The ingredients of proteins are molecules called amino acids.
> Only 20 different amino acids needed to make all the proteins in the body. Each 3-letter code represents the instruction to add a particular amino acid.
> 
> 
> A lot of the amino acids used come from the food we eat, whilst others are made in the by our own cells. Those that we can make ourselves are called non-essential amino acids, whilst those we get from our diet are essential amino acids.
> 
> There are some codons in the genetic code that don&#8217;t stand for an amino acid. Instead they&#8217;re like the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and the full stop at the end. They&#8217;re called the start and stop codons and indeed tell the machinery making the protein to start and stop building.
> 
> The genetic code - the language of genetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA contains the genetic instructions for all living organisms
> 
> Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions. Within the nucleus of almost every one of these cells are long molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is like an organic blueprint or book of recipes. Your DNA is a genetic code that contains all the instructions needed to make an organism like you, to renew your cells and to keep your body functioning properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleotides are the &#8216;rungs&#8217; in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the &#8216;words&#8217; and &#8216;sentences&#8217; of your genetic code
> 
> 
> The language of life
> 
> DNA molecules are found within the nuclei of your cells and are really long chains of building blocks called nucleotides. These chains form the iconic twisting ladder structure (the double-helix) that was discovered by the Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. Nucleotides are the &#8216;rungs&#8217; in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the &#8216;words&#8217; and &#8216;sentences&#8217; of your genetic code, in which nucleotides are the &#8216;letters&#8217;. Nucleotides come in four different versions, adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, usually represented by the letters A, T, C and G, respectively. The human genetic code consists of about 3 billion of these four kinds of nucleotides. Each of your cells contains two copies of this genetic code, one inherited from your mother and the other from your father.
> 
> DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme
> 
> You will find mountains of literature supporting our view over yours.
Click to expand...


Those mountains of literature are derived from places such as Harun Yahya for one example. Lets not pretend that the literature is not without a religious preconception and bias that comes with association with these groups.

You are announcing up front that you are pressing a religious agenda and that accuracy and integrity are not a concern.

Are the gargantuan letters the function of a juvenile temper tantrum?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment is ignorant. First, your juvenile attempt at a slight with "evolutionist" speaks volumes about your disgust for science. Secondly, evolution is not a study of haw life began. You are not aware of even the most basic principles of evolutionary science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither are you!!!! If you were, you could answer the two questions I've posed numerous times on this thread regarding origins and evolution. None of your evo fools can seem to answer them so nice try at sound scientific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you posted material mined from Christian creationist websites with a predefined agenda of supporting a religious view. Religion is not science.
Click to expand...


Will you do the research and provide an answer to my two questions?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a statement derived from your religious beliefs.
> 
> That's a major part of issues with being taken seriously. You don't know what an argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of your ad hominem attacks against me that make you think no one notices you aren't presenting any opposing viewpoint, here is the full argument repeated. Feel free to start presenting a logical, opposing argument anytime. Or better yet, some scientific evidence that refutes these statements.
> 
> *ALL functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source. DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, an intelligent agent must have been the source of DNA.*
Click to expand...


You can write out any statement you wish with huge, multi-color letters. Your making a totally unsupported statement doesn't make the statement true and huge letters certainly don't prove the gods are true.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply untrue. It is true for the only other instance we've we seen, because we created that instance (a binary code- it is not digital. that is a play on words to make it seem more designed. digital code uses binary coding, but the language is not the same. Digital coding has very specific meanings that don't translate to DNA). That doesn't mean the information in DNA came from a creator. It simply doesn't. If this is the basis for your argument and that of the ID proponents, then you have no evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4 nucleotides (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) are the alphabet of the genetic code, which is the language of the recipe book.
> 
> Each word in the language of genetics is 3 letters long and is called a codon.  A sentence composed of codons spells out the ingredients needed to make a protein.
> 
> The ingredients of proteins are molecules called amino acids.
> Only 20 different amino acids needed to make all the proteins in the body. Each 3-letter code represents the instruction to add a particular amino acid.
> 
> 
> A lot of the amino acids used come from the food we eat, whilst others are made in the by our own cells. Those that we can make ourselves are called non-essential amino acids, whilst those we get from our diet are essential amino acids.
> 
> There are some codons in the genetic code that don&#8217;t stand for an amino acid. Instead they&#8217;re like the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and the full stop at the end. They&#8217;re called the start and stop codons and indeed tell the machinery making the protein to start and stop building.
> 
> The genetic code - the language of genetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA contains the genetic instructions for all living organisms
> 
> Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions. Within the nucleus of almost every one of these cells are long molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is like an organic blueprint or book of recipes. Your DNA is a genetic code that contains all the instructions needed to make an organism like you, to renew your cells and to keep your body functioning properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleotides are the &#8216;rungs&#8217; in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the &#8216;words&#8217; and &#8216;sentences&#8217; of your genetic code
> 
> 
> The language of life
> 
> DNA molecules are found within the nuclei of your cells and are really long chains of building blocks called nucleotides. These chains form the iconic twisting ladder structure (the double-helix) that was discovered by the Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. Nucleotides are the &#8216;rungs&#8217; in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the &#8216;words&#8217; and &#8216;sentences&#8217; of your genetic code, in which nucleotides are the &#8216;letters&#8217;. Nucleotides come in four different versions, adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, usually represented by the letters A, T, C and G, respectively. The human genetic code consists of about 3 billion of these four kinds of nucleotides. Each of your cells contains two copies of this genetic code, one inherited from your mother and the other from your father.
> 
> DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme
> 
> You will find mountains of literature supporting our view over yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those mountains of literature are derived from places such as Harun Yahya for one example. Lets not pretend that the literature is not without a religious preconception and bias that comes with association with these groups.
> 
> You are announcing up front that you are pressing a religious agenda and that accuracy and integrity are not a concern.
> 
> Are the gargantuan letters the function of a juvenile temper tantrum?
Click to expand...


You didn't look very close at these sources now did you ?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And neither are you!!!! If you were, you could answer the two questions I've posed numerous times on this thread regarding origins and evolution. None of your evo fools can seem to answer them so nice try at sound scientific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you posted material mined from Christian creationist websites with a predefined agenda of supporting a religious view. Religion is not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you do the research and provide an answer to my two questions?
Click to expand...


I recall that's already been done. Feel free to decide for yourself why the answer doesn't appeal to your religious beliefs.

My question to you is simple: can you provide a competing weight of demonstrable evidence for you gods as science has provided for a naturally occurring environment?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 4 nucleotides (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) are the alphabet of the genetic code, which is the language of the recipe book.
> 
> Each word in the language of genetics is 3 letters long and is called a codon.  A sentence composed of codons spells out the ingredients needed to make a protein.
> 
> The ingredients of proteins are molecules called amino acids.
> Only 20 different amino acids needed to make all the proteins in the body. Each 3-letter code represents the instruction to add a particular amino acid.
> 
> 
> A lot of the amino acids used come from the food we eat, whilst others are made in the by our own cells. Those that we can make ourselves are called non-essential amino acids, whilst those we get from our diet are essential amino acids.
> 
> There are some codons in the genetic code that don&#8217;t stand for an amino acid. Instead they&#8217;re like the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and the full stop at the end. They&#8217;re called the start and stop codons and indeed tell the machinery making the protein to start and stop building.
> 
> The genetic code - the language of genetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA contains the genetic instructions for all living organisms
> 
> Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions. Within the nucleus of almost every one of these cells are long molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is like an organic blueprint or book of recipes. Your DNA is a genetic code that contains all the instructions needed to make an organism like you, to renew your cells and to keep your body functioning properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleotides are the &#8216;rungs&#8217; in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the &#8216;words&#8217; and &#8216;sentences&#8217; of your genetic code
> 
> 
> The language of life
> 
> DNA molecules are found within the nuclei of your cells and are really long chains of building blocks called nucleotides. These chains form the iconic twisting ladder structure (the double-helix) that was discovered by the Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. Nucleotides are the &#8216;rungs&#8217; in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the &#8216;words&#8217; and &#8216;sentences&#8217; of your genetic code, in which nucleotides are the &#8216;letters&#8217;. Nucleotides come in four different versions, adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, usually represented by the letters A, T, C and G, respectively. The human genetic code consists of about 3 billion of these four kinds of nucleotides. Each of your cells contains two copies of this genetic code, one inherited from your mother and the other from your father.
> 
> DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme
> 
> You will find mountains of literature supporting our view over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those mountains of literature are derived from places such as Harun Yahya for one example. Lets not pretend that the literature is not without a religious preconception and bias that comes with association with these groups.
> 
> You are announcing up front that you are pressing a religious agenda and that accuracy and integrity are not a concern.
> 
> Are the gargantuan letters the function of a juvenile temper tantrum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't look very close at these sources now did you ?
Click to expand...


Yes, I did. I'm familiar with the inherent religious biases that accompany your sources.

Your sources all have a familiar science loathing, "the gods did it", screaming bias because the sources come from the very few religious organizations that promote them.

The odd part is that I could post almost anything in response and you wouldn't have a clue if that information is true or not. You simply cut and paste from religious web sites that cater to those of your proclivities without understanding the subject matter.  If you visit other message boards, you will notice a very familiar patter of the same material cut and pasted on those boards.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply untrue. It is true for the only other instance we've we seen, because we created that instance (a binary code- it is not digital. that is a play on words to make it seem more designed. digital code uses binary coding, but the language is not the same. Digital coding has very specific meanings that don't translate to DNA). That doesn't mean the information in DNA came from a creator. It simply doesn't. If this is the basis for your argument and that of the ID proponents, then you have no evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4 nucleotides (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) are the alphabet of the genetic code, which is the language of the recipe book.
> 
> Each word in the language of genetics is 3 letters long and is called a codon.  A sentence composed of codons spells out the ingredients needed to make a protein.
> 
> The ingredients of proteins are molecules called amino acids.
> Only 20 different amino acids needed to make all the proteins in the body. Each 3-letter code represents the instruction to add a particular amino acid.
> 
> 
> A lot of the amino acids used come from the food we eat, whilst others are made in the by our own cells. Those that we can make ourselves are called non-essential amino acids, whilst those we get from our diet are essential amino acids.
> 
> There are some codons in the genetic code that dont stand for an amino acid. Instead theyre like the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and the full stop at the end. Theyre called the start and stop codons and indeed tell the machinery making the protein to start and stop building.
> 
> The genetic code - the language of genetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA contains the genetic instructions for all living organisms
> 
> Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions. Within the nucleus of almost every one of these cells are long molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is like an organic blueprint or book of recipes. Your DNA is a genetic code that contains all the instructions needed to make an organism like you, to renew your cells and to keep your body functioning properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleotides are the rungs in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the words and sentences of your genetic code
> 
> 
> The language of life
> 
> DNA molecules are found within the nuclei of your cells and are really long chains of building blocks called nucleotides. These chains form the iconic twisting ladder structure (the double-helix) that was discovered by the Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. Nucleotides are the rungs in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the words and sentences of your genetic code, in which nucleotides are the letters. Nucleotides come in four different versions, adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, usually represented by the letters A, T, C and G, respectively. The human genetic code consists of about 3 billion of these four kinds of nucleotides. Each of your cells contains two copies of this genetic code, one inherited from your mother and the other from your father.
> 
> DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme
> 
> You will find mountains of literature supporting our view over yours.
Click to expand...


Cool. The genetic code is amazing. It may mirror the code that we have built entirely. It wouldn't matter. How does that prove a creator in ANY WAY? It simply does not. This is an argument from personal incredulity: I simply can't believe this was created naturally, it must be a creator.  Sorry, that doesn't suffice as evidence or a theory. It suffices as giving up on a natural explanation, and trying to insert your god where science hasn't provided a full enough explanation. The whole way you are looking at this is completely backwards. You are leading the evidence, not following it, obviously to confirm your own beliefs of god. That is not science!!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you never presented an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *All functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is simply untrue. It is true for the only other instance we've we seen, because we created that instance (a binary code- it is not digital. that is a play on words to make it seem more designed. digital code uses binary coding, but the language is not the same. Digital coding has very specific meanings that don't translate to DNA). That doesn't mean the information in DNA came from a creator. It simply doesn't. If this is the basis for your argument and that of the ID proponents, then you have no evidence.
Click to expand...


Obviously you aren't up to speed on everything that quaternary code called DNA does in the cell. It is actually more advanced than our own binary computer language.

You can start here.... "how a simple code is turned into flesh and blood"

These processes do NOT happen naturally, but require machines that are coded, built and exist from previous generations for billions of years.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3fOXt4MrOM]From DNA to Protein - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teV62zrm2P0]DNA Replication Process - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply untrue. It is true for the only other instance we've we seen, because we created that instance (a binary code- it is not digital. that is a play on words to make it seem more designed. digital code uses binary coding, but the language is not the same. Digital coding has very specific meanings that don't translate to DNA). That doesn't mean the information in DNA came from a creator. It simply doesn't. If this is the basis for your argument and that of the ID proponents, then you have no evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4 nucleotides (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) are the alphabet of the genetic code, which is the language of the recipe book.
> 
> Each word in the language of genetics is 3 letters long and is called a codon.  A sentence composed of codons spells out the ingredients needed to make a protein.
> 
> The ingredients of proteins are molecules called amino acids.
> Only 20 different amino acids needed to make all the proteins in the body. Each 3-letter code represents the instruction to add a particular amino acid.
> 
> 
> A lot of the amino acids used come from the food we eat, whilst others are made in the by our own cells. Those that we can make ourselves are called non-essential amino acids, whilst those we get from our diet are essential amino acids.
> 
> There are some codons in the genetic code that dont stand for an amino acid. Instead theyre like the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and the full stop at the end. Theyre called the start and stop codons and indeed tell the machinery making the protein to start and stop building.
> 
> The genetic code - the language of genetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA contains the genetic instructions for all living organisms
> 
> Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions. Within the nucleus of almost every one of these cells are long molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is like an organic blueprint or book of recipes. Your DNA is a genetic code that contains all the instructions needed to make an organism like you, to renew your cells and to keep your body functioning properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleotides are the rungs in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the words and sentences of your genetic code
> 
> 
> The language of life
> 
> DNA molecules are found within the nuclei of your cells and are really long chains of building blocks called nucleotides. These chains form the iconic twisting ladder structure (the double-helix) that was discovered by the Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. Nucleotides are the rungs in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the words and sentences of your genetic code, in which nucleotides are the letters. Nucleotides come in four different versions, adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, usually represented by the letters A, T, C and G, respectively. The human genetic code consists of about 3 billion of these four kinds of nucleotides. Each of your cells contains two copies of this genetic code, one inherited from your mother and the other from your father.
> 
> DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme
> 
> You will find mountains of literature supporting our view over yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. The genetic code is amazing. It may mirror the code that we have built entirely. It wouldn't matter. How does that prove a creator in ANY WAY? It simply does not. This is an argument from personal incredulity: I simply can't believe this was created naturally, it must be a creator.  Sorry, that doesn't suffice as evidence or a theory. It suffices as giving up on a natural explanation, and trying to insert your god where science hasn't provided a full enough explanation. The whole way you are looking at this is completely backwards. You are leading the evidence, not following it, obviously to confirm your own beliefs of god. That is not science!!!!
Click to expand...


We didn't create the genetic code just the names of the chemicals and letters that represent the chemicals. 

You better get in a genetics class so you don't look so foolish.

Like I said please produce a language that was developed absent of intelligence ?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a statement derived from your religious beliefs.
> 
> That's a major part of issues with being taken seriously. You don't know what an argument is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of your ad hominem attacks against me that make you think no one notices you aren't presenting any opposing viewpoint, here is the full argument repeated. Feel free to start presenting a logical, opposing argument anytime. Or better yet, some scientific evidence that refutes these statements.
> 
> *ALL functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source. DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, an intelligent agent must have been the source of DNA.*
Click to expand...



This is in response to what UL wrote. We only have ONE other instance of encrypted digital code, and that is the one we created. When you say "all instances",you make it sound as if there are a lot, and that they are all designed. Further, you're assertion is highly bizarre. You make it sound like there are other binary codes we have "found" that have been designed by other intelligent beings other than us. We have designed the binary code to which you are comparing to DNA, so it is a little bias, based on this comparison alone, to then use inductive reasoning and assume that DNA is also designed. This is fallacious reasoning and doesn't sufficiently follow from your premise, because you can't demonstrate it to be true.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply untrue. It is true for the only other instance we've we seen, because we created that instance (a binary code- it is not digital. that is a play on words to make it seem more designed. digital code uses binary coding, but the language is not the same. Digital coding has very specific meanings that don't translate to DNA). That doesn't mean the information in DNA came from a creator. It simply doesn't. If this is the basis for your argument and that of the ID proponents, then you have no evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4 nucleotides (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) are the alphabet of the genetic code, which is the language of the recipe book.
> 
> Each word in the language of genetics is 3 letters long and is called a codon.  A sentence composed of codons spells out the ingredients needed to make a protein.
> 
> The ingredients of proteins are molecules called amino acids.
> Only 20 different amino acids needed to make all the proteins in the body. Each 3-letter code represents the instruction to add a particular amino acid.
> 
> 
> A lot of the amino acids used come from the food we eat, whilst others are made in the by our own cells. Those that we can make ourselves are called non-essential amino acids, whilst those we get from our diet are essential amino acids.
> 
> There are some codons in the genetic code that dont stand for an amino acid. Instead theyre like the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and the full stop at the end. Theyre called the start and stop codons and indeed tell the machinery making the protein to start and stop building.
> 
> The genetic code - the language of genetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA contains the genetic instructions for all living organisms
> 
> Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions. Within the nucleus of almost every one of these cells are long molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is like an organic blueprint or book of recipes. Your DNA is a genetic code that contains all the instructions needed to make an organism like you, to renew your cells and to keep your body functioning properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleotides are the rungs in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the words and sentences of your genetic code
> 
> 
> The language of life
> 
> DNA molecules are found within the nuclei of your cells and are really long chains of building blocks called nucleotides. These chains form the iconic twisting ladder structure (the double-helix) that was discovered by the Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. Nucleotides are the rungs in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the words and sentences of your genetic code, in which nucleotides are the letters. Nucleotides come in four different versions, adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, usually represented by the letters A, T, C and G, respectively. The human genetic code consists of about 3 billion of these four kinds of nucleotides. Each of your cells contains two copies of this genetic code, one inherited from your mother and the other from your father.
> 
> DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme
> 
> You will find mountains of literature supporting our view over yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. The genetic code is amazing. It may mirror the code that we have built entirely. It wouldn't matter. How does that prove a creator in ANY WAY? It simply does not. This is an argument from personal incredulity: I simply can't believe this was created naturally, it must be a creator.  Sorry, that doesn't suffice as evidence or a theory. It suffices as giving up on a natural explanation, and trying to insert your god where science hasn't provided a full enough explanation. The whole way you are looking at this is completely backwards. You are leading the evidence, not following it, obviously to confirm your own beliefs of god. That is not science!!!!
Click to expand...


You are missing it completely. Let me describe it. There is no "god" involved in this theory, but only you and I. We can make a scientifically verifiable assumption and use logic to reach the conclusion an intelligent agent is responsible for digital code. The binary code was being used in computers before the huge world of dna began to be discovered. Only intelligent agents are responsible for functional digital code. The agent responsible for dna could be an alien race or the Christian God, but ID theory is science, not religion, so it does not make any claims about the identity of the designer, only that it is the best explanation.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 4 nucleotides (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) are the alphabet of the genetic code, which is the language of the recipe book.
> 
> Each word in the language of genetics is 3 letters long and is called a codon.  A sentence composed of codons spells out the ingredients needed to make a protein.
> 
> The ingredients of proteins are molecules called amino acids.
> Only 20 different amino acids needed to make all the proteins in the body. Each 3-letter code represents the instruction to add a particular amino acid.
> 
> 
> A lot of the amino acids used come from the food we eat, whilst others are made in the by our own cells. Those that we can make ourselves are called non-essential amino acids, whilst those we get from our diet are essential amino acids.
> 
> There are some codons in the genetic code that dont stand for an amino acid. Instead theyre like the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and the full stop at the end. Theyre called the start and stop codons and indeed tell the machinery making the protein to start and stop building.
> 
> The genetic code - the language of genetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA contains the genetic instructions for all living organisms
> 
> Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions. Within the nucleus of almost every one of these cells are long molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is like an organic blueprint or book of recipes. Your DNA is a genetic code that contains all the instructions needed to make an organism like you, to renew your cells and to keep your body functioning properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleotides are the rungs in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the words and sentences of your genetic code
> 
> 
> The language of life
> 
> DNA molecules are found within the nuclei of your cells and are really long chains of building blocks called nucleotides. These chains form the iconic twisting ladder structure (the double-helix) that was discovered by the Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. Nucleotides are the rungs in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the words and sentences of your genetic code, in which nucleotides are the letters. Nucleotides come in four different versions, adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, usually represented by the letters A, T, C and G, respectively. The human genetic code consists of about 3 billion of these four kinds of nucleotides. Each of your cells contains two copies of this genetic code, one inherited from your mother and the other from your father.
> 
> DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme
> 
> You will find mountains of literature supporting our view over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. The genetic code is amazing. It may mirror the code that we have built entirely. It wouldn't matter. How does that prove a creator in ANY WAY? It simply does not. This is an argument from personal incredulity: I simply can't believe this was created naturally, it must be a creator.  Sorry, that doesn't suffice as evidence or a theory. It suffices as giving up on a natural explanation, and trying to insert your god where science hasn't provided a full enough explanation. The whole way you are looking at this is completely backwards. You are leading the evidence, not following it, obviously to confirm your own beliefs of god. That is not science!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We didn't create the genetic code just the names of the chemicals and letters that represent the chemicals.
> 
> You better get in a genetics class so you don't look so foolish.
> 
> Like I said please produce a language that was developed absent of intelligence ?
Click to expand...


DNA code is not a language. Complicated language is a function of a sentient beings within a social framework. Language gets less complicated as you move down the ladder of sentient creatures.

Your're introducing language with DNA because you read that on some page at the ICR.

They're making you look foolish. Don't be an accomplice.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 4 nucleotides (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) are the alphabet of the genetic code, which is the language of the recipe book.
> 
> Each word in the language of genetics is 3 letters long and is called a codon.  A sentence composed of codons spells out the ingredients needed to make a protein.
> 
> The ingredients of proteins are molecules called amino acids.
> Only 20 different amino acids needed to make all the proteins in the body. Each 3-letter code represents the instruction to add a particular amino acid.
> 
> 
> A lot of the amino acids used come from the food we eat, whilst others are made in the by our own cells. Those that we can make ourselves are called non-essential amino acids, whilst those we get from our diet are essential amino acids.
> 
> There are some codons in the genetic code that don&#8217;t stand for an amino acid. Instead they&#8217;re like the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and the full stop at the end. They&#8217;re called the start and stop codons and indeed tell the machinery making the protein to start and stop building.
> 
> The genetic code - the language of genetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA contains the genetic instructions for all living organisms
> 
> Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions. Within the nucleus of almost every one of these cells are long molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is like an organic blueprint or book of recipes. Your DNA is a genetic code that contains all the instructions needed to make an organism like you, to renew your cells and to keep your body functioning properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleotides are the &#8216;rungs&#8217; in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the &#8216;words&#8217; and &#8216;sentences&#8217; of your genetic code
> 
> 
> The language of life
> 
> DNA molecules are found within the nuclei of your cells and are really long chains of building blocks called nucleotides. These chains form the iconic twisting ladder structure (the double-helix) that was discovered by the Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. Nucleotides are the &#8216;rungs&#8217; in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the &#8216;words&#8217; and &#8216;sentences&#8217; of your genetic code, in which nucleotides are the &#8216;letters&#8217;. Nucleotides come in four different versions, adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, usually represented by the letters A, T, C and G, respectively. The human genetic code consists of about 3 billion of these four kinds of nucleotides. Each of your cells contains two copies of this genetic code, one inherited from your mother and the other from your father.
> 
> DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme
> 
> You will find mountains of literature supporting our view over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. The genetic code is amazing. It may mirror the code that we have built entirely. It wouldn't matter. How does that prove a creator in ANY WAY? It simply does not. This is an argument from personal incredulity: I simply can't believe this was created naturally, it must be a creator.  Sorry, that doesn't suffice as evidence or a theory. It suffices as giving up on a natural explanation, and trying to insert your god where science hasn't provided a full enough explanation. The whole way you are looking at this is completely backwards. You are leading the evidence, not following it, obviously to confirm your own beliefs of god. That is not science!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We didn't create the genetic code just the names of the chemicals and letters that represent the chemicals.
> 
> You better get in a genetics class so you don't look so foolish.
> 
> Like I said please produce a language that was developed absent of intelligence ?
Click to expand...


I didn't say we created it. I don't know where you got that from.

I don't need to provide you with an example of language that was produced absent intelligence (our own, presumably). That wouldn't prove a designer if I couldn't. In every instance where we see a language, we know who created it, because that is creator is us. The first code that produced us, doesn't need a designer, necessarily, so to jump that conclusion is fallacious. How else would you expect a self-replicating organism to carry information? A code is a very logical expectation, and simply does not require that a creator did it. However much you may want to believe that, does not make it true, and does not act as evidence, for the one billionth time. You are using wishful thinking!

I don't need to know a single thing about genetics to make the argument that you can't jump to a designer to explain something natural simply because it seems incredulous without a supernatural explanation to you. This is a subjective viewpoint that you have, and by definition, does not suffice to explain objective phenomena.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 4 nucleotides (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) are the alphabet of the genetic code, which is the language of the recipe book.
> 
> Each word in the language of genetics is 3 letters long and is called a codon.  A sentence composed of codons spells out the ingredients needed to make a protein.
> 
> The ingredients of proteins are molecules called amino acids.
> Only 20 different amino acids needed to make all the proteins in the body. Each 3-letter code represents the instruction to add a particular amino acid.
> 
> 
> A lot of the amino acids used come from the food we eat, whilst others are made in the by our own cells. Those that we can make ourselves are called non-essential amino acids, whilst those we get from our diet are essential amino acids.
> 
> There are some codons in the genetic code that dont stand for an amino acid. Instead theyre like the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and the full stop at the end. Theyre called the start and stop codons and indeed tell the machinery making the protein to start and stop building.
> 
> The genetic code - the language of genetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA contains the genetic instructions for all living organisms
> 
> Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions. Within the nucleus of almost every one of these cells are long molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is like an organic blueprint or book of recipes. Your DNA is a genetic code that contains all the instructions needed to make an organism like you, to renew your cells and to keep your body functioning properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleotides are the rungs in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the words and sentences of your genetic code
> 
> 
> The language of life
> 
> DNA molecules are found within the nuclei of your cells and are really long chains of building blocks called nucleotides. These chains form the iconic twisting ladder structure (the double-helix) that was discovered by the Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. Nucleotides are the rungs in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the words and sentences of your genetic code, in which nucleotides are the letters. Nucleotides come in four different versions, adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, usually represented by the letters A, T, C and G, respectively. The human genetic code consists of about 3 billion of these four kinds of nucleotides. Each of your cells contains two copies of this genetic code, one inherited from your mother and the other from your father.
> 
> DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme
> 
> You will find mountains of literature supporting our view over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. The genetic code is amazing. It may mirror the code that we have built entirely. It wouldn't matter. How does that prove a creator in ANY WAY? It simply does not. This is an argument from personal incredulity: I simply can't believe this was created naturally, it must be a creator.  Sorry, that doesn't suffice as evidence or a theory. It suffices as giving up on a natural explanation, and trying to insert your god where science hasn't provided a full enough explanation. The whole way you are looking at this is completely backwards. You are leading the evidence, not following it, obviously to confirm your own beliefs of god. That is not science!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are missing it completely. Let me describe it. There is no "god" involved in this theory, but only you and I. We can make a scientifically verifiable assumption and use logic to reach the conclusion an intelligent agent is responsible for digital code. The binary code was being used in computers before the huge world of dna began to be discovered. Only intelligent agents are responsible for functional digital code. The agent responsible for dna could be an alien race or the Christian God, but ID theory is science, not religion, so it does not make any claims about the identity of the designer, only that it is the best explanation.
Click to expand...


ID is not theory it is religion. The entire framework of your argument is connected to the Christian god(s). Your links are often to fundie Christian creationist / ID promoting websites.

Are you hoping to revise or rename your claims to creationism? That's been done already. The ID'ers were exposed at the same wacky fundie creationists just wrapped in a shiny new package.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply untrue. It is true for the only other instance we've we seen, because we created that instance (a binary code- it is not digital. that is a play on words to make it seem more designed. digital code uses binary coding, but the language is not the same. Digital coding has very specific meanings that don't translate to DNA). That doesn't mean the information in DNA came from a creator. It simply doesn't. If this is the basis for your argument and that of the ID proponents, then you have no evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4 nucleotides (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) are the alphabet of the genetic code, which is the language of the recipe book.
> 
> Each word in the language of genetics is 3 letters long and is called a codon.  A sentence composed of codons spells out the ingredients needed to make a protein.
> 
> The ingredients of proteins are molecules called amino acids.
> Only 20 different amino acids needed to make all the proteins in the body. Each 3-letter code represents the instruction to add a particular amino acid.
> 
> 
> A lot of the amino acids used come from the food we eat, whilst others are made in the by our own cells. Those that we can make ourselves are called non-essential amino acids, whilst those we get from our diet are essential amino acids.
> 
> There are some codons in the genetic code that dont stand for an amino acid. Instead theyre like the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and the full stop at the end. Theyre called the start and stop codons and indeed tell the machinery making the protein to start and stop building.
> 
> The genetic code - the language of genetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA contains the genetic instructions for all living organisms
> 
> Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions. Within the nucleus of almost every one of these cells are long molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is like an organic blueprint or book of recipes. Your DNA is a genetic code that contains all the instructions needed to make an organism like you, to renew your cells and to keep your body functioning properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleotides are the rungs in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the words and sentences of your genetic code
> 
> 
> The language of life
> 
> DNA molecules are found within the nuclei of your cells and are really long chains of building blocks called nucleotides. These chains form the iconic twisting ladder structure (the double-helix) that was discovered by the Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. Nucleotides are the rungs in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the words and sentences of your genetic code, in which nucleotides are the letters. Nucleotides come in four different versions, adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, usually represented by the letters A, T, C and G, respectively. The human genetic code consists of about 3 billion of these four kinds of nucleotides. Each of your cells contains two copies of this genetic code, one inherited from your mother and the other from your father.
> 
> DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme
> 
> You will find mountains of literature supporting our view over yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those mountains of literature are derived from places such as Harun Yahya for one example. Lets not pretend that the literature is not without a religious preconception and bias that comes with association with these groups.
> 
> You are announcing up front that you are pressing a religious agenda and that accuracy and integrity are not a concern.
> 
> Are the gargantuan letters the function of a juvenile temper tantrum?
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight, you say the information about dna above isn't scientific fact?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you posted material mined from Christian creationist websites with a predefined agenda of supporting a religious view. Religion is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you do the research and provide an answer to my two questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recall that's already been done. Feel free to decide for yourself why the answer doesn't appeal to your religious beliefs.
> 
> My question to you is simple: can you provide a competing weight of demonstrable evidence for you gods as science has provided for a naturally occurring environment?
Click to expand...


No, but I can for one true God.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you posted material mined from Christian creationist websites with a predefined agenda of supporting a religious view. Religion is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you do the research and provide an answer to my two questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recall that's already been done. Feel free to decide for yourself why the answer doesn't appeal to your religious beliefs.
> 
> My question to you is simple: can you provide a competing weight of demonstrable evidence for you gods as science has provided for a naturally occurring environment?
Click to expand...


No, it hasn't. You made the claim above. Will you answer my two questions?

1. At what point in known organisms, cells and structures, does the theory of evolution propose to begin. How far back does evolution start to explain where we are now. Where does abiogenisis actually end and the TOE begin.

2. What does the common ancestor evolutionists continually refer to look like? Is it a hominid, or a single cell organism? Again, at what speciation level is common ancestry said to begin?

I will anxiously await your reply since you made the claim above that evolution doesn't cover the origin of life. So just what does it cover? Where does it begin?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Miracle" is a subjective term, and meaningless therefore as an objective reference to an observed phenomenon. Second, just because we can't reproduce the origin of life in a lab, doesn't mean a god did it. You are nearing another logical fallacy, and one which embodies the entire intelligent design theory:
> 
> Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
> 
> (wikipedia.org)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think so, but that is because you are not educated on the ID argument and choose to wallow in your ignorance of what you perceive it to be. I've said it before, ID doesn't argue religious viewpoints. It uses Lyell and Darwins method of studying the present to learn about the past. The only origin of digital code we see in the present is an intelligent agent. Therefore, when we find digital code in the cell, we can conclude that an intelligent agent is the best explanation for its source, not some random process never seen in the present that can't be tested. Or the EVo's choose not to test. ID is strictly a scientific theory. It does not make metaphysical claims and can't make guesses about who the intelligent agent is, because would be considered religion and not science. What it does do is provide the best scientific explanation, based on present evidence, for the source of the digital code in DNA.
Click to expand...


What is there to learn about ID? The natural world is amazing, absolutely. Beyond comprehension even, but to assert that everything that seems incredible is necessarily produced by a designer, is intellectual forfeit, and something no self-respecting scientist would concede unless they possessed a presupposition that an intelligent being was the creator. Then, it wouldn't be intellectual forfeit, it would be a simple manifestation of something I already believe to be true. This demonstrates my point that ID proponents are leading the evidence to their own, arbitrary conclusions, and not following the evidence to wherever it may lead.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. The genetic code is amazing. It may mirror the code that we have built entirely. It wouldn't matter. How does that prove a creator in ANY WAY? It simply does not. This is an argument from personal incredulity: I simply can't believe this was created naturally, it must be a creator.  Sorry, that doesn't suffice as evidence or a theory. It suffices as giving up on a natural explanation, and trying to insert your god where science hasn't provided a full enough explanation. The whole way you are looking at this is completely backwards. You are leading the evidence, not following it, obviously to confirm your own beliefs of god. That is not science!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't create the genetic code just the names of the chemicals and letters that represent the chemicals.
> 
> You better get in a genetics class so you don't look so foolish.
> 
> Like I said please produce a language that was developed absent of intelligence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA code is not a language. Complicated language is a function of a sentient beings within a social framework. Language gets less complicated as you move down the ladder of sentient creatures.
> 
> Your're introducing language with DNA because you read that on some page at the ICR.
> 
> They're making you look foolish. Don't be an accomplice.
Click to expand...


Educate yourself.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwHdk6-u__0&feature=related]Cracking Your Genetic Code - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply untrue. It is true for the only other instance we've we seen, because we created that instance (a binary code- it is not digital. that is a play on words to make it seem more designed. digital code uses binary coding, but the language is not the same. Digital coding has very specific meanings that don't translate to DNA). That doesn't mean the information in DNA came from a creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4 nucleotides (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) are the alphabet of the genetic code, which is the language of the recipe book.
> 
> Each word in the language of genetics is 3 letters long and is called a codon.  A sentence composed of codons spells out the ingredients needed to make a protein.
> 
> The ingredients of proteins are molecules called amino acids.
> Only 20 different amino acids needed to make all the proteins in the body. Each 3-letter code represents the instruction to add a particular amino acid.
> 
> 
> A lot of the amino acids used come from the food we eat, whilst others are made in the by our own cells. Those that we can make ourselves are called non-essential amino acids, whilst those we get from our diet are essential amino acids.
> 
> There are some codons in the genetic code that dont stand for an amino acid. Instead theyre like the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and the full stop at the end. Theyre called the start and stop codons and indeed tell the machinery making the protein to start and stop building.
> 
> The genetic code - the language of genetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA contains the genetic instructions for all living organisms
> 
> Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions. Within the nucleus of almost every one of these cells are long molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is like an organic blueprint or book of recipes. Your DNA is a genetic code that contains all the instructions needed to make an organism like you, to renew your cells and to keep your body functioning properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleotides are the rungs in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the words and sentences of your genetic code
> 
> 
> The language of life
> 
> DNA molecules are found within the nuclei of your cells and are really long chains of building blocks called nucleotides. These chains form the iconic twisting ladder structure (the double-helix) that was discovered by the Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. Nucleotides are the rungs in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the words and sentences of your genetic code, in which nucleotides are the letters. Nucleotides come in four different versions, adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, usually represented by the letters A, T, C and G, respectively. The human genetic code consists of about 3 billion of these four kinds of nucleotides. Each of your cells contains two copies of this genetic code, one inherited from your mother and the other from your father.
> 
> DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme
> 
> You will find mountains of literature supporting our view over yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. The genetic code is amazing. It may mirror the code that we have built entirely. It wouldn't matter. How does that prove a creator in ANY WAY? It simply does not. This is an argument from personal incredulity: I simply can't believe this was created naturally, it must be a creator.  Sorry, that doesn't suffice as evidence or a theory. It suffices as giving up on a natural explanation, and trying to insert your god where science hasn't provided a full enough explanation. The whole way you are looking at this is completely backwards. You are leading the evidence, not following it, obviously to confirm your own beliefs of god. That is not science!!!!
Click to expand...


There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a statement derived from your religious beliefs.
> 
> That's a major part of issues with being taken seriously. You don't know what an argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of your ad hominem attacks against me that make you think no one notices you aren't presenting any opposing viewpoint, here is the full argument repeated. Feel free to start presenting a logical, opposing argument anytime. Or better yet, some scientific evidence that refutes these statements.
> 
> *ALL functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source. DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, an intelligent agent must have been the source of DNA.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is in response to what UL wrote. We only have ONE other instance of encrypted digital code, and that is the one we created. When you say "all instances",you make it sound as if there are a lot, and that they are all designed. Further, you're assertion is highly bizarre. You make it sound like there are other binary codes we have "found" that have been designed by other intelligent beings other than us. We have designed the binary code to which you are comparing to DNA, so it is a little bias, based on this comparison alone, to then use inductive reasoning and assume that DNA is also designed. This is fallacious reasoning and doesn't sufficiently follow from your premise, because you can't demonstrate it to be true.
Click to expand...


I never said encrypted, but now that you mention it, that makes it even more crazy. So you are saying the statement that the statement, "ALLl functional digital code has an intelligent agent as its source" is not true? Even if it is only the binary code? Excuse me but written language could be considered a digital code use 26 letters to convey messages, instructions, etc.  If you were walking through the forest and came across 47 rocks arranged in the pattern "Dave was here", would you chalk that up to chance and random variation?


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you test your hypothesis that* the complexity of the cell is the product of an intelligent designer*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, you have incorrectly stated the ID hypothesis above and built a strawman for the purposes of asking a question to tear down your strawman. The hypothesis is, "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as its source". This is the scientific hypothesis you have to work with. We can, as part of our argument, logically continue: DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, DNA must have an intelligent agent as its source. But the first statement is the one you have to work with scientifically.
> 
> (by the way, 99% of your stupid theory isn't testable but we will ignore that for the moment)  Here is the Hypothesis: "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as it's source." The theory is *testable*: We look for instances of functional digital code on the planet and then attempt to verify it's source. The more times we discover the source is an intelligent agent, the more evidence we have to prove our theory. The theory is *falsifiable*: If we find a functional digital code that self generated, or is the result of random forces in action with the bad code dropping out, then the theory is falsified. So far, the theory stands!
> 
> The EVo nuts have been unsuccessful at proposing any process for the original digital dna code. Absent of any other legitimate explanation for it's origins, we must defer to the best explanation of what we know about digital code for sure, i.e., it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. So if this was REAL science, and not the Darwin religiously motivated sham that it is, this theory should stand until such time as an Evomaniac discovers a natural process which produces DNA and is testable and repeatable. This doesn't count a bunch of the typical Darwin BS of "this *could have* happened" or "this *might have been* how it went down." We need a process in a test tube that pukes out functional, digital code that is repeatable. Much like this intelligent agent is sending bits and bytes your direction as we speak and you are decoding it on your end to receive a functional message.
> 
> Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!
Click to expand...


How about 'all functional digital code has humanity as it's source'.  Is there a digital code we can find, other than DNA which is the thing in contention, that isn't created by humans?  If we don't have any other intelligent sources creating digital code that we can observe, then unless you want to claim DNA was created by humans, I think the argument falls apart.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a statement derived from your religious beliefs.
> 
> That's a major part of issues with being taken seriously. You don't know what an argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of your ad hominem attacks against me that make you think no one notices you aren't presenting any opposing viewpoint, here is the full argument repeated. Feel free to start presenting a logical, opposing argument anytime. Or better yet, some scientific evidence that refutes these statements.
> 
> *ALL functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source. DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, an intelligent agent must have been the source of DNA.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can write out any statement you wish with huge, multi-color letters. Your making a totally unsupported statement doesn't make the statement true and huge letters certainly don't prove the gods are true.
Click to expand...


Here you go. I added some color so your statement would be more accurate.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Regardless of your ad hominem attacks against me that make you think no one notices you aren't presenting any opposing viewpoint, here is the full argument repeated. Feel free to start presenting a logical, opposing argument anytime. Or better yet, some scientific evidence that refutes these statements.
> 
> *ALL functional, digital code has an intelligent agent as its source. DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, an intelligent agent must have been the source of DNA.*



For that argument to be true, you need to append:

*Because I say so!*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. The genetic code is amazing. It may mirror the code that we have built entirely. It wouldn't matter. How does that prove a creator in ANY WAY? It simply does not. This is an argument from personal incredulity: I simply can't believe this was created naturally, it must be a creator.  Sorry, that doesn't suffice as evidence or a theory. It suffices as giving up on a natural explanation, and trying to insert your god where science hasn't provided a full enough explanation. The whole way you are looking at this is completely backwards. You are leading the evidence, not following it, obviously to confirm your own beliefs of god. That is not science!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't create the genetic code just the names of the chemicals and letters that represent the chemicals.
> 
> You better get in a genetics class so you don't look so foolish.
> 
> Like I said please produce a language that was developed absent of intelligence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DNA code is not a language. Complicated language is a function of a sentient beings within a social framework. Language gets less complicated as you move down the ladder of sentient creatures.
> 
> Your're introducing language with DNA because you read that on some page at the ICR.
> 
> They're making you look foolish. Don't be an accomplice.
Click to expand...


You don't need anyone else to make you look foolish. It is machine language.

Wiki-use at your own risk... 

Machine code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to Crick one of the persons That discovered the genetic code. He said it was miracle because he could not bring himself to admit a mind created the code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the quote you later posted by Crick, he does not actually say it is a miracle.  What he says is that it appears somewhat like a miracle because we have not yet gained the knowledge or understanding to explain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monty be real.
Click to expand...


Here's the quote you provided :

"
Francis Crick on Origin of Life


"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

- Francis Crick"

In some sense, appears, at the moment, almost a miracle.  He was clearly not willing to simply call it a miracle.  For you to say he did is either a lack of comprehension or, at best, disingenuousness.  He says we don't know, not that it was a miracle.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. The genetic code is amazing. It may mirror the code that we have built entirely. It wouldn't matter. How does that prove a creator in ANY WAY? It simply does not. This is an argument from personal incredulity: I simply can't believe this was created naturally, it must be a creator.  Sorry, that doesn't suffice as evidence or a theory. It suffices as giving up on a natural explanation, and trying to insert your god where science hasn't provided a full enough explanation. The whole way you are looking at this is completely backwards. You are leading the evidence, not following it, obviously to confirm your own beliefs of god. That is not science!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing it completely. Let me describe it. There is no "god" involved in this theory, but only you and I. We can make a scientifically verifiable assumption and use logic to reach the conclusion an intelligent agent is responsible for digital code. The binary code was being used in computers before the huge world of dna began to be discovered. Only intelligent agents are responsible for functional digital code. The agent responsible for dna could be an alien race or the Christian God, but ID theory is science, not religion, so it does not make any claims about the identity of the designer, only that it is the best explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ID is not theory it is religion. The entire framework of your argument is connected to the Christian god(s). Your links are often to fundie Christian creationist / ID promoting websites.
> 
> Are you hoping to revise or rename your claims to creationism? That's been done already. The ID'ers were exposed at the same wacky fundie creationists just wrapped in a shiny new package.
Click to expand...


Evolution is not theory it is religion. The entire framework of your argument is connected to the Darwin priest. Your links are often to evo, sciene loathing websites.

Are you hoping to revise or rename your claims to Darwinsm? That's been done already. The Neo-Darwinists were exposed as the same wacky fundie Darwinists just wrapped in a shiny new package.


----------



## Hollie

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you test your hypothesis that* the complexity of the cell is the product of an intelligent designer*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, you have incorrectly stated the ID hypothesis above and built a strawman for the purposes of asking a question to tear down your strawman. The hypothesis is, "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as its source". This is the scientific hypothesis you have to work with. We can, as part of our argument, logically continue: DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, DNA must have an intelligent agent as its source. But the first statement is the one you have to work with scientifically.
> 
> (by the way, 99% of your stupid theory isn't testable but we will ignore that for the moment)  Here is the Hypothesis: "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as it's source." The theory is *testable*: We look for instances of functional digital code on the planet and then attempt to verify it's source. The more times we discover the source is an intelligent agent, the more evidence we have to prove our theory. The theory is *falsifiable*: If we find a functional digital code that self generated, or is the result of random forces in action with the bad code dropping out, then the theory is falsified. So far, the theory stands!
> 
> The EVo nuts have been unsuccessful at proposing any process for the original digital dna code. Absent of any other legitimate explanation for it's origins, we must defer to the best explanation of what we know about digital code for sure, i.e., it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. So if this was REAL science, and not the Darwin religiously motivated sham that it is, this theory should stand until such time as an Evomaniac discovers a natural process which produces DNA and is testable and repeatable. This doesn't count a bunch of the typical Darwin BS of "this *could have* happened" or "this *might have been* how it went down." We need a process in a test tube that pukes out functional, digital code that is repeatable. Much like this intelligent agent is sending bits and bytes your direction as we speak and you are decoding it on your end to receive a functional message.
> 
> Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about 'all functional digital code has humanity as it's source'.  Is there a digital code we can find, other than DNA which is the thing in contention, that isn't created by humans?  If we don't have any other intelligent sources creating digital code that we can observe, then unless you want to claim DNA was created by humans, I think the argument falls apart.
Click to expand...


More of your 12 year old histrionics.

Your stuck on the "because I say so", argument. You can't seem to get past the dogma that is pushed at the ICR. That's too bad because you become the frothy, biased, religious zealot who has this need to attack people with his religious beliefs. Religion can be dangerous enough but in the hands of the true fundies, it becomes a mind altering hallucinogen.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Miracle" is a subjective term, and meaningless therefore as an objective reference to an observed phenomenon. Second, just because we can't reproduce the origin of life in a lab, doesn't mean a god did it. You are nearing another logical fallacy, and one which embodies the entire intelligent design theory:
> 
> Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
> 
> (wikipedia.org)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think so, but that is because you are not educated on the ID argument and choose to wallow in your ignorance of what you perceive it to be. I've said it before, ID doesn't argue religious viewpoints. It uses Lyell and Darwins method of studying the present to learn about the past. The only origin of digital code we see in the present is an intelligent agent. Therefore, when we find digital code in the cell, we can conclude that an intelligent agent is the best explanation for its source, not some random process never seen in the present that can't be tested. Or the EVo's choose not to test. ID is strictly a scientific theory. It does not make metaphysical claims and can't make guesses about who the intelligent agent is, because would be considered religion and not science. What it does do is provide the best scientific explanation, based on present evidence, for the source of the digital code in DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is there to learn about ID? The natural world is amazing, absolutely. Beyond comprehension even, but to assert that *everything* that seems incredible is necessarily produced by a designer,
Click to expand...


Strawman. You are strawmanning alot lately. Are you getting desperate? ID doesn't claim *everything*, just digital code in dna, which happens to drive every LIVING thing on the planet.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4 nucleotides (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) are the alphabet of the genetic code, which is the language of the recipe book.
> 
> Each word in the language of genetics is 3 letters long and is called a codon.  A sentence composed of codons spells out the ingredients needed to make a protein.
> 
> The ingredients of proteins are molecules called amino acids.
> Only 20 different amino acids needed to make all the proteins in the body. Each 3-letter code represents the instruction to add a particular amino acid.
> 
> 
> A lot of the amino acids used come from the food we eat, whilst others are made in the by our own cells. Those that we can make ourselves are called non-essential amino acids, whilst those we get from our diet are essential amino acids.
> 
> There are some codons in the genetic code that don&#8217;t stand for an amino acid. Instead they&#8217;re like the capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and the full stop at the end. They&#8217;re called the start and stop codons and indeed tell the machinery making the protein to start and stop building.
> 
> The genetic code - the language of genetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA contains the genetic instructions for all living organisms
> 
> Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions. Within the nucleus of almost every one of these cells are long molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is like an organic blueprint or book of recipes. Your DNA is a genetic code that contains all the instructions needed to make an organism like you, to renew your cells and to keep your body functioning properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleotides are the &#8216;rungs&#8217; in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the &#8216;words&#8217; and &#8216;sentences&#8217; of your genetic code
> 
> 
> The language of life
> 
> DNA molecules are found within the nuclei of your cells and are really long chains of building blocks called nucleotides. These chains form the iconic twisting ladder structure (the double-helix) that was discovered by the Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. Nucleotides are the &#8216;rungs&#8217; in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the &#8216;words&#8217; and &#8216;sentences&#8217; of your genetic code, in which nucleotides are the &#8216;letters&#8217;. Nucleotides come in four different versions, adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, usually represented by the letters A, T, C and G, respectively. The human genetic code consists of about 3 billion of these four kinds of nucleotides. Each of your cells contains two copies of this genetic code, one inherited from your mother and the other from your father.
> 
> DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme
> 
> You will find mountains of literature supporting our view over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. The genetic code is amazing. It may mirror the code that we have built entirely. It wouldn't matter. How does that prove a creator in ANY WAY? It simply does not. This is an argument from personal incredulity: I simply can't believe this was created naturally, it must be a creator.  Sorry, that doesn't suffice as evidence or a theory. It suffices as giving up on a natural explanation, and trying to insert your god where science hasn't provided a full enough explanation. The whole way you are looking at this is completely backwards. You are leading the evidence, not following it, obviously to confirm your own beliefs of god. That is not science!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.
Click to expand...


There is no distinction between a creator and an intelligent designer, for all practical purposes, so don't get picky. You are trying to act scientific for a field that is unscientific. It's kind of funny. I'm not trying to be a dick, but its simply try. ID is not science, and never will be, so don't expect to be held to the same standards of precision as science.

"Darwinist" (I think you mean evolutionary) processes have nothing to do with the creation of genetic code, merely its variation over time, once it has been created. We are talking about abiogenesis, which is entirely different from evolution.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing it completely. Let me describe it. There is no "god" involved in this theory, but only you and I. We can make a scientifically verifiable assumption and use logic to reach the conclusion an intelligent agent is responsible for digital code. The binary code was being used in computers before the huge world of dna began to be discovered. Only intelligent agents are responsible for functional digital code. The agent responsible for dna could be an alien race or the Christian God, but ID theory is science, not religion, so it does not make any claims about the identity of the designer, only that it is the best explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ID is not theory it is religion. The entire framework of your argument is connected to the Christian god(s). Your links are often to fundie Christian creationist / ID promoting websites.
> 
> Are you hoping to revise or rename your claims to creationism? That's been done already. The ID'ers were exposed at the same wacky fundie creationists just wrapped in a shiny new package.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is not theory it is religion. The entire framework of your argument is connected to the Darwin priest. Your links are often to evo, sciene loathing websites.
> 
> Are you hoping to revise or rename your claims to Darwinsm? That's been done already. The Neo-Darwinists were exposed as the same wacky fundie Darwinists just wrapped in a shiny new package.
Click to expand...


Yet more of your 12 year old histrionics. What you cannot bring yourself to confront is that evolution has science theiry and fact to support it. As you are aware, it is only a few fundie Christian organizations and the Harun Yahya sites that promote creationism. 

The scientific community has long ago understood science as the means to best define and describe life on the planet. We have (well, most of us), moved beyond the Dark Ages of the Christian church burning people at the stake for exploring the scientific ideas you find so repulsive.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you test your hypothesis that* the complexity of the cell is the product of an intelligent designer*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, you have incorrectly stated the ID hypothesis above and built a strawman for the purposes of asking a question to tear down your strawman. The hypothesis is, "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as its source". This is the scientific hypothesis you have to work with. We can, as part of our argument, logically continue: DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, DNA must have an intelligent agent as its source. But the first statement is the one you have to work with scientifically.
> 
> (by the way, 99% of your stupid theory isn't testable but we will ignore that for the moment)  Here is the Hypothesis: "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as it's source." The theory is *testable*: We look for instances of functional digital code on the planet and then attempt to verify it's source. The more times we discover the source is an intelligent agent, the more evidence we have to prove our theory. The theory is *falsifiable*: If we find a functional digital code that self generated, or is the result of random forces in action with the bad code dropping out, then the theory is falsified. So far, the theory stands!
> 
> The EVo nuts have been unsuccessful at proposing any process for the original digital dna code. Absent of any other legitimate explanation for it's origins, we must defer to the best explanation of what we know about digital code for sure, i.e., it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. So if this was REAL science, and not the Darwin religiously motivated sham that it is, this theory should stand until such time as an Evomaniac discovers a natural process which produces DNA and is testable and repeatable. This doesn't count a bunch of the typical Darwin BS of "this *could have* happened" or "this *might have been* how it went down." We need a process in a test tube that pukes out functional, digital code that is repeatable. Much like this intelligent agent is sending bits and bytes your direction as we speak and you are decoding it on your end to receive a functional message.
> 
> Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about 'all functional digital code has humanity as it's source'.  Is there a digital code we can find, other than DNA which is the thing in contention, that isn't created by humans?  If we don't have any other intelligent sources creating digital code that we can observe, then unless you want to claim DNA was created by humans, I think the argument falls apart.
Click to expand...


Now you are asking what is the definition of an intelligent agent? Is my dog an intelligent agent? Flip to a non-scientific religious argument for second, God says he created us in His image. Should we be surprised that we invented computers???


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, you have incorrectly stated the ID hypothesis above and built a strawman for the purposes of asking a question to tear down your strawman. The hypothesis is, "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as its source". This is the scientific hypothesis you have to work with. We can, as part of our argument, logically continue: DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, DNA must have an intelligent agent as its source. But the first statement is the one you have to work with scientifically.
> 
> (by the way, 99% of your stupid theory isn't testable but we will ignore that for the moment)  Here is the Hypothesis: "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as it's source." The theory is *testable*: We look for instances of functional digital code on the planet and then attempt to verify it's source. The more times we discover the source is an intelligent agent, the more evidence we have to prove our theory. The theory is *falsifiable*: If we find a functional digital code that self generated, or is the result of random forces in action with the bad code dropping out, then the theory is falsified. So far, the theory stands!
> 
> The EVo nuts have been unsuccessful at proposing any process for the original digital dna code. Absent of any other legitimate explanation for it's origins, we must defer to the best explanation of what we know about digital code for sure, i.e., it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. So if this was REAL science, and not the Darwin religiously motivated sham that it is, this theory should stand until such time as an Evomaniac discovers a natural process which produces DNA and is testable and repeatable. This doesn't count a bunch of the typical Darwin BS of "this *could have* happened" or "this *might have been* how it went down." We need a process in a test tube that pukes out functional, digital code that is repeatable. Much like this intelligent agent is sending bits and bytes your direction as we speak and you are decoding it on your end to receive a functional message.
> 
> Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about 'all functional digital code has humanity as it's source'.  Is there a digital code we can find, other than DNA which is the thing in contention, that isn't created by humans?  If we don't have any other intelligent sources creating digital code that we can observe, then unless you want to claim DNA was created by humans, I think the argument falls apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of your 12 year old histrionics.
> 
> Your stuck on the "because I say so", argument. You can't seem to get past the dogma that is pushed at the ICR. That's too bad because you become the frothy, biased, religious zealot who has this need to attack people with his religious beliefs. Religion can be dangerous enough but in the hands of the true fundies, it becomes a mind altering hallucinogen.
Click to expand...


Ad Hollyman, I think you are obsessed with ICR. How much time do you spend there? Why do you keep quoting them to prove your points?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. The genetic code is amazing. It may mirror the code that we have built entirely. It wouldn't matter. How does that prove a creator in ANY WAY? It simply does not. This is an argument from personal incredulity: I simply can't believe this was created naturally, it must be a creator.  Sorry, that doesn't suffice as evidence or a theory. It suffices as giving up on a natural explanation, and trying to insert your god where science hasn't provided a full enough explanation. The whole way you are looking at this is completely backwards. You are leading the evidence, not following it, obviously to confirm your own beliefs of god. That is not science!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no distinction between a creator and an intelligent designer, for all practical purposes, so don't get picky. You are trying to act scientific for a field that is unscientific. It's kind of funny. I'm not trying to be a dick, but its simply try. ID is not science, and never will be, so don't expect to be held to the same standards of precision as science.
> 
> "Darwinist" (I think you mean evolutionary) processes have nothing to do with the creation of genetic code, merely its variation over time, once it has been created. We are talking about abiogenesis, which is entirely different from evolution.
Click to expand...


See my two questions posed to Ad Hollyman and give me an honest answer. Your response above gets about as close as anything anyone here has come up with to actually answering my first question.


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.



With the religious fixation of a designer needed to create DNA, that also begs the question of who or what is the designer of the designer who designed DNA.

The fundies always stop at the first order of designer assuming that "because I say so" is the reason why a second order designer is not needed. But of course, that's false.

With the presumption that the first order designer is the Christian formulated god (something the fundies don't always like to admit is their agenda), we're in a continuous feedback loop of fundies insisting that one supernatural is absolutely reasonable and rational but a designer designing the designer is just absurd.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> You are trying to act scientific for a field that is unscientific. It's kind of funny. I'm not trying to be a dick, but its simply try. ID is not science, and never will be, so don't expect to be held to the same standards of precision as science.



Okay, so how should we proceed. If we say we believe the Intelligent Designer is the Judeo Christian God, you scream we are mixing religion and science. 

If we say we will only consider scientific evidence and not make statements about the identity of the designer, you scream cover up.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the religious fixation of a designer needed to create DNA, that also begs the question of who or what is the designer of the designer who designed DNA.
> 
> The fundies always stop at the first order of designer assuming that "because I say so" is the reason why a second order designer is not needed. But of course, that's false.
> 
> With the presumption that the first order designer is the Christian formulated god (something the fundies don't always like to admit is their agenda), we're in a continuous feedback loop of fundies insisting that one supernatural is absolutely reasonable and rational but a designer designing the designer is just absurd.
Click to expand...


This sounds like more garbage from ICR. Why are you so obsessed with them?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no distinction between a creator and an intelligent designer, for all practical purposes, so don't get picky. You are trying to act scientific for a field that is unscientific. It's kind of funny. I'm not trying to be a dick, but its simply try. ID is not science, and never will be, so don't expect to be held to the same standards of precision as science.
> 
> "Darwinist" (I think you mean evolutionary) processes have nothing to do with the creation of genetic code, merely its variation over time, once it has been created. We are talking about abiogenesis, which is entirely different from evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my two questions posed to Ad Hollyman and give me an honest answer. Your response above gets about as close as anything anyone here has come up with to actually answering my first question.
Click to expand...


It's easy to tell when the  teenage fundies are frustrated; they resort to name-calling.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the religious fixation of a designer needed to create DNA, that also begs the question of who or what is the designer of the designer who designed DNA.
> 
> The fundies always stop at the first order of designer assuming that "because I say so" is the reason why a second order designer is not needed. But of course, that's false.
> 
> With the presumption that the first order designer is the Christian formulated god (something the fundies don't always like to admit is their agenda), we're in a continuous feedback loop of fundies insisting that one supernatural is absolutely reasonable and rational but a designer designing the designer is just absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds like more garbage from ICR. Why are you so obsessed with them?
Click to expand...


They supply the fodder for your arguments. I'm deeply concerned that you can't separate your teenage fantasies from the putrid bile they teach you.


----------



## UltimateReality

Well this is a trip!!! Kind of puts any arguments about DNA not being almost identical to our computers to rest, that is, except for Hollyman, who will ignore the copy in this wiki quote and post something about ICR.

"*DNA computing* is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing.

Capabilities:

DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, *DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far*. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, Caltech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands, which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10]"

DNA computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no distinction between a creator and an intelligent designer, for all practical purposes, so don't get picky. You are trying to act scientific for a field that is unscientific. It's kind of funny. I'm not trying to be a dick, but its simply try. ID is not science, and never will be, so don't expect to be held to the same standards of precision as science.
> 
> "Darwinist" (I think you mean evolutionary) processes have nothing to do with the creation of genetic code, merely its variation over time, once it has been created. We are talking about abiogenesis, which is entirely different from evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my two questions posed to Ad Hollyman and give me an honest answer. Your response above gets about as close as anything anyone here has come up with to actually answering my first question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's easy to tell when the  teenage fundies are frustrated; they resort to name-calling.
Click to expand...


And "fundie creationists" isn't name calling?? 

Do unto others as you would have them do to you.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the religious fixation of a designer needed to create DNA, that also begs the question of who or what is the designer of the designer who designed DNA.
> 
> The fundies always stop at the first order of designer assuming that "because I say so" is the reason why a second order designer is not needed. But of course, that's false.
> 
> With the presumption that the first order designer is the Christian formulated god (something the fundies don't always like to admit is their agenda), we're in a continuous feedback loop of fundies insisting that one supernatural is absolutely reasonable and rational but a designer designing the designer is just absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds like more garbage from ICR. Why are you so obsessed with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They supply the fodder for your arguments. I'm deeply concerned that you can't separate your teenage fantasies from the putrid bile they teach you.
Click to expand...


ICR is the basis for your arguments. That is why you are always quoting them.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Well this is a trip!!! Kind of puts any arguments about DNA not being almost identical to our computers to rest, that is, except for Hollyman, who will ignore the copy in this wiki quote and post something about ICR.
> 
> "*DNA computing* is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing.
> 
> Capabilities:
> 
> DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, *DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far*. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, Caltech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands, which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10]"
> 
> DNA computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You should read what you posted. The Intelligent Designers being discussed are researchers at CalTech. Theres nothing supernatural about DNA research.

There was no mention of gods in the article. 

I'm afraid your juvenile name-calling and appeals to the gods of science at Caltech have left you and your pals at the ICR with more credibility issues.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds like more garbage from ICR. Why are you so obsessed with them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They supply the fodder for your arguments. I'm deeply concerned that you can't separate your teenage fantasies from the putrid bile they teach you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ICR is the basis for your arguments. That is why you are always quoting them.
Click to expand...


That makes no sense. I have not quoted from the ICR. WIth name-calling not working you're now moving on to lies? I am a-religious toward all claims to gods and supernaturalism.  I find so much of it damaging to humanity. One look at your posts in this thread is evidence of that. Read your own posts. They're a mess of irrational, inconsistent cuting and pasting from fundie religious sites with no attempt at credibility or personal accountability. When anyone wreaks havoc with your claims, you retreat into sweaty, feverish, chest heaving name-calling. Its an embarassment to everyone but you.


----------



## newpolitics

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the religious fixation of a designer needed to create DNA, that also begs the question of who or what is the designer of the designer who designed DNA.
> 
> The fundies always stop at the first order of designer assuming that "because I say so" is the reason why a second order designer is not needed. But of course, that's false.
> 
> With the presumption that the first order designer is the Christian formulated god (something the fundies don't always like to admit is their agenda), we're in a continuous feedback loop of fundies insisting that one supernatural is absolutely reasonable and rational but a designer designing the designer is just absurd.
Click to expand...


I did not say this and do not want credit for this. Ultimate Reality is the one who wrote this.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go strawmanning again using words like creator. ID says that an intelligent agent is responsible for DNA. If you want to think of this unknown agent as a creator then go ahead. Lyell and Darwin believed the key to the distant past is the present. We find ALL digital code in the present has an intelligent source. We don't find any digital code spontaneously arising or spontaneously generating through natural processes, not even dna, since it is not arising, but being passed from the original source for thousands (YWC) or millions or billions of years. An intelligent agent as the source is the best explanation based on the evidence we have. We have no evidence that Darwinist processes can produce digital code. None. Nada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no distinction between a creator and an intelligent designer, for all practical purposes, so don't get picky. You are trying to act scientific for a field that is unscientific. It's kind of funny. I'm not trying to be a dick, but its simply try. ID is not science, and never will be, so don't expect to be held to the same standards of precision as science.
> 
> "Darwinist" (I think you mean evolutionary) processes have nothing to do with the creation of genetic code, merely its variation over time, once it has been created. We are talking about abiogenesis, which is entirely different from evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my two questions posed to Ad Hollyman and give me an honest answer. Your response above gets about as close as anything anyone here has come up with to actually answering my first question.
Click to expand...


Here is the original quote, in context. This was probably a simple mistake, but I still would like to correct it, because I don't want anyone thinking I agree with ID, even for a second.


----------



## Hollie

I need to fess'up for my error. My mistake. My apologies for the mistake.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And neither are you!!!! If you were, you could answer the two questions I've posed numerous times on this thread regarding origins and evolution. None of your evo fools can seem to answer them so nice try at sound scientific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you posted material mined from Christian creationist websites with a predefined agenda of supporting a religious view. Religion is not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you do the research and provide an answer to my two questions?
Click to expand...


What two questions? Would you mind repeating them? I tried to search back but can't find them.


----------



## newpolitics

Hollie said:


> I need to fess'up for my error. My mistake. My apologies for the mistake.




That's totally okay! I just don't want to be mistaken for someone who follows ID. No worries


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They supply the fodder for your arguments. I'm deeply concerned that you can't separate your teenage fantasies from the putrid bile they teach you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ICR is the basis for your arguments. That is why you are always quoting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. I have not quoted from the ICR. WIth name-calling not working you're now moving on to lies? I am a-religious toward all claims to gods and supernaturalism.  I find so much of it damaging to humanity. One look at your posts in this thread is evidence of that. Read your own posts. They're a mess of irrational, inconsistent cuting and pasting from fundie religious sites with no attempt at credibility or personal accountability. When anyone wreaks havoc with your claims, you retreat into sweaty, feverish, chest heaving name-calling. Its an embarassment to everyone but you.
Click to expand...


You should really cool it with the name calling and grow up.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ICR is the basis for your arguments. That is why you are always quoting them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. I have not quoted from the ICR. WIth name-calling not working you're now moving on to lies? I am a-religious toward all claims to gods and supernaturalism.  I find so much of it damaging to humanity. One look at your posts in this thread is evidence of that. Read your own posts. They're a mess of irrational, inconsistent cuting and pasting from fundie religious sites with no attempt at credibility or personal accountability. When anyone wreaks havoc with your claims, you retreat into sweaty, feverish, chest heaving name-calling. Its an embarassment to everyone but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should really cool it with the name calling and grow up.
Click to expand...

You've been spamming with similar false claims in prior posts.

It's telling that you defend your behavior by compounding your juvenile behavior.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, you have incorrectly stated the ID hypothesis above and built a strawman for the purposes of asking a question to tear down your strawman. The hypothesis is, "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as its source". This is the scientific hypothesis you have to work with. We can, as part of our argument, logically continue: DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, DNA must have an intelligent agent as its source. But the first statement is the one you have to work with scientifically.
> 
> (by the way, 99% of your stupid theory isn't testable but we will ignore that for the moment)  Here is the Hypothesis: "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as it's source." The theory is *testable*: We look for instances of functional digital code on the planet and then attempt to verify it's source. The more times we discover the source is an intelligent agent, the more evidence we have to prove our theory. The theory is *falsifiable*: If we find a functional digital code that self generated, or is the result of random forces in action with the bad code dropping out, then the theory is falsified. So far, the theory stands!
> 
> The EVo nuts have been unsuccessful at proposing any process for the original digital dna code. Absent of any other legitimate explanation for it's origins, we must defer to the best explanation of what we know about digital code for sure, i.e., it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. So if this was REAL science, and not the Darwin religiously motivated sham that it is, this theory should stand until such time as an Evomaniac discovers a natural process which produces DNA and is testable and repeatable. This doesn't count a bunch of the typical Darwin BS of "this *could have* happened" or "this *might have been* how it went down." We need a process in a test tube that pukes out functional, digital code that is repeatable. Much like this intelligent agent is sending bits and bytes your direction as we speak and you are decoding it on your end to receive a functional message.
> 
> Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about 'all functional digital code has humanity as it's source'.  Is there a digital code we can find, other than DNA which is the thing in contention, that isn't created by humans?  If we don't have any other intelligent sources creating digital code that we can observe, then unless you want to claim DNA was created by humans, I think the argument falls apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are asking what is the definition of an intelligent agent? Is my dog an intelligent agent? Flip to a non-scientific religious argument for second, God says he created us in His image. Should we be surprised that we invented computers???
Click to expand...


No, that is not what I am asking.

I am saying a couple of things.  First, based on the idea that since we only see digital code created by intelligence, and DNA is a digital code, it must be made by an intelligence, since we only see digital code created by humans, if DNA is a digital code, it must be made by humans.  Second, I am saying that if humanity is the only intelligent source we have evidence for (in the context of this argument) then we don't have enough data to know if all intelligent sources would create things with the same characteristics.

As to your religious argument, since I don't believe in your god, all of that is irrelevant.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about 'all functional digital code has humanity as it's source'.  Is there a digital code we can find, other than DNA which is the thing in contention, that isn't created by humans?  If we don't have any other intelligent sources creating digital code that we can observe, then unless you want to claim DNA was created by humans, I think the argument falls apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are asking what is the definition of an intelligent agent? Is my dog an intelligent agent? Flip to a non-scientific religious argument for second, God says he created us in His image. Should we be surprised that we invented computers???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I am asking.
> 
> I am saying a couple of things.  First, based on the idea that since we only see digital code created by intelligence, and DNA is a digital code, it must be made by an intelligence, since we only see digital code created by humans, if DNA is a digital code, it must be made by humans.  Second, I am saying that if humanity is the only intelligent source we have evidence for (in the context of this argument) then we don't have enough data to know if all intelligent sources would create things with the same characteristics.
> 
> As to your religious argument, since I don't believe in your god, all of that is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


I think that is what you should be asking because the argument you propose above really boils down to the question, "what is intelligence?" The crux of your argument is that we can't introduce another intelligent being into the argument, only us because we are currently the only ones creating code. That leaves the TOE severely lacking in the area as well because they have zero answers to the origins questions. So in absence of any other evidence, right now intelligence is really the only logical conclusion for the digital code in dna. This is based on the evidence which we can observe, not abstract ideas that are un-proven and speculation at best. We can readily observe that intelligence, our intelligence, is responsible for the digital code used in computers, but also we possess a functional language as well that can be used to convey abstract ideas and thinking. 

To your other point, the fact we could propose a logical argument to conclude that humans created dna is valid. However, we have other evidence that leads us to believe dna pre-dates humans by a few billion years, so your argument can almost instantly be falsified, and we must exclude ourselves from the possibility, leaving another IA as being responsible. 

I guess I really need for you to expound on the reason you feel another agent is excluded, as long as we can agree on some common traits of what an intellligent agent possesses.

From wiki-use with caution:

*The definition of intelligence is controversial.* Groups of scientists have stated the following:

    from "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (1994), an editorial statement by fifty-two researchers:

        A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings&#8212;"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.[5]

    from "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (1995), a report published by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association:

        Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions.[6][7]


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, you have incorrectly stated the ID hypothesis above and built a strawman for the purposes of asking a question to tear down your strawman. The hypothesis is, "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as its source". This is the scientific hypothesis you have to work with. We can, as part of our argument, logically continue: DNA is a functional digital code. Therefore, DNA must have an intelligent agent as its source. But the first statement is the one you have to work with scientifically.
> 
> (by the way, 99% of your stupid theory isn't testable but we will ignore that for the moment)  Here is the Hypothesis: "All functional digital code has an intelligent agent as it's source." The theory is *testable*: We look for instances of functional digital code on the planet and then attempt to verify it's source. The more times we discover the source is an intelligent agent, the more evidence we have to prove our theory. The theory is *falsifiable*: If we find a functional digital code that self generated, or is the result of random forces in action with the bad code dropping out, then the theory is falsified. So far, the theory stands!
> 
> The EVo nuts have been unsuccessful at proposing any process for the original digital dna code. Absent of any other legitimate explanation for it's origins, we must defer to the best explanation of what we know about digital code for sure, i.e., it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. So if this was REAL science, and not the Darwin religiously motivated sham that it is, this theory should stand until such time as an Evomaniac discovers a natural process which produces DNA and is testable and repeatable. This doesn't count a bunch of the typical Darwin BS of "this *could have* happened" or "this *might have been* how it went down." We need a process in a test tube that pukes out functional, digital code that is repeatable. Much like this intelligent agent is sending bits and bytes your direction as we speak and you are decoding it on your end to receive a functional message.
> 
> Okay, Ad Hollyman, rebut this!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about 'all functional digital code has humanity as it's source'.  Is there a digital code we can find, other than DNA which is the thing in contention, that isn't created by humans?  If we don't have any other intelligent sources creating digital code that we can observe, then unless you want to claim DNA was created by humans, I think the argument falls apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are asking what is the definition of an intelligent agent? Is my dog an intelligent agent? Flip to a non-scientific religious argument for second, God says he created us in His image. Should we be surprised that we invented computers???
Click to expand...


What??? Who cares what god "said" in an ancient book written by unreliable sources 2,000 years ago for which we have zero original copies.  Then, to use what he "said" as an explanation of our ability to manufacture computers is quite hilarious.

I watched your little video on genetics. It was quite boring and was nothing new to me, although factual. Try this, a video on cosmology.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyH2D4-tzfM&feature=related]What We Still Don&#39;t Know: "Are We Real?" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Second, I am saying that if humanity is the only intelligent source we have evidence for (in the context of this argument) then we don't have enough data to know if *ALL *intelligent sources would create things with the same characteristics.


 You are correct in this assertion.

I really feel out of many of the posters, you really genuinely are here seeking an opposing viewpoint to broaden your knowledge base, so I don't think the statement above is you trying to throw a trick into the argument.  But I do have to point out the way your argument is constructed, the word *"all"* does not follow from the argument and if placed in the context of this logical argument, would be fallacious. We really aren't making that claim. Let's see what we actually can deduce:

(some) Humans produce digital code. (this has to be true)
(all) Humans are intelligent beings. (this has to be true)  And I might change this to "some" after some of the posts on here. 
All intelligent beings produce digital code. (This is a fallacy but this isn't...

*Some* intelligent beings produce digital code. So while we couldn't claim that *all *intelligent beings would create things with the same characteristics, we can logically conclude that some intelligent beings would create things with the same characteristics as others IB's.

Here is a pretty good explanation, from Wiki no less, on syllogisms. Ad Hollyman should read this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you posted material mined from Christian creationist websites with a predefined agenda of supporting a religious view. Religion is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you do the research and provide an answer to my two questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What two questions? Would you mind repeating them? I tried to search back but can't find them.
Click to expand...


I don't ask these as some kind of trick. I really want to know if there is a consistent view on this from the TOE camp...

1. At what point in known organisms, cells and structures, does the theory of evolution propose to begin. How far back does evolution start to explain where we are now. Where does abiogenisis actually end and the TOE begin.

2. What does the common ancestor evolutionists continually refer to look like? Is it a hominid, or a single cell organism? Again, at what speciation level is common ancestry said to begin?

So just what does the TOE cover? Where does it begin?


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, I am saying that if humanity is the only intelligent source we have evidence for (in the context of this argument) then we don't have enough data to know if *ALL *intelligent sources would create things with the same characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct in this assertion.
> 
> I really feel out of many of the posters, you really genuinely are here seeking an opposing viewpoint to broaden your knowledge base, so I don't think the statement above is you trying to throw a trick into the argument.  But I do have to point out the way your argument is constructed, the word *"all"* does not follow from the argument and if placed in the context of this logical argument, would be fallacious. We really aren't making that claim. Let's see what we actually can deduce:
> 
> (some) Humans produce digital code. (this has to be true)
> (all) Humans are intelligent beings. (this has to be true)  And I might change this to "some" after some of the posts on here.
> All intelligent beings produce digital code. (This is a fallacy but this isn't...
> 
> *Some* intelligent beings produce digital code. So while we couldn't claim that *all *intelligent beings would create things with the same characteristics, we can logically conclude that some intelligent beings would create things with the same characteristics as others IB's.
> 
> Here is a pretty good explanation, from Wiki no less, on syllogisms. Ad Hollyman should read this...
> 
> Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


There are a number of issues I have with the digital code in DNA argument, most importantly that I'm not entirely sure just what definition you are using for digital code, and also that there is a huge difference between a man-made machine and a biologic organism, even if you describe the functioning of that organism as machine-like.  

To stick with this particular point, while we can certainly conclude that some intelligences will create digital code as we see it from humanity, that doesn't actually indicate we will see it from any other intelligence.  More, because we have no direct evidence of other intelligences even existing (for the purposes of this argument I am excluding other terrestrial animal life, as what we know of them is that they do not reach our level of intelligence and do not create any sort of digital code) there is simply not enough evidence to draw any conclusions about intelligent design of life.  

Now, show me a purely mechanical device of non-human origin and everything is different.  As I said, though, because life functions differently than machines (even if you discount evolution, you must admit that living reproduction makes for much more variety than you would see from, say, an automated assembly line) I think it becomes much more difficult to make a convincing design argument.

To put it in simple terms, because I have neither the education nor knowledge to be especially detailed about the subject, there are many things in the universe we can see that defy explanation.  How life came to be, how the universe came to be, questions of space and time (is the universe finite?  If so, what is beyond it?  Is it possible the universe is finite and yet there is nothing beyond it?), all these kinds of questions can leave me feeling extremely ignorant and insignificant.  For many of these questions I can hardly begin to wonder at the answers, let alone how they could exist without something having created them.  But my (and humanity's) inability to see a way for something to occur naturally does not mean it could not; it just means we don't know how it happened.  

I guess it comes down to me needing more positive proof something was designed, rather than evidence against any hypotheses of random occurrence.  Showing some similarities to human-created mechanical things is not that kind of positive evidence IMO.  The complete lack of evidence of other intelligences, the lack of reference, makes it even less compelling.  I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility of design, but at this point, even with this digital code argument, it is just as possible this arose through a random process we don't yet understand.

Whether gods or aliens, until we have objective evidence that another intelligence is out there and can see it's creations, I doubt I will be able to accept any of the arguments for ID.  The evidence remains too much what we don't know rather than what we do.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, I am saying that if humanity is the only intelligent source we have evidence for (in the context of this argument) then we don't have enough data to know if *ALL *intelligent sources would create things with the same characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct in this assertion.
> 
> I really feel out of many of the posters, you really genuinely are here seeking an opposing viewpoint to broaden your knowledge base, so I don't think the statement above is you trying to throw a trick into the argument.  But I do have to point out the way your argument is constructed, the word *"all"* does not follow from the argument and if placed in the context of this logical argument, would be fallacious. We really aren't making that claim. Let's see what we actually can deduce:
> 
> (some) Humans produce digital code. (this has to be true)
> (all) Humans are intelligent beings. (this has to be true)  And I might change this to "some" after some of the posts on here.
> All intelligent beings produce digital code. (This is a fallacy but this isn't...
> 
> *Some* intelligent beings produce digital code. So while we couldn't claim that *all *intelligent beings would create things with the same characteristics, we can logically conclude that some intelligent beings would create things with the same characteristics as others IB's.
> 
> Here is a pretty good explanation, from Wiki no less, on syllogisms. Ad Hollyman should read this...
> 
> Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


The primary issue with your continuing arguments (in addition to your juvenile name-calling), is that you are unable to separate your requirement to introduce the gods and supernaturalism from a completely rational environment.

These are natural, rational elements that don't require supernatural causation or mechanisms. You lead you argument above with the presumption of gods when no gods are needed. Those are the same tactics used by Harun Yahya and fundie creationist groups. 

Let's use some terms and definitions that are more appropriate for the name-calling mentality. Introduce the term _"The Easter Bunny"_ in place of "designer / gods" in your paragraphs above.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, I am saying that if humanity is the only intelligent source we have evidence for (in the context of this argument) then we don't have enough data to know if *ALL *intelligent sources would create things with the same characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct in this assertion.
> 
> I really feel out of many of the posters, you really genuinely are here seeking an opposing viewpoint to broaden your knowledge base, so I don't think the statement above is you trying to throw a trick into the argument.  But I do have to point out the way your argument is constructed, the word *"all"* does not follow from the argument and if placed in the context of this logical argument, would be fallacious. We really aren't making that claim. Let's see what we actually can deduce:
> 
> (some) Humans produce digital code. (this has to be true)
> (all) Humans are intelligent beings. (this has to be true)  And I might change this to "some" after some of the posts on here.
> All intelligent beings produce digital code. (This is a fallacy but this isn't...
> 
> *Some* intelligent beings produce digital code. So while we couldn't claim that *all *intelligent beings would create things with the same characteristics, we can logically conclude that some intelligent beings would create things with the same characteristics as others IB's.
> 
> Here is a pretty good explanation, from Wiki no less, on syllogisms. Ad Hollyman should read this...
> 
> Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The primary issue with your continuing arguments (in addition to your juvenile name-calling), is that you are unable to separate your requirement to introduce the gods and supernaturalism from a completely rational environment.
> 
> These are natural, rational elements that don't require supernatural causation or mechanisms. You lead you argument above with the presumption of gods when no gods are needed. Those are the same tactics used by Harun Yahya and fundie creationist groups.
> 
> Let's use some terms and definitions that are more appropriate for the name-calling mentality. Introduce the term _"The Easter Bunny"_ in place of "designer / gods" in your paragraphs above.
Click to expand...


The ability to reason from evidence is a problem for you and some of your fellow evolutionists. The wind you can's see but you know it exists and you can see it's effects. God is a spirit and he is like the wind.

The difference is one side can admit to intelligence in nature where the other side reluctantly admits to it,why ?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will you do the research and provide an answer to my two questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What two questions? Would you mind repeating them? I tried to search back but can't find them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't ask these as some kind of trick. I really want to know if there is a consistent view on this from the TOE camp...
> 
> 1. At what point in known organisms, cells and structures, does the theory of evolution propose to begin. How far back does evolution start to explain where we are now. Where does abiogenisis actually end and the TOE begin.
> 
> 2. What does the common ancestor evolutionists continually refer to look like? Is it a hominid, or a single cell organism? Again, at what speciation level is common ancestry said to begin?
> 
> So just what does the TOE cover? Where does it begin?
Click to expand...

Your questions at this point in the thread are not surprising. It's been obvious from an early point in the thread that your knowledge of evolutionary science was limited to what you have been indoctrinated with on creationist websites. Your knowledge is stunted and it is only you who can make a concerted effort to learn evolutionary fact from creationist falsehoods.

That's why it has been so exasperating trying to explain to you the science as you had never been exposed to, or never had the inclination to seek knowledge beyond religious perspectives. 

Let's also be honest and acknowledge that your questions above are both disengenuous and... _smarmy_, being an appropriate term. Your need to sling into your goofy pattern of juvenile name-calling is lurking. It has an odor.

You can find the answers to the questions above. But you won't even look.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What two questions? Would you mind repeating them? I tried to search back but can't find them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ask these as some kind of trick. I really want to know if there is a consistent view on this from the TOE camp...
> 
> 1. At what point in known organisms, cells and structures, does the theory of evolution propose to begin. How far back does evolution start to explain where we are now. Where does abiogenisis actually end and the TOE begin.
> 
> 2. What does the common ancestor evolutionists continually refer to look like? Is it a hominid, or a single cell organism? Again, at what speciation level is common ancestry said to begin?
> 
> So just what does the TOE cover? Where does it begin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your questions at this point in the thread are not surprising. It's been obvious from an early point in the thread that your knowledge of evolutionary science was limited to what you have been indoctrinated with on creationist websites. Your knowledge is stunted and it is only you who can make a concerted effort to learn evolutionary fact from creationist falsehoods.
> 
> That's why it has been so exasperating trying to explain to you the science as you had never been exposed to, or never had the inclination to seek knowledge beyond religious perspectives.
> 
> Let's also be honest and acknowledge that your questions above are both disengenuous and... _smarmy_, being an appropriate term. Your need to sling into your goofy pattern of juvenile name-calling is lurking. It has an odor.
> 
> You can find the answers to the questions above. But you won't even look.
Click to expand...


Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Funny, you talk about my name calling. You really are totally oblivious to your own behavior deficiencies, aren't you?
Hollymen, wouldn't it have been easier just to answer the questions than to go on obsessing about me? 

You don't really know the answer do you?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ask these as some kind of trick. I really want to know if there is a consistent view on this from the TOE camp...
> 
> 1. At what point in known organisms, cells and structures, does the theory of evolution propose to begin. How far back does evolution start to explain where we are now. Where does abiogenisis actually end and the TOE begin.
> 
> 2. What does the common ancestor evolutionists continually refer to look like? Is it a hominid, or a single cell organism? Again, at what speciation level is common ancestry said to begin?
> 
> So just what does the TOE cover? Where does it begin?
> 
> 
> 
> Your questions at this point in the thread are not surprising. It's been obvious from an early point in the thread that your knowledge of evolutionary science was limited to what you have been indoctrinated with on creationist websites. Your knowledge is stunted and it is only you who can make a concerted effort to learn evolutionary fact from creationist falsehoods.
> 
> That's why it has been so exasperating trying to explain to you the science as you had never been exposed to, or never had the inclination to seek knowledge beyond religious perspectives.
> 
> Let's also be honest and acknowledge that your questions above are both disengenuous and... _smarmy_, being an appropriate term. Your need to sling into your goofy pattern of juvenile name-calling is lurking. It has an odor.
> 
> You can find the answers to the questions above. But you won't even look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Funny, you talk about my name calling. You really are totally oblivious to your own behavior deficiencies, aren't you?
> Hollymen, wouldn't it have been easier just to answer the questions than to go on obsessing about me?
> 
> You don't really know the answer do you?
Click to expand...


There are actually several possible explanations. Although, none of them are explored on creationist websites. That's the danger you run in to when you're completely dishonest and make no attempt to understand the issues except to insist on supernatural explanations which are not explanations at all.

Who is obsessing? You posed your silly questions to me. You can look two posts back if you've lost track of what you're posting. 

It seems that your juvenile name-calling is the real obsession.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your questions at this point in the thread are not surprising. It's been obvious from an early point in the thread that your knowledge of evolutionary science was limited to what you have been indoctrinated with on creationist websites. Your knowledge is stunted and it is only you who can make a concerted effort to learn evolutionary fact from creationist falsehoods.
> 
> That's why it has been so exasperating trying to explain to you the science as you had never been exposed to, or never had the inclination to seek knowledge beyond religious perspectives.
> 
> Let's also be honest and acknowledge that your questions above are both disengenuous and... _smarmy_, being an appropriate term. Your need to sling into your goofy pattern of juvenile name-calling is lurking. It has an odor.
> 
> You can find the answers to the questions above. But you won't even look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Funny, you talk about my name calling. You really are totally oblivious to your own behavior deficiencies, aren't you?
> Hollymen, wouldn't it have been easier just to answer the questions than to go on obsessing about me?
> 
> You don't really know the answer do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are actually several possible explanations. Although, none of them are explored on creationist websites. That's the danger you run in to when you're completely dishonest and make no attempt to understand the issues except to insist on supernatural explanations which are not explanations at all.
> 
> Who is obsessing? You posed your silly questions to me. You can look two posts back if you've lost track of what you're posting.
> 
> It seems that your juvenile name-calling is the real obsession.
Click to expand...


You try to act like I could find the answer to my two questions but you haven't tried, and you really don't know do you? The rest of your posts are useless camo verbiage for your lack of knowledge on the subject.

In fact, you pretty much haven't added anything to the discussion other than going on about ICR endlessly.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Funny, you talk about my name calling. You really are totally oblivious to your own behavior deficiencies, aren't you?
> Hollymen, wouldn't it have been easier just to answer the questions than to go on obsessing about me?
> 
> You don't really know the answer do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are actually several possible explanations. Although, none of them are explored on creationist websites. That's the danger you run in to when you're completely dishonest and make no attempt to understand the issues except to insist on supernatural explanations which are not explanations at all.
> 
> Who is obsessing? You posed your silly questions to me. You can look two posts back if you've lost track of what you're posting.
> 
> It seems that your juvenile name-calling is the real obsession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You try to act like I could find the answer to my two questions but you haven't tried, and you really don't know do you? The rest of your posts are useless camo verbiage for your lack of knowledge on the subject.
> 
> In fact, you pretty much haven't added anything to the discussion other than going on about ICR endlessly.
Click to expand...


Acually, so mch of your posting is cut and paste from creationist websites followed by mindless name-calling, I can't recall a single, rational point you have added to this thread. 

"Going on about the ICR" is a function of your claims being nothing more than the nonsense they offer.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are actually several possible explanations. Although, none of them are explored on creationist websites. That's the danger you run in to when you're completely dishonest and make no attempt to understand the issues except to insist on supernatural explanations which are not explanations at all.
> 
> Who is obsessing? You posed your silly questions to me. You can look two posts back if you've lost track of what you're posting.
> 
> It seems that your juvenile name-calling is the real obsession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You try to act like I could find the answer to my two questions but you haven't tried, and you really don't know do you? The rest of your posts are useless camo verbiage for your lack of knowledge on the subject.
> 
> In fact, you pretty much haven't added anything to the discussion other than going on about ICR endlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acually, so mch of your posting is cut and paste from creationist websites followed by mindless name-calling, I can't recall a single, rational point you have added to this thread.
> 
> "Going on about the ICR" is a function of your claims being nothing more than the nonsense they offer.
Click to expand...


And still no real answer from. Just camouflage verbiage.


----------



## UltimateReality

I will give you a real answer to my common ancestry question. Your Darwinist camp goes around talking about him/her/it all the time, but (just like evolution is a myth) the common ancestor is a mythical creature, with only unproven and untested speculation existing on the subject except for genetic studies that proved to any sane scientist, there is no such thing as a common ancestor. Funny that people make fun of Christians for talking about God when they believe he doesn't exist, yet the god of evolution, the common ancestor, is talked about all the time like it is really real. Doh!!! There goes Darwin's tree of life!!! Wonder why it is still in textbooks and we are still talking about.

"In 1998, Carl Woese proposed (1) that *no individual organism can be considered a LUA,* and (2) that the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derived through horizontal gene transfer among an ancient community of organisms.[13] In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life",[14] a formal test of universal common ancestry was published.[15] *The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses which included horizontal gene transfer.* However, the formal test was *ambiguous* with respect to the community of organisms hypothesis, since it did not require that the last universal common ancestor be a single organism, but *allowed it to be a population of organisms with different genotypes that lived in different places and times*.[UR:Gag!!! so what does this prove-nothing] The formal test was also consistent with multiple populations with independent origins gaining the ability to exchange essential genetic material effectively to become one species.[15]"

Here Hollymen, read this and report back to me with your thoughts on this. See if you can actually do it without mentioning a Creationist website, but actually have a logical discussion about a REAL topic instead of repeating the same vitriol over and over. 

Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You try to act like I could find the answer to my two questions but you haven't tried, and you really don't know do you? The rest of your posts are useless camo verbiage for your lack of knowledge on the subject.
> 
> In fact, you pretty much haven't added anything to the discussion other than going on about ICR endlessly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acually, so mch of your posting is cut and paste from creationist websites followed by mindless name-calling, I can't recall a single, rational point you have added to this thread.
> 
> "Going on about the ICR" is a function of your claims being nothing more than the nonsense they offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And still no real answer from. Just camouflage verbiage.
Click to expand...

You've been given the answer. You just continue to insist that there are gods who are responsible for all creation and your every breath is consumed with vilifying science in the failed hope that will somehow support your gods. It's a ridiculous worldview but one that is common to the science loathing, ICR worshiping types.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> I will give you a real answer to my common ancestry question. Your Darwinist camp goes around talking about him/her/it all the time, but (just like evolution is a myth) the common ancestor is a mythical creature, with only unproven and untested speculation existing on the subject except for genetic studies that proved to any sane scientist, there is no such thing as a common ancestor. Funny that people make fun of Christians for talking about God when they believe he doesn't exist, yet the god of evolution, the common ancestor, is talked about all the time like it is really real. Doh!!! There goes Darwin's tree of life!!! Wonder why it is still in textbooks and we are still talking about.
> 
> "In 1998, Carl Woese proposed (1) that *no individual organism can be considered a LUA,* and (2) that the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derived through horizontal gene transfer among an ancient community of organisms.[13] In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life",[14] a formal test of universal common ancestry was published.[15] *The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses which included horizontal gene transfer.* However, the formal test was *ambiguous* with respect to the community of organisms hypothesis, since it did not require that the last universal common ancestor be a single organism, but *allowed it to be a population of organisms with different genotypes that lived in different places and times*.[UR:Gag!!! so what does this prove-nothing] The formal test was also consistent with multiple populations with independent origins gaining the ability to exchange essential genetic material effectively to become one species.[15]"
> 
> Here Hollymen, read this and report back to me with your thoughts on this. See if you can actually do it without mentioning a Creationist website, but actually have a logical discussion about a REAL topic instead of repeating the same vitriol over and over.
> 
> Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Your revulsion for the science of evolution (and all science), will not make that science go away. 

And as usual, your copying and pasting from fundie religious sites is appended with your usual juvenile name-calling. If you cannot separate the rational world from your supernatural nonsense presented by the charlatans at fundies religious sites, you will forever be subject to ridicule. 

Here's some enlightenment for you: the earth is much more than 6,000 years old and science is the mechanism for exploring that world. Religion is not science. You are unable to make that distinction and that is why your claims are so silly.


----------



## bobgnote

_When designs are intelligent, creationists and ID freaks will be evolved out, of all media.

When some intelligent designer gets effectual, existing religions will be obsolete, instantly._


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> I will give you a real answer to my common ancestry question. Your Darwinist camp goes around talking about him/her/it all the time, but (just like evolution is a myth) the common ancestor is a mythical creature, with only unproven and untested speculation existing on the subject except for genetic studies that proved to any sane scientist, there is no such thing as a common ancestor. Funny that people make fun of Christians for talking about God when they believe he doesn't exist, yet the god of evolution, the common ancestor, is talked about all the time like it is really real. Doh!!! There goes Darwin's tree of life!!! Wonder why it is still in textbooks and we are still talking about.
> 
> "In 1998, Carl Woese proposed (1) that *no individual organism can be considered a LUA,* and (2) that the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derived through horizontal gene transfer among an ancient community of organisms.[13] In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life",[14] a formal test of universal common ancestry was published.[15] *The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses which included horizontal gene transfer.* However, the formal test was *ambiguous* with respect to the community of organisms hypothesis, since it did not require that the last universal common ancestor be a single organism, but *allowed it to be a population of organisms with different genotypes that lived in different places and times*.[UR:Gag!!! so what does this prove-nothing] The formal test was also consistent with multiple populations with independent origins gaining the ability to exchange essential genetic material effectively to become one species.[15]"
> 
> Here Hollymen, read this and report back to me with your thoughts on this. See if you can actually do it without mentioning a Creationist website, but actually have a logical discussion about a REAL topic instead of repeating the same vitriol over and over.
> 
> Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So... I'm waiting for the cut and paste warrior to explain in his own words what the above means. What are the implications?


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will give you a real answer to my common ancestry question. Your Darwinist camp goes around talking about him/her/it all the time, but (just like evolution is a myth) the common ancestor is a mythical creature, with only unproven and untested speculation existing on the subject except for genetic studies that proved to any sane scientist, there is no such thing as a common ancestor. Funny that people make fun of Christians for talking about God when they believe he doesn't exist, yet the god of evolution, the common ancestor, is talked about all the time like it is really real. Doh!!! There goes Darwin's tree of life!!! Wonder why it is still in textbooks and we are still talking about.
> 
> "In 1998, Carl Woese proposed (1) that *no individual organism can be considered a LUA,* and (2) that the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derived through horizontal gene transfer among an ancient community of organisms.[13] In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life",[14] a formal test of universal common ancestry was published.[15] *The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses which included horizontal gene transfer.* However, the formal test was *ambiguous* with respect to the community of organisms hypothesis, since it did not require that the last universal common ancestor be a single organism, but *allowed it to be a population of organisms with different genotypes that lived in different places and times*.[UR:Gag!!! so what does this prove-nothing] The formal test was also consistent with multiple populations with independent origins gaining the ability to exchange essential genetic material effectively to become one species.[15]"
> 
> Here Hollymen, read this and report back to me with your thoughts on this. See if you can actually do it without mentioning a Creationist website, but actually have a logical discussion about a REAL topic instead of repeating the same vitriol over and over.
> 
> Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... I'm waiting for the cut and paste warrior to explain in his own words what the above means. What are the implications?
Click to expand...


Is there a reason why the cut and paste wannabe cuts and pastes from Wiki as opposed to reputable science journals?

Yes, of course there is. Reputable science would contradict Wiki.


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Support your claim that "no one in the science community...."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that was an exaggerated comment on my part,but it is a rediculous thought that is how life started.
> 
> 
> 
> Francis Crick on Origin of Life
> 
> 
> "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."
> 
> - Francis Crick
> 
> 
> 
> Today, Millers experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled Lifes Crucible:
> 
> Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Millers atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. Its a problem, he sighs with exasperation. How do you make polymers? Thats not so easy.223
> 
> As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled The Emergence of Life on Earth, the following comments appear:
> 
> Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.
> Thats bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules  the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.224
> 
> In brief, neither Millers experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:
> 
> All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.225
> 
> References:
> 
> 218 Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.
> 
> 219 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.
> 
> 220 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Earth, Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.
> 
> 221 New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.
> 
> 222 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.
> 
> 223 Lifes Crucible, Earth, February 1998, p. 34. (emphasis added)
> 
> 224 The Rise of Life on Earth, National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68. (emphasis added)
> 
> 225 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.(emphasis added
> 
> Millers Experiment « Mazins Blog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't help but notice that the long quote appears prominately in all the expected Christian creationist websites and even Harun Yahya's site.
Click to expand...


I had almost forgotten about the deceitful and falsified claim above that creationists so frequently use in their attempts to prove their gods. From the "Quote Mine" project at Talkorigins.org, 

Quote #74

Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":


" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

- J. (catshark) Pieret


The above so often typifies the lies and falsehoods used by the creationist cabal. Their hopes to vilify science causes them to become pathological liars, doing anything required to promote their gods.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acually, so mch of your posting is cut and paste from creationist websites followed by mindless name-calling, I can't recall a single, rational point you have added to this thread.
> 
> "Going on about the ICR" is a function of your claims being nothing more than the nonsense they offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And still no real answer from. Just camouflage verbiage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been given the answer. You just continue to insist that there are gods who are responsible for all creation and your every breath is consumed with vilifying science in the failed hope that will somehow support your gods. It's a ridiculous worldview but one that is common to the science loathing, ICR worshiping types.
Click to expand...


ICR, blah, blah, blah, blah, gods, blah, blah, blah, science loathing, blah, blah, blah. GEEZ, Ad Hollymen, get some new material for goodness sakes!!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will give you a real answer to my common ancestry question. Your Darwinist camp goes around talking about him/her/it all the time, but (just like evolution is a myth) the common ancestor is a mythical creature, with only unproven and untested speculation existing on the subject except for genetic studies that proved to any sane scientist, there is no such thing as a common ancestor. Funny that people make fun of Christians for talking about God when they believe he doesn't exist, yet the god of evolution, the common ancestor, is talked about all the time like it is really real. Doh!!! There goes Darwin's tree of life!!! Wonder why it is still in textbooks and we are still talking about.
> 
> "In 1998, Carl Woese proposed (1) that *no individual organism can be considered a LUA,* and (2) that the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derived through horizontal gene transfer among an ancient community of organisms.[13] In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life",[14] a formal test of universal common ancestry was published.[15] *The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses which included horizontal gene transfer.* However, the formal test was *ambiguous* with respect to the community of organisms hypothesis, since it did not require that the last universal common ancestor be a single organism, but *allowed it to be a population of organisms with different genotypes that lived in different places and times*.[UR:Gag!!! so what does this prove-nothing] The formal test was also consistent with multiple populations with independent origins gaining the ability to exchange essential genetic material effectively to become one species.[15]"
> 
> Here Hollymen, read this and report back to me with your thoughts on this. See if you can actually do it without mentioning a Creationist website, but actually have a logical discussion about a REAL topic instead of repeating the same vitriol over and over.
> 
> Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... I'm waiting for the cut and paste warrior to explain in his own words what the above means. What are the implications?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a reason why the cut and paste wannabe cuts and pastes from Wiki as opposed to reputable science journals?
Click to expand...


Oh I see, you mean like all the posts from science journals you posted up?? Blah, blah, blah, ICR, blah, ICR. You sound like a broken record, er, Compact Disc, er, MP3.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still no real answer from. Just camouflage verbiage.
> 
> 
> 
> You've been given the answer. You just continue to insist that there are gods who are responsible for all creation and your every breath is consumed with vilifying science in the failed hope that will somehow support your gods. It's a ridiculous worldview but one that is common to the science loathing, ICR worshiping types.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ICR, blah, blah, blah, blah, gods, blah, blah, blah, science loathing, blah, blah, blah. GEEZ, Ad Hollymen, get some new material for goodness sakes!!!!
Click to expand...

Against "ICR, blah, blah, blah, blah, gods, blah, blah, blah, science loathing, blah, blah, blah" and your juvenile name-calling, I have only to sit back and watch you make a fool of yourself.

What did you think of the tactics used your alternate identity with the parsing of material to falsely represent the work of Crick?

Pretty sleazy, no?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will give you a real answer to my common ancestry question. Your Darwinist camp goes around talking about him/her/it all the time, but (just like evolution is a myth) the common ancestor is a mythical creature, with only unproven and untested speculation existing on the subject except for genetic studies that proved to any sane scientist, there is no such thing as a common ancestor. Funny that people make fun of Christians for talking about God when they believe he doesn't exist, yet the god of evolution, the common ancestor, is talked about all the time like it is really real. Doh!!! There goes Darwin's tree of life!!! Wonder why it is still in textbooks and we are still talking about.
> 
> "In 1998, Carl Woese proposed (1) that *no individual organism can be considered a LUA,* and (2) that the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derived through horizontal gene transfer among an ancient community of organisms.[13] In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life",[14] a formal test of universal common ancestry was published.[15] *The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses which included horizontal gene transfer.* However, the formal test was *ambiguous* with respect to the community of organisms hypothesis, since it did not require that the last universal common ancestor be a single organism, but *allowed it to be a population of organisms with different genotypes that lived in different places and times*.[UR:Gag!!! so what does this prove-nothing] The formal test was also consistent with multiple populations with independent origins gaining the ability to exchange essential genetic material effectively to become one species.[15]"
> 
> Here Hollymen, read this and report back to me with your thoughts on this. See if you can actually do it without mentioning a Creationist website, but actually have a logical discussion about a REAL topic instead of repeating the same vitriol over and over.
> 
> Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your revulsion for the science of evolution (and all science), will not make that science go away.
> 
> And as usual, your copying and pasting from fundie religious sites is appended with your usual juvenile name-calling. If you cannot separate the rational world from your supernatural nonsense presented by the charlatans at fundies religious sites, you will forever be subject to ridicule.
> 
> Here's some enlightenment for you: the earth is much more than 6,000 years old and science is the mechanism for exploring that world. Religion is not science. You are unable to make that distinction and that is why your claims are so silly.
Click to expand...


No real response. Just another bone headed stab at me about a 6,000 year old earth when I have *repeated numberous times I am NOT a young earth creationist*. I just have one more question for you before I put you on ignore... ARE YOU STUPID?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will give you a real answer to my common ancestry question. Your Darwinist camp goes around talking about him/her/it all the time, but (just like evolution is a myth) the common ancestor is a mythical creature, with only unproven and untested speculation existing on the subject except for genetic studies that proved to any sane scientist, there is no such thing as a common ancestor. Funny that people make fun of Christians for talking about God when they believe he doesn't exist, yet the god of evolution, the common ancestor, is talked about all the time like it is really real. Doh!!! There goes Darwin's tree of life!!! Wonder why it is still in textbooks and we are still talking about.
> 
> "In 1998, Carl Woese proposed (1) that *no individual organism can be considered a LUA,* and (2) that the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derived through horizontal gene transfer among an ancient community of organisms.[13] In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life",[14] a formal test of universal common ancestry was published.[15] *The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses which included horizontal gene transfer.* However, the formal test was *ambiguous* with respect to the community of organisms hypothesis, since it did not require that the last universal common ancestor be a single organism, but *allowed it to be a population of organisms with different genotypes that lived in different places and times*.[UR:Gag!!! so what does this prove-nothing] The formal test was also consistent with multiple populations with independent origins gaining the ability to exchange essential genetic material effectively to become one species.[15]"
> 
> Here Hollymen, read this and report back to me with your thoughts on this. See if you can actually do it without mentioning a Creationist website, but actually have a logical discussion about a REAL topic instead of repeating the same vitriol over and over.
> 
> Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your revulsion for the science of evolution (and all science), will not make that science go away.
> 
> And as usual, your copying and pasting from fundie religious sites is appended with your usual juvenile name-calling. If you cannot separate the rational world from your supernatural nonsense presented by the charlatans at fundies religious sites, you will forever be subject to ridicule.
> 
> Here's some enlightenment for you: the earth is much more than 6,000 years old and science is the mechanism for exploring that world. Religion is not science. You are unable to make that distinction and that is why your claims are so silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No real response. Just another bone headed stab at me about a 6,000 year old earth when I have *repeated numberous times I am NOT a young earth creationist*. I just have one more question for you before I put you on ignore... ARE YOU STUPID?
Click to expand...


Please put me on ignore. It's evident by your behavior that the YEC crowd you endorse are simply dishonest and can only resort to forged quotes to represent their bankrupt claims.


I will, however, expose your lies, falsehoods and selective cutting and pasting when you falsify data like your alternate log in did here.


I had almost forgotten about the deceitful and falsified claim above that creationists so frequently use in their attempts to prove their gods. From the "Quote Mine" project at Talkorigins.org, 

Quote #74

Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":


" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

- J. (catshark) Pieret


The above so often typifies the lies and falsehoods used by the creationist cabal. Their hopes to vilify science causes them to become pathological liars, doing anything required to promote their gods.


----------



## The Irish Ram

God created the earth billions of years ago.  It has gone through many alterations since.  Look at the  first two sentences in the Bible.
In the 1st. sentence, God created Earth. < which has mass.  (Mass and void are not the same.)
We are not told the amount of time that passed between the creation of the earth, and the voiding of it in the 2nd. sentence.  14 billion years is our best guess so far.......
BUT:
 We ARE privy to earth  becoming habitable for children starting with the 3rd. sentence in Genesis. 
In the third sentence He restored the heavens and the earth,  this time, to include a new addition, Adam.   That took place 6,000 years ago.
The mistake scientists make is believing that when God said let there be light in Genesis 1:3, that it was the FIRST time he said it.  It was not, nor will it be the last.   He "restructured" earth with water  to purge all  bloodlines save one, because all but 1 human bloodline had been corrupted by fallen angels, creating nasty, nasty animal and human hybrids.   It grieved God so much to do so he waited until their was only one pure human bloodline left before he acted.
He will remodel Earth again, after the final battle with Satan.    And he will provide us with a completely different light source, The Lord. And peace shall rule the planet.


----------



## bobgnote

_There is somebody who plays, with your head.

Your head offers a clue, how the planet Earth is spherical.

Dogma is not perfect, but it used to help, to suggest facts, to those demented, by folk tales.

Dogma has no practical use, today, other than to show how assholes and retards cross-bred, while carrying a cross.

When religionists all notice how the Pope blames atheism, for failure to understand global warming, and they all notice how the planet is heating up, even during a mild solar cycle, I will consider subscribing, to ID._


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've been given the answer. You just continue to insist that there are gods who are responsible for all creation and your every breath is consumed with vilifying science in the failed hope that will somehow support your gods. It's a ridiculous worldview but one that is common to the science loathing, ICR worshiping types.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ICR, blah, blah, blah, blah, gods, blah, blah, blah, science loathing, blah, blah, blah. GEEZ, Ad Hollymen, get some new material for goodness sakes!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Against "ICR, blah, blah, blah, blah, gods, blah, blah, blah, science loathing, blah, blah, blah" and your juvenile name-calling, I have only to sit back and watch you make a fool of yourself.
> 
> What did you think of the tactics used your alternate identity with the parsing of material to falsely represent the work of Crick?
> 
> Pretty sleazy, no?
Click to expand...


Hollie I took a timeout over this crud you spew. You keep speaking of science but never using science as the basis of your argument.

Micro adaptations.

Produce the same kind of plant or animal,why is that ? The DNA code barrier. Never will a cow produce a non cow. Cow's only have genetic information to produce cow's.

Micro adaptations result from the sorting or the loss of genetic information. Micro adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools through gene depletion that is what happens when genetic information is sorted or lost.

If you breed two purebred boxers ,all you will get are boxers. The reason is when you breed,you breed genetic information out,you don't add genetic information.

The DNA code barrier will only allow a group of organisms to produce what the organism is. Then you have micro adaptations being caused by the loss or sorting of the genetic information,the gene pool gets weaker and weaker until they are removed from by natural selection.

Darwinism teaches things are getting better and better because of adding new and beneficial genetic information. Scientists know of no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.  But if you were to compare mutations that cause change at all most of the time it is harmful not beneficial to the family.  You can just compare the numbers , they don't lie.

Darwinists focus the discussion on micro adaptations because there is no viable evidence of Darwinian Macro Evolution. 

Darwin when he went to the Galapagos Islands he counted 13 varieties of finches but there was 14.  Is finches producing finches macro evolution or micro?  He observed micro adaptations from the loss of genetic information.  Those micro adaptations produced 14 varieties of finches.  

Schools don't even teach Darwinism anymore.  THey teach Neo Darwinism based on three false assumptions. 

1.  Mutations create new and beneficial genetic information.
2.  Natural selection lets the mutant gene take over the population.  I have to say this is a very foolish assumption with over 5,000 genetic disorders  and they keep growing in number.  If this assumption was true we all would be suffering from genetic disorders.
3.  The magical ingredient is millions of years.

Mutations are also caused by the sorting or loss of the original genetic information.  Once again, gene depletion.  If we didn't have natural selection everyting would go extinct.  Thank God for natural selection to keep the mutations from spreading through the whole gene pool.

Evolutionists will tell you that natural selection causes macro evolution.  That's not true. Natural selection prevents it.

What is really observed is the DNA Code Barier + gene depletion + natural selection = zero macro evolution.


----------



## Montrovant

Ah, YWC, why do you things like this?  Things keep getting better and better.....first, better is entirely subjective.  Second, evolution is not about improvement so much as change.  An organism might have a feature which makes it better suited to survive and reproduce in it's current environment, but that same creature might not be as well suited if the environment changes.  You make it sound as though everything is supposed to be better than everything which came before, all on some sort of path to perfection.  That's not the idea at all.

Also, you incorrectly state that natural selection should spread genetic disorders.  This indicates a complete lack of understanding of the concept.  Natural selection is about which creatures are more fit (yes, I used that specifically to poke at you, UltimateReality ).  Genetic disorders are unlikely to do so, or they probably wouldn't be considered a disorder.

Speaking of magic, how about your supposed DNA code barrier?  DNA can change.....up to this point!  After that, no change!  No particular reason, it just can't!

If you want to argue against evolutionary theory, at least try not to misrepresent it so much.  It's as bad as UR being called a young-earth creationist.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ICR, blah, blah, blah, blah, gods, blah, blah, blah, science loathing, blah, blah, blah. GEEZ, Ad Hollymen, get some new material for goodness sakes!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Against "ICR, blah, blah, blah, blah, gods, blah, blah, blah, science loathing, blah, blah, blah" and your juvenile name-calling, I have only to sit back and watch you make a fool of yourself.
> 
> What did you think of the tactics used your alternate identity with the parsing of material to falsely represent the work of Crick?
> 
> Pretty sleazy, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie I took a timeout over this crud you spew. You keep speaking of science but never using science as the basis of your argument.
Click to expand...


What a strange comment that I never [use] science as the basis of your argument.

I do so all the time but only with those with enough personal integrity to exclude lies and falsehoods in the promotion of their arguments.

As we have with your endless cutting and pasting, you simply quote-mine material from creationist websites without a clue as to what the material is about. You become an accomplice to the tactics of lies and cheating used by the fundies to manufacture, faslsify and invent the nonsense they post in futile attempts to promote a religious faith.

It truly is a shame that absent any realistic expectation of furthering your religion to supplant science, you're reduced to lying as a last desperate exercise.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Ah, YWC, why do you things like this?  Things keep getting better and better.....first, better is entirely subjective.  Second, evolution is not about improvement so much as change.  An organism might have a feature which makes it better suited to survive and reproduce in it's current environment, but that same creature might not be as well suited if the environment changes.  You make it sound as though everything is supposed to be better than everything which came before, all on some sort of path to perfection.  That's not the idea at all.
> 
> Also, you incorrectly state that natural selection should spread genetic disorders.  This indicates a complete lack of understanding of the concept.  Natural selection is about which creatures are more fit (yes, I used that specifically to poke at you, UltimateReality ).  Genetic disorders are unlikely to do so, or they probably wouldn't be considered a disorder.
> 
> Speaking of magic, how about your supposed DNA code barrier?  DNA can change.....up to this point!  After that, no change!  No particular reason, it just can't!
> 
> If you want to argue against evolutionary theory, at least try not to misrepresent it so much.  It's as bad as UR being called a young-earth creationist.



According to your theory life went from one single celled organism to complex organisms, the rest of what we see on this planet. Have humans always existed ? humans are the most advanced organism through your theory things do improve over time.How can you deny what I said ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Against "ICR, blah, blah, blah, blah, gods, blah, blah, blah, science loathing, blah, blah, blah" and your juvenile name-calling, I have only to sit back and watch you make a fool of yourself.
> 
> What did you think of the tactics used your alternate identity with the parsing of material to falsely represent the work of Crick?
> 
> Pretty sleazy, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie I took a timeout over this crud you spew. You keep speaking of science but never using science as the basis of your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a strange comment that I never [use] science as the basis of your argument.
> 
> I do so all the time but only with those with enough personal integrity to exclude lies and falsehoods in the promotion of their arguments.
> 
> As we have with your endless cutting and pasting, you simply quote-mine material from creationist websites without a clue as to what the material is about. You become an accomplice to the tactics of lies and cheating used by the fundies to manufacture, faslsify and invent the nonsense they post in futile attempts to promote a religious faith.
> 
> It truly is a shame that absent any realistic expectation of furthering your religion to supplant science, you're reduced to lying as a last desperate exercise.
Click to expand...


No hollie, I don't see scientific explanations from you,just rhetoric. Show me what I said to be factually wrong.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie I took a timeout over this crud you spew. You keep speaking of science but never using science as the basis of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a strange comment that I never [use] science as the basis of your argument.
> 
> I do so all the time but only with those with enough personal integrity to exclude lies and falsehoods in the promotion of their arguments.
> 
> As we have with your endless cutting and pasting, you simply quote-mine material from creationist websites without a clue as to what the material is about. You become an accomplice to the tactics of lies and cheating used by the fundies to manufacture, faslsify and invent the nonsense they post in futile attempts to promote a religious faith.
> 
> It truly is a shame that absent any realistic expectation of furthering your religion to supplant science, you're reduced to lying as a last desperate exercise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No hollie, I don't see scientific explanations from you,just rhetoric. Show me what I said to be factually wrong.
Click to expand...

Do we start with the dishonest and sleazy selective alteration of the writings by Crick?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a strange comment that I never [use] science as the basis of your argument.
> 
> I do so all the time but only with those with enough personal integrity to exclude lies and falsehoods in the promotion of their arguments.
> 
> As we have with your endless cutting and pasting, you simply quote-mine material from creationist websites without a clue as to what the material is about. You become an accomplice to the tactics of lies and cheating used by the fundies to manufacture, faslsify and invent the nonsense they post in futile attempts to promote a religious faith.
> 
> It truly is a shame that absent any realistic expectation of furthering your religion to supplant science, you're reduced to lying as a last desperate exercise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No hollie, I don't see scientific explanations from you,just rhetoric. Show me what I said to be factually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do we start with the dishonest and sleazy selective alteration of the writings by Crick?
Click to expand...


How bout what i last posted to you. Crick saying it's like a miracle, that tells me he has no explanation how it could of happened anyother way. Miracles would be from the designer not from naturalism.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No hollie, I don't see scientific explanations from you,just rhetoric. Show me what I said to be factually wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Do we start with the dishonest and sleazy selective alteration of the writings by Crick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How bout what i last posted to you. Crick saying it's like a miracle, that tells me he has no explanation how it could of happened anyother way. Miracles would be from the designer not from naturalism.
Click to expand...


You are still falsely and dishonesty using selective portions of what Crick had written. 

It's just more of the dishonest tactics some fundie religious zealots use to parse and / edit comments of others in failed attempts to bolster their religious beliefs. 

It's a shame you don't understand that lying to promote your religious beliefs has become a pathology.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Ah, YWC, why do you things like this?  Things keep getting better and better.....first, better is entirely subjective.  Second, evolution is not about improvement so much as change.  An organism might have a feature which makes it better suited to survive and reproduce in it's current environment, but that same creature might not be as well suited if the environment changes.  You make it sound as though everything is supposed to be better than everything which came before, all on some sort of path to perfection.  That's not the idea at all.



I have heard different spins on this many times. I've even been accused of building a strawman by Loki when I made the claim evolutionists believe we came from a single cell organism. I've done some internet reading on common descent and it seems the overwhelming consensus among evolutionists is that we came from a bacteria. I posted a few Wiki links (gag ) a few back that talk about common ancestry. Would you not agree we Homo Sapiens are "better" than an E coli? What am I missing in what the common belief among evolutionary "scientist" regarding this topic?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we start with the dishonest and sleazy selective alteration of the writings by Crick?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How bout what i last posted to you. Crick saying it's like a miracle, that tells me he has no explanation how it could of happened anyother way. Miracles would be from the designer not from naturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still falsely and dishonesty using selective portions of what Crick had written.
> 
> It's just more of the dishonest tactics some fundie religious zealots use to parse and / edit comments of others in failed attempts to bolster their religious beliefs.
> 
> It's a shame you don't understand that lying to promote your religious beliefs has become a pathology.
Click to expand...


Hollymen, I swear I'll start ignoring you but you are the queen of quoting the Bible out of context, lying, and cut and pasting others comments, passing them off as your own. I don't think you are in a position to be calling others out for the exact behavior you engage in. It's sad you are such a slave to the religious teachings of Dawkins. Back on ignore.


----------



## newpolitics

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What two questions? Would you mind repeating them? I tried to search back but can't find them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ask these as some kind of trick. I really want to know if there is a consistent view on this from the TOE camp...
> 
> 1. At what point in known organisms, cells and structures, does the theory of evolution propose to begin. How far back does evolution start to explain where we are now. Where does abiogenisis actually end and the TOE begin.
> 
> 2. What does the common ancestor evolutionists continually refer to look like? Is it a hominid, or a single cell organism? Again, at what speciation level is common ancestry said to begin?
> 
> So just what does the TOE cover? Where does it begin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


1. TOE is After abiogensis: after the creation of self-replicating organic matter, or the formation of the first primitive cells containing RNA that could replicate themselves. Once reproduction occurs and is self-acting, then you can have evolution, I would think (I'm no expert).  I don't actually know, but this is my intuition, evolution is merely change in allele frequencies. 


2. Common ancestry can go back as far back as you like. If You are talking about the common ancestry for all living things, then it would likely be a proto-cell as described above, but I don't know, and neither does anyone else. We'd hope to find evidence, but it is unlikely we ever will, in my opnion. If you are talking about common ancestry for all mammals, then you don't go back as far. It depends on who's common ancestor you are talking about.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ask these as some kind of trick. I really want to know if there is a consistent view on this from the TOE camp...
> 
> 1. At what point in known organisms, cells and structures, does the theory of evolution propose to begin. How far back does evolution start to explain where we are now. Where does abiogenisis actually end and the TOE begin.
> 
> 2. What does the common ancestor evolutionists continually refer to look like? Is it a hominid, or a single cell organism? Again, at what speciation level is common ancestry said to begin?
> 
> So just what does the TOE cover? Where does it begin?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. TOE is After abiogensis: after the creation of self-replicating organic matter, or the formation of the first primitive cells containing RNA that could replicate themselves. Once reproduction occurs and is self-acting, then you can have evolution, I would think (I'm no expert).  I don't actually know, but this is my intuition, evolution is merely change in allele frequencies.
> 
> 
> 2. Common ancestry can go back as far back as you like. If You are talking about the common ancestry for all living things, then it would likely be a proto-cell as described above, but I don't know, and neither does anyone else. We'd hope to find evidence, but it is unlikely we ever will, in my opnion. If you are talking about common ancestry for all mammals, then you don't go back as far. It depends on who's common ancestor you are talking about.
Click to expand...


Regarding the common ancestor, I guess I was really looking for the mythical creature the evolutionists always refer to in their arguments. There is info on the web like the wiki links I posted, but I was just wondering if there is really a consensus. And if there isn't, why would anyone refer to the "common ancestor" in an argument (Holly)?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How bout what i last posted to you. Crick saying it's like a miracle, that tells me he has no explanation how it could of happened anyother way. Miracles would be from the designer not from naturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still falsely and dishonesty using selective portions of what Crick had written.
> 
> It's just more of the dishonest tactics some fundie religious zealots use to parse and / edit comments of others in failed attempts to bolster their religious beliefs.
> 
> It's a shame you don't understand that lying to promote your religious beliefs has become a pathology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollymen, I swear I'll start ignoring you but you are the queen of quoting the Bible out of context, lying, and cut and pasting others comments, passing them off as your own. I don't think you are in a position to be calling others out for the exact behavior you engage in. It's sad you are such a slave to the religious teachings of Dawkins. Back on ignore.
Click to expand...

Aside from your usual name-calling, your post was predictable in that it made no sense. I haven't quoted the bible and the rest of your claims are meaningless drivel. You're getting quite desperate.

Your failed arguments are not going to be revived by juvenile personal attacks.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. TOE is After abiogensis: after the creation of self-replicating organic matter, or the formation of the first primitive cells containing RNA that could replicate themselves. Once reproduction occurs and is self-acting, then you can have evolution, I would think (I'm no expert).  I don't actually know, but this is my intuition, evolution is merely change in allele frequencies.
> 
> 
> 2. Common ancestry can go back as far back as you like. If You are talking about the common ancestry for all living things, then it would likely be a proto-cell as described above, but I don't know, and neither does anyone else. We'd hope to find evidence, but it is unlikely we ever will, in my opnion. If you are talking about common ancestry for all mammals, then you don't go back as far. It depends on who's common ancestor you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regarding the common ancestor, I guess I was really looking for the mythical creature the evolutionists always refer to in their arguments. There is info on the web like the wiki links I posted, but I was just wondering if there is really a consensus. And if there isn't, why would anyone refer to the "common ancestor" in an argument (Holly)?
Click to expand...

Evilutionists are not looking for a mythical creature. 

You're simply clueless.


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> oh and daws the evidence for god the creator is design, which many on your side admit to.


wrong! The appearance of design is not evidence for design or god being the designer.
Who the fuck is our side 
and who admits to what?


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about multiple eyewitness accounts?
> 
> 
> 
> nope. Eyewitness accounts are only viable when they match physical evidence.
> Also since the alleged eyewitnesses cannot be interviewed or reexamined (since they've been dead for around a thousand years) their testimony cannot be verified.
> (thanks for playing)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this is historical revisionism at its very core. If we apply that logic to any history, we should pitch all the history books. Hitler really didn't give the orders that resulting in millions of jews dying. Abraham lincoln wasn't shot by john wilkes booth. Etc. Etc. A large part of history is based on eye witness accounts that were documented at the time and lack total modern evidence of any kind.
Click to expand...

is just me or are you really that stupid.
In your hysterically stupid examples you use two of the most documented, photographed physical evidence packed  cases. Proving my point for me!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?
> 
> Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.
> 
> I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.
> 
> Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god
> 
> Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists
> 
> Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.
Click to expand...

HEY ASSHAT   (YWC)  EVER READ YOUR OWN SHIT, BESIDES SPELLING IT WRONG ( In layperson's terms, two events are 'mutually exclusive' if they cannot occur at the same time. An example is tossing a coin once, which can result in either heads or tails, but not both.

In the coin-tossing example, both outcomes are collectively exhaustive, which means that at least one of the outcomes must happen, so these two possibilities together exhaust all the possibilities. However, not all mutually exclusive events are collectively exhaustive. For example, the outcomes 1 and 4 of a single roll of a six-sided die are mutually exclusive (cannot both happen) but not collectively exhaustive (there are other possible outcomes; 2,3,5,6).YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT

   MY ARGUMENT HAS BEEN FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
THEY ARE FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES ARE THE SAME..
you by some twisted belief imagine that an agnostic is some how more receptive to your cause.
this "change in position" acually hurts your cause more than helps it.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)
> 
> I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position
> 
> Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).
> 
> Beliefs versus Knowledge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definition of ATHEISM
> 1
> 
> archaic: ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> 
> a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
> 
> 
> 
> 1ag·nos·tic
> noun \ag-&#712;näs-tik, &#601;g-\
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of AGNOSTIC
> 1
> 
> : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
> 
> You are spinning it just like Daws.
Click to expand...

no you're trying to spin it and failing epically!
YWC COULD YOU BE A LITTLE MORE ADULT HERE AND reply to me directly instead of like a jilted ex girlfriend.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)
> 
> I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position
> 
> Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).
> 
> Beliefs versus Knowledge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of ATHEISM
> 1
> 
> archaic: ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> 
> a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
> 
> 
> 
> 1ag·nos·tic
> noun \ag-&#712;näs-tik, &#601;g-\
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of AGNOSTIC
> 1
> 
> : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
> 
> You are spinning it just like Daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you're trying to spin it and failing epically!
> YWC COULD YOU BE A LITTLE MORE ADULT HERE AND reply to me directly instead of like a jilted ex girlfriend.
Click to expand...


I was hoping for someone to correct from your side and just admit there is a difference between being an agnostic and an atheist. This is kinda rediculous. Like your side trying to turn micro evolution but in better terms,micro adaptations into macro evolution.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and the juvenile name-calling. Are you 12 years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually 13, but I've been posing as a 46-year-old man on this forum for some time now so people will take my savant butt serious.
Click to expand...

you left out the idiot part of savant.
all true savants have other major mental and emotional problems.
your ignorance and stupidty don't count.
you are no savant, spouting dogma is more closely related to schizophrenia.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and the juvenile name-calling. Are you 12 years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually 13, but I've been posing as a 46-year-old man on this forum for some time now so people will take my savant butt serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you left out the idiot part of savant.
> all true savants have other major mental and emotional problems.
> your ignorance and stupidty don't count.
> you are no savant, spouting dogma is more closely related to schizophrenia.
Click to expand...


You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.

Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of ATHEISM
> 1
> 
> archaic: ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> 
> a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
> 
> 
> 
> 1ag·nos·tic
> noun \ag-&#712;näs-tik, &#601;g-\
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of AGNOSTIC
> 1
> 
> : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
> 
> You are spinning it just like Daws.
> 
> 
> 
> no you're trying to spin it and failing epically!
> YWC COULD YOU BE A LITTLE MORE ADULT HERE AND reply to me directly instead of like a jilted ex girlfriend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was hoping for someone to correct from your side and just admit there is a difference between being an agnostic and an atheist. This is kinda rediculous. Like your side trying to turn micro evolution but in better terms,micro adaptations into macro evolution.
Click to expand...

correct what ? for all practical purposes THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
as to the rest of your answer? you're babbling nonsense.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually 13, but I've been posing as a 46-year-old man on this forum for some time now so people will take my savant butt serious.
> 
> 
> 
> you left out the idiot part of savant.
> all true savants have other major mental and emotional problems.
> your ignorance and stupidty don't count.
> you are no savant, spouting dogma is more closely related to schizophrenia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.
> 
> Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment.
Click to expand...

really? you've been name calling in this thread since page one.
then you make false claims about everything such as ( You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.

Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment)

btw how can I hate something that there is no evidence of? 

also that post was not directed at you ...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually 13, but I've been posing as a 46-year-old man on this forum for some time now so people will take my savant butt serious.
> 
> 
> 
> you left out the idiot part of savant.
> all true savants have other major mental and emotional problems.
> your ignorance and stupidty don't count.
> you are no savant, spouting dogma is more closely related to schizophrenia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.
> 
> Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment.
Click to expand...

If you could be honest, you might consider some introspection and ask yourself why your failed arguments which are intended to vilify science are cut and pasted with your knowledge that those articles are fraudulent. 

There's no reason to blame science for the failure of supernaturalism to be useful as a tool for knowledge.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you left out the idiot part of savant.
> all true savants have other major mental and emotional problems.
> your ignorance and stupidty don't count.
> you are no savant, spouting dogma is more closely related to schizophrenia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.
> 
> Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you could be honest, you might consider some introspection and ask yourself why your failed arguments which are intended to vilify science are cut and pasted with your knowledge that those articles are fraudulent.
> 
> There's no reason to blame science for the failure of supernaturalism to be useful as a tool for knowledge.
Click to expand...

 speaking of TOOLS! YWC IS THE TOOLIEST ..THE MASTER OF TOOLS.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you left out the idiot part of savant.
> all true savants have other major mental and emotional problems.
> your ignorance and stupidty don't count.
> you are no savant, spouting dogma is more closely related to schizophrenia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.
> 
> Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? you've been name calling in this thread since page one.
> then you make false claims about everything such as ( You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.
> 
> Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment)
> 
> btw how can I hate something that there is no evidence of?
> 
> also that post was not directed at you ...
Click to expand...


Do you need this explained to you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you left out the idiot part of savant.
> all true savants have other major mental and emotional problems.
> your ignorance and stupidty don't count.
> you are no savant, spouting dogma is more closely related to schizophrenia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.
> 
> Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you could be honest, you might consider some introspection and ask yourself why your failed arguments which are intended to vilify science are cut and pasted with your knowledge that those articles are fraudulent.
> 
> There's no reason to blame science for the failure of supernaturalism to be useful as a tool for knowledge.
Click to expand...


I have been waiting on your rebuttal


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.
> 
> Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment.
> 
> 
> 
> If you could be honest, you might consider some introspection and ask yourself why your failed arguments which are intended to vilify science are cut and pasted with your knowledge that those articles are fraudulent.
> 
> There's no reason to blame science for the failure of supernaturalism to be useful as a tool for knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> speaking of TOOLS! YWC IS THE TOOLIEST ..THE MASTER OF TOOLS.
Click to expand...


Yeah,you are outmatched and you show it in your responses.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.
> 
> Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment.
> 
> 
> 
> If you could be honest, you might consider some introspection and ask yourself why your failed arguments which are intended to vilify science are cut and pasted with your knowledge that those articles are fraudulent.
> 
> There's no reason to blame science for the failure of supernaturalism to be useful as a tool for knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been waiting on your rebuttal
Click to expand...

I provided that rebuttal. 

I provided you with a rebuttal to the comment you posted by Crick. Have you forgotten already? 

I provided you with the portion of of Crick's comment you fraudently and dishonestly omitted in your post.

I've had an extensive and interesting discussion of this very topic (evolution), on another board. The major difference being that although there were disagreements, there was never anything like the fraudulent copying and pasting, childish insults and juvenile name-calling that typifies your posts and the posts of your alternate log-in.

I discovered early on that the discussion in this thread representing the creationist side was contrived and phony.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, YWC, why do you things like this?  Things keep getting better and better.....first, better is entirely subjective.  Second, evolution is not about improvement so much as change.  An organism might have a feature which makes it better suited to survive and reproduce in it's current environment, but that same creature might not be as well suited if the environment changes.  You make it sound as though everything is supposed to be better than everything which came before, all on some sort of path to perfection.  That's not the idea at all.
> 
> Also, you incorrectly state that natural selection should spread genetic disorders.  This indicates a complete lack of understanding of the concept.  Natural selection is about which creatures are more fit (yes, I used that specifically to poke at you, UltimateReality ).  Genetic disorders are unlikely to do so, or they probably wouldn't be considered a disorder.
> 
> Speaking of magic, how about your supposed DNA code barrier?  DNA can change.....up to this point!  After that, no change!  No particular reason, it just can't!
> 
> If you want to argue against evolutionary theory, at least try not to misrepresent it so much.  It's as bad as UR being called a young-earth creationist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to your theory life went from one single celled organism to complex organisms, the rest of what we see on this planet. Have humans always existed ? humans are the most advanced organism through your theory things do improve over time.How can you deny what I said ?
Click to expand...


By what scale are humans the 'most advanced'?  Sure, we might be the most intelligent, but we aren't the fastest, the strongest, we don't have armor, we don't fly, etc. etc.  

Maybe this is you attempting to put an intelligence behind the workings of life even when you discuss evolution.  Evolution does not attempt to do anything.  It is just a description of the changes life undergoes.  Something might change and be better suited to the current environment, but then change back at a future date because of a difference in the environment.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, YWC, why do you things like this?  Things keep getting better and better.....first, better is entirely subjective.  Second, evolution is not about improvement so much as change.  An organism might have a feature which makes it better suited to survive and reproduce in it's current environment, but that same creature might not be as well suited if the environment changes.  You make it sound as though everything is supposed to be better than everything which came before, all on some sort of path to perfection.  That's not the idea at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard different spins on this many times. I've even been accused of building a strawman by Loki when I made the claim evolutionists believe we came from a single cell organism. I've done some internet reading on common descent and it seems the overwhelming consensus among evolutionists is that we came from a bacteria. I posted a few Wiki links (gag ) a few back that talk about common ancestry. Would you not agree we Homo Sapiens are "better" than an E coli? What am I missing in what the common belief among evolutionary "scientist" regarding this topic?
Click to expand...


As I said to YWC, by what scale are humans better than a bacteria?  Are bacteria unable to survive and reproduce sufficiently?  

No, I don't think humans are better, in the context of this conversation.  Different and better are not the same; more complex and better are not the same.


----------



## Gadawg73

What if God is an alien being that looks like ET?
What will folks think then?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. TOE is After abiogensis: after the creation of self-replicating organic matter, or the formation of the first primitive cells containing RNA that could replicate themselves. Once reproduction occurs and is self-acting, then you can have evolution, I would think (I'm no expert).  I don't actually know, but this is my intuition, evolution is merely change in allele frequencies.
> 
> 
> 2. Common ancestry can go back as far back as you like. If You are talking about the common ancestry for all living things, then it would likely be a proto-cell as described above, but I don't know, and neither does anyone else. We'd hope to find evidence, but it is unlikely we ever will, in my opnion. If you are talking about common ancestry for all mammals, then you don't go back as far. It depends on who's common ancestor you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regarding the common ancestor, I guess I was really looking for the mythical creature the evolutionists always refer to in their arguments. There is info on the web like the wiki links I posted, but I was just wondering if there is really a consensus. And if there isn't, why would anyone refer to the "common ancestor" in an argument (Holly)?
Click to expand...


Common ancestor for who? You have to specify.  A common ancestor for two closely related animals will be have existed relatively recently, such as for man and chimp, being in the last few million years. Yet, if you picked two distantly related species you will only find a common ancestor much farther back in time, for instance, a human and a fish. We shared a common ancestor a very, very long time ago. This really isn't that hard to imagine. Just picture a tree diagram. Same idea. Evolution is pretty simple as an idea. I don't understand how it gives creationists such a hard time, yet they seem to muck it up and present a strawman for it without meaning to. Maybe if you actually tried to understand it.


----------



## newpolitics

I will assert right now, that it is your religious fundamentalism that disallows you to examine evolution honestly, because, as I said, it is not a very hard concept to grasp. I hate to break into this, but I can't help it. As I explain such simple concepts, it is obvious that you are simply resisting the use of your intellect, in applying it to these concepts. Therefore, they never seem to make sense to you. You must, by the nature of your belief, deflect any and all implications that might intrude or contradict your version of reality which is informed by a literal interpretation of the bible. Am I wrong? In other words, you won't allow it to make sense, even to yourself. Sure, you could say the same of me with respect to god, but what is there to understand about the religious version? God did it... okay. I get it. Evolution actually takes applied brain power to understand, much more so than "god did it." Yet, creationists want to kick and scream and I postulate, simply do not let the information in. Evolution is a highly intuitive and logical process that makes perfect sense and is backed by evidence. To deny it is simply to show your own resistance to the idea. I can understand, being that your faith rests on a certain body of information, and that is highly threatened by evolution, so you must actively counteract it. I think this is sad. The bible doesn't say "interpret me literally." There are plenty of christians who believe in evolution and the big bang. Why do fundies think they have it right? Being literal isn't virtuous or a sign of faith that god will reward, but rather, indiscretion with deciding what is true. In other words, it is the easy route. I would think that in this age of science, science itself would have garnered some credibility being that the computers we are all using were produced by it, and the incredible progression we have seen technologically, since the enlightenment, has been simply astounding, and entirely due to scientific exploration. But, seemingly, religious fundamentalists, while existing in world surrounded by technology and utilizing it daily, deny its application to our past. I find it intellectually dishonest, at the very least.

I'm sorry to level these kind of statements, but this discussion has been going on for 384 pages. It's time someone calls a spade a spade. You're rejection of evolution and support of ID is absolutely contingent upon your belief that a book written 2,000 years ago is completely inerrant. If you are ever able to step back and look at this objectively someday, you will see how silly it is to any non-fundamentalists.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. TOE is After abiogensis: after the creation of self-replicating organic matter, or the formation of the first primitive cells containing RNA that could replicate themselves. Once reproduction occurs and is self-acting, then you can have evolution, I would think (I'm no expert).  I don't actually know, but this is my intuition, evolution is merely change in allele frequencies.
> 
> 
> 2. Common ancestry can go back as far back as you like. If You are talking about the common ancestry for all living things, then it would likely be a proto-cell as described above, but I don't know, and neither does anyone else. We'd hope to find evidence, but it is unlikely we ever will, in my opnion. If you are talking about common ancestry for all mammals, then you don't go back as far. It depends on who's common ancestor you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the common ancestor, I guess I was really looking for the mythical creature the evolutionists always refer to in their arguments. There is info on the web like the wiki links I posted, but I was just wondering if there is really a consensus. And if there isn't, why would anyone refer to the "common ancestor" in an argument (Holly)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evilutionists are not looking for a mythical creature.
> 
> You're simply clueless.
Click to expand...


Nope. You and your fundie evo's are just constantly quoting the mythical creature to substantiate your failed arguments. You cut and pasted it several posts back.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope. Eyewitness accounts are only viable when they match physical evidence.
> Also since the alleged eyewitnesses cannot be interviewed or reexamined (since they've been dead for around a thousand years) their testimony cannot be verified.
> (thanks for playing)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is historical revisionism at its very core. If we apply that logic to any history, we should pitch all the history books. Hitler really didn't give the orders that resulting in millions of jews dying. Abraham lincoln wasn't shot by john wilkes booth. Etc. Etc. A large part of history is based on eye witness accounts that were documented at the time and lack total modern evidence of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is just me or are you really that stupid.
> In your hysterically stupid examples you use two of the most documented, photographed physical evidence packed  cases. Proving my point for me!
Click to expand...


Wow! I'd like to see those photo's of John capping Lincoln.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and the juvenile name-calling. Are you 12 years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually 13, but I've been posing as a 46-year-old man on this forum for some time now so people will take my savant butt serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you left out the idiot part of savant.
> all true savants have other major mental and emotional problems.
> your ignorance and stupidty don't count.
> you are no savant, spouting dogma is more closely related to schizophrenia.
Click to expand...


Yeah, cause I was serious when I wrote this Daws.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, YWC, why do you things like this?  Things keep getting better and better.....first, better is entirely subjective.  Second, evolution is not about improvement so much as change.  An organism might have a feature which makes it better suited to survive and reproduce in it's current environment, but that same creature might not be as well suited if the environment changes.  You make it sound as though everything is supposed to be better than everything which came before, all on some sort of path to perfection.  That's not the idea at all.
> 
> Also, you incorrectly state that natural selection should spread genetic disorders.  This indicates a complete lack of understanding of the concept.  Natural selection is about which creatures are more fit (yes, I used that specifically to poke at you, UltimateReality ).  Genetic disorders are unlikely to do so, or they probably wouldn't be considered a disorder.
> 
> Speaking of magic, how about your supposed DNA code barrier?  DNA can change.....up to this point!  After that, no change!  No particular reason, it just can't!
> 
> If you want to argue against evolutionary theory, at least try not to misrepresent it so much.  It's as bad as UR being called a young-earth creationist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to your theory life went from one single celled organism to complex organisms, the rest of what we see on this planet. Have humans always existed ? humans are the most advanced organism through your theory things do improve over time.How can you deny what I said ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what scale are humans the 'most advanced'?  Sure, we might be the most intelligent, but we aren't the fastest, the strongest, we don't have armor, we don't fly, etc. etc.
> 
> Maybe this is you attempting to put an intelligence behind the workings of life even when you discuss evolution.  Evolution does not attempt to do anything.  It is just a description of the changes life undergoes.  Something might change and be better suited to the current environment, but then change back at a future date because of a difference in the environment.
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight, you don't think intelligent beings are a higher life form? Last time I checked, ants were building spaceships and sending people to the moon. (but they are darn good tunnel diggers.)


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> What if God is an alien being that looks like ET?
> What will folks think then?



Instead of praying, they would probably just phone home.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, YWC, why do you things like this?  Things keep getting better and better.....first, better is entirely subjective.  Second, evolution is not about improvement so much as change.  An organism might have a feature which makes it better suited to survive and reproduce in it's current environment, but that same creature might not be as well suited if the environment changes.  You make it sound as though everything is supposed to be better than everything which came before, all on some sort of path to perfection.  That's not the idea at all.
> 
> Also, you incorrectly state that natural selection should spread genetic disorders.  This indicates a complete lack of understanding of the concept.  Natural selection is about which creatures are more fit (yes, I used that specifically to poke at you, UltimateReality ).  Genetic disorders are unlikely to do so, or they probably wouldn't be considered a disorder.
> 
> Speaking of magic, how about your supposed DNA code barrier?  DNA can change.....up to this point!  After that, no change!  No particular reason, it just can't!
> 
> If you want to argue against evolutionary theory, at least try not to misrepresent it so much.  It's as bad as UR being called a young-earth creationist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to your theory life went from one single celled organism to complex organisms, the rest of what we see on this planet. Have humans always existed ? humans are the most advanced organism through your theory things do improve over time.How can you deny what I said ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what scale are humans the 'most advanced'?  Sure, we might be the most intelligent, but we aren't the fastest, the strongest, we don't have armor, we don't fly, etc. etc.
> 
> Maybe this is you attempting to put an intelligence behind the workings of life even when you discuss evolution.  Evolution does not attempt to do anything.  It is just a description of the changes life undergoes.  Something might change and be better suited to the current environment, but then change back at a future date because of a difference in the environment.
Click to expand...


Thanks for more evidence we didn't evolve,why didn't we inherit the land speed and the strength or the eyesight or the sense of smell of some of these creatures before us ? Man has the ability to destroy every predator on this planet. We are at the top of the food chain. We are so superior in every way to the animal kingdom.

The changes are small and as long as God allows this system to contiue you will never see one case of macro-evolution. Never and  I already gave you the reason it will never happen and never did happen.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you could be honest, you might consider some introspection and ask yourself why your failed arguments which are intended to vilify science are cut and pasted with your knowledge that those articles are fraudulent.
> 
> There's no reason to blame science for the failure of supernaturalism to be useful as a tool for knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been waiting on your rebuttal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I provided that rebuttal.
> 
> I provided you with a rebuttal to the comment you posted by Crick. Have you forgotten already?
> 
> I provided you with the portion of of Crick's comment you fraudently and dishonestly omitted in your post.
> 
> I've had an extensive and interesting discussion of this very topic (evolution), on another board. The major difference being that although there were disagreements, there was never anything like the fraudulent copying and pasting, childish insults and juvenile name-calling that typifies your posts and the posts of your alternate log-in.
> 
> I discovered early on that the discussion in this thread representing the creationist side was contrived and phony.
Click to expand...


Kid, your ignorance is starting to bother me.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, YWC, why do you things like this?  Things keep getting better and better.....first, better is entirely subjective.  Second, evolution is not about improvement so much as change.  An organism might have a feature which makes it better suited to survive and reproduce in it's current environment, but that same creature might not be as well suited if the environment changes.  You make it sound as though everything is supposed to be better than everything which came before, all on some sort of path to perfection.  That's not the idea at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard different spins on this many times. I've even been accused of building a strawman by Loki when I made the claim evolutionists believe we came from a single cell organism. I've done some internet reading on common descent and it seems the overwhelming consensus among evolutionists is that we came from a bacteria. I posted a few Wiki links (gag ) a few back that talk about common ancestry. Would you not agree we Homo Sapiens are "better" than an E coli? What am I missing in what the common belief among evolutionary "scientist" regarding this topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said to YWC, by what scale are humans better than a bacteria?  Are bacteria unable to survive and reproduce sufficiently?
> 
> No, I don't think humans are better, in the context of this conversation.  Different and better are not the same; more complex and better are not the same.
Click to expand...


Really monty ? come on now, there is no comparison to any living creature on this planet to a human. We are far superior to any organism on this planet.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> I will assert right now, that it is your religious fundamentalism that disallows you to examine evolution honestly, because, as I said, it is not a very hard concept to grasp. I hate to break into this, but I can't help it. As I explain such simple concepts, it is obvious that you are simply resisting the use of your intellect, in applying it to these concepts. Therefore, they never seem to make sense to you. You must, by the nature of your belief, deflect any and all implications that might intrude or contradict your version of reality which is informed by a literal interpretation of the bible. Am I wrong? In other words, you won't allow it to make sense, even to yourself. Sure, you could say the same of me with respect to god



No, not with respect to God, but with respect to the TOE. The theory is falling down around you even as I type this, yet you refuse to confront the evidence, lost in your ignorance and holding tight to your materialist beliefs. I predict the theory of evolution as we know it today will have totally ceased to exist 10 years from now. There just won't be any scientific evidence to support it and very intelligent people will ask themselves, "How could we have been so foolish?". 

Here is the funny thing. I am the one trying to keep religion out of these scientific discussions but you and Holly keep interjecting it back in with every post. Your post above is quite childish really. You presuppose that you are immune from your beliefs and prejudices and are making untainted, un-influenced and un-biased observations. It is this false belief that you are immune to such things that makes you the most lost of all. Not realizing your own weaknesses or influences, you think everyone else is messed up, but you never turn the light of introspection back on yourself. 

I challenged you with questions on the "common ancestor" or "common ancestry". I am not the one always quoting this terminology so therefore, it is not my responsibility to define it. Even though it is YOU who doesn't even know the correct terminology, what you are describing above is the Last Universal Ancestor, not ancestor of two distinct species. What I do find laughable is that major advances in genetics were supposed to support Darwinism, support the tree. So when they didn't, when it was obvious there was no scientific evidence for the tree of life, they come up with a preposterous band aid addition to the theory. Now we have the theory of, and I do mean theory, of horizontal gene transfer. So now individual organisms somehow exchanged genetic material? So let's see the study. Let's see the experiment that shows this occurring in the lab in anything other than viruses(are viruses alive??). 

So while you call me blind, do you see how pathetic this is for you? The tree of life is totally shredded by genetic evidence, but it is still in the textbooks, still taught in school, *and even you are still referring to the tree!!!! *Now we have another un-provable speculation about why the genome of multiple species won't cooperate with Darwin's tree of life. Yeah, gene trading. That's must have been what causes this. Yep, its gene trading. You know its the only logical explanation for why real science doesn't prove this sad materialistic theory I cling to.

 I'm sorry but it is you that refuses to look at the scientific evidence.

The fact is they have been onto horizontal gene transfer since 1985 but their religion wouldn't let them give up on the tree, as in your ignorance, calling others ignorant, you haven't either.

Will this link suffice for Holly. Most surely not. She doesn't actually do any reading..

http://www.vme.net/hgt/


----------



## Youwerecreated

Gadawg73 said:


> What if God is an alien being that looks like ET?
> What will folks think then?



I suppose God could look anyway he wants.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. TOE is After abiogensis: after the creation of self-replicating organic matter, or the formation of the first primitive cells containing RNA that could replicate themselves. Once reproduction occurs and is self-acting, then you can have evolution, I would think (I'm no expert).  I don't actually know, but this is my intuition, evolution is merely change in allele frequencies.
> 
> 
> 2. Common ancestry can go back as far back as you like. If You are talking about the common ancestry for all living things, then it would likely be a proto-cell as described above, but I don't know, and neither does anyone else. We'd hope to find evidence, but it is unlikely we ever will, in my opnion. If you are talking about common ancestry for all mammals, then you don't go back as far. It depends on who's common ancestor you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the common ancestor, I guess I was really looking for the mythical creature the evolutionists always refer to in their arguments. There is info on the web like the wiki links I posted, but I was just wondering if there is really a consensus. And if there isn't, why would anyone refer to the "common ancestor" in an argument (Holly)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common ancestor for who? You have to specify.  A common ancestor for two closely related animals will be have existed relatively recently, such as for man and chimp, being in the last few million years. Yet, if you picked two distantly related species you will only find a common ancestor much farther back in time, for instance, a human and a fish. We shared a common ancestor a very, very long time ago. This really isn't that hard to imagine. Just picture a tree diagram. Same idea. Evolution is pretty simple as an idea. I don't understand how it gives creationists such a hard time, yet they seem to muck it up and present a strawman for it without meaning to. Maybe if you actually tried to understand it.
Click to expand...


Will you pass the bong to someone else please.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> I will assert right now, that it is your religious fundamentalism that disallows you to examine evolution honestly, because, as I said, it is not a very hard concept to grasp. I hate to break into this, but I can't help it. As I explain such simple concepts, it is obvious that you are simply resisting the use of your intellect, in applying it to these concepts. Therefore, they never seem to make sense to you. You must, by the nature of your belief, deflect any and all implications that might intrude or contradict your version of reality which is informed by a literal interpretation of the bible. Am I wrong? In other words, you won't allow it to make sense, even to yourself. Sure, you could say the same of me with respect to god, but what is there to understand about the religious version? God did it... okay. I get it. Evolution actually takes applied brain power to understand, much more so than "god did it." Yet, creationists want to kick and scream and I postulate, simply do not let the information in. Evolution is a highly intuitive and logical process that makes perfect sense and is backed by evidence. To deny it is simply to show your own resistance to the idea. I can understand, being that your faith rests on a certain body of information, and that is highly threatened by evolution, so you must actively counteract it. I think this is sad. The bible doesn't say "interpret me literally." There are plenty of christians who believe in evolution and the big bang. Why do fundies think they have it right? Being literal isn't virtuous or a sign of faith that god will reward, but rather, indiscretion with deciding what is true. In other words, it is the easy route. I would think that in this age of science, science itself would have garnered some credibility being that the computers we are all using were produced by it, and the incredible progression we have seen technologically, since the enlightenment, has been simply astounding, and entirely due to scientific exploration. But, seemingly, religious fundamentalists, while existing in world surrounded by technology and utilizing it daily, deny its application to our past. I find it intellectually dishonest, at the very least.
> 
> I'm sorry to level these kind of statements, but this discussion has been going on for 384 pages. It's time someone calls a spade a spade. You're rejection of evolution and support of ID is absolutely contingent upon your belief that a book written 2,000 years ago is completely inerrant. If you are ever able to step back and look at this objectively someday, you will see how silly it is to any non-fundamentalists.



B.S. I was educated in a secular college,the crazies had a shot at me, I just saw through the nonsense as many have.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your theory life went from one single celled organism to complex organisms, the rest of what we see on this planet. Have humans always existed ? humans are the most advanced organism through your theory things do improve over time.How can you deny what I said ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By what scale are humans the 'most advanced'?  Sure, we might be the most intelligent, but we aren't the fastest, the strongest, we don't have armor, we don't fly, etc. etc.
> 
> Maybe this is you attempting to put an intelligence behind the workings of life even when you discuss evolution.  Evolution does not attempt to do anything.  It is just a description of the changes life undergoes.  Something might change and be better suited to the current environment, but then change back at a future date because of a difference in the environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, you don't think intelligent beings are a higher life form? Last time I checked, ants were building spaceships and sending people to the moon. (but they are darn good tunnel diggers.)
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your theory life went from one single celled organism to complex organisms, the rest of what we see on this planet. Have humans always existed ? humans are the most advanced organism through your theory things do improve over time.How can you deny what I said ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By what scale are humans the 'most advanced'?  Sure, we might be the most intelligent, but we aren't the fastest, the strongest, we don't have armor, we don't fly, etc. etc.
> 
> Maybe this is you attempting to put an intelligence behind the workings of life even when you discuss evolution.  Evolution does not attempt to do anything.  It is just a description of the changes life undergoes.  Something might change and be better suited to the current environment, but then change back at a future date because of a difference in the environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for more evidence we didn't evolve. Man has the ability to destroy every predator on this planet.
Click to expand...


Look Ma!! Opposable thumbs!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> By what scale are humans the 'most advanced'?  Sure, we might be the most intelligent, but we aren't the fastest, the strongest, we don't have armor, we don't fly, etc. etc.
> 
> Maybe this is you attempting to put an intelligence behind the workings of life even when you discuss evolution.  Evolution does not attempt to do anything.  It is just a description of the changes life undergoes.  Something might change and be better suited to the current environment, but then change back at a future date because of a difference in the environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for more evidence we didn't evolve. Man has the ability to destroy every predator on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look Ma!! Opposable thumbs!!
Click to expand...


Vivid imaginations,don't you just love them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> By what scale are humans the 'most advanced'?  Sure, we might be the most intelligent, but we aren't the fastest, the strongest, we don't have armor, we don't fly, etc. etc.
> 
> Maybe this is you attempting to put an intelligence behind the workings of life even when you discuss evolution.  Evolution does not attempt to do anything.  It is just a description of the changes life undergoes.  Something might change and be better suited to the current environment, but then change back at a future date because of a difference in the environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for more evidence we didn't evolve. Man has the ability to destroy every predator on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look Ma!! Opposable thumbs!!
Click to expand...


Do you know how they catch monkeys in africa ? they put a banana in a box with holes in it and the monkey sticks his hand in there and grabs that banana and they just walk up and net him, the monkey won't let go of the banana.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been waiting on your rebuttal
> 
> 
> 
> I provided that rebuttal.
> 
> I provided you with a rebuttal to the comment you posted by Crick. Have you forgotten already?
> 
> I provided you with the portion of of Crick's comment you fraudently and dishonestly omitted in your post.
> 
> I've had an extensive and interesting discussion of this very topic (evolution), on another board. The major difference being that although there were disagreements, there was never anything like the fraudulent copying and pasting, childish insults and juvenile name-calling that typifies your posts and the posts of your alternate log-in.
> 
> I discovered early on that the discussion in this thread representing the creationist side was contrived and phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kid, your ignorance is starting to bother me.
Click to expand...


Doesn't Christianity have commandments that disallow lying?

At the very least, I would have thought that your mommy or at least your 1st grade teacher would told you what lying is and why it's bad.

But here we are with you not being able to make a connection between copying and pasting falsified "quotes" that define the entirety of your argument and the poverty of your argument.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for more evidence we didn't evolve. Man has the ability to destroy every predator on this planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look Ma!! Opposable thumbs!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know how they catch monkeys in africa ? they put a banana in a box with holes in it and the monkey sticks his hand in there and grabs that banana and they just walk up and net him, the monkey won't let go of the banana.
Click to expand...


We are left to assume that you are have given up copying and pasting falsified quotes in favor of spamming.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> By what scale are humans the 'most advanced'?  Sure, we might be the most intelligent, but we aren't the fastest, the strongest, we don't have armor, we don't fly, etc. etc.
> 
> Maybe this is you attempting to put an intelligence behind the workings of life even when you discuss evolution.  Evolution does not attempt to do anything.  It is just a description of the changes life undergoes.  Something might change and be better suited to the current environment, but then change back at a future date because of a difference in the environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for more evidence we didn't evolve. Man has the ability to destroy every predator on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look Ma!! Opposable thumbs!!
Click to expand...


This represents the sum total of your education?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard different spins on this many times. I've even been accused of building a strawman by Loki when I made the claim evolutionists believe we came from a single cell organism. I've done some internet reading on common descent and it seems the overwhelming consensus among evolutionists is that we came from a bacteria. I posted a few Wiki links (gag ) a few back that talk about common ancestry. Would you not agree we Homo Sapiens are "better" than an E coli? What am I missing in what the common belief among evolutionary "scientist" regarding this topic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said to YWC, by what scale are humans better than a bacteria?  Are bacteria unable to survive and reproduce sufficiently?
> 
> No, I don't think humans are better, in the context of this conversation.  Different and better are not the same; more complex and better are not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really monty ? come on now, there is no comparison to any living creature on this planet to a human. We are far superior to any organism on this planet.
Click to expand...


As usual, you are clueless. Far superior in what way?

Many animals have a far superior sense of smell than humans, many animals have superior running speed, many animals have superior strength, many animals have superior eyesight, etc.

You open yourself to ridicule because you haven't a clue as to the subject matter you blather on about.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided that rebuttal.
> 
> I provided you with a rebuttal to the comment you posted by Crick. Have you forgotten already?
> 
> I provided you with the portion of of Crick's comment you fraudently and dishonestly omitted in your post.
> 
> I've had an extensive and interesting discussion of this very topic (evolution), on another board. The major difference being that although there were disagreements, there was never anything like the fraudulent copying and pasting, childish insults and juvenile name-calling that typifies your posts and the posts of your alternate log-in.
> 
> I discovered early on that the discussion in this thread representing the creationist side was contrived and phony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kid, your ignorance is starting to bother me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't Christianity have commandments that disallow lying?
> 
> At the very least, I would have thought that your mommy or at least your 1st grade teacher would told you what lying is and why it's bad.
> 
> But here we are with you not being able to make a connection between copying and pasting falsified "quotes" that define the entirety of your argument and the poverty of your argument.
Click to expand...


You have no idea of what you are talking about. I don't lie I give you my opinions which happen to be some what in aghreement with creationist and IDer's. I have told you for eleven years I worked in mutation and cell research. Things I talk about don't just come from a book or wiki.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look Ma!! Opposable thumbs!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how they catch monkeys in africa ? they put a banana in a box with holes in it and the monkey sticks his hand in there and grabs that banana and they just walk up and net him, the monkey won't let go of the banana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are left to assume that you are have given up copying and pasting falsified quotes in favor of spamming.
Click to expand...


Are you gonna do a rebuttal to what I wrote or are you gonna continue to be an ignorant tool ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said to YWC, by what scale are humans better than a bacteria?  Are bacteria unable to survive and reproduce sufficiently?
> 
> No, I don't think humans are better, in the context of this conversation.  Different and better are not the same; more complex and better are not the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really monty ? come on now, there is no comparison to any living creature on this planet to a human. We are far superior to any organism on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you are clueless. Far superior in what way?
> 
> Many animals have a far superior sense of smell than humans, many animals have superior running speed, many animals have superior strength, many animals have superior eyesight, etc.
> 
> You open yourself to ridicule because you haven't a clue as to the subject matter you blather on about.
Click to expand...


Hollie, why didn't those traits get passed onto humans ?there would be no reason for natural selection to eliminate them from our gene pool. We are far more intelligent. List goes on and on how we are superior.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kid, your ignorance is starting to bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't Christianity have commandments that disallow lying?
> 
> At the very least, I would have thought that your mommy or at least your 1st grade teacher would told you what lying is and why it's bad.
> 
> But here we are with you not being able to make a connection between copying and pasting falsified "quotes" that define the entirety of your argument and the poverty of your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea of what you are talking about. I don't lie I give you my opinions which happen to be some what in aghreement with creationist and IDer's. I have told you for eleven years I worked in mutation and cell research. Things I talk about don't just come from a book or wiki.
Click to expand...

Have you forgetting about the bastardized "quote" from Crick? Apparently you have. To jig your memory, a substantial part of the commentary offered by Crick was deleted, thus altering the context of his comments. 

That is just more of the lies and dishonest tactics coming from the creationist crowd.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't Christianity have commandments that disallow lying?
> 
> At the very least, I would have thought that your mommy or at least your 1st grade teacher would told you what lying is and why it's bad.
> 
> But here we are with you not being able to make a connection between copying and pasting falsified "quotes" that define the entirety of your argument and the poverty of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea of what you are talking about. I don't lie I give you my opinions which happen to be some what in aghreement with creationist and IDer's. I have told you for eleven years I worked in mutation and cell research. Things I talk about don't just come from a book or wiki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you forgetting about the bastardized "quote" from Crick? Apparently you have. To jig your memory, a substantial part of the commentary offered by Crick was deleted, thus altering the context of his comments.
> 
> That is just more of the lies and dishonest tactics coming from the creationist crowd.
Click to expand...


Ask yourself why Crick made such a comment without having an explanation about the origins for the genetic code ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really monty ? come on now, there is no comparison to any living creature on this planet to a human. We are far superior to any organism on this planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are clueless. Far superior in what way?
> 
> Many animals have a far superior sense of smell than humans, many animals have superior running speed, many animals have superior strength, many animals have superior eyesight, etc.
> 
> You open yourself to ridicule because you haven't a clue as to the subject matter you blather on about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, why didn't those traits get passed onto humans ?there would be no reason for natural selection to eliminate them from our gene pool. We are far more intelligent. List goes on and on how we are superior.
Click to expand...

Among the most basic precepts of evolution is fitness for survival. I've spent considerable time detailing this subject elsewhere but that was among people who had a much more honest and knowledgeable approach. In no way are humans "far superior to any organism on the planet". 

Yours was a misunderstanding and/or a purposeful falsification of the facts.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea of what you are talking about. I don't lie I give you my opinions which happen to be some what in aghreement with creationist and IDer's. I have told you for eleven years I worked in mutation and cell research. Things I talk about don't just come from a book or wiki.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you forgetting about the bastardized "quote" from Crick? Apparently you have. To jig your memory, a substantial part of the commentary offered by Crick was deleted, thus altering the context of his comments.
> 
> That is just more of the lies and dishonest tactics coming from the creationist crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask yourself why Crick made such a comment without having an explanation about the origins for the genetic code ?
Click to expand...

Ask yourself why the comment from Crick only appears to imply what you want it to imply.

That is because the bulk of his comment was deleted. 

You still can't accept that selectively deleting portions of someone's comments can change the context of their meaning and intent.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how they catch monkeys in africa ? they put a banana in a box with holes in it and the monkey sticks his hand in there and grabs that banana and they just walk up and net him, the monkey won't let go of the banana.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are left to assume that you are have given up copying and pasting falsified quotes in favor of spamming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you gonna do a rebuttal to what I wrote or are you gonna continue to be an ignorant tool ?
Click to expand...

Your mindless commentary on catching monkeys hardly deserves a response.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are clueless. Far superior in what way?
> 
> Many animals have a far superior sense of smell than humans, many animals have superior running speed, many animals have superior strength, many animals have superior eyesight, etc.
> 
> You open yourself to ridicule because you haven't a clue as to the subject matter you blather on about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, why didn't those traits get passed onto humans ?there would be no reason for natural selection to eliminate them from our gene pool. We are far more intelligent. List goes on and on how we are superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Among the most basic precepts of evolution is fitness for survival. I've spent considerable time detailing this subject elsewhere but that was among people who had a much more honest and knowledgeable approach. In no way are humans "far superior to any organism on the planet".
> 
> Yours was a misunderstanding and/or a purposeful falsification of the facts.
Click to expand...


So you are still saying mutations through natural selection is how evolution happens. I gave you an explanation on this. Natural selection prevents a mutant gene from becoming the norm in the population. We have other mechanisms helping to correct copying errors that cause mutations.

The mutations that slip through only affect some lineages. Because there are to many things working against mutant gene becoming the norm in the population or we would all be suffering far more from mutations.

There are cases of better adaptive organisms surviving while others going extinct, but that is because the change of enviornment. All organisms were designed to adapt but there are limits to adapting, if that was not the case nothing would go extinct.

There are far more harmful mutations then beneficial mutations and that is a fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you forgetting about the bastardized "quote" from Crick? Apparently you have. To jig your memory, a substantial part of the commentary offered by Crick was deleted, thus altering the context of his comments.
> 
> That is just more of the lies and dishonest tactics coming from the creationist crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourself why Crick made such a comment without having an explanation about the origins for the genetic code ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask yourself why the comment from Crick only appears to imply what you want it to imply.
> 
> That is because the bulk of his comment was deleted.
> 
> You still can't accept that selectively deleting portions of someone's comments can change the context of their meaning and intent.
Click to expand...


Don't be rediculous, paste his quote and explain why he would say what he did ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are clueless. Far superior in what way?
> 
> Many animals have a far superior sense of smell than humans, many animals have superior running speed, many animals have superior strength, many animals have superior eyesight, etc.
> 
> You open yourself to ridicule because you haven't a clue as to the subject matter you blather on about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, why didn't those traits get passed onto humans ?there would be no reason for natural selection to eliminate them from our gene pool. We are far more intelligent. List goes on and on how we are superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Among the most basic precepts of evolution is fitness for survival. I've spent considerable time detailing this subject elsewhere but that was among people who had a much more honest and knowledgeable approach. In no way are humans "far superior to any organism on the planet".
> 
> Yours was a misunderstanding and/or a purposeful falsification of the facts.
Click to expand...


May I suggest DR.Lee Spetners book,you will learn more about genetics and mutations then you will in any college class.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Shattering-Modern-Evolution/dp/1880582244]Amazon.com: Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (9781880582244): Lee M. Spetner, P.h.d., Lee M. Spetner: Books[/ame]






Also checkout Dr. Lee Spetner
continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max 


Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

Now this is a pretty deep dialogue between the two but you can learn something.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourself why Crick made such a comment without having an explanation about the origins for the genetic code ?
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourself why the comment from Crick only appears to imply what you want it to imply.
> 
> That is because the bulk of his comment was deleted.
> 
> You still can't accept that selectively deleting portions of someone's comments can change the context of their meaning and intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be rediculous, paste his quote and explain why he would say what he did ?
Click to expand...

You already posted his dishonesty altered quote. I posted the portions of his comments that were deleted.

Do you have any conception of what honesty and integrity mean?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are left to assume that you are have given up copying and pasting falsified quotes in favor of spamming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gonna do a rebuttal to what I wrote or are you gonna continue to be an ignorant tool ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your mindless commentary on catching monkeys hardly deserves a response.
Click to expand...


Just showing the intelligence of a monkey.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourself why the comment from Crick only appears to imply what you want it to imply.
> 
> That is because the bulk of his comment was deleted.
> 
> You still can't accept that selectively deleting portions of someone's comments can change the context of their meaning and intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be rediculous, paste his quote and explain why he would say what he did ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already posted his dishonesty altered quote. I posted the portions of his comments that were deleted.
> 
> Do you have any conception of what honesty and integrity mean?
Click to expand...


I am saying post the quote where you think I misquoted him.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be rediculous, paste his quote and explain why he would say what he did ?
> 
> 
> 
> You already posted his dishonesty altered quote. I posted the portions of his comments that were deleted.
> 
> Do you have any conception of what honesty and integrity mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying post the quote where you think I misquoted him.
Click to expand...


Your altered quote exists in this thread. Please pay attention. I just advised you of that. It was in the portion of my post you just quoted. 

How many times do I need to write out explanations for you?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gonna do a rebuttal to what I wrote or are you gonna continue to be an ignorant tool ?
> 
> 
> 
> Your mindless commentary on catching monkeys hardly deserves a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just showing the intelligence of a monkey.
Click to expand...


Which is more of your pointless babble.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already posted his dishonesty altered quote. I posted the portions of his comments that were deleted.
> 
> Do you have any conception of what honesty and integrity mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying post the quote where you think I misquoted him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your altered quote exists in this thread. Please pay attention. I just advised you of that. It was in the portion of my post you just quoted.
> 
> How many times do I need to write out explanations for you?
Click to expand...


Pay close attention. I am not gonna search for your quote that shows I misquoted Crick so please provide your quote of crick and explain how I misquoted Crick. We can't have a discussion without you doing this.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying post the quote where you think I misquoted him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your altered quote exists in this thread. Please pay attention. I just advised you of that. It was in the portion of my post you just quoted.
> 
> How many times do I need to write out explanations for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay close attention. I am not gonna search for your quote that shows I misquoted Crick so please provide your quote of crick and explain how I misquoted Crick.
Click to expand...


This has been explained to you many times already.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your altered quote exists in this thread. Please pay attention. I just advised you of that. It was in the portion of my post you just quoted.
> 
> How many times do I need to write out explanations for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pay close attention. I am not gonna search for your quote that shows I misquoted Crick so please provide your quote of crick and explain how I misquoted Crick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has been explained to you many times already.
Click to expand...


I am asking for your quote of crick hollie,is it that to difficult to provide ?

I don't want to put words in Cricks mouth nor do I want you doing it to me.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay close attention. I am not gonna search for your quote that shows I misquoted Crick so please provide your quote of crick and explain how I misquoted Crick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been explained to you many times already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking for your quote of crick hollie,is it that to difficult to provide ?
> 
> I don't want to put words in Cricks mouth nor do I want you doing it to me.
Click to expand...


It's not a matter of you putting words in Cricks mouth, its the dishonest tactic of removing portions of his comment.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.
> 
> Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment.
> 
> 
> 
> really? you've been name calling in this thread since page one.
> then you make false claims about everything such as ( You seem to be the one diseased Daws. You and Hollie don't know science well enough to argue it. You both have made that painfully clear so you both resort to name calling and rhetoric or whatever you can google.
> 
> Your dogma is to hate God and will blindly accept anything anti intelligence and creation. You have left plenty of evidence behind in this thread to prove my comment)
> 
> btw how can I hate something that there is no evidence of?
> 
> also that post was not directed at you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you need this explained to you ?
Click to expand...

another nonsense answer.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you could be honest, you might consider some introspection and ask yourself why your failed arguments which are intended to vilify science are cut and pasted with your knowledge that those articles are fraudulent.
> 
> There's no reason to blame science for the failure of supernaturalism to be useful as a tool for knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> speaking of TOOLS! YWC IS THE TOOLIEST ..THE MASTER OF TOOLS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah,you are outmatched and you show it in your responses.
Click to expand...

another lie you tell yourself. out matched by you.... fucking hilarious! 
hubris !


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really monty ? come on now, there is no comparison to any living creature on this planet to a human. We are far superior to any organism on this planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are clueless. Far superior in what way?
> 
> Many animals have a far superior sense of smell than humans, many animals have superior running speed, many animals have superior strength, many animals have superior eyesight, etc.
> 
> You open yourself to ridicule because you haven't a clue as to the subject matter you blather on about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, why didn't those traits get passed onto humans ?there would be no reason for natural selection to eliminate them from our gene pool. We are far more intelligent. List goes on and on how we are superior.
Click to expand...


I was watching the news this morning and a very beautiful Asian woman came on the screen. I wondered to myself, other than cosmetic, what is the evolutionary purpose to the shape of their eyes? I mean, why did that mutation survive? What "fitness" could it possibly be responsible for?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't Christianity have commandments that disallow lying?
> 
> At the very least, I would have thought that your mommy or at least your 1st grade teacher would told you what lying is and why it's bad.
> 
> But here we are with you not being able to make a connection between copying and pasting falsified "quotes" that define the entirety of your argument and the poverty of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea of what you are talking about. I don't lie I give you my opinions which happen to be some what in aghreement with creationist and IDer's. I have told you for eleven years I worked in mutation and cell research. Things I talk about don't just come from a book or wiki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you forgetting about the bastardized "quote" from Crick? Apparently you have. To jig your memory, a substantial part of the commentary offered by Crick was deleted, thus altering the context of his comments.
> 
> That is just more of the lies and dishonest tactics coming from the creationist crowd.
Click to expand...


You are the proven cut and paster here. But you ignored it when you were caught red handed plagiarizing someone on another forum.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> In no way are humans "far superior to any organism on the planet".



This is the dumbest, most ignorant thing you have said to date. Its no wonder so many fall for evolution if they bring this level of intelligence to the table.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is historical revisionism at its very core. If we apply that logic to any history, we should pitch all the history books. Hitler really didn't give the orders that resulting in millions of jews dying. Abraham lincoln wasn't shot by john wilkes booth. Etc. Etc. A large part of history is based on eye witness accounts that were documented at the time and lack total modern evidence of any kind.
> 
> 
> 
> is just me or are you really that stupid.
> In your hysterically stupid examples you use two of the most documented, photographed physical evidence packed  cases. Proving my point for me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I'd like to see those photo's of John capping Lincoln.
Click to expand...

more stupidity !show me the pics of lee Harvey Oswald doing Kennedy. or the hit squad doing the same!
to backtrack to your original and silly statement. "God loves you and sent his Son to die for you."( post # 5364  this thread UR) (MY REPLY POST #5365: "any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?")
It's AT THIS POINT YOU START THE rationalization dance."(post #5421"How about multiple eyewitness accounts?"UR.
then dodge the whole question.
you have no evidence whatsoever that god sent Jesus anywhere or instructed him to die for our sins .
your reliance on the non provable is telling.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already posted his dishonesty altered quote. I posted the portions of his comments that were deleted.
> 
> Do you have any conception of what honesty and integrity mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying post the quote where you think I misquoted him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your altered quote exists in this thread. Please pay attention. I just advised you of that. It was in the portion of my post you just quoted.
> 
> How many times do I need to write out explanations for you?
Click to expand...


Condescending.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually 13, but I've been posing as a 46-year-old man on this forum for some time now so people will take my savant butt serious.
> 
> 
> 
> you left out the idiot part of savant.
> all true savants have other major mental and emotional problems.
> your ignorance and stupidty don't count.
> you are no savant, spouting dogma is more closely related to schizophrenia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause I was serious when I wrote this Daws.
Click to expand...

so you were trying and failing to scarcastic and funny? ....keep your day job!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already posted his dishonesty altered quote. I posted the portions of his comments that were deleted.
> 
> Do you have any conception of what honesty and integrity mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying post the quote where you think I misquoted him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your altered quote exists in this thread. Please pay attention. I just advised you of that. It was in the portion of my post you just quoted.
> 
> How many times do I need to write out explanations for you?
Click to expand...


Condescending.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been explained to you many times already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking for your quote of crick hollie,is it that to difficult to provide ?
> 
> I don't want to put words in Cricks mouth nor do I want you doing it to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a matter of you putting words in Cricks mouth, its the dishonest tactic of removing portions of his comment.
Click to expand...


Then show the whole comment. This isn't that hard.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> is just me or are you really that stupid.
> In your hysterically stupid examples you use two of the most documented, *photographed physical evidence packed*  cases. Proving my point for me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! I'd like to see those photo's of John capping Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more stupidity !show me the pics of lee Harvey Oswald doing Kennedy. or the hit squad doing the same!
> to backtrack to your original and silly statement. "God loves you and sent his Son to die for you."( post # 5364  this thread UR) (MY REPLY POST #5365: "any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?")
> It's AT THIS POINT YOU START THE rationalization dance."(post #5421"How about multiple eyewitness accounts?"UR.
> then dodge the whole question.
> you have no evidence whatsoever that god sent Jesus anywhere or instructed him to die for our sins .
> your reliance on the non provable is telling.
Click to expand...


Hey, I didn't say it. You did. Point me to the photographs.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you left out the idiot part of savant.
> all true savants have other major mental and emotional problems.
> your ignorance and stupidty don't count.
> you are no savant, spouting dogma is more closely related to schizophrenia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause I was serious when I wrote this Daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you were trying and failing to scarcastic and funny? ....keep your day job!
Click to expand...


I'll let you figure it out Daws. You decide. Am I a 13 year old or a 46 year old?


----------



## UltimateReality

I was just reading an article on consciousness. Do you think someone who was blind, deaf, and had no sense of smell from birth would still have the sensation their mind was inside their head? I mean do we think we think where we do because of all the sensory devices attached to our noggin'?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kid, your ignorance is starting to bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't Christianity have commandments that disallow lying?
> 
> At the very least, I would have thought that your mommy or at least your 1st grade teacher would told you what lying is and why it's bad.
> 
> But here we are with you not being able to make a connection between copying and pasting falsified "quotes" that define the entirety of your argument and the poverty of your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea of what you are talking about. I don't lie I give you my opinions which happen to be some what in aghreement with creationist and IDer's. I have told you for eleven years I worked in mutation and cell research. Things I talk about don't just come from a book or wiki.
Click to expand...

your right! they come from a totally self imposed intentional ignorance of reality with a high percentage of ego centrism, misinterpretation  of facts.
evidenced by the use of false premises such as chicken sex = proof of god.
entropy, aging and disease as punishment from god for so called sin.
a complete denial of the fact of evolution and my personal favorite ,the  use of terms like moronic ,dreamworld, etc....when a concept or fact is outside your pin hole pov.
yep!the things you rant about!!!!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking for your quote of crick hollie,is it that to difficult to provide ?
> 
> I don't want to put words in Cricks mouth nor do I want you doing it to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a matter of you putting words in Cricks mouth, its the dishonest tactic of removing portions of his comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then show the whole comment. This isn't that hard.
Click to expand...


You show the comment. You can find it.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, why didn't those traits get passed onto humans ?there would be no reason for natural selection to eliminate them from our gene pool. We are far more intelligent. List goes on and on how we are superior.
> 
> 
> 
> Among the most basic precepts of evolution is fitness for survival. I've spent considerable time detailing this subject elsewhere but that was among people who had a much more honest and knowledgeable approach. In no way are humans "far superior to any organism on the planet".
> 
> Yours was a misunderstanding and/or a purposeful falsification of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May I suggest DR.Lee Spetners book,you will learn more about genetics and mutations then you will in any college class.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Shattering-Modern-Evolution/dp/1880582244]Amazon.com: Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (9781880582244): Lee M. Spetner, P.h.d., Lee M. Spetner: Books[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also checkout Dr. Lee Spetner
> continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> Now this is a pretty deep dialogue between the two but you can learn something.
Click to expand...

bullshit! it's more creationist propaganda


----------



## Montrovant

Have you ever heard someone say that if there is a nuclear war, roaches will be the only things that survive?  Now, that's obviously a bit silly, but the idea isn't entirely without merit.  There are organisms that can survive environments humans cannot.  It's not likely, but certainly possible, that we could kill ourselves off in a nuclear war, but that other creatures would survive.  Wouldn't that make them, in that situation, better than humanity?

Better is a terrible word to use, especially as you two are.  Being the top of the food chain doesn't make a creature better.  It makes them the top of the food chain.  Other links in the chain are just as necessary.  Being more intelligent doesn't make us better.  Perhaps it could, say if we were to populate another planet and then life on earth were wiped out.  But just because we have technology doesn't make us better than a bacteria from an evolutionary standpoint.  Bacteria don't seem to have any particular problems surviving and reproducing.

As I've said multiple times, better is too subjective a term.  You could look at the stars and say, 'White dwarf stars are better than all the others'.  It makes as much sense.  By some standards that may be true, but only in the right context.  If you are explaining what we know about the movement of stars, no particular one would be better.  In the same way, it's hard to say that one species is better than all others when speaking of evolution.  Too many variables, too subjective.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a matter of you putting words in Cricks mouth, its the dishonest tactic of removing portions of his comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then show the whole comment. This isn't that hard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You show the comment. You can find it.
Click to expand...


I guess it was too hard for you.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Have you ever heard someone say that if there is a nuclear war, roaches will be the only things that survive?  Now, that's obviously a bit silly, but the idea isn't entirely without merit.  There are organisms that can survive environments humans cannot.  It's not likely, but certainly possible, that we could kill ourselves off in a nuclear war, but that other creatures would survive.  Wouldn't that make them, in that situation, better than humanity?
> 
> Better is a terrible word to use, especially as you two are.  Being the top of the food chain doesn't make a creature better.  It makes them the top of the food chain.  Other links in the chain are just as necessary.  Being more intelligent doesn't make us better.  Perhaps it could, say if we were to populate another planet and then life on earth were wiped out.  But just because we have technology doesn't make us better than a bacteria from an evolutionary standpoint.  Bacteria don't seem to have any particular problems surviving and reproducing.
> 
> As I've said multiple times, better is too subjective a term.  You could look at the stars and say, 'White dwarf stars are better than all the others'.  It makes as much sense.  By some standards that may be true, but only in the right context.  If you are explaining what we know about the movement of stars, no particular one would be better.  In the same way, it's hard to say that one species is better than all others when speaking of evolution.  Too many variables, too subjective.



Mon, I believe I quoted the word better from your original post. You are right. It is a horrible word. I prefer to say we are the most intelligent species on the planet and the most advanced when it comes to alot of things, one if which is altering our environment so we don't need the physical protections some animals need. I can't run that fast, but I can get in a car and run the fastest animal on earth, the cheetah, down in a heartbeat. Just remember, cheetah's never prosper.


----------



## UltimateReality

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/is_intelligent_062201.html

ID is a historical science based upon the principle of uniformitarianism. The principle of uniformitarianism holds that "the present is the key to the past," where we study present day causes that are at work in the world around us. Once we understand the effects of those causes from present-day observations, we can then study the historical record to see if it too contains the known effects of those causes. When we find those effects, we can infer that the cause was at work.

Here's a brief example.

Geology is a classic case of a historical science. We observe in the present day that rivers remove sediment and cut through rock at a rate, of say, 1 mm per 10 years. If we then observe that a river is in a gorge that is 100 meters deep, we might infer that the river has been cutting that gorge for 100,000 years. (1 year/mm * 1000 mm per meter * 100 m = 100,000 years.) So, by observing present day causes -- that a river cuts through a gorge at 1 mm per year -- we can infer that it cut through the entire gorge, and that it took 100,000 years for that to happen.

Darwin used similar reasoning when he made a case for evolution by natural selection in Origin of Species. Darwin observed present-day populations and observed that they contain variations, and that some variations allow organisms to survive and reproduce better than others. He then theorized that if this process went on deep into the past, it might create lots of variation over long periods of time -- even new species. So he used present-day observations to try to explain past events.

ID uses similar reasoning. ID begins with present-day observations about the causes of information and certain types of complexity. ID observes that in our experience, intelligent agents produce high levels of complex and specified information (CSI). In fact, intelligence is the only known cause of high CSI.

To briefly explain CSI, an event is complex if it is unlikely, and it is specified if it matches some independently derived pattern. Stephen Meyer explains that codes and languages are good examples of high CSI entities that come only from intelligence:

    Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source -- from a mind or personal agent.

So when we find codes and languages in nature, we are justified in inferring that an intelligence is at work. Why? Because, again, in our observation-based experience, intelligence is the only known cause of codes and languages. And guess what underlies all living organisms? A language-based code in DNA molecules.

This is not a circular argument because independent, experience-based, empirically derived observations lead us to understand that intelligence is the only known cause of language-based codes -- to wit, high CSI. So we have good independent reasons to infer that an intelligence was at work. Using the principle of uniformitarianism, we infer that if we find language-based codes in nature, they come from intelligent design.

This is no different from when Darwin used uniformitarian-based reasoning to infer descent with modification. So I don't think that ID's argument is circular. It's no more circular than the arguments used in other historical sciences, including Darwinian evolution.

The quotation from Stephen Meyer above also shows why *ID is not merely "trying to prove a negative."* We have positive evidence for design, because in our experience, we observe that intelligence is the cause of high CSI. This is a positive argument for design, not a negative one.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! I'd like to see those photo's of John capping Lincoln.
> 
> 
> 
> more stupidity !show me the pics of lee Harvey Oswald doing Kennedy. or the hit squad doing the same!
> to backtrack to your original and silly statement. "God loves you and sent his Son to die for you."( post # 5364  this thread UR) (MY REPLY POST #5365: "any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?")
> It's AT THIS POINT YOU START THE rationalization dance."(post #5421"How about multiple eyewitness accounts?"UR.
> then dodge the whole question.
> you have no evidence whatsoever that god sent Jesus anywhere or instructed him to die for our sins .
> your reliance on the non provable is telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I didn't say it. You did. Point me to the photographs.
Click to expand...

  now you're trying to dodge your original statement . 
so why the large lettering?
there are no pics of Boothe in act of shooting Lincoln but their is however the gun used, the wound in Lincolns head several blood soaked pieces of clothing (some of which are in Smithsonian) there's  boothe's statement (death to tyrants) when he fled the theatre ..etc...there is no  evidence eyewitness or other wise to corroborate this statement:God loves you and sent his Son to die for you."( post # 5364  this thread UR)


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause I was serious when I wrote this Daws.
> 
> 
> 
> so you were trying and failing to scarcastic and funny? ....keep your day job!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll let you figure it out Daws. You decide. Am I a 13 year old or a 46 year old?
Click to expand...

your a 46 year male with the emotional development of a 13 year old.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more stupidity !show me the pics of lee Harvey Oswald doing Kennedy. or the hit squad doing the same!
> to backtrack to your original and silly statement. "God loves you and sent his Son to die for you."( post # 5364  this thread UR) (MY REPLY POST #5365: "any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?")
> It's AT THIS POINT YOU START THE rationalization dance."(post #5421"How about multiple eyewitness accounts?"UR.
> then dodge the whole question.
> you have no evidence whatsoever that god sent Jesus anywhere or instructed him to die for our sins .
> your reliance on the non provable is telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I didn't say it. You did. Point me to the photographs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now you're trying to dodge your original statement .
> so why the large lettering?
> there are no pics of Boothe in act of shooting Lincoln but their is however the gun used, the wound in Lincolns head several blood soaked pieces of clothing (some of which are in Smithsonian) there's  boothe's statement (death to tyrants) when he fled the theatre ..etc...there is no  evidence eyewitness or other wise to corroborate this statement:God loves you and sent his Son to die for you."( post # 5364  this thread UR)
Click to expand...


No but there are numerous eyewitness accounts of Jesus being crucified and then appearing to more than 500 people after his death. 

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Christ-Journalists-Investigation/dp/0310209307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342550342&sr=8-1&keywords=Lee+strobels+case+for+christ]Amazon.com: The Case for Christ: A Journalist&#39;s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (9780310209300): Lee Strobel: Books[/ame]


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are clueless. Far superior in what way?
> 
> Many animals have a far superior sense of smell than humans, many animals have superior running speed, many animals have superior strength, many animals have superior eyesight, etc.
> 
> You open yourself to ridicule because you haven't a clue as to the subject matter you blather on about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, why didn't those traits get passed onto humans ?there would be no reason for natural selection to eliminate them from our gene pool. We are far more intelligent. List goes on and on how we are superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was watching the news this morning and a very beautiful Asian woman came on the screen. I wondered to myself, other than cosmetic, what is the evolutionary purpose to the shape of their eyes? I mean, why did that mutation survive? What "fitness" could it possibly be responsible for?
Click to expand...


That's an interesting question, and without looking it up, the only thing that comes to mind is protection from sunlight/glare.  Otherwise, perhaps it was a fairly neutral change/mutation which happened to become dominant in certain areas.  It could be as simple as being considered more aesthetically pleasing; women with the epicanthic fold were sought after and able to reproduce more often, passing that particular feature on.  Of course, there's also the fact that that one feature is not exclusive to those of Asian heritage.  It's a combination of things, I believe, that give the distinct Asian features.

Anyway, I would look to others for a more exhaustive answer to that.  This was off the top of my head and could be completely silly.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you were trying and failing to scarcastic and funny? ....keep your day job!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let you figure it out Daws. You decide. Am I a 13 year old or a 46 year old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your a 46 year male with the emotional development of a 13 year old.
Click to expand...


At least I'm not a bitter, hating, angry old atheist.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I didn't say it. You did. Point me to the photographs.
> 
> 
> 
> now you're trying to dodge your original statement .
> so why the large lettering?
> there are no pics of Boothe in act of shooting Lincoln but their is however the gun used, the wound in Lincolns head several blood soaked pieces of clothing (some of which are in Smithsonian) there's  boothe's statement (death to tyrants) when he fled the theatre ..etc...there is no  evidence eyewitness or other wise to corroborate this statement:God loves you and sent his Son to die for you."( post # 5364  this thread UR)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No but there are numerous eyewitness accounts of Jesus being crucified and then appearing to more than 500 people after his death.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Christ-Journalists-Investigation/dp/0310209307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342550342&sr=8-1&keywords=Lee+strobels+case+for+christ]Amazon.com: The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (9780310209300): Lee Strobel: Books[/ame]
Click to expand...

so what? lots of people were crucified.. it was a spectator sport at that time.
as to this: then appearing to more than 500 people after his death. 

 it's hearsay at best there are no non biblical sources to verify it.
since the bible is error ridden highly edited and bias, it can't be considered as evidence.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let you figure it out Daws. You decide. Am I a 13 year old or a 46 year old?
> 
> 
> 
> you're a 46 year male with the emotional development of a 13 year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least I'm not a bitter, hating, angry old atheist.
Click to expand...

no you're a bitter, hating ,angry fundie who drive a penis envy truck and shoot guns .
at 46 that's highly juvenile
might want to watch who you're calling old I'm just 6 short years older then you physically 
but emotionally light years ahead of you !


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're a 46 year male with the emotional development of a 13 year old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least I'm not a bitter, hating, angry old atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you're a bitter, hating ,angry fundie who drive a penis envy truck and shoot guns .
> at 46 that's highly juvenile
> might want to watch who you're calling old I'm just 6 short years older then you physically
> but emotionally light years ahead of you !
Click to expand...


Emotionally maybe. Intellectually? Well...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least I'm not a bitter, hating, angry old atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> no you're a bitter, hating ,angry fundie who drive a penis envy truck and shoot guns .
> at 46 that's highly juvenile
> might want to watch who you're calling old I'm just 6 short years older then you physically
> but emotionally light years ahead of you !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emotionally maybe. Intellectually? Well...
Click to expand...

 intellectually I've lapped you twice and working on a third pass.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Among the most basic precepts of evolution is fitness for survival. I've spent considerable time detailing this subject elsewhere but that was among people who had a much more honest and knowledgeable approach. In no way are humans "far superior to any organism on the planet".
> 
> Yours was a misunderstanding and/or a purposeful falsification of the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I suggest DR.Lee Spetners book,you will learn more about genetics and mutations then you will in any college class.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Shattering-Modern-Evolution/dp/1880582244]Amazon.com: Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (9781880582244): Lee M. Spetner, P.h.d., Lee M. Spetner: Books[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also checkout Dr. Lee Spetner
> continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> Now this is a pretty deep dialogue between the two but you can learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit! it's more creationist propaganda
Click to expand...


DR. Lee Spetner is well respected by evolutionist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Have you ever heard someone say that if there is a nuclear war, roaches will be the only things that survive?  Now, that's obviously a bit silly, but the idea isn't entirely without merit.  There are organisms that can survive environments humans cannot.  It's not likely, but certainly possible, that we could kill ourselves off in a nuclear war, but that other creatures would survive.  Wouldn't that make them, in that situation, better than humanity?
> 
> Better is a terrible word to use, especially as you two are.  Being the top of the food chain doesn't make a creature better.  It makes them the top of the food chain.  Other links in the chain are just as necessary.  Being more intelligent doesn't make us better.  Perhaps it could, say if we were to populate another planet and then life on earth were wiped out.  But just because we have technology doesn't make us better than a bacteria from an evolutionary standpoint.  Bacteria don't seem to have any particular problems surviving and reproducing.
> 
> As I've said multiple times, better is too subjective a term.  You could look at the stars and say, 'White dwarf stars are better than all the others'.  It makes as much sense.  By some standards that may be true, but only in the right context.  If you are explaining what we know about the movement of stars, no particular one would be better.  In the same way, it's hard to say that one species is better than all others when speaking of evolution.  Too many variables, too subjective.



Raid kills roaches.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> now you're trying to dodge your original statement .
> so why the large lettering?
> there are no pics of Boothe in act of shooting Lincoln but their is however the gun used, the wound in Lincolns head several blood soaked pieces of clothing (some of which are in Smithsonian) there's  boothe's statement (death to tyrants) when he fled the theatre ..etc...there is no  evidence eyewitness or other wise to corroborate this statement:God loves you and sent his Son to die for you."( post # 5364  this thread UR)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but there are numerous eyewitness accounts of Jesus being crucified and then appearing to more than 500 people after his death.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Christ-Journalists-Investigation/dp/0310209307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342550342&sr=8-1&keywords=Lee+strobels+case+for+christ]Amazon.com: The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (9780310209300): Lee Strobel: Books[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what? lots of people were crucified.. it was a spectator sport at that time.
> as to this: then appearing to more than 500 people after his death.
> 
> it's hearsay at best there are no non biblical sources to verify it.
> since the bible is error ridden highly edited and bias, it can't be considered as evidence.
Click to expand...


Oh boy


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're a 46 year male with the emotional development of a 13 year old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least I'm not a bitter, hating, angry old atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you're a bitter, hating ,angry fundie who drive a penis envy truck and shoot guns .
> at 46 that's highly juvenile
> might want to watch who you're calling old I'm just 6 short years older then you physically
> but emotionally light years ahead of you !
Click to expand...


You are under developed from what I can see.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Among the most basic precepts of evolution is fitness for survival. I've spent considerable time detailing this subject elsewhere but that was among people who had a much more honest and knowledgeable approach. In no way are humans "far superior to any organism on the planet".
> 
> Yours was a misunderstanding and/or a purposeful falsification of the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I suggest DR.Lee Spetners book,you will learn more about genetics and mutations then you will in any college class.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Shattering-Modern-Evolution/dp/1880582244]Amazon.com: Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (9781880582244): Lee M. Spetner, P.h.d., Lee M. Spetner: Books[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also checkout Dr. Lee Spetner
> continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> Now this is a pretty deep dialogue between the two but you can learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit! it's more creationist propaganda
Click to expand...


Look at what the evolutionist admits to,exactly  what i have said in the past.


Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations.  And I agree with your further comment that &#8220;we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.&#8221;  But you go on to say that &#8220;our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.&#8221;  An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur. 

Spetner: Now Ed, that&#8217;s ridiculous!  Those two statements are not symmetrical.  I don&#8217;t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT.  You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist.  You are obliged to show an existence.  I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS:  IN MAX&#8217;S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE.  I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Max: In the absence of conclusive data defining such a series, if we want to distinguish between various hypotheses to explain the origin of species we must rely on other data, such as from various laboratory model systems that show adaptations in short enough timeframes that we can observe them.  Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins.

Notice the admissions DR. Max makes Daws.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> May I suggest DR.Lee Spetners book,you will learn more about genetics and mutations then you will in any college class.
> 
> Amazon.com: Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (9781880582244): Lee M. Spetner, P.h.d., Lee M. Spetner: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also checkout Dr. Lee Spetner
> continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> Now this is a pretty deep dialogue between the two but you can learn something.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! it's more creationist propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DR. Lee Spetner is well respected by evolutionist.
Click to expand...

Actually, he's thought to be a quack.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! it's more creationist propaganda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DR. Lee Spetner is well respected by evolutionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, he's thought to be a quack.
Click to expand...


Only by morons that pretend to know science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> DR. Lee Spetner is well respected by evolutionist.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, he's thought to be a quack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only by morons that pretend to know science.
Click to expand...


That would define the fundie creationist cabal.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I would like to point something out to you people. DR. Max participates on the talk origins website a favorite site for evolutionists. On that site they try to show 29 cases of macro evolution by DR. Theobald but yet DR. Max admits there are no observed cases for macro evolution someone is lying and I don't think it is DR.Max nor DR.Spetner. I would avoid that site if I were you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, he's thought to be a quack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only by morons that pretend to know science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would define the fundie creationist cabal.
Click to expand...


No response for DR.Max admissions ? fundie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

DR. Max also made the admission that i said here before,that evolutionist extrapolate from micro adaptations as evidence for macro evolution,why ? because there is no evidence for macro evolution.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only by morons that pretend to know science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would define the fundie creationist cabal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No response for DR.Max admissions ? fundie.
Click to expand...


YWC, you would be making the false assumption that Holly actually reads anything on here or explores any links. She just responds with the same repetitive drivel, regardless of where it comes from, because she isn't bothering to check anything out. That's why she keeps replying the same way even when you are putting up links from scientists who are respected in the evolutionists community.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> I would like to point something out to you people. DR. Max participates on the talk origins website a favorite site for evolutionists. On that site they try to show 29 cases of macro evolution by DR. Theobald but yet DR. Max admits there are no observed cases for macro evolution someone is lying and I don't think it is DR.Max nor DR.Spetner. I would avoid that site if I were you.



I think you're still suffering from an inability to distinguish truth from lies. 

FromTalkorigins:



> This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.



Certainly, you would avoid the site because it offers fact and evidence as opposed to your simpleton claims for supernaturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to point something out to you people. DR. Max participates on the talk origins website a favorite site for evolutionists. On that site they try to show 29 cases of macro evolution by DR. Theobald but yet DR. Max admits there are no observed cases for macro evolution someone is lying and I don't think it is DR.Max nor DR.Spetner. I would avoid that site if I were you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're still suffering from an inability to distinguish truth from lies.
> 
> FromTalkorigins:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly, you would avoid the site because it offers fact and evidence as opposed to your simpleton claims for supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


Put your dunce hat on and go sit in the corner.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> May I suggest DR.Lee Spetners book,you will learn more about genetics and mutations then you will in any college class.
> 
> Amazon.com: Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (9781880582244): Lee M. Spetner, P.h.d., Lee M. Spetner: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also checkout Dr. Lee Spetner
> continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> Now this is a pretty deep dialogue between the two but you can learn something.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! it's more creationist propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DR. Lee Spetner is well respected by evolutionist.
Click to expand...

just one? or is evolutionists?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but there are numerous eyewitness accounts of Jesus being crucified and then appearing to more than 500 people after his death.
> 
> Amazon.com: The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (9780310209300): Lee Strobel: Books
> 
> 
> 
> so what? lots of people were crucified.. it was a spectator sport at that time.
> as to this: then appearing to more than 500 people after his death.
> 
> it's hearsay at best there are no non biblical sources to verify it.
> since the bible is error ridden highly edited and bias, it can't be considered as evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy
Click to expand...

fine retort potsey!
prove me wrong!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> May I suggest DR.Lee Spetners book,you will learn more about genetics and mutations then you will in any college class.
> 
> Amazon.com: Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (9781880582244): Lee M. Spetner, P.h.d., Lee M. Spetner: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also checkout Dr. Lee Spetner
> continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> Now this is a pretty deep dialogue between the two but you can learn something.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! it's more creationist propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at what the evolutionist admits to,exactly  what i have said in the past.
> 
> 
> Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations.  And I agree with your further comment that we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.  But you go on to say that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.  An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.
> 
> Spetner: Now Ed, thats ridiculous!  Those two statements are not symmetrical.  I dont have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT.  You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist.  You are obliged to show an existence.  I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
> [LMS:  IN MAXS POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE.  I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]
> 
> Max: In the absence of conclusive data defining such a series, if we want to distinguish between various hypotheses to explain the origin of species we must rely on other data, such as from various laboratory model systems that show adaptations in short enough timeframes that we can observe them.  Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins.
> 
> Notice the admissions DR. Max makes Daws.
Click to expand...

 there is only one relevant one :Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins.....

whatever else you wish it to suggest is not relevant..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard someone say that if there is a nuclear war, roaches will be the only things that survive?  Now, that's obviously a bit silly, but the idea isn't entirely without merit.  There are organisms that can survive environments humans cannot.  It's not likely, but certainly possible, that we could kill ourselves off in a nuclear war, but that other creatures would survive.  Wouldn't that make them, in that situation, better than humanity?
> 
> Better is a terrible word to use, especially as you two are.  Being the top of the food chain doesn't make a creature better.  It makes them the top of the food chain.  Other links in the chain are just as necessary.  Being more intelligent doesn't make us better.  Perhaps it could, say if we were to populate another planet and then life on earth were wiped out.  But just because we have technology doesn't make us better than a bacteria from an evolutionary standpoint.  Bacteria don't seem to have any particular problems surviving and reproducing.
> 
> As I've said multiple times, better is too subjective a term.  You could look at the stars and say, 'White dwarf stars are better than all the others'.  It makes as much sense.  By some standards that may be true, but only in the right context.  If you are explaining what we know about the movement of stars, no particular one would be better.  In the same way, it's hard to say that one species is better than all others when speaking of evolution.  Too many variables, too subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raid kills roaches.
Click to expand...

only for a little while the more you use the less effective it becomes.
failling at being clever too.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> I would like to point something out to you people. DR. Max participates on the talk origins website a favorite site for evolutionists. On that site they try to show 29 cases of macro evolution by DR. Theobald but yet DR. Max admits there are no observed cases for macro evolution someone is lying and I don't think it is DR.Max nor DR.Spetner. I would avoid that site if I were you.


ever heard the term whipping boy? that's what dr max is..


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to point something out to you people. DR. Max participates on the talk origins website a favorite site for evolutionists. On that site they try to show 29 cases of macro evolution by DR. Theobald but yet DR. Max admits there are no observed cases for macro evolution someone is lying and I don't think it is DR.Max nor DR.Spetner. I would avoid that site if I were you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're still suffering from an inability to distinguish truth from lies.
> 
> FromTalkorigins:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly, you would avoid the site because it offers fact and evidence as opposed to your simpleton claims for supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put your dunce hat on and go sit in the corner.
Click to expand...


I expected more of your childish banter and you never fail to disappoint.

Your falsely attributed claims are once more shown to be nonsense.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're still suffering from an inability to distinguish truth from lies.
> 
> FromTalkorigins:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly, you would avoid the site because it offers fact and evidence as opposed to your simpleton claims for supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put your dunce hat on and go sit in the corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I expected more of your childish banter and you never fail to disappoint.
> 
> Your falsely attributed claims are once more shown to be nonsense.
Click to expand...


And you are still 0 for 100 for making an intelligent argument instead of commenting on everyone else. "I am a robot. I am a robot."


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put your dunce hat on and go sit in the corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expected more of your childish banter and you never fail to disappoint.
> 
> Your falsely attributed claims are once more shown to be nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are still 0 for 100 for making an intelligent argument instead of commenting on everyone else. "I am a robot. I am a robot."
Click to expand...


You have written repeatedly that you are going to put me on ignore, yet you stalk me through page after page of posts with your juvenile name-calling. In other words, you lied.

I have made a choice to expose the falsehoods and dishonestly altered cut and paste that the fundie creationist crowd has a habit of posting. 

Your particular style of mindless banter is even less appealing. You have offered nothing worth even a couple of paragraphs.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I expected more of your childish banter and you never fail to disappoint.
> 
> Your falsely attributed claims are once more shown to be nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are still 0 for 100 for making an intelligent argument instead of commenting on everyone else. "I am a robot. I am a robot."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have written repeatedly that you are going to put me on ignore, yet you stalk me through page after page of posts with your juvenile name-calling. In other words, you lied.
> 
> I have made a choice to expose the falsehoods and dishonestly altered cut and paste that the fundie creationist crowd has a habit of posting.
> 
> Your particular style of mindless banter is even less appealing. You have offered nothing worth even a couple of paragraphs.
Click to expand...


And yet, you still remain silent on the accusation of plagiarizing. No matter how long you ignore, I can guarantee I won't let your blatant lying and dishonesty die.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are still 0 for 100 for making an intelligent argument instead of commenting on everyone else. "I am a robot. I am a robot."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have written repeatedly that you are going to put me on ignore, yet you stalk me through page after page of posts with your juvenile name-calling. In other words, you lied.
> 
> I have made a choice to expose the falsehoods and dishonestly altered cut and paste that the fundie creationist crowd has a habit of posting.
> 
> Your particular style of mindless banter is even less appealing. You have offered nothing worth even a couple of paragraphs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, you still remain silent on the accusation of plagiarizing. No matter how long you ignore, I can guarantee I won't let your blatant lying and dishonesty die.
Click to expand...

And yet to continue to post false claims quote mined from your fundie religious sites and post that nonsense as though anyone should believe it.

The angry fundie persona is not at all becoming. It's comical, but dated.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! it's more creationist propaganda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DR. Lee Spetner is well respected by evolutionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just one? or is evolutionists?
Click to expand...


Evolutionists


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what? lots of people were crucified.. it was a spectator sport at that time.
> as to this: then appearing to more than 500 people after his death.
> 
> it's hearsay at best there are no non biblical sources to verify it.
> since the bible is error ridden highly edited and bias, it can't be considered as evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fine retort potsey!
> prove me wrong!
Click to expand...


Daws, the bible is used as a guide for archaeologists to locate old communites, it has proven reliable.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! it's more creationist propaganda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at what the evolutionist admits to,exactly  what i have said in the past.
> 
> 
> Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations.  And I agree with your further comment that &#8220;we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.&#8221;  But you go on to say that &#8220;our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.&#8221;  An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.
> 
> Spetner: Now Ed, that&#8217;s ridiculous!  Those two statements are not symmetrical.  I don&#8217;t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT.  You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist.  You are obliged to show an existence.  I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
> [LMS:  IN MAX&#8217;S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE.  I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]
> 
> Max: In the absence of conclusive data defining such a series, if we want to distinguish between various hypotheses to explain the origin of species we must rely on other data, such as from various laboratory model systems that show adaptations in short enough timeframes that we can observe them.  Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins.
> 
> Notice the admissions DR. Max makes Daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is only one relevant one :Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins.....
> 
> whatever else you wish it to suggest is not relevant..
Click to expand...


He admits the extrapolation of micro adaptations is because there is no observed evidence for macro evolution. The rest of their evidence are from assumptions as well.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard someone say that if there is a nuclear war, roaches will be the only things that survive?  Now, that's obviously a bit silly, but the idea isn't entirely without merit.  There are organisms that can survive environments humans cannot.  It's not likely, but certainly possible, that we could kill ourselves off in a nuclear war, but that other creatures would survive.  Wouldn't that make them, in that situation, better than humanity?
> 
> Better is a terrible word to use, especially as you two are.  Being the top of the food chain doesn't make a creature better.  It makes them the top of the food chain.  Other links in the chain are just as necessary.  Being more intelligent doesn't make us better.  Perhaps it could, say if we were to populate another planet and then life on earth were wiped out.  But just because we have technology doesn't make us better than a bacteria from an evolutionary standpoint.  Bacteria don't seem to have any particular problems surviving and reproducing.
> 
> As I've said multiple times, better is too subjective a term.  You could look at the stars and say, 'White dwarf stars are better than all the others'.  It makes as much sense.  By some standards that may be true, but only in the right context.  If you are explaining what we know about the movement of stars, no particular one would be better.  In the same way, it's hard to say that one species is better than all others when speaking of evolution.  Too many variables, too subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raid kills roaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only for a little while the more you use the less effective it becomes.
> failling at being clever too.
Click to expand...


What do you think nuclear contamination would do ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy
> 
> 
> 
> fine retort potsey!
> prove me wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, the bible is used as a guide for archaeologists to locate old communites, it has proven reliable.
Click to expand...


To add a bit of truth to your claim, the bible has occasionaly been used along with other means and methods...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> fine retort potsey!
> prove me wrong!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, the bible is used as a guide for archaeologists to locate old communites, it has proven reliable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To add a bit of truth to your claim, the bible has occasionaly been used along with other means and methods...
Click to expand...


Truth


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Raid kills roaches.
> 
> 
> 
> only for a little while the more you use the less effective it becomes.
> failling at being clever too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think nuclear contamination would do ?
Click to expand...


I can't believe you are still arguing this!

The point (among a few I made in the post, but this was the only one you responded to) is that humans are not the 'best' organism.  There are plenty of things that can survive in places we cannot, that are stronger, faster, etc.  The roaches were used as a light-hearted example, because it has often been said that they would survive a nuclear war after humans all died.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> only for a little while the more you use the less effective it becomes.
> failling at being clever too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think nuclear contamination would do ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe you are still arguing this!
> 
> The point (among a few I made in the post, but this was the only one you responded to) is that humans are not the 'best' organism.  There are plenty of things that can survive in places we cannot, that are stronger, faster, etc.  The roaches were used as a light-hearted example, because it has often been said that they would survive a nuclear war after humans all died.
Click to expand...


Just responding. It's give and take monty,give and take.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy
> 
> 
> 
> fine retort potsey!
> prove me wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, the bible is used as a guide for archaeologists to locate old communites, it has proven reliable.
Click to expand...

 that's convenient since most of the cities in the bible  are still occupied today ..

also:
Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy
by Farrell Till

1998 / March-April



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.

Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.

What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.

The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known. 

Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record. 

The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned. 
Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).
The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition - 1990-2002


----------



## daws101

This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai. 
Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24). 
The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by inerrantists when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records. 
Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.

Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions: "They were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked in a speech at the Royal Ontario Museum. That is certainly a legitimate question. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at what the evolutionist admits to,exactly  what i have said in the past.
> 
> 
> Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations.  And I agree with your further comment that we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.  But you go on to say that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.  An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.
> 
> Spetner: Now Ed, thats ridiculous!  Those two statements are not symmetrical.  I dont have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT.  You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist.  You are obliged to show an existence.  I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
> [LMS:  IN MAXS POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE.  I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]
> 
> Max: In the absence of conclusive data defining such a series, if we want to distinguish between various hypotheses to explain the origin of species we must rely on other data, such as from various laboratory model systems that show adaptations in short enough timeframes that we can observe them.  Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins.
> 
> Notice the admissions DR. Max makes Daws.
> 
> 
> 
> there is only one relevant one :Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins.....
> 
> whatever else you wish it to suggest is not relevant..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He admits the extrapolation of micro adaptations is because there is no observed evidence for macro evolution. The rest of their evidence are from assumptions as well.
Click to expand...

hummm. last time I checked  all your "evidence" is assuption. 

by the way he's not "admitting" to anything but simply stating fact. 
it seems that you interpret everything any body that refutes your shit says as if you just caught them masturbating...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Raid kills roaches.
> 
> 
> 
> only for a little while the more you use the less effective it becomes.
> failling at being clever too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think nuclear contamination would do ?
Click to expand...

well the city of las vegas has been on the receiving end of nuclear fallout since the late 1940's .
it's only about 50miles from dreamland the test range.
and it still has roaches......


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think nuclear contamination would do ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you are still arguing this!
> 
> The point (among a few I made in the post, but this was the only one you responded to) is that humans are not the 'best' organism.  There are plenty of things that can survive in places we cannot, that are stronger, faster, etc.  The roaches were used as a light-hearted example, because it has often been said that they would survive a nuclear war after humans all died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just responding. It's give and take monty,give and take.
Click to expand...

it's a dodge.
the only best about humans or why we're  the top of the food chain is we kill on an industrial scale that other predators can't match...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.
> Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).
> The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by inerrantists when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records.
> Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.
> 
> Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions: "They were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked in a speech at the Royal Ontario Museum. That is certainly a legitimate question. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams.



That is true many cities are still in existence. Some cities have been discovered within a city.

But some cities have been unearthed by using the bible,example Jericho,Sodom and Gomorrah and surrounding cities.

Some time if you get a chance watch the naked archaeologist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is only one relevant one :Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins.....
> 
> whatever else you wish it to suggest is not relevant..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He admits the extrapolation of micro adaptations is because there is no observed evidence for macro evolution. The rest of their evidence are from assumptions as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hummm. last time I checked  all your "evidence" is assuption.
> 
> by the way he's not "admitting" to anything but simply stating fact.
> it seems that you interpret everything any body that refutes your shit says as if you just caught them masturbating...
Click to expand...


Not really,the bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds will bring forth after their kind and that is what is observed. Genetics are so reliable you can have your DNA code mapped and they help head off potential problems according to your genes.

I have said it before, parents of all organisms only have DNA to reproduce what they are that is not an assumption,that is a fact.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He admits the extrapolation of micro adaptations is because there is no observed evidence for macro evolution. The rest of their evidence are from assumptions as well.
> 
> 
> 
> hummm. last time I checked  all your "evidence" is assuption.
> 
> by the way he's not "admitting" to anything but simply stating fact.
> it seems that you interpret everything any body that refutes your shit says as if you just caught them masturbating...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really,the bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds will bring forth after their kind and that is what is observed. Genetics are so reliable you can have your DNA code mapped and they help head off potential problems according to your genes.
> 
> I have said it before, parents of all organisms only have DNA to reproduce what they are that is not an assumption,that is a fact.
Click to expand...


That's not in contention.

The idea is that, while parents give birth to the same kind, same species, whatever word you wish to use, their children are not exactly the same.  There are differences, if usually extremely minor.  However, over enough generations, and possibly with somewhat more significant changes along the way, the children may not be the same kind as from all those years ago.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> only for a little while the more you use the less effective it becomes.
> failling at being clever too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think nuclear contamination would do ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well the city of las vegas has been on the receiving end of nuclear fallout since the late 1940's .
> it's only about 50miles from dreamland the test range.
> and it still has roaches......
Click to expand...


Google downwinders,people in Arizona,Utah,California,Nevada are still dying from that underground testing. That was just from the dust it created. It has cause cancer and many genetic disorders.

Over time one area is it hit with radiation from testing or war I guess the contamination would be diluted from weather over time and things could move back in. The earth was designed to clean up after man it happens all the time. With an all out nuclear war you would not be able to escape the contamination.

Eventually everything that survived the war which I don't think anything would survive it. would have to come out of their hiding for many reasons food primarily. Then they to would be contaminated.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you are still arguing this!
> 
> The point (among a few I made in the post, but this was the only one you responded to) is that humans are not the 'best' organism.  There are plenty of things that can survive in places we cannot, that are stronger, faster, etc.  The roaches were used as a light-hearted example, because it has often been said that they would survive a nuclear war after humans all died.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just responding. It's give and take monty,give and take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's a dodge.
> the only best about humans or why we're  the top of the food chain is we kill on an industrial scale that other predators can't match...
Click to expand...


Not a dodge ,I respond to most everyones comments Daws.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hummm. last time I checked  all your "evidence" is assuption.
> 
> by the way he's not "admitting" to anything but simply stating fact.
> it seems that you interpret everything any body that refutes your shit says as if you just caught them masturbating...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really,the bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds will bring forth after their kind and that is what is observed. Genetics are so reliable you can have your DNA code mapped and they help head off potential problems according to your genes.
> 
> I have said it before, parents of all organisms only have DNA to reproduce what they are that is not an assumption,that is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not in contention.
> 
> The idea is that, while parents give birth to the same kind, same species, whatever word you wish to use, their children are not exactly the same.  There are differences, if usually extremely minor.  However, over enough generations, and possibly with somewhat more significant changes along the way, the children may not be the same kind as from all those years ago.
Click to expand...


For my theory it is, and it is observed and you can't prove it otherwise. Now you are relying on speculation and assumptions monty. My views I am not doing that I am drawing conculsions from actual observed evidence.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really,the bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds will bring forth after their kind and that is what is observed. Genetics are so reliable you can have your DNA code mapped and they help head off potential problems according to your genes.
> 
> I have said it before, parents of all organisms only have DNA to reproduce what they are that is not an assumption,that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not in contention.
> 
> The idea is that, while parents give birth to the same kind, same species, whatever word you wish to use, their children are not exactly the same.  There are differences, if usually extremely minor.  However, over enough generations, and possibly with somewhat more significant changes along the way, the children may not be the same kind as from all those years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For my theory it is, and it is observed and you can't prove it otherwise. Now you are relying on speculation and assumptions monty. My views I am not doing that I am drawing conculsions from actual observed evidence.
Click to expand...


What you are doing, though, is misrepresenting evolution again.  Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, or fish giving birth to birds, or anything of that sort.  It's about changes over long periods of time.  Correct or not, you are arguing a strawman if you say evolution expects a creature to give birth to a completely different creature.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> fine retort potsey!
> prove me wrong!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, the bible is used as a guide for archaeologists to locate old communites, it has proven reliable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's convenient since most of the cities in the bible  are still occupied today ..
> 
> also:
> Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy
> by Farrell Till
> 
> 1998 / March-April
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.
> 
> Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.
> 
> What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.
> 
> The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.
> 
> Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.
> 
> The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.
> Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).
> The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition - 1990-2002
Click to expand...


Wow, great article. Now let's apply the same article to the Book of Mormon. How about all those lost cities described that should be here on the good old North American Continent.... [crickets chirping]


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hummm. last time I checked  all your "evidence" is assuption.
> 
> by the way he's not "admitting" to anything but simply stating fact.
> it seems that you interpret everything any body that refutes your shit says as if you just caught them masturbating...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really,the bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds will bring forth after their kind and that is what is observed. Genetics are so reliable you can have your DNA code mapped and they help head off potential problems according to your genes.
> 
> I have said it before, parents of all organisms only have DNA to reproduce what they are that is not an assumption,that is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not in contention.
> 
> The idea is that, while parents give birth to the same kind, same species, whatever word you wish to use, their children are not exactly the same.  There are differences, if usually extremely minor.  However, over enough generations, and possibly with somewhat more significant changes along the way, the children may not be the same kind as from all those years ago.
Click to expand...


Then why has most breeding reached dead ends?


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not in contention.
> 
> The idea is that, while parents give birth to the same kind, same species, whatever word you wish to use, their children are not exactly the same.  There are differences, if usually extremely minor.  However, over enough generations, and possibly with somewhat more significant changes along the way, the children may not be the same kind as from all those years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For my theory it is, and it is observed and you can't prove it otherwise. Now you are relying on speculation and assumptions monty. My views I am not doing that I am drawing conculsions from actual observed evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are doing, though, is misrepresenting evolution again.  Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, or fish giving birth to birds, or anything of that sort.  It's about changes over long periods of time.  Correct or not, you are arguing a strawman if you say evolution expects a creature to give birth to a completely different creature.
Click to expand...


Sorry Monty, it's no strawman, but the theory of horizontal gene transfer!!

"Gradualism has been the prevailing theory for decades now, but examples of horizontal gene transfer would argue for punctuated equilibrium, especially if it is occurring in higher eukaryotes. Instead of many small changes adding up to a measurable difference over time, horizontally transferred genes bring the *potential for big, immediate changes from the time of transfer* down through all subsequent generations."


----------



## UltimateReality

Great description of the SO CALLED SCIENCE Hollymen hangs her hat on...

"Again, he's focusing exclusively on the past, whereas I'm asking evolutionists to do what other scientists do when they aim to say something credible about the distant past. They do the work of connecting it in a credible way to the present. They base their claims about what did happen on their understanding of what does happen. Before scientists claim that a natural process produced humans from apes, they ought to spend some time reflecting on what would have to be true in order for this really to happen within the constraints that McBride has acknowledged.

For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time. Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years).

My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they're in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be. That's just not what scientists should be doing."

Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Evolution News & Views


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will assert right now, that it is your religious fundamentalism that disallows you to examine evolution honestly, because, as I said, it is not a very hard concept to grasp. I hate to break into this, but I can't help it. As I explain such simple concepts, it is obvious that you are simply resisting the use of your intellect, in applying it to these concepts. Therefore, they never seem to make sense to you. You must, by the nature of your belief, deflect any and all implications that might intrude or contradict your version of reality which is informed by a literal interpretation of the bible. Am I wrong? In other words, you won't allow it to make sense, even to yourself. Sure, you could say the same of me with respect to god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not with respect to God, but with respect to the TOE. The theory is falling down around you even as I type this, yet you refuse to confront the evidence, lost in your ignorance and holding tight to your materialist beliefs. I predict the theory of evolution as we know it today will have totally ceased to exist 10 years from now. There just won't be any scientific evidence to support it and very intelligent people will ask themselves, "How could we have been so foolish?".
> 
> Here is the funny thing. I am the one trying to keep religion out of these scientific discussions but you and Holly keep interjecting it back in with every post. Your post above is quite childish really. You presuppose that you are immune from your beliefs and prejudices and are making untainted, un-influenced and un-biased observations. It is this false belief that you are immune to such things that makes you the most lost of all. Not realizing your own weaknesses or influences, you think everyone else is messed up, but you never turn the light of introspection back on yourself.
> 
> I challenged you with questions on the "common ancestor" or "common ancestry". I am not the one always quoting this terminology so therefore, it is not my responsibility to define it. Even though it is YOU who doesn't even know the correct terminology, what you are describing above is the Last Universal Ancestor, not ancestor of two distinct species. What I do find laughable is that major advances in genetics were supposed to support Darwinism, support the tree. So when they didn't, when it was obvious there was no scientific evidence for the tree of life, they come up with a preposterous band aid addition to the theory. Now we have the theory of, and I do mean theory, of horizontal gene transfer. So now individual organisms somehow exchanged genetic material? So let's see the study. Let's see the experiment that shows this occurring in the lab in anything other than viruses(are viruses alive??).
> 
> So while you call me blind, do you see how pathetic this is for you? The tree of life is totally shredded by genetic evidence, but it is still in the textbooks, still taught in school, *and even you are still referring to the tree!!!! *Now we have another un-provable speculation about why the genome of multiple species won't cooperate with Darwin's tree of life. Yeah, gene trading. That's must have been what causes this. Yep, its gene trading. You know its the only logical explanation for why real science doesn't prove this sad materialistic theory I cling to.
> 
> I'm sorry but it is you that refuses to look at the scientific evidence.
> 
> The fact is they have been onto horizontal gene transfer since 1985 but their religion wouldn't let them give up on the tree, as in your ignorance, calling others ignorant, you haven't either.
> 
> Will this link suffice for Holly. Most surely not. She doesn't actually do any reading..
> 
> Lateral gene transfer papers on horizontal gene transfer by Michael Syvanen, PhD ( UC Davis, CA)
Click to expand...


First of all, horizontal gene transfer is important among all single-celled organisms, not simply viruses, so  it is apparent you have no understanding of this off the bat. This goes for all three domains: Eukarya, Bacteria, and Archea. Second, the fact that this may poses a problem for phylogenetic classification of the earliest single-celled organisms is in no way a point against TOE or the tree of life. This is simpy because Horizontal Gene Transfer is not a significant factor for gene transfer among anything other than single-celled organisms, so can not be considered significant in the phylogeny of higher animals, in which vertical gene transfer is the predominant mode of gene transfer. Therefore, the "tree of life" still holds valid for anything but the earliest microorganisms on earth. Once you get past that earliest point of evolution for higher animals, HGT is no longer robust.

"Horizontal gene transfer is a potential confounding factor in inferring phylogenetic trees based on the sequence of one gene.[48] For example, given two distantly related *bacteria* that have exchanged a gene a phylogenetic tree including those species will show them to be closely related because that gene is the same even though most other genes are dissimilar. For this reason it is often ideal to use other information to infer robust phylogenies such as the presence or absence of genes or, more commonly, to include as wide a range of genes for phylogenetic analysis as possible.

...Biologist Johann Peter Gogarten suggests "the original metaphor of a tree no longer fits the data from recent genome research" therefore "biologists should use the metaphor of a mosaic to describe the different histories combined in individual genomes and use the metaphor of a net to visualize the rich exchange and cooperative effects of HGT among *microbes*."[21] There exist several methods to infer such phylogenetic networks." (wiki)

The concept of the "tree" in explaining evolution is still valid and useful, given that HGT is only prevalent among single-celled organisms, and wouldn't be a factor in gene transfer among animals. 

Horizontal gene transfer is NOT evidence against evolution or the tree of life. All it suggests is that, in the beginning, phylogeny of single-celled organisms is not so clear cut. Again, it is your ignorance of what HGT actually is that allows you to consider it as evidence against evolution. In reality, it is only confounding as far as phylogenetic classification goes, but not as far as the basic mechanism of evolution being true. HGT only messes up classification of the earliest organisms on this planet. Even then, HGT is rare which makes it unsafe to assume that among single-celled organisms the metaphor of a tree is accurate. 

".. it is no longer safe to assume that those were the only lateral gene transfers that occurred after the first eukaryotes arose. *Only in later, multicellular eukaryotes do we know of definite restrictions on horizontal gene exchange*, such as the advent of separated (and protected) germ cells... (wiki)



"These approaches are enabling estimates of the relative frequency of HGT; *the relatively low values that have been observed suggests that the 'tree' is still a valid metaphor for evolution &#8211; but the tree is adorned with 'cobwebs' of horizontally transferred genes.* This is the main conclusion of a 2005 study of more than 40 complete microbial genomic sequences by Fan Ge, Li-San Wang, and Junhyong Kim. They estimate the frequency of HGT events at about 2% of core genes per genome.[11] Similar whole genome approaches to assessing evolution are also enabling progress in identifying very early events in the tree of life, such as a proposal that eukaryotes arose by fusion of two complete but very diverse prokaryote genomes: one from a bacterium and one from an archaeal cell.[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer_in_evolution
....


Why did you ask about common ancestor if you already knew the answer?  I was describing Last Universal Ancestor but had forgotten about that term. This should be unimportant, but for some reason, you are making it a big deal. I also mentioned common ancestor when talking about more recent species, so I discussed both concepts. For some reason this was an issue for you.

You're assertions about me having a presupposition that is equal to yours is hilarious. I can respond to this simply by pointing out that creationists are leading the evidence to their presuppositions, while evolutionists are following the evidence to where it may lead. Are you insisting that a scientific worldview is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't include god? All I would have to say that is: there is no evidence for god.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Great description of the SO CALLED SCIENCE Hollymen hangs her hat on...
> 
> "Again, he's focusing exclusively on the past, whereas I'm asking evolutionists to do what other scientists do when they aim to say something credible about the distant past. They do the work of connecting it in a credible way to the present. They base their claims about what did happen on their understanding of what does happen. Before scientists claim that a natural process produced humans from apes, they ought to spend some time reflecting on what would have to be true in order for this really to happen within the constraints that McBride has acknowledged.
> 
> For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time. Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years).
> 
> My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they're in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be. That's just not what scientists should be doing."
> 
> Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Evolution News & Views



Sorry dear, but the author of that slanted bit of nonsense is no more versed in science than you are.

It's shame that the weak minded and the gullible are so easily taken in by the charlatans at creationist websites.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not in contention.
> 
> The idea is that, while parents give birth to the same kind, same species, whatever word you wish to use, their children are not exactly the same.  There are differences, if usually extremely minor.  However, over enough generations, and possibly with somewhat more significant changes along the way, the children may not be the same kind as from all those years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For my theory it is, and it is observed and you can't prove it otherwise. Now you are relying on speculation and assumptions monty. My views I am not doing that I am drawing conculsions from actual observed evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are doing, though, is misrepresenting evolution again.  Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, or fish giving birth to birds, or anything of that sort.  It's about changes over long periods of time.  Correct or not, you are arguing a strawman if you say evolution expects a creature to give birth to a completely different creature.
Click to expand...


Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.

That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?

The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Why did you ask about common ancestor if you already knew the answer?



I wanted to know what you, Hollymen and Daws were talking about when you throw the term around. No matter what you say, it is a mythical creature at best, and even the last universal ancestor isn't definitive, so I think you all should remove the term from your vocabulary. There really isn't any evidence for a definitive common ancestor so we need to slide him/her/it over to the myth column since that is where you have placed God as well with the same amount of evidence.



newpolitics said:


> You're assertions about me having a presupposition that is equal to yours is hilarious. I can respond to this simply by pointing out that creationists are leading the evidence to their presuppositions, while evolutionists are following the evidence to where it may lead. Are you insisting that a scientific worldview is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't include god? All I would have to say that is: there is no evidence for god.



Once again, your ignorant belief that you are "just following the evidence" makes you totally lost. Just as my belief in God shapes my worldview, your materialism (matter is the only reality) shapes and forms your worldview and is the lens you view everything with. Furthermore, just like all the other clowns, you cling to Darwinism like a religion even when confronted by irrefutable scientific evidence. So you should rephrase your comment above.... you follow the evidence as long as it fits into the TOE. Forgot the God argument, you are not open to alternative, better scientific explanations because you are blinded by your own ignorance of your censoring worldview. You can't see what you can't see.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> For my theory it is, and it is observed and you can't prove it otherwise. Now you are relying on speculation and assumptions monty. My views I am not doing that I am drawing conculsions from actual observed evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing, though, is misrepresenting evolution again.  Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, or fish giving birth to birds, or anything of that sort.  It's about changes over long periods of time.  Correct or not, you are arguing a strawman if you say evolution expects a creature to give birth to a completely different creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.
> 
> That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?
> 
> The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.
Click to expand...


Let's say for a moment we had an intelligent agent directing the process, such as a dog breeder. How long would it take, keeping certain traits, and eliminating others, for us to breed a shih-tzu into an elephant? Because as much as they scream strawman, this is what evolution preaches and the only factor they need for this miracle is time.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of the SO CALLED SCIENCE Hollymen hangs her hat on...
> 
> "Again, he's focusing exclusively on the past, whereas I'm asking evolutionists to do what other scientists do when they aim to say something credible about the distant past. They do the work of connecting it in a credible way to the present. They base their claims about what did happen on their understanding of what does happen. Before scientists claim that a natural process produced humans from apes, they ought to spend some time reflecting on what would have to be true in order for this really to happen within the constraints that McBride has acknowledged.
> 
> For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time. Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years).
> 
> My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they're in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be. That's just not what scientists should be doing."
> 
> Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dear, but the author of that slanted bit of nonsense is no more versed in science than you are.
> 
> It's shame that the weak minded and the gullible are so easily taken in by the charlatans at creationist websites.
Click to expand...


Once again you have not presented a rebuttal, but an UNFOUNDED ad hollymen attack. Try again homeslice.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of the SO CALLED SCIENCE Hollymen hangs her hat on...
> 
> "Again, he's focusing exclusively on the past, whereas I'm asking evolutionists to do what other scientists do when they aim to say something credible about the distant past. They do the work of connecting it in a credible way to the present. They base their claims about what did happen on their understanding of what does happen. Before scientists claim that a natural process produced humans from apes, they ought to spend some time reflecting on what would have to be true in order for this really to happen within the constraints that McBride has acknowledged.
> 
> For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time. Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years).
> 
> My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they're in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be. That's just not what scientists should be doing."
> 
> Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dear, but the author of that slanted bit of nonsense is no more versed in science than you are.
> 
> It's shame that the weak minded and the gullible are so easily taken in by the charlatans at creationist websites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you have not presented a rebuttal, but an UNFOUNDED ad hollymen attack. Try again homeslice.
Click to expand...

I see nothing to rebut. You have simply copied and pasted portions of an article you found on the web. It's the typical laziness and ineptitude that defines your attempts at argument. 

You copy and paste articles which subject matter you don't understand and then you launch into fits of childish name-calling when you're tasked with explaining and defending the article.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing, though, is misrepresenting evolution again.  Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, or fish giving birth to birds, or anything of that sort.  It's about changes over long periods of time.  Correct or not, you are arguing a strawman if you say evolution expects a creature to give birth to a completely different creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.
> 
> That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?
> 
> The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's say for a moment we had an intelligent agent directing the process, such as a dog breeder. How long would it take, keeping certain traits, and eliminating others, for us to breed a shih-tzu into an elephant? Because as much as they scream strawman, this is what evolution preaches and the only factor they need for this miracle is time.
Click to expand...

That's a nonsense claim. It does, however, define the creationist worldview wherein ignorance of science, revulsion for science and falsehoods are promoted in failed attempts to conform to literal bible tales and fables.

The science of evolution that you despise makes no such claim as yours. Well... It's not completely your claim as it is one promoted on fundie websites where you claims are copied and pasted from.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing, though, is misrepresenting evolution again.  Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, or fish giving birth to birds, or anything of that sort.  It's about changes over long periods of time.  Correct or not, you are arguing a strawman if you say evolution expects a creature to give birth to a completely different creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.
> 
> That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?
> 
> The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's say for a moment we had an intelligent agent directing the process, such as a dog breeder. How long would it take, keeping certain traits, and eliminating others, for us to breed a shih-tzu into an elephant? Because as much as they scream strawman, this is what evolution preaches and the only factor they need for this miracle is time.
Click to expand...


For everything to evolve according to their theory,it would have taken much longer then they believe the universe is.

Genetics are predictable and there is a reason for it.

But also these mutant genes have mechanisms working to correct errors which make odds even higher for it to happen the way they say. I believe most variations within a family are merely different lineages cross breeding. The gene pool is very vast in most populations except for the ones that we consider as purebreeds.

When a population becomes isolated and they reproduce with only their own kind they breed out information that could have been there from previous generations,that is why a purebred only has the genetic information to reproduce what they are.

That is what happens through selective breeding,it might take several different breeds to make up a certain kind dog, cattle,or horse, but over time you breed that animal with the same breeding to another the other breeds that it took to make that breed will not show up in the population.

Not sure how many generations it would take but eventually the DNA information of the other breeds will be gone unless reintroduced to the population.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> For my theory it is, and it is observed and you can't prove it otherwise. Now you are relying on speculation and assumptions monty. My views I am not doing that I am drawing conculsions from actual observed evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing, though, is misrepresenting evolution again.  Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, or fish giving birth to birds, or anything of that sort.  It's about changes over long periods of time.  Correct or not, you are arguing a strawman if you say evolution expects a creature to give birth to a completely different creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Monty, it's no strawman, but the theory of horizontal gene transfer!!
> 
> "Gradualism has been the prevailing theory for decades now, but examples of horizontal gene transfer would argue for punctuated equilibrium, especially if it is occurring in higher eukaryotes. Instead of many small changes adding up to a measurable difference over time, horizontally transferred genes bring the *potential for big, immediate changes from the time of transfer* down through all subsequent generations."
Click to expand...


Even then, is the idea one of a creature giving birth to a totally different creature, i.e. cat to dog?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.
> Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).
> The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by inerrantists when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records.
> Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.
> 
> Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions: "They were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked in a speech at the Royal Ontario Museum. That is certainly a legitimate question. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true many cities are still in existence. Some cities have been discovered within a city.
> 
> But some cities have been unearthed by using the bible,example Jericho,Sodom and Gomorrah and surrounding cities.
> 
> Some time if you get a chance watch the naked archaeologist.
Click to expand...

I did went it was on ..once again you are spining the facts ..National Geographic - The Lost Cities Of Bible - For years Biblical scholars have been on a scavenger hunt for the "Lost Cities" of Sodom and Gomorrah. Centuries after these sinful cities, God conquers another misbehaving city: Jericho. What do we know about these cities or are they simply moral fables? According to the Bible, God destroyed the sinful cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by raining down fire and brimstone. Before destroying the cities, Abraham convinced God to save Abraham's nephew, Lot, from the destruction. God sent angels to Sodom to warn Lot's family to leave and not look back. As they left the city, Lot's wife, not heeding the warning of the angels, looked back at Sodom and was turned into a pillar of salt. The earthquake that some believe could have destroyed the Biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah is thought to have been at least a magnitude of 6.8. Earthquakes of this magnitude can cause fires, and in those days perhaps uncontrollable fires that destroyed the cities. Some scholars place the Biblical cities in current-day Iraq, at Mashkin-Shapir; others posit that the cities were buried under the Dead Sea. The remains of these cities have never been found, though some believe the strongest candidates for Sodom and Gomorrah can be found in the archaeological remains of the Early Bronze Age cities of Babe Edh-Dhra and Numeira, to the East of the Dead Sea. Archaeologist and Biblical Scholar William Foxwell Albright of Johns Hopkins University put Bab edh-Dhra on the map in 1924, identifying it as a Bronze Age site with a possible connection to Sodom. The site of Bab edh-Dhra was occupied for a period of 1300 years, beginning with camp site activity and progressing to village life and a walled town culture before returning to an open village in the last stages. According to the Bible, Joshua and the Israelites conquered the heavily fortified city of Jericho. The Book of Joshua notes that Jericho was strongly fortified, that the attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring, that the inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs, that the siege was short, that the walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake, and that the city was not plundered or burned. Many of these points have been corroborated by the archaeological record during excavations at Jericho.




The remains of these cities have never been found, though some believe the strongest candidates for Sodom and Gomorrah can be found in the archaeological remains of the Early Bronze Age cities of Babe Edh-Dhra and Numeira, to the East of the Dead Sea. Archaeologist and Biblical Scholar William Foxwell Albright of Johns Hopkins University put Bab edh-Dhra on the map in 1924, identifying it as a Bronze Age site with a possible connection to Sodom.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> For my theory it is, and it is observed and you can't prove it otherwise. Now you are relying on speculation and assumptions monty. My views I am not doing that I am drawing conculsions from actual observed evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing, though, is misrepresenting evolution again.  Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, or fish giving birth to birds, or anything of that sort.  It's about changes over long periods of time.  Correct or not, you are arguing a strawman if you say evolution expects a creature to give birth to a completely different creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.
> 
> That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?
> 
> The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.
Click to expand...


'All the time'?  Why should new species be popping up all the time?

And who is to say they have not been?  You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges.  But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say.  Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?

As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before.  There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He admits the extrapolation of micro adaptations is because there is no observed evidence for macro evolution. The rest of their evidence are from assumptions as well.
> 
> 
> 
> hummm. last time I checked  all your "evidence" is assuption.
> 
> by the way he's not "admitting" to anything but simply stating fact.
> it seems that you interpret everything any body that refutes your shit says as if you just caught them masturbating...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really,the bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds will bring forth after their kind and that is what is observed. Genetics are so reliable you can have your DNA code mapped and they help head off potential problems according to your genes.
> 
> I have said it before, parents of all organisms only have DNA to reproduce what they are that is not an assumption,that is a fact.
Click to expand...

 what the bible say is irrelevant.
it's one of your famous non earth shattering  non answers.
genetics, the reliability of DNA mapping have fuck all to do with my questions.
animal sexual behavior is no proof of god, neither is the observation of that behavior.
YOUR ASSSUPTION LIES IN YOUR BELIFE THAT GOD DID IT AND YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THAT...
please answer this question directly and truthfully with no biblical deflections:"WHY is it you treat every statement of fact as an admission some wrong doing that has been covered up...?
when in fact it's right there for everyone to see..


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hummm. last time I checked  all your "evidence" is assuption.
> 
> by the way he's not "admitting" to anything but simply stating fact.
> it seems that you interpret everything any body that refutes your shit says as if you just caught them masturbating...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really,the bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds will bring forth after their kind and that is what is observed. Genetics are so reliable you can have your DNA code mapped and they help head off potential problems according to your genes.
> 
> I have said it before, parents of all organisms only have DNA to reproduce what they are that is not an assumption,that is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not in contention.
> 
> The idea is that, while parents give birth to the same kind, same species, whatever word you wish to use, their children are not exactly the same.  There are differences, if usually extremely minor.  However, over enough generations, and possibly with somewhat more significant changes along the way, the children may not be the same kind as from all those years ago.
Click to expand...

bump!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think nuclear contamination would do ?
> 
> 
> 
> well the city of las vegas has been on the receiving end of nuclear fallout since the late 1940's .
> it's only about 50miles from dreamland the test range.
> and it still has roaches......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google downwinders,people in Arizona,Utah,California,Nevada are still dying from that underground testing. That was just from the dust it created. It has cause cancer and many genetic disorders.
> 
> Over time one area is it hit with radiation from testing or war I guess the contamination would be diluted from weather over time and things could move back in. The earth was designed to clean up after man it happens all the time. With an all out nuclear war you would not be able to escape the contamination.
> 
> Eventually everything that survived the war which I don't think anything would survive it. would have to come out of their hiding for many reasons food primarily. Then they to would be contaminated.
Click to expand...

completely missing the point!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, the bible is used as a guide for archaeologists to locate old communites, it has proven reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> that's convenient since most of the cities in the bible  are still occupied today ..
> 
> also:
> Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy
> by Farrell Till
> 
> 1998 / March-April
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.
> 
> Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.
> 
> What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.
> 
> The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.
> 
> Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.
> 
> The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.
> Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).
> The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition - 1990-2002
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, great article. Now let's apply the same article to the Book of Mormon. How about all those lost cities described that should be here on the good old North American Continent.... [crickets chirping]
Click to expand...

no need, the book of Mormon is fantasy..
on the other hand the bible is a mix of fantasy and reality is incomplete and highly edited.
the only logical reason that the bible helps in archaeological finds is as stated before most of the cities mentioned in it still exist       
you also conveniently leave out the fact Palestinians renamed many of those sites and knew their locations.
other then that, your statement was stupid and crash and burn attempt at scarcasim


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing, though, is misrepresenting evolution again.  Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, or fish giving birth to birds, or anything of that sort.  It's about changes over long periods of time.  Correct or not, you are arguing a strawman if you say evolution expects a creature to give birth to a completely different creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.
> 
> That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?
> 
> The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'All the time'?  Why should new species be popping up all the time?
> 
> And who is to say they have not been?  You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges.  But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say.  Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?
> 
> As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before.  There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.
Click to expand...

Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News

More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between 
1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...



40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species 
From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day 
By Richard Conniff


Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to obscure microbes and insects, scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.

Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 millionbut they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this centurymostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. And 10,000 wouldnt be a stretch, says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonians National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.



Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


once again YWC is talking out his ass!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dear, but the author of that slanted bit of nonsense is no more versed in science than you are.
> 
> It's shame that the weak minded and the gullible are so easily taken in by the charlatans at creationist websites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you have not presented a rebuttal, but an UNFOUNDED ad hollymen attack. Try again homeslice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see nothing to rebut.
Click to expand...


You never do.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.
> 
> That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?
> 
> The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say for a moment we had an intelligent agent directing the process, such as a dog breeder. How long would it take, keeping certain traits, and eliminating others, for us to breed a shih-tzu into an elephant? Because as much as they scream strawman, this is what evolution preaches and the only factor they need for this miracle is time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a nonsense claim. ...
> The science of evolution that you despise makes no such claim as yours.
Click to expand...


Back it up! In your own words of course. No cutting and pasting or plagiarizing.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.
> 
> That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?
> 
> The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say for a moment we had an intelligent agent directing the process, such as a dog breeder. How long would it take, keeping certain traits, and eliminating others, for us to breed a shih-tzu into an elephant? Because as much as they scream strawman, this is what evolution preaches and the only factor they need for this miracle is time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For everything to evolve according to their theory,it would have taken much longer then they believe the universe is.
> 
> Genetics are predictable and there is a reason for it.
> 
> But also these mutant genes have mechanisms working to correct errors which make odds even higher for it to happen the way they say. I believe most variations within a family are merely different lineages cross breeding. The gene pool is very vast in most populations except for the ones that we consider as purebreeds.
> 
> When a population becomes isolated and they reproduce with only their own kind they breed out information that could have been there from previous generations,that is why a purebred only has the genetic information to reproduce what they are.
> 
> That is what happens through selective breeding,it might take several different breeds to make up a certain kind dog, cattle,or horse, but over time you breed that animal with the same breeding to another the other breeds that it took to make that breed will not show up in the population.
> 
> Not sure how many generations it would take but eventually the DNA information of the other breeds will be gone unless reintroduced to the population.
Click to expand...


I just about fell off my chair the other day when I was reading a Darwinist article about crossbreeding and they used the mule as example!! I wondered if anyone has told them that crossbreed ends with the mule??


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing, though, is misrepresenting evolution again.  Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, or fish giving birth to birds, or anything of that sort.  It's about changes over long periods of time.  Correct or not, you are arguing a strawman if you say evolution expects a creature to give birth to a completely different creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Monty, it's no strawman, but the theory of horizontal gene transfer!!
> 
> "Gradualism has been the prevailing theory for decades now, but examples of horizontal gene transfer would argue for punctuated equilibrium, especially if it is occurring in higher eukaryotes. Instead of many small changes adding up to a measurable difference over time, horizontally transferred genes bring the *potential for big, immediate changes from the time of transfer* down through all subsequent generations."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even then, is the idea one of a creature giving birth to a totally different creature, i.e. cat to dog?
Click to expand...


Not at that level of complexity. But supposedly at lower levels of complexity.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing, though, is misrepresenting evolution again.  Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, or fish giving birth to birds, or anything of that sort.  It's about changes over long periods of time.  Correct or not, you are arguing a strawman if you say evolution expects a creature to give birth to a completely different creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.
> 
> That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?
> 
> The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'All the time'?  Why should new species be popping up all the time?
> 
> And who is to say they have not been?  You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges.  But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say.  Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?
> 
> As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before.  There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.
Click to expand...


Even if we count the falsified transitional species, the fossil record just does not bear this out.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's convenient since most of the cities in the bible  are still occupied today ..
> 
> also:
> Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy
> by Farrell Till
> 
> 1998 / March-April
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.
> 
> Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.
> 
> What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.
> 
> The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.
> 
> Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.
> 
> The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.
> Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).
> The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition - 1990-2002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, great article. Now let's apply the same article to the Book of Mormon. How about all those lost cities described that should be here on the good old North American Continent.... [crickets chirping]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need, the book of Mormon is fantasy..
> on the other hand the bible is a mix of fantasy and reality is incomplete and highly edited.
> the only logical reason that the bible helps in archaeological finds is as stated before most of the cities mentioned in it still exist
> you also conveniently leave out the fact Palestinians renamed many of those sites and knew their locations.
> other then that, your statement was stupid and crash and burn attempt at scarcasim
Click to expand...


Well, praise Darwin!! At least you caught the sarcasm this time. I was starting to wonder about you.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, great article. Now let's apply the same article to the Book of Mormon. How about all those lost cities described that should be here on the good old North American Continent.... [crickets chirping]
> 
> 
> 
> no need, the book of Mormon is fantasy..
> on the other hand the bible is a mix of fantasy and reality is incomplete and highly edited.
> the only logical reason that the bible helps in archaeological finds is as stated before most of the cities mentioned in it still exist
> you also conveniently leave out the fact Palestinians renamed many of those sites and knew their locations.
> other then that, your statement was stupid and crash and burn attempt at scarcasim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, praise Darwin!! At least you caught the sarcasm this time. I was starting to wonder about you.
Click to expand...

oh! that's what you're calling it...


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.
> 
> That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?
> 
> The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'All the time'?  Why should new species be popping up all the time?
> 
> And who is to say they have not been?  You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges.  But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say.  Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?
> 
> As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before.  There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if we count the falsified transitional species, the fossil record just does not bear this out.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, doesn't bear what out?  I'm not certain what point you are responding to.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Monty, it's no strawman, but the theory of horizontal gene transfer!!
> 
> "Gradualism has been the prevailing theory for decades now, but examples of horizontal gene transfer would argue for punctuated equilibrium, especially if it is occurring in higher eukaryotes. Instead of many small changes adding up to a measurable difference over time, horizontally transferred genes bring the *potential for big, immediate changes from the time of transfer* down through all subsequent generations."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even then, is the idea one of a creature giving birth to a totally different creature, i.e. cat to dog?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at that level of complexity. But supposedly at lower levels of complexity.
Click to expand...


Well are we talking about sexual or asexual reproduction?  Is it parents giving birth to a completely different child, or a change after mitosis?  YWC made a point about parents giving birth, if that isn't the manner of reproduction at the level of complexity you are speaking of it might not be completely relevant.

However, I'm willing to accept that my response may have been in error, at least to that extent.  I've said before, I'm a layman when it comes to evolutionary theory, so take all of my responses with a grain of salt.


----------



## daws101

Sorry Monty, it's no strawman, but the theory of horizontal gene transfer!!

"Gradualism has been the prevailing theory for decades now, but examples of horizontal gene transfer would argue for punctuated equilibrium, especially if it is occurring in higher eukaryotes. Instead of many small changes adding up to a measurable difference over time, horizontally transferred genes bring the potential for big, immediate changes from the time of transfer down through all subsequent generations."

HEY UR!
got a link for that quote


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing, though, is misrepresenting evolution again.  Evolution is not about dogs giving birth to cats, or fish giving birth to birds, or anything of that sort.  It's about changes over long periods of time.  Correct or not, you are arguing a strawman if you say evolution expects a creature to give birth to a completely different creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.
> 
> That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?
> 
> The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'All the time'?  Why should new species be popping up all the time?
> 
> And who is to say they have not been?  You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges.  But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say.  Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?
> 
> As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before.  There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.
Click to expand...


Wrong,all organisms experience mutations and by theory that is how evolution happens. It's not my theory, it is yours I can't help it you can't show macro evolution in any group of organisms.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's convenient since most of the cities in the bible  are still occupied today ..
> 
> also:
> Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy
> by Farrell Till
> 
> 1998 / March-April
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.
> 
> Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.
> 
> What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.
> 
> The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.
> 
> Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.
> 
> The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.
> Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).
> The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition - 1990-2002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, great article. Now let's apply the same article to the Book of Mormon. How about all those lost cities described that should be here on the good old North American Continent.... [crickets chirping]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need, the book of Mormon is fantasy..
> on the other hand the bible is a mix of fantasy and reality is incomplete and highly edited.
> the only logical reason that the bible helps in archaeological finds is as stated before most of the cities mentioned in it still exist
> you also conveniently leave out the fact Palestinians renamed many of those sites and knew their locations.
> other then that, your statement was stupid and crash and burn attempt at scarcasim
Click to expand...


Some parts of science books are to.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say for a moment we had an intelligent agent directing the process, such as a dog breeder. How long would it take, keeping certain traits, and eliminating others, for us to breed a shih-tzu into an elephant? Because as much as they scream strawman, this is what evolution preaches and the only factor they need for this miracle is time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For everything to evolve according to their theory,it would have taken much longer then they believe the universe is.
> 
> Genetics are predictable and there is a reason for it.
> 
> But also these mutant genes have mechanisms working to correct errors which make odds even higher for it to happen the way they say. I believe most variations within a family are merely different lineages cross breeding. The gene pool is very vast in most populations except for the ones that we consider as purebreeds.
> 
> When a population becomes isolated and they reproduce with only their own kind they breed out information that could have been there from previous generations,that is why a purebred only has the genetic information to reproduce what they are.
> 
> That is what happens through selective breeding,it might take several different breeds to make up a certain kind dog, cattle,or horse, but over time you breed that animal with the same breeding to another the other breeds that it took to make that breed will not show up in the population.
> 
> Not sure how many generations it would take but eventually the DNA information of the other breeds will be gone unless reintroduced to the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just about fell off my chair the other day when I was reading a Darwinist article about crossbreeding and they used the mule as example!! I wondered if anyone has told them that crossbreed ends with the mule??
Click to expand...


They don't want to admit to limits.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.
> 
> That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?
> 
> The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'All the time'?  Why should new species be popping up all the time?
> 
> And who is to say they have not been?  You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges.  But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say.  Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?
> 
> As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before.  There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News
> 
> More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
> 1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...
> 
> 
> 
> 40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
> From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
> By Richard Conniff
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to obscure microbes and insects, scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.
> 
> Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 millionbut they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this centurymostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. And 10,000 wouldnt be a stretch, says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonians National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> once again YWC is talking out his ass!
Click to expand...


How do you know these newly discovered organisms have not been here all along ?

We are talking macro evolution not discovering organisms that have always been here.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Sorry Monty, it's no strawman, but the theory of horizontal gene transfer!!
> 
> "Gradualism has been the prevailing theory for decades now, but examples of horizontal gene transfer would argue for punctuated equilibrium, especially if it is occurring in higher eukaryotes. Instead of many small changes adding up to a measurable difference over time, horizontally transferred genes bring the potential for big, immediate changes from the time of transfer down through all subsequent generations."
> 
> HEY UR!
> got a link for that quote



Gradualism, do you have any evidence for Gradualism with any living organisms that would support macro not micro?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.
> 
> That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?
> 
> The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'All the time'?  Why should new species be popping up all the time?
> 
> And who is to say they have not been?  You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges.  But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say.  Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?
> 
> As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before.  There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News
> 
> More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
> 1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...
> 
> 
> 
> 40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
> From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
> By Richard Conniff
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to obscure microbes and insects, scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.
> 
> Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 millionbut they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this centurymostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. And 10,000 wouldnt be a stretch, says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonians National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> once again YWC is talking out his ass!
Click to expand...


Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes


----------



## Youwerecreated

Oh wait it get's better,there are no tranistional organisms still around from any group. So it is safe to say that transitional species whatever they might be were not better adapted. That pretty much blows your little theory up.

Your side is still trying to put a puzzle together that never existed.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'All the time'?  Why should new species be popping up all the time?
> 
> And who is to say they have not been?  You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges.  But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say.  Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?
> 
> As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before.  There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.
> 
> 
> 
> Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News
> 
> More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
> 1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...
> 
> 
> 
> 40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
> From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
> By Richard Conniff
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to obscure microbes and insects, scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.
> 
> Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 millionbut they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this centurymostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. And 10,000 wouldnt be a stretch, says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonians National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> once again YWC is talking out his ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes
Click to expand...


Humans were never apes. This is a common mistake made the scientifically illiterate and the creationist charlatans. Man and an early ape-like creature shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. 

That type of common ancestry with species branching off in separate directions is not uncommon in evolutionary history.

Because you have been god-smacked by the ICR, you will have difficulty with the above. Just assume all the fosill evidence is a conspiracy, the earth is 6,000 years old and the charlatans at the ICR have your best interest at heart.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Misrepresenting, how am I doing that ?is that not what happens gradually over time,one family evolves to a destinctly new family according to your theory ? There should be new species always popping up all the time.
> 
> That is why I brought it up several times,living species today have shown no evolution from organisms fossils that were dated 100's of millions of years earlier. How can that be when all organisms experience mutations ?
> 
> The evidence is just not there for your theory it's all conjectue and unobserved assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'All the time'?  Why should new species be popping up all the time?
> 
> And who is to say they have not been?  You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges.  But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say.  Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?
> 
> As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before.  There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong,all organisms experience mutations and by theory that is how evolution happens. It's not my theory, it is yours I can't help it you can't show macro evolution in any group of organisms.
Click to expand...


Just because all species experience mutations, that doesn't mean those mutations are spread throughout the population.  What you either don't understand or refuse to accept is that evolution does not say that all mutations are going to be spread.

So no, it is not wrong based on your answer.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, great article. Now let's apply the same article to the Book of Mormon. How about all those lost cities described that should be here on the good old North American Continent.... [crickets chirping]
> 
> 
> 
> no need, the book of Mormon is fantasy..
> on the other hand the bible is a mix of fantasy and reality is incomplete and highly edited.
> the only logical reason that the bible helps in archaeological finds is as stated before most of the cities mentioned in it still exist
> you also conveniently leave out the fact Palestinians renamed many of those sites and knew their locations.
> other then that, your statement was stupid and crash and burn attempt at scarcasim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some parts of science books are to.
Click to expand...

 only for space not for content...the books you are speaking of are for grades 1-6 
it's not practical to use a college level science text when teaching 5th graders.the reasons why should be obvious.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Oh wait it get's better,there are no tranistional organisms still around from any group. So it is safe to say that transitional species whatever they might be were not better adapted. That pretty much blows your little theory up.
> 
> Your side is still trying to put a puzzle together that never existed.



That might depend on how you define transitional species.  If you are looking for some half fish, half bird creature, you are probably doomed to be disappointed.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'All the time'?  Why should new species be popping up all the time?
> 
> And who is to say they have not been?  You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges.  But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say.  Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?
> 
> As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before.  There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.
> 
> 
> 
> Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News
> 
> More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
> 1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...
> 
> 
> 
> 40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
> From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
> By Richard Conniff
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to obscure microbes and insects, scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.
> 
> Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 millionbut they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this centurymostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. And 10,000 wouldnt be a stretch, says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonians National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> once again YWC is talking out his ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know these newly discovered organisms have not been here all along ?
> 
> We are talking macro evolution not discovering organisms that have always been here.
Click to expand...

(cue buzzer) thanks for playing. since you have no evidence to the contary.
my money is on new species.
besides you're  making a  a false assumtion when you assume they've always been here.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News
> 
> More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
> 1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...
> 
> 
> 
> 40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
> From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
> By Richard Conniff
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to &#8220;obscure microbes and insects,&#8221; scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.
> 
> Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 million&#8212;but they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this century&#8212;mostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. &#8220;And 10,000 wouldn&#8217;t be a stretch,&#8221; says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonian&#8217;s National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> once again YWC is talking out his ass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans were never apes. This is a common mistake made the scientifically illiterate and the creationist charlatans. Man and an early ape-like creature shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions.
> 
> That type of common ancestry with species branching off in separate directions is not uncommon in evolutionary history.
> 
> Because you have been god-smacked by the ICR, you will have difficulty with the above. Just assume all the fosill evidence is a conspiracy, the earth is 6,000 years old and the charlatans at the ICR have your best interest at heart.
Click to expand...

bump!
thanks


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'All the time'?  *Why should new species be popping up all the time*?
> 
> *And who is to say they have not been?  You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them,* and can see when a new one emerges.  But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say.  Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?
> 
> As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before.  There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if we count the falsified transitional species, the fossil record just does not bear this out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, doesn't bear what out?  I'm not certain what point you are responding to.
Click to expand...


The fossil record saying new species aren't popping up all the time. That was my point.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Sorry Monty, it's no strawman, but the theory of horizontal gene transfer!!
> 
> "Gradualism has been the prevailing theory for decades now, but examples of horizontal gene transfer would argue for punctuated equilibrium, especially if it is occurring in higher eukaryotes. Instead of many small changes adding up to a measurable difference over time, horizontally transferred genes bring the potential for big, immediate changes from the time of transfer down through all subsequent generations."
> 
> HEY UR!
> got a link for that quote



Evolution friendly Wiki, Baby!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'All the time'?  Why should new species be popping up all the time?
> 
> And who is to say they have not been?  You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges.  But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say.  Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?
> 
> As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before.  There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.
> 
> 
> 
> Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News
> 
> More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
> 1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...
> 
> 
> 
> 40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
> From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
> By Richard Conniff
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to &#8220;obscure microbes and insects,&#8221; scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.
> 
> Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 million&#8212;but they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this century&#8212;mostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. &#8220;And 10,000 wouldn&#8217;t be a stretch,&#8221; says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonian&#8217;s National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> once again YWC is talking out his ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes
Click to expand...


Things that make you go.. Hmmm. If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? Doh!!!! This just proves my point that the whole theory of natural selection is foundation-less, because there is no scientifically agreed upon definition or criteria for fitness. This is where the pseudo science of evolution rules and they plug in the convenient "might haves" and "could haves" but have no real scientific evidence to back up their conjecture. Then all the bozo materialists latch onto it and really don't care about evidence, because it supports their worldview of matter being the only reality.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News
> 
> More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
> 1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...
> 
> 
> 
> 40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
> From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
> By Richard Conniff
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to &#8220;obscure microbes and insects,&#8221; scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.
> 
> Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 million&#8212;but they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this century&#8212;mostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. &#8220;And 10,000 wouldn&#8217;t be a stretch,&#8221; says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonian&#8217;s National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> once again YWC is talking out his ass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man and an early ape-like creature shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions.
Click to expand...


Hollymen, you are braindead, you and the rest of the fools that like to play word games with no real evidence. You state this like it was fact. But show me the fossil!!! Show me the hominid that apes and humans descended from!! I guarantee he was a knuckle dragger with small brain and thick brow bone so nice try with your trickery. It is a baseless, unscientifically proven claim and you of all people should no better than to quote such hogwash here.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no need, the book of Mormon is fantasy..
> on the other hand the bible is a mix of fantasy and reality is incomplete and highly edited.
> the only logical reason that the bible helps in archaeological finds is as stated before most of the cities mentioned in it still exist
> you also conveniently leave out the fact Palestinians renamed many of those sites and knew their locations.
> other then that, your statement was stupid and crash and burn attempt at scarcasim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some parts of science books are to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only for space not for content...the books you are speaking of are for grades 1-6
> it's not practical to use a college level science text when teaching 5th graders.the reasons why should be obvious.
Click to expand...


So continue to brainwash small children with lies like the tree of life? That's just great.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait it get's better,there are no tranistional organisms still around from any group. So it is safe to say that transitional species whatever they might be were not better adapted. That pretty much blows your little theory up.
> 
> Your side is still trying to put a puzzle together that never existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That might depend on how you define transitional species.  If you are looking for some half fish, half bird creature, you are probably doomed to be disappointed.
Click to expand...


So tell me why. Show me some scientific evidence, not conjecture, on why we don't find inbetweeners. The smart scientists know there is no way in heck they can prove Darwin's gradualism with the fossil record. That is why they have come up with punctuated equilibrium. Unfortunately, they still have to call PE Neo-Darwinism for fear of being run out of their respective institutions. [Expelled]


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait it get's better,there are no tranistional organisms still around from any group. So it is safe to say that transitional species whatever they might be were not better adapted. That pretty much blows your little theory up.
> 
> Your side is still trying to put a puzzle together that never existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That might depend on how you define transitional species.  If you are looking for some half fish, half bird creature, you are probably doomed to be disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me why. Show me some scientific evidence, not conjecture, on why we don't find inbetweeners. The smart scientists know there is no way in heck they can prove Darwin's gradualism with the fossil record. That is why they have come up with punctuated equilibrium. Unfortunately, they still have to call PE Neo-Darwinism for fear of being run out of their respective institutions. [Expelled]
Click to expand...


As I understand it, punctuated equilibrium does not refute gradualism, but rather claims that the gradualism is not a constant rate.  Remember that we are talking about huge time periods, so that changes over 100,000 years can still be considered 'fast'.  

The reason the half hybrids I get the impression YWC expects aren't found would be because they are NOT part of evolutionary theory.  Changes aren't supposed to be a fish giving birth to a bird, nor a fish giving birth to a creature with a fish's head and a bird's body.

You can easily search for examples of transitional fossils.  Here's a site, aptly named :
(A few) transitional fossils\

There may not be transitional fossils (or species) of the type you want to see, but that doesn't invalidate what does exist.  As to transitional species, every species currently in existence may be a transition species; in a million years they may have all evolved into very different forms.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> That might depend on how you define transitional species.  If you are looking for some half fish, half bird creature, you are probably doomed to be disappointed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me why. Show me some scientific evidence, not conjecture, on why we don't find inbetweeners. The smart scientists know there is no way in heck they can prove Darwin's gradualism with the fossil record. That is why they have come up with punctuated equilibrium. Unfortunately, they still have to call PE Neo-Darwinism for fear of being run out of their respective institutions. [Expelled]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I understand it, punctuated equilibrium does not refute gradualism, but rather claims that the gradualism is not a constant rate.  Remember that we are talking about huge time periods, so that changes over 100,000 years can still be considered 'fast'.
> 
> The reason the half hybrids I get the impression YWC expects aren't found would be because they are NOT part of evolutionary theory.  Changes aren't supposed to be a fish giving birth to a bird, nor a fish giving birth to a creature with a fish's head and a bird's body.
> 
> You can easily search for examples of transitional fossils.  Here's a site, aptly named :
> (A few) transitional fossils\
> 
> There may not be transitional fossils (or species) of the type you want to see, but that doesn't invalidate what does exist.  As to transitional species, every species currently in existence may be a transition species; in a million years they may have all evolved into very different forms.
Click to expand...


Not likely to happen in the human race. The larger the population, the less likely a mutation is take hold. That is, if we could find a mutation that was additive and not destructive. 

Did you ever wonder the evolutionary reason why women don't have facial hair? [well, that is, except for Hollymen]


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News
> 
> More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
> 1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...
> 
> 
> 
> 40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
> From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
> By Richard Conniff
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to obscure microbes and insects, scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.
> 
> Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 millionbut they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this centurymostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. And 10,000 wouldnt be a stretch, says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonians National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> once again YWC is talking out his ass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans were never apes. This is a common mistake made the scientifically illiterate and the creationist charlatans. Man and an early ape-like creature shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions.
> 
> That type of common ancestry with species branching off in separate directions is not uncommon in evolutionary history.
> 
> Because you have been god-smacked by the ICR, you will have difficulty with the above. Just assume all the fosill evidence is a conspiracy, the earth is 6,000 years old and the charlatans at the ICR have your best interest at heart.
Click to expand...


Ok you are scientifically illiterate. Humans had to come from something.

Here is your tree.

Google Image Result for http://api.ning.com/files/gLbtJLaXsiOn8E5Dy*u1TPYNEFpcTZva4wwYo8fOS2V6xCPP-*Z1-NmwyW-i7siw/EvolutionTree.jpg


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'All the time'?  Why should new species be popping up all the time?
> 
> And who is to say they have not been?  You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges.  But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say.  Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?
> 
> As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before.  There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,all organisms experience mutations and by theory that is how evolution happens. It's not my theory, it is yours I can't help it you can't show macro evolution in any group of organisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because all species experience mutations, that doesn't mean those mutations are spread throughout the population.  What you either don't understand or refuse to accept is that evolution does not say that all mutations are going to be spread.
> 
> So no, it is not wrong based on your answer.
Click to expand...


If you truly understood how many beneficial mutations it took for every stage of of evolution you wouldn't believe this nonsense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News
> 
> More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
> 1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...
> 
> 
> 
> 40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
> From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
> By Richard Conniff
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to obscure microbes and insects, scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.
> 
> Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 millionbut they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this centurymostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. And 10,000 wouldnt be a stretch, says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonians National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> once again YWC is talking out his ass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know these newly discovered organisms have not been here all along ?
> 
> We are talking macro evolution not discovering organisms that have always been here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (cue buzzer) thanks for playing. since you have no evidence to the contary.
> my money is on new species.
> besides you're  making a  a false assumtion when you assume they've always been here.
Click to expand...


Well my money is on they existed for a very long time. Remember the coelacanth supposedly went extinct around 70 million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man and an early ape-like creature shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollymen, you are braindead, you and the rest of the fools that like to play word games with no real evidence. You state this like it was fact. But show me the fossil!!! Show me the hominid that apes and humans descended from!! I guarantee he was a knuckle dragger with small brain and thick brow bone so nice try with your trickery. It is a baseless, unscientifically proven claim and you of all people should no better than to quote such hogwash here.
Click to expand...


Your usual tactic of name-calling as a means to defend your claims to "the gods did it" doesn't refute the scientific evidence for common ancestry and common descent.

The scientific record is not in doubt. The charlatans at the ICR will try and prevent you from studying the scientific evidence because they have a need to present bible literalism and a 6,000 year old earth.

If you choose to be gullible and to remain ignorant, that, of course, is your choice but don't pretend your ignorance needs to be foisted on others.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,all organisms experience mutations and by theory that is how evolution happens. It's not my theory, it is yours I can't help it you can't show macro evolution in any group of organisms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because all species experience mutations, that doesn't mean those mutations are spread throughout the population.  What you either don't understand or refuse to accept is that evolution does not say that all mutations are going to be spread.
> 
> So no, it is not wrong based on your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you truly understood how many beneficial mutations it took for every stage of of evolution you wouldn't believe this nonsense.
Click to expand...


Yous is a typical nonsense argument promoted by Christian fundies. You hope to claim that beneficial mutations are directed in a "straight line diagram" toward achieving a predefined goal. 

It's an embarassing admission on your part of being a shill for the fundie creationist crowd which is utterly deficient in even the basic principles of biology.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know these newly discovered organisms have not been here all along ?
> 
> We are talking macro evolution not discovering organisms that have always been here.
> 
> 
> 
> (cue buzzer) thanks for playing. since you have no evidence to the contary.
> my money is on new species.
> besides you're  making a  a false assumtion when you assume they've always been here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well my money is on they existed for a very long time. Remember the coelacanth supposedly went extinct around 70 million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?
Click to expand...


The coelacanth could not possibly have faced extinction around 70 million years ago with the fact of a 6,000 year old earth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because all species experience mutations, that doesn't mean those mutations are spread throughout the population.  What you either don't understand or refuse to accept is that evolution does not say that all mutations are going to be spread.
> 
> So no, it is not wrong based on your answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly understood how many beneficial mutations it took for every stage of of evolution you wouldn't believe this nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yous is a typical nonsense argument promoted by Christian fundies. You hope to claim that beneficial mutations are directed in a "straight line diagram" toward achieving a predefined goal.
> 
> It's an embarassing admission on your part of being a shill for the fundie creationist crowd which is utterly deficient in even the basic principles of biology.
Click to expand...



No hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (cue buzzer) thanks for playing. since you have no evidence to the contary.
> my money is on new species.
> besides you're  making a  a false assumtion when you assume they've always been here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well my money is on they existed for a very long time. Remember the coelacanth supposedly went extinct around 70 million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The coelacanth could not possibly have faced extinction around 70 million years ago with the fact of a 6,000 year old earth.
Click to expand...



Hollie I agree,but that was your side that made the claim. Ultimatelreality believes in ID and he might disagree with you.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly understood how many beneficial mutations it took for every stage of of evolution you wouldn't believe this nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yous is a typical nonsense argument promoted by Christian fundies. You hope to claim that beneficial mutations are directed in a "straight line diagram" toward achieving a predefined goal.
> 
> It's an embarassing admission on your part of being a shill for the fundie creationist crowd which is utterly deficient in even the basic principles of biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No hollie.
Click to expand...

You have offered only boilerplate dogma from creationist websites to support your claims.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well my money is on they existed for a very long time. Remember the coelacanth supposedly went extinct around 70 million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The coelacanth could not possibly have faced extinction around 70 million years ago with the fact of a 6,000 year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie I agree,but that was your side that made the claim. Ultimatelreality believes in ID and he might disagree with you.
Click to expand...

I can only hope that if there are gods that they will protect me from people like you and the happy-fun name caller who has promised repeatedly to put me on ignore but continues to lie about doing so.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yous is a typical nonsense argument promoted by Christian fundies. You hope to claim that beneficial mutations are directed in a "straight line diagram" toward achieving a predefined goal.
> 
> It's an embarassing admission on your part of being a shill for the fundie creationist crowd which is utterly deficient in even the basic principles of biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have offered only boilerplate dogma from creationist websites to support your claims.
Click to expand...



The bible is not asking the questions I am, a rational person of science. Not someone with a vivid imagination. The problem is you don't have a clue on how to respond.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The coelacanth could not possibly have faced extinction around 70 million years ago with the fact of a 6,000 year old earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie I agree,but that was your side that made the claim. Ultimatelreality believes in ID and he might disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can only hope that if there are gods that they will protect me from people like you and the happy-fun name caller who has promised repeatedly to put me on ignore but continues to lie about doing so.
Click to expand...


I am actually trying to wake you out of your ignorance. I'm trying to help you hollie and the others here. Some will continue to be driven by pride.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The coelacanth could not possibly have faced extinction around 70 million years ago with the fact of a 6,000 year old earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie I agree,but that was your side that made the claim. Ultimatelreality believes in ID and he might disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can only hope that if there are gods that they will protect me from people like you and the happy-fun name caller who has promised repeatedly to put me on ignore but continues to lie about doing so.
Click to expand...


Hollie if, that means it is possible that they exist .That is a start there are gods, angels and satan have been referenced as gods,but there is only one true God Almighty the creator of the heavens and the earth and everything on the earth.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man and an early ape-like creature shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollymen, you are braindead, you and the rest of the fools that like to play word games with no real evidence. You state this like it was fact. But show me the fossil!!! Show me the hominid that apes and humans descended from!! I guarantee he was a knuckle dragger with small brain and thick brow bone so nice try with your trickery. It is a baseless, unscientifically proven claim and you of all people should no better than to quote such hogwash here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your usual tactic of name-calling as a means to defend your claims to "the gods did it" doesn't refute the scientific evidence for common ancestry and common descent.
> 
> The scientific record is not in doubt. The charlatans at the ICR will try and prevent you from studying the scientific evidence because they have a need to present bible literalism and a 6,000 year old earth.
> 
> If you choose to be gullible and to remain ignorant, that, of course, is your choice but don't pretend your ignorance needs to be foisted on others.
Click to expand...


As usual, no logical rebuttal, only Ad Hollymen attacks.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollymen, you are braindead, you and the rest of the fools that like to play word games with no real evidence. You state this like it was fact. But show me the fossil!!! Show me the hominid that apes and humans descended from!! I guarantee he was a knuckle dragger with small brain and thick brow bone so nice try with your trickery. It is a baseless, unscientifically proven claim and you of all people should no better than to quote such hogwash here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your usual tactic of name-calling as a means to defend your claims to "the gods did it" doesn't refute the scientific evidence for common ancestry and common descent.
> 
> The scientific record is not in doubt. The charlatans at the ICR will try and prevent you from studying the scientific evidence because they have a need to present bible literalism and a 6,000 year old earth.
> 
> If you choose to be gullible and to remain ignorant, that, of course, is your choice but don't pretend your ignorance needs to be foisted on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, no logical rebuttal, only Ad Hollymen attacks.
Click to expand...

Don't let being befuddled cause you such angst.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me why. Show me some scientific evidence, not conjecture, on why we don't find inbetweeners. The smart scientists know there is no way in heck they can prove Darwin's gradualism with the fossil record. That is why they have come up with punctuated equilibrium. Unfortunately, they still have to call PE Neo-Darwinism for fear of being run out of their respective institutions. [Expelled]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, punctuated equilibrium does not refute gradualism, but rather claims that the gradualism is not a constant rate.  Remember that we are talking about huge time periods, so that changes over 100,000 years can still be considered 'fast'.
> 
> The reason the half hybrids I get the impression YWC expects aren't found would be because they are NOT part of evolutionary theory.  Changes aren't supposed to be a fish giving birth to a bird, nor a fish giving birth to a creature with a fish's head and a bird's body.
> 
> You can easily search for examples of transitional fossils.  Here's a site, aptly named :
> (A few) transitional fossils\
> 
> There may not be transitional fossils (or species) of the type you want to see, but that doesn't invalidate what does exist.  As to transitional species, every species currently in existence may be a transition species; in a million years they may have all evolved into very different forms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not likely to happen in the human race. The larger the population, the less likely a mutation is take hold. That is, if we could find a mutation that was additive and not destructive.
> 
> Did you ever wonder the evolutionary reason why women don't have facial hair? [well, that is, except for Hollymen]
Click to expand...


What larger population are you talking about? Urban dwelling didn't start until the domestication of animals ten thousand years ago. Before that, we were hunter gatherers, living in small groups sized 30 to 150. Before cro-magnon man, there would not have been large populations either, as it would have been unsustainable without a large enough food source, hence smaller groups are easier to sustain (without animal domestication), so I'm not sure where you are getting your info. Therefore, any mutations would not have become too diluted, besides, as long as we're speculating, I would say that if an advantageous mutation did come along that was truly helpful, that individual would be considered extremely sexually attractive and would have no problem passing on his/her genes, and neither would their children, and neither would their children, and so on... there is no reason to believe a mutation would be distributed evenly throughout a population. Like those with money, those with an advantageous genome would want to keep it in close quarters and only among a small group until it became more robust. There are a few theories regarding how a mutation would distribute throughout a population, and they don't all include a homogenous distribution as you mentioned. 

As for women not having facial hair... simple, it is sexual selection. Given that there isn't too much sexual dimorphism in the human race, If men found it more attractive for women to have less hair, it wouldn't take long for the hairless female face to be selected for strongly, and female facial hair to be extinguished as a trait rapidly. I am merely speculating, but this seems highly plausible. I don't see the point in actually researching this, because, I am not the one that doubts evolution. Also, No matter what I come back with, you will find some ridiculous way to dismiss.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News
> 
> More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
> 1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...
> 
> 
> 
> 40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
> From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
> By Richard Conniff
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to &#8220;obscure microbes and insects,&#8221; scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.
> 
> Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 million&#8212;but they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this century&#8212;mostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. &#8220;And 10,000 wouldn&#8217;t be a stretch,&#8221; says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonian&#8217;s National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine
> 
> 
> once again YWC is talking out his ass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Things that make you go.. Hmmm. If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? Doh!!!! This just proves my point that the whole theory of natural selection is foundation-less, because there is no scientifically agreed upon definition or criteria for fitness. This is where the pseudo science of evolution rules and they plug in the convenient "might haves" and "could haves" but have no real scientific evidence to back up their conjecture. Then all the bozo materialists latch onto it and really don't care about evidence, because it supports their worldview of matter being the only reality.
Click to expand...


What?????  All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances. Once they split and are two different species, they will necessarily diverge at their own rates. That is unavoidable. There is no reason why one species would calculate a war against the "less fit" species. They don't know which one is less fit, and may have no reason to go on a genocidal rampage. In fact, I would argue that this is almost never the case. The one time we know it did happen was with humans and neanderthals. We killed off neanderthals and actually interbred with them evidenced by about 4% of our DNA being neanderthal DNA. I assume neanderthals were only a sub-species of humans, and hence, interbreeding was still a possibility, but I don't know. Again, I don't care enough to research this unless you directly challenge it. 

Regardless, once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about evolution. You are attacking a strawman, not the real thing. Keep that in mind.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Things that make you go.. Hmmm. If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? Doh!!!! This just proves my point that the whole theory of natural selection is foundation-less, because there is no scientifically agreed upon definition or criteria for fitness. This is where the pseudo science of evolution rules and they plug in the convenient "might haves" and "could haves" but have no real scientific evidence to back up their conjecture. Then all the bozo materialists latch onto it and really don't care about evidence, because it supports their worldview of matter being the only reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?????  All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances. Once they split and are two different species, they will necessarily diverge at their own rates. That is unavoidable. There is no reason why one species would calculate a war against the "less fit" species. They don't know which one is less fit, and may have no reason to go on a genocidal rampage. In fact, I would argue that this is almost never the case. The one time we know it did happen was with humans and neanderthals. We killed off neanderthals and actually interbred with them evidenced by about 4% of our DNA being neanderthal DNA. I assume neanderthals were only a sub-species of humans, and hence, interbreeding was still a possibility, but I don't know. Again, I don't care enough to research this unless you directly challenge it.
> 
> Regardless, once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about evolution. You are attacking a strawman, not the real thing. Keep that in mind.
Click to expand...


Who said anything about war?? Your perception (that you think is so unpolluted) totally interjected that in. Go back and read my post. I think it is you that just built up a nice strawman. I was talking about natural selection. Oh and nice that you addressed my comments about a definition of fitness that can be scientifically verified by experiment.

What evidence do you have that_ we_ killed off neanderthal?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you ask about common ancestor if you already knew the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to know what you, Hollymen and Daws were talking about when you throw the term around. No matter what you say, it is a mythical creature at best, and even the last universal ancestor isn't definitive, so I think you all should remove the term from your vocabulary. There really isn't any evidence for a definitive common ancestor so we need to slide him/her/it over to the myth column since that is where you have placed God as well with the same amount of evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're assertions about me having a presupposition that is equal to yours is hilarious. I can respond to this simply by pointing out that creationists are leading the evidence to their presuppositions, while evolutionists are following the evidence to where it may lead. Are you insisting that a scientific worldview is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't include god? All I would have to say that is: there is no evidence for god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, your ignorant belief that you are "just following the evidence" makes you totally lost. Just as my belief in God shapes my worldview, your materialism (matter is the only reality) shapes and forms your worldview and is the lens you view everything with. Furthermore, just like all the other clowns, you cling to Darwinism like a religion even when confronted by irrefutable scientific evidence. So you should rephrase your comment above.... you follow the evidence as long as it fits into the TOE. Forgot the God argument, you are not open to alternative, better scientific explanations because you are blinded by your own ignorance of your censoring worldview. You can't see what you can't see.
Click to expand...


Are you going to respond to any of my post that had to do with horizontal gene transfer? You seem to think this is a giant hole in evolution, yet I demonstrated how you're understanding is completely faulty, and you all of a sudden have nothing to say. Funny. Stop parading around you're victory over strawmen. It's getting really annoying. 

Now, to respond to your ridiculous paragraph. My materialism does not shape my worldview, it is a response to observing a world in which no god is needed to explain anything. You are the one asserting an addition to this universe, therefore, you have the burden of proof. So far, no theist has ever demonstrated that a god exists. Also, there is no reason to assume a god is behind anything, since a god is not observable, so it is not included. This is simple. You glean knowledge from god by reading a book, and then look for it in the world. This is a book with its own significant problems as to whether it is at all true. There is no extra-biblical evidence of ANY miracles of Jesus or God. You simply believe it because it tells you to. At best, Jesus was political revolutionary fighting for freedom from the tyrannical Romans in a time when the jews were waiting and expecting a messiah figure to save them from the extremely harsh Roman imperialism. There you have a motive to establish a religion, to defeat the ruling population, and is evidenced by much christian interpolation and the "borrowing" of mythologies from around that time. The mythology of jesus is completely non-unique. All of his miracles are copied from other mythologies at the time. Why do I mention Jesus? He is the basis of your faith upon which your claims against evolution are anchored. Further, your strategy merely includes attacking evolution. Amazingly, you get upset when people attack the validity of your beliefs. You provide no positive evidence for the existence god, because you don't have any. All you can do is poke holes in the evolution to try to make your case stronger, which doesn't work, because at its foundation, it is logically fallacious in trying to prove a claim to be true. Criticizing evolution will never make ID true. Even if evolution was proven false tomorrow, that wouldn't make ID true. You have ZERO positive evidence for ID. This makes  the efforts of the ID community intellectually dishonest.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things that make you go.. Hmmm. If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? Doh!!!! This just proves my point that the whole theory of natural selection is foundation-less, because there is no scientifically agreed upon definition or criteria for fitness. This is where the pseudo science of evolution rules and they plug in the convenient "might haves" and "could haves" but have no real scientific evidence to back up their conjecture. Then all the bozo materialists latch onto it and really don't care about evidence, because it supports their worldview of matter being the only reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?????  All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances. Once they split and are two different species, they will necessarily diverge at their own rates. That is unavoidable. There is no reason why one species would calculate a war against the "less fit" species. They don't know which one is less fit, and may have no reason to go on a genocidal rampage. In fact, I would argue that this is almost never the case. The one time we know it did happen was with humans and neanderthals. We killed off neanderthals and actually interbred with them evidenced by about 4% of our DNA being neanderthal DNA. I assume neanderthals were only a sub-species of humans, and hence, interbreeding was still a possibility, but I don't know. Again, I don't care enough to research this unless you directly challenge it.
> 
> Regardless, once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about evolution. You are attacking a strawman, not the real thing. Keep that in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about war?? Your perception (that you think is so unpolluted) totally interjected that in. Go back and read my post. I think it is you that just built up a nice strawman. I was talking about natural selection. Oh and nice that you addressed my comments about a definition of fitness that can be scientifically verified by experiment.
> 
> What evidence do you have that_ we_ killed off neanderthal?
Click to expand...


How else do you propose one population gets wiped out? I am merely following the logical absurdity of your ideas, not building straw men, since you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out, which actually makes no sense, because neither would be "less fit." They would each evolve and adapt to their respective environment to the degree necessary and perfectly, unless their environment changed too rapidly or they were hit by a cataclysmic occurrence in that area (meteorite, fires, floods, etc...).  By necessity, two populations separated by a geological barrier and evolving separately would not be in conflict with each other, so it merely becomes a matter of whether each respective population is able to adapt and evolve to their newfound surroundings successfully. Hence, there is no reason why both would not live on. Both will survive along separate paths, in separate areas. It is only when reunited that conflicts may occur, but still doesn't mean that one wipes out the other. You're assertion holds zero water, because you simply don't understand evolution. You are building straw men, over and over and over, and you think you have defeated evolution, but in reality, you have only defeated your own straw man.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> You have ZERO positive evidence for ID. This makes  the efforts of the ID community intellectually dishonest.



Okay, Hollie. This is a blatant lie. I have presented a sound, scientific argument for ID pages back.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> How else do you propose one population gets wiped out? I am merely following the logical absurdity of your ideas



Your reading comprehension sucks. I have presented no such ideas. It is your personal bias that dreamed up I was saying one species wipes out another one. Here are a couple that you missed: weather change, food shortage, natural disaster, geographical changes in predatory species.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out



Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.

Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE2Fitness.shtml

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have ZERO positive evidence for ID. This makes  the efforts of the ID community intellectually dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Hollie. This is a blatant lie. I have presented a sound, scientific argument for ID pages back.
Click to expand...


Wrong poster. And still, after your promises to put me on ignore, you're more obsessed with me than before. 

Otherwise, there is no sound, scientific argument for ID / creationism as it is a religious claim and not science. 

You need to come to terms with an understanding that rationality and reason are separate from the realm of supernaturalism. What I find laughable is the core of the argument made by fundies. The entirety of the fundie argument is focused on failed attempts to denigrate science and evolution, especially evolution.

The fundies understand that the argument for a 6,000 year old earth is nonsensical. I've always found that IDers / creationists reflexively recoil in fits when presented with the bodies of evidence supporting evolution. Because evolution is fact, it means their currently configured gods / "intelligent designer" must have quite clearly been lying about creation. What the fundies are left with amounts to persistent appeals  to metaphysics as the core of their argument. Theyre left with failed efforts to show that the appearance of natural processes; evolution, common descent with adaptation over time, fossil evidence for the preceding and immense time spans defining the universe reveals supernatural designer god(s) but only when the evidence is interpreted by their methods, (i.e., pseudoscience) and in connection with bible tales and fables.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
Click to expand...

As usual, you're left to stumble and sputter. Your description of evolution so narrowly defined is typical creationist babble, totally absent an understanding of the process.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have ZERO positive evidence for ID. This makes  the efforts of the ID community intellectually dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Hollie. This is a blatant lie. I have presented a sound, scientific argument for ID pages back.
Click to expand...


No, you didn't post anything of that sort. You just think you did. If you had, you'd be a nobel prize winner and everyone on this earth would be a believer. It is merely you're presupposition that convinces you, in your circularity, that's you're right. At best, you made a fallacy of inductive logic. You think that because DNA is a "digital code" which it isn't, it has to be created because the ONLY OTHER EXISTING EXAMPLE we have of an existing code, is made by US, and hence was designed. That's not evidence whatsoever. That's inductive reasoning and is simply insufficient to even make a valid, let alone sound argument.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, punctuated equilibrium does not refute gradualism, but rather claims that the gradualism is not a constant rate.  Remember that we are talking about huge time periods, so that changes over 100,000 years can still be considered 'fast'.
> 
> The reason the half hybrids I get the impression YWC expects aren't found would be because they are NOT part of evolutionary theory.  Changes aren't supposed to be a fish giving birth to a bird, nor a fish giving birth to a creature with a fish's head and a bird's body.
> 
> You can easily search for examples of transitional fossils.  Here's a site, aptly named :
> (A few) transitional fossils\
> 
> There may not be transitional fossils (or species) of the type you want to see, but that doesn't invalidate what does exist.  As to transitional species, every species currently in existence may be a transition species; in a million years they may have all evolved into very different forms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not likely to happen in the human race. The larger the population, the less likely a mutation is take hold. That is, if we could find a mutation that was additive and not destructive.
> 
> Did you ever wonder the evolutionary reason why women don't have facial hair? [well, that is, except for Hollymen]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What larger population are you talking about? Urban dwelling didn't start until the domestication of animals ten thousand years ago. Before that, we were hunter gatherers, living in small groups sized 30 to 150. Before cro-magnon man, there would not have been large populations either, as it would have been unsustainable without a large enough food source, hence smaller groups are easier to sustain (without animal domestication), so I'm not sure where you are getting your info. Therefore, any mutations would not have become too diluted, besides, as long as we're speculating, I would say that if an advantageous mutation did come along that was truly helpful, that individual would be considered extremely sexually attractive and would have no problem passing on his/her genes, and neither would their children, and neither would their children, and so on... there is no reason to believe a mutation would be distributed evenly throughout a population. Like those with money, those with an advantageous genome would want to keep it in close quarters and only among a small group until it became more robust. There are a few theories regarding how a mutation would distribute throughout a population, and they don't all include a homogenous distribution as you mentioned.
> 
> As for women not having facial hair... simple, it is sexual selection. Given that there isn't too much sexual dimorphism in the human race, If men found it more attractive for women to have less hair, it wouldn't take long for the hairless female face to be selected for strongly, and female facial hair to be extinguished as a trait rapidly. I am merely speculating, but this seems highly plausible. I don't see the point in actually researching this, because, I am not the one that doubts evolution. Also, No matter what I come back with, you will find some ridiculous way to dismiss.
Click to expand...


How do you know there were no communities before Ten thousand years ? How do you know what size the traveling populations were ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Things that make you go.. Hmmm. If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? Doh!!!! This just proves my point that the whole theory of natural selection is foundation-less, because there is no scientifically agreed upon definition or criteria for fitness. This is where the pseudo science of evolution rules and they plug in the convenient "might haves" and "could haves" but have no real scientific evidence to back up their conjecture. Then all the bozo materialists latch onto it and really don't care about evidence, because it supports their worldview of matter being the only reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?????  All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances. Once they split and are two different species, they will necessarily diverge at their own rates. That is unavoidable. There is no reason why one species would calculate a war against the "less fit" species. They don't know which one is less fit, and may have no reason to go on a genocidal rampage. In fact, I would argue that this is almost never the case. The one time we know it did happen was with humans and neanderthals. We killed off neanderthals and actually interbred with them evidenced by about 4% of our DNA being neanderthal DNA. I assume neanderthals were only a sub-species of humans, and hence, interbreeding was still a possibility, but I don't know. Again, I don't care enough to research this unless you directly challenge it.
> 
> Regardless, once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about evolution. You are attacking a strawman, not the real thing. Keep that in mind.
Click to expand...


How long do you think native americans were isolated from other populations ? or that matter any other race of man ? I believe there is only one race just a few different traits.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
> 
> Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.
> 
> Evolution 101: What about Fitness?
> 
> Evolution and Natural Selection
Click to expand...


You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things that make you go.. Hmmm. If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? Doh!!!! This just proves my point that the whole theory of natural selection is foundation-less, because there is no scientifically agreed upon definition or criteria for fitness. This is where the pseudo science of evolution rules and they plug in the convenient "might haves" and "could haves" but have no real scientific evidence to back up their conjecture. Then all the bozo materialists latch onto it and really don't care about evidence, because it supports their worldview of matter being the only reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?????  All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances. Once they split and are two different species, they will necessarily diverge at their own rates. That is unavoidable. There is no reason why one species would calculate a war against the "less fit" species. They don't know which one is less fit, and may have no reason to go on a genocidal rampage. In fact, I would argue that this is almost never the case. The one time we know it did happen was with humans and neanderthals. We killed off neanderthals and actually interbred with them evidenced by about 4% of our DNA being neanderthal DNA. I assume neanderthals were only a sub-species of humans, and hence, interbreeding was still a possibility, but I don't know. Again, I don't care enough to research this unless you directly challenge it.
> 
> Regardless, once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about evolution. You are attacking a strawman, not the real thing. Keep that in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about war?? Your perception (that you think is so unpolluted) totally interjected that in. Go back and read my post. I think it is you that just built up a nice strawman. I was talking about natural selection. Oh and nice that you addressed my comments about a definition of fitness that can be scientifically verified by experiment.
> 
> What evidence do you have that_ we_ killed off neanderthal?
Click to expand...


Neanderthals, it is mostly speculation,very little is known.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
> 
> Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.
> 
> Evolution 101: What about Fitness?
> 
> Evolution and Natural Selection
Click to expand...


To much inbreeding or a natural disaster could wipe out a community.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have ZERO positive evidence for ID. This makes  the efforts of the ID community intellectually dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Hollie. This is a blatant lie. I have presented a sound, scientific argument for ID pages back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you didn't post anything of that sort. You just think you did. If you had, you'd be a nobel prize winner and everyone on this earth would be a believer. It is merely you're presupposition that convinces you, in your circularity, that's you're right. At best, you made a fallacy of inductive logic. You think that because DNA is a "digital code" which it isn't, it has to be created because the ONLY OTHER EXISTING EXAMPLE we have of an existing code, is made by US, and hence was designed. That's not evidence whatsoever. That's inductive reasoning and is simply insufficient to even make a valid, let alone sound argument.
Click to expand...


No, the majority of the science community would not allow themselves to accept they believed a lie for so long. The reason is called pride and funding.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
> 
> Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.
> 
> Evolution 101: What about Fitness?
> 
> Evolution and Natural Selection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.
Click to expand...


In case you missed them.

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
> 
> Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.
> 
> Evolution 101: What about Fitness?
> 
> Evolution and Natural Selection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To much inbreeding or a natural disaster could wipe out a community.
Click to expand...

You're basically shooting a rather large, gaping hole in your own creationist belief system.

The tale of Noah defines a small, immediate family left to repopulate the earth after an alleged global flood used by the gods to wipe humanity from the planet.

An obvious outcome of the Noah fable would be incestuous breeding.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
> 
> Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.
> 
> Evolution 101: What about Fitness?
> 
> Evolution and Natural Selection
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In case you missed them.
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.
Click to expand...

Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.

How many times do you need to be told this?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How else do you propose one population gets wiped out? I am merely following the logical absurdity of your ideas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reading comprehension sucks. I have presented no such ideas. It is your personal bias that dreamed up I was saying one species wipes out another one. Here are a couple that you missed: weather change, food shortage, natural disaster, geographical changes in predatory species.
Click to expand...


What about reading comprehension? I listed literally all but one of these possible explanations for extinction. Seems you missed that part. 

What exactly, is this:

"If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, *why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? *"

First off, This questionable, as it sits, is unanswerable. Apes and humans have a common ancestor, so one did not descend from the other. Once again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding on what evolution actually is.

Moving on. Am I missing something? Would you mind clarifying exactly what you are asking, if you insist I got it wrong? You ask outright, "why is the less fit ape still around?" This to me, means exactly what you are asking, which I adequately answered.  Then it seems you are wondering about transitional forms, so you are asking two different questions. I answered the first one, unless I am simply getting this all wrong. as for the second, there are plenty of transitional forms. In fact, all fossils are transitional forms. We have heaps of humanoid and hominid fossils that display a nice continuum of time over the last 10 million years. It is a complicated history with a lot of dead ends, but we came out victorious in the end. Please, help me out here, because your question is a little non-sensical.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
> 
> Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.
> 
> Evolution 101: What about Fitness?
> 
> Evolution and Natural Selection
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To much inbreeding or a natural disaster could wipe out a community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're basically shooting a rather large, gaping hole in your own creationist belief system.
> 
> The tale of Noah defines a small, immediate family left to repopulate the earth after an alleged global flood used by the gods to wipe humanity from the planet.
> 
> An obvious outcome of the Noah fable would be incestuous breeding.
Click to expand...


Nope, i'm shooting  holes in yours.

You see early man was created perfect and it took time for mutations to do their job. Inbreeding was stopped a long time ago because God ordered it ,why ? because if he didn't stop it man would have been plagued by genetic disorders due to mutations and man would have gone extinct.

That is why early man lived much longer and over time the average lifespan decreased significantly. We have around 5,000 genetic disorders,thank goodness we have large populations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case you missed them.
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.
> 
> How many times do you need to be told this?
Click to expand...


Where did humans come from ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case you missed them.
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.
> 
> How many times do you need to be told this?
Click to expand...


Nope you may think you addressed the question but all you offered was baseless speculation,a story.

Here is the so called human evolution tree. How can you say your theory does not teach we came from apes ?

Google Image Result for http://scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v4i4g7.jpg


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
> 
> Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.
> 
> Evolution 101: What about Fitness?
> 
> Evolution and Natural Selection
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In case you missed them.
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.
Click to expand...



Why would apes evolve into humans? I don't even understand how your last sentence is relevant to reality, and I already did go throw a scenario where a species would split into two, and requires that neither die out, necessarily. Your question, along with Ultimatereality's question, demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution. Therefore, how you can claim that evolution is false when you don't even understand what it is. This is evidence that you have not disproved evolution, but merely, a straw man that you built, unknowingly. This provides further evidence for my claim that creationists are unable to look at evidence honestly, because if they did and found that it made sense, their entire worldview would crumble, resulting in depression, identity confusion, suicidally... there is a lot at stake. Hence, they can not even be honest with themselves. How unbelievably sad. Truth is smacking you in the face, and you continually are obligated, by your own beliefs, to bat them away, because you have nothing to replace those beliefs. I don't blame you. Beliefs are everything to humans. We die for them, because when they are threatened so fundamentally, we feel like we are dying, since they are fundamental to our basic sense of identity. It is for these psychological reasons, that this discussion will never converge. No agreement will ever be reached. It will go on ad infinitum.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you missed them.
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.
> 
> How many times do you need to be told this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope you may think you addressed the question but all you offered was baseless speculation,a story.
> 
> Here is the so called human evolution tree. How can you say your theory does not teach we came from apes ?
> 
> Google Image Result for http://scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v4i4g7.jpg
Click to expand...


None of those are apes!!! They are all hominin species (human or ancestral to humans). That timeline on that chart doesn't go back far enough, or "zoom out" enough, to get to the other "branch," which would contain the line that led to the apes we see today. Once again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To much inbreeding or a natural disaster could wipe out a community.
> 
> 
> 
> You're basically shooting a rather large, gaping hole in your own creationist belief system.
> 
> The tale of Noah defines a small, immediate family left to repopulate the earth after an alleged global flood used by the gods to wipe humanity from the planet.
> 
> An obvious outcome of the Noah fable would be incestuous breeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, i'm shooting  holes in yours.
> 
> You see early man was created perfect and it took time for mutations to do their job. Inbreeding was stopped a long time ago because God ordered it ,why ? because if he didn't stop it man would have been plagued by genetic disorders due to mutations and man would have gone extinct.
> 
> That is why early man lived much longer and over time the average lifespan decreased significantly. We have around 5,000 genetic disorders,thank goodness we have large populations.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. Early man, (whatever that means) was obviously not created perfect. Perfection would be precisely that: _perfection_, thus your claim that it took time for mutations to do their job is a nonsensical claim. Oddly, youre actually describing the process of evolution in defining that it took time for mutations to do their job.  The other implication is that your designer gods are incompetent boobs when it comes to design.

The gods never ordered a stop to inbreeding. Thats another nonsensical claim. The Noah tale _requires_ that every human on the planet is the product of an incestuous relationship established by your gods. The fact is, humankind actually is plagued by genetic disorders so as usual, your claims utterly contradict themselves.

The fact is, human life spans have increased significantly over time. Due to advent of medical _science_. Yet another of your claims that is totally without merit.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you missed them.
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.
> 
> How many times do you need to be told this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope you may think you addressed the question but all you offered was baseless speculation,a story.
> 
> Here is the so called human evolution tree. How can you say your theory does not teach we came from apes ?
> 
> Google Image Result for http://scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v4i4g7.jpg
Click to expand...


I thought it was interesting that the author of your fundie linked website offered this gem:

"A lot has changed in the last 35 years or so, especially in the electronics industry. Lets compare the changes in evolutionary theory with the changes in electrical engineering theory over that period."

So, we're to believe that there are relevant parallels between biological evolution and the electronics industry.

Why don't religious tenets stand on their own without seeking to analogize from other human conventions? Well, it's obvious of course: all spiritual tenets suffer from exactly the same burden as do all other conventions of human origin: they are of human origin!

Fundie creationists / ID'ers must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why they insist that the products of nature must have been designed. They have not done so. They have merely offered bad analogies and false metaphors that appeal only to the gullible and religiously addled.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have ZERO positive evidence for ID. This makes  the efforts of the ID community intellectually dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Hollie. This is a blatant lie. I have presented a sound, scientific argument for ID pages back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong poster. And still, after your promises to put me on ignore, you're more obsessed with me than before.
> 
> Otherwise, there is no sound, scientific argument for ID / creationism as it is a religious claim and not science.
> 
> You need to come to terms with an understanding that rationality and reason are separate from the realm of supernaturalism. What I find laughable is the core of the argument made by fundies. The entirety of the fundie argument is focused on failed attempts to denigrate science and evolution, especially evolution.
> 
> The fundies understand that the argument for a 6,000 year old earth is nonsensical. I've always found that IDers / creationists reflexively recoil in fits when presented with the bodies of evidence supporting evolution. Because evolution is fact, it means their currently configured gods / "intelligent designer" must have quite clearly been lying about creation. What the fundies are left with amounts to persistent appeals  to metaphysics as the core of their argument. Theyre left with failed efforts to show that the appearance of natural processes; evolution, common descent with adaptation over time, fossil evidence for the preceding and immense time spans defining the universe reveals supernatural designer god(s) but only when the evidence is interpreted by their methods, (i.e., pseudoscience) and in connection with bible tales and fables.
Click to expand...


Wow, you guys are a little slow. I was calling NP your name because of his lame response so you wasted your cut and paste on this one. You can go back to sleep now.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you're left to stumble and sputter. Your description of evolution so narrowly defined is typical creationist babble, totally absent an understanding of the process.
Click to expand...


Ad hollymen response. No argument presented.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have ZERO positive evidence for ID. This makes  the efforts of the ID community intellectually dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Hollie. This is a blatant lie. I have presented a sound, scientific argument for ID pages back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you didn't post anything of that sort. You just think you did. If you had, you'd be a nobel prize winner and everyone on this earth would be a believer. It is merely you're presupposition that convinces you, in your circularity, that's you're right. At best, you made a fallacy of inductive logic. You think that because DNA is a "digital code" which it isn't, it has to be created because the ONLY OTHER EXISTING EXAMPLE we have of an existing code, is made by US, and hence was designed. That's not evidence whatsoever. That's inductive reasoning and is simply insufficient to even make a valid, let alone sound argument.
Click to expand...


It's the same logic Darwin used so you can't have it both ways. 

"However, by the 19th Century, a number of natural historians were beginning to think of evolutionary change as an explanation for patterns observed in nature. The following ideas were part of the intellectual climate of Darwin's time.

    No one knew how old the earth was, but geologists were beginning to make estimates that the earth was considerably older than explained by biblical creation. Geologists were learning more about strata, or layers formed by successive periods of the deposition of sediments. This suggested a time sequence, with younger strata overlying older strata.
*A concept called uniformitarianism*, due largely to the influential geologist Charles Lyell, undertook to decipher earth history under the working hypothesis *that present conditions and processes are the key to the past, by investigating ongoing, observable processes such as erosion and the deposition of sediments.*


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
> 
> Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.
> 
> Evolution 101: What about Fitness?
> 
> Evolution and Natural Selection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying?
Click to expand...


No, that is not what I am saying. I am asking where all the steps in between went, since, according to Natural Selection, each successive step between the common ancestor and man and ape should have resulted in a more "fit" organism. If they were more fit, why did the apes survive and they didn't. I'm saying NS is a farce based on ambiguous definition of fitness that can be molded anyway to suit your pathetic theory. And unlike REAL SCIENCE, has no present day, observable experimental evidence to back up the fitness claim.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
> 
> Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.
> 
> Evolution 101: What about Fitness?
> 
> Evolution and Natural Selection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. *You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure*
Click to expand...


This is a blatant lie. Just because I think the TOE is a scientifically baseless theory doesn't mean the only other scientific explanation involves God. It is really YOU who believes if you don't force the evidence to fit, you might have to entertain the idea of God, which is stupid, because you really have the option of doing REAL SCIENCE and making predictions about the past based on REAL EXPERIMENTS, and not speculation and false pretenses.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
> 
> Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.
> 
> Evolution 101: What about Fitness?
> 
> Evolution and Natural Selection
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To much inbreeding or a natural disaster could wipe out a community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're basically shooting a rather large, gaping hole in your own creationist belief system.
> 
> The tale of Noah defines a small, immediate family left to repopulate the earth after an alleged global flood used by the gods to wipe humanity from the planet.
> 
> An obvious outcome of the Noah fable would be incestuous breeding.
Click to expand...


Incestuous breeding is well documented in the Bible. So what is your point?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case you missed them.
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.
> 
> How many times do you need to be told this?
Click to expand...


So since you theory is such a fact, please point me to the fossil of the last-known, non-homo sapien, human ancestor.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How else do you propose one population gets wiped out? I am merely following the logical absurdity of your ideas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reading comprehension sucks. I have presented no such ideas. It is your personal bias that dreamed up I was saying one species wipes out another one. Here are a couple that you missed: weather change, food shortage, natural disaster, geographical changes in predatory species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about reading comprehension? I listed literally all but one of these possible explanations for extinction. Seems you missed that part.
> 
> What exactly, is this:
> 
> "If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, *why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? *"
> 
> First off, This questionable, as it sits, is unanswerable. Apes and humans have a common ancestor, so one did not descend from the other. Once again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding on what evolution actually is.
> 
> Moving on. Am I missing something? Would you mind clarifying exactly what you are asking, if you insist I got it wrong? You ask outright, "why is the less fit ape still around?" This to me, means exactly what you are asking, which I adequately answered.  Then it seems you are wondering about transitional forms, so you are asking two different questions. I answered the first one, unless I am simply getting this all wrong. as for the second, there are plenty of transitional forms. In fact, all fossils are transitional forms. We have heaps of humanoid and hominid fossils that display a nice continuum of time over the last 10 million years. It is a complicated history with a lot of dead ends, but we came out victorious in the end. Please, help me out here, because your question is a little non-sensical.
Click to expand...


please point me to the fossil of the last known non-homo sapien homo sapien ancestor.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case you missed them.
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would apes evolve into humans? I don't even understand how your last sentence is relevant to reality, and I already did go throw a scenario where a species would split into two, and requires that neither die out, necessarily. Your question, along with Ultimatereality's question, demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution. Therefore, how you can claim that evolution is false when you don't even understand what it is. This is evidence that you have not disproved evolution, but merely, a straw man that you built, unknowingly. This provides further evidence for my claim that creationists are unable to look at evidence honestly, because if they did and found that it made sense, their entire worldview would crumble, resulting in depression, identity confusion, suicidally... there is a lot at stake. Hence, they can not even be honest with themselves. How unbelievably sad. Truth is smacking you in the face, and you continually are obligated, by your own beliefs, to bat them away, because you have nothing to replace those beliefs. I don't blame you. Beliefs are everything to humans. We die for them, because when they are threatened so fundamentally, we feel like we are dying, since they are fundamental to our basic sense of identity. It is for these psychological reasons, that this discussion will never converge. No agreement will ever be reached. It will go on ad infinitum.
Click to expand...


Are you listening to your own lecture? All the points you make can be applied to your materialist worldview. And in case you missed the generic reference, I was using Ape as a generic term to refer to the knuckle dragging hominids you claim are human cousins or ancestors or divergent species or whatever term you are make believing up these days without scientific evidence. I am well aware of the studies comparing Chimpanzee DNA to humans. So please provide me references to the plethora of fossils of _THE _Last Universal Ancestor of Baboon's, Humans, Chimpanzees, and Gorilla's.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Why would apes evolve into humans?


I don't know. How does a microbe become a microbiologist?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're basically shooting a rather large, gaping hole in your own creationist belief system.
> 
> The tale of Noah defines a small, immediate family left to repopulate the earth after an alleged global flood used by the gods to wipe humanity from the planet.
> 
> An obvious outcome of the Noah fable would be incestuous breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, i'm shooting  holes in yours.
> 
> You see early man was created perfect and it took time for mutations to do their job. Inbreeding was stopped a long time ago because God ordered it ,why ? because if he didn't stop it man would have been plagued by genetic disorders due to mutations and man would have gone extinct.
> 
> That is why early man lived much longer and over time the average lifespan decreased significantly. We have around 5,000 genetic disorders,thank goodness we have large populations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense. &#8220;Early man&#8221;, (whatever that means) was obviously not created perfect. Perfection would be precisely that: _perfection_, thus your claim that &#8220;it took time for mutations to do their job&#8221; is a nonsensical claim. Oddly, you&#8217;re actually describing the process of evolution in defining that &#8220;it took time for mutations to do their job&#8221;.  The other implication is that your designer gods are incompetent boobs when it comes to &#8220;design&#8221;.
> 
> The gods never ordered a stop to inbreeding. That&#8217;s another nonsensical claim. The Noah tale _requires_ that every human on the planet is the product of an incestuous relationship established by your gods. The fact is, humankind actually is plagued by genetic disorders so as usual, your claims utterly contradict themselves.
> 
> The fact is, human life spans have increased significantly over time. Due to advent of medical _science_. Yet another of your claims that is totally without merit.
Click to expand...

You are the clueless one.

The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 15,000 individuals[3] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidences of sudden climate change and on coalescence evidences of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[4] and the relatively low level of genetic variation with humans.[3]

On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[7] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.[8]

Wilma!!!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Fundie creationists / ID'ers must supply some evidence, some testable examples



Yeah, too bad the Darwinists like you aren't held to the same standard. It is the only area of science where you don't have to do experiments to back up your outrageous claims.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case you missed them.
> 
> Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
> 
> If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
> 
> There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would apes evolve into humans? I don't even understand how your last sentence is relevant to reality, and I already did go throw a scenario where a species would split into two, and requires that neither die out, necessarily. Your question, along with Ultimatereality's question, demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution. Therefore, how you can claim that evolution is false when you don't even understand what it is. This is evidence that you have not disproved evolution, but merely, a straw man that you built, unknowingly. This provides further evidence for my claim that creationists are unable to look at evidence honestly, because if they did and found that it made sense, their entire worldview would crumble, resulting in depression, identity confusion, suicidally... there is a lot at stake. Hence, they can not even be honest with themselves. How unbelievably sad. Truth is smacking you in the face, and you continually are obligated, by your own beliefs, to bat them away, because you have nothing to replace those beliefs. I don't blame you. Beliefs are everything to humans. We die for them, because when they are threatened so fundamentally, we feel like we are dying, since they are fundamental to our basic sense of identity. It is for these psychological reasons, that this discussion will never converge. No agreement will ever be reached. It will go on ad infinitum.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJT2vJMsYc4]Take Your Stinkin&#39; Paws Off Me You Damn Dirty Ape! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Intelligent design...offers a host of promising questions for research. One wonders how much further along science would be today if ID scientists had the power to direct research about "vestigial organs" and "junk DNA" instead of letting the Darwin power structure tell everyone, "there's nothing to see here." One wonders, further, how much pain and suffering might have been avoided.

Vestigial Organs: Comparing ID and Darwinian Approaches - Evolution News & Views


----------



## UltimateReality

"In the last few years, two paradigms underlying human evolution have crumbled. Modern humans have not totally replaced previous hominins without any admixture, and the expected signatures of adaptations to new environments are surprisingly lacking at the genomic level."

"Until recently, the out-of-Africa model of human evolution was favoured by most genetic analyses, but this model collapsed when the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome revealed that 1%&#8211;3% of the genome of Eurasians was of Neanderthal origin. At the same time, refined analyses of modern human genomic data [1]&#8211;[3] have changed our view of evolutionary forces acting on our genome. While most people assumed that the out-of-Africa expansion had been characterized by a series of adaptations to new environments [4]&#8211;[6] leading to recurrent selective sweeps [7], our genome actually contains little trace of recent complete sweeps [2], [3], [8] and the genetic differentiation of human population has been very progressive over time, probably without major adaptive episodes [9]"

We know evolution is a fact...

"Genomics has revealed that the genome of Eurasians is partly of archaic origin, and genome-wide patterns of diversity have not revealed expected signals of adaptive selection in humans. The sequencing of additional archaic hominins should be helpful to distinguish between alternative scenarios of admixture, infer the timing and the geographic location of admixture events, and assess human migration routes over Eurasia. Archaic admixture can also seriously impact estimated human demography, which should be revisited to account for differential introgression among human populations. Scenarios of human evolution need to be geographically coherent and integrate range expansions during which deleterious mutations can readily surf and accumulate on wave fronts, giving later fuel to background selection. *Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans *and that we have identified all selective forces that have shaped the diversity of our genome. However, progress in the analysis of modern and ancient genomes is likely to soon provide the data that will allow us to test complex scenarios of human evolution and contrast the role of various selective forces that are currently or were acting in our genome."

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002837


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> What?????  All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances.



So funny that you accused me of not understanding evolution when it is you that is totally IGNORANT to recent genetic data. Not sure where you cut and pasted the above speculation, but it has crumbled as well...

"There is thus both direct [13], [15] and indirect [11], [18] evidence for archaic admixture on four continents, suggesting that modern humans have not been totally genetically isolated since their emergence, some 150200 Kya in East Africa [22], [23]. However, there is still quite some discussion about the place, the timing, the exact numbers of admixture events, and the biological implications of these interbreeding events (see Figure 1)."


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Hollie. This is a blatant lie. I have presented a sound, scientific argument for ID pages back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong poster. And still, after your promises to put me on ignore, you're more obsessed with me than before.
> 
> Otherwise, there is no sound, scientific argument for ID / creationism as it is a religious claim and not science.
> 
> You need to come to terms with an understanding that rationality and reason are separate from the realm of supernaturalism. What I find laughable is the core of the argument made by fundies. The entirety of the fundie argument is focused on failed attempts to denigrate science and evolution, especially evolution.
> 
> The fundies understand that the argument for a 6,000 year old earth is nonsensical. I've always found that ID&#8217;ers / creationists reflexively recoil in fits when presented with the bodies of evidence supporting evolution. Because evolution is fact, it means their currently configured gods / "intelligent designer" must have quite clearly been lying about creation. What the fundies are left with amounts to persistent appeals  to metaphysics as the core of their argument. They&#8217;re left with failed efforts to show that the appearance of natural processes; evolution, common descent with adaptation over time, fossil evidence for the preceding and immense time spans defining the universe reveals supernatural &#8220;designer&#8221; god(s) but only when the evidence is interpreted by their methods, (i.e., pseudoscience) and in connection with bible tales and fables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you guys are a little slow. I was calling NP your name because of his lame response so you wasted your cut and paste on this one. You can go back to sleep now.
Click to expand...


The fact that Hollie and I both responded to our claims of proving creationism in a similar manner, and our assessment of the fundies is also somewhat similar, means that (1) we both actually understand evolution, (2) you do not, (3) we both can see WHY you refuse to understand the subject matter. Therefore, it follows that our responses will be somewhat similar.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundie creationists / ID'ers must supply some evidence, some testable examples
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, too bad the Darwinists like you aren't held to the same standard. It is the only area of science where you don't have to do experiments to back up your outrageous claims.
Click to expand...


Science doesn't perform experimentation?

That's a complete fabrication and misrepresentation of science.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Intelligent design...offers a host of promising questions for research. One wonders how much further along science would be today if ID scientists had the power to direct research about "vestigial organs" and "junk DNA" instead of letting the Darwin power structure tell everyone, "there's nothing to see here." One wonders, further, how much pain and suffering might have been avoided.
> 
> Vestigial Organs: Comparing ID and Darwinian Approaches - Evolution News & Views



It's not surprising that proponents of religion would attempt to denigrate science in favor of supernaturalism but to suggest that creationism offers a promise of anything but promoting dogma is foolish.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, i'm shooting  holes in yours.
> 
> You see early man was created perfect and it took time for mutations to do their job. Inbreeding was stopped a long time ago because God ordered it ,why ? because if he didn't stop it man would have been plagued by genetic disorders due to mutations and man would have gone extinct.
> 
> That is why early man lived much longer and over time the average lifespan decreased significantly. We have around 5,000 genetic disorders,thank goodness we have large populations.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. &#8220;Early man&#8221;, (whatever that means) was obviously not created perfect. Perfection would be precisely that: _perfection_, thus your claim that &#8220;it took time for mutations to do their job&#8221; is a nonsensical claim. Oddly, you&#8217;re actually describing the process of evolution in defining that &#8220;it took time for mutations to do their job&#8221;.  The other implication is that your designer gods are incompetent boobs when it comes to &#8220;design&#8221;.
> 
> The gods never ordered a stop to inbreeding. That&#8217;s another nonsensical claim. The Noah tale _requires_ that every human on the planet is the product of an incestuous relationship established by your gods. The fact is, humankind actually is plagued by genetic disorders so as usual, your claims utterly contradict themselves.
> 
> The fact is, human life spans have increased significantly over time. Due to advent of medical _science_. Yet another of your claims that is totally without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the clueless one.
> 
> The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 15,000 individuals[3] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidences of sudden climate change and on coalescence evidences of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[4] and the relatively low level of genetic variation with humans.[3]
> 
> On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[7] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.[8]
> 
> Wilma!!!!!
Click to expand...


The above is typical of the dishonesty inherent in the religious / fundie crowd. You were careful not to include a source for your cut and paste because you parsed the data.

Here's the part you chose to edit out:

"However, such coalescence is genetically expected and does not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Most genes in the genome are inherited from either father or mother, and thus can be traced back in time via either matrilineal or patrilineal ancestry.[5] Research on many genes finds different coalescence points from 2 million years ago to 60,000 years ago when different genes are considered, thus disproving the existence of more recent extreme bottlenecks (i.e., a single breeding pair).[3][6]"

Deceit and dishonsety is so typically a part of the fundie crowd, That's not surprising as supernaturalism is completely divorced from science.

More importantly, none of the above has any effect of dismantling evolutionary science. That's why its so strange that a fundie would be cutting and pasting articles connected with evolution when that fundie is the classic 6,000 year old earth groupie.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?????  All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So funny that you accused me of not understanding evolution when it is you that is totally IGNORANT to recent genetic data. Not sure where you cut and pasted the above speculation, but it has crumbled as well...
> 
> "There is thus both direct [13], [15] and indirect [11], [18] evidence for archaic admixture on four continents, suggesting that modern humans have not been totally genetically isolated since their emergence, some 150200 Kya in East Africa [22], [23]. However, there is still quite some discussion about the place, the timing, the exact numbers of admixture events, and the biological implications of these interbreeding events (see Figure 1)."
Click to expand...

Nothing of what you cut and pasted has any significant impact on the basic premise of evolution.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> "In the last few years, two paradigms underlying human evolution have crumbled. Modern humans have not totally replaced previous hominins without any admixture, and the expected signatures of adaptations to new environments are surprisingly lacking at the genomic level."
> 
> "Until recently, the out-of-Africa model of human evolution was favoured by most genetic analyses, but this model collapsed when the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome revealed that 1%3% of the genome of Eurasians was of Neanderthal origin. At the same time, refined analyses of modern human genomic data [1][3] have changed our view of evolutionary forces acting on our genome. While most people assumed that the out-of-Africa expansion had been characterized by a series of adaptations to new environments [4][6] leading to recurrent selective sweeps [7], our genome actually contains little trace of recent complete sweeps [2], [3], [8] and the genetic differentiation of human population has been very progressive over time, probably without major adaptive episodes [9]"
> 
> We know evolution is a fact...
> 
> "Genomics has revealed that the genome of Eurasians is partly of archaic origin, and genome-wide patterns of diversity have not revealed expected signals of adaptive selection in humans. The sequencing of additional archaic hominins should be helpful to distinguish between alternative scenarios of admixture, infer the timing and the geographic location of admixture events, and assess human migration routes over Eurasia. Archaic admixture can also seriously impact estimated human demography, which should be revisited to account for differential introgression among human populations. Scenarios of human evolution need to be geographically coherent and integrate range expansions during which deleterious mutations can readily surf and accumulate on wave fronts, giving later fuel to background selection. *Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans *and that we have identified all selective forces that have shaped the diversity of our genome. However, progress in the analysis of modern and ancient genomes is likely to soon provide the data that will allow us to test complex scenarios of human evolution and contrast the role of various selective forces that are currently or were acting in our genome."
> 
> PLoS Genetics: Genomic Data Reveal a Complex Making of Humans



You're hoping to suggest that the "our" in the text you bolded is a blanket claim for the science community and it is not.

*Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans *

That, in large part, is the probem faced by fundies. Without an understanding of the subject matter they hope to denigrate, ie: science and evolution, they're left to scour the web for any material they can find hoping to support their religious views in deference to making an honest attempt to understand the processes of science.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?????  All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So funny that you accused me of not understanding evolution when it is you that is totally IGNORANT to recent genetic data. Not sure where you cut and pasted the above speculation, but it has crumbled as well...
> 
> "There is thus both direct [13], [15] and indirect [11], [18] evidence for archaic admixture on four continents, suggesting that modern humans have not been totally genetically isolated since their emergence, some 150&#8211;200 Kya in East Africa [22], [23]. However, there is still quite some discussion about the place, the timing, the exact numbers of admixture events, and the biological implications of these interbreeding events (see Figure 1)."
Click to expand...


Okay. Who cares. This does nothing to contradict what I wrote. I outlined a simple scenario to illustrate how speciation would occur because of a geological barrier. I never mentioned humans, so lets be clear. I simply trying to isolate the idea of speciation and evolution to answer your question, but I won't be shy in saying the same applies to humans anyway. However, as your quote elucidates, things are not always so cut and dry. Why should it be? For example, (and this is what the article was eluding to) I've already mentioned that modern humans mated with with Denosovans and neanderthals, evidenced by our DNA containing 1-4% of their DNA. This causes problems in tracing our lineage and our roots as far a phylogenetic classification and creating visual models of our lineage, but does not effect the underlying theory or mechanism of natural selection, speciation, geographic isolation, etc... not one iota.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> "In the last few years, two paradigms underlying human evolution have crumbled. Modern humans have not totally replaced previous hominins without any admixture, and the expected signatures of adaptations to new environments are surprisingly lacking at the genomic level."
> 
> "Until recently, the out-of-Africa model of human evolution was favoured by most genetic analyses, but this model collapsed when the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome revealed that 1%&#8211;3% of the genome of Eurasians was of Neanderthal origin. At the same time, refined analyses of modern human genomic data [1]&#8211;[3] have changed our view of evolutionary forces acting on our genome. While most people assumed that the out-of-Africa expansion had been characterized by a series of adaptations to new environments [4]&#8211;[6] leading to recurrent selective sweeps [7], our genome actually contains little trace of recent complete sweeps [2], [3], [8] and the genetic differentiation of human population has been very progressive over time, probably without major adaptive episodes [9]"
> 
> We know evolution is a fact...
> 
> "Genomics has revealed that the genome of Eurasians is partly of archaic origin, and genome-wide patterns of diversity have not revealed expected signals of adaptive selection in humans. The sequencing of additional archaic hominins should be helpful to distinguish between alternative scenarios of admixture, infer the timing and the geographic location of admixture events, and assess human migration routes over Eurasia. Archaic admixture can also seriously impact estimated human demography, which should be revisited to account for differential introgression among human populations. Scenarios of human evolution need to be geographically coherent and integrate range expansions during which deleterious mutations can readily surf and accumulate on wave fronts, giving later fuel to background selection. *Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans *and that we have identified all selective forces that have shaped the diversity of our genome. However, progress in the analysis of modern and ancient genomes is likely to soon provide the data that will allow us to test complex scenarios of human evolution and contrast the role of various selective forces that are currently or were acting in our genome."
> 
> PLoS Genetics: Genomic Data Reveal a Complex Making of Humans



So, we're not %100 certain? Who cares!!!! We don't need absolute certainty. Certainty isn't virtuous or indicative of truth. Actually, its a sign of arrogance, and it seems to be seen more in the creationist camp than anywhere else in human existence. YOu search these abstracts for little phrases that signal some kind of doubt within the scientific community, and then you run with it. You don't understand what "doubt" means in a scientific context. You take it to be far more significant that it is in reality, that it is doubt about the entire theory of evolution, when it is not. I have already talked about what this abstract is mentioning, several times: All it is saying, is that humans have exchanged genetic information with some other sub-species since our initial speciation event, hence, our DNA is not "purely human." We mated, as I JUST MENTIONED in the post I just made, with the Denosovans (central asia) and Neanderthals (Europe) before wiping them out in what was probably humans' first genocidal act. This is evidenced in our DNA. THAT's ALL. When this kind of information first hits the scientific community, and they don't know what to make of it, they get shaky, because they don't know where in the theory this information will fit, and how it will affect the entire model, so they ask big questions. As time goes on, they are able to integrate the new information effectively into the model, and so doubts and fears subside and such broad questions of fear are no longer justified. You pick articles from when these ideas first hit the scene, and interpret it as fundamental doubt about evolution, and it is not. It is merely the apprehension associated with not knowing what is going to have to be moved around in the theory to accommodate this new information. Sometimes, information requires the a theory be totally re-worked or even discarded. This is rarely the case with a theory as longstanding and robust as evolution. Creationisms/ ID is attempting to do this very thing, but will never be successful because their methods are unscientific.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.
> 
> How many times do you need to be told this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope you may think you addressed the question but all you offered was baseless speculation,a story.
> 
> Here is the so called human evolution tree. How can you say your theory does not teach we came from apes ?
> 
> Google Image Result for http://scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v4i4g7.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of those are apes!!! They are all hominin species (human or ancestral to humans). That timeline on that chart doesn't go back far enough, or "zoom out" enough, to get to the other "branch," which would contain the line that led to the apes we see today. Once again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution.
Click to expand...


Nope,they came from apes so if we came from them we evolved from apes. Now if each lineage was better adapted as your theory calls for,why are transitional organisms extinct.

Look ,I can't help it you can't reason out what your theory is saying. Calling someone ignorant that knows your better then yourself, is indeed ignorance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're basically shooting a rather large, gaping hole in your own creationist belief system.
> 
> The tale of Noah defines a small, immediate family left to repopulate the earth after an alleged global flood used by the gods to wipe humanity from the planet.
> 
> An obvious outcome of the Noah fable would be incestuous breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, i'm shooting  holes in yours.
> 
> You see early man was created perfect and it took time for mutations to do their job. Inbreeding was stopped a long time ago because God ordered it ,why ? because if he didn't stop it man would have been plagued by genetic disorders due to mutations and man would have gone extinct.
> 
> That is why early man lived much longer and over time the average lifespan decreased significantly. We have around 5,000 genetic disorders,thank goodness we have large populations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense. Early man, (whatever that means) was obviously not created perfect. Perfection would be precisely that: _perfection_, thus your claim that it took time for mutations to do their job is a nonsensical claim. Oddly, youre actually describing the process of evolution in defining that it took time for mutations to do their job.  The other implication is that your designer gods are incompetent boobs when it comes to design.
> 
> The gods never ordered a stop to inbreeding. Thats another nonsensical claim. The Noah tale _requires_ that every human on the planet is the product of an incestuous relationship established by your gods. The fact is, humankind actually is plagued by genetic disorders so as usual, your claims utterly contradict themselves.
> 
> The fact is, human life spans have increased significantly over time. Due to advent of medical _science_. Yet another of your claims that is totally without merit.
Click to expand...


How do you know early man was not created perfect,and he started to degrade over time ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would apes evolve into humans?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. How does a microbe become a microbiologist?
Click to expand...


That is funny.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong poster. And still, after your promises to put me on ignore, you're more obsessed with me than before.
> 
> Otherwise, there is no sound, scientific argument for ID / creationism as it is a religious claim and not science.
> 
> You need to come to terms with an understanding that rationality and reason are separate from the realm of supernaturalism. What I find laughable is the core of the argument made by fundies. The entirety of the fundie argument is focused on failed attempts to denigrate science and evolution, especially evolution.
> 
> The fundies understand that the argument for a 6,000 year old earth is nonsensical. I've always found that IDers / creationists reflexively recoil in fits when presented with the bodies of evidence supporting evolution. Because evolution is fact, it means their currently configured gods / "intelligent designer" must have quite clearly been lying about creation. What the fundies are left with amounts to persistent appeals  to metaphysics as the core of their argument. Theyre left with failed efforts to show that the appearance of natural processes; evolution, common descent with adaptation over time, fossil evidence for the preceding and immense time spans defining the universe reveals supernatural designer god(s) but only when the evidence is interpreted by their methods, (i.e., pseudoscience) and in connection with bible tales and fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you guys are a little slow. I was calling NP your name because of his lame response so you wasted your cut and paste on this one. You can go back to sleep now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that Hollie and I both responded to our claims of proving creationism in a similar manner, and our assessment of the fundies is also somewhat similar, means that (1) we both actually understand evolution, (2) you do not, (3) we both can see WHY you refuse to understand the subject matter. Therefore, it follows that our responses will be somewhat similar.
Click to expand...


In other words you are brainwashed and not open to rational thought.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundie creationists / ID'ers must supply some evidence, some testable examples
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, too bad the Darwinists like you aren't held to the same standard. It is the only area of science where you don't have to do experiments to back up your outrageous claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't perform experimentation?
> 
> That's a complete fabrication and misrepresentation of science.
Click to expand...


Look scientist observe a natural process that had to be put into motion. But they have no reason to believe in macroevolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?????  All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So funny that you accused me of not understanding evolution when it is you that is totally IGNORANT to recent genetic data. Not sure where you cut and pasted the above speculation, but it has crumbled as well...
> 
> "There is thus both direct [13], [15] and indirect [11], [18] evidence for archaic admixture on four continents, suggesting that modern humans have not been totally genetically isolated since their emergence, some 150200 Kya in East Africa [22], [23]. However, there is still quite some discussion about the place, the timing, the exact numbers of admixture events, and the biological implications of these interbreeding events (see Figure 1)."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing of what you cut and pasted has any significant impact on the basic premise of evolution.
Click to expand...


You are giving baseless answers to my questions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?????  All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So funny that you accused me of not understanding evolution when it is you that is totally IGNORANT to recent genetic data. Not sure where you cut and pasted the above speculation, but it has crumbled as well...
> 
> "There is thus both direct [13], [15] and indirect [11], [18] evidence for archaic admixture on four continents, suggesting that modern humans have not been totally genetically isolated since their emergence, some 150200 Kya in East Africa [22], [23]. However, there is still quite some discussion about the place, the timing, the exact numbers of admixture events, and the biological implications of these interbreeding events (see Figure 1)."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay. Who cares. This does nothing to contradict what I wrote. I outlined a simple scenario to illustrate how speciation would occur because of a geological barrier. I never mentioned humans, so lets be clear. I simply trying to isolate the idea of speciation and evolution to answer your question, but I won't be shy in saying the same applies to humans anyway. However, as your quote elucidates, things are not always so cut and dry. Why should it be? For example, (and this is what the article was eluding to) I've already mentioned that modern humans mated with with Denosovans and neanderthals, evidenced by our DNA containing 1-4% of their DNA. This causes problems in tracing our lineage and our roots as far a phylogenetic classification and creating visual models of our lineage, but does not effect the underlying theory or mechanism of natural selection, speciation, geographic isolation, etc... not one iota.
Click to expand...


Did you not read where Dr. Maxwell admitted there is no observed evidence to support macroevolution. He also admitted that they had to extrapolate from microdaptations as evidence for macroevolution.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundie creationists / ID'ers must supply some evidence, some testable examples
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, too bad the Darwinists like you aren't held to the same standard. It is the only area of science where you don't have to do experiments to back up your outrageous claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't perform experimentation?
> 
> That's a complete fabrication and misrepresentation of science.
Click to expand...


Nice try. The TOE isn't based on science. You continue to confuse real science, like chemistry and fluid dynamics, with the speculative, non-experimentally-backed TOE.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. &#8220;Early man&#8221;, (whatever that means) was obviously not created perfect. Perfection would be precisely that: _perfection_, thus your claim that &#8220;it took time for mutations to do their job&#8221; is a nonsensical claim. Oddly, you&#8217;re actually describing the process of evolution in defining that &#8220;it took time for mutations to do their job&#8221;.  The other implication is that your designer gods are incompetent boobs when it comes to &#8220;design&#8221;.
> 
> The gods never ordered a stop to inbreeding. That&#8217;s another nonsensical claim. The Noah tale _requires_ that every human on the planet is the product of an incestuous relationship established by your gods. The fact is, humankind actually is plagued by genetic disorders so as usual, your claims utterly contradict themselves.
> 
> The fact is, human life spans have increased significantly over time. Due to advent of medical _science_. Yet another of your claims that is totally without merit.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the clueless one.
> 
> The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 15,000 individuals[3] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidences of sudden climate change and on coalescence evidences of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[4] and the relatively low level of genetic variation with humans.[3]
> 
> On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[7] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.[8]
> 
> Wilma!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The above is typical of the dishonesty inherent in the religious / fundie crowd. You were careful not to include a source for your cut and paste because you parsed the data.
> 
> Here's the part you chose to edit out:
> 
> "However, such coalescence is genetically expected and does not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Most genes in the genome are inherited from either father or mother, and thus can be traced back in time via either matrilineal or patrilineal ancestry.[5] Research on many genes finds different coalescence points from 2 million years ago to 60,000 years ago when different genes are considered, thus disproving the existence of more recent extreme bottlenecks (i.e., a single breeding pair).[3][6]"
> 
> Deceit and dishonsety is so typically a part of the fundie crowd, That's not surprising as supernaturalism is completely divorced from science.
> 
> More importantly, none of the above has any effect of dismantling evolutionary science. That's why its so strange that a fundie would be cutting and pasting articles connected with evolution when that fundie is the classic 6,000 year old earth groupie.
Click to expand...


HA!! This coming from someone that doesn't use quotes and plagiarizes someone else, passing their comments off as your own, Hollie. No, I have not forgotten and you have not gotten away with your lies. And once again your stupidity rules. Now read all three statements in context, in the order they were written. "On the other hand" conveys definite meaning in the context of the three statements, so EPIC FAIL for you again.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?????  All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So funny that you accused me of not understanding evolution when it is you that is totally IGNORANT to recent genetic data. Not sure where you cut and pasted the above speculation, but it has crumbled as well...
> 
> "There is thus both direct [13], [15] and indirect [11], [18] evidence for archaic admixture on four continents, suggesting that modern humans have not been totally genetically isolated since their emergence, some 150200 Kya in East Africa [22], [23]. However, there is still quite some discussion about the place, the timing, the exact numbers of admixture events, and the biological implications of these interbreeding events (see Figure 1)."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing of what you cut and pasted has any significant impact on the basic premise of evolution.
Click to expand...


But it does specifically address NP's comments about isolated species. If you actually understood the meaning of admixture events, this would have been obvious to you.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In the last few years, two paradigms underlying human evolution have crumbled. Modern humans have not totally replaced previous hominins without any admixture, and the expected signatures of adaptations to new environments are surprisingly lacking at the genomic level."
> 
> "Until recently, the out-of-Africa model of human evolution was favoured by most genetic analyses, but this model collapsed when the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome revealed that 1%&#8211;3% of the genome of Eurasians was of Neanderthal origin. At the same time, refined analyses of modern human genomic data [1]&#8211;[3] have changed our view of evolutionary forces acting on our genome. While most people assumed that the out-of-Africa expansion had been characterized by a series of adaptations to new environments [4]&#8211;[6] leading to recurrent selective sweeps [7], our genome actually contains little trace of recent complete sweeps [2], [3], [8] and the genetic differentiation of human population has been very progressive over time, probably without major adaptive episodes [9]"
> 
> We know evolution is a fact...
> 
> "Genomics has revealed that the genome of Eurasians is partly of archaic origin, and genome-wide patterns of diversity have not revealed expected signals of adaptive selection in humans. The sequencing of additional archaic hominins should be helpful to distinguish between alternative scenarios of admixture, infer the timing and the geographic location of admixture events, and assess human migration routes over Eurasia. Archaic admixture can also seriously impact estimated human demography, which should be revisited to account for differential introgression among human populations. Scenarios of human evolution need to be geographically coherent and integrate range expansions during which deleterious mutations can readily surf and accumulate on wave fronts, giving later fuel to background selection. *Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans *and that we have identified all selective forces that have shaped the diversity of our genome. However, progress in the analysis of modern and ancient genomes is likely to soon provide the data that will allow us to test complex scenarios of human evolution and contrast the role of various selective forces that are currently or were acting in our genome."
> 
> PLoS Genetics: Genomic Data Reveal a Complex Making of Humans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're hoping to suggest that the "our" in the text you bolded is a blanket claim for the science community and it is not.
> 
> *Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans *
> 
> That, in large part, is the probem faced by fundies. Without an understanding of the subject matter they hope to denigrate, ie: science and evolution, they're left to scour the web for any material they can find hoping to support their religious views in deference to making an honest attempt to understand the processes of science.
Click to expand...


This is a peer-reviewed paper on a pro-evolution website. I thought you said only peer-reviewed studies count? Now you are backpedaling on that too I see. There is no limit to the level of dishonesty you will go to.

*About PLoS Genetics*

PLoS Genetics (eISSN 1553-7404, ISSN 1553-7390) is an open-access, *peer-reviewed journal *published weekly by the Public Library of Science (PLoS).

PLoS Genetics is run by an international Editorial Board, headed by the Editor-in-Chief, *Greg Barsh (Stanford University School of Medicine).*

Articles published in PLoS Genetics are archived in PubMed Central and cited in PubMed.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In the last few years, two paradigms underlying human evolution have crumbled. Modern humans have not totally replaced previous hominins without any admixture, and the expected signatures of adaptations to new environments are surprisingly lacking at the genomic level."
> 
> "Until recently, the out-of-Africa model of human evolution was favoured by most genetic analyses, but this model collapsed when the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome revealed that 1%&#8211;3% of the genome of Eurasians was of Neanderthal origin. At the same time, refined analyses of modern human genomic data [1]&#8211;[3] have changed our view of evolutionary forces acting on our genome. While most people assumed that the out-of-Africa expansion had been characterized by a series of adaptations to new environments [4]&#8211;[6] leading to recurrent selective sweeps [7], our genome actually contains little trace of recent complete sweeps [2], [3], [8] and the genetic differentiation of human population has been very progressive over time, probably without major adaptive episodes [9]"
> 
> We know evolution is a fact...
> 
> "Genomics has revealed that the genome of Eurasians is partly of archaic origin, and genome-wide patterns of diversity have not revealed expected signals of adaptive selection in humans. The sequencing of additional archaic hominins should be helpful to distinguish between alternative scenarios of admixture, infer the timing and the geographic location of admixture events, and assess human migration routes over Eurasia. Archaic admixture can also seriously impact estimated human demography, which should be revisited to account for differential introgression among human populations. Scenarios of human evolution need to be geographically coherent and integrate range expansions during which deleterious mutations can readily surf and accumulate on wave fronts, giving later fuel to background selection. *Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans *and that we have identified all selective forces that have shaped the diversity of our genome. However, progress in the analysis of modern and ancient genomes is likely to soon provide the data that will allow us to test complex scenarios of human evolution and contrast the role of various selective forces that are currently or were acting in our genome."
> 
> PLoS Genetics: Genomic Data Reveal a Complex Making of Humans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, we're not %100 certain? Who cares!!!! We don't need absolute certainty. Certainty isn't virtuous or indicative of truth.
Click to expand...


Yes you do. If you continue to dishonestly pass the TOE off as fact. not theory, you are going to have to come up with something better.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In the last few years, two paradigms underlying human evolution have crumbled. Modern humans have not totally replaced previous hominins without any admixture, and the expected signatures of adaptations to new environments are surprisingly lacking at the genomic level."
> 
> "Until recently, the out-of-Africa model of human evolution was favoured by most genetic analyses, but this model collapsed when the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome revealed that 1%3% of the genome of Eurasians was of Neanderthal origin. At the same time, refined analyses of modern human genomic data [1][3] have changed our view of evolutionary forces acting on our genome. While most people assumed that the out-of-Africa expansion had been characterized by a series of adaptations to new environments [4][6] leading to recurrent selective sweeps [7], our genome actually contains little trace of recent complete sweeps [2], [3], [8] and the genetic differentiation of human population has been very progressive over time, probably without major adaptive episodes [9]"
> 
> We know evolution is a fact...
> 
> "Genomics has revealed that the genome of Eurasians is partly of archaic origin, and genome-wide patterns of diversity have not revealed expected signals of adaptive selection in humans. The sequencing of additional archaic hominins should be helpful to distinguish between alternative scenarios of admixture, infer the timing and the geographic location of admixture events, and assess human migration routes over Eurasia. Archaic admixture can also seriously impact estimated human demography, which should be revisited to account for differential introgression among human populations. Scenarios of human evolution need to be geographically coherent and integrate range expansions during which deleterious mutations can readily surf and accumulate on wave fronts, giving later fuel to background selection. *Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans *and that we have identified all selective forces that have shaped the diversity of our genome. However, progress in the analysis of modern and ancient genomes is likely to soon provide the data that will allow us to test complex scenarios of human evolution and contrast the role of various selective forces that are currently or were acting in our genome."
> 
> PLoS Genetics: Genomic Data Reveal a Complex Making of Humans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, we're not %100 certain? Who cares!!!! We don't need absolute certainty. Certainty isn't virtuous or indicative of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you do. If you continue to dishonestly pass the TOE off as fact. not theory, you are going to have to come up with something better.
Click to expand...


Your lack of knowledge regarding science is the issue. The fact that evolution occurs is not at issue with the scientific community. It is an issue with the religious community but of course, religion is not science and the fundies are ruthlessly dishonest in their attempts to vilify science.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In the last few years, two paradigms underlying human evolution have crumbled. Modern humans have not totally replaced previous hominins without any admixture, and the expected signatures of adaptations to new environments are surprisingly lacking at the genomic level."
> 
> "Until recently, the out-of-Africa model of human evolution was favoured by most genetic analyses, but this model collapsed when the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome revealed that 1%3% of the genome of Eurasians was of Neanderthal origin. At the same time, refined analyses of modern human genomic data [1][3] have changed our view of evolutionary forces acting on our genome. While most people assumed that the out-of-Africa expansion had been characterized by a series of adaptations to new environments [4][6] leading to recurrent selective sweeps [7], our genome actually contains little trace of recent complete sweeps [2], [3], [8] and the genetic differentiation of human population has been very progressive over time, probably without major adaptive episodes [9]"
> 
> We know evolution is a fact...
> 
> "Genomics has revealed that the genome of Eurasians is partly of archaic origin, and genome-wide patterns of diversity have not revealed expected signals of adaptive selection in humans. The sequencing of additional archaic hominins should be helpful to distinguish between alternative scenarios of admixture, infer the timing and the geographic location of admixture events, and assess human migration routes over Eurasia. Archaic admixture can also seriously impact estimated human demography, which should be revisited to account for differential introgression among human populations. Scenarios of human evolution need to be geographically coherent and integrate range expansions during which deleterious mutations can readily surf and accumulate on wave fronts, giving later fuel to background selection. *Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans *and that we have identified all selective forces that have shaped the diversity of our genome. However, progress in the analysis of modern and ancient genomes is likely to soon provide the data that will allow us to test complex scenarios of human evolution and contrast the role of various selective forces that are currently or were acting in our genome."
> 
> PLoS Genetics: Genomic Data Reveal a Complex Making of Humans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're hoping to suggest that the "our" in the text you bolded is a blanket claim for the science community and it is not.
> 
> *Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans *
> 
> That, in large part, is the probem faced by fundies. Without an understanding of the subject matter they hope to denigrate, ie: science and evolution, they're left to scour the web for any material they can find hoping to support their religious views in deference to making an honest attempt to understand the processes of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a peer-reviewed paper on a pro-evolution website. I thought you said only peer-reviewed studies count? Now you are backpedaling on that too I see. There is no limit to the level of dishonesty you will go to.
> 
> *About PLoS Genetics*
> 
> PLoS Genetics (eISSN 1553-7404, ISSN 1553-7390) is an open-access, *peer-reviewed journal *published weekly by the Public Library of Science (PLoS).
> 
> PLoS Genetics is run by an international Editorial Board, headed by the Editor-in-Chief, *Greg Barsh (Stanford University School of Medicine).*
> 
> Articles published in PLoS Genetics are archived in PubMed Central and cited in PubMed.
Click to expand...


As noted earlier, you are hoping to portray your cut and paste article as speaking for the science community which it is not. 

In your frantic attempts to vilify science, you should have noticed that one article you cut and paste does not meet your intended goal.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, i'm shooting  holes in yours.
> 
> You see early man was created perfect and it took time for mutations to do their job. Inbreeding was stopped a long time ago because God ordered it ,why ? because if he didn't stop it man would have been plagued by genetic disorders due to mutations and man would have gone extinct.
> 
> That is why early man lived much longer and over time the average lifespan decreased significantly. We have around 5,000 genetic disorders,thank goodness we have large populations.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. Early man, (whatever that means) was obviously not created perfect. Perfection would be precisely that: _perfection_, thus your claim that it took time for mutations to do their job is a nonsensical claim. Oddly, youre actually describing the process of evolution in defining that it took time for mutations to do their job.  The other implication is that your designer gods are incompetent boobs when it comes to design.
> 
> The gods never ordered a stop to inbreeding. Thats another nonsensical claim. The Noah tale _requires_ that every human on the planet is the product of an incestuous relationship established by your gods. The fact is, humankind actually is plagued by genetic disorders so as usual, your claims utterly contradict themselves.
> 
> The fact is, human life spans have increased significantly over time. Due to advent of medical _science_. Yet another of your claims that is totally without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know early man was not created perfect,and he started to degrade over time ?
Click to expand...

If man was a "perfect creation" that would imply... you know... perfection. Is that difficult to understand? degradation of perfection implies... you know... not perfection.

We have no reason to believe that man was created. Your religious perspective (which is not a basis for science), requires you to believe otherwise. That is the problem you face when trying to come to an understaning of the natural world - you can't. You are forever confined to a hopeless existence wherein you must tremble before angry gods.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the clueless one.
> 
> The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 15,000 individuals[3] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidences of sudden climate change and on coalescence evidences of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[4] and the relatively low level of genetic variation with humans.[3]
> 
> On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[7] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.[8]
> 
> Wilma!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is typical of the dishonesty inherent in the religious / fundie crowd. You were careful not to include a source for your cut and paste because you parsed the data.
> 
> Here's the part you chose to edit out:
> 
> "However, such coalescence is genetically expected and does not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Most genes in the genome are inherited from either father or mother, and thus can be traced back in time via either matrilineal or patrilineal ancestry.[5] Research on many genes finds different coalescence points from 2 million years ago to 60,000 years ago when different genes are considered, thus disproving the existence of more recent extreme bottlenecks (i.e., a single breeding pair).[3][6]"
> 
> Deceit and dishonsety is so typically a part of the fundie crowd, That's not surprising as supernaturalism is completely divorced from science.
> 
> More importantly, none of the above has any effect of dismantling evolutionary science. That's why its so strange that a fundie would be cutting and pasting articles connected with evolution when that fundie is the classic 6,000 year old earth groupie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HA!! This coming from someone that doesn't use quotes and plagiarizes someone else, passing their comments off as your own, Hollie. No, I have not forgotten and you have not gotten away with your lies. And once again your stupidity rules. Now read all three statements in context, in the order they were written. "On the other hand" conveys definite meaning in the context of the three statements, so EPIC FAIL for you again.
Click to expand...

You're obviously backtracking and your frantic attempts to conceal your dishonesty is not working. 

The epic fail is yours for dishonestly parsing entire paragraphs of what was written. This is an all too common approach taken by the fundie types who are unable to argue from a science perspective and are thus left to tactics that simply discard integrity and honesty as their only avenue to promote supernaturalism is to lie and attempt to deceive.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're hoping to suggest that the "our" in the text you bolded is a blanket claim for the science community and it is not.
> 
> *Whereas our view of human evolution has drastically changed over the past few years, it would be pretentious to believe we now know the true history of modern humans *
> 
> That, in large part, is the probem faced by fundies. Without an understanding of the subject matter they hope to denigrate, ie: science and evolution, they're left to scour the web for any material they can find hoping to support their religious views in deference to making an honest attempt to understand the processes of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a peer-reviewed paper on a pro-evolution website. I thought you said only peer-reviewed studies count? Now you are backpedaling on that too I see. There is no limit to the level of dishonesty you will go to.
> 
> *About PLoS Genetics*
> 
> PLoS Genetics (eISSN 1553-7404, ISSN 1553-7390) is an open-access, *peer-reviewed journal *published weekly by the Public Library of Science (PLoS).
> 
> PLoS Genetics is run by an international Editorial Board, headed by the Editor-in-Chief, *Greg Barsh (Stanford University School of Medicine).*
> 
> Articles published in PLoS Genetics are archived in PubMed Central and cited in PubMed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As noted earlier, you are hoping to portray your cut and paste article as speaking for the science community which it is not.
> 
> In your frantic attempts to vilify science, you should have noticed that one article you cut and paste does not meet your intended goal.
Click to expand...


The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter where the info comes from. You are not open to any real scientific evidence, because like I said before, you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion. Since Darwinism is a religion for you, it wouldn't matter what I posted. You simply aren't open to science.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> You're obviously backtracking and your frantic attempts to conceal your dishonesty is not working.
> 
> The epic fail is yours for dishonestly parsing entire paragraphs of what was written.



Me concealing my dishonesty??? Me dishonestly parsing entire paragraphs? For those of you that missed it, here are Hollies "own words" from page 312:

*Hollie pretending to be smart by passing someone else's quote as her own:*
It's a singularly utilitarian form of narcissism in which concessions are grudgingly conceded to obvious human limitations and perfected selves imaged in the form of flawless gods with absolute moral standards to which the fallible must aspire.

*RuggedTouch's post from December 2010:*

It's a singularly utilitarian form of narcissism in which concessions are grudgingly conceded to obvious human limitations and perfected selves imaged in the form of flawless gods with absolute moral standards to which the fallible must aspire.

*Hollie on Page 312:*

When Kurt Vonnegut asked the seemingly seminal question, "What are people for?", he bypassed the significant possibility: People aren't for. However, Kurt's 'Great Commandment' of the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent which I paraphrase, "Take care of the People; let the Gods take care of Themselves" should be rendered in lapidary permanence outside every public building.

*RuggedTouch's post from December 2010:*

When Kurt Vonnegut asked the seemingly seminal question, "What are people for?", he bypassed the significant possibility: People aren't for. However, Kurt's 'Great Commandment' of the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent which I paraphrase, "Take care of the People; let the Gods take care of Themselves" should be rendered in lapidary permanence outside every public building.

*Hollie doing some serious lying and cut and pasting on page 312:*

My suggestion: Eschew ill-fitting, off-the-rack hand-me-downs. You have equal access to a fancied spirit world and, thus, are entirely qualified to create your own fetching, custom-fitted, designer religion. Otherwise, Vonnegut's contribution to the religion business is well worth considering."

*RuggedTouch's post from December 2010:*

My suggestion: Eschew ill-fitting, off-the-rack hand-me-downs. You have equal access to a fancied spirit world and, thus, are entirely qualified to create your own fetching, custom-fitted, designer religion. Otherwise, Vonnegut's contribution to the religion business is well worth considering."

Here is the link to info Hollie stole from someone else:

http://forums.understanding-islam.com/showthread.php?10302-How-can-there-be-freewill/page13

* Hollie, you have damaged your intellectual integrity so bad, how are we supposed to believe that anything you post on here is your own?*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously backtracking and your frantic attempts to conceal your dishonesty is not working.
> 
> The epic fail is yours for dishonestly parsing entire paragraphs of what was written.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me concealing my dishonesty??? Me dishonestly parsing entire paragraphs? For those of you that missed it, here are Hollies "own words" from page 312:
> 
> *Hollie pretending to be smart by passing someone else's quote as her own:*
> It's a singularly utilitarian form of naricissism in which concessions are grudgingly conceded to obvious human limitations and perfected selves imaged in the form of flawless gods with absolute moral standards to which the fallible must aspire.
> 
> *RuggedTouch's post from December 2010:*
> 
> It's a singularly utilitarian form of narcissism in which concessions are grudgingly conceded to obvious human limitations and perfected selves imaged in the form of flawless gods with absolute moral standards to which the fallible must aspire.
> 
> *Hollie on Page 312:*
> 
> When Kurt Vonnegut asked the seemingly seminal question, "What are people for?", he bypassed the significant possibility: People aren't for. However, Kurt's 'Great Commandment' of the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent which I paraphrase, "Take care of the People; let the Gods take care of Themselves" should be rendered in lapidary permanence outside every public building.
> 
> *RuggedTouch's post from December 2010:*
> 
> When Kurt Vonnegut asked the seemingly seminal question, "What are people for?", he bypassed the significant possibility: People aren't for. However, Kurt's 'Great Commandment' of the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent which I paraphrase, "Take care of the People; let the Gods take care of Themselves" should be rendered in lapidary permanence outside every public building.
> 
> *Hollie doing some serious lying and cut and pasting on page 312:*
> 
> My suggestion: Eschew ill-fitting, off-the-rack hand-me-downs. You have equal access to a fancied spirit world and, thus, are entirely qualified to create your own fetching, custom-fitted, designer religion. Otherwise, Vonnegut's contribution to the religion business is well worth considering."
> 
> *RuggedTouch's post from December 2010:*
> 
> My suggestion: Eschew ill-fitting, off-the-rack hand-me-downs. You have equal access to a fancied spirit world and, thus, are entirely qualified to create your own fetching, custom-fitted, designer religion. Otherwise, Vonnegut's contribution to the religion business is well worth considering."
> 
> Here is the link to info Hollie stole from someone else:
> 
> How can there be freewill? - Page 13
> 
> * Hollie, you have damaged your intellectual integrity so bad, how are we supposed to believe that anything you post on here is your own?*
Click to expand...

I've posted on other boards beside this one.

For all of your stalking and cutting and pasting (much of which you have selectively edited or removed from your cut and paste), you still haven't provided a single bit of evidence for your gods or for a 6,000 year old earth.

So whose credibility is really damaged.

I'm actually going to require that you scour the site for some of my older posts. I think you will find them to be effective in dismantling the pages of material you cut and paste from fundie websites. The other site was very active 3 or more years ago and the debates were with people who actually could compose coherent sentences, unlike you and your alternate log in.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a peer-reviewed paper on a pro-evolution website. I thought you said only peer-reviewed studies count? Now you are backpedaling on that too I see. There is no limit to the level of dishonesty you will go to.
> 
> *About PLoS Genetics*
> 
> PLoS Genetics (eISSN 1553-7404, ISSN 1553-7390) is an open-access, *peer-reviewed journal *published weekly by the Public Library of Science (PLoS).
> 
> PLoS Genetics is run by an international Editorial Board, headed by the Editor-in-Chief, *Greg Barsh (Stanford University School of Medicine).*
> 
> Articles published in PLoS Genetics are archived in PubMed Central and cited in PubMed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As noted earlier, you are hoping to portray your cut and paste article as speaking for the science community which it is not.
> 
> In your frantic attempts to vilify science, you should have noticed that one article you cut and paste does not meet your intended goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter where the info comes from. You are not open to any real scientific evidence, because like I said before, you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion. Since Darwinism is a religion for you, it wouldn't matter what I posted. You simply aren't open to science.
Click to expand...


I see. So when you are confronted with dishonestly removing portions of the material you cut and paste, your last resort is to make false and juvenile claims as to my sexual orientation?

Its a shame that there is not an age verification requirement for participation on this board. It's just not appropriate that 12 year old children are allowed to spend so much time cut and pasting spam.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously backtracking and your frantic attempts to conceal your dishonesty is not working.
> 
> The epic fail is yours for dishonestly parsing entire paragraphs of what was written.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me concealing my dishonesty??? Me dishonestly parsing entire paragraphs? For those of you that missed it, here are Hollies "own words" from page 312:
> 
> *Hollie pretending to be smart by passing someone else's quote as her own:*
> It's a singularly utilitarian form of naricissism in which concessions are grudgingly conceded to obvious human limitations and perfected selves imaged in the form of flawless gods with absolute moral standards to which the fallible must aspire.
> 
> *RuggedTouch's post from December 2010:*
> 
> It's a singularly utilitarian form of narcissism in which concessions are grudgingly conceded to obvious human limitations and perfected selves imaged in the form of flawless gods with absolute moral standards to which the fallible must aspire.
> 
> *Hollie on Page 312:*
> 
> When Kurt Vonnegut asked the seemingly seminal question, "What are people for?", he bypassed the significant possibility: People aren't for. However, Kurt's 'Great Commandment' of the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent which I paraphrase, "Take care of the People; let the Gods take care of Themselves" should be rendered in lapidary permanence outside every public building.
> 
> *RuggedTouch's post from December 2010:*
> 
> When Kurt Vonnegut asked the seemingly seminal question, "What are people for?", he bypassed the significant possibility: People aren't for. However, Kurt's 'Great Commandment' of the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent which I paraphrase, "Take care of the People; let the Gods take care of Themselves" should be rendered in lapidary permanence outside every public building.
> 
> *Hollie doing some serious lying and cut and pasting on page 312:*
> 
> My suggestion: Eschew ill-fitting, off-the-rack hand-me-downs. You have equal access to a fancied spirit world and, thus, are entirely qualified to create your own fetching, custom-fitted, designer religion. Otherwise, Vonnegut's contribution to the religion business is well worth considering."
> 
> *RuggedTouch's post from December 2010:*
> 
> My suggestion: Eschew ill-fitting, off-the-rack hand-me-downs. You have equal access to a fancied spirit world and, thus, are entirely qualified to create your own fetching, custom-fitted, designer religion. Otherwise, Vonnegut's contribution to the religion business is well worth considering."
> 
> Here is the link to info Hollie stole from someone else:
> 
> How can there be freewill? - Page 13
> 
> * Hollie, you have damaged your intellectual integrity so bad, how are we supposed to believe that anything you post on here is your own?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've posted on other boards beside this one.
> 
> For all of your stalking and cutting and pasting (much of which you have selectively edited or removed from your cut and paste), you still haven't provided a single bit of evidence for your gods or for a 6,000 year old earth.
> 
> So whose credibility is really damaged.
> 
> I'm actually going to require that you scour the site for some of my older posts. I think you will find them to be effective in dismantling the pages of material you cut and paste from fundie websites. The other site was very active 3 or more years ago and the debates were with people who actually could compose coherent sentences, unlike you and your alternate log in.
Click to expand...


*So you are Rugged Touch?? *Now the lies are getting deep. And if you are Rugged Touch, why pose as a female on this site. And why get upset with me for referring to your same sex attraction when you did the same thing to Yahya Sulaiman.

Rugged touch: Posted 2nd December 2010, 01:32
Re: Hapless Jackels

Quote: Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman View Post
    "So if I'm fifteen, then which way is it possible:

    1. That I lied about my age days before the subject of age even came up? Perhaps using psychic powers or a crystal ball?
    2. That I lied about skipping grades? I wouldn't have thought you'd believe me to be that intelligent.
    3. That I have hacked into the board and made it spit out false dates on the posts?
    4. That you're really in the Matrix and none of this is even happening?"

    Take your pick of absurdity. Given your delusions of persecution complex I'd guess you think it's #4.
    #5.
    Your parents are divorced - that's a difficult thing for a young teenager, which is why you stalk me from thread to thread, *looking for a father figure*. Or maybe #6 - you're a teenager who is discovering his sexuality and *you find you are drawn to the company of men*. You should know that many studies are finding that homosexuality among teenagers is a process of discovery.

Of course the stalking comments sound like you and the accusations of posters being teenagers fits your MO. Maybe I had it all wrong. Maybe you were formerly a man and have started the process to become Hollie.


----------



## UltimateReality

Well I guess I was wrong!!! You didn't plagiarize. Now I'm convinced it is you. Look what the other poster wrote about Rugged Touch.

Hapless Jackels - Page 2

Definitive proof right here it is you!!!

Yahya asks Rugged Touch: *Do you ever answer people's questions? Or is every inquiry just a different type of excuse for you to pour out the freshest batch of excess venom and prejudice? I'm finding it hard to think of a single time when you've ever actually addressed anything I've ever said.* 

Now I am laughing my butt off. How many times have YWC and I said the same excact thing!!!! You haven't changed your methodology in 2 years. *But why pose as a woman here?* Were you kicked off the US Message Boards under another login for vitriol?

Another poster gave you this warning. I'm guessing you got banned...

"Salaams,

Ruggedtouch; this is your final warning, stop playing silly hate-filled games on this forum. This is not the place for the venting of hate, this is a rare place on the internet (and amongst Islamic sites) where you can actually have good dialogue, and you are tarring that atmosphere. All the extremism that is affecting your hate is NOT on this forum. Plus... you should recognize sometimes in the hate of others, we become what we hate.

If you persist then there will be no choice but a Ban.
(this post is not referring to just this thread in particular, but for compound reasons)

Peace"


----------



## UltimateReality

Rugged Hollymen Touch, Ain't Google a beach!!!

IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum: Are Khanazeer Allowed here?

Duende: "Like many regular posters, I've been lurking lately, since
RuggedTouch appeared, feeling bruised by this man's (it is only ever
men who behave this way) *consistent attacks against Islam*. Like
Hanan I felt upset so few people were standing up to him, but even
when I tried, *he either ignores or doesn't even bother reading,
therefore protecting his biases and prejudices against rational
argument and even the presentation of proof negating his views. * Who does that sound like????? Can you believe this bozo has been doing this since 2006???

Hollie, or whatever your name is, you seriously need to get a life. Got tired of spewing hate on the Muslims and thought you would try your hand at Creationists. Guess that works on some but this retired cop isn't falling for your lies and your fraudulent postings.  I really seriously wonder what your real story is. I guess we will never know.


----------



## UltimateReality

And the Googles just keep coming. From 2005 on yet another Islamic Forum:

Sunni Muslim cleric killed outside Mosque - ShiaChat.com

*Kadhim to Rugged Touch:* Maybe if you'd listen for once to what people tell you here instead of shooting off your mouth, you'd realize that people here don't support such things.  But that's your problem.  You don't listen.  You don't pursue nuanced knowledge.  You just pursue maintaining your own preconceptions, your own "hiding places."  Just like a 12 year old.  Just like a "fanatic."  You and your friends throw insults and taunts at people in the hopes of causing emotional injury.  Tell me: Is this the behaviour of an adult?  Or that of a 12 year old child, a bully on the playground.  I hope someday you choose to elevate yourself.  Sincerely.  The world is bigger than the filter through which you choose to see it.

Rugged Hollie is like the Blob. He/sHe/it has taken in 7 years of garbage and is now able to copy and regurgitate all the insults he received back on others on new forums.


----------



## UltimateReality

So Rugged, it is now totally evident from your behavior for the past 7 years that you won't address this comment, but I just have to say...  *I beat you good.* I figured you out. And even if I didn't win any evolutionary arguments with you because you refused to engage in a logical discussion, I have exposed you for the total *FRAUD *that you are. Any person on this forum with half a brain can see it. Seriously, you really do need to get a life.


----------



## UltimateReality

Rugged is quite the atheist. Wants to wipe out history. Take In God We Trust off the money. Pretend like it never happened.

What 'God' in America? | bloggie


----------



## UltimateReality

Madalyn Murray... | Facebook

Hollie Fitzgerald Babson??? Could it be???

Rugged Touch posts rant about removing IGWT off the coin.

Holly F Babson says "I would like a return to pre-1957 American currency"

On this love filled facebook page...

Anti-Theists. Pro Active Atheists. Opposing Religion. | Facebook


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Rugged is quite the atheist. Wants to wipe out history. Take In God We Trust off the money. Pretend like it never happened.
> 
> What 'God' in America? | bloggie



Nice work, don't you think? That was a piece written as a guest commentator.

You're not done yet, though. Your homework assignment is to find more and post it here.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> So Rugged, it is now totally evident from your behavior for the past 7 years that you won't address this comment, but I just have to say...  *I beat you good.* I figured you out. And even if I didn't win any evolutionary arguments with you because you refused to engage in a logical discussion, I have exposed you for the total *FRAUD *that you are. Any person on this forum with half a brain can see it. Seriously, you really do need to get a life.



The gargantuan font thing is cute. I suppose a 12 year old thinks so. But aside from cutting and pasting from fuindie creationist websites, you're only proven that you can copy and paste material the you or the fundies have dishonestly altered in vain attempts to discredit science.

Religion is not science and trying to force your gods on others or trying to force your gods into an environmment of science is a hopeless exercise. That is why your juvenile tantrums cause you to behave the way you do. Look, honey, I want you to stay with playing video games and leave the definitions of science to grownups.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Rugged is quite the atheist. Wants to wipe out history. Take In God We Trust off the money. Pretend like it never happened.
> 
> What 'God' in America? | bloggie



I've written a companion piece to the above. 

I'll require you to do a search and post that link here.

Thanks.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Rugged is quite the atheist. Wants to wipe out history. Take In God We Trust off the money. Pretend like it never happened.
> 
> What 'God' in America? | bloggie



Oh yes. Im quite the Atheist. Im actually much more pro-freedom as opposed to anti-religious. I only get anti-religious when fundie zealots presume to force their gods on others. Islam may represent the worst offenders of those who force their gods on others and the Taliban may represent the worst of the worst. But the Taliban and Christian creationist fundies share so much in common that the coveted prize of _the worst of the worst_ is a dead heat or maybe a dead end is the appropriate term.

You have been told to find and post the companion article to a guest comment I wrote previously that you linked to. Where is that article?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Rugged, it is now totally evident from your behavior for the past 7 years that you won't address this comment, but I just have to say...  *I beat you good.* I figured you out. And even if I didn't win any evolutionary arguments with you because you refused to engage in a logical discussion, I have exposed you for the total *FRAUD *that you are. Any person on this forum with half a brain can see it. Seriously, you really do need to get a life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gargantuan font thing is cute. I suppose a 12 year old thinks so. But aside from cutting and pasting from fuindie creationist websites, you're only proven that you can copy and paste material the you or the fundies have dishonestly altered in vain attempts to discredit science.
> 
> Religion is not science and trying to force your gods on others or trying to force your gods into an environmment of science is a hopeless exercise. That is why your juvenile tantrums cause you to behave the way you do. Look, honey, I want you to stay with playing video games and leave the definitions of science to grownups.
Click to expand...


Here is some of large font you are so fond of...

*I really think you are done here. No, really.*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rugged is quite the atheist. Wants to wipe out history. Take In God We Trust off the money. Pretend like it never happened.
> 
> What 'God' in America? | bloggie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've written a companion piece to the above.
> 
> I'll require you to do a search and post that link here.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


You REQUIRE me to do a search? I don't think you get it Dude. It's really time for you to go find some other unsuspected bunch and spew your hate on them.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rugged is quite the atheist. Wants to wipe out history. Take In God We Trust off the money. Pretend like it never happened.
> 
> What 'God' in America? | bloggie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've written a companion piece to the above.
> 
> I'll require you to do a search and post that link here.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You REQUIRE me to do a search? I don't think you get it Dude. It's really time for you to go find some other unsuspected bunch and spew your hate on them.
Click to expand...

You're upset. No need to be. You're just incompetent at doing task-based objectives.

You were instructed to perform a search as I required of you. Get it done and stop whining.

On the other hand, I'm more than willing to stay around and counter the nonsensical cut and paste you use to threaten people with your gods.

I want that link you were told to provide.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've written a companion piece to the above.
> 
> I'll require you to do a search and post that link here.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You REQUIRE me to do a search? I don't think you get it Dude. It's really time for you to go find some other unsuspected bunch and spew your hate on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're upset. No need to be. You're just incompetent at doing task-based objectives.
> 
> You were instructed to perform a search as I required of you. Get it done and stop whining.
> 
> On the other hand, I'm more than willing to stay around and counter the nonsensical cut and paste you use to threaten people with your gods.
> 
> I want that link you were told to provide.
Click to expand...


Goodbye. See ya.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You REQUIRE me to do a search? I don't think you get it Dude. It's really time for you to go find some other unsuspected bunch and spew your hate on them.
> 
> 
> 
> You're upset. No need to be. You're just incompetent at doing task-based objectives.
> 
> You were instructed to perform a search as I required of you. Get it done and stop whining.
> 
> On the other hand, I'm more than willing to stay around and counter the nonsensical cut and paste you use to threaten people with your gods.
> 
> I want that link you were told to provide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goodbye. See ya.
Click to expand...


I suppose this is yet another lie?

You promised to put me on ignore previously yet your fascination with me led you to scour the web in a feverish search for my posts on other forums.


----------



## Montrovant

/thread

?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Didn't evolutionist try to deny humans came from apes ?

Jonathan Jones: Da Vinci prefigured Darwin on our close relation to apes | Art and design | guardian.co.uk

I will as again,why did all the more adapted tranitional species between apes and humans go extinct and the less adaptive apes are still here ?

Why did Hollie and NP say that humans didn't come from apes and Daws agreed with them ? Why do they refuse to reason on their own theory ?


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Didn't evolutionist try to deny humans came from apes ?
> 
> Jonathan Jones: Da Vinci prefigured Darwin on our close relation to apes | Art and design | guardian.co.uk
> 
> I will as again,why did all the more adapted tranitional species between apes and humans go extinct and the less adaptive apes are still here ?
> 
> Why did Hollie and NP say that humans didn't come from apes and Daws agreed with them ? Why do they refuse to reason on their own theory ?



Do you understand the idea of a common ancestor?  You seem not to since you continue to claim that we are directly descended from apes, which evolution does not say, based on all the replies you've been given.  

Do you understand that being closely related, as the article you linked (for what reason, I'm unsure) states, is NOT the same as descended from?  I am closely related to my cousins, does that make me their descendant?  Of course not.  

Your questions make no sense based on current theory of primate evolution, at least as I understand it.


----------



## UltimateReality

So we had a great service at church this morning. We prayed for the victims in the Colorado shooting, but we also prayed for the the shooter, that he would come to know God. The sermon was on speech and while I conduct myself in an exemplary fashion in my personal life, I got convicted about the way I "speak" to people on this forum. Anonymity is freedom from accountability and I need to be accountable for the way I talk, even if it is in the written word to a bunch of strangers. First, let me say I apologize for my sarcasm and for calling people ignorant. This is definitely not behaving Christ-like. I allowed my anger and frustration of always feeling attacked on here to influence me to say things I know aren't right. From this point forward, I will conduct myself on here as a Christian, no matter what challenges and frustrations come my way.

With regards to Hollie, or Rugged Touch, or whatever he or she is identifying him/herself as, I sincerely hope he comes to know God. I know that when someone puts that much time and effort into lashing out at Believers, it is a good indication they are still searching. [Actually, my sincere hope is that you all come to know Christ.] Most Atheists that are good with their belief system, don't feel the need to tear others who don't share their views down so insidiously. I almost think the type of atheism that Hollie holds to is almost like a drug addiction. Sometimes it needs to run its course for years and years before the poison loosens its grip. I still have hope that Hollie will one day reach this point, and realize the hopelessness of her belief system. The amazing thing is when she does, God will still be there with open arms. In fact, he will be running out to meet Hollie. But until that time, I can only pray for her, but not engage in what in my experience feels like beating your head against the wall, never getting an actual response, only stereotypical attacks. I realize that getting angry and frustrated is exactly what Hollie wants, so I'm just not going to play anymore. Again, to all who frequent here, please accept my apology for the times I have not shown the patience and love of Christ.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> So we had a great service at church this morning. We prayed for the victims in the Colorado shooting, but we also prayed for the the shooter, that he would come to know God. The sermon was on speech and while I conduct myself in an exemplary fashion in my personal life, I got convicted about the way I "speak" to people on this forum. Anonymity is freedom from accountability and I need to be accountable for the way I talk, even if it is in the written word to a bunch of strangers. First, let me say I apologize for my sarcasm and for calling people ignorant. This is definitely not behaving Christ-like. I allowed my anger and frustration of always feeling attacked on here to influence me to say things I know aren't right. From this point forward, I will conduct myself on here as a Christian, no matter what challenges and frustrations come my way.
> 
> With regards to Hollie, or Rugged Touch, or whatever he or she is identifying him/herself as, I sincerely hope he comes to know God. I know that when someone puts that much time and effort into lashing out at Believers, it is a good indication they are still searching. [Actually, my sincere hope is that you all come to know Christ.] Most Atheists that are good with their belief system, don't feel the need to tear others who don't share their views down so insidiously. I almost think the type of atheism that Hollie holds to is almost like a drug addiction. Sometimes it needs to run its course for years and years before the poison loosens its grip. I still have hope that Hollie will one day reach this point, and realize the hopelessness of her belief system. The amazing thing is when she does, God will still be there with open arms. In fact, he will be running out to meet Hollie. But until that time, I can only pray for her, but not engage in what in my experience feels like beating your head against the wall, never getting an actual response, only stereotypical attacks. I realize that getting angry and frustrated is exactly what Hollie wants, so I'm just not going to play anymore. Again, to all who frequent here, please accept my apology for the times I have not shown the patience and love of Christ.


Did you really need to make that melodramatic, weepy-eyed confession all about me?

You have an unreasonable obsession with me. Get help with that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't evolutionist try to deny humans came from apes ?
> 
> Jonathan Jones: Da Vinci prefigured Darwin on our close relation to apes | Art and design | guardian.co.uk
> 
> I will as again,why did all the more adapted tranitional species between apes and humans go extinct and the less adaptive apes are still here ?
> 
> Why did Hollie and NP say that humans didn't come from apes and Daws agreed with them ? Why do they refuse to reason on their own theory ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the idea of a common ancestor?  You seem not to since you continue to claim that we are directly descended from apes, which evolution does not say, based on all the replies you've been given.
> 
> Do you understand that being closely related, as the article you linked (for what reason, I'm unsure) states, is NOT the same as descended from?  I am closely related to my cousins, does that make me their descendant?  Of course not.
> 
> Your questions make no sense based on current theory of primate evolution, at least as I understand it.
Click to expand...


Yes,you can call it what you like and say what you want but humans came from apes. If we did not descend from apes what did we descend from ? according to your theory. I know they want people to believe humans didn't descend from apes so it won't be so objectionable. It don't sound as bad to say our nearest ancestor, in essence what are you saying We share a common ancestor. If we share a common ancestor was it a human or an ape ?

You are still avoiding the question. Do you know what macroevolution is ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't evolutionist try to deny humans came from apes ?
> 
> Jonathan Jones: Da Vinci prefigured Darwin on our close relation to apes | Art and design | guardian.co.uk
> 
> I will as again,why did all the more adapted tranitional species between apes and humans go extinct and the less adaptive apes are still here ?
> 
> Why did Hollie and NP say that humans didn't come from apes and Daws agreed with them ? Why do they refuse to reason on their own theory ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the idea of a common ancestor?  You seem not to since you continue to claim that we are directly descended from apes, which evolution does not say, based on all the replies you've been given.
> 
> Do you understand that being closely related, as the article you linked (for what reason, I'm unsure) states, is NOT the same as descended from?  I am closely related to my cousins, does that make me their descendant?  Of course not.
> 
> Your questions make no sense based on current theory of primate evolution, at least as I understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes,you can call it what you like and say what you want but humans came from apes. If we did not descend from apes what did we descend from ? according to your theory. I know they want people to believe humans didn't descend from apes so it won't be so objectionable. It don't sound as bad to say our nearest ancestor, in essence what are you saying We share a common ancestor. If we share a common ancestor was it a human or an ape ?
> 
> You are still avoiding the question. Do you know what macroevolution is ?
Click to expand...

You have an unrealistic expectation that "because I say so" makes your claim defendable. 

You're insisting that man descended from apes because that is the dogma spewed from fundie YEC websites. Your religious convictions conflict with the observable and testable evidence but you're unable to separate supernaturalism from scientific evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the idea of a common ancestor?  You seem not to since you continue to claim that we are directly descended from apes, which evolution does not say, based on all the replies you've been given.
> 
> Do you understand that being closely related, as the article you linked (for what reason, I'm unsure) states, is NOT the same as descended from?  I am closely related to my cousins, does that make me their descendant?  Of course not.
> 
> Your questions make no sense based on current theory of primate evolution, at least as I understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,you can call it what you like and say what you want but humans came from apes. If we did not descend from apes what did we descend from ? according to your theory. I know they want people to believe humans didn't descend from apes so it won't be so objectionable. It don't sound as bad to say our nearest ancestor, in essence what are you saying We share a common ancestor. If we share a common ancestor was it a human or an ape ?
> 
> You are still avoiding the question. Do you know what macroevolution is ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have an unrealistic expectation that "because I say so" makes your claim defendable.
> 
> You're insisting that man descended from apes because that is the dogma spewed from fundie YEC websites. Your religious convictions conflict with the observable and testable evidence but you're unable to separate supernaturalism from scientific evidence.
Click to expand...


Talk about unrealistic I'll give you comments of another evolutionist.

paleoanthropology, Dr. David Pilbeam a distinguished professor of anthropology suggested the following. 

"Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark, that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> Yes,you can call it what you like and say what you want but humans came from apes. If we did not descend from apes what did we descend from ? according to your theory. I know they want people to believe humans didn't descend from apes so it won't be so objectionable. It don't sound as bad to say our nearest ancestor, in essence what are you saying We share a common ancestor. If we share a common ancestor was it a human or an ape ?



You left out the third option, 'neither'.


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,you can call it what you like and say what you want but humans came from apes. If we did not descend from apes what did we descend from ? according to your theory. I know they want people to believe humans didn't descend from apes so it won't be so objectionable. It don't sound as bad to say our nearest ancestor, in essence what are you saying We share a common ancestor. If we share a common ancestor was it a human or an ape ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You left out the third option, 'neither'.
Click to expand...


Then what hominid? This is a semantics issue. So you are telling me the large canine, small-skulled, knuckle-dragging hominid we allegedly came from isn't an "Ape"? I think we all know what common descent is saying, regardless of the evolutionists clever word games.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,you can call it what you like and say what you want but humans came from apes. If we did not descend from apes what did we descend from ? according to your theory. I know they want people to believe humans didn't descend from apes so it won't be so objectionable. It don't sound as bad to say our nearest ancestor, in essence what are you saying We share a common ancestor. If we share a common ancestor was it a human or an ape ?
> 
> You are still avoiding the question. Do you know what macroevolution is ?
> 
> 
> 
> You have an unrealistic expectation that "because I say so" makes your claim defendable.
> 
> You're insisting that man descended from apes because that is the dogma spewed from fundie YEC websites. Your religious convictions conflict with the observable and testable evidence but you're unable to separate supernaturalism from scientific evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about unrealistic I'll give you comments of another evolutionist.
> 
> paleoanthropology, Dr. David Pilbeam a distinguished professor of anthropology suggested the following.
> 
> "Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark, that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."
Click to expand...


 That was horrible. I was vaguely familiar with this alleged "quote" and as with so much of the fundie creationist program of lies and deceit, thus is a fraud.


Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: Lucy, You got some 'splaining to do! 

 Moving on, Menton quotes Dr. David Pilbeam from his review of Leakey's Origins (In the May-June 1978 issue of American Scientist) as saying:

"My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropologyPerhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about."

It appears as if Dr. Pilbeam is admitting a horrible truth about evolution: It's all based on your "world view" and there isn't enough evidence to say for sure. But did he really say that? A trip to American Scientist shows that no review for Leakey's book was written in the May-June 1978 issue. Not only that, but there is no article by Dr. Pilbeam in that issue. A google search for the quote only turned up creationist sites, so I am inclined to be suspicious, especially knowing creationists' long track record of misquoting


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have an unrealistic expectation that "because I say so" makes your claim defendable.
> 
> You're insisting that man descended from apes because that is the dogma spewed from fundie YEC websites. Your religious convictions conflict with the observable and testable evidence but you're unable to separate supernaturalism from scientific evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about unrealistic I'll give you comments of another evolutionist.
> 
> paleoanthropology, Dr. David Pilbeam a distinguished professor of anthropology suggested the following.
> 
> "Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark, that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was horrible. I was vaguely familiar with this alleged "quote" and as with so much of the fundie creationist program of lies and deceit, thus is a fraud.
> 
> 
> Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: Lucy, You got some 'splaining to do!
> 
> Moving on, Menton quotes Dr. David Pilbeam from his review of Leakey's Origins (In the May-June 1978 issue of American Scientist) as saying:
> 
> "My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology&#8230;Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about."
> 
> It appears as if Dr. Pilbeam is admitting a horrible truth about evolution: It's all based on your "world view" and there isn't enough evidence to say for sure. But did he really say that? A trip to American Scientist shows that no review for Leakey's book was written in the May-June 1978 issue. Not only that, but there is no article by Dr. Pilbeam in that issue. A google search for the quote only turned up creationist sites, so I am inclined to be suspicious, especially knowing creationists' long track record of misquoting
Click to expand...


Dr. Pilbeam may have been misquoted don't know for sure but this is the quote that your side is giving.

"Of the primates, the chimpanzee is man's closest relative, while the two other great apes, the gorilla and orang-utan, are slightly more distant evolutionary cousins. The apes and hominids are collectively known as the 'hominoids'. Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence. The major gap, often referred to as 'the fossil void', is between eight and four million years ago.
 David Pilbeam comments wryly, 'If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on".' Neither David nor others involved in the search for mankind can take this advice, of course, but we remain fully aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions from the evidence that is so incomplete.
 Fortunately, there is quite good evidence regarding the ape-like creatures that lived over fourteen million years ago."

EvC Forum: Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote...

If they were better adapted why did they go extinct ?

So your theory rests on maybe.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about unrealistic I'll give you comments of another evolutionist.
> 
> paleoanthropology, Dr. David Pilbeam a distinguished professor of anthropology suggested the following.
> 
> "Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark, that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was horrible. I was vaguely familiar with this alleged "quote" and as with so much of the fundie creationist program of lies and deceit, thus is a fraud.
> 
> 
> Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: Lucy, You got some 'splaining to do!
> 
> Moving on, Menton quotes Dr. David Pilbeam from his review of Leakey's Origins (In the May-June 1978 issue of American Scientist) as saying:
> 
> "My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropologyPerhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about."
> 
> It appears as if Dr. Pilbeam is admitting a horrible truth about evolution: It's all based on your "world view" and there isn't enough evidence to say for sure. But did he really say that? A trip to American Scientist shows that no review for Leakey's book was written in the May-June 1978 issue. Not only that, but there is no article by Dr. Pilbeam in that issue. A google search for the quote only turned up creationist sites, so I am inclined to be suspicious, especially knowing creationists' long track record of misquoting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dr. Pilbeam may have been misquoted don't know for sure but this is the quote that your side is giving.
> 
> "Of the primates, the chimpanzee is man's closest relative, while the two other great apes, the gorilla and orang-utan, are slightly more distant evolutionary cousins. The apes and hominids are collectively known as the 'hominoids'. Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence. The major gap, often referred to as 'the fossil void', is between eight and four million years ago.
> David Pilbeam comments wryly, 'If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on".' Neither David nor others involved in the search for mankind can take this advice, of course, but we remain fully aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions from the evidence that is so incomplete.
> Fortunately, there is quite good evidence regarding the ape-like creatures that lived over fourteen million years ago."
> 
> EvC Forum: Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote...
> 
> If they were better adapted why did they go extinct ?
> 
> So your theory rests on maybe.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, when dealing with creationists I've found that if their lips are moving or their hands are typing, they're lying. 

I just find it remarkable that you lack any integrity, honesty or accountability for what you post. You simply cut and paste falsified "quotes" and when those quotes are exposed as fraudulent, you just move on to cutting and pasting more quotes. 

These are not honest mistakes. This is a consistent pattern of lies and deceit.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was horrible. I was vaguely familiar with this alleged "quote" and as with so much of the fundie creationist program of lies and deceit, thus is a fraud.
> 
> 
> Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: Lucy, You got some 'splaining to do!
> 
> Moving on, Menton quotes Dr. David Pilbeam from his review of Leakey's Origins (In the May-June 1978 issue of American Scientist) as saying:
> 
> "My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropologyPerhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about."
> 
> It appears as if Dr. Pilbeam is admitting a horrible truth about evolution: It's all based on your "world view" and there isn't enough evidence to say for sure. But did he really say that? A trip to American Scientist shows that no review for Leakey's book was written in the May-June 1978 issue. Not only that, but there is no article by Dr. Pilbeam in that issue. A google search for the quote only turned up creationist sites, so I am inclined to be suspicious, especially knowing creationists' long track record of misquoting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Pilbeam may have been misquoted don't know for sure but this is the quote that your side is giving.
> 
> "Of the primates, the chimpanzee is man's closest relative, while the two other great apes, the gorilla and orang-utan, are slightly more distant evolutionary cousins. The apes and hominids are collectively known as the 'hominoids'. Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence. The major gap, often referred to as 'the fossil void', is between eight and four million years ago.
> David Pilbeam comments wryly, 'If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on".' Neither David nor others involved in the search for mankind can take this advice, of course, but we remain fully aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions from the evidence that is so incomplete.
> Fortunately, there is quite good evidence regarding the ape-like creatures that lived over fourteen million years ago."
> 
> EvC Forum: Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote...
> 
> If they were better adapted why did they go extinct ?
> 
> So your theory rests on maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, when dealing with creationists I've found that if their lips are moving or their hands are typing, they're lying.
> 
> I just find it remarkable that you lack any integrity, honesty or accountability for what you post. You simply cut and paste falsified "quotes" and when those quotes are exposed as fraudulent, you just move on to cutting and pasting more quotes.
> 
> These are not honest mistakes. This is a consistent pattern of lies and deceit.
Click to expand...


Your source misqoutes where the quote came from. You are right they are not honest mistakes from your side.

Rearranging our family tree, from Human Nature magazine, June 1978, p.45. 

Here is the quote.

"I know that at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data. Dr David Pilbeam Physical Anthropologist."


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Pilbeam may have been misquoted don't know for sure but this is the quote that your side is giving.
> 
> "Of the primates, the chimpanzee is man's closest relative, while the two other great apes, the gorilla and orang-utan, are slightly more distant evolutionary cousins. The apes and hominids are collectively known as the 'hominoids'. Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence. The major gap, often referred to as 'the fossil void', is between eight and four million years ago.
> David Pilbeam comments wryly, 'If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on".' Neither David nor others involved in the search for mankind can take this advice, of course, but we remain fully aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions from the evidence that is so incomplete.
> Fortunately, there is quite good evidence regarding the ape-like creatures that lived over fourteen million years ago."
> 
> EvC Forum: Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote...
> 
> If they were better adapted why did they go extinct ?
> 
> So your theory rests on maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, when dealing with creationists I've found that if their lips are moving or their hands are typing, they're lying.
> 
> I just find it remarkable that you lack any integrity, honesty or accountability for what you post. You simply cut and paste falsified "quotes" and when those quotes are exposed as fraudulent, you just move on to cutting and pasting more quotes.
> 
> These are not honest mistakes. This is a consistent pattern of lies and deceit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your source misqoutes where the quote came from. You are right they are not honest mistakes from your side.
> 
> Rearranging our family tree, from Human Nature magazine, June 1978, p.45.
> 
> Here is the quote.
> 
> "I know that at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data. Dr David Pilbeam Physical Anthropologist."
Click to expand...

The above was not part of what I posted. 

So once again, you are simply inventing and making up this nonsense as you go along.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, when dealing with creationists I've found that if their lips are moving or their hands are typing, they're lying.
> 
> I just find it remarkable that you lack any integrity, honesty or accountability for what you post. You simply cut and paste falsified "quotes" and when those quotes are exposed as fraudulent, you just move on to cutting and pasting more quotes.
> 
> These are not honest mistakes. This is a consistent pattern of lies and deceit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your source misqoutes where the quote came from. You are right they are not honest mistakes from your side.
> 
> Rearranging our family tree, from Human Nature magazine, June 1978, p.45.
> 
> Here is the quote.
> 
> "I know that at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data. Dr David Pilbeam Physical Anthropologist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above was not part of what I posted.
> 
> So once again, you are simply inventing and making up this nonsense as you go along.
Click to expand...


Did you take a look at rearranging the family tree, an article done by Dr. Pilbeam, from Human Nature Magazine,june 1978,p.45. ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, when dealing with creationists I've found that if their lips are moving or their hands are typing, they're lying.
> 
> I just find it remarkable that you lack any integrity, honesty or accountability for what you post. You simply cut and paste falsified "quotes" and when those quotes are exposed as fraudulent, you just move on to cutting and pasting more quotes.
> 
> These are not honest mistakes. This is a consistent pattern of lies and deceit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your source misqoutes where the quote came from. You are right they are not honest mistakes from your side.
> 
> Rearranging our family tree, from Human Nature magazine, June 1978, p.45.
> 
> Here is the quote.
> 
> "I know that at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data. Dr David Pilbeam Physical Anthropologist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above was not part of what I posted.
> 
> So once again, you are simply inventing and making up this nonsense as you go along.
Click to expand...


Take a look.

Darwinism-Watch.com


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your source misqoutes where the quote came from. You are right they are not honest mistakes from your side.
> 
> Rearranging our family tree, from Human Nature magazine, June 1978, p.45.
> 
> Here is the quote.
> 
> "I know that at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data. Dr David Pilbeam Physical Anthropologist."
> 
> 
> 
> The above was not part of what I posted.
> 
> So once again, you are simply inventing and making up this nonsense as you go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a look.
> 
> Darwinism-Watch.com
Click to expand...


Harun Yahya?

You have to be kidding.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> You have offered only boilerplate dogma from creationist websites to support your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The bible is not asking the questions I am, a rational person of science. Not someone with a vivid imagination. The problem is you don't have a clue on how to respond.
Click to expand...

 I was trying very hard to read through this latest part of the thread without comment,but
as always YWC had to make one of his world famous hubris ridden false declarations (see above) 
1.YOUR CLAIM OF RATIONALITY IS AT BEST SUBJECTIVE.
THE REALITY IS  YOU are the least rational person I've had this displeasure to encounter online. (with all the nut jobs on the web that's no mean feat)
2. you are by even the most liberal gage NOT A PERSON OF SCIENCE.


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> so tell me why. Show me some scientific evidence, not conjecture, on why we don't find inbetweeners. The smart scientists know there is no way in heck they can prove darwin's gradualism with the fossil record. That is why they have come up with punctuated equilibrium. Unfortunately, they still have to call pe neo-darwinism for fear of being run out of their respective institutions. [expelled]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as i understand it, punctuated equilibrium does not refute gradualism, but rather claims that the gradualism is not a constant rate.  Remember that we are talking about huge time periods, so that changes over 100,000 years can still be considered 'fast'.
> 
> The reason the half hybrids i get the impression ywc expects aren't found would be because they are not part of evolutionary theory.  Changes aren't supposed to be a fish giving birth to a bird, nor a fish giving birth to a creature with a fish's head and a bird's body.
> 
> You can easily search for examples of transitional fossils.  Here's a site, aptly named :
> (a few) transitional fossils\
> 
> there may not be transitional fossils (or species) of the type you want to see, but that doesn't invalidate what does exist.  As to transitional species, every species currently in existence may be a transition species; in a million years they may have all evolved into very different forms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not likely to happen in the human race. The larger the population, the less likely a mutation is take hold. That is, if we could find a mutation that was additive and not destructive.
> 
> Did you ever wonder the evolutionary reason why women don't have facial hair? [well, that is, except for hollymen]
Click to expand...

bullshit! Women have the same amount of facial hair as men it's just lighter and thinner .
Btw all humans have the same amount of hair follicles as our ape relatives.


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know these newly discovered organisms have not been here all along ?
> 
> We are talking macro evolution not discovering organisms that have always been here.
> 
> 
> 
> (cue buzzer) thanks for playing. Since you have no evidence to the contary.
> My money is on new species.
> Besides you're  making a  a false assumtion when you assume they've always been here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well my money is on they existed for a very long time. Remember the coelacanth supposedly went extinct around 70 million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?
Click to expand...

 6000 to 10.000 years is not a long time in the age of the earth


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> to much inbreeding or a natural disaster could wipe out a community.
> 
> 
> 
> you're basically shooting a rather large, gaping hole in your own creationist belief system.
> 
> The tale of noah defines a small, immediate family left to repopulate the earth after an alleged global flood used by the gods to wipe humanity from the planet.
> 
> An obvious outcome of the noah fable would be incestuous breeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope, i'm shooting  holes in yours.
> 
> You see early man was created perfect and it took time for mutations to do their job. Inbreeding was stopped a long time ago because god ordered it ,why ? Because if he didn't stop it man would have been plagued by genetic disorders due to mutations and man would have gone extinct.
> 
> That is why early man lived much longer and over time the average lifespan decreased significantly. We have around 5,000 genetic disorders,thank goodness we have large populations.
Click to expand...

total bullshit ...
You have no evidence of god doing any such thing.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a peer-reviewed paper on a pro-evolution website. I thought you said only peer-reviewed studies count? Now you are backpedaling on that too I see. There is no limit to the level of dishonesty you will go to.
> 
> *About PLoS Genetics*
> 
> PLoS Genetics (eISSN 1553-7404, ISSN 1553-7390) is an open-access, *peer-reviewed journal *published weekly by the Public Library of Science (PLoS).
> 
> PLoS Genetics is run by an international Editorial Board, headed by the Editor-in-Chief, *Greg Barsh (Stanford University School of Medicine).*
> 
> Articles published in PLoS Genetics are archived in PubMed Central and cited in PubMed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As noted earlier, you are hoping to portray your cut and paste article as speaking for the science community which it is not.
> 
> In your frantic attempts to vilify science, you should have noticed that one article you cut and paste does not meet your intended goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter where the info comes from. You are not open to any real scientific evidence, because like I said before, you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion. Since Darwinism is a religion for you, it wouldn't matter what I posted. You simply aren't open to science.
Click to expand...

 can you rationalize any harder?  fact is you're getting your ass handed to you again.....
show some dignity.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As noted earlier, you are hoping to portray your cut and paste article as speaking for the science community which it is not.
> 
> In your frantic attempts to vilify science, you should have noticed that one article you cut and paste does not meet your intended goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter where the info comes from. You are not open to any real scientific evidence, because like I said before, you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion. Since Darwinism is a religion for you, it wouldn't matter what I posted. You simply aren't open to science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> can you rationalize any harder?  fact is you're getting your ass handed to you again.....
> show some dignity.
Click to expand...


Daws, did you read the responses to Hollie from the other forums? I think your statement is backwards and you are a little bias in your perspective. I think the evidence from other websites, even Islamic ones no less, show that I am not the only person that feels like Rugged doesn't listen to anything being said, or present a rebuttal argument, but only responds with attacks.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter where the info comes from. You are not open to any real scientific evidence, because like I said before, you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion. Since Darwinism is a religion for you, it wouldn't matter what I posted. You simply aren't open to science.
> 
> 
> 
> can you rationalize any harder?  fact is you're getting your ass handed to you again.....
> show some dignity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, did you read the responses to Hollie from the other forums? I think your statement is backwards and you are a little bias in your perspective. I think the evidence from other websites, even Islamic ones no less, show that I am not the only person that feels like Rugged doesn't listen to anything being said, or presenting a rebuttal argument, but only responds with attacks.
Click to expand...

really I think you went looking for dirt  and it got thrown back in your face. 

when you say juvenile shit like this : "you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion."
what did you expect, a conversion?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> can you rationalize any harder?  fact is you're getting your ass handed to you again.....
> show some dignity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, did you read the responses to Hollie from the other forums? I think your statement is backwards and you are a little bias in your perspective. I think the evidence from other websites, even Islamic ones no less, show that I am not the only person that feels like Rugged doesn't listen to anything being said, or presenting a rebuttal argument, but only responds with attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really I think you went looking for dirt  and it got thrown back in your face.
> 
> when you say juvenile shit like this : "you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion."
> what did you expect, a conversion?
Click to expand...


Thrown back in my face? I don't think so!!! I was dead right. Hollie is attracted to women!!! Because Hollie is a man. Did you miss that? Funny thing, he never responded to my accusation because my guess he is banned from this website, and re-signed in as a female to avoid detection. Be careful who you align yourself with.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, did you read the responses to Hollie from the other forums? I think your statement is backwards and you are a little bias in your perspective. I think the evidence from other websites, even Islamic ones no less, show that I am not the only person that feels like Rugged doesn't listen to anything being said, or presenting a rebuttal argument, but only responds with attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> really I think you went looking for dirt  and it got thrown back in your face.
> 
> when you say juvenile shit like this : "you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion."
> what did you expect, a conversion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thrown back in my face? I don't think so!!! I was dead right. Hollie is attracted to women!!! Because Hollie is a man. Did you miss that? Funny thing, he never responded to my accusation because my guess he is banned from this website, and re-signed in as a female to avoid detection. Be careful who you align yourself with.
Click to expand...

I'm watching the thread and getting more than a little creeped out with your every post being about me. 

You're now floating conspiracy theories while wringing your hands in abject confusion about why I don't respond to your vulgarities. 

You need help little boy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really I think you went looking for dirt  and it got thrown back in your face.
> 
> when you say juvenile shit like this : "you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion."
> what did you expect, a conversion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thrown back in my face? I don't think so!!! I was dead right. Hollie is attracted to women!!! Because Hollie is a man. Did you miss that? Funny thing, he never responded to my accusation because my guess he is banned from this website, and re-signed in as a female to avoid detection. Be careful who you align yourself with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm watching the thread and getting more than a little creeped out with your every post being about me.
> 
> You're now floating conspiracy theories while wringing your hands in abject confusion about why I don't respond to your vulgarities.
> 
> You need help little boy.
Click to expand...


Don't flatter yourself.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have offered only boilerplate dogma from creationist websites to support your claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible is not asking the questions I am, a rational person of science. Not someone with a vivid imagination. The problem is you don't have a clue on how to respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was trying very hard to read through this latest part of the thread without comment,but
> as always YWC had to make one of his world famous hubris ridden false declarations (see above)
> 1.YOUR CLAIM OF RATIONALITY IS AT BEST SUBJECTIVE.
> THE REALITY IS  YOU are the least rational person I've had this displeasure to encounter online. (with all the nut jobs on the web that's no mean feat)
> 2. you are by even the most liberal gage NOT A PERSON OF SCIENCE.
Click to expand...


Well many times I have put up my theory and you can't seem to follow along or do a rebuttal to anything I post except with an ideological response. I get on the subject of genetics and mutations and the conversation kinda dries up,why ? I have given you simple explanations as to why genetics is a problem for your theory so simple you could understand the explanation. Still no real rebuttal just your copy and paste rhetoric or conjecture.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (cue buzzer) thanks for playing. Since you have no evidence to the contary.
> My money is on new species.
> Besides you're  making a  a false assumtion when you assume they've always been here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well my money is on they existed for a very long time. Remember the coelacanth supposedly went extinct around 70 million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 6000 to 10.000 years is not a long time in the age of the earth
Click to expand...


You don't know for sure how old the earth is. 6,000 TO 10,000 years is a very long time in mans year. Long enough to produce almost 8 billion humans on the planet.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're basically shooting a rather large, gaping hole in your own creationist belief system.
> 
> The tale of noah defines a small, immediate family left to repopulate the earth after an alleged global flood used by the gods to wipe humanity from the planet.
> 
> An obvious outcome of the noah fable would be incestuous breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope, i'm shooting  holes in yours.
> 
> You see early man was created perfect and it took time for mutations to do their job. Inbreeding was stopped a long time ago because god ordered it ,why ? Because if he didn't stop it man would have been plagued by genetic disorders due to mutations and man would have gone extinct.
> 
> That is why early man lived much longer and over time the average lifespan decreased significantly. We have around 5,000 genetic disorders,thank goodness we have large populations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> total bullshit ...
> You have no evidence of god doing any such thing.
Click to expand...


Do you deny entropy Daws ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As noted earlier, you are hoping to portray your cut and paste article as speaking for the science community which it is not.
> 
> In your frantic attempts to vilify science, you should have noticed that one article you cut and paste does not meet your intended goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter where the info comes from. You are not open to any real scientific evidence, because like I said before, you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion. Since Darwinism is a religion for you, it wouldn't matter what I posted. You simply aren't open to science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> can you rationalize any harder?  fact is you're getting your ass handed to you again.....
> show some dignity.
Click to expand...


Maybe Hollie is Daws.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible is not asking the questions I am, a rational person of science. Not someone with a vivid imagination. The problem is you don't have a clue on how to respond.
> 
> 
> 
> I was trying very hard to read through this latest part of the thread without comment,but
> as always YWC had to make one of his world famous hubris ridden false declarations (see above)
> 1.YOUR CLAIM OF RATIONALITY IS AT BEST SUBJECTIVE.
> THE REALITY IS  YOU are the least rational person I've had this displeasure to encounter online. (with all the nut jobs on the web that's no mean feat)
> 2. you are by even the most liberal gage NOT A PERSON OF SCIENCE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well many times I have put up my theory and you can't seem to follow along or do a rebuttal to anything I post except with an ideological response. I get on the subject of genetics and mutations and the conversation kinda dries up,why ? I have given you simple explanations as to why genetics is a problem for your theory so simple you could understand the explanation. Still no real rebuttal just your copy and paste rhetoric or conjecture.
Click to expand...

Your assessment is naive. The theories you post are taken from creationist websites. As we have seen repeatedly, these theories are not theories at all but "quotes" that have been modified, altered and parsed of relevant portions of the commentary. 

In connection with a number of your recent "quotes", I spent not an insignificant amount of time researching what you posted only to find that the "quotes" were falsely attributed or simply manufactured to suit the goal of promoting fundamentalist Christian religious views. You have created the circumstances where so much of your "quoted" material is lies and falsehoods, why should anyone be bothered? No one has unlimited time to spend here and it becomes frustrating to be required to spend time not addressing issues but correcting falsified quotes. Other than not, I have little interest in being met with links to Harun Yahya as a valid source.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> well my money is on they existed for a very long time. Remember the coelacanth supposedly went extinct around 70 million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?
> 
> 
> 
> 6000 to 10.000 years is not a long time in the age of the earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know for sure how old the earth is. 6,000 TO 10,000 years is a very long time in mans year. Long enough to produce almost 8 billion humans on the planet.
Click to expand...


There is overwhelming evidence as to the age of the earth. You know the number and it is not 6,000 to 10,000 years. That clashes with your religious view which is something you cannot come to terms with. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence refutes the YEC religious agenda. 

Truth supplants fiction. It's that simple.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was trying very hard to read through this latest part of the thread without comment,but
> as always YWC had to make one of his world famous hubris ridden false declarations (see above)
> 1.YOUR CLAIM OF RATIONALITY IS AT BEST SUBJECTIVE.
> THE REALITY IS  YOU are the least rational person I've had this displeasure to encounter online. (with all the nut jobs on the web that's no mean feat)
> 2. you are by even the most liberal gage NOT A PERSON OF SCIENCE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well many times I have put up my theory and you can't seem to follow along or do a rebuttal to anything I post except with an ideological response. I get on the subject of genetics and mutations and the conversation kinda dries up,why ? I have given you simple explanations as to why genetics is a problem for your theory so simple you could understand the explanation. Still no real rebuttal just your copy and paste rhetoric or conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your assessment is naive. The theories you post are taken from creationist websites. As we have seen repeatedly, these theories are not theories at all but "quotes" that have been modified, altered and parsed of relevant portions of the commentary.
> 
> In connection with a number of your recent "quotes", I spent not an insignificant amount of time researching what you posted only to find that the "quotes" were falsely attributed or simply manufactured to suit the goal of promoting fundamentalist Christian religious views. You have created the circumstances where so much of your "quoted" material is lies and falsehoods, why should anyone be bothered? No one has unlimited time to spend here and it becomes frustrating to be required to spend time not addressing issues but correcting falsified quotes. Other than not, I have little interest in being met with links to Harun Yahya as a valid source.
Click to expand...


It is similar maybe,but I have formed my own views. A creationist believes 6,000 years I believe between 6,000 and 12,000 years. These views are based from the bible because I don't trust dating methods used by science.

Well if you like we can discuss the current mutation rate and see how long your theory would have actually taken.

I have already given the observed reason why genetics is a problem for the theory. I have also pointed out that many organisms fossils were dated back millions of years ago are the same today. They showed no change at all,if evolution is always happening and all organisms experience mutations why did the evolution process stop ?

Most of my views are based in logic and observed evidence and that is the problem you are having because you know that is what is observed. Logic is more credible in science over imagination.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6000 to 10.000 years is not a long time in the age of the earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know for sure how old the earth is. 6,000 TO 10,000 years is a very long time in mans year. Long enough to produce almost 8 billion humans on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is overwhelming evidence as to the age of the earth. You know the number and it is not 6,000 to 10,000 years. That clashes with your religious view which is something you cannot come to terms with. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence refutes the YEC religious agenda.
> 
> Truth supplants fiction. It's that simple.
Click to expand...


Based on presuppositions,assumptions and speculation try again.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know for sure how old the earth is. 6,000 TO 10,000 years is a very long time in mans year. Long enough to produce almost 8 billion humans on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is overwhelming evidence as to the age of the earth. You know the number and it is not 6,000 to 10,000 years. That clashes with your religious view which is something you cannot come to terms with. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence refutes the YEC religious agenda.
> 
> Truth supplants fiction. It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on presuppositions,assumptions and speculation try again.
Click to expand...

No, that's based on an overwhelming weight of evidence from many different scientific disciplines.

On the other hand, your claim is "the gods did it". That's completely unsupported and unsupportable... unless your gods are the Greek gods who might actually be the gods who did it. A bustling bevy of gods with a formidable union.


----------



## Montrovant

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well many times I have put up my theory and you can't seem to follow along or do a rebuttal to anything I post except with an ideological response. I get on the subject of genetics and mutations and the conversation kinda dries up,why ? I have given you simple explanations as to why genetics is a problem for your theory so simple you could understand the explanation. Still no real rebuttal just your copy and paste rhetoric or conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> Your assessment is naive. The theories you post are taken from creationist websites. As we have seen repeatedly, these theories are not theories at all but "quotes" that have been modified, altered and parsed of relevant portions of the commentary.
> 
> In connection with a number of your recent "quotes", I spent not an insignificant amount of time researching what you posted only to find that the "quotes" were falsely attributed or simply manufactured to suit the goal of promoting fundamentalist Christian religious views. You have created the circumstances where so much of your "quoted" material is lies and falsehoods, why should anyone be bothered? No one has unlimited time to spend here and it becomes frustrating to be required to spend time not addressing issues but correcting falsified quotes. Other than not, I have little interest in being met with links to Harun Yahya as a valid source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is similar maybe,but I have formed my own views. A creationist believes 6,000 years I believe between 6,000 and 12,000 years. These views are based from the bible because I don't trust dating methods used by science.
> 
> Well if you like we can discuss the current mutation rate and see how long your theory would have actually taken.
> 
> I have already given the observed reason why genetics is a problem for the theory. I have also pointed out that many organisms fossils were dated back millions of years ago are the same today. They showed no change at all,if evolution is always happening and all organisms experience mutations why did the evolution process stop ?
> 
> Most of my views are based in logic and observed evidence and that is the problem you are having because you know that is what is observed. Logic is more credible in science over imagination.
Click to expand...


Your views are based on false ideas about the nature of evolution as well as an irrational need to deny any validity to dating methods that do not fit with your biblical interpretations.  You talk about things being unscientific but often, what you really mean, is you cannot believe them to be true because of your religious beliefs.

You have been answered about creatures that show little change from millions of years ago.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well many times I have put up my theory and you can't seem to follow along or do a rebuttal to anything I post except with an ideological response. I get on the subject of genetics and mutations and the conversation kinda dries up,why ? I have given you simple explanations as to why genetics is a problem for your theory so simple you could understand the explanation. Still no real rebuttal just your copy and paste rhetoric or conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> Your assessment is naive. The theories you post are taken from creationist websites. As we have seen repeatedly, these theories are not theories at all but "quotes" that have been modified, altered and parsed of relevant portions of the commentary.
> 
> In connection with a number of your recent "quotes", I spent not an insignificant amount of time researching what you posted only to find that the "quotes" were falsely attributed or simply manufactured to suit the goal of promoting fundamentalist Christian religious views. You have created the circumstances where so much of your "quoted" material is lies and falsehoods, why should anyone be bothered? No one has unlimited time to spend here and it becomes frustrating to be required to spend time not addressing issues but correcting falsified quotes. Other than not, I have little interest in being met with links to Harun Yahya as a valid source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is similar maybe,but I have formed my own views. A creationist believes 6,000 years I believe between 6,000 and 12,000 years. These views are based from the bible because I don't trust dating methods used by science.
> 
> Well if you like we can discuss the current mutation rate and see how long your theory would have actually taken.
> 
> I have already given the observed reason why genetics is a problem for the theory. I have also pointed out that many organisms fossils were dated back millions of years ago are the same today. They showed no change at all,if evolution is always happening and all organisms experience mutations why did the evolution process stop ?
> 
> Most of my views are based in logic and observed evidence and that is the problem you are having because you know that is what is observed. Logic is more credible in science over imagination.
Click to expand...

If you need to believe "the gods did it", that's fine. But to claim that logic derives from supernaturalism dismantles your argument. There's nothing logical about supernaturalism. Supernaturalism defies logic.

So, I suppose your evidence for the gods includes observational evidence?

Maybe it was hearing voices?


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter where the info comes from. You are not open to any real scientific evidence, because like I said before, you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion. Since Darwinism is a religion for you, it wouldn't matter what I posted. You simply aren't open to science.
> 
> 
> 
> can you rationalize any harder?  fact is you're getting your ass handed to you again.....
> show some dignity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Hollie is Daws.
Click to expand...


Could be!!! Who knows how many other names he is posting under.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, did you read the responses to Hollie from the other forums? I think your statement is backwards and you are a little bias in your perspective. I think the evidence from other websites, even Islamic ones no less, show that I am not the only person that feels like Rugged doesn't listen to anything being said, or presenting a rebuttal argument, but only responds with attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> really I think you went looking for dirt  and it got thrown back in your face.
> 
> when you say juvenile shit like this : "you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion."
> what did you expect, a conversion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thrown back in my face? I don't think so!!! I was dead right. Hollie is attracted to women!!! Because Hollie is a man. Did you miss that? Funny thing, he never responded to my accusation because my guess he is banned from this website, and re-signed in as a female to avoid detection. Be careful who you align yourself with.
Click to expand...

still trying to rationlize your ass beating....
did you check with the mods about this alleged banning?
if you didn't your making false accusations and talking out your ass.
since you do that all the time, it's no suprise.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible is not asking the questions I am, a rational person of science. Not someone with a vivid imagination. The problem is you don't have a clue on how to respond.
> 
> 
> 
> I was trying very hard to read through this latest part of the thread without comment,but
> as always
> (see above)
> 1.YOUR CLAIM OF RATIONALITY IS AT BEST SUBJECTIVE.
> THE REALITY IS  YOU are the least rational person I've had this displeasure to encounter online. (with all the nut jobs on the web that's no mean feat)
> 2. you are by even the most liberal gage NOT A PERSON OF SCIENCE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well many times I have put up my theory and you can't seem to follow along or do a rebuttal to anything I post except with an ideological response. I get on the subject of genetics and mutations and the conversation kinda dries up,why ? I have given you simple explanations as to why genetics is a problem for your theory so simple you could understand the explanation. Still no real rebuttal just your copy and paste rhetoric or conjecture.
Click to expand...

another dodge .
when you post something not based on your intentional miss interpretation of genetics and mutation you might have a response.
why is it you miss the most obvious evidence to why your misinformation is overlooked? 

as to this:"Still no real rebuttal just your copy and paste rhetoric or conjecture."ywc

people who live in glass petri dishes ....

YWC had to make one of his world famous hubris ridden false declarations!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was trying very hard to read through this latest part of the thread without comment,but
> as always
> (see above)
> 1.YOUR CLAIM OF RATIONALITY IS AT BEST SUBJECTIVE.
> THE REALITY IS  YOU are the least rational person I've had this displeasure to encounter online. (with all the nut jobs on the web that's no mean feat)
> 2. you are by even the most liberal gage NOT A PERSON OF SCIENCE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well many times I have put up my theory and you can't seem to follow along or do a rebuttal to anything I post except with an ideological response. I get on the subject of genetics and mutations and the conversation kinda dries up,why ? I have given you simple explanations as to why genetics is a problem for your theory so simple you could understand the explanation. Still no real rebuttal just your copy and paste rhetoric or conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another dodge .
> when you post something not based on your intentional miss interpretation of genetics and mutation you might have a response.
> why is it you miss the most obvious evidence to why your misinformation is overlooked?
> 
> as to this:"Still no real rebuttal just your copy and paste rhetoric or conjecture."ywc
> 
> people who live in glass petri dishes ....
> 
> YWC had to make one of his world famous hubris ridden false declarations!
Click to expand...


Like you said to UR please point out these misinterpretation's of mutations and genetics otherwise you are talking out your Butt ,not that I think UR is doing anything of the sort.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really I think you went looking for dirt  and it got thrown back in your face.
> 
> when you say juvenile shit like this : "you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion."
> what did you expect, a conversion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thrown back in my face? I don't think so!!! I was dead right. Hollie is attracted to women!!! Because Hollie is a man. Did you miss that? Funny thing, he never responded to my accusation because my guess he is banned from this website, and re-signed in as a female to avoid detection. Be careful who you align yourself with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still trying to rationlize your ass beating....
> did you check with the mods about this alleged banning?
> if you didn't your making false accusations and talking out your ass.
> since you do that all the time, it's no suprise.
Click to expand...


You can't win debates with rhetoric on these subjects Daws. Your views are either supported by the evidence or they are not.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> well my money is on they existed for a very long time. Remember the coelacanth supposedly went extinct around 70 million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?
> 
> 
> 
> 6000 to 10.000 years is not a long time in the age of the earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know for sure how old the earth is. 6,000 TO 10,000 years is a very long time in mans year. Long enough to produce almost 8 billion humans on the planet.
Click to expand...

 bullshit! Type Number
Dated Method Age (billions
of years) 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76 
Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34 
Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02 
Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04 
H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04 
H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06 
L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12 
L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12 
LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02 
LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06 
E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04 
E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13 
Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19 
Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30 
Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19 
Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18 
Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After Dalrymple (1991, p. 291); duplicate studies on identical meteorite types omitted.  

As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. Note that young-Earthers cannot accuse us of selective use of data -- the above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. According to Dalrymple (1991, p. 286) , less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error.

Further, the oldest age determinations of individual meteorites generally give concordant ages by multiple radiometric means, or multiple tests across different samples. For example:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meteorite Dated Method Age (billions
of years) 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allende whole rock Ar-Ar 4.52 +/- 0.02 

 whole rock Ar-Ar 4.53 +/- 0.02 

 whole rock Ar-Ar 4.48 +/- 0.02 

 whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03 

 whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03 

 whole rock Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.03 

 whole rock Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.02 

 whole rock Ar-Ar 4.56 +/- 0.05 


Guarena whole rock Ar-Ar 4.44 +/- 0.06 

 13 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08 


Shaw whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.06 

 whole rock Ar-Ar 4.40 +/- 0.06 

 whole rock Ar-Ar 4.29 +/- 0.06 


Olivenza 18 samples Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.16 

 whole rock Ar-Ar 4.49 +/- 0.06 


Saint Severin 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33 

 10 samples Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15 

 whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04 

 whole rock Ar-Ar 4.38 +/- 0.04 

 whole rock Ar-Ar 4.42 +/- 0.04 


Indarch 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08 

 12 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.04 


Juvinas 5 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.08 

 5 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.07 


Moama 3 samples Sm-Nd 4.46 +/- 0.03 

 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.05 


Y-75011 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.05 

 7 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.16 

 5 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06 

 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.33 


Angra dos Reis 7 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.04 

 3 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.04 


Mundrabrilla silicates Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.06 

 silicates Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.06 

 olivine Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.04 

 plagioclase Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.04 


Weekeroo Station 4 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.07 

 silicates Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.03 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After Dalrymple (1991, p. 286); meteorites dated by only a single means omitted.  

Also note that the meteorite ages (both when dated mainly by Rb-Sr dating in groups, and by multiple means individually) are in exact agreement with the solar system "model lead age" produced earlier.

The Age of the Earth


mans years?  a year is 12 months. the time takes the earth to make one orbit around the sun.
the amount of people on earth is based on many other factors not just time.
since there is no accurate way to know just how many people have lived on earth before world censuses began in the 20th century ,the nearly 8 billion you rant about could be an average.
you conveniently leave out the fact that humans only began agriculture and animal husbandry 10.000 years .
for you specious speculation to have any validity at all you would have to accept that humans had those skills from the outset.
there is no evidence we did.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope, i'm shooting  holes in yours.
> 
> You see early man was created perfect and it took time for mutations to do their job. Inbreeding was stopped a long time ago because god ordered it ,why ? Because if he didn't stop it man would have been plagued by genetic disorders due to mutations and man would have gone extinct.
> 
> That is why early man lived much longer and over time the average lifespan decreased significantly. We have around 5,000 genetic disorders,thank goodness we have large populations.
> 
> 
> 
> total bullshit ...
> You have no evidence of god doing any such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny entropy Daws ?
Click to expand...

no. it exists.
it's no proof that a god did it.  so my previous answer  stands!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter where the info comes from. You are not open to any real scientific evidence, because like I said before, you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion. Since Darwinism is a religion for you, it wouldn't matter what I posted. You simply aren't open to science.
> 
> 
> 
> can you rationalize any harder?  fact is you're getting your ass handed to you again.....
> show some dignity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Hollie is Daws.
Click to expand...

 how many time did you fail high school again?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6000 to 10.000 years is not a long time in the age of the earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know for sure how old the earth is. 6,000 TO 10,000 years is a very long time in mans year. Long enough to produce almost 8 billion humans on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit! Type Number
> Dated Method Age (billions
> of years)
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76
> Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34
> Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02
> Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04
> H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04
> H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06
> L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12
> L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12
> LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02
> LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06
> E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04
> E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13
> Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19
> Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30
> Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19
> Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18
> Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> After Dalrymple (1991, p. 291); duplicate studies on identical meteorite types omitted.
> 
> As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. Note that young-Earthers cannot accuse us of selective use of data -- the above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. According to Dalrymple (1991, p. 286) , less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error.
> 
> Further, the oldest age determinations of individual meteorites generally give concordant ages by multiple radiometric means, or multiple tests across different samples. For example:
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Meteorite Dated Method Age (billions
> of years)
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Allende whole rock Ar-Ar 4.52 +/- 0.02
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.53 +/- 0.02
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.48 +/- 0.02
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.03
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.02
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.56 +/- 0.05
> 
> 
> Guarena whole rock Ar-Ar 4.44 +/- 0.06
> 
> 13 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08
> 
> 
> Shaw whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.06
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.40 +/- 0.06
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.29 +/- 0.06
> 
> 
> Olivenza 18 samples Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.16
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.49 +/- 0.06
> 
> 
> Saint Severin 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33
> 
> 10 samples Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.38 +/- 0.04
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.42 +/- 0.04
> 
> 
> Indarch 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08
> 
> 12 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.04
> 
> 
> Juvinas 5 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.08
> 
> 5 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.07
> 
> 
> Moama 3 samples Sm-Nd 4.46 +/- 0.03
> 
> 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.05
> 
> 
> Y-75011 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.05
> 
> 7 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.16
> 
> 5 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06
> 
> 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.33
> 
> 
> Angra dos Reis 7 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.04
> 
> 3 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.04
> 
> 
> Mundrabrilla silicates Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.06
> 
> silicates Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.06
> 
> olivine Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.04
> 
> plagioclase Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.04
> 
> 
> Weekeroo Station 4 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.07
> 
> silicates Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.03
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> After Dalrymple (1991, p. 286); meteorites dated by only a single means omitted.
> 
> Also note that the meteorite ages (both when dated mainly by Rb-Sr dating in groups, and by multiple means individually) are in exact agreement with the solar system "model lead age" produced earlier.
> 
> The Age of the Earth
> 
> 
> mans years?  a year is 12 months. the time takes the earth to make one orbit around the sun.
> the amount of people on earth is based on many other factors not just time.
> since there is no accurate way to know just how many people have lived on earth before world censuses began in the 20th century ,the nearly 8 billion you rant about could be an average.
> you conveniently leave out the fact that humans only began agriculture and animal husbandry 10.000 years .
> for you specious speculation to have any validity at all you would have to accept that humans had those skills from the outset.
> there is no evidence we did.
Click to expand...


Still based on presuppositions,assumptions,and imagination. 

Check out these population growth formulas.

World Population Since Creation


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thrown back in my face? I don't think so!!! I was dead right. Hollie is attracted to women!!! Because Hollie is a man. Did you miss that? Funny thing, he never responded to my accusation because my guess he is banned from this website, and re-signed in as a female to avoid detection. Be careful who you align yourself with.
> 
> 
> 
> still trying to rationlize your ass beating....
> did you check with the mods about this alleged banning?
> if you didn't your making false accusations and talking out your ass
> since you do that all the time, it's no suprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't win debates with rhetoric on these subjects Daws. Your views are either supported by the evidence or they are not.
Click to expand...

I'm perfectly fine with my personal stalker having the mods confirm my IP address or any other method they choose to verify a prior account. There is no prior account.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well many times I have put up my theory and you can't seem to follow along or do a rebuttal to anything I post except with an ideological response. I get on the subject of genetics and mutations and the conversation kinda dries up,why ? I have given you simple explanations as to why genetics is a problem for your theory so simple you could understand the explanation. Still no real rebuttal just your copy and paste rhetoric or conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> another dodge .
> when you post something not based on your intentional miss interpretation of genetics and mutation you might have a response.
> why is it you miss the most obvious evidence to why your misinformation is overlooked?
> 
> as to this:"Still no real rebuttal just your copy and paste rhetoric or conjecture."ywc
> 
> people who live in glass petri dishes ....
> 
> YWC had to make one of his world famous hubris ridden false declarations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like you said to UR please point out these misinterpretation's of mutations and genetics otherwise you are talking out your Butt ,not that I think UR is doing anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

no need to, what part of all do you not understand.
may be this will be easier: you have manufactured a false premise based on you inability to separate fact from belief.
the answer to your why mutation can't do...statements  
is simple! MUTATION WORKS  in spite of all the faith based  imaginary road blocks you and your creationist cronies try to manufacture.
YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OTHER CAUSE. 
    OR  "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." S.H.


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> thrown back in my face? I don't think so!!! I was dead right. Hollie is attracted to women!!! Because hollie is a man. Did you miss that? Funny thing, he never responded to my accusation because my guess he is banned from this website, and re-signed in as a female to avoid detection. Be careful who you align yourself with.
> 
> 
> 
> still trying to rationlize your ass beating....
> Did you check with the mods about this alleged banning?
> If you didn't your making false accusations and talking out your ass.
> Since you do that all the time, it's no suprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can't win debates with rhetoric on these subjects daws. Your views are either supported by the evidence or they are not.
Click to expand...

funny you should say that as all of your "evidence"is rhetoric ,not evidence . 
Care to contradict yourself some more?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know for sure how old the earth is. 6,000 TO 10,000 years is a very long time in mans year. Long enough to produce almost 8 billion humans on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! Type Number
> Dated Method Age (billions
> of years)
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76
> Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34
> Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02
> Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04
> H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04
> H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06
> L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12
> L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12
> LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02
> LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06
> E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04
> E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13
> Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19
> Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30
> Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19
> Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18
> Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> After Dalrymple (1991, p. 291); duplicate studies on identical meteorite types omitted.
> 
> As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. Note that young-Earthers cannot accuse us of selective use of data -- the above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. According to Dalrymple (1991, p. 286) , less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error.
> 
> Further, the oldest age determinations of individual meteorites generally give concordant ages by multiple radiometric means, or multiple tests across different samples. For example:
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Meteorite Dated Method Age (billions
> of years)
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Allende whole rock Ar-Ar 4.52 +/- 0.02
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.53 +/- 0.02
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.48 +/- 0.02
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.03
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.02
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.56 +/- 0.05
> 
> 
> Guarena whole rock Ar-Ar 4.44 +/- 0.06
> 
> 13 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08
> 
> 
> Shaw whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.06
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.40 +/- 0.06
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.29 +/- 0.06
> 
> 
> Olivenza 18 samples Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.16
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.49 +/- 0.06
> 
> 
> Saint Severin 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33
> 
> 10 samples Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.38 +/- 0.04
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.42 +/- 0.04
> 
> 
> Indarch 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08
> 
> 12 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.04
> 
> 
> Juvinas 5 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.08
> 
> 5 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.07
> 
> 
> Moama 3 samples Sm-Nd 4.46 +/- 0.03
> 
> 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.05
> 
> 
> Y-75011 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.05
> 
> 7 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.16
> 
> 5 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06
> 
> 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.33
> 
> 
> Angra dos Reis 7 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.04
> 
> 3 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.04
> 
> 
> Mundrabrilla silicates Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.06
> 
> silicates Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.06
> 
> olivine Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.04
> 
> plagioclase Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.04
> 
> 
> Weekeroo Station 4 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.07
> 
> silicates Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.03
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> After Dalrymple (1991, p. 286); meteorites dated by only a single means omitted.
> 
> Also note that the meteorite ages (both when dated mainly by Rb-Sr dating in groups, and by multiple means individually) are in exact agreement with the solar system "model lead age" produced earlier.
> 
> The Age of the Earth
> 
> 
> mans years?  a year is 12 months. the time takes the earth to make one orbit around the sun.
> the amount of people on earth is based on many other factors not just time.
> since there is no accurate way to know just how many people have lived on earth before world censuses began in the 20th century ,the nearly 8 billion you rant about could be an average.
> you conveniently leave out the fact that humans only began agriculture and animal husbandry 10.000 years .
> for you specious speculation to have any validity at all you would have to accept that humans had those skills from the outset.
> there is no evidence we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still based on presuppositions,assumptions,and imagination.
> 
> Check out these population growth formulas.
> 
> World Population Since Creation
Click to expand...


Sorry, but we're left again with overwhelming, testable evidence of a planet approx. 4.5 billion years old. 

There is no evidence for a religious claim of "creation".


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really I think you went looking for dirt  and it got thrown back in your face.
> 
> when you say juvenile shit like this : "you were raised in a Christian home and when you began to struggle with same sex attraction, you abandoned your religion and now cling to the Darwinist religion."
> what did you expect, a conversion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thrown back in my face? I don't think so!!! I was dead right. Hollie is attracted to women!!! Because Hollie is a man. Did you miss that? Funny thing, he never responded to my accusation because my guess he is banned from this website, and re-signed in as a female to avoid detection. Be careful who you align yourself with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still trying to rationlize your ass beating....
> did you check with the mods about this alleged banning?
> if you didn't your making false accusations and talking out your ass.
> since you do that all the time, it's no suprise.
Click to expand...


It appears you didn't read any of my posts. In my belief system, anyone that assumes a false identity could be said to be lying. If you are okay with that, then feel free to come to Hollie/Rugged Touch's defense. However, your assertion that I took a beating is based on your skewed perception of the argument. If you were looking at this objectively, you would see that Hollie hasn't ever presented an argument here.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know for sure how old the earth is. 6,000 TO 10,000 years is a very long time in mans year. Long enough to produce almost 8 billion humans on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! Type Number
> Dated Method Age (billions
> of years)
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76
> Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34
> Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02
> Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04
> H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04
> H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06
> L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12
> L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12
> LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02
> LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06
> E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04
> E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13
> Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19
> Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30
> Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19
> Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18
> Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> After Dalrymple (1991, p. 291); duplicate studies on identical meteorite types omitted.
> 
> As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. Note that young-Earthers cannot accuse us of selective use of data -- the above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. According to Dalrymple (1991, p. 286) , less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error.
> 
> Further, the oldest age determinations of individual meteorites generally give concordant ages by multiple radiometric means, or multiple tests across different samples. For example:
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Meteorite Dated Method Age (billions
> of years)
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Allende whole rock Ar-Ar 4.52 +/- 0.02
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.53 +/- 0.02
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.48 +/- 0.02
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.03
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.02
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.56 +/- 0.05
> 
> 
> Guarena whole rock Ar-Ar 4.44 +/- 0.06
> 
> 13 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08
> 
> 
> Shaw whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.06
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.40 +/- 0.06
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.29 +/- 0.06
> 
> 
> Olivenza 18 samples Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.16
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.49 +/- 0.06
> 
> 
> Saint Severin 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33
> 
> 10 samples Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.38 +/- 0.04
> 
> whole rock Ar-Ar 4.42 +/- 0.04
> 
> 
> Indarch 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08
> 
> 12 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.04
> 
> 
> Juvinas 5 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.08
> 
> 5 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.07
> 
> 
> Moama 3 samples Sm-Nd 4.46 +/- 0.03
> 
> 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.05
> 
> 
> Y-75011 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.05
> 
> 7 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.16
> 
> 5 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06
> 
> 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.33
> 
> 
> Angra dos Reis 7 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.04
> 
> 3 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.04
> 
> 
> Mundrabrilla silicates Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.06
> 
> silicates Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.06
> 
> olivine Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.04
> 
> plagioclase Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.04
> 
> 
> Weekeroo Station 4 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.07
> 
> silicates Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.03
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> After Dalrymple (1991, p. 286); meteorites dated by only a single means omitted.
> 
> Also note that the meteorite ages (both when dated mainly by Rb-Sr dating in groups, and by multiple means individually) are in exact agreement with the solar system "model lead age" produced earlier.
> 
> The Age of the Earth
> 
> 
> mans years?  a year is 12 months. the time takes the earth to make one orbit around the sun.
> the amount of people on earth is based on many other factors not just time.
> since there is no accurate way to know just how many people have lived on earth before world censuses began in the 20th century ,the nearly 8 billion you rant about could be an average.
> you conveniently leave out the fact that humans only began agriculture and animal husbandry 10.000 years .
> for you specious speculation to have any validity at all you would have to accept that humans had those skills from the outset.
> there is no evidence we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still based on presuppositions,assumptions,and imagination.
> 
> Check out these population growth formulas.
> 
> World Population Since Creation
Click to expand...

 SINCE THOSE FORMULAS ARE BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS SOURCE 

THEY ARE NOT VAILD NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU WISH THEY WERE.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> total bullshit ...
> You have no evidence of god doing any such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny entropy Daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no. it exists.
> it's no proof that a god did it.  so my previous answer  stands!
Click to expand...


Do mutations prove to do more harm or benefit to organisms ?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thrown back in my face? I don't think so!!! I was dead right. Hollie is attracted to women!!! Because Hollie is a man. Did you miss that? Funny thing, he never responded to my accusation because my guess he is banned from this website, and re-signed in as a female to avoid detection. Be careful who you align yourself with.
> 
> 
> 
> still trying to rationlize your ass beating....
> did you check with the mods about this alleged banning?
> if you didn't your making false accusations and talking out your ass.
> since you do that all the time, it's no suprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears you didn't read any of my posts. In my belief system, anyone that assumes a false identity could be said to be lying. If you are okay with that, then feel free to come to Hollie/Rugged Touch's defense. However, your assertion that I took a beating is based on your skewed perception of the argument. If you were looking at this objectively, you would see that Hollie hasn't ever presented an argument here.
Click to expand...

FROM AN OBJECTIVE OBSERVER YOU APPEAR TO BE  WHINY BITCH WHO has no dignity.
your belife system is invaild as it serves only you and has no basis in reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> can you rationalize any harder?  fact is you're getting your ass handed to you again.....
> show some dignity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Hollie is Daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how many time did you fail high school again?
Click to expand...


Oh but Daws, I could not have attened the college I did if I failed High school.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny entropy Daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> no. it exists.
> it's no proof that a god did it.  so my previous answer  stands!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do mutations prove to do more harm or benefit organisms ?
Click to expand...

both.my previous answer  stands


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Hollie is Daws.
> 
> 
> 
> how many time did you fail high school again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh but Daws, I could not have attened the college I did if I failed High school.
Click to expand...

there's no proof you attended college just you assertion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> still trying to rationlize your ass beating....
> did you check with the mods about this alleged banning?
> if you didn't your making false accusations and talking out your ass.
> since you do that all the time, it's no suprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears you didn't read any of my posts. In my belief system, anyone that assumes a false identity could be said to be lying. If you are okay with that, then feel free to come to Hollie/Rugged Touch's defense. However, your assertion that I took a beating is based on your skewed perception of the argument. If you were looking at this objectively, you would see that Hollie hasn't ever presented an argument here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FROM AN OBJECTIVE OBSERVER YOU APPEAR TO BE  WHINY BITCH WHO has no dignity.
> your belife system is invaild as it serves only you and has no basis in reality.
Click to expand...


Daws did you see that picture of UR ? he hardly strikes me as the person in your incompetent way of describing him.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no. it exists.
> it's no proof that a god did it.  so my previous answer  stands!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do mutations prove to do more harm or benefit organisms ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> both.my previous answer  stands
Click to expand...


Dodge !!!!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thrown back in my face? I don't think so!!! I was dead right. Hollie is attracted to women!!! Because Hollie is a man. Did you miss that? Funny thing, he never responded to my accusation because my guess he is banned from this website, and re-signed in as a female to avoid detection. Be careful who you align yourself with.
> 
> 
> 
> still trying to rationlize your ass beating....
> did you check with the mods about this alleged banning?
> if you didn't your making false accusations and talking out your ass.
> since you do that all the time, it's no suprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears you didn't read any of my posts. In my belief system, anyone that assumes a false identity could be said to be lying. If you are okay with that, then feel free to come to Hollie/Rugged Touch's defense. However, your assertion that I took a beating is based on your skewed perception of the argument. If you were looking at this objectively, you would see that Hollie hasn't ever presented an argument here.
Click to expand...

As usual, your focus is on me and how your existence is influenced by that. 

Your difficulty is being confronted with evidence I supplied to you demonstrating a natural causation for a completely natural world. That conflicts with your rigid worship of an alleged "holy book" which you are incapable of defending.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how many time did you fail high school again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but Daws, I could not have attened the college I did if I failed High school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there's no proof you attended college just you assertion.
Click to expand...


That is true, but you don't recognize my college biology I have tried discussing with you concerning,genetics and mutations.

There is evidence, lot's of it, concerning mutations and genetics.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but Daws, I could not have attened the college I did if I failed High school.
> 
> 
> 
> there's no proof you attended college just you assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true, but you don't recognize my college biology I have tried discussing with you concerning,genetics and mutations.
> 
> There is evidence, lot's of it, concerning mutations and genetics.
Click to expand...


Harun Yahya is hardly a reliable source for the study of biology.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another dodge .
> when you post something not based on your intentional miss interpretation of genetics and mutation you might have a response.
> why is it you miss the most obvious evidence to why your misinformation is overlooked?
> 
> as to this:"Still no real rebuttal just your copy and paste rhetoric or conjecture."ywc
> 
> people who live in glass petri dishes ....
> 
> YWC had to make one of his world famous hubris ridden false declarations!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like you said to UR please point out these misinterpretation's of mutations and genetics otherwise you are talking out your Butt ,not that I think UR is doing anything of the sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to, what part of all do you not understand.
> may be this will be easier: you have manufactured a false premise based on you inability to separate fact from belief.
> the answer to your why mutation can't do...statements
> is simple! MUTATION WORKS  in spite of all the faith based  imaginary road blocks you and your creationist cronies try to manufacture.
> YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OTHER CAUSE.
> OR  "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." S.H.
Click to expand...


Interesting quote. When does improbable become impossible? To put it another way, how atomically small do the odds have to become before something becomes impossible. In calculus, even though we can never get to a number, we can get so infinitesimallly close we can go ahead and say we are there. Doesn't this apply in probability equations as well? So basically what I'm really saying is it is impossible that DNA self assembled.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like you said to UR please point out these misinterpretation's of mutations and genetics otherwise you are talking out your Butt ,not that I think UR is doing anything of the sort.
> 
> 
> 
> no need to, what part of all do you not understand.
> may be this will be easier: you have manufactured a false premise based on you inability to separate fact from belief.
> the answer to your why mutation can't do...statements
> is simple! MUTATION WORKS  in spite of all the faith based  imaginary road blocks you and your creationist cronies try to manufacture.
> YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OTHER CAUSE.
> OR  "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." S.H.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting quote. When does improbable become impossible? To put it another way, how atomically small do the odds have to become before something becomes impossible. In calculus, even though we can never get to a number, we can get so infinitesimallly close we can go ahead and say we are there. Doesn't this apply in probability equations as well? So basically what I'm really saying is it is impossible that DNA self assembled.
Click to expand...


Except that how do you determine the probability for such an event?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> still trying to rationlize your ass beating....
> did you check with the mods about this alleged banning?
> if you didn't your making false accusations and talking out your ass.
> since you do that all the time, it's no suprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears you didn't read any of my posts. In my belief system, anyone that assumes a false identity could be said to be lying. If you are okay with that, then feel free to come to Hollie/Rugged Touch's defense. However, your assertion that I took a beating is based on your skewed perception of the argument. If you were looking at this objectively, you would see that Hollie hasn't ever presented an argument here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FROM AN OBJECTIVE OBSERVER YOU APPEAR TO BE  WHINY BITCH WHO has no dignity.
> your belife system is invaild as it serves only you and has no basis in reality.
Click to expand...


This is an Ad Hominem attack and doesn't address the real issues or evidence.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears you didn't read any of my posts. In my belief system, anyone that assumes a false identity could be said to be lying. If you are okay with that, then feel free to come to Hollie/Rugged Touch's defense. However, your assertion that I took a beating is based on your skewed perception of the argument. If you were looking at this objectively, you would see that Hollie hasn't ever presented an argument here.
> 
> 
> 
> FROM AN OBJECTIVE OBSERVER YOU APPEAR TO BE  WHINY BITCH WHO has no dignity.
> your belife system is invaild as it serves only you and has no basis in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws did you see that picture of UR ? he hardly strikes me as the person in your incompetent way of describing him.
Click to expand...

 how he strikes you is ironic in the extreme, a character judgment from you has no validity as you have the same tenuous grip on reality he does.
Ted Bundy and Jeffery Daimler were good looking guys too!
incompetent? rude.. yes .....inelegant....maybe...... incompetent no. I said what I meant the way I wanted to say it.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no need to, what part of all do you not understand.
> may be this will be easier: you have manufactured a false premise based on you inability to separate fact from belief.
> the answer to your why mutation can't do...statements
> is simple! MUTATION WORKS  in spite of all the faith based  imaginary road blocks you and your creationist cronies try to manufacture.
> YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OTHER CAUSE.
> OR  "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." S.H.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting quote. When does improbable become impossible? To put it another way, how atomically small do the odds have to become before something becomes impossible. In calculus, even though we can never get to a number, we can get so infinitesimallly close we can go ahead and say we are there. Doesn't this apply in probability equations as well? So basically what I'm really saying is it is impossible that DNA self assembled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that how do you determine the probability for such an event?
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE]DNA by Design: "Doing the Math" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do mutations prove to do more harm or benefit organisms ?
> 
> 
> 
> both.my previous answer  stands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodge !!!!
Click to expand...

hey asshat, how could my answer be a dodge when the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but Daws, I could not have attened the college I did if I failed High school.
> 
> 
> 
> there's no proof you attended college just you assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true, but you don't recognize my college biology I have tried discussing with you concerning,genetics and mutations.
> 
> There is evidence, lot's of it, concerning mutations and genetics.
Click to expand...

yes there is .
you have not tried to discuss anything .
what you have done however, is to push an agenda by intentionally mis representing your knowledge. you are willfully ignorant of the difference.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> both.my previous answer  stands
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey asshat, how could my answer be a dodge when the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all.
Click to expand...


We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like you said to UR please point out these misinterpretation's of mutations and genetics otherwise you are talking out your Butt ,not that I think UR is doing anything of the sort.
> 
> 
> 
> no need to, what part of all do you not understand.
> may be this will be easier: you have manufactured a false premise based on you inability to separate fact from belief.
> the answer to your why mutation can't do...statements
> is simple! MUTATION WORKS  in spite of all the faith based  imaginary road blocks you and your creationist cronies try to manufacture.
> YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OTHER CAUSE.
> OR  "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." S.H.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting quote. When does improbable become impossible? To put it another way, how atomically small do the odds have to become before something becomes impossible. In calculus, even though we can never get to a number, we can get so infinitesimallly close we can go ahead and say we are there. Doesn't this apply in probability equations as well? So basically what I'm really saying is it is impossible that DNA self assembled.
Click to expand...

since self assembled is a misnomer I'd say yes.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting quote. When does improbable become impossible? To put it another way, how atomically small do the odds have to become before something becomes impossible. In calculus, even though we can never get to a number, we can get so infinitesimallly close we can go ahead and say we are there. Doesn't this apply in probability equations as well? So basically what I'm really saying is it is impossible that DNA self assembled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that how do you determine the probability for such an event?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE]DNA by Design: "Doing the Math" - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

MORe ID bullshit!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> hey asshat, how could my answer be a dodge when the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.
Click to expand...

best non answer ever!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> both.my previous answer  stands
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey asshat, how could my answer be a dodge when the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all.
Click to expand...


Are you having a difficult time reading my question ? most cause no change can these mutations be harmful to ?

Now I gave you a choice are mutations more harmful or beneficial to an organism ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that how do you determine the probability for such an event?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE]DNA by Design: "Doing the Math" - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORe ID bullshit!
Click to expand...


Maybe you will learn something today.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey asshat, how could my answer be a dodge when the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> best non answer ever!
Click to expand...


On your part.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> hey asshat, how could my answer be a dodge when the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.
Click to expand...

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans 
Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM  One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.

But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.

Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey asshat, how could my answer be a dodge when the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
> Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM  One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.
> 
> But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think
Click to expand...


Can you match 5,000 genetic disorders due to harmful mutations with 5,000 beneficial mutations ?

How bout it,are neutral mutations also harmful to the organism ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
> Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM  One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.
> 
> But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you match 5,000 genetic disorders due to harmful mutations with 5,000 beneficial mutations ?
> 
> How bout it,are neutral mutations also harmful to the organism ?
Click to expand...

There's no reason why the numbers have to match. That doesn't make sense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey asshat, how could my answer be a dodge when the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
> Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM  One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.
> 
> But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think
Click to expand...


What if I tell you there is no such thing as a neutral mutation and they are all harmful ?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that how do you determine the probability for such an event?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE]DNA by Design: "Doing the Math" - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORe ID bullshit!
Click to expand...


Sound science on probabilities. Where is your rebuttal? What evidence do you have to counter his argument?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey asshat, how could my answer be a dodge when the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> best non answer ever!
Click to expand...


Best non-response with no links to evidence ever!!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.
> 
> 
> 
> best non answer ever!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Best non-response with no links to evidence ever!!!
Click to expand...


Funny. I am about to blow his mind if he attempts another worthless response concerning mutations.

They were taught a lie from High school on to college about mutations.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> best non answer ever!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best non-response with no links to evidence ever!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny. I am about to blow his mind if he attempts another worthless response concerning mutations.
> 
> They were taught a lie from High school on to college about mutations.
Click to expand...


What's comical is that you don't understand that beneficial mutations are exampled in the form of organisms that display fitness for survival. 

I suppose they don't teach you that at the Harun Yahya madrassah


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey asshat, how could my answer be a dodge when the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
> Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM  One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.
> 
> But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think
Click to expand...


I'm tired of waiting for your next copy and paste rhetoric. It's time for you to learn something,thank me.

Neutral mutations do not have an effect on the phenotype,it does however on the genetic data of the genotype. The so called neutral mutations do have an effect on the genome and it's working's.

Nucleotides can't be neutral in their existence,because nucleotides use up space.They affect spacing between other nucleotides sites. They affect regional nucleotide composition,even if a nucleotide contains no information. It's not neutral because it slows cell replication and wastes energy.

So called neutral mutations if given enough time to accumulate,they would destroy the host organism.This is what was observed in the lab with mutating flies. This why I said in several earlier threads the flies died prematurely.

So called neutral mutations do cause slight effects to a point that they could go undetected in the population and they would accumulate to the point, that our offspring,and their offspring would pass them on and on. Eventually the whole human race would be in jeopardy,to the point of extinction..

Geneticist H.J. Muller "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." That number would make it where your theory is way off on a time line. It would have taken over 15 billion years for your theory to be true. but I am already showing you why it never happened. Life woulf have had to begin 15 billion years ago at that mutation rate but at that mutation rate we would have gone extinct so it would take even longer then 15 billion years.

What have you learned today Daws ? The existence of a nucleotide position can't be neutral.There is no way to mutate or change an individual without a biological effect. The whole population would go extinct because all near neutral mutations are harmful.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Daws let me give you an example if what I just said was to deep for you.

Let's say you have a wooden house and on your house you had this little spot of termites. These termites you couldn't do anything about. Eventually those termites would spread through the whole home until it was destroyed. These semi neutral mutations would do the same thing to the host that those termites did to your home.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> hey asshat, how could my answer be a dodge when the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you having a difficult time reading my question ? most cause no change can these mutations be harmful to ?
> 
> Now I gave you a choice are mutations more harmful or beneficial to an organism ?
Click to expand...

and I answerd. "the fact is mutations do both or nothing at all."
the problem is you lack of reading comprehension


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
> Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM  One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.
> 
> But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you match 5,000 genetic disorders due to harmful mutations with 5,000 beneficial mutations ?
> 
> How bout it,are neutral mutations also harmful to the organism ?
Click to expand...

see post #6103.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
> Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM  One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.
> 
> But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if I tell you there is no such thing as a neutral mutation and they are all harmful ?
Click to expand...

you'd be lying !


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have many examples of detrimental mutations in the human race. Where are all the positive ones? With 7 Billion people on the planet you think you could come up with a few? Once again, we are left with that empty feeling that evolution isn't real science. You can't do scientific experiments to substantiate your evolutionary claims. Yet, you cling to the TOE, not because of the science, but because of your materialistic religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
> Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM  One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.
> 
> But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm tired of waiting for your next copy and paste rhetoric. It's time for you to learn something,thank me.
> 
> Neutral mutations do not have an effect on the phenotype,it does however on the genetic data of the genotype. The so called neutral mutations do have an effect on the genome and it's working's.
> 
> Nucleotides can't be neutral in their existence,because nucleotides use up space.They affect spacing between other nucleotides sites. They affect regional nucleotide composition,even if a nucleotide contains no information. It's not neutral because it slows cell replication and wastes energy.
> 
> So called neutral mutations if given enough time to accumulate,they would destroy the host organism.This is what was observed in the lab with mutating flies. This why I said in several earlier threads the flies died prematurely.
> 
> So called neutral mutations do cause slight effects to a point that they could go undetected in the population and they would accumulate to the point, that our offspring,and their offspring would pass them on and on. Eventually the whole human race would be in jeopardy,to the point of extinction..
> 
> Geneticist H.J. Muller "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." That number would make it where your theory is way off on a time line. It would have taken over 15 billion years for your theory to be true. but I am already showing you why it never happened. Life woulf have had to begin 15 billion years ago at that mutation rate but at that mutation rate we would have gone extinct so it would take even longer then 15 billion years.
> 
> What have you learned today Daws ? The existence of a nucleotide position can't be neutral.There is no way to mutate or change an individual without a biological effect. The whole population would go extinct because all near neutral mutations are harmful.
Click to expand...

mind not blown !
your guy is dead wrong besides being dead. so that information is not current.

example of benificial mutations in humans.&#8226; Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.

All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.

There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.

&#8226; Increased bone density. One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.

This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.

&#8226; Malaria resistance. The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.

As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.

&#8226; Tetrachromatic vision. Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.

The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.

But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, shifts the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)

To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)

And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> best non answer ever!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best non-response with no links to evidence ever!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny. I am about to blow his mind if he attempts another worthless response concerning mutations.
> 
> They were taught a lie from High school on to college about mutations.
Click to expand...

once again you have no proof ....that makes your statement false, bias, ignorant and bigoted...
one of god's finest works you are !


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Daws let me give you an example if what I just said was to deep for you.
> 
> Let's say you have a wooden house and on your house you had this little spot of termites. These termites you couldn't do anything about. Eventually those termites would spread through the whole home until it was destroyed. These semi neutral mutations would do the same thing to the host that those termites did to your home.


false example there are no semi - neutral termites .


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
> Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM  One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.
> 
> But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of waiting for your next copy and paste rhetoric. It's time for you to learn something,thank me.
> 
> Neutral mutations do not have an effect on the phenotype,it does however on the genetic data of the genotype. The so called neutral mutations do have an effect on the genome and it's working's.
> 
> Nucleotides can't be neutral in their existence,because nucleotides use up space.They affect spacing between other nucleotides sites. They affect regional nucleotide composition,even if a nucleotide contains no information. It's not neutral because it slows cell replication and wastes energy.
> 
> So called neutral mutations if given enough time to accumulate,they would destroy the host organism.This is what was observed in the lab with mutating flies. This why I said in several earlier threads the flies died prematurely.
> 
> So called neutral mutations do cause slight effects to a point that they could go undetected in the population and they would accumulate to the point, that our offspring,and their offspring would pass them on and on. Eventually the whole human race would be in jeopardy,to the point of extinction..
> 
> Geneticist H.J. Muller "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." That number would make it where your theory is way off on a time line. It would have taken over 15 billion years for your theory to be true. but I am already showing you why it never happened. Life woulf have had to begin 15 billion years ago at that mutation rate but at that mutation rate we would have gone extinct so it would take even longer then 15 billion years.
> 
> What have you learned today Daws ? The existence of a nucleotide position can't be neutral.There is no way to mutate or change an individual without a biological effect. The whole population would go extinct because all near neutral mutations are harmful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mind not blown !
> your guy is dead wrong besides being dead. so that information is not current.
> 
> example of benificial mutations in humans. Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.
> 
> All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.
> 
> There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.
> 
>  Increased bone density. One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.
> 
> This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.
> 
>  Malaria resistance. The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.
> 
> As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.
> 
>  Tetrachromatic vision. Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.
> 
> The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.
> 
> But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, shifts the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)
> 
> To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)
> 
> And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat.
> 
> Image credit: Wikimedia Commons
Click to expand...


I don't pretend to be an expert on genomics, but please enlighten me how they tell the people in the community in Italy don't have the original form of the gene and the rest of us don't have the harmful mutation? Basically, your argument is based on an unproven assumption that humans crave certain foods based on a speculative evolutionary past.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA by Design: "Doing the Math" - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> MORe ID bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sound science on probabilities. Where is your rebuttal? What evidence do you have to counter his argument?
Click to expand...

don't need any ! do you   not understand the concept of  false premise :A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:

If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.

even easier, since I D is not science, no valid scientific  conclusions can be drawn from it.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of waiting for your next copy and paste rhetoric. It's time for you to learn something,thank me.
> 
> Neutral mutations do not have an effect on the phenotype,it does however on the genetic data of the genotype. The so called neutral mutations do have an effect on the genome and it's working's.
> 
> Nucleotides can't be neutral in their existence,because nucleotides use up space.They affect spacing between other nucleotides sites. They affect regional nucleotide composition,even if a nucleotide contains no information. It's not neutral because it slows cell replication and wastes energy.
> 
> So called neutral mutations if given enough time to accumulate,they would destroy the host organism.This is what was observed in the lab with mutating flies. This why I said in several earlier threads the flies died prematurely.
> 
> So called neutral mutations do cause slight effects to a point that they could go undetected in the population and they would accumulate to the point, that our offspring,and their offspring would pass them on and on. Eventually the whole human race would be in jeopardy,to the point of extinction..
> 
> Geneticist H.J. Muller "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." That number would make it where your theory is way off on a time line. It would have taken over 15 billion years for your theory to be true. but I am already showing you why it never happened. Life woulf have had to begin 15 billion years ago at that mutation rate but at that mutation rate we would have gone extinct so it would take even longer then 15 billion years.
> 
> What have you learned today Daws ? The existence of a nucleotide position can't be neutral.There is no way to mutate or change an individual without a biological effect. The whole population would go extinct because all near neutral mutations are harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> mind not blown !
> your guy is dead wrong besides being dead. so that information is not current.
> 
> example of benificial mutations in humans. Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.
> 
> All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.
> 
> There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.
> 
>  Increased bone density. One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.
> 
> This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.
> 
>  Malaria resistance. The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.
> 
> As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.
> 
>  Tetrachromatic vision. Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.
> 
> The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.
> 
> But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, shifts the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)
> 
> To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)
> 
> And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat.
> 
> Image credit: Wikimedia Commons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to be an expert on genomics, but please enlighten me how they tell the people in the community in Italy don't have the original form of the gene and the rest of us don't have the harmful mutation? Basically, your argument is based on an unproven assumption that humans crave certain foods based on a speculative evolutionary past.
Click to expand...

wrong! do you mean how do the geneticists know that that community has it?
or how did they break the news to them? the same applies to the us part too.
as to the second and dumbest part of that statement:Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our BodiesHillary Mayell
for National Geographic News

February 18, 2005
Meat-eating has impacted the evolution of the human body, scientists reported today at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Washington, D.C. 

Our fondness for a juicy steak triggered a number of adaptations over countless generations. For instance, our jaws have gotten smaller, and we have an improved ability to process cholesterol and fat. 
 "It's really amazing what we know now that we didn't know 15 or 20 years ago," said Mark Teaford, a professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University. Teaford helped organize a panel discussion on human diet from a number of perspectives: 

 How did the ability to eat meat shape the evolution of humans? 
 What can we learn about early humans from tooth shape? 

Carnivorous humans go back a long way. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago. 

How Did Meat-Eating Start? 

Some early humans may have started eating meat as a way to survive within their own ecological niche. 

Competition from other species may be a key element of natural selection that has molded anatomy and behavior, according to Craig B. Stanford, an ecologist at the University of Southern California (USC). 

Stanford has spent years visiting the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda, Africa, studying the relationship between mountain gorillas and chimpanzees. 

"It's the only forest where mountain gorillas and chimps both live," he said. "We're trying to understand the ecological relationshipdo they compete for food, for nesting sites?" 

The key difference between chimps and gorillas ecologically is that chimps eat meat and gorillas don't. A total herbivore is able to coexist with an omnivore because they have significantly different diets. 


 "Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies<< Back to Page 1   Page 2 of 2
"From there we can extrapolate back to what two species of early humans may have done vis-à-vis each other two or three million years ago," Stanford said. 



"We have an obsession today with fat and cholesterol because we can go to the market and stuff ourselves with it," Stanford said. "But as a species we are relatively immune to the harmful effects of fat and cholesterol. Compared to the great apes, we can handle a diet that's high in fat and cholesterol, and the great apes cannot. 

"Even though we have all these problems in terms of heart disease as we get older, if you give a gorilla a diet that a meat-loving man might eat in Western society, that gorilla will die when it's in its twenties; a normal life span might be 50. They just can't handle that kind of diet." 

Diet and Teeth 

Tool-use no doubt helped early humans in butchering their dinners. But there is evidence that the advance to cooking and using knives and forks is leading to crooked teeth and facial dwarfing in humans. 

Today it's relatively rare for someone to have perfectly straight teeth (without having been to the orthodontist). Our wisdom teeth don't have room to fit in the jaw and sometimes don't form at all, and the propensity to develop gum disease is on the increase. 

"Virtually any mammalian jaw in the wild that you look at will be a perfect occlusiona very nice Hollywood-style dentition," said Peter Lucas, the author of Dental Functional Morphology and a visiting professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "But when it comes to humans, the ideal occlusion [the way teeth fit together] is virtually never seen. It's really the only body part that regularly needs attention and surgery." 

Lucas argues that the mechanical process of chewing, combined with the physical properties of foods in the diet, will drive tooth, jaw, and body size, particularly in human evolution. 

Essentially, by cooking our food, thereby making it softer, we no longer need teeth big enough to chow down on really tough particles. By using knives and forks to cut food into smaller pieces, we no longer need a large enough jaw to cram in big hunks of food. 

"We're evolving to eat mush," said Bernard Wood, a paleoanthropologist at George Washington University. 

"Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> MORe ID bullshit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sound science on probabilities. Where is your rebuttal? What evidence do you have to counter his argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't need any ! do you   not understand the concept of  false premise :A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
> 
> For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
> 
> If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
> The streets are wet. (premise)
> Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
> This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
> 
> even easier, since I D is not science, no valid scientific  conclusions can be drawn from it.
Click to expand...


Your syllogism example in no way applies to the amino acid argument in the video so now I know you didn't bother to watch it. The video assumes the Darwinist propositions for the origins of life, i.e., volcanic vent or primordial soup.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> [wrong! do you mean how do the geneticists know that that community has it?



No, how do you know that the larger population's Apo-AI isn't a detrimental mutation and the Apo-AIM isn't what we all should have had before we mutated to the less effective version?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> mind not blown !
> your guy is dead wrong besides being dead. so that information is not current.
> 
> example of benificial mutations in humans. Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.
> 
> All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.
> 
> There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.
> 
>  Increased bone density. One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.
> 
> This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.
> 
>  Malaria resistance. The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.
> 
> As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.
> 
>  Tetrachromatic vision. Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.
> 
> The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.
> 
> But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, shifts the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)
> 
> To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)
> 
> And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat.
> 
> Image credit: Wikimedia Commons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to be an expert on genomics, but please enlighten me how they tell the people in the community in Italy don't have the original form of the gene and the rest of us don't have the harmful mutation? Basically, your argument is based on an unproven assumption that humans crave certain foods based on a speculative evolutionary past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong! do you mean how do the geneticists know that that community has it?
> or how did they break the news to them? the same applies to the us part too.
> as to the second and dumbest part of that statement:Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our BodiesHillary Mayell
> for National Geographic News
> 
> February 18, 2005
> Meat-eating has impacted the evolution of the human body, scientists reported today at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Washington, D.C.
> 
> Our fondness for a juicy steak triggered a number of adaptations over countless generations. For instance, our jaws have gotten smaller, and we have an improved ability to process cholesterol and fat.
> "It's really amazing what we know now that we didn't know 15 or 20 years ago," said Mark Teaford, a professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University. Teaford helped organize a panel discussion on human diet from a number of perspectives:
> 
>  How did the ability to eat meat shape the evolution of humans?
>  What can we learn about early humans from tooth shape?
> 
> Carnivorous humans go back a long way. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago.
> 
> How Did Meat-Eating Start?
> 
> Some early humans may have started eating meat as a way to survive within their own ecological niche.
> 
> Competition from other species may be a key element of natural selection that has molded anatomy and behavior, according to Craig B. Stanford, an ecologist at the University of Southern California (USC).
> 
> Stanford has spent years visiting the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda, Africa, studying the relationship between mountain gorillas and chimpanzees.
> 
> "It's the only forest where mountain gorillas and chimps both live," he said. "We're trying to understand the ecological relationshipdo they compete for food, for nesting sites?"
> 
> The key difference between chimps and gorillas ecologically is that chimps eat meat and gorillas don't. A total herbivore is able to coexist with an omnivore because they have significantly different diets.
> 
> 
> "Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies<< Back to Page 1   Page 2 of 2
> "From there we can extrapolate back to what two species of early humans may have done vis-à-vis each other two or three million years ago," Stanford said.
> 
> 
> 
> "We have an obsession today with fat and cholesterol because we can go to the market and stuff ourselves with it," Stanford said. "But as a species we are relatively immune to the harmful effects of fat and cholesterol. Compared to the great apes, we can handle a diet that's high in fat and cholesterol, and the great apes cannot.
> 
> "Even though we have all these problems in terms of heart disease as we get older, if you give a gorilla a diet that a meat-loving man might eat in Western society, that gorilla will die when it's in its twenties; a normal life span might be 50. They just can't handle that kind of diet."
> 
> Diet and Teeth
> 
> Tool-use no doubt helped early humans in butchering their dinners. But there is evidence that the advance to cooking and using knives and forks is leading to crooked teeth and facial dwarfing in humans.
> 
> Today it's relatively rare for someone to have perfectly straight teeth (without having been to the orthodontist). Our wisdom teeth don't have room to fit in the jaw and sometimes don't form at all, and the propensity to develop gum disease is on the increase.
> 
> "Virtually any mammalian jaw in the wild that you look at will be a perfect occlusiona very nice Hollywood-style dentition," said Peter Lucas, the author of Dental Functional Morphology and a visiting professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "But when it comes to humans, the ideal occlusion [the way teeth fit together] is virtually never seen. It's really the only body part that regularly needs attention and surgery."
> 
> Lucas argues that the mechanical process of chewing, combined with the physical properties of foods in the diet, will drive tooth, jaw, and body size, particularly in human evolution.
> 
> Essentially, by cooking our food, thereby making it softer, we no longer need teeth big enough to chow down on really tough particles. By using knives and forks to cut food into smaller pieces, we no longer need a large enough jaw to cram in big hunks of food.
> 
> "We're evolving to eat mush," said Bernard Wood, a paleoanthropologist at George Washington University.
> 
> "Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies
Click to expand...


This whole article is based on the speculative premise of common ancestry with the primates we are being compared to. Typical of nice evolution stories, there is no experimental data to back this up.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sound science on probabilities. Where is your rebuttal? What evidence do you have to counter his argument?
> 
> 
> 
> don't need any ! do you   not understand the concept of  false premise :A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
> 
> For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
> 
> If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
> The streets are wet. (premise)
> Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
> This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
> 
> even easier, since I D is not science, no valid scientific  conclusions can be drawn from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your syllogism example in no way applies to the amino acid argument in the video so now I know you didn't bother to watch it. The video assumes the Darwinist propositions for the origins of life, i.e., volcanic vent or primordial soup.
Click to expand...


As is so often the case with fundie creationists, they will purposefully lie and deceive to further their religious agenda. 

There are no "Darwinist propositions for the origins of life, i.e., volcanic vent or primordial soup". 

Darwin never proposed what you are attributing to his theory.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to be an expert on genomics, but please enlighten me how they tell the people in the community in Italy don't have the original form of the gene and the rest of us don't have the harmful mutation? Basically, your argument is based on an unproven assumption that humans crave certain foods based on a speculative evolutionary past.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! do you mean how do the geneticists know that that community has it?
> or how did they break the news to them? the same applies to the us part too.
> as to the second and dumbest part of that statement:Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our BodiesHillary Mayell
> for National Geographic News
> 
> February 18, 2005
> Meat-eating has impacted the evolution of the human body, scientists reported today at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Washington, D.C.
> 
> Our fondness for a juicy steak triggered a number of adaptations over countless generations. For instance, our jaws have gotten smaller, and we have an improved ability to process cholesterol and fat.
> "It's really amazing what we know now that we didn't know 15 or 20 years ago," said Mark Teaford, a professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University. Teaford helped organize a panel discussion on human diet from a number of perspectives:
> 
>  How did the ability to eat meat shape the evolution of humans?
>  What can we learn about early humans from tooth shape?
> 
> Carnivorous humans go back a long way. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago.
> 
> How Did Meat-Eating Start?
> 
> Some early humans may have started eating meat as a way to survive within their own ecological niche.
> 
> Competition from other species may be a key element of natural selection that has molded anatomy and behavior, according to Craig B. Stanford, an ecologist at the University of Southern California (USC).
> 
> Stanford has spent years visiting the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda, Africa, studying the relationship between mountain gorillas and chimpanzees.
> 
> "It's the only forest where mountain gorillas and chimps both live," he said. "We're trying to understand the ecological relationshipdo they compete for food, for nesting sites?"
> 
> The key difference between chimps and gorillas ecologically is that chimps eat meat and gorillas don't. A total herbivore is able to coexist with an omnivore because they have significantly different diets.
> 
> 
> "Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies<< Back to Page 1   Page 2 of 2
> "From there we can extrapolate back to what two species of early humans may have done vis-à-vis each other two or three million years ago," Stanford said.
> 
> 
> 
> "We have an obsession today with fat and cholesterol because we can go to the market and stuff ourselves with it," Stanford said. "But as a species we are relatively immune to the harmful effects of fat and cholesterol. Compared to the great apes, we can handle a diet that's high in fat and cholesterol, and the great apes cannot.
> 
> "Even though we have all these problems in terms of heart disease as we get older, if you give a gorilla a diet that a meat-loving man might eat in Western society, that gorilla will die when it's in its twenties; a normal life span might be 50. They just can't handle that kind of diet."
> 
> Diet and Teeth
> 
> Tool-use no doubt helped early humans in butchering their dinners. But there is evidence that the advance to cooking and using knives and forks is leading to crooked teeth and facial dwarfing in humans.
> 
> Today it's relatively rare for someone to have perfectly straight teeth (without having been to the orthodontist). Our wisdom teeth don't have room to fit in the jaw and sometimes don't form at all, and the propensity to develop gum disease is on the increase.
> 
> "Virtually any mammalian jaw in the wild that you look at will be a perfect occlusiona very nice Hollywood-style dentition," said Peter Lucas, the author of Dental Functional Morphology and a visiting professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "But when it comes to humans, the ideal occlusion [the way teeth fit together] is virtually never seen. It's really the only body part that regularly needs attention and surgery."
> 
> Lucas argues that the mechanical process of chewing, combined with the physical properties of foods in the diet, will drive tooth, jaw, and body size, particularly in human evolution.
> 
> Essentially, by cooking our food, thereby making it softer, we no longer need teeth big enough to chow down on really tough particles. By using knives and forks to cut food into smaller pieces, we no longer need a large enough jaw to cram in big hunks of food.
> 
> "We're evolving to eat mush," said Bernard Wood, a paleoanthropologist at George Washington University.
> 
> "Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This whole article is based on the speculative premise of common ancestry with the primates we are being compared to. Typical of nice evolution stories, there is no experimental data to back this up.
Click to expand...


Typical of the science loathing fundies is to dismiss the scientific and academic work evaluating common descent especially as it applies to humankind.

NSF Current - November 2009


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans
> Adam Lee on January 11, 2012, 8:37 PM  One of my all-time most popular posts on Daylight Atheism, "The Scars of Evolution", lists some of the kludges, hacks and jury-rigs left behind in the human genome, the telltale signature of evolution. The vestigial structures and design compromises still found in human bodies are tangible evidence that our species has a long evolutionary history and didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo.
> 
> But a different line of evidence comes in the form of ongoing mutations in the human gene pool. Most random genetic changes are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population. In this post, I'll list some examples of beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings.
> 
> Evolution Is Still Happening: Beneficial Mutations in Humans | Daylight Atheism | Big Think
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of waiting for your next copy and paste rhetoric. It's time for you to learn something,thank me.
> 
> Neutral mutations do not have an effect on the phenotype,it does however on the genetic data of the genotype. The so called neutral mutations do have an effect on the genome and it's working's.
> 
> Nucleotides can't be neutral in their existence,because nucleotides use up space.They affect spacing between other nucleotides sites. They affect regional nucleotide composition,even if a nucleotide contains no information. It's not neutral because it slows cell replication and wastes energy.
> 
> So called neutral mutations if given enough time to accumulate,they would destroy the host organism.This is what was observed in the lab with mutating flies. This why I said in several earlier threads the flies died prematurely.
> 
> So called neutral mutations do cause slight effects to a point that they could go undetected in the population and they would accumulate to the point, that our offspring,and their offspring would pass them on and on. Eventually the whole human race would be in jeopardy,to the point of extinction..
> 
> Geneticist H.J. Muller "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." That number would make it where your theory is way off on a time line. It would have taken over 15 billion years for your theory to be true. but I am already showing you why it never happened. Life woulf have had to begin 15 billion years ago at that mutation rate but at that mutation rate we would have gone extinct so it would take even longer then 15 billion years.
> 
> What have you learned today Daws ? The existence of a nucleotide position can't be neutral.There is no way to mutate or change an individual without a biological effect. The whole population would go extinct because all near neutral mutations are harmful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mind not blown !
> your guy is dead wrong besides being dead. so that information is not current.
> 
> example of benificial mutations in humans.&#8226; Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.
> 
> All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.
> 
> There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.
> 
> &#8226; Increased bone density. One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.
> 
> This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.
> 
> &#8226; Malaria resistance. The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.
> 
> As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.
> 
> &#8226; Tetrachromatic vision. Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.
> 
> The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.
> 
> But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, shifts the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)
> 
> To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)
> 
> And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat.
> 
> Image credit: Wikimedia Commons
Click to expand...


What I posted went right over your head. All mutations mess with the function of the genome,what may seem as a benefit winds up coming at a cost somewhere else and it affects the genomes duties.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws let me give you an example if what I just said was to deep for you.
> 
> Let's say you have a wooden house and on your house you had this little spot of termites. These termites you couldn't do anything about. Eventually those termites would spread through the whole home until it was destroyed. These semi neutral mutations would do the same thing to the host that those termites did to your home.
> 
> 
> 
> false example there are no semi - neutral termites .
Click to expand...


No, there are semi netural mutations,which your side call neutral mutations saying they cause no effect. That is not true and I gave you the reasons why that is not true.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> MORe ID bullshit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sound science on probabilities. Where is your rebuttal? What evidence do you have to counter his argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't need any ! do you   not understand the concept of  false premise :A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
> 
> For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
> 
> If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
> The streets are wet. (premise)
> Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
> This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
> 
> even easier, since I D is not science, no valid scientific  conclusions can be drawn from it.
Click to expand...


Evidently you are and you copy and paste them from your atheist sites


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sound science on probabilities. Where is your rebuttal? What evidence do you have to counter his argument?
> 
> 
> 
> don't need any ! do you   not understand the concept of  false premise :A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
> 
> For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
> 
> If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
> The streets are wet. (premise)
> Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
> This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
> 
> even easier, since I D is not science, no valid scientific  conclusions can be drawn from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your syllogism example in no way applies to the amino acid argument in the video so now I know you didn't bother to watch it. The video assumes the Darwinist propositions for the origins of life, i.e., volcanic vent or primordial soup.
Click to expand...


I tried to explain the same thing to him, he doesn't have a clue even if he watches the video.

He will still think it all happened by chance ignoring the odds against it happening naturally.


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting quote. When does improbable become impossible? To put it another way, how atomically small do the odds have to become before something becomes impossible. In calculus, even though we can never get to a number, we can get so infinitesimallly close we can go ahead and say we are there. Doesn't this apply in probability equations as well? So basically what I'm really saying is it is impossible that DNA self assembled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that how do you determine the probability for such an event?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE]DNA by Design: "Doing the Math" - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, I don't know nearly enough about proteins or amino acids to know if his premise is sound.

I also wonder if the same argument can be used to show the odds that life forms at all, whether be chance or not, at least if you assume that life either happened by chance or was created by an intelligence which used the already available materials (in other words, outside the possibility of an intelligence creating things the way they are).

I was following along well enough, ignoring the fact I couldn't determine if the whole premise makes sense, when he put up a number for total events in the universe.  How the hell is THAT number determined? 

Anyway, I'd need to look at things more deeply to know if there's any validity to the video, as well as just how many chances there would have been for it to occur (I'm not sure how the ratio he talked about was determined, it seemed to be left vague).


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't need any ! do you   not understand the concept of  false premise :A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
> 
> For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
> 
> If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
> The streets are wet. (premise)
> Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
> This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
> 
> even easier, since I D is not science, no valid scientific  conclusions can be drawn from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your syllogism example in no way applies to the amino acid argument in the video so now I know you didn't bother to watch it. The video assumes the Darwinist propositions for the origins of life, i.e., volcanic vent or primordial soup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tried to explain the same thing to him, he doesn't have a clue even if he watches the video.
> 
> He will still think it all happened by chance ignoring the odds against it happening naturally.
Click to expand...


Funny thing is we are light years away from figuring out exactly how the first dna came about from a scientific standpoint. As pointed out in Meyers video, the odds of even a simple protein assembling by amino acids "floating" into each other are astronomical. No literally, there is a one in less chance than their are electrons in the observable universe. Let me repeat that, less the one in a number more than there are ELECTRONS (you know those little things circling around atoms) in the observable universe!!! Evo's will balk at this evidence, saying there is some as of yet not understood method that resulted in the original proteins. Grant it, we are talking about the odds against a simple protein. We haven't even began to boggle the mind with the odds against dna. ALL of the possible methods presented haven't even come close. And we also know this, in all the differing environments of earth, it isn't happening today. If we travel to the bottom of the ocean or into the deepest cave, we don't find pools of even one or types of amino acids. Heck, we can't even begin to recreate a possible environment in the lab based on what we know about the young earth. Of course the evidence points the fact that it was in all sense of the word, a miracle, whether that be the religious kind or the absolutely impossible kind. Everything "alive" on the planet has had that life transferred to it from a previous generation going back millions or even billions of years. And yet, we are left with the gut feeling that there was someone or some thing involved in the creation of the first dna. Our gut tells us there is no way "it just happened accidentally. all the conditions were right." We know this because the conditions have never been right again. Some single cell organisms have even remained unchanged for billions of years. Evolutionist love to act like they know everything and it is a fact, but their belief is based in materialism (matter is the only reality). Since the origin's life can only be said to be a miracle, they just angrily take the stance of "our theory doesn't cover that". Every time I hear this argument, I just ask myself how seemingly educated people can accept such a stupid answer. The whole neo-darwinian theory is based on genetic mutations, but they haven't the slightest clue how genes came about. You can strike fear in their hearts at the very mention of the origins of life. They refuse to even touch the subject. Until such time as the discovery of how the first information was not only created, but replicated itself, evolutionists are just shadow boxing. They're like someone who claims to be expert on computer keyboards but gets extremely angry if you even dare question where computers came from.

If you really want to cause a Darwinist to have a hissy fit, just bring up the abiogenisis question or ask them "what is evil?".


----------



## Montrovant

Just thought I'd put this here before I head to sleep :

Calculating The Odds That Life Could Begin By Chance

It offers one possible avenue for life arising by chance that doesn't require the odds discussed in the video.

I didn't read all the comments (there are a ton) but I think those might be more interesting than the article itself.  There seemed to be a lot of discussion going on between people taking a purely material view, an ID view, a religious view, or somewhere in between.  I might go back to that later to read more.


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that how do you determine the probability for such an event?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE]DNA by Design: "Doing the Math" - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't know nearly enough about proteins or amino acids to know if his premise is sound.
> 
> I also wonder if the same argument can be used to show the odds that life forms at all, whether be chance or not, at least if you assume that life either happened by chance or was created by an intelligence which used the already available materials (in other words, outside the possibility of an intelligence creating things the way they are).
> 
> I was following along well enough, ignoring the fact I couldn't determine if the whole premise makes sense, when he put up a number for total events in the universe.  How the hell is THAT number determined?
> 
> Anyway, I'd need to look at things more deeply to know if there's any validity to the video, as well as just how many chances there would have been for it to occur (I'm not sure how the ratio he talked about was determined, it seemed to be left vague).
Click to expand...


He was using simple probability arguments. If you have a combination lock with 5 digits, and each digit has 10 numbers, then the number of possibilities is 10 to the 5 power or 10 x 10 x 10 x10 x 10. This means that trying to get one specific combination, you have a 1 in 100,000 chance. He applies these simple probabilities to the argument on amino acids in a protein. How many possibilities at each link in the chain of a protein and how many links?

As far as the size of the universe goes, from Wiki:

The universe is immensely large and possibly infinite in volume. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years,[19] based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed. For comparison, the diameter of a typical galaxy is only 30,000 light-years, and the typical distance between two neighboring galaxies is only 3 million light-years.[20] As an example, our Milky Way Galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter,[21] and our nearest sister galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy, is located roughly 2.5 million light years away.[22] There are probably more than 100 billion (1011) galaxies in the observable universe.[23] Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as few as ten million[24] (107) stars up to giants with one trillion[25] (1012) stars, all orbiting the galaxy's center of mass. *A 2010 study by astronomers estimated that the observable universe contains 300 sextillion (3×10log23) stars.[26]*

Since the density and volume of the observable universe can be measured, this information can allow one to calculate the number of atoms in the observable universerse:

"The present overall density of the universe is very low, roughly 9.9 × 10&#8722;30 grams per cubic centimetre. This mass-energy appears to consist of 73% dark energy, 23% cold dark matter and 4% ordinary matter. Thus the density of atoms is on the order of a single hydrogen atom for every four cubic meters of volume.[31] The properties of dark energy and dark matter are largely unknown. Dark matter gravitates as ordinary matter, and thus works to slow the expansion of the universe; by contrast, dark energy accelerates its expansion."

The observable universe contains between 1022 and 1024 stars (between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars).[40][41][42][43] To be slightly more precise, according to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, "[by] a conservative estimate.... the currently observable universe is home to of order 6 x 1022 stars"[1] These stars are organized in more than 80 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters.[44]

Two approximate calculations give the number of atoms in the observable universe to be close to 10log80.

This is a great read, and should make you feel really small.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

If it doesn't, and you are someone on here that never clicks on or reads any info [you know who you are], this should be the link you explore. It is really fun and it will blow your kids minds as well too!!! It lets you travel from the hydrogen atom all the way to the observable universe and do size comparisons in between. 

*http://www.numbersleuth.org/universe/*


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Just thought I'd put this here before I head to sleep :
> 
> Calculating The Odds That Life Could Begin By Chance
> 
> It offers one possible avenue for life arising by chance that doesn't require the odds discussed in the video.
> 
> I didn't read all the comments (there are a ton) but I think those might be more interesting than the article itself.  There seemed to be a lot of discussion going on between people taking a purely material view, an ID view, a religious view, or somewhere in between.  I might go back to that later to read more.



Mon, I read the article. You need not look too far for the answer that invalidates this argument. The first poster Leslie, who seems to act like she isn't very knowledgeable, basically pokes wholes in the fallacious experiment. 

Not only that, the RNA world hypothesis has recently been called into question.

Early evolution of life: Study of ribosome evolution challenges 'RNA World' hypothesis

Another question you should have been asking when reading about the experiment is: Where did the 300 long necleotides come from??? I wll tell by quoting from the article, "They began by synthesizing many trillions of different RNA molecules about 300 nucleotides long, but the nucleotides were all random nucleotide sequences." A red flag should be going off for you right now that any probability equations are invalid, because an intelligent agent was generating the basic structures for which their simulation would run on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide


----------



## UltimateReality

Thinking on this further, people tend to confuse the coded information in dna with the chemistry. But the dna structure is no more responsible for the mind blowing information code contained in dna than the chemistry of the ink and wood pulp are responsible for the information conveyed in a newspaper. The info in a newspaper started in an intelligent agents mind, and while chemical reactions in their arms and fingers interacting with electronic signals in a keyboard eventually resulted in newsprint, all of the steps can be traced back to the mind. The keyboard and ink and printing press didn't produce the information, they merely conveyed it. Make sense?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that how do you determine the probability for such an event?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE]DNA by Design: "Doing the Math" - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't know nearly enough about proteins or amino acids to know if his premise is sound.
> 
> I also wonder if the same argument can be used to show the odds that life forms at all, whether be chance or not, at least if you assume that life either happened by chance or was created by an intelligence which used the already available materials (in other words, outside the possibility of an intelligence creating things the way they are).
> 
> I was following along well enough, ignoring the fact I couldn't determine if the whole premise makes sense, when he put up a number for total events in the universe.  How the hell is THAT number determined?
> 
> Anyway, I'd need to look at things more deeply to know if there's any validity to the video, as well as just how many chances there would have been for it to occur (I'm not sure how the ratio he talked about was determined, it seemed to be left vague).
Click to expand...


I do, and it is sound. I tried pointing the same thing out to Daws, I just was not as thourough as his video was.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Another video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYucpEzvl6A]Evidence of Design - DNA. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Montrovant

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA by Design: "Doing the Math" - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't know nearly enough about proteins or amino acids to know if his premise is sound.
> 
> I also wonder if the same argument can be used to show the odds that life forms at all, whether be chance or not, at least if you assume that life either happened by chance or was created by an intelligence which used the already available materials (in other words, outside the possibility of an intelligence creating things the way they are).
> 
> I was following along well enough, ignoring the fact I couldn't determine if the whole premise makes sense, when he put up a number for total events in the universe.  How the hell is THAT number determined?
> 
> Anyway, I'd need to look at things more deeply to know if there's any validity to the video, as well as just how many chances there would have been for it to occur (I'm not sure how the ratio he talked about was determined, it seemed to be left vague).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was using simple probability arguments. If you have a combination lock with 5 digits, and each digit has 10 numbers, then the number of possibilities is 10 to the 5 power or 10 x 10 x 10 x10 x 10. This means that trying to get one specific combination, you have a 1 in 100,000 chance. He applies these simple probabilities to the argument on amino acids in a protein. How many possibilities at each link in the chain of a protein and how many links?
> 
> As far as the size of the universe goes, from Wiki:
> 
> The universe is immensely large and possibly infinite in volume. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years,[19] based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed. For comparison, the diameter of a typical galaxy is only 30,000 light-years, and the typical distance between two neighboring galaxies is only 3 million light-years.[20] As an example, our Milky Way Galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter,[21] and our nearest sister galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy, is located roughly 2.5 million light years away.[22] There are probably more than 100 billion (1011) galaxies in the observable universe.[23] Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as few as ten million[24] (107) stars up to giants with one trillion[25] (1012) stars, all orbiting the galaxy's center of mass. *A 2010 study by astronomers estimated that the observable universe contains 300 sextillion (3×10log23) stars.[26]*
> 
> Since the density and volume of the observable universe can be measured, this information can allow one to calculate the number of atoms in the observable universerse:
> 
> "The present overall density of the universe is very low, roughly 9.9 × 10&#8722;30 grams per cubic centimetre. This mass-energy appears to consist of 73% dark energy, 23% cold dark matter and 4% ordinary matter. Thus the density of atoms is on the order of a single hydrogen atom for every four cubic meters of volume.[31] The properties of dark energy and dark matter are largely unknown. Dark matter gravitates as ordinary matter, and thus works to slow the expansion of the universe; by contrast, dark energy accelerates its expansion."
> 
> The observable universe contains between 1022 and 1024 stars (between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars).[40][41][42][43] To be slightly more precise, according to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, "[by] a conservative estimate.... the currently observable universe is home to of order 6 x 1022 stars"[1] These stars are organized in more than 80 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters.[44]
> 
> Two approximate calculations give the number of atoms in the observable universe to be close to 10log80.
> 
> This is a great read, and should make you feel really small.
> 
> Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> If it doesn't, and you are someone on here that never clicks on or reads any info [you know who you are], this should be the link you explore. It is really fun and it will blow your kids minds as well too!!! It lets you travel from the hydrogen atom all the way to the observable universe and do size comparisons in between.
> 
> *Magnifying the Universe*
Click to expand...


What I wonder is if there might be influences which would change the probabilities involved.  The numbers provided seem to work if every possibility has an equal chance of occurring; I don't know if there are reasons that some are more likely than others.  Are certain amino acid connections more likely to occur than others?  Once a certain connection occurs, does it make the next level of connections more likely to happen one way or another?  Etc. etc.  The numbers in the video may be accurate from a purely mathematical standpoint, but I don't know if there are other influences, physical laws or environmental factors which could radically change the numbers.

I'll get to other links later today, probably.

Oh, and UR, I haven't clicked your links about the size of the universe, but I've seen some fun size comparisons before; I realize that the universe appears to be vast almost beyond comprehension, and that matter and energy can be broken down into components ridiculously small.  The scope of reality in both directions is mind-boggling.  I actually see that as reason not to believe we have knowledge about any god; we can barely take in the incredible scale of things, to think we know and understand a being that could create it all seems almost crazy to me.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [wrong! do you mean how do the geneticists know that that community has it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, how do you know that the larger population's Apo-AI isn't a detrimental mutation and the Apo-AIM isn't what we all should have had before we mutated to the less effective version?
Click to expand...

well since the mutation is a benficial one and there is no proof of it being harmful your question answers it's self


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't need any ! do you   not understand the concept of  false premise :A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
> 
> For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
> 
> If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
> The streets are wet. (premise)
> Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
> This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
> 
> even easier, since I D is not science, no valid scientific  conclusions can be drawn from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your syllogism example in no way applies to the amino acid argument in the video so now I know you didn't bother to watch it. The video assumes the Darwinist propositions for the origins of life, i.e., volcanic vent or primordial soup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As is so often the case with fundie creationists, they will purposefully lie and deceive to further their religious agenda.
> 
> There are no "Darwinist propositions for the origins of life, i.e., volcanic vent or primordial soup".
> 
> Darwin never proposed what you are attributing to his theory.
Click to expand...

I knew that so there was no reason to answer.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of waiting for your next copy and paste rhetoric. It's time for you to learn something,thank me.
> 
> Neutral mutations do not have an effect on the phenotype,it does however on the genetic data of the genotype. The so called neutral mutations do have an effect on the genome and it's working's.
> 
> Nucleotides can't be neutral in their existence,because nucleotides use up space.They affect spacing between other nucleotides sites. They affect regional nucleotide composition,even if a nucleotide contains no information. It's not neutral because it slows cell replication and wastes energy.
> 
> So called neutral mutations if given enough time to accumulate,they would destroy the host organism.This is what was observed in the lab with mutating flies. This why I said in several earlier threads the flies died prematurely.
> 
> So called neutral mutations do cause slight effects to a point that they could go undetected in the population and they would accumulate to the point, that our offspring,and their offspring would pass them on and on. Eventually the whole human race would be in jeopardy,to the point of extinction..
> 
> Geneticist H.J. Muller "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." That number would make it where your theory is way off on a time line. It would have taken over 15 billion years for your theory to be true. but I am already showing you why it never happened. Life woulf have had to begin 15 billion years ago at that mutation rate but at that mutation rate we would have gone extinct so it would take even longer then 15 billion years.
> 
> What have you learned today Daws ? The existence of a nucleotide position can't be neutral.There is no way to mutate or change an individual without a biological effect. The whole population would go extinct because all near neutral mutations are harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> mind not blown !
> your guy is dead wrong besides being dead. so that information is not current.
> 
> example of benificial mutations in humans. Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.
> 
> All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.
> 
> There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.
> 
>  Increased bone density. One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.
> 
> This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.
> 
>  Malaria resistance. The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.
> 
> As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.
> 
>  Tetrachromatic vision. Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.
> 
> The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.
> 
> But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, shifts the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)
> 
> To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)
> 
> And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat.
> 
> Image credit: Wikimedia Commons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I posted went right over your head. All mutations mess with the function of the genome,what may seem as a benefit winds up coming at a cost somewhere else and it affects the genomes duties.
Click to expand...

again not fact!Are All Human Mutations Bad?Ads by Google
 Many people consider mutations in the human genome to be a negative event as they associate mutations with cell damage, cancer and genetic diseases such as sickle cell anaemia and Huntingtons disease. However, when proper research is done, we can see that this is in fact incorrect: few human mutations are actually bad, most are completely neutral, and in fact, many are beneficial. Without mutations, we could not exist as we do and there would never have been evolution and natural selection as we know it. Mutations allow genetic diversity to exist within a population, increasing the range of alleles and keeping the human species alive.

Are All Human Mutations Bad?


also the assumption that you could post anything that "would go over my head" is laughable.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws let me give you an example if what I just said was to deep for you.
> 
> Let's say you have a wooden house and on your house you had this little spot of termites. These termites you couldn't do anything about. Eventually those termites would spread through the whole home until it was destroyed. These semi neutral mutations would do the same thing to the host that those termites did to your home.
> 
> 
> 
> false example there are no semi - neutral termites .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there are semi netural mutations,which your side call neutral mutations saying they cause no effect. That is not true and I gave you the reasons why that is not true.
Click to expand...

you were lying then and you are lying now!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sound science on probabilities. Where is your rebuttal? What evidence do you have to counter his argument?
> 
> 
> 
> don't need any ! do you   not understand the concept of  false premise :A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
> 
> For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
> 
> If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
> The streets are wet. (premise)
> Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
> This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
> 
> even easier, since I D is not science, no valid scientific  conclusions can be drawn from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently you are and you copy and paste them from your atheist sites
Click to expand...

speaking of over your head..more proof complex concepts are above your pay grade.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [wrong! do you mean how do the geneticists know that that community has it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, how do you know that the larger population's Apo-AI isn't a detrimental mutation and the Apo-AIM isn't what we all should have had before we mutated to the less effective version?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well since the mutation is a benficial one and there is no proof of it being harmful your question answers it's self
Click to expand...


Ignorance is bliss. You believe anything you read on the internet as long as it supports your Ideology.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, how do you know that the larger population's Apo-AI isn't a detrimental mutation and the Apo-AIM isn't what we all should have had before we mutated to the less effective version?
> 
> 
> 
> well since the mutation is a benficial one and there is no proof of it being harmful your question answers it's self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance is bliss. You believe anything you read on the internet as long as it supports your Ideology.
Click to expand...

another false statement about me that is ....for you it's spot on.
you will post anything even lies to support yours... the semi neutral mutation comes to mind.  

semiOrigin of SEMI
short for semidetached
First Known Use: 1912
 meaning partially detached. 
neutralefinition of NEUTRAL
1: one that is neutral 
2: a neutral color 
3: a position of disengagement


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false example there are no semi - neutral termites .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there are semi netural mutations,which your side call neutral mutations saying they cause no effect. That is not true and I gave you the reasons why that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you were lying then and you are lying now!
Click to expand...


Same ol rhetoric Daws. Evidently it did go over your head. You don't understand the effects of mutations in the Genome, most under educated in the field of genetics don't understand this problem. You can post what ever you like and say it's a beneficial mutation because you don't understand what I posted yesterday.

All mutations are harmful because the reasons already stated. They all affect the duties of the genome. They slow the production of cells if you don't see that as a problem this stuff is clearly over your head .They don't as I explained, affect the phenotype and that is why your side makes the claim they are beneficial OR neutral,not taking into consideration the affects I stated.

Don't pretend you know what you are talking about because as far as I can see ,it's not you doing the talking. Your sources are completely ignorant of the Genome or are deliberately dishonest.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> well since the mutation is a benficial one and there is no proof of it being harmful your question answers it's self
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance is bliss. You believe anything you read on the internet as long as it supports your Ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false statement about me that is ....for you it's spot on.
> you will post anything even lies to support yours... the semi neutral mutation comes to mind.
> 
> semiOrigin of SEMI
> short for semidetached
> First Known Use: 1912
> meaning partially detached.
> neutralefinition of NEUTRAL
> 1: one that is neutral
> 2: a neutral color
> 3: a position of disengagement
Click to expand...


Daws I studied mutations for a living you have no clue except what you have been spoon fed from some biased ignorant site.

I have given you the reasons why you are posting nonsense. If you want to believe a lie have at it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> mind not blown !
> your guy is dead wrong besides being dead. so that information is not current.
> 
> example of benificial mutations in humans. Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.
> 
> All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.
> 
> There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.
> 
>  Increased bone density. One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.
> 
> This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.
> 
>  Malaria resistance. The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.
> 
> As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.
> 
>  Tetrachromatic vision. Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.
> 
> The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.
> 
> But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, shifts the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)
> 
> To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)
> 
> And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat.
> 
> Image credit: Wikimedia Commons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I posted went right over your head. All mutations mess with the function of the genome,what may seem as a benefit winds up coming at a cost somewhere else and it affects the genomes duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again not fact!Are All Human Mutations Bad?Ads by Google
> Many people consider mutations in the human genome to be a negative event as they associate mutations with cell damage, cancer and genetic diseases such as sickle cell anaemia and Huntingtons disease. However, when proper research is done, we can see that this is in fact incorrect: few human mutations are actually bad, most are completely neutral, and in fact, many are beneficial. Without mutations, we could not exist as we do and there would never have been evolution and natural selection as we know it. Mutations allow genetic diversity to exist within a population, increasing the range of alleles and keeping the human species alive.
> 
> Are All Human Mutations Bad?
> 
> 
> also the assumption that you could post anything that "would go over my head" is laughable.
Click to expand...


If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." 

But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve. you can't see the problem Daws ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there are semi netural mutations,which your side call neutral mutations saying they cause no effect. That is not true and I gave you the reasons why that is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> you were lying then and you are lying now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same ol rhetoric Daws. Evidently it did go over your head. You don't understand the effects of mutations in the Genome, most under educated in the field of genetics don't understand this problem. You can post what ever you like and say it's a beneficial mutation because you don't understand what I posted yesterday.
> 
> All mutations are harmful because the reasons already stated. They all affect the duties of the genome. They slow the production of cells if you don't see that as a problem this stuff is clearly over your head .They don't as I explained, affect the phenotype and that is why your side makes the claim they are beneficial OR neutral,not taking into consideration the affects I stated.
> 
> Don't pretend you know what you are talking about because as far as I can see ,it's not you doing the talking. Your sources are completely ignorant of the Genome or are deliberately dishonest.
Click to expand...

you are absolutely wrong and as always your judgment of others is erroneous, this post like all your others is nothing more then creationsit propaganda.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I posted went right over your head. All mutations mess with the function of the genome,what may seem as a benefit winds up coming at a cost somewhere else and it affects the genomes duties.
> 
> 
> 
> again not fact!Are All Human Mutations Bad?Ads by Google
> Many people consider mutations in the human genome to be a negative event as they associate mutations with cell damage, cancer and genetic diseases such as sickle cell anaemia and Huntington&#8217;s disease. However, when proper research is done, we can see that this is in fact incorrect: few human mutations are actually bad, most are completely neutral, and in fact, many are beneficial. Without mutations, we could not exist as we do and there would never have been evolution and natural selection as we know it. Mutations allow genetic diversity to exist within a population, increasing the range of alleles and keeping the human species alive.
> 
> Are All Human Mutations Bad?
> 
> 
> also the assumption that you could post anything that "would go over my head" is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race."
> 
> But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve. you can't see the problem Daws ?
Click to expand...

 if youmean this :it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained&#8230;

it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection&#8230;

it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5&#8230;, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.

Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy 


so what! I can post a 1000 other geneticists that disagree..
also since this statement is hypothesis and no test have been done (that I know of ) to prove it or disprove it then it has no real world value. 

this statement is also not fact:But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve.

since life is here and did indeed evolve. the problem is your willfull ignorance of those facts.
as always you have no evidence to backup your bullshit!



almost forgot, your source: http://www.uncommondescent.com/biol...nwitting-pioneer-of-genetic-entropy-theories/
is bias and not credible


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you were lying then and you are lying now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same ol rhetoric Daws. Evidently it did go over your head. You don't understand the effects of mutations in the Genome, most under educated in the field of genetics don't understand this problem. You can post what ever you like and say it's a beneficial mutation because you don't understand what I posted yesterday.
> 
> All mutations are harmful because the reasons already stated. They all affect the duties of the genome. They slow the production of cells if you don't see that as a problem this stuff is clearly over your head .They don't as I explained, affect the phenotype and that is why your side makes the claim they are beneficial OR neutral,not taking into consideration the affects I stated.
> 
> Don't pretend you know what you are talking about because as far as I can see ,it's not you doing the talking. Your sources are completely ignorant of the Genome or are deliberately dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are absolutely wrong and as always your judgment of others is erroneous, this post like all your others is nothing more then creationsit propaganda.
Click to expand...


Hello Hollie


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again not fact!Are All Human Mutations Bad?Ads by Google
> Many people consider mutations in the human genome to be a negative event as they associate mutations with cell damage, cancer and genetic diseases such as sickle cell anaemia and Huntingtons disease. However, when proper research is done, we can see that this is in fact incorrect: few human mutations are actually bad, most are completely neutral, and in fact, many are beneficial. Without mutations, we could not exist as we do and there would never have been evolution and natural selection as we know it. Mutations allow genetic diversity to exist within a population, increasing the range of alleles and keeping the human species alive.
> 
> Are All Human Mutations Bad?
> 
> 
> also the assumption that you could post anything that "would go over my head" is laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race."
> 
> But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve. you can't see the problem Daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if youmean this :it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained
> 
> it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection
> 
> it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.
> 
> Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
> Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy
> 
> 
> so what! I can post a 1000 other geneticists that disagree..
> also since this statement is hypothesis and no test have been done (that I know of ) to prove it or disprove it then it has no real world value.
> 
> this statement is also not fact:But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve.
> 
> since life is here and did indeed evolve. the problem is your willfull ignorance of those facts.
> as always you have no evidence to backup your bullshit!
> 
> 
> 
> almost forgot, your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent
> is bias and not credible
Click to expand...


Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Another video




Another article that explores the failures of the creationist ministries.

The Panda's Thumb: Search Results

The Fruitlessness of ID Research

By Jeffrey Shallit on November 30, 2009 8:37 AM


Scientists point out, quite rightly, that the religio-political charade known as intelligent design (ID) is not good science. But how do we know this?

One of the hallmarks of science is that it is fruitful. A good scientific paper will usually lead to much work along the same lines, work that confirms and extends the results, and work that produces more new ideas inspired by the paper. Although citation counts are not completely reliable metrics for evaluating scientific papers, they do give some general information about what papers are considered important.

ID advocates like to point to lists of peer-reviewed publications advocating their position. Upon closer examination, their lists are misleading, packed with publications that are either not in scientific journals, or that appeared in venues of questionable quality, or papers whose relationship to ID is tangential at best. Today, however, Id like to look at a different issue: the fruitfulness of intelligent design. Lets take a particular ID publication, one that was trumpeted by ID advocates as a breakthrough, and see how much further scientific work it inspired.

The paper I have in mind is Stephen Meyers paper The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, which was published, amid some controversy, in the relatively obscure journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004. Critics pointed out that the paper was not suited to the journal, which is usually devoted to taxonomic issues, and that the paper was riddled with mistakes and misleading claims. In response, the editors of the journal issued a disclaimer repudiating the paper.

Putting these considerations aside, what I want to do here is look at every scientific publication that has cited Meyers paper to determine whether his work can fairly said to be fruitful. I used the ISI Web of Science Database to do a cited reference search on his article. This database, which used to be called Science Citation Index, is generally acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive available. The search I did included Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Even such a search will miss some papers, of course, but it will still give a general idea of how much the scientific community has been inspired by Meyers work.

I found exactly 9 citations to Meyers paper in this database. Of these, counting generously, exactly 1 is a scientific research paper that cites Meyer approvingly.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I posted went right over your head. All mutations mess with the function of the genome,what may seem as a benefit winds up coming at a cost somewhere else and it affects the genomes duties.
> 
> 
> 
> again not fact!Are All Human Mutations Bad?Ads by Google
> Many people consider mutations in the human genome to be a negative event as they associate mutations with cell damage, cancer and genetic diseases such as sickle cell anaemia and Huntingtons disease. However, when proper research is done, we can see that this is in fact incorrect: few human mutations are actually bad, most are completely neutral, and in fact, many are beneficial. Without mutations, we could not exist as we do and there would never have been evolution and natural selection as we know it. Mutations allow genetic diversity to exist within a population, increasing the range of alleles and keeping the human species alive.
> 
> Are All Human Mutations Bad?
> 
> 
> also the assumption that you could post anything that "would go over my head" is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race."
> 
> But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve. you can't see the problem Daws ?
Click to expand...


I can't find the "quote" you are attributing to H. J. Muller. 

Please provide the *exact* location where this "quote" can be found.


----------



## Hollie

Would anyone like to break tha news to the creationist ministry that H. J. Muller was a thorough, "evilutionst" believing "Darwinist"?

_Oh the pain!_



Muller and Mutations

A special irony with the use of Muller to mount a criticism of evolutionary theory is that Muller himself considered evolution to be a fact.



When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation.

-- from "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough"
 by Hermann Muller, in School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959); taken from an extract given in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg (ed.), (ORYX Press 1983)


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race."
> 
> But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve. you can't see the problem Daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> if youmean this :it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained
> 
> it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection
> 
> it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.
> 
> Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
> Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy
> 
> 
> so what! I can post a 1000 other geneticists that disagree..
> also since this statement is hypothesis and no test have been done (that I know of ) to prove it or disprove it then it has no real world value.
> 
> this statement is also not fact:But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve.
> 
> since life is here and did indeed evolve. the problem is your willfull ignorance of those facts.
> as always you have no evidence to backup your bullshit!
> 
> 
> 
> almost forgot, your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent
> is bias and not credible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.
Click to expand...


Muller and Mutations

Muller believed that that the rare but non-zero occurrence of advantageous mutations was a necessary consequence of the effects of Darwinian selection.


If the mutations were really non-teleological, with no relation between type of environment and type of change, and above all no adaptive relation, and if they were of as numerous types as the theory of natural selection would demand, then the great majority of the changes should be harmful in their effects, just as any alterations made blindly in a complicated apparatus are usually detrimental to its proper functioning, and many of the larger changes should even be totally incompatible with the functioning of the whole, or, as we say, lethal. That is, strange as it may seem at first sight, we should expect most mutations to be disadvantageous if the theory of natural selection is correct. We should also expect these mainly disadvantageous changes to be highly diversified in their genetic basis.

-- Hermann J. Muller, Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1946
 <http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1946/muller-lecture.html>


----------



## Hollie

You go, boy!


Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race."
> 
> But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve. you can't see the problem Daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> if youmean this :it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained
> 
> it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection
> 
> it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.
> 
> Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
> Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy
> 
> 
> so what! I can post a 1000 other geneticists that disagree..
> also since this statement is hypothesis and no test have been done (that I know of ) to prove it or disprove it then it has no real world value.
> 
> this statement is also not fact:But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve.
> 
> since life is here and did indeed evolve. the problem is your willfull ignorance of those facts.
> as always you have no evidence to backup your bullshit!
> 
> 
> 
> almost forgot, your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent
> is bias and not credible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.
Click to expand...


Hey - speaking of John Sanford "quoting" Hermann Muller:


Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience - The Panda's Thumb

_Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience_

 By Nick Matzke on February 27, 2012 12:27 PM| 150 Comments




*Note: The Springer webpage for the book was taken down about 24 hours after this post; see update post.*

It looks like some creationist engineers found a way to slither some ID/creationism into a major academic publisher, Springer. The major publishers have enough problems at the moment (e.g. see the Elsevier boycott), it seems like the last thing they should be doing is frittering away their credibility even further by uncritically publishing creationist work and giving it a veneer of respectability. The mega-publishers are expensive, are making money off of largely government-funded work provided to them for free, and then the public doesnt even have access to it. The only thing they have going for them is quality control and credibility  if they give that away to cranks, there is no reason at all to support them.

(A note: even if you bought the ridiculous idea that ID isnt creationism, theyve got John Sanford, a straight-up young-earth creationist for goodness sakes, as an editor and presumably author!)

Heres the summary:



Biological Information: New Perspectives

Series: Intelligent Systems Reference Library, Vol. 38

Marks II, R.J.; Behe, M.J.; Dembski, W.A.; Gordon, B.L.; Sanford, J.C. (Eds.)

2012, 2012, XII, 549 p.

Hardcover, ISBN 978-3-642-28453-3

Due: March 31, 2012 $179.00





About this book

Presents new perspectives regarding the nature and origin of biological information 

Demonstrates how our traditional ideas about biological information are collapsing under the weight of new evidence

Written by leading experts in the field

In the spring of 2011, a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. This volume presents new research by those invited to speak at the conference.

The contributors to this volume use their wide-ranging expertise in the area of biological information to bring fresh insights into the explanatory difficulties that biological information raises. Going beyond the conventional scientific wisdom, which attempts to explain biological information reductionistically via chemical, genetic, and natural selective determinants, the work represented here develops novel non-reductionist approaches to biological information, looking notably to telic and self-organizational processes.

Several clear themes emerged from these research papers: 1) Information is indispensable to our understanding of what life is. 2) Biological information is more than the material structures that embody it. 3) Conventional chemical and evolutionary mechanisms seem insufficient to fully explain the labyrinth of information that is life. By exploring new perspectives on biological information, this volume seeks to expand, encourage, and enrich research on the nature and origin of biological information.

Content Level  Research

Keywords  Biological Information - Computational Intelligence - Genetical Information - Neo-Darwinian Theory

Related subjects  Artificial Intelligence - Computational Intelligence and Complexity - Systems Biology and Bioinformatics

Table of contents

Dynamics of Charged Particulate Systems.- Biological Information and Genetic Theory.- Theoretical Molecular Biology.- Biological Information and Self-Organizational Complexity Theory.

Speaking of Sanford  if you didnt know, he has a bizarre argument which only makes sense from a young-earth creationist perspective. The claim is basically that natural selection cant remove enough bad mutations from the human population (he forgets about recombination and soft sweeps  whoops!), and therefore the human genome has been decaying rapidly ever since Adam and Eve (with perfect genomes, I guess) started breeding.

Do you think Springer commissioned any actual population geneticists to peer-review his work and his editing? Any actual biologists at mainstream institutions anywhere? Or was it creationist engineers peer-reviewing theologians masquerading as information theoreticians? Does the volume actually address any of the detailed and technical rebuttals of the favorite ID arguments? (key references summarized here) Wouldnt this be a minimal requirement, even if a publisher like Springer decided to publish pseudoscientists on the everyone-deserves-to-be-heard-even-cranks theory, or whatever?

As for a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information, a few posts from attendees tell us what actually happened  the conference wasnt advertised, mainstream scientists with relevant expertise were not invited to attend, and participants were told several times to suppress their apparently otherwise overwhelming tendency to bring in their religion and do fundamentalist apologetics like they do in most other venues. It was basically just another fake ID conference where the ID fans get together and convince each other that they are staging a scientific revolution, all the while ignoring the actual science on how new genetic information originates.

Here is one of the diverse group of scientists who attended and reported on the event  Sid Galloway BS, M.Div., who I gather is the Director of the Good Shepherd Initiative at GSI Home Page, which is devoted to Education, Counseling, & Animal-Assisted Apologetics. Heres his summary of the meeting (or his talk?).


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't know nearly enough about proteins or amino acids to know if his premise is sound.
> 
> I also wonder if the same argument can be used to show the odds that life forms at all, whether be chance or not, at least if you assume that life either happened by chance or was created by an intelligence which used the already available materials (in other words, outside the possibility of an intelligence creating things the way they are).
> 
> I was following along well enough, ignoring the fact I couldn't determine if the whole premise makes sense, when he put up a number for total events in the universe.  How the hell is THAT number determined?
> 
> Anyway, I'd need to look at things more deeply to know if there's any validity to the video, as well as just how many chances there would have been for it to occur (I'm not sure how the ratio he talked about was determined, it seemed to be left vague).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was using simple probability arguments. If you have a combination lock with 5 digits, and each digit has 10 numbers, then the number of possibilities is 10 to the 5 power or 10 x 10 x 10 x10 x 10. This means that trying to get one specific combination, you have a 1 in 100,000 chance. He applies these simple probabilities to the argument on amino acids in a protein. How many possibilities at each link in the chain of a protein and how many links?
> 
> As far as the size of the universe goes, from Wiki:
> 
> The universe is immensely large and possibly infinite in volume. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years,[19] based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed. For comparison, the diameter of a typical galaxy is only 30,000 light-years, and the typical distance between two neighboring galaxies is only 3 million light-years.[20] As an example, our Milky Way Galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter,[21] and our nearest sister galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy, is located roughly 2.5 million light years away.[22] There are probably more than 100 billion (1011) galaxies in the observable universe.[23] Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as few as ten million[24] (107) stars up to giants with one trillion[25] (1012) stars, all orbiting the galaxy's center of mass. *A 2010 study by astronomers estimated that the observable universe contains 300 sextillion (3×10log23) stars.[26]*
> 
> Since the density and volume of the observable universe can be measured, this information can allow one to calculate the number of atoms in the observable universerse:
> 
> "The present overall density of the universe is very low, roughly 9.9 × 10&#8722;30 grams per cubic centimetre. This mass-energy appears to consist of 73% dark energy, 23% cold dark matter and 4% ordinary matter. Thus the density of atoms is on the order of a single hydrogen atom for every four cubic meters of volume.[31] The properties of dark energy and dark matter are largely unknown. Dark matter gravitates as ordinary matter, and thus works to slow the expansion of the universe; by contrast, dark energy accelerates its expansion."
> 
> The observable universe contains between 1022 and 1024 stars (between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars).[40][41][42][43] To be slightly more precise, according to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, "[by] a conservative estimate.... the currently observable universe is home to of order 6 x 1022 stars"[1] These stars are organized in more than 80 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters.[44]
> 
> Two approximate calculations give the number of atoms in the observable universe to be close to 10log80.
> 
> This is a great read, and should make you feel really small.
> 
> Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> If it doesn't, and you are someone on here that never clicks on or reads any info [you know who you are], this should be the link you explore. It is really fun and it will blow your kids minds as well too!!! It lets you travel from the hydrogen atom all the way to the observable universe and do size comparisons in between.
> 
> *Magnifying the Universe*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I wonder is if there might be influences which would change the probabilities involved.  The numbers provided seem to work if every possibility has an equal chance of occurring; I don't know if there are reasons that some are more likely than others.  Are certain amino acid connections more likely to occur than others?  Once a certain connection occurs, does it make the next level of connections more likely to happen one way or another?  Etc. etc.  The numbers in the video may be accurate from a purely mathematical standpoint, but I don't know if there are other influences, physical laws or environmental factors which could radically change the numbers.
> 
> I'll get to other links later today, probably.
> 
> Oh, and UR, I haven't clicked your links about the size of the universe, but I've seen some fun size comparisons before; I realize that the universe appears to be vast almost beyond comprehension, and that matter and energy can be broken down into components ridiculously small.  The scope of reality in both directions is mind-boggling.  I actually see that as reason not to believe we have knowledge about any god; we can barely take in the incredible scale of things, to think we know and understand a being that could create it all seems almost crazy to me.
Click to expand...


It should definitely leave you in awe of the Creator!!! It is almost too much for your mind to take in because we seem so insignificant. If it weren't for the fact that God loves each and every one of us, we would just be a vapor in the wind, here for such a short time, for absolutely no reason.

Casting Crowns: Who am I

Who am I, that the Lord of all the earth
Would care to know my name
Would care to feel my hurt.
Who am I, that the Bright and Morning Star
Would choose to light the way
For my ever wandering heart.

Not because of who I am
But because of what You've done
Not because of what I've done
But because of who You're

I am a flower quickly fading
Here today and gone tomorrow
A wave tossed in the ocean
A vapor in the wind
Still You hear me when I'm calling
Lord, You catch me when I'm falling
And You've told me who I am
I am Yours, I am Yours

Who am I, that the eyes that see my sin
Would look on me with love and watch me rise again.
Who am I, that the Voice that calmed the sea
Would call out through the rain
And calm the storm in me
not because of who I am
but because of what You done
not because of what I done
but because of who you are

I am the flower quickly fading
here today and gone tomorrow
a wave tossed in the ocean(ocean)
a vapor in the wind
still You hear me when I call You
Lord you catch me when I'm falling
and You told me who I am (I am)
I am Yours

not because of who I am
but because of what You done
not because of what I done
but because of who You are

I am the flower quickly fading
here today and gone tomorrow
a wave tossed in the ocean(ocean)
a vapor in the wind
still You hear me when I call You
Lord You catch me when I'm falling
and you told me who I am (I am)
I am yours, I am yours ,I am yours.

Whom shall I fear?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again not fact!Are All Human Mutations Bad?Ads by Google
> Many people consider mutations in the human genome to be a negative event as they associate mutations with cell damage, cancer and genetic diseases such as sickle cell anaemia and Huntington&#8217;s disease. However, when proper research is done, we can see that this is in fact incorrect: few human mutations are actually bad, most are completely neutral, and in fact, many are beneficial. Without mutations, we could not exist as we do and there would never have been evolution and natural selection as we know it. Mutations allow genetic diversity to exist within a population, increasing the range of alleles and keeping the human species alive.
> 
> Are All Human Mutations Bad?
> 
> 
> also the assumption that you could post anything that "would go over my head" is laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race."
> 
> But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve. you can't see the problem Daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't find the "quote" you are attributing to H. J. Muller.
> 
> Please provide the *exact* location where this "quote" can be found.
Click to expand...


American Journal of Human Genetics 2: 111-176. 

Our load of mutations


----------



## Youwerecreated

Why are the atheist evolutionist worried about ID proponents ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if youmean this :it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained
> 
> it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection
> 
> it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.
> 
> Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
> Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy
> 
> 
> so what! I can post a 1000 other geneticists that disagree..
> also since this statement is hypothesis and no test have been done (that I know of ) to prove it or disprove it then it has no real world value.
> 
> this statement is also not fact:But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve.
> 
> since life is here and did indeed evolve. the problem is your willfull ignorance of those facts.
> as always you have no evidence to backup your bullshit!
> 
> 
> 
> almost forgot, your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent
> is bias and not credible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey - speaking of John Sanford "quoting" Hermann Muller:
> 
> 
> Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> _Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience_
> 
> By Nick Matzke on February 27, 2012 12:27 PM| 150 Comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Note: The Springer webpage for the book was taken down about 24 hours after this post; see update post.*
> 
> It looks like some creationist engineers found a way to slither some ID/creationism into a major academic publisher, Springer. The major publishers have enough problems at the moment (e.g. see the Elsevier boycott), it seems like the last thing they should be doing is frittering away their credibility even further by uncritically publishing creationist work and giving it a veneer of respectability. The mega-publishers are expensive, are making money off of largely government-funded work provided to them for free, and then the public doesnt even have access to it. The only thing they have going for them is quality control and credibility  if they give that away to cranks, there is no reason at all to support them.
> 
> (A note: even if you bought the ridiculous idea that ID isnt creationism, theyve got John Sanford, a straight-up young-earth creationist for goodness sakes, as an editor and presumably author!)
> 
> Heres the summary:
> 
> 
> 
> Biological Information: New Perspectives
> 
> Series: Intelligent Systems Reference Library, Vol. 38
> 
> Marks II, R.J.; Behe, M.J.; Dembski, W.A.; Gordon, B.L.; Sanford, J.C. (Eds.)
> 
> 2012, 2012, XII, 549 p.
> 
> Hardcover, ISBN 978-3-642-28453-3
> 
> Due: March 31, 2012 $179.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About this book
> 
> Presents new perspectives regarding the nature and origin of biological information
> 
> Demonstrates how our traditional ideas about biological information are collapsing under the weight of new evidence
> 
> Written by leading experts in the field
> 
> In the spring of 2011, a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. This volume presents new research by those invited to speak at the conference.
> 
> The contributors to this volume use their wide-ranging expertise in the area of biological information to bring fresh insights into the explanatory difficulties that biological information raises. Going beyond the conventional scientific wisdom, which attempts to explain biological information reductionistically via chemical, genetic, and natural selective determinants, the work represented here develops novel non-reductionist approaches to biological information, looking notably to telic and self-organizational processes.
> 
> Several clear themes emerged from these research papers: 1) Information is indispensable to our understanding of what life is. 2) Biological information is more than the material structures that embody it. 3) Conventional chemical and evolutionary mechanisms seem insufficient to fully explain the labyrinth of information that is life. By exploring new perspectives on biological information, this volume seeks to expand, encourage, and enrich research on the nature and origin of biological information.
> 
> Content Level  Research
> 
> Keywords  Biological Information - Computational Intelligence - Genetical Information - Neo-Darwinian Theory
> 
> Related subjects  Artificial Intelligence - Computational Intelligence and Complexity - Systems Biology and Bioinformatics
> 
> Table of contents
> 
> Dynamics of Charged Particulate Systems.- Biological Information and Genetic Theory.- Theoretical Molecular Biology.- Biological Information and Self-Organizational Complexity Theory.
> 
> Speaking of Sanford  if you didnt know, he has a bizarre argument which only makes sense from a young-earth creationist perspective. The claim is basically that natural selection cant remove enough bad mutations from the human population (he forgets about recombination and soft sweeps  whoops!), and therefore the human genome has been decaying rapidly ever since Adam and Eve (with perfect genomes, I guess) started breeding.
> 
> Do you think Springer commissioned any actual population geneticists to peer-review his work and his editing? Any actual biologists at mainstream institutions anywhere? Or was it creationist engineers peer-reviewing theologians masquerading as information theoreticians? Does the volume actually address any of the detailed and technical rebuttals of the favorite ID arguments? (key references summarized here) Wouldnt this be a minimal requirement, even if a publisher like Springer decided to publish pseudoscientists on the everyone-deserves-to-be-heard-even-cranks theory, or whatever?
> 
> As for a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information, a few posts from attendees tell us what actually happened  the conference wasnt advertised, mainstream scientists with relevant expertise were not invited to attend, and participants were told several times to suppress their apparently otherwise overwhelming tendency to bring in their religion and do fundamentalist apologetics like they do in most other venues. It was basically just another fake ID conference where the ID fans get together and convince each other that they are staging a scientific revolution, all the while ignoring the actual science on how new genetic information originates.
> 
> Here is one of the diverse group of scientists who attended and reported on the event  Sid Galloway BS, M.Div., who I gather is the Director of the Good Shepherd Initiative at GSI Home Page, which is devoted to Education, Counseling, & Animal-Assisted Apologetics. Heres his summary of the meeting (or his talk?).
Click to expand...


Baloney.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> You go, boy!
> 
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....
> 
> So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.
> 
> - H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.



Talk origins, I already warned you about this site earlier in the thread.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Why are the atheist evolutionist worried about ID proponents ?



Because the creationist ministries have a track record of falsified claims.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the atheist evolutionist worried about ID proponents ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the creationist ministries have a track record of falsified claims.
Click to expand...


Wrong.

Listen to this debate and you will get your answer.
Streaming Media - Stephen Meyer Debates Peter Atkins


Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed | Watch Free Documentary Online

Evolutionist eat their own, any who bring up the intelligence question.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go, boy!
> 
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....
> 
> So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.
> 
> - H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk origins, I already warned you about this site earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...

You're running scared. The site very effectively categorizes and catalogs the falsified claims, falsified "quotes" and religious bigotries that saddle the creationist claims. 

That is in part what drives your attempt to sidestep addressing what was presented to you.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the atheist evolutionist worried about ID proponents ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the creationist ministries have a track record of falsified claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Listen to this debate and you will get your answer.
> Streaming Media - Stephen Meyer Debates Peter Atkins
> 
> 
> Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed | Watch Free Documentary Online
> 
> Evolutionist eat their own who even bring up the intelligence question.
Click to expand...

Not wrong at all. Anyone can read through this thread and discover for themselves the falsified "quotes" you have posted in desperate attempts to press your religious agenda.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go, boy!
> 
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....
> 
> So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.
> 
> - H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk origins, I already warned you about this site earlier in the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're running scared. The site very effectively categorizes and catalogs the falsified claims, falsified "quotes" and religious bigotries that saddle the creationist claims.
> 
> That is in part what drives your attempt to sidestep addressing what was presented to you.
Click to expand...


No, I exposed many of their lies in this very thread.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the creationist ministries have a track record of falsified claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Listen to this debate and you will get your answer.
> Streaming Media - Stephen Meyer Debates Peter Atkins
> 
> 
> Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed | Watch Free Documentary Online
> 
> Evolutionist eat their own who even bring up the intelligence question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not wrong at all. Anyone can read through this thread and discover for themselves the falsified "quotes" you have posted in desperate attempts to press your religious agenda.
Click to expand...


Really ? you have not yet


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey - speaking of John Sanford "quoting" Hermann Muller:
> 
> 
> Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> _Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience_
> 
> By Nick Matzke on February 27, 2012 12:27 PM| 150 Comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Note: The Springer webpage for the book was taken down about 24 hours after this post; see update post.*
> 
> It looks like some creationist engineers found a way to slither some ID/creationism into a major academic publisher, Springer. The major publishers have enough problems at the moment (e.g. see the Elsevier boycott), it seems like the last thing they should be doing is frittering away their credibility even further by uncritically publishing creationist work and giving it a veneer of respectability. The mega-publishers are expensive, are making money off of largely government-funded work provided to them for free, and then the public doesnt even have access to it. The only thing they have going for them is quality control and credibility  if they give that away to cranks, there is no reason at all to support them.
> 
> (A note: even if you bought the ridiculous idea that ID isnt creationism, theyve got John Sanford, a straight-up young-earth creationist for goodness sakes, as an editor and presumably author!)
> 
> Heres the summary:
> 
> 
> 
> Biological Information: New Perspectives
> 
> Series: Intelligent Systems Reference Library, Vol. 38
> 
> Marks II, R.J.; Behe, M.J.; Dembski, W.A.; Gordon, B.L.; Sanford, J.C. (Eds.)
> 
> 2012, 2012, XII, 549 p.
> 
> Hardcover, ISBN 978-3-642-28453-3
> 
> Due: March 31, 2012 $179.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About this book
> 
> Presents new perspectives regarding the nature and origin of biological information
> 
> Demonstrates how our traditional ideas about biological information are collapsing under the weight of new evidence
> 
> Written by leading experts in the field
> 
> In the spring of 2011, a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. This volume presents new research by those invited to speak at the conference.
> 
> The contributors to this volume use their wide-ranging expertise in the area of biological information to bring fresh insights into the explanatory difficulties that biological information raises. Going beyond the conventional scientific wisdom, which attempts to explain biological information reductionistically via chemical, genetic, and natural selective determinants, the work represented here develops novel non-reductionist approaches to biological information, looking notably to telic and self-organizational processes.
> 
> Several clear themes emerged from these research papers: 1) Information is indispensable to our understanding of what life is. 2) Biological information is more than the material structures that embody it. 3) Conventional chemical and evolutionary mechanisms seem insufficient to fully explain the labyrinth of information that is life. By exploring new perspectives on biological information, this volume seeks to expand, encourage, and enrich research on the nature and origin of biological information.
> 
> Content Level  Research
> 
> Keywords  Biological Information - Computational Intelligence - Genetical Information - Neo-Darwinian Theory
> 
> Related subjects  Artificial Intelligence - Computational Intelligence and Complexity - Systems Biology and Bioinformatics
> 
> Table of contents
> 
> Dynamics of Charged Particulate Systems.- Biological Information and Genetic Theory.- Theoretical Molecular Biology.- Biological Information and Self-Organizational Complexity Theory.
> 
> Speaking of Sanford  if you didnt know, he has a bizarre argument which only makes sense from a young-earth creationist perspective. The claim is basically that natural selection cant remove enough bad mutations from the human population (he forgets about recombination and soft sweeps  whoops!), and therefore the human genome has been decaying rapidly ever since Adam and Eve (with perfect genomes, I guess) started breeding.
> 
> Do you think Springer commissioned any actual population geneticists to peer-review his work and his editing? Any actual biologists at mainstream institutions anywhere? Or was it creationist engineers peer-reviewing theologians masquerading as information theoreticians? Does the volume actually address any of the detailed and technical rebuttals of the favorite ID arguments? (key references summarized here) Wouldnt this be a minimal requirement, even if a publisher like Springer decided to publish pseudoscientists on the everyone-deserves-to-be-heard-even-cranks theory, or whatever?
> 
> As for a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information, a few posts from attendees tell us what actually happened  the conference wasnt advertised, mainstream scientists with relevant expertise were not invited to attend, and participants were told several times to suppress their apparently otherwise overwhelming tendency to bring in their religion and do fundamentalist apologetics like they do in most other venues. It was basically just another fake ID conference where the ID fans get together and convince each other that they are staging a scientific revolution, all the while ignoring the actual science on how new genetic information originates.
> 
> Here is one of the diverse group of scientists who attended and reported on the event  Sid Galloway BS, M.Div., who I gather is the Director of the Good Shepherd Initiative at GSI Home Page, which is devoted to Education, Counseling, & Animal-Assisted Apologetics. Heres his summary of the meeting (or his talk?).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baloney.
Click to expand...

I've found through experience that confronting religious zealots with facts sends them into babbling, incoherent spasms.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the creationist ministries have a track record of falsified claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Listen to this debate and you will get your answer.
> Streaming Media - Stephen Meyer Debates Peter Atkins
> 
> 
> Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed | Watch Free Documentary Online
> 
> Evolutionist eat their own who even bring up the intelligence question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not wrong at all. Anyone can read through this thread and discover for themselves the falsified "quotes" you have posted in desperate attempts to press your religious agenda.
Click to expand...


So I guess since you won't listen to the debate nor see what was presented in expelled, you are just a propagandist.

You did not have enough time to watch and listen to what was presented because you posted to soon.

Maybe I should put you back on ignore.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey - speaking of John Sanford "quoting" Hermann Muller:
> 
> 
> Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> _Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience_
> 
> By Nick Matzke on February 27, 2012 12:27 PM| 150 Comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Note: The Springer webpage for the book was taken down about 24 hours after this post; see update post.*
> 
> It looks like some creationist engineers found a way to slither some ID/creationism into a major academic publisher, Springer. The major publishers have enough problems at the moment (e.g. see the Elsevier boycott), it seems like the last thing they should be doing is frittering away their credibility even further by uncritically publishing creationist work and giving it a veneer of respectability. The mega-publishers are expensive, are making money off of largely government-funded work provided to them for free, and then the public doesnt even have access to it. The only thing they have going for them is quality control and credibility  if they give that away to cranks, there is no reason at all to support them.
> 
> (A note: even if you bought the ridiculous idea that ID isnt creationism, theyve got John Sanford, a straight-up young-earth creationist for goodness sakes, as an editor and presumably author!)
> 
> Heres the summary:
> 
> 
> 
> Biological Information: New Perspectives
> 
> Series: Intelligent Systems Reference Library, Vol. 38
> 
> Marks II, R.J.; Behe, M.J.; Dembski, W.A.; Gordon, B.L.; Sanford, J.C. (Eds.)
> 
> 2012, 2012, XII, 549 p.
> 
> Hardcover, ISBN 978-3-642-28453-3
> 
> Due: March 31, 2012 $179.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About this book
> 
> Presents new perspectives regarding the nature and origin of biological information
> 
> Demonstrates how our traditional ideas about biological information are collapsing under the weight of new evidence
> 
> Written by leading experts in the field
> 
> In the spring of 2011, a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. This volume presents new research by those invited to speak at the conference.
> 
> The contributors to this volume use their wide-ranging expertise in the area of biological information to bring fresh insights into the explanatory difficulties that biological information raises. Going beyond the conventional scientific wisdom, which attempts to explain biological information reductionistically via chemical, genetic, and natural selective determinants, the work represented here develops novel non-reductionist approaches to biological information, looking notably to telic and self-organizational processes.
> 
> Several clear themes emerged from these research papers: 1) Information is indispensable to our understanding of what life is. 2) Biological information is more than the material structures that embody it. 3) Conventional chemical and evolutionary mechanisms seem insufficient to fully explain the labyrinth of information that is life. By exploring new perspectives on biological information, this volume seeks to expand, encourage, and enrich research on the nature and origin of biological information.
> 
> Content Level  Research
> 
> Keywords  Biological Information - Computational Intelligence - Genetical Information - Neo-Darwinian Theory
> 
> Related subjects  Artificial Intelligence - Computational Intelligence and Complexity - Systems Biology and Bioinformatics
> 
> Table of contents
> 
> Dynamics of Charged Particulate Systems.- Biological Information and Genetic Theory.- Theoretical Molecular Biology.- Biological Information and Self-Organizational Complexity Theory.
> 
> Speaking of Sanford  if you didnt know, he has a bizarre argument which only makes sense from a young-earth creationist perspective. The claim is basically that natural selection cant remove enough bad mutations from the human population (he forgets about recombination and soft sweeps  whoops!), and therefore the human genome has been decaying rapidly ever since Adam and Eve (with perfect genomes, I guess) started breeding.
> 
> Do you think Springer commissioned any actual population geneticists to peer-review his work and his editing? Any actual biologists at mainstream institutions anywhere? Or was it creationist engineers peer-reviewing theologians masquerading as information theoreticians? Does the volume actually address any of the detailed and technical rebuttals of the favorite ID arguments? (key references summarized here) Wouldnt this be a minimal requirement, even if a publisher like Springer decided to publish pseudoscientists on the everyone-deserves-to-be-heard-even-cranks theory, or whatever?
> 
> As for a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information, a few posts from attendees tell us what actually happened  the conference wasnt advertised, mainstream scientists with relevant expertise were not invited to attend, and participants were told several times to suppress their apparently otherwise overwhelming tendency to bring in their religion and do fundamentalist apologetics like they do in most other venues. It was basically just another fake ID conference where the ID fans get together and convince each other that they are staging a scientific revolution, all the while ignoring the actual science on how new genetic information originates.
> 
> Here is one of the diverse group of scientists who attended and reported on the event  Sid Galloway BS, M.Div., who I gather is the Director of the Good Shepherd Initiative at GSI Home Page, which is devoted to Education, Counseling, & Animal-Assisted Apologetics. Heres his summary of the meeting (or his talk?).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baloney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've found through experience that confronting religious zealots with facts sends them into babbling, incoherent spasms.
Click to expand...


The only one babbling is yourself.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I'm gonna put you back on ignore until you watch and listen and respond coherently.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk origins, I already warned you about this site earlier in the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> You're running scared. The site very effectively categorizes and catalogs the falsified claims, falsified "quotes" and religious bigotries that saddle the creationist claims.
> 
> That is in part what drives your attempt to sidestep addressing what was presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I exposed many of their lies in this very thread.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. You have promoted and furthered creationist ministry lies by emulating the tactics of cutting and pasting falsified "quotes" and promoting religion as science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> I'm gonna put you back on ignore until you watch and listen and respond coherently.



I had a strong impression that when confronted with the facts of your false claims, you would use the cowardly tactic of running for cover. 

Use this as a life lesson. If you're going to promote religion as science, your arguments will not meet the standards of proof science can meet. Also, be aware that the charlatans at the creationist ministries you worship are in as hopeless a position as you are. You were hoping that falsified "quotes" from Muller would bolster your hapless claims when in fact, Muller was a science promoting evilutionist who actually destroyed your falsified claims.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baloney.
> 
> 
> 
> I've found through experience that confronting religious zealots with facts sends them into babbling, incoherent spasms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only one babbling is yourself.
Click to expand...


And your have made no attempt to refute the data I posted that dismantled your falsified "quotes".


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Listen to this debate and you will get your answer.
> Streaming Media - Stephen Meyer Debates Peter Atkins
> 
> 
> Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed | Watch Free Documentary Online
> 
> Evolutionist eat their own who even bring up the intelligence question.
> 
> 
> 
> Not wrong at all. Anyone can read through this thread and discover for themselves the falsified "quotes" you have posted in desperate attempts to press your religious agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I guess since you won't listen to the debate nor see what was presented in expelled, you are just a propagandist.
> 
> You did not have enough time to watch and listen to what was presented because you posted to soon.
> 
> Maybe I should put you back on ignore.
Click to expand...


How desperate are your tactics? 

Your earlier falsified claims were exposed as frauds and your only tactic left is to scour the web for more silly creationist ministry infomercials.


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey - speaking of John Sanford "quoting" Hermann Muller:
> 
> 
> Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> _Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience_
> 
> By Nick Matzke on February 27, 2012 12:27 PM| 150 Comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Note: The Springer webpage for the book was taken down about 24 hours after this post; see update post.*
> 
> It looks like some creationist engineers found a way to slither some ID/creationism into a major academic publisher, Springer. The major publishers have enough problems at the moment (e.g. see the Elsevier boycott), it seems like the last thing they should be doing is frittering away their credibility even further by uncritically publishing creationist work and giving it a veneer of respectability. The mega-publishers are expensive, are making money off of largely government-funded work provided to them for free, and then the public doesn&#8217;t even have access to it. The only thing they have going for them is quality control and credibility &#8211; if they give that away to cranks, there is no reason at all to support them.
> 
> (A note: even if you bought the ridiculous idea that ID isn&#8217;t creationism, they&#8217;ve got John Sanford, a straight-up young-earth creationist for goodness sakes, as an editor and presumably author!)
> 
> Here&#8217;s the summary:
> 
> 
> 
> Biological Information: New Perspectives
> 
> Series: Intelligent Systems Reference Library, Vol. 38
> 
> Marks II, R.J.; Behe, M.J.; Dembski, W.A.; Gordon, B.L.; Sanford, J.C. (Eds.)
> 
> 2012, 2012, XII, 549 p.
> 
> Hardcover, ISBN 978-3-642-28453-3
> 
> Due: March 31, 2012 $179.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About this book
> 
> Presents new perspectives regarding the nature and origin of biological information
> 
> Demonstrates how our traditional ideas about biological information are collapsing under the weight of new evidence
> 
> Written by leading experts in the field
> 
> In the spring of 2011, a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. This volume presents new research by those invited to speak at the conference.
> 
> The contributors to this volume use their wide-ranging expertise in the area of biological information to bring fresh insights into the explanatory difficulties that biological information raises. Going beyond the conventional scientific wisdom, which attempts to explain biological information reductionistically via chemical, genetic, and natural selective determinants, the work represented here develops novel non-reductionist approaches to biological information, looking notably to telic and self-organizational processes.
> 
> Several clear themes emerged from these research papers: 1) Information is indispensable to our understanding of what life is. 2) Biological information is more than the material structures that embody it. 3) Conventional chemical and evolutionary mechanisms seem insufficient to fully explain the labyrinth of information that is life. By exploring new perspectives on biological information, this volume seeks to expand, encourage, and enrich research on the nature and origin of biological information.
> 
> Content Level &#8220; Research
> 
> Keywords &#8220; Biological Information - Computational Intelligence - Genetical Information - Neo-Darwinian Theory
> 
> Related subjects &#8220; Artificial Intelligence - Computational Intelligence and Complexity - Systems Biology and Bioinformatics
> 
> Table of contents
> 
> Dynamics of Charged Particulate Systems.- Biological Information and Genetic Theory.- Theoretical Molecular Biology.- Biological Information and Self-Organizational Complexity Theory.
> 
> Speaking of Sanford &#8211; if you didn&#8217;t know, he has a bizarre argument which only &#8220;makes sense&#8221; from a young-earth creationist perspective. The claim is basically that natural selection can&#8217;t remove enough bad mutations from the human population (he forgets about recombination and soft sweeps &#8211; whoops!), and therefore the human genome has been decaying rapidly ever since Adam and Eve (with perfect genomes, I guess) started breeding.
> 
> Do you think Springer commissioned any actual population geneticists to peer-review his work and his editing? Any actual biologists at mainstream institutions anywhere? Or was it creationist engineers peer-reviewing theologians masquerading as information theoreticians? Does the volume actually address any of the detailed and technical rebuttals of the favorite ID arguments? (key references summarized here) Wouldn&#8217;t this be a minimal requirement, even if a publisher like Springer decided to publish pseudoscientists on the everyone-deserves-to-be-heard-even-cranks theory, or whatever?
> 
> As for &#8220;a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information&#8221;, a few posts from attendees tell us what actually happened &#8211; the conference wasn&#8217;t advertised, mainstream scientists with relevant expertise were not invited to attend, and participants were told several times to suppress their apparently otherwise overwhelming tendency to bring in their religion and do fundamentalist apologetics like they do in most other venues. It was basically just another fake ID &#8220;conference&#8221; where the ID fans get together and convince each other that they are staging a scientific revolution, all the while ignoring the actual science on how new genetic &#8220;information&#8221; originates.
> 
> Here is one of the &#8220;diverse group of scientists&#8221; who attended and reported on the event &#8211; Sid Galloway BS, M.Div., who I gather is the Director of the Good Shepherd Initiative at GSI Home Page, which is devoted to &#8220;Education, Counseling, & Animal-Assisted Apologetics.&#8221; Here&#8217;s his summary of the meeting (or his talk?).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baloney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've found through experience that confronting religious zealots with facts sends them into babbling, incoherent spasms.
Click to expand...




 Update on Springer &#8220;Biological Information: New Perspectives&#8221; Volume

By Nick Matzke on February 29, 2012 11:50 AM | 43 Comments

As those who have followed the comment thread on the previous post know, the link to the webpage for the forthcoming creationist/ID &#8220;Biological Information: New Perspectives&#8221; volume on the Springer website went dead yesterday, approximately 24 hours after the PT post went up. This may mean that the volume had already been identified as problematic, and the webpage was put up due to some oversight or failure to update a database.

Surprisingly for the ID movement, which normally cries &#8220;oppression&#8221; and &#8220;freedom of speech&#8221; at the first sight of criticism, there has been virtually no reaction so far. The only creationist reaction is from Todd Wood, who is a lone wolf in the creationist movement in several ways. David Klinghoffer at the Discovery Institute (DI) did put a post up at the DI Media Complaints Division soon after my post, but it was taken down before anyone saw it, except apparently for Google blog aggregators.

Since silence is odd when we&#8217;re talking about the ID movement, this invites speculation about what is going on. I had assumed, based on the fact that the editors of the volume were primarily DI fellows or close associates (Michael Behe, William Dembski, Bruce Gordon, Robert Marks, etc.), and the language of the abstract, that this meeting and volume were primarily the brainchild of the DI. However, by looking at the talk titles and googling them, and looking at the posts of those who reported on the meeting (e.g. from YEC David Coppedge, also here), we can see that the meeting had quite a bit of influence from straight-up proud young-earth creationists. Sanford-related talks about the alleged decay of the human genome are a dominant part of the meeting, although phrased in &#8220;genetic information&#8221; infobabble-speak. And the meeting was at Cornell, where Sanford is, and he may have been the main organizer.

If all of this is true, perhaps the whole project was primarily the brainchild of specifically young-earth creationists, rather than generic creationists of ID and non-ID varieties, and by using lots of infobabble the YECs were able to draw in a number of the big ID names into collaboration. This was then further massaged down to &#8220;telic processes&#8221; for presentation to Springer.

This would match up with the quietness of the DI, who would certainly know the danger of associating explicitly with a bunch of creationists of the Answers-in-Genesis and ICR type. The collaboration of people like Behe and Dembski might have even occurred without the DI knowing about it, as the meeting setup was done pretty quietly, although that seems pretty unlikely if someone like Bruce Gordon was involved.

Furthermore, John Sanford&#8217;s &#8220;genetic entropy&#8221; argument, if taken seriously, proves too much for ID creationists and old-earth creationists, even though Sanford&#8217;s Genetic Entropy book got endorsements from the likes of Behe. If Sanford is right, then no species could persist for more than a few thousand or tens of thousands of years, without miraculous intervention. That&#8217;s fine for YECs, but it would be a huge problem for old-earth creationism or for those in the ID movement who wish to pretend that ID is fine with universal common ancestry*, just as it would be for mainstream science. The fact that Behe endorsed Sanford&#8217;s book could just be evidence that he&#8217;s not terribly good at thinking consistently, which I guess we already knew.

However, all this is speculation. It could also be that lawsuit threats are being tossed around behind the scenes by the creationists, since this is now a favored tactic when a publisher retracts or criticizes some creo-friendly piece. I would suspect, though, that Springer has had to deal with this kind of thing before. Every field, e.g. medicine, vaccines, climate science, etc., has a small group of pseudoscientific detractors that can sometimes become quite organized and can target mainstream publications.

(*Note: Although virtually all major IDists except Behe deny common ancestry and many make vociferous arguments against common ancestry that they call ID arguments, since Kitzmiller some have tried to play this down, presumably to dodge the &#8220;creationist&#8221; accusation.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Listen to this debate and you will get your answer.
> Streaming Media - Stephen Meyer Debates Peter Atkins
> 
> 
> Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed | Watch Free Documentary Online
> 
> Evolutionist eat their own who even bring up the intelligence question.
> 
> 
> 
> Not wrong at all. Anyone can read through this thread and discover for themselves the falsified "quotes" you have posted in desperate attempts to press your religious agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I guess since you won't listen to the debate nor see what was presented in expelled, you are just a propagandist.
> 
> You did not have enough time to watch and listen to what was presented because you posted to soon.
> 
> Maybe I should put you back on ignore.
Click to expand...


Please do. Because now I have to see his/her in quotes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not wrong at all. Anyone can read through this thread and discover for themselves the falsified "quotes" you have posted in desperate attempts to press your religious agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess since you won't listen to the debate nor see what was presented in expelled, you are just a propagandist.
> 
> You did not have enough time to watch and listen to what was presented because you posted to soon.
> 
> Maybe I should put you back on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do. Because now I have to see his/her in quotes.
Click to expand...


I did


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess since you won't listen to the debate nor see what was presented in expelled, you are just a propagandist.
> 
> You did not have enough time to watch and listen to what was presented because you posted to soon.
> 
> Maybe I should put you back on ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please do. Because now I have to see his/her in quotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did
Click to expand...

Gee whiz. The creationist ministry stumblebums are left befuddled and at a loss for YouTube videos.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race."
> 
> But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve. you can't see the problem Daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> if youmean this :it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained&#8230;
> 
> it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection&#8230;
> 
> it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5&#8230;, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.
> 
> Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
> Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy
> 
> 
> so what! I can post a 1000 other geneticists that disagree..
> also since this statement is hypothesis and no test have been done (that I know of ) to prove it or disprove it then it has no real world value.
> 
> this statement is also not fact:But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve.
> 
> since life is here and did indeed evolve. the problem is your willfull ignorance of those facts.
> as always you have no evidence to backup your bullshit!
> 
> 
> 
> almost forgot, your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent
> is bias and not credible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.
Click to expand...

I understand it perfectly, your problem is you wish I didn't .
you way overestimate your so called intelligence.
I will choose any words I wish to make my point.
that's another concept you are ignorant of , by choosing the words I did, I made them my own.
unlike yourself, who constantly butchers quotes or even more dishonestly, will paraphrase a quote, then claim that the actual quote agrees  with what you claim was original to you.
example:"If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." YWC. POST#4617
THE FACT IS  THAT QUOTE WAS AROUND LONG BEFORE YOU COULD READ IT.
where I come from that's called taking credit for someone else's work, AKA BULLSHITING.  OR BAIT AND SWITCH.       

"or I will terminate this conversation"ywc
Are you gonna put me on restriction too!...MOM!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was using simple probability arguments. If you have a combination lock with 5 digits, and each digit has 10 numbers, then the number of possibilities is 10 to the 5 power or 10 x 10 x 10 x10 x 10. This means that trying to get one specific combination, you have a 1 in 100,000 chance. He applies these simple probabilities to the argument on amino acids in a protein. How many possibilities at each link in the chain of a protein and how many links?
> 
> As far as the size of the universe goes, from Wiki:
> 
> The universe is immensely large and possibly infinite in volume. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years,[19] based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed. For comparison, the diameter of a typical galaxy is only 30,000 light-years, and the typical distance between two neighboring galaxies is only 3 million light-years.[20] As an example, our Milky Way Galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter,[21] and our nearest sister galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy, is located roughly 2.5 million light years away.[22] There are probably more than 100 billion (1011) galaxies in the observable universe.[23] Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as few as ten million[24] (107) stars up to giants with one trillion[25] (1012) stars, all orbiting the galaxy's center of mass. *A 2010 study by astronomers estimated that the observable universe contains 300 sextillion (3×10log23) stars.[26]*
> 
> Since the density and volume of the observable universe can be measured, this information can allow one to calculate the number of atoms in the observable universerse:
> 
> "The present overall density of the universe is very low, roughly 9.9 × 10&#8722;30 grams per cubic centimetre. This mass-energy appears to consist of 73% dark energy, 23% cold dark matter and 4% ordinary matter. Thus the density of atoms is on the order of a single hydrogen atom for every four cubic meters of volume.[31] The properties of dark energy and dark matter are largely unknown. Dark matter gravitates as ordinary matter, and thus works to slow the expansion of the universe; by contrast, dark energy accelerates its expansion."
> 
> The observable universe contains between 1022 and 1024 stars (between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars).[40][41][42][43] To be slightly more precise, according to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, "[by] a conservative estimate.... the currently observable universe is home to of order 6 x 1022 stars"[1] These stars are organized in more than 80 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters.[44]
> 
> Two approximate calculations give the number of atoms in the observable universe to be close to 10log80.
> 
> This is a great read, and should make you feel really small.
> 
> Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> If it doesn't, and you are someone on here that never clicks on or reads any info [you know who you are], this should be the link you explore. It is really fun and it will blow your kids minds as well too!!! It lets you travel from the hydrogen atom all the way to the observable universe and do size comparisons in between.
> 
> *Magnifying the Universe*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I wonder is if there might be influences which would change the probabilities involved.  The numbers provided seem to work if every possibility has an equal chance of occurring; I don't know if there are reasons that some are more likely than others.  Are certain amino acid connections more likely to occur than others?  Once a certain connection occurs, does it make the next level of connections more likely to happen one way or another?  Etc. etc.  The numbers in the video may be accurate from a purely mathematical standpoint, but I don't know if there are other influences, physical laws or environmental factors which could radically change the numbers.
> 
> I'll get to other links later today, probably.
> 
> Oh, and UR, I haven't clicked your links about the size of the universe, but I've seen some fun size comparisons before; I realize that the universe appears to be vast almost beyond comprehension, and that matter and energy can be broken down into components ridiculously small.  The scope of reality in both directions is mind-boggling.  I actually see that as reason not to believe we have knowledge about any god; we can barely take in the incredible scale of things, to think we know and understand a being that could create it all seems almost crazy to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should definitely leave you in awe of the Creator!!! It is almost too much for your mind to take in because we seem so insignificant. If it weren't for the fact that God loves each and every one of us, we would just be a vapor in the wind, here for such a short time, for absolutely no reason.
> 
> Casting Crowns: Who am I
> 
> Who am I, that the Lord of all the earth
> Would care to know my name
> Would care to feel my hurt.
> Who am I, that the Bright and Morning Star
> Would choose to light the way
> For my ever wandering heart.
> 
> Not because of who I am
> But because of what You've done
> Not because of what I've done
> But because of who You're
> 
> I am a flower quickly fading
> Here today and gone tomorrow
> A wave tossed in the ocean
> A vapor in the wind
> Still You hear me when I'm calling
> Lord, You catch me when I'm falling
> And You've told me who I am
> I am Yours, I am Yours
> 
> Who am I, that the eyes that see my sin
> Would look on me with love and watch me rise again.
> Who am I, that the Voice that calmed the sea
> Would call out through the rain
> And calm the storm in me
> not because of who I am
> but because of what You done
> not because of what I done
> but because of who you are
> 
> I am the flower quickly fading
> here today and gone tomorrow
> a wave tossed in the ocean(ocean)
> a vapor in the wind
> still You hear me when I call You
> Lord you catch me when I'm falling
> and You told me who I am (I am)
> I am Yours
> 
> not because of who I am
> but because of what You done
> not because of what I done
> but because of who You are
> 
> I am the flower quickly fading
> here today and gone tomorrow
> a wave tossed in the ocean(ocean)
> a vapor in the wind
> still You hear me when I call You
> Lord You catch me when I'm falling
> and you told me who I am (I am)
> I am yours, I am yours ,I am yours.
> 
> Whom shall I fear?
Click to expand...

WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS PROSELYTIZE LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER!


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what i said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or i will terminate this conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey - speaking of john sanford "quoting" hermann muller:
> 
> 
> springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience - the panda's thumb
> 
> _springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience_
> 
> by nick matzke on february 27, 2012 12:27 pm| 150 comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *note: The springer webpage for the book was taken down about 24 hours after this post; see update post.*
> 
> it looks like some creationist engineers found a way to slither some id/creationism into a major academic publisher, springer. The major publishers have enough problems at the moment (e.g. See the elsevier boycott), it seems like the last thing they should be doing is frittering away their credibility even further by uncritically publishing creationist work and giving it a veneer of respectability. The mega-publishers are expensive, are making money off of largely government-funded work provided to them for free, and then the public doesnt even have access to it. The only thing they have going for them is quality control and credibility  if they give that away to cranks, there is no reason at all to support them.
> 
> (a note: Even if you bought the ridiculous idea that id isnt creationism, theyve got john sanford, a straight-up young-earth creationist for goodness sakes, as an editor and presumably author!)
> 
> heres the summary:
> 
> 
> 
> Biological information: New perspectives
> 
> series: Intelligent systems reference library, vol. 38
> 
> marks ii, r.j.; behe, m.j.; dembski, w.a.; gordon, b.l.; sanford, j.c. (eds.)
> 
> 2012, 2012, xii, 549 p.
> 
> Hardcover, isbn 978-3-642-28453-3
> 
> due: March 31, 2012 $179.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> about this book
> 
> presents new perspectives regarding the nature and origin of biological information
> 
> demonstrates how our traditional ideas about biological information are collapsing under the weight of new evidence
> 
> written by leading experts in the field
> 
> in the spring of 2011, a diverse group of scientists gathered at cornell university to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. This volume presents new research by those invited to speak at the conference.
> 
> The contributors to this volume use their wide-ranging expertise in the area of biological information to bring fresh insights into the explanatory difficulties that biological information raises. Going beyond the conventional scientific wisdom, which attempts to explain biological information reductionistically via chemical, genetic, and natural selective determinants, the work represented here develops novel non-reductionist approaches to biological information, looking notably to telic and self-organizational processes.
> 
> Several clear themes emerged from these research papers: 1) information is indispensable to our understanding of what life is. 2) biological information is more than the material structures that embody it. 3) conventional chemical and evolutionary mechanisms seem insufficient to fully explain the labyrinth of information that is life. By exploring new perspectives on biological information, this volume seeks to expand, encourage, and enrich research on the nature and origin of biological information.
> 
> Content level  research
> 
> keywords  biological information - computational intelligence - genetical information - neo-darwinian theory
> 
> related subjects  artificial intelligence - computational intelligence and complexity - systems biology and bioinformatics
> 
> table of contents
> 
> dynamics of charged particulate systems.- biological information and genetic theory.- theoretical molecular biology.- biological information and self-organizational complexity theory.
> 
> Speaking of sanford  if you didnt know, he has a bizarre argument which only makes sense from a young-earth creationist perspective. The claim is basically that natural selection cant remove enough bad mutations from the human population (he forgets about recombination and soft sweeps  whoops!), and therefore the human genome has been decaying rapidly ever since adam and eve (with perfect genomes, i guess) started breeding.
> 
> Do you think springer commissioned any actual population geneticists to peer-review his work and his editing? Any actual biologists at mainstream institutions anywhere? Or was it creationist engineers peer-reviewing theologians masquerading as information theoreticians? Does the volume actually address any of the detailed and technical rebuttals of the favorite id arguments? (key references summarized here) wouldnt this be a minimal requirement, even if a publisher like springer decided to publish pseudoscientists on the everyone-deserves-to-be-heard-even-cranks theory, or whatever?
> 
> As for a diverse group of scientists gathered at cornell university to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information, a few posts from attendees tell us what actually happened  the conference wasnt advertised, mainstream scientists with relevant expertise were not invited to attend, and participants were told several times to suppress their apparently otherwise overwhelming tendency to bring in their religion and do fundamentalist apologetics like they do in most other venues. It was basically just another fake id conference where the id fans get together and convince each other that they are staging a scientific revolution, all the while ignoring the actual science on how new genetic information originates.
> 
> Here is one of the diverse group of scientists who attended and reported on the event  sid galloway bs, m.div., who i gather is the director of the good shepherd initiative at gsi home page, which is devoted to education, counseling, & animal-assisted apologetics. heres his summary of the meeting (or his talk?).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> baloney.
Click to expand...

underwhelming retort fonz....


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> talk origins, i already warned you about this site earlier in the thread. :d
> 
> 
> 
> you're running scared. The site very effectively categorizes and catalogs the falsified claims, falsified "quotes" and religious bigotries that saddle the creationist claims.
> 
> That is in part what drives your attempt to sidestep addressing what was presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, i exposed many of their lies in this very thread.
Click to expand...

denial at it's finest! 
BTW WHO'S THEIR? OR THEM ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if youmean this :it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained&#8230;
> 
> it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection&#8230;
> 
> it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5&#8230;, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.
> 
> Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
> Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy
> 
> 
> so what! I can post a 1000 other geneticists that disagree..
> also since this statement is hypothesis and no test have been done (that I know of ) to prove it or disprove it then it has no real world value.
> 
> this statement is also not fact:But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve.
> 
> since life is here and did indeed evolve. the problem is your willfull ignorance of those facts.
> as always you have no evidence to backup your bullshit!
> 
> 
> 
> almost forgot, your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent
> is bias and not credible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand it perfectly, your problem is you wish I didn't .
> you way overestimate your so called intelligence.
> I will choose any words I wish to make my point.
> that's another concept you are ignorant of , by choosing the words I did, I made them my own.
> unlike yourself, who constantly butchers quotes or even more dishonestly, will paraphrase a quote, then claim that the actual quote agrees  with what you claim was original to you.
> example:"If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." YWC. POST#4617
> THE FACT IS  THAT QUOTE WAS AROUND LONG BEFORE YOU COULD READ IT.
> where I come from that's called taking credit for someone else's work, AKA BULLSHITING.  OR BAIT AND SWITCH.
> 
> "or I will terminate this conversation"ywc
> Are you gonna put me on restriction too!...MOM!
Click to expand...


No you are actually fun  so let's go over your words.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if youmean this :it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained&#8230;
> 
> it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection&#8230;
> 
> it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5&#8230;, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.
> 
> Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
> Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy
> 
> 
> so what! I can post a 1000 other geneticists that disagree..
> also since this statement is hypothesis and no test have been done (that I know of ) to prove it or disprove it then it has no real world value.
> 
> this statement is also not fact:But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve.
> 
> since life is here and did indeed evolve. the problem is your willfull ignorance of those facts.
> as always you have no evidence to backup your bullshit!
> 
> 
> 
> almost forgot, your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent
> is bias and not credible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand it perfectly, your problem is you wish I didn't .
> you way overestimate your so called intelligence.
> I will choose any words I wish to make my point.
> that's another concept you are ignorant of , by choosing the words I did, I made them my own.
> unlike yourself, who constantly butchers quotes or even more dishonestly, will paraphrase a quote, then claim that the actual quote agrees  with what you claim was original to you.
> example:"If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." YWC. POST#4617
> THE FACT IS  THAT QUOTE WAS AROUND LONG BEFORE YOU COULD READ IT.
> where I come from that's called taking credit for someone else's work, AKA BULLSHITING.  OR BAIT AND SWITCH.
> 
> "or I will terminate this conversation"ywc
> Are you gonna put me on restriction too!...MOM!
Click to expand...


That is right,evolutionist new that if the mutation rate was to high the mutation rate would not match the evolutionist timeline for life. That is right Geneticist H.J. Muller  "evolutionist" quote was in error we know the mutation rate is much higher.

There are 100 nucleotide substitutions misspellings per person per generation and some say as high as 300. the rate of deleterious mutations are three occurring per person per generation that is if all that DNA they call Junk DNA is junk DNA,we now know it is not junk DNA.

It is clear that most or all, of the genome is functional. Therefore, most, or all mutations in the genome must be deleterious to.


Do you understand the problem this presents for evolutionist ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Daws ,I got you to admit the mutation rate is much higher for a reason.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand it perfectly, your problem is you wish I didn't .
> you way overestimate your so called intelligence.
> I will choose any words I wish to make my point.
> that's another concept you are ignorant of , by choosing the words I did, I made them my own.
> unlike yourself, who constantly butchers quotes or even more dishonestly, will paraphrase a quote, then claim that the actual quote agrees  with what you claim was original to you.
> example:"If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." YWC. POST#4617
> THE FACT IS  THAT QUOTE WAS AROUND LONG BEFORE YOU COULD READ IT.
> where I come from that's called taking credit for someone else's work, AKA BULLSHITING.  OR BAIT AND SWITCH.
> 
> "or I will terminate this conversation"ywc
> Are you gonna put me on restriction too!...MOM!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is right,evolutionist new that if the mutation rate was to high the mutation rate would not match the evolutionist timeline for life. That is right Geneticist H.J. Muller  "evolutionist" quote was in error we know the mutation rate is much higher.
> 
> There are 100 nucleotide substitutions misspellings per person per generation and some say as high as 300. the rate of deleterious mutations are three occurring per person per generation that is if all that DNA they call Junk DNA is junk DNA,we now know it is not junk DNA.
> 
> It is clear that most or all, of the genome is functional. Therefore, most, or all mutations in the genome must be deleterious to.
> 
> 
> Do you understand the problem this presents for evolutionist ?
Click to expand...


Do you understand you're not paying attention?

This was addressed by H. L. Mulller. This is just more of the nonsense furthered by your creationist ministries. copying and pasting the same nonsense doesn't make the nonsense something else.

It seems you are now "quoting" from _krisna science_ where the same cast of discredited charlatans (John Sanford) peddle their snake oil.

http://krishnascience.info/3_How_Much_Mutations.html


----------



## Youwerecreated

Where did you go Daws ? This won't hurt much unless you are an Idelogue.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand it perfectly, your problem is you wish I didn't .
> you way overestimate your so called intelligence.
> I will choose any words I wish to make my point.
> that's another concept you are ignorant of , by choosing the words I did, I made them my own.
> unlike yourself, who constantly butchers quotes or even more dishonestly, will paraphrase a quote, then claim that the actual quote agrees  with what you claim was original to you.
> example:"If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race." YWC. POST#4617
> THE FACT IS  THAT QUOTE WAS AROUND LONG BEFORE YOU COULD READ IT.
> where I come from that's called taking credit for someone else's work, AKA BULLSHITING.  OR BAIT AND SWITCH.
> 
> "or I will terminate this conversation"ywc
> Are you gonna put me on restriction too!...MOM!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is right,evolutionist new that if the mutation rate was to high the mutation rate would not match the evolutionist timeline for life. That is right Geneticist H.J. Muller  "evolutionist" quote was in error we know the mutation rate is much higher.
> 
> There are 100 nucleotide substitutions misspellings per person per generation and some say as high as 300. the rate of deleterious mutations are three occurring per person per generation that is if all that DNA they call Junk DNA is junk DNA,we now know it is not junk DNA.
> 
> It is clear that most or all, of the genome is functional. Therefore, most, or all mutations in the genome must be deleterious to.
> 
> 
> Do you understand the problem this presents for evolutionist ?
Click to expand...

see post #6186.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Daws ,I got you to admit the mutation rate is much higher for a reason.


since I did not admit anything about the mutation being higher (another lie) ..you did :That is right,evolutionist new that if the mutation rate was to high the mutation rate would not match the evolutionist timeline for life. That is right Geneticist H.J. Muller "evolutionist" quote was in error we know the mutation rate is much higher."ywc

 another lie! this:"it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained

it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection

it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.

Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy "

 is not an "evolutionist" quote it's from one of your favorite sites: your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent

grow the fuck up...
you've had your ass handed to you again. stop being such a pussy and take it with some grace.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Where did you go Daws ? This won't hurt much unless you are an Idelogue.


that's Ideologue

Definition of IDEOLOGUE
1: an impractical idealist : theorist 
2: an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology 
if that does not discribe, you nothing does.
now might be a good time to stop imitating an intellectual.


----------



## UltimateReality

YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLd_cPfysrE&feature=player_embedded]Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws ,I got you to admit the mutation rate is much higher for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> since I did not admit anything about the mutation being higher (another lie) ..you did :That is right,evolutionist new that if the mutation rate was to high the mutation rate would not match the evolutionist timeline for life. That is right Geneticist H.J. Muller "evolutionist" quote was in error we know the mutation rate is much higher."ywc
> 
> another lie! this:"it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained
> 
> it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection
> 
> it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.
> 
> Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
> Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy "
> 
> is not an "evolutionist" quote it's from one of your favorite sites: your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent
> 
> grow the fuck up...
> you've had your ass handed to you again. stop being such a pussy and take it with some grace.
Click to expand...


HJ Muller is an atheist and believed in evolution.

Someone who pretends to be well educated in the sciences and are not part of the science community would argue that the mutation rate is much lower then HJ Muller proposed of 0.5 mutations per person per generation that would destroy the human race. Well we know that is not true and the science community have accepted the high mutation rate especially after the Genome project. That junk DNA is not junk after all.

So you are making an attempt to make an old argument from your anti God sites 

The science community know that the high mutation rate is a problem for their theory of macro evolution. Now are you ready to answer why ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you go Daws ? This won't hurt much unless you are an Idelogue.
> 
> 
> 
> that's Ideologue
> 
> Definition of IDEOLOGUE
> 1: an impractical idealist : theorist
> 2: an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
> if that does not discribe, you nothing does.
> now might be a good time to stop imitating an intellectual.
Click to expand...



Waiting for you to answer the question daws. Can you imagine how many mutations each person from each generation have now that we know the junk DNA has been refuted by the genome project.

I will wait for your answer to my question before proceeding.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws ,I got you to admit the mutation rate is much higher for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> since I did not admit anything about the mutation being higher (another lie) ..you did :That is right,evolutionist new that if the mutation rate was to high the mutation rate would not match the evolutionist timeline for life. That is right Geneticist H.J. Muller "evolutionist" quote was in error we know the mutation rate is much higher."ywc
> 
> another lie! this:"it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained
> 
> it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection
> 
> it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.
> 
> Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
> Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy "
> 
> is not an "evolutionist" quote it's from one of your favorite sites: your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent
> 
> grow the fuck up...
> you've had your ass handed to you again. stop being such a pussy and take it with some grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HJ Muller is an atheist and believed in evolution.
> 
> Someone who pretends to be well educated in the sciences and are not part of the science community would argue that the mutation rate is much lower then HJ Muller proposed of 0.5 mutations per person per generation that would destroy the human race. Well we know that is not true and the science community have accepted the high mutation rate especially after the Genome project. That junk DNA is not junk after all.
> 
> So you are making an attempt to make an old argument from your anti God sites
> 
> The science community know that the high mutation rate is a problem for their theory of macro evolution. Now are you ready to answer why ?
Click to expand...

Muller obviously believed in evolution. That clearly took you by surprise when I provided several statements if his several pages back. You had falsely sought to use fabricated "quotes" attributed to Muller which quickly got you to backstepping.

Otherwise, do you have any clue just how pompous you appear when you attempt to speak on behalf of the science community?


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.
> 
> Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube



I will watch it when I get home I am out of town again and i'm usimg my phone.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.
> 
> Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube



Great video UR. I am a little guilty of accepting some things on blind faith. If I don't possess an answer for a question I should simply live it at I don't know. God has given us plenty of evidence to believe in him and that he exists.

I like how he touched on how essential things are for life whether from the universe or things in living organisms. There is no left over parts and all the parts must be present to function properly. Does not mean we can't get by because all parts are not present and funtion properly. That has been my argument many times when debating naturalism and design.

Naturalism fails explaining how these processes came into existence through chance or accidents. I agree with the Dr., that things were and are created for a purpose. That is the evidence for us to believe he exists. That is true at the end of expelled when stein and dawkins were talking,dawkins refused to let go of his view things must have evolved even though he has no explanation how it happened.

I believe as the science community uncovers more and more evidence there will still be no rational explanation for macroevolution and naturalism it's being contradicted by the current evidence.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.
> 
> Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great video UR. I am a little guilty of accepting some things on blind faith. If I don't possess an answer for a question I should simply live it at I don't know. God has given us plenty of evidence to believe in him and that he exists.
> 
> I like how he touched on how essential things are for life whether from the universe or things in living organisms. There is no left over parts and all the parts must be present to function properly. Does not mean we can't get by because all parts are not present and funtion properly. That has been my argument many times when debating naturalism and design.
> 
> Naturalism fails explaining how these processes came into existence through chance or accidents. I agree with the Dr., that things were and are created for a purpose. That is the evidence for us to believe he exists. That is true at the end of expelled when stein and dawkins were talking,dawkins refused to let go of his view things must have evolved even though he has no explanation how it happened.
> 
> I believe as the science community uncovers more and more evidence there will still be no rational explanation for macroevolution and naturalism it's being contradicted by the current evidence.
Click to expand...


I will go one step farther and say that I believe in my lifetime people will look back on Darwin's theory and wonder how so many intelligent people could have fallen for it and they will ask why it took so long to realize it was garbage.

I was sitting on the patio having my coffee this morning, looking down at my feet. They are starting to show some wear from 46 years of use. This lead me to the thought of how even though my body is made of matter, it is not "me". I think we all have this innate feeling and need to be loved, not for the matter that makes us up, not our shell, but just for who we REALLY are. We really consist of the consciousness that science has so far been unable to link to chemical reactions in the brain. I had this overwhelming feeling that even when my body is burned up, somehow *I* will still go on.

But then again, maybe that is just evolution playing a cruel joke on me, because the realization that there really is no point to all of this and someday I will cease to exist ENTIRELY would impede my will to survive.


----------



## UltimateReality

When ID theorists speak of it requiring more faith to be a Darwinist, this is what they are talking about. The belief that this intricate network of molecular machines happened by chance or accident, and continued to develop by chance or accident, into the complex factories we find, goes against any intelligent or logical thought. When I watch this, the folks claiming "it just happened" seem to be the real fools. Darwinian thought requires a "suspension of disbelief" because the logical response (especially after watching this video) to the claims randomness produced these tiny factories is a resounding "NO WAY!" Darwinists must suspend their inner disbelief in order to accept the un-scientific, crazy claims of molecular evolution. Even the evolutionist narrator sometimes seems uncomfortable when he sprinkles the Darwin Dogma into the video, like he has not yet reconciled what the actual science should be convincing him of with the materialistic cross he is committed to bear. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMPXu6GF18M&feature=player_embedded]Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> When ID theorists speak of it requiring more faith to be a Darwinist, this is what they are talking about. The belief that this intricate network of molecular machines happened by chance or accident, and continued to develop by chance or accident, into the complex factories we find, goes against any intelligent or logical thought. When I watch this, the folks claiming "it just happened" seem to be the real fools. Darwinian thought requires a "suspension of disbelief" because the logical response (especially after watching this video) to the claims randomness produced these tiny factories is a resounding "NO WAY!" Darwinists must suspend their inner disbelief in order to accept the un-scientific, crazy claims of molecular evolution. Even the evolutionist narrator sometimes seems uncomfortable when he sprinkles the Darwin Dogma into the video, like he has not yet reconciled what the actual science should be convincing him of with the materialistic cross he is committed to bear.
> 
> Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines - YouTube



I got the same impression from the speaker.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When ID theorists speak of it requiring more faith to be a Darwinist, this is what they are talking about. The belief that this intricate network of molecular machines happened by chance or accident, and continued to develop by chance or accident, into the complex factories we find, goes against any intelligent or logical thought. When I watch this, the folks claiming "it just happened" seem to be the real fools. Darwinian thought requires a "suspension of disbelief" because the logical response (especially after watching this video) to the claims randomness produced these tiny factories is a resounding "NO WAY!" Darwinists must suspend their inner disbelief in order to accept the un-scientific, crazy claims of molecular evolution. Even the evolutionist narrator sometimes seems uncomfortable when he sprinkles the Darwin Dogma into the video, like he has not yet reconciled what the actual science should be convincing him of with the materialistic cross he is committed to bear.
> 
> Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got the same impression from the speaker.
Click to expand...

is'nt that sweet!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.
> 
> Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube


so what! people give that amount to cryogenic storage...does not mean that it will bring people back from the dead...then there's the millions for elections.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.
> 
> Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> so what! people give that amount to cryogenic storage...does not mean that it will bring people back from the dead...then there's the millions for elections.
Click to expand...


Hmm,no real response as usual.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When ID theorists speak of it requiring more faith to be a Darwinist, this is what they are talking about. The belief that this intricate network of molecular machines happened by chance or accident, and continued to develop by chance or accident, into the complex factories we find, goes against any intelligent or logical thought. When I watch this, the folks claiming "it just happened" seem to be the real fools. Darwinian thought requires a "suspension of disbelief" because the logical response (especially after watching this video) to the claims randomness produced these tiny factories is a resounding "NO WAY!" Darwinists must suspend their inner disbelief in order to accept the un-scientific, crazy claims of molecular evolution. Even the evolutionist narrator sometimes seems uncomfortable when he sprinkles the Darwin Dogma into the video, like he has not yet reconciled what the actual science should be convincing him of with the materialistic cross he is committed to bear.
> 
> Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got the same impression from the speaker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is'nt that sweet!
Click to expand...


Same here.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> When ID theorists speak of it requiring more faith to be a Darwinist, this is what they are talking about. The belief that this intricate network of molecular machines happened by chance or accident, and continued to develop by chance or accident, into the complex factories we find, goes against any intelligent or logical thought. When I watch this, the folks claiming "it just happened" seem to be the real fools. Darwinian thought requires a "suspension of disbelief" because the logical response (especially after watching this video) to the claims randomness produced these tiny factories is a resounding "NO WAY!" Darwinists must suspend their inner disbelief in order to accept the un-scientific, crazy claims of molecular evolution. Even the evolutionist narrator sometimes seems uncomfortable when he sprinkles the Darwin Dogma into the video, like he has not yet reconciled what the actual science should be convincing him of with the materialistic cross he is committed to bear.
> 
> Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines - YouTube



There is no such thing as ID theory. Religious claims, even when cynically cloaked under a veil of intelligent design are nothing more than religious claim. 

It's really comical when adherents to one or more of the creationist ministries attempt to denigrate science with unfounded claims of evolutionary science being dogma. What the fundies fail to understand is that evolutionary science is supported by diverse sciences of biology, archaeology, paleontology and a historical record that is denied only by the most dogmatic of religious zealots. 

The theory that Darwin proposed has only gotten better supported since his publication of Origin of Species. As scientific methods of measurement and identification have gotten more precise and more exacting, the creation ministries have fallen further and further out of favor. The religious / creation zealots are now left having to invent falsified "quotes" and denigrating true science as their gods and supernaturalism are shoved aside by science fact.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.
> 
> Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> so what! people give that amount to cryogenic storage...does not mean that it will bring people back from the dead...then there's the millions for elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm,no real response as usual.
Click to expand...

right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
that's the un indoctrinated of course        

.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got the same impression from the speaker.
> 
> 
> 
> is'nt that sweet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same here.
Click to expand...

same here what?....


----------



## daws101

CREATION "SCIENCE"



In spite of the evidence, many people (even some scientists) believe that the evolution is barely a hypothesis, and even some persons imagine that it is only a dogmatic opinion (a dogma). This bad science has propitiated the expansion of groups that oppose to the teaching of evolution and scientific cosmogony at schools and the development of pseudosciences established on unrealistic roots, for instance, Creationism, Creation Science, Theistic Evolutionism and Intelligent Design. For example, the Theistic Evolutionism is a kind of neo-creationism, which approves evolution. These neo-creationists believe that God created the universe, which subsequently evolved by means of the natural laws created also by God. The theistic evolutionists, however, think that evolution is going on devoid of a marvelous intercession.



Cosmology and Biology (specifically, evolution) are sciences that have smashed many religious dogmas. This is why the two scientific specialties have been spotted for persistent attacks from the creationists. We cannot force to science to approve ones personal beliefs. While scientists are dedicated to study the complex mechanisms of evolution, the creationists are not validating their "creative evolution" by means of the scientific method. It is evident the ambiguity of the label "Creative Evolution" given that the evolution has gone frequently into periodic sceneries of massive extinctions, supernovas, etc.



Creationism in unable to explain the precedent existence of dinosaurs, trilobites. It cannot give details about massive extinctions, congenital deformities, mutations, pathogenesis, parasites, virus, venomous animals and plants, wild man-eaters, etc. If we had an thick mind, we would be able to insist on the belief that Greek fairies and gods have created the cosmos; a belief that, for the case, would direct us to the same structures of the philosophy of the Creation Science, theistic Evolutionism, etc.



In the same way, the intelligent design (ID) scheme suggests that the complexity of the Universe is the irrefutable evidence on favor of a special creation by an Intelligent Designer. Following their way of reasoning we can tell ID adherents that if the Universe reaches a high degree of complexity, then the Intelligent Designer would be forcibly more complex than the thing created by him (or them, as ID implies it). Consequently, the Intelligent Designer forcibly would have been created by a more complex Intelligent Designer, given that nothing complex can come to existence without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer; and so on... until the last (or the first?) Designer would be a being so complex than he could not come to mind. It would be an endless multiplication of superb beings more and more complex on every occurrence.



Concluding, the Creation Science and the Intelligent Designer thoughts are antiscientific schemes. Both proposals struggle against science and the structures of science. However, both disciplines do not make the grade because they reject the truth obtained from the natural world.

Antiscience


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what! people give that amount to cryogenic storage...does not mean that it will bring people back from the dead...then there's the millions for elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm,no real response as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
> any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
> that's the un indoctrinated of course
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That was an evolutionist,thanks for showing you don't really look at the other side and just make ignorant comments.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> CREATION "SCIENCE"
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of the evidence, many people (even some scientists) believe that the evolution is barely a hypothesis, and even some persons imagine that it is only a dogmatic opinion (a dogma). This bad science has propitiated the expansion of groups that oppose to the teaching of evolution and scientific cosmogony at schools and the development of pseudosciences established on unrealistic roots, for instance, Creationism, Creation Science, Theistic Evolutionism and Intelligent Design. For example, the Theistic Evolutionism is a kind of neo-creationism, which approves evolution. These neo-creationists believe that God created the universe, which subsequently evolved by means of the natural laws created also by God. The theistic evolutionists, however, think that evolution is going on devoid of a marvelous intercession.
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmology and Biology (specifically, evolution) are sciences that have smashed many religious dogmas. This is why the two scientific specialties have been spotted for persistent attacks from the creationists. We cannot force to science to approve ones personal beliefs. While scientists are dedicated to study the complex mechanisms of evolution, the creationists are not validating their "creative evolution" by means of the scientific method. It is evident the ambiguity of the label "Creative Evolution" given that the evolution has gone frequently into periodic sceneries of massive extinctions, supernovas, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism in unable to explain the precedent existence of dinosaurs, trilobites. It cannot give details about massive extinctions, congenital deformities, mutations, pathogenesis, parasites, virus, venomous animals and plants, wild man-eaters, etc. If we had an thick mind, we would be able to insist on the belief that Greek fairies and gods have created the cosmos; a belief that, for the case, would direct us to the same structures of the philosophy of the Creation Science, theistic Evolutionism, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> In the same way, the intelligent design (ID) scheme suggests that the complexity of the Universe is the irrefutable evidence on favor of a special creation by an Intelligent Designer. Following their way of reasoning we can tell ID adherents that if the Universe reaches a high degree of complexity, then the Intelligent Designer would be forcibly more complex than the thing created by him (or them, as ID implies it). Consequently, the Intelligent Designer forcibly would have been created by a more complex Intelligent Designer, given that nothing complex can come to existence without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer; and so on... until the last (or the first?) Designer would be a being so complex than he could not come to mind. It would be an endless multiplication of superb beings more and more complex on every occurrence.
> 
> 
> 
> Concluding, the Creation Science and the Intelligent Designer thoughts are antiscientific schemes. Both proposals struggle against science and the structures of science. However, both disciplines do not make the grade because they reject the truth obtained from the natural world.
> 
> Antiscience



More rhetoric creationists nor ID proponents are anti real science,however,very anti pesuedoscience.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> CREATION "SCIENCE"
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of the evidence, many people (even some scientists) believe that the evolution is barely a hypothesis, and even some persons imagine that it is only a dogmatic opinion (a dogma). This bad science has propitiated the expansion of groups that oppose to the teaching of evolution and scientific cosmogony at schools and the development of pseudosciences established on unrealistic roots, for instance, Creationism, Creation &#8220;Science&#8221;, Theistic &#8220;Evolutionism&#8221; and Intelligent Design. For example, the Theistic Evolutionism is a kind of neo-creationism, which approves evolution. These neo-creationists believe that God created the universe, which subsequently evolved by means of the natural laws created also by God. The theistic evolutionists, however, think that evolution is going on devoid of a marvelous intercession.
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmology and Biology (specifically, evolution) are sciences that have smashed many religious dogmas. This is why the two scientific specialties have been spotted for persistent attacks from the creationists. We cannot force to science to approve one&#8217;s personal beliefs. While scientists are dedicated to study the complex mechanisms of evolution, the creationists are not validating their "creative evolution" by means of the scientific method. It is evident the ambiguity of the label "Creative Evolution" given that the evolution has gone frequently into periodic sceneries of massive extinctions, supernovas, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism in unable to explain the precedent existence of dinosaurs, trilobites. It cannot give details about massive extinctions, congenital deformities, mutations, pathogenesis, parasites, virus, venomous animals and plants, wild man-eaters, etc. If we had an thick mind, we would be able to insist on the belief that Greek fairies and gods have created the cosmos; a belief that, for the case, would direct us to the same structures of the philosophy of the Creation Science, theistic Evolutionism, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> In the same way, the intelligent design (ID) scheme suggests that the complexity of the Universe is the irrefutable evidence on favor of a special creation by an Intelligent Designer. Following their way of reasoning we can tell ID adherents that if the Universe reaches a high degree of complexity, then the Intelligent Designer would be forcibly more complex than the thing created by him (or them, as ID implies it). Consequently, the Intelligent Designer forcibly would have been created by a more complex Intelligent Designer, given that nothing complex can come to existence without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer; and so on... until the last (or the first?) Designer would be a being so complex than he could not come to mind. It would be an endless multiplication of superb beings more and more complex on every occurrence.
> 
> 
> 
> Concluding, the Creation Science and the Intelligent Designer thoughts are antiscientific schemes. Both proposals struggle against science and the structures of science. However, both disciplines do not make the grade because they reject the truth obtained from the natural world.
> 
> Antiscience



Good article as it defines the creationist argument as entirely one of promoting the dogma of one single religious faith.



What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how frantic and bankrupt they have become.

They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward finding some claimed minor discrepancy or some alleged inconsistency in scientific findings and using that as proof of supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing. 

The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm,no real response as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
> any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
> that's the un indoctrinated of course
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was an evolutionist,thanks for showing you don't really look at the other side and just make ignorant comments.
Click to expand...

bullshit!:He has received 5 research awards at Texas A&M University and 1 national research award. He has also received two teaching awards. He is an Elected Fellow of the American Society for Materials and the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology in the world. He is President elect of the ASA and will serve his term in 2008.



the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology Walter Bradley lectures on whether there is any truth in religion « Wintery Knight


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws ,I got you to admit the mutation rate is much higher for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> since I did not admit anything about the mutation being higher (another lie) ..you did :That is right,evolutionist new that if the mutation rate was to high the mutation rate would not match the evolutionist timeline for life. That is right Geneticist H.J. Muller "evolutionist" quote was in error we know the mutation rate is much higher."ywc
> 
> another lie! this:"it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained
> 
> it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection
> 
> it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.
> 
> Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
> Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy "
> 
> is not an "evolutionist" quote it's from one of your favorite sites: your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent
> 
> grow the fuck up...
> you've had your ass handed to you again. stop being such a pussy and take it with some grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HJ Muller is an atheist and believed in evolution.
> 
> Someone who pretends to be well educated in the sciences and are not part of the science community would argue that the mutation rate is much lower then HJ Muller proposed of 0.5 mutations per person per generation that would destroy the human race. Well we know that is not true and the science community have accepted the high mutation rate especially after the Genome project. That junk DNA is not junk after all.
> 
> So you are making an attempt to make an old argument from your anti God sites
> 
> The science community know that the high mutation rate is a problem for their theory of macro evolution. Now are you ready to answer why ?
Click to expand...

really?Hermann Joseph Muller (or H. J. Muller) (December 21, 1890  April 5, 1967) was an American geneticist, educator, and Nobel laureate best known for his work on the physiological and genetic effects of radiation (X-ray mutagenesis) as well as his outspoken political beliefs.[2] Muller frequently warned of the long-term dangers of radioactive fallout from nuclear war and nuclear testing, helping to raise public awareness in this area.[3] He was also the first to describe what since has become termed "irreducible complexity",[4] which has been used as an argument in favor of "intelligent design" by creationists opposed to the theory of evolution. Muller did not find any contradictions between "irreducible complexity" and evolution, but described the phenomenon as the result of evolution.[5]


"Muller did not find any contradictions between "irreducible complexity" and evolution, but described the phenomenon as the result of evolution.[5]


Muller was born in New York City and excelled in the public schools. As an adolescent, he attended a Unitarian church and considered himself a pantheist; in high school he became an atheist. At 16 he entered Columbia College. From his first semester he was interested in biology; he became an early convert of the Mendelian-chromosome theory of heredity  and the concept of genetic mutations and natural selection as the basis for evolution. He formed a Biology Club and also became a proponent of eugenics; the connections between biology and society would be his perennial concern. Muller earned a B.A. degree in 1910.[


he was also in to eugenics....nuffsaid!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CREATION "SCIENCE"
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of the evidence, many people (even some scientists) believe that the evolution is barely a hypothesis, and even some persons imagine that it is only a dogmatic opinion (a dogma). This bad science has propitiated the expansion of groups that oppose to the teaching of evolution and scientific cosmogony at schools and the development of pseudosciences established on unrealistic roots, for instance, Creationism, Creation Science, Theistic Evolutionism and Intelligent Design. For example, the Theistic Evolutionism is a kind of neo-creationism, which approves evolution. These neo-creationists believe that God created the universe, which subsequently evolved by means of the natural laws created also by God. The theistic evolutionists, however, think that evolution is going on devoid of a marvelous intercession.
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmology and Biology (specifically, evolution) are sciences that have smashed many religious dogmas. This is why the two scientific specialties have been spotted for persistent attacks from the creationists. We cannot force to science to approve ones personal beliefs. While scientists are dedicated to study the complex mechanisms of evolution, the creationists are not validating their "creative evolution" by means of the scientific method. It is evident the ambiguity of the label "Creative Evolution" given that the evolution has gone frequently into periodic sceneries of massive extinctions, supernovas, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism in unable to explain the precedent existence of dinosaurs, trilobites. It cannot give details about massive extinctions, congenital deformities, mutations, pathogenesis, parasites, virus, venomous animals and plants, wild man-eaters, etc. If we had an thick mind, we would be able to insist on the belief that Greek fairies and gods have created the cosmos; a belief that, for the case, would direct us to the same structures of the philosophy of the Creation Science, theistic Evolutionism, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> In the same way, the intelligent design (ID) scheme suggests that the complexity of the Universe is the irrefutable evidence on favor of a special creation by an Intelligent Designer. Following their way of reasoning we can tell ID adherents that if the Universe reaches a high degree of complexity, then the Intelligent Designer would be forcibly more complex than the thing created by him (or them, as ID implies it). Consequently, the Intelligent Designer forcibly would have been created by a more complex Intelligent Designer, given that nothing complex can come to existence without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer; and so on... until the last (or the first?) Designer would be a being so complex than he could not come to mind. It would be an endless multiplication of superb beings more and more complex on every occurrence.
> 
> 
> 
> Concluding, the Creation Science and the Intelligent Designer thoughts are antiscientific schemes. Both proposals struggle against science and the structures of science. However, both disciplines do not make the grade because they reject the truth obtained from the natural world.
> 
> Antiscience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More rhetoric creationists nor ID proponents are anti real science,however,very anti pesuedoscience.
Click to expand...

since all you present is pseudoscience you are contradicting yourself.

 real science:THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD



In general terms, we should follow a systematization to obtain a valid deduction about something. This systematization is summarized in the steps of the Scientific Method.



Steps of Scientific Method



I should say that this explanation is a general description of the scientific method. The procedure does not have to follow exactly the arrangement described below.





The first step in any investigation is OBSERVATION. Observation consists of setting our attention on a portion of the Universe. Through observation we identify specific realities or events from the cosmos by means of our senses.





Once the observation is executed, the researcher elaborates one or more questions, generally ingenerated by the curiosity of the observer. These questions constitute a PROBLEM. The questions MUST MATCH with the observed phenomenon and must adhere to objectivity.



The investigator should always bear in mind that questions that begin with "why" are always very difficult - if not impossible - to answer. The objective investigator prefers to start with questions such as "what", "how", "where", or "when". The question could also be "what is it for".





Through INDUCTIVE REASONING, the observer then tries to give one or more logical answers to these questions. Each answer is a tentative introduction that can serve as a guide for the remainder of the investigation. These preliminary solutions to a question are called HYPOTHESES.



HYPOTHESIS is a tentative statement that can be submitted to experimentation to verify whether it is false or true.



After he has enunciated one or more hypotheses or proposed explanations, the researcher can then elaborate one or more PREDICTIONS, which must be consistent with the observations and hypotheses. To do this, the researcher uses DEDUCTIVE REASONING.





Each hypothesis should be submitted to an exhaustive test called EXPERIMENTATION. The results of experimentation will determine the final character (false or true) of the hypothesis.



Experimentation can be performed in diverse ways, but controlled experimentation is a characteristic of the scientific method, to the extent that other simpler systems are not viable for the purpose of science.



In controlled experimentation we need two groups to test: one group is called the control group or witness group, and the other group is called the experimental group.



Both the control group and the experimental group are submitted to the same conditions, excluding the variable that has been chosen for the study. The control group is not submitted to the change, while the experimental group is.



The results are observed and the differences between both groups are registered.



If the investigator notes a difference between both groups, then an answer can be deduced.



As the investigation advances, false hypotheses are rejected one by one, until only plausible verifications remain of the hypotheses initially presented.







When a hypothesis is proven true, scientists then process a final statement, which, in science, is called a THEORY.



A theory is a partially or totally true statement, proven by means of experimentation or natural and observable evidences, for one time and one place only.





If a theory is verified as true for all times and places, it would then be considered a LAW.



A theory is subject to changes, a law is immutable and permanent. A law is comprobable at any time and place in the Cosmos. However, a theory is truth only for a certain place and a given time.





We should make it clear that in the sciences there are important differences of meaning between the terms: hypothesis, theorem, theory and law.



A scientific HYPOTHESIS is a provisional solution for a question generated through the observation of an event. The hypothesis can be false or true, so each hypothesis must be tested by experimentation. For example, all reports on the origin of AIDS are hypotheses.



A scientific THEOREM is an idea or a proposition which is considered demonstrably true. In mathematics, a theorem is a proposition that has already been proven or can be confirmed by means of unequivocal assumptions. For example, the theory of the Inflationary Universe, which, when released for the first time, was presented as a mathematical model. Now that modern observations of real phenomena in the Universe have confirmed the model, the theorem has been developed into a theory.



A scientific THEORY is a statement that must contain a setting of real evidence. A theory is correct only if it has been able to withstand rigorous testing, and it will only be true if it is in concordance with facts. A theory can be reworked as new evidence is accumulated, but the background truth of a theory can never be altered. Scientific theories are true only for a given time and place. They may not be true in other parts of the Universe. Evolution is a good example of a scientific theory.



A scientific LAW is a statement that is true and valid for all times and all places in the known Universe. A law is true and valid everywhere, for all times. For example, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Laws of Gravity and the Axiom of Biogenesis are good examples of scientific laws. The Axiom of Biogenesis is one of three Biological Laws. The other two are the Intransference of Life and the Irreversibility of Life.



I have noticed a semantic problem in many non-scientific dissertations that taken together point to a generalized mistreatment of the term "theory". The confusion is perhaps attributable to the popular idea that the term "theory" applies to all non-verified perceptions, be they scientific or not.



But in science, there are considerable differences of meaning between the terms hypothesis, theorem and theory. For the scientific community, a theory is a true statement applicable for one time and one place because it is based on evidence and it has been confirmed by testing. For example, the Cell theory, which says that all living beings are constituted from cells.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
> any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
> that's the un indoctrinated of course
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was an evolutionist,thanks for showing you don't really look at the other side and just make ignorant comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit!:He has received 5 research awards at Texas A&M University and 1 national research award. He has also received two teaching awards. He is an Elected Fellow of the American Society for Materials and the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology in the world. He is President elect of the ASA and will serve his term in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology Walter Bradley lectures on whether there is any truth in religion « Wintery Knight
Click to expand...


I guess you can't read,Drew Berry is an evolutionist,in the video at about 9:53 into the video he makes it clear.

The video we were talking about was Drew Berry astonishing molecular machines. He is showing you evidence that had to be designed but he won't admit to it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CREATION "SCIENCE"
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of the evidence, many people (even some scientists) believe that the evolution is barely a hypothesis, and even some persons imagine that it is only a dogmatic opinion (a dogma). This bad science has propitiated the expansion of groups that oppose to the teaching of evolution and scientific cosmogony at schools and the development of pseudosciences established on unrealistic roots, for instance, Creationism, Creation Science, Theistic Evolutionism and Intelligent Design. For example, the Theistic Evolutionism is a kind of neo-creationism, which approves evolution. These neo-creationists believe that God created the universe, which subsequently evolved by means of the natural laws created also by God. The theistic evolutionists, however, think that evolution is going on devoid of a marvelous intercession.
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmology and Biology (specifically, evolution) are sciences that have smashed many religious dogmas. This is why the two scientific specialties have been spotted for persistent attacks from the creationists. We cannot force to science to approve ones personal beliefs. While scientists are dedicated to study the complex mechanisms of evolution, the creationists are not validating their "creative evolution" by means of the scientific method. It is evident the ambiguity of the label "Creative Evolution" given that the evolution has gone frequently into periodic sceneries of massive extinctions, supernovas, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism in unable to explain the precedent existence of dinosaurs, trilobites. It cannot give details about massive extinctions, congenital deformities, mutations, pathogenesis, parasites, virus, venomous animals and plants, wild man-eaters, etc. If we had an thick mind, we would be able to insist on the belief that Greek fairies and gods have created the cosmos; a belief that, for the case, would direct us to the same structures of the philosophy of the Creation Science, theistic Evolutionism, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> In the same way, the intelligent design (ID) scheme suggests that the complexity of the Universe is the irrefutable evidence on favor of a special creation by an Intelligent Designer. Following their way of reasoning we can tell ID adherents that if the Universe reaches a high degree of complexity, then the Intelligent Designer would be forcibly more complex than the thing created by him (or them, as ID implies it). Consequently, the Intelligent Designer forcibly would have been created by a more complex Intelligent Designer, given that nothing complex can come to existence without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer; and so on... until the last (or the first?) Designer would be a being so complex than he could not come to mind. It would be an endless multiplication of superb beings more and more complex on every occurrence.
> 
> 
> 
> Concluding, the Creation Science and the Intelligent Designer thoughts are antiscientific schemes. Both proposals struggle against science and the structures of science. However, both disciplines do not make the grade because they reject the truth obtained from the natural world.
> 
> Antiscience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More rhetoric creationists nor ID proponents are anti real science,however,very anti pesuedoscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since all you present is pseudoscience you are contradicting yourself.
> 
> real science:THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
> 
> 
> 
> In general terms, we should follow a systematization to obtain a valid deduction about something. This systematization is summarized in the steps of the Scientific Method.
> 
> 
> 
> Steps of Scientific Method
> 
> 
> 
> I should say that this explanation is a general description of the scientific method. The procedure does not have to follow exactly the arrangement described below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first step in any investigation is OBSERVATION. Observation consists of setting our attention on a portion of the Universe. Through observation we identify specific realities or events from the cosmos by means of our senses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once the observation is executed, the researcher elaborates one or more questions, generally ingenerated by the curiosity of the observer. These questions constitute a PROBLEM. The questions MUST MATCH with the observed phenomenon and must adhere to objectivity.
> 
> 
> 
> The investigator should always bear in mind that questions that begin with "why" are always very difficult - if not impossible - to answer. The objective investigator prefers to start with questions such as "what", "how", "where", or "when". The question could also be "what is it for".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Through INDUCTIVE REASONING, the observer then tries to give one or more logical answers to these questions. Each answer is a tentative introduction that can serve as a guide for the remainder of the investigation. These preliminary solutions to a question are called HYPOTHESES.
> 
> 
> 
> HYPOTHESIS is a tentative statement that can be submitted to experimentation to verify whether it is false or true.
> 
> 
> 
> After he has enunciated one or more hypotheses or proposed explanations, the researcher can then elaborate one or more PREDICTIONS, which must be consistent with the observations and hypotheses. To do this, the researcher uses DEDUCTIVE REASONING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each hypothesis should be submitted to an exhaustive test called EXPERIMENTATION. The results of experimentation will determine the final character (false or true) of the hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> Experimentation can be performed in diverse ways, but controlled experimentation is a characteristic of the scientific method, to the extent that other simpler systems are not viable for the purpose of science.
> 
> 
> 
> In controlled experimentation we need two groups to test: one group is called the control group or witness group, and the other group is called the experimental group.
> 
> 
> 
> Both the control group and the experimental group are submitted to the same conditions, excluding the variable that has been chosen for the study. The control group is not submitted to the change, while the experimental group is.
> 
> 
> 
> The results are observed and the differences between both groups are registered.
> 
> 
> 
> If the investigator notes a difference between both groups, then an answer can be deduced.
> 
> 
> 
> As the investigation advances, false hypotheses are rejected one by one, until only plausible verifications remain of the hypotheses initially presented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a hypothesis is proven true, scientists then process a final statement, which, in science, is called a THEORY.
> 
> 
> 
> A theory is a partially or totally true statement, proven by means of experimentation or natural and observable evidences, for one time and one place only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a theory is verified as true for all times and places, it would then be considered a LAW.
> 
> 
> 
> A theory is subject to changes, a law is immutable and permanent. A law is comprobable at any time and place in the Cosmos. However, a theory is truth only for a certain place and a given time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should make it clear that in the sciences there are important differences of meaning between the terms: hypothesis, theorem, theory and law.
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific HYPOTHESIS is a provisional solution for a question generated through the observation of an event. The hypothesis can be false or true, so each hypothesis must be tested by experimentation. For example, all reports on the origin of AIDS are hypotheses.
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific THEOREM is an idea or a proposition which is considered demonstrably true. In mathematics, a theorem is a proposition that has already been proven or can be confirmed by means of unequivocal assumptions. For example, the theory of the Inflationary Universe, which, when released for the first time, was presented as a mathematical model. Now that modern observations of real phenomena in the Universe have confirmed the model, the theorem has been developed into a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific THEORY is a statement that must contain a setting of real evidence. A theory is correct only if it has been able to withstand rigorous testing, and it will only be true if it is in concordance with facts. A theory can be reworked as new evidence is accumulated, but the background truth of a theory can never be altered. Scientific theories are true only for a given time and place. They may not be true in other parts of the Universe. Evolution is a good example of a scientific theory.
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific LAW is a statement that is true and valid for all times and all places in the known Universe. A law is true and valid everywhere, for all times. For example, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Laws of Gravity and the Axiom of Biogenesis are good examples of scientific laws. The Axiom of Biogenesis is one of three Biological Laws. The other two are the Intransference of Life and the Irreversibility of Life.
> 
> 
> 
> I have noticed a semantic problem in many non-scientific dissertations that taken together point to a generalized mistreatment of the term "theory". The confusion is perhaps attributable to the popular idea that the term "theory" applies to all non-verified perceptions, be they scientific or not.
> 
> 
> 
> But in science, there are considerable differences of meaning between the terms hypothesis, theorem and theory. For the scientific community, a theory is a true statement applicable for one time and one place because it is based on evidence and it has been confirmed by testing. For example, the Cell theory, which says that all living beings are constituted from cells.
Click to expand...


What pesuedoscience have I presented ? I have pointed out alot of pesuedoscience that your theory teaches.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was an evolutionist,thanks for showing you don't really look at the other side and just make ignorant comments.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!:He has received 5 research awards at Texas A&M University and 1 national research award. He has also received two teaching awards. He is an Elected Fellow of the American Society for Materials and the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology in the world. He is President elect of the ASA and will serve his term in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology Walter Bradley lectures on whether there is any truth in religion « Wintery Knight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you can't read,Drew Berry is an evolutionist,in the video at about 9:53 into the video he makes it clear.
> 
> The video we were talking about was Drew Berry astonishing molecular machines. He is showing you evidence that had to be designed.
Click to expand...


There was no such thing. What's astonishing about the video is how amateurish and contrived the creation ministeries have become.

Why do you suppose it is that the creationist fundies are reduced to offering goofy yutube vibdeos for the gullible as opposed to having their work publised in peer reviewed science publications?

Exactly right! The creation ministeries appeal to the gullible.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> CREATION "SCIENCE"
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of the evidence, many people (even some scientists) believe that the evolution is barely a hypothesis, and even some persons imagine that it is only a dogmatic opinion (a dogma). This bad science has propitiated the expansion of groups that oppose to the teaching of evolution and scientific cosmogony at schools and the development of pseudosciences established on unrealistic roots, for instance, Creationism, Creation &#8220;Science&#8221;, Theistic &#8220;Evolutionism&#8221; and Intelligent Design. For example, the Theistic Evolutionism is a kind of neo-creationism, which approves evolution. These neo-creationists believe that God created the universe, which subsequently evolved by means of the natural laws created also by God. The theistic evolutionists, however, think that evolution is going on devoid of a marvelous intercession.
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmology and Biology (specifically, evolution) are sciences that have smashed many religious dogmas. This is why the two scientific specialties have been spotted for persistent attacks from the creationists. We cannot force to science to approve one&#8217;s personal beliefs. While scientists are dedicated to study the complex mechanisms of evolution, the creationists are not validating their "creative evolution" by means of the scientific method. It is evident the ambiguity of the label "Creative Evolution" given that the evolution has gone frequently into periodic sceneries of massive extinctions, supernovas, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism in unable to explain the precedent existence of dinosaurs, trilobites. It cannot give details about massive extinctions, congenital deformities, mutations, pathogenesis, parasites, virus, venomous animals and plants, wild man-eaters, etc. If we had an thick mind, we would be able to insist on the belief that Greek fairies and gods have created the cosmos; a belief that, for the case, would direct us to the same structures of the philosophy of the Creation Science, theistic Evolutionism, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> In the same way, the intelligent design (ID) scheme suggests that the complexity of the Universe is the irrefutable evidence on favor of a special creation by an Intelligent Designer. Following their way of reasoning we can tell ID adherents that if the Universe reaches a high degree of complexity, then the Intelligent Designer would be forcibly more complex than the thing created by him (or them, as ID implies it). Consequently, the Intelligent Designer forcibly would have been created by a more complex Intelligent Designer, given that nothing complex can come to existence without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer; and so on... until the last (or the first?) Designer would be a being so complex than he could not come to mind. It would be an endless multiplication of superb beings more and more complex on every occurrence.
> 
> 
> 
> Concluding, the Creation Science and the Intelligent Designer thoughts are antiscientific schemes. Both proposals struggle against science and the structures of science. However, both disciplines do not make the grade because they reject the truth obtained from the natural world.
> 
> Antiscience



Speaking of indoctrinated!!! There is very little science involved in the TOE. I'm not talking about the genetics level stuff but Darwin's stupid theory that is totally baseless in science. There are no tested hypothesis. There is no agreed upon definition of fitness. There is no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record (hundreds of thousands of fossils and counting, a few so so examples at best of transitional fossils). Yet, the quacks call it science and you, Daws, fall for it. Not only that, but you fall for passages like you posted above, basically saying nothing but that some people question the science but we know the TOE is true because it is. Are you really falling for this stuff? The biggest joke is that one of their ICON's is the finch beak story. No proof whatsoever for that story or the conjecture about Giraffe necks but it they call it an Icon??? This makes me like at the mass ignorance that would fall for such fairy tales passed off as science.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm,no real response as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
> any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
> that's the un indoctrinated of course
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was an evolutionist,thanks for showing you don't really look at the other side and just make ignorant comments.
Click to expand...


Ha!! Daws caught again. This was a presentation at TED. If you would have watched it, you would have heard the speaker, a materialist disciple, waver in his Darwinist religion as he espoused the miraculous things going on in the cell.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
> any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
> that's the un indoctrinated of course
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was an evolutionist,thanks for showing you don't really look at the other side and just make ignorant comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit!:He has received 5 research awards at Texas A&M University and 1 national research award. He has also received two teaching awards. He is an Elected Fellow of the American Society for Materials and the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology in the world. He is President elect of the ASA and will serve his term in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology Walter Bradley lectures on whether there is any truth in religion « Wintery Knight
Click to expand...


We are talking about two different videos. The context of your statement seemed to be referring to the cell movie.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CREATION "SCIENCE"
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of the evidence, many people (even some scientists) believe that the evolution is barely a hypothesis, and even some persons imagine that it is only a dogmatic opinion (a dogma). This bad science has propitiated the expansion of groups that oppose to the teaching of evolution and scientific cosmogony at schools and the development of pseudosciences established on unrealistic roots, for instance, Creationism, Creation Science, Theistic Evolutionism and Intelligent Design. For example, the Theistic Evolutionism is a kind of neo-creationism, which approves evolution. These neo-creationists believe that God created the universe, which subsequently evolved by means of the natural laws created also by God. The theistic evolutionists, however, think that evolution is going on devoid of a marvelous intercession.
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmology and Biology (specifically, evolution) are sciences that have smashed many religious dogmas. This is why the two scientific specialties have been spotted for persistent attacks from the creationists. We cannot force to science to approve ones personal beliefs. While scientists are dedicated to study the complex mechanisms of evolution, the creationists are not validating their "creative evolution" by means of the scientific method. It is evident the ambiguity of the label "Creative Evolution" given that the evolution has gone frequently into periodic sceneries of massive extinctions, supernovas, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism in unable to explain the precedent existence of dinosaurs, trilobites. It cannot give details about massive extinctions, congenital deformities, mutations, pathogenesis, parasites, virus, venomous animals and plants, wild man-eaters, etc. If we had an thick mind, we would be able to insist on the belief that Greek fairies and gods have created the cosmos; a belief that, for the case, would direct us to the same structures of the philosophy of the Creation Science, theistic Evolutionism, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> In the same way, the intelligent design (ID) scheme suggests that the complexity of the Universe is the irrefutable evidence on favor of a special creation by an Intelligent Designer. Following their way of reasoning we can tell ID adherents that if the Universe reaches a high degree of complexity, then the Intelligent Designer would be forcibly more complex than the thing created by him (or them, as ID implies it). Consequently, the Intelligent Designer forcibly would have been created by a more complex Intelligent Designer, given that nothing complex can come to existence without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer; and so on... until the last (or the first?) Designer would be a being so complex than he could not come to mind. It would be an endless multiplication of superb beings more and more complex on every occurrence.
> 
> 
> 
> Concluding, the Creation Science and the Intelligent Designer thoughts are antiscientific schemes. Both proposals struggle against science and the structures of science. However, both disciplines do not make the grade because they reject the truth obtained from the natural world.
> 
> Antiscience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More rhetoric creationists nor ID proponents are anti real science,however,very anti pesuedoscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since all you present is pseudoscience you are contradicting yourself.
> 
> real science:THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
> 
> 
> 
> In general terms, we should follow a systematization to obtain a valid deduction about something. This systematization is summarized in the steps of the Scientific Method.
> 
> 
> 
> Steps of Scientific Method
> 
> 
> 
> I should say that this explanation is a general description of the scientific method. The procedure does not have to follow exactly the arrangement described below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first step in any investigation is OBSERVATION. Observation consists of setting our attention on a portion of the Universe. Through observation we identify specific realities or events from the cosmos by means of our senses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once the observation is executed, the researcher elaborates one or more questions, generally ingenerated by the curiosity of the observer. These questions constitute a PROBLEM. The questions MUST MATCH with the observed phenomenon and must adhere to objectivity.
> 
> 
> 
> The investigator should always bear in mind that questions that begin with "why" are always very difficult - if not impossible - to answer. The objective investigator prefers to start with questions such as "what", "how", "where", or "when". The question could also be "what is it for".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Through INDUCTIVE REASONING, the observer then tries to give one or more logical answers to these questions. Each answer is a tentative introduction that can serve as a guide for the remainder of the investigation. These preliminary solutions to a question are called HYPOTHESES.
> 
> 
> 
> HYPOTHESIS is a tentative statement that can be submitted to experimentation to verify whether it is false or true.
> 
> 
> 
> After he has enunciated one or more hypotheses or proposed explanations, the researcher can then elaborate one or more PREDICTIONS, which must be consistent with the observations and hypotheses. To do this, the researcher uses DEDUCTIVE REASONING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each hypothesis should be submitted to an exhaustive test called EXPERIMENTATION. The results of experimentation will determine the final character (false or true) of the hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> Experimentation can be performed in diverse ways, but controlled experimentation is a characteristic of the scientific method, to the extent that other simpler systems are not viable for the purpose of science.
> 
> 
> 
> In controlled experimentation we need two groups to test: one group is called the control group or witness group, and the other group is called the experimental group.
> 
> 
> 
> Both the control group and the experimental group are submitted to the same conditions, excluding the variable that has been chosen for the study. The control group is not submitted to the change, while the experimental group is.
> 
> 
> 
> The results are observed and the differences between both groups are registered.
> 
> 
> 
> If the investigator notes a difference between both groups, then an answer can be deduced.
> 
> 
> 
> As the investigation advances, false hypotheses are rejected one by one, until only plausible verifications remain of the hypotheses initially presented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a hypothesis is proven true, scientists then process a final statement, which, in science, is called a THEORY.
> 
> 
> 
> A theory is a partially or totally true statement, proven by means of experimentation or natural and observable evidences, for one time and one place only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a theory is verified as true for all times and places, it would then be considered a LAW.
> 
> 
> 
> A theory is subject to changes, a law is immutable and permanent. A law is comprobable at any time and place in the Cosmos. However, a theory is truth only for a certain place and a given time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should make it clear that in the sciences there are important differences of meaning between the terms: hypothesis, theorem, theory and law.
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific HYPOTHESIS is a provisional solution for a question generated through the observation of an event. The hypothesis can be false or true, so each hypothesis must be tested by experimentation. For example, all reports on the origin of AIDS are hypotheses.
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific THEOREM is an idea or a proposition which is considered demonstrably true. In mathematics, a theorem is a proposition that has already been proven or can be confirmed by means of unequivocal assumptions. For example, the theory of the Inflationary Universe, which, when released for the first time, was presented as a mathematical model. Now that modern observations of real phenomena in the Universe have confirmed the model, the theorem has been developed into a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific THEORY is a statement that must contain a setting of real evidence. A theory is correct only if it has been able to withstand rigorous testing, and it will only be true if it is in concordance with facts. A theory can be reworked as new evidence is accumulated, but the background truth of a theory can never be altered. Scientific theories are true only for a given time and place. They may not be true in other parts of the Universe. Evolution is a good example of a scientific theory.
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific LAW is a statement that is true and valid for all times and all places in the known Universe. A law is true and valid everywhere, for all times. For example, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Laws of Gravity and the Axiom of Biogenesis are good examples of scientific laws. The Axiom of Biogenesis is one of three Biological Laws. The other two are the Intransference of Life and the Irreversibility of Life.
> 
> 
> 
> I have noticed a semantic problem in many non-scientific dissertations that taken together point to a generalized mistreatment of the term "theory". The confusion is perhaps attributable to the popular idea that the term "theory" applies to all non-verified perceptions, be they scientific or not.
> 
> 
> 
> But in science, there are considerable differences of meaning between the terms hypothesis, theorem and theory. For the scientific community, a theory is a true statement applicable for one time and one place because it is based on evidence and it has been confirmed by testing. For example, the Cell theory, which says that all living beings are constituted from cells.
Click to expand...


Show me the population studies, beak measurement data, and observation of food or water gathering habits that support the scientific method to claim the Galapagos finch as an ICON of EVOLUTION. Not the religious dogma that it really is.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was an evolutionist,thanks for showing you don't really look at the other side and just make ignorant comments.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!:He has received 5 research awards at Texas A&M University and 1 national research award. He has also received two teaching awards. He is an Elected Fellow of the American Society for Materials and the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology in the world. He is President elect of the ASA and will serve his term in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology Walter Bradley lectures on whether there is any truth in religion « Wintery Knight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you can't read,Drew Berry is an evolutionist,in the video at about 9:53 into the video he makes it clear.
> 
> The video we were talking about was Drew Berry astonishing molecular machines. He is showing you evidence that had to be designed but he won't admit to it.
Click to expand...

haven'nt watched that one yet...
but I think your reading in to it ....
as in there's nothing to admit. more likely it's your fevered obsession trying to force square pegs into round holes.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> More rhetoric creationists nor ID proponents are anti real science,however,very anti pesuedoscience.
> 
> 
> 
> since all you present is pseudoscience you are contradicting yourself.
> 
> real science:THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
> 
> 
> 
> In general terms, we should follow a systematization to obtain a valid deduction about something. This systematization is summarized in the steps of the Scientific Method.
> 
> 
> 
> Steps of Scientific Method
> 
> 
> 
> I should say that this explanation is a general description of the scientific method. The procedure does not have to follow exactly the arrangement described below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first step in any investigation is OBSERVATION. Observation consists of setting our attention on a portion of the Universe. Through observation we identify specific realities or events from the cosmos by means of our senses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once the observation is executed, the researcher elaborates one or more questions, generally ingenerated by the curiosity of the observer. These questions constitute a PROBLEM. The questions MUST MATCH with the observed phenomenon and must adhere to objectivity.
> 
> 
> 
> The investigator should always bear in mind that questions that begin with "why" are always very difficult - if not impossible - to answer. The objective investigator prefers to start with questions such as "what", "how", "where", or "when". The question could also be "what is it for".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Through INDUCTIVE REASONING, the observer then tries to give one or more logical answers to these questions. Each answer is a tentative introduction that can serve as a guide for the remainder of the investigation. These preliminary solutions to a question are called HYPOTHESES.
> 
> 
> 
> HYPOTHESIS is a tentative statement that can be submitted to experimentation to verify whether it is false or true.
> 
> 
> 
> After he has enunciated one or more hypotheses or proposed explanations, the researcher can then elaborate one or more PREDICTIONS, which must be consistent with the observations and hypotheses. To do this, the researcher uses DEDUCTIVE REASONING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each hypothesis should be submitted to an exhaustive test called EXPERIMENTATION. The results of experimentation will determine the final character (false or true) of the hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> Experimentation can be performed in diverse ways, but controlled experimentation is a characteristic of the scientific method, to the extent that other simpler systems are not viable for the purpose of science.
> 
> 
> 
> In controlled experimentation we need two groups to test: one group is called the control group or witness group, and the other group is called the experimental group.
> 
> 
> 
> Both the control group and the experimental group are submitted to the same conditions, excluding the variable that has been chosen for the study. The control group is not submitted to the change, while the experimental group is.
> 
> 
> 
> The results are observed and the differences between both groups are registered.
> 
> 
> 
> If the investigator notes a difference between both groups, then an answer can be deduced.
> 
> 
> 
> As the investigation advances, false hypotheses are rejected one by one, until only plausible verifications remain of the hypotheses initially presented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a hypothesis is proven true, scientists then process a final statement, which, in science, is called a THEORY.
> 
> 
> 
> A theory is a partially or totally true statement, proven by means of experimentation or natural and observable evidences, for one time and one place only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a theory is verified as true for all times and places, it would then be considered a LAW.
> 
> 
> 
> A theory is subject to changes, a law is immutable and permanent. A law is comprobable at any time and place in the Cosmos. However, a theory is truth only for a certain place and a given time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should make it clear that in the sciences there are important differences of meaning between the terms: hypothesis, theorem, theory and law.
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific HYPOTHESIS is a provisional solution for a question generated through the observation of an event. The hypothesis can be false or true, so each hypothesis must be tested by experimentation. For example, all reports on the origin of AIDS are hypotheses.
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific THEOREM is an idea or a proposition which is considered demonstrably true. In mathematics, a theorem is a proposition that has already been proven or can be confirmed by means of unequivocal assumptions. For example, the theory of the Inflationary Universe, which, when released for the first time, was presented as a mathematical model. Now that modern observations of real phenomena in the Universe have confirmed the model, the theorem has been developed into a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific THEORY is a statement that must contain a setting of real evidence. A theory is correct only if it has been able to withstand rigorous testing, and it will only be true if it is in concordance with facts. A theory can be reworked as new evidence is accumulated, but the background truth of a theory can never be altered. Scientific theories are true only for a given time and place. They may not be true in other parts of the Universe. Evolution is a good example of a scientific theory.
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific LAW is a statement that is true and valid for all times and all places in the known Universe. A law is true and valid everywhere, for all times. For example, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Laws of Gravity and the Axiom of Biogenesis are good examples of scientific laws. The Axiom of Biogenesis is one of three Biological Laws. The other two are the Intransference of Life and the Irreversibility of Life.
> 
> 
> 
> I have noticed a semantic problem in many non-scientific dissertations that taken together point to a generalized mistreatment of the term "theory". The confusion is perhaps attributable to the popular idea that the term "theory" applies to all non-verified perceptions, be they scientific or not.
> 
> 
> 
> But in science, there are considerable differences of meaning between the terms hypothesis, theorem and theory. For the scientific community, a theory is a true statement applicable for one time and one place because it is based on evidence and it has been confirmed by testing. For example, the Cell theory, which says that all living beings are constituted from cells.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What pesuedoscience have I presented ? I have pointed out alot of pesuedoscience that your theory teaches.
Click to expand...

it's not what pesuedoscience you've presented.
it's all you've presented is pesuedoscience.
as to the second part no you have not!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was an evolutionist,thanks for showing you don't really look at the other side and just make ignorant comments.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!:He has received 5 research awards at Texas A&M University and 1 national research award. He has also received two teaching awards. He is an Elected Fellow of the American Society for Materials and the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology in the world. He is President elect of the ASA and will serve his term in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology Walter Bradley lectures on whether there is any truth in religion « Wintery Knight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you can't read,Drew Berry is an evolutionist,in the video at about 9:53 into the video he makes it clear.
> 
> The video we were talking about was Drew Berry astonishing molecular machines. He is showing you evidence that had to be designed but he won't admit to it.
Click to expand...

 you really do have comprehension problems 
it's fairly obvious that this was the clip I was referring too  :

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLd_cPfysrE]Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube[/ame]

asshat


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was an evolutionist,thanks for showing you don't really look at the other side and just make ignorant comments.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!:He has received 5 research awards at Texas A&M University and 1 national research award. He has also received two teaching awards. He is an Elected Fellow of the American Society for Materials and the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology in the world. He is President elect of the ASA and will serve his term in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology Walter Bradley lectures on whether there is any truth in religion « Wintery Knight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking about two different videos. The context of your statement seemed to be referring to the cell movie.
Click to expand...

wrong! [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLd_cPfysrE]Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube[/ame]

you guys are so busy rationalizing that you can't keep your shit straight


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CREATION "SCIENCE"
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of the evidence, many people (even some scientists) believe that the evolution is barely a hypothesis, and even some persons imagine that it is only a dogmatic opinion (a dogma). This bad science has propitiated the expansion of groups that oppose to the teaching of evolution and scientific cosmogony at schools and the development of pseudosciences established on unrealistic roots, for instance, Creationism, Creation Science, Theistic Evolutionism and Intelligent Design. For example, the Theistic Evolutionism is a kind of neo-creationism, which approves evolution. These neo-creationists believe that God created the universe, which subsequently evolved by means of the natural laws created also by God. The theistic evolutionists, however, think that evolution is going on devoid of a marvelous intercession.
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmology and Biology (specifically, evolution) are sciences that have smashed many religious dogmas. This is why the two scientific specialties have been spotted for persistent attacks from the creationists. We cannot force to science to approve ones personal beliefs. While scientists are dedicated to study the complex mechanisms of evolution, the creationists are not validating their "creative evolution" by means of the scientific method. It is evident the ambiguity of the label "Creative Evolution" given that the evolution has gone frequently into periodic sceneries of massive extinctions, supernovas, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism in unable to explain the precedent existence of dinosaurs, trilobites. It cannot give details about massive extinctions, congenital deformities, mutations, pathogenesis, parasites, virus, venomous animals and plants, wild man-eaters, etc. If we had an thick mind, we would be able to insist on the belief that Greek fairies and gods have created the cosmos; a belief that, for the case, would direct us to the same structures of the philosophy of the Creation Science, theistic Evolutionism, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> In the same way, the intelligent design (ID) scheme suggests that the complexity of the Universe is the irrefutable evidence on favor of a special creation by an Intelligent Designer. Following their way of reasoning we can tell ID adherents that if the Universe reaches a high degree of complexity, then the Intelligent Designer would be forcibly more complex than the thing created by him (or them, as ID implies it). Consequently, the Intelligent Designer forcibly would have been created by a more complex Intelligent Designer, given that nothing complex can come to existence without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer; and so on... until the last (or the first?) Designer would be a being so complex than he could not come to mind. It would be an endless multiplication of superb beings more and more complex on every occurrence.
> 
> 
> 
> Concluding, the Creation Science and the Intelligent Designer thoughts are antiscientific schemes. Both proposals struggle against science and the structures of science. However, both disciplines do not make the grade because they reject the truth obtained from the natural world.
> 
> Antiscience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of indoctrinated!!! There is very little science involved in the TOE. I'm not talking about the genetics level stuff but Darwin's stupid theory that is totally baseless in science. There are no tested hypothesis. There is no agreed upon definition of fitness. There is no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record (hundreds of thousands of fossils and counting, a few so so examples at best of transitional fossils). Yet, the quacks call it science and you, Daws, fall for it. Not only that, but you fall for passages like you posted above, basically saying nothing but that some people question the science but we know the TOE is true because it is. Are you really falling for this stuff? The biggest joke is that one of their ICON's is the finch beak story. No proof whatsoever for that story or the conjecture about Giraffe necks but it they call it an Icon??? This makes me like at the mass ignorance that would fall for such fairy tales passed off as science.
Click to expand...


As a pejorative term indoctrination implies forcibly or coercively causing people to act and think on the basis of a certain ideology.[3] Some secular critics[who?] maintain that all religions indoctrinate their adherents, as children, and the accusation is made in the case of religious extremism. Sects such as Scientology use personality tests and peer pressures to indoctrinate new members.[4] Some religions have commitment ceremonies for children 13 years and younger, such as Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, and Shichi-Go-San. In Buddhism Temple boys are encouraged to follow the faith while still very young.[citation needed] Critics of religion, such as Richard Dawkins, maintain that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated.[5] The process of subjecting children to complex initiation rituals before they are able to critically assess the event is seen by Dawkins and other critics of religion as cruel

evolution is never taught that way, the information is presented and the students decided for themselves, unlike religion where the the believe this or you're going to hell rule applies.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since all you present is pseudoscience you are contradicting yourself.
> 
> real science:THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
> 
> 
> 
> In general terms, we should follow a systematization to obtain a valid deduction about something. This systematization is summarized in the steps of the Scientific Method.
> 
> 
> 
> Steps of Scientific Method
> 
> 
> 
> I should say that this explanation is a general description of the scientific method. The procedure does not have to follow exactly the arrangement described below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first step in any investigation is OBSERVATION. Observation consists of setting our attention on a portion of the Universe. Through observation we identify specific realities or events from the cosmos by means of our senses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once the observation is executed, the researcher elaborates one or more questions, generally ingenerated by the curiosity of the observer. These questions constitute a PROBLEM. The questions MUST MATCH with the observed phenomenon and must adhere to objectivity.
> 
> 
> 
> The investigator should always bear in mind that questions that begin with "why" are always very difficult - if not impossible - to answer. The objective investigator prefers to start with questions such as "what", "how", "where", or "when". The question could also be "what is it for".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Through INDUCTIVE REASONING, the observer then tries to give one or more logical answers to these questions. Each answer is a tentative introduction that can serve as a guide for the remainder of the investigation. These preliminary solutions to a question are called HYPOTHESES.
> 
> 
> 
> HYPOTHESIS is a tentative statement that can be submitted to experimentation to verify whether it is false or true.
> 
> 
> 
> After he has enunciated one or more hypotheses or proposed explanations, the researcher can then elaborate one or more PREDICTIONS, which must be consistent with the observations and hypotheses. To do this, the researcher uses DEDUCTIVE REASONING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each hypothesis should be submitted to an exhaustive test called EXPERIMENTATION. The results of experimentation will determine the final character (false or true) of the hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> Experimentation can be performed in diverse ways, but controlled experimentation is a characteristic of the scientific method, to the extent that other simpler systems are not viable for the purpose of science.
> 
> 
> 
> In controlled experimentation we need two groups to test: one group is called the control group or witness group, and the other group is called the experimental group.
> 
> 
> 
> Both the control group and the experimental group are submitted to the same conditions, excluding the variable that has been chosen for the study. The control group is not submitted to the change, while the experimental group is.
> 
> 
> 
> The results are observed and the differences between both groups are registered.
> 
> 
> 
> If the investigator notes a difference between both groups, then an answer can be deduced.
> 
> 
> 
> As the investigation advances, false hypotheses are rejected one by one, until only plausible verifications remain of the hypotheses initially presented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a hypothesis is proven true, scientists then process a final statement, which, in science, is called a THEORY.
> 
> 
> 
> A theory is a partially or totally true statement, proven by means of experimentation or natural and observable evidences, for one time and one place only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a theory is verified as true for all times and places, it would then be considered a LAW.
> 
> 
> 
> A theory is subject to changes, a law is immutable and permanent. A law is comprobable at any time and place in the Cosmos. However, a theory is truth only for a certain place and a given time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should make it clear that in the sciences there are important differences of meaning between the terms: hypothesis, theorem, theory and law.
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific HYPOTHESIS is a provisional solution for a question generated through the observation of an event. The hypothesis can be false or true, so each hypothesis must be tested by experimentation. For example, all reports on the origin of AIDS are hypotheses.
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific THEOREM is an idea or a proposition which is considered demonstrably true. In mathematics, a theorem is a proposition that has already been proven or can be confirmed by means of unequivocal assumptions. For example, the theory of the Inflationary Universe, which, when released for the first time, was presented as a mathematical model. Now that modern observations of real phenomena in the Universe have confirmed the model, the theorem has been developed into a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific THEORY is a statement that must contain a setting of real evidence. A theory is correct only if it has been able to withstand rigorous testing, and it will only be true if it is in concordance with facts. A theory can be reworked as new evidence is accumulated, but the background truth of a theory can never be altered. Scientific theories are true only for a given time and place. They may not be true in other parts of the Universe. Evolution is a good example of a scientific theory.
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific LAW is a statement that is true and valid for all times and all places in the known Universe. A law is true and valid everywhere, for all times. For example, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Laws of Gravity and the Axiom of Biogenesis are good examples of scientific laws. The Axiom of Biogenesis is one of three Biological Laws. The other two are the Intransference of Life and the Irreversibility of Life.
> 
> 
> 
> I have noticed a semantic problem in many non-scientific dissertations that taken together point to a generalized mistreatment of the term "theory". The confusion is perhaps attributable to the popular idea that the term "theory" applies to all non-verified perceptions, be they scientific or not.
> 
> 
> 
> But in science, there are considerable differences of meaning between the terms hypothesis, theorem and theory. For the scientific community, a theory is a true statement applicable for one time and one place because it is based on evidence and it has been confirmed by testing. For example, the Cell theory, which says that all living beings are constituted from cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What pesuedoscience have I presented ? I have pointed out alot of pesuedoscience that your theory teaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's not what pesuedoscience you've presented.
> it's all you've presented is pesuedoscience.
> as to the second part no you have not!
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!:He has received 5 research awards at Texas A&M University and 1 national research award. He has also received two teaching awards. He is an Elected Fellow of the American Society for Materials and the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology in the world. He is President elect of the ASA and will serve his term in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology Walter Bradley lectures on whether there is any truth in religion « Wintery Knight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you can't read,Drew Berry is an evolutionist,in the video at about 9:53 into the video he makes it clear.
> 
> The video we were talking about was Drew Berry astonishing molecular machines. He is showing you evidence that had to be designed but he won't admit to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you really do have comprehension problems
> it's fairly obvious that this was the clip I was referring too  :
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLd_cPfysrE]Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> asshat
Click to expand...


Asshat, you quoted me saying drew was an evolutionist. That is when you went to get the credentials of the man from Texas am which we knew he was an ID proponent. you can't keep up with the conversation daws ? Do you need us to slow down ? I know what you are trying to do,you are trying to spend out of your failure to comprehend our conversation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!:He has received 5 research awards at Texas A&M University and 1 national research award. He has also received two teaching awards. He is an Elected Fellow of the American Society for Materials and the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology in the world. He is President elect of the ASA and will serve his term in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology Walter Bradley lectures on whether there is any truth in religion « Wintery Knight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about two different videos. The context of your statement seemed to be referring to the cell movie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong! [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLd_cPfysrE]Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> you guys are so busy rationalizing that you can't keep your shit straight
Click to expand...


You are quoting us and responding to our comments genius.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CREATION "SCIENCE"
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of the evidence, many people (even some scientists) believe that the evolution is barely a hypothesis, and even some persons imagine that it is only a dogmatic opinion (a dogma). This bad science has propitiated the expansion of groups that oppose to the teaching of evolution and scientific cosmogony at schools and the development of pseudosciences established on unrealistic roots, for instance, Creationism, Creation Science, Theistic Evolutionism and Intelligent Design. For example, the Theistic Evolutionism is a kind of neo-creationism, which approves evolution. These neo-creationists believe that God created the universe, which subsequently evolved by means of the natural laws created also by God. The theistic evolutionists, however, think that evolution is going on devoid of a marvelous intercession.
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmology and Biology (specifically, evolution) are sciences that have smashed many religious dogmas. This is why the two scientific specialties have been spotted for persistent attacks from the creationists. We cannot force to science to approve ones personal beliefs. While scientists are dedicated to study the complex mechanisms of evolution, the creationists are not validating their "creative evolution" by means of the scientific method. It is evident the ambiguity of the label "Creative Evolution" given that the evolution has gone frequently into periodic sceneries of massive extinctions, supernovas, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism in unable to explain the precedent existence of dinosaurs, trilobites. It cannot give details about massive extinctions, congenital deformities, mutations, pathogenesis, parasites, virus, venomous animals and plants, wild man-eaters, etc. If we had an thick mind, we would be able to insist on the belief that Greek fairies and gods have created the cosmos; a belief that, for the case, would direct us to the same structures of the philosophy of the Creation Science, theistic Evolutionism, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> In the same way, the intelligent design (ID) scheme suggests that the complexity of the Universe is the irrefutable evidence on favor of a special creation by an Intelligent Designer. Following their way of reasoning we can tell ID adherents that if the Universe reaches a high degree of complexity, then the Intelligent Designer would be forcibly more complex than the thing created by him (or them, as ID implies it). Consequently, the Intelligent Designer forcibly would have been created by a more complex Intelligent Designer, given that nothing complex can come to existence without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer; and so on... until the last (or the first?) Designer would be a being so complex than he could not come to mind. It would be an endless multiplication of superb beings more and more complex on every occurrence.
> 
> 
> 
> Concluding, the Creation Science and the Intelligent Designer thoughts are antiscientific schemes. Both proposals struggle against science and the structures of science. However, both disciplines do not make the grade because they reject the truth obtained from the natural world.
> 
> Antiscience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of indoctrinated!!! There is very little science involved in the TOE. I'm not talking about the genetics level stuff but Darwin's stupid theory that is totally baseless in science. There are no tested hypothesis. There is no agreed upon definition of fitness. There is no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record (hundreds of thousands of fossils and counting, a few so so examples at best of transitional fossils). Yet, the quacks call it science and you, Daws, fall for it. Not only that, but you fall for passages like you posted above, basically saying nothing but that some people question the science but we know the TOE is true because it is. Are you really falling for this stuff? The biggest joke is that one of their ICON's is the finch beak story. No proof whatsoever for that story or the conjecture about Giraffe necks but it they call it an Icon??? This makes me like at the mass ignorance that would fall for such fairy tales passed off as science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a pejorative term indoctrination implies forcibly or coercively causing people to act and think on the basis of a certain ideology.[3] Some secular critics[who?] maintain that all religions indoctrinate their adherents, as children, and the accusation is made in the case of religious extremism. Sects such as Scientology use personality tests and peer pressures to indoctrinate new members.[4] Some religions have commitment ceremonies for children 13 years and younger, such as Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, and Shichi-Go-San. In Buddhism Temple boys are encouraged to follow the faith while still very young.[citation needed] Critics of religion, such as Richard Dawkins, maintain that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated.[5] The process of subjecting children to complex initiation rituals before they are able to critically assess the event is seen by Dawkins and other critics of religion as cruel
> 
> evolution is never taught that way, the information is presented and the students decided for themselves, unlike religion where the the believe this or you're going to hell rule applies.
Click to expand...


What do you think the theory of evolution is ? It is forced on children as a fact.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!:He has received 5 research awards at Texas A&M University and 1 national research award. He has also received two teaching awards. He is an Elected Fellow of the American Society for Materials and the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology in the world. He is President elect of the ASA and will serve his term in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology Walter Bradley lectures on whether there is any truth in religion « Wintery Knight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about two different videos. The context of your statement seemed to be referring to the cell movie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong!
> 
> you guys are so busy rationalizing that you can't keep your shit straight
Click to expand...


You&#8217;re not paying attention. There were comments directed to two different videos. Both of those videos carry the same message wherein flailing attempts are made to discredit science with the same irrational, illogical and false conclusion: &#8220;the gods did it&#8221;. 

These silly &#8220;canned&#8221; videos you and the other creationist post are not just similar in their false claims and manufactured conclusions, they are identical. 

What is always missing with the creationist ministry claims is even a middling adherence to some very basic principles. Firstly, creationists are never able or willing to establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "natural" realm, i.e., the "supernatural". Secondly,  creationists are never able or willing to establish a theory that relies on established mechanisms and shows a correlation to those mechanisms. 

The creationist religious claims are always lacking even the most basic of proofs.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of indoctrinated!!! There is very little science involved in the TOE. I'm not talking about the genetics level stuff but Darwin's stupid theory that is totally baseless in science. There are no tested hypothesis. There is no agreed upon definition of fitness. There is no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record (hundreds of thousands of fossils and counting, a few so so examples at best of transitional fossils). Yet, the quacks call it science and you, Daws, fall for it. Not only that, but you fall for passages like you posted above, basically saying nothing but that some people question the science but we know the TOE is true because it is. Are you really falling for this stuff? The biggest joke is that one of their ICON's is the finch beak story. No proof whatsoever for that story or the conjecture about Giraffe necks but it they call it an Icon??? This makes me like at the mass ignorance that would fall for such fairy tales passed off as science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a pejorative term indoctrination implies forcibly or coercively causing people to act and think on the basis of a certain ideology.[3] Some secular critics[who?] maintain that all religions indoctrinate their adherents, as children, and the accusation is made in the case of religious extremism. Sects such as Scientology use personality tests and peer pressures to indoctrinate new members.[4] Some religions have commitment ceremonies for children 13 years and younger, such as Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, and Shichi-Go-San. In Buddhism Temple boys are encouraged to follow the faith while still very young.[citation needed] Critics of religion, such as Richard Dawkins, maintain that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated.[5] The process of subjecting children to complex initiation rituals before they are able to critically assess the event is seen by Dawkins and other critics of religion as cruel
> 
> evolution is never taught that way, the information is presented and the students decided for themselves, unlike religion where the the believe this or you're going to hell rule applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think the theory of evolution is ? It is forced on children as a fact.
Click to expand...

 no it's not, it's taught like every other subject  .
only in you twisted pov would it be forced.
religion has always been forced.  
so my satement stands 
show me proof .


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of indoctrinated!!! There is very little science involved in the TOE. I'm not talking about the genetics level stuff but Darwin's stupid theory that is totally baseless in science. There are no tested hypothesis. There is no agreed upon definition of fitness. There is no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record (hundreds of thousands of fossils and counting, a few so so examples at best of transitional fossils). Yet, the quacks call it science and you, Daws, fall for it. Not only that, but you fall for passages like you posted above, basically saying nothing but that some people question the science but we know the TOE is true because it is. Are you really falling for this stuff? The biggest joke is that one of their ICON's is the finch beak story. No proof whatsoever for that story or the conjecture about Giraffe necks but it they call it an Icon??? This makes me like at the mass ignorance that would fall for such fairy tales passed off as science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a pejorative term indoctrination implies forcibly or coercively causing people to act and think on the basis of a certain ideology.[3] Some secular critics[who?] maintain that all religions indoctrinate their adherents, as children, and the accusation is made in the case of religious extremism. Sects such as Scientology use personality tests and peer pressures to indoctrinate new members.[4] Some religions have commitment ceremonies for children 13 years and younger, such as Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, and Shichi-Go-San. In Buddhism Temple boys are encouraged to follow the faith while still very young.[citation needed] Critics of religion, such as Richard Dawkins, maintain that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated.[5] The process of subjecting children to complex initiation rituals before they are able to critically assess the event is seen by Dawkins and other critics of religion as cruel
> 
> evolution is never taught that way, the information is presented and the students decided for themselves, unlike religion where the the believe this or you're going to hell rule applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think the theory of evolution is ? It is forced on children as a fact.
Click to expand...


Yet another nonsense claim. The theory and fact of evolutionary science is not forced on anyone.

You discredit yourself with such foolishness.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a pejorative term indoctrination implies forcibly or coercively causing people to act and think on the basis of a certain ideology.[3] Some secular critics[who?] maintain that all religions indoctrinate their adherents, as children, and the accusation is made in the case of religious extremism. Sects such as Scientology use personality tests and peer pressures to indoctrinate new members.[4] Some religions have commitment ceremonies for children 13 years and younger, such as Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, and Shichi-Go-San. In Buddhism Temple boys are encouraged to follow the faith while still very young.[citation needed] Critics of religion, such as Richard Dawkins, maintain that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated.[5] The process of subjecting children to complex initiation rituals before they are able to critically assess the event is seen by Dawkins and other critics of religion as cruel
> 
> evolution is never taught that way, the information is presented and the students decided for themselves, unlike religion where the the believe this or you're going to hell rule applies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the theory of evolution is ? It is forced on children as a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it's not it's taught like every other subject  .
> only in you twisted pov would it be forced.
> religion has always been forced.
> so my satement stands
> show me proof .
Click to expand...


Daws are you gonna deny in front of everyone reading this thread that macroevolution is both theory and a fact according to evolutionist ? Kids don't know any better and are influenced in believing this nonsense.

They don't know theory from fact the way most teachers teach the theory. You yourself said that evolution is a fact.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you can't read,Drew Berry is an evolutionist,in the video at about 9:53 into the video he makes it clear.
> 
> The video we were talking about was Drew Berry astonishing molecular machines. He is showing you evidence that had to be designed but he won't admit to it.
> 
> 
> 
> you really do have comprehension problems
> it's fairly obvious that this was the clip I was referring too  :
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLd_cPfysrE]Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> asshat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asshat, you quoted me saying drew was an evolutionist. That is when you went to get the credentials of the man from Texas am which we knew he was an ID proponent. you can't keep up with the conversation daws ? Do you need us to slow down ? I know what you are trying to do,you are trying to spend out of your failure to comprehend our conversation.
Click to expand...

now you're just makin shit up :see post# 6207

Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated  
Quote: Originally Posted by daws101  
Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality  
YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants. 

Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube
so what! people give that amount to cryogenic storage...does not mean that it will bring people back from the dead...then there's the millions for elections.
Hmm,no real response as usual.
right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
that's the un indoctrinated of course 

this post was not directed at you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you really do have comprehension problems
> it's fairly obvious that this was the clip I was referring too  :
> 
> Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube
> 
> asshat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asshat, you quoted me saying drew was an evolutionist. That is when you went to get the credentials of the man from Texas am which we knew he was an ID proponent. you can't keep up with the conversation daws ? Do you need us to slow down ? I know what you are trying to do,you are trying to spend out of your failure to comprehend our conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now you're just makin shit up :see post# 6207
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
> Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
> Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality
> YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.
> 
> Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube
> so what! people give that amount to cryogenic storage...does not mean that it will bring people back from the dead...then there's the millions for elections.
> Hmm,no real response as usual.
> right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
> any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
> that's the un indoctrinated of course
> 
> this post was not directed at you.
Click to expand...


Look, you quoted us when we were talking about the evolutionist video. We were not talking about the gentlemen speaking of the universe.

You can't spin your way out of this.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the theory of evolution is ? It is forced on children as a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not it's taught like every other subject  .
> only in you twisted pov would it be forced.
> religion has always been forced.
> so my satement stands
> show me proof .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws are you gonna deny in front of everyone reading this thread that macroevolution is both theory and a fact according to evolutionist ? Kids don't know any better and are influenced in believing this nonsense.
> 
> They don't know theory from fact the way most teachers teach the theory. You yourself said that evolution is a fact.
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Click to expand...



I think you're as befuddled as usual. I posted this link previously.

*Evolution is a Fact and a Theory*

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the theory of evolution is ? It is forced on children as a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not it's taught like every other subject  .
> only in you twisted pov would it be forced.
> religion has always been forced.
> so my satement stands
> show me proof .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws are you gonna deny in front of everyone reading this thread that macroevolution is both theory and a fact according to evolutionist ? Kids don't know any better and are influenced in believing this nonsense.
> 
> They don't know theory from fact the way most teachers teach the theory. You yourself said that evolution is a fact.
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Click to expand...

what the fuck are you babbling about now?
I could give a flying fuck who's reading what or where.

where do you see me denying anything?
seems like your desperately pulling imaginary shit out of your ass.
evolution for all practical purposes is fact.


kids are forced in to buying you fairytale...you using the word nonsense is ironic.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the theory of evolution is ? It is forced on children as a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not it's taught like every other subject  .
> only in you twisted pov would it be forced.
> religion has always been forced.
> so my satement stands
> show me proof .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws are you gonna deny in front of everyone reading this thread that macroevolution is both theory and a fact according to evolutionist ? Kids don't know any better and are influenced in believing this nonsense.
> 
> They don't know theory from fact the way most teachers teach the theory. You yourself said that evolution is a fact.
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Click to expand...




Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asshat, you quoted me saying drew was an evolutionist. That is when you went to get the credentials of the man from Texas am which we knew he was an ID proponent. you can't keep up with the conversation daws ? Do you need us to slow down ? I know what you are trying to do,you are trying to spend out of your failure to comprehend our conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> now you're just makin shit up :see post# 6207
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
> Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
> Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality
> YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.
> 
> Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube
> so what! people give that amount to cryogenic storage...does not mean that it will bring people back from the dead...then there's the millions for elections.
> Hmm,no real response as usual.
> right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
> any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
> that's the un indoctrinated of course
> 
> this post was not directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, you quoted us when we were talking about the evolutionist video. We were not talking about the gentlemen speaking of the universe.
> 
> You can't spin your way out of this.
Click to expand...

not trying too.. you're just plain old wrong  my comment was about the funding the guy's name you've conveniently forgotten gets   it's not me who's trying to bullshit his way out of it ..and failing


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not it's taught like every other subject  .
> only in you twisted pov would it be forced.
> religion has always been forced.
> so my satement stands
> show me proof .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws are you gonna deny in front of everyone reading this thread that macroevolution is both theory and a fact according to evolutionist ? Kids don't know any better and are influenced in believing this nonsense.
> 
> They don't know theory from fact the way most teachers teach the theory. You yourself said that evolution is a fact.
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what the fuck are you babbling about now?
> I could give a flying fuck who's reading what or where.
> 
> where do you see me denying anything?
> seems like your desperately pulling imaginary shit out of your ass.
> evolution for all practical purposes is fact.
> 
> 
> kids are forced in to buying you fairytale...you using the word nonsense is ironic.
Click to expand...


Many children from broken homes seek out God they are not having God forced on them. They don't have parents as role models. Many children are taught in the home about God but they reach a certain age then they have the choice to continue in the faith or not.

All through grade school and High school, they have many of these theories forced on them if they want to graduate whether they believe it or not. Then the same process continues in college if they want a degree.

Do you have the ability to reason Daws ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not it's taught like every other subject  .
> only in you twisted pov would it be forced.
> religion has always been forced.
> so my satement stands
> show me proof .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws are you gonna deny in front of everyone reading this thread that macroevolution is both theory and a fact according to evolutionist ? Kids don't know any better and are influenced in believing this nonsense.
> 
> They don't know theory from fact the way most teachers teach the theory. You yourself said that evolution is a fact.
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> now you're just makin shit up :see post# 6207
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
> Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
> Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality
> YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.
> 
> Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube
> so what! people give that amount to cryogenic storage...does not mean that it will bring people back from the dead...then there's the millions for elections.
> Hmm,no real response as usual.
> right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
> any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
> that's the un indoctrinated of course
> 
> this post was not directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, you quoted us when we were talking about the evolutionist video. We were not talking about the gentlemen speaking of the universe.
> 
> You can't spin your way out of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not trying too.. you're just plain old wrong  my comment was about the funding the guy's name you've conveniently forgotten gets   it's not me who's trying to bullshit his way out of it ..and failing
Click to expand...


You are,the conversation moved on and you don't get it. You have had all kinds of evidence for design presented to you and there is zero evidence for macroevolution and you still argue that we are the brainwashed ideologues. That we present pesuedoscience and it is clear who really supports pesuedoscience.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> The process of subjecting children to complex initiation rituals before they are able to critically assess the event is seen by Dawkins and other critics of religion as cruel.
> 
> evolution is never taught that way, the information is presented and the students decided for themselves, unlike religion where the the believe this or you're going to hell rule applies.



I have to disagree. Go watch Expelled. Darwinism is religiously taught and any one who objects is immediately silenced. Children are not taught to think about opposing viewpoints or question the evidence when it comes to their Darwinian indoctrination in the Nanny State Public schools. They are tricked with old lies even though new evidence abounds and immersed in assumptive language at every turn.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about two different videos. The context of your statement seemed to be referring to the cell movie.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong!
> 
> you guys are so busy rationalizing that you can't keep your shit straight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youre not paying attention. There were comments directed to two different videos. Both of those videos carry the same message wherein flailing attempts are made to discredit science with the same irrational, illogical and false conclusion: the gods did it.
> 
> These silly canned videos you and the other creationist post are not just similar in their false claims and manufactured conclusions, they are identical.
> 
> What is always missing with the creationist ministry claims is even a middling adherence to some very basic principles. Firstly, creationists are never able or willing to establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "natural" realm, i.e., the "supernatural". Secondly,  creationists are never able or willing to establish a theory that relies on established mechanisms and shows a correlation to those mechanisms.
> 
> The creationist religious claims are always lacking even the most basic of proofs.
Click to expand...


You obviously didn't watch the second video either, which makes your comment look very foolish.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> evolution for all practical purposes is fact.
> 
> 
> kids are forced in to buying you fairytale...you using the word nonsense is ironic.



You are in it so you can't see it. There isn't really even any proof for natural selection. I am awaiting your response on the detailed scientific experiments and data collection that elevated the Galapagos finch to Icon status. 

It is so amazing to me intelligent people grab onto this most moronic ideal, that the Galapagos finches represent natural selection, with dear life and hold tight. There is no statistically relevant scientific data to support their assumptions no more than there is comparing the length of noses across the human population of America over the last 20 years and trying to correlated it with some natural event. You would be laughed out of job if you even proposed such a thing. The finch beak length variation is a Darwin answer looking for a Darwin question. It is the tale wagging the dog in the worst way!!!

The question is not whether there is change. The question is, "does descent with modification account for the origin of new species?" Going one step further, does it account for *every species?* Like change over time, descent with modification within a species is not controversial. But Darwinian evolution claims that descent with modification explains the origin and diversification of all living things. There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support this so Daws, you have been duped. You believe in a lie that has absolutely no scientific experimentation to back it up. In fact, genetic studies are not only not backing it up, they continue to poke holes in it daily!!!!

With that said, I just want to say, What's up Finches? Where my Finches at? Darwinian Feyotches.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not it's taught like every other subject  .
> only in you twisted pov would it be forced.
> religion has always been forced.
> so my satement stands
> show me proof .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws are you gonna deny in front of everyone reading this thread that macroevolution is both theory and a fact according to evolutionist ? Kids don't know any better and are influenced in believing this nonsense.
> 
> They don't know theory from fact the way most teachers teach the theory. You yourself said that evolution is a fact.
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> now you're just makin shit up :see post# 6207
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
> Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
> Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality
> YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.
> 
> Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube
> so what! people give that amount to cryogenic storage...does not mean that it will bring people back from the dead...then there's the millions for elections.
> Hmm,no real response as usual.
> right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
> any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
> that's the un indoctrinated of course
> 
> this post was not directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, you quoted us when we were talking about the evolutionist video. We were not talking about the gentlemen speaking of the universe.
> 
> You can't spin your way out of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not trying too.. you're just plain old wrong  my comment was about the funding the guy's name you've conveniently forgotten gets   it's not me who's trying to bullshit his way out of it ..and failing
Click to expand...


To quote someone on this forum, you are getting your rear handed to you by YWC.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong!
> 
> you guys are so busy rationalizing that you can't keep your shit straight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youre not paying attention. There were comments directed to two different videos. Both of those videos carry the same message wherein flailing attempts are made to discredit science with the same irrational, illogical and false conclusion: the gods did it.
> 
> These silly canned videos you and the other creationist post are not just similar in their false claims and manufactured conclusions, they are identical.
> 
> What is always missing with the creationist ministry claims is even a middling adherence to some very basic principles. Firstly, creationists are never able or willing to establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "natural" realm, i.e., the "supernatural". Secondly,  creationists are never able or willing to establish a theory that relies on established mechanisms and shows a correlation to those mechanisms.
> 
> The creationist religious claims are always lacking even the most basic of proofs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously didn't watch the second video either, which makes your comment look very foolish.
Click to expand...


False! As with all these silly videos promoting religion, the underlying assumption is "the gods didi it". Attempting to force even inconsequential amounts of data to fit a preconceived view is dishonest. Religious claims to supernaturalism is not science.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> evolution for all practical purposes is fact.
> 
> 
> kids are forced in to buying you fairytale...you using the word nonsense is ironic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are in it so you can't see it. There isn't really even any proof for natural selection. I am awaiting your response on the detailed scientific experiments and data collection that elevated the Galapagos finch to Icon status.
> 
> It is so amazing to me intelligent people grab onto this most moronic ideal, that the Galapagos finches represent natural selection, with dear life and hold tight. There is no statistically relevant scientific data to support their assumptions no more than there is comparing the length of noses across the human population of America over the last 20 years and trying to correlated it with some natural event. You would be laughed out of job if you even proposed such a thing. The finch beak length variation is a Darwin answer looking for a Darwin question. It is the tale wagging the dog in the worst way!!!
> 
> The question is not whether there is change. The question is, "does descent with modification account for the origin of new species?" Going one step further, does it account for *every species?* Like change over time, descent with modification within a species is not controversial. But Darwinian evolution claims that descent with modification explains the origin and diversification of all living things. There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support this so Daws, you have been duped. You believe in a lie that has absolutely no scientific experimentation to back it up. In fact, genetic studies are not only not backing it up, they continue to poke holes in it daily!!!!
> 
> With that said, I just want to say, What's up Finches? Where my Finches at? Darwinian Feyotches.
Click to expand...


It really is only the creationist ministeries which refuse to accept the fact of natural selection.

In addition, Darwin's theory does not seek to explain the origins of life. It truly is remarkable to witness the lies and deceit used by the religious zealots to denigrate science and knowledge.


----------



## nitroz




----------



## cooky

UltimateReality said:


> Speaking of indoctrinated!!! There is very little science involved in the TOE. I'm not talking about the genetics level stuff but Darwin's stupid theory that is totally baseless in science. There are no tested hypothesis. There is no agreed upon definition of fitness. There is no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record (hundreds of thousands of fossils and counting, a few so so examples at best of transitional fossils). Yet, the quacks call it science and you, Daws, fall for it. Not only that, but you fall for passages like you posted above, basically saying nothing but that some people question the science but we know the TOE is true because it is. Are you really falling for this stuff? The biggest joke is that one of their ICON's is the finch beak story. No proof whatsoever for that story or the conjecture about Giraffe necks but it they call it an Icon??? This makes me like at the mass ignorance that would fall for such fairy tales passed off as science.



To claim that there is very little science involved in the TOE is so far from the truth. You are either ignoring or ignorant of the tomes of multi-disciplinary empirical data that support the TOE. Despite what you may think the fossil record provides powerful evidence of 'macro-evolution'. For example, the discovery of tiktaalik- a genus that had long been predicted to exist by the TOE- is powerful evidence that humans and fish share a common ancestor. Additionally, the breadth of fossils in the homo and austrolapithicines is for all intents an purposes incontrovertible proof that humans descended from a common ancestor shared with the great apes. Take a look at this chart showing the fossils of the Homo genus

Template:Homo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm curious as to how someone who believes in creation would explain the numerous species we have identified in the Homo genus from their fossilized remains. There isn't any scientific data that contradicts the TOE- it is universally supported by a massive multi-disciplinary dataset. Its disappointing that many people still believe that the TOE is a massive fraud perpetrated for nefarious reasons as nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre not paying attention. There were comments directed to two different videos. Both of those videos carry the same message wherein flailing attempts are made to discredit science with the same irrational, illogical and false conclusion: the gods did it.
> 
> These silly canned videos you and the other creationist post are not just similar in their false claims and manufactured conclusions, they are identical.
> 
> What is always missing with the creationist ministry claims is even a middling adherence to some very basic principles. Firstly, creationists are never able or willing to establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "natural" realm, i.e., the "supernatural". Secondly,  creationists are never able or willing to establish a theory that relies on established mechanisms and shows a correlation to those mechanisms.
> 
> The creationist religious claims are always lacking even the most basic of proofs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously didn't watch the second video either, which makes your comment look very foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False! As with all these silly videos promoting religion, the underlying assumption is "the gods didi it". Attempting to force even inconsequential amounts of data to fit a preconceived view is dishonest. Religious claims to supernaturalism is not science.
Click to expand...


The video with the evolutionist concerning moleular machines was amazed by what the molecular machines do. If you can't see that evidence as evidence of design you are in denial.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre not paying attention. There were comments directed to two different videos. Both of those videos carry the same message wherein flailing attempts are made to discredit science with the same irrational, illogical and false conclusion: the gods did it.
> 
> These silly canned videos you and the other creationist post are not just similar in their false claims and manufactured conclusions, they are identical.
> 
> What is always missing with the creationist ministry claims is even a middling adherence to some very basic principles. Firstly, creationists are never able or willing to establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "natural" realm, i.e., the "supernatural". Secondly,  creationists are never able or willing to establish a theory that relies on established mechanisms and shows a correlation to those mechanisms.
> 
> The creationist religious claims are always lacking even the most basic of proofs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously didn't watch the second video either, which makes your comment look very foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False! As with all these silly videos promoting religion, the underlying assumption is "the gods didi it". Attempting to force even inconsequential amounts of data to fit a preconceived view is dishonest. Religious claims to supernaturalism is not science.
Click to expand...


Only because they lack faith in a creator while closing their minds to the evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

nitroz said:


>



You keep telling yourself this. I notice no scientific response just another naturalistic response.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cooky said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of indoctrinated!!! There is very little science involved in the TOE. I'm not talking about the genetics level stuff but Darwin's stupid theory that is totally baseless in science. There are no tested hypothesis. There is no agreed upon definition of fitness. There is no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record (hundreds of thousands of fossils and counting, a few so so examples at best of transitional fossils). Yet, the quacks call it science and you, Daws, fall for it. Not only that, but you fall for passages like you posted above, basically saying nothing but that some people question the science but we know the TOE is true because it is. Are you really falling for this stuff? The biggest joke is that one of their ICON's is the finch beak story. No proof whatsoever for that story or the conjecture about Giraffe necks but it they call it an Icon??? This makes me like at the mass ignorance that would fall for such fairy tales passed off as science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To claim that there is very little science involved in the TOE is so far from the truth. You are either ignoring or ignorant of the tomes of multi-disciplinary empirical data that support the TOE. Despite what you may think the fossil record provides powerful evidence of 'macro-evolution'. For example, the discovery of tiktaalik- a genus that had long been predicted to exist by the TOE- is powerful evidence that humans and fish share a common ancestor. Additionally, the breadth of fossils in the homo and austrolapithicines is for all intents an purposes incontrovertible proof that humans descended from a common ancestor shared with the great apes. Take a look at this chart showing the fossils of the Homo genus
> 
> Template:Homo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I'm curious as to how someone who believes in creation would explain the numerous species we have identified in the Homo genus from their fossilized remains. There isn't any scientific data that contradicts the TOE- it is universally supported by a massive multi-disciplinary dataset. Its disappointing that many people still believe that the TOE is a massive fraud perpetrated for nefarious reasons as nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...


Change within a family of organisms is not evidence of macroevolution, It sure as heck is not evidence of natural selection and survival of the fittest.


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> evolution for all practical purposes is fact.
> 
> 
> kids are forced in to buying you fairytale...you using the word nonsense is ironic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are in it so you can't see it. There isn't really even any proof for natural selection. I am awaiting your response on the detailed scientific experiments and data collection that elevated the Galapagos finch to Icon status.
> 
> It is so amazing to me intelligent people grab onto this most moronic ideal, that the Galapagos finches represent natural selection, with dear life and hold tight. There is no statistically relevant scientific data to support their assumptions no more than there is comparing the length of noses across the human population of America over the last 20 years and trying to correlated it with some natural event. You would be laughed out of job if you even proposed such a thing. The finch beak length variation is a Darwin answer looking for a Darwin question. It is the tale wagging the dog in the worst way!!!
> 
> The question is not whether there is change. The question is, "does descent with modification account for the origin of new species?" Going one step further, does it account for *every species?* Like change over time, descent with modification within a species is not controversial. But Darwinian evolution claims that descent with modification explains the origin and diversification of all living things. There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support this so Daws, you have been duped. You believe in a lie that has absolutely no scientific experimentation to back it up. In fact, genetic studies are not only not backing it up, they continue to poke holes in it daily!!!!
> 
> With that said, I just want to say, What's up Finches? Where my Finches at? Darwinian Feyotches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is only the creationist ministeries which refuse to accept the fact of natural selection.
> 
> In addition, Darwin's theory does not seek to explain the origins of life. It truly is remarkable to witness the lies and deceit used by the religious zealots to denigrate science and knowledge.
Click to expand...




Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously didn't watch the second video either, which makes your comment look very foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False! As with all these silly videos promoting religion, the underlying assumption is "the gods didi it". Attempting to force even inconsequential amounts of data to fit a preconceived view is dishonest. Religious claims to supernaturalism is not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video with the evolutionist concerning moleular machines was amazed by what the molecular machines do. If you can't see that evidence as evidence of design you are in denial.
Click to expand...




I see. I'm in denial because I don't accept the manufactured contents of a YouTube video. An important concept you're missing is this: "it must be true because I read it on the internet", is not a grown up way to discern truth from falsehood.

As usual, you are requiring others to accept your religious claims without any evidence to support them. Do you truly believe a YouTube video is adequate toward supporting evidence for your gods?

These YouTube videos you post are consistent in that they are staged, edited and contrived to support a narrowly defined perspective proposed by Christian creationists. Attempts to vilify science in desperate attempts to promote religion is a fools errand.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of indoctrinated!!! There is very little science involved in the TOE. I'm not talking about the genetics level stuff but Darwin's stupid theory that is totally baseless in science. There are no tested hypothesis. There is no agreed upon definition of fitness. There is no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record (hundreds of thousands of fossils and counting, a few so so examples at best of transitional fossils). Yet, the quacks call it science and you, Daws, fall for it. Not only that, but you fall for passages like you posted above, basically saying nothing but that some people question the science but we know the TOE is true because it is. Are you really falling for this stuff? The biggest joke is that one of their ICON's is the finch beak story. No proof whatsoever for that story or the conjecture about Giraffe necks but it they call it an Icon??? This makes me like at the mass ignorance that would fall for such fairy tales passed off as science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To claim that there is very little science involved in the TOE is so far from the truth. You are either ignoring or ignorant of the tomes of multi-disciplinary empirical data that support the TOE. Despite what you may think the fossil record provides powerful evidence of 'macro-evolution'. For example, the discovery of tiktaalik- a genus that had long been predicted to exist by the TOE- is powerful evidence that humans and fish share a common ancestor. Additionally, the breadth of fossils in the homo and austrolapithicines is for all intents an purposes incontrovertible proof that humans descended from a common ancestor shared with the great apes. Take a look at this chart showing the fossils of the Homo genus
> 
> Template:Homo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I'm curious as to how someone who believes in creation would explain the numerous species we have identified in the Homo genus from their fossilized remains. There isn't any scientific data that contradicts the TOE- it is universally supported by a massive multi-disciplinary dataset. Its disappointing that many people still believe that the TOE is a massive fraud perpetrated for nefarious reasons as nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Change within a family of organisms is not evidence of macroevolution, It sure as heck is not evidence of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
Click to expand...

The obvious problem shared by Christian fundies is their confusion and misrepresentation of evolutionary science. In the broadest sense, there is no such thing as macro, minor or terms seized upon by religious fundies regarding evolution. There is just evolution as a process well established and reasonably well understood by science. 

The humiliating defeats sufferrd by the Christian creationist crowd in attempting to force their religious views on others (the total rejection of Christian creationism being part of a public school syllabus) should have been enough to send them packing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in it so you can't see it. There isn't really even any proof for natural selection. I am awaiting your response on the detailed scientific experiments and data collection that elevated the Galapagos finch to Icon status.
> 
> It is so amazing to me intelligent people grab onto this most moronic ideal, that the Galapagos finches represent natural selection, with dear life and hold tight. There is no statistically relevant scientific data to support their assumptions no more than there is comparing the length of noses across the human population of America over the last 20 years and trying to correlated it with some natural event. You would be laughed out of job if you even proposed such a thing. The finch beak length variation is a Darwin answer looking for a Darwin question. It is the tale wagging the dog in the worst way!!!
> 
> The question is not whether there is change. The question is, "does descent with modification account for the origin of new species?" Going one step further, does it account for *every species?* Like change over time, descent with modification within a species is not controversial. But Darwinian evolution claims that descent with modification explains the origin and diversification of all living things. There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support this so Daws, you have been duped. You believe in a lie that has absolutely no scientific experimentation to back it up. In fact, genetic studies are not only not backing it up, they continue to poke holes in it daily!!!!
> 
> With that said, I just want to say, What's up Finches? Where my Finches at? Darwinian Feyotches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is only the creationist ministeries which refuse to accept the fact of natural selection.
> 
> In addition, Darwin's theory does not seek to explain the origins of life. It truly is remarkable to witness the lies and deceit used by the religious zealots to denigrate science and knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False! As with all these silly videos promoting religion, the underlying assumption is "the gods didi it". Attempting to force even inconsequential amounts of data to fit a preconceived view is dishonest. Religious claims to supernaturalism is not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video with the evolutionist concerning moleular machines was amazed by what the molecular machines do. If you can't see that evidence as evidence of design you are in denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see. I'm in denial because I don't accept the manufactured contents of a YouTube video. An important concept you're missing is this: "it must be true because I read it on the internet", is not a grown up way to discern truth from falsehood.
> 
> As usual, you are requiring others to accept your religious claims without any evidence to support them. Do you truly believe a YouTube video is adequate toward supporting evidence for your gods?
> 
> These YouTube videos you post are consistent in that they are staged, edited and contrived to support a narrowly defined perspective proposed by Christian creationists. Attempts to vilify science in desperate attempts to promote religion is a fools errand.
Click to expand...


Do you know which video we are discussing ?

How would you explain the many different breeds in domestic animals since we see more change in domesticated animals ?

We also see it in families in the wild.

We see animals producing traits in their offspring that have been passed to them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> To claim that there is very little science involved in the TOE is so far from the truth. You are either ignoring or ignorant of the tomes of multi-disciplinary empirical data that support the TOE. Despite what you may think the fossil record provides powerful evidence of 'macro-evolution'. For example, the discovery of tiktaalik- a genus that had long been predicted to exist by the TOE- is powerful evidence that humans and fish share a common ancestor. Additionally, the breadth of fossils in the homo and austrolapithicines is for all intents an purposes incontrovertible proof that humans descended from a common ancestor shared with the great apes. Take a look at this chart showing the fossils of the Homo genus
> 
> Template:Homo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I'm curious as to how someone who believes in creation would explain the numerous species we have identified in the Homo genus from their fossilized remains. There isn't any scientific data that contradicts the TOE- it is universally supported by a massive multi-disciplinary dataset. Its disappointing that many people still believe that the TOE is a massive fraud perpetrated for nefarious reasons as nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Change within a family of organisms is not evidence of macroevolution, It sure as heck is not evidence of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The obvious problem shared by Christian fundies is their confusion and misrepresentation of evolutionary science. In the broadest sense, there is no such thing as macro, minor or terms seized upon by religious fundies regarding evolution. There is just evolution as a process well established and reasonably well understood by science.
> 
> The humiliating defeats sufferrd by the Christian creationist crowd in attempting to force their religious views on others (the total rejection of Christian creationism being part of a public school syllabus) should have been enough to send them packing.
Click to expand...


Really,how well do you know your own theory ?

This is from one of your sites that you guys quote from so much.

My comment ,Your side extrapolates from microevolution which should be termed microadaptations as your evidence for macroevolution. They claim the two are the same process but admit there is no evidence for macroevolution. Macroevolution is only based on a vivid imagination.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is only the creationist ministeries which refuse to accept the fact of natural selection.
> 
> In addition, Darwin's theory does not seek to explain the origins of life. It truly is remarkable to witness the lies and deceit used by the religious zealots to denigrate science and knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video with the evolutionist concerning moleular machines was amazed by what the molecular machines do. If you can't see that evidence as evidence of design you are in denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see. I'm in denial because I don't accept the manufactured contents of a YouTube video. An important concept you're missing is this: "it must be true because I read it on the internet", is not a grown up way to discern truth from falsehood.
> 
> As usual, you are requiring others to accept your religious claims without any evidence to support them. Do you truly believe a YouTube video is adequate toward supporting evidence for your gods?
> 
> These YouTube videos you post are consistent in that they are staged, edited and contrived to support a narrowly defined perspective proposed by Christian creationists. Attempts to vilify science in desperate attempts to promote religion is a fools errand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know which video we are discussing ?
> 
> How would you explain the many different breeds in domestic animals since we see more change in domesticated animals ?
> 
> We also see it in families in the wild.
> 
> We see animals producing traits in their offspring that have been passed to them.
Click to expand...

Did you somehow miss that you are describing the results of evolutionary processes?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Change within a family of organisms is not evidence of macroevolution, It sure as heck is not evidence of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious problem shared by Christian fundies is their confusion and misrepresentation of evolutionary science. In the broadest sense, there is no such thing as macro, minor or terms seized upon by religious fundies regarding evolution. There is just evolution as a process well established and reasonably well understood by science.
> 
> The humiliating defeats sufferrd by the Christian creationist crowd in attempting to force their religious views on others (the total rejection of Christian creationism being part of a public school syllabus) should have been enough to send them packing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really,how well do you know your own theory ?
> 
> This is from one of your sites that you guys quote from so much.
> 
> My comment ,Your side extrapolates from microevolution which should be termed microadaptations as your evidence for macroevolution. They claim the two are the same process but admit there is no evidence for macroevolution. Macroevolution is only based on a vivid imagination.
> 
> CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
Click to expand...


I know the theory well. 

 "Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. "


 "Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution"

It seems the Christian fundies will need to invent a new term to promote their religious views. 

May I suggest "supermacrosupernaturalism"


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see. I'm in denial because I don't accept the manufactured contents of a YouTube video. An important concept you're missing is this: "it must be true because I read it on the internet", is not a grown up way to discern truth from falsehood.
> 
> As usual, you are requiring others to accept your religious claims without any evidence to support them. Do you truly believe a YouTube video is adequate toward supporting evidence for your gods?
> 
> These YouTube videos you post are consistent in that they are staged, edited and contrived to support a narrowly defined perspective proposed by Christian creationists. Attempts to vilify science in desperate attempts to promote religion is a fools errand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know which video we are discussing ?
> 
> How would you explain the many different breeds in domestic animals since we see more change in domesticated animals ?
> 
> We also see it in families in the wild.
> 
> We see animals producing traits in their offspring that have been passed to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you somehow miss that you are describing the results of evolutionary processes?
Click to expand...


No i'm not, domesticated animals are products of selective breeding. Now why does it happen in the wild ? maybe they were simply created the way they appear in the wild but some may be the result of cross breeding.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious problem shared by Christian fundies is their confusion and misrepresentation of evolutionary science. In the broadest sense, there is no such thing as macro, minor or terms seized upon by religious fundies regarding evolution. There is just evolution as a process well established and reasonably well understood by science.
> 
> The humiliating defeats sufferrd by the Christian creationist crowd in attempting to force their religious views on others (the total rejection of Christian creationism being part of a public school syllabus) should have been enough to send them packing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really,how well do you know your own theory ?
> 
> This is from one of your sites that you guys quote from so much.
> 
> My comment ,Your side extrapolates from microevolution which should be termed microadaptations as your evidence for macroevolution. They claim the two are the same process but admit there is no evidence for macroevolution. Macroevolution is only based on a vivid imagination.
> 
> CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know the theory well.
> 
> "Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. "
> 
> 
> "Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution"
> 
> It seems the Christian fundies will need to invent a new term to promote their religious views.
> 
> May I suggest "supermacrosupernaturalism"
Click to expand...


That is not what you implied and both terms were coined by scientist's.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know which video we are discussing ?
> 
> How would you explain the many different breeds in domestic animals since we see more change in domesticated animals ?
> 
> We also see it in families in the wild.
> 
> We see animals producing traits in their offspring that have been passed to them.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you somehow miss that you are describing the results of evolutionary processes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No i'm not, domesticated animals are products of selective breeding. Now why does it happen in the wild ? maybe they were simply created the way they appear in the wild but some may be the result of cross breeding.
Click to expand...


I certainly have every reason to accept that Zeus had a hand in creating creatures in the wild. What can you offer to suggest that it was your gods who created wild creatures?

And which ones? I want a list.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you somehow miss that you are describing the results of evolutionary processes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No i'm not, domesticated animals are products of selective breeding. Now why does it happen in the wild ? maybe they were simply created the way they appear in the wild but some may be the result of cross breeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly have every reason to accept that Zeus had a hand in creating creatures in the wild. What can you offer to suggest that it was your gods who created wild creatures?
> 
> And which ones? I want a list.
Click to expand...


I say YAHWEH created all things and gave organisms the limited ability to adapt. You have been presented with plenty of evidence for design with your side having no explanation for complexity.

Intelligence creates and design,we know of no natural method of the beginning of life. We know cars ,homes,and communication systems were designed by a intelligent mind.


----------



## Youwerecreated

So do we have to leave that line of reasoning when it comes to biological systems ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No i'm not, domesticated animals are products of selective breeding. Now why does it happen in the wild ? maybe they were simply created the way they appear in the wild but some may be the result of cross breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly have every reason to accept that Zeus had a hand in creating creatures in the wild. What can you offer to suggest that it was your gods who created wild creatures?
> 
> And which ones? I want a list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say YAHWEH created all things and gave organisms the limited ability to adapt. You have been presented with plenty of evidence for design with your side having no explanation for complexity.
> 
> Intelligence creates and design,we know of no natural method of the beginning of life. We know cars ,homes,and communication systems were designed by a intelligent mind.
Click to expand...


 You can make any claim you wish regarding your religious views. I'm also free to advise that your claims are totally unsupported and substanceless. 

I've learned to expect dishonesty from Christian fundies and in concert with those expectations I have to advise that you have offered no evidence of anything. Posting canned YouTube videos is pointless as we know that Christian fundies have an agenda of pressing Christianity, not truth or facts.

And yes, mechanical components show design intent. Nothing in nature shows design. Everything in nature shows clear evidence of fitness for survival. Your silly comparisons are the standard boilerplate nonsense on Christian fundie websites. Your claims are neither original nor true. They're just tired cliches used by Christian creationists for lack of a defendable argument.


----------



## UltimateReality

nitroz said:


>



Where did you find these out of context, mis-representing lies? Next time you might want to check your sources more thoroughly. 

In fact, there is a very reputable source that isn't like Wiki. It is called the Library of Congress. They actually have scanned photo's of letters and decrees, not made up stuff that is easily altered on the internet. Here is the Library of Congress on religion in America. We find that before historical revisionist like yourself started twisting and altering the truth, Church services, yes, you heard me, church services were held every Sunday in the House of Representatives. The concept that has been twisted is separation of church (a specific, denominational organization or group meeting to espouse a specific doctrine) and state, not religion and state. IN GOD WE TRUST!!!!

Here you go. You might learn some REAL History. Don't be duped.

Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

Ben Franklin: Supposed Deist? Atheist?

 "In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.
To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, *and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? *We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service-"

Original un-Wiki-ized manuscript here from the *Library of Congress*:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006642.jpg

So Nice Try but your Ad is a lie.


----------



## UltimateReality

cooky said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of indoctrinated!!! There is very little science involved in the TOE. I'm not talking about the genetics level stuff but Darwin's stupid theory that is totally baseless in science. There are no tested hypothesis. There is no agreed upon definition of fitness. There is no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record (hundreds of thousands of fossils and counting, a few so so examples at best of transitional fossils). Yet, the quacks call it science and you, Daws, fall for it. Not only that, but you fall for passages like you posted above, basically saying nothing but that some people question the science but we know the TOE is true because it is. Are you really falling for this stuff? The biggest joke is that one of their ICON's is the finch beak story. No proof whatsoever for that story or the conjecture about Giraffe necks but it they call it an Icon??? This makes me like at the mass ignorance that would fall for such fairy tales passed off as science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To claim that there is very little science involved in the TOE is so far from the truth. You are either ignoring or ignorant of the tomes of multi-disciplinary empirical data that support the TOE. Despite what you may think the fossil record provides powerful evidence of 'macro-evolution'. For example, the discovery of tiktaalik- a genus that had long been predicted to exist by the TOE- is powerful evidence that humans and fish share a common ancestor. Additionally, the breadth of fossils in the homo and austrolapithicines is for all intents an purposes incontrovertible proof that humans descended from a common ancestor shared with the great apes. Take a look at this chart showing the fossils of the Homo genus
> 
> Template:Homo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I'm curious as to how someone who believes in creation would explain the numerous species we have identified in the Homo genus from their fossilized remains. There isn't any scientific data that contradicts the TOE- it is universally supported by a massive multi-disciplinary dataset. Its disappointing that many people still believe that the TOE is a massive fraud perpetrated for nefarious reasons as nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...


Here it is again since you missed it. The question is, "does descent with modification account for the origin of new species?" Going one step further, does it account for every species? Like change over time, descent with modification within a species is not controversial. But Darwinian evolution claims that descent with modification explains the origin and diversification of all living things.

Scientist can't even agree on a common definition of fitness. Genetic studies have shredded Darwin's tree of life. The elusive human LUA has never been found. You need to update yourself on recent findings.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> To claim that there is very little science involved in the TOE is so far from the truth. You are either ignoring or ignorant of the tomes of multi-disciplinary empirical data that support the TOE. Despite what you may think the fossil record provides powerful evidence of 'macro-evolution'. For example, the discovery of tiktaalik- a genus that had long been predicted to exist by the TOE- is powerful evidence that humans and fish share a common ancestor. Additionally, the breadth of fossils in the homo and austrolapithicines is for all intents an purposes incontrovertible proof that humans descended from a common ancestor shared with the great apes. Take a look at this chart showing the fossils of the Homo genus
> 
> Template:Homo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I'm curious as to how someone who believes in creation would explain the numerous species we have identified in the Homo genus from their fossilized remains. There isn't any scientific data that contradicts the TOE- it is universally supported by a massive multi-disciplinary dataset. Its disappointing that many people still believe that the TOE is a massive fraud perpetrated for nefarious reasons as nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Change within a family of organisms is not evidence of macroevolution, It sure as heck is not evidence of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The obvious problem shared by Christian fundies is their confusion and misrepresentation of evolutionary science. In the broadest sense, there is no such thing as macro, minor or terms seized upon by religious fundies regarding evolution. There is just evolution as a process well established and reasonably well understood by science.
> 
> The humiliating defeats sufferrd by the Christian creationist crowd in attempting to force their religious views on others (the total rejection of Christian creationism being part of a public school syllabus) should have been enough to send them packing.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because the establishment is always right. Just ask Rosa Parks. I'm sorry, but only under evolutionary philosophy does might make right. Under the individual rights espoused by Christianity, might does NOT make right.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see. I'm in denial because I don't accept the manufactured contents of a YouTube video. An important concept you're missing is this: "it must be true because I read it on the internet", is not a grown up way to discern truth from falsehood.
> 
> As usual, you are requiring others to accept your religious claims without any evidence to support them. Do you truly believe a YouTube video is adequate toward supporting evidence for your gods?
> 
> These YouTube videos you post are consistent in that they are staged, edited and contrived to support a narrowly defined perspective proposed by Christian creationists. Attempts to vilify science in desperate attempts to promote religion is a fools errand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know which video we are discussing ?
> 
> How would you explain the many different breeds in domestic animals since we see more change in domesticated animals ?
> 
> We also see it in families in the wild.
> 
> We see animals producing traits in their offspring that have been passed to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you somehow miss that you are describing the results of evolutionary processes?
Click to expand...


Wow, you obviously totally lack understanding of your own theory. Don't look now, but...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly have every reason to accept that Zeus had a hand in creating creatures in the wild. What can you offer to suggest that it was your gods who created wild creatures?
> 
> And which ones? I want a list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say YAHWEH created all things and gave organisms the limited ability to adapt. You have been presented with plenty of evidence for design with your side having no explanation for complexity.
> 
> Intelligence creates and design,we know of no natural method of the beginning of life. We know cars ,homes,and communication systems were designed by a intelligent mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can make any claim you wish regarding your religious views. I'm also free to advise that your claims are totally unsupported and substanceless.
> 
> I've learned to expect dishonesty from Christian fundies and in concert with those expectations I have to advise that you have offered no evidence of anything. Posting canned YouTube videos is pointless as we know that Christian fundies have an agenda of pressing Christianity, not truth or facts.
> 
> And yes, mechanical components show design intent. Nothing in nature shows design. Everything in nature shows clear evidence of fitness for survival. Your silly comparisons are the standard boilerplate nonsense on Christian fundie websites. Your claims are neither original nor true. They're just tired cliches used by Christian creationists for lack of a defendable argument.
Click to expand...


You can make any claim you wish regarding your materialistic religious views. I'm also free to advise that your claims are totally unsupported and unsubstantiated. 

I've learned to expect dishonesty from Evo fundies and in concert with those expectations I have to advise that you have offered no evidence of anything. Posting canned ICR responses is pointless as we know that EVO fundies have an agenda of pressing Darwinism, not truth or facts.

And yes, mechanical components show design intent. Micro machines in the cell show design. Everything in nature shows clear evidence of design. Your silly comparisons are the standard boilerplate nonsense on Evo fundie websites. Your claims are neither original nor true. They're just tired cliches used by Darwinists, like the joke Icons of Evolution, because they have no defendable scientific evidence, only speculation and conjecture. Nice try.


----------



## UltimateReality

"It just doesn&#8217;t make sense that the entire biological world spontaneously arose all by itself. But the challenges to evolution go far beyond the intuition. When Charles Darwin proposed his unlikely idea in 1859 it defied much of what was known about biology in that day. Today, the situation has only become worse. If there was ever a *modern-day myth*, this is it and science is increasingly revealing this with its empirical findings dealing with both biological patterns and processes.

*If the pattern does not comply, then you must falsify*"

Darwin's God: Evolutionists Are Losing Ground Badly: Both Pattern and Process Contradict the Aging Theory

*The notion that the entire biological world spontaneously arose all by itself defies common sense. It also defies empirical science. *


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know which video we are discussing ?
> 
> How would you explain the many different breeds in domestic animals since we see more change in domesticated animals ?
> 
> We also see it in families in the wild.
> 
> We see animals producing traits in their offspring that have been passed to them.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you somehow miss that you are describing the results of evolutionary processes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you obviously totally lack understanding of your own theory. Don't look now, but...
Click to expand...

You're more than a little befuddled. The science and theory of evolution has progressed substantially as the means and methods of examination and study have advanced. The supporting science has only gotten better defined and better understood. It only makes sense for that to continue. 

It's obvious that your claims to gods and supernaturalism are becoming more marginalized and more out of touch.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> "It just doesnt make sense that the entire biological world spontaneously arose all by itself. But the challenges to evolution go far beyond the intuition. When Charles Darwin proposed his unlikely idea in 1859 it defied much of what was known about biology in that day. Today, the situation has only become worse. If there was ever a *modern-day myth*, this is it and science is increasingly revealing this with its empirical findings dealing with both biological patterns and processes.
> 
> *If the pattern does not comply, then you must falsify*"
> 
> Darwin's God: Evolutionists Are Losing Ground Badly: Both Pattern and Process Contradict the Aging Theory
> 
> *The notion that the entire biological world spontaneously arose all by itself defies common sense. It also defies empirical science. *


Of course, the falsified "quotes" taken from crestionist ministries have a long and lurid history of falsification. 

It's actually laughable to claim that evolution science is losing ground as the science is becoming more exacting. 

Are the creation ministries suggesting that evolutionary science is losing ground to Christian creationism because that would be an absurd claim.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say YAHWEH created all things and gave organisms the limited ability to adapt. You have been presented with plenty of evidence for design with your side having no explanation for complexity.
> 
> Intelligence creates and design,we know of no natural method of the beginning of life. We know cars ,homes,and communication systems were designed by a intelligent mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can make any claim you wish regarding your religious views. I'm also free to advise that your claims are totally unsupported and substanceless.
> 
> I've learned to expect dishonesty from Christian fundies and in concert with those expectations I have to advise that you have offered no evidence of anything. Posting canned YouTube videos is pointless as we know that Christian fundies have an agenda of pressing Christianity, not truth or facts.
> 
> And yes, mechanical components show design intent. Nothing in nature shows design. Everything in nature shows clear evidence of fitness for survival. Your silly comparisons are the standard boilerplate nonsense on Christian fundie websites. Your claims are neither original nor true. They're just tired cliches used by Christian creationists for lack of a defendable argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can make any claim you wish regarding your materialistic religious views. I'm also free to advise that your claims are totally unsupported and unsubstantiated.
> 
> I've learned to expect dishonesty from Evo fundies and in concert with those expectations I have to advise that you have offered no evidence of anything. Posting canned ICR responses is pointless as we know that EVO fundies have an agenda of pressing Darwinism, not truth or facts.
> 
> And yes, mechanical components show design intent. Micro machines in the cell show design. Everything in nature shows clear evidence of design. Your silly comparisons are the standard boilerplate nonsense on Evo fundie websites. Your claims are neither original nor true. They're just tired cliches used by Darwinists, like the joke Icons of Evolution, because they have no defendable scientific evidence, only speculation and conjecture. Nice try.
Click to expand...

I do find it interesting that you're reduced to falsely rewriting my comments in failed attempts to support your gods. 

As usual, you fail to understand the scientific support for evolution. While your virulent hatred for science is demonstrated in your posts, no amount of your hatreds are going to prevent exploration and the advancement of knowledge. 

Your silly plagiarism of my post represents a new low for the Christian creationist cabal.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously didn't watch the second video either, which makes your comment look very foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False! As with all these silly videos promoting religion, the underlying assumption is "the gods didi it". Attempting to force even inconsequential amounts of data to fit a preconceived view is dishonest. Religious claims to supernaturalism is not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only because they lack faith in a creator while closing their minds to the evidence.
Click to expand...

since you have no evidence of a creator your statement is false.
as always you have shown no quantifiable evidence for either claim.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The process of subjecting children to complex initiation rituals before they are able to critically assess the event is seen by Dawkins and other critics of religion as cruel.
> 
> evolution is never taught that way, the information is presented and the students decided for themselves, unlike religion where the the believe this or you're going to hell rule applies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree. Go watch Expelled. Darwinism is religiously taught and any one who objects is immediately silenced. Children are not taught to think about opposing viewpoints or question the evidence when it comes to their Darwinian indoctrination in the Nanny State Public schools. They are tricked with old lies even though new evidence abounds and immersed in assumptive language at every turn.
Click to expand...

bullshit [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUB8Mv1SaKQ]Jesus in my School - YouTube[/ame]

Richard Sternberg
Summary
Expelled claims that Sternberg was terrorized and that his life was nearly ruined when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination. Before publishing the paper, Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate  not an employee  at the Smithsonian. He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life was nearly ruined when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy.

The Claim
The paper ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began. (Ben Stein, Expelled)

The Facts
Expelled doesnt even get the papers subject right. The paper was not about how life began; it was about the Cambrian Explosion, which occurred about three billion years later. The greater error is claiming that the discussion of ID generated the controversy. There was an understandable outcry from members of the Biological Society of Washington over the embarrassing publication of what they recognized as poorly-written, inaccurate science in their journal. The argument presented in the Meyer paper had previously been reviewed and rejected by scientists. Seeing this shoddy science in their journal indeed ignited a firestorm, but not for the reasons given in Expelled. For more on why the paper was bad science, see the review published on the Pandas Thumb blog and the review in the Palaeontological Society Newsletter.

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » Richard Sternberg


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you somehow miss that you are describing the results of evolutionary processes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No i'm not, domesticated animals are products of selective breeding. Now why does it happen in the wild ? maybe they were simply created the way they appear in the wild but some may be the result of cross breeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly have every reason to accept that Zeus had a hand in creating creatures in the wild. What can you offer to suggest that it was your gods who created wild creatures?
> 
> And which ones? I want a list.
Click to expand...


Baby steps Hollie but his name is not zeus.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly have every reason to accept that Zeus had a hand in creating creatures in the wild. What can you offer to suggest that it was your gods who created wild creatures?
> 
> And which ones? I want a list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say YAHWEH created all things and gave organisms the limited ability to adapt. You have been presented with plenty of evidence for design with your side having no explanation for complexity.
> 
> Intelligence creates and design,we know of no natural method of the beginning of life. We know cars ,homes,and communication systems were designed by a intelligent mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can make any claim you wish regarding your religious views. I'm also free to advise that your claims are totally unsupported and substanceless.
> 
> I've learned to expect dishonesty from Christian fundies and in concert with those expectations I have to advise that you have offered no evidence of anything. Posting canned YouTube videos is pointless as we know that Christian fundies have an agenda of pressing Christianity, not truth or facts.
> 
> And yes, mechanical components show design intent. Nothing in nature shows design. Everything in nature shows clear evidence of fitness for survival. Your silly comparisons are the standard boilerplate nonsense on Christian fundie websites. Your claims are neither original nor true. They're just tired cliches used by Christian creationists for lack of a defendable argument.
Click to expand...


You can't prove my views wrong concerning God, Nor my views in science.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No i'm not, domesticated animals are products of selective breeding. Now why does it happen in the wild ? maybe they were simply created the way they appear in the wild but some may be the result of cross breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly have every reason to accept that Zeus had a hand in creating creatures in the wild. What can you offer to suggest that it was your gods who created wild creatures?
> 
> And which ones? I want a list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby steps Hollie but his name is not zeus.
Click to expand...

and why not? since all references to a god or gods are subjective not objective.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you somehow miss that you are describing the results of evolutionary processes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you obviously totally lack understanding of your own theory. Don't look now, but...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're more than a little befuddled. The science and theory of evolution has progressed substantially as the means and methods of examination and study have advanced. The supporting science has only gotten better defined and better understood. It only makes sense for that to continue.
> 
> It's obvious that your claims to gods and supernaturalism are becoming more marginalized and more out of touch.
Click to expand...


New discoveries are what's making your theory even more rediculous.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False! As with all these silly videos promoting religion, the underlying assumption is "the gods didi it". Attempting to force even inconsequential amounts of data to fit a preconceived view is dishonest. Religious claims to supernaturalism is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because they lack faith in a creator while closing their minds to the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since you have no evidence of a creator your statement is false.
> as always you have shown no quantifiable evidence for either claim.
Click to expand...


No,I have seen evidence that makes it reasonable to believe in a creator. It comes down to who is properly interpreting evidence. That is no contest you have no evidence for your theory about life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The process of subjecting children to complex initiation rituals before they are able to critically assess the event is seen by Dawkins and other critics of religion as cruel.
> 
> evolution is never taught that way, the information is presented and the students decided for themselves, unlike religion where the the believe this or you're going to hell rule applies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree. Go watch Expelled. Darwinism is religiously taught and any one who objects is immediately silenced. Children are not taught to think about opposing viewpoints or question the evidence when it comes to their Darwinian indoctrination in the Nanny State Public schools. They are tricked with old lies even though new evidence abounds and immersed in assumptive language at every turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUB8Mv1SaKQ]Jesus in my School - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Richard Sternberg
> Summary
> Expelled claims that Sternberg was terrorized and that his life was nearly ruined when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination. Before publishing the paper, Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate  not an employee  at the Smithsonian. He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life was nearly ruined when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy.
> 
> The Claim
> The paper ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began. (Ben Stein, Expelled)
> 
> The Facts
> Expelled doesnt even get the papers subject right. The paper was not about how life began; it was about the Cambrian Explosion, which occurred about three billion years later. The greater error is claiming that the discussion of ID generated the controversy. There was an understandable outcry from members of the Biological Society of Washington over the embarrassing publication of what they recognized as poorly-written, inaccurate science in their journal. The argument presented in the Meyer paper had previously been reviewed and rejected by scientists. Seeing this shoddy science in their journal indeed ignited a firestorm, but not for the reasons given in Expelled. For more on why the paper was bad science, see the review published on the Pandas Thumb blog and the review in the Palaeontological Society Newsletter.
> 
> Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » Richard Sternberg
Click to expand...


The cambrian explosion is definitely evidence  against the theory of evolution. No Organism can survive that many mutations or DNA information change in that short in that short span.

It better supports a creation event where the diversity of life appeared suddenly. Low change over time did not happen with the cambrian explosion.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say YAHWEH created all things and gave organisms the limited ability to adapt. You have been presented with plenty of evidence for design with your side having no explanation for complexity.
> 
> Intelligence creates and design,we know of no natural method of the beginning of life. We know cars ,homes,and communication systems were designed by a intelligent mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can make any claim you wish regarding your religious views. I'm also free to advise that your claims are totally unsupported and substanceless.
> 
> I've learned to expect dishonesty from Christian fundies and in concert with those expectations I have to advise that you have offered no evidence of anything. Posting canned YouTube videos is pointless as we know that Christian fundies have an agenda of pressing Christianity, not truth or facts.
> 
> And yes, mechanical components show design intent. Nothing in nature shows design. Everything in nature shows clear evidence of fitness for survival. Your silly comparisons are the standard boilerplate nonsense on Christian fundie websites. Your claims are neither original nor true. They're just tired cliches used by Christian creationists for lack of a defendable argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't prove my views wrong concerning God, Nor my views in science.
Click to expand...

really? it's all ready been done.
you have no empirical proof of god only the belief.
belief proves nothing but belief 
there is no evidence that god said or did anything you give him credit for.
since your views on science are based a false premise I.E. (god did it) willful ignorance, hubris and a completely bias pov.
they cannot be considered valid.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly have every reason to accept that Zeus had a hand in creating creatures in the wild. What can you offer to suggest that it was your gods who created wild creatures?
> 
> And which ones? I want a list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baby steps Hollie but his name is not zeus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and why not? since all references to a god or gods are subjective not objective.
Click to expand...


When I walk up to a person I want to know his or her real name. The believers have pretty much rejected zeus and apollo.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can make any claim you wish regarding your religious views. I'm also free to advise that your claims are totally unsupported and substanceless.
> 
> I've learned to expect dishonesty from Christian fundies and in concert with those expectations I have to advise that you have offered no evidence of anything. Posting canned YouTube videos is pointless as we know that Christian fundies have an agenda of pressing Christianity, not truth or facts.
> 
> And yes, mechanical components show design intent. Nothing in nature shows design. Everything in nature shows clear evidence of fitness for survival. Your silly comparisons are the standard boilerplate nonsense on Christian fundie websites. Your claims are neither original nor true. They're just tired cliches used by Christian creationists for lack of a defendable argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove my views wrong concerning God, Nor my views in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? it's all ready been done.
> you have no empirical proof of god only the belief.
> belief proves nothing but belief
> there is no evidence that god said or did anything you give him credit for.
> since your views on science are based a false premise I.E. (god did it) willful ignorance, hubris and a completely bias pov.
> they cannot be considered valid.
Click to expand...


Really, molecular machines are not empirical evidence ? The cell is not empirical evidence ? the sun,moon,and our atmosphere is not empirical evidence ? I can point to many more empirical evidences but this is enough.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only because they lack faith in a creator while closing their minds to the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> since you have no evidence of a creator your statement is false.
> as always you have shown no quantifiable evidence for either claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,I have seen evidence that makes it reasonable to believe in a creator. It comes down to who is properly interpreting evidence. That is no contest you have no evidence for your theory about life.
Click to expand...

what evidence might that be?..... chicken fucking
proper interpretation of evidence is only possible when objectivity is present.
a skill or quality you have no concept of .
once again belief is not proof.   

rea·son·able adj \&#712;r&#275;z-n&#601;-b&#601;l, &#712;r&#275;-z&#601;n-&#601;-b&#601;l\
Definition of REASONABLE
1a : being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory> b : not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests> c : moderate, fair <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> d : inexpensive 
2a : having the faculty of reason b : possessing sound judgment <a reasonable man.

nothing you have posted meets the definition posted above.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove my views wrong concerning God, Nor my views in science.
> 
> 
> 
> really? it's all ready been done.
> you have no empirical proof of god only the belief.
> belief proves nothing but belief
> there is no evidence that god said or did anything you give him credit for.
> since your views on science are based a false premise I.E. (god did it) willful ignorance, hubris and a completely bias pov.
> they cannot be considered valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, molecular machines are not empirical evidence ? The cell is not empirical evidence ? the sun,moon,and our atmosphere is not empirical evidence ? I can point to many more empirical evidences but this is enough.
Click to expand...

 they are empirical only in that they exist. it is not however proof that they were caused to happen by a god for a purpose. no matter how much you wish they were.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree. Go watch Expelled. Darwinism is religiously taught and any one who objects is immediately silenced. Children are not taught to think about opposing viewpoints or question the evidence when it comes to their Darwinian indoctrination in the Nanny State Public schools. They are tricked with old lies even though new evidence abounds and immersed in assumptive language at every turn.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUB8Mv1SaKQ]Jesus in my School - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Richard Sternberg
> Summary
> Expelled claims that Sternberg was terrorized and that his life was nearly ruined when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination. Before publishing the paper, Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate  not an employee  at the Smithsonian. He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life was nearly ruined when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy.
> 
> The Claim
> The paper ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began. (Ben Stein, Expelled)
> 
> The Facts
> Expelled doesnt even get the papers subject right. The paper was not about how life began; it was about the Cambrian Explosion, which occurred about three billion years later. The greater error is claiming that the discussion of ID generated the controversy. There was an understandable outcry from members of the Biological Society of Washington over the embarrassing publication of what they recognized as poorly-written, inaccurate science in their journal. The argument presented in the Meyer paper had previously been reviewed and rejected by scientists. Seeing this shoddy science in their journal indeed ignited a firestorm, but not for the reasons given in Expelled. For more on why the paper was bad science, see the review published on the Pandas Thumb blog and the review in the Palaeontological Society Newsletter.
> 
> Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » Richard Sternberg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cambrian explosion is definitely evidence  against the theory of evolution. No Organism can survive that many mutations or DNA information change in that short in that short span.
> 
> It better supports a creation event where the diversity of life appeared suddenly. Low change over time did not happen with the cambrian explosion.
Click to expand...

bullshit :I have heard creationists claim on multiple occasions that the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution. For example, Lee Strobel in this video claims that the all the phyla appeared at once, independently, and therefore they were created.

First we have to understand what the Cambrian explosion is. The Cambrian explosion occurred about 530 million years ago and lasted around 80 million years. (EDIT: Quasar brought to my attention that the exact length of time of the Cambrian explosion is under dispute. However, the lowest estimate is still around 5 million years.) During this time, many of the phyla or general body types first appeared for animals. Before the Cambrian explosion, very few fossils exist of multicellular creatures, and life appears to be mainly composed of single cell organisms. 

However, not all phyla made their appearance during the Cambrian explosion. Land-based life such as flowers, ferns, etc... developed much later.

While fossils from the Cambrian explosion and Precambrian are rare, evidence exists that all these body types did not evolve completely independently. All animal phyla, for example, share many common characteristics. They are all triploblastic (the embryo forms in 3 layers), bilatteral (have left and right halves) coelomates (have internal body organs). Therefore, evidence of common ancestry is suggested in the formation of these early phyla groups.

More importantly, geologists found fossils predating the Cambrian explosion of burrows which require a digging mechanism and multicellular creatures. So the idea that creatures found in the Cambrian explosion arose without precedent is simply untrue. Life had been developing into more complex, multicellular forms in the Precambrian.

The easiest way to explain the Cambrian explosion is through the theory of punctuated equilibrium. According to the theory, the evolution of most sexually-reproducing creatures occurs in short bursts followed by long stretches of few changes. 

While the theory of punctuated equilibrium may have been over-sold, the idea that changes to the environment spur evolutionary development is well understood by biologists. After all, the information for evolution comes from the environment - change the environment, change the creature. 

It just so happens that the amount of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere dramatically rose during the time of the Cambrian explosion, giving animals more oxygen to work with. This extra oxygen could have enabled creatures to grow larger than ever before without suffocating their body parts due to a lack of oxygen.

So while much remains to be learned about the Cambrian explosion, the idea that it somehow proves that omnipotent deity magically created life on Earth is a very much unwarranted. 
Debunked by Debunkey Monkey at 8:02 PM 

The Debunkey Monkey: Debunking Cambrian Explosion Myths

btw my post was about the lies told in the film expelled, but as always you missed the point completely...and proved wrong.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say YAHWEH created all things and gave organisms the limited ability to adapt. You have been presented with plenty of evidence for design with your side having no explanation for complexity.
> 
> Intelligence creates and design,we know of no natural method of the beginning of life. We know cars ,homes,and communication systems were designed by a intelligent mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can make any claim you wish regarding your religious views. I'm also free to advise that your claims are totally unsupported and substanceless.
> 
> I've learned to expect dishonesty from Christian fundies and in concert with those expectations I have to advise that you have offered no evidence of anything. Posting canned YouTube videos is pointless as we know that Christian fundies have an agenda of pressing Christianity, not truth or facts.
> 
> And yes, mechanical components show design intent. Nothing in nature shows design. Everything in nature shows clear evidence of fitness for survival. Your silly comparisons are the standard boilerplate nonsense on Christian fundie websites. Your claims are neither original nor true. They're just tired cliches used by Christian creationists for lack of a defendable argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't prove my views wrong concerning God, Nor my views in science.
Click to expand...

That's a nonsense claim. You're the one making claims to gods and supernaturalism. You are the one accepting the burden of proof for your claims. 

Your gods are not true until disproved. That's ridiculous. Your "disprove it" claim is the last gasp of a dying argument. Absent any evidence to prove your gods, you demand others disprove them. 

So yes, using your standards (such as they are), I have disproof of your gods. Prove I don't.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Do you believe that nothing collided with nothing and created something?
Does E=mc2?


----------



## daws101

The Irish Ram said:


> Do you believe that nothing collided with nothing and created something?
> Does E=mc2?


do you always intentionaly mis paraphrase the BB theory.
it never states some thing from nothing.
what it does state is ALL THE MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE WAS COMPACTED IN TO AN INFINITESIMALLY SMALL SPACE .
EITHER WAY BELIEVING IS NOT PROOF.
NEVER HAS BEEN NEVER WILL BE


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since you have no evidence of a creator your statement is false.
> as always you have shown no quantifiable evidence for either claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,I have seen evidence that makes it reasonable to believe in a creator. It comes down to who is properly interpreting evidence. That is no contest you have no evidence for your theory about life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what evidence might that be?..... chicken fucking
> proper interpretation of evidence is only possible when objectivity is present.
> a skill or quality you have no concept of .
> once again belief is not proof.
> 
> rea·son·able adj \&#712;r&#275;z-n&#601;-b&#601;l, &#712;r&#275;-z&#601;n-&#601;-b&#601;l\
> Definition of REASONABLE
> 1a : being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory> b : not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests> c : moderate, fair <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> d : inexpensive
> 2a : having the faculty of reason b : possessing sound judgment <a reasonable man.
> 
> nothing you have posted meets the definition posted above.
Click to expand...


Already answered you many times and you still don't get it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? it's all ready been done.
> you have no empirical proof of god only the belief.
> belief proves nothing but belief
> there is no evidence that god said or did anything you give him credit for.
> since your views on science are based a false premise I.E. (god did it) willful ignorance, hubris and a completely bias pov.
> they cannot be considered valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, molecular machines are not empirical evidence ? The cell is not empirical evidence ? the sun,moon,and our atmosphere is not empirical evidence ? I can point to many more empirical evidences but this is enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they are empirical only in that they exist. it is not however proof that they were caused to happen by a god for a purpose. no matter how much you wish they were.
Click to expand...


No and it does not prove they came into existence on their own. I interpret this evidence as having been designed your side is still looking for an answer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit Jesus in my School - YouTube
> 
> Richard Sternberg
> Summary
> Expelled claims that Sternberg was &#8220;terrorized&#8221; and that &#8220;his life was nearly ruined&#8221; when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination. Before publishing the paper, Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate &#8211; not an employee &#8211; at the Smithsonian. He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life &#8220;was nearly ruined&#8221; when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy.
> 
> The Claim
> &#8220;The paper ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began.&#8221; (Ben Stein, Expelled)
> 
> The Facts
> Expelled doesn&#8217;t even get the paper&#8217;s subject right. The paper was not about how life began; it was about the Cambrian Explosion, which occurred about three billion years later. The greater error is claiming that the discussion of ID generated the controversy. There was an understandable outcry from members of the Biological Society of Washington over the embarrassing publication of what they recognized as poorly-written, inaccurate science in their journal. The argument presented in the Meyer paper had previously been reviewed and rejected by scientists. Seeing this shoddy science in their journal indeed &#8220;ignited a firestorm&#8221;, but not for the reasons given in Expelled. For more on why the paper was bad science, see the review published on the Panda&#8217;s Thumb blog and the review in the Palaeontological Society Newsletter.
> 
> Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » Richard Sternberg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cambrian explosion is definitely evidence  against the theory of evolution. No Organism can survive that many mutations or DNA information change in that short in that short span.
> 
> It better supports a creation event where the diversity of life appeared suddenly. Low change over time did not happen with the cambrian explosion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit :I have heard creationists claim on multiple occasions that the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution. For example, Lee Strobel in this video claims that the all the phyla appeared at once, independently, and therefore they were created.
> 
> First we have to understand what the Cambrian explosion is. The Cambrian explosion occurred about 530 million years ago and lasted around 80 million years. (EDIT: Quasar brought to my attention that the exact length of time of the Cambrian explosion is under dispute. However, the lowest estimate is still around 5 million years.) During this time, many of the phyla or general body types first appeared for animals. Before the Cambrian explosion, very few fossils exist of multicellular creatures, and life appears to be mainly composed of single cell organisms.
> 
> However, not all phyla made their appearance during the Cambrian explosion. Land-based life such as flowers, ferns, etc... developed much later.
> 
> While fossils from the Cambrian explosion and Precambrian are rare, evidence exists that all these body types did not evolve completely independently. All animal phyla, for example, share many common characteristics. They are all triploblastic (the embryo forms in 3 layers), bilatteral (have left and right halves) coelomates (have internal body organs). Therefore, evidence of common ancestry is suggested in the formation of these early phyla groups.
> 
> More importantly, geologists found fossils predating the Cambrian explosion of burrows which require a digging mechanism and multicellular creatures. So the idea that creatures found in the Cambrian explosion arose without precedent is simply untrue. Life had been developing into more complex, multicellular forms in the Precambrian.
> 
> The easiest way to explain the Cambrian explosion is through the theory of punctuated equilibrium. According to the theory, the evolution of most sexually-reproducing creatures occurs in short bursts followed by long stretches of few changes.
> 
> While the theory of punctuated equilibrium may have been over-sold, the idea that changes to the environment spur evolutionary development is well understood by biologists. After all, the information for evolution comes from the environment - change the environment, change the creature.
> 
> It just so happens that the amount of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere dramatically rose during the time of the Cambrian explosion, giving animals more oxygen to work with. This extra oxygen could have enabled creatures to grow larger than ever before without suffocating their body parts due to a lack of oxygen.
> 
> So while much remains to be learned about the Cambrian explosion, the idea that it somehow proves that omnipotent deity magically created life on Earth is a very much unwarranted.
> Debunked by Debunkey Monkey at 8:02 PM
> 
> The Debunkey Monkey: Debunking Cambrian Explosion Myths
> 
> btw my post was about the lies told in the film expelled, but as always you missed the point completely...and proved wrong.
Click to expand...


The fairytale and myth is saying that rapid diversification of multicellular animal life appeared rapidly over millions of years through a natural process, No way Jose.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can make any claim you wish regarding your religious views. I'm also free to advise that your claims are totally unsupported and substanceless.
> 
> I've learned to expect dishonesty from Christian fundies and in concert with those expectations I have to advise that you have offered no evidence of anything. Posting canned YouTube videos is pointless as we know that Christian fundies have an agenda of pressing Christianity, not truth or facts.
> 
> And yes, mechanical components show design intent. Nothing in nature shows design. Everything in nature shows clear evidence of fitness for survival. Your silly comparisons are the standard boilerplate nonsense on Christian fundie websites. Your claims are neither original nor true. They're just tired cliches used by Christian creationists for lack of a defendable argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove my views wrong concerning God, Nor my views in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a nonsense claim. You're the one making claims to gods and supernaturalism. You are the one accepting the burden of proof for your claims.
> 
> Your gods are not true until disproved. That's ridiculous. Your "disprove it" claim is the last gasp of a dying argument. Absent any evidence to prove your gods, you demand others disprove them.
> 
> So yes, using your standards (such as they are), I have disproof of your gods. Prove I don't.
Click to expand...


So far you have not impressed me at all with anything dealing with science but nor has Daws.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that nothing collided with nothing and created something?
> Does E=mc2?
> 
> 
> 
> do you always intentionaly mis paraphrase the BB theory.
> it never states some thing from nothing.
> what it does state is ALL THE MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE WAS COMPACTED IN TO AN INFINITESIMALLY SMALL SPACE .
> EITHER WAY BELIEVING IS NOT PROOF.
> NEVER HAS BEEN NEVER WILL BE
Click to expand...


Put your dunce hat on  the universe had a beginning,that means time had a beginning.Motion is change in location over time. Space cannot exist without time, without time there is no space, and nothing for matter to exist in. 

I love putting you in your place. So where did the matter come from since time did not exist ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, molecular machines are not empirical evidence ? The cell is not empirical evidence ? the sun,moon,and our atmosphere is not empirical evidence ? I can point to many more empirical evidences but this is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> they are empirical only in that they exist. it is not however proof that they were caused to happen by a god for a purpose. no matter how much you wish they were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No and it does not prove they came into existence on their own. I interpret this evidence as having been designed your side is still looking for an answer.
Click to expand...


Of course, your answer is "_the gods did it"_. That is pure speculation and science has already made you gods obsolete. As time goes on the gods will be more and more superfluous when it comes to explainig the natural world.

Supernaturalism is not an answer for anything because it is ultimately lazy and dishonest. While it does relieve you of the burdensome task of having to make decisions and take responsibility for them, belief in gods is a religious claim and thus removes you from science claims.  Appeals to the gods is pure speculation on your part. Even if we were to accept your undemonstrated claims of gods, it still gives us no solid reason to believe any supernatural causation is the result of _your_ god(s) and not some other gods.

See? This is the risk you face when trying to twist religious traditions delineated in fundie dogma to fit the natural world. It demands mis-statements and speculation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they are empirical only in that they exist. it is not however proof that they were caused to happen by a god for a purpose. no matter how much you wish they were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No and it does not prove they came into existence on their own. I interpret this evidence as having been designed your side is still looking for an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, your answer is "_the gods did it"_. That is pure speculation and science has already made you gods obsolete. As time goes on the gods will be more and more superfluous when it comes to explainig the natural world.
> 
> Supernaturalism is not an answer for anything because it is ultimately lazy and dishonest. While it does relieve you of the burdensome task of having to make decisions and take responsibility for them, belief in gods is a religious claim and thus removes you from science claims.  Appeals to the gods is pure speculation on your part. Even if we were to accept your undemonstrated claims of gods, it still gives us no solid reason to believe any supernatural causation is the result of _your_ god(s) and not some other gods.
> 
> See? This is the risk you face when trying to twist religious traditions delineated in fundie dogma to fit the natural world. It demands mis-statements and speculation.
Click to expand...


I can't think of anyone able to design them here on this planet


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove my views wrong concerning God, Nor my views in science.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a nonsense claim. You're the one making claims to gods and supernaturalism. You are the one accepting the burden of proof for your claims.
> 
> Your gods are not true until disproved. That's ridiculous. Your "disprove it" claim is the last gasp of a dying argument. Absent any evidence to prove your gods, you demand others disprove them.
> 
> So yes, using your standards (such as they are), I have disproof of your gods. Prove I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far you have not impressed me at all with anything dealing with science but nor has Daws.
Click to expand...


You have impressed me as only a run of the mill fundie. 

I find it surprising just how little you know of religion and worse, just how little you understand of the sciences that explain the natural world. 

The reality that most of us live in adheres consistently and rigorously to naturally caused and functioning mechanisms that we largely understand. We have no solid evidence or even circumstantial evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms.  Its important to remember that your gods are just the latest gods in a long line of human constructed gods. We have not one single verifiable piece of evidence that any of the asserted gods exist. What you have never even thought to grapple with is that even an argument stating there was proof of gods would defeat the requirement for pure faith entirely.

The fact is, a still youthful science that is exploring and discovering and the body of scientific evidence we already have shows more and more every day that gods arent even _needed_ for reality to exist. Theories and suppositions of gods and supernaturalism are crumbling quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.


----------



## UltimateReality

I'm still waiting for some concrete, *scientific* evidence on finch beaks. [Jeopardy Music playing in background]


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cambrian explosion is definitely evidence  against the theory of evolution. No Organism can survive that many mutations or DNA information change in that short in that short span.
> 
> It better supports a creation event where the diversity of life appeared suddenly. Low change over time did not happen with the cambrian explosion.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit :I have heard creationists claim on multiple occasions that the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution. For example, Lee Strobel in this video claims that the all the phyla appeared at once, independently, and therefore they were created.
> 
> First we have to understand what the Cambrian explosion is. The Cambrian explosion occurred about 530 million years ago and lasted around 80 million years. (EDIT: Quasar brought to my attention that the exact length of time of the Cambrian explosion is under dispute. However, the lowest estimate is still around 5 million years.) During this time, many of the phyla or general body types first appeared for animals. Before the Cambrian explosion, very few fossils exist of multicellular creatures, and life appears to be mainly composed of single cell organisms.
> 
> However, not all phyla made their appearance during the Cambrian explosion. Land-based life such as flowers, ferns, etc... developed much later.
> 
> While fossils from the Cambrian explosion and Precambrian are rare, evidence exists that all these body types did not evolve completely independently. All animal phyla, for example, share many common characteristics. They are all triploblastic (the embryo forms in 3 layers), bilatteral (have left and right halves) coelomates (have internal body organs). Therefore, evidence of common ancestry is suggested in the formation of these early phyla groups.
> 
> More importantly, geologists found fossils predating the Cambrian explosion of burrows which require a digging mechanism and multicellular creatures. So the idea that creatures found in the Cambrian explosion arose without precedent is simply untrue. Life had been developing into more complex, multicellular forms in the Precambrian.
> 
> The easiest way to explain the Cambrian explosion is through the theory of punctuated equilibrium. According to the theory, the evolution of most sexually-reproducing creatures occurs in short bursts followed by long stretches of few changes.
> 
> While the theory of punctuated equilibrium may have been over-sold, the idea that changes to the environment spur evolutionary development is well understood by biologists. After all, the information for evolution comes from the environment - change the environment, change the creature.
> 
> It just so happens that the amount of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere dramatically rose during the time of the Cambrian explosion, giving animals more oxygen to work with. This extra oxygen could have enabled creatures to grow larger than ever before without suffocating their body parts due to a lack of oxygen.
> 
> So while much remains to be learned about the Cambrian explosion, the idea that it somehow proves that omnipotent deity magically created life on Earth is a very much unwarranted.
> Debunked by Debunkey Monkey at 8:02 PM
> 
> The Debunkey Monkey: Debunking Cambrian Explosion Myths
> 
> btw my post was about the lies told in the film expelled, but as always you missed the point completely...and proved wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fairytale and myth is saying that rapid diversification of multicellular animal life appeared rapidly over millions of years through a natural process, No way Jose.
Click to expand...


The problem you're having is that a geologic timeline conflicts with a 6,000 year old earth which is simply ludicrous. 

That leaves you with no option but to wall yourself off from reality and retreat into the fantasy world of supernaturalism, fear and superstition.


----------



## UltimateReality

What Hollie fails to grasp is that cosmologists, including Stephen Hawkins, struggle with the cause and effect arguments regarding the BB. Hollie failed in her attempt to propose a paradox regarding God having a cause. We can use the same argument for God that Einstein mistakenly used for the Universe. He desperately wanted to believe in an infinite universe, because an infinite universe would not necessitate a cause. If we believe the counter argument Big Bang theory, we must necessarily believe in a cause for the bang. The cause, of course, would have to be supernatural. So while we can't prove it exists, we can logically deduce the necessity of a cause. Theists just happen to believe that cause is a Being that transcends time, space, matter and energy and a Being who has always existed [I AM] and who always will exist.

"The Big Bang

The idea that the universe had a specific time of origin has been philosophically resisted by some very distinguished scientists. We could begin with Arthur Eddington, who experimentally confirmed Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1919. He stated a dozen years later: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a genuine loophole." He later said, "We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time to get started."

Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God


----------



## UltimateReality

Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,

    Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.

Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cambrian explosion is definitely evidence  against the theory of evolution. No Organism can survive that many mutations or DNA information change in that short in that short span.
> 
> It better supports a creation event where the diversity of life appeared suddenly. Low change over time did not happen with the cambrian explosion.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit :I have heard creationists claim on multiple occasions that the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution. For example, Lee Strobel in this video claims that the all the phyla appeared at once, independently, and therefore they were created.
> 
> First we have to understand what the Cambrian explosion is. The Cambrian explosion occurred about 530 million years ago and lasted around 80 million years. (EDIT: Quasar brought to my attention that the exact length of time of the Cambrian explosion is under dispute. However, the lowest estimate is still around 5 million years.) During this time, many of the phyla or general body types first appeared for animals. Before the Cambrian explosion, very few fossils exist of multicellular creatures, and life appears to be mainly composed of single cell organisms.
> 
> However, not all phyla made their appearance during the Cambrian explosion. Land-based life such as flowers, ferns, etc... developed much later.
> 
> While fossils from the Cambrian explosion and Precambrian are rare, evidence exists that all these body types did not evolve completely independently. All animal phyla, for example, share many common characteristics. They are all triploblastic (the embryo forms in 3 layers), bilatteral (have left and right halves) coelomates (have internal body organs). Therefore, evidence of common ancestry is suggested in the formation of these early phyla groups.
> 
> More importantly, geologists found fossils predating the Cambrian explosion of burrows which require a digging mechanism and multicellular creatures. So the idea that creatures found in the Cambrian explosion arose without precedent is simply untrue. Life had been developing into more complex, multicellular forms in the Precambrian.
> 
> The easiest way to explain the Cambrian explosion is through the theory of punctuated equilibrium. According to the theory, the evolution of most sexually-reproducing creatures occurs in short bursts followed by long stretches of few changes.
> 
> While the theory of punctuated equilibrium may have been over-sold, the idea that changes to the environment spur evolutionary development is well understood by biologists. After all, the information for evolution comes from the environment - change the environment, change the creature.
> 
> It just so happens that the amount of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere dramatically rose during the time of the Cambrian explosion, giving animals more oxygen to work with. This extra oxygen could have enabled creatures to grow larger than ever before without suffocating their body parts due to a lack of oxygen.
> 
> So while much remains to be learned about the Cambrian explosion, the idea that it somehow proves that omnipotent deity magically created life on Earth is a very much unwarranted.
> Debunked by Debunkey Monkey at 8:02 PM
> 
> The Debunkey Monkey: Debunking Cambrian Explosion Myths
> 
> btw my post was about the lies told in the film expelled, but as always you missed the point completely...and proved wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fairytale and myth is saying that rapid diversification of multicellular animal life appeared rapidly over millions of years through a natural process, No way Jose.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately for you, accepting Harun Yahya as your source of science information puts you at a disadvantage. 

You need to disparage science because knowledge and information are dangerous to your Christian creation claims. You hope to vilify knowledge and information when its precisely those two attributes which define how we perceive and interpret information and how we react to events. 

It's obvious that you won't dare touch the science and supporting evidence because the nonsense refutations at the Harun Yahya website have been totally debunked.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> What Hollie fails to grasp is that cosmologists, including Stephen Hawkins, struggle with the cause and effect arguments regarding the BB. Hollie failed in her attempt to propose a paradox regarding God having a cause. We can use the same argument for God that Einstein mistakenly used for the Universe. He desperately wanted to believe in an infinite universe, because an infinite universe would not necessitate a cause. If we believe the counter argument Big Bang theory, we must necessarily believe in a cause for the bang. The cause, of course, would have to be supernatural. So while we can't prove it exists, we can logically deduce the necessity of a cause. Theists just happen to believe that cause is a Being that transcends time, space, matter and energy and a Being who has always existed [I AM] and who always will exist.
> 
> "The Big Bang
> 
> The idea that the universe had a specific time of origin has been philosophically resisted by some very distinguished scientists. We could begin with Arthur Eddington, who experimentally confirmed Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1919. He stated a dozen years later: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a genuine loophole." He later said, "We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time to get started."
> 
> Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God



What you fail to understand is that appeals to authority cause your arguments to fail. What you also fail to understand is that denigrating science because it confounds your belief in gods removes your credibility. 

Bible thumping fundies are consistent in their revulsion for science. It truly scares them as it limits their gods to doing nothing more than performing administrative duties as their usefullness is stripped away.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Hollie fails to grasp is that cosmologists, including Stephen Hawkins, struggle with the cause and effect arguments regarding the BB. Hollie failed in her attempt to propose a paradox regarding God having a cause. We can use the same argument for God that Einstein mistakenly used for the Universe. He desperately wanted to believe in an infinite universe, because an infinite universe would not necessitate a cause. If we believe the counter argument Big Bang theory, we must necessarily believe in a cause for the bang. The cause, of course, would have to be supernatural. So while we can't prove it exists, we can logically deduce the necessity of a cause. Theists just happen to believe that cause is a Being that transcends time, space, matter and energy and a Being who has always existed [I AM] and who always will exist.
> 
> "The Big Bang
> 
> The idea that the universe had a specific time of origin has been philosophically resisted by some very distinguished scientists. We could begin with Arthur Eddington, who experimentally confirmed Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1919. He stated a dozen years later: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a genuine loophole." He later said, "We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time to get started."
> 
> Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you fail to understand is that appeals to authority cause your arguments to fail. What you also fail to understand is that denigrating science because it confounds your belief in gods removes your credibility.
> 
> Bible thumping fundies are consistent in their revulsion for science. It truly scares them as it limits their gods to doing nothing more than performing administrative duties as their usefullness is stripped away.
Click to expand...


Over 50 posts and still not really saying anything.


----------



## UltimateReality

Great description of my beliefs...

*My position as a Christian is not that I can prove every statement in the Bible*, or even most of them, to be true. Such a claim would actually be inconsistent with the view that the Bible is the final authority. By definition, your foundational presuppositions or (those things directly deducible from them) are not subject to further verification  or they would not in fact be foundational presuppositions. Rather, my position is that only taking the Bible as foundational can consistently make sense of everything else. C S Lewis asked why we believe that our night-time dreams are not the true world, rather than the one we spend the day in. How do we know that day-time is not the dream? How do we decide for sure which is the real world? He answered, because the real world makes sense of our dreams; whereas our dreams make sense of nothing. One gives a coherent account of the other. Thats as far as you go in such questions, and normally it satisfies us. Christians believe in the triune God and in the Bible, not because we have a scientific proof of them; but because they make sense of the world, science and everything else whereas the alternative choices fall far short. Science makes sense within a Biblical world-view. There are coherent reasons for doing science and expecting sound results. But when I make myself the center of my existence and epistemology, I end up being able to make sense of nothing. How do I know that the world is not just an illusion? Why expect the future to be in accordance with the past? There are reasons why science flourished within the soil of a Christian culture, when it had failed to do so amongst other those of world-views.

&#8220;The Bible says it, therefore I believe it&#8221; | Uncommon Descent


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,
> 
> Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.
> 
> Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."



Simphoni Forums > The Creation of the Universe

QUOTE (Stephen Hawking @ The Big Bang, and God)
Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."




Ive found that when Christian creationists are quoting authors, its always prudent to do ones homework and find out what part(s) of the relevant quote has been purposely edited or removed.

The Inflationary Universe




> The simplest possibility for the very early universe is that it actually began with a big bang, expanded rather uniformly until it cooled to the critical temperature of the phase transition and then proceeded according to the inflationary scenario. Extrapolating the big-bang model back to zero time brings the universe to a cosmological singularity, a condition of infinite temperature and density in which the known laws of physics do not apply. The instant of creation remains unexplained. A second possibility is that the universe began (again without explanation) in a random, chaotic state. The matter and temperature distributions would be nonuniform, with some parts expanding and other parts contracting. In this scenario certain small regions that were hot and expanding would undergo inflation, evolving into huge regions easily capable of encompassing the observable universe. Outside these regions there would remain chaos, gradually creeping into the regions that had inflated.



In context, Alan Guth wasnt referring to supernatural creation of the universe.

Alan Guth (also) wrote:
The universe could have evolved from absolutely nothing in a manner consistent with all known conservation laws.

The question of the origin of the matter in the universe is no longer thought to be beyond the range of science  everything can be created from nothing  it is fair to say that the universe is the ultimate free lunch.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Hollie fails to grasp is that cosmologists, including Stephen Hawkins, struggle with the cause and effect arguments regarding the BB. Hollie failed in her attempt to propose a paradox regarding God having a cause. We can use the same argument for God that Einstein mistakenly used for the Universe. He desperately wanted to believe in an infinite universe, because an infinite universe would not necessitate a cause. If we believe the counter argument Big Bang theory, we must necessarily believe in a cause for the bang. The cause, of course, would have to be supernatural. So while we can't prove it exists, we can logically deduce the necessity of a cause. Theists just happen to believe that cause is a Being that transcends time, space, matter and energy and a Being who has always existed [I AM] and who always will exist.
> 
> "The Big Bang
> 
> The idea that the universe had a specific time of origin has been philosophically resisted by some very distinguished scientists. We could begin with Arthur Eddington, who experimentally confirmed Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1919. He stated a dozen years later: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a genuine loophole." He later said, "We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time to get started."
> 
> Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you fail to understand is that appeals to authority cause your arguments to fail. What you also fail to understand is that denigrating science because it confounds your belief in gods removes your credibility.
> 
> Bible thumping fundies are consistent in their revulsion for science. It truly scares them as it limits their gods to doing nothing more than performing administrative duties as their usefullness is stripped away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 50 posts and still not really saying anything.
Click to expand...

Over 50 posts and I've refuted your false claims, exposed your dishonestly edited "quotes" and corrected your falsely attributed references.

It's all in a days work when reviewing the lies and falsehoods that the fundie christian creationists will post.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Great description of my beliefs...
> 
> *My position as a Christian is not that I can prove every statement in the Bible*, or even most of them, to be true. Such a claim would actually be inconsistent with the view that the Bible is the final authority. By definition, your foundational presuppositions or (those things directly deducible from them) are not subject to further verification  or they would not in fact be foundational presuppositions. Rather, my position is that only taking the Bible as foundational can consistently make sense of everything else. C S Lewis asked why we believe that our night-time dreams are not the true world, rather than the one we spend the day in. How do we know that day-time is not the dream? How do we decide for sure which is the real world? He answered, because the real world makes sense of our dreams; whereas our dreams make sense of nothing. One gives a coherent account of the other. Thats as far as you go in such questions, and normally it satisfies us. Christians believe in the triune God and in the Bible, not because we have a scientific proof of them; but because they make sense of the world, science and everything else whereas the alternative choices fall far short. Science makes sense within a Biblical world-view. There are coherent reasons for doing science and expecting sound results. But when I make myself the center of my existence and epistemology, I end up being able to make sense of nothing. How do I know that the world is not just an illusion? Why expect the future to be in accordance with the past? There are reasons why science flourished within the soil of a Christian culture, when it had failed to do so amongst other those of world-views.
> 
> The Bible says it, therefore I believe it | Uncommon Descent



"I end up being able to make sense of nothing"

This seems to explain the sum total of your posts.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,
> 
> Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.
> 
> Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simphoni Forums > The Creation of the Universe
> 
> QUOTE (Stephen Hawking @ The Big Bang, and God)
> Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ive found that when Christian creationists are quoting authors, its always prudent to do ones homework and find out what part(s) of the relevant quote has been purposely edited or removed.
> 
> The Inflationary Universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The simplest possibility for the very early universe is that it actually began with a big bang, expanded rather uniformly until it cooled to the critical temperature of the phase transition and then proceeded according to the inflationary scenario. Extrapolating the big-bang model back to zero time brings the universe to a cosmological singularity, a condition of infinite temperature and density in which the known laws of physics do not apply. The instant of creation remains unexplained. A second possibility is that the universe began (again without explanation) in a random, chaotic state. The matter and temperature distributions would be nonuniform, with some parts expanding and other parts contracting. In this scenario certain small regions that were hot and expanding would undergo inflation, evolving into huge regions easily capable of encompassing the observable universe. Outside these regions there would remain chaos, gradually creeping into the regions that had inflated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In context, Alan Guth wasnt referring to supernatural creation of the universe.
Click to expand...


Hollie, I think you were probably the only one that missed that. The rest of us know that when we refer to Christian Creation, it gets a capital 'C'. Your paranoia that we are somehow trying to trick you with quotes is getting the best of you. No one inferred that Hawkins was talking about Creation. Your own bias is causing you to read into things that aren't even being inferred. What other aspects of your judgement are being clouded by your intense hatred?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you fail to understand is that appeals to authority cause your arguments to fail. What you also fail to understand is that denigrating science because it confounds your belief in gods removes your credibility.
> 
> Bible thumping fundies are consistent in their revulsion for science. It truly scares them as it limits their gods to doing nothing more than performing administrative duties as their usefullness is stripped away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over 50 posts and still not really saying anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Over 50 posts and I've refuted your false claims, exposed your dishonestly edited "quotes" and corrected your falsely attributed references.
> 
> It's all in a days work when reviewing the lies and falsehoods that the fundie christian creationists will post.
Click to expand...


Of course you have.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of my beliefs...
> 
> *My position as a Christian is not that I can prove every statement in the Bible*, or even most of them, to be true. Such a claim would actually be inconsistent with the view that the Bible is the final authority. By definition, your foundational presuppositions or (those things directly deducible from them) are not subject to further verification &#8211; or they would not in fact be foundational presuppositions. Rather, my position is that only taking the Bible as foundational can consistently make sense of everything else. C S Lewis asked why we believe that our night-time dreams are not the true world, rather than the one we spend the day in. How do we know that day-time is not the dream? How do we decide for sure which is the real world? He answered, because the real world makes sense of our dreams; whereas our dreams make sense of nothing. One gives a coherent account of the other. That&#8217;s as far as you go in such questions, and normally it satisfies us. Christians believe in the triune God and in the Bible, not because we have a scientific proof of them; but because they make sense of the world, science and everything else whereas the alternative choices fall far short. Science makes sense within a Biblical world-view. There are coherent reasons for doing science and expecting sound results. But when I make myself the center of my existence and epistemology, I end up being able to make sense of nothing. How do I know that the world is not just an illusion? Why expect the future to be in accordance with the past? There are reasons why science flourished within the soil of a Christian culture, when it had failed to do so amongst other those of world-views.
> 
> &#8220;The Bible says it, therefore I believe it&#8221; | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I end up being able to make sense of nothing"
> 
> This seems to explain the sum total of your posts.
Click to expand...


Rugged Hollie, methinks you quoted out of context. Are you a man or a woman? The sad truth is that he is talking about you. You have made yourself the center of your own existence.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,
> 
> Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.
> 
> Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simphoni Forums > The Creation of the Universe
> 
> QUOTE (Stephen Hawking @ The Big Bang, and God)
> Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ive found that when Christian creationists are quoting authors, its always prudent to do ones homework and find out what part(s) of the relevant quote has been purposely edited or removed.
> 
> The Inflationary Universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The simplest possibility for the very early universe is that it actually began with a big bang, expanded rather uniformly until it cooled to the critical temperature of the phase transition and then proceeded according to the inflationary scenario. Extrapolating the big-bang model back to zero time brings the universe to a cosmological singularity, a condition of infinite temperature and density in which the known laws of physics do not apply. The instant of creation remains unexplained. A second possibility is that the universe began (again without explanation) in a random, chaotic state. The matter and temperature distributions would be nonuniform, with some parts expanding and other parts contracting. In this scenario certain small regions that were hot and expanding would undergo inflation, evolving into huge regions easily capable of encompassing the observable universe. Outside these regions there would remain chaos, gradually creeping into the regions that had inflated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In context, Alan Guth wasnt referring to supernatural creation of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, I think you were probably the only one that missed that. The rest of us know that when we refer to Christian Creation, it gets a capital 'C'. Your paranoia that we are somehow trying to trick you with quotes is getting the best of you. No one inferred that Hawkins was talking about Creation. Your own bias is causing you to read into things that aren't even being inferred. What other aspects of your judgement are being clouded by your intense hatred?
Click to expand...


Your embarrassment was caused by being exposed for once again altering quotes in an attempt to bolster your position. Common sense would suggest that if your position relies on falsification and dishonest tactics of altering quotes to support your claims that your claims are bankrupt.

As science expands out boundaries of knowledge, empirical data and our powers of reason are the tools to help us understand the natural world. We use our reason to perceive existence, and so far no other method is known to be able to adequately replace it. So I don't look as knowledge and reason as goals-- knowledge is all we can attain, and reason is the only means. Anything Mankind attains can be classified as "knowledge" (although there are degrees of certainty, probability, and possibility) and reason fundamentally is the only method we have of attaining it.

I think that the problem fundie Christian creationists have with rationality is that they perceive that it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions, hence they feel reason is somehow inadequate. I take a very different view. Stripped of reason, one cannot even perceive the concept of love or hate or compassion, so therefore, the keystone of our perception of existence *must* be reason.

The creationist ministries will claim that existence is fundamentally incomprehensible and that only through the gods is perception possible. I take serious issue with. I assert that while there certainly are things unknown about the Universe, this does not mean they are intrinsically unknowable. In fact, it is irrational beliefs in things such as the supernatural that (should those beliefs be true) would make the Universe incomprehensible, which is why I feel that religious belief systems do Man a great disservice (as does intransigent scientific methodology).


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of my beliefs...
> 
> *My position as a Christian is not that I can prove every statement in the Bible*, or even most of them, to be true. Such a claim would actually be inconsistent with the view that the Bible is the final authority. By definition, your foundational presuppositions or (those things directly deducible from them) are not subject to further verification  or they would not in fact be foundational presuppositions. Rather, my position is that only taking the Bible as foundational can consistently make sense of everything else. C S Lewis asked why we believe that our night-time dreams are not the true world, rather than the one we spend the day in. How do we know that day-time is not the dream? How do we decide for sure which is the real world? He answered, because the real world makes sense of our dreams; whereas our dreams make sense of nothing. One gives a coherent account of the other. Thats as far as you go in such questions, and normally it satisfies us. Christians believe in the triune God and in the Bible, not because we have a scientific proof of them; but because they make sense of the world, science and everything else whereas the alternative choices fall far short. Science makes sense within a Biblical world-view. There are coherent reasons for doing science and expecting sound results. But when I make myself the center of my existence and epistemology, I end up being able to make sense of nothing. How do I know that the world is not just an illusion? Why expect the future to be in accordance with the past? There are reasons why science flourished within the soil of a Christian culture, when it had failed to do so amongst other those of world-views.
> 
> The Bible says it, therefore I believe it | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I end up being able to make sense of nothing"
> 
> This seems to explain the sum total of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rugged Hollie, methinks you quoted out of context. Are you a man or a woman? The sad truth is that he is talking about you. You have made yourself the center of your own existence.
Click to expand...


Goofy name-caller,

Thinking is difficult for you. We understand that.

I dont see that accepting reason as the criteria for perception is making oneself the center of ones own existence. That is one of the many goofy canards typically appearing on fundie religious websites.

We are part of nature, as is our reason, as are our perceptions. If we can count on nature to be relatively consistent, then we can also count on our reason and perceptions to be relatively consistent, and as we learn more and accumulate more data, we will narrow the definition of the word relatively. This doesnt mean that people generally behave as though their reason can be counted on as relatively consistent; in fact, they behave in just the reverse. But that too is knowledge, and it is not impossible to fix. Two ways I can think of is to stop inculcating in children (who lack any proper frame of reference) mystical mumbo-jumbo which is invariably backed up with the fundie christian precepts of self-deception, self-righteousness and implied threat. The second is to prioritize schooling of logical and critical thinking.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I end up being able to make sense of nothing"
> 
> This seems to explain the sum total of your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rugged Hollie, methinks you quoted out of context. Are you a man or a woman? The sad truth is that he is talking about you. You have made yourself the center of your own existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goofy name-caller,
> 
> Thinking is difficult for you. We understand that.
> 
> I don&#8217;t see that accepting reason as the criteria for perception is making oneself the center of one&#8217;s own existence. That is one of the many goofy canards typically appearing on fundie religious websites.
> 
> We are part of nature, as is our reason, as are our perceptions. If we can count on nature to be relatively consistent, then we can also count on our reason and perceptions to be relatively consistent, and as we learn more and accumulate more data, we will narrow the definition of the word &#8220;relatively&#8221;. This doesn&#8217;t mean that people generally behave as though their reason can be counted on as relatively consistent; in fact, they behave in just the reverse. But that too is knowledge, and it is not impossible to fix. Two ways I can think of is to stop inculcating in children (who lack any proper frame of reference) mystical mumbo-jumbo which is invariably backed up with the fundie christian precepts of self-deception, self-righteousness and implied threat. The second is to prioritize schooling of logical and critical thinking.
Click to expand...


Do you and Daws copy and paste from pro evolutionist and atheist sites ? What is your point ? Most the time my posts are my own words,sometimes I don't feel like repeating myself and will copy and paste from sites on my side of the argument. I also quote people from your side as well. There are honest evolutionist out there and admit to the truths that many on your side are ignorant of.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rugged Hollie, methinks you quoted out of context. Are you a man or a woman? The sad truth is that he is talking about you. You have made yourself the center of your own existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Goofy name-caller,
> 
> Thinking is difficult for you. We understand that.
> 
> I dont see that accepting reason as the criteria for perception is making oneself the center of ones own existence. That is one of the many goofy canards typically appearing on fundie religious websites.
> 
> We are part of nature, as is our reason, as are our perceptions. If we can count on nature to be relatively consistent, then we can also count on our reason and perceptions to be relatively consistent, and as we learn more and accumulate more data, we will narrow the definition of the word relatively. This doesnt mean that people generally behave as though their reason can be counted on as relatively consistent; in fact, they behave in just the reverse. But that too is knowledge, and it is not impossible to fix. Two ways I can think of is to stop inculcating in children (who lack any proper frame of reference) mystical mumbo-jumbo which is invariably backed up with the fundie christian precepts of self-deception, self-righteousness and implied threat. The second is to prioritize schooling of logical and critical thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you and Daws copy and paste from pro evolutionist and atheist sites ? What is your point ? Most the time my posts are my own words,sometimes I don't feel like repeating myself and will copy and paste from sites on my side of the argument. I also quote people from your side as well. There are honest evolutionist out there and admit to the truths that many on your side are ignorant of.
Click to expand...

When you're too befuddled to counter an argument, you should avoid babbling with spam.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goofy name-caller,
> 
> Thinking is difficult for you. We understand that.
> 
> I dont see that accepting reason as the criteria for perception is making oneself the center of ones own existence. That is one of the many goofy canards typically appearing on fundie religious websites.
> 
> We are part of nature, as is our reason, as are our perceptions. If we can count on nature to be relatively consistent, then we can also count on our reason and perceptions to be relatively consistent, and as we learn more and accumulate more data, we will narrow the definition of the word relatively. This doesnt mean that people generally behave as though their reason can be counted on as relatively consistent; in fact, they behave in just the reverse. But that too is knowledge, and it is not impossible to fix. Two ways I can think of is to stop inculcating in children (who lack any proper frame of reference) mystical mumbo-jumbo which is invariably backed up with the fundie christian precepts of self-deception, self-righteousness and implied threat. The second is to prioritize schooling of logical and critical thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you and Daws copy and paste from pro evolutionist and atheist sites ? What is your point ? Most the time my posts are my own words,sometimes I don't feel like repeating myself and will copy and paste from sites on my side of the argument. I also quote people from your side as well. There are honest evolutionist out there and admit to the truths that many on your side are ignorant of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you're too befuddled to counter an argument, you should avoid babbling with spam.
Click to expand...


Befuddled me ? Not by the arguments you present. You should take your own advice.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you and Daws copy and paste from pro evolutionist and atheist sites ? What is your point ? Most the time my posts are my own words,sometimes I don't feel like repeating myself and will copy and paste from sites on my side of the argument. I also quote people from your side as well. There are honest evolutionist out there and admit to the truths that many on your side are ignorant of.
> 
> 
> 
> When you're too befuddled to counter an argument, you should avoid babbling with spam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Befuddled me ? Not by the arguments you present. You should take your own advice.
Click to expand...

I've noticed a consistent pattern of behavior with Christian creationist fundies. When their arguments are collapsing in front of them, they get frustrated, angry and lash out.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you're too befuddled to counter an argument, you should avoid babbling with spam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Befuddled me ? Not by the arguments you present. You should take your own advice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noticed a consistent pattern of behavior with Christian creationist fundies. When their arguments are collapsing in front of them, they get frustrated, angry and lash out.
Click to expand...


I noticed the behavior of atheistic evolutionist that have very little knowledge of science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Befuddled me ? Not by the arguments you present. You should take your own advice.
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed a consistent pattern of behavior with Christian creationist fundies. When their arguments are collapsing in front of them, they get frustrated, angry and lash out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed the behavior of atheistic evolutionist that have very little knowledge of science.
Click to expand...


More of your childish lashing out.


----------



## emilynghiem

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.
> 
> Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great video UR. I am a little guilty of accepting some things on blind faith. If I don't possess an answer for a question I should simply live it at I don't know. God has given us plenty of evidence to believe in him and that he exists.
> 
> I like how he touched on how essential things are for life whether from the universe or things in living organisms. There is no left over parts and all the parts must be present to function properly. Does not mean we can't get by because all parts are not present and funtion properly. That has been my argument many times when debating naturalism and design.
> 
> Naturalism fails explaining how these processes came into existence through chance or accidents. I agree with the Dr., that things were and are created for a purpose. That is the evidence for us to believe he exists. That is true at the end of expelled when stein and dawkins were talking,dawkins refused to let go of his view things must have evolved even though he has no explanation how it happened.
> 
> I believe as the science community uncovers more and more evidence there will still be no rational explanation for macroevolution and naturalism it's being contradicted by the current evidence.
Click to expand...


Dear YWC: This does not have to be framed as either/or one side vs. the other. It is possible to agree on how to work together in life, with one person believing there is a beginning and a creator and plan and purpose while another person believes that life and the universe have no beginning and no end but have always existed and any purpose or perception thereof depends on the people doing the action or having the perception. You can still have agreement on how to work together in the world, as long as people can forgive their differences and not let that get in the way. However, if people cannot forgive their differences without the divine intervention and grace that religions represent in Christ Jesus, that keeps fueling the debate over faith in God being required and not just an option.


----------



## Youwerecreated

emilynghiem said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.
> 
> Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great video UR. I am a little guilty of accepting some things on blind faith. If I don't possess an answer for a question I should simply live it at I don't know. God has given us plenty of evidence to believe in him and that he exists.
> 
> I like how he touched on how essential things are for life whether from the universe or things in living organisms. There is no left over parts and all the parts must be present to function properly. Does not mean we can't get by because all parts are not present and funtion properly. That has been my argument many times when debating naturalism and design.
> 
> Naturalism fails explaining how these processes came into existence through chance or accidents. I agree with the Dr., that things were and are created for a purpose. That is the evidence for us to believe he exists. That is true at the end of expelled when stein and dawkins were talking,dawkins refused to let go of his view things must have evolved even though he has no explanation how it happened.
> 
> I believe as the science community uncovers more and more evidence there will still be no rational explanation for macroevolution and naturalism it's being contradicted by the current evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear YWC: This does not have to be framed as either/or one side vs. the other. It is possible to agree on how to work together in life, with one person believing there is a beginning and a creator and plan and purpose while another person believes that life and the universe have no beginning and no end but have always existed and any purpose or perception thereof depends on the people doing the action or having the perception. You can still have agreement on how to work together in the world, as long as people can forgive their differences and not let that get in the way. However, if people cannot forgive their differences without the divine intervention and grace that religions represent in Christ Jesus, that keeps fueling the debate over faith in God being required and not just an option.
Click to expand...


You made some good points but the one assumption that the universe and matter are eternal.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goofy name-caller,
> 
> Thinking is difficult for you. We understand that.
> 
> I dont see that accepting reason as the criteria for perception is making oneself the center of ones own existence. That is one of the many goofy canards typically appearing on fundie religious websites.
> 
> We are part of nature, as is our reason, as are our perceptions. If we can count on nature to be relatively consistent, then we can also count on our reason and perceptions to be relatively consistent, and as we learn more and accumulate more data, we will narrow the definition of the word relatively. This doesnt mean that people generally behave as though their reason can be counted on as relatively consistent; in fact, they behave in just the reverse. But that too is knowledge, and it is not impossible to fix. Two ways I can think of is to stop inculcating in children (who lack any proper frame of reference) mystical mumbo-jumbo which is invariably backed up with the fundie christian precepts of self-deception, self-righteousness and implied threat. The second is to prioritize schooling of logical and critical thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you and Daws copy and paste from pro evolutionist and atheist sites ? What is your point ? Most the time my posts are my own words,sometimes I don't feel like repeating myself and will copy and paste from sites on my side of the argument. I also quote people from your side as well. There are honest evolutionist out there and admit to the truths that many on your side are ignorant of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you're too befuddled to counter an argument, you should avoid babbling with spam.
Click to expand...


Wow!! This coming from the she man that hasn't presented a single logical argument on their own since he/she started posting here.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you're too befuddled to counter an argument, you should avoid babbling with spam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Befuddled me ? Not by the arguments you present. You should take your own advice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noticed a consistent pattern of behavior with Christian creationist fundies. When their arguments are collapsing in front of them, they get frustrated, angry and lash out.
Click to expand...


Who is getting angry or lashing out? Your perception, as you have proven time and again, is not reality.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed a consistent pattern of behavior with Christian creationist fundies. When their arguments are collapsing in front of them, they get frustrated, angry and lash out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed the behavior of atheistic evolutionist that have very little knowledge of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of your childish lashing out.
Click to expand...


More of your name calling.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you and Daws copy and paste from pro evolutionist and atheist sites ? What is your point ? Most the time my posts are my own words,sometimes I don't feel like repeating myself and will copy and paste from sites on my side of the argument. I also quote people from your side as well. There are honest evolutionist out there and admit to the truths that many on your side are ignorant of.
> 
> 
> 
> When you're too befuddled to counter an argument, you should avoid babbling with spam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!! This coming from the she man that hasn't presented a single logical argument on their own since he/she started posting here.
Click to expand...


Pointless and untrue.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed the behavior of atheistic evolutionist that have very little knowledge of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of your childish lashing out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of your name calling.
Click to expand...


Pointless as there was none.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed the behavior of atheistic evolutionist that have very little knowledge of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of your childish lashing out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of your name calling.
Click to expand...


Pointless and false.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed the behavior of atheistic evolutionist that have very little knowledge of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of your childish lashing out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of your name calling.
Click to expand...


Pointless and untrue.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,I have seen evidence that makes it reasonable to believe in a creator. It comes down to who is properly interpreting evidence. That is no contest you have no evidence for your theory about life.
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence might that be?..... chicken fucking
> proper interpretation of evidence is only possible when objectivity is present.
> a skill or quality you have no concept of .
> once again belief is not proof.
> 
> rea·son·able adj \&#712;r&#275;z-n&#601;-b&#601;l, &#712;r&#275;-z&#601;n-&#601;-b&#601;l\
> Definition of REASONABLE
> 1a : being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory> b : not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests> c : moderate, fair <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> d : inexpensive
> 2a : having the faculty of reason b : possessing sound judgment <a reasonable man.
> 
> nothing you have posted meets the definition posted above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already answered you many times and you still don't get it.
Click to expand...

I get it since you have no proof you make shit up or believe made up shit ......


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, molecular machines are not empirical evidence ? The cell is not empirical evidence ? the sun,moon,and our atmosphere is not empirical evidence ? I can point to many more empirical evidences but this is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> they are empirical only in that they exist. it is not however proof that they were caused to happen by a god for a purpose. no matter how much you wish they were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No and it does not prove they came into existence on their own. I interpret this evidence as having been designed your side is still looking for an answer.
Click to expand...

and your interpertation is erroneous. "my side" is looking for fact "your's" has already settled on a false premise answer.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cambrian explosion is definitely evidence  against the theory of evolution. No Organism can survive that many mutations or DNA information change in that short in that short span.
> 
> It better supports a creation event where the diversity of life appeared suddenly. Low change over time did not happen with the cambrian explosion.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit :I have heard creationists claim on multiple occasions that the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution. For example, Lee Strobel in this video claims that the all the phyla appeared at once, independently, and therefore they were created.
> 
> First we have to understand what the Cambrian explosion is. The Cambrian explosion occurred about 530 million years ago and lasted around 80 million years. (EDIT: Quasar brought to my attention that the exact length of time of the Cambrian explosion is under dispute. However, the lowest estimate is still around 5 million years.) During this time, many of the phyla or general body types first appeared for animals. Before the Cambrian explosion, very few fossils exist of multicellular creatures, and life appears to be mainly composed of single cell organisms.
> 
> However, not all phyla made their appearance during the Cambrian explosion. Land-based life such as flowers, ferns, etc... developed much later.
> 
> While fossils from the Cambrian explosion and Precambrian are rare, evidence exists that all these body types did not evolve completely independently. All animal phyla, for example, share many common characteristics. They are all triploblastic (the embryo forms in 3 layers), bilatteral (have left and right halves) coelomates (have internal body organs). Therefore, evidence of common ancestry is suggested in the formation of these early phyla groups.
> 
> More importantly, geologists found fossils predating the Cambrian explosion of burrows which require a digging mechanism and multicellular creatures. So the idea that creatures found in the Cambrian explosion arose without precedent is simply untrue. Life had been developing into more complex, multicellular forms in the Precambrian.
> 
> The easiest way to explain the Cambrian explosion is through the theory of punctuated equilibrium. According to the theory, the evolution of most sexually-reproducing creatures occurs in short bursts followed by long stretches of few changes.
> 
> While the theory of punctuated equilibrium may have been over-sold, the idea that changes to the environment spur evolutionary development is well understood by biologists. After all, the information for evolution comes from the environment - change the environment, change the creature.
> 
> It just so happens that the amount of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere dramatically rose during the time of the Cambrian explosion, giving animals more oxygen to work with. This extra oxygen could have enabled creatures to grow larger than ever before without suffocating their body parts due to a lack of oxygen.
> 
> So while much remains to be learned about the Cambrian explosion, the idea that it somehow proves that omnipotent deity magically created life on Earth is a very much unwarranted.
> Debunked by Debunkey Monkey at 8:02 PM
> 
> The Debunkey Monkey: Debunking Cambrian Explosion Myths
> 
> btw my post was about the lies told in the film expelled, but as always you missed the point completely...and proved wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fairytale and myth is saying that rapid diversification of multicellular animal life appeared rapidly over millions of years through a natural process, No way Jose.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that nothing collided with nothing and created something?
> Does E=mc2?
> 
> 
> 
> do you always intentionaly mis paraphrase the BB theory.
> it never states some thing from nothing.
> what it does state is ALL THE MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE WAS COMPACTED IN TO AN INFINITESIMALLY SMALL SPACE .
> EITHER WAY BELIEVING IS NOT PROOF.
> NEVER HAS BEEN NEVER WILL BE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put your dunce hat on  the universe had a beginning,that means time had a beginning.Motion is change in location over time. Space cannot exist without time, without time there is no space, and nothing for matter to exist in.
> 
> I love putting you in your place. So where did the matter come from since time did not exist ?
Click to expand...

what place do you think you put me in.?
since you answerd a question I never asked that makes you the dunce and an asshole with reading comp troubles.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No and it does not prove they came into existence on their own. I interpret this evidence as having been designed your side is still looking for an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, your answer is "_the gods did it"_. That is pure speculation and science has already made you gods obsolete. As time goes on the gods will be more and more superfluous when it comes to explainig the natural world.
> 
> Supernaturalism is not an answer for anything because it is ultimately lazy and dishonest. While it does relieve you of the burdensome task of having to make decisions and take responsibility for them, belief in gods is a religious claim and thus removes you from science claims.  Appeals to the gods is pure speculation on your part. Even if we were to accept your undemonstrated claims of gods, it still gives us no solid reason to believe any supernatural causation is the result of _your_ god(s) and not some other gods.
> 
> See? This is the risk you face when trying to twist religious traditions delineated in fundie dogma to fit the natural world. It demands mis-statements and speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't think of anyone able to design them here on this planet
Click to expand...

 another no answer you have no evidence god either..just a wish.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rugged Hollie, methinks you quoted out of context. Are you a man or a woman? The sad truth is that he is talking about you. You have made yourself the center of your own existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Goofy name-caller,
> 
> Thinking is difficult for you. We understand that.
> 
> I dont see that accepting reason as the criteria for perception is making oneself the center of ones own existence. That is one of the many goofy canards typically appearing on fundie religious websites.
> 
> We are part of nature, as is our reason, as are our perceptions. If we can count on nature to be relatively consistent, then we can also count on our reason and perceptions to be relatively consistent, and as we learn more and accumulate more data, we will narrow the definition of the word relatively. This doesnt mean that people generally behave as though their reason can be counted on as relatively consistent; in fact, they behave in just the reverse. But that too is knowledge, and it is not impossible to fix. Two ways I can think of is to stop inculcating in children (who lack any proper frame of reference) mystical mumbo-jumbo which is invariably backed up with the fundie christian precepts of self-deception, self-righteousness and implied threat. The second is to prioritize schooling of logical and critical thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you and Daws copy and paste from pro evolutionist and atheist sites ? What is your point ? Most the time my posts are my own words,sometimes I don't feel like repeating myself and will copy and paste from sites on my side of the argument. I also quote people from your side as well. There are honest evolutionist out there and admit to the truths that many on your side are ignorant of.
Click to expand...


The Christian creationist ministry worshippers sure do get riled up when pressed to defend their fantasies of gods and supernatural realms. The fundies have this need to ignore reason and rationality as the only way to perceive existence. No other method is known to be able to adequately replace it. 
I think that the problem that fundies have with rationality is that they perceive that it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions, hence they feel reason is somehow inadequate. I take a very different view. Stripped of reason, one cannot even perceive the concept of love or hate or compassion, so therefore, the keystone of our perception of existence *must* be reason.

What terrifies the fundies is that mankind will continue to peel back the layers of supernaturalism that fundies require for belief in their gods. To promote an "incomprensible" being (or entity, or supernatural being) which used "incomprehensible" means to create existence is a guaranteed method of making the Universe exactly that: incomprehensible. Ultimately, I think it very possible that our intellect will allow us the chance to examine the very fabric of existence; given humankinds progress in science, I see no reason to believe otherwise.

Hopefully, at sometime in the future, humankind will be able to throw away the fears and superstitions that fundies inflict upon humanity.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what evidence might that be?..... chicken fucking
> proper interpretation of evidence is only possible when objectivity is present.
> a skill or quality you have no concept of .
> once again belief is not proof.
> 
> rea·son·able adj \&#712;r&#275;z-n&#601;-b&#601;l, &#712;r&#275;-z&#601;n-&#601;-b&#601;l\
> Definition of REASONABLE
> 1a : being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory> b : not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests> c : moderate, fair <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> d : inexpensive
> 2a : having the faculty of reason b : possessing sound judgment <a reasonable man.
> 
> nothing you have posted meets the definition posted above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already answered you many times and you still don't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get it since you have no proof you make shit up or believe made up shit ......
Click to expand...


You have some nerve, considering the baloney you believe, that you can't make an argument to support.  You have never given me anything that I was not taught in school. Can you think for yourself ?

Because your copy and paste jobs do not answer my questions  nor refute my theories I present. Example how all mutations do damage over time if they are allowed to accumlate in the gene pool.

Thank your creator for the mechanisms he created to limit the mutation accumulation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they are empirical only in that they exist. it is not however proof that they were caused to happen by a god for a purpose. no matter how much you wish they were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No and it does not prove they came into existence on their own. I interpret this evidence as having been designed your side is still looking for an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and your interpertation is erroneous. "my side" is looking for fact "your's" has already settled on a false premise answer.
Click to expand...


Point out some of these so called facts, you think supports your theory and let's discuss them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you always intentionaly mis paraphrase the BB theory.
> it never states some thing from nothing.
> what it does state is ALL THE MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE WAS COMPACTED IN TO AN INFINITESIMALLY SMALL SPACE .
> EITHER WAY BELIEVING IS NOT PROOF.
> NEVER HAS BEEN NEVER WILL BE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put your dunce hat on  the universe had a beginning,that means time had a beginning.Motion is change in location over time. Space cannot exist without time, without time there is no space, and nothing for matter to exist in.
> 
> I love putting you in your place. So where did the matter come from since time did not exist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what place do you think you put me in.?
> since you answerd a question I never asked that makes you the dunce and an asshole with reading comp troubles.
Click to expand...


Read your post to Irish Ram and your assertion, then maybe you will understand my response or not


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, your answer is "_the gods did it"_. That is pure speculation and science has already made you gods obsolete. As time goes on the gods will be more and more superfluous when it comes to explainig the natural world.
> 
> Supernaturalism is not an answer for anything because it is ultimately lazy and dishonest. While it does relieve you of the burdensome task of having to make decisions and take responsibility for them, belief in gods is a religious claim and thus removes you from science claims.  Appeals to the gods is pure speculation on your part. Even if we were to accept your undemonstrated claims of gods, it still gives us no solid reason to believe any supernatural causation is the result of _your_ god(s) and not some other gods.
> 
> See? This is the risk you face when trying to twist religious traditions delineated in fundie dogma to fit the natural world. It demands mis-statements and speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't think of anyone able to design them here on this planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another no answer you have no evidence god either..just a wish.
Click to expand...


Where did these complex molecular machines come from ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goofy name-caller,
> 
> Thinking is difficult for you. We understand that.
> 
> I dont see that accepting reason as the criteria for perception is making oneself the center of ones own existence. That is one of the many goofy canards typically appearing on fundie religious websites.
> 
> We are part of nature, as is our reason, as are our perceptions. If we can count on nature to be relatively consistent, then we can also count on our reason and perceptions to be relatively consistent, and as we learn more and accumulate more data, we will narrow the definition of the word relatively. This doesnt mean that people generally behave as though their reason can be counted on as relatively consistent; in fact, they behave in just the reverse. But that too is knowledge, and it is not impossible to fix. Two ways I can think of is to stop inculcating in children (who lack any proper frame of reference) mystical mumbo-jumbo which is invariably backed up with the fundie christian precepts of self-deception, self-righteousness and implied threat. The second is to prioritize schooling of logical and critical thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you and Daws copy and paste from pro evolutionist and atheist sites ? What is your point ? Most the time my posts are my own words,sometimes I don't feel like repeating myself and will copy and paste from sites on my side of the argument. I also quote people from your side as well. There are honest evolutionist out there and admit to the truths that many on your side are ignorant of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian creationist ministry worshippers sure do get riled up when pressed to defend their fantasies of gods and supernatural realms. The fundies have this need to ignore reason and rationality as the only way to perceive existence. No other method is known to be able to adequately replace it.
> I think that the problem that fundies have with rationality is that they perceive that it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions, hence they feel reason is somehow inadequate. I take a very different view. Stripped of reason, one cannot even perceive the concept of love or hate or compassion, so therefore, the keystone of our perception of existence *must* be reason.
> 
> What terrifies the fundies is that mankind will continue to peel back the layers of supernaturalism that fundies require for belief in their gods. To promote an "incomprensible" being (or entity, or supernatural being) which used "incomprehensible" means to create existence is a guaranteed method of making the Universe exactly that: incomprehensible. Ultimately, I think it very possible that our intellect will allow us the chance to examine the very fabric of existence; given humankinds progress in science, I see no reason to believe otherwise.
> 
> Hopefully, at sometime in the future, humankind will be able to throw away the fears and superstitions that fundies inflict upon humanity.
Click to expand...


Not me, I just sometimes return fire with fire.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't think of anyone able to design them here on this planet
> 
> 
> 
> another no answer you have no evidence god either..just a wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did these complex molecular machines come from ?
Click to expand...


Certainly not from the gods. If the world around us was created by them, they could only be described as incompetent.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another no answer you have no evidence god either..just a wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did these complex molecular machines come from ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly not from the gods. If the world around us was created by them, they could only be described as incompetent.
Click to expand...


 explain ? what does your response have to do with molecular machines ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you and Daws copy and paste from pro evolutionist and atheist sites ? What is your point ? Most the time my posts are my own words,sometimes I don't feel like repeating myself and will copy and paste from sites on my side of the argument. I also quote people from your side as well. There are honest evolutionist out there and admit to the truths that many on your side are ignorant of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christian creationist ministry worshippers sure do get riled up when pressed to defend their fantasies of gods and supernatural realms. The fundies have this need to ignore reason and rationality as the only way to perceive existence. No other method is known to be able to adequately replace it.
> I think that the problem that fundies have with rationality is that they perceive that it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions, hence they feel reason is somehow inadequate. I take a very different view. Stripped of reason, one cannot even perceive the concept of love or hate or compassion, so therefore, the keystone of our perception of existence *must* be reason.
> 
> What terrifies the fundies is that mankind will continue to peel back the layers of supernaturalism that fundies require for belief in their gods. To promote an "incomprensible" being (or entity, or supernatural being) which used "incomprehensible" means to create existence is a guaranteed method of making the Universe exactly that: incomprehensible. Ultimately, I think it very possible that our intellect will allow us the chance to examine the very fabric of existence; given humankinds progress in science, I see no reason to believe otherwise.
> 
> Hopefully, at sometime in the future, humankind will be able to throw away the fears and superstitions that fundies inflict upon humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not me, I just sometimes return fire with fire.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I can imagine you and the creationist ministry types arguing the social impact of witchcraft... it helps add to the imagery...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did these complex molecular machines come from ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not from the gods. If the world around us was created by them, they could only be described as incompetent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> explain ? what does your response have to do with molecular machines ?
Click to expand...


What do your gods have to do with biological mechanisms?

You claim they exhibit "design", yet only incompetent gods could have designed so many failures.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christian creationist ministry worshippers sure do get riled up when pressed to defend their fantasies of gods and supernatural realms. The fundies have this need to ignore reason and rationality as the only way to perceive existence. No other method is known to be able to adequately replace it.
> I think that the problem that fundies have with rationality is that they perceive that it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions, hence they feel reason is somehow inadequate. I take a very different view. Stripped of reason, one cannot even perceive the concept of love or hate or compassion, so therefore, the keystone of our perception of existence *must* be reason.
> 
> What terrifies the fundies is that mankind will continue to peel back the layers of supernaturalism that fundies require for belief in their gods. To promote an "incomprensible" being (or entity, or supernatural being) which used "incomprehensible" means to create existence is a guaranteed method of making the Universe exactly that: incomprehensible. Ultimately, I think it very possible that our intellect will allow us the chance to examine the very fabric of existence; given humankinds progress in science, I see no reason to believe otherwise.
> 
> Hopefully, at sometime in the future, humankind will be able to throw away the fears and superstitions that fundies inflict upon humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not me, I just sometimes return fire with fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can imagine you and the creationist ministry types arguing the social impact of witchcraft... it helps add to the imagery...
Click to expand...


nonsensical response,not deserving of a response.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not from the gods. If the world around us was created by them, they could only be described as incompetent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> explain ? what does your response have to do with molecular machines ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do your gods have to do with biological mechanisms?
> 
> You claim they exhibit "design", yet only incompetent gods could have designed so many failures.
Click to expand...


YAHWEH created everything perfect and sin brought forth entropy,we are living in man's world not YAHWEH'S world. The imperfections we see in this world was the result of man's rebellion.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not me, I just sometimes return fire with fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can imagine you and the creationist ministry types arguing the social impact of witchcraft... it helps add to the imagery...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nonsensical response,not deserving of a response.
Click to expand...


My goodness, but absent a handy youtube infomercial produed by one of the creationist ministries, you're left stuttering and mumbling.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain ? what does your response have to do with molecular machines ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do your gods have to do with biological mechanisms?
> 
> You claim they exhibit "design", yet only incompetent gods could have designed so many failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YAHWEH created everything perfect and sin brought forth entropy,we are living in man's world not YAHWEH'S world. The imperfections we see in this world was the result of man's rebellion.
Click to expand...


That's so silly. As a "designer", your gods are hopelessly incompetent. 

For that matter, there is no greater villian iin all of history written history than the atrocities in the bible linked to your gods. Just look at the damage to humanity they have caused.

Christianity forbade medical practice for 1600 years. DaVinci (who recorded his own love affairs with young boys) had to practice medicine under the cover of darkness lest he be burned at the stake. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, lived 500 years before Jesus, and worshipped Zeus. So how come Zeus doesn't get the credit? What is different between Jehovah and Zeus? 

Both are fairy tales. They both had sons with supernatural powers (Hercules and Jesus, they both boinked human women and got them pregnant, they both rule/create the universe, they both even have books written about them. Here's the difference: People briefly grew up around 2,300 years ago and started to realize the myths were just that-- myths.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can imagine you and the creationist ministry types arguing the social impact of witchcraft... it helps add to the imagery...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nonsensical response,not deserving of a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My goodness, but absent a handy youtube infomercial produed by one of the creationist ministries, you're left stuttering and mumbling.
Click to expand...


nonsensical response,not deserving of a response.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do your gods have to do with biological mechanisms?
> 
> You claim they exhibit "design", yet only incompetent gods could have designed so many failures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YAHWEH created everything perfect and sin brought forth entropy,we are living in man's world not YAHWEH'S world. The imperfections we see in this world was the result of man's rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's so silly. As a "designer", your gods are hopelessly incompetent.
> 
> For that matter, there is no greater villian iin all of history written history than the atrocities in the bible linked to your gods. Just look at the damage to humanity they have caused.
> 
> Christianity forbade medical practice for 1600 years. DaVinci (who recorded his own love affairs with young boys) had to practice medicine under the cover of darkness lest he be burned at the stake. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, lived 500 years before Jesus, and worshipped Zeus. So how come Zeus doesn't get the credit? What is different between Jehovah and Zeus?
> 
> Both are fairy tales. They both had sons with supernatural powers (Hercules and Jesus, they both boinked human women and got them pregnant, they both rule/create the universe, they both even have books written about them. Here's the difference: People briefly grew up around 2,300 years ago and started to realize the myths were just that-- myths.
Click to expand...


nonsensical response,not deserving of a response.


----------



## Youwerecreated

How bout it Hollie,are you ready for a discussion centering on science ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> nonsensical response,not deserving of a response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness, but absent a handy youtube infomercial produed by one of the creationist ministries, you're left stuttering and mumbling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nonsensical response,not deserving of a response.
Click to expand...


It is true, however.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> How bout it Hollie,are you ready for a discussion centering on science ?



Sorry. I have no interest in refuting creationist ministry youtube videos.

Worse yet, I have no interest in spending additional time chasing down the altered, falsified and edited "quotes" that you and the creationist ministries have a habit of manufacturing. I've scolded you and the other fundie on many occasions for deliberately posting altered, falsified and edited "quotes". You have proven you can't be trusted to be honorable and truthful.   

You and the creationist ministries have this idea that denigrating science somehow proves your gods. That's not the case.  

It is important for fundies like you to accept that the history of your beliefs has caused immense damage to the world. Medicine, philosophy, the arts, science have all suffered because of the actions of men who believed in supernatural entities. According to the bible, god created man, and forced on man all manner of evil. Man didn't create Satan, the gods did. Man didn't create sin, the gods did. Satan was "evil" before man was created-- did you ever read the Adam and Eve tale?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How bout it Hollie,are you ready for a discussion centering on science ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. I have no interest in refuting creationist ministry youtube videos.
> 
> Worse yet, I have no interest in spending additional time chasing down the altered, falsified and edited "quotes" that you and the creationist ministries have a habit of manufacturing. I've scolded you and the other fundie on many occasions for deliberately posting altered, falsified and edited "quotes". You have proven you can't be trusted to be honorable and truthful.
> 
> You and the creationist ministries have this idea that denigrating science somehow proves your gods. That's not the case.
> 
> It is important for fundies like you to accept that the history of your beliefs has caused immense damage to the world. Medicine, philosophy, the arts, science have all suffered because of the actions of men who believed in supernatural entities. According to the bible, god created man, and forced on man all manner of evil. Man didn't create Satan, the gods did. Man didn't create sin, the gods did. Satan was "evil" before man was created-- did you ever read the Adam and Eve tale?
Click to expand...


No real data,real evidence Hollie, Molecular biology. I won't mention God and you don't mention God.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Hopefully, at sometime in the future, humankind will be able to throw away the fears and superstitions that fundies inflict upon humanity.



Because atheism offers so much hope.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not from the gods. If the world around us was created by them, they could only be described as incompetent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> explain ? what does your response have to do with molecular machines ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do your gods have to do with biological mechanisms?
> 
> You claim they exhibit "design", yet only incompetent gods could have designed so many failures.
Click to expand...


Maybe its the power of your close personal friend, Satan.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can imagine you and the creationist ministry types arguing the social impact of witchcraft... it helps add to the imagery...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nonsensical response,not deserving of a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My goodness, but absent a handy youtube infomercial produed by one of the creationist ministries, you're left stuttering and mumbling.
Click to expand...


I am not a robot. This is not a recording. I repeat, I am not a robot, this is not cut and pasted from the last 35 posts. Signed, Hollie.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> I have no interest in spending additional time chasing down the altered, falsified and edited "quotes"



If you spent a little less time cutting and pasting from previous posts, you might have more time for real discussions.


----------



## UltimateReality

YWC, more info on left-handed amino acids. Presented in honor of Daws, who never responded to your questions to him on this topic. 

CEH: Left-Handed Amino Acid Puzzle Remains


----------



## UltimateReality

I've often bagged on the finches and the Darwinian folklore on Giraffe necks.  Here is more evidence against the Pseudoscience still taught in high schools to indoctrinate children:

"Darwin (1871) and many African folk legends before him [...] proposed a simple but powerful explanation for the large and elongated shape. Long necks allowed giraffe to outreach presumed competitors, particularly during dry-season bottlenecks when leaves become scarce;..." (Simmons and Scheepers). However, this old African folk legend which is still commonly taught in high schools, fails to explain, among other things, the size differences between males and females. Giraffe cows are up to 1.5 meters shorter than the giraffe bulls, not to mention the offspring. The wide migration range of the giraffe and the low heights of the most common plants in their diet likewise argue against the dominant selection hypothesis. Also: 1) The fossil "links", which according to the theory should appear successively and replace each other, usually exist simultaneously for long periods of time. 2) Evolutionary derivations based on similarities rely on circular reasoning. 3) The giraffe has eigh t cervical vertebrae. Although the 8th vertebra displays almost all the characteristics of a neck vertebra, as an exception to the rule the first rib pair is attached there. 4) The origin of the long-necked giraffe by a macromutation is, due to the many synorganized structures, extremely improbable. 5) Sexual selection also lacks a mutational basis and, what is more, is frequently in conflict with natural selection ("head clubbing" is probably "a consequence of a long neck and not a cause"; see also Mitchell et al. 2009). 6) In contrast to the thus-far proposed naturalistic hypotheses, the intelligent design theory is basically testable. 7) The long-necked giraffes possibly all belong to the same basic type inasmuch as 8) a gradual evolution from the short-necked to the long-necked giraffe is ruled out by the duplication of a neck vertebra and the loss of a thoracic vertebra. 9) Chance mutations are principally not sufficient to explain the origin of the long-necked giraffe. 10) The intelligent design theory offers an adequate and satisfying solution to the problems and points to numerous "old" and new research projects. 11) Mitchell and Skinner present a good analysis of the selectionist problem; however, their phylogenetic hypotheses presuppose the correctness of the synthetic evolutionary theory, and their claims of "intermediate forms" are unproven (similarly summary Part 2). Part 1 shows why Dawkins and Kutschera are wrong. The scientific facts speak for design."

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Long-Necked-camelopardalis-Gradualism-Macromutation-Intelligent/dp/3869914718/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343199898&sr=8-1&keywords=L%C3%B6nnig]Amazon.com: The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis L.) What do we really know? Testing the Theories of Gradualism, Macromutation, and Intelligent Design (9783869914718): Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig: Books[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How bout it Hollie,are you ready for a discussion centering on science ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. I have no interest in refuting creationist ministry youtube videos.
> 
> Worse yet, I have no interest in spending additional time chasing down the altered, falsified and edited "quotes" that you and the creationist ministries have a habit of manufacturing. I've scolded you and the other fundie on many occasions for deliberately posting altered, falsified and edited "quotes". You have proven you can't be trusted to be honorable and truthful.
> 
> You and the creationist ministries have this idea that denigrating science somehow proves your gods. That's not the case.
> 
> It is important for fundies like you to accept that the history of your beliefs has caused immense damage to the world. Medicine, philosophy, the arts, science have all suffered because of the actions of men who believed in supernatural entities. According to the bible, god created man, and forced on man all manner of evil. Man didn't create Satan, the gods did. Man didn't create sin, the gods did. Satan was "evil" before man was created-- did you ever read the Adam and Eve tale?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No real data,real evidence Hollie, Molecular biology. I won't mention God and you don't mention God.
Click to expand...


"Real data,real evidence".... yeah.... just watch this video I cut and pasted from the ICR.

You're kidding, right?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest in spending additional time chasing down the altered, falsified and edited "quotes"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you spent a little less time cutting and pasting from previous posts, you might have more time for real discussions.
Click to expand...


Only with grown-ups.


----------



## Hollie

More "science" from the creationist ministries:


*Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI&#8217;s Egnor*


The Panda's Thumb: Intelligent Design: 2007 Archives

By Guest Contributor on April 16, 2007 11:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (48) | TrackBacks (0)

by Douglas L. Theobald

As many of you undoubtedly know, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor is the Discovery Institute&#8217;s latest garrulous creationist mouthpiece. In a recent blog entry (Mr. Lemonick, Michael Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell - Evolution News & Views) responding to Michael Lemonick of Time Magazine, Egnor claims that the 19th century scientists Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell used &#8220;the inference to design&#8221; to study electricity:

&#8220;Let&#8217;s ask: what role did the inference to design play for scientists who gave us electricity? &#8230; The two scientific pioneers of classical electromagnetism, Faraday and Maxwell, were particularly devout Christians who inferred design everywhere in nature. They believed that God designed everything &#8212; including electricity. Their approach to science was pure design inference, undiluted by atheism or materialism&#8230;. They worked entirely from the design inference.&#8221;

Faraday and Maxwell were Christians who did indeed see design in nature. However, Egnor has it backwards.

Continue reading &#8220;Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor&#8221;.

Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor - The Panda's Thumb


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> I've often bagged on the finches and the Darwinian folklore on Giraffe necks.  Here is more evidence against the Pseudoscience still taught in high schools to indoctrinate children:
> 
> "Darwin (1871) and many African folk legends before him [...] proposed a simple but powerful explanation for the large and elongated shape. Long necks allowed giraffe to outreach presumed competitors, particularly during dry-season bottlenecks when leaves become scarce;..." (Simmons and Scheepers). However, this old African folk legend which is still commonly taught in high schools, fails to explain, among other things, the size differences between males and females. Giraffe cows are up to 1.5 meters shorter than the giraffe bulls, not to mention the offspring. The wide migration range of the giraffe and the low heights of the most common plants in their diet likewise argue against the dominant selection hypothesis. Also: 1) The fossil "links", which according to the theory should appear successively and replace each other, usually exist simultaneously for long periods of time. 2) Evolutionary derivations based on similarities rely on circular reasoning. 3) The giraffe has eigh t cervical vertebrae. Although the 8th vertebra displays almost all the characteristics of a neck vertebra, as an exception to the rule the first rib pair is attached there. 4) The origin of the long-necked giraffe by a macromutation is, due to the many synorganized structures, extremely improbable. 5) Sexual selection also lacks a mutational basis and, what is more, is frequently in conflict with natural selection ("head clubbing" is probably "a consequence of a long neck and not a cause"; see also Mitchell et al. 2009). 6) In contrast to the thus-far proposed naturalistic hypotheses, the intelligent design theory is basically testable. 7) The long-necked giraffes possibly all belong to the same basic type inasmuch as 8) a gradual evolution from the short-necked to the long-necked giraffe is ruled out by the duplication of a neck vertebra and the loss of a thoracic vertebra. 9) Chance mutations are principally not sufficient to explain the origin of the long-necked giraffe. 10) The intelligent design theory offers an adequate and satisfying solution to the problems and points to numerous "old" and new research projects. 11) Mitchell and Skinner present a good analysis of the selectionist problem; however, their phylogenetic hypotheses presuppose the correctness of the synthetic evolutionary theory, and their claims of "intermediate forms" are unproven (similarly summary Part 2). Part 1 shows why Dawkins and Kutschera are wrong. The scientific facts speak for design."
> 
> Amazon.com: The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis L.) What do we really know? Testing the Theories of Gradualism, Macromutation, and Intelligent Design (9783869914718): Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig: Books





*Now thats a stretch*

By Nick Matzke on May 10, 2007 4:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBacks (0)

The Panda's Thumb: Intelligent Design: 2007 Archives

The Discovery Institutes Casey Luskin is all atwitter about a new web article (http://www.weloennig.de/GiraffaSecondPartEnglish.pdf) from German creationist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig [1] about how the giraffe is some kind of massive problem for evolution. 

Major planks [2] include the alleged lack of transitional fossils between the different fossil giraffe genera (never mind that creationists elsewhere typically accept that the differences between mammalian genera are small, and put the created kind or basic type at a higher taxonomic level), some confusion about whether one of the giraffe vertebrae is cervical or thoracic or something in between (note to creationists: read about homeotic shifts), and the allegation that there is no evidence for a feeding advantage for tall giraffes, relying on the fact that male giraffes are taller than female giraffes and a 1996 paper in American Naturalist (Simmons & Scheepers 1996, Winning by a Neck: Sexual Selection in the Evolution of Giraffe) (JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie) that attempted to buck conventional wisdom and suggest that sexual selection was the cause of long necks in giraffes.

Sadly, the last plank is particularly bogus, since it completely ignores and displays no knowledge of a massively relevant and quite brilliant paper, published just back in January 2007 in American Naturalist, that constitutes an experimental demonstration of the relative feeding advantage of giraffe height:

Continue reading: Now that's a stretch - The Panda's Thumb Now that's a stretch.


----------



## Hollie

Claim CB040:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html 

The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.

Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 43

Response:

1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).

2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.

3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.

4. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).

Links:

Jacoby, Mitch. 2003. Serine flavors the primordial soup. Chemical and Engineering News 81(32): 5. C&EN: TODAY'S HEADLINES - SERINE FLAVORS THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP

References:

1. Cavalier-Smith T. 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53: 555-595. 2. Cronin, J. R. and S. Pizzarello. 1999. Amino acid enantiomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advancesin Space Research 23(2): 293-299. 3. Engel, M. H. and S. A. Macko. 1997. Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389: 265-268. See also: Chyba, C. R., 1997. A left-handed SolarSystem? Nature 389: 234-235. 4. McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen. Science 281: 231-234. 5. Pizzarello, S. and A. L. Weber. 2004. Prebiotic amino acids as asymmetric catalysts. Science 303: 1151. 6. Saghatelian, A., Y. Yokobayashi, K. Soltaniand M. R. Ghadiri. 2001. A chiroselective peptide replicator. Nature 409: 797-801. 7. Service, R. F. 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283. 8. Takats, Zoltan, Sergio C. Nanita and R. Graham Cooks. 2003. Serine octamer reactions: indicators of prebiotic relevance. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 42: 3521-3523. 9. TSRI. 2001 (15 Feb.). New study by scientists at the Scripps Research Institute suggests an answer for one of the oldest questions in biology. News Release 10. Zepik, H. et al. 2002. Chiral amplification of oligopeptides in two-dimensional crystalline self-assemblies on water. Science 295: 1266-1269.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. I have no interest in refuting creationist ministry youtube videos.
> 
> Worse yet, I have no interest in spending additional time chasing down the altered, falsified and edited "quotes" that you and the creationist ministries have a habit of manufacturing. I've scolded you and the other fundie on many occasions for deliberately posting altered, falsified and edited "quotes". You have proven you can't be trusted to be honorable and truthful.
> 
> You and the creationist ministries have this idea that denigrating science somehow proves your gods. That's not the case.
> 
> It is important for fundies like you to accept that the history of your beliefs has caused immense damage to the world. Medicine, philosophy, the arts, science have all suffered because of the actions of men who believed in supernatural entities. According to the bible, god created man, and forced on man all manner of evil. Man didn't create Satan, the gods did. Man didn't create sin, the gods did. Satan was "evil" before man was created-- did you ever read the Adam and Eve tale?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No real data,real evidence Hollie, Molecular biology. I won't mention God and you don't mention God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Real data,real evidence".... yeah.... just watch this video I cut and pasted from the ICR.
> 
> You're kidding, right?
Click to expand...


No, your words and my words and if I paste anything it will be from someone on your side.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> More "science" from the creationist ministries:
> 
> 
> *Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DIs Egnor*
> 
> 
> The Panda's Thumb: Intelligent Design: 2007 Archives
> 
> By Guest Contributor on April 16, 2007 11:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (48) | TrackBacks (0)
> 
> by Douglas L. Theobald
> 
> As many of you undoubtedly know, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor is the Discovery Institutes latest garrulous creationist mouthpiece. In a recent blog entry (Mr. Lemonick, Michael Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell - Evolution News & Views) responding to Michael Lemonick of Time Magazine, Egnor claims that the 19th century scientists Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell used the inference to design to study electricity:
> 
> Lets ask: what role did the inference to design play for scientists who gave us electricity?  The two scientific pioneers of classical electromagnetism, Faraday and Maxwell, were particularly devout Christians who inferred design everywhere in nature. They believed that God designed everything  including electricity. Their approach to science was pure design inference, undiluted by atheism or materialism. They worked entirely from the design inference.
> 
> Faraday and Maxwell were Christians who did indeed see design in nature. However, Egnor has it backwards.
> 
> Continue reading Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor.
> 
> Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor - The Panda's Thumb



You see one of your problems is that some of these creationist ID proponents are qualified to give opinions of the evidence. You also have a problem with them raising questions that should be raised.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Claim CB040:
> 
> CB040: Left-handed amino acids
> 
> The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.
> 
> Source:
> 
> Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 43
> 
> Response:
> 
> 1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).
> 
> 2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.
> 
> 3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.
> 
> 4. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).
> 
> Links:
> 
> Jacoby, Mitch. 2003. Serine flavors the primordial soup. Chemical and Engineering News 81(32): 5. C&EN: TODAY'S HEADLINES - SERINE FLAVORS THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP
> 
> References:
> 
> 1. Cavalier-Smith T. 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53: 555-595. 2. Cronin, J. R. and S. Pizzarello. 1999. Amino acid enantiomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advancesin Space Research 23(2): 293-299. 3. Engel, M. H. and S. A. Macko. 1997. Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389: 265-268. See also: Chyba, C. R., 1997. A left-handed SolarSystem? Nature 389: 234-235. 4. McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen. Science 281: 231-234. 5. Pizzarello, S. and A. L. Weber. 2004. Prebiotic amino acids as asymmetric catalysts. Science 303: 1151. 6. Saghatelian, A., Y. Yokobayashi, K. Soltaniand M. R. Ghadiri. 2001. A chiroselective peptide replicator. Nature 409: 797-801. 7. Service, R. F. 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283. 8. Takats, Zoltan, Sergio C. Nanita and R. Graham Cooks. 2003. Serine octamer reactions: indicators of prebiotic relevance. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 42: 3521-3523. 9. TSRI. 2001 (15 Feb.). New study by scientists at the Scripps Research Institute suggests an answer for one of the oldest questions in biology. News Release 10. Zepik, H. et al. 2002. Chiral amplification of oligopeptides in two-dimensional crystalline self-assemblies on water. Science 295: 1266-1269.



Can you explain why only left handed  amino acids connect to form life in all living organisms knowing that right handed amino acids would be fatal to the organism ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No real data,real evidence Hollie, Molecular biology. I won't mention God and you don't mention God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Real data,real evidence".... yeah.... just watch this video I cut and pasted from the ICR.
> 
> You're kidding, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your words and my words and if I paste anything it will be from someone on your side.
Click to expand...


You're still not getting it. 

You have demonstrated on several occasions that the "quotes" you post are falsified, altered or edited. I've corrected these falsified "quotes" and you continued with attempts to deceive and misrepresent. 

The problem you face is that the creationist ministries are never able to present a coherent argument in support of a 6,000 year old earth and evidence for the gods. The entirety of the Christian creationist argument amounts to frantic and hysterical attempts to denigrate science. You and the other fundie creationist have never argued in support of evidence for your gods. Both of you frantically cut and paste material from creationist hacks who invent weird claims that purport to show something about "left handed amino acids" do something to refute the entirety of the science proving evolution. 

It's silly and a waste of time. There is ample refutation to these creationist claims as I posted in this thread. 

Your flailing attempts to vilify science with outrageous claims, (so often invented and contrived) from creationist ministries is just not something I have an interest in pursuing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Claim CB040:
> 
> CB040: Left-handed amino acids
> 
> The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.
> 
> Source:
> 
> Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 43
> 
> Response:
> 
> 1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).
> 
> 2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.
> 
> 3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.
> 
> 4. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).
> 
> Links:
> 
> Jacoby, Mitch. 2003. Serine flavors the primordial soup. Chemical and Engineering News 81(32): 5. C&EN: TODAY'S HEADLINES - SERINE FLAVORS THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP
> 
> References:
> 
> 1. Cavalier-Smith T. 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53: 555-595. 2. Cronin, J. R. and S. Pizzarello. 1999. Amino acid enantiomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advancesin Space Research 23(2): 293-299. 3. Engel, M. H. and S. A. Macko. 1997. Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389: 265-268. See also: Chyba, C. R., 1997. A left-handed SolarSystem? Nature 389: 234-235. 4. McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen. Science 281: 231-234. 5. Pizzarello, S. and A. L. Weber. 2004. Prebiotic amino acids as asymmetric catalysts. Science 303: 1151. 6. Saghatelian, A., Y. Yokobayashi, K. Soltaniand M. R. Ghadiri. 2001. A chiroselective peptide replicator. Nature 409: 797-801. 7. Service, R. F. 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283. 8. Takats, Zoltan, Sergio C. Nanita and R. Graham Cooks. 2003. Serine octamer reactions: indicators of prebiotic relevance. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 42: 3521-3523. 9. TSRI. 2001 (15 Feb.). New study by scientists at the Scripps Research Institute suggests an answer for one of the oldest questions in biology. News Release 10. Zepik, H. et al. 2002. Chiral amplification of oligopeptides in two-dimensional crystalline self-assemblies on water. Science 295: 1266-1269.



Look,left handed amino acids connect to produce proteins and they connect to form life.Right handed amino acids can't connect in that sequence of forming because that would prove to be fatal to the organism. Right handed amino acids are produced by cells as well but these right handed amino acids perform other duties that is not what you are understanding.

What you are attempting to do is show that right handed amino acids refute what is said they are not harmful to the formation of life they are if they were to connect with left handed amino acids. That is the part you are misunderstanding. Right handed amino acids are also produced by cells and they do have functions within a cell but not with forming life.

Let's let an agnostic man of science help you understand how the process works since you won't believe me. Here it is in a nutshell

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGVsIrAEn9s]Origin of Life 1 -- Abiogenesis - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gOP3Erie-Q&feature=watch_response]Origin of Life 2 -- The Simple Life - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i25UJG1S578&feature=relmfu]Origin of Life 3 -- Science & Creation Myths - YouTube[/ame]

You and Daws need to watch these videos to understand what I have been arguing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Real data,real evidence".... yeah.... just watch this video I cut and pasted from the ICR.
> 
> You're kidding, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your words and my words and if I paste anything it will be from someone on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still not getting it.
> 
> You have demonstrated on several occasions that the "quotes" you post are falsified, altered or edited. I've corrected these falsified "quotes" and you continued with attempts to deceive and misrepresent.
> 
> The problem you face is that the creationist ministries are never able to present a coherent argument in support of a 6,000 year old earth and evidence for the gods. The entirety of the Christian creationist argument amounts to frantic and hysterical attempts to denigrate science. You and the other fundie creationist have never argued in support of evidence for your gods. Both of you frantically cut and paste material from creationist hacks who invent weird claims that purport to show something about "left handed amino acids" do something to refute the entirety of the science proving evolution.
> 
> It's silly and a waste of time. There is ample refutation to these creationist claims as I posted in this thread.
> 
> Your flailing attempts to vilify science with outrageous claims, (so often invented and contrived) from creationist ministries is just not something I have an interest in pursuing.
Click to expand...


Wrong,your creation view is Abiogenesis no more credible by your own reasoning. Because you deny complexity as evidence of a designer.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Claim CB040:
> 
> CB040: Left-handed amino acids
> 
> The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.
> 
> Source:
> 
> Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 43
> 
> Response:
> 
> 1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).
> 
> 2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.
> 
> 3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.
> 
> 4. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).
> 
> Links:
> 
> Jacoby, Mitch. 2003. Serine flavors the primordial soup. Chemical and Engineering News 81(32): 5. C&EN: TODAY'S HEADLINES - SERINE FLAVORS THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP
> 
> References:
> 
> 1. Cavalier-Smith T. 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53: 555-595. 2. Cronin, J. R. and S. Pizzarello. 1999. Amino acid enantiomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advancesin Space Research 23(2): 293-299. 3. Engel, M. H. and S. A. Macko. 1997. Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389: 265-268. See also: Chyba, C. R., 1997. A left-handed SolarSystem? Nature 389: 234-235. 4. McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen. Science 281: 231-234. 5. Pizzarello, S. and A. L. Weber. 2004. Prebiotic amino acids as asymmetric catalysts. Science 303: 1151. 6. Saghatelian, A., Y. Yokobayashi, K. Soltaniand M. R. Ghadiri. 2001. A chiroselective peptide replicator. Nature 409: 797-801. 7. Service, R. F. 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283. 8. Takats, Zoltan, Sergio C. Nanita and R. Graham Cooks. 2003. Serine octamer reactions: indicators of prebiotic relevance. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 42: 3521-3523. 9. TSRI. 2001 (15 Feb.). New study by scientists at the Scripps Research Institute suggests an answer for one of the oldest questions in biology. News Release 10. Zepik, H. et al. 2002. Chiral amplification of oligopeptides in two-dimensional crystalline self-assemblies on water. Science 295: 1266-1269.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look,left handed amino acids connect to produce proteins and they connect to form life.Right handed amino acids can't connect in that sequence of forming because that would prove to be fatal to the organism. Right handed amino acids are produced by cells as well but these right handed amino acids perform other duties that is not what you are understanding.
> 
> What you are attempting to do is show that right handed amino acids refute what is said they are not harmful to the formation of life they are if they were to connect with left handed amino acids. That is the part you are misunderstanding. Right handed amino acids are also produced by cells and they do have functions within a cell but not with forming life.
> 
> Let's let an agnostic man of science help you understand how the process works since you won't believe me. Here it is in a nutshell
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGVsIrAEn9s]Origin of Life 1 -- Abiogenesis - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gOP3Erie-Q&feature=watch_response]Origin of Life 2 -- The Simple Life - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i25UJG1S578&feature=relmfu]Origin of Life 3 -- Science & Creation Myths - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> You and Daws need to watch these videos to understand what I have been arguing.
Click to expand...

The issue is that you don't know what you're arguing. 

You are hoping to denigrate science with the presumption that will somehow prove your gods. It won't. 

As I noted before, your rabid cutting and pasting of YouTube videos is the entirety of your argument. I suppose I could cut and paste videos in refutation to your videos and in turn you could cut and paste more videos. 

I suppose that at some pount, the videos could pair off by themselves and have their own debates.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your words and my words and if I paste anything it will be from someone on your side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still not getting it.
> 
> You have demonstrated on several occasions that the "quotes" you post are falsified, altered or edited. I've corrected these falsified "quotes" and you continued with attempts to deceive and misrepresent.
> 
> The problem you face is that the creationist ministries are never able to present a coherent argument in support of a 6,000 year old earth and evidence for the gods. The entirety of the Christian creationist argument amounts to frantic and hysterical attempts to denigrate science. You and the other fundie creationist have never argued in support of evidence for your gods. Both of you frantically cut and paste material from creationist hacks who invent weird claims that purport to show something about "left handed amino acids" do something to refute the entirety of the science proving evolution.
> 
> It's silly and a waste of time. There is ample refutation to these creationist claims as I posted in this thread.
> 
> Your flailing attempts to vilify science with outrageous claims, (so often invented and contrived) from creationist ministries is just not something I have an interest in pursuing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong,your creation view is Abiogenesis no more credible by your own reasoning. Because you deny complexity as evidence of a designer.
Click to expand...

Correct in very narrow terms. Complexity has no requirement for a "designer". 

Your only argument in the affirmative is "yes it does, because I say so'. 

There is nothing in the natural world that requires a "designer". You are arguing from a religious perspective and your religion is far removed from a science paradigm.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Claim CB040:
> 
> CB040: Left-handed amino acids
> 
> The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.
> 
> Source:
> 
> Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 43
> 
> Response:
> 
> 1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).
> 
> 2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.
> 
> 3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.
> 
> 4. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).
> 
> Links:
> 
> Jacoby, Mitch. 2003. Serine flavors the primordial soup. Chemical and Engineering News 81(32): 5. C&EN: TODAY'S HEADLINES - SERINE FLAVORS THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP
> 
> References:
> 
> 1. Cavalier-Smith T. 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53: 555-595. 2. Cronin, J. R. and S. Pizzarello. 1999. Amino acid enantiomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advancesin Space Research 23(2): 293-299. 3. Engel, M. H. and S. A. Macko. 1997. Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389: 265-268. See also: Chyba, C. R., 1997. A left-handed SolarSystem? Nature 389: 234-235. 4. McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen. Science 281: 231-234. 5. Pizzarello, S. and A. L. Weber. 2004. Prebiotic amino acids as asymmetric catalysts. Science 303: 1151. 6. Saghatelian, A., Y. Yokobayashi, K. Soltaniand M. R. Ghadiri. 2001. A chiroselective peptide replicator. Nature 409: 797-801. 7. Service, R. F. 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283. 8. Takats, Zoltan, Sergio C. Nanita and R. Graham Cooks. 2003. Serine octamer reactions: indicators of prebiotic relevance. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 42: 3521-3523. 9. TSRI. 2001 (15 Feb.). New study by scientists at the Scripps Research Institute suggests an answer for one of the oldest questions in biology. News Release 10. Zepik, H. et al. 2002. Chiral amplification of oligopeptides in two-dimensional crystalline self-assemblies on water. Science 295: 1266-1269.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look,left handed amino acids connect to produce proteins and they connect to form life.Right handed amino acids can't connect in that sequence of forming because that would prove to be fatal to the organism. Right handed amino acids are produced by cells as well but these right handed amino acids perform other duties that is not what you are understanding.
> 
> What you are attempting to do is show that right handed amino acids refute what is said they are not harmful to the formation of life they are if they were to connect with left handed amino acids. That is the part you are misunderstanding. Right handed amino acids are also produced by cells and they do have functions within a cell but not with forming life.
> 
> Let's let an agnostic man of science help you understand how the process works since you won't believe me. Here it is in a nutshell
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGVsIrAEn9s]Origin of Life 1 -- Abiogenesis - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gOP3Erie-Q&feature=watch_response]Origin of Life 2 -- The Simple Life - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i25UJG1S578&feature=relmfu]Origin of Life 3 -- Science & Creation Myths - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> You and Daws need to watch these videos to understand what I have been arguing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The issue is that you don't know what you're arguing.
> 
> You are hoping to denigrate science with the presumption that will somehow prove your gods. It won't.
> 
> As I noted before, your rabid cutting and pasting of YouTube videos is the entirety of your argument. I suppose I could cut and paste videos in refutation to your videos and in turn you could cut and paste more videos.
> 
> I suppose that at some pount, the videos could pair off by themselves and have their own debates.
Click to expand...


Simply put, you are an Ideologue and a zealot for naturalism,you are not open to facts about the flaws of your theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still not getting it.
> 
> You have demonstrated on several occasions that the "quotes" you post are falsified, altered or edited. I've corrected these falsified "quotes" and you continued with attempts to deceive and misrepresent.
> 
> The problem you face is that the creationist ministries are never able to present a coherent argument in support of a 6,000 year old earth and evidence for the gods. The entirety of the Christian creationist argument amounts to frantic and hysterical attempts to denigrate science. You and the other fundie creationist have never argued in support of evidence for your gods. Both of you frantically cut and paste material from creationist hacks who invent weird claims that purport to show something about "left handed amino acids" do something to refute the entirety of the science proving evolution.
> 
> It's silly and a waste of time. There is ample refutation to these creationist claims as I posted in this thread.
> 
> Your flailing attempts to vilify science with outrageous claims, (so often invented and contrived) from creationist ministries is just not something I have an interest in pursuing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,your creation view is Abiogenesis no more credible by your own reasoning. Because you deny complexity as evidence of a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct in very narrow terms. Complexity has no requirement for a "designer".
> 
> Your only argument in the affirmative is "yes it does, because I say so'.
> 
> There is nothing in the natural world that requires a "designer". You are arguing from a religious perspective and your religion is far removed from a science paradigm.
Click to expand...


I know you didn't watch the videos posted and it was not by a religous fundie as you call them. Each post you put up,reveals alot about you hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still not getting it.
> 
> You have demonstrated on several occasions that the "quotes" you post are falsified, altered or edited. I've corrected these falsified "quotes" and you continued with attempts to deceive and misrepresent.
> 
> The problem you face is that the creationist ministries are never able to present a coherent argument in support of a 6,000 year old earth and evidence for the gods. The entirety of the Christian creationist argument amounts to frantic and hysterical attempts to denigrate science. You and the other fundie creationist have never argued in support of evidence for your gods. Both of you frantically cut and paste material from creationist hacks who invent weird claims that purport to show something about "left handed amino acids" do something to refute the entirety of the science proving evolution.
> 
> It's silly and a waste of time. There is ample refutation to these creationist claims as I posted in this thread.
> 
> Your flailing attempts to vilify science with outrageous claims, (so often invented and contrived) from creationist ministries is just not something I have an interest in pursuing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,your creation view is Abiogenesis no more credible by your own reasoning. Because you deny complexity as evidence of a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct in very narrow terms. Complexity has no requirement for a "designer".
> 
> Your only argument in the affirmative is "yes it does, because I say so'.
> 
> There is nothing in the natural world that requires a "designer". You are arguing from a religious perspective and your religion is far removed from a science paradigm.
Click to expand...


How did you reach this conclusion hollie when scientist don't have a viable explanation for life ?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest in spending additional time chasing down the altered, falsified and edited "quotes"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you spent a little less time cutting and pasting from previous posts, you might have more time for real discussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only with grown-ups.
Click to expand...


Put downs and name calling seem to be your favorite arguments.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> More "science" from the creationist ministries:
> 
> 
> *Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DIs Egnor*
> 
> 
> The Panda's Thumb: Intelligent Design: 2007 Archives
> 
> By Guest Contributor on April 16, 2007 11:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (48) | TrackBacks (0)
> 
> by Douglas L. Theobald
> 
> As many of you undoubtedly know, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor is the Discovery Institutes latest garrulous creationist mouthpiece. In a recent blog entry (Mr. Lemonick, Michael Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell - Evolution News & Views) responding to Michael Lemonick of Time Magazine, Egnor claims that the 19th century scientists Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell used the inference to design to study electricity:
> 
> Lets ask: what role did the inference to design play for scientists who gave us electricity?  The two scientific pioneers of classical electromagnetism, Faraday and Maxwell, were particularly devout Christians who inferred design everywhere in nature. They believed that God designed everything  including electricity. Their approach to science was pure design inference, undiluted by atheism or materialism. They worked entirely from the design inference.
> 
> Faraday and Maxwell were Christians who did indeed see design in nature. However, Egnor has it backwards.
> 
> Continue reading Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor.
> 
> Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor - The Panda's Thumb



More cut and pasting from Fundie EVO sites.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,your creation view is Abiogenesis no more credible by your own reasoning. Because you deny complexity as evidence of a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct in very narrow terms. Complexity has no requirement for a "designer".
> 
> Your only argument in the affirmative is "yes it does, because I say so'.
> 
> There is nothing in the natural world that requires a "designer". You are arguing from a religious perspective and your religion is far removed from a science paradigm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you didn't watch the videos posted and it was not by a religous fundie as you call them. Each post you put up,reveals alot about you hollie.
Click to expand...

I knew it as only a matter of time before you were back with your videos. 

You make the mistake of assuming that your videos, of unknown origin and authenticity make a convincing argument. It's also clear that your videos are carefully selected from fundie Christian websites as they are culled from unknown sources to further your religious claims. 

You are not able to address that honestly which says a lot about you.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> More "science" from the creationist ministries:
> 
> 
> *Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DIs Egnor*
> 
> 
> The Panda's Thumb: Intelligent Design: 2007 Archives
> 
> By Guest Contributor on April 16, 2007 11:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (48) | TrackBacks (0)
> 
> by Douglas L. Theobald
> 
> As many of you undoubtedly know, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor is the Discovery Institutes latest garrulous creationist mouthpiece. In a recent blog entry (Mr. Lemonick, Michael Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell - Evolution News & Views) responding to Michael Lemonick of Time Magazine, Egnor claims that the 19th century scientists Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell used the inference to design to study electricity:
> 
> Lets ask: what role did the inference to design play for scientists who gave us electricity?  The two scientific pioneers of classical electromagnetism, Faraday and Maxwell, were particularly devout Christians who inferred design everywhere in nature. They believed that God designed everything  including electricity. Their approach to science was pure design inference, undiluted by atheism or materialism. They worked entirely from the design inference.
> 
> Faraday and Maxwell were Christians who did indeed see design in nature. However, Egnor has it backwards.
> 
> Continue reading Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor.
> 
> Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More cut and pasting from Fundie EVO sites.
Click to expand...


The source is not an evo site. 

But the article does speak volumes about the inability of Christian fundies to operate in a rational world.


----------



## UltimateReality

I have bolded the massive amounts of *assumptive language* used in these so called findings just so every one else isn't fooled like Hollie was because she can't see when she/he/it is being duped...



Hollie said:


> 1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are *very likely* not the product of chance. Instead, they *likely resulted* from a selection process. A *simple peptide replicator [Intelligently Designed by a human no less]* can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which *may have* figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004). *[May have? Can't we do an experiment to confirm this??]*
> 
> 2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which *must have formed* *[are you saying there is no other possibility??]*abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, *perhaps* from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). *[Perhaps??? Can't we set up a simple experiment to verify this? Since folks like Hollie will buy the pseudoscience without any experimental proof, why bother??]* The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms *might also have been* responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.
> 
> 3. The first self-replicator *may have* had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). *[May have had??? Let's base a whole theory on "might haves" and "may haves", do nothing to test them, and then call it a fact] HA, HA!* It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.



That's some great science you posted up there Hollie.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> More "science" from the creationist ministries:
> 
> 
> *Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI&#8217;s Egnor*
> 
> 
> The Panda's Thumb: Intelligent Design: 2007 Archives
> 
> By Guest Contributor on April 16, 2007 11:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (48) | TrackBacks (0)
> 
> by Douglas L. Theobald
> 
> As many of you undoubtedly know, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor is the Discovery Institute&#8217;s latest garrulous creationist mouthpiece. In a recent blog entry (Mr. Lemonick, Michael Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell - Evolution News & Views) responding to Michael Lemonick of Time Magazine, Egnor claims that the 19th century scientists Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell used &#8220;the inference to design&#8221; to study electricity:
> 
> &#8220;Let&#8217;s ask: what role did the inference to design play for scientists who gave us electricity? &#8230; The two scientific pioneers of classical electromagnetism, Faraday and Maxwell, were particularly devout Christians who inferred design everywhere in nature. They believed that God designed everything &#8212; including electricity. Their approach to science was pure design inference, undiluted by atheism or materialism&#8230;. They worked entirely from the design inference.&#8221;
> 
> Faraday and Maxwell were Christians who did indeed see design in nature. However, Egnor has it backwards.
> 
> Continue reading &#8220;Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor&#8221;.
> 
> Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More cut and pasting from Fundie EVO sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The source is not an evo site. *
> 
> But the article does speak volumes about the inability of Christian fundies to operate in a rational world.
Click to expand...


Hollie, just to clue you in, I just did what you do and you didn't even catch it.

You don't even check out the links and then automatically assume they are from "religious" websites. So when you make those comments, no offense, but you just look really foolish. I really thought you would catch my humor but oh well.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> I have bolded the massive amounts of *assumptive language* used in these so called findings just so every one else isn't fooled like Hollie was because she can't see when she/he/it is being duped...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are *very likely* not the product of chance. Instead, they *likely resulted* from a selection process. A *simple peptide replicator [Intelligently Designed by a human no less]* can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which *may have* figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004). *[May have? Can't we do an experiment to confirm this??]*
> 
> 2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which *must have formed* *[are you saying there is no other possibility??]*abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, *perhaps* from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). *[Perhaps??? Can't we set up a simple experiment to verify this? Since folks like Hollie will buy the pseudoscience without any experimental proof, why bother??]* The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms *might also have been* responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.
> 
> 3. The first self-replicator *may have* had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). *[May have had??? Let's base a whole theory on might haves and may haves, do nothing to test them, and then call it a fact]* It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.
Click to expand...

I was hoping you could use some larger fonts.


If you have an issue with science not having every answer, show us conclusive proof to the contrary... you silly little name-caller.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,your creation view is Abiogenesis no more credible by your own reasoning. Because you deny complexity as evidence of a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct in very narrow terms. Complexity has no requirement for a "designer".
> 
> Your only argument in the affirmative is "yes it does, because I say so'.
> 
> There is nothing in the natural world that requires a "designer". You are arguing from a religious perspective and your religion is far removed from a science paradigm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did you reach this conclusion hollie when scientist don't have a viable explanation for life ?
Click to expand...


I am really curious too, since you have made it clear on here SEVERAL times that the TOE doesn't apply to ORIGINS questions. Yet here you are posting up rebuttals to the left handed amino acid questions and talking about the complexity in the cell.

Which is it?? Does evolution apply to abiogenisis or not? You need to pick a stance and stay with it.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Real data,real evidence".... yeah.... just watch this video I cut and pasted from the ICR.
> 
> You're kidding, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your words and my words and if I paste anything it will be from someone on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still not getting it.
> 
> You have demonstrated on several occasions that the "quotes" you post are falsified, altered or edited. I've corrected these falsified "quotes" and you continued with attempts to deceive and misrepresent.
Click to expand...


Oh you mean like when you read into things based on your skewed worldview? Like when you automatically assumed creation with a little 'c' was referring to the Judeo-Christian account? Is that what you mean by altered quotes? Or are they just  Altered in YOUR mind?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct in very narrow terms. Complexity has no requirement for a "designer".
> 
> Your only argument in the affirmative is "yes it does, because I say so'.
> 
> There is nothing in the natural world that requires a "designer". You are arguing from a religious perspective and your religion is far removed from a science paradigm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach this conclusion hollie when scientist don't have a viable explanation for life ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am really curious too, since you have made it clear on here SEVERAL times that the TOE doesn't apply to ORIGINS questions. Yet here you are posting up rebuttals to the left handed amino acid questions and talking about the complexity in the cell.
> 
> Which is it?? Does evolution apply to abiogenisis or not? You need to pick a stance and stay with it.
Click to expand...

I see your confudion. It's the result of your appalling lack of a science vocabulary. 

The matter can be resolved immediately with nothing more than affirmative proof of the gods you claim are extant.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have bolded the massive amounts of *assumptive language* used in these so called findings just so every one else isn't fooled like Hollie was because she can't see when she/he/it is being duped...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are *very likely* not the product of chance. Instead, they *likely resulted* from a selection process. A *simple peptide replicator [Intelligently Designed by a human no less]* can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which *may have* figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004). *[May have? Can't we do an experiment to confirm this??]*
> 
> 2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which *must have formed* *[are you saying there is no other possibility??]*abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, *perhaps* from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). *[Perhaps??? Can't we set up a simple experiment to verify this? Since folks like Hollie will buy the pseudoscience without any experimental proof, why bother??]* The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms *might also have been* responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.
> 
> 3. The first self-replicator *may have* had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). *[May have had??? Let's base a whole theory on might haves and may haves, do nothing to test them, and then call it a fact]* It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was hoping you could use some larger fonts.
> 
> 
> If you have an issue with science not having every answer, show us conclusive proof to the contrary... you silly little name-caller.
Click to expand...


Ask, and you shall receive. 

*All I'm saying is next time you cut and paste up some "evidence", you might want to refer to some real science that actually uses the scientific method* that you have referred to on here so many times. Remember, you are always going on about how my beliefs are supernatural, so please explain your expectation for me to provide scientific evidence for something that is Supernatural?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach this conclusion hollie when scientist don't have a viable explanation for life ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am really curious too, since you have made it clear on here SEVERAL times that the TOE doesn't apply to ORIGINS questions. Yet here you are posting up rebuttals to the left handed amino acid questions and talking about the complexity in the cell.
> 
> Which is it?? Does evolution apply to abiogenisis or not? You need to pick a stance and stay with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your confudion. It's the result of your appalling lack of a science vocabulary.
> 
> The matter can be resolved immediately with nothing more than affirmative proof of the gods you claim are extant.
Click to expand...


Nice dodge. Why not answer the question: Does the TOE apply to origins arguments or not? What is your stance?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have bolded the massive amounts of *assumptive language* used in these so called findings just so every one else isn't fooled like Hollie was because she can't see when she/he/it is being duped...
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping you could use some larger fonts.
> 
> 
> If you have an issue with science not having every answer, show us conclusive proof to the contrary... you silly little name-caller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask, and you shall receive.
> 
> *All I'm saying is next time you cut and paste up some "evidence", you might want to refer to some real science that actually uses the scientific method* that you have referred to on here so many times. Remember, you are always going on about how my beliefs are supernatural, so please explain your expectation for me to provide scientific evidence for something that is Supernatural?
Click to expand...


I'm beginning to understand what puberty does to little boys. 

If you understand the process if science, you may eventually come to understand that the study of biology is not performed by presuming a supernatural intervention but by testing and research. 

I don't expect you to present scientific evidence of the supernatural. Obviously, you cannot. The supernatural is by definition out of the realm of the natural. Religion and your gods are not available for testing as us the natural world.

Basically, the best you can do is to post videos from fundie xtian websites and accompany them with gargantuan fonts. 

That's a good not. Now run along. Scoot


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping you could use some larger fonts.
> 
> 
> If you have an issue with science not having every answer, show us conclusive proof to the contrary... you silly little name-caller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask, and you shall receive.
> 
> *All I'm saying is next time you cut and paste up some "evidence", you might want to refer to some real science that actually uses the scientific method* that you have referred to on here so many times. Remember, you are always going on about how my beliefs are supernatural, so please explain your expectation for me to provide scientific evidence for something that is Supernatural?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to understand what puberty does to little boys.
> 
> If you understand the process if science, you may eventually come to understand that the study of biology is not performed by presuming a supernatural intervention but by testing and research.
> 
> I don't expect you to present scientific evidence of the supernatural. Obviously, you cannot. The supernatural is by definition out of the realm of the natural. Religion and your gods are not available for testing as us the natural world.
> 
> Basically, the best you can do is to post videos from fundie xtian websites and accompany them with gargantuan fonts.
> 
> That's a good not. Now run along. Scoot
Click to expand...


Again you dodge the question. You you fail to understand in your skewed view is that you the burden of proof is on you, because you are claiming your belief is a fact which is testable by the scientific method. 

Also, if the TOE doesn't apply to origins, why do you propose possibilities? Can you not just answer the question instead of resorting to put downs?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask, and you shall receive.
> 
> *All I'm saying is next time you cut and paste up some "evidence", you might want to refer to some real science that actually uses the scientific method* that you have referred to on here so many times. Remember, you are always going on about how my beliefs are supernatural, so please explain your expectation for me to provide scientific evidence for something that is Supernatural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to understand what puberty does to little boys.
> 
> If you understand the process if science, you may eventually come to understand that the study of biology is not performed by presuming a supernatural intervention but by testing and research.
> 
> I don't expect you to present scientific evidence of the supernatural. Obviously, you cannot. The supernatural is by definition out of the realm of the natural. Religion and your gods are not available for testing as us the natural world.
> 
> Basically, the best you can do is to post videos from fundie xtian websites and accompany them with gargantuan fonts.
> 
> That's a good not. Now run along. Scoot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you dodge the question. You you fail to understand in your skewed view is that you the burden of proof is on you, because you are claiming your belief is a fact which is testable by the scientific method.
> 
> Also, if the TOE doesn't apply to origins, why do you propose possibilities? Can you not just answer the question instead of resorting to put downs?
Click to expand...

The theory of evolution is testable by the methods of science. Additionally, the theory of evolution does not address the beginning of life. 

This has been addressed before which us why I'm surprised st your confusion...but not surprised at your juvenile behavior.

Are and the other guy playing tag-team fundie?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to understand what puberty does to little boys.
> 
> If you understand the process if science, you may eventually come to understand that the study of biology is not performed by presuming a supernatural intervention but by testing and research.
> 
> I don't expect you to present scientific evidence of the supernatural. Obviously, you cannot. The supernatural is by definition out of the realm of the natural. Religion and your gods are not available for testing as us the natural world.
> 
> Basically, the best you can do is to post videos from fundie xtian websites and accompany them with gargantuan fonts.
> 
> That's a good not. Now run along. Scoot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you dodge the question. You you fail to understand in your skewed view is that you the burden of proof is on you, because you are claiming your belief is a fact which is testable by the scientific method.
> 
> Also, if the TOE doesn't apply to origins, why do you propose possibilities? Can you not just answer the question instead of resorting to put downs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The theory of evolution is testable by the methods of science. Additionally, the theory of evolution does not address the beginning of life.
> 
> This has been addressed before which us why I'm surprised st your confusion...but not surprised at your juvenile behavior.
> 
> Are and the other guy playing tag-team fundie?
Click to expand...


So that begs the question, if the TOE doesn't apply to origins, why are you cutting and pasting responses to origins questions or commenting on Abiogenesis video's you haven't bothered to view?

The only juvenile behavior I am witnessing in this thread is your incessant name calling and put downs. Or your condescending comments like "now run along. scoot". It really adds nothing to the discussion and only serves to distract from your lack of ability to engage in an adult discussion.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you dodge the question. You you fail to understand in your skewed view is that you the burden of proof is on you, because you are claiming your belief is a fact which is testable by the scientific method.
> 
> Also, if the TOE doesn't apply to origins, why do you propose possibilities? Can you not just answer the question instead of resorting to put downs?
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution is testable by the methoids of science. Additionally, the theory of evolution does not address the beginning of life.
> 
> This has been addressed before which us why I'm surprised st your confusion...but not surprised at your juvenile behavior.
> 
> Are and the other guy playing tag-team fundie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that begs the question, if the TOE doesn't apply to origins, why are you cutting and pasting responses to origins questions or commenting on Abiogenesis video's you haven't bothered to view?
> 
> The only juvenile behavior I am witnessing in this thread is your incessant name calling and put downs. Or your condescending comments like "now run along. scoot". It really adds nothing to the discussion and only serves to distract from your lack of ability to engage in an adult discussion.
Click to expand...


Those comments are actually comical based upon your obvious juvenile behavior.


----------



## UltimateReality

YWC, I just watched the video's of the guy talking about Abiogenisis and what a great, UN-BIASED, summary of the current thought. I was especially intrigued by his comments on the "self-replicating molecule". Science makes it seem like we have an inkling into a naturalistic method but he really puts it into perspective. The cell, with all of its micro machines and factories, is probably the best, but most under-used, example of irreducible complexity. It is wholly responsible for manufacturing life, and the continuation of life. I like his comment about placing RNA or DNA on the counter. Without the cell, you have nothing. DNA is merely the coded instructions for the factory. So the real question shouldn't be about how DNA came into existence, but the cell itself!!!

If Daws and Hollie actually watched this, they might not be so bold in their foolish comments on the origins of life, especially when they found out that one of the best, naturalistic explanations for Abiogenesis for the better part of the 20th Century was borrowed from the Egyptian Creation Account some 4000 years ago!!!

On a side note regarding the video, my father, who is 78, is an incredibly intelligent man. He worked for Hughes Aircraft in their Missile Systems Group for 25 years as a corporate accountant and as a manager, single handedly set up the books for two new Hughes manufacturing plants. We moved to Arizona from Tennessee in 1968 and for the first one or two years, even though he was working on his masters, folks at Hughes tended not to take him seriously due to his thick, southern accent. I found myself at the beginning of the video thinking the guy was kind of a dimwit but by the end, found him to be an incredibly intelligent and insightful gentleman.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look,left handed amino acids connect to produce proteins and they connect to form life.Right handed amino acids can't connect in that sequence of forming because that would prove to be fatal to the organism. Right handed amino acids are produced by cells as well but these right handed amino acids perform other duties that is not what you are understanding.
> 
> What you are attempting to do is show that right handed amino acids refute what is said they are not harmful to the formation of life they are if they were to connect with left handed amino acids. That is the part you are misunderstanding. Right handed amino acids are also produced by cells and they do have functions within a cell but not with forming life.
> 
> Let's let an agnostic man of science help you understand how the process works since you won't believe me. Here it is in a nutshell
> 
> 
> You and Daws need to watch these videos to understand what I have been arguing.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is that you don't know what you're arguing.
> 
> You are hoping to denigrate science with the presumption that will somehow prove your gods. It won't.
> 
> As I noted before, your rabid cutting and pasting of YouTube videos is the entirety of your argument. I suppose I could cut and paste videos in refutation to your videos and in turn you could cut and paste more videos.
> 
> I suppose that at some pount, the videos could pair off by themselves and have their own debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put, you are an Ideologue and a zealot for naturalism,you are not open to facts about the flaws of your theory.
Click to expand...


Im curious to know how you function on a daily basis. Did you read what you wrote?

Im a zealot for naturalism? Inasmuch as we live in a natural world, governed by natural forces with no hint of anything supernatural, why would I be anything but a naturalist?

Naturalism is important for me because religions and supernatural beliefs keep humanity in bondage, both mentally and physically. That matters because  because countless numbers of people are made to live their lives in fear of things like hell and plagues and various "wraths", "curses" and "spells". I care because I live in a country that is forced to deal with fundie religious believers, and worse, since religions by definition are totalitarian in nature, we are at some risk of losing precious freedoms that many died to protect.

Everything Ive posted in these threads remains in the realm of the natural, not the supernatural, and its fully rational. I dont think the universe is supernatural, I think its eminently natural, hence knowable, hence comprehensible. 

And while I'm at it -- why don't fundie creationists post some videos proposing anti-gravity? Didn't numerous OT prophets "rise to Heaven" -- literally? Didn't Jesus "ascend" to heaven and "walk on water"? Clearly there is something in competition with the Theory of Gravity -- but I don't see any theist demanding there be equal time for Supernatural Levitationism to assert gravity is "only a theory".


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> YWC, I just watched the video's of the guy talking about Abiogenisis and what a great, UN-BIASED, summary of the current thought. I was especially intrigued by his comments on the "self-replicating molecule". Science makes it seem like we have an inkling into a naturalistic method but he really puts it into perspective. The cell, with all of its micro machines and factories, is probably the best, but most under-used, example of irreducible complexity. It is wholly responsible for manufacturing life, and the continuation of life. I like his comment about placing RNA or DNA on the counter. Without the cell, you have nothing. DNA is merely the coded instructions for the factory. So the real question shouldn't be about how DNA came into existence, but the cell itself!!!
> 
> If Daws and Hollie actually watched this, they might not be so bold in their foolish comments on the origins of life, especially when they found out that one of the best, naturalistic explanations for Abiogenesis for the better part of the 20th Century was borrowed from the Egyptian Creation Account some 4000 years ago!!!
> 
> On a side note regarding the video, my father, who is 78, is an incredibly intelligent man. He worked for Hughes Aircraft in their Missile Systems Group for 25 years as a corporate accountant and as a manager, single handedly set up the books for two new Hughes manufacturing plants. We moved to Arizona from Tennessee in 1968 and for the first one or two years, even though he was working on his masters, folks at Hughes tended not to take him seriously due to his thick, southern accent. I found myself at the beginning of the video thinking the guy was kind of a dimwit but by the end, found him to be an incredibly intelligent and insightful gentleman.



Yes people with a draw seem just a bit slow. My mom is from mississippi and is a chemical engineer. when people would listen to her talk the draw didn't allow people to take her serious until she spoke concerning her job.
My mom is another reason I gave  up the nonsense of the theory of evolution a long time ago.

 The guy also pointed out in the videos things that were used as explanations for the theory and that don't exist or they never have been observed.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> religions and supernatural beliefs keep humanity in bondage, both mentally and physically. That matters because  because countless numbers of people are made to live their lives in fear of things like hell and plagues and various "wraths", "curses" and "spells".



This is by far the scariest post you have made to date. In your skewed perception of reality, you ACTUALLY believe the world will be better off without religion. Well stand by my dear, because the effects of a Godless nation and a Godless world are playing out right before your eyes. Unbridled greed and worship of things is growing like mad. People are living more and more for themselves everyday. And don't you always find it odd that the same folks that are atheists are also the leftists that worship the environment over humans, scream for protection of animals but demand the right to kill unborn babies, and hate Capitalism, the one form of government that has produced the most wealth any nation in the world has ever seen, so much so that even the poorest poor are totally obese, and live comfortably in climate controlled bliss, cell phone in hand?? Sadly, you mistakenly believe that a world filled with atheists would be a better place. What you are dead wrong about is the nightmarish hell that would look like. Can you imagine everyone denying God and embracing themselves, free to live out every selfish desire that pops into their mind, like raping a child, or any other sick fantasy their depraved minds could imagine? That is not the world or a nation I want to live in. You're a fool if you think a world without religion is Utopia. Not just a fool, but dangerous. Your presence here tells me you aren't content to live out your beliefs in peace. You are on a mission of hate, to force everyone else to believe like you. You are no better than the Taliban. 

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWq15lDh8yM]Dune (4/9) Movie CLIP - Baron Harkonnen (1984) HD - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Galatians 5:1
It is for freedom that Christ has set us *free*. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. 

Acts 13:38-40 (New International Version)
Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is set *free* from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. 40 Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you:

Romans 8:1-3
Therefore, there is now *no condemnation* for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you[a] *free* from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,* God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in the flesh...

2 Corinthians 3:16-18 New International Version (NIV)

But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lords glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.*


----------



## UltimateReality

Did I mention I went to Chik Fil A yesterday??? There were about 10 protestors there along with over 350 cusomters waiting in line at 5 pm. What always strikes me about homosexual activism is their need to force me to accept their behavior. They aren't just good with living their life out with their same sex partner. They are intent, by law or social convention (PC movement), to force me at least in action, to accept their behavior. I will tell you one thing I have realized in all my years, that is, people that are TRULY good with their life choices don't feel the need to force strangers to accept them. It is the ones that are still struggling with their choice, that need to force acceptance from others. The reason I relate this story is because it reminds me alot of Holly. If he/she was really good with atheism, he/she wouldn't be here trying to convince a bunch of Theists that her way was the best way. She would just go about her business living her life, unconcerned about other's choice to believe in God. The thing Holly's words scream LOUDER than anything else, is that she herself is not convinced of her atheism. She diligently works to put down everyone else in hopes that it will somehow convince her she is right. If she can make others look foolish in the theism, maybe it will lead to her own acceptance of her chosen religion. I'm guessing her denial of her childhood religion is due to some moral dilemma she found herself in. She made a choice that didn't conform to hers and her parents religion, so rather than abandon her choice, she abandoned her religion. But even to this day she is not fully convinced.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Did I mention I went to Chik Fil A yesterday??? There were about 10 protestors there along with over 350 cusomters waiting in line at 5 pm. What always strikes me about homosexual activism is their need to force me to accept their behavior. They aren't just good with living their life out with their same sex partner. They are intent, by law or social convention (PC movement), to force me at least in action, to accept their behavior. I will tell you one thing I have realized in all my years, that is, people that are TRULY good with their life choices don't feel the need to force strangers to accept them. It is the ones that are still struggling with their choice, that need to force acceptance from others. The reason I relate this story is because it reminds me alot of Holly. If he/she was really good with atheism, he/she wouldn't be here trying to convince a bunch of Theists that her way was the best way. She would just go about her business living her life, unconcerned about other's choice to believe in God. The thing Holly's words scream LOUDER than anything else, is that she herself is not convinced of her atheism. She diligently works to put down everyone else in hopes that it will somehow convince her she is right. If she can make others look foolish in the theism, maybe it will lead to her own acceptance of her chosen religion. I'm guessing her denial of her childhood religion is due to some moral dilemma she found herself in. She made a choice that didn't conform to hers and her parents religion, so rather than abandon her choice, she abandoned here religion. But even to this day she is not fully convinced.



Bravo !!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I mention I went to Chik Fil A yesterday??? There were about 10 protestors there along with over 350 cusomters waiting in line at 5 pm. What always strikes me about homosexual activism is their need to force me to accept their behavior. They aren't just good with living their life out with their same sex partner. They are intent, by law or social convention (PC movement), to force me at least in action, to accept their behavior. I will tell you one thing I have realized in all my years, that is, people that are TRULY good with their life choices don't feel the need to force strangers to accept them. It is the ones that are still struggling with their choice, that need to force acceptance from others. The reason I relate this story is because it reminds me alot of Holly. If he/she was really good with atheism, he/she wouldn't be here trying to convince a bunch of Theists that her way was the best way. She would just go about her business living her life, unconcerned about other's choice to believe in God. The thing Holly's words scream LOUDER than anything else, is that she herself is not convinced of her atheism. She diligently works to put down everyone else in hopes that it will somehow convince her she is right. If she can make others look foolish in the theism, maybe it will lead to her own acceptance of her chosen religion. I'm guessing her denial of her childhood religion is due to some moral dilemma she found herself in. She made a choice that didn't conform to hers and her parents religion, so rather than abandon her choice, she abandoned here religion. But even to this day she is not fully convinced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bravo !!!
Click to expand...


I might add, lest anyone should get the wrong meaning from my post, that God makes it extremely clear in the Bible that Jesus died for EVERYONE sins. Those folks struggling with homosexuality are not excluded from His love. The Bible says that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Not after we stopped sinning, not after we started doing good, but while we were still sinning, He died for us.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Did I mention I went to Chik Fil A yesterday??? There were about 10 protestors there along with over 350 cusomters waiting in line at 5 pm. What always strikes me about homosexual activism is their need to force me to accept their behavior. They aren't just good with living their life out with their same sex partner. They are intent, by law or social convention (PC movement), to force me at least in action, to accept their behavior. I will tell you one thing I have realized in all my years, that is, people that are TRULY good with their life choices don't feel the need to force strangers to accept them. It is the ones that are still struggling with their choice, that need to force acceptance from others. The reason I relate this story is because it reminds me alot of Holly. If he/she was really good with atheism, he/she wouldn't be here trying to convince a bunch of Theists that her way was the best way. She would just go about her business living her life, unconcerned about other's choice to believe in God. The thing Holly's words scream LOUDER than anything else, is that she herself is not convinced of her atheism. She diligently works to put down everyone else in hopes that it will somehow convince her she is right. If she can make others look foolish in the theism, maybe it will lead to her own acceptance of her chosen religion. I'm guessing her denial of her childhood religion is due to some moral dilemma she found herself in. She made a choice that didn't conform to hers and her parents religion, so rather than abandon her choice, she abandoned her religion. But even to this day she is not fully convinced.



Did it ever occur to you that homosexuals are a minority group? That they are hated, by the likes of Christians mostly, who are a majority and have vast political power and majority sway in the united states? As such, homosexual are targeted by the exact kind of sentiment you are displaying here, in the form of hateful rhetoric, hate crimes, murders, etc... (mathew shephard ring a bell??). It is funny that you attribute their pleas for empathy for insecurity, when it is in fact for their physical safety and survival, something you take for granted because you are not gay. You have just illustrated EXACTLY why religious faith is so harmful: ignorance to yourself.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I mention I went to Chik Fil A yesterday??? There were about 10 protestors there along with over 350 cusomters waiting in line at 5 pm. What always strikes me about homosexual activism is their need to force me to accept their behavior. They aren't just good with living their life out with their same sex partner. They are intent, by law or social convention (PC movement), to force me at least in action, to accept their behavior. I will tell you one thing I have realized in all my years, that is, people that are TRULY good with their life choices don't feel the need to force strangers to accept them. It is the ones that are still struggling with their choice, that need to force acceptance from others. The reason I relate this story is because it reminds me alot of Holly. If he/she was really good with atheism, he/she wouldn't be here trying to convince a bunch of Theists that her way was the best way. She would just go about her business living her life, unconcerned about other's choice to believe in God. The thing Holly's words scream LOUDER than anything else, is that she herself is not convinced of her atheism. She diligently works to put down everyone else in hopes that it will somehow convince her she is right. If she can make others look foolish in the theism, maybe it will lead to her own acceptance of her chosen religion. I'm guessing her denial of her childhood religion is due to some moral dilemma she found herself in. She made a choice that didn't conform to hers and her parents religion, so rather than abandon her choice, she abandoned her religion. But even to this day she is not fully convinced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that homosexuals are a minority group? That they are hated, by the likes of Christians mostly, who are a majority and have vast political power and majority sway in the united states? As such, homosexual are targeted by the exact kind of sentiment you are displaying here, in the form of hateful rhetoric, hate crimes, murders, etc... (mathew shephard ring a bell??). It is funny that you attribute their pleas for empathy for insecurity, when it is in fact for their physical safety and survival, something you take for granted because you are not gay. You have just illustrated EXACTLY why religious faith is so harmful: ignorance to yourself.
Click to expand...


Did it ever occur to you that the "so-called" Christians that lash out at homosexuals are a minority group. That homosexual activists hate ALL Christians because of a few bad eggs. Did it ever occur to you that when your in it, you can't see it? That your worldview is totally skewed due to your self serviing or saliency bias?

Your twisted perception causes you to think that I was referring to homosexuals plea for empathy. I don't think that telling a business owner you are going to try and destroy his business because you disagree with his religious beliefs is a plea for empathy, do you? This is militant activism and its what I'm talking about. Homosexual activists are attempting to change the status quo. They are the ones fighting for change. Those that resist change because of a 4000 year old tradition are labeled intolerant and attacked. It is funny how the left is always preaching tolerance. But really, their idea of tolerance is accepting someone as long as they believe the same way. Do you see an issue with that? 

So does your freedom to behave as you want trump my freedom of religion guaranteed by the Bill of Rights? The Bible teaches that adultery is sin. It teaches fornication is sin. It also teaches homosexuality is sin. The Bible also teaches we are all born into sin. So Lady Gaga is right, we are all born this way. But does that give us free reign to act on every impulse and urge? Most male urges are to copulate just about any woman with a pulse. But acting on this urge would most likely land you in jail and it wouldn't make for a very successful marriage. The same is true for the sin of homosexuality or alcoholism. Just because you have the urge, does not mean it is right. This is according to my religion. We live in a great country. You are free to behave as you wish as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I don't believe any Christian can pass judgement on any sinner. Jesus said let him who has no sin cast the first stone. The issues come when social and traditional lines are crossed, when activists attempt to force their beliefs down someone else's throat, to force acceptance of a practice they are taught is immoral. This is where the clash occurs. I don't have to agree with your lifestyle to be your friend. I really think it goes back to my paragraph above. Gay activists know it is a touchy subject. A high percentage of gay males could care less about being marriage. But they seek it to aggravate the religious people, to attack the religious sacrament of marriage. And you know what it really boils down to? Government operating outside their sphere. If they weren't giving away so much free stuff and tax breaks, no one would care if they called it a union or a marriage. Your dramatic statement that it is about physical safety and survival just doesn't hold any water and is not based in statistical reality. Thousands more Christians die from persecution worldwide than do homosexuals from hate crimes. 

Dan Cathy said he supported traditional family values and he was attacked for his religious beliefs. Chik Fil A then issued a statement, but do you think that mattered to the a*ngry hate-filled activists*? From Dave Bohon (New American): The resulting national backlash from the homosexual activist community &#8212; which, among other actions, encouraged a boycott of Chick-fil-A restaurants &#8212; prompted the restaurant chain to remind the public that it exists to sell chicken sandwiches, not fight political battles. *In a July 19 statement the chain said that it would &#8220;leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena,&#8221; and that its restaurants would continue to focus on treating &#8220;every person with honor, dignity and respect &#8212; regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation, or gender.&#8221;*

Who are the real bullies? This guy is a real idiot and shows a complete total lack of understanding of the Christian religion. The liberal left is so stupid it makes me sick. When was the last time a bunch of Christians got together and hung some homosexuals?? Yet Diane Sawyer sings the praises of Muslims everywhere, and in the same breath promotes same sex marriage. Islam calls for the beheading of homosexuals and over 4,000 have been executed in Iran in the last 10 years. But ABC tells us we must be tolerant of Islam and same sex marriage in the same breath. The left is so foolish. Christianity teaches everyone has value in God's eyes. It teaches we are all sinners in need of a Savior and that applies to adulterers, fornicators, murderers and homosexuals. Anyone teaching anything else and calling it Christianity is a liar. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alXxsKLVofM]Dan Savage discusses bible at High School Journalism convention - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

"Massimo Introvigne, a human rights representative for the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, has told an OSCE meeting in Bodollo, Hungary, that 105,000 people are killed every year because of their Christian faith."

Report: Christian dies for beliefs every 5 minutes

"After the Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks undertook a massive program to remove the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church from the government and Russian society, and to make the state *atheist*. The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the *elimination of religion.* Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. It is estimated that *500,000 Russian Orthodox Christians were martyred in the gulags *by the Soviet government, not including torture or other Christian denominations killed."

Persecution of Christians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Around the world, hundreds of people are killed every year just for being gay. Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the UK lesbian gay and bisexual rights organisation Stonewall, said: "We are mindful that however remarkable the progress we might be making in Britain is, there are countries around the world where people still live in fear of their lives just because of the way they were born."

More than 70 countries make being gay a crime - World Politics - World - The Independent

LGBT rights in Brazil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Highest Number Of Anti-Gay Murders Ever Reported In 2011: The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs

This is all tragic.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I mention I went to Chik Fil A yesterday??? There were about 10 protestors there along with over 350 cusomters waiting in line at 5 pm. What always strikes me about homosexual activism is their need to force me to accept their behavior. They aren't just good with living their life out with their same sex partner. They are intent, by law or social convention (PC movement), to force me at least in action, to accept their behavior. I will tell you one thing I have realized in all my years, that is, people that are TRULY good with their life choices don't feel the need to force strangers to accept them. It is the ones that are still struggling with their choice, that need to force acceptance from others. The reason I relate this story is because it reminds me alot of Holly. If he/she was really good with atheism, he/she wouldn't be here trying to convince a bunch of Theists that her way was the best way. She would just go about her business living her life, unconcerned about other's choice to believe in God. The thing Holly's words scream LOUDER than anything else, is that she herself is not convinced of her atheism. She diligently works to put down everyone else in hopes that it will somehow convince her she is right. If she can make others look foolish in the theism, maybe it will lead to her own acceptance of her chosen religion. I'm guessing her denial of her childhood religion is due to some moral dilemma she found herself in. She made a choice that didn't conform to hers and her parents religion, so rather than abandon her choice, she abandoned her religion. But even to this day she is not fully convinced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that homosexuals are a minority group? That they are hated, by the likes of Christians mostly, who are a majority and have vast political power and majority sway in the united states? As such, homosexual are targeted by the exact kind of sentiment you are displaying here, in the form of hateful rhetoric, hate crimes, murders, etc... (mathew shephard ring a bell??). It is funny that you attribute their pleas for empathy for insecurity, when it is in fact for their physical safety and survival, something you take for granted because you are not gay. You have just illustrated EXACTLY why religious faith is so harmful: ignorance to yourself.
Click to expand...


Oh please, stop the nonsense. I have a sister that is gay and love her very much don't have to like her lifestyle to love the person. Jesus loves us all even though we have a sinful nature.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> religions and supernatural beliefs keep humanity in bondage, both mentally and physically. That matters because  because countless numbers of people are made to live their lives in fear of things like hell and plagues and various "wraths", "curses" and "spells".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is by far the scariest post you have made to date. In your skewed perception of reality, you ACTUALLY believe the world will be better off without religion. Well stand by my dear, because the effects of a Godless nation and a Godless world are playing out right before your eyes. Unbridled greed and worship of things is growing like mad. People are living more and more for themselves everyday. And don't you always find it odd that the same folks that are atheists are also the leftists that worship the environment over humans, scream for protection of animals but demand the right to kill unborn babies, and hate Capitalism, the one form of government that has produced the most wealth any nation in the world has ever seen, so much so that even the poorest poor are totally obese, and live comfortably in climate controlled bliss, cell phone in hand?? Sadly, you mistakenly believe that a world filled with atheists would be a better place. What you are dead wrong about is the nightmarish hell that would look like. Can you imagine everyone denying God and embracing themselves, free to live out every selfish desire that pops into their mind, like raping a child, or any other sick fantasy their depraved minds could imagine? That is not the world or a nation I want to live in. You're a fool if you think a world without religion is Utopia. Not just a fool, but dangerous. Your presence here tells me you aren't content to live out your beliefs in peace. You are on a mission of hate, to force everyone else to believe like you. You are no better than the Taliban.
> 
> John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Click to expand...


Wow. There&#8217;s nothing creepier than being preached to by a virulently hateful religious zealot. 

You should take the time to read the bible, cover to cover as I have. Not just selective passages, which most fundies do (if they even bother to read it at all). I have even read the endless "begats". If anything on earth convinced me that god (if he existed) had nothing at all to do with the Bible, it was reading the Bible itself. It is interesting mythology, and it has the greatest, most evil villain of all time in it. His name is Jehovah.

Let&#8217;s review for a moment some of yours gods behaviors as it seems to apply to your behaviors as well.

look at the world around you and you will see the result of the belief in mystical gods. You name a war, and I'll show you how religion was deeply a part of it. You tell me where the intolerance is today-- is it in the rational world, like with scientists? Who hates gays the most -- even now when homosexuality is considered to be as "abnormal" as being left-handed? Who keeps claiming they are the ones with the Truth, and all others are wrong? Who keeps alive the myths of Hell, where people will burn in torment for eternity? The churches, the religious, believers. Something makes them believe in this way, and they all turn to their respective books and consider it truth, whereas all the other books are not. Consider the quotes from Leviticus 18:22 
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 

and Lev 20:13
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 

By the way, in Lev 11:10 it says this:
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you. 

Now if homosexuality is decreed as a sin, why isn't eating lobster or clams casino equally a sin? 

In your own cultural background, the churches never stood up against slavery or for civil rights. They defended their hatred and intolerance and bigotry by saying this was the way god wants things. You can create a seething cauldron of hell on earth and if enough people believe "this is the way god (insert name of any god here) wants it" then it will become acceptable. "I am on a mission from God!" cried Hitler publically and loudly in 1934. I agree. Given what believers of god have done to humanity, he sure was.

According to the bible, god wiped the planet of humanity (except for Noah and his family&#8230; and apparently more animals than the Titanic could have carried), because humanity was a disappointment to him. He promised never to destroy the world again by water, so next time (the Armageddon) he plans to use fire. God slaughters thousands and thousands by what the bible says, and he plans to slaughter billions more. Never has there been so evil a villain in all literature than Yahweh-- he kills relentlessly (Read the book of Joshua and try to imagine all those "rotten apple" kids and women-- all except those virgins, who were allowed to be taken away and raped by god's soldiers, the Hebrews)

Actually, man's ethics and morality beats out god by light-years. God tacitly and obviously approves of slavery (Jesus speaks of servants to a Master and never thinks to condemn the injustice of one man owning another)-- man finds it repulsive. God not only approves of war, he ignites them left and right -- man creates a United Nations in an attempt to stop war. God commits genocide without blinking an eye -- man imprisons mass murderers and is repulsed by wanton slaughter. God not only approves of raping young women, he specifically rewards his soldiers with them:

Numbers 31:17-18 
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Man finds this an abomination (that's some great god you believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. God is not fair, in the bible he's a mass murderer and makes a sane, loving person want to recoil in disgust just reading about his atrocities (don't forget -- I don't believe any of this is god, I know this is all legend-- these things may have happened, but they were man being cruel to other men and in spite of god's viciousness, we've slowly overcome it.

Why? Because we use our reason to recognize such behavior is ultimately harmful to all of us.) 

You can be a good person without giving two hoots about Jesus, as billions of non-Christians prove every day. Christians think this world was nothing but barbarians before Jesus-- when in actuality true barbarism sprung up rampantly after Jesus and his devoted fanatics started hacking at anyone who slightly disagreed with them (even the atrocities of the old testament as recounted above pale in comparison to the holocausts, pogrom, wars and genocides that the teachings of Jesus has inspired). You think the Greeks burned old women because they were witches? The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years. For god. Who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden-- "ye shall eat of all things but not of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge -- for on that day, ye shall die" (they didn't die, as the serpent pointed out, they lived; God lied, Satan told the truth-- how ironic) 

*John Adams*

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

*Regarding Government Meddling With Religion*

"We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society."
_-- John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785_

"I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself".
_-- John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, August 29, 1756_


*Regarding Religion Meddling with Government*

"We think ourselves possessed, or, at least, we boast that we are so, of liberty of conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact! There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Dupuis? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them. But as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated. Adieu."
_-- John Adams, one of his last letters to Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1825. Adams was 90, Jefferson 81 at the time; both died on July 4th of the following year, on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence._

"Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
_-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America"_

*Prophetic Statements Based on History*

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
_-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814_

*But Hey, Don't Hold Back, John*

"Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes ... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself. All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude....

Of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness around the idea of a priest as no mortal could deserve ... the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from episcopal fingers."
_-- John Adams, "A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law," printed in the Boston Gazette, August 1765_

"The Church of Rome has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of ignorant or wicked priests."
_-- John Adams, Diary and Autobiography_

Positive Atheism's Big List of John Adams Quotations


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Did I mention I went to Chik Fil A yesterday??? There were about 10 protestors there along with over 350 cusomters waiting in line at 5 pm. What always strikes me about homosexual activism is their need to force me to accept their behavior. They aren't just good with living their life out with their same sex partner. They are intent, by law or social convention (PC movement), to force me at least in action, to accept their behavior. I will tell you one thing I have realized in all my years, that is, people that are TRULY good with their life choices don't feel the need to force strangers to accept them.



So why do fundie christians exhibit precisely the behavior you claim to reject: attempting to force your beliefs on others?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I mention I went to Chik Fil A yesterday??? There were about 10 protestors there along with over 350 cusomters waiting in line at 5 pm. What always strikes me about homosexual activism is their need to force me to accept their behavior. They aren't just good with living their life out with their same sex partner. They are intent, by law or social convention (PC movement), to force me at least in action, to accept their behavior. I will tell you one thing I have realized in all my years, that is, people that are TRULY good with their life choices don't feel the need to force strangers to accept them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do fundie christians exhibit precisely the behavior you claim to reject: attempting to force your beliefs on others?
Click to expand...


Dicussing God or our beliefs, how is that forcing our beliefs on you ? You have a choice to believe or not but our God expects us to share the gospels with others his sheep will know his voice and will follow.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I mention I went to Chik Fil A yesterday??? There were about 10 protestors there along with over 350 cusomters waiting in line at 5 pm. What always strikes me about homosexual activism is their need to force me to accept their behavior. They aren't just good with living their life out with their same sex partner. They are intent, by law or social convention (PC movement), to force me at least in action, to accept their behavior. I will tell you one thing I have realized in all my years, that is, people that are TRULY good with their life choices don't feel the need to force strangers to accept them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do fundie christians exhibit precisely the behavior you claim to reject: attempting to force your beliefs on others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dicussing God or our beliefs, how is that forcing our beliefs on you ? You have a choice to believe or not but our God expects us to share the gospels with others his sheep will know his voice and will follow.
Click to expand...

Much like homosexual activists share their beliefs. The sheep will know their words and follow.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do fundie christians exhibit precisely the behavior you claim to reject: attempting to force your beliefs on others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dicussing God or our beliefs, how is that forcing our beliefs on you ? You have a choice to believe or not but our God expects us to share the gospels with others his sheep will know his voice and will follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much like homosexual activists share their beliefs. The sheep will know their words and follow.
Click to expand...


Believe as you wish,most Christians are not gay and don't agree with the gay lifestyle. All we can do is share the gospel and the rest is up to the person you shared it with. Man is not capable of knowing ones heart. God though has that ability and it is up to him to judge us all.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do fundie christians exhibit precisely the behavior you claim to reject: attempting to force your beliefs on others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dicussing God or our beliefs, how is that forcing our beliefs on you ? You have a choice to believe or not but our God expects us to share the gospels with others his sheep will know his voice and will follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much like homosexual activists share their beliefs. The sheep will know their words and follow.
Click to expand...


I was at my gay sisters home in california and we go over there alot. They have a lot of friends that are gay. Great people ,they are very nice and we enjoy their company as they do ours.

My sister and I struck up a conversation. I asked her you see my wife Judy and I hold hands exchange kisses,but you and your friends do not do the same I asked her why. She said well we have respect for your beliefs. I said if it's totally natural why don't you share the same feelings with your partner,she said well it's not totally our respect for your views but we don't feel comfortable expressing our feelings for one another in front of you. I asked her does that imply it's not totally natural living the lifestyle you do. It Got silent so I changed the subject.

For me that was evidence of her conscience telling her how she lives is wrong. I think I made my point and there is no need for me to say anymore on the subject the ball is in her court.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dicussing God or our beliefs, how is that forcing our beliefs on you ? You have a choice to believe or not but our God expects us to share the gospels with others his sheep will know his voice and will follow.
> 
> 
> 
> Much like homosexual activists share their beliefs. The sheep will know their words and follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish,most Christians are not gay and don't agree with the gay lifestyle. All we can do is share the gospel and the rest is up to the person you shared it with. Man is not capable of knowing ones heart. God though has that ability and it is up to him to judge us all.
Click to expand...


 First, I suppose I should remind you that there is no evidence of gods; any gods. By necessity, I must include your gods among all of the other alleged gods which have all dissipated into obscurity. Every one of the past and present configurations of gods has come from the imagination of mankind. Many of these configurations finding their way into various books written by mankind. It's just so convenient (and predictable), that all of the gods display attributes of human nature within these texts. That's not surprising as we know the texts were written by humans.

Mankind has a long history of inventing gods and supernatural agents to explain completely natural phenomenon. That broadly defines the entire history of invented gods, demons, saviors, etc. When humankind looks to gods and supernaturalism for answers to existence, we get a deafening silence, but when science looks to existence we see the radioactive background noise that supports a big bang, we see immense distances across the cosmos that defines an immensely old universe (not one that is 6,000 years old), we see clues from past life on earth that tells us of an ancient earth. It is science that is exploring and discovering, not the religious entities.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much like homosexual activists share their beliefs. The sheep will know their words and follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish,most Christians are not gay and don't agree with the gay lifestyle. All we can do is share the gospel and the rest is up to the person you shared it with. Man is not capable of knowing ones heart. God though has that ability and it is up to him to judge us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I suppose I should remind you that there is no evidence of gods; any gods. By necessity, I must include your gods among all of the other alleged gods which have all dissipated into obscurity. Every one of the past and present configurations of gods has come from the imagination of mankind. Many of these configurations finding their way into various books written by mankind. It's just so convenient (and predictable), that all of the gods display attributes of human nature within these texts. That's not surprising as we know the texts were written by humans.
> 
> Mankind has a long history of inventing gods and supernatural agents to explain completely natural phenomenon. That broadly defines the entire history of invented gods, demons, saviors, etc. When humankind looks to gods and supernaturalism for answers to existence, we get a deafening silence, but when science looks to existence we see the radioactive background noise that supports a big bang, we see immense distances across the cosmos that defines an immensely old universe (not one that is 6,000 years old), we see clues from past life on earth that tells us of an ancient earth. It is science that is exploring and discovering, not the religious entities.
Click to expand...


There is plenty of evidence of God but one has to be open to the possibility of God existing to see the evidence.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish,most Christians are not gay and don't agree with the gay lifestyle. All we can do is share the gospel and the rest is up to the person you shared it with. Man is not capable of knowing ones heart. God though has that ability and it is up to him to judge us all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I suppose I should remind you that there is no evidence of gods; any gods. By necessity, I must include your gods among all of the other alleged gods which have all dissipated into obscurity. Every one of the past and present configurations of gods has come from the imagination of mankind. Many of these configurations finding their way into various books written by mankind. It's just so convenient (and predictable), that all of the gods display attributes of human nature within these texts. That's not surprising as we know the texts were written by humans.
> 
> Mankind has a long history of inventing gods and supernatural agents to explain completely natural phenomenon. That broadly defines the entire history of invented gods, demons, saviors, etc. When humankind looks to gods and supernaturalism for answers to existence, we get a deafening silence, but when science looks to existence we see the radioactive background noise that supports a big bang, we see immense distances across the cosmos that defines an immensely old universe (not one that is 6,000 years old), we see clues from past life on earth that tells us of an ancient earth. It is science that is exploring and discovering, not the religious entities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence of God but one has to be open to the possibility of God existing to see the evidence.
Click to expand...

Substitute _the Easter Bunny_ for the gods in your comment above. 

It makes just as much sense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I suppose I should remind you that there is no evidence of gods; any gods. By necessity, I must include your gods among all of the other alleged gods which have all dissipated into obscurity. Every one of the past and present configurations of gods has come from the imagination of mankind. Many of these configurations finding their way into various books written by mankind. It's just so convenient (and predictable), that all of the gods display attributes of human nature within these texts. That's not surprising as we know the texts were written by humans.
> 
> Mankind has a long history of inventing gods and supernatural agents to explain completely natural phenomenon. That broadly defines the entire history of invented gods, demons, saviors, etc. When humankind looks to gods and supernaturalism for answers to existence, we get a deafening silence, but when science looks to existence we see the radioactive background noise that supports a big bang, we see immense distances across the cosmos that defines an immensely old universe (not one that is 6,000 years old), we see clues from past life on earth that tells us of an ancient earth. It is science that is exploring and discovering, not the religious entities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence of God but one has to be open to the possibility of God existing to see the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Substitute _the Easter Bunny_ for the gods in your comment above.
> 
> It makes just as much sense.
Click to expand...


OK, but I don't think the easter bunny could have created all we see. Rabbits don't show much intelligence do they ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence of God but one has to be open to the possibility of God existing to see the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Substitute _the Easter Bunny_ for the gods in your comment above.
> 
> It makes just as much sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, but I don't think the easter bunny could have created all we see. Rabbits don't show much intelligence do they ?
Click to expand...


We have no reason to conclude that your gods created anything.  There is nothing in the natural world that would need a creator. The natural world has no need of supernaturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Substitute _the Easter Bunny_ for the gods in your comment above.
> 
> It makes just as much sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but I don't think the easter bunny could have created all we see. Rabbits don't show much intelligence do they ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no reason to conclude that your gods created anything.  There is nothing in the natural world that would need a creator. The natural world has no need of supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


Only the blind can't see the design in nature.

Isa 32:6  For the fool will speak folly, and his heart work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy and to speak error against Jehovah, to make the soul of the hungry empty, and he will take away the drink of the thirsty. 
Isa 32:7  Also the weapons of the fool are evil; he thinks of wicked ways to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaks right.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> religions and supernatural beliefs keep humanity in bondage, both mentally and physically. That matters because  because countless numbers of people are made to live their lives in fear of things like hell and plagues and various "wraths", "curses" and "spells".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is by far the scariest post you have made to date. In your skewed perception of reality, you ACTUALLY believe the world will be better off without religion. Well stand by my dear, because the effects of a Godless nation and a Godless world are playing out right before your eyes. Unbridled greed and worship of things is growing like mad. People are living more and more for themselves everyday. And don't you always find it odd that the same folks that are atheists are also the leftists that worship the environment over humans, scream for protection of animals but demand the right to kill unborn babies, and hate Capitalism, the one form of government that has produced the most wealth any nation in the world has ever seen, so much so that even the poorest poor are totally obese, and live comfortably in climate controlled bliss, cell phone in hand?? Sadly, you mistakenly believe that a world filled with atheists would be a better place. What you are dead wrong about is the nightmarish hell that would look like. Can you imagine everyone denying God and embracing themselves, free to live out every selfish desire that pops into their mind, like raping a child, or any other sick fantasy their depraved minds could imagine? That is not the world or a nation I want to live in. You're a fool if you think a world without religion is Utopia. Not just a fool, but dangerous. Your presence here tells me you aren't content to live out your beliefs in peace. You are on a mission of hate, to force everyone else to believe like you. You are no better than the Taliban.
> 
> John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. There&#8217;s nothing creepier than being preached to by a virulently hateful religious zealot.
> 
> You should take the time to read the bible, cover to cover as I have. Not just selective passages, which most fundies do (if they even bother to read it at all). I have even read the endless "begats". If anything on earth convinced me that god (if he existed) had nothing at all to do with the Bible, it was reading the Bible itself. It is interesting mythology, and it has the greatest, most evil villain of all time in it. His name is Jehovah.
> 
> Let&#8217;s review for a moment some of yours gods behaviors as it seems to apply to your behaviors as well.
> 
> look at the world around you and you will see the result of the belief in mystical gods. You name a war, and I'll show you how religion was deeply a part of it. You tell me where the intolerance is today-- is it in the rational world, like with scientists? Who hates gays the most -- even now when homosexuality is considered to be as "abnormal" as being left-handed? Who keeps claiming they are the ones with the Truth, and all others are wrong? Who keeps alive the myths of Hell, where people will burn in torment for eternity? The churches, the religious, believers. Something makes them believe in this way, and they all turn to their respective books and consider it truth, whereas all the other books are not. Consider the quotes from Leviticus 18:22
> 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
> 
> and Lev 20:13
> 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
> 
> By the way, in Lev 11:10 it says this:
> 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.
> 
> Now if homosexuality is decreed as a sin, why isn't eating lobster or clams casino equally a sin?
> 
> In your own cultural background, the churches never stood up against slavery or for civil rights. They defended their hatred and intolerance and bigotry by saying this was the way god wants things. You can create a seething cauldron of hell on earth and if enough people believe "this is the way god (insert name of any god here) wants it" then it will become acceptable. "I am on a mission from God!" cried Hitler publically and loudly in 1934. I agree. Given what believers of god have done to humanity, he sure was.
> 
> According to the bible, god wiped the planet of humanity (except for Noah and his family&#8230; and apparently more animals than the Titanic could have carried), because humanity was a disappointment to him. He promised never to destroy the world again by water, so next time (the Armageddon) he plans to use fire. God slaughters thousands and thousands by what the bible says, and he plans to slaughter billions more. Never has there been so evil a villain in all literature than Yahweh-- he kills relentlessly (Read the book of Joshua and try to imagine all those "rotten apple" kids and women-- all except those virgins, who were allowed to be taken away and raped by god's soldiers, the Hebrews)
> 
> Actually, man's ethics and morality beats out god by light-years. God tacitly and obviously approves of slavery (Jesus speaks of servants to a Master and never thinks to condemn the injustice of one man owning another)-- man finds it repulsive. God not only approves of war, he ignites them left and right -- man creates a United Nations in an attempt to stop war. God commits genocide without blinking an eye -- man imprisons mass murderers and is repulsed by wanton slaughter. God not only approves of raping young women, he specifically rewards his soldiers with them:
> 
> Numbers 31:17-18
> 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
> 
> Man finds this an abomination (that's some great god you believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. God is not fair, in the bible he's a mass murderer and makes a sane, loving person want to recoil in disgust just reading about his atrocities (don't forget -- I don't believe any of this is god, I know this is all legend-- these things may have happened, but they were man being cruel to other men and in spite of god's viciousness, we've slowly overcome it.
> 
> Why? Because we use our reason to recognize such behavior is ultimately harmful to all of us.)
> 
> You can be a good person without giving two hoots about Jesus, as billions of non-Christians prove every day. Christians think this world was nothing but barbarians before Jesus-- when in actuality true barbarism sprung up rampantly after Jesus and his devoted fanatics started hacking at anyone who slightly disagreed with them (even the atrocities of the old testament as recounted above pale in comparison to the holocausts, pogrom, wars and genocides that the teachings of Jesus has inspired). You think the Greeks burned old women because they were witches? The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years. For god. Who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden-- "ye shall eat of all things but not of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge -- for on that day, ye shall die" (they didn't die, as the serpent pointed out, they lived; God lied, Satan told the truth-- how ironic)
> 
> *John Adams*
> 
> "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
> -- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815
> 
> *Regarding Government Meddling With Religion*
> 
> "We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society."
> _-- John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785_
> 
> "I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself".
> _-- John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, August 29, 1756_
> 
> 
> *Regarding Religion Meddling with Government*
> 
> "We think ourselves possessed, or, at least, we boast that we are so, of liberty of conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact! There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Dupuis? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them. But as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated. Adieu."
> _-- John Adams, one of his last letters to Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1825. Adams was 90, Jefferson 81 at the time; both died on July 4th of the following year, on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence._
> 
> "Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
> _-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America"_
> 
> *Prophetic Statements Based on History*
> 
> "The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
> _-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814_
> 
> *But Hey, Don't Hold Back, John*
> 
> "Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes ... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself. All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude....
> 
> Of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness around the idea of a priest as no mortal could deserve ... the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from episcopal fingers."
> _-- John Adams, "A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law," printed in the Boston Gazette, August 1765_
> 
> "The Church of Rome has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of ignorant or wicked priests."
> _-- John Adams, Diary and Autobiography_
> 
> Positive Atheism's Big List of John Adams Quotations
Click to expand...


I got through about the first three sentences of your post until I realized you were saying the exact same thing as before, which shows a total complete lack of understanding of the Christian story, so I didn't bother to read the rest. I explained it to you before so I won't waste my time again.

So it does beg the question though Holly, when was the last time a bunch Christians got together and stoned a homosexual??? This is not a rhetorical question.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I mention I went to Chik Fil A yesterday??? There were about 10 protestors there along with over 350 cusomters waiting in line at 5 pm. What always strikes me about homosexual activism is their need to force me to accept their behavior. They aren't just good with living their life out with their same sex partner. They are intent, by law or social convention (PC movement), to force me at least in action, to accept their behavior. I will tell you one thing I have realized in all my years, that is, people that are TRULY good with their life choices don't feel the need to force strangers to accept them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do fundie christians exhibit precisely the behavior you claim to reject: attempting to force your beliefs on others?
Click to expand...


Please give me an example.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is by far the scariest post you have made to date. In your skewed perception of reality, you ACTUALLY believe the world will be better off without religion. Well stand by my dear, because the effects of a Godless nation and a Godless world are playing out right before your eyes. Unbridled greed and worship of things is growing like mad. People are living more and more for themselves everyday. And don't you always find it odd that the same folks that are atheists are also the leftists that worship the environment over humans, scream for protection of animals but demand the right to kill unborn babies, and hate Capitalism, the one form of government that has produced the most wealth any nation in the world has ever seen, so much so that even the poorest poor are totally obese, and live comfortably in climate controlled bliss, cell phone in hand?? Sadly, you mistakenly believe that a world filled with atheists would be a better place. What you are dead wrong about is the nightmarish hell that would look like. Can you imagine everyone denying God and embracing themselves, free to live out every selfish desire that pops into their mind, like raping a child, or any other sick fantasy their depraved minds could imagine? That is not the world or a nation I want to live in. You're a fool if you think a world without religion is Utopia. Not just a fool, but dangerous. Your presence here tells me you aren't content to live out your beliefs in peace. You are on a mission of hate, to force everyone else to believe like you. You are no better than the Taliban.
> 
> John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Theres nothing creepier than being preached to by a virulently hateful religious zealot.
> 
> You should take the time to read the bible, cover to cover as I have. Not just selective passages, which most fundies do (if they even bother to read it at all). I have even read the endless "begats". If anything on earth convinced me that god (if he existed) had nothing at all to do with the Bible, it was reading the Bible itself. It is interesting mythology, and it has the greatest, most evil villain of all time in it. His name is Jehovah.
> 
> Lets review for a moment some of yours gods behaviors as it seems to apply to your behaviors as well.
> 
> look at the world around you and you will see the result of the belief in mystical gods. You name a war, and I'll show you how religion was deeply a part of it. You tell me where the intolerance is today-- is it in the rational world, like with scientists? Who hates gays the most -- even now when homosexuality is considered to be as "abnormal" as being left-handed? Who keeps claiming they are the ones with the Truth, and all others are wrong? Who keeps alive the myths of Hell, where people will burn in torment for eternity? The churches, the religious, believers. Something makes them believe in this way, and they all turn to their respective books and consider it truth, whereas all the other books are not. Consider the quotes from Leviticus 18:22
> 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
> 
> and Lev 20:13
> 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
> 
> By the way, in Lev 11:10 it says this:
> 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.
> 
> Now if homosexuality is decreed as a sin, why isn't eating lobster or clams casino equally a sin?
> 
> In your own cultural background, the churches never stood up against slavery or for civil rights. They defended their hatred and intolerance and bigotry by saying this was the way god wants things. You can create a seething cauldron of hell on earth and if enough people believe "this is the way god (insert name of any god here) wants it" then it will become acceptable. "I am on a mission from God!" cried Hitler publically and loudly in 1934. I agree. Given what believers of god have done to humanity, he sure was.
> 
> According to the bible, god wiped the planet of humanity (except for Noah and his family and apparently more animals than the Titanic could have carried), because humanity was a disappointment to him. He promised never to destroy the world again by water, so next time (the Armageddon) he plans to use fire. God slaughters thousands and thousands by what the bible says, and he plans to slaughter billions more. Never has there been so evil a villain in all literature than Yahweh-- he kills relentlessly (Read the book of Joshua and try to imagine all those "rotten apple" kids and women-- all except those virgins, who were allowed to be taken away and raped by god's soldiers, the Hebrews)
> 
> Actually, man's ethics and morality beats out god by light-years. God tacitly and obviously approves of slavery (Jesus speaks of servants to a Master and never thinks to condemn the injustice of one man owning another)-- man finds it repulsive. God not only approves of war, he ignites them left and right -- man creates a United Nations in an attempt to stop war. God commits genocide without blinking an eye -- man imprisons mass murderers and is repulsed by wanton slaughter. God not only approves of raping young women, he specifically rewards his soldiers with them:
> 
> Numbers 31:17-18
> 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
> 
> Man finds this an abomination (that's some great god you believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. God is not fair, in the bible he's a mass murderer and makes a sane, loving person want to recoil in disgust just reading about his atrocities (don't forget -- I don't believe any of this is god, I know this is all legend-- these things may have happened, but they were man being cruel to other men and in spite of god's viciousness, we've slowly overcome it.
> 
> Why? Because we use our reason to recognize such behavior is ultimately harmful to all of us.)
> 
> You can be a good person without giving two hoots about Jesus, as billions of non-Christians prove every day. Christians think this world was nothing but barbarians before Jesus-- when in actuality true barbarism sprung up rampantly after Jesus and his devoted fanatics started hacking at anyone who slightly disagreed with them (even the atrocities of the old testament as recounted above pale in comparison to the holocausts, pogrom, wars and genocides that the teachings of Jesus has inspired). You think the Greeks burned old women because they were witches? The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years. For god. Who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden-- "ye shall eat of all things but not of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge -- for on that day, ye shall die" (they didn't die, as the serpent pointed out, they lived; God lied, Satan told the truth-- how ironic)
> 
> *John Adams*
> 
> "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
> -- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815
> 
> *Regarding Government Meddling With Religion*
> 
> "We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society."
> _-- John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785_
> 
> "I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself".
> _-- John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, August 29, 1756_
> 
> 
> *Regarding Religion Meddling with Government*
> 
> "We think ourselves possessed, or, at least, we boast that we are so, of liberty of conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact! There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Dupuis? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them. But as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated. Adieu."
> _-- John Adams, one of his last letters to Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1825. Adams was 90, Jefferson 81 at the time; both died on July 4th of the following year, on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence._
> 
> "Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
> _-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America"_
> 
> *Prophetic Statements Based on History*
> 
> "The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
> _-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814_
> 
> *But Hey, Don't Hold Back, John*
> 
> "Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes ... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself. All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude....
> 
> Of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness around the idea of a priest as no mortal could deserve ... the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from episcopal fingers."
> _-- John Adams, "A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law," printed in the Boston Gazette, August 1765_
> 
> "The Church of Rome has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of ignorant or wicked priests."
> _-- John Adams, Diary and Autobiography_
> 
> Positive Atheism's Big List of John Adams Quotations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got through about the first three sentences of your post until I realized you were saying the exact same thing as before, which shows a total complete lack of understand of the Christian story, so I didn't bother to read the rest. I explained it to you before so I won't waste my time again.
> 
> So it does beg the question though Holly, when was the last time a bunch Christians got together and stoned a homosexual??? This is not a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...


I certainly did expect that you would buggar off from even attempting a response. I've learned that when confronted with the history of their religions and the damage to humanity that their belief systems have caused, the believers tend to stutter and mumble.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Theres nothing creepier than being preached to by a virulently hateful religious zealot.
> 
> You should take the time to read the bible, cover to cover as I have. Not just selective passages, which most fundies do (if they even bother to read it at all). I have even read the endless "begats". If anything on earth convinced me that god (if he existed) had nothing at all to do with the Bible, it was reading the Bible itself. It is interesting mythology, and it has the greatest, most evil villain of all time in it. His name is Jehovah.
> 
> Lets review for a moment some of yours gods behaviors as it seems to apply to your behaviors as well.
> 
> look at the world around you and you will see the result of the belief in mystical gods. You name a war, and I'll show you how religion was deeply a part of it. You tell me where the intolerance is today-- is it in the rational world, like with scientists? Who hates gays the most -- even now when homosexuality is considered to be as "abnormal" as being left-handed? Who keeps claiming they are the ones with the Truth, and all others are wrong? Who keeps alive the myths of Hell, where people will burn in torment for eternity? The churches, the religious, believers. Something makes them believe in this way, and they all turn to their respective books and consider it truth, whereas all the other books are not. Consider the quotes from Leviticus 18:22
> 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
> 
> and Lev 20:13
> 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
> 
> By the way, in Lev 11:10 it says this:
> 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.
> 
> Now if homosexuality is decreed as a sin, why isn't eating lobster or clams casino equally a sin?
> 
> In your own cultural background, the churches never stood up against slavery or for civil rights. They defended their hatred and intolerance and bigotry by saying this was the way god wants things. You can create a seething cauldron of hell on earth and if enough people believe "this is the way god (insert name of any god here) wants it" then it will become acceptable. "I am on a mission from God!" cried Hitler publically and loudly in 1934. I agree. Given what believers of god have done to humanity, he sure was.
> 
> According to the bible, god wiped the planet of humanity (except for Noah and his family and apparently more animals than the Titanic could have carried), because humanity was a disappointment to him. He promised never to destroy the world again by water, so next time (the Armageddon) he plans to use fire. God slaughters thousands and thousands by what the bible says, and he plans to slaughter billions more. Never has there been so evil a villain in all literature than Yahweh-- he kills relentlessly (Read the book of Joshua and try to imagine all those "rotten apple" kids and women-- all except those virgins, who were allowed to be taken away and raped by god's soldiers, the Hebrews)
> 
> Actually, man's ethics and morality beats out god by light-years. God tacitly and obviously approves of slavery (Jesus speaks of servants to a Master and never thinks to condemn the injustice of one man owning another)-- man finds it repulsive. God not only approves of war, he ignites them left and right -- man creates a United Nations in an attempt to stop war. God commits genocide without blinking an eye -- man imprisons mass murderers and is repulsed by wanton slaughter. God not only approves of raping young women, he specifically rewards his soldiers with them:
> 
> Numbers 31:17-18
> 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
> 
> Man finds this an abomination (that's some great god you believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. God is not fair, in the bible he's a mass murderer and makes a sane, loving person want to recoil in disgust just reading about his atrocities (don't forget -- I don't believe any of this is god, I know this is all legend-- these things may have happened, but they were man being cruel to other men and in spite of god's viciousness, we've slowly overcome it.
> 
> Why? Because we use our reason to recognize such behavior is ultimately harmful to all of us.)
> 
> You can be a good person without giving two hoots about Jesus, as billions of non-Christians prove every day. Christians think this world was nothing but barbarians before Jesus-- when in actuality true barbarism sprung up rampantly after Jesus and his devoted fanatics started hacking at anyone who slightly disagreed with them (even the atrocities of the old testament as recounted above pale in comparison to the holocausts, pogrom, wars and genocides that the teachings of Jesus has inspired). You think the Greeks burned old women because they were witches? The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years. For god. Who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden-- "ye shall eat of all things but not of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge -- for on that day, ye shall die" (they didn't die, as the serpent pointed out, they lived; God lied, Satan told the truth-- how ironic)
> 
> *John Adams*
> 
> "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
> -- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815
> 
> *Regarding Government Meddling With Religion*
> 
> "We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society."
> _-- John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785_
> 
> "I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself".
> _-- John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, August 29, 1756_
> 
> 
> *Regarding Religion Meddling with Government*
> 
> "We think ourselves possessed, or, at least, we boast that we are so, of liberty of conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact! There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Dupuis? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them. But as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated. Adieu."
> _-- John Adams, one of his last letters to Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1825. Adams was 90, Jefferson 81 at the time; both died on July 4th of the following year, on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence._
> 
> "Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
> _-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America"_
> 
> *Prophetic Statements Based on History*
> 
> "The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
> _-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814_
> 
> *But Hey, Don't Hold Back, John*
> 
> "Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes ... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself. All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude....
> 
> Of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness around the idea of a priest as no mortal could deserve ... the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from episcopal fingers."
> _-- John Adams, "A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law," printed in the Boston Gazette, August 1765_
> 
> "The Church of Rome has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of ignorant or wicked priests."
> _-- John Adams, Diary and Autobiography_
> 
> Positive Atheism's Big List of John Adams Quotations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got through about the first three sentences of your post until I realized you were saying the exact same thing as before, which shows a total complete lack of understand of the Christian story, so I didn't bother to read the rest. I explained it to you before so I won't waste my time again.
> 
> So it does beg the question though Holly, when was the last time a bunch Christians got together and stoned a homosexual??? This is not a rhetorical question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly did expect that you would buggar off from even attempting a response. I've learned that when confronted with the history of their religions and the damage to humanity that their belief systems have caused, the believers tend to stutter and mumble.
Click to expand...


Not all professing Christians are representing God in the manner God intended and God will deal with all those he calls hypocrites, and vipers, coming in sheeps clothing but inside are ravenous wolves.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got through about the first three sentences of your post until I realized you were saying the exact same thing as before, which shows a total complete lack of understand of the Christian story, so I didn't bother to read the rest. I explained it to you before so I won't waste my time again.
> 
> So it does beg the question though Holly, when was the last time a bunch Christians got together and stoned a homosexual??? This is not a rhetorical question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly did expect that you would buggar off from even attempting a response. I've learned that when confronted with the history of their religions and the damage to humanity that their belief systems have caused, the believers tend to stutter and mumble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all professing Christians are representing God in the manner God intended and God will deal with all those he calls hypocrites, and vipers, coming in sheeps clothing but inside are ravenous wolves.
Click to expand...


Ah. Threats of eternal torture in exchange for behavior appropriate to an approving authority. 

It's really nothing more than an extension of the human based conception of the parent - child relationship taken to an absurd level.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do fundie christians exhibit precisely the behavior you claim to reject: attempting to force your beliefs on others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dicussing God or our beliefs, how is that forcing our beliefs on you ? You have a choice to believe or not but our God expects us to share the gospels with others his sheep will know his voice and will follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much like homosexual activists share their beliefs. The sheep will know their words and follow.
Click to expand...


This country was established with Christian principles. Those traditions have been in place for 200 years. It is part of our culture. It is the homosexual activism that is trying to force change on everyone, and force acceptance of an immoral behavior. And while we are on the topic, that is all it is... a behavior. Claims that folks can't help it are only founded in the pseudoscience, much like evolution, that is clammering and grasping for a reason to change the morals of a nation. And so here we arrive at the real danger of evolutionary philosophy and how it relates to homosexuality. If I am just a product of my genes, then I really can't help the way I act. Soon we will live in a world where Jeffrey Dahmer would not be responsible for his actions since he just can't help that he likes to rape men and then eat their body parts. Basically, his genes made him do it. It is a slippery slope to start down.

*The greatest lie foisted on people struggling with homosexuality is that they don't have a choice!!*

Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: Free will
A table showing the different positions related to free will and determinism

Philosophers have argued that either Determinism is true or Indeterminism is true, but also that Free Will either exists or it does not. This creates four possible positions. Compatibilism refers to the view that free will is, in some sense, compatible with Determinism. The three Incompatibilist positions, on the other hand, deny this possibility. They instead suggest there is a dichotomy between determinism and free will (only one can be true).

To the Incompatibilists, one must choose either free will or Determinism, and maybe even reject both. The result is one of three positions:

    Metaphysical Libertarianism (free will, and no determinism) a position not to be confused with the more commonly cited Political Libertarianism.
    Hard Determinism (Determinism, and no free will).
    Hard Indeterminism (No Determinism, and no free will either).

Thus, although many Determinists are Compatibilists, calling someone a 'Determinist' is often done to denote the 'Hard Determinist' position.

The Standard argument against free will, according to philosopher J. J. C. Smart focuses on the implications of Determinism for 'free will'.[10] He suggests that, if determinism is true, all our actions are predicted and we are not free; if determinism is false, our actions are random and still we do not seem free.

In his book, The Moral Landscape, author and neuroscientist Sam Harris mentions some ways that determinism and modern scientific understanding might challenge the idea of a contra-causal free will. He offers one thought experiment where a mad scientist represents determinism. In Harris' example, the mad scientist uses a machine to control all the desires, and thus all the behaviour, of a particular human. Harris believes that it is no longer as tempting, in this case, to say the victim has "free will". Harris says nothing changes if the machine controls desires at random - the victim still seems to lack free will. Harris then argues that we are also the victims of such unpredictable desires (but due to the unconscious machinations of our brain, rather than those of a mad scientist). This implicitly assumes a philosophy of materialism, which could be disputed along with Harris's hard determinism. Based on this introspection, he writes "This discloses the real mystery of free will: if our experience is compatible with its utter absence, how can we say that we see any evidence for it in the first place?"[11] adding that "Whether they are predictable or not, we do not cause our causes."[12] That is, he believes there is compelling evidence of absence of free will.

*Research has found that reducing a person's belief in free will can make them less helpful and more aggressive.*[13] This could occur because the individual's sense of Self-efficacy suffers.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much like homosexual activists share their beliefs. The sheep will know their words and follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish,most Christians are not gay and don't agree with the gay lifestyle. All we can do is share the gospel and the rest is up to the person you shared it with. Man is not capable of knowing ones heart. God though has that ability and it is up to him to judge us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I suppose I should remind you that there is no evidence of gods; any gods. By necessity, I must include your gods among all of the other alleged gods which have all dissipated into obscurity. Every one of the past and present configurations of gods has come from the imagination of mankind. Many of these configurations finding their way into various books written by mankind. It's just so convenient (and predictable), that all of the gods display attributes of human nature within these texts. That's not surprising as we know the texts were written by humans.
> 
> Mankind has a long history of inventing gods and supernatural agents to explain completely natural phenomenon. That broadly defines the entire history of invented gods, demons, saviors, etc. When humankind looks to gods and supernaturalism for answers to existence, we get a deafening silence, but when science looks to existence we see the radioactive background noise that supports a big bang, we see immense distances across the cosmos that defines an immensely old universe (not one that is 6,000 years old), we see clues from past life on earth that tells us of an ancient earth. It is science that is exploring and discovering, not the religious entities.
Click to expand...


I am a product of evolution. I believe in God. So evolution caused my belief in God. We know that matter is the only reality so there can be no other cause for my belief but evolution. Since the number of people worldwide that believe in a god or gods *far outnumber* the atheists, then there is overwhelming evidence the God belief mutation is the one being Naturally Selected. Sorry Holly, but your species won't last.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Substitute _the Easter Bunny_ for the gods in your comment above.
> 
> It makes just as much sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but I don't think the easter bunny could have created all we see. Rabbits don't show much intelligence do they ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no reason to conclude that your gods created anything.  There is nothing in the natural world that would need a creator. The natural world has no need of supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


But we just learned there is absolutely no naturalistic explanation for the origins of life and there can't be a naturalistic cause for the big bang. So I am not so sure what you are basing your stance on.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Theres nothing creepier than being preached to by a virulently hateful religious zealot.
> 
> You should take the time to read the bible, cover to cover as I have. Not just selective passages, which most fundies do (if they even bother to read it at all). I have even read the endless "begats". If anything on earth convinced me that god (if he existed) had nothing at all to do with the Bible, it was reading the Bible itself. It is interesting mythology, and it has the greatest, most evil villain of all time in it. His name is Jehovah.
> 
> Lets review for a moment some of yours gods behaviors as it seems to apply to your behaviors as well.
> 
> look at the world around you and you will see the result of the belief in mystical gods. You name a war, and I'll show you how religion was deeply a part of it. You tell me where the intolerance is today-- is it in the rational world, like with scientists? Who hates gays the most -- even now when homosexuality is considered to be as "abnormal" as being left-handed? Who keeps claiming they are the ones with the Truth, and all others are wrong? Who keeps alive the myths of Hell, where people will burn in torment for eternity? The churches, the religious, believers. Something makes them believe in this way, and they all turn to their respective books and consider it truth, whereas all the other books are not. Consider the quotes from Leviticus 18:22
> 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
> 
> and Lev 20:13
> 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
> 
> By the way, in Lev 11:10 it says this:
> 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.
> 
> Now if homosexuality is decreed as a sin, why isn't eating lobster or clams casino equally a sin?
> 
> In your own cultural background, the churches never stood up against slavery or for civil rights. They defended their hatred and intolerance and bigotry by saying this was the way god wants things. You can create a seething cauldron of hell on earth and if enough people believe "this is the way god (insert name of any god here) wants it" then it will become acceptable. "I am on a mission from God!" cried Hitler publically and loudly in 1934. I agree. Given what believers of god have done to humanity, he sure was.
> 
> According to the bible, god wiped the planet of humanity (except for Noah and his family and apparently more animals than the Titanic could have carried), because humanity was a disappointment to him. He promised never to destroy the world again by water, so next time (the Armageddon) he plans to use fire. God slaughters thousands and thousands by what the bible says, and he plans to slaughter billions more. Never has there been so evil a villain in all literature than Yahweh-- he kills relentlessly (Read the book of Joshua and try to imagine all those "rotten apple" kids and women-- all except those virgins, who were allowed to be taken away and raped by god's soldiers, the Hebrews)
> 
> Actually, man's ethics and morality beats out god by light-years. God tacitly and obviously approves of slavery (Jesus speaks of servants to a Master and never thinks to condemn the injustice of one man owning another)-- man finds it repulsive. God not only approves of war, he ignites them left and right -- man creates a United Nations in an attempt to stop war. God commits genocide without blinking an eye -- man imprisons mass murderers and is repulsed by wanton slaughter. God not only approves of raping young women, he specifically rewards his soldiers with them:
> 
> Numbers 31:17-18
> 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
> 
> Man finds this an abomination (that's some great god you believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. God is not fair, in the bible he's a mass murderer and makes a sane, loving person want to recoil in disgust just reading about his atrocities (don't forget -- I don't believe any of this is god, I know this is all legend-- these things may have happened, but they were man being cruel to other men and in spite of god's viciousness, we've slowly overcome it.
> 
> Why? Because we use our reason to recognize such behavior is ultimately harmful to all of us.)
> 
> You can be a good person without giving two hoots about Jesus, as billions of non-Christians prove every day. Christians think this world was nothing but barbarians before Jesus-- when in actuality true barbarism sprung up rampantly after Jesus and his devoted fanatics started hacking at anyone who slightly disagreed with them (even the atrocities of the old testament as recounted above pale in comparison to the holocausts, pogrom, wars and genocides that the teachings of Jesus has inspired). You think the Greeks burned old women because they were witches? The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years. For god. Who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden-- "ye shall eat of all things but not of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge -- for on that day, ye shall die" (they didn't die, as the serpent pointed out, they lived; God lied, Satan told the truth-- how ironic)
> 
> *John Adams*
> 
> "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
> -- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815
> 
> *Regarding Government Meddling With Religion*
> 
> "We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society."
> _-- John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785_
> 
> "I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself".
> _-- John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, August 29, 1756_
> 
> 
> *Regarding Religion Meddling with Government*
> 
> "We think ourselves possessed, or, at least, we boast that we are so, of liberty of conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact! There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Dupuis? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them. But as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated. Adieu."
> _-- John Adams, one of his last letters to Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1825. Adams was 90, Jefferson 81 at the time; both died on July 4th of the following year, on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence._
> 
> "Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
> _-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America"_
> 
> *Prophetic Statements Based on History*
> 
> "The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
> _-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814_
> 
> *But Hey, Don't Hold Back, John*
> 
> "Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes ... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself. All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude....
> 
> Of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness around the idea of a priest as no mortal could deserve ... the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from episcopal fingers."
> _-- John Adams, "A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law," printed in the Boston Gazette, August 1765_
> 
> "The Church of Rome has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of ignorant or wicked priests."
> _-- John Adams, Diary and Autobiography_
> 
> Positive Atheism's Big List of John Adams Quotations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got through about the first three sentences of your post until I realized you were saying the exact same thing as before, which shows a total complete lack of understand of the Christian story, so I didn't bother to read the rest. I explained it to you before so I won't waste my time again.
> 
> So it does beg the question though Holly, when was the last time a bunch Christians got together and stoned a homosexual??? This is not a rhetorical question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly did expect that you would buggar off from even attempting a response. I've learned that when confronted with the history of their religions and the damage to humanity that their belief systems have caused, the believers tend to stutter and mumble.
Click to expand...


Yeah, just like you just did by not answering the question posed to you.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> This country was established with Christian principles.



Completely false.

The Founding Fathers explicitly excluded references to christianity in the writing of the constitution.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got through about the first three sentences of your post until I realized you were saying the exact same thing as before, which shows a total complete lack of understand of the Christian story, so I didn't bother to read the rest. I explained it to you before so I won't waste my time again.
> 
> So it does beg the question though Holly, when was the last time a bunch Christians got together and stoned a homosexual??? This is not a rhetorical question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly did expect that you would buggar off from even attempting a response. I've learned that when confronted with the history of their religions and the damage to humanity that their belief systems have caused, the believers tend to stutter and mumble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, just like you just did by not answering the question posed to you.
Click to expand...

Yet more stuttering and mumbling.


----------



## UltimateReality

William Provine:

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and *these are basically Darwin's views*. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, *no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will *for humans, either.    Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy  April 30 1994

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. 

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) *No gods worth having exist*; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) *human free will is nonexistent. *   "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life  1998  Darwin Day Keynote Address  1  2   

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism."  

Evolution Quotes


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This country was established with Christian principles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Completely false.
> 
> The Founding Fathers explicitly excluded references to christianity in the writing of the constitution.
Click to expand...


The principles still abide, no matter how hard you militantly engage in historical revisionism.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly did expect that you would buggar off from even attempting a response. I've learned that when confronted with the history of their religions and the damage to humanity that their belief systems have caused, the believers tend to stutter and mumble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, just like you just did by not answering the question posed to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet more stuttering and mumbling.
Click to expand...


And still no answer. The people on the Islam forum got aggravated by your circular reasoning and tricks as well. Funny how they realized too you never actually say anything. You haven't presented a single, logical argument since you have been frequenting here.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly did expect that you would buggar off from even attempting a response. I've learned that when confronted with the history of their religions and the damage to humanity that their belief systems have caused, the believers tend to stutter and mumble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all professing Christians are representing God in the manner God intended and God will deal with all those he calls hypocrites, and vipers, coming in sheeps clothing but inside are ravenous wolves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah. Threats of eternal torture in exchange for behavior appropriate to an approving authority.
> 
> It's really nothing more than an extension of the human based conception of the parent - child relationship taken to an absurd level.
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as eternal torture with God, with a careful study of the scriptures you can see the punishment is everlasting death death. Not a threat,that is what will take place on judgment day. Some will go to everlasting death and some to everlasting life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This country was established with Christian principles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Completely false.
> 
> The Founding Fathers explicitly excluded references to christianity in the writing of the constitution.
Click to expand...


Have you read the declaration of independence ?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This country was established with Christian principles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Completely false.
> 
> The Founding Fathers explicitly excluded references to christianity in the writing of the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The principles still abide, no matter how hard you militantly engage in historical revisionism.
Click to expand...


Melodrama is not working. Proceed with using gargantuan fonts. 

In the meantime, show us a single reference to Christian principles noted in the constitution.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Completely false.
> 
> The Founding Fathers explicitly excluded references to christianity in the writing of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The principles still abide, no matter how hard you militantly engage in historical revisionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Melodrama is not working. Proceed with using gargantuan fonts.
> 
> In the meantime, show us a single reference to Christian principles noted in the constitution.
Click to expand...


Right after you answer the question about stonings of homosexuals by Christians. In fact, please find even one example in the last 2000 years.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The principles still abide, no matter how hard you militantly engage in historical revisionism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Melodrama is not working. Proceed with using gargantuan fonts.
> 
> In the meantime, show us a single reference to Christian principles noted in the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right after you answer the question about stonings of homosexuals by Christians. In fact, please find even one example in the last 2000 years.
Click to expand...


I think you will find that secular laws are far more fair than the laws of the Christian gods. 

No need to whine like a petulant child. There are no references to Christian principles in the constitution.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Hollie, your conviction on Christianity comes through loud and clear in your writings.  
Our founding father's convictions were also loud and clear:

Samuel Adams 
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Father of the American Revolution 

"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is Prince of Peace." 
--As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797. 

James Madison 
4th U.S. President 

"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ." 

Please analyze these 2 statements and and see if their convictions agree with yours, or are diametrically the opposite of what you believe.  
The men that shaped this country did so with their belief in Almighty God steadfast.  You won't find Madison's quote in the constitution,  but you will find it in the hands that penned the criteria for this nation to thrive on.

We were a blessed nation until we asked God to depart from us.  
So, how's it goin?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Melodrama is not working. Proceed with using gargantuan fonts.
> 
> In the meantime, show us a single reference to Christian principles noted in the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right after you answer the question about stonings of homosexuals by Christians. In fact, please find even one example in the last 2000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you will find that secular laws are far more fair than the laws of the Christian gods.
> 
> No need to whine like a petulant child. There are no references to Christian principles in the constitution.
Click to expand...


No surprise. Your behavior remains unchanged in the 5 years since the Islam. forums. 

You STILL dodged the question and even a 3rd grader reading this could see why. Because there are no incidences that you can find. Your references to Old Testament teachings regarding the Law of Moses don't jive with AD reality. Nice try though. We don't really need for you to answer because your silence reveals your trickery.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already answered you many times and you still don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> I get it since you have no proof you make shit up or believe made up shit ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have some nerve, considering the baloney you believe, that you can't make an argument to support.  You have never given me anything that I was not taught in school. Can you think for yourself ?
> 
> Because your copy and paste jobs do not answer my questions  nor refute my theories I present. Example how all mutations do damage over time if they are allowed to accumlate in the gene pool.
> 
> Thank your creator for the mechanisms he created to limit the mutation accumulation.
Click to expand...

if by nerve you mean tenacity,then thank you.
as for the rest .nothing could be more baloney then a sky god.
 I've made many arguments supporting "my" pov  (not the same as belief, your willful ignorance keeps you from seeing the difference)  
you are either unable or un willing to to accept them.
I, on the other hand accept that you deeply believe in your no evidence, false premise, supernatural conjecture filled fairy tales.  

 once again you have no proof that god exists so  any so called control of genes or anything else  is specious speculation.

" You have never given me anything that I was not taught in school." ywc.
it's glaringly apparent from you posts and smug hubris that school was the last time you learned anything real.  


"Can you think for yourself ?" YWC.

what the fuck does that even mean?
it's obvious  that you don't judging from you total lack of even the smallest bit of originality .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put your dunce hat on  the universe had a beginning,that means time had a beginning.Motion is change in location over time. Space cannot exist without time, without time there is no space, and nothing for matter to exist in.
> 
> I love putting you in your place. So where did the matter come from since time did not exist ?
> 
> 
> 
> what place do you think you put me in.?
> since you answerd a question I never asked that makes you the dunce and an asshole with reading comp troubles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read your post to Irish Ram and your assertion, then maybe you will understand my response or not
Click to expand...


your response was meaingless, my first answer stands you an asshole with reading comp problems ...if it wasn't so hilarious ,it would be sad.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Hollie, would you prefer our founding fathers conducted themselves like Arafat, or Mohammed?
They thought lying about peace while preparing for slaughter was an honorable thing.
Here is Arafat backtracking on his signing of a peace treaty, equating his actions with what Mohammad  did:
"This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Mohammed and Koraish....." 
 (The agreement with Koraish allowed Mohammed to pray in Mecca, which was under Koraish control, for ten years. When Mohamed grew stronger two years later, he abrogated the agreement, slaughtered the tribe of Koraish and conquered Mecca.)


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right after you answer the question about stonings of homosexuals by Christians. In fact, please find even one example in the last 2000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you will find that secular laws are far more fair than the laws of the Christian gods.
> 
> No need to whine like a petulant child. There are no references to Christian principles in the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No surprise. Your behavior remains unchanged in the 5 years since the Islam. forums.
> 
> You STILL dodged the question and even a 3rd grader reading this could see why. Because there are no incidences that you can find. Your references to Old Testament teachings regarding the Law of Moses don't jive with AD reality. Nice try though. We don't really need for you to answer because your silence reveals your trickery.
Click to expand...

Oh you like dear. You have decided to sidestep your being taken to task for your false claim and you continue to carry on with nonsensical claims about Christian stoning as punishment. 

Did you realize that I made no claim about Christians enforcing that punishment?


----------



## The Irish Ram

When you can predict the future with accuracy, the way SkyGod has, then I'll accept your opinion. 
 Until then, SkyGod rules.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't think of anyone able to design them here on this planet
> 
> 
> 
> another no answer you have no evidence god either..just a wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did these complex molecular machines come from ?
Click to expand...

first your use of the term "complex molecular machines" is false in the sense that you are ascribing:" as·crib·ing
Definition of ASCRIBE
transitive verb
: to refer to a supposed cause, source, or author 
 as·crib·able \-&#712;skr&#299;-b&#601;-b&#601;l\ adjective" 
their existence to non quantifiable source (god) .
that in itself makes it an erroneous assumption.
the honest answer is  we don't really know.
as there is no evidence of intentional design.
their existence alone is no indicator of  intentional design.
 so logically there must be another process at work .


----------



## Hollie

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie, your conviction on Christianity comes through loud and clear in your writings.
> Our founding father's convictions were also loud and clear:
> 
> Samuel Adams
> Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Father of the American Revolution
> 
> "And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is Prince of Peace."
> --As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.
> 
> James Madison
> 4th U.S. President
> 
> "Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."
> 
> Please analyze these 2 statements and and see if their convictions agree with yours, or are diametrically the opposite of what you believe.
> The men that shaped this country did so with their belief in Almighty God steadfast.  You won't find Madison's quote in the constitution,  but you will find it in the hands that penned the criteria for this nation to thrive on.
> 
> We were a blessed nation until we asked God to depart from us.
> So, how's it goin?



Here is some knowledge I can impart to you. 

 Benjamin Franklin

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." - Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Richard Price. October 9, 1790.

Pro

"I am fully of your Opinion respecting religious Tests; but, tho' the People of Massachusetts have not in their new Constitution kept quite clear of them, yet, if we consider what that People were 100 Years ago, we must allow they have gone great Lengths in Liberality of Sentiment on religious Subjects; and we may hope for greater Degrees of Perfection, when their Constitution, some years hence, shall be revised. If Christian Preachers had continued to teach as Christ and his Apostles did, without Salaries, and as the Quakers now do, I imagine Tests would never have existed; for I think they were invented, not so much to secure Religion itself, as the Emoluments of it. When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." (Benjamin Franklin, 1706-1790, American statesman, diplomat, scientist, and printer, from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780 http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...uotations.html

Con "In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when present to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?....I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men." (Catherine Drinker Bowen. Miracle at Phaladelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787. New York: Book-of-the-Month Club, 1966, pp. 125-126)

It is rarely noted that Franklin presented his motion after "four or five weeks" of deliberation, during which they had never once opened in prayer. More significantly, it is never mentioned that Franklin's motion was voted down! Fine Christians, these founding fathers. Furthermore, the context is usually ignored, too. He made the motion during an especially trying week of serious disagreement, when the convention was in danger of breaking up. Cathrine Drinker Bowen comments:

Yet whether the Doctor had spoken from policy or from faith, his suggestion had been salutary, calling an assembly of doubting minds to a realization that destiny herself sat as guest and witness in this room. Franklin had made solemn reminder that a republic of thirteen united states - venture novel and daring - could not be achieved without mutual sacrifice and a summoning up of men's best, most difficult and most creative efforts. (Bowen, p. 127) Quartz Hill School of Theology

A Parting Note.

About March 1, 1790, he wrote the following in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, who had asked him his views on religion. His answer would indicate that he remained a Deist, not a Christian, to the end:

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...." (Carl Van Doren. Benjamin Franklin. New York: The Viking Press, 1938, p. 777.)

He died just over a month later on April 17. Quartz Hill School of Theology

Thomas Jefferson

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS, by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

Regarding Government Meddling With Religion

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378

"To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2: 546

"It is proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?... Civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

Regarding Religion Meddling with Government

"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281

"I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith." --Thomas Jefferson to Michael Megear, 1823. ME 15:434

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21

Regarding Criminal Acts

"The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98

"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548

"It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere [in the propagation of religious teachings] when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

"Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs; they may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the State required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:547

Primary Source of Quotations

James Madison

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." --James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance

Regarding State Meddling with Church

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." --James Madison in a letter to Edward Livingston in 1822

"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will best be guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others."--James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty"

"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself." --James Madison, Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform." --James Madison, Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731.

Regarding Church Meddling with State

"The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state." --James Madison

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." --James Madison, 1820

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." --James Madison

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state." --James Madison, 1819

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." --James Madison, 1803

Sources Little-Known U.S. Document Proclaims America's Government is Secular - The Early America Review, Summer 1997 Madison on church and state http://atheism.about.com/library/quo...q_JMadison.htm

Thomas Paine

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." (Richard Emery Roberts, ed. "Excerpts from The Age of Reason". Selected Writings of Thomas Paine.

Regarding State Meddling with Church

"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith. . . ." ---Thomas Paine, "Common Sense", 1776

Regarding Church Meddling with State

"Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law." --Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791

"Soon after I had published the pamphlet COMMON SENSE, in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion. The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited, by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and priest-craft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more." --Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794

"EVERY national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

"Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all." --Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794

"The Church was resolved to have a New Testament, and as, after the lapse of more than three hundred years, no handwriting could be proved or disproved, the Church, which like former impostors had then gotten possession of the State, had everything its own way. It invented creeds, such as that called the Apostle's Creed, the Nicean Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and out of the loads of rubbish that were presented it voted four to be Gospels, and others to be Epistles, as we now find them arranged." --Thomas Paine

But Hey, Don't Hold Back.

"The age of ignorance commenced with the Christian system."--Thomas Paine, 2000 Years of Disbelief

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, not by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church." --Thomas Paine, Excerpts from The Age of Reason: Selected Writings of Thomas Paine, edited by Richard Emery Robers, NY Everybody's Vacation Publishing Co, 1945, p.342

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." --Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

"People in general do not know what wickedness there is in this pretended word of God. Brought up in habits of superstition, they take it for granted that the Bible is true, and that it is good; they permit themselves not to doubt of it, and they carry the ideas they form of the benevolence of the Almighty to the book which they have been taught to believe was written by his authority. Good heavens! it is quite another thing; it is a book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy; for what can be greater blasphemy than to ascribe the wickedness of man to the orders of the Almighty?" ---Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

"There is scarcely any part of science, or anything in nature, which those imposters and blasphemers of science, called priests, as well Christians as Jews, have not, at some time or other, perverted, or sought to pervert to the purpose of superstition and falsehood." -- Thomas Paine

"Yet this is trash that the Church imposes upon the world as the Word of God; this is the collection of lies and contradictions called the Holy Bible! this is the rubbish called Revealed Religion!" -- Thomas Paine

Sources

http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/AOR1.html http://www.atheism.org/~godlessheathen/Founders.html Thomas Paine - Wikiquote http://www.thomaspaine.org/contents.html http://paganinfo.50g.com/quotes.htm


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain ? what does your response have to do with molecular machines ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do your gods have to do with biological mechanisms?
> 
> You claim they exhibit "design", yet only incompetent gods could have designed so many failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YAHWEH created everything perfect and sin brought forth entropy,we are living in man's world not YAHWEH'S world. The imperfections we see in this world was the result of man's rebellion.
Click to expand...

wow! how convenient ! it's a nice line of bullshit though!
totally unfounded in reality , it a classic dodge.
appealing to a non existent authority when your ass in in a crack !


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain ? what does your response have to do with molecular machines ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do your gods have to do with biological mechanisms?
> 
> You claim they exhibit "design", yet only incompetent gods could have designed so many failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe its the power of your close personal friend, Satan.
Click to expand...

another good one bring up another non existent deity to explain your lack of an answer!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what place do you think you put me in.?
> since you answerd a question I never asked that makes you the dunce and an asshole with reading comp troubles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read your post to Irish Ram and your assertion, then maybe you will understand my response or not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your response was meaingless, my first answer stands you an asshole with reading comp problems ...if it wasn't so hilarious ,it would be sad.
Click to expand...


Truth hurts don't it.

The universe had a beginning. Time and space had a beginning. That means matter had a beginning. Where did the matter come from to form the universe and life ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another no answer you have no evidence god either..just a wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did these complex molecular machines come from ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> first your use of the term "complex molecular machines" is false in the sense that you are ascribing:" as·crib·ing
> Definition of ASCRIBE
> transitive verb
> : to refer to a supposed cause, source, or author
>  as·crib·able \-&#712;skr&#299;-b&#601;-b&#601;l\ adjective"
> their existence to non quantifiable source (god) .
> that in itself makes it an erroneous assumption.
> the honest answer is  we don't really know.
> as there is no evidence of intentional design.
> their existence alone is no indicator of  intentional design.
> so logically there must be another process at work .
Click to expand...


The erroneous assumtion is that the first molecular machines came about through evolution. They had to be designed,could not come about by chance.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> YWC, more info on left-handed amino acids. Presented in honor of Daws, who never responded to your questions to him on this topic.
> 
> CEH: Left-Handed Amino Acid Puzzle Remains


when you post a credible actual scientific study of the so called puzzle.
then I'll answer.
this how ever is not even close.
it's more like a movie review written by an actor not cast in the film!


How Handedness Arises 
Source: University of California - Los Angeles press release 






   Origin & Evolution of Life
Posted:   05/13/12  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary: A new study is helping scientists understand how chirality, or 'handedness,' occurs in the majority of proteins and functional molecules in living organisms on Earth.  







Most proteins and functional molecules in our bodies are present in 'left-handed' and 'right-handed' forms. Compounds with this property are known as chiral, and exist as mirror images of each other. This chirality may have played an important role in life's origin and evolution. For instance, life as we know it makes and uses only 'left-handed' amino acids. Credit: NASA 

The overwhelming majority of proteins and other functional molecules in our bodies display a striking molecular characteristic: They can exist in two distinct forms that are mirror images of each other, like your right hand and left hand. Surprisingly, each of our bodies prefers only one of these molecular forms. 

This mirror-image phenomenon &#8212; known as chirality or "handedness" &#8212; has captured the imagination of a UCLA research group led by Thomas G. Mason, a professor of chemistry and physics and a member of the California NanoSystems Institute at UCLA. 

Mason has been exploring how and why chirality arises, and his newest findings on the physical origins of the phenomenon were published May 1 in the journal Nature Communications. 

"Objects like our hands are chiral, while objects like regular triangles are achiral, meaning they don't have a handedness to them," said Mason, the senior author of the study. "Achiral objects can be easily superimposed on top of one another." 

Why many of the important functional molecules in our bodies almost always occur in just one chiral form when they could potentially exist in either is a mystery that has confounded researchers for years. 

"Our bodies contain important molecules like proteins that overwhelmingly have one type of chirality," Mason said. "The other chiral form is essentially not found. I find that fascinating. We asked, 'Could this biological preference of a particular chirality possibly have a physical origin?'" 

In addressing this question, Mason and his team sought to discover how chirality occurs in the first place. Their findings offer new insights into how the phenomenon can arise spontaneously, even with achiral building-blocks. 

Mason and his colleagues used a manufacturing technique called lithography, which is the basis for making computer chips, to make millions of microscale particles in the shape of achiral triangles. In the past, Mason has used this technique to "print" particles in a wide variety of shapes, and even in the form of letters of the alphabet. 


Colored patches represent parallelogram outlines around pairs of triangles that have formed chiral super-structures. Parallelograms having different "handedness" and orientations are color-coded and superimposed over each other. Credit: Thomas G. Mason and Kun Zhao 

Using optical microscopy, the researchers then studied very dense systems of these lithographic triangular particles. To their surprise, they discovered that the achiral triangles spontaneously arranged themselves to form two-triangle "super-structures," with each super-structure exhibiting a particular chirality. 

In the image that accompanies this article, the colored outlines in the field of triangles indicate chiral super-structures having particular orientations. 

So what is causing this phenomenon to occur? Entropy, says Mason. His group has shown for the first time that chiral structures can originate from physical entropic forces acting on uniform achiral particles. 

"It's quite bizarre," Mason said. "You're starting with achiral components &#8212; triangles &#8212; which undergo Brownian motion and you end up with the spontaneous formation of super-structures that have a handedness or chirality. I would never have anticipated that in a million years." 

Entropy is usually thought of as a disordering force, but that doesn't capture its subtler aspects. In this case, when the triangular particles are diffusing and interacting at very high densities on a flat surface, each particle can actually maximize its "wiggle room" by becoming partially ordered into a liquid crystal (a phase of matter between a liquid and a solid) made out of chiral super-structures of triangles. 

"We discovered that just two physical ingredients &#8212; entropy and particle shape &#8212; are enough to cause chirality to appear spontaneously in dense systems," Mason said. "In my 25 years of doing research, I never thought that I would see chirality occur in a system of achiral objects driven by entropic forces." 

As for the future of this research, "We are very interested to see what happens with other shapes and if we can eventually control the chiral formations that we see occurring here spontaneously," he said. 

"To me, it's intriguing, because I think about the chiral preference in biology," Mason added. "How did this chiral preference happen? What are the minimum ingredients for that to occur? We're learning some new physical rules, but the story in biology is far from complete. We have added another chapter to the story, and I'm amazed by these findings." 

To learn more, a message board accompanies the publication in Nature Communications, an online journal, as a forum for interactive discussion. 


The right-handed version of carvone smells like caraway seeds, but the left-handed one has a peppermint odor. Credit: National Museum of American History 

This research was funded by the University of California. Kun Zhao, a postdoctoral researcher in Mason's laboratory, made many key contributions, including fabricating the triangle particles, creating the two-dimensional system of particles, performing the optical microscopy experiments, carrying out extensive particle-tracking analysis and interpreting the results. 

Along with Mason, co-author Robijn Bruinsma, a UCLA professor of theoretical physics and a member of the California NanoSystems Institute at UCLA, contributed to the understanding of the chiral symmetry breaking and the liquid crystal phases. 


http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/4751/how-handedness-arises


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did these complex molecular machines come from ?
> 
> 
> 
> first your use of the term "complex molecular machines" is false in the sense that you are ascribing:" as·crib·ing
> Definition of ASCRIBE
> transitive verb
> : to refer to a supposed cause, source, or author
>  as·crib·able \-&#712;skr&#299;-b&#601;-b&#601;l\ adjective"
> their existence to non quantifiable source (god) .
> that in itself makes it an erroneous assumption.
> the honest answer is  we don't really know.
> as there is no evidence of intentional design.
> their existence alone is no indicator of  intentional design.
> so logically there must be another process at work .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The erroneous assumtion is that the first molecular machines came about through evolution. They had to be designed,could not come about by chance.
Click to expand...

false! you have no proof of design or a designer so as always you're talking out your ass.
it seems the concept of having actual proof ..befuddles you not surprising


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do your gods have to do with biological mechanisms?
> 
> You claim they exhibit "design", yet only incompetent gods could have designed so many failures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YAHWEH created everything perfect and sin brought forth entropy,we are living in man's world not YAHWEH'S world. The imperfections we see in this world was the result of man's rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow! how convenient ! it's a nice line of bullshit though!
> totally unfounded in reality , it a classic dodge.
> appealing to a non existent authority when your ass in in a crack !
Click to expand...


Not convenient,it's reality. If everything is suffering from entropy which it is, How is everything still here after 13 to 20 billion years ? Once a car gets a rust spot it's just a matter of time before the car is ate up by rust.

If the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This is the maximum possible age far too young for evolution and much younger than the radiometric dating method assigned to moon rocks. What say you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, more info on left-handed amino acids. Presented in honor of Daws, who never responded to your questions to him on this topic.
> 
> CEH: Left-Handed Amino Acid Puzzle Remains
> 
> 
> 
> when you post a credible actual scientific study of the so called puzzle.
> then I'll answer.
> this how ever is not even close.
> it's more like a movie review written by an actor not cast in the film!
> 
> 
> How Handedness Arises
> Source: University of California - Los Angeles press release
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Origin & Evolution of Life
> Posted:   05/13/12
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Summary: A new study is helping scientists understand how chirality, or 'handedness,' occurs in the majority of proteins and functional molecules in living organisms on Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most proteins and functional molecules in our bodies are present in 'left-handed' and 'right-handed' forms. Compounds with this property are known as chiral, and exist as mirror images of each other. This chirality may have played an important role in life's origin and evolution. For instance, life as we know it makes and uses only 'left-handed' amino acids. Credit: NASA
> 
> The overwhelming majority of proteins and other functional molecules in our bodies display a striking molecular characteristic: They can exist in two distinct forms that are mirror images of each other, like your right hand and left hand. Surprisingly, each of our bodies prefers only one of these molecular forms.
> 
> This mirror-image phenomenon  known as chirality or "handedness"  has captured the imagination of a UCLA research group led by Thomas G. Mason, a professor of chemistry and physics and a member of the California NanoSystems Institute at UCLA.
> 
> Mason has been exploring how and why chirality arises, and his newest findings on the physical origins of the phenomenon were published May 1 in the journal Nature Communications.
> 
> "Objects like our hands are chiral, while objects like regular triangles are achiral, meaning they don't have a handedness to them," said Mason, the senior author of the study. "Achiral objects can be easily superimposed on top of one another."
> 
> Why many of the important functional molecules in our bodies almost always occur in just one chiral form when they could potentially exist in either is a mystery that has confounded researchers for years.
> 
> "Our bodies contain important molecules like proteins that overwhelmingly have one type of chirality," Mason said. "The other chiral form is essentially not found. I find that fascinating. We asked, 'Could this biological preference of a particular chirality possibly have a physical origin?'"
> 
> In addressing this question, Mason and his team sought to discover how chirality occurs in the first place. Their findings offer new insights into how the phenomenon can arise spontaneously, even with achiral building-blocks.
> 
> Mason and his colleagues used a manufacturing technique called lithography, which is the basis for making computer chips, to make millions of microscale particles in the shape of achiral triangles. In the past, Mason has used this technique to "print" particles in a wide variety of shapes, and even in the form of letters of the alphabet.
> 
> 
> Colored patches represent parallelogram outlines around pairs of triangles that have formed chiral super-structures. Parallelograms having different "handedness" and orientations are color-coded and superimposed over each other. Credit: Thomas G. Mason and Kun Zhao
> 
> Using optical microscopy, the researchers then studied very dense systems of these lithographic triangular particles. To their surprise, they discovered that the achiral triangles spontaneously arranged themselves to form two-triangle "super-structures," with each super-structure exhibiting a particular chirality.
> 
> In the image that accompanies this article, the colored outlines in the field of triangles indicate chiral super-structures having particular orientations.
> 
> So what is causing this phenomenon to occur? Entropy, says Mason. His group has shown for the first time that chiral structures can originate from physical entropic forces acting on uniform achiral particles.
> 
> "It's quite bizarre," Mason said. "You're starting with achiral components  triangles  which undergo Brownian motion and you end up with the spontaneous formation of super-structures that have a handedness or chirality. I would never have anticipated that in a million years."
> 
> Entropy is usually thought of as a disordering force, but that doesn't capture its subtler aspects. In this case, when the triangular particles are diffusing and interacting at very high densities on a flat surface, each particle can actually maximize its "wiggle room" by becoming partially ordered into a liquid crystal (a phase of matter between a liquid and a solid) made out of chiral super-structures of triangles.
> 
> "We discovered that just two physical ingredients  entropy and particle shape  are enough to cause chirality to appear spontaneously in dense systems," Mason said. "In my 25 years of doing research, I never thought that I would see chirality occur in a system of achiral objects driven by entropic forces."
> 
> As for the future of this research, "We are very interested to see what happens with other shapes and if we can eventually control the chiral formations that we see occurring here spontaneously," he said.
> 
> "To me, it's intriguing, because I think about the chiral preference in biology," Mason added. "How did this chiral preference happen? What are the minimum ingredients for that to occur? We're learning some new physical rules, but the story in biology is far from complete. We have added another chapter to the story, and I'm amazed by these findings."
> 
> To learn more, a message board accompanies the publication in Nature Communications, an online journal, as a forum for interactive discussion.
> 
> 
> The right-handed version of carvone smells like caraway seeds, but the left-handed one has a peppermint odor. Credit: National Museum of American History
> 
> This research was funded by the University of California. Kun Zhao, a postdoctoral researcher in Mason's laboratory, made many key contributions, including fabricating the triangle particles, creating the two-dimensional system of particles, performing the optical microscopy experiments, carrying out extensive particle-tracking analysis and interpreting the results.
> 
> Along with Mason, co-author Robijn Bruinsma, a UCLA professor of theoretical physics and a member of the California NanoSystems Institute at UCLA, contributed to the understanding of the chiral symmetry breaking and the liquid crystal phases.
> 
> 
> How Handedness Arises
Click to expand...


You don't understand the functions of right handed and laft handed amino acids even when it was explained to you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> first your use of the term "complex molecular machines" is false in the sense that you are ascribing:" as·crib·ing
> Definition of ASCRIBE
> transitive verb
> : to refer to a supposed cause, source, or author
>  as·crib·able \-&#712;skr&#299;-b&#601;-b&#601;l\ adjective"
> their existence to non quantifiable source (god) .
> that in itself makes it an erroneous assumption.
> the honest answer is  we don't really know.
> as there is no evidence of intentional design.
> their existence alone is no indicator of  intentional design.
> so logically there must be another process at work .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The erroneous assumtion is that the first molecular machines came about through evolution. They had to be designed,could not come about by chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false! you have no proof of design or a designer so as always you're talking out your ass.
> it seems the concept of having actual proof ..befuddles you not surprising
Click to expand...


Do you have evidence for the first molecular machines being designed by a random chance process ?without the evidence by your reasoning you are talking out your ass Daws.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence of God but one has to be open to the possibility of God existing to see the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Substitute _the Easter Bunny_ for the gods in your comment above.
> 
> It makes just as much sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, but I don't think the easter bunny could have created all we see. Rabbits don't show much intelligence do they ?
Click to expand...

since the easter bunny is not a "normal" rabbit  there is no reason to assume he or she  could not do what you claim god does.
both are the creation of myth, so any thing is possible.
btw your need to believe in god it see evidence story is nonsense.real evidence is there for everyone to see.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Substitute _the Easter Bunny_ for the gods in your comment above.
> 
> It makes just as much sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but I don't think the easter bunny could have created all we see. Rabbits don't show much intelligence do they ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since the easter bunny is not a "normal" rabbit  there is no reason to assume he or she  could not do what you claim god does.
> both are the creation of myth, so any thing is possible.
> btw your need to believe in god it see evidence story is nonsense.real evidence is there for everyone to see.
Click to expand...


Ignoring my questions daws ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did these complex molecular machines come from ?
> 
> 
> 
> first your use of the term "complex molecular machines" is false in the sense that you are ascribing:" as·crib·ing
> Definition of ASCRIBE
> transitive verb
> : to refer to a supposed cause, source, or author
>  as·crib·able \-&#712;skr&#299;-b&#601;-b&#601;l\ adjective"
> their existence to non quantifiable source (god) .
> that in itself makes it an erroneous assumption.
> the honest answer is  we don't really know.
> as there is no evidence of intentional design.
> their existence alone is no indicator of  intentional design.
> so logically there must be another process at work .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The erroneous assumtion is that the first molecular machines came about through evolution. .They had to be designed,could not come about by chance
Click to expand...


The erroneous assumptions (plural), are on your part. "Molecular machines" is not a term of any significance. 

Secondly, you make a nonsense claim that "They had to be designed,could not come about by chance". totally unsupported and completely without merit. 

Bible thumping is not going to support that claim.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The erroneous assumtion is that the first molecular machines came about through evolution. They had to be designed,could not come about by chance.
> 
> 
> 
> false! you have no proof of design or a designer so as always you're talking out your ass.
> it seems the concept of having actual proof ..befuddles you not surprising
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have evidence for the first molecular machines being designed by a random chance process ?without the evidence by your reasoning you are talking out your ass Daws.
Click to expand...

NO, but then again YOU have no evidence to prove they had to be designed.
none at all.
you assume that since there is a void in actual scientific data on the subject that your fairy tale fill that void.
that's not only dishonest but it's forcing your belief  into an area where objectivity must remain or it's no longer science ,but dogma.
I'd say you were trying to replace science with superstition to help the last days along.
but neither one of you are that smart or that subtle


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but I don't think the easter bunny could have created all we see. Rabbits don't show much intelligence do they ?
> 
> 
> 
> since the easter bunny is not a "normal" rabbit  there is no reason to assume he or she  could not do what you claim god does.
> both are the creation of myth, so any thing is possible.
> btw your need to believe in god it see evidence story is nonsense.real evidence is there for everyone to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignoring my questions daws ?
Click to expand...

since you haven't asked any questions in several pages but have been proselytizing like a mother fucker.
I'd have to say no.
nice dodge


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read your post to Irish Ram and your assertion, then maybe you will understand my response or not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your response was meaingless, my first answer stands you an asshole with reading comp problems ...if it wasn't so hilarious ,it would be sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth hurts don't it.
> 
> The universe had a beginning. Time and space had a beginning. That means matter had a beginning. Where did the matter come from to form the universe and life ?
Click to expand...


You, of course, will claim tht "the gods did iit".

So, substantiate your claim to gods. Who or what were the magical, supernatural gods who created your magical, supernatural gods? 

Other than your "because I say so", claim to the contrary, there is no reason to believe that your gods were not themselves created by a hierarchy of other gods.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false! you have no proof of design or a designer so as always you're talking out your ass.
> it seems the concept of having actual proof ..befuddles you not surprising
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have evidence for the first molecular machines being designed by a random chance process ?without the evidence by your reasoning you are talking out your ass Daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO, but then again YOU have no evidence to prove they had to be designed.
> none at all.
> you assume that since there is a void in actual scientific data on the subject that your fairy tale fill that void.
> that's not only dishonest but it's forcing your belief  into an area where objectivity must remain or it's no longer science ,but dogma.
> I'd say you were trying to replace science with superstition to help the last days along.
> but neither one of you are that smart or that subtle
Click to expand...


So by your reasoning you are doing what you claim I was doing.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read your post to Irish Ram and your assertion, then maybe you will understand my response or not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your response was meaingless, my first answer stands you an asshole with reading comp problems ...if it wasn't so hilarious ,it would be sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth hurts don't it.
> 
> The universe had a beginning. Time and space had a beginning. That means matter had a beginning. Where did the matter come from to form the universe and life ?
Click to expand...

it's seems to be hurting you all the time.
again you are assuming facts not in evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since the easter bunny is not a "normal" rabbit  there is no reason to assume he or she  could not do what you claim god does.
> both are the creation of myth, so any thing is possible.
> btw your need to believe in god it see evidence story is nonsense.real evidence is there for everyone to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring my questions daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since you haven't asked any questions in several pages but have been proselytizing like a mother fucker.
> I'd have to say no.
> nice dodge
Click to expand...


Did you forget this one.

If the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This is the maximum possible age far too young for evolution and much younger than the radiometric dating method assigned to moon rocks. What say you ?

This one to.

Not convenient,it's reality. If everything is suffering from entropy which it is, How is everything still here after 13 to 20 billion years ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your response was meaingless, my first answer stands you an asshole with reading comp problems ...if it wasn't so hilarious ,it would be sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth hurts don't it.
> 
> The universe had a beginning. Time and space had a beginning. That means matter had a beginning. Where did the matter come from to form the universe and life ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's seems to be hurting you all the time.
> again you are assuming facts not in evidence.
Click to expand...


Why do you hate science Daws ?

Everyone is in agreement with this except the loons.

So where did the matter come from Daws ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAHWEH created everything perfect and sin brought forth entropy,we are living in man's world not YAHWEH'S world. The imperfections we see in this world was the result of man's rebellion.
> 
> 
> 
> wow! how convenient ! it's a nice line of bullshit though!
> totally unfounded in reality , it a classic dodge.
> appealing to a non existent authority when your ass in in a crack !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not convenient,it's reality. If everything is suffering from entropy which it is, How is everything still here after 13 to 20 billion years ? Once a car gets a rust spot it's just a matter of time before the car is ate up by rust.
> 
> If the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This is the maximum possible age far too young for evolution and much younger than the radiometric dating method assigned to moon rocks. What say you ?
Click to expand...

 I say your full of shit.
yes entropy exists, but your explanation for it has no basis in fact (god did it) 
you can stop the crap the earth being too young because your info again is erroneous


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have evidence for the first molecular machines being designed by a random chance process ?without the evidence by your reasoning you are talking out your ass Daws.
> 
> 
> 
> NO, but then again YOU have no evidence to prove they had to be designed.
> none at all.
> you assume that since there is a void in actual scientific data on the subject that your fairy tale fill that void.
> that's not only dishonest but it's forcing your belief  into an area where objectivity must remain or it's no longer science ,but dogma.
> I'd say you were trying to replace science with superstition to help the last days along.
> but neither one of you are that smart or that subtle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your reasoning you are doing what you claim I was doing.
Click to expand...

 yep your a stupid asshat.
it's no claim you do it constantly .
NO TOO TOUGH A CONCEPT FOR YOU.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring my questions daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> since you haven't asked any questions in several pages but have been proselytizing like a mother fucker.
> I'd have to say no.
> nice dodge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you forget this one.
> 
> If the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This is the maximum possible age far too young for evolution and much younger than the radiometric dating method assigned to moon rocks. What say you ?
> 
> This one to.
> 
> Not convenient,it's reality. If everything is suffering from entropy which it is, How is everything still here after 13 to 20 billion years ?
Click to expand...

FUNNY YOU'D PICK THAT AS i WROTE IT LONG BEFORE YOU posted the first time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow! how convenient ! it's a nice line of bullshit though!
> totally unfounded in reality , it a classic dodge.
> appealing to a non existent authority when your ass in in a crack !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not convenient,it's reality. If everything is suffering from entropy which it is, How is everything still here after 13 to 20 billion years ? Once a car gets a rust spot it's just a matter of time before the car is ate up by rust.
> 
> If the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This is the maximum possible age far too young for evolution and much younger than the radiometric dating method assigned to moon rocks. What say you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say your full of shit.
> yes entropy exists, but your explanation for it has no basis in fact (god did it)
> you can stop the crap the earth being too young because your info again is erroneous
Click to expand...



Do the math for yourself dummy.

the moon is receding from Earth at about 4 cm per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon was never closer than 18,400 km , known as the Roche Limit,Earths tidal forces would have prevented it, the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon would have blew it up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, but then again YOU have no evidence to prove they had to be designed.
> none at all.
> you assume that since there is a void in actual scientific data on the subject that your fairy tale fill that void.
> that's not only dishonest but it's forcing your belief  into an area where objectivity must remain or it's no longer science ,but dogma.
> I'd say you were trying to replace science with superstition to help the last days along.
> but neither one of you are that smart or that subtle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So by your reasoning you are doing what you claim I was doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep your a stupid asshat.
> it's no claim you do it constantly .
> NO TOO TOUGH A CONCEPT FOR YOU.
Click to expand...


So you are admitting to being a stupid asshat ? You know what they say when someone is outmatched and has no answer he resorts to childish insults.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since you haven't asked any questions in several pages but have been proselytizing like a mother fucker.
> I'd have to say no.
> nice dodge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you forget this one.
> 
> If the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This is the maximum possible age far too young for evolution and much younger than the radiometric dating method assigned to moon rocks. What say you ?
> 
> This one to.
> 
> Not convenient,it's reality. If everything is suffering from entropy which it is, How is everything still here after 13 to 20 billion years ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FUNNY YOU'D PICK THAT AS i WROTE IT LONG BEFORE YOU posted the first time.
Click to expand...


It's a fact ,if humans have over 5,000 genetic disorders from the time we were supposedly to come into existence According to evolutionist opinions, Why do not all our ancestors have more genetic disorders ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

You don't even talk a good game Daws.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth hurts don't it.
> 
> The universe had a beginning. Time and space had a beginning. That means matter had a beginning. Where did the matter come from to form the universe and life ?
> 
> 
> 
> it's seems to be hurting you all the time.
> again you are assuming facts not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you hate science Daws ?
> 
> Everyone is in agreement with this except the loons.
> 
> So where did the matter come from Daws ?
Click to expand...

appealing to nonexistent authority
again! "Everyone" who the fuck is everyone?...you must mean that tiny group of willfully ignorant bible thumping halfwits called creationists.
who circle jerk to pseudoscience and mis understood passages of the bible.
when in reality the are the laughing stock of scientists, the general public and their fellow Christians.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's seems to be hurting you all the time.
> again you are assuming facts not in evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you hate science Daws ?
> 
> Everyone is in agreement with this except the loons.
> 
> So where did the matter come from Daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> appealing to nonexistent authority
> again! "Everyone" who the fuck is everyone?...you must mean that tiny group of willfully ignorant bible thumping halfwits called creationists.
> who circle jerk to pseudoscience and mis understood passages of the bible.
> when in reality the are the laughing stock of scientists, the general public and their fellow Christians.
Click to expand...


The heads of the fields of science. 

Dodge !!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's seems to be hurting you all the time.
> again you are assuming facts not in evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you hate science Daws ?
> 
> Everyone is in agreement with this except the loons.
> 
> So where did the matter come from Daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> appealing to nonexistent authority
> again! "Everyone" who the fuck is everyone?...you must mean that tiny group of willfully ignorant bible thumping halfwits called creationists.
> who circle jerk to pseudoscience and mis understood passages of the bible.
> when in reality the are the laughing stock of scientists, the general public and their fellow Christians.
Click to expand...



The more you post the more you get exposed. You are in over your head.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Daws you might do better in a political forum or a forum talking of acting ,something like theatre.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you forget this one.
> 
> If the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This is the maximum possible age far too young for evolution and much younger than the radiometric dating method assigned to moon rocks. What say you ?
> 
> This one to.
> 
> Not convenient,it's reality. If everything is suffering from entropy which it is, How is everything still here after 13 to 20 billion years ?
> 
> 
> 
> FUNNY YOU'D PICK THAT AS i WROTE IT LONG BEFORE YOU posted the first time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fact ,if humans have over 5,000 genetic disorders from the time we were supposedly to come into existence According to evolutionist opinions, Why do not all our ancestors have more genetic disorders ?
Click to expand...


It's as though you exist in an intellectual vacuum. It seems that the supermagical, supernatural addled share that syndrome.

How do you know that our ancient ancestors did not share many of the genetic disorders that we share? Hint: without a population of those ancient ancestors to test, how would one gather samples or perform genetic tests for many of those disorders?

For that matter, how is it that in the short time span of 6,000 years that your gods' design went so horribly wrong unless your gods are a) stupid, b) incompetent designers, or c), they're playing a cruel joke on you.


----------



## Hollie

The Irish Ram said:


> When you can predict the future with accuracy, the way SkyGod has, then I'll accept your opinion.
> Until then, SkyGod rules.



Your skygod is, among other things, a fortune teller?

You make a mistake in proposing that your skygods have predicted the future. Unless of course you can make a credible case for your gods doing that.

So make your case.

I'm breathless with anticipation.


----------



## Hollie

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie, would you prefer our founding fathers conducted themselves like Arafat, or Mohammed?
> They thought lying about peace while preparing for slaughter was an honorable thing.
> Here is Arafat backtracking on his signing of a peace treaty, equating his actions with what Mohammad  did:
> "This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Mohammed and Koraish....."
> (The agreement with Koraish allowed Mohammed to pray in Mecca, which was under Koraish control, for ten years. When Mohamed grew stronger two years later, he abrogated the agreement, slaughtered the tribe of Koraish and conquered Mecca.)



I&#8217;m not making any sense of your comment. If you had been familiar with the Founding Fathers of the US, you would have known that in almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the FF&#8217;s were Deists. They believed in a creator, but not a god or gods such that Christianity or the bible offered. Instead, Deism suggests a "supreme author" of existence but not one such as the Christian gods who necessarily were involved in the daily, spiritual requirements or needs of humanity.

Deism was very popular at the time, but waned when Darwin's _Origin of Species_ presented (by implication) that a &#8220;creator&#8221; of existence was not necessarily required. As a case in point to example Deism as being embraced by a FF, Thomas Jefferson's Bible ends with Jesus crucified and nothing more. He does not return from the dead, which is absolutely essential from a Christian perspective. Jefferson "believed in Jesus Christ" as a philosopher, but not as a god incarnate. Thomas Paine, of whom it was said, "Without Paine's pen, Washington's sword would never have been wielded", was a thorough-going Deist who's "Age of Reason" deconstructed the bible completely. Benjamin Franklin also uses very deist-sounding terminology, although Franklin did waver back and forth and his autobiography clearly depicts this.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you hate science Daws ?
> 
> Everyone is in agreement with this except the loons.
> 
> So where did the matter come from Daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> appealing to nonexistent authority
> again! "Everyone" who the fuck is everyone?...you must mean that tiny group of willfully ignorant bible thumping halfwits called creationists.
> who circle jerk to pseudoscience and mis understood passages of the bible.
> when in reality the are the laughing stock of scientists, the general public and their fellow Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The heads of the fields of science.
> 
> Dodge !!!
Click to expand...

yours is a dodge  the heads of what fields in  what sciences 

if your talking about entropy everyone excepts it as fact but not that god did it. so again you're intentionally  misrepresenting the facts .
as to this: If the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This is the maximum possible age far too young for evolution and much younger than the radiometric dating method assigned to moon rocks. What say you ?

i say your're full of shit:

 Modern dating methodsRadiometric dating has been carried out since 1905 when it was invented by Ernest Rutherford as a method by which one might determine the age of the Earth. In the century since then the techniques have been greatly improved and expanded.[14] Dating can now be performed on samples as small as a nanogram using a mass spectrometer. The mass spectrometer was invented in the 1940s and began to be used in radiometric dating in the 1950s. The mass spectrometer operates by generating a beam of ionized atoms from the sample under test. The ions then travel through a magnetic field, which diverts them into different sampling sensors, known as "Faraday cups", depending on their mass and level of ionization. On impact in the cups, the ions set up a very weak current that can be measured to determine the rate of impacts and the relative concentrations of different atoms in the beams.

[edit] Uranium-lead dating methodMain article: uranium-lead dating

A concordia diagram as used in uranium-lead dating, with data from the Pfunze Belt, Zimbabwe.[16] All the samples show loss of lead isotopes, but the intercept of the errorchron (straight line through the sample points) and the concordia (curve) shows the correct age of the rock.[11]The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years.[12][17] An error margin of 2&#8211;5 % has been achieved on younger Mesozoic rocks.[18]

Uranium-lead dating is often performed on the mineral zircon (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials, such as baddeleyite.[19] Zircon and baddeleyite incorporate uranium atoms into their crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly reject lead. It has a very high closure temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. In situ micro-beam analysis can be achieved via laser ICP-MS or SIMS techniques.[20]

One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost. This can be seen in the concordia diagram, where the samples plot along an errorchron (straight line) which intersects the concordia curve at the age of the sample.

[edit] Samarium-neodymium dating methodMain article: Samarium-neodymium dating
This involves the alpha-decay of 147Sm to 143Nd with a half-life of 1.06 x 1011 years. Accuracy levels of less than twenty million years in two-and-a-half billion years are achievable.[21]

[edit] Potassium-argon dating methodMain article: Potassium-argon dating
This involves electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, and so this method is applicable to the oldest rocks. Radioactive potassium-40 is common in micas, feldspars, and hornblendes, though the closure temperature is fairly low in these materials, about 125°C (mica) to 450°C (hornblende).

[edit] Rubidium-strontium dating methodMain article: Rubidium-strontium dating
This is based on the beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years. This scheme is used to date old igneous and metamorphic rocks, and has also been used to date lunar samples. Closure temperatures are so high that they are not a concern. Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample.

[edit] Uranium-thorium dating methodMain article: uranium-thorium dating
A relatively short-range dating technique is based on the decay of uranium-234 into thorium-230, a substance with a half-life of about 80,000 years. It is accompanied by a sister process, in which uranium-235 decays into protactinium-231, which has a half-life of 34,300 years.

While uranium is water-soluble, thorium and protactinium are not, and so they are selectively precipitated into ocean-floor sediments, from which their ratios are measured. The scheme has a range of several hundred thousand years. A related method is ionium-thorium dating, which measures the ratio of ionium (thorium-230) to thorium-232 in ocean sediment.

[edit] Radiocarbon dating methodMain article: Radiocarbon dating

Ale's Stones at Kåseberga, around ten kilometres south east of Ystad, Sweden were dated at 600 CE using the carbon-14 method on organic material found at the site.[22]Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon, with a half-life of 5,730 years,[23][24] which is very short compared with the above isotopes. In other radiometric dating methods, the heavy parent isotopes were produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas, meaning that any parent isotope with a short half-life should be extinct by now. Carbon-14, though, is continuously created through collisions of neutrons generated by cosmic rays with nitrogen in the upper atmosphere and thus remains at a near-constant level on Earth. The carbon-14 ends up as a trace component in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

An organism acquires carbon during its lifetime. Plants acquire it through photosynthesis, and animals acquire it from consumption of plants and other animals. When an organism dies, it ceases to take in new carbon-14, and the existing isotope decays with a characteristic half-life (5730 years). The proportion of carbon-14 left when the remains of the organism are examined provides an indication of the time elapsed since its death. The carbon-14 dating limit lies around 58,000 to 62,000 years.[25]

The rate of creation of carbon-14 appears to be roughly constant, as cross-checks of carbon-14 dating with other dating methods show it gives consistent results. However, local eruptions of volcanoes or other events that give off large amounts of carbon dioxide can reduce local concentrations of carbon-14 and give inaccurate dates. The releases of carbon dioxide into the biosphere as a consequence of industrialization have also depressed the proportion of carbon-14 by a few percent; conversely, the amount of carbon-14 was increased by above-ground nuclear bomb tests that were conducted into the early 1960s. Also, an increase in the solar wind or the Earth's magnetic field above the current value would depress the amount of carbon-14 created in the atmosphere. These effects are corrected for by the calibration of the radiocarbon dating scale.[26]

[edit] Fission track dating methodMain article: fission track dating

Apatite crystals are widely used in fission track dating.This involves inspection of a polished slice of a material to determine the density of "track" markings left in it by the spontaneous fission of uranium-238 impurities. The uranium content of the sample has to be known, but that can be determined by placing a plastic film over the polished slice of the material, and bombarding it with slow neutrons. This causes induced fission of 235U, as opposed to the spontaneous fission of 238U. The fission tracks produced by this process are recorded in the plastic film. The uranium content of the material can then be calculated from the number of tracks and the neutron flux.

This scheme has application over a wide range of geologic dates. For dates up to a few million years micas, tektites (glass fragments from volcanic eruptions), and meteorites are best used. Older materials can be dated using zircon, apatite, titanite, epidote and garnet which have a variable amount of uranium content.[27] Because the fission tracks are healed by temperatures over about 200°C the technique has limitations as well as benefits. The technique has potential applications for detailing the thermal history of a deposit.

[edit] Chlorine-36 dating methodLarge amounts of otherwise rare 36Cl were produced by irradiation of seawater during atmospheric detonations of nuclear weapons between 1952 and 1958. The residence time of 36Cl in the atmosphere is about 1 week. Thus, as an event marker of 1950s water in soil and ground water, 36Cl is also useful for dating waters less than 50 years before the present. 36Cl has seen use in other areas of the geological sciences, including dating ice and sediments.

[edit] Luminescence dating methodsMain articles: Optical dating and Thermoluminescence dating
Natural sources of radiation in the environment knock loose electrons in, say, a piece of pottery, and these electrons accumulate in defects in the material's crystal lattice structure. Heating or illuminating the object will release the captured electrons, producing a luminescence. When the sample is heated, at a certain temperature it will glow from the emission of electrons released from the defects, and this glow can be used to estimate the age of the sample to a threshold of approximately 15 percent of its true age. The date of a rock is reset when volcanic activity remelts it. The date of a piece of pottery is reset by the heat of the kiln. Typically temperatures greater than 400 degrees Celsius will reset the "clock". This is termed thermoluminescence.

[edit] Other methodsOther methods include:

argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
uranium-uranium (U-U)


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you will find that secular laws are far more fair than the laws of the Christian gods.
> 
> No need to whine like a petulant child. There are no references to Christian principles in the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise. Your behavior remains unchanged in the 5 years since the Islam. forums.
> 
> You STILL dodged the question and even a 3rd grader reading this could see why. Because there are no incidences that you can find. Your references to Old Testament teachings regarding the Law of Moses don't jive with AD reality. Nice try though. We don't really need for you to answer because your silence reveals your trickery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh you like dear. You have decided to sidestep your being taken to task for your false claim and you continue to carry on with nonsensical claims about Christian stoning as punishment.
> 
> Did you realize that I made no claim about Christians enforcing that punishment?
Click to expand...


It was inferred. You were distorting stories in the Old Testament as proof of bigotry. Funny how all the tolerance the left preaches obviously doesn't apply to Christians as evidenced by the Chik Fil A incident. The activists had their boycott backfire in their face and wound up stuffing cash in the pockets of Franchise owners all across our once great nation. However, this has to be my favorite Chik Fil A quote and shows how mis-guided the gay activists are, when confronted with the news that same sex couples were going to be holding "kiss in's" in Chik Fil A's all over America, 

"We understand from news reports that Friday may present yet another opportunity for us to serve with genuine hospitality, superior service and great food," Robinson said. 

Ha!!! Sounds pretty intolerant to me... not!!! What the ignorant left media didn't key on was that the Chik Fil A support day wasn't about Gay Marriage at all, but about sending people a message about bullying, and standing up for our Constitutional right to Free Speech without suffering discriminatory attacks by people trying to force their will on others.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So by your reasoning you are doing what you claim I was doing.
> 
> 
> 
> yep your a stupid asshat.
> it's no claim you do it constantly .
> NO TOO TOUGH A CONCEPT FOR YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are admitting to being a stupid asshat ? You know what they say when someone is outmatched and has no answer he resorts to childish insults.
Click to expand...

theirs that famous accusatory paranoid reaction again.
I'm stating fact.
you consistently insert your religious bias into any and everything.
your dishonesty is so vast that you can never say that your belief system does not have all the answers.


outmatched by you


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> appealing to nonexistent authority
> again! "Everyone" who the fuck is everyone?...you must mean that tiny group of willfully ignorant bible thumping halfwits called creationists.
> who circle jerk to pseudoscience and mis understood passages of the bible.
> when in reality the are the laughing stock of scientists, the general public and their fellow Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The heads of the fields of science.
> 
> Dodge !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yours is a dodge  the heads of what fields in  what sciences
> 
> if your talking about entropy everyone excepts it as fact but not that god did it. so again you're intentionally  misrepresenting the facts .
> as to this: If the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This is the maximum possible age far too young for evolution and much younger than the radiometric dating method assigned to moon rocks. What say you ?
> 
> i say your're full of shit:
> 
> Modern dating methodsRadiometric dating has been carried out since 1905 when it was invented by Ernest Rutherford as a method by which one might determine the age of the Earth. In the century since then the techniques have been greatly improved and expanded.[14] Dating can now be performed on samples as small as a nanogram using a mass spectrometer. The mass spectrometer was invented in the 1940s and began to be used in radiometric dating in the 1950s. The mass spectrometer operates by generating a beam of ionized atoms from the sample under test. The ions then travel through a magnetic field, which diverts them into different sampling sensors, known as "Faraday cups", depending on their mass and level of ionization. On impact in the cups, the ions set up a very weak current that can be measured to determine the rate of impacts and the relative concentrations of different atoms in the beams.
> 
> [edit] Uranium-lead dating methodMain article: uranium-lead dating
> 
> A concordia diagram as used in uranium-lead dating, with data from the Pfunze Belt, Zimbabwe.[16] All the samples show loss of lead isotopes, but the intercept of the errorchron (straight line through the sample points) and the concordia (curve) shows the correct age of the rock.[11]The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years.[12][17] An error margin of 2&#8211;5 % has been achieved on younger Mesozoic rocks.[18]
> 
> Uranium-lead dating is often performed on the mineral zircon (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials, such as baddeleyite.[19] Zircon and baddeleyite incorporate uranium atoms into their crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly reject lead. It has a very high closure temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. In situ micro-beam analysis can be achieved via laser ICP-MS or SIMS techniques.[20]
> 
> One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost. This can be seen in the concordia diagram, where the samples plot along an errorchron (straight line) which intersects the concordia curve at the age of the sample.
> 
> [edit] Samarium-neodymium dating methodMain article: Samarium-neodymium dating
> This involves the alpha-decay of 147Sm to 143Nd with a half-life of 1.06 x 1011 years. Accuracy levels of less than twenty million years in two-and-a-half billion years are achievable.[21]
> 
> [edit] Potassium-argon dating methodMain article: Potassium-argon dating
> This involves electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, and so this method is applicable to the oldest rocks. Radioactive potassium-40 is common in micas, feldspars, and hornblendes, though the closure temperature is fairly low in these materials, about 125°C (mica) to 450°C (hornblende).
> 
> [edit] Rubidium-strontium dating methodMain article: Rubidium-strontium dating
> This is based on the beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years. This scheme is used to date old igneous and metamorphic rocks, and has also been used to date lunar samples. Closure temperatures are so high that they are not a concern. Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample.
> 
> [edit] Uranium-thorium dating methodMain article: uranium-thorium dating
> A relatively short-range dating technique is based on the decay of uranium-234 into thorium-230, a substance with a half-life of about 80,000 years. It is accompanied by a sister process, in which uranium-235 decays into protactinium-231, which has a half-life of 34,300 years.
> 
> While uranium is water-soluble, thorium and protactinium are not, and so they are selectively precipitated into ocean-floor sediments, from which their ratios are measured. The scheme has a range of several hundred thousand years. A related method is ionium-thorium dating, which measures the ratio of ionium (thorium-230) to thorium-232 in ocean sediment.
> 
> [edit] Radiocarbon dating methodMain article: Radiocarbon dating
> 
> Ale's Stones at Kåseberga, around ten kilometres south east of Ystad, Sweden were dated at 600 CE using the carbon-14 method on organic material found at the site.[22]Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon, with a half-life of 5,730 years,[23][24] which is very short compared with the above isotopes. In other radiometric dating methods, the heavy parent isotopes were produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas, meaning that any parent isotope with a short half-life should be extinct by now. Carbon-14, though, is continuously created through collisions of neutrons generated by cosmic rays with nitrogen in the upper atmosphere and thus remains at a near-constant level on Earth. The carbon-14 ends up as a trace component in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
> 
> An organism acquires carbon during its lifetime. Plants acquire it through photosynthesis, and animals acquire it from consumption of plants and other animals. When an organism dies, it ceases to take in new carbon-14, and the existing isotope decays with a characteristic half-life (5730 years). The proportion of carbon-14 left when the remains of the organism are examined provides an indication of the time elapsed since its death. The carbon-14 dating limit lies around 58,000 to 62,000 years.[25]
> 
> The rate of creation of carbon-14 appears to be roughly constant, as cross-checks of carbon-14 dating with other dating methods show it gives consistent results. However, local eruptions of volcanoes or other events that give off large amounts of carbon dioxide can reduce local concentrations of carbon-14 and give inaccurate dates. The releases of carbon dioxide into the biosphere as a consequence of industrialization have also depressed the proportion of carbon-14 by a few percent; conversely, the amount of carbon-14 was increased by above-ground nuclear bomb tests that were conducted into the early 1960s. Also, an increase in the solar wind or the Earth's magnetic field above the current value would depress the amount of carbon-14 created in the atmosphere. These effects are corrected for by the calibration of the radiocarbon dating scale.[26]
> 
> [edit] Fission track dating methodMain article: fission track dating
> 
> Apatite crystals are widely used in fission track dating.This involves inspection of a polished slice of a material to determine the density of "track" markings left in it by the spontaneous fission of uranium-238 impurities. The uranium content of the sample has to be known, but that can be determined by placing a plastic film over the polished slice of the material, and bombarding it with slow neutrons. This causes induced fission of 235U, as opposed to the spontaneous fission of 238U. The fission tracks produced by this process are recorded in the plastic film. The uranium content of the material can then be calculated from the number of tracks and the neutron flux.
> 
> This scheme has application over a wide range of geologic dates. For dates up to a few million years micas, tektites (glass fragments from volcanic eruptions), and meteorites are best used. Older materials can be dated using zircon, apatite, titanite, epidote and garnet which have a variable amount of uranium content.[27] Because the fission tracks are healed by temperatures over about 200°C the technique has limitations as well as benefits. The technique has potential applications for detailing the thermal history of a deposit.
> 
> [edit] Chlorine-36 dating methodLarge amounts of otherwise rare 36Cl were produced by irradiation of seawater during atmospheric detonations of nuclear weapons between 1952 and 1958. The residence time of 36Cl in the atmosphere is about 1 week. Thus, as an event marker of 1950s water in soil and ground water, 36Cl is also useful for dating waters less than 50 years before the present. 36Cl has seen use in other areas of the geological sciences, including dating ice and sediments.
> 
> [edit] Luminescence dating methodsMain articles: Optical dating and Thermoluminescence dating
> Natural sources of radiation in the environment knock loose electrons in, say, a piece of pottery, and these electrons accumulate in defects in the material's crystal lattice structure. Heating or illuminating the object will release the captured electrons, producing a luminescence. When the sample is heated, at a certain temperature it will glow from the emission of electrons released from the defects, and this glow can be used to estimate the age of the sample to a threshold of approximately 15 percent of its true age. The date of a rock is reset when volcanic activity remelts it. The date of a piece of pottery is reset by the heat of the kiln. Typically temperatures greater than 400 degrees Celsius will reset the "clock". This is termed thermoluminescence.
> 
> [edit] Other methodsOther methods include:
> 
> argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
> iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
> lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
> lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
> lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
> neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
> rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
> uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
> uranium-uranium (U-U)
Click to expand...


You are still dodging the question. If the universe and everything in it had a beginning,where did the matter come from ?

I could care less about your dating methods, I asked you to do the math and you were given the information to work the formula.

Once you do the math it contradicts the age of the earth and and universe according to the dated moon rocks.

Do you just post crap up whether it answers my question or not ?

It contradicts evolutions timeline.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you forget this one.
> 
> If the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This is the maximum possible age far too young for evolution and much younger than the radiometric dating method assigned to moon rocks. What say you ?
> 
> This one to.
> 
> Not convenient,it's reality. If everything is suffering from entropy which it is, How is everything still here after 13 to 20 billion years ?
> 
> 
> 
> FUNNY YOU'D PICK THAT AS i WROTE IT LONG BEFORE YOU posted the first time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fact ,if humans have over 5,000 genetic disorders from the time we were supposedly to come into existence According to evolutionist opinions, Why do not all our ancestors have more genetic disorders ?
Click to expand...

your answer has nothing to do with the 2  other statements in this post.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."



And so the accuser becomes the thing she supposedly detests, the cutter and paster of lies and misquotes. You can post up all the fundie EVO atheist false quotes but it is just Historical Revisionism not based in any truth.  I'll stick to reliable sources like the Library of Congress, not fundie atheist websites. 

From Monticellrg

"Sources consulted: (searching on the words "superstitions," "fables," and "mythology"/"mythologies")

    Papers of Thomas Jefferson Digital Edition
    Thomas Jefferson Retirement Papers
    Thomas Jefferson: Papers and Biographies collections in Hathi Trust Digital Library

Earliest known appearance in print: 1883[1]

Earliest known appearance in print, attributed to Jefferson: See above.

*Status: We have not found this quotation in any of Jefferson's known writings.*

Superstition of Christianity (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson

Nice Try though!!! But then again why wouldn't lie and deceive, there exist in your worldview no foundation for ethics, and the master you unknowingly serve is the father of lies.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep your a stupid asshat.
> it's no claim you do it constantly .
> NO TOO TOUGH A CONCEPT FOR YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are admitting to being a stupid asshat ? You know what they say when someone is outmatched and has no answer he resorts to childish insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> theirs that famous accusatory paranoid reaction again.
> I'm stating fact.
> you consistently insert your religious bias into any and everything.
> your dishonesty is so vast that you can never say that your belief system does not have all the answers.
> 
> 
> outmatched by you
Click to expand...


To many times to count.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep your a stupid asshat.
> it's no claim you do it constantly .
> NO TOO TOUGH A CONCEPT FOR YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are admitting to being a stupid asshat ? You know what they say when someone is outmatched and has no answer he resorts to childish insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> theirs that famous accusatory paranoid reaction again.
> I'm stating fact.
> you consistently insert your religious bias into any and everything.
> your dishonesty is so vast that you can never say that your belief system does not have all the answers.
> 
> 
> outmatched by you
Click to expand...


You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you in the face.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your response was meaingless, my first answer stands you an asshole with reading comp problems ...if it wasn't so hilarious ,it would be sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth hurts don't it.
> 
> The universe had a beginning. Time and space had a beginning. That means matter had a beginning. Where did the matter come from to form the universe and life ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You, of course, will claim tht "the gods did iit".
> 
> So, substantiate your claim to gods. Who or what were the magical, supernatural gods who created your magical, supernatural gods?
> 
> Other than your "because I say so", claim to the contrary, there is no reason to believe that your gods were not themselves created by a hierarchy of other gods.
Click to expand...


ASked and answered before. How many more posts will you wasted with the same repetitive dribble?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, but then again YOU have no evidence to prove they had to be designed.
> none at all.
> you assume that since there is a void in actual scientific data on the subject that your fairy tale fill that void.
> that's not only dishonest but it's forcing your belief  into an area where objectivity must remain or it's no longer science ,but dogma.
> I'd say you were trying to replace science with superstition to help the last days along.
> but neither one of you are that smart or that subtle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So by your reasoning you are doing what you claim I was doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep your a stupid asshat.
> it's no claim you do it constantly .
> NO TOO TOUGH A CONCEPT FOR YOU.
Click to expand...


While you and Hollie use name calling to distract, it does not distract enough to cover up your lack of knowledge.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The heads of the fields of science.
> 
> Dodge !!!
> 
> 
> 
> yours is a dodge  the heads of what fields in  what sciences
> 
> if your talking about entropy everyone excepts it as fact but not that god did it. so again you're intentionally  misrepresenting the facts .
> as to this: If the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This is the maximum possible age far too young for evolution and much younger than the radiometric dating method assigned to moon rocks. What say you ?
> 
> i say your're full of shit:
> 
> Modern dating methodsRadiometric dating has been carried out since 1905 when it was invented by Ernest Rutherford as a method by which one might determine the age of the Earth. In the century since then the techniques have been greatly improved and expanded.[14] Dating can now be performed on samples as small as a nanogram using a mass spectrometer. The mass spectrometer was invented in the 1940s and began to be used in radiometric dating in the 1950s. The mass spectrometer operates by generating a beam of ionized atoms from the sample under test. The ions then travel through a magnetic field, which diverts them into different sampling sensors, known as "Faraday cups", depending on their mass and level of ionization. On impact in the cups, the ions set up a very weak current that can be measured to determine the rate of impacts and the relative concentrations of different atoms in the beams.
> 
> [edit] Uranium-lead dating methodMain article: uranium-lead dating
> 
> A concordia diagram as used in uranium-lead dating, with data from the Pfunze Belt, Zimbabwe.[16] All the samples show loss of lead isotopes, but the intercept of the errorchron (straight line through the sample points) and the concordia (curve) shows the correct age of the rock.[11]The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years.[12][17] An error margin of 25 % has been achieved on younger Mesozoic rocks.[18]
> 
> Uranium-lead dating is often performed on the mineral zircon (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials, such as baddeleyite.[19] Zircon and baddeleyite incorporate uranium atoms into their crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly reject lead. It has a very high closure temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. In situ micro-beam analysis can be achieved via laser ICP-MS or SIMS techniques.[20]
> 
> One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost. This can be seen in the concordia diagram, where the samples plot along an errorchron (straight line) which intersects the concordia curve at the age of the sample.
> 
> [edit] Samarium-neodymium dating methodMain article: Samarium-neodymium dating
> This involves the alpha-decay of 147Sm to 143Nd with a half-life of 1.06 x 1011 years. Accuracy levels of less than twenty million years in two-and-a-half billion years are achievable.[21]
> 
> [edit] Potassium-argon dating methodMain article: Potassium-argon dating
> This involves electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, and so this method is applicable to the oldest rocks. Radioactive potassium-40 is common in micas, feldspars, and hornblendes, though the closure temperature is fairly low in these materials, about 125°C (mica) to 450°C (hornblende).
> 
> [edit] Rubidium-strontium dating methodMain article: Rubidium-strontium dating
> This is based on the beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years. This scheme is used to date old igneous and metamorphic rocks, and has also been used to date lunar samples. Closure temperatures are so high that they are not a concern. Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample.
> 
> [edit] Uranium-thorium dating methodMain article: uranium-thorium dating
> A relatively short-range dating technique is based on the decay of uranium-234 into thorium-230, a substance with a half-life of about 80,000 years. It is accompanied by a sister process, in which uranium-235 decays into protactinium-231, which has a half-life of 34,300 years.
> 
> While uranium is water-soluble, thorium and protactinium are not, and so they are selectively precipitated into ocean-floor sediments, from which their ratios are measured. The scheme has a range of several hundred thousand years. A related method is ionium-thorium dating, which measures the ratio of ionium (thorium-230) to thorium-232 in ocean sediment.
> 
> [edit] Radiocarbon dating methodMain article: Radiocarbon dating
> 
> Ale's Stones at Kåseberga, around ten kilometres south east of Ystad, Sweden were dated at 600 CE using the carbon-14 method on organic material found at the site.[22]Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon, with a half-life of 5,730 years,[23][24] which is very short compared with the above isotopes. In other radiometric dating methods, the heavy parent isotopes were produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas, meaning that any parent isotope with a short half-life should be extinct by now. Carbon-14, though, is continuously created through collisions of neutrons generated by cosmic rays with nitrogen in the upper atmosphere and thus remains at a near-constant level on Earth. The carbon-14 ends up as a trace component in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
> 
> An organism acquires carbon during its lifetime. Plants acquire it through photosynthesis, and animals acquire it from consumption of plants and other animals. When an organism dies, it ceases to take in new carbon-14, and the existing isotope decays with a characteristic half-life (5730 years). The proportion of carbon-14 left when the remains of the organism are examined provides an indication of the time elapsed since its death. The carbon-14 dating limit lies around 58,000 to 62,000 years.[25]
> 
> The rate of creation of carbon-14 appears to be roughly constant, as cross-checks of carbon-14 dating with other dating methods show it gives consistent results. However, local eruptions of volcanoes or other events that give off large amounts of carbon dioxide can reduce local concentrations of carbon-14 and give inaccurate dates. The releases of carbon dioxide into the biosphere as a consequence of industrialization have also depressed the proportion of carbon-14 by a few percent; conversely, the amount of carbon-14 was increased by above-ground nuclear bomb tests that were conducted into the early 1960s. Also, an increase in the solar wind or the Earth's magnetic field above the current value would depress the amount of carbon-14 created in the atmosphere. These effects are corrected for by the calibration of the radiocarbon dating scale.[26]
> 
> [edit] Fission track dating methodMain article: fission track dating
> 
> Apatite crystals are widely used in fission track dating.This involves inspection of a polished slice of a material to determine the density of "track" markings left in it by the spontaneous fission of uranium-238 impurities. The uranium content of the sample has to be known, but that can be determined by placing a plastic film over the polished slice of the material, and bombarding it with slow neutrons. This causes induced fission of 235U, as opposed to the spontaneous fission of 238U. The fission tracks produced by this process are recorded in the plastic film. The uranium content of the material can then be calculated from the number of tracks and the neutron flux.
> 
> This scheme has application over a wide range of geologic dates. For dates up to a few million years micas, tektites (glass fragments from volcanic eruptions), and meteorites are best used. Older materials can be dated using zircon, apatite, titanite, epidote and garnet which have a variable amount of uranium content.[27] Because the fission tracks are healed by temperatures over about 200°C the technique has limitations as well as benefits. The technique has potential applications for detailing the thermal history of a deposit.
> 
> [edit] Chlorine-36 dating methodLarge amounts of otherwise rare 36Cl were produced by irradiation of seawater during atmospheric detonations of nuclear weapons between 1952 and 1958. The residence time of 36Cl in the atmosphere is about 1 week. Thus, as an event marker of 1950s water in soil and ground water, 36Cl is also useful for dating waters less than 50 years before the present. 36Cl has seen use in other areas of the geological sciences, including dating ice and sediments.
> 
> [edit] Luminescence dating methodsMain articles: Optical dating and Thermoluminescence dating
> Natural sources of radiation in the environment knock loose electrons in, say, a piece of pottery, and these electrons accumulate in defects in the material's crystal lattice structure. Heating or illuminating the object will release the captured electrons, producing a luminescence. When the sample is heated, at a certain temperature it will glow from the emission of electrons released from the defects, and this glow can be used to estimate the age of the sample to a threshold of approximately 15 percent of its true age. The date of a rock is reset when volcanic activity remelts it. The date of a piece of pottery is reset by the heat of the kiln. Typically temperatures greater than 400 degrees Celsius will reset the "clock". This is termed thermoluminescence.
> 
> [edit] Other methodsOther methods include:
> 
> argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
> iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
> lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
> lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
> lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
> neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
> rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
> uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
> uranium-uranium (U-U)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still dodging the question. If the universe and everything in it had a beginning,where did the matter come from ?
> 
> I could care less about your dating methods, I asked you to do the math and you were given the information to work the formula.
> 
> Once you do the math it contradicts the age of the earth and and universe according to the dated moon rocks.
> 
> Do you just post crap up whether it answers my question or not ?
> 
> It contradicts evolutions timeline.
Click to expand...

 The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. 

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FUNNY YOU'D PICK THAT AS i WROTE IT LONG BEFORE YOU posted the first time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact ,if humans have over 5,000 genetic disorders from the time we were supposedly to come into existence According to evolutionist opinions, Why do not all our ancestors have more genetic disorders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your answer has nothing to do with the 2  other statements in this post.
Click to expand...


I asked you a question.

Most genetic disorders are from inheritance so why do we have more genetic disorders then our ancestors ?

Simple question.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are admitting to being a stupid asshat ? You know what they say when someone is outmatched and has no answer he resorts to childish insults.
> 
> 
> 
> theirs that famous accusatory paranoid reaction again.
> I'm stating fact.
> you consistently insert your religious bias into any and everything.
> your dishonesty is so vast that you can never say that your belief system does not have all the answers.
> 
> 
> outmatched by you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To many times to count.
Click to expand...

only in your wet dreams !


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, would you prefer our founding fathers conducted themselves like Arafat, or Mohammed?
> They thought lying about peace while preparing for slaughter was an honorable thing.
> Here is Arafat backtracking on his signing of a peace treaty, equating his actions with what Mohammad  did:
> "This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Mohammed and Koraish....."
> (The agreement with Koraish allowed Mohammed to pray in Mecca, which was under Koraish control, for ten years. When Mohamed grew stronger two years later, he abrogated the agreement, slaughtered the tribe of Koraish and conquered Mecca.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I&#8217;m not making any sense of your comment. If you had been familiar with the Founding Fathers of the US, you would have known that in almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the FF&#8217;s were Deists. They believed in a creator, but not a god or gods such that Christianity or the bible offered.
Click to expand...


This is a historical revisionist lie perpetrated by fundie atheist websites intent on destroying American values. The claim has no basis in fact. Shocking!! Since other so called "facts" you claim are also based on the myths of "might haves" and "may haves".


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yours is a dodge  the heads of what fields in  what sciences
> 
> if your talking about entropy everyone excepts it as fact but not that god did it. so again you're intentionally  misrepresenting the facts .
> as to this: If the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This is the maximum possible age far too young for evolution and much younger than the radiometric dating method assigned to moon rocks. What say you ?
> 
> i say your're full of shit:
> 
> Modern dating methodsRadiometric dating has been carried out since 1905 when it was invented by Ernest Rutherford as a method by which one might determine the age of the Earth. In the century since then the techniques have been greatly improved and expanded.[14] Dating can now be performed on samples as small as a nanogram using a mass spectrometer. The mass spectrometer was invented in the 1940s and began to be used in radiometric dating in the 1950s. The mass spectrometer operates by generating a beam of ionized atoms from the sample under test. The ions then travel through a magnetic field, which diverts them into different sampling sensors, known as "Faraday cups", depending on their mass and level of ionization. On impact in the cups, the ions set up a very weak current that can be measured to determine the rate of impacts and the relative concentrations of different atoms in the beams.
> 
> [edit] Uranium-lead dating methodMain article: uranium-lead dating
> 
> A concordia diagram as used in uranium-lead dating, with data from the Pfunze Belt, Zimbabwe.[16] All the samples show loss of lead isotopes, but the intercept of the errorchron (straight line through the sample points) and the concordia (curve) shows the correct age of the rock.[11]The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years.[12][17] An error margin of 25 % has been achieved on younger Mesozoic rocks.[18]
> 
> Uranium-lead dating is often performed on the mineral zircon (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials, such as baddeleyite.[19] Zircon and baddeleyite incorporate uranium atoms into their crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly reject lead. It has a very high closure temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. In situ micro-beam analysis can be achieved via laser ICP-MS or SIMS techniques.[20]
> 
> One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost. This can be seen in the concordia diagram, where the samples plot along an errorchron (straight line) which intersects the concordia curve at the age of the sample.
> 
> [edit] Samarium-neodymium dating methodMain article: Samarium-neodymium dating
> This involves the alpha-decay of 147Sm to 143Nd with a half-life of 1.06 x 1011 years. Accuracy levels of less than twenty million years in two-and-a-half billion years are achievable.[21]
> 
> [edit] Potassium-argon dating methodMain article: Potassium-argon dating
> This involves electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, and so this method is applicable to the oldest rocks. Radioactive potassium-40 is common in micas, feldspars, and hornblendes, though the closure temperature is fairly low in these materials, about 125°C (mica) to 450°C (hornblende).
> 
> [edit] Rubidium-strontium dating methodMain article: Rubidium-strontium dating
> This is based on the beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years. This scheme is used to date old igneous and metamorphic rocks, and has also been used to date lunar samples. Closure temperatures are so high that they are not a concern. Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample.
> 
> [edit] Uranium-thorium dating methodMain article: uranium-thorium dating
> A relatively short-range dating technique is based on the decay of uranium-234 into thorium-230, a substance with a half-life of about 80,000 years. It is accompanied by a sister process, in which uranium-235 decays into protactinium-231, which has a half-life of 34,300 years.
> 
> While uranium is water-soluble, thorium and protactinium are not, and so they are selectively precipitated into ocean-floor sediments, from which their ratios are measured. The scheme has a range of several hundred thousand years. A related method is ionium-thorium dating, which measures the ratio of ionium (thorium-230) to thorium-232 in ocean sediment.
> 
> [edit] Radiocarbon dating methodMain article: Radiocarbon dating
> 
> Ale's Stones at Kåseberga, around ten kilometres south east of Ystad, Sweden were dated at 600 CE using the carbon-14 method on organic material found at the site.[22]Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon, with a half-life of 5,730 years,[23][24] which is very short compared with the above isotopes. In other radiometric dating methods, the heavy parent isotopes were produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas, meaning that any parent isotope with a short half-life should be extinct by now. Carbon-14, though, is continuously created through collisions of neutrons generated by cosmic rays with nitrogen in the upper atmosphere and thus remains at a near-constant level on Earth. The carbon-14 ends up as a trace component in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
> 
> An organism acquires carbon during its lifetime. Plants acquire it through photosynthesis, and animals acquire it from consumption of plants and other animals. When an organism dies, it ceases to take in new carbon-14, and the existing isotope decays with a characteristic half-life (5730 years). The proportion of carbon-14 left when the remains of the organism are examined provides an indication of the time elapsed since its death. The carbon-14 dating limit lies around 58,000 to 62,000 years.[25]
> 
> The rate of creation of carbon-14 appears to be roughly constant, as cross-checks of carbon-14 dating with other dating methods show it gives consistent results. However, local eruptions of volcanoes or other events that give off large amounts of carbon dioxide can reduce local concentrations of carbon-14 and give inaccurate dates. The releases of carbon dioxide into the biosphere as a consequence of industrialization have also depressed the proportion of carbon-14 by a few percent; conversely, the amount of carbon-14 was increased by above-ground nuclear bomb tests that were conducted into the early 1960s. Also, an increase in the solar wind or the Earth's magnetic field above the current value would depress the amount of carbon-14 created in the atmosphere. These effects are corrected for by the calibration of the radiocarbon dating scale.[26]
> 
> [edit] Fission track dating methodMain article: fission track dating
> 
> Apatite crystals are widely used in fission track dating.This involves inspection of a polished slice of a material to determine the density of "track" markings left in it by the spontaneous fission of uranium-238 impurities. The uranium content of the sample has to be known, but that can be determined by placing a plastic film over the polished slice of the material, and bombarding it with slow neutrons. This causes induced fission of 235U, as opposed to the spontaneous fission of 238U. The fission tracks produced by this process are recorded in the plastic film. The uranium content of the material can then be calculated from the number of tracks and the neutron flux.
> 
> This scheme has application over a wide range of geologic dates. For dates up to a few million years micas, tektites (glass fragments from volcanic eruptions), and meteorites are best used. Older materials can be dated using zircon, apatite, titanite, epidote and garnet which have a variable amount of uranium content.[27] Because the fission tracks are healed by temperatures over about 200°C the technique has limitations as well as benefits. The technique has potential applications for detailing the thermal history of a deposit.
> 
> [edit] Chlorine-36 dating methodLarge amounts of otherwise rare 36Cl were produced by irradiation of seawater during atmospheric detonations of nuclear weapons between 1952 and 1958. The residence time of 36Cl in the atmosphere is about 1 week. Thus, as an event marker of 1950s water in soil and ground water, 36Cl is also useful for dating waters less than 50 years before the present. 36Cl has seen use in other areas of the geological sciences, including dating ice and sediments.
> 
> [edit] Luminescence dating methodsMain articles: Optical dating and Thermoluminescence dating
> Natural sources of radiation in the environment knock loose electrons in, say, a piece of pottery, and these electrons accumulate in defects in the material's crystal lattice structure. Heating or illuminating the object will release the captured electrons, producing a luminescence. When the sample is heated, at a certain temperature it will glow from the emission of electrons released from the defects, and this glow can be used to estimate the age of the sample to a threshold of approximately 15 percent of its true age. The date of a rock is reset when volcanic activity remelts it. The date of a piece of pottery is reset by the heat of the kiln. Typically temperatures greater than 400 degrees Celsius will reset the "clock". This is termed thermoluminescence.
> 
> [edit] Other methodsOther methods include:
> 
> argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
> iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
> lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
> lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
> lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
> neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
> rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
> uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
> uranium-uranium (U-U)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still dodging the question. If the universe and everything in it had a beginning,where did the matter come from ?
> 
> I could care less about your dating methods, I asked you to do the math and you were given the information to work the formula.
> 
> Once you do the math it contradicts the age of the earth and and universe according to the dated moon rocks.
> 
> Do you just post crap up whether it answers my question or not ?
> 
> It contradicts evolutions timeline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.
> 
> According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
Click to expand...


Just say it ,an outside source is responsible for the matter's existence. Time began with creation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> theirs that famous accusatory paranoid reaction again.
> I'm stating fact.
> you consistently insert your religious bias into any and everything.
> your dishonesty is so vast that you can never say that your belief system does not have all the answers.
> 
> 
> outmatched by you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To many times to count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in your wet dreams !
Click to expand...


I'm not a pervert Daws ,I don't have those.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So by your reasoning you are doing what you claim I was doing.
> 
> 
> 
> yep your a stupid asshat.
> it's no claim you do it constantly .
> NO TOO TOUGH A CONCEPT FOR YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While you and Hollie use name calling to distract, it does not distract enough to cover up your lack of knowledge.
Click to expand...

another wrong assuption, can't speak for hollie but I name call because when you act like a dick you get called a dick.
 simple 
your tin hat is showing !


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are admitting to being a stupid asshat ? You know what they say when someone is outmatched and has no answer he resorts to childish insults.
> 
> 
> 
> theirs that famous accusatory paranoid reaction again.
> I'm stating fact.
> you consistently insert your religious bias into any and everything.
> your dishonesty is so vast that you can never say that your belief system does not have all the answers.
> 
> 
> outmatched by you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you in the face.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact ,if humans have over 5,000 genetic disorders from the time we were supposedly to come into existence According to evolutionist opinions, Why do not all our ancestors have more genetic disorders ?
> 
> 
> 
> your answer has nothing to do with the 2  other statements in this post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you a question.
> 
> Most genetic disorders are from inheritance so why do we have more genetic disorders then our ancestors ?
> 
> Simple question.
Click to expand...

your answer has nothing to do with the 2  other statements in this post.[/QUOTE]simple answer!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, would you prefer our founding fathers conducted themselves like Arafat, or Mohammed?
> They thought lying about peace while preparing for slaughter was an honorable thing.
> Here is Arafat backtracking on his signing of a peace treaty, equating his actions with what Mohammad  did:
> "This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Mohammed and Koraish....."
> (The agreement with Koraish allowed Mohammed to pray in Mecca, which was under Koraish control, for ten years. When Mohamed grew stronger two years later, he abrogated the agreement, slaughtered the tribe of Koraish and conquered Mecca.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I&#8217;m not making any sense of your comment. If you had been familiar with the Founding Fathers of the US, you would have known that in almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the FF&#8217;s were Deists. They believed in a creator, but not a god or gods such that Christianity or the bible offered.
Click to expand...


This is a historical revisionist lie perpetrated by fundie atheist websites intent on destroying American values. The claim has no basis in fact. Shocking!! Since other so called "facts" you claim are also based on the myths of might haves and may haves. 

If anyone is really interested in the truth, with *actual photographs* of *verified* historical documents, the *United States Library of Congress* website is a great resource. Contrary to Holly's false post, here is the real history on Ben's prayer. One should also note that Ben Franklin was regularly considered the most Deist of the Founders, but here he is at 81 years old, referring to the Christian God and quoting Matthew 10:29.

*Franklin Requests Prayers in the Constitutional Convention*
Benjamin Franklin delivered this famous speech, asking that the Convention begin each day's session with prayers, at a particularly contentious period, when it appeared that the Convention might break up over its failure to resolve the dispute between the large and small states over representation in the new government. The eighty one year old Franklin asserted that "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth--that God governs in the Affairs of Men." "I also believe," Franklin continued, that "without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel." Franklin's motion failed, *ostensibly because the Convention had no funds to pay local clergymen to act as chaplains. *

*Adams on Religion*
John Adams, a self-confessed "church going animal," grew up in the Congregational Church in Braintree, Massachusetts. By the time he wrote this letter his theological position can best be described as Unitarian. In this letter Adams tells Jefferson that "Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." 

*Adams's Fast Day Proclamation*
John Adams continued the practice, begun in 1775 and adopted under the new federal government by Washington, of issuing fast and thanksgiving day proclamations. In this proclamation, issued at a time when the nation appeared to be on the brink of a war with France, Adams urged the citizens to "acknowledge before God the manifold sins and transgressions with which we are justly chargeable as individuals and as a nation; beseeching him at the same time, of His infinite grace, through the *Redeemer of the World,* freely to remit all our offences, and to incline us, *by His Holy Spirit,* to that sincere repentance and reformation which may afford us reason to hope for his inestimable favor and heavenly benediction."


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yours is a dodge  the heads of what fields in  what sciences
> 
> if your talking about entropy everyone excepts it as fact but not that god did it. so again you're intentionally  misrepresenting the facts .
> as to this: If the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This is the maximum possible age far too young for evolution and much younger than the radiometric dating method assigned to moon rocks. What say you ?
> 
> i say your're full of shit:
> 
> Modern dating methodsRadiometric dating has been carried out since 1905 when it was invented by Ernest Rutherford as a method by which one might determine the age of the Earth. In the century since then the techniques have been greatly improved and expanded.[14] Dating can now be performed on samples as small as a nanogram using a mass spectrometer. The mass spectrometer was invented in the 1940s and began to be used in radiometric dating in the 1950s. The mass spectrometer operates by generating a beam of ionized atoms from the sample under test. The ions then travel through a magnetic field, which diverts them into different sampling sensors, known as "Faraday cups", depending on their mass and level of ionization. On impact in the cups, the ions set up a very weak current that can be measured to determine the rate of impacts and the relative concentrations of different atoms in the beams.
> 
> [edit] Uranium-lead dating methodMain article: uranium-lead dating
> 
> A concordia diagram as used in uranium-lead dating, with data from the Pfunze Belt, Zimbabwe.[16] All the samples show loss of lead isotopes, but the intercept of the errorchron (straight line through the sample points) and the concordia (curve) shows the correct age of the rock.[11]The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years.[12][17] An error margin of 25 % has been achieved on younger Mesozoic rocks.[18]
> 
> Uranium-lead dating is often performed on the mineral zircon (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials, such as baddeleyite.[19] Zircon and baddeleyite incorporate uranium atoms into their crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly reject lead. It has a very high closure temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. In situ micro-beam analysis can be achieved via laser ICP-MS or SIMS techniques.[20]
> 
> One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost. This can be seen in the concordia diagram, where the samples plot along an errorchron (straight line) which intersects the concordia curve at the age of the sample.
> 
> [edit] Samarium-neodymium dating methodMain article: Samarium-neodymium dating
> This involves the alpha-decay of 147Sm to 143Nd with a half-life of 1.06 x 1011 years. Accuracy levels of less than twenty million years in two-and-a-half billion years are achievable.[21]
> 
> [edit] Potassium-argon dating methodMain article: Potassium-argon dating
> This involves electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, and so this method is applicable to the oldest rocks. Radioactive potassium-40 is common in micas, feldspars, and hornblendes, though the closure temperature is fairly low in these materials, about 125°C (mica) to 450°C (hornblende).
> 
> [edit] Rubidium-strontium dating methodMain article: Rubidium-strontium dating
> This is based on the beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years. This scheme is used to date old igneous and metamorphic rocks, and has also been used to date lunar samples. Closure temperatures are so high that they are not a concern. Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample.
> 
> [edit] Uranium-thorium dating methodMain article: uranium-thorium dating
> A relatively short-range dating technique is based on the decay of uranium-234 into thorium-230, a substance with a half-life of about 80,000 years. It is accompanied by a sister process, in which uranium-235 decays into protactinium-231, which has a half-life of 34,300 years.
> 
> While uranium is water-soluble, thorium and protactinium are not, and so they are selectively precipitated into ocean-floor sediments, from which their ratios are measured. The scheme has a range of several hundred thousand years. A related method is ionium-thorium dating, which measures the ratio of ionium (thorium-230) to thorium-232 in ocean sediment.
> 
> [edit] Radiocarbon dating methodMain article: Radiocarbon dating
> 
> Ale's Stones at Kåseberga, around ten kilometres south east of Ystad, Sweden were dated at 600 CE using the carbon-14 method on organic material found at the site.[22]Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon, with a half-life of 5,730 years,[23][24] which is very short compared with the above isotopes. In other radiometric dating methods, the heavy parent isotopes were produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas, meaning that any parent isotope with a short half-life should be extinct by now. Carbon-14, though, is continuously created through collisions of neutrons generated by cosmic rays with nitrogen in the upper atmosphere and thus remains at a near-constant level on Earth. The carbon-14 ends up as a trace component in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
> 
> An organism acquires carbon during its lifetime. Plants acquire it through photosynthesis, and animals acquire it from consumption of plants and other animals. When an organism dies, it ceases to take in new carbon-14, and the existing isotope decays with a characteristic half-life (5730 years). The proportion of carbon-14 left when the remains of the organism are examined provides an indication of the time elapsed since its death. The carbon-14 dating limit lies around 58,000 to 62,000 years.[25]
> 
> The rate of creation of carbon-14 appears to be roughly constant, as cross-checks of carbon-14 dating with other dating methods show it gives consistent results. However, local eruptions of volcanoes or other events that give off large amounts of carbon dioxide can reduce local concentrations of carbon-14 and give inaccurate dates. The releases of carbon dioxide into the biosphere as a consequence of industrialization have also depressed the proportion of carbon-14 by a few percent; conversely, the amount of carbon-14 was increased by above-ground nuclear bomb tests that were conducted into the early 1960s. Also, an increase in the solar wind or the Earth's magnetic field above the current value would depress the amount of carbon-14 created in the atmosphere. These effects are corrected for by the calibration of the radiocarbon dating scale.[26]
> 
> [edit] Fission track dating methodMain article: fission track dating
> 
> Apatite crystals are widely used in fission track dating.This involves inspection of a polished slice of a material to determine the density of "track" markings left in it by the spontaneous fission of uranium-238 impurities. The uranium content of the sample has to be known, but that can be determined by placing a plastic film over the polished slice of the material, and bombarding it with slow neutrons. This causes induced fission of 235U, as opposed to the spontaneous fission of 238U. The fission tracks produced by this process are recorded in the plastic film. The uranium content of the material can then be calculated from the number of tracks and the neutron flux.
> 
> This scheme has application over a wide range of geologic dates. For dates up to a few million years micas, tektites (glass fragments from volcanic eruptions), and meteorites are best used. Older materials can be dated using zircon, apatite, titanite, epidote and garnet which have a variable amount of uranium content.[27] Because the fission tracks are healed by temperatures over about 200°C the technique has limitations as well as benefits. The technique has potential applications for detailing the thermal history of a deposit.
> 
> [edit] Chlorine-36 dating methodLarge amounts of otherwise rare 36Cl were produced by irradiation of seawater during atmospheric detonations of nuclear weapons between 1952 and 1958. The residence time of 36Cl in the atmosphere is about 1 week. Thus, as an event marker of 1950s water in soil and ground water, 36Cl is also useful for dating waters less than 50 years before the present. 36Cl has seen use in other areas of the geological sciences, including dating ice and sediments.
> 
> [edit] Luminescence dating methodsMain articles: Optical dating and Thermoluminescence dating
> Natural sources of radiation in the environment knock loose electrons in, say, a piece of pottery, and these electrons accumulate in defects in the material's crystal lattice structure. Heating or illuminating the object will release the captured electrons, producing a luminescence. When the sample is heated, at a certain temperature it will glow from the emission of electrons released from the defects, and this glow can be used to estimate the age of the sample to a threshold of approximately 15 percent of its true age. The date of a rock is reset when volcanic activity remelts it. The date of a piece of pottery is reset by the heat of the kiln. Typically temperatures greater than 400 degrees Celsius will reset the "clock". This is termed thermoluminescence.
> 
> [edit] Other methodsOther methods include:
> 
> argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
> iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
> lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
> lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
> lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
> neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
> rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
> uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
> uranium-uranium (U-U)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still dodging the question. If the universe and everything in it had a beginning,where did the matter come from ?
> 
> I could care less about your dating methods, I asked you to do the math and you were given the information to work the formula.
> 
> Once you do the math it contradicts the age of the earth and and universe according to the dated moon rocks.
> 
> Do you just post crap up whether it answers my question or not ?
> 
> It contradicts evolutions timeline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.
> 
> According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
Click to expand...


Here is an even bigger problem for your time line Daws. The universe is expanding and speeding up,the universe can't be as old as you say.

That formula I gave you was based on the current receding of the moon.

Now look at this.

Nobel Prize for physics: Universe expansion accelerating, not slowing down - CSMonitor.com

How can something that blew up billions of years ago pick up speed ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To many times to count.
> 
> 
> 
> only in your wet dreams !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a pervert Daws ,I don't have those.
Click to expand...

then you must have a medical problem

A nocturnal emission involves either ejaculation during sleep for a male, or lubrication of the vagina for a female.[1] It is also called a wet dream, and is sometimes considered a type of spontaneous orgasm.

Nocturnal emissions are most common during adolescence and early young adult years. However, nocturnal emissions may happen any time during or after puberty. The emission may happen with or without an erection, and it is possible to wake up during the ejaculation, or to simply sleep through it.

A wet dream caused by normal biochemical occurrences will be present when the seminal vesicles are full of semen, and an additional burst in the seminal production is observed through the elevation of DHEA and testosterone
In MenThe frequency of nocturnal emissions is highly variable. Some men have experienced large numbers of nocturnal emissions as teenagers, while others have never experienced one. 84% of men in the United States will experience nocturnal emissions at some time in their life.[4] For males who have experienced nocturnal emissions the mean frequency ranges from 0.36 times per week (about once every three weeks) for single 15-year-old males to 0.18 times per week (about once every five-and-a-half weeks) for 40-year-old single males. For married males the mean ranges from 0.23 times per week (about once per month) for 19-year-old married males to 0.15 times per week (about once every two months) for 50-year-old married males.[5] In some parts of the world nocturnal emissions are more common. For example in Indonesia surveys show that 97% of men experience nocturnal emissions by the age of 24.[6]

Some men have the dreams only at a certain age, while others have them throughout their lives following puberty. The frequency that one has nocturnal emissions has not been conclusively linked to frequency of masturbation. Alfred Kinsey found there may be "some correlation between the frequencies of masturbation and the frequencies of nocturnal dreams. In general the males who have the highest frequencies of nocturnal emissions may have somewhat lower rates of masturbation. Some of these males credit the frequent emissions to the fact that they do not masturbate; but it is just as likely that the reverse relationship is true, namely, that they do not masturbate because they have frequent emissions."[7]

more proof that you have some major issues .


----------



## UltimateReality

Please, even if you don't believe in Christianity, don't fall for *Holly's lies regarding our nation's history*. Nothing she posts can be counted on to be reliable due to her hate agenda. More REAL history from the Library of Congress...

"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, *Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives.* Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. *The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.*"

Religion and the Federal Government, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in your wet dreams !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a pervert Daws ,I don't have those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then you must have a medical problem
> 
> A nocturnal emission involves either ejaculation during sleep for a male, or lubrication of the vagina for a female.[1] It is also called a wet dream, and is sometimes considered a type of spontaneous orgasm.
> 
> Nocturnal emissions are most common during adolescence and early young adult years. However, nocturnal emissions may happen any time during or after puberty. The emission may happen with or without an erection, and it is possible to wake up during the ejaculation, or to simply sleep through it.
> 
> A wet dream caused by normal biochemical occurrences will be present when the seminal vesicles are full of semen, and an additional burst in the seminal production is observed through the elevation of DHEA and testosterone
> In MenThe frequency of nocturnal emissions is highly variable. Some men have experienced large numbers of nocturnal emissions as teenagers, while others have never experienced one. 84% of men in the United States will experience nocturnal emissions at some time in their life.[4] For males who have experienced nocturnal emissions the mean frequency ranges from 0.36 times per week (about once every three weeks) for single 15-year-old males to 0.18 times per week (about once every five-and-a-half weeks) for 40-year-old single males. For married males the mean ranges from 0.23 times per week (about once per month) for 19-year-old married males to 0.15 times per week (about once every two months) for 50-year-old married males.[5] In some parts of the world nocturnal emissions are more common. For example in Indonesia surveys show that 97% of men experience nocturnal emissions by the age of 24.[6]
> 
> Some men have the dreams only at a certain age, while others have them throughout their lives following puberty. The frequency that one has nocturnal emissions has not been conclusively linked to frequency of masturbation. Alfred Kinsey found there may be "some correlation between the frequencies of masturbation and the frequencies of nocturnal dreams. In general the males who have the highest frequencies of nocturnal emissions may have somewhat lower rates of masturbation. Some of these males credit the frequent emissions to the fact that they do not masturbate; but it is just as likely that the reverse relationship is true, namely, that they do not masturbate because they have frequent emissions."[7]
> 
> more proof that you have some major issues .
Click to expand...


You must of been dreaming about those humping chickens you brought up once to often.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are still dodging the question. If the universe and everything in it had a beginning,where did the matter come from ?
> 
> I could care less about your dating methods, I asked you to do the math and you were given the information to work the formula.
> 
> Once you do the math it contradicts the age of the earth and and universe according to the dated moon rocks.
> 
> Do you just post crap up whether it answers my question or not ?
> 
> It contradicts evolutions timeline.
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.
> 
> According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is an even bigger problem for your time line Daws. The universe is expanding and speeding up,the universe can't be as old as you say.
> 
> That formula I gave you was based on the current receding of the moon.
> 
> Now look at this.
> 
> Nobel Prize for physics: Universe expansion accelerating, not slowing down - CSMonitor.com
> 
> How can something that blew up billions of years ago pick up speed ?
Click to expand...

and? nothing about this has any effect on evolution.

still no proof god did it!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep your a stupid asshat.
> it's no claim you do it constantly .
> NO TOO TOUGH A CONCEPT FOR YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you and Hollie use name calling to distract, it does not distract enough to cover up your lack of knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another wrong assuption, can't speak for hollie but I name call because when you act like a dick you get called a dick.
> simple
> your tin hat is showing !
Click to expand...


Well I guess I'm the lucky one aren't I. I'll wear tin on my head over an ass anyday!!!


----------



## The Irish Ram

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, would you prefer our founding fathers conducted themselves like Arafat, or Mohammed?
> They thought lying about peace while preparing for slaughter was an honorable thing.
> Here is Arafat backtracking on his signing of a peace treaty, equating his actions with what Mohammad  did:
> "This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Mohammed and Koraish....."
> (The agreement with Koraish allowed Mohammed to pray in Mecca, which was under Koraish control, for ten years. When Mohamed grew stronger two years later, he abrogated the agreement, slaughtered the tribe of Koraish and conquered Mecca.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not making any sense of your comment. If you had been familiar with the Founding Fathers of the US, you would have known that in almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the FFs were Deists. They believed in a creator, but not a god or gods such that Christianity or the bible offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a historical revisionist lie perpetrated by fundie atheist websites intent on destroying American values. The claim has no basis in fact. Shocking!! Since other so called "facts" you claim are also based on the myths of might haves and may haves.
Click to expand...


 Hollie, not only did they believe in a Creator, they believed in His son, Jesus.
Plese stop this  historical revisionist lie perpetrated by fundie atheist websites intent on destroying American values.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a pervert Daws ,I don't have those.
> 
> 
> 
> then you must have a medical problem
> 
> A nocturnal emission involves either ejaculation during sleep for a male, or lubrication of the vagina for a female.[1] It is also called a wet dream, and is sometimes considered a type of spontaneous orgasm.
> 
> Nocturnal emissions are most common during adolescence and early young adult years. However, nocturnal emissions may happen any time during or after puberty. The emission may happen with or without an erection, and it is possible to wake up during the ejaculation, or to simply sleep through it.
> 
> A wet dream caused by normal biochemical occurrences will be present when the seminal vesicles are full of semen, and an additional burst in the seminal production is observed through the elevation of DHEA and testosterone
> In MenThe frequency of nocturnal emissions is highly variable. Some men have experienced large numbers of nocturnal emissions as teenagers, while others have never experienced one. 84% of men in the United States will experience nocturnal emissions at some time in their life.[4] For males who have experienced nocturnal emissions the mean frequency ranges from 0.36 times per week (about once every three weeks) for single 15-year-old males to 0.18 times per week (about once every five-and-a-half weeks) for 40-year-old single males. For married males the mean ranges from 0.23 times per week (about once per month) for 19-year-old married males to 0.15 times per week (about once every two months) for 50-year-old married males.[5] In some parts of the world nocturnal emissions are more common. For example in Indonesia surveys show that 97% of men experience nocturnal emissions by the age of 24.[6]
> 
> Some men have the dreams only at a certain age, while others have them throughout their lives following puberty. The frequency that one has nocturnal emissions has not been conclusively linked to frequency of masturbation. Alfred Kinsey found there may be "some correlation between the frequencies of masturbation and the frequencies of nocturnal dreams. In general the males who have the highest frequencies of nocturnal emissions may have somewhat lower rates of masturbation. Some of these males credit the frequent emissions to the fact that they do not masturbate; but it is just as likely that the reverse relationship is true, namely, that they do not masturbate because they have frequent emissions."[7]
> 
> more proof that you have some major issues .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must of been dreaming about those humping chickens you brought up once to often.
Click to expand...

more proof that you have some major issues.
btw you brought up  chicking fucking as proof of god.
btw that's too.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.
> 
> According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an even bigger problem for your time line Daws. The universe is expanding and speeding up,the universe can't be as old as you say.
> 
> That formula I gave you was based on the current receding of the moon.
> 
> Now look at this.
> 
> Nobel Prize for physics: Universe expansion accelerating, not slowing down - CSMonitor.com
> 
> How can something that blew up billions of years ago pick up speed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and? nothing about this has any effect on evolution.
> 
> still no proof god did it!
Click to expand...


The Expanding Universe: From Slowdown to Speed Up: Scientific American

Oh but it does, it greatly reduces the age of the universe,the earth,and when life actually began,so there was not enough time for evolution to take place but we knew that already.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you and Hollie use name calling to distract, it does not distract enough to cover up your lack of knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> another wrong assuption, can't speak for hollie but I name call because when you act like a dick you get called a dick.
> simple
> your tin hat is showing !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I guess I'm the lucky one aren't I. I'll wear tin on my head over an ass anyday!!!
Click to expand...

 just pointing out that depends comes in silver too.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> then you must have a medical problem
> 
> A nocturnal emission involves either ejaculation during sleep for a male, or lubrication of the vagina for a female.[1] It is also called a wet dream, and is sometimes considered a type of spontaneous orgasm.
> 
> Nocturnal emissions are most common during adolescence and early young adult years. However, nocturnal emissions may happen any time during or after puberty. The emission may happen with or without an erection, and it is possible to wake up during the ejaculation, or to simply sleep through it.
> 
> A wet dream caused by normal biochemical occurrences will be present when the seminal vesicles are full of semen, and an additional burst in the seminal production is observed through the elevation of DHEA and testosterone
> In MenThe frequency of nocturnal emissions is highly variable. Some men have experienced large numbers of nocturnal emissions as teenagers, while others have never experienced one. 84% of men in the United States will experience nocturnal emissions at some time in their life.[4] For males who have experienced nocturnal emissions the mean frequency ranges from 0.36 times per week (about once every three weeks) for single 15-year-old males to 0.18 times per week (about once every five-and-a-half weeks) for 40-year-old single males. For married males the mean ranges from 0.23 times per week (about once per month) for 19-year-old married males to 0.15 times per week (about once every two months) for 50-year-old married males.[5] In some parts of the world nocturnal emissions are more common. For example in Indonesia surveys show that 97% of men experience nocturnal emissions by the age of 24.[6]
> 
> Some men have the dreams only at a certain age, while others have them throughout their lives following puberty. The frequency that one has nocturnal emissions has not been conclusively linked to frequency of masturbation. Alfred Kinsey found there may be "some correlation between the frequencies of masturbation and the frequencies of nocturnal dreams. In general the males who have the highest frequencies of nocturnal emissions may have somewhat lower rates of masturbation. Some of these males credit the frequent emissions to the fact that they do not masturbate; but it is just as likely that the reverse relationship is true, namely, that they do not masturbate because they have frequent emissions."[7]
> 
> more proof that you have some major issues .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must of been dreaming about those humping chickens you brought up once to often.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more proof that you have some major issues.
> btw you brought up  chicking fucking as proof of god.
> btw that's too.
Click to expand...


Yeah I had to give you a 6th grade biology lesson.

But you were the one so graphic about it.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an even bigger problem for your time line Daws. The universe is expanding and speeding up,the universe can't be as old as you say.
> 
> That formula I gave you was based on the current receding of the moon.
> 
> Now look at this.
> 
> Nobel Prize for physics: Universe expansion accelerating, not slowing down - CSMonitor.com
> 
> How can something that blew up billions of years ago pick up speed ?
> 
> 
> 
> and? nothing about this has any effect on evolution.
> 
> still no proof god did it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Expanding Universe: From Slowdown to Speed Up: Scientific American
> 
> Oh but it does, it greatly reduces the age of the universe,the earth,and when life actually began,so there was not enough time for evolution to take place but we knew that already.
Click to expand...

only in your dreams.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Finally, the masturbation thread I've been looking for........


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must of been dreaming about those humping chickens you brought up once to often.
> 
> 
> 
> more proof that you have some major issues.
> btw you brought up  chicking fucking as proof of god.
> btw that's too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah I had to give you a 6th grade biology lesson.
> 
> But you were the one so graphic about it.
Click to expand...

 I had to be since you were so wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and? nothing about this has any effect on evolution.
> 
> still no proof god did it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Expanding Universe: From Slowdown to Speed Up: Scientific American
> 
> Oh but it does, it greatly reduces the age of the universe,the earth,and when life actually began,so there was not enough time for evolution to take place but we knew that already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in your dreams.
Click to expand...


I was expecting an answer like this. You are consistently ignorant.


----------



## daws101

The Irish Ram said:


> Finally, the masturbation thread I've been looking for........


god will make you blind for that.
founding fathers deists ....far different attitude  about god than todays dogma spewers!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Expanding Universe: From Slowdown to Speed Up: Scientific American
> 
> Oh but it does, it greatly reduces the age of the universe,the earth,and when life actually began,so there was not enough time for evolution to take place but we knew that already.
> 
> 
> 
> only in your dreams.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was expecting an answer like this. You are consistently ignorant.
Click to expand...

you,re just wrong! how does that make me ignorant.?
what's ignorant here is you using "we"


----------



## The Irish Ram

daws101 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, the masturbation thread I've been looking for........
> 
> 
> 
> god will make you blind for that.
Click to expand...

I bet I could still find it........


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Please, even if you don't believe in Christianity, don't fall for *Holly's lies regarding our nation's history*. Nothing she posts can be counted on to be reliable due to her hate agenda. More REAL history from the Library of Congress...
> 
> "It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, *Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives.* Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. *The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.*"
> 
> Religion and the Federal Government, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress



I&#8217;m actually delighted you cut and pasted what you did because it displays in clear terms your frightful ignorance.

The United States of America is not a Christian country or state. The writers of the Constitution said, very wisely, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, there will be no state church (such as the Church of England), but the people may worship according to their wishes, anytime and anywhere. 

That is precisely why you will not see a signature or some record wherein god is noted in the Continental Congress as ratifying the Constitution.

Let's look at what the Constitution says:
"Amendment I

_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."_

Seek the words "God", &#8220;Almighty Lord" or "Big Cheese" or whatever-- you will not find it in the wording of the law. Why? Because it is impermissible. 

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Abraham Lincoln or B. Hussein making a speech _is free speech_ and therefore they-- like any other president, can make any appeals to deities as they want.

Church services, whether held in the White House or in the Capital building is free speech.

Ignorance is not a virtue, my little wannabe.



Thomas Jefferson

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

_SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short_


----------



## whitehall

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



Judging by the photo it seems you might baffle easy. Global warmists seem to think the world is only a couple of hundred years old. Why else would they ignore incredible fluctuations in the earth's temperature such as the last couple of ice ages?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I mention I went to Chik Fil A yesterday??? There were about 10 protestors there along with over 350 cusomters waiting in line at 5 pm. What always strikes me about homosexual activism is their need to force me to accept their behavior. They aren't just good with living their life out with their same sex partner. They are intent, by law or social convention (PC movement), to force me at least in action, to accept their behavior. I will tell you one thing I have realized in all my years, that is, people that are TRULY good with their life choices don't feel the need to force strangers to accept them. It is the ones that are still struggling with their choice, that need to force acceptance from others. The reason I relate this story is because it reminds me alot of Holly. If he/she was really good with atheism, he/she wouldn't be here trying to convince a bunch of Theists that her way was the best way. She would just go about her business living her life, unconcerned about other's choice to believe in God. The thing Holly's words scream LOUDER than anything else, is that she herself is not convinced of her atheism. She diligently works to put down everyone else in hopes that it will somehow convince her she is right. If she can make others look foolish in the theism, maybe it will lead to her own acceptance of her chosen religion. I'm guessing her denial of her childhood religion is due to some moral dilemma she found herself in. She made a choice that didn't conform to hers and her parents religion, so rather than abandon her choice, she abandoned her religion. But even to this day she is not fully convinced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that homosexuals are a minority group? That they are hated, by the likes of Christians mostly, who are a majority and have vast political power and majority sway in the united states? As such, homosexual are targeted by the exact kind of sentiment you are displaying here, in the form of hateful rhetoric, hate crimes, murders, etc... (mathew shephard ring a bell??). It is funny that you attribute their pleas for empathy for insecurity, when it is in fact for their physical safety and survival, something you take for granted because you are not gay. You have just illustrated EXACTLY why religious faith is so harmful: ignorance to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that the "so-called" Christians that lash out at homosexuals are a minority group. That homosexual activists hate ALL Christians because of a few bad eggs. Did it ever occur to you that when your in it, you can't see it? That your worldview is totally skewed due to your self serviing or saliency bias?
> 
> Your twisted perception causes you to think that I was referring to homosexuals plea for empathy. I don't think that telling a business owner you are going to try and destroy his business because you disagree with his religious beliefs is a plea for empathy, do you? This is militant activism and its what I'm talking about. Homosexual activists are attempting to change the status quo. They are the ones fighting for change. Those that resist change because of a 4000 year old tradition are labeled intolerant and attacked. It is funny how the left is always preaching tolerance. But really, their idea of tolerance is accepting someone as long as they believe the same way. Do you see an issue with that?
> 
> So does your freedom to behave as you want trump my freedom of religion guaranteed by the Bill of Rights? The Bible teaches that adultery is sin. It teaches fornication is sin. It also teaches homosexuality is sin. The Bible also teaches we are all born into sin. So Lady Gaga is right, we are all born this way. But does that give us free reign to act on every impulse and urge? Most male urges are to copulate just about any woman with a pulse. But acting on this urge would most likely land you in jail and it wouldn't make for a very successful marriage. The same is true for the sin of homosexuality or alcoholism. Just because you have the urge, does not mean it is right. This is according to my religion. We live in a great country. You are free to behave as you wish as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I don't believe any Christian can pass judgement on any sinner. Jesus said let him who has no sin cast the first stone. The issues come when social and traditional lines are crossed, when activists attempt to force their beliefs down someone else's throat, to force acceptance of a practice they are taught is immoral. This is where the clash occurs. I don't have to agree with your lifestyle to be your friend. I really think it goes back to my paragraph above. Gay activists know it is a touchy subject. A high percentage of gay males could care less about being marriage. But they seek it to aggravate the religious people, to attack the religious sacrament of marriage. And you know what it really boils down to? Government operating outside their sphere. If they weren't giving away so much free stuff and tax breaks, no one would care if they called it a union or a marriage. Your dramatic statement that it is about physical safety and survival just doesn't hold any water and is not based in statistical reality. Thousands more Christians die from persecution worldwide than do homosexuals from hate crimes.
> 
> Dan Cathy said he supported traditional family values and he was attacked for his religious beliefs. Chik Fil A then issued a statement, but do you think that mattered to the a*ngry hate-filled activists*? From Dave Bohon (New American): The resulting national backlash from the homosexual activist community &#8212; which, among other actions, encouraged a boycott of Chick-fil-A restaurants &#8212; prompted the restaurant chain to remind the public that it exists to sell chicken sandwiches, not fight political battles. *In a July 19 statement the chain said that it would &#8220;leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena,&#8221; and that its restaurants would continue to focus on treating &#8220;every person with honor, dignity and respect &#8212; regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation, or gender.&#8221;*
> 
> Who are the real bullies? This guy is a real idiot and shows a complete total lack of understanding of the Christian religion. The liberal left is so stupid it makes me sick. When was the last time a bunch of Christians got together and hung some homosexuals?? Yet Diane Sawyer sings the praises of Muslims everywhere, and in the same breath promotes same sex marriage. Islam calls for the beheading of homosexuals and over 4,000 have been executed in Iran in the last 10 years. But ABC tells us we must be tolerant of Islam and same sex marriage in the same breath. The left is so foolish. Christianity teaches everyone has value in God's eyes. It teaches we are all sinners in need of a Savior and that applies to adulterers, fornicators, murderers and homosexuals. Anyone teaching anything else and calling it Christianity is a liar.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alXxsKLVofM]Dan Savage discusses bible at High School Journalism convention - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


What a bunch of hypocritical, blind christians leaving that talk. They can't take the truth about their own bible being full of shit. 

Homosexuals are trying to change the status quo because the status quo leaves nothing for them. Just like any groups throughout history that found themselves being repressed by society. As far as Christians being discriminated against or persecuted in this discussion, WHERE in todays world are christians being persecuted in large numbers, or are you just pulling this from your ass? Throughout history, Christians have done more persecuting than anybody. The inquisition ring a bell? The witchhunts? Please, don't cry me a river for Christians being persecuted. It is right there in your bible to kill those who don't follow Jesus:

Luke 19:27
"But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before." - Jesus... wow, what an asshole. 

1 Samuel 15
"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."- Yahweh 

Some god you have. Don't try to display christian morality as being even good. It's not. You're god is a monster, and nobody I would ever want to follow. He makes mistake after mistake which end in people being killed, as evidenced here. I don't want to here any more from you about this. You're a complete imbecile as far as I am concerned, because you are completely blind to your own ignorance and hate. I believe this is because you are forced to believe in  a bible that is highly flawed in order to keep your faith. How sad. 

As for the fact that there are only a few christians who are against gays or vocalize, so what? It is written in the bible that homosexuality is wrong. It's not like these people are making this up, they are just taking the bible more seriously, beacuse that is actually what it says!

I swear, religion is the most absurd notion.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, even if you don't believe in Christianity, don't fall for *Holly's lies regarding our nation's history*. Nothing she posts can be counted on to be reliable due to her hate agenda. More REAL history from the Library of Congress...
> 
> "It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, *Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives.* Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. *The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.*"
> 
> Religion and the Federal Government, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im actually delighted you cut and pasted what you did because it displays in clear terms your frightful ignorance.
> 
> The United States of America is not a Christian country or state. The writers of the Constitution said, very wisely, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, there will be no state church (such as the Church of England), but the people may worship according to their wishes, anytime and anywhere.
> 
> That is precisely why you will not see a signature or some record wherein god is noted in the Continental Congress as ratifying the Constitution.
> 
> Let's look at what the Constitution says:
> "Amendment I
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."_
> 
> Seek the words "God", Almighty Lord" or "Big Cheese" or whatever-- you will not find it in the wording of the law. Why? Because it is impermissible.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Abraham Lincoln or B. Hussein making a speech _is free speech_ and therefore they-- like any other president, can make any appeals to deities as they want.
> 
> Church services, whether held in the White House or in the Capital building is free speech.
> 
> Ignorance is not a virtue, my little wannabe.
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
> 
> _SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
> by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short_
Click to expand...


Are you referring to the Continental Congress that got down on their knees and asked God for direction before conducting business?

I bet they prayed for wisdom, because they made sure that their beliefs were not forced on anyone that wanted to worship in a different fashion.  It was a personal freedom ideal, not a religious one.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, even if you don't believe in Christianity, don't fall for *Holly's lies regarding our nation's history*. Nothing she posts can be counted on to be reliable due to her hate agenda. More REAL history from the Library of Congress...
> 
> "It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, *Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives.* Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. *The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.*"
> 
> Religion and the Federal Government, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im actually delighted you cut and pasted what you did because it displays in clear terms your frightful ignorance.
> 
> The United States of America is not a Christian country or state. The writers of the Constitution said, very wisely, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, there will be no state church (such as the Church of England), but the people may worship according to their wishes, anytime and anywhere.
> 
> That is precisely why you will not see a signature or some record wherein god is noted in the Continental Congress as ratifying the Constitution.
> 
> Let's look at what the Constitution says:
> "Amendment I
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."_
> 
> Seek the words "God", Almighty Lord" or "Big Cheese" or whatever-- you will not find it in the wording of the law. Why? Because it is impermissible.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Abraham Lincoln or B. Hussein making a speech _is free speech_ and therefore they-- like any other president, can make any appeals to deities as they want.
> 
> Church services, whether held in the White House or in the Capital building is free speech.
> 
> Ignorance is not a virtue, my little wannabe.
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
> 
> _SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
> by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short_
Click to expand...


I guess willful ignorance is bliss. I already disproved this Jefferson quote as a fundie atheist lie. But feel free to keep re posting it until someone actually believes it. 

Nice try on the rebuttal. You didn't mention any of the false quotes you posted from your fundie atheist websites. All you did was state what we all already know about history and the first Amendment. 

And while you are on the free speech kick, what about Dan Cathy's comments about supporting traditional marriage, between a man and a woman?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> What a bunch of hypocritical, blind christians leaving that talk. They can't take the truth about their own bible being full of shit.



I get it. You preach tolerance as long as it is for someone you share the same beliefs with. Do you not see a problem with that?



newpolitics said:


> Homosexuals are trying to change the status quo because the status quo leaves nothing for them. Just like any groups throughout history that found themselves being repressed by society. As far as Christians being discriminated against or persecuted in this discussion, WHERE in todays world are christians being persecuted in large numbers, or are you just pulling this from your ass?



Actually, I know quite of few VERY SUCCESSFUL homosexual men that lead fulfilling lives mostly free from anything more than an occasional stare, especially if they live in areas where homosexuality is widely accepted and Christians are persecuted. 

Actually, Christians ARE SITLL being killed throughout the world. I'm trying to show you grace but this is really an ignorant statement and shows you don't follow current events or study much history.



newpolitics said:


> Throughout history, Christians have done more persecuting than anybody. The inquisition ring a bell? The witchhunts?


 When does exaggeration become a lie?



newpolitics said:


> Please, don't cry me a river for Christians being persecuted. It is right there in your bible to kill those who don't follow Jesus:
> 
> Luke 19:27
> "But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before." -



Have you taken to Holly's mis quotes? Are you really putting this verse up as evidence? Jesus was telling a story about a king who entrusted 3 servants with some money. The last line is a quote of the king in the story. So what I am hearing is you could care less about Christians dying for their beliefs but you want fair treatment for your lifestyle choice????

*
The Parable of the Ten Minas*

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: A* man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king* and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] Put this money to work, he said, until I come back.



newpolitics said:


> I don't want to here any more from you about this.



Then I suggest you don't frequent this forum. I will not be silenced but will continue to exercise my God-given right to free speech. I actually know quite a few homosexuals. One is friend of mine from high school who is now a Dr. at Stanford University. He doesn't get aggravated at other opinions of him because he is finally confident with the choice he has made. Typically it is the homosexuals that are still struggling with guilt and shame that lash out like you just did. If you really don't have a choice, why do you feel so much guilt??? I will tell you that forcing others to accept you through legislation or political correctness will not alleviate you of the shame you feel. That comes from the God you hate so much and what you know to be true in your conscience. We can see God's design in nature and infer that inserting your penis into another mans anus is not the intent of the design and can actually be dangerous, since feces can cause infections when coming in contact with genitals. This act cannot result in survival of the species.



newpolitics said:


> As for the fact that there are only a few Christians who are against gays or vocalize, so what? It is written in the bible that homosexuality is wrong. It's not like these people are making this up, they are just taking the bible more seriously, because that is actually what it says!



Christ taught us to love. There is no condemnation in Christ. If anyone hates homosexuals because of the Bible, they are twisting Christianity. All I have stated is that homosexual behavior is sin. I said nothing about hating people who are struggling with that sin. The Bible clearly teaches that Christ died for all sinners and that we are to love and minister to all, even the unlovable. Last Sunday, our church actually prayed for not just he victims of he Batman shootings, but for the shooter and his family. It should be every Christians hope that all come to Christ. That doesn't mean that the shooter still won't have to face earthly justice, but our prayer was that he finds God and his love. 

I just don't think anyone likes being told what they are doing is wrong or sin. We all struggle with different sins but the movement in recent years is to blame genetics for being gay. This takes away the persons freedom to choose to overcome their sin. 

Please don't mistake my words of declaring homosexuality as being immoral as hating the person trapped in it.


----------



## Montrovant

Well, this thread has gone completely off the rails now.  I'm going to unsubscribe; it's been fun!


----------



## UltimateReality

Montrovant said:


> Well, this thread has gone completely off the rails now.  I'm going to unsubscribe; it's been fun!



Peace. Hope you continue your search for truth. While you may think the thread was derailed, genetic determinism and lack of free will are tenants of TOE philosophy. The most dehumanizing thing about evolutionary thought is that it boils us down to organisms just reacting to stimulus, powerless to behave any other way that what our genes have determined. This is a hopeless way to live. Just remember, no matter what you are struggling with, you always have a choice. Don't believe the lie that you have to accept the card dealt to you. 

I think I am pretty much done too. I really had hope folks were actually visiting here to engage in a healthy exchange of ideas. What it has really turned out to be is avenue for atheist to spew hate at Christians, to put down our beliefs, and poke fun at our traditions, all the while pretending to be interested in science. No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here. It is really just a huge waste of time.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this thread has gone completely off the rails now.  I'm going to unsubscribe; it's been fun!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peace. Hope you continue your search for truth. While you may think the thread was derailed, genetic determinism and lack of free will are tenants of TOE philosophy. The most dehumanizing thing about evolutionary thought is that it boils us down to organisms just reacting to stimulus, powerless to behave any other way that what our genes have determined. This is a hopeless way to live. Just remember, no matter what you are struggling with, you always have a choice. Don't believe the lie that you have to accept the card dealt to you.
> 
> I think I am pretty much done too. I really had hope folks were actually visiting here to engage in a healthy exchange of ideas. What it has really turned out to be is avenue for atheist to spew hate at Christians, to put down our beliefs, and poke fun at our traditions, all the while pretending to be interested in science. No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here. It is really just a huge waste of time.
Click to expand...


Oh you poor dear. On the one hand you want an exchange of ideas yet that is precisely what you dont want. Youre incensed that others dont simply roll over and accept your cutting and pasting of falsified quotes from creationist ministries. Your revulsion for science and is palpable as is your revulsion for anyone who doesnt accept your claims to the supernatural. 

Notice the fundie language: "No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here".

Of course, it's only possible for the creationist ministries to hold the "real truth". This, in spite of fundie "truth" being acceptance of false claims, manufactured data and acceptance of unsupported and unsupportable claims to supermagical, supernatural "gods".

These forums, my dear, are not your personal vehicle for proselytizing.   


Its just a shame that you need dogma and creationist ministry lies to support your specious claims to gods, a 6,000 year old earth and hatred for the biological sciences that disprove your claims to the supernatural.

It is in the supernatural design arguments that the fundie creationist  worldview shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of the creationist ministries the formula stated below: 
A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion

B. Posit the gods as the explanation of your assertion

C. Exempt the gods from "A"

In discussing the argument of god and design with creationists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatant in its falsehood.

The creationist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

The first error the theist makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the designer exhibits design as well? Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.

Usually the creationist will reply that the gods, being the designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates, else how can he create the laws in the first place? The answer to that is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it? For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature. Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.

 We know, for instance, that the moon affects the tides. We can see in our local solar system how large bodies affect smaller bodies, as in the series of asteroids that impacted on Jupiter in 1997 (Shoemaker-Levy). Even as far off as we can see, that is, through the Hubble telescope, we can see that gravity remains constant, blindly and relentlessly obeying its own law. Since we know the distant stars are billions of light years away, we can state with assurance that the laws of gravity are equal in their self-adherence from the distant past (before the Earth had even been formed from dust and matter) right on through the present.

Now compare that to the gods model. Where lies the mountain of evidence, and where lies the specious assertion?

In answer to the claim that god is outside of the laws he creates, one could just as easily postulate that god may very well have created the laws initially, but is now long since dead, his purpose over with, or that there is the aforementioned "pyramid" of gods. Since the creationist simply asserts and cannot match the sheer weight of evidence contrary to his claims, he falls immediately into irrationality wherein any claim asserted can carry equal weight as the one he proposes.


----------



## daws101

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, even if you don't believe in Christianity, don't fall for *Holly's lies regarding our nation's history*. Nothing she posts can be counted on to be reliable due to her hate agenda. More REAL history from the Library of Congress...
> 
> "It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, *Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives.* Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. *The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.*"
> 
> Religion and the Federal Government, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im actually delighted you cut and pasted what you did because it displays in clear terms your frightful ignorance.
> 
> The United States of America is not a Christian country or state. The writers of the Constitution said, very wisely, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, there will be no state church (such as the Church of England), but the people may worship according to their wishes, anytime and anywhere.
> 
> That is precisely why you will not see a signature or some record wherein god is noted in the Continental Congress as ratifying the Constitution.
> 
> Let's look at what the Constitution says:
> "Amendment I
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."_
> 
> Seek the words "God", Almighty Lord" or "Big Cheese" or whatever-- you will not find it in the wording of the law. Why? Because it is impermissible.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Abraham Lincoln or B. Hussein making a speech _is free speech_ and therefore they-- like any other president, can make any appeals to deities as they want.
> 
> Church services, whether held in the White House or in the Capital building is free speech.
> 
> Ignorance is not a virtue, my little wannabe.
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
> 
> _SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
> by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you referring to the Continental Congress that got down on their knees and asked God for direction before conducting business?
> 
> I bet they prayed for wisdom, because they made sure that their beliefs were not forced on anyone that wanted to worship in a different fashion.  It was a personal freedom ideal, not a religious one.
Click to expand...

just a touch dramatic ! and wrong, other than in church public prayer was frowned upon ,not because of any anti  Christian sentiment but because it was considered bad form...


----------



## The Irish Ram

First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774

 O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle! 

Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.

As for form, it was conducted on their knees.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this thread has gone completely off the rails now.  I'm going to unsubscribe; it's been fun!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peace. Hope you continue your search for truth. While you may think the thread was derailed, genetic determinism and lack of free will are tenants of TOE philosophy. The most dehumanizing thing about evolutionary thought is that it boils us down to organisms just reacting to stimulus, powerless to behave any other way that what our genes have determined. This is a hopeless way to live. Just remember, no matter what you are struggling with, you always have a choice. Don't believe the lie that you have to accept the card dealt to you.
> 
> I think I am pretty much done too. I really had hope folks were actually visiting here to engage in a healthy exchange of ideas. What it has really turned out to be is avenue for atheist to spew hate at Christians, to put down our beliefs, and poke fun at our traditions, all the while pretending to be interested in science. No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here. It is really just a huge waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. On the one hand you want an exchange of ideas yet that is precisely what you don&#8217;t want. You&#8217;re incensed that others don&#8217;t simply roll over and accept your cutting and pasting of falsified &#8220;quotes&#8221; from creationist ministries. Your revulsion for science and is palpable as is your revulsion for anyone who doesn&#8217;t accept your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> Notice the fundie language: "No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here".
> 
> Of course, it's only possible for the creationist ministries to hold the "real truth". This, in spite of fundie "truth" being acceptance of false claims, manufactured data and acceptance of unsupported and unsupportable claims to supermagical, supernatural "gods".
> 
> These forums, my dear, are not your personal vehicle for proselytizing.
> 
> 
> It&#8217;s just a shame that you need dogma and creationist ministry lies to support your specious claims to gods, a 6,000 year old earth and hatred for the biological sciences that disprove your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> It is in the supernatural &#8220;design&#8221; arguments that the fundie creationist  worldview shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of the creationist ministries the formula stated below:
> A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion
> 
> B. Posit the gods as the explanation of your assertion
> 
> C. Exempt the gods from "A"
> 
> In discussing the argument of god and design with creationists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatant in it&#8217;s falsehood.
> 
> The creationist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.
> 
> The first error the theist makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the designer exhibits design as well? Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.
> 
> Usually the creationist will reply that the gods, being the designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates, else how can he create the laws in the first place? The answer to that is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it? For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature. Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.
> 
> We know, for instance, that the moon affects the tides. We can see in our local solar system how large bodies affect smaller bodies, as in the series of asteroids that impacted on Jupiter in 1997 (Shoemaker-Levy). Even as far off as we can see, that is, through the Hubble telescope, we can see that gravity remains constant, blindly and relentlessly obeying its own law. Since we know the distant stars are billions of light years away, we can state with assurance that the laws of gravity are equal in their self-adherence from the distant past (before the Earth had even been formed from dust and matter) right on through the present.
> 
> Now compare that to the gods model. Where lies the mountain of evidence, and where lies the specious assertion?
> 
> In answer to the claim that god is outside of the laws he creates, one could just as easily postulate that god may very well have created the laws initially, but is now long since dead, his purpose over with, or that there is the aforementioned "pyramid" of gods. Since the creationist simply asserts and cannot match the sheer weight of evidence contrary to his claims, he falls immediately into irrationality wherein any claim asserted can carry equal weight as the one he proposes.
Click to expand...


Always with the condescending comments you poor dear. Your argument is has been addressed here before but since you just ignore anything that interferes with your HATE, I will present the rebuttal again for the nth time. 

God is not part of the creation anymore than you would be part of an Ant Farm in a glass case in your bedroom so your argument about men being subject to the laws they created is flawed and not applicable to this discussion. God is not subject to time or gravity so move on. 

God is not designed because he has always existed. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. The worldview you are referring to is pantheism, not theism. Please Holly, educate yourself a bit before you come on here spewing 3rd grader arguments. Worldviews can be separated into four camps. Deism, Theism, Materialism, and Pantheism. Go look it up and stop posting up stupid fundie atheistic arguments that have long since been refuted.

Before you scream how can something be eternal in the past and eternal in the future, please note this was a concept science and Einstein were all too familiar with before the Big Bang evidence blew the "always existing universe" theory out of the water.

God has always been and will always be. No one created him because the big point your flawed argument is missing is that *God did not have a beginning!!!* The causal argument you have fallaciously proposed is only applicable to things that have a beginning.

Now here is where you go off about cutting and pasting and creationist websites and never really address the points I have presented to your fundie cut and paste argument above. You have shown time and again you can't think for yourself and can only regurgitate atheist HATE and Christian discrimination.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peace. Hope you continue your search for truth. While you may think the thread was derailed, genetic determinism and lack of free will are tenants of TOE philosophy. The most dehumanizing thing about evolutionary thought is that it boils us down to organisms just reacting to stimulus, powerless to behave any other way that what our genes have determined. This is a hopeless way to live. Just remember, no matter what you are struggling with, you always have a choice. Don't believe the lie that you have to accept the card dealt to you.
> 
> I think I am pretty much done too. I really had hope folks were actually visiting here to engage in a healthy exchange of ideas. What it has really turned out to be is avenue for atheist to spew hate at Christians, to put down our beliefs, and poke fun at our traditions, all the while pretending to be interested in science. No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here. It is really just a huge waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. On the one hand you want an exchange of ideas yet that is precisely what you dont want. Youre incensed that others dont simply roll over and accept your cutting and pasting of falsified quotes from creationist ministries. Your revulsion for science and is palpable as is your revulsion for anyone who doesnt accept your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> Notice the fundie language: "No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here".
> 
> Of course, it's only possible for the creationist ministries to hold the "real truth". This, in spite of fundie "truth" being acceptance of false claims, manufactured data and acceptance of unsupported and unsupportable claims to supermagical, supernatural "gods".
> 
> These forums, my dear, are not your personal vehicle for proselytizing.
> 
> 
> Its just a shame that you need dogma and creationist ministry lies to support your specious claims to gods, a 6,000 year old earth and hatred for the biological sciences that disprove your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> It is in the supernatural design arguments that the fundie creationist  worldview shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of the creationist ministries the formula stated below:
> A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion
> 
> B. Posit the gods as the explanation of your assertion
> 
> C. Exempt the gods from "A"
> 
> In discussing the argument of god and design with creationists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatant in its falsehood.
> 
> The creationist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.
> 
> The first error the theist makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the designer exhibits design as well? Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.
> 
> Usually the creationist will reply that the gods, being the designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates, else how can he create the laws in the first place? The answer to that is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it? For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature. Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.
> 
> We know, for instance, that the moon affects the tides. We can see in our local solar system how large bodies affect smaller bodies, as in the series of asteroids that impacted on Jupiter in 1997 (Shoemaker-Levy). Even as far off as we can see, that is, through the Hubble telescope, we can see that gravity remains constant, blindly and relentlessly obeying its own law. Since we know the distant stars are billions of light years away, we can state with assurance that the laws of gravity are equal in their self-adherence from the distant past (before the Earth had even been formed from dust and matter) right on through the present.
> 
> Now compare that to the gods model. Where lies the mountain of evidence, and where lies the specious assertion?
> 
> In answer to the claim that god is outside of the laws he creates, one could just as easily postulate that god may very well have created the laws initially, but is now long since dead, his purpose over with, or that there is the aforementioned "pyramid" of gods. Since the creationist simply asserts and cannot match the sheer weight of evidence contrary to his claims, he falls immediately into irrationality wherein any claim asserted can carry equal weight as the one he proposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always with the condescending comments you poor dear. Your argument is has been addressed here before but since you just ignore anything that interferes with your HATE, I will present the rebuttal again for the nth time.
> 
> God is not part of the creation anymore than you would be part of an Ant Farm in a glass case in your bedroom so your argument about men being subject to the laws they created is flawed and not applicable to this discussion. God is not subject to time or gravity so move on.
> 
> God is not designed because he has always existed. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. The worldview you are referring to is pantheism, not theism. Please Holly, educate yourself a bit before you come on here spewing 3rd grader arguments. Worldviews can be separated into four camps. Deism, Theism, Materialism, and Pantheism. Go look it up and stop posting up stupid fundie atheistic arguments that have long since been refuted.
> 
> Before you scream how can something be eternal in the past and eternal in the future, please note this was a concept science and Einstein were all too familiar with before the Big Bang evidence blew the "always existing universe" theory out of the water.
> 
> God has always been and will always be. No one created him because the big point your flawed argument is missing is that *God did not have a beginning!!!* The causal argument you have fallaciously proposed is only applicable to things that have a beginning.
> 
> Now here is where you go off about cutting and pasting and creationist websites and never really address the points I have presented to your fundie cut and paste argument above. You have shown time and again you can't think for yourself and can only regurgitate atheist HATE and Christian discrimination.
Click to expand...


*God did not have a beginning!!!* *because I say so!*


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I&#8217;m actually delighted you cut and pasted what you did because it displays in clear terms your frightful ignorance.
> 
> The United States of America is not a Christian country or state. The writers of the Constitution said, very wisely, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, there will be no state church (such as the Church of England), but the people may worship according to their wishes, anytime and anywhere.
> 
> That is precisely why you will not see a signature or some record wherein god is noted in the Continental Congress as ratifying the Constitution.
> 
> Let's look at what the Constitution says:
> "Amendment I
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."_
> 
> Seek the words "God", &#8220;Almighty Lord" or "Big Cheese" or whatever-- you will not find it in the wording of the law. Why? Because it is impermissible.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Abraham Lincoln or B. Hussein making a speech _is free speech_ and therefore they-- like any other president, can make any appeals to deities as they want.
> 
> Church services, whether held in the White House or in the Capital building is free speech.
> 
> Ignorance is not a virtue, my little wannabe.
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
> 
> _SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
> by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to the Continental Congress that got down on their knees and asked God for direction before conducting business?
> 
> I bet they prayed for wisdom, because they made sure that their beliefs were not forced on anyone that wanted to worship in a different fashion.  It was a personal freedom ideal, not a religious one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just a touch dramatic ! and wrong, other than in church public prayer was frowned upon ,not because of any anti  Christian sentiment but because it was considered bad form...
Click to expand...


Would you be talking about the public prayer done in Congress before they start their business? So are you saying the House of Representatives is still a church??

Historical Revisionism is obviously working because the shocking ignorance of our government displayed on this website. 

Daws, here's a little bad form for you. Ha!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R99pm0jtwDo]Kentucky Pastor Delivers Congressional Prayer - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

The Irish Ram said:


> First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774



Theres nothing inconsistent with the constitution as was already pointed out.

Let's look (again) at what the Constitution says:
"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

If you read the constitution drafted by the same men attending the first congress, you will notice that they explicitly excluded any reference to hey-zeus H. Christ or any other specific Deity.

The FFs knew that religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards themselves and poorly disposed towards competitive beliefs systems. We don't have to assume the FFs intent -- even if they were Christians (and some of them were), the intent is clear: the state is precluded from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Hence, the First Amendment.


"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
_-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814_


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. On the one hand you want an exchange of ideas yet that is precisely what you dont want. Youre incensed that others dont simply roll over and accept your cutting and pasting of falsified quotes from creationist ministries. Your revulsion for science and is palpable as is your revulsion for anyone who doesnt accept your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> Notice the fundie language: "No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here".
> 
> Of course, it's only possible for the creationist ministries to hold the "real truth". This, in spite of fundie "truth" being acceptance of false claims, manufactured data and acceptance of unsupported and unsupportable claims to supermagical, supernatural "gods".
> 
> These forums, my dear, are not your personal vehicle for proselytizing.
> 
> 
> Its just a shame that you need dogma and creationist ministry lies to support your specious claims to gods, a 6,000 year old earth and hatred for the biological sciences that disprove your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> It is in the supernatural design arguments that the fundie creationist  worldview shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of the creationist ministries the formula stated below:
> A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion
> 
> B. Posit the gods as the explanation of your assertion
> 
> C. Exempt the gods from "A"
> 
> In discussing the argument of god and design with creationists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatant in its falsehood.
> 
> The creationist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.
> 
> The first error the theist makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the designer exhibits design as well? Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.
> 
> Usually the creationist will reply that the gods, being the designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates, else how can he create the laws in the first place? The answer to that is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it? For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature. Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.
> 
> We know, for instance, that the moon affects the tides. We can see in our local solar system how large bodies affect smaller bodies, as in the series of asteroids that impacted on Jupiter in 1997 (Shoemaker-Levy). Even as far off as we can see, that is, through the Hubble telescope, we can see that gravity remains constant, blindly and relentlessly obeying its own law. Since we know the distant stars are billions of light years away, we can state with assurance that the laws of gravity are equal in their self-adherence from the distant past (before the Earth had even been formed from dust and matter) right on through the present.
> 
> Now compare that to the gods model. Where lies the mountain of evidence, and where lies the specious assertion?
> 
> In answer to the claim that god is outside of the laws he creates, one could just as easily postulate that god may very well have created the laws initially, but is now long since dead, his purpose over with, or that there is the aforementioned "pyramid" of gods. Since the creationist simply asserts and cannot match the sheer weight of evidence contrary to his claims, he falls immediately into irrationality wherein any claim asserted can carry equal weight as the one he proposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always with the condescending comments you poor dear. Your argument is has been addressed here before but since you just ignore anything that interferes with your HATE, I will present the rebuttal again for the nth time.
> 
> God is not part of the creation anymore than you would be part of an Ant Farm in a glass case in your bedroom so your argument about men being subject to the laws they created is flawed and not applicable to this discussion. God is not subject to time or gravity so move on.
> 
> God is not designed because he has always existed. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. The worldview you are referring to is pantheism, not theism. Please Holly, educate yourself a bit before you come on here spewing 3rd grader arguments. Worldviews can be separated into four camps. Deism, Theism, Materialism, and Pantheism. Go look it up and stop posting up stupid fundie atheistic arguments that have long since been refuted.
> 
> Before you scream how can something be eternal in the past and eternal in the future, please note this was a concept science and Einstein were all too familiar with before the Big Bang evidence blew the "always existing universe" theory out of the water.
> 
> God has always been and will always be. No one created him because the big point your flawed argument is missing is that *God did not have a beginning!!!* The causal argument you have fallaciously proposed is only applicable to things that have a beginning.
> 
> Now here is where you go off about cutting and pasting and creationist websites and never really address the points I have presented to your fundie cut and paste argument above. You have shown time and again you can't think for yourself and can only regurgitate atheist HATE and Christian discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *God did not have a beginning!!!* *because I say so!*
Click to expand...


And there's the rebuttal. So predictable. I would love to see you in a live debate. Without the ability to cut and paste, you would be frozen with terror.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to the Continental Congress that got down on their knees and asked God for direction before conducting business?
> 
> I bet they prayed for wisdom, because they made sure that their beliefs were not forced on anyone that wanted to worship in a different fashion.  It was a personal freedom ideal, not a religious one.
> 
> 
> 
> just a touch dramatic ! and wrong, other than in church public prayer was frowned upon ,not because of any anti  Christian sentiment but because it was considered bad form...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you be talking about the public prayer done in Congress before they start their business? So are you saying the House of Representatives is still a church??
> 
> Historical Revisionism is obviously working because the shocking ignorance of our government displayed on this website.
> 
> Daws, here's a little bad form for you. Ha!!!
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R99pm0jtwDo]Kentucky Pastor Delivers Congressional Prayer - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Free speech. What don't you understand regarding that topic?

Hey-zeus H. Christ but I'm glad for the constitution as it protects me from christian fundies who would force their beliefs on others.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. On the one hand you want an exchange of ideas yet that is precisely what you dont want. Youre incensed that others dont simply roll over and accept your cutting and pasting of falsified quotes from creationist ministries. Your revulsion for science and is palpable as is your revulsion for anyone who doesnt accept your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> Notice the fundie language: "No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here".
> 
> Of course, it's only possible for the creationist ministries to hold the "real truth". This, in spite of fundie "truth" being acceptance of false claims, manufactured data and acceptance of unsupported and unsupportable claims to supermagical, supernatural "gods".
> 
> These forums, my dear, are not your personal vehicle for proselytizing.
> 
> 
> Its just a shame that you need dogma and creationist ministry lies to support your specious claims to gods, a 6,000 year old earth and hatred for the biological sciences that disprove your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> It is in the supernatural design arguments that the fundie creationist  worldview shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of the creationist ministries the formula stated below:
> A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion
> 
> B. Posit the gods as the explanation of your assertion
> 
> C. Exempt the gods from "A"
> 
> In discussing the argument of god and design with creationists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatant in its falsehood.
> 
> The creationist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.
> 
> The first error the theist makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the designer exhibits design as well? Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.
> 
> Usually the creationist will reply that the gods, being the designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates, else how can he create the laws in the first place? The answer to that is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it? For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature. Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.
> 
> We know, for instance, that the moon affects the tides. We can see in our local solar system how large bodies affect smaller bodies, as in the series of asteroids that impacted on Jupiter in 1997 (Shoemaker-Levy). Even as far off as we can see, that is, through the Hubble telescope, we can see that gravity remains constant, blindly and relentlessly obeying its own law. Since we know the distant stars are billions of light years away, we can state with assurance that the laws of gravity are equal in their self-adherence from the distant past (before the Earth had even been formed from dust and matter) right on through the present.
> 
> Now compare that to the gods model. Where lies the mountain of evidence, and where lies the specious assertion?
> 
> In answer to the claim that god is outside of the laws he creates, one could just as easily postulate that god may very well have created the laws initially, but is now long since dead, his purpose over with, or that there is the aforementioned "pyramid" of gods. Since the creationist simply asserts and cannot match the sheer weight of evidence contrary to his claims, he falls immediately into irrationality wherein any claim asserted can carry equal weight as the one he proposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always with the condescending comments you poor dear. Your argument is has been addressed here before but since you just ignore anything that interferes with your HATE, I will present the rebuttal again for the nth time.
> 
> God is not part of the creation anymore than you would be part of an Ant Farm in a glass case in your bedroom so your argument about men being subject to the laws they created is flawed and not applicable to this discussion. God is not subject to time or gravity so move on.
> 
> God is not designed because he has always existed. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. The worldview you are referring to is pantheism, not theism. Please Holly, educate yourself a bit before you come on here spewing 3rd grader arguments. Worldviews can be separated into four camps. Deism, Theism, Materialism, and Pantheism. Go look it up and stop posting up stupid fundie atheistic arguments that have long since been refuted.
> 
> Before you scream how can something be eternal in the past and eternal in the future, please note this was a concept science and Einstein were all too familiar with before the Big Bang evidence blew the "always existing universe" theory out of the water.
> 
> God has always been and will always be. No one created him because the big point your flawed argument is missing is that *God did not have a beginning!!!* The causal argument you have fallaciously proposed is only applicable to things that have a beginning.
> 
> Now here is where you go off about cutting and pasting and creationist websites and never really address the points I have presented to your fundie cut and paste argument above. You have shown time and again you can't think for yourself and can only regurgitate atheist HATE and Christian discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *God did not have a beginning!!!* *because I say so!*
Click to expand...


Your sarcasm is implying you don't require faith to believe in the theory of evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> just a touch dramatic ! and wrong, other than in church public prayer was frowned upon ,not because of any anti  Christian sentiment but because it was considered bad form...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be talking about the public prayer done in Congress before they start their business? So are you saying the House of Representatives is still a church??
> 
> Historical Revisionism is obviously working because the shocking ignorance of our government displayed on this website.
> 
> Daws, here's a little bad form for you. Ha!!!
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R99pm0jtwDo]Kentucky Pastor Delivers Congressional Prayer - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free speech. What don't you understand regarding that topic?
> 
> Hey-zeus H. Christ but I'm glad for the constitution as it protects me from christian fundies who would force their beliefs on others.
Click to expand...


Paranoia will destroy ya


----------



## UltimateReality

Regarding your "because I say so" comment. I didn't say it but thousands of theologians for the last 3000 or 4000 years have said it. It is part of our doctrine on God and the Bible clearly teaches this. You are presenting an argument against someone or something you say does not exist. That is REAL intelligent. But at least if you are going to punch at the air, you should argue against the commonly held beliefs of the Christians you hate some much instead of building up a strawman you can tear down. 

Please re-present your argument with the commonly held Christian beliefs that God has always existed and will always exist. And that he is outside the Creation (Theism) and exists outside of time, matter, space, and energy, all of which did not exist before the Big Bangenstein.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theres nothing inconsistent with the constitution as was already pointed out.
> 
> Let's look (again) at what the Constitution says:
> "Amendment I
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
> 
> If you read the constitution drafted by the same men attending the first congress, you will notice that they explicitly excluded any reference to hey-zeus H. Christ or any other specific Deity.
> 
> The FFs knew that religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards themselves and poorly disposed towards competitive beliefs systems. We don't have to assume the FFs intent -- even if they were Christians (and some of them were), the intent is clear: the state is precluded from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Hence, the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> "The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
> _-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814_
Click to expand...



And again:
I bet they prayed for wisdom, because they made sure that their beliefs were not forced on anyone that wanted to worship in a different fashion. It was a personal freedom ideal, not a religious one.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> just a touch dramatic ! and wrong, other than in church public prayer was frowned upon ,not because of any anti  Christian sentiment but because it was considered bad form...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be talking about the public prayer done in Congress before they start their business? So are you saying the House of Representatives is still a church??
> 
> Historical Revisionism is obviously working because the shocking ignorance of our government displayed on this website.
> 
> Daws, here's a little bad form for you. Ha!!!
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R99pm0jtwDo]Kentucky Pastor Delivers Congressional Prayer - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free speech. What don't you understand regarding that topic?
Click to expand...


Holly, your reading comprehension skills suck!!! I was responding to Daws comment that public prayer was only appropriate for church. Guess you must have missed that, along with just about every other post you mindlessly respond to.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be talking about the public prayer done in Congress before they start their business? So are you saying the House of Representatives is still a church??
> 
> Historical Revisionism is obviously working because the shocking ignorance of our government displayed on this website.
> 
> Daws, here's a little bad form for you. Ha!!!
> 
> Kentucky Pastor Delivers Congressional Prayer - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free speech. What don't you understand regarding that topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holly, your reading comprehension skills suck!!! I was responding to Daws comment that public prayer was only appropriate for church. Guess you must have missed that, along with just about every other post you mindlessly respond to.
Click to expand...


You poor, dear.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Hollie, do you understand the difference between having a religious faith,  and not forcing that religion on any one else?  The constitution was penned by men of faith, who wanted to make sure that in this new nation no one could  be forced into a government religion as they were in England.  That we would be free of that, was the intent.


----------



## Hollie

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie, do you understand the difference between having a religious faith,  and not forcing that religion on any one else?  The constitution was penned by men of faith, who wanted to make sure that in this new nation no one could  be forced into a government religion as they were in England.  That we would be free of that, was the intent.



False. The constitution was penned by _some_ men of faith and some men of _no faith_.

And yes, I written repeatedly that the FF's used language in the constitution that provided for freedom *from* religion.

You're preaching to the choir - confirming what I've already written.

So what's your point?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, do you understand the difference between having a religious faith,  and not forcing that religion on any one else?  The constitution was penned by men of faith, who wanted to make sure that in this new nation no one could  be forced into a government religion as they were in England.  That we would be free of that, was the intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. The constitution was penned by _some_ men of faith and some men of _no faith_.
> 
> And yes, I written repeatedly that the FF's used language in the constitution that provided for freedom *from* religion.
> 
> You're preaching to the choir - confirming what I've already written.
> 
> So what's your point?
Click to expand...


I wonder why the constitution don't proctect Christians from having others people Ideologies forced on us,hmm.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, do you understand the difference between having a religious faith,  and not forcing that religion on any one else?  The constitution was penned by men of faith, who wanted to make sure that in this new nation no one could  be forced into a government religion as they were in England.  That we would be free of that, was the intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. The constitution was penned by _some_ men of faith and some men of _no faith_.
> 
> And yes, I written repeatedly that the FF's used language in the constitution that provided for freedom *from* religion.
> 
> You're preaching to the choir - confirming what I've already written.
> 
> So what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder why the constitution don't proctect Christians from having others people Ideologies forced on us,hmm.
Click to expand...

Because you're an insufferable cry baby.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. The constitution was penned by _some_ men of faith and some men of _no faith_.
> 
> And yes, I written repeatedly that the FF's used language in the constitution that provided for freedom *from* religion.
> 
> You're preaching to the choir - confirming what I've already written.
> 
> So what's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why the constitution don't proctect Christians from having others people Ideologies forced on us,hmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you're an insufferable cry baby.
Click to expand...


Really


----------



## The Irish Ram

We have freedom OF religion, and /or from religion.  According to the constitution, I can  have the kind of faith I choose without recrimination from our gov..  
It does NOT mean that I can no longer wear a cross around my neck for fear of offending someone.< that is "politically correct"/tyranny.
 I can wear my cross, Achmed can preach the Koran, Mary can pray with beads, atheists can shout, "God is dead", and the government shall not interfere. 
 Freedom for OR against=American freedom.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peace. Hope you continue your search for truth. While you may think the thread was derailed, genetic determinism and lack of free will are tenants of TOE philosophy. The most dehumanizing thing about evolutionary thought is that it boils us down to organisms just reacting to stimulus, powerless to behave any other way that what our genes have determined. This is a hopeless way to live. Just remember, no matter what you are struggling with, you always have a choice. Don't believe the lie that you have to accept the card dealt to you.
> 
> I think I am pretty much done too. I really had hope folks were actually visiting here to engage in a healthy exchange of ideas. What it has really turned out to be is avenue for atheist to spew hate at Christians, to put down our beliefs, and poke fun at our traditions, all the while pretending to be interested in science. No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here. It is really just a huge waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. On the one hand you want an exchange of ideas yet that is precisely what you dont want. Youre incensed that others dont simply roll over and accept your cutting and pasting of falsified quotes from creationist ministries. Your revulsion for science and is palpable as is your revulsion for anyone who doesnt accept your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> Notice the fundie language: "No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here".
> 
> Of course, it's only possible for the creationist ministries to hold the "real truth". This, in spite of fundie "truth" being acceptance of false claims, manufactured data and acceptance of unsupported and unsupportable claims to supermagical, supernatural "gods".
> 
> These forums, my dear, are not your personal vehicle for proselytizing.
> 
> 
> Its just a shame that you need dogma and creationist ministry lies to support your specious claims to gods, a 6,000 year old earth and hatred for the biological sciences that disprove your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> It is in the supernatural design arguments that the fundie creationist  worldview shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of the creationist ministries the formula stated below:
> A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion
> 
> B. Posit the gods as the explanation of your assertion
> 
> C. Exempt the gods from "A"
> 
> In discussing the argument of god and design with creationists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatant in its falsehood.
> 
> The creationist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.
> 
> The first error the theist makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the designer exhibits design as well? Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.
> 
> Usually the creationist will reply that the gods, being the designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates, else how can he create the laws in the first place? The answer to that is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it? For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature. Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.
> 
> We know, for instance, that the moon affects the tides. We can see in our local solar system how large bodies affect smaller bodies, as in the series of asteroids that impacted on Jupiter in 1997 (Shoemaker-Levy). Even as far off as we can see, that is, through the Hubble telescope, we can see that gravity remains constant, blindly and relentlessly obeying its own law. Since we know the distant stars are billions of light years away, we can state with assurance that the laws of gravity are equal in their self-adherence from the distant past (before the Earth had even been formed from dust and matter) right on through the present.
> 
> Now compare that to the gods model. Where lies the mountain of evidence, and where lies the specious assertion?
> 
> In answer to the claim that god is outside of the laws he creates, one could just as easily postulate that god may very well have created the laws initially, but is now long since dead, his purpose over with, or that there is the aforementioned "pyramid" of gods. Since the creationist simply asserts and cannot match the sheer weight of evidence contrary to his claims, he falls immediately into irrationality wherein any claim asserted can carry equal weight as the one he proposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always with the condescending comments you poor dear. Your argument is has been addressed here before but since you just ignore anything that interferes with your HATE, I will present the rebuttal again for the nth time.
> 
> God is not part of the creation anymore than you would be part of an Ant Farm in a glass case in your bedroom so your argument about men being subject to the laws they created is flawed and not applicable to this discussion. God is not subject to time or gravity so move on.
> 
> God is not designed because he has always existed. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. The worldview you are referring to is pantheism, not theism. Please Holly, educate yourself a bit before you come on here spewing 3rd grader arguments. Worldviews can be separated into four camps. Deism, Theism, Materialism, and Pantheism. Go look it up and stop posting up stupid fundie atheistic arguments that have long since been refuted.
> 
> Before you scream how can something be eternal in the past and eternal in the future, please note this was a concept science and Einstein were all too familiar with before the Big Bang evidence blew the "always existing universe" theory out of the water.
> 
> God has always been and will always be. No one created him because the big point your flawed argument is missing is that *God did not have a beginning!!!* The causal argument you have fallaciously proposed is only applicable to things that have a beginning.
> 
> Now here is where you go off about cutting and pasting and creationist websites and never really address the points I have presented to your fundie cut and paste argument above. You have shown time and again you can't think for yourself and can only regurgitate atheist HATE and Christian discrimination.
Click to expand...


Youre a stereotypical fundie. You exclude your gods from the very definitions you insist all of nature must comply with. Its silly and childish but in the frantic, sweaty worldview of the fundie creationist, you just make up the rules as you go along.

Its convenient to exclude your gods from any reasonable or rational explanation. Its also the only way to defend those gods  simply retreat to childish claims that _my gods dunt need no steenkin rules_.

What a joke! 

Since the fundie creationist is trying to prove or explain the existence of one god, eternal and infinite, the typical teleological argument actually prohibits his success since to accept his parameters requires an endless and infinite pyramid of gods, each being the super-designer of the one below it, or the product of the one above it.

The natural explanation, that matter simply is, and given enough time will become cohesive and structured, not only makes more sense, but follows with observerable evidence. Existence evolves. It's evolving right now. We can see the pattern time and time again. 

The fundie creationist ministries, having failed with the earlier morphing of creationism to design,  have been forced to re-invent a newer, modified god models.

This newer argument is a modernization of the Analogical argument, albeit with falsely labeled scientific overtones. It is based on the theories of the law of statistical averages and cites as its foundation the utter improbability of life having formed without a Consciousness dictating that it would. 

As with all the arguments from design, this one also crumbles under the earlier stated falsehoods that nowhere does this imply a presently existing deity, nor does it explain how this deity-- if in any sense alive (which it would need to be in order to fulfill the definition of "existing") is not equally as improbable, thereby requiring a super-deity above it to allow for its existence. 

However, there are deeper issues with this argument, stemming from its fallacious use of the concept of "probability". Creationists maintain that there is no difference between design and chance. The assertion is that something complex could not have simply "fallen together", regardless of the amount of time allowed (read: chance). A complex system has to be designed because one cannot arrive at complexity from nothingness (note that once more they will exempt the god from this claim). 

The fallacy here is that the creationist applies complexity to an element without regard to synthesis. To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously, and does not go through varying levels before attaining the degree of complexity currently extant. This may be the way creationists view things, but it has nothing to do with the facts.

Imagine instead that atoms come together and if the combination is successful, the new bonded element continues to exist. If not, it simply falls apart and is out of the running. Given enough time, atoms that successfully bond will continue to evolve, while those that don't will never get beyond the first stage. There is no conscious "matchmaker" of atomic elements; it is pre-ordained by proton/electron compatibility or incompatibility.

Thus we can see that complex structures are likely given an infinite amount of space and an effectively infinite amount of time. 

Life falls under this same natural paradigm. All the creationist can prove is that life is extraordinary, and that means something extraordinary has occured. This is not to say that something supernatural has occured.

The creationist will further state that given the vast improbability of life occuring at all, let alone intelligent life, gives one pause. Perhaps, but that in no way connotates the existence of a Supreme Being. Does the creationist include in his or her paradigm the concept that if life is improbable, then so is anything and everything else? Does the creationist then postulate that the deity directs the creation of each drop of mud, every drop of rainwater, every mote of dust? 

Of course some do just that (pantheists), but if one examines the evolution of theology, where once it was claimed that gods were required for every occurrence, now those same gods are relegated to a vastly less direct intercourse with natural events. Where once Yahweh caused great earthquakes in his wrath, we now know that plate tectonics does the job for him.

As we can see, each of the three arguments from design suffer from the same innate flaws, and each one, individually, collapses from intrinsic flaws specific to itself. Existence not only needs no explanation, but the god paradigm does not supply it (in fact, it obscures any hope of attaining any explanation, because of the acknowledged "mysterious and unknowable" aspects of god which the good creationist slathers with human attributes.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free speech. What don't you understand regarding that topic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holly, your reading comprehension skills suck!!! I was responding to Daws comment that public prayer was only appropriate for church. Guess you must have missed that, along with just about every other post you mindlessly respond to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You poor, dear.
Click to expand...


Mindless.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. The constitution was penned by _some_ men of faith and some men of _no faith_.
> 
> And yes, I written repeatedly that the FF's used language in the constitution that provided for freedom *from* religion.
> 
> You're preaching to the choir - confirming what I've already written.
> 
> So what's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why the constitution don't proctect Christians from having others people Ideologies forced on us,hmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you're an insufferable cry baby.
Click to expand...


That's mature.


----------



## The Irish Ram

I wouldn't put Einstein too high up on that pedestal, because even he knew that e doesn't = mc2. In order to make it work he told his colleges that his math wasn't that "rigorous". 
He doesn't even mention the equation in his auto bio.  
But say hello to neutrinos and all kinds of wondrous stuff God created, that we are just now discovering, post Einstein.  
God knew there was something faster than the speed of light when he created something faster than.... 
Just like there are more than 3 / 4 dimensions.  Jesus proved that when He appeared out of no where.  It only took us twenty centuries to figure it out.
The more knowledgeable we become,  the closer to Him we get.  
There is a God particle,  because there is a Living God.
Ultimately, Science will prove God exists.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Hollie, your statement, "To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"
Couldn't it also be said that, "To the evolutionist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"?
The difference is with the Big Bang  you cannot explain how 0 banging into 0 = something.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Since the fundie creationist is trying to prove or explain the existence of one god, eternal and infinite, the typical teleological argument actually prohibits his success since to accept his parameters requires an endless and infinite pyramid of gods.


 This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Hit the crack pipe this morning? If teleological argument states that God has always existed, please outline how you deduce that this requires an endless pyramid. Please explain to me what was before "the beginning" of an infinite past?



Hollie said:


> The natural explanation, that matter simply is, and given enough time will become cohesive and structured, not only makes more sense, but follows with observerable evidence. Existence evolves. It's evolving right now. We can see the pattern time and time again.



I was waiting for you to bring up Darwin's *god of enough time*. Real sorry that the big bang threw a monkey in the eternal universe model and ruined this argument. Although, that doesn't stop fundie evo's from continuing to quote it. 



Hollie said:


> As with all the arguments from design, this one also crumbles under the earlier stated falsehoods that nowhere does this imply a presently existing deity, nor does it explain how this deity-- if in any sense *alive (which it would need to be in order to fulfill the definition of "existing"*) is not equally as improbable, thereby requiring a super-deity above it to allow for its existence.



Again you confuse Theism with Pantheism. The bolded sentence above is assumptive and becomes the false premise of your argument. You have spent all your time negating the existence of supernatural forces or beings, yet your false premise makes an assumption about said supernatural being. As I stated before, you mistakenly pretend the rules of our universe necessarily abide to a Being that pre-existed our universe. Try again spanky!!!



Hollie said:


> However, there are deeper issues with this argument, stemming from its fallacious use of the concept of "probability". *Creationists maintain that there is no difference between design and chance. [UR Edit: Strawman: need citation]* The assertion is that something complex could not have simply "fallen together", regardless of the amount of time allowed (read: chance). A complex system has to be designed because one cannot arrive at complexity from nothingness (note that once more they will exempt the god from this claim).
> 
> The fallacy here is that the creationist applies complexity to an element without regard to synthesis. To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously, and does not go through varying levels before attaining the degree of complexity currently extant. This may be the way creationists view things, but it has nothing to do with the facts. *[Whose facts? If you would have watched the origins video YWC posted up, you would never have written this because of how ignorant it sounds] *
> 
> Imagine instead that atoms come together and if the combination is successful, the new bonded element continues to exist. If not, it simply falls apart and is out of the running. Given enough time, atoms that successfully bond will continue to evolve, while those that don't will never get beyond the first stage. There is no conscious "matchmaker" of atomic elements; it is *pre-ordained* by proton/electron compatibility or incompatibility.



Ah yes!!! Now we have arrived at the multiple universe theory!! How was this incompatibility pre-ordained? *By chance prior to the beginning of the universe!?!?!?* By the always existing Being of course!! Why are the nuclear forces in our universe finely tuned to allow successful combinations???!!! I really love your use of the words pre-ordained. *This Freudian slip reveals even you believe something or someone decided this prior to the beginning. *



Hollie said:


> Thus we can see that complex structures are likely given an infinite amount of space and an effectively infinite amount of time.


 Which we don't have!! Thanks Big Bang guys!!! In fact, our tiny little earth is sub atomic compared to the size of space. But 13 Billion years ago, space was much smaller. It is expanding, and the expansion is accelerating!!!




Hollie said:


> Life falls under this same natural paradigm. All the creationist can prove is that life is extraordinary, and that means something extraordinary has occured. This is not to say that something supernatural has occured.
> 
> The creationist will further state that given the vast improbability of life occuring at all, let alone intelligent life, gives one pause. Perhaps, but that in no way connotates the existence of a Supreme Being. Does the creationist include in his or her paradigm the concept that if life is improbable, then so is anything and everything else? Does the creationist then postulate that the deity directs the creation of each drop of mud, every drop of rainwater, every mote of dust?
> 
> Of course some do just that (pantheists) *[So now you pretend you even know what a pantheists is, but your argument a few posts back seemed to be clueless of the differentiation] *, but if one examines the evolution of theology, where once it was claimed that gods were required for every occurrence, now those same gods are relegated to a vastly less direct intercourse with natural events. Where once Yahweh caused great earthquakes in his wrath, we now know that plate tectonics does the job for him.
> 
> As we can see, each of the three arguments from design suffer from the same innate flaws, and each one, individually, collapses from intrinsic flaws specific to itself. Existence not only needs no explanation, but the god paradigm does not supply it (in fact, it obscures any hope of attaining any explanation, because of the acknowledged "mysterious and unknowable" aspects of god which the good creationist slathers with human attributes.


 How else would we perceive *Him* but with human understanding????


----------



## newpolitics

The Irish Ram said:


> When you can predict the future with accuracy, the way SkyGod has, then I'll accept your opinion.
> Until then, SkyGod rules.



when has skygod ever predicted the future, that doesn't involve very ambiguous claims that can be interpreted any number of ways?


----------



## newpolitics

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie, your statement, "To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"
> Couldn't it also be said that, "To the evolutionist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"?
> The difference is with the Big Bang  you cannot explain how 0 banging into 0 = something.



No, it couldn't at all be the case that to the evolutionist, complexity emerged instantaneously. It was extremely gradual and took billions of years of very slow progress. God doesn't solve anything in terms of the big cosmological question. If god is the cause of the big bang, What caused God? What caused that being? What caused that being? You get into an infinite regress of causes that doesn't solve the initial problem. You can't simply say god is timeless or doesn't need a cause, because you have no empirical basis on which to make that claim. that is simply making a definition to get you out of the problem of infinite regress.

Secondly, the idea that there needs to be a cause is unfounded, and although intuitive, does not mean there needs to be one. Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality.


----------



## The Irish Ram

What data supports that it was gradual?  What started it in slow motion? If it took billions of years then regress to day one.  What happened?  What was the cause?  What caused it into motion?
God created the cosmos.  He wasn't trying to solve anything.  He was creating. 

You can simply say that God is timeless.  Science can say that now.  They know that there are dimensions that are not bound by the our 3  dimensions to which Einstein added the 4th, time.  
As for infinite regression, Neutrinos are so much faster than the speed of light that they can be back before they leave.  We've only just begun to unlock the wonders of the cosmos.


----------



## newpolitics

The Irish Ram said:


> What data supports that it was gradual?  What started it in slow motion? If it took billions of years then regress to day one.  What happened?  What was the cause?  What caused it into motion?
> God created the cosmos.  He wasn't trying to solve anything.  He was creating.
> 
> You can simply say that God is timeless.  Science can say that now.  They know that there are dimensions that are not bound by the our 3  dimensions to which Einstein added the 4th, time.
> As for infinite regression, Neutrinos are so much faster than the speed of light that they can be back before they leave.  We've only just begun to unlock the wonders of the cosmos.



Um, all data supports that it was gradual. Just look at the facts. Unicellular organisms remained so for over two billion years until finally evolving into multi-cellular organisms. The first major step took half of the earths age to accomplish. If that isn't gradual, I don't know what is. 

 What are you saying when you say it "took billions of years to regress to day one?" That billions of years ago something happened? What does the billions have to do with anything? I'm even sure what you are getting at. 

Then you say "he wasn't trying to solve anything" which presupposes that god exists, So, you are begging the question, (which is a logical fallacy).

Do you even know what infinite regression means, because you use a complete non-sequitur when you referred to to it and followed with the example of neutrinos. I have no idea what one has to do with the idea in the context of this discussion. Even if the claim that they traveled faster than light was true, which it isn't, that has nothing at all to do with infinite regression. But, just for the record, the claim that neutrinos move faster than light has been proved false.

Once Again, Physicists Debunk Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos - ScienceInsider


----------



## The Irish Ram

newpolitics said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can predict the future with accuracy, the way SkyGod has, then I'll accept your opinion.
> Until then, SkyGod rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when has skygod ever predicted the future, that doesn't involve very ambiguous claims that can be interpreted any number of ways?
Click to expand...


SkyGod did though.   
27% of the Bible is prediction.  The truth is no matter how many times He hits it specifically, non believers never say, "ok, I'll give you that one".  They continue to recite that prophesy is ambiguous, or interpreted to the slant of the believer.  I have quoted prophesy here that is specific to the day, no interpretation necessary.   
God said that Israel would be captive in Babylon for seventy years.  Seventy years to the day, they were freed.
25 centuries before it occurred, Ezekiel foretold the rebirth of Israel.  To be specific, every time Israel was out of the Promised land, God revealed beforehand the duration of their exile.  Add them up and you get the date May 15, 1948.  The date of the rebirth of Israel.  I could go on and on.  Prophesy proves that God inspired the Scriptures.
Forsee me somethin 2,000 years into the future......


----------



## newpolitics

The Irish Ram said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can predict the future with accuracy, the way SkyGod has, then I'll accept your opinion.
> Until then, SkyGod rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when has skygod ever predicted the future, that doesn't involve very ambiguous claims that can be interpreted any number of ways?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SkyGod did though.
> 27% of the Bible is prediction.  The truth is no matter how many times He hits it specifically, non believers never say, "ok, I'll give you that one".  They continue to recite that prophesy is ambiguous, or interpreted to the slant of the believer.  I have quoted prophesy here that is specific to the day, no interpretation necessary.
> God said that Israel would be captive in Babylon for seventy years.  Seventy years to the day, they were freed.
> 25 centuries before it occurred, Ezekiel foretold the rebirth of Israel.  To be specific, every time Israel was out of the Promised land, God revealed beforehand the duration of their exile.  Add them up and you get the date May 15, 1948.  The date of the rebirth of Israel.  I could go on and on.  Prophesy proves that God inspired the Scriptures.
> Forsee me somethin 2,000 years into the future......
Click to expand...


Show me in the bible where it says Israel would be captive in Babylon for seventy years, and what does captive mean? Israel has been captive many times under many different peoples and religions (the crusades). How are you interpreting this and more important, what are you interpreting from?


----------



## The Irish Ram

newpolitics said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can predict the future with accuracy, the way SkyGod has, then I'll accept your opinion.
> Until then, SkyGod rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when has skygod ever predicted the future, that doesn't involve very ambiguous claims that can be interpreted any number of ways?
Click to expand...


27% of the Bible is SkyGod predictions.  No necessity to interpret and certainly not ambiguous.   eg:
When Israel was captive in Babylon, they pack up and were freed in the seventieth year to the day.  Every time Israel was out of the Promised Land, God predicted the duration of their exile, and nailed it.  Add them up and you get May 15, 1948.  Israel's rebirth.  Ezekiel  prophesied it 25 centuries before it happened.
Foresee me somethin 2000 yrs. from now.....


----------



## The Irish Ram

newpolitics said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> What data supports that it was gradual?  What started it in slow motion? If it took billions of years then regress to day one.  What happened?  What was the cause?  What caused it into motion?
> God created the cosmos.  He wasn't trying to solve anything.  He was creating.
> 
> You can simply say that God is timeless.  Science can say that now.  They know that there are dimensions that are not bound by the our 3  dimensions to which Einstein added the 4th, time.
> As for infinite regression, Neutrinos are so much faster than the speed of light that they can be back before they leave.  We've only just begun to unlock the wonders of the cosmos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, all data supports that it was gradual. Just look at the facts. Unicellular organisms remained so for over two billion years until finally evolving into multi-cellular organisms. The first major step took half of the earths age to accomplish. If that isn't gradual, I don't know what is.
> 
> What are you saying when you say it "took billions of years to regress to day one?" That billions of years ago something happened? What does the billions have to do with anything? I'm even sure what you are getting at.
> 
> Then you say "he wasn't trying to solve anything" which presupposes that god exists, So, you are begging the question, (which is a logical fallacy).
> 
> Do you even know what infinite regression means, because you use a complete non-sequitur when you referred to to it and followed with the example of neutrinos. I have no idea what one has to do with the idea in the context of this discussion. Even if the claim that they traveled faster than light was true, which it isn't, that has nothing at all to do with infinite regression. But, just for the record, the claim that neutrinos move faster than light has been proved false.
> 
> Once Again, Physicists Debunk Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos - ScienceInsider
Click to expand...


Infinite regression needs a cause to cause a cause.  But you put a time limit to it. Billions of years ago, so I am asking you what happened billions of years ago to set it in motion? What was the cause (billions of years ago)? 
If it was infinite, wouldn't it be trillions of years ago?  or a gill zillion years ago? or always in motion? 
Hubble proved to Einstein that the cosmos was not static and Einstein realized that there indeed had to be a beginning.  He called it the bane of his existence because he wanted infinite.  I do not believe the jury is in on neutrinos or exactly how many dimensions there are. 10? 11? An infinite amount?
I do presuppose that God existed and was and remains in a timeless dimension. 
You stated that before the big bang there was no time.
Tell me what else there was none of before the big bang.  What caused the big to bang?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, your statement, "To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"
> Couldn't it also be said that, "To the evolutionist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"?
> The difference is with the Big Bang  you cannot explain how 0 banging into 0 = something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it couldn't at all be the case that to the evolutionist, complexity emerged instantaneously. It was extremely gradual and took billions of years of very slow progress. God doesn't solve anything in terms of the big cosmological question. If god is the cause of the big bang, What caused God? What caused that being? What caused that being? You get into an infinite regress of causes that doesn't solve the initial problem. You can't simply say god is timeless or doesn't need a cause, because you have no empirical basis on which to make that claim. that is simply making a definition to get you out of the problem of infinite regress.
> 
> Secondly, the idea that there needs to be a cause is unfounded, and although intuitive, does not mean there needs to be one. Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality.
Click to expand...


Did you happen to notice that your second argument negates the first? The Bible teaches God has eternally existed in the past. You used the same flawed logic Hollie used. Causality arguments require a beginning. If something has always been, it doesn't need a cause.


----------



## UltimateReality

Here is some creepy prophecy from Revelation...

Revelation Chapter 11:

7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city &#8212;which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt&#8212;where also their Lord was crucified. 9 *For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial.* 10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.

The book of Revelation was written by John sometime between 60 and 95 AD. The method of travel at that time was by horse drawn buggy or boat or walking. If someone read this passage in 60 AD, they would think this verse preposterous. How is someone from every tribe and nation going to "gaze on their [dead] bodies" if they are only laying there for 3 and one half days? The possibility of this prophecy coming true has only materialized in the last 50 years with the advent of the internet and satellite television. How would James even know this would become a REAL possibility 1900 years later?


----------



## The Irish Ram

newpolitics said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> when has skygod ever predicted the future, that doesn't involve very ambiguous claims that can be interpreted any number of ways?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SkyGod did though.
> 27% of the Bible is prediction.  The truth is no matter how many times He hits it specifically, non believers never say, "ok, I'll give you that one".  They continue to recite that prophesy is ambiguous, or interpreted to the slant of the believer.  I have quoted prophesy here that is specific to the day, no interpretation necessary.
> God said that Israel would be captive in Babylon for seventy years.  Seventy years to the day, they were freed.
> 25 centuries before it occurred, Ezekiel foretold the rebirth of Israel.  To be specific, every time Israel was out of the Promised land, God revealed beforehand the duration of their exile.  Add them up and you get the date May 15, 1948.  The date of the rebirth of Israel.  I could go on and on.  Prophesy proves that God inspired the Scriptures.
> Forsee me somethin 2,000 years into the future......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me in the bible where it says Israel would be captive in Babylon for seventy years, and what does captive mean? Israel has been captive many times under many different peoples and religions (the crusades). How are you interpreting this and more important, what are you interpreting from?
Click to expand...



Jeremiah 25:11-12 is one.
I have to hit  the sack. It's late here, but tomorrow I'll do the math for you up to 1948.  
God exiled Israel 3 times. Egypt, Babylon and the worldwide dispersement with no Israel to return to, and then restored them to their land on the exact day He said he would.
Night.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Ultimate, I think you meant John, not James.  That prophesy could not come to fruition until the advent of satallites,  as well as the prophesy about the gospel being preached in all the earth.
There is debate as to who the 2 prophets will be.  Enoch, Moses or Elijah. The Bible states that it is for all men to die once.  2 of those men never experienced death, so I think it will be Enoch and Elijah.  
God sends them to witness against the anti-christ and to rise from the dead as a sign that what they were witnessing about is true.


----------



## UltimateReality

"Here's a fact you might ponder: Virtually every single major person who has criticized the Darwinian viewpoint has faced personal attacks on his or her character. It happens to everyone, myself included. So one of two things are true: Either (1) virtually every single critic of Darwinism (of which there are many) is "dishonest" and "deceiving," or (2) *evolutionists habitually respond to scientific challenges with personal attacks."*

I'll take number 2 for the win.

Personal Attacks Against ID Proponents Say More About the Attackers than the Abused - Evolution News & Views


----------



## Hollie

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie, your statement, "To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"
> Couldn't it also be said that, "To the evolutionist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"?


The answer to your question above is no.

Within the environment of the Christian religion, complexity magically emerges in the form of Adam and Eve. Humanity and terrestrial earth are fully formed, ie: _complexity emerges somehow instantaneously_.

Youre positing super magical gods perform super magical creation in super magical ways. Its a convenient claim because you excuse your super magical gods from the criteria of reason and rationality that you insist reality must conform to.
It's a simple formula:

"God did it, in a mysterious way, using mysterious methods, for mysterious reasons which I cannot support or prove or demonstrate" = "I invent this stuff as I go along."

In the rational, natural world, we have understandable processes and demonstration of how eons of time have allowed organisms to evolve and how fitness for survival acts to define survivability in niche environments. 





> The difference is with the Big Bang  you cannot explain how 0 banging into 0 = something.


That doesnt make sense.


----------



## Hollie

The Irish Ram said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can predict the future with accuracy, the way SkyGod has, then I'll accept your opinion.
> Until then, SkyGod rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when has skygod ever predicted the future, that doesn't involve very ambiguous claims that can be interpreted any number of ways?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SkyGod did though.
> 27% of the Bible is prediction.  The truth is no matter how many times He hits it specifically, non believers never say, "ok, I'll give you that one".  They continue to recite that prophesy is ambiguous, or interpreted to the slant of the believer.  I have quoted prophesy here that is specific to the day, no interpretation necessary.
> God said that Israel would be captive in Babylon for seventy years.  Seventy years to the day, they were freed.
> 25 centuries before it occurred, Ezekiel foretold the rebirth of Israel.  To be specific, every time Israel was out of the Promised land, God revealed beforehand the duration of their exile.  Add them up and you get the date May 15, 1948.  The date of the rebirth of Israel.  I could go on and on.  Prophesy proves that God inspired the Scriptures.
> Forsee me somethin 2,000 years into the future......
Click to expand...


Thats false. As with all these claims to supermagical gods making supermagical predictions, under the glaring light of scrutiny, they fail.

The problem with all the claims to supermagical, fortune telling gods is that we are never given anything narrow and specific. Invariably, the claims require a great deal of creationist imagination and creationist selective interpretation to be believable and then, theyre only believable to those with a _need_ to believe them.

The fact remains that unexplainable things have tended to be explained away by invoking the supernatural / supermagical gods. The list of those unexplained things has shrunk considerably since the time of bibles and fortune telling gods. Not surprisingly, the role of the gods has also shrunk considerably since science, education and literacy has proved natural causes for what was once consider the supermagical / supernatural.

None of the alleged supermagical fortune telling  moves the many bibles any closer to being a book of divine nature. One needs only apply critical thinking to come to a reasoned conclusion.


----------



## Hollie

The Irish Ram said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> What data supports that it was gradual?  What started it in slow motion? If it took billions of years then regress to day one.  What happened?  What was the cause?  What caused it into motion?
> God created the cosmos.  He wasn't trying to solve anything.  He was creating.
> 
> You can simply say that God is timeless.  Science can say that now.  They know that there are dimensions that are not bound by the our 3  dimensions to which Einstein added the 4th, time.
> As for infinite regression, Neutrinos are so much faster than the speed of light that they can be back before they leave.  We've only just begun to unlock the wonders of the cosmos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, all data supports that it was gradual. Just look at the facts. Unicellular organisms remained so for over two billion years until finally evolving into multi-cellular organisms. The first major step took half of the earths age to accomplish. If that isn't gradual, I don't know what is.
> 
> What are you saying when you say it "took billions of years to regress to day one?" That billions of years ago something happened? What does the billions have to do with anything? I'm even sure what you are getting at.
> 
> Then you say "he wasn't trying to solve anything" which presupposes that god exists, So, you are begging the question, (which is a logical fallacy).
> 
> Do you even know what infinite regression means, because you use a complete non-sequitur when you referred to to it and followed with the example of neutrinos. I have no idea what one has to do with the idea in the context of this discussion. Even if the claim that they traveled faster than light was true, which it isn't, that has nothing at all to do with infinite regression. But, just for the record, the claim that neutrinos move faster than light has been proved false.
> 
> Once Again, Physicists Debunk Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos - ScienceInsider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Infinite regression needs a cause to cause a cause.  But you put a time limit to it. Billions of years ago, so I am asking you what happened billions of years ago to set it in motion? What was the cause (billions of years ago)?
> If it was infinite, wouldn't it be trillions of years ago?  or a gill zillion years ago? or always in motion?
> Hubble proved to Einstein that the cosmos was not static and Einstein realized that there indeed had to be a beginning.  He called it the bane of his existence because he wanted infinite.  I do not believe the jury is in on neutrinos or exactly how many dimensions there are. 10? 11? An infinite amount?
> I do presuppose that God existed and was and remains in a timeless dimension.
> You stated that before the big bang there was no time.
> Tell me what else there was none of before the big bang.  What caused the big to bang?
Click to expand...


You&#8217;re hoping to dismiss your own need for consistency and criteria while others are held to the standard you excuse yourself from. It&#8217;s a convenient tactic but one that is also juvenile,  dishonest and naïve.

Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.

The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in creation...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.
Cosmologists (the main stream ones anyway) hold 3 different theories on nature of the universe...

The Big Bang &#8211; My personal favorite.
Steady-state - there are several flavors of this one, but most have been discarded as they have not held up to modern observation.
Oscillating - Universe is continually "big banging", expanding to a point, then falling back into itself only to big bang again when it reaches zero point.

As far as science is concerned, and as least as far as known science has been able to offer credible evidence, all of the stated possibilities must fall into one of these three categories, though I'll concede that cosmologists don't know everything and it is possible that all of the above categories are wrong.

So let's restate the possibilities:
1. The universe came from a Bing Bang (or is Oscillating) This one is my best bet as mentioned.

2. The universe has always been here.

3. The universe is simply an illusion: it doesn't really exist.

4. The universe came from nothing, supermagically, supernaturally.

Based on what I wrote above, number 1 gets my nod as the most likely based upon possibilities that fit scientific evidence. Number 2 invokes steady-state, which has all but been discarded by the scientific community. Numbers 3 and 4 involve metaphysics / supremagical&#8217;ism and supernatural&#8217;ism and so is not a topic for modern cosmologists / science. Feel free to debate supremagical&#8217;ism and supernatural&#8217;ism with anyone other than me, but based on evidence, I can't comment.

So....it really boils down to 1, with numbers 3 and 4 being both metaphysics and a religious claim. The question that would lead us to the correct answer would be "Was the initial singularity natural, or made by the hand of one or more gods". Now &#8211; keep in mind that as I understand it, science has generally predicted the &#8220;after effects&#8221; of a Big Bang using classical physics to what is known as Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. 

Now here is another twist, at least in my mind. What is the difference between the big bang theory, and the oscillating theory? The answer is not much. Current thought is that the amount of "dark matter" in the universe may decide which scenario is the correct one. If there is too little, the universe will continue to expand forever. If there is enough, the mass of the universe will eventually pull the universe back into itself...much like the formation of a black hole. It will continue to contract until it becomes a singularity again. Then boom, another big bang. wash, rinse, repeat.

The scientists at CERN are already studying the implications of new particles recently discovered using the collider.

What are the religious institutions doing to study the gods&#8230; except for simply repeating dogma? 

We have no reason to accept your religious claims to three supermagical, supernatural gods as true so how many designer gods were required to design the currently configured christian gods?


----------



## UltimateReality

The Irish Ram said:


> Ultimate, I think you meant John, not James.


 Your are right. I fixed it.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, all data supports that it was gradual. Just look at the facts. Unicellular organisms remained so for over two billion years until finally evolving into multi-cellular organisms. The first major step took half of the earths age to accomplish. If that isn't gradual, I don't know what is.
> 
> What are you saying when you say it "took billions of years to regress to day one?" That billions of years ago something happened? What does the billions have to do with anything? I'm even sure what you are getting at.
> 
> Then you say "he wasn't trying to solve anything" which presupposes that god exists, So, you are begging the question, (which is a logical fallacy).
> 
> Do you even know what infinite regression means, because you use a complete non-sequitur when you referred to to it and followed with the example of neutrinos. I have no idea what one has to do with the idea in the context of this discussion. Even if the claim that they traveled faster than light was true, which it isn't, that has nothing at all to do with infinite regression. But, just for the record, the claim that neutrinos move faster than light has been proved false.
> 
> Once Again, Physicists Debunk Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos - ScienceInsider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infinite regression needs a cause to cause a cause.  But you put a time limit to it. Billions of years ago, so I am asking you what happened billions of years ago to set it in motion? What was the cause (billions of years ago)?
> If it was infinite, wouldn't it be trillions of years ago?  or a gill zillion years ago? or always in motion?
> Hubble proved to Einstein that the cosmos was not static and Einstein realized that there indeed had to be a beginning.  He called it the bane of his existence because he wanted infinite.  I do not believe the jury is in on neutrinos or exactly how many dimensions there are. 10? 11? An infinite amount?
> I do presuppose that God existed and was and remains in a timeless dimension.
> You stated that before the big bang there was no time.
> Tell me what else there was none of before the big bang.  What caused the big to bang?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You&#8217;re hoping to dismiss your own need for consistency and criteria while others are held to the standard you excuse yourself from. It&#8217;s a convenient tactic but one that is also juvenile,  dishonest and naïve.
> 
> Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.
> 
> The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in creation...it was a by-product. *If you have had any training in physics [PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US ON WHAT PHYSICS TRAINING YOU'VE HAD-"CUT AND PASTER OF THE YEAR" DOES NOT QUALIFY]*, you would know the implication of this.
> Cosmologists (the main stream ones anyway) hold 3 different theories on nature of the universe...
> 
> The Big Bang &#8211; My personal favorite.
> Steady-state - there are several flavors of this one, but most have been discarded as they have not held up to modern observation.
> Oscillating - Universe is continually "big banging", expanding to a point, then falling back into itself only to big bang again when it reaches zero point.
> 
> As far as science is concerned, and as least as far as known science has been able to offer credible evidence, all of the stated possibilities must fall into one of these three categories, though I'll concede that cosmologists don't know everything and it is possible that all of the above categories are wrong.
> 
> So let's restate the possibilities:
> 1. The universe came from a Bing Bang (or is Oscillating) *This one is my best bet as mentioned.*
Click to expand...


That figures, since the oscillating theory has already largely been dis-proven. This theory is akin to a ball that is thrown up from the earth. Gravity eventually takes over, stops the ball, and then draws it back to the earth's surface. The oscillating universe says that the expansion will eventually stop and start contracting back to the singularity point. There is only one HUGE PROBLEM. The* expansion is ACCELERATING,* not Decelerating! 

I'd also like to point out your continual twisting of the truth. *ALL ID Theorists accept the Big Bang as the most viable theory.* This is not separate from religious philosophy as your *strawman argument* implies by listing #4 as an argument. This is just evidence of your lies and truth twists. The question is not whether the Big Bang is responsible for the universe but whether or not a supernatural Being caused the big bang. The only reason the oscillating theory was proposed is because it removed the necessity of originally cause if it had been expanding and contracting from and infinite past. You love this theory because you could get rid of God. Here is the problem with your flawed logic. You call fowl when theists propose that God could have always existed, yet you have no problem with the concept the universe has always existed as a perpetual explosion and contraction. You may be able to trick the brainwashed fundie atheists with your trickery, but anyone with any sense of logic is not going to fall for your silly cut and pasted arguments. 

"The probability of a Big Bounce, or even a Big Crunch for that matter, is however becoming negligible. The most recent measurements of the CMBR or cosmic microwave background radiation shows that the Universe will continue on expanding and will most likely end in what is known as a Big Freeze or Heat Death.

CMBR readings are currently being gathered by a very accurate measuring device known as the WMAP or Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. It is the same device that has measured with sharp precision the age of our universe. It is therefore highly unlikely that future findings will deviate largely from what has been discovered regarding the Universe&#8217;s expansion now.

Oscillating Universe Theory

You should stick to attacks and typing the word fundie repeatedly. It is obvious cosmology is an area you should not attempt to cut and paste!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infinite regression needs a cause to cause a cause.  But you put a time limit to it. Billions of years ago, so I am asking you what happened billions of years ago to set it in motion? What was the cause (billions of years ago)?
> If it was infinite, wouldn't it be trillions of years ago?  or a gill zillion years ago? or always in motion?
> Hubble proved to Einstein that the cosmos was not static and Einstein realized that there indeed had to be a beginning.  He called it the bane of his existence because he wanted infinite.  I do not believe the jury is in on neutrinos or exactly how many dimensions there are. 10? 11? An infinite amount?
> I do presuppose that God existed and was and remains in a timeless dimension.
> You stated that before the big bang there was no time.
> Tell me what else there was none of before the big bang.  What caused the big to bang?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youre hoping to dismiss your own need for consistency and criteria while others are held to the standard you excuse yourself from. Its a convenient tactic but one that is also juvenile,  dishonest and naïve.
> 
> Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.
> 
> The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in creation...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.
> Cosmologists (the main stream ones anyway) hold 3 different theories on nature of the universe...
> 
> The Big Bang  My personal favorite.
> Steady-state - there are several flavors of this one, but most have been discarded as they have not held up to modern observation.
> Oscillating - Universe is continually "big banging", expanding to a point, then falling back into itself only to big bang again when it reaches zero point.
> 
> As far as science is concerned, and as least as far as known science has been able to offer credible evidence, all of the stated possibilities must fall into one of these three categories, though I'll concede that cosmologists don't know everything and it is possible that all of the above categories are wrong.
> 
> So let's restate the possibilities:
> 1. The universe came from a Bing Bang (or is Oscillating) *This one is my best bet as mentioned.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That figures, since it has already largely been dis-proven. This theory is akin to a ball that as thrown up from the earth. Gravity eventually takes over, stops the ball, and then draws it back to the earth's surface. The oscillating universe says that the expansion will eventually stop and start contracting back to the singularity point. There is only one HUGE PROBLEM. The* expansion is ACCELERATING,* not Decelerating!
> 
> "The probability of a Big Bounce, or even a Big Crunch for that matter, is however becoming negligible. The most recent measurements of the CMBR or cosmic microwave background radiation shows that the Universe will continue on expanding and will most likely end in what is known as a Big Freeze or Heat Death.
> 
> CMBR readings are currently being gathered by a very accurate measuring device known as the WMAP or Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. It is the same device that has measured with sharp precision the age of our universe. It is therefore highly unlikely that future findings will deviate largely from what has been discovered regarding the Universes expansion now.
> 
> Oscillating Universe Theory
> 
> You should stick to attacks and typing the word fundie repeatedly. It is obvious cosmology is an area you should not attempt to cut and paste!
Click to expand...


The above has a certain appeal to religious fundies because they believe it off-handedly supports the many- gods of their religious views.

I would recommend that you stay with cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre hoping to dismiss your own need for consistency and criteria while others are held to the standard you excuse yourself from. Its a convenient tactic but one that is also juvenile,  dishonest and naïve.
> 
> Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.
> 
> The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in creation...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.
> Cosmologists (the main stream ones anyway) hold 3 different theories on nature of the universe...
> 
> The Big Bang  My personal favorite.
> Steady-state - there are several flavors of this one, but most have been discarded as they have not held up to modern observation.
> Oscillating - Universe is continually "big banging", expanding to a point, then falling back into itself only to big bang again when it reaches zero point.
> 
> As far as science is concerned, and as least as far as known science has been able to offer credible evidence, all of the stated possibilities must fall into one of these three categories, though I'll concede that cosmologists don't know everything and it is possible that all of the above categories are wrong.
> 
> So let's restate the possibilities:
> 1. The universe came from a Bing Bang (or is Oscillating) *This one is my best bet as mentioned.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That figures, since it has already largely been dis-proven. This theory is akin to a ball that as thrown up from the earth. Gravity eventually takes over, stops the ball, and then draws it back to the earth's surface. The oscillating universe says that the expansion will eventually stop and start contracting back to the singularity point. There is only one HUGE PROBLEM. The* expansion is ACCELERATING,* not Decelerating!
> 
> "The probability of a Big Bounce, or even a Big Crunch for that matter, is however becoming negligible. The most recent measurements of the CMBR or cosmic microwave background radiation shows that the Universe will continue on expanding and will most likely end in what is known as a Big Freeze or Heat Death.
> 
> CMBR readings are currently being gathered by a very accurate measuring device known as the WMAP or Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. It is the same device that has measured with sharp precision the age of our universe. It is therefore highly unlikely that future findings will deviate largely from what has been discovered regarding the Universes expansion now.
> 
> Oscillating Universe Theory
> 
> You should stick to attacks and typing the word fundie repeatedly. It is obvious cosmology is an area you should not attempt to cut and paste!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The above has a certain appeal to religious fundies because they believe it off-handedly supports the many- gods of their religious views.
> 
> I would recommend that you stay with cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...


Who?


----------



## Hollie

The Irish Ram said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can predict the future with accuracy, the way SkyGod has, then I'll accept your opinion.
> Until then, SkyGod rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when has skygod ever predicted the future, that doesn't involve very ambiguous claims that can be interpreted any number of ways?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 27% of the Bible is SkyGod predictions.  No necessity to interpret and certainly not ambiguous.   eg:
> When Israel was captive in Babylon, they pack up and were freed in the seventieth year to the day.  Every time Israel was out of the Promised Land, God predicted the duration of their exile, and nailed it.  Add them up and you get May 15, 1948.  Israel's rebirth.  Ezekiel  prophesied it 25 centuries before it happened.
> Foresee me somethin 2000 yrs. from now.....
Click to expand...


You've made this claim of the bible being 27% skygod predictions but that doesn't make sense. 

The supermagical skygods didn't write the bible. I think what you really mean is that the many men who wrote the many bibles made predictions of their own.

But even then, its quite obvious that the predictions you allege are overwhelmingly false. If one makes enough predictions, a very few may appear to come true. So what?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, your statement, "To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"
> Couldn't it also be said that, "To the evolutionist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"?
> The difference is with the Big Bang  you cannot explain how 0 banging into 0 = something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it couldn't at all be the case that to the evolutionist, complexity emerged instantaneously. It was extremely gradual and took billions of years of very slow progress. God doesn't solve anything in terms of the big cosmological question. If god is the cause of the big bang, What caused God? What caused that being? What caused that being? You get into an infinite regress of causes that doesn't solve the initial problem. You can't simply say god is timeless or doesn't need a cause, because you have no empirical basis on which to make that claim. that is simply making a definition to get you out of the problem of infinite regress.
> 
> Secondly, the idea that there needs to be a cause is unfounded, and although intuitive, does not mean there needs to be one. Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you happen to notice that your second argument negates the first? The Bible teaches God has eternally existed in the past. You used the same flawed logic Hollie used. Causality arguments require a beginning. If something has always been, it doesn't need a cause.
Click to expand...


My first second argument does not negate my first argument. There aren't even two arguments that I made. There is only one, so this isn't even possible. Nor am I the one putting forth a causality argument, I am saying causality is NOT needed. The other part of my post was a refutation about biological complexity, so you're assertion about my arguments negating eachother is really out of left field. Nice try though.


----------



## newpolitics

The Irish Ram said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> What data supports that it was gradual?  What started it in slow motion? If it took billions of years then regress to day one.  What happened?  What was the cause?  What caused it into motion?
> God created the cosmos.  He wasn't trying to solve anything.  He was creating.
> 
> You can simply say that God is timeless.  Science can say that now.  They know that there are dimensions that are not bound by the our 3  dimensions to which Einstein added the 4th, time.
> As for infinite regression, Neutrinos are so much faster than the speed of light that they can be back before they leave.  We've only just begun to unlock the wonders of the cosmos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, all data supports that it was gradual. Just look at the facts. Unicellular organisms remained so for over two billion years until finally evolving into multi-cellular organisms. The first major step took half of the earths age to accomplish. If that isn't gradual, I don't know what is.
> 
> What are you saying when you say it "took billions of years to regress to day one?" That billions of years ago something happened? What does the billions have to do with anything? I'm even sure what you are getting at.
> 
> Then you say "he wasn't trying to solve anything" which presupposes that god exists, So, you are begging the question, (which is a logical fallacy).
> 
> Do you even know what infinite regression means, because you use a complete non-sequitur when you referred to to it and followed with the example of neutrinos. I have no idea what one has to do with the idea in the context of this discussion. Even if the claim that they traveled faster than light was true, which it isn't, that has nothing at all to do with infinite regression. But, just for the record, the claim that neutrinos move faster than light has been proved false.
> 
> Once Again, Physicists Debunk Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos - ScienceInsider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Infinite regression needs a cause to cause a cause.  But you put a time limit to it. Billions of years ago, so I am asking you what happened billions of years ago to set it in motion? What was the cause (billions of years ago)?
> If it was infinite, wouldn't it be trillions of years ago?  or a gill zillion years ago? or always in motion?
> Hubble proved to Einstein that the cosmos was not static and Einstein realized that there indeed had to be a beginning.  He called it the bane of his existence because he wanted infinite.  I do not believe the jury is in on neutrinos or exactly how many dimensions there are. 10? 11? An infinite amount?
> I do presuppose that God existed and was and remains in a timeless dimension.
> You stated that before the big bang there was no time.
> Tell me what else there was none of before the big bang.  What caused the big to bang?
Click to expand...


You are not understanding what infinite regression means, at least, not how I meant to convey it. Infinite regression does not refer to causality within this spacio-temporal condition we call a universe, leading back to a big bang. That wouldn't make sense. There was definitely a beginning, meaning it is necessarily finite in its causal chain. I was using infinite regress to refer to the problem you get into when you assert that god caused the big bang. What caused God? You are left where you started. You're answer might be, another god. Then, what caused that god, and that god, and that god... this is an infinite regress of causes, before the big bang. How can you ever get to an uncaused cause? Of course, you answer will be, God has always existed. This presents another dilemma. If he existed for an infinite amount of time BEFORE our universe, then he never would have created it, by definition. Because, he would have had to have waited an infinite amount of time before getting to this point of creation, which is paradoxical and thus, impossible.

To answer your last question... I already did. There doesn't need to be a cause, necessarily, and even if there was, how do you know it was god? You don't, and you can't. You have to perform several logic leaps to get to god from a first cause, even assuming there is a first cause.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> "Here's a fact you might ponder: Virtually every single major person who has criticized the Darwinian viewpoint has faced personal attacks on his or her character. It happens to everyone, myself included. So one of two things are true: Either (1) virtually every single critic of Darwinism (of which there are many) is "dishonest" and "deceiving," or (2) *evolutionists habitually respond to scientific challenges with personal attacks."*
> 
> I'll take number 2 for the win.
> 
> Personal Attacks Against ID Proponents Say More About the Attackers than the Abused - Evolution News & Views



what? when people are illogical, they are going to get lambasted for it, and should, especially when its something really obvious and simple, and they are simeltaneously preaching their to the world and imposing their worldview on others, constantly, which is a basic tenet of christianity. Just like when the dumbass in math class gets 2+2 wrong and is at the same time telling you you're going to hell, you have to snicker, but also, get pissed. Same deal

Also, don't paint yourselves these hapless victims. You deserve it. It is creationists who are so unable to engage in intellectual debate honestly. They continually try to bypass the rules of logic and create their own reality. After a while, this gets annoying and people lose patience.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Here is some creepy prophecy from Revelation...
> 
> Revelation Chapter 11:
> 
> 7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city &#8212;which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt&#8212;where also their Lord was crucified. 9 *For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial.* 10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.
> 
> The book of Revelation was written by John sometime between 60 and 95 AD. The method of travel at that time was by horse drawn buggy or boat or walking. If someone read this passage in 60 AD, they would think this verse preposterous. How is someone from every tribe and nation going to "gaze on their [dead] bodies" if they are only laying there for 3 and one half days? The possibility of this prophecy coming true has only materialized in the last 50 years with the advent of the internet and satellite television. How would James even know this would become a REAL possibility 1900 years later?



Regarding authorship of revelation:

Wikipedia

"More recent methods of scholarship, such as textual criticism, have been influential in suggesting that John the Apostle, John the Evangelist and John of Patmos were three separate individuals. Differences in style, theological content, and familiarity with Greek between the Gospel of John, the epistles of John, and the Revelation are seen by some scholars as indicating three separate authors.The English Biblical scholar Robert Henry Charles (1855&#8211;1931) reasoned on internal textual grounds that the book was edited by someone who spoke no Hebrew and who wished to promote a different theology to John's. As a result, everything after 20:3, he claims, has been left in a haphazard state with no attempt to structure it logically. Furthermore, he says, the story of the defeat of the ten kingdoms has been deleted and replaced by 19:9-10.John's theology of chastity has been replaced by the editor's theology of outright celibacy, which makes little sense when John's true church is symbolised as a bride of the Lamb. Most importantly, the editor has completely rewritten John's theology of the Millennium which is "emptied of all significance."





Hmmmm.... The bible isn't true because it says so.


----------



## The Irish Ram

It is when it tells you what to expect and the expectations are correct.
There was one John.  He told us what to look for before the return of Christ and for the first time in history, you can open your Bible and the newspaper and read the same thing in both.  

Ultimate, those two prophets are another prediction  used for a sign  in the end times.  The Bible states it is for every man to die once.  2 humans did not.  Enoch and Elijah.  I think they will be those two to come back.  Some think Moses may be one of the two.  That prophesy could not be filled until satellites were developed.  It precedes the final battle between God and his followers and Satan and his followers.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> when has skygod ever predicted the future, that doesn't involve very ambiguous claims that can be interpreted any number of ways?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 27% of the Bible is SkyGod predictions.  No necessity to interpret and certainly not ambiguous.   eg:
> When Israel was captive in Babylon, they pack up and were freed in the seventieth year to the day.  Every time Israel was out of the Promised Land, God predicted the duration of their exile, and nailed it.  Add them up and you get May 15, 1948.  Israel's rebirth.  Ezekiel  prophesied it 25 centuries before it happened.
> Foresee me somethin 2000 yrs. from now.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've made this claim of the bible being 27% skygod predictions but that doesn't make sense.
> 
> The supermagical skygods didn't write the bible. I think what you really mean is that the many men who wrote the many bibles made predictions of their own.
> 
> But even then, its quite obvious that the predictions you allege are overwhelmingly false. If one makes enough predictions, a very few may appear to come true. So what?
Click to expand...


Nope, I meant exactly what I said.  I am nothing if not consistent. 
God authored the Bible, while scribes wrote it down.  The proof of that IS God predictions. Man can't see into the future. All we can do is guess.
 I keep asking you mortals, to predict something for me  just a couple hundred years into the future, but you keep changing the subject. 
As for his accuracy?  His bar was, if my prophets say, "so says the Lord", and it fails to happen, take my prophet out back and stone him to death.  No coincidences allowed. 
Even opposing Kings of Israel, called on God's prophets because of their accuracy. 
So, on second thought, instead of predicting me something, do it consistently, and if your wrong one time let me hit you with a rock.


----------



## newpolitics

The Irish Ram said:


> It is when it tells you what to expect and the expectations are correct.
> There was one John.  He told us what to look for before the return of Christ and for the first time in history, you can open your Bible and the newspaper and read the same thing in both.
> 
> Ultimate, those two prophets are another prediction  used for a sign  in the end times.  The Bible states it is for every man to die once.  2 humans did not.  Enoch and Elijah.  I think they will be those two to come back.  Some think Moses may be one of the two.  That prophesy could not be filled until satellites were developed.  It precedes the final battle between God and his followers and Satan and his followers.



well, according to modern biblical scholars, there were three johns. Also, Matt, Mark, John, and Luke are not the names of the authors of the texts. This was added later. We don't know the names of the authors of these texts, as there were no signatures, and we have no original copies.


----------



## Hollie

The Irish Ram said:


> It is when it tells you what to expect and the expectations are correct.
> There was one John.  He told us what to look for before the return of Christ and for the first time in history, you can open your Bible and the newspaper and read the same thing in both.
> 
> Ultimate, those two prophets are another prediction  used for a sign  in the end times.  The Bible states it is for every man to die once.  2 humans did not.  Enoch and Elijah.  I think they will be those two to come back.  Some think Moses may be one of the two.  That prophesy could not be filled until satellites were developed.  It precedes the final battle between God and his followers and Satan and his followers.



I can find many instances of religious figures claiming to have revelations. Joseph Smith, for example, had revelations. His revelations, (while they clearly are an imaginative rendering of someones fantasies), are no different that the revelations heralded by people with names such as Mohammed, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite and a host of others too long to list. Its disturbing that you might dismiss Marshall Applewhite as not believable but the stories of a man who was thought to have risen from the dead and whose life was not chronicled until decades after the events and which were re-written by others, you worship as truth.

Does the requirement for truth need to step back and not make any conclusions about the clichéd lunatic who believes he is Napoleon, and that Kaiser Wilhelm is stealing his socks on a nightly basis? Do we have to sit back and not come to conclusions about the possibility that Napoleon and Kaiser Wilhelm reincarnate (and the Kaiser has a sock fetish) or do we make judgments about specious claims?


----------



## Hollie

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 27% of the Bible is SkyGod predictions.  No necessity to interpret and certainly not ambiguous.   eg:
> When Israel was captive in Babylon, they pack up and were freed in the seventieth year to the day.  Every time Israel was out of the Promised Land, God predicted the duration of their exile, and nailed it.  Add them up and you get May 15, 1948.  Israel's rebirth.  Ezekiel  prophesied it 25 centuries before it happened.
> Foresee me somethin 2000 yrs. from now.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made this claim of the bible being 27% skygod predictions but that doesn't make sense.
> 
> The supermagical skygods didn't write the bible. I think what you really mean is that the many men who wrote the many bibles made predictions of their own.
> 
> But even then, its quite obvious that the predictions you allege are overwhelmingly false. If one makes enough predictions, a very few may appear to come true. So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, I meant exactly what I said.  I am nothing if not consistent.
> God authored the Bible, while scribes wrote it down.  The proof of that IS God predictions. Man can't see into the future. All we can do is guess.
> I keep asking you mortals, to predict something for me  just a couple hundred years into the future, but you keep changing the subject.
> As for his accuracy?  His bar was, if my prophets say, "so says the Lord", and it fails to happen, take my prophet out back and stone him to death.  No coincidences allowed.
> Even opposing Kings of Israel, called on God's prophets because of their accuracy.
> So, on second thought, instead of predicting me something, do it consistently, and if your wrong one time let me hit you with a rock.
Click to expand...


I think you're relying on the "becuse I say so" claim as legitimate support for those claims. 

The fact is, we have no reason to believe that the gods authored any bibles. You put yourself in a difficult position by making such a claim. The gods would have had to been complete boobs to have authored a book so rife with errors and mis-statements. 

Why not simply be clear and not allow for such errors? Why is it that the religious perspective offers gods who confound us, but the materialist perspective offers one that makes sense-- a star is a million light years away because it's taken light a million years to get here. Simple. Explainable. Understandable. No need to assert mysterious beings using mysterious ways we can never know, precluding us from ever finding out.

Why are the gods so prone to getting things wrong?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it couldn't at all be the case that to the evolutionist, complexity emerged instantaneously. It was extremely gradual and took billions of years of very slow progress. God doesn't solve anything in terms of the big cosmological question. If god is the cause of the big bang, What caused God? What caused that being? What caused that being? You get into an infinite regress of causes that doesn't solve the initial problem. You can't simply say god is timeless or doesn't need a cause, because you have no empirical basis on which to make that claim. that is simply making a definition to get you out of the problem of infinite regress.
> 
> Secondly, the idea that there needs to be a cause is unfounded, and although intuitive, does not mean there needs to be one. Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you happen to notice that your second argument negates the first? The Bible teaches God has eternally existed in the past. You used the same flawed logic Hollie used. Causality arguments require a beginning. If something has always been, it doesn't need a cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My first second argument does not negate my first argument. *There aren't even two arguments that I made*. There is only one, so this isn't even possible. *Nor am I the one putting forth a causality argument*, I am saying causality is NOT needed. The other part of my post was a refutation about biological complexity, so you're assertion about my arguments negating eachother is really out of left field. Nice try though.
Click to expand...


Argument 1: God doesn't solve anything in terms of the Big Bang Cosmology. Basis of your argument: If God caused the Big Bang, what caused God? [This argument infers that cause is needed]

Argument 2: *Secondly*, the idea there needs to be cause is unfounded. Basis of your second argument: Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality. [in fact, this sounds an awful lot like a Causality argument!!!]

I'm not sure what English classes you took as a kid, but that my friend right there is two arguments. Call them two points... whatever. You even say "Secondly".


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've made this claim of the bible being 27% skygod predictions but that doesn't make sense.
> 
> The supermagical skygods didn't write the bible. I think what you really mean is that the many men who wrote the many bibles made predictions of their own.
> 
> But even then, its quite obvious that the predictions you allege are overwhelmingly false. If one makes enough predictions, a very few may appear to come true. So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I meant exactly what I said.  I am nothing if not consistent.
> God authored the Bible, while scribes wrote it down.  The proof of that IS God predictions. Man can't see into the future. All we can do is guess.
> I keep asking you mortals, to predict something for me  just a couple hundred years into the future, but you keep changing the subject.
> As for his accuracy?  His bar was, if my prophets say, "so says the Lord", and it fails to happen, take my prophet out back and stone him to death.  No coincidences allowed.
> Even opposing Kings of Israel, called on God's prophets because of their accuracy.
> So, on second thought, instead of predicting me something, do it consistently, and if your wrong one time let me hit you with a rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're relying on the "becuse I say so" claim as legitimate support for those claims.
> 
> The fact is, we have no reason to believe that the gods authored any bibles.
Click to expand...


Now this is an intelligent statement!!! Since the Bible is a specific document with a capitol 'B', I'm not sure what other "bibles" you are referring to. Since the authors of the 66 different books in the historical collection known as "The Bible" all refer to a monotheistic God, your reference to gods shows an utter and complete ignorance for the work you are referring to.

So in your response to your statement, I would agree. I, too, have no reason to believe little 'g' gods authored little 'b' bibles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs-Q0JmWjj0


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you happen to notice that your second argument negates the first? The Bible teaches God has eternally existed in the past. You used the same flawed logic Hollie used. Causality arguments require a beginning. If something has always been, it doesn't need a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first second argument does not negate my first argument. There aren't even two arguments that I made. There is only one, so this isn't even possible. Nor am I the one putting forth a causality argument, I am saying causality is NOT needed. The other part of my post was a refutation about biological complexity, so you're assertion about my arguments negating eachother is really out of left field. Nice try though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argument 1: God doesn't solve anything in terms of the Big Bang Cosmology. If God caused the Big Bang, what caused God? [This argument infers that cause is needed]
> 
> Argument 2: *Secondly*, the idea there needs to be cause is unfounded.
> 
> I'm not sure what English classes you took as a kid, but that my friend right there is two arguments. Call them two points... whatever. You even say "Secondly".
Click to expand...


Wow. You're being kind of an asshole. Let me set you straight... 

In my first paragraph, I was responding to assertions made by someone else about there being a first cause.  I wasn't asserting that a first cause was necessary. Someone else did. I was going with the assumption that there exists a first cause for the sake of the argument and discourse. I then go onto to challenge that underlying assumption entirely, by asserting that no cause is in fact necessary, which makes any argument about a first cause, unsound. You have no idea what you are talking about. Stop trying to sound philosophically smart. You're an idiot, and what you just did was really dishonest, or really stupid.

Let me just say, that a point or assertion, is not synonymous with an argument. Don't get the two confused. The only argument I made was that no cause was needed. The rest was me responding to claims about there being a first cause. Asshole!


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first second argument does not negate my first argument. There aren't even two arguments that I made. There is only one, so this isn't even possible. Nor am I the one putting forth a causality argument, I am saying causality is NOT needed. The other part of my post was a refutation about biological complexity, so you're assertion about my arguments negating eachother is really out of left field. Nice try though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Argument 1: God doesn't solve anything in terms of the Big Bang Cosmology. If God caused the Big Bang, what caused God? [This argument infers that cause is needed]
> 
> Argument 2: *Secondly*, the idea there needs to be cause is unfounded.
> 
> I'm not sure what English classes you took as a kid, but that my friend right there is two arguments. Call them two points... whatever. You even say "Secondly".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. You're being kind of an asshole. Let me set you straight...
> 
> In my first paragraph, I was responding to assertions made by someone else about there being a first cause.  I wasn't asserting that a first cause was necessary. Someone else did. I was going with the assumption that there exists a first cause for the sake of the argument and discourse. I then go onto to challenge that underlying assumption entirely, by asserting that no cause is in fact necessary, which makes any argument about a first cause, unsound. You have no idea what you are talking about. Stop trying to sound philosophically smart. You're an idiot, and what you just did was really dishonest, or really stupid.
> 
> Let me just say, that a point or assertion, is not synonymous with an argument. Don't get the two confused. The only argument I made was that no cause was needed. The rest was me responding to claims about there being a first cause. Asshole!
Click to expand...


Real mature.

Please clarify then what question you are referring to when you said "the big cosmological question".


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Argument 1: God doesn't solve anything in terms of the Big Bang Cosmology. If God caused the Big Bang, what caused God? [This argument infers that cause is needed]
> 
> Argument 2: *Secondly*, the idea there needs to be cause is unfounded.
> 
> I'm not sure what English classes you took as a kid, but that my friend right there is two arguments. Call them two points... whatever. You even say "Secondly".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You're being kind of an asshole. Let me set you straight...
> 
> In my first paragraph, I was responding to assertions made by someone else about there being a first cause.  I wasn't asserting that a first cause was necessary. Someone else did. I was going with the assumption that there exists a first cause for the sake of the argument and discourse. I then go onto to challenge that underlying assumption entirely, by asserting that no cause is in fact necessary, which makes any argument about a first cause, unsound. You have no idea what you are talking about. Stop trying to sound philosophically smart. You're an idiot, and what you just did was really dishonest, or really stupid.
> 
> Let me just say, that a point or assertion, is not synonymous with an argument. Don't get the two confused. The only argument I made was that no cause was needed. The rest was me responding to claims about there being a first cause. Asshole!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real mature.
Click to expand...


Alright, sorry. But, I felt like you were really nitpicking in a fashion that was really dishonest, and its annoying to have to deal with in the course of a debate. You know I wasn't making two separate arguments, which leads me to conclude that you are simply trying to embarrass me or make me look bad, hoping I wouldn't catch your logical trickery. That's offensive!

But hey, all is fair in love and war, but don't be surprised if someone calls bullshit!


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You're being kind of an asshole. Let me set you straight...
> 
> In my first paragraph, I was responding to assertions made by someone else about there being a first cause.  I wasn't asserting that a first cause was necessary. Someone else did. I was going with the assumption that there exists a first cause for the sake of the argument and discourse. I then go onto to challenge that underlying assumption entirely, by asserting that no cause is in fact necessary, which makes any argument about a first cause, unsound. You have no idea what you are talking about. Stop trying to sound philosophically smart. You're an idiot, and what you just did was really dishonest, or really stupid.
> 
> Let me just say, that a point or assertion, is not synonymous with an argument. Don't get the two confused. The only argument I made was that no cause was needed. The rest was me responding to claims about there being a first cause. Asshole!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real mature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alright, sorry. But, I felt like you were really nitpicking in a fashion that was really dishonest, and its annoying to have to deal with in the course of a debate. You know I wasn't making two separate arguments, which leads me to conclude that you are simply trying to embarrass me or make me look bad, hoping I wouldn't catch your logical trickery. That's offensive!
> 
> But hey, all is fair in love and war, but don't be surprised if someone calls bullshit!
Click to expand...


My point was it appears first that you are inferring a cause but stating reasons why it can't be God and then you seem to make an argument that cause is not needed. What I really should have said is, which one is it? Cause or no cause?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real mature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, sorry. But, I felt like you were really nitpicking in a fashion that was really dishonest, and its annoying to have to deal with in the course of a debate. You know I wasn't making two separate arguments, which leads me to conclude that you are simply trying to embarrass me or make me look bad, hoping I wouldn't catch your logical trickery. That's offensive!
> 
> But hey, all is fair in love and war, but don't be surprised if someone calls bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was it appears first that you are inferring a cause but stating reasons why it can't be God and then you seem to make an argument that cause is not needed. What I really should have said is, which one is it? Cause or no cause?
Click to expand...


First, I would like to say that debating is dynamic. I don't need to have a static position with regards to everything. If someone puts forth assumptions that I don't feel like rebutting, or simply going with for whatever reason, I am entitled to do that. Why can't I, in the course of a debate, and for the reasons of discourse, follow assumptions? For instance, I can follow the assumption that there exists a first cause, because this allows me to debate on the same grounds as people who actually believe this to be true. It is useful to do this. That is all I was doing. I honestly don't know whether there was a first cause. My second point was then making the assertion that a first cause is not necessary. I wouldn't call this an argument, because I haven't concluded anything.  Also, I wasn't try to assert positively, that no first cause exists, but when people are trying to use first cause arguments as a basis for god, I can use "no first cause needed" as a rebuttal of that assertion.

You are perhaps right, that my use of "secondly" may have indicated a second argument or premise. it may have simply been incorrect of me to use this word. I should not have used it here.


----------



## UltimateReality

When I was in church today I was thinking about the people I interact with here in this forum and started realizing how hopeless atheism really is. The pastor talked about how they had buried his baby sister, who only lived 40 days, when he was just 10. He then talked about an old hymn called "It is well."

This hymn was written after several traumatic events in Spafford&#8217;s life. The first was the death of his only son in 1871 at the age of four, shortly followed by the great Chicago Fire which ruined him financially (he had been a successful lawyer). Then in 1873, he had planned to travel to Europe with his family on the SS Ville du Havre, but sent the family ahead while he was delayed on business concerning zoning problems following the Great Chicago Fire. While crossing the Atlantic, the ship sank rapidly after a collision with a sea vessel, the Loch Earn, and all four of Spafford's daughters died. His wife Anna survived and sent him the now famous telegram, "Saved alone . . .". Shortly afterwards, as Spafford traveled to meet his grieving wife, he was inspired to write these words as his ship passed near where his daughters had died.

A few of the lyrics:

When peace like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

I was thinking about my mom today too. Her birthday would have been two days ago. She struggled with Alzheimers for 10 years to the point she was bed ridden and couldn't even feed herself.  She passed away 3 years ago and I was able to spend the last few days with her by her bed until Friday morning at 5 am when she took her last breath and finally rested. 

Her death sent me into a year long mid life crisis. I will define a mid life crisis as the full HEART realization that life isn't forever. You see, we all have the HEAD knowledge that life is finite, but most of us can spend our entire life without the FULL HEART realization that there will be an end. As a cop for 10-years I had seen many people die, young and old. I'd seen the aftermath of a young man who ended the desparation with a 30/30 rifle inserted into his mouth. What a mess. I had seen the drug addict, who out of consideration of the people who would find her, had slit her wrist in the bath tub of a flea bag hotel on Apache Blvd. These were tragedies, but they weren't real to me. They were just strangers, unfortunate casualties of the desperate times we live in. With my mother's death, death became really real, and I began to question some aspects of my faith. Then I wound up going through a 12-week series called the Truth Project. I wound up becoming very interested in the ID movement, and on that path, had my faith restored. I look at world around me in a whole new light.  

I relate this little story because after my mother's death, I really questioned what was really the point of this whole mess. My mother had a very hard child hood, belonging to a very poor family of farmers in Boaz, Alabama. Her mom and dad were alcoholics. Somehow she and my straight laced "Bible-thumping" dad fell in love and got married. I know she enjoyed her adult life, raised three kids, and had many very close friends in our church, only to be SLOWLY robbed of all her life and memories which started at age 63 by a very cruel disease. 

I remember one night close to the end when I was getting ready to come back to Phoenix after visiting her in the hospital. It was late and I had taken my dad home to get some rest and stopped back into the hospital before making the 100 mile drive home. There was a male nurse trying to clean her up after she had a messed herself. The disease had progressed to where she no longer had control of her bowels. She was so scared and really didn't know what was happening to her. She was trembling and didn't understand what this strange man was doing to her. I could just see the terror in her eyes and all I could do was just hold her hand and tell her it was going to be okay. I hope she found comfort in my voice, even though consciously she no longer even knew who I was. 

For some of you, during times of suffering, the question becomes "How could God let this happen?" For me it was just the opposite. I questioned, "How can I make sense of all this in the absence of God?" If God isn't real, what a cruel joke life is. What cruel chance is our presence here. 

What a joy it is to have my faith in Christ restored. I know that I am just a pilgrim on a journey through this life but this isn't all there is. My hope remains in Christ, even in death. I know deep in my heart I will see my mother again, with her memories fully restored. You may think I believe in a fairy tell. But for me that confidence is unwavering. 

I just can't even imagine how hopeless life would be without that hope. Natural Selection is cruel. Why do some get to live to 100 but others die before the age of two months. Why are some lives even ended before their tiny lungs ever even fill with air? 

And what of your loved ones who have died? They were just here a little while and now done forever. Only their memory remains in you and with your demise, those too will be gone and it will be like their life never even happened.

But for me, no matter what comes my way, it is well with my soul.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> When I was in church today I was thinking about the people I interact with here in this forum and started realizing how hopeless atheism really is. The pastor talked about how they had buried his baby sister, who only lived 40 days, when he was just 10. He then talked about an old hymn called "It is well."



How really sleazy that you would invent some sappy story for the purpose of evangelizing.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in church today I was thinking about the people I interact with here in this forum and started realizing how hopeless atheism really is. The pastor talked about how they had buried his baby sister, who only lived 40 days, when he was just 10. He then talked about an old hymn called "It is well."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How really sleazy that you would invent some sappy story for the purpose of evangelizing.
Click to expand...


You are just as cruel as the atheism you defend. This post shows your utter and complete denial of the truth about your life and what it means. You know deep in your heart what the truth is. I know I hit close to home when I said that you are angry with God for something that happened in your past.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in church today I was thinking about the people I interact with here in this forum and started realizing how hopeless atheism really is. The pastor talked about how they had buried his baby sister, who only lived 40 days, when he was just 10. He then talked about an old hymn called "It is well."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How really sleazy that you would invent some sappy story for the purpose of evangelizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just as cruel as the atheism you defend. This post shows your utter and complete denial of the truth about your life and what it means. You know deep in your heart what the truth is. I know I hit close to home when I said that you are angry with God for something that happened in your past.
Click to expand...


Theres no need for you to project your emotional and intellectual weaknesses on others.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, your statement, "To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"
> Couldn't it also be said that, "To the evolutionist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"?
> The difference is with the Big Bang  you cannot explain how 0 banging into 0 = something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it couldn't at all be the case that to the evolutionist, complexity emerged instantaneously. It was extremely gradual and took billions of years of very slow progress. God doesn't solve anything in terms of the big cosmological question. If god is the cause of the big bang, What caused God? What caused that being? What caused that being? You get into an infinite regress of causes that doesn't solve the initial problem. You can't simply say god is timeless or doesn't need a cause, because you have no empirical basis on which to make that claim. that is simply making a definition to get you out of the problem of infinite regress.
> 
> Secondly, the idea that there needs to be a cause is unfounded, and although intuitive, does not mean there needs to be one. Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality.
Click to expand...


You have no proof complexity gradually evolved.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, your statement, "To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"
> Couldn't it also be said that, "To the evolutionist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"?
> The difference is with the Big Bang  you cannot explain how 0 banging into 0 = something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it couldn't at all be the case that to the evolutionist, complexity emerged instantaneously. It was extremely gradual and took billions of years of very slow progress. God doesn't solve anything in terms of the big cosmological question. If god is the cause of the big bang, What caused God? What caused that being? What caused that being? You get into an infinite regress of causes that doesn't solve the initial problem. You can't simply say god is timeless or doesn't need a cause, because you have no empirical basis on which to make that claim. that is simply making a definition to get you out of the problem of infinite regress.
> 
> Secondly, the idea that there needs to be a cause is unfounded, and although intuitive, does not mean there needs to be one. Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no proof complexity gradually evolved.
Click to expand...


A function of biological evolution is fitness for survival and adaption via specilization. That process spurs a gradual process of greater complexity.

So obviously you are wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it couldn't at all be the case that to the evolutionist, complexity emerged instantaneously. It was extremely gradual and took billions of years of very slow progress. God doesn't solve anything in terms of the big cosmological question. If god is the cause of the big bang, What caused God? What caused that being? What caused that being? You get into an infinite regress of causes that doesn't solve the initial problem. You can't simply say god is timeless or doesn't need a cause, because you have no empirical basis on which to make that claim. that is simply making a definition to get you out of the problem of infinite regress.
> 
> Secondly, the idea that there needs to be a cause is unfounded, and although intuitive, does not mean there needs to be one. Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no proof complexity gradually evolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A function of biological evolution is fitness for survival and adaption via specilization. That process spurs a gradual process of greater complexity.
> 
> So obviously you are wrong.
Click to expand...


Then you should be able to explain how a non intelligent natural process could evolve molecular machines that were a necessity for life to develop.These molecular machines had to be designed by this natural process and exist in the first cell. Molecular machines keep cells alive and or can kill the cell.

They didn't have time to evolve,don't have a clue what you are thinking.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no proof complexity gradually evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A function of biological evolution is fitness for survival and adaption via specilization. That process spurs a gradual process of greater complexity.
> 
> So obviously you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I you should be able to explain how a non intelligent natural process could evolve molecular machines that were a necessity for life to develop.These molecular machines had to be designed by this natural process and exist in the first cell. Molecular machines keep cells alive and or can kill the cell.
> 
> They didn't have time to evolve,don't have a clue what you are thinking.
Click to expand...


 There's no need to introduce meaningless terms such as "molecular machines" when describing the process of evolution. I've seen that term seized upon by the fundie creationist crowd because a machine implies design. It's another of the deceptive and dishonest tactics employed by the religious cabal. 

Examination of the process of evolution and the increasing complexity of life is available to you. You won't find the science of that process on the Harun Yahya website but there are vast sources of science fact available to you. 

Becoming angry and assaulting people with your religious views makes you look quite desperate.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no proof complexity gradually evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A function of biological evolution is fitness for survival and adaption via specilization. That process spurs a gradual process of greater complexity.
> 
> So obviously you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to explain how a non intelligent natural process could evolve molecular machines that were a necessity for life to develop.These molecular machines had to be designed by this natural process and exist in the first cell. Molecular machines keep cells alive and or can kill the cell.
> 
> They didn't have time to evolve,don't have a clue what you are thinking.
Click to expand...


Not to mention the fact that there is no self-replicating molecule. The cell handles the process of copying dna like a tiny factory. 

And Hollie, of course when humans see a machine they intuitively know it was designed. What else could you call the amazing processes going on in the cell? This is the part where I laugh hysterically. How much faith does it take to believe the cell happened by random, chance processes? An infinite amount!!! Since there isn't a shred of modern evidence to support any natural process that could be responsible, nor is there any evidence for a prehistoric method. You truly are a woman of great faith!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Becoming angry and assaulting people with your religious views makes you look quite desperate.



Projecting...again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A function of biological evolution is fitness for survival and adaption via specilization. That process spurs a gradual process of greater complexity.
> 
> So obviously you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I you should be able to explain how a non intelligent natural process could evolve molecular machines that were a necessity for life to develop.These molecular machines had to be designed by this natural process and exist in the first cell. Molecular machines keep cells alive and or can kill the cell.
> 
> They didn't have time to evolve,don't have a clue what you are thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no need to introduce meaningless terms such as "molecular machines" when describing the process of evolution. I've seen that term seized upon by the fundie creationist crowd because a machine implies design. It's another of the deceptive and dishonest tactics employed by the religious cabal.
> 
> Examination of the process of evolution and the increasing complexity of life is available to you. You won't find the science of that process on the Harun Yahya website but there are vast sources of science fact available to you.
> 
> Becoming angry and assaulting people with your religious views makes you look quite desperate.
Click to expand...


 Transcription of DNA how does it happen ?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A function of biological evolution is fitness for survival and adaption via specilization. That process spurs a gradual process of greater complexity.
> 
> So obviously you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to explain how a non intelligent natural process could evolve molecular machines that were a necessity for life to develop.These molecular machines had to be designed by this natural process and exist in the first cell. Molecular machines keep cells alive and or can kill the cell.
> 
> They didn't have time to evolve,don't have a clue what you are thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention the fact that there is no self-replicating molecule. The cell handles the process of copying dna like a tiny factory.
> 
> And Hollie, of course when humans see a machine they intuitively know it was designed. What else could you call the amazing processes going on in the cell? This is the part where I laugh hysterically. How much faith does it take to believe the cell happened by random, chance processes? An infinite amount!!! Since there isn't a shred of modern evidence to support any natural process that could be responsible, nor is there any evidence for a prehistoric method. You truly are a woman of great faith!!
Click to expand...


Bad analogies and false comparisons will not save your flawed argument. 

In furtherance of your attempt to force your gods into an environment of science, you tend to make these silly mistakes. Supernatural, supermagical gods really are the domain of Harun Yahya and similar sites where your cutting and pasting derives.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Becoming angry and assaulting people with your religious views makes you look quite desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting...again.
Click to expand...


Was that what I was doing to Hollie ? She really hates it when we actually discuss molecular biology.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Becoming angry and assaulting people with your religious views makes you look quite desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting...again.
Click to expand...


Projecting your failures and insecurities on others is not going to help you overcome them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to explain how a non intelligent natural process could evolve molecular machines that were a necessity for life to develop.These molecular machines had to be designed by this natural process and exist in the first cell. Molecular machines keep cells alive and or can kill the cell.
> 
> They didn't have time to evolve,don't have a clue what you are thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the fact that there is no self-replicating molecule. The cell handles the process of copying dna like a tiny factory.
> 
> And Hollie, of course when humans see a machine they intuitively know it was designed. What else could you call the amazing processes going on in the cell? This is the part where I laugh hysterically. How much faith does it take to believe the cell happened by random, chance processes? An infinite amount!!! Since there isn't a shred of modern evidence to support any natural process that could be responsible, nor is there any evidence for a prehistoric method. You truly are a woman of great faith!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad analogies and false comparisons will not save your flawed argument.
> 
> In furtherance of your attempt to force your gods into an environment of science, you tend to make these silly mistakes. Supernatural, supermagical gods really are the domain of Harun Yahya and similar sites where your cutting and pasting derives.
Click to expand...


Hollie, you are so silly and possess rediculous responses when you are confronted with real science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Becoming angry and assaulting people with your religious views makes you look quite desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting...again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was that what I was doing to Hollie ? She really hates it when we actually discuss molecular biology.
Click to expand...


You never discuss molecular biology. I have taken you to task on several occasions for copying and pasting falsified "quotes" and manufactured data from fundie Christian creationist ministries.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting...again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that what I was doing to Hollie ? She really hates it when we actually discuss molecular biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never discuss molecular biology. I have taken you to task on several occasions for copying and pasting falsified "quotes" and manufactured data from fundie Christian creationist ministries.
Click to expand...


You keep showing your ignorance. We are discussing molecular biology.

Here let me help you with a definition of molecular biology.

What is Molecular Biology?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting...again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that what I was doing to Hollie ? She really hates it when we actually discuss molecular biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never discuss molecular biology. I have taken you to task on several occasions for copying and pasting falsified "quotes" and manufactured data from fundie Christian creationist ministries.
Click to expand...


The only thing that can help you out of your position of denialHollie is to study everything about a cell.Then ask yourself how could all these parts of a cell come together at once to form the first cell. The first cell then had to form other cells just like the first.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the fact that there is no self-replicating molecule. The cell handles the process of copying dna like a tiny factory.
> 
> And Hollie, of course when humans see a machine they intuitively know it was designed. What else could you call the amazing processes going on in the cell? This is the part where I laugh hysterically. How much faith does it take to believe the cell happened by random, chance processes? An infinite amount!!! Since there isn't a shred of modern evidence to support any natural process that could be responsible, nor is there any evidence for a prehistoric method. You truly are a woman of great faith!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad analogies and false comparisons will not save your flawed argument.
> 
> In furtherance of your attempt to force your gods into an environment of science, you tend to make these silly mistakes. Supernatural, supermagical gods really are the domain of Harun Yahya and similar sites where your cutting and pasting derives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, you are so silly and possess rediculous responses when you are confronted with real science.
Click to expand...


You are so silly when trying to bring your religious fears and superstitions into a science environment. 

Religion is not science. See, I've spelled out these two terms. Can you see that they are spelled differently?

You should be aware by now that science operates in the realm of reason and rationality while your religious beliefs operate in the realm of fear, superstition and hear-say claims. 

You are unwilling to let go of those fears and superstitions choosing to live in trembling fear of supernatural, supermagical gods. 

Embrace fear and the silliness of Harun Yahya if you choose but don't think that your cutting and pasting from fundie creationist ministries will be taken seriously.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was that what I was doing to Hollie ? She really hates it when we actually discuss molecular biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never discuss molecular biology. I have taken you to task on several occasions for copying and pasting falsified "quotes" and manufactured data from fundie Christian creationist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing that can help you out of your position of denialHollie is to study everything about a cell.Then ask yourself how could all these parts of a cell come together at once to form the first cell. The first cell then had to form other cells just like the first.
Click to expand...


The study of cell biology is not in the realm of Harun Yahya and similar fundie crestionist websites. 

Cutting / pasting and paraphrasing from fundie creationist websites confuses you terribly because you do nothing more then reiterate the nonsensical and falsified "quotes" that have gotten you in trouble before.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to explain how a non intelligent natural process could evolve molecular machines that were a necessity for life to develop.These molecular machines had to be designed by this natural process and exist in the first cell. Molecular machines keep cells alive and or can kill the cell.
> 
> They didn't have time to evolve,don't have a clue what you are thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the fact that there is no self-replicating molecule. The cell handles the process of copying dna like a tiny factory.
> 
> And Hollie, of course when humans see a machine they intuitively know it was designed. What else could you call the amazing processes going on in the cell? This is the part where I laugh hysterically. How much faith does it take to believe the cell happened by random, chance processes? An infinite amount!!! Since there isn't a shred of modern evidence to support any natural process that could be responsible, nor is there any evidence for a prehistoric method. You truly are a woman of great faith!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad analogies and false comparisons will not save your flawed argument.
> 
> In furtherance of your attempt to force your gods into an environment of science, you tend to make these silly mistakes. Supernatural, supermagical gods really are the domain of Harun Yahya and similar sites where your cutting and pasting derives.
Click to expand...


I have no clue who you are talking about. Who is this Harun Yahya you keep quoting????


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Becoming angry and assaulting people with your religious views makes you look quite desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting...again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projecting your failures and insecurities on others is not going to help you overcome them.
Click to expand...


No projection on my part needed. You are doing a great job of showing your insecurities on your own.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was that what I was doing to Hollie ? She really hates it when we actually discuss molecular biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never discuss molecular biology. I have taken you to task on several occasions for copying and pasting falsified "quotes" and manufactured data from fundie Christian creationist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep showing your ignorance. We are discussing molecular biology.
> 
> Here let me help you with a definition of molecular biology.
> 
> What is Molecular Biology?
Click to expand...

As usual, you make the mistake of cutting and pasting information you are wholly ignorant of. 

You will have no options available to you other than cutting and pasting YouTube videos produced by creationist ministries or cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya. Both are a waste of time and bandwidth.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bad analogies and false comparisons will not save your flawed argument.
> 
> In furtherance of your attempt to force your gods into an environment of science, you tend to make these silly mistakes. Supernatural, supermagical gods really are the domain of Harun Yahya and similar sites where your cutting and pasting derives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you are so silly and possess rediculous responses when you are confronted with real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so silly when trying to bring your religious fears and superstitions into a science environment.
> 
> Religion is not science. See, I've spelled out these two terms. Can you see that they are spelled differently?
> 
> You should be aware by now that science operates in the realm of reason and rationality while your religious beliefs operate in the realm of fear, superstition and hear-say claims.
> 
> You are unwilling to let go of those fears and superstitions choosing to live in trembling fear of supernatural, supermagical gods.
> 
> Embrace fear and the silliness of Harun Yahya if you choose but don't think that your cutting and pasting from fundie creationist ministries will be taken seriously.
Click to expand...


More condescending talk and severe lack of a legitimate argument. YWC, why do we argue with her? The Islam forum was having no better luck 5-years ago when he/she was posing as the man rugged touch. Arguing with Hollie is akin to arguing with a drunk or beating your head against a wall. She never actually says anything or presents a logical thought, but just continues with attacking the source (AD Hollyman fallacy). 

I am putting him/her/it back on ignore... again. She is just a waste of everyone's time.

God still loves you though Hollie. I don't think you would be here on these forums if his call on your heart was totally gone. Even though I am ignoring you from now on, I will be praying for you to put away the hurt and anger from your childhood and accept the love of God you so desperately need. Take Care.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting...again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting your failures and insecurities on others is not going to help you overcome them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No projection on my part needed. You are doing a great job of showing your insecurities on your own.
Click to expand...


Here you are again, projecting your fears and securities.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you are so silly and possess rediculous responses when you are confronted with real science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so silly when trying to bring your religious fears and superstitions into a science environment.
> 
> Religion is not science. See, I've spelled out these two terms. Can you see that they are spelled differently?
> 
> You should be aware by now that science operates in the realm of reason and rationality while your religious beliefs operate in the realm of fear, superstition and hear-say claims.
> 
> You are unwilling to let go of those fears and superstitions choosing to live in trembling fear of supernatural, supermagical gods.
> 
> Embrace fear and the silliness of Harun Yahya if you choose but don't think that your cutting and pasting from fundie creationist ministries will be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More condescending talk and severe lack of a legitimate argument. YWC, why do we argue with her? The Islam forum was having no better luck 5-years ago when he/she was posing as the man rugged touch. Arguing with Hollie is akin to arguing with a drunk or beating your head against a wall. She never actually says anything or presents a logical thought, but just continues with attacking the source (AD Hollyman fallacy).
> 
> I am putting him/her/it back on ignore. She is just a waste of everyone's time.
Click to expand...


Here you are again unable to present a coherent argument so you are left with nothing but failed personal attacks and juvenile name- calling. 

It's a shame that the entirety of you posts amounts to cutting and pasting but I've scolded you previously about the falsified " quotes" you mindlessly post.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never discuss molecular biology. I have taken you to task on several occasions for copying and pasting falsified "quotes" and manufactured data from fundie Christian creationist ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that can help you out of your position of denialHollie is to study everything about a cell.Then ask yourself how could all these parts of a cell come together at once to form the first cell. The first cell then had to form other cells just like the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The study of cell biology is not in the realm of Harun Yahya and similar fundie crestionist websites.
> 
> Cutting / pasting and paraphrasing from fundie creationist websites confuses you terribly because you do nothing more then reiterate the nonsensical and falsified "quotes" that have gotten you in trouble before.
Click to expand...


I was not educated at Harun Yahya Hollie. I actually studied cells so I can speak from exp Hollie,how bout you ?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so silly when trying to bring your religious fears and superstitions into a science environment.
> 
> Religion is not science. See, I've spelled out these two terms. Can you see that they are spelled differently?
> 
> You should be aware by now that science operates in the realm of reason and rationality while your religious beliefs operate in the realm of fear, superstition and hear-say claims.
> 
> You are unwilling to let go of those fears and superstitions choosing to live in trembling fear of supernatural, supermagical gods.
> 
> Embrace fear and the silliness of Harun Yahya if you choose but don't think that your cutting and pasting from fundie creationist ministries will be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More condescending talk and severe lack of a legitimate argument. YWC, why do we argue with her? The Islam forum was having no better luck 5-years ago when he/she was posing as the man rugged touch. Arguing with Hollie is akin to arguing with a drunk or beating your head against a wall. She never actually says anything or presents a logical thought, but just continues with attacking the source (AD Hollyman fallacy).
> 
> I am putting him/her/it back on ignore. She is just a waste of everyone's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you are again unable to present a coherent argument so you are left with nothing but failed personal attacks and juvenile name- calling.
> 
> It's a shame that the entirety of you posts amounts to cutting and pasting but I've scolded you previously about the falsified " quotes" you mindlessly post.
Click to expand...


Praying for you.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> More condescending talk and severe lack of a legitimate argument. YWC, why do we argue with her? The Islam forum was having no better luck 5-years ago when he/she was posing as the man rugged touch. Arguing with Hollie is akin to arguing with a drunk or beating your head against a wall. She never actually says anything or presents a logical thought, but just continues with attacking the source (AD Hollyman fallacy).
> 
> I am putting him/her/it back on ignore. She is just a waste of everyone's time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are again unable to present a coherent argument so you are left with nothing but failed personal attacks and juvenile name- calling.
> 
> It's a shame that the entirety of you posts amounts to cutting and pasting but I've scolded you previously about the falsified " quotes" you mindlessly post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Praying for you.
Click to expand...

Hoping you let go of fear and ignorance.


----------



## daws101

The Irish Ram said:


> First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774
> 
> O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!
> 
> Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.
> 
> As for form, it was conducted on their knees.


show me the proof.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are still dodging the question. If the universe and everything in it had a beginning,where did the matter come from ?
> 
> I could care less about your dating methods, I asked you to do the math and you were given the information to work the formula.
> 
> Once you do the math it contradicts the age of the earth and and universe according to the dated moon rocks.
> 
> Do you just post crap up whether it answers my question or not ?
> 
> It contradicts evolutions timeline.
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.
> 
> According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just say it ,an outside source is responsible for the matter's existence. Time began with creation.
Click to expand...

say what? ..ok you're an asshole
as to your statement it's false there is no evidence of an outside force. the singularities  mentioned in the BBT are in this UNIVERSE NOT OUTSIDE IT.
SO THE OUTSIDE FORCE YOU YAMMER ABOUT IS UNPROVABLE.
AS IS YOUR FAIRY TALE THAT GOD DID IT.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Regarding your "because I say so" comment. I didn't say it but thousands of theologians for the last 3000 or 4000 years have said it. It is part of our doctrine on God and the Bible clearly teaches this. You are presenting an argument against someone or something you say does not exist. That is REAL intelligent. But at least if you are going to punch at the air, you should argue against the commonly held beliefs of the Christians you hate some much instead of building up a strawman you can tear down.
> 
> Please re-present your argument with the commonly held Christian beliefs that God has always existed and will always exist. And that he is outside the Creation (Theism) and exists outside of time, matter, space, and energy, all of which did not exist before the Big Bangenstein.


SO SINCE 1000S OF ASHOLES SAY SOMTHING IS TRUE FOR ALONG TIME IT MUST TRUE (PLACE IRONY HERE )


 "the commonly held Christian beliefs that God has always existed and will always "UR

e·lief noun \b&#601;-&#712;l&#275;f\
Definition of BELIEF
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing 
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
SINCE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO BOLSTER YOUR  BELIEF.
ALL YOU HAVE IS FAITH :firm belief in something for which there is no proof 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith> 
if you had any acual proof then there would be no need for faith.


----------



## daws101

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie, your statement, "To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"
> Couldn't it also be said that, "To the evolutionist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"?
> The difference is with the Big Bang  you cannot explain how 0 banging into 0 = something.


you're mis interpreting the BBT. 

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. 
__________________
 Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something.
 not:0 banging into 0 = something.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding your "because I say so" comment. I didn't say it but thousands of theologians for the last 3000 or 4000 years have said it. It is part of our doctrine on God and the Bible clearly teaches this. You are presenting an argument against someone or something you say does not exist. That is REAL intelligent. But at least if you are going to punch at the air, you should argue against the commonly held beliefs of the Christians you hate some much instead of building up a strawman you can tear down.
> 
> Please re-present your argument with the commonly held Christian beliefs that God has always existed and will always exist. And that he is outside the Creation (Theism) and exists outside of time, matter, space, and energy, all of which did not exist before the Big Bangenstein.
> 
> 
> 
> SO SINCE 1000S OF ASHOLES SAY SOMTHING IS TRUE FOR ALONG TIME IT MUST TRUE (PLACE IRONY HERE )
> 
> 
> "the commonly held Christian beliefs that God has always existed and will always "UR
> 
> e·lief noun \b&#601;-&#712;l&#275;f\
> Definition of BELIEF
> 1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
> 2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
> 3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
> SINCE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO BOLSTER YOUR  BELIEF.
> ALL YOU HAVE IS FAITH :firm belief in something for which there is no proof 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
> if you had any acual proof then there would be no need for faith.
Click to expand...


You are smoking crack if you think it doesn't take faith to believe in the TOE, or that the micro machines we see in the cell accidentally self assembled.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you happen to notice that your second argument negates the first? The Bible teaches God has eternally existed in the past. You used the same flawed logic Hollie used. Causality arguments require a beginning. If something has always been, it doesn't need a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first second argument does not negate my first argument. *There aren't even two arguments that I made*. There is only one, so this isn't even possible. *Nor am I the one putting forth a causality argument*, I am saying causality is NOT needed. The other part of my post was a refutation about biological complexity, so you're assertion about my arguments negating eachother is really out of left field. Nice try though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argument 1: God doesn't solve anything in terms of the Big Bang Cosmology. Basis of your argument: If God caused the Big Bang, what caused God? [This argument infers that cause is needed]
> 
> Argument 2: *Secondly*, the idea there needs to be cause is unfounded. Basis of your second argument: Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality. [in fact, this sounds an awful lot like a Causality argument!!!]
> 
> I'm not sure what English classes you took as a kid, but that my friend right there is two arguments. Call them two points... whatever. You even say "Secondly".
Click to expand...

they're obviously were better than the one you took ....
when I was studying english an augment could have several points or sub arguments to bolster it's main point.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, your statement, "To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"
> Couldn't it also be said that, "To the evolutionist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"?
> The difference is with the Big Bang  you cannot explain how 0 banging into 0 = something.
> 
> 
> 
> you're mis interpreting the BBT.
> 
> According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
Click to expand...


I think you may be misrepresenting the Big Bang theory. The physics of the Big Bang does not say the universe originated at a specific point. Otherwise, we could calculate the space geographic location of the original bang point. Space is expanding in all directions. The background radiation is located at every point in the sky. In fact, scientists scoffed at Christians for their belief the earth is at the center of the solar system. Turns out, the earth is at the center of the universe after all!!! Because everything is expanding away from our planet and the further an object is away from us, the faster it is accelerating away. Pick a point in the sky. This is happening equally in all directions from us. So let's really see how up on your BB Physics you are. Answer this question: Is our earth at the original singularity point of the initial bang? Or is something else going on?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first second argument does not negate my first argument. *There aren't even two arguments that I made*. There is only one, so this isn't even possible. *Nor am I the one putting forth a causality argument*, I am saying causality is NOT needed. The other part of my post was a refutation about biological complexity, so you're assertion about my arguments negating eachother is really out of left field. Nice try though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Argument 1: God doesn't solve anything in terms of the Big Bang Cosmology. Basis of your argument: If God caused the Big Bang, what caused God? [This argument infers that cause is needed]
> 
> Argument 2: *Secondly*, the idea there needs to be cause is unfounded. Basis of your second argument: Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality. [in fact, this sounds an awful lot like a Causality argument!!!]
> 
> I'm not sure what English classes you took as a kid, but that my friend right there is two arguments. Call them two points... whatever. You even say "Secondly".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they're obviously were better than the one you took ....
> when I was studying english an augment could have several points or sub arguments to bolster it's main point.
Click to expand...


You think so? Try again Homeslice. Each argument is making a different point, not a sub point of the other one. NP clarified this in a later post and he could have avoided confusion by stating in the first argument that he was going to assume for a second, that the BB had a cause. Guess your English classes were just as bad as NP's.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I meant exactly what I said.  I am nothing if not consistent.
> God authored the Bible, while scribes wrote it down.  The proof of that IS God predictions. Man can't see into the future. All we can do is guess.
> I keep asking you mortals, to predict something for me  just a couple hundred years into the future, but you keep changing the subject.
> As for his accuracy?  His bar was, if my prophets say, "so says the Lord", and it fails to happen, take my prophet out back and stone him to death.  No coincidences allowed.
> Even opposing Kings of Israel, called on God's prophets because of their accuracy.
> So, on second thought, instead of predicting me something, do it consistently, and if your wrong one time let me hit you with a rock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're relying on the "becuse I say so" claim as legitimate support for those claims.
> 
> The fact is, we have no reason to believe that the gods authored any bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now this is an intelligent statement!!! Since the Bible is a specific document with a capitol 'B', I'm not sure what other "bibles" you are referring to. Since the authors of the 66 different books in the historical collection known as "The Bible" all refer to a monotheistic God, your reference to gods shows an utter and complete ignorance for the work you are referring to.
> 
> So in your response to your statement, I would agree. I, too, have no reason to believe little 'g' gods authored little 'b' bibles.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs-Q0JmWjj0
Click to expand...

the bible is not a specific document 

specific: free from ambiguity : accurate <a specific statement of faith> 

the bible if full of ambiguities.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> When I was in church today I was thinking about the people I interact with here in this forum and started realizing how hopeless atheism really is. The pastor talked about how they had buried his baby sister, who only lived 40 days, when he was just 10. He then talked about an old hymn called "It is well."
> 
> This hymn was written after several traumatic events in Spaffords life. The first was the death of his only son in 1871 at the age of four, shortly followed by the great Chicago Fire which ruined him financially (he had been a successful lawyer). Then in 1873, he had planned to travel to Europe with his family on the SS Ville du Havre, but sent the family ahead while he was delayed on business concerning zoning problems following the Great Chicago Fire. While crossing the Atlantic, the ship sank rapidly after a collision with a sea vessel, the Loch Earn, and all four of Spafford's daughters died. His wife Anna survived and sent him the now famous telegram, "Saved alone . . .". Shortly afterwards, as Spafford traveled to meet his grieving wife, he was inspired to write these words as his ship passed near where his daughters had died.
> 
> A few of the lyrics:
> 
> When peace like a river, attendeth my way,
> When sorrows like sea billows roll;
> Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
> It is well, it is well, with my soul.
> 
> My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
> My sin, not in part but the whole,
> Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
> Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!
> 
> I was thinking about my mom today too. Her birthday would have been two days ago. She struggled with Alzheimers for 10 years to the point she was bed ridden and couldn't even feed herself.  She passed away 3 years ago and I was able to spend the last few days with her by her bed until Friday morning at 5 am when she took her last breath and finally rested.
> 
> Her death sent me into a year long mid life crisis. I will define a mid life crisis as the full HEART realization that life isn't forever. You see, we all have the HEAD knowledge that life is finite, but most of us can spend our entire life without the FULL HEART realization that there will be an end. As a cop for 10-years I had seen many people die, young and old. I'd seen the aftermath of a young man who ended the desparation with a 30/30 rifle inserted into his mouth. What a mess. I had seen the drug addict, who out of consideration of the people who would find her, had slit her wrist in the bath tub of a flea bag hotel on Apache Blvd. These were tragedies, but they weren't real to me. They were just strangers, unfortunate casualties of the desperate times we live in. With my mother's death, death became really real, and I began to question some aspects of my faith. Then I wound up going through a 12-week series called the Truth Project. I wound up becoming very interested in the ID movement, and on that path, had my faith restored. I look at world around me in a whole new light.
> 
> I relate this little story because after my mother's death, I really questioned what was really the point of this whole mess. My mother had a very hard child hood, belonging to a very poor family of farmers in Boaz, Alabama. Her mom and dad were alcoholics. Somehow she and my straight laced "Bible-thumping" dad fell in love and got married. I know she enjoyed her adult life, raised three kids, and had many very close friends in our church, only to be SLOWLY robbed of all her life and memories which started at age 63 by a very cruel disease.
> 
> I remember one night close to the end when I was getting ready to come back to Phoenix after visiting her in the hospital. It was late and I had taken my dad home to get some rest and stopped back into the hospital before making the 100 mile drive home. There was a male nurse trying to clean her up after she had a messed herself. The disease had progressed to where she no longer had control of her bowels. She was so scared and really didn't know what was happening to her. She was trembling and didn't understand what this strange man was doing to her. I could just see the terror in her eyes and all I could do was just hold her hand and tell her it was going to be okay. I hope she found comfort in my voice, even though consciously she no longer even knew who I was.
> 
> For some of you, during times of suffering, the question becomes "How could God let this happen?" For me it was just the opposite. I questioned, "How can I make sense of all this in the absence of God?" If God isn't real, what a cruel joke life is. What cruel chance is our presence here.
> 
> What a joy it is to have my faith in Christ restored. I know that I am just a pilgrim on a journey through this life but this isn't all there is. My hope remains in Christ, even in death. I know deep in my heart I will see my mother again, with her memories fully restored. You may think I believe in a fairy tell. But for me that confidence is unwavering.
> 
> I just can't even imagine how hopeless life would be without that hope. Natural Selection is cruel. Why do some get to live to 100 but others die before the age of two months. Why are some lives even ended before their tiny lungs ever even fill with air?
> 
> And what of your loved ones who have died? They were just here a little while and now done forever. Only their memory remains in you and with your demise, those too will be gone and it will be like their life never even happened.
> 
> But for me, no matter what comes my way, it is well with my soul.


yawn! another fucking stupid conversion story .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was that what I was doing to Hollie ? She really hates it when we actually discuss molecular biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never discuss molecular biology. I have taken you to task on several occasions for copying and pasting falsified "quotes" and manufactured data from fundie Christian creationist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing that can help you out of your position of denialHollie is to study everything about a cell.Then ask yourself how could all these parts of a cell come together at once to form the first cell. The first cell then had to form other cells just like the first.
Click to expand...

did it ever occur to you that there was never  "one" first cell.
it's almost as lame a concept as your "what system or body part developed first" nonsense.
nature does no do "one offs" there is not only one kind of one celled  lifeforms.
there are billions...  Published online 4 September 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.880 

News

Cells go fractal
Mathematical patterns rule the behaviour of molecules in the nucleus.

Claire Ainsworth 


A cell displays chromatin (green) and a molecule used for tracking (red).
J. ELLENBERGThe maths behind the rugged beauty of a coastline may help to keep cell biology in order, say researchers in Germany. Fractals  rough shapes that look the same at all scales  could explain how the cell's nucleus holds molecules that manage our DNA in the right location. 

In new experiments, Sebastien Huet and Aurélien Bancaud of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany, tracked the movement of molecules within cells in a lab dish, then compared the pattern of movement against mathematical models. Large molecules, they found, moved according to the same rules as small molecules  suggesting that their environment was truly fractal. The team reported their findings this week at the EMBO meeting in Amsterdam.

Cells go fractal : Nature News


as to coming together  (or assembly)  if you studied biology  you'd know that cells or any other living thing grows it's mechanisms from the same material,not desparate parts from different material. 

http://www.fractal.org/Life-Science-Technology/Fractal-like-structure.pdf


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding your "because I say so" comment. I didn't say it but thousands of theologians for the last 3000 or 4000 years have said it. It is part of our doctrine on God and the Bible clearly teaches this. You are presenting an argument against someone or something you say does not exist. That is REAL intelligent. But at least if you are going to punch at the air, you should argue against the commonly held beliefs of the Christians you hate some much instead of building up a strawman you can tear down.
> 
> Please re-present your argument with the commonly held Christian beliefs that God has always existed and will always exist. And that he is outside the Creation (Theism) and exists outside of time, matter, space, and energy, all of which did not exist before the Big Bangenstein.
> 
> 
> 
> SO SINCE 1000S OF ASHOLES SAY SOMTHING IS TRUE FOR ALONG TIME IT MUST TRUE (PLACE IRONY HERE )
> 
> 
> "the commonly held Christian beliefs that God has always existed and will always "UR
> 
> e·lief noun \b&#601;-&#712;l&#275;f\
> Definition of BELIEF
> 1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
> 2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
> 3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
> SINCE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO BOLSTER YOUR  BELIEF.
> ALL YOU HAVE IS FAITH :firm belief in something for which there is no proof 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
> if you had any acual proof then there would be no need for faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are smoking crack if you think it doesn't take faith to believe in the TOE, or that the micro machines we see in the cell accidentally self assembled.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, your statement, "To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"
> Couldn't it also be said that, "To the evolutionist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"?
> The difference is with the Big Bang  you cannot explain how 0 banging into 0 = something.
> 
> 
> 
> you're mis interpreting the BBT.
> 
> According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you may be misrepresenting the Big Bang theory. The physics of the Big Bang does not say the universe originated at a specific point. Otherwise, we could calculate the space geographic location of the original bang point. Space is expanding in all directions. The background radiation is located at every point in the sky. In fact, scientists scoffed at Christians for their belief the earth is at the center of the solar system. Turns out, the earth is at the center of the universe after all!!! Because everything is expanding away from our planet and the further an object is away from us, the faster it is accelerating away. Pick a point in the sky. This is happening equally in all directions from us. So let's really see how up on your BB Physics you are. Answer this question: Is our earth at the original singularity point of the initial bang? Or is something else going on?
Click to expand...

so Copernicus was wrong?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're mis interpreting the BBT.
> 
> According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you may be misrepresenting the Big Bang theory. The physics of the Big Bang does not say the universe originated at a specific point. Otherwise, we could calculate the space geographic location of the original bang point. Space is expanding in all directions. The background radiation is located at every point in the sky. In fact, scientists scoffed at Christians for their belief the earth is at the center of the solar system. Turns out, the earth is at the center of the universe after all!!! Because everything is expanding away from our planet and the further an object is away from us, the faster it is accelerating away. Pick a point in the sky. This is happening equally in all directions from us. So let's really see how up on your BB Physics you are. Answer this question: Is our earth at the original singularity point of the initial bang? Or is something else going on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so Copernicus was wrong?
Click to expand...


Is your name Hollie? Emoticons won't hide your ignorance of modern physics. You were lucky you even spelled singularity right.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in church today I was thinking about the people I interact with here in this forum and started realizing how hopeless atheism really is. The pastor talked about how they had buried his baby sister, who only lived 40 days, when he was just 10. He then talked about an old hymn called "It is well."
> 
> This hymn was written after several traumatic events in Spaffords life. The first was the death of his only son in 1871 at the age of four, shortly followed by the great Chicago Fire which ruined him financially (he had been a successful lawyer). Then in 1873, he had planned to travel to Europe with his family on the SS Ville du Havre, but sent the family ahead while he was delayed on business concerning zoning problems following the Great Chicago Fire. While crossing the Atlantic, the ship sank rapidly after a collision with a sea vessel, the Loch Earn, and all four of Spafford's daughters died. His wife Anna survived and sent him the now famous telegram, "Saved alone . . .". Shortly afterwards, as Spafford traveled to meet his grieving wife, he was inspired to write these words as his ship passed near where his daughters had died.
> 
> A few of the lyrics:
> 
> When peace like a river, attendeth my way,
> When sorrows like sea billows roll;
> Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
> It is well, it is well, with my soul.
> 
> My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
> My sin, not in part but the whole,
> Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
> Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!
> 
> I was thinking about my mom today too. Her birthday would have been two days ago. She struggled with Alzheimers for 10 years to the point she was bed ridden and couldn't even feed herself.  She passed away 3 years ago and I was able to spend the last few days with her by her bed until Friday morning at 5 am when she took her last breath and finally rested.
> 
> Her death sent me into a year long mid life crisis. I will define a mid life crisis as the full HEART realization that life isn't forever. You see, we all have the HEAD knowledge that life is finite, but most of us can spend our entire life without the FULL HEART realization that there will be an end. As a cop for 10-years I had seen many people die, young and old. I'd seen the aftermath of a young man who ended the desparation with a 30/30 rifle inserted into his mouth. What a mess. I had seen the drug addict, who out of consideration of the people who would find her, had slit her wrist in the bath tub of a flea bag hotel on Apache Blvd. These were tragedies, but they weren't real to me. They were just strangers, unfortunate casualties of the desperate times we live in. With my mother's death, death became really real, and I began to question some aspects of my faith. Then I wound up going through a 12-week series called the Truth Project. I wound up becoming very interested in the ID movement, and on that path, had my faith restored. I look at world around me in a whole new light.
> 
> I relate this little story because after my mother's death, I really questioned what was really the point of this whole mess. My mother had a very hard child hood, belonging to a very poor family of farmers in Boaz, Alabama. Her mom and dad were alcoholics. Somehow she and my straight laced "Bible-thumping" dad fell in love and got married. I know she enjoyed her adult life, raised three kids, and had many very close friends in our church, only to be SLOWLY robbed of all her life and memories which started at age 63 by a very cruel disease.
> 
> I remember one night close to the end when I was getting ready to come back to Phoenix after visiting her in the hospital. It was late and I had taken my dad home to get some rest and stopped back into the hospital before making the 100 mile drive home. There was a male nurse trying to clean her up after she had a messed herself. The disease had progressed to where she no longer had control of her bowels. She was so scared and really didn't know what was happening to her. She was trembling and didn't understand what this strange man was doing to her. I could just see the terror in her eyes and all I could do was just hold her hand and tell her it was going to be okay. I hope she found comfort in my voice, even though consciously she no longer even knew who I was.
> 
> For some of you, during times of suffering, the question becomes "How could God let this happen?" For me it was just the opposite. I questioned, "How can I make sense of all this in the absence of God?" If God isn't real, what a cruel joke life is. What cruel chance is our presence here.
> 
> What a joy it is to have my faith in Christ restored. I know that I am just a pilgrim on a journey through this life but this isn't all there is. My hope remains in Christ, even in death. I know deep in my heart I will see my mother again, with her memories fully restored. You may think I believe in a fairy tell. But for me that confidence is unwavering.
> 
> I just can't even imagine how hopeless life would be without that hope. Natural Selection is cruel. Why do some get to live to 100 but others die before the age of two months. Why are some lives even ended before their tiny lungs ever even fill with air?
> 
> And what of your loved ones who have died? They were just here a little while and now done forever. Only their memory remains in you and with your demise, those too will be gone and it will be like their life never even happened.
> 
> But for me, no matter what comes my way, it is well with my soul.
> 
> 
> 
> yawn! another fucking stupid conversion story .
Click to expand...


Another poor soul in denial of the certainty of his own demise. Life is fatal.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you may be misrepresenting the Big Bang theory. The physics of the Big Bang does not say the universe originated at a specific point. Otherwise, we could calculate the space geographic location of the original bang point. Space is expanding in all directions. The background radiation is located at every point in the sky. In fact, scientists scoffed at Christians for their belief the earth is at the center of the solar system. Turns out, the earth is at the center of the universe after all!!! Because everything is expanding away from our planet and the further an object is away from us, the faster it is accelerating away. Pick a point in the sky. This is happening equally in all directions from us. So let's really see how up on your BB Physics you are. Answer this question: Is our earth at the original singularity point of the initial bang? Or is something else going on?
> 
> 
> 
> so Copernicus was wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your name Hollie? Emoticons won't hide your ignorance of physics.
Click to expand...


You have a rather creepy fascination with me. 

I'd be careful about comments directed at others regarding physics as that subject is not a high priority at Harun Yahya where so much of your cutting and pasting comes from.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in church today I was thinking about the people I interact with here in this forum and started realizing how hopeless atheism really is. The pastor talked about how they had buried his baby sister, who only lived 40 days, when he was just 10. He then talked about an old hymn called "It is well."
> 
> This hymn was written after several traumatic events in Spaffords life. The first was the death of his only son in 1871 at the age of four, shortly followed by the great Chicago Fire which ruined him financially (he had been a successful lawyer). Then in 1873, he had planned to travel to Europe with his family on the SS Ville du Havre, but sent the family ahead while he was delayed on business concerning zoning problems following the Great Chicago Fire. While crossing the Atlantic, the ship sank rapidly after a collision with a sea vessel, the Loch Earn, and all four of Spafford's daughters died. His wife Anna survived and sent him the now famous telegram, "Saved alone . . .". Shortly afterwards, as Spafford traveled to meet his grieving wife, he was inspired to write these words as his ship passed near where his daughters had died.
> 
> A few of the lyrics:
> 
> When peace like a river, attendeth my way,
> When sorrows like sea billows roll;
> Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
> It is well, it is well, with my soul.
> 
> My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
> My sin, not in part but the whole,
> Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
> Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!
> 
> I was thinking about my mom today too. Her birthday would have been two days ago. She struggled with Alzheimers for 10 years to the point she was bed ridden and couldn't even feed herself.  She passed away 3 years ago and I was able to spend the last few days with her by her bed until Friday morning at 5 am when she took her last breath and finally rested.
> 
> Her death sent me into a year long mid life crisis. I will define a mid life crisis as the full HEART realization that life isn't forever. You see, we all have the HEAD knowledge that life is finite, but most of us can spend our entire life without the FULL HEART realization that there will be an end. As a cop for 10-years I had seen many people die, young and old. I'd seen the aftermath of a young man who ended the desparation with a 30/30 rifle inserted into his mouth. What a mess. I had seen the drug addict, who out of consideration of the people who would find her, had slit her wrist in the bath tub of a flea bag hotel on Apache Blvd. These were tragedies, but they weren't real to me. They were just strangers, unfortunate casualties of the desperate times we live in. With my mother's death, death became really real, and I began to question some aspects of my faith. Then I wound up going through a 12-week series called the Truth Project. I wound up becoming very interested in the ID movement, and on that path, had my faith restored. I look at world around me in a whole new light.
> 
> I relate this little story because after my mother's death, I really questioned what was really the point of this whole mess. My mother had a very hard child hood, belonging to a very poor family of farmers in Boaz, Alabama. Her mom and dad were alcoholics. Somehow she and my straight laced "Bible-thumping" dad fell in love and got married. I know she enjoyed her adult life, raised three kids, and had many very close friends in our church, only to be SLOWLY robbed of all her life and memories which started at age 63 by a very cruel disease.
> 
> I remember one night close to the end when I was getting ready to come back to Phoenix after visiting her in the hospital. It was late and I had taken my dad home to get some rest and stopped back into the hospital before making the 100 mile drive home. There was a male nurse trying to clean her up after she had a messed herself. The disease had progressed to where she no longer had control of her bowels. She was so scared and really didn't know what was happening to her. She was trembling and didn't understand what this strange man was doing to her. I could just see the terror in her eyes and all I could do was just hold her hand and tell her it was going to be okay. I hope she found comfort in my voice, even though consciously she no longer even knew who I was.
> 
> For some of you, during times of suffering, the question becomes "How could God let this happen?" For me it was just the opposite. I questioned, "How can I make sense of all this in the absence of God?" If God isn't real, what a cruel joke life is. What cruel chance is our presence here.
> 
> What a joy it is to have my faith in Christ restored. I know that I am just a pilgrim on a journey through this life but this isn't all there is. My hope remains in Christ, even in death. I know deep in my heart I will see my mother again, with her memories fully restored. You may think I believe in a fairy tell. But for me that confidence is unwavering.
> 
> I just can't even imagine how hopeless life would be without that hope. Natural Selection is cruel. Why do some get to live to 100 but others die before the age of two months. Why are some lives even ended before their tiny lungs ever even fill with air?
> 
> And what of your loved ones who have died? They were just here a little while and now done forever. Only their memory remains in you and with your demise, those too will be gone and it will be like their life never even happened.
> 
> But for me, no matter what comes my way, it is well with my soul.
> 
> 
> 
> yawn! another fucking stupid conversion story .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another poor soul in denial of the certainty of his own demise. Life is fatal.
Click to expand...


Another weepy-eyed fundie who was taken to task for his slathering attempt at proselytizing.


----------



## UltimateReality

Here you go Daws. Big Bang Cosmology for Dummies...

The Big Bang and the Expansion of the Universe


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Here you go Daws. Big Bang Cosmology for Dummies...
> 
> The Big Bang and the Expansion of the Universe



Speaking of Dummies....

Here ya' go, UltimateReality


The Creation Of The Universe


----------



## freedombecki

6600 posts, and this issue has no common agreement?

Why waste your time?


----------



## Hollie

freedombecki said:


> 6600 posts, and this issue has no common agreement?
> 
> Why waste your time?



I've been in these type of debates before and it's possible for the topic to lead to stimulating conversation... except when the evangelicals and Harun Yahya groupies are present.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never discuss molecular biology. I have taken you to task on several occasions for copying and pasting falsified "quotes" and manufactured data from fundie Christian creationist ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that can help you out of your position of denialHollie is to study everything about a cell.Then ask yourself how could all these parts of a cell come together at once to form the first cell. The first cell then had to form other cells just like the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did it ever occur to you that there was never  "one" first cell.
> it's almost as lame a concept as your "what system or body part developed first" nonsense.
> nature does no do "one offs" there is not only one kind of one celled  lifeforms.
> there are billions...  Published online 4 September 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.880
> 
> News
> 
> Cells go fractal
> Mathematical patterns rule the behaviour of molecules in the nucleus.
> 
> Claire Ainsworth
> 
> 
> A cell displays chromatin (green) and a molecule used for tracking (red).
> J. ELLENBERGThe maths behind the rugged beauty of a coastline may help to keep cell biology in order, say researchers in Germany. Fractals  rough shapes that look the same at all scales  could explain how the cell's nucleus holds molecules that manage our DNA in the right location.
> 
> In new experiments, Sebastien Huet and Aurélien Bancaud of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany, tracked the movement of molecules within cells in a lab dish, then compared the pattern of movement against mathematical models. Large molecules, they found, moved according to the same rules as small molecules  suggesting that their environment was truly fractal. The team reported their findings this week at the EMBO meeting in Amsterdam.
> 
> Cells go fractal : Nature News
> 
> 
> as to coming together  (or assembly)  if you studied biology  you'd know that cells or any other living thing grows it's mechanisms from the same material,not desparate parts from different material.
> 
> http://www.fractal.org/Life-Science-Technology/Fractal-like-structure.pdf
Click to expand...


You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer. Can you imagine the probability of multiple cells forming at once,it's hard enough to think of just one cell forming completely on it's own and now you want to make even harder to believe.

You're a funny guy Daws.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6600 posts, and this issue has no common agreement?
> 
> Why waste your time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been in these type of debates before and it's possible for the topic to lead to stimulating conversation... except when the evangelicals and Harun Yahya groupies are present.
Click to expand...


First, to have a stimulating conversation you have to be able to be taught and have some kind of scientific background to have this discussion. 

Both you and Daws have a problem accepting the views of authorities on this issue that are very educated people on your side that admit they have no clue how life could have started spontaneously completely on it's own.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6600 posts, and this issue has no common agreement?
> 
> Why waste your time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been in these type of debates before and it's possible for the topic to lead to stimulating conversation... except when the evangelicals and Harun Yahya groupies are present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, to have a stimulating conversation you have to be able to be taught and have some kind of scientific background to have this discussion.
> 
> Both you and Daws have a problem accepting the views of authorities on this issue that are very educated people on your side that admit they have no clue how life could have started spontaneously completely on it's own.
Click to expand...


To answer an important aspect for all readers: No one says that science has every answer. There are disagreements as to exact mechanisms and measurements. This is perfectly fine and happens in all the sciences. Some of the more excitable creationists like to portray this as some sort of weakness to the naive, but it's really the strength of science: Eliminate the ideas that are proven or provable and make the mechanisms withstand all criticism. That is how we get to knowledge. 

What is truly comical are comments that suggest we must get educated with a science background to even engage in these discussions. This coming from a fundie creationist who reviles science and embraces supernaturalism as the mechanism of education.
So how does anyone get an education in the supernatural to be able to engage in a debate on that topic?

The answer to the above is simple for the fundie &#8211; Harun Yahya has the answers.Anyone who has ever weed-whacked through the landscape of creationist invention has probably come across the blathering of "Harun Yahya" (whose real name is Adnan Oktar). Oktar is a failed college student who never studied science and eventually dropped out of college. This would account in large part for the staggering incompetence displayed in the "science" that he hopes to feed to the gullible and the ignorant..


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that can help you out of your position of denialHollie is to study everything about a cell.Then ask yourself how could all these parts of a cell come together at once to form the first cell. The first cell then had to form other cells just like the first.
> 
> 
> 
> did it ever occur to you that there was never  "one" first cell.
> it's almost as lame a concept as your "what system or body part developed first" nonsense.
> nature does no do "one offs" there is not only one kind of one celled  lifeforms.
> there are billions...  Published online 4 September 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.880
> 
> News
> 
> Cells go fractal
> Mathematical patterns rule the behaviour of molecules in the nucleus.
> 
> Claire Ainsworth
> 
> 
> A cell displays chromatin (green) and a molecule used for tracking (red).
> J. ELLENBERGThe maths behind the rugged beauty of a coastline may help to keep cell biology in order, say researchers in Germany. Fractals  rough shapes that look the same at all scales  could explain how the cell's nucleus holds molecules that manage our DNA in the right location.
> 
> In new experiments, Sebastien Huet and Aurélien Bancaud of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany, tracked the movement of molecules within cells in a lab dish, then compared the pattern of movement against mathematical models. Large molecules, they found, moved according to the same rules as small molecules  suggesting that their environment was truly fractal. The team reported their findings this week at the EMBO meeting in Amsterdam.
> 
> Cells go fractal : Nature News
> 
> 
> as to coming together  (or assembly)  if you studied biology  you'd know that cells or any other living thing grows it's mechanisms from the same material,not desparate parts from different material.
> 
> http://www.fractal.org/Life-Science-Technology/Fractal-like-structure.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer. Can you imagine the probability of multiple cells forming at once,it's hard enough to think of just one cell forming completely on it's own and now you want to make even harder to believe.
> 
> You're a funny guy Daws.
Click to expand...


What supernatural, supermagical "designer" are you referring to?

You make claims to a supernatural, supermagical "designer" which are totally unsupported and only believed by one segment of one religious belief.

Supernaturalism and "magic'alism" are not part of science. You just look foolish and discredit your argument with meaningless claims that a surpernatural, supermagical agent has "designed" something yet you steadfastly refuse to provide any support for your claims to a "designer" except with "because I say so".


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding your "because I say so" comment. I didn't say it but thousands of theologians for the last 3000 or 4000 years have said it. It is part of our doctrine on God and the Bible clearly teaches this. You are presenting an argument against someone or something you say does not exist. That is REAL intelligent. But at least if you are going to punch at the air, you should argue against the commonly held beliefs of the Christians you hate some much instead of building up a strawman you can tear down.
> 
> Please re-present your argument with the commonly held Christian beliefs that God has always existed and will always exist. And that he is outside the Creation (Theism) and exists outside of time, matter, space, and energy, all of which did not exist before the Big Bangenstein.
> 
> 
> 
> SO SINCE 1000S OF ASHOLES SAY SOMTHING IS TRUE FOR ALONG TIME IT MUST TRUE (PLACE IRONY HERE )
> 
> 
> "the commonly held Christian beliefs that God has always existed and will always "UR
> 
> e·lief noun \b&#601;-&#712;l&#275;f\
> Definition of BELIEF
> 1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
> 2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
> 3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
> SINCE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO BOLSTER YOUR  BELIEF.
> ALL YOU HAVE IS FAITH :firm belief in something for which there is no proof 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
> if you had any acual proof then there would be no need for faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are smoking crack if you think it doesn't take faith to believe in the TOE, or that the micro machines we see in the cell accidentally self assembled.
Click to expand...


It may be a matter of induction to say that a natural process is likely as an explanation for something simply because we see natural explanations for most or all other things in existence, but that is not faith, as it is for you, in asserting a supernatural being for which there is zero evidence, based on a book who's only claim to truth is that it proclaims itself to be true. The truth value of these two propositions is worlds apart. First, I want to make this distinction. We may have little to no evidence of abiogenesis, and probably never will. By its nature, we should expect to find none, and it would be truly amazing if we ever did. But, why would we insert a deity to fill in this gap? There is zero evidence anywhere in the natural world of a god existing in a way that is apparent, let alone reliable. So, using inductive reasoning, a diety should not be considered as an explanation, just because little to no evidence of abiogensis is available. Do we have 'faith' that natural process caused abiogenesis? For me? I might concede yes, to some degree, but as I said, the disparity of the propositions is quite large between this and supernatural causation, and I don't consider that amount of faith to be anywhere near the same. The faith required for something supernatural that lacks any evidence is much larger that than of something natural that lacks any evidence, necessarily. I believe it is basic inductive reasoning that allows this statement, given that everything in this natural universe is, by definition, natural, and assumable as having a natural "cause." Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to apply this to abiogenesis as well. Three thousand years ago, dieties were thought to explain almost %100 of the natural world. Now, that percentage is down to only a few "Gaps." There is no reason to assume that these gaps is where god actually operates, but only where, evidence is currently lacking.


----------



## newpolitics

freedombecki said:


> 6600 posts, and this issue has no common agreement?
> 
> Why waste your time?



Because its fun, and more stimulating than discussing last weeks episode of Keeping Up With the Kardashians. Besides, It' not like on any other thread on this entire website, is there any agreement between the two sides on any issue, ever, so it is no different.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> So, using inductive reasoning, a diety should not be considered as an explanation, just because little to no evidence of abiogensis is available.



It depends on what your definition of diety is. As I have presented the argument before, using Lyell and Darwin's method, we can more logical deduce that an intelligent agent is the BEST EXPLANATION for the digital code in DNA, not some random force no one has ever seen in action in the modern world, nor has any evidence for. Until Materialist come up with evidence that functioning machine code randomly generates [without intelligent input!!!], our current, best, and most logical explanation is that it had an intelligent source. If you want to turn the scientific argument into a philosophical one, then by all means label that agent a "diety".

And the intelligent source acted post Big Bang. Some Materialists have suggested Panspermia. But that gets back to the "Turtles all the way down" argument of who made the Aliens? The only way that paradox is solved is by an Intelligent Agent who exists outside of Creation.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, using inductive reasoning, a diety should not be considered as an explanation, just because little to no evidence of abiogensis is available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what your definition of diety is. As I have presented the argument before, using Lyell and Darwin's method, we can more logical deduce that an intelligent agent is the BEST EXPLANATION for the digital code in DNA, not some random force no one has ever seen in action in the modern world, nor has any evidence for. Until Materialist come up with evidence that functioning machine code randomly generates [without intelligent input!!!], our current, best, and most logical explanation is that it had an intelligent source. If you want to turn the scientific argument into a philosophical one, then by all means label that agent a "diety".
> 
> And the intelligent source acted post Big Bang. Some Materialists have suggested Panspermia. But that gets back to the "Turtles all the way down" argument of who made the Aliens? The only way that paradox is solved is by an Intelligent Agent who exists outside of Creation.
Click to expand...


It makes no sense to propose that supernaturalism is the cause of anything. That doesn't resolve s paradox but creates an entire wealth of paradoxes. 

A supernatural, supermagical "designer" is not an answer but a hopeless acceptance that the universe is unknowable.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you may be misrepresenting the Big Bang theory. The physics of the Big Bang does not say the universe originated at a specific point. Otherwise, we could calculate the space geographic location of the original bang point. Space is expanding in all directions. The background radiation is located at every point in the sky. In fact, scientists scoffed at Christians for their belief the earth is at the center of the solar system. Turns out, the earth is at the center of the universe after all!!! Because everything is expanding away from our planet and the further an object is away from us, the faster it is accelerating away. Pick a point in the sky. This is happening equally in all directions from us. So let's really see how up on your BB Physics you are. Answer this question: Is our earth at the original singularity point of the initial bang? Or is something else going on?
> 
> 
> 
> so Copernicus was wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your name Hollie? Emoticons won't hide your ignorance of modern physics. You were lucky you even spelled singularity right.
Click to expand...

answer the question!  were  Copernicus and Galileo wrong?
what you've quoted is not physics modern or ancient it's a willful misrepresentation of fact

let's take your lie apart: 
1. the universe has no center or no edge, there is no way the the earth would be that center when none exists  
 2. our solar system including  the earth is on the edge of a outer spiral arm of our Galaxy (the milky way) not even close to the center of it!
3.all planets in our solar system orbit the sun. making the sun the center of our solar system ,not the earth
 4.expansion is happening everywhere all the time.
 the way we know this is not from background radiation which remains constant, (not varying or moving ) that in itself makes it a useless tool to gage expansion. 
the thing you are failing to describe is called red shift /blue shift.  
red shift is visible light signature that stars give off when moving away from a giving point blue shift is the visible light signature given off when stars are moving toward a given point.  
since the universe has no center and no edge the effect would be the same everywhere not just from an earth bound pov.
as always you've got it laughable wrong!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in church today I was thinking about the people I interact with here in this forum and started realizing how hopeless atheism really is. The pastor talked about how they had buried his baby sister, who only lived 40 days, when he was just 10. He then talked about an old hymn called "It is well."
> 
> This hymn was written after several traumatic events in Spaffords life. The first was the death of his only son in 1871 at the age of four, shortly followed by the great Chicago Fire which ruined him financially (he had been a successful lawyer). Then in 1873, he had planned to travel to Europe with his family on the SS Ville du Havre, but sent the family ahead while he was delayed on business concerning zoning problems following the Great Chicago Fire. While crossing the Atlantic, the ship sank rapidly after a collision with a sea vessel, the Loch Earn, and all four of Spafford's daughters died. His wife Anna survived and sent him the now famous telegram, "Saved alone . . .". Shortly afterwards, as Spafford traveled to meet his grieving wife, he was inspired to write these words as his ship passed near where his daughters had died.
> 
> A few of the lyrics:
> 
> When peace like a river, attendeth my way,
> When sorrows like sea billows roll;
> Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
> It is well, it is well, with my soul.
> 
> My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
> My sin, not in part but the whole,
> Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
> Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!
> 
> I was thinking about my mom today too. Her birthday would have been two days ago. She struggled with Alzheimers for 10 years to the point she was bed ridden and couldn't even feed herself.  She passed away 3 years ago and I was able to spend the last few days with her by her bed until Friday morning at 5 am when she took her last breath and finally rested.
> 
> Her death sent me into a year long mid life crisis. I will define a mid life crisis as the full HEART realization that life isn't forever. You see, we all have the HEAD knowledge that life is finite, but most of us can spend our entire life without the FULL HEART realization that there will be an end. As a cop for 10-years I had seen many people die, young and old. I'd seen the aftermath of a young man who ended the desparation with a 30/30 rifle inserted into his mouth. What a mess. I had seen the drug addict, who out of consideration of the people who would find her, had slit her wrist in the bath tub of a flea bag hotel on Apache Blvd. These were tragedies, but they weren't real to me. They were just strangers, unfortunate casualties of the desperate times we live in. With my mother's death, death became really real, and I began to question some aspects of my faith. Then I wound up going through a 12-week series called the Truth Project. I wound up becoming very interested in the ID movement, and on that path, had my faith restored. I look at world around me in a whole new light.
> 
> I relate this little story because after my mother's death, I really questioned what was really the point of this whole mess. My mother had a very hard child hood, belonging to a very poor family of farmers in Boaz, Alabama. Her mom and dad were alcoholics. Somehow she and my straight laced "Bible-thumping" dad fell in love and got married. I know she enjoyed her adult life, raised three kids, and had many very close friends in our church, only to be SLOWLY robbed of all her life and memories which started at age 63 by a very cruel disease.
> 
> I remember one night close to the end when I was getting ready to come back to Phoenix after visiting her in the hospital. It was late and I had taken my dad home to get some rest and stopped back into the hospital before making the 100 mile drive home. There was a male nurse trying to clean her up after she had a messed herself. The disease had progressed to where she no longer had control of her bowels. She was so scared and really didn't know what was happening to her. She was trembling and didn't understand what this strange man was doing to her. I could just see the terror in her eyes and all I could do was just hold her hand and tell her it was going to be okay. I hope she found comfort in my voice, even though consciously she no longer even knew who I was.
> 
> For some of you, during times of suffering, the question becomes "How could God let this happen?" For me it was just the opposite. I questioned, "How can I make sense of all this in the absence of God?" If God isn't real, what a cruel joke life is. What cruel chance is our presence here.
> 
> What a joy it is to have my faith in Christ restored. I know that I am just a pilgrim on a journey through this life but this isn't all there is. My hope remains in Christ, even in death. I know deep in my heart I will see my mother again, with her memories fully restored. You may think I believe in a fairy tell. But for me that confidence is unwavering.
> 
> I just can't even imagine how hopeless life would be without that hope. Natural Selection is cruel. Why do some get to live to 100 but others die before the age of two months. Why are some lives even ended before their tiny lungs ever even fill with air?
> 
> And what of your loved ones who have died? They were just here a little while and now done forever. Only their memory remains in you and with your demise, those too will be gone and it will be like their life never even happened.
> 
> But for me, no matter what comes my way, it is well with my soul.
> 
> 
> 
> yawn! another fucking stupid conversion story .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another poor soul in denial of the certainty of his own demise. Life is fatal.
Click to expand...

your answer is dumbfuckery at it's finest.
so if I know i'm going to take the big dirt nap (everyone know they will die some day, even kids) how does that put me in denial ?


 "Life is fatal" UR.. WOW CAPT. OBVIOUS !


----------



## daws101

freedombecki said:


> 6600 posts, and this issue has no common agreement?
> 
> Why waste your time?


does it need one!?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that can help you out of your position of denialHollie is to study everything about a cell.Then ask yourself how could all these parts of a cell come together at once to form the first cell. The first cell then had to form other cells just like the first.
> 
> 
> 
> did it ever occur to you that there was never  "one" first cell.
> it's almost as lame a concept as your "what system or body part developed first" nonsense.
> nature does no do "one offs" there is not only one kind of one celled  lifeforms.
> there are billions...  Published online 4 September 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.880
> 
> News
> 
> Cells go fractal
> Mathematical patterns rule the behaviour of molecules in the nucleus.
> 
> Claire Ainsworth
> 
> 
> A cell displays chromatin (green) and a molecule used for tracking (red).
> J. ELLENBERGThe maths behind the rugged beauty of a coastline may help to keep cell biology in order, say researchers in Germany. Fractals  rough shapes that look the same at all scales  could explain how the cell's nucleus holds molecules that manage our DNA in the right location.
> 
> In new experiments, Sebastien Huet and Aurélien Bancaud of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany, tracked the movement of molecules within cells in a lab dish, then compared the pattern of movement against mathematical models. Large molecules, they found, moved according to the same rules as small molecules  suggesting that their environment was truly fractal. The team reported their findings this week at the EMBO meeting in Amsterdam.
> 
> Cells go fractal : Nature News
> 
> 
> as to coming together  (or assembly)  if you studied biology  you'd know that cells or any other living thing grows it's mechanisms from the same material,not desparate parts from different material.
> 
> http://www.fractal.org/Life-Science-Technology/Fractal-like-structure.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer. Can you imagine the probability of multiple cells forming at once,it's hard enough to think of just one cell forming completely on it's own and now you want to make even harder to believe.
> 
> You're a funny guy Daws.
Click to expand...



"You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer."YWC
THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS A LIE 
nowhere is my post is a designer alleged, inferred,only a halfwit with a tenuous grip on reality and a hard on for his own myths would attempt to insert a false premise in to a post to cover his own lack of working Grey matter. 

BTW, THIS IS THE only THING YOU GOT RIGHT:"it's hard enough to think"YWC

nuffsaid.!!


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yawn! another fucking stupid conversion story .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another poor soul in denial of the certainty of his own demise. Life is fatal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another weepy-eyed fundie who was taken to task for his slathering attempt at proselytizing.
Click to expand...

what's  worse is he used his own mom...wonder if he forges her signature on s.s.i checks too!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6600 posts, and this issue has no common agreement?
> 
> Why waste your time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been in these type of debates before and it's possible for the topic to lead to stimulating conversation... except when the evangelicals and Harun Yahya groupies are present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, to have a stimulating conversation you have to be able to be taught and have some kind of scientific background to have this discussion.
> 
> Both you and Daws have a problem accepting the views of authorities on this issue that are very educated people on your side that admit they have no clue how life could have started spontaneously completely on it's own.
Click to expand...

you have a problem understanding the authorities in any scientific discipline are not always correct.
and unlike your myth makers they welcome a challenge  to the evidence to keep it up to date and learn something new.  

what you truly fail on is the concept that in science it not just acceptable "not to have a clue" (misnomer) but necessary.
unlike yourselves  who believe they have all the answers,when in reality you have no proof.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yawn! another fucking stupid conversion story .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another poor soul in denial of the certainty of his own demise. Life is fatal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your answer is dumbfuckery at it's finest.
> so if I know i'm going to take the big dirt nap (everyone know they will die some day, even kids) how does that put me in denial ?
> 
> 
> "Life is fatal" UR.. WOW CAPT. OBVIOUS !
Click to expand...


Because its just head knowledge for you. Wow Capt. "it went right over my head", my "life is fatal" comment was meant to be a play on words.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so Copernicus was wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is your name Hollie? Emoticons won't hide your ignorance of modern physics. You were lucky you even spelled singularity right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> answer the question!  were  Copernicus and Galileo wrong?
> what you've quoted is not physics modern or ancient it's a willful misrepresentation of fact
> 
> let's take your lie apart:
> 1. the universe has no center or no edge, there is no way the the earth would be that center when none exists
> 2. our solar system including  the earth is on the edge of a outer spiral arm of our Galaxy (the milky way) not even close to the center of it!
> 3.all planets in our solar system orbit the sun. making the sun the center of our solar system ,not the earth
> 4.expansion is happening everywhere all the time.
> the way we know this is not from background radiation which remains constant, (not varying or moving ) that in itself makes it a useless tool to gage expansion.
> the thing you are failing to describe is called red shift /blue shift.
> red shift is visible light signature that stars give off when moving away from a giving point blue shift is the visible light signature given off when stars are moving toward a given point.
> since the universe has no center and no edge the effect would be the same everywhere not just from an earth bound pov.
> as always you've got it laughable wrong!
Click to expand...


Daws, I said I was going to try and avoid putdowns so I will just ask you the question. You do realize the cosmology website I put up isn't a "creationist" website and represents the absolute latest thinking on physics? I'm guessing you didn't, because your answer seems to infer I was saying something I wasn't. It's not my lie and some of the points you made support the current thinking, although you show you can regurgitate facts without a real understanding of what you are cut and pasting. 

For the record, I NEVER said the earth was the center of the solar system. So nice waste of time building up a strawman of  things I did not claim. Your prejudice lense is flaring up again. What I said was, from our vantage point on the earth, every large body of matter appears to be moving away from us in every direction, so absent of the physics link I provided for you, it would appear that the earth was the physical location of the big bang, or the proverbial "center of the universe". Had you actually not automatically ASSumed the link was creationist, you would have noted I am not claiming a specific center, like you did. Your original post showed an incorrect line of thinking that the Big Bang occurred at a specific point in the universe. You totally misrepresented what Singularity really is saying. You must have missed these questions for you: "Is our earth at the original singularity point of the initial bang? Or is something else going on?" The answer is that the earth only appears to be at the center of the universe when viewing large collections of matter like galaxies, because everything is moving away from us equally in every direction. The objects farther away are moving faster.

Let's look at some info contained in the link I provided, shall we?

*"There is no centre of the universe because there is no edge of the universe. In a finite universe, space is curved so that if you could travel billions of light years in a straight line you would eventually finish back where you started. It is also possible that our universe is infinite. In both examples, groups of galaxies completely fill the universe and are moving apart at all points making the universe expand (see question 2)" *

*There is a common assumption that the Big Bang was an explosion that occured in empty space and that the explosion expanded into the empty space. This is wrong. *

And finally, what you failed to grasp...

*"The only answer to the question "Where did the Big Bang happen?" is that it occured everywhere in the Universe."*


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another poor soul in denial of the certainty of his own demise. Life is fatal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another weepy-eyed fundie who was taken to task for his slathering attempt at proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what's  worse is he used his own mom...wonder if he forges her signature on s.s.i checks too!
Click to expand...


I related a deeply personal story I thought was relevant. Thanks to you and Hollie for showing us the true colors of atheism with your responses. Hate and bitterness are included at no charge with your cynical worldview.


----------



## UltimateReality

Daws, here are some links from Nasa saying the same thing as my earlier post on Big Bang Cosmology. Please don't accuse Nasa of being a Creationist website.

WMAP- Big Bang Expansion: the Hubble Constant

WMAP Big Bang CMB Test

WMAP- Shape of the Universe

WMAP- Fate of the Universe


----------



## UltimateReality

UltimateReality said:


> Here you go Daws. Big Bang Cosmology for Dummies...
> 
> The Big Bang and the Expansion of the Universe



The about me section of the creator of the science website I linked to...

About Me


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another weepy-eyed fundie who was taken to task for his slathering attempt at proselytizing.
> 
> 
> 
> what's  worse is he used his own mom...wonder if he forges her signature on s.s.i checks too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I related a deeply personal story I thought was relevant. Thanks to you and Hollie for showing us the true colors of atheism with your responses. Hate and bitterness are included at no charge with your cynical worldview.
Click to expand...


Oh, you poor dear.

I suspect it's more likely you copied and pasted that story as a canned document from Harun Yahya. It's evident that you're a really angry fundie. You can use your bibles to thump all you like but to use your religion to denigrate others is something I'd have thought your religion would frown upon. Obviously not.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> did it ever occur to you that there was never  "one" first cell.
> it's almost as lame a concept as your "what system or body part developed first" nonsense.
> nature does no do "one offs" there is not only one kind of one celled  lifeforms.
> there are billions...  Published online 4 September 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.880
> 
> News
> 
> Cells go fractal
> Mathematical patterns rule the behaviour of molecules in the nucleus.
> 
> Claire Ainsworth
> 
> 
> A cell displays chromatin (green) and a molecule used for tracking (red).
> J. ELLENBERGThe maths behind the rugged beauty of a coastline may help to keep cell biology in order, say researchers in Germany. Fractals  rough shapes that look the same at all scales  could explain how the cell's nucleus holds molecules that manage our DNA in the right location.
> 
> In new experiments, Sebastien Huet and Aurélien Bancaud of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany, tracked the movement of molecules within cells in a lab dish, then compared the pattern of movement against mathematical models. Large molecules, they found, moved according to the same rules as small molecules  suggesting that their environment was truly fractal. The team reported their findings this week at the EMBO meeting in Amsterdam.
> 
> Cells go fractal : Nature News
> 
> 
> as to coming together  (or assembly)  if you studied biology  you'd know that cells or any other living thing grows it's mechanisms from the same material,not desparate parts from different material.
> 
> http://www.fractal.org/Life-Science-Technology/Fractal-like-structure.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer. Can you imagine the probability of multiple cells forming at once,it's hard enough to think of just one cell forming completely on it's own and now you want to make even harder to believe.
> 
> You're a funny guy Daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer."YWC
> THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS A LIE
> nowhere is my post is a designer alleged, inferred,only a halfwit with a tenuous grip on reality and a hard on for his own myths would attempt to insert a false premise in to a post to cover his own lack of working Grey matter.
> 
> BTW, THIS IS THE only THING YOU GOT RIGHT:"it's hard enough to think"YWC
> 
> nuffsaid.!!
Click to expand...


Never said you implied a creator,you implied that multiple cells came into existence on their own. Thought it would have given it away what was meant when I said the probability of just one cell coming in to existence on it's own through a natural means and can you imagine the probability of it happening multiple times.

Maybe it was you purposely spinning what I said once you realized you really did make it even harder to believe, by suggesting, more then one cell came into existence through a totally natural means.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been in these type of debates before and it's possible for the topic to lead to stimulating conversation... except when the evangelicals and Harun Yahya groupies are present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, to have a stimulating conversation you have to be able to be taught and have some kind of scientific background to have this discussion.
> 
> Both you and Daws have a problem accepting the views of authorities on this issue that are very educated people on your side that admit they have no clue how life could have started spontaneously completely on it's own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have a problem understanding the authorities in any scientific discipline are not always correct.
> and unlike your myth makers they welcome a challenge  to the evidence to keep it up to date and learn something new.
> 
> what you truly fail on is the concept that in science it not just acceptable "not to have a clue" (misnomer) but necessary.
> unlike yourselves  who believe they have all the answers,when in reality you have no proof.
Click to expand...


They are not wrong daws,they don't have a clue how it could have happened.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Daws, here are some links from Nasa saying the same thing as my earlier post on Big Bang Cosmology. Please don't accuse Nasa of being a Creationist website.
> 
> WMAP- Big Bang Expansion: the Hubble Constant
> 
> WMAP Big Bang CMB Test
> 
> WMAP- Shape of the Universe
> 
> WMAP- Fate of the Universe


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's  worse is he used his own mom...wonder if he forges her signature on s.s.i checks too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I related a deeply personal story I thought was relevant. Thanks to you and Hollie for showing us the true colors of atheism with your responses. Hate and bitterness are included at no charge with your cynical worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you poor dear.
> 
> I suspect it's more likely you copied and pasted that story as a canned document from Harun Yahya. It's evident that you're a really angry fundie. You can use your bibles to thump all you like but to use your religion to denigrate others is something I'd have thought your religion would frown upon. Obviously not.
Click to expand...


Silly Hollie is


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, to have a stimulating conversation you have to be able to be taught and have some kind of scientific background to have this discussion.
> 
> Both you and Daws have a problem accepting the views of authorities on this issue that are very educated people on your side that admit they have no clue how life could have started spontaneously completely on it's own.
> 
> 
> 
> you have a problem understanding the authorities in any scientific discipline are not always correct.
> and unlike your myth makers they welcome a challenge  to the evidence to keep it up to date and learn something new.
> 
> what you truly fail on is the concept that in science it not just acceptable "not to have a clue" (misnomer) but necessary.
> unlike yourselves  who believe they have all the answers,when in reality you have no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not wrong daws,they don't have a clue how it could have happened.
Click to expand...


There's nothing wrong with science not having every answer. 

What's remarkable is the pitiable state of affairs for the fundie crowd. Their last remaining claim to the gods is that science has not yet made a discovery that will answer the question of how life began.

As layer after layer of fear and superstition promoted by the christian hierarchy has been peeled back by science, the gawds have become less and less relevant and their duties have become more and more superfluous.

What we see in post after post by the fundies is a desperate attempt to vilify science as they believe that will allow their gawds some meaning or relevance. The fundies are left with abandoning any attempt at positive claims for their gawds (as there are none), but are forced to desperately seek some alleged lack in scientific knowledge as a window for their gawds to peek through.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I related a deeply personal story I thought was relevant. Thanks to you and Hollie for showing us the true colors of atheism with your responses. Hate and bitterness are included at no charge with your cynical worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you poor dear.
> 
> I suspect it's more likely you copied and pasted that story as a canned document from Harun Yahya. It's evident that you're a really angry fundie. You can use your bibles to thump all you like but to use your religion to denigrate others is something I'd have thought your religion would frown upon. Obviously not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly Hollie is
Click to expand...


Dumbfounded the fundie is!

It's never a surprise to see how fundies use their religion for the promotion of hate and derision.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, here are some links from Nasa saying the same thing as my earlier post on Big Bang Cosmology. Please don't accuse Nasa of being a Creationist website.
> 
> WMAP- Big Bang Expansion: the Hubble Constant
> 
> WMAP Big Bang CMB Test
> 
> WMAP- Shape of the Universe
> 
> WMAP- Fate of the Universe
Click to expand...


All of the links above in both subtle and emphatic ways refute the fundie claims of gawds.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer. Can you imagine the probability of multiple cells forming at once,it's hard enough to think of just one cell forming completely on it's own and now you want to make even harder to believe.
> 
> You're a funny guy Daws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer."YWC
> THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS A LIE
> nowhere is my post is a designer alleged, inferred,only a halfwit with a tenuous grip on reality and a hard on for his own myths would attempt to insert a false premise in to a post to cover his own lack of working Grey matter.
> 
> BTW, THIS IS THE only THING YOU GOT RIGHT:"it's hard enough to think"YWC
> 
> nuffsaid.!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said you implied a creator,you implied that multiple cells came into existence on their own. Thought it would have given it away what was meant when I said the probability of just one cell coming in to existence on it's own through a natural means and can you imagine the probability of it happening multiple times.
> 
> Maybe it was you purposely spinning what I said once you realized you really did make it even harder to believe, by suggesting, more then one cell came into existence through a totally natural means.
Click to expand...


There is every reason to accept that the probability of just one cell coming in to existence on it's own through a natural means is 100%.

There is every reason to accept that the probability of it happening multiple times is 100%.

Evidence: the natural world.


Evidence that _the gawds did it_: 0%
(Especially your gawds.)


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have a problem understanding the authorities in any scientific discipline are not always correct.
> and unlike your myth makers they welcome a challenge  to the evidence to keep it up to date and learn something new.
> 
> what you truly fail on is the concept that in science it not just acceptable "not to have a clue" (misnomer) but necessary.
> unlike yourselves  who believe they have all the answers,when in reality you have no proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not wrong daws,they don't have a clue how it could have happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with science not having every answer.
> 
> What's remarkable is the pitiable state of affairs for the fundie crowd. Their last remaining claim to the gods is that science has not yet made a discovery that will answer the question of how life began.
> 
> As layer after layer of fear and superstition promoted by the christian hierarchy has been peeled back by science, the gawds have become less and less relevant and their duties have become more and more superfluous.
> 
> What we see in post after post by the fundies is a desperate attempt to vilify science as they believe that will allow their gawds some meaning or relevance. The fundies are left with abandoning any attempt at positive claims for their gawds (as there are none), but are forced to desperately seek some alleged lack in scientific knowledge as a window for their gawds to peek through.
Click to expand...


Answers to key questions of the theory of naturalism is the problem.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you poor dear.
> 
> I suspect it's more likely you copied and pasted that story as a canned document from Harun Yahya. It's evident that you're a really angry fundie. You can use your bibles to thump all you like but to use your religion to denigrate others is something I'd have thought your religion would frown upon. Obviously not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly Hollie is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumbfounded the fundie is!
> 
> It's never a surprise to see how fundies use their religion for the promotion of hate and derision.
Click to expand...


If you say so.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, here are some links from Nasa saying the same thing as my earlier post on Big Bang Cosmology. Please don't accuse Nasa of being a Creationist website.
> 
> WMAP- Big Bang Expansion: the Hubble Constant
> 
> WMAP Big Bang CMB Test
> 
> WMAP- Shape of the Universe
> 
> WMAP- Fate of the Universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the links above in both subtle and emphatic ways refute the fundie claims of gawds.
Click to expand...


No, they just show how your theories evolve and how daws is not up to date or just copies and pastes without checking the validity of what he is posting.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer."YWC
> THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS A LIE
> nowhere is my post is a designer alleged, inferred,only a halfwit with a tenuous grip on reality and a hard on for his own myths would attempt to insert a false premise in to a post to cover his own lack of working Grey matter.
> 
> BTW, THIS IS THE only THING YOU GOT RIGHT:"it's hard enough to think"YWC
> 
> nuffsaid.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said you implied a creator,you implied that multiple cells came into existence on their own. Thought it would have given it away what was meant when I said the probability of just one cell coming in to existence on it's own through a natural means and can you imagine the probability of it happening multiple times.
> 
> Maybe it was you purposely spinning what I said once you realized you really did make it even harder to believe, by suggesting, more then one cell came into existence through a totally natural means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is every reason to accept that the probability of just one cell coming in to existence on it's own through a natural means is 100%.
> 
> There is every reason to accept that the probability of it happening multiple times is 100%.
> 
> Evidence: the natural world.
> 
> 
> Evidence that _the gawds did it_: 0%
> (Especially your gawds.)
Click to expand...


If this was the case, you would not have many authorative scientist dumbfounded over the origins question.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not wrong daws,they don't have a clue how it could have happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with science not having every answer.
> 
> What's remarkable is the pitiable state of affairs for the fundie crowd. Their last remaining claim to the gods is that science has not yet made a discovery that will answer the question of how life began.
> 
> As layer after layer of fear and superstition promoted by the christian hierarchy has been peeled back by science, the gawds have become less and less relevant and their duties have become more and more superfluous.
> 
> What we see in post after post by the fundies is a desperate attempt to vilify science as they believe that will allow their gawds some meaning or relevance. The fundies are left with abandoning any attempt at positive claims for their gawds (as there are none), but are forced to desperately seek some alleged lack in scientific knowledge as a window for their gawds to peek through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answers to key questions of the theory of naturalism is the problem.
Click to expand...

Those questions are being addressed by which discipline - science or religion? 

Your revulsion for science is precisely because of the exploration being undertaken by science. As noted, science has reduced the job requirements for gawds. Where once it was believed that gawds opened every flower petal and oversaw every human endeavor. Now the gawds are relegated to sitting on thrones and paper shuffling.

The likely discovery of life elsewhere in the solar system is going to be utterly devastating to your religion. Life as we know it on this planet per christianity is a very earthly product of gawds and miracles and supernaturalism and supermagicalism. Life elsewhere will prove irresolvable for the gawds model.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly Hollie is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbfounded the fundie is!
> 
> It's never a surprise to see how fundies use their religion for the promotion of hate and derision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you say so.
Click to expand...


Reading your posts leads to that conclusion.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said you implied a creator,you implied that multiple cells came into existence on their own. Thought it would have given it away what was meant when I said the probability of just one cell coming in to existence on it's own through a natural means and can you imagine the probability of it happening multiple times.
> 
> Maybe it was you purposely spinning what I said once you realized you really did make it even harder to believe, by suggesting, more then one cell came into existence through a totally natural means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is every reason to accept that the probability of just one cell coming in to existence on it's own through a natural means is 100%.
> 
> There is every reason to accept that the probability of it happening multiple times is 100%.
> 
> Evidence: the natural world.
> 
> 
> Evidence that _the gawds did it_: 0%
> (Especially your gawds.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this was the case, you would not have many authorative scientist dumbfounded over the origins question.
Click to expand...


What Is dumbfounding is retreating into "the gawds did it" answer to address natural processes. The Christian church has a history of suppressing open inquiry as a means of defending dogma. 

Science is the process of discovery which is threatening to religionis. Why are you so afraid of the truth?

Does truth threaten your emotional security blanket?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with science not having every answer.
> 
> What's remarkable is the pitiable state of affairs for the fundie crowd. Their last remaining claim to the gods is that science has not yet made a discovery that will answer the question of how life began.
> 
> As layer after layer of fear and superstition promoted by the christian hierarchy has been peeled back by science, the gawds have become less and less relevant and their duties have become more and more superfluous.
> 
> What we see in post after post by the fundies is a desperate attempt to vilify science as they believe that will allow their gawds some meaning or relevance. The fundies are left with abandoning any attempt at positive claims for their gawds (as there are none), but are forced to desperately seek some alleged lack in scientific knowledge as a window for their gawds to peek through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answers to key questions of the theory of naturalism is the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those questions are being addressed by which discipline - science or religion?
> 
> Your revulsion for science is precisely because of the exploration being undertaken by science. As noted, science has reduced the job requirements for gawds. Where once it was believed that gawds opened every flower petal and oversaw every human endeavor. Now the gawds are relegated to sitting on thrones and paper shuffling.
> 
> The likely discovery of life elsewhere in the solar system is going to be utterly devastating to your religion. Life as we know it on this planet per christianity is a very earthly product of gawds and miracles and supernaturalism and supermagicalism. Life elsewhere will prove irresolvable for the gawds model.
Click to expand...


They are trying to fabricate answers for naturalism but that is all they have. Now what is the alternative to naturalism ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbfounded the fundie is!
> 
> It's never a surprise to see how fundies use their religion for the promotion of hate and derision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading your posts leads to that conclusion.
Click to expand...



No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is every reason to accept that the probability of just one cell coming in to existence on it's own through a natural means is 100%.
> 
> There is every reason to accept that the probability of it happening multiple times is 100%.
> 
> Evidence: the natural world.
> 
> 
> Evidence that _the gawds did it_: 0%
> (Especially your gawds.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this was the case, you would not have many authorative scientist dumbfounded over the origins question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Is dumbfounding is retreating into "the gawds did it" answer to address natural processes. The Christian church has a history of suppressing open inquiry as a means of defending dogma.
> 
> Science is the process of discovery which is threatening to religionis. Why are you so afraid of the truth?
> 
> Does truth threaten your emotional security blanket?
Click to expand...


Think about this for a moment Hollie. Where will there answers lead if God did do it ? Will they have accurate explanations of the data ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this was the case, you would not have many authorative scientist dumbfounded over the origins question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is dumbfounding is retreating into "the gawds did it" answer to address natural processes. The Christian church has a history of suppressing open inquiry as a means of defending dogma.
> 
> Science is the process of discovery which is threatening to religionis. Why are you so afraid of the truth?
> 
> Does truth threaten your emotional security blanket?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about this for a moment Hollie. Where will there answers lead if God did do it ? Will they have accurate explanations of the data ?
Click to expand...

If "the gawds really did it", the only explanation you would have is that a supernatural, supermagical entity using methods we can never understand, using processes we can never discover, in ways we can never discern somehow snapped snapped their magical digits and "poofed" life into existence. 

That still would not negate evolution as the process whereby life developed on the planet. There are no circumstances wherein the planet can only be 6000 years old. So you're left to explain how the gawds sparked the first life and then did such an incompetent "design" of more complicated life.  

Mankind would be forever hopelessly mired in fear and superstition about our origins in the gawds environment.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading your posts leads to that conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings.
Click to expand...


Think about what you wrote. How does anyone reason reallity by posting supernaturalism and supermagical gawds?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading your posts leads to that conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings.
Click to expand...


Think about what you wrote. How does anyone reason reallity by posting supernaturalism and supermagical gawds?

What part does supernaturalism and supermagicalism play in reality?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading your posts leads to that conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you wrote. How does anyone reason reallity by posting supernaturalism and supermagical gawds?
Click to expand...


The evidence hollie of deliberate intent in nature.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading your posts leads to that conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you wrote. How does anyone reason reallity by posting supernaturalism and supermagical gawds?
> 
> What part does supernaturalism and supermagicalism play in reality?
Click to expand...


Do you need me to make a list of deliberate intent in nature hollie ? That requires thought.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about what you wrote. How does anyone reason reallity by posting supernaturalism and supermagical gawds?
> 
> What part does supernaturalism and supermagicalism play in reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you need me to make a list of deliberate intent in nature hollie ? That requires thought.
Click to expand...

You should employ a bit of introspection and ask yourself that question. 

There is no intent in nature. Much as you do with gawds, you are making nature emotive and it is not. A hurricane or tornado has no intent. Neither will decide to destroy one home or neighborhood vs. another. Slathering nature with human attributes Is silly and a waste of time. Similarly, why apply human attributes to an entity (gawds), which are beyond human comprehension? You make your gawds as little more than spoiled teenagers when you assign to them such human attributes as hate, anger, jealousy and disappointment.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is every reason to accept that the probability of just one cell coming in to existence on it's own through a natural means is 100%.
> 
> There is every reason to accept that the probability of it happening multiple times is 100%.
> 
> Evidence: the natural world.
> 
> 
> Evidence that _the gawds did it_: 0%
> (Especially your gawds.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this was the case, you would not have many authorative scientist dumbfounded over the origins question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Science is the process of discovery which is threatening to religionis. Why are you so afraid of the truth?
Click to expand...


No, but the truth obviously sends you into a state of total denial. This is a matter of perspective. New discoveries in science support ID theory, and continue to demolish the TOE DAILY. Brainwashed materialists just can't see or accept it.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading your posts leads to that conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your *hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings*.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Is dumbfounding is retreating into "the gawds did it" answer to address natural processes. The Christian church has a history of suppressing open inquiry as a means of defending dogma.
> 
> Science is the process of discovery which is threatening to religionis. Why are you so afraid of the truth?
> 
> Does truth threaten your emotional security blanket?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mankind would be forever hopelessly mired in fear and superstition about our origins in the gawds environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This comment shows how utterly ignorant you are to history. Up until 1856, God fearing men made a plethora of scientific discoveries which most of modern science is still based on. In your ignorant worldview, you somehow think that your 150 year old materialist religion is responsible for the only science that was ever done. When in fact, most of the pseudo-science out there is the result of materilist "may haves" and "might haves" basis of so called facts.
> 
> 100 years from now they will look back and wonder how so many intelligent people could have accepted the Darwinian myth as fact.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this was the case, you would not have many authorative scientist dumbfounded over the origins question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science is the process of discovery which is threatening to religionis. Why are you so afraid of the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but the truth obviously sends you into a state of total denial. This is a matter of perspective. New discoveries in science support ID theory, and continue to demolish the TOE DAILY. Brainwashed materialists just can't see or accept it.
Click to expand...

That's a fabrication. There is nothing in science that supports supernaturalism.

Identify a single scientific discovery that promotes supernaturalism or supermagicalism as its source.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mankind would be forever hopelessly mired in fear and superstition about our origins in the gawds environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This comment shows how utterly ignorant you are to history. Up until 1856, God fearing men made a plethora of scientific discoveries which most of modern science is still based on. In your ignorant worldview, you somehow think that your 150 year old materialist religion is responsible for the only science that was ever done. When in fact, most of the pseudo-science out there is the result of materilist "may haves" and "might haves" basis of so called facts.
> 
> 100 years from now they will look back and wonder how so many intelligent people could have accepted the Darwinian myth as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As with so many of your religious claims, they're false.
> 
> There is no reason to believe that it was exclusively or even predominately gawd fearing men who made scientific discoveries.
> 
> Your second falsehood is materialism is a religion. Of course it is not.
> 
> Your third false claim is the most bizarre. Evolutionary science is only getting more exacting and better defined. The fact is, there are discoveries all the time of new fossil evidence that only serves to strengthen science and to lessen the need for your promotion of fear and superstition.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading your posts leads to that conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your *hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover. 

Not too many people these days being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse or proposing a theory of gravity. A waning influence of the Christian church and people like you was like removing a yoke of oppression from humanity.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is your name Hollie? Emoticons won't hide your ignorance of modern physics. You were lucky you even spelled singularity right.
> 
> 
> 
> answer the question!  were  Copernicus and Galileo wrong?
> what you've quoted is not physics modern or ancient it's a willful misrepresentation of fact
> 
> let's take your lie apart:
> 1. the universe has no center or no edge, there is no way the the earth would be that center when none exists
> 2. our solar system including  the earth is on the edge of a outer spiral arm of our Galaxy (the milky way) not even close to the center of it!
> 3.all planets in our solar system orbit the sun. making the sun the center of our solar system ,not the earth
> 4.expansion is happening everywhere all the time.
> the way we know this is not from background radiation which remains constant, (not varying or moving ) that in itself makes it a useless tool to gage expansion.
> the thing you are failing to describe is called red shift /blue shift.
> red shift is visible light signature that stars give off when moving away from a giving point blue shift is the visible light signature given off when stars are moving toward a given point.
> since the universe has no center and no edge the effect would be the same everywhere not just from an earth bound pov.
> as always you've got it laughable wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, I said I was going to try and avoid putdowns so I will just ask you the question. You do realize the cosmology website I put up isn't a "creationist" website and represents the absolute latest thinking on physics? I'm guessing you didn't, because your answer seems to infer I was saying something I wasn't. It's not my lie and some of the points you made support the current thinking, although you show you can regurgitate facts without a real understanding of what you are cut and pasting.
> 
> For the record, I NEVER said the earth was the center of the solar system. So nice waste of time building up a strawman of  things I did not claim. Your prejudice lense is flaring up again. What I said was, from our vantage point on the earth, every large body of matter appears to be moving away from us in every direction, so absent of the physics link I provided for you, it would appear that the earth was the physical location of the big bang, or the proverbial "center of the universe". Had you actually not automatically ASSumed the link was creationist, you would have noted I am not claiming a specific center, like you did. Your original post showed an incorrect line of thinking that the Big Bang occurred at a specific point in the universe. You totally misrepresented what Singularity really is saying. You must have missed these questions for you: "Is our earth at the original singularity point of the initial bang? Or is something else going on?" The answer is that the earth only appears to be at the center of the universe when viewing large collections of matter like galaxies, because everything is moving away from us equally in every direction. The objects farther away are moving faster.
> 
> Let's look at some info contained in the link I provided, shall we?
> 
> *"There is no centre of the universe because there is no edge of the universe. In a finite universe, space is curved so that if you could travel billions of light years in a straight line you would eventually finish back where you started. It is also possible that our universe is infinite. In both examples, groups of galaxies completely fill the universe and are moving apart at all points making the universe expand (see question 2)" *
> 
> *There is a common assumption that the Big Bang was an explosion that occured in empty space and that the explosion expanded into the empty space. This is wrong. *
> 
> And finally, what you failed to grasp...
> 
> *"The only answer to the question "Where did the Big Bang happen?" is that it occured everywhere in the Universe."*
Click to expand...

ARE YOU DONE DIGGING YOUR HOLE EVEN DEEPER .
SO YOU WERE LYING WHEN YOU POSTED THIS: "In fact, scientists scoffed at Christians for their belief the earth is at the center of the solar system. Turns out, the earth is at the center of the universe after all!!" UR....


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your *hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover.
> 
> Not too many people these days being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse or proposing a theory of gravity. A waning influence of the Christian church and people like you was like removing a yoke of oppression from humanity.
Click to expand...


Being influenced by vivid imaginations allows you to let go of the evidence for design ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer. Can you imagine the probability of multiple cells forming at once,it's hard enough to think of just one cell forming completely on it's own and now you want to make even harder to believe.
> 
> You're a funny guy Daws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer."YWC
> THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS A LIE
> nowhere is my post is a designer alleged, inferred,only a halfwit with a tenuous grip on reality and a hard on for his own myths would attempt to insert a false premise in to a post to cover his own lack of working Grey matter.
> 
> BTW, THIS IS THE only THING YOU GOT RIGHT:"it's hard enough to think"YWC
> 
> nuffsaid.!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said you implied a creator,you implied that multiple cells came into existence on their own. Thought it would have given it away what was meant when I said the probability of just one cell coming in to existence on it's own through a natural means and can you imagine the probability of it happening multiple times.
> 
> Maybe it was you purposely spinning what I said once you realized you really did make it even harder to believe, by suggesting, more then one cell came into existence through a totally natural means.
Click to expand...

REALLY ?SO THIS MUST BE A LIE:""You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer."YWC
YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU IMPLIED NOTHING THAT WOULD BE FAR TOO SUBTLE ,INSTEAD YOU MADE A BIAS STATEMENT WITH NO FACT TO BACK IT UP. 

"you implied that multiple cells came into existence on their own."YWC.
THAT STATEMENT IS ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE OF YOUR IGNORANCE.
im·ply verb \im-&#712;pl&#299;\
im·pliedim·ply·ing
Definition of IMPLY
transitive verb
1obsolete : enfold, entwine 
2: to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement  
"did it ever occur to you that there was never "one" first cell.
it's almost as lame a concept as your "what system or body part developed first" nonsense.
nature does no do "one offs" there is not only one kind of one celled lifeforms.
there are billions..."daws...
to any one who has any real education the above  is a direct statement. 

I spun nothing .

as to this : "it's hard enough to think of just one cell forming completely on it's own and now you want to make even harder to believe." YWC
for you and people like like you that's a true statement.
but for anyone not desperately, obsessively trying to justify a non provable non scienctific pile of shit,  it's really easy.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, to have a stimulating conversation you have to be able to be taught and have some kind of scientific background to have this discussion.
> 
> Both you and Daws have a problem accepting the views of authorities on this issue that are very educated people on your side that admit they have no clue how life could have started spontaneously completely on it's own.
> 
> 
> 
> you have a problem understanding the authorities in any scientific discipline are not always correct.
> and unlike your myth makers they welcome a challenge  to the evidence to keep it up to date and learn something new.
> 
> what you truly fail on is the concept that in science it not just acceptable "not to have a clue" (misnomer) but necessary.
> unlike yourselves  who believe they have all the answers,when in reality you have no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not wrong daws,they don't have a clue how it could have happened.
Click to expand...

more proof you have reading comp problems


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer."YWC
> THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS A LIE
> nowhere is my post is a designer alleged, inferred,only a halfwit with a tenuous grip on reality and a hard on for his own myths would attempt to insert a false premise in to a post to cover his own lack of working Grey matter.
> 
> BTW, THIS IS THE only THING YOU GOT RIGHT:"it's hard enough to think"YWC
> 
> nuffsaid.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said you implied a creator,you implied that multiple cells came into existence on their own. Thought it would have given it away what was meant when I said the probability of just one cell coming in to existence on it's own through a natural means and can you imagine the probability of it happening multiple times.
> 
> Maybe it was you purposely spinning what I said once you realized you really did make it even harder to believe, by suggesting, more then one cell came into existence through a totally natural means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> REALLY ?SO THIS MUST BE A LIE:""You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer."YWC
> YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU IMPLIED NOTHING THAT WOULD BE FAR TOO SUBTLE ,INSTEAD YOU MADE A BIAS STATEMENT WITH NO FACT TO BACK IT UP.
> 
> "you implied that multiple cells came into existence on their own."YWC.
> THAT STATEMENT IS ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE OF YOUR IGNORANCE.
> im·ply verb \im-&#712;pl&#299;\
> im·pliedim·ply·ing
> Definition of IMPLY
> transitive verb
> 1obsolete : enfold, entwine
> 2: to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement
> "did it ever occur to you that there was never "one" first cell.
> it's almost as lame a concept as your "what system or body part developed first" nonsense.
> nature does no do "one offs" there is not only one kind of one celled lifeforms.
> there are billions..."daws...
> to any one who has any real education the above  is a direct statement.
> 
> I spun nothing .
> 
> as to this : "it's hard enough to think of just one cell forming completely on it's own and now you want to make even harder to believe." YWC
> for you and people like like you that's a true statement.
> but for anyone not desperately, obsessively trying to justify a non provable non scienctific pile of shit,  it's really easy.
Click to expand...


You turned the focus on God and did not proceed with multiple cells forming in a natural unguided process.

Daws you did spin it to take it off your comment.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not wrong daws,they don't have a clue how it could have happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with science not having every answer.
> 
> What's remarkable is the pitiable state of affairs for the fundie crowd. Their last remaining claim to the gods is that science has not yet made a discovery that will answer the question of how life began.
> 
> As layer after layer of fear and superstition promoted by the christian hierarchy has been peeled back by science, the gawds have become less and less relevant and their duties have become more and more superfluous.
> 
> What we see in post after post by the fundies is a desperate attempt to vilify science as they believe that will allow their gawds some meaning or relevance. The fundies are left with abandoning any attempt at positive claims for their gawds (as there are none), but are forced to desperately seek some alleged lack in scientific knowledge as a window for their gawds to peek through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answers to key questions of the theory of naturalism is the problem.
Click to expand...

how that ? nature is here and it works so any problems are minor.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have a problem understanding the authorities in any scientific discipline are not always correct.
> and unlike your myth makers they welcome a challenge  to the evidence to keep it up to date and learn something new.
> 
> what you truly fail on is the concept that in science it not just acceptable "not to have a clue" (misnomer) but necessary.
> unlike yourselves  who believe they have all the answers,when in reality you have no proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not wrong daws,they don't have a clue how it could have happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more proof you have reading comp problems
Click to expand...


Look you can post all the theories on abiogenesis you want there are about 12 of them. None of them are unanimously supported by the science community that is why there are so many theories on the issue.

We have quoted many on your side saying they have no idea how Abiogenesis could of happened.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with science not having every answer.
> 
> What's remarkable is the pitiable state of affairs for the fundie crowd. Their last remaining claim to the gods is that science has not yet made a discovery that will answer the question of how life began.
> 
> As layer after layer of fear and superstition promoted by the christian hierarchy has been peeled back by science, the gawds have become less and less relevant and their duties have become more and more superfluous.
> 
> What we see in post after post by the fundies is a desperate attempt to vilify science as they believe that will allow their gawds some meaning or relevance. The fundies are left with abandoning any attempt at positive claims for their gawds (as there are none), but are forced to desperately seek some alleged lack in scientific knowledge as a window for their gawds to peek through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answers to key questions of the theory of naturalism is the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how that ? nature is here and it works so any problems are minor.
Click to expand...


The biggest and most obvious question is how life began. So which theory of Abiogenesis do you believe happened Daws ?

What put life into motion Daws ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover.
> 
> Not too many people these days being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse or proposing a theory of gravity. A waning influence of the Christian church and people like you was like removing a yoke of oppression from humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being influenced by vivid imaginations allows you to let go of the evidence for design ?
Click to expand...

you have no evidence for design.. 
for someone who proclaims loudly and often the he doesn't have a vivid imagination, the claim of a designer or god made entropy to punish us for sin and is controlling our junk genes ...oh yeah Noah ,the devil, young earth chicken fucking etc..seem highly vivid to me,. and I'm in show biz where I get paid to think up outrageous stuff...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said you implied a creator,you implied that multiple cells came into existence on their own. Thought it would have given it away what was meant when I said the probability of just one cell coming in to existence on it's own through a natural means and can you imagine the probability of it happening multiple times.
> 
> Maybe it was you purposely spinning what I said once you realized you really did make it even harder to believe, by suggesting, more then one cell came into existence through a totally natural means.
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY ?SO THIS MUST BE A LIE:""You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer."YWC
> YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU IMPLIED NOTHING THAT WOULD BE FAR TOO SUBTLE ,INSTEAD YOU MADE A BIAS STATEMENT WITH NO FACT TO BACK IT UP.
> 
> "you implied that multiple cells came into existence on their own."YWC.
> THAT STATEMENT IS ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE OF YOUR IGNORANCE.
> im·ply verb \im-&#712;pl&#299;\
> im·pliedim·ply·ing
> Definition of IMPLY
> transitive verb
> 1obsolete : enfold, entwine
> 2: to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement
> "did it ever occur to you that there was never "one" first cell.
> it's almost as lame a concept as your "what system or body part developed first" nonsense.
> nature does no do "one offs" there is not only one kind of one celled lifeforms.
> there are billions..."daws...
> to any one who has any real education the above  is a direct statement.
> 
> I spun nothing .
> 
> as to this : "it's hard enough to think of just one cell forming completely on it's own and now you want to make even harder to believe." YWC
> for you and people like like you that's a true statement.
> but for anyone not desperately, obsessively trying to justify a non provable non scienctific pile of shit,  it's really easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You turned the focus on God and did not proceed with multiple cells forming in a natural unguided process.
> 
> Daws you did spin it to take it off your comment.
Click to expand...

still trying to bullshit you way out of your own ignorance.
show me where "I turned the focus on god?" here's what I said: "did it ever occur to you that there was never "one" first cell.
it's almost as lame a concept as your "what system or body part developed first" nonsense.
nature does no do "one offs" there is not only one kind of one celled lifeforms.
there are billions..."daws...

there was no need to proceed the facts are self evident.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not wrong daws,they don't have a clue how it could have happened.
> 
> 
> 
> more proof you have reading comp problems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look you can post all the theories on abiogenesis you want there are about 12 of them. None of them are unanimously supported by the science community that is why there are so many theories on the issue.
> 
> We have quoted many on your side saying they have no idea how Abiogenesis could of happened.
Click to expand...

and ?what's your point? they're only stating fact  

like I said in science it's OK not to have an answer, the search to discover one is what science is all about, just the opposite of what you believe.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answers to key questions of the theory of naturalism is the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> how that ? nature is here and it works so any problems are minor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The biggest and most obvious question is how life began. So which theory of Abiogenesis do you believe happened Daws ?
> 
> What put life into motion Daws ?
Click to expand...

what is yet to be proven and  I don't "believe" in any ,including yours.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your *hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but this statement just doesn't hold up to the historical evidence. Why it was even a Christian Friar, Gregor Mendel (St. Thomas Abbey), who is credited with discovering genetics. So even the modern genetics you twist to fit your theory was based on a discovery by a Christian!!! But then again, you are trying to rewrite history to fit your HATE agenda. You have made it known many times that you are a revisionist. No matter how many times you say Christians haven't contributed to science, you won't be able to erase the truth, as long as there are books around. Better get busy burning them Hitl... er I mean Holly. Sorry, got you confused with another atheist.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more proof you have reading comp problems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look you can post all the theories on abiogenesis you want there are about 12 of them. None of them are unanimously supported by the science community that is why there are so many theories on the issue.
> 
> We have quoted many on your side saying they have no idea how Abiogenesis could of happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and ?what's your point? they're only stating fact
> 
> like I said in science it's OK not to have an answer, the search to discover one is what science is all about, just the opposite of what you believe.
Click to expand...


That is, as long as the answer fits the TOE. If it doesn't, they throw the data out and start over.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> answer the question!  were  Copernicus and Galileo wrong?
> what you've quoted is not physics modern or ancient it's a willful misrepresentation of fact
> 
> let's take your lie apart:
> 1. the universe has no center or no edge, there is no way the the earth would be that center when none exists
> 2. our solar system including  the earth is on the edge of a outer spiral arm of our Galaxy (the milky way) not even close to the center of it!
> 3.all planets in our solar system orbit the sun. making the sun the center of our solar system ,not the earth
> 4.expansion is happening everywhere all the time.
> the way we know this is not from background radiation which remains constant, (not varying or moving ) that in itself makes it a useless tool to gage expansion.
> the thing you are failing to describe is called red shift /blue shift.
> red shift is visible light signature that stars give off when moving away from a giving point blue shift is the visible light signature given off when stars are moving toward a given point.
> since the universe has no center and no edge the effect would be the same everywhere not just from an earth bound pov.
> as always you've got it laughable wrong!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, I said I was going to try and avoid putdowns so I will just ask you the question. You do realize the cosmology website I put up isn't a "creationist" website and represents the absolute latest thinking on physics? I'm guessing you didn't, because your answer seems to infer I was saying something I wasn't. It's not my lie and some of the points you made support the current thinking, although you show you can regurgitate facts without a real understanding of what you are cut and pasting.
> 
> For the record, I NEVER said the earth was the center of the solar system. So nice waste of time building up a strawman of  things I did not claim. Your prejudice lense is flaring up again. What I said was, from our vantage point on the earth, every large body of matter appears to be moving away from us in every direction, so absent of the physics link I provided for you, it would appear that the earth was the physical location of the big bang, or the proverbial "center of the universe". Had you actually not automatically ASSumed the link was creationist, you would have noted I am not claiming a specific center, like you did. Your original post showed an incorrect line of thinking that the Big Bang occurred at a specific point in the universe. You totally misrepresented what Singularity really is saying. You must have missed these questions for you: "Is our earth at the original singularity point of the initial bang? Or is something else going on?" The answer is that the earth only appears to be at the center of the universe when viewing large collections of matter like galaxies, because everything is moving away from us equally in every direction. The objects farther away are moving faster.
> 
> Let's look at some info contained in the link I provided, shall we?
> 
> *"There is no centre of the universe because there is no edge of the universe. In a finite universe, space is curved so that if you could travel billions of light years in a straight line you would eventually finish back where you started. It is also possible that our universe is infinite. In both examples, groups of galaxies completely fill the universe and are moving apart at all points making the universe expand (see question 2)" *
> 
> *There is a common assumption that the Big Bang was an explosion that occured in empty space and that the explosion expanded into the empty space. This is wrong. *
> 
> And finally, what you failed to grasp...
> 
> *"The only answer to the question "Where did the Big Bang happen?" is that it occured everywhere in the Universe."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ARE YOU DONE DIGGING YOUR HOLE EVEN DEEPER .
> SO YOU WERE LYING WHEN YOU POSTED THIS: "In fact, scientists scoffed at Christians for their belief the earth is at the center of the solar system. Turns out, the earth is at the center of the universe after all!!" UR....
Click to expand...


Typical. Just like you do with the Bible you have quoted me out of context.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover.
> 
> Not too many people these days being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse or proposing a theory of gravity. A waning influence of the Christian church and people like you was like removing a yoke of oppression from humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being influenced by vivid imaginations allows you to let go of the evidence for design ?
Click to expand...


The problem you have is that you have been told repeatedly and tediously to present your evidence for "design" but you refuse to do so. 

Unfortunately, you are simply the run-of-the-mill fundie creationist who alludes to faulty interpretations of the tired and worn out Analogical Argument to press his religion.

The Analogical Argument follows the paradigm first asserted by William Paley in the 1600's. He asserted the following scenario: 
While walking through the woods, one sees a watch lying on the ground. Picking it up, one is struck by its intricacy and quickly concludes that this object is too complicated to have evolved out of nothing; since reality is vastly more complicated than a simple watch, it therefore follows that nature itself has a vastly more complicated Designer. 
The first rebuttal to this argument is a repeat of the one above: Even if nature does display design, doesn't it follow that the Designer, vastly more complicated than that which it designs, should also have a Designer, and so on? After all, one is implying: 
&#8226;  I find a watch which implies a designer.

&#8226;  I meet the watchmaker who is more complicated than the watch, hence the watchmaker must have a designer as well. 

&#8226;  Why do I stop assuming designers when I reach the watchmaker's designer?

Also, how does the watch imply its designer is still an existing entity? Suppose the same watch is found 300 years later. Even though the watch implies a designer, it would be foolish to assert that watchmaker was still alive. We could be fairly certain he was long dead.

It is true the watch implies a designer, yet nature does not imply the same and herein lies the single most devastating element to the theist's analogical argument from design. 

How do we know the watch is an artifice, and not simply yet another naturally occuring item lying in the woods? Why is it that we don't stop by every tree, flower, rock, blade of grass and pine cone, considering who might have created each, yet we stop at the watch and think, "Hmmm. Someone left a watch here..."?

Simply put, it is because the watch specifically displays attributes APART from that of nature that we know it is a designed item! 

Said another way, man attributes design or artifice to an item because it displays properties that by definition set it apart from nature, which does not display any artificial attributes of any kind. We know the difference because the two are inherently different.

To say that nature and the watch are equally designed is to empty the word "design" of all meaning. It is to say we cannot distinguish between something created with a goal in sight (an artifice) from a tree (a naturally occuring object). No one sees a tree toppled from a storm or burned in a fire and claims, "That tree is broken". No one sees a broken watch and states, "That watch is dead" (they might use that phrasing in slang, but they do not mean it was once alive and now has no biological functions).

As it can easily be seen, the theist is forced into eradicating the context in which we can separate artifice from nature, and then turns around and compares the two having already destroyed it. On this one point alone the analogical argument from design topples into irrationality.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but this statement just doesn't hold up to the historical evidence. Why it was even a Christian Friar, Gregor Mendel (St. Thomas Abbey), who is credited with discovering genetics. So even the modern genetics you twist to fit your theory was based on a discovery by a Christian!!! But then again, you are trying to rewrite history to fit your HATE agenda. You have made it known many times that you are a revisionist. No matter how many times you say Christians haven't contributed to science, you won't be able to erase the truth, as long as there are books around. Better get busy burning them Hitl... er I mean Holly. Sorry, got you confused with another atheist.
Click to expand...

What a nonsense claim.

I wrote out before but you can't bring yourself to accept the fact that christianity was a driving force in prolonging the Dark Ages.

As I wrote out before: Read your history. Christianity forbade medical practice for 1600 years. DaVinci (who recorded his own love affairs with young boys) had to practice medicine under the cover of darkness lest he be burned at the stake. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, lived 500 years before Jesus, and worshipped Zeus. So how come Zeus doesn't get the credit? What is different between Jehovah and Zeus? We can't see either of them, they both had sons with superhuman powers (Hercules and Jesus -- now there would be a cool rumble), they both made human women pregnant, they both rule/create the universe, they both even have books written about them. Here's the difference: People briefly grew up around 2,300 years ago and started to realize the myths were just that-- myths.

Fundie Christians think this world was nothing but barbarians before Jesus-- when in actuality true barbarism sprung up rampantly after Jesus and his devoted fanatics started hacking at anyone who slightly disagreed with them (even the atrocities of the old testament as recounted above pale in comparison to the holocausts, pogrom, wars and genocides that the teachings of Jesus has inspired). You think the Greeks burned old women because they were witches? The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years. For god. Who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden-- "ye shall eat of all things but not of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge -- for on that day, ye shall die" (they didn't die, as the serpent pointed out, they lived; God lied, Satan told the truth-- how ironic)


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover.
> 
> Not too many people these days being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse or proposing a theory of gravity. A waning influence of the Christian church and people like you was like removing a yoke of oppression from humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being influenced by vivid imaginations allows you to let go of the evidence for design ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem you have is that you have been told repeatedly and tediously to present your evidence for "design" but you refuse to do so.
Click to expand...


This is a boldface lie. It has been done here several times.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but this statement just doesn't hold up to the historical evidence. Why it was even a Christian Friar, Gregor Mendel (St. Thomas Abbey), who is credited with discovering genetics. So even the modern genetics you twist to fit your theory was based on a discovery by a Christian!!! But then again, you are trying to rewrite history to fit your HATE agenda. You have made it known many times that you are a revisionist. No matter how many times you say Christians haven't contributed to science, you won't be able to erase the truth, as long as there are books around. Better get busy burning them Hitl... er I mean Holly. Sorry, got you confused with another atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a nonsense claim.
Click to expand...


  So now you are claiming Mendel is not the father of genetics. Wow, you are more brainwashed than I thought.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover.
> 
> Not too many people these days being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse or proposing a theory of gravity. A waning influence of the Christian church and people like you was like removing a yoke of oppression from humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being influenced by vivid imaginations allows you to let go of the evidence for design ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem you have is that you have been told repeatedly and tediously to present your evidence for "design" but you refuse to do so.
> 
> Unfortunately, you are simply the run-of-the-mill fundie creationist who alludes to faulty interpretations of the tired and worn out Analogical Argument to press his religion.
> 
> The Analogical Argument follows the paradigm first asserted by William Paley in the 1600's. He asserted the following scenario:
> While walking through the woods, one sees a watch lying on the ground. Picking it up, one is struck by its intricacy and quickly concludes that this object is too complicated to have evolved out of nothing; since reality is vastly more complicated than a simple watch, it therefore follows that nature itself has a vastly more complicated Designer.
> The first rebuttal to this argument is a repeat of the one above: Even if nature does display design, doesn't it follow that the Designer, vastly more complicated than that which it designs, should also have a Designer, and so on? After all, one is implying:
>   I find a watch which implies a designer.
> 
>   I meet the watchmaker who is more complicated than the watch, hence the watchmaker must have a designer as well.
> 
>   Why do I stop assuming designers when I reach the watchmaker's designer?
> 
> Also, how does the watch imply its designer is still an existing entity? Suppose the same watch is found 300 years later. Even though the watch implies a designer, it would be foolish to assert that watchmaker was still alive. We could be fairly certain he was long dead.
> 
> It is true the watch implies a designer, yet nature does not imply the same and herein lies the single most devastating element to the theist's analogical argument from design.
> 
> How do we know the watch is an artifice, and not simply yet another naturally occuring item lying in the woods? Why is it that we don't stop by every tree, flower, rock, blade of grass and pine cone, considering who might have created each, yet we stop at the watch and think, "Hmmm. Someone left a watch here..."?
> 
> Simply put, it is because the watch specifically displays attributes APART from that of nature that we know it is a designed item!
> 
> Said another way, man attributes design or artifice to an item because it displays properties that by definition set it apart from nature, which does not display any artificial attributes of any kind. We know the difference because the two are inherently different.
> 
> To say that nature and the watch are equally designed is to empty the word "design" of all meaning. It is to say we cannot distinguish between something created with a goal in sight (an artifice) from a tree (a naturally occuring object). No one sees a tree toppled from a storm or burned in a fire and claims, "That tree is broken". No one sees a broken watch and states, "That watch is dead" (they might use that phrasing in slang, but they do not mean it was once alive and now has no biological functions).
> 
> As it can easily be seen, the theist is forced into eradicating the context in which we can separate artifice from nature, and then turns around and compares the two having already destroyed it. On this one point alone the analogical argument from design topples into irrationality.
Click to expand...


Nice cut and paste from "The Blind Watchmaker" book. It would be nice to actually hear your thoughts on a topic for once.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but this statement just doesn't hold up to the historical evidence. Why it was even a Christian Friar, Gregor Mendel (St. Thomas Abbey), who is credited with discovering genetics. So even the modern genetics you twist to fit your theory was based on a discovery by a Christian!!! But then again, you are trying to rewrite history to fit your HATE agenda. You have made it known many times that you are a revisionist. No matter how many times you say Christians haven't contributed to science, you won't be able to erase the truth, as long as there are books around. Better get busy burning them Hitl... er I mean Holly. Sorry, got you confused with another atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> What a nonsense claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you are claiming Mendel is not the father of genetics. Wow, you are more brainwashed than I thought.
Click to expand...

My anticipation was that you would scurry away from any accounting of Christian history and the damage it has caused to scientific progress. You were as disappointing as ever.

For a substantial portion of history, belief in god(s) has not been helpful to Humanity, and in fact history bears out that it is harmful in the extreme. The alleged gods currently proposed are so conveniently impossible to know in any real and rational sense, one would think that there simply is no need for them. Unfortunately, theistic belief is, has been, and always will be a millstone around the necks of thinking, rational beings such as ourselves. Directly in conflict with our nature, contradicting our senses and our powers of reason, theism has thwarted our progress and created lines of division where none truly exist. It is my fervent hope that the fundie creationists will have reason to consider, to ponder, and perhaps to free themselves of ancient and improbable doctrines that while appear superficially to do good, actually inflict more harm -- both physical and "spiritual" than any other aspect of existence.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being influenced by vivid imaginations allows you to let go of the evidence for design ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem you have is that you have been told repeatedly and tediously to present your evidence for "design" but you refuse to do so.
> 
> Unfortunately, you are simply the run-of-the-mill fundie creationist who alludes to faulty interpretations of the tired and worn out Analogical Argument to press his religion.
> 
> The Analogical Argument follows the paradigm first asserted by William Paley in the 1600's. He asserted the following scenario:
> While walking through the woods, one sees a watch lying on the ground. Picking it up, one is struck by its intricacy and quickly concludes that this object is too complicated to have evolved out of nothing; since reality is vastly more complicated than a simple watch, it therefore follows that nature itself has a vastly more complicated Designer.
> The first rebuttal to this argument is a repeat of the one above: Even if nature does display design, doesn't it follow that the Designer, vastly more complicated than that which it designs, should also have a Designer, and so on? After all, one is implying:
>   I find a watch which implies a designer.
> 
>   I meet the watchmaker who is more complicated than the watch, hence the watchmaker must have a designer as well.
> 
>   Why do I stop assuming designers when I reach the watchmaker's designer?
> 
> Also, how does the watch imply its designer is still an existing entity? Suppose the same watch is found 300 years later. Even though the watch implies a designer, it would be foolish to assert that watchmaker was still alive. We could be fairly certain he was long dead.
> 
> It is true the watch implies a designer, yet nature does not imply the same and herein lies the single most devastating element to the theist's analogical argument from design.
> 
> How do we know the watch is an artifice, and not simply yet another naturally occuring item lying in the woods? Why is it that we don't stop by every tree, flower, rock, blade of grass and pine cone, considering who might have created each, yet we stop at the watch and think, "Hmmm. Someone left a watch here..."?
> 
> Simply put, it is because the watch specifically displays attributes APART from that of nature that we know it is a designed item!
> 
> Said another way, man attributes design or artifice to an item because it displays properties that by definition set it apart from nature, which does not display any artificial attributes of any kind. We know the difference because the two are inherently different.
> 
> To say that nature and the watch are equally designed is to empty the word "design" of all meaning. It is to say we cannot distinguish between something created with a goal in sight (an artifice) from a tree (a naturally occuring object). No one sees a tree toppled from a storm or burned in a fire and claims, "That tree is broken". No one sees a broken watch and states, "That watch is dead" (they might use that phrasing in slang, but they do not mean it was once alive and now has no biological functions).
> 
> As it can easily be seen, the theist is forced into eradicating the context in which we can separate artifice from nature, and then turns around and compares the two having already destroyed it. On this one point alone the analogical argument from design topples into irrationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice cut and paste from "The Blind Watchmaker" book. It would be nice to actually hear your thoughts on a topic for once.
Click to expand...


False. 

A pathetic dodge as usual. When your arguments are crashing around you, its a convenient tactic to run and hide which defines your arguments. If you can't cut and paste from creationist websites, you have nothing to contribute.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more proof you have reading comp problems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look you can post all the theories on abiogenesis you want there are about 12 of them. None of them are unanimously supported by the science community that is why there are so many theories on the issue.
> 
> We have quoted many on your side saying they have no idea how Abiogenesis could of happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and ?what's your point? they're only stating fact
> 
> like I said in science it's OK not to have an answer, the search to discover one is what science is all about, just the opposite of what you believe.
Click to expand...


12 different theories on Abiogenesis is stating a fact  did you slip and hit your head ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being influenced by vivid imaginations allows you to let go of the evidence for design ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem you have is that you have been told repeatedly and tediously to present your evidence for "design" but you refuse to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a boldface lie. It has been done here several times.
Click to expand...


Well it probably went over her head.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look you can post all the theories on abiogenesis you want there are about 12 of them. None of them are unanimously supported by the science community that is why there are so many theories on the issue.
> 
> We have quoted many on your side saying they have no idea how Abiogenesis could of happened.
> 
> 
> 
> and ?what's your point? they're only stating fact
> 
> like I said in science it's OK not to have an answer, the search to discover one is what science is all about, just the opposite of what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 12 different theories on Abiogenesis is stating a fact  did you slip and hit your head ?
Click to expand...


There are some 1,400 different gods that have been contrived by humans. 

Those gawds and your gawds have all fallen on the slippery slope of non-existence?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem you have is that you have been told repeatedly and tediously to present your evidence for "design" but you refuse to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a boldface lie. It has been done here several times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it probably went over her head.
Click to expand...


And yet here you are, babbling on with still no proof of your "designer" gawds.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but this statement just doesn't hold up to the historical evidence. Why it was even a Christian Friar, Gregor Mendel (St. Thomas Abbey), who is credited with discovering genetics. So even the modern genetics you twist to fit your theory was based on a discovery by a Christian!!! But then again, you are trying to rewrite history to fit your HATE agenda. You have made it known many times that you are a revisionist. No matter how many times you say Christians haven't contributed to science, you won't be able to erase the truth, as long as there are books around. Better get busy burning them Hitl... er I mean Holly. Sorry, got you confused with another atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> What a nonsense claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you are claiming Mendel is not the father of genetics. Wow, you are more brainwashed than I thought.
Click to expand...


If she doen't know who and what Mendel was famous for she really has not opened her text books.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a nonsense claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are claiming Mendel is not the father of genetics. Wow, you are more brainwashed than I thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If she doen't know who and what Mendel was famous for she really has not opened her text books.
Click to expand...


Another failed tactic of sidestepping and denial.

Its not surprising that the two fundies will banter back and forth in desperate attempts to avoid addressing the salient points.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and ?what's your point? they're only stating fact
> 
> like I said in science it's OK not to have an answer, the search to discover one is what science is all about, just the opposite of what you believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12 different theories on Abiogenesis is stating a fact  did you slip and hit your head ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are some 1,400 different gods that have been contrived by humans.
> 
> Those gawds and your gawds have all fallen on the slippery slope of non-existence?
Click to expand...


Hollie, there is only one true God bank on it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a boldface lie. It has been done here several times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it probably went over her head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here you are, babbling on with still no proof of your "designer" gawds.
Click to expand...



You never heard of Mendel and you want to have this discussion


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look you can post all the theories on abiogenesis you want there are about 12 of them. None of them are unanimously supported by the science community that is why there are so many theories on the issue.
> 
> We have quoted many on your side saying they have no idea how Abiogenesis could of happened.
> 
> 
> 
> and ?what's your point? they're only stating fact
> 
> like I said in science it's OK not to have an answer, the search to discover one is what science is all about, just the opposite of what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is, as long as the answer fits the TOE. If it doesn't, they throw the data out and start over.
Click to expand...

that's another lie you like to tell yourself .
show me what actual scientific evidence has been "thrown out by evolutionists.
 remember Id, creationism, are not evidence


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are claiming Mendel is not the father of genetics. Wow, you are more brainwashed than I thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If she doen't know who and what Mendel was famous for she really has not opened her text books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another failed tactic of sidestepping and denial.
> 
> Its not surprising that the two fundies will banter back and forth in desperate attempts to avoid addressing the salient points.
Click to expand...


Go away you foolish child.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it probably went over her head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet here you are, babbling on with still no proof of your "designer" gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You never heard of Mendel and you want to have this discussion
Click to expand...


Spamming won't save your pathetic sidestepping.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If she doen't know who and what Mendel was famous for she really has not opened her text books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another failed tactic of sidestepping and denial.
> 
> Its not surprising that the two fundies will banter back and forth in desperate attempts to avoid addressing the salient points.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go away you foolish child.
Click to expand...


Another sidestep.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I put the troll on ignore again UR she or he is very ignorant,to ignorant to have a discussion with.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> I put the troll on ignore again UR she or he is very ignorant,to ignorant to have a discussion with.



It was only a matter of time before you and the other coward went running for the exits.

I've found that confronting fundie creationists with facts and demanding they present facts sends them running.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, I said I was going to try and avoid putdowns so I will just ask you the question. You do realize the cosmology website I put up isn't a "creationist" website and represents the absolute latest thinking on physics? I'm guessing you didn't, because your answer seems to infer I was saying something I wasn't. It's not my lie and some of the points you made support the current thinking, although you show you can regurgitate facts without a real understanding of what you are cut and pasting.
> 
> For the record, I NEVER said the earth was the center of the solar system. So nice waste of time building up a strawman of  things I did not claim. Your prejudice lense is flaring up again. What I said was, from our vantage point on the earth, every large body of matter appears to be moving away from us in every direction, so absent of the physics link I provided for you, it would appear that the earth was the physical location of the big bang, or the proverbial "center of the universe". Had you actually not automatically ASSumed the link was creationist, you would have noted I am not claiming a specific center, like you did. Your original post showed an incorrect line of thinking that the Big Bang occurred at a specific point in the universe. You totally misrepresented what Singularity really is saying. You must have missed these questions for you: "Is our earth at the original singularity point of the initial bang? Or is something else going on?" The answer is that the earth only appears to be at the center of the universe when viewing large collections of matter like galaxies, because everything is moving away from us equally in every direction. The objects farther away are moving faster.
> 
> Let's look at some info contained in the link I provided, shall we?
> 
> *"There is no centre of the universe because there is no edge of the universe. In a finite universe, space is curved so that if you could travel billions of light years in a straight line you would eventually finish back where you started. It is also possible that our universe is infinite. In both examples, groups of galaxies completely fill the universe and are moving apart at all points making the universe expand (see question 2)" *
> 
> *There is a common assumption that the Big Bang was an explosion that occured in empty space and that the explosion expanded into the empty space. This is wrong. *
> 
> And finally, what you failed to grasp...
> 
> *"The only answer to the question "Where did the Big Bang happen?" is that it occured everywhere in the Universe."*
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU DONE DIGGING YOUR HOLE EVEN DEEPER .
> SO YOU WERE LYING WHEN YOU POSTED THIS: "In fact, scientists scoffed at Christians for their belief the earth is at the center of the solar system. Turns out, the earth is at the center of the universe after all!!" UR....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. Just like you do with the Bible you have quoted me out of context.
Click to expand...

how could I quote you out of context :Quote: Originally Posted by daws101  
Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality  
Quote: Originally Posted by daws101  
you're mis interpreting the BBT. 

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. 
I think you may be misrepresenting the Big Bang theory. The physics of the Big Bang does not say the universe originated at a specific point. Otherwise, we could calculate the space geographic location of the original bang point. Space is expanding in all directions. The background radiation is located at every point in the sky. In fact, scientists scoffed at Christians for their belief the earth is at the center of the solar system. Turns out, the earth is at the center of the universe after all!!! Because everything is expanding away from our planet and the further an object is away from us, the faster it is accelerating away. Pick a point in the sky. This is happening equally in all directions from us. So let's really see how up on your BB Physics you are. Answer this question: Is our earth at the original singularity point of the initial bang? Or is something else going on?
so Copernicus was wrong? 
Is your name Hollie? Emoticons won't hide your ignorance of modern physics. You were lucky you even spelled singularity right. 

post #6632 & 6633.


there's the context! you fucking pussy!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being influenced by vivid imaginations allows you to let go of the evidence for design ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem you have is that you have been told repeatedly and tediously to present your evidence for "design" but you refuse to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a boldface lie. It has been done here several times.
Click to expand...

no it's the truth.
when asked to present evidence you have none the shit you present is not even remotely quantifiable.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look you can post all the theories on abiogenesis you want there are about 12 of them. None of them are unanimously supported by the science community that is why there are so many theories on the issue.
> 
> We have quoted many on your side saying they have no idea how Abiogenesis could of happened.
> 
> 
> 
> and ?what's your point? they're only stating fact
> 
> like I said in science it's OK not to have an answer, the search to discover one is what science is all about, just the opposite of what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 12 different theories on Abiogenesis is stating a fact  did you slip and hit your head ?
Click to expand...

no but your answer is proof you must have taken one too many blows to the head.
ALL YOU DID WAS REPEAT YOURSELF ....so once again ....and ?what's your point? they're only stating fact


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and ?what's your point? they're only stating fact
> 
> like I said in science it's OK not to have an answer, the search to discover one is what science is all about, just the opposite of what you believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12 different theories on Abiogenesis is stating a fact  did you slip and hit your head ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are some 1,400 different gods that have been contrived by humans.
> 
> Those gawds and your gawds have all fallen on the slippery slope of non-existence?
Click to expand...

bump


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12 different theories on Abiogenesis is stating a fact  did you slip and hit your head ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some 1,400 different gods that have been contrived by humans.
> 
> Those gawds and your gawds have all fallen on the slippery slope of non-existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, there is only one true God bank on it.
Click to expand...

as always you are wrong.. there is no proof of any gods..only the belife in them or the one.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem you have is that you have been told repeatedly and tediously to present your evidence for "design" but you refuse to do so.
> 
> Unfortunately, you are simply the run-of-the-mill fundie creationist who alludes to faulty interpretations of the tired and worn out Analogical Argument to press his religion.
> 
> The Analogical Argument follows the paradigm first asserted by William Paley in the 1600's. He asserted the following scenario:
> While walking through the woods, one sees a watch lying on the ground. Picking it up, one is struck by its intricacy and quickly concludes that this object is too complicated to have evolved out of nothing; since reality is vastly more complicated than a simple watch, it therefore follows that nature itself has a vastly more complicated Designer.
> The first rebuttal to this argument is a repeat of the one above: Even if nature does display design, doesn't it follow that the Designer, vastly more complicated than that which it designs, should also have a Designer, and so on? After all, one is implying:
>   I find a watch which implies a designer.
> 
>   I meet the watchmaker who is more complicated than the watch, hence the watchmaker must have a designer as well.
> 
>   Why do I stop assuming designers when I reach the watchmaker's designer?
> 
> Also, how does the watch imply its designer is still an existing entity? Suppose the same watch is found 300 years later. Even though the watch implies a designer, it would be foolish to assert that watchmaker was still alive. We could be fairly certain he was long dead.
> 
> It is true the watch implies a designer, yet nature does not imply the same and herein lies the single most devastating element to the theist's analogical argument from design.
> 
> How do we know the watch is an artifice, and not simply yet another naturally occuring item lying in the woods? Why is it that we don't stop by every tree, flower, rock, blade of grass and pine cone, considering who might have created each, yet we stop at the watch and think, "Hmmm. Someone left a watch here..."?
> 
> Simply put, it is because the watch specifically displays attributes APART from that of nature that we know it is a designed item!
> 
> Said another way, man attributes design or artifice to an item because it displays properties that by definition set it apart from nature, which does not display any artificial attributes of any kind. We know the difference because the two are inherently different.
> 
> To say that nature and the watch are equally designed is to empty the word "design" of all meaning. It is to say we cannot distinguish between something created with a goal in sight (an artifice) from a tree (a naturally occuring object). No one sees a tree toppled from a storm or burned in a fire and claims, "That tree is broken". No one sees a broken watch and states, "That watch is dead" (they might use that phrasing in slang, but they do not mean it was once alive and now has no biological functions).
> 
> As it can easily be seen, the theist is forced into eradicating the context in which we can separate artifice from nature, and then turns around and compares the two having already destroyed it. On this one point alone the analogical argument from design topples into irrationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice cut and paste from "The Blind Watchmaker" book. It would be nice to actually hear your thoughts on a topic for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> A pathetic dodge as usual. When your arguments are crashing around you, its a convenient tactic to run and hide which defines your arguments. If you can't cut and paste from creationist websites, you have nothing to contribute.
Click to expand...


Umm, isn't that just what I said to you? This isn't 3rd grade Holly, where you repeat the same thing back at the other person.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are claiming Mendel is not the father of genetics. Wow, you are more brainwashed than I thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If she doen't know who and what Mendel was famous for she really has not opened her text books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another failed tactic of sidestepping and denial.
> 
> Its not surprising that the two fundies will banter back and forth in desperate attempts to avoid addressing the salient points.
Click to expand...


More evolutionists assumptive language. Like you've ever presented a salient point.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put the troll on ignore again UR she or he is very ignorant,to ignorant to have a discussion with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was only a matter of time before you and the other coward went running for the exits.
> 
> I've found that confronting fundie creationists with facts and demanding they present facts sends them running.
Click to expand...


Actually, they run screaming away in frustration because you are so dense, and can't respond in a rational way. You drove the poor Muslims crazy too. I can imagine there a few muslims with bald spots after interacting with you for a few posts. One can only bang their head against the wall so many times before it becomes a bloody mess.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU DONE DIGGING YOUR HOLE EVEN DEEPER .
> SO YOU WERE LYING WHEN YOU POSTED THIS: "In fact, scientists scoffed at Christians for their belief the earth is at the center of the solar system. Turns out, the earth is at the center of the universe after all!!" UR....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical. Just like you do with the Bible you have quoted me out of context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how could I quote you out of context :Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
> Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality
> Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
> you're mis interpreting the BBT.
> 
> According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
> I think you may be misrepresenting the Big Bang theory. The *physics of the Big Bang does not say the universe originated at a specific point.* Otherwise, we could calculate the space geographic location of the original bang point. Space is expanding in all directions. The background radiation is located at every point in the sky. In fact, scientists scoffed at Christians for their belief the earth is at the *center of the solar system*. Turns out, the earth is at the center of the universe after all!!! Because everything is expanding away from our planet and the further an object is away from us, the faster it is accelerating away. Pick a point in the sky. This is happening equally in all directions from us. So let's really see how up on your BB Physics you are. Answer this question: Is our earth at the original singularity point of the initial bang? Or is something else going on?
> so Copernicus was wrong?
> Is your name Hollie? Emoticons won't hide your ignorance of modern physics. You were lucky you even spelled singularity right.
> 
> post #6632 & 6633.
> 
> there's the context! you f....ng p...y!
Click to expand...


If you can't act like a grown up, I am not going to respond to you. Internet courage is always such a joke. 

Points from my post:

1. Big Bang did not originate at a specific point.

2. Scientist scoffed at Center of SOLAR SYSTEM theory. The solar system is different than the universe. 

3. I state the earth is at the center of the universe and then quote several true observations for why it would appear to be at the center of the universe. 

4. But then I asked the question: Is our earth at the original singularity point? Or is there something else going on? This was meant to expose your lack of knowledge on current big bang cosmology, but the whole thing went completely over your head. If you knew the answer, you would have immediately noted that although it appears we are at the center of the universe, it looks that way from just about every vantage point in space due to the way space is being stretched. 

So everyone really is at the center of their own universe. 

I posted the link so you could clue in but you TOTALLY missed the point and went off on some attack based on your twisted perception of what I was reallly trying to say. 

Here you go Daws. This is geared for a child to understand what I am saying. This is actually pretty fun if you read the directions carefully. But I guess since it requires you to actually read something, I don't have alot of faith you and Holly can figure this out. 

Exploratorium: Hubble: Where is the center of the Universe?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem you have is that you have been told repeatedly and tediously to present your evidence for "design" but you refuse to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a boldface lie. It has been done here several times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it's the truth.
> when asked to present evidence you have none the shit you present is not even remotely quantifiable.
Click to expand...


Then you have to throw out Darwins stupid theory, because the argument I presented uses the same reasoning Lyell and Darwin used. Why am I even arguing with you on this? It's not like you even understand logic and reasoning.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice cut and paste from "The Blind Watchmaker" book. It would be nice to actually hear your thoughts on a topic for once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> A pathetic dodge as usual. When your arguments are crashing around you, its a convenient tactic to run and hide which defines your arguments. If you can't cut and paste from creationist websites, you have nothing to contribute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm, isn't that just what I said to you? This isn't 3rd grade Holly, where you repeat the same thing back at the other person.
Click to expand...


Your usual tactics of sidestepping.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a boldface lie. It has been done here several times.
> 
> 
> 
> no it's the truth.
> when asked to present evidence you have none the shit you present is not even remotely quantifiable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you have to throw out Darwins stupid theory, because the argument I presented uses the same reasoning Lyell and Darwin used. Why am I even arguing with you on this? It's not like you even understand logic and reasoning.
Click to expand...


You never let your personal biases get in the way of making you look foolish. 

I think you will find that limiting your education of the sciences and the natural world by scouring creationist websites and quoting from Harun Yahya will only reinforce your inability to separate "faith" from the science of evolution. I understand that you hope to denigrate the sciences by dragging them into the realm of supernaturalism, superstition and fables which are all linked to religious dogma but the success of evolutionary science undeniably separates it from your myths and legends. Not only is the supernaturalist deficient at supporting their claims but they are deficient at offering even the most basic of proofs for these silly claims.

For you edification, Origin of Species accomplished two very different things. 

First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the factual case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred. 

His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true. 

Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection." Contrary to your false characterization that evo "assume(s) a steady and slow change"," Natural Selection makes no such requirement and negates coincidence completely. Evolution instead proposes the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change. 

What fundie creationists do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Hollie
> Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality
> Quote: Originally Posted by Hollie
> 
> The problem you have is that you have been told repeatedly and tediously to present your evidence for "design" but you refuse to do so.
> 
> Unfortunately, you are simply the run-of-the-mill fundie creationist who alludes to faulty interpretations of the tired and worn out Analogical Argument to press his religion.
> 
> The Analogical Argument follows the paradigm first asserted by William Paley in the 1600's. He asserted the following scenario:
> While walking through the woods, one sees a watch lying on the ground. Picking it up, one is struck by its intricacy and quickly concludes that this object is too complicated to have evolved out of nothing; since reality is vastly more complicated than a simple watch, it therefore follows that nature itself has a vastly more complicated Designer.
> The first rebuttal to this argument is a repeat of the one above: Even if nature does display design, doesn't it follow that the Designer, vastly more complicated than that which it designs, should also have a Designer, and so on? After all, one is implying:
>  I find a watch which implies a designer.
> 
>  I meet the watchmaker who is more complicated than the watch, hence the watchmaker must have a designer as well.
> 
>  Why do I stop assuming designers when I reach the watchmaker's designer?
> 
> Also, how does the watch imply its designer is still an existing entity? Suppose the same watch is found 300 years later. Even though the watch implies a designer, it would be foolish to assert that watchmaker was still alive. We could be fairly certain he was long dead.
> 
> It is true the watch implies a designer, yet nature does not imply the same and herein lies the single most devastating element to the theist's analogical argument from design.
> 
> How do we know the watch is an artifice, and not simply yet another naturally occuring item lying in the woods? Why is it that we don't stop by every tree, flower, rock, blade of grass and pine cone, considering who might have created each, yet we stop at the watch and think, "Hmmm. Someone left a watch here..."?
> 
> Simply put, it is because the watch specifically displays attributes APART from that of nature that we know it is a designed item!
> 
> Said another way, man attributes design or artifice to an item because it displays properties that by definition set it apart from nature, which does not display any artificial attributes of any kind. We know the difference because the two are inherently different.
> 
> To say that nature and the watch are equally designed is to empty the word "design" of all meaning. It is to say we cannot distinguish between something created with a goal in sight (an artifice) from a tree (a naturally occuring object). No one sees a tree toppled from a storm or burned in a fire and claims, "That tree is broken". No one sees a broken watch and states, "That watch is dead" (they might use that phrasing in slang, but they do not mean it was once alive and now has no biological functions).
> 
> As it can easily be seen, the theist is forced into eradicating the context in which we can separate artifice from nature, and then turns around and compares the two having already destroyed it. On this one point alone the analogical argument from design topples into irrationality.
> Nice cut and paste from "The Blind Watchmaker" book. It would be nice to actually hear your thoughts on a topic for once.
> False.
> 
> A pathetic dodge as usual. When your arguments are crashing around you, its a convenient tactic to run and hide which defines your arguments. If you can't cut and paste from creationist websites, you have nothing to contribute.
> Umm, isn't that just what I said to you? This isn't 3rd grade Holly, where you repeat the same thing back at the other person. Nice cut and paste from "The Blind Watchmaker" book. It would be nice to actually hear your thoughts on a topic for once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> A pathetic dodge as usual. When your arguments are crashing around you, its a convenient tactic to run and hide which defines your arguments. If you can't cut and paste from creationist websites, you have nothing to contribute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm, isn't that just what I said to you? This isn't 3rd grade Holly, where you repeat the same thing back at the other person.
Click to expand...


If you're not prepared either emotionally or intellectually to address the posts of others, you should take your various gods and go elsewhere.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it's the truth.
> when asked to present evidence you have none the shit you present is not even remotely quantifiable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have to throw out Darwins stupid theory, because the argument I presented uses the same reasoning Lyell and Darwin used. Why am I even arguing with you on this? It's not like you even understand logic and reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never let your personal biases get in the way of making you look foolish.
> 
> I think you will find that limiting your education of the sciences and the natural world by scouring creationist websites and quoting from Harun Yahya
Click to expand...


Speaking of looking foolish, how many times can you say the same thing over again. I finally checked on who Harun Yahya is and he is a muslim!! I think in your delusional state you must be confusing this forum with your islam attack days.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> A pathetic dodge as usual. When your arguments are crashing around you, its a convenient tactic to run and hide which defines your arguments. If you can't cut and paste from creationist websites, you have nothing to contribute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, isn't that just what I said to you? This isn't 3rd grade Holly, where you repeat the same thing back at the other person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your usual tactics of sidestepping.
Click to expand...


Nice sidestep, Holly. You never really do answer any questions put forth to you. I'm starting to think you might have a learning disability.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> A pathetic dodge as usual. When your arguments are crashing around you, its a convenient tactic to run and hide which defines your arguments. If you can't cut and paste from creationist websites, you have nothing to contribute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, isn't that just what I said to you? This isn't 3rd grade Holly, where you repeat the same thing back at the other person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're not prepared either emotionally or intellectually to address the posts of others, you should take your various gods and go elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Typical emotional and intellectually unprepared response. You really need some new material.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, isn't that just what I said to you? This isn't 3rd grade Holly, where you repeat the same thing back at the other person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not prepared either emotionally or intellectually to address the posts of others, you should take your various gods and go elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical emotional and intellectually unprepared response. You really need some new material.
Click to expand...


It's a shame that you're not able to respond with a meaningful comment.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, isn't that just what I said to you? This isn't 3rd grade Holly, where you repeat the same thing back at the other person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your usual tactics of sidestepping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice sidestep, Holly. You never really do answer any questions put forth to you. I'm starting to think you might have a learning disability.
Click to expand...


That's interesting because you have made every sidestep and failed effort in flailing attempts to avoid comments directed at your posts.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have to throw out Darwins stupid theory, because the argument I presented uses the same reasoning Lyell and Darwin used. Why am I even arguing with you on this? It's not like you even understand logic and reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never let your personal biases get in the way of making you look foolish.
> 
> I think you will find that limiting your education of the sciences and the natural world by scouring creationist websites and quoting from Harun Yahya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of looking foolish, how many times can you say the same thing over again. I finally checked on who Harun Yahya is and he is a muslim!! I think in your delusional state you must be confusing this forum with your islam attack days.
Click to expand...

Gee whiz but without Harun Yahya to copy and paste your arguments from, your attempts at commenting fall flat.


----------



## UltimateReality

"Let's take stock of what he said from an ID perspective. Koch has essentially written off the positivists who think we are near to recreating life in a test tube from scratch, duplicating a human brain with computers, or telling the public "now we know" how life works. Forget it; *the Complexity Brake guarantees that human minds will never be able to exhaustively describe biological complexity.* The only hope for speeding around the Complexity Brake is to discover modules that cut down the interactome significantly. Even then, understanding could take decades, centuries, millennia.

Well, then, has Koch told us how evolution produced such complexity? On evolution, he had only this to say (quoted above): "It is not feasible to understand evolved organisms by exhaustively cataloging all interactions in a comprehensive, bottom-up manner." In other words, Koch merely assumes that evolution produced the complexity, but then tells us it is impossible to work out that complexity from the bottom up, unless hierarchical modules are discovered."

"Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - Evolution News & Views


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not prepared either emotionally or intellectually to address the posts of others, you should take your various gods and go elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical emotional and intellectually unprepared response. You really need some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a shame that you're not able to respond with a meaningful comment.
Click to expand...


There you go again, not really saying anything.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never let your personal biases get in the way of making you look foolish.
> 
> I think you will find that limiting your education of the sciences and the natural world by scouring creationist websites and quoting from Harun Yahya
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of looking foolish, how many times can you say the same thing over again. I finally checked on who Harun Yahya is and he is a muslim!! I think in your delusional state you must be confusing this forum with your islam attack days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee whiz but without Harun Yahya to copy and paste your arguments from, your attempts at commenting fall flat.
Click to expand...


More of the same nonsense you've been spewing for 5 years.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical emotional and intellectually unprepared response. You really need some new material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that you're not able to respond with a meaningful comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, not really saying anything.
Click to expand...


And yet you still babble on, unable to address any of the thread topics. 

I want you to scour the Harun Yahya website for material. Let us know how things go with that.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of looking foolish, how many times can you say the same thing over again. I finally checked on who Harun Yahya is and he is a muslim!! I think in your delusional state you must be confusing this forum with your islam attack days.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz but without Harun Yahya to copy and paste your arguments from, your attempts at commenting fall flat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of the same nonsense you've been spewing for 5 years.
Click to expand...


Cutting and pasting silly emoticons seems to be your best efforts.


----------



## Hollie

The Creation &ldquo;Museum&rdquo; &#8211; Pharyngula

 The Creation Museum

Im careful to put the title in quotes, because it is not a museum in any respectable sense of the word. I knew this ahead of time; I had no expectation of any kind of credible presentation in this place, but what impressed me most is how far it failed to meet even my low hopes. They clearly want to ape a real museum, but they cant  their mission is the antithesis of open inquiry.

The guards are a clear example. Real museums have guards, of course: theyre there to protect valuable exhibits from theft and vandalism. But real museums want their guards to be discreet and not interfere with the attendees appreciation of the exhibits. At the Creation Museum, one of the jobs of the guards is to suppress criticism. They hover about in rather conspicuous uniforms, armed with tasers, and some use police dogs to check out the visitors. They dont want dissent expressed in their building, and they admit it themselves.

There was a lot of mocking inside the museum Friday (and to a lesser extent during Dr. Jason Lisles noon lecture) by dozens of the 285 in the SSA group, and some of the mocking could be clearly heard by many of our guests (especially in our Noahs Flood rooms, but also in the Garden of Eden exhibit when words like garbage were uttered, etc.). Several times during the day we had to ask mockers to keep their voices down (I did it five times myself), but generally, it was more peaceful than what we expected (many blog comments from those who were coming were promising some very aggressive actions)


----------



## Conservadude

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



The same way you believe all that science is 100% accurate in saying earth is millions of years old.. Faith, I guess.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical. Just like you do with the Bible you have quoted me out of context.
> 
> 
> 
> how could I quote you out of context :Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
> Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality
> Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
> you're mis interpreting the BBT.
> 
> According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
> I think you may be misrepresenting the Big Bang theory. The *physics of the Big Bang does not say the universe originated at a specific point.* Otherwise, we could calculate the space geographic location of the original bang point. Space is expanding in all directions. The background radiation is located at every point in the sky. In fact, scientists scoffed at Christians for their belief the earth is at the *center of the solar system*. Turns out, the earth is at the center of the universe after all!!! Because everything is expanding away from our planet and the further an object is away from us, the faster it is accelerating away. Pick a point in the sky. This is happening equally in all directions from us. So let's really see how up on your BB Physics you are. Answer this question: Is our earth at the original singularity point of the initial bang? Or is something else going on?
> so Copernicus was wrong?
> Is your name Hollie? Emoticons won't hide your ignorance of modern physics. You were lucky you even spelled singularity right.
> 
> post #6632 & 6633.
> 
> there's the context! you f....ng p...y!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't act like a grown up, I am not going to respond to you. Internet courage is always such a joke.
> 
> Points from my post:
> 
> 1. Big Bang did not originate at a specific point.
> 
> 2. Scientist scoffed at Center of SOLAR SYSTEM theory. The solar system is different than the universe.
> 
> 3. I state the earth is at the center of the universe and then quote several true observations for why it would appear to be at the center of the universe.
> 
> 4. But then I asked the question: Is our earth at the original singularity point? Or is there something else going on? This was meant to expose your lack of knowledge on current big bang cosmology, but the whole thing went completely over your head. If you knew the answer, you would have immediately noted that although it appears we are at the center of the universe, it looks that way from just about every vantage point in space due to the way space is being stretched.
> 
> So everyone really is at the center of their own universe.
> 
> I posted the link so you could clue in but you TOTALLY missed the point and went off on some attack based on your twisted perception of what I was reallly trying to say.
> 
> Here you go Daws. This is geared for a child to understand what I am saying. This is actually pretty fun if you read the directions carefully. But I guess since it requires you to actually read something, I don't have alot of faith you and Holly can figure this out.
> 
> Exploratorium: Hubble: Where is the center of the Universe?
Click to expand...

there is no center so you have no point you fucking pussy!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Both Daws and hollie have bored me to death. Daws presenting out of date arguments that is funny, and the same rude rhetoric that hollie presents as an argument.

Daws not owning his ignorant comments is something to behold.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a boldface lie. It has been done here several times.
> 
> 
> 
> no it's the truth.
> when asked to present evidence you have none the shit you present is not even remotely quantifiable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you have to throw out Darwins stupid theory, because the argument I presented uses the same reasoning Lyell and Darwin used. Why am I even arguing with you on this? It's not like you even understand logic and reasoning.
Click to expand...

now that is funny!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how could I quote you out of context :Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
> Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality
> Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
> you're mis interpreting the BBT.
> 
> According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
> I think you may be misrepresenting the Big Bang theory. The *physics of the Big Bang does not say the universe originated at a specific point.* Otherwise, we could calculate the space geographic location of the original bang point. Space is expanding in all directions. The background radiation is located at every point in the sky. In fact, scientists scoffed at Christians for their belief the earth is at the *center of the solar system*. Turns out, the earth is at the center of the universe after all!!! Because everything is expanding away from our planet and the further an object is away from us, the faster it is accelerating away. Pick a point in the sky. This is happening equally in all directions from us. So let's really see how up on your BB Physics you are. Answer this question: Is our earth at the original singularity point of the initial bang? Or is something else going on?
> so Copernicus was wrong?
> Is your name Hollie? Emoticons won't hide your ignorance of modern physics. You were lucky you even spelled singularity right.
> 
> post #6632 & 6633.
> 
> there's the context! you f....ng p...y!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't act like a grown up, I am not going to respond to you. Internet courage is always such a joke.
> 
> Points from my post:
> 
> 1. Big Bang did not originate at a specific point.
> 
> 2. Scientist scoffed at Center of SOLAR SYSTEM theory. The solar system is different than the universe.
> 
> 3. I state the earth is at the center of the universe and then quote several true observations for why it would appear to be at the center of the universe.
> 
> 4. But then I asked the question: Is our earth at the original singularity point? Or is there something else going on? This was meant to expose your lack of knowledge on current big bang cosmology, but the whole thing went completely over your head. If you knew the answer, you would have immediately noted that although it appears we are at the center of the universe, it looks that way from just about every vantage point in space due to the way space is being stretched.
> 
> So everyone really is at the center of their own universe.
> 
> I posted the link so you could clue in but you TOTALLY missed the point and went off on some attack based on your twisted perception of what I was reallly trying to say.
> 
> Here you go Daws. This is geared for a child to understand what I am saying. This is actually pretty fun if you read the directions carefully. But I guess since it requires you to actually read something, I don't have alot of faith you and Holly can figure this out.
> 
> Exploratorium: Hubble: Where is the center of the Universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no center so you have no point you fucking pussy!
Click to expand...


Hey knock the internet tough guy act off,you are not convincing at that either.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> "Let's take stock of what he said from an ID perspective. Koch has essentially written off the positivists who think we are near to recreating life in a test tube from scratch, duplicating a human brain with computers, or telling the public "now we know" how life works. Forget it; *the Complexity Brake guarantees that human minds will never be able to exhaustively describe biological complexity.* The only hope for speeding around the Complexity Brake is to discover modules that cut down the interactome significantly. Even then, understanding could take decades, centuries, millennia.
> 
> Well, then, has Koch told us how evolution produced such complexity? On evolution, he had only this to say (quoted above): "It is not feasible to understand evolved organisms by exhaustively cataloging all interactions in a comprehensive, bottom-up manner." In other words, Koch merely assumes that evolution produced the complexity, but then tells us it is impossible to work out that complexity from the bottom up, unless hierarchical modules are discovered."
> 
> "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - Evolution News & Views


more Id shit! this is not evidence...it's whiny criticism with no competing theory to prove it wrong.
like all this crap the bottom line is god did it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it's the truth.
> when asked to present evidence you have none the shit you present is not even remotely quantifiable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have to throw out Darwins stupid theory, because the argument I presented uses the same reasoning Lyell and Darwin used. Why am I even arguing with you on this? It's not like you even understand logic and reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now that is funny!
Click to expand...


If you actually understood what he said by your reasoning you would. You still don't get it ,many theories in science require faith to believe because there is no data supporting many of these theories just someones vivid imagination.

Do you understand what conjecture is ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Let's take stock of what he said from an ID perspective. Koch has essentially written off the positivists who think we are near to recreating life in a test tube from scratch, duplicating a human brain with computers, or telling the public "now we know" how life works. Forget it; *the Complexity Brake guarantees that human minds will never be able to exhaustively describe biological complexity.* The only hope for speeding around the Complexity Brake is to discover modules that cut down the interactome significantly. Even then, understanding could take decades, centuries, millennia.
> 
> Well, then, has Koch told us how evolution produced such complexity? On evolution, he had only this to say (quoted above): "It is not feasible to understand evolved organisms by exhaustively cataloging all interactions in a comprehensive, bottom-up manner." In other words, Koch merely assumes that evolution produced the complexity, but then tells us it is impossible to work out that complexity from the bottom up, unless hierarchical modules are discovered."
> 
> "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> more Id shit! this is not evidence...it's whiny criticism with no competing theory to prove it wrong.
> like all this crap the bottom line is god did it.
Click to expand...


What is your evidence that shows complexity is not the result of design ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have to throw out Darwins stupid theory, because the argument I presented uses the same reasoning Lyell and Darwin used. Why am I even arguing with you on this? It's not like you even understand logic and reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> now that is funny!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you actually understood what he said by your reasoning you would. You still don't get it ,many theories in science require faith to believe because there is no data supporting many of these theories just someones vivid imagination.
> 
> Do you understand what conjecture is ?
Click to expand...


Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?

Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Let's take stock of what he said from an ID perspective. Koch has essentially written off the positivists who think we are near to recreating life in a test tube from scratch, duplicating a human brain with computers, or telling the public "now we know" how life works. Forget it; *the Complexity Brake guarantees that human minds will never be able to exhaustively describe biological complexity.* The only hope for speeding around the Complexity Brake is to discover modules that cut down the interactome significantly. Even then, understanding could take decades, centuries, millennia.
> 
> Well, then, has Koch told us how evolution produced such complexity? On evolution, he had only this to say (quoted above): "It is not feasible to understand evolved organisms by exhaustively cataloging all interactions in a comprehensive, bottom-up manner." In other words, Koch merely assumes that evolution produced the complexity, but then tells us it is impossible to work out that complexity from the bottom up, unless hierarchical modules are discovered."
> 
> "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> more Id shit! this is not evidence...it's whiny criticism with no competing theory to prove it wrong.
> like all this crap the bottom line is god did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your evidence that shows complexity is not the result of design ?
Click to expand...


What is your evidence that refutes my evidence showing complexity is not the result of a supermagical designer.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't act like a grown up, I am not going to respond to you. Internet courage is always such a joke.
> 
> Points from my post:
> 
> 1. Big Bang did not originate at a specific point.
> 
> 2. Scientist scoffed at Center of SOLAR SYSTEM theory. The solar system is different than the universe.
> 
> 3. I state the earth is at the center of the universe and then quote several true observations for why it would appear to be at the center of the universe.
> 
> 4. But then I asked the question: Is our earth at the original singularity point? Or is there something else going on? This was meant to expose your lack of knowledge on current big bang cosmology, but the whole thing went completely over your head. If you knew the answer, you would have immediately noted that although it appears we are at the center of the universe, it looks that way from just about every vantage point in space due to the way space is being stretched.
> 
> So everyone really is at the center of their own universe.
> 
> I posted the link so you could clue in but you TOTALLY missed the point and went off on some attack based on your twisted perception of what I was reallly trying to say.
> 
> Here you go Daws. This is geared for a child to understand what I am saying. This is actually pretty fun if you read the directions carefully. But I guess since it requires you to actually read something, I don't have alot of faith you and Holly can figure this out.
> 
> Exploratorium: Hubble: Where is the center of the Universe?
> 
> 
> 
> there is no center so you have no point you fucking pussy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey knock the internet tough guy act off,you are not convincing at that either.
Click to expand...

it's not an act, I've stepped over better men then you to take a shit.
In my younger days I would have gleefully ripped out you tongue and shoved it up your ass, just to amuse myself.

 but now I'm too busy laughing at your total ignorance of reality,anyone who claims the the Incas and dinosaurs lived together with a straight face has to have some misfiring synapses in his brain.
all your aguments for god fall short!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no center so you have no point you fucking pussy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey knock the internet tough guy act off,you are not convincing at that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's not an act, I've stepped over better men then you to take a shit.
> In my younger days I would have gleefully ripped out you tongue and shoved it up your ass, just to amuse myself.
> 
> but now I'm too busy laughing at your total ignorance of reality,anyone who claims the the Incas and dinosaurs lived together with a straight face has to have some misfiring synapses in his brain.
> all your aguments for god fall short!
Click to expand...


Yep fits you like a glove. The invitation is still open when I play my next tournament in california for you to come over and introduce yourself and we can see just how tough you are.

thesaurus for internet tough guy: 
trollinternetbutthurtdouchefagfat lionforumgayguylosertoughassbadassdouchebage penise-penisflamergeekidiotinternet badass more... 



1. 

internet tough guy 

679 up, 87 down 





Someone who constantly talks about how bad and "hardcore" they are over the connected phone lines called the internet. These people usually frequent chat rooms and online forums for the sole purpose of shit talking and gloating to complete strangers to fill the void in their life, something that dosen't impress someone in the REAL WORLD. They also like to troll areas in chat and forums that contain such topics as: Martial Arts, Boxing, Fighting, Excercise, Weight Lifting, Wrestling etc. so they can compete with other lifeless internet whores for the sole purpose of determining who is the biggest nerd of them all. These people talk about how much ass they kick and how they could take on the world single handedly, when in reality, quiver at such ideas of someone who dosen't like them finding them in their parents basement where they thought they were safe. Internet Tough Guys should be regarded as the lowest form of life on Earth. 99% of the time they are liars, who will make completely bogus claims of being 7 feet tall, 400 pounds of pure muscle, and bench 700. Often they have bullshit stories to accompany such shitty claims like "I've wrestled a bear and a lion at the same time, and I kicked both of their asses with ease!" or "I'm a pro boxer who beat Mike Tyson in a backyard brawl with no gloves!" They often reply with sayings such as "fuck you", "i'll kick you ass", "your luckee that i cant get you", and the ever...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that you're not able to respond with a meaningful comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, not really saying anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you still babble on, unable to address any of the thread topics.
> 
> I want you to scour the Harun Yahya website for material. Let us know how things go with that.
Click to expand...


Sometimes you don't always get what you want.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have to throw out Darwins stupid theory, because the argument I presented uses the same reasoning Lyell and Darwin used. Why am I even arguing with you on this? It's not like you even understand logic and reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> now that is funny!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you actually understood what he said by your reasoning you would. You still don't get it ,many theories in science require faith to believe because there is no data supporting many of these theories just someones vivid imagination.
> 
> Do you understand what conjecture is ?
Click to expand...

even funnier and Ironic  
no theories in science require faith if they did they would no longer be science.but religion. (logic) Definition of LOGIC
1a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning .)
   below is the best description of the difference between faith in science and faith in religion

Francisco Ayala 

 First, the way in which the word "faith" is used by the person who poses the question is quite different in science and in religious beliefs. All scientific constructs or so-called theories are constructs of the mind. In that sense, we accept them just in terms of whatever evidence we can gather in their favor or against them. In the case of scientific theories, what we do is to formulate them in such a way that they can be used to make predictions about the states of affairs in the real world. And then we do confirm or corroborate the theories by making those observations or experiments that deal with predictions derived from the theories. 

So if we have a theory, which is a construct of the mind, and we are able to corroborate it or reject it by subjecting it to verification or corroboration, as I said, we're confronting it with observations or experiments that we make. Religious faith belongs to a completely different realm of knowledge. In the case of faith, we are accepting revelation or teachings that we do not expect to corroborate in an empirical way. We corroborate them or accept them in terms of the implications they may have, the effects they may have for our own personal life and the life of other individuals. Evolution: Religion: Science and Faith

one last thing it's really ignorant of you to ask if I know what conjecture is ...IN THIS THREAD  AS IN REALITY  EVERYTHING YOU'VE POSTED IS CONJECTURE .
TO SAY IT'S NOT IS A LIE. you have no proof of god, just conjecture.
everything you've ever posted as evidence is not valid as it's base is a false premise I.e. "god did it" .which by definition is conjecture.
your evidence only proves that the things, actions, etc, described in your theory exist. 
your conjecture in no way explains causation. (god did it) " In the case of faith, we are accepting revelation or teachings that we do not expect to corroborate in an empirical way." -Francisco Ayala


----------



## Hollie

Scientific Creationism and Error

Scientific Creationism and Error by Robert Schadewald Copyright© 1986 Reprintedfrom Creation/Evolution (v. 6, n. 1, pp. 1-9) with permission from the author.

Scientific creationism differs from conventional science in numerous and substantial ways. One obvious difference is the way scientists and creationists deal with error.

Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine, as evidenced by the statements of belief required by various creationist organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationists. Because creationism is first and foremost a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a peculiar view of truth.

Many prominent creationists apparently have the same view of truth as political radicals: whatever advances the cause is true, whatever damages the cause is false. From this viewpoint, errors should be covered up where possible and only acknowledged when failure to do so threatens greater damage to the cause. If colleagues spread errors, it is better not to criticize them publicly. Better to have followers deceived than to have them question the legitimacy of their leaders. In science, fame accrues to those who overturn errors. In dogmatic systems, one who unnecessarily exposes an error to the public is a traitor or an apostate.

Ironically, creationists make much of scientific errors. The "Nebraska Man" fiasco, where the tooth of an extinct peccary was misidentified as belonging to a primitive human, is ubiquitous in creationist literature and debate presentations. So is the "Piltdown Man" hoax. Indeed, creationist propagandists often present these two scientific errors as characteristic of paleoanthropology. It is significant that these errors were uncovered and corrected from within the scientific community. In contrast,creationists rarely expose their own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose them.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey knock the internet tough guy act off,you are not convincing at that either.
> 
> 
> 
> it's not an act, I've stepped over better men then you to take a shit.
> In my younger days I would have gleefully ripped out you tongue and shoved it up your ass, just to amuse myself.
> 
> but now I'm too busy laughing at your total ignorance of reality,anyone who claims the the Incas and dinosaurs lived together with a straight face has to have some misfiring synapses in his brain.
> all your aguments for god fall short!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep fits you like a glove. The invitation is still open when I play my next tournament in california for you to come over and introduce yourself and we can see just how tough you are.
> 
> thesaurus for internet tough guy:
> trollinternetbutthurtdouchefagfat lionforumgayguylosertoughassbadassdouchebage penise-penisflamergeekidiotinternet badass more...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> 
> internet tough guy
> 
> 679 up, 87 down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who constantly talks about how bad and "hardcore" they are over the connected phone lines called the internet. These people usually frequent chat rooms and online forums for the sole purpose of shit talking and gloating to complete strangers to fill the void in their life, something that dosen't impress someone in the REAL WORLD. They also like to troll areas in chat and forums that contain such topics as: Martial Arts, Boxing, Fighting, Excercise, Weight Lifting, Wrestling etc. so they can compete with other lifeless internet whores for the sole purpose of determining who is the biggest nerd of them all. These people talk about how much ass they kick and how they could take on the world single handedly, when in reality, quiver at such ideas of someone who dosen't like them finding them in their parents basement where they thought they were safe. Internet Tough Guys should be regarded as the lowest form of life on Earth. 99% of the time they are liars, who will make completely bogus claims of being 7 feet tall, 400 pounds of pure muscle, and bench 700. Often they have bullshit stories to accompany such shitty claims like "I've wrestled a bear and a lion at the same time, and I kicked both of their asses with ease!" or "I'm a pro boxer who beat Mike Tyson in a backyard brawl with no gloves!" They often reply with sayings such as "fuck you", "i'll kick you ass", "your luckee that i cant get you", and the ever...
Click to expand...

again only in your wett dreams


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, not really saying anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you still babble on, unable to address any of the thread topics.
> 
> I want you to scour the Harun Yahya website for material. Let us know how things go with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes you don't always get what you want.
Click to expand...

but if you try sometimes you get what you need!


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Both Daws and hollie have bored me to death. Daws presenting out of date arguments that is funny, and the same rude rhetoric that hollie presents as an argument.
> 
> Daws not owning his ignorant comments is something to behold.



I could do without Daws childish profanity and Holly's condescending attitude. But they do keep the thread interesting, even if they aren't really saying anything of substance.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Let's take stock of what he said from an ID perspective. Koch has essentially written off the positivists who think we are near to recreating life in a test tube from scratch, duplicating a human brain with computers, or telling the public "now we know" how life works. Forget it; *the Complexity Brake guarantees that human minds will never be able to exhaustively describe biological complexity.* The only hope for speeding around the Complexity Brake is to discover modules that cut down the interactome significantly. Even then, understanding could take decades, centuries, millennia.
> 
> Well, then, has Koch told us how evolution produced such complexity? On evolution, he had only this to say (quoted above): "It is not feasible to understand evolved organisms by exhaustively cataloging all interactions in a comprehensive, bottom-up manner." In other words, Koch merely assumes that evolution produced the complexity, but then tells us it is impossible to work out that complexity from the bottom up, unless hierarchical modules are discovered."
> 
> "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> more Id shit! this is not evidence...it's whiny criticism with no competing theory to prove it wrong.
> like all this crap the bottom line is god did it.
Click to expand...


That's because He did. So what's your point again?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Daws and hollie have bored me to death. Daws presenting out of date arguments that is funny, and the same rude rhetoric that hollie presents as an argument.
> 
> Daws not owning his ignorant comments is something to behold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could do without Daws childish profanity and Holly's condescending attitude. But they do keep the thread interesting, even if they aren't really saying anything of substance.
Click to expand...


Aren't saying anything of substance?

That nonsensical claim is getting more and more tired when there are several posts just in the last few pages of this thread that you and the other fundie have made a point not to address. 

As I noted before, fundies tend to run for the exits when confronted with facts that confound their subjective and unsubstantiated religious claims.


----------



## Hollie

Another passel of creationist lies

Another passel of creationist lies | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Usually, when someone spouts creationist garbage, its because theyve been misled. We have a case of this, in spades, in the Evansville (Indiana) Courier Press, where a highly deluded creationist has written an editorial so full of crap Im tempted to call a septic cleaning crew.
To be clear, I think the author is just wrong, but he has clearly been heavily misled  some would say lied to  to by people from Answers in Genesis, a creationist (hahahahahah) think tank.


Check this out:
then a little more than a year ago, we again were privileged to hear lectures by former evolutionist and atheist Mike Riddle and astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle.

To be clear: Mike Riddle and Jason Lisle are from the evil, lying organization Answers in Genesis.
How can I assert this? Assuming the editorial writer is on the level

Riddle, a former Microsoft trainer, spoke of the Miller experiment, which produced amino acids inside a test tube. When oxygen was added, the experiment failed. Imagine, this key element to life prohibits any organic molecules from forming.

The Miller-Urey experiment put the contents of the Earths original atmosphere (methane, ammonia, hydrogen, water  much like the present atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn) into a chamber, and hit it with a spark representing lightning. Amino acids were produced. This shows that the building blocks of life were easy to produce in the primitive conditions on Earth. As the idea goes, later, once life took hold, it evolved to produce oxygen (which can provide a lot more energy to the life process). Oxygen is highly corrosive, and so that changed everything. Eventually, in the adapt-or-die conditions, life adapted to use the gas. But before it did, oxygen was essentially poison. So its no surprise that it would mess up the Miller-Urey experiment.
In other words, if Riddle used this to promote an anti-evolution stance, he is not telling the truth, when the truth is easy to find and has been accessible for decades. What does that make him?

Incidentally, the MU experiment was never meant to be the be-all and end-all of how life arose; it was the first of a long series of such experiments that are still ongoing. How life first arose is a fascinating question, and I guarantee that no creationist will be able to figure it out unless they follow the tenets of science. But scientific method to a young-Earth creationist is like holy water to a vampire.

To continue
According to Lisle, laser reflectors left behind on the moons surface by the Apollo astronauts revealed that our lunar neighbor moves a little over an inch farther away from us each year.
How many billions of years earlier was it scraping our mountaintops?

It doesnt work this way. The Moon recedes from the Earth due to tides, but the rate at which is recedes depends on many factors. In the past, it receded more slowly than it does today. It formed much closer in to the Earth, but there is no problem with it taking billions of years to get to its current distance. Typically, young Earth creationists take current values of things and extrapolate them billions of years into the past without considering that the values might have changed.

This argument has been debunked for many years. Decades. If Lisle really is an astrophysicist and he said this in a talk, he is either incompetent or a liar. Or both.

One of Lisles associates calculated the amount of emissions given off by the various belts of Jupiter shortly before the Voyager probe visited it in the early 80s. The data returned was in sync with the thousands of years that the mathematics Ph.D. had suggested. The spacecraft had no knowledge of the Bible.

This statement is a total mess, but what I think he means is the prediction by creationist Russel Humphries, before Voyager got to Uranus and Neptune, of their magnetic fields. But his guess was that they were intermediate in strength between Earths and Saturns, which is a pretty safe bet given their masses. Also, while its true that the magnetic fields of those two planets are weird, Humphreys model (that God made the planets from water which was then transformed into various other substances) doesnt predict any of the other odd features (like the tilt of the fields and that they are off-center). He claims it does, but his claim on how some of the odd features formed isnt really any different than a model assuming the planets are old; in other words, his model doesnt actually predict those features.

Even a randomly fired gun will sometimes hit the target by accident.


----------



## Hollie

The attached link is a good as it exposes many of the tactics of lies, deceit and alterations of "quotes" used by the creationist ministries.



*Creationist Whoppers*

Creationist Whoppers

This is a small sampler of creationist whoppers, gleaned from talk.origins in recent months. When I wrote that I had sent an unnamed creationist a small sampler of ICR whoppers, many people wrote and asked for a copy. I have much more distributed throughout my file system, and in books and on paper at home, but have not yet had a chance to gather them together.

[plus my @#$! mailer seems to be broken. Sorry to those who wrote me and got no reply...] 
So many liars, so little time! Until then, here is what I had sent to the creationist in question.. 
If you would like to enter your favorite creationist lie, mendacious misquotation or attack of amnesia, please mail them to me here, and much honor and glory will accrue to your name.

Well, maybe a little. 

Max Webb


----------



## Hollie

*Dispatches from the Creation Wars*

Creationist Lies That Never Die &#8211; Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Anyone who has dealt with creationists can tell you about the game of creationist whack-a-mole. Whack-a-mole is that game where you have a mallet and these moles pop out of various holes and you have to whack them with the mallet, but as soon as you whack one of them, another one comes up in another hole. It never seems to end. That is exactly what its like dealing with creationists. No matter how many times you disprove a creationist claim, it simply pops up in another hole and you have to whack it all over again. I was reminded of this yet again when I came across this essay on a creationist webpage that rehashes the long-discredited moon dust argument.

The moon dust argument is sort of a creationist classic, first advanced by Henry Morris in the early 70s, just after the first manned moon landing in 1969. The argument goes like this: meteoritic dust accumulates at a particular rate on the Earth (Morris used a figure of 14 million tons per year). On the Earth, erosion and other processes makes this negligible, but on the moon, where there is no atmosphere, that dust would simply accumulate. At that rate of influx, if the moon is really 4 billion years old it should have hundreds of feet of meteoritic dust on the surface; however, we only find a few inches of dust on the moon, which means it must be only a few thousand years old.

There are lots and lots of problems with this claim, the simplest being that the rate of influx used to calculate how deep the dust should be was wildly off the mark. I mean not even in the ballpark. Morris got his figure from a scientist named Hans Pettersson, who tried to make an estimate of the rate of influx by measuring the amount of nickel collected in filters placed on mountaintops. He assumed that nickel was found only in meteoritic dust (which is not true) and extrapolated from that a range of possible figures. The 14 million tons per year was the high end of the estimate, and in fact Pettersson thought the rate was about 1/3 of that, or around 5 million tons per year.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Daws and hollie have bored me to death. Daws presenting out of date arguments that is funny, and the same rude rhetoric that hollie presents as an argument.
> 
> Daws not owning his ignorant comments is something to behold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could do without Daws childish profanity and Holly's condescending attitude. But they do keep the thread interesting, even if they aren't really saying anything of substance.
Click to expand...


And this coming from the gaggle of juvenile name-callers.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Let's take stock of what he said from an ID perspective. Koch has essentially written off the positivists who think we are near to recreating life in a test tube from scratch, duplicating a human brain with computers, or telling the public "now we know" how life works. Forget it; *the Complexity Brake guarantees that human minds will never be able to exhaustively describe biological complexity.* The only hope for speeding around the Complexity Brake is to discover modules that cut down the interactome significantly. Even then, understanding could take decades, centuries, millennia.
> 
> Well, then, has Koch told us how evolution produced such complexity? On evolution, he had only this to say (quoted above): "It is not feasible to understand evolved organisms by exhaustively cataloging all interactions in a comprehensive, bottom-up manner." In other words, Koch merely assumes that evolution produced the complexity, but then tells us it is impossible to work out that complexity from the bottom up, unless hierarchical modules are discovered."
> 
> "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> more Id shit! this is not evidence...it's whiny criticism with no competing theory to prove it wrong.
> like all this crap the bottom line is god did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because He did. So what's your point again?
Click to expand...

there is no proof he did or that he even exists or the he is even a he ....all of it is speculation without any evidence to bolster it.
in reality, that's called a fairy tale.
there is no need for you to rebut this,  any rebuttal you  give will be subjective.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Daws and hollie have bored me to death. Daws presenting out of date arguments that is funny, and the same rude rhetoric that hollie presents as an argument.
> 
> Daws not owning his ignorant comments is something to behold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could do without Daws childish profanity and Holly's condescending attitude. But they do keep the thread interesting, even if they aren't really saying anything of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this coming from the gaggle of juvenile name-callers.
Click to expand...

 it's hilarious ....
the you're too dumb to understand  ploy is a real knee slapper.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Let's take stock of what he said from an ID perspective. Koch has essentially written off the positivists who think we are near to recreating life in a test tube from scratch, duplicating a human brain with computers, or telling the public "now we know" how life works. Forget it; *the Complexity Brake guarantees that human minds will never be able to exhaustively describe biological complexity.* The only hope for speeding around the Complexity Brake is to discover modules that cut down the interactome significantly. Even then, understanding could take decades, centuries, millennia.
> 
> Well, then, has Koch told us how evolution produced such complexity? On evolution, he had only this to say (quoted above): "It is not feasible to understand evolved organisms by exhaustively cataloging all interactions in a comprehensive, bottom-up manner." In other words, Koch merely assumes that evolution produced the complexity, but then tells us it is impossible to work out that complexity from the bottom up, unless hierarchical modules are discovered."
> 
> "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> more Id shit! this is not evidence...it's whiny criticism with no competing theory to prove it wrong.
> like all this crap the bottom line is god did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because He did. So what's your point again?
Click to expand...



Ge whiz. We actually have a gurantee by a goofy fundie.

*the Complexity Brake guarantees that human minds will never be able to exhaustively describe biological complexity.* 

The fundies certainly won't ever describe biological complexity. That will conflict with the bible and a 6,000 year old earth.

I'm reminded of the story of the Director of the US Patents Office under President Taft who declared in the early part of this century: "No more new patents need be issued; everything mankind can possibly invent, he already has." Of course, Taft fired him, because of course, that Director was wrong.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> now that is funny!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually understood what he said by your reasoning you would. You still don't get it ,many theories in science require faith to believe because there is no data supporting many of these theories just someones vivid imagination.
> 
> Do you understand what conjecture is ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?
> 
> Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?
Click to expand...


Pretty much anything you believe that you have not personally witnessed, touch, tasted, smelled, takes faith. So this is a silly question. For example: when the news guy tells you there was a shooting at a Theatre, you take it on faith that it really happened since you were not there to witness it, and from the footage, can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Another passel of creationist lies
> 
> Another passel of creationist lies | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
> 
> Usually, when someone spouts creationist garbage, its because theyve been misled. We have a case of this, in spades, in the Evansville (Indiana) Courier Press, where a highly deluded creationist has written an editorial so full of crap Im tempted to call a septic cleaning crew.
> To be clear, I think the author is just wrong, but he has clearly been heavily misled  some would say lied to  to by people from Answers in Genesis, a creationist (hahahahahah) think tank.
> 
> 
> Check this out:
> then a little more than a year ago, we again were privileged to hear lectures by former evolutionist and atheist Mike Riddle and astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle.
> 
> To be clear: Mike Riddle and Jason Lisle are from the evil, lying organization Answers in Genesis.
> How can I assert this? Assuming the editorial writer is on the level
> 
> Riddle, a former Microsoft trainer, spoke of the Miller experiment, which produced amino acids inside a test tube. When oxygen was added, the experiment failed. Imagine, this key element to life prohibits any organic molecules from forming.
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiment put the contents of the Earths original atmosphere (methane, ammonia, hydrogen, water  much like the present atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn) into a chamber, and hit it with a spark representing lightning. Amino acids were produced. This shows that the building blocks of life were easy to produce in the primitive conditions on Earth. As the idea goes, later, once life took hold, it evolved to produce oxygen (which can provide a lot more energy to the life process). Oxygen is highly corrosive, and so that changed everything. Eventually, in the adapt-or-die conditions, life adapted to use the gas. But before it did, oxygen was essentially poison. So its no surprise that it would mess up the Miller-Urey experiment.
> In other words, if Riddle used this to promote an anti-evolution stance, he is not telling the truth, when the truth is easy to find and has been accessible for decades. What does that make him?
> 
> Incidentally, the MU experiment was never meant to be the be-all and end-all of how life arose; it was the first of a long series of such experiments that are still ongoing. How life first arose is a fascinating question, and I guarantee that no creationist will be able to figure it out unless they follow the tenets of science. But scientific method to a young-Earth creationist is like holy water to a vampire.
> 
> To continue
> According to Lisle, laser reflectors left behind on the moons surface by the Apollo astronauts revealed that our lunar neighbor moves a little over an inch farther away from us each year.
> How many billions of years earlier was it scraping our mountaintops?
> 
> It doesnt work this way. The Moon recedes from the Earth due to tides, but the rate at which is recedes depends on many factors. In the past, it receded more slowly than it does today. It formed much closer in to the Earth, but there is no problem with it taking billions of years to get to its current distance. Typically, young Earth creationists take current values of things and extrapolate them billions of years into the past without considering that the values might have changed.
> 
> This argument has been debunked for many years. Decades. If Lisle really is an astrophysicist and he said this in a talk, he is either incompetent or a liar. Or both.
> 
> One of Lisles associates calculated the amount of emissions given off by the various belts of Jupiter shortly before the Voyager probe visited it in the early 80s. The data returned was in sync with the thousands of years that the mathematics Ph.D. had suggested. The spacecraft had no knowledge of the Bible.
> 
> This statement is a total mess, but what I think he means is the prediction by creationist Russel Humphries, before Voyager got to Uranus and Neptune, of their magnetic fields. But his guess was that they were intermediate in strength between Earths and Saturns, which is a pretty safe bet given their masses. Also, while its true that the magnetic fields of those two planets are weird, Humphreys model (that God made the planets from water which was then transformed into various other substances) doesnt predict any of the other odd features (like the tilt of the fields and that they are off-center). He claims it does, but his claim on how some of the odd features formed isnt really any different than a model assuming the planets are old; in other words, his model doesnt actually predict those features.
> 
> Even a randomly fired gun will sometimes hit the target by accident.



More cutting and pasting from your fundie evo priest Will Provine's website.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> The attached link is a good as it exposes many of the tactics of lies, deceit and alterations of "quotes" used by the creationist ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> *Creationist Whoppers*
> 
> Creationist Whoppers
> 
> This is a small sampler of creationist whoppers, gleaned from talk.origins in recent months. When I wrote that I had sent an unnamed creationist a small sampler of ICR whoppers, many people wrote and asked for a copy. I have much more distributed throughout my file system, and in books and on paper at home, but have not yet had a chance to gather them together.
> 
> [plus my @#$! mailer seems to be broken. Sorry to those who wrote me and got no reply...]
> So many liars, so little time! Until then, here is what I had sent to the creationist in question..
> If you would like to enter your favorite creationist lie, mendacious misquotation or attack of amnesia, please mail them to me here, and much honor and glory will accrue to your name.
> 
> Well, maybe a little.
> 
> Max Webb



Once again, you prove you are only the regurgitator of your materialist websites and your Fundie Evo Saint Will Provine.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually understood what he said by your reasoning you would. You still don't get it ,many theories in science require faith to believe because there is no data supporting many of these theories just someones vivid imagination.
> 
> Do you understand what conjecture is ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?
> 
> Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much anything you believe that you have not personally witnessed, touch, tasted, smelled, takes faith. So this is a silly question. For example: when the news guy tells you there was a shooting at a Theatre, you take it on faith that it really happened since you were not there to witness it, and from the footage, can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production.
Click to expand...

You're not paying attention. 

Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith.

I think your desperate need to create some weird, metaphysical world is inhabiting your ability to operate in the rational world.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The attached link is a good as it exposes many of the tactics of lies, deceit and alterations of "quotes" used by the creationist ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> *Creationist Whoppers*
> 
> Creationist Whoppers
> 
> This is a small sampler of creationist whoppers, gleaned from talk.origins in recent months. When I wrote that I had sent an unnamed creationist a small sampler of ICR whoppers, many people wrote and asked for a copy. I have much more distributed throughout my file system, and in books and on paper at home, but have not yet had a chance to gather them together.
> 
> [plus my @#$! mailer seems to be broken. Sorry to those who wrote me and got no reply...]
> So many liars, so little time! Until then, here is what I had sent to the creationist in question..
> If you would like to enter your favorite creationist lie, mendacious misquotation or attack of amnesia, please mail them to me here, and much honor and glory will accrue to your name.
> 
> Well, maybe a little.
> 
> Max Webb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you prove you are only the regurgitator of your materialist websites and your Fundie Evo Saint Will Provine.
Click to expand...


Once again, you find yourself unable to defend the crackpots and misfits who define fundie creationists.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another passel of creationist lies
> 
> Another passel of creationist lies | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
> 
> Usually, when someone spouts creationist garbage, its because theyve been misled. We have a case of this, in spades, in the Evansville (Indiana) Courier Press, where a highly deluded creationist has written an editorial so full of crap Im tempted to call a septic cleaning crew.
> To be clear, I think the author is just wrong, but he has clearly been heavily misled  some would say lied to  to by people from Answers in Genesis, a creationist (hahahahahah) think tank.
> 
> 
> Check this out:
> then a little more than a year ago, we again were privileged to hear lectures by former evolutionist and atheist Mike Riddle and astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle.
> 
> To be clear: Mike Riddle and Jason Lisle are from the evil, lying organization Answers in Genesis.
> How can I assert this? Assuming the editorial writer is on the level
> 
> Riddle, a former Microsoft trainer, spoke of the Miller experiment, which produced amino acids inside a test tube. When oxygen was added, the experiment failed. Imagine, this key element to life prohibits any organic molecules from forming.
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiment put the contents of the Earths original atmosphere (methane, ammonia, hydrogen, water  much like the present atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn) into a chamber, and hit it with a spark representing lightning. Amino acids were produced. This shows that the building blocks of life were easy to produce in the primitive conditions on Earth. As the idea goes, later, once life took hold, it evolved to produce oxygen (which can provide a lot more energy to the life process). Oxygen is highly corrosive, and so that changed everything. Eventually, in the adapt-or-die conditions, life adapted to use the gas. But before it did, oxygen was essentially poison. So its no surprise that it would mess up the Miller-Urey experiment.
> In other words, if Riddle used this to promote an anti-evolution stance, he is not telling the truth, when the truth is easy to find and has been accessible for decades. What does that make him?
> 
> Incidentally, the MU experiment was never meant to be the be-all and end-all of how life arose; it was the first of a long series of such experiments that are still ongoing. How life first arose is a fascinating question, and I guarantee that no creationist will be able to figure it out unless they follow the tenets of science. But scientific method to a young-Earth creationist is like holy water to a vampire.
> 
> To continue
> According to Lisle, laser reflectors left behind on the moons surface by the Apollo astronauts revealed that our lunar neighbor moves a little over an inch farther away from us each year.
> How many billions of years earlier was it scraping our mountaintops?
> 
> It doesnt work this way. The Moon recedes from the Earth due to tides, but the rate at which is recedes depends on many factors. In the past, it receded more slowly than it does today. It formed much closer in to the Earth, but there is no problem with it taking billions of years to get to its current distance. Typically, young Earth creationists take current values of things and extrapolate them billions of years into the past without considering that the values might have changed.
> 
> This argument has been debunked for many years. Decades. If Lisle really is an astrophysicist and he said this in a talk, he is either incompetent or a liar. Or both.
> 
> One of Lisles associates calculated the amount of emissions given off by the various belts of Jupiter shortly before the Voyager probe visited it in the early 80s. The data returned was in sync with the thousands of years that the mathematics Ph.D. had suggested. The spacecraft had no knowledge of the Bible.
> 
> This statement is a total mess, but what I think he means is the prediction by creationist Russel Humphries, before Voyager got to Uranus and Neptune, of their magnetic fields. But his guess was that they were intermediate in strength between Earths and Saturns, which is a pretty safe bet given their masses. Also, while its true that the magnetic fields of those two planets are weird, Humphreys model (that God made the planets from water which was then transformed into various other substances) doesnt predict any of the other odd features (like the tilt of the fields and that they are off-center). He claims it does, but his claim on how some of the odd features formed isnt really any different than a model assuming the planets are old; in other words, his model doesnt actually predict those features.
> 
> Even a randomly fired gun will sometimes hit the target by accident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More cutting and pasting from your fundie evo priest Will Provine's website.
Click to expand...


It's important for others to be able to come to their own conclusions about the behavior of the fundie crowd. 

I've offered my own comments about the dishonest tactics that you and the other supernaturalist have employed in this thread: the altered "quotes", the false "qoutes" and manufactured information that comes from your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?
> 
> Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much anything you believe that you have not personally witnessed, touch, tasted, smelled, takes faith. So this is a silly question. For example: when the news guy tells you there was a shooting at a Theatre, you take it on faith that it really happened since you were not there to witness it, and from the footage, can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not paying attention.
> 
> Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith.
Click to expand...


The theory of evolution requires HUGE faith!!! Have you been ignoring everything since you have been posting here? If you weren't so busy cutting and pasting fundie evo websites like Will Provine, you might have actually seen the information.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The attached link is a good as it exposes many of the tactics of lies, deceit and alterations of "quotes" used by the creationist ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> *Creationist Whoppers*
> 
> Creationist Whoppers
> 
> This is a small sampler of creationist whoppers, gleaned from talk.origins in recent months. When I wrote that I had sent an unnamed creationist a small sampler of ICR whoppers, many people wrote and asked for a copy. I have much more distributed throughout my file system, and in books and on paper at home, but have not yet had a chance to gather them together.
> 
> [plus my @#$! mailer seems to be broken. Sorry to those who wrote me and got no reply...]
> So many liars, so little time! Until then, here is what I had sent to the creationist in question..
> If you would like to enter your favorite creationist lie, mendacious misquotation or attack of amnesia, please mail them to me here, and much honor and glory will accrue to your name.
> 
> Well, maybe a little.
> 
> Max Webb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you prove you are only the regurgitator of your materialist websites and your Fundie Evo Saint Will Provine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you find yourself unable to defend the crackpots and misfits who define fundie creationists.
Click to expand...


And you find yourself unable to make a single post without rehasing something from Will Provine or Dawkins. You need to spend more time reading the posts than cutting and pasting from Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker" or copying from IHEU websites.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another passel of creationist lies
> 
> Another passel of creationist lies | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
> 
> Usually, when someone spouts creationist garbage, it&#8217;s because they&#8217;ve been misled. We have a case of this, in spades, in the Evansville (Indiana) Courier Press, where a highly deluded creationist has written an editorial so full of crap I&#8217;m tempted to call a septic cleaning crew.
> To be clear, I think the author is just wrong, but he has clearly been heavily misled &#8212; some would say lied to &#8212; to by people from Answers in Genesis, a creationist (hahahahahah) think tank.
> 
> 
> Check this out:
> &#8230;then a little more than a year ago, we again were privileged to hear lectures by former evolutionist and atheist Mike Riddle and astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle.
> 
> To be clear: Mike Riddle and Jason Lisle are from the evil, lying organization Answers in Genesis.
> How can I assert this? Assuming the editorial writer is on the level&#8230;
> 
> Riddle, a former Microsoft trainer, spoke of the Miller experiment, which produced amino acids inside a test tube. When oxygen was added, the experiment failed. Imagine, this key element to life prohibits any organic molecules from forming.
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiment put the contents of the Earth&#8217;s original atmosphere (methane, ammonia, hydrogen, water &#8212; much like the present atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn) into a chamber, and hit it with a spark representing lightning. Amino acids were produced. This shows that the building blocks of life were easy to produce in the primitive conditions on Earth. As the idea goes, later, once life took hold, it evolved to produce oxygen (which can provide a lot more energy to the life process). Oxygen is highly corrosive, and so that changed everything. Eventually, in the adapt-or-die conditions, life adapted to use the gas. But before it did, oxygen was essentially poison. So it&#8217;s no surprise that it would mess up the Miller-Urey experiment.
> In other words, if Riddle used this to promote an anti-evolution stance, he is not telling the truth, when the truth is easy to find and has been accessible for decades. What does that make him?
> 
> Incidentally, the MU experiment was never meant to be the be-all and end-all of how life arose; it was the first of a long series of such experiments that are still ongoing. How life first arose is a fascinating question, and I guarantee that no creationist will be able to figure it out&#8230; unless they follow the tenets of science. But scientific method to a young-Earth creationist is like holy water to a vampire.
> 
> To continue&#8230;
> According to Lisle, laser reflectors left behind on the moon&#8217;s surface by the Apollo astronauts revealed that our lunar neighbor moves a little over an inch farther away from us each year.
> How many billions of years earlier was it scraping our mountaintops?
> 
> It doesn&#8217;t work this way. The Moon recedes from the Earth due to tides, but the rate at which is recedes depends on many factors. In the past, it receded more slowly than it does today. It formed much closer in to the Earth, but there is no problem with it taking billions of years to get to its current distance. Typically, young Earth creationists take current values of things and extrapolate them billions of years into the past without considering that the values might have changed.
> 
> This argument has been debunked for many years. Decades. If Lisle really is an astrophysicist and he said this in a talk, he is either incompetent or a liar. Or both.
> 
> One of Lisle&#8217;s associates calculated the amount of emissions given off by the various belts of Jupiter shortly before the Voyager probe visited it in the early &#8217;80s. The data returned was in sync with the thousands of years that the mathematics Ph.D. had suggested. The spacecraft had no knowledge of the Bible.
> 
> This statement is a total mess, but what I think he means is the prediction by creationist Russel Humphries, before Voyager got to Uranus and Neptune, of their magnetic fields. But his guess was that they were intermediate in strength between Earth&#8217;s and Saturn&#8217;s, which is a pretty safe bet given their masses. Also, while it&#8217;s true that the magnetic fields of those two planets are weird, Humphrey&#8217;s model (that God made the planets from water which was then transformed into various other substances) doesn&#8217;t predict any of the other odd features (like the tilt of the fields and that they are off-center). He claims it does, but his claim on how some of the odd features formed isn&#8217;t really any different than a model assuming the planets are old; in other words, his model doesn&#8217;t actually predict those features.
> 
> Even a randomly fired gun will sometimes hit the target&#8230; by accident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More cutting and pasting from your fundie evo priest Will Provine's website.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's important for others to be able to come to their own conclusions about the behavior of the fundie crowd.
> 
> I've offered my own comments about the dishonest tactics that you and the other supernaturalist have employed in this thread: the altered "quotes", the false "qoutes" and manufactured information that comes from your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...


And yet you do the same thing from Will Provine and Dawkins.

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/64...ators-sean-faircloth-the-amaz-ng-meeting-2012


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually understood what he said by your reasoning you would. You still don't get it ,many theories in science require faith to believe because there is no data supporting many of these theories just someones vivid imagination.
> 
> Do you understand what conjecture is ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?
> 
> Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much anything you believe that you have not personally witnessed, touch, tasted, smelled, takes faith. So this is a silly question. For example: when the news guy tells you there was a shooting at a Theatre, you take it on faith that it really happened since you were not there to witness it, and from the footage, can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production.
Click to expand...


What you just wrote, saying that unless you personally witness something, you need faith to believe, is completely absurd. This is because reality, at least so far, is dependable. The laws of physics have not changed, neither have the laws of logic, since the beginning of the universe. There is a minimal amount of inductive logic that goes into saying gravity will work tomorrow, because it has for the last 13.7 Billion years, but that is not faith. It is a REASON-able expectation, and any beliefs formed on this evidence of the past is necessarily evidence-based belief, not faith based. We have seen gravity work, and have never seen it not work after the big bang. In order to know something or have justification for believing something, you don't need to be there.  A great example is the orbit of Pluto (as per Matt Dillahunty, who loves this example). It takes 270 years for Pluto to orbit the sun. We haven't been knowledgeable of its existence for that long, yet we know, by calculating its velocity and its distance from the sun, what its orbital period will be.  That is not in any way faith. That is math, and everything in the universe is guided by processes that can be described in mathematical terms. Again, god is found nowhere in the math, and as such, is completely extraneous to the known universe, if one exists at all. This takes faith, because there is NO evidence to believe that a god exists. If there was evidence, then it would not require faith. That is the distinction between faith-based and evidence-based beliefs. Evidence-based beliefs are based on evidence. Faith-based beliefs are based on faith, or, a lack of evidence. One contains a justification for belief based on empirical grounds, the other, simply on desire.


----------



## Hollie

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/legal.htm

Under the US Constitution, it is illegal for the Federal Government or for any state to pass a law which establishes government support for any religious view, or which serves to advance any particular religious view. The "Balanced Treatment Law", Judge Overton concluded, violated this "Establishment Clause". "The evidence is overwhelming," Overton wrote, "that both the purpose and the effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the public schools." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) Citing a number of letters and statements made by the creationists themselves, the judge concluded that "Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact". (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) 



"The proof in support of creation science consisted almost entirely of efforts to discredit the theory of evolution through a rehash of data and theories which have been before the scientific community for decades. The arguments asserted by creationists are not based upon new scientific evidence or laboratory data which has been ignored by the scientific community." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) 



"The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in Section 4(a). Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) 

"Creation science," Overton concluded, "has no scientific merit or educational value as science . . . Since creation science is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) The Arkansas monkey law was ruled unconstitutional and was thrown out. 


In June 1987, the Supreme Court ruled against the creationists, concluding by a vote of 7-2 that the purpose of creation "science" was "to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) "The pre-eminent purpose of the Lousisiana Legislature," the Court decided, "was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) 

"Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious belief," the Court ruled, "the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. . . . The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) As a result of this decision, all existing "Balanced Treatment" laws were thrown out. 

Following this defeat, however, the creation scientists once again changed their tactics. First, they moved their focus from attempting to pass state laws mandating the teaching of creation "science" to attempting to pressure textbook committees and local school boards (where their highly organized and well-financed political machines can exert tremendous influence) into voluntarily granting equal time for "creation science. Secondly, they have changed their arguments--now, instead of arguing that creationism is a science and should therefore be taught in public schools, they have argued that creationism really is religion, but so is evolution--evolution is, they now said, really nothing more than the "religion" of "secular humanism", and therefore evolution should not be taught in public schools either. This argument has already failed in a number of Federal courts. 

In 1981, a prominent creationist in California sued to have the teaching of evolution removed from the classroom on the grounds that it violated his and his childrens Constituional right to free exercise of their religion. In response, the California Superior Court ruled that teaching evolution in science class does not establish a religion or interfere with the religious rights of any citizens (Sacramento Superior Court,Segraves v California, 1981). 

The issue came up again in 1994, when a California biology teacher sued the state and the local school district, claiming that teaching evolution illegally established the "religion of secular humanism". The teacher also claimed that the state and school district were conspiring against him as a result of their "group animus towards practicing Christians" (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994). 

The Court ruled, "Adding ism does not change the meaning nor magically metamorphose evolution into a religion. Evolution and evolutionism define a biological concept: higher life forms evolve from lower ones. The concept has nothing to do with how the universe was created; it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a divine Creator (who did or did not create the universe or did or did not plan evolution as part of a divine scheme). " (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994) 


Thank the gawds for the U.S. Constitution


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?
> 
> Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much anything you believe that you have not personally witnessed, touch, tasted, smelled, takes faith. So this is a silly question. For example: when the news guy tells you there was a shooting at a Theatre, you take it on faith that it really happened since you were not there to witness it, and from the footage, can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you just wrote, saying that unless you personally witness something, you need faith to believe, is completely absurd. This is because reality, at least so far, is dependable. The laws of physics have not changed, neither have the laws of logic, since the beginning of the universe. There is a minimal amount of inductive logic that goes into saying gravity will work tomorrow, because it has for the last 13.7 Billion years, but that is not faith. It is a REASON-able expectation, and any beliefs formed on this evidence of the past is necessarily evidence-based belief, not faith based. We have seen gravity work, and have never seen it not work after the big bang. In order to know something or have justification for believing something, you don't need to be there.  A great example is the orbit of Pluto (as per Matt Dillahunty, who loves this example). It takes 270 years for Pluto to orbit the sun. We haven't been knowledgeable of its existence for that long, yet we know, by calculating its velocity and its distance from the sun, what its orbital period will be.  That is not in any way faith. That is math, and everything in the universe is guided by processes that can be described in mathematical terms. Again, god is found nowhere in the math, and as such, is completely extraneous to the known universe, if one exists at all. This takes faith, because there is NO evidence to believe that a god exists. If there was evidence, then it would not require faith. That is the distinction between faith-based and evidence-based beliefs. Evidence-based beliefs are based on evidence. Faith-based beliefs are based on faith, or, a lack of evidence. One contains a justification for belief based on empirical grounds, the other, simply on desire.
Click to expand...


Your whole paragraph makes the false assumption that the TOE is science like physics is science. The TOE is pseudo science and comparing it to gravity is a favorite tactic of materialists atheists in attempt to give the Darwinian myth weight, so to speak.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cutting and pasting from your fundie evo priest Will Provine's website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's important for others to be able to come to their own conclusions about the behavior of the fundie crowd.
> 
> I've offered my own comments about the dishonest tactics that you and the other supernaturalist have employed in this thread: the altered "quotes", the false "qoutes" and manufactured information that comes from your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you do the same thing from Will Provine and Dawkins.
Click to expand...


And yet you have no issue with the dishonest tactics of altered "quotes", the false "quotes" and manufactured information that you cut and paste.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/legal.htm
> 
> Under the US Constitution, it is illegal for the Federal Government or for any state to pass a law which establishes government support for any religious view, or which serves to advance any particular religious view. The "Balanced Treatment Law", Judge Overton concluded, violated this "Establishment Clause". "The evidence is overwhelming," Overton wrote, "that both the purpose and the effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the public schools." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) Citing a number of letters and statements made by the creationists themselves, the judge concluded that "Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact". (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)
> 
> 
> 
> "The proof in support of creation science consisted almost entirely of efforts to discredit the theory of evolution through a rehash of data and theories which have been before the scientific community for decades. The arguments asserted by creationists are not based upon new scientific evidence or laboratory data which has been ignored by the scientific community." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)
> 
> 
> 
> "The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in Section 4(a). Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)
> 
> "Creation science," Overton concluded, "has no scientific merit or educational value as science . . . Since creation science is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) The Arkansas monkey law was ruled unconstitutional and was thrown out.
> 
> 
> In June 1987, the Supreme Court ruled against the creationists, concluding by a vote of 7-2 that the purpose of creation "science" was "to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) "The pre-eminent purpose of the Lousisiana Legislature," the Court decided, "was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987)
> 
> "Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious belief," the Court ruled, "the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. . . . The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) As a result of this decision, all existing "Balanced Treatment" laws were thrown out.
> 
> Following this defeat, however, the creation scientists once again changed their tactics. First, they moved their focus from attempting to pass state laws mandating the teaching of creation "science" to attempting to pressure textbook committees and local school boards (where their highly organized and well-financed political machines can exert tremendous influence) into voluntarily granting equal time for "creation science. Secondly, they have changed their arguments--now, instead of arguing that creationism is a science and should therefore be taught in public schools, they have argued that creationism really is religion, but so is evolution--evolution is, they now said, really nothing more than the "religion" of "secular humanism", and therefore evolution should not be taught in public schools either. This argument has already failed in a number of Federal courts.
> 
> In 1981, a prominent creationist in California sued to have the teaching of evolution removed from the classroom on the grounds that it violated his and his children&#8217;s Constituional right to free exercise of their religion. In response, the California Superior Court ruled that teaching evolution in science class does not establish a religion or interfere with the religious rights of any citizens (Sacramento Superior Court,Segraves v California, 1981).
> 
> The issue came up again in 1994, when a California biology teacher sued the state and the local school district, claiming that teaching evolution illegally established the "religion of secular humanism". The teacher also claimed that the state and school district were conspiring against him as a result of their "group animus towards practicing Christians" (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994).
> 
> The Court ruled, "Adding &#8216;ism&#8217; does not change the meaning nor magically metamorphose &#8216;evolution&#8217; into a religion. &#8216;Evolution&#8217; and &#8216;evolutionism&#8217; define a biological concept: higher life forms evolve from lower ones. The concept has nothing to do with how the universe was created; it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a divine Creator (who did or did not create the universe or did or did not plan evolution as part of a divine scheme). " (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994)
> 
> 
> Thank the gawds for the U.S. Constitution



More false quotes from the IHEU website. Holly, your are the drag queen of false quotes.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much anything you believe that you have not personally witnessed, touch, tasted, smelled, takes faith. So this is a silly question. For example: when the news guy tells you there was a shooting at a Theatre, you take it on faith that it really happened since you were not there to witness it, and from the footage, can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you just wrote, saying that unless you personally witness something, you need faith to believe, is completely absurd. This is because reality, at least so far, is dependable. The laws of physics have not changed, neither have the laws of logic, since the beginning of the universe. There is a minimal amount of inductive logic that goes into saying gravity will work tomorrow, because it has for the last 13.7 Billion years, but that is not faith. It is a REASON-able expectation, and any beliefs formed on this evidence of the past is necessarily evidence-based belief, not faith based. We have seen gravity work, and have never seen it not work after the big bang. In order to know something or have justification for believing something, you don't need to be there.  A great example is the orbit of Pluto (as per Matt Dillahunty, who loves this example). It takes 270 years for Pluto to orbit the sun. We haven't been knowledgeable of its existence for that long, yet we know, by calculating its velocity and its distance from the sun, what its orbital period will be.  That is not in any way faith. That is math, and everything in the universe is guided by processes that can be described in mathematical terms. Again, god is found nowhere in the math, and as such, is completely extraneous to the known universe, if one exists at all. This takes faith, because there is NO evidence to believe that a god exists. If there was evidence, then it would not require faith. That is the distinction between faith-based and evidence-based beliefs. Evidence-based beliefs are based on evidence. Faith-based beliefs are based on faith, or, a lack of evidence. One contains a justification for belief based on empirical grounds, the other, simply on desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your whole paragraph makes the false assumption that the TOE is science like physics is science. The TOE is pseudo science and comparing it to gravity is a favorite tactic of materialists atheists in attempt to give the Darwinian myth weight, so to speak.
Click to expand...


The TOE _is_ science. 

You can't accept that because it conflicts with the bible and a 6000 year old earth.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/legal.htm
> 
> Under the US Constitution, it is illegal for the Federal Government or for any state to pass a law which establishes government support for any religious view, or which serves to advance any particular religious view. The "Balanced Treatment Law", Judge Overton concluded, violated this "Establishment Clause". "The evidence is overwhelming," Overton wrote, "that both the purpose and the effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the public schools." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) Citing a number of letters and statements made by the creationists themselves, the judge concluded that "Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact". (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)
> 
> 
> 
> "The proof in support of creation science consisted almost entirely of efforts to discredit the theory of evolution through a rehash of data and theories which have been before the scientific community for decades. The arguments asserted by creationists are not based upon new scientific evidence or laboratory data which has been ignored by the scientific community." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)
> 
> 
> 
> "The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in Section 4(a). Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)
> 
> "Creation science," Overton concluded, "has no scientific merit or educational value as science . . . Since creation science is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) The Arkansas monkey law was ruled unconstitutional and was thrown out.
> 
> 
> In June 1987, the Supreme Court ruled against the creationists, concluding by a vote of 7-2 that the purpose of creation "science" was "to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) "The pre-eminent purpose of the Lousisiana Legislature," the Court decided, "was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987)
> 
> "Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious belief," the Court ruled, "the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. . . . The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) As a result of this decision, all existing "Balanced Treatment" laws were thrown out.
> 
> Following this defeat, however, the creation scientists once again changed their tactics. First, they moved their focus from attempting to pass state laws mandating the teaching of creation "science" to attempting to pressure textbook committees and local school boards (where their highly organized and well-financed political machines can exert tremendous influence) into voluntarily granting equal time for "creation science. Secondly, they have changed their arguments--now, instead of arguing that creationism is a science and should therefore be taught in public schools, they have argued that creationism really is religion, but so is evolution--evolution is, they now said, really nothing more than the "religion" of "secular humanism", and therefore evolution should not be taught in public schools either. This argument has already failed in a number of Federal courts.
> 
> In 1981, a prominent creationist in California sued to have the teaching of evolution removed from the classroom on the grounds that it violated his and his childrens Constituional right to free exercise of their religion. In response, the California Superior Court ruled that teaching evolution in science class does not establish a religion or interfere with the religious rights of any citizens (Sacramento Superior Court,Segraves v California, 1981).
> 
> The issue came up again in 1994, when a California biology teacher sued the state and the local school district, claiming that teaching evolution illegally established the "religion of secular humanism". The teacher also claimed that the state and school district were conspiring against him as a result of their "group animus towards practicing Christians" (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994).
> 
> The Court ruled, "Adding ism does not change the meaning nor magically metamorphose evolution into a religion. Evolution and evolutionism define a biological concept: higher life forms evolve from lower ones. The concept has nothing to do with how the universe was created; it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a divine Creator (who did or did not create the universe or did or did not plan evolution as part of a divine scheme). " (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994)
> 
> 
> Thank the gawds for the U.S. Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More false quotes from the IHEU website. Holly, your are the drag queen of false quotes.
Click to expand...


They're all referenced. You're simply in denial. Your insensate hatred for me or anyone else who challenges your dogma is obvious, You need to get over that.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/legal.htm
> 
> Under the US Constitution, it is illegal for the Federal Government or for any state to pass a law which establishes government support for any religious view, or which serves to advance any particular religious view. The "Balanced Treatment Law", Judge Overton concluded, violated this "Establishment Clause". "The evidence is overwhelming," Overton wrote, "that both the purpose and the effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the public schools." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) Citing a number of letters and statements made by the creationists themselves, the judge concluded that "Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact". (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)
> 
> 
> 
> "The proof in support of creation science consisted almost entirely of efforts to discredit the theory of evolution through a rehash of data and theories which have been before the scientific community for decades. The arguments asserted by creationists are not based upon new scientific evidence or laboratory data which has been ignored by the scientific community." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)
> 
> 
> 
> "The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in Section 4(a). Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)
> 
> "Creation science," Overton concluded, "has no scientific merit or educational value as science . . . Since creation science is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) The Arkansas monkey law was ruled unconstitutional and was thrown out.
> 
> 
> In June 1987, the Supreme Court ruled against the creationists, concluding by a vote of 7-2 that the purpose of creation "science" was "to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) "The pre-eminent purpose of the Lousisiana Legislature," the Court decided, "was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987)
> 
> "Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious belief," the Court ruled, "the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. . . . The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) As a result of this decision, all existing "Balanced Treatment" laws were thrown out.
> 
> Following this defeat, however, the creation scientists once again changed their tactics. First, they moved their focus from attempting to pass state laws mandating the teaching of creation "science" to attempting to pressure textbook committees and local school boards (where their highly organized and well-financed political machines can exert tremendous influence) into voluntarily granting equal time for "creation science. Secondly, they have changed their arguments--now, instead of arguing that creationism is a science and should therefore be taught in public schools, they have argued that creationism really is religion, but so is evolution--evolution is, they now said, really nothing more than the "religion" of "secular humanism", and therefore evolution should not be taught in public schools either. This argument has already failed in a number of Federal courts.
> 
> In 1981, a prominent creationist in California sued to have the teaching of evolution removed from the classroom on the grounds that it violated his and his childrens Constituional right to free exercise of their religion. In response, the California Superior Court ruled that teaching evolution in science class does not establish a religion or interfere with the religious rights of any citizens (Sacramento Superior Court,Segraves v California, 1981).
> 
> The issue came up again in 1994, when a California biology teacher sued the state and the local school district, claiming that teaching evolution illegally established the "religion of secular humanism". The teacher also claimed that the state and school district were conspiring against him as a result of their "group animus towards practicing Christians" (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994).
> 
> The Court ruled, "Adding ism does not change the meaning nor magically metamorphose evolution into a religion. Evolution and evolutionism define a biological concept: higher life forms evolve from lower ones. The concept has nothing to do with how the universe was created; it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a divine Creator (who did or did not create the universe or did or did not plan evolution as part of a divine scheme). " (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994)
> 
> 
> Thank the gawds for the U.S. Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More false quotes from the IHEU website. Holly, your are the drag queen of false quotes.
Click to expand...


The legal history of creation "science", therefore, has been remarkably consistent --- the creation "scientists" have lost every single Federal court case they have ever been involved with. In every instance where creation "scientists" or intelligent design "theorists" have attempted to argue that their viewpoints are "science" and should be taught in schools, or that evolution is not science and should not be taught in schools, their claim has been rejected by the courts -- soundly, starkly, and unequivocably.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you just wrote, saying that unless you personally witness something, you need faith to believe, is completely absurd. This is because reality, at least so far, is dependable. The laws of physics have not changed, neither have the laws of logic, since the beginning of the universe. There is a minimal amount of inductive logic that goes into saying gravity will work tomorrow, because it has for the last 13.7 Billion years, but that is not faith. It is a REASON-able expectation, and any beliefs formed on this evidence of the past is necessarily evidence-based belief, not faith based. We have seen gravity work, and have never seen it not work after the big bang. In order to know something or have justification for believing something, you don't need to be there.  A great example is the orbit of Pluto (as per Matt Dillahunty, who loves this example). It takes 270 years for Pluto to orbit the sun. We haven't been knowledgeable of its existence for that long, yet we know, by calculating its velocity and its distance from the sun, what its orbital period will be.  That is not in any way faith. That is math, and everything in the universe is guided by processes that can be described in mathematical terms. Again, god is found nowhere in the math, and as such, is completely extraneous to the known universe, if one exists at all. This takes faith, because there is NO evidence to believe that a god exists. If there was evidence, then it would not require faith. That is the distinction between faith-based and evidence-based beliefs. Evidence-based beliefs are based on evidence. Faith-based beliefs are based on faith, or, a lack of evidence. One contains a justification for belief based on empirical grounds, the other, simply on desire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your whole paragraph makes the false assumption that the TOE is science like physics is science. The TOE is pseudo science and comparing it to gravity is a favorite tactic of materialists atheists in attempt to give the Darwinian myth weight, so to speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The TOE _is_ science.
> 
> You can't accept that because it conflicts with the bible and a 6000 year old earth.
Click to expand...


The TOE is pseudo science based on your materialist secular humanist religion. You spend all your time cutting and pasting from IHEU websites and never stop long enough to actually do any critical thinking. 

You cut and paste false quotes from your religious leaders like Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. If your good with "may haves" and "might haves", and nice little stories about how giraffe necks are longer because they could only eat high fruit, supporting your supposed fact, then by all means continue to support your myth. But don't pretend that the outrageous claims of the TOE are backed by any real science. News flash for you: Darwin's tree of life has been dis-proven by modern genetics and the embryo drawings were fakes. However, since Darwinism is religion for you, none of this should matter. Continue to go ahead and cling to your religion even no there is no proof.


----------



## Hollie

*An Index to Creationist Claims*

edited by Mark Isaak
Copyright © 2006

An Index to Creationist Claims

Creationist claims are numerous and varied, so it is often difficult to track down information on any given claim. Plus, creationists constantly come up with new claims which need addressing. This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims. It is updated frequently; see the What's Newpage for the latest changes.

Since most creationism is folklore, the claims are organized in an outline format following that of Stith Thompson's Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. Sections CA through CG deal with claims against conventional science, and sections CH through CJ contain claims about creationism itself.

This collection is intended primarily as a guidepost and introduction. The explanations are not in depth (with a few exceptions), but most responses include links, references, and sources for more information.These are not just added for show. Readers are strongly encouraged to pursue additional reliable sources. We hope that readers will put in the effort to gain enough understanding of the subject so that they will not just parrot the information here, but will be able to explain it to others.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your whole paragraph makes the false assumption that the TOE is science like physics is science. The TOE is pseudo science and comparing it to gravity is a favorite tactic of materialists atheists in attempt to give the Darwinian myth weight, so to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TOE _is_ science.
> 
> You can't accept that because it conflicts with the bible and a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The TOE is pseudo science based on your materialist secular humanist religion. You spend all your time cutting and pasting from IHEU websites and never stop long enough to actually do any critical thinking.
> 
> You cut and paste false quotes from your religious leaders like Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. If your good with "may haves" and "might haves", and nice little stories about how giraffe necks are longer because they could only eat high fruit, supporting your supposed fact, then by all means continue to support your myth. But don't pretend that the outrageous claims of the TOE are backed by any real science. News flash for you: Darwin's tree of life has been dis-proven by modern genetics and the embryo drawings were fakes. However, since Darwinism is religion for you, none of this should matter. Continue to go ahead and cling to your religion even no there is no proof.
Click to expand...


You're getting a little frothy there, dear.

I can see your hate is getting the best of you. You're ranting on using all the tired, worn cliches' that haunt the fundie creationist cabal. 

You have a desperate need to denigrate evolution as a "religion". Do you find it strange that you would use the term "religion' as a means to disparage the pursuit of knowledge?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/legal.htm
> 
> Under the US Constitution, it is illegal for the Federal Government or for any state to pass a law which establishes government support for any religious view, or which serves to advance any particular religious view. The "Balanced Treatment Law", Judge Overton concluded, violated this "Establishment Clause". "The evidence is overwhelming," Overton wrote, "that both the purpose and the effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the public schools." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) Citing a number of letters and statements made by the creationists themselves, the judge concluded that "Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact". (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)
> 
> 
> 
> "The proof in support of creation science consisted almost entirely of efforts to discredit the theory of evolution through a rehash of data and theories which have been before the scientific community for decades. The arguments asserted by creationists are not based upon new scientific evidence or laboratory data which has been ignored by the scientific community." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)
> 
> 
> 
> "The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in Section 4(a). Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)
> 
> "Creation science," Overton concluded, "has no scientific merit or educational value as science . . . Since creation science is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) The Arkansas monkey law was ruled unconstitutional and was thrown out.
> 
> 
> In June 1987, the Supreme Court ruled against the creationists, concluding by a vote of 7-2 that the purpose of creation "science" was "to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) "The pre-eminent purpose of the Lousisiana Legislature," the Court decided, "was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987)
> 
> "Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious belief," the Court ruled, "the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. . . . The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose." (US Supreme Court, Edwards v Aguilard, 1987) As a result of this decision, all existing "Balanced Treatment" laws were thrown out.
> 
> Following this defeat, however, the creation scientists once again changed their tactics. First, they moved their focus from attempting to pass state laws mandating the teaching of creation "science" to attempting to pressure textbook committees and local school boards (where their highly organized and well-financed political machines can exert tremendous influence) into voluntarily granting equal time for "creation science. Secondly, they have changed their arguments--now, instead of arguing that creationism is a science and should therefore be taught in public schools, they have argued that creationism really is religion, but so is evolution--evolution is, they now said, really nothing more than the "religion" of "secular humanism", and therefore evolution should not be taught in public schools either. This argument has already failed in a number of Federal courts.
> 
> In 1981, a prominent creationist in California sued to have the teaching of evolution removed from the classroom on the grounds that it violated his and his childrens Constituional right to free exercise of their religion. In response, the California Superior Court ruled that teaching evolution in science class does not establish a religion or interfere with the religious rights of any citizens (Sacramento Superior Court,Segraves v California, 1981).
> 
> The issue came up again in 1994, when a California biology teacher sued the state and the local school district, claiming that teaching evolution illegally established the "religion of secular humanism". The teacher also claimed that the state and school district were conspiring against him as a result of their "group animus towards practicing Christians" (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994).
> 
> The Court ruled, "Adding ism does not change the meaning nor magically metamorphose evolution into a religion. Evolution and evolutionism define a biological concept: higher life forms evolve from lower ones. The concept has nothing to do with how the universe was created; it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a divine Creator (who did or did not create the universe or did or did not plan evolution as part of a divine scheme). " (US Circuit Court, Peloza v New Capistrano School District, 1994)
> 
> 
> Thank the gawds for the U.S. Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More false quotes from the IHEU website. Holly, your are the drag queen of false quotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all referenced. You're simply in denial. Your insensate hatred for me or anyone else who challenges your dogma is obvious, You need to get over that.
Click to expand...


I don't really even need to read them because I have proven before you conveniently leave important parts of the quotes out and rob them of their original meaning. If you were truly trying to be honest you wouldn't cut and paste partial quotes and post them out of their original context.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> *An Index to Creationist Claims*
> 
> edited by Mark Isaak
> Copyright © 2006
> 
> An Index to Creationist Claims
> 
> Creationist claims are numerous and varied, so it is often difficult to track down information on any given claim. Plus, creationists constantly come up with new claims which need addressing. This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims. It is updated frequently; see the What's Newpage for the latest changes.
> 
> Since most creationism is folklore, the claims are organized in an outline format following that of Stith Thompson's Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. Sections CA through CG deal with claims against conventional science, and sections CH through CJ contain claims about creationism itself.
> 
> This collection is intended primarily as a guidepost and introduction. The explanations are not in depth (with a few exceptions), but most responses include links, references, and sources for more information.These are not just added for show. Readers are strongly encouraged to pursue additional reliable sources. We hope that readers will put in the effort to gain enough understanding of the subject so that they will not just parrot the information here, but will be able to explain it to others.



More garbage from Lawrence Krauss. I don't know why you think these websites will support your belief in a 4 Billion year old universe. Or that you think you can prove the origins of life questions with such secular humanist dogma.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> More false quotes from the IHEU website. Holly, your are the drag queen of false quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're all referenced. You're simply in denial. Your insensate hatred for me or anyone else who challenges your dogma is obvious, You need to get over that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really even need to read them because I have proven before you conveniently leave important parts of the quotes out and rob them of their original meaning. If you were truly trying to be honest you wouldn't cut and paste partial quotes and post them out of their original context.
Click to expand...


I have done that.

That is quite a contrast to the falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" I have had to correct you for dumping in this thread.

Your falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" were not honest mistakes but deliberate fraud.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The TOE _is_ science.
> 
> You can't accept that because it conflicts with the bible and a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TOE is pseudo science based on your materialist secular humanist religion. You spend all your time cutting and pasting from IHEU websites and never stop long enough to actually do any critical thinking.
> 
> You cut and paste false quotes from your religious leaders like Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. If your good with "may haves" and "might haves", and nice little stories about how giraffe necks are longer because they could only eat high fruit, supporting your supposed fact, then by all means continue to support your myth. But don't pretend that the outrageous claims of the TOE are backed by any real science. News flash for you: Darwin's tree of life has been dis-proven by modern genetics and the embryo drawings were fakes. However, since Darwinism is religion for you, none of this should matter. Continue to go ahead and cling to your religion even no there is no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're getting a little frothy there, dear.
> 
> I can see your hate is getting the best of you. You're ranting on using all the tired, worn cliches' that haunt the fundie creationist cabal.
> 
> You have a desperate need to denigrate evolution as a "religion". Do you find it strange that you would use the term "religion' as a means to disparage the pursuit of knowledge?
Click to expand...


It is your religion. You swear by its tenants and doctrines to support your belief in an eternal universe.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *An Index to Creationist Claims*
> 
> edited by Mark Isaak
> Copyright © 2006
> 
> An Index to Creationist Claims
> 
> Creationist claims are numerous and varied, so it is often difficult to track down information on any given claim. Plus, creationists constantly come up with new claims which need addressing. This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims. It is updated frequently; see the What's Newpage for the latest changes.
> 
> Since most creationism is folklore, the claims are organized in an outline format following that of Stith Thompson's Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. Sections CA through CG deal with claims against conventional science, and sections CH through CJ contain claims about creationism itself.
> 
> This collection is intended primarily as a guidepost and introduction. The explanations are not in depth (with a few exceptions), but most responses include links, references, and sources for more information.These are not just added for show. Readers are strongly encouraged to pursue additional reliable sources. We hope that readers will put in the effort to gain enough understanding of the subject so that they will not just parrot the information here, but will be able to explain it to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More garbage from Lawrence Krauss. I don't know why you think these websites will support your belief in a 4 Billion year old universe. Or that you think you can prove the origins of life questions with such secular humanist dogma.
Click to expand...


It sure has a way of putting a muzzle on the fundie creationists.

You can't refute science so your only avenue left is to disparage it. You really do make yourself quite the pompous boob with your lashing out.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The TOE is pseudo science based on your materialist secular humanist religion. You spend all your time cutting and pasting from IHEU websites and never stop long enough to actually do any critical thinking.
> 
> You cut and paste false quotes from your religious leaders like Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. If your good with "may haves" and "might haves", and nice little stories about how giraffe necks are longer because they could only eat high fruit, supporting your supposed fact, then by all means continue to support your myth. But don't pretend that the outrageous claims of the TOE are backed by any real science. News flash for you: Darwin's tree of life has been dis-proven by modern genetics and the embryo drawings were fakes. However, since Darwinism is religion for you, none of this should matter. Continue to go ahead and cling to your religion even no there is no proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting a little frothy there, dear.
> 
> I can see your hate is getting the best of you. You're ranting on using all the tired, worn cliches' that haunt the fundie creationist cabal.
> 
> You have a desperate need to denigrate evolution as a "religion". Do you find it strange that you would use the term "religion' as a means to disparage the pursuit of knowledge?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is your religion. You swear by its tenants and doctrines to support your belief in an eternal universe.
Click to expand...


Science is not religion. 

That's why the courts have consistently thrown out fundie creationst babble from a school syllabus.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're all referenced. You're simply in denial. Your insensate hatred for me or anyone else who challenges your dogma is obvious, You need to get over that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really even need to read them because I have proven before you conveniently leave important parts of the quotes out and rob them of their original meaning. If you were truly trying to be honest you wouldn't cut and paste partial quotes and post them out of their original context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have done that.
> 
> That is quite a contrast to the falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" I have had to correct you for dumping in this thread.
> 
> Your falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" were not honest mistakes but deliberate fraud.
Click to expand...


Oh sure, repeat my accusation back at me. No one else will notice how silly that looks. You have shown time and again how you twist the truth with your cut and pastes from the IHEU websites. You really should just stick to copying words from Lawrence Krauss website in your futile attempts to substantiate your belief in an eternal universe.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, using inductive reasoning, a diety should not be considered as an explanation, just because little to no evidence of abiogensis is available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what your definition of diety is. As I have presented the argument before, using Lyell and Darwin's method, we can more logical deduce that an intelligent agent is the BEST EXPLANATION for the digital code in DNA, not some random force no one has ever seen in action in the modern world, nor has any evidence for. Until Materialist come up with evidence that functioning machine code randomly generates [without intelligent input!!!], our current, best, and most logical explanation is that it had an intelligent source. If you want to turn the scientific argument into a philosophical one, then by all means label that agent a "diety".
> 
> And the intelligent source acted post Big Bang. Some Materialists have suggested Panspermia. But that gets back to the "Turtles all the way down" argument of who made the Aliens? The only way that paradox is solved is by an Intelligent Agent who exists outside of Creation.
Click to expand...


A deity: in this case, an intelligent designer. Logic deduction in arriving at the conclusion of an intelligent designer, has not been done, unless you can prove you're premises to be sound, which in this case, no one has (or in any arguments for the existence of god). I haven't even seen a real argument presented for the case of ID. The only thing ID proponents say is, it is too amazing, and resembles machinery or digital code that WE designed, therefore, it must also have a designer. Well, that is simply failing to allow for any other options, because their explanation has not been disproven. This is convenient for them (and easy) considering their conclusion contains an unfalsifiable element: god. I could easily advance the argument that we come from nature, so it is logical that our own designs would mimic it, or that given the laws of physics (especially the strength of gravity acting on all organisms), only certain designs would be effective in negotiating gravity and creating force for movement, and our minds and the process of nature happened to converge, by necessity, on certain designs. A binary-code works best, and is most efficient, therefore, out minds, and nature both converged on it. This is an explanation that doesn't require god, and makes total logical sense. Scientists believe that life on other planets would look similar, and for the same reason. Only certain designs, in the presence of gravity, would be effective for life if it wanted to move around their planet (ie, legs, eyes in the front of the head, etc...) This is even witnessed here, with convergent evolution. Squids' eyes are similar to our own, yet evolved on a separate path. (I realize you don't believe in evolution, but try and understand the concept of converging on a idea naturally). We converged on the same design for our eyes (in fact, their eyesight is better), because that is what simply what works. Evolution is not an "accident." It has to find ways to make things work given the constraints and difficulties of getting over gravity and the elements to be to do what it needs to, in order to survive. That is A LOT constraint if you think about it, and really, only a narrow realm of possibility would allow for a successful creature that would survive past natural selection. It is probably as a result of this, that things seem so "designed." Appearance of design, does not mean design. The simplest code one could think of, would be a binary code, instead of, for instance, a trinary code. The fact that we converged on this too with our intellect, should not be a surprise.

ID is, at best, an argument from incredulity, which is a form of argument from ignorance. I've said this ten times, and you can not refute this. You possess you no positive evidence of your own for ID, instead only rely on an absence of evidence for natural abiogenesis to support your claim. Even if we did have fossils, you would refute the veracity of radiological dating methods. The point is, you contain a presupposition, and no amount of reality will convince you otherwise. Whether evolutionists have presuppositions are not is irrelevant, because we have evidence for our claims, in fact, this is where our claims are derived from: from looking at the evidence, and following it to a natural conclusion. This is known as following the evidence. Creationists do the opposite and lead the evidence to their own presuppositions, which is why you can not and will not accept certain evidence as being evidence. This is "evidenced" by the fact that creationists will attempt to discredit radioactive dating methods, even though it is based on the same physics that allows their computer to run and atomic bombs to explode. It is selective treatment of reality.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really even need to read them because I have proven before you conveniently leave important parts of the quotes out and rob them of their original meaning. If you were truly trying to be honest you wouldn't cut and paste partial quotes and post them out of their original context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have done that.
> 
> That is quite a contrast to the falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" I have had to correct you for dumping in this thread.
> 
> Your falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" were not honest mistakes but deliberate fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh sure, repeat my accusation back at me. No one else will notice how silly that looks. You have shown time and again how you twist the truth with your cut and pastes from the IHEU websites. You really should just stick to copying words from Lawrence Krauss website.
Click to expand...


You're lashing out. 

I can understand your frustration. Every time you and your cohort fundies have tried to force your religion into the school system, you've been thrown out in disgrace.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting a little frothy there, dear.
> 
> I can see your hate is getting the best of you. You're ranting on using all the tired, worn cliches' that haunt the fundie creationist cabal.
> 
> You have a desperate need to denigrate evolution as a "religion". Do you find it strange that you would use the term "religion' as a means to disparage the pursuit of knowledge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is your religion. You swear by its tenants and doctrines to support your belief in an eternal universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is not religion.
> 
> That's why the courts have consistently thrown out fundie creationst babble from a school syllabus.
Click to expand...


Well that would be all fine and dandy if you were actually quoting science. But instead you twist some science in with your secular humanist dogma by leaving out important parts of quotes to twist the truth. Your endless cutting and pasting from the IHEU website to push your secular humanist agenda and belief in an eternal universe is exhausting.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your religion. You swear by its tenants and doctrines to support your belief in an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not religion.
> 
> That's why the courts have consistently thrown out fundie creationst babble from a school syllabus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that would be all fine and dandy if you were actually quoting science. But instead you twist some science in with your secular humanist dogma by leaving out important parts of quotes to twist the truth. Your endless cutting and pasting from the IHEU website to push your secular humanist agenda and belief in an eternal universe is exhausting.
Click to expand...


I understand your frustration. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and your gawds really have nothing left to do but take up knitting.

*ICR's Response? Proof of Creation Idiocy!*

ICR's Response? Proof of Creation Idiocy! - Stupid Dinosaur Lies

Entitled Studies Show Extinct Reptiles Moved with Grace and Ease, this article only gives out reports about the 2 latest studies, and then concludes that this is [sic] Proof of Creation and Design out of outright denial of the existence of transitional forms that paved the way for the likes of T.rex to evolve. The first is the mentioning of the latest study that suggests Pterosaurs process the ability to fly by using their long forearms to pole vault themselves off the ground. However, the article is making as if pterosaurs were long thought to be clumsy gliders and inexperienced fliers as claimed in some old-outdated dinosaur books of the early 1900s'. Any paleontologist, past and present, knows that pterosaurs can fly. But just how pterosaurs can fly, let alone get off the ground, have been a subject of much debating among paleontologists over the years. The latest study made by Paleontologists Michael Habib of Chatham University and Mark Witton of the University of Portsmouth is the latest in achieving a much better understanding on how giant pterosaurs can get off the ground and fly without a problem.

The second is the mentioning of the latest studies made by Paleontologist and graduate student Scott Persons who found that T.rex had a large muscular robust area at the beginning of the tail at the upper leg bone area that allows the tyrant dinosaur to run real fast to catch its prey. Thus, leading Persons to say, "Contrary to earlier theories, T. rex had more than just junk in its trunk."

So what does ICR thought about all this? Simple. ICR, in all its ignorant glory, stupidly and mindlessly concludes that there's no evidence for such evolution as mentioned in the article about the locomotion of T.rex, never mind the transitional forms showing us that the great Tyrannosaurus Rex did evolved from so-called "pre-theropod fossil skeletal features that show any hint of transitioning toward the observed fully developed theropod-like features" like Eotyrannus, Aviatyrannis, Proceratosaurus, Guanlong, and Stokesosaurus.

So, at the conclusion of the article, ICR boldly, stupidly, and ignorantly declares that both these latest studies on pterosaurs and T.rex locomotion is proof of creation and design. Every fossil found shows that they were all "fully formed" and that they were "created with the fully formed ability to move with agility", never mind what is mentioned above about the T.rex ancestry and never mind the fact that giant pterosaurs like Pteranodon and Quetzalcolatlus did evolved from the likes of Darwinopterus a transitional pterosaur from Middle to Late Jurassic China.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have done that.
> 
> That is quite a contrast to the falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" I have had to correct you for dumping in this thread.
> 
> Your falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" were not honest mistakes but deliberate fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure, repeat my accusation back at me. No one else will notice how silly that looks. You have shown time and again how you twist the truth with your cut and pastes from the IHEU websites. You really should just stick to copying words from Lawrence Krauss website.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're lashing out.
> 
> I can understand your frustration. Every time you and your cohort fundies have tried to force your religion into the school system, you've been thrown out in disgrace.
Click to expand...


How do you see that me pointing out your intellectual dishonesty is lashing out? Pointing out your cutting and pasting from the IHEU website and deleting parts of quotes to support your materialist religion and belief in an eternal universe is just stating the facts.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not religion.
> 
> That's why the courts have consistently thrown out fundie creationst babble from a school syllabus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that would be all fine and dandy if you were actually quoting science. But instead you twist some science in with your secular humanist dogma by leaving out important parts of quotes to twist the truth. Your endless cutting and pasting from the IHEU website to push your secular humanist agenda and belief in an eternal universe is exhausting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your frustration. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and your gawds really have nothing left to do but take up knitting.
> 
> *ICR's Response? Proof of Creation Idiocy!*
> 
> ICR's Response? Proof of Creation Idiocy! - Stupid Dinosaur Lies
> 
> Entitled Studies Show Extinct Reptiles Moved with Grace and Ease, this article only gives out reports about the 2 latest studies, and then concludes that this is [sic] Proof of Creation and Design out of outright denial of the existence of transitional forms that paved the way for the likes of T.rex to evolve. The first is the mentioning of the latest study that suggests Pterosaurs process the ability to fly by using their long forearms to pole vault themselves off the ground. However, the article is making as if pterosaurs were long thought to be clumsy gliders and inexperienced fliers as claimed in some old-outdated dinosaur books of the early 1900s'. Any paleontologist, past and present, knows that pterosaurs can fly. But just how pterosaurs can fly, let alone get off the ground, have been a subject of much debating among paleontologists over the years. The latest study made by Paleontologists Michael Habib of Chatham University and Mark Witton of the University of Portsmouth is the latest in achieving a much better understanding on how giant pterosaurs can get off the ground and fly without a problem.
> 
> The second is the mentioning of the latest studies made by Paleontologist and graduate student Scott Persons who found that T.rex had a large muscular robust area at the beginning of the tail at the upper leg bone area that allows the tyrant dinosaur to run real fast to catch its prey. Thus, leading Persons to say, "Contrary to earlier theories, T. rex had more than just junk in its trunk."
> 
> So what does ICR thought about all this? Simple. ICR, in all its ignorant glory, stupidly and mindlessly concludes that there's no evidence for such evolution as mentioned in the article about the locomotion of T.rex, never mind the transitional forms showing us that the great Tyrannosaurus Rex did evolved from so-called "pre-theropod fossil skeletal features that show any hint of transitioning toward the observed fully developed theropod-like features" like Eotyrannus, Aviatyrannis, Proceratosaurus, Guanlong, and Stokesosaurus.
> 
> So, at the conclusion of the article, ICR boldly, stupidly, and ignorantly declares that both these latest studies on pterosaurs and T.rex locomotion is proof of creation and design. Every fossil found shows that they were all "fully formed" and that they were "created with the fully formed ability to move with agility", never mind what is mentioned above about the T.rex ancestry and never mind the fact that giant pterosaurs like Pteranodon and Quetzalcolatlus did evolved from the likes of Darwinopterus a transitional pterosaur from Middle to Late Jurassic China.
Click to expand...


Too bad this response is not based in reality. This is another construct of Lawrence Krauss and has no basis in any truth. Trying to pretend that it is science you believe in while holding to the eternal universe theory to allow more "magic" time to prove your origins beliefs is not going to fly with anyone with even the slightest ability to reason.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure, repeat my accusation back at me. No one else will notice how silly that looks. You have shown time and again how you twist the truth with your cut and pastes from the IHEU websites. You really should just stick to copying words from Lawrence Krauss website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lashing out.
> 
> I can understand your frustration. Every time you and your cohort fundies have tried to force your religion into the school system, you've been thrown out in disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you see that me pointing out your intellectual dishonesty is lashing out? Pointing out your cutting and pasting from the IHEU website and deleting parts of quotes to support your materialist religion and belief in an eternal universe is just stating the facts.
Click to expand...


I understand your frustration. You're forced to launch into personal attacks because your fundie religious clams lie in tatters before your.

There's no reason to hate me. If you must hate someone, hate the folks at the fundie creationist ministries who have lied to you.

By: Elliott Finesse Re: Top Creationist Lies Part 1: The head of the Creation Science Rese

Re: Top Creationist Lies

Part 1: The head of the Creation Science Research Center falsifies his
college degrees.

Dr. Kelly Segraves, Director of the CSRC (Creation Science Research
Center), listed himself as M.A. and D.Sc. on the 1975 CSRC letterhead.
After having it called into question, Segraves dropped the D.Sc. in 1981
and now lists "D.R.E." in its place.

Segraves has claimed that his D.Sc. is honorary from "Christian
University", yet a computer search indicated that the only university with
that name is located in Jakarta, Indonesia.

 Segraves claims to have received his M.A. from Sequoia University in 1972
but  there is no such place. The closest name match is a Sequoia College
in California, which only offers two year associate degrees and has no
record of any student named Kelly Segraves. Note that "D.R.E." is a
doctorate of religious education and does not qualify as a scientific
degree.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, using inductive reasoning, a diety should not be considered as an explanation, just because little to no evidence of abiogensis is available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what your definition of diety is. As I have presented the argument before, using Lyell and Darwin's method, we can more logical deduce that an intelligent agent is the BEST EXPLANATION for the digital code in DNA, not some random force no one has ever seen in action in the modern world, nor has any evidence for. Until Materialist come up with evidence that functioning machine code randomly generates [without intelligent input!!!], our current, best, and most logical explanation is that it had an intelligent source. If you want to turn the scientific argument into a philosophical one, then by all means label that agent a "diety".
> 
> And the intelligent source acted post Big Bang. Some Materialists have suggested Panspermia. But that gets back to the "Turtles all the way down" argument of who made the Aliens? The only way that paradox is solved is by an Intelligent Agent who exists outside of Creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A deity: in this case, an intelligent designer. Logic deduction in arriving at the conclusion of an intelligent designer, has not been done, unless you can prove you're premises to be sound, which in this case, no one has (or in any arguments for the existence of god). I haven't even seen a real argument presented for the case of ID.
Click to expand...


Being in denial about the merits of the scientific argument for ID is not the same as not having seen it.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that would be all fine and dandy if you were actually quoting science. But instead you twist some science in with your secular humanist dogma by leaving out important parts of quotes to twist the truth. Your endless cutting and pasting from the IHEU website to push your secular humanist agenda and belief in an eternal universe is exhausting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your frustration. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and your gawds really have nothing left to do but take up knitting.
> 
> *ICR's Response? Proof of Creation Idiocy!*
> 
> ICR's Response? Proof of Creation Idiocy! - Stupid Dinosaur Lies
> 
> Entitled Studies Show Extinct Reptiles Moved with Grace and Ease, this article only gives out reports about the 2 latest studies, and then concludes that this is [sic] Proof of Creation and Design out of outright denial of the existence of transitional forms that paved the way for the likes of T.rex to evolve. The first is the mentioning of the latest study that suggests Pterosaurs process the ability to fly by using their long forearms to pole vault themselves off the ground. However, the article is making as if pterosaurs were long thought to be clumsy gliders and inexperienced fliers as claimed in some old-outdated dinosaur books of the early 1900s'. Any paleontologist, past and present, knows that pterosaurs can fly. But just how pterosaurs can fly, let alone get off the ground, have been a subject of much debating among paleontologists over the years. The latest study made by Paleontologists Michael Habib of Chatham University and Mark Witton of the University of Portsmouth is the latest in achieving a much better understanding on how giant pterosaurs can get off the ground and fly without a problem.
> 
> The second is the mentioning of the latest studies made by Paleontologist and graduate student Scott Persons who found that T.rex had a large muscular robust area at the beginning of the tail at the upper leg bone area that allows the tyrant dinosaur to run real fast to catch its prey. Thus, leading Persons to say, "Contrary to earlier theories, T. rex had more than just junk in its trunk."
> 
> So what does ICR thought about all this? Simple. ICR, in all its ignorant glory, stupidly and mindlessly concludes that there's no evidence for such evolution as mentioned in the article about the locomotion of T.rex, never mind the transitional forms showing us that the great Tyrannosaurus Rex did evolved from so-called "pre-theropod fossil skeletal features that show any hint of transitioning toward the observed fully developed theropod-like features" like Eotyrannus, Aviatyrannis, Proceratosaurus, Guanlong, and Stokesosaurus.
> 
> So, at the conclusion of the article, ICR boldly, stupidly, and ignorantly declares that both these latest studies on pterosaurs and T.rex locomotion is proof of creation and design. Every fossil found shows that they were all "fully formed" and that they were "created with the fully formed ability to move with agility", never mind what is mentioned above about the T.rex ancestry and never mind the fact that giant pterosaurs like Pteranodon and Quetzalcolatlus did evolved from the likes of Darwinopterus a transitional pterosaur from Middle to Late Jurassic China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad this response is not based in reality. This is another construct of Lawrence Krauss and has no basis in any truth. Trying to pretend that it is science you believe in while holding to the eternal universe theory to allow more "magic" time to prove your origins beliefs is not going to fly with anyone with even the slightest ability to reason.
Click to expand...


It's a shame that you don't have the intellectual means and methods to offer a refutation.

The peer reviewed science is not your equpiied to debate, obviously.  The mind-altering drivel you've been coached with at Harun Yahya has left you unable to effectively deal with science and facts.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what your definition of diety is. As I have presented the argument before, using Lyell and Darwin's method, we can more logical deduce that an intelligent agent is the BEST EXPLANATION for the digital code in DNA, not some random force no one has ever seen in action in the modern world, nor has any evidence for. Until Materialist come up with evidence that functioning machine code randomly generates [without intelligent input!!!], our current, best, and most logical explanation is that it had an intelligent source. If you want to turn the scientific argument into a philosophical one, then by all means label that agent a "diety".
> 
> And the intelligent source acted post Big Bang. Some Materialists have suggested Panspermia. But that gets back to the "Turtles all the way down" argument of who made the Aliens? The only way that paradox is solved is by an Intelligent Agent who exists outside of Creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A deity: in this case, an intelligent designer. Logic deduction in arriving at the conclusion of an intelligent designer, has not been done, unless you can prove you're premises to be sound, which in this case, no one has (or in any arguments for the existence of god). I haven't even seen a real argument presented for the case of ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being in denial about the merits of the scientific argument for ID is not the same as not having seen it.
Click to expand...


And yet you have never been able to offer a scientific argument for supernaturalism. All you can offer is cut and paste from Harun Yahya.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're lashing out.
> 
> I can understand your frustration. Every time you and your cohort fundies have tried to force your religion into the school system, you've been thrown out in disgrace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you see that me pointing out your intellectual dishonesty is lashing out? Pointing out your cutting and pasting from the IHEU website and deleting parts of quotes to support your materialist religion and belief in an eternal universe is just stating the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your frustration. You're forced to launch into personal attacks because your fundie religious clams lie in tatters before your.
> 
> There's no reason to hate me. If you must hate someone, hate the folks at the fundie creationist ministries who have lied to you.
> 
> By: Elliott Finesse Re: Top Creationist Lies Part 1: The head of the Creation Science Rese
> 
> Re: Top Creationist Lies
> 
> Part 1: The head of the Creation Science Research Center falsifies his
> college degrees.
> 
> Dr. Kelly Segraves, Director of the CSRC (Creation Science Research
> Center), listed himself as M.A. and D.Sc. on the 1975 CSRC letterhead.
> After having it called into question, Segraves dropped the D.Sc. in 1981
> and now lists "D.R.E." in its place.
> 
> Segraves has claimed that his D.Sc. is honorary from "Christian
> University", yet a computer search indicated that the only university with
> that name is located in Jakarta, Indonesia.
> 
> Segraves claims to have received his M.A. from Sequoia University in 1972
> but  there is no such place. The closest name match is a Sequoia College
> in California, which only offers two year associate degrees and has no
> record of any student named Kelly Segraves. Note that "D.R.E." is a
> doctorate of religious education and does not qualify as a scientific
> degree.
Click to expand...


I don't hate you Hollie. Merely pointing out the falsehoods you continue to post to support your belief in an eternal universe or calling you out on twisting and deleting pertinent parts of quotes is just a call to you to be more intellectually honest. Cutting and pasting from Lawrence Krauss Websites does not constitute engaging in the conversation and these attack quotes from your friends at the IHEU lack merit due to their incredible hate and bias against us creationists.


----------



## Hollie

*Yet more lies by Creationists, and their corrections*

Yet more lies by Creationists, and their corrections

Niles Eldredge, in The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism (1982, Washington Square Press, pp. 130-131) writes regarding the ICR's Gary Parker and Luther Sunderland: 
The ICR's Gary Parker has been among the more blatant offenders [in distorting the words of scientists]. On page 95 of his Creation: The Facts of Life, we read: "Famous paleontologists at Harvard, the American Museum, and even the British Museum say we have not a single example of evolutionary transition at all." This is untrue. A prominent creationist [Sunderland] interviewed a number of paleontologists at those institutions and elsewhere (actually, he never did get to Harvard). I was one of them. Some of us candidly admitted that there are some procedural difficulties in recognizing ancestors and that, yes, the fossil record is rather full of gaps. Nothing new there. This creationist then wrote letters to various newspapers, and even testified at hearings that the paleontologists he interviewed "admitted" that there are no intermediates in the fossil record. Thus, the lie has been perpetuated by Parker. All of the paleontologists interviewed have told me that they did cite examples of intermediates to the interviewer. The statement is an outright distortion of the willing admission by paleontologists concerned with accuracy, that, to be sure, there are gaps in the fossil record. Such is creationist "scholarship." 

David Raup, in a letter to Thomas J. Wheeler dated December 9, 1987 (quoted in Wheeler's "A Response to D. James Kennedy's Presentations on Creationism and Evolution on 'The John Ankerberg Show'," available from Wheeler at 426 Deerfield Lane, Louisville, KY 40207) wrote regarding a quote about the horse series being "phony" (used by Kennedy) that: 
I suspect that much of the quote from the radio [actually television] came from the Sunderland interviews. Although I might easily have made the statement about the horse series, I do not remember doing so. In my interview with Sunderland I said: "Well, as more is learned about the evolution of the horse, more separate lineages have been recognized and it's far more complicated than early work indicated." I suspect that the quoted statements were actually made either by Eldredge or Gould. I have heard Gould repeatedly criticize the traditional museum treatment of horse evolution. And Eldredge said in his Sunderland interview that the AMNH [American Museum of Natural History] exhibit on the subject is "lamentable." 
Wheeler notes that when he asked Kennedy for the source of the Raup quote, he was sent a photocopy of a page from The Quote Book which did not at all match what Kennedy said on the air (Wheeler reprinted it in full on p. 26 of his response) and does not state that there are no transitions in the horse series.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your frustration. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and your gawds really have nothing left to do but take up knitting.
> 
> *ICR's Response? Proof of Creation Idiocy!*
> 
> ICR's Response? Proof of Creation Idiocy! - Stupid Dinosaur Lies
> 
> Entitled Studies Show Extinct Reptiles Moved with Grace and Ease, this article only gives out reports about the 2 latest studies, and then concludes that this is [sic] Proof of Creation and Design out of outright denial of the existence of transitional forms that paved the way for the likes of T.rex to evolve. The first is the mentioning of the latest study that suggests Pterosaurs process the ability to fly by using their long forearms to pole vault themselves off the ground. However, the article is making as if pterosaurs were long thought to be clumsy gliders and inexperienced fliers as claimed in some old-outdated dinosaur books of the early 1900s'. Any paleontologist, past and present, knows that pterosaurs can fly. But just how pterosaurs can fly, let alone get off the ground, have been a subject of much debating among paleontologists over the years. The latest study made by Paleontologists Michael Habib of Chatham University and Mark Witton of the University of Portsmouth is the latest in achieving a much better understanding on how giant pterosaurs can get off the ground and fly without a problem.
> 
> The second is the mentioning of the latest studies made by Paleontologist and graduate student Scott Persons who found that T.rex had a large muscular robust area at the beginning of the tail at the upper leg bone area that allows the tyrant dinosaur to run real fast to catch its prey. Thus, leading Persons to say, "Contrary to earlier theories, T. rex had more than just junk in its trunk."
> 
> So what does ICR thought about all this? Simple. ICR, in all its ignorant glory, stupidly and mindlessly concludes that there's no evidence for such evolution as mentioned in the article about the locomotion of T.rex, never mind the transitional forms showing us that the great Tyrannosaurus Rex did evolved from so-called "pre-theropod fossil skeletal features that show any hint of transitioning toward the observed fully developed theropod-like features" like Eotyrannus, Aviatyrannis, Proceratosaurus, Guanlong, and Stokesosaurus.
> 
> So, at the conclusion of the article, ICR boldly, stupidly, and ignorantly declares that both these latest studies on pterosaurs and T.rex locomotion is proof of creation and design. Every fossil found shows that they were all "fully formed" and that they were "created with the fully formed ability to move with agility", never mind what is mentioned above about the T.rex ancestry and never mind the fact that giant pterosaurs like Pteranodon and Quetzalcolatlus did evolved from the likes of Darwinopterus a transitional pterosaur from Middle to Late Jurassic China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad this response is not based in reality. This is another construct of Lawrence Krauss and has no basis in any truth. Trying to pretend that it is science you believe in while holding to the eternal universe theory to allow more "magic" time to prove your origins beliefs is not going to fly with anyone with even the slightest ability to reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a shame that you don't have the intellectual means and methods to offer a refutation.
> 
> The peer reviewed science is not your equpiied to debate, obviously.  The mind-altering drivel you've been coached with at Harun Yahya has left you unable to effectively deal with science and facts.
Click to expand...


I could say the same thing about your coaching from Lawrence Krauss. Why would I attempt to respond to a cut and paste argument from your IHEU websites? We would have to call that "dignifying your intellectual dishonesty with a response" which I won't do.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> *Yet more lies by Creationists, and their corrections*
> 
> Yet more lies by Creationists, and their corrections
> 
> Niles Eldredge, in The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism (1982, Washington Square Press, pp. 130-131) writes regarding the ICR's Gary Parker and Luther Sunderland:
> The ICR's Gary Parker has been among the more blatant offenders [in distorting the words of scientists]. On page 95 of his Creation: The Facts of Life, we read: "Famous paleontologists at Harvard, the American Museum, and even the British Museum say we have not a single example of evolutionary transition at all." This is untrue. A prominent creationist [Sunderland] interviewed a number of paleontologists at those institutions and elsewhere (actually, he never did get to Harvard). I was one of them. Some of us candidly admitted that there are some procedural difficulties in recognizing ancestors and that, yes, the fossil record is rather full of gaps. Nothing new there. This creationist then wrote letters to various newspapers, and even testified at hearings that the paleontologists he interviewed "admitted" that there are no intermediates in the fossil record. Thus, the lie has been perpetuated by Parker. All of the paleontologists interviewed have told me that they did cite examples of intermediates to the interviewer. The statement is an outright distortion of the willing admission by paleontologists concerned with accuracy, that, to be sure, there are gaps in the fossil record. Such is creationist "scholarship."
> 
> David Raup, in a letter to Thomas J. Wheeler dated December 9, 1987 (quoted in Wheeler's "A Response to D. James Kennedy's Presentations on Creationism and Evolution on 'The John Ankerberg Show'," available from Wheeler at 426 Deerfield Lane, Louisville, KY 40207) wrote regarding a quote about the horse series being "phony" (used by Kennedy) that:
> I suspect that much of the quote from the radio [actually television] came from the Sunderland interviews. Although I might easily have made the statement about the horse series, I do not remember doing so. In my interview with Sunderland I said: "Well, as more is learned about the evolution of the horse, more separate lineages have been recognized and it's far more complicated than early work indicated." I suspect that the quoted statements were actually made either by Eldredge or Gould. I have heard Gould repeatedly criticize the traditional museum treatment of horse evolution. And Eldredge said in his Sunderland interview that the AMNH [American Museum of Natural History] exhibit on the subject is "lamentable."
> Wheeler notes that when he asked Kennedy for the source of the Raup quote, he was sent a photocopy of a page from The Quote Book which did not at all match what Kennedy said on the air (Wheeler reprinted it in full on p. 26 of his response) and does not state that there are no transitions in the horse series.



Leave it to Lawrence Krauss to only be able to come up with articles from the 80's and 90's. Continuing to quote him and his minions is not going to convince us of your belief in the eternal universe.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you see that me pointing out your intellectual dishonesty is lashing out? Pointing out your cutting and pasting from the IHEU website and deleting parts of quotes to support your materialist religion and belief in an eternal universe is just stating the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your frustration. You're forced to launch into personal attacks because your fundie religious clams lie in tatters before your.
> 
> There's no reason to hate me. If you must hate someone, hate the folks at the fundie creationist ministries who have lied to you.
> 
> By: Elliott Finesse Re: Top Creationist Lies Part 1: The head of the Creation Science Rese
> 
> Re: Top Creationist Lies
> 
> Part 1: The head of the Creation Science Research Center falsifies his
> college degrees.
> 
> Dr. Kelly Segraves, Director of the CSRC (Creation Science Research
> Center), listed himself as M.A. and D.Sc. on the 1975 CSRC letterhead.
> After having it called into question, Segraves dropped the D.Sc. in 1981
> and now lists "D.R.E." in its place.
> 
> Segraves has claimed that his D.Sc. is honorary from "Christian
> University", yet a computer search indicated that the only university with
> that name is located in Jakarta, Indonesia.
> 
> Segraves claims to have received his M.A. from Sequoia University in 1972
> but  there is no such place. The closest name match is a Sequoia College
> in California, which only offers two year associate degrees and has no
> record of any student named Kelly Segraves. Note that "D.R.E." is a
> doctorate of religious education and does not qualify as a scientific
> degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hate you Hollie. Merely pointing out the falsehoods you continue to post to support your belief in an eternal universe or calling you out on twisting and deleting pertinent parts of quotes is just a call to you to be more intellectually honest. Cutting and pasting from Lawrence Krauss Websites does not constitute engaging in the conversation and these attack quotes from your friends at the IHEU lack merit due to their incredible hate and bias against us creationists.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid that you have assumed the tactics of the charlatans at the ICR, Harun Yahya and other creationist ministries by lying in order to defend your false claims. 

That's a shame. In typical fundie fashion, you will accept whatever tactic is required to defend the falsified "quotes", edited "qoutes" and false attributions in order to further your dogma.

Let go of the hate you have for others. Accept that there is a brightness that is falling across the planet called literacy and education and knowledge, exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition. The hatreds that you espouse for science and the knowledge it brings will always be your worst enemy.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yet more lies by Creationists, and their corrections*
> 
> Yet more lies by Creationists, and their corrections
> 
> Niles Eldredge, in The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism (1982, Washington Square Press, pp. 130-131) writes regarding the ICR's Gary Parker and Luther Sunderland:
> The ICR's Gary Parker has been among the more blatant offenders [in distorting the words of scientists]. On page 95 of his Creation: The Facts of Life, we read: "Famous paleontologists at Harvard, the American Museum, and even the British Museum say we have not a single example of evolutionary transition at all." This is untrue. A prominent creationist [Sunderland] interviewed a number of paleontologists at those institutions and elsewhere (actually, he never did get to Harvard). I was one of them. Some of us candidly admitted that there are some procedural difficulties in recognizing ancestors and that, yes, the fossil record is rather full of gaps. Nothing new there. This creationist then wrote letters to various newspapers, and even testified at hearings that the paleontologists he interviewed "admitted" that there are no intermediates in the fossil record. Thus, the lie has been perpetuated by Parker. All of the paleontologists interviewed have told me that they did cite examples of intermediates to the interviewer. The statement is an outright distortion of the willing admission by paleontologists concerned with accuracy, that, to be sure, there are gaps in the fossil record. Such is creationist "scholarship."
> 
> David Raup, in a letter to Thomas J. Wheeler dated December 9, 1987 (quoted in Wheeler's "A Response to D. James Kennedy's Presentations on Creationism and Evolution on 'The John Ankerberg Show'," available from Wheeler at 426 Deerfield Lane, Louisville, KY 40207) wrote regarding a quote about the horse series being "phony" (used by Kennedy) that:
> I suspect that much of the quote from the radio [actually television] came from the Sunderland interviews. Although I might easily have made the statement about the horse series, I do not remember doing so. In my interview with Sunderland I said: "Well, as more is learned about the evolution of the horse, more separate lineages have been recognized and it's far more complicated than early work indicated." I suspect that the quoted statements were actually made either by Eldredge or Gould. I have heard Gould repeatedly criticize the traditional museum treatment of horse evolution. And Eldredge said in his Sunderland interview that the AMNH [American Museum of Natural History] exhibit on the subject is "lamentable."
> Wheeler notes that when he asked Kennedy for the source of the Raup quote, he was sent a photocopy of a page from The Quote Book which did not at all match what Kennedy said on the air (Wheeler reprinted it in full on p. 26 of his response) and does not state that there are no transitions in the horse series.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to Lawrence Krauss to only be able to come up with articles from the 80's and 90's. Continuing to quote him and his minions is not going to convince us of your belief in the eternal universe.
Click to expand...


Leave it to your hero charlatans at the creationist ministries to be dishonest hacks.


----------



## Hollie

*Young-Earth Creationists Believe Supernovas are Beautiful Lies told by God*

Young-Earth Creationists Believe Supernovas are Beautiful Lies told by God

Young-earth creationists, strictly speaking, cant believe that there are such things as supernovas in the sense in which other people use that term. That term refers to stars exploding in faraway parts of the universe. For instance, the NASA page about one supernova visible in recent memory, SN 1987A, says this: The star is 163,000 light-years away in the Large Magellanic Cloud. It actually blew up about 161,000 B.C., but its light arrived here in 1987. 

A young-earth creationist has to deny that, and must instead claim that God put the light from the explosion on-route to us at some point.

_Good gawd_, as they say. 

Why are the gawds playing head games with us.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your whole paragraph makes the false assumption that the TOE is science like physics is science. The TOE is pseudo science and comparing it to gravity is a favorite tactic of materialists atheists in attempt to give the Darwinian myth weight, so to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TOE _is_ science.
> 
> You can't accept that because it conflicts with the bible and a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The TOE is pseudo science based on your materialist secular humanist religion. You spend all your time cutting and pasting from IHEU websites and never stop long enough to actually do any critical thinking.
> 
> You cut and paste false quotes from your religious leaders like Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. If your good with "may haves" and "might haves", and nice little stories about how giraffe necks are longer because they could only eat high fruit, supporting your supposed fact, then by all means continue to support your myth. But don't pretend that the outrageous claims of the TOE are backed by any real science. News flash for you: Darwin's tree of life has been dis-proven by modern genetics and the embryo drawings were fakes. However, since Darwinism is religion for you, none of this should matter. Continue to go ahead and cling to your religion even no there is no proof.
Click to expand...


TOE is a science, based on the same concepts and laws that govern all other areas of scientific inquiry, such as chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, etc... In fact, it is an inter-discplinary field, which makes it quite unique. That you think evolution receives special treatment or exists by suspending the laws of physics or logic (I can infer this when you claim evolution is based on pseudo-science), means that you only wish it to be so, because this claim is not based in fact. 

The tree of life, as I have already said, has not become invalid because of horizontal gene transfer, which only happened during the earliest stages of unicellular life on earth, billions of years ago. Instead, there are simply a few "cobweb" additions to link the possible places where genes may have been horizontally transferred. By and large, the tree of life still stands as a valid pictorial model for evolutionary descent. So, nothing has changed. You are now being dishonest in claiming this, which means, you don't want to have an honest debate. 


Maybe you've heard of this guy: Theodosius Dobzhanzky was an evolutionary biologist and a * Russian Orthodox Christian,* who is famous for saying,

"Nothing in Biology makes sense except in light of evolution."

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"He criticizes creationists for implying that God is deceitful and asserts that this is blasphemous.

Dobzhansky then goes on to describe the diversity of life on Earth, and that the diversity of species cannot be best explained by a creation myth because of the ecological interactions between them. He uses examples of evidence for evolution: the genetic sequence of cytochrome C to show evidence for common descent (citing the work of Emanuel Margoliash & Walter M. Fitch); embryology; and his own work on fruit flies in Hawaii. Dobzhansky concludes that scripture and science are two different things: * "It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology"."*

-wikipedia.org


----------



## UltimateReality

Omigosh was that an enlightening 5 pages.   I would love to keep it going because it was really getting under her skin but I have to get to the gym. 

Did you guys just see what happened there? *I became Holly!!!!* I employed all of her tactics and techniques and baited her into a frenzy. She was cutting and pasting like mad trying to teach me and I was just repeating the same thing over and over again like she does. 

Technique 1: *Continually accuse me of getting my info from the ICR website.* Truth is I have never been to the ICR website. So I picked the IHEU website and just mentioned it over and over and over again, not bothering to really read any of her posts. 

Technique 2: *Continually quote this character Haran Yahya.* I had no clue who that was and I doubt many ID Theorists or Creationist do since the guy is a Muslim trying to prove the existence of Allah. It's not really like Christians use the same sources as Muslims since for the most part, they want us Christians dead. 

So I picked Lawrence Krauss and just kept accusing her of using him as a source over and over again. Lawrence Krauss is a Dawkins crony and atheist philosopher. The most disturbing thing about Holly is she never once denies that is where she is getting her info. I really think something is wrong with her. Maybe she is trying to manage hating on multiple forums at one time but it is like she isn't reading anything. She doesn't even question who Krauss is or what the IHEU is. Weird. 

Tehnigue 3:* Attribute some belief someone has explained numerous times they don't believe in just to aggravate them.* Holly has repeatedly stated I believe in a 6000 year old earth when I have told her numerous times I do not. So for the last 5 or 10 posts, I keep talking about her belief in an eternal universe. Hollie has never said she believes in an eternal universe and if she believes current thought, more like believes the big bang and a universe that is approx 14 billion years old. Again, really weird she never denies that. It's like she isn't reading anything.

Technique 4: Continually accuse your opponent of being dishonest and misquoting. Did you see how I didn't even bother to read what she posted but just kept saying over and over again she was quoting out of context or intentionally leaving parts out? I kept using her phrase on her over and over,"intellectual dishonesty". 

Technique 5: Aggravate your opponent by using subtle word games. Know your audience only believes in ONE God, continually refer to gods. 

Bravo Hollie!! Your own techniques beat you at your own game!!

Omigosh Hollie. You were cutting and pasting like a mad woman. It is funny that you accused me of lashing out when I was just following your posting methodology. Did this little experience enlighten you at all to how frustrating your posts are, or how people could take you as the one who is attacking?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The TOE _is_ science.
> 
> You can't accept that because it conflicts with the bible and a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TOE is pseudo science based on your materialist secular humanist religion. You spend all your time cutting and pasting from IHEU websites and never stop long enough to actually do any critical thinking.
> 
> You cut and paste false quotes from your religious leaders like Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. If your good with "may haves" and "might haves", and nice little stories about how giraffe necks are longer because they could only eat high fruit, supporting your supposed fact, then by all means continue to support your myth. But don't pretend that the outrageous claims of the TOE are backed by any real science. News flash for you: Darwin's tree of life has been dis-proven by modern genetics and the embryo drawings were fakes. However, since Darwinism is religion for you, none of this should matter. Continue to go ahead and cling to your religion even no there is no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TOE is a science, based on the same concepts and laws that govern all other areas of scientific inquiry, such as chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, etc... In fact, it is an inter-discplinary field, which makes it quite unique. That you think evolution receives special treatment or exists by suspending the laws of physics or logic (I can infer this when you claim evolution is based on pseudo-science), means that you only wish it to be so, because this claim is not based in fact.
> 
> The tree of life, as I have already said, has not become invalid because of horizontal gene transfer, which only happened during the earliest stages of unicellular life on earth, billions of years ago. Instead, there are simply a few "cobweb" additions to link the possible places where genes may have been horizontally transferred. By and large, the tree of life still stands as a valid pictorial model for evolutionary descent. So, nothing has changed. You are now being dishonest in claiming this, which means, you don't want to have an honest debate.
> 
> 
> Maybe you've heard of this guy: Theodosius Dobzhanzky was an evolutionary biologist and a * Russian Orthodox Christian,* who is famous for saying,
> 
> "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in light of evolution."
> 
> Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "He criticizes creationists for implying that God is deceitful and asserts that this is blasphemous.
> 
> Dobzhansky then goes on to describe the diversity of life on Earth, and that the diversity of species cannot be best explained by a creation myth because of the ecological interactions between them. He uses examples of evidence for evolution: the genetic sequence of cytochrome C to show evidence for common descent (citing the work of Emanuel Margoliash & Walter M. Fitch); embryology; and his own work on fruit flies in Hawaii. Dobzhansky concludes that scripture and science are two different things: * "It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology"."*
> 
> -wikipedia.org
Click to expand...


Evolutionists can't even agree on a method to test fitness or even a common definition for it. If Natural Selection is based on an organism's fitness, how can we do experiments to determine if natural selection has occurred if we can't even test for it???


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> The tree of life, as I have already said, has not become invalid because of horizontal gene transfer, *which only happened during the earliest stages of unicellular life on earth, billions of years ago.*



Ahhh and there we are. If the real scientific evidence doesn't fit the myth, just make up some other unproven methodology to cover the original lie. This is not science my friend. Show me some experiments for actual horizontal gene transfer please.

It is funny in your quote above you use assumptive language to state horizontal gene transfer like it is a fact. What is your *scientific proof* that *it only happened during the earliest stages of life??* You have none. So belief in something without proof is called *faith* my friend. 

Can you not see the circular reasoning behind this argument? Darwin proposes the tree of life, genetic evidence shreds it. So in order to maintain the tree we say gene transfer HAD TO HAVE happened. This is the tale wagging the dog if there ever was one!!! 

How about maybe Darwin was wrong about common ancestry. What? No? Darwin couldn't have been wrong? Really? Just make the science fit? Propose some other unproven methodology we have no evidence in the present for? Or can't duplicate with an experiment. Then call that science? Wait, not just science, but fact? Oh now I get it. Silly me.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The TOE is pseudo science based on your materialist secular humanist religion. You spend all your time cutting and pasting from IHEU websites and never stop long enough to actually do any critical thinking.
> 
> You cut and paste false quotes from your religious leaders like Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. If your good with "may haves" and "might haves", and nice little stories about how giraffe necks are longer because they could only eat high fruit, supporting your supposed fact, then by all means continue to support your myth. But don't pretend that the outrageous claims of the TOE are backed by any real science. News flash for you: Darwin's tree of life has been dis-proven by modern genetics and the embryo drawings were fakes. However, since Darwinism is religion for you, none of this should matter. Continue to go ahead and cling to your religion even no there is no proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TOE is a science, based on the same concepts and laws that govern all other areas of scientific inquiry, such as chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, etc... In fact, it is an inter-discplinary field, which makes it quite unique. That you think evolution receives special treatment or exists by suspending the laws of physics or logic (I can infer this when you claim evolution is based on pseudo-science), means that you only wish it to be so, because this claim is not based in fact.
> 
> The tree of life, as I have already said, has not become invalid because of horizontal gene transfer, which only happened during the earliest stages of unicellular life on earth, billions of years ago. Instead, there are simply a few "cobweb" additions to link the possible places where genes may have been horizontally transferred. By and large, the tree of life still stands as a valid pictorial model for evolutionary descent. So, nothing has changed. You are now being dishonest in claiming this, which means, you don't want to have an honest debate.
> 
> 
> Maybe you've heard of this guy: Theodosius Dobzhanzky was an evolutionary biologist and a * Russian Orthodox Christian,* who is famous for saying,
> 
> "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in light of evolution."
> 
> Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "He criticizes creationists for implying that God is deceitful and asserts that this is blasphemous.
> 
> Dobzhansky then goes on to describe the diversity of life on Earth, and that the diversity of species cannot be best explained by a creation myth because of the ecological interactions between them. He uses examples of evidence for evolution: the genetic sequence of cytochrome C to show evidence for common descent (citing the work of Emanuel Margoliash & Walter M. Fitch); embryology; and his own work on fruit flies in Hawaii. Dobzhansky concludes that scripture and science are two different things: * "It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology"."*
> 
> -wikipedia.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolutionists can't even agree on a method to test fitness or even a common definition for it. If Natural Selection is based on an organism's fitness, how can we do experiments to determine if natural selection has occurred if we can't even test for it???
Click to expand...


What a clueless comment. A very basic test for fitness for survival would be... wait for it... here it comes... "survival".


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> TOE is a science, based on the same concepts and laws that govern all other areas of scientific inquiry, such as chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, etc... In fact, it is an inter-discplinary field, which makes it quite unique. That you think evolution receives special treatment or exists by suspending the laws of physics or logic (I can infer this when you claim evolution is based on pseudo-science), means that you only wish it to be so, because this claim is not based in fact.
> 
> The tree of life, as I have already said, has not become invalid because of horizontal gene transfer, which only happened during the earliest stages of unicellular life on earth, billions of years ago. Instead, there are simply a few "cobweb" additions to link the possible places where genes may have been horizontally transferred. By and large, the tree of life still stands as a valid pictorial model for evolutionary descent. So, nothing has changed. You are now being dishonest in claiming this, which means, you don't want to have an honest debate.
> 
> 
> Maybe you've heard of this guy: Theodosius Dobzhanzky was an evolutionary biologist and a * Russian Orthodox Christian,* who is famous for saying,
> 
> "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in light of evolution."
> 
> Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "He criticizes creationists for implying that God is deceitful and asserts that this is blasphemous.
> 
> Dobzhansky then goes on to describe the diversity of life on Earth, and that the diversity of species cannot be best explained by a creation myth because of the ecological interactions between them. He uses examples of evidence for evolution: the genetic sequence of cytochrome C to show evidence for common descent (citing the work of Emanuel Margoliash & Walter M. Fitch); embryology; and his own work on fruit flies in Hawaii. Dobzhansky concludes that scripture and science are two different things: * "It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology"."*
> 
> -wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionists can't even agree on a method to test fitness or even a common definition for it. If Natural Selection is based on an organism's fitness, how can we do experiments to determine if natural selection has occurred if we can't even test for it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a clueless comment. A very basic test for fitness for survival would be... wait for it... here it comes... "survival".
Click to expand...


That would be called a... wait for it... circular argument. They are fit because they are fit. You are wrong because you are wrong. I am right because I am right. They survived because they are the species that survived. 

I'm sorry I baited you for so long and had to be so mean to teach you a lesson about how you don't really play fair on here. What I can't figure out is why you never once denied you believed in an eternal universe or even bothered to look into who Lawrence Krauss was. None of the sites you were posting had any remote association with Mr. Krauss.


----------



## UltimateReality

Come on. You have to admit I really had you going. You were cutting and pasting like mad and getting really frustrated, huh?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionists can't even agree on a method to test fitness or even a common definition for it. If Natural Selection is based on an organism's fitness, how can we do experiments to determine if natural selection has occurred if we can't even test for it???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a clueless comment. A very basic test for fitness for survival would be... wait for it... here it comes... "survival".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be called a... wait for it... circular argument. They are fit because they are fit. You are wrong because you are wrong. I am right because I am right. They survived because they are the species that survived.
> 
> I'm sorry I baited you for so long and had to be so mean to teach you a lesson about how you don't really play fair on here. What I can't figure out is why you never once denied you believed in an eternal universe or even bothered to look into who Lawrence Krauss was. None of the sites you were posting had any remote association with Mr. Krauss.
Click to expand...


No it wouldn't be a.. wait. for it... circular argument, because we are not talking about logical arguments here. We are talking about demonstrable proof about a claim. You asked about fitness, and I'm not quite sure why, first of all. This is not a topic or a term of contention among evolutionists, or anybody. It simply a term that describes something about reality,  a species degree of adaptation to its environment, which is entirely subjective, by the way. What is objective, is that a given species is alive today, thus demonstrating its ability to survive. This reality is much more important. We might ascribe a species survivability to its fitness, but there would not be a need to test fitness, because that is useless, especially with respect to TOE. This isn't a contest among extant species about who is most fit. Those that are still alive, have won. Extant species display "fitness." This word is used to describe reality. It is not essential to it. You are playing a game of semantics. Fitness does not need to be testable to verify evolution as a process.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tree of life, as I have already said, has not become invalid because of horizontal gene transfer, *which only happened during the earliest stages of unicellular life on earth, billions of years ago.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh and there we are. If the real scientific evidence doesn't fit the myth, just make up some other unproven methodology to cover the original lie. This is not science my friend. Show me some experiments for actual horizontal gene transfer please.
> 
> It is funny in your quote above you use assumptive language to state horizontal gene transfer like it is a fact. What is your *scientific proof* that *it only happened during the earliest stages of life??* You have none. So belief in something without proof is called *faith* my friend.
> 
> Can you not see the circular reasoning behind this argument? Darwin proposes the tree of life, genetic evidence shreds it. So in order to maintain the tree we say gene transfer HAD TO HAVE happened. This is the tale wagging the dog if there ever was one!!!
> 
> How about maybe Darwin was wrong about common ancestry. What? No? Darwin couldn't have been wrong? Really? Just make the science fit? Propose some other unproven methodology we have no evidence in the present for? Or can't duplicate with an experiment. Then call that science? Wait, not just science, but fact? Oh now I get it. Silly me.
Click to expand...


I don't have the energy to dissect the myriad fallacies you are employing here and show you where you went wrong. I am going to go drink some OJ.

But, I will say, that the part of it happening only during the earliest stages of life, is a somewhat original thought of my own (inspired by the very articles you posted about HGT: they did mention that HGT was much more difficult among higher order animals, so my assertion is not baseless). It is based on the fact that gene trasnfer between cells is much more likely when unicellular organisms are interacting directly with eachother, instead of when contained inside bodies of animals. We have skin for a reason, to prevent contamination, including that  of our own DNA. I, of course, realize that skin are made up of cells carrying DNA, but cells contaminated on a such superficial layer on the body would be easily expelled by the body's defenses and never able to express their alien DNA. The only way to contaminate DNA is through viruses and such, and even if that happen, its effect would be similar to that of a mutation, and as such, only a VERY few would prove successful, if this happened at all among higher mammals. The point is, the incidence rate for horizontal gene transfer among multi-cellular eukaryotes is drastically minimized in comparison to uni-cellular colonies, simply by virtue of the fact that we have layers of cells (skin) dedicated to protected the cells within. Protecting our genetic information is of paramount importance for any species, and as such, it would not be "easy" for HGT to occur among animals, as it once was among unicellular organisms who had no way to defend themselves, and had no real reason to either.


----------



## AnonymousIV

I believe that God, my God, had hand in my creation.  I believe that a spirit world exists.  And that God, through his intercessory's, know your heart, and I believe there are many.  I mean, you can put a lot out there, on the universe, and dream, and reason. For either side to blatently deny the other is playing God.  So.... I like to hear from both sides.  But not the argument.  Can everybody give us Big Picture instead of disagreement?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's not an act, I've stepped over better men then you to take a shit.
> In my younger days I would have gleefully ripped out you tongue and shoved it up your ass, just to amuse myself.
> 
> but now I'm too busy laughing at your total ignorance of reality,anyone who claims the the Incas and dinosaurs lived together with a straight face has to have some misfiring synapses in his brain.
> all your aguments for god fall short!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep fits you like a glove. The invitation is still open when I play my next tournament in california for you to come over and introduce yourself and we can see just how tough you are.
> 
> thesaurus for internet tough guy:
> trollinternetbutthurtdouchefagfat lionforumgayguylosertoughassbadassdouchebage penise-penisflamergeekidiotinternet badass more...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> 
> internet tough guy
> 
> 679 up, 87 down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who constantly talks about how bad and "hardcore" they are over the connected phone lines called the internet. These people usually frequent chat rooms and online forums for the sole purpose of shit talking and gloating to complete strangers to fill the void in their life, something that dosen't impress someone in the REAL WORLD. They also like to troll areas in chat and forums that contain such topics as: Martial Arts, Boxing, Fighting, Excercise, Weight Lifting, Wrestling etc. so they can compete with other lifeless internet whores for the sole purpose of determining who is the biggest nerd of them all. These people talk about how much ass they kick and how they could take on the world single handedly, when in reality, quiver at such ideas of someone who dosen't like them finding them in their parents basement where they thought they were safe. Internet Tough Guys should be regarded as the lowest form of life on Earth. 99% of the time they are liars, who will make completely bogus claims of being 7 feet tall, 400 pounds of pure muscle, and bench 700. Often they have bullshit stories to accompany such shitty claims like "I've wrestled a bear and a lion at the same time, and I kicked both of their asses with ease!" or "I'm a pro boxer who beat Mike Tyson in a backyard brawl with no gloves!" They often reply with sayings such as "fuck you", "i'll kick you ass", "your luckee that i cant get you", and the ever...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again only in your wett dreams
Click to expand...


That is what I thought.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a clueless comment. A very basic test for fitness for survival would be... wait for it... here it comes... "survival".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be called a... wait for it... circular argument. They are fit because they are fit. You are wrong because you are wrong. I am right because I am right. They survived because they are the species that survived.
> 
> I'm sorry I baited you for so long and had to be so mean to teach you a lesson about how you don't really play fair on here. What I can't figure out is why you never once denied you believed in an eternal universe or even bothered to look into who Lawrence Krauss was. None of the sites you were posting had any remote association with Mr. Krauss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't be a.. wait. for it... circular argument, because we are not talking about logical arguments here. We are talking about demonstrable proof about a claim. You asked about fitness, and I'm not quite sure why, first of all. This is not a topic or a term of contention among evolutionists, or anybody.
Click to expand...


I am shocked by your statement!!! The whole TOE hinges on fitness keeping random, chance mutations! Ever heard the term "Survival of the Fittest"!?!?!? How can you show natural selection is real if you can't show traits that make a species more fit are kept??? Your statement this is not a topic of contention shows the relevance of my claim students are not educated regarding the problems facing the TOE. Mass brainwashing and dumbed, down public schools that don't teach critical thinking must be responsible!!

"*Lewontin was not the only central figure in evolutionary biology who long ago recognized the difficulty of assessing the fitness, or adaptive value, of traits.* In 1953, the paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson opined that &#8220;the fallibility of personal judgment as to the adaptive value of particular characters, most especially when these occur in animals quite unlike any now living, is notorious.&#8221;[16] And in 1975, the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote that no biologist &#8220;can judge reliably which &#8216;characters&#8217; are useful, neutral, or harmful in a given species.&#8221;[17]

One evident reason for this pessimism is that we cannot isolate traits &#8212; or the mutations producing them &#8212; as if they were independent causal elements. Organism-environment relations present us with so much complexity, so many possible parameters to track, that, apart from obviously disabling cases, there is no way to pronounce on the significance of a mutation for an organism, let alone for a population or for the future of the species. To pose just one question within the sea of unknowns: even if a mutation could in one way or another be deemed harmful to the organism in its current environment, what if the organism used this element of disharmony as a spur either to reshape its environment or to alter its own behavior, thereby creating a distinctive and advantageous niche for itself and others of its kind?

*To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment.* For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffe&#8217;s long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought.

It sounds eminently reasonable, as such *stories* usually do. Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. My colleague Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this: First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, &#8220;so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves.&#8221; Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed &#8220;at belly height or below.&#8221; *And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches &#8212; a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.*[18]"

This begs the question: Is natural selection responsible for the Giraffes long neck? If we can't come up with document-able, observable evidence to support such a claim, how can we even begin to claim the TOE is even a valid theory, much less a fact?

*Nice stories about necks and bird beaks are not science!!!*

"In Lewontin&#8217;s summary: &#8220;What is required is an experimental program of unpacking &#8216;fitness.&#8217; *This involves determining experimentally how different genotypes juxtapose different aspects of the external world, how they alter that world and how those different environments that they construct affect their own biological processes and the biological processes of others.&#8221;[22] I doubt whether anyone has even pretended to do this unpacking in a way adequate to demonstrate the randomness of mutations relative to fitness".*

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> now that is funny!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually understood what he said by your reasoning you would. You still don't get it ,many theories in science require faith to believe because there is no data supporting many of these theories just someones vivid imagination.
> 
> Do you understand what conjecture is ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?
> 
> Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?
Click to expand...


1. Abiogenesis
2. Chemical evolution
3. Dating methods
4. Trasitional fossils
5. Stephen Hawking's explanation of black holes
6. Age of the earth and the universe

Just to name a few.


----------



## UltimateReality

"Another problem with the usual sort of fitness theorizing becomes evident when you consider the unity of the organism and the multifunctionality of its parts. Holdrege remarks of the elephant that it stands sometimes on its back legs and extends its trunk to reach high limbs  but no one thinks that the elephant developed its trunk as a result of selection pressures to reach higher food. The trunk develops within a complex, multifaceted, interwoven unity. It belongs to that unity, not to a single isolated function. The effort to analyze out of this unity a particular trait and assign it a separate causal fitness is always artificial. This is certainly true of the giraffe, whose long neck not only allows feeding from high branches, but also raises the head to where the animal has the protection of a large field of view (the giraffes vision is much more developed than its sense of smell), serves as an arm for the use of the head as a club in battles between males, and plays a vital role as a kind of pendulum enabling the animals graceful galloping movement across the African plain."


----------



## AnonymousIV

Why don't we have wheels for feet, if TOE is true?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more Id shit! this is not evidence...it's whiny criticism with no competing theory to prove it wrong.
> like all this crap the bottom line is god did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence that shows complexity is not the result of design ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your evidence that refutes my evidence showing complexity is not the result of a supermagical designer.
Click to expand...


What evidence are you speaking of Hollie ? explain it if you can.


----------



## UltimateReality

"This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological  *it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce*."

This is exactly what you said above!!! And it is bogus!!

And here is where the TOE utterly FAILS and breaks down and none of the brainwashed atheist lackys ever question this:

"If we have no practical way to sum up and assess the fitness or adaptive value of the traits of an organism apart from measurements of survival rates (evolutionary success), *then on what basis can we use the idea of survival of the fittest (natural selection) to explain evolutionary success  as opposed to using it merely as a blank check for freely inventing explanations of the sort commonly derided as just-so stories.*

And this is exactly what has been done. Nice stories about moths and finches and giraffes with no science to back them up!! And you think we are the ones with faith???


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually understood what he said by your reasoning you would. You still don't get it ,many theories in science require faith to believe because there is no data supporting many of these theories just someones vivid imagination.
> 
> Do you understand what conjecture is ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?
> 
> Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Abiogenesis
> 2. Chemical evolution
> 3. Dating methods
> 4. Trasitional fossils
> 5. Stephen Hawking's explanation of black holes
> 6. Age of the earth and the universe
> 
> Just to name a few.
Click to expand...


YWC, don't forget the most supernatural theory of all!!! The multi-universe theory....ahhhh. A supernatural theory invented to counter the 38 finely tuned parameters that make life, even planets, possible in our universe. Okay Holly... 1, 2, 3 Go! Quick! Mention Huran Yahan and the ICR!!!


----------



## AnonymousIV

I think the Big Picture is this:  Emotions,  If all is for the perfection of living on the earth, what are emotions for?  Some people are very tuned to their emotions, and if you are clear headed enough, you will see, as you sit quiet, that a spirit, in our same image, know what to do, and how to do it and created man.  How God brought our bodies forth may very well be from perfecting mutations.  Who is certain?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?
> 
> Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much anything you believe that you have not personally witnessed, touch, tasted, smelled, takes faith. So this is a silly question. For example: when the news guy tells you there was a shooting at a Theatre, you take it on faith that it really happened since you were not there to witness it, and from the footage, can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you just wrote, saying that unless you personally witness something, you need faith to believe, is completely absurd. This is because reality, at least so far, is dependable. The laws of physics have not changed, neither have the laws of logic, since the beginning of the universe. There is a minimal amount of inductive logic that goes into saying gravity will work tomorrow, because it has for the last 13.7 Billion years, but that is not faith. It is a REASON-able expectation, and any beliefs formed on this evidence of the past is necessarily evidence-based belief, not faith based. We have seen gravity work, and have never seen it not work after the big bang. In order to know something or have justification for believing something, you don't need to be there.  A great example is the orbit of Pluto (as per Matt Dillahunty, who loves this example). It takes 270 years for Pluto to orbit the sun. We haven't been knowledgeable of its existence for that long, yet we know, by calculating its velocity and its distance from the sun, what its orbital period will be.  That is not in any way faith. That is math, and everything in the universe is guided by processes that can be described in mathematical terms. Again, god is found nowhere in the math, and as such, is completely extraneous to the known universe, if one exists at all. This takes faith, because there is NO evidence to believe that a god exists. If there was evidence, then it would not require faith. That is the distinction between faith-based and evidence-based beliefs. Evidence-based beliefs are based on evidence. Faith-based beliefs are based on faith, or, a lack of evidence. One contains a justification for belief based on empirical grounds, the other, simply on desire.
Click to expand...


An explanation is only an opinion,you have to take opinions on faith. You can believe or not believe but your belief is reduced to faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you just wrote, saying that unless you personally witness something, you need faith to believe, is completely absurd. This is because reality, at least so far, is dependable. The laws of physics have not changed, neither have the laws of logic, since the beginning of the universe. There is a minimal amount of inductive logic that goes into saying gravity will work tomorrow, because it has for the last 13.7 Billion years, but that is not faith. It is a REASON-able expectation, and any beliefs formed on this evidence of the past is necessarily evidence-based belief, not faith based. We have seen gravity work, and have never seen it not work after the big bang. In order to know something or have justification for believing something, you don't need to be there.  A great example is the orbit of Pluto (as per Matt Dillahunty, who loves this example). It takes 270 years for Pluto to orbit the sun. We haven't been knowledgeable of its existence for that long, yet we know, by calculating its velocity and its distance from the sun, what its orbital period will be.  That is not in any way faith. That is math, and everything in the universe is guided by processes that can be described in mathematical terms. Again, god is found nowhere in the math, and as such, is completely extraneous to the known universe, if one exists at all. This takes faith, because there is NO evidence to believe that a god exists. If there was evidence, then it would not require faith. That is the distinction between faith-based and evidence-based beliefs. Evidence-based beliefs are based on evidence. Faith-based beliefs are based on faith, or, a lack of evidence. One contains a justification for belief based on empirical grounds, the other, simply on desire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your whole paragraph makes the false assumption that the TOE is science like physics is science. The TOE is pseudo science and comparing it to gravity is a favorite tactic of materialists atheists in attempt to give the Darwinian myth weight, so to speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The TOE _is_ science.
> 
> You can't accept that because it conflicts with the bible and a 6000 year old earth.
Click to expand...


He is not a creationist,you still don't get it. Talk about thick.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting a little frothy there, dear.
> 
> I can see your hate is getting the best of you. You're ranting on using all the tired, worn cliches' that haunt the fundie creationist cabal.
> 
> You have a desperate need to denigrate evolution as a "religion". Do you find it strange that you would use the term "religion' as a means to disparage the pursuit of knowledge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is your religion. You swear by its tenants and doctrines to support your belief in an eternal universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is not religion.
> 
> That's why the courts have consistently thrown out fundie creationst babble from a school syllabus.
Click to expand...


Sorry dear, the religion you cling to is not real science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have done that.
> 
> That is quite a contrast to the falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" I have had to correct you for dumping in this thread.
> 
> Your falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" were not honest mistakes but deliberate fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure, repeat my accusation back at me. No one else will notice how silly that looks. You have shown time and again how you twist the truth with your cut and pastes from the IHEU websites. You really should just stick to copying words from Lawrence Krauss website.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're lashing out.
> 
> I can understand your frustration. Every time you and your cohort fundies have tried to force your religion into the school system, you've been thrown out in disgrace.
Click to expand...


We will see who has the last laugh. You do realize you are living in satans world of course he doesn't want things about the creator taught.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> A deity: in this case, an intelligent designer. Logic deduction in arriving at the conclusion of an intelligent designer, has not been done, unless you can prove you're premises to be sound, which in this case, no one has (or in any arguments for the existence of god). I haven't even seen a real argument presented for the case of ID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being in denial about the merits of the scientific argument for ID is not the same as not having seen it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you have never been able to offer a scientific argument for supernaturalism. All you can offer is cut and paste from Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...


Oh boy


----------



## AnonymousIV

Satan, there's a character for you.  That spirit is slicker than all of us.  When you are confused, or stuck at some point,  or some barrier is in your way.  It's a spirit called Satan, I'm pretty good at finding his handiwork.  Are You?


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionists can't even agree on a method to test fitness or even a common definition for it. If Natural Selection is based on an organism's fitness, how can we do experiments to determine if natural selection has occurred if we can't even test for it???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a clueless comment. A very basic test for fitness for survival would be... wait for it... here it comes... "survival".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be called a... wait for it... circular argument. They are fit because they are fit. You are wrong because you are wrong. I am right because I am right. They survived because they are the species that survived.
> 
> I'm sorry I baited you for so long and had to be so mean to teach you a lesson about how you don't really play fair on here. What I can't figure out is why you never once denied you believed in an eternal universe or even bothered to look into who Lawrence Krauss was. None of the sites you were posting had any remote association with Mr. Krauss.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?
> 
> Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Abiogenesis
> 2. Chemical evolution
> 3. Dating methods
> 4. Trasitional fossils
> 5. Stephen Hawking's explanation of black holes
> 6. Age of the earth and the universe
> 
> Just to name a few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, don't forget the most supernatural theory of all!!! The multi-universe theory....ahhhh. A supernatural theory invented to counter the 38 finely tuned parameters that make life, even planets, possible in our universe. Okay Holly... 1, 2, 3 Go! Quick! Mention Huran Yahan and the ICR!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?
> 
> Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Abiogenesis
> 2. Chemical evolution
> 3. Dating methods
> 4. Trasitional fossils
> 5. Stephen Hawking's explanation of black holes
> 6. Age of the earth and the universe
> 
> Just to name a few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, don't forget the most supernatural theory of all!!! The multi-universe theory....ahhhh. A supernatural theory invented to counter the 38 finely tuned parameters that make life, even planets, possible in our universe. Okay Holly... 1, 2, 3 Go! Quick! Mention Huran Yahan and the ICR!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

AnonymousIV said:


> I think the Big Picture is this:  Emotions,  If all is for the perfection of living on the earth, what are emotions for?  Some people are very tuned to their emotions, and if you are clear headed enough, you will see, as you sit quiet, that a spirit, in our same image, know what to do, and how to do it and created man.  How God brought our bodies forth may very well be from perfecting mutations.  Who is certain?



As someone who studied mutations for eleven years, I assure you mutations destroy information not create information.


----------



## Youwerecreated

AnonymousIV said:


> Satan, there's a character for you.  That spirit is slicker than all of us.  When you are confused, or stuck at some point,  or some barrier is in your way.  It's a spirit called Satan, I'm pretty good at finding his handiwork.  Are You?



We all lose some battles with him, we just have the greater spirit willing to forgive us of our mistakes.


----------



## AnonymousIV

Perfecting Spirits and Perfecting Bodies Hummm, is that similar for some reason?


----------



## AnonymousIV

Mysteries will be unveiled to you, maybe we will be able to put souls in bodies ourselves some day?


----------



## UltimateReality

"You have to have some reasonable notion of &#8220;fitness&#8221; if you are trying to explain all the amazingly complex, well-adapted, and diverse life forms on earth by the fact that nature preferentially selects the fitter organisms to survive. The question, &#8220;What, exactly, is being selected, and how does it explain the observed course of evolution?&#8221; *needs to be answered if the theory of evolution by natural selection is to be much of a theory at all.*

This is a stunning place to find ourselves, given the confident pronouncements we heard issuing from Dennett and Dawkins at the outset of our investigation. Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain &#8212; namely, the organism&#8217;s fitness &#8212; cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable."

Here it is.. wait for it... hopefully after reading this we can all dispense with the gravity comparisons to evolutionary theory. Not only are they not on the same page, they aren't even in the same library!!!

"In any case, it is startling to realize that the entire brief for demoting human beings, and organisms in general, to meaningless scraps of molecular machinery &#8212; a demotion that fuels the long-running science-religion wars and that, as &#8220;shocking&#8221; revelation, *supposedly stands on a par with Copernicus&#8217;s heliocentric proposal *&#8212; rests on the *vague conjunction of two scarcely creditable concepts:* the randomness of mutations and the fitness of organisms.  

And then, finally, we must be sure to pay no heed to the fact that the *fitness*, against which we have assumed our notion of randomness could be defined, *is one of the most obscure, ill-formed concepts in all of science.*" http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness

NP, I welcome your rebuttal.


----------



## UltimateReality

This is the faith required for the TOE...

"This &#8220;something random&#8221; looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a &#8220;*Randomness of the gaps*,&#8221; demanding an extraordinarily *blind faith.* At the very least, we have a right to ask, &#8220;Can you be a little more explicit here?&#8221; A faith that fills the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the organism with a potent meaninglessness capable of transforming everything else into an illusion is a faith that could benefit from some minimal grounding."


----------



## AnonymousIV

I don't think you understand TOE, I'm from Tennessee, and TOE is about characterisics of a mammal/animal, can improve, and originates that species are improving themselves over time.  You got a better definition?


----------



## UltimateReality

AnonymousIV said:


> I don't think you understand TOE, I'm from Tennessee, and TOE is about characterisics of a mammal/animal, can improve, and originates that species are improving themselves over time.  You got a better definition?



Maybe you are confusing the TOE with the TVA.  I was born in Knoxville.

In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. T*here is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.*[1][2]

What this means is that current evolutionary thought teaches you came from an single cell organism, or maybe even a virus. Or as YWC likes to say, microbiologists came from microbes. 

Start here to learn more...

Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## AnonymousIV

I'm good with that any depth of understanding that you need to seek in order to satisfy your mind is alright.  But The Book says, God created Man from the Earth and then blew life into him.  Could whatever reasoning you know allow for a self perfecting spirit?  Do you have a cap on the universe?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be called a... wait for it... circular argument. They are fit because they are fit. You are wrong because you are wrong. I am right because I am right. They survived because they are the species that survived.
> 
> I'm sorry I baited you for so long and had to be so mean to teach you a lesson about how you don't really play fair on here. What I can't figure out is why you never once denied you believed in an eternal universe or even bothered to look into who Lawrence Krauss was. None of the sites you were posting had any remote association with Mr. Krauss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't be a.. wait. for it... circular argument, because we are not talking about logical arguments here. We are talking about demonstrable proof about a claim. You asked about fitness, and I'm not quite sure why, first of all. This is not a topic or a term of contention among evolutionists, or anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am shocked by your statement!!! The whole TOE hinges on fitness keeping random, chance mutations! Ever heard the term "Survival of the Fittest"!?!?!? How can you show natural selection is real if you can't show traits that make a species more fit are kept??? Your statement this is not a topic of contention shows the relevance of my claim students are not educated regarding the problems facing the TOE. Mass brainwashing and dumbed, down public schools that don't teach critical thinking must be responsible!!
> 
> "*Lewontin was not the only central figure in evolutionary biology who long ago recognized the difficulty of assessing the fitness, or adaptive value, of traits.* In 1953, the paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson opined that the fallibility of personal judgment as to the adaptive value of particular characters, most especially when these occur in animals quite unlike any now living, is notorious.[16] And in 1975, the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote that no biologist can judge reliably which characters are useful, neutral, or harmful in a given species.[17]
> 
> One evident reason for this pessimism is that we cannot isolate traits  or the mutations producing them  as if they were independent causal elements. Organism-environment relations present us with so much complexity, so many possible parameters to track, that, apart from obviously disabling cases, there is no way to pronounce on the significance of a mutation for an organism, let alone for a population or for the future of the species. To pose just one question within the sea of unknowns: even if a mutation could in one way or another be deemed harmful to the organism in its current environment, what if the organism used this element of disharmony as a spur either to reshape its environment or to alter its own behavior, thereby creating a distinctive and advantageous niche for itself and others of its kind?
> 
> *To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment.* For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffes long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought.
> 
> It sounds eminently reasonable, as such *stories* usually do. Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. My colleague Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this: First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves. Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed at belly height or below. *And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches  a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.*[18]"
> 
> This begs the question: Is natural selection responsible for the Giraffes long neck? If we can't come up with document-able, observable evidence to support such a claim, how can we even begin to claim the TOE is even a valid theory, much less a fact?
> 
> *Nice stories about necks and bird beaks are not science!!!*
> 
> "In Lewontins summary: What is required is an experimental program of unpacking fitness. *This involves determining experimentally how different genotypes juxtapose different aspects of the external world, how they alter that world and how those different environments that they construct affect their own biological processes and the biological processes of others.[22] I doubt whether anyone has even pretended to do this unpacking in a way adequate to demonstrate the randomness of mutations relative to fitness".*
> 
> The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness
Click to expand...


Where in all of this babble, have you demonstrated that the concept of "fitness" is a point of contention, or one that needs to be demonstrated? It does not exist as something of itself, because it is merely a description of reality. That is all I was saying. It is a subjective qualifier about an objective reality, namely, that of certain quality that successful species contain.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> AnonymousIV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand TOE, I'm from Tennessee, and TOE is about characterisics of a mammal/animal, can improve, and originates that species are improving themselves over time.  You got a better definition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you are confusing the TOE with the TVA.  I was born in Knoxville.
> 
> In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. T*here is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.*[1][2]
> 
> What this means is that current evolutionary thought teaches you came from an single cell organism, or maybe even a virus. Or as YWC likes to say, microbiologists came from microbes.
> 
> Start here to learn more...
> 
> Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Why don't you also the address the alternative as described by thre creationist ministries: that life appeared by supernatural means by methods employed by a supermagical god(s) about 6,000 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html?pagewanted=all


*The Creation Museum*

PETERSBURG, Ky. &#8212; The entrance gates here are topped with metallic Stegosauruses. The grounds include a giant tyrannosaur standing amid the trees, and a stone-lined lobby sports varied sauropods. It could be like any other natural history museum, luring families with the promise of immense fossils and dinosaur adventures. 


But step a little farther into the entrance hall, and you come upon a pastoral scene undreamt of by any natural history museum. Two prehistoric children play near a burbling waterfall, thoroughly at home in the natural world. Dinosaurs cavort nearby, their animatronic mechanisms turning them into alluring companions, their gaping mouths seeming not threatening, but almost welcoming, as an Apatosaurus munches on leaves a few yards away. 

What is this, then? A reproduction of a childhood fantasy in which dinosaurs are friends of inquisitive youngsters? The kind of fantasy that doesn&#8217;t care that human beings and these prefossilized thunder-lizards are usually thought to have been separated by millions of years? No, this really is meant to be more like one of those literal dioramas of the traditional natural history museum, an imagining of a real habitat, with plant life and landscape reproduced in meticulous detail.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure, repeat my accusation back at me. No one else will notice how silly that looks. You have shown time and again how you twist the truth with your cut and pastes from the IHEU websites. You really should just stick to copying words from Lawrence Krauss website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lashing out.
> 
> I can understand your frustration. Every time you and your cohort fundies have tried to force your religion into the school system, you've been thrown out in disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We will see who has the last laugh. You do realize you are living in satans world of course he doesn't want things about the creator taught.
Click to expand...


Typical fundie rhetoric: "believe as I tell you to believe or my gods will send you to everlasting torment".

My take on your religious views and the views of the other fundie is that like many religious zealots, your preferred method of expressing your message of hate and intolerance is to use your beliefs like a sledge hammer or bloody truncheon to terrify people with threats of everlasting torment, pain and suffering absent their cowering in fear to your asserted gawds. 

You remind me of the television power preachers and faith healers who stomp around on stage, holding their holy text above their heads and extolling jay zuss to _burn the filthy unbelievers in the fires of Hades_.

I prefer to embrace critical thinking and the scientific methodology. By definition, adhering to these criteria means one must always assiduously test what one believes and support those beliefs in a demonstrable way. Is this corruptible? Sure, everything is. But just like the ideal of a free court of inquiry means all views have equal rights to being aired equates to an open and more tolerant nation, so does having disciplined but questioning statutes should compel people towards a more cooperative society.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your religion. You swear by its tenants and doctrines to support your belief in an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not religion.
> 
> That's why the courts have consistently thrown out fundie creationst babble from a school syllabus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry dear, the religion you cling to is not real science.
Click to expand...


That makes no sense. You obviously despise science and have made every effort to denigrate science. I certainly wouldn't expect a fundie zealot to be able to form rational opinions on science matters.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Abiogenesis
> 2. Chemical evolution
> 3. Dating methods
> 4. Trasitional fossils
> 5. Stephen Hawking's explanation of black holes
> 6. Age of the earth and the universe
> 
> Just to name a few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, don't forget the most supernatural theory of all!!! The multi-universe theory....ahhhh. A supernatural theory invented to counter the 38 finely tuned parameters that make life, even planets, possible in our universe. Okay Holly... 1, 2, 3 Go! Quick! Mention Huran Yahan and the ICR!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


No need for me to mention your charlatans gods at the ICR.

These hacks have been refuted often enough.

It's just a shame that the two fundies are unable to accept science fact in lieu of creationist ministry falsehoods.

1. Abiogenesis
2. Chemical evolution
3. Dating methods
4. Trasitional fossils
5. Stephen Hawking's explanation of black holes
6. Age of the earth and the universe

The majority of the above have extensive factual support and testable methods for their verification. 

I'm never surprised at just how deeply ignorant the fundies choose to be.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> This is the faith required for the TOE...
> 
> "This something random looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a *Randomness of the gaps*, demanding an extraordinarily *blind faith.* At the very least, we have a right to ask, Can you be a little more explicit here? A faith that fills the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the organism with a potent meaninglessness capable of transforming everything else into an illusion is a faith that could benefit from some minimal grounding."



That is a complete fabrication of the Theory of Evolution. You are rather stereotypical in your lack of training in science and your inability to write intelligently about the subject.

As is the case with so much of the religious argumentation against science, the fundie creationists resort to lies and misrepresentation.

What is striking about the tactics of the Christian zealots is that they have lost all credibility in furthering evidence for supernaturalism and miracles and are left with only frantic attempts to discredit real science.


----------



## Hollie

Intelligent Design Creationism: Fraudulent Science, Bad Philosophy.

Intelligent Design Creationism: Fraudulent Science.

 Introduction.

There are various forms of fake science, bad science, and perverted science. History has seen many come, and decline, but none ever seem to die. The ideas of flat earth, hollow earth, astrology, alchemy and perpetual motion have supporters even today. These are interesting examples of the human ability to hold to an idea even without supportive evidence, and even in the face of contrary evidence. They, however, pose little threat to science, which simply ignores them and goes about its work.

A newer pseudoscience arose, first called "creationism" or "creation science", which tried to impose the literal interpretation of Biblical accounts into science, and into the schools. This movement had considerable public support amongst fundamentalist Christians. Scientists generally ignored it as irrelevant to their work. In recent years a movement called "intelligent design" (ID) has been promoted by a handful of people who write books aimed at non-scientists. These authors claim that intelligent design is not a religious idea, but the public speeches of some of them reveal that their goal is to get "God back into science and into school classrooms". Creationists, having largely failed in their efforts, lend their support to intelligent design, as perhaps the best they can getfor now.

Creationism and intelligent design are not the same. Creationism arose from clearly religious motivations. For political reasons, its advocates found they could "sell" it better to non-fundamentalists if they downplayed the religious content and renamed it "creation-science". But its essential content and goals were the same. Most creationists held that the earth was no more than about 10,000 years old, that the fossil record was laid down during the Genesis flood, and that natural laws were vastly different before mankind's "fall" in the Garden of Eden. To further their campaign to get some of this into schools, the Biblical content was stripped away even more, and what was left was primarily an attack on evolution. Evolution of all kinds, whether cosmic or biological, is anathema to creationists.

Intelligent design strips away even more of the religious context, concentrating on the notion of an "intelligent designer" who supposedly created the universe, and perhaps intervenes in natural processes from time to time to create new species of plants and animals. ID claims that the evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer is found in the universe itself, and specifically in instances where natural laws "could not possibly" have brought about certain biological modifications through natural processes alone. Unlike creationism, intelligent design does not insist on an absurdly short age of the earth.

Scientists recognize that the so-called ID "theory" is not a scientific theory at all, and that its claims of supportive evidence from nature are contrived and easily shown to be invalid. But scientists now also realize they must not ignore this threat to scientific integrity, for it is part of an organized campaign with social and political goals and widespread grass roots support.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnonymousIV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand TOE, I'm from Tennessee, and TOE is about characterisics of a mammal/animal, can improve, and originates that species are improving themselves over time.  You got a better definition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you are confusing the TOE with the TVA.  I was born in Knoxville.
> 
> In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. T*here is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.*[1][2]
> 
> What this means is that current evolutionary thought teaches you came from an single cell organism, or maybe even a virus. Or as YWC likes to say, microbiologists came from microbes.
> 
> Start here to learn more...
> 
> Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you also the address the alternative as described by thre creationist ministries: that life appeared by supernatural means by methods employed by a supermagical god(s) about 6,000 years ago.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> 
> *The Creation Museum*
> 
> PETERSBURG, Ky.  The entrance gates here are topped with metallic Stegosauruses. The grounds include a giant tyrannosaur standing amid the trees, and a stone-lined lobby sports varied sauropods. It could be like any other natural history museum, luring families with the promise of immense fossils and dinosaur adventures.
> 
> 
> But step a little farther into the entrance hall, and you come upon a pastoral scene undreamt of by any natural history museum. Two prehistoric children play near a burbling waterfall, thoroughly at home in the natural world. Dinosaurs cavort nearby, their animatronic mechanisms turning them into alluring companions, their gaping mouths seeming not threatening, but almost welcoming, as an Apatosaurus munches on leaves a few yards away.
> 
> What is this, then? A reproduction of a childhood fantasy in which dinosaurs are friends of inquisitive youngsters? The kind of fantasy that doesnt care that human beings and these prefossilized thunder-lizards are usually thought to have been separated by millions of years? No, this really is meant to be more like one of those literal dioramas of the traditional natural history museum, an imagining of a real habitat, with plant life and landscape reproduced in meticulous detail.
Click to expand...


I've already exposed this technique of yours. You can try and pretend it didn't happen, but we won't be falling for your manipulations any more. Sorry.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the faith required for the TOE...
> 
> "This &#8220;something random&#8221; looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a &#8220;*Randomness of the gaps*,&#8221; demanding an extraordinarily *blind faith.* At the very least, we have a right to ask, &#8220;Can you be a little more explicit here?&#8221; A faith that fills the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the organism with a potent meaninglessness capable of transforming everything else into an illusion is a faith that could benefit from some minimal grounding."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a complete fabrication of the Theory of Evolution. You are rather stereotypical in your lack of training in science and *your inability to write intelligently* about the subject.
> 
> As is the case with so much of the religious argumentation against science, the fundie creationists resort to lies and misrepresentation.
> 
> What is striking about the tactics of the Christian zealots is that they have lost all credibility in furthering evidence for supernaturalism and miracles and are left with only frantic attempts to discredit *real* *[ha, ha, ha, ha. Fell off my chair laughing]* science.
Click to expand...


Just attacks. No rebuttal. This reminds me of you stomping around on stage holding the atheist bible above your head shouting "this is real science because I say it is!!". 

Holly, you don't actually read the posts do you? This is not my writing. It's a quote.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't be a.. wait. for it... circular argument, because we are not talking about logical arguments here. We are talking about demonstrable proof about a claim. You asked about fitness, and I'm not quite sure why, first of all. This is not a topic or a term of contention among evolutionists, or anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am shocked by your statement!!! The whole TOE hinges on fitness keeping random, chance mutations! Ever heard the term "Survival of the Fittest"!?!?!? How can you show natural selection is real if you can't show traits that make a species more fit are kept??? Your statement this is not a topic of contention shows the relevance of my claim students are not educated regarding the problems facing the TOE. Mass brainwashing and dumbed, down public schools that don't teach critical thinking must be responsible!!
> 
> "*Lewontin was not the only central figure in evolutionary biology who long ago recognized the difficulty of assessing the fitness, or adaptive value, of traits.* In 1953, the paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson opined that &#8220;the fallibility of personal judgment as to the adaptive value of particular characters, most especially when these occur in animals quite unlike any now living, is notorious.&#8221;[16] And in 1975, the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote that no biologist &#8220;can judge reliably which &#8216;characters&#8217; are useful, neutral, or harmful in a given species.&#8221;[17]
> 
> One evident reason for this pessimism is that we cannot isolate traits &#8212; or the mutations producing them &#8212; as if they were independent causal elements. Organism-environment relations present us with so much complexity, so many possible parameters to track, that, apart from obviously disabling cases, there is no way to pronounce on the significance of a mutation for an organism, let alone for a population or for the future of the species. To pose just one question within the sea of unknowns: even if a mutation could in one way or another be deemed harmful to the organism in its current environment, what if the organism used this element of disharmony as a spur either to reshape its environment or to alter its own behavior, thereby creating a distinctive and advantageous niche for itself and others of its kind?
> 
> *To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment.* For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffe&#8217;s long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought.
> 
> It sounds eminently reasonable, as such *stories* usually do. Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. My colleague Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this: First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, &#8220;so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves.&#8221; Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed &#8220;at belly height or below.&#8221; *And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches &#8212; a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.*[18]"
> 
> This begs the question: Is natural selection responsible for the Giraffes long neck? If we can't come up with document-able, observable evidence to support such a claim, how can we even begin to claim the TOE is even a valid theory, much less a fact?
> 
> *Nice stories about necks and bird beaks are not science!!!*
> 
> "In Lewontin&#8217;s summary: &#8220;What is required is an experimental program of unpacking &#8216;fitness.&#8217; *This involves determining experimentally how different genotypes juxtapose different aspects of the external world, how they alter that world and how those different environments that they construct affect their own biological processes and the biological processes of others.&#8221;[22] I doubt whether anyone has even pretended to do this unpacking in a way adequate to demonstrate the randomness of mutations relative to fitness".*
> 
> The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in all of this babble, have you demonstrated that the concept of "fitness" is a point of contention, or one that needs to be demonstrated? It does not exist as something of itself, because it is merely a description of reality. That is all I was saying. *It is a subjective qualifier *about an objective reality, namely, that of certain quality that successful species contain.
Click to expand...


Your bolded comment above is an outright admission the TOE is not real science. The whole theory collapses if you can't define what fittest is. More info in post 6855. Again, just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it isn't there. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it driink.


----------



## UltimateReality

AnonymousIV said:


> I'm good with that any depth of understanding that you need to seek in order to satisfy your mind is alright.  But The Book says, God created Man from the Earth and then blew life into him.  Could whatever reasoning you know allow for a self perfecting spirit?  Do you have a cap on the universe?



Not even a snicker about my Tennessee Valley Authority joke??


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the faith required for the TOE...
> 
> "This something random looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a *Randomness of the gaps*, demanding an extraordinarily *blind faith.* At the very least, we have a right to ask, Can you be a little more explicit here? A faith that fills the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the organism with a potent meaninglessness capable of transforming everything else into an illusion is a faith that could benefit from some minimal grounding."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a complete fabrication of the Theory of Evolution. You are rather stereotypical in your lack of training in science and *your inability to write intelligently* about the subject.
> 
> As is the case with so much of the religious argumentation against science, the fundie creationists resort to lies and misrepresentation.
> 
> What is striking about the tactics of the Christian zealots is that they have lost all credibility in furthering evidence for supernaturalism and miracles and are left with only frantic attempts to discredit *real* *[ha, ha, ha, ha. Fell off my chair laughing]* science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just attacks. No rebuttal. This reminds me of you stomping around on stage holding the atheist bible above your head shouting "this is real science because I say it is!!".
> 
> Holly, you don't actually read the posts do you? This is not my writing. It's a quote.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in your silly comments to rebut. 

Your hatred for science causes you to make nonsensical claims about science which you are totally clueless about. Your lack of a science vocabulary reveals the true poverty of your frantic attempts to vilify the science you don't understand.

It's actually pitiable to see you flailing away in your attempts to substitute religious fairytales in place of knowledge and education.

Learn some science and learn to hate less.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> AnonymousIV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm good with that any depth of understanding that you need to seek in order to satisfy your mind is alright.  But The Book says, God created Man from the Earth and then blew life into him.  Could whatever reasoning you know allow for a self perfecting spirit?  Do you have a cap on the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even a snicker about my Tennessee Valley Authority joke??
Click to expand...


Just pity at your continued futile attempt to sidestep actually addressing the topics.


----------



## Hollie

I thought the following is instructive as it basically encapsulates the dishonest and biased program of the Christian creationist program. 


AIG's Creation Science Fair - The Panda's Thumb

 AIGs Creation Science Fair

 Answers in Genesis is gearing up for a science fair in February 2009 2010. The rules are here. Note that they are parasitic on the Intel Science and Engineering guidelines with two minor exceptions:

3, All projects should be clearly aligned with a biblical principle from a passage or verse.

The student should be able to explain why the verse or passage selected relates to their project. (Students should read the article God and Natural Law by Dr. Jason Lisle for an explanation of this concept.)

* Students should consider the context of the verse(s) they are using.

* The verse chosen does not have to directly apply to the project topic (e.g., Scripture does not directly address radio waves), but may simply relate the project to the Creator of the universe.

* Students should read the article God and Natural Law.

and

4. Students should be able, with a clear conscience, to sign the AiG Statement of Faith, which upholds the belief in the creation of the universe in six, twenty-four-hour days about 6,000 years ago by the Creator God as revealed in the Bible.

Translation of the The verse chosen does not have to directly apply to the project topic is However my experiment came out, God did it.

If it werent so hot and I werent so tired Id get indignant. But mostly Im sad: Those kids dont have a chance. This is part of Ken Hams solution to the Already Gone problem he sees: The abandonment of fundamentalism by young people whose doubts start in middle school and high school. Hams solution is simple: Lie to them earlier and more often. Pity he isnt self-aware enough to realize that those doubts begin to arise when kids learn that Ham and their pastor have been lying to them. And thats the counter to the Hamster: Let em know theyre being lied to in the plainest possible terms.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a complete fabrication of the Theory of Evolution. You are rather stereotypical in your lack of training in science and *your inability to write intelligently* about the subject.
> 
> As is the case with so much of the religious argumentation against science, the fundie creationists resort to lies and misrepresentation.
> 
> What is striking about the tactics of the Christian zealots is that they have lost all credibility in furthering evidence for supernaturalism and miracles and are left with only frantic attempts to discredit *real* *[ha, ha, ha, ha. Fell off my chair laughing]* science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just attacks. No rebuttal. This reminds me of you stomping around on stage holding the atheist bible above your head shouting "this is real science because I say it is!!".
> 
> Holly, you don't actually read the posts do you? This is not my writing. It's a quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing in your silly comments to rebut.
> 
> Your hatred for science causes you to make nonsensical claims about science which you are totally clueless about. Your lack of a science vocabulary reveals the true poverty of your frantic attempts to vilify the science you don't understand.
> 
> It's actually pitiable to see you flailing away in your attempts to substitute religious fairytales in place of knowledge and education.
> 
> Learn some science and learn to hate less.
Click to expand...


I tire of your repetitive dribble.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> I thought the following is instructive as it basically encapsulates the dishonest and biased program of the Christian creationist program.
> 
> 
> AIG's Creation Science Fair - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> AIG&#8217;s Creation Science Fair
> 
> Answers in Genesis is gearing up for a science fair in February 2009 2010. The rules are here. Note that they are parasitic on the Intel Science and Engineering guidelines with two minor exceptions:
> 
> 3, All projects should be clearly aligned with a biblical principle from a passage or verse.
> 
> The student should be able to explain why the verse or passage selected relates to their project. (Students should read the article &#8220;God and Natural Law&#8221; by Dr. Jason Lisle for an explanation of this concept.)
> 
> * Students should consider the context of the verse(s) they are using.
> 
> * The verse chosen does not have to directly apply to the project topic (e.g., Scripture does not directly address radio waves), but may simply relate the project to the Creator of the universe.
> 
> * Students should read the article &#8220;God and Natural Law.&#8221;
> 
> and
> 
> 4. Students should be able, with a clear conscience, to sign the AiG Statement of Faith, which upholds the belief in the creation of the universe in six, twenty-four-hour days about 6,000 years ago by the Creator God as revealed in the Bible.
> 
> Translation of the &#8220;The verse chosen does not have to directly apply to the project topic&#8221; is &#8220;However my experiment came out, God did it.&#8221;
> 
> If it weren&#8217;t so hot and I weren&#8217;t so tired I&#8217;d get indignant. But mostly I&#8217;m sad: Those kids don&#8217;t have a chance. This is part of Ken Ham&#8217;s solution to the Already Gone problem he sees: The abandonment of fundamentalism by young people whose doubts start in middle school and high school. Ham&#8217;s solution is simple: Lie to them earlier and more often. Pity he isn&#8217;t self-aware enough to realize that those doubts begin to arise when kids learn that Ham and their pastor have been lying to them. And that&#8217;s the counter to the Hamster: Let &#8216;em know they&#8217;re being lied to in the plainest possible terms.



I think you are a secret follower of Huran Yahan. How do you reconcile your faith in Islam with your evolutionary views?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just attacks. No rebuttal. This reminds me of you stomping around on stage holding the atheist bible above your head shouting "this is real science because I say it is!!".
> 
> Holly, you don't actually read the posts do you? This is not my writing. It's a quote.
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in your silly comments to rebut.
> 
> Your hatred for science causes you to make nonsensical claims about science which you are totally clueless about. Your lack of a science vocabulary reveals the true poverty of your frantic attempts to vilify the science you don't understand.
> 
> It's actually pitiable to see you flailing away in your attempts to substitute religious fairytales in place of knowledge and education.
> 
> Learn some science and learn to hate less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tire of your repetitive dribble.
Click to expand...


Who cares what you tire of? 

Your arguments consist of nothing more than religious propaganda cloaked under the guise of religious creationism.

What is tiring is the nonsensical fundie zealot propaganda and science loathing agenda intended to promote your gods. You care nothing for facts or truth and you have no issue with shedding any and all integrity and credibility with falsified "quotes' and falsified science.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the following is instructive as it basically encapsulates the dishonest and biased program of the Christian creationist program.
> 
> 
> AIG's Creation Science Fair - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> AIGs Creation Science Fair
> 
> Answers in Genesis is gearing up for a science fair in February 2009 2010. The rules are here. Note that they are parasitic on the Intel Science and Engineering guidelines with two minor exceptions:
> 
> 3, All projects should be clearly aligned with a biblical principle from a passage or verse.
> 
> The student should be able to explain why the verse or passage selected relates to their project. (Students should read the article God and Natural Law by Dr. Jason Lisle for an explanation of this concept.)
> 
> * Students should consider the context of the verse(s) they are using.
> 
> * The verse chosen does not have to directly apply to the project topic (e.g., Scripture does not directly address radio waves), but may simply relate the project to the Creator of the universe.
> 
> * Students should read the article God and Natural Law.
> 
> and
> 
> 4. Students should be able, with a clear conscience, to sign the AiG Statement of Faith, which upholds the belief in the creation of the universe in six, twenty-four-hour days about 6,000 years ago by the Creator God as revealed in the Bible.
> 
> Translation of the The verse chosen does not have to directly apply to the project topic is However my experiment came out, God did it.
> 
> If it werent so hot and I werent so tired Id get indignant. But mostly Im sad: Those kids dont have a chance. This is part of Ken Hams solution to the Already Gone problem he sees: The abandonment of fundamentalism by young people whose doubts start in middle school and high school. Hams solution is simple: Lie to them earlier and more often. Pity he isnt self-aware enough to realize that those doubts begin to arise when kids learn that Ham and their pastor have been lying to them. And thats the counter to the Hamster: Let em know theyre being lied to in the plainest possible terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are a secret follower of Huran Yahan. How do you reconcile your faith in Islam with your evolutionary views?
Click to expand...


You're uncomfortable with the truth. You should be. The creationist agenda is drenched in lies and deceit. 

You won't address the above because you can't. To expect you to understand such terms as truth, integrity and honesty is contrary to the Christian creationist agenda


----------



## Hollie

Paul McBride&#8217;s review of the Disco &#8216;Tute&#8217;s &#8220;Science and Human Origins&#8221;

Paul McBride's review of the Disco 'Tute's "Science and Human Origins" - The Panda's Thumb

 &#8220;Science and Human Origins&#8221; (Amazon; Barnes&Noble) is a slim book recently published by the Disco &#8216;Tute&#8217;s house press. It&#8217;s by Ann Gauger and Douglas Axe, members of the Disco Tute&#8217;s Biologic Institute, along with Casey Luskin. The book is blurbed thusly:

In this provocative book, three scientists challenge the claim that undirected natural selection is capable of building a human being, critically assess fossil and genetic evidence that human beings share a common ancestor with apes, and debunk recent claims that the human race could not have started from an original couple.

In other words, down with common descent, and while we&#8217;re at it, a literal Adam and Eve could have been the ancestors of the whole human species. And by three scientists? Ah, yes, I momentarily forgot that Casey Luskin got a Master&#8217;s in Earth Science before he went off to law school and then got a job with the Disco &#8216;Tute, where he is now listed as &#8220;Research Coordinator&#8221; (and is there called an attorney rather than a scientist). Once again, one detects a touch of inflationary credentialism. Fortunately for me, I&#8217;m spared the chore of reading and critiquing the book. Paul McBride, a Ph.D. candidate in vertebrate macroecology/evolution in New Zealand who writes Still Monkeys, bit the bullet and did a chapter by chapter (all five chapters) review of the book. The book doesn&#8217;t come out looking good (is anyone surprised?). I&#8217;m going to shamelessly piggyback on McBride&#8217;s review. I&#8217;ll link to his individual chapter reviews, adding some commentary, below the fold.

Here are McBride&#8217;s individual chapter reviews: Chapter 1, in which Ann Gauger

&#8230; questions the certainty that evolutionary biologists have in the notion of common descent, with the broad claim that it is merely similarity, rather than relatedness, that we observe. She tells us that certainly humans and chimpanzees share a number of common features, but so do (and this is her example) Ford Tauruses and Mustangs. Yet the latter are designed, indicating that similarity cannot rule out design.

McBride has some fun with that specious analogy, as well as with her &#8216;random changes in computer programs break the programs&#8217; claim. Someone over at the Disco &#8216;Tute should tell Gauger to read up on genetic programming. Chapter 2, in which Douglas Axe expands on Gauger&#8217;s Chapter 1, elaborating some arguments and finishing with the claim that unless we can identify each and every mutation between humans and our common ancestor with chimps, there&#8217;s room for a Designer. I dealt with that argument some time ago. Chapter 3, in which Casey Luskin argues that the hominin fossil record is too fragmentary to infer the descent of H. saps like himself from a common ancestor of him and chimps. (Notice how I restrained myself? ) Like all creationists, Casey has to draw the line between ancient humans (Homo) and earlier fossil (allegedly non-ancestral to humans) apes somewhere, and he draws it between H. habilis and H. erectus. (Recall that there&#8217;s considerable disagreement among creationists about just where that line ought to go. Casey is quite a bit deeper in the past than most.) In an update to that post, McBride draws attention to a recent paper plotting brain volume against age of hominin fossils, essentially duplicating material in two posts on that topic by Nick Matzke here and here nearly six years ago. In a recent post on Evolution News, Casey asserts

Hominin fossils generally fall into one of two groups: ape-like species and human-like species, with a large, unbridged gap between them. Despite the hype promoted by many evolutionary paleoanthropologists, the fragmented hominin fossil record does not document the evolution of humans from ape-like precursors.

Look at the graphs in McBride&#8217;s post and in Nick&#8217;s Thumb posts for data relevant to that claim. Nevertheless, Casey promises that he will be discussing the issue in coming weeks. Chapter 4, on junk DNA by (earth scientist and lawyer) Casey again, gets a two-part review, a prelude which makes pre-reading predictions about what Chapter 4 will claim, and then the review proper. Casey comes through, fulfilling several of McBride&#8217;s predictions, including conflating &#8220;junk&#8221; DNA and non-coding DNA, a pervasive ID creationist habit. I rather like McBride&#8217;s conclusion to this chapter review:

Luskin here has continued in the tradition of the other chapters in this book by ignoring all of the best arguments that run contrary to his, while making previously refuted arguments with biased evidence, pretty much in line with what I predicted before reading the chapter. He presents no positive case for a pervasively functional genome, and has only set out to cast doubt on the concept of junk DNA. Even in this, he has comprehensively failed. The book is called Science and Human Origins, but the science is threadbare, and treated unevenly and unfairly.

Finally, Chapter 5, by Gauger again, is the culmination of the book, and can be seen as a rationale for accepting a literal Adam and Eve, a two-person effective breeding population sometime in our ancestry. McBride writes

To convince us of the possiblity of a literal Adam and Eve, Ann Gauger presents to us doubt over whether a single published paper from the 1990s truly supports a large human population since speciation.

McBride has a good critique, and one thing he mentions is kind of funny. In this chapter, Gauger accepts that two human haplotypes are ancient, in the 4-6mya range. But, of course, up there in Chapter 3 Casey argued that the boundary between us (non-descended from apes) humans and those apes&#8217; ancestors is between H. erectus and H. habilis, a split that occurred around 1.8mya. Gauger accepts a &#8216;human&#8217; trait as originating with critters that are more ancient than Casey is willing to admit as ancestral to humans (or maybe Gauger&#8217;s Adam and Eve weren&#8217;t humans (tee hee)). In his conclusion McBride wrote:

I have been left wondering why the Discovery Institute, or intelligent design advocates in general, or biblical literalists feel a need to try and accommodate science when they have a belief in a supernatural entity capable of breaking natural laws. In the case of this book, it has left them needing to make all kinds of awkward criticisms of fields in which the authors clearly lack expertise. A lawyer is not the right guy to challenge the world&#8217;s palaeoanthropologists, nor the world&#8217;s geneticists. Certainly, he shouldn&#8217;t be trying to take them all on at once. It will end with him trying to smear the reputation of scientists rather than engaging with their ideas. Accusations that the entire field of palaeoanthropology is driven by personal disputes and that Francis Collins is a bad Christian are simply not compelling reading in a book that is putatively about scientific argument.

And the last paragraph:

Science and Human Origins has to be described first and foremost as being anti-evolution rather than pro-intelligent-design, or pro-science. If it offers solace to those seeking evidence against evolution for their faith, the solace should be as incomplete as the arguments made in the book.

Read all of McBride&#8217;s posts on this. He&#8217;s an articulate and knowledgeable guy.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually understood what he said by your reasoning you would. You still don't get it ,many theories in science require faith to believe because there is no data supporting many of these theories just someones vivid imagination.
> 
> Do you understand what conjecture is ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell us in detail what part of evolutionary science requires "faith"?
> 
> Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much anything you believe that you have not personally witnessed, touch, tasted, smelled, takes faith. So this is a silly question. For example: when the news guy tells you there was a shooting at a Theatre, you take it on faith that it really happened since you were not there to witness it, and from the footage, can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production.
Click to expand...

first the difference between faith in science and faith in religion has been explained...
second. your example "theatre shooting" is erroneous  as evidenced by this "can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production." UR.
IT IS SUBJECTIVE AND HAS NO BASIS IN FACT.


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> another passel of creationist lies
> 
> another passel of creationist lies | bad astronomy | discover magazine
> 
> usually, when someone spouts creationist garbage, its because theyve been misled. We have a case of this, in spades, in the evansville (indiana) courier press, where a highly deluded creationist has written an editorial so full of crap im tempted to call a septic cleaning crew.
> To be clear, i think the author is just wrong, but he has clearly been heavily misled  some would say lied to  to by people from answers in genesis, a creationist (hahahahahah) think tank.
> 
> 
> Check this out:
> then a little more than a year ago, we again were privileged to hear lectures by former evolutionist and atheist mike riddle and astrophysicist dr. Jason lisle.
> 
> To be clear: Mike riddle and jason lisle are from the evil, lying organization answers in genesis.
> How can i assert this? Assuming the editorial writer is on the level
> 
> riddle, a former microsoft trainer, spoke of the miller experiment, which produced amino acids inside a test tube. When oxygen was added, the experiment failed. Imagine, this key element to life prohibits any organic molecules from forming.
> 
> The miller-urey experiment put the contents of the earths original atmosphere (methane, ammonia, hydrogen, water  much like the present atmospheres of jupiter and saturn) into a chamber, and hit it with a spark representing lightning. Amino acids were produced. This shows that the building blocks of life were easy to produce in the primitive conditions on earth. As the idea goes, later, once life took hold, it evolved to produce oxygen (which can provide a lot more energy to the life process). Oxygen is highly corrosive, and so that changed everything. Eventually, in the adapt-or-die conditions, life adapted to use the gas. But before it did, oxygen was essentially poison. So its no surprise that it would mess up the miller-urey experiment.
> In other words, if riddle used this to promote an anti-evolution stance, he is not telling the truth, when the truth is easy to find and has been accessible for decades. What does that make him?
> 
> Incidentally, the mu experiment was never meant to be the be-all and end-all of how life arose; it was the first of a long series of such experiments that are still ongoing. How life first arose is a fascinating question, and i guarantee that no creationist will be able to figure it out unless they follow the tenets of science. But scientific method to a young-earth creationist is like holy water to a vampire.
> 
> To continue
> according to lisle, laser reflectors left behind on the moons surface by the apollo astronauts revealed that our lunar neighbor moves a little over an inch farther away from us each year.
> How many billions of years earlier was it scraping our mountaintops?
> 
> It doesnt work this way. The moon recedes from the earth due to tides, but the rate at which is recedes depends on many factors. In the past, it receded more slowly than it does today. It formed much closer in to the earth, but there is no problem with it taking billions of years to get to its current distance. Typically, young earth creationists take current values of things and extrapolate them billions of years into the past without considering that the values might have changed.
> 
> This argument has been debunked for many years. Decades. If lisle really is an astrophysicist and he said this in a talk, he is either incompetent or a liar. Or both.
> 
> One of lisles associates calculated the amount of emissions given off by the various belts of jupiter shortly before the voyager probe visited it in the early 80s. The data returned was in sync with the thousands of years that the mathematics ph.d. Had suggested. The spacecraft had no knowledge of the bible.
> 
> This statement is a total mess, but what i think he means is the prediction by creationist russel humphries, before voyager got to uranus and neptune, of their magnetic fields. But his guess was that they were intermediate in strength between earths and saturns, which is a pretty safe bet given their masses. Also, while its true that the magnetic fields of those two planets are weird, humphreys model (that god made the planets from water which was then transformed into various other substances) doesnt predict any of the other odd features (like the tilt of the fields and that they are off-center). He claims it does, but his claim on how some of the odd features formed isnt really any different than a model assuming the planets are old; in other words, his model doesnt actually predict those features.
> 
> Even a randomly fired gun will sometimes hit the target by accident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more cutting and pasting from your fundie evo priest will provine's website.
Click to expand...

so? Can you prove it false?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much anything you believe that you have not personally witnessed, touch, tasted, smelled, takes faith. So this is a silly question. For example: when the news guy tells you there was a shooting at a Theatre, you take it on faith that it really happened since you were not there to witness it, and from the footage, can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not paying attention.
> 
> Why don't you tell us of a few theories in science which require faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution requires HUGE faith!!! Have you been ignoring everything since you have been posting here? If you weren't so busy cutting and pasting fundie evo websites like Will Provine, you might have actually seen the information.
Click to expand...

below is the best description of the difference between faith in science and faith in religion

Francisco Ayala-- First, the way in which the word "faith" is used by the person who poses the question is quite different in science and in religious beliefs.


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> your whole paragraph makes the false assumption that the toe is science like physics is science. The toe is pseudo science and comparing it to gravity is a favorite tactic of materialists atheists in attempt to give the darwinian myth weight, so to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the toe _is_ science.
> 
> You can't accept that because it conflicts with the bible and a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the toe is pseudo science based on your materialist secular humanist religion. You spend all your time cutting and pasting from iheu websites and never stop long enough to actually do any critical thinking.
> 
> You cut and paste false quotes from your religious leaders like dawkins and lawrence krauss. If your good with "may haves" and "might haves", and nice little stories about how giraffe necks are longer because they could only eat high fruit, supporting your supposed fact, then by all means continue to support your myth. But don't pretend that the outrageous claims of the toe are backed by any real science. News flash for you: Darwin's tree of life has been dis-proven by modern genetics and the embryo drawings were fakes. However, since darwinism is religion for you, none of this should matter. Continue to go ahead and cling to your religion even no there is no proof.
Click to expand...


false ......


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> the toe is pseudo science based on your materialist secular humanist religion. You spend all your time cutting and pasting from iheu websites and never stop long enough to actually do any critical thinking.
> 
> You cut and paste false quotes from your religious leaders like dawkins and lawrence krauss. If your good with "may haves" and "might haves", and nice little stories about how giraffe necks are longer because they could only eat high fruit, supporting your supposed fact, then by all means continue to support your myth. But don't pretend that the outrageous claims of the toe are backed by any real science. News flash for you: Darwin's tree of life has been dis-proven by modern genetics and the embryo drawings were fakes. However, since darwinism is religion for you, none of this should matter. Continue to go ahead and cling to your religion even no there is no proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toe is a science, based on the same concepts and laws that govern all other areas of scientific inquiry, such as chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, etc... In fact, it is an inter-discplinary field, which makes it quite unique. That you think evolution receives special treatment or exists by suspending the laws of physics or logic (i can infer this when you claim evolution is based on pseudo-science), means that you only wish it to be so, because this claim is not based in fact.
> 
> The tree of life, as i have already said, has not become invalid because of horizontal gene transfer, which only happened during the earliest stages of unicellular life on earth, billions of years ago. Instead, there are simply a few "cobweb" additions to link the possible places where genes may have been horizontally transferred. By and large, the tree of life still stands as a valid pictorial model for evolutionary descent. So, nothing has changed. You are now being dishonest in claiming this, which means, you don't want to have an honest debate.
> 
> 
> Maybe you've heard of this guy: Theodosius dobzhanzky was an evolutionary biologist and a * russian orthodox christian,* who is famous for saying,
> 
> "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution."
> 
> nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "he criticizes creationists for implying that god is deceitful and asserts that this is blasphemous.
> 
> Dobzhansky then goes on to describe the diversity of life on earth, and that the diversity of species cannot be best explained by a creation myth because of the ecological interactions between them. He uses examples of evidence for evolution: The genetic sequence of cytochrome c to show evidence for common descent (citing the work of emanuel margoliash & walter m. Fitch); embryology; and his own work on fruit flies in hawaii. Dobzhansky concludes that scripture and science are two different things: * "it is a blunder to mistake the holy scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology"."*
> 
> -wikipedia.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> evolutionists can't even agree on a method to test fitness or even a common definition for it. If natural selection is based on an organism's fitness, how can we do experiments to determine if natural selection has occurred if we can't even test for it???
Click to expand...

how can we do tests for god when there is no evidence at all?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sure, repeat my accusation back at me. No one else will notice how silly that looks. You have shown time and again how you twist the truth with your cut and pastes from the IHEU websites. You really should just stick to copying words from Lawrence Krauss website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lashing out.
> 
> I can understand your frustration. Every time you and your cohort fundies have tried to force your religion into the school system, you've been thrown out in disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We will see who has the last laugh. You do realize you are living in satans world of course he doesn't want things about the creator taught.
Click to expand...

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Couldn't help myself! 
as always you are making false declarative statements  based on belief not fact...
I'm sure I've seen you making a total ass of yourself outside the county corthouse when I had jury duty!


----------



## daws101

AnonymousIV said:


> I'm good with that any depth of understanding that you need to seek in order to satisfy your mind is alright.  But The Book says, God created Man from the Earth and then blew life into him.  Could whatever reasoning you know allow for a self perfecting spirit?  Do you have a cap on the universe?


no, but I do enjoy a good blow job...


btw ..Ur you can knock off the assumptive language bullshit anytime.
as your dogma is by far the most assumptive there is...


----------



## Youwerecreated

AnonymousIV said:


> I'm good with that any depth of understanding that you need to seek in order to satisfy your mind is alright.  But The Book says, God created Man from the Earth and then blew life into him.  Could whatever reasoning you know allow for a self perfecting spirit?  Do you have a cap on the universe?



The spirit that created all was perfect so was the creation. Sin brought for death and entropy to all.

We age and die,we are not being prefected.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not religion.
> 
> That's why the courts have consistently thrown out fundie creationst babble from a school syllabus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dear, the religion you cling to is not real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. You obviously despise science and have made every effort to denigrate science. I certainly wouldn't expect a fundie zealot to be able to form rational opinions on science matters.
Click to expand...


No, I despise pseudoscience which is what many theories you believe are based on.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, don't forget the most supernatural theory of all!!! The multi-universe theory....ahhhh. A supernatural theory invented to counter the 38 finely tuned parameters that make life, even planets, possible in our universe. Okay Holly... 1, 2, 3 Go! Quick! Mention Huran Yahan and the ICR!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need for me to mention your charlatans gods at the ICR.
> 
> These hacks have been refuted often enough.
> 
> It's just a shame that the two fundies are unable to accept science fact in lieu of creationist ministry falsehoods.
> 
> 1. Abiogenesis
> 2. Chemical evolution
> 3. Dating methods
> 4. Trasitional fossils
> 5. Stephen Hawking's explanation of black holes
> 6. Age of the earth and the universe
> 
> The majority of the above have extensive factual support and testable methods for their verification.
> 
> I'm never surprised at just how deeply ignorant the fundies choose to be.
Click to expand...


You are  very naive if you believe what you just posted.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> toe is a science, based on the same concepts and laws that govern all other areas of scientific inquiry, such as chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, etc... In fact, it is an inter-discplinary field, which makes it quite unique. That you think evolution receives special treatment or exists by suspending the laws of physics or logic (i can infer this when you claim evolution is based on pseudo-science), means that you only wish it to be so, because this claim is not based in fact.
> 
> The tree of life, as i have already said, has not become invalid because of horizontal gene transfer, which only happened during the earliest stages of unicellular life on earth, billions of years ago. Instead, there are simply a few "cobweb" additions to link the possible places where genes may have been horizontally transferred. By and large, the tree of life still stands as a valid pictorial model for evolutionary descent. So, nothing has changed. You are now being dishonest in claiming this, which means, you don't want to have an honest debate.
> 
> 
> Maybe you've heard of this guy: Theodosius dobzhanzky was an evolutionary biologist and a * russian orthodox christian,* who is famous for saying,
> 
> "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution."
> 
> nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "he criticizes creationists for implying that god is deceitful and asserts that this is blasphemous.
> 
> Dobzhansky then goes on to describe the diversity of life on earth, and that the diversity of species cannot be best explained by a creation myth because of the ecological interactions between them. He uses examples of evidence for evolution: The genetic sequence of cytochrome c to show evidence for common descent (citing the work of emanuel margoliash & walter m. Fitch); embryology; and his own work on fruit flies in hawaii. Dobzhansky concludes that scripture and science are two different things: * "it is a blunder to mistake the holy scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology"."*
> 
> -wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evolutionists can't even agree on a method to test fitness or even a common definition for it. If natural selection is based on an organism's fitness, how can we do experiments to determine if natural selection has occurred if we can't even test for it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can we do tests for god when there is no evidence at all?
Click to expand...


No one can put God to the test and I would strongly recommend you don't.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're lashing out.
> 
> I can understand your frustration. Every time you and your cohort fundies have tried to force your religion into the school system, you've been thrown out in disgrace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will see who has the last laugh. You do realize you are living in satans world of course he doesn't want things about the creator taught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> Couldn't help myself!
> as always you are making false declarative statements  based on belief not fact...
> I'm sure I've seen you making a total ass of yourself outside the county corthouse when I had jury duty!
Click to expand...


We will see Daws.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dear, the religion you cling to is not real science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. You obviously despise science and have made every effort to denigrate science. I certainly wouldn't expect a fundie zealot to be able to form rational opinions on science matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I despise pseudoscience which is what many theories you believe are based on.
Click to expand...


And yet after repeated requests, you cannot identify what theories are based pseudoscience. 

I'm sure you do not even know what that term means.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need for me to mention your charlatans gods at the ICR.
> 
> These hacks have been refuted often enough.
> 
> It's just a shame that the two fundies are unable to accept science fact in lieu of creationist ministry falsehoods.
> 
> 1. Abiogenesis
> 2. Chemical evolution
> 3. Dating methods
> 4. Trasitional fossils
> 5. Stephen Hawking's explanation of black holes
> 6. Age of the earth and the universe
> 
> The majority of the above have extensive factual support and testable methods for their verification.
> 
> I'm never surprised at just how deeply ignorant the fundies choose to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are  very naive if you believe what you just posted.
Click to expand...

I didn't expect anything that would have approached a considered response. 

Why do you insist on using the "because I say so" response when that is not an answer to anything?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> AnonymousIV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm good with that any depth of understanding that you need to seek in order to satisfy your mind is alright.  But The Book says, God created Man from the Earth and then blew life into him.  Could whatever reasoning you know allow for a self perfecting spirit?  Do you have a cap on the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The spirit that created all was perfect so was the creation. Sin brought for death and entropy to all.
> 
> We age and die,we are not being prefected.
Click to expand...


Assigning perfection to angry gawds who are hopelessly incompetent as "designers" suggests you are deceitful or naive ... or both.I


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> AnonymousIV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm good with that any depth of understanding that you need to seek in order to satisfy your mind is alright.  But The Book says, God created Man from the Earth and then blew life into him.  Could whatever reasoning you know allow for a self perfecting spirit?  Do you have a cap on the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The spirit that created all was perfect so was the creation. Sin brought for death and entropy to all.
> 
> We age and die,we are not being prefected.
Click to expand...

more fact ,less sky god stories!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dear, the religion you cling to is not real science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. You obviously despise science and have made every effort to denigrate science. I certainly wouldn't expect a fundie zealot to be able to form rational opinions on science matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I despise pseudoscience which is what many theories you believe are based on.
Click to expand...

 hummmm. then logic would dictate that you must hate your own "theories" for the very same reasons.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> evolutionists can't even agree on a method to test fitness or even a common definition for it. If natural selection is based on an organism's fitness, how can we do experiments to determine if natural selection has occurred if we can't even test for it???
> 
> 
> 
> how can we do tests for god when there is no evidence at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one can put God to the test and I would strongly recommend you don't.
Click to expand...

ALL READY HAVE...BEEN THERE DONE THAT....One day maybe you'll grow out of your fear and ignorance...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We will see who has the last laugh. You do realize you are living in satans world of course he doesn't want things about the creator taught.
> 
> 
> 
> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> Couldn't help myself!
> as always you are making false declarative statements  based on belief not fact...
> I'm sure I've seen you making a total ass of yourself outside the county corthouse when I had jury duty!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We will see Daws.
Click to expand...

I already see...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the following is instructive as it basically encapsulates the dishonest and biased program of the Christian creationist program.
> 
> 
> AIG's Creation Science Fair - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> AIGs Creation Science Fair
> 
> Answers in Genesis is gearing up for a science fair in February 2009 2010. The rules are here. Note that they are parasitic on the Intel Science and Engineering guidelines with two minor exceptions:
> 
> 3, All projects should be clearly aligned with a biblical principle from a passage or verse.
> 
> The student should be able to explain why the verse or passage selected relates to their project. (Students should read the article God and Natural Law by Dr. Jason Lisle for an explanation of this concept.)
> 
> * Students should consider the context of the verse(s) they are using.
> 
> * The verse chosen does not have to directly apply to the project topic (e.g., Scripture does not directly address radio waves), but may simply relate the project to the Creator of the universe.
> 
> * Students should read the article God and Natural Law.
> 
> and
> 
> 4. Students should be able, with a clear conscience, to sign the AiG Statement of Faith, which upholds the belief in the creation of the universe in six, twenty-four-hour days about 6,000 years ago by the Creator God as revealed in the Bible.
> 
> Translation of the The verse chosen does not have to directly apply to the project topic is However my experiment came out, God did it.
> 
> If it werent so hot and I werent so tired Id get indignant. But mostly Im sad: Those kids dont have a chance. This is part of Ken Hams solution to the Already Gone problem he sees: The abandonment of fundamentalism by young people whose doubts start in middle school and high school. Hams solution is simple: Lie to them earlier and more often. Pity he isnt self-aware enough to realize that those doubts begin to arise when kids learn that Ham and their pastor have been lying to them. And thats the counter to the Hamster: Let em know theyre being lied to in the plainest possible terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are a secret follower of Huran Yahan. How do you reconcile your faith in Islam with your evolutionary views?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're uncomfortable with the truth. You should be. The creationist agenda is drenched in lies and deceit.
> 
> You won't address the above because you can't. To expect you to understand such terms as truth, integrity and honesty is contrary to the Christian creationist agenda
Click to expand...


But not contrary to your Islamic faith?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Paul McBrides review of the Disco Tutes Science and Human Origins
> 
> Paul McBride's review of the Disco 'Tute's "Science and Human Origins" - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> Science and Human Origins (Amazon; Barnes&Noble) is a slim book recently published by the Disco Tutes house press. Its by Ann Gauger and Douglas Axe, members of the Disco Tutes Biologic Institute, along with Casey Luskin. The book is blurbed thusly:
> 
> In this provocative book, three scientists challenge the claim that undirected natural selection is capable of building a human being, critically assess fossil and genetic evidence that human beings share a common ancestor with apes, and debunk recent claims that the human race could not have started from an original couple.
> 
> In other words, down with common descent, and while were at it, a literal Adam and Eve could have been the ancestors of the whole human species. And by three scientists? Ah, yes, I momentarily forgot that Casey Luskin got a Masters in Earth Science before he went off to law school and then got a job with the Disco Tute, where he is now listed as Research Coordinator (and is there called an attorney rather than a scientist). Once again, one detects a touch of inflationary credentialism. Fortunately for me, Im spared the chore of reading and critiquing the book. Paul McBride, a Ph.D. candidate in vertebrate macroecology/evolution in New Zealand who writes Still Monkeys, bit the bullet and did a chapter by chapter (all five chapters) review of the book. The book doesnt come out looking good (is anyone surprised?). Im going to shamelessly piggyback on McBrides review. Ill link to his individual chapter reviews, adding some commentary, below the fold.
> 
> Here are McBrides individual chapter reviews: Chapter 1, in which Ann Gauger
> 
> questions the certainty that evolutionary biologists have in the notion of common descent, with the broad claim that it is merely similarity, rather than relatedness, that we observe. She tells us that certainly humans and chimpanzees share a number of common features, but so do (and this is her example) Ford Tauruses and Mustangs. Yet the latter are designed, indicating that similarity cannot rule out design.
> 
> McBride has some fun with that specious analogy, as well as with her random changes in computer programs break the programs claim. Someone over at the Disco Tute should tell Gauger to read up on genetic programming. Chapter 2, in which Douglas Axe expands on Gaugers Chapter 1, elaborating some arguments and finishing with the claim that unless we can identify each and every mutation between humans and our common ancestor with chimps, theres room for a Designer. I dealt with that argument some time ago. Chapter 3, in which Casey Luskin argues that the hominin fossil record is too fragmentary to infer the descent of H. saps like himself from a common ancestor of him and chimps. (Notice how I restrained myself? ) Like all creationists, Casey has to draw the line between ancient humans (Homo) and earlier fossil (allegedly non-ancestral to humans) apes somewhere, and he draws it between H. habilis and H. erectus. (Recall that theres considerable disagreement among creationists about just where that line ought to go. Casey is quite a bit deeper in the past than most.) In an update to that post, McBride draws attention to a recent paper plotting brain volume against age of hominin fossils, essentially duplicating material in two posts on that topic by Nick Matzke here and here nearly six years ago. In a recent post on Evolution News, Casey asserts
> 
> Hominin fossils generally fall into one of two groups: ape-like species and human-like species, with a large, unbridged gap between them. Despite the hype promoted by many evolutionary paleoanthropologists, the fragmented hominin fossil record does not document the evolution of humans from ape-like precursors.
> 
> Look at the graphs in McBrides post and in Nicks Thumb posts for data relevant to that claim. Nevertheless, Casey promises that he will be discussing the issue in coming weeks. Chapter 4, on junk DNA by (earth scientist and lawyer) Casey again, gets a two-part review, a prelude which makes pre-reading predictions about what Chapter 4 will claim, and then the review proper. Casey comes through, fulfilling several of McBrides predictions, including conflating junk DNA and non-coding DNA, a pervasive ID creationist habit. I rather like McBrides conclusion to this chapter review:
> 
> Luskin here has continued in the tradition of the other chapters in this book by ignoring all of the best arguments that run contrary to his, while making previously refuted arguments with biased evidence, pretty much in line with what I predicted before reading the chapter. He presents no positive case for a pervasively functional genome, and has only set out to cast doubt on the concept of junk DNA. Even in this, he has comprehensively failed. The book is called Science and Human Origins, but the science is threadbare, and treated unevenly and unfairly.
> 
> Finally, Chapter 5, by Gauger again, is the culmination of the book, and can be seen as a rationale for accepting a literal Adam and Eve, a two-person effective breeding population sometime in our ancestry. McBride writes
> 
> To convince us of the possiblity of a literal Adam and Eve, Ann Gauger presents to us doubt over whether a single published paper from the 1990s truly supports a large human population since speciation.
> 
> McBride has a good critique, and one thing he mentions is kind of funny. In this chapter, Gauger accepts that two human haplotypes are ancient, in the 4-6mya range. But, of course, up there in Chapter 3 Casey argued that the boundary between us (non-descended from apes) humans and those apes ancestors is between H. erectus and H. habilis, a split that occurred around 1.8mya. Gauger accepts a human trait as originating with critters that are more ancient than Casey is willing to admit as ancestral to humans (or maybe Gaugers Adam and Eve werent humans (tee hee)). In his conclusion McBride wrote:
> 
> I have been left wondering why the Discovery Institute, or intelligent design advocates in general, or biblical literalists feel a need to try and accommodate science when they have a belief in a supernatural entity capable of breaking natural laws. In the case of this book, it has left them needing to make all kinds of awkward criticisms of fields in which the authors clearly lack expertise. A lawyer is not the right guy to challenge the worlds palaeoanthropologists, nor the worlds geneticists. Certainly, he shouldnt be trying to take them all on at once. It will end with him trying to smear the reputation of scientists rather than engaging with their ideas. Accusations that the entire field of palaeoanthropology is driven by personal disputes and that Francis Collins is a bad Christian are simply not compelling reading in a book that is putatively about scientific argument.
> 
> And the last paragraph:
> 
> Science and Human Origins has to be described first and foremost as being anti-evolution rather than pro-intelligent-design, or pro-science. If it offers solace to those seeking evidence against evolution for their faith, the solace should be as incomplete as the arguments made in the book.
> 
> Read all of McBrides posts on this. Hes an articulate and knowledgeable guy.



Didn't read any of this post and I'm not interested in reading anything from McBride. You are kind of wasting forum space with your irrelevant cut and pastes. What dose this have to do with Islam anyway?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> another passel of creationist lies
> 
> another passel of creationist lies | bad astronomy | discover magazine
> 
> usually, when someone spouts creationist garbage, it&#8217;s because they&#8217;ve been misled. We have a case of this, in spades, in the evansville (indiana) courier press, where a highly deluded creationist has written an editorial so full of crap i&#8217;m tempted to call a septic cleaning crew.
> To be clear, i think the author is just wrong, but he has clearly been heavily misled &#8212; some would say lied to &#8212; to by people from answers in genesis, a creationist (hahahahahah) think tank.
> 
> 
> Check this out:
> &#8230;then a little more than a year ago, we again were privileged to hear lectures by former evolutionist and atheist mike riddle and astrophysicist dr. Jason lisle.
> 
> To be clear: Mike riddle and jason lisle are from the evil, lying organization answers in genesis.
> How can i assert this? Assuming the editorial writer is on the level&#8230;
> 
> riddle, a former microsoft trainer, spoke of the miller experiment, which produced amino acids inside a test tube. When oxygen was added, the experiment failed. Imagine, this key element to life prohibits any organic molecules from forming.
> 
> The miller-urey experiment put the contents of the earth&#8217;s original atmosphere (methane, ammonia, hydrogen, water &#8212; much like the present atmospheres of jupiter and saturn) into a chamber, and hit it with a spark representing lightning. Amino acids were produced. This shows that the building blocks of life were easy to produce in the primitive conditions on earth. As the idea goes, later, once life took hold, it evolved to produce oxygen (which can provide a lot more energy to the life process). Oxygen is highly corrosive, and so that changed everything. Eventually, in the adapt-or-die conditions, life adapted to use the gas. But before it did, oxygen was essentially poison. So it&#8217;s no surprise that it would mess up the miller-urey experiment.
> In other words, if riddle used this to promote an anti-evolution stance, he is not telling the truth, when the truth is easy to find and has been accessible for decades. What does that make him?
> 
> Incidentally, the mu experiment was never meant to be the be-all and end-all of how life arose; it was the first of a long series of such experiments that are still ongoing. How life first arose is a fascinating question, and i guarantee that no creationist will be able to figure it out&#8230; unless they follow the tenets of science. But scientific method to a young-earth creationist is like holy water to a vampire.
> 
> To continue&#8230;
> according to lisle, laser reflectors left behind on the moon&#8217;s surface by the apollo astronauts revealed that our lunar neighbor moves a little over an inch farther away from us each year.
> How many billions of years earlier was it scraping our mountaintops?
> 
> It doesn&#8217;t work this way. The moon recedes from the earth due to tides, but the rate at which is recedes depends on many factors. In the past, it receded more slowly than it does today. It formed much closer in to the earth, but there is no problem with it taking billions of years to get to its current distance. Typically, young earth creationists take current values of things and extrapolate them billions of years into the past without considering that the values might have changed.
> 
> This argument has been debunked for many years. Decades. If lisle really is an astrophysicist and he said this in a talk, he is either incompetent or a liar. Or both.
> 
> One of lisle&#8217;s associates calculated the amount of emissions given off by the various belts of jupiter shortly before the voyager probe visited it in the early &#8217;80s. The data returned was in sync with the thousands of years that the mathematics ph.d. Had suggested. The spacecraft had no knowledge of the bible.
> 
> This statement is a total mess, but what i think he means is the prediction by creationist russel humphries, before voyager got to uranus and neptune, of their magnetic fields. But his guess was that they were intermediate in strength between earth&#8217;s and saturn&#8217;s, which is a pretty safe bet given their masses. Also, while it&#8217;s true that the magnetic fields of those two planets are weird, humphrey&#8217;s model (that god made the planets from water which was then transformed into various other substances) doesn&#8217;t predict any of the other odd features (like the tilt of the fields and that they are off-center). He claims it does, but his claim on how some of the odd features formed isn&#8217;t really any different than a model assuming the planets are old; in other words, his model doesn&#8217;t actually predict those features.
> 
> Even a randomly fired gun will sometimes hit the target&#8230; by accident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more cutting and pasting from your fundie evo priest will provine's website.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so? Can you prove it false?
Click to expand...


Prove what? You would be under the mistaken impression I was actually reading any of Holly's gargantuan cut and pastes. What's the point? She can't carry on a logical argument anyway. Just keeps repeating ICR and Huran Yahan over and over. I'm done wasting my time reading anymore than a few lines of her mad ravings.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> the toe _is_ science.
> 
> You can't accept that because it conflicts with the bible and a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the toe is pseudo science based on your materialist secular humanist religion. You spend all your time cutting and pasting from iheu websites and never stop long enough to actually do any critical thinking.
> 
> You cut and paste false quotes from your religious leaders like dawkins and lawrence krauss. If your good with "may haves" and "might haves", and nice little stories about how giraffe necks are longer because they could only eat high fruit, supporting your supposed fact, then by all means continue to support your myth. But don't pretend that the outrageous claims of the toe are backed by any real science. News flash for you: Darwin's tree of life has been dis-proven by modern genetics and the embryo drawings were fakes. However, since darwinism is religion for you, none of this should matter. Continue to go ahead and cling to your religion even no there is no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> false ......
Click to expand...


True.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are a secret follower of Huran Yahan. How do you reconcile your faith in Islam with your evolutionary views?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're uncomfortable with the truth. You should be. The creationist agenda is drenched in lies and deceit.
> 
> You won't address the above because you can't. To expect you to understand such terms as truth, integrity and honesty is contrary to the Christian creationist agenda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But not contrary to your Islamic faith?
Click to expand...


You're babbling incoherently.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> toe is a science, based on the same concepts and laws that govern all other areas of scientific inquiry, such as chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, etc... In fact, it is an inter-discplinary field, which makes it quite unique. That you think evolution receives special treatment or exists by suspending the laws of physics or logic (i can infer this when you claim evolution is based on pseudo-science), means that you only wish it to be so, because this claim is not based in fact.
> 
> The tree of life, as i have already said, has not become invalid because of horizontal gene transfer, which only happened during the earliest stages of unicellular life on earth, billions of years ago. Instead, there are simply a few "cobweb" additions to link the possible places where genes may have been horizontally transferred. By and large, the tree of life still stands as a valid pictorial model for evolutionary descent. So, nothing has changed. You are now being dishonest in claiming this, which means, you don't want to have an honest debate.
> 
> 
> Maybe you've heard of this guy: Theodosius dobzhanzky was an evolutionary biologist and a * russian orthodox christian,* who is famous for saying,
> 
> "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution."
> 
> nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "he criticizes creationists for implying that god is deceitful and asserts that this is blasphemous.
> 
> Dobzhansky then goes on to describe the diversity of life on earth, and that the diversity of species cannot be best explained by a creation myth because of the ecological interactions between them. He uses examples of evidence for evolution: The genetic sequence of cytochrome c to show evidence for common descent (citing the work of emanuel margoliash & walter m. Fitch); embryology; and his own work on fruit flies in hawaii. Dobzhansky concludes that scripture and science are two different things: * "it is a blunder to mistake the holy scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology"."*
> 
> -wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evolutionists can't even agree on a method to test fitness or even a common definition for it. If natural selection is based on an organism's fitness, how can we do experiments to determine if natural selection has occurred if we can't even test for it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can we do tests for god when there is no evidence at all?
Click to expand...


Are you saying religion should be held to the same standard as science? MMMBah ha haha.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. You obviously despise science and have made every effort to denigrate science. I certainly wouldn't expect a fundie zealot to be able to form rational opinions on science matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I despise pseudoscience which is what many theories you believe are based on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet after repeated requests, you cannot identify what theories are based pseudoscience.
> 
> I'm sure you do not even know what that term means.
Click to expand...


And after years of wasted time in school, you still can't read. This has been done so many times for you on here I lost track after 10. You are an IGNOREamus.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're uncomfortable with the truth. You should be. The creationist agenda is drenched in lies and deceit.
> 
> You won't address the above because you can't. To expect you to understand such terms as truth, integrity and honesty is contrary to the Christian creationist agenda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But not contrary to your Islamic faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're babbling incoherently.
Click to expand...


It is your faith in Haran Yahan and his Islamist Darwin narrative that is incoherent.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> more cutting and pasting from your fundie evo priest will provine's website.
> 
> 
> 
> so? Can you prove it false?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove what? You would be under the mistaken impression I was actually reading any of Holly's gargantuan cut and pastes. What's the point? She can't carry on a logical argument anyway. Just keeps repeating ICR and Huran Yahan over and over.
Click to expand...


The ICR and Harun Yahya is where you and the other fundie quote-mine so much of your non-sensical creationist babble from. Are you embarassed that so much of your anti-science cutting and pasting comes from those sites and similar charlatan creation ministries?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not contrary to your Islamic faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're babbling incoherently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is your faith in Haran Yahan and his Islamist Darwin narrative that is incoherent.
Click to expand...


You're still babbling incoherently.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so? Can you prove it false?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove what? You would be under the mistaken impression I was actually reading any of Holly's gargantuan cut and pastes. What's the point? She can't carry on a logical argument anyway. Just keeps repeating ICR and Huran Yahan over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ICR and Harun Yahya is where you and the other fundie quote-mine so much of your non-sensical creationist babble from. Are you embarassed that so much of your anti-science cutting and pasting comes from those sites and similar charlatan creation ministries?
Click to expand...


Na uh. It's where you get all your faith and your sad devotion to an ancient religion. Haran is your priest, not mine. I'd never even heard his name until you started posting up your favorite teachings of his.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove what? You would be under the mistaken impression I was actually reading any of Holly's gargantuan cut and pastes. What's the point? She can't carry on a logical argument anyway. Just keeps repeating ICR and Huran Yahan over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ICR and Harun Yahya is where you and the other fundie quote-mine so much of your non-sensical creationist babble from. Are you embarassed that so much of your anti-science cutting and pasting comes from those sites and similar charlatan creation ministries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Na uh. It's where you get all your faith and your sad devotion to an ancient religion. Haran is your priest, not mine.
Click to expand...


Why is so much of your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're babbling incoherently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is your faith in Haran Yahan and his Islamist Darwin narrative that is incoherent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still babbling incoherently.
Click to expand...


And you still don't have a metanarrative. You cling to the mad ravings of Maslow for your salvation.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ICR and Harun Yahya is where you and the other fundie quote-mine so much of your non-sensical creationist babble from. Are you embarassed that so much of your anti-science cutting and pasting comes from those sites and similar charlatan creation ministries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Na uh. It's where you get all your faith and your sad devotion to an ancient religion. Haran is your priest, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is so much of your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya?
Click to expand...


You mean like all your cutting and pasting from your priest, Haran Youwhat?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Na uh. It's where you get all your faith and your sad devotion to an ancient religion. Haran is your priest, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is so much of your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like all your cutting and pasting from your priest, Haran Youwhat?
Click to expand...


What cutting and pasting would that be?


----------



## UltimateReality

Or all your cut and pastes from the IHEU...

"    About IHEU



Founded in Amsterdam in 1952, International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the sole world umbrella organisation embracing Humanist, atheist, rationalist, secularist, skeptic, laique, ethical cultural, freethought and similar organisations world-wide.

Our vision is a Humanist world; a world in which human rights are respected and everyone is able to live a life of dignity. The mission of IHEU is to build and represent the global Humanist movement that defends human rights and promotes Humanist values world-wide. IHEU sponsors the triennial World Humanist Congress.

Based in London, IHEU is an international NGO with Special Consultative Status with the UN (New York, Geneva, Vienna), General Consultative Status at UNICEF (New York) and the Council of Europe (Strasbourg), and maintains operational relations with UNESCO (Paris). IHEU has observer status at the African Commission on Human and People's Rights."


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your faith in Haran Yahan and his Islamist Darwin narrative that is incoherent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still babbling incoherently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you still don't have a metanarrative. You cling to the mad ravings of Maslow for your salvation.
Click to expand...


Have you been gobsmacked or just had too much to drink?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Or all your cut and pastes from the IHEU...
> 
> "    About IHEU
> 
> 
> 
> Founded in Amsterdam in 1952, International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the sole world umbrella organisation embracing Humanist, atheist, rationalist, secularist, skeptic, laique, ethical cultural, freethought and similar organisations world-wide.
> 
> Our vision is a Humanist world; a world in which human rights are respected and everyone is able to live a life of dignity. The mission of IHEU is to build and represent the global Humanist movement that defends human rights and promotes Humanist values world-wide. IHEU sponsors the triennial World Humanist Congress.
> 
> Based in London, IHEU is an international NGO with Special Consultative Status with the UN (New York, Geneva, Vienna), General Consultative Status at UNICEF (New York) and the Council of Europe (Strasbourg), and maintains operational relations with UNESCO (Paris). IHEU has observer status at the African Commission on Human and People's Rights."



Oh my gawd, they aren't divisive and don't promote ignorance and superstition like the fundie creationists.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or all your cut and pastes from the IHEU...
> 
> "    About IHEU
> 
> 
> 
> Founded in Amsterdam in 1952, International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the sole world umbrella organisation embracing Humanist, atheist, rationalist, secularist, skeptic, laique, ethical cultural, freethought and similar organisations world-wide.
> 
> Our vision is a Humanist world; a world in which human rights are respected and everyone is able to live a life of dignity. The mission of IHEU is to build and represent the global Humanist movement that defends human rights and promotes Humanist values world-wide. IHEU sponsors the triennial World Humanist Congress.
> 
> Based in London, IHEU is an international NGO with Special Consultative Status with the UN (New York, Geneva, Vienna), General Consultative Status at UNICEF (New York) and the Council of Europe (Strasbourg), and maintains operational relations with UNESCO (Paris). IHEU has observer status at the African Commission on Human and People's Rights."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they aren't divisive and don't promote ignorance and superstition
Click to expand...

 REEEAAAALLY???

This is where Holly gets her maddening hate for Muslims...

"Here is one of those generalizations one loves to hate: we moderns, for all of our civility, are often the victims of latent primitivity owing to the vestigial trappings of a religious institution that we have talked ourselves into believing to be at one with our highest ideals and aspirations. Islam, however much developed out of a perfectly natural desire to escape a condition of cultural barbarity (Muhammad was quite sensitive to this apparently) nevertheless served in most ways as a glove to the hand of its culture(s). It was perfect for groups stressing individual honesty, honor and respectability&#8212;what we usually call these days &#8220;honor-based&#8221; societies.

Honor-based cultures, and most especially so the Mediterranean ones, are characterized today, as they have been for thousands of years, by a saying known to every Arab and doubtless to most Muslims: Brother against brother and both against family; family against family and both against community, and etc. The culture is one in which recrimination and vengeance are, if not the order of the day, at least a culturally disposed latency. Islam has done nothing to alter that reality. In fact, Islam has served if anything to positively enhance precisely that disposition."

http://www.iheu.org/node/2480


----------



## Hollie

*What Scientists Do and Creationists Dont*

What Scientists Do and Creationists Don't - The Panda's Thumb

A favorite creationist mantra these days, and one you especially hear from young earthers, is that creationists and scientists both have the same facts, they just look at them differently. To laypeople that may sound reasonable. The handful of guys at Answers in Genesis look at the Grand Canyon and say it was formed by a flood about 4400 years ago when God got all pissed off at humans. The 24,000 members of the Geological Society of America (and virtually every member of the literally dozens of geological organizations listed at their web site (Geology Professional Societies and Organizations - GEOLOGY.COM) look at the Grand Canyon and say it was formed over millions of years by natural processes that continue today.

Same facts; different conclusions. Some of us laypeople often hear these two positions and see them as equally valid positions on either side of a debate. But some of us scratch the surface, and it doesnt take a very deep scratch to see a significant difference. Scientists do science and creationists dont.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or all your cut and pastes from the IHEU...
> 
> "    About IHEU
> 
> 
> 
> Founded in Amsterdam in 1952, International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the sole world umbrella organisation embracing Humanist, atheist, rationalist, secularist, skeptic, laique, ethical cultural, freethought and similar organisations world-wide.
> 
> Our vision is a Humanist world; a world in which human rights are respected and everyone is able to live a life of dignity. The mission of IHEU is to build and represent the global Humanist movement that defends human rights and promotes Humanist values world-wide. IHEU sponsors the triennial World Humanist Congress.
> 
> Based in London, IHEU is an international NGO with Special Consultative Status with the UN (New York, Geneva, Vienna), General Consultative Status at UNICEF (New York) and the Council of Europe (Strasbourg), and maintains operational relations with UNESCO (Paris). IHEU has observer status at the African Commission on Human and People's Rights."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they aren't divisive and don't promote ignorance and superstition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where Holly gets her maddening hate for Muslims...
> 
> "Here is one of those generalizations one loves to hate: we moderns, for all of our civility, are often the victims of latent primitivity owing to the vestigial trappings of a religious institution that we have talked ourselves into believing to be at one with our highest ideals and aspirations. Islam, however much developed out of a perfectly natural desire to escape a condition of cultural barbarity (Muhammad was quite sensitive to this apparently) nevertheless served in most ways as a glove to the hand of its culture(s). It was perfect for groups stressing individual honesty, honor and respectabilitywhat we usually call these days honor-based societies.
> 
> Honor-based cultures, and most especially so the Mediterranean ones, are characterized today, as they have been for thousands of years, by a saying known to every Arab and doubtless to most Muslims: Brother against brother and both against family; family against family and both against community, and etc. The culture is one in which recrimination and vengeance are, if not the order of the day, at least a culturally disposed latency. Islam has done nothing to alter that reality. In fact, Islam has served if anything to positively enhance precisely that disposition."
> 
> http://www.iheu.org/node/2480
Click to expand...


Oh my, are you still cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya?


----------



## Hollie

*The Big Difference Between Creationism and Intelligent Design*

The Big Difference Between Creationism and Intelligent Design - The Panda's Thumb

Denyse OLeary notes some of the differences (<Post-Darwinist>) between creationists and Intelligent Design proponents:



> Then the creationists in turn help the ID theorists by making clear what creationism is and what it is not. Creationism is about the BIBLE, see? Its not about intelligent design theories like Behes* Edge of Evolution or Dembskis design inference.



Its extremely uncommon for me to find myself in agreement with Denyse on anything (and its not a comfortable feeling), but in this case I do think shes got a good point. Creationism is certainly explicitly based on the Bible, and Intelligent Design certainly is not. In fact, thats probably the Achilles Heel of the entire Intelligent Design movement.

Say what you will about the Young-Earth creationists, about Ken Ham and Kent Prisoner #06452-017 (http://www.creationtoday.org/questions-and-answers-seminar-part-7a/Hovind), they are steadfast in their belief in the literal truth of the Bible, and steadfast in their refusal to lie about that belief. They believe that they are right, and they are not willing to publicly deny their faith. In that, they stand in stark contrast to Intelligent Design.

Read more (at The Questionable Authority, where comments can be left): The Big Difference Between Creationism and Intelligent Design &#8211; The Questionable Authority


----------



## Hollie

*Can we send them to Mars?*

Can we send them to Mars? &#8211; Pharyngula

As we all know, now that the trivial and relatively uninteresting business of mere engineering has cleared a hurdle, Mars Curiosity can get to work on the important stuff: finding evidence of biology on Mars. This is where its also going to get peculiarly controversial, because some creationists are feeling a bit threatened: there is a subset of creationists (definitely not all of them!) who are convinced that there can be no other life elsewhere in the universe. Theres also a weird subset that believes there may be intelligent life elsewhere, but it must believe in the Christian god, and these alien worlds must have been visited by an incarnation of Jesusbut lets not get that deep in the bizarre yet.

Because this is bizarre enough. Faye Flam got an angry letter from a creationist (Images from Mars, Letter from a Parallel Universe) who is upset at all the money wasted on Mars Curiosity, because its absurd to consider the idea that life may have arisen somewhere where a god didnt put it.

Her answer is excellent, you should go read it. Although, sad to say, its not true that her correspondent is from some strange dimensionhes pretty typically from our tiny corner of this galaxy.


----------



## Hollie

Council of Europe 2007 resolution on the teaching of creationism - RationalWiki


*Dangers of creationism in education*



Article One
The aim of this resolution is not to question or to fight a belief  the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.


Article Two
For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.		


[edit] Article Three
Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.		


[edit] Article Four
The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are of the Christian or Muslim faith, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school science syllabuses. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.		


[edit] Article Five
Creationists question the scientific character of certain areas of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, creationists defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.		


[edit] Article Six
We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which challenge established knowledge about nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.		


[edit] Article Seven
There is a real risk of serious confusion being introduced into our childrens minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science. An all things are equal attitude may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous.		
[edit] Article Eight
Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The intelligent design idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution. However, intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger.


There's more but, you get the idea...


----------



## AnonymousIV

I don't want my decedents to live in a world that's cold and dark.  I hope America never looks like the pix.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. You obviously despise science and have made every effort to denigrate science. I certainly wouldn't expect a fundie zealot to be able to form rational opinions on science matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I despise pseudoscience which is what many theories you believe are based on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet after repeated requests, you cannot identify what theories are based pseudoscience.
> 
> I'm sure you do not even know what that term means.
Click to expand...


I gave you a list, give me your evidence that proves that I am wrong. I refuse to keep repeating myself.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AnonymousIV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm good with that any depth of understanding that you need to seek in order to satisfy your mind is alright.  But The Book says, God created Man from the Earth and then blew life into him.  Could whatever reasoning you know allow for a self perfecting spirit?  Do you have a cap on the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The spirit that created all was perfect so was the creation. Sin brought for death and entropy to all.
> 
> We age and die,we are not being prefected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more fact ,less sky god stories!
Click to expand...


How is man being perfected with the genetic disorders due to mutations are rising in numbers ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. You obviously despise science and have made every effort to denigrate science. I certainly wouldn't expect a fundie zealot to be able to form rational opinions on science matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I despise pseudoscience which is what many theories you believe are based on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hummmm. then logic would dictate that you must hate your own "theories" for the very same reasons.
Click to expand...


No, I only believe what I can safely infer from the evidence. I can safely say all that we can see,touch,and feel,was the result of design. Not by chance,not by evolution.

Life produces life.nonliving matter cannot turn into living organisms.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how can we do tests for god when there is no evidence at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one can put God to the test and I would strongly recommend you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ALL READY HAVE...BEEN THERE DONE THAT....One day maybe you'll grow out of your fear and ignorance...
Click to expand...


Maybe he is saving you for something special. Why would you do that if he does not exist ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or all your cut and pastes from the IHEU...
> 
> "    About IHEU
> 
> 
> 
> Founded in Amsterdam in 1952, International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the sole world umbrella organisation embracing Humanist, atheist, rationalist, secularist, skeptic, laique, ethical cultural, freethought and similar organisations world-wide.
> 
> Our vision is a Humanist world; a world in which human rights are respected and everyone is able to live a life of dignity. The mission of IHEU is to build and represent the global Humanist movement that defends human rights and promotes Humanist values world-wide. IHEU sponsors the triennial World Humanist Congress.
> 
> Based in London, IHEU is an international NGO with Special Consultative Status with the UN (New York, Geneva, Vienna), General Consultative Status at UNICEF (New York) and the Council of Europe (Strasbourg), and maintains operational relations with UNESCO (Paris). IHEU has observer status at the African Commission on Human and People's Rights."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my gawd, they aren't divisive and don't promote ignorance and superstition like the fundie creationists.
Click to expand...


Allow me to introduce you to what you often refer to as ignorant person and promoting ignorance .I'll let you point out his ignorance. Oh no there goes the neighborhood he is a creationist.




Genetics: No Friend of Evolution


A Highly Qualified Biologist Tells It Like It Is.

by Dr. Lane Lester on

March 1, 1998


Layman



 author-kenneth-patman
 creation-magazine
 dna
 genetics




Featured In

Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution, were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwin's ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel's conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution.

To help us develop a new biology based on creation rather than evolution, let us sample some of the evidence from genetics, arranged under the four sources of variation: environment, recombination, mutation, and creation.

Environment

This refers to all of the external factors which influence a creature during its lifetime. For example, one person may have darker skin than another simply because she is exposed to more sunshine. Or another may have larger muscles because he exercises more. Such environmentally-caused variations generally have no importance to the history of life, because they cease to exist when their owners die; they are not passed on. In the middle 1800s, some scientists believed that variations caused by the environment could be inherited. Charles Darwin accepted this fallacy, and it no doubt made it easier for him to believe that one creature could change into another. He thus explained the origin of the giraffe's long neck in part through 'the inherited effects of the increased use of parts'.1 In seasons of limited food supply, Darwin reasoned, giraffes would stretch their necks for the high leaves, supposedly resulting in longer necks being passed on to their offspring. 

Recombination

This involves shuffling the genes and is the reason that children resemble their parents very closely but are not exactly like either one. The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel's great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.

For example, from 1800, plant breeders sought to increase the sugar content of the sugar beet. And they were very successful. Over some 75 years of selective breeding it was possible to increase the sugar content from 6% to 17%. But there the improvement stopped, and further selection did not increase the sugar content. Why? Because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.

Among the creatures Darwin observed on the Galapagos islands were a group of land birds, the finches. In this single group, we can see wide variation in appearance and in life-style. Darwin provided what I believe to be an essentially correct interpretation of how the finches came to be the way they are. A few individuals were probably blown to the islands from the South American mainland, and today's finches are descendants of those pioneers. However, while Darwin saw the finches as an example of evolution, we can now recognize them merely as the result of recombination within a single created kind. The pioneer finches brought with them enough genetic variability to be sorted out into the varieties we see today.2

Mutation

Now to consider the third source of variation, mutation. Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. Each living cell has intricate molecular machinery designed for accurately copying DNA, the genetic molecule. But as in other copying processes mistakes do occur, although not very often. Once in every 10,000-100,000 copies, a gene will contain a mistake. The cell has machinery for correcting these mistakes, but some mutations still slip through. What kinds of changes are produced by mutations? Some have no effect at all, or produce so small a change that they have no appreciable effect on the creature. But many mutations have a significant effect on their owners.


 In a fallen world, predators like this tiger, by culling the more defective animals, may serve to slow genetic deterioration by screening out the effects of mutation. Right: The 'naked rooster' mutation-no feathers are produced. Such mutational defects may rarely be 'beneficial' (e.g. if a breeder were to select this type to prevent having to pluck pre-roasting?) but never add anything new. There is no mutation which shows how feathers or anything similar arose. 

Based on the creation model, what kind of effect would we expect from random mutations, from genetic mistakes? We would expect virtually all of those which make a difference to be harmful, to make the creatures that possess them less successful than before. And this prediction is borne out most convincingly. Some examples help to illustrate this.

Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations have been identified.3 All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly-exactly as predicted by the creation model.

Is there, then, no such thing as a beneficial mutation? Yes, there is. A beneficial mutation is simply one that makes it possible for its possessors to contribute more offspring to future generations than do those creatures that lack the mutation.

Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage, because creatures in flight are more likely to be blown into the sea. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. The sightless cave fish would be similar. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would replace the eye with scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability. In the world of light, having no eyes would be a terrible handicap, but is no disadvantage in a dark cave. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss of information and never gain. One never observes the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being produced on creatures which never had the information to produce them. 

Natural selection is the obvious fact that some varieties of creatures are going to be more successful than others, and so they will contribute more offspring to future generations. A favourite example of natural section is the peppered moth of England, Biston betularia. As far as anyone knows, this moth has always existed in two basic varieties, speckled and solid black. In pre-industrial England, many of the tree trunks were light in colour. This provided a camouflage for the speckled variety, and the birds tended to prey more heavily on the black variety. Moth collections showed many more speckled than black ones. When the Industrial Age came to England, pollution darkened the tree trunks, so the black variety was hidden, and the speckled variety was conspicuous. Soon there were many more black moths than speckled 

As populations encounter changing environments, such as that described above or as the result of migration into a new area, natural selection favours the combinations of traits which will make the creature more successful in its new environment. This might be considered as the positive role of natural selection. The negative role of natural selection is seen in eliminating or minimizing harmful mutations when they occur.

Creation

The first three sources of variation are woefully inadequate to account for the diversity of life we see on earth today. An essential feature of the creation model is the placement of considerable genetic variety in each created kind at the beginning. Only thus can we explain the possible origin of horses, donkeys, and zebras from the same kind; of lions, tigers, and leopards from the same kind; of some 118 varieties of the domestic dog, as well as jackals, wolves and coyotes from the same kind. As each kind obeyed the Creator's command to be fruitful and multiply, the chance processes of recombination and the more purposeful process of natural selection caused each kind to subdivide into the vast array we now see.

Genetics: No Friend of Evolution - Answers in Genesis

Here you can learn more about the man and see if you are educated enough to slander the man.

Lane Lester - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The spirit that created all was perfect so was the creation. Sin brought for death and entropy to all.
> 
> We age and die,we are not being prefected.
> 
> 
> 
> more fact ,less sky god stories!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is man being perfected with the genetic disorders due to mutations are rising in numbers ?
Click to expand...


Why are your gawds such incompetent "designers" that they would build planned obsolescence into their "designs"?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I despise pseudoscience which is what many theories you believe are based on.
> 
> 
> 
> hummmm. then logic would dictate that you must hate your own "theories" for the very same reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I only believe what I can safely infer from the evidence. I can safely say all that we can see,touch,and feel,was the result of design. Not by chance,not by evolution.
Click to expand...


You can say anything you want. What you can't do is provide even the weakest of evidence that one or more supernatural, supermagical gods have "designed" anything.



> Life produces life.nonliving matter cannot turn into living organisms.



We call that "stating the obvious". Were you hopiing that your silly comment was somehow profound?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Lane Lester - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science



Ahh. Lane Lester. Another creationist crackpot.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I despise pseudoscience which is what many theories you believe are based on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet after repeated requests, you cannot identify what theories are based pseudoscience.
> 
> I'm sure you do not even know what that term means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you a list, give me your evidence that proves that I am wrong. I refuse to keep repeating myself.
Click to expand...


I gave you the evidence proving you are wrong. Prove I haven't.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hummmm. then logic would dictate that you must hate your own "theories" for the very same reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I only believe what I can safely infer from the evidence. I can safely say all that we can see,touch,and feel,was the result of design. Not by chance,not by evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can say anything you want. What you can't do is provide even the weakest of evidence that one or more supernatural, supermagical gods have "designed" anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life produces life.nonliving matter cannot turn into living organisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We call that "stating the obvious". Were you hopiing that your silly comment was somehow profound?
Click to expand...


Obvious??? This profound statement violates the whole basis of your religion and the teachings of your mentor, Huran Yawnin.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet after repeated requests, you cannot identify what theories are based pseudoscience.
> 
> I'm sure you do not even know what that term means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you a list, give me your evidence that proves that I am wrong. I refuse to keep repeating myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you the evidence proving you are wrong. Prove I haven't.
Click to expand...


I'm guessing he is not interested in playing "Silly Word Games with Host Holly".


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more fact ,less sky god stories!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is man being perfected with the genetic disorders due to mutations are rising in numbers ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are your gawds such incompetent "designers" that they would build planned obsolescence into their "designs"?
Click to expand...


I have already gave you my opinion on this issue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lane Lester - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh. Lane Lester. Another creationist crackpot.
Click to expand...


Ahh,I knew you couldn't nor would you attempt to point out his ignorance. I knew you would turn to your usual dribble,insulting someone educated to the point you can't take on the issues he raises.

He is a man of science and yet you still have a problem with him,why Hollie ? It isn't about science is it Hollie,it's because he is a believer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet after repeated requests, you cannot identify what theories are based pseudoscience.
> 
> I'm sure you do not even know what that term means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you a list, give me your evidence that proves that I am wrong. I refuse to keep repeating myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you the evidence proving you are wrong. Prove I haven't.
Click to expand...


Do you understand what an opinion is ? and what conjecture is ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lane Lester - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh. Lane Lester. Another creationist crackpot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh,I knew you couldn't nor would you attempt to point out his ignorance. I knew you would turn to your usual dribble,insulting someone educated to the point you can't take on the issues he raises.
> 
> He is a man of science and yet you still have a problem with him,why Hollie ? It isn't about science is it Hollie,it's because he is a believer.
Click to expand...


Oh you poor dear. You don't understand the concept of professional integrity. Here, let's see if we can help. 

Let's suppose that you were a biologist and were offered a chance to work in behalf of Phillip Morris companies. Your Job was to defend their claim that cigarette smoking was not harmful to peoples health. Let's further propose that as part of your employment, you had to sign an agreement that any results of your work that were in conflict with the opinions of Phillip Morris could not be disclosed. 

Would that make you a shill for Phillip Morris? Would that make you a hack? 

Of course it would. That scenario precisely describes the ID /  creationist hacks who sign such agreements as required by the ICR for example.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you a list, give me your evidence that proves that I am wrong. I refuse to keep repeating myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you the evidence proving you are wrong. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand what an opinion is ? and what conjecture is ?
Click to expand...


Sure. How is it you cannot resolve the difference between reality and supernaturalism?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh. Lane Lester. Another creationist crackpot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh,I knew you couldn't nor would you attempt to point out his ignorance. I knew you would turn to your usual dribble,insulting someone educated to the point you can't take on the issues he raises.
> 
> He is a man of science and yet you still have a problem with him,why Hollie ? It isn't about science is it Hollie,it's because he is a believer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. You don't understand the concept of professional integrity. Here, let's see if we can help.
> 
> Let's suppose that you were a biologist and were offered a chance to work in behalf of Phillip Morris companies. Your Job was to defend their claim that cigarette smoking was not harmful to peoples health. Let's further propose that as part of your employment, you had to sign an agreement that any results of your work that were in conflict with the opinions of Phillip Morris could not be disclosed.
> 
> Would that make you a shill for Phillip Morris? Would that make you a hack?
> 
> Of course it would. That scenario precisely describes the ID /  creationist hacks who sign such agreements as required by the ICR for example.
Click to expand...


Listen troll,I am a biologist ,my degree confirms this not to mention the job I held for 11 years,and if you would have bothered to read up on Lane Lester you would have seen he was a biologist to. Hollie what is your education so we can see if you possess the credntials to cretique myself and Lane Lester.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you the evidence proving you are wrong. Prove I haven't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand what an opinion is ? and what conjecture is ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. How is it you cannot resolve the difference between reality and supernaturalism?
Click to expand...


Hollie if you did you could see the conjecture and the vivid imaginations that holds your theories together that you attempt to defend


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh,I knew you couldn't nor would you attempt to point out his ignorance. I knew you would turn to your usual dribble,insulting someone educated to the point you can't take on the issues he raises.
> 
> He is a man of science and yet you still have a problem with him,why Hollie ? It isn't about science is it Hollie,it's because he is a believer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. You don't understand the concept of professional integrity. Here, let's see if we can help.
> 
> Let's suppose that you were a biologist and were offered a chance to work in behalf of Phillip Morris companies. Your Job was to defend their claim that cigarette smoking was not harmful to peoples health. Let's further propose that as part of your employment, you had to sign an agreement that any results of your work that were in conflict with the opinions of Phillip Morris could not be disclosed.
> 
> Would that make you a shill for Phillip Morris? Would that make you a hack?
> 
> Of course it would. That scenario precisely describes the ID /  creationist hacks who sign such agreements as required by the ICR for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen troll,I am a biologist ,my degree confirms this not to mention the job I held for 11 years,and if would have bothered to read up on Lane Lester you would have seen he was to. Hollie what is your education so we can see if you possess the credntials to cretique myself and Lane Lester.
Click to expand...

Oh my. It's the angry fundie persona. How cute.

Flipping hamburgers at McDonalds hardly qualifies you as a biologist. 

Lane Lester is just one more hack who has discarded any pretence of objectivity or integrity by being a propaganda mouthpiece for the fundie creationist cabal. 

Your silly avoidance tactic relative to my scenario above was not surprising. Like Lester and the other hacks whose works aren't published in peer reviewed science publications, they have earned a reputation as dishonest and lacking integrity for a predefined bias.

You Christian creationist hacks are a joke in the science community. 

I'll take fries with that order.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand what an opinion is ? and what conjecture is ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. How is it you cannot resolve the difference between reality and supernaturalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie if you did you could see conjecture ans vivid imaginations is what holds your theories that you attempt to defebnd  together.
Click to expand...


There is a reason why the science and the educational community has unequivocally rejected Christian creationism as science and the courts have done similarly.

I can understand that you feel a need to force your beliefs in fear and superstition on the public but you're on the losing end of reality in doing so. 

Go thump your bibles elsewhere.


----------



## AnonymousIV

It's a belief system, it's real to us, because of our perception.   As far as proving there is a God,  the tests we run to see if that is correct, is through our feelings, and karma, and being good to others.  And we test this to our limits and we find truth.   It's kinda like looking into a microscope.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. You don't understand the concept of professional integrity. Here, let's see if we can help.
> 
> Let's suppose that you were a biologist and were offered a chance to work in behalf of Phillip Morris companies. Your Job was to defend their claim that cigarette smoking was not harmful to peoples health. Let's further propose that as part of your employment, you had to sign an agreement that any results of your work that were in conflict with the opinions of Phillip Morris could not be disclosed.
> 
> Would that make you a shill for Phillip Morris? Would that make you a hack?
> 
> Of course it would. That scenario precisely describes the ID /  creationist hacks who sign such agreements as required by the ICR for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen troll,I am a biologist ,my degree confirms this not to mention the job I held for 11 years,and if would have bothered to read up on Lane Lester you would have seen he was to. Hollie what is your education so we can see if you possess the credntials to cretique myself and Lane Lester.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my. It's the angry fundie persona. How cute.
> 
> Flipping hamburgers at McDonalds hardly qualifies you as a biologist.
> 
> Lane Lester is just one more hack who has discarded any pretence of objectivity or integrity by being a propaganda mouthpiece for the fundie creationist cabal.
> 
> Your silly avoidance tactic relative to my scenario above was not surprising. Like Lester and the other hacks whose works aren't published in peer reviewed science publications, they have earned a reputation as dishonest and lacking integrity for a predefined bias.
> 
> You Christian creationist hacks are a joke in the science community.
> 
> I'll take fries with that order.
Click to expand...


I am no longer in the lab, i am now in the precious metals business. Semi retired laughing all the way to the bank tacobell hostess.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. How is it you cannot resolve the difference between reality and supernaturalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie if you did you could see conjecture ans vivid imaginations is what holds your theories that you attempt to defebnd  together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a reason why the science and the educational community has unequivocally rejected Christian creationism as science and the courts have done similarly.
> 
> I can understand that you feel a need to force your beliefs in fear and superstition on the public but you're on the losing end of reality in doing so.
> 
> Go thump your bibles elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Yes ,because they have been brainwashed since they were very young with this nonsense.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen troll,I am a biologist ,my degree confirms this not to mention the job I held for 11 years,and if would have bothered to read up on Lane Lester you would have seen he was to. Hollie what is your education so we can see if you possess the credntials to cretique myself and Lane Lester.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. It's the angry fundie persona. How cute.
> 
> Flipping hamburgers at McDonalds hardly qualifies you as a biologist.
> 
> Lane Lester is just one more hack who has discarded any pretence of objectivity or integrity by being a propaganda mouthpiece for the fundie creationist cabal.
> 
> Your silly avoidance tactic relative to my scenario above was not surprising. Like Lester and the other hacks whose works aren't published in peer reviewed science publications, they have earned a reputation as dishonest and lacking integrity for a predefined bias.
> 
> You Christian creationist hacks are a joke in the science community.
> 
> I'll take fries with that order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am no longer in the lab, i am now in the precious metals business. Semi retired laughing all the way to the bank tacobell hostess.
Click to expand...


Of course you are. And beside working in the precious metals business, you also fancy yourself as Napoleon Bonaparte.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie if you did you could see conjecture ans vivid imaginations is what holds your theories that you attempt to defebnd  together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason why the science and the educational community has unequivocally rejected Christian creationism as science and the courts have done similarly.
> 
> I can understand that you feel a need to force your beliefs in fear and superstition on the public but you're on the losing end of reality in doing so.
> 
> Go thump your bibles elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes ,because they have been brainwashed since they were very young with this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Such is the standard arrogant piffle spewed by fundie zealots who think a haphazardly assembled book of factual errors and misstatements is the only book anyone has to read.  

Living in trembling fear of skygods and believing in ancient superstitions is not for everyone, of course.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. You don't understand the concept of professional integrity. Here, let's see if we can help.
> 
> Let's suppose that you were a biologist and were offered a chance to work in behalf of Phillip Morris companies. Your Job was to defend their claim that cigarette smoking was not harmful to peoples health. Let's further propose that as part of your employment, you had to sign an agreement that any results of your work that were in conflict with the opinions of Phillip Morris could not be disclosed.
> 
> Would that make you a shill for Phillip Morris? Would that make you a hack?
> 
> Of course it would. That scenario precisely describes the ID /  creationist hacks who sign such agreements as required by the ICR for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen troll,I am a biologist ,my degree confirms this not to mention the job I held for 11 years,and if would have bothered to read up on Lane Lester you would have seen he was to. Hollie what is your education so we can see if you possess the credntials to cretique myself and Lane Lester.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my. It's the angry fundie persona. How cute.
> 
> Flipping hamburgers at McDonalds hardly qualifies you as a biologist.
> 
> Lane Lester is just one more hack who has discarded any pretence of objectivity or integrity by being a propaganda mouthpiece for the fundie creationist cabal.
> 
> Your silly avoidance tactic relative to my scenario above was not surprising. Like Lester and the other hacks whose works aren't published in peer reviewed science publications, they have earned a reputation as dishonest and lacking integrity for a predefined bias.
> 
> You Christian creationist hacks are a joke in the science community.
> 
> I'll take fries with that order.
Click to expand...


And yet you ignore his question about your credentials. I'm looking around wondering if anyone else is seeing how dishonest and ALWAYS evasive you are. 

No one even knows if you are a man or woman, and you never confirmed nor denied whether or not you were raised in a Christian home. Instead, you just make up lies about others who have shared about their personal positions on here. Please tell me you don't think for one second any of us are falling for your nonsense.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. How is it you cannot resolve the difference between reality and supernaturalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie if you did you could see conjecture ans vivid imaginations is what holds your theories that you attempt to defebnd  together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a reason why the science and the educational community has unequivocally rejected Christian creationism as science and the courts have done similarly.
> 
> I can understand that you feel a need to force your beliefs in fear and superstition on the public but you're on the losing end of reality in doing so.
> 
> Go thump your bibles elsewhere.
Click to expand...


This is one of the silliest posts yet and shows your complete utter lack of knowledge or willful denial of history. Creationism was taught as status quo for many years in this country until Darwinian brainwashing began to creep in. If anything, it is Darwinists who have forced their beliefs and lies on the public.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason why the science and the educational community has unequivocally rejected Christian creationism as science and the courts have done similarly.
> 
> I can understand that you feel a need to force your beliefs in fear and superstition on the public but you're on the losing end of reality in doing so.
> 
> Go thump your bibles elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes ,because they have been brainwashed since they were very young with this nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such is the standard arrogant piffle spewed by fundie zealots who think a haphazardly assembled book of factual errors and misstatements is the only book anyone has to read.
> 
> Living in trembling fear of skygods and believing in ancient superstitions is not for everyone, of course.
Click to expand...


This is not a recording. I repeat, this is not a recording. I am a robot. I am a robot.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes ,because they have been brainwashed since they were very young with this nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the standard arrogant piffle spewed by fundie zealots who think a haphazardly assembled book of factual errors and misstatements is the only book anyone has to read.
> 
> Living in trembling fear of skygods and believing in ancient superstitions is not for everyone, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a recording. I repeat, this is not a recording. I am a robot. I am a robot.
Click to expand...


More of the mindless babble that characterizes your posts.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie if you did you could see conjecture ans vivid imaginations is what holds your theories that you attempt to defebnd  together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason why the science and the educational community has unequivocally rejected Christian creationism as science and the courts have done similarly.
> 
> I can understand that you feel a need to force your beliefs in fear and superstition on the public but you're on the losing end of reality in doing so.
> 
> Go thump your bibles elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is one of the silliest posts yet and shows your complete utter lack of knowledge or willful denial of history. Creationism was taught as status quo for many years in this country until Darwinian brainwashing began to creep in. If anything, it is Darwinists who have forced their beliefs and lies on the public.
Click to expand...

Creationism was taught for many years due to ignorance of the natural world. 

There is no reason to promote the ignorance of fear and superstition that defines creationism.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen troll,I am a biologist ,my degree confirms this not to mention the job I held for 11 years,and if would have bothered to read up on Lane Lester you would have seen he was to. Hollie what is your education so we can see if you possess the credntials to cretique myself and Lane Lester.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. It's the angry fundie persona. How cute.
> 
> Flipping hamburgers at McDonalds hardly qualifies you as a biologist.
> 
> Lane Lester is just one more hack who has discarded any pretence of objectivity or integrity by being a propaganda mouthpiece for the fundie creationist cabal.
> 
> Your silly avoidance tactic relative to my scenario above was not surprising. Like Lester and the other hacks whose works aren't published in peer reviewed science publications, they have earned a reputation as dishonest and lacking integrity for a predefined bias.
> 
> You Christian creationist hacks are a joke in the science community.
> 
> I'll take fries with that order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you ignore his question about your credentials. I'm looking around wondering if anyone else is seeing how dishonest and ALWAYS evasive you are.
> 
> No one even knows if you are a man or woman, and you never confirmed nor denied whether or not you were raised in a Christian home. Instead, you just make up lies about others who have shared about their personal positions on here. Please tell me you don't think for one second any of us are falling for your nonsense.
Click to expand...

And still you attempt to avoid addressing issues that speak directly to the lack of integrity and honesty of fundie Christians. It really is a shame that you believe lies and falsehoods are an acceptable method of promoting the fear and superstition you would force on others.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie if you did you could see conjecture ans vivid imaginations is what holds your theories that you attempt to defebnd  together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason why the science and the educational community has unequivocally rejected Christian creationism as science and the courts have done similarly.
> 
> I can understand that you feel a need to force your beliefs in fear and superstition on the public but you're on the losing end of reality in doing so.
> 
> Go thump your bibles elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is one of the silliest posts yet and shows your complete utter lack of knowledge or willful denial of history. Creationism was taught as status quo for many years in this country until Darwinian brainwashing began to creep in. If anything, it is Darwinists who have forced their beliefs and lies on the public.
Click to expand...

What I find remarkable about this outrageously ignorant and retrograde idea is that Christian creationism being the status quo also taught that the earth was the center of the universe, that the gods made thunder and lightning and that burning people at the stake was a way to excise the devil.

If Christian fundies had their way, we would still be living in the Dark Ages.

For many generations in many cultures, models of existence were flagrantly superstitious and anthropocentric as they still are in the world of the Christian fundie. But despite that, humanity survives and flourishes. Now at some point, a few hundred years ago, it becomes apparent to a few of the best model builders that certain kinds of superstitions and subjective habits were obstructing the development of more useful models. The Scientific Method was born as a tool for generating more reliable models of the world around us. Occasionally, a new scientific theory would conflict so strongly with an older model, that the scientist was persecuted and forced to recant. Despite this kind of sporadic resistance, the scientific model gradually took a position of dominance in most cultures, and today is held as the best method for use as a practical application for separating science fact from superstitious religious fiction. Unfortunately, superstition, bigotry, and subjective distortions of all sort still dominate the everyday lives of the fundie Christian zealot. Our present collective model of the physical world has served us well, but there are still many mysteries to solve. If our current model is simply allowed to evolve through rational, scientific methods, we will be able to perfect the model and allow rationality and reason to supplant Christian fundie ignorance. If the forces of superstition and bigotry are allowed to take control, we could slip back into a dark age from which we might never again emerge.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. It's the angry fundie persona. How cute.
> 
> Flipping hamburgers at McDonalds hardly qualifies you as a biologist.
> 
> Lane Lester is just one more hack who has discarded any pretence of objectivity or integrity by being a propaganda mouthpiece for the fundie creationist cabal.
> 
> Your silly avoidance tactic relative to my scenario above was not surprising. Like Lester and the other hacks whose works aren't published in peer reviewed science publications, they have earned a reputation as dishonest and lacking integrity for a predefined bias.
> 
> You Christian creationist hacks are a joke in the science community.
> 
> I'll take fries with that order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you ignore his question about your credentials. I'm looking around wondering if anyone else is seeing how dishonest and ALWAYS evasive you are.
> 
> No one even knows if you are a man or woman, and you never confirmed nor denied whether or not you were raised in a Christian home. Instead, you just make up lies about others who have shared about their personal positions on here. Please tell me you don't think for one second any of us are falling for your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And still you attempt to avoid addressing issues that speak directly to the lack of integrity and honesty of fundie Christians. It really is a shame that you believe lies and falsehoods are an acceptable method of promoting the fear and superstition you would force on others.
Click to expand...


And still you dodge the questions!! What is your background? Were you raised in a Christian home? Are you girl Holly or male Rugged Touch?

By the way, your silence on these questions speaks volumes.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason why the science and the educational community has unequivocally rejected Christian creationism as science and the courts have done similarly.
> 
> I can understand that you feel a need to force your beliefs in fear and superstition on the public but you're on the losing end of reality in doing so.
> 
> Go thump your bibles elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the silliest posts yet and shows your complete utter lack of knowledge or willful denial of history. Creationism was taught as status quo for many years in this country until Darwinian brainwashing began to creep in. If anything, it is Darwinists who have forced their beliefs and lies on the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find remarkable about this outrageously ignorant and retrograde idea is that Christian creationism being the status quo also taught that the earth was the center of the universe, that the gods made thunder and lightning and that burning people at the stake was a way to excise the devil.
Click to expand...


Speaking of lack of integrity! This is a total, manufactured *LIE*! While some people claiming to be Christians my have promoted these beliefs or engaged in these activities, Christianity, and the Bible specifically, teach none of this. 

Also, it is funny you accuse people of lacking integrity when you are obviously the biggest LIAR here. Do you think misrepresenting who you are on the internet is telling the truth? You have represented yourself as a man and a woman so it is you that lack integrity. Even when asked, you won't answer. Your evasiveness is more evidence of your dishonesty.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the silliest posts yet and shows your complete utter lack of knowledge or willful denial of history. Creationism was taught as status quo for many years in this country until Darwinian brainwashing began to creep in. If anything, it is Darwinists who have forced their beliefs and lies on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> What I find remarkable about this outrageously ignorant and retrograde idea is that Christian creationism being the status quo also taught that the earth was the center of the universe, that the gods made thunder and lightning and that burning people at the stake was a way to excise the devil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of lack of integrity! This is a total, manufactured *LIE*! While some people claiming to be Christians my have promoted these beliefs or engaged in these activities, Christianity, and the Bible specifically, teach none of this.
> 
> Also, it is funny you accuse people of lacking integrity when you are obviously the biggest LIAR here. Do you think misrepresenting who you are on the internet is telling the truth? You have represented yourself as a man and a woman so it is you that lack integrity. Even when asked, you won't answer. Your evasiveness is more evidence of your dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Your comments are stereotypical of the angry Christian fundie. You're unable to be honest regarding Christian history and just how derelict your arguments have become in the promotion of lies and deceit you cut and paste from creationist ministries. 

Your only avenue left is childish attempts at insult. I'm not at all concerned with your goofy name-calling. You are the one who should be concerned. You make yourself look like quite the angry evangelical crackpot.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find remarkable about this outrageously ignorant and retrograde idea is that Christian creationism being the status quo also taught that the earth was the center of the universe, that the gods made thunder and lightning and that burning people at the stake was a way to excise the devil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of lack of integrity! This is a total, manufactured *LIE*! While some people claiming to be Christians my have promoted these beliefs or engaged in these activities, Christianity, and the Bible specifically, teach none of this.
> 
> Also, it is funny you accuse people of lacking integrity when you are obviously the biggest LIAR here. Do you think misrepresenting who you are on the internet is telling the truth? You have represented yourself as a man and a woman so it is you that lack integrity. Even when asked, you won't answer. Your evasiveness is more evidence of your dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comments are stereotypical of the angry Christian fundie. You're unable to be honest regarding Christian history and just how derelict your arguments have become in the promotion of lies and deceit you cut and paste from creationist ministries.
> 
> Your only avenue left is childish attempts at insult. I'm not at all concerned with your goofy name-calling. You are the one who should be concerned. You make yourself look like quite the angry evangelical crackpot.
Click to expand...


Still no answers from you. No insults. Just stating the obvious.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of lack of integrity! This is a total, manufactured *LIE*! While some people claiming to be Christians my have promoted these beliefs or engaged in these activities, Christianity, and the Bible specifically, teach none of this.
> 
> Also, it is funny you accuse people of lacking integrity when you are obviously the biggest LIAR here. Do you think misrepresenting who you are on the internet is telling the truth? You have represented yourself as a man and a woman so it is you that lack integrity. Even when asked, you won't answer. Your evasiveness is more evidence of your dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments are stereotypical of the angry Christian fundie. You're unable to be honest regarding Christian history and just how derelict your arguments have become in the promotion of lies and deceit you cut and paste from creationist ministries.
> 
> Your only avenue left is childish attempts at insult. I'm not at all concerned with your goofy name-calling. You are the one who should be concerned. You make yourself look like quite the angry evangelical crackpot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no answers from you. No insults. Just stating the obvious.
Click to expand...


Stop whining. 

Your refusal to address posts in direct response to your silly comments is available for anyone to see.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments are stereotypical of the angry Christian fundie. You're unable to be honest regarding Christian history and just how derelict your arguments have become in the promotion of lies and deceit you cut and paste from creationist ministries.
> 
> Your only avenue left is childish attempts at insult. I'm not at all concerned with your goofy name-calling. You are the one who should be concerned. You make yourself look like quite the angry evangelical crackpot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no answers from you. No insults. Just stating the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop whining.
> 
> Your refusal to address posts in direct response to your silly comments is available for anyone to see.
Click to expand...


Still you are evasive. Are you Hollie or the man Rugged Touch? Were you raised in a Christian home? These are simple questions, that don't really require an attack paragraph on some other topic.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no answers from you. No insults. Just stating the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop whining.
> 
> Your refusal to address posts in direct response to your silly comments is available for anyone to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still you are evasive. Are you Hollie or the man Rugged Touch? Were you raised in a Christian home? These are simple questions, that don't really require an attack paragraph on some other topic.
Click to expand...


Male or female, the person  must not possess any credentials worth mentioning,but she has us figured out,sarcasm !


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop whining.
> 
> Your refusal to address posts in direct response to your silly comments is available for anyone to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still you are evasive. Are you Hollie or the man Rugged Touch? Were you raised in a Christian home? These are simple questions, that don't really require an attack paragraph on some other topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Male or female, the person  must not possess any credentials worth mentioning,but she has us figured out,sarcasm !
Click to expand...


The thread should be retitleded When Fundies Attack. Ive noticed that when fundies sacred cows are challenged, they get defensive and worse, resort to childish tactics of avoidance and name-calling.

None of these tenets are unique to Christianity of course, but it's this sort of behavoir that sets the whole ball rolling -- if the stories in the bible are exaggerations, then how do you define what is to be accepted and what is to be rejected? Did Jesus rise from the dead? If yes, why is that an acceptable story but, oh, let's say, the parting of the red sea is an exaggeration? If not, then why the belief in Christianity at all, when any other religion would do, and in fact non-religious moral codes would works as well? Did god talk to Noah and Moses? Is that an exaggeration? If no, then why does one accept anything from a book that tells such tall tales, and if yes, isn't it just as possible then that he told Jim Jones to kill his followers?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no answers from you. No insults. Just stating the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop whining.
> 
> Your refusal to address posts in direct response to your silly comments is available for anyone to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still you are evasive. Are you Hollie or the man Rugged Touch? Were you raised in a Christian home? These are simple questions, that don't really require an attack paragraph on some other topic.
Click to expand...


Still you are evasive. Are you posting with a second account as Youwerecreated?

I should advise you that doing so is against the board rules.

Otherwise, why are so afraid to answer direct questions about christianity and the inability of folks like you and your alternate identity to come to tems with religion (under the guise of ID), not being taught in schools?

You made the outrageously stupid comment that "Christian creationism was the status quo" for some length of time with the implication that we should then continue to teach tales, fables and superstitious nonsense as fact. 

You have been dodging and sidstepping from addressing my response in typical fundie fashion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still you are evasive. Are you Hollie or the man Rugged Touch? Were you raised in a Christian home? These are simple questions, that don't really require an attack paragraph on some other topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Male or female, the person  must not possess any credentials worth mentioning,but she has us figured out,sarcasm !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thread should be retitleded When Fundies Attack. Ive noticed that when fundies sacred cows are challenged, they get defensive and worse, resort to childish tactics of avoidance and name-calling.
> 
> None of these tenets are unique to Christianity of course, but it's this sort of behavoir that sets the whole ball rolling -- if the stories in the bible are exaggerations, then how do you define what is to be accepted and what is to be rejected? Did Jesus rise from the dead? If yes, why is that an acceptable story but, oh, let's say, the parting of the red sea is an exaggeration? If not, then why the belief in Christianity at all, when any other religion would do, and in fact non-religious moral codes would works as well? Did god talk to Noah and Moses? Is that an exaggeration? If no, then why does one accept anything from a book that tells such tall tales, and if yes, isn't it just as possible then that he told Jim Jones to kill his followers?
Click to expand...


No you repeatedly ignore questions put to you that is not an attack that is a fact. Do you always stereotype people because the actions of a few ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop whining.
> 
> Your refusal to address posts in direct response to your silly comments is available for anyone to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still you are evasive. Are you Hollie or the man Rugged Touch? Were you raised in a Christian home? These are simple questions, that don't really require an attack paragraph on some other topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still you are evasive. Are you posting with a second account as Youwerecreated?
> 
> I should advise you that doing so is against the board rules.
> 
> Otherwise, why are so afraid to answer direct questions about christianity and the inability of folks like you and your alternate identity to come to tems with religion (under the guise of ID), not being taught in schools?
> 
> You made the outrageously stupid comment that "Christian creationism was the status quo" for some length of time with the implication that we should then continue to teach tales, fables and superstitious nonsense as fact.
> 
> You have been dodging and sidstepping from addressing my response in typical fundie fashion.
Click to expand...


Let me explain something to you that I have in the past. The reason you see so many diferent views on the same evidence ,men of science all of them are affected by their presuppositions that is human nature. The question is which presuppositions are best supported by the evidence.

We are limited by what we know and can learn because no one was there to see exactly how it was done. No one was there to see how the universe was formed or life began. That said for me personally I have seen enough evidence to believe this didn't all happen by chance. For me someone had to design and put things into motion.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Male or female, the person  must not possess any credentials worth mentioning,but she has us figured out,sarcasm !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread should be retitleded When Fundies Attack. Ive noticed that when fundies sacred cows are challenged, they get defensive and worse, resort to childish tactics of avoidance and name-calling.
> 
> None of these tenets are unique to Christianity of course, but it's this sort of behavoir that sets the whole ball rolling -- if the stories in the bible are exaggerations, then how do you define what is to be accepted and what is to be rejected? Did Jesus rise from the dead? If yes, why is that an acceptable story but, oh, let's say, the parting of the red sea is an exaggeration? If not, then why the belief in Christianity at all, when any other religion would do, and in fact non-religious moral codes would works as well? Did god talk to Noah and Moses? Is that an exaggeration? If no, then why does one accept anything from a book that tells such tall tales, and if yes, isn't it just as possible then that he told Jim Jones to kill his followers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you repeatedly ignore questions put to you that is not an attack that is a fact. Do you always stereotype people because the actions of a few ?
Click to expand...

It's not surprising that you would accuse others of not addressing issues as you and the other fundie have done that consistently. It's quite clear that without the benefit of cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites, you have no ability to respond with a meaningful comment. I have several posts just within the last several pages of this thread which you and the other fundie have made every effort to sidestep and avoid.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still you are evasive. Are you Hollie or the man Rugged Touch? Were you raised in a Christian home? These are simple questions, that don't really require an attack paragraph on some other topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still you are evasive. Are you posting with a second account as Youwerecreated?
> 
> I should advise you that doing so is against the board rules.
> 
> Otherwise, why are so afraid to answer direct questions about christianity and the inability of folks like you and your alternate identity to come to tems with religion (under the guise of ID), not being taught in schools?
> 
> You made the outrageously stupid comment that "Christian creationism was the status quo" for some length of time with the implication that we should then continue to teach tales, fables and superstitious nonsense as fact.
> 
> You have been dodging and sidstepping from addressing my response in typical fundie fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain something to you that I have in the past. The reason you see so many diferent views on the same evidence ,men of science all of them are affected by their presuppositions that is human nature. The question is which presuppositions are best supported by the evidence.
> 
> We are limited by what we know and can learn because no one was there to see exactly how it was done. No one was there to see how the universe was formed or life began. That said for me personally I have seen enough evidence to believe this didn't all happen by chance. For me someone had to design and put things into motion.
Click to expand...


You shouldn't think for a minute that your disgust for and ignorance regarding science is shared by anyone but the religiously addled, fundie religious crowd. There is no doubt among the relevant science community about the efficacy of evolution and the realities of the natural world. The fears and superstitions you embrace are your own maladjusted personality flaws to address. You shouldn't think that the science community is going to be cowed by those fears and superstitions.


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think you are a secret follower of huran yahan. How do you reconcile your faith in islam with your evolutionary views?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're uncomfortable with the truth. You should be. The creationist agenda is drenched in lies and deceit.
> 
> You won't address the above because you can't. To expect you to understand such terms as truth, integrity and honesty is contrary to the christian creationist agenda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but not contrary to your islamic faith?
Click to expand...

dumb question as they both believe in the same god... (the god of abraham)


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> more cutting and pasting from your fundie evo priest will provine's website.
> 
> 
> 
> so? Can you prove it false?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> prove what? You would be under the mistaken impression i was actually reading any of holly's gargantuan cut and pastes. What's the point? She can't carry on a logical argument anyway. Just keeps repeating icr and huran yahan over and over. I'm done wasting my time reading anymore than a few lines of her mad ravings.
Click to expand...

dodge!!!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> the toe is pseudo science based on your materialist secular humanist religion. You spend all your time cutting and pasting from iheu websites and never stop long enough to actually do any critical thinking.
> 
> You cut and paste false quotes from your religious leaders like dawkins and lawrence krauss. If your good with "may haves" and "might haves", and nice little stories about how giraffe necks are longer because they could only eat high fruit, supporting your supposed fact, then by all means continue to support your myth. But don't pretend that the outrageous claims of the toe are backed by any real science. News flash for you: Darwin's tree of life has been dis-proven by modern genetics and the embryo drawings were fakes. However, since darwinism is religion for you, none of this should matter. Continue to go ahead and cling to your religion even no there is no proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> false ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.
Click to expand...

True  in the sense that you're going bat shit!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> evolutionists can't even agree on a method to test fitness or even a common definition for it. If natural selection is based on an organism's fitness, how can we do experiments to determine if natural selection has occurred if we can't even test for it???
> 
> 
> 
> how can we do tests for god when there is no evidence at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying religion should be held to the same standard as science? MMMBah ha haha.
Click to expand...

yes !are you afraid  that  you're wrong?
since religion is consumed by people it should be tested for validity.


----------



## daws101

AnonymousIV said:


> View attachment 20439  I don't want my decedents to live in a world that's cold and dark.  I hope America never looks like the pix.


(snicker)
that pic shows a world of clean tech!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The spirit that created all was perfect so was the creation. Sin brought for death and entropy to all.
> 
> We age and die,we are not being prefected.
> 
> 
> 
> more fact ,less sky god stories!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is man being perfected with the genetic disorders due to mutations are rising in numbers ?
Click to expand...

another bullshit statement, humans (not just men,) were never perfect. I understand that your fairy says different, but as always you have no evidence proving your "believed" claim.
2. there is no credible proof that genetic disorders are on the rise..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I despise pseudoscience which is what many theories you believe are based on.
> 
> 
> 
> hummmm. then logic would dictate that you must hate your own "theories" for the very same reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I only believe what I can safely infer from the evidence. I can safely say all that we can see,touch,and feel,was the result of design. Not by chance,not by evolution.
> 
> Life produces life.nonliving matter cannot turn into living organisms.
Click to expand...

more bullshit.
what you claim as evidence is not evidence..your belief is not quantifiable so by definition your inference is erroneous ,
as to so called safety it's a lie you tell yourself to justify your lack of real proof
as is your never ending dumbfuckery and demagoguery about design...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one can put God to the test and I would strongly recommend you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> ALL READY HAVE...BEEN THERE DONE THAT....One day maybe you'll grow out of your fear and ignorance...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe he is saving you for something special. Why would you do that if he does not exist ?
Click to expand...

lol.....what an asshole you really are as ignorant as you seem.
 everyone (even you) understands the concept of god.
most people have it spoon fed to them.. 
the point is that concepts are not allways real ,any reasonably intelligent, curious  human will at one time or another test a concept for validity.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop whining.
> 
> Your refusal to address posts in direct response to your silly comments is available for anyone to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still you are evasive. Are you Hollie or the man Rugged Touch? Were you raised in a Christian home? These are simple questions, that don't really require an attack paragraph on some other topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still you are evasive. Are you posting with a second account as Youwerecreated?
> 
> I should advise you that doing so is against the board rules.
> 
> Otherwise, why are so afraid to answer direct questions about christianity and the inability of folks like you and your alternate identity to come to tems with religion (under the guise of ID), not being taught in schools?
> 
> You made the outrageously stupid comment that "Christian creationism was the status quo" for some length of time with the implication that we should then continue to teach tales, fables and superstitious nonsense as fact.
> 
> You have been dodging and sidstepping from addressing my response in typical fundie fashion.
Click to expand...


Why are you so afraid to set the record straight and stop the lies. Why won't you come clean about posting as a man and a woman?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or all your cut and pastes from the IHEU...
> 
> kind to subdivide into the vast array we now see.
> 
> Genetics: No Friend of Evolution - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Here you can learn more about the man and see if you are educated enough to slander the man.
> 
> Lane Lester - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> 
> 
> edited for religious bias, pseudo science and lack of testable evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread should be retitleded When Fundies Attack. Ive noticed that when fundies sacred cows are challenged, they get defensive and worse, resort to childish tactics of avoidance and name-calling.
> 
> None of these tenets are unique to Christianity of course, but it's this sort of behavoir that sets the whole ball rolling -- if the stories in the bible are exaggerations, then how do you define what is to be accepted and what is to be rejected? Did Jesus rise from the dead? If yes, why is that an acceptable story but, oh, let's say, the parting of the red sea is an exaggeration? If not, then why the belief in Christianity at all, when any other religion would do, and in fact non-religious moral codes would works as well? Did god talk to Noah and Moses? Is that an exaggeration? If no, then why does one accept anything from a book that tells such tall tales, and if yes, isn't it just as possible then that he told Jim Jones to kill his followers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you repeatedly ignore questions put to you that is not an attack that is a fact. Do you always stereotype people because the actions of a few ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not surprising that you would accuse others of not addressing issues as you and the other fundie have done that consistently. It's quite clear that without the benefit of cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites, you have no ability to respond with a meaningful comment. I have several posts just within the last several pages of this thread which you and the other fundie have made every effort to sidestep and avoid.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is man being perfected with the genetic disorders due to mutations are rising in numbers ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are your gawds such incompetent "designers" that they would build planned obsolescence into their "designs"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have already gave you my opinion on this issue.
Click to expand...

oh, so now it an opinion not fact !


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True  in the sense that you're going bat shit!
Click to expand...


Daws, you need to catch up buddy. All of these posts you are commenting on was me being "Hollie for a day" to show how utterly frustrating her methods are. They weren't really meant to be taken seriously by you but if you want to, go right ahead.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how can we do tests for god when there is no evidence at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying religion should be held to the same standard as science? MMMBah ha haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes !are you afraid  that  you're wrong?
> since religion is consumed by people it should be tested for validity.
Click to expand...


How can you test something that is supernatural??

[For the rest of the observers, this is just me turning Hollie and Daws own words back on them]


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh,I knew you couldn't nor would you attempt to point out his ignorance. I knew you would turn to your usual dribble,insulting someone educated to the point you can't take on the issues he raises.
> 
> He is a man of science and yet you still have a problem with him,why Hollie ? It isn't about science is it Hollie,it's because he is a believer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. You don't understand the concept of professional integrity. Here, let's see if we can help.
> 
> Let's suppose that you were a biologist and were offered a chance to work in behalf of Phillip Morris companies. Your Job was to defend their claim that cigarette smoking was not harmful to peoples health. Let's further propose that as part of your employment, you had to sign an agreement that any results of your work that were in conflict with the opinions of Phillip Morris could not be disclosed.
> 
> Would that make you a shill for Phillip Morris? Would that make you a hack?
> 
> Of course it would. That scenario precisely describes the ID /  creationist hacks who sign such agreements as required by the ICR for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen troll,I am a biologist ,my degree confirms this not to mention the job I held for 11 years,and if you would have bothered to read up on Lane Lester you would have seen he was a biologist to. Hollie what is your education so we can see if you possess the credntials to cretique myself and Lane Lester.
Click to expand...

getting pissy are we...
sorry but holding a degree in biology does not in and of itself make you a biologist.
as I recall you were a lab assistant.
that's like a janitor saying he's Washington insider because he cleans the toilets. 
you over estimate your own education and intelligence to the point of farce .


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> 
> True  in the sense that you're going bat shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, you need to catch up buddy. All of these posts you are commenting on was me being "Hollie for a day" to show how utterly frustrating her methods are. They weren't really meant to be taken seriously by you but if you want to, go right ahead.
Click to expand...


Your spamming the thread was nothing more than an inability to compose s coherent comment. 

I don't know why its so difficult for fundie to be honest.


----------



## daws101

AnonymousIV said:


> It's a belief system, it's real to us, because of our perception.   As far as proving there is a God,  the tests we run to see if that is correct, is through our feelings, and karma, and being good to others.  And we test this to our limits and we find truth.   It's kinda like looking into a microscope.


and it's bullshit


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying religion should be held to the same standard as science? MMMBah ha haha.
> 
> 
> 
> yes !are you afraid  that  you're wrong?
> since religion is consumed by people it should be tested for validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you test something that is supernatural??
> 
> [For the rest of the observers, this is just me turning Hollie and Daws own words back on them]
Click to expand...


There is nothing supernatural about the natural world. Science cannot test for supernatural, supermagical gods. 

For the rest of the observers, note how the fundies are adept at dismantling their own arguments.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you repeatedly ignore questions put to you that is not an attack that is a fact. Do you always stereotype people because the actions of a few ?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not surprising that you would accuse others of not addressing issues as you and the other fundie have done that consistently. It's quite clear that without the benefit of cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites, you have no ability to respond with a meaningful comment. I have several posts just within the last several pages of this thread which you and the other fundie have made every effort to sidestep and avoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Your responses are best when they consist of you not trying to compose coherent sentences.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie if you did you could see conjecture ans vivid imaginations is what holds your theories that you attempt to defebnd  together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason why the science and the educational community has unequivocally rejected Christian creationism as science and the courts have done similarly.
> 
> I can understand that you feel a need to force your beliefs in fear and superstition on the public but you're on the losing end of reality in doing so.
> 
> Go thump your bibles elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes ,because they have been brainwashed since they were very young with this nonsense.
Click to expand...

funny the same can be said about the crap you spew and it would be backed by evidence. 

Is religion bad for your health?Is religion bad for your health? 
Published on September 15, 2009 by Clay Routledge, Ph.D. in Death Love Sex Magic 


In my last post, I considered the numerous ways that religion may be advantageous for psychological and physical health. This poses the question: Is it possible for religion to be bad for your health? The short answer is yes. Religion can compromise your health. Let us consider how.

Religion can be distressing

Everyone knows that stress and anxiety can compromise health and well-being. Perhaps ironically, religion, which can help reduce anxiety, can also cause it. The reason is that many (but certainly not all) religious beliefs are at odds with scientific knowledge. For example, if a person strongly desires to believe the traditional Biblical view that God created humans in their present form but is confronted with an increasing amount of evidence that another perspective (evolution) is more accurate, this individual may be distressed.
!
     A rich tradition of research in cognitive dissonance theory indicates that people are distressed by these types of situations and go to great lengths to resolve them in some way. This explains what appears to be a thriving pseudo-scientific industry of creationist-based theories that seek to challenge, dismiss, or reinterpret the overwhelming amount of converging data that exclusively supports an evolutionary perspective. In short, when beliefs are at odds with facts, but people strongly desire to maintain those beliefs, the result is often negative emotion.



Religion can direct people away from conventional medical treatment

Everyone has seen the news stories of people refusing medical treatment for themselves or their children because of religious beliefs. In some of these cases, people deny medical treatment because the treatment is believed to be prohibited by their particular faith. In other cases, people deny medical treatment because they believe that turning to medicine instead of relying on God answering their prayers for healing would show a lack of faith or confidence in God.

Some of my colleagues and I were interested in this particular issue. In a series of experiments, we sought to investigate the extent to which religious fundamentalism played a decisive role in people choosing faith over medicine. The results of these studies were astonishing. We had participants come into the laboratory and complete a number of questionnaires, including a measure of religious fundamentalism. Then we asked some participants to think about their own death (something that is often on one's mind when making health-related decisions), and other participants to think about unpleasant topics unrelated to death. Finally, we assessed whether they favored faith (i.e., prayer) or medical-based treatments for disease. This preference was assessed differently in each study. For example, in one study we had participants read a court case about a sick boy that had been taken away from his parents because they refused life-saving medical intervention for religious reasons. We asked the participants whether or not they supported the position to deny medicine and rely on faith alone. In another study, we asked the participants to what extent they themselves would rely on faith alone when dealing with an illness. The results were always the same. The participants that were asked to think about death, relative to those asked to think about other things, chose faith over medicine, but only if they ranked high in religious fundamentalism.

In short, when death is on your mind, having a very rigid and dogmatic approach to religion (fundamentalism) can be hazardous to your health because it motivates a reliance on faith instead of conventional medicine. It is worth noting that people who are not fundamentalists, but are religious, are more likely to rely on conventional medicine, even if they also rely on prayer. That is, they use both, and using a combination of medicine and faith is not problematic for health as long as the religious component does not push one away from relying on conventional medicine.

Religion can be a form of avoidant coping

Avoidant coping is when people engage in efforts to avoid dealing with an unpleasant situation or simply try to deny that it exists. In the case of illness or disease, obviously, avoidance is bad for your health. As discussed in my last post, religion can be a psychological strength and can thus help people adaptively cope with illness by giving them the courage and strength needed to confront health threats. However, religion can also offer people a way to avoid the problem. That is, people can say things like "It is in God's hands" or "It must have happened for a reason". In other words, if people want to avoid confronting a health problem, they can pass the buck to God and this approach serves as a barrier to maintaining and improving health.

In sum, religion can be good for your health. But it can also threaten your health. To the extent that religion serves to bolster feelings of hope, optimism, self-esteem, belongingness, and meaning, it may be an important psychological resource for many people. It is worth noting that many people do not turn to religion for these psychological and social resources but instead rely on romantic relationships, friendships, social groups, and other meaningful personal and cultural investments. And these secular investments work just as well. However, when religious beliefs are at odds with scientific facts, are extremely dogmatic or inflexible, or provide people a way to avoid taking responsibility for their health, they can be deadly.

Further reading

Vess., M., Arndt, J., Cox, C., Routledge, C., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2009). The terror management of medical decisions: The effect of mortality salience and religious fundamentalism on support for faith-based medical intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 334 -350.

Is religion bad for your health? | Psychology Today

Faith and Foolishness: When Religious Beliefs Become Dangerous
Religious leaders should be held accountable when their irrational ideas turn harmful

By Lawrence M. Krauss

Every two years the National Science Foundation produces a report, Science and Engineering Indicators, designed to probe the public&#8217;s understanding of science concepts. And every two years we relearn the sad fact that U.S. adults are less willing to accept evolution and the big bang as factual than adults in other industrial countries.

Except for this time. Was there suddenly a quantum leap in U.S. science literacy? Sadly, no. Rather the National Science Board, which oversees the foundation, chose to leave the section that discussed these issues out of the 2010 edition, claiming the questions were &#8220;flawed indicators of scientific knowledge because responses conflated knowledge and beliefs.&#8221; In short, if their religious beliefs require respondents to discard scientific facts, the board doesn&#8217;t think it appropriate to expose that truth.

The section does exist, however, and Science magazine obtained it. When presented with the statement &#8220;human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals,&#8221; just 45 percent of respondents indicated &#8220;true.&#8221; Compare this figure with the affirmative percentages in Japan (78), Europe (70), China (69) and South Korea (64). Only 33 percent of Americans agreed that &#8220;the universe began with a big explosion.&#8221;

Consider the results of a 2009 Pew Survey: 31 percent of U.S. adults believe &#8220;humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.&#8221; (So much for dogs, horses or H1N1 flu.) The survey&#8217;s most enlightening aspect was its categorization of responses by levels of religious activity, which suggests that the most devout are on average least willing to accept the evidence of reality. White evangelical Protestants have the highest denial rate (55 percent), closely followed by the group across all religions who attend services on average at least once a week (49 percent).

I don&#8217;t know which is more dangerous, that religious beliefs force some people to choose between knowledge and myth or that pointing out how religion can purvey ignorance is taboo. To do so risks being branded as intolerant of religion. The kindly Dalai Lama, in a recent New York Times editorial, juxtaposed the statement that &#8220;radical atheists issue blanket condemnations of those who hold religious beliefs&#8221; with his censure of the extremist intolerance, murderous actions and religious hatred in the Middle East. Aside from the distinction between questioning beliefs and beheading or bombing people, the &#8220;radical atheists&#8221; in question rarely condemn individuals but rather actions and ideas that deserve to be challenged.

Surprisingly, the strongest reticence to speak out often comes from those who should be most worried about silence. Last May I attended a conference on science and public policy at which a representative of the Vatican&#8217;s Pontifical Academy of Sciences gave a keynote address. When I questioned how he reconciled his own reasonable views about science with the sometimes absurd and unjust activities of the Church&#8212;from false claims about condoms and AIDS in Africa to pedophilia among the clergy&#8212;I was denounced by one speaker after another for my intolerance.

Religious leaders need to be held accountable for their ideas. In my state of Arizona, Sister Margaret McBride, a senior administrator at St. Joseph&#8217;s Hospital in Phoenix, recently authorized a legal abortion to save the life of a 27-year-old mother of four who was 11 weeks pregnant and suffering from severe complications of pulmonary hypertension; she made that decision after consultation with the mother&#8217;s family, her doctors and the local ethics committee. Yet the bishop of Phoenix, Thomas Olm*sted, immediately excommunicated Sister Margaret, saying, &#8220;The mother&#8217;s life cannot be preferred over the child&#8217;s.&#8221; Ordinarily, a man who would callously let a woman die and orphan her children would be called a monster; this should not change just because he is a cleric.

Faith and Foolishness: When Religious Beliefs Become Dangerous: Scientific American

.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. It's the angry fundie persona. How cute.
> 
> Flipping hamburgers at McDonalds hardly qualifies you as a biologist.
> 
> Lane Lester is just one more hack who has discarded any pretence of objectivity or integrity by being a propaganda mouthpiece for the fundie creationist cabal.
> 
> Your silly avoidance tactic relative to my scenario above was not surprising. Like Lester and the other hacks whose works aren't published in peer reviewed science publications, they have earned a reputation as dishonest and lacking integrity for a predefined bias.
> 
> You Christian creationist hacks are a joke in the science community.
> 
> I'll take fries with that order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am no longer in the lab, i am now in the precious metals business. Semi retired laughing all the way to the bank tacobell hostess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you are. And beside working in the precious metals business, you also fancy yourself as Napoleon Bonaparte.
Click to expand...

really? I thought it was Jesus or Elvis (both were kings neither are coming back!)


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen troll,I am a biologist ,my degree confirms this not to mention the job I held for 11 years,and if would have bothered to read up on Lane Lester you would have seen he was to. Hollie what is your education so we can see if you possess the credntials to cretique myself and Lane Lester.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. It's the angry fundie persona. How cute.
> 
> Flipping hamburgers at McDonalds hardly qualifies you as a biologist.
> 
> Lane Lester is just one more hack who has discarded any pretence of objectivity or integrity by being a propaganda mouthpiece for the fundie creationist cabal.
> 
> Your silly avoidance tactic relative to my scenario above was not surprising. Like Lester and the other hacks whose works aren't published in peer reviewed science publications, they have earned a reputation as dishonest and lacking integrity for a predefined bias.
> 
> You Christian creationist hacks are a joke in the science community.
> 
> I'll take fries with that order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you ignore his question about your credentials. I'm looking around wondering if anyone else is seeing how dishonest and ALWAYS evasive you are.
> 
> No one even knows if you are a man or woman, and you never confirmed nor denied whether or not you were raised in a Christian home. Instead, you just make up lies about others who have shared about their personal positions on here. Please tell me you don't think for one second any of us are falling for your nonsense.
Click to expand...

    why does this matter to you:" No one even knows if you are a man or woman, and you never confirmed nor denied whether or not you were raised in a Christian home."UR

you pull this little gem out of each and every time your ass is in a crack .

HOLLIE'S sex /or religious upbringing, like mine ,are not relevant to this conversation.
it's a cheap childish maneuver to bolster your bigotry and it's chicken shit.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still you are evasive. Are you Hollie or the man Rugged Touch? Were you raised in a Christian home? These are simple questions, that don't really require an attack paragraph on some other topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still you are evasive. Are you posting with a second account as Youwerecreated?
> 
> I should advise you that doing so is against the board rules.
> 
> Otherwise, why are so afraid to answer direct questions about christianity and the inability of folks like you and your alternate identity to come to tems with religion (under the guise of ID), not being taught in schools?
> 
> You made the outrageously stupid comment that "Christian creationism was the status quo" for some length of time with the implication that we should then continue to teach tales, fables and superstitious nonsense as fact.
> 
> You have been dodging and sidstepping from addressing my response in typical fundie fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain something to you that I have in the past. The reason you see so many diferent views on the same evidence ,men of science all of them are affected by their presuppositions that is human nature. The question is which presuppositions are best supported by the evidence.
> 
> We are limited by what we know and can learn because no one was there to see exactly how it was done. No one was there to see how the universe was formed or life began. That said for me personally I have seen enough evidence to believe this didn't all happen by chance. For me someone had to design and put things into motion.
Click to expand...

specious speculation no basis in fact!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> 
> True  in the sense that you're going bat shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, you need to catch up buddy. All of these posts you are commenting on was me being "Hollie for a day" to show how utterly frustrating her methods are. They weren't really meant to be taken seriously by you but if you want to, go right ahead.
Click to expand...

right ...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying religion should be held to the same standard as science? MMMBah ha haha.
> 
> 
> 
> yes !are you afraid  that  you're wrong?
> since religion is consumed by people it should be tested for validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you test something that is supernatural??
> 
> [For the rest of the observers, this is just me turning Hollie and Daws own words back on them]
Click to expand...

more relevant, how can you claim that there is a supernatural being /force when there is no evidence?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're uncomfortable with the truth. You should be. The creationist agenda is drenched in lies and deceit.
> 
> You won't address the above because you can't. To expect you to understand such terms as truth, integrity and honesty is contrary to the christian creationist agenda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but not contrary to your islamic faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumb question as they both believe in the same god... (the god of abraham)
Click to expand...


That is true, supposedly but Gods name is not Allah. If they worshipped the same God they would not be mortal enemies.

Who is protecting Israel ? they are surrounded by their enemies.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how can we do tests for god when there is no evidence at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying religion should be held to the same standard as science? MMMBah ha haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes !are you afraid  that  you're wrong?
> since religion is consumed by people it should be tested for validity.
Click to expand...


I am no fan of organised religion. What unites Gods people is faith in Jesus.

Religion is mans creation not Gods creation. Abraham had no religion,just faith in the Almighty and he lived the best life he could for a sinful man.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> AnonymousIV said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 20439  I don't want my decedents to live in a world that's cold and dark.  I hope America never looks like the pix.
> 
> 
> 
> (snicker)
> that pic shows a world of clean tech!
Click to expand...


Yes daws, we know you are a fan of vivid imaginations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more fact ,less sky god stories!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is man being perfected with the genetic disorders due to mutations are rising in numbers ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another bullshit statement, humans (not just men,) were never perfect. I understand that your fairy says different, but as always you have no evidence proving your "believed" claim.
> 2. there is no credible proof that genetic disorders are on the rise..
Click to expand...


What we have proof of is since the fall of adam lifespans of humans greatly decreased. Through research and medicine we increased lifespans but not near what it once was.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALL READY HAVE...BEEN THERE DONE THAT....One day maybe you'll grow out of your fear and ignorance...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he is saving you for something special. Why would you do that if he does not exist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.....what an asshole you really are as ignorant as you seem.
> everyone (even you) understands the concept of god.
> most people have it spoon fed to them..
> the point is that concepts are not allways real ,any reasonably intelligent, curious  human will at one time or another test a concept for validity.
Click to expand...


It was your comment that lead to my comment,you have the right to disagree.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> edited for religious bias, pseudo science and lack of testable evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must read more daws because he was discussing science. He also does scientific work in labs.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are your gawds such incompetent "designers" that they would build planned obsolescence into their "designs"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already gave you my opinion on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh, so now it an opinion not fact !
Click to expand...


What do you think scientific explanations are Daws ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> AnonymousIV said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a belief system, it's real to us, because of our perception.   As far as proving there is a God,  the tests we run to see if that is correct, is through our feelings, and karma, and being good to others.  And we test this to our limits and we find truth.   It's kinda like looking into a microscope.
> 
> 
> 
> and it's bullshit
Click to expand...


Say's who ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes !are you afraid  that  you're wrong?
> since religion is consumed by people it should be tested for validity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you test something that is supernatural??
> 
> [For the rest of the observers, this is just me turning Hollie and Daws own words back on them]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing supernatural about the natural world. Science cannot test for supernatural, supermagical gods.
> 
> For the rest of the observers, note how the fundies are adept at dismantling their own arguments.
Click to expand...


Hey nitwit science can't many things within their theory that is taught as fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still you are evasive. Are you posting with a second account as Youwerecreated?
> 
> I should advise you that doing so is against the board rules.
> 
> Otherwise, why are so afraid to answer direct questions about christianity and the inability of folks like you and your alternate identity to come to tems with religion (under the guise of ID), not being taught in schools?
> 
> You made the outrageously stupid comment that "Christian creationism was the status quo" for some length of time with the implication that we should then continue to teach tales, fables and superstitious nonsense as fact.
> 
> You have been dodging and sidstepping from addressing my response in typical fundie fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain something to you that I have in the past. The reason you see so many diferent views on the same evidence ,men of science all of them are affected by their presuppositions that is human nature. The question is which presuppositions are best supported by the evidence.
> 
> We are limited by what we know and can learn because no one was there to see exactly how it was done. No one was there to see how the universe was formed or life began. That said for me personally I have seen enough evidence to believe this didn't all happen by chance. For me someone had to design and put things into motion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> specious speculation no basis in fact!
Click to expand...


Wrong! all explanations of evidence are only opinions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True  in the sense that you're going bat shit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, you need to catch up buddy. All of these posts you are commenting on was me being "Hollie for a day" to show how utterly frustrating her methods are. They weren't really meant to be taken seriously by you but if you want to, go right ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right ...
Click to expand...


It's due to inference as has been explained to ad nauseam.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True  in the sense that you're going bat shit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, you need to catch up buddy. All of these posts you are commenting on was me being "Hollie for a day" to show how utterly frustrating her methods are. They weren't really meant to be taken seriously by you but if you want to, go right ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your spamming the thread was nothing more than an inability to compose s coherent comment.
> 
> I don't know why its so difficult for fundie to be honest.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes !are you afraid  that  you're wrong?
> since religion is consumed by people it should be tested for validity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you test something that is supernatural??
> 
> [For the rest of the observers, this is just me turning Hollie and Daws own words back on them]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing supernatural about the natural world. Science cannot test for supernatural, supermagical gods.
> 
> For the rest of the observers, note how the fundies are adept at dismantling their own arguments.
Click to expand...


Actually, the question you missed is if you are convinced religion is all supernatural, why would you contradict yourself and ask for scientific proof?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. It's the angry fundie persona. How cute.
> 
> Flipping hamburgers at McDonalds hardly qualifies you as a biologist.
> 
> Lane Lester is just one more hack who has discarded any pretence of objectivity or integrity by being a propaganda mouthpiece for the fundie creationist cabal.
> 
> Your silly avoidance tactic relative to my scenario above was not surprising. Like Lester and the other hacks whose works aren't published in peer reviewed science publications, they have earned a reputation as dishonest and lacking integrity for a predefined bias.
> 
> You Christian creationist hacks are a joke in the science community.
> 
> I'll take fries with that order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you ignore his question about your credentials. I'm looking around wondering if anyone else is seeing how dishonest and ALWAYS evasive you are.
> 
> No one even knows if you are a man or woman, and you never confirmed nor denied whether or not you were raised in a Christian home. Instead, you just make up lies about others who have shared about their personal positions on here. Please tell me you don't think for one second any of us are falling for your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why does this matter to you:" No one even knows if you are a man or woman, and you never confirmed nor denied whether or not you were raised in a Christian home."UR
> 
> you pull this little gem out of each and every time your ass is in a crack .
> 
> HOLLIE'S sex /or religious upbringing, like mine ,are not relevant to this conversation.
> it's a cheap childish maneuver to bolster your bigotry and it's chicken shit.
Click to expand...


Wow, aren't you the clueless one. The relevance of it is Hollie goes around calling everyone liars and saying they twist the truth, yet she has represented herself on this forum as a woman and on another one as a man. Bascially, by her continual lying, he/she has robbed herself of all credibility. When you come to his/her defense, you just wind up looking stupid when you don't have all the facts.


----------



## UltimateReality

UltimateReality said:


> Omigosh was that an enlightening 5 pages.   I would love to keep it going because it was really getting under her skin but I have to get to the gym.
> 
> Did you guys just see what happened there? *I became Holly!!!!* I employed all of her tactics and techniques and baited her into a frenzy. She was cutting and pasting like mad trying to teach me and I was just repeating the same thing over and over again like she does.
> 
> Technique 1: *Continually accuse me of getting my info from the ICR website.* Truth is I have never been to the ICR website. So I picked the IHEU website and just mentioned it over and over and over again, not bothering to really read any of her posts.
> 
> Technique 2: *Continually quote this character Haran Yahya.* I had no clue who that was and I doubt many ID Theorists or Creationist do since the guy is a Muslim trying to prove the existence of Allah. It's not really like Christians use the same sources as Muslims since for the most part, they want us Christians dead.
> 
> So I picked Lawrence Krauss and just kept accusing her of using him as a source over and over again. Lawrence Krauss is a Dawkins crony and atheist philosopher. The most disturbing thing about Holly is she never once denies that is where she is getting her info. I really think something is wrong with her. Maybe she is trying to manage hating on multiple forums at one time but it is like she isn't reading anything. She doesn't even question who Krauss is or what the IHEU is. Weird.
> 
> Tehnigue 3:* Attribute some belief someone has explained numerous times they don't believe in just to aggravate them.* Holly has repeatedly stated I believe in a 6000 year old earth when I have told her numerous times I do not. So for the last 5 or 10 posts, I keep talking about her belief in an eternal universe. Hollie has never said she believes in an eternal universe and if she believes current thought, more like believes the big bang and a universe that is approx 14 billion years old. Again, really weird she never denies that. It's like she isn't reading anything.
> 
> Technique 4: Continually accuse your opponent of being dishonest and misquoting. Did you see how I didn't even bother to read what she posted but just kept saying over and over again she was quoting out of context or intentionally leaving parts out? I kept using her phrase on her over and over,"intellectual dishonesty".
> 
> Technique 5: Aggravate your opponent by using subtle word games. Know your audience only believes in ONE God, continually refer to gods.
> 
> Bravo Hollie!! Your own techniques beat you at your own game!!
> 
> Omigosh Hollie. You were cutting and pasting like a mad woman. It is funny that you accused me of lashing out when I was just following your posting methodology. Did this little experience enlighten you at all to how frustrating your posts are, or how people could take you as the one who is attacking?



Here Daws, since you apparently missed this awhile back.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> but not contrary to your islamic faith?
> 
> 
> 
> dumb question as they both believe in the same god... (the god of abraham)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true, supposedly but Gods name is not Allah. If they worshipped the same God they would not be mortal enemies.
> 
> Who is protecting Israel ? they are surrounded by their enemies.
Click to expand...

Alla is just as good a name for god a any it's no less correct then the one you assholes usurped  from the jews!  

"If they worshipped the same God they would not be mortal enemies."YWC-another ignorant statement :

List of major religious warsThese figures of one million or more deaths include the deaths of civilians from diseases, famine, etc., as well as deaths of soldiers in battle and possible massacres and genocide.

Lowest estimate Highest estimate Event Location From To Religions involved Percentage of the world population[18] 
&100000000030000000000003,000,000 &1000000001150000000000011,500,000[19] Thirty Years' War Holy Roman Empire 1618 1648 Protestants and Catholics &100000000000000005000000.5%&#8211;2.1% 
&100000000020000000000002,000,000 &100000000040000000000004,000,000[20] French Wars of Religion France 1562 1598 Protestants and Catholics &100000000000000004000000.4%&#8211;0.8% 
&100000000010000000000001,000,000[21] &100000000020000000000002,000,000 Second Sudanese Civil War Sudan 1983 2005 Islam and Christian &100000000000000000200000.02% 
&100000000010000000000001,000,000[22] &100000000030000000000003,000,000[23] Crusades Holy Land, Europe 1095 1291 Islam and Christian &100000000000000003000000.3%&#8211;2.3% 
&10000000000130000000000130,000[24] &10000000000250000000000250,000 Lebanese Civil War Lebanon 1975 1990 Sunni, Shiite and Christian &10000000000000000300000 

[edit] Wars by religion[edit] ChristianityMain articles: Crusades and Thirty Years' War
Those who fought in the name of God were recognized as the Milites Christi, warriors or knights of Christ.[25]


Luther's 1543 pamphlet On the Jews and Their LiesThe Crusades were a series of military campaigns that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries in response to the Muslim Conquests. Originally, the goal was to recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims, and support the besieged Christian Byzantine Empire against the Muslim Seljuq expansion into Asia Minor and Europe proper. Later, Crusades were launched against other targets, either for religious reasons, such as the Albigensian Crusade, the Northern Crusades, or because of political conflict, such as the Aragonese Crusade. In 1095, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II raised the level of war from bellum iustum ("just war"), to bellum sacrum ("holy war").[26] In 16th Century France there was a succession of wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants (Hugenots primarily), known as the French Wars of Religion. In the first half of the 17th century, the German states, Scandinavia (Sweden, primarily) and Poland were beset by religious warfare in the Thirty Years War. Roman Catholicism and Protestantism figured in the opposing sides of this conflict, though Catholic France did take the side of the Protestants but purely for political reasons.

In the Middle Ages, religion played a major role in driving antisemitism. Though not part of Roman Catholic dogma, many Christians, including members of the clergy, have held the Jewish people collectively responsible for killing Jesus. According to this interpretation, both the Jews present at Jesus&#8217; death and the Jewish people collectively and for all time, have committed the sin of deicide, or God-killing. For 1900 years of Christian-Jewish history, the charge of deicide ( Which was originally attributed by Melito of Sardis ) has led to hatred, violence against and murder of Jews in Europe and America."[27] This accusation was repudiated in 1964, when the Catholic Church under Pope Paul VI issued the document Nostra Aetate as a part of Vatican II. Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk and an ecclesiastical reformer whose teachings inspired the Reformation, wrote antagonistically about Jews in his book On the Jews and their Lies, which describes the Jews in extremely harsh terms, excoriates them, and provides detailed recommendations for a pogrom against them and their permanent oppression and/or expulsion.

The Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, known in Arab history as the Battle of Al-Uqab (&#1605;&#1593;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1575;&#1604;&#1593;&#1602;&#1575;&#1576, took place on 16 July 1212 and was an important turning point in the Reconquista and in the medieval history of Spain.[28] The forces of King Alfonso VIII of Castile were joined by the armies of his Christian rivals, Sancho VII of Navarre, Pedro II of Aragon and Afonso II of Portugal in battle[29] against the Berber Muslim Almohad rulers of the southern half of the Iberian Peninsula.

once again you're talking out your ass!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying religion should be held to the same standard as science? MMMBah ha haha.
> 
> 
> 
> yes !are you afraid  that  you're wrong?
> since religion is consumed by people it should be tested for validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am no fan of organised religion. What unites Gods people is faith in Jesus.
> 
> Religion is mans creation not Gods creation. Abraham had no religion,just faith in the Almighty and he lived the best life he could for a sinful man.
Click to expand...

Abraham (Avraham) was the first Jew, the founder of Judaism, the physical and spiritual ancestor of the Jewish people, and one of the three Patriarchs (Avot) of Judaism.

Although Adam, the first man, believed in one God, most of his descendents prayed to many gods. Abraham, then, rediscovered monotheism. 

Abraham's faith in the One God was tested when God commanded him to sacrifice his son Isaac (Yitzhak). Abraham was about to fulfill God's commandment and sacrifice his son when the Angel of God stopped him. Abraham's faith in God has been a model for all future generations of Jews.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is man being perfected with the genetic disorders due to mutations are rising in numbers ?
> 
> 
> 
> another bullshit statement, humans (not just men,) were never perfect. I understand that your fairy says different, but as always you have no evidence proving your "believed" claim.
> 2. there is no credible proof that genetic disorders are on the rise..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we have proof of is since the fall of adam lifespans of humans greatly decreased. Through research and medicine we increased lifespans but not near what it once was.
Click to expand...

bullshit! since you have no proof that Adam lived any conclusion drawn from that false premise by defintion is false.
so my answer stands :there is no credible proof that genetic disorders are on the rise


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you ignore his question about your credentials. I'm looking around wondering if anyone else is seeing how dishonest and always evasive you are.
> 
> No one even knows if you are a man or woman, and you never confirmed nor denied whether or not you were raised in a christian home. Instead, you just make up lies about others who have shared about their personal positions on here. Please tell me you don't think for one second any of us are falling for your nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> why does this matter to you:" no one even knows if you are a man or woman, and you never confirmed nor denied whether or not you were raised in a christian home."ur
> 
> you pull this little gem out of each and every time your ass is in a crack .
> 
> Hollie's sex /or religious upbringing, like mine ,are not relevant to this conversation.
> It's a cheap childish maneuver to bolster your bigotry and it's chicken shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow, aren't you the clueless one. The relevance of it is hollie goes around calling everyone liars and saying they twist the truth, yet she has represented herself on this forum as a woman and on another one as a man. Bascially, by her continual lying, he/she has robbed herself of all credibility. When you come to his/her defense, you just wind up looking stupid when you don't have all the facts.
Click to expand...

that's funny because it's a spot on discription of you!


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> omigosh was that an enlightening 5 pages.   I would love to keep it going because it was really getting under her skin but i have to get to the gym.
> 
> Did you guys just see what happened there? *i became holly!!!!* i employed all of her tactics and techniques and baited her into a frenzy. She was cutting and pasting like mad trying to teach me and i was just repeating the same thing over and over again like she does.
> 
> Technique 1: *continually accuse me of getting my info from the icr website.* truth is i have never been to the icr website. So i picked the iheu website and just mentioned it over and over and over again, not bothering to really read any of her posts.
> 
> Technique 2: *continually quote this character haran yahya.* i had no clue who that was and i doubt many id theorists or creationist do since the guy is a muslim trying to prove the existence of allah. It's not really like christians use the same sources as muslims since for the most part, they want us christians dead.
> 
> So i picked lawrence krauss and just kept accusing her of using him as a source over and over again. Lawrence krauss is a dawkins crony and atheist philosopher. The most disturbing thing about holly is she never once denies that is where she is getting her info. I really think something is wrong with her. Maybe she is trying to manage hating on multiple forums at one time but it is like she isn't reading anything. She doesn't even question who krauss is or what the iheu is. Weird.
> 
> Tehnigue 3:* attribute some belief someone has explained numerous times they don't believe in just to aggravate them.* holly has repeatedly stated i believe in a 6000 year old earth when i have told her numerous times i do not. So for the last 5 or 10 posts, i keep talking about her belief in an eternal universe. Hollie has never said she believes in an eternal universe and if she believes current thought, more like believes the big bang and a universe that is approx 14 billion years old. Again, really weird she never denies that. It's like she isn't reading anything.
> 
> Technique 4: Continually accuse your opponent of being dishonest and misquoting. Did you see how i didn't even bother to read what she posted but just kept saying over and over again she was quoting out of context or intentionally leaving parts out? I kept using her phrase on her over and over,"intellectual dishonesty".
> 
> Technique 5: Aggravate your opponent by using subtle word games. Know your audience only believes in one god, continually refer to gods.
> 
> Bravo hollie!! Your own techniques beat you at your own game!!
> 
> Omigosh hollie. You were cutting and pasting like a mad woman. It is funny that you accused me of lashing out when i was just following your posting methodology. Did this little experience enlighten you at all to how frustrating your posts are, or how people could take you as the one who is attacking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here daws, since you apparently missed this awhile back.
Click to expand...

wrong !didn't miss it .
 It's masturbation.... It's fun but meaningless.


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anonymousiv said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 20439  i don't want my decedents to live in a world that's cold and dark.  I hope america never looks like the pix.
> 
> 
> 
> (snicker)
> that pic shows a world of clean tech!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes daws, we know you are a fan of vivid imaginations.
Click to expand...

especially yours!
 God  
god does entropy 
life never ending 
god protecting israel 
young earth 
noah 
etc...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must read more daws because he was discussing science. He also does scientific work in labs.
> 
> 
> 
> HE'S A CREATION PSEUDO SCIENTIST.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Omigosh was that an enlightening 5 pages.   I would love to keep it going because it was really getting under her skin but I have to get to the gym.
> 
> Did you guys just see what happened there? *I became Holly!!!!* I employed all of her tactics and techniques and baited her into a frenzy. She was cutting and pasting like mad trying to teach me and I was just repeating the same thing over and over again like she does.
> 
> Technique 1: *Continually accuse me of getting my info from the ICR website.* Truth is I have never been to the ICR website. So I picked the IHEU website and just mentioned it over and over and over again, not bothering to really read any of her posts.
> 
> Technique 2: *Continually quote this character Haran Yahya.* I had no clue who that was and I doubt many ID Theorists or Creationist do since the guy is a Muslim trying to prove the existence of Allah. It's not really like Christians use the same sources as Muslims since for the most part, they want us Christians dead.
> 
> So I picked Lawrence Krauss and just kept accusing her of using him as a source over and over again. Lawrence Krauss is a Dawkins crony and atheist philosopher. The most disturbing thing about Holly is she never once denies that is where she is getting her info. I really think something is wrong with her. Maybe she is trying to manage hating on multiple forums at one time but it is like she isn't reading anything. She doesn't even question who Krauss is or what the IHEU is. Weird.
> 
> Tehnigue 3:* Attribute some belief someone has explained numerous times they don't believe in just to aggravate them.* Holly has repeatedly stated I believe in a 6000 year old earth when I have told her numerous times I do not. So for the last 5 or 10 posts, I keep talking about her belief in an eternal universe. Hollie has never said she believes in an eternal universe and if she believes current thought, more like believes the big bang and a universe that is approx 14 billion years old. Again, really weird she never denies that. It's like she isn't reading anything.
> 
> Technique 4: Continually accuse your opponent of being dishonest and misquoting. Did you see how I didn't even bother to read what she posted but just kept saying over and over again she was quoting out of context or intentionally leaving parts out? I kept using her phrase on her over and over,"intellectual dishonesty".
> 
> Technique 5: Aggravate your opponent by using subtle word games. Know your audience only believes in ONE God, continually refer to gods.
> 
> Bravo Hollie!! Your own techniques beat you at your own game!!
> 
> Omigosh Hollie. You were cutting and pasting like a mad woman. It is funny that you accused me of lashing out when I was just following your posting methodology. Did this little experience enlighten you at all to how frustrating your posts are, or how people could take you as the one who is attacking?



All that just as a cover for your inability to respond to specific points?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already gave you my opinion on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> oh, so now it an opinion not fact !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think scientific explanations are Daws ?
Click to expand...

 a report based on evidence  objective testing and observation.
THEY ARE NOT based on belief in the supernatural as a causation.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omigosh was that an enlightening 5 pages.   I would love to keep it going because it was really getting under her skin but I have to get to the gym.
> 
> Did you guys just see what happened there? *I became Holly!!!!* I employed all of her tactics and techniques and baited her into a frenzy. She was cutting and pasting like mad trying to teach me and I was just repeating the same thing over and over again like she does.
> 
> Technique 1: *Continually accuse me of getting my info from the ICR website.* Truth is I have never been to the ICR website. So I picked the IHEU website and just mentioned it over and over and over again, not bothering to really read any of her posts.
> 
> Technique 2: *Continually quote this character Haran Yahya.* I had no clue who that was and I doubt many ID Theorists or Creationist do since the guy is a Muslim trying to prove the existence of Allah. It's not really like Christians use the same sources as Muslims since for the most part, they want us Christians dead.
> 
> So I picked Lawrence Krauss and just kept accusing her of using him as a source over and over again. Lawrence Krauss is a Dawkins crony and atheist philosopher. The most disturbing thing about Holly is she never once denies that is where she is getting her info. I really think something is wrong with her. Maybe she is trying to manage hating on multiple forums at one time but it is like she isn't reading anything. She doesn't even question who Krauss is or what the IHEU is. Weird.
> 
> Tehnigue 3:* Attribute some belief someone has explained numerous times they don't believe in just to aggravate them.* Holly has repeatedly stated I believe in a 6000 year old earth when I have told her numerous times I do not. So for the last 5 or 10 posts, I keep talking about her belief in an eternal universe. Hollie has never said she believes in an eternal universe and if she believes current thought, more like believes the big bang and a universe that is approx 14 billion years old. Again, really weird she never denies that. It's like she isn't reading anything.
> 
> Technique 4: Continually accuse your opponent of being dishonest and misquoting. Did you see how I didn't even bother to read what she posted but just kept saying over and over again she was quoting out of context or intentionally leaving parts out? I kept using her phrase on her over and over,"intellectual dishonesty".
> 
> Technique 5: Aggravate your opponent by using subtle word games. Know your audience only believes in ONE God, continually refer to gods.
> 
> Bravo Hollie!! Your own techniques beat you at your own game!!
> 
> Omigosh Hollie. You were cutting and pasting like a mad woman. It is funny that you accused me of lashing out when I was just following your posting methodology. Did this little experience enlighten you at all to how frustrating your posts are, or how people could take you as the one who is attacking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that just as a cover for your inability to respond to specific points?
Click to expand...

you did notice it's mostly me I and me again. 
maybe UR is a teenage girl, sure posts like one!


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another bullshit statement, humans (not just men,) were never perfect. I understand that your fairy says different, but as always you have no evidence proving your "believed" claim.
> 2. there is no credible proof that genetic disorders are on the rise..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we have proof of is since the fall of adam lifespans of humans greatly decreased. Through research and medicine we increased lifespans but not near what it once was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit! since you have no proof that Adam lived any conclusion drawn from that false premise by defintion is false.
> so my answer stands :there is no credible proof that genetic disorders are on the rise
Click to expand...


Creationist fundies don't understand that any _supposed_ rise in the occurrance of genetic disorders must be considered with respect to modern science being better at diagnosing those disorders. 

Fundies live in a dark place I'm happy not to be in.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omigosh was that an enlightening 5 pages.   I would love to keep it going because it was really getting under her skin but I have to get to the gym.
> 
> Did you guys just see what happened there? *I became Holly!!!!* I employed all of her tactics and techniques and baited her into a frenzy. She was cutting and pasting like mad trying to teach me and I was just repeating the same thing over and over again like she does.
> 
> Technique 1: *Continually accuse me of getting my info from the ICR website.* Truth is I have never been to the ICR website. So I picked the IHEU website and just mentioned it over and over and over again, not bothering to really read any of her posts.
> 
> Technique 2: *Continually quote this character Haran Yahya.* I had no clue who that was and I doubt many ID Theorists or Creationist do since the guy is a Muslim trying to prove the existence of Allah. It's not really like Christians use the same sources as Muslims since for the most part, they want us Christians dead.
> 
> So I picked Lawrence Krauss and just kept accusing her of using him as a source over and over again. Lawrence Krauss is a Dawkins crony and atheist philosopher. The most disturbing thing about Holly is she never once denies that is where she is getting her info. I really think something is wrong with her. Maybe she is trying to manage hating on multiple forums at one time but it is like she isn't reading anything. She doesn't even question who Krauss is or what the IHEU is. Weird.
> 
> Tehnigue 3:* Attribute some belief someone has explained numerous times they don't believe in just to aggravate them.* Holly has repeatedly stated I believe in a 6000 year old earth when I have told her numerous times I do not. So for the last 5 or 10 posts, I keep talking about her belief in an eternal universe. Hollie has never said she believes in an eternal universe and if she believes current thought, more like believes the big bang and a universe that is approx 14 billion years old. Again, really weird she never denies that. It's like she isn't reading anything.
> 
> Technique 4: Continually accuse your opponent of being dishonest and misquoting. Did you see how I didn't even bother to read what she posted but just kept saying over and over again she was quoting out of context or intentionally leaving parts out? I kept using her phrase on her over and over,"intellectual dishonesty".
> 
> Technique 5: Aggravate your opponent by using subtle word games. Know your audience only believes in ONE God, continually refer to gods.
> 
> Bravo Hollie!! Your own techniques beat you at your own game!!
> 
> Omigosh Hollie. You were cutting and pasting like a mad woman. It is funny that you accused me of lashing out when I was just following your posting methodology. Did this little experience enlighten you at all to how frustrating your posts are, or how people could take you as the one who is attacking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that just as a cover for your inability to respond to specific points?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you did notice it's mostly me I and me again.
> maybe UR is a teenage girl, sure posts like one!
Click to expand...


Her fascination with me leads me to believe that she has mistaken this site for her "alternate lifestyle" dating service.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that just as a cover for your inability to respond to specific points?
> 
> 
> 
> you did notice it's mostly me I and me again.
> maybe UR is a teenage girl, sure posts like one!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her fascination with me leads me to believe that she has mistaken this site for her "alternate lifestyle" dating service.
Click to expand...

 you mean christian mingle . com.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you did notice it's mostly me I and me again.
> maybe UR is a teenage girl, sure posts like one!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her fascination with me leads me to believe that she has mistaken this site for her "alternate lifestyle" dating service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean christian mingle . com.
Click to expand...

That site or maybe: 

_Christian mingle for singles who are emotional vortexes of want and need.com _


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> why does this matter to you:" no one even knows if you are a man or woman, and you never confirmed nor denied whether or not you were raised in a christian home."ur
> 
> you pull this little gem out of each and every time your ass is in a crack .
> 
> Hollie's sex /or religious upbringing, like mine ,are not relevant to this conversation.
> It's a cheap childish maneuver to bolster your bigotry and it's chicken shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow, aren't you the clueless one. The relevance of it is hollie goes around calling everyone liars and saying they twist the truth, yet she has represented herself on this forum as a woman and on another one as a man. Bascially, by her continual lying, he/she has robbed herself of all credibility. When you come to his/her defense, you just wind up looking stupid when you don't have all the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's funny because it's a spot on discription of you!
Click to expand...


Yeah, because I've been posing as Ultimeana Reality on another forum.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omigosh was that an enlightening 5 pages.   I would love to keep it going because it was really getting under her skin but I have to get to the gym.
> 
> Did you guys just see what happened there? *I became Holly!!!!* I employed all of her tactics and techniques and baited her into a frenzy. She was cutting and pasting like mad trying to teach me and I was just repeating the same thing over and over again like she does.
> 
> Technique 1: *Continually accuse me of getting my info from the ICR website.* Truth is I have never been to the ICR website. So I picked the IHEU website and just mentioned it over and over and over again, not bothering to really read any of her posts.
> 
> Technique 2: *Continually quote this character Haran Yahya.* I had no clue who that was and I doubt many ID Theorists or Creationist do since the guy is a Muslim trying to prove the existence of Allah. It's not really like Christians use the same sources as Muslims since for the most part, they want us Christians dead.
> 
> So I picked Lawrence Krauss and just kept accusing her of using him as a source over and over again. Lawrence Krauss is a Dawkins crony and atheist philosopher. The most disturbing thing about Holly is she never once denies that is where she is getting her info. I really think something is wrong with her. Maybe she is trying to manage hating on multiple forums at one time but it is like she isn't reading anything. She doesn't even question who Krauss is or what the IHEU is. Weird.
> 
> Tehnigue 3:* Attribute some belief someone has explained numerous times they don't believe in just to aggravate them.* Holly has repeatedly stated I believe in a 6000 year old earth when I have told her numerous times I do not. So for the last 5 or 10 posts, I keep talking about her belief in an eternal universe. Hollie has never said she believes in an eternal universe and if she believes current thought, more like believes the big bang and a universe that is approx 14 billion years old. Again, really weird she never denies that. It's like she isn't reading anything.
> 
> Technique 4: Continually accuse your opponent of being dishonest and misquoting. Did you see how I didn't even bother to read what she posted but just kept saying over and over again she was quoting out of context or intentionally leaving parts out? I kept using her phrase on her over and over,"intellectual dishonesty".
> 
> Technique 5: Aggravate your opponent by using subtle word games. Know your audience only believes in ONE God, continually refer to gods.
> 
> Bravo Hollie!! Your own techniques beat you at your own game!!
> 
> Omigosh Hollie. You were cutting and pasting like a mad woman. It is funny that you accused me of lashing out when I was just following your posting methodology. Did this little experience enlighten you at all to how frustrating your posts are, or how people could take you as the one who is attacking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that just as a cover for your inability to respond to specific points?
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her fascination with me leads me to believe that she has mistaken this site for her "alternate lifestyle" dating service.
> 
> 
> 
> you mean christian mingle . com.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That site or maybe:
> 
> _Christian mingle for singles who are emotional vortexes of want and need.com _
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that just as a cover for your inability to respond to specific points?
> 
> 
> 
> you did notice it's mostly me I and me again.
> maybe UR is a teenage girl, sure posts like one!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her fascination with me leads me to believe that she has mistaken this site for her "alternate lifestyle" dating service.
Click to expand...


I actually found a video of Rugged Hollie Touch online. I think this is going to explain a lot. His/Her realy name is Pat...

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwT1kp0C3Ss[/URL]


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another bullshit statement, humans (not just men,) were never perfect. I understand that your fairy says different, but as always you have no evidence proving your "believed" claim.
> 2. there is no credible proof that genetic disorders are on the rise..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we have proof of is since the fall of adam lifespans of humans greatly decreased. Through research and medicine we increased lifespans but not near what it once was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit! since you have no proof that Adam lived any conclusion drawn from that false premise by defintion is false.
> so my answer stands :there is no credible proof that genetic disorders are on the rise
Click to expand...


Researchers have identified more than 4,000 diseases that are caused by genetic variants. 



The Basics on Genes and Genetic Disorders




There are over 6,000 genetic disorders that can be passed down through the generations, many of which are fatal or severely debilitating. Since 1997, the GDF has worked with Mount Sinai to help provide funding for research to improve early detection and treatment options for many of these disorders.

Genetic Disease Foundation: Hope Through Knowledge

It looks like the number of genetic disorders are on the rise.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> HE'S A CREATION PSEUDO SCIENTIST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are clueless as UR said.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh, so now it an opinion not fact !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think scientific explanations are Daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a report based on evidence  objective testing and observation.
> THEY ARE NOT based on belief in the supernatural as a causation.
Click to expand...


Here i will help you out since you can't be honest,they are opinions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you did notice it's mostly me I and me again.
> maybe UR is a teenage girl, sure posts like one!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her fascination with me leads me to believe that she has mistaken this site for her "alternate lifestyle" dating service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually found a video of Rugged Hollie Touch online. I think this is going to explain a lot. His/Her realy name is Pat...
> 
> [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwT1kp0C3Ss[/URL]
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we have proof of is since the fall of adam lifespans of humans greatly decreased. Through research and medicine we increased lifespans but not near what it once was.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! since you have no proof that Adam lived any conclusion drawn from that false premise by defintion is false.
> so my answer stands :there is no credible proof that genetic disorders are on the rise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Researchers have identified more than 4,000 diseases that are caused by genetic variants.
> 
> 
> 
> The Basics on Genes and Genetic Disorders
> 
> 
> There are over 6,000 genetic disorders that can be passed down through the generations, many of which are fatal or severely debilitating. Since 1997, the GDF has worked with Mount Sinai to help provide funding for research to improve early detection and treatment options for many of these disorders.
> 
> Genetic Disease Foundation: Hope Through Knowledge
> 
> It looks like the number of genetic disorders are on the rise.
Click to expand...


Praise Jay-zus.

You must find it galling that the science you hate is exposing your gawds as incompetent "designers". 

As the alleged author of all, your gawds are thus responsible for all.

How is it possible that your incompetent designer gawds got so much so wrong?

Actually, as science becomes more exacting, the diagnosis of disease becomes more exacting. The diagnosis of genetic disease is becoming more of a science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think scientific explanations are Daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> a report based on evidence  objective testing and observation.
> THEY ARE NOT based on belief in the supernatural as a causation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here i will help you out since you can't be honest,they are opinions.
Click to expand...


So.... the occurrance of genetic disease is not fact but just opinion?

Your goofy fundie agenda manages to dismantle your own arguments.

Can I get a _hallelujah_ brothas' and sistas'.

Is Ken Ham out of jail yet?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omigosh was that an enlightening 5 pages.   I would love to keep it going because it was really getting under her skin but I have to get to the gym.
> 
> Did you guys just see what happened there? *I became Holly!!!!* I employed all of her tactics and techniques and baited her into a frenzy. She was cutting and pasting like mad trying to teach me and I was just repeating the same thing over and over again like she does.
> 
> Technique 1: *Continually accuse me of getting my info from the ICR website.* Truth is I have never been to the ICR website. So I picked the IHEU website and just mentioned it over and over and over again, not bothering to really read any of her posts.
> 
> Technique 2: *Continually quote this character Haran Yahya.* I had no clue who that was and I doubt many ID Theorists or Creationist do since the guy is a Muslim trying to prove the existence of Allah. It's not really like Christians use the same sources as Muslims since for the most part, they want us Christians dead.
> 
> So I picked Lawrence Krauss and just kept accusing her of using him as a source over and over again. Lawrence Krauss is a Dawkins crony and atheist philosopher. The most disturbing thing about Holly is she never once denies that is where she is getting her info. I really think something is wrong with her. Maybe she is trying to manage hating on multiple forums at one time but it is like she isn't reading anything. She doesn't even question who Krauss is or what the IHEU is. Weird.
> 
> Tehnigue 3:* Attribute some belief someone has explained numerous times they don't believe in just to aggravate them.* Holly has repeatedly stated I believe in a 6000 year old earth when I have told her numerous times I do not. So for the last 5 or 10 posts, I keep talking about her belief in an eternal universe. Hollie has never said she believes in an eternal universe and if she believes current thought, more like believes the big bang and a universe that is approx 14 billion years old. Again, really weird she never denies that. It's like she isn't reading anything.
> 
> Technique 4: Continually accuse your opponent of being dishonest and misquoting. Did you see how I didn't even bother to read what she posted but just kept saying over and over again she was quoting out of context or intentionally leaving parts out? I kept using her phrase on her over and over,"intellectual dishonesty".
> 
> Technique 5: Aggravate your opponent by using subtle word games. Know your audience only believes in ONE God, continually refer to gods.
> 
> Bravo Hollie!! Your own techniques beat you at your own game!!
> 
> Omigosh Hollie. You were cutting and pasting like a mad woman. It is funny that you accused me of lashing out when I was just following your posting methodology. Did this little experience enlighten you at all to how frustrating your posts are, or how people could take you as the one who is attacking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that just as a cover for your inability to respond to specific points?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


It's what the gawds want.


----------



## cooky

UltimateReality said:


> Your bolded comment above is an outright admission the TOE is not real science. The whole theory collapses if you can't define what fittest is. More info in post 6855. Again, just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it isn't there. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it driink.



Fitness is very easily defined as reproductive success. Differential reproductive success is ultimately what drives evolution. 

Whats more, the phylogenetic study of rRNA sequences has revolutionized evolutionary biology such that a "tree of life" can be resolved from comparative studies of ribosomal sequences that is largely unbiased by HGT artifacts. Your supposition that modern genetics has convoluted the 'tree of life' could not be further from the truth. To help clarify your understanding of how modern phylogenetic analysis has only empowered evolutionary biology I have linked a review from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was published in 2011.

Phylogeny and beyond: Scientific, historical, and conceptual significance of the first tree of life

While the detractors of the TOE will allude to flaws, gaps and evidence that contradicts the TOE they have failed to produce any credible scientific discourse that supports their position. 

*I challenge the opponents of the TOE to link one publication from the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences that explicitly refutes the modern synthesis of the TOE*. Its time to crap or get off the pot folks.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! since you have no proof that Adam lived any conclusion drawn from that false premise by defintion is false.
> so my answer stands :there is no credible proof that genetic disorders are on the rise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Researchers have identified more than 4,000 diseases that are caused by genetic variants.
> 
> 
> 
> The Basics on Genes and Genetic Disorders
> 
> 
> There are over 6,000 genetic disorders that can be passed down through the generations, many of which are fatal or severely debilitating. Since 1997, the GDF has worked with Mount Sinai to help provide funding for research to improve early detection and treatment options for many of these disorders.
> 
> Genetic Disease Foundation: Hope Through Knowledge
> 
> It looks like the number of genetic disorders are on the rise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Praise Jay-zus.
> 
> You must find it galling that the science you hate is exposing your gawds as incompetent "designers".
> 
> As the alleged author of all, your gawds are thus responsible for all.
> 
> How is it possible that your incompetent designer gawds got so much so wrong?
> 
> Actually, as science becomes more exacting, the diagnosis of disease becomes more exacting. The diagnosis of genetic disease is becoming more of a science.
Click to expand...


It is my opinions mutations were used by God to put an end to eternal life after adam and eve sinned.

These mutations have been passed on for 6,000 years.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a report based on evidence  objective testing and observation.
> THEY ARE NOT based on belief in the supernatural as a causation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here i will help you out since you can't be honest,they are opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So.... the occurrance of genetic disease is not fact but just opinion?
> 
> Your goofy fundie agenda manages to dismantle your own arguments.
> 
> Can I get a _hallelujah_ brothas' and sistas'.
> 
> Is Ken Ham out of jail yet?
Click to expand...



No,how do you think genetic problems some are being headed off in the womb. Some there is nothing we can do about. Why do you think moms and dads are having gene screening before and during pregnancy ? Genetic disorders are a fact.

Life coming from nonliving matter is an opiion. Organisms evolving into destinctly new organisms ,not of the same family, is built on opinions. So what it comes down to does the evidence better support a designer or naturalism?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cooky said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bolded comment above is an outright admission the TOE is not real science. The whole theory collapses if you can't define what fittest is. More info in post 6855. Again, just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it isn't there. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it driink.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fitness is very easily defined as reproductive success. Differential reproductive success is ultimately what drives evolution.
> 
> Whats more, the phylogenetic study of rRNA sequences has revolutionized evolutionary biology such that a "tree of life" can be resolved from comparative studies of ribosomal sequences that is largely unbiased by HGT artifacts. Your supposition that modern genetics has convoluted the 'tree of life' could not be further from the truth. To help clarify your understanding of how modern phylogenetic analysis has only empowered evolutionary biology I have linked a review from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was published in 2011.
> 
> Phylogeny and beyond: Scientific, historical, and conceptual significance of the first tree of life
> 
> While the detractors of the TOE will allude to flaws, gaps and evidence that contradicts the TOE they have failed to produce any credible scientific discourse that supports their position.
> 
> *I challenge the opponents of the TOE to link one publication from the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences that explicitly refutes the modern synthesis of the TOE*. Its time to crap or get off the pot folks.
Click to expand...


What you are saying is built on circular reasoning,just because we have the same genetic code and DNA similarity. DNA similarity proves nothing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Let me show you the nonsense and circular reasoning used by evolutionist.

Chimps,cats,dogs,cows,mice,flies,chickens. They all share DNA similarity with humans does that mean we are all related ? What's being ignored is the huge difference in DNA information. This points to a designer using the same or similar substances to create with a huge difference in DNA transcription. Yes folks the DNA information.

Evolution say's because of similarity this shows we are all related through a natural process. That is if you can read between the lines. It is pure nonsense and circular reasoning at best that supports these opinions.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Let me show you the nonsense and circular reasoning used by evolutionist.
> 
> Chimps,cats,dogs,cows,mice,flies,chickens. They all share DNA similarity with humans does that mean we are all related ? What's being ignored is the huge difference in DNA information. This points to a designer using the same or similar substances to create with a huge difference in DNA transcription. Yes folks the DNA information.
> 
> Evolution say's because of similarity this shows we are all related through a natural process. That is if you can read between the lines. It is pure nonsense and circular reasoning at best that supports these opinions.



So... what you're suggesting is that the gawds spent time "designing" every terrestrial animal and human which has ever walked or crawled on the planet but for some reason "designed" DNA as a comment component of life just to fool us?

Your self-inflicted ignorance Is your own.


----------



## cooky

Youwerecreated said:


> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bolded comment above is an outright admission the TOE is not real science. The whole theory collapses if you can't define what fittest is. More info in post 6855. Again, just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it isn't there. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it driink.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fitness is very easily defined as reproductive success. Differential reproductive success is ultimately what drives evolution.
> 
> Whats more, the phylogenetic study of rRNA sequences has revolutionized evolutionary biology such that a "tree of life" can be resolved from comparative studies of ribosomal sequences that is largely unbiased by HGT artifacts. Your supposition that modern genetics has convoluted the 'tree of life' could not be further from the truth. To help clarify your understanding of how modern phylogenetic analysis has only empowered evolutionary biology I have linked a review from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was published in 2011.
> 
> Phylogeny and beyond: Scientific, historical, and conceptual significance of the first tree of life
> 
> While the detractors of the TOE will allude to flaws, gaps and evidence that contradicts the TOE they have failed to produce any credible scientific discourse that supports their position.
> 
> *I challenge the opponents of the TOE to link one publication from the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences that explicitly refutes the modern synthesis of the TOE*. Its time to crap or get off the pot folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are saying is built on circular reasoning,just because we have the same genetic code and DNA similarity. DNA similarity proves nothing.
Click to expand...


First of all, my post references RNA not DNA.... there is a difference. Additionally, your OPINION that the comparative phylogenetics based on small subunit ribosomal sequences proves nothing is well outside of the scientific mainstream- see the PNAS I provided in my previous post. I'm not exactly sure how you arrived at the conclusion that comaparative phylogentics is circular reasoning but your conclusion that the conservation of the genetic code and translation mechanisms among all known life is not due to common descent but is instead due to a 'designer' has no basis in science. 

Ultimately the quantitative phylogenetic analysis of SSU rRNA is in agreement with numerous other lines of evidence i.e. the fossil record that support the modern synthesis of the TOE.

Again, I posit my challenge to those who oppose the TOE:

*I challenge the opponents of the TOE to link one publication from the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences that explicitly refutes the modern synthesis of the TOE*


----------



## Youwerecreated

cooky said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fitness is very easily defined as reproductive success. Differential reproductive success is ultimately what drives evolution.
> 
> Whats more, the phylogenetic study of rRNA sequences has revolutionized evolutionary biology such that a "tree of life" can be resolved from comparative studies of ribosomal sequences that is largely unbiased by HGT artifacts. Your supposition that modern genetics has convoluted the 'tree of life' could not be further from the truth. To help clarify your understanding of how modern phylogenetic analysis has only empowered evolutionary biology I have linked a review from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was published in 2011.
> 
> Phylogeny and beyond: Scientific, historical, and conceptual significance of the first tree of life
> 
> While the detractors of the TOE will allude to flaws, gaps and evidence that contradicts the TOE they have failed to produce any credible scientific discourse that supports their position.
> 
> *I challenge the opponents of the TOE to link one publication from the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences that explicitly refutes the modern synthesis of the TOE*. Its time to crap or get off the pot folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are saying is built on circular reasoning,just because we have the same genetic code and DNA similarity. DNA similarity proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, my post references RNA not DNA.... there is a difference. Additionally, your OPINION that the comparative phylogenetics based on small subunit ribosomal sequences proves nothing is well outside of the scientific mainstream- see the PNAS I provided in my previous post. I'm not exactly sure how you arrived at the conclusion that comaparative phylogentics is circular reasoning but your conclusion that the conservation of the genetic code and translation mechanisms among all known life is not due to common descent but is instead due to a 'designer' has no basis in science.
> 
> Ultimately the quantitative phylogenetic analysis of SSU rRNA is in agreement with numerous other lines of evidence i.e. the fossil record that support the modern synthesis of the TOE.
> 
> Again, I posit my challenge to those who oppose the TOE:
> 
> *I challenge the opponents of the TOE to link one publication from the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences that explicitly refutes the modern synthesis of the TOE*
Click to expand...


Dna is converted to Rna so the information does not get tainted,so what is your point ? Naturally you are looking for such an article because you and everyone who knows anything about science,know that the heads of the curriculum in the field of science will not allow anything supporting design.That's a fact. Secularists are in control and have been for a while.

They don't allow anything in that refutes the lie being taught. I may have jumped the gun about where I thought you were headed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you the nonsense and circular reasoning used by evolutionist.
> 
> Chimps,cats,dogs,cows,mice,flies,chickens. They all share DNA similarity with humans does that mean we are all related ? What's being ignored is the huge difference in DNA information. This points to a designer using the same or similar substances to create with a huge difference in DNA transcription. Yes folks the DNA information.
> 
> Evolution say's because of similarity this shows we are all related through a natural process. That is if you can read between the lines. It is pure nonsense and circular reasoning at best that supports these opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... what you're suggesting is that the gawds spent time "designing" every terrestrial animal and human which has ever walked or crawled on the planet but for some reason "designed" DNA as a comment component of life just to fool us?
> 
> Your self-inflicted ignorance Is your own.
Click to expand...



Each family was designed yes. Recombination of genes that was already present in the genome is how we got the diversity in each family group.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cooky said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fitness is very easily defined as reproductive success. Differential reproductive success is ultimately what drives evolution.
> 
> Whats more, the phylogenetic study of rRNA sequences has revolutionized evolutionary biology such that a "tree of life" can be resolved from comparative studies of ribosomal sequences that is largely unbiased by HGT artifacts. Your supposition that modern genetics has convoluted the 'tree of life' could not be further from the truth. To help clarify your understanding of how modern phylogenetic analysis has only empowered evolutionary biology I have linked a review from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was published in 2011.
> 
> Phylogeny and beyond: Scientific, historical, and conceptual significance of the first tree of life
> 
> While the detractors of the TOE will allude to flaws, gaps and evidence that contradicts the TOE they have failed to produce any credible scientific discourse that supports their position.
> 
> *I challenge the opponents of the TOE to link one publication from the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences that explicitly refutes the modern synthesis of the TOE*. Its time to crap or get off the pot folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are saying is built on circular reasoning,just because we have the same genetic code and DNA similarity. DNA similarity proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, my post references RNA not DNA.... there is a difference. Additionally, your OPINION that the comparative phylogenetics based on small subunit ribosomal sequences proves nothing is well outside of the scientific mainstream- see the PNAS I provided in my previous post. I'm not exactly sure how you arrived at the conclusion that comaparative phylogentics is circular reasoning but your conclusion that the conservation of the genetic code and translation mechanisms among all known life is not due to common descent but is instead due to a 'designer' has no basis in science.
> 
> Ultimately the quantitative phylogenetic analysis of SSU rRNA is in agreement with numerous other lines of evidence i.e. the fossil record that support the modern synthesis of the TOE.
> 
> Again, I posit my challenge to those who oppose the TOE:
> 
> *I challenge the opponents of the TOE to link one publication from the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences that explicitly refutes the modern synthesis of the TOE*
Click to expand...


I challenge you to provide the same thing you are asking of us .Provide the viable explanation to how nonliving matter produced life knowing that biogenesis is a fact.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you the nonsense and circular reasoning used by evolutionist.
> 
> Chimps,cats,dogs,cows,mice,flies,chickens. They all share DNA similarity with humans does that mean we are all related ? What's being ignored is the huge difference in DNA information. This points to a designer using the same or similar substances to create with a huge difference in DNA transcription. Yes folks the DNA information.
> 
> Evolution say's because of similarity this shows we are all related through a natural process. That is if you can read between the lines. It is pure nonsense and circular reasoning at best that supports these opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... what you're suggesting is that the gawds spent time "designing" every terrestrial animal and human which has ever walked or crawled on the planet but for some reason "designed" DNA as a comment component of life just to fool us?
> 
> Your self-inflicted ignorance Is your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Each family was designed yes. Recombination of genes that was already present in the genome is how we got the diversity in each family group.
Click to expand...


So to clarify, the gawds made two (male and female) of every creature? If that is the case, why produce a "design" with inherent flaws? Why "design" a gene pool the will recombine with flaws thus producing errors. 

How do you account for worms, as one example, which can reproduce asexaully? Were the gawds just having a bit of fun with that?

How do you account for dinosaurs being "designed" hundreds of millions of years ago and the literal account of a 6,000 year old earth?

Have the gawds played a cruel joke on you?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are saying is built on circular reasoning,just because we have the same genetic code and DNA similarity. DNA similarity proves nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, my post references RNA not DNA.... there is a difference. Additionally, your OPINION that the comparative phylogenetics based on small subunit ribosomal sequences proves nothing is well outside of the scientific mainstream- see the PNAS I provided in my previous post. I'm not exactly sure how you arrived at the conclusion that comaparative phylogentics is circular reasoning but your conclusion that the conservation of the genetic code and translation mechanisms among all known life is not due to common descent but is instead due to a 'designer' has no basis in science.
> 
> Ultimately the quantitative phylogenetic analysis of SSU rRNA is in agreement with numerous other lines of evidence i.e. the fossil record that support the modern synthesis of the TOE.
> 
> Again, I posit my challenge to those who oppose the TOE:
> 
> *I challenge the opponents of the TOE to link one publication from the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences that explicitly refutes the modern synthesis of the TOE*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dna is converted to Rna so the information does not get tainted,so what is your point ? Naturally you are looking for such an article because you and everyone who knows anything about science,know that the heads of the curriculum in the field of science will not allow anything supporting design.That's a fact. Secularists are in control and have been for a while.
> 
> They don't allow anything in that refutes the lie being taught. I may have jumped the gun about where I thought you were headed.
Click to expand...

It's definitely a conspiracy formed and maintained by multiple conspirators to keep ancient fears and superstitions out of the public school classroom. 

Oh you poor, poor dispossessed fundie. 

I would tend to agree that the lack of teaching about the means and methods for burning people at the stake for practicing witchcraft has irreperablly damaged this nations impressionable yutes.

But why on earth would we teach Christian creationism as opposed to older, more established tales of creation which are actually true as opposed to the false doctrines of the Christian fundies.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, my post references RNA not DNA.... there is a difference. Additionally, your OPINION that the comparative phylogenetics based on small subunit ribosomal sequences proves nothing is well outside of the scientific mainstream- see the PNAS I provided in my previous post. I'm not exactly sure how you arrived at the conclusion that comaparative phylogentics is circular reasoning but your conclusion that the conservation of the genetic code and translation mechanisms among all known life is not due to common descent but is instead due to a 'designer' has no basis in science.
> 
> Ultimately the quantitative phylogenetic analysis of SSU rRNA is in agreement with numerous other lines of evidence i.e. the fossil record that support the modern synthesis of the TOE.
> 
> Again, I posit my challenge to those who oppose the TOE:
> 
> *I challenge the opponents of the TOE to link one publication from the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences that explicitly refutes the modern synthesis of the TOE*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dna is converted to Rna so the information does not get tainted,so what is your point ? Naturally you are looking for such an article because you and everyone who knows anything about science,know that the heads of the curriculum in the field of science will not allow anything supporting design.That's a fact. Secularists are in control and have been for a while.
> 
> They don't allow anything in that refutes the lie being taught. I may have jumped the gun about where I thought you were headed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's definitely a conspiracy formed and maintained by multiple conspirators to keep ancient fears and superstitions out of the public school classroom.
> 
> Oh you poor, poor dispossessed fundie.
> 
> I would tend to agree that the lack of teaching about the means and methods for burning people at the stake for practicing witchcraft has irreperablly damaged this nations impressionable yutes.
> 
> But why on earth would we teach Christian creationism as opposed to older, more established tales of creation which are actually true as opposed to the false doctrines of the Christian fundies.
Click to expand...


You are a nutcase,we are through. Time to ignore your hateful uneducated rhetoric.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, aren't you the clueless one. The relevance of it is hollie goes around calling everyone liars and saying they twist the truth, yet she has represented herself on this forum as a woman and on another one as a man. Bascially, by her continual lying, he/she has robbed herself of all credibility. When you come to his/her defense, you just wind up looking stupid when you don't have all the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> that's funny because it's a spot on discription of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because I've been posing as Ultimeana Reality on another forum.
Click to expand...

would that be christians cross dressers .com?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you did notice it's mostly me I and me again.
> maybe UR is a teenage girl, sure posts like one!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her fascination with me leads me to believe that she has mistaken this site for her "alternate lifestyle" dating service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually found a video of Rugged Hollie Touch online. I think this is going to explain a lot. His/Her realy name is Pat...
> 
> [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwT1kp0C3Ss[/URL]
Click to expand...

 I'm sure you'd like it to be that way..
you do realize that you're contradicting yourself..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we have proof of is since the fall of adam lifespans of humans greatly decreased. Through research and medicine we increased lifespans but not near what it once was.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! since you have no proof that Adam lived any conclusion drawn from that false premise by defintion is false.
> so my answer stands :there is no credible proof that genetic disorders are on the rise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Researchers have identified more than 4,000 diseases that are caused by genetic variants.
> 
> 
> 
> The Basics on Genes and Genetic Disorders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are over 6,000 genetic disorders that can be passed down through the generations, many of which are fatal or severely debilitating. Since 1997, the GDF has worked with Mount Sinai to help provide funding for research to improve early detection and treatment options for many of these disorders.
> 
> Genetic Disease Foundation: Hope Through Knowledge
> 
> It looks like the number of genetic disorders are on the rise.
Click to expand...

again you dodge the statement :you have no proof that Adam lived any conclusion drawn from that false premise by defintion is false.
so my answer stands :there is no credible proof that genetic disorders are on the rise.
maybe I should have dumbed it down for you
since Adam never existed the so called rise in gentic disorder has to have another cause.

I followed your links neither one says anything about a rise in genetic diorders.
neither did the 10 more that I checked..
as always you're talking out your ass!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think scientific explanations are Daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> a report based on evidence  objective testing and observation.
> THEY ARE NOT based on belief in the supernatural as a causation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here i will help you out since you can't be honest,they are opinions.
Click to expand...

based on evidence  objective testing and observation.
that's the scientific method you can't get any more honest then that.
you don't seem to know the difference between your based on belief in the supernatural as a causation opinion.
from a real scientific opinion based on evidence  objective testing and observation.
you ignorant fuck!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Researchers have identified more than 4,000 diseases that are caused by genetic variants.
> 
> 
> 
> The Basics on Genes and Genetic Disorders
> 
> 
> There are over 6,000 genetic disorders that can be passed down through the generations, many of which are fatal or severely debilitating. Since 1997, the GDF has worked with Mount Sinai to help provide funding for research to improve early detection and treatment options for many of these disorders.
> 
> Genetic Disease Foundation: Hope Through Knowledge
> 
> It looks like the number of genetic disorders are on the rise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Praise Jay-zus.
> 
> You must find it galling that the science you hate is exposing your gawds as incompetent "designers".
> 
> As the alleged author of all, your gawds are thus responsible for all.
> 
> How is it possible that your incompetent designer gawds got so much so wrong?
> 
> Actually, as science becomes more exacting, the diagnosis of disease becomes more exacting. The diagnosis of genetic disease is becoming more of a science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is my opinions mutations were used by God to put an end to eternal life after adam and eve sinned.
> 
> These mutations have been passed on for 6,000 years.
Click to expand...

lolololol! 
your opinion is a huge steaming pile of  of unprovable shit. 

you have no proof of god
"                             adam" 
"                              eve "
"                              eternal life"
"                            god starting or ending anything"
"                            passing of mutations for 6,000 years"
funny how your irrefutable facts become opinions  when you are getting your ass handed to you.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here i will help you out since you can't be honest,they are opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.... the occurrance of genetic disease is not fact but just opinion?
> 
> Your goofy fundie agenda manages to dismantle your own arguments.
> 
> Can I get a _hallelujah_ brothas' and sistas'.
> 
> Is Ken Ham out of jail yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No,how do you think genetic problems some are being headed off in the womb. Some there is nothing we can do about. Why do you think moms and dads are having gene screening before and during pregnancy ? Genetic disorders are a fact.
> 
> Life coming from nonliving matter is an opiion. Organisms evolving into destinctly new organisms ,not of the same family, is built on opinions. So what it comes down to does the evidence better support a designer or naturalism?
Click to expand...

why do you keep going on about evidence you do not have!


----------



## daws101

, hope you got the letter, and...
I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
But all the people that you made in your image, see
Them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
Enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you

Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
Loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
And all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
In the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
I can't believe in you

Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
Mankind after we made you? And the devil too!

, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
A lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
Should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
Image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
So do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in

I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
Devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
Letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
Drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
Whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
And if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
My sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in

It's you....


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dna is converted to Rna so the information does not get tainted,so what is your point ? Naturally you are looking for such an article because you and everyone who knows anything about science,know that the heads of the curriculum in the field of science will not allow anything supporting design.That's a fact. Secularists are in control and have been for a while.
> 
> They don't allow anything in that refutes the lie being taught. I may have jumped the gun about where I thought you were headed.
> 
> 
> 
> It's definitely a conspiracy formed and maintained by multiple conspirators to keep ancient fears and superstitions out of the public school classroom.
> 
> Oh you poor, poor dispossessed fundie.
> 
> I would tend to agree that the lack of teaching about the means and methods for burning people at the stake for practicing witchcraft has irreperablly damaged this nations impressionable yutes.
> 
> But why on earth would we teach Christian creationism as opposed to older, more established tales of creation which are actually true as opposed to the false doctrines of the Christian fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a nutcase,we are through. Time to ignore your hateful uneducated rhetoric.
Click to expand...


I wasnt surprised you went slithering for the exits.
Its just a fact that Christian creationism is a more recent creationist tale of gawds, supernatural / metaphysical beings who fundies demand we bend and scrape to. 

While the sacred cows of Christianity are being heaped upon the altar of religious indoctrination, there are many more religions that would require representation if we're not to be accused of being biased or capricious toward lesser followed  but just as likely  religions and gods. There is absolutely nothing that better defines the Abrahamic god vs. the various polytheistic gods of Hinduism, for example. Unless someone can speak with authority regarding Vishnu as one of the true gods extant as opposed to Zeus or Isis, we shouldn't allow head count as the only basis for determining which religions are represented within a public school syllabus. Why not study the worship of Osiris?, or Isis, worshipped for 5,000 years. Using timeline as the criteria for a "real" religion, the worship of Isis far exceeds the more recent constructs and configurations of god and gods.

What fundie christian creationists need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian fundie Christian (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of gawd(s), you must hold that gawd(s) to the same standards of proof that all gawds must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies the Greek god did it'ists with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd. 

If you have evidence for the existence of a creator Gawd, then provide it. But please, stop pretending that there is logical parity between believing something for which there is no evidence and not believing it.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> It is my opinions mutations were used by God to put an end to eternal life after adam and eve sinned.
> 
> These mutations have been passed on for 6,000 years.


I see. So humanity is a lot like a 1970's vintage Chevy vega - cheaply built with planned obsolescence.

Otherwise, your gawds have done to humanity what they have done throughout their tenure. Their hate for humanity has caused them to "design" an environment where people will die in horrific ways with horrific pain and suffering.

To worship such an entity is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.


----------



## cooky

Youwerecreated said:


> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are saying is built on circular reasoning,just because we have the same genetic code and DNA similarity. DNA similarity proves nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, my post references RNA not DNA.... there is a difference. Additionally, your OPINION that the comparative phylogenetics based on small subunit ribosomal sequences proves nothing is well outside of the scientific mainstream- see the PNAS I provided in my previous post. I'm not exactly sure how you arrived at the conclusion that comaparative phylogentics is circular reasoning but your conclusion that the conservation of the genetic code and translation mechanisms among all known life is not due to common descent but is instead due to a 'designer' has no basis in science.
> 
> Ultimately the quantitative phylogenetic analysis of SSU rRNA is in agreement with numerous other lines of evidence i.e. the fossil record that support the modern synthesis of the TOE.
> 
> Again, I posit my challenge to those who oppose the TOE:
> 
> *I challenge the opponents of the TOE to link one publication from the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences that explicitly refutes the modern synthesis of the TOE*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I challenge you to provide the same thing you are asking of us .Provide the viable explanation to how nonliving matter produced life knowing that biogenesis is a fact.
Click to expand...


The manner in which life first came to inhabit the earth is not a phenomena described by the modern synthesis of the TOE. The scietific community has been quite candid and open about how at present an insufficiency of data precludes a compelling explanation for the origins of life on earth. 

The notion that an intrinsic secular bias among the leaders of thought in modern science is the primary reason tenets of creationism and design have been excluded and/or rebuffed by the mainstream scientific community is a total farse. The real reason that the tenets of creation and ID 'science' ( I use that term loosely in conjunction with ID and creationism) have failed to find mainstream acceptance is because the explanations espoused by ID and creationism lack empirical support and/or were developed outside of accepted scientific norms.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! since you have no proof that Adam lived any conclusion drawn from that false premise by defintion is false.
> so my answer stands :there is no credible proof that genetic disorders are on the rise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Researchers have identified more than 4,000 diseases that are caused by genetic variants.
> 
> 
> 
> The Basics on Genes and Genetic Disorders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are over 6,000 genetic disorders that can be passed down through the generations, many of which are fatal or severely debilitating. Since 1997, the GDF has worked with Mount Sinai to help provide funding for research to improve early detection and treatment options for many of these disorders.
> 
> Genetic Disease Foundation: Hope Through Knowledge
> 
> It looks like the number of genetic disorders are on the rise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again you dodge the statement :you have no proof that Adam lived any conclusion drawn from that false premise by defintion is false.
> so my answer stands :there is no credible proof that genetic disorders are on the rise.
> maybe I should have dumbed it down for you
> since Adam never existed the so called rise in gentic disorder has to have another cause.
> 
> I followed your links neither one says anything about a rise in genetic diorders.
> neither did the 10 more that I checked..
> as always you're talking out your ass!
Click to expand...


Let me dumb it down for you.

A genetic disorder is a disease caused in whole or in part by a change in the DNA sequence away from the normal sequence. Genetic disorders can be caused by a mutation in one gene (monogenic disorder), by mutations in multiple genes (multifactorial inheritance disorder), by a combination of gene mutations and environmental factors, or by damage to chromosomes (changes in the number or structure of entire chromosomes, the structures that carry genes).

As we unlock the secrets of the human genome (the complete set of human genes), we are learning that nearly all diseases have a genetic component. Some diseases are caused by mutations that are inherited from the parents and are present in an individual at birth, like sickle cell disease. Other diseases are caused by acquired mutations in a gene or group of genes that occur during a person's life. Such mutations are not inherited from a parent, but occur either randomly or due to some environmental exposure (such as cigarette smoke). These include many cancers, as well as some forms of neurofibromatosis.

FAQ About Genetic Disorders


You do know who Mendel is and what he is famous for right ? if not google him.


Their revolutionary concepts and findings point to the need for new principles and experimental approaches to understanding polygenic diseases. Mendel and his genetic gospel still hold true. It is now a matter of adapting these principles to explain phenomena of the modern world. The work of Alper and his group directs us to focus on the new approaches for intervention and prevention being developed that are genetically based, rather than diverting energy and resources to speculative environmental or other external causes that are, in some cases contributory, but not determining.

News - Polygenic Diseases on the Rise - News & Events | Immune Disease Institute

You once again are bloviating.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So.... the occurrance of genetic disease is not fact but just opinion?
> 
> Your goofy fundie agenda manages to dismantle your own arguments.
> 
> Can I get a _hallelujah_ brothas' and sistas'.
> 
> Is Ken Ham out of jail yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,how do you think genetic problems some are being headed off in the womb. Some there is nothing we can do about. Why do you think moms and dads are having gene screening before and during pregnancy ? Genetic disorders are a fact.
> 
> Life coming from nonliving matter is an opiion. Organisms evolving into destinctly new organisms ,not of the same family, is built on opinions. So what it comes down to does the evidence better support a designer or naturalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you keep going on about evidence you do not have!
Click to expand...


So you have an answer for my questions or are you once again talking from ignorance ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

cooky said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, my post references RNA not DNA.... there is a difference. Additionally, your OPINION that the comparative phylogenetics based on small subunit ribosomal sequences proves nothing is well outside of the scientific mainstream- see the PNAS I provided in my previous post. I'm not exactly sure how you arrived at the conclusion that comaparative phylogentics is circular reasoning but your conclusion that the conservation of the genetic code and translation mechanisms among all known life is not due to common descent but is instead due to a 'designer' has no basis in science.
> 
> Ultimately the quantitative phylogenetic analysis of SSU rRNA is in agreement with numerous other lines of evidence i.e. the fossil record that support the modern synthesis of the TOE.
> 
> Again, I posit my challenge to those who oppose the TOE:
> 
> *I challenge the opponents of the TOE to link one publication from the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences that explicitly refutes the modern synthesis of the TOE*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to provide the same thing you are asking of us .Provide the viable explanation to how nonliving matter produced life knowing that biogenesis is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The manner in which life first came to inhabit the earth is not a phenomena described by the modern synthesis of the TOE. The scietific community has been quite candid and open about how at present an insufficiency of data precludes a compelling explanation for the origins of life on earth.
> 
> The notion that an intrinsic secular bias among the leaders of thought in modern science is the primary reason tenets of creationism and design have been excluded and/or rebuffed by the mainstream scientific community is a total farse. The real reason that the tenets of creation and ID 'science' ( I use that term loosely in conjunction with ID and creationism) have failed to find mainstream acceptance is because the explanations espoused by ID and creationism lack empirical support and/or were developed outside of accepted scientific norms.
Click to expand...


I will hold you to the same standards you do creationists.

The real problem is you have no clue but are willing to ignore evidence for design.


----------



## cooky

Youwerecreated said:


> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to provide the same thing you are asking of us .Provide the viable explanation to how nonliving matter produced life knowing that biogenesis is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The manner in which life first came to inhabit the earth is not a phenomena described by the modern synthesis of the TOE. The scietific community has been quite candid and open about how at present an insufficiency of data precludes a compelling explanation for the origins of life on earth.
> 
> The notion that an intrinsic secular bias among the leaders of thought in modern science is the primary reason tenets of creationism and design have been excluded and/or rebuffed by the mainstream scientific community is a total farse. The real reason that the tenets of creation and ID 'science' ( I use that term loosely in conjunction with ID and creationism) have failed to find mainstream acceptance is because the explanations espoused by ID and creationism lack empirical support and/or were developed outside of accepted scientific norms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will hold you to the same standards you do creationists.
> 
> The real problem is you have no clue but are willing to ignore evidence for design.
Click to expand...


I provided a scientific source on the phylogenetics.

Please elaborate how i have "no clue" and how I am ignoring evidence for design.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a report based on evidence  objective testing and observation.
> THEY ARE NOT based on belief in the supernatural as a causation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here i will help you out since you can't be honest,they are opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So.... the occurrance of genetic disease is not fact but just opinion?
> 
> Your goofy fundie agenda manages to dismantle your own arguments.
> 
> Can I get a _hallelujah_ brothas' and sistas'.
> 
> Is Ken Ham out of jail yet?
Click to expand...


Why do you hate Christians so much? Why do you insist on mocking Christians with lies and stereotypes?

How would you like it if I started making fun of your white, long-sleeve button down oxford shirt? Or your short, spikey hair cut?


----------



## UltimateReality

cooky said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fitness is very easily defined as reproductive success. Differential reproductive success is ultimately what drives evolution.
> 
> Whats more, the phylogenetic study of rRNA sequences has revolutionized evolutionary biology such that a "tree of life" can be resolved from comparative studies of ribosomal sequences that is largely unbiased by HGT artifacts. Your supposition that modern genetics has convoluted the 'tree of life' could not be further from the truth. To help clarify your understanding of how modern phylogenetic analysis has only empowered evolutionary biology I have linked a review from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was published in 2011.
> 
> Phylogeny and beyond: Scientific, historical, and conceptual significance of the first tree of life
> 
> While the detractors of the TOE will allude to flaws, gaps and evidence that contradicts the TOE they have failed to produce any credible scientific discourse that supports their position.
> 
> *I challenge the opponents of the TOE to link one publication from the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences that explicitly refutes the modern synthesis of the TOE*. Its time to crap or get off the pot folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are saying is built on circular reasoning,just because we have the same genetic code and DNA similarity. DNA similarity proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, my post references RNA not DNA.... there is a difference. Additionally, your OPINION that the comparative phylogenetics based on small subunit ribosomal sequences proves nothing is well outside of the scientific mainstream- see the PNAS I provided in my previous post. I'm not exactly sure how you arrived at the conclusion that comaparative phylogentics is circular reasoning but your conclusion that the conservation of the genetic code and translation mechanisms among all known life is not due to common descent but is instead due to a 'designer' has no basis in science.
> 
> Ultimately the quantitative phylogenetic analysis of SSU rRNA is in agreement with numerous other lines of evidence i.e. the fossil record that support the modern synthesis of the TOE.
> 
> Again, I posit my challenge to those who oppose the TOE:
> 
> *I challenge the opponents of the TOE to link one publication from the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences that explicitly refutes the modern synthesis of the TOE*
Click to expand...


Please help me understand why we would need to limit our source from the PONAS? While I get working on that, please find a passage in the Bible, and just the Bible, that explicitly refutes the Creation story.


----------



## UltimateReality

cooky said:


> Fitness is very easily defined as reproductive success. Differential reproductive success is ultimately what drives evolution.



*So you are basically saying the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce. * This is what YWC is calling a circular argument. Evolutionary theory based on natural selection (survival of the fittest) is vacuous: it states that, first, evolution can be explained by the fact that, on the whole, only the fitter organisms survive and achieve reproductive success; and second, what makes an organism fit is the fact that it survives and successfully reproduces. This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological &#8212; it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. 

The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... what you're suggesting is that the gawds spent time "designing" every terrestrial animal and human which has ever walked or crawled on the planet but for some reason "designed" DNA as a comment component of life just to fool us?
> 
> Your self-inflicted ignorance Is your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each family was designed yes. Recombination of genes that was already present in the genome is how we got the diversity in each family group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So to clarify, the gawds made two (male and female) of every creature? If that is the case, why produce a "design" with inherent flaws? Why "design" a gene pool the will recombine with flaws thus producing errors.
> 
> How do you account for worms, as one example, which can reproduce asexaully? Were the gawds just having a bit of fun with that?
> 
> How do you account for dinosaurs being "designed" hundreds of millions of years ago and the literal account of a 6,000 year old earth?
> 
> Have the gawds played a cruel joke on you?
Click to expand...


And what about asexual humans like Pat?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, my post references RNA not DNA.... there is a difference. Additionally, your OPINION that the comparative phylogenetics based on small subunit ribosomal sequences proves nothing is well outside of the scientific mainstream- see the PNAS I provided in my previous post. I'm not exactly sure how you arrived at the conclusion that comaparative phylogentics is circular reasoning but your conclusion that the conservation of the genetic code and translation mechanisms among all known life is not due to common descent but is instead due to a 'designer' has no basis in science.
> 
> Ultimately the quantitative phylogenetic analysis of SSU rRNA is in agreement with numerous other lines of evidence i.e. the fossil record that support the modern synthesis of the TOE.
> 
> Again, I posit my challenge to those who oppose the TOE:
> 
> *I challenge the opponents of the TOE to link one publication from the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences that explicitly refutes the modern synthesis of the TOE*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dna is converted to Rna so the information does not get tainted,so what is your point ? Naturally you are looking for such an article because you and everyone who knows anything about science,know that the heads of the curriculum in the field of science will not allow anything supporting design.That's a fact. Secularists are in control and have been for a while.
> 
> They don't allow anything in that refutes the lie being taught. I may have jumped the gun about where I thought you were headed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's definitely a conspiracy formed and maintained by multiple conspirators to keep ancient fears and superstitions out of the public school classroom.
> 
> Oh you poor, poor dispossessed fundie.
> 
> I would tend to agree that the lack of teaching about the means and methods for burning people at the stake for practicing witchcraft has irreperablly damaged this nations impressionable yutes.
> 
> But why on earth would we teach Christian creationism as opposed to older, more established tales of creation which are actually true as opposed to the false doctrines of the Christian fundies.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> , hope you got the letter, and...
> I pray you can make it better down here.
> I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
> But all the people that you made in your image, see
> Them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
> Enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you
> 
> Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
> Loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
> And all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
> In the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
> I can't believe in you
> 
> Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
> Mankind after we made you? And the devil too!
> 
> , don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
> A lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
> Should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
> Image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
> So do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in
> 
> I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
> Devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
> Letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
> Drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
> Whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
> Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
> And if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
> My sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in
> 
> It's you....



Yep. This is just another proof of my claim there are no true atheists... only people angry at God. When faced with situations they can not reconcile in their lives, instead of turning to God, some decide to hate God, and go on a mission to try to destroy belief in him. If you don't believe in God, why do you care if others do? Why make it your personal mission to persecute those that choose to freely exercise their freedom of religion our country was founded on?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's definitely a conspiracy formed and maintained by multiple conspirators to keep ancient fears and superstitions out of the public school classroom.
> 
> Oh you poor, poor dispossessed fundie.
> 
> I would tend to agree that the lack of teaching about the means and methods for burning people at the stake for practicing witchcraft has irreperablly damaged this nations impressionable yutes.
> 
> But why on earth would we teach Christian creationism as opposed to older, more established tales of creation which are actually true as opposed to the false doctrines of the Christian fundies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a nutcase,we are through. Time to ignore your hateful uneducated rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasnt surprised you went slithering for the exits.
> Its just a fact that Christian creationism is a more recent creationist tale of gawds, supernatural / metaphysical beings who fundies demand we bend and scrape to.
> 
> While the sacred cows of Christianity are being heaped upon the altar of religious indoctrination, there are many more religions that would require representation if we're not to be accused of being biased or capricious toward lesser followed  but just as likely  religions and gods. There is absolutely nothing that better defines the Abrahamic god vs. the various polytheistic gods of Hinduism, for example. Unless someone can speak with authority regarding Vishnu as one of the true gods extant as opposed to Zeus or Isis, we shouldn't allow head count as the only basis for determining which religions are represented within a public school syllabus. Why not study the worship of Osiris?, or Isis, worshipped for 5,000 years. Using timeline as the criteria for a "real" religion, the worship of Isis far exceeds the more recent constructs and configurations of god and gods.
> 
> What fundie christian creationists need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian fundie Christian (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of gawd(s), you must hold that gawd(s) to the same standards of proof that all gawds must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies the Greek god did it'ists with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.
> 
> If you have evidence for the existence of a creator Gawd, then provide it. But please, stop pretending that there is logical parity between believing something for which there is no evidence and not believing it.
Click to expand...


But what of the ICR and Haran Yahan? How do they fit into all of this?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is my opinions mutations were used by God to put an end to eternal life after adam and eve sinned.
> 
> These mutations have been passed on for 6,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> I see. So humanity is a lot like a 1970's vintage Chevy vega - cheaply built with planned obsolescence.
> 
> Otherwise, your gawds have done to humanity what they have done throughout their tenure. Their hate for humanity has caused them to "design" an environment where people will die in horrific ways with horrific pain and suffering.
> 
> To worship such an entity is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
Click to expand...


You are a mental midget. My belief system doesn't limit me to my childish, human view. Your comment assumes that this life is all there is. If that is the case, then the joke is on you. While sin has caused some immense suffering and pain, God sees the big picture. Death is not unlike the birthing process... A short and very intense amount of physical pain and suffering with the end result being an amazing blessing and new life.


----------



## UltimateReality

Scientists would like to believe that the popularity of new theories depends entirely on their scientific value, in terms of novelty, importance and technical correctness. *But the Bristol study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, shows that scientists pay less attention to theories that are crammed with mathematical details.*

Cooky, maybe their math was all wrong. 

Scientists struggle with mathematical details, study by biologists finds


----------



## UltimateReality

In other words, rather than the slow incorporation of random mutations via natural selection as envisioned by evolution, populations respond rapidly to challenges with intelligent, directed adaptations. *These results make no sense on evolution, but that has not stopped evolutionists from trying to force-fit them into the theory. Here is how one recent paper summarized these findings:*

    1. Heredity involves more than DNA. There are heritable variations that are independent of variations in DNA sequence, and they have a degree of autonomy from DNA variations. These non-DNA variations can form an additional substrate for evolutionary change and guide genetic evolution.

    2. Soft inheritance, the inheritance of developmentally induced and regulated variations, exists and it is important. Soft inheritance includes both non-DNA variations and developmentally induced variations in DNA sequence.

    3. Since many organisms (including humans) contain symbionts and parasites that are transferred from one generation of the host to the next, it may be necessary to consider such communities as targets of selection.

    4. Saltational changes leading to evolution beyond the species level are common, and the mechanisms underlying them are beginning to be understood. Macroevolution may be the result of specific, stress-induced mechanisms that lead to a re-patterning of the genome - to systemic mutations.

    5. The Tree Of Life pattern of divergence, which was supposed to be universal, fails to explain all the sources of similarities and differences between taxa. Sharing whole genomes (through hybridization, symbiosis and parasitism) and partial exchange of genomes (through various types of horizontal gene transfer) lead to web-like patterns of relations. These web-like patterns are particularly evident in some taxa (e.g. plants, bacteria) and for some periods of evolution (e.g. the initial stages following genome sharing or exchange).


*So now those random mutations must have created life not only with DNA-based heredity, but other heredity mechanisms within the cell. The astronomically unlikely requirements for evolution just increased exponentially.*

Darwin's God


----------



## UltimateReality

For years evolutionists attempted to explain this* growing list of contradictions *using their evolutionary tree model. But it is obvious that this was an exercise in forcing the evidence to fit the theory rather than the other way around. The inexorable march of science has taken its toll and in recent years evolutionists have finally begun to deemphasize their iconic evolutionary tree model. What this does not change, however, is their insistence that evolution is a fact.

Falsification

Now, thirty years after Penny cited the congruence of different evolutionary trees as a prediction that could falsify evolution, it is not controversial even amongst evolutionists that the prediction is false. The plethora of new DNA and protein sequence data have provided a steady stream of incongruent evolutionary trees. These trees strongly conflict with the trees based on other sequence data, or with the consensus evolutionary tree. And the disagreement is far beyond evolutionary noise. As one evolution wrote:

*Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.*

And as usual evolutionists appeal to a spectrum of explanatory devices to correct the narrative. The most prevalent of these epicycles is the horizontal gene transfer (HGT), a term that encompasses several known mechanisms by which genes can transfer between organisms such as bacteria.

In fact, if evolution is true then HGT must have been one of its key players. As one paper explained, HGT has emerged as a central force in the evolution of many different prokaryotes.

But under evolution, HGT must also have been important in the evolution of eukaryotes:

    and now cases of HGT in eukaryotes are emerging at an increasing rate and account for many adaptively important traits


So HGT is now a key mechanism of the evolutionary process. It can do what the old mechanisms could not. In fact, one must wonder how this powerful mechanism knows when to send which genes where. For the various versions of HGT are incredibly intelligent.

Darwin's God: Search results for tree of life


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is my opinions mutations were used by God to put an end to eternal life after adam and eve sinned.
> 
> These mutations have been passed on for 6,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> I see. So humanity is a lot like a 1970's vintage Chevy vega - cheaply built with planned obsolescence.
> 
> Otherwise, your gawds have done to humanity what they have done throughout their tenure. Their hate for humanity has caused them to "design" an environment where people will die in horrific ways with horrific pain and suffering.
> 
> To worship such an entity is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a mental midget. My belief system doesn't limit me to my childish, human view. Your comment assumes that this life is all there is. If that is the case, then the joke is on you. While sin has caused some immense suffering and pain, God sees the big picture. Death is not unlike the birthing process... A short and very intense amount of physical pain and suffering with the end result being an amazing blessing and new life.
Click to expand...

Predictably, the Kool-aid drinker takes to thunping her bible insetad of addressing the immense pain and suffering that religion (and christianity in particular), has caused humanity.

The rabid fundie should make an effort to learn her christianity. For example, the various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Take a few minutes, go to the library, or even here on the Net (the library is better because you can know for sure that the documents are for real) and research the laws of the original 13 colonies. You'll be surprised at what you'll learn.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> For years evolutionists attempted to explain this* growing list of contradictions *using their evolutionary tree model. But it is obvious that this was an exercise in forcing the evidence to fit the theory rather than the other way around. The inexorable march of science has taken its toll and in recent years evolutionists have finally begun to deemphasize their iconic evolutionary tree model. What this does not change, however, is their insistence that evolution is a fact.
> 
> Falsification
> 
> Now, thirty years after Penny cited the congruence of different evolutionary trees as a prediction that could falsify evolution, it is not controversial even amongst evolutionists that the prediction is false. The plethora of new DNA and protein sequence data have provided a steady stream of incongruent evolutionary trees. These trees strongly conflict with the trees based on other sequence data, or with the consensus evolutionary tree. And the disagreement is far beyond evolutionary noise. As one evolution wrote:
> 
> *Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.*
> 
> And as usual evolutionists appeal to a spectrum of explanatory devices to correct the narrative. The most prevalent of these epicycles is the horizontal gene transfer (HGT), a term that encompasses several known mechanisms by which genes can transfer between organisms such as bacteria.
> 
> In fact, if evolution is true then HGT must have been one of its key players. As one paper explained, HGT has emerged as a central force in the evolution of many different prokaryotes.
> 
> But under evolution, HGT must also have been important in the evolution of eukaryotes:
> 
> and now cases of HGT in eukaryotes are emerging at an increasing rate and account for many adaptively important traits
> 
> 
> So HGT is now a key mechanism of the evolutionary process. It can do what the old mechanisms could not. In fact, one must wonder how this powerful mechanism knows when to send which genes where. For the various versions of HGT are incredibly intelligent.
> 
> Darwin's God: Search results for tree of life



Ah yes. Cornelius Hunter, another creationist hack 


*If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then*

If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then... - The Panda's Thumb

I consider myself pretty well-educated about creationism, and of course I know its all silly, but I pride myself on usually being able to understand what argument the creationists are trying to make, even when they are doing it poorly. But I need help with this one.

Via the Discovery Institute Blog/Misinformation Service, I came across this post from Hunter, which is his Monday post. I also read Hunters Sunday post and got confused.

Starting on Sunday, we have: Cornelius Hunter, Sunday, July 25, 2010, speaking about shared errors in pseudogenes:


> This claim, that such shared errors indicate, or demonstrate, or reveal common ancestry, is the result of an implicit truth claim which does not, and cannot, come from science. It is the claim that evolution and only evolution can explain such evidences. It is the equivalent of what is known as an IF-AND-ONLY-IF claim.



Science makes IF-THEN statements (if evolution is true, then species with recent common ancestors should have similarities between them). IF-AND-ONLY-IF statements (if and only if evolution is true, then species with recent common ancestors should have similarities between them) cannot be known from science. [italics original]

OK, so here hes saying, I guess, that science can only make if-then statements, and test hypotheses on that basis. Science cannot formally say that X is the ONLY possible explanation of Y, because, I suppose, there always might be some other explanation out there.

He thinks this is important for evolution because sometimes evolutionists say Y (lanugo, shared errors in pseudogenes, etc.) can only be explained by common ancestry. Of course, any fair assessment of these sorts of statements would note that people use such language all the time (the only explanation for the 20 identical paragraphs in these two students term papers is copying from each other or from a common source), and they dont mean that they can formally exclude, say, miraculous intervention by Thor or something. All people typically mean by these statements is this is the only decent explanation of Y that has been put forward to date; if someone else comes up with a better explanation, fine, but until then X is what Im going with. But if creationists were fair about such things, they wouldnt be creationists.

(Parenthetical, Hunter throws in some total bunkum:


> Any scientific analysis of the evidence [of pseudogenes] would come up empty handed. Pseudogenes reveal various patterns, some which can be employed to argue for common descent, others which violate common descent (they could be explained, for instance, by common mechanism). Furthermore pseudogenes reveal evidence of mutational hotspots.



Side rant: This is, basically, total crap. Hunter apparently has no idea that, in phylogenetics, it is trivial to test hypotheses like there is no tree structure in the sequence data or these two phylogenies from two different genes agree/disagree with each other, to quantify the amount of agreement/disagreement, etc. The amount of homoplasy (character states which evolved independently, as might occur occasionally with pseudogenes) can be estimated, and we can tell whether or not we are close or far from a situation in which there is so much homoplasy that no phylogenetic structure is statistically supported. And when this kind of thing is done, the result is typically *massive* statistical support for common ancestry. At least, it would be considered such in any other field of science, but Hunter wants to treat evolution differently from all other parts of science. For evolution, he wants to have the special privilege of pulling out a few characters that disagree with some pattern, and ignore the hundreds/thousands of other characters that support the pattern. Hunter complains and complains about the unscientific nature of evolutionists, but when it comes to doing an actual fair data analysis that actually looks at the statistical support for common ancestry, hes totally at sea. OK, end of rant.)

(Not quite done. I should add that my first encounter with Hunter was in 2001 or so. Somehow or other we were in an argument about whether or not some genetic sequence data produced a tree structure. He had calculated the pairwise distances between the genes and done a histogram of the distances. The distribution of gene-gene distances had a number of separate humps. He claimed that this falsified tree structure. I pointed out that this pattern was exactly what you would expect from distances produced from a tree. After a lot of arguing, he eventually got it, but then said something irate about how he was sorry but just because he was totally wrong about this (I would say the definition of a surprising successful prediction is one where someone claims their data is good and a good falsification of a hypothesis, but then it turns out that their data has exactly the pattern they claimed it didnt have), he wasnt going to genuflect to evolution. Sadly I cant find the email now and the only word I can remember is genuflect. Ah well.)

Anyway, so, everyones got his argument so far? Evolutionists shouldnt use IF-AND-ONLY-IF statements, they should be real scientists and just use IF-THEN statements like other scientists, the good kind of scientists.

(By the way, if Hunter is right, hes just nuked Stephen Meyers argument in Signature in the Cell, which relies almost entirely on the argument that intelligence is the ONLY source of genetic information. Oops. Of course, Meyers assertion is wrong, but thats a different story.)

With that, I give you, Cornelius Hunter, Monday, July 26, 2010. He is complaining about an introductory biology textbook by Johnson & Lobos. After saying the authors rehearse the usual lies, Hunter really gets going on the fossil record:



> Such misrepresentations of science, as damaging as they are, pale in comparison to Johnsons and Lobos next move. The apologists make a pathetic attempt to enlist the fossil record as powerful evidence for evolution, and end up with only the usual religious dogma.
> 
> They write:
> If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected.
> 
> Very interesting. And how do evolutionary clowns know so much? From where did Johnson and Lobos learn such ultimate truths? If evolution is not correct then such orderly change is not expected? Tell us more.
> 
> What are all the possibilities aside from evolution and why do none of them predict such orderly change? Why is it that evolution, and only evolution, predicts such an outcome? This is truly fascinating. If and only if evolution is true would we see such orderly change. Johnson and Lobos are real geniusesthey have knowledge of all possible causes.
> 
> You cannot make this stuff up. In two and half pages the texts chapter on evolution has gone from misleading to absurd. What will come next?
> 
> But this is nothing new in evolutionary circles. Only evolutionists can make fools of themselves with a straight face and then repeat the process ad nauseam.


But, did they use the word only? No! And they said nothing about ultimate truths, and nothing about whatever mysterious alternatives Hunter endlessly claims are out there, but which he shockingly, cravenly, scandalously never bothers to elucidate, as any real scientist would have to. All the authors did was make an if-then statement, like Hunter JUST FREAKING SAID scientists were supposed to do the day before! Instead of congratulating them on saying the right thing, Hunter convicts them of vast, grand metaphysical sins.

So Im at a loss. If I had to guess, Id say hes just mad and letting emotion run his argumentation, under the cover of unsupported blather about metaphysics. Maybe this textbook is being used in his home town or something?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a nutcase,we are through. Time to ignore your hateful uneducated rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasnt surprised you went slithering for the exits.
> Its just a fact that Christian creationism is a more recent creationist tale of gawds, supernatural / metaphysical beings who fundies demand we bend and scrape to.
> 
> While the sacred cows of Christianity are being heaped upon the altar of religious indoctrination, there are many more religions that would require representation if we're not to be accused of being biased or capricious toward lesser followed  but just as likely  religions and gods. There is absolutely nothing that better defines the Abrahamic god vs. the various polytheistic gods of Hinduism, for example. Unless someone can speak with authority regarding Vishnu as one of the true gods extant as opposed to Zeus or Isis, we shouldn't allow head count as the only basis for determining which religions are represented within a public school syllabus. Why not study the worship of Osiris?, or Isis, worshipped for 5,000 years. Using timeline as the criteria for a "real" religion, the worship of Isis far exceeds the more recent constructs and configurations of god and gods.
> 
> What fundie christian creationists need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian fundie Christian (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of gawd(s), you must hold that gawd(s) to the same standards of proof that all gawds must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies the Greek god did it'ists with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.
> 
> If you have evidence for the existence of a creator Gawd, then provide it. But please, stop pretending that there is logical parity between believing something for which there is no evidence and not believing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what of the ICR and Haran Yahan? How do they fit into all of this?
Click to expand...


Another mindless waste of time. 

I've noticed that absent cutting and pasting from religious websites, you're hopeless at assembling words into coherent sentences.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see. So humanity is a lot like a 1970's vintage Chevy vega - cheaply built with planned obsolescence.
> 
> Otherwise, your gawds have done to humanity what they have done throughout their tenure. Their hate for humanity has caused them to "design" an environment where people will die in horrific ways with horrific pain and suffering.
> 
> To worship such an entity is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a mental midget. My belief system doesn't limit me to my childish, human view. Your comment assumes that this life is all there is. If that is the case, then the joke is on you. While sin has caused some immense suffering and pain, God sees the big picture. Death is not unlike the birthing process... A short and very intense amount of physical pain and suffering with the end result being an amazing blessing and new life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Predictably, the Kool-aid drinker takes to thunping her bible insetad of addressing the immense pain and suffering that religion (and christianity in particular), has caused humanity.
> 
> The rabid fundie should make an effort to learn her christianity. For example, the various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Take a few minutes, go to the library, or even here on the Net (the library is better because you can know for sure that the documents are for real) and research the laws of the original 13 colonies. You'll be surprised at what you'll learn.
Click to expand...


Look at all this pain and suffering these Christians are causing. They're probably burning a few witches along the way too.  

Sponsor a Child - Compassion International

Sponsor a Child | Christian Humanitarian Organization -- World Vision

Adoption - Catholic Charities USA

Working to Reduce Poverty in America - Catholic Charities USA

Sponsor a Child | Food for the Hungry

About Us


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> For years evolutionists attempted to explain this* growing list of contradictions *using their evolutionary tree model. But it is obvious that this was an exercise in forcing the evidence to fit the theory rather than the other way around. The inexorable march of science has taken its toll and in recent years evolutionists have finally begun to deemphasize their iconic evolutionary tree model. What this does not change, however, is their insistence that evolution is a fact.
> 
> Falsification
> 
> Now, thirty years after Penny cited the congruence of different evolutionary trees as a prediction that could falsify evolution, it is not controversial even amongst evolutionists that the prediction is false. The plethora of new DNA and protein sequence data have provided a steady stream of incongruent evolutionary trees. These trees strongly conflict with the trees based on other sequence data, or with the consensus evolutionary tree. And the disagreement is far beyond evolutionary noise. As one evolution wrote:
> 
> *Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.*
> 
> And as usual evolutionists appeal to a spectrum of explanatory devices to correct the narrative. The most prevalent of these epicycles is the horizontal gene transfer (HGT), a term that encompasses several known mechanisms by which genes can transfer between organisms such as bacteria.
> 
> In fact, if evolution is true then HGT must have been one of its key players. As one paper explained, HGT has emerged as a central force in the evolution of many different prokaryotes.
> 
> But under evolution, HGT must also have been important in the evolution of eukaryotes:
> 
> and now cases of HGT in eukaryotes are emerging at an increasing rate and account for many adaptively important traits
> 
> 
> So HGT is now a key mechanism of the evolutionary process. It can do what the old mechanisms could not. In fact, one must wonder how this powerful mechanism knows when to send which genes where. For the various versions of HGT are incredibly intelligent.
> 
> Darwin's God: Search results for tree of life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes. Cornelius Hunter, another creationist hack
> 
> 
> *If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then*
> 
> If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then... - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> I consider myself pretty well-educated about creationism, and of course I know its all silly, but I pride myself on usually being able to understand what argument the creationists are trying to make, even when they are doing it poorly. But I need help with this one.
> 
> Via the Discovery Institute Blog/Misinformation Service, I came across this post from Hunter, which is his Monday post. I also read Hunters Sunday post and got confused.
> 
> Starting on Sunday, we have: Cornelius Hunter, Sunday, July 25, 2010, speaking about shared errors in pseudogenes:
> 
> 
> 
> This claim, that such shared errors indicate, or demonstrate, or reveal common ancestry, is the result of an implicit truth claim which does not, and cannot, come from science. It is the claim that evolution and only evolution can explain such evidences. It is the equivalent of what is known as an IF-AND-ONLY-IF claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science makes IF-THEN statements (if evolution is true, then species with recent common ancestors should have similarities between them). IF-AND-ONLY-IF statements (if and only if evolution is true, then species with recent common ancestors should have similarities between them) cannot be known from science. [italics original]
> 
> OK, so here hes saying, I guess, that science can only make if-then statements, and test hypotheses on that basis. Science cannot formally say that X is the ONLY possible explanation of Y, because, I suppose, there always might be some other explanation out there.
> 
> He thinks this is important for evolution because sometimes evolutionists say Y (lanugo, shared errors in pseudogenes, etc.) can only be explained by common ancestry. Of course, any fair assessment of these sorts of statements would note that people use such language all the time (the only explanation for the 20 identical paragraphs in these two students term papers is copying from each other or from a common source), and they dont mean that they can formally exclude, say, miraculous intervention by Thor or something. All people typically mean by these statements is this is the only decent explanation of Y that has been put forward to date; if someone else comes up with a better explanation, fine, but until then X is what Im going with. But if creationists were fair about such things, they wouldnt be creationists.
> 
> (Parenthetical, Hunter throws in some total bunkum:
> 
> 
> 
> Any scientific analysis of the evidence [of pseudogenes] would come up empty handed. Pseudogenes reveal various patterns, some which can be employed to argue for common descent, others which violate common descent (they could be explained, for instance, by common mechanism). Furthermore pseudogenes reveal evidence of mutational hotspots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Side rant: This is, basically, total crap. Hunter apparently has no idea that, in phylogenetics, it is trivial to test hypotheses like there is no tree structure in the sequence data or these two phylogenies from two different genes agree/disagree with each other, to quantify the amount of agreement/disagreement, etc. The amount of homoplasy (character states which evolved independently, as might occur occasionally with pseudogenes) can be estimated, and we can tell whether or not we are close or far from a situation in which there is so much homoplasy that no phylogenetic structure is statistically supported. And when this kind of thing is done, the result is typically *massive* statistical support for common ancestry. At least, it would be considered such in any other field of science, but Hunter wants to treat evolution differently from all other parts of science. For evolution, he wants to have the special privilege of pulling out a few characters that disagree with some pattern, and ignore the hundreds/thousands of other characters that support the pattern. Hunter complains and complains about the unscientific nature of evolutionists, but when it comes to doing an actual fair data analysis that actually looks at the statistical support for common ancestry, hes totally at sea. OK, end of rant.)
> 
> (Not quite done. I should add that my first encounter with Hunter was in 2001 or so. Somehow or other we were in an argument about whether or not some genetic sequence data produced a tree structure. He had calculated the pairwise distances between the genes and done a histogram of the distances. The distribution of gene-gene distances had a number of separate humps. He claimed that this falsified tree structure. I pointed out that this pattern was exactly what you would expect from distances produced from a tree. After a lot of arguing, he eventually got it, but then said something irate about how he was sorry but just because he was totally wrong about this (I would say the definition of a surprising successful prediction is one where someone claims their data is good and a good falsification of a hypothesis, but then it turns out that their data has exactly the pattern they claimed it didnt have), he wasnt going to genuflect to evolution. Sadly I cant find the email now and the only word I can remember is genuflect. Ah well.)
> 
> Anyway, so, everyones got his argument so far? Evolutionists shouldnt use IF-AND-ONLY-IF statements, they should be real scientists and just use IF-THEN statements like other scientists, the good kind of scientists.
> 
> (By the way, if Hunter is right, hes just nuked Stephen Meyers argument in Signature in the Cell, which relies almost entirely on the argument that intelligence is the ONLY source of genetic information. Oops. Of course, Meyers assertion is wrong, but thats a different story.)
> 
> With that, I give you, Cornelius Hunter, Monday, July 26, 2010. He is complaining about an introductory biology textbook by Johnson & Lobos. After saying the authors rehearse the usual lies, Hunter really gets going on the fossil record:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such misrepresentations of science, as damaging as they are, pale in comparison to Johnsons and Lobos next move. The apologists make a pathetic attempt to enlist the fossil record as powerful evidence for evolution, and end up with only the usual religious dogma.
> 
> They write:
> If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected.
> 
> Very interesting. And how do evolutionary clowns know so much? From where did Johnson and Lobos learn such ultimate truths? If evolution is not correct then such orderly change is not expected? Tell us more.
> 
> What are all the possibilities aside from evolution and why do none of them predict such orderly change? Why is it that evolution, and only evolution, predicts such an outcome? This is truly fascinating. If and only if evolution is true would we see such orderly change. Johnson and Lobos are real geniusesthey have knowledge of all possible causes.
> 
> You cannot make this stuff up. In two and half pages the texts chapter on evolution has gone from misleading to absurd. What will come next?
> 
> But this is nothing new in evolutionary circles. Only evolutionists can make fools of themselves with a straight face and then repeat the process ad nauseam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, did they use the word only? No! And they said nothing about ultimate truths, and nothing about whatever mysterious alternatives Hunter endlessly claims are out there, but which he shockingly, cravenly, scandalously never bothers to elucidate, as any real scientist would have to. All the authors did was make an if-then statement, like Hunter JUST FREAKING SAID scientists were supposed to do the day before! Instead of congratulating them on saying the right thing, Hunter convicts them of vast, grand metaphysical sins.
> 
> So Im at a loss. If I had to guess, Id say hes just mad and letting emotion run his argumentation, under the cover of unsupported blather about metaphysics. Maybe this textbook is being used in his home town or something?
Click to expand...


I'm sure Hunter is part of the ICR.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn&#8217;t surprised you went slithering for the exits.
> It&#8217;s just a fact that Christian creationism is a more recent creationist tale of gawds, supernatural / metaphysical beings who fundies demand we bend and scrape to.
> 
> While the sacred cows of Christianity are being heaped upon the altar of religious indoctrination, there are many more religions that would require representation if we're not to be accused of being biased or capricious toward lesser followed &#8211; but just as likely &#8211; religions and gods. There is absolutely nothing that better defines the Abrahamic god vs. the various polytheistic gods of Hinduism, for example. Unless someone can speak with authority regarding Vishnu as one of the true gods extant as opposed to Zeus or Isis, we shouldn't allow head count as the only basis for determining which religions are represented within a public school syllabus. Why not study the worship of Osiris?, or Isis, worshipped for 5,000 years. Using timeline as the criteria for a "real" religion, the worship of Isis far exceeds the more recent constructs and configurations of god and gods.
> 
> What fundie christian creationists need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian fundie Christian (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of gawd(s), you must hold that gawd(s) to the same standards of proof that all gawds must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies the Greek god did it'ists with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.
> 
> If you have evidence for the existence of a creator Gawd, then provide it. But please, stop pretending that there is logical parity between believing something for which there is no evidence and not believing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what of the ICR and Haran Yahan? How do they fit into all of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another mindless waste of time.
> 
> I've noticed that absent cutting and pasting from religious websites, you're hopeless at assembling words into coherent sentences.
Click to expand...


Says the queen of cutting and pasting, who just copied a small volume above.


----------



## Youwerecreated

cooky said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cooky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The manner in which life first came to inhabit the earth is not a phenomena described by the modern synthesis of the TOE. The scietific community has been quite candid and open about how at present an insufficiency of data precludes a compelling explanation for the origins of life on earth.
> 
> The notion that an intrinsic secular bias among the leaders of thought in modern science is the primary reason tenets of creationism and design have been excluded and/or rebuffed by the mainstream scientific community is a total farse. The real reason that the tenets of creation and ID 'science' ( I use that term loosely in conjunction with ID and creationism) have failed to find mainstream acceptance is because the explanations espoused by ID and creationism lack empirical support and/or were developed outside of accepted scientific norms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will hold you to the same standards you do creationists.
> 
> The real problem is you have no clue but are willing to ignore evidence for design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I provided a scientific source on the phylogenetics.
> 
> Please elaborate how i have "no clue" and how I am ignoring evidence for design.
Click to expand...


You still did not address your point concerning RNA. The origins question that you act like was not asked. You are expecting us to provide you an article from the science community that rejects anything to do with design even though there is plenty of evidence for design which has been pointed out too many times to number in this thread.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> For years evolutionists attempted to explain this* growing list of contradictions *using their evolutionary tree model. But it is obvious that this was an exercise in forcing the evidence to fit the theory rather than the other way around. The inexorable march of science has taken its toll and in recent years evolutionists have finally begun to deemphasize their iconic evolutionary tree model. What this does not change, however, is their insistence that evolution is a fact.
> 
> Falsification
> 
> Now, thirty years after Penny cited the congruence of different evolutionary trees as a prediction that could falsify evolution, it is not controversial even amongst evolutionists that the prediction is false. The plethora of new DNA and protein sequence data have provided a steady stream of incongruent evolutionary trees. These trees strongly conflict with the trees based on other sequence data, or with the consensus evolutionary tree. And the disagreement is far beyond evolutionary noise. As one evolution wrote:
> 
> *Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.*
> 
> And as usual evolutionists appeal to a spectrum of explanatory devices to correct the narrative. The most prevalent of these epicycles is the horizontal gene transfer (HGT), a term that encompasses several known mechanisms by which genes can transfer between organisms such as bacteria.
> 
> In fact, if evolution is true then HGT must have been one of its key players. As one paper explained, HGT has emerged as a central force in the evolution of many different prokaryotes.
> 
> But under evolution, HGT must also have been important in the evolution of eukaryotes:
> 
> and now cases of HGT in eukaryotes are emerging at an increasing rate and account for many adaptively important traits
> 
> 
> So HGT is now a key mechanism of the evolutionary process. It can do what the old mechanisms could not. In fact, one must wonder how this powerful mechanism knows when to send which genes where. For the various versions of HGT are incredibly intelligent.
> 
> Darwin's God: Search results for tree of life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes. Cornelius Hunter, another creationist hack
> 
> 
> *If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then*
> 
> If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then... - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> I consider myself pretty well-educated about creationism, and of course I know its all silly, but I pride myself on usually being able to understand what argument the creationists are trying to make, even when they are doing it poorly. But I need help with this one.
> 
> Via the Discovery Institute Blog/Misinformation Service, I came across this post from Hunter, which is his Monday post. I also read Hunters Sunday post and got confused.
> 
> Starting on Sunday, we have: Cornelius Hunter, Sunday, July 25, 2010, speaking about shared errors in pseudogenes:
> 
> 
> Science makes IF-THEN statements (if evolution is true, then species with recent common ancestors should have similarities between them). IF-AND-ONLY-IF statements (if and only if evolution is true, then species with recent common ancestors should have similarities between them) cannot be known from science. [italics original]
> 
> OK, so here hes saying, I guess, that science can only make if-then statements, and test hypotheses on that basis. Science cannot formally say that X is the ONLY possible explanation of Y, because, I suppose, there always might be some other explanation out there.
> 
> He thinks this is important for evolution because sometimes evolutionists say Y (lanugo, shared errors in pseudogenes, etc.) can only be explained by common ancestry. Of course, any fair assessment of these sorts of statements would note that people use such language all the time (the only explanation for the 20 identical paragraphs in these two students term papers is copying from each other or from a common source), and they dont mean that they can formally exclude, say, miraculous intervention by Thor or something. All people typically mean by these statements is this is the only decent explanation of Y that has been put forward to date; if someone else comes up with a better explanation, fine, but until then X is what Im going with. But if creationists were fair about such things, they wouldnt be creationists.
> 
> (Parenthetical, Hunter throws in some total bunkum:
> 
> 
> Side rant: This is, basically, total crap. Hunter apparently has no idea that, in phylogenetics, it is trivial to test hypotheses like there is no tree structure in the sequence data or these two phylogenies from two different genes agree/disagree with each other, to quantify the amount of agreement/disagreement, etc. The amount of homoplasy (character states which evolved independently, as might occur occasionally with pseudogenes) can be estimated, and we can tell whether or not we are close or far from a situation in which there is so much homoplasy that no phylogenetic structure is statistically supported. And when this kind of thing is done, the result is typically *massive* statistical support for common ancestry. At least, it would be considered such in any other field of science, but Hunter wants to treat evolution differently from all other parts of science. For evolution, he wants to have the special privilege of pulling out a few characters that disagree with some pattern, and ignore the hundreds/thousands of other characters that support the pattern. Hunter complains and complains about the unscientific nature of evolutionists, but when it comes to doing an actual fair data analysis that actually looks at the statistical support for common ancestry, hes totally at sea. OK, end of rant.)
> 
> (Not quite done. I should add that my first encounter with Hunter was in 2001 or so. Somehow or other we were in an argument about whether or not some genetic sequence data produced a tree structure. He had calculated the pairwise distances between the genes and done a histogram of the distances. The distribution of gene-gene distances had a number of separate humps. He claimed that this falsified tree structure. I pointed out that this pattern was exactly what you would expect from distances produced from a tree. After a lot of arguing, he eventually got it, but then said something irate about how he was sorry but just because he was totally wrong about this (I would say the definition of a surprising successful prediction is one where someone claims their data is good and a good falsification of a hypothesis, but then it turns out that their data has exactly the pattern they claimed it didnt have), he wasnt going to genuflect to evolution. Sadly I cant find the email now and the only word I can remember is genuflect. Ah well.)
> 
> Anyway, so, everyones got his argument so far? Evolutionists shouldnt use IF-AND-ONLY-IF statements, they should be real scientists and just use IF-THEN statements like other scientists, the good kind of scientists.
> 
> (By the way, if Hunter is right, hes just nuked Stephen Meyers argument in Signature in the Cell, which relies almost entirely on the argument that intelligence is the ONLY source of genetic information. Oops. Of course, Meyers assertion is wrong, but thats a different story.)
> 
> With that, I give you, Cornelius Hunter, Monday, July 26, 2010. He is complaining about an introductory biology textbook by Johnson & Lobos. After saying the authors rehearse the usual lies, Hunter really gets going on the fossil record:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such misrepresentations of science, as damaging as they are, pale in comparison to Johnsons and Lobos next move. The apologists make a pathetic attempt to enlist the fossil record as powerful evidence for evolution, and end up with only the usual religious dogma.
> 
> They write:
> If the theory of evolution is not correct, on the other hand, then such orderly change is not expected.
> 
> Very interesting. And how do evolutionary clowns know so much? From where did Johnson and Lobos learn such ultimate truths? If evolution is not correct then such orderly change is not expected? Tell us more.
> 
> What are all the possibilities aside from evolution and why do none of them predict such orderly change? Why is it that evolution, and only evolution, predicts such an outcome? This is truly fascinating. If and only if evolution is true would we see such orderly change. Johnson and Lobos are real geniusesthey have knowledge of all possible causes.
> 
> You cannot make this stuff up. In two and half pages the texts chapter on evolution has gone from misleading to absurd. What will come next?
> 
> But this is nothing new in evolutionary circles. Only evolutionists can make fools of themselves with a straight face and then repeat the process ad nauseam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, did they use the word only? No! And they said nothing about ultimate truths, and nothing about whatever mysterious alternatives Hunter endlessly claims are out there, but which he shockingly, cravenly, scandalously never bothers to elucidate, as any real scientist would have to. All the authors did was make an if-then statement, like Hunter JUST FREAKING SAID scientists were supposed to do the day before! Instead of congratulating them on saying the right thing, Hunter convicts them of vast, grand metaphysical sins.
> 
> So Im at a loss. If I had to guess, Id say hes just mad and letting emotion run his argumentation, under the cover of unsupported blather about metaphysics. Maybe this textbook is being used in his home town or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure Hunter is part of the ICR.
Click to expand...

He might as well be. The creationist drivel he foams at the mouth with is in concert with the crackpots you worship at the ICR.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what of the ICR and Haran Yahan? How do they fit into all of this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another mindless waste of time.
> 
> I've noticed that absent cutting and pasting from religious websites, you're hopeless at assembling words into coherent sentences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the queen of cutting and pasting, who just copied a small volume above.
Click to expand...


As we see, it exposes the fraud promoted by the creationist agenda of promoting a hateful religious agenda under the guise of science. 

What we see consistently from religious hacks are failed attempts at lies and deceit in flailing attempts to promote fear and superstition which defines their agenda if ignorance.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what of the ICR and Haran Yahan? How do they fit into all of this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another mindless waste of time.
> 
> I've noticed that absent cutting and pasting from religious websites, you're hopeless at assembling words into coherent sentences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the queen of cutting and pasting, who just copied a small volume above.
Click to expand...


As we see, it exposes the fraud promoted by the creationist agenda of promoting a hateful religious ideology under the guise of science. 

What we see consistently from religious hacks are failed attempts at lies and deceit in flailing attempts to promote fear and superstition which defines their agenda if ignorance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasnt surprised you went slithering for the exits.
> Its just a fact that Christian creationism is a more recent creationist tale of gawds, supernatural / metaphysical beings who fundies demand we bend and scrape to.
> 
> While the sacred cows of Christianity are being heaped upon the altar of religious indoctrination, there are many more religions that would require representation if we're not to be accused of being biased or capricious toward lesser followed  but just as likely  religions and gods. There is absolutely nothing that better defines the Abrahamic god vs. the various polytheistic gods of Hinduism, for example. Unless someone can speak with authority regarding Vishnu as one of the true gods extant as opposed to Zeus or Isis, we shouldn't allow head count as the only basis for determining which religions are represented within a public school syllabus. Why not study the worship of Osiris?, or Isis, worshipped for 5,000 years. Using timeline as the criteria for a "real" religion, the worship of Isis far exceeds the more recent constructs and configurations of god and gods.
> 
> What fundie christian creationists need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian fundie Christian (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of gawd(s), you must hold that gawd(s) to the same standards of proof that all gawds must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies the Greek god did it'ists with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.
> 
> If you have evidence for the existence of a creator Gawd, then provide it. But please, stop pretending that there is logical parity between believing something for which there is no evidence and not believing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what of the ICR and Haran Yahan? How do they fit into all of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another mindless waste of time.
> 
> I've noticed that absent cutting and pasting from religious websites, you're hopeless at assembling words into coherent sentences.
Click to expand...


Why do you continue to ignore question's put to you concerning science hollie?you can't find a rebuttal from your propagandist sites.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes. Cornelius Hunter, another creationist hack
> 
> 
> *If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then*
> 
> If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then... - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> I consider myself pretty well-educated about creationism, and of course I know its all silly, but I pride myself on usually being able to understand what argument the creationists are trying to make, even when they are doing it poorly. But I need help with this one.
> 
> Via the Discovery Institute Blog/Misinformation Service, I came across this post from Hunter, which is his Monday post. I also read Hunters Sunday post and got confused.
> 
> Starting on Sunday, we have: Cornelius Hunter, Sunday, July 25, 2010, speaking about shared errors in pseudogenes:
> 
> 
> Science makes IF-THEN statements (if evolution is true, then species with recent common ancestors should have similarities between them). IF-AND-ONLY-IF statements (if and only if evolution is true, then species with recent common ancestors should have similarities between them) cannot be known from science. [italics original]
> 
> OK, so here hes saying, I guess, that science can only make if-then statements, and test hypotheses on that basis. Science cannot formally say that X is the ONLY possible explanation of Y, because, I suppose, there always might be some other explanation out there.
> 
> He thinks this is important for evolution because sometimes evolutionists say Y (lanugo, shared errors in pseudogenes, etc.) can only be explained by common ancestry. Of course, any fair assessment of these sorts of statements would note that people use such language all the time (the only explanation for the 20 identical paragraphs in these two students term papers is copying from each other or from a common source), and they dont mean that they can formally exclude, say, miraculous intervention by Thor or something. All people typically mean by these statements is this is the only decent explanation of Y that has been put forward to date; if someone else comes up with a better explanation, fine, but until then X is what Im going with. But if creationists were fair about such things, they wouldnt be creationists.
> 
> (Parenthetical, Hunter throws in some total bunkum:
> 
> 
> Side rant: This is, basically, total crap. Hunter apparently has no idea that, in phylogenetics, it is trivial to test hypotheses like there is no tree structure in the sequence data or these two phylogenies from two different genes agree/disagree with each other, to quantify the amount of agreement/disagreement, etc. The amount of homoplasy (character states which evolved independently, as might occur occasionally with pseudogenes) can be estimated, and we can tell whether or not we are close or far from a situation in which there is so much homoplasy that no phylogenetic structure is statistically supported. And when this kind of thing is done, the result is typically *massive* statistical support for common ancestry. At least, it would be considered such in any other field of science, but Hunter wants to treat evolution differently from all other parts of science. For evolution, he wants to have the special privilege of pulling out a few characters that disagree with some pattern, and ignore the hundreds/thousands of other characters that support the pattern. Hunter complains and complains about the unscientific nature of evolutionists, but when it comes to doing an actual fair data analysis that actually looks at the statistical support for common ancestry, hes totally at sea. OK, end of rant.)
> 
> (Not quite done. I should add that my first encounter with Hunter was in 2001 or so. Somehow or other we were in an argument about whether or not some genetic sequence data produced a tree structure. He had calculated the pairwise distances between the genes and done a histogram of the distances. The distribution of gene-gene distances had a number of separate humps. He claimed that this falsified tree structure. I pointed out that this pattern was exactly what you would expect from distances produced from a tree. After a lot of arguing, he eventually got it, but then said something irate about how he was sorry but just because he was totally wrong about this (I would say the definition of a surprising successful prediction is one where someone claims their data is good and a good falsification of a hypothesis, but then it turns out that their data has exactly the pattern they claimed it didnt have), he wasnt going to genuflect to evolution. Sadly I cant find the email now and the only word I can remember is genuflect. Ah well.)
> 
> Anyway, so, everyones got his argument so far? Evolutionists shouldnt use IF-AND-ONLY-IF statements, they should be real scientists and just use IF-THEN statements like other scientists, the good kind of scientists.
> 
> (By the way, if Hunter is right, hes just nuked Stephen Meyers argument in Signature in the Cell, which relies almost entirely on the argument that intelligence is the ONLY source of genetic information. Oops. Of course, Meyers assertion is wrong, but thats a different story.)
> 
> With that, I give you, Cornelius Hunter, Monday, July 26, 2010. He is complaining about an introductory biology textbook by Johnson & Lobos. After saying the authors rehearse the usual lies, Hunter really gets going on the fossil record:
> 
> 
> But, did they use the word only? No! And they said nothing about ultimate truths, and nothing about whatever mysterious alternatives Hunter endlessly claims are out there, but which he shockingly, cravenly, scandalously never bothers to elucidate, as any real scientist would have to. All the authors did was make an if-then statement, like Hunter JUST FREAKING SAID scientists were supposed to do the day before! Instead of congratulating them on saying the right thing, Hunter convicts them of vast, grand metaphysical sins.
> 
> So Im at a loss. If I had to guess, Id say hes just mad and letting emotion run his argumentation, under the cover of unsupported blather about metaphysics. Maybe this textbook is being used in his home town or something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Hunter is part of the ICR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He might as well be. The creationist drivel he foams at the mouth with is in concert with the crackpots you worship at the ICR.
Click to expand...


You are a joke Holiie. You should find a different thread since you can't discuss evidence concerning design or produce any kind of rebuttal in support of your religion.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> , hope you got the letter, and...
> I pray you can make it better down here.
> I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
> But all the people that you made in your image, see
> Them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
> Enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you
> 
> Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
> Loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
> And all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
> In the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
> I can't believe in you
> 
> Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
> Mankind after we made you? And the devil too!
> 
> , don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
> A lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
> Should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
> Image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
> So do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in
> 
> I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
> Devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
> Letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
> Drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
> Whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
> Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
> And if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
> My sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in
> 
> It's you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. This is just another proof of my claim there are no true atheists... only people angry at God. When faced with situations they can not reconcile in their lives, instead of turning to God, some decide to hate God, and go on a mission to try to destroy belief in him. If you don't believe in God, why do you care if others do? Why make it your personal mission to persecute those that choose to freely exercise their freedom of religion our country was founded on?
Click to expand...


I've read a few bits and pieces of this gibberish but just had to comment on this ...

1) A poorly written and very sophomoric excuse for a poem is not "proof" of anything.  
2) I don't care if others believe in a Magic Sky Fairy. All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe.
3) I don't speak for anyone but myself. Nor do you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I will ask the questions that none of the evolutionist could pick up on in my posts.

Why is it that we are up to 6,000 genetic disorders that have been identified if they are eliminated easily from the population as evolutionist claim ? but evolutionist can point to very few so called beneficial mutations,why is that ?

Do evolutionist understand how many beneficial mutations there must have been without interruption from harmful mutations for evolution to happen as they claim ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

luddly.neddite said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> , hope you got the letter, and...
> I pray you can make it better down here.
> I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
> But all the people that you made in your image, see
> Them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
> Enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you
> 
> Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
> Loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
> And all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
> In the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
> I can't believe in you
> 
> Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
> Mankind after we made you? And the devil too!
> 
> , don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
> A lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
> Should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
> Image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
> So do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in
> 
> I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
> Devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
> Letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
> Drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
> Whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
> Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
> And if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
> My sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in
> 
> It's you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. This is just another proof of my claim there are no true atheists... only people angry at God. When faced with situations they can not reconcile in their lives, instead of turning to God, some decide to hate God, and go on a mission to try to destroy belief in him. If you don't believe in God, why do you care if others do? Why make it your personal mission to persecute those that choose to freely exercise their freedom of religion our country was founded on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read a few bits and pieces of this gibberish but just had to comment on this ...
> 
> 1) A poorly written and very sophomoric excuse for a poem is not "proof" of anything.
> 2) I don't care if others believe in a Magic Sky Fairy. All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe.
> 3) I don't speak for anyone but myself. Nor do you.
Click to expand...


The feeling is mutual when your side can't provide a sound explanation according to observed evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

If modern man has been on the planet for 200,000 years as evolutionist claim and the populations were much smaller and these harmful mutations were happening why are we still here ? Does anyone understand what harmful mutations would do to smaller populations ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> If modern man has been on the planet for 200,000 years as evolutionist claim and the populations were much smaller and these harmful mutations were happening why are we still here ? Does anyone understand what harmful mutations would do to smaller populations ?



You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes. Cornelius Hunter, another creationist hack
> 
> 
> *If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then*
> 
> If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then... - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> I consider myself pretty well-educated about creationism, and of course I know its all silly, but I pride myself on usually being able to understand what argument the creationists are trying to make, even when they are doing it poorly. But I need help with this one.
> 
> Via the Discovery Institute Blog/Misinformation Service, I came across this post from Hunter, which is his Monday post. I also read Hunters Sunday post and got confused.
> 
> Starting on Sunday, we have: Cornelius Hunter, Sunday, July 25, 2010, speaking about shared errors in pseudogenes:
> 
> 
> Science makes IF-THEN statements (if evolution is true, then species with recent common ancestors should have similarities between them). IF-AND-ONLY-IF statements (if and only if evolution is true, then species with recent common ancestors should have similarities between them) cannot be known from science. [italics original]
> 
> OK, so here hes saying, I guess, that science can only make if-then statements, and test hypotheses on that basis. Science cannot formally say that X is the ONLY possible explanation of Y, because, I suppose, there always might be some other explanation out there.
> 
> He thinks this is important for evolution because sometimes evolutionists say Y (lanugo, shared errors in pseudogenes, etc.) can only be explained by common ancestry. Of course, any fair assessment of these sorts of statements would note that people use such language all the time (the only explanation for the 20 identical paragraphs in these two students term papers is copying from each other or from a common source), and they dont mean that they can formally exclude, say, miraculous intervention by Thor or something. All people typically mean by these statements is this is the only decent explanation of Y that has been put forward to date; if someone else comes up with a better explanation, fine, but until then X is what Im going with. But if creationists were fair about such things, they wouldnt be creationists.
> 
> (Parenthetical, Hunter throws in some total bunkum:
> 
> 
> Side rant: This is, basically, total crap. Hunter apparently has no idea that, in phylogenetics, it is trivial to test hypotheses like there is no tree structure in the sequence data or these two phylogenies from two different genes agree/disagree with each other, to quantify the amount of agreement/disagreement, etc. The amount of homoplasy (character states which evolved independently, as might occur occasionally with pseudogenes) can be estimated, and we can tell whether or not we are close or far from a situation in which there is so much homoplasy that no phylogenetic structure is statistically supported. And when this kind of thing is done, the result is typically *massive* statistical support for common ancestry. At least, it would be considered such in any other field of science, but Hunter wants to treat evolution differently from all other parts of science. For evolution, he wants to have the special privilege of pulling out a few characters that disagree with some pattern, and ignore the hundreds/thousands of other characters that support the pattern. Hunter complains and complains about the unscientific nature of evolutionists, but when it comes to doing an actual fair data analysis that actually looks at the statistical support for common ancestry, hes totally at sea. OK, end of rant.)
> 
> (Not quite done. I should add that my first encounter with Hunter was in 2001 or so. Somehow or other we were in an argument about whether or not some genetic sequence data produced a tree structure. He had calculated the pairwise distances between the genes and done a histogram of the distances. The distribution of gene-gene distances had a number of separate humps. He claimed that this falsified tree structure. I pointed out that this pattern was exactly what you would expect from distances produced from a tree. After a lot of arguing, he eventually got it, but then said something irate about how he was sorry but just because he was totally wrong about this (I would say the definition of a surprising successful prediction is one where someone claims their data is good and a good falsification of a hypothesis, but then it turns out that their data has exactly the pattern they claimed it didnt have), he wasnt going to genuflect to evolution. Sadly I cant find the email now and the only word I can remember is genuflect. Ah well.)
> 
> Anyway, so, everyones got his argument so far? Evolutionists shouldnt use IF-AND-ONLY-IF statements, they should be real scientists and just use IF-THEN statements like other scientists, the good kind of scientists.
> 
> (By the way, if Hunter is right, hes just nuked Stephen Meyers argument in Signature in the Cell, which relies almost entirely on the argument that intelligence is the ONLY source of genetic information. Oops. Of course, Meyers assertion is wrong, but thats a different story.)
> 
> With that, I give you, Cornelius Hunter, Monday, July 26, 2010. He is complaining about an introductory biology textbook by Johnson & Lobos. After saying the authors rehearse the usual lies, Hunter really gets going on the fossil record:
> 
> 
> But, did they use the word only? No! And they said nothing about ultimate truths, and nothing about whatever mysterious alternatives Hunter endlessly claims are out there, but which he shockingly, cravenly, scandalously never bothers to elucidate, as any real scientist would have to. All the authors did was make an if-then statement, like Hunter JUST FREAKING SAID scientists were supposed to do the day before! Instead of congratulating them on saying the right thing, Hunter convicts them of vast, grand metaphysical sins.
> 
> So Im at a loss. If I had to guess, Id say hes just mad and letting emotion run his argumentation, under the cover of unsupported blather about metaphysics. Maybe this textbook is being used in his home town or something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Hunter is part of the ICR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He might as well be. The creationist drivel he foams at the mouth with is in concert with the crackpots you worship at the ICR.
Click to expand...


That's what I said.


----------



## UltimateReality

luddly.neddite said:


> [All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe.



You mean like the Materialists who control our nanny state educational system and try to force the Darwin myth on our children against our will? Or do you mean the atheists that are trying to revise history by eliminating HISTORICAL Christian references in our government?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If modern man has been on the planet for 200,000 years as evolutionist claim and the populations were much smaller and these harmful mutations were happening why are we still here ? Does anyone understand what harmful mutations would do to smaller populations ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

By the way Hawly, those links I posted up were charities. I'm not sure you know what that is.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> By the way Hawly, those links I posted up were charities. I'm not sure you know what that is.



Juvenile name-caller, Is that supposed to suggest something meaningful?

Is there a charity established for the sexual abuse victims of catholic priests? The abuse was tolerated by the Christian church for decades.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If modern man has been on the planet for 200,000 years as evolutionist claim and the populations were much smaller and these harmful mutations were happening why are we still here ? Does anyone understand what harmful mutations would do to smaller populations ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The issue was addressed previously. The comment is ignorant and naive, much like your response.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If modern man has been on the planet for 200,000 years as evolutionist claim and the populations were much smaller and these harmful mutations were happening why are we still here ? Does anyone understand what harmful mutations would do to smaller populations ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.
Click to expand...


 turd breath. I should I have a molecular biology degree what was your degree in again ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue was addressed previously. The comment is ignorant and naive, much like your response.
Click to expand...


No you don't have a clue what genetic disorders would do to small groups


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If modern man has been on the planet for 200,000 years as evolutionist claim and the populations were much smaller and these harmful mutations were happening why are we still here ? Does anyone understand what harmful mutations would do to smaller populations ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> turd breath. I should I have a molecular biology degree what was your degree in again ?
Click to expand...


A 12 year old has a degree?

Of course you do.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turd breath. I should I have a molecular biology degree what was your degree in again ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A 12 year old has a degree?
> 
> Of course you do.
Click to expand...


If you consider 6,000 genetic disorders in large populations,just imagine what would happen from mutations in small populations.

I guess that is just hard for you to grasp. There is no way man was experiencing mutations for as long as evolutionist claim,nor were mutations as common 6 or 7,000 years ago when man had his beginning.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> turd breath. I should I have a molecular biology degree what was your degree in again ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A 12 year old has a degree?
> 
> Of course you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you consider 6,000 genetic disorders in large populations,just imagine what would happen from mutations in small populations.
> 
> I guess that is just hard for you to grasp. There is no way man was experiencing mutations for as long as evolutionist claim,nor were mutations as common 6 or 7,000 years ago when man had his beginning.
Click to expand...

Your appalling lack of education in various sciences coupled with your literal belief in the biblical fable of genesis accounts for your factual errors and misstatements.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Researchers have identified more than 4,000 diseases that are caused by genetic variants.
> 
> 
> 
> The Basics on Genes and Genetic Disorders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are over 6,000 genetic disorders that can be passed down through the generations, many of which are fatal or severely debilitating. Since 1997, the GDF has worked with Mount Sinai to help provide funding for research to improve early detection and treatment options for many of these disorders.
> 
> Genetic Disease Foundation: Hope Through Knowledge
> 
> It looks like the number of genetic disorders are on the rise.
> 
> 
> 
> again you dodge the statement :you have no proof that Adam lived any conclusion drawn from that false premise by defintion is false.
> so my answer stands :there is no credible proof that genetic disorders are on the rise.
> maybe I should have dumbed it down for you
> since Adam never existed the so called rise in gentic disorder has to have another cause.
> 
> I followed your links neither one says anything about a rise in genetic diorders.
> neither did the 10 more that I checked..
> as always you're talking out your ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me dumb it down for you.
> 
> A genetic disorder is a disease caused in whole or in part by a change in the DNA sequence away from the normal sequence. Genetic disorders can be caused by a mutation in one gene (monogenic disorder), by mutations in multiple genes (multifactorial inheritance disorder), by a combination of gene mutations and environmental factors, or by damage to chromosomes (changes in the number or structure of entire chromosomes, the structures that carry genes).
> 
> As we unlock the secrets of the human genome (the complete set of human genes), we are learning that nearly all diseases have a genetic component. Some diseases are caused by mutations that are inherited from the parents and are present in an individual at birth, like sickle cell disease. Other diseases are caused by acquired mutations in a gene or group of genes that occur during a person's life. Such mutations are not inherited from a parent, but occur either randomly or due to some environmental exposure (such as cigarette smoke). These include many cancers, as well as some forms of neurofibromatosis.
> 
> FAQ About Genetic Disorders
> 
> 
> You do know who Mendel is and what he is famous for right ? if not google him.
> 
> 
> Their revolutionary concepts and findings point to the need for new principles and experimental approaches to understanding polygenic diseases. Mendel and his genetic gospel still hold true. It is now a matter of adapting these principles to explain phenomena of the modern world. The work of Alper and his group directs us to focus on the new approaches for intervention and prevention being developed that are genetically based, rather than diverting energy and resources to speculative environmental or other external causes that are, in some cases contributory, but not determining.
> 
> News - Polygenic Diseases on the Rise - News & Events | Immune Disease Institute
> 
> You once again are bloviating.
Click to expand...

and once again you are dodging the question.
you have no proof that Adam ever existed.
you whole argument is predicated  on this steaming pile of non evidence.

from post#6996 :What we have proof of is since the fall of adam lifespans of humans greatly decreased. Through research and medicine we increased lifespans but not near what it once was...ywc

yes genetic disorders exist.
however  you have no proof  that backs up your false statement .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,how do you think genetic problems some are being headed off in the womb. Some there is nothing we can do about. Why do you think moms and dads are having gene screening before and during pregnancy ? Genetic disorders are a fact.
> 
> Life coming from nonliving matter is an opiion. Organisms evolving into destinctly new organisms ,not of the same family, is built on opinions. So what it comes down to does the evidence better support a designer or naturalism?
> 
> 
> 
> why do you keep going on about evidence you do not have!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have an answer for my questions or are you once again talking from ignorance ?
Click to expand...

as stated before you have no evidence.
also since your questions are not really questions, because you falsely believe that you have the answers already. based on the no evidence fiction of your faith and not science you spew no answer is needed .


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here i will help you out since you can't be honest,they are opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.... the occurrance of genetic disease is not fact but just opinion?
> 
> Your goofy fundie agenda manages to dismantle your own arguments.
> 
> Can I get a _hallelujah_ brothas' and sistas'.
> 
> Is Ken Ham out of jail yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you hate Christians so much? Why do you insist on mocking Christians with lies and stereotypes?
> 
> How would you like it if I started making fun of your white, long-sleeve button down oxford shirt? Or your short, spikey hair cut?
Click to expand...

that would just be more proof that you have the emotional and intellectual maturity of a 14 year old girl!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> , hope you got the letter, and...
> I pray you can make it better down here.
> I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
> But all the people that you made in your image, see
> Them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
> Enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you
> 
> Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
> Loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
> And all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
> In the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
> I can't believe in you
> 
> Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
> Mankind after we made you? And the devil too!
> 
> , don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
> A lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
> Should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
> Image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
> So do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in
> 
> I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
> Devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
> Letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
> Drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
> Whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
> Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
> And if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
> My sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in
> 
> It's you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. This is just another proof of my claim there are no true atheists... only people angry at God. When faced with situations they can not reconcile in their lives, instead of turning to God, some decide to hate God, and go on a mission to try to destroy belief in him. If you don't believe in God, why do you care if others do? Why make it your personal mission to persecute those that choose to freely exercise their freedom of religion our country was founded on?
Click to expand...

lol.....lol....hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
wow talk about reading into and totally misrepresenting .
there is nothing in that song about "A MISSION TO DESTROY BELIEF IN GOD" LOL!
OR THE FALSE PATRIOT BULLSHIT ABOUT FREEDOM OF RELIGION LOL!
DAMN YOU'RE FUNNY when you yammer nonsense!!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is my opinions mutations were used by God to put an end to eternal life after adam and eve sinned.
> 
> These mutations have been passed on for 6,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> I see. So humanity is a lot like a 1970's vintage Chevy vega - cheaply built with planned obsolescence.
> 
> Otherwise, your gawds have done to humanity what they have done throughout their tenure. Their hate for humanity has caused them to "design" an environment where people will die in horrific ways with horrific pain and suffering.
> 
> To worship such an entity is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a mental midget. My belief system doesn't limit me to my childish, human view. Your comment assumes that this life is all there is. If that is the case, then the joke is on you. While sin has caused some immense suffering and pain, God sees the big picture. Death is not unlike the birthing process... A short and very intense amount of physical pain and suffering with the end result being an amazing blessing and new life.
Click to expand...

 as always assuming facts not evidence.


----------



## daws101

luddly.neddite said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> , hope you got the letter, and...
> I pray you can make it better down here.
> I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
> But all the people that you made in your image, see
> Them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
> Enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you
> 
> Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
> Loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
> And all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
> In the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
> I can't believe in you
> 
> Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
> Mankind after we made you? And the devil too!
> 
> , don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
> A lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
> Should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
> Image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
> So do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in
> 
> I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
> Devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
> Letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
> Drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
> Whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
> Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
> And if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
> My sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in
> 
> It's you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. This is just another proof of my claim there are no true atheists... only people angry at God. When faced with situations they can not reconcile in their lives, instead of turning to God, some decide to hate God, and go on a mission to try to destroy belief in him. If you don't believe in God, why do you care if others do? Why make it your personal mission to persecute those that choose to freely exercise their freedom of religion our country was founded on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read a few bits and pieces of this gibberish but just had to comment on this ...
> 
> 1) A poorly written and very sophomoric excuse for a poem is not "proof" of anything.
> 2) I don't care if others believe in a Magic Sky Fairy. All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe.
> 3) I don't speak for anyone but myself. Nor do you.
Click to expand...

ahhhh.... that's a was a very big hit for xtc in the 80's 
also it reflects your statement :  All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe. -ln


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. This is just another proof of my claim there are no true atheists... only people angry at God. When faced with situations they can not reconcile in their lives, instead of turning to God, some decide to hate God, and go on a mission to try to destroy belief in him. If you don't believe in God, why do you care if others do? Why make it your personal mission to persecute those that choose to freely exercise their freedom of religion our country was founded on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read a few bits and pieces of this gibberish but just had to comment on this ...
> 
> 1) A poorly written and very sophomoric excuse for a poem is not "proof" of anything.
> 2) I don't care if others believe in a Magic Sky Fairy. All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe.
> 3) I don't speak for anyone but myself. Nor do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The feeling is mutual when your side can't provide a sound explanation according to observed evidence.
Click to expand...

you have no observed evidence. (bible babble is not evidence) even if you did it's not valid without empirical quantifiable evidence to corroborate it ...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If modern man has been on the planet for 200,000 years as evolutionist claim and the populations were much smaller and these harmful mutations were happening why are we still here ? Does anyone understand what harmful mutations would do to smaller populations ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> turd breath. I should I have a molecular biology degree what was your degree in again ?
Click to expand...

you're right you should but you killed it when you proclaimed that mayans lived with dinosaurs etc,,,


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue was addressed previously. The comment is ignorant and naive, much like your response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't have a clue what genetic disorders would do to small groups
Click to expand...

would?
shouldn't that be does....?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A 12 year old has a degree?
> 
> Of course you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you consider 6,000 genetic disorders in large populations,just imagine what would happen from mutations in small populations.
> 
> I guess that is just hard for you to grasp. There is no way man was experiencing mutations for as long as evolutionist claim,nor were mutations as common 6 or 7,000 years ago when man had his beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your appalling lack of education in various sciences coupled with your literal belief in the biblical fable of genesis accounts for your factual errors and misstatements.
Click to expand...


It's clear your reasoning is impaired.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you consider 6,000 genetic disorders in large populations,just imagine what would happen from mutations in small populations.
> 
> I guess that is just hard for you to grasp. There is no way man was experiencing mutations for as long as evolutionist claim,nor were mutations as common 6 or 7,000 years ago when man had his beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> Your appalling lack of education in various sciences coupled with your literal belief in the biblical fable of genesis accounts for your factual errors and misstatements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's clear your reasoning is impaired.
Click to expand...


That's a strange comment. It is you who believes in an unseen, unknowable, supernatural, supermagical entity. 

It is you who believes in the lurid fantasy of a 6,000 year old earth which contradicts all of the available scientific data. 

I guess we can see whose grasp of reality is more secure, can't we? Yours depends so heavily on your own preconceptions, you need so desperately for everything to fit into your supernatural, supermagical worldview.

Sadly, I'm guessing that, no matter how great the variance between what you think and what is shown to be real...you will not change a single opinion. Because, nothing, not argument, not fact, not reality itself, can shake your conviction that only through belief in the supernatural  can you find meaning for your hapless, miserable existence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you keep going on about evidence you do not have!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have an answer for my questions or are you once again talking from ignorance ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as stated before you have no evidence.
> also since your questions are not really questions, because you falsely believe that you have the answers already. based on the no evidence fiction of your faith and not science you spew no answer is needed .
Click to expand...


To give you the evidence you want we will cover The Mitochondrial Clock of Eve. Show you when the mother of all humans actually lived to prove modern man has only been on the planet for approximately 6,500 years. But first a few questions for you Daws.


Ancient DNA found in spores of bacterium, they should have degraded long ago, why havn't they ?

Why are amino acids still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of million of years?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. This is just another proof of my claim there are no true atheists... only people angry at God. When faced with situations they can not reconcile in their lives, instead of turning to God, some decide to hate God, and go on a mission to try to destroy belief in him. If you don't believe in God, why do you care if others do? Why make it your personal mission to persecute those that choose to freely exercise their freedom of religion our country was founded on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read a few bits and pieces of this gibberish but just had to comment on this ...
> 
> 1) A poorly written and very sophomoric excuse for a poem is not "proof" of anything.
> 2) I don't care if others believe in a Magic Sky Fairy. All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe.
> 3) I don't speak for anyone but myself. Nor do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ahhhh.... that's a was a very big hit for xtc in the 80's
> also it reflects your statement :  All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe. -ln
Click to expand...


No one forces religion on you daws except schools.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read a few bits and pieces of this gibberish but just had to comment on this ...
> 
> 1) A poorly written and very sophomoric excuse for a poem is not "proof" of anything.
> 2) I don't care if others believe in a Magic Sky Fairy. All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe.
> 3) I don't speak for anyone but myself. Nor do you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The feeling is mutual when your side can't provide a sound explanation according to observed evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no observed evidence. (bible babble is not evidence) even if you did it's not valid without empirical quantifiable evidence to corroborate it ...
Click to expand...


I have the same observed evidence as evolutionist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turd breath. I should I have a molecular biology degree what was your degree in again ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're right you should but you killed it when you proclaimed that mayans lived with dinosaurs etc,,,
Click to expand...


How can many people depict creatures accurately in their drawings, that they never saw ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue was addressed previously. The comment is ignorant and naive, much like your response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't have a clue what genetic disorders would do to small groups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> would?
> shouldn't that be does....?
Click to expand...


No, should have been, would have done to small populations.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If modern man has been on the planet for 200,000 years as evolutionist claim and the populations were much smaller and these harmful mutations were happening why are we still here ? Does anyone understand what harmful mutations would do to smaller populations ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> turd breath. I should I have a molecular biology degree what was your degree in again ?
Click to expand...


Crickets chirping...


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> , hope you got the letter, and...
> I pray you can make it better down here.
> I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
> But all the people that you made in your image, see
> Them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
> Enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you
> 
> Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
> Loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
> And all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
> In the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
> I can't believe in you
> 
> Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
> Mankind after we made you? And the devil too!
> 
> , don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
> A lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
> Should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
> Image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
> So do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in
> 
> I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
> Devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
> Letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
> Drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
> Whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
> Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
> And if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
> My sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in
> 
> It's you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. This is just another proof of my claim there are no true atheists... only people angry at God. When faced with situations they can not reconcile in their lives, instead of turning to God, some decide to hate God, and go on a mission to try to destroy belief in him. If you don't believe in God, why do you care if others do? Why make it your personal mission to persecute those that choose to freely exercise their freedom of religion our country was founded on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.....lol....hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
> wow talk about reading into and totally misrepresenting .
> there is nothing in that song about "A MISSION TO DESTROY BELIEF IN GOD" LOL!
> OR THE FALSE PATRIOT BULLSHIT ABOUT FREEDOM OF RELIGION LOL!
> DAMN YOU'RE FUNNY when you yammer nonsense!!
Click to expand...


I noticed you didn't deny my claim about no true atheists... things that make you go hmmmmm.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have an answer for my questions or are you once again talking from ignorance ?
> 
> 
> 
> as stated before you have no evidence.
> also since your questions are not really questions, because you falsely believe that you have the answers already. based on the no evidence fiction of your faith and not science you spew no answer is needed .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To give you the evidence you want we will cover The Mitochondrial Clock of Eve. Show you when the mother of all humans actually lived to prove modern man has only been on the planet for approximately 6,500 years. But first a few questions for you Daws.
> 
> 
> Ancient DNA found in spores of bacterium, they should have degraded long ago, why havn't they ?
> 
> Why are amino acids still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of million of years?
Click to expand...


Simple, sometimes we get lucky. There are conditions that exist in which this information will remain intact, however rare. We just happened to find fossils that were kept in those conditions.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. This is just another proof of my claim there are no true atheists... only people angry at God. When faced with situations they can not reconcile in their lives, instead of turning to God, some decide to hate God, and go on a mission to try to destroy belief in him. If you don't believe in God, why do you care if others do? Why make it your personal mission to persecute those that choose to freely exercise their freedom of religion our country was founded on?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....lol....hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
> wow talk about reading into and totally misrepresenting .
> there is nothing in that song about "A MISSION TO DESTROY BELIEF IN GOD" LOL!
> OR THE FALSE PATRIOT BULLSHIT ABOUT FREEDOM OF RELIGION LOL!
> DAMN YOU'RE FUNNY when you yammer nonsense!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed you didn't deny my claim about no true atheists... things that make you go hmmmmm.
Click to expand...


I noticed you haven't denied being arrested for trading sexual favors to men on the street for vials of crack cocaine...things that make you go hmmmmm

There are no true religionists. Only small minded people who need an intellectual crutch.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turd breath. I should I have a molecular biology degree what was your degree in again ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Crickets chirping...
Click to expand...


Idiots commenting...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The feeling is mutual when your side can't provide a sound explanation according to observed evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> you have no observed evidence. (bible babble is not evidence) even if you did it's not valid without empirical quantifiable evidence to corroborate it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have the same observed evidence as evolutionist.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. The evidence for science depicting a vast and ancient universe is overwhelming. 

Evidence for gawds is nonexistent.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> turd breath. I should I have a molecular biology degree what was your degree in again ?
> 
> 
> 
> you're right you should but you killed it when you proclaimed that mayans lived with dinosaurs etc,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can many people depict creatures accurately in their drawings, that they never saw ?
Click to expand...


The entirety of the evilutionist depiction of dinosaurs (all of which existed 4,400 years ago), was stolen from Ken Ham's creation museum.

How Ken was able to fashion likenesses of these creatures... well... only the gawds know.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read a few bits and pieces of this gibberish but just had to comment on this ...
> 
> 1) A poorly written and very sophomoric excuse for a poem is not "proof" of anything.
> 2) I don't care if others believe in a Magic Sky Fairy. All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe.
> 3) I don't speak for anyone but myself. Nor do you.
> 
> 
> 
> ahhhh.... that's a was a very big hit for xtc in the 80's
> also it reflects your statement :  All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe. -ln
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one forces religion on you daws except schools.
Click to expand...


Schools don't force religion on anyone. The courts have consistently defined that religion being taught in schools (even under the false label of ID or creationism), is a violation of the US Constitution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as stated before you have no evidence.
> also since your questions are not really questions, because you falsely believe that you have the answers already. based on the no evidence fiction of your faith and not science you spew no answer is needed .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To give you the evidence you want we will cover The Mitochondrial Clock of Eve. Show you when the mother of all humans actually lived to prove modern man has only been on the planet for approximately 6,500 years. But first a few questions for you Daws.
> 
> 
> Ancient DNA found in spores of bacterium, they should have degraded long ago, why havn't they ?
> 
> Why are amino acids still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of million of years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple, sometimes we get lucky. There are conditions that exist in which this information will remain intact, however rare. We just happened to find fossils that were kept in those conditions.
Click to expand...


There is no easy answer to this question,all scientists agree these are problems for the theory and dating methods. It is known these things could only survive so long under any condition.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no observed evidence. (bible babble is not evidence) even if you did it's not valid without empirical quantifiable evidence to corroborate it ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have the same observed evidence as evolutionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The evidence for science depicting a vast and ancient universe is overwhelming.
> 
> Evidence for gawds is nonexistent.
Click to expand...


Wrong, science are concepts and mechanisms that change as new data and viewpoints force it to change. Science cannot describe what and how things are, but they are descriptions of what and how we think things are. We cannot get factual answers to our questions, we can only observe, test, and probe the unknown until we think we can explain it. Like I said before,your theory is based on opinions no more credible then believing in creation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're right you should but you killed it when you proclaimed that mayans lived with dinosaurs etc,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can many people depict creatures accurately in their drawings, that they never saw ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entirety of the evilutionist depiction of dinosaurs (all of which existed 4,400 years ago), was stolen from Ken Ham's creation museum.
> 
> How Ken was able to fashion likenesses of these creatures... well... only the gawds know.
Click to expand...


Don't be a tool Hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahhhh.... that's a was a very big hit for xtc in the 80's
> also it reflects your statement :  All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe. -ln
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one forces religion on you daws except schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schools don't force religion on anyone. The courts have consistently defined that religion being taught in schools (even under the false label of ID or creationism), is a violation of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...


But they allow your religion to be forced on kids, because it takes a huge amount of faith to believe many of the theories that came from vivid imaginations that are taught in school.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one forces religion on you daws except schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schools don't force religion on anyone. The courts have consistently defined that religion being taught in schools (even under the false label of ID or creationism), is a violation of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they allow your religion to be forced on kids, because it takes a huge amount of faith to believe many of the theories that came from vivid imaginations that are taught in school.
Click to expand...


 You've made this nonsense claim before. There is no faith required in the science of evolution or the fact of an ancient universe.  Science and facts will often conflict with biblical tales and fables but that is not the fault of science.

If you look at the websites of the fundie religious organizations that  represent Christian religious polemics,  you see what the agenda is. 

The people who refuse to accept evolution either:

1.) Believe that evolution "threatens" their faith. So their opposition is all about emotion and fear and not science at all (even though they falsely try to denigrate science with biblical tales and fables).

and/or:

2.) Believe that evolution (the science) suggests social darwinism or "master race" politics like in Nazi Germany. So again their opposition is all about emotion and fear and not science at all.

and/or:

3.) Is a complete charlatan (e.g. Harun Yahya) making fame and fortune from people who are intellectually or emotionally connected to #1 and #2. So their opposition is about preying on people who barely understand the science. It's the age old rule in marketing and politics, tell the people what they want to hear.

Once you put aside the fear and emotional responses, and look at the actual science there is no debate (at least for rational people who have truly studied this). Now that was not true 50 - 100 years ago, because the evidence had not been carefully compiled at the time. 

But it's completely disingenuous to say that because there was legitimate doubt in the 1,600's --  when the Christian church would burn people at the stake and before most of the evidence had been discovered -- that this means that there is legitimate doubt on this in 2012. The evidence for evolution in 2012 is overwhelming and has been for more than a century.

Its an important subject because it's just sad to see people around the world being so willfully and irresponsibly misled about this. The religious cults are doing huge disservice to humanity by promoting fear and ignorance as they have done historically, most especially the Christian church.

Instead, though, you have people who barely understand basic biology teaching children to ignore the science. And further teaching them that it's OK toignore any scientific findings that you happen to think are difficult to reconcile with your fundie beliefs.  What a horrible mindset to implant in a child.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> turd breath. I should I have a molecular biology degree what was your degree in again ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crickets chirping...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiots commenting...
Click to expand...


Your degree is in idiots commenting? I'm confused Hawly.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahhhh.... that's a was a very big hit for xtc in the 80's
> also it reflects your statement :  All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe. -ln
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one forces religion on you daws except schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schools don't force religion on anyone. The courts have consistently defined that religion being taught in schools (even under the false label of ID or creationism), is a violation of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...


This is simply not true. You materialist religion, with the Darwinian myth as the primary dogma and the moral relativism that flows out if it, is forced on children daily in this country. Wake up, Hawly,


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> There is no faith required in the science of evolution



ROTFLMBO!!! 

Hawly, you crack me up with your silly statements.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crickets chirping...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots commenting...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your degree is in idiots commenting? I'm confused Hawly.
Click to expand...


You are perpetually confused.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no faith required in the science of evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMBO!!!
> 
> Hawly, you crack me up with your silly statements.
Click to expand...


Your comments are a typical waste of time.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one forces religion on you daws except schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schools don't force religion on anyone. The courts have consistently defined that religion being taught in schools (even under the false label of ID or creationism), is a violation of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is simply not true. You materialist religion, with the Darwinian myth as the primary dogma and the moral relativism that flows out if it, is forced on children daily in this country. Wake up, Hawly,
Click to expand...


A typically ignorant morass.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have an answer for my questions or are you once again talking from ignorance ?
> 
> 
> 
> as stated before you have no evidence.
> also since your questions are not really questions, because you falsely believe that you have the answers already. based on the no evidence fiction of your faith and not science you spew no answer is needed .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To give you the evidence you want we will cover The Mitochondrial Clock of Eve. Show you when the mother of all humans actually lived to prove modern man has only been on the planet for approximately 6,500 years. But first a few questions for you Daws.
> 
> 
> Ancient DNA found in spores of bacterium, they should have degraded long ago, why havn't they ?
> 
> Why are amino acids still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of million of years?
Click to expand...

as  I expected your sources are creation based and are not scientifically valid.
the same goes for you two fake questions... my answer stands, you have no evidence to corroborate you story.
your post does prove one thing, you are as I've pointed out, obsessive, ignorant  and dishonest.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read a few bits and pieces of this gibberish but just had to comment on this ...
> 
> 1) A poorly written and very sophomoric excuse for a poem is not "proof" of anything.
> 2) I don't care if others believe in a Magic Sky Fairy. All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe.
> 3) I don't speak for anyone but myself. Nor do you.
> 
> 
> 
> ahhhh.... that's a was a very big hit for xtc in the 80's
> also it reflects your statement :  All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe. -ln
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one forces religion on you daws except schools.
Click to expand...

that's a lie, public schools do not  

promote any religion.....it's against the law.

let me stop you before you start your lie about evolution being a faith...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The feeling is mutual when your side can't provide a sound explanation according to observed evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> you have no observed evidence. (bible babble is not evidence) even if you did it's not valid without empirical quantifiable evidence to corroborate it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have the same observed evidence as evolutionist.
Click to expand...

observed by who?

also remember :it's not valid without empirical quantifiable evidence to corroborate it . you have none.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> turd breath. I should I have a molecular biology degree what was your degree in again ?
> 
> 
> 
> you're right you should but you killed it when you proclaimed that mayans lived with dinosaurs etc,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can many people depict creatures accurately in their drawings, that they never saw ?
Click to expand...

hhahahahahahaha! Mayan glyphs any glyphs for that matter are a mixture fantasy and artistic license .
they are by no means accurate..

the concept of perspective and true to life accuracy were not invented until the Renaissance (the 1400s)
 Maya codices   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			










the very best mayan art / history do not depict any large animals..
also since they have been deciphered there is no mention of any large animals!
so again you are talking out your ass..


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. This is just another proof of my claim there are no true atheists... only people angry at God. When faced with situations they can not reconcile in their lives, instead of turning to God, some decide to hate God, and go on a mission to try to destroy belief in him. If you don't believe in God, why do you care if others do? Why make it your personal mission to persecute those that choose to freely exercise their freedom of religion our country was founded on?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....lol....hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
> wow talk about reading into and totally misrepresenting .
> there is nothing in that song about "A MISSION TO DESTROY BELIEF IN GOD" LOL!
> OR THE FALSE PATRIOT BULLSHIT ABOUT FREEDOM OF RELIGION LOL!
> DAMN YOU'RE FUNNY when you yammer nonsense!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed you didn't deny my claim about no true atheists... things that make you go hmmmmm.
Click to expand...

no need, the raving of an asshole disprove themselves..besides you have no evidence just your flawed inference.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To give you the evidence you want we will cover The Mitochondrial Clock of Eve. Show you when the mother of all humans actually lived to prove modern man has only been on the planet for approximately 6,500 years. But first a few questions for you Daws.
> 
> 
> Ancient DNA found in spores of bacterium, they should have degraded long ago, why havn't they ?
> 
> Why are amino acids still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of million of years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple, sometimes we get lucky. There are conditions that exist in which this information will remain intact, however rare. We just happened to find fossils that were kept in those conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no easy answer to this question,all scientists agree these are problems for the theory and dating methods. It is known these things could only survive so long under any condition.
Click to expand...

"it is known... that's like it's common knowledge" or everybody knows that" is a misnomer and false.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have the same observed evidence as evolutionist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The evidence for science depicting a vast and ancient universe is overwhelming.
> 
> Evidence for gawds is nonexistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, science are concepts and mechanisms that change as new data and viewpoints force it to change. Science cannot describe what and how things are, but they are descriptions of what and how we think things are. We cannot get factual answers to our questions, we can only observe, test, and probe the unknown until we think we can explain it. Like I said before,your theory is based on opinions no more credible then believing in creation.
Click to expand...

false.....you have no evidence for a creator....on the other hand there is literally tons of evidence for dinosaurs... but none for adam or noah....


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one forces religion on you daws except schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schools don't force religion on anyone. The courts have consistently defined that religion being taught in schools (even under the false label of ID or creationism), is a violation of the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is simply not true. You materialist religion, with the Darwinian myth as the primary dogma and the moral relativism that flows out if it, is forced on children daily in this country. Wake up, Hawly,
Click to expand...

wrong! it's fact 
materialist religion is a false construct based on the belief (not fact) that there is some thing outside of a material existence.
Darwinian myth is a bigoted catch phrase used by fringe creationists to undermine the fact of evolution. 

moral relativism is a meaningless term.
like fashion it changes all the time.
the bible is packed with moral relativism.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no faith required in the science of evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMBO!!!
> 
> Hawly, you crack me up with your silly statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comments are a typical waste of time.
Click to expand...


Ditto! I stopped wasting my time reading any of your post longer than a sentence because you don't have a single thought of your own and you certainly can't present a logical response to an argument. So stick around and enjoy the emoticons.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMBO!!!
> 
> Hawly, you crack me up with your silly statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments are a typical waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto! I stopped wasting my time reading any of your post longer than a sentence because you don't have a single thought of your own and you certainly can't present a logical response to an argument. So stick around and enjoy the emoticons.
Click to expand...

the only semi original thing you've posted is.....ah...um...lets see.....nothing....


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as stated before you have no evidence.
> also since your questions are not really questions, because you falsely believe that you have the answers already. based on the no evidence fiction of your faith and not science you spew no answer is needed .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To give you the evidence you want we will cover The Mitochondrial Clock of Eve. Show you when the mother of all humans actually lived to prove modern man has only been on the planet for approximately 6,500 years. But first a few questions for you Daws.
> 
> 
> Ancient DNA found in spores of bacterium, they should have degraded long ago, why havn't they ?
> 
> Why are amino acids still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of million of years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as  I expected your sources are creation based and are not scientifically valid.
> the same goes for you two fake questions... my answer stands, you have no evidence to corroborate you story.
> your post does prove one thing, you are as I've pointed out, obsessive, ignorant  and dishonest.
Click to expand...


So you deny reality, atleast new politics admitted to the evidence. You just avoid the questions kinda like Hollie.

I would like you to answer the questions.

Now would you like to discuss the Mitochondrial Clock of Eve ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments are a typical waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto! I stopped wasting my time reading any of your post longer than a sentence because you don't have a single thought of your own and you certainly can't present a logical response to an argument. So stick around and enjoy the emoticons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the only semi original thing you've posted is.....ah...um...lets see.....nothing....
Click to expand...


Well lets see you put a thought together of your own concerning the questions you were asked. You are gonna have to do it on your own because science has no explanation for it.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> the *fact* of evolution.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMBO!!!
> 
> Hawly, you crack me up with your silly statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments are a typical waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto! I stopped wasting my time reading any of your post longer than a sentence because you don't have a single thought of your own and you certainly can't present a logical response to an argument. So stick around and enjoy the emoticons.
Click to expand...


You're unable to present a coherent argument and its frustrating for you. That's why its actually comically to see your flailing about in response to my posts. Absent your cutting and pasting from crestionist websites, your only offering is nonsensical emoticons. 

That's the danger you face when you come to a public discussion board. You just don't have the ability to compose coherent sentences so you're left with nothing but spam.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I have an answer for you daws,the creatures are not as old as evolutionist have dated them. Life is not as old as evolutionist claim. They have found blood cells on a dinosaur. This dinosaur was so old according to evolutionist  that it was not even possible to find these bloood cells.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the *fact* of evolution.
Click to expand...


Wow is he thick.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto! I stopped wasting my time reading any of your post longer than a sentence because you don't have a single thought of your own and you certainly can't present a logical response to an argument. So stick around and enjoy the emoticons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're unable to present a coherent argument and its frustrating for you. That's why its actually comically to see your flailing about in response to my posts. Absent your cutting and pasting from crestionist websites, your only offering is nonsensical emoticons.
> 
> That's the danger you face when you come to a public discussion board. You just don't have the ability to compose coherent sentences so you're left with nothing but spam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a broken record but atleast the broken say's something.
Click to expand...


No need to get pissy. I just find it interesting that both of the fundies share a maturity level equal to that of 12 year pre-pubescent girls. 

It's also interesting that you don't even try to refute comments that would require you to actually do something more than cut and paste.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To give you the evidence you want we will cover The Mitochondrial Clock of Eve. Show you when the mother of all humans actually lived to prove modern man has only been on the planet for approximately 6,500 years. But first a few questions for you Daws.
> 
> 
> Ancient relativism , they should have degraded long ago, why havn't they ?
> 
> Why are amino acids still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of million of years?
> 
> 
> 
> as  I expected your sources are creation based and are not scientifically valid.
> the same goes for you two fake questions... my answer stands, you have no evidence to corroborate you story.
> your post does prove one thing, you are as I've pointed out, obsessive, ignorant  and dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you deny reality, atleast new politics admitted to the evidence. You just avoid the questions kinda like Hollie.
> 
> I would like you to answer the questions.
> 
> Now would you like to discuss the Mitochondrial Clock of Eve ?
Click to expand...

the only one here in denial is you.

this is a true statement " Why are amino acids still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of million of years?"
but you reasoning behind it is erroneous...you've already falsely concluded that god did it.
you also contradicted yourself and undermined your speculation by using the term "hundreds of million of years?"

new politics admitted to nothing !
he again was stating fact: "Simple, sometimes we get lucky. There are conditions that exist in which this information will remain intact, however rare. We just happened to find fossils that were kept in those conditions."- NP  post#7117
 Either you are too brain dead to know the difference or intentionally  misrepresenting.
if it's the first then it's excuable, if it's the second  you are the obsessive cock knocking slap dick arrogant, no integrity pinhead you've shown yourself to be.  


as to the  Mitochondrial Clock ,I ve already given you my answer:"as  I expected your sources are creation based and are not scientifically valid.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> I have an answer for you daws,the creatures are not as old as evolutionist have dated them. Life is not as old as evolutionist claim. They have found blood cells on a dinosaur. This dinosaur was so old according to evolutionist  that it was not even possible to find these bloood cells.


YOU ARE LYING THE PALEONTOLOGIST Mary Schweitzer SAID NO SUCH THING.!
 To be more accurate you are being lied to by you creationist sources and are whole heartedly 
lapping the shit up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as  I expected your sources are creation based and are not scientifically valid.
> the same goes for you two fake questions... my answer stands, you have no evidence to corroborate you story.
> your post does prove one thing, you are as I've pointed out, obsessive, ignorant  and dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you deny reality, atleast new politics admitted to the evidence. You just avoid the questions kinda like Hollie.
> 
> I would like you to answer the questions.
> 
> Now would you like to discuss the Mitochondrial Clock of Eve ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the only one here in denial is you.
> 
> this is a true statement " Why are amino acids still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of million of years?"
> but you reasoning behind it is erroneous...you've already falsely concluded that god did it.
> you also contradicted yourself and undermined your speculation by using the term "hundreds of million of years?"
> 
> new politics admitted to nothing !
> he again was stating fact: "Simple, sometimes we get lucky. There are conditions that exist in which this information will remain intact, however rare. We just happened to find fossils that were kept in those conditions."- NP  post#7117
> Either you are too brain dead to know the difference or intentionally  misrepresenting.
> if it's the first then it's excuable, if it's the second  you are the obsessive cock knocking slap dick arrogant, no integrity pinhead you've shown yourself to be.
> 
> 
> as to the  Mitochondrial Clock ,I ve already given you my answer:"as  I expected your sources are creation based and are not scientifically valid.
Click to expand...


Your sources are not worried about it, There is a math formula that say's they should be.

Quit trying to regurgitate NP no answer. Then explain the conditions they were found in that made it possible for these things to not be degraded in that length of time ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the *fact* of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow is he thick.
Click to expand...

place irony here....


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have an answer for you daws,the creatures are not as old as evolutionist have dated them. Life is not as old as evolutionist claim. They have found blood cells on a dinosaur. This dinosaur was so old according to evolutionist  that it was not even possible to find these bloood cells.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE LYING THE PALEONTOLOGIST Mary Schweitzer SAID NO SUCH THING.!
> To be more accurate you are being lied to by you creationist sources and are whole heartedly
> lapping the shit up.
Click to expand...


She admitted the blood cells should not be able to be detected.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have an answer for you daws,the creatures are not as old as evolutionist have dated them. Life is not as old as evolutionist claim. They have found blood cells on a dinosaur. This dinosaur was so old according to evolutionist  that it was not even possible to find these bloood cells.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE LYING THE PALEONTOLOGIST Mary Schweitzer SAID NO SUCH THING.!
> To be more accurate you are being lied to by you creationist sources and are whole heartedly
> lapping the shit up.
Click to expand...


Then explain the conditions they were found in that made it possible for these things to still exist ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Come on daws i'm waiting for your explanation.

Talk about making crap up ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have an answer for you daws,the creatures are not as old as evolutionist have dated them. Life is not as old as evolutionist claim. They have found blood cells on a dinosaur. This dinosaur was so old according to evolutionist  that it was not even possible to find these bloood cells.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE LYING THE PALEONTOLOGIST Mary Schweitzer SAID NO SUCH THING.!
> To be more accurate you are being lied to by you creationist sources and are whole heartedly
> lapping the shit up.
Click to expand...


 your side are already trying to create a theory on how they could have survived instead of just admitting their dating methods must be wrong.

Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue Inside


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you deny reality, atleast new politics admitted to the evidence. You just avoid the questions kinda like Hollie.
> 
> I would like you to answer the questions.
> 
> Now would you like to discuss the Mitochondrial Clock of Eve ?
> 
> 
> 
> the only one here in denial is you.
> 
> this is a true statement " Why are amino acids still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of million of years?"
> but you reasoning behind it is erroneous...you've already falsely concluded that god did it.
> you also contradicted yourself and undermined your speculation by using the term "hundreds of million of years?"
> 
> new politics admitted to nothing !
> he again was stating fact: "Simple, sometimes we get lucky. There are conditions that exist in which this information will remain intact, however rare. We just happened to find fossils that were kept in those conditions."- NP  post#7117
> Either you are too brain dead to know the difference or intentionally  misrepresenting.
> if it's the first then it's excuable, if it's the second  you are the obsessive cock knocking slap dick arrogant, no integrity pinhead you've shown yourself to be.
> 
> 
> as to the  Mitochondrial Clock ,I ve already given you my answer:"as  I expected your sources are creation based and are not scientifically valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your sources are not worried about it, There is a math formula that say's they should be.
> 
> Quit trying to regurgitate NP no answer. Then explain the conditions they were found in that made it possible for these things to not be degraded in that length of time ?
Click to expand...

 a formula based on what? 
NP'S ANSWER WAS THE CORRECT ONE ! as always your bigotry precludes any answer except your own.

 ever heard of micro climate? that's the best explaintion I can give 
it's preserved "iceman" for better than 3000 years.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have an answer for you daws,the creatures are not as old as evolutionist have dated them. Life is not as old as evolutionist claim. They have found blood cells on a dinosaur. This dinosaur was so old according to evolutionist  that it was not even possible to find these bloood cells.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE LYING THE PALEONTOLOGIST Mary Schweitzer SAID NO SUCH THING.!
> To be more accurate you are being lied to by you creationist sources and are whole heartedly
> lapping the shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She admitted the blood cells should not be able to be detected.
Click to expand...

misquoting again!
she said (not "admitted" you stupid fuck) that they find none because other palentolgist  were not looking in the right way...
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bonethe first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. The reason it hasnt been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We dont go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid, says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas 

Read more: Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
there is no should in science just is or is not...should infers intent and there is none.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Come on daws i'm waiting for your explanation.
> 
> Talk about making crap up ?


hey dick head I'm under no contract to you I'll answer when I choose to.
if you're bored go slap the salami


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have an answer for you daws,the creatures are not as old as evolutionist have dated them. Life is not as old as evolutionist claim. They have found blood cells on a dinosaur. This dinosaur was so old according to evolutionist  that it was not even possible to find these bloood cells.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE LYING THE PALEONTOLOGIST Mary Schweitzer SAID NO SUCH THING.!
> To be more accurate you are being lied to by you creationist sources and are whole heartedly
> lapping the shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your side are already trying to create a theory on how they could have survived instead of just admitting their dating methods must be wrong.
> 
> Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue Inside
Click to expand...

 another lie from the desperate.

why is everything you say accusatory?
adjusting when new fact is discovered is a major component of science 
unlike your fantasy where everything must  be constant.
it must be an easy  way to keep the lies striaght.  
again there is no must in science either shit happens or it doesn't


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the *fact* of evolution.
Click to expand...


For the YEC'ers, Flat Earth types who have chosen to remain ignorant of the science facts surrounding evolution, it should br pointed out that in spite of the religious claims to the contrary, there is no doubt that science proves the theories of evolution. 


*Evolution is a Fact and a Theory*

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exactmechanism of evolution; there are severaltheories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto! I stopped wasting my time reading any of your post longer than a sentence because you don't have a single thought of your own and you certainly can't present a logical response to an argument. So stick around and enjoy the emoticons.
> 
> 
> 
> the only semi original thing you've posted is.....ah...um...lets see.....nothing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets see you put a thought together of your own concerning the questions you were asked. You are gonna have to do it on your own because science has no explanation for it.
Click to expand...


And what questions were those?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have an answer for you daws,the creatures are not as old as evolutionist have dated them. Life is not as old as evolutionist claim. They have found blood cells on a dinosaur. This dinosaur was so old according to evolutionist  that it was not even possible to find these bloood cells.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE LYING THE PALEONTOLOGIST Mary Schweitzer SAID NO SUCH THING.!
> To be more accurate you are being lied to by you creationist sources and are whole heartedly
> lapping the shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She admitted the blood cells should not be able to be detected.
Click to expand...


What a shame that you're reduced to inventing lies to promote an utterly absurd claim. 

Your behavior typifies so much of the frantic, christian fundamentalist agenda. Honesty and integrity is thown out the window in pursuit of pressing a Dark Ages mentality.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments are a typical waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto! I stopped wasting my time reading any of your post longer than a sentence because you don't have a single thought of your own and you certainly can't present a logical response to an argument. So stick around and enjoy the emoticons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're unable to present a coherent argument and its frustrating for you. That's why its actually comically to see your flailing about in response to my posts. Absent your cutting and pasting from crestionist websites, your only offering is nonsensical emoticons.
> 
> That's the danger you face when you come to a public discussion board. You just don't have the ability to compose coherent sentences so you're left with nothing but spam.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're unable to present a coherent argument and its frustrating for you. That's why its actually comically to see your flailing about in response to my posts. Absent your cutting and pasting from crestionist websites, your only offering is nonsensical emoticons.
> 
> That's the danger you face when you come to a public discussion board. You just don't have the ability to compose coherent sentences so you're left with nothing but spam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a broken record but atleast the broken say's something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to get pissy. I just find it interesting that both of the fundies share a maturity level equal to that of 12 year pre-pubescent girls.
> 
> It's also interesting that you don't even try to refute comments that would require you to actually do something more than cut and paste.
Click to expand...


Huran Yahwan is my hero, Hawly.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the *fact* of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the YEC'ers, Flat Earth types who have chosen to remain ignorant of the science facts surrounding evolution, it should br pointed out that in spite of the religious claims to the contrary, there is no doubt that science proves the theories of evolution.
> 
> 
> *Evolution is a Fact and a Theory*
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exactmechanism of evolution; there are severaltheories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
> 
> In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
> 
> Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
> 
> Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."* I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.* *[This trick has been used by darwinists ad nauseum, but I guess they still think their trick of trying to mention evolution in the same context with real science will give it some much needed credibility. Evolutionary theory is a joke compared to the law of gravity, yet evolutionists think that by comparing the two, no one will notice one is actually based on the scientific method and the other nice stores, aka, pseudoscience. ]*
> 
> Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Click to expand...


If we have no practical way to sum up and assess the fitness or adaptive value of the traits of an organism apart from measurements of survival rates (evolutionary success), then on what basis can we use the idea of survival of the fittest (natural selection) to explain evolutionary success &#8212; as opposed to using it merely as a *blank check for freely inventing explanations of the sort commonly derided as &#8220;just-so stories*?

More than a decade later, Beatty remarked that &#8220;the precise meaning of &#8216;fitness&#8217; has yet to be settled, in spite of the fact &#8212; or perhaps because of the fact &#8212; that the term is so central to evolutionary thought.&#8221;[29] This is, if anything, even more emphatically true today. The concept remains troubled, as it has been from the very beginning, with little agreement on how to make it a workable part of evolutionary theory.

Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain &#8212; namely, the organism&#8217;s fitness &#8212; cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, *let alone one that is testable*. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration.

In any case, it is startling to realize that the entire brief for demoting human beings, and organisms in general, to meaningless scraps of molecular machinery &#8212; a demotion that fuels the long-running science-religion wars and that, as &#8220;shocking&#8221; revelation, *supposedly *stands on a par with Copernicus&#8217;s heliocentric proposal &#8212; rests on the vague conjunction of two scarcely creditable concepts: the randomness of mutations and the fitness of organisms. And, strangely, this shocking revelation has been sold to us in the context of a descriptive biological literature that, from the molecular level on up, remains almost nothing but a documentation of the meaningfully organized, goal-directed stories of living creatures.

*Hawly, this is the part where you don't respond to this argument on fitness, but go on about the ICR and how we fundies are so desparate.*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto! I stopped wasting my time reading any of your post longer than a sentence because you don't have a single thought of your own and you certainly can't present a logical response to an argument. So stick around and enjoy the emoticons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're unable to present a coherent argument and its frustrating for you. That's why its actually comically to see your flailing about in response to my posts. Absent your cutting and pasting from crestionist websites, your only offering is nonsensical emoticons.
> 
> That's the danger you face when you come to a public discussion board. You just don't have the ability to compose coherent sentences so you're left with nothing but spam.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Clueless.

Im afraid that for so many fundies, Christianity has reversed course since the enlightenment. 
Creationists are so predictable in their tactics. They employ hacks with a specific agenda of promoting fear and superstition to write articles critical of evolution and then post these articles directly to web based ministries. Theres a reason why the religious hacks never submit their articles to Scientific Journals  they are roundly criticized by the scientific community for falsified data and lies. Creation ministries exist for one and only purpose: to promote religion. They dont promote knowledge. They hope to present the illusion that there is a controversy where none actually exists. Now ask any of these Creationists why their views are not represented in the relevant Scientific Journals and you will invariably get the same answer: there exists a world wide conspiracy from evolutionists to bar them from publishing there.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the YEC'ers, Flat Earth types who have chosen to remain ignorant of the science facts surrounding evolution, it should br pointed out that in spite of the religious claims to the contrary, there is no doubt that science proves the theories of evolution.
> 
> 
> *Evolution is a Fact and a Theory*
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exactmechanism of evolution; there are severaltheories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
> 
> In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
> 
> Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
> 
> Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."* I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.* *[This trick has been used by darwinists ad nauseum, but I guess they still think their trick of trying to mention evolution in the same context with real science will give it some much needed credibility. Evolutionary theory is a joke compared to the law of gravity, yet evolutionists think that by comparing the two, no one will notice one is actually based on the scientific method and the other nice stores, aka, pseudoscience. ]*
> 
> Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we have no practical way to sum up and assess the fitness or adaptive value of the traits of an organism apart from measurements of survival rates (evolutionary success), then on what basis can we use the idea of survival of the fittest (natural selection) to explain evolutionary success  as opposed to using it merely as a *blank check for freely inventing explanations of the sort commonly derided as just-so stories*?
> 
> More than a decade later, Beatty remarked that the precise meaning of fitness has yet to be settled, in spite of the fact  or perhaps because of the fact  that the term is so central to evolutionary thought.[29] This is, if anything, even more emphatically true today. The concept remains troubled, as it has been from the very beginning, with little agreement on how to make it a workable part of evolutionary theory.
> 
> Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain  namely, the organisms fitness  cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, *let alone one that is testable*. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration.
> 
> In any case, it is startling to realize that the entire brief for demoting human beings, and organisms in general, to meaningless scraps of molecular machinery  a demotion that fuels the long-running science-religion wars and that, as shocking revelation, *supposedly *stands on a par with Copernicuss heliocentric proposal  rests on the vague conjunction of two scarcely creditable concepts: the randomness of mutations and the fitness of organisms. And, strangely, this shocking revelation has been sold to us in the context of a descriptive biological literature that, from the molecular level on up, remains almost nothing but a documentation of the meaningfully organized, goal-directed stories of living creatures.
> 
> *Hawly, this is the part where you don't respond to this argument on fitness, but go on about the ICR and how we fundies are so desparate.*
Click to expand...


I already addressed this, my gawds fearing little xtian.

Here's something for you to consider: It is not only in Christiaity that gawds evolved, gawds are in a constant state of evolution as theological thinking changes throughout the centuries.

*Praise Jay-zus. Evilution is born anew. *


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're unable to present a coherent argument and its frustrating for you. That's why its actually comically to see your flailing about in response to my posts. Absent your cutting and pasting from crestionist websites, your only offering is nonsensical emoticons.
> 
> That's the danger you face when you come to a public discussion board. You just don't have the ability to compose coherent sentences so you're left with nothing but spam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clueless.
> 
> Im afraid that for so many fundies, Christianity has reversed course since the enlightenment.
> Creationists are so predictable in their tactics. They employ hacks with a specific agenda of promoting fear and superstition to write articles critical of evolution and then post these articles directly to web based ministries. Theres a reason why the religious hacks never submit their articles to Scientific Journals  they are roundly criticized by the scientific community for falsified data and lies. Creation ministries exist for one and only purpose: to promote religion. They dont promote knowledge. They hope to present the illusion that there is a controversy where none actually exists. Now ask any of these Creationists why their views are not represented in the relevant Scientific Journals and you will invariably get the same answer: there exists a world wide conspiracy from evolutionists to bar them from publishing there.
Click to expand...


Let go of your hate and you will find peace.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the YEC'ers, Flat Earth types who have chosen to remain ignorant of the science facts surrounding evolution, it should br pointed out that in spite of the religious claims to the contrary, there is no doubt that science proves the theories of evolution.
> 
> 
> *Evolution is a Fact and a Theory*
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exactmechanism of evolution; there are severaltheories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
> 
> In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
> 
> Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
> 
> Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."* I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.* *[This trick has been used by darwinists ad nauseum, but I guess they still think their trick of trying to mention evolution in the same context with real science will give it some much needed credibility. Evolutionary theory is a joke compared to the law of gravity, yet evolutionists think that by comparing the two, no one will notice one is actually based on the scientific method and the other nice stores, aka, pseudoscience. ]*
> 
> Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we have no practical way to sum up and assess the fitness or adaptive value of the traits of an organism apart from measurements of survival rates (evolutionary success), then on what basis can we use the idea of survival of the fittest (natural selection) to explain evolutionary success &#8212; as opposed to using it merely as a *blank check for freely inventing explanations of the sort commonly derided as &#8220;just-so stories*?
> 
> More than a decade later, Beatty remarked that &#8220;the precise meaning of &#8216;fitness&#8217; has yet to be settled, in spite of the fact &#8212; or perhaps because of the fact &#8212; that the term is so central to evolutionary thought.&#8221;[29] This is, if anything, even more emphatically true today. The concept remains troubled, as it has been from the very beginning, with little agreement on how to make it a workable part of evolutionary theory.
> 
> Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain &#8212; namely, the organism&#8217;s fitness &#8212; cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, *let alone one that is testable*. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration.
> 
> In any case, it is startling to realize that the entire brief for demoting human beings, and organisms in general, to meaningless scraps of molecular machinery &#8212; a demotion that fuels the long-running science-religion wars and that, as &#8220;shocking&#8221; revelation, *supposedly *stands on a par with Copernicus&#8217;s heliocentric proposal &#8212; rests on the vague conjunction of two scarcely creditable concepts: the randomness of mutations and the fitness of organisms. And, strangely, this shocking revelation has been sold to us in the context of a descriptive biological literature that, from the molecular level on up, remains almost nothing but a documentation of the meaningfully organized, goal-directed stories of living creatures.
> 
> *Hawly, this is the part where you don't respond to this argument on fitness, but go on about the ICR and how we fundies are so desparate.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already addressed this, my gawds fearing little xtian.
> 
> Here's something for you to consider: It is not only in Christiaity that gawds evolved, gawds are in a constant state of evolution as theological thinking changes throughout the centuries.
> 
> *Praise Jay-zus. Evilution is born anew. *
Click to expand...


Nice try. You *NEVER* addressed this, unless you consider cutting and pasting totally irrelevant evo fundie propaganda. So predictable. How about some thoughts of your own?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clueless.
> 
> Im afraid that for so many fundies, Christianity has reversed course since the enlightenment.
> Creationists are so predictable in their tactics. They employ hacks with a specific agenda of promoting fear and superstition to write articles critical of evolution and then post these articles directly to web based ministries. Theres a reason why the religious hacks never submit their articles to Scientific Journals  they are roundly criticized by the scientific community for falsified data and lies. Creation ministries exist for one and only purpose: to promote religion. They dont promote knowledge. They hope to present the illusion that there is a controversy where none actually exists. Now ask any of these Creationists why their views are not represented in the relevant Scientific Journals and you will invariably get the same answer: there exists a world wide conspiracy from evolutionists to bar them from publishing there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let go of your hate and you will find peace.
Click to expand...

Clueless.

I had every expectation you would be unable to address my comments.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we have no practical way to sum up and assess the fitness or adaptive value of the traits of an organism apart from measurements of survival rates (evolutionary success), then on what basis can we use the idea of survival of the fittest (natural selection) to explain evolutionary success  as opposed to using it merely as a *blank check for freely inventing explanations of the sort commonly derided as just-so stories*?
> 
> More than a decade later, Beatty remarked that the precise meaning of fitness has yet to be settled, in spite of the fact  or perhaps because of the fact  that the term is so central to evolutionary thought.[29] This is, if anything, even more emphatically true today. The concept remains troubled, as it has been from the very beginning, with little agreement on how to make it a workable part of evolutionary theory.
> 
> Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain  namely, the organisms fitness  cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, *let alone one that is testable*. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration.
> 
> In any case, it is startling to realize that the entire brief for demoting human beings, and organisms in general, to meaningless scraps of molecular machinery  a demotion that fuels the long-running science-religion wars and that, as shocking revelation, *supposedly *stands on a par with Copernicuss heliocentric proposal  rests on the vague conjunction of two scarcely creditable concepts: the randomness of mutations and the fitness of organisms. And, strangely, this shocking revelation has been sold to us in the context of a descriptive biological literature that, from the molecular level on up, remains almost nothing but a documentation of the meaningfully organized, goal-directed stories of living creatures.
> 
> *Hawly, this is the part where you don't respond to this argument on fitness, but go on about the ICR and how we fundies are so desparate.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already addressed this, my gawds fearing little xtian.
> 
> Here's something for you to consider: It is not only in Christiaity that gawds evolved, gawds are in a constant state of evolution as theological thinking changes throughout the centuries.
> 
> *Praise Jay-zus. Evilution is born anew. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try. You *NEVER* addressed this, unless you consider cutting and pasting totally irrelevant evo fundie propaganda. So predictable. How about some thoughts of your own?
Click to expand...

It certainly was addressed. 

It's not surprising that you're unable to confront the fact of evolution and an ancient universe.  While both these elements you find revolting as they destroy the credibility of your religious ideology, you need to let go of the fear and superstition that keeps you chained to ignorance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only one here in denial is you.
> 
> this is a true statement " Why are amino acids still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of million of years?"
> but you reasoning behind it is erroneous...you've already falsely concluded that god did it.
> you also contradicted yourself and undermined your speculation by using the term "hundreds of million of years?"
> 
> new politics admitted to nothing !
> he again was stating fact: "Simple, sometimes we get lucky. There are conditions that exist in which this information will remain intact, however rare. We just happened to find fossils that were kept in those conditions."- NP  post#7117
> Either you are too brain dead to know the difference or intentionally  misrepresenting.
> if it's the first then it's excuable, if it's the second  you are the obsessive cock knocking slap dick arrogant, no integrity pinhead you've shown yourself to be.
> 
> 
> as to the  Mitochondrial Clock ,I ve already given you my answer:"as  I expected your sources are creation based and are not scientifically valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your sources are not worried about it, There is a math formula that say's they should be.
> 
> Quit trying to regurgitate NP no answer. Then explain the conditions they were found in that made it possible for these things to not be degraded in that length of time ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a formula based on what?
> NP'S ANSWER WAS THE CORRECT ONE ! as always your bigotry precludes any answer except your own.
> 
> ever heard of micro climate? that's the best explaintion I can give
> it's preserved "iceman" for better than 3000 years.
Click to expand...


We are talking 68 million years not 3,000 years that which is within the biblical time line.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE LYING THE PALEONTOLOGIST Mary Schweitzer SAID NO SUCH THING.!
> To be more accurate you are being lied to by you creationist sources and are whole heartedly
> lapping the shit up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She admitted the blood cells should not be able to be detected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> misquoting again!
> she said (not "admitted" you stupid fuck) that they find none because other palentolgist  were not looking in the right way...
> It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bonethe first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. The reason it hasnt been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We dont go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid, says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas
> 
> Read more: Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
> there is no should in science just is or is not...should infers intent and there is none.
Click to expand...


In what you just posted genius,she admits no one would think these blood cells could survive millions of years. The text books say the say the same thing.

Let me show you circular reasoning at it's finest. She automatically concluded the textbooks were wrong. They can survive millions of years .She based that off because the dating of the dinosaur.

That dinosaur is not as old as the dating method claims that is actually why they are still there. If you cut off oxygen they would deteriorate over time. Not near the time she is claiming. If the dead carcass is exposed to oxygen after the organism dies it wil also deteriorate. Dead carcasses are exposed to oxygen because rocks and debris which surround the carcass contain oxygen.

No way no how these bloodcells could have survived 68 million years.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on daws i'm waiting for your explanation.
> 
> Talk about making crap up ?
> 
> 
> 
> hey dick head I'm under no contract to you I'll answer when I choose to.
> if you're bored go slap the salami
Click to expand...


I know i hit you with tough questions but questions that need to be answered so your theory can still fit but it doesn't.

Resort to childish insults when confronted with truth


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only semi original thing you've posted is.....ah...um...lets see.....nothing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets see you put a thought together of your own concerning the questions you were asked. You are gonna have to do it on your own because science has no explanation for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what questions were those?
Click to expand...


All the questions you have ignored since you entered this thread.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE LYING THE PALEONTOLOGIST Mary Schweitzer SAID NO SUCH THING.!
> To be more accurate you are being lied to by you creationist sources and are whole heartedly
> lapping the shit up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She admitted the blood cells should not be able to be detected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a shame that you're reduced to inventing lies to promote an utterly absurd claim.
> 
> Your behavior typifies so much of the frantic, christian fundamentalist agenda. Honesty and integrity is thown out the window in pursuit of pressing a Dark Ages mentality.
Click to expand...


You and Daws both possess reading comp problems.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I am real busy. I won't have the time to continue educating daws and yourself. I will look at the thread from time to time to correct some of your nonsense. Have a good day.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets see you put a thought together of your own concerning the questions you were asked. You are gonna have to do it on your own because science has no explanation for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what questions were those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the questions you have ignored since you entered this thread.
Click to expand...


You're being intentionally evasive because we both know you're being dishonest. 

You have embraced the tactics of your masters at the creationist ministries.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the YEC'ers, Flat Earth types who have chosen to remain ignorant of the science facts surrounding evolution, it should br pointed out that in spite of the religious claims to the contrary, there is no doubt that science proves the theories of evolution.
> 
> 
> *Evolution is a Fact and a Theory*
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exactmechanism of evolution; there are severaltheories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
> 
> In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
> 
> Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
> 
> Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."* I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.* *[This trick has been used by darwinists ad nauseum, but I guess they still think their trick of trying to mention evolution in the same context with real science will give it some much needed credibility. Evolutionary theory is a joke compared to the law of gravity, yet evolutionists think that by comparing the two, no one will notice one is actually based on the scientific method and the other nice stores, aka, pseudoscience. ]*
> 
> Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we have no practical way to sum up and assess the fitness or adaptive value of the traits of an organism apart from measurements of survival rates (evolutionary success), then on what basis can we use the idea of survival of the fittest (natural selection) to explain evolutionary success  as opposed to using it merely as a *blank check for freely inventing explanations of the sort commonly derided as just-so stories*?
> 
> More than a decade later, Beatty remarked that the precise meaning of fitness has yet to be settled, in spite of the fact  or perhaps because of the fact  that the term is so central to evolutionary thought.[29] This is, if anything, even more emphatically true today. The concept remains troubled, as it has been from the very beginning, with little agreement on how to make it a workable part of evolutionary theory.
> 
> Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain  namely, the organisms fitness  cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, *let alone one that is testable*. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration.
> 
> In any case, it is startling to realize that the entire brief for demoting human beings, and organisms in general, to meaningless scraps of molecular machinery  a demotion that fuels the long-running science-religion wars and that, as shocking revelation, *supposedly *stands on a par with Copernicuss heliocentric proposal  rests on the vague conjunction of two scarcely creditable concepts: the randomness of mutations and the fitness of organisms. And, strangely, this shocking revelation has been sold to us in the context of a descriptive biological literature that, from the molecular level on up, remains almost nothing but a documentation of the meaningfully organized, goal-directed stories of living creatures.
> 
> *Hawly, this is the part where you don't respond to this argument on fitness, but go on about the ICR and how we fundies are so desparate.*
Click to expand...

creation wiki!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your sources are not worried about it, There is a math formula that say's they should be.
> 
> Quit trying to regurgitate NP no answer. Then explain the conditions they were found in that made it possible for these things to not be degraded in that length of time ?
> 
> 
> 
> a formula based on what?
> NP'S ANSWER WAS THE CORRECT ONE ! as always your bigotry precludes any answer except your own.
> 
> ever heard of micro climate? that's the best explaintion I can give
> it's preserved "iceman" for better than 3000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking 68 million years not 3,000 years that which is within the biblical time line.
Click to expand...

no we're not you are trying to bullshit your way out of  my question"a formula based on what? " 
as to the rest there is no provable biblical time line 
Icemans culture had bronze tools  

From around 9000 BC, people in different lands began to work with nuggets of soft metals, such as copper. Later, they discovered how to extract metals, such as tin, from rocks by smelting (heating). Finally, they discovered how to melt metals together to make new materials called alloys, such as bronze.

Table 41. SOME OF THE FIRST METALWORKERS

9000 BC  Hammered copper, Central Asia  
5000 BC  Gold/copper, Europe  
4000 BC  Bronze, Middle East  
2300 BC  Bronze, Europe  
1500 BC  Iron, western Asia  
1000 BC  Iron, Europe 



Read more: FIRST METALWORKERS  Infoplease.com FIRST METALWORKERS &mdash; Infoplease.com
once again you are full of shit.
also there is no reason a micro climate inside a buried dinosaur could not last millions of years  if not disturbed.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> She admitted the blood cells should not be able to be detected.
> 
> 
> 
> misquoting again!
> she said (not "admitted" you stupid fuck) that they find none because other palentolgist  were not looking in the right way...
> It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bonethe first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. The reason it hasnt been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We dont go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid, says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas
> 
> Read more: Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
> there is no should in science just is or is not...should infers intent and there is none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what you just posted genius,she admits no one would think these blood cells could survive millions of years. The text books say the say the same thing.
> 
> Let me show you circular reasoning at it's finest. She automatically concluded the textbooks were wrong. They can survive millions of years .She based that off because the dating of the dinosaur.
> 
> That dinosaur is not as old as the dating method claims that is actually why they are still there. If you cut off oxygen they would deteriorate over time. Not near the time she is claiming. If the dead carcass is exposed to oxygen after the organism dies it wil also deteriorate. Dead carcasses are exposed to oxygen because rocks and debris which surround the carcass contain oxygen.
> 
> No way no how these bloodcells could have survived 68 million years.
Click to expand...

another baseless claim !


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> She admitted the blood cells should not be able to be detected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a shame that you're reduced to inventing lies to promote an utterly absurd claim.
> 
> Your behavior typifies so much of the frantic, christian fundamentalist agenda. Honesty and integrity is thown out the window in pursuit of pressing a Dark Ages mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Daws both possess reading comp problems.
Click to expand...

place irony here. how many times do you need to be busted for  intentional  misinterpretation bvefore you see your problem?
maybe I've given you too much credit  for being a manipulating fuck.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> I am real busy. I won't have the time to continue educating daws and yourself. I will look at the thread from time to time to correct some of your nonsense. Have a good day.


 pulling up your skirts and running away!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already addressed this, my gawds fearing little xtian.
> 
> Here's something for you to consider: It is not only in Christiaity that gawds evolved, gawds are in a constant state of evolution as theological thinking changes throughout the centuries.
> 
> *Praise Jay-zus. Evilution is born anew. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try. You *NEVER* addressed this, unless you consider cutting and pasting totally irrelevant evo fundie propaganda. So predictable. How about some thoughts of your own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly was addressed.
> 
> It's not surprising that you're unable to *confront the fact of* evolution and *an ancient universe*.  While both these elements you find revolting as they destroy the credibility of your religious ideology, you need to let go of the fear and superstition that keeps you chained to ignorance.
Click to expand...


Hawly, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you are just stupid. How many times do I need to tell you I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion? How many? 25? 50 before it sinks in? It really is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you. 

Now, instead of addressing the fact you continually strawman me as a young earth creationist, you will probably just accuse me of acting like a 12-year old. Don't you ever tire of your childish games? Really, let go of the hate. I know part of your mo is to just frustrate the living H out of us until we act unbecomingly. Arguing with you really is akin to this...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what questions were those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the questions you have ignored since you entered this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being intentionally evasive because we both know you're being dishonest.
> 
> You have embraced the tactics of your masters at the creationist ministries.
Click to expand...


You're insane. Are you locked up somewhere in a mental institution with the internet as your only outlet to pass the time? Is that why you respond so quickly and make absolutely no sense?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am real busy. I won't have the time to continue educating daws and yourself. I will look at the thread from time to time to correct some of your nonsense. Have a good day.
> 
> 
> 
> pulling up your skirts and running away!
Click to expand...


Are you referring to Hawly again? Have we figured out if its skirts or pants for him/her?

"Extraordinary ignorance requires extraordinary patience [on ywc's part]". CARL SHENANIGAN


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try. You *NEVER* addressed this, unless you consider cutting and pasting totally irrelevant evo fundie propaganda. So predictable. How about some thoughts of your own?
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly was addressed.
> 
> It's not surprising that you're unable to *confront the fact of* evolution and *an ancient universe*.  While both these elements you find revolting as they destroy the credibility of your religious ideology, you need to let go of the fear and superstition that keeps you chained to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hawly, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you are just stupid. How many times do I need to tell you I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion? How many? 25? 50 before it sinks in? It really is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you.
> 
> Now, instead of addressing the fact you continually strawman me as a young earth creationist, you will probably just accuse me of acting like a 12-year old. Don't you ever tire of your childish games? Really, let go of the hate. I know part of your mo is to just frustrate the living H out of us until we act unbecomingly. Arguing with you really is akin to this...
Click to expand...


Fundie creationist, with no respect intended, you are just stupid.

How many times do we need to read of your slathering apologetics for the YEC / Flat Earth groupies?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am real busy. I won't have the time to continue educating daws and yourself. I will look at the thread from time to time to correct some of your nonsense. Have a good day.
> 
> 
> 
> pulling up your skirts and running away!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you referring to Hawly again? Have we figured out if its skirts or pants for him/her?
> 
> "Extraordinary ignorance requires extraordinary patience [on ywc's part]". CARL SHENANIGAN
Click to expand...


More of your typical 12 year old antics.

You're unable to address the comments directed toward you so you're only avenue left is to spam with your typically nonsensical rubbish.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am real busy. I won't have the time to continue educating daws and yourself. I will look at the thread from time to time to correct some of your nonsense. Have a good day.
> 
> 
> 
> pulling up your skirts and running away!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you referring to Hawly again? Have we figured out if its skirts or pants for him/her?
> 
> "Extraordinary ignorance requires extraordinary patience [on ywc's part]". CARL SHENANIGAN
Click to expand...

 ahhh the Junior high wit just flows out of you.. what next you gonna snap your jock?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try. You *NEVER* addressed this, unless you consider cutting and pasting totally irrelevant evo fundie propaganda. So predictable. How about some thoughts of your own?
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly was addressed.
> 
> It's not surprising that you're unable to *confront the fact of* evolution and *an ancient universe*.  While both these elements you find revolting as they destroy the credibility of your religious ideology, you need to let go of the fear and superstition that keeps you chained to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hawly, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you are just stupid. How many times do I need to tell you I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion? How many? 25? 50 before it sinks in? It really is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you.
> 
> Now, instead of addressing the fact you continually strawman me as a young earth creationist, you will probably just accuse me of acting like a 12-year old. Don't you ever tire of your childish games? Really, let go of the hate. I know part of your mo is to just frustrate the living H out of us until we act unbecomingly. Arguing with you really is akin to this...
Click to expand...

the only difference between you and yWC's  lies  is about 13billion years.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the questions you have ignored since you entered this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being intentionally evasive because we both know you're being dishonest.
> 
> You have embraced the tactics of your masters at the creationist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're insane. Are you locked up somewhere in a mental institution with the internet as your only outlet to pass the time? Is that why you respond so quickly and make absolutely no sense?
Click to expand...


It is a shame that the entirety of your posting involves a really creepy preoccupation with me.

You're like a 12 year old girl discovering her sexuality is focused toward the same sex and its causing you terrible confusion.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> pulling up your skirts and running away!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to Hawly again? Have we figured out if its skirts or pants for him/her?
> 
> "Extraordinary ignorance requires extraordinary patience [on ywc's part]". CARL SHENANIGAN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of your typical 12 year old antics.
Click to expand...


As predicted in post 7187 above. You need some new material.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're being intentionally evasive because we both know you're being dishonest.
> 
> You have embraced the tactics of your masters at the creationist ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're insane. Are you locked up somewhere in a mental institution with the internet as your only outlet to pass the time? Is that why you respond so quickly and make absolutely no sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a shame that the entirety of your posting involves a really creepy preoccupation with me.
> 
> You're like a 12 year old girl discovering her sexuality is focused toward the same sex and its causing you terrible confusion.
Click to expand...




You couldn't respond to an argument if your life depended on it.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're insane. Are you locked up somewhere in a mental institution with the internet as your only outlet to pass the time? Is that why you respond so quickly and make absolutely no sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame that the entirety of your posting involves a really creepy preoccupation with me.
> 
> You're like a 12 year old girl discovering her sexuality is focused toward the same sex and its causing you terrible confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't respond to an argument if your life depended on it.
Click to expand...


That's a strange comment because you have hoisted up your skirt and run from the argument when I presented you facts that dismantle your silly clams to gawds.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame that the entirety of your posting involves a really creepy preoccupation with me.
> 
> You're like a 12 year old girl discovering her sexuality is focused toward the same sex and its causing you terrible confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't respond to an argument if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a strange comment because you have hoisted up your skirt and run from the argument when I presented you facts that dismantle your silly clams to gawds.
Click to expand...


Hawly, now you are quoting Daws??? Are you guys one and the same?


----------



## UltimateReality

The strongest argument for intelligent design is to clearly state the alternative view, which is that physics explains all of chemistry (probably true), chemistry explains all of biology, and biology completely explains the human mind; thus, physics alone explains the human mind and all it does. The following fictional thought experiment is designed to help those who dismiss intelligent design as unscientific, to think about what it is they really believe.

    In a 2000 Mathematical Intelligencer article, I speculated on what would happen if we constructed a gigantic computer model which starts with the initial conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago and tries to simulate the effects that the four known forces of physics (the gravitational and electromagnetic forces and the strong and weak nuclear forces) would have on every atom and every subatomic particle on our planet. If we ran such a simulation out to the present day, I asked, would it predict that the basic forces of Nature would reorganize the basic particles of Nature into libraries full of encyclopedias, science texts and novels, nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers with supersonic jets parked on deck, and computers connected to laser printers, CRTs and keyboards?

    A friend read my article and said, computers have advanced a lot in the last seven years, I think we could actually try such a simulation on my new laptop now. So I wrote the program -- in Fortran, naturally -- and we tried it. It took several hours, and at the end of the simulation we dumped the final coordinates of all the particles into a rather large data file, then ran MATLAB to plot them. Some interesting things had happened, a few mountains and valleys and volcanoes had formed, but no computers, no encyclopedias, and no cars or trucks. My friend said, let me see your program. After examining it, he exclaimed, no wonder, you treated the Earth as a closed system, order can't increase in a closed system. The Earth is an open system, you need to take into account the effect of the sun's energy. So I modified the boundary conditions to simulate the effect of the entering solar radiation, and reran it. This time some clouds and rivers had formed, but otherwise Earth still looked a lot like the other planets, and still no libraries or computers or airplanes.

    My imaginary friend looked more carefully at the program, and said, good grief, you are using classical physics, you can't simulate the effects of the four forces without quantum mechanics. He explained that according to quantum mechanics, the exact effects of these forces on any particular particle are impossible to predict with certainty, the new laws only provide the probabilities. I said, you mean there is a supernatural force at work here? He said, well, technically, yes, if you define the supernatural to be that which is forever beyond the ability of science to predict or explain -- British astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington said quantum mechanics "leaves us with no clear distinction between the natural and the supernatural." But there is no reason to doubt that this so-called "supernatural" effect is completely random, you can simulate it using a random number generator. So I completely re-wrote my simulator, I used an IMSL random number generator with a user-supplied probability distribution to simulate this randomness, and computed the required probability distributions by solving the Schrodinger equations with my own partial differential equation solver, PDE2D. Still no luck -- no space ships, no TV sets, no encyclopedias, not even a cheap novel.

    My friend looked at the new graphs and tried to mask his disappointment. Well, he said, of course the problem is you haven't taken into account the one natural force in the universe which can violate the second law of thermodynamics and create order out of disorder -- natural selection. You mean there is a fifth force -- why didn't you say so? Just give me the equations for this force and I will add it to my model. He said, I can't give you the equations, because it isn't actually a physical force, it doesn't actually move particles. So what does it do, I asked. He explained that one day a long time ago, by pure chance, a collection of atoms formed that was able to duplicate itself, and these complex collections of atoms were able to pass their complex structures on to their descendants generation after generation, even correcting errors. He went on to talk about how genetic accidents and survival of the fittest produced even more complex collections of atoms, and how something called "intelligence" allowed some of these collections of atoms to design computers and laser printers and the Internet. But when he finished, I still didn't know how to incorporate natural selection -- or intelligence -- into my model, so I never did get the simulation to work. I decided the model was still missing a force or two -- or a smarter random number generator.

Intelligent Design: Consider the Alternative - Evolution News & Views

http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html


----------



## UltimateReality

If a billion engineers were to type at the rate of one random character per second, there is virtually no chance that any one of them would, given the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth to work on it, accidentally duplicate a given 20-character improvement. Thus our engineer cannot count on making any major improvements through chance alone. But could he not perhaps make progress through the accumulation of very small improvements? The Darwinist would presumably say, yes, but to anyone who has had minimal programming experience this idea is equally implausible. Major improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself. Even the smallest improvements usually require adding several new lines. It is conceivable that a programmer unable to look ahead more than 5 or 6 characters at a time might be able to make some very slight improvements to a computer program, but it is inconceivable that he could design anything sophisticated without the ability to plan far ahead and to guide his changes toward that plan.

Whether at the microscopic or macroscopic level, major, complex, evolutionary advances, involving new features (as opposed to minor, quantitative changes such as an increase in the length of the giraffe's neck1, or the darkening of the wings of a moth, which clearly could occur gradually) also involve the addition of many interrelated and interdependent pieces. These complex advances, like those made to computer programs, are not always "irreducibly complex"--sometimes there are intermediate useful stages. But just as major improvements to a computer program cannot be made 5 or 6 characters at a time, certainly no major evolutionary advance is reducible to a chain of tiny improvements, each small enough to be bridged by a single random mutation.


----------



## UltimateReality

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8&feature=endscreen]David Berlinski - Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> - Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes



How silly. 

A better title would bc "another desperate attempt by goofy fundies to discredit science that fails in 5 minutes."


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> - Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How silly.
> 
> A better title would bc "another desperate attempt by goofy fundies to discredit science that fails in 5 minutes."
Click to expand...


Funny how Darwinism doesn't hold up to mathematics. Yet so many still blindly follow. I think it is obvious it is less about science and more about materialism.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> - Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How silly.
> 
> A better title would bc "another desperate attempt by goofy fundies to discredit science that fails in 5 minutes."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how Darwinism doesn't hold up to mathematics. Yet so many still blindly follow. I think it is obvious it is less about science and more about materialism.
Click to expand...


What's funny is that you don't know a thing about the science involved and are forced to simply parrot the nonsense promoted at fundie xtian ministries. 

What's funny is how religionism is forced to dredge up the most silly and outrageous critics of science in futile attempts to promote the fears and superstitions of Christianity. Its so often the case that those who argue against evolution don't haveeven a rudimentary understanding of biology and genetics. Thats precisely why the fundies are forced to cut and paste silly youtube videos by philosophers instead of scientists.

The frequent tactic of fundies is to simply collect youtube videos from creationist sites and hurl them at their opponents hoping that something will stick. When their opponents know the actual science and can respond with science as the overwhelming refutation, the fundies simply move on to the next argument. Unfortunately, there is a component of the xtian religion who politicized this issue so many decades ago. They wrote articles and "papers" about evolution that were absolutely dishonest. What people like the "Institute for Creation Research" write is absolute nonsense. And anyone with a reasonably deep background in science can see that. 

But unfortunately, this idea that evolution is not well supported by the data is extremely popular among fundie xtians. And it's because of the perceived threat to faith, and social darwinism, and racial politics, and every reason on Earth other than the actual science.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How silly.
> 
> A better title would bc "another desperate attempt by goofy fundies to discredit science that fails in 5 minutes."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how Darwinism doesn't hold up to mathematics. Yet so many still blindly follow. I think it is obvious it is less about science and more about materialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is that you don't know a thing about the science involved and are forced to simply parrot the nonsense promoted at fundie xtian ministries.
> 
> What's funny is how religionism is forced to dredge up the most silly and outrageous critics of science in futile attempts to promote the fears and superstitions of Christianity. Its so often the case that those who argue against evolution don't haveeven a rudimentary understanding of biology and genetics. Thats precisely why the fundies are forced to cut and paste silly youtube videos by philosophers instead of scientists.
> 
> The frequent tactic of fundies is to simply collect youtube videos from creationist sites and hurl them at their opponents hoping that something will stick. *When their opponents know the actual science and can respond with science as the overwhelming refutation [UR: Hawly, please give me one, just one, post number where YOU have actually done this]*, the fundies simply move on to the next argument. Unfortunately, there is a component of the xtian religion who politicized this issue so many decades ago. They wrote articles and "papers" about evolution that were absolutely dishonest. What people like the "Institute for Creation Research" write is absolute nonsense. And anyone with a reasonably deep background in science can see that.
> 
> But unfortunately, this idea that evolution is not well supported by the data is extremely popular among fundie xtians. And it's because of the perceived threat to faith, and social darwinism, and racial politics, and every reason on Earth other than the actual science.
Click to expand...


Keep believing the dream. No matter how much you force the rhetoric, it won't make it true. *I can't find a single thread where you actually respond to the points made*. Do you know what an Ad Hominem fallacy is? 

*Ad Hominem*

_Your reasoning contains this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself. It is a form of the Genetic Fallacy.

Example:

    What she says about Johannes Keplers astronomy of the 1600&#8242;s must be just so much garbage. Do you realize shes only fourteen years old?

This attack may undermine the arguers credibility as a scientific authority, but it does not undermine her reasoning. *That reasoning should stand or fall on the scientific evidence, not on the arguers age or anything else about him or her personally.*

If the fallacious reasoner points out irrelevant circumstances that the reasoner is in, the fallacy is a circumstantial ad hominem. Tu Quoque and Two Wrongs Make a Right are other types of the ad hominem fallacy._

You repeatedly employ this fallacy on this forum ad nauseum and never really address the points made. Like YWC, I believe this thread has turned into a prejudiced hate bash against Christians. *You are here to hate, not maturely exchange ideas.* You are impossible to have a real discussion with and repetitive dribble is really frustrating. 

Let go of your hate.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how Darwinism doesn't hold up to mathematics. Yet so many still blindly follow. I think it is obvious it is less about science and more about materialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that you don't know a thing about the science involved and are forced to simply parrot the nonsense promoted at fundie xtian ministries.
> 
> What's funny is how religionism is forced to dredge up the most silly and outrageous critics of science in futile attempts to promote the fears and superstitions of Christianity. Its so often the case that those who argue against evolution don't haveeven a rudimentary understanding of biology and genetics. Thats precisely why the fundies are forced to cut and paste silly youtube videos by philosophers instead of scientists.
> 
> The frequent tactic of fundies is to simply collect youtube videos from creationist sites and hurl them at their opponents hoping that something will stick. *When their opponents know the actual science and can respond with science as the overwhelming refutation [UR: Hawly, please give me one, just one, post number where YOU have actually done this]*, the fundies simply move on to the next argument. Unfortunately, there is a component of the xtian religion who politicized this issue so many decades ago. They wrote articles and "papers" about evolution that were absolutely dishonest. What people like the "Institute for Creation Research" write is absolute nonsense. And anyone with a reasonably deep background in science can see that.
> 
> But unfortunately, this idea that evolution is not well supported by the data is extremely popular among fundie xtians. And it's because of the perceived threat to faith, and social darwinism, and racial politics, and every reason on Earth other than the actual science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep believing the dream. No matter how much you force the rhetoric, it won't make it true. *I can't find a single thread where you actually respond to the points made*. Do you know what an Ad Hominem fallacy is?
> 
> *Ad Hominem*
> 
> _Your reasoning contains this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself. It is a form of the Genetic Fallacy.
> 
> Example:
> 
> What she says about Johannes Keplers astronomy of the 1600&#8242;s must be just so much garbage. Do you realize shes only fourteen years old?
> 
> This attack may undermine the arguers credibility as a scientific authority, but it does not undermine her reasoning. *That reasoning should stand or fall on the scientific evidence, not on the arguers age or anything else about him or her personally.*
> 
> If the fallacious reasoner points out irrelevant circumstances that the reasoner is in, the fallacy is a circumstantial ad hominem. Tu Quoque and Two Wrongs Make a Right are other types of the ad hominem fallacy._
> 
> You repeatedly employ this fallacy on this forum ad nauseum and never really address the points made. Like YWC, I believe this thread has turned into a prejudiced hate bash against Christians. *You are here to hate, not maturely exchange ideas.* You are impossible to have a real discussion with and repetitive dribble is really frustrating.
> 
> Let go of your hate.
Click to expand...

Do you somehow think that using gargantun fonts will somehow mask your inability to respond to posted comments?


----------



## Hollie

Creationism has once again been given a black eye. David Barton is an evangelical Christian minister American, conservative activist, and hack who was propped up by the Discovery Institute until even they were forced to back-peddle.

Its just so typical for fundies to lie and attempt to re-write history in their attempts to force their beliefs on others.

*Disco Institute Damage Control? Barton Book Dumped*

By Dave Thomas on August 15, 2012 1:48 PM| 39 Comments (new)

Disco Institute Damage Control? Barton Book Dumped - The Panda's Thumb

Well, this is interesting! Pseudo-historian David Barton, whom we last heard from here on the Thumb declaring that Americas Founding Fathers had considered evolution, and rejected it for creationism, (Barton: Founding Fathers Opposed Darwin?!? - The Panda's Thumb) has had his newest book examined and rejected by a group of conservative authors headed by the Discovery Institutes Jay W. Richards.

From the New York Times Artsbeat blog for August 14, 2012:
Hard Truth for Author: Publisher Pulls 'The Jefferson Lies' - NYTimes.com

Last month the History News Network voted David Bartons book The Jefferson Lies the least credible history book in print. Now the books publisher, Thomas Nelson, has decided to stop publishing and distributing it.

The book, which argues that Thomas Jefferson was an enthusiastic orthodox Christian who saw no need for a wall of separation between church and state, has attracted plenty of criticism since it appeared in April, with an introduction by Glenn Beck. But the death knell came after Jay W. Richards, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and the author, with James Robison, of Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family and Freedom Before Its Too Late, began to have doubts and started an investigation.


----------



## Hollie

*Behind the Scenes at the Creation Museum*

Behind the Scenes at the Creation "Museum" - The Panda's Thumb

One of the Creation Museums more ridiculous claims is that dinosaurs and other Mesozoic animals survived Noahs Flood via the Ark and lived until historical times, when they became known as fire-breathing dragons and other mythological creatures. Recently the Creation Museum put up various billboards of dinosaurs around the country and included one of a fire-breathing dragon. The image is now sold on T-shirts in the Creation Museums bookstore. Additionally, they sell an assortment of dragon and knight figures as toys in the bookstore, which has a dragon theme with a faux medieval look to it. Apparently this fantasy is being passed along to children and their parents by the museum. Obviously Answers in Genesis has not thought through the idea of putting fire-breathing animals on a wooden boat. Perhaps they need to tell everyone that Noah owned an asbestos mine.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am real busy. I won't have the time to continue educating daws and yourself. I will look at the thread from time to time to correct some of your nonsense. Have a good day.
> 
> 
> 
> pulling up your skirts and running away!
Click to expand...


I'm not Irish, No offense to the Irish.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly was addressed.
> 
> It's not surprising that you're unable to *confront the fact of* evolution and *an ancient universe*.  While both these elements you find revolting as they destroy the credibility of your religious ideology, you need to let go of the fear and superstition that keeps you chained to ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you are just stupid. How many times do I need to tell you I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion? How many? 25? 50 before it sinks in? It really is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you.
> 
> Now, instead of addressing the fact you continually strawman me as a young earth creationist, you will probably just accuse me of acting like a 12-year old. Don't you ever tire of your childish games? Really, let go of the hate. I know part of your mo is to just frustrate the living H out of us until we act unbecomingly. Arguing with you really is akin to this...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the only difference between you and yWC's  lies  is about 13billion years.
Click to expand...


Lies ,how do you know if you can't respond with viable explanations to our questions nor refute our views ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you are just stupid. How many times do I need to tell you I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion? How many? 25? 50 before it sinks in? It really is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you.
> 
> Now, instead of addressing the fact you continually strawman me as a young earth creationist, you will probably just accuse me of acting like a 12-year old. Don't you ever tire of your childish games? Really, let go of the hate. I know part of your mo is to just frustrate the living H out of us until we act unbecomingly. Arguing with you really is akin to this...
> 
> 
> 
> the only difference between you and yWC's  lies  is about 13billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies ,how do you know if you can't respond with viable explanations to our questions nor refute our views ?
Click to expand...


Aside from your explanations that were nothing more sophisticated the gods did it, you offered no explanations for anything.

As to refuting your views, those views were typically cut and paste nonsense from creationist websites. Those views are no more sophisticated than the outrageously stupid young earth / flat eath silliness furthered by Ken Ham from the creation science museum.


----------



## Big_D

Whales once had legs and now they don't.  How does this not prove evolution?


Whales Had Legs, Wiggled Hips, Study Says

I don't think that everything in the bible is suppose to be taken literally.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D said:


> Whales once had legs and now they don't.  How does this not prove evolution?
> 
> 
> Whales Had Legs, Wiggled Hips, Study Says
> 
> I don't think that everything in the bible is suppose to be taken literally.



This is only an unproven opinion. They said the same thing about the Coelacanth,not true according to the ones we see today.


----------



## Big_D

Youwerecreated said:


> This is only an unproven opinion. They said the same thing about the Coelacanth,not true according to the ones we see today.



The fossils show that they had legs. 



> The new adult fossil8 feet (2.6 meters) longhas four legs, with the hind two still connected to the backbone. The fetus has well developed teeth, indicating that it was prepared to fend for itself soon after birth.



Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal


----------



## Big_D

May I ask if you also believe that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark and that the story of the Ark is 100% accurate as it is written?


----------



## Hollie

Big_D said:


> Whales once had legs and now they don't.  How does this not prove evolution?
> 
> 
> Whales Had Legs, Wiggled Hips, Study Says
> 
> I don't think that everything in the bible is suppose to be taken literally.



Good post, Big D.

I think you will find responses from the creationists to be consistent with that offered by one of the more excitable of the fundies: youwerecreated. They will simply deny the fact and the science of evolution as being a conspiracy to deny christian fundamentalists the opportunity to press their religion in the school system. Their conspiracy theories run deep.

The evidence for useless bones in whales is just one example of evolution that the fundies cant challenge except to screech unproven opiniion. That of course is false because useless bones that serve no purpose in whales are a fact. 

Evolution is testable and verifiable because the best prediction of evolution is the existence of the Phylogenetic Tree. This defines that characteristics of species are aligned in nested hierarchies resembling a tree. The basic prediction is that traits that evolved in one species should appear in their descendants and not in the descendants of other species. Feathers evolved in birds so we can predict that they must never be observed in mammals. Consistent with prediction, they are not. Cell walls evolved in plants. So we can predict that they should never be observed in the cells of animals. And they are not.

It only takes one single exception to this rule to challenge the theory of evolution. It only takes one animal to be found that has cells with cell walls and the theory of evolution will come crumbling down. But no such exception has ever been observed.

There is no reason whatsoever as to why a supernatural, supermagical designer would have kept such a strict adherence to a Phylogenetic Tree. The fins of whales are a different concept than that of fish. Why is that? Because they are different traits that evolved in a different branch of the Phylogenetic Tree. The wings of bats are a different design than that of birds. Why is that ? Because they are different traits that evolved in a different branch of the Phylogenetic Tree.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is only an unproven opinion. They said the same thing about the Coelacanth,not true according to the ones we see today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossils show that they had legs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new adult fossil8 feet (2.6 meters) longhas four legs, with the hind two still connected to the backbone. The fetus has well developed teeth, indicating that it was prepared to fend for itself soon after birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal
Click to expand...


No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.

Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D said:


> May I ask if you also believe that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark and that the story of the Ark is 100% accurate as it is written?



If they were they would have been juveniles. Which they had to be on the ark because man has accurately carved images of dinosaurs they supposedly never seen. I love the renderings of dinosaurs with zebra stripes. Then we find dinosaurs with fossilized skin that had stripes like a zebra.

They had to be seen by early man. The bible also describes one of these creatures.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is only an unproven opinion. They said the same thing about the Coelacanth,not true according to the ones we see today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossils show that they had legs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new adult fossil8 feet (2.6 meters) longhas four legs, with the hind two still connected to the backbone. The fetus has well developed teeth, indicating that it was prepared to fend for itself soon after birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.
> 
> Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.
Click to expand...


"_No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale._"

You forgot to add "because I say so", to the end of your nonsensical claim.

BTW, whales never walked on land.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask if you also believe that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark and that the story of the Ark is 100% accurate as it is written?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they were they would have been juveniles. Which they had to be on the ark because man has accurately carved images of dinosaurs they supposedly never seen. I love the renderings of dinosaurs with zebra stripes. Then we find dinosaurs with fossilized skin that had stripes like a zebra.
> 
> They had to be seen by early man. The bible also describes one of these creatures.
Click to expand...


Early man saw dinosaurs?

I think you have been spending too much time worshipping Ken Ham and his silly museum which depicts people in buckscin outfits frolicking with the dinosaurs.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it is appropriate to point and laugh at the goofy fundies.


----------



## Big_D

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is only an unproven opinion. They said the same thing about the Coelacanth,not true according to the ones we see today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossils show that they had legs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new adult fossil8 feet (2.6 meters) longhas four legs, with the hind two still connected to the backbone. The fetus has well developed teeth, indicating that it was prepared to fend for itself soon after birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.
> 
> Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.
Click to expand...


Just do a google search to find what I'm talking about.  You'll see that whales looked a lot different from what they do today and we owe that to evolving.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is only an unproven opinion. They said the same thing about the Coelacanth,not true according to the ones we see today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossils show that they had legs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new adult fossil8 feet (2.6 meters) longhas four legs, with the hind two still connected to the backbone. The fetus has well developed teeth, indicating that it was prepared to fend for itself soon after birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.
> 
> Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.
Click to expand...


Stop using an argument from personal incredulity. Just because YOU can't believe it is possible that whales used to have legs, doesn't mean it wasn't so. Whales DO have remnants of leg bones, which demands an explanation. The simplest and most logical one is simply: Whales used to have legs. God offers no explanatory power here, because you have no proof, whatsoever, for god.


----------



## newpolitics

this clip is fitting for this thread right now

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vhzd1Q8Ym8&feature=related]Evolution is irrelevant to God - The Atheist Experience #767 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> The strongest argument for intelligent design is to -----
> EDITED FOR LACK OF NEW INFORMATION, SHEER REPETITION AND NO PROOF OF CONCEPT----------------


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am real busy. I won't have the time to continue educating daws and yourself. I will look at the thread from time to time to correct some of your nonsense. Have a good day.
> 
> 
> 
> pulling up your skirts and running away!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not Irish, No offense to the Irish.
Click to expand...

WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE IRISH..
if I had to guess, you're a cross dresser ,when you wifes' out handing out the watch tower or trespassing for god!
besides didn't you say  that you were busy?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you are just stupid. How many times do I need to tell you I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion? How many? 25? 50 before it sinks in? It really is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you.
> 
> Now, instead of addressing the fact you continually strawman me as a young earth creationist, you will probably just accuse me of acting like a 12-year old. Don't you ever tire of your childish games? Really, let go of the hate. I know part of your mo is to just frustrate the living H out of us until we act unbecomingly. Arguing with you really is akin to this...
> 
> 
> 
> the only difference between you and yWC's  lies  is about 13billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies ,how do you know if you can't respond with viable explanations to our questions nor refute our views ?
Click to expand...

yes lies , the only so called viable explanation that I need is that your highly specious speculation is based on a false premise: GOD DID IT!
HOW MANY TIMES DOES THAT HAVE TO BE REPEATED ?
YOUR QUESTIONS ARE NOT QUESTIONS AS YOU'VE CHOSEN AN ANSWER BASED NOT ON EVIDENCE BUT ON FAITH.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is only an unproven opinion. They said the same thing about the Coelacanth,not true according to the ones we see today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossils show that they had legs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new adult fossil8 feet (2.6 meters) longhas four legs, with the hind two still connected to the backbone. The fetus has well developed teeth, indicating that it was prepared to fend for itself soon after birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.
> 
> Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.
Click to expand...

another world famous mis interpretation by YWC

AGAIN YOUR  SELF INFLICTED IGNORANCE SHINES 
 ancient whales were small compared to what they evolved into, so you comment is  intentionally stupid . 

   hey dick head: Using trees to make predictions about fossils: The whale's ankle 

Scientists used to think that whales' ancestors were now-extinct carnivores called mesonychids. However, based on recent findings, scientists have hypothesized that whales are actually more closely related to hoofed mammals like hippos and ruminants such as cows and giraffes. 

This hypothesized phylogeny leads us to predict that ancient whales should share some characters with their close relatives. The close relatives of whales have a type of ankle called a double pulley ankle, so we would expect that ancestral whales would also have a double pulley ankle. 

And in fact, recent fossil discoveries have borne out that prediction. Scientists found ancient whales with hind legs and pelvises: these whales had the same kind of double pulley ankle bone that modern pronghorns, camels, cows and hippos have. 
Compare the ankle bones of the two ancient whales on the left and right (the specimen on the right is missing some bones) and those of a modern pronghorn (center). Notice the double pulley structure boxed on all three. 










Ankle bones photo courtesy of Philip D. Gingerich, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask if you also believe that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark and that the story of the Ark is 100% accurate as it is written?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they were they would have been juveniles. Which they had to be on the ark because man has accurately carved images of dinosaurs they supposedly never seen. I love the renderings of dinosaurs with zebra stripes. Then we find dinosaurs with fossilized skin that had stripes like a zebra.
> 
> They had to be seen by early man. The bible also describes one of these creatures.
Click to expand...

bullshit!

A Faint Image Under A Natural Bridge In Utah 
Two creationists, Karl Butt and Eric Lyons, who published Dinosaurs Unleashed: A (Falsely) True Story of Dinosaurs and Humans, visited Utah as an attempt to find evidence to support their make believe views about dinosaurs living with humans, just like what this guy did, and now they claimed to have returned with more determination to make fools of themselves and boldly try to prove their stupid beliefs about dinosaurs living with humans to be true while being blatantly ignorant of the fact that no fossils of dinosaurs has ever been found alongside humans in both fossil and historical records.

The first place they visited in Utah is The Dinosaur National Monument in Jenson, Utah. As they described what they learned at that place and make references to the findings of the Titanosaur named Jobaria made by Paul Sereno and the Walking With Dinosaurs series, note how the 2 creationists are putting phrases such as "seasonal flood" "flash flood" and "flood" in bold letters to make it imply that these fossil findings agree to their faulty beliefs that these fossils are formed by Noah's Flood. Apparently, neither of them do not want to get it in their heads that the terms "seasonal floods", "floods" and "flash floods" do not necessary imply and refer to Noah's Flood. They can't get it in their heads that there are indications of more than one flash floods happening each separately over a period of time. Even to this day, there are multiple occurrences of massive flash flooding that kill many animals by the hundreds, let alone thousands. Wildebeests' annual attempts to cross a large river to fresh pastures are the best example of this. And how do the 2 creationists explain carnivorous teeth marks and broken teeth found among the bodies, indicating that the bodies were scavenged by meat-eating dinosaurs who have come to feast on the drowned dinosaurs that have floated down the river and washed ashore? Answer is simple: They can't.

Next, the 2 creationists visit the Natural Bridges National Monument where they, just like all creationists', claim to have seen the alleged faint carving of a sauropod. Here, the 2 creationists made up a false story about a conversation they had with one of the staff working at the national park who assumed that none of the evolutionists have an explanation to how did the Anasazi people carve such an [sic] "accurate" picture of Apatosaurus upon the side of a rock wall, if dinosaurs never lived with man according to the evolutionists, and concludes that the creature carved in the wall were that of a horse or some kind of a monster.

There are several problems to the story. The petroglyph does not in anyway resemble, nor accurately depict a sauropod. It's not a horse either. UPDATE as of 3/1/11: According to two paleontologists Phil Senter and Sally Cole who published a paper dealing with this petroglyph, this image is nothing more than just an illusion - a pareidolia made up of only distinct carvings and mud stains.

Nevertheless, the 2 creationists still try to confirm their fallacy about the rock art being a so-called "accurate image" of Apatosaurus by citing 2 evolutionists by the names of Francis Barnes and Dennis Slifer, whom they claim confirms their notion about the rock art being a dinosaur while the quotes they present are possibly mined from the books and changed to fit their own perceptions of it. The rock art is anything but a dinosaur. the creature is depicted to have 5 short, stumpy legs, a dragging tail, and a cartoonish head on a upright neck. Based on the most recent studies made on sauropod anatomy, Apatosaurus had a horse-like head, a thick neck that's held in a horizontal posture, 2 elephant legs and 2 U-shaped fore legs barely having any toes except a claw growing on each first digit, a long tail held up high for balance, and a huge body with a curved back. The rock art has in fact none of these things.

Here's the creationists' distorted version of the petroglyph.[
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	












The first image is shown on the Genesis Park website, the second image is from bible.ca and the third image is shown on a plaque inside Ken Ham's idiot crackhouse. Each site deliberately distort the petroglyph much differently than each other. Notice the alleged men in the three images. No image of a man was found right next to the so-called dinosaur to begin with. The creationists of bible.ca and AiG have purposely put the man in the 3 images to deceive their followers into believing their dino-man lies. The inspiration behind the men comes from just two vertical lines seen next to a few wavy lines on the upper left side of the undistorted image below. Look up close and you'll notice that on top of the two lines appears to be faint designs that don't appear to look like a body of a man at all.







And now, lo and behold, Here's what the faint petroglyph really depict according to Senter and Cole.





Humph! So much for it being an accurate depiction of a sauropod standing next to a man&#8230;.

Just as the supposed staff member in the made up story are at a loss for words to explain why did the natives allegedly made the image so accurate never mind the sauropod's true anatomy based on fossil evidence, the 2 creationists are both at a loss for words to explain why are there no fossils of human and dinosaurs together in the fossil record if what they say about dinosaurs and humans were true. Just like the supposed evolutionists in their claim, the creationists would simply just "explain away" instead of facing the truth that their views on humans and dinosaurs are all nothing but blatant lies.

To help verify their make believe conclusions about the rock art being a dinosaur, the 2 creationists pay a visit to Blanding, Utah to check out The Dinosaur Museum, which is located 45 miles west from the national park, where they saw some fragmentary remains of an Apatosaurus hip bone and falsely conclude that the Anasazi people must have saw the dinosaur alive in what is now Blanding, Utah and went to the national monument and carved the dinosaur on the wall of the bridge, thus building for themselves a case for their dino/human coexistence fallacy. A case that's empty and hopeless for all of what they claim in the article still doesn't explain why no human remains are found alongside dinosaur remains in the fossil record, let alone why no dinosaur fossils are found among the remnants of Anasazi culture such as in burial mounds, ritual sites, villages, and why are they not found in jewelry, pottery, baskets, valid rock carvings, etc.

Just as evolutionists have used dinosaurs to introduce people to the world of science, the creationists, since the 1970s, have used dinosaurs to spread lies (And then turned around and be hypocrites, accusing evolutionists of the exact same thing like what the creationists have done in the conclusion of their idiot article.) about a world based on a strict, distorted following of Genesis 1-11 of the Bible and elaborate their lies by shoehorning stuff to the Bible that's don't belong in there in the first place and take certain passages and verses out of context and twisted them to make it say exactly what they want the Bible to say regardless of what it really says.

This is one of the most purest examples of how creationists feign making discoveries they think proves their idiocy while in fact this is a direct result of taking everything out of context regardless of whether it's an ancient pottery, a faded rock art, or a quote from a book and change the stories around to fit in with their young earth beliefs while being stupidly ignorant of the fossil and historical records being completely void of traces of human and dinosaur co-existence.

Reference:

Senter, P.; Cole, S.J. (2011). &#8220;Dinosaur&#8221; petroglyphs at Kachina Bridge site, Natural Bridges National Monument, southeastern Utah: not dinosaurs after all Palaeontologia Electronica, 14 (1), 1-5
http://www.stupiddinosaurlies.org/a-faint-image-under-a-natural-bridge-in-utah/


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossils show that they had legs.
> 
> 
> 
> Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.
> 
> Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just do a google search to find what I'm talking about.  You'll see that whales looked a lot different from what they do today and we owe that to evolving.
Click to expand...


You are aware that many animals were similar to others but went extinct ? Then a lot of times they are not complete fossils and they were just someones opinion of what they could have looked like but no evidence to prove they look the way they are rendered.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossils show that they had legs.
> 
> 
> 
> Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.
> 
> Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop using an argument from personal incredulity. Just because YOU can't believe it is possible that whales used to have legs, doesn't mean it wasn't so. Whales DO have remnants of leg bones, which demands an explanation. The simplest and most logical one is simply: Whales used to have legs. God offers no explanatory power here, because you have no proof, whatsoever, for god.
Click to expand...


Provide the species and let's see if it was a complete fossil found or someones imagination built it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> pulling up your skirts and running away!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Irish, No offense to the Irish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE IRISH..
> if I had to guess, you're a cross dresser ,when you wifes' out handing out the watch tower or trespassing for god!
> besides didn't you say  that you were busy?
Click to expand...


Some Irish men wear skirts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only difference between you and yWC's  lies  is about 13billion years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lies ,how do you know if you can't respond with viable explanations to our questions nor refute our views ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes lies , the only so called viable explanation that I need is that your highly specious speculation is based on a false premise: GOD DID IT!
> HOW MANY TIMES DOES THAT HAVE TO BE REPEATED ?
> YOUR QUESTIONS ARE NOT QUESTIONS AS YOU'VE CHOSEN AN ANSWER BASED NOT ON EVIDENCE BUT ON FAITH.
Click to expand...


Explain how life got started without a designer ? Explain complexity ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossils show that they had legs.
> 
> 
> 
> Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.
> 
> Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another world famous mis interpretation by YWC
> 
> AGAIN YOUR  SELF INFLICTED IGNORANCE SHINES
> ancient whales were small compared to what they evolved into, so you comment is  intentionally stupid .
> 
> hey dick head: Using trees to make predictions about fossils: The whale's ankle
> 
> Scientists used to think that whales' ancestors were now-extinct carnivores called mesonychids. However, based on recent findings, scientists have hypothesized that whales are actually more closely related to hoofed mammals like hippos and ruminants such as cows and giraffes.
> 
> This hypothesized phylogeny leads us to predict that ancient whales should share some characters with their close relatives. The close relatives of whales have a type of ankle called a double pulley ankle, so we would expect that ancestral whales would also have a double pulley ankle.
> 
> And in fact, recent fossil discoveries have borne out that prediction. Scientists found ancient whales with hind legs and pelvises: these whales had the same kind of double pulley ankle bone that modern pronghorns, camels, cows and hippos have.
> Compare the ankle bones of the two ancient whales on the left and right (the specimen on the right is missing some bones) and those of a modern pronghorn (center). Notice the double pulley structure boxed on all three.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ankle bones photo courtesy of Philip D. Gingerich, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Click to expand...


Show me the complete skeleton and name the species.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Irish, No offense to the Irish.
> 
> 
> 
> WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE IRISH..
> if I had to guess, you're a cross dresser ,when you wifes' out handing out the watch tower or trespassing for god!
> besides didn't you say  that you were busy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some Irish men wear skirts.
Click to expand...


What about William Wallace?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask if you also believe that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark and that the story of the Ark is 100% accurate as it is written?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they were they would have been juveniles. Which they had to be on the ark because man has accurately carved images of dinosaurs they supposedly never seen. I love the renderings of dinosaurs with zebra stripes. Then we find dinosaurs with fossilized skin that had stripes like a zebra.
> 
> They had to be seen by early man. The bible also describes one of these creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> A Faint Image Under A Natural Bridge In Utah
> Two creationists, Karl Butt and Eric Lyons, who published Dinosaurs Unleashed: A (Falsely) True Story of Dinosaurs and Humans, visited Utah as an attempt to find evidence to support their make believe views about dinosaurs living with humans, just like what this guy did, and now they claimed to have returned with more determination to make fools of themselves and boldly try to prove their stupid beliefs about dinosaurs living with humans to be true while being blatantly ignorant of the fact that no fossils of dinosaurs has ever been found alongside humans in both fossil and historical records.
> 
> The first place they visited in Utah is The Dinosaur National Monument in Jenson, Utah. As they described what they learned at that place and make references to the findings of the Titanosaur named Jobaria made by Paul Sereno and the Walking With Dinosaurs series, note how the 2 creationists are putting phrases such as "seasonal flood" "flash flood" and "flood" in bold letters to make it imply that these fossil findings agree to their faulty beliefs that these fossils are formed by Noah's Flood. Apparently, neither of them do not want to get it in their heads that the terms "seasonal floods", "floods" and "flash floods" do not necessary imply and refer to Noah's Flood. They can't get it in their heads that there are indications of more than one flash floods happening each separately over a period of time. Even to this day, there are multiple occurrences of massive flash flooding that kill many animals by the hundreds, let alone thousands. Wildebeests' annual attempts to cross a large river to fresh pastures are the best example of this. And how do the 2 creationists explain carnivorous teeth marks and broken teeth found among the bodies, indicating that the bodies were scavenged by meat-eating dinosaurs who have come to feast on the drowned dinosaurs that have floated down the river and washed ashore? Answer is simple: They can't.
> 
> Next, the 2 creationists visit the Natural Bridges National Monument where they, just like all creationists', claim to have seen the alleged faint carving of a sauropod. Here, the 2 creationists made up a false story about a conversation they had with one of the staff working at the national park who assumed that none of the evolutionists have an explanation to how did the Anasazi people carve such an [sic] "accurate" picture of Apatosaurus upon the side of a rock wall, if dinosaurs never lived with man according to the evolutionists, and concludes that the creature carved in the wall were that of a horse or some kind of a monster.
> 
> There are several problems to the story. The petroglyph does not in anyway resemble, nor accurately depict a sauropod. It's not a horse either. UPDATE as of 3/1/11: According to two paleontologists Phil Senter and Sally Cole who published a paper dealing with this petroglyph, this image is nothing more than just an illusion - a pareidolia made up of only distinct carvings and mud stains.
> 
> Nevertheless, the 2 creationists still try to confirm their fallacy about the rock art being a so-called "accurate image" of Apatosaurus by citing 2 evolutionists by the names of Francis Barnes and Dennis Slifer, whom they claim confirms their notion about the rock art being a dinosaur while the quotes they present are possibly mined from the books and changed to fit their own perceptions of it. The rock art is anything but a dinosaur. the creature is depicted to have 5 short, stumpy legs, a dragging tail, and a cartoonish head on a upright neck. Based on the most recent studies made on sauropod anatomy, Apatosaurus had a horse-like head, a thick neck that's held in a horizontal posture, 2 elephant legs and 2 U-shaped fore legs barely having any toes except a claw growing on each first digit, a long tail held up high for balance, and a huge body with a curved back. The rock art has in fact none of these things.
> 
> Here's the creationists' distorted version of the petroglyph.[
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first image is shown on the Genesis Park website, the second image is from bible.ca and the third image is shown on a plaque inside Ken Ham's idiot crackhouse. Each site deliberately distort the petroglyph much differently than each other. Notice the alleged men in the three images. No image of a man was found right next to the so-called dinosaur to begin with. The creationists of bible.ca and AiG have purposely put the man in the 3 images to deceive their followers into believing their dino-man lies. The inspiration behind the men comes from just two vertical lines seen next to a few wavy lines on the upper left side of the undistorted image below. Look up close and you'll notice that on top of the two lines appears to be faint designs that don't appear to look like a body of a man at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now, lo and behold, Here's what the faint petroglyph really depict according to Senter and Cole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humph! So much for it being an accurate depiction of a sauropod standing next to a man.
> 
> Just as the supposed staff member in the made up story are at a loss for words to explain why did the natives allegedly made the image so accurate never mind the sauropod's true anatomy based on fossil evidence, the 2 creationists are both at a loss for words to explain why are there no fossils of human and dinosaurs together in the fossil record if what they say about dinosaurs and humans were true. Just like the supposed evolutionists in their claim, the creationists would simply just "explain away" instead of facing the truth that their views on humans and dinosaurs are all nothing but blatant lies.
> 
> To help verify their make believe conclusions about the rock art being a dinosaur, the 2 creationists pay a visit to Blanding, Utah to check out The Dinosaur Museum, which is located 45 miles west from the national park, where they saw some fragmentary remains of an Apatosaurus hip bone and falsely conclude that the Anasazi people must have saw the dinosaur alive in what is now Blanding, Utah and went to the national monument and carved the dinosaur on the wall of the bridge, thus building for themselves a case for their dino/human coexistence fallacy. A case that's empty and hopeless for all of what they claim in the article still doesn't explain why no human remains are found alongside dinosaur remains in the fossil record, let alone why no dinosaur fossils are found among the remnants of Anasazi culture such as in burial mounds, ritual sites, villages, and why are they not found in jewelry, pottery, baskets, valid rock carvings, etc.
> 
> Just as evolutionists have used dinosaurs to introduce people to the world of science, the creationists, since the 1970s, have used dinosaurs to spread lies (And then turned around and be hypocrites, accusing evolutionists of the exact same thing like what the creationists have done in the conclusion of their idiot article.) about a world based on a strict, distorted following of Genesis 1-11 of the Bible and elaborate their lies by shoehorning stuff to the Bible that's don't belong in there in the first place and take certain passages and verses out of context and twisted them to make it say exactly what they want the Bible to say regardless of what it really says.
> 
> This is one of the most purest examples of how creationists feign making discoveries they think proves their idiocy while in fact this is a direct result of taking everything out of context regardless of whether it's an ancient pottery, a faded rock art, or a quote from a book and change the stories around to fit in with their young earth beliefs while being stupidly ignorant of the fossil and historical records being completely void of traces of human and dinosaur co-existence.
> 
> Reference:
> 
> Senter, P.; Cole, S.J. (2011). Dinosaur petroglyphs at Kachina Bridge site, Natural Bridges National Monument, southeastern Utah: not dinosaurs after all Palaeontologia Electronica, 14 (1), 1-5
> A Faint Image Under A Natural Bridge In Utah - Stupid Dinosaur Lies
Click to expand...


Let's see how your side deliberately misleads the evidence. The honest on your side only interpret evidence according to their presuppositions.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7cNeGL6j9I&feature=related]Dinosaurs and the Bible - Steve Wolfe - YouTube[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmC4dwCcsUs]Proof Dinosaurs Lived With Man - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azMgKrkJ5lA&feature=related]Mathematical proof for Intelligent Design - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE IRISH..
> if I had to guess, you're a cross dresser ,when you wifes' out handing out the watch tower or trespassing for god!
> besides didn't you say  that you were busy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Irish men wear skirts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about William Wallace?
Click to expand...


Scotts did to, you are right.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they were they would have been juveniles. Which they had to be on the ark because man has accurately carved images of dinosaurs they supposedly never seen. I love the renderings of dinosaurs with zebra stripes. Then we find dinosaurs with fossilized skin that had stripes like a zebra.
> 
> They had to be seen by early man. The bible also describes one of these creatures.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> A Faint Image Under A Natural Bridge In Utah
> Two creationists, Karl Butt and Eric Lyons, who published Dinosaurs Unleashed: A (Falsely) True Story of Dinosaurs and Humans, visited Utah as an attempt to find evidence to support their make believe views about dinosaurs living with humans, just like what this guy did, and now they claimed to have returned with more determination to make fools of themselves and boldly try to prove their stupid beliefs about dinosaurs living with humans to be true while being blatantly ignorant of the fact that no fossils of dinosaurs has ever been found alongside humans in both fossil and historical records.
> 
> The first place they visited in Utah is The Dinosaur National Monument in Jenson, Utah. As they described what they learned at that place and make references to the findings of the Titanosaur named Jobaria made by Paul Sereno and the Walking With Dinosaurs series, note how the 2 creationists are putting phrases such as "seasonal flood" "flash flood" and "flood" in bold letters to make it imply that these fossil findings agree to their faulty beliefs that these fossils are formed by Noah's Flood. Apparently, neither of them do not want to get it in their heads that the terms "seasonal floods", "floods" and "flash floods" do not necessary imply and refer to Noah's Flood. They can't get it in their heads that there are indications of more than one flash floods happening each separately over a period of time. Even to this day, there are multiple occurrences of massive flash flooding that kill many animals by the hundreds, let alone thousands. Wildebeests' annual attempts to cross a large river to fresh pastures are the best example of this. And how do the 2 creationists explain carnivorous teeth marks and broken teeth found among the bodies, indicating that the bodies were scavenged by meat-eating dinosaurs who have come to feast on the drowned dinosaurs that have floated down the river and washed ashore? Answer is simple: They can't.
> 
> Next, the 2 creationists visit the Natural Bridges National Monument where they, just like all creationists', claim to have seen the alleged faint carving of a sauropod. Here, the 2 creationists made up a false story about a conversation they had with one of the staff working at the national park who assumed that none of the evolutionists have an explanation to how did the Anasazi people carve such an [sic] "accurate" picture of Apatosaurus upon the side of a rock wall, if dinosaurs never lived with man according to the evolutionists, and concludes that the creature carved in the wall were that of a horse or some kind of a monster.
> 
> There are several problems to the story. The petroglyph does not in anyway resemble, nor accurately depict a sauropod. It's not a horse either. UPDATE as of 3/1/11: According to two paleontologists Phil Senter and Sally Cole who published a paper dealing with this petroglyph, this image is nothing more than just an illusion - a pareidolia made up of only distinct carvings and mud stains.
> 
> Nevertheless, the 2 creationists still try to confirm their fallacy about the rock art being a so-called "accurate image" of Apatosaurus by citing 2 evolutionists by the names of Francis Barnes and Dennis Slifer, whom they claim confirms their notion about the rock art being a dinosaur while the quotes they present are possibly mined from the books and changed to fit their own perceptions of it. The rock art is anything but a dinosaur. the creature is depicted to have 5 short, stumpy legs, a dragging tail, and a cartoonish head on a upright neck. Based on the most recent studies made on sauropod anatomy, Apatosaurus had a horse-like head, a thick neck that's held in a horizontal posture, 2 elephant legs and 2 U-shaped fore legs barely having any toes except a claw growing on each first digit, a long tail held up high for balance, and a huge body with a curved back. The rock art has in fact none of these things.
> 
> Here's the creationists' distorted version of the petroglyph.[
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first image is shown on the Genesis Park website, the second image is from bible.ca and the third image is shown on a plaque inside Ken Ham's idiot crackhouse. Each site deliberately distort the petroglyph much differently than each other. Notice the alleged men in the three images. No image of a man was found right next to the so-called dinosaur to begin with. The creationists of bible.ca and AiG have purposely put the man in the 3 images to deceive their followers into believing their dino-man lies. The inspiration behind the men comes from just two vertical lines seen next to a few wavy lines on the upper left side of the undistorted image below. Look up close and you'll notice that on top of the two lines appears to be faint designs that don't appear to look like a body of a man at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now, lo and behold, Here's what the faint petroglyph really depict according to Senter and Cole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humph! So much for it being an accurate depiction of a sauropod standing next to a man.
> 
> Just as the supposed staff member in the made up story are at a loss for words to explain why did the natives allegedly made the image so accurate never mind the sauropod's true anatomy based on fossil evidence, the 2 creationists are both at a loss for words to explain why are there no fossils of human and dinosaurs together in the fossil record if what they say about dinosaurs and humans were true. Just like the supposed evolutionists in their claim, the creationists would simply just "explain away" instead of facing the truth that their views on humans and dinosaurs are all nothing but blatant lies.
> 
> To help verify their make believe conclusions about the rock art being a dinosaur, the 2 creationists pay a visit to Blanding, Utah to check out The Dinosaur Museum, which is located 45 miles west from the national park, where they saw some fragmentary remains of an Apatosaurus hip bone and falsely conclude that the Anasazi people must have saw the dinosaur alive in what is now Blanding, Utah and went to the national monument and carved the dinosaur on the wall of the bridge, thus building for themselves a case for their dino/human coexistence fallacy. A case that's empty and hopeless for all of what they claim in the article still doesn't explain why no human remains are found alongside dinosaur remains in the fossil record, let alone why no dinosaur fossils are found among the remnants of Anasazi culture such as in burial mounds, ritual sites, villages, and why are they not found in jewelry, pottery, baskets, valid rock carvings, etc.
> 
> Just as evolutionists have used dinosaurs to introduce people to the world of science, the creationists, since the 1970s, have used dinosaurs to spread lies (And then turned around and be hypocrites, accusing evolutionists of the exact same thing like what the creationists have done in the conclusion of their idiot article.) about a world based on a strict, distorted following of Genesis 1-11 of the Bible and elaborate their lies by shoehorning stuff to the Bible that's don't belong in there in the first place and take certain passages and verses out of context and twisted them to make it say exactly what they want the Bible to say regardless of what it really says.
> 
> This is one of the most purest examples of how creationists feign making discoveries they think proves their idiocy while in fact this is a direct result of taking everything out of context regardless of whether it's an ancient pottery, a faded rock art, or a quote from a book and change the stories around to fit in with their young earth beliefs while being stupidly ignorant of the fossil and historical records being completely void of traces of human and dinosaur co-existence.
> 
> Reference:
> 
> Senter, P.; Cole, S.J. (2011). Dinosaur petroglyphs at Kachina Bridge site, Natural Bridges National Monument, southeastern Utah: not dinosaurs after all Palaeontologia Electronica, 14 (1), 1-5
> A Faint Image Under A Natural Bridge In Utah - Stupid Dinosaur Lies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see how your side deliberately misleads the evidence. The honest on your side only interpret evidence according to their presuppositions.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7cNeGL6j9I&feature=related]Dinosaurs and the Bible - Steve Wolfe - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmC4dwCcsUs]Proof Dinosaurs Lived With Man - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azMgKrkJ5lA&feature=related]Mathematical proof for Intelligent Design - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Those goofy videos are among the more outrageous claims among really, really outrageous claims made by the fundie cultists.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lies ,how do you know if you can't respond with viable explanations to our questions nor refute our views ?
> 
> 
> 
> yes lies , the only so called viable explanation that I need is that your highly specious speculation is based on a false premise: GOD DID IT!
> HOW MANY TIMES DOES THAT HAVE TO BE REPEATED ?
> YOUR QUESTIONS ARE NOT QUESTIONS AS YOU'VE CHOSEN AN ANSWER BASED NOT ON EVIDENCE BUT ON FAITH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how life got started without a designer ? Explain complexity ?
Click to expand...


Explain how a designer got started without a designer.

The building blocks for life exist throughout the cosmos. We can test for that and confirm their existence. 

How do we test for a suparnatural designer which itself requires a supernatural designer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes lies , the only so called viable explanation that I need is that your highly specious speculation is based on a false premise: GOD DID IT!
> HOW MANY TIMES DOES THAT HAVE TO BE REPEATED ?
> YOUR QUESTIONS ARE NOT QUESTIONS AS YOU'VE CHOSEN AN ANSWER BASED NOT ON EVIDENCE BUT ON FAITH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how life got started without a designer ? Explain complexity ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how a designer got started without a designer.
> 
> The building blocks for life exist throughout the cosmos. We can test for that and confirm their existence.
> 
> How do we test for a suparnatural designer which itself requires a supernatural designer.
Click to expand...


He who created all is eternal.

But thanks for admitting your side want to claim my side are fundies and nuts even though your side has no clue how it could of happened.

We see complexity created by man but there can't be someone more intelligent then man beyond our comprehension.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how life got started without a designer ? Explain complexity ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how a designer got started without a designer.
> 
> The building blocks for life exist throughout the cosmos. We can test for that and confirm their existence.
> 
> How do we test for a suparnatural designer which itself requires a supernatural designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He who created all is eternal.
> 
> But thanks for admitting your side want to claim my side are fundies and nuts even though your side has no clue how it could of happened.
> 
> We see complexity created by man but there can't be someone more intelligent then man beyond our comprehension.
Click to expand...

It's convenient to claim that "he who ...". It's more of that convenient "because I say so" admonition that you believe relieves you of any requirement to support your claims to supermagical gods. 

I do find it interesting that you identify your gods as "he". You attribute thoroughly human attributes to a thoroughly human invention. That's not surprising since as a human construct, humans will add their familial and social conventions to their gods. That has been the case with all the gods which have "existed" before your gods.  

And yes, for those who believe the nonsense further by Ken Ham and his abomination called the " creation museum" , we are forced to come to conclusions about those who believe in a literal 6,000 year old earth and humans frolicking with dinosaurs.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how a designer got started without a designer.
> 
> The building blocks for life exist throughout the cosmos. We can test for that and confirm their existence.
> 
> How do we test for a suparnatural designer which itself requires a supernatural designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He who created all is eternal.
> 
> But thanks for admitting your side want to claim my side are fundies and nuts even though your side has no clue how it could of happened.
> 
> We see complexity created by man but there can't be someone more intelligent then man beyond our comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's convenient to claim that "he who ...". It's more of that convenient "because I say so" admonition that you believe relieves you of any requirement to support your claims to supermagical gods.
> 
> I do find it interesting that you identify your gods as "he". You attribute thoroughly human attributes to a thoroughly human invention. That's not surprising since as a human construct, humans will add their familial and social conventions to their gods. That has been the case with all the gods which have "existed" before your gods.
> 
> And yes, for those who believe the nonsense further by Ken Ham and his abomination called the " creation museum" , we are forced to come to conclusions about those who believe in a literal 6,000 year old earth and humans frolicking with dinosaurs.
Click to expand...


I trust in the bible to me the evidence we have only supports Gods word. It gives you the proper chronology of the universe and life. The bible answered many questions before modern day science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I love educational videos.

The Most Incredible Prophecy - YouTube!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Irish, No offense to the Irish.
> 
> 
> 
> WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE IRISH..
> if I had to guess, you're a cross dresser ,when you wifes' out handing out the watch tower or trespassing for god!
> besides didn't you say  that you were busy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some Irish men wear skirts.
Click to expand...

mr ignorance speaks ....KILTS NOT SKIRTS!


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> lies ,how do you know if you can't respond with viable explanations to our questions nor refute our views ?
> 
> 
> 
> yes lies , the only so called viable explanation that i need is that your highly specious speculation is based on a false premise: God did it!
> How many times does that have to be repeated ?
> Your questions are not questions as you've chosen an answer based not on evidence but on faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> explain how life got started without a designer ? Explain complexity ?
Click to expand...

asked and answered


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> no way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.
> 
> Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.
> 
> 
> 
> another world famous mis interpretation by ywc
> 
> again your  self inflicted ignorance shines
> ancient whales were small compared to what they evolved into, so you comment is  intentionally stupid .
> 
> Hey dick head: Using trees to make predictions about fossils: The whale's ankle
> 
> scientists used to think that whales' ancestors were now-extinct carnivores called mesonychids. However, based on recent findings, scientists have hypothesized that whales are actually more closely related to hoofed mammals like hippos and ruminants such as cows and giraffes.
> 
> This hypothesized phylogeny leads us to predict that ancient whales should share some characters with their close relatives. The close relatives of whales have a type of ankle called a double pulley ankle, so we would expect that ancestral whales would also have a double pulley ankle.
> 
> And in fact, recent fossil discoveries have borne out that prediction. Scientists found ancient whales with hind legs and pelvises: These whales had the same kind of double pulley ankle bone that modern pronghorns, camels, cows and hippos have.
> Compare the ankle bones of the two ancient whales on the left and right (the specimen on the right is missing some bones) and those of a modern pronghorn (center). Notice the double pulley structure boxed on all three.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ankle bones photo courtesy of philip d. Gingerich, university of michigan, ann arbor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> show me the complete skeleton and name the species.
Click to expand...

lok them up yourself.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how life got started without a designer ? Explain complexity ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how a designer got started without a designer.
> 
> The building blocks for life exist throughout the cosmos. We can test for that and confirm their existence.
> 
> How do we test for a suparnatural designer which itself requires a supernatural designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He who created all is eternal.
> 
> But thanks for admitting your side want to claim my side are fundies and nuts even though your side has no clue how it could of happened.
> 
> We see complexity created by man but there can't be someone more intelligent then man beyond our comprehension.
Click to expand...

He? you can't prove that "he" exists lol!
again hollie's not admitting to anything please point where in that post he says anything about fundies and nuts. 

"your side has no clue how it could of happened."ywc THIS MAY COME AS A BIG FUCKING SHOCK BUT "YOUR SIDE"has no clue either! 
the difference is "our side" accepts that for now we may have "no clue" (a gap in  discovered evidence )but that gap gets smaller every second.
whereas "YOUR SIDE" WILL NOT AND CANNOT ADMIT TO ANY SUCH GAP OR YOUR HOUSE OF CARDS FALLS...
BTW YOU ARE FUNDIES AND NUTS ,THE BEST PROOF OF THAT IS THE FACT THAT OTHER CHRISTIANS LAUGH AT YOU.         

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY]Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1)- YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istxUVBZD2s]Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 2). - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss]Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 3).- YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFeVwuJB7I]Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 4). - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Big_D

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.
> 
> Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just do a google search to find what I'm talking about.  You'll see that whales looked a lot different from what they do today and we owe that to evolving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are aware that many animals were similar to others but went extinct ? Then a lot of times they are not complete fossils and they were just someones opinion of what they could have looked like but no evidence to prove they look the way they are rendered.
Click to expand...


Of course I realize that and you might be right that a lot of the fossils found are not complete. However, a number of them are and it is apparent that they evolve from the credible fossils found.  I believe that they show a slow transition from what they looked like millions of years ago.


----------



## UltimateReality

Big_D said:


> I believe that they show a slow transition from what they looked like millions of years ago.



That is precisely what the fossil record *doesn't* show, a slow transition. More like punctuated equilibrium [The new term to ignore the evidence Darwin was smoking crack].


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that they show a slow transition from what they looked like millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is precisely what the fossil record *doesn't* show, a slow transition. More like punctuated equilibrium [The new term to ignore the evidence Darwin was smoking crack].
Click to expand...

False. The are many cases (the progression of humans, for example), showing a clear progression and transition from early ancestor to current humans.

Don't let your lack of training in science and your religious affliction cause you to man's such nonsensical statements.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He who created all is eternal.
> 
> But thanks for admitting your side want to claim my side are fundies and nuts even though your side has no clue how it could of happened.
> 
> We see complexity created by man but there can't be someone more intelligent then man beyond our comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> It's convenient to claim that "he who ...". It's more of that convenient "because I say so" admonition that you believe relieves you of any requirement to support your claims to supermagical gods.
> 
> I do find it interesting that you identify your gods as "he". You attribute thoroughly human attributes to a thoroughly human invention. That's not surprising since as a human construct, humans will add their familial and social conventions to their gods. That has been the case with all the gods which have "existed" before your gods.
> 
> And yes, for those who believe the nonsense further by Ken Ham and his abomination called the " creation museum" , we are forced to come to conclusions about those who believe in a literal 6,000 year old earth and humans frolicking with dinosaurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I trust in the bible to me the evidence we have only supports Gods word. It gives you the proper chronology of the universe and life. The bible answered many questions before modern day science.
Click to expand...


Only from the perspective of a fundie can one look at the bibles and conclude that the authors had a meaningful understanding of nature, the universe and the world around them. 

I can understand your need to look for metaphorical interpretation in "holy" verses but what I don't understand is why you think that we will buy into to your strained, metaphorical interpretations when the plain reading of these verses is so often in perfect disagreement with the realities of the natural world. We have no problem accepting that fundies believe in literal heavens, hells, arks and other such fears and superstitions but why your need to impose that on others?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> I love educational videos.
> 
> The Most Incredible Prophecy - YouTube!



That's so silly.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE IRISH..
> if I had to guess, you're a cross dresser ,when you wifes' out handing out the watch tower or trespassing for god!
> besides didn't you say  that you were busy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Irish men wear skirts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mr ignorance speaks ....KILTS NOT SKIRTS!
Click to expand...


Call them what you like,they look like skirts to me.

This discussion here is pointless because I'm still here Daws.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes lies , the only so called viable explanation that i need is that your highly specious speculation is based on a false premise: God did it!
> How many times does that have to be repeated ?
> Your questions are not questions as you've chosen an answer based not on evidence but on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> explain how life got started without a designer ? Explain complexity ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answered
Click to expand...


If you could answer this absent of conjecture Daws,you could write your own ticket.  You would be very famous.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another world famous mis interpretation by ywc
> 
> again your  self inflicted ignorance shines
> ancient whales were small compared to what they evolved into, so you comment is  intentionally stupid .
> 
> Hey dick head: Using trees to make predictions about fossils: The whale's ankle
> 
> scientists used to think that whales' ancestors were now-extinct carnivores called mesonychids. However, based on recent findings, scientists have hypothesized that whales are actually more closely related to hoofed mammals like hippos and ruminants such as cows and giraffes.
> 
> This hypothesized phylogeny leads us to predict that ancient whales should share some characters with their close relatives. The close relatives of whales have a type of ankle called a double pulley ankle, so we would expect that ancestral whales would also have a double pulley ankle.
> 
> And in fact, recent fossil discoveries have borne out that prediction. Scientists found ancient whales with hind legs and pelvises: These whales had the same kind of double pulley ankle bone that modern pronghorns, camels, cows and hippos have.
> Compare the ankle bones of the two ancient whales on the left and right (the specimen on the right is missing some bones) and those of a modern pronghorn (center). Notice the double pulley structure boxed on all three.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ankle bones photo courtesy of philip d. Gingerich, university of michigan, ann arbor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> show me the complete skeleton and name the species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lok them up yourself.
Click to expand...


What are you afraid of Daws ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how a designer got started without a designer.
> 
> The building blocks for life exist throughout the cosmos. We can test for that and confirm their existence.
> 
> How do we test for a suparnatural designer which itself requires a supernatural designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He who created all is eternal.
> 
> But thanks for admitting your side want to claim my side are fundies and nuts even though your side has no clue how it could of happened.
> 
> We see complexity created by man but there can't be someone more intelligent then man beyond our comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He? you can't prove that "he" exists lol!
> again hollie's not admitting to anything please point where in that post he says anything about fundies and nuts.
> 
> "your side has no clue how it could of happened."ywc THIS MAY COME AS A BIG FUCKING SHOCK BUT "YOUR SIDE"has no clue either!
> the difference is "our side" accepts that for now we may have "no clue" (a gap in  discovered evidence )but that gap gets smaller every second.
> whereas "YOUR SIDE" WILL NOT AND CANNOT ADMIT TO ANY SUCH GAP OR YOUR HOUSE OF CARDS FALLS...
> BTW YOU ARE FUNDIES AND NUTS ,THE BEST PROOF OF THAT IS THE FACT THAT OTHER CHRISTIANS LAUGH AT YOU.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY]Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1)- YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istxUVBZD2s]Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 2). - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss]Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 3).- YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFeVwuJB7I]Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 4). - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I don't have to prove I believe the bible provides better answers concerning life,the universe, chronology then modern day scientist's.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He who created all is eternal.
> 
> But thanks for admitting your side want to claim my side are fundies and nuts even though your side has no clue how it could of happened.
> 
> We see complexity created by man but there can't be someone more intelligent then man beyond our comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> He? you can't prove that "he" exists lol!
> again hollie's not admitting to anything please point where in that post he says anything about fundies and nuts.
> 
> "your side has no clue how it could of happened."ywc THIS MAY COME AS A BIG FUCKING SHOCK BUT "YOUR SIDE"has no clue either!
> the difference is "our side" accepts that for now we may have "no clue" (a gap in  discovered evidence )but that gap gets smaller every second.
> whereas "YOUR SIDE" WILL NOT AND CANNOT ADMIT TO ANY SUCH GAP OR YOUR HOUSE OF CARDS FALLS...
> BTW YOU ARE FUNDIES AND NUTS ,THE BEST PROOF OF THAT IS THE FACT THAT OTHER CHRISTIANS LAUGH AT YOU.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY]Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1)- YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istxUVBZD2s]Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 2). - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss]Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 3).- YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFeVwuJB7I]Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 4). - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove I believe the bible provides better answers concerning life,the universe, chronology then modern day scientist's.
Click to expand...

That is certainly fine. If you choose to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old that of course is your delusion. If you choose to live in trembling fear of an angry desert deity, knock yourself out. Just be aware that such beliefs limit your ability to function in the rational world.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just do a google search to find what I'm talking about.  You'll see that whales looked a lot different from what they do today and we owe that to evolving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are aware that many animals were similar to others but went extinct ? Then a lot of times they are not complete fossils and they were just someones opinion of what they could have looked like but no evidence to prove they look the way they are rendered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I realize that and you might be right that a lot of the fossils found are not complete. However, a number of them are and it is apparent that they evolve from the credible fossils found.  I believe that they show a slow transition from what they looked like millions of years ago.
Click to expand...


Well many Archaeologist,Geologist ,paleontologist ,and zoologist would disagree with you. That is why gould and eldridge came up with the theory of punctuated equilibirium. Have you heard of the cambrian explosion ? Many complex organisms burst in to existence according to your theory from single celled organisms.

Now your side tries to pooh pooh this with rediculous explanations,but to be honest mutations could not have performed that many transformations.

Now would be a good time for a few questions. Why are all the transitional organisms extinct ? because they suppoedly are better adapted then the animals they evolved from  is that not how traits are passed on, survival of the fittest ?

Why do we only have species that these transitional organis evolved from.

Example,

Living-Fossils.com

The other question would be since all organisms experience mutations. why are these living fossils the same as the same organisms that were dated back many millions of years ago ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that they show a slow transition from what they looked like millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is precisely what the fossil record *doesn't* show, a slow transition. More like punctuated equilibrium [The new term to ignore the evidence Darwin was smoking crack].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. The are many cases (the progression of humans, for example), showing a clear progression and transition from early ancestor to current humans.
> 
> Don't let your lack of training in science and your religious affliction cause you to man's such nonsensical statements.
Click to expand...


No they havn't.

Read the facts and see how this guy admits the fossil record is not even close to complete but we knew that right. So the fossil record is based on conjecture.

http://phylointelligence.com/fossils.html


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is precisely what the fossil record *doesn't* show, a slow transition. More like punctuated equilibrium [The new term to ignore the evidence Darwin was smoking crack].
> 
> 
> 
> False. The are many cases (the progression of humans, for example), showing a clear progression and transition from early ancestor to current humans.
> 
> Don't let your lack of training in science and your religious affliction cause you to man's such nonsensical statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they havn't.
> 
> Read the facts and see how this guy admits the fossil record is not even close to complete but we knew that right. So the fossil record is based on conjecture.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you must reject the fossil record because it directly contradicts a literal rendering of genesis. Fundies are consistent in parotting the creation ministry mouthpieces in their scripted slogans denying the fosill record but that truly leaves them in a position of simply denying the science facts. 

I think it is fortunate that the courts have consistently thrown out the efforts of fundie Christians to dumb down our school systems with religious fables that only serve to perpetuate fear and ignorance.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is precisely what the fossil record *doesn't* show, a slow transition. More like punctuated equilibrium [The new term to ignore the evidence Darwin was smoking crack].
> 
> 
> 
> False. The are many cases (the progression of humans, for example), showing a clear progression and transition from early ancestor to current humans.
> 
> Don't let your lack of training in science and your religious affliction cause you to man's such nonsensical statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they havn't.
> 
> Read the facts and see how this guy admits the fossil record is not even close to complete but we knew that right. So the fossil record is based on conjecture.
> 
> The Fossil Record
Click to expand...


I can understand your need to reject the fossil record. There is no way to resolve that record with genesis. 

It is only fundies who cling to their tales and fables as opposed to the fact of ancient fosills. 

You are desperate to reject science because it dismantles your bibles.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> consistent in *parotting* the creation ministry mouthpieces in their scripted slogans



So funny. I just used this word on Hollie in the America is a Christian Nation thread and she comes here and uses it on you. Hilarious.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> consistent in *parotting* the creation ministry mouthpieces in their scripted slogans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So funny. I just used this word on Hollie in the America is a Christian Nation thread and she comes here and uses it on you. Hilarious.
Click to expand...


I hadn't realized you had exclusive rights to specific words. May the gods give you more entitlements.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some Irish men wear skirts.
> 
> 
> 
> mr ignorance speaks ....KILTS NOT SKIRTS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call them what you like,they look like skirts to me.
> 
> This discussion here is pointless because I'm still here Daws.
Click to expand...

and still illiterate or drunk ..no need for two  heres 
in that sentence 

"Call them what you like,they look like skirts to me."-Ywc 
aye, and more's the pity.
more proof that accuracy is not one of you skills.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain how life got started without a designer ? Explain complexity ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you could answer this absent of conjecture Daws,you could write your own ticket.  You would be very famous.
Click to expand...

wrong as always ..the conjecture is your's 
short list of creationist 
conjecture: Definition of CONJECTURE
1obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : supposition 
2a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork 


Definition of SPECIOUS
1obsolete : showy 
2: having deceptive attraction or allure 
3: having a false look of truth or genuineness 



short list of creationist specious conjecture  


1 god 
2 creation
3 any conclusion drawn from  1 or 2 is  specious conjecture


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> show me the complete skeleton and name the species.
> 
> 
> 
> look them up yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you afraid of Daws ?
Click to expand...

 dodge!

why are you lazy and illiterate?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He who created all is eternal.
> 
> But thanks for admitting your side want to claim my side are fundies and nuts even though your side has no clue how it could of happened.
> 
> We see complexity created by man but there can't be someone more intelligent then man beyond our comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> He? you can't prove that "he" exists lol!
> again hollie's not admitting to anything please point where in that post he says anything about fundies and nuts.
> 
> "your side has no clue how it could of happened."ywc THIS MAY COME AS A BIG FUCKING SHOCK BUT "YOUR SIDE"has no clue either!
> the difference is "our side" accepts that for now we may have "no clue" (a gap in  discovered evidence )but that gap gets smaller every second.
> whereas "YOUR SIDE" WILL NOT AND CANNOT ADMIT TO ANY SUCH GAP OR YOUR HOUSE OF CARDS FALLS...
> BTW YOU ARE FUNDIES AND NUTS ,THE BEST PROOF OF THAT IS THE FACT THAT OTHER CHRISTIANS LAUGH AT YOU.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY]Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1)- YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istxUVBZD2s]Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 2). - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss]Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 3).- YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFeVwuJB7I]Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 4). - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove I believe the bible provides better answers concerning life,the universe, chronology then modern day scientist's.
Click to expand...

no, you have to prove that the bible is quantitative and accurate.
your belief does none of those things.
as to your answer it's  a childish and chicken shit response to valid question.
who's afraid again?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are aware that many animals were similar to others but went extinct ? Then a lot of times they are not complete fossils and they were just someones opinion of what they could have looked like but no evidence to prove they look the way they are rendered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I realize that and you might be right that a lot of the fossils found are not complete. However, a number of them are and it is apparent that they evolve from the credible fossils found.  I believe that they show a slow transition from what they looked like millions of years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well many Archaeologist,Geologist ,paleontologist ,and zoologist would disagree with you. That is why gould and eldridge came up with the theory of punctuated equilibirium. Have you heard of the cambrian explosion ? Many complex organisms burst in to existence according to your theory from single celled organisms.
> 
> Now your side tries to pooh pooh this with rediculous explanations,but to be honest mutations could not have performed that many transformations.
> 
> Now would be a good time for a few questions. Why are all the transitional organisms extinct ? because they suppoedly are better adapted then the animals they evolved from  is that not how traits are passed on, survival of the fittest ?
> 
> Why do we only have species that these transitional organis evolved from.
> 
> Example,
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> The other question would be since all organisms experience mutations. why are these living fossils the same as the same organisms that were dated back many millions of years ago ?
Click to expand...

 bullshit alert!!! the link is to a creationist site!

" All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment. Today's living things, with all their perfect features as manifestations of God's superior artistry "

the the above  from the site's mission statement,  invalidates any alleged scientific basis for any and all opinions expressed therein.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> consistent in *parotting* the creation ministry mouthpieces in their scripted slogans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So funny. I just used this word on Hollie in the America is a Christian Nation thread and she comes here and uses it on you. Hilarious.
Click to expand...

 yeah... the jokes on you !
by repeating it you are parotting !


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> consistent in *parotting* the creation ministry mouthpieces in their scripted slogans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So funny. I just used this word on Hollie in the America is a Christian Nation thread and she comes here and uses it on you. Hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah... the jokes on you !
> by repeating it you are parotting !
Click to expand...


And you just did it too!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> look them up yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you afraid of Daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dodge!
> 
> why are you lazy and illiterate?
Click to expand...


You are a joke Daws.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He? you can't prove that "he" exists lol!
> again hollie's not admitting to anything please point where in that post he says anything about fundies and nuts.
> 
> "your side has no clue how it could of happened."ywc THIS MAY COME AS A BIG FUCKING SHOCK BUT "YOUR SIDE"has no clue either!
> the difference is "our side" accepts that for now we may have "no clue" (a gap in  discovered evidence )but that gap gets smaller every second.
> whereas "YOUR SIDE" WILL NOT AND CANNOT ADMIT TO ANY SUCH GAP OR YOUR HOUSE OF CARDS FALLS...
> BTW YOU ARE FUNDIES AND NUTS ,THE BEST PROOF OF THAT IS THE FACT THAT OTHER CHRISTIANS LAUGH AT YOU.
> 
> Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1)- YouTube
> 
> Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 2). - YouTube
> 
> Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 3).- YouTube
> 
> Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 4). - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove I believe the bible provides better answers concerning life,the universe, chronology then modern day scientist's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, you have to prove that the bible is quantitative and accurate.
> your belief does none of those things.
> as to your answer it's  a childish and chicken shit response to valid question.
> who's afraid again?
Click to expand...


God gave answers to many questions before modern day science.

101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge 

        Psalm 19:1-3 &#8211; The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. 
Jeremiah 10:12 &#8211; He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.

Romans 1:20 &#8211; For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. 

Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts. That book is the Bible.
This booklet presents 101 scientific facts found in the Scriptures. Many of these facts were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece to the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator. How does this affect you? The last several pages provide the answer &#8211; you need to read them carefully.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  1.
The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true &#8211; &#8220;He hangs the earth on nothing.&#8221;

Visit:
Modern Science In An Ancient (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.
Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Visit:
All About Atoms (Jefferson Lab)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.
The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.

Visit:
The Ark&#8217;s perfect dimensions (Answers In Genesis)
Safety investigation of Noah&#8217;s Ark in a seaway (Answers In Genesis)
Noah&#8217;s Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.
When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.

Visit:
-Why do I need to wash my hands? 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.
Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.
Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

Visit:
Springs of the Ocean (ICR)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.
There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

Visit:
Numerical Simulations Of Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8.
Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creator&#8217;s presence &#8211; &#8220;in Your presence is fullness of joy&#8221; (Psalm 16:11).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9.
Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were &#8220;bled&#8221; and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that &#8220;the life of the flesh is in the blood&#8221; long before science understood its function.

Visit:
Life in the Blood (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.
The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe &#8211; namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.

Visit:
Things You May Not Know About Evolution (ICR)
Creation - Evolution (ICR)
Evolution and the Bible (ICR)
The Fossil Record: Intermediate Links (ChristianAnswers.net)
Archaeopteryx A Feathered Reptile? (ChristianAnswers.net)
The Ape-Man: Missing Link (ChristianAnswers.net)
Biological Evolution Darwin's Finches (ChristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11.
Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin&#8217;s theory of the survival of the fittest.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12.
Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.

Visit:
What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg? (ICR)
The Egg/Chicken Conundrum (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13.
Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

Visit:
Things that are Made (ICR)
Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality (ICR)
Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories (ICR)
The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14.
Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements &#8211; all of which are found in the earth.

Visit:
The elements of the periodic table sorted by their presence in human body. (Lenntech)
The Bible is a Textbook of Science (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.
The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16.
The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: &#8220;In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)&#8230;Then God said, &#8220;Let there be light (energy).&#8221; No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17.
The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18.
The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.

Visit:
Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth 
Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19.
Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20.
Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow &#8220;in the cloud&#8221; as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets &#8211; which act as a prism &#8211; separating white light into its color spectrum.

Visit:
What causes a rainbow? (CristianAnswers.net)
The Rainbow And The Cloud (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be &#8220;parted&#8221; and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago &#8211; God declared this four millennia ago!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22.
Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the &#8220;paths of the seas.&#8221; In the 19th century Matthew Maury &#8211; the father of oceanography &#8211; after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury&#8217;s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23.
Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that &#8220;he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body,&#8221; and that those who commit homosexual sin would &#8220;receive in themselves&#8221; the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.

Visit
Sex Habits Linked to Early Death, Disability (Fox News)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24.
Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25.
Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars &#8211; that&#8217;s a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26.
The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along &#8211; &#8220;He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name&#8221; (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27.
The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28.
Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.

Visit:
Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality (ICR)
Is Creation One of the Traditional Values? (ICR)
Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism (ICR)
Would China Benefit from Christianity? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29.
The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was God&#8217;s judgment on man&#8217;s wickedness.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30.
Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.

Visit:
The Origin of Coal (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31.
The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent &#8211; just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

32.
Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the &#8220;fountains of the great deep were broken up.&#8221; This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.

Visit:
Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

33.
Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often &#8211; &#8220;By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen&#8221; (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.

Visit:
Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

34.
Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

Visit:
Is the unborn human less than human? (CristianAnswers.net)
Cloning: Redefining When Life Begins Exposing Flaws in the Preembryo-Embryo Distinction (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

35.
God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an &#8220;intricate unity&#8221; in the womb.

Visit:
Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

36.
DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139 &#8211; &#8220;Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.&#8221;

Visit:
Curiously Wrought (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

37.
God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

Visit:
One Blood: The biblical answer to racism (CristianAnswers.net) 
Where Did The Races Come From? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

38.
Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Visit:
Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR) 
On the Origin of Language (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39.
Origin of the different &#8220;races&#8221; explained (Genesis 11). As Noah&#8217;s descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

Visit:
Where did the human races come from? (CristianAnswers.net)
Evolution and Modern Racism (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

40.
God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along &#8211; there are healing compounds found in plants.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

41.
Healthy dietary laws (Leviticus 11:9-12). Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales. We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

42.
The Bible warns against eating birds of prey (Leviticus 11:13-19). Scientists now recognize that those birds which eat carrion (putrefying flesh), often spread disease.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

43.
Avoid swine (Deuteronomy 14:8). Not so long ago, science learned that eating undercooked pork causes an infection of parasites called trichinosis. Now consider this: the Bible forbid the eating of swine more than 3,000 years before we learned how to cook pork safely.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. (NCBI)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44.
Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, God&#8217;s Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as &#8220;Mother&#8221; and naturalism is enshrined.

Visit:
Earth Day, Environmentalism, and the Bible (ICR)
The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
The Hyper-Environmentalists (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

45.
Black holes and dark matter anticipated (Matthew 25:30; Jude 1:13; Isaiah 50:3). Cosmologists now speculate that over 98% of the known universe is comprised of dark matter, with dark energy and black holes. A black hole&#8217;s gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls &#8220;outer darkness&#8221; or &#8220;the blackness of darkness forever.&#8221;

Visit:
The Outer Darkness (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

46.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God &#8211; resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is &#8220;grow(ing) old like a garment&#8221; (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ChrisitanAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

47.
Cain&#8217;s wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry &#8211; therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.

Visit:
Where did Cain get his wife? (CristianAnswers.net)
Cain's Wife: It Really Does Matter! (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48.
Incest laws established (Leviticus 18:6). To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common. Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice. The reason is simple &#8211; the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses&#8217; day the genetic errors had swelled. Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed.

Visit:
The Blind Gunman (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

49.
Genetic mixing of different seeds forbidden (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9). The Bible warns against mixing seeds &#8211; as this will result in an inferior or dangerous crop. There is now growing evidence that unnatural, genetically engineered crops may be harmful.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

50.
Hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Jeremiah 10:13; Amos 9:6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God &#8220;draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man&#8221; (Job 36:27-28). The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

51.
The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity &#8211; the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit &#8211; just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

52.
Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Visit:
Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day (Apologetics Press)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

53.
God has given us just the right amount of water to sustain life (Isaiah 40:12). We now recognize that if there was significantly more or less water, the earth would not support life as we know it.

Visit:
The Anthropic Principle: Is the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life? (ChristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

54.
The earth was designed for biological life (Isaiah 45:18). Scientists have discovered that the most fundamental characteristics of our earth and cosmos are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist. This is called the Anthropic Principle and it agrees with the Bible which states that God formed the earth to be inhabited.

Visit:
The Earth: Unique in All the Universe (ICR)
Design in Nature: The Anthropic Principle (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

55.
The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Eisntein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago &#8211; the universe is expanding!

Visit:
The Battle for the Cosmic Center (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

56.
Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, God&#8217;s life, created all life.

Visit:
Chemical Evolution: Spontaneous generation; Stanley Miller Experiment (ChristianAnswers.net)
Evolution is Biologically Impossible (ICR)
The Myth Of Chemical Evolution (ICR)
Virgil's Aeneid, by Chance Alone? (ICR)
The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

57.
Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).

Visit:
How did bad things come about? (CristianAnswers.net)
Extinction (ICR)
Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

58.
Light travels in a path (Job 38:19). Light is said to have a &#8220;way&#8221; [Hebrew: derek, literally a traveled path or road]. Until the 17th century it was believed that light was transmitted instantaneously. We now know that light is a form of energy that travels at ~186,000 miles per second in a straight line. Indeed, there is a &#8220;way&#8221; of light.

Visit:
Light travels in a path was foretold in the Bible hundreds of years before scientists discovered it (creationists.org)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

59.
Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established &#8220;a weight for the wind.&#8221; In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

60.
Jet stream anticipated (Ecclesiastes 1:6). At a time when it was thought that winds blew straight, the Bible declares &#8220;The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit.&#8221; King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago. Now consider this: it was not until World War II that airmen discovered the jet stream circuit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

61.
Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

62.
Each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the advent of the telescope, the Bible declared what only God and the angels knew &#8211; each star varies in size and intensity!

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

63.
The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing &#8211; electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send &#8220;lightnings&#8221; which indeed speak when they arrive.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

64.
Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, &#8220;A merry heart does good, like medicine.&#8221; For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.

Visit:
Benefits of Laughter (Personal-Development.com)
Humor and Laughter: Health Benefits and Online Sources (helpguide.org)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

65.
Intense sorrow or stress is harmful to your health (Proverbs 18:14; Mark 14:34). Researchers have studied individuals with no prior medical problems who showed symptoms of stress cardiomyopathy including chest pain, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, and even heart failure &#8211; following a stressful incident.

Visit:
The Physical Dangers of Stress (Fitness Article)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

66.
Microorganisms anticipated (Exodus 22:31). The Bible warns &#8220;Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the LORD&#8221; (Leviticus 22:8). Today we understand that a decaying carcass is full of disease causing germs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

67.
The Bible cautions against consuming fat (Leviticus 7:23). Only in recent decades has the medical community determined that fat clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

68.
Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:12). A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood. However, the Creator repeatedly told His people to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:20; 21:25). Of course, modern science reveals that consuming raw blood is dangerous.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

69.
The Bible describes dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24). In 1842, Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosaur, meaning &#8220;terrible lizard,&#8221; after discovering large reptilian-like fossils. However in the Book of Job, written 4,000 years earlier, God describes the behemoth as: the largest of all land creatures, plant eating (herbivore), with great strength in its hips and legs, powerful stomach muscles, a tail like a cedar tree, and bones like bars of iron. This is an accurate description of sauropods &#8211; the largest known dinosaur family.

Visit:
The Great Dinosaur Mystery (CristianAnswers.net)
How Do The Dinosaurs Fit In? (ICR)
Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood? (ICR)
Dragons in Paradise (ICR)
Leviathan (ICR)
Dinosaurs And The Bible (ICR)
Dinosaur Mania and Our Children (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

70.
Pleasure explained (Psalm 36:8). Evolution cannot explain pleasure &#8211; even the most complex chemicals do not experience bliss. However, the Bible states that God &#8220;gives us richly all things to enjoy&#8221; (1 Timothy 6:17). Pleasure is a gift from God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

71.
Life is more than matter and energy (Genesis 2:7; Job 12:7-10). We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Even though its body may be perfectly intact, and air and energy are reintroduced to spark life, the body remains dead. Scripture agrees with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. Life cannot be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone &#8211; as evolutionists would lead us to believe.

Visit:
Breath And Spirit (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

72.
Origin of music explained (Psalm 40:3). Evolution cannot explain the origin of music. The Bible says that every good gift comes from God (James 1:17). This includes joyful melodies. God has given both man and angels the gift of music-making (Genesis 4:21; Ezekiel 28:13). Singing is intended to express rejoicing in and worship of the Lord (Job 38:7; Psalm 95:1-2).

Visit:
Music or Evolution
Music&#8212;evidence of creation (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

73.
Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with God&#8217;s Word.

Visit:
Ancient civilizations and modern man (Answers In Genesis)
The mystery of ancient man (Answers In Genesis)
Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

74.
Cavemen described in the Bible (Job 30:1-8). Four thousand years ago, Job describes certain &#8220;vile men&#8221; who were driven from society to forage &#8220;among the bushes&#8221; for survival and who &#8220;live in the clefts of the valleys, (and) in caves of the earth and the rocks.&#8221; Therefore &#8220;cavemen&#8221; were simply outcasts and vagabounds &#8211; not our primitive ancestors as evolutionists speculate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

75.
Environmental devastation of the planet foreseen (Revelation 11:18). Though evolution imagines that things should be getting better, the Bible foresaw what is really occurring today: pollution, destruction and corrupt dominion.

Visit:
Creation and the Environment (ICR)
The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

76.
The seed of a plant contains its life (Genesis 1:11; 29). As stated in the Book of Genesis, we now recognize that inside the humble seed is life itself. Within the seed is a tiny factory of amazing complexity. No scientist can build a synthetic seed and no seed is simple!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

77.
A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, &#8220;unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.&#8221; (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells &#8220;give their lives&#8221; to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

78.
The order of creation agrees with true science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v. 6), then soil (v. 9), and then He created plant life (v. 11).

Visit:
What is the order of events in the biblical Creation? (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

79.
God created &#8220;lights&#8221; in the heavens &#8220;for signs and seasons, and for days and years&#8221; (Genesis 1:14-16). We now know that a year is the time required for the earth to travel once around the sun. The seasons are caused by the changing position of the earth in relation to the sun. The moon&#8217;s phases follow one another in clock-like precision &#8211; constituting the lunar calendar Evolution teaches that the cosmos evolved by random chance, yet the Bible agrees with the observable evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

80.
The Bible speaks of &#8220;heaven and the highest heavens&#8221; (Deuteronomy 10:14). Long before the Hubble Space Telescope, Scripture spoke of the &#8220;heaven of heavens&#8221; and the &#8220;third heaven&#8221; (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Corinthians 12:2). We now know that the heavens consist of our immediate atmosphere and the vast reaches of outer space &#8211; as well as God&#8217;s wonderful abode.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

81.
Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him &#8211; pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

82.
Man is &#8220;fearfully and wonderfully made&#8221; (Psalm 139:14). We are only beginning to probe the complexity of the DNA molecule, the eye, the brain, and all the intricate components of life. No human invention compares to the marvelous wonders of God&#8217;s creation.

Visit:
Mankind- The Pinnacle of God's Creation (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

83.
Beauty understood (Genesis 1:31; 2:9; Job 40:10; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Matthew 6:28-30). Beauty surrounds us: radiant sunsets, majestic mountains, brightly colored flowers, glowing gems, soothing foliage, brilliantly adorned birds, etc. Beauty is a mystery to the evolutionist. However, Scripture reveals that God creates beautiful things for our benefit and His glory.

Visit:
Beauty (oldpaths.com)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

84.
Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Physicists do not understand what binds the atom&#8217;s nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that &#8220;all things consist&#8221; &#8211; or are held together by the Creator &#8211; Jesus Christ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

85.
Atomic fission anticipated (2 Peter 3:10-12). Scripture states that &#8220;the elements will melt with fervent heat&#8221; when the earth and the heavens are &#8220;dissolved&#8221; by fire. Today we understand that if the elements of the atom are loosed, there would be an enormous release of heat and energy (radiation).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

86.
The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

87.
Safe drinking water (Leviticus 11:33-36). God forbade drinking from vessels or stagnant water that had been contaminated by coming into contact with a dead animal. It is only in the last 100 years that medical science has learned that contaminated water can cause typhoid and cholera.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

88.
Pest control (Leviticus 25:1-24). Farmers are plagued today with insects. Yet God gave a sure-fire remedy to control pests centuries ago. Moses commanded Israel to set aside one year in seven when no crops were raised. Insects winter in the stalks of last year&#8217;s harvest, hatch in the spring, and are perpetuated by laying eggs in the new crop. If the crop is denied one year in seven, the pests have nothing to subsist upon, and are thereby controlled.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

89.
Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if God&#8217;s commands were followed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

90.
Animal instincts understood (Job 39; Proverbs 30:24-28; Jeremiah 8:7). A newly hatched spider weaves an intricate web without being taught. A recently emerged butterfly somehow knows to navigate a 2,500-mile migration route without a guide. God explains that He has endowed each creature with specific knowledge. Scripture, not evolution, explains animal instincts.

Visit:
Instinct, Wise Behavior, Unlearned Knowledge And Abilities (oldpaths.com)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

91.
Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in God&#8217;s image.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

92.
Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: &#8220;profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science).&#8221; True science agrees with the Creator&#8217;s Word.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

93.
Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews &#8211; which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.

Visit:
DNA Evidence And The Book Of Mormon (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

94.
Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

95.
Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, God&#8217;s Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.

Visit:
Is Man a "Higher" Animal? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

96.
The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donor&#8217;s character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that &#8220;man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart&#8221; (1 Samuel 16:7).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

97.
The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted &#8211; introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98.
Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die &#8211; &#8220;The soul who sins shall die&#8221; (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of God&#8217;s Law. To see if you will die, please review God&#8217;s Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that &#8220;whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart&#8221; (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then you&#8217;re an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creator&#8217;s name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy &#8211; and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99.
Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death &#8211; which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100.
Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. &#8220;But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us&#8221; (Romans 5:8). &#8220;For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life&#8221; (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person &#8211; free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. &#8220;The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord&#8221; (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

101.
The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, &#8220;God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away&#8221; (Revelation 21:4).


Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I realize that and you might be right that a lot of the fossils found are not complete. However, a number of them are and it is apparent that they evolve from the credible fossils found.  I believe that they show a slow transition from what they looked like millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well many Archaeologist,Geologist ,paleontologist ,and zoologist would disagree with you. That is why gould and eldridge came up with the theory of punctuated equilibirium. Have you heard of the cambrian explosion ? Many complex organisms burst in to existence according to your theory from single celled organisms.
> 
> Now your side tries to pooh pooh this with rediculous explanations,but to be honest mutations could not have performed that many transformations.
> 
> Now would be a good time for a few questions. Why are all the transitional organisms extinct ? because they suppoedly are better adapted then the animals they evolved from  is that not how traits are passed on, survival of the fittest ?
> 
> Why do we only have species that these transitional organis evolved from.
> 
> Example,
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> The other question would be since all organisms experience mutations. why are these living fossils the same as the same organisms that were dated back many millions of years ago ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit alert!!! the link is to a creationist site!
> 
> " All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment. Today's living things, with all their perfect features as manifestations of God's superior artistry "
> 
> the the above  from the site's mission statement,  invalidates any alleged scientific basis for any and all opinions expressed therein.
Click to expand...


 You deny factual evidence daws ?how shocking but not surprising.


----------



## The Irish Ram

102.  Paul said we had 4 dimensions long before Einstein.   Eph. 3-18


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove I believe the bible provides better answers concerning life,the universe, chronology then modern day scientist's.
> 
> 
> 
> no, you have to prove that the bible is quantitative and accurate.
> your belief does none of those things.
> as to your answer it's  a childish and chicken shit response to valid question.
> who's afraid again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God gave answers to many questions before modern day science.
> 
> 101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge
> 
> Psalm 19:1-3  The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.
> Jeremiah 10:12  He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.
> 
> Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
> 
> Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts. That book is the Bible.
> This booklet presents 101 scientific facts found in the Scriptures. Many of these facts were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece to the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator. How does this affect you? The last several pages provide the answer  you need to read them carefully.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Science In An Ancient (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 2.
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.
> 
> Visit:
> All About Atoms (Jefferson Lab)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 3.
> The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.
> 
> Visit:
> The Arks perfect dimensions (Answers In Genesis)
> Safety investigation of Noahs Ark in a seaway (Answers In Genesis)
> Noahs Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 4.
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.
> 
> Visit:
> -Why do I need to wash my hands?
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 5.
> Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6.
> Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!
> 
> Visit:
> Springs of the Ocean (ICR)
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 7.
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
> 
> Visit:
> Numerical Simulations Of Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 8.
> Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creators presence  in Your presence is fullness of joy (Psalm 16:11).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 9.
> Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.
> 
> Visit:
> Life in the Blood (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 10.
> The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe  namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.
> 
> Visit:
> Things You May Not Know About Evolution (ICR)
> Creation - Evolution (ICR)
> Evolution and the Bible (ICR)
> The Fossil Record: Intermediate Links (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Archaeopteryx A Feathered Reptile? (ChristianAnswers.net)
> The Ape-Man: Missing Link (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Biological Evolution Darwin's Finches (ChristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 11.
> Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwins theory of the survival of the fittest.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 12.
> Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.
> 
> Visit:
> What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg? (ICR)
> The Egg/Chicken Conundrum (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 13.
> Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.
> 
> Visit:
> Things that are Made (ICR)
> Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality (ICR)
> Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories (ICR)
> The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 14.
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> Visit:
> The elements of the periodic table sorted by their presence in human body. (Lenntech)
> The Bible is a Textbook of Science (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 15.
> The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 16.
> The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)Then God said, Let there be light (energy). No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 17.
> The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 18.
> The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.
> 
> Visit:
> Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth
> Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 19.
> Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 20.
> Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow in the cloud as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets  which act as a prism  separating white light into its color spectrum.
> 
> Visit:
> What causes a rainbow? (CristianAnswers.net)
> The Rainbow And The Cloud (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 21.
> Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago  God declared this four millennia ago!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 22.
> Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the paths of the seas. In the 19th century Matthew Maury  the father of oceanography  after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maurys data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 23.
> Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body, and that those who commit homosexual sin would receive in themselves the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.
> 
> Visit
> Sex Habits Linked to Early Death, Disability (Fox News)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 24.
> Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 25.
> Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars  thats a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 26.
> The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along  He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 27.
> The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 28.
> Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.
> 
> Visit:
> Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality (ICR)
> Is Creation One of the Traditional Values? (ICR)
> Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism (ICR)
> Would China Benefit from Christianity? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 29.
> The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was Gods judgment on mans wickedness.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 30.
> Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.
> 
> Visit:
> The Origin of Coal (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 31.
> The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent  just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 32.
> Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the fountains of the great deep were broken up. This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.
> 
> Visit:
> Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
> Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 33.
> Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often  By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.
> 
> Visit:
> Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
> Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
> The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 34.
> Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.
> 
> Visit:
> Is the unborn human less than human? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Cloning: Redefining When Life Begins Exposing Flaws in the Preembryo-Embryo Distinction (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 35.
> God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an intricate unity in the womb.
> 
> Visit:
> Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 36.
> DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
> 
> Visit:
> Curiously Wrought (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 37.
> God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)
> 
> Visit:
> One Blood: The biblical answer to racism (CristianAnswers.net)
> Where Did The Races Come From? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 38.
> Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.
> 
> Visit:
> Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)
> On the Origin of Language (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 39.
> Origin of the different races explained (Genesis 11). As Noahs descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.
> 
> Visit:
> Where did the human races come from? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Evolution and Modern Racism (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 40.
> God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along  there are healing compounds found in plants.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 41.
> Healthy dietary laws (Leviticus 11:9-12). Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales. We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 42.
> The Bible warns against eating birds of prey (Leviticus 11:13-19). Scientists now recognize that those birds which eat carrion (putrefying flesh), often spread disease.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 43.
> Avoid swine (Deuteronomy 14:8). Not so long ago, science learned that eating undercooked pork causes an infection of parasites called trichinosis. Now consider this: the Bible forbid the eating of swine more than 3,000 years before we learned how to cook pork safely.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. (NCBI)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 44.
> Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, Gods Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as Mother and naturalism is enshrined.
> 
> Visit:
> Earth Day, Environmentalism, and the Bible (ICR)
> The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
> The Hyper-Environmentalists (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 45.
> Black holes and dark matter anticipated (Matthew 25:30; Jude 1:13; Isaiah 50:3). Cosmologists now speculate that over 98% of the known universe is comprised of dark matter, with dark energy and black holes. A black holes gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls outer darkness or the blackness of darkness forever.
> 
> Visit:
> The Outer Darkness (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 46.
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God  resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is grow(ing) old like a garment (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ChrisitanAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 47.
> Cains wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry  therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.
> 
> Visit:
> Where did Cain get his wife? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Cain's Wife: It Really Does Matter! (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 48.
> Incest laws established (Leviticus 18:6). To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common. Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice. The reason is simple  the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses day the genetic errors had swelled. Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed.
> 
> Visit:
> The Blind Gunman (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 49.
> Genetic mixing of different seeds forbidden (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9). The Bible warns against mixing seeds  as this will result in an inferior or dangerous crop. There is now growing evidence that unnatural, genetically engineered crops may be harmful.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 50.
> Hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Jeremiah 10:13; Amos 9:6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man (Job 36:27-28). The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 51.
> The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity  the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit  just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 52.
> Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!
> 
> Visit:
> Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day (Apologetics Press)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 53.
> God has given us just the right amount of water to sustain life (Isaiah 40:12). We now recognize that if there was significantly more or less water, the earth would not support life as we know it.
> 
> Visit:
> The Anthropic Principle: Is the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life? (ChristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 54.
> The earth was designed for biological life (Isaiah 45:18). Scientists have discovered that the most fundamental characteristics of our earth and cosmos are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist. This is called the Anthropic Principle and it agrees with the Bible which states that God formed the earth to be inhabited.
> 
> Visit:
> The Earth: Unique in All the Universe (ICR)
> Design in Nature: The Anthropic Principle (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 55.
> The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Eisntein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago  the universe is expanding!
> 
> Visit:
> The Battle for the Cosmic Center (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 56.
> Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, Gods life, created all life.
> 
> Visit:
> Chemical Evolution: Spontaneous generation; Stanley Miller Experiment (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Evolution is Biologically Impossible (ICR)
> The Myth Of Chemical Evolution (ICR)
> Virgil's Aeneid, by Chance Alone? (ICR)
> The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 57.
> Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).
> 
> Visit:
> How did bad things come about? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Extinction (ICR)
> Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 58.
> Light travels in a path (Job 38:19). Light is said to have a way [Hebrew: derek, literally a traveled path or road]. Until the 17th century it was believed that light was transmitted instantaneously. We now know that light is a form of energy that travels at ~186,000 miles per second in a straight line. Indeed, there is a way of light.
> 
> Visit:
> Light travels in a path was foretold in the Bible hundreds of years before scientists discovered it (creationists.org)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 59.
> Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established a weight for the wind. In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 60.
> Jet stream anticipated (Ecclesiastes 1:6). At a time when it was thought that winds blew straight, the Bible declares The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit. King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago. Now consider this: it was not until World War II that airmen discovered the jet stream circuit.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 61.
> Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 62.
> Each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the advent of the telescope, the Bible declared what only God and the angels knew  each star varies in size and intensity!
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 63.
> The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing  electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send lightnings which indeed speak when they arrive.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 64.
> Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, A merry heart does good, like medicine. For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.
> 
> Visit:
> Benefits of Laughter (Personal-Development.com)
> Humor and Laughter: Health Benefits and Online Sources (helpguide.org)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 65.
> Intense sorrow or stress is harmful to your health (Proverbs 18:14; Mark 14:34). Researchers have studied individuals with no prior medical problems who showed symptoms of stress cardiomyopathy including chest pain, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, and even heart failure  following a stressful incident.
> 
> Visit:
> The Physical Dangers of Stress (Fitness Article)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 66.
> Microorganisms anticipated (Exodus 22:31). The Bible warns Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the LORD (Leviticus 22:8). Today we understand that a decaying carcass is full of disease causing germs.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 67.
> The Bible cautions against consuming fat (Leviticus 7:23). Only in recent decades has the medical community determined that fat clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 68.
> Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:12). A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood. However, the Creator repeatedly told His people to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:20; 21:25). Of course, modern science reveals that consuming raw blood is dangerous.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 69.
> The Bible describes dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24). In 1842, Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosaur, meaning terrible lizard, after discovering large reptilian-like fossils. However in the Book of Job, written 4,000 years earlier, God describes the behemoth as: the largest of all land creatures, plant eating (herbivore), with great strength in its hips and legs, powerful stomach muscles, a tail like a cedar tree, and bones like bars of iron. This is an accurate description of sauropods  the largest known dinosaur family.
> 
> Visit:
> The Great Dinosaur Mystery (CristianAnswers.net)
> How Do The Dinosaurs Fit In? (ICR)
> Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood? (ICR)
> Dragons in Paradise (ICR)
> Leviathan (ICR)
> Dinosaurs And The Bible (ICR)
> Dinosaur Mania and Our Children (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 70.
> Pleasure explained (Psalm 36:8). Evolution cannot explain pleasure  even the most complex chemicals do not experience bliss. However, the Bible states that God gives us richly all things to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17). Pleasure is a gift from God.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 71.
> Life is more than matter and energy (Genesis 2:7; Job 12:7-10). We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Even though its body may be perfectly intact, and air and energy are reintroduced to spark life, the body remains dead. Scripture agrees with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. Life cannot be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone  as evolutionists would lead us to believe.
> 
> Visit:
> Breath And Spirit (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 72.
> Origin of music explained (Psalm 40:3). Evolution cannot explain the origin of music. The Bible says that every good gift comes from God (James 1:17). This includes joyful melodies. God has given both man and angels the gift of music-making (Genesis 4:21; Ezekiel 28:13). Singing is intended to express rejoicing in and worship of the Lord (Job 38:7; Psalm 95:1-2).
> 
> Visit:
> Music or Evolution
> Musicevidence of creation (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 73.
> Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with Gods Word.
> 
> Visit:
> Ancient civilizations and modern man (Answers In Genesis)
> The mystery of ancient man (Answers In Genesis)
> Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 74.
> Cavemen described in the Bible (Job 30:1-8). Four thousand years ago, Job describes certain vile men who were driven from society to forage among the bushes for survival and who live in the clefts of the valleys, (and) in caves of the earth and the rocks. Therefore cavemen were simply outcasts and vagabounds  not our primitive ancestors as evolutionists speculate.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 75.
> Environmental devastation of the planet foreseen (Revelation 11:18). Though evolution imagines that things should be getting better, the Bible foresaw what is really occurring today: pollution, destruction and corrupt dominion.
> 
> Visit:
> Creation and the Environment (ICR)
> The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 76.
> The seed of a plant contains its life (Genesis 1:11; 29). As stated in the Book of Genesis, we now recognize that inside the humble seed is life itself. Within the seed is a tiny factory of amazing complexity. No scientist can build a synthetic seed and no seed is simple!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 77.
> A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells give their lives to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 78.
> The order of creation agrees with true science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v. 6), then soil (v. 9), and then He created plant life (v. 11).
> 
> Visit:
> What is the order of events in the biblical Creation? (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 79.
> God created lights in the heavens for signs and seasons, and for days and years (Genesis 1:14-16). We now know that a year is the time required for the earth to travel once around the sun. The seasons are caused by the changing position of the earth in relation to the sun. The moons phases follow one another in clock-like precision  constituting the lunar calendar Evolution teaches that the cosmos evolved by random chance, yet the Bible agrees with the observable evidence.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 80.
> The Bible speaks of heaven and the highest heavens (Deuteronomy 10:14). Long before the Hubble Space Telescope, Scripture spoke of the heaven of heavens and the third heaven (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Corinthians 12:2). We now know that the heavens consist of our immediate atmosphere and the vast reaches of outer space  as well as Gods wonderful abode.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 81.
> Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him  pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 82.
> Man is fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). We are only beginning to probe the complexity of the DNA molecule, the eye, the brain, and all the intricate components of life. No human invention compares to the marvelous wonders of Gods creation.
> 
> Visit:
> Mankind- The Pinnacle of God's Creation (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 83.
> Beauty understood (Genesis 1:31; 2:9; Job 40:10; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Matthew 6:28-30). Beauty surrounds us: radiant sunsets, majestic mountains, brightly colored flowers, glowing gems, soothing foliage, brilliantly adorned birds, etc. Beauty is a mystery to the evolutionist. However, Scripture reveals that God creates beautiful things for our benefit and His glory.
> 
> Visit:
> Beauty (oldpaths.com)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 84.
> Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Physicists do not understand what binds the atoms nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that all things consist  or are held together by the Creator  Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 85.
> Atomic fission anticipated (2 Peter 3:10-12). Scripture states that the elements will melt with fervent heat when the earth and the heavens are dissolved by fire. Today we understand that if the elements of the atom are loosed, there would be an enormous release of heat and energy (radiation).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 86.
> The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 87.
> Safe drinking water (Leviticus 11:33-36). God forbade drinking from vessels or stagnant water that had been contaminated by coming into contact with a dead animal. It is only in the last 100 years that medical science has learned that contaminated water can cause typhoid and cholera.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 88.
> Pest control (Leviticus 25:1-24). Farmers are plagued today with insects. Yet God gave a sure-fire remedy to control pests centuries ago. Moses commanded Israel to set aside one year in seven when no crops were raised. Insects winter in the stalks of last years harvest, hatch in the spring, and are perpetuated by laying eggs in the new crop. If the crop is denied one year in seven, the pests have nothing to subsist upon, and are thereby controlled.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 89.
> Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if Gods commands were followed.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 90.
> Animal instincts understood (Job 39; Proverbs 30:24-28; Jeremiah 8:7). A newly hatched spider weaves an intricate web without being taught. A recently emerged butterfly somehow knows to navigate a 2,500-mile migration route without a guide. God explains that He has endowed each creature with specific knowledge. Scripture, not evolution, explains animal instincts.
> 
> Visit:
> Instinct, Wise Behavior, Unlearned Knowledge And Abilities (oldpaths.com)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 91.
> Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in Gods image.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 92.
> Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science). True science agrees with the Creators Word.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 93.
> Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews  which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.
> 
> Visit:
> DNA Evidence And The Book Of Mormon (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 94.
> Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 95.
> Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, Gods Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.
> 
> Visit:
> Is Man a "Higher" Animal? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 96.
> The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donors character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 97.
> The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted  introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 98.
> Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die  The soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of Gods Law. To see if you will die, please review Gods Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then youre an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creators name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy  and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 99.
> Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death  which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 100.
> Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person  free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 101.
> The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away (Revelation 21:4).
> 
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Click to expand...


Ah yes, the ICR. That bastion of bible thumping bozo's.

Honest to gawd, man, you and the other flat-earther do more harm to religion than you know.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, you have to prove that the bible is quantitative and accurate.
> your belief does none of those things.
> as to your answer it's  a childish and chicken shit response to valid question.
> who's afraid again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God gave answers to many questions before modern day science.
> 
> 101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge
> 
> Psalm 19:1-3  The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.
> Jeremiah 10:12  He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.
> 
> Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
> 
> Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts. That book is the Bible.
> This booklet presents 101 scientific facts found in the Scriptures. Many of these facts were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece to the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator. How does this affect you? The last several pages provide the answer  you need to read them carefully.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Science In An Ancient (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 2.
> Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.
> 
> Visit:
> All About Atoms (Jefferson Lab)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 3.
> The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.
> 
> Visit:
> The Arks perfect dimensions (Answers In Genesis)
> Safety investigation of Noahs Ark in a seaway (Answers In Genesis)
> Noahs Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 4.
> When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.
> 
> Visit:
> -Why do I need to wash my hands?
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 5.
> Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6.
> Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!
> 
> Visit:
> Springs of the Ocean (ICR)
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 7.
> There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
> 
> Visit:
> Numerical Simulations Of Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 8.
> Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creators presence  in Your presence is fullness of joy (Psalm 16:11).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 9.
> Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.
> 
> Visit:
> Life in the Blood (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 10.
> The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe  namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.
> 
> Visit:
> Things You May Not Know About Evolution (ICR)
> Creation - Evolution (ICR)
> Evolution and the Bible (ICR)
> The Fossil Record: Intermediate Links (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Archaeopteryx A Feathered Reptile? (ChristianAnswers.net)
> The Ape-Man: Missing Link (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Biological Evolution Darwin's Finches (ChristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 11.
> Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwins theory of the survival of the fittest.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 12.
> Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.
> 
> Visit:
> What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg? (ICR)
> The Egg/Chicken Conundrum (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 13.
> Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.
> 
> Visit:
> Things that are Made (ICR)
> Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality (ICR)
> Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories (ICR)
> The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 14.
> Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.
> 
> Visit:
> The elements of the periodic table sorted by their presence in human body. (Lenntech)
> The Bible is a Textbook of Science (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 15.
> The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 16.
> The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)Then God said, Let there be light (energy). No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 17.
> The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 18.
> The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.
> 
> Visit:
> Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth
> Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 19.
> Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 20.
> Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow in the cloud as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets  which act as a prism  separating white light into its color spectrum.
> 
> Visit:
> What causes a rainbow? (CristianAnswers.net)
> The Rainbow And The Cloud (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 21.
> Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago  God declared this four millennia ago!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 22.
> Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the paths of the seas. In the 19th century Matthew Maury  the father of oceanography  after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maurys data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 23.
> Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body, and that those who commit homosexual sin would receive in themselves the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.
> 
> Visit
> Sex Habits Linked to Early Death, Disability (Fox News)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 24.
> Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 25.
> Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars  thats a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 26.
> The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along  He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 27.
> The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 28.
> Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.
> 
> Visit:
> Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality (ICR)
> Is Creation One of the Traditional Values? (ICR)
> Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism (ICR)
> Would China Benefit from Christianity? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 29.
> The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was Gods judgment on mans wickedness.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 30.
> Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.
> 
> Visit:
> The Origin of Coal (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 31.
> The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent  just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 32.
> Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the fountains of the great deep were broken up. This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.
> 
> Visit:
> Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
> Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 33.
> Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often  By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.
> 
> Visit:
> Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
> Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
> The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 34.
> Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.
> 
> Visit:
> Is the unborn human less than human? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Cloning: Redefining When Life Begins Exposing Flaws in the Preembryo-Embryo Distinction (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 35.
> God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an intricate unity in the womb.
> 
> Visit:
> Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 36.
> DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
> 
> Visit:
> Curiously Wrought (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 37.
> God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)
> 
> Visit:
> One Blood: The biblical answer to racism (CristianAnswers.net)
> Where Did The Races Come From? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 38.
> Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.
> 
> Visit:
> Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)
> On the Origin of Language (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 39.
> Origin of the different races explained (Genesis 11). As Noahs descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.
> 
> Visit:
> Where did the human races come from? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Evolution and Modern Racism (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 40.
> God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along  there are healing compounds found in plants.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 41.
> Healthy dietary laws (Leviticus 11:9-12). Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales. We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 42.
> The Bible warns against eating birds of prey (Leviticus 11:13-19). Scientists now recognize that those birds which eat carrion (putrefying flesh), often spread disease.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 43.
> Avoid swine (Deuteronomy 14:8). Not so long ago, science learned that eating undercooked pork causes an infection of parasites called trichinosis. Now consider this: the Bible forbid the eating of swine more than 3,000 years before we learned how to cook pork safely.
> 
> Visit:
> The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
> Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. (NCBI)
> Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 44.
> Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, Gods Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as Mother and naturalism is enshrined.
> 
> Visit:
> Earth Day, Environmentalism, and the Bible (ICR)
> The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
> The Hyper-Environmentalists (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 45.
> Black holes and dark matter anticipated (Matthew 25:30; Jude 1:13; Isaiah 50:3). Cosmologists now speculate that over 98% of the known universe is comprised of dark matter, with dark energy and black holes. A black holes gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls outer darkness or the blackness of darkness forever.
> 
> Visit:
> The Outer Darkness (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 46.
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God  resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is grow(ing) old like a garment (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.
> 
> Visit:
> Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
> Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ChrisitanAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 47.
> Cains wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry  therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.
> 
> Visit:
> Where did Cain get his wife? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Cain's Wife: It Really Does Matter! (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 48.
> Incest laws established (Leviticus 18:6). To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common. Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice. The reason is simple  the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses day the genetic errors had swelled. Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed.
> 
> Visit:
> The Blind Gunman (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 49.
> Genetic mixing of different seeds forbidden (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9). The Bible warns against mixing seeds  as this will result in an inferior or dangerous crop. There is now growing evidence that unnatural, genetically engineered crops may be harmful.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 50.
> Hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Jeremiah 10:13; Amos 9:6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man (Job 36:27-28). The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 51.
> The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity  the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit  just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 52.
> Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!
> 
> Visit:
> Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day (Apologetics Press)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 53.
> God has given us just the right amount of water to sustain life (Isaiah 40:12). We now recognize that if there was significantly more or less water, the earth would not support life as we know it.
> 
> Visit:
> The Anthropic Principle: Is the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life? (ChristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 54.
> The earth was designed for biological life (Isaiah 45:18). Scientists have discovered that the most fundamental characteristics of our earth and cosmos are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist. This is called the Anthropic Principle and it agrees with the Bible which states that God formed the earth to be inhabited.
> 
> Visit:
> The Earth: Unique in All the Universe (ICR)
> Design in Nature: The Anthropic Principle (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 55.
> The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Eisntein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago  the universe is expanding!
> 
> Visit:
> The Battle for the Cosmic Center (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 56.
> Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, Gods life, created all life.
> 
> Visit:
> Chemical Evolution: Spontaneous generation; Stanley Miller Experiment (ChristianAnswers.net)
> Evolution is Biologically Impossible (ICR)
> The Myth Of Chemical Evolution (ICR)
> Virgil's Aeneid, by Chance Alone? (ICR)
> The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 57.
> Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).
> 
> Visit:
> How did bad things come about? (CristianAnswers.net)
> Extinction (ICR)
> Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 58.
> Light travels in a path (Job 38:19). Light is said to have a way [Hebrew: derek, literally a traveled path or road]. Until the 17th century it was believed that light was transmitted instantaneously. We now know that light is a form of energy that travels at ~186,000 miles per second in a straight line. Indeed, there is a way of light.
> 
> Visit:
> Light travels in a path was foretold in the Bible hundreds of years before scientists discovered it (creationists.org)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 59.
> Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established a weight for the wind. In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 60.
> Jet stream anticipated (Ecclesiastes 1:6). At a time when it was thought that winds blew straight, the Bible declares The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit. King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago. Now consider this: it was not until World War II that airmen discovered the jet stream circuit.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 61.
> Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 62.
> Each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the advent of the telescope, the Bible declared what only God and the angels knew  each star varies in size and intensity!
> 
> Visit:
> The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 63.
> The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing  electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send lightnings which indeed speak when they arrive.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 64.
> Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, A merry heart does good, like medicine. For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.
> 
> Visit:
> Benefits of Laughter (Personal-Development.com)
> Humor and Laughter: Health Benefits and Online Sources (helpguide.org)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 65.
> Intense sorrow or stress is harmful to your health (Proverbs 18:14; Mark 14:34). Researchers have studied individuals with no prior medical problems who showed symptoms of stress cardiomyopathy including chest pain, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, and even heart failure  following a stressful incident.
> 
> Visit:
> The Physical Dangers of Stress (Fitness Article)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 66.
> Microorganisms anticipated (Exodus 22:31). The Bible warns Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the LORD (Leviticus 22:8). Today we understand that a decaying carcass is full of disease causing germs.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 67.
> The Bible cautions against consuming fat (Leviticus 7:23). Only in recent decades has the medical community determined that fat clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 68.
> Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:12). A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood. However, the Creator repeatedly told His people to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:20; 21:25). Of course, modern science reveals that consuming raw blood is dangerous.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 69.
> The Bible describes dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24). In 1842, Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosaur, meaning terrible lizard, after discovering large reptilian-like fossils. However in the Book of Job, written 4,000 years earlier, God describes the behemoth as: the largest of all land creatures, plant eating (herbivore), with great strength in its hips and legs, powerful stomach muscles, a tail like a cedar tree, and bones like bars of iron. This is an accurate description of sauropods  the largest known dinosaur family.
> 
> Visit:
> The Great Dinosaur Mystery (CristianAnswers.net)
> How Do The Dinosaurs Fit In? (ICR)
> Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood? (ICR)
> Dragons in Paradise (ICR)
> Leviathan (ICR)
> Dinosaurs And The Bible (ICR)
> Dinosaur Mania and Our Children (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 70.
> Pleasure explained (Psalm 36:8). Evolution cannot explain pleasure  even the most complex chemicals do not experience bliss. However, the Bible states that God gives us richly all things to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17). Pleasure is a gift from God.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 71.
> Life is more than matter and energy (Genesis 2:7; Job 12:7-10). We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Even though its body may be perfectly intact, and air and energy are reintroduced to spark life, the body remains dead. Scripture agrees with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. Life cannot be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone  as evolutionists would lead us to believe.
> 
> Visit:
> Breath And Spirit (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 72.
> Origin of music explained (Psalm 40:3). Evolution cannot explain the origin of music. The Bible says that every good gift comes from God (James 1:17). This includes joyful melodies. God has given both man and angels the gift of music-making (Genesis 4:21; Ezekiel 28:13). Singing is intended to express rejoicing in and worship of the Lord (Job 38:7; Psalm 95:1-2).
> 
> Visit:
> Music or Evolution
> Musicevidence of creation (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 73.
> Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with Gods Word.
> 
> Visit:
> Ancient civilizations and modern man (Answers In Genesis)
> The mystery of ancient man (Answers In Genesis)
> Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 74.
> Cavemen described in the Bible (Job 30:1-8). Four thousand years ago, Job describes certain vile men who were driven from society to forage among the bushes for survival and who live in the clefts of the valleys, (and) in caves of the earth and the rocks. Therefore cavemen were simply outcasts and vagabounds  not our primitive ancestors as evolutionists speculate.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 75.
> Environmental devastation of the planet foreseen (Revelation 11:18). Though evolution imagines that things should be getting better, the Bible foresaw what is really occurring today: pollution, destruction and corrupt dominion.
> 
> Visit:
> Creation and the Environment (ICR)
> The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 76.
> The seed of a plant contains its life (Genesis 1:11; 29). As stated in the Book of Genesis, we now recognize that inside the humble seed is life itself. Within the seed is a tiny factory of amazing complexity. No scientist can build a synthetic seed and no seed is simple!
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 77.
> A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells give their lives to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 78.
> The order of creation agrees with true science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v. 6), then soil (v. 9), and then He created plant life (v. 11).
> 
> Visit:
> What is the order of events in the biblical Creation? (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 79.
> God created lights in the heavens for signs and seasons, and for days and years (Genesis 1:14-16). We now know that a year is the time required for the earth to travel once around the sun. The seasons are caused by the changing position of the earth in relation to the sun. The moons phases follow one another in clock-like precision  constituting the lunar calendar Evolution teaches that the cosmos evolved by random chance, yet the Bible agrees with the observable evidence.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 80.
> The Bible speaks of heaven and the highest heavens (Deuteronomy 10:14). Long before the Hubble Space Telescope, Scripture spoke of the heaven of heavens and the third heaven (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Corinthians 12:2). We now know that the heavens consist of our immediate atmosphere and the vast reaches of outer space  as well as Gods wonderful abode.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 81.
> Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him  pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 82.
> Man is fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). We are only beginning to probe the complexity of the DNA molecule, the eye, the brain, and all the intricate components of life. No human invention compares to the marvelous wonders of Gods creation.
> 
> Visit:
> Mankind- The Pinnacle of God's Creation (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 83.
> Beauty understood (Genesis 1:31; 2:9; Job 40:10; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Matthew 6:28-30). Beauty surrounds us: radiant sunsets, majestic mountains, brightly colored flowers, glowing gems, soothing foliage, brilliantly adorned birds, etc. Beauty is a mystery to the evolutionist. However, Scripture reveals that God creates beautiful things for our benefit and His glory.
> 
> Visit:
> Beauty (oldpaths.com)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 84.
> Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Physicists do not understand what binds the atoms nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that all things consist  or are held together by the Creator  Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 85.
> Atomic fission anticipated (2 Peter 3:10-12). Scripture states that the elements will melt with fervent heat when the earth and the heavens are dissolved by fire. Today we understand that if the elements of the atom are loosed, there would be an enormous release of heat and energy (radiation).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 86.
> The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 87.
> Safe drinking water (Leviticus 11:33-36). God forbade drinking from vessels or stagnant water that had been contaminated by coming into contact with a dead animal. It is only in the last 100 years that medical science has learned that contaminated water can cause typhoid and cholera.
> 
> Visit:
> The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
> Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 88.
> Pest control (Leviticus 25:1-24). Farmers are plagued today with insects. Yet God gave a sure-fire remedy to control pests centuries ago. Moses commanded Israel to set aside one year in seven when no crops were raised. Insects winter in the stalks of last years harvest, hatch in the spring, and are perpetuated by laying eggs in the new crop. If the crop is denied one year in seven, the pests have nothing to subsist upon, and are thereby controlled.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 89.
> Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if Gods commands were followed.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 90.
> Animal instincts understood (Job 39; Proverbs 30:24-28; Jeremiah 8:7). A newly hatched spider weaves an intricate web without being taught. A recently emerged butterfly somehow knows to navigate a 2,500-mile migration route without a guide. God explains that He has endowed each creature with specific knowledge. Scripture, not evolution, explains animal instincts.
> 
> Visit:
> Instinct, Wise Behavior, Unlearned Knowledge And Abilities (oldpaths.com)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 91.
> Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in Gods image.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 92.
> Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science). True science agrees with the Creators Word.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 93.
> Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews  which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.
> 
> Visit:
> DNA Evidence And The Book Of Mormon (CristianAnswers.net)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 94.
> Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 95.
> Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, Gods Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.
> 
> Visit:
> Is Man a "Higher" Animal? (ICR)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 96.
> The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donors character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 97.
> The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted  introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 98.
> Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die  The soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of Gods Law. To see if you will die, please review Gods Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then youre an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creators name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy  and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 99.
> Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death  which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 100.
> Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person  free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 101.
> The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away (Revelation 21:4).
> 
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the ICR. That bastion of bible thumping bozo's.
> 
> Honest to gawd, man, you and the other flat-earther do more harm to religion than you know.
Click to expand...


Wrong again,you are consistent. Why do you and Daws hate truth ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> look them up yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you afraid of Daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dodge!
> 
> why are you lazy and illiterate?
Click to expand...


It was your side that made the claim but it's my responsibility to provide the evidence  So you produce one fossil bone and all that conjecture to make a point. Do you realize how funny you are ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you afraid of Daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> dodge!
> 
> why are you lazy and illiterate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was your side that made the claim but it's my responsibility to provide the evidence  So you produce one fossil bone and all that conjecture to make a point. Do you realize how funny you are ?
Click to expand...


You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you believe it to be.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> dodge!
> 
> why are you lazy and illiterate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was your side that made the claim but it's my responsibility to provide the evidence  So you produce one fossil bone and all that conjecture to make a point. Do you realize how funny you are ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you believe it to be.
Click to expand...


Do you understand many of the complete skeletons in museums are plaster ? Many of the creatures in museums were designed from a few fossil fragments.

We were talking about whales having legs.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie they found a complete fossilized whale in michigan how do suppose that creature got there ? That whale did not have legs imagine that. That whale was found in a vertical position.

http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/michwls.html

You also have this one.

http://engineering.curiouscatblog.net/2008/11/13/ancient-whale-uncovered-in-egyptian-desert/


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was your side that made the claim but it's my responsibility to provide the evidence  So you produce one fossil bone and all that conjecture to make a point. Do you realize how funny you are ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you believe it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand many of the complete skeletons in museums are plaster ? Many of the creatures in museums were designed from a few fossil fragments.
> 
> We were talking about whales having legs.
Click to expand...

You do understand that a complete fosill assembly of a large dinosaur could weigh many, many tons?  The recovered fosillized bibles are extremely valuable for research.

Some fosill skeletons are assembled from virtually complete remains, others are not.

How did Ken Ham create the plaster images of dinosaurs (the dinosaurs co-habitating with humans... chuckle), for his silly creation museum?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that museums, research/teaching universities, private collectors, etc., have amassed huge collections of fosill and skeletal remains of dinosaurs. The fact of these fosill skeletons is not the conspiracy you believe it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand many of the complete skeletons in museums are plaster ? Many of the creatures in museums were designed from a few fossil fragments.
> 
> We were talking about whales having legs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do understand that a complete fosill assembly of a large dinosaur could weigh many, many tons?  The recovered fosillized bibles are extremely valuable for research.
> 
> Some fosill skeletons are assembled from virtually complete remains, others are not.
> 
> How did Ken Ham create the plaster images of dinosaurs (the dinosaurs co-habitating with humans... chuckle), for his silly creation museum?
Click to expand...


Some are made from complete skeleton remains but many are not that is the problem Hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Look at them trying to explain this whale graveyard.

Whale Fossils Found Atop Chilean Desert Hill Called a &#8216;Very Unusual Situation&#8217; | TheBlaze.com


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand many of the complete skeletons in museums are plaster ? Many of the creatures in museums were designed from a few fossil fragments.
> 
> We were talking about whales having legs.
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that a complete fosill assembly of a large dinosaur could weigh many, many tons?  The recovered fosillized bibles are extremely valuable for research.
> 
> Some fosill skeletons are assembled from virtually complete remains, others are not.
> 
> How did Ken Ham create the plaster images of dinosaurs (the dinosaurs co-habitating with humans... chuckle), for his silly creation museum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some are made from complete skeleton remains but many are not that is the problem Hollie.
Click to expand...

That is really not a problem. A single, complete fosill (and they do exist), dating back 65 million years is an obvious problem for you. And yes, you can sidestep and deny the dating methods at your leisure. The dating methods that science uses all have a plus or minus value to them. The point is, if those methods have an accuracy of plus or minus 10%, that is hardly relevant when we are dealing with geologic time scales of tens of millions of years. 

And Ken Ham and his dinosaurs? How did Ken know what they looked like if the bibles don't record their existence?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that a complete fosill assembly of a large dinosaur could weigh many, many tons?  The recovered fosillized bibles are extremely valuable for research.
> 
> Some fosill skeletons are assembled from virtually complete remains, others are not.
> 
> How did Ken Ham create the plaster images of dinosaurs (the dinosaurs co-habitating with humans... chuckle), for his silly creation museum?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some are made from complete skeleton remains but many are not that is the problem Hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is really not a problem. A single, complete fosill (and they do exist), dating back 65 million years is an obvious problem for you. And yes, you can sidestep and deny the dating methods at your leisure. The dating methods that science uses all have a plus or minus value to them. The point is, if those methods have an accuracy of plus or minus 10%, that is hardly relevant when we are dealing with geologic time scales of tens of millions of years.
> 
> And Ken Ham and his dinosaurs? How did Ken know what they looked like if the bibles don't record their existence?
Click to expand...


Yeah it is,because you are depending on imagination to design the creatures.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Look at them trying to explain this whale graveyard.
> 
> Whale Fossils Found Atop Chilean Desert Hill Called a Very Unusual Situation | TheBlaze.com



I have personal knowledge that this is a conspiracy. Ken Ham and his associates buried those skeletal remains under cover of darkness.

Either that or the whales fell off the back of the Ark and drowned.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that a complete fosill assembly of a large dinosaur could weigh many, many tons?  The recovered fosillized bibles are extremely valuable for research.
> 
> Some fosill skeletons are assembled from virtually complete remains, others are not.
> 
> How did Ken Ham create the plaster images of dinosaurs (the dinosaurs co-habitating with humans... chuckle), for his silly creation museum?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some are made from complete skeleton remains but many are not that is the problem Hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is really not a problem. A single, complete fosill (and they do exist), dating back 65 million years is an obvious problem for you. And yes, you can sidestep and deny the dating methods at your leisure. The dating methods that science uses all have a plus or minus value to them. The point is, if those methods have an accuracy of plus or minus 10%, that is hardly relevant when we are dealing with geologic time scales of tens of millions of years.
> 
> And Ken Ham and his dinosaurs? How did Ken know what they looked like if the bibles don't record their existence?
Click to expand...


A global flood explains ocean fossils found world wide inland,it also explains what may have caused plate tectonics.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some are made from complete skeleton remains but many are not that is the problem Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> That is really not a problem. A single, complete fosill (and they do exist), dating back 65 million years is an obvious problem for you. And yes, you can sidestep and deny the dating methods at your leisure. The dating methods that science uses all have a plus or minus value to them. The point is, if those methods have an accuracy of plus or minus 10%, that is hardly relevant when we are dealing with geologic time scales of tens of millions of years.
> 
> And Ken Ham and his dinosaurs? How did Ken know what they looked like if the bibles don't record their existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah it is,because you are depending on imagination to design the creatures.
Click to expand...


Why would anyone need to imaginatively design the dinosaurs when we have examples of complete dinosaurs?

Conspiracy theories aren't going to help you here.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at them trying to explain this whale graveyard.
> 
> Whale Fossils Found Atop Chilean Desert Hill Called a Very Unusual Situation | TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have personal knowledge that this is a conspiracy. Ken Ham and his associates buried those skeletal remains under cover of darkness.
> 
> Either that or the whales fell off the back of the Ark and drowned.
Click to expand...


It's not just ken ham, your side is baffled by many of these findings creationist are not baffled by these findings they predicted this in their model because of the global flood.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some are made from complete skeleton remains but many are not that is the problem Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> That is really not a problem. A single, complete fosill (and they do exist), dating back 65 million years is an obvious problem for you. And yes, you can sidestep and deny the dating methods at your leisure. The dating methods that science uses all have a plus or minus value to them. The point is, if those methods have an accuracy of plus or minus 10%, that is hardly relevant when we are dealing with geologic time scales of tens of millions of years.
> 
> And Ken Ham and his dinosaurs? How did Ken know what they looked like if the bibles don't record their existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A global flood explains ocean fossils found world wide inland,it also explains what may have caused plate tectonics.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence of a global flood... except with a lot of creative (false), inventions of supernatural, supermagical interventions by one or more gods.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at them trying to explain this whale graveyard.
> 
> Whale Fossils Found Atop Chilean Desert Hill Called a Very Unusual Situation | TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have personal knowledge that this is a conspiracy. Ken Ham and his associates buried those skeletal remains under cover of darkness.
> 
> Either that or the whales fell off the back of the Ark and drowned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not just ken ham, your side is baffled by many of these findings creationist are not baffled by these findings they predicted this in their model because of the global flood.
Click to expand...

Who, specifically is baffled by "many of these findings". What findings?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is really not a problem. A single, complete fosill (and they do exist), dating back 65 million years is an obvious problem for you. And yes, you can sidestep and deny the dating methods at your leisure. The dating methods that science uses all have a plus or minus value to them. The point is, if those methods have an accuracy of plus or minus 10%, that is hardly relevant when we are dealing with geologic time scales of tens of millions of years.
> 
> And Ken Ham and his dinosaurs? How did Ken know what they looked like if the bibles don't record their existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A global flood explains ocean fossils found world wide inland,it also explains what may have caused plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence of a global flood... except with a lot of creative (false), inventions of supernatural, supermagical interventions by one or more gods.
Click to expand...


What do you think I have been revealing to you ?

Did you know there are areas in the ocean so deep if you were to saw off mount everest and drop it in the ocean there would be a mile of water above it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have personal knowledge that this is a conspiracy. Ken Ham and his associates buried those skeletal remains under cover of darkness.
> 
> Either that or the whales fell off the back of the Ark and drowned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just ken ham, your side is baffled by many of these findings creationist are not baffled by these findings they predicted this in their model because of the global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who, specifically is baffled by "many of these findings". What findings?
Click to expand...


How whale grave yards are being found where they are. Did you not read the articles I posted they were not from creationist,these articles were from people of science that see things the way you do.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just ken ham, your side is baffled by many of these findings creationist are not baffled by these findings they predicted this in their model because of the global flood.
> 
> 
> 
> Who, specifically is baffled by "many of these findings". What findings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How whale grave yards are being found where they are. Did you not read the articles I posted they were not from creationist,these articles were from people of science that see things the way you do.
Click to expand...


What is within the article that you're having difficulty with?


Problems with a Global Flood Second Edition by Mark Isaak
Copyright © 1998 [Last Update: November 16, 1998

Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have personal knowledge that this is a conspiracy. Ken Ham and his associates buried those skeletal remains under cover of darkness.
> 
> Either that or the whales fell off the back of the Ark and drowned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just ken ham, your side is baffled by many of these findings creationist are not baffled by these findings they predicted this in their model because of the global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who, specifically is baffled by "many of these findings". What findings?
Click to expand...


Time for a question Hollie.

How is it fossils of one organism are found in a couple of layers of strata ? because if the organism was buied and died in one layer of strata the rest of the fossil in another layer of strata would not have been preserved. Fossils happen from rapid burial.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who, specifically is baffled by "many of these findings". What findings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How whale grave yards are being found where they are. Did you not read the articles I posted they were not from creationist,these articles were from people of science that see things the way you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is within the article that you're having difficulty with?
> 
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood Second Edition by Mark Isaak
> Copyright © 1998 [Last Update: November 16, 1998
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
Click to expand...


Nonsense,you are avoiding strong evidence for a global flood for what reason ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just ken ham, your side is baffled by many of these findings creationist are not baffled by these findings they predicted this in their model because of the global flood.
> 
> 
> 
> Who, specifically is baffled by "many of these findings". What findings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time for a question Hollie.
> 
> How is it fossils of one organism are found in a couple of layers of strata ? because if the organism was buied and died in one layer of strata the rest of the fossil in another layer of strata would not have been preserved. Fossils happen from rapid burial.
Click to expand...


That's really a silly question and can be answered by studying geology. 

In order for this global flood to have occurred, there would need to be the gods to have made if happen. Can you offer evidence for the gods?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who, specifically is baffled by "many of these findings". What findings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How whale grave yards are being found where they are. Did you not read the articles I posted they were not from creationist,these articles were from people of science that see things the way you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is within the article that you're having difficulty with?
> 
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood Second Edition by Mark Isaak
> Copyright © 1998 [Last Update: November 16, 1998
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
Click to expand...


The problem with your article is the assumption that everything that ever lived went on the ark. We admit to micro adaptations within a family that caused the diversity in each family group.

Talk origins misrepresents creationist views.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie how did we come up with so many different breeds in each family group ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How whale grave yards are being found where they are. Did you not read the articles I posted they were not from creationist,these articles were from people of science that see things the way you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is within the article that you're having difficulty with?
> 
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood Second Edition by Mark Isaak
> Copyright © 1998 [Last Update: November 16, 1998
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your article is the assumption that everything that ever lived went on the ark. We admit to micro adaptations within a family that caused the diversity in each family group.
> 
> Talk origins misrepresents creationist views.
Click to expand...

The real issue is that creationist arguments come crashing to the ground under the harsh light of open inquiry. 

 How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?

A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims by Dave E. Matson Copyright © 1994-2002

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Geologic Column


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie how did we come up with so many different breeds in each family group ?



I'm afraid that your lack of knowledge relative to the subject leaves you at a disadvantage. 

It's a bit more complicated than screeching "the gods did it."


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is within the article that you're having difficulty with?
> 
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood Second Edition by Mark Isaak
> Copyright © 1998 [Last Update: November 16, 1998
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your article is the assumption that everything that ever lived went on the ark. We admit to micro adaptations within a family that caused the diversity in each family group.
> 
> Talk origins misrepresents creationist views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The real issue is that creationist arguments come crashing to the ground under the harsh light of open inquiry.
> 
> How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
> 
> A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims by Dave E. Matson Copyright © 1994-2002
> 
> How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Geologic Column
Click to expand...


Uh oh avoiding the evidence and trying to change the subject.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how did we come up with so many different breeds in each family group ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid that your lack of knowledge relative to the subject leaves you at a disadvantage.
> 
> It's a bit more complicated than screeching "the gods did it."
Click to expand...


You are good for a laugh though.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how did we come up with so many different breeds in each family group ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid that your lack of knowledge relative to the subject leaves you at a disadvantage.
> 
> It's a bit more complicated than screeching "the gods did it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are good for a laugh though.
Click to expand...


I suppose that is one way to sidestep and evade.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your article is the assumption that everything that ever lived went on the ark. We admit to micro adaptations within a family that caused the diversity in each family group.
> 
> Talk origins misrepresents creationist views.
> 
> 
> 
> The real issue is that creationist arguments come crashing to the ground under the harsh light of open inquiry.
> 
> How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
> 
> A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims by Dave E. Matson Copyright © 1994-2002
> 
> How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Geologic Column
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh avoiding the evidence and trying to change the subject.
Click to expand...


I'm providing links for your review. I'm not going to post a huge article. You can refuse to educate yourself and forever remain a hamlet but don't blame others for your ignorance regarding science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who, specifically is baffled by "many of these findings". What findings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time for a question Hollie.
> 
> How is it fossils of one organism are found in a couple of layers of strata ? because if the organism was buied and died in one layer of strata the rest of the fossil in another layer of strata would not have been preserved. Fossils happen from rapid burial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really a silly question and can be answered by studying geology.
> 
> In order for this global flood to have occurred, there would need to be the gods to have made if happen. Can you offer evidence for the gods?
Click to expand...


Let me introduce you to a friend of mine he has many videos dealing with your nonsense.

18-Old Earth Brainwashing


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie more many more.

19-The Non-Existent Geologic Column


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie


21-Global Flood Erodes Old Earth Beliefs


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie

22-Global Flood & Continental Drift on Vimeo


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie

23-Global Flood Strata at Grand Canyon on Vimeo


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie

24-3-Day Formation of Grand Canyon


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for a question Hollie.
> 
> How is it fossils of one organism are found in a couple of layers of strata ? because if the organism was buied and died in one layer of strata the rest of the fossil in another layer of strata would not have been preserved. Fossils happen from rapid burial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's really a silly question and can be answered by studying geology.
> 
> In order for this global flood to have occurred, there would need to be the gods to have made if happen. Can you offer evidence for the gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me introduce you to a friend of mine he has many videos dealing with your nonsense.
> 
> 18-Old Earth Brainwashing
Click to expand...

Good gawd but that was a waste of time. 

I really don't appreciate people posing as ministers/priests so blatantly lying to me.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie
> 
> 24-3-Day Formation of Grand Canyon



That was a worse fraud than your other video. 

People ridicule this nonsense for valid reasons.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's really a silly question and can be answered by studying geology.
> 
> In order for this global flood to have occurred, there would need to be the gods to have made if happen. Can you offer evidence for the gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me introduce you to a friend of mine he has many videos dealing with your nonsense.
> 
> 18-Old Earth Brainwashing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good gawd but that was a waste of time.
> 
> I really don't appreciate people posing as ministers/priests so blatantly lying to me.
Click to expand...


Prove he was lying ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> 24-3-Day Formation of Grand Canyon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was a worse fraud than your other video.
> 
> People ridicule this nonsense for valid reasons.
Click to expand...


They ridicule out of ignorance.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me introduce you to a friend of mine he has many videos dealing with your nonsense.
> 
> 18-Old Earth Brainwashing
> 
> 
> 
> Good gawd but that was a waste of time.
> 
> I really don't appreciate people posing as ministers/priests so blatantly lying to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove he was lying ?
Click to expand...


That's easy. There is a wealth of verifiable science that completely dismantles the religious tales and fables.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's really a silly question and can be answered by studying geology.
> 
> In order for this global flood to have occurred, there would need to be the gods to have made if happen. Can you offer evidence for the gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me introduce you to a friend of mine he has many videos dealing with your nonsense.
> 
> 18-Old Earth Brainwashing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good gawd but that was a waste of time.
> 
> I really don't appreciate people posing as ministers/priests so blatantly lying to me.
Click to expand...


He was a theistic evultionist,he no longers believes in Macroevolution for a good reason.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> 24-3-Day Formation of Grand Canyon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was a worse fraud than your other video.
> 
> People ridicule this nonsense for valid reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They ridicule out of ignorance.
Click to expand...


Not at all. Ignorance is defined by embracing fear and superstition when you have been the tools (knowledge), to shed fear and superstition.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good gawd but that was a waste of time.
> 
> I really don't appreciate people posing as ministers/priests so blatantly lying to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove he was lying ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's easy. There is a wealth of verifiable science that completely dismantles the religious tales and fables.
Click to expand...


Wrong,try again.

Address specifically his claims. 

Don't give me this wealth of verifiable science and then not provide any. That way we can open up the discussion to your arguments.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a worse fraud than your other video.
> 
> People ridicule this nonsense for valid reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ridicule out of ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all. Ignorance is defined by embracing fear and superstition when you have been the tools (knowledge), to shed fear and superstition.
Click to expand...


Hollie that is all you have done since you have been here other then copying and pasting something you think answers the questions put to you.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove he was lying ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's easy. There is a wealth of verifiable science that completely dismantles the religious tales and fables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong,try again.
> 
> Address specifically his claims.
> 
> Don't give me this wealth of verifiable science and then not provide any. That way we can open up the discussion to your arguments.
Click to expand...

That's so silly. You do nothing but post goofy videos and expect me to "refute" them?

How is a video going to respond to my post?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They ridicule out of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Ignorance is defined by embracing fear and superstition when you have been the tools (knowledge), to shed fear and superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie that is all you have done since you have been here other then copying and pasting something you think answers the questions put to you.
Click to expand...


I don't expect honesty from fundies and you are consistently dishonest. 

Look through this thread and your last several posts. You do nothing but copy and paste from creationist websites and then demand that others "refute" videos. It's so silly. 

Your lack of ability to defend the arguments you cut and paste leaves you no option but to be the most prolific cut and paster.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's easy. There is a wealth of verifiable science that completely dismantles the religious tales and fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,try again.
> 
> Address specifically his claims.
> 
> Don't give me this wealth of verifiable science and then not provide any. That way we can open up the discussion to your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's so silly. You do nothing but post goofy videos and expect me to "refute" them?
> 
> How is a video going to respond to my post?
Click to expand...


Here silly girl. How come C-14 is still found in dinosaur bones if they went extinct 65 million years ago ?

C-14 Dating

So did my friend lie as you claimed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Ignorance is defined by embracing fear and superstition when you have been the tools (knowledge), to shed fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie that is all you have done since you have been here other then copying and pasting something you think answers the questions put to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't expect honesty from fundies and you are consistently dishonest.
> 
> Look through this thread and your last several posts. You do nothing but copy and paste from creationist websites and then demand that others "refute" videos. It's so silly.
> 
> Your lack of ability to defend the arguments you cut and paste leaves you no option but to be the most prolific cut and paster.
Click to expand...


You are a very disengenous person Hollie.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie that is all you have done since you have been here other then copying and pasting something you think answers the questions put to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect honesty from fundies and you are consistently dishonest.
> 
> Look through this thread and your last several posts. You do nothing but copy and paste from creationist websites and then demand that others "refute" videos. It's so silly.
> 
> Your lack of ability to defend the arguments you cut and paste leaves you no option but to be the most prolific cut and paster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a very disengenous person Hollie.
Click to expand...

False. 

BTW, daws had posted several videos a few pages back. 

I want you to review those and give us your refutation. Is it disingenuous to require you to do what you ask of others?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect honesty from fundies and you are consistently dishonest.
> 
> Look through this thread and your last several posts. You do nothing but copy and paste from creationist websites and then demand that others "refute" videos. It's so silly.
> 
> Your lack of ability to defend the arguments you cut and paste leaves you no option but to be the most prolific cut and paster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a very disengenous person Hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False.
> 
> BTW, daws had posted several videos a few pages back.
> 
> I want you to review those and give us your refutation. Is it disingenuous to require you to do what you ask of others?
Click to expand...



I'll ask you again, why is carbon-14 found in dinosaurs bones if they went extinct 65 million years ago ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,try again.
> 
> Address specifically his claims.
> 
> Don't give me this wealth of verifiable science and then not provide any. That way we can open up the discussion to your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly. You do nothing but post goofy videos and expect me to "refute" them?
> 
> How is a video going to respond to my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here silly girl. How come C-14 is still found in dinosaur bones if they went extinct 65 million years ago ?
> 
> C-14 Dating
> 
> So did my friend lie as you claimed ?
Click to expand...


Do you understand nothing of that dating methodology?

Your question is remarkable in how naive it makes you appear.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a very disengenous person Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> BTW, daws had posted several videos a few pages back.
> 
> I want you to review those and give us your refutation. Is it disingenuous to require you to do what you ask of others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you again, why is carbon-14 found in dinosaurs bones if they went extinct 65 million years ago ?
Click to expand...

Your ignorance derives from your insistence that the bibles are literally true. You close yourself off from any further study of the biological and nature sciences. 

Don't expect others to embrace your ignorance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly. You do nothing but post goofy videos and expect me to "refute" them?
> 
> How is a video going to respond to my post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here silly girl. How come C-14 is still found in dinosaur bones if they went extinct 65 million years ago ?
> 
> C-14 Dating
> 
> So did my friend lie as you claimed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand nothing of that dating methodology?
> 
> Your question is remarkable in how naive it makes you appear.
Click to expand...


You have no idea what I am asking do you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> BTW, daws had posted several videos a few pages back.
> 
> I want you to review those and give us your refutation. Is it disingenuous to require you to do what you ask of others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you again, why is carbon-14 found in dinosaurs bones if they went extinct 65 million years ago ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ignorance derives from your insistence that the bibles are literally true. You close yourself off from any further study of the biological and nature sciences.
> 
> Don't expect others to embrace your ignorance.
Click to expand...


Like I said before,you don't know what c-14 is do you ? You don't understand c-14 only lasts so long, definitely not 65 million years.

Now do you get the problem ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here silly girl. How come C-14 is still found in dinosaur bones if they went extinct 65 million years ago ?
> 
> C-14 Dating
> 
> So did my friend lie as you claimed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand nothing of that dating methodology?
> 
> Your question is remarkable in how naive it makes you appear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what I am asking do you ?
Click to expand...


It is you who has no idea what you're asking.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you again, why is carbon-14 found in dinosaurs bones if they went extinct 65 million years ago ?
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance derives from your insistence that the bibles are literally true. You close yourself off from any further study of the biological and nature sciences.
> 
> Don't expect others to embrace your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said before,you don't know what c-14 is do you ? You don't understand c-14 only lasts so long, definitely not 65 million years.
> 
> Now do you get the problem ?
Click to expand...


Do you understand that C-14 is not the only method of dating?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> consistent in *parotting* the creation ministry mouthpieces in their scripted slogans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So funny. I just used this word on Hollie in the America is a Christian Nation thread and she comes here and uses it on you. Hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hadn't realized you had exclusive rights to specific words. May the gods give you more entitlements.
Click to expand...


Copycat.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just ken ham, your side is baffled by many of these findings creationist are not baffled by these findings they predicted this in their model because of the global flood.
> 
> 
> 
> Who, specifically is baffled by "many of these findings". What findings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How whale grave yards are being found where they are. Did you not read the articles I posted they were not from creationist,these articles were from people of science that see things the way you do.
Click to expand...


Hollie read???


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They ridicule out of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Ignorance is defined by embracing fear and superstition when you have been the tools (knowledge), to shed fear and superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie that is all you have done since you have been here other then copying and pasting something you think answers the questions put to you.
Click to expand...


Good thing to know our tax dollars are hard at work so that Hawly can use her disability check to sit home eating bon bons and harass Christians on the internet all day.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So funny. I just used this word on Hollie in the America is a Christian Nation thread and she comes here and uses it on you. Hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't realized you had exclusive rights to specific words. May the gods give you more entitlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Copycat.
Click to expand...


Shush, child.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Ignorance is defined by embracing fear and superstition when you have been the tools (knowledge), to shed fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie that is all you have done since you have been here other then copying and pasting something you think answers the questions put to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good thing to know our tax dollars are hard at work so that Hawly can use her disability check to sit home eating bon bons and harass Christians on the internet all day.
Click to expand...


Shouldn't you be out thumping people with your bibles?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance derives from your insistence that the bibles are literally true. You close yourself off from any further study of the biological and nature sciences.
> 
> Don't expect others to embrace your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before,you don't know what c-14 is do you ? You don't understand c-14 only lasts so long, definitely not 65 million years.
> 
> Now do you get the problem ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand that C-14 is not the only method of dating?
Click to expand...


Let me point out your ignorance. The question was not that you could not use c - 14  dating on 65 million year old dinosaurs supposedly. My question was why is carbon 14 found in 65 million year old dinosaurs when carbon 14 won't last that long. In other words dinosaurs could not have went extinct 65 million years ago because there would be no carbon 14 still found in their bones. You are really making yourself look foolish..


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before,you don't know what c-14 is do you ? You don't understand c-14 only lasts so long, definitely not 65 million years.
> 
> Now do you get the problem ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that C-14 is not the only method of dating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me point out your ignorance. The question was not that you could not use c - 14  dating on 65 million year old dinosaurs supposedly. My question was why is carbon 14 found in 65 million year old dinosaurs when carbon 14 won't last that long. In other words dinosaurs could not have went extinct 65 million years ago because there would be no carbon 14 still found in their bones. You are really making yourself look foolish..
Click to expand...

Once again, your lack of any training in science leaves you at the mercy of the hacks at the ICR for your false claims. 

My suspicion is that you're getting information about carbon 14 dating methods from your creation ministries.  You don't supply ant specifics relative to your claim above so its difficult to respond to that nonsensical claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that C-14 is not the only method of dating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point out your ignorance. The question was not that you could not use c - 14  dating on 65 million year old dinosaurs supposedly. My question was why is carbon 14 found in 65 million year old dinosaurs when carbon 14 won't last that long. In other words dinosaurs could not have went extinct 65 million years ago because there would be no carbon 14 still found in their bones. You are really making yourself look foolish..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, your lack of any training in science leaves you at the mercy of the hacks at the ICR for your false claims.
> 
> My suspicion is that you're getting information about carbon 14 dating methods from your creation ministries.  You don't supply ant specifics relative to your claim above so its difficult to respond to that nonsensical claim.
Click to expand...

 you really can't be this ignorant. I provided you a link from a pro evolution site. If you knew anything at all we discussed blood cells found in dinosaurs as well. I see your chemistry background is weak as well.  You are ,ignorance on display.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point out your ignorance. The question was not that you could not use c - 14  dating on 65 million year old dinosaurs supposedly. My question was why is carbon 14 found in 65 million year old dinosaurs when carbon 14 won't last that long. In other words dinosaurs could not have went extinct 65 million years ago because there would be no carbon 14 still found in their bones. You are really making yourself look foolish..
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, your lack of any training in science leaves you at the mercy of the hacks at the ICR for your false claims.
> 
> My suspicion is that you're getting information about carbon 14 dating methods from your creation ministries.  You don't supply ant specifics relative to your claim above so its difficult to respond to that nonsensical claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you really can't be this ignorant. I provided you a link from a pro evolution site. If you knew anything at all we discussed blood cells found in dinosaurs as well. I see your chemistry background is weak as well.  You are ,ignorance on display.
Click to expand...

You actually are this ignorant. The site makes no claim to being "evilutionist".  That is your characterization and as usual, reflects your need to define the study of earth history in derogatory terms because that history conflicts with a 6,000 year old earth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, your lack of any training in science leaves you at the mercy of the hacks at the ICR for your false claims.
> 
> My suspicion is that you're getting information about carbon 14 dating methods from your creation ministries.  You don't supply ant specifics relative to your claim above so its difficult to respond to that nonsensical claim.
> 
> 
> 
> you really can't be this ignorant. I provided you a link from a pro evolution site. If you knew anything at all we discussed blood cells found in dinosaurs as well. I see your chemistry background is weak as well.  You are ,ignorance on display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You actually are this ignorant. The site makes no claim to being "evilutionist".  That is your characterization and as usual, reflects your need to define the study of earth history in derogatory terms because that history conflicts with a 6,000 year old earth.
Click to expand...


Wrong again.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So funny. I just used this word on Hollie in the America is a Christian Nation thread and she comes here and uses it on you. Hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah... the jokes on you !
> by repeating it you are parotting !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you just did it too!
Click to expand...

now you're catching on...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you afraid of Daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> dodge!
> 
> why are you lazy and illiterate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a joke Daws.
Click to expand...

still dodging !


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove I believe the bible provides better answers concerning life,the universe, chronology then modern day scientist's.
> 
> 
> 
> no, you have to prove that the bible is quantitative and accurate.
> your belief does none of those things.
> as to your answer it's  a childish and chicken shit response to valid question.
> who's afraid again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> edited for wall of text and no evidence to  coroberate  the claims made.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you afraid of Daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> dodge!
> 
> why are you lazy and illiterate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was your side that made the claim but it's my responsibility to provide the evidence  So you produce one fossil bone and all that conjecture to make a point. Do you realize how funny you are ?
Click to expand...

nice! spin I provided all the evidence needed to prove that whales once had legs .(that's fact not conjecture) 
your "learned" (lmao) response was "no way Jose"
so you were given the option to prove me wrong  by finding evidence that whales never had legs and you failed and are still failing to provide any evidence at all for your claim  to be valid.
 so I ask again: why are you lazy and illiterate?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> dodge!
> 
> why are you lazy and illiterate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a joke Daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still dodging !
Click to expand...


Hello Hollie,you show up when Hollie gets it handed to her.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> dodge!
> 
> why are you lazy and illiterate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was your side that made the claim but it's my responsibility to provide the evidence  So you produce one fossil bone and all that conjecture to make a point. Do you realize how funny you are ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice! spin I provided all the evidence needed to prove that whales once had legs .(that's fact not conjecture)
> your "learned" (lmao) response was "no way Jose"
> so you were given the option to prove me wrong  by finding evidence that whales never had legs and you failed and are still failing to provide any evidence at all for your claim  to be valid.
> so I ask again: why are you lazy and illiterate?
Click to expand...


No spin just a fact, Your side made the claim whales had legs at one point in time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> dodge!
> 
> why are you lazy and illiterate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was your side that made the claim but it's my responsibility to provide the evidence  So you produce one fossil bone and all that conjecture to make a point. Do you realize how funny you are ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice! spin I provided all the evidence needed to prove that whales once had legs .(that's fact not conjecture)
> your "learned" (lmao) response was "no way Jose"
> so you were given the option to prove me wrong  by finding evidence that whales never had legs and you failed and are still failing to provide any evidence at all for your claim  to be valid.
> so I ask again: why are you lazy and illiterate?
Click to expand...


In your dreams,you provided conjecture. Where is this full bodied fossil that proves it ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for a question Hollie.
> 
> How is it fossils of one organism are found in a couple of layers of strata ? because if the organism was buied and died in one layer of strata the rest of the fossil in another layer of strata would not have been preserved. Fossils happen from rapid burial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's really a silly question and can be answered by studying geology.
> 
> In order for this global flood to have occurred, there would need to be the gods to have made if happen. Can you offer evidence for the gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me introduce you to a friend of mine he has many videos dealing with your nonsense.
> 
> 18-Old Earth Brainwashing
Click to expand...

should that be titled: young earthers making up shit to fit their agenda?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a joke Daws.
> 
> 
> 
> still dodging !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello Hollie,you show up when Hollie gets it handed to her.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't let your paranoia get in the way of your conspiracy theories. 

You are now scrambling to defend your silly claim about evilutionists using c-14 dating methods for skeletal fosill remains when that was not the case. 

That's not the first time your frantic cut and pasting has left you embarrassed.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was your side that made the claim but it's my responsibility to provide the evidence  So you produce one fossil bone and all that conjecture to make a point. Do you realize how funny you are ?
> 
> 
> 
> nice! spin I provided all the evidence needed to prove that whales once had legs .(that's fact not conjecture)
> your "learned" (lmao) response was "no way Jose"
> so you were given the option to prove me wrong  by finding evidence that whales never had legs and you failed and are still failing to provide any evidence at all for your claim  to be valid.
> so I ask again: why are you lazy and illiterate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No spin just a fact, Your side made the claim whales had legs at one point in time.
Click to expand...

it's not a claim it's fact. find actual scientific evidence and prove me wrong.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How whale grave yards are being found where they are. Did you not read the articles I posted they were not from creationist,these articles were from people of science that see things the way you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is within the article that you're having difficulty with?
> 
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood Second Edition by Mark Isaak
> Copyright © 1998 [Last Update: November 16, 1998
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense,you are avoiding strong evidence for a global flood for what reason ?
Click to expand...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY]Noah's Flood - debunked (Part 1) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> nice! spin I provided all the evidence needed to prove that whales once had legs .(that's fact not conjecture)
> your "learned" (lmao) response was "no way Jose"
> so you were given the option to prove me wrong  by finding evidence that whales never had legs and you failed and are still failing to provide any evidence at all for your claim  to be valid.
> so I ask again: why are you lazy and illiterate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No spin just a fact, Your side made the claim whales had legs at one point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's not a claim it's fact. find actual scientific evidence and prove me wrong.
Click to expand...


Why would I prove something wrong you can't produce ?


----------



## Big_D

UltimateReality said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that they show a slow transition from what they looked like millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is precisely what the fossil record *doesn't* show, a slow transition. More like punctuated equilibrium [The new term to ignore the evidence Darwin was smoking crack].
Click to expand...





Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is precisely what the fossil record *doesn't* show, a slow transition. More like punctuated equilibrium [The new term to ignore the evidence Darwin was smoking crack].
> 
> 
> 
> False. The are many cases (the progression of humans, for example), showing a clear progression and transition from early ancestor to current humans.
> 
> Don't let your lack of training in science and your religious affliction cause you to man's such nonsensical statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they havn't.
> 
> Read the facts and see how this guy admits the fossil record is not even close to complete but we knew that right. So the fossil record is based on conjecture.
> 
> http://phylointelligence.com/fossils.html
Click to expand...


I would certainly define this as a slow transition.

http://www.macroevolution.net/human-evolution-chart-1.html#human-evolution-chart
Human Evolution Chart (Sec. 2) &#8211; Online Biology Dictionary

May I ask if you also believe in Noah's Ark to it fullest?  If so, how do you explain how the animals could all fit in the Ark and how they could have been fed, bathed, have their waste removed, and have the property temperature for each specific animal.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is within the article that you're having difficulty with?
> 
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood Second Edition by Mark Isaak
> Copyright © 1998 [Last Update: November 16, 1998
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense,you are avoiding strong evidence for a global flood for what reason ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY]Noah's Flood - debunked (Part 1) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSvktyxVYA]Noah&#39;s Flood debunked (Part 2) - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Your debunker can't debunk the word of God that explains the global flood and can be confirmed through evidence.

Fail as usual.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGeULHljDn8]Startling Evidence That Noah&#39;s Flood Really Happened - YouTube[/ame]


Age of the earth.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOvyuNxlovE&feature=related]Scientific Evidences For a Young Earth - Dr. Thomas Kindell - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

Here ya go some more.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VCu9aN2tE4&feature=related]John Morris (2010) The Young Earth - Creation occurred not long ago (SCC 2010) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Big_D

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is precisely what the fossil record *doesn't* show, a slow transition. More like punctuated equilibrium [The new term to ignore the evidence Darwin was smoking crack].
> 
> 
> 
> False. The are many cases (the progression of humans, for example), showing a clear progression and transition from early ancestor to current humans.
> 
> Don't let your lack of training in science and your religious affliction cause you to man's such nonsensical statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they havn't.
> 
> Read the facts and see how this guy admits the fossil record is not even close to complete but we knew that right. So the fossil record is based on conjecture.
> 
> The Fossil Record
Click to expand...


I would certainly define this as a slow transition.

http://www.macroevolution.net/human-evolution-chart-1.html#human-evolution-chart
Human Evolution Chart (Sec. 2)  Online Biology Dictionary

May I ask if you also believe in Noah's Ark to it fullest?  If so, how do you explain how the animals could all fit in the Ark and how they could have been fed, bathed, have their waste removed, and have the property temperature for each specific animal.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. The are many cases (the progression of humans, for example), showing a clear progression and transition from early ancestor to current humans.
> 
> Don't let your lack of training in science and your religious affliction cause you to man's such nonsensical statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they havn't.
> 
> Read the facts and see how this guy admits the fossil record is not even close to complete but we knew that right. So the fossil record is based on conjecture.
> 
> The Fossil Record
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would certainly define this as a slow transition.
> 
> http://www.macroevolution.net/human-evolution-chart-1.html#human-evolution-chart
> Human Evolution Chart (Sec. 2) &#8211; Online Biology Dictionary
> 
> May I ask if you also believe in Noah's Ark to it fullest?  If so, how do you explain how the animals could all fit in the Ark and how they could have been fed, bathed, have their waste removed, and have the property temperature for each specific animal.
Click to expand...


Read up on punctuated eqilibrium.

If all organisms are transitional organisms and every organism experience mutations how come living fossils of today show no change from the ancient past ?


Just look arond this This site,it  has a lot of fossils that show no change from their ancient ancestors.

Living-Fossils.com


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they havn't.
> 
> Read the facts and see how this guy admits the fossil record is not even close to complete but we knew that right. So the fossil record is based on conjecture.
> 
> The Fossil Record
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would certainly define this as a slow transition.
> 
> http://www.macroevolution.net/human-evolution-chart-1.html#human-evolution-chart
> Human Evolution Chart (Sec. 2)  Online Biology Dictionary
> 
> May I ask if you also believe in Noah's Ark to it fullest?  If so, how do you explain how the animals could all fit in the Ark and how they could have been fed, bathed, have their waste removed, and have the property temperature for each specific animal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read up on punctuated eqilibrium.
> 
> If all organisms are transitional organisms and every organism experience mutations how come living fossils of today show no change from the ancient past ?
> 
> 
> Just look arond this This site,it  has a lot of fossils that show no change from their ancient ancestors.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
Click to expand...



From the site you linked to:
"The theory of evolution is a fictitious story written about the natural history of species, and is actually refuted by the scientific findings its adherents obtain!" 

I'm afraid you have again simply cut and pasted the same tired religious nonsense that has been refuted for the last 150 years.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Here ya go some more.
> 
> John Morris (2010) The Young Earth - Creation occurred not long ago (SCC 2010) - YouTube



Some more creationist nonsense.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Your debunker can't debunk the word of God that explains the global flood and can be confirmed through evidence.
> 
> Fail as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Age of the earth.





Those silly videos just reek of amateur.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. The are many cases (the progression of humans, for example), showing a clear progression and transition from early ancestor to current humans.
> 
> Don't let your lack of training in science and your religious affliction cause you to man's such nonsensical statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they havn't.
> 
> Read the facts and see how this guy admits the fossil record is not even close to complete but we knew that right. So the fossil record is based on conjecture.
> 
> The Fossil Record
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would certainly define this as a slow transition.
> 
> http://www.macroevolution.net/human-evolution-chart-1.html#human-evolution-chart
> Human Evolution Chart (Sec. 2) &#8211; Online Biology Dictionary
> 
> May I ask if you also believe in Noah's Ark to it fullest?  If so, how do you explain how the animals could all fit in the Ark and how they could have been fed, bathed, have their waste removed, and have the property temperature for each specific animal.
Click to expand...


Not every living organism that has ever lived went on the ark. There is diversity in each family because the genetic information was already there in the genome. The diversity of a family group comes from gene recombination,cross breeding,and selective breeding.

If everything slowly evolved over millions and billions of years where are these transitional fossils. Why are these that evolved from one group to another group not still arond but the ones they evolved from are still here ? I mean the explanation given is the better adapted transitional organisms pass on their traits through natural selection.

If you are not willing to put your beliefs to the test a person can be mislead. That is why many evolutionist and ex atheist have done and have become believers because the evidence better supports a designer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would certainly define this as a slow transition.
> 
> http://www.macroevolution.net/human-evolution-chart-1.html#human-evolution-chart
> Human Evolution Chart (Sec. 2)  Online Biology Dictionary
> 
> May I ask if you also believe in Noah's Ark to it fullest?  If so, how do you explain how the animals could all fit in the Ark and how they could have been fed, bathed, have their waste removed, and have the property temperature for each specific animal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read up on punctuated eqilibrium.
> 
> If all organisms are transitional organisms and every organism experience mutations how come living fossils of today show no change from the ancient past ?
> 
> 
> Just look arond this This site,it  has a lot of fossils that show no change from their ancient ancestors.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From the site you linked to:
> "The theory of evolution is a fictitious story written about the natural history of species, and is actually refuted by the scientific findings its adherents obtain!"
> 
> I'm afraid you have again simply cut and pasted the same tired religious nonsense that has been refuted for the last 150 years.
Click to expand...


Hollie why do these living fossils show no change from their ancient ancestors according to dating methods ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya go some more.
> 
> John Morris (2010) The Young Earth - Creation occurred not long ago (SCC 2010) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some more creationist nonsense.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry maybe they are just speaking about things you don't understand.


----------



## Hollie

I always find it interesting that the silly videos linked to by youwerecreated are so typically connected to the primary charlatans connected to such organizations as the ICR. 

Promonent among these charlatans is John Morris. He is profiled in the Encyclopedia of American Loons. What a lovely endoresment.


From the Encyclopedia of American Loons

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #288: John D. Morris

*#288: John D. Morris*


John D. Morris is the son of the original modern young earth creationist, Henry Morris, the first one to try to construe science as just another religion, and hence on equal footing with respect to truth-aptness as Biblical literalism. John D. has followed in his fathers footsteps as president of the Institute for Creation Research (he is also an engineer). Most of his time is spent touring churches to misrepresent the fossil record (some of it is actually covered here; see also 

this: Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines  and, 

this: Lancelet on AIG, ICR and Tiktaalik &#8211; Dispatches from the Creation Wars

His general tactic is to contrast the harmful philosophies and evil practices that are fruits of the evolutionary tree (including promiscuity, pornography, homosexuality, atheism & abortion), with the genuine Christianity and correct practices of the creationist tree (including true history, true Americanism, true science, and true government). 

Relatively standard fare, discussed nicely in this three part series (John features prominently)
: 
Part I,   &#8220;Pithecophobes of the World, Unite!&#8221; (Part I) &#8211; Stranger Fruit

Part II,   &#8220;Pithecophobes of the World, Unite!&#8221; (Part I) &#8211; Stranger Fruit 

and Part III.  &#8220;Pithecophobes of the World, Unite!&#8221; (Part III) &#8211; Stranger Fruit

Together with Ken Ham he has written what seems to pass for a science textbook among creationists: Answers in Genesis is proudly Bible-based &#8211; Pharyngula.

Hes not the only spawn of Henry Morris running around creating havoc. Henry Morris III is the CEO of the Institute for Creation Research (and ol Henrys grandson, apparently). He was the guy who was most involved in the institutes attempt to be given the authority to pass out graduate degrees in science. While their attempts found some support (see Leo Berman), it eventually failed, fortunately.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your debunker can't debunk the word of God that explains the global flood and can be confirmed through evidence.
> 
> Fail as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Age of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those silly videos just reek of amateur.
Click to expand...


If they are so amateur where are your rebuttals ? Talk is cheap.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> I always find it interesting that the silly videos linked to by youwerecreated are so typically connected to the primary charlatans connected to such organizations as the ICR.
> 
> Promonent among these charlatans is John Morris. He is profiled in the Encyclopedia of American Loons. What a lovely endoresment.
> 
> 
> From the Encyclopedia of American Loons
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #288: John D. Morris
> 
> *#288: John D. Morris*
> 
> 
> John D. Morris is the son of the original modern young earth creationist, Henry Morris, the first one to try to construe science as just another religion, and hence on equal footing with respect to truth-aptness as Biblical literalism. John D. has followed in his fathers footsteps as president of the Institute for Creation Research (he is also an engineer). Most of his time is spent touring churches to misrepresent the fossil record (some of it is actually covered here; see also
> 
> this: Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines  and,
> 
> this: Lancelet on AIG, ICR and Tiktaalik  Dispatches from the Creation Wars
> 
> His general tactic is to contrast the harmful philosophies and evil practices that are fruits of the evolutionary tree (including promiscuity, pornography, homosexuality, atheism & abortion), with the genuine Christianity and correct practices of the creationist tree (including true history, true Americanism, true science, and true government).
> 
> Relatively standard fare, discussed nicely in this three part series (John features prominently)
> :
> Part I,   Pithecophobes of the World, Unite! (Part I)  Stranger Fruit
> 
> Part II,   Pithecophobes of the World, Unite! (Part I)  Stranger Fruit
> 
> and Part III.  Pithecophobes of the World, Unite! (Part III)  Stranger Fruit
> 
> Together with Ken Ham he has written what seems to pass for a science textbook among creationists: Answers in Genesis is proudly Bible-based  Pharyngula.
> 
> Hes not the only spawn of Henry Morris running around creating havoc. Henry Morris III is the CEO of the Institute for Creation Research (and ol Henrys grandson, apparently). He was the guy who was most involved in the institutes attempt to be given the authority to pass out graduate degrees in science. While their attempts found some support (see Leo Berman), it eventually failed, fortunately.



Do you realize how evolutionist are sons and daughters of evolutionist ? By watching the video we know they are creationist.

Hollie it's whose theory present the best argument with the evidence.

The courts are filled with people that to have been brainwashed into believing in evolution,naturally they will support the evolutionist. The more evidence gathered the harder it is to hold on to the fairytale of naturalism.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Age of the earth.
> 
> Scientific Evidences For a Young Earth - Dr. Thomas Kindell - YouTube




Does anyone else find it interesting that Dr. Thomas Kindell is a creationist hack who does not hold a real doctorate or ph.D but rather some phony title in "Biblical apologetics".

J. Horatio Christ but what a sad, pathetic little man is youwerecreated who promote such a charlatan and a fraud. 

Thomas Kindell - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Dr. Thomas Kindell was once an ardent believer in the fact of evolution. However, through his exposure to the scientific case for creation, he became a zealous creationist. He has received advanced training in scientific creationism through the Graduate School of the Institute for Creation Research in Santee, California. He has been privileged to study under several of the world's most prominent creation scientists. He also has studied Christian Apologetics and Biblical-Scientific Creationism at California Graduate School of Theology where he received his M.A. in Biblical Studies. He holds a Doctorate in Philosophy of Theology (major in philosophy of Biblical apologetics.)

Dr. Kindell is the founder and president of Reasons for Faith Ministries, Inc., a non-profit ministry dedicated to equipping Christian believers to give every man an answer for their Biblical faith. He is a licensed Assemblies of God evangelist and is the only credentialed Assemblies minister devoted to full-time teaching of Creation-Science apologetics. He is a member of the Oregon Design Science Association and is a lifetime sustaining member of the Creation Research Society.

For over twenty-eight years he has engaged in a traveling teaching ministry lecturing on Biblical apologetics and the scientific case for creation. Dr. Kindell is available for speaking engagements full-time on a free will offering basis throughout the United States and abroad. His seminars have been enthusiastically endorsed by Dr. Duane T. Gish, Senior Vice&#8209;President Emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research. He has also successfully debated the scientific case for creation against notable evolutionists on high school and college campuses, radio, and television. Dr. Kindell is a frequent guest on the radio series Science, Scripture & Salvation which is produced by the Institute for Creation Research. He is the author of the acclaimed book, Evolution on Trial.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always find it interesting that the silly videos linked to by youwerecreated are so typically connected to the primary charlatans connected to such organizations as the ICR.
> 
> Promonent among these charlatans is John Morris. He is profiled in the Encyclopedia of American Loons. What a lovely endoresment.
> 
> 
> From the Encyclopedia of American Loons
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #288: John D. Morris
> 
> *#288: John D. Morris*
> 
> 
> John D. Morris is the son of the original modern young earth creationist, Henry Morris, the first one to try to construe science as just another religion, and hence on equal footing with respect to truth-aptness as Biblical literalism. John D. has followed in his fathers footsteps as president of the Institute for Creation Research (he is also an engineer). Most of his time is spent touring churches to misrepresent the fossil record (some of it is actually covered here; see also
> 
> this: Creationist Arguments: Australopithecines  and,
> 
> this: Lancelet on AIG, ICR and Tiktaalik  Dispatches from the Creation Wars
> 
> His general tactic is to contrast the harmful philosophies and evil practices that are fruits of the evolutionary tree (including promiscuity, pornography, homosexuality, atheism & abortion), with the genuine Christianity and correct practices of the creationist tree (including true history, true Americanism, true science, and true government).
> 
> Relatively standard fare, discussed nicely in this three part series (John features prominently)
> :
> Part I,   Pithecophobes of the World, Unite! (Part I)  Stranger Fruit
> 
> Part II,   Pithecophobes of the World, Unite! (Part I)  Stranger Fruit
> 
> and Part III.  Pithecophobes of the World, Unite! (Part III)  Stranger Fruit
> 
> Together with Ken Ham he has written what seems to pass for a science textbook among creationists: Answers in Genesis is proudly Bible-based  Pharyngula.
> 
> Hes not the only spawn of Henry Morris running around creating havoc. Henry Morris III is the CEO of the Institute for Creation Research (and ol Henrys grandson, apparently). He was the guy who was most involved in the institutes attempt to be given the authority to pass out graduate degrees in science. While their attempts found some support (see Leo Berman), it eventually failed, fortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize how evolutionist are sons and daughters of evolutionist ? By watching the video we know they are creationist.
> 
> Hollie it's whose theory present the best argument with the evidence.
> 
> The courts are filled with people that to have been brainwashed into believing in evolution,naturally they will support the evolutionist. The more evidence gathered the harder it is to hold on to the fairytale of naturalism.
Click to expand...


That's so silly. The hacks who you promote are charlatans and snake oil salesmen.

You really should be ashamed of yourself by promoting lies and deception.


----------



## Hollie

Hey, go figure. Another of youwerecreateds silly videos was hosted by yet another creationist-religious whack job. Here again, another religious charlatan who is a meteorologist but has decided that he can speak authoritatively on the geologic record.

Does anyone else find it curious that so many of the charlatans that appear in the goofy videos cut and pasted ny youwwerecreated have no training or academic credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about?

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #303: Michael Oard

#303: Michael Oard


And now we are back to the creationists. Michael Oard is associated with Answers in Genesis and has published several creation science articles in their in-house journal Answers. Together with Peter Klevberg he has contributed Green River Formation Very Likely Did Not Form in a Postdiluvian Lake. Indeed. For the junk rag Creation he has written, among other things, Do Rivers Erode Through Mountains. His answer is that a global flood must be assumed. The geological evidence is  absent. He has also written the book Flood by Design. You see where this is going. 

Thing is, Oard  who is a meteorologist  is obsessed about taking geology back from those evil evolutionary geologists (Don Battens term  Batten would have merited inclusion in our Encyclopedia were he not Australian). Oard also denies the existence of black holes and dark matter. Apparently his area of expertise is endless. He has become modestly known for his own theory of the origin of the moon but claims to be suppressed by  you guessed it  evolutionary astronomers. If nothing else works, Oard is pretty quick to appeal to the different worldview gambit. But of course, it applies exclusively to evolutionary scientists, who only confirm their preconceptions and are blinded to the alternatives  not to himself. 

With one Beverly Oard (presumably a wife) he has also written what passes for a creationist science book, Life in the Great Ice Age  a picture book designed for homeschool use, appropriate for kids aged 68, and another excellent illustration of what creation scientists are trying to achieve. It has nothing to do with science, of course, but everything to do with converting kids to Jesus.

He has, predictably, denied AGW  which is promoted by uniformitarian scientists. Just as geology, astronomy and biology, I suppose.

Diagnosis: Why are all these deluded, conspiracy-mongering religious fanatics also so blatantly dishonest? In any case, Oard is as deluded and dishonest as they come.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Do you realize how evolutionist are sons and daughters of evolutionist ? .


Actually, I haven't noticed that. 

But since I can only presume that you have no clue about that which you speak, please identify for us those "evolutionists" whose sons and daughters are "evolutionist."


In the meantime, do a search for the hacks - like father, like son John Morris.


----------



## Big_D

Youwerecreated said:


> Not every living organism that has ever lived went on the ark. There is diversity in each family because the genetic information was already there in the genome. The diversity of a family group comes from gene recombination,cross breeding,and selective breeding.
> 
> Why are these that evolved from one group to another group If everything slowly evolved over millions and billions of years where are these transitional fossils. not still arond but the ones they evolved from are still here ? I mean the explanation given is the better adapted transitional organisms pass on their traits through natural selection.
> 
> If you are not willing to put your beliefs to the test a person can be mislead. That is why many evolutionist and ex atheist have done and have become believers because the evidence better supports a designer.



Are you saying that not all dogs needed to be on the Ark and just one breed?  If so, then how are bulldogs, poodles, great danes, and others around today if pugs were the chosen dog on the ark?  Also, how could animals that need a cold climate live next to an animal that needs a warm climate?  Also, I presume that the water that rained down was fresh water.  If this is true then how did the salt water fish survive?

I never heard the transitional fossil argument before you brought it up but I saw a number articles and websites that shows transitional fossils have been found.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Hey, go figure. Another of youwerecreateds silly videos was hosted by yet another creationist-religious whack job. Here again, another religious charlatan who is a meteorologist but has decided that he can speak authoritatively on the geologic record.
> 
> Does anyone else find it curious that so many of the charlatans that appear in the goofy videos cut and pasted ny youwwerecreated have no training or academic credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about?
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #303: Michael Oard
> 
> #303: Michael Oard
> 
> 
> And now we are back to the creationists. Michael Oard is associated with Answers in Genesis and has published several creation science articles in their in-house journal Answers. Together with Peter Klevberg he has contributed Green River Formation Very Likely Did Not Form in a Postdiluvian Lake. Indeed. For the junk rag Creation he has written, among other things, Do Rivers Erode Through Mountains. His answer is that a global flood must be assumed. The geological evidence is  absent. He has also written the book Flood by Design. You see where this is going.
> 
> Thing is, Oard  who is a meteorologist  is obsessed about taking geology back from those evil evolutionary geologists (Don Battens term  Batten would have merited inclusion in our Encyclopedia were he not Australian). Oard also denies the existence of black holes and dark matter. Apparently his area of expertise is endless. He has become modestly known for his own theory of the origin of the moon but claims to be suppressed by  you guessed it  evolutionary astronomers. If nothing else works, Oard is pretty quick to appeal to the different worldview gambit. But of course, it applies exclusively to evolutionary scientists, who only confirm their preconceptions and are blinded to the alternatives  not to himself.
> 
> With one Beverly Oard (presumably a wife) he has also written what passes for a creationist science book, Life in the Great Ice Age  a picture book designed for homeschool use, appropriate for kids aged 68, and another excellent illustration of what creation scientists are trying to achieve. It has nothing to do with science, of course, but everything to do with converting kids to Jesus.
> 
> He has, predictably, denied AGW  which is promoted by uniformitarian scientists. Just as geology, astronomy and biology, I suppose.
> 
> Diagnosis: Why are all these deluded, conspiracy-mongering religious fanatics also so blatantly dishonest? In any case, Oard is as deluded and dishonest as they come.



Hollie you can insult these men of science all you like but people know they are creationist these videos were taken from speakers from creation conferences.

How bout you deal with their explanations.


----------



## Hollie

Big_D said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not every living organism that has ever lived went on the ark. There is diversity in each family because the genetic information was already there in the genome. The diversity of a family group comes from gene recombination,cross breeding,and selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So would that mean in just 6,000 years, the breeds of dogs today all evolved from from a very few breeds that were on the Ark?
> 
> That's odd because my Great Dane is linked to a breed of dog very similar in size, stature, color and appearance that existed in ancient Egypt.
> 
> I'm curious because as we know, it was extraterrestrials who obviously built the pyramids (and must have brought with them a Great Dane-like dog) so isnt it possible that these same extraterrestrials are really the true gods?
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, go figure. Another of youwerecreateds silly videos was hosted by yet another creationist-religious whack job. Here again, another religious charlatan who is a meteorologist but has decided that he can speak authoritatively on the geologic record.
> 
> Does anyone else find it curious that so many of the charlatans that appear in the goofy videos cut and pasted ny youwwerecreated have no training or academic credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about?
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #303: Michael Oard
> 
> #303: Michael Oard
> 
> 
> And now we are back to the creationists. Michael Oard is associated with Answers in Genesis and has published several creation science articles in their in-house journal Answers. Together with Peter Klevberg he has contributed Green River Formation Very Likely Did Not Form in a Postdiluvian Lake. Indeed. For the junk rag Creation he has written, among other things, Do Rivers Erode Through Mountains. His answer is that a global flood must be assumed. The geological evidence is  absent. He has also written the book Flood by Design. You see where this is going.
> 
> Thing is, Oard  who is a meteorologist  is obsessed about taking geology back from those evil evolutionary geologists (Don Battens term  Batten would have merited inclusion in our Encyclopedia were he not Australian). Oard also denies the existence of black holes and dark matter. Apparently his area of expertise is endless. He has become modestly known for his own theory of the origin of the moon but claims to be suppressed by  you guessed it  evolutionary astronomers. If nothing else works, Oard is pretty quick to appeal to the different worldview gambit. But of course, it applies exclusively to evolutionary scientists, who only confirm their preconceptions and are blinded to the alternatives  not to himself.
> 
> With one Beverly Oard (presumably a wife) he has also written what passes for a creationist science book, Life in the Great Ice Age  a picture book designed for homeschool use, appropriate for kids aged 68, and another excellent illustration of what creation scientists are trying to achieve. It has nothing to do with science, of course, but everything to do with converting kids to Jesus.
> 
> He has, predictably, denied AGW  which is promoted by uniformitarian scientists. Just as geology, astronomy and biology, I suppose.
> 
> Diagnosis: Why are all these deluded, conspiracy-mongering religious fanatics also so blatantly dishonest? In any case, Oard is as deluded and dishonest as they come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you can insult these men of science all you like but people know they are creationist these videos were taken from speakers from creation conferences.
> 
> How bout you deal with their explanations.
Click to expand...


These are not men of science but men of a peculiar disability who rattle on about subjects they have no training in. 

Why do you think a meterologist is qualified to interpret the geological record especially when he has signed an agreement (as with the ICR), that any material he distributes must meet with the ICR policies?

I understand you endorse such dishonesty and charlatanism but don't expect others to be accomplices to your dishonesty and lies.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not every living organism that has ever lived went on the ark. There is diversity in each family because the genetic information was already there in the genome. The diversity of a family group comes from gene recombination,cross breeding,and selective breeding.
> 
> Why are these that evolved from one group to another group If everything slowly evolved over millions and billions of years where are these transitional fossils. not still arond but the ones they evolved from are still here ? I mean the explanation given is the better adapted transitional organisms pass on their traits through natural selection.
> 
> If you are not willing to put your beliefs to the test a person can be mislead. That is why many evolutionist and ex atheist have done and have become believers because the evidence better supports a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that not all dogs needed to be on the Ark and just one breed?  If so, then how are bulldogs, poodles, great danes, and others around today if pugs were the chosen dog on the ark?  Also, how could animals that need a cold climate live next to an animal that needs a warm climate?  Also, I presume that the water that rained down was fresh water.  If this is true then how did the salt water fish survive?
> 
> I never heard the transitional fossil argument before you brought it up but I saw a number articles and websites that shows transitional fossils have been found.
Click to expand...


I would say and some believe that wolves were on the ark and mutts were on the ark. The wolves accounted for all wild dogs and the mutts accounted for all dometicated dogs.

How did we get the many different breeds would be through cross breeding,gene recombination,and selective breeding. Most purebred dogs in the wild and or domesticated dogs are the product of several diiferent crossings. If you trace all the different breeds that make up aoxer you will understand they are products of selective cross breeding.

If you take that one purebred and cross it with a mutt the first litter would not look like a purebred anymore correct ? The only way you maintain the purebred traits is breed a purebreed with a purebreed. This is why Gregory Mendel is so famous is because what he proved about genetics.

That is how breeders today maintain their breeds of dogs,herds of cattle,herds of horses,so on and so on.

The number of animals that went on the ark were only members of each group that existed at that time.


How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not every living organism that has ever lived went on the ark. There is diversity in each family because the genetic information was already there in the genome. The diversity of a family group comes from gene recombination,cross breeding,and selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So would that mean in just 6,000 years, the breeds of dogs today all evolved from from a very few breeds that were on the Ark?
> 
> That's odd because my Great Dane is linked to a breed of dog very similar in size, stature, color and appearance that existed in ancient Egypt.
> 
> I'm curious because as we know, it was extraterrestrials who obviously built the pyramids (and must have brought with them a Great Dane-like dog) so isnt it possible that these same extraterrestrials are really the true gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Egypt had greyhounds , airdales, salukis. Yes that is what Im saying all dog breeds were products of man just like cattle and horses.
> 
> The wild dogs were developed in the wild and the dometicated dogs by men.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not every living organism that has ever lived went on the ark. There is diversity in each family because the genetic information was already there in the genome. The diversity of a family group comes from gene recombination,cross breeding,and selective breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So would that mean in just 6,000 years, the breeds of dogs today all evolved from from a very few breeds that were on the Ark?
> 
> That's odd because my Great Dane is linked to a breed of dog very similar in size, stature, color and appearance that existed in ancient Egypt.
> 
> I'm curious because as we know, it was extraterrestrials who obviously built the pyramids (and must have brought with them a Great Dane-like dog) so isnt it possible that these same extraterrestrials are really the true gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if these alien beings are angels and God ?
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, go figure. Another of youwerecreateds silly videos was hosted by yet another creationist-religious whack job. Here again, another religious charlatan who is a meteorologist but has decided that he can speak authoritatively on the geologic record.
> 
> Does anyone else find it curious that so many of the charlatans that appear in the goofy videos cut and pasted ny youwwerecreated have no training or academic credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about?
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #303: Michael Oard
> 
> #303: Michael Oard
> 
> 
> And now we are back to the creationists. Michael Oard is associated with Answers in Genesis and has published several creation science articles in their in-house journal Answers. Together with Peter Klevberg he has contributed Green River Formation Very Likely Did Not Form in a Postdiluvian Lake. Indeed. For the junk rag Creation he has written, among other things, Do Rivers Erode Through Mountains. His answer is that a global flood must be assumed. The geological evidence is  absent. He has also written the book Flood by Design. You see where this is going.
> 
> Thing is, Oard  who is a meteorologist  is obsessed about taking geology back from those evil evolutionary geologists (Don Battens term  Batten would have merited inclusion in our Encyclopedia were he not Australian). Oard also denies the existence of black holes and dark matter. Apparently his area of expertise is endless. He has become modestly known for his own theory of the origin of the moon but claims to be suppressed by  you guessed it  evolutionary astronomers. If nothing else works, Oard is pretty quick to appeal to the different worldview gambit. But of course, it applies exclusively to evolutionary scientists, who only confirm their preconceptions and are blinded to the alternatives  not to himself.
> 
> With one Beverly Oard (presumably a wife) he has also written what passes for a creationist science book, Life in the Great Ice Age  a picture book designed for homeschool use, appropriate for kids aged 68, and another excellent illustration of what creation scientists are trying to achieve. It has nothing to do with science, of course, but everything to do with converting kids to Jesus.
> 
> He has, predictably, denied AGW  which is promoted by uniformitarian scientists. Just as geology, astronomy and biology, I suppose.
> 
> Diagnosis: Why are all these deluded, conspiracy-mongering religious fanatics also so blatantly dishonest? In any case, Oard is as deluded and dishonest as they come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you can insult these men of science all you like but people know they are creationist these videos were taken from speakers from creation conferences.
> 
> How bout you deal with their explanations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are not men of science but men of a peculiar disability who rattle on about subjects they have no training in.
> 
> Why do you think a meterologist is qualified to interpret the geological record especially when he has signed an agreement (as with the ICR), that any material he distributes must meet with the ICR policies?
> 
> I understand you endorse such dishonesty and charlatanism but don't expect others to be accomplices to your dishonesty and lies.
Click to expand...


Because I am a creationist ,my degree in molecular biology is worthless to me, is that what you are saying ?

These men in the videos hold doctorate degrees in science. So they are not men of science because they don't agree with your Ideology ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you can insult these men of science all you like but people know they are creationist these videos were taken from speakers from creation conferences.
> 
> How bout you deal with their explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are not men of science but men of a peculiar disability who rattle on about subjects they have no training in.
> 
> Why do you think a meterologist is qualified to interpret the geological record especially when he has signed an agreement (as with the ICR), that any material he distributes must meet with the ICR policies?
> 
> I understand you endorse such dishonesty and charlatanism but don't expect others to be accomplices to your dishonesty and lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I am a creationist ,my degree in molecular biology is worthless to me, is that what you are saying ?
> 
> These men in the videos hold doctorate degrees in science. So they are not men of science because they don't agree with your Ideology ?
Click to expand...


These men do not hold "doctorates" in science.

I already pointed that out with reference to Michael Oard, Kindell and John Morris.

J. Horatio christ, man, you will lie about _anything_.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Breeders when they got the desired traits for a breed they would isolate that breed to keep it intact. Maybe it was God that dealt with the breeds in the wild. Every breed in the wild are kept intact the same way through isolation.

They stick to their own kind we see that with everything. However we do see crossings in the wild as well. We see jack rabbits and cottontails crossing. Mule deer and whitetailed deer crossing. A lot ANIMALS are not preserved from crossing because they are sterile. Why is that because the limits were reached and they can't reproduce.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> So would that mean in just 6,000 years, the breeds of dogs today all evolved from from a very few breeds that were on the Ark?
> 
> That's odd because my Great Dane is linked to a breed of dog very similar in size, stature, color and appearance that existed in ancient Egypt.
> 
> I'm curious because as we know, it was extraterrestrials who obviously built the pyramids (and must have brought with them a Great Dane-like dog) so isnt it possible that these same extraterrestrials are really the true gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if these alien beings are angels and God ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if these alien beings are _many_ gods... and their unionized?
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Breeders when they got the desired traits for a breed they would isolate that breed to keep it intact. Maybe it was God that dealt with the breeds in the wild. Every breed in the wild are kept intact the same way through isolation.
> 
> They stick to their own kind we see that with everything. However we do see crossings in the wild as well. We see jack rabbits and cottontails crossing. Mule deer and whitetailed deer crossing. A lot ANIMALS are not preserved from crossing because they are sterile. Why is that because the limits were reached and they can't reproduce.



So now we have a hamburger flippper from McDonalds preaching to us about reproductive biology.

That's as silly as a fundie christian meteorologist preaching geology.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are not men of science but men of a peculiar disability who rattle on about subjects they have no training in.
> 
> Why do you think a meterologist is qualified to interpret the geological record especially when he has signed an agreement (as with the ICR), that any material he distributes must meet with the ICR policies?
> 
> I understand you endorse such dishonesty and charlatanism but don't expect others to be accomplices to your dishonesty and lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am a creationist ,my degree in molecular biology is worthless to me, is that what you are saying ?
> 
> These men in the videos hold doctorate degrees in science. So they are not men of science because they don't agree with your Ideology ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These men do not hold "doctorates" in science.
> 
> I already pointed that out with reference to Michael Oard, Kindell and John Morris.
> 
> J. Horatio christ, man, you will lie about _anything_.
Click to expand...


Michael Oard - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

They hold degrees and some doctorate degrees but they have more education in science then you pretend they don't.

I should of been more clear not all but all are educated in fields of science. That would make them men of science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breeders when they got the desired traits for a breed they would isolate that breed to keep it intact. Maybe it was God that dealt with the breeds in the wild. Every breed in the wild are kept intact the same way through isolation.
> 
> They stick to their own kind we see that with everything. However we do see crossings in the wild as well. We see jack rabbits and cottontails crossing. Mule deer and whitetailed deer crossing. A lot ANIMALS are not preserved from crossing because they are sterile. Why is that because the limits were reached and they can't reproduce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have a hamburger flippper from McDonalds preaching to us about reproductive biology.
> 
> That's as silly as a fundie christian meteorologist preaching geology.
Click to expand...


You mean they did not take classes in other fields of science. I have taken chemistry,biology,earth science and my speciaty was molecular biology,so I can't speak on other matters ?

You I'm sorry to say are wrong as usual.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if these alien beings are angels and God ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if these alien beings are _many_ gods... and their unionized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say being a believer they are who the bible say they are.
Click to expand...


----------



## SillyWabbit

A child holds no degree. Neither does she have a sheild. Without adult assistance she will die. Why would you kill her? Would you stomp on a child? You don't want her raped. Killing her is OK? I guess it's all perception. 
I think dead is dead.
Murder is murder.
whut do i no? I am but a collection of cells in the right order. Right?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie I have said it before and will say it again. Both sides have people educated in the sciences but whose presuppositions are correct. Which side is best supported by the evidence, naturalism or design.

Many on your side dawkins is one of them, that say things appear to have been designed then say's but they were not designed what does he base that view on ? How does he know they were not designed ?


----------



## SillyWabbit

A child holds no degree. Neither does she have a sheild. Without adult assistance she will die. Why would you kill her? Would you stomp on a child? You don't want her raped. Killing her is OK? I guess it's all perception. 
I think dead is dead.
Murder is murder.
whut do i no? I am but a collection of cells in the right order. Right?


----------



## Youwerecreated

All living organisms are made up of many cells and cells reproduce more cells but who or what produced the first cell from non living matter ?

Living organisms produce living organisms. It has never been observed that non living matter has produced a living organism.


----------



## Katzndogz

Big_D said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not every living organism that has ever lived went on the ark. There is diversity in each family because the genetic information was already there in the genome. The diversity of a family group comes from gene recombination,cross breeding,and selective breeding.
> 
> Why are these that evolved from one group to another group If everything slowly evolved over millions and billions of years where are these transitional fossils. not still arond but the ones they evolved from are still here ? I mean the explanation given is the better adapted transitional organisms pass on their traits through natural selection.
> 
> If you are not willing to put your beliefs to the test a person can be mislead. That is why many evolutionist and ex atheist have done and have become believers because the evidence better supports a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that not all dogs needed to be on the Ark and just one breed?  If so, then how are bulldogs, poodles, great danes, and others around today if pugs were the chosen dog on the ark?  Also, how could animals that need a cold climate live next to an animal that needs a warm climate?  Also, I presume that the water that rained down was fresh water.  If this is true then how did the salt water fish survive?
> 
> I never heard the transitional fossil argument before you brought it up but I saw a number articles and websites that shows transitional fossils have been found.
Click to expand...


All dogs, from Rottweilers to Chihuahuas came from the wolf.

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news24.htm


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie I have said it before and will say it again. Both sides have people educated in the sciences but whose presuppositions are correct. Which side is best supported by the evidence, naturalism or design.
> 
> Many on your side dawkins is one of them, that say things appear to have been designed then say's but they were not designed what does he base that view on ? How does he know they were not designed ?



You say many things which are false. We've seen that in this thread. 

What you also seek to deny is that the people who frequently preach creationist/christian fundie "science" are not scientists at all and frequently have no formal training in the subject matter they're preachinbg about. We've seen that in this thread.

What you further seek to deny is that those creationist/christian fundie preachers who shill fot the ICR sign a pre-qualifying agreement that any material they publish will not conflict with the tenets of the ICR. 

You will deny that those individuals have necessarily discarded any academic credibility but for so many of them, who cares? They're hacks and charlatans who are not taken seriously by the science community, anyway.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> All living organisms are made up of many cells and cells reproduce more cells but who or what produced the first cell from non living matter ?
> 
> Living organisms produce living organisms. It has never been observed that non living matter has produced a living organism.



Similarly, what came first: the chicken or the egg. 

All we need to know is that :

We'll never know,

The gods did it!'

It's a mystery,

The gods ways are not man's ways,

It's blasphemy to ask,

Questioning one's religion is the same as losing one's religion,

If it's in the bibles, it must be true,

If I read it on the internet, it must be true.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> All living organisms are made up of many cells and cells reproduce more cells but who or what produced the first cell from non living matter ?
> 
> Living organisms produce living organisms. It has never been observed that non living matter has produced a living organism.



So which gods produced the first of your gods?


----------



## SillyWabbit

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> All living organisms are made up of many cells and cells reproduce more cells but who or what produced the first cell from non living matter ?
> 
> Living organisms produce living organisms. It has never been observed that non living matter has produced a living organism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So which gods produced the first of your gods?
Click to expand...


Murder is murder, is it not? What god directs one to kill children? Are we dogs? Grass? Bananas? Trees? 
Cull the herd? Trim the grass?
Be honest.


----------



## SillyWabbit

At the end of the day, we kill our own and call it progress. I am agnostic. God or no God: murder is murder. Just sayin.

Right?


----------



## SillyWabbit

This is not me.


----------



## Big_D

Youwerecreated said:


> I would say and some believe that wolves were on the ark and mutts were on the ark. The wolves accounted for all wild dogs and the mutts accounted for all dometicated dogs.
> 
> How did we get the many different breeds would be through cross breeding,gene recombination,and selective breeding. Most purebred dogs in the wild and or domesticated dogs are the product of several diiferent crossings. If you trace all the different breeds that make up aoxer you will understand they are products of selective cross breeding.
> 
> If you take that one purebred and cross it with a mutt the first litter would not look like a purebred anymore correct ? The only way you maintain the purebred traits is breed a purebreed with a purebreed. This is why Gregory Mendel is so famous is because what he proved about genetics.
> 
> That is how breeders today maintain their breeds of dogs,herds of cattle,herds of horses,so on and so on.
> 
> The number of animals that went on the ark were only members of each group that existed at that time.
> 
> 
> How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?



But how does a mutt and wolf produce so many different types of dogs and how would this happen to wild animals? 

You still haven't address the difference in climate needed for each animal and how salt water animals would have survived in fresh water.  Also, there some types of fish that can only survive in shallow water.  How did they survive?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say and some believe that wolves were on the ark and mutts were on the ark. The wolves accounted for all wild dogs and the mutts accounted for all dometicated dogs.
> 
> How did we get the many different breeds would be through cross breeding,gene recombination,and selective breeding. Most purebred dogs in the wild and or domesticated dogs are the product of several diiferent crossings. If you trace all the different breeds that make up aoxer you will understand they are products of selective cross breeding.
> 
> If you take that one purebred and cross it with a mutt the first litter would not look like a purebred anymore correct ? The only way you maintain the purebred traits is breed a purebreed with a purebreed. This is why Gregory Mendel is so famous is because what he proved about genetics.
> 
> That is how breeders today maintain their breeds of dogs,herds of cattle,herds of horses,so on and so on.
> 
> The number of animals that went on the ark were only members of each group that existed at that time.
> 
> 
> How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how does a mutt and wolf produce so many different types of dogs and how would this happen to wild animals?
> 
> You still haven't address the difference in climate needed for each animal and how salt water animals would have survived in fresh water.  Also, there some types of fish that can only survive in shallow water.  How did they survive?
Click to expand...


The mutt has produced all the purebreds we see through selective breeding by man. The mutt has a much larger gene pool. Purebreeds you are breed ing out information to where purebreeds only have the genetic information to produce what they are.

God could have produced what we see in the wild or the genome had the genetic information to produce the diversity seen in the wild. I would say God had something to do with it how would you get particular breeds in the wild if it was not directed ? how would enough of one breed be produced in the wild to make packs that they run with members of their own kind ? had to be directed.

Where does most fresh water come from ? If we were there we could answer such questions that is why we are relying on speculation both sides. The problem is for both sides. How coulkd anything survive what killed the dinosaurs on the whole planet.

Why are the oceans much more salty then rivers and lakes ? I would say because the enviornment of the ocean floors. All rain is fresh water why because salt does not evaporate.

Salt beds in utah the water there are salty in locations because what is on the lake floors. I think that is the reason oceans are much more salty.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say and some believe that wolves were on the ark and mutts were on the ark. The wolves accounted for all wild dogs and the mutts accounted for all dometicated dogs.
> 
> How did we get the many different breeds would be through cross breeding,gene recombination,and selective breeding. Most purebred dogs in the wild and or domesticated dogs are the product of several diiferent crossings. If you trace all the different breeds that make up aoxer you will understand they are products of selective cross breeding.
> 
> If you take that one purebred and cross it with a mutt the first litter would not look like a purebred anymore correct ? The only way you maintain the purebred traits is breed a purebreed with a purebreed. This is why Gregory Mendel is so famous is because what he proved about genetics.
> 
> That is how breeders today maintain their breeds of dogs,herds of cattle,herds of horses,so on and so on.
> 
> The number of animals that went on the ark were only members of each group that existed at that time.
> 
> 
> How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how does a mutt and wolf produce so many different types of dogs and how would this happen to wild animals?
> 
> You still haven't address the difference in climate needed for each animal and how salt water animals would have survived in fresh water.  Also, there some types of fish that can only survive in shallow water.  How did they survive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mutt has produced all the purebreds we see through selective breeding by man. The mutt has a much larger gene pool. Purebreeds you are breed ing out information to where purebreeds only have the genetic information to produce what they are.
> 
> God could have produced what we see in the wild or the genome had the genetic information to produce the diversity seen in the wild. I would say God had something to do with it how would you get particular breeds in the wild if it was not directed ? how would enough of one breed be produced in the wild to make packs that they run with members of their own kind ? had to be directed.
> 
> Where does most fresh water come from ? If we were there we could answer such questions that is why we are relying on speculation both sides. The problem is for both sides. How coulkd anything survive what killed the dinosaurs on the whole planet.
> 
> Why are the oceans much more salty then rivers and lakes ? I would say because the enviornment of the ocean floors. All rain is fresh water why because salt does not evaporate.
> 
> Salt beds in utah the water there are salty in locations because what is on the lake floors. I think that is the reason oceans are much more salty.
Click to expand...


False. A mutt is a mixed breed.

Oh, those evolutionists are at it again.

World's first dog lived 31,700 years ago, ate big - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - NBCNews.com



> An international team of scientists has just identified what they believe is the world's first known dog, which was a large and toothy canine that lived 31,700 years ago and subsisted on a diet of horse, musk ox and reindeer, according to a new study.





Maybe the gawds were taking a late lunch when an intern gawd whipped up that first dog.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> But how does a mutt and wolf produce so many different types of dogs and how would this happen to wild animals?
> 
> You still haven't address the difference in climate needed for each animal and how salt water animals would have survived in fresh water.  Also, there some types of fish that can only survive in shallow water.  How did they survive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mutt has produced all the purebreds we see through selective breeding by man. The mutt has a much larger gene pool. Purebreeds you are breed ing out information to where purebreeds only have the genetic information to produce what they are.
> 
> God could have produced what we see in the wild or the genome had the genetic information to produce the diversity seen in the wild. I would say God had something to do with it how would you get particular breeds in the wild if it was not directed ? how would enough of one breed be produced in the wild to make packs that they run with members of their own kind ? had to be directed.
> 
> Where does most fresh water come from ? If we were there we could answer such questions that is why we are relying on speculation both sides. The problem is for both sides. How coulkd anything survive what killed the dinosaurs on the whole planet.
> 
> Why are the oceans much more salty then rivers and lakes ? I would say because the enviornment of the ocean floors. All rain is fresh water why because salt does not evaporate.
> 
> Salt beds in utah the water there are salty in locations because what is on the lake floors. I think that is the reason oceans are much more salty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. A mutt is a mixed breed.
> 
> Oh, those evolutionists are at it again.
> 
> World's first dog lived 31,700 years ago, ate big - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - NBCNews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An international team of scientists has just identified what they believe is the world's first known dog, which was a large and toothy canine that lived 31,700 years ago and subsisted on a diet of horse, musk ox and reindeer, according to a new study.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the gawds were taking a late lunch when an intern gawd whipped up that first dog.
Click to expand...


Hollie if you let all breeds of domestic dogs wander loose how many purebreeds would you have ? 

Purebreeds came from selective breeding by man.


----------



## Big_D

Youwerecreated said:


> The mutt has produced all the purebreds we see through selective breeding by man. The mutt has a much larger gene pool. Purebreeds you are breed ing out information to where purebreeds only have the genetic information to produce what they are.
> 
> God could have produced what we see in the wild or the genome had the genetic information to produce the diversity seen in the wild. I would say God had something to do with it how would you get particular breeds in the wild if it was not directed ? how would enough of one breed be produced in the wild to make packs that they run with members of their own kind ? had to be directed.
> 
> Where does most fresh water come from ? If we were there we could answer such questions that is why we are relying on speculation both sides. The problem is for both sides. How coulkd anything survive what killed the dinosaurs on the whole planet.
> 
> Why are the oceans much more salty then rivers and lakes ? I would say because the enviornment of the ocean floors. All rain is fresh water why because salt does not evaporate.
> 
> Salt beds in utah the water there are salty in locations because what is on the lake floors. I think that is the reason oceans are much more salty.



I didn't ask where the water came from, I asked how a salt water animal could survive in fresh water during the flood.  

What about the climate on the Ark?  One animal is going to need one type climate and another will need the opposite.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie you need to read up on mendelian genetics.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie you need to read up on mendelian genetics.



Mendelian genetics are irrevelant. 

What dogs were on the Ark?

But worse, how can there possibly be a dog that is dated to 31,700 years ago when the earth is only 6,000 years old?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mutt has produced all the purebreds we see through selective breeding by man. The mutt has a much larger gene pool. Purebreeds you are breed ing out information to where purebreeds only have the genetic information to produce what they are.
> 
> God could have produced what we see in the wild or the genome had the genetic information to produce the diversity seen in the wild. I would say God had something to do with it how would you get particular breeds in the wild if it was not directed ? how would enough of one breed be produced in the wild to make packs that they run with members of their own kind ? had to be directed.
> 
> Where does most fresh water come from ? If we were there we could answer such questions that is why we are relying on speculation both sides. The problem is for both sides. How coulkd anything survive what killed the dinosaurs on the whole planet.
> 
> Why are the oceans much more salty then rivers and lakes ? I would say because the enviornment of the ocean floors. All rain is fresh water why because salt does not evaporate.
> 
> Salt beds in utah the water there are salty in locations because what is on the lake floors. I think that is the reason oceans are much more salty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask where the water came from, I asked how a salt water animal could survive in fresh water during the flood.
> 
> What about the climate on the Ark?  One animal is going to need one type climate and another will need the opposite.
Click to expand...


Was the flood caused by salt water or fresh water ? The salt content was high enough on the ocean floors that the rain did not dilute it enough to where salt water organisms couldn't survive.

That would be my best guess or the supernatural creator had something to do with it. Don't know was not there.

The climate is not that important. The creator gave most all organisms the ability to adapt to our surroundings but there are limits to being able to adapt.

What do you think the climate was like in the ark that would prevent animals from surviving the boat ride ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you need to read up on mendelian genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mendelian genetics are irrevelant.
> 
> What dogs were on the Ark?
> 
> But worse, how can there possibly be a dog that is dated to 31,700 years ago when the earth is only 6,000 years old?
Click to expand...


Why must you continue exposing your ignorance on real science ?


----------



## rabbitthekitten

I'm not a geologist, but I did geology in first year university and the Earth is about 4 billion years old. As a astrophysicist the Lambda-CDMA model proves the universe is 13.75 billion years old. Do creationists dispute this?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you need to read up on mendelian genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mendelian genetics are irrevelant.
> 
> What dogs were on the Ark?
> 
> But worse, how can there possibly be a dog that is dated to 31,700 years ago when the earth is only 6,000 years old?
Click to expand...


On the ark I don't know I was not there but I would suggest the wolf maybe coyote even maybe the fox but most definitely the mutt.


----------



## Youwerecreated

rabbitthekitten said:


> I'm not a geologist, but I did geology in first year university and the Earth is about 4 billion years old. As a astrophysicist the Lambda-CDMA model proves the universe is 13.75 billion years old. Do creationists dispute this?



I have studied it to and there are many arguments against the age of the earth and universe.


----------



## rabbitthekitten

Youwerecreated said:


> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a geologist, but I did geology in first year university and the Earth is about 4 billion years old. As a astrophysicist the Lambda-CDMA model proves the universe is 13.75 billion years old. Do creationists dispute this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have studied it to and there are many arguments against the age of the earth and universe.
Click to expand...


Such as? Unless you rewrite the laws of physics then it's pretty conclusive evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

No matter how many opinions I have read about life, there is one question that covinces me in a designer. The only thing that would convince me there is no designer is if there was a way that could be demonstrated that non living matter could be converted to living organisms.

There is no such data.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you need to read up on mendelian genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mendelian genetics are irrevelant.
> 
> What dogs were on the Ark?
> 
> But worse, how can there possibly be a dog that is dated to 31,700 years ago when the earth is only 6,000 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why must you continue exposing your ignorance on real science ?
Click to expand...


I'm not surprised at your answer. Well, it's not an answer at all. There is no way to resolve a 6,000 year old earth vs. the ancient fosill record.

Your only option is to stutter and mumble.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> No matter how many opinions I have read about life, there is one question that covinces me in a designer. The only thing that would convince me there is no designer is if there was a way that could be demonstrated that non living matter could be converted to living organisms.
> 
> There is no such data.



There is actually much data that supports the possibility.

What data supports an infinite hierarchy of designer gods, the designers of designer gods, etc., etc.

And why your particular designer gods?


----------



## rabbitthekitten

Well, this is first year uni stuff again. It was a process, it wasn't just one big leap from non organic to organic. Reactions on earth in the early days caused organic compounds to form. Not living organisms, but compounds made of organic material. This has been done in the lab. This then changed and reacted to form simple single celled organisms. It's not a big mystery, the details are not known because we can't be sure of the exact make up of the atmosphere billions of years ago. But the general process is known.


----------



## Youwerecreated

rabbitthekitten said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a geologist, but I did geology in first year university and the Earth is about 4 billion years old. As a astrophysicist the Lambda-CDMA model proves the universe is 13.75 billion years old. Do creationists dispute this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have studied it to and there are many arguments against the age of the earth and universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such as? Unless you rewrite the laws of physics then it's pretty conclusive evidence.
Click to expand...


First off, there are no conclusive evidence in science,why do you think theories continue changing ? theories are based on opinions of evidence.

The universe had a beginning,if that is the case where did matter come from to create the universe and all living organisms in it ?

Where did the matter come from for the Big Bang ?


If the universe has a beginning, space, energy,matter all had a start we are led to another question what was the cause of that beginning ?  In recent years these items are said to have come from nothing by redefining what nothing means. These suggestions are faith approaches and are not based on evidence. They do not answer the question. One also has to be conscious of the conservation laws of science which state that in any process all physical quantities charge, mass, spin, baryon number, etc, must be conserved. You cannot destroy or create the things about which we are talking without paying attention to the conservation laws, and if you agree there was a beginning and try to maintain it was uncaused, you have a contradiction with an established scientific law.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many opinions I have read about life, there is one question that covinces me in a designer. The only thing that would convince me there is no designer is if there was a way that could be demonstrated that non living matter could be converted to living organisms.
> 
> There is no such data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is actually much data that supports the possibility.
> 
> What data supports an infinite hierarchy of designer gods, the designers of designer gods, etc., etc.
> 
> And why your particular designer gods?
Click to expand...


Hollie really ,opinions are just that,opinions.


----------



## Hollie

rabbitthekitten said:


> Well, this is first year uni stuff again. It was a process, it wasn't just one big leap from non organic to organic. Reactions on earth in the early days caused organic compounds to form. Not living organisms, but compounds made of organic material. This has been done in the lab. This then changed and reacted to form simple single celled organisms. It's not a big mystery, the details are not known because we can't be sure of the exact make up of the atmosphere billions of years ago. But the general process is known.



Good summation.

You may have come across this thread only recently but there are two primary young earth / flat earth fundamentalist Christians who take a literal view of the biblical tales and fables. Noahs Ark, global flood, miracles, plagues, all of it literally true. Science is derided as evil and evolutionist scientists are the worst of the worst.


----------



## rabbitthekitten

Youwerecreated said:


> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have studied it to and there are many arguments against the age of the earth and universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as? Unless you rewrite the laws of physics then it's pretty conclusive evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, there are no conclusive evidence in science,why do you think theories contiue changing ? theories are based on opinions of evidence.
> 
> The universe had a beginning,if that is the case where did matter come from to create the universe and all living organisms in it ?
> 
> Where did the matter come from for the Big Bang ?
> 
> 
> If the universe has a beginning, space, energy,matter all had a start we are led to another question what was the cause of that beginning ?  In recent years these items are said to have come from nothing by redefining what nothing means. These suggestions are faith approaches and are not based on evidence. They do not answer the question. One also has to be conscious of the conservation laws of science which state that in any process all physical quantities charge, mass, spin, baryon number, etc, must be conserved. You cannot destroy or create the things about which we are talking without paying attention to the conservation laws, and if you agree there was a beginning and try to maintain it was uncaused, you have a contradiction with an established scientific law.
Click to expand...


We don't know what caused the big bang. I'm not disputing that. We know it was 13.75 billion years ago and not 6000 years ago. That is the point I am making.


----------



## Youwerecreated

rabbitthekitten said:


> Well, this is first year uni stuff again. It was a process, it wasn't just one big leap from non organic to organic. Reactions on earth in the early days caused organic compounds to form. Not living organisms, but compounds made of organic material. This has been done in the lab. This then changed and reacted to form simple single celled organisms. It's not a big mystery, the details are not known because we can't be sure of the exact make up of the atmosphere billions of years ago. But the general process is known.



Then surely you can explain how a cell formed naturally with all the necessary components. Don't forget the molecular machines that had to evolve to do what they do within the cell.

I will take purposeful design over random  chaotic chance anyday.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many opinions I have read about life, there is one question that covinces me in a designer. The only thing that would convince me there is no designer is if there was a way that could be demonstrated that non living matter could be converted to living organisms.
> 
> There is no such data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is actually much data that supports the possibility.
> 
> What data supports an infinite hierarchy of designer gods, the designers of designer gods, etc., etc.
> 
> And why your particular designer gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie really ,opinions are just that,opinions.
Click to expand...


Sure. And coming is different than going. Aren't we delighted you can point out the obvious?

If you have something more than opinion regarding your claims to your particular sectarian version of gods (which according to every physical law of nature we have facts supporting  -not just opinion - that defines your gods requiring an infinite hierarchy of designer gods, the designers of designer gods, etc., etc.), please, do tell.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is first year uni stuff again. It was a process, it wasn't just one big leap from non organic to organic. Reactions on earth in the early days caused organic compounds to form. Not living organisms, but compounds made of organic material. This has been done in the lab. This then changed and reacted to form simple single celled organisms. It's not a big mystery, the details are not known because we can't be sure of the exact make up of the atmosphere billions of years ago. But the general process is known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good summation.
> 
> You may have come across this thread only recently but there are two primary young earth / flat earth fundamentalist Christians who take a literal view of the biblical tales and fables. Noahs Ark, global flood, miracles, plagues, all of it literally true. Science is derided as evil and evolutionist scientists are the worst of the worst.
Click to expand...


Wrong again hollie,i am sort of a young earth creationist,UR has repeatedly told you he is an old earth ID proponent.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is first year uni stuff again. It was a process, it wasn't just one big leap from non organic to organic. Reactions on earth in the early days caused organic compounds to form. Not living organisms, but compounds made of organic material. This has been done in the lab. This then changed and reacted to form simple single celled organisms. It's not a big mystery, the details are not known because we can't be sure of the exact make up of the atmosphere billions of years ago. But the general process is known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then surely you can explain how a cell formed naturally with all the necessary components. Don't forget the molecular machines that had to evolve to do what they do within the cell.
> 
> I will take purposeful design over random  chaotic chance anyday.
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as a "molecular machine". That is a silly term frequently used within the fundie christian creationist community which displays an appalling lack of science knowledge.  An appalling lack of science knowledge typically defines the fundie christian creationist community.


----------



## Youwerecreated

rabbitthekitten said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such as? Unless you rewrite the laws of physics then it's pretty conclusive evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, there are no conclusive evidence in science,why do you think theories contiue changing ? theories are based on opinions of evidence.
> 
> The universe had a beginning,if that is the case where did matter come from to create the universe and all living organisms in it ?
> 
> Where did the matter come from for the Big Bang ?
> 
> 
> If the universe has a beginning, space, energy,matter all had a start we are led to another question what was the cause of that beginning ?  In recent years these items are said to have come from nothing by redefining what nothing means. These suggestions are faith approaches and are not based on evidence. They do not answer the question. One also has to be conscious of the conservation laws of science which state that in any process all physical quantities charge, mass, spin, baryon number, etc, must be conserved. You cannot destroy or create the things about which we are talking without paying attention to the conservation laws, and if you agree there was a beginning and try to maintain it was uncaused, you have a contradiction with an established scientific law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't know what caused the big bang. I'm not disputing that. We know it was 13.75 billion years ago and not 6000 years ago. That is the point I am making.
Click to expand...


No you don't,that is what some opinions have taught.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is first year uni stuff again. It was a process, it wasn't just one big leap from non organic to organic. Reactions on earth in the early days caused organic compounds to form. Not living organisms, but compounds made of organic material. This has been done in the lab. This then changed and reacted to form simple single celled organisms. It's not a big mystery, the details are not known because we can't be sure of the exact make up of the atmosphere billions of years ago. But the general process is known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good summation.
> 
> You may have come across this thread only recently but there are two primary young earth / flat earth fundamentalist Christians who take a literal view of the biblical tales and fables. Noahs Ark, global flood, miracles, plagues, all of it literally true. Science is derided as evil and evolutionist scientists are the worst of the worst.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again hollie,i am sort of a young earth creationist,UR has repeatedly told you he is an old earth ID proponent.
Click to expand...


You are not just sort of but thoroughly confused. The other fundie holds views nearly identical to yours. Of course, your views are not yours at all but copied and pasted from charlatans at the ICR and similar hack, fundie propaganda groups.


----------



## rabbitthekitten

Youwerecreated said:


> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is first year uni stuff again. It was a process, it wasn't just one big leap from non organic to organic. Reactions on earth in the early days caused organic compounds to form. Not living organisms, but compounds made of organic material. This has been done in the lab. This then changed and reacted to form simple single celled organisms. It's not a big mystery, the details are not known because we can't be sure of the exact make up of the atmosphere billions of years ago. But the general process is known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then surely you can explain how a cell formed naturally with all the necessary components. Don't forget the molecular machines that had to evolve to do what they do within the cell.
> 
> I will take purposeful design over random  chaotic chance anyday.
Click to expand...

I

I'm not a biologist but I understand a lot of it symbiotic relationships and natural selection. Chloroplasts for example were light sensitive bacteria that fused with other cells. Microchrondia are another example.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is first year uni stuff again. It was a process, it wasn't just one big leap from non organic to organic. Reactions on earth in the early days caused organic compounds to form. Not living organisms, but compounds made of organic material. This has been done in the lab. This then changed and reacted to form simple single celled organisms. It's not a big mystery, the details are not known because we can't be sure of the exact make up of the atmosphere billions of years ago. But the general process is known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then surely you can explain how a cell formed naturally with all the necessary components. Don't forget the molecular machines that had to evolve to do what they do within the cell.
> 
> I will take purposeful design over random  chaotic chance anyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "molecular machine". That is a silly term frequently used within the fundie christian creationist community which displays an appalling lack of science knowledge.  An appalling lack of science knowledge typically defines the fundie christian creationist community.
Click to expand...


Oh boy no point in me responding to your ignorance.

What transcribes genetic information hollie ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good summation.
> 
> You may have come across this thread only recently but there are two primary young earth / flat earth fundamentalist Christians who take a literal view of the biblical tales and fables. Noahs Ark, global flood, miracles, plagues, all of it literally true. Science is derided as evil and evolutionist scientists are the worst of the worst.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again hollie,i am sort of a young earth creationist,UR has repeatedly told you he is an old earth ID proponent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not just sort of but thoroughly confused. The other fundie holds views nearly identical to yours. Of course, your views are not yours at all but copied and pasted from charlatans at the ICR and similar hack, fundie propaganda groups.
Click to expand...


Take a hike hollie you exhibit only rhetoric, we are discussing science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

rabbitthekitten said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is first year uni stuff again. It was a process, it wasn't just one big leap from non organic to organic. Reactions on earth in the early days caused organic compounds to form. Not living organisms, but compounds made of organic material. This has been done in the lab. This then changed and reacted to form simple single celled organisms. It's not a big mystery, the details are not known because we can't be sure of the exact make up of the atmosphere billions of years ago. But the general process is known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then surely you can explain how a cell formed naturally with all the necessary components. Don't forget the molecular machines that had to evolve to do what they do within the cell.
> 
> I will take purposeful design over random  chaotic chance anyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I
> 
> I'm not a biologist but I understand a lot of it symbiotic relationships and natural selection. Chloroplasts for example were light sensitive bacteria that fused with other cells. Microchrondia are another example.
Click to expand...


I have a degree in molecular biology and I understand many arguments from both sides. I have been debating this for many years I have not seen any question that would not be asked from either side.


----------



## rabbitthekitten

Youwerecreated said:


> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then surely you can explain how a cell formed naturally with all the necessary components. Don't forget the molecular machines that had to evolve to do what they do within the cell.
> 
> I will take purposeful design over random  chaotic chance anyday.
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> I'm not a biologist but I understand a lot of it symbiotic relationships and natural selection. Chloroplasts for example were light sensitive bacteria that fused with other cells. Microchrondia are another example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a degree in molecular biology and I understand many arguments from both sides. I have been debating this for many years I have not seen any question that would not be asked from either side.
Click to expand...


If you had a degree in biology you wouldn't believe in creationism. Unless its from one of those crackpot universities that no one takes seriously.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, there are no conclusive evidence in science,why do you think theories contiue changing ? theories are based on opinions of evidence.
> 
> The universe had a beginning,if that is the case where did matter come from to create the universe and all living organisms in it ?
> 
> Where did the matter come from for the Big Bang ?
> 
> 
> If the universe has a beginning, space, energy,matter all had a start we are led to another question what was the cause of that beginning ?  In recent years these items are said to have come from nothing by redefining what nothing means. These suggestions are faith approaches and are not based on evidence. They do not answer the question. One also has to be conscious of the conservation laws of science which state that in any process all physical quantities charge, mass, spin, baryon number, etc, must be conserved. You cannot destroy or create the things about which we are talking without paying attention to the conservation laws, and if you agree there was a beginning and try to maintain it was uncaused, you have a contradiction with an established scientific law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know what caused the big bang. I'm not disputing that. We know it was 13.75 billion years ago and not 6000 years ago. That is the point I am making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't,that is what some opinions have taught.
Click to expand...


The Big Bang has been measured, at least the cosmic background radiation resulting from it, which is the "glow" left over from the explosion itself. Confirmation of this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, two Bell Labs researchers, who later won the Nobel Prize for their discovery.

Ignoring science, and the knowledge it brings, will not magically make your supernatural, supermagical gods true.


----------



## Youwerecreated

rabbitthekitten said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> I'm not a biologist but I understand a lot of it symbiotic relationships and natural selection. Chloroplasts for example were light sensitive bacteria that fused with other cells. Microchrondia are another example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a degree in molecular biology and I understand many arguments from both sides. I have been debating this for many years I have not seen any question that would not be asked from either side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had a degree in biology you wouldn't believe in creationism. Unless its from one of those crackpot universities that no one takes seriously.
Click to expand...


Must I provide you with others holding degrees in the sciences that are young earth creationist that attended a credible university ? does the University of Arizona teach young earth creationism ? me falling on the side of creation is from my own reasoning of the evidence.

I did cell and mutation research for eleven years,. I am now a what you would call a creationist.

You were reduced to the same rhetoric hollie exhibits,have a good day.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a degree in molecular biology and I understand many arguments from both sides. I have been debating this for many years I have not seen any question that would not be asked from either side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had a degree in biology you wouldn't believe in creationism. Unless its from one of those crackpot universities that no one takes seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must I provide you with others holding degrees in the sciences that are young earth creationist ? does the University of Arizona teach young earth creationism ? me falling on the side of creation is from my own reasoning of the evidence.
> 
> I did cell and mutation research for eleven years.
> 
> You were reduced to the same rhetoric hollie exhibits,have a good day.
Click to expand...

Oh cool. We have the claims of an anonymous poster on an internet message board who claims to have done research.

Do you also command the French forces at Waterloo?


----------



## rabbitthekitten

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had a degree in biology you wouldn't believe in creationism. Unless its from one of those crackpot universities that no one takes seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must I provide you with others holding degrees in the sciences that are young earth creationist ? does the University of Arizona teach young earth creationism ? me falling on the side of creation is from my own reasoning of the evidence.
> 
> I did cell and mutation research for eleven years.
> 
> You were reduced to the same rhetoric hollie exhibits,have a good day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh cool. We have the claims of an anonymous poster on an internet message board who claims to have done research.
> 
> Do you also command the French forces at Waterloo?
Click to expand...


She has a point.


----------



## Youwerecreated

rabbitthekitten said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must I provide you with others holding degrees in the sciences that are young earth creationist ? does the University of Arizona teach young earth creationism ? me falling on the side of creation is from my own reasoning of the evidence.
> 
> I did cell and mutation research for eleven years.
> 
> You were reduced to the same rhetoric hollie exhibits,have a good day.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh cool. We have the claims of an anonymous poster on an internet message board who claims to have done &#8220;research&#8221;.
> 
> Do you also command the French forces at Waterloo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She has a point.
Click to expand...


Do you yourself a favor read through the thread the proof is in the thread 
. You are agreeing with a troll.


----------



## Big_D

Youwerecreated said:


> Was the flood caused by salt water or fresh water ? The salt content was high enough on the ocean floors that the rain did not dilute it enough to where salt water organisms couldn't survive.



If that were the case then the animals that need salt water and to be near the surface, like some mammals do to breathe, would not survive.



Youwerecreated said:


> That would be my best guess or the supernatural creator had something to do with it. Don't know was not there.



I have no problem if you want to look at it that way but if this is going to be taught in schools then this will have to be address from a logical side and not a spiritual side.



Youwerecreated said:


> The climate is not that important. The creator gave most all organisms the ability to adapt to our surroundings but there are limits to being able to adapt.
> 
> What do you think the climate was like in the ark that would prevent animals from surviving the boat ride ?



Could Antarctic penguins survive the same temperature as a desert turtle?


----------



## Youwerecreated

rabbitthekitten said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must I provide you with others holding degrees in the sciences that are young earth creationist ? does the University of Arizona teach young earth creationism ? me falling on the side of creation is from my own reasoning of the evidence.
> 
> I did cell and mutation research for eleven years.
> 
> You were reduced to the same rhetoric hollie exhibits,have a good day.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh cool. We have the claims of an anonymous poster on an internet message board who claims to have done &#8220;research&#8221;.
> 
> Do you also command the French forces at Waterloo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She has a point.
Click to expand...


You can also read and respond to my mutation argument. You can read and respond to my genetics argument. You can read and respond to my amino acid argument. Plus many more. You can also respond to questions put to you. I can defend my views but can the counterpart do the same.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh cool. We have the claims of an anonymous poster on an internet message board who claims to have done research.
> 
> Do you also command the French forces at Waterloo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She has a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you yourself a favor read through the thread the proof is in the thread
> . You are agreeing with a troll.
Click to expand...


It's a shame that you're reduced to juvenile name-calling as opposed to actually presenting verifiable facts for a 6000 year old earth


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh cool. We have the claims of an anonymous poster on an internet message board who claims to have done research.
> 
> Do you also command the French forces at Waterloo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She has a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can also read and respond to my mutation argument. You can read and respond to my genetics argument. You can read and respond to my amino acid argument. Plus many more. You can also respond to questions put to you. I can defend my views but can the counterpart do the same.
Click to expand...


Let's be honest. The arguments you claim as yours are not yours at all. The "arguments" are videos produced by creationist ministries such as the ICR and remarkably, Harun Yahya. You do nothing more than post videos and demand others "refute" them. 

It's a nonsensical tactic but one you have tried incessantly.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was the flood caused by salt water or fresh water ? The salt content was high enough on the ocean floors that the rain did not dilute it enough to where salt water organisms couldn't survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that were the case then the animals that need salt water and to be near the surface, like some mammals do to breathe, would not survive.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be my best guess or the supernatural creator had something to do with it. Don't know was not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem if you want to look at it that way but if this is going to be taught in schools then this will have to be address from a logical side and not a spiritual side.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The climate is not that important. The creator gave most all organisms the ability to adapt to our surroundings but there are limits to being able to adapt.
> 
> What do you think the climate was like in the ark that would prevent animals from surviving the boat ride ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could Antarctic penguins survive the same temperature as a desert turtle?
Click to expand...


How do you know they would not survive ?

Same could be said for the faith required to believe that precision in nature is the result of random chance and unguided processes.

Once again I do not have a clue what animals existed at the time of Noah.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> She has a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can also read and respond to my mutation argument. You can read and respond to my genetics argument. You can read and respond to my amino acid argument. Plus many more. You can also respond to questions put to you. I can defend my views but can the counterpart do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's be honest. The arguments you claim as yours are not yours at all. The "arguments" are videos produced by creationist ministries such as the ICR and remarkably, Harun Yahya. You do nothing more than post videos and demand others "refute" them.
> 
> It's a nonsensical tactic but one you have tried incessantly.
Click to expand...


I did not post any videos on my main arguments they were unlike you in my own words.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then surely you can explain how a cell formed naturally with all the necessary components. Don't forget the molecular machines that had to evolve to do what they do within the cell.
> 
> I will take purposeful design over random  chaotic chance anyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "molecular machine". That is a silly term frequently used within the fundie christian creationist community which displays an appalling lack of science knowledge.  An appalling lack of science knowledge typically defines the fundie christian creationist community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy no point in me responding to your ignorance.
> 
> What transcribes genetic information hollie ?
Click to expand...

What machine components are in a biological cell?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can also read and respond to my mutation argument. You can read and respond to my genetics argument. You can read and respond to my amino acid argument. Plus many more. You can also respond to questions put to you. I can defend my views but can the counterpart do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be honest. The arguments you claim as yours are not yours at all. The "arguments" are videos produced by creationist ministries such as the ICR and remarkably, Harun Yahya. You do nothing more than post videos and demand others "refute" them.
> 
> It's a nonsensical tactic but one you have tried incessantly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not post any videos on my main arguments they were unlike you in my own words.
Click to expand...

Anyone can read through the thread and see that you have consistently cut and pasted videos from creationist ministries and then demanded others refute those videos.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was the flood caused by salt water or fresh water ? The salt content was high enough on the ocean floors that the rain did not dilute it enough to where salt water organisms couldn't survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that were the case then the animals that need salt water and to be near the surface, like some mammals do to breathe, would not survive.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem if you want to look at it that way but if this is going to be taught in schools then this will have to be address from a logical side and not a spiritual side.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The climate is not that important. The creator gave most all organisms the ability to adapt to our surroundings but there are limits to being able to adapt.
> 
> What do you think the climate was like in the ark that would prevent animals from surviving the boat ride ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could Antarctic penguins survive the same temperature as a desert turtle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know they would not survive ?
> 
> Same could be said for the faith required to believe that precision in nature is the result of random chance and unguided processes.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again I do not have a clue what animals existed at the time of Noah.
Click to expand...

The animals that exist today -every animal, mammal, insect, rodent, fish, crustacean,.....everything must have existed at the time of Noah. Have thousands of new species evolved in just 4500 years? Maybe you know more of the Noah tale than is represented in the bible?


----------



## rabbitthekitten

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be honest. The arguments you claim as yours are not yours at all. The "arguments" are videos produced by creationist ministries such as the ICR and remarkably, Harun Yahya. You do nothing more than post videos and demand others "refute" them.
> 
> It's a nonsensical tactic but one you have tried incessantly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not post any videos on my main arguments they were unlike you in my own words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone can read through the thread and see that you have consistently cut and pasted videos from creationist ministries and then demanded others refute those videos.
Click to expand...


The simple answer to why creationism is wrong is that it is impossible because there is no god. No one to create. Ergo it is a flawed theory.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was the flood caused by salt water or fresh water ? The salt content was high enough on the ocean floors that the rain did not dilute it enough to where salt water organisms couldn't survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that were the case then the animals that need salt water and to be near the surface, like some mammals do to breathe, would not survive.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem if you want to look at it that way but if this is going to be taught in schools then this will have to be address from a logical side and not a spiritual side.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The climate is not that important. The creator gave most all organisms the ability to adapt to our surroundings but there are limits to being able to adapt.
> 
> What do you think the climate was like in the ark that would prevent animals from surviving the boat ride ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could Antarctic penguins survive the same temperature as a desert turtle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know they would not survive ?
> 
> Same could be said for the faith required to believe that precision in nature is the result of random chance and unguided processes.
> 
> Once again I do not have a clue what animals existed at the time of Noah.
Click to expand...

What precision in nature do you see that is a function of the gods? Planetary bombardment by asteroids, cell mutation/degeneration from cosmic radiation? Did you ever hear of Shoemaker-Levy? Have you ever seen photos of Tangusta?

Really, man. You announce your creationist/flat earth ignorance like its a badge of honor.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "molecular machine". That is a silly term frequently used within the fundie christian creationist community which displays an appalling lack of science knowledge.  An appalling lack of science knowledge typically defines the fundie christian creationist community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy no point in me responding to your ignorance.
> 
> What transcribes genetic information hollie ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What machine components are in a biological cell?
Click to expand...


If you don't know the makeup of the cell why did you say there were no molecular machines ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be honest. The arguments you claim as yours are not yours at all. The "arguments" are videos produced by creationist ministries such as the ICR and remarkably, Harun Yahya. You do nothing more than post videos and demand others "refute" them.
> 
> It's a nonsensical tactic but one you have tried incessantly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not post any videos on my main arguments they were unlike you in my own words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone can read through the thread and see that you have consistently cut and pasted videos from creationist ministries and then demanded others refute those videos.
Click to expand...


Coming from the queen of paste.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that were the case then the animals that need salt water and to be near the surface, like some mammals do to breathe, would not survive.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem if you want to look at it that way but if this is going to be taught in schools then this will have to be address from a logical side and not a spiritual side.
> 
> 
> 
> Could Antarctic penguins survive the same temperature as a desert turtle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they would not survive ?
> 
> Same could be said for the faith required to believe that precision in nature is the result of random chance and unguided processes.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again I do not have a clue what animals existed at the time of Noah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The animals that exist today -every animal, mammal, insect, rodent, fish, crustacean,.....everything must have existed at the time of Noah. Have thousands of new species evolved in just 4500 years? Maybe you know more of the Noah tale than is represented in the bible?
Click to expand...


No, I believe in micro adaptations change within a family but your side has extrapolated from adaptations as evidence for macro evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

rabbitthekitten said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not post any videos on my main arguments they were unlike you in my own words.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can read through the thread and see that you have consistently cut and pasted videos from creationist ministries and then demanded others refute those videos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The simple answer to why creationism is wrong is that it is impossible because there is no god. No one to create. Ergo it is a flawed theory.
Click to expand...


Please point out the flaws ? I cannot scientifically prove the existence of God nor can you prove he does not exist.

Nor can you prove a natural unguided process is responsible for all things in existence.


----------



## rabbitthekitten

Youwerecreated said:


> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can read through the thread and see that you have consistently cut and pasted videos from creationist ministries and then demanded others refute those videos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The simple answer to why creationism is wrong is that it is impossible because there is no god. No one to create. Ergo it is a flawed theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point out the flaws ? I cannot scientifically prove the existence of God nor can you prove he does not exist.
> 
> Nor can you prove a natural unguided process is responsible for all things in existence.
Click to expand...


The evidence for god is at about of the same level as the evidence for the loch ness monster, Bigfoot and pixies. It's supernatural hocus pocus. Jesus was psychotic, he'd have been sectioned if he was alive today.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that were the case then the animals that need salt water and to be near the surface, like some mammals do to breathe, would not survive.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem if you want to look at it that way but if this is going to be taught in schools then this will have to be address from a logical side and not a spiritual side.
> 
> 
> 
> Could Antarctic penguins survive the same temperature as a desert turtle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they would not survive ?
> 
> Same could be said for the faith required to believe that precision in nature is the result of random chance and unguided processes.
> 
> Once again I do not have a clue what animals existed at the time of Noah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What precision in nature do you see that is a function of the gods? Planetary bombardment by asteroids, cell mutation/degeneration from cosmic radiation? Did you ever hear of Shoemaker-Levy? Have you ever seen photos of Tangusta?
> 
> Really, man. You announce your creationist/flat earth ignorance like its a badge of honor.
Click to expand...


The alignment of key planets,just the right amount of gravity, the many organs needed for living organisms,the genetic code,mans brain,the diversity of life sticking to their own kind,our atmosphere and what it actually does for this planet.

The effects of the sun and moon on this planet.


----------



## Youwerecreated

rabbitthekitten said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple answer to why creationism is wrong is that it is impossible because there is no god. No one to create. Ergo it is a flawed theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please point out the flaws ? I cannot scientifically prove the existence of God nor can you prove he does not exist.
> 
> Nor can you prove a natural unguided process is responsible for all things in existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence for god is at about of the same level as the evidence for the loch ness monster, Bigfoot and pixies. It's supernatural hocus pocus. Jesus was psychotic, he'd have been sectioned if he was alive today.
Click to expand...


Same could be said for naturalism.

Do you believe chaos is responsible for order ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

rabbitthekitten said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple answer to why creationism is wrong is that it is impossible because there is no god. No one to create. Ergo it is a flawed theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please point out the flaws ? I cannot scientifically prove the existence of God nor can you prove he does not exist.
> 
> Nor can you prove a natural unguided process is responsible for all things in existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence for god is at about of the same level as the evidence for the loch ness monster, Bigfoot and pixies. It's supernatural hocus pocus. Jesus was psychotic, he'd have been sectioned if he was alive today.
Click to expand...


Explain to me the benefits of mutations when they are merely copying errors ? Why are there mechanisms that correct these copying errors ? sounds like if it was naturalism or in other words evolution that was the cause for life even naturalism had to be intelligent to think of such things.


----------



## Youwerecreated

If either of you understood the precise order of amino acids in a cell you to would question the validity of an unintelligent process guiding nature.

What does language,homes,cars,telephones,and computers have in common ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they would not survive ?
> 
> Same could be said for the faith required to believe that precision in nature is the result of random chance and unguided processes.
> 
> Once again I do not have a clue what animals existed at the time of Noah.
> 
> 
> 
> What precision in nature do you see that is a function of the gods? Planetary bombardment by asteroids, cell mutation/degeneration from cosmic radiation? Did you ever hear of Shoemaker-Levy? Have you ever seen photos of Tangusta?
> 
> Really, man. You announce your creationist/flat earth ignorance like its a badge of honor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The alignment of key planets,just the right amount of gravity, the many organs needed for living organisms,the genetic code,mans brain,the diversity of life sticking to their own kind,our atmosphere and what it actually does for this planet.
> 
> The effects of the sun and moon on this planet.
Click to expand...

You may be interested to learn that it is the force of a planet's gravity that can cause a cosmic object to impact our own earth.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> If either of you understood the precise order of amino acids in a cell you to would question the validity of an unintelligent process guiding nature.
> 
> What does language,homes,cars,telephones,and computers have in common ?



Actually, there is nothing about amino acids that would cause a person to presume a hierarchy of gods and designers of gods. 

What do superstitions, fears of the unknown and willful ignorance have in common?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What precision in nature do you see that is a function of the gods? Planetary bombardment by asteroids, cell mutation/degeneration from cosmic radiation? Did you ever hear of Shoemaker-Levy? Have you ever seen photos of Tangusta?
> 
> Really, man. You announce your creationist/flat earth ignorance like its a badge of honor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The alignment of key planets,just the right amount of gravity, the many organs needed for living organisms,the genetic code,mans brain,the diversity of life sticking to their own kind,our atmosphere and what it actually does for this planet.
> 
> The effects of the sun and moon on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may be interested to learn that it is the force of a planet's gravity that can cause a cosmic object to impact our own earth.
Click to expand...


Hollie, I believe everything is suffering from entropy and that began with the fall of man into sin. While in theory we could suffer an impact but our atmoshere has done a pretty good job in protecting this planet. Where do you get the idea that this planets gravity could draw an impact ? Do you understand our atmosphere would most likely prevent it.

Still with all the entropy going on this still is the best planet for life and I will continue holding this view until it's proven otherwise. Why did you only respond


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If either of you understood the precise order of amino acids in a cell you to would question the validity of an unintelligent process guiding nature.
> 
> What does language,homes,cars,telephones,and computers have in common ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there is nothing about amino acids that would cause a person to presume a hierarchy of gods and designers of gods.
> 
> What do superstitions, fears of the unknown and willful ignorance have in common?
Click to expand...


I have told you this before out of all the many amino acids that exist there are only certain types that combine to form proteins even though the other amino acids could combine. 

Look at this complexity and learn something. Chance would have to be a miracle. So since I spent much time in my own words explaining this to you here I will give you an article to respond to.

Left-handed Proteins  
Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario regarding the formation of proteins is impossible. 

Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these requirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types of amino acids-as of all organic molecules-called "left-handed" and "right-handed." The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person's right and left hands. 

 The same protein's left- (L) and right- (D) handed isomers. The proteins in living creatures consist only of left-handed amino acids.  

Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with one another. But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is that all the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplest organism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids. If even a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a protein, the protein is rendered useless. In a series of experiments, surprisingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acids immediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable left-handed amino acids from the fractured components. 

Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance as evolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal proportions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both right- and left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it is possible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. However, as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all living organisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids.

The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles evolutionists. Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of the greatest impasses facing the theory of evolution. 

Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facing evolutionists with respect to "chance" even worse. In order for a "meaningful" protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids to be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combined together in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be right-handed. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and recognize that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.

The Britannica Science Encyclopaedia, which is an outspoken defender of evolution, states that the amino acids of all living organisms on earth, and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have the same left-handed asymmetry. It adds that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopaedia states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the origin of life on earth.248

If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of conscious intervention.

A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nucleotide components are always right-handed. This is another fact that can never be explained by chance.

In conclusion, it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by the probabilities we have examined that the origin of life cannot be explained by chance. If we attempt to calculate the probability of an average-sized protein consisting of 400 amino acids being selected only from left-handed amino acids, we come up with a probability of 1 in 2400, or 10120. Just for a comparison, let us remember that the number of electrons in the universe is estimated at 1079, which although vast, is a much smaller number. The probability of these amino acids forming the required sequence and functional form would generate much larger numbers. If we add these probabilities to each other, and if we go on to work out the probabilities of even higher numbers and types of proteins, the calculations become inconceivable.



Darwinism Refuted.com


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If either of you understood the precise order of amino acids in a cell you to would question the validity of an unintelligent process guiding nature.
> 
> What does language,homes,cars,telephones,and computers have in common ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there is nothing about amino acids that would cause a person to presume a hierarchy of gods and designers of gods.
> 
> What do superstitions, fears of the unknown and willful ignorance have in common?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have told you this before out of all the many amino acids that exist there are only certain types that combine to form proteins even though the other amino acids could combine.
> 
> Look at this complexity and learn something. Chance would have to be a miracle. So since I spent much time in my own words explaining this to you here I will give you an article to respond to.
> 
> Left-handed Proteins
> Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario regarding the formation of proteins is impossible.
> 
> Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these requirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types of amino acids-as of all organic molecules-called "left-handed" and "right-handed." The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person's right and left hands.
> 
> The same protein's left- (L) and right- (D) handed isomers. The proteins in living creatures consist only of left-handed amino acids.
> 
> Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with one another. But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is that all the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplest organism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids. If even a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a protein, the protein is rendered useless. In a series of experiments, surprisingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acids immediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable left-handed amino acids from the fractured components.
> 
> Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance as evolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal proportions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both right- and left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it is possible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. However, as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all living organisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids.
> 
> The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles evolutionists. Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of the greatest impasses facing the theory of evolution.
> 
> Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facing evolutionists with respect to "chance" even worse. In order for a "meaningful" protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids to be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combined together in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be right-handed. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and recognize that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.
> 
> The Britannica Science Encyclopaedia, which is an outspoken defender of evolution, states that the amino acids of all living organisms on earth, and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have the same left-handed asymmetry. It adds that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopaedia states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the origin of life on earth.248
> 
> If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of conscious intervention.
> 
> A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nucleotide components are always right-handed. This is another fact that can never be explained by chance.
> 
> In conclusion, it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by the probabilities we have examined that the origin of life cannot be explained by chance. If we attempt to calculate the probability of an average-sized protein consisting of 400 amino acids being selected only from left-handed amino acids, we come up with a probability of 1 in 2400, or 10120. Just for a comparison, let us remember that the number of electrons in the universe is estimated at 1079, which although vast, is a much smaller number. The probability of these amino acids forming the required sequence and functional form would generate much larger numbers. If we add these probabilities to each other, and if we go on to work out the probabilities of even higher numbers and types of proteins, the calculations become inconceivable.
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism Refuted.com
Click to expand...


Harun Yahya. Why do you waste bandwidth with this nonsense?

Please go away.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No spin just a fact, Your side made the claim whales had legs at one point in time.
> 
> 
> 
> it's not a claim it's fact. find actual scientific evidence and prove me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I prove something wrong you can't produce ?
Click to expand...

days later and still no proof .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense,you are avoiding strong evidence for a global flood for what reason ?
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY]Noah's Flood - debunked (Part 1) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSvktyxVYA]Noah's Flood debunked (Part 2) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your debunker can't debunk the word of God that explains the global flood and can be confirmed through evidence.
> 
> Fail as usual.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGeULHljDn8]Startling Evidence That Noah's Flood Really Happened - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> Age of the earth.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOvyuNxlovE&feature=related]Scientific Evidences For a Young Earth - Dr. Thomas Kindell - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

 really! shit for brains HE already did..... 
what you claim to be evdence is not just specious religious conjecture!

your belief in god is not evidence of any thing but your belief.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there is nothing about amino acids that would cause a person to presume a hierarchy of gods and designers of gods.
> 
> What do superstitions, fears of the unknown and willful ignorance have in common?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have told you this before out of all the many amino acids that exist there are only certain types that combine to form proteins even though the other amino acids could combine.
> 
> Look at this complexity and learn something. Chance would have to be a miracle. So since I spent much time in my own words explaining this to you here I will give you an article to respond to.
> 
> Left-handed Proteins
> Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario regarding the formation of proteins is impossible.
> 
> Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these requirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types of amino acids-as of all organic molecules-called "left-handed" and "right-handed." The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person's right and left hands.
> 
> The same protein's left- (L) and right- (D) handed isomers. The proteins in living creatures consist only of left-handed amino acids.
> 
> Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with one another. But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is that all the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplest organism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids. If even a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a protein, the protein is rendered useless. In a series of experiments, surprisingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acids immediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable left-handed amino acids from the fractured components.
> 
> Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance as evolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal proportions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both right- and left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it is possible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. However, as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all living organisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids.
> 
> The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles evolutionists. Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of the greatest impasses facing the theory of evolution.
> 
> Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facing evolutionists with respect to "chance" even worse. In order for a "meaningful" protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids to be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combined together in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be right-handed. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and recognize that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.
> 
> The Britannica Science Encyclopaedia, which is an outspoken defender of evolution, states that the amino acids of all living organisms on earth, and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have the same left-handed asymmetry. It adds that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopaedia states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the origin of life on earth.248
> 
> If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of conscious intervention.
> 
> A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nucleotide components are always right-handed. This is another fact that can never be explained by chance.
> 
> In conclusion, it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by the probabilities we have examined that the origin of life cannot be explained by chance. If we attempt to calculate the probability of an average-sized protein consisting of 400 amino acids being selected only from left-handed amino acids, we come up with a probability of 1 in 2400, or 10120. Just for a comparison, let us remember that the number of electrons in the universe is estimated at 1079, which although vast, is a much smaller number. The probability of these amino acids forming the required sequence and functional form would generate much larger numbers. If we add these probabilities to each other, and if we go on to work out the probabilities of even higher numbers and types of proteins, the calculations become inconceivable.
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism Refuted.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Harun Yahya. Why do you waste bandwidth with this nonsense?
> 
> Please go away.
Click to expand...


Now if you only understood what was said in this article. This real undisputed evidence now that is evidence of a process being guided. This is evidence of design.

Can you explain how only left handed amino acids combine to form proteins in cells ? Which in turn form life on earth.

Now look at your side try to avoid the problem with conjecture filled explanations. This is indeed a problem for your side to explain.



Science and Reason 

Stuff for science nerds




Sunday, May 04, 2008


 The amino acid chirality mystery 



If the analysis here is correct, it solves one of the more puzzling mysteries of life on Earth  namely, the fact that all 20 amino acids found in biological proteins are "left-handed".

Meteorites Delivered The 'Seeds' Of Earth's Left-hand Life, Experts Argue

In a report at the 235th national meeting of the American Chemical Society, Ronald Breslow, Ph.D., University Professor, Columbia University, and former ACS President, described how our amino acid signature came from outer space.

Chains of amino acids make up the protein found in people, plants, and all other forms of life on Earth. There are two orientations of amino acids, left and right, which mirror each other in the same way your hands do. This is known as "chirality." In order for life to arise, proteins must contain only one chiral form of amino acids, left or right, Breslow noted.

"If you mix up chirality, a protein's properties change enormously. Life couldn't operate with just random mixtures of stuff," he said.

Recall that a carbon atom can form up to four bonds with other atoms. (Sometimes there are 2 or more bonds with the same atom, such as a double bond to another carbon atom.)

You can imagine these bonds arranged in a tetrahedral shape, that is, from a central carbon atom in the direction of the 4 vertices of a tetrahedron. In an amino acid, three of the bonds are occupied by a hydrogen atom, an amino group (NH2), and a carboxyl group (COOH). The remaining bond is occupied by a fourth group, which is variable (but there are only 20 possibilities that normally occur in Earthly biology) and determines the specific amino acid. The simplest amino acid is glycine, in which the fourth bond is occupied by a single hydrogen atom.

If you think of the amino acid as a tetrahedron, with the carboxyl group at the top, the other three components are arranged around the three bottom vertices. In glycine, two of those positions will be hydrogen atoms. But in all other amino acids, there are two different orders in which the distinct components can be arranged. Think of the tetrahedron's axis running from the central carbon atom to the top. If you look down that axis towards the base of the tetrahedron, then the hydrogen atom will be in either the clockwise or counterclockwise direction from the amino group. The latter is (by convention) called the left-handed (L) version, and the former is called the right-handed (R) version.

A protein is a series of amino acids tied together by peptide bonds, which form between the amino group of one amino acid and the carboxyl group of the other (with an H2O molecule removed, since an H pairs with an OH). In biological proteins such bonds form only between amino acids of the same chirality (both R or both L). So all proteins must consist only of L or R amino acids. As it happens, only the L type of protein occurs in nature on Earth. Presumably that is because at some time back when life was first developing, L amino acids significantly outnumbered R amino acids, and hence L proteins predominated over R proteins.

So the mystery is reduced to that of why at some point in time there were many more L amino acids than the R form. It has been shown that amino acids can form spontaneously from inorganic materias under some conditions (the Miller-Urey experiments demonstrated this.) However, one would expect equal amounts of R and L amino acids under such circumstances.

But there's another way out, because we know that in fact amino acids can form in interstellar space, since they were found in parts of the Murchison meteorite (and later others) that were uncontaminated with Earthly material. Furthermore, there's one definite way that amino acids which existed originally in an equal mixture of L and R forms on a chunk of rock hurtling through space could have their proportion tilted in one direction or the other:

These amino acids "seeds" formed in interstellar space, possibly on asteroids as they careened through space. At the outset, they have equal amounts of left and right-handed amino acids. But as these rocks soar past neutron stars, their light rays trigger the selective destruction of one form of amino acid. The stars emit circularly polarized light--in one direction, its rays are polarized to the right. 180 degrees in the other direction, the star emits left-polarized light.

All earthbound meteors catch an excess of one of the two polarized rays. Breslow said that previous experiments confirmed that circularly polarized light selectively destroys one chiral form of amino acids over the other. The end result is a five to ten percent excess of one form, in this case, L-amino acids. Evidence of this left-handed excess was found on the surfaces of these meteorites, which have crashed into Earth even within the last hundred years, landing in Australia and Tennessee.

So, one asks, is it possible that this imbalance of R and L amino acids was transferred from a meteorite to prebiotic Earth? In a series of experiments Breslow confirmed that this could happen:

Breslow simulated what occurred after the dust settled following a meteor bombardment, when the amino acids on the meteor mixed with the primordial soup. Under "credible prebiotic conditions"-- desert-like temperatures and a little bit of water -- he exposed amino acid chemical precursors to those amino acids found on meteorites.

Breslow and Columbia chemistry grad student Mindy Levine found that these cosmic amino acids could directly transfer their chirality to simple amino acids found in living things. Thus far, Breslow's team is the first to demonstrate that this kind of handedness transfer is possible under these conditions.

On the prebiotic Earth, this transfer left a slight excess of left-handed amino acids, Breslow said. His next experiment replicated the chemistry that led to the amplification and eventual dominance of left-handed amino acids.

That's where things stand now. We have as yet no way of knowing whether this is the scenario that actually occurred. But it is the most credible scenario yet devised to explain the otherwise astonishing fact that essentially all life on Earth uses only left-handed amino acids.




Science and Reason: The amino acid chirality mystery

You can have all right handed or left amino acids but you can;'t have a mixture that my friend is by design.

 life began from amino acids found in meteorites from space. Talk about imagination,what would happen to the meteorite that collides with our planet ? If the amino acids were found in the meteorite how can they be released without being destroyed.

They need to lay off of the drugs.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's not a claim it's fact. find actual scientific evidence and prove me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I prove something wrong you can't produce ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> days later and still no proof .
Click to expand...


You can't offer anything but a fossil of a creature, your evidence is based on imagination.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah's Flood - debunked (Part 1) - YouTube
> 
> 
> Noah's Flood debunked (Part 2) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your debunker can't debunk the word of God that explains the global flood and can be confirmed through evidence.
> 
> Fail as usual.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGeULHljDn8]Startling Evidence That Noah's Flood Really Happened - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> Age of the earth.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOvyuNxlovE&feature=related]Scientific Evidences For a Young Earth - Dr. Thomas Kindell - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really! shit for brains HE already did.....
> what you claim to be evdence is not just specious religious conjecture!
> 
> your belief in god is not evidence of any thing but your belief.
Click to expand...


Well lets see if you can discuss amino acid chirality unlike hollie.

Lert's talk amino acids.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they havn't.
> 
> Read the facts and see how this guy admits the fossil record is not even close to complete but we knew that right. So the fossil record is based on conjecture.
> 
> The Fossil Record
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would certainly define this as a slow transition.
> 
> http://www.macroevolution.net/human-evolution-chart-1.html#human-evolution-chart
> Human Evolution Chart (Sec. 2)  Online Biology Dictionary
> 
> May I ask if you also believe in Noah's Ark to it fullest?  If so, how do you explain how the animals could all fit in the Ark and how they could have been fed, bathed, have their waste removed, and have the property temperature for each specific animal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not every living organism that has ever lived went on the ark. There is diversity in each family because the genetic information was already there in the genome. The diversity of a family group comes from gene recombination,cross breeding,and selective breeding.
> 
> If everything slowly evolved over millions and billions of years where are these transitional fossils. Why are these that evolved from one group to another group not still arond but the ones they evolved from are still here ? I mean the explanation given is the better adapted transitional organisms pass on their traits through natural selection.
> 
> If you are not willing to put your beliefs to the test a person can be mislead. That is why many evolutionist and ex atheist have done and have become believers because the evidence better supports a designer.
Click to expand...

























1.Two (Genesis 6:19-20) - "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive." 
2.Seven (Genesis 7:2-3) - "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would certainly define this as a slow transition.
> 
> http://www.macroevolution.net/human-evolution-chart-1.html#human-evolution-chart
> Human Evolution Chart (Sec. 2)  Online Biology Dictionary
> 
> May I ask if you also believe in Noah's Ark to it fullest?  If so, how do you explain how the animals could all fit in the Ark and how they could have been fed, bathed, have their waste removed, and have the property temperature for each specific animal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not every living organism that has ever lived went on the ark. There is diversity in each family because the genetic information was already there in the genome. The diversity of a family group comes from gene recombination,cross breeding,and selective breeding.
> 
> If everything slowly evolved over millions and billions of years where are these transitional fossils. Why are these that evolved from one group to another group not still arond but the ones they evolved from are still here ? I mean the explanation given is the better adapted transitional organisms pass on their traits through natural selection.
> 
> If you are not willing to put your beliefs to the test a person can be mislead. That is why many evolutionist and ex atheist have done and have become believers because the evidence better supports a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Two (Genesis 6:19-20) - "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
> 2.Seven (Genesis 7:2-3) - "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."
Click to expand...


Well hello hollie.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I prove something wrong you can't produce ?
> 
> 
> 
> days later and still no proof .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't offer anything but a fossil of a creature, your evidence is based on imagination.
Click to expand...

are you a silly ignorant fuck all the time or just on line?
the fossils prove whales had legs nothing imaginary about it.
ok...now you show me moses' or jesus's remains.. hell I'd even settle for a Mayan burial  with a guy next to his pet velociraptor..
even easier point out the place where all the rock and dirt from the 5min excavation of the grand canyon went!

btw you've contradicted yourself again


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your debunker can't debunk the word of God that explains the global flood and can be confirmed through evidence.
> 
> Fail as usual.
> 
> Startling Evidence That Noah's Flood Really Happened - YouTube
> 
> 
> Age of the earth.
> 
> Scientific Evidences For a Young Earth - Dr. Thomas Kindell - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> really! shit for brains HE already did.....
> what you claim to be evdence is not just specious religious conjecture!
> 
> your belief in god is not evidence of any thing but your belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets see if you can discuss amino acid chirality unlike hollie.
> 
> Lert's talk amino acids.
Click to expand...


What discussion is there of amino acids?

You copied and pasted volumes of material from one of the premiere snake oil salesman of the (islamic) creationist crowd.

Bully for you.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your debunker can't debunk the word of God that explains the global flood and can be confirmed through evidence.
> 
> Fail as usual.
> 
> Startling Evidence That Noah's Flood Really Happened - YouTube
> 
> 
> Age of the earth.
> 
> Scientific Evidences For a Young Earth - Dr. Thomas Kindell - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> really! shit for brains HE already did.....
> what you claim to be evdence is not just specious religious conjecture!
> 
> your belief in god is not evidence of any thing but your belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets see if you can discuss amino acid chirality unlike hollie.
> 
> Lert's talk amino acids.
Click to expand...

no need to it's not evidence of a god. you have to prove god exsits before any thing you say is proof  is valid.  get it.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Now if you only understood what was said in this article. This real undisputed evidence now that is evidence of a process being guided. This is evidence of design.
> 
> Can you explain how only left handed amino acids combine to form proteins in cells ? Which in turn form life on earth.
> 
> Now look at your side try to avoid the problem with conjecture filled explanations. This is indeed a problem for your side to explain.


What is the problem?






> You can have all right handed or left amino acids but you can;'t have a mixture that my friend is by design.
> 
> life began from amino acids found in meteorites from space. Talk about imagination,what would happen to the meteorite that collides with our planet ? If the amino acids were found in the meteorite how can they be released without being destroyed.
> 
> They need to lay off of the drugs.



You understood nothing of the article.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not every living organism that has ever lived went on the ark. There is diversity in each family because the genetic information was already there in the genome. The diversity of a family group comes from gene recombination,cross breeding,and selective breeding.
> 
> If everything slowly evolved over millions and billions of years where are these transitional fossils. Why are these that evolved from one group to another group not still arond but the ones they evolved from are still here ? I mean the explanation given is the better adapted transitional organisms pass on their traits through natural selection.
> 
> If you are not willing to put your beliefs to the test a person can be mislead. That is why many evolutionist and ex atheist have done and have become believers because the evidence better supports a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Two (Genesis 6:19-20) - "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
> 2.Seven (Genesis 7:2-3) - "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well hello hollie.
Click to expand...

keep dodging you lying piece of shit!
not even enough integrity to admit it !


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Two (Genesis 6:19-20) - "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
> 2.Seven (Genesis 7:2-3) - "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well hello hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> keep dodging you lying piece of shit!
> not even enough integrity to admit it !
Click to expand...

I've come to expect that if whackadoodle is typing, he's lying.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Two (Genesis 6:19-20) - "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
> 2.Seven (Genesis 7:2-3) - "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well hello hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> keep dodging you lying piece of shit!
> not even enough integrity to admit it !
Click to expand...


Oh did I hit a nerve ? maybe the Mods should check you out.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well hello hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> keep dodging you lying piece of shit!
> not even enough integrity to admit it !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've come to expect that if whackadoodle is typing, he's lying.
Click to expand...


Lying about what hollie ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Still avoiding my questions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> days later and still no proof .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't offer anything but a fossil of a creature, your evidence is based on imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you a silly ignorant fuck all the time or just on line?
> the fossils prove whales had legs nothing imaginary about it.
> ok...now you show me moses' or jesus's remains.. hell I'd even settle for a Mayan burial  with a guy next to his pet velociraptor..
> even easier point out the place where all the rock and dirt from the 5min excavation of the grand canyon went!
> 
> btw you've contradicted yourself again
Click to expand...


Daws, it is very simple produce the evidence, a complete fossil that shows this because I have never seen it.

We will discuss it to. Just showing one bone does not do it for me.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would certainly define this as a slow transition.
> 
> http://www.macroevolution.net/human-evolution-chart-1.html#human-evolution-chart
> Human Evolution Chart (Sec. 2)  Online Biology Dictionary
> 
> May I ask if you also believe in Noah's Ark to it fullest?  If so, how do you explain how the animals could all fit in the Ark and how they could have been fed, bathed, have their waste removed, and have the property temperature for each specific animal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not every living organism that has ever lived went on the ark. There is diversity in each family because the genetic information was already there in the genome. The diversity of a family group comes from gene recombination,cross breeding,and selective breeding.
> 
> If everything slowly evolved over millions and billions of years where are these transitional fossils. Why are these that evolved from one group to another group not still arond but the ones they evolved from are still here ? I mean the explanation given is the better adapted transitional organisms pass on their traits through natural selection.
> 
> If you are not willing to put your beliefs to the test a person can be mislead. That is why many evolutionist and ex atheist have done and have become believers because the evidence better supports a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Two (Genesis 6:19-20) - "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
> 2.Seven (Genesis 7:2-3) - "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."
Click to expand...


Yes at the time they were but I don't know for sure what was on the ark. Were great danes and boxers or clydesdales on the ark ? A lot of diversity came after the flood.

Gen 6:20  Of fowlsH4480 H5775 after their kind,H4327 and ofH4480 cattleH929 after their kind,H4327 of everyH4480 H3605 creeping thingH7431 of the earthH127 after his kind,H4327 twoH8147 of everyH4480 H3605 sort shall comeH935 untoH413 thee, to keep them alive.H2421 


H4480
&#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1503;
min  minn&#305;&#770;y  minne&#770;y
min, min-nee', min-nay'
For H4482; properly a part of; hence (prepositionally), from or out of in many senses: - above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among), in, X neither, X nor, (out) of, over, since, X then, through, X whether, with.


H4327
&#1502;&#1497;&#1503;
m&#305;&#770;yn
meen
From an unused root meaning to portion out; a sort, that is, species: - kind. Compare H4480.


H4480
&#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1503;
min  minn&#305;&#770;y  minne&#770;y
min, min-nee', min-nay'
For H4482; properly a part of; hence (prepositionally), from or out of in many senses: - above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among), in, X neither, X nor, (out) of, over, since, X then, through, X whether, with.


Looks like only a portion of each family was on the ark. Species could represent a family group.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really! shit for brains HE already did.....
> what you claim to be evdence is not just specious religious conjecture!
> 
> your belief in god is not evidence of any thing but your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets see if you can discuss amino acid chirality unlike hollie.
> 
> Lert's talk amino acids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to it's not evidence of a god. you have to prove god exsits before any thing you say is proof  is valid.  get it.
Click to expand...


Well chirality is evidence of intelligence and design not random chance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you only understood what was said in this article. This real undisputed evidence now that is evidence of a process being guided. This is evidence of design.
> 
> Can you explain how only left handed amino acids combine to form proteins in cells ? Which in turn form life on earth.
> 
> Now look at your side try to avoid the problem with conjecture filled explanations. This is indeed a problem for your side to explain.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can have all right handed or left amino acids but you can;'t have a mixture that my friend is by design.
> 
> life began from amino acids found in meteorites from space. Talk about imagination,what would happen to the meteorite that collides with our planet ? If the amino acids were found in the meteorite how can they be released without being destroyed.
> 
> They need to lay off of the drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You understood nothing of the article.
Click to expand...


You are in denial and you didn't even pick up on the conjecture used as an explanation.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you only understood what was said in this article. This real undisputed evidence now that is evidence of a process being guided. This is evidence of design.
> 
> Can you explain how only left handed amino acids combine to form proteins in cells ? Which in turn form life on earth.
> 
> Now look at your side try to avoid the problem with conjecture filled explanations. This is indeed a problem for your side to explain.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can have all right handed or left amino acids but you can;'t have a mixture that my friend is by design.
> 
> life began from amino acids found in meteorites from space. Talk about imagination,what would happen to the meteorite that collides with our planet ? If the amino acids were found in the meteorite how can they be released without being destroyed.
> 
> They need to lay off of the drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You understood nothing of the article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are in denial and you didn't even pick up on the conjecture used as an explanation.
Click to expand...


Its remarkable that you would make the claim that anyone is in denial. You copied and pasted an article from Harun Yahya. 

I suppose its not that surprising that you would worship at the altar of Islamic creationists such as Harun Yahya and Zakir Naik. Its a simple matter to associate their them with the anti-science / anti-evolution crusaders since Naik and Yahya steal ruthlessly from the writing of Christian creationists for their own anti-evolutionary arguments. It appears that you have done nothing more than to promote the nonsense of: hey, I read it on the internet so it must be true.

in this case, your claims to others being in denial should be directed not at the science community but with your fellow Moslems who have voluntarily leapt into bed with the Christian creationist movement and polemic.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets see if you can discuss amino acid chirality unlike hollie.
> 
> Lert's talk amino acids.
> 
> 
> 
> no need to it's not evidence of a god. you have to prove god exsits before any thing you say is proof  is valid.  get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well chirality is evidence of intelligence and design not random chance.
Click to expand...


That is true only for the Harun Yahya / Zakir Naik worshippers.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Yes at the time they were but I don't know for sure what was on the ark. Were great danes and boxers or clydesdales on the ark ? A lot of diversity came after the flood.



There's no need to rewrite the bible to save a failed argument.

We know precisely what was for sure on the Ark. 

Daws posted the relevant scripture:

1.Two (Genesis 6:19-20) - "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive." 
2.Seven (Genesis 7:2-3) - "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."

What are you having difficulty with?

This is exactly the problem that fundies have with their ever shrinking creation model. The evolution from Biblical Creationism to Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design is the deliberate and progressive stripping away of accountability on the part of fundies. As their arguments are doomed to failure, they begin to furiously rewrite and reinterpret their bibles. Its gotten so bad that the Christian fundies have jumped into bed with Islamic creationists.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> keep dodging you lying piece of shit!
> not even enough integrity to admit it !
> 
> 
> 
> I've come to expect that if whackadoodle is typing, he's lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying about what hollie ?
Click to expand...


Lying about your claims.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Yes at the time they were but I don't know for sure what was on the ark. Were great danes and boxers or clydesdales on the ark ? A lot of diversity came after the flood.



What does that mean exactly? 

What diversity came after the flood? What diversity ocurred in just 4500 years?

Still avoiding the questions, I see.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You understood nothing of the article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are in denial and you didn't even pick up on the conjecture used as an explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its remarkable that you would make the claim that anyone is in denial. You copied and pasted an article from Harun Yahya.
> 
> I suppose its not that surprising that you would worship at the altar of Islamic creationists such as Harun Yahya and Zakir Naik. Its a simple matter to associate their them with the anti-science / anti-evolution crusaders since Naik and Yahya steal ruthlessly from the writing of Christian creationists for their own anti-evolutionary arguments. It appears that you have done nothing more than to promote the nonsense of: hey, I read it on the internet so it must be true.
> 
> in this case, your claims to others being in denial should be directed not at the science community but with your fellow Moslems who have voluntarily leapt into bed with the Christian creationist movement and polemic.
Click to expand...


Where do you think most creationist sites get their info ? where do the sites you copy and paste get their information ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no need to it's not evidence of a god. you have to prove god exsits before any thing you say is proof  is valid.  get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well chirality is evidence of intelligence and design not random chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true only for the Harun Yahya / Zakir Naik worshippers.
Click to expand...


Wrong again as usual, you are consistently wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes at the time they were but I don't know for sure what was on the ark. Were great danes and boxers or clydesdales on the ark ? A lot of diversity came after the flood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need to rewrite the bible to save a failed argument.
> 
> We know precisely what was for sure on the Ark.
> 
> Daws posted the relevant scripture:
> 
> 1.Two (Genesis 6:19-20) - "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
> 2.Seven (Genesis 7:2-3) - "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."
> 
> What are you having difficulty with?
> 
> This is exactly the problem that fundies have with their ever shrinking creation model. The evolution from Biblical Creationism to Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design is the deliberate and progressive stripping away of accountability on the part of fundies. As their arguments are doomed to failure, they begin to furiously rewrite and reinterpret their bibles. Its gotten so bad that the Christian fundies have jumped into bed with Islamic creationists.
Click to expand...


Rewriting the bible  but I'll say it again, I have no idea what all animals were on the ark. I don't know exactly what existed 5,000 years ago.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've come to expect that if whackadoodle is typing, he's lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying about what hollie ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying about your claims.
Click to expand...


Point out the lies explain why it is a lie. I would never purposely lie over this nonsense. You either will listen and learn or you will not that is your choice.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes at the time they were but I don't know for sure what was on the ark. Were great danes and boxers or clydesdales on the ark ? A lot of diversity came after the flood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean exactly?
> 
> What diversity came after the flood? What diversity ocurred in just 4500 years?
> 
> Still avoiding the questions, I see.
Click to expand...


Yeah all the different breeds of dometicated animals such as livestock, dogs,cats, etc came in that short period of time.

The Different breeds in each family in the wild I don't know for sure if they already were created as they were or through adaptations some changed.

I would say wild animals were created as they appear today.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes at the time they were but I don't know for sure what was on the ark. Were great danes and boxers or clydesdales on the ark ? A lot of diversity came after the flood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need to rewrite the bible to save a failed argument.
> 
> We know precisely what was for sure on the Ark.
> 
> Daws posted the relevant scripture:
> 
> 1.Two (Genesis 6:19-20) - "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
> 2.Seven (Genesis 7:2-3) - "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."
> 
> What are you having difficulty with?
> 
> This is exactly the problem that fundies have with their ever shrinking creation model. The evolution from Biblical Creationism to Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design is the deliberate and progressive stripping away of accountability on the part of fundies. As their arguments are doomed to failure, they begin to furiously rewrite and reinterpret their bibles. Its gotten so bad that the Christian fundies have jumped into bed with Islamic creationists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rewriting the bible  but I'll say it again, I have no idea what all animals were on the ark. I don't know exactly what existed 5,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

What a nonsense sidestep and waffle. We know from our literal reading of the bible that two of every living thing were on the Ark. 

Are you supposing that Noah decided on his own that " hey, the gods don't know what they're talking about and I'm having some trouble finding a pair of Great Danes so screw the gods". 

It's just remarkable how creationists will rewrite the bible when it suits their agenda.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes at the time they were but I don't know for sure what was on the ark. Were great danes and boxers or clydesdales on the ark ? A lot of diversity came after the flood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean exactly?
> 
> What diversity came after the flood? What diversity ocurred in just 4500 years?
> 
> Still avoiding the questions, I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah all the different breeds of dometicated animals such as livestock, dogs,cats, etc came in that short period of time.
> 
> The Different breeds in each family in the wild I don't know for sure if they already were created as they were or through adaptations some changed.
> 
> I would say wild animals were created as they appear today.
Click to expand...

You can make any claim you wish. How many times will you need to rewrite the bible so that the glaring contradictions don't completely and utterly dismantle reality?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need to rewrite the bible to save a failed argument.
> 
> We know precisely what was for sure on the Ark.
> 
> Daws posted the relevant scripture:
> 
> 1.Two (Genesis 6:19-20) - "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
> 2.Seven (Genesis 7:2-3) - "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."
> 
> What are you having difficulty with?
> 
> This is exactly the problem that fundies have with their ever shrinking creation model. The evolution from Biblical Creationism to Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design is the deliberate and progressive stripping away of accountability on the part of fundies. As their arguments are doomed to failure, they begin to furiously rewrite and reinterpret their bibles. Its gotten so bad that the Christian fundies have jumped into bed with Islamic creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rewriting the bible  but I'll say it again, I have no idea what all animals were on the ark. I don't know exactly what existed 5,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a nonsense sidestep and waffle. We know from our literal reading of the bible that two of every living thing were on the Ark.
> 
> Are you supposing that Noah decided on his own that " hey, the gods don't know what they're talking about and I'm having some trouble finding a pair of Great Danes so screw the gods".
> 
> It's just remarkable how creationists will rewrite the bible when it suits their agenda.
Click to expand...


Just to correct you not everything is literal in the bible some things are left to interpretation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean exactly?
> 
> What diversity came after the flood? What diversity ocurred in just 4500 years?
> 
> Still avoiding the questions, I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah all the different breeds of dometicated animals such as livestock, dogs,cats, etc came in that short period of time.
> 
> The Different breeds in each family in the wild I don't know for sure if they already were created as they were or through adaptations some changed.
> 
> I would say wild animals were created as they appear today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can make any claim you wish. How many times will you need to rewrite the bible so that the glaring contradictions don't completely and utterly dismantle reality?
Click to expand...



Feel free to have an opinion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

If I were to guess like many men of science do I would be no different from them. I will give my opinions not saying they are absolutely true but that is all it is a opinion. There are some things that I give that are not opinion,they are facts like chirality of amino acids. Mutations prove to destroy genetic information not add to the existing genetic information, This is a fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie I have asked a question you and your friends continue to dodge. Would an unintelligent process think of developing mechanisms to correct mutations which are copying errors ? why do these mechanisms work to correct these copying errors ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rewriting the bible  but I'll say it again, I have no idea what all animals were on the ark. I don't know exactly what existed 5,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> What a nonsense sidestep and waffle. We know from our literal reading of the bible that two of every living thing were on the Ark.
> 
> Are you supposing that Noah decided on his own that " hey, the gods don't know what they're talking about and I'm having some trouble finding a pair of Great Danes so screw the gods".
> 
> It's just remarkable how creationists will rewrite the bible when it suits their agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to correct you not everything is literal in the bible some things are left to interpretation.
Click to expand...

That is a convenient tactic. It allows you any loop-hole that you need st any given time. 

Which parts of the Noah tale are literal and which are kinda-sorta maybe true?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah all the different breeds of dometicated animals such as livestock, dogs,cats, etc came in that short period of time.
> 
> The Different breeds in each family in the wild I don't know for sure if they already were created as they were or through adaptations some changed.
> 
> I would say wild animals were created as they appear today.
> 
> 
> 
> You can make any claim you wish. How many times will you need to rewrite the bible so that the glaring contradictions don't completely and utterly dismantle reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I
> 
> Feel free to have an opinion.
Click to expand...

It was you who posted videos that claimed to offer "proof" of the biblical flood. Is it your opinion that the flood tale is true but the parts concerning Noah are... well... maybe not so true?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie I have asked a question you and your friends continue to dodge. Would an unintelligent process think of developing mechanisms to correct mutations which are copying errors ? why do these mechanisms work to correct these copying errors ?



Why would an intelligent designer design-in so many flaws to his creation? 

The flaws do not amount to an occasional Miller time that came early but wholesale errors, omissions and stupendous lapses in judgement.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie I have asked a question you and your friends continue to dodge. Would an unintelligent process think of developing mechanisms to correct mutations which are copying errors ? why do these mechanisms work to correct these copying errors ?



Your question is, of course, nonsensical. There is no such thing as an unintelligent design process in connection with the natural world. 

Why would you pose such a meaningless example?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can make any claim you wish. How many times will you need to rewrite the bible so that the glaring contradictions don't completely and utterly dismantle reality?
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> Feel free to have an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was you who posted videos that claimed to offer "proof" of the biblical flood. Is it your opinion that the flood tale is true but the parts concerning Noah are... well... maybe not so true?
Click to expand...


I thought I made this clear. I accept the global flood and all flesh was on the ark but I can't say what was on the ark. I don't know what animals existed at the time. I do believe every family group was on the ark.

You are saying every species as defined by science was on the ark denying the fact of microadaptations, through the many methods mentioned earlier. Darwin brought our attention to the many different finches but they were all still finches.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a nonsense sidestep and waffle. We know from our literal reading of the bible that two of every living thing were on the Ark.
> 
> Are you supposing that Noah decided on his own that " hey, the gods don't know what they're talking about and I'm having some trouble finding a pair of Great Danes so screw the gods".
> 
> It's just remarkable how creationists will rewrite the bible when it suits their agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to correct you not everything is literal in the bible some things are left to interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a convenient tactic. It allows you any loop-hole that you need st any given time.
> 
> Which parts of the Noah tale are literal and which are kinda-sorta maybe true?
Click to expand...


Nope.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie I have asked a question you and your friends continue to dodge. Would an unintelligent process think of developing mechanisms to correct mutations which are copying errors ? why do these mechanisms work to correct these copying errors ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would an intelligent designer design-in so many flaws to his creation?
> 
> The flaws do not amount to an occasional Miller time that came early but wholesale errors, omissions and stupendous lapses in judgement.
Click to expand...


He didn't that is the result of sin and entropy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie I have asked a question you and your friends continue to dodge. Would an unintelligent process think of developing mechanisms to correct mutations which are copying errors ? why do these mechanisms work to correct these copying errors ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is, of course, nonsensical. There is no such thing as an unintelligent design process in connection with the natural world.
> 
> Why would you pose such a meaningless example?
Click to expand...


So you are saying evolution is a intelligent process ? quit dodging and asnwer the question.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Lookie here,watch your side make unfounded claims evolution is rejected for good sound reasoning not just religous beliefs.

Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> Feel free to have an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> It was you who posted videos that claimed to offer "proof" of the biblical flood. Is it your opinion that the flood tale is true but the parts concerning Noah are... well... maybe not so true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought I made this clear. I accept the global flood and all flesh was on the ark but I can't say what was on the ark. I don't know what animals existed at the time. I do believe every family group was on the ark.
> 
> You are saying every species as defined by science was on the ark denying the fact of microadaptations, through the many methods mentioned earlier. Darwin brought our attention to the many different finches but they were all still finches.
Click to expand...

We can therefore accept part if the Noah tale aa literally true and other parts not, is that correct?

The verses of the bible posted previously were not vague about "every living thing of all flesh". 

I could see why dinosaurs were not on the Ark as they existed millions of years before the flood. Unless of course the fosill record is incorrect and dinosaurs lived and died just within the last 4500 years. 

What do you think?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Lookie here,watch your side make unfounded claims evolution is rejected for good sound reasoning not just religous beliefs.
> 
> Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds



How horrible is that?  Were saddled with science loathing people like you in an increasingly competitive world where education is vital.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie I have asked a question you and your friends continue to dodge. Would an unintelligent process think of developing mechanisms to correct mutations which are copying errors ? why do these mechanisms work to correct these copying errors ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is, of course, nonsensical. There is no such thing as an unintelligent design process in connection with the natural world.
> 
> Why would you pose such a meaningless example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying evolution is a intelligent process ? quit dodging and asnwer the question.
Click to expand...


So you are completely clueless?

You've already answered.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Lookie here,watch your side make unfounded claims evolution is rejected for good sound reasoning not just religous beliefs.
> 
> Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds



How fortunate are we to have the superstitious heralding rejection of science in favor of fear and superstitions with "lookie here".


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was you who posted videos that claimed to offer "proof" of the biblical flood. Is it your opinion that the flood tale is true but the parts concerning Noah are... well... maybe not so true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I made this clear. I accept the global flood and all flesh was on the ark but I can't say what was on the ark. I don't know what animals existed at the time. I do believe every family group was on the ark.
> 
> You are saying every species as defined by science was on the ark denying the fact of microadaptations, through the many methods mentioned earlier. Darwin brought our attention to the many different finches but they were all still finches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can therefore accept part if the Noah tale aa literally true and other parts not, is that correct?
> 
> The verses of the bible posted previously were not vague about "every living thing of all flesh".
> 
> I could see why dinosaurs were not on the Ark as they existed millions of years before the flood. Unless of course the fosill record is incorrect and dinosaurs lived and died just within the last 4500 years.
> 
> What do you think?
Click to expand...


No dinosaurs would have had to been juveniles to be on the ark. Did you know most dinosaurs were the size of a dog ?

You are opening up another argument by saying dinosaurs existed millions of years before man. There is plenty of evidence they existed with man.

Why do you jump all over when discussing this issue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lookie here,watch your side make unfounded claims evolution is rejected for good sound reasoning not just religous beliefs.
> 
> Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How horrible is that?  Were saddled with science loathing people like you in an increasingly competitive world where education is vital.
Click to expand...


Wrong many creationist love science but it was because science we believe in the creator. I believed as evolutionist for a while until I saw what was holding the theory together.


----------



## rabbitthekitten

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I made this clear. I accept the global flood and all flesh was on the ark but I can't say what was on the ark. I don't know what animals existed at the time. I do believe every family group was on the ark.
> 
> You are saying every species as defined by science was on the ark denying the fact of microadaptations, through the many methods mentioned earlier. Darwin brought our attention to the many different finches but they were all still finches.
> 
> 
> 
> We can therefore accept part if the Noah tale aa literally true and other parts not, is that correct?
> 
> The verses of the bible posted previously were not vague about "every living thing of all flesh".
> 
> I could see why dinosaurs were not on the Ark as they existed millions of years before the flood. Unless of course the fosill record is incorrect and dinosaurs lived and died just within the last 4500 years.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dinosaurs would have had to been juveniles to be on the ark. Did you know most dinosaurs were the size of a dog ?
> 
> Yopu are opening up another argument by saying dinosaurs existed millions of years before man. There is plenty of evidence they existed with man.
> 
> Why do you jump al;l over when discussing this issue.
Click to expand...


That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I made this clear. I accept the global flood and all flesh was on the ark but I can't say what was on the ark. I don't know what animals existed at the time. I do believe every family group was on the ark.
> 
> You are saying every species as defined by science was on the ark denying the fact of microadaptations, through the many methods mentioned earlier. Darwin brought our attention to the many different finches but they were all still finches.
> 
> 
> 
> We can therefore accept part if the Noah tale aa literally true and other parts not, is that correct?
> 
> The verses of the bible posted previously were not vague about "every living thing of all flesh".
> 
> I could see why dinosaurs were not on the Ark as they existed millions of years before the flood. Unless of course the fosill record is incorrect and dinosaurs lived and died just within the last 4500 years.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dinosaurs would have had to been juveniles to be on the ark. Did you know most dinosaurs were the size of a dog ?
> 
> Yopu are opening up another argument by saying dinosaurs existed millions of years before man. There is plenty of evidence they existed with man.
> 
> Why do you jump al;l over when discussing this issue.
Click to expand...

Dinosaurs existed with man? 

Do tell. 

Dinosaurs were on the Ark?

How really, really creepy!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is, of course, nonsensical. There is no such thing as an unintelligent design process in connection with the natural world.
> 
> Why would you pose such a meaningless example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying evolution is a intelligent process ? quit dodging and asnwer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are completely clueless?
> 
> You've already answered.
Click to expand...


Calling me clueless when you can't understad a simple question. Here it is again, Would an unintelligent process think of developing mechanisms to correct mutations which are copying errors ?


----------



## rabbitthekitten

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying evolution is a intelligent process ? quit dodging and asnwer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are completely clueless?
> 
> You've already answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling me clueless when you can't understad a simple question. Here it is again, Would an unintelligent process think of developing mechanisms to correct mutations which are copying errors ?
Click to expand...


Unintelligent processes don't think. That's the point.


----------



## Youwerecreated

rabbitthekitten said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can therefore accept part if the Noah tale aa literally true and other parts not, is that correct?
> 
> The verses of the bible posted previously were not vague about "every living thing of all flesh".
> 
> I could see why dinosaurs were not on the Ark as they existed millions of years before the flood. Unless of course the fosill record is incorrect and dinosaurs lived and died just within the last 4500 years.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dinosaurs would have had to been juveniles to be on the ark. Did you know most dinosaurs were the size of a dog ?
> 
> Yopu are opening up another argument by saying dinosaurs existed millions of years before man. There is plenty of evidence they existed with man.
> 
> Why do you jump al;l over when discussing this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Click to expand...


The scriptures say God brought the animals to noah that were to go on the ark. Would you put fully grown dinosaurs on the ark when you could take the young on the ark to refill the earth with these creatures.

Please point out what was rediculous that I said ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying evolution is a intelligent process ? quit dodging and asnwer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are completely clueless?
> 
> You've already answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling me clueless when you can't understad a simple question. Here it is again, Would an unintelligent process think of developing mechanisms to correct mutations which are copying errors ?
Click to expand...


Addressed in post 7502.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can therefore accept part if the Noah tale aa literally true and other parts not, is that correct?
> 
> The verses of the bible posted previously were not vague about "every living thing of all flesh".
> 
> I could see why dinosaurs were not on the Ark as they existed millions of years before the flood. Unless of course the fosill record is incorrect and dinosaurs lived and died just within the last 4500 years.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dinosaurs would have had to been juveniles to be on the ark. Did you know most dinosaurs were the size of a dog ?
> 
> Yopu are opening up another argument by saying dinosaurs existed millions of years before man. There is plenty of evidence they existed with man.
> 
> Why do you jump al;l over when discussing this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinosaurs existed with man?
> 
> Do tell.
> 
> Dinosaurs were on the Ark?
> 
> How really, really creepy!
Click to expand...


I can't help it you don't have the ability to reason.


----------



## rabbitthekitten

Youwerecreated said:


> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No dinosaurs would have had to been juveniles to be on the ark. Did you know most dinosaurs were the size of a dog ?
> 
> Yopu are opening up another argument by saying dinosaurs existed millions of years before man. There is plenty of evidence they existed with man.
> 
> Why do you jump al;l over when discussing this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The scriptures say God brought the animals to noah that were to go on the ark. Would you put fully grown dinosaurs on the ark when you could take the young on the ark to refill the earth with these creatures.
> 
> Please point out what was rediculous that I said ?
Click to expand...


The ark is a story. It's not a real event.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are completely clueless?
> 
> You've already answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling me clueless when you can't understad a simple question. Here it is again, Would an unintelligent process think of developing mechanisms to correct mutations which are copying errors ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Addressed in post 7502.
Click to expand...


Stay focused you answer a question with a question 

Now answer the question it's a yes or no answer simple enough for you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

rabbitthekitten said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scriptures say God brought the animals to noah that were to go on the ark. Would you put fully grown dinosaurs on the ark when you could take the young on the ark to refill the earth with these creatures.
> 
> Please point out what was rediculous that I said ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ark is a story. It's not a real event.
Click to expand...


How can you be sure ?


----------



## Hollie

rabbitthekitten said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can therefore accept part if the Noah tale aa literally true and other parts not, is that correct?
> 
> The verses of the bible posted previously were not vague about "every living thing of all flesh".
> 
> I could see why dinosaurs were not on the Ark as they existed millions of years before the flood. Unless of course the fosill record is incorrect and dinosaurs lived and died just within the last 4500 years.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dinosaurs would have had to been juveniles to be on the ark. Did you know most dinosaurs were the size of a dog ?
> 
> Yopu are opening up another argument by saying dinosaurs existed millions of years before man. There is plenty of evidence they existed with man.
> 
> Why do you jump al;l over when discussing this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Click to expand...

Nah. He's moved on to better define the absurdities. 

And just think - he wants this material to be a part of the public school syllabus.


----------



## rabbitthekitten

Hollie said:


> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No dinosaurs would have had to been juveniles to be on the ark. Did you know most dinosaurs were the size of a dog ?
> 
> Yopu are opening up another argument by saying dinosaurs existed millions of years before man. There is plenty of evidence they existed with man.
> 
> Why do you jump al;l over when discussing this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah. He's moved on to better define the absurdities.
> 
> And just think - he wants this material to be a part of the public school syllabus.
Click to expand...


We have people like that in Northern Ireland. They think the earth is 6000 years old and that the Northern Ireland Protestants are one of the lost 12 tribes of Israel. It's frightening.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No dinosaurs would have had to been juveniles to be on the ark. Did you know most dinosaurs were the size of a dog ?
> 
> Yopu are opening up another argument by saying dinosaurs existed millions of years before man. There is plenty of evidence they existed with man.
> 
> Why do you jump al;l over when discussing this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah. He's moved on to better define the absurdities.
> 
> And just think - he wants this material to be a part of the public school syllabus.
Click to expand...


They don't have to teach creationism in schools when did I say that ? I do however don't like conjecture being taught in schools as fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

rabbitthekitten said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. He's moved on to better define the absurdities.
> 
> And just think - he wants this material to be a part of the public school syllabus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have people like that in Northern Ireland. They think the earth is 6000 years old and that the Northern Ireland Protestants are one of the lost 12 tribes of Israel. It's frightening.
Click to expand...


No one knows for sure how old the earth is,anyone who claims to know is full of it.


----------



## rabbitthekitten

Youwerecreated said:


> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. He's moved on to better define the absurdities.
> 
> And just think - he wants this material to be a part of the public school syllabus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have people like that in Northern Ireland. They think the earth is 6000 years old and that the Northern Ireland Protestants are one of the lost 12 tribes of Israel. It's frightening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one knows for sure how old the earth is,anyone who claims to know is full of it.
Click to expand...


Carbon dating.


----------



## Youwerecreated

rabbitthekitten said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have people like that in Northern Ireland. They think the earth is 6000 years old and that the Northern Ireland Protestants are one of the lost 12 tribes of Israel. It's frightening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows for sure how old the earth is,anyone who claims to know is full of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carbon dating.
Click to expand...


Wrong you had better find a different dating method carbon-14 you can't date rocks with and carbon-14 only lasts so long. Funny though diamonds that were dated to a couple of million years old contained carbo-14. So the diamonds were not as old as other faulty dating methods said.

If you are gonna argue dating methods you need a better understanding of the dating methods.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well hello hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> keep dodging you lying piece of shit!
> not even enough integrity to admit it !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh did I hit a nerve ? maybe the Mods should check you out.
Click to expand...

 still trying to bullshit your way out of it...
I wonder if god takes kindly to your intentionally mis representing his words and then lying about it.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. He's moved on to better define the absurdities.
> 
> And just think - he wants this material to be a part of the public school syllabus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have people like that in Northern Ireland. They think the earth is 6000 years old and that the Northern Ireland Protestants are one of the lost 12 tribes of Israel. It's frightening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one knows for sure how old the earth is,anyone who claims to know is full of it.
Click to expand...


You really are making a total ass of yourself.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not every living organism that has ever lived went on the ark. There is diversity in each family because the genetic information was already there in the genome. The diversity of a family group comes from gene recombination,cross breeding,and selective breeding.
> 
> If everything slowly evolved over millions and billions of years where are these transitional fossils. Why are these that evolved from one group to another group not still arond but the ones they evolved from are still here ? I mean the explanation given is the better adapted transitional organisms pass on their traits through natural selection.
> 
> If you are not willing to put your beliefs to the test a person can be mislead. That is why many evolutionist and ex atheist have done and have become believers because the evidence better supports a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Two (Genesis 6:19-20) - "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
> 2.Seven (Genesis 7:2-3) - "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes at the time they were but I don't know for sure what was on the ark. Were great danes and boxers or clydesdales on the ark ? A lot of diversity came after the flood.
> 
> Gen 6:20  Of fowlsH4480 H5775 after their kind,H4327 and ofH4480 cattleH929 after their kind,H4327 of everyH4480 H3605 creeping thingH7431 of the earthH127 after his kind,H4327 twoH8147 of everyH4480 H3605 sort shall comeH935 untoH413 thee, to keep them alive.H2421
> 
> 
> H4480
> &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1503;
> min  minn&#305;&#770;y  minne&#770;y
> min, min-nee', min-nay'
> For H4482; properly a part of; hence (prepositionally), from or out of in many senses: - above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among), in, X neither, X nor, (out) of, over, since, X then, through, X whether, with.
> 
> 
> H4327
> &#1502;&#1497;&#1503;
> m&#305;&#770;yn
> meen
> From an unused root meaning to portion out; a sort, that is, species: - kind. Compare H4480.
> 
> 
> H4480
> &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1503;
> min  minn&#305;&#770;y  minne&#770;y
> min, min-nee', min-nay'
> For H4482; properly a part of; hence (prepositionally), from or out of in many senses: - above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among), in, X neither, X nor, (out) of, over, since, X then, through, X whether, with.
> 
> 
> Looks like only a portion of each family was on the ark. Species could represent a family group.
Click to expand...

wrong shit head either the bible is correct or it's not .

looks like and could are speculation....your own belife state unequivocally un·equiv·o·cal adj \&#716;&#601;n-i-&#712;kwi-v&#601;-k&#601;l\
Definition of UNEQUIVOCAL
1: leaving no doubt : clear, unambiguous, that the bible is is the word of god and as such is infallible..you just proven it's not or you know better then god.  

 "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female."
 you've also inferred that the above is a false statement .by using could or looks like to back your bullshit....


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets see if you can discuss amino acid chirality unlike hollie.
> 
> Lert's talk amino acids.
> 
> 
> 
> no need to it's not evidence of a god. you have to prove god exsits before any thing you say is proof  is valid.  get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well chirality is evidence of intelligence and design not random chance.
Click to expand...

wrong! it only proves it exists. nothing more.
the rest is you obsessive bigoted rejection of fact.
that same obsession fuels your total paranoia  that things must have a designer because to accept alternatives,  even in theory, is too terrifying for you to even consider.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> keep dodging you lying piece of shit!
> not even enough integrity to admit it !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh did I hit a nerve ? maybe the Mods should check you out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still trying to bullshit your way out of it...
> I wonder if god takes kindly to your intentionally mis representing his words and then lying about it.
Click to expand...


Why don't you ask him,I gave you an opinion that is all it is. The fact remains the same,nobody knows what organisms existed at that time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rabbitthekitten said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have people like that in Northern Ireland. They think the earth is 6000 years old and that the Northern Ireland Protestants are one of the lost 12 tribes of Israel. It's frightening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows for sure how old the earth is,anyone who claims to know is full of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are making a total ass of yourself.
Click to expand...


No I'm being realistic hollie you should try it sometimes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Two (Genesis 6:19-20) - "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
> 2.Seven (Genesis 7:2-3) - "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes at the time they were but I don't know for sure what was on the ark. Were great danes and boxers or clydesdales on the ark ? A lot of diversity came after the flood.
> 
> Gen 6:20  Of fowlsH4480 H5775 after their kind,H4327 and ofH4480 cattleH929 after their kind,H4327 of everyH4480 H3605 creeping thingH7431 of the earthH127 after his kind,H4327 twoH8147 of everyH4480 H3605 sort shall comeH935 untoH413 thee, to keep them alive.H2421
> 
> 
> H4480
> &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1503;
> min  minn&#305;&#770;y  minne&#770;y
> min, min-nee', min-nay'
> For H4482; properly a part of; hence (prepositionally), from or out of in many senses: - above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among), in, X neither, X nor, (out) of, over, since, X then, through, X whether, with.
> 
> 
> H4327
> &#1502;&#1497;&#1503;
> m&#305;&#770;yn
> meen
> From an unused root meaning to portion out; a sort, that is, species: - kind. Compare H4480.
> 
> 
> H4480
> &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1503;
> min  minn&#305;&#770;y  minne&#770;y
> min, min-nee', min-nay'
> For H4482; properly a part of; hence (prepositionally), from or out of in many senses: - above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among), in, X neither, X nor, (out) of, over, since, X then, through, X whether, with.
> 
> 
> Looks like only a portion of each family was on the ark. Species could represent a family group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong shit head either the bible is correct or it's not .
> 
> looks like and could are speculation....your own belife state unequivocally un·equiv·o·cal adj \&#716;&#601;n-i-&#712;kwi-v&#601;-k&#601;l\
> Definition of UNEQUIVOCAL
> 1: leaving no doubt : clear, unambiguous, that the bible is is the word of god and as such is infallible..you just proven it's not or you know better then god.
> 
> "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female."
> you've also inferred that the above is a false statement .by using could or looks like to back your bullshit....
Click to expand...


I'm not denying that as i said before you have reading comp problems.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no need to it's not evidence of a god. you have to prove god exsits before any thing you say is proof  is valid.  get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well chirality is evidence of intelligence and design not random chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong! it only proves it exists. nothing more.
> the rest is you obsessive bigoted rejection of fact.
> that same obsession fuels your total paranoia  that things must have a designer because to accept alternatives,  even in theory, is too terrifying for you to even consider.
Click to expand...


Explain to me the process of amino acids connecting in the proper sequence to form proteins and what caused it for the first life. You should know by now cells reproduce cells but what was behind the formation of the first cell ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie I have asked a question you and your friends continue to dodge. Would an unintelligent process think of developing mechanisms to correct mutations which are copying errors ? why do these mechanisms work to correct these copying errors ?


lol! stupid fucking question
you're attempting to assign qualities you assume are the correct ones to predict a certain outcome..with no evidence to support that assumption.
a process by definition does not think.....) : a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result <the process of growth> (2) : a continuing natural or biological activity or function <such life processes as breathing>

as to your on going yammering about mutation hahahahahahahah!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes at the time they were but I don't know for sure what was on the ark. Were great danes and boxers or clydesdales on the ark ? A lot of diversity came after the flood.
> 
> Gen 6:20  Of fowlsH4480 H5775 after their kind,H4327 and ofH4480 cattleH929 after their kind,H4327 of everyH4480 H3605 creeping thingH7431 of the earthH127 after his kind,H4327 twoH8147 of everyH4480 H3605 sort shall comeH935 untoH413 thee, to keep them alive.H2421
> 
> 
> H4480
> &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1503;
> min  minn&#305;&#770;y  minne&#770;y
> min, min-nee', min-nay'
> For H4482; properly a part of; hence (prepositionally), from or out of in many senses: - above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among), in, X neither, X nor, (out) of, over, since, X then, through, X whether, with.
> 
> 
> H4327
> &#1502;&#1497;&#1503;
> m&#305;&#770;yn
> meen
> From an unused root meaning to portion out; a sort, that is, species: - kind. Compare H4480.
> 
> 
> H4480
> &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1503;
> min  minn&#305;&#770;y  minne&#770;y
> min, min-nee', min-nay'
> For H4482; properly a part of; hence (prepositionally), from or out of in many senses: - above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among), in, X neither, X nor, (out) of, over, since, X then, through, X whether, with.
> 
> 
> Looks like only a portion of each family was on the ark. Species could represent a family group.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong shit head either the bible is correct or it's not .
> 
> looks like and could are speculation....your own belife state unequivocally un·equiv·o·cal adj \&#716;&#601;n-i-&#712;kwi-v&#601;-k&#601;l\
> Definition of UNEQUIVOCAL
> 1: leaving no doubt : clear, unambiguous, that the bible is is the word of god and as such is infallible..you just proven it's not or you know better then god.
> 
> "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female."
> you've also inferred that the above is a false statement .by using could or looks like to back your bullshit....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not denying that as i said before you have reading comp problems.
Click to expand...

still dodging! and lying !


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well chirality is evidence of intelligence and design not random chance.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! it only proves it exists. nothing more.
> the rest is you obsessive bigoted rejection of fact.
> that same obsession fuels your total paranoia  that things must have a designer because to accept alternatives,  even in theory, is too terrifying for you to even consider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain to me the process of amino acids connecting in the proper sequence to form proteins and what caused it for the first life. You should know by now cells reproduce cells but what was behind the formation of the first cell ?
Click to expand...

the proper conditions and chemicals....no evidence of a designer.....


----------



## Youwerecreated

Daws quit BS your way through this thread. You believe a natural process is what formed life here is your chance to explain how it happened. I have already given you my explanation someone much smarter then you and I is responsible for making it happen.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh did I hit a nerve ? maybe the Mods should check you out.
> 
> 
> 
> still trying to bullshit your way out of it...
> I wonder if god takes kindly to your intentionally mis representing his words and then lying about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you ask him,I gave you an opinion that is all it is. The fact remains the same,nobody knows what organisms existed at that time.
Click to expand...

who's him? it's YOU  WHO MADE THE STATEMENT, YOU  MUST ANSWER FOR IT ! 
YOU PUSSY !


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> daws quit bs your way through this thread. You believe a natural process is what formed life here is your chance to explain how it happened. I have already given you my explanation someone much smarter then you and i is responsible for making it happen.


mind repeating that in non gibberish.?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie I have asked a question you and your friends continue to dodge. Would an unintelligent process think of developing mechanisms to correct mutations which are copying errors ? why do these mechanisms work to correct these copying errors ?
> 
> 
> 
> lol! stupid fucking question
> you're attempting to assign qualities you assume are the correct ones to predict a certain outcome..with no evidence to support that assumption.
> a process by definition does not think.....) : a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result <the process of growth> (2) : a continuing natural or biological activity or function <such life processes as breathing>
> 
> as to your on going yammering about mutation hahahahahahahah!
Click to expand...


Alright genius, without these mechanisms the cell could not form,without DNA the machines could not do their job and life could not form.

It could not have happened gradually all these things were needed at the get go. Your chemistry background is lacking I see.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! it only proves it exists. nothing more.
> the rest is you obsessive bigoted rejection of fact.
> that same obsession fuels your total paranoia  that things must have a designer because to accept alternatives,  even in theory, is too terrifying for you to even consider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me the process of amino acids connecting in the proper sequence to form proteins and what caused it for the first life. You should know by now cells reproduce cells but what was behind the formation of the first cell ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the proper conditions and chemicals....no evidence of a designer.....
Click to expand...


Dodge ! just admit it, you have no clue about the subject.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> still trying to bullshit your way out of it...
> I wonder if god takes kindly to your intentionally mis representing his words and then lying about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you ask him,I gave you an opinion that is all it is. The fact remains the same,nobody knows what organisms existed at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who's him? it's YOU  WHO MADE THE STATEMENT, YOU  MUST ANSWER FOR IT !
> YOU PUSSY !
Click to expand...


I did ,you have not however.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> daws quit bs your way through this thread. You believe a natural process is what formed life here is your chance to explain how it happened. I have already given you my explanation someone much smarter then you and i is responsible for making it happen.
> 
> 
> 
> mind repeating that in non gibberish.?
Click to expand...


You don't even know the name of the natural process that caused life to form ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Daws you are looking foolish again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

When you start answering my questions we will resume where we left off.

Oh did you find that complete whale fossil with legs yet ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie I have asked a question you and your friends continue to dodge. Would an unintelligent process think of developing mechanisms to correct mutations which are copying errors ? why do these mechanisms work to correct these copying errors ?
> 
> 
> 
> lol! stupid fucking question
> you're attempting to assign qualities you assume are the correct ones to predict a certain outcome..with no evidence to support that assumption.
> a process by definition does not think.....) : a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result <the process of growth> (2) : a continuing natural or biological activity or function <such life processes as breathing>
> 
> as to your on going yammering about mutation hahahahahahahah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alright genius, without these mechanisms the cell could not form,without DNA the machines could not do their job and life could not form.
> 
> It could not have happened gradually all these things were needed at the get go. Your chemistry background is lacking I see.
Click to expand...

you're attempting to assign qualities you assume are the correct ones to predict a certain outcome..with no evidence to support that assumption


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me the process of amino acids connecting in the proper sequence to form proteins and what caused it for the first life. You should know by now cells reproduce cells but what was behind the formation of the first cell ?
> 
> 
> 
> the proper conditions and chemicals....no evidence of a designer.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodge ! just admit it, you have no clue about the subject.
Click to expand...

how is that a dodge?
 the answer stand as you have no evidence refuting it's validity


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> daws quit bs your way through this thread. You believe a natural process is what formed life here is your chance to explain how it happened. I have already given you my explanation someone much smarter then you and i is responsible for making it happen.
> 
> 
> 
> mind repeating that in non gibberish.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't even know the name of the natural process that caused life to form ?
Click to expand...

this nonsense again... last time I checked it was abogenesis.. your point? 

" i is responsible for making it happen." -ywc     great grammar!

 what is you responsible for making whatever happen?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> When you start answering my questions we will resume where we left off.
> 
> Oh did you find that complete whale fossil with legs yet ?


asked and answered 

Evolution World Tour: Wadi Hitan, Egypt | Photo Gallery | Smithsonian.com

Whales of the Desert | Michigan Today


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol! stupid fucking question
> you're attempting to assign qualities you assume are the correct ones to predict a certain outcome..with no evidence to support that assumption.
> a process by definition does not think.....) : a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result <the process of growth> (2) : a continuing natural or biological activity or function <such life processes as breathing>
> 
> as to your on going yammering about mutation hahahahahahahah!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alright genius, without these mechanisms the cell could not form,without DNA the machines could not do their job and life could not form.
> 
> It could not have happened gradually all these things were needed at the get go. Your chemistry background is lacking I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're attempting to assign qualities you assume are the correct ones to predict a certain outcome..with no evidence to support that assumption
Click to expand...


Wrong.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z9pqST72is&feature=related]A Tour of the Cell - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> mind repeating that in non gibberish.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even know the name of the natural process that caused life to form ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this nonsense again... last time I checked it was abogenesis.. your point?
> 
> " i is responsible for making it happen." -ywc     great grammar!
> 
> what is you responsible for making whatever happen?
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you start answering my questions we will resume where we left off.
> 
> Oh did you find that complete whale fossil with legs yet ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered
> 
> Evolution World Tour: Wadi Hitan, Egypt | Photo Gallery | Smithsonian.com
> 
> Whales of the Desert | Michigan Today
Click to expand...


Uh oh,another problem for your theory.

A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica | Uncommon Descent


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright genius, without these mechanisms the cell could not form,without DNA the machines could not do their job and life could not form.
> 
> It could not have happened gradually all these things were needed at the get go. Your chemistry background is lacking I see.
> 
> 
> 
> you're attempting to assign qualities you assume are the correct ones to predict a certain outcome..with no evidence to support that assumption
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z9pqST72is&feature=related]A Tour of the Cell - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

right! your little clip is not an answer.
any one who took  high school  bio understands cell structure .
the question is: what scientifically valid proof do you have it did not happen gradually...
you've shown none.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even know the name of the natural process that caused life to form ?
> 
> 
> 
> this nonsense again... last time I checked it was abogenesis.. your point?
> 
> " i is responsible for making it happen." -ywc     great grammar!
> 
> what is you responsible for making whatever happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

yeah! your ignorance makes me laugh too.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you start answering my questions we will resume where we left off.
> 
> Oh did you find that complete whale fossil with legs yet ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered
> 
> Evolution World Tour: Wadi Hitan, Egypt | Photo Gallery | Smithsonian.com
> 
> Whales of the Desert | Michigan Today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh,another problem for your theory.
> 
> A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica | Uncommon Descent
Click to expand...



no problem here as your source is biased and not science : The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism,[n 3][n 4][6][7] and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws.[8][9][10][11] The vast majority of the scientific community labels intelligent design as pseudoscience and identifies it as a religious, rather than scientific, viewpoint. It is rejected by mainstream science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.

Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


like I said whales with feet are fact not theory!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes at the time they were but I don't know for sure what was on the ark. Were great danes and boxers or clydesdales on the ark ? A lot of diversity came after the flood.
> 
> Gen 6:20  Of fowlsH4480 H5775 after their kind,H4327 and ofH4480 cattleH929 after their kind,H4327 of everyH4480 H3605 creeping thingH7431 of the earthH127 after his kind,H4327 twoH8147 of everyH4480 H3605 sort shall comeH935 untoH413 thee, to keep them alive.H2421
> 
> 
> H4480
> &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1503;
> min  minn&#305;&#770;y  minne&#770;y
> min, min-nee', min-nay'
> For H4482; properly a part of; hence (prepositionally), from or out of in many senses: - above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among), in, X neither, X nor, (out) of, over, since, X then, through, X whether, with.
> 
> 
> H4327
> &#1502;&#1497;&#1503;
> m&#305;&#770;yn
> meen
> From an unused root meaning to portion out; a sort, that is, species: - kind. Compare H4480.
> 
> 
> H4480
> &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1504;&#1468;&#1497;    &#1502;&#1503;
> min  minn&#305;&#770;y  minne&#770;y
> min, min-nee', min-nay'
> For H4482; properly a part of; hence (prepositionally), from or out of in many senses: - above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among), in, X neither, X nor, (out) of, over, since, X then, through, X whether, with.
> 
> 
> Looks like only a portion of each family was on the ark. Species could represent a family group.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong shit head either the bible is correct or it's not .
> 
> looks like and could are speculation....your own belife state unequivocally un·equiv·o·cal adj \&#716;&#601;n-i-&#712;kwi-v&#601;-k&#601;l\
> Definition of UNEQUIVOCAL
> 1: leaving no doubt : clear, unambiguous, that the bible is is the word of god and as such is infallible..you just proven it's not or you know better then god.
> 
> "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female."
> you've also inferred that the above is a false statement .by using could or looks like to back your bullshit....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not denying that as i said before you have reading comp problems.
Click to expand...

no the problem is yours ...either this passage:   I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the arkyou and your sons and your wife and your sons wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.

22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.
7 The Lord then said to Noah, Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.

or it's not. 
god does not say  "noah, take a representative sample of creatures  That I will cause to multiply at almost exponential rate for no more then 10'000 years and and no less then 6'000 years.
except for those fucking dinosaurs...."


----------



## Big_D

Youwerecreated said:


> How do you know they would not survive ?
> 
> Same could be said for the faith required to believe that precision in nature is the result of random chance and unguided processes.
> 
> Once again I do not have a clue what animals existed at the time of Noah.



Different animals need different climates for survival.  How could they all survive on the same boat, then?

Natural selection is not random.


----------



## daws101

Big_D said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they would not survive ?
> 
> Same could be said for the faith required to believe that precision in nature is the result of random chance and unguided processes.
> 
> Once again I do not have a clue what animals existed at the time of Noah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Different animals need different climates for survival.  How could they all survive on the same boat, then?
> 
> Natural selection is not random.
Click to expand...

you are correct!
YWC WILL NOT EVEN TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK UP WHAT ANIMALS WERE ALIVE IN NOAH'S TIME ...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're attempting to assign qualities you assume are the correct ones to predict a certain outcome..with no evidence to support that assumption
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z9pqST72is&feature=related]A Tour of the Cell - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right! your little clip is not an answer.
> any one who took  high school  bio understands cell structure .
> the question is: what scientifically valid proof do you have it did not happen gradually...
> you've shown none.
Click to expand...


I already have explained it to you. The cell could not have slowly wevolved as you claim. All the parts of the cell had to be developed and then some how come together.

That could not happen either because in any eviornment the things that make up the cell would be destroyed by water,oxygen,and or the sun.

The only way cells form are already in living organisms.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 
> A Tour of the Cell - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> right! your little clip is not an answer.
> any one who took  high school  bio understands cell structure .
> the question is: what scientifically valid proof do you have it did not happen gradually...
> you've shown none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have explained it to you. The cell could not have slowly wevolved as you claim. All the parts of the cell had to be developed and then some how come together.
> 
> That could not happen either because in any eviornment the things that make up the cell would be destroyed by water,oxygen,and or the sun.
> 
> The only way cells form are already in living organisms.
Click to expand...

 your point?
It's still is not evidence god did it ....the only real answer is no one knows.... yet.
but again your religious terror of a void precludes you from seeing it...more's the pity.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this nonsense again... last time I checked it was abogenesis.. your point?
> 
> " i is responsible for making it happen." -ywc     great grammar!
> 
> what is you responsible for making whatever happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah! your ignorance makes me laugh too.
Click to expand...


Although the idea of life forming by random chance isn&#8217;t taken seriously right now among scientists, the idea is still very much alive at the popular level. Many college students, for example, speculate that if you let amino acids randomly interact over millions of years, like is somehow going to emerge. The problems with that theory became apparent to me pretty quickly. Imagine trying to make even a simple book by throwing Scrabble letters onto the floor. Or imagine closing your eyes and picking Scrabble letters out of a bag. Are you going to produce &#8216;Hamlet in anything like the time of the known universe? According to George Sim Johnson:

&#8220;Human DNA contains more organized information than the &#8216;Encyclopedia Britannica.&#8217; If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the working of random forces.&#8221; Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance. Even if the first molecule had been much simpler than those today, there's a minimum structure that protein has to have for it to function. You don't get that structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so. 

First, you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you have to get the left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find out that the probabilities in forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a ten with one-hundred and twenty-five zeros after it! And that would only be one protein molecule; a fairly simple cell would need between three-hundred and five-hundred protein molecules. When you look at those odds and evidence, you can see why, since the 1960's, scientist have abandoned the idea that chance played any significant role in the origin of DNA or proteins.
Source(s):
Strobel, Lee, and Jane Vogel. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. 78-80. Print.

If you would like to read his complete and utter destruction of another theory you cling to.

Abiogenic Origin of Life:
A theory in crisis
2005 Arthur v. Chadewick Ph.D
Professor of Geology and Biology


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah! your ignorance makes me laugh too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although the idea of life forming by random chance isnt taken seriously right now among scientists, the idea is still very much alive at the popular level. Many college students, for example, speculate that if you let amino acids randomly interact over millions of years, like is somehow going to emerge. The problems with that theory became apparent to me pretty quickly. Imagine trying to make even a simple book by throwing Scrabble letters onto the floor. Or imagine closing your eyes and picking Scrabble letters out of a bag. Are you going to produce Hamlet in anything like the time of the known universe? According to George Sim Johnson:
> 
> Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the working of random forces. Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance. Even if the first molecule had been much simpler than those today, there's a minimum structure that protein has to have for it to function. You don't get that structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so.
> 
> First, you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you have to get the left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find out that the probabilities in forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a ten with one-hundred and twenty-five zeros after it! And that would only be one protein molecule; a fairly simple cell would need between three-hundred and five-hundred protein molecules. When you look at those odds and evidence, you can see why, since the 1960's, scientist have abandoned the idea that chance played any significant role in the origin of DNA or proteins.
> Source(s):
> Strobel, Lee, and Jane Vogel. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. 78-80. Print.
> 
> Protein: http://www.herbertarmstrong.org/Miscella
Click to expand...

404 (Page Not Found) Error If you're the site owner, one of two things happened:
1) You entered an incorrect URL into your browser's address bar, or 
2) You haven't uploaded content. 
If you're a visitor and not sure what happened:
1) You entered or copied the URL incorrectly or 
2) The link you used to get here is faulty. 
(It's an excellent idea to let the link owner know.) 

even if it were there, it's not proof as it's biased and not science.

their aguments, like yours are not valid as you have no evidence proving  your basic premise : god exists.
if and untill that happens everything you believe to proof is conjecture. get it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> right! your little clip is not an answer.
> any one who took  high school  bio understands cell structure .
> the question is: what scientifically valid proof do you have it did not happen gradually...
> you've shown none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have explained it to you. The cell could not have slowly wevolved as you claim. All the parts of the cell had to be developed and then some how come together.
> 
> That could not happen either because in any eviornment the things that make up the cell would be destroyed by water,oxygen,and or the sun.
> 
> The only way cells form are already in living organisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your point?
> It's still is not evidence god did it ....the only real answer is no one knows.... yet.
> but again your religious terror of a void precludes you from seeing it...more's the pity.
Click to expand...


You don't get it magic was needed for it to happen.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah! your ignorance makes me laugh too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although the idea of life forming by random chance isnt taken seriously right now among scientists, the idea is still very much alive at the popular level. Many college students, for example, speculate that if you let amino acids randomly interact over millions of years, like is somehow going to emerge. The problems with that theory became apparent to me pretty quickly. Imagine trying to make even a simple book by throwing Scrabble letters onto the floor. Or imagine closing your eyes and picking Scrabble letters out of a bag. Are you going to produce Hamlet in anything like the time of the known universe? According to George Sim Johnson:
> 
> Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the working of random forces. Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance. Even if the first molecule had been much simpler than those today, there's a minimum structure that protein has to have for it to function. You don't get that structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so.
> 
> First, you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you have to get the left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find out that the probabilities in forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a ten with one-hundred and twenty-five zeros after it! And that would only be one protein molecule; a fairly simple cell would need between three-hundred and five-hundred protein molecules. When you look at those odds and evidence, you can see why, since the 1960's, scientist have abandoned the idea that chance played any significant role in the origin of DNA or proteins.
> Source(s):
> Strobel, Lee, and Jane Vogel. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. 78-80. Print.
> 
> Protein: http://www.herbertarmstrong.org/Miscella
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 404 (Page Not Found) Error If you're the site owner, one of two things happened:
> 1) You entered an incorrect URL into your browser's address bar, or
> 2) You haven't uploaded content.
> If you're a visitor and not sure what happened:
> 1) You entered or copied the URL incorrectly or
> 2) The link you used to get here is faulty.
> (It's an excellent idea to let the link owner know.)
> 
> even if it were there, it's not proof as it's biased and not science.
> 
> their aguments, like yours are not valid as you have no evidence proving  your basic premise : god exists.
> if and untill that happens everything you believe to proof is conjecture. get it.
Click to expand...


If you would like to read his complete and utter destruction of another theory you cling to.

Abiogenic Origin of Life:
A theory in crisis
2005 Arthur v. Chadewick Ph.D
Professor of Geology and Biology


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah! your ignorance makes me laugh too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although the idea of life forming by random chance isnt taken seriously right now among scientists, the idea is still very much alive at the popular level. Many college students, for example, speculate that if you let amino acids randomly interact over millions of years, like is somehow going to emerge. The problems with that theory became apparent to me pretty quickly. Imagine trying to make even a simple book by throwing Scrabble letters onto the floor. Or imagine closing your eyes and picking Scrabble letters out of a bag. Are you going to produce Hamlet in anything like the time of the known universe? According to George Sim Johnson:
> 
> Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the working of random forces. Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance. Even if the first molecule had been much simpler than those today, there's a minimum structure that protein has to have for it to function. You don't get that structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so.
> 
> First, you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you have to get the left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find out that the probabilities in forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a ten with one-hundred and twenty-five zeros after it! And that would only be one protein molecule; a fairly simple cell would need between three-hundred and five-hundred protein molecules. When you look at those odds and evidence, you can see why, since the 1960's, scientist have abandoned the idea that chance played any significant role in the origin of DNA or proteins.
> Source(s):
> Strobel, Lee, and Jane Vogel. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. 78-80. Print.
> 
> Protein: http://www.herbertarmstrong.org/Miscella
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 404 (Page Not Found) Error If you're the site owner, one of two things happened:
> 1) You entered an incorrect URL into your browser's address bar, or
> 2) You haven't uploaded content.
> If you're a visitor and not sure what happened:
> 1) You entered or copied the URL incorrectly or
> 2) The link you used to get here is faulty.
> (It's an excellent idea to let the link owner know.)
> 
> even if it were there, it's not proof as it's biased and not science.
> 
> their aguments, like yours are not valid as you have no evidence proving  your basic premise : god exists.
> if and untill that happens everything you believe to proof is conjecture. get it.
Click to expand...


Here is a working link.

Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis


----------



## Youwerecreated

The thing is Daws, Abiogenesis has never been a viable theory nor will it be but knowing that you continue to use faulty information so you can say you answered my questions.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although the idea of life forming by random chance isnt taken seriously right now among scientists, the idea is still very much alive at the popular level. Many college students, for example, speculate that if you let amino acids randomly interact over millions of years, like is somehow going to emerge. The problems with that theory became apparent to me pretty quickly. Imagine trying to make even a simple book by throwing Scrabble letters onto the floor. Or imagine closing your eyes and picking Scrabble letters out of a bag. Are you going to produce Hamlet in anything like the time of the known universe? According to George Sim Johnson:
> 
> Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the working of random forces. Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance. Even if the first molecule had been much simpler than those today, there's a minimum structure that protein has to have for it to function. You don't get that structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so.
> 
> First, you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you have to get the left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find out that the probabilities in forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a ten with one-hundred and twenty-five zeros after it! And that would only be one protein molecule; a fairly simple cell would need between three-hundred and five-hundred protein molecules. When you look at those odds and evidence, you can see why, since the 1960's, scientist have abandoned the idea that chance played any significant role in the origin of DNA or proteins.
> Source(s):
> Strobel, Lee, and Jane Vogel. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. 78-80. Print.
> 
> Protein: http://www.herbertarmstrong.org/Miscella
> 
> 
> 
> 404 (Page Not Found) Error If you're the site owner, one of two things happened:
> 1) You entered an incorrect URL into your browser's address bar, or
> 2) You haven't uploaded content.
> If you're a visitor and not sure what happened:
> 1) You entered or copied the URL incorrectly or
> 2) The link you used to get here is faulty.
> (It's an excellent idea to let the link owner know.)
> 
> even if it were there, it's not proof as it's biased and not science.
> 
> their aguments, like yours are not valid as you have no evidence proving  your basic premise : god exists.
> if and untill that happens everything you believe to proof is conjecture. get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a working link.
> 
> Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis
Click to expand...

The article is nothing more than a reiteration of every silly, boilerplate creationist claim. The references are a roll call of creationist hacks.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> The thing is Daws, Abiogenesis has never been a viable theory nor will it be but knowing that you continue to use faulty information so you can say you answered my questions.



Creationists are terrified of abiogenesis because eventual confirmation of the process is utterly devastating to the religious articles. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is Daws, Abiogenesis has never been a viable theory nor will it be but knowing that you continue to use faulty information so you can say you answered my questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists are terrified of abiogenesis because eventual confirmation of the process is utterly devastating to the religious articles. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed.
Click to expand...


Hollie, you are the best case for evolution, just have not figured out what species you are but you are on the bottom of the evolutionist tree of life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 404 (Page Not Found) Error If you're the site owner, one of two things happened:
> 1) You entered an incorrect URL into your browser's address bar, or
> 2) You haven't uploaded content.
> If you're a visitor and not sure what happened:
> 1) You entered or copied the URL incorrectly or
> 2) The link you used to get here is faulty.
> (It's an excellent idea to let the link owner know.)
> 
> even if it were there, it's not proof as it's biased and not science.
> 
> their aguments, like yours are not valid as you have no evidence proving  your basic premise : god exists.
> if and untill that happens everything you believe to proof is conjecture. get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a working link.
> 
> Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The article is nothing more than a reiteration of every silly, boilerplate creationist claim. The references are a roll call of creationist hacks.
Click to expand...


Hollie you have not evolved far enough to understand what you are reading but I think Daws is though.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is Daws, Abiogenesis has never been a viable theory nor will it be but knowing that you continue to use faulty information so you can say you answered my questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists are terrified of abiogenesis because eventual confirmation of the process is utterly devastating to the religious articles. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, you are the best case for evolution, just have not figured out what species you are but you are on the bottom of the evolutionist tree of life.
Click to expand...


Well thanks but its just hilarious to see your failed attempts at pick and choose christianity.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> The thing is Daws, Abiogenesis has never been a viable theory nor will it be but knowing that you continue to use faulty information so you can say you answered my questions.



At least scientists are looking for answers. Not long ago, people of religion thought the earth was flat, among other now since disproven concepts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists are terrified of abiogenesis because eventual confirmation of the process is utterly devastating to the religious articles. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you are the best case for evolution, just have not figured out what species you are but you are on the bottom of the evolutionist tree of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thanks but its just hilarious to see your failed attempts at pick and choose christianity.
Click to expand...


Fact ! cells reproduce cells the question is how was it possible for the first cell to form ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is Daws, Abiogenesis has never been a viable theory nor will it be but knowing that you continue to use faulty information so you can say you answered my questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least scientists are looking for answers. Not long ago, people of religion thought the earth was flat, among other now since disproven concepts.
Click to expand...


Wrong that Idea was pushed by evolutionist although some believers did believe and some still do most believers never believed that lie. Who started the sciences ? that is right creationist.

So you are saying creationist are not working on evidence to know how God did it ? Trust me the creationist work with the secularlist and see the same evidence. If secular scientist are eliminating the evidence for design are they really looking for truth ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you are the best case for evolution, just have not figured out what species you are but you are on the bottom of the evolutionist tree of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thanks but its just hilarious to see your failed attempts at pick and choose christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact ! cells reproduce cells the question is how was it possible for the first cell to form.
Click to expand...


There is not yet a definitive answer.

The fundie demand is that because we don't yet know, it must be "the gods did it" when we have no reason to believe the gods did anything. 

You may choose to remain ignorant and never explore beyond the bible but that would require that humanity never proceed beyond ancient superstitions.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is Daws, Abiogenesis has never been a viable theory nor will it be but knowing that you continue to use faulty information so you can say you answered my questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least scientists are looking for answers. Not long ago, people of religion thought the earth was flat, among other now since disproven concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong that Idea was pushed by evolutionist although some believers did believe and some still do most believers never believed that lie. Who started the sciences ? that is right creationist.
> 
> So you are saying creationist are not working on evidence to know how God did it ? Trust me the creationist work with the secularlist and see the same evidence. If secular scientist are eliminating the evidence for design are they really looking for truth ?
Click to expand...


So you're saying that secular scientists have dismissed proof of design? Like what?


----------



## HUGGY

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well thanks but its just hilarious to see your failed attempts at pick and choose christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact ! cells reproduce cells the question is how was it possible for the first cell to form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is not yet a definitive answer.
> 
> The fundie demand is that because we don't yet know, it must be "the gods did it" when we have no reason to believe the gods did anything.
> 
> You may choose to remain ignorant and never explore beyond the bible but that would require that humanity never proceed beyond ancient superstitions.
Click to expand...


Some are trying to use single cells of modern states of evolution to suggest that even the single cell *is* too complex to have occured spontaneously.  Duh.  EVERYTHING is a billion years down the road from when life officially took off.  The envoronment is not remotely now what it was then.  Radiation was much higher.. Volcanic activity was off the charts.  Bombardment from space stuff ... meteors... asteroids..etc happened thousand of times more frequently.  The atmosphere was completely different. 

You might as well be asking why the first toaster didn't occur a billion years ago.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least scientists are looking for answers. Not long ago, people of religion thought the earth was flat, among other now since disproven concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong that Idea was pushed by evolutionist although some believers did believe and some still do most believers never believed that lie. Who started the sciences ? that is right creationist.
> 
> So you are saying creationist are not working on evidence to know how God did it ? Trust me the creationist work with the secularlist and see the same evidence. If secular scientist are eliminating the evidence for design are they really looking for truth ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that secular scientists have dismissed proof of design? Like what?
Click to expand...


Pretty much,exactly what we are talking about for starters. It is taboo to bring up design because you are infering a creator.

This planet was designed for life it didn't happen by chance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact ! cells reproduce cells the question is how was it possible for the first cell to form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is not yet a definitive answer.
> 
> The fundie demand is that because we don't yet know, it must be "the gods did it" when we have no reason to believe the gods did anything.
> 
> You may choose to remain ignorant and never explore beyond the bible but that would require that humanity never proceed beyond ancient superstitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some are trying to use single cells of modern states of evolution to suggest that even the single cell *is* too complex to have occured spontaneously.  Duh.  EVERYTHING is a billion years down the road from when life officially took off.  The envoronment is not remotely now what it was then.  Radiation was much higher.. Volcanic activity was off the charts.  Bombardment from space stuff ... meteors... asteroids..etc happened thousand of times more frequently.  The atmosphere was completely different.
> 
> You might as well be asking why the first toaster didn't occur a billion years ago.
Click to expand...


Your sarcasm is noted but that which you imply is only opinion.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not yet a definitive answer.
> 
> The fundie demand is that because we don't yet know, it must be "the gods did it" when we have no reason to believe the gods did anything.
> 
> You may choose to remain ignorant and never explore beyond the bible but that would require that humanity never proceed beyond ancient superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some are trying to use single cells of modern states of evolution to suggest that even the single cell *is* too complex to have occured spontaneously.  Duh.  EVERYTHING is a billion years down the road from when life officially took off.  The envoronment is not remotely now what it was then.  Radiation was much higher.. Volcanic activity was off the charts.  Bombardment from space stuff ... meteors... asteroids..etc happened thousand of times more frequently.  The atmosphere was completely different.
> 
> You might as well be asking why the first toaster didn't occur a billion years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your sarcasm is noted but that which you imply is only opinion.
Click to expand...

The problem you're faced with is belief in a literal 6000 year old planet. That is a false belief which leaves you no choice but to reject the science fact of a planet closer to 4 billion years old. 

For someone who accepts the absurdity of dinosaurs co-existing with humans and dinosaurs being on Noah's Ark, one can only point and laugh at the silly fundie.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong that Idea was pushed by evolutionist although some believers did believe and some still do most believers never believed that lie. Who started the sciences ? that is right creationist.
> 
> So you are saying creationist are not working on evidence to know how God did it ? Trust me the creationist work with the secularlist and see the same evidence. If secular scientist are eliminating the evidence for design are they really looking for truth ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that secular scientists have dismissed proof of design? Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much,exactly what we are talking about for starters. It is taboo to bring up design because you are infering a creator.
> 
> This planet was designed for life it didn't happen by chance.
Click to expand...

A claim you make completely absent a shred of evidence.


----------



## ima

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that secular scientists have dismissed proof of design? Like what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much,exactly what we are talking about for starters. It is taboo to bring up design because you are infering a creator.
> 
> This planet was designed for life it didn't happen by chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A claim you make completely absent a shred of evidence.
Click to expand...


Ya, I asked WHAT the scientists have dismissed that is proof of design? Got anything at all? or did you just make that up because you felt like it?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some are trying to use single cells of modern states of evolution to suggest that even the single cell *is* too complex to have occured spontaneously.  Duh.  EVERYTHING is a billion years down the road from when life officially took off.  The envoronment is not remotely now what it was then.  Radiation was much higher.. Volcanic activity was off the charts.  Bombardment from space stuff ... meteors... asteroids..etc happened thousand of times more frequently.  The atmosphere was completely different.
> 
> You might as well be asking why the first toaster didn't occur a billion years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your sarcasm is noted but that which you imply is only opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem you're faced with is belief in a literal 6000 year old planet. That is a false belief which leaves you no choice but to reject the science fact of a planet closer to 4 billion years old.
> 
> For someone who accepts the absurdity of dinosaurs co-existing with humans and dinosaurs being on Noah's Ark, one can only point and laugh at the silly fundie.
Click to expand...


No problem unless i add a vivid imagination to my thinking process.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that secular scientists have dismissed proof of design? Like what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much,exactly what we are talking about for starters. It is taboo to bring up design because you are infering a creator.
> 
> This planet was designed for life it didn't happen by chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A claim you make completely absent a shred of evidence.
Click to expand...


I was in the science community for many years that is proof enough for me.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much,exactly what we are talking about for starters. It is taboo to bring up design because you are infering a creator.
> 
> This planet was designed for life it didn't happen by chance.
> 
> 
> 
> A claim you make completely absent a shred of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, I asked WHAT the scientists have dismissed that is proof of design? Got anything at all? or did you just make that up because you felt like it?
Click to expand...


Here are a few for you to think over.

1. life being formed of non living matter.
2. precision in nature.
3. A planet possessing the things necessary for life.
4. properly aligned planets.
5. Atmosphere that protects us in many ways.
6. the sun.
7. the moon.
8. the genetic code, a language.
9. Dna information
10. the formation of a cell.

Plenty more.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong that Idea was pushed by evolutionist although some believers did believe and some still do most believers never believed that lie. Who started the sciences ? that is right creationist.
> 
> So you are saying creationist are not working on evidence to know how God did it ? Trust me the creationist work with the secularlist and see the same evidence. If secular scientist are eliminating the evidence for design are they really looking for truth ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that secular scientists have dismissed proof of design? Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much,exactly what we are talking about for starters. It is taboo to bring up design because you are infering a creator.
> 
> This planet was designed for life it didn't happen by chance.
Click to expand...

Please extend a courtesy and be honest. When you refer to a "designer" or creator, you are referring to the Christian gods. So yes, in a discussion concerning science, gods, witchcraft, supernaturalism, etc. are not relevant.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A claim you make completely absent a shred of evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, I asked WHAT the scientists have dismissed that is proof of design? Got anything at all? or did you just make that up because you felt like it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are a few for you to think over.
> 
> 1. life being formed of non living matter.
> 2. precision in nature.
> 3. A planet possessing the things necessary for life.
> 4. properly aligned planets.
> 5. Atmosphere that protects us in many ways.
> 6. the sun.
> 7. the moon.
> 8. the genetic code, a language.
> 9. Dna information
> 10. the formation of a cell.
> 
> Plenty more.
Click to expand...


There is nothing to indicate supernaturalism or supermagicalism in the above.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much,exactly what we are talking about for starters. It is taboo to bring up design because you are infering a creator.
> 
> This planet was designed for life it didn't happen by chance.
> 
> 
> 
> A claim you make completely absent a shred of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was in the science community for many years that is proof enough for me.
Click to expand...


There is every reason to believe that you were never in any science community. 

Your appalling lack of a science vocabulary confirms that.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have explained it to you. The cell could not have slowly wevolved as you claim. All the parts of the cell had to be developed and then some how come together.
> 
> That could not happen either because in any eviornment the things that make up the cell would be destroyed by water,oxygen,and or the sun.
> 
> The only way cells form are already in living organisms.
> 
> 
> 
> your point?
> It's still is not evidence god did it ....the only real answer is no one knows.... yet.
> but again your religious terror of a void precludes you from seeing it...more's the pity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get it magic was needed for it to happen.
Click to expand...

sure I get it since you have nothing real then it has to be magic....


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although the idea of life forming by random chance isnt taken seriously right now among scientists, the idea is still very much alive at the popular level. Many college students, for example, speculate that if you let amino acids randomly interact over millions of years, like is somehow going to emerge. The problems with that theory became apparent to me pretty quickly. Imagine trying to make even a simple book by throwing Scrabble letters onto the floor. Or imagine closing your eyes and picking Scrabble letters out of a bag. Are you going to produce Hamlet in anything like the time of the known universe? According to George Sim Johnson:
> 
> Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the working of random forces. Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance. Even if the first molecule had been much simpler than those today, there's a minimum structure that protein has to have for it to function. You don't get that structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so.
> 
> First, you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you have to get the left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find out that the probabilities in forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a ten with one-hundred and twenty-five zeros after it! And that would only be one protein molecule; a fairly simple cell would need between three-hundred and five-hundred protein molecules. When you look at those odds and evidence, you can see why, since the 1960's, scientist have abandoned the idea that chance played any significant role in the origin of DNA or proteins.
> Source(s):
> Strobel, Lee, and Jane Vogel. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. 78-80. Print.
> 
> Protein: http://www.herbertarmstrong.org/Miscella
> 
> 
> 
> 404 (Page Not Found) Error If you're the site owner, one of two things happened:
> 1) You entered an incorrect URL into your browser's address bar, or
> 2) You haven't uploaded content.
> If you're a visitor and not sure what happened:
> 1) You entered or copied the URL incorrectly or
> 2) The link you used to get here is faulty.
> (It's an excellent idea to let the link owner know.)
> 
> even if it were there, it's not proof as it's biased and not science.
> 
> their aguments, like yours are not valid as you have no evidence proving  your basic premise : god exists.
> if and untill that happens everything you believe to proof is conjecture. get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would like to read his complete and utter destruction of another theory you cling to.
> 
> Abiogenic Origin of Life:
> A theory in crisis
> 2005 Arthur v. Chadewick Ph.D
> Professor of Geology and Biology
Click to expand...

loloolololololol creationist bullshit ...it's destroyed nothing and proven nothing 
as stated before:  their aguments, like yours are not valid as you have no evidence proving  your basic premise : god exists.
if and untill that happens everything you believe to proof is conjecture. get it


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> The thing is Daws, Abiogenesis has never been a viable theory nor will it be but knowing that you continue to use faulty information so you can say you answered my questions.


so show me the tests where it has been proven not viable? not the opining  of people how suffer the same delusion you do.
I have answered your so called questions, what part of you have no evidence and you've already come to a false conclusion about them do you not understand.?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a working link.
> 
> Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis
> 
> 
> 
> The article is nothing more than a reiteration of every silly, boilerplate creationist claim. The references are a roll call of creationist hacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie you have not evolved far enough to understand what you are reading but I think Daws is though.
Click to expand...

once again ywc trips over himself with ignorance.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you are the best case for evolution, just have not figured out what species you are but you are on the bottom of the evolutionist tree of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thanks but its just hilarious to see your failed attempts at pick and choose christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact ! cells reproduce cells the question is how was it possible for the first cell to form ?
Click to expand...

fact! we all know that! the real problem here is ywc and others like him have settled on an answer they can not prove: "god did it" based on belife: "god exists" also unprovable.
so the real question is: why do people like ywc pretend to have proof when it's obvious they do not?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much,exactly what we are talking about for starters. It is taboo to bring up design because you are infering a creator.
> 
> This planet was designed for life it didn't happen by chance.
> 
> 
> 
> A claim you make completely absent a shred of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was in the science community for many years that is proof enough for me.
Click to expand...

proof of your willful ignorance..


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that secular scientists have dismissed proof of design? Like what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much,exactly what we are talking about for starters. It is taboo to bring up design because you are infering a creator.
> 
> This planet was designed for life it didn't happen by chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please extend a courtesy and be honest. When you refer to a "designer" or creator, you are referring to the Christian gods. So yes, in a discussion concerning science, gods, witchcraft, supernaturalism, etc. are not relevant.
Click to expand...


How do you know for sure ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, I asked WHAT the scientists have dismissed that is proof of design? Got anything at all? or did you just make that up because you felt like it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are a few for you to think over.
> 
> 1. life being formed of non living matter.
> 2. precision in nature.
> 3. A planet possessing the things necessary for life.
> 4. properly aligned planets.
> 5. Atmosphere that protects us in many ways.
> 6. the sun.
> 7. the moon.
> 8. the genetic code, a language.
> 9. Dna information
> 10. the formation of a cell.
> 
> Plenty more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to indicate supernaturalism or supermagicalism in the above.
Click to expand...


How do you know hollie ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A claim you make completely absent a shred of evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in the science community for many years that is proof enough for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is every reason to believe that you were never in any science community.
> 
> Your appalling lack of a science vocabulary confirms that.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your point?
> It's still is not evidence god did it ....the only real answer is no one knows.... yet.
> but again your religious terror of a void precludes you from seeing it...more's the pity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get it magic was needed for it to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure I get it since you have nothing real then it has to be magic....
Click to expand...


Since you can't make a logical rebuttal my view is better supported by the evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 404 (Page Not Found) Error If you're the site owner, one of two things happened:
> 1) You entered an incorrect URL into your browser's address bar, or
> 2) You haven't uploaded content.
> If you're a visitor and not sure what happened:
> 1) You entered or copied the URL incorrectly or
> 2) The link you used to get here is faulty.
> (It's an excellent idea to let the link owner know.)
> 
> even if it were there, it's not proof as it's biased and not science.
> 
> their aguments, like yours are not valid as you have no evidence proving  your basic premise : god exists.
> if and untill that happens everything you believe to proof is conjecture. get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you would like to read his complete and utter destruction of another theory you cling to.
> 
> Abiogenic Origin of Life:
> A theory in crisis
> 2005 Arthur v. Chadewick Ph.D
> Professor of Geology and Biology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> loloolololololol creationist bullshit ...it's destroyed nothing and proven nothing
> as stated before:  their aguments, like yours are not valid as you have no evidence proving  your basic premise : god exists.
> if and untill that happens everything you believe to proof is conjecture. get it
Click to expand...


Please explain the phenomenon without sounding like an Ideologue. That is exactly what creationist have done.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is Daws, Abiogenesis has never been a viable theory nor will it be but knowing that you continue to use faulty information so you can say you answered my questions.
> 
> 
> 
> so show me the tests where it has been proven not viable? not the opining  of people how suffer the same delusion you do.
> I have answered your so called questions, what part of you have no evidence and you've already come to a false conclusion about them do you not understand.?
Click to expand...


The article i posted was very clear why itas not a viable theory. Many on your side even reject the theory.

He touched on the major points of the theory and destroyed the vivid imaginations that created it.


----------



## CandySlice

Reminds me the Human Genome Project where Mitochodrial Eve was found, dating back some 6000 years. It's as if the Scientists were scratching up the side of this mountain only to reach the top and finding the Theologians who'd been there all along.  But that still doesn't mean you can watch the Flintstones and think of it as a documentary.
__________________


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well thanks but its just hilarious to see your failed attempts at pick and choose christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact ! cells reproduce cells the question is how was it possible for the first cell to form ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fact! we all know that! the real problem here is ywc and others like him have settled on an answer they can not prove: "god did it" based on belife: "god exists" also unprovable.
> so the real question is: why do people like ywc pretend to have proof when it's obvious they do not?
Click to expand...


Nothing complex came into existence without intelligence involved can you prove otherwise absent of conjecture ? chaos does not create order action does.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A claim you make completely absent a shred of evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in the science community for many years that is proof enough for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof of your willful ignorance..
Click to expand...


Believe as you wish.


----------



## CandySlice

And yes, Im sure I was created, but Im not quite sure by who. Since the discovery of the dead sea scrolls a lot more questions than answers present themselves.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are a few for you to think over.
> 
> 1. life being formed of non living matter.
> 2. precision in nature.
> 3. A planet possessing the things necessary for life.
> 4. properly aligned planets.
> 5. Atmosphere that protects us in many ways.
> 6. the sun.
> 7. the moon.
> 8. the genetic code, a language.
> 9. Dna information
> 10. the formation of a cell.
> 
> Plenty more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing to indicate supernaturalism or supermagicalism in the above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know hollie ?
Click to expand...

We have no evidence for supernaturalism or supermagicalism. 

You're having continued issues resolving very simple concepts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Reminds me the Human Genome Project where Mitochodrial Eve was found, dating back some 6000 years. It's as if the Scientists were scratching up the side of this mountain only to reach the top and finding the Theologians who'd been there all along.  But that still doesn't mean you can watch the Flintstones and think of it as a documentary.
> __________________



At first they suggested she came from Africa 150,000 to 200,000 years ago and she was not completely human. 

That is a problem for the theory because they want you to believe humans came from Africa millions of years ago.

Notice how all evidence that does not fit their theory it disappears and or gets swept under the carpet.

That is how the Ideologues operate that are the heads of the science community.


----------



## CandySlice

Mitochrodrial Eve WAS completely human and she is a direct, unbroken link from then to now through the female blood line. Problem is, there's no Adam to go with her unless you count x- chromosone Adam who lived much earlier.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A claim you make completely absent a shred of evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, I asked WHAT the scientists have dismissed that is proof of design? Got anything at all? or did you just make that up because you felt like it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are a few for you to think over.
> 
> 1. life being formed of non living matter.
> 2. precision in nature.
> 3. A planet possessing the things necessary for life.
> 4. properly aligned planets.
> 5. Atmosphere that protects us in many ways.
> 6. the sun.
> 7. the moon.
> 8. the genetic code, a language.
> 9. Dna information
> 10. the formation of a cell.
> 
> Plenty more.
Click to expand...


So scientists have dismissed the sun as proof of design? The moon? Properly aligned planets? How have they dismissed properly aligned planets? Please explain. ...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me the Human Genome Project where Mitochodrial Eve was found, dating back some 6000 years. It's as if the Scientists were scratching up the side of this mountain only to reach the top and finding the Theologians who'd been there all along.  But that still doesn't mean you can watch the Flintstones and think of it as a documentary.
> __________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At first they suggested she came from Africa 150,000 to 200,000 years ago and she was not completely human.
> 
> That is a problem for the theory because they want you to believe humans came from Africa millions of years ago.
> 
> Notice how all evidence that does not fit their theory it disappears and or gets swept under the carpet.
> 
> That is how the Ideologues operate that are the heads of the science community.
Click to expand...

Your charges are obviously false. There is a remarkably complete fosill record of human ancestry. 

Your silly claims of evidence being swept under the carpet is desperation on your part to ignore the science discoveries.


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me the Human Genome Project where Mitochodrial Eve was found, dating back some 6000 years. It's as if the Scientists were scratching up the side of this mountain only to reach the top and finding the Theologians who'd been there all along.  But that still doesn't mean you can watch the Flintstones and think of it as a documentary.
> __________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At first they suggested she came from Africa 150,000 to 200,000 years ago and she was not completely human.
> 
> That is a problem for the theory because they want you to believe humans came from Africa millions of years ago.
> 
> Notice how all evidence that does not fit their theory it disappears and or gets swept under the carpet.
> 
> That is how the Ideologues operate that are the heads of the science community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your charges are obviously false. There is a remarkably complete fosill record of human ancestry.
> 
> Your silly claims of evidence being swept under the carpet is desperation on your part to ignore the science discoveries.
Click to expand...


It should be acknowledged miEve has gotten a bad rap since she was first found in 1987. And the molecular clock puts her closer to 6,000 to 10,000 years old rather than the 200,000 years first thought.


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me the Human Genome Project where Mitochodrial Eve was found, dating back some 6000 years. It's as if the Scientists were scratching up the side of this mountain only to reach the top and finding the Theologians who'd been there all along.  But that still doesn't mean you can watch the Flintstones and think of it as a documentary.
> __________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At first they suggested she came from Africa 150,000 to 200,000 years ago and she was not completely human.
> 
> That is a problem for the theory because they want you to believe humans came from Africa millions of years ago.
> 
> Notice how all evidence that does not fit their theory it disappears and or gets swept under the carpet.
> 
> That is how the Ideologues operate that are the heads of the science community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your charges are obviously false. There is a remarkably complete fosill record of human ancestry.
> 
> Your silly claims of evidence being swept under the carpet is desperation on your part to ignore the science discoveries.
Click to expand...


I agree. The evidence is being UNcovered rather than swept under anything at an increasingly rapid rate. Our fossil records show creationism is probably the poetic way people of old tried to describe something they couldn't fully grasp. That and half the 'Bible' wasn't even known to us before 1947. Like most other things man gets his hands on it's been edited and certain books were even left out.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get it magic was needed for it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> sure I get it since you have nothing real then it has to be magic....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you can't make a logical rebuttal my view is better supported by the evidence.
Click to expand...

really? you have no evidence of magic or god..


Definition of LOGIC
1a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable


----------



## CandySlice

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure I get it since you have nothing real then it has to be magic....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you can't make a logical rebuttal my view is better supported by the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? you have no evidence of magic or god..
> 
> 
> Definition of LOGIC
> 1a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable
Click to expand...


I don't believe in magic, but I do believe the people of old saw something they had no way to describe with the technology available at the time.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you would like to read his complete and utter destruction of another theory you cling to.
> 
> Abiogenic Origin of Life:
> A theory in crisis
> 2005 Arthur v. Chadewick Ph.D
> Professor of Geology and Biology
> 
> 
> 
> loloolololololol creationist bullshit ...it's destroyed nothing and proven nothing
> as stated before:  their aguments, like yours are not valid as you have no evidence proving  your basic premise : god exists.
> if and untill that happens everything you believe to proof is conjecture. get it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain the phenomenon without sounding like an Ideologue. That is exactly what creationist have done.
Click to expand...

who the fuck are you to talk about soundiing like an ideologue   Definition of IDEOLOGUE
1: an impractical idealist : theorist 
2: an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology 
 if that's not a spot on definiton of you I don't know what is.
what phenomenon are you babbling about now?


----------



## daws101

CandySlice said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you can't make a logical rebuttal my view is better supported by the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> really? you have no evidence of magic or god..
> 
> 
> Definition of LOGIC
> 1a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in magic, but I do believe the people of old saw something they had no way to describe with the technology available at the time.
Click to expand...

I would add they had no language or context or concept to give an accurate description of certain events.


----------



## CandySlice

daws101 said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? you have no evidence of magic or god..
> 
> 
> Definition of LOGIC
> 1a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in magic, but I do believe the people of old saw something they had no way to describe with the technology available at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would add they had no language or context or concept to give an accurate description of certain events.
Click to expand...


For instance, of all the stories the one about Noah and the ark makes far more sense to me as a DNA bank than a guy running around rounding up two of everything and keeping them from eating each other all that time. Panspermia maybe. We can't be all that's out there.
Plus, in the book of Lamech (a book  that didn't make it into our Bible) it tells of Lamech coming home after being gone for a long time to find his wife pregnant. Knowing it wasn't his he went to his father, Methuselah and Methuselah couldn't help him so he goes to his  great grandfather who was Enoch and Enoch more or less tells him its an artificial insemination. That baby was Noah.

Now in the Bible it says Noah 'was pure in all his generations'. So I ask you, where did such a story come from?


----------



## Hollie

CandySlice said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in magic, but I do believe the people of old saw something they had no way to describe with the technology available at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> I would add they had no language or context or concept to give an accurate description of certain events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For instance, of all the stories the one about Noah and the ark makes far more sense to me as a DNA bank than a guy running around rounding up two of everything and keeping them from eating each other all that time. Panspermia maybe. We can't be all that's out there.
> Plus, in the book of Lamech (a book  that didn't make it into our Bible) it tells of Lamech coming home after being gone for a long time to find his wife pregnant. Knowing it wasn't his he went to his father, Methuselah and Methuselah couldn't help him so he goes to his  great grandfather who was Enoch and Enoch more or less tells him its an artificial insemination. That baby was Noah.
> 
> Now in the Bible it says Noah 'was pure in all his generations'. So I ask you, where did such a story come from?
Click to expand...

Humanity is evolving away from mythologies, that much is clear. Religious beliefs have nowhere near the power and clout they used to, and as science progresses forward, the god of the gaps pleadings get thinner and thinner. Once, the gods opened every flower, now, they're reduced to being bureaucrats. One day, that too will be taken away from them as they are merely myths and always have been.  Will it be borne out? Speculatively, everything we've learned so far shows that the theisms are simply poetic perceptions of existence, important for their time, less relevant as we progress and learn the truth about existence. So yes, eventually when we come to the finish line of what is Truth, the natural explanation will reign supreme.


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would add they had no language or context or concept to give an accurate description of certain events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, of all the stories the one about Noah and the ark makes far more sense to me as a DNA bank than a guy running around rounding up two of everything and keeping them from eating each other all that time. Panspermia maybe. We can't be all that's out there.
> Plus, in the book of Lamech (a book  that didn't make it into our Bible) it tells of Lamech coming home after being gone for a long time to find his wife pregnant. Knowing it wasn't his he went to his father, Methuselah and Methuselah couldn't help him so he goes to his  great grandfather who was Enoch and Enoch more or less tells him its an artificial insemination. That baby was Noah.
> 
> Now in the Bible it says Noah 'was pure in all his generations'. So I ask you, where did such a story come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humanity is evolving away from mythologies, that much is clear. Religious beliefs have nowhere near the power and clout they used to, and as science progresses forward, the god of the gaps pleadings get thinner and thinner. Once, the gods opened every flower, now, they're reduced to being bureaucrats. One day, that too will be taken away from them as they are merely myths and always have been.  Will it be borne out? Speculatively, everything we've learned so far shows that the theisms are simply poetic perceptions of existence, important for their time, less relevant as we progress and learn the truth about existence. So yes, eventually when we come to the finish line of what is Truth, the natural explanation will reign supreme.
Click to expand...


It is said if the Bible was proved to be just a book of poetry that it would shatter peoples belief system to the point of global panic and chaos but I say 'Not necessarily'. Because as our knowlege is increased I think mankind would be comforted to know their beliefs were more than just fairy tales made up to explain things that the people of the time couldn't understand. They, the ancients, were clearly trying to tell us something very unusual had happened. Clarifying those events could only be a good thing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would add they had no language or context or concept to give an accurate description of certain events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, of all the stories the one about Noah and the ark makes far more sense to me as a DNA bank than a guy running around rounding up two of everything and keeping them from eating each other all that time. Panspermia maybe. We can't be all that's out there.
> Plus, in the book of Lamech (a book  that didn't make it into our Bible) it tells of Lamech coming home after being gone for a long time to find his wife pregnant. Knowing it wasn't his he went to his father, Methuselah and Methuselah couldn't help him so he goes to his  great grandfather who was Enoch and Enoch more or less tells him its an artificial insemination. That baby was Noah.
> 
> Now in the Bible it says Noah 'was pure in all his generations'. So I ask you, where did such a story come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humanity is evolving away from mythologies, that much is clear. Religious beliefs have nowhere near the power and clout they used to, and as science progresses forward, the god of the gaps pleadings get thinner and thinner. Once, the gods opened every flower, now, they're reduced to being bureaucrats. One day, that too will be taken away from them as they are merely myths and always have been.  Will it be borne out? Speculatively, everything we've learned so far shows that the theisms are simply poetic perceptions of existence, important for their time, less relevant as we progress and learn the truth about existence. So yes, eventually when we come to the finish line of what is Truth, the natural explanation will reign supreme.
Click to expand...


Hmm, what you said was prophetic.

2Ti 4:1  I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 
2Ti 4:2  preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 
2Ti 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; 
2Ti 4:4  and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.

God is speaking here of you and many like you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

2Ti 4:4

(ASV)  and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables. 

(BBE)  And shutting their ears to what is true, will be turned away to belief in foolish stories. 

(CEV)  They will turn from the truth and eagerly listen to senseless stories. 

(KJV)  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 

(KJV+)  AndG2532 they shall turn awayG654 their earsG189 fromG575 (G3303) theG3588 truth,G225 andG1161 shall be turnedG1624 untoG1909 fables.G3454 

(MKJV)  And they will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned to myths.


----------



## Youwerecreated

That was a prophecy written long before evolution was a thought.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Look up the definition of fables pretty interesting stuff EH ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, of all the stories the one about Noah and the ark makes far more sense to me as a DNA bank than a guy running around rounding up two of everything and keeping them from eating each other all that time. Panspermia maybe. We can't be all that's out there.
> Plus, in the book of Lamech (a book  that didn't make it into our Bible) it tells of Lamech coming home after being gone for a long time to find his wife pregnant. Knowing it wasn't his he went to his father, Methuselah and Methuselah couldn't help him so he goes to his  great grandfather who was Enoch and Enoch more or less tells him its an artificial insemination. That baby was Noah.
> 
> Now in the Bible it says Noah 'was pure in all his generations'. So I ask you, where did such a story come from?
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity is evolving away from mythologies, that much is clear. Religious beliefs have nowhere near the power and clout they used to, and as science progresses forward, the god of the gaps pleadings get thinner and thinner. Once, the gods opened every flower, now, they're reduced to being bureaucrats. One day, that too will be taken away from them as they are merely myths and always have been.  Will it be borne out? Speculatively, everything we've learned so far shows that the theisms are simply poetic perceptions of existence, important for their time, less relevant as we progress and learn the truth about existence. So yes, eventually when we come to the finish line of what is Truth, the natural explanation will reign supreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, what you said was prophetic.
> 
> 2Ti 4:1  I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:
> 2Ti 4:2  preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.
> 2Ti 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;
> 2Ti 4:4  and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.
> 
> God is speaking here of you and many like you.
Click to expand...

2Ti 4:5  and I'm so embarrassed to have thumpers assaulting people in the name of an ancient book of tales and fables.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> That was a prophecy written long before evolution was a thought.



That's so silly.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity is evolving away from mythologies, that much is clear. Religious beliefs have nowhere near the power and clout they used to, and as science progresses forward, the god of the gaps pleadings get thinner and thinner. Once, the gods opened every flower, now, they're reduced to being bureaucrats. One day, that too will be taken away from them as they are merely myths and always have been.  Will it be borne out? Speculatively, everything we've learned so far shows that the theisms are simply poetic perceptions of existence, important for their time, less relevant as we progress and learn the truth about existence. So yes, eventually when we come to the finish line of what is Truth, the natural explanation will reign supreme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, what you said was prophetic.
> 
> 2Ti 4:1  I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:
> 2Ti 4:2  preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.
> 2Ti 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;
> 2Ti 4:4  and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.
> 
> God is speaking here of you and many like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2Ti 4:5  and I'm so embarrassed to have thumpers assaulting people in the name of an ancient book of tales and fables.
Click to expand...


It's not my words that are convicting you and it even caused you to be speechless for a while.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a prophecy written long before evolution was a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
Click to expand...


What's so silly Hollie that writing was written within the first century of the messiah's death. Darwin and the earliest speakings of evolution was in the 1800's. The first complete bible was published in 1,560 and it was the Geneva Bible.

You and many like you are fulfilling prophecy.

1Jn 2:16  because all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity is evolving away from mythologies, that much is clear. Religious beliefs have nowhere near the power and clout they used to, and as science progresses forward, the god of the gaps pleadings get thinner and thinner. Once, the gods opened every flower, now, they're reduced to being bureaucrats. One day, that too will be taken away from them as they are merely myths and always have been.  Will it be borne out? Speculatively, everything we've learned so far shows that the theisms are simply poetic perceptions of existence, important for their time, less relevant as we progress and learn the truth about existence. So yes, eventually when we come to the finish line of what is Truth, the natural explanation will reign supreme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, what you said was prophetic.
> 
> 2Ti 4:1  I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:
> 2Ti 4:2  preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.
> 2Ti 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;
> 2Ti 4:4  and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.
> 
> God is speaking here of you and many like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2Ti 4:5  and I'm so embarrassed to have thumpers assaulting people in the name of an ancient book of tales and fables.
Click to expand...


Here let me help you with that verse as well.

2Ti 4:5  But you watch in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fully carry out your ministry. 

Clearly made a difference between you and I.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a prophecy written long before evolution was a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
Click to expand...


Sounds like the bible predicted your coming.

Definition Fables : A short allegorical narrative making a moral point, traditionally by means of animal characters who speak and act like human beings.


Yep definitely evolution was being predicted.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a prophecy written long before evolution was a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the bible predicted your coming.
> 
> Definition Fables : A short allegorical narrative making a moral point, traditionally by means of animal characters who speak and act like human beings.
> 
> 
> Yep definitely evolution was being predicted.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense at all.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> That was a prophecy written long before evolution was a thought.



...and just after the wheel was invented. They also didn't think the earth revolved around the sun, but it does. 

Doesn't it?


----------



## CandySlice

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a prophecy written long before evolution was a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and just after the wheel was invented. They also didn't think the earth revolved around the sun, but it does.
> 
> Doesn't it?
Click to expand...


 So how come when Ezekial was taken up in the chariot he saw the world in all it's round when the thinking of the time said the earth was flat?


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a prophecy written long before evolution was a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's so silly Hollie that writing was written within the first century of the messiah's death. Darwin and the earliest speakings of evolution was in the 1800's. The first complete bible was published in 1,560 and it was the Geneva Bible.
> 
> You and many like you are fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> 1Jn 2:16  because all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Click to expand...


I feel like mankind is no longer satisfied with fairy tales and  we are just trying to slake our thirst for knowlege.


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> 2Ti 4:4
> 
> (ASV)  and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables. exactly
> (BBE)  And shutting their ears to what is true, will be turned away to belief in foolish stories. As you certainly have done.
> (CEV)  They will turn from the truth and eagerly listen to senseless stories. What can I say? It's unanamous.(KJV)  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
> 
> (KJV+)  AndG2532 they shall turn awayG654 their earsG189 fromG575 (G3303) theG3588 truth,G225 andG1161 shall be turnedG1624 untoG1909 fables.G3454
> 
> (MKJV)  And they will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned to myths.



It makes more sense every time I hear it.


----------



## CandySlice

Holly, it appears you've driven our little creationist over the edge. She's trying to bury you in 'scripture' (as if we didn't see THAT coming.)


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, of all the stories the one about Noah and the ark makes far more sense to me as a DNA bank than a guy running around rounding up two of everything and keeping them from eating each other all that time. Panspermia maybe. We can't be all that's out there.
> Plus, in the book of Lamech (a book  that didn't make it into our Bible) it tells of Lamech coming home after being gone for a long time to find his wife pregnant. Knowing it wasn't his he went to his father, Methuselah and Methuselah couldn't help him so he goes to his  great grandfather who was Enoch and Enoch more or less tells him its an artificial insemination. That baby was Noah.
> 
> Now in the Bible it says Noah 'was pure in all his generations'. So I ask you, where did such a story come from?
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity is evolving away from mythologies, that much is clear. Religious beliefs have nowhere near the power and clout they used to, and as science progresses forward, the god of the gaps pleadings get thinner and thinner. Once, the gods opened every flower, now, they're reduced to being bureaucrats. One day, that too will be taken away from them as they are merely myths and always have been.  Will it be borne out? Speculatively, everything we've learned so far shows that the theisms are simply poetic perceptions of existence, important for their time, less relevant as we progress and learn the truth about existence. So yes, eventually when we come to the finish line of what is Truth, the natural explanation will reign supreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, what you said was prophetic.
> 
> 2Ti 4:1  I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:
> 2Ti 4:2  preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.
> 2Ti 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;
> 2Ti 4:4  and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.
> 
> God is speaking here of you and many like you.
Click to expand...

god isn't saying shit about anyone one in perticular..
  those passages are ambigious in the extreme 
and out of context...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> That was a prophecy written long before evolution was a thought.


yeah and .....? still no proof god did it....


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, what you said was prophetic.
> 
> 2Ti 4:1  I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:
> 2Ti 4:2  preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.
> 2Ti 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;
> 2Ti 4:4  and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.
> 
> God is speaking here of you and many like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 2Ti 4:5  and I'm so embarrassed to have thumpers assaulting people in the name of an ancient book of tales and fables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my words that are convicting you and it even caused you to be speechless for a while.
Click to expand...

another pile of shit .....


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a prophecy written long before evolution was a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's so silly Hollie that writing was written within the first century of the messiah's death. Darwin and the earliest speakings of evolution was in the 1800's. The first complete bible was published in 1,560 and it was the Geneva Bible.
> 
> You and many like you are fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> 1Jn 2:16  because all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Click to expand...

it's silly and stupid 
and and unprovable, in the nearly 2000 years since it's first issue none of the miraculous    events discribed in it have ever been proven...


----------



## daws101

CandySlice said:


> Holly, it appears you've driven our little creationist over the edge. She's trying to bury you in 'scripture' (as if we didn't see THAT coming.)


btw ywc is a an adult male ...not much of a man.


----------



## Hollie

CandySlice said:


> Holly, it appears you've driven our little creationist over the edge. She's trying to bury you in 'scripture' (as if we didn't see THAT coming.)



Youwerecreated has a habit of assaulting people with bible verses when the proselytizing thing is not working. What he doesn't understand is that gods are a lot like the weather...

Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.

Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis,worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.

Dust, all. Antiquities. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.

Its already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why is Islam so reactionary? Because its adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Islam defames the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods dont return to this earth, as gods dont prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Deep down, they know there is only faith and belief to support the belief. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holly, it appears you've driven our little creationist over the edge. She's trying to bury you in 'scripture' (as if we didn't see THAT coming.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated has a habit of assaulting people with bible verses when the proselytizing thing is not working. What he doesn't understand is that gods are a lot like the weather...
> 
> Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.
> 
> Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis,worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.
> 
> Dust, all. Antiquities. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.
> 
> Its already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why is Islam so reactionary? Because its adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Islam defames the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods dont return to this earth, as gods dont prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Deep down, they know there is only faith and belief to support the belief. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.
Click to expand...


I was born with a mind and a curiousity . a knack for thinking things through. I haven't decided what is true and what isn't but I've always had the instinct that if there is a God, And he gave us the ability to question him it must be for a reason. I prefer my way because I'm not bogged down in one mind set and unable to go forward. The day that happens to me and I start blurting out some pre-arrainged catch phrases then I might as well be dead because my ability to question is gone. Once you quit learning it's over. I don't ever want to have that happen to me. I'll take my way. It is far more satisfying.

I often wonder if in a parallel universe Adam and Eve stood up to God and refused to bow  down and cring when they ate the apple. And in that universe God might have said 'At last.  I found my Children! Children that are worthy of carrying on the human race.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the bible predicted your coming.
> 
> Definition Fables : A short allegorical narrative making a moral point, traditionally by means of animal characters who speak and act like human beings.
> 
> 
> Yep definitely evolution was being predicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...


One of your sides argument is DNA similarity they look kinda like us and so on.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a prophecy written long before evolution was a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and just after the wheel was invented. They also didn't think the earth revolved around the sun, but it does.
> 
> Doesn't it?
Click to expand...


Why do you people stereotype believers so much. You guys are desperate in trying to show believers as ignorant.

Most Christians did not believe the earth was flat.

The bible does not teach the earth was flat nor does it teach everything revolves around the earth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's so silly Hollie that writing was written within the first century of the messiah's death. Darwin and the earliest speakings of evolution was in the 1800's. The first complete bible was published in 1,560 and it was the Geneva Bible.
> 
> You and many like you are fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> 1Jn 2:16  because all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel like mankind is no longer satisfied with fairy tales and  we are just trying to slake our thirst for knowlege.
Click to expand...


I'm all for filling our thirst for knowledge but knowledge that is based on a vivid imagination.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's so silly Hollie that writing was written within the first century of the messiah's death. Darwin and the earliest speakings of evolution was in the 1800's. The first complete bible was published in 1,560 and it was the Geneva Bible.
> 
> You and many like you are fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> 1Jn 2:16  because all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel like mankind is no longer satisfied with fairy tales and  we are just trying to slake our thirst for knowlege.
Click to expand...


The fairytales is what some so called science you refer to.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Holly, it appears you've driven our little creationist over the edge. She's trying to bury you in 'scripture' (as if we didn't see THAT coming.)



She is a he,it will never happen.

It's funny I point out to you people you were predicted long before you showed up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity is evolving away from mythologies, that much is clear. Religious beliefs have nowhere near the power and clout they used to, and as science progresses forward, the god of the gaps pleadings get thinner and thinner. Once, the gods opened every flower, now, they're reduced to being bureaucrats. One day, that too will be taken away from them as they are merely myths and always have been.  Will it be borne out? Speculatively, everything we've learned so far shows that the theisms are simply poetic perceptions of existence, important for their time, less relevant as we progress and learn the truth about existence. So yes, eventually when we come to the finish line of what is Truth, the natural explanation will reign supreme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, what you said was prophetic.
> 
> 2Ti 4:1  I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:
> 2Ti 4:2  preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.
> 2Ti 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;
> 2Ti 4:4  and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.
> 
> God is speaking here of you and many like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> god isn't saying shit about anyone one in perticular..
> those passages are ambigious in the extreme
> and out of context...
Click to expand...


Wrong, God was speaking of you and your friends who share your warped vviews.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a prophecy written long before evolution was a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah and .....? still no proof god did it....
Click to expand...


For some you may be right.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2Ti 4:5  and I'm so embarrassed to have thumpers assaulting people in the name of an ancient book of tales and fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my words that are convicting you and it even caused you to be speechless for a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another pile of shit .....
Click to expand...


In your mouth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's so silly Hollie that writing was written within the first century of the messiah's death. Darwin and the earliest speakings of evolution was in the 1800's. The first complete bible was published in 1,560 and it was the Geneva Bible.
> 
> You and many like you are fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> 1Jn 2:16  because all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's silly and stupid
> and and unprovable, in the nearly 2000 years since it's first issue none of the miraculous    events discribed in it have ever been proven...
Click to expand...


Your pride and arrogance and fables were predicted, As one version put it,your foolish stories. Definitely what I posted was a warning from God about you worshipers of Darwin and Naturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holly, it appears you've driven our little creationist over the edge. She's trying to bury you in 'scripture' (as if we didn't see THAT coming.)
> 
> 
> 
> btw ywc is a an adult male ...not much of a man.
Click to expand...


I challenged you to a personal meeting when I'm in calidfornia and you have yet to respond how we could meet and put your theory to the test.

You talk a good game but not much on delivery. 

You are a coward that would hide behind a PC.

I'm not a Christian that would offer the other cheek but hey none of us are perfect anymore.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holly, it appears you've driven our little creationist over the edge. She's trying to bury you in 'scripture' (as if we didn't see THAT coming.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated has a habit of assaulting people with bible verses when the proselytizing thing is not working. What he doesn't understand is that gods are a lot like the weather...
> 
> Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.
> 
> Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis,worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.
> 
> Dust, all. Antiquities. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.
> 
> Its already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why is Islam so reactionary? Because its adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Islam defames the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods dont return to this earth, as gods dont prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Deep down, they know there is only faith and belief to support the belief. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.
Click to expand...


I also hit you people with actual science and you can't deal with that either.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holly, it appears you've driven our little creationist over the edge. She's trying to bury you in 'scripture' (as if we didn't see THAT coming.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated has a habit of assaulting people with bible verses when the proselytizing thing is not working. What he doesn't understand is that gods are a lot like the weather...
> 
> Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.
> 
> Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis,worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.
> 
> Dust, all. Antiquities. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.
> 
> Its already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why is Islam so reactionary? Because its adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Islam defames the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods dont return to this earth, as gods dont prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Deep down, they know there is only faith and belief to support the belief. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was born with a mind and a curiousity . a knack for thinking things through. I haven't decided what is true and what isn't but I've always had the instinct that if there is a God, And he gave us the ability to question him it must be for a reason. I prefer my way because I'm not bogged down in one mind set and unable to go forward. The day that happens to me and I start blurting out some pre-arrainged catch phrases then I might as well be dead because my ability to question is gone. Once you quit learning it's over. I don't ever want to have that happen to me. I'll take my way. It is far more satisfying.
> 
> I often wonder if in a parallel universe Adam and Eve stood up to God and refused to bow  down and cring when they ate the apple. And in that universe God might have said 'At last.  I found my Children! Children that are worthy of carrying on the human race.
Click to expand...


The bible boggs you down ?

What makes you believe in God if you don't trust his words ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holly, it appears you've driven our little creationist over the edge. She's trying to bury you in 'scripture' (as if we didn't see THAT coming.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated has a habit of assaulting people with bible verses when the proselytizing thing is not working. What he doesn't understand is that gods are a lot like the weather...
> 
> Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.
> 
> Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis,worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.
> 
> Dust, all. Antiquities. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.
> 
> Its already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why is Islam so reactionary? Because its adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Islam defames the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods dont return to this earth, as gods dont prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Deep down, they know there is only faith and belief to support the belief. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also hit you people with actual science and you can't deal with that either.
Click to expand...


Harun Yahya is not science.


----------



## Hollie

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holly, it appears you've driven our little creationist over the edge. She's trying to bury you in 'scripture' (as if we didn't see THAT coming.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated has a habit of assaulting people with bible verses when the proselytizing thing is not working. What he doesn't understand is that gods are a lot like the weather...
> 
> Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.
> 
> Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis,worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.
> 
> Dust, all. Antiquities. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.
> 
> Its already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why is Islam so reactionary? Because its adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Islam defames the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods dont return to this earth, as gods dont prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Deep down, they know there is only faith and belief to support the belief. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was born with a mind and a curiousity . a knack for thinking things through. I haven't decided what is true and what isn't but I've always had the instinct that if there is a God, And he gave us the ability to question him it must be for a reason. I prefer my way because I'm not bogged down in one mind set and unable to go forward. The day that happens to me and I start blurting out some pre-arrainged catch phrases then I might as well be dead because my ability to question is gone. Once you quit learning it's over. I don't ever want to have that happen to me. I'll take my way. It is far more satisfying.
> 
> I often wonder if in a parallel universe Adam and Eve stood up to God and refused to bow  down and cring when they ate the apple. And in that universe God might have said 'At last.  I found my Children! Children that are worthy of carrying on the human race.
Click to expand...


Wow. Great post and I wish you luck on your journey for the truth - wherever it leads.

In previous threads of this nature, it's been countered to me thus: "But isn't it harder to have to account for your sins if there is a god?"

I have an answer to that question.

The only "condemning aspect" of my life is the Christian based idea that as an imperfect being I deserve Hell by default. I'm fairly honest, I work hard, I love my friends and family, etc.-- in short, I'm your average person who lives a quiet life dealing with life's challenges. I cannot imagine rating eternal torment because I don't acquiesce to the Christian- defined slavation program. I ask myself:

"Which is more likely: That there's really this crazy god out there who would actually behave that way, or it's really in the releigion's interest to establish a social dynamic where eternal torment is the outcome for not joining in that religion and btw supporting it financially. What's more likely, man needs a savior for being human, or the Church, an entity of sweeping power for more than a thousand years, needs to convince me I need them and only them?"

I think the answer is really obvious and simple. If such a thing is the reality (and of course there's no evidence for such) then I'll have to "account for my actions". But my worst "crime" in this realm is being imperfect and not believing that which I find is not supported. I can do nothing about such a god who would condemn me for such a trivial issue, nor can I do anything about the fact (my term) that after death it's nothing but a dreamless sleep. Both are equally depressing, hopeless, and bleak, and there's a marginal difference between condemning most people who ever existed to an eternity of despair versus everyone being condemned to an eternity of nothingness. It's hopeless because if such a god exists, there is no sense in morality, no true justice, and basically we are nothing but minions created to worship an infinite Ego or be consigned to everlasting torment.


----------



## ima

Great post Hollie.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated has a habit of assaulting people with bible verses when the proselytizing thing is not working. What he doesn't understand is that gods are a lot like the weather...
> 
> Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.
> 
> Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis,worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.
> 
> Dust, all. Antiquities. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.
> 
> Its already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why is Islam so reactionary? Because its adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Islam defames the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods dont return to this earth, as gods dont prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Deep down, they know there is only faith and belief to support the belief. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was born with a mind and a curiousity . a knack for thinking things through. I haven't decided what is true and what isn't but I've always had the instinct that if there is a God, And he gave us the ability to question him it must be for a reason. I prefer my way because I'm not bogged down in one mind set and unable to go forward. The day that happens to me and I start blurting out some pre-arrainged catch phrases then I might as well be dead because my ability to question is gone. Once you quit learning it's over. I don't ever want to have that happen to me. I'll take my way. It is far more satisfying.
> 
> I often wonder if in a parallel universe Adam and Eve stood up to God and refused to bow  down and cring when they ate the apple. And in that universe God might have said 'At last.  I found my Children! Children that are worthy of carrying on the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible boggs you down ?
> 
> What makes you believe in God if you don't trust his words ?
Click to expand...

What you can't trust is that those words were spoken by a god. It's total hearsay.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated has a habit of assaulting people with bible verses when the proselytizing thing is not working. What he doesn't understand is that gods are a lot like the weather...
> 
> Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.
> 
> Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis,worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.
> 
> Dust, all. Antiquities. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.
> 
> Its already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why is Islam so reactionary? Because its adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Islam defames the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods dont return to this earth, as gods dont prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Deep down, they know there is only faith and belief to support the belief. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also hit you people with actual science and you can't deal with that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Harun Yahya is not science.
Click to expand...


Why do you keep bringing this site up ? That must be the site that UR said you got banned from,are you still bitter with them ? Where do creationist get their arguments from ? Where do evolutionist get their arguments from ? Hollie the sites you copy and paste where did that info come from ? Hollie some of my arguments are from observations and things that I actually saw and educated myself on.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Great post Hollie.



Don't mind her, she is just confused and sucks up to people she believes is on her side.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was born with a mind and a curiousity . a knack for thinking things through. I haven't decided what is true and what isn't but I've always had the instinct that if there is a God, And he gave us the ability to question him it must be for a reason. I prefer my way because I'm not bogged down in one mind set and unable to go forward. The day that happens to me and I start blurting out some pre-arrainged catch phrases then I might as well be dead because my ability to question is gone. Once you quit learning it's over. I don't ever want to have that happen to me. I'll take my way. It is far more satisfying.
> 
> I often wonder if in a parallel universe Adam and Eve stood up to God and refused to bow  down and cring when they ate the apple. And in that universe God might have said 'At last.  I found my Children! Children that are worthy of carrying on the human race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible boggs you down ?
> 
> What makes you believe in God if you don't trust his words ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you can't trust is that those words were spoken by a god. It's total hearsay.
Click to expand...


Well Alot of those words spoken before modern day science and long before prohecies were fulfilled.. That book is still being used by archaeologist to locate communities of old.

Here are some examples for you.



101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge 

        Psalm 19:1-3  The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. 
Jeremiah 10:12  He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.

Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. 

Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts. That book is the Bible.
This booklet presents 101 scientific facts found in the Scriptures. Many of these facts were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece to the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator. How does this affect you? The last several pages provide the answer  you need to read them carefully.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  1.
The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.

Visit:
Modern Science In An Ancient (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.
Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Visit:
All About Atoms (Jefferson Lab)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.
The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.

Visit:
The Arks perfect dimensions (Answers In Genesis)
Safety investigation of Noahs Ark in a seaway (Answers In Genesis)
Noahs Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.
When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.

Visit:
-Why do I need to wash my hands? 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.
Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.
Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

Visit:
Springs of the Ocean (ICR)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.
There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

Visit:
Numerical Simulations Of Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8.
Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creators presence  in Your presence is fullness of joy (Psalm 16:11).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9.
Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.

Visit:
Life in the Blood (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.
The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe  namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.

Visit:
Things You May Not Know About Evolution (ICR)
Creation - Evolution (ICR)
Evolution and the Bible (ICR)
The Fossil Record: Intermediate Links (ChristianAnswers.net)
Archaeopteryx A Feathered Reptile? (ChristianAnswers.net)
The Ape-Man: Missing Link (ChristianAnswers.net)
Biological Evolution Darwin's Finches (ChristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11.
Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwins theory of the survival of the fittest.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12.
Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.

Visit:
What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg? (ICR)
The Egg/Chicken Conundrum (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13.
Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

Visit:
Things that are Made (ICR)
Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality (ICR)
Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories (ICR)
The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14.
Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.

Visit:
The elements of the periodic table sorted by their presence in human body. (Lenntech)
The Bible is a Textbook of Science (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.
The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16.
The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)Then God said, Let there be light (energy). No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17.
The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18.
The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.

Visit:
Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth 
Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19.
Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20.
Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow in the cloud as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets  which act as a prism  separating white light into its color spectrum.

Visit:
What causes a rainbow? (CristianAnswers.net)
The Rainbow And The Cloud (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago  God declared this four millennia ago!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22.
Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the paths of the seas. In the 19th century Matthew Maury  the father of oceanography  after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maurys data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23.
Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body, and that those who commit homosexual sin would receive in themselves the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.

Visit
Sex Habits Linked to Early Death, Disability (Fox News)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24.
Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25.
Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars  thats a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26.
The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along  He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27.
The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28.
Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.

Visit:
Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality (ICR)
Is Creation One of the Traditional Values? (ICR)
Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism (ICR)
Would China Benefit from Christianity? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29.
The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was Gods judgment on mans wickedness.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30.
Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.

Visit:
The Origin of Coal (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31.
The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent  just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

32.
Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the fountains of the great deep were broken up. This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.

Visit:
Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

33.
Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often  By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.

Visit:
Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

34.
Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

Visit:
Is the unborn human less than human? (CristianAnswers.net)
Cloning: Redefining When Life Begins Exposing Flaws in the Preembryo-Embryo Distinction (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

35.
God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an intricate unity in the womb.

Visit:
Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

36.
DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Visit:
Curiously Wrought (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

37.
God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

Visit:
One Blood: The biblical answer to racism (CristianAnswers.net) 
Where Did The Races Come From? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

38.
Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Visit:
Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR) 
On the Origin of Language (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39.
Origin of the different races explained (Genesis 11). As Noahs descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

Visit:
Where did the human races come from? (CristianAnswers.net)
Evolution and Modern Racism (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

40.
God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along  there are healing compounds found in plants.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

41.
Healthy dietary laws (Leviticus 11:9-12). Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales. We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

42.
The Bible warns against eating birds of prey (Leviticus 11:13-19). Scientists now recognize that those birds which eat carrion (putrefying flesh), often spread disease.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

43.
Avoid swine (Deuteronomy 14:8). Not so long ago, science learned that eating undercooked pork causes an infection of parasites called trichinosis. Now consider this: the Bible forbid the eating of swine more than 3,000 years before we learned how to cook pork safely.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. (NCBI)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44.
Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, Gods Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as Mother and naturalism is enshrined.

Visit:
Earth Day, Environmentalism, and the Bible (ICR)
The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
The Hyper-Environmentalists (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

45.
Black holes and dark matter anticipated (Matthew 25:30; Jude 1:13; Isaiah 50:3). Cosmologists now speculate that over 98% of the known universe is comprised of dark matter, with dark energy and black holes. A black holes gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls outer darkness or the blackness of darkness forever.

Visit:
The Outer Darkness (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

46.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God  resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is grow(ing) old like a garment (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ChrisitanAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

47.
Cains wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry  therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.

Visit:
Where did Cain get his wife? (CristianAnswers.net)
Cain's Wife: It Really Does Matter! (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48.
Incest laws established (Leviticus 18:6). To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common. Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice. The reason is simple  the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses day the genetic errors had swelled. Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed.

Visit:
The Blind Gunman (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

49.
Genetic mixing of different seeds forbidden (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9). The Bible warns against mixing seeds  as this will result in an inferior or dangerous crop. There is now growing evidence that unnatural, genetically engineered crops may be harmful.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

50.
Hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Jeremiah 10:13; Amos 9:6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man (Job 36:27-28). The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

51.
The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity  the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit  just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

52.
Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Visit:
Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day (Apologetics Press)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

53.
God has given us just the right amount of water to sustain life (Isaiah 40:12). We now recognize that if there was significantly more or less water, the earth would not support life as we know it.

Visit:
The Anthropic Principle: Is the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life? (ChristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

54.
The earth was designed for biological life (Isaiah 45:18). Scientists have discovered that the most fundamental characteristics of our earth and cosmos are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist. This is called the Anthropic Principle and it agrees with the Bible which states that God formed the earth to be inhabited.

Visit:
The Earth: Unique in All the Universe (ICR)
Design in Nature: The Anthropic Principle (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

55.
The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Eisntein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago  the universe is expanding!

Visit:
The Battle for the Cosmic Center (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

56.
Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, Gods life, created all life.

Visit:
Chemical Evolution: Spontaneous generation; Stanley Miller Experiment (ChristianAnswers.net)
Evolution is Biologically Impossible (ICR)
The Myth Of Chemical Evolution (ICR)
Virgil's Aeneid, by Chance Alone? (ICR)
The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

57.
Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).

Visit:
How did bad things come about? (CristianAnswers.net)
Extinction (ICR)
Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

58.
Light travels in a path (Job 38:19). Light is said to have a way [Hebrew: derek, literally a traveled path or road]. Until the 17th century it was believed that light was transmitted instantaneously. We now know that light is a form of energy that travels at ~186,000 miles per second in a straight line. Indeed, there is a way of light.

Visit:
Light travels in a path was foretold in the Bible hundreds of years before scientists discovered it (creationists.org)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

59.
Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established a weight for the wind. In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

60.
Jet stream anticipated (Ecclesiastes 1:6). At a time when it was thought that winds blew straight, the Bible declares The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit. King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago. Now consider this: it was not until World War II that airmen discovered the jet stream circuit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

61.
Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

62.
Each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the advent of the telescope, the Bible declared what only God and the angels knew  each star varies in size and intensity!

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

63.
The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing  electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send lightnings which indeed speak when they arrive.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

64.
Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, A merry heart does good, like medicine. For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.

Visit:
Benefits of Laughter (Personal-Development.com)
Humor and Laughter: Health Benefits and Online Sources (helpguide.org)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

65.
Intense sorrow or stress is harmful to your health (Proverbs 18:14; Mark 14:34). Researchers have studied individuals with no prior medical problems who showed symptoms of stress cardiomyopathy including chest pain, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, and even heart failure  following a stressful incident.

Visit:
The Physical Dangers of Stress (Fitness Article)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

66.
Microorganisms anticipated (Exodus 22:31). The Bible warns Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the LORD (Leviticus 22:8). Today we understand that a decaying carcass is full of disease causing germs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

67.
The Bible cautions against consuming fat (Leviticus 7:23). Only in recent decades has the medical community determined that fat clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

68.
Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:12). A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood. However, the Creator repeatedly told His people to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:20; 21:25). Of course, modern science reveals that consuming raw blood is dangerous.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

69.
The Bible describes dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24). In 1842, Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosaur, meaning terrible lizard, after discovering large reptilian-like fossils. However in the Book of Job, written 4,000 years earlier, God describes the behemoth as: the largest of all land creatures, plant eating (herbivore), with great strength in its hips and legs, powerful stomach muscles, a tail like a cedar tree, and bones like bars of iron. This is an accurate description of sauropods  the largest known dinosaur family.

Visit:
The Great Dinosaur Mystery (CristianAnswers.net)
How Do The Dinosaurs Fit In? (ICR)
Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood? (ICR)
Dragons in Paradise (ICR)
Leviathan (ICR)
Dinosaurs And The Bible (ICR)
Dinosaur Mania and Our Children (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

70.
Pleasure explained (Psalm 36:8). Evolution cannot explain pleasure  even the most complex chemicals do not experience bliss. However, the Bible states that God gives us richly all things to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17). Pleasure is a gift from God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

71.
Life is more than matter and energy (Genesis 2:7; Job 12:7-10). We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Even though its body may be perfectly intact, and air and energy are reintroduced to spark life, the body remains dead. Scripture agrees with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. Life cannot be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone  as evolutionists would lead us to believe.

Visit:
Breath And Spirit (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

72.
Origin of music explained (Psalm 40:3). Evolution cannot explain the origin of music. The Bible says that every good gift comes from God (James 1:17). This includes joyful melodies. God has given both man and angels the gift of music-making (Genesis 4:21; Ezekiel 28:13). Singing is intended to express rejoicing in and worship of the Lord (Job 38:7; Psalm 95:1-2).

Visit:
Music or Evolution
Musicevidence of creation (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

73.
Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with Gods Word.

Visit:
Ancient civilizations and modern man (Answers In Genesis)
The mystery of ancient man (Answers In Genesis)
Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

74.
Cavemen described in the Bible (Job 30:1-8). Four thousand years ago, Job describes certain vile men who were driven from society to forage among the bushes for survival and who live in the clefts of the valleys, (and) in caves of the earth and the rocks. Therefore cavemen were simply outcasts and vagabounds  not our primitive ancestors as evolutionists speculate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

75.
Environmental devastation of the planet foreseen (Revelation 11:18). Though evolution imagines that things should be getting better, the Bible foresaw what is really occurring today: pollution, destruction and corrupt dominion.

Visit:
Creation and the Environment (ICR)
The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

76.
The seed of a plant contains its life (Genesis 1:11; 29). As stated in the Book of Genesis, we now recognize that inside the humble seed is life itself. Within the seed is a tiny factory of amazing complexity. No scientist can build a synthetic seed and no seed is simple!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

77.
A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells give their lives to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

78.
The order of creation agrees with true science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v. 6), then soil (v. 9), and then He created plant life (v. 11).

Visit:
What is the order of events in the biblical Creation? (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

79.
God created lights in the heavens for signs and seasons, and for days and years (Genesis 1:14-16). We now know that a year is the time required for the earth to travel once around the sun. The seasons are caused by the changing position of the earth in relation to the sun. The moons phases follow one another in clock-like precision  constituting the lunar calendar Evolution teaches that the cosmos evolved by random chance, yet the Bible agrees with the observable evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

80.
The Bible speaks of heaven and the highest heavens (Deuteronomy 10:14). Long before the Hubble Space Telescope, Scripture spoke of the heaven of heavens and the third heaven (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Corinthians 12:2). We now know that the heavens consist of our immediate atmosphere and the vast reaches of outer space  as well as Gods wonderful abode.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

81.
Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him  pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

82.
Man is fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). We are only beginning to probe the complexity of the DNA molecule, the eye, the brain, and all the intricate components of life. No human invention compares to the marvelous wonders of Gods creation.

Visit:
Mankind- The Pinnacle of God's Creation (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

83.
Beauty understood (Genesis 1:31; 2:9; Job 40:10; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Matthew 6:28-30). Beauty surrounds us: radiant sunsets, majestic mountains, brightly colored flowers, glowing gems, soothing foliage, brilliantly adorned birds, etc. Beauty is a mystery to the evolutionist. However, Scripture reveals that God creates beautiful things for our benefit and His glory.

Visit:
Beauty (oldpaths.com)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

84.
Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Physicists do not understand what binds the atoms nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that all things consist  or are held together by the Creator  Jesus Christ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

85.
Atomic fission anticipated (2 Peter 3:10-12). Scripture states that the elements will melt with fervent heat when the earth and the heavens are dissolved by fire. Today we understand that if the elements of the atom are loosed, there would be an enormous release of heat and energy (radiation).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

86.
The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

87.
Safe drinking water (Leviticus 11:33-36). God forbade drinking from vessels or stagnant water that had been contaminated by coming into contact with a dead animal. It is only in the last 100 years that medical science has learned that contaminated water can cause typhoid and cholera.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

88.
Pest control (Leviticus 25:1-24). Farmers are plagued today with insects. Yet God gave a sure-fire remedy to control pests centuries ago. Moses commanded Israel to set aside one year in seven when no crops were raised. Insects winter in the stalks of last years harvest, hatch in the spring, and are perpetuated by laying eggs in the new crop. If the crop is denied one year in seven, the pests have nothing to subsist upon, and are thereby controlled.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

89.
Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if Gods commands were followed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

90.
Animal instincts understood (Job 39; Proverbs 30:24-28; Jeremiah 8:7). A newly hatched spider weaves an intricate web without being taught. A recently emerged butterfly somehow knows to navigate a 2,500-mile migration route without a guide. God explains that He has endowed each creature with specific knowledge. Scripture, not evolution, explains animal instincts.

Visit:
Instinct, Wise Behavior, Unlearned Knowledge And Abilities (oldpaths.com)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

91.
Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in Gods image.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

92.
Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science). True science agrees with the Creators Word.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

93.
Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews  which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.

Visit:
DNA Evidence And The Book Of Mormon (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

94.
Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

95.
Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, Gods Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.

Visit:
Is Man a "Higher" Animal? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

96.
The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donors character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

97.
The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted  introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98.
Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die  The soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of Gods Law. To see if you will die, please review Gods Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then youre an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creators name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy  and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99.
Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death  which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100.
Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person  free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

101.
The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away (Revelation 21:4).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bible is inspired by the Creator. Therefore it is no surprise that lifes ultimate questions are answered within its pages. The Bible reveals the purpose of our existence. Scripture alone explains where our conscience came from. And no other source explains the root cause of death. Seeing that all die, wouldnt it be wise to search for the remedy in the only book that proves it was inspired by God? The Bible offers the only remedy for sin, suffering, and death. Gods Word presents the only perfect, sinless Savior  one who died for our sins and rose from the dead. Jesus is the Creator (John 1; Colossians 1). He said I and My Father are one (John 10:30). He said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:6). And He promises His followers: I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish (John 10:28). Your eternal destiny will be determined by your choice. There is only one provision for sin. Jesus died in your place. Only by faith in Christs finished work will you be saved. This is Gods free gift offered to all. Please do not let pride, religion, opinions, or love for sin separate you from God. No sin is worth an eternity in hell. Please heed Jesus words  Repent, and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15). If you do, you will live in heaven with our awesome Creator forever!


Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge


----------



## Hollie

Oh my. 

Youwerecreated is going to thump people with his cutting and pasting the entire contents of creationist ministries.

What a sad, desperate tactic.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Oh my.
> 
> Youwerecreated is going to thump people with his cutting and pasting the entire contents of creationist ministries.
> 
> What a sad, desperate tactic.



Just revealing the truths that are contained in the scriptures. Maybe some of you will see the greatness of the bible.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> Youwerecreated is going to thump people with his cutting and pasting the entire contents of creationist ministries.
> 
> What a sad, desperate tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just revealing the truths that are contained in the scriptures. Maybe some of you will see the greatness of the bible.
Click to expand...


Boy, that was one huge load of dung.  So you believe that Noah was 600 years old?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> Youwerecreated is going to thump people with his cutting and pasting the entire contents of creationist ministries.
> 
> What a sad, desperate tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just revealing the truths that are contained in the scriptures. Maybe some of you will see the greatness of the bible.
Click to expand...


Speaking for myself only, I really find your desperate need to force your religion on others to be a tactic that defines you as a co-religionist of the Taliban - dogmatic, unthinking zealots.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> Youwerecreated is going to thump people with his cutting and pasting the entire contents of creationist ministries.
> 
> What a sad, desperate tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just revealing the truths that are contained in the scriptures. Maybe some of you will see the greatness of the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, that was one huge load of dung.  So you believe that Noah was 600 years old?
Click to expand...


I believe early man was closer to perfection and that could be the reason they lived longer. I believe everything has experienced entropy since the fall of Adam and Eve.

Really,there were things there mentioned before modern day science confirmed what the scriptures said.

Real science is just now catching up with the bible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> Youwerecreated is going to thump people with his cutting and pasting the entire contents of creationist ministries.
> 
> What a sad, desperate tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just revealing the truths that are contained in the scriptures. Maybe some of you will see the greatness of the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking for myself only, I really find your desperate need to force your religion on others to be a tactic that defines you as a co-religionist of the Taliban - dogmatic, unthinking zealots.
Click to expand...


You have said these things when they were off topic,no surprise.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just revealing the truths that are contained in the scriptures. Maybe some of you will see the greatness of the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, that was one huge load of dung.  So you believe that Noah was 600 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe early man was closer to perfection and that could be the reason they lived longer. I believe everything has experienced entropy since the fall of Adam and Eve.
> 
> Really,there were things there mentioned before modern day science confirmed what the scriptures said.
> 
> Real science is just now catching up with the bible.
Click to expand...


I'm sure that's what you and the Harun Yahya groupies believe. 

What a shame you and those like you can't separate fact from fiction.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just revealing the truths that are contained in the scriptures. Maybe some of you will see the greatness of the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking for myself only, I really find your desperate need to force your religion on others to be a tactic that defines you as a co-religionist of the Taliban - dogmatic, unthinking zealots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have said these things when they were off topic,no surprise.
Click to expand...


What was off topic. My comments were in direct response to your desperate attempts at proselytizing by spamming the board with huge volumes of copy and paste from religious websites.

No surprise, you're a fundie zealot.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, that was one huge load of dung.  So you believe that Noah was 600 years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe early man was closer to perfection and that could be the reason they lived longer. I believe everything has experienced entropy since the fall of Adam and Eve.
> 
> Really,there were things there mentioned before modern day science confirmed what the scriptures said.
> 
> Real science is just now catching up with the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that's what you and the Harun Yahya groupies believe.
> 
> What a shame you and those like you can't separate fact from fiction.
Click to expand...


To bad people like you are so blinded by hate you can't see the truth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking for myself only, I really find your desperate need to force your religion on others to be a tactic that defines you as a co-religionist of the Taliban - dogmatic, unthinking zealots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have said these things when they were off topic,no surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was off topic. My comments were in direct response to your desperate attempts at proselytizing by spamming the board with huge volumes of copy and paste from religious websites.
> 
> No surprise, you're a fundie zealot.
Click to expand...


Look at your posts no matter what is said you have similar comments in all your responses ,never responding to questions when discussing science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe early man was closer to perfection and that could be the reason they lived longer. I believe everything has experienced entropy since the fall of Adam and Eve.
> 
> Really,there were things there mentioned before modern day science confirmed what the scriptures said.
> 
> Real science is just now catching up with the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that's what you and the Harun Yahya groupies believe.
> 
> What a shame you and those like you can't separate fact from fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To bad people like you are so blinded by hate you can't see the truth.
Click to expand...

Quite to the contrary, your hate for everything and everyone who doesn't agree with your narrow and contrived worldview makes you a poor candidate for evaluating others. 

Your frantic cutting and pasting is an embarrassment.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have said these things when they were off topic,no surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was off topic. My comments were in direct response to your desperate attempts at proselytizing by spamming the board with huge volumes of copy and paste from religious websites.
> 
> No surprise, you're a fundie zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at your posts no matter what is said you have similar comments in all your responses ,never responding to questions when discussing science.
Click to expand...

As usual, you are clueless. 

Your only connection with science is what you cut and paste from Harun Yahya. Your cutting and pasting does not warrant time spent refuting fundie creationist websites.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the bible predicted your coming.
> 
> Definition Fables : A short allegorical narrative making a moral point, traditionally by means of animal characters who speak and act like human beings.
> 
> 
> Yep definitely evolution was being predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of your sides argument is DNA similarity they look kinda like us and so on.
Click to expand...

lol..Initial genetic studies characterised the DNA of chimpanzees (common chimpanzee and bonobo, collectively) as being as much as 98% (99.4% in one study) identical to that of Homo sapiens.[16] Later studies showed that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than to gorillas.[17] The most recent genetic analyses (published in 2006) of chimpanzee and human genetic similarity come from whole genome comparisons and have shown that the differences between the two species are more complex, both in extent and character, than the historical 98% figure suggests.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just revealing the truths that are contained in the scriptures. Maybe some of you will see the greatness of the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, that was one huge load of dung.  So you believe that Noah was 600 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe early man was closer to perfection and that could be the reason they lived longer. I believe everything has experienced entropy since the fall of Adam and Eve.
> 
> Really,there were things there mentioned before modern day science confirmed what the scriptures said.
> 
> Real science is just now catching up with the bible.
Click to expand...


Do you have any proof that Adam and Eve even existed?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, what you said was prophetic.
> 
> 2Ti 4:1  I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:
> 2Ti 4:2  preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.
> 2Ti 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;
> 2Ti 4:4  and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.
> 
> God is speaking here of you and many like you.
> 
> 
> 
> god isn't saying shit about anyone one in perticular..
> those passages are ambigious in the extreme
> and out of context...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, God was speaking of you and your friends who share your warped vviews.
Click to expand...

OK prove it...oh... that's right you can't.
if you could actually read  you'd see that no particular group is mentioned  or any other than Christian belief system is described.
the real message is keep on preaching  or god will judge the preacher.
in the very first line the writer  charges (commands) by the imagined authority of god  to an un specified group or person that Jesus will judge. whom and for what is never said.
 then makes an unprovable statement: that Jesus and his kingdom will appear...
  but since you have major reading comp problems ,you are unable to see that.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a prophecy written long before evolution was a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah and .....? still no proof god did it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some you may be right.
Click to expand...

no... for all, your belife is not proof no matter how much you wish it were.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my words that are convicting you and it even caused you to be speechless for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> another pile of shit .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your mouth.
Click to expand...

no from yours. I only made the observation !


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's so silly Hollie that writing was written within the first century of the messiah's death. Darwin and the earliest speakings of evolution was in the 1800's. The first complete bible was published in 1,560 and it was the Geneva Bible.
> 
> You and many like you are fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> 1Jn 2:16  because all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> it's silly and stupid
> and and unprovable, in the nearly 2000 years since it's first issue none of the miraculous    events discribed in it have ever been proven...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your pride and arrogance and fables were predicted, As one version put it,your foolish stories. Definitely what I posted was a warning from God about you worshipers of Darwin and Naturalism.
Click to expand...

only in your mind..why did god make darwin if he did not want him to do what he did?
I WORSHIP NOTHING .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holly, it appears you've driven our little creationist over the edge. She's trying to bury you in 'scripture' (as if we didn't see THAT coming.)
> 
> 
> 
> btw ywc is a an adult male ...not much of a man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I challenged you to a personal meeting when I'm in calidfornia and you have yet to respond how we could meet and put your theory to the test.
> 
> You talk a good game but not much on delivery.
> 
> You are a coward that would hide behind a PC.
> 
> I'm not a Christian that would offer the other cheek but hey none of us are perfect anymore.
Click to expand...

WHAT THEORY WOULD THAT BE?
Ohhh the old your a coward charge.
what you fail to understand is I'm no different in real life than I am on line.  
I'm confident that if we ever did meet you'd be the one dragged off by your friends /family or the cops...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holly, it appears you've driven our little creationist over the edge. She's trying to bury you in 'scripture' (as if we didn't see THAT coming.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated has a habit of assaulting people with bible verses when the proselytizing thing is not working. What he doesn't understand is that gods are a lot like the weather...
> 
> Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.
> 
> Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis,worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.
> 
> Dust, all. Antiquities. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.
> 
> Its already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why is Islam so reactionary? Because its adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Islam defames the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods dont return to this earth, as gods dont prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Deep down, they know there is only faith and belief to support the belief. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also hit you people with actual science and you can't deal with that either.
Click to expand...

(cue buzzer) you've never in this whole thread used actual science!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible boggs you down ?
> 
> What makes you believe in God if you don't trust his words ?
> 
> 
> 
> What you can't trust is that those words were spoken by a god. It's total hearsay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Alot of those words spoken before modern day science and long before prohecies were fulfilled.. That book is still being used by archaeologist to locate communities of old.
> 
> Here are some examples for you.
> 
> text edited for wall of text violation...
> and non quantifiable content...
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> Youwerecreated is going to thump people with his cutting and pasting the entire contents of creationist ministries.
> 
> What a sad, desperate tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just revealing the truths that are contained in the scriptures. Maybe some of you will see the greatness of the bible.
Click to expand...


TRUTHS ? that list is nothing more than steaming pile of unsubstantiated pseudo intellectual  religious bullshit written by the desperate for the ignorant. 

excuse me dick head.....  you've revealed nothing.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe early man was closer to perfection and that could be the reason they lived longer. I believe everything has experienced entropy since the fall of Adam and Eve.
> 
> Really,there were things there mentioned before modern day science confirmed what the scriptures said.
> 
> Real science is just now catching up with the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that's what you and the Harun Yahya groupies believe.
> 
> What a shame you and those like you can't separate fact from fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To bad people like you are so blinded by hate you can't see the truth.
Click to expand...

how ironic ... you ywc, who imagines himself to be a good god fearing christian has spewed more hate more lies more intentional mis representation then any of us so called bad people. if god acually exsited he'd be on you like white on rice for hubris, judgmentally     
false declarations and braggadocio...


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, that was one huge load of dung.  So you believe that Noah was 600 years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe early man was closer to perfection and that could be the reason they lived longer. I believe everything has experienced entropy since the fall of Adam and Eve.
> 
> Really,there were things there mentioned before modern day science confirmed what the scriptures said.
> 
> Real science is just now catching up with the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof that Adam and Eve even existed?
Click to expand...


Eve yes ,Adam no.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> btw ywc is a an adult male ...not much of a man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenged you to a personal meeting when I'm in calidfornia and you have yet to respond how we could meet and put your theory to the test.
> 
> You talk a good game but not much on delivery.
> 
> You are a coward that would hide behind a PC.
> 
> I'm not a Christian that would offer the other cheek but hey none of us are perfect anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT THEORY WOULD THAT BE?
> Ohhh the old your a coward charge.
> what you fail to understand is I'm no different in real life than I am on line.
> I'm confident that if we ever did meet you'd be the one dragged off by your friends /family or the cops...
Click to expand...


Let's exchange info and put it to the test kenny rogers I will be out there soon. Coming to Santa Barbara.

Pm me I will keep it private except the beating you get.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's silly and stupid
> and and unprovable, in the nearly 2000 years since it's first issue none of the miraculous    events discribed in it have ever been proven...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pride and arrogance and fables were predicted, As one version put it,your foolish stories. Definitely what I posted was a warning from God about you worshipers of Darwin and Naturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in your mind..why did god make darwin if he did not want him to do what he did?
> I WORSHIP NOTHING .
Click to expand...


He predicted it dummy  You are one sharp tool.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> Youwerecreated is going to thump people with his cutting and pasting the entire contents of creationist ministries.
> 
> What a sad, desperate tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just revealing the truths that are contained in the scriptures. Maybe some of you will see the greatness of the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TRUTHS ? that list is nothing more than steaming pile of unsubstantiated pseudo intellectual  religious bullshit written by the desperate for the ignorant.
> 
> excuse me dick head.....  you've revealed nothing.
Click to expand...


I am awaiting your pm coward.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that's what you and the Harun Yahya groupies believe.
> 
> What a shame you and those like you can't separate fact from fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To bad people like you are so blinded by hate you can't see the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how ironic ... you ywc, who imagines himself to be a good god fearing christian has spewed more hate more lies more intentional mis representation then any of us so called bad people. if god acually exsited he'd be on you like white on rice for hubris, judgmentally
> false declarations and braggadocio...
Click to expand...


Shut up stupid !


----------



## Youwerecreated

My info sent coward.

Let's see if your humming bird ass can back up your alligator mouth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hello daws,we can just meet at the nearest gym and we can box,I'll take it easy on you.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I challenged you to a personal meeting when I'm in calidfornia and you have yet to respond how we could meet and put your theory to the test.
> 
> You talk a good game but not much on delivery.
> 
> You are a coward that would hide behind a PC.
> 
> I'm not a Christian that would offer the other cheek but hey none of us are perfect anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT THEORY WOULD THAT BE?
> Ohhh the old your a coward charge.
> what you fail to understand is I'm no different in real life than I am on line.
> I'm confident that if we ever did meet you'd be the one dragged off by your friends /family or the cops...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's exchange info and put it to the test kenny rogers I will be out there soon. Coming to Santa Barbara.
> 
> Pm me I will keep it private except the beating you get.
Click to expand...

An internet tough guy. How cute.

Snicker.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT THEORY WOULD THAT BE?
> Ohhh the old your a coward charge.
> what you fail to understand is I'm no different in real life than I am on line.
> I'm confident that if we ever did meet you'd be the one dragged off by your friends /family or the cops...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's exchange info and put it to the test kenny rogers I will be out there soon. Coming to Santa Barbara.
> 
> Pm me I will keep it private except the beating you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An internet tough guy. How cute.
> 
> Snicker.
Click to expand...


Well no threats and no tough guy, Just giving him a chance to test his theory. I would even be willing to throw money on it and the winner gets to donate the money to his favorite charity.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT THEORY WOULD THAT BE?
> Ohhh the old your a coward charge.
> what you fail to understand is I'm no different in real life than I am on line.
> I'm confident that if we ever did meet you'd be the one dragged off by your friends /family or the cops...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's exchange info and put it to the test kenny rogers I will be out there soon. Coming to Santa Barbara.
> 
> Pm me I will keep it private except the beating you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An internet tough guy. How cute.
> 
> Snicker.
Click to expand...


I already have sent my info to him, it's up to him now.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's exchange info and put it to the test kenny rogers I will be out there soon. Coming to Santa Barbara.
> 
> Pm me I will keep it private except the beating you get.
> 
> 
> 
> An internet tough guy. How cute.
> 
> Snicker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have sent my info to him, it's up to him now.
Click to expand...


Youwerecreated, god called, he's wants a do-over for you.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's exchange info and put it to the test kenny rogers I will be out there soon. Coming to Santa Barbara.
> 
> Pm me I will keep it private except the beating you get.
> 
> 
> 
> An internet tough guy. How cute.
> 
> Snicker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have sent my info to him, it's up to him now.
Click to expand...


Have you really considered your behavior? You're challenging an anonymous poster on the internet to a fight.

Really, dude. You're an intellectual and emotional basketcase.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> An internet tough guy. How cute.
> 
> Snicker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have sent my info to him, it's up to him now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated, god called, he's wants a do-over for you.
Click to expand...


I'm sure he does but I am not perfect and have my limits on disrespect,as I said earlier I am not perfect.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> An internet tough guy. How cute.
> 
> Snicker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have sent my info to him, it's up to him now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you really considered your behavior? You're challenging an anonymous poster on the internet to a fight.
> 
> Really, dude. You're an intellectual and emotional basketcase.
Click to expand...


No Hollie, I have my limits and spend a lot of time in california so boxing gloves are better nothing on the fists,Besides I put a good spin on it and we can make it interesting with a little money on it for charity and everyone in the area can come watch. A creationist that has his limits.

I don't see any of you say anything to the one that willingly flaps his gums.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have sent my info to him, it's up to him now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you really considered your behavior? You're challenging an anonymous poster on the internet to a fight.
> 
> Really, dude. You're an intellectual and emotional basketcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Hollie, I have my limits and spend a lot of time in california so boxing gloves are better nothing on the fists,Besides I put a good spin on it and we can make it interesting with a little money on it for charity and everyone in the area can come watch. A creationist that has his limits.
> 
> I don't see any of you say anything to the one that willingly flaps his gums.
Click to expand...


Youw, I think the word you're looking for is hypocrite.


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated has a habit of assaulting people with bible verses when the proselytizing thing is not working. What he doesn't understand is that gods are a lot like the weather...
> 
> Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.
> 
> Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis,worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.
> 
> Dust, all. Antiquities. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.
> 
> Its already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why is Islam so reactionary? Because its adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Islam defames the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods dont return to this earth, as gods dont prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Deep down, they know there is only faith and belief to support the belief. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was born with a mind and a curiousity . a knack for thinking things through. I haven't decided what is true and what isn't but I've always had the instinct that if there is a God, And he gave us the ability to question him it must be for a reason. I prefer my way because I'm not bogged down in one mind set and unable to go forward. The day that happens to me and I start blurting out some pre-arrainged catch phrases then I might as well be dead because my ability to question is gone. Once you quit learning it's over. I don't ever want to have that happen to me. I'll take my way. It is far more satisfying.
> 
> I often wonder if in a parallel universe Adam and Eve stood up to God and refused to bow  down and cring when they ate the apple. And in that universe God might have said 'At last.  I found my Children! Children that are worthy of carrying on the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible boggs you down ?
> 
> What makes you believe in God if you don't trust his words ?
Click to expand...


Mainly because the Bible is not only incomplete (see the Dead Sea scrolls) but the words written there are not spoken by God, they are spoken by MEN. 'God' Himself had very little to say on any subject. Not first hand anyway. Jesus was somewhat more vocal and what he said made sense for the most part.
I understand faith but I also understand SOMEBODY gave me the ability to THINK. Now did that come from the Devil? Because the way I understand it the Devil cannot create, he can only un-create, beings God's opposite number.
If I was imbued with a soul and intelligence why would I be restricted in my thinking, ostensibly a gift from God? Maybe He WANTS me to question Him, ever think of that? 

The Bible is an incomplete book that was picked through and edited, by MEN, for their own purposes. Mainly to keep people stupid, superstitious and 'in line'. I think there's a story there, alright,  but I think it's a far better story than we've been let in on so far. I just want to hear the WHOLE story, that's all.


----------



## CandySlice

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you really considered your behavior? You're challenging an anonymous poster on the internet to a fight.
> 
> Really, dude. You're an intellectual and emotional basketcase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Hollie, I have my limits and spend a lot of time in california so boxing gloves are better nothing on the fists,Besides I put a good spin on it and we can make it interesting with a little money on it for charity and everyone in the area can come watch. A creationist that has his limits.
> 
> I don't see any of you say anything to the one that willingly flaps his gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youw, I think the word you're looking for is hypocrite.
Click to expand...


Agreed. How do you spout Bible verses out of one side of your mouth and challenge someone to a fight with the other side? THIS is why most 'religious' people scare me. They seem to think that if they do something, no matter how horrendous or irresponsible they've got this ecclesiastical white-out that allows them to do anything that comes into their minds in the name of 'God'.
I just don't buy it.


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I challenged you to a personal meeting when I'm in calidfornia and you have yet to respond how we could meet and put your theory to the test.
> 
> You talk a good game but not much on delivery.
> 
> You are a coward that would hide behind a PC.
> 
> I'm not a Christian that would offer the other cheek but hey none of us are perfect anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT THEORY WOULD THAT BE?
> Ohhh the old your a coward charge.
> what you fail to understand is I'm no different in real life than I am on line.
> I'm confident that if we ever did meet you'd be the one dragged off by your friends /family or the cops...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's exchange info and put it to the test kenny rogers I will be out there soon. Coming to Santa Barbara.
> 
> Pm me I will keep it private except the beating you get.
Click to expand...


And there it is! Believe like me or you'll be sorry! Really people, this was so predictable. What a sad sick irresponsible person you are, YWC. It's people like you that make me question EVERYTHING. Because if You are what God had in mind then He's a false God. Or, as I said earlier, a pyschopath.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Hollie, I have my limits and spend a lot of time in california so boxing gloves are better nothing on the fists,Besides I put a good spin on it and we can make it interesting with a little money on it for charity and everyone in the area can come watch. A creationist that has his limits.
> 
> I don't see any of you say anything to the one that willingly flaps his gums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youw, I think the word you're looking for is hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. How do you spout Bible verses out of one side of your mouth and challenge someone to a fight with the other side? THIS is why most 'religious' people scare me. They seem to think that if they do something, no matter how horrendous or irresponsible they've got this ecclesiastical white-out that allows them to do anything that comes into their minds in the name of 'God'.
> I just don't buy it.
Click to expand...



I have admitted my mistake and I am human. Did you read some of the things the guy say's to believers.

I'm old school I don't back down from bullies. I had enough of his insults and we humans make mistakes. My background comes out now and then wish it didn't but it does.

I see daws as a foul mouth crap talker. You can't have an adult based conversation with the guy.

Yes it took time to put the gospels in order but that does not mean they were not inspired by God. I thonght I made my point clear by pointing out things written concerning science that was not confirmed til modern day technology.


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youw, I think the word you're looking for is hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. How do you spout Bible verses out of one side of your mouth and challenge someone to a fight with the other side? THIS is why most 'religious' people scare me. They seem to think that if they do something, no matter how horrendous or irresponsible they've got this ecclesiastical white-out that allows them to do anything that comes into their minds in the name of 'God'.
> I just don't buy it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have admitted my mistake and I am human. Did you read some of the things the guy say's to believers.
> 
> I'm old school I don't back down from bullies. I had enough of his insults and we humans make mistakes. My background comes out now and then wish it didn't but it does.
> 
> I see daws as a foul mouth crap talker. You can't have an adult based conversation with the guy.
> 
> Yes it took time to put the gospels in order but that does not mean they were not inspired by God. I thonght I made my point clear by pointing out things written concerning science that was not confirmed til modern day technology.
Click to expand...


Then _forgive_ him.


----------



## CandySlice

YWC, I have nothing against God. I just don't like 'religion'. Some of the most savage, unbelievable atrocities in the whole history of the world have been committed in the name of 'religion'. You can have it. I'll keep an open mind. Thats' MY religion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was born with a mind and a curiousity . a knack for thinking things through. I haven't decided what is true and what isn't but I've always had the instinct that if there is a God, And he gave us the ability to question him it must be for a reason. I prefer my way because I'm not bogged down in one mind set and unable to go forward. The day that happens to me and I start blurting out some pre-arrainged catch phrases then I might as well be dead because my ability to question is gone. Once you quit learning it's over. I don't ever want to have that happen to me. I'll take my way. It is far more satisfying.
> 
> I often wonder if in a parallel universe Adam and Eve stood up to God and refused to bow  down and cring when they ate the apple. And in that universe God might have said 'At last.  I found my Children! Children that are worthy of carrying on the human race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible boggs you down ?
> 
> What makes you believe in God if you don't trust his words ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mainly because the Bible is not only incomplete (see the Dead Sea scrolls) but the words written there are not spoken by God, they are spoken by MEN. 'God' Himself had very little to say on any subject. Not first hand anyway. Jesus was somewhat more vocal and what he said made sense for the most part.
> I understand faith but I also understand SOMEBODY gave me the ability to THINK. Now did that come from the Devil? Because the way I understand it the Devil cannot create, he can only un-create, beings God's opposite number.
> If I was imbued with a soul and intelligence why would I be restricted in my thinking, ostensibly a gift from God? Maybe He WANTS me to question Him, ever think of that?
> 
> The Bible is an incomplete book that was picked through and edited, by MEN, for their own purposes. Mainly to keep people stupid, superstitious and 'in line'. I think there's a story there, alright,  but I think it's a far better story than we've been let in on so far. I just want to hear the WHOLE story, that's all.
Click to expand...


What is the sense in a finite being questioning an infinite being ? Job did look at Gods response.

Job 38:1  And Jehovah answered Job out of the tempest, and said, 
Job 38:2  Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? 
Job 38:3  Now gird up your loins like a man; for I will ask of you, and you teach Me. 
Job 38:4  Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell if you have understanding! 
Job 38:5  Who has set its measurements, for you know? Or who has stretched the line on it? 
Job 38:6  On what are its bases sunk, or who cast its cornerstone, 
Job 38:7  when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 
Job 38:8  Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth as it came from the womb? 
Job 38:9  When I made the clouds its robe, and darkness its navel-band, 
Job 38:10  and set My limit on it, and set bars and doors, 
Job 38:11  and I said, You shall come to here, but no further; and here your proud waves shall stop. 
Job 38:12  Have you commanded the morning from your days, and caused the dawn to know its place, 
Job 38:13  that it might take hold of the ends of the earth; that the wicked might be shaken out of it? 
Job 38:14  It is turned like clay under a seal; and they stand forth like a garment. 
Job 38:15  And from the wicked their light is withheld, and the high arm shall be broken. 
Job 38:16  Have you gone to the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths? 
Job 38:17  Have the gates of death been opened to you? Or have you seen the gates of the shadow of death? 
Job 38:18  Have you understood the breadth of the earth? Tell, if you know it all! 
Job 38:19  Where is the way where light dwells? And where is the place of darkness, 
Job 38:20  that you should take it to its boundary, and that you should know the paths to its house? 
Job 38:21  You know, because you were born then. And the number of your days is great. 
Job 38:22  Have you entered into the storehouses of the snow? Or have you seen the storehouses of the hail, 
Job 38:23  which I have kept for the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war? 
Job 38:24  How is it, the way the light is distributed, and how does the east wind spread itself on the earth? 
Job 38:25  Who has cut a channel for the flood, or a way for the thunderclaps; 
Job 38:26  to cause rain to fall on the earth where no man is, a wilderness and no man in it; 
Job 38:27  to satisfy the desolate and waste ground, and to cause the source of grass to spring forth? 
Job 38:28  Has the rain a father? Or who has brought forth the drops of dew? 
Job 38:29  Out of whose womb came the ice? And the frost of the heavens, who fathered it? 
Job 38:30  The waters are hidden like stone, and the face of the deep is frozen. 
Job 38:31  Can you bind the bands of the Pleiades, or loosen the cords of Orion? 
Job 38:32  Can you bring the constellations in their season? Or can you guide the Bear with its sons? 
Job 38:33  Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you set up their rulership on the earth? 
Job 38:34  Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, so that floods of waters may cover you? 
Job 38:35  Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are? 
Job 38:36  Who has put wisdom in the inward parts? Or who has given understanding to the mind? 
Job 38:37  Who can number the clouds by wisdom; or who can empty out the jars of the heavens, 
Job 38:38  when the dust is melted into hardness, and the clods cling fast together? 
Job 38:39  Will you hunt the prey for the lion, or fill the appetite of the young lions, 
Job 38:40  when they crouch in dens, and sit in the cover of their hiding place? 
Job 38:41  Who provides food for the raven, when its young ones cry to God and wander about without food? 

Was man meant to question the creator,I will answer with a resounding no!


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. How do you spout Bible verses out of one side of your mouth and challenge someone to a fight with the other side? THIS is why most 'religious' people scare me. They seem to think that if they do something, no matter how horrendous or irresponsible they've got this ecclesiastical white-out that allows them to do anything that comes into their minds in the name of 'God'.
> I just don't buy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have admitted my mistake and I am human. Did you read some of the things the guy say's to believers.
> 
> I'm old school I don't back down from bullies. I had enough of his insults and we humans make mistakes. My background comes out now and then wish it didn't but it does.
> 
> I see daws as a foul mouth crap talker. You can't have an adult based conversation with the guy.
> 
> Yes it took time to put the gospels in order but that does not mean they were not inspired by God. I thonght I made my point clear by pointing out things written concerning science that was not confirmed til modern day technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then _forgive_ him.
Click to expand...


I have and I am over it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> YWC, I have nothing against God. I just don't like 'religion'. Some of the most savage, unbelievable atrocities in the whole history of the world have been committed in the name of 'religion'. You can have it. I'll keep an open mind. Thats' MY religion.



I'm with you,I don't care for organised religion. All the different denominations can't all have the absolute truth,what unites them all is faith in Christ.

Job and Abraham didn't need it nor does modern day man. Jesus made it very simple for all.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's exchange info and put it to the test kenny rogers I will be out there soon. Coming to Santa Barbara.
> 
> Pm me I will keep it private except the beating you get.
> 
> 
> 
> An internet tough guy. How cute.
> 
> Snicker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have sent my info to him, it's up to him now.
Click to expand...


It's so validating to see a superstitious retard reaching for his traditional "argument."


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible boggs you down ?
> 
> What makes you believe in God if you don't trust his words ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly because the Bible is not only incomplete (see the Dead Sea scrolls) but the words written there are not spoken by God, they are spoken by MEN. 'God' Himself had very little to say on any subject. Not first hand anyway. Jesus was somewhat more vocal and what he said made sense for the most part.
> I understand faith but I also understand SOMEBODY gave me the ability to THINK. Now did that come from the Devil? Because the way I understand it the Devil cannot create, he can only un-create, beings God's opposite number.
> If I was imbued with a soul and intelligence why would I be restricted in my thinking, ostensibly a gift from God? Maybe He WANTS me to question Him, ever think of that?
> 
> The Bible is an incomplete book that was picked through and edited, by MEN, for their own purposes. Mainly to keep people stupid, superstitious and 'in line'. I think there's a story there, alright,  but I think it's a far better story than we've been let in on so far. I just want to hear the WHOLE story, that's all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the sense in a finite being questioning an infinite being ? Job did look at Gods response.
> 
> Job 38:1  And Jehovah answered Job out of the tempest, and said,
> Job 38:2  Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
> Job 38:3  Now gird up your loins like a man; for I will ask of you, and you teach Me.
> Job 38:4  Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell if you have understanding!
> Job 38:5  Who has set its measurements, for you know? Or who has stretched the line on it?
> Job 38:6  On what are its bases sunk, or who cast its cornerstone,
> Job 38:7  when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
> Job 38:8  Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth as it came from the womb?
> Job 38:9  When I made the clouds its robe, and darkness its navel-band,
> Job 38:10  and set My limit on it, and set bars and doors,
> Job 38:11  and I said, You shall come to here, but no further; and here your proud waves shall stop.
> Job 38:12  Have you commanded the morning from your days, and caused the dawn to know its place,
> Job 38:13  that it might take hold of the ends of the earth; that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
> Job 38:14  It is turned like clay under a seal; and they stand forth like a garment.
> Job 38:15  And from the wicked their light is withheld, and the high arm shall be broken.
> Job 38:16  Have you gone to the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?
> Job 38:17  Have the gates of death been opened to you? Or have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?
> Job 38:18  Have you understood the breadth of the earth? Tell, if you know it all!
> Job 38:19  Where is the way where light dwells? And where is the place of darkness,
> Job 38:20  that you should take it to its boundary, and that you should know the paths to its house?
> Job 38:21  You know, because you were born then. And the number of your days is great.
> Job 38:22  Have you entered into the storehouses of the snow? Or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
> Job 38:23  which I have kept for the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
> Job 38:24  How is it, the way the light is distributed, and how does the east wind spread itself on the earth?
> Job 38:25  Who has cut a channel for the flood, or a way for the thunderclaps;
> Job 38:26  to cause rain to fall on the earth where no man is, a wilderness and no man in it;
> Job 38:27  to satisfy the desolate and waste ground, and to cause the source of grass to spring forth?
> Job 38:28  Has the rain a father? Or who has brought forth the drops of dew?
> Job 38:29  Out of whose womb came the ice? And the frost of the heavens, who fathered it?
> Job 38:30  The waters are hidden like stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
> Job 38:31  Can you bind the bands of the Pleiades, or loosen the cords of Orion?
> Job 38:32  Can you bring the constellations in their season? Or can you guide the Bear with its sons?
> Job 38:33  Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you set up their rulership on the earth?
> Job 38:34  Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, so that floods of waters may cover you?
> Job 38:35  Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?
> Job 38:36  Who has put wisdom in the inward parts? Or who has given understanding to the mind?
> Job 38:37  Who can number the clouds by wisdom; or who can empty out the jars of the heavens,
> Job 38:38  when the dust is melted into hardness, and the clods cling fast together?
> Job 38:39  Will you hunt the prey for the lion, or fill the appetite of the young lions,
> Job 38:40  when they crouch in dens, and sit in the cover of their hiding place?
> Job 38:41  Who provides food for the raven, when its young ones cry to God and wander about without food?
> 
> Was man meant to question the creator,I will answer with a resounding no!
Click to expand...


Now you've gone and ruined Job for me, dammit. One of my favorite Bible stories has been reduced to 'don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain'.


----------



## CandySlice

Even Darwin, in 'Origin of the Species' recognized a 'creator' of the first living organism.  And many people figure Darwin put that in there as a sop for the people that would eventually see his discovery's as blasphemy and  atheism when in fact atheism wasn't even contemplated in Darwiin's time. It was a later time when Neitzche postulated the non-existance of a supreme being that the idea came into being or was taken seriously. So there goes your beef with Darwin.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youw, I think the word you're looking for is hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. How do you spout Bible verses out of one side of your mouth and challenge someone to a fight with the other side? THIS is why most 'religious' people scare me. They seem to think that if they do something, no matter how horrendous or irresponsible they've got this ecclesiastical white-out that allows them to do anything that comes into their minds in the name of 'God'.
> I just don't buy it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have admitted my mistake and I am human. Did you read some of the things the guy say's to believers.
> 
> I'm old school I don't back down from bullies. I had enough of his insults and we humans make mistakes. My background comes out now and then wish it didn't but it does.
> 
> I see daws as a foul mouth crap talker. You can't have an adult based conversation with the guy.
> 
> Yes it took time to put the gospels in order but that does not mean they were not inspired by God. I thonght I made my point clear by pointing out things written concerning science that was not confirmed til modern day technology.
Click to expand...

If we're going to make any effort at being honest, we need to acknowledge that you simply cut and pasted a canned list of alleged " scientific miracles".  

None of what you cut and pasted in any way represents science confirming some alleged prophesy or information confirmed by modern technology. 

You're just being silly to make such outrageous and false claims.


----------



## LOki

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. How do you spout Bible verses out of one side of your mouth and challenge someone to a fight with the other side? THIS is why most 'religious' people scare me. They seem to think that if they do something, no matter how horrendous or irresponsible they've got this ecclesiastical white-out that allows them to do anything that comes into their minds in the name of 'God'.
> I just don't buy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have admitted my mistake and I am human. Did you read some of the things the guy say's to believers.
> 
> I'm old school I don't back down from bullies. I had enough of his insults and we humans make mistakes. My background comes out now and then wish it didn't but it does.
> 
> I see daws as a foul mouth crap talker. You can't have an adult based conversation with the guy.
> 
> Yes it took time to put the gospels in order but that does not mean they were not inspired by God. I thonght I made my point clear by pointing out things written concerning science that was not confirmed til modern day technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we're going to make any effort at being honest, we need to acknowledge that you simply cut and pasted a canned list of alleged " scientific miracles".
> 
> None of what you cut and pasted in any way represents science confirming some alleged prophesy or information confirmed by modern technology.
> 
> You're just being silly to make such outrageous and false claims.
Click to expand...

The superstitious are immune to having their obtuse application of logical fallacy pointed out to them.

Watch this:

Hey YWC, every single one your biblical predictions is an example of you applying the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy--every single one.​
Then listen for the crickets.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Was man meant to question the creator,I will answer with a resounding no!



While we humans have evolved (<--- yes, I said that word) such qualities as reasoning, most organized religions seek to squelch those attributes that pursue knowledge. In fact, if we are to be honest, we must acknowledge that the religious institutions expect us to be obedient, compliant, submissive, etc. 

A child is bereft of a critical platform to make a valid choice, which is why they need caring for. Look at the terminology of the three competing Abrahamic religions:

Be as a child
Faith alone
Belief, and it shall be
I am the shepherd, you are like sheep

Notice a theme there? Not once are we extolled: Rigidly question, for _I the LORD hath made thee with a brain, and thee hath the world before thee to explore_. No, instead its surrender the brain I gave you.

I find that adherence to such dogma would require us to draw all our conclusions not as humans but as sheep, and blindly follow the traditions and tales of those who claim authority for such traditions. That in turn would automatically subject the vast majority of humanity to forever live in error and superstition. You may be happy with such a circumstance. Others of us are not.

Sentient sheep. Thats an oxymoron, isnt it?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> An internet tough guy. How cute.
> 
> Snicker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have sent my info to him, it's up to him now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's so validating to see a superstitious retard reaching for his traditional "argument."
Click to expand...


The term retard is used by adults.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly because the Bible is not only incomplete (see the Dead Sea scrolls) but the words written there are not spoken by God, they are spoken by MEN. 'God' Himself had very little to say on any subject. Not first hand anyway. Jesus was somewhat more vocal and what he said made sense for the most part.
> I understand faith but I also understand SOMEBODY gave me the ability to THINK. Now did that come from the Devil? Because the way I understand it the Devil cannot create, he can only un-create, beings God's opposite number.
> If I was imbued with a soul and intelligence why would I be restricted in my thinking, ostensibly a gift from God? Maybe He WANTS me to question Him, ever think of that?
> 
> The Bible is an incomplete book that was picked through and edited, by MEN, for their own purposes. Mainly to keep people stupid, superstitious and 'in line'. I think there's a story there, alright,  but I think it's a far better story than we've been let in on so far. I just want to hear the WHOLE story, that's all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the sense in a finite being questioning an infinite being ? Job did look at Gods response.
> 
> Job 38:1  And Jehovah answered Job out of the tempest, and said,
> Job 38:2  Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
> Job 38:3  Now gird up your loins like a man; for I will ask of you, and you teach Me.
> Job 38:4  Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell if you have understanding!
> Job 38:5  Who has set its measurements, for you know? Or who has stretched the line on it?
> Job 38:6  On what are its bases sunk, or who cast its cornerstone,
> Job 38:7  when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
> Job 38:8  Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth as it came from the womb?
> Job 38:9  When I made the clouds its robe, and darkness its navel-band,
> Job 38:10  and set My limit on it, and set bars and doors,
> Job 38:11  and I said, You shall come to here, but no further; and here your proud waves shall stop.
> Job 38:12  Have you commanded the morning from your days, and caused the dawn to know its place,
> Job 38:13  that it might take hold of the ends of the earth; that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
> Job 38:14  It is turned like clay under a seal; and they stand forth like a garment.
> Job 38:15  And from the wicked their light is withheld, and the high arm shall be broken.
> Job 38:16  Have you gone to the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?
> Job 38:17  Have the gates of death been opened to you? Or have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?
> Job 38:18  Have you understood the breadth of the earth? Tell, if you know it all!
> Job 38:19  Where is the way where light dwells? And where is the place of darkness,
> Job 38:20  that you should take it to its boundary, and that you should know the paths to its house?
> Job 38:21  You know, because you were born then. And the number of your days is great.
> Job 38:22  Have you entered into the storehouses of the snow? Or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
> Job 38:23  which I have kept for the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
> Job 38:24  How is it, the way the light is distributed, and how does the east wind spread itself on the earth?
> Job 38:25  Who has cut a channel for the flood, or a way for the thunderclaps;
> Job 38:26  to cause rain to fall on the earth where no man is, a wilderness and no man in it;
> Job 38:27  to satisfy the desolate and waste ground, and to cause the source of grass to spring forth?
> Job 38:28  Has the rain a father? Or who has brought forth the drops of dew?
> Job 38:29  Out of whose womb came the ice? And the frost of the heavens, who fathered it?
> Job 38:30  The waters are hidden like stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
> Job 38:31  Can you bind the bands of the Pleiades, or loosen the cords of Orion?
> Job 38:32  Can you bring the constellations in their season? Or can you guide the Bear with its sons?
> Job 38:33  Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you set up their rulership on the earth?
> Job 38:34  Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, so that floods of waters may cover you?
> Job 38:35  Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?
> Job 38:36  Who has put wisdom in the inward parts? Or who has given understanding to the mind?
> Job 38:37  Who can number the clouds by wisdom; or who can empty out the jars of the heavens,
> Job 38:38  when the dust is melted into hardness, and the clods cling fast together?
> Job 38:39  Will you hunt the prey for the lion, or fill the appetite of the young lions,
> Job 38:40  when they crouch in dens, and sit in the cover of their hiding place?
> Job 38:41  Who provides food for the raven, when its young ones cry to God and wander about without food?
> 
> Was man meant to question the creator,I will answer with a resounding no!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you've gone and ruined Job for me, dammit. One of my favorite Bible stories has been reduced to 'don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain'.
Click to expand...


No job was humbled because He questioned God,he must have forgotten who he was talking to.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. How do you spout Bible verses out of one side of your mouth and challenge someone to a fight with the other side? THIS is why most 'religious' people scare me. They seem to think that if they do something, no matter how horrendous or irresponsible they've got this ecclesiastical white-out that allows them to do anything that comes into their minds in the name of 'God'.
> I just don't buy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have admitted my mistake and I am human. Did you read some of the things the guy say's to believers.
> 
> I'm old school I don't back down from bullies. I had enough of his insults and we humans make mistakes. My background comes out now and then wish it didn't but it does.
> 
> I see daws as a foul mouth crap talker. You can't have an adult based conversation with the guy.
> 
> Yes it took time to put the gospels in order but that does not mean they were not inspired by God. I thonght I made my point clear by pointing out things written concerning science that was not confirmed til modern day technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we're going to make any effort at being honest, we need to acknowledge that you simply cut and pasted a canned list of alleged " scientific miracles".
> 
> None of what you cut and pasted in any way represents science confirming some alleged prophesy or information confirmed by modern technology.
> 
> You're just being silly to make such outrageous and false claims.
Click to expand...


You are in denial Hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have admitted my mistake and I am human. Did you read some of the things the guy say's to believers.
> 
> I'm old school I don't back down from bullies. I had enough of his insults and we humans make mistakes. My background comes out now and then wish it didn't but it does.
> 
> I see daws as a foul mouth crap talker. You can't have an adult based conversation with the guy.
> 
> Yes it took time to put the gospels in order but that does not mean they were not inspired by God. I thonght I made my point clear by pointing out things written concerning science that was not confirmed til modern day technology.
> 
> 
> 
> If we're going to make any effort at being honest, we need to acknowledge that you simply cut and pasted a canned list of alleged " scientific miracles".
> 
> None of what you cut and pasted in any way represents science confirming some alleged prophesy or information confirmed by modern technology.
> 
> You're just being silly to make such outrageous and false claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The superstitious are immune to having their obtuse application of logical fallacy pointed out to them.
> 
> Watch this:
> 
> Hey YWC, every single one your biblical predictions is an example of you applying the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy--every single one.​
> Then listen for the crickets.
Click to expand...


Loki you finally paid your internet bill.

Why did you take the name of a god Loki ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you've gone and ruined Job for me, dammit. One of my favorite Bible stories has been reduced to 'don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No job was humbled because He questioned God,he must have forgotten who he was talking to.
Click to expand...


No job? Jesus had no job either. Just a layabout. Never even got out of his PJs if we go by all the paintings of him.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have admitted my mistake and I am human. Did you read some of the things the guy say's to believers.
> 
> I'm old school I don't back down from bullies. I had enough of his insults and we humans make mistakes. My background comes out now and then wish it didn't but it does.
> 
> I see daws as a foul mouth crap talker. You can't have an adult based conversation with the guy.
> 
> Yes it took time to put the gospels in order but that does not mean they were not inspired by God. I thonght I made my point clear by pointing out things written concerning science that was not confirmed til modern day technology.
> 
> 
> 
> If we're going to make any effort at being honest, we need to acknowledge that you simply cut and pasted a canned list of alleged " scientific miracles".
> 
> None of what you cut and pasted in any way represents science confirming some alleged prophesy or information confirmed by modern technology.
> 
> You're just being silly to make such outrageous and false claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are in denial Hollie.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. 

I am not the one making claims to miracles and being unable to substantiate those claims.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have sent my info to him, it's up to him now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's so validating to see a superstitious retard reaching for his traditional "argument."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term retard is used by adults.
Click to expand...

It most certainly is. It's an excellent term; for the case in point, appropriate as well.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's so validating to see a superstitious retard reaching for his traditional "argument."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term retard is used by adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It most certainly is. It's an excellent term; for the case in point, appropriate as well.
Click to expand...


Believe as you wish Loki.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we're going to make any effort at being honest, we need to acknowledge that you simply cut and pasted a canned list of alleged " scientific miracles".
> 
> None of what you cut and pasted in any way represents science confirming some alleged prophesy or information confirmed by modern technology.
> 
> You're just being silly to make such outrageous and false claims.
> 
> 
> 
> The superstitious are immune to having their obtuse application of logical fallacy pointed out to them.
> 
> Watch this:
> 
> Hey YWC, every single one your biblical predictions is an example of you applying the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy--every single one.​
> Then listen for the crickets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki you finally paid your internet bill.
Click to expand...

Naw. Just checking on the turnips.



Youwerecreated said:


> Why did you take the name of a god Loki ?


I didn't. It just looks that way.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hello daws,we can just meet at the nearest gym and we can box,I'll take it easy on you.


lol...box? I've studied Aikido and Jeet Kune Do 
since I was 12 ...


----------



## daws101

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. How do you spout Bible verses out of one side of your mouth and challenge someone to a fight with the other side? THIS is why most 'religious' people scare me. They seem to think that if they do something, no matter how horrendous or irresponsible they've got this ecclesiastical white-out that allows them to do anything that comes into their minds in the name of 'God'.
> I just don't buy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have admitted my mistake and I am human. Did you read some of the things the guy say's to believers.
> 
> I'm old school I don't back down from bullies. I had enough of his insults and we humans make mistakes. My background comes out now and then wish it didn't but it does.
> 
> I see daws as a foul mouth crap talker. You can't have an adult based conversation with the guy.
> 
> Yes it took time to put the gospels in order but that does not mean they were not inspired by God. I thonght I made my point clear by pointing out things written concerning science that was not confirmed til modern day technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then _forgive_ him.
Click to expand...

thanks for the sentiment  but forgiveness is unnecessary .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youw, I think the word you're looking for is hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. How do you spout Bible verses out of one side of your mouth and challenge someone to a fight with the other side? THIS is why most 'religious' people scare me. They seem to think that if they do something, no matter how horrendous or irresponsible they've got this ecclesiastical white-out that allows them to do anything that comes into their minds in the name of 'God'.
> I just don't buy it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have admitted my mistake and I am human. Did you read some of the things the guy say's to believers.
> 
> I'm old school I don't back down from bullies. I had enough of his insults and we humans make mistakes. My background comes out now and then wish it didn't but it does.
> 
> I see daws as a foul mouth crap talker. You can't have an adult based conversation with the guy.
> 
> Yes it took time to put the gospels in order but that does not mean they were not inspired by God. I thonght I made my point clear by pointing out things written concerning science that was not confirmed til modern day technology.
Click to expand...

what I say to believers IS THE POINT OF THE WHOLE EXERCISE...halfwit...!
what part of  you have no evidence, don't you understand!?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello daws,we can just meet at the nearest gym and we can box,I'll take it easy on you.
> 
> 
> 
> lol...box? I've studied Aikido and Jeet Kune Do
> since I was 12 ...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. How do you spout Bible verses out of one side of your mouth and challenge someone to a fight with the other side? THIS is why most 'religious' people scare me. They seem to think that if they do something, no matter how horrendous or irresponsible they've got this ecclesiastical white-out that allows them to do anything that comes into their minds in the name of 'God'.
> I just don't buy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have admitted my mistake and I am human. Did you read some of the things the guy say's to believers.
> 
> I'm old school I don't back down from bullies. I had enough of his insults and we humans make mistakes. My background comes out now and then wish it didn't but it does.
> 
> I see daws as a foul mouth crap talker. You can't have an adult based conversation with the guy.
> 
> Yes it took time to put the gospels in order but that does not mean they were not inspired by God. I thonght I made my point clear by pointing out things written concerning science that was not confirmed til modern day technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what I say to believers IS THE POINT OF THE WHOLE EXERCISE...halfwit...!
> what part of  you have no evidence, don't you understand!?
Click to expand...


If I am a halfwit what does that say for you when I school you ?


----------



## ima

Some Creationism FAQ

Q: What is the principle evidence for Creationism? A: The Holy Bible, of course. After all, is it likely that the author of the Universe would be mistaken about its age?
Q: But isn't the Bible religion and not science? A: Truth is truth. It's a poor sort of science that ignores truth.
Q: But isn't there a lot of evidence for evolution? A: Not really, most of it is from university professors writing papers for each other. If they didn't write papers they wouldn't have jobs.
Q: How big was Noah's ark? A: Big enough.
Q: But what about radioactive dating? A: Hey, everybody knows that stuff is bad for you. Stick with good Christian girls.
Q: What about the fossil evidence? A: The real fossils are university professors writing papers for each other.
Q: Is there any other evidence for Creationism besides the Bible? A: Yes.
Q: Can you give us some? A: Yes.
Q: Could you give us a specific example? A: Yes.
Q: What be a specific example of evidence for Creationism? A: I've already answered that question.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Some Creationism FAQ
> 
> Q: What is the principle evidence for Creationism? A: The Holy Bible, of course. After all, is it likely that the author of the Universe would be mistaken about its age?
> Q: But isn't the Bible religion and not science? A: Truth is truth. It's a poor sort of science that ignores truth.
> Q: But isn't there a lot of evidence for evolution? A: Not really, most of it is from university professors writing papers for each other. If they didn't write papers they wouldn't have jobs.
> Q: How big was Noah's ark? A: Big enough.
> Q: But what about radioactive dating? A: Hey, everybody knows that stuff is bad for you. Stick with good Christian girls.
> Q: What about the fossil evidence? A: The real fossils are university professors writing papers for each other.
> Q: Is there any other evidence for Creationism besides the Bible? A: Yes.
> Q: Can you give us some? A: Yes.
> Q: Could you give us a specific example? A: Yes.
> Q: What be a specific example of evidence for Creationism? A: I've already answered that question.



1. Design and pupsoe along with the word of God
2. The Bible is full of truth and facts that science has confirmed
3. There is plenty of evidence of Microevolution a better term would me Microadaptations which is extrapolated from as evidence for macroevolution because there is zero evidence of macroevolution.
4.Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high! It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the enormous size of the Ark.

(A cubit was the length of a man's arm from fingertips to elbow.)

Higher than a 3-story building!

Noah's Ark was three stories high (Genesis 6:16). Its total deck area was equivalent to the area of about 20 standard college basketball courts or 36 lawn tennis courts. The world had to wait until AD 1884 before the Ark's size was exceeded, when the Italian liner Eturia was built.
How big was Noah's Ark? What were the dimensions?

5. Radiometric dating has proven to be unreliable. Example,Diamonds dated to millions of years old it was discovered contained carbon which should not have been found in the diamonds. Carbon only lasts so long.

6.The fossil record is a joke,many creatures are merely inferrences of the mind because enough of the creature was not found. See cambrian explosion where supposedly complex oprganisms all of a sudden appeared. That is why the theory of PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM was developed. Also for your dating methods plus fossil arguments go check out Living-Fossils.com

7.Yes, design and purpose
8. The formation of the cell and the exact sequencing. The many organs needed for living organism's. Complex molecular machines. The atmoshere and planet alignment.
9. Already have.

10. I have


Now i will make it easy on you with only a few questions.

1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?

2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?

3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?

4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?

5. Where did the Dna information come from ?

6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some Creationism FAQ
> 
> Q: What is the principle evidence for Creationism? A: The Holy Bible, of course. After all, is it likely that the author of the Universe would be mistaken about its age?
> Q: But isn't the Bible religion and not science? A: Truth is truth. It's a poor sort of science that ignores truth.
> Q: But isn't there a lot of evidence for evolution? A: Not really, most of it is from university professors writing papers for each other. If they didn't write papers they wouldn't have jobs.
> Q: How big was Noah's ark? A: Big enough.
> Q: But what about radioactive dating? A: Hey, everybody knows that stuff is bad for you. Stick with good Christian girls.
> Q: What about the fossil evidence? A: The real fossils are university professors writing papers for each other.
> Q: Is there any other evidence for Creationism besides the Bible? A: Yes.
> Q: Can you give us some? A: Yes.
> Q: Could you give us a specific example? A: Yes.
> Q: What be a specific example of evidence for Creationism? A: I've already answered that question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Design and pupsoe along with the word of God
> 2. The Bible is full of truth and facts that science has confirmed
> 3. There is plenty of evidence of Microevolution a better term would me Microadaptations which is extrapolated from as evidence for macroevolution because there is zero evidence of macroevolution.
> 4.Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high! It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the enormous size of the Ark.
> 
> (A cubit was the length of a man's arm from fingertips to elbow.)
> 
> Higher than a 3-story building!
> 
> Noah's Ark was three stories high (Genesis 6:16). Its total deck area was equivalent to the area of about 20 standard college basketball courts or 36 lawn tennis courts. The world had to wait until AD 1884 before the Ark's size was exceeded, when the Italian liner Eturia was built.
> How big was Noah's Ark? What were the dimensions?
> 
> 5. Radiometric dating has proven to be unreliable. Example,Diamonds dated to millions of years old it was discovered contained carbon which should not have been found in the diamonds. Carbon only lasts so long.
> 
> 6.The fossil record is a joke,many creatures are merely inferrences of the mind because enough of the creature was not found. See cambrian explosion where supposedly complex oprganisms all of a sudden appeared. That is why the theory of PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM was developed. Also for your dating methods plus fossil arguments go check out Living-Fossils.com
> 
> 7.Yes, design and purpose
> 8. The formation of the cell and the exact sequencing. The many organs needed for living organism's. Complex molecular machines. The atmoshere and planet alignment.
> 9. Already have.
> 
> 10. I have
> 
> 
> Now i will make it easy on you with only a few questions.
> 
> 1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?
> 
> 2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?
> 
> 3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?
> 
> 4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?
> 
> 5. Where did the Dna information come from ?
> 
> 6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?
Click to expand...

I've always found the Noah tale to be the most fantastically absurd of the many biblical tales. The gods wiping humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment seems a little harsh. The similarly confounding part is the idea of the all merciful, omni-everything, all-moral gods making an allowance for incestuous relationships by providing for Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the planet. 

But I suppose if you're in the fraternity of the gods....


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some Creationism FAQ
> 
> Q: What is the principle evidence for Creationism? A: The Holy Bible, of course. After all, is it likely that the author of the Universe would be mistaken about its age?
> Q: But isn't the Bible religion and not science? A: Truth is truth. It's a poor sort of science that ignores truth.
> Q: But isn't there a lot of evidence for evolution? A: Not really, most of it is from university professors writing papers for each other. If they didn't write papers they wouldn't have jobs.
> Q: How big was Noah's ark? A: Big enough.
> Q: But what about radioactive dating? A: Hey, everybody knows that stuff is bad for you. Stick with good Christian girls.
> Q: What about the fossil evidence? A: The real fossils are university professors writing papers for each other.
> Q: Is there any other evidence for Creationism besides the Bible? A: Yes.
> Q: Can you give us some? A: Yes.
> Q: Could you give us a specific example? A: Yes.
> Q: What be a specific example of evidence for Creationism? A: I've already answered that question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Design and pupsoe along with the word of God
> 2. The Bible is full of truth and facts that science has confirmed
> 3. There is plenty of evidence of Microevolution a better term would me Microadaptations which is extrapolated from as evidence for macroevolution because there is zero evidence of macroevolution.
> 4.Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high! It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the enormous size of the Ark.
> 
> (A cubit was the length of a man's arm from fingertips to elbow.)
> 
> Higher than a 3-story building!
> 
> Noah's Ark was three stories high (Genesis 6:16). Its total deck area was equivalent to the area of about 20 standard college basketball courts or 36 lawn tennis courts. The world had to wait until AD 1884 before the Ark's size was exceeded, when the Italian liner Eturia was built.
> How big was Noah's Ark? What were the dimensions?
> 
> 5. Radiometric dating has proven to be unreliable. Example,Diamonds dated to millions of years old it was discovered contained carbon which should not have been found in the diamonds. Carbon only lasts so long.
> 
> 6.The fossil record is a joke,many creatures are merely inferrences of the mind because enough of the creature was not found. See cambrian explosion where supposedly complex oprganisms all of a sudden appeared. That is why the theory of PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM was developed. Also for your dating methods plus fossil arguments go check out Living-Fossils.com
> 
> 7.Yes, design and purpose
> 8. The formation of the cell and the exact sequencing. The many organs needed for living organism's. Complex molecular machines. The atmoshere and planet alignment.
> 9. Already have.
> 
> 10. I have
> 
> 
> Now i will make it easy on you with only a few questions.
> 
> 1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?
> 
> 2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?
> 
> 3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?
> 
> 4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?
> 
> 5. Where did the Dna information come from ?
> 
> 6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always found the Noah tale to be the most fantastically absurd of the many biblical tales. The gods wiping humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment seems a little harsh. The similarly confounding part is the idea of the all merciful, omni-everything, all-moral gods making an allowance for incestuous relationships by providing for Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the planet.
> 
> But I suppose if you're in the fraternity of the gods....
Click to expand...


You deny the absurdity that a big bang created all we see and over time organisms became more and more complex


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some Creationism FAQ
> 
> Q: What is the principle evidence for Creationism? A: The Holy Bible, of course. After all, is it likely that the author of the Universe would be mistaken about its age?
> Q: But isn't the Bible religion and not science? A: Truth is truth. It's a poor sort of science that ignores truth.
> Q: But isn't there a lot of evidence for evolution? A: Not really, most of it is from university professors writing papers for each other. If they didn't write papers they wouldn't have jobs.
> Q: How big was Noah's ark? A: Big enough.
> Q: But what about radioactive dating? A: Hey, everybody knows that stuff is bad for you. Stick with good Christian girls.
> Q: What about the fossil evidence? A: The real fossils are university professors writing papers for each other.
> Q: Is there any other evidence for Creationism besides the Bible? A: Yes.
> Q: Can you give us some? A: Yes.
> Q: Could you give us a specific example? A: Yes.
> Q: What be a specific example of evidence for Creationism? A: I've already answered that question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Design and pupsoe along with the word of God
> 2. The Bible is full of truth and facts that science has confirmed
> 3. There is plenty of evidence of Microevolution a better term would me Microadaptations which is extrapolated from as evidence for macroevolution because there is zero evidence of macroevolution.
> 4.Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high! It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the enormous size of the Ark.
> 
> (A cubit was the length of a man's arm from fingertips to elbow.)
> 
> Higher than a 3-story building!
> 
> Noah's Ark was three stories high (Genesis 6:16). Its total deck area was equivalent to the area of about 20 standard college basketball courts or 36 lawn tennis courts. The world had to wait until AD 1884 before the Ark's size was exceeded, when the Italian liner Eturia was built.
> How big was Noah's Ark? What were the dimensions?
> 
> 5. Radiometric dating has proven to be unreliable. Example,Diamonds dated to millions of years old it was discovered contained carbon which should not have been found in the diamonds. Carbon only lasts so long.
> 
> 6.The fossil record is a joke,many creatures are merely inferrences of the mind because enough of the creature was not found. See cambrian explosion where supposedly complex oprganisms all of a sudden appeared. That is why the theory of PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM was developed. Also for your dating methods plus fossil arguments go check out Living-Fossils.com
> 
> 7.Yes, design and purpose
> 8. The formation of the cell and the exact sequencing. The many organs needed for living organism's. Complex molecular machines. The atmoshere and planet alignment.
> 9. Already have.
> 
> 10. I have
> 
> 
> Now i will make it easy on you with only a few questions.
> 
> 1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?
> 
> 2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?
> 
> 3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?
> 
> 4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?
> 
> 5. Where did the Dna information come from ?
> 
> 6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always found the Noah tale to be the most fantastically absurd of the many biblical tales. The gods wiping humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment seems a little harsh. The similarly confounding part is the idea of the all merciful, omni-everything, all-moral gods making an allowance for incestuous relationships by providing for Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the planet.
> 
> But I suppose if you're in the fraternity of the gods....
Click to expand...


I imagine if I asked you for a list theories you believe I could point out contradictions between the theories.

Give me a list of theories you believe in Hollie.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Design and pupsoe along with the word of God
> 2. The Bible is full of truth and facts that science has confirmed
> 3. There is plenty of evidence of Microevolution a better term would me Microadaptations which is extrapolated from as evidence for macroevolution because there is zero evidence of macroevolution.
> 4.Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high! It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the enormous size of the Ark.
> 
> (A cubit was the length of a man's arm from fingertips to elbow.)
> 
> Higher than a 3-story building!
> 
> Noah's Ark was three stories high (Genesis 6:16). Its total deck area was equivalent to the area of about 20 standard college basketball courts or 36 lawn tennis courts. The world had to wait until AD 1884 before the Ark's size was exceeded, when the Italian liner Eturia was built.
> How big was Noah's Ark? What were the dimensions?
> 
> 5. Radiometric dating has proven to be unreliable. Example,Diamonds dated to millions of years old it was discovered contained carbon which should not have been found in the diamonds. Carbon only lasts so long.
> 
> 6.The fossil record is a joke,many creatures are merely inferrences of the mind because enough of the creature was not found. See cambrian explosion where supposedly complex oprganisms all of a sudden appeared. That is why the theory of PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM was developed. Also for your dating methods plus fossil arguments go check out Living-Fossils.com
> 
> 7.Yes, design and purpose
> 8. The formation of the cell and the exact sequencing. The many organs needed for living organism's. Complex molecular machines. The atmoshere and planet alignment.
> 9. Already have.
> 
> 10. I have
> 
> 
> Now i will make it easy on you with only a few questions.
> 
> 1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?
> 
> 2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?
> 
> 3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?
> 
> 4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?
> 
> 5. Where did the Dna information come from ?
> 
> 6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?
> 
> 
> 
> I've always found the Noah tale to be the most fantastically absurd of the many biblical tales. The gods wiping humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment seems a little harsh. The similarly confounding part is the idea of the all merciful, omni-everything, all-moral gods making an allowance for incestuous relationships by providing for Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the planet.
> 
> But I suppose if you're in the fraternity of the gods....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You deny the absurdity that a big bang created all we see and over time organisms became more and more complex
Click to expand...

There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation. Not a single, understandable event in nature can be assigned a supernatural, supermagical cause.

We know with certainty that species and organisms evolve. That's a fact not in dispute by the modern science community. You and the Harun Yahya groupies will insist that modern science is flawed and unreliable but that is an issue only a fringe minority accepts.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have admitted my mistake and I am human. Did you read some of the things the guy say's to believers.
> 
> I'm old school I don't back down from bullies. I had enough of his insults and we humans make mistakes. My background comes out now and then wish it didn't but it does.
> 
> I see daws as a foul mouth crap talker. You can't have an adult based conversation with the guy.
> 
> Yes it took time to put the gospels in order but that does not mean they were not inspired by God. I thonght I made my point clear by pointing out things written concerning science that was not confirmed til modern day technology.
> 
> 
> 
> what I say to believers IS THE POINT OF THE WHOLE EXERCISE...halfwit...!
> what part of  you have no evidence, don't you understand!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I am a halfwit what does that say for you when I school you ?
Click to expand...

what makes you a halfwit is you Thinking you could ("SCHOOL" ANYBODY ) BTW THAT'S SCHOOLED....MORE EVIDENCE YOU'RE A DUMB FUCK..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some Creationism FAQ
> 
> Q: What is the principle evidence for Creationism? A: The Holy Bible, of course. After all, is it likely that the author of the Universe would be mistaken about its age?
> Q: But isn't the Bible religion and not science? A: Truth is truth. It's a poor sort of science that ignores truth.
> Q: But isn't there a lot of evidence for evolution? A: Not really, most of it is from university professors writing papers for each other. If they didn't write papers they wouldn't have jobs.
> Q: How big was Noah's ark? A: Big enough.
> Q: But what about radioactive dating? A: Hey, everybody knows that stuff is bad for you. Stick with good Christian girls.
> Q: What about the fossil evidence? A: The real fossils are university professors writing papers for each other.
> Q: Is there any other evidence for Creationism besides the Bible? A: Yes.
> Q: Can you give us some? A: Yes.
> Q: Could you give us a specific example? A: Yes.
> Q: What be a specific example of evidence for Creationism? A: I've already answered that question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Design and pupsoe along with the word of God
> 2. The Bible is full of truth and facts that science has confirmed
> 3. There is plenty of evidence of Microevolution a better term would me Microadaptations which is extrapolated from as evidence for macroevolution because there is zero evidence of macroevolution.
> 4.Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high! It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the enormous size of the Ark.
> 
> (A cubit was the length of a man's arm from fingertips to elbow.)
> 
> Higher than a 3-story building!
> 
> Noah's Ark was three stories high (Genesis 6:16). Its total deck area was equivalent to the area of about 20 standard college basketball courts or 36 lawn tennis courts. The world had to wait until AD 1884 before the Ark's size was exceeded, when the Italian liner Eturia was built.
> How big was Noah's Ark? What were the dimensions?
> 
> 5. Radiometric dating has proven to be unreliable. Example,Diamonds dated to millions of years old it was discovered contained carbon which should not have been found in the diamonds. Carbon only lasts so long.
> 
> 6.The fossil record is a joke,many creatures are merely inferrences of the mind because enough of the creature was not found. See cambrian explosion where supposedly complex oprganisms all of a sudden appeared. That is why the theory of PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM was developed. Also for your dating methods plus fossil arguments go check out Living-Fossils.com
> 
> 7.Yes, design and purpose
> 8. The formation of the cell and the exact sequencing. The many organs needed for living organism's. Complex molecular machines. The atmoshere and planet alignment.
> 9. Already have.
> 
> 10. I have
> 
> 
> Now i will make it easy on you with only a few questions.
> 
> 1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?
> 
> 2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?
> 
> 3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?
> 
> 4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?
> 
> 5. Where did the Dna information come from ?
> 
> 6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?
Click to expand...

All of this has been asked and answered  there is no need to rehash it again..
no answers but your own no basis in fact answers will suffice...

btw  dimensions concerning the size of the ark are speculation as there is no evidence of a flood that covered the earth or that noah could write or do math .
also the ark fantasy is a plagerized version of the epic of Gilgamesh((somewhere between 2750 and 2500 BCE).
which also states the world was flooded.  

it also pre dates the ark fantasy :One of the Biblical stories that forms a central part of creationist beliefs is the supposed universal flood of Genesis. According to the account, the flood took place when Noah was 600 years old; the data provided by the genealogies in Genesis allow us to calculate that this would have been about 1,600 years after creation. If we assume the earth to have been created in 4004 BCE, the flood would have happened about 2348 BCE, around the time the pyramids were being built at Giza.


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some Creationism FAQ
> 
> Q: What is the principle evidence for Creationism? A: The Holy Bible, of course. After all, is it likely that the author of the Universe would be mistaken about its age?
> Q: But isn't the Bible religion and not science? A: Truth is truth. It's a poor sort of science that ignores truth.
> Q: But isn't there a lot of evidence for evolution? A: Not really, most of it is from university professors writing papers for each other. If they didn't write papers they wouldn't have jobs.
> Q: How big was Noah's ark? A: Big enough.
> Q: But what about radioactive dating? A: Hey, everybody knows that stuff is bad for you. Stick with good Christian girls.
> Q: What about the fossil evidence? A: The real fossils are university professors writing papers for each other.
> Q: Is there any other evidence for Creationism besides the Bible? A: Yes.
> Q: Can you give us some? A: Yes.
> Q: Could you give us a specific example? A: Yes.
> Q: What be a specific example of evidence for Creationism? A: I've already answered that question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Design and pupsoe along with the word of God
> 2. The Bible is full of truth and facts that science has confirmed
> 3. There is plenty of evidence of Microevolution a better term would me Microadaptations which is extrapolated from as evidence for macroevolution because there is zero evidence of macroevolution.
> 4.Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high! It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the enormous size of the Ark.
> 
> (A cubit was the length of a man's arm from fingertips to elbow.)
> 
> Higher than a 3-story building!
> 
> Noah's Ark was three stories high (Genesis 6:16). Its total deck area was equivalent to the area of about 20 standard college basketball courts or 36 lawn tennis courts. The world had to wait until AD 1884 before the Ark's size was exceeded, when the Italian liner Eturia was built.
> How big was Noah's Ark? What were the dimensions?
> 
> 5. Radiometric dating has proven to be unreliable. Example,Diamonds dated to millions of years old it was discovered contained carbon which should not have been found in the diamonds. Carbon only lasts so long.
> 
> 6.The fossil record is a joke,many creatures are merely inferrences of the mind because enough of the creature was not found. See cambrian explosion where supposedly complex oprganisms all of a sudden appeared. That is why the theory of PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM was developed. Also for your dating methods plus fossil arguments go check out Living-Fossils.com
> 
> 7.Yes, design and purpose
> 8. The formation of the cell and the exact sequencing. The many organs needed for living organism's. Complex molecular machines. The atmoshere and planet alignment.
> 9. Already have.
> 
> 10. I have
> 
> 
> Now i will make it easy on you with only a few questions.
> 
> 1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?
> 
> 2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?
> 
> 3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?
> 
> 4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?
> 
> 5. Where did the Dna information come from ?
> 
> 6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always found the Noah tale to be the most fantastically absurd of the many biblical tales. The gods wiping humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment seems a little harsh. The similarly confounding part is the idea of the all merciful, omni-everything, all-moral gods making an allowance for incestuous relationships by providing for Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the planet.
> 
> But I suppose if you're in the fraternity of the gods....
Click to expand...


Hollie, here's the thing about Noah. They don't tell the whole story. In the book of Lamech, found in the dead sea scrolls in 1947, Noah was also an immaculate conception of sorts therefore 'pure in all his generations' as is stated in the Bible. The book of Lamech, Jasher and Enoch (a VERY important book) have all been left out of the Bible as we know it. That's why it doesn't make a lot of sense. The priests edited it to suit their own purposes. The whole thing is an incompleat sham.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what I say to believers IS THE POINT OF THE WHOLE EXERCISE...halfwit...!
> what part of  you have no evidence, don't you understand!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I am a halfwit what does that say for you when I school you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what makes you a halfwit is you Thinking you could ("SCHOOL" ANYBODY ) BTW THAT'S SCHOOLED....MORE EVIDENCE YOU'RE A DUMB FUCK..
Click to expand...


Anyone who has followed this thread knows you are very ignorant when it comes to science,heck you tried to use Abiogenesis as your answer for the origins of life. 

When one gets schooled these are the tactics they turn to.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always found the Noah tale to be the most fantastically absurd of the many biblical tales. The gods wiping humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment seems a little harsh. The similarly confounding part is the idea of the all merciful, omni-everything, all-moral gods making an allowance for incestuous relationships by providing for Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the planet.
> 
> But I suppose if you're in the fraternity of the gods....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You deny the absurdity that a big bang created all we see and over time organisms became more and more complex
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation. Not a single, understandable event in nature can be assigned a supernatural, supermagical cause.
> 
> We know with certainty that species and organisms evolve. That's a fact not in dispute by the modern science community. You and the Harun Yahya groupies will insist that modern science is flawed and unreliable but that is an issue only a fringe minority accepts.
Click to expand...


You know changes can happen within a family that is the basis for your theory of macroevolution. I do hope by now you people know the difference between the two.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some Creationism FAQ
> 
> Q: What is the principle evidence for Creationism? A: The Holy Bible, of course. After all, is it likely that the author of the Universe would be mistaken about its age?
> Q: But isn't the Bible religion and not science? A: Truth is truth. It's a poor sort of science that ignores truth.
> Q: But isn't there a lot of evidence for evolution? A: Not really, most of it is from university professors writing papers for each other. If they didn't write papers they wouldn't have jobs.
> Q: How big was Noah's ark? A: Big enough.
> Q: But what about radioactive dating? A: Hey, everybody knows that stuff is bad for you. Stick with good Christian girls.
> Q: What about the fossil evidence? A: The real fossils are university professors writing papers for each other.
> Q: Is there any other evidence for Creationism besides the Bible? A: Yes.
> Q: Can you give us some? A: Yes.
> Q: Could you give us a specific example? A: Yes.
> Q: What be a specific example of evidence for Creationism? A: I've already answered that question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Design and pupsoe along with the word of God
> 2. The Bible is full of truth and facts that science has confirmed
> 3. There is plenty of evidence of Microevolution a better term would me Microadaptations which is extrapolated from as evidence for macroevolution because there is zero evidence of macroevolution.
> 4.Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high! It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the enormous size of the Ark.
> 
> (A cubit was the length of a man's arm from fingertips to elbow.)
> 
> Higher than a 3-story building!
> 
> Noah's Ark was three stories high (Genesis 6:16). Its total deck area was equivalent to the area of about 20 standard college basketball courts or 36 lawn tennis courts. The world had to wait until AD 1884 before the Ark's size was exceeded, when the Italian liner Eturia was built.
> How big was Noah's Ark? What were the dimensions?
> 
> 5. Radiometric dating has proven to be unreliable. Example,Diamonds dated to millions of years old it was discovered contained carbon which should not have been found in the diamonds. Carbon only lasts so long.
> 
> 6.The fossil record is a joke,many creatures are merely inferrences of the mind because enough of the creature was not found. See cambrian explosion where supposedly complex oprganisms all of a sudden appeared. That is why the theory of PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM was developed. Also for your dating methods plus fossil arguments go check out Living-Fossils.com
> 
> 7.Yes, design and purpose
> 8. The formation of the cell and the exact sequencing. The many organs needed for living organism's. Complex molecular machines. The atmoshere and planet alignment.
> 9. Already have.
> 
> 10. I have
> 
> 
> Now i will make it easy on you with only a few questions.
> 
> 1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?
> 
> 2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?
> 
> 3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?
> 
> 4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?
> 
> 5. Where did the Dna information come from ?
> 
> 6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of this has been asked and answered  there is no need to rehash it again..
> no answers but your own no basis in fact answers will suffice...
> 
> btw  dimensions concerning the size of the ark are speculation as there is no evidence of a flood that covered the earth or that noah could write or do math .
> also the ark fantasy is a plagerized version of the epic of Gilgamesh((somewhere between 2750 and 2500 BCE).
> which also states the world was flooded.
> 
> it also pre dates the ark fantasy :One of the Biblical stories that forms a central part of creationist beliefs is the supposed universal flood of Genesis. According to the account, the flood took place when Noah was 600 years old; the data provided by the genealogies in Genesis allow us to calculate that this would have been about 1,600 years after creation. If we assume the earth to have been created in 4004 BCE, the flood would have happened about 2348 BCE, around the time the pyramids were being built at Giza.
Click to expand...


No it hasn't.

This is my last post to you,you mental midget.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You deny the absurdity that a big bang created all we see and over time organisms became more and more complex
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation. Not a single, understandable event in nature can be assigned a supernatural, supermagical cause.
> 
> We know with certainty that species and organisms evolve. That's a fact not in dispute by the modern science community. You and the Harun Yahya groupies will insist that modern science is flawed and unreliable but that is an issue only a fringe minority accepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know changes can happen within a family that is the basis for your theory of macroevolution. I do hope by now you people know the difference between the two.
Click to expand...

You place too much emphasis on terms (macro evolution) you don't understand and which are less important than you think. Evolution is a theory and a fact supported by evidence. Creationist ministries tend to subdivide evolution into macro and micro in the hope that doing so will provide an opportunity to discredit the science. You can be an accomplice to that if you choose but the underlying science remains fully intact.


----------



## Hollie

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Design and pupsoe along with the word of God
> 2. The Bible is full of truth and facts that science has confirmed
> 3. There is plenty of evidence of Microevolution a better term would me Microadaptations which is extrapolated from as evidence for macroevolution because there is zero evidence of macroevolution.
> 4.Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high! It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the enormous size of the Ark.
> 
> (A cubit was the length of a man's arm from fingertips to elbow.)
> 
> Higher than a 3-story building!
> 
> Noah's Ark was three stories high (Genesis 6:16). Its total deck area was equivalent to the area of about 20 standard college basketball courts or 36 lawn tennis courts. The world had to wait until AD 1884 before the Ark's size was exceeded, when the Italian liner Eturia was built.
> How big was Noah's Ark? What were the dimensions?
> 
> 5. Radiometric dating has proven to be unreliable. Example,Diamonds dated to millions of years old it was discovered contained carbon which should not have been found in the diamonds. Carbon only lasts so long.
> 
> 6.The fossil record is a joke,many creatures are merely inferrences of the mind because enough of the creature was not found. See cambrian explosion where supposedly complex oprganisms all of a sudden appeared. That is why the theory of PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM was developed. Also for your dating methods plus fossil arguments go check out Living-Fossils.com
> 
> 7.Yes, design and purpose
> 8. The formation of the cell and the exact sequencing. The many organs needed for living organism's. Complex molecular machines. The atmoshere and planet alignment.
> 9. Already have.
> 
> 10. I have
> 
> 
> Now i will make it easy on you with only a few questions.
> 
> 1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?
> 
> 2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?
> 
> 3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?
> 
> 4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?
> 
> 5. Where did the Dna information come from ?
> 
> 6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?
> 
> 
> 
> I've always found the Noah tale to be the most fantastically absurd of the many biblical tales. The gods wiping humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment seems a little harsh. The similarly confounding part is the idea of the all merciful, omni-everything, all-moral gods making an allowance for incestuous relationships by providing for Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the planet.
> 
> But I suppose if you're in the fraternity of the gods....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, here's the thing about Noah. They don't tell the whole story. In the book of Lamech, found in the dead sea scrolls in 1947, Noah was also an immaculate conception of sorts therefore 'pure in all his generations' as is stated in the Bible. The book of Lamech, Jasher and Enoch (a VERY important book) have all been left out of the Bible as we know it. That's why it doesn't make a lot of sense. The priests edited it to suit their own purposes. The whole thing is an incompleat sham.
Click to expand...

Interesting info, CandySlice. I was only vaguely familiar with what was found as part of the dead sea scrolls. 

I suppose the above only adds to the puzzle of how an all-merciful god could behave as delineated in the bible. At least in my opinion, there is no requirement to add sentience and other anthropomorphic attributes to the infinite nature of nature. Therefore, the theistic worldview unnecessarily complicates a simple concept in order to assign to nature a quasi-comforting paternal personality.

It is the process of science that explores and discovers. Now, it's possible that science could be stymied and could hit the wall so-to-speak at finding a purely natural cause for existence but that still wouldn't prove a supernatural causation and it still wouldn't prove god(s). How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny and require they be accountable at some level?

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about or dead men ascend to heaven?

Why is it that in a prior age when fear and superstition were far more easily imposed on a population did "miracles" happen and as mankind learned and explored, these "miracles" ceased to occur?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I am a halfwit what does that say for you when I school you ?
> 
> 
> 
> what makes you a halfwit is you Thinking you could ("SCHOOL" ANYBODY ) BTW THAT'S SCHOOLED....MORE EVIDENCE YOU'RE A DUMB FUCK..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who has followed this thread knows you are very ignorant when it comes to science,heck you tried to use Abiogenesis as your answer for the origins of life.
> 
> When one gets schooled these are the tactics they turn to.
Click to expand...

anyone who follows this thread knows that you lie constantly  and are so ignorant about science that you believe that a super magical supernatural thing poofed everything in to existence then got pissed off at what it had made, told a 600 year old man to bulid a raft with a roof and collect all the living thing in the world to save them   because for some unknown reason this supermagical supernatural thing forgot how to poof new things or  remake the stuff he already poofed to life....
you also have tried to sell this steaming pile of shit:  this same super magical supernatural thing cursed everything for being just like it made them to be  by growing old and dying..
and how can forget this gem dinosaurs and mayans...
so in reality the only schooling you've done is present your ignorance, denial, dumbfuckery  and lies  to any one following this thread...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Design and pupsoe along with the word of God
> 2. The Bible is full of truth and facts that science has confirmed
> 3. There is plenty of evidence of Microevolution a better term would me Microadaptations which is extrapolated from as evidence for macroevolution because there is zero evidence of macroevolution.
> 4.Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high! It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the enormous size of the Ark.
> 
> (A cubit was the length of a man's arm from fingertips to elbow.)
> 
> Higher than a 3-story building!
> 
> Noah's Ark was three stories high (Genesis 6:16). Its total deck area was equivalent to the area of about 20 standard college basketball courts or 36 lawn tennis courts. The world had to wait until AD 1884 before the Ark's size was exceeded, when the Italian liner Eturia was built.
> How big was Noah's Ark? What were the dimensions?
> 
> 5. Radiometric dating has proven to be unreliable. Example,Diamonds dated to millions of years old it was discovered contained carbon which should not have been found in the diamonds. Carbon only lasts so long.
> 
> 6.The fossil record is a joke,many creatures are merely inferrences of the mind because enough of the creature was not found. See cambrian explosion where supposedly complex oprganisms all of a sudden appeared. That is why the theory of PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM was developed. Also for your dating methods plus fossil arguments go check out Living-Fossils.com
> 
> 7.Yes, design and purpose
> 8. The formation of the cell and the exact sequencing. The many organs needed for living organism's. Complex molecular machines. The atmoshere and planet alignment.
> 9. Already have.
> 
> 10. I have
> 
> 
> Now i will make it easy on you with only a few questions.
> 
> 1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?
> 
> 2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?
> 
> 3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?
> 
> 4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?
> 
> 5. Where did the Dna information come from ?
> 
> 6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?
> 
> 
> 
> All of this has been asked and answered  there is no need to rehash it again..
> no answers but your own no basis in fact answers will suffice...
> 
> btw  dimensions concerning the size of the ark are speculation as there is no evidence of a flood that covered the earth or that noah could write or do math .
> also the ark fantasy is a plagerized version of the epic of Gilgamesh((somewhere between 2750 and 2500 BCE).
> which also states the world was flooded.
> 
> it also pre dates the ark fantasy :One of the Biblical stories that forms a central part of creationist beliefs is the supposed universal flood of Genesis. According to the account, the flood took place when Noah was 600 years old; the data provided by the genealogies in Genesis allow us to calculate that this would have been about 1,600 years after creation. If we assume the earth to have been created in 4004 BCE, the flood would have happened about 2348 BCE, around the time the pyramids were being built at Giza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> This is my last post to you,you mental midget.
Click to expand...

yes it has


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always found the Noah tale to be the most fantastically absurd of the many biblical tales. The gods wiping humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment seems a little harsh. The similarly confounding part is the idea of the all merciful, omni-everything, all-moral gods making an allowance for incestuous relationships by providing for Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the planet.
> 
> But I suppose if you're in the fraternity of the gods....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, here's the thing about Noah. They don't tell the whole story. In the book of Lamech, found in the dead sea scrolls in 1947, Noah was also an immaculate conception of sorts therefore 'pure in all his generations' as is stated in the Bible. The book of Lamech, Jasher and Enoch (a VERY important book) have all been left out of the Bible as we know it. That's why it doesn't make a lot of sense. The priests edited it to suit their own purposes. The whole thing is an incompleat sham.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting info, CandySlice. I was only vaguely familiar with what was found as part of the dead sea scrolls.
> 
> I suppose the above only adds to the puzzle of how an all-merciful god could behave as delineated in the bible. At least in my opinion, there is no requirement to add sentience and other anthropomorphic attributes to the infinite nature of nature. Therefore, the theistic worldview unnecessarily complicates a simple concept in order to assign to nature a quasi-comforting paternal personality.
> 
> It is the process of science that explores and discovers. Now, it's possible that science could be stymied and could hit the wall so-to-speak at finding a purely natural cause for existence but that still wouldn't prove a supernatural causation and it still wouldn't prove god(s). How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny and require they be accountable at some level?
> 
> In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about or dead men ascend to heaven?
> 
> Why is it that in a prior age when fear and superstition were far more easily imposed on a population did "miracles" happen and as mankind learned and explored, these "miracles" ceased to occur?
Click to expand...


Holly, reading the Dead Sea scrolls is one of the most eye opening things I've done in a long time. Reading them in a study group at HCC was mind boggling. Yes, there is still a lot of magical thinking in there but remember these people were used to reading 'apocalyptic' literature and knew how to translate it. Alot of it took on sort of a 'wink wink, nudge nudge' aura as if to say 'We can't say what we REALLY mean but you guys out there get it, huh?'
Remenber the Bible was edited by church elders over the centuries leaving in just enough to keep people stupid, uneducated and superstitious. They wanted to control people and see what a good job they did on poor old YWC??
As for miracles and how they suddenly 'stopped happening' that's a no-brainer. Modern man is too well educated and too smart to fall for all that stuff. Except for YWC here who evidently read the Bible, liked what he read and forever after turned his brain off.


----------



## CandySlice

_Hollie:
level?It is the process of science that explores and discovers. Now, it's possible that science could be stymied and could hit the wall so-to-speak at finding a purely natural cause for existence but that still wouldn't prove a supernatural causation and it still wouldn't prove god(s). How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny and require they be accountable at some level?_
 Accountabilty is what one must insist upon in any situation where new info is being introduced. It is just this lack of accountability that drives me crazy when these glazed over thumpers get rolling. You can set your watch by how far along they can get before they go off the track but still asking them to consider something else is indeed like that brick wall.


----------



## daws101

has ywc ascended to heaven ?
the rapture is near!!!!!!!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Skimmed the last few pages. Big surprise... Hollie doesn't have any new material and daws is stil in the dark. Hollie has assumed yet another fake screen name Candy Homeslice in an attempt to lend some validation to her whacky posts and she and her other screen name praise each other for a post well done. Druggy Huggy, seeing the cop was gone felt safe to post again. The funniest thing of all is Rugged Touch having the hugest of balls to call YWC out on his credentials. Like she can call anyone out on their qualifications "oh one who conveniently ignores any questions about her false identities and education level". Yep, it's biz as usual.

Did you miss me?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always found the Noah tale to be the most fantastically absurd of the many biblical tales. The gods wiping humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment seems a little harsh. The similarly confounding part is the idea of the all merciful, omni-everything, all-moral gods making an allowance for incestuous relationships by providing for Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the planet.
> 
> But I suppose if you're in the fraternity of the gods....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You deny the absurdity that a big bang created all we see and over time organisms became more and more complex
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation.
Click to expand...


every discovery? You're funny! Like DNA and human consciousness. Please show me DNA's natural cause? The cell's natural cause? Gravity's natural cause? The cause of the universe? Yep Hollie you have it ALL figured out.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You deny the absurdity that a big bang created all we see and over time organisms became more and more complex
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> every discovery? You're funny! Like DNA and human consciousness. Please show me DNA's natural cause? The cell's natural cause? Gravity's natural cause? The cause of the universe? Yep Hollie you have it ALL figured out.
Click to expand...


Not knowing all the answers STILL doen't mean that everything was made by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen. That's not a logical conclusion,  in an otherwise logical universe.


----------



## newpolitics

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> every discovery? You're funny! Like DNA and human consciousness. Please show me DNA's natural cause? The cell's natural cause? Gravity's natural cause? The cause of the universe? Yep Hollie you have it ALL figured out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not knowing all the answers STILL doen't mean that everything was made by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen. That's not a logical conclusion,  in an otherwise logical universe.
Click to expand...


I second this. We don't have an answer. This isn't like a competition where the first person to place an explanation, gets to decide reality, and worse, if that explanation can't be disproven (because it is unfalsifiable), it stands. Once again, theists are using an argument from ignorance, again, and again, and again. It's totally unconvincing to anyone else but yourself. You lay claim to an explanation that you can not at all demonstrate, because you can't at all demonstrate the mechanism of your explanation: God. Therefore, you're missing quite a big piece, yet you arrogantly assert its truth because it has not been disproven, which is technically impossible, because it is unfalsifiable. So, around we go, in circles and circles. The only way to break this, is faith, because if you depended on evidentiary support, you would never find god, because god simply doesn't exist in this universe, if one at all exists. This is demonstrated by the simple fact that you must have faith to believe, because faith by definition, is believing with evidence or logical reasoning.  In other words, the logic and reasoning comes after the belief is already formed, and so used only to justify the belief, not to assess it. If you did assess you're own beliefs, you would find they fall beneath skepticism and rationalism. So, if you want to believe, go ahead, but stop thinking you can actually convince people with a rational argument. The need to believe is an emotional one, I believe, and hence, doesn't need rational argument, from the point of view of the believer, in order for them to justify it, because simply, it feels good. Well, what feels good isn't reality. It is so highly subjective that to assert it as belonging ontologically to the universe, objectively, is simply impossible to do. Theist philosophers have been trying for centuries to find both a valid and sound logical argument for god, from the cosmological, ontological, teleological, and transcendental arguments, but they all fail at demonstrating their premises to be true, making them unsound, however internally consistent. 

However, when you theists try to peel back science, as if it never happened, and claim that scientific claims are unfounded, now you are messing with the ontology of the universe, as discovered by the best method we have for discerning fact from fiction, reality from non-reality. You will consistently fail at this with those who truly understand science. You are not spreading the of god, because you can't demonstrate that the bible is the word of a deity, or that it accurately depicts the events it tries to relate. The historicity of jesus is questionable at best, being that we have almost zero extrabiblical accounts of this person even existing. 

Please stop thinking you can use rationality and logic to prove your arguments, because fundamentally, they are based on emotion, and as such, lack a foundation of logic and reason. This is faith, and will never be reconcilable with evidence, by definition.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You deny the absurdity that a big bang created all we see and over time organisms became more and more complex
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> every discovery? You're funny! Like DNA and human consciousness. Please show me DNA's natural cause? The cell's natural cause? Gravity's natural cause? The cause of the universe? Yep Hollie you have it ALL figured out.
Click to expand...


Gee whiz. The fundie is back with the same pointless babble.


----------



## Hollie

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> every discovery? You're funny! Like DNA and human consciousness. Please show me DNA's natural cause? The cell's natural cause? Gravity's natural cause? The cause of the universe? Yep Hollie you have it ALL figured out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not knowing all the answers STILL doen't mean that everything was made by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen. That's not a logical conclusion,  in an otherwise logical universe.
Click to expand...

Good post.

I was hoping the fundie could explain what is supernatural about DNA, gravity or the universe but that would only prompt a lengthy cut and paste from Harun Yahya.


----------



## LOki

Hollie said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> every discovery? You're funny! Like DNA and human consciousness. Please show me DNA's natural cause? The cell's natural cause? Gravity's natural cause? The cause of the universe? Yep Hollie you have it ALL figured out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not knowing all the answers STILL doen't mean that everything was made by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen. That's not a logical conclusion,  in an otherwise logical universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good post.
> 
> I was hoping the fundie could explain what is supernatural about DNA, gravity or the universe but that would only prompt a lengthy cut and paste from Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...

In the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to him, to all Creationists in fact. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of your time to expose them for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards that they are; to point out vividly their intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects, so the Creationists' vain, mendacious, anti-reason, reality-denying hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful society.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> every discovery? You're funny! Like DNA and human consciousness. Please show me DNA's natural cause? The cell's natural cause? Gravity's natural cause? The cause of the universe? Yep Hollie you have it ALL figured out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not knowing all the answers STILL doen't mean that everything was made by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen. That's not a logical conclusion,  in an otherwise logical universe.
Click to expand...


Again I see that reading concepts that don't exist into specific posts hasn't changed either. Please show me in the specific post above where I claimed supernatural causes. You won't find it so again you are with the strawman. I am assuming your post above, and NP's as well, was intended for the bully Hawly since it is she who made the claim "*every* discovery by science has been shown to have a natural caus...." 

This is a lie, with not one shred of evidence to back it up, as pointed out in my post above. You have chosen to infer the rest.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not knowing all the answers STILL doen't mean that everything was made by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen. That's not a logical conclusion,  in an otherwise logical universe.
> 
> 
> 
> Good post.
> 
> I was hoping the fundie could explain what is supernatural about DNA, gravity or the universe but that would only prompt a lengthy cut and paste from Harun Yahya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to him, to all Creationists in fact. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of your time to expose them for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards that they are; to point out vividly their intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects, so the Creationists' vain, mendacious, anti-reason, reality-denying hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful society.
Click to expand...


The only retards are the last three posters with terrible reading comprehension problems. Hollie's statement is a lie, and your materialist religion has blinded you to the foolishness of her lie. You speak of faith, but it is your faith that allows to to believe that the things I mentioned in my post have a natural cause, because you don't have a single shred of scientific evidence to prove otherwise. So it is by faith you believe, absent from any facts. This is where I ask you to put up or shut up for even one of the items, let's say, DNA for instance. Please show me the scientific "evidence" for a natural cause. I'm not talking about the "just so", "might have", "could have" evolution stories, but real, experimentally verifiable evidence for DNA's natural cause. 

This is the point the crickets start chirping.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> "It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." -Lysander Spooner.



Foolish Loki. What are these so called "rights" that you speak of. And just where do these imaginary rights come from? Can we do a scientific experiment to verify they exists? Can we somehow measure your imaginary "rights"? Since your religion teaches matter is the only reality, how do we give birth to a thought? What is an idea? Can you prove it exists?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> every discovery? You're funny! Like DNA and human consciousness. Please show me DNA's natural cause? The cell's natural cause? Gravity's natural cause? The cause of the universe? Yep Hollie you have it ALL figured out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not knowing all the answers STILL doen't mean that everything was made by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen. That's not a logical conclusion,  in an otherwise logical universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I see that reading concepts that don't exist into specific posts hasn't changed either. Please show me in the specific post above where I claimed supernatural causes. You won't find it so again you are with the strawman. I am assuming your post above, and NP's as well, was intended for the bully Hawly since it is she who made the claim "*every* discovery by science has been shown to have a natural caus...."
> 
> This is a lie, with not one shred of evidence to back it up, as pointed out in my post above. You have chosen to infer the rest.
Click to expand...



Name one discovery by science that has a known supernatural cause, please. I would love to know.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good post.
> 
> I was hoping the fundie could explain what is supernatural about DNA, gravity or the universe but that would only prompt a lengthy cut and paste from Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to him, to all Creationists in fact. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of your time to expose them for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards that they are; to point out vividly their intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects, so the Creationists' vain, mendacious, anti-reason, reality-denying hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only retards are the last three posters with terrible reading comprehension problems. Hollie's statement is a lie, and your materialist religion has blinded you to the foolishness of her lie. You speak of faith, but it is your faith that allows to to believe that the things I mentioned in my post have a natural cause, because you don't have a single shred of scientific evidence to prove otherwise. So it is by faith you believe, absent from any facts. This is where I ask you to put up or shut up for even one of the items, let's say, DNA for instance. Please show me the scientific "evidence" for a natural cause. I'm not talking about the "just so", "might have", "could have" evolution stories, but real, experimentally verifiable evidence for DNA's natural cause.
> 
> *This is the point the crickets start chirping.*
Click to expand...

Not to imply that your anti-reason paradigm is in any way valid, but bhere's a whole world out  there that runs on a natural process called chemistry. Perhaps you've heard of it?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." -Lysander Spooner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foolish Loki. What are these so called "rights" that you speak of. And just where do these imaginary rights come from? Can we do a scientific experiment to verify they exists? Can we somehow measure your imaginary "rights"? Since your religion teaches matter is the only reality, how do we give birth to a thought? What is an idea? Can you prove it exists?
Click to expand...

Yes. The reality of thought is axiomatic; denying that thought exists is an application of the "stolen concept fallacy."

And as far as "rights" are concerned: if there are no rights at all, Spooner's assertion remains valid.

So then Ultimatereality, while we're playing with dopey rhetoric, what feature of "ultimate reality" is "actual reality" is missing that prevents "actual reality" from being the "ultimate reality"?


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not knowing all the answers STILL doen't mean that everything was made by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen. That's not a logical conclusion,  in an otherwise logical universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I see that reading concepts that don't exist into specific posts hasn't changed either. Please show me in the specific post above where I claimed supernatural causes. You won't find it so again you are with the strawman. I am assuming your post above, and NP's as well, was intended for the bully Hawly since it is she who made the claim "*every* discovery by science has been shown to have a natural caus...."
> 
> This is a lie, with not one shred of evidence to back it up, as pointed out in my post above. You have chosen to infer the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one discovery by science that has a known supernatural cause, please. I would love to know.
Click to expand...


 I've asked that same question on several occasions only to be met with the standard fundie pattern of behavior to stutter, mumble and launch into a tirade of calling people liars. 

I've never known a single, verifiable discovery in science that had a supernatural underpinning. 

Why can't the fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?


----------



## RosieS

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again I see that reading concepts that don't exist into specific posts hasn't changed either. Please show me in the specific post above where I claimed supernatural causes. You won't find it so again you are with the strawman. I am assuming your post above, and NP's as well, was intended for the bully Hawly since it is she who made the claim "*every* discovery by science has been shown to have a natural caus...."
> 
> This is a lie, with not one shred of evidence to back it up, as pointed out in my post above. You have chosen to infer the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one discovery by science that has a known supernatural cause, please. I would love to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've asked that same question on several occasions only to be met with the standard fundie pattern of behavior to stutter, mumble and launch into a tirade of calling people liars.
> 
> I've never known a single, verifiable discovery in science that had a supernatural underpinning.
> 
> Why can't the fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?
Click to expand...



If one can believe that saying some magic phrases to an invisible gray-bearded angry old man can make you rich and healthy and beautiful then one can believe humans rode dinosaurs back in the day.

Sure- why not? 

Regards from Rosie


----------



## ima

So did Noah have dinosaurs on the ark?

And if the world was flooded for 40 days, how did the plants survive?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not knowing all the answers STILL doen't mean that everything was made by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen. That's not a logical conclusion,  in an otherwise logical universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I see that reading concepts that don't exist into specific posts hasn't changed either. Please show me in the specific post above where I claimed supernatural causes. You won't find it so again you are with the strawman. I am assuming your post above, and NP's as well, was intended for the bully Hawly since it is she who made the claim "*every* discovery by science has been shown to have a natural caus...."
> 
> This is a lie, with not one shred of evidence to back it up, as pointed out in my post above. You have chosen to infer the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name one discovery by science that has a known supernatural cause, please. I would love to know.
Click to expand...


Strawboy.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to him, to all Creationists in fact. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of your time to expose them for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards that they are; to point out vividly their intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects, so the Creationists' vain, mendacious, anti-reason, reality-denying hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only retards are the last three posters with terrible reading comprehension problems. Hollie's statement is a lie, and your materialist religion has blinded you to the foolishness of her lie. You speak of faith, but it is your faith that allows to to believe that the things I mentioned in my post have a natural cause, because you don't have a single shred of scientific evidence to prove otherwise. So it is by faith you believe, absent from any facts. This is where I ask you to put up or shut up for even one of the items, let's say, DNA for instance. Please show me the scientific "evidence" for a natural cause. I'm not talking about the "just so", "might have", "could have" evolution stories, but real, experimentally verifiable evidence for DNA's natural cause.
> 
> *This is the point the crickets start chirping.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to imply that your anti-reason paradigm is in any way valid, but bhere's a whole world out  there that runs on a natural process called chemistry. Perhaps you've heard of it?
Click to expand...


EPIC FAIL. This in NO WAY shows a natural cause for DNA. Nice try homeslice. I am talking about REAL scientific evidence that is testable which shows a natural avenue for the creation of the digital instructions in DNA.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> every discovery? You're funny! Like DNA and human consciousness. Please show me DNA's natural cause? The cell's natural cause? Gravity's natural cause? The cause of the universe? Yep Hollie you have it ALL figured out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not knowing all the answers STILL doen't mean that everything was made by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen. That's not a logical conclusion,  in an otherwise logical universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I see that reading concepts that don't exist into specific posts hasn't changed either. Please show me in the specific post above where I claimed supernatural causes. You won't find it so again you are with the strawman. I am assuming your post above, and NP's as well, was intended for the bully Hawly since it is she who made the claim "*every* discovery by science has been shown to have a natural caus...."
> 
> This is a lie, with not one shred of evidence to back it up, as pointed out in my post above. You have chosen to infer the rest.
Click to expand...


I have a question: is everything in the universe a natural product? Yes? Then anything they affect makes it a natural cause. In other words, there are no un-natural elements in the universe, so no un-natural causes either.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." -Lysander Spooner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foolish Loki. What are these so called "rights" that you speak of. And just where do these imaginary rights come from? Can we do a scientific experiment to verify they exists? Can we somehow measure your imaginary "rights"? Since your religion teaches matter is the only reality, how do we give birth to a thought? What is an idea? Can you prove it exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. The reality of thought is axiomatic; denying that thought exists is an application of the "stolen concept fallacy."
> 
> And as far as "rights" are concerned: if there are no rights at all, Spooner's assertion remains valid.
> 
> So then Ultimatereality, while we're playing with dopey rhetoric, what feature of "ultimate reality" is "actual reality" is missing that prevents "actual reality" from being the "ultimate reality"?
Click to expand...


Your question is foolish because actual reality and ultimate reality should be the same thing. But to further engage in your ignorance, and assuming your incorrect definition of so called "actual" reality, it is not what's missing. It is what is present. Human prejudice and perception are the impediment to knowing ultimate reality. Only the Architect ultimately knows what is really real. Can you hold gravity in your hand? Can you see it with your own eyes? No you can't, but you can see the effect of it. So basically you believe in an invisible force because you can study its effects. Yet we are no closer, even with the super hardon collider, to understanding the first thing about gravity other than rules on how it operates. I see the effects of another Invisible Force and can know It exists.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> So did Noah have dinosaurs on the ark?
> 
> And if the world was flooded for 40 days, how did the plants survive?



Is this question directed at me? I am not a young earth Creationist. But I will answer your question if you can answer mine. How did the first cell originate?


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foolish Loki. What are these so called "rights" that you speak of. And just where do these imaginary rights come from? Can we do a scientific experiment to verify they exists? Can we somehow measure your imaginary "rights"? Since your religion teaches matter is the only reality, how do we give birth to a thought? What is an idea? Can you prove it exists?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The reality of thought is axiomatic; denying that thought exists is an application of the "stolen concept fallacy."
> 
> And as far as "rights" are concerned: if there are no rights at all, Spooner's assertion remains valid.
> 
> So then Ultimatereality, while we're playing with dopey rhetoric, what feature of "ultimate reality" is "actual reality" is missing that prevents "actual reality" from being the "ultimate reality"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your question is foolish because actual reality and ultimate reality should be the same thing. But to further engage in your ignorance, and assuming your incorrect definition of so called "actual" reality, it is not what's missing. It is what is present. Human prejudice and perception are the impediment to knowing ultimate reality. Only the Architect ultimately knows what is really real. Can you hold gravity in your hand? Can you see it with your own eyes? No you can't, but you can see the effect of it. So basically you believe in an invisible force because you can study its effects. Yet we are no closer, even with the super hardon collider, to understanding the first thing about gravity other than rules on how it operates. I see the effects of another Invisible Force and can know It exists.
Click to expand...


Just because we haven't figured out the why and how of gravity doesn't mean it was invented by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen or been to?


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did Noah have dinosaurs on the ark?
> 
> And if the world was flooded for 40 days, how did the plants survive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this question directed at me? I am not a young earth Creationist. But I will answer your question if you can answer mine. How did the first cell originate?
Click to expand...


Is an explanation from Berkeley ok?

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not knowing all the answers STILL doen't mean that everything was made by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen. That's not a logical conclusion,  in an otherwise logical universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I see that reading concepts that don't exist into specific posts hasn't changed either. Please show me in the specific post above where I claimed supernatural causes. You won't find it so again you are with the strawman. I am assuming your post above, and NP's as well, was intended for the bully Hawly since it is she who made the claim "*every* discovery by science has been shown to have a natural caus...."
> 
> This is a lie, with not one shred of evidence to back it up, as pointed out in my post above. You have chosen to infer the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a question: is everything in the universe a natural product? Yes? Then anything they affect makes it a natural cause. In other words, there are no un-natural elements in the universe, so no un-natural causes either.
Click to expand...


No. Everything in the universe does not have a natural cause including the universe itself. You are spewing your religious Dogma as if it is fact. It's called Materialism and the teaching of your religion that matter is the only reality, as stated above. You religion does not alleviate you from the burden of scientific proof when Hollie makes the bogus Materialist claim above that EVERY discovery has a natural cause. Prove it!! Show me by scientific method, how the first information in the DNA digital code originated and replicate the process in a laboratory.

This is the point where Hollie spews the same tired rhetoric of "Turtles all the way down" regarding who made God. The causal relationship is only valid for entities with a beginning. It is a widely held scientific belief the universe had a beginning, therefore, it must have had a cause. Since that cause could not have been "natural", the answer to Ima's question is a resounding "NO!", unless of course Ima, you believe in a supernatural force, that is, one outside of nature or the known universe.

The Judeo-Christian God claimed his name was "I AM". He has always existed, infinitely in the past. He has no beginning and therefore, no necessity of a cause.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again I see that reading concepts that don't exist into specific posts hasn't changed either. Please show me in the specific post above where I claimed supernatural causes. You won't find it so again you are with the strawman. I am assuming your post above, and NP's as well, was intended for the bully Hawly since it is she who made the claim "*every* discovery by science has been shown to have a natural caus...."
> 
> This is a lie, with not one shred of evidence to back it up, as pointed out in my post above. You have chosen to infer the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one discovery by science that has a known supernatural cause, please. I would love to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never known a single, verifiable discovery in science that had a supernatural underpinning.
Click to expand...


So we are to assume that because you don't know it, it doesn't exist?   You are so foolish.

Please explain to me what caused the universe?


----------



## UltimateReality

RosieS said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one discovery by science that has a known supernatural cause, please. I would love to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked that same question on several occasions only to be met with the standard fundie pattern of behavior to stutter, mumble and launch into a tirade of calling people liars.
> 
> I've never known a single, verifiable discovery in science that had a supernatural underpinning.
> 
> Why can't the fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If one can believe that saying some magic phrases to an invisible gray-bearded angry old man can make you rich and healthy and beautiful then one can believe humans rode dinosaurs back in the day.
> 
> Sure- why not?
> 
> Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...


Wow, this is right up there with one of the most ignorant statements yet!!!  Pick up a book!! Any book!!! And expand your worldview.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The reality of thought is axiomatic; denying that thought exists is an application of the "stolen concept fallacy."
> 
> And as far as "rights" are concerned: if there are no rights at all, Spooner's assertion remains valid.
> 
> So then Ultimatereality, while we're playing with dopey rhetoric, what feature of "ultimate reality" is "actual reality" is missing that prevents "actual reality" from being the "ultimate reality"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is foolish because actual reality and ultimate reality should be the same thing. But to further engage in your ignorance, and assuming your incorrect definition of so called "actual" reality, it is not what's missing. It is what is present. Human prejudice and perception are the impediment to knowing ultimate reality. Only the Architect ultimately knows what is really real. Can you hold gravity in your hand? Can you see it with your own eyes? No you can't, but you can see the effect of it. So basically you believe in an invisible force because you can study its effects. Yet we are no closer, even with the super hardon collider, to understanding the first thing about gravity other than rules on how it operates. I see the effects of another Invisible Force and can know It exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because we haven't figured out the why and how of gravity doesn't mean it was invented by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen or been to?
Click to expand...


So how can you claim with absolute 100% certainty it is natural? Prove it.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did Noah have dinosaurs on the ark?
> 
> And if the world was flooded for 40 days, how did the plants survive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this question directed at me? I am not a young earth Creationist. But I will answer your question if you can answer mine. How did the first cell originate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is an explanation from Berkeley ok?
> 
> Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
Click to expand...


If you are willing to fall for it. What a joke!!!! 

I was talking about* scientific *evidence that can be replicated in a laboratory. Not "just so" stories and "might have" or "could have" hypothesis.

Please tell me you are not foolish enough to buy this as REAL SCIENCE?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again I see that reading concepts that don't exist into specific posts hasn't changed either. Please show me in the specific post above where I claimed supernatural causes. You won't find it so again you are with the strawman. I am assuming your post above, and NP's as well, was intended for the bully Hawly since it is she who made the claim "*every* discovery by science has been shown to have a natural caus...."
> 
> This is a lie, with not one shred of evidence to back it up, as pointed out in my post above. You have chosen to infer the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question: is everything in the universe a natural product? Yes? Then anything they affect makes it a natural cause. In other words, there are no un-natural elements in the universe, so no un-natural causes either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Everything in the universe does not have a natural cause including the universe itself. You are spewing your religious Dogma as if it is fact. It's called Materialism and the teaching of your religion that matter is the only reality, as stated above. You religion does not alleviate you from the burden of scientific proof when Hollie makes the bogus Materialist claim above that EVERY discovery has a natural cause. Prove it!! Show me by scientific method, how the first information in the DNA digital code originated and replicate the process in a laboratory.
> 
> This is the point where Hollie spews the same tired rhetoric of "Turtles all the way down" regarding who made God. The causal relationship is only valid for entities with a beginning. It is a widely held scientific belief the universe had a beginning, therefore, it must have had a cause. Since that cause could not have been "natural", the answer to Ima's question is a resounding "NO!", unless of course Ima, you believe in a supernatural force, that is, one outside of nature or the known universe.
> 
> The Judeo-Christian God claimed his name was "I AM". He has always existed, infinitely in the past. He has no beginning and therefore, no necessity of a cause.
Click to expand...


I've corrected your nonsensical claim above:

The _Easter Bunny_ claimed his name was "I AM". He has always existed, infinitely in the past. He has no beginning and therefore, no necessity of a cause.


The above is a boilerplate creationist claim. I suspect it was taken from Harun Yahya or one of the other YEC fundie sites. 

In a bizarre attempt to justify the fraudulent claim that since gravity is an invisible force, that somehow supports the claim of one or more of the gods (a similarly invisible force) must then also be true. The fundie apologist depends upon a pointless scam. Trying to make this nonsensical red herring relevant to his already hopeless argument, he applies this concept with gross incompetence of the most unsophisticated sort.

Its a comical scam that the goofy fundies try repeatedly. What the fundies fail to address is that natural forces lend themselves to repeatable and verifiable testing. Even the fundies can test for the properties of gravity. How does anyone perform repeatable teats for the gods?
Call 'em hateful, call 'em backward, but don't call 'em unpredictable.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this question directed at me? I am not a young earth Creationist. But I will answer your question if you can answer mine. How did the first cell originate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is an explanation from Berkeley ok?
> 
> Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are willing to fall for it. What a joke!!!!
> 
> I was talking about* scientific *evidence that can be replicated in a laboratory. Not "just so" stories and "might have" or "could have" hypothesis.
> 
> Please tell me you are not foolish enough to buy this as REAL SCIENCE?
Click to expand...

You exempt your gods from the same "scientific evidence" you demand of others. 

Obviously, you have to make outlandish exceptions for your gods as they are not subject to the strictures of the scientific method.

It's just so comical that you will insist on a 6000 year old earth and all the supernaturalism and supermagicalism attending such a claim yet you insist that others "prove" their claims.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is foolish because actual reality and ultimate reality should be the same thing. But to further engage in your ignorance, and assuming your incorrect definition of so called "actual" reality, it is not what's missing. It is what is present. Human prejudice and perception are the impediment to knowing ultimate reality. Only the Architect ultimately knows what is really real. Can you hold gravity in your hand? Can you see it with your own eyes? No you can't, but you can see the effect of it. So basically you believe in an invisible force because you can study its effects. Yet we are no closer, even with the super hardon collider, to understanding the first thing about gravity other than rules on how it operates. I see the effects of another Invisible Force and can know It exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because we haven't figured out the why and how of gravity doesn't mean it was invented by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen or been to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how can you claim with absolute 100% certainty it is natural? Prove it.
Click to expand...


The same requirement is submitted to you regarding gods, a 6000 year old earth, the Noah tale and the other supermagical elements of your religious claims.

Prove your supermagical claims to gods.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked that same question on several occasions only to be met with the standard fundie pattern of behavior to stutter, mumble and launch into a tirade of calling people liars.
> 
> I've never known a single, verifiable discovery in science that had a supernatural underpinning.
> 
> Why can't the fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one can believe that saying some magic phrases to an invisible gray-bearded angry old man can make you rich and healthy and beautiful then one can believe humans rode dinosaurs back in the day.
> 
> Sure- why not?
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, this is right up there with one of the most ignorant statements yet!!!  Pick up a book!! Any book!!! And expand your worldview.
Click to expand...


The expected ignorance from those who make claims to supermagicalism but are wholly unable to support their claims.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one discovery by science that has a known supernatural cause, please. I would love to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never known a single, verifiable discovery in science that had a supernatural underpinning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are to assume that because you don't know it, it doesn't exist?   You are so foolish.
> 
> Please explain to me what caused the universe?
Click to expand...


How many gods did it take to cause _your_ gods?


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this question directed at me? I am not a young earth Creationist. But I will answer your question if you can answer mine. How did the first cell originate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is an explanation from Berkeley ok?
> 
> Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are willing to fall for it. What a joke!!!!
> 
> I was talking about* scientific *evidence that can be replicated in a laboratory. Not "just so" stories and "might have" or "could have" hypothesis.
> 
> Please tell me you are not foolish enough to buy this as REAL SCIENCE?
Click to expand...

Says the guy who thinks that the bible is proof that the world was made in 6 days. 

At least scientists are trying to replicate this in a lab and are searching for answers. You on the other hand, have come to the scene of a crime, see someone dead on the ground and because you don't know how to look for real evidence, declare him murdered by an invisible being in another dimension. Any dumber and you could stop breathing. Watch out!


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only retards are the last three posters with terrible reading comprehension problems. Hollie's statement is a lie, and your materialist religion has blinded you to the foolishness of her lie. You speak of faith, but it is your faith that allows to to believe that the things I mentioned in my post have a natural cause, because you don't have a single shred of scientific evidence to prove otherwise. So it is by faith you believe, absent from any facts. This is where I ask you to put up or shut up for even one of the items, let's say, DNA for instance. Please show me the scientific "evidence" for a natural cause. I'm not talking about the "just so", "might have", "could have" evolution stories, but real, experimentally verifiable evidence for DNA's natural cause.
> 
> *This is the point the crickets start chirping.*
> 
> 
> 
> Not to imply that your anti-reason paradigm is in any way valid, but bhere's a whole world out  there that runs on a natural process called chemistry. Perhaps you've heard of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EPIC FAIL. This in NO WAY shows a natural cause for DNA.
Click to expand...

The chemical reactions involved seemed natural enough--others seem to agree--I fail to see anything but denial of ("ultimate") reality as the source of this assertion of yours.



UltimateReality said:


> Nice try homeslice. I am talking about REAL scientific evidence that is testable *which shows a natural avenue for the creation of the digital instructions in DNA*.


This is different from what you asked.

Real scientists don't use the term "code" with all the implied anthropomorphic subtext you creationists insist upon. Although DNA can be described as "digital"--being discrete rather than continuous, and it functions like a digital code, there are no "digital instructions" in DNA. It's the product of a chemical reaction. 

What you're asking for is the "software" or "program of life" your superstition has posited as part of your dishonest rationalizations for claiming that intelligent design/creationism is science. The existence of he "software" or "program of life" is not posited by scientists consistent with, or conforming to, your superstitious paradigm.

You got what you asked for, Cupcake.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foolish Loki. What are these so called "rights" that you speak of. And just where do these imaginary rights come from? Can we do a scientific experiment to verify they exists? Can we somehow measure your imaginary "rights"? Since your religion teaches matter is the only reality, how do we give birth to a thought? What is an idea? Can you prove it exists?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The reality of thought is axiomatic; denying that thought exists is an application of the "stolen concept fallacy."
> 
> And as far as "rights" are concerned: if there are no rights at all, Spooner's assertion remains valid.
> 
> So then Ultimatereality, while we're playing with dopey rhetoric, what feature of "ultimate reality" is "actual reality" is missing that prevents "actual reality" from being the "ultimate reality"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your question is foolish because actual reality and ultimate reality should be the same thing.
Click to expand...

The question isn't foolish, those who insist that their imaginary reality--featuring their imaginary friends--is more validly real than objective reality, are foolish.



UltimateReality said:


> But to further engage in your ignorance, and assuming your incorrect definition of so called "actual" reality, it is not what's missing. It is what is present.


Well, I suspect you're just being disingenuous here, as your entire gripe about the "religion" of naturalism, or materialism, or whatever ... uniformly revolves around the rejection of your superstition.



UltimateReality said:


> Human prejudice and perception are the impediment to knowing ultimate reality.


I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY!

And what could be a greater expression of *prejudice* than your belief paradigm that requires no valid verifiable evidence or logic WHAT-SO-EVER, to hold a conviction of certainty, yet DEMANDS ABSOLUTE UNQUESTIONABLE PROOF to establish your convictions are in error? What could possibly be a greater impediment to knowledge about objective reality than this "knowledge" paradigm that NECESSARILY has but coincidental confirmation in verifiable evidence?



UltimateReality said:


> Only the Architect ultimately knows what is really real.


What "Architect"?



UltimateReality said:


> Can you hold gravity in your hand? Can you see it with your own eyes? No you can't, but you can see the effect of it. So basically you believe in an invisible force because you can study its effects. Yet we are no closer, even with the super hardon collider, to understanding the first thing about gravity other than rules on how it operates. I see the effects of another Invisible Force and can know It exists.


And you give it an important sounding name, you confer upon it a personality that loves you, you provide it with desires and goals, you give it a voice that only you hear, you assign to it motives for it's alleged deeds, you see it answering your requests, you feel it's anger when others disobey the whims you assigned to it.

And all of this is real in your ULTIMATE "reality."


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because we haven't figured out the why and how of gravity doesn't mean it was invented by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen or been to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how can you claim with absolute 100% certainty it is natural? Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same requirement is submitted to you regarding gods, a 6000 year old earth, the Noah tale and the other supermagical elements of your religious claims.
> 
> Prove your supermagical claims to gods.
Click to expand...


You really are a buffoon. How can you prove something that is supernatural?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never known a single, verifiable discovery in science that had a supernatural underpinning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we are to assume that because you don't know it, it doesn't exist?   You are so foolish.
> 
> Please explain to me what caused the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many gods did it take to cause _your_ gods?
Click to expand...


Epic short term memory FAIL. My God didn't have a beginning, has always existed and doesn't require a cause. Go back of few post and try to hang onto a thought for more than a few minutes.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is an explanation from Berkeley ok?
> 
> Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are willing to fall for it. What a joke!!!!
> 
> I was talking about* scientific *evidence that can be replicated in a laboratory. Not "just so" stories and "might have" or "could have" hypothesis.
> 
> Please tell me you are not foolish enough to buy this as REAL SCIENCE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who thinks that the bible is proof that the world was made in 6 days.
> 
> At least scientists are trying to replicate this in a lab and are searching for answers. You on the other hand, have come to the scene of a crime, see someone dead on the ground and because you don't know how to look for real evidence, declare him murdered by an invisible being in another dimension. Any dumber and you could stop breathing. Watch out!
Click to expand...


You can LOL all you want. I don't believe the world was made in six days but nice false projection.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because we haven't figured out the why and how of gravity doesn't mean it was invented by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen or been to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how can you claim with absolute 100% certainty it is natural? Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same requirement is submitted to you regarding gods, a 6000 year old earth, the Noah tale and the other supermagical elements of your religious claims.
> 
> Prove your supermagical claims to gods.
Click to expand...


Hello? McFly? I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth and I only believe in ONE God. I've only told you this, oh, I don't know, *like 1500 times.* Man you are stupid.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to imply that your anti-reason paradigm is in any way valid, but bhere's a whole world out  there that runs on a natural process called chemistry. Perhaps you've heard of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EPIC FAIL. This in NO WAY shows a natural cause for DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The chemical reactions involved seemed natural enough--others seem to agree--I fail to see anything but denial of ("ultimate") reality as the source of this assertion of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try homeslice. I am talking about REAL scientific evidence that is testable *which shows a natural avenue for the creation of the digital instructions in DNA*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is different from what you asked.
> 
> Real scientists don't use the term "code" with all the implied anthropomorphic subtext you creationists insist upon. Although DNA can be described as "digital"--being discrete rather than continuous, and it functions like a digital code, there are no "digital instructions" in DNA. It's the product of a chemical reaction.
> 
> What you're asking for is the "software" or "program of life" your superstition has posited as part of your dishonest rationalizations for claiming that intelligent design/creationism is science. The existence of he "software" or "program of life" is not posited by scientists consistent with, or conforming to, your superstitious paradigm.
> 
> You got what you asked for, Cupcake.
Click to expand...


Real Science? You wouldn't know real science if it hit you in the face. Silly Loki, you have been so dumbed down by the pseudoscience of evolution and the bastardization of the scientific method that you have been duped into believing this garbage. Here are just a few excerpts from your "others seem to agree" link. Funny, even the term "seem to" is dripping with Darwin-speak. Why not just say others agree. For your consideration:

Information systems to govern replication *could have* developed penecontemporaneously in the same milieu. 

Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells *could have assembled*, it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself. *Oh really???*

The molecules *could have primed* the protocell for the production of further organic molecules. *Why can't you test or prove this?*

Neal and Stanger have suggested that, in prebiotic times, hydrogen in hot springs *could have played a part* in the synthesis of the first organic molecules.

We have argued that life *may have originated *at highly reduced alkaline submarine springs...

Nevertheless abiotic organic molecules *could have been generated* by hydrogenation of the carbon monoxide...

Loki, I really can't believe you are stupid enough to fall for this stuff so I am guessing you obviously didn't read the study before you copied the citation of the atheist website. 

A search of the acrobat file revealed *25 "could haves"* and *18 "may haves".*

*This is not science people!!! This is a fill in 43 blanks to get to the end result fairy tale.*

Please try again with real science that actually proves the steps required to get from point A to point B are possible. Relying on 43 ASSumptions is proof??? Dude, come on!!!

Also, since you said I didn't ask for it, here you go: please show me the scientific proof on how the digital information code to build proteins originated????


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Real scientists


 


LOki said:


> don't use the term "code" with all the implied anthropomorphic subtext you creationists insist upon. Although DNA can be described as "digital"--being discrete rather than continuous, and it functions like a digital code, there are no "digital instructions" in DNA. It's the product of a chemical reaction.



You are a foolish, foolish man. Again, you have been dumbed down by the speculative pseudoscience of evolution so much so that you can't think straight. *The Ts, Gs, C's and A's arranged in a specific, quaternary digital instructions are no more a result of a chemical reaction than the information contained in a newspaper is the result of a chemical reaction of ink and wood pulp.* 

Apparently, these "REAL" Scientist didn't get the memo...

"DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, Caltech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands, which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10]"

DNA computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The reality of thought is axiomatic; denying that thought exists is an application of the "stolen concept fallacy."
> 
> And as far as "rights" are concerned: if there are no rights at all, Spooner's assertion remains valid.
> 
> So then Ultimatereality, while we're playing with dopey rhetoric, what feature of "ultimate reality" is "actual reality" is missing that prevents "actual reality" from being the "ultimate reality"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is foolish because actual reality and ultimate reality should be the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question isn't foolish, those who insist that their imaginary reality--featuring their imaginary friends--is more validly real than objective reality, are foolish.
> 
> Well, I suspect you're just being disingenuous here, as your entire gripe about the "religion" of naturalism, or materialism, or whatever ... uniformly revolves around the rejection of your superstition.
> 
> I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY!
> 
> And what could be a greater expression of *prejudice* than your belief paradigm that requires no valid verifiable evidence or logic WHAT-SO-EVER, to hold a conviction of certainty, yet DEMANDS ABSOLUTE UNQUESTIONABLE PROOF to establish your convictions are in error? What could possibly be a greater impediment to knowledge about objective reality than this "knowledge" paradigm that NECESSARILY has but coincidental confirmation in verifiable evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the Architect ultimately knows what is really real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "Architect"?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you hold gravity in your hand? Can you see it with your own eyes? No you can't, but you can see the effect of it. So basically you believe in an invisible force because you can study its effects. Yet we are no closer, even with the super hardon collider, to understanding the first thing about gravity other than rules on how it operates. I see the effects of another Invisible Force and can know It exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you give it an important sounding name, you confer upon it a personality that loves you, you provide it with desires and goals, you give it a voice that only you hear, you assign to it motives for it's alleged deeds, you see it answering your requests, you feel it's anger when others disobey the whims you assigned to it.
> 
> And all of this is real in your ULTIMATE "reality."
Click to expand...


Nice dodge but you didn't address the comparison.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> EPIC FAIL. This in NO WAY shows a natural cause for DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> The chemical reactions involved seemed natural enough--others seem to agree--I fail to see anything but denial of ("ultimate") reality as the source of this assertion of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try homeslice. I am talking about REAL scientific evidence that is testable *which shows a natural avenue for the creation of the digital instructions in DNA*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is different from what you asked.
> 
> Real scientists don't use the term "code" with all the implied anthropomorphic subtext you creationists insist upon. Although DNA can be described as "digital"--being discrete rather than continuous, and it functions like a digital code, there are no "digital instructions" in DNA. It's the product of a chemical reaction.
> 
> What you're asking for is the "software" or "program of life" your superstition has posited as part of your dishonest rationalizations for claiming that intelligent design/creationism is science. The existence of he "software" or "program of life" is not posited by scientists consistent with, or conforming to, your superstitious paradigm.
> 
> You got what you asked for, Cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real Science? You wouldn't know real science if it hit you in the face. Silly Loki, you have been so dumbed down by the pseudoscience of evolution and the bastardization of the scientific method that you have been duped into believing this garbage. Here are just a few excerpts from your "others seem to agree" link. Funny, even the term "seem to" is dripping with Darwin-speak. Why not just say others agree. For your consideration:
> 
> Information systems to govern replication *could have* developed penecontemporaneously in the same milieu.
> 
> Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells *could have assembled*, it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself. *Oh really???*
> 
> The molecules *could have primed* the protocell for the production of further organic molecules. *Why can't you test or prove this?*
> 
> Neal and Stanger have suggested that, in prebiotic times, hydrogen in hot springs *could have played a part* in the synthesis of the first organic molecules.
> 
> We have argued that life *may have originated *at highly reduced alkaline submarine springs...
> 
> Nevertheless abiotic organic molecules *could have been generated* by hydrogenation of the carbon monoxide...
> 
> Loki, I really can't believe you are stupid enough to fall for this stuff so I am guessing you obviously didn't read the study before you copied the citation of the atheist website.
> 
> A search of the acrobat file revealed *25 "could haves"* and *18 "may haves".*
> 
> *This is not science people!!! This is a fill in 43 blanks to get to the end result fairy tale.*
> 
> Please try again with real science that actually proves the steps required to get from point A to point B are possible. Relying on 43 ASSumptions is proof??? Dude, come on!!!
> 
> Also, since you said I didn't ask for it, here you go: please show me the scientific proof on how the digital information code to build proteins originated????
Click to expand...

You know real science hit you in the face, but you lack the honesty of intellectual integrity to admit it. Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide *ANY* substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?

*"Could have"* is exactly right.

Unlike you--and your band of superstitious retards--who claim they are absolutely certain of what *did* happen, actual scientists express what "could have" happened because they have the intellectual honesty to admit that they could be wrong.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real scientists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't use the term "code" with all the implied anthropomorphic subtext you creationists insist upon. Although DNA can be described as "digital"--being discrete rather than continuous, and it functions like a digital code, there are no "digital instructions" in DNA. It's the product of a chemical reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a foolish, foolish man. Again, you have been dumbed down by the speculative pseudoscience of evolution so much so that you can't think straight. *The Ts, Gs, C's and A's arranged in a specific, quaternary digital instructions are no more a result of a chemical reaction than the information contained in a newspaper is the result of a chemical reaction of ink and wood pulp.*
> 
> Apparently, these "REAL" Scientist didn't get the memo...
> 
> "DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, Caltech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands, which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10]"
> 
> DNA computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Real scientists don't use the term "code" with all the implied anthropomorphic subtext you creationists insist upon. Although DNA can be described as "digital"--being discrete rather than continuous, and it functions like a digital code, there are no "digital instructions" in DNA. It's the product of a chemical reaction.

Real scientists don't mistake the metaphors they use for the subject they're using the metaphor to describe.

And intellectually honest people do not attempt to conflate the different meanings of common terms used in different subjects to make their point that cellular DNA has the same functional role in biology that it has in DNA computing.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is foolish because actual reality and ultimate reality should be the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> The question isn't foolish, those who insist that their imaginary reality--featuring their imaginary friends--is more validly real than objective reality, are foolish.
> 
> Well, I suspect you're just being disingenuous here, as your entire gripe about the "religion" of naturalism, or materialism, or whatever ... uniformly revolves around the rejection of your superstition.
> 
> I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY!
> 
> And what could be a greater expression of *prejudice* than your belief paradigm that requires no valid verifiable evidence or logic WHAT-SO-EVER, to hold a conviction of certainty, yet DEMANDS ABSOLUTE UNQUESTIONABLE PROOF to establish your convictions are in error? What could possibly be a greater impediment to knowledge about objective reality than this "knowledge" paradigm that NECESSARILY has but coincidental confirmation in verifiable evidence?
> 
> What "Architect"?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you hold gravity in your hand? Can you see it with your own eyes? No you can't, but you can see the effect of it. So basically you believe in an invisible force because you can study its effects. Yet we are no closer, even with the super hardon collider, to understanding the first thing about gravity other than rules on how it operates. I see the effects of another Invisible Force and can know It exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you give it an important sounding name, you confer upon it a personality that loves you, you provide it with desires and goals, you give it a voice that only you hear, you assign to it motives for it's alleged deeds, you see it answering your requests, you feel it's anger when others disobey the whims you assigned to it.
> 
> And all of this is real in your ULTIMATE "reality."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice dodge but you didn't address the comparison.
Click to expand...

Nice denial of reality to advance the pretense that I didn't address the comparison.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is foolish because actual reality and ultimate reality should be the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> The question isn't foolish, those who insist that their imaginary reality--featuring their imaginary friends--is more validly real than objective reality, are foolish.
> 
> Well, I suspect you're just being disingenuous here, as your entire gripe about the "religion" of naturalism, or materialism, or whatever ... uniformly revolves around the rejection of your superstition.
> 
> I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY!
> 
> And what could be a greater expression of *prejudice* than your belief paradigm that requires no valid verifiable evidence or logic WHAT-SO-EVER, to hold a conviction of certainty, yet DEMANDS ABSOLUTE UNQUESTIONABLE PROOF to establish your convictions are in error? What could possibly be a greater impediment to knowledge about objective reality than this "knowledge" paradigm that NECESSARILY has but coincidental confirmation in verifiable evidence?
> 
> What "Architect"?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you hold gravity in your hand? Can you see it with your own eyes? No you can't, but you can see the effect of it. So basically you believe in an invisible force because you can study its effects. Yet we are no closer, even with the super hardon collider, to understanding the first thing about gravity other than rules on how it operates. I see the effects of another Invisible Force and can know It exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you give it an important sounding name, you confer upon it a personality that loves you, you provide it with desires and goals, you give it a voice that only you hear, you assign to it motives for it's alleged deeds, you see it answering your requests, you feel it's anger when others disobey the whims you assigned to it.
> 
> And all of this is real in your ULTIMATE "reality."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice dodge but you didn't address the comparison.
Click to expand...

Your comparison was pointless.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how can you claim with absolute 100% certainty it is natural? Prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same requirement is submitted to you regarding gods, a 6000 year old earth, the Noah tale and the other supermagical elements of your religious claims.
> 
> Prove your supermagical claims to gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello? McFly? I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth and I only believe in ONE God. I've only told you this, oh, I don't know, *like 1500 times.* Man you are stupid.
Click to expand...


So you think the bible is fiction? Ok, points for that.

But why only 1 god? Because, let's face it, if there's a god, who made it? Or did this god just materialize from a natural cause? 
So where does god come from? The planet Kolob?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how can you claim with absolute 100% certainty it is natural? Prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same requirement is submitted to you regarding gods, a 6000 year old earth, the Noah tale and the other supermagical elements of your religious claims.
> 
> Prove your supermagical claims to gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a buffoon. How can you prove something that is supernatural?
Click to expand...


Try thinking through you own claim. 

 So let's look at this from another perspective. When people say they believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same requirement is submitted to you regarding gods, a 6000 year old earth, the Noah tale and the other supermagical elements of your religious claims.
> 
> Prove your supermagical claims to gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello? McFly? I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth and I only believe in ONE God. I've only told you this, oh, I don't know, *like 1500 times.* Man you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think the bible is fiction? Ok, points for that.
> 
> But why only 1 god? Because, let's face it, if there's a god, who made it? Or did this god just materialize from a natural cause?
> So where does god come from? The planet Kolob?
Click to expand...


Is your name Hollie? Asked and answered numerous times.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same requirement is submitted to you regarding gods, a 6000 year old earth, the Noah tale and the other supermagical elements of your religious claims.
> 
> Prove your supermagical claims to gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a buffoon. How can you prove something that is supernatural?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try thinking through you own claim.
> 
> So let's look at this from another perspective. When people say they believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.
Click to expand...


We can never prove what the supernatural cause for the universe is so I guess that means we don't really exist?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The chemical reactions involved seemed natural enough--others seem to agree--I fail to see anything but denial of ("ultimate") reality as the source of this assertion of yours.
> 
> This is different from what you asked.
> 
> Real scientists don't use the term "code" with all the implied anthropomorphic subtext you creationists insist upon. Although DNA can be described as "digital"--being discrete rather than continuous, and it functions like a digital code, there are no "digital instructions" in DNA. It's the product of a chemical reaction.
> 
> What you're asking for is the "software" or "program of life" your superstition has posited as part of your dishonest rationalizations for claiming that intelligent design/creationism is science. The existence of he "software" or "program of life" is not posited by scientists consistent with, or conforming to, your superstitious paradigm.
> 
> You got what you asked for, Cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real Science? You wouldn't know real science if it hit you in the face. Silly Loki, you have been so dumbed down by the pseudoscience of evolution and the bastardization of the scientific method that you have been duped into believing this garbage. Here are just a few excerpts from your "others seem to agree" link. Funny, even the term "seem to" is dripping with Darwin-speak. Why not just say others agree. For your consideration:
> 
> Information systems to govern replication *could have* developed penecontemporaneously in the same milieu.
> 
> Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells *could have assembled*, it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself. *Oh really???*
> 
> The molecules *could have primed* the protocell for the production of further organic molecules. *Why can't you test or prove this?*
> 
> Neal and Stanger have suggested that, in prebiotic times, hydrogen in hot springs *could have played a part* in the synthesis of the first organic molecules.
> 
> We have argued that life *may have originated *at highly reduced alkaline submarine springs...
> 
> Nevertheless abiotic organic molecules *could have been generated* by hydrogenation of the carbon monoxide...
> 
> Loki, I really can't believe you are stupid enough to fall for this stuff so I am guessing you obviously didn't read the study before you copied the citation of the atheist website.
> 
> A search of the acrobat file revealed *25 "could haves"* and *18 "may haves".*
> 
> *This is not science people!!! This is a fill in 43 blanks to get to the end result fairy tale.*
> 
> Please try again with real science that actually proves the steps required to get from point A to point B are possible. Relying on 43 ASSumptions is proof??? Dude, come on!!!
> 
> Also, since you said I didn't ask for it, here you go: please show me the scientific proof on how the digital information code to build proteins originated????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know real science hit you in the face, but you lack the honesty of intellectual integrity to admit it. Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide *ANY* substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?
> 
> *"Could have"* is exactly right.
> 
> Unlike you--and your band of superstitious retards--who claim they are absolutely certain of what *did* happen, actual scientists express what "could have" happened because they have the intellectual honesty to admit that they could be wrong.
Click to expand...


The brainwashing runs deep with this one. There is nothing wrong with speculation under the scientific method. That is how we come up with a testable hypothesis. But when your so called theory above has 43 (!!!!) untested gaps, please be intellectually honest enough to yourself to admit this is a fairytale, not real science. Evolutionary theory has bastardized science to the point you don't even know what it is. Even geophysicist know when they are making predictions about the distant past, to look to the present for NATURAL, observable phenomena as a basis for their predictions. They don't make up a bunch of crap about what *might have* or *could have* happened when their proposed methods *have never been observed * in nature. Real scientist test their might haves and could haves, and try to limit their variable to one or two unknowns, NOT 43!!!!

Also, I guess you have the right to remain silent on where the digital protein building instructions originated from.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same requirement is submitted to you regarding gods, a 6000 year old earth, the Noah tale and the other supermagical elements of your religious claims.
> 
> Prove your supermagical claims to gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a buffoon. How can you prove something that is supernatural?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try thinking through you own claim.
Click to expand...


I'd be happy if you just tried thinking period.


----------



## UltimateReality

Loki, since you obviously want to believe in your materialist religion so bad that your judgement is seriously clouded, even if you don't admit to the seriously flawed entirety of the study, I would like for you to give me your take on just this one damning statement made:

"Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells could have assembled,* it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself*." 

What does the study even prove in light of this?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a buffoon. How can you prove something that is supernatural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try thinking through you own claim.
> 
> So&#8230; let's look at this from another perspective. When people say they believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can never prove what the supernatural cause for the universe is so I guess that means we don't really exist?
Click to expand...

In your continued state of stupor, you fail to comprehend that making emphatic claims to supernatural entities which, having no basis in reality, means that your "because I say so" claims are quite silly.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try thinking through you own claim.
> 
> So&#8230; let's look at this from another perspective. When people say they believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can never prove what the supernatural cause for the universe is so I guess that means we don't really exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In your continued state of stupor, you fail to comprehend that making emphatic claims to supernatural entities which, having no basis in reality, means that your "because I say so" claims are quite silly.
Click to expand...


You never answer the question. Your posts are just noise.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can never prove what the supernatural cause for the universe is so I guess that means we don't really exist?
> 
> 
> 
> In your continued state of stupor, you fail to comprehend that making emphatic claims to supernatural entities which, having no basis in reality, means that your "because I say so" claims are quite silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never answer the question. Your posts are just noise.
Click to expand...


Pretend you're a grown-up and see if you can cobbled together something worth responding to. 

Somehow you missed it but you have admitted that your claims to gods are not open to proofs, yet you insist that they must be true... because you say so. You want your tales and fables to be true so you cut and paste the silliest nonsense from creationist ministries in shared attempts to vilify and denigrate the discipline of science. 

You really do come across as a complete boob.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real Science? You wouldn't know real science if it hit you in the face. Silly Loki, you have been so dumbed down by the pseudoscience of evolution and the bastardization of the scientific method that you have been duped into believing this garbage. Here are just a few excerpts from your "others seem to agree" link. Funny, even the term "seem to" is dripping with Darwin-speak. Why not just say others agree. For your consideration:
> 
> Information systems to govern replication *could have* developed penecontemporaneously in the same milieu.
> 
> Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells *could have assembled*, it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself. *Oh really???*
> 
> The molecules *could have primed* the protocell for the production of further organic molecules. *Why can't you test or prove this?*
> 
> Neal and Stanger have suggested that, in prebiotic times, hydrogen in hot springs *could have played a part* in the synthesis of the first organic molecules.
> 
> We have argued that life *may have originated *at highly reduced alkaline submarine springs...
> 
> Nevertheless abiotic organic molecules *could have been generated* by hydrogenation of the carbon monoxide...
> 
> Loki, I really can't believe you are stupid enough to fall for this stuff so I am guessing you obviously didn't read the study before you copied the citation of the atheist website.
> 
> A search of the acrobat file revealed *25 "could haves"* and *18 "may haves".*
> 
> *This is not science people!!! This is a fill in 43 blanks to get to the end result fairy tale.*
> 
> Please try again with real science that actually proves the steps required to get from point A to point B are possible. Relying on 43 ASSumptions is proof??? Dude, come on!!!
> 
> Also, since you said I didn't ask for it, here you go: please show me the scientific proof on how the digital information code to build proteins originated????
> 
> 
> 
> You know real science hit you in the face, but you lack the honesty of intellectual integrity to admit it. Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide *ANY* substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?
> 
> *"Could have"* is exactly right.
> 
> Unlike you--and your band of superstitious retards--who claim they are absolutely certain of what *did* happen, actual scientists express what "could have" happened because they have the intellectual honesty to admit that they could be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The brainwashing runs deep with this one. There is nothing wrong with speculation under the scientific method. That is how we come up with a testable hypothesis. But when your so called theory above has 43 (!!!!) untested gaps, please be intellectually honest enough to yourself to admit this is a fairytale, not real science. Evolutionary theory has bastardized science to the point you don't even know what it is. Even geophysicist know when they are making predictions about the distant past, to look to the present for NATURAL, observable phenomena as a basis for their predictions. They don't make up a bunch of crap about what *might have* or *could have* happened when their proposed methods *have never been observed * in nature. Real scientist test their might haves and could haves, and try to limit their variable to one or two unknowns, NOT 43!!!!
> 
> Also, I guess you have the right to remain silent on where the digital protein building instructions originated from.
Click to expand...

Yes. I will remain silent on your logically invalid assertions based upon question-begging presumptions.

Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide *ANY* substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Loki, since you obviously want to believe in your materialist religion so bad that your judgement is seriously clouded, even if you don't admit to the seriously flawed entirety of the study, I would like for you to give me your take on just this one damning statement made:
> 
> "Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells could have assembled,* it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself*."
> 
> What does the study even prove in light of this?


Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide *ANY* substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can never prove what the supernatural cause for the universe is so I guess that means we don't really exist?
> 
> 
> 
> In your continued state of stupor, you fail to comprehend that making emphatic claims to supernatural entities which, having no basis in reality, means that your "because I say so" claims are quite silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never answer the question. Your posts are just noise.
Click to expand...

Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide *ANY* substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, since you obviously want to believe in your materialist religion so bad that your judgement is seriously clouded, even if you don't admit to the seriously flawed entirety of the study, I would like for you to give me your take on just this one damning statement made:
> 
> "Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells could have assembled,* it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself*."
> 
> What does the study even prove in light of this?
> 
> 
> 
> Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide *ANY* substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?
Click to expand...


Typical non-response. You don't even have a clue what you are cut and pasting from the atheist websites. When you are actually asked to have an opinion of your own, you clam up, Bro. You are reduced to repeating the same phrase over and over again as if no one will notice your absolute ignorance to the topic at hand. 

What you have failed to grasp, which Hollie also conveniently ignores, is that I am not a Creationists, but an ID Theorist. I make no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer because that would be outside the realm of science. I have, however, presented Stephen Meyers argument for a Designer numerous times here. Hollie just likes to ignore what has been presented in her bullying attempts to make others look foolish but any one who has followed this thread can see she is the real douche', constantly repeating the same tired dribble over and over again when evidence has been presented numerous times to the contrary. Now it looks like you are becoming one of her lackey's. So good luck with that and by the way, no one is falling for your flowery language cover either. Anyone can pick up a dictionary, but hard as you try, no amount of big words will every make you able to respond to a logical argument. I won't waste my time with your foolishness anymore.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, since you obviously want to believe in your materialist religion so bad that your judgement is seriously clouded, even if you don't admit to the seriously flawed entirety of the study, I would like for you to give me your take on just this one damning statement made:
> 
> "Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells could have assembled,* it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself*."
> 
> What does the study even prove in light of this?
> 
> 
> 
> Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide *ANY* substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical non-response. You don't even have a clue what you are cut and pasting from the atheist websites. When you are actually asked to have an opinion of your own, you clam up, Bro. You are reduced to repeating the same phrase over and over again as if no one will notice your absolute ignorance to the topic at hand.
> 
> What you have failed to grasp, which Hollie also conveniently ignores, is that I am not a Creationists, but an ID Theorist. I make no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer because that would be outside the realm of science. I have, however, presented Stephen Meyers argument for a Designer numerous times here. Hollie just likes to ignore what has been presented in her bullying attempts to make others look foolish but any one who has followed this thread can see she is the real douche', constantly repeating the same tired dribble over and over again when evidence has been presented numerous times to the contrary. Now it looks like you are becoming one of her lackey's. So good luck with that and by the way, no one is falling for your flowery language cover either. Anyone can pick up a dictionary, but hard as you try, no amount of big words will every make you able to respond to a logical argument. I won't waste my time with your foolishness anymore.
Click to expand...


As usual, dear, you spend an inordinate amount of time obsessing over my responses to your failed claims of supernaturalism. Further, lets not pretend that your thinly veiled attempts at claims youre an ID theorist is even one claim removed from religious fundamentalism; ie., a YECer.

Like all of the science loathing fundies, your singular contribution to this thread and others is to waste everyones time with cutting and pasting from fundie websites in flaccid attempts to vilify science.

It's a function of fundie creationist polemics to portray ID (rumor, speculation and hearsay), as "science". So-called intelligent design It's a cynical ploy of attempting to add the credibility of the scientific method  and the consensus it brings  to tales and fables that allege a supernatural being. Intelligent design is simply a new veneer slapped on creation science which has been rejected as nonsense by the scientific community.

The evolutionary baggage that all living organisms carry with them is among the most powerful evidence for evolutions truth. And none of it is explicable if evolution had not occurred, and an intelligent designer had been involved. For why would an intelligent designer include anything that was unnecessary at all? It is only special creation that claims perfection. So you are actually arguing against your own beliefs here.

So, back to Harun Yahya you go... and the Ark you slithered in on.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide *ANY* substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical non-response. You don't even have a clue what you are cut and pasting from the atheist websites. When you are actually asked to have an opinion of your own, you clam up, Bro. You are reduced to repeating the same phrase over and over again as if no one will notice your absolute ignorance to the topic at hand.
> 
> What you have failed to grasp, which Hollie also conveniently ignores, is that I am not a Creationists, but an ID Theorist. I make no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer because that would be outside the realm of science. I have, however, presented Stephen Meyers argument for a Designer numerous times here. Hollie just likes to ignore what has been presented in her bullying attempts to make others look foolish but any one who has followed this thread can see she is the real douche', constantly repeating the same tired dribble over and over again when evidence has been presented numerous times to the contrary. Now it looks like you are becoming one of her lackey's. So good luck with that and by the way, no one is falling for your flowery language cover either. Anyone can pick up a dictionary, but hard as you try, no amount of big words will every make you able to respond to a logical argument. I won't waste my time with your foolishness anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, dear, you spend an inordinate amount of time obsessing over my responses to your failed claims of supernaturalism. Further, lets not pretend that your thinly veiled attempts at claims youre an ID theorist is even one claim removed from religious fundamentalism; ie., a YECer.
> 
> Like all of the science loathing fundies, your singular contribution to this thread and others is to waste everyones time with cutting and pasting from fundie websites in flaccid attempts to vilify science.
> 
> It's a function of fundie creationist polemics to portray ID (rumor, speculation and hearsay), as "science". So-called intelligent design It's a cynical ploy of attempting to add the credibility of the scientific method  and the consensus it brings  to tales and fables that allege a supernatural being. Intelligent design is simply a new veneer slapped on creation science which has been rejected as nonsense by the scientific community.
> 
> The evolutionary baggage that all living organisms carry with them is among the most powerful evidence for evolutions truth. And none of it is explicable if evolution had not occurred, and an intelligent designer had been involved. For why would an intelligent designer include anything that was unnecessary at all? It is only special creation that claims perfection. So you are actually arguing against your own beliefs here.
> 
> So, back to Harun Yahya you go... and the Ark you slithered in on.
Click to expand...


You really need some new material...

I am a robot. I am a robot. Do do beep do do deet deet bop beep.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> For why would an intelligent designer include anything that was unnecessary at all? It is only special creation that claims perfection. So you are actually arguing against your own beliefs here.



I don't know, you have appointed yourself gawd of your life so why don't you share what the gawd Hollie would do since you know so much about how the Designer should behave. And please, not the version where you burn all the Christians at the stake, including your intolerant fundie parents, and the only humans that are left are lesbians with a masculine touch, oops, I meant rugged touch.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, since you obviously want to believe in your materialist religion so bad that your judgement is seriously clouded, even if you don't admit to the seriously flawed entirety of the study, I would like for you to give me your take on just this one damning statement made:
> 
> "Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells could have assembled,* it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself*."
> 
> What does the study even prove in light of this?
> 
> 
> 
> Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide *ANY* substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical non-response. You don't even have a clue what you are cut and pasting from the atheist websites. When you are actually asked to have an opinion of your own, you clam up, Bro. You are reduced to repeating the same phrase over and over again as if no one will notice your absolute ignorance to the topic at hand.
> 
> What you have failed to grasp, which Hollie also conveniently ignores, is that I am not a Creationists, but an ID Theorist. I make no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer because that would be outside the realm of science. I have, however, presented Stephen Meyers argument for a Designer numerous times here. Hollie just likes to ignore what has been presented in her bullying attempts to make others look foolish but any one who has followed this thread can see she is the real douche', constantly repeating the same tired dribble over and over again when evidence has been presented numerous times to the contrary. Now it looks like you are becoming one of her lackey's. So good luck with that and by the way, no one is falling for your flowery language cover either. Anyone can pick up a dictionary, but hard as you try, no amount of big words will every make you able to respond to a logical argument. I won't waste my time with your foolishness anymore.
Click to expand...

Steven Myers?

Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For why would an intelligent designer include anything that was unnecessary at all? It is only special creation that claims perfection. So you are actually arguing against your own beliefs here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, you have appointed yourself gawd of your life so why don't you share what the gawd Hollie would do since you know so much about how the Designer should behave. And please, not the version where you burn all the Christians at the stake, including your intolerant fundie parents, and the only humans that are left are lesbians with a masculine touch, oops, I meant rugged touch.
Click to expand...


Your typical flaccid response. Not at all unusual for the self-hating fundie, insecure with his flaccid masculinity.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide *ANY* substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical non-response. You don't even have a clue what you are cut and pasting from the atheist websites. When you are actually asked to have an opinion of your own, you clam up, Bro. You are reduced to repeating the same phrase over and over again as if no one will notice your absolute ignorance to the topic at hand.
> 
> What you have failed to grasp, which Hollie also conveniently ignores, is that I am not a Creationists, but an ID Theorist. I make no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer because that would be outside the realm of science. I have, however, presented Stephen Meyers argument for a Designer numerous times here. Hollie just likes to ignore what has been presented in her bullying attempts to make others look foolish but any one who has followed this thread can see she is the real douche', constantly repeating the same tired dribble over and over again when evidence has been presented numerous times to the contrary. Now it looks like you are becoming one of her lackey's. So good luck with that and by the way, no one is falling for your flowery language cover either. Anyone can pick up a dictionary, but hard as you try, no amount of big words will every make you able to respond to a logical argument. I won't waste my time with your foolishness anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Steven Myers?
> 
> Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?
Click to expand...


You tell me, Bro.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Skimmed the last few pages. Big surprise... Hollie doesn't have any new material and daws is stil in the dark. Hollie has assumed yet another fake screen name Candy Homeslice in an attempt to lend some validation to her whacky posts and she and her other screen name praise each other for a post well done. Druggy Huggy, seeing the cop was gone felt safe to post again. The funniest thing of all is Rugged Touch having the hugest of balls to call YWC out on his credentials. Like she can call anyone out on their qualifications "oh one who conveniently ignores any questions about her false identities and education level". Yep, it's biz as usual.
> 
> Did you miss me?



Well hello UR,I was wondering when sanity would return to the thread. Good to see you back.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> every discovery? You're funny! Like DNA and human consciousness. Please show me DNA's natural cause? The cell's natural cause? Gravity's natural cause? The cause of the universe? Yep Hollie you have it ALL figured out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not knowing all the answers STILL doen't mean that everything was made by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen. That's not a logical conclusion,  in an otherwise logical universe.
Click to expand...


Well it most certainly don't support naturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not knowing all the answers STILL doen't mean that everything was made by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen. That's not a logical conclusion,  in an otherwise logical universe.
> 
> 
> 
> Good post.
> 
> I was hoping the fundie could explain what is supernatural about DNA, gravity or the universe but that would only prompt a lengthy cut and paste from Harun Yahya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to him, to all Creationists in fact. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of your time to expose them for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards that they are; to point out vividly their intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects, so the Creationists' vain, mendacious, anti-reason, reality-denying hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful society.
Click to expand...


He is not a creationist Loki.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to him, to all Creationists in fact. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of your time to expose them for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards that they are; to point out vividly their intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects, so the Creationists' vain, mendacious, anti-reason, reality-denying hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only retards are the last three posters with terrible reading comprehension problems. Hollie's statement is a lie, and your materialist religion has blinded you to the foolishness of her lie. You speak of faith, but it is your faith that allows to to believe that the things I mentioned in my post have a natural cause, because you don't have a single shred of scientific evidence to prove otherwise. So it is by faith you believe, absent from any facts. This is where I ask you to put up or shut up for even one of the items, let's say, DNA for instance. Please show me the scientific "evidence" for a natural cause. I'm not talking about the "just so", "might have", "could have" evolution stories, but real, experimentally verifiable evidence for DNA's natural cause.
> 
> *This is the point the crickets start chirping.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to imply that your anti-reason paradigm is in any way valid, but bhere's a whole world out  there that runs on a natural process called chemistry. Perhaps you've heard of it?
Click to expand...


Now what constructed that order to allow it to continue repeating itself ?

What put it into motion ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again I see that reading concepts that don't exist into specific posts hasn't changed either. Please show me in the specific post above where I claimed supernatural causes. You won't find it so again you are with the strawman. I am assuming your post above, and NP's as well, was intended for the bully Hawly since it is she who made the claim "*every* discovery by science has been shown to have a natural caus...."
> 
> This is a lie, with not one shred of evidence to back it up, as pointed out in my post above. You have chosen to infer the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one discovery by science that has a known supernatural cause, please. I would love to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've asked that same question on several occasions only to be met with the standard fundie pattern of behavior to stutter, mumble and launch into a tirade of calling people liars.
> 
> I've never known a single, verifiable discovery in science that had a supernatural underpinning.
> 
> Why can't the fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?
Click to expand...


I guess we could say how life came from non living matter.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is an explanation from Berkeley ok?
> 
> Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are willing to fall for it. What a joke!!!!
> 
> I was talking about* scientific *evidence that can be replicated in a laboratory. Not "just so" stories and "might have" or "could have" hypothesis.
> 
> Please tell me you are not foolish enough to buy this as REAL SCIENCE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who thinks that the bible is proof that the world was made in 6 days.
> 
> At least scientists are trying to replicate this in a lab and are searching for answers. You on the other hand, have come to the scene of a crime, see someone dead on the ground and because you don't know how to look for real evidence, declare him murdered by an invisible being in another dimension. Any dumber and you could stop breathing. Watch out!
Click to expand...


He is not a creationist. I repeat he is not a creationist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can never prove what the supernatural cause for the universe is so I guess that means we don't really exist?
> 
> 
> 
> In your continued state of stupor, you fail to comprehend that making emphatic claims to supernatural entities which, having no basis in reality, means that your "because I say so" claims are quite silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never answer the question. Your posts are just noise.
Click to expand...


Just like a mutation it destroy's the signal.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know real science hit you in the face, but you lack the honesty of intellectual integrity to admit it. Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide *ANY* substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?
> 
> *"Could have"* is exactly right.
> 
> Unlike you--and your band of superstitious retards--who claim they are absolutely certain of what *did* happen, actual scientists express what "could have" happened because they have the intellectual honesty to admit that they could be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The brainwashing runs deep with this one. There is nothing wrong with speculation under the scientific method. That is how we come up with a testable hypothesis. But when your so called theory above has 43 (!!!!) untested gaps, please be intellectually honest enough to yourself to admit this is a fairytale, not real science. Evolutionary theory has bastardized science to the point you don't even know what it is. Even geophysicist know when they are making predictions about the distant past, to look to the present for NATURAL, observable phenomena as a basis for their predictions. They don't make up a bunch of crap about what *might have* or *could have* happened when their proposed methods *have never been observed * in nature. Real scientist test their might haves and could haves, and try to limit their variable to one or two unknowns, NOT 43!!!!
> 
> Also, I guess you have the right to remain silent on where the digital protein building instructions originated from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. I will remain silent on your logically invalid assertions based upon question-begging presumptions.
> 
> Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide *ANY* substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?
Click to expand...


Well if that's not the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, since you obviously want to believe in your materialist religion so bad that your judgement is seriously clouded, even if you don't admit to the seriously flawed entirety of the study, I would like for you to give me your take on just this one damning statement made:
> 
> "Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells could have assembled,* it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself*."
> 
> What does the study even prove in light of this?
> 
> 
> 
> Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide *ANY* substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical non-response. You don't even have a clue what you are cut and pasting from the atheist websites. When you are actually asked to have an opinion of your own, you clam up, Bro. You are reduced to repeating the same phrase over and over again as if no one will notice your absolute ignorance to the topic at hand.
> 
> What you have failed to grasp, which Hollie also conveniently ignores, is that I am not a Creationists, but an ID Theorist. I make no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer because that would be outside the realm of science. I have, however, presented Stephen Meyers argument for a Designer numerous times here. Hollie just likes to ignore what has been presented in her bullying attempts to make others look foolish but any one who has followed this thread can see she is the real douche', constantly repeating the same tired dribble over and over again when evidence has been presented numerous times to the contrary. Now it looks like you are becoming one of her lackey's. So good luck with that and by the way, no one is falling for your flowery language cover either. Anyone can pick up a dictionary, but hard as you try, no amount of big words will every make you able to respond to a logical argument. I won't waste my time with your foolishness anymore.
Click to expand...


This is totally true,he can't generate one thought on his own,he turns to answer questions with copying and pasting and not even understand what he pasted.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> every discovery? You're funny! Like DNA and human consciousness. Please show me DNA's natural cause? The cell's natural cause? Gravity's natural cause? The cause of the universe? Yep Hollie you have it ALL figured out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not knowing all the answers STILL doen't mean that everything was made by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen. That's not a logical conclusion,  in an otherwise logical universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it most certainly don't support naturalism.
Click to expand...


Of course it does.

Nothing about supermagicalism supports naturalism. Certainly nothing about angry gods supports naturalism.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good post.
> 
> I was hoping the fundie could explain what is supernatural about DNA, gravity or the universe but that would only prompt a lengthy cut and paste from Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to him, to all Creationists in fact. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of your time to expose them for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards that they are; to point out vividly their intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects, so the Creationists' vain, mendacious, anti-reason, reality-denying hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is not a creationist Loki.
Click to expand...


He certainly is.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only retards are the last three posters with terrible reading comprehension problems. Hollie's statement is a lie, and your materialist religion has blinded you to the foolishness of her lie. You speak of faith, but it is your faith that allows to to believe that the things I mentioned in my post have a natural cause, because you don't have a single shred of scientific evidence to prove otherwise. So it is by faith you believe, absent from any facts. This is where I ask you to put up or shut up for even one of the items, let's say, DNA for instance. Please show me the scientific "evidence" for a natural cause. I'm not talking about the "just so", "might have", "could have" evolution stories, but real, experimentally verifiable evidence for DNA's natural cause.
> 
> *This is the point the crickets start chirping.*
> 
> 
> 
> Not to imply that your anti-reason paradigm is in any way valid, but bhere's a whole world out  there that runs on a natural process called chemistry. Perhaps you've heard of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now what constructed that order to allow it to continue repeating itself ?
> 
> What put it into motion ?
Click to expand...


Natural processes.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical non-response. You don't even have a clue what you are cut and pasting from the atheist websites. When you are actually asked to have an opinion of your own, you clam up, Bro. You are reduced to repeating the same phrase over and over again as if no one will notice your absolute ignorance to the topic at hand.
> 
> What you have failed to grasp, which Hollie also conveniently ignores, is that I am not a Creationists, but an ID Theorist. I make no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer because that would be outside the realm of science. I have, however, presented Stephen Meyers argument for a Designer numerous times here. Hollie just likes to ignore what has been presented in her bullying attempts to make others look foolish but any one who has followed this thread can see she is the real douche', constantly repeating the same tired dribble over and over again when evidence has been presented numerous times to the contrary. Now it looks like you are becoming one of her lackey's. So good luck with that and by the way, no one is falling for your flowery language cover either. Anyone can pick up a dictionary, but hard as you try, no amount of big words will every make you able to respond to a logical argument. I won't waste my time with your foolishness anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Steven Myers?
> 
> Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You tell me, Bro.
Click to expand...

I suspect it's because superstitious retards like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for your claims.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one discovery by science that has a known supernatural cause, please. I would love to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked that same question on several occasions only to be met with the standard fundie pattern of behavior to stutter, mumble and launch into a tirade of calling people liars.
> 
> I've never known a single, verifiable discovery in science that had a supernatural underpinning.
> 
> Why can't the fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess we could say how life came from non living matter.
Click to expand...


So... why can't fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are willing to fall for it. What a joke!!!!
> 
> I was talking about* scientific *evidence that can be replicated in a laboratory. Not "just so" stories and "might have" or "could have" hypothesis.
> 
> Please tell me you are not foolish enough to buy this as REAL SCIENCE?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who thinks that the bible is proof that the world was made in 6 days.
> 
> At least scientists are trying to replicate this in a lab and are searching for answers. You on the other hand, have come to the scene of a crime, see someone dead on the ground and because you don't know how to look for real evidence, declare him murdered by an invisible being in another dimension. Any dumber and you could stop breathing. Watch out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is not a creationist. I repeat he is not a creationist.
Click to expand...

You repeat many things which are not true. 

I'm still waiting for you or the other creationist to identify a single discovery in science that has been identified as being of supernatural origins. You insist that supermagical gods are extant and have "designed" life on this planet but you have never identified a single event or instance where this supermagicalism can be discerned. 

It's obvious to any observer that appeals to fear and ignorance may have a resonance with a certain component of society that is objectively ignorant regarding science but why should anyone who has studied science accept your fears and superstitions?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not knowing all the answers STILL doen't mean that everything was made by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen. That's not a logical conclusion,  in an otherwise logical universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it most certainly don't support naturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it does.
> 
> Nothing about supermagicalism supports naturalism. Certainly nothing about angry gods supports naturalism.
Click to expand...


If everything came into existence by naturalism What caused the start of this universe if you attempt to answer this question please do not give me that requires conjecture. Give me hard cold facts,to think that everything came into existence by accident is a large leap of faith because it violates everything we see. Life is caused by an action.Technology is caused by an action. Intelligence is caused by an action. Design is caused by an action.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to him, to all Creationists in fact. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of your time to expose them for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards that they are; to point out vividly their intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects, so the Creationists' vain, mendacious, anti-reason, reality-denying hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is not a creationist Loki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He certainly is.
Click to expand...


They are two different belief systems all though we do have views in common with each other.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to imply that your anti-reason paradigm is in any way valid, but bhere's a whole world out  there that runs on a natural process called chemistry. Perhaps you've heard of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now what constructed that order to allow it to continue repeating itself ?
> 
> What put it into motion ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural processes.
Click to expand...


Hollie give me one example in technology that was not the product of intelligence and why would you draw the line there and not assume at a biological level there was no intelligence needed to design life ?

Funny as intelligent as scientist are even though they have tried they have not been able to design a cell that has the ability to replicate itself with all the technology and complicated machine and the proper enviornments to do so and they can't. Hmm your natural process is beyond our compreshension much like our creator.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steven Myers?
> 
> Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me, Bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suspect it's because superstitious retards like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for your claims.
Click to expand...


When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked that same question on several occasions only to be met with the standard fundie pattern of behavior to stutter, mumble and launch into a tirade of calling people liars.
> 
> I've never known a single, verifiable discovery in science that had a supernatural underpinning.
> 
> Why can't the fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we could say how life came from non living matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... why can't fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?
Click to expand...


I just did, this would violate all known laws as we know them and evidence as we observe it.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now what constructed that order to allow it to continue repeating itself ?
> 
> What put it into motion ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie give me one example in technology that was not the product of intelligence and why would you draw the line there and not assume at a biological level there was no intelligence needed to desing life ?
> 
> Funny as intelligent as scientist are even though they have tried they have not been able to design a cell that has the ability to replicate itself with all the technology and complicated machine and the proper enviornments to do so and they can't. Hmm your natural process is beyond our compreshension much like our creator.
Click to expand...











Funnier still is how your alternative "theory" has at it's fundamental premise an obvious and fatal logical fallacy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie If everything is made up of matter which there is no doubt, where did the matter come from ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we could say how life came from non living matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... why can't fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just did, this would violate all known laws as we know them and evidence as we observe it.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. You're addled with pressing a religious agenda that is frequently at odds with science fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie give me one example in technology that was not the product of intelligence and why would you draw the line there and not assume at a biological level there was no intelligence needed to desing life ?
> 
> Funny as intelligent as scientist are even though they have tried they have not been able to design a cell that has the ability to replicate itself with all the technology and complicated machine and the proper enviornments to do so and they can't. Hmm your natural process is beyond our compreshension much like our creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funnier still is how your alternative "theory" has at it's fundamental premise an obvious and fatal logical fallacy.
Click to expand...



The logical fallacy is your reasoning.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me, Bro.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect it's because superstitious retards like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?*
Click to expand...

What kind of data for your lack of "verifiable evidence or valid logic" for your claims do you expect I should provide?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... why can't fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just did, this would violate all known laws as we know them and evidence as we observe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. You're addled with pressing a religious agenda that is frequently at odds with science fact.
Click to expand...


Which you are unable to present.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect it's because superstitious retards like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for your claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of data for your lack of "verifiable evidence or valid logic" for your claims do you expect I should provide?
Click to expand...


Data that supports your assumptions not conjecture.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie give me one example in technology that was not the product of intelligence and why would you draw the line there and not assume at a biological level there was no intelligence needed to desing life ?
> 
> Funny as intelligent as scientist are even though they have tried they have not been able to design a cell that has the ability to replicate itself with all the technology and complicated machine and the proper enviornments to do so and they can't. Hmm your natural process is beyond our compreshension much like our creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funnier still is how your alternative "theory" has at it's fundamental premise an obvious and fatal logical fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The logical fallacy is your reasoning.
Click to expand...

Ahem. "When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?"


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?*
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of data for your lack of "verifiable evidence or valid logic" for your claims do you expect I should provide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Data that supports your assumptions not conjecture.
Click to expand...

It's not conjecture at all to progress with the assertion that there's no reason to believe that your god exists, when there is no verifiable evidence or valid logic that supports the assertion the it does.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just did, this would violate all known laws as we know them and evidence as we observe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. You're addled with pressing a religious agenda that is frequently at odds with science fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you are unable to present.
Click to expand...


True, I'm pressing no religious agenda. On the other hand, you presented nothing of substance in spite of your claim: "this would violate all known laws as we know them and evidence as we observe it."

Totally unsupported and without substantiation... as usual.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect it's because superstitious retards like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for your claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of data for your lack of "verifiable evidence or valid logic" for your claims do you expect I should provide?
Click to expand...


Really,how many times must I present it to you , How bout explaining how non living matter becomes life ?

How bout proof and not a vivid imagination as your proof.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. You're addled with pressing a religious agenda that is frequently at odds with science fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which you are unable to present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, I'm pressing no religious agenda. On the other hand, you presented nothing of substance in spite of your claim this would violate all known laws as we know them and evidence as we observe it.
Click to expand...


Hollie you have not presented one viable piece of evidence for naturalism you only present conjecture.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funnier still is how your alternative "theory" has at it's fundamental premise an obvious and fatal logical fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The logical fallacy is your reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahem. "When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?"
Click to expand...


I have we know that life reproduces life not non life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of data for your lack of "verifiable evidence or valid logic" for your claims do you expect I should provide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Data that supports your assumptions not conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not conjecture at all to progress with the assertion that there's no reason to believe that your god exists, when there is no verifiable evidence or valid logic that supports the assertion the it does.
Click to expand...


Wrong, the evidence of design is overwhelming in our lives.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?*
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of data for your lack of "verifiable evidence or valid logic" for your claims do you expect I should provide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really,how many times must I present it to you , How bout explaining how non living matter becomes life ?
> 
> How bout proof and not a vivid imagination as your proof.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one imagining anything here.

An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times. We all understand that you find it insufficient to "PROVE" that life arose from non-living matter--we get that. Seriously.

But now it's your turn: Since you're so smugly asserting that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

Are you again going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

The evidence says you most certainly will.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The logical fallacy is your reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem. "When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have we know that life reproduces life not non life.
Click to expand...

Good then. I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Data that supports your assumptions not conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not conjecture at all to progress with the assertion that there's no reason to believe that your god exists, when there is no verifiable evidence or valid logic that supports the assertion the it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, the evidence of design is overwhelming in our lives.
Click to expand...

The "overwhelming" evidence you have presented to support this claim has--WITHOUT EXCEPTION--*requires *the belief of this designer you posit to see it as evidence of this designer you posit. Hence, not valid.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Skimmed the last few pages. Big surprise... Hollie doesn't have any new material and daws is stil in the dark. Hollie has assumed yet another fake screen name Candy Homeslice in an attempt to lend some validation to her whacky posts and she and her other screen name praise each other for a post well done. Druggy Huggy, seeing the cop was gone felt safe to post again. The funniest thing of all is Rugged Touch having the hugest of balls to call YWC out on his credentials. Like she can call anyone out on their qualifications "oh one who conveniently ignores any questions about her false identities and education level". Yep, it's biz as usual.
> 
> Did you miss me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well hello UR,I was wondering when sanity would return to the thread. Good to see you back.
Click to expand...


Thanks, man.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steven Myers?
> 
> Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me, Bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suspect it's because superstitious retards like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for your claims.
Click to expand...


I suspect it's because materialistic lost souls like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence that doesn't require numerous "may haves", "might haves" or "could haves", or valid logic for your claims.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked that same question on several occasions only to be met with the standard fundie pattern of behavior to stutter, mumble and launch into a tirade of calling people liars.
> 
> I've never known a single, verifiable discovery in science that had a supernatural underpinning.
> 
> Why can't the fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we could say how life came from non living matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... why can't fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?
Click to expand...


Just because you continue to* play stupid* doesn't mean it hasn't been presented here. Why don't you pick up a copy of "Signature in the Cell"? 

For a whole $13 you can actually study an opposing viewpoint instead of regurgitating and spewing rehearsed atheistic propaganda.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347989761&sr=8-1&keywords=signature+in+the+cell]Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design: Stephen C. Meyer: 9780061472794: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me, Bro.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect it's because superstitious retards like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect it's because materialistic lost souls like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence that doesn't require numerous "may haves", "might haves" or "could haves", or valid logic for your claims.
Click to expand...

Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanation. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty. 

Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.

Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, have entirely different foundations than beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic. The rational believe what they see. The faithful see what they believe. So while it is obvious that Creationists (among others of a faithful bent) equate science's working hypotheses, candidly asserted speculations, and conditional certainties to the exercise of faith, they are clearly no such thing--because they don't express unconditional certainty like faith does. Such arguments by the faithful ("beleivers", whatever) collapse upon their strawman foundations ... no surprise there.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of data for your lack of "verifiable evidence or valid logic" for your claims do you expect I should provide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really,how many times must I present it to you , How bout explaining how non living matter becomes life ?
> 
> How bout proof and not a vivid imagination as your proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the one imagining anything here.
> 
> An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times.
Click to expand...


I guess if you count a series of 43 guesses with not one modern example of even one of the "so called" natural processes occurring in nature as an explanation then sure you have. 

Here, maybe if I put it in Evolutionary pseudoscienc terminology, you can understand...

An Intelligent Being we can't comprehend *might have* engineered the universe. This Being *could have* visited the planet numerous times throughout history to seed the planet with new life forms. This Being *could be* the source of the life spark that has not been seen or occurred naturally for anywhere from 10,000 to 3.5 billion years, but instead requires a previous generation as its source for who knows how long. This Entity *may have* written the digital code in every cell. 

SETI searchers for ET and no one seems to have a problem with believing other intelligent life exists elsehwere in our universe. No one seems to question the Multi-verses, all of which are "supernatural". Why is it so hard for you to believe in the possibility of a Master Alien that pre-dates the Big Bang? An Entity that is not constrained by time as we understand it? I will tell you why, because your *materialist religion* won't allow you to. To believe in something or someone greater would force a change in your miserable, Christian-hating, sour puss existence.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really,how many times must I present it to you , How bout explaining how non living matter becomes life ?
> 
> How bout proof and not a vivid imagination as your proof.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one imagining anything here.
> 
> An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess if you count a series of 43 guesses with not one modern example of even one of the "so called" natural processes occurring in nature as an explanation then sure you have.
> 
> Here, maybe if I put it in Evolutionary pseudoscienc terminology, you can understand...
> 
> An Intelligent Being we can't comprehend *might have* engineered the universe. This Being *could have* visited the planet numerous times throughout history to seed the planet with new life forms. This Being *could be* the source of the life spark that has not been seen or occurred naturally for anywhere from 10,000 to 3.5 billion years, but instead requires a previous generation as its source for who knows how long. This Entity *may have* written the digital code in every cell.
> 
> SETI searchers for ET and no one seems to have a problem with believing other intelligent life exists elsehwere in our universe. No one seems to question the Multi-verses, all of which are "supernatural". Why is it so hard for you to believe in the possibility of a Master Alien that pre-dates the Big Bang? An Entity that is not constrained by time as we understand it? I will tell you why, because your *materialist religion* won't allow you to. To believe in something or someone greater would force a change in your miserable, Christian-hating, sour puss existence.
Click to expand...

My goodness. What an angry fundie. 

It must be frustrating to propose arguments that rely on belief in magic and supernatural intervention and have others require you to support such nonsense.

No wonder you're so unpleasant.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we could say how life came from non living matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... why can't fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you continue to* play stupid* doesn't mean it hasn't been presented here. Why don't you pick up a copy of "Signature in the Cell"?
> 
> For a whole $13 you can actually study an opposing viewpoint instead of regurgitating and spewing rehearsed atheistic propaganda.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347989761&sr=8-1&keywords=signature+in+the+cell]Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design: Stephen C. Meyer: 9780061472794: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
Click to expand...

Meyer is a hack. Precisely why he shills for the creationist ministry you copy and paste from.

Would you care to describe for us the pre-qualifying agreement signed by those who shill for the ICR?

I posted it for you previously.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect it's because superstitious retards like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for your claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect it's because materialistic lost souls like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence that doesn't require numerous "may haves", "might haves" or "could haves", or valid logic for your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanation. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.
> 
> Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.
> 
> Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, have entirely different foundations than beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic. The rational believe what they see. The faithful see what they believe. So while it is obvious that Creationists (among others of a faithful bent) equate science's working hypotheses, candidly asserted speculations, and conditional certainties to the exercise of faith, they are clearly no such thing--because they don't express unconditional certainty like faith does. Such arguments by the faithful ("beleivers", whatever) collapse upon their strawman foundations ... no surprise there.
Click to expand...


Any time you make up a fairy tale about what happened in the distant past on planet earth, with no evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently, you are exhibiting *IMMENSE FAITH*. And you are liar when you say that science doesn't start from an unconditional certainty. It absolutely does. It originates from your materialist metaphysical belief that matter is the only reality. You start from the pretense of only looking for evidence that fits your worldview. Also, I think we need to differentiate between REAL SCIENCE, like mechanics and most of physics (all of which can be tested and verified by experimental evidence) and the pseudoscience of the "just so" stories of Darwinism. Here's how it works. We need to come up with a naturalistic reason that fits with natural selection for why Giraffe's look like they do. We come up with a "just so" story about how the giraffes with the long neck *may have* survived while the short neck ones didn't during times of drought with no low hanging fruit. Then, with a little Darwinian hocus pocus and a few Charles abra cadabra's: *without a single shred of observable or testable evidence*, poof!!! It is a FACT that the giraffe's long neck is due to natural selection.* You see, Loki, you started from a position of unconditional certainty that Natural Selection has to be true!!  *Again, you are so brainwashed, you fail to see how preposterous it is for someone to take conjecture and speculation, and be so arrogant (or ignorant) and call it the "fact" of evolution. What an absolute joke!! Fact my ass. Get off your pompous high horse that you have so much intellectual honesty. Your whole theory of evolution is based on an unconditional certainty. Any evidence contrary to the just so story of natural selection is thrown out.  

It is a *FACT* that I *may have* been dropped off on earth by aliens and I *could have* been raised by wolves before I *might have* grown three feet in a matter of 2 months. I *could have* been educated at Harvard before I *may have* taught Differential Equations to pygmies in what *could have been* the Australian Outback.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... why can't fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you continue to* play stupid* doesn't mean it hasn't been presented here. Why don't you pick up a copy of "Signature in the Cell"?
> 
> For a whole $13 you can actually study an opposing viewpoint instead of regurgitating and spewing rehearsed atheistic propaganda.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347989761&sr=8-1&keywords=signature+in+the+cell]Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design: Stephen C. Meyer: 9780061472794: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meyer is a hack. Precisely why he shills for the creationist ministry you copy and paste from.
> 
> Would you care to describe for us the pre-qualifying agreement signed by those who shill for the ICR?
> 
> I posted it for you previously.
Click to expand...


You have never even read any opposing material so you can't even engage in the debate. I'm still waiting for you to post a logical response of your own.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie give me one example in technology that was not the product of intelligence and why would you draw the line there and not assume at a biological level there was no intelligence needed to desing life ?
> 
> Funny as intelligent as scientist are even though they have tried they have not been able to design a cell that has the ability to replicate itself with all the technology and complicated machine and the proper enviornments to do so and they can't. Hmm your natural process is beyond our compreshension much like our creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funnier still is how your alternative "theory" has at it's fundamental premise an obvious and fatal logical fallacy.
Click to expand...


Even funnier is how Darwinism does the same thing. 

Except you are too blind, or too stupid, to see it.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> I'm pressing no religious agenda.



I just spit coffee everywhere and fell out of my chair.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem. "When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have we know that life reproduces life not non life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good then. I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
Click to expand...


The scientific argument for a Designer is presented in Signature of the Cell. Go read it and then get back to me with your views on what was presented.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pressing no religious agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just spit coffee everywhere and fell out of my chair.
Click to expand...


The gods are punishing you.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one imagining anything here.
> 
> An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if you count a series of 43 guesses with not one modern example of even one of the "so called" natural processes occurring in nature as an explanation then sure you have.
> 
> Here, maybe if I put it in Evolutionary pseudoscienc terminology, you can understand...
> 
> An Intelligent Being we can't comprehend *might have* engineered the universe. This Being *could have* visited the planet numerous times throughout history to seed the planet with new life forms. This Being *could be* the source of the life spark that has not been seen or occurred naturally for anywhere from 10,000 to 3.5 billion years, but instead requires a previous generation as its source for who knows how long. This Entity *may have* written the digital code in every cell.
> 
> SETI searchers for ET and no one seems to have a problem with believing other intelligent life exists elsehwere in our universe. No one seems to question the Multi-verses, all of which are "supernatural". Why is it so hard for you to believe in the possibility of a Master Alien that pre-dates the Big Bang? An Entity that is not constrained by time as we understand it? I will tell you why, because your *materialist religion* won't allow you to. To believe in something or someone greater would force a change in your miserable, Christian-hating, sour puss existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My goodness. What an angry fundie.
> 
> It must be frustrating to propose arguments that rely on belief in magic and supernatural intervention and have others require you to support such nonsense.
> 
> No wonder you're so unpleasant.
Click to expand...


Not near as frustrating as arguing with a total douche' that can't present even ONE logical response to an argument. Much less remember the difference between me and YWC or recount what was posted one page back.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie give me one example in technology that was not the product of intelligence and why would you draw the line there and not assume at a biological level there was no intelligence needed to desing life ?
> 
> Funny as intelligent as scientist are even though they have tried they have not been able to design a cell that has the ability to replicate itself with all the technology and complicated machine and the proper enviornments to do so and they can't. Hmm your natural process is beyond our compreshension much like our creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funnier still is how your alternative "theory" has at it's fundamental premise an obvious and fatal logical fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even funnier is how Darwinism does the same thing.
> 
> Except you are too blind, or too stupid, to see it.
Click to expand...

Evolution, biology and the fosill record is not "Darwinism". That is a term often used by the science loathing fundies who are both ignorant regarding science and have a religious agenda to press.

It's a shame that fundies are duped by those at Harun Yahya who prey upon the ignorant and gullible.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funnier still is how your alternative "theory" has at it's fundamental premise an obvious and fatal logical fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even funnier is how Darwinism does the same thing.
> 
> Except you are too blind, or too stupid, to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution, biology and the fosill record is not "Darwinism". That is a term often used by the science loathing fundies who are both ignorant regarding science and have a religious agenda to press.
> 
> It's a shame that fundies are duped by those at Harun Yahya who prey upon the ignorant and gullible.
Click to expand...


  Hollie, you might be totally ignorant to the game we play but I am not. If I'm a Creationist, you are a Darwinist. YOU really have brought it to that childishly foolish level.


----------



## UltimateReality

"University of Toronto biochemistry professor Larry Moran is not happy with the results of the ENCODE project, which report evidence of "biochemical functions for 80% of the genome." *Other Darwin-defenders are trying to dismiss this paper as mere "hype".* *[Don't look now Loki, but one of your boy's unconditional certainties is showing. How embarrassing!!]*

Yes that's right -- we're supposed to ignore the intentionally unambiguous abstract of an 18-page Nature paper, the lead out of 30 other simultaneous papers from this project, co-authored by literally hundreds of leading scientists worldwide, because it's "hype." (Read the last two or so pages of the main Nature paper to see the uncommonly long list of international scientists who were involved with this project, and co-authored this paper.) Larry Moran and other vocal Internet Darwin-activists are welcome to disagree and protest these conclusions, but it's clear that the consensus of molecular biologists -- people who actually study how the genome works -- now believe that the idea of "junk DNA" is essentially wrong.

Moran, for his part, thinks that all these other scientists aren't just wrong, but that they are misrepresenting the evidence -- with dire consequences for the public scientific debate over Darwinian evolution. Over on his blog, *he's been filling pages with words, pleading with the ENCODE project researchers, and their friends in the media, to tone down their discussions of these results so as not to lend support to intelligent design (or as Moran unendingly puts it, "the creationists" [Hollie loves to copy this guys attack method])*. He writes, in various posts:"

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/what_an_evoluti_1064101.html


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> "University of Toronto biochemistry professor Larry Moran is not happy with the results of the ENCODE project, which report evidence of "biochemical functions for 80% of the genome." *Other Darwin-defenders are trying to dismiss this paper as mere "hype".* *[Don't look now Loki, but one of your boy's unconditional certainties is showing. How embarrassing!!]*
> 
> Yes that's right -- we're supposed to ignore the intentionally unambiguous abstract of an 18-page Nature paper, the lead out of 30 other simultaneous papers from this project, co-authored by literally hundreds of leading scientists worldwide, because it's "hype." (Read the last two or so pages of the main Nature paper to see the uncommonly long list of international scientists who were involved with this project, and co-authored this paper.) Larry Moran and other vocal Internet Darwin-activists are welcome to disagree and protest these conclusions, but it's clear that the consensus of molecular biologists -- people who actually study how the genome works -- now believe that the idea of "junk DNA" is essentially wrong.
> 
> Moran, for his part, thinks that all these other scientists aren't just wrong, but that they are misrepresenting the evidence -- with dire consequences for the public scientific debate over Darwinian evolution. Over on his blog, *he's been filling pages with words, pleading with the ENCODE project researchers, and their friends in the media, to tone down their discussions of these results so as not to lend support to intelligent design (or as Moran unendingly puts it, "the creationists" [Hollie loves to copy this guys attack method])*. He writes, in various posts:"
> 
> What a Darwin Advocate's Response to the ENCODE Project Tells Us about the Darwin Debate - Evolution News & Views


This is what is known in the science community as "peer review". That concept is not followed in the creationist community for obvious reasons. 

This may come as a shock to you but your gods are not proven by your cutting and pasting an article from a creationist website. Colored and bolded text is not proof of your claims.

Are you at all curious as to why your article is circulated among the YEC / fundie crowd?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even funnier is how Darwinism does the same thing.
> 
> Except you are too blind, or too stupid, to see it.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution, biology and the fosill record is not "Darwinism". That is a term often used by the science loathing fundies who are both ignorant regarding science and have a religious agenda to press.
> 
> It's a shame that fundies are duped by those at Harun Yahya who prey upon the ignorant and gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, you might be totally ignorant to the game we play but I am not. If I'm a Creationist, you are a Darwinist. YOU really have brought it to that childishly foolish level.
Click to expand...

Obviously you have not a clue as to the science of evolution. And let's not pretend that your cutting and pasting is not in lock step ( goose step is a better term) with the YEC / creationist cabal.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect it's because materialistic lost souls like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence that doesn't require numerous "may haves", "might haves" or "could haves", or valid logic for your claims.
> 
> 
> 
> Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanation. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.
> 
> Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.
> 
> Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, have entirely different foundations than beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic. The rational believe what they see. The faithful see what they believe. So while it is obvious that Creationists (among others of a faithful bent) equate science's working hypotheses, candidly asserted speculations, and conditional certainties to the exercise of faith, they are clearly no such thing--because they don't express unconditional certainty like faith does. Such arguments by the faithful ("beleivers", whatever) collapse upon their strawman foundations ... no surprise there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any time you make up a fairy tale about what happened in the distant past on planet earth, with no evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently, you are exhibiting *IMMENSE FAITH*.
Click to expand...

Hence, the assertion that your "God" thing is entirely faith. Thank you.

Also FYI, valid logic applied to "evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently" counts as well. Something that your "God" thing assertion do not enjoy either.



UltimateReality said:


> And you are liar when you say that science doesn't start from an unconditional certainty.


No I'm not.



UltimateReality said:


> It absolutely does.


It does not, Mr. "Could-Have."



UltimateReality said:


> It originates from your materialist metaphysical belief that matter is the only reality.


You should get out more. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps, so that you might become acquainted with quantum-field theory.

It's a nice day, why don't you go out right now?



UltimateReality said:


> You start from the pretense of only looking for evidence that fits your worldview.


Quite right there. Folks like me begin with that far-fetched world-view notion that reality is not subject to our perceptions; that reality is objective; that no amount of believing in leprechauns, or unicorns, or invisible-white-fathers-who-live-in-the-sky will make them objectively real.







UltimateReality said:


> Also, I think we need to differentiate between REAL SCIENCE, like mechanics and most of physics (all of which can be tested and verified by experimental evidence) and the pseudoscience of the "just so" stories of Darwinism. Here's how it works. We need to come up with a naturalistic reason that fits with natural selection for why Giraffe's look like they do. We come up with a "just so" story about how the giraffes with the long neck *may have* survived while the short neck ones didn't during times of drought with no low hanging fruit. Then, with a little Darwinian hocus pocus and a few Charles abra cadabra's: *without a single shred of observable or testable evidence*, poof!!! It is a FACT that the giraffe's long neck is due to natural selection.


*No. It's a hypothesis founded upon facts.



UltimateReality said:



			You see, Loki, you started from a position of unconditional certainty that Natural Selection has to be true!!
		
Click to expand...

*No. I didn't. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence leads to a conclusion that does not require or suggest leprechauns of any description.



UltimateReality said:


> Again, you are so brainwashed, you fail to see how preposterous it is for someone to take conjecture and speculation, and be so arrogant (or ignorant) and call it the "fact" of evolution. What an absolute joke!! Fact my ass. Get off your pompous high horse that you have so much intellectual honesty. Your whole theory of evolution is based on an unconditional certainty. Any evidence contrary to the just so story of natural selection is thrown out.


Not at all so. Scientists do not share in the absolute certainty that is so characteristic of faith.

The uncertainties candidly understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed to express absolute certainty. Your faith paradigm just does not apply.

Sorry about your retarded luck.



UltimateReality said:


> It is a *FACT* that I *may have* been dropped off on earth by aliens and I *could have* been raised by wolves before I *might have* grown three feet in a matter of 2 months. I *could have* been educated at Harvard before I *may have* taught Differential Equations to pygmies in what *could have been* the Australian Outback.


Yes. And there exists an ultimate creator who lives in an ultimate reality. These are all certainly facts; but are they facts of reality? Does valid logic applied to any verifiable logically valid evidence support the assertion that those facts are consistent with objective reality? If not, then you're just talking fairy-tales, Count Chocula.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie give me one example in technology that was not the product of intelligence and why would you draw the line there and not assume at a biological level there was no intelligence needed to desing life ?
> 
> Funny as intelligent as scientist are even though they have tried they have not been able to design a cell that has the ability to replicate itself with all the technology and complicated machine and the proper enviornments to do so and they can't. Hmm your natural process is beyond our compreshension much like our creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funnier still is how your alternative "theory" has at it's fundamental premise an obvious and fatal logical fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even funnier is how Darwinism does the same thing.
> 
> Except you are too blind, or too stupid, to see it.
Click to expand...

Despite the clearly obvious opportunity you have to demonstrate this, you fail to do so. Why is that, Cupcake?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have we know that life reproduces life not non life.
> 
> 
> 
> Good then. I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The scientific argument for a Designer is presented in Signature of the Cell. Go read it and then get back to me with your views on what was presented.
Click to expand...

No. I've read plenty of crappy creationist tracts, and they all follow the same lame format:1) Discredit the theory of evolution as if doing so proves creationism.
2) Apply a special-pleading appeal to ignorance for why asserting a creator is valid.
3) Apply a question-begging argument that proves the existence of a creator and validates the evidence that a creator exists.
4) Declare that they cannot be "proven" wrong.
5) Ignore that their premises required no "proof" to begin with.
6) Commence with claims of victory that they refuse to substantiate.​If this one is different, please present the argument yourself.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> "University of Toronto biochemistry professor Larry Moran is not happy with the results of the ENCODE project, which report evidence of "biochemical functions for 80% of the genome." *Other Darwin-defenders are trying to dismiss this paper as mere "hype".* *[Don't look now Loki, but one of your boy's unconditional certainties is showing. How embarrassing!!]*
> 
> Yes that's right -- we're supposed to ignore the intentionally unambiguous abstract of an 18-page Nature paper, the lead out of 30 other simultaneous papers from this project, co-authored by literally hundreds of leading scientists worldwide, because it's "hype." (Read the last two or so pages of the main Nature paper to see the uncommonly long list of international scientists who were involved with this project, and co-authored this paper.) Larry Moran and other vocal Internet Darwin-activists are welcome to disagree and protest these conclusions, but it's clear that the consensus of molecular biologists -- people who actually study how the genome works -- now believe that the idea of "junk DNA" is essentially wrong.
> 
> Moran, for his part, thinks that all these other scientists aren't just wrong, but that they are misrepresenting the evidence -- with dire consequences for the public scientific debate over Darwinian evolution. Over on his blog, *he's been filling pages with words, pleading with the ENCODE project researchers, and their friends in the media, to tone down their discussions of these results so as not to lend support to intelligent design (or as Moran unendingly puts it, "the creationists" [Hollie loves to copy this guys attack method])*. He writes, in various posts:"
> 
> What a Darwin Advocate's Response to the ENCODE Project Tells Us about the Darwin Debate - Evolution News & Views


_...but it's clear that the consensus of molecular biologists -- people who actually study how the genome works -- now believe that the idea of "junk DNA" is essentially wrong._​WOW! These guys really ought to get off their pompous high horses! What arrogance! Such hubris of absolute certainty in the community of scientists! So embarrassing!</sarcasm>


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution, biology and the fosill record is not "Darwinism". That is a term often used by the science loathing fundies who are both ignorant regarding science and have a religious agenda to press.
> 
> It's a shame that fundies are duped by those at Harun Yahya who prey upon the ignorant and gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you might be totally ignorant to the game we play but I am not. If I'm a Creationist, you are a Darwinist. YOU really have brought it to that childishly foolish level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you have not a clue as to the science of evolution. And let's not pretend that your cutting and pasting is not in lock step ( goose step is a better term) with the YEC / creationist cabal.
Click to expand...


You're response has nothing to do with what I just posted!!! You really are totally clueless. I am starting to think you are just an algorithm on someone's computer somewhere that responds to search terms with pre-programmed responses.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanation. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.
> 
> Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.
> 
> Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, have entirely different foundations than beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic. The rational believe what they see. The faithful see what they believe. So while it is obvious that Creationists (among others of a faithful bent) equate science's working hypotheses, candidly asserted speculations, and conditional certainties to the exercise of faith, they are clearly no such thing--because they don't express unconditional certainty like faith does. Such arguments by the faithful ("beleivers", whatever) collapse upon their strawman foundations ... no surprise there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you make up a fairy tale about what happened in the distant past on planet earth, with no evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently, you are exhibiting *IMMENSE FAITH*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hence, the assertion that your "God" thing is entirely faith. Thank you.
> 
> Also FYI, valid logic applied to "evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently" counts as well. Something that your "God" thing assertion do not enjoy either.
> 
> No I'm not.
> 
> It does not, Mr. "Could-Have."
> 
> You should get out more. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps, so that you might become acquainted with quantum-field theory.
> 
> It's a nice day, why don't you go out right now?
> 
> Quite right there. Folks like me begin with that far-fetched world-view notion that reality is not subject to our perceptions; that reality is objective; that no amount of believing in leprechauns, or unicorns, or invisible-white-fathers-who-live-in-the-sky will make them objectively real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's a hypothesis founded upon facts.
> 
> No. I didn't. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence leads to a conclusion that does not require or suggest leprechauns of any description.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are so brainwashed, you fail to see how preposterous it is for someone to take conjecture and speculation, and be so arrogant (or ignorant) and call it the "fact" of evolution. What an absolute joke!! Fact my ass. Get off your pompous high horse that you have so much intellectual honesty. Your whole theory of evolution is based on an unconditional certainty. Any evidence contrary to the just so story of natural selection is thrown out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all so. Scientists do not share in the absolute certainty that is so characteristic of faith.
> 
> The uncertainties candidly understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed to express absolute certainty. Your faith paradigm just does not apply.
> 
> Sorry about your retarded luck.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a *FACT* that I *may have* been dropped off on earth by aliens and I *could have* been raised by wolves before I *might have* grown three feet in a matter of 2 months. I *could have* been educated at Harvard before I *may have* taught Differential Equations to pygmies in what *could have been* the Australian Outback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. And there exists an ultimate creator who lives in an ultimate reality. These are all certainly facts; but are they facts of reality? Does valid logic applied to any verifiable logically valid evidence support the assertion that those facts are consistent with objective reality? If not, then you're just talking fairy-tales, Count Chocula.
Click to expand...


Loki, you can deny the truth about your so called "science" all day long but it won't make it so. Darwinism is steeped in prejudice and purposeful outcomes. But I guess your version of reality is your version, regardless of whether or not you can see how skewed your view of it is from your twisted perception vantage point. You don't need to go outside, why, you can just alter realty and enjoy the outdoors right there at your computer. Later, you can say it is a fact that you* may have* gone outside.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good then. I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific argument for a Designer is presented in Signature of the Cell. Go read it and then get back to me with your views on what was presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I've read plenty of crappy creationist tracts, and they all follow the same lame format:1) Discredit the theory of evolution as if doing so proves creationism.
> 2) Apply a special-pleading appeal to ignorance for why asserting a creator is valid.
> 3) Apply a question-begging argument that proves the existence of a creator and validates the evidence that a creator exists.
> 4) Declare that they cannot be "proven" wrong.
> 5) Ignore that their premises required no "proof" to begin with.
> 6) Commence with claims of victory that they refuse to substantiate.​If this one is different, please present the argument yourself.
Click to expand...


Done ad nauseum. Do a search on this thread. I'm done repeating myself for the slow ones.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funnier still is how your alternative "theory" has at it's fundamental premise an obvious and fatal logical fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even funnier is how Darwinism does the same thing.
> 
> Except you are too blind, or too stupid, to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite the clearly obvious opportunity you have to demonstrate this, you fail to do so. Why is that, Cupcake?
Click to expand...


Same reason all your cut and pasting is an EPIC FAIL, donut.


----------



## UltimateReality

And Loki, while you are at it, since it is based on so much "evidence", please post a link to a study with some observable and testable evidence that the giraffe's neck is the result of natural selection. It should be based on a modern day study of feeding patterns, rainfall measurements, and offspring neck length, not to mention a detailed dietary and migration analysis. 

I'll be waiting...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you make up a fairy tale about what happened in the distant past on planet earth, with no evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently, you are exhibiting *IMMENSE FAITH*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, the assertion that your "God" thing is entirely faith. Thank you.
> 
> Also FYI, valid logic applied to "evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently" counts as well. Something that your "God" thing assertion do not enjoy either.
> 
> No I'm not.
> 
> It does not, Mr. "Could-Have."
> 
> You should get out more. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps, so that you might become acquainted with quantum-field theory.
> 
> It's a nice day, why don't you go out right now?
> 
> Quite right there. Folks like me begin with that far-fetched world-view notion that reality is not subject to our perceptions; that reality is objective; that no amount of believing in leprechauns, or unicorns, or invisible-white-fathers-who-live-in-the-sky will make them objectively real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's a hypothesis founded upon facts.
> 
> No. I didn't. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence leads to a conclusion that does not require or suggest leprechauns of any description.
> 
> Not at all so. Scientists do not share in the absolute certainty that is so characteristic of faith.
> 
> The uncertainties candidly understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed to express absolute certainty. Your faith paradigm just does not apply.
> 
> Sorry about your retarded luck.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a *FACT* that I *may have* been dropped off on earth by aliens and I *could have* been raised by wolves before I *might have* grown three feet in a matter of 2 months. I *could have* been educated at Harvard before I *may have* taught Differential Equations to pygmies in what *could have been* the Australian Outback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. And there exists an ultimate creator who lives in an ultimate reality. These are all certainly facts; but are they facts of reality? Does valid logic applied to any verifiable logically valid evidence support the assertion that those facts are consistent with objective reality? If not, then you're just talking fairy-tales, Count Chocula.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki, you can deny the truth about your so called "science" all day long but it won't make it so. Darwinism is steeped in prejudice and purposeful outcomes. But I guess your version of reality is your version, regardless of whether or not you can see how skewed your view of it is from your twisted perception vantage point. You don't need to go outside, why, you can just alter realty and enjoy the outdoors right there at your computer. Later, you can say it is a fact that you* may have* gone outside.
Click to expand...


 "So-called" science is a term totally predictable coming from a fundie creationist. 

It's an indisputable fact that all of human history is defined by rational (natural) explanations for existence. If any fundie creationist has evidence of a supernatural explanation, they should present it. So far, we only have babble from two fundies representing one version if a sectarian god, utterly unable to offer even the barest if evidence for their gods.  Anecdotal claims of supernaturalism and creationism are superfluous in regards to the existence of humanity, and non-compelling in regards to the existence of god(s), especially when fundies proclaim by their lack of presentable evidence that their claims are illogical and irrational. I can scarcely provide a better argument in favor of discrediting fundie creationist claims than let the fundies babble on in self-refuting arguments.

Facts and evidence leads the modern study of evolution, biological sciences, paleontology and related fields to reject supernatural/creationist explanations for that which is often clearly and deliberately explained by the scientific method

Outrageous claims by fundie creationists aside, there is no evidence at all for their religious claims. There are testable and verifiable methods in science that lead to answers to the cause of existence, evidences that have left clear and unmistakable tracks in their wake.


----------



## koshergrl

And anyone who puts faith in science knows that science frequently exposes some things that people never in a million years thought could be so....

And this is the problem with the committed atheists...they blind themselves to the possibilities of science. Anything is possible, including the existence of a supreme being. The fact that there's no evidence NOW is never an indication that it doesn't exist.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question: is everything in the universe a natural product? Yes? Then anything they affect makes it a natural cause. In other words, there are no un-natural elements in the universe, so no un-natural causes either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Everything in the universe does not have a natural cause including the universe itself. You are spewing your religious Dogma as if it is fact. It's called Materialism and the teaching of your religion that matter is the only reality, as stated above. You religion does not alleviate you from the burden of scientific proof when Hollie makes the bogus Materialist claim above that EVERY discovery has a natural cause. Prove it!! Show me by scientific method, how the first information in the DNA digital code originated and replicate the process in a laboratory.
> 
> This is the point where Hollie spews the same tired rhetoric of "Turtles all the way down" regarding who made God. The causal relationship is only valid for entities with a beginning. It is a widely held scientific belief the universe had a beginning, therefore, it must have had a cause. Since that cause could not have been "natural", the answer to Ima's question is a resounding "NO!", unless of course Ima, you believe in a supernatural force, that is, one outside of nature or the known universe.
> 
> The Judeo-Christian God claimed his name was "I AM". He has always existed, infinitely in the past. He has no beginning and therefore, no necessity of a cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've corrected your nonsensical claim above:
> 
> The _Easter Bunny_ claimed his name was "I AM". He has always existed, infinitely in the past. He has no beginning and therefore, no necessity of a cause.
> 
> 
> The above is a boilerplate creationist claim. I suspect it was taken from Harun Yahya or one of the other YEC fundie sites.
> 
> In a bizarre attempt to justify the fraudulent claim that since gravity is an invisible force, that somehow supports the claim of one or more of the gods (a similarly invisible force) must then also be true. The fundie apologist depends upon a pointless scam. Trying to make this nonsensical red herring relevant to his already hopeless argument, he applies this concept with gross incompetence of the most unsophisticated sort.
> 
> Its a comical scam that the goofy fundies try repeatedly. What the fundies fail to address is that natural forces lend themselves to repeatable and verifiable testing. Even the fundies can test for the properties of gravity. How does anyone perform repeatable teats for the gods?
> Call 'em hateful, call 'em backward, but don't call 'em unpredictable.
Click to expand...

HI guys! the only provable historical figure to say "I AM" is POPEYE  the full quote is "I AM WOT I AM"
carry on...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only retards are the last three posters with terrible reading comprehension problems. Hollie's statement is a lie, and your materialist religion has blinded you to the foolishness of her lie. You speak of faith, but it is your faith that allows to to believe that the things I mentioned in my post have a natural cause, because you don't have a single shred of scientific evidence to prove otherwise. So it is by faith you believe, absent from any facts. This is where I ask you to put up or shut up for even one of the items, let's say, DNA for instance. Please show me the scientific "evidence" for a natural cause. I'm not talking about the "just so", "might have", "could have" evolution stories, but real, experimentally verifiable evidence for DNA's natural cause.
> 
> *This is the point the crickets start chirping.*
> 
> 
> 
> Not to imply that your anti-reason paradigm is in any way valid, but bhere's a whole world out  there that runs on a natural process called chemistry. Perhaps you've heard of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now what constructed that order to allow it to continue repeating itself ?
> 
> What put it into motion ?
Click to expand...

still asking already answered questions!


----------



## daws101

read through the last few pages and  YWC is STILL ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED 
UR is still yammering about materialistic religion as the devil's handiwork (oxymoron).
KG flew in on her broom stick babbled something meaningless then flew  away..
still wating for gods' barcode...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> And Loki, while you are at it, since it is based on so much "evidence", please post a link to a study with some observable and testable evidence that the giraffe's neck is the result of natural selection. It should be based on a modern day study of feeding patterns, rainfall measurements, and offspring neck length, not to mention a detailed dietary and migration analysis.
> 
> I'll be waiting...



Totally predictable, as usual. You should know that your arguments are stereotypical, boilerplate creationist attempts to vilify science.

You should be aware that your creationist ministries were debunked decades ago when they tried to float the "Giraffe Neck" conspiracy in attempts to discredit science. 

But keep trying. With a bit more effort you can become the best little hater you can be. 

Predictably, the creationist claims have been refuted by the elements we call knowledge, science and enlightenment. Its just a shame that the fundies would hope to drag themselves and others back into the Dark Ages of fear and superstition.

Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists

The Neck of the Giraffe - The Panda's Thumb

CB325: Giraffe neck and blood pressure


There are many more refutations of your creationist ministry nonsense. Want more? Just ask.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> read through the last few pages and  YWC is STILL ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED
> UR is still yammering about materialistic religion as the devil's handiwork (oxymoron).
> KG flew in on her broom stick babbled something meaningless then flew  away..
> still wating for gods' barcode...



I'm going from memory here, Daws, but I thought it was you who ripped the creationists a new one with a detailed response to the creationist "Giraffe Neck" conspiracy.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> read through the last few pages and  YWC is STILL ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED
> UR is still yammering about materialistic religion as the devil's handiwork (oxymoron).
> KG flew in on her broom stick babbled something meaningless then flew  away..
> still wating for gods' barcode...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going from memory here, Daws, but I thought it was you who ripped the creationists a new one with a detailed response to the creationist "Giraffe Neck" conspiracy.
Click to expand...

your memory is correct, but as always  the facts never stop them from babbling.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you make up a fairy tale about what happened in the distant past on planet earth, with no evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently, you are exhibiting *IMMENSE FAITH*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, the assertion that your "God" thing is entirely faith. Thank you.
> 
> Also FYI, valid logic applied to "evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently" counts as well. Something that your "God" thing assertion do not enjoy either.
> 
> No I'm not.
> 
> It does not, Mr. "Could-Have."
> 
> You should get out more. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps, so that you might become acquainted with quantum-field theory.
> 
> It's a nice day, why don't you go out right now?
> 
> Quite right there. Folks like me begin with that far-fetched world-view notion that reality is not subject to our perceptions; that reality is objective; that no amount of believing in leprechauns, or unicorns, or invisible-white-fathers-who-live-in-the-sky will make them objectively real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's a hypothesis founded upon facts.
> 
> No. I didn't. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence leads to a conclusion that does not require or suggest leprechauns of any description.
> 
> Not at all so. Scientists do not share in the absolute certainty that is so characteristic of faith.
> 
> The uncertainties candidly understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed to express absolute certainty. Your faith paradigm just does not apply.
> 
> Sorry about your retarded luck.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a *FACT* that I *may have* been dropped off on earth by aliens and I *could have* been raised by wolves before I *might have* grown three feet in a matter of 2 months. I *could have* been educated at Harvard before I *may have* taught Differential Equations to pygmies in what *could have been* the Australian Outback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. And there exists an ultimate creator who lives in an ultimate reality. These are all certainly facts; but are they facts of reality? Does valid logic applied to any verifiable logically valid evidence support the assertion that those facts are consistent with objective reality? If not, then you're just talking fairy-tales, Count Chocula.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki, you can deny the truth about your so called "science" all day long but it won't make it so.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? It looks like you think you've made some kind of point, but this assertion is senseless from it premise to its conclusion.

Not at all surprising from someone who is so confused about reality that you went right from "25 "could haves" and 18 "may haves"" right to "you are liar when you say that science doesn't start from an unconditional certainty."



UltimateReality said:


> Darwinism is steeped in prejudice and purposeful outcomes. But I guess your version of reality is your version, regardless of whether or not you can see how skewed your view of it is from your twisted perception vantage point. You don't need to go outside, why, you can just alter realty and enjoy the outdoors right there at your computer. Later, you can say it is a fact that you* may have* gone outside.


"Prejudice" and "twisted perception vantage point" is evidenced by the cognitive dissonance of your incoherent attacks upon "Darwinism."

You clearly have no coherently principled issue with "Darwinism." Just as you've arbitrarily declared creationism to be "the truth," you've just arbitrarily declared evolution wrong--and you just pick *ANY* attack that you deem handy (rather than sensible or logically valid, for instance) in the moment.

You have provided prima-facie evidence of your close-minded prejudice against the theory of evolution.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific argument for a Designer is presented in Signature of the Cell. Go read it and then get back to me with your views on what was presented.
> 
> 
> 
> No. I've read plenty of crappy creationist tracts, and they all follow the same lame format:1) Discredit the theory of evolution as if doing so proves creationism.
> 2) Apply a special-pleading appeal to ignorance for why asserting a creator is valid.
> 3) Apply a question-begging argument that proves the existence of a creator and validates the evidence that a creator exists.
> 4) Declare that they cannot be "proven" wrong.
> 5) Ignore that their premises required no "proof" to begin with.
> 6) Commence with claims of victory that they refuse to substantiate.​If this one is different, please present the argument yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Done ad nauseum. Do a search on this thread. I'm done repeating myself for the slow ones.
Click to expand...

Done never. If such evidence was ever actually presented, you'd at least provide a link to it.

But the fact of the matter is, you and your retarded tribe *NEVER* provide such links, because you cannot link to posts that do not exist.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, the assertion that your "God" thing is entirely faith. Thank you.
> 
> Also FYI, valid logic applied to "evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently" counts as well. Something that your "God" thing assertion do not enjoy either.
> 
> No I'm not.
> 
> It does not, Mr. "Could-Have."
> 
> You should get out more. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps, so that you might become acquainted with quantum-field theory.
> 
> It's a nice day, why don't you go out right now?
> 
> Quite right there. Folks like me begin with that far-fetched world-view notion that reality is not subject to our perceptions; that reality is objective; that no amount of believing in leprechauns, or unicorns, or invisible-white-fathers-who-live-in-the-sky will make them objectively real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's a hypothesis founded upon facts.
> 
> No. I didn't. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence leads to a conclusion that does not require or suggest leprechauns of any description.
> 
> Not at all so. Scientists do not share in the absolute certainty that is so characteristic of faith.
> 
> The uncertainties candidly understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed to express absolute certainty. Your faith paradigm just does not apply.
> 
> Sorry about your retarded luck.
> 
> Yes. And there exists an ultimate creator who lives in an ultimate reality. These are all certainly facts; but are they facts of reality? Does valid logic applied to any verifiable logically valid evidence support the assertion that those facts are consistent with objective reality? If not, then you're just talking fairy-tales, Count Chocula.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, you can deny the truth about your so called "science" all day long but it won't make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you talking about? It looks like you think you've made some kind of point, but this assertion is senseless from it premise to its conclusion.
> 
> Not at all surprising from someone who is so confused about reality that you went right from "25 "could haves" and 18 "may haves"" right to "you are liar when you say that science doesn't start from an unconditional certainty."
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism is steeped in prejudice and purposeful outcomes. But I guess your version of reality is your version, regardless of whether or not you can see how skewed your view of it is from your twisted perception vantage point. You don't need to go outside, why, you can just alter realty and enjoy the outdoors right there at your computer. Later, you can say it is a fact that you* may have* gone outside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Prejudice" and "twisted perception vantage point" is evidenced by the cognitive dissonance of your incoherent attacks upon "Darwinism."
> 
> You clearly have no coherently principled issue with "Darwinism." Just as you've arbitrarily declared creationism to be "the truth," you've just arbitrarily declared evolution wrong--and you just pick *ANY* attack that you deem handy (rather than sensible or logically valid, for instance) in the moment.
> 
> You have provided prima-facie evidence of your close-minded prejudice against the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...


Hello, McFly??? I am not a Creationist. Evolution is wrong. Its a sham... pseudoscience not based in any semblance of the scientific method.

Still waiting on you giraffe study. Regarding the your "observable" cartoon, feel free to find a giraffe study that also includes some fossil evidence as well.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even funnier is how Darwinism does the same thing.
> 
> Except you are too blind, or too stupid, to see it.
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the clearly obvious opportunity you have to demonstrate this, you fail to do so. Why is that, Cupcake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same reason all your cut and pasting is an EPIC FAIL, donut.
Click to expand...

You can't call it my "EPIC FAIL" when you "EPIC FAIL" to demonstrate your assertion despite the clearly obvious opportunity to do so.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> And Loki, while you are at it, since it is based on so much "evidence", please post a link to a study with some observable and testable evidence that the giraffe's neck is the result of natural selection. It should be based on a modern day study of feeding patterns, rainfall measurements, and offspring neck length, not to mention a detailed dietary and migration analysis.
> 
> I'll be waiting...


Apparently Hollie beat me to it.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Facts and evidence leads the modern study of evolution, biological sciences, paleontology and related fields....



Suuuuuree. Facts and evidence. And the moon as made of cheese too isn't it Hollie? Doesn't the treatment facility your in have any other activities than sitting in front of a computer?


----------



## LOki

koshergrl said:


> And anyone who puts faith in science knows that science frequently exposes some things that people never in a million years thought could be so....
> 
> And this is the problem with the committed atheists...they blind themselves to the possibilities of science. Anything is possible, including the existence of a supreme being. The fact that there's no evidence NOW is never an indication that it doesn't exist.


Yes it is.

Not conclusively so--with the absolute certainty of undeniable proof you asshats demand--but the fact that there's no evidence NOW is certainly an indication that this "supreme being" of yours doesn't exist.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Loki, while you are at it, since it is based on so much "evidence", please post a link to a study with some observable and testable evidence that the giraffe's neck is the result of natural selection. It should be based on a modern day study of feeding patterns, rainfall measurements, and offspring neck length, not to mention a detailed dietary and migration analysis.
> 
> I'll be waiting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally predictable, as usual. You should know that your arguments are stereotypical, boilerplate creationist attempts to vilify science.
> 
> You should be aware that your creationist ministries were debunked decades ago when they tried to float the "Giraffe Neck" conspiracy in attempts to discredit science.
> 
> But keep trying. With a bit more effort you can become the best little hater you can be.
> 
> Predictably, the creationist claims have been refuted by the elements we call knowledge, science and enlightenment. It&#8217;s just a shame that the fundies would hope to drag themselves and others back into the Dark Ages of fear and superstition.
> 
> Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists
> 
> The Neck of the Giraffe - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> CB325: Giraffe neck and blood pressure
> 
> 
> There are many more refutations of your creationist ministry nonsense. Want more? Just ask.
Click to expand...


Holllie, did you actually read the links you just posted? I did, and I'm not sure where they refuted the "just so" giraffe neck natural selection story you Darwinists are so fond of putting in textbooks. You probably should actually read the stuff you cut and paste from now on so you don't look even more like a complete idiot than you already do.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Loki, while you are at it, since it is based on so much "evidence", please post a link to a study with some observable and testable evidence that the giraffe's neck is the result of natural selection. It should be based on a modern day study of feeding patterns, rainfall measurements, and offspring neck length, not to mention a detailed dietary and migration analysis.
> 
> I'll be waiting...
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently Hollie beat me to it.
Click to expand...


HA! HA! HA! You obviously didn't read the links either. Careful who you put your trust in, cheesecake, because Hollie just made you look like a complete fool.


----------



## Hollie

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Loki, while you are at it, since it is based on so much "evidence", please post a link to a study with some observable and testable evidence that the giraffe's neck is the result of natural selection. It should be based on a modern day study of feeding patterns, rainfall measurements, and offspring neck length, not to mention a detailed dietary and migration analysis.
> 
> I'll be waiting...
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently Hollie beat me to it.
Click to expand...


I didn't mean to cut in line, Loki. I just find creationist supernaturalism-speak to be so much babble.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, the assertion that your "God" thing is entirely faith. Thank you.
> 
> Also FYI, valid logic applied to "evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently" counts as well. Something that your "God" thing assertion do not enjoy either.
> 
> No I'm not.
> 
> It does not, Mr. "Could-Have."
> 
> You should get out more. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps, so that you might become acquainted with quantum-field theory.
> 
> It's a nice day, why don't you go out right now?
> 
> Quite right there. Folks like me begin with that far-fetched world-view notion that reality is not subject to our perceptions; that reality is objective; that no amount of believing in leprechauns, or unicorns, or invisible-white-fathers-who-live-in-the-sky will make them objectively real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's a hypothesis founded upon facts.
> 
> No. I didn't. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence leads to a conclusion that does not require or suggest leprechauns of any description.
> 
> Not at all so. Scientists do not share in the absolute certainty that is so characteristic of faith.
> 
> The uncertainties candidly understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed to express absolute certainty. Your faith paradigm just does not apply.
> 
> Sorry about your retarded luck.
> 
> Yes. And there exists an ultimate creator who lives in an ultimate reality. These are all certainly facts; but are they facts of reality? Does valid logic applied to any verifiable logically valid evidence support the assertion that those facts are consistent with objective reality? If not, then you're just talking fairy-tales, Count Chocula.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, you can deny the truth about your so called "science" all day long but it won't make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you talking about? It looks like you think you've made some kind of point, but this assertion is senseless from it premise to its conclusion.
> 
> Not at all surprising from someone who is so confused about reality that you went right from "25 "could haves" and 18 "may haves"" right to "you are liar when you say that science doesn't start from an unconditional certainty."
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism is steeped in prejudice and purposeful outcomes. But I guess your version of reality is your version, regardless of whether or not you can see how skewed your view of it is from your twisted perception vantage point. You don't need to go outside, why, you can just alter realty and enjoy the outdoors right there at your computer. Later, you can say it is a fact that you* may have* gone outside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Prejudice" and "twisted perception vantage point" is evidenced by the cognitive dissonance of your incoherent attacks upon "Darwinism."
> 
> You clearly have no coherently principled issue with "Darwinism." Just as you've arbitrarily declared creationism to be "the truth," you've just arbitrarily declared evolution wrong--and you just pick *ANY* attack that you deem handy (rather than sensible or logically valid, for instance) in the moment.
> 
> You have provided prima-facie evidence of your close-minded prejudice against the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...


Oooooh, prima facie. Now you are speaking my cop language. By the way, are you a charter member of Thesaurus.com?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, you can deny the truth about your so called "science" all day long but it won't make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? It looks like you think you've made some kind of point, but this assertion is senseless from it premise to its conclusion.
> 
> Not at all surprising from someone who is so confused about reality that you went right from "25 "could haves" and 18 "may haves"" right to "you are liar when you say that science doesn't start from an unconditional certainty."
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism is steeped in prejudice and purposeful outcomes. But I guess your version of reality is your version, regardless of whether or not you can see how skewed your view of it is from your twisted perception vantage point. You don't need to go outside, why, you can just alter realty and enjoy the outdoors right there at your computer. Later, you can say it is a fact that you* may have* gone outside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Prejudice" and "twisted perception vantage point" is evidenced by the cognitive dissonance of your incoherent attacks upon "Darwinism."
> 
> You clearly have no coherently principled issue with "Darwinism." Just as you've arbitrarily declared creationism to be "the truth," you've just arbitrarily declared evolution wrong--and you just pick *ANY* attack that you deem handy (rather than sensible or logically valid, for instance) in the moment.
> 
> You have provided prima-facie evidence of your close-minded prejudice against the theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello, McFly??? I am not a Creationist.
Click to expand...

You certainly are. Call yourself what you like, but there is no substantive difference between ID-Theorists and Creationists ... except for the greater integrity of intellectual honesty Creationists enjoy over ID-Theorists.



UltimateReality said:


> Evolution is wrong. Its a sham... pseudoscience not based in any semblance of the scientific method.


If you had anything but strawman arguments to discredit evolution you'd have brought them long ago.

If you had *ANY* alternative theory that was not a special-pleading, question-begging appeal-to-ignorance, you'd have produced it long ago.

You have nothing but your superstition inspired hatred for anything that doesn't advance the glorification of your God.



UltimateReality said:


> Still waiting on you giraffe study. Regarding the your "observable" cartoon, feel free to find a giraffe study that also includes some fossil evidence as well.


I trust that Hollie has you covered, apparently daws101 took care of you too. I see no point in piling upon the suffering of dumb animals.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Loki, while you are at it, since it is based on so much "evidence", please post a link to a study with some observable and testable evidence that the giraffe's neck is the result of natural selection. It should be based on a modern day study of feeding patterns, rainfall measurements, and offspring neck length, not to mention a detailed dietary and migration analysis.
> 
> I'll be waiting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally predictable, as usual. You should know that your arguments are stereotypical, boilerplate creationist attempts to vilify science.
> 
> You should be aware that your creationist ministries were debunked decades ago when they tried to float the "Giraffe Neck" conspiracy in attempts to discredit science.
> 
> But keep trying. With a bit more effort you can become the best little hater you can be.
> 
> Predictably, the creationist claims have been refuted by the elements we call knowledge, science and enlightenment. Its just a shame that the fundies would hope to drag themselves and others back into the Dark Ages of fear and superstition.
> 
> Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists
> 
> The Neck of the Giraffe - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> CB325: Giraffe neck and blood pressure
> 
> 
> There are many more refutations of your creationist ministry nonsense. Want more? Just ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holllie, did you actually read the links you just posted? I did, and I'm not sure where they refuted the "just so" giraffe neck natural selection story you Darwinists are so fond of putting in textbooks. You probably should actually read the stuff you cut and paste from now on so you don't look even more like a complete idiot than you already do.
Click to expand...


I did read the links. That's why I posted them. If you had read through them you might have discovered that there is nothing at all supernatural about Giraffe necks. 

As noted, daws has already addressed your silly claim. Why raise an issue again, you already slithered away from. 

As we have seen consistently, you have this insensate need to denigrate the science of evolution believing that denigrating science will somehow prove your creationist gods.

What we see in nature is not design but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes utter dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact horrible in that systems collapse easily, they can go extinct easily in numerous cases if one element a species relies on is destroyed, they are woefully susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- a round of thanks for the smallpox and AIDS blueprints!) and the general amount of waste is magnificent in its scope. The point is that it's inefficient because nature isn't intellectually directed. It's happenstance, using the best possible way available. Evolution also sometimes retains things it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.

The whole point is, an Intelligent Designer would have no need for such things as vestigial bones yet they are there. Either god sucks as an engineer, or he purposely makes things look like they are not designed, which of course creates conflicts in interpretation. Why? Why purposely make it look like evolution, when you want everyone to believe in Creation?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Loki, while you are at it, since it is based on so much "evidence", please post a link to a study with some observable and testable evidence that the giraffe's neck is the result of natural selection. It should be based on a modern day study of feeding patterns, rainfall measurements, and offspring neck length, not to mention a detailed dietary and migration analysis.
> 
> I'll be waiting...
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently Hollie beat me to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HA! HA! HA! You obviously didn't read the links either. Careful who you put your trust in, cheesecake, because Hollie just made you look like a complete fool.
Click to expand...

You're right I didn't.

I know I don't have to with your application of the meaningless "'just so' story" appendix to everything "Darwinist."


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts and evidence leads the modern study of evolution, biological sciences, paleontology and related fields....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suuuuuree. Facts and evidence. And the moon as made of cheese too isn't it Hollie? Doesn't the treatment facility your in have any other activities than sitting in front of a computer?
Click to expand...


I see nothing in your creationist babbling to refute evolutionary science. The best you can offer is silly spam. Speaking of the moon, why not explain to us your understanding of allah splitting the moon. 

What you cannot refute is the _fact_ of our continuing exploration and understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution is growing and improving. BTW, It is fascinating to notice that creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation. 

[Note: this is where your stupor intensifies as you sit, slack-jawed and dumbfounded] 

Once again the creationist is going to be obligated to do a lot of speculative special pleadings to account for the anomalies...

the anomalies that the evidence-supported paradigm of evolution demonstrably, comfortably, and logically explains.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Done never. If such evidence was ever actually presented, you'd at least provide a link to it.
> 
> But the fact of the matter is, you and your retarded tribe *NEVER* provide such links, because you cannot link to posts that do not exist.



Guess the jokes on you fruitjuice. By they way, what happened to your "angry black man" avatar?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-298.html#post5445945

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-300.html#post5467744

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-317.html#post5509431

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-316.html#post5508749

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-315.html#post5507181

"You have totally failed to grasp the concept. Darwin and Lyell both said if we want to understand the distant past, we don't come up with some wacky explanation, we look at what is happening in the present. You really are making it more difficult that it is. In the present, the only source we find for digital code is an intelligent agent, that is, in the case of the binary code, a human is the designer. Therefore, the only known source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. Using Darwin's and Lyell's methodology, we can conclude that the digital code in dna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_numeral_system ) must have had an intelligent source. Unlike Creationism, ID does not get into theological discussions or postulations about who the intelligent source of dna is, only that the best explanation based on the present is that DNA had an intelligent source, and is not from some random process. In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

From Wiki:

"A binary code is a way of representing text or computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular symbol or instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 256 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different symbols, letters or instructions.

In computing and telecommunication, binary codes are used for any of a variety of methods of encoding data, such as character strings, into bit strings. Those methods may be fixed-width or variable-width. In a fixed-width binary code, each letter, digit, or other character, is represented by a bit string of the same length; that bit string, interpreted as a binary number, is usually displayed in code tables in octal, decimal or hexadecimal notation. There are many character sets and many character encodings for them."


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the clearly obvious opportunity you have to demonstrate this, you fail to do so. Why is that, Cupcake?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason all your cut and pasting is an EPIC FAIL, donut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't call it my "EPIC FAIL" when you "EPIC FAIL" to demonstrate your assertion despite the clearly obvious opportunity to do so.
Click to expand...


Whatever you say "Yahweh of misinformation".


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? It looks like you think you've made some kind of point, but this assertion is senseless from it premise to its conclusion.
> 
> Not at all surprising from someone who is so confused about reality that you went right from "25 "could haves" and 18 "may haves"" right to "you are liar when you say that science doesn't start from an unconditional certainty."
> 
> "Prejudice" and "twisted perception vantage point" is evidenced by the cognitive dissonance of your incoherent attacks upon "Darwinism."
> 
> You clearly have no coherently principled issue with "Darwinism." Just as you've arbitrarily declared creationism to be "the truth," you've just arbitrarily declared evolution wrong--and you just pick *ANY* attack that you deem handy (rather than sensible or logically valid, for instance) in the moment.
> 
> You have provided prima-facie evidence of your close-minded prejudice against the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello, McFly??? I am not a Creationist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You certainly are. Call yourself what you like, but there is no substantive difference between ID-Theorists and Creationists ... except for the greater integrity of intellectual honesty Creationists enjoy over ID-Theorists.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is wrong. Its a sham... pseudoscience not based in any semblance of the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you had anything but strawman arguments to discredit evolution you'd have brought them long ago.
> 
> If you had *ANY* alternative theory that was not a special-pleading, question-begging appeal-to-ignorance, you'd have produced it long ago.
> 
> You have nothing but your superstition inspired hatred for anything that doesn't advance the glorification of your God.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting on you giraffe study. Regarding the your "observable" cartoon, feel free to find a giraffe study that also includes some fossil evidence as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I trust that Hollie has you covered, apparently daws101 took care of you too. I see no point in piling upon the suffering of dumb animals.
Click to expand...


Because there isn't one. You aren't fooling anyone foolish man.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Speaking of the moon, why not explain to us your understanding of *allah* splitting the moon.



Were you bounced on your head as a baby? I have only said it 500 times that I am of the Judeo-Christian persuasion.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of the moon, why not explain to us your understanding of *allah* splitting the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man you are seriously stupid. I have all said 500 times that I am of the Judeo-Christian persuasion.
Click to expand...


You seriously don't know your gods.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Done never. If such evidence was ever actually presented, you'd at least provide a link to it.
> 
> But the fact of the matter is, you and your retarded tribe *NEVER* provide such links, because you cannot link to posts that do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess the jokes on you fruitjuice. By they way, what happened to your "angry black man" avatar?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-298.html#post5445945
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-300.html#post5467744
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-317.html#post5509431
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-316.html#post5508749
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-315.html#post5507181
> 
> "You have totally failed to grasp the concept. Darwin and Lyell both said if we want to understand the distant past, we don't come up with some wacky explanation, we look at what is happening in the present. You really are making it more difficult that it is. In the present, the only source we find for digital code is an intelligent agent, that is, in the case of the binary code, a human is the designer. Therefore, the only known source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. Using Darwin's and Lyell's methodology, we can conclude that the digital code in dna (Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) must have had an intelligent source. Unlike Creationism, ID does not get into theological discussions or postulations about who the intelligent source of dna is, only that the best explanation based on the present is that DNA had an intelligent source, and is not from some random process. In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> "A binary code is a way of representing text or computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular symbol or instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 256 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different symbols, letters or instructions.
> 
> In computing and telecommunication, binary codes are used for any of a variety of methods of encoding data, such as character strings, into bit strings. Those methods may be fixed-width or variable-width. In a fixed-width binary code, each letter, digit, or other character, is represented by a bit string of the same length; that bit string, interpreted as a binary number, is usually displayed in code tables in octal, decimal or hexadecimal notation. There are many character sets and many character encodings for them."
Click to expand...

Yes. We've seen this. In fact, we've all seen literally hundreds of special-pleading, question-begging, appeals to ignorance just like this "digital code" you persist in peddling--only many of those others didn't add equivocation to the list of their fallacious strategies.

Not that there's any chance at all that you're going to link rather than rationalize some excuse for not linking--Please link to this evidence you posted that is NOT a special-pleading, question-begging, appeals to ignorance.


----------



## BiZoN

I believe in evolution and the "big bang" (or whatever the next 'beginning' theory might be).

The only question I'm waiting for to be answered is: How did 'existence' come to be?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> If you had anything but strawman arguments to discredit evolution you'd have brought them long ago.



I see. Because in your twisted version of reality, if you haven't looked for it, then it doesn't exist. The whole theory of evolution and natural selection rests on the concept of fitness. Yet, like most of Darwinism, the concept is vague at best, and certainly not up to REAL scientific standards.

To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, just look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment. For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffes long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought.

It sounds eminently reasonable, as such "just so" stories usually do. Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this: First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves. Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed at belly height or below. *And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches  a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.[*18]

Another problem with the usual sort of fitness theorizing becomes evident when you consider the unity of the organism and the multifunctionality of its parts. Holdrege remarks of the elephant that it stands sometimes on its back legs and extends its trunk to reach high limbs  but no one thinks that the elephant developed its trunk as a result of selection pressures to reach higher food. The trunk develops within a complex, multifaceted, interwoven unity. It belongs to that unity, not to a single isolated function. The effort to analyze out of this unity a particular trait and assign it a separate causal fitness is always artificial. This is certainly true of the giraffe, whose long neck not only allows feeding from high branches, but also raises the head to where the animal has the protection of a large field of view (the giraffes vision is much more developed than its sense of smell), serves as an arm for the use of the head as a club in battles between males, and plays a vital role as a kind of pendulum enabling the animals graceful galloping movement across the African plain.


----------



## UltimateReality

Along with his anecdote about the wolf, Bethell argued that evolutionary theory based on natural selection (survival of the fittest) is vacuous: it states that, first, evolution can be explained by the fact that, on the whole, only the fitter organisms survive and achieve reproductive success; and second, what makes an organism fit is the fact that it survives and successfully reproduces. This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological  *it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce.* *[Begging the Question-see response below]*

If we have no practical way to sum up and assess the fitness or adaptive value of the traits of an organism apart from measurements of survival rates (evolutionary success), then on what basis can we use the idea of survival of the fittest (natural selection) to explain evolutionary success  as opposed to using it merely as a *blank check for freely inventing explanations of the sort commonly derided as just-so stories.*

More than a decade later, Beatty remarked that the precise meaning of fitness has yet to be settled, in spite of the fact  or perhaps because of the fact  that the term is so central to evolutionary thought.[29] This is, if anything, even more emphatically true today. The concept remains troubled, as it has been from the very beginning, with little agreement on how to make it a workable part of evolutionary theory. Indeed, the consensus view, as Roberta L. Millstein and Robert A. Skipper, Jr., write in The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology, is that biologists and philosophers have yet to provide an adequate interpretation of fitness.[30] And Lewontin, together with University of Missouri philosopher André Ariew, expresses the conviction that no concept in evolutionary biology has been more confusing than that of fitness.[31] *Yet the neo-Darwinian theory of natural selection hinges, in its status ... as empirical science, upon a reasonable understanding of what fitness means.*[32]

This is a stunning place to find ourselves, given the confident pronouncements we heard issuing from Dennett and Dawkins at the outset of our investigation. Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain  *namely, the organisms fitness  cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable.* How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration.

In any case, it is startling to realize that the entire brief for demoting human beings, and organisms in general, to meaningless scraps of molecular machinery  a demotion that fuels the long-running science-religion wars and that, as shocking revelation, supposedly stands on a par with Copernicuss heliocentric proposal  rests on the vague conjunction of two scarcely creditable concepts: the randomness of mutations and the fitness of organisms. And, strangely, this shocking revelation has been sold to us in the context of a descriptive biological literature that, from the molecular level on up, remains almost nothing but a documentation of the meaningfully organized, goal-directed stories of living creatures.

This something random looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. *It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a Randomness of the gaps, demanding an extraordinarily blind faith.* At the very least, we have a right to ask, Can you be a little more explicit here? A faith that fills the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the organism with a potent meaninglessness capable of transforming everything else into an illusion is a faith that could benefit from some minimal grounding. Otherwise, we can hardly avoid suspecting that the importance of randomness in the minds of the faithful is due to its being the only presumed scrap of a weapon in a compulsive struggle to deny all the obvious meaning of our lives.

The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

This is the point where Hollie launches her Ad Hollimen attacks, since she is incapable of launching a logical argument in rebuttal to some of the juicier points in this article.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Done never. If such evidence was ever actually presented, you'd at least provide a link to it.
> 
> But the fact of the matter is, you and your retarded tribe *NEVER* provide such links, because you cannot link to posts that do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess the jokes on you fruitjuice. By they way, what happened to your "angry black man" avatar?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-298.html#post5445945
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-300.html#post5467744
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-317.html#post5509431
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-316.html#post5508749
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-315.html#post5507181
> 
> "You have totally failed to grasp the concept. Darwin and Lyell both said if we want to understand the distant past, we don't come up with some wacky explanation, we look at what is happening in the present. You really are making it more difficult that it is. In the present, the only source we find for digital code is an intelligent agent, that is, in the case of the binary code, a human is the designer. Therefore, the only known source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. Using Darwin's and Lyell's methodology, we can conclude that the digital code in dna (Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) must have had an intelligent source. Unlike Creationism, ID does not get into theological discussions or postulations about who the intelligent source of dna is, only that the best explanation based on the present is that DNA had an intelligent source, and is not from some random process. In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> "A binary code is a way of representing text or computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular symbol or instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 256 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different symbols, letters or instructions.
> 
> In computing and telecommunication, binary codes are used for any of a variety of methods of encoding data, such as character strings, into bit strings. Those methods may be fixed-width or variable-width. In a fixed-width binary code, each letter, digit, or other character, is represented by a bit string of the same length; that bit string, interpreted as a binary number, is usually displayed in code tables in octal, decimal or hexadecimal notation. There are many character sets and many character encodings for them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. We've seen this. In fact, we've all seen literally hundreds of special-pleading, question-begging, appeals to ignorance just like this "digital code" you persist in peddling--only many of those others didn't add equivocation to the list of their fallacious strategies.
> 
> Not that there's any chance at all that you're going to link rather than rationalize some excuse for not linking--Please link to this evidence you posted that is NOT a special-pleading, question-begging, appeals to ignorance.
Click to expand...


Guess we can add this link to your repertoire in addition to Thesaurus.com: Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

The other folks may not have an understanding of fallacies, but I can read. Please tell me what part of the Meyer argument is begging the question???

_Begging the Question

A form of circular reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from premises that presuppose the conclusion. Normally, the point of good reasoning is to start out at one place and end up somewhere new, namely having reached the goal of increasing the degree of reasonable belief in the conclusion. The point is to make progress, but in cases of begging the question there is no progress.

Example:

    &#8220;Women have rights,&#8221; said the Bullfighters Association president. &#8220;But women shouldn&#8217;t fight bulls because a bullfighter is and should be a man.&#8221;

The president is saying basically that women shouldn&#8217;t fight bulls because women shouldn&#8217;t fight bulls. This reasoning isn&#8217;t making any progress._

I will go back and bold the actual use of the fallacy in the article I posted above. 

*So let me get this straight, you're saying dna is not a quaternary digital code???*


----------



## UltimateReality

*Special Pleading*

_Special pleading is a form of inconsistency in which the reasoner doesnt apply his or her principles consistently. It is the fallacy of applying a general principle to various situations but not applying it to a special situation that interests the arguer even though the general principle properly applies to that special situation, too.

Example:

    Everyone has a duty to help the police do their job, no matter who the suspect is. That is why we must support investigations into corruption in the police department. No person is above the law. Of course, if the police come knocking on my door to ask about my neighbors and the robberies in our building, I know nothing. Im not about to rat on anybody.

In our example, the principle of helping the police is applied to investigations of police officers but not to ones neighbors._

Loki, please cite the specific example in my post that corresponds to your accusation.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had anything but strawman arguments to discredit evolution you'd have brought them long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see. Because in your twisted version of reality, if you haven't looked for it, then it doesn't exist. The whole theory of evolution and natural selection rests on the concept of fitness. Yet, like most of Darwinism, the concept is vague at best, and certainly not up to REAL scientific standards.
> 
> To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, just look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment. For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffes long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought.
> 
> It sounds eminently reasonable, as such "just so" stories usually do. Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this: First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves. Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed at belly height or below. *And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches  a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.[*18]
> 
> Another problem with the usual sort of fitness theorizing becomes evident when you consider the unity of the organism and the multifunctionality of its parts. Holdrege remarks of the elephant that it stands sometimes on its back legs and extends its trunk to reach high limbs  but no one thinks that the elephant developed its trunk as a result of selection pressures to reach higher food. The trunk develops within a complex, multifaceted, interwoven unity. It belongs to that unity, not to a single isolated function. The effort to analyze out of this unity a particular trait and assign it a separate causal fitness is always artificial. This is certainly true of the giraffe, whose long neck not only allows feeding from high branches, but also raises the head to where the animal has the protection of a large field of view (the giraffes vision is much more developed than its sense of smell), serves as an arm for the use of the head as a club in battles between males, and plays a vital role as a kind of pendulum enabling the animals graceful galloping movement across the African plain.
Click to expand...

You can't just limit "fitness" to reaching food for the purposes of "debunking" evolution, only to expound--in the same fucking post no less!--upon all the other ways a trait may contribute to an organism's fitness.

Your "just so" caricature of natural selection is nothing but a strawman argument posited to discredit evolution as if doing so would prove your creationism--just as predicted.


----------



## UltimateReality

*Appeal to Ignorance
*
_The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms: (1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false. (2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true. The fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fallacy is also called Argument from Ignorance.

Example:

    Nobody has ever proved to me theres a God, so I know there is no God._

Funny you should throw this one around, because Darwinian theory does this ALL THE TIME.


----------



## BiZoN

Blah blah blah ...

bottom line : NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS ....


/fin


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had anything but strawman arguments to discredit evolution you'd have brought them long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see. Because in your twisted version of reality, if you haven't looked for it, then it doesn't exist. The whole theory of evolution and natural selection rests on the concept of fitness. Yet, like most of Darwinism, the concept is vague at best, and certainly not up to REAL scientific standards.
> 
> To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, just look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment. For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffes long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought.
> 
> It sounds eminently reasonable, as such "just so" stories usually do. Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this: First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves. Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed at belly height or below. *And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches  a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.[*18]
> 
> Another problem with the usual sort of fitness theorizing becomes evident when you consider the unity of the organism and the multifunctionality of its parts. Holdrege remarks of the elephant that it stands sometimes on its back legs and extends its trunk to reach high limbs  but no one thinks that the elephant developed its trunk as a result of selection pressures to reach higher food. The trunk develops within a complex, multifaceted, interwoven unity. It belongs to that unity, not to a single isolated function. The effort to analyze out of this unity a particular trait and assign it a separate causal fitness is always artificial. This is certainly true of the giraffe, whose long neck not only allows feeding from high branches, but also raises the head to where the animal has the protection of a large field of view (the giraffes vision is much more developed than its sense of smell), serves as an arm for the use of the head as a club in battles between males, and plays a vital role as a kind of pendulum enabling the animals graceful galloping movement across the African plain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't just limit "fitness" to reaching food for the purposes of "debunking" evolution, only to expound--in the same fucking post no less!--upon all the other ways a trait may contribute to an organism's fitness.
> 
> Your "just so" caricature of natural selection is nothing but a strawman argument posited to discredit evolution as if doing so would prove your creationism--just as predicted.
Click to expand...


Wow, your reading comprehension sucks too. The point in espousing the other traits was to provide examples of how NOT cut and dry Darwinists make the concept of fitness out to be. Hey "Mr. I can throw Fallacies around to pretend I'm smart", please denote what part of this argument is a strawman? Which specific claims about evolutionary thought in the article are not actual claims of Darwinists? *If you want to throw out fallacy accusations, be prepared to back them up. *


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> This is the point where Hollie launches her Ad Hollimen attacks, since she is incapable of launching a logical argument in rebuttal to some of the juicier points in this article.



I'm under no obligation to "refute" your endless cutting and pasting. You and the other creationist have similar habits. You cut and paste volumes of material from fundie creationist websites (material and concepts you don't understand), and then expect others to "refute" that material. 

It's not surprising that you failed to address my earlier posts because that would have required you to actually defend your creationist fantasies.

Speaking of "Ad Hollimen" attacks, I note that your best efforts amount not to cutting and pasting but juvenile name-calling.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> *Appeal to Ignorance
> *
> _The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms: (1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false. (2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true. The fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fallacy is also called Argument from Ignorance.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Nobody has ever proved to me theres a God, so I know there is no God._
> 
> Funny you should throw this one around, because Darwinian theory does this ALL THE TIME.



Actually,  Darwinian theory does no such thing. Evolutionary theory makes no appeals to designer gods. Because you're unable to understand the topic you're hoping to denigrate, that makes you a poor candidate for entering these discussions.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> *So let me get this straight, you're saying dna is not a quaternary digital code???*



Not in connection with the fundie creationist tag you're hoping to assign to it.

I believe you and the other fundie had tried earlier to add the label "digital machines" to DNA code. Those terms are lifted from creationist ministries.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had anything but strawman arguments to discredit evolution you'd have brought them long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see. Because in your twisted version of reality, if you haven't looked for it, then it doesn't exist. The whole theory of evolution and natural selection rests on the concept of fitness. Yet, like most of Darwinism, the concept is vague at best, and certainly not up to REAL scientific standards.
> 
> To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, just look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment. For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffe&#8217;s long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought.
> 
> It sounds eminently reasonable, as such "just so" stories usually do. Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this: First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, &#8220;so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves.&#8221; Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed &#8220;at belly height or below.&#8221; *And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches &#8212; a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.[*18]
> 
> Another problem with the usual sort of fitness theorizing becomes evident when you consider the unity of the organism and the multifunctionality of its parts. Holdrege remarks of the elephant that it &#8220;stands sometimes on its back legs and extends its trunk to reach high limbs &#8212; but no one thinks that the elephant developed its trunk as a result of selection pressures to reach higher food.&#8221; The trunk develops within a complex, multifaceted, interwoven unity. It &#8220;belongs&#8221; to that unity, not to a single isolated function. The effort to analyze out of this unity a particular trait and assign it a separate causal fitness is always artificial. This is certainly true of the giraffe, whose long neck not only allows feeding from high branches, but also raises the head to where the animal has the protection of a large field of view (the giraffe&#8217;s vision is much more developed than its sense of smell), serves as an &#8220;arm&#8221; for the use of the head as a &#8220;club&#8221; in battles between males, and plays a vital role as a kind of pendulum enabling the animal&#8217;s graceful galloping movement across the African plain.
Click to expand...


Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

Your Giraffe'ism conspiracy theory was addressed and refuted  earlier.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess the jokes on you fruitjuice. By they way, what happened to your "angry black man" avatar?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-298.html#post5445945
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-300.html#post5467744
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-317.html#post5509431
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-316.html#post5508749
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-315.html#post5507181
> 
> "You have totally failed to grasp the concept. Darwin and Lyell both said if we want to understand the distant past, we don't come up with some wacky explanation, we look at what is happening in the present. You really are making it more difficult that it is. In the present, the only source we find for digital code is an intelligent agent, that is, in the case of the binary code, a human is the designer. Therefore, the only known source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. Using Darwin's and Lyell's methodology, we can conclude that the digital code in dna (Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) must have had an intelligent source. Unlike Creationism, ID does not get into theological discussions or postulations about who the intelligent source of dna is, only that the best explanation based on the present is that DNA had an intelligent source, and is not from some random process. In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> "A binary code is a way of representing text or computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular symbol or instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 256 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different symbols, letters or instructions.
> 
> In computing and telecommunication, binary codes are used for any of a variety of methods of encoding data, such as character strings, into bit strings. Those methods may be fixed-width or variable-width. In a fixed-width binary code, each letter, digit, or other character, is represented by a bit string of the same length; that bit string, interpreted as a binary number, is usually displayed in code tables in octal, decimal or hexadecimal notation. There are many character sets and many character encodings for them."
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We've seen this. In fact, we've all seen literally hundreds of special-pleading, question-begging, appeals to ignorance just like this "digital code" you persist in peddling--only many of those others didn't add equivocation to the list of their fallacious strategies.
> 
> Not that there's any chance at all that you're going to link rather than rationalize some excuse for not linking--Please link to this evidence you posted that is NOT a special-pleading, question-begging, appeals to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess we can add this link to your repertoire in addition to Thesaurus.com: Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
> 
> The other folks may not have an understanding of fallacies, but I can read. Please tell me what part of the Meyer argument is begging the question???
> 
> _Begging the Question
> 
> A form of circular reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from premises that presuppose the conclusion. Normally, the point of good reasoning is to start out at one place and end up somewhere new, namely having reached the goal of increasing the degree of reasonable belief in the conclusion. The point is to make progress, but in cases of begging the question there is no progress.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Women have rights, said the Bullfighters Association president. But women shouldnt fight bulls because a bullfighter is and should be a man.
> 
> The president is saying basically that women shouldnt fight bulls because women shouldnt fight bulls. This reasoning isnt making any progress._
> 
> I will go back and bold the actual use of the fallacy in the article I posted above.
> 
> *So let me get this straight, you're saying dna is not a quaternary digital code???*
Click to expand...

It's quaternary, it's digital, it's not:
"A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
"a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
"a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
"A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
"A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
"A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
"a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
"a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"
"a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
"a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
"a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"
"Computing program instructions;"
It is *NOT* a code in the equivocating manner in which you intend to use it.

It is the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.

DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> *Special Pleading*
> 
> _Special pleading is a form of inconsistency in which the reasoner doesnt apply his or her principles consistently. It is the fallacy of applying a general principle to various situations but not applying it to a special situation that interests the arguer even though the general principle properly applies to that special situation, too.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Everyone has a duty to help the police do their job, no matter who the suspect is. That is why we must support investigations into corruption in the police department. No person is above the law. Of course, if the police come knocking on my door to ask about my neighbors and the robberies in our building, I know nothing. Im not about to rat on anybody.
> 
> In our example, the principle of helping the police is applied to investigations of police officers but not to ones neighbors._
> 
> Loki, please cite the specific example in my post that corresponds to your accusation.


Everything was coded for--except for your coder. The information that organizes all life requires intelligence--except for the life of your coder. Intelligence can't come from nothing--except for your coder. Your coder is exempt from requiring coding for no intellectually rigorous reason.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> *Appeal to Ignorance
> *
> _The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms: (1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false. (2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true. The fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fallacy is also called Argument from Ignorance.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Nobody has ever proved to me theres a God, so I know there is no God._
> 
> Funny you should throw this one around, because Darwinian theory does this ALL THE TIME.


*Strawman.*


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see. Because in your twisted version of reality, if you haven't looked for it, then it doesn't exist. The whole theory of evolution and natural selection rests on the concept of fitness. Yet, like most of Darwinism, the concept is vague at best, and certainly not up to REAL scientific standards.
> 
> To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, just look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment. For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffes long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought.
> 
> It sounds eminently reasonable, as such "just so" stories usually do. Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this: First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves. Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed at belly height or below. *And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches  a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.[*18]
> 
> Another problem with the usual sort of fitness theorizing becomes evident when you consider the unity of the organism and the multifunctionality of its parts. Holdrege remarks of the elephant that it stands sometimes on its back legs and extends its trunk to reach high limbs  but no one thinks that the elephant developed its trunk as a result of selection pressures to reach higher food. The trunk develops within a complex, multifaceted, interwoven unity. It belongs to that unity, not to a single isolated function. The effort to analyze out of this unity a particular trait and assign it a separate causal fitness is always artificial. This is certainly true of the giraffe, whose long neck not only allows feeding from high branches, but also raises the head to where the animal has the protection of a large field of view (the giraffes vision is much more developed than its sense of smell), serves as an arm for the use of the head as a club in battles between males, and plays a vital role as a kind of pendulum enabling the animals graceful galloping movement across the African plain.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't just limit "fitness" to reaching food for the purposes of "debunking" evolution, only to expound--in the same fucking post no less!--upon all the other ways a trait may contribute to an organism's fitness.
> 
> Your "just so" caricature of natural selection is nothing but a strawman argument posited to discredit evolution as if doing so would prove your creationism--just as predicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, your reading comprehension sucks too.
Click to expand...

No. My reading comprehension is just fine.



UltimateReality said:


> The point in espousing the other traits was to provide examples of how NOT cut and dry *Darwinists* make the concept of fitness out to be.


STRAWMAN, YOU STUPID FUCK.

Evolutionists DO NOT make the concept of "fitness" out to be so "cut and dried."

What an insufferable douche you are.



UltimateReality said:


> Hey "Mr. I can throw Fallacies around to pretend I'm smart", please denote what part of this argument is a strawman? Which specific claims about evolutionary thought in the article are not actual claims of Darwinists? *If you want to throw out fallacy accusations, be prepared to back them up. *


No problem, Pumpkin.

Like I said, you presented a caricature. Yes, evolutionists hypothesize that grazing pressures selected for longer necks in giraffes--but that's not the *only* selective pressure they consider.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Appeal to Ignorance
> *
> _The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms: (1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false. (2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true. The fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fallacy is also called Argument from Ignorance.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Nobody has ever proved to me theres a God, so I know there is no God._
> 
> Funny you should throw this one around, because Darwinian theory does this ALL THE TIME.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,  Darwinian theory does no such thing. Evolutionary theory makes no appeals to designer gods. Because you're unable to understand the topic you're hoping to denigrate, that makes you a poor candidate for entering these discussions.
Click to expand...


You're right, it doesn't appeal to designer gods. It does, however, appeal to ignorance.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Special Pleading*
> 
> _Special pleading is a form of inconsistency in which the reasoner doesnt apply his or her principles consistently. It is the fallacy of applying a general principle to various situations but not applying it to a special situation that interests the arguer even though the general principle properly applies to that special situation, too.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Everyone has a duty to help the police do their job, no matter who the suspect is. That is why we must support investigations into corruption in the police department. No person is above the law. Of course, if the police come knocking on my door to ask about my neighbors and the robberies in our building, I know nothing. Im not about to rat on anybody.
> 
> In our example, the principle of helping the police is applied to investigations of police officers but not to ones neighbors._
> 
> Loki, please cite the specific example in my post that corresponds to your accusation.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything was coded for--except for your coder. The information that organizes all life requires intelligence--except for the life of your coder. Intelligence can't come from nothing--except for your coder. Your coder is exempt from requiring coding for no intellectually rigorous reason.
Click to expand...


Are you referring to the Coder with a capital 'C'? If so, go ahead and choose to ignore the argument that has previously been presented Hollie.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't just limit "fitness" to reaching food for the purposes of "debunking" evolution, only to expound--in the same fucking post no less!--upon all the other ways a trait may contribute to an organism's fitness.
> 
> Your "just so" caricature of natural selection is nothing but a strawman argument posited to discredit evolution as if doing so would prove your creationism--just as predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, your reading comprehension sucks too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. My reading comprehension is just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point in espousing the other traits was to provide examples of how NOT cut and dry *Darwinists* make the concept of fitness out to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> STRAWMAN, YOU STUPID FUCK.
> 
> Evolutionists DO NOT make the concept of "fitness" out to be so "cut and dried."
> 
> What an insufferable douche you are.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey "Mr. I can throw Fallacies around to pretend I'm smart", please denote what part of this argument is a strawman? Which specific claims about evolutionary thought in the article are not actual claims of Darwinists? *If you want to throw out fallacy accusations, be prepared to back them up. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No problem, Pumpkin.
> 
> Like I said, you presented a caricature. Yes, evolutionists hypothesize that grazing pressures selected for longer necks in giraffes--but that's not the *only* selective pressure they consider.
Click to expand...


Yet you have failed to provide any verifiable scientific evidence to back your claim on giraffe's... not one study citation. *Therefore, you have proved nothing regarding your claimed caricature*. It's easy to call an argument a strawman when you never have to state your position. You may be able to impress others here with your flowery bs but I am not falling for it. Once again, you accusations of several fallacies are an Ad Hominem attack in disguise, because you have not addressed the salient points of the article presented. I think we have been down this road before...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-215.html#post4714720

"Second, I have learned that you are an exquisite chess player. You will never allow yourself to get too many steps into an argument where you would have to admit you don't actually know the answer, or have to admit, yes, the theory of evolution has a ways to go to really explain that one. Nope, you just rest comfortably, thinking the TOE has everything figured out and there are no valid questions. All problems solved... nothing to see here. You remind me of alot of Christians that don't like to ask hard questions about the Old Testament. You live in your little comfortable mind, never wandering into a gray area that would show weakness in your belief. You absolutely flee from any topic where you might have to admit you just don't know or conveniently just ignore the hard questions. You are, in effect, your own version of a strawman. You've built yourself up in your mind and dad burn it you'll be damned if you let anyone actually back you into a corner where you have to admit TOE doesn't have ALL the answers. You are a sad, sad, little man."


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, your reading comprehension sucks too.
> 
> 
> 
> No. My reading comprehension is just fine.
> 
> STRAWMAN, YOU STUPID FUCK.
> 
> Evolutionists DO NOT make the concept of "fitness" out to be so "cut and dried."
> 
> What an insufferable douche you are.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey "Mr. I can throw Fallacies around to pretend I'm smart", please denote what part of this argument is a strawman? Which specific claims about evolutionary thought in the article are not actual claims of Darwinists? *If you want to throw out fallacy accusations, be prepared to back them up. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No problem, Pumpkin.
> 
> Like I said, you presented a caricature. Yes, evolutionists hypothesize that grazing pressures selected for longer necks in giraffes--but that's not the *only* selective pressure they consider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you have failed to provide any verifiable scientific evidence to back your claim on giraffe's... not one study citation. It's easy to call an argument a strawman when you never have to state your position. I think we have been down this road before...
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-215.html#post4714720
> 
> "Second, I have learned that you are an exquisite chess player. You will never allow yourself to get too many steps into an argument where you would have to admit you don't actually know the answer, or have to admit, yes, the theory of evolution has a ways to go to really explain that one. Nope, you just rest comfortably, thinking the TOE has everything figured out and there are no valid questions. All problems solved... nothing to see here. You remind me of alot of Christians that don't like to ask hard questions about the Old Testament. You live in your little comfortable mind, never wandering into a gray area that would show weakness in your belief. You absolutely flee from any topic where you might have to admit you just don't know or conveniently just ignore the hard questions. You are, in effect, your own version of a strawman. You've built yourself up in your mind and dad burn it you'll be damned if you let anyone actually back you into a corner where you have to admit TOE doesn't have ALL the answers. You are a sad, sad, little man."
Click to expand...

*Not so sad as you.*


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We've seen this. In fact, we've all seen literally hundreds of special-pleading, question-begging, appeals to ignorance just like this "digital code" you persist in peddling--only many of those others didn't add equivocation to the list of their fallacious strategies.
> 
> Not that there's any chance at all that you're going to link rather than rationalize some excuse for not linking--Please link to this evidence you posted that is NOT a special-pleading, question-begging, appeals to ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess we can add this link to your repertoire in addition to Thesaurus.com: Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
> 
> The other folks may not have an understanding of fallacies, but I can read. Please tell me what part of the Meyer argument is begging the question???
> 
> _Begging the Question
> 
> A form of circular reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from premises that presuppose the conclusion. Normally, the point of good reasoning is to start out at one place and end up somewhere new, namely having reached the goal of increasing the degree of reasonable belief in the conclusion. The point is to make progress, but in cases of begging the question there is no progress.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Women have rights, said the Bullfighters Association president. But women shouldnt fight bulls because a bullfighter is and should be a man.
> 
> The president is saying basically that women shouldnt fight bulls because women shouldnt fight bulls. This reasoning isnt making any progress._
> 
> I will go back and bold the actual use of the fallacy in the article I posted above.
> 
> *So let me get this straight, you're saying dna is not a quaternary digital code???*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's quaternary, it's digital, it's not:
> "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
> "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
> "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
> "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
> "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
> "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
> "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
> "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"
> "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
> "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
> "a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"
> "Computing program instructions;"
> It is *NOT* a code in the equivocating manner in which you intend to use it.
> 
> It is the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.
> 
> DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."
Click to expand...


Genetic code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The genetic *code* is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells.

The *code* defines how sequences of three nucleotides, called codons, specify which amino acid will be added next during protein synthesis. With some exceptions,[1] a three-nucleotide codon in a nucleic acid sequence specifies a single amino acid. Because the vast majority of genes are encoded with exactly the same *code* (see the RNA codon table), this particular code is often referred to as the canonical or standard genetic code, or simply the genetic *code,* though in fact some variant *codes* have evolved. For example, protein synthesis in human mitochondria relies on a genetic *code* that differs from the standard genetic code.

Not all genetic information is stored using the genetic *code*. All organisms' DNA contains regulatory sequences, intergenic segments, chromosomal structural areas, and other *non-coding* DNA that can contribute greatly to phenotype. Those elements operate under sets of rules that are distinct from the codon-to-amino acid paradigm underlying the genetic *code*.

*Transfer of information via the genetic code*

The genome of an organism is inscribed in DNA, or, in the case of some viruses, RNA. The portion of the genome that codes for a protein or an RNA is called a gene. Those genes that code for proteins are composed of tri-nucleotide units called codons, each coding for a single amino acid. Each nucleotide sub-unit consists of a phosphate, a deoxyribose sugar, and one of the four nitrogenous nucleobases. The purine bases adenine (A) and guanine (G) are larger and consist of two aromatic rings. The pyrimidine bases cytosine (C) and thymine (T) are smaller and consist of only one aromatic ring. In the double-helix configuration, two strands of DNA are joined to each other by hydrogen bonds in an arrangement known as base pairing. These bonds almost always form between an adenine base on one strand and a thymine base on the other strand, or between a cytosine base on one strand and a guanine base on the other. This means that the number of A and T bases will be the same in a given double helix, as will the number of G and C bases.[25]:102117 In RNA, thymine (T) is replaced by uracil (U), and the deoxyribose is substituted by ribose.[25]:127

Each protein-coding gene is transcribed into a molecule of the related RNA polymer. In prokaryotes, this RNA functions as messenger RNA or mRNA; in eukaryotes, the transcript needs to be processed to produce a mature mRNA. The mRNA is, in turn, translated on a ribosome into a chain of amino acids otherwise known as a polypeptide.[25]:Chp 12 The process of translation requires transfer RNAs which are covalently attached to a specific amino acid, guanosine triphosphate as an energy source, and a number of translation factors. tRNAs have anticodons complementary to the codons in an mRNA and can be covalently "charged" with specific amino acids at their 3' terminal CCA ends by enzymes known as aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, which have high specificity for both their cognate amino acid and tRNA. The high specificity of these enzymes is a major reason why the fidelity of protein translation is maintained.[25]:464469

There are 4³ = 64 different codon combinations possible with a triplet codon of three nucleotides; all 64 codons are assigned to either an amino acid or a stop signal. If, for example, an RNA sequence UUUAAACCC is considered and the reading frame starts with the first U (by convention, 5' to 3'), there are three codons, namely, UUU, AAA, and CCC, each of which specifies one amino acid. Therefore, this 9 base RNA sequence will be translated into an amino acid sequence that is three amino acids long.[25]:521539 A given amino acid may be encoded by between one and six different codon sequences. A comparison may be made using bioinformatics tools wherein the codon is similar to a word, which is the standard data "chunk" and a nucleotide is similar to a bit, in that it is the smallest unit. This allows for powerful comparisons across species as well as within organisms.

The standard genetic code is shown in the following tables. Table 1 shows which amino acid each of the 64 codons specifies. Table 2 shows which codons specify each of the 20 standard amino acids involved in translation. These are called forward and reverse codon tables, respectively. For example, the codon "AAU" represents the amino acid asparagine, and "UGU" and "UGC" represent cysteine (standard three-letter designations, Asn and Cys, respectively).[25]:522"

I think you are being quite silly in your assertion that human language is even anywhere near being on the same level as digital code contained in dna, that once *transmitted*, and *decoded*, can turn 2-cells into a living, breathing, conscious, human being.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess we can add this link to your repertoire in addition to Thesaurus.com: Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
> 
> The other folks may not have an understanding of fallacies, but I can read. Please tell me what part of the Meyer argument is begging the question???
> 
> _Begging the Question
> 
> A form of circular reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from premises that presuppose the conclusion. Normally, the point of good reasoning is to start out at one place and end up somewhere new, namely having reached the goal of increasing the degree of reasonable belief in the conclusion. The point is to make progress, but in cases of begging the question there is no progress.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Women have rights, said the Bullfighters Association president. But women shouldnt fight bulls because a bullfighter is and should be a man.
> 
> The president is saying basically that women shouldnt fight bulls because women shouldnt fight bulls. This reasoning isnt making any progress._
> 
> I will go back and bold the actual use of the fallacy in the article I posted above.
> 
> *So let me get this straight, you're saying dna is not a quaternary digital code???*
> 
> 
> 
> It's quaternary, it's digital, it's not:
> "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
> "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
> "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
> "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
> "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
> "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
> "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
> "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"
> "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
> "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
> "a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"
> "Computing program instructions;"
> It is *NOT* a code in the equivocating manner in which you intend to use it.
> 
> It is the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.
> 
> DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *--COPY/PASTE VOMIT PILE SNIPPED---​*
> I think you are being quite silly in your assertion that human language is even anywhere near being on the same level as digital code contained in dna, that once *transmitted*, and *decoded*, can turn 2-cells into a living, breathing, conscious, human being.
Click to expand...

I made no such assertion. 

It seems you just cannot break that strawman habit, and get yourself a just little integrity of intellectual honesty.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--*in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."*


 This is not the argument at all!!!

There you go with the intellectual honesty accusations. Man, some things never change. Let's look at YOUR Strawman and dishonesty, shall we?

Let's look at what you missed in the argument which makes your fallacy a fallacy.  You see, Darwin and Lyell said the present was the key to the past. So we don't need toplay silly semantic games to attempt to infer a Coder. Your STRAWMAN above infers that the basis of the argument is the definition of the word code as applied improperly to dna in such a way to imply a coder. This isn't the argument at all. This is YOUR Strawboy. Had you actually taken the time to investigate the argument Meyer proposes, you would have seen the basis of the argument is that functional, digital code, (code that imparts a function), ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source,* 100% of the time* when we observe it in the present (Lyell). It has nothing to do with word or definition games. DNA functions almost identically, albeit on a much more complex level, just like computer machine code. Attempts to randomly generate *functional code* have failed miserably. Before you begin to imply another fallacy of circular reasoning and cite dna as a code in the present which doesn't have an IA as its source, might I remind you that *we don't know the source of the digital code in dna* (HECK, we can't even replicate a natural source for the molecule, well without the fairytale you posted previously) and it definitely isn't created in the present. Since its origin sometime Billions of years ago, it has been passed through the ages only by the conduit of LIVING Cells. In fact, life has not spontaneously occurred anywhere on the planet for billions of years and even attempts by intelligent agents to create life haven't even come close. Scientist can't even take all the functioning parts from a number of identical human cells and put them together to form another living cell. Of course, here is where you butt in and state that Darwinism doesn't address origins questions. Riiiiigggghht. So we just start with the functional code in Darwin circles and try to ignore that gnawing feeling that a miraculous, other worldly event is truly responsible.

Maybe if I don't look at it, it won't see me.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with the intellectual honesty accusations. Man, some things never change. Let's look at your Strawman and dishonesty, shall we?
> 
> Let's look at what you missed in the argument which makes your fallacy a fallacy.  You see, Darwin and Lyell said the present was the key to the past. So we don't need toplay silly semantic games to attempt to infer a Coder. Your STRAWMAN above infers that the basis of the argument is the definition of the word code as applied improperly to dna in such a way to imply a coder. This isn't the argument at all. This is YOUR Strawboy. Had you actually taken the time to investigate the argument Meyer proposes, you would have seen the basis of the argument is that functional, digital code, (code that imparts a function), ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source,* 100% of the time* when we observe it in the present (Lyell). It has nothing to do with word or definition games. DNA functions almost identically, albeit on a much more complex level, just like computer machine code. Attempts to randomly generate *functional code* have failed miserably. Before you begin to imply another fallacy of circular reasoning and cite dna as a code in the present which doesn't have an IA as its source, might I remind you that *we don't know the source of the digital code in dna* (HECK, we can't even replicate a natural source for the molecule, well without the fairytale you posted previously) and it definitely isn't created in the present. Since its origin sometime Billions of years ago, it has been passed through the ages only by the conduit of LIVING Cells. In fact, life has not spontaneously occurred anywhere on the planet for billions of years and even attempts by intelligent agents to create life haven't even come close. Scientist can't even take all the functioning parts from a number of identical human cells and put them together to form another living cell. Of course, here is where you butt in and state that Darwinism doesn't address origins questions. Riiiiigggghht. So we just start with the functional code in Darwin circles and try to ignore that gnawing feeling that a miraculous, other worldly event is truly responsible.
> 
> Maybe if I don't look at it, it won't see me.
Click to expand...

Thank you for validating everything I've said.

_"It has nothing to do with word or definition games."
"...functional, digital code, (code that imparts a function), ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source,* 100% of the time* when we observe it in the present (Lyell)."_​I told you, it's not code in the way you intend to misuse it; it's *NOT* "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer." It's not related to it.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> I told you, it's not code in the way you intend to misuse it; it's *NOT* "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer." It's not related to it.


 STRAWMAN!!! Meyer is not making this claim!!! How about some intellectual honesty, douche?


----------



## UltimateReality

Loki, I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying: you admit that* dna can be used as a computer to do dna computing*, but you are adamant that we shouldn't compare it to the binary code used in a computer, right?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you, it's not code in the way you intend to misuse it; it's *NOT* "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer." It's not related to it.
> 
> 
> 
> STRAWMAN!!! Meyer is not making this claim!!! How about some intellectual honesty, douche?
Click to expand...

He clearly is. Come on! Look at what he's saying! He literally EQUATES the "code" in DNA to man-made codes.

If the term "code" was not in play, he wouldn't be able to cogently assert his question-begging point.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Loki, I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying: you admit that* dna can be used as a computer to do dna computing*, but you are adamant that we shouldn't compare it to the binary code used in a computer, right?


FUCK YOU, YOU INSUFFERABLE DOUCHE!

I admit that DNA can be used *IN* a DNA computer to do computing--it is just fine to compare _THAT_ to binary code in a conventional computer.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying: you admit that* dna can be used as a computer to do dna computing*, but you are adamant that we shouldn't compare it to the binary code used in a computer, right?
> 
> 
> 
> FUCK YOU, YOU INSUFFERABLE DOUCHE!
> 
> I admit that DNA can be used *IN* a DNA computer to do computing--it is just fine to compare _THAT_ to binary code in a conventional computer.
Click to expand...


Getting frustrated are we?   Your begging the question for sure. Your assertion is a typical cut and paste fundie evo response to Meyer's hypothesis. You run around waving your arms, "It's not code!! It's not code!!" Here is the claim made by the atheist fundies: the code has to stand for something else. The 0's and 1's when strung together, have to mean a word or a number or some other symbol. The evo fundies demand that the TGAC's stand for something. Well they do stupid!!  They stand for proteins. Proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code. When the symbols are assembled together properly, they result in larger sentences like mitochondria, chromosomes and ultimately cells. The code is transmitted from the old host to the new host, translated into proteins, and then used to assemble an unfathomably complex machine.

Your begging the question fallacy goes something like this: DNA can't be code like a computer code because computer code comes from a coder and dna doesn't have a coder so its not a code.


----------



## UltimateReality

We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. *However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. *Thus, *the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message.* As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule.


----------



## UltimateReality

DNA helps direct protein synthesis.7 It also helps to regulate the timing and expression of the synthesis of various proteins within cells. Yet, *DNA alone does not determine how individual proteins assemble themselves into larger systems of proteins; still less does it solely determine how cell types, tissue types, and organs arrange themselves into body plans* (Harold 1995:2774, Moss 2004). Instead, other factors--such as the three-dimensional structure and organization of the cell membrane and cytoskeleton and the spatial architecture of the fertilized egg--play important roles in determining body plan formation during embryogenesis.

For example, the structure and location of the cytoskeleton influence the patterning of embryos. Arrays of microtubules help to distribute the essential proteins used during development to their correct locations in the cell. Of course, microtubules themselves are made of many protein subunits. Nevertheless, like bricks that can be used to assemble many different structures, the tubulin subunits in the cell's microtubules are identical to one another. Thus, neither the tubulin subunits nor the genes that produce them account for the different shape of microtubule arrays that distinguish different kinds of embryos and developmental pathways. Instead, the structure of the microtubule array itself is determined by the location and arrangement of its subunits, not the properties of the subunits themselves. For this reason, it is not possible to predict the structure of the cytoskeleton of the cell from the characteristics of the protein constituents that form that structure (Harold 2001:125).

Two analogies may help further clarify the point. At a building site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber, wires, nails, drywall, piping, and windows. Yet building materials do not determine the floor plan of the house, or the arrangement of houses in a neighborhood. Similarly, electronic circuits are composed of many components, such as resistors, capacitors, and transistors. But such lower-level components do not determine their own arrangement in an integrated circuit. Biological symptoms also depend on hierarchical arrangements of parts. Genes and proteins are made from simple building blocks--nucleotide bases and amino acids--arranged in specific ways. Cell types are made of, among other things, systems of specialized proteins. Organs are made of specialized arrangements of cell types and tissues. And body plans comprise specific arrangements of specialized organs. Yet, clearly, the properties of individual proteins (or, indeed, the lower-level parts in the hierarchy generally) do not fully determine the organization of the higher-level structures and organizational patterns (Harold 2001:125). *It follows that the genetic information that codes for proteins does not determine these higher-level structures either.*


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying: you admit that* dna can be used as a computer to do dna computing*, but you are adamant that we shouldn't compare it to the binary code used in a computer, right?
> 
> 
> 
> FUCK YOU, YOU INSUFFERABLE DOUCHE!
> 
> I admit that DNA can be used *IN* a DNA computer to do computing--it is just fine to compare _THAT_ to binary code in a conventional computer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting frustrated are we?
Click to expand...

With you insistent attempts to misrepresent ... yes.



UltimateReality said:


> Your begging the question for sure.


Made up. Again.



UltimateReality said:


> Your assertion is a typical cut and paste fundie evo response to Meyer's hypothesis.


Made up ... again.



UltimateReality said:


> You run around waving your arms, "It's not code!! It's not code!!" Here is the claim made by the atheist fundies: the code has to stand for something else. The 0's and 1's when strung together, have to mean a word or a number or some other symbol. The evo fundies demand that the TGAC's stand for something. Well they do stupid!!


No they don't. THAT is why geneticists use the term in a very specific manner--that is separate from the lay-use of the term.



UltimateReality said:


> They stand for proteins.


No they don't.



UltimateReality said:


> Proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code.


They are not symbols you stupid fuck!



UltimateReality said:


> When the symbols are assembled together properly, they result in larger sentences like mitochondria, chromosomes and ultimately cells.


No. When symbols are assembled together properly they result in longer sentences ... period. Sentences which are still SYMBOLS. ENTIRELY UNLIKE mitochondria, chromosomes and ultimately cells, which are NOT symbols, or strings of symbols.



UltimateReality said:


> The code is transmitted from the old host to the new host, translated into proteins, and then used to assemble an unfathomably complex machine.


This is true, but not in any sense that you're asserting. By complete accident of the common use of the term "code" are you advancing your question-begging argument.



UltimateReality said:


> Your begging the question fallacy goes something like this: DNA can't be code like a computer code because computer code comes from a coder and dna doesn't have a coder so its not a code.


How cute. Your clumsy attempt here to make up my argument for me so you can dismiss it is ... well, you know what it is. After all you engineered it. Also do not mistake definitions and application of the law of identity as question begging arguments.

Symbols essentially are perfectly interchangeable without changing what they represent. You can say X = 2 and you can say Y = 2, and in both cases 2 = 2. Changing the symbol does not change what it symbolizes. DNA on the other hand ... you can't just rearrange your As, Ts, Gs, and Cs and expect that the protein won't change. It's just not the way it works. 

My argument is that a string of DNA is not a code that means a "protein", because a string of DNA is not actually a symbol for a "protein." You ASSIGN the meaning "symbol" to conveniently express the relationship between DNA & protein, but the simile can only go so far ... in the end--when you remove the meaning (symbol) you assigned to it--DNA remains a molecule involved in a chemical reaction with a protein as the result.

DNA is *NOT* a code in the equivocating manner in which I predicted you were going to use it.

DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."


----------



## UltimateReality

Science still falls far short of developing satisfactory explanations of many crucial phenomena, such as human consciousness, the Big Bang, the superluminal quantum entanglement of photons across huge distances, even the bioenergetics of the brain of a fly in eluding the swatter. The more we learn about the universe the more wide-open the horizons of mystery. The pretense that Darwinian evolution is a complete theory of life is a huge distraction from the limits and language, the rigor and grandeur, of real scientific discovery. *Observes Nobel-laureate physicist Robert Laughlin of Stanford: The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance. *

CSC - Evolution and Me


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Science still falls far short of developing satisfactory explanations of many crucial phenomena, such as human consciousness, the Big Bang, the superluminal quantum entanglement of photons across huge distances, even the bioenergetics of the brain of a fly in eluding the swatter. The more we learn about the universe the more wide-open the horizons of mystery. The pretense that Darwinian evolution is a complete theory of life is a huge distraction from the limits and language, the rigor and grandeur, of real scientific discovery. *Observes Nobel-laureate physicist Robert Laughlin of Stanford: The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance. *
> 
> CSC - Evolution and Me


"_The pretense that Darwinian evolution is a complete theory..._" --- is a pretense itself.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Symbols essentially are perfectly interchangeable without changing what they represent. You can say X = 2 and you can say Y = 2, and in both cases 2 = 2. Changing the symbol does not change what it symbolizes.



This example is so irrelevant it makes me wonder why I am even arguing with you. Really? Changing the symbol doesn't change what it symbolizes only when the code for the symbols is the same. If X=00100101 and Y=11100111, changing the order of the 0's and 1's in a byte of information absolutely changes the outcome. Try scrambling the bytes on your iPod and let me know how that works out for you.



LOki said:


> DNA on the other hand ... you can't just rearrange your As, Ts, Gs, and Cs and expect that the protein won't change. It's just not the way it works.


 You can't rearrange the bits of information either and hope your program will function. Please tell me you had a point to this nonsense?



LOki said:


> My argument is that a string of DNA is not a code that means a "protein", because a string of DNA is not actually a symbol for a "protein."


 Yes, some dna is non-coding dna, meaning it is not used to assemble a protein.



LOki said:


> You ASSIGN the meaning "symbol" to conveniently express the relationship between DNA & protein, but the simile can only go so far ... in the end--when you remove the meaning (symbol) you assigned to it--DNA remains a molecule involved in a chemical reaction with a protein as the result.



Wrong!!! Dna is transcribed to Rna which is then translated into a protein by using the code to assemble amino acids into a protein. 

DNA and Protein Synthesis



LOki said:


> DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."



Not only is the information transferred and decoding to assemble proteins, it is now be revealed that information in the non-coding, i.e., non protein building dna is responsible for the higher processes involving the building of cells into organs and organs into complex organisms. 

You are still missing the point, although I have stated it several times (!!!) the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions. Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism. What you can't get is that dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!

ID Vindicated | Uncommon Descent


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Symbols essentially are perfectly interchangeable without changing what they represent. You can say X = 2 and you can say Y = 2, and in both cases 2 = 2. Changing the symbol does not change what it symbolizes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This example is so irrelevant it makes me wonder why I am even arguing with you. Really? Changing the symbol doesn't change what it symbolizes only when the code for the symbols is the same.
Click to expand...

WTF?  You're retarded. Changing the symbol *CANNOT* change what the symbol represented...EVER. We're not discussing your retarded superstition ... we're not discussing fucking magic.



UltimateReality said:


> If X=00100101 and Y=11100111, changing the order of the 0's and 1's in a byte of information absolutely changes the outcome.


I'm not disputing this; so what?

Seriously, you fucking retard ... SO WHAT?



UltimateReality said:


> Try scrambling the bytes on your iPod and let me know how that works out for you.


I'm not the one who insists that changing the symbol can change what it represents ... YOU try it retard.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA on the other hand ... you can't just rearrange your As, Ts, Gs, and Cs and expect that the protein won't change. It's just not the way it works.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't rearrange the bits of information either and hope your program will function. Please tell me you had a point to this nonsense?
Click to expand...

You clearly believe that you can alter real things by altering symbols used to represent them. 

The point you are refusing to accept is that in the real world, changing the symbol you use to represent a real thing, DOES NOT CHANGE THE REAL THING.



UltimateReality said:


> Yes, some dna is non-coding dna, meaning it is not used to assemble a protein.


My argument is that a string of DNA is not a code that means a "protein", because a string of DNA is not actually a symbol for a "protein."



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ASSIGN the meaning "symbol" to conveniently express the relationship between DNA & protein, but the simile can only go so far ... in the end--when you remove the meaning (symbol) you assigned to it--DNA remains a molecule involved in a chemical reaction with a protein as the result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! Dna is transcribed to Rna which is then translated into a protein by using the code to assemble amino acids into a protein.
> 
> DNA and Protein Synthesis
Click to expand...

No I'm right. DNA is NOT a code. If it was a code(in the sense you insist it is), you could switch guanine for adenine, and as long as you were consistent in doing so throughout, the nature of the protein coded for (in the sense that geneticists use) would not change.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is the information transferred and decoding to assemble proteins, it is now be revealed that information in the non-coding, i.e., non protein building dna is responsible for the higher processes involving the building of cells into organs and organs into complex organisms.
> 
> You are still missing the point, although I have stated it several times (!!!) the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions. Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism. What you can't get is that dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!
> 
> ID Vindicated | Uncommon Descent
Click to expand...

Good. Now we know you are thoroughly dissociated from reality.  It's like magic! "Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism". It doesn't matter which, because with "the magic code of DNA" (being "chemically independent from the informational code it carries"), you could replace the bases in DNA with any random reactive chemical, and nothing about "informational code" it carries would change. Good. Just great.

WOW! You're retarded.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. *However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. *Thus, *the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message.* As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule.




You know, dear. It is in good form to identify the source of your cutting and pasting.

DNA Double Helix


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> DNA helps direct protein synthesis.7 It also helps to regulate the timing and expression of the synthesis of various proteins within cells. Yet, *DNA alone does not determine how individual proteins assemble themselves into larger systems of proteins; still less does it solely determine how cell types, tissue types, and organs arrange themselves into body plans* (Harold 1995:2774, Moss 2004). Instead, other factors--such as the three-dimensional structure and organization of the cell membrane and cytoskeleton and the spatial architecture of the fertilized egg--play important roles in determining body plan formation during embryogenesis.
> 
> For example, the structure and location of the cytoskeleton influence the patterning of embryos. Arrays of microtubules help to distribute the essential proteins used during development to their correct locations in the cell. Of course, microtubules themselves are made of many protein subunits. Nevertheless, like bricks that can be used to assemble many different structures, the tubulin subunits in the cell's microtubules are identical to one another. Thus, neither the tubulin subunits nor the genes that produce them account for the different shape of microtubule arrays that distinguish different kinds of embryos and developmental pathways. Instead, the structure of the microtubule array itself is determined by the location and arrangement of its subunits, not the properties of the subunits themselves. For this reason, it is not possible to predict the structure of the cytoskeleton of the cell from the characteristics of the protein constituents that form that structure (Harold 2001:125).
> 
> Two analogies may help further clarify the point. At a building site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber, wires, nails, drywall, piping, and windows. Yet building materials do not determine the floor plan of the house, or the arrangement of houses in a neighborhood. Similarly, electronic circuits are composed of many components, such as resistors, capacitors, and transistors. But such lower-level components do not determine their own arrangement in an integrated circuit. Biological symptoms also depend on hierarchical arrangements of parts. Genes and proteins are made from simple building blocks--nucleotide bases and amino acids--arranged in specific ways. Cell types are made of, among other things, systems of specialized proteins. Organs are made of specialized arrangements of cell types and tissues. And body plans comprise specific arrangements of specialized organs. Yet, clearly, the properties of individual proteins (or, indeed, the lower-level parts in the hierarchy generally) do not fully determine the organization of the higher-level structures and organizational patterns (Harold 2001:125). *It follows that the genetic information that codes for proteins does not determine these higher-level structures either.*



Here is the source of your cut and paste - christian creationists.

Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA - Google Books


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Appeal to Ignorance
> *
> _The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms: (1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false. (2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true. The fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fallacy is also called Argument from Ignorance.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Nobody has ever proved to me theres a God, so I know there is no God._
> 
> Funny you should throw this one around, because Darwinian theory does this ALL THE TIME.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,  Darwinian theory does no such thing. Evolutionary theory makes no appeals to designer gods. Because you're unable to understand the topic you're hoping to denigrate, that makes you a poor candidate for entering these discussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, it doesn't appeal to designer gods. It does, however, appeal to ignorance.
Click to expand...


False. Evolutionary theory begins to explain the diversity of life on the planet. Fundie creationists reel at this because it provides a workable mechanism for understanding the development of life. That obviously conflicts with the Genesis tale and calls into question many other parts of the bible.

What is truly ignorant is the notion that fundies will drag humanity back into the Dark Ages with appelas to fear and superstition.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of data for your lack of "verifiable evidence or valid logic" for your claims do you expect I should provide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really,how many times must I present it to you , How bout explaining how non living matter becomes life ?
> 
> How bout proof and not a vivid imagination as your proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the one imagining anything here.
> 
> An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times. We all understand that you find it insufficient to "PROVE" that life arose from non-living matter--we get that. Seriously.
> 
> But now it's your turn: Since you're so smugly asserting that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> Are you again going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?
> 
> The evidence says you most certainly will.
Click to expand...


Noyou have not, epic fail again. Listen real hard there is no viable explanation to how life spontaneously started do you ignore the evolutionist that actually possess a brain that agree with me ?


----------



## Havenofear

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really,how many times must I present it to you , How bout explaining how non living matter becomes life ?
> 
> How bout proof and not a vivid imagination as your proof.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one imagining anything here.
> 
> An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times. We all understand that you find it insufficient to "PROVE" that life arose from non-living matter--we get that. Seriously.
> 
> But now it's your turn: Since you're so smugly asserting that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> Are you again going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?
> 
> The evidence says you most certainly will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Noyou have not, epic fail again. Listen real hard there is no viable explanation to how life spontaneously started do you ignore the evolutionist that actually possess a brain that agree with me ?
Click to expand...


I just read a bunch of this thread, and I'll say this: if god made youwerecreated in his own image, then god must be a simpleton of the highest order.
Because he can't explain something, he thinks it was done by a ghost. Sad really.
My question is: why are you all arguing with him? For fun?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really,how many times must I present it to you , How bout explaining how non living matter becomes life ?
> 
> How bout proof and not a vivid imagination as your proof.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one imagining anything here.
> 
> An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times. We all understand that you find it insufficient to "PROVE" that life arose from non-living matter--we get that. Seriously.
> 
> But now it's your turn: Since you're so smugly asserting that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> Are you again going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?
> 
> The evidence says you most certainly will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Noyou have not, epic fail again.
Click to expand...

An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times.



Youwerecreated said:


> Listen real hard there is no viable explanation to how life spontaneously started do you ignore the evolutionist that actually possess a brain that agree with me ?


 We all understand that you, and the "evolutionist" that agrees with you, find it insufficient to "PROVE" that life arose from non-living matter--we get that. Seriously. So stop asking. We have all failed to prove our case to you, and now we are looking for answers.

So now it's your turn: Since you're so smugly asserting that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

Are you again going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

The evidence says you most certainly will.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect it's because superstitious retards like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for your claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect it's because materialistic lost souls like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence that doesn't require numerous "may haves", "might haves" or "could haves", or valid logic for your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanation. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.
> 
> Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.
> 
> Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, have entirely different foundations than beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic. The rational believe what they see. The faithful see what they believe. So while it is obvious that Creationists (among others of a faithful bent) equate science's working hypotheses, candidly asserted speculations, and conditional certainties to the exercise of faith, they are clearly no such thing--because they don't express unconditional certainty like faith does. Such arguments by the faithful ("beleivers", whatever) collapse upon their strawman foundations ... no surprise there.
Click to expand...


Take a look at your posts and see if that is your message


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one imagining anything here.
> 
> An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if you count a series of 43 guesses with not one modern example of even one of the "so called" natural processes occurring in nature as an explanation then sure you have.
> 
> Here, maybe if I put it in Evolutionary pseudoscienc terminology, you can understand...
> 
> An Intelligent Being we can't comprehend *might have* engineered the universe. This Being *could have* visited the planet numerous times throughout history to seed the planet with new life forms. This Being *could be* the source of the life spark that has not been seen or occurred naturally for anywhere from 10,000 to 3.5 billion years, but instead requires a previous generation as its source for who knows how long. This Entity *may have* written the digital code in every cell.
> 
> SETI searchers for ET and no one seems to have a problem with believing other intelligent life exists elsehwere in our universe. No one seems to question the Multi-verses, all of which are "supernatural". Why is it so hard for you to believe in the possibility of a Master Alien that pre-dates the Big Bang? An Entity that is not constrained by time as we understand it? I will tell you why, because your *materialist religion* won't allow you to. To believe in something or someone greater would force a change in your miserable, Christian-hating, sour puss existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My goodness. What an angry fundie.
> 
> It must be frustrating to propose arguments that rely on belief in magic and supernatural intervention and have others require you to support such nonsense.
> 
> No wonder you're so unpleasant.
Click to expand...


My what an ignorant fundie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... why can't fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you continue to* play stupid* doesn't mean it hasn't been presented here. Why don't you pick up a copy of "Signature in the Cell"?
> 
> For a whole $13 you can actually study an opposing viewpoint instead of regurgitating and spewing rehearsed atheistic propaganda.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347989761&sr=8-1&keywords=signature+in+the+cell]Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design: Stephen C. Meyer: 9780061472794: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meyer is a hack. Precisely why he shills for the creationist ministry you copy and paste from.
> 
> Would you care to describe for us the pre-qualifying agreement signed by those who shill for the ICR?
> 
> I posted it for you previously.
Click to expand...


No he is not a hack,he is bringing to you reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pressing no religious agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just spit coffee everywhere and fell out of my chair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gods are punishing you.
Click to expand...


Hollie you are not a god.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanation. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.
> 
> Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.
> 
> Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, have entirely different foundations than beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic. The rational believe what they see. The faithful see what they believe. So while it is obvious that Creationists (among others of a faithful bent) equate science's working hypotheses, candidly asserted speculations, and conditional certainties to the exercise of faith, they are clearly no such thing--because they don't express unconditional certainty like faith does. Such arguments by the faithful ("beleivers", whatever) collapse upon their strawman foundations ... no surprise there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you make up a fairy tale about what happened in the distant past on planet earth, with no evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently, you are exhibiting *IMMENSE FAITH*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hence, the assertion that your "God" thing is entirely faith. Thank you.
> 
> Also FYI, valid logic applied to "evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently" counts as well. Something that your "God" thing assertion do not enjoy either.
> 
> No I'm not.
> 
> It does not, Mr. "Could-Have."
> 
> You should get out more. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps, so that you might become acquainted with quantum-field theory.
> 
> It's a nice day, why don't you go out right now?
> 
> Quite right there. Folks like me begin with that far-fetched world-view notion that reality is not subject to our perceptions; that reality is objective; that no amount of believing in leprechauns, or unicorns, or invisible-white-fathers-who-live-in-the-sky will make them objectively real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's a hypothesis founded upon facts.
> 
> No. I didn't. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence leads to a conclusion that does not require or suggest leprechauns of any description.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are so brainwashed, you fail to see how preposterous it is for someone to take conjecture and speculation, and be so arrogant (or ignorant) and call it the "fact" of evolution. What an absolute joke!! Fact my ass. Get off your pompous high horse that you have so much intellectual honesty. Your whole theory of evolution is based on an unconditional certainty. Any evidence contrary to the just so story of natural selection is thrown out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all so. Scientists do not share in the absolute certainty that is so characteristic of faith.
> 
> The uncertainties candidly understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed to express absolute certainty. Your faith paradigm just does not apply.
> 
> Sorry about your retarded luck.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a *FACT* that I *may have* been dropped off on earth by aliens and I *could have* been raised by wolves before I *might have* grown three feet in a matter of 2 months. I *could have* been educated at Harvard before I *may have* taught Differential Equations to pygmies in what *could have been* the Australian Outback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. And there exists an ultimate creator who lives in an ultimate reality. These are all certainly facts; but are they facts of reality? Does valid logic applied to any verifiable logically valid evidence support the assertion that those facts are consistent with objective reality? If not, then you're just talking fairy-tales, Count Chocula.
Click to expand...


Cartoons once again to avoid answering questions.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really,how many times must I present it to you , How bout explaining how non living matter becomes life ?
> 
> How bout proof and not a vivid imagination as your proof.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one imagining anything here.
> 
> An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times. We all understand that you find it insufficient to "PROVE" that life arose from non-living matter--we get that. Seriously.
> 
> But now it's your turn: Since you're so smugly asserting that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> Are you again going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?
> 
> The evidence says you most certainly will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Noyou have not, epic fail again. Listen real hard there is no viable explanation to how life spontaneously started do you ignore the evolutionist that actually possess a brain that agree with me ?
Click to expand...

I'll note with amusement that the "evilutionist" who agree with you are typically connected with Harun Yahya and similar creationist organizations.

Additionally, nothing in the above serves your arguments for supernatural, supermagical gods.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just spit coffee everywhere and fell out of my chair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gods are punishing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie you are not a god.
Click to expand...


Prove I'm not.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you continue to* play stupid* doesn't mean it hasn't been presented here. Why don't you pick up a copy of "Signature in the Cell"?
> 
> For a whole $13 you can actually study an opposing viewpoint instead of regurgitating and spewing rehearsed atheistic propaganda.
> 
> Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design: Stephen C. Meyer: 9780061472794: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer is a hack. Precisely why he shills for the creationist ministry you copy and paste from.
> 
> Would you care to describe for us the pre-qualifying agreement signed by those who shill for the ICR?
> 
> I posted it for you previously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is not a hack,he is bringing to you reality.
Click to expand...

That's absurd. Naturally, you side stepped the issue of the pre- qualifying agreement signed by these who shill for the ICR. To refresh your memory, the agreement mandates that no data issued or published by one representing the ICR may conflict with ICR tenets.

Further, the agreement requires that all data issued or published must meet the tenets and guidelines of ICR politburo guidelines. 

It's just silly, intellectually dishonest and as biased an approach to discovery as there is. This is why your rabid cutting and pasting just reeks of amateur. The material is manufactured to meet a specific religious worldview and the charlatan who manufacture the data have abandoned any pretense of professional standards.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> read through the last few pages and  YWC is STILL ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED
> UR is still yammering about materialistic religion as the devil's handiwork (oxymoron).
> KG flew in on her broom stick babbled something meaningless then flew  away..
> still wating for gods' barcode...



The genetic code barrier.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> read through the last few pages and  YWC is STILL ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED
> UR is still yammering about materialistic religion as the devil's handiwork (oxymoron).
> KG flew in on her broom stick babbled something meaningless then flew  away..
> still wating for gods' barcode...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going from memory here, Daws, but I thought it was you who ripped the creationists a new one with a detailed response to the creationist "Giraffe Neck" conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your memory is correct, but as always  the facts never stop them from babbling.
Click to expand...




Just like your answer for origins of life,your answer is Abiogenesis no matter what the experts on your side say . They call that Daws blind faith.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> read through the last few pages and  YWC is STILL ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED
> UR is still yammering about materialistic religion as the devil's handiwork (oxymoron).
> KG flew in on her broom stick babbled something meaningless then flew  away..
> still wating for gods' barcode...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The genetic code barrier.
Click to expand...


There is nothing supernatural about genetic code. Much of DNA biology is understood, thus we have replaced lack of knowledge with knowledge. That Is generally the process of science. The fear and superstition you would foist on others is superceded by understanding and knowledge. 

It's just a shame that you wish to return humankind to the Dark Ages of fear and superstition.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Loki, while you are at it, since it is based on so much "evidence", please post a link to a study with some observable and testable evidence that the giraffe's neck is the result of natural selection. It should be based on a modern day study of feeding patterns, rainfall measurements, and offspring neck length, not to mention a detailed dietary and migration analysis.
> 
> I'll be waiting...
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently Hollie beat me to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HA! HA! HA! You obviously didn't read the links either. Careful who you put your trust in, cheesecake, because Hollie just made you look like a complete fool.
Click to expand...


Priceless.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going from memory here, Daws, but I thought it was you who ripped the creationists a new one with a detailed response to the creationist "Giraffe Neck" conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> your memory is correct, but as always  the facts never stop them from babbling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like your answer for origins of life,your answer is Abiogenesis no matter what the experts on your side say . They call that Daws blind faith.
Click to expand...


In the realm of science and knowledge, the processes of life can be understood. You would prefer to dwell in the Dark Ages where people lived in trembling fear of angry gods. 

Fortunately, the science of learning and discovery supplants the efforts of fundie creationists to promote ignorance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of the moon, why not explain to us your understanding of *allah* splitting the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man you are seriously stupid. I have all said 500 times that I am of the Judeo-Christian persuasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seriously don't know your gods.
Click to expand...


Sure he does our God has many names but only one God.


----------



## Youwerecreated

BiZoN said:


> I believe in evolution and the "big bang" (or whatever the next 'beginning' theory might be).
> 
> The only question I'm waiting for to be answered is: How did 'existence' come to be?



That is the only question that separates evolutionist and believers in creation and design.

Who presents the best answer ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you make up a fairy tale about what happened in the distant past on planet earth, with no evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently, you are exhibiting *IMMENSE FAITH*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, the assertion that your "God" thing is entirely faith. Thank you.
> 
> Also FYI, valid logic applied to "evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently" counts as well. Something that your "God" thing assertion do not enjoy either.
> 
> No I'm not.
> 
> It does not, Mr. "Could-Have."
> 
> You should get out more. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps, so that you might become acquainted with quantum-field theory.
> 
> It's a nice day, why don't you go out right now?
> 
> Quite right there. Folks like me begin with that far-fetched world-view notion that reality is not subject to our perceptions; that reality is objective; that no amount of believing in leprechauns, or unicorns, or invisible-white-fathers-who-live-in-the-sky will make them objectively real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's a hypothesis founded upon facts.
> 
> No. I didn't. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence leads to a conclusion that does not require or suggest leprechauns of any description.
> 
> Not at all so. Scientists do not share in the absolute certainty that is so characteristic of faith.
> 
> The uncertainties candidly understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed to express absolute certainty. Your faith paradigm just does not apply.
> 
> Sorry about your retarded luck.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a *FACT* that I *may have* been dropped off on earth by aliens and I *could have* been raised by wolves before I *might have* grown three feet in a matter of 2 months. I *could have* been educated at Harvard before I *may have* taught Differential Equations to pygmies in what *could have been* the Australian Outback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. And there exists an ultimate creator who lives in an ultimate reality. These are all certainly facts; but are they facts of reality? Does valid logic applied to any verifiable logically valid evidence support the assertion that those facts are consistent with objective reality? If not, then you're just talking fairy-tales, Count Chocula.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cartoons once again to avoid answering questions.
Click to expand...

Nothing avoided. Not surprised by the hypocritical accusation though.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect it's because materialistic lost souls like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence that doesn't require numerous "may haves", "might haves" or "could haves", or valid logic for your claims.
> 
> 
> 
> Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanation. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.
> 
> Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.
> 
> Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, have entirely different foundations than beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic. The rational believe what they see. The faithful see what they believe. So while it is obvious that Creationists (among others of a faithful bent) equate science's working hypotheses, candidly asserted speculations, and conditional certainties to the exercise of faith, they are clearly no such thing--because they don't express unconditional certainty like faith does. Such arguments by the faithful ("beleivers", whatever) collapse upon their strawman foundations ... no surprise there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a look at your posts and see if that is your message
Click to expand...

It's all good. Thanks!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the point where Hollie launches her Ad Hollimen attacks, since she is incapable of launching a logical argument in rebuttal to some of the juicier points in this article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm under no obligation to "refute" your endless cutting and pasting. You and the other creationist have similar habits. You cut and paste volumes of material from fundie creationist websites (material and concepts you don't understand), and then expect others to "refute" that material.
> 
> It's not surprising that you failed to address my earlier posts because that would have required you to actually defend your creationist fantasies.
> 
> Speaking of "Ad Hollimen" attacks, I note that your best efforts amount not to cutting and pasting but juvenile name-calling.
Click to expand...


That is why you are a naturalist ,you don't like obligations, responsibility and accountability.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So let me get this straight, you're saying dna is not a quaternary digital code???*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in connection with the fundie creationist tag you're hoping to assign to it.
> 
> I believe you and the other fundie had tried earlier to add the label "digital machines" to DNA code. Those terms are lifted from creationist ministries.
Click to expand...


It was a comparison,they possess the same ability.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had anything but strawman arguments to discredit evolution you'd have brought them long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see. Because in your twisted version of reality, if you haven't looked for it, then it doesn't exist. The whole theory of evolution and natural selection rests on the concept of fitness. Yet, like most of Darwinism, the concept is vague at best, and certainly not up to REAL scientific standards.
> 
> To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, just look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment. For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffes long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought.
> 
> It sounds eminently reasonable, as such "just so" stories usually do. Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this: First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves. Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed at belly height or below. *And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches  a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.[*18]
> 
> Another problem with the usual sort of fitness theorizing becomes evident when you consider the unity of the organism and the multifunctionality of its parts. Holdrege remarks of the elephant that it stands sometimes on its back legs and extends its trunk to reach high limbs  but no one thinks that the elephant developed its trunk as a result of selection pressures to reach higher food. The trunk develops within a complex, multifaceted, interwoven unity. It belongs to that unity, not to a single isolated function. The effort to analyze out of this unity a particular trait and assign it a separate causal fitness is always artificial. This is certainly true of the giraffe, whose long neck not only allows feeding from high branches, but also raises the head to where the animal has the protection of a large field of view (the giraffes vision is much more developed than its sense of smell), serves as an arm for the use of the head as a club in battles between males, and plays a vital role as a kind of pendulum enabling the animals graceful galloping movement across the African plain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness
> 
> Your Giraffe'ism conspiracy theory was addressed and refuted  earlier.
Click to expand...


I will show you how ignorant your view is. If the giraffe slowly evolved he would have went extinct from either bending over and the blood rushing to his head and blowing out his brain or raising his head to fast and passing out when predators appear.

What is so amazing is this little sponge like thing in the brain that stores blood to prevent him from passing out and this valve that restricts blood flow so he don't blow his brain out.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gods are punishing you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you are not a god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove I'm not.
Click to expand...


Don't have to your posts have shown that.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> BiZoN said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in evolution and the "big bang" (or whatever the next 'beginning' theory might be).
> 
> The only question I'm waiting for to be answered is: How did 'existence' come to be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the only question that separates evolutionist and believers in creation and design.
> 
> Who presents the best answer ?
Click to expand...


What a nonsense claim. There is only in question that separates reason and rationally from supernaturalism?

Only a simpleton would accept your silliness.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you are not a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to your posts have shown that.
Click to expand...


You can't disprove. That's fine.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see. Because in your twisted version of reality, if you haven't looked for it, then it doesn't exist. The whole theory of evolution and natural selection rests on the concept of fitness. Yet, like most of Darwinism, the concept is vague at best, and certainly not up to REAL scientific standards.
> 
> To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, just look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment. For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffes long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought.
> 
> It sounds eminently reasonable, as such "just so" stories usually do. Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this: First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves. Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed at belly height or below. *And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches  a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.[*18]
> 
> Another problem with the usual sort of fitness theorizing becomes evident when you consider the unity of the organism and the multifunctionality of its parts. Holdrege remarks of the elephant that it stands sometimes on its back legs and extends its trunk to reach high limbs  but no one thinks that the elephant developed its trunk as a result of selection pressures to reach higher food. The trunk develops within a complex, multifaceted, interwoven unity. It belongs to that unity, not to a single isolated function. The effort to analyze out of this unity a particular trait and assign it a separate causal fitness is always artificial. This is certainly true of the giraffe, whose long neck not only allows feeding from high branches, but also raises the head to where the animal has the protection of a large field of view (the giraffes vision is much more developed than its sense of smell), serves as an arm for the use of the head as a club in battles between males, and plays a vital role as a kind of pendulum enabling the animals graceful galloping movement across the African plain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness
> 
> Your Giraffe'ism conspiracy theory was addressed and refuted  earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will show you how ignorant your view is. If the giraffe slowly evolved he would have went extinct from either bending over and the blood rushing to his head and blowing out his brain or raising his head to fast and passing out when predators appear.
> 
> What is so amazing is this little sponge like thing in the brain that stores blood to prevent him from passing out and this valve that restricts blood flow so he don't blow his brain out.
Click to expand...

The fundie giraffe conspiracy has been debunked earlier. 

Your silly explanation of blood pressure was addressed by link that debunked a boilerplate creationist claim. 

How embarrassing for you.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So let me get this straight, you're saying dna is not a quaternary digital code???*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in connection with the fundie creationist tag you're hoping to assign to it.
> 
> I believe you and the other fundie had tried earlier to add the label "digital machines" to DNA code. Those terms are lifted from creationist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a comparison,they possess the same ability.
Click to expand...


No, they do not. This was addressed earlier and your goofy comparisons were shown to be fraudulent.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see. Because in your twisted version of reality, if you haven't looked for it, then it doesn't exist. The whole theory of evolution and natural selection rests on the concept of fitness. Yet, like most of Darwinism, the concept is vague at best, and certainly not up to REAL scientific standards.
> 
> To see the frailty of the fitness concept most clearly, just look at actual attempts to explain why a given trait renders an animal more (or less) fit in its environment. For example, many biologists have commented on the giraffe&#8217;s long neck. A prominent theory, from Darwin on, has been that, in times of drought, a longer neck enabled the giraffe to browse nearer the tops of trees, beyond the reach of other animals. So any heritable changes leading to a longer neck were favored by natural selection, rendering the animal more fit and better able to survive during drought.
> 
> It sounds eminently reasonable, as such "just so" stories usually do. Problems arise only when we try to find evidence favoring this hypothesis over others. Craig Holdrege has summarized what he and others have found, including this: First, taller, longer-necked giraffes, being also heavier than their shorter ancestors, require more food, which counters the advantage of height. Second, the many browsing and grazing antelope species did not go extinct during droughts, &#8220;so even without growing taller the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves.&#8221; Third, male giraffes are up to a meter taller than females. If the males would be disadvantaged by an inability to reach higher branches of the trees, why are not the females and young disadvantaged? Fourth, it turns out that females often feed &#8220;at belly height or below.&#8221; *And in well-studied populations of east Africa, giraffes often feed at or below shoulder level during the dry season, while the rainy season sees them feeding from the higher branches &#8212; a seasonal pattern the exact opposite of the one suggested by the above hypothesis.[*18]
> 
> Another problem with the usual sort of fitness theorizing becomes evident when you consider the unity of the organism and the multifunctionality of its parts. Holdrege remarks of the elephant that it &#8220;stands sometimes on its back legs and extends its trunk to reach high limbs &#8212; but no one thinks that the elephant developed its trunk as a result of selection pressures to reach higher food.&#8221; The trunk develops within a complex, multifaceted, interwoven unity. It &#8220;belongs&#8221; to that unity, not to a single isolated function. The effort to analyze out of this unity a particular trait and assign it a separate causal fitness is always artificial. This is certainly true of the giraffe, whose long neck not only allows feeding from high branches, but also raises the head to where the animal has the protection of a large field of view (the giraffe&#8217;s vision is much more developed than its sense of smell), serves as an &#8220;arm&#8221; for the use of the head as a &#8220;club&#8221; in battles between males, and plays a vital role as a kind of pendulum enabling the animal&#8217;s graceful galloping movement across the African plain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness
> 
> Your Giraffe'ism conspiracy theory was addressed and refuted  earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will show you how ignorant your view is. If the giraffe slowly evolved he would have went extinct from either bending over and the blood rushing to his head and blowing out his brain or raising his head to fast and passing out when predators appear.
> 
> What is so amazing is this little sponge like thing in the brain that stores blood to prevent him from passing out and this valve that restricts blood flow so he don't blow his brain out.
Click to expand...

It wasn't so terribly amazing *when you posted this before*, why is it now?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the point where Hollie launches her Ad Hollimen attacks, since she is incapable of launching a logical argument in rebuttal to some of the juicier points in this article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm under no obligation to "refute" your endless cutting and pasting. You and the other creationist have similar habits. You cut and paste volumes of material from fundie creationist websites (material and concepts you don't understand), and then expect others to "refute" that material.
> 
> It's not surprising that you failed to address my earlier posts because that would have required you to actually defend your creationist fantasies.
> 
> Speaking of "Ad Hollimen" attacks, I note that your best efforts amount not to cutting and pasting but juvenile name-calling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why you are a naturalist ,you don't like obligations, responsibility and accountability.
Click to expand...

As is so often the case, you make comments that are pointless, irrelevant and false. I just can't express my revulsion for religion when represented by people such as you and the other death-cult fundie. You represent the very worst of superstitious, hateful and cult promoting David Koresh / Jim Jones type psychopaths.

 The more we learn about our universe, the clearer it becomes that the fundamental laws of existence are constant with time. The ability to see events that took place millions or billions of years ago verify that even as the universe evolved, is has expanded within the framework of the same natural law that guides it today.

From this, we can derive that the universe does not need your angry, psychopathic gods; that the universe holds to consistent natural laws;  your gods do not change or break &#8220;the rules&#8221; at whim, and no gods perform &#8220;miracles&#8221; which would be violations of the natural laws governing the universe.

As the extremes of the universe become more clearly visible with the creation of larger telescopes of all kinds, we see that all other galaxies in existence appear to follow the same laws as this one. There is only one set of laws and those same laws function everywhere in the universe without variation.

From this we can derive that the universe is omnipresent, unitary and holds to consistent universal physical laws.

Natural law does not vary with biology. All of nature remains subject to the same natural constraints and capabilities. All of nature consists of organisms with varying environmental and biological potential but no disparity of biology renders any organism or individual more or less subject to natural law than any other.

The above will be difficult for you as you choose to use your religion to threaten, intimidate and scare those who don't believe as you do. You will find it difficult to accept that your gods are simply a reinvention of earlier gods. 

Therefore, you now have good reason to act like a grown-up and cease and desist being an ignorant Harun Yahya groupie.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man you are seriously stupid. I have all said 500 times that I am of the Judeo-Christian persuasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously don't know your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure he does our God has many names but only one God.
Click to expand...


Your gods have many names because they were taken from many gods before them.

To the back of the line you go with your angry, hateful gods.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Good. Now we know you are thoroughly dissociated from reality.  It's like magic! "Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism". It doesn't matter which, because with "the magic code of DNA" (being "chemically independent from the informational code it carries"), *you could replace the bases in DNA with any random reactive chemical, and nothing about "informational code" it carries would change.* Good. Just great.
> 
> WOW! You're retarded.



I never said any of that!!! Your the special needs buffoon that insists on building caricatures and then accusing everyone else of doing it. 

I won't waste my time with you anymore. Seriously, it reminds me of trying to argue with a drunk when I was a cop. Pointless!!!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Good. Now we know you are thoroughly dissociated from reality.  It's like magic! "Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism". It doesn't matter which, because with "the magic code of DNA" (being "chemically independent from the informational code it carries"), *you could replace the bases in DNA with any random reactive chemical, and nothing about "informational code" it carries would change.* Good. Just great.
> 
> WOW! You're retarded.



I never said any of that!!! You can't replace the coded information and have it mean the same thing!! Just like you can't alter 0's and 1's in a computer program and get the same outcome. Why is this so hard for you to figure out? Your the special needs buffoon that insists on building caricatures and then accusing everyone else of doing it. 

I won't waste my time with you anymore. Seriously, it reminds me of trying to argue with a drunk when I was a cop. Pointless!!!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. *However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. *Thus, *the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message.* As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, dear. It is in good form to identify the source of your cutting and pasting.
> 
> DNA Double Helix
Click to expand...


Why bother? You never do. You just pass it off as your own material, POT!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one imagining anything here.
> 
> An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times. We all understand that you find it insufficient to "PROVE" that life arose from non-living matter--we get that. Seriously.
> 
> But now it's your turn: Since you're so smugly asserting that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> Are you again going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?
> 
> The evidence says you most certainly will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noyou have not, epic fail again. Listen real hard there is no viable explanation to how life spontaneously started do you ignore the evolutionist that actually possess a brain that agree with me ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll note with amusement that the "evilutionist" who agree with you are typically connected with Harun Yahya and similar creationist organizations.
> 
> Additionally, nothing in the above serves your arguments for supernatural, supermagical gods.
Click to expand...



So Dawkins and Hawkins are connected with Horun Yallie?? Hollie, no disrespect, but you really are the most ignorant person I have ever encountered on the internet.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. *However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. *Thus, *the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message.* As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, dear. It is in good form to identify the source of your cutting and pasting.
> 
> DNA Double Helix
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother? You never do. You just pass it off as your own material, POT!
Click to expand...

Oh my. You poor angry fundie. You were cutting and pasting from creationist websites and not attributing your cutting and pasting and that causes you to lash out like an unruly child.

A cosmic spanking is in order.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> read through the last few pages and  YWC is STILL ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED
> UR is still yammering about materialistic religion as the devil's handiwork (oxymoron).
> KG flew in on her broom stick babbled something meaningless then flew  away..
> still wating for gods' barcode...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The genetic code barrier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing supernatural about genetic code. Much of DNA biology is understood, thus we have replaced lack of knowledge with knowledge. That Is generally the process of science. The fear and superstition you would foist on others is superceded by understanding and knowledge.
> 
> It's just a shame that you wish to return humankind to the Dark Ages of fear and superstition.
Click to expand...


*Atheist cut and past accusation #16*:

_ID is really an attempt at overthrowing the well established principles of science. It is  a theory which denies the history itself of modern rational thought and of our scientific tradition.
_
    This objection completely misreads the debate. For centuries, design thinking defined the scientific landscape and held fast to the proposition that a transcendent creator fashioned the universe for discovery. That is the &#8220;old&#8221; idea that inspired many great scientists from the days of Newton to those of Einstein. By contrast, it was the &#8220;enlightenment&#8221; approach to philosophy followed by the Darwinian approach to science that completely reshaped our notions about the physical world. Design thinking remains consistent, but evolutionary thinking keeps finding new ways to explain away design and shrug it off as an &#8220;illusion.&#8221; 

    In that sense, the questioner has it backwards. In fact, it is ID that is preserving an old idea and arguing against a new idea, namely the proposition that design is an &#8220;illusion.&#8221; ID is simply challenging a challenge, asking Darwinists to provide evidence that supports that new idea. So far, they have only offered evidence for that which we already knew, namely that features in living organisms change over time. By contrast, they have offered no decisive evidence &#8211; *question-begging imposed &#8220;rules&#8221; don&#8217;t count* &#8212; for their extraordinary claim that law and chance alone can explain the apparent design of life.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, dear. It is in good form to identify the source of your cutting and pasting.
> 
> DNA Double Helix
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother? You never do. You just pass it off as your own material, POT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my. You poor angry fundie. You were cutting and pasting from creationist websites and not attributing your cutting and pasting and that causes you to lash out like an unruly child.
> 
> A cosmic spanking is in order.
Click to expand...


Oh you poor mental midget. Don't look now but your drool cup is overflowing.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> J
> Man you are seriously stupid. I have all said 500 times that I am of the *Judeo-Christian persuasion.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously don't know your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure he does our God has many names but only one God.
Click to expand...


Hollie totally missed the joke on her when she claimed she was of "the male persuasion" posing as Rugged Touch.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noyou have not, epic fail again. Listen real hard there is no viable explanation to how life spontaneously started do you ignore the evolutionist that actually possess a brain that agree with me ?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll note with amusement that the "evilutionist" who agree with you are typically connected with Harun Yahya and similar creationist organizations.
> 
> Additionally, nothing in the above serves your arguments for supernatural, supermagical gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So Dawkins and Hawkins are connected with Horun Yallie?? Hollie, no disrespect, but you really are the most ignorant person I have ever encountered on the internet.
Click to expand...


There's no need to project your failings and inadequacies on others. 

Lashing out like a petulant child will not cover your tracks at being hopelessly inept. The discussions that require you to cut and paste from creationist websites are causing you angst. Your failing at any productive participation. You should just leave... for the third time.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you are not a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to your posts have shown that.
Click to expand...


She is not God. She is a gawd.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness
> 
> Your Giraffe'ism conspiracy theory was addressed and refuted  earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will show you how ignorant your view is. If the giraffe slowly evolved he would have went extinct from either bending over and the blood rushing to his head and blowing out his brain or raising his head to fast and passing out when predators appear.
> 
> What is so amazing is this little sponge like thing in the brain that stores blood to prevent him from passing out and this valve that restricts blood flow so he don't blow his brain out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fundie giraffe conspiracy has been debunked earlier.
Click to expand...


Dreamer, you're just a little dreamer, and you put your...  Woohoo Supertramp!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously don't know your gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure he does our God has many names but only one God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie totally missed the joke on her when she claimed she was of "the male persuasion" posing as Rugged Touch.
Click to expand...


I'll take this to mean that you can't find anything to cut and paste so you're left to childish attempts at personal attacks.

There's a good christian boy.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will show you how ignorant your view is. If the giraffe slowly evolved he would have went extinct from either bending over and the blood rushing to his head and blowing out his brain or raising his head to fast and passing out when predators appear.
> 
> What is so amazing is this little sponge like thing in the brain that stores blood to prevent him from passing out and this valve that restricts blood flow so he don't blow his brain out.
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie giraffe conspiracy has been debunked earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dreamer, you're just a little dreamer, and you put your...  Woohoo Supertramp!
Click to expand...

All the tact of a 12 year old. 

Yes ladies and gentlemen. It us appropriate to point and laugh at the deranged fundie.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> If the development of living organisms DID NOT generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms, then I have no idea why Evolutionists would say that it did.



That's really funny!!! When I made the claim this was a tenant of evolutionary theory, I was told it was a strawman. Me thinks someone is a little loose with the fallacy accusations.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> *Natural law* does not vary with biology. All of nature remains subject to the same natural constraints and capabilities.



Wow! Now we can agree on something...

_"Our Constitution is based in part on *Natural Law.* Now what is that? Natural Law is seldom studied in America, outside institutions of higher education and seminaries. However, it was well-known to our nation&#8217;s founders, from their studies of the writings of Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC-43 BC) an accomplished Roman philosopher/lawyer; and Sir William Blackstone (1723&#8211;1780), an English jurist, who wrote the doctrines of English Law in &#8220;Commentaries on the Laws of England&#8221; (1765&#8211;69).

Cicero described Natural Law as True Law: &#8220;True Law is right reason in agreement with nature (God, the Supreme Being); it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions &#8230;. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it &#8230;.&#8221;

Further explaining his concept, Cicero added that Natural Law comes from God to man through man&#8217;s ability to reason, &#8220;(Man) is the only one among so many different kinds and verities of living beings who has a share in reason and thought (given by God) &#8230;. And reason, when it is full grown and perfected, is rightly called wisdom &#8230; the first common possession of man and God is reason.&#8221; (&#8220;Great Political Thinkers,&#8221; by Ebenstine).

Thus Natural Law is law that can be reasoned by man,* because it is law written on man&#8217;s heart by God.* God doesn&#8217;t just grab us and in a lightning bolt write with his finger on our chest. *Natural law is embedded in the conscience.* Natural Law provided our founders with such concepts as: unalienable rights, unalienable duties, self-preservation or the right to self-defense, justice by reparation and duty to take care of one&#8217;s self, to name a few." _

Natural Law pivotal to founding fathers » Opinion » The Edmond Sun


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the development of living organisms DID NOT generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms, then I have no idea why Evolutionists would say that it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's really funny!!! When I made the claim this was a tenant of evolutionary theory, I was told it was a strawman. Me thinks someone is a little loose with the fallacy accusations.
Click to expand...


I suspect you're not able to keep track of the material you cut and paste and you wind up stumbling over conflicting authorship.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll note with amusement that the "evilutionist" who agree with you are typically connected with Harun Yahya and similar creationist organizations.
> 
> Additionally, nothing in the above serves your arguments for supernatural, supermagical gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Dawkins and Hawkins are connected with Horun Yallie?? Hollie, no disrespect, but you really are the most ignorant person I have ever encountered on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no need to project your failings and inadequacies on others.
> 
> Lashing out like a petulant child will not cover your tracks at being hopelessly inept. The discussions that require you to cut and paste from creationist websites are causing you angst. Your failing at any productive participation. You should just leave... for the third time.
Click to expand...


I'm not lashing out. It really is a very true statement. You are, by far, the most ignorant and foolish person I have ever encountered on the internet. I mean that in the most non-theatening and sincere way.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural law does not vary with biology. All of nature remains subject to the same natural constraints and capabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Now we can agree on something...
> 
> _"Our Constitution is based in part on Natural Law. Now what is that? Natural Law is seldom studied in America, outside institutions of higher education and seminaries. However, it was well-known to our nations founders, from their studies of the writings of Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC-43 BC) an accomplished Roman philosopher/lawyer; and Sir William Blackstone (17231780), an English jurist, who wrote the doctrines of English Law in Commentaries on the Laws of England (176569).
> 
> Cicero described Natural Law as True Law: True Law is right reason in agreement with nature (God, the Supreme Being); it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions . It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it .
> 
> Further explaining his concept, Cicero added that Natural Law comes from God to man through mans ability to reason, (Man) is the only one among so many different kinds and verities of living beings who has a share in reason and thought (given by God) . And reason, when it is full grown and perfected, is rightly called wisdom  the first common possession of man and God is reason. (Great Political Thinkers, by Ebenstine).
> 
> Thus Natural Law is law that can be reasoned by man,* because it is law written on mans heart by God.* God doesnt just grab us and in a lightning bolt write with his finger on our chest. *Natural law is embedded in the conscience.* Natural Law provided our founders with such concepts as: unalienable rights, unalienable duties, self-preservation or the right to self-defense, justice by reparation and duty to take care of ones self, to name a few." _
> 
> Natural Law pivotal to founding fathers » Opinion » The Edmond Sun
Click to expand...

What a waste of time and bandwidth. 

One of the downside to the web is that it can become a playground for mindless cut and  pasters.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Dawkins and Hawkins are connected with Horun Yallie?? Hollie, no disrespect, but you really are the most ignorant person I have ever encountered on the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need to project your failings and inadequacies on others.
> 
> Lashing out like a petulant child will not cover your tracks at being hopelessly inept. The discussions that require you to cut and paste from creationist websites are causing you angst. Your failing at any productive participation. You should just leave... for the third time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not lashing out. It really is a very true statement. You are, by far, the most ignorant and foolish person I have ever encountered on the internet. I mean that in the most non-theatening and sincere way.
Click to expand...


You need help for your feelings of failure and inadequacy.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> The discussions that require you to cut and paste from *creationist websites* are causing you angst. Your failing at any productive participation. You should just leave... for the third time.



*Canned Athiest Accusation #5: Intelligent Design is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo*

    In fact, the two theories are radically different. Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorizes and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. *Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based. *

    Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years. We notice the forward approach in Tertullian, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Anselm. Augustine described it best with the phrase, faith seeking understanding. With these thinkers, the investigation was faith-based. By contrast, we discover the backward orientation in Aristotle, Aquinas, and Paley. Aristotles argument, which begins with motion in nature and reasons BACK to a prime mover  i.e. from effect to its best causal explanation  is obviously empirically based.

*To say then, that Tertullian, Augustine, Anselm (Creationism) is similar to Aristotle, Aquinas, Paley (ID) is equivalent to saying forward equals backward. What could be more illogical?*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need to project your failings and inadequacies on others.
> 
> Lashing out like a petulant child will not cover your tracks at being hopelessly inept. The discussions that require you to cut and paste from creationist websites are causing you angst. Your failing at any productive participation. You should just leave... for the third time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not lashing out. It really is a very true statement. You are, by far, the most ignorant and foolish person I have ever encountered on the internet. I mean that in the most non-theatening and sincere way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need help for your feelings of failure and inadequacy.
Click to expand...


...Says the Christian-Hating, Angry Lesbian Atheist with fundie-Christian Gay Hating parents.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discussions that require you to cut and paste from *creationist websites* are causing you angst. Your failing at any productive participation. You should just leave... for the third time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Canned Athiest Accusation #5: Intelligent Design is &#8220;Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo&#8221;*
> 
> In fact, the two theories are radically different. Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorizes and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. *Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based. *
> 
> Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years. We notice the &#8220;forward&#8221; approach in Tertullian, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Anselm. Augustine described it best with the phrase, &#8220;faith seeking understanding.&#8221; With these thinkers, the investigation was faith-based. By contrast, we discover the &#8220;backward&#8221; orientation in Aristotle, Aquinas, and Paley. Aristotle&#8217;s argument, which begins with &#8220;motion in nature&#8221; and reasons BACK to a &#8220;prime mover&#8221; &#8212; i.e. from effect to its &#8220;best&#8221; causal explanation &#8212; is obviously empirically based.
> 
> *To say then, that Tertullian, Augustine, Anselm (Creationism) is similar to Aristotle, Aquinas, Paley (ID) is equivalent to saying forward equals backward. What could be more illogical?*
Click to expand...

There was one correct statement in your cutting and pasting: ID certainly does move backwards.

It's among the more intellectually bankrupt of religious claims. It's Christian creationism with a newer label but the same tired, crank spokesmen and agenda.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not lashing out. It really is a very true statement. You are, by far, the most ignorant and foolish person I have ever encountered on the internet. I mean that in the most non-theatening and sincere way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need help for your feelings of failure and inadequacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...Says the Christian-Hating, Angry Lesbian Atheist with fundie-Christian Gay Hating parents.
Click to expand...


My goodness but aren't you the angry fundie.

There's no need to project your sexual frustrations and feelings of inadequacy on others.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need help for your feelings of failure and inadequacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Says the Christian-Hating, Angry Lesbian Atheist with fundie-Christian Gay Hating parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My goodness but aren't you the angry fundie.
> 
> There's no need to project your sexual frustrations and feelings of inadequacy on others.
Click to expand...


Methinks the man-lady doth protest too much.

Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Says the Christian-Hating, Angry Lesbian Atheist with fundie-Christian Gay Hating parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness but aren't you the angry fundie.
> 
> There's no need to project your sexual frustrations and feelings of inadequacy on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Methinks the man-lady doth protest too much.
Click to expand...


I think your behavior speaks to unresolved feelings of inadequacy and failure. 

Really, go sample the Kool-Aid.

You're projecting.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness but aren't you the angry fundie.
> 
> There's no need to project your sexual frustrations and feelings of inadequacy on others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the man-lady doth protest too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think your behavior speaks to unresolved feelings of inadequacy and failure.
> 
> Really, go sample the Kool-Aid.
> 
> You're projecting.
Click to expand...


Even though I engage in less than polite internet banter at times, and I am an easy target for you to unload all that anger you have with your fundie parents on, don't let that keep you from missing out on the greatest truth of you life. That is, God still loves and accepts you, regardless of your lifestyle choice or how much you hate Him or try to defame Him at the moment. There is nothing you can do to make God stop loving you. I didn't even fully realize this until I had children of my own.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now we know you are thoroughly dissociated from reality.  It's like magic! "*Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism*". It doesn't matter which, because with "the magic code of DNA" (being "*chemically independent from the informational code it carries*"), *you could replace the bases in DNA with any random reactive chemical, and nothing about "informational code" it carries would change.* Good. Just great.
> 
> WOW! You're retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said any of that!!!
Click to expand...

You sure did!


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now we know you are thoroughly dissociated from reality.  It's like magic! "*Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism*". It doesn't matter which, because with "the magic code of DNA" (being "*chemically independent from the informational code it carries*"), *LOKI SAID you could replace the bases in DNA with any random reactive chemical, and nothing about "informational code" it carries would change.* Good. Just great.
> 
> WOW! You're retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said any of that!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure did!
Click to expand...


Really?  That is your commentary to my post, not my original. My point was that the dna molecule can carry information. If you go back and read it one more time. There is an *"OR"* in there. Never did I say gibberish would build a complex organism. You need to retake 3rd grade reading my friend.

Plus, your assertion you could replace the bases is a lie. There are complex mollecular machines that make up the entire system that depend on the exact bases. Dna is just the instructions that need to be read and used to build the organism.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the man-lady doth protest too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think your behavior speaks to unresolved feelings of inadequacy and failure.
> 
> Really, go sample the Kool-Aid.
> 
> You're projecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even though I engage in less than polite internet banter at times, and I am an easy target for you to unload all that anger you have with your fundie parents on, don't let that keep you from missing out on the greatest truth of you life. That is, God still loves and accepts you, regardless of your lifestyle choice or how much you hate Him or try to defame Him at the moment. There is nothing you can do to make God stop loving you. I didn't even fully realize this until I had children of my own.
Click to expand...

You're projecting, dear.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said any of that!!!
> 
> 
> 
> You sure did!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  That is your commentary to my post, not my original.
Click to expand...

Oh really? I have done you the favor of linking to your own words, so that you can see in your own words what you said.



UltimateReality said:


> My point was that the dna molecule can carry information.


I don't think that point is in contention at all.



UltimateReality said:


> If you go back and read it one more time. There is an *"OR"* in there. Never did I say gibberish would build a complex organism. You need to retake 3rd grade reading my friend.


Perhaps you need to take 3rd grade writing, and become acquainted with the notion of punctuation. What you said was:





UltimateReality said:


> Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism.


Which is entirely consistent with your insistent demand that DNA is a "code"--consistent with your misuse of the term "code"; DNA molecules are symbols that represent proteins. Indeed, "gibberish" is one of the valid functions that your usage of the term (intelligently designed type of) "code" is useful for. It is a necessarily valid conclusion to be drawn from your paradigm. As symbols do not dictate the nature of the reality of the actual things they represent, even "gibberish" can have ANY meaning that a designer assigns to it, and it becomes a "code" on that merit alone.

Now if you meant to say, "DNA could contain gibberish. Or DNA could contain complex instructions to build a complex organism." The way they teach children to write it is: "DNA could contain gibberish*,* or complex instructions to build a complex organism."

But what you meant, the point you say I've been missing, is the precise point you made as first stated--*just* as you have "stated it several times (!!!)" You have been consistent on this point the whole time. And this whole time I haven't been missing your fatuous point--I just find it entirely unacceptable.



UltimateReality said:


> Plus, your assertion you could replace the bases is a lie.


That's not my assertion at all ... it's entirely yours!





UltimateReality said:


> You are still missing the point, although I have stated it several times (!!!) *the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions*. ... What you can't get is that *dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!*!


Which, as it turns out, I could get and did get. Your point made is AGAIN consistent with your insistent demand that DNA is a "code"--consistent with your misuse of the term; DNA molecules are symbols that represent proteins.

Since symbols do not dictate the nature of the reality of the actual things they represent; following your paradigm where dna as a molecule is *chemically independent* from the informational code it carries!, it naturally follows that the chemicals used as symbols are irrelevant to "the informational code," hence irrelevant to the protein that it represents. You see, I haven't been missing your point at all--I just find it entirely unacceptable.

Perhaps, and I admit to suspecting it's likely, YOU have been missing the point you have been making all this time.



UltimateReality said:


> There are complex mollecular machines that make up the entire system that depend on the exact bases. Dna is just the instructions that need to be read and used to build the organism.


You can't have it both ways and avoid the question-begging your superstitious tribe is so well known to demand is valid reasoning.

I agree that "there are complex molecular machines that make up the entire system that depend on the *exact bases*." That substitutions cannot be made if the product of their functions is to remain consistent. If DNA is one of those machines (I think it is), and it actually has it's very own discrete, specific, necessary, and self-defining function in the production of proteins (I think it does), then it's not actually a *symbol* for proteins--DNA then is not "code" that means proteins, because DNA doesn't actually function (in the genetics of organisms) that way.

DESPITE how manifestly useful the similes and metaphors are, that describe DNA as "instructions", "blue-prints", "software", "language", and "code", DNA only functions *LIKE* them for specifically constrained descriptive purposes.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, you can deny the truth about your so called "science" all day long but it won't make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? It looks like you think you've made some kind of point, but this assertion is senseless from it premise to its conclusion.
> 
> Not at all surprising from someone who is so confused about reality that you went right from "25 "could haves" and 18 "may haves"" right to "you are liar when you say that science doesn't start from an unconditional certainty."
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism is steeped in prejudice and purposeful outcomes. But I guess your version of reality is your version, regardless of whether or not you can see how skewed your view of it is from your twisted perception vantage point. You don't need to go outside, why, you can just alter realty and enjoy the outdoors right there at your computer. Later, you can say it is a fact that you* may have* gone outside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Prejudice" and "twisted perception vantage point" is evidenced by the cognitive dissonance of your incoherent attacks upon "Darwinism."
> 
> You clearly have no coherently principled issue with "Darwinism." Just as you've arbitrarily declared creationism to be "the truth," you've just arbitrarily declared evolution wrong--and you just pick *ANY* attack that you deem handy (rather than sensible or logically valid, for instance) in the moment.
> 
> You have provided prima-facie evidence of your close-minded prejudice against the theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello, McFly??? I am not a Creationist. Evolution is wrong. Its a sham... pseudoscience not based in any semblance of the scientific method.
> 
> Still waiting on you giraffe study. Regarding the your "observable" cartoon, feel free to find a giraffe study that also includes some fossil evidence as well.
Click to expand...

I visited Cincinnatis zoo with little Juliet a few days ago.  Its one of the oldest zoos in America, but they continue to expand and improve the animal habitats.  One of the new features is a feeding deck for the giraffes.  As I was watching the exotic creatures snake out their tongues for some tasty straw, I overheard a man talking to his wife about evolution.

I totally understand evolution for some animals, but giraffes have me perplexed.

I thought about it and decided that the matter needed investigating.  Ill never see this man again, but he left me with an itch that I had to scratch.  How did giraffes evolve?  Where did those long necks come from?  What is the deal?

It turns out that giraffe evolution is not an open and shut case.  Creationists have been trotting out arguments about how there are gaps in the fossil record.  They also claim that the long necks co-evolved elaborate biological functions, which, in their minds, must be impossible.

Darwin actually handled the latter argument quite well in his own published writings.

With animals such as the giraffe, of which the whole structure is admirably co-ordinated for certain purposes, it has been supposed that all the parts must have been simultaneously modified; and it has been argued that, on the principle of natural selection, this is scarcely possible. But in thus arguing, it has been tacitly assumed that the variations must have been abrupt and great

Most of the special biological features that make a giraffes neck possible are just adaptations of traits shared by all mammals.  Theres no reason that these traits couldnt have co-evolved slowly; as the neck lengthened, the valves and arteries were naturally selected as well.   See more about this at SkepticWiki!

Creationists exaggerate missing gaps in the fossil record to poke holes in Darwinian evolution, but the argument is a fallacy called god of the gaps .  Since there are unexplained gaps in the fossil record, creationists believe that god must be the default answer.  The chance that such a transitional fossil may yet be found does not seem to be an acceptable option to creationists.  Its ironic that gaps in the fossil record are held up by creationists as proof against evolution because some of evolutions greatest victories have come from the discovery of missing links.  Gaps in the fossil record have allowed scientists to make predictions on the types of fossils they expect to find (such as a transition between fish and amphibian  tiktaalik).  The sign of a good theory is one that scientists can use to make verifiable predictions.

Intelligent design advocates have tried the god of the gaps tactic with whale fossils, but theyve been repeatedly beaten down by the discovery of numerous transitional whale fossils that fill the gaps between ambulocetus and the modern whales.

Its true that the known fossil record has always lacked an extensive library of transitional giraffe fossils, but just because there arent as many known giraffe ancestors as horse ancestors doesnt mean that giraffes are exempt from evolution.  It shouldnt be too much of a leap in logic for creationists to imagine the transitions between the deer-sized giraffe ancestor climacoceras and the modern giraffe. Indeed, if one looks at the current collection of transitional giraffe species, the gaps dont seem too vast, actually:  climacoceras, Palaeotragus, samotherium, honanotherium, etc. Evolutions proven track record allows me the safety of predicting that there will be even more giraffe transitional fossils discovered.

So, how and why did Giraffes get those long necks.  Why did the oft overlooked Giraffe sibling species, the okapi, not receive such exotic traits.

The initial default answer given by Darwin and Lamarck, and most zoo visitors like myself, seems to be the idea that long necks were an advantage for giraffes when they needed to eat leaves from tall trees during the summer drought.  This hypothesis has been criticized for various reason.

The prevailing theory is that the long necks are sexually selected by the females.  This sexual selection can be seen when the male giraffes start slapping each other around with their massive necks until the winner eventually mounts the damsel in heat [gross aside: male giraffes know a female is in heat by tasting her urine].

There are other theories too.  Some say that the long legs make it easier for giraffes to run away from most predators.  Others say that the long necks make it easier for giraffes to see approaching predators.  I dont see why both of these observations cant be additional valid explanations of natural selection, along with the sexual selection theory favored by biologists.

I dont blame the guy at the zoo for being baffled by giraffe evolution.  The explorers who originally rediscovered giraffes called them camelopards (now Giraffa camelopardalis) because they resembled a cross between a camel and a leopard.  I may not have found Kirk Camerons fabled crockaduck, but I did learn a few neat things about the giraffe, and its ancestors.  Sometimes its fun to follow up on a random comment.  I always wind up learning something new.



Investigating Giraffe Evolution! « Skeptic Family


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Appeal to Ignorance
> *
> _The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms: (1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false. (2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true. The fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fallacy is also called Argument from Ignorance.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Nobody has ever proved to me theres a God, so I know there is no God._
> 
> Funny you should throw this one around, because Darwinian theory does this ALL THE TIME.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,  Darwinian theory does no such thing. Evolutionary theory makes no appeals to designer gods. Because you're unable to understand the topic you're hoping to denigrate, that makes you a poor candidate for entering these discussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, it doesn't appeal to designer gods. It does, however, appeal to ignorance.
Click to expand...

REALLY!? what's more ignorant?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you continue to* play stupid* doesn't mean it hasn't been presented here. Why don't you pick up a copy of "Signature in the Cell"?
> 
> For a whole $13 you can actually study an opposing viewpoint instead of regurgitating and spewing rehearsed atheistic propaganda.
> 
> Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design: Stephen C. Meyer: 9780061472794: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer is a hack. Precisely why he shills for the creationist ministry you copy and paste from.
> 
> Would you care to describe for us the pre-qualifying agreement signed by those who shill for the ICR?
> 
> I posted it for you previously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he is not a hack,he is bringing to you reality.
Click to expand...

ahahahahaha... this coming from the man who believes that Mayans had pet dinosaurs...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> read through the last few pages and  YWC is STILL ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED
> UR is still yammering about materialistic religion as the devil's handiwork (oxymoron).
> KG flew in on her broom stick babbled something meaningless then flew  away..
> still wating for gods' barcode...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The genetic code barrier.
Click to expand...

you mean the one there is no proof for?
btw didn't you say something like: "this is my last post to you... mental midget" -YWC
do you always fail to keep your word?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Says the Christian-Hating, Angry Lesbian Atheist with fundie-Christian Gay Hating parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness but aren't you the angry fundie.
> 
> There's no need to project your sexual frustrations and feelings of inadequacy on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Methinks the man-lady doth protest too much.
> 
> Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ.
Click to expand...

isn't lying (see above) a sin?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness but aren't you the angry fundie.
> 
> There's no need to project your sexual frustrations and feelings of inadequacy on others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the man-lady doth protest too much.
> 
> Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> isn't lying (see above) a sin?
Click to expand...


Please point out the lie.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the man-lady doth protest too much.
> 
> Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> isn't lying (see above) a sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point out the lie.
Click to expand...

"Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ."- UR
you have no proof hollie is gay lie#1
"                         " that hollie's parents were fundies 
"                          " of god 
"                          that the bible is accurate..


----------



## daws101

Microevolution vs Macroevolution
Is There A Difference Between Microevolution & Macroevolution?
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
.See More About:evolution & sciencemicroevolution vs macroevolution
There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called microevolution and macroevolution, two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory. 

Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population  changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species coloring or size. 

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together. 

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution  one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will. 

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they dont use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply dont pay attention to them. 

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons. 

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons  this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time. 

In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error  creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis. 

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed. 

Conclusion:
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter  and listen to the silence. 

Microevolution vs Macroevolution: Is There A Difference Between Microevolution & Macroevolution?



Creationists like to erroneously claim that it is impossible for the 
accumulation of microevolutionary changes to produce macroevolutionary 
changes. A "genetic barrier" is oftern cited to account for this, although 
it is never identified. The hypothesis states, "there is a 'genetic 
barrier' that prevents one 'kind' from evolving into another 'kind.'" I have 
yet to see any attempt to justify this hypothesis using actual genetics or 
science. Furthermore, there clearly is not a justification because modern 
genetics has disproved this hypothesis (see below). However, it is another 
creationist buzzword that has no actual scientific value. 

The hypothesis of a "genetic barrier" was not originated by creationists. It 
arose almost a hundred years ago by biologists/evolutionists to describe the 
difference between macroevolution, evolution apparent between species, and 
microevolution, evolution apparent within a species. Creationists like to 
claim that the mechanisms from macroevolution are fundamentally different 
from the mechanisms for microevolution; this is their genetic barrier. They 
then assert that there is no evidence for macroevolution while 
microevolution is well supported. They never show why any evidence 
supporting macro is wrong; they just say it is. A long quote (please forgive 
me) from Futuyma helps explains the issue: 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the 
Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that 'macroevolutionary' 
differences among organisms--those that distinguish higher taxa--arise from 
the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found 
within species. Opponents of this point of view believed that 
'macroevolution' is qualitatively different from 'microevolution' within a 
species, and is based on a totally different kind of genetic and 
developmental repatterning. The iconoclastic geneticist Richard Goldschmidt 
(1940), who held this opinion, believed that the evolution of species marks 
the break between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'--that there is a 
'bridgeless gap' between species that cannot be understood in terms of the 
genetic variation within species. Genetic studies of species differences 
have decisively disproved Goldschmidt's claim. Differences between species 
in morphology, behavior, and the process that underlie reproductive 
isolation all have the same genetic properties as variation within species: 
they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or based 
on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic effects, and 
they can in some instances be traced to specifiable differences in proteins 
or DNA nucleotide differences. The degree of reproductive isolation between 
populations, whether prezygotic or postzygotic, varies from little or none 
to complete. Thus, reproductive isolation, like the divergence of any other 
character, evolves in most cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in 
populations. 
(Evolutionary Biology, third edition. 477-478)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 

Barrierists believe, like Goldschmidt did, that macroevolution and 
microevolution are fundamentally different; however, unlike Goldschmidt, 
they use the absence of a macro-only mechanism as proof of a creator and 
proof against evolution. The reason for the absence of a macro-only 
mechanism is that the same mechanisms apply to both micro- and 
macroevolution. This is not an "easy out" explanation, as they'd have 
laymen believe. It is backed up by genetic and biological observations and 
experiments. Goldschmidt was able to state his claim in 1940 because the 
science of molecular genetics did not exist then. It wasn't until the 1950s 
that Watson and Crick solved the structure of DNA and showed how genetic 
information was passed in cell division via template strands. The genetic 
code was later solved, explaining how DNA encoded proteins. Modern 
sequencing strategies allow us to map molecular genetic mutations to actual 
genes, demonstrating the variability of populations and the power of 
evolution. These sequencing strategies also allow us to map the differences 
between two organisms' genomes. The genetic distinctions for taxa can be 
detected by comparing organisms from different taxa. The data generated from 
such investigations show that distinctions between taxa follow the same 
rules as distinctions within a taxon. 

Genetic Barriers Don't Exist [Archive] - BaptistBoard.com


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the development of living organisms DID NOT generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms, then I have no idea why Evolutionists would say that it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's really funny!!! When I made the claim this was a tenant of evolutionary theory, I was told it was a strawman. Me thinks someone is a little loose with the fallacy accusations.
Click to expand...

I had no idea that a general observation meant a person or group that rents and occupies land, a house, an office, or the like, from another for a period of time; lessee.

I'm not even sure that such a general observation could even be considered a *tenet* ... period.

BTW, Mr. "3rd Grade Reading Comprehension," claiming that a tenet of evolutionary is that the development of living organisms DID NOT generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms, is in fact, a strawman argument.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality, I was surprised to hear you declare that you are not a young earth creationist, as I assumed you were. Would you mind re-iterating what is your belief about how humans came to be? How old do you believe the earth is, what is your justification for this, and what mechanism do you think caused humans to exist? Do you deny evolutionary theory entirely, or just certain parts of it? How much do you suppose god is responsible for, and how did he do it?

Youwerecreated, the same questions go to you, if you don't mind. I'm interested to know. Thanks.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> isn't lying (see above) a sin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please point out the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ."- UR
> you have no proof hollie is gay lie#1
> "                         " that hollie's parents were fundies
> "                          " of god
> "                          that the bible is accurate..
Click to expand...


I'll borrow this from your camp.... prove I have no proof.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the development of living organisms DID NOT generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms, then I have no idea why Evolutionists would say that it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's really funny!!! When I made the claim this was a tenant of evolutionary theory, I was told it was a strawman. Me thinks someone is a little loose with the fallacy accusations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had no idea that a general observation meant a person or group that rents and occupies land, a house, an office, or the like, from another for a period of time; lessee.
> 
> I'm not even sure that such a general observation could even be considered a *tenet* ... period.
> 
> BTW, Mr. "3rd Grade Reading Comprehension," claiming that a tenet of evolutionary is that the development of living organisms DID NOT generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms, is in fact, a strawman argument.
Click to expand...


Communication takes two people and obviously we aren't communicating. To clarify, I claimed that evolutionist claim living organisms progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms and that the so called common ancestor was a single cell organism. I was told this was a strawman.

And by the way, I happened on a grammar mistake of yours last night but I wasn't so immature to actually make an issue of it. *You're a child.* And how do you know that I *may have meant* the claim was paying evolution rent???  Or I *could have* just not noticed that spellcheck was correcting incorrectly.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality, I was surprised to hear you declare that you are not a young earth creationist, as I assumed you were. Would you mind re-iterating what is your belief about how humans came to be? How old do you believe the earth is, what is your justification for this, and what mechanism do you think caused humans to exist? Do you deny evolutionary theory entirely, or just certain parts of it? How much do you suppose god is responsible for, and how did he do it?
> 
> Youwerecreated, the same questions go to you, if you don't mind. I'm interested to know. Thanks.



YWC and my religious beliefs are pretty much the same. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. And I pretty much believe everything contained in the Creation story, but I believe it is metaphorical, like many stories in the Bible, meant to convey a deeper meaning, but not actually to be taken literally. I believe in an old universe and a 4 billion-year-old earth. I believe the designer has acted throughout history to "seed" the planet. I believe Homo Sapien to be a new design, seeded on earth from the designer within the last 20,000 years. But I also believe Homo Sapien was infused with attributes of the designer, making him like no other animal the earth had ever seen. I believe consciousness, the will to create, and self awareness to be among these attributes. I also believe at some point in early Homo Sapien history, by his choice, evil entered into his makeup. And by makeup, I mean his dna. This brought Homo Sapien into conflict internally, at once battling against his animal urges but also infused with God's awareness of good and evil. The Christianese concept for this is that every human is born into sin. Post Modernist Humanist teach that man is essentially good. Homo Sapien may have started this way, but not now after "the fall". I also believe at the fall, *ALL* of Creation was corrupted. I believe "sin" is anything contrary to the Designer's intent, but also, anything contrary to the Designer's nature.  Whether the fall of man happened in an actual geographically place called Eden, chosen by a real man named Adam, or is metaphorical, I still believe the principles of the fall necessarily abide. *I also believe the fall was when copying errors were introduced, giving man an expiration date.* I don't believe man is purely material. I believe there is a "spirit" "contained" within his material shell that can't be understood or measured by matter or material sciences. 

I believe the Designer crammed his "spirit" into a material body and lived on the earth as a man named Jesus Christ. I believe Christ was the "Son" of God only in the way that humans would understand this relationship. (Obviously, son is an earthly term which applies to human offspring, not God). I also believe Christ is the only Begotten son, meaning he actually came from the Being we believe is God "the Father". This just means that Christ was not part of the Creation, was not a Created or Designed being, and like the "Father" has on beginning and no end. Jesus was 100% God, but on earth, he was also 100% man. I believe he came to earth, lived a sinless life, and then died for our sins. I believe He was resurrected and taken up into heaven (a term used to describe our existence outside of space, time, matter and energy.) I believe Christ, God, and God's Spirit existed prior to the Big Bang. The Bible says the Designer has no beginning and no end. Since Hawkins now admits that even time began at the Big Bang, I don't consider it a huge leap of logic to believe the Designer is not subject to the constraints of time or matter. He exists outside the Cosmos. This is why philosophically, there is no necessity for *Him *(I don't believe God has a penis by the way) to have a beginning. He is infinite forwards and backwards, outside of time, even though our universe is finite and subject to time. 

*As far as Creationists go, I really don't see their need to put humans and dinosaurs in the same epoch.* I'm not sure why they think Christ's genealogy in the Bible locks them into a specific amount of years for the earth. I know Hollie is always calling me a fundie to get a rise out of me but I am far from a fundamentalist Christian. No where in the Bible does it teach one has to "invite Jesus into your heart." This a phrase coined in the last century by protestant "fundies" but I think really causes people to miss what it really means to be a Christ follower. I am cautious about taking any portion of the Bible too literally or listening to some preacher tell me which parts are literal and which aren't. It is funny to me that Creationists get so caught up in a strict interpretation of the 7 day story. Yet *I don't see too many one eyed Creationists walking around. *Christ clearly commands if your eye makes you sin you should "gouge it out". Now do I think Christ meant that literally? No, I don't. But I also don't under stand Creationists that would say of course Christ didn't REALLY mean to gouge your eye out. Then why do they believe Moses, regularly credited with being the author of Genesis, was telling a literal story of Creation? How do they pick and choose what is metaphorically and what isn't? I have also heard fundies state that you must *believe every single word in the Bible or you have to throw the whole thing out.* This stance lacks logic, since it assumes that the decisions mere mortal men made at the council of Trent on what books would be contained in the collection known as the Bible somehow had a more direct line to God than we as modern Christians can have. This may sound cliche', but my God is much bigger than the Bible. Fundamentalists like for things to be black and white and they don't want to have to deal with the hard questions, like, "Did God really tell the Israelites to kill babies???" I don't mind wrestling with those hard questions. I also don't think you can compartmentalize the Being that the Bible tells us *"spat stars out of his mouth"* in the pages of the same tiny book. God won't be constrained by anything, not religion, and yes, not even the Bible. I still believe the core beliefs and principles of Christianity are simple. God set up rules which He Himself would abide by, because he cannot go against his Godly nature. Man violated those rules, the penalty for which was death (expiration of your dna and an end to your existence-consciousness). However, God loved us so much that he sent his only begotten son to die in our place. He complied with the laws and rules of the universe, at a great price I might add, so that we might live. So get confused about the death the Bible refers to but it is merely the death of your existence, of your consciousness. Even though my body will die, my faith in Christ will allow my existence, my consciousness, to continue on outside of matter, and not constrained by the time of this finite universe. Many have posed questions of Christianity throughout the ages. It always strikes me as funny that folks like Hollie and Loki believe they are wrestling with new concepts. One of those is if God is all knowing, and knows the future, why would he go ahead and create the world anyways, knowing what a mess it would turn into? Theologians have wrestled with this question and many others for centuries. If you are interested in some of these concepts, I can refer you to some very NON Fundie books. One of my favorites is Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell. Another one of Bell's works, Love Wins, has caused quite the stir in fundie circles because it proposes that eventually, we all make it to heaven, or at least some point have the choice too. I'm not sure I agree with Bell on all his points but I am at least open enough to consider them. Hard questions about Christianity don't freak me out. I also really enjoy *CS Lewis perspectives. He is a great Theologian, and wrestles with these questions, usually used to attack Christianity, in such a deeply thoughtful and wise way.* Hey, even if you don't get anything out of reading them, at least you have educated yourself a little more on the enemy.  

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Complete-C-S-Lewis-Signature-Classics/dp/0060506083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348120042&sr=8-1&keywords=cs+lewis+collection[/ame]

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Love-Wins-About-Heaven-Person/dp/0062049658/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348120275&sr=1-1&keywords=love+wins+Rob+Bell[/ame]


And one of my all time favorite books on Christianity:

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Velvet-Elvis-Repainting-Christian-Faith/dp/B0057D8RU0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348120306&sr=1-1&keywords=velvet+elvis+Rob+Bell[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

I try to limit scientific discussions to science, which is the mantra of the ID movement. Although ID believes the cause of life on this planet was intelligence, they make no religious or metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer (little d). However, my religious belief is that the identity of the designer is the Judeo Christian God of the Bible and I refer to that Entity as the Designer (capital D). I haven't tried to keep my religious beliefs a secret, as the atheistic agenda folks want to pretend is happening. They are accusatory if we are keeping religion out of the discussion and accusatory if we allow it in. Here is a response from Meyer on the movement:

*It seems like the idea or inference of anything supernatural scares scientists away. Do you agree?*

Well, all we are inferring is intelligence. Whether it is supernatural or natural is a matter for further deliberation. I dont even like the term supernatural. I think the better philosophical distinction is between transcendent and immanent. Are we talking about an intelligence within the cosmos or an intelligence that is in some way beyond it? And thats a theological distinction. I think it is possible to reason about that, and whether you call it a philosophical deliberation or not, it doesnt really matter. All the theory of intelligent design is doing is establishing that intelligence was responsible for certain features of life. We recognize intelligence all the time, and we have scientific methods for it. If youre an archaeologist and youre looking at the Rosetta Stone, are you duty-bound to continue looking for naturalistic explanations even though you know full well that wind and erosion and everything else you can imagine is not capable of making those inscriptions? No, youre not. You really ought to conclude the obvious, which is that a scribe was involved. There was an intelligence behind it.

Meyer also readily admits he is a Christian. He is not hiding it. He is just keeping it out of ID Theory. He differentiates between concepts that can be proven by empirical science and philosophical and religious concepts that can't be "proven". For all the arguing and strawmanning that goes on here, it is more about bashing than it is about actually trying to think logically about what is being proposed. I get totally sucked in to the debate and attacks and behave very non-Christian at times. The anonymity of the internet does that to people. But it also frees people if they really want to be free, to admit things they wouldn't normally admit. Like I can admit I am obsessed with fitness and my body image. I also tend to lash out when I feel I am being attacked. Both these issues can be traced back to childhood wounds. I was relentlessly bullied pretty much from kindergarten until the 11th grade for being overweight at a time when only one or two kids in the whole school were fat. (now the skinny kid is the freak ) I have surrendered this to Christ and have forgiven the abusers, but I tend to take it back at times. I think that is a common struggle Christians face, giving the wounds over to Christ, but then sinning as we make ourselves the God of our lives again, taking all of our garbage back. That doesn't mean we give up, but it is a struggle to deny self and strive to be more Christ like. Christ said "my yoke is easy and my burden is light". I hear atheists talk a lot about Christians not living life to the fullest because they are counting on heaven. This is not a tenet (you happy Loki) of Christianity. Christ said that he came so we could have life and live it to the fullest. The atheistic viewpoint that life on this earth can somehow be lived immune from tragedy, brokenness and disappointment comes from Humanism, and it is not reality. No matter how much you believe this is your only shot, it won't prevent you from succumbing to the pitfalls of this fallen earth. How can you make sense of the person that is cut off before ever exiting the womb? What about the six year old girl that is accidentally killed by her father when he drives over her? How do atheists reconcile this using only the law of the jungle?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality, I was surprised to hear you declare that you are not a young earth creationist, as I assumed you were. Would you mind re-iterating what is your belief about how humans came to be? How old do you believe the earth is, what is your justification for this, and what mechanism do you think caused humans to exist? Do you deny evolutionary theory entirely, or just certain parts of it? How much do you suppose god is responsible for, and how did he do it?
> 
> Youwerecreated, the same questions go to you, if you don't mind. I'm interested to know. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YWC and my religious beliefs are pretty much the same. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. And I pretty much believe everything contained in the Creation story, but I believe it is metaphorical, like many stories in the Bible, meant to convey a deeper meaning, but not actually to be taken literally. I believe in an old universe and a 4 billion-year-old earth. I believe the designer has acted throughout history to "seed" the planet. I believe Homo Sapien to be a new design, seeded on earth from the designer within the last 20,000 years. But I also believe Homo Sapien was infused with attributes of the designer, making him like no other animal the earth had ever seen. I believe consciousness, the will to create, and self awareness to be among these attributes. I also believe at some point in early Homo Sapien history, by his choice, evil entered into his makeup. And by makeup, I mean his dna. This brought Homo Sapien into conflict internally, at once battling against his animal urges but also infused with God's awareness of good and evil. The Christianese concept for this is that every human is born into sin. Post Modernist Humanist teach that man is essentially good. Homo Sapien may have started this way, but not now after "the fall". I also believe at the fall, *ALL* of Creation was corrupted. I believe "sin" is anything contrary to the Designer's intent, but also, anything contrary to the Designer's nature.  Whether the fall of man happened in an actual geographically place called Eden, chosen by a real man named Adam, or is metaphorical, I still believe the principles of the fall necessarily abide. *I also believe the fall was when copying errors were introduced, giving man an expiration date.* I don't believe man is purely material. I believe there is a "spirit" "contained" within his material shell that can't be understood or measured by matter or material sciences.
> 
> I believe the Designer crammed his "spirit" into a material body and lived on the earth as a man named Jesus Christ. I believe Christ was the "Son" of God only in the way that humans would understand this relationship. (Obviously, son is an earthly term which applies to human offspring, not God). I also believe Christ is the only Begotten son, meaning he actually came from the Being we believe is God "the Father". This just means that Christ was not part of the Creation, was not a Created or Designed being, and like the "Father" has on beginning and no end. Jesus was 100% God, but on earth, he was also 100% man. I believe he came to earth, lived a sinless life, and then died for our sins. I believe He was resurrected and taken up into heaven (a term used to describe our existence outside of space, time, matter and energy.) I believe Christ, God, and God's Spirit existed prior to the Big Bang. The Bible says the Designer has no beginning and no end. Since Hawkins now admits that even time began at the Big Bang, I don't consider it a huge leap of logic to believe the Designer is not subject to the constraints of time or matter. He exists outside the Cosmos. This is why philosophically, there is no necessity for *Him *(I don't believe God has a penis by the way) to have a beginning. He is infinite forwards and backwards, outside of time, even though our universe is finite and subject to time.
> 
> *As far as Creationists go, I really don't see their need to put humans and dinosaurs in the same epoch.* I'm not sure why they think Christ's genealogy in the Bible locks them into a specific amount of years for the earth. I know Hollie is always calling me a fundie to get a rise out of me but I am far from a fundamentalist Christian. No where in the Bible does it teach one has to "invite Jesus into your heart." This a phrase coined in the last century by protestant "fundies" but I think really causes people to miss what it really means to be a Christ follower. I am cautious about taking any portion of the Bible too literally or listening to some preacher tell me which parts are literal and which aren't. It is funny to me that Creationists get so caught up in a strict interpretation of the 7 day story. Yet *I don't see too many one eyed Creationists walking around. *Christ clearly commands if your eye makes you sin you should "gouge it out". Now do I think Christ meant that literally? No, I don't. But I also don't under stand Creationists that would say of course Christ didn't REALLY mean to gouge your eye out. Then why do they believe Moses, regularly credited with being the author of Genesis, was telling a literal story of Creation? How do they pick and choose what is metaphorically and what isn't? I have also heard fundies state that you must *believe every single word in the Bible or you have to throw the whole thing out.* This stance lacks logic, since it assumes that the decisions mere mortal men made at the council of Trent on what books would be contained in the collection known as the Bible somehow had a more direct line to God than we as modern Christians can have. This may sound cliche', but my God is much bigger than the Bible. Fundamentalists like for things to be black and white and they don't want to have to deal with the hard questions, like, "Did God really tell the Israelites to kill babies???" I don't mind wrestling with those hard questions. I also don't think you can compartmentalize the Being that the Bible tells us *"spat stars out of his mouth"* in the pages of the same tiny book. God won't be constrained by anything, not religion, and yes, not even the Bible. I still believe the core beliefs and principles of Christianity are simple. God set up rules which He Himself would abide by, because he cannot go against his Godly nature. Man violated those rules, the penalty for which was death (expiration of your dna and an end to your existence-consciousness). However, God loved us so much that he sent his only begotten son to die in our place. He complied with the laws and rules of the universe, at a great price I might add, so that we might live. So get confused about the death the Bible refers to but it is merely the death of your existence, of your consciousness. Even though my body will die, my faith in Christ will allow my existence, my consciousness, to continue on outside of matter, and not constrained by the time of this finite universe. Many have posed questions of Christianity throughout the ages. It always strikes me as funny that folks like Hollie and Loki believe they are wrestling with new concepts. One of those is if God is all knowing, and knows the future, why would he go ahead and create the world anyways, knowing what a mess it would turn into? Theologians have wrestled with this question and many others for centuries. If you are interested in some of these concepts, I can refer you to some very NON Fundie books. One of my favorites is Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell. Another one of Bell's works, Love Wins, has caused quite the stir in fundie circles because it proposes that eventually, we all make it to heaven, or at least some point have the choice too. I'm not sure I agree with Bell on all his points but I am at least open enough to consider them. Hard questions about Christianity don't freak me out. I also really enjoy *CS Lewis perspectives. He is a great Theologian, and wrestles with these questions, usually used to attack Christianity, in such a deeply thoughtful and wise way.* Hey, even if you don't get anything out of reading them, at least you have educated yourself a little more on the enemy.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Complete-C-S-Lewis-Signature-Classics/dp/0060506083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348120042&sr=8-1&keywords=cs+lewis+collection]The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics: C. S. Lewis: 9780060506087: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Love-Wins-About-Heaven-Person/dp/0062049658/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348120275&sr=1-1&keywords=love+wins+Rob+Bell]Love Wins: A Book About Heaven,Hell,and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived: Rob Bell: 9780062049650: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> 
> And one of my all time favorite books on Christianity:
> 
> [ame]http://www.amazon.com/Velvet-Elvis-Repainting-Christian-Faith/dp/B0057D8RU0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348120306&sr=1-1&keywords=velvet+elvis+Rob+Bell[/ame]
Click to expand...


 I very much appreciate your responding to my questions in such an honest manner, especially towards the end when you relate your early experiences getting made of. I can relate to this well, but I am too afraid to disclose certain things, even online, so I respect you for that. You seem like a smart guy, and I understand everything you said. One more question: How long have you been a christian, and has the strength of your faith changed over the course of you're being a christian, and for what reasons? Or, have your beliefs regarding the nature of god and the nature and interpretation of scripture changed at all? What brought about these changes, if any?

I realize this is a lot. Answer as much as you feel comfortable doing. While I will admit I don't think I could ever be a christian, I did try for a long time to be one, sincerely. During college, I would talk to ministers on campus, and go do christian social events, but the story never really made sense to me. Namely, if god is all powerful, why did he need to send his son to forgive us? He can do what he wants, and would know what is in our hearts. Believing in Jesus just seems like a technicality without any substance behind it, demonstrated by the fact that people vindicate terrible acts of evil by appealing to this aspect of the christian god, and feel truly absolved. Of course, you might chastise these kinds of people and claim they are not christian, which brings me to my last and most important question: How do you know that you're synthesis of scripture and scientific explanation is correct? I derive this question from some of your claims as, "humans came about 20,000 years ago." I'm not asking you to defend this claim specifically, but more generally, whether you're interpretation was something you deduced yourself, or was inspired by someone else.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> I try to limit scientific discussions to science, which is the mantra of the ID movement. Although ID believes the cause of life on this planet was intelligence, they make no religious or metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer (little d). However, my religious belief is that the identity of the designer is the Judeo Christian God of the Bible and I refer to that Entity as the Designer (capital D). I haven't tried to keep my religious beliefs a secret, as the atheistic agenda folks want to pretend is happening. They are accusatory if we are keeping religion out of the discussion and accusatory if we allow it in. Here is a response from Meyer on the movement:
> 
> *It seems like the idea or inference of anything supernatural scares scientists away. Do you agree?*
> 
> Well, all we are inferring is intelligence. Whether it is supernatural or natural is a matter for further deliberation. I dont even like the term supernatural. I think the better philosophical distinction is between transcendent and immanent. Are we talking about an intelligence within the cosmos or an intelligence that is in some way beyond it? And thats a theological distinction. I think it is possible to reason about that, and whether you call it a philosophical deliberation or not, it doesnt really matter. All the theory of intelligent design is doing is establishing that intelligence was responsible for certain features of life. We recognize intelligence all the time, and we have scientific methods for it. If youre an archaeologist and youre looking at the Rosetta Stone, are you duty-bound to continue looking for naturalistic explanations even though you know full well that wind and erosion and everything else you can imagine is not capable of making those inscriptions? No, youre not. You really ought to conclude the obvious, which is that a scribe was involved. There was an intelligence behind it.
> 
> Meyer also readily admits he is a Christian. He is not hiding it. He is just keeping it out of ID Theory. He differentiates between concepts that can be proven by empirical science and philosophical and religious concepts that can't be "proven". For all the arguing and strawmanning that goes on here, it is more about bashing than it is about actually trying to think logically about what is being proposed. I get totally sucked in to the debate and attacks and behave very non-Christian at times. The anonymity of the internet does that to people. But it also frees people if they really want to be free, to admit things they wouldn't normally admit. Like I can admit I am obsessed with fitness and my body image. I also tend to lash out when I feel I am being attacked. Both these issues can be traced back to childhood wounds. I was relentlessly bullied pretty much from kindergarten until the 11th grade for being overweight at a time when only one or two kids in the whole school were fat. (now the skinny kid is the freak ) I have surrendered this to Christ and have forgiven the abusers, but I tend to take it back at times. I think that is a common struggle Christians face, giving the wounds over to Christ, but then sinning as we make ourselves the God of our lives again, taking all of our garbage back. That doesn't mean we give up, but it is a struggle to deny self and strive to be more Christ like. Christ said "my yoke is easy and my burden is light". I hear atheists talk a lot about Christians not living life to the fullest because they are counting on heaven. This is not a tenet (you happy Loki) of Christianity. Christ said that he came so we could have life and live it to the fullest. The atheistic viewpoint that life on this earth can somehow be lived immune from tragedy, brokenness and disappointment comes from Humanism, and it is not reality. No matter how much you believe this is your only shot, it won't prevent you from succumbing to the pitfalls of this fallen earth. How can you make sense of the person that is cut off before ever exiting the womb? What about the six year old girl that is accidentally killed by her father when he drives over her? How do atheists reconcile this using only the law of the jungle?



You have a concept of a designer for yourself because it makes the universe make sense to you, which is what religion has always been about, trying to make people less afraid of death (and in olden times thunder, earthquakes and the like). Personally, as an agnostic (I don't believe any proof has actually been put forward that a god exists, but if some ever is, I can change my mind), the theory you lay out is a possibility, but what I can't do is to stop considering and looking for other possibilities, since I'm a beyond-reasonable-doubt kind of person. And you definitely couldn't win a court case with what you plead above, and actually, I believe it's already been tried.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please point out the lie.
> 
> 
> 
> "Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ."- UR
> you have no proof hollie is gay lie#1
> "                         " that hollie's parents were fundies
> "                          " of god
> "                          that the bible is accurate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll borrow this from your camp.... prove I have no proof.
Click to expand...


Ironically, your admission to being totally comfortable with lying is one of the few points of honest discussion you have offered.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness
> 
> Your Giraffe'ism conspiracy theory was addressed and refuted  earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will show you how ignorant your view is. If the giraffe slowly evolved he would have went extinct from either bending over and the blood rushing to his head and blowing out his brain or raising his head to fast and passing out when predators appear.
> 
> What is so amazing is this little sponge like thing in the brain that stores blood to prevent him from passing out and this valve that restricts blood flow so he don't blow his brain out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fundie giraffe conspiracy has been debunked earlier.
> 
> Your silly explanation of blood pressure was addressed by link that debunked a boilerplate creationist claim.
> 
> How embarrassing for you.
Click to expand...


This post shows a fundie and that you lack the ability to reason.

A nonintelligent process would think to develop this valve or this sponge in the brain. Yeah right it was debunked


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in connection with the fundie creationist tag you're hoping to assign to it.
> 
> I believe you and the other fundie had tried earlier to add the label "digital machines" to DNA code. Those terms are lifted from creationist ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a comparison,they possess the same ability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they do not. This was addressed earlier and your goofy comparisons were shown to be fraudulent.
Click to expand...


Hollie why do you lie ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness
> 
> Your Giraffe'ism conspiracy theory was addressed and refuted  earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will show you how ignorant your view is. If the giraffe slowly evolved he would have went extinct from either bending over and the blood rushing to his head and blowing out his brain or raising his head to fast and passing out when predators appear.
> 
> What is so amazing is this little sponge like thing in the brain that stores blood to prevent him from passing out and this valve that restricts blood flow so he don't blow his brain out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't so terribly amazing *when you posted this before*, why is it now?
Click to expand...


Where you had no rebuttal got ya.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm under no obligation to "refute" your endless cutting and pasting. You and the other creationist have similar habits. You cut and paste volumes of material from fundie creationist websites (material and concepts you don't understand), and then expect others to "refute" that material.
> 
> It's not surprising that you failed to address my earlier posts because that would have required you to actually defend your creationist fantasies.
> 
> Speaking of "Ad Hollimen" attacks, I note that your best efforts amount not to cutting and pasting but juvenile name-calling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you are a naturalist ,you don't like obligations, responsibility and accountability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As is so often the case, you make comments that are pointless, irrelevant and false. I just can't express my revulsion for religion when represented by people such as you and the other death-cult fundie. You represent the very worst of superstitious, hateful and cult promoting David Koresh / Jim Jones type psychopaths.
> 
> The more we learn about our universe, the clearer it becomes that the fundamental laws of existence are constant with time. The ability to see events that took place millions or billions of years ago verify that even as the universe evolved, is has expanded within the framework of the same natural law that guides it today.
> 
> From this, we can derive that the universe does not need your angry, psychopathic gods; that the universe holds to consistent natural laws;  your gods do not change or break the rules at whim, and no gods perform miracles which would be violations of the natural laws governing the universe.
> 
> As the extremes of the universe become more clearly visible with the creation of larger telescopes of all kinds, we see that all other galaxies in existence appear to follow the same laws as this one. There is only one set of laws and those same laws function everywhere in the universe without variation.
> 
> From this we can derive that the universe is omnipresent, unitary and holds to consistent universal physical laws.
> 
> Natural law does not vary with biology. All of nature remains subject to the same natural constraints and capabilities. All of nature consists of organisms with varying environmental and biological potential but no disparity of biology renders any organism or individual more or less subject to natural law than any other.
> 
> The above will be difficult for you as you choose to use your religion to threaten, intimidate and scare those who don't believe as you do. You will find it difficult to accept that your gods are simply a reinvention of earlier gods.
> 
> Therefore, you now have good reason to act like a grown-up and cease and desist being an ignorant Harun Yahya groupie.
Click to expand...


Just admit it,you do not like limits placed on you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously don't know your gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure he does our God has many names but only one God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your gods have many names because they were taken from many gods before them.
> 
> To the back of the line you go with your angry, hateful gods.
Click to expand...


You lie.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure he does our God has many names but only one God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your gods have many names because they were taken from many gods before them.
> 
> To the back of the line you go with your angry, hateful gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lie.
Click to expand...


If man was created on purpose by someone, then the creator must be one stupid, messed up douchesack. So maybe my beef is with whomever created our creator?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you are a naturalist ,you don't like obligations, responsibility and accountability.
> 
> 
> 
> As is so often the case, you make comments that are pointless, irrelevant and false. I just can't express my revulsion for religion when represented by people such as you and the other death-cult fundie. You represent the very worst of superstitious, hateful and cult promoting David Koresh / Jim Jones type psychopaths.
> 
> The more we learn about our universe, the clearer it becomes that the fundamental laws of existence are constant with time. The ability to see events that took place millions or billions of years ago verify that even as the universe evolved, is has expanded within the framework of the same natural law that guides it today.
> 
> From this, we can derive that the universe does not need your angry, psychopathic gods; that the universe holds to consistent natural laws;  your gods do not change or break the rules at whim, and no gods perform miracles which would be violations of the natural laws governing the universe.
> 
> As the extremes of the universe become more clearly visible with the creation of larger telescopes of all kinds, we see that all other galaxies in existence appear to follow the same laws as this one. There is only one set of laws and those same laws function everywhere in the universe without variation.
> 
> From this we can derive that the universe is omnipresent, unitary and holds to consistent universal physical laws.
> 
> Natural law does not vary with biology. All of nature remains subject to the same natural constraints and capabilities. All of nature consists of organisms with varying environmental and biological potential but no disparity of biology renders any organism or individual more or less subject to natural law than any other.
> 
> The above will be difficult for you as you choose to use your religion to threaten, intimidate and scare those who don't believe as you do. You will find it difficult to accept that your gods are simply a reinvention of earlier gods.
> 
> Therefore, you now have good reason to act like a grown-up and cease and desist being an ignorant Harun Yahya groupie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just admit it,you do not like limits placed on you.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now we know you are thoroughly dissociated from reality.  It's like magic! "Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism". It doesn't matter which, because with "the magic code of DNA" (being "chemically independent from the informational code it carries"), *you could replace the bases in DNA with any random reactive chemical, and nothing about "informational code" it carries would change.* Good. Just great.
> 
> WOW! You're retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said any of that!!! You can't replace the coded information and have it mean the same thing!! Just like you can't alter 0's and 1's in a computer program and get the same outcome. Why is this so hard for you to figure out? Your the special needs buffoon that insists on building caricatures and then accusing everyone else of doing it.
> 
> I won't waste my time with you anymore. Seriously, it reminds me of trying to argue with a drunk when I was a cop. Pointless!!!!!
Click to expand...


What I really find so hard to believe is they can actually believe an undirected and a nonintelligent process would think to develop a place where life could thrive. Then it would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence. 

What they really hate is they can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature while denying this precision in nature.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure he does our God has many names but only one God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie totally missed the joke on her when she claimed she was of "the male persuasion" posing as Rugged Touch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take this to mean that you can't find anything to cut and paste so you're left to childish attempts at personal attacks.
> 
> There's a good christian boy.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is on display in most cases no response is necessary.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure he does our God has many names but only one God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your gods have many names because they were taken from many gods before them.
> 
> To the back of the line you go with your angry, hateful gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lie.
Click to expand...


Piffle.

There were many conceptions of gods before the invention of your gods. If you disagree, then feel free to make a compelling case that your gods are true and extant as opposed to... oh, say... the Greek gods. Remember to present supporting evidence for your claim and provide relevant examples comparing and contrasting the claims to these supernatural entities to make the case that your gods are true to the exclusion of other gods.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer is a hack. Precisely why he shills for the creationist ministry you copy and paste from.
> 
> Would you care to describe for us the pre-qualifying agreement signed by those who shill for the ICR?
> 
> I posted it for you previously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he is not a hack,he is bringing to you reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ahahahahaha... this coming from the man who believes that Mayans had pet dinosaurs...
Click to expand...


I have never suggested this how ever the Asians did.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie totally missed the joke on her when she claimed she was of "the male persuasion" posing as Rugged Touch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take this to mean that you can't find anything to cut and paste so you're left to childish attempts at personal attacks.
> 
> There's a good christian boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is on display in most cases no response is necessary.
Click to expand...


Resigning before you're fired is always a good course of action.

Shuffle away until you're prepared to be scolded for your childish behavior.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer is a hack. Precisely why he shills for the creationist ministry you copy and paste from.
> 
> Would you care to describe for us the pre-qualifying agreement signed by those who shill for the ICR?
> 
> I posted it for you previously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he is not a hack,he is bringing to you reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ahahahahaha... this coming from the man who believes that Mayans had pet dinosaurs...
Click to expand...


What does your comment have to do with my assertion ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No he is not a hack,he is bringing to you reality.
> 
> 
> 
> ahahahahaha... this coming from the man who believes that Mayans had pet dinosaurs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never suggested this how ever the Asians did.
Click to expand...


Of course they did. 

Whack job.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> read through the last few pages and  YWC is STILL ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED
> UR is still yammering about materialistic religion as the devil's handiwork (oxymoron).
> KG flew in on her broom stick babbled something meaningless then flew  away..
> still wating for gods' barcode...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The genetic code barrier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean the one there is no proof for?
> btw didn't you say something like: "this is my last post to you... mental midget" -YWC
> do you always fail to keep your word?
Click to expand...


Really no proof. Why do kinds only reproduce their own kind ? Why have so many groups of organisms gone extinct ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Microevolution vs Macroevolution
> Is There A Difference Between Microevolution & Macroevolution?
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> .See More About:evolution & sciencemicroevolution vs macroevolution
> There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called &#8220;microevolution&#8221; and &#8220;macroevolution&#8221;, two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.
> 
> Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population &#8212; changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species&#8217; coloring or size.
> 
> Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.
> 
> You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution &#8212; one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.
> 
> There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don&#8217;t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don&#8217;t pay attention to them.
> 
> Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.
> 
> When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons &#8212; this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.
> 
> In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error &#8212; creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.
> 
> A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.
> 
> Conclusion:
> Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter &#8212; and listen to the silence.
> 
> Microevolution vs Macroevolution: Is There A Difference Between Microevolution & Macroevolution?
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists like to erroneously claim that it is impossible for the
> accumulation of microevolutionary changes to produce macroevolutionary
> changes. A "genetic barrier" is oftern cited to account for this, although
> it is never identified. The hypothesis states, "there is a 'genetic
> barrier' that prevents one 'kind' from evolving into another 'kind.'" I have
> yet to see any attempt to justify this hypothesis using actual genetics or
> science. Furthermore, there clearly is not a justification because modern
> genetics has disproved this hypothesis (see below). However, it is another
> creationist buzzword that has no actual scientific value.
> 
> The hypothesis of a "genetic barrier" was not originated by creationists. It
> arose almost a hundred years ago by biologists/evolutionists to describe the
> difference between macroevolution, evolution apparent between species, and
> microevolution, evolution apparent within a species. Creationists like to
> claim that the mechanisms from macroevolution are fundamentally different
> from the mechanisms for microevolution; this is their genetic barrier. They
> then assert that there is no evidence for macroevolution while
> microevolution is well supported. They never show why any evidence
> supporting macro is wrong; they just say it is. A long quote (please forgive
> me) from Futuyma helps explains the issue:
> 
> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the
> Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that 'macroevolutionary'
> differences among organisms--those that distinguish higher taxa--arise from
> the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found
> within species. Opponents of this point of view believed that
> 'macroevolution' is qualitatively different from 'microevolution' within a
> species, and is based on a totally different kind of genetic and
> developmental repatterning. The iconoclastic geneticist Richard Goldschmidt
> (1940), who held this opinion, believed that the evolution of species marks
> the break between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'--that there is a
> 'bridgeless gap' between species that cannot be understood in terms of the
> genetic variation within species. Genetic studies of species differences
> have decisively disproved Goldschmidt's claim. Differences between species
> in morphology, behavior, and the process that underlie reproductive
> isolation all have the same genetic properties as variation within species:
> they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or based
> on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic effects, and
> they can in some instances be traced to specifiable differences in proteins
> or DNA nucleotide differences. The degree of reproductive isolation between
> populations, whether prezygotic or postzygotic, varies from little or none
> to complete. Thus, reproductive isolation, like the divergence of any other
> character, evolves in most cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in
> populations.
> (Evolutionary Biology, third edition. 477-478)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
> 
> Barrierists believe, like Goldschmidt did, that macroevolution and
> microevolution are fundamentally different; however, unlike Goldschmidt,
> they use the absence of a macro-only mechanism as proof of a creator and
> proof against evolution. The reason for the absence of a macro-only
> mechanism is that the same mechanisms apply to both micro- and
> macroevolution. This is not an "easy out" explanation, as they'd have
> laymen believe. It is backed up by genetic and biological observations and
> experiments. Goldschmidt was able to state his claim in 1940 because the
> science of molecular genetics did not exist then. It wasn't until the 1950s
> that Watson and Crick solved the structure of DNA and showed how genetic
> information was passed in cell division via template strands. The genetic
> code was later solved, explaining how DNA encoded proteins. Modern
> sequencing strategies allow us to map molecular genetic mutations to actual
> genes, demonstrating the variability of populations and the power of
> evolution. These sequencing strategies also allow us to map the differences
> between two organisms' genomes. The genetic distinctions for taxa can be
> detected by comparing organisms from different taxa. The data generated from
> such investigations show that distinctions between taxa follow the same
> rules as distinctions within a taxon.
> 
> Genetic Barriers Don't Exist [Archive] - BaptistBoard.com



What is it that prevents different groups from being cross bred ? Why is it that so many groups of organisms go extinct since they can't adjust genetically ? You can't see the limitations this is a very ignorant fundie argument from your side.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your gods have many names because they were taken from many gods before them.
> 
> To the back of the line you go with your angry, hateful gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If man was created on purpose by someone, then the creator must be one stupid, messed up douchesack. So maybe my beef is with whomever created our creator?
Click to expand...


No one created the creator. Who created the evolver ? God gave man freewill and thaty is why many scumbags are here but their time grows shorter.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As is so often the case, you make comments that are pointless, irrelevant and false. I just can't express my revulsion for religion when represented by people such as you and the other death-cult fundie. You represent the very worst of superstitious, hateful and cult promoting David Koresh / Jim Jones type psychopaths.
> 
> The more we learn about our universe, the clearer it becomes that the fundamental laws of existence are constant with time. The ability to see events that took place millions or billions of years ago verify that even as the universe evolved, is has expanded within the framework of the same natural law that guides it today.
> 
> From this, we can derive that the universe does not need your angry, psychopathic gods; that the universe holds to consistent natural laws;  your gods do not change or break the rules at whim, and no gods perform miracles which would be violations of the natural laws governing the universe.
> 
> As the extremes of the universe become more clearly visible with the creation of larger telescopes of all kinds, we see that all other galaxies in existence appear to follow the same laws as this one. There is only one set of laws and those same laws function everywhere in the universe without variation.
> 
> From this we can derive that the universe is omnipresent, unitary and holds to consistent universal physical laws.
> 
> Natural law does not vary with biology. All of nature remains subject to the same natural constraints and capabilities. All of nature consists of organisms with varying environmental and biological potential but no disparity of biology renders any organism or individual more or less subject to natural law than any other.
> 
> The above will be difficult for you as you choose to use your religion to threaten, intimidate and scare those who don't believe as you do. You will find it difficult to accept that your gods are simply a reinvention of earlier gods.
> 
> Therefore, you now have good reason to act like a grown-up and cease and desist being an ignorant Harun Yahya groupie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just admit it,you do not like limits placed on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...


Limits or constraints are against your religion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahahahahaha... this coming from the man who believes that Mayans had pet dinosaurs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never suggested this how ever the Asians did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they did.
> 
> Whack job.
Click to expand...


I suggest you take a little history.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The genetic code barrier.
> 
> 
> 
> you mean the one there is no proof for?
> btw didn't you say something like: "this is my last post to you... mental midget" -YWC
> do you always fail to keep your word?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really no proof. Why do kinds only reproduce their own kind ? Why have so many groups of organisms have gone extinct ?
Click to expand...


Re: kinds reproducing with kinds... and extinction...

 "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism."

Carl Sagan


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never suggested this how ever the Asians did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did.
> 
> Whack job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you take a little history.
Click to expand...


I did. I took a history of your vacuous claims and endless cutting and pasting from fundie websites.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just admit it,you do not like limits placed on you.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Limits or constraints are against your religion.
Click to expand...


Still, you make no sense.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If man was created on purpose by someone, then the creator must be one stupid, messed up douchesack. So maybe my beef is with whomever created our creator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one created the creator. Who created the evolver ? God gave man freewill and thaty is why many scumbags are here but their time grows shorter.
Click to expand...


False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.

I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will show you how ignorant your view is. If the giraffe slowly evolved he would have went extinct from either bending over and the blood rushing to his head and blowing out his brain or raising his head to fast and passing out when predators appear.
> 
> What is so amazing is this little sponge like thing in the brain that stores blood to prevent him from passing out and this valve that restricts blood flow so he don't blow his brain out.
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie giraffe conspiracy has been debunked earlier.
> 
> Your silly explanation of blood pressure was addressed by link that debunked a boilerplate creationist claim.
> 
> How embarrassing for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This post shows a fundie and that you lack the ability to reason.
> 
> A nonintelligent process would *think to develop this valve* or this sponge in the brain. Yeah right it was debunked
Click to expand...

Faulty implied premise = existence of said valve is necessarily contingent upon being thought of.

Your "debunking" = debunked.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ."- UR
> you have no proof hollie is gay lie#1
> "                         " that hollie's parents were fundies
> "                          " of god
> "                          that the bible is accurate..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll borrow this from your camp.... prove I have no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironically, your admission to being totally comfortable with lying is one of the few points of honest discussion you have offered.
Click to expand...


Please confirm or deny the statement. If you deny that it is true, you will have my apology and I will speak of it no more.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.



In whose rulebook??? A logical claim that the Creator exists outside of space, time, matter and energy, and that It predates the Big Bang, does not necessitate that the Creator follow any of the rules in this universe. How can something that is infinite in both directions on our understanding of the timelien REQUIRE a beginning?* If the Creator has no beginning, please explain logically why It would be subject to such a hierarchy?
*
Hollie, you can't just make statements like that and not back them up. Please present a logical argument as the basis of this claim. 

*Loki, *I have no hope that Hollie will ever make such an argument so feel free to jump in her if you have some material.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality, I was surprised to hear you declare that you are not a young earth creationist, as I assumed you were. Would you mind re-iterating what is your belief about how humans came to be? How old do you believe the earth is, what is your justification for this, and what mechanism do you think caused humans to exist? Do you deny evolutionary theory entirely, or just certain parts of it? How much do you suppose god is responsible for, and how did he do it?
> 
> Youwerecreated, the same questions go to you, if you don't mind. I'm interested to know. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YWC and my religious beliefs are pretty much the same. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. And I pretty much believe everything contained in the Creation story, but I believe it is metaphorical, like many stories in the Bible, meant to convey a deeper meaning, but not actually to be taken literally. I believe in an old universe and a 4 billion-year-old earth. I believe the designer has acted throughout history to "seed" the planet. I believe Homo Sapien to be a new design, seeded on earth from the designer within the last 20,000 years. But I also believe Homo Sapien was infused with attributes of the designer, making him like no other animal the earth had ever seen. I believe consciousness, the will to create, and self awareness to be among these attributes. I also believe at some point in early Homo Sapien history, by his choice, evil entered into his makeup. And by makeup, I mean his dna. This brought Homo Sapien into conflict internally, at once battling against his animal urges but also infused with God's awareness of good and evil. The Christianese concept for this is that every human is born into sin. Post Modernist Humanist teach that man is essentially good. Homo Sapien may have started this way, but not now after "the fall". I also believe at the fall, *ALL* of Creation was corrupted. I believe "sin" is anything contrary to the Designer's intent, but also, anything contrary to the Designer's nature.  Whether the fall of man happened in an actual geographically place called Eden, chosen by a real man named Adam, or is metaphorical, I still believe the principles of the fall necessarily abide. *I also believe the fall was when copying errors were introduced, giving man an expiration date.* I don't believe man is purely material. I believe there is a "spirit" "contained" within his material shell that can't be understood or measured by matter or material sciences.
> 
> I believe the Designer crammed his "spirit" into a material body and lived on the earth as a man named Jesus Christ. I believe Christ was the "Son" of God only in the way that humans would understand this relationship. (Obviously, son is an earthly term which applies to human offspring, not God). I also believe Christ is the only Begotten son, meaning he actually came from the Being we believe is God "the Father". This just means that Christ was not part of the Creation, was not a Created or Designed being, and like the "Father" has on beginning and no end. Jesus was 100% God, but on earth, he was also 100% man. I believe he came to earth, lived a sinless life, and then died for our sins. I believe He was resurrected and taken up into heaven (a term used to describe our existence outside of space, time, matter and energy.) I believe Christ, God, and God's Spirit existed prior to the Big Bang. The Bible says the Designer has no beginning and no end. Since Hawkins now admits that even time began at the Big Bang, I don't consider it a huge leap of logic to believe the Designer is not subject to the constraints of time or matter. He exists outside the Cosmos. This is why philosophically, there is no necessity for *Him *(I don't believe God has a penis by the way) to have a beginning. He is infinite forwards and backwards, outside of time, even though our universe is finite and subject to time.
> 
> *As far as Creationists go, I really don't see their need to put humans and dinosaurs in the same epoch.* I'm not sure why they think Christ's genealogy in the Bible locks them into a specific amount of years for the earth. I know Hollie is always calling me a fundie to get a rise out of me but I am far from a fundamentalist Christian. No where in the Bible does it teach one has to "invite Jesus into your heart." This a phrase coined in the last century by protestant "fundies" but I think really causes people to miss what it really means to be a Christ follower. I am cautious about taking any portion of the Bible too literally or listening to some preacher tell me which parts are literal and which aren't. It is funny to me that Creationists get so caught up in a strict interpretation of the 7 day story. Yet *I don't see too many one eyed Creationists walking around. *Christ clearly commands if your eye makes you sin you should "gouge it out". Now do I think Christ meant that literally? No, I don't. But I also don't under stand Creationists that would say of course Christ didn't REALLY mean to gouge your eye out. Then why do they believe Moses, regularly credited with being the author of Genesis, was telling a literal story of Creation? How do they pick and choose what is metaphorically and what isn't? I have also heard fundies state that you must *believe every single word in the Bible or you have to throw the whole thing out.* This stance lacks logic, since it assumes that the decisions mere mortal men made at the council of Trent on what books would be contained in the collection known as the Bible somehow had a more direct line to God than we as modern Christians can have. This may sound cliche', but my God is much bigger than the Bible. Fundamentalists like for things to be black and white and they don't want to have to deal with the hard questions, like, "Did God really tell the Israelites to kill babies???" I don't mind wrestling with those hard questions. I also don't think you can compartmentalize the Being that the Bible tells us *"spat stars out of his mouth"* in the pages of the same tiny book. God won't be constrained by anything, not religion, and yes, not even the Bible. I still believe the core beliefs and principles of Christianity are simple. God set up rules which He Himself would abide by, because he cannot go against his Godly nature. Man violated those rules, the penalty for which was death (expiration of your dna and an end to your existence-consciousness). However, God loved us so much that he sent his only begotten son to die in our place. He complied with the laws and rules of the universe, at a great price I might add, so that we might live. So get confused about the death the Bible refers to but it is merely the death of your existence, of your consciousness. Even though my body will die, my faith in Christ will allow my existence, my consciousness, to continue on outside of matter, and not constrained by the time of this finite universe. Many have posed questions of Christianity throughout the ages. It always strikes me as funny that folks like Hollie and Loki believe they are wrestling with new concepts. One of those is if God is all knowing, and knows the future, why would he go ahead and create the world anyways, knowing what a mess it would turn into? Theologians have wrestled with this question and many others for centuries. If you are interested in some of these concepts, I can refer you to some very NON Fundie books. One of my favorites is Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell. Another one of Bell's works, Love Wins, has caused quite the stir in fundie circles because it proposes that eventually, we all make it to heaven, or at least some point have the choice too. I'm not sure I agree with Bell on all his points but I am at least open enough to consider them. Hard questions about Christianity don't freak me out. I also really enjoy *CS Lewis perspectives. He is a great Theologian, and wrestles with these questions, usually used to attack Christianity, in such a deeply thoughtful and wise way.* Hey, even if you don't get anything out of reading them, at least you have educated yourself a little more on the enemy.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Complete-C-S-Lewis-Signature-Classics/dp/0060506083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348120042&sr=8-1&keywords=cs+lewis+collection]The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics: C. S. Lewis: 9780060506087: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Love-Wins-About-Heaven-Person/dp/0062049658/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348120275&sr=1-1&keywords=love+wins+Rob+Bell]Love Wins: A Book About Heaven,Hell,and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived: Rob Bell: 9780062049650: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> 
> And one of my all time favorite books on Christianity:
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Velvet-Elvis-Repainting-Christian-Faith/dp/B0057D8RU0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348120306&sr=1-1&keywords=velvet+elvis+Rob+Bell]Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith: Rob Bell: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I very much appreciate your responding to my questions in such an honest manner, especially towards the end when you relate your early experiences getting made of. I can relate to this well, but I am too afraid to disclose certain things, even online, so I respect you for that. You seem like a smart guy, and I understand everything you said. One more question: How long have you been a christian, and has the strength of your faith changed over the course of you're being a christian, and for what reasons? Or, have your beliefs regarding the nature of god and the nature and interpretation of scripture changed at all? What brought about these changes, if any?
> 
> I realize this is a lot. Answer as much as you feel comfortable doing. While I will admit I don't think I could ever be a christian, I did try for a long time to be one, sincerely. During college, I would talk to ministers on campus, and go do christian social events, but the story never really made sense to me. Namely, if god is all powerful, why did he need to send his son to forgive us? He can do what he wants, and would know what is in our hearts. Believing in Jesus just seems like a technicality without any substance behind it, demonstrated by the fact that people vindicate terrible acts of evil by appealing to this aspect of the christian god, and feel truly absolved. Of course, you might chastise these kinds of people and claim they are not christian, which brings me to my last and most important question: How do you know that you're synthesis of scripture and scientific explanation is correct? I derive this question from some of your claims as, "humans came about 20,000 years ago." I'm not asking you to defend this claim specifically, but more generally, whether you're interpretation was something you deduced yourself, or was inspired by someone else.
Click to expand...


I am trying to get a bid out so I only had time for a few quick responses but I will respond later when I'm done working.


----------



## ima

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If man was created on purpose by someone, then the creator must be one stupid, messed up douchesack. So maybe my beef is with whomever created our creator?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one created the creator. Who created the evolver ? God gave man freewill and thaty is why many scumbags are here but their time grows shorter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.
> 
> I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?
Click to expand...


How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In whose rulebook??? A logical claim that the Creator exists outside of space, time, matter and energy, and that It predates the Big Bang, does not necessitate that the Creator follow any of the rules in this universe. How can something that is infinite in both directions on our understanding of the timelien REQUIRE a beginning?* If the Creator has no beginning, please explain logically why It would be subject to such a hierarchy?
> *
> Hollie, you can't just make statements like that and not back them up. Please present a logical argument as the basis of this claim.
> 
> *Loki, *I have no hope that Hollie will ever make such an argument so feel free to jump in her if you have some material.
Click to expand...

I'm fascinated by you insisting you're making a logical claim regarding a supernatural, supermagical entity.

Do tell us how you came to such irrationality.


----------



## Hollie

ima said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one created the creator. Who created the evolver ? God gave man freewill and thaty is why many scumbags are here but their time grows shorter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.
> 
> I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?
Click to expand...


The answer is: *because I say so!*


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will show you how ignorant your view is. If the giraffe slowly evolved he would have went extinct from either bending over and the blood rushing to his head and blowing out his brain or raising his head to fast and passing out when predators appear.
> 
> What is so amazing is this little sponge like thing in the brain that stores blood to prevent him from passing out and this valve that restricts blood flow so he don't blow his brain out.
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't so terribly amazing *when you posted this before*, why is it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where you had no rebuttal got ya.
Click to expand...

I didn't have to ... as I pointed out, you pretty much rebutted yourself.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now we know you are thoroughly dissociated from reality.  It's like magic! "Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism". It doesn't matter which, because with "the magic code of DNA" (being "chemically independent from the informational code it carries"), *you could replace the bases in DNA with any random reactive chemical, and nothing about "informational code" it carries would change.* Good. Just great.
> 
> WOW! You're retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said any of that!!! You can't replace the coded information and have it mean the same thing!! Just like you can't alter 0's and 1's in a computer program and get the same outcome. Why is this so hard for you to figure out? Your the special needs buffoon that insists on building caricatures and then accusing everyone else of doing it.
> 
> I won't waste my time with you anymore. Seriously, it reminds me of trying to argue with a drunk when I was a cop. Pointless!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I really find so hard to believe is they can actually believe an undirected and a nonintelligent process would think to develop a place where life could thrive.
Click to expand...

Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe "... a nonintelligent process would think."

That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.



Youwerecreated said:


> Then it would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence.


Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe that a non-intelligent process that thinks "would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence."

That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.



Youwerecreated said:


> What they really hate is they can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature ...


Non-Sequitur.

Evolutionists don't really hate that they "can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature."

Creationists hate that they can't produce ANY logically valid verifiable evidence for this "Creator" they posit--let alone "proof." "[Creationists] can't explain this ... it's inexplicable!" 



Youwerecreated said:


> ... while denying this precision in nature.


Naw. We just don't accept your "Texas Sharpshooting" as any kind of valid argument for the "precision in nature" you keep peddling.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said any of that!!! You can't replace the coded information and have it mean the same thing!! Just like you can't alter 0's and 1's in a computer program and get the same outcome. Why is this so hard for you to figure out? Your the special needs buffoon that insists on building caricatures and then accusing everyone else of doing it.
> 
> I won't waste my time with you anymore. Seriously, it reminds me of trying to argue with a drunk when I was a cop. Pointless!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I really find so hard to believe is they can actually believe an undirected and a nonintelligent process would think to develop a place where life could thrive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe "... a nonintelligent process would think."
> 
> That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.
> 
> Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe that a non-intelligent process that thinks "would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence."
> 
> That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they really hate is they can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-Sequitur.
> 
> Evolutionists don't really hate that they "can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature."
> 
> Creationists hate that they can't produce ANY logically valid verifiable evidence for this "Creator" they posit--let alone "proof." "[Creationists] can't explain this ... it's inexplicable!"
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... while denying this precision in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naw. We just don't accept your "Texas Sharpshooting" as any kind of valid argument for the "precision in nature" you keep peddling.
Click to expand...


If you don't hate, why are you here???


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.
> 
> I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is: *because I say so!*
Click to expand...


Daws, are you copying this? ....

Hollie, Please confirm or deny my statement about your personal life. If you deny that it is true, you will have my apology and I will speak of it no more. If you confirm it, I will also speak of it no more.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In whose rulebook??? A logical claim that the Creator exists outside of space, time, matter and energy, and that It predates the Big Bang, does not necessitate that the Creator follow any of the rules in this universe.
Click to expand...

I've been asking YOU for a logically valid claim of such a Creator ... you have failed to produce.

However, in you defense, I will say that there can be no rational dispute that an imaginary Creator that "exists outside of space, time, matter and energy,..." is CERTAINLY not obligated by any kind of necessity to "follow any of the rules in this universe."



UltimateReality said:


> How can something that is infinite in both directions on our understanding of the timelien REQUIRE a beginning?


I have no idea what you posted here.



UltimateReality said:


> *If the Creator has no beginning, please explain logically why It would be subject to such a hierarchy?*


There's no logically valid argument such a Creator would be subject to such a hierarchy--AND HERE'S THE BONUS YOU GET FOR INVITING ME--If you remove the special-pleading fallacy from the Creationist's cosmological argument, such a Creator would still not be subject to such a hierarchy ... because the existence of such a Creator would not be possible according to this improved Creationist's cosmological argument.



UltimateReality said:


> Hollie, you can't just make statements like that and not back them up.


It's not quite fair of you to say this to Hollie, considering how generous she was in ignoring the obvious logical fallacy your entire argument is fatally premised on.



UltimateReality said:


> Please present a logical argument as the basis of this claim.


If you ignore the logical fallacy your entire argument is fatally premised on, then an infinite regression of Creators who Created Creators is necessarily concluded--establishing the "hierarchy of creators" that Hollie asserted.

And yes, OF COURSE, an infinite regression of anything is rationally repugnant because they don't explain ANYTHING. But avoiding an infinite regression by asserting (without the support of valid logic and verifiable evidence) a Creator "outside of space, time, matter and energy," who is not subject to "any of the rules in this universe" is just as rationally repugnant for the same reason--it doesn't explain ANYTHING.

This Creator/Designer/God of yours is a null concept.



UltimateReality said:


> *Loki, *I have no hope that Hollie will ever make such an argument so feel free to jump in her if you have some material.


Since I (sort of) agreed with you, I guess it's your lucky day!


----------



## LOki

ima said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one created the creator. Who created the evolver ? God gave man freewill and thaty is why many scumbags are here but their time grows shorter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.
> 
> I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?
Click to expand...

He's not that sophisticated. Someone else made it up for him ... he just believes.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I really find so hard to believe is they can actually believe an undirected and a nonintelligent process would think to develop a place where life could thrive.
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe "... a nonintelligent process would think."
> 
> That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.
> 
> Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe that a non-intelligent process that thinks "would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence."
> 
> That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.
> 
> Non-Sequitur.
> 
> Evolutionists don't really hate that they "can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature."
> 
> Creationists hate that they can't produce ANY logically valid verifiable evidence for this "Creator" they posit--let alone "proof." "[Creationists] can't explain this ... it's inexplicable!"
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... while denying this precision in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naw. We just don't accept your "Texas Sharpshooting" as any kind of valid argument for the "precision in nature" you keep peddling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't hate, why are you here???
Click to expand...

The meaning (or more likely, the validity) of the premise of your question is unclear; hence I'm not clear about the question that is being asked.


----------



## Hollie

LOki said:


> There's no logically valid argument such a Creator would be subject to such a hierarchy--AND HERE'S THE BONUS YOU GET FOR INVITING ME--If you remove the special-pleading fallacy from the Creationist's cosmological argument, such a Creator would still not be subject to such a hierarchy ... because the existence of such a Creator would not be possible according to this improved Creationist's cosmological argument.
> 
> It's not quite fair of you to say this to Hollie, considering how generous she was in ignoring the obvious logical fallacy your entire argument is fatally premised on.



Well, thank you for that. I found the argument proposed by the resident _god-did-it&#8217;ist _to be so carelessly amateur, I really had no intention of bothering with a reply.

Despite the willingness of the fundies to use existence as a blanket "evidence" as to their theistic beliefs, we should realize that one _can_ interpret existence as not having a supernatural cause, and be within the realms of likelihood.

IMHO, the two primary fundies posting in this thread typify what is often at the core of the religious impulse for many fundies: search for meaning which they otherwise aren&#8217;t finding in their lives and an abiding sense of fear &#8211; fear of the unknown. They are driven by the despair of their own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for themselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We can all find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things.

If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through reason contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful. We place our trust and our hope in things which give us a sense of hope for a better future. Our ultimate source of meaning or object of hope requires no reason to accept claims of partisan religious dogma as a path to knowledge. I have no issue defending the infallibility of reason as opposed to the fervor of a creationist / ID / Yec&#8217;er defending a literal rendering of the bible. I&#8217;ve simply recognized the fundamentalism of the believers in supernaturalism to be illusory and irrational. Irrationality is the great sin which threatens to devour us. Simply fulminating against knowledge and reason, as is so often the case with fundies, accomplishes nothing, and is itself irrational. 

To follow up on the comment in connection with the creationist cosmological  argument, I also see appeals to the creaqtionist teleological argument. The fundie looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since the fundie cannot accept that immense time spans and nature can account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

The first error the fundie makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the Designer exhibits design as well? Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the classic teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the Designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.

Usually the fundie will reply that God(s), being the Designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates, else how can he create the laws in the first place? The answer to that is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it? For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature. Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter. 
Imagine now a law of nature or physics -- let's use gravity as the example. Gravity simply is, and we can both see and test its properties in a myriad of ways. 

We know, for instance, that the moon affects the tides. We can see in our local solar system how large bodies affect smaller bodies, as in the series of asteroids that impacted on Jupiter in 1997 (Shoemaker-Levy). Even as far off as we can see, that is, through the Hubble telescope, we can see that gravity remains constant, blindly and relentlessly obeying its own law. Since we know the distant stars are billions of light years away, we can state with assurance that the laws of gravity are equal in their self-adherence from the distant past (before the Earth had even been formed from dust and matter) right on through the present.

Now compare that to the god model. Where lays the mountain of evidence, and where lies the specious assertion?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In whose rulebook??? A logical claim that the Creator exists outside of space, time, matter and energy, and that It predates the Big Bang, does not necessitate that the Creator follow any of the rules in this universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been asking YOU for a logically valid claim of such a Creator ... you have failed to produce.
> 
> However, in you defense, I will say that there can be no rational dispute that an imaginary Creator that "exists outside of space, time, matter and energy,..." is CERTAINLY not obligated by any kind of necessity to "follow any of the rules in this universe."
> 
> I have no idea what you posted here.
> 
> There's no logically valid argument such a Creator would be subject to such a hierarchy--AND HERE'S THE BONUS YOU GET FOR INVITING ME--If you remove the special-pleading fallacy from the Creationist's cosmological argument, such a Creator would still not be subject to such a hierarchy ... because the existence of such a Creator would not be possible according to this improved Creationist's cosmological argument.
> 
> It's not quite fair of you to say this to Hollie, considering how generous she was in ignoring the obvious logical fallacy your entire argument is fatally premised on.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please present a logical argument as the basis of this claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you ignore the logical fallacy your entire argument is fatally premised on, then an infinite regression of Creators who Created Creators is necessarily concluded--establishing the "hierarchy of creators" that Hollie asserted.
> 
> And yes, OF COURSE, an infinite regression of anything is rationally repugnant because they don't explain ANYTHING. But avoiding an infinite regression by asserting (without the support of valid logic and verifiable evidence) a Creator "outside of space, time, matter and energy," who is not subject to "any of the rules in this universe" is just as rationally repugnant for the same reason--it doesn't explain ANYTHING.
> 
> This Creator/Designer/God of yours is a null concept.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Loki, *I have no hope that Hollie will ever make such an argument so feel free to jump in her if you have some material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since I (sort of) agreed with you, I guess it's your lucky day!
Click to expand...


Loki, wow! I am actually impressed you took the time to put some thought into this. There are no tricks here. I have never pretended my belief in God is a scientific principle. It is not. It is a religious belief. You will never get a logical valid claim for the Creator, as the term refers to my belief in the Judeo-Christian God, that is, until he appears in the clouds and scoops up all the believers. However, I will assert that ID Theory attempts to propose hypothesis that can be scientifically argued, without asserting their metaphysical connotations. 

In light of your responses above, could I get your opinion on the multi-verse theory? Would you agree a beginning of anything necessitates a cause? Do you believe there was a cause for the Big Bang? Obviously since the cause would have been outside of "nature" as we know it, it would have been supernatural, if you insist on using that word. All that word really does for me is make me think of ghosts and halloween though, not God, or multiverses or causes for our universe.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe "... a nonintelligent process would think."
> 
> That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.
> 
> Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe that a non-intelligent process that thinks "would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence."
> 
> That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.
> 
> Non-Sequitur.
> 
> Evolutionists don't really hate that they "can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature."
> 
> Creationists hate that they can't produce ANY logically valid verifiable evidence for this "Creator" they posit--let alone "proof." "[Creationists] can't explain this ... it's inexplicable!"
> 
> Naw. We just don't accept your "Texas Sharpshooting" as any kind of valid argument for the "precision in nature" you keep peddling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't hate, why are you here???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The meaning (or more likely, the validity) of the premise of your question is unclear; hence I'm not clear about the question that is being asked.
Click to expand...


It was just a passing remark regarding the intense hatred atheists have for Christians. Why do they work so hard at trying to discredit our belief system? I always think if they were so confident in their atheist beliefs, they would try so hard to prove us wrong. They would just go about their business and not worry about folks practicing their freedom of religion. And they wouldn't work so hard at irradicating the religious heritage of our nation. When folks start trying to rewrite history, and twist the truth about the past, I get a little nervous. Folks just need to put their big boy panties on and not worry so much about the religious roots of the U.S. Everyone's a victim nowadays. I don't care what you say, no one is forcing their religion on you. If you lived in Iraq or Afghanistan, you might have some perspective on what forced religion is. So you have to look at "In God We Trust" on the money. Get over it. I have look look at the guys bumper sticker in front of me with the F word on it. Somehow it has been twisted that Christians are the radicals, when really, it is the Darwinist movement that is attempt to change things, and I would have to say not for the better. 

Funny thing is, I think most atheists view of Christianity is based on a Christian they knew. Most have never taken the time to study the tenants (HA!) of the religion itself. Christs main teaching was that we should die to self, that is, rid our bodies of our own desires and needs, and put others before ourselves. This is a beautiful thing in a marriage. Not so much when each partner is seeking their own way. This self denial goes so far as to do without, so that you can meet others needs. Our church raised enough money to build a dormitory for an orphanage in Kenya, and we did so in a crap economy. For you, Christ means oppression. For these precious people, Christ means hope:

Huruma Children's Home - Ngong 2012 Documentary - YouTube

We also just raised $75,000 for a leper colony in India. This money will provide food for them for over a year. How amazing is it that Jesus Christ is the reason a church in Chandler is making a difference for Lepers half way around the world!!!

The Leprosy Project on Vimeo

I am very much for charity. But charity means the person chooses to give and is a better person for it. I am not for people in facncy hats (otherwise, known as the "govment") stealing my money and giving it to other people.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> IMHO, the two primary fundies posting in this thread typify what is often at the core of the religious impulse for many fundies: search for meaning which they otherwise aren&#8217;t finding in their lives and an abiding sense of fear &#8211; fear of the unknown.



Hollie, you love to put folks in boxes. You think my religion is about fear?? Ha! It is the peace that I have that makes life more enjoyable. When I was on the SWAT Team, I always trusted God every time we kicked someone's door in. I knew that if my life ended that night, my life still had meaning, and I was, and am, secure in what was to come after death. This allowed me to operate nightly *without fear*. I guess the question is, *if you are so free in your atheism, why are you so scared to reveal anything about yourself? What do you fear that keeps you in hiding?*

Let me put you in the same box. I can imagine your life isn't very meaningful. I would also think you live with the daily stress that your entire existence could end at any moment, and what would have all been for? Ahh, the great cosmic accident of human life. From an evolutionary point, it is pointless. It is pain. It is tragedy. It is death. It is the cruel joke of a conscious, formed by randomness. You desperately want to believe that Christ followers are wasting their lives because they believe something goes on after it is all over. The sad reality is that you have it all backwards. It is the "peace that passes all understanding" that makes life even more enjoyable. With Christ, comes security and peace.  

I will share the following story. I used to work with Bill years ago:

_Following is Kimberly Hosey&#8217;s painful and tragic story of Emma Simpkins. Bill, Emma&#8217;s loving father, was gracious enough to share his story in the interest of making parents aware of a far too-common tragedy.

Emma Simpkins&#8217; fiery hair and wide smile made her stand out in any crowd. She had a fiery personality too, but was generous with her love, telling those close to her, &#8220;I love you more than bunnies&#8221; to show just how much she loved them&#8212;because what kindergartener doesn&#8217;t love bunnies?

Those aren&#8217;t the only reasons her father, Bill Simpkins, tears up when he talks about her. *In a tragic accident in 2006, Bill accidentally backed his truck over Emma in the family&#8217;s driveway. She later died.*

Despite the tragic and preventable nature of the accident, Bill readily discusses it, and talks plainly about his campaign since then to help and protect children, but he really lights up when he talks about his daughter.

&#8220;She has fiery red hair,&#8221; he says, talking about the 6-year-old in the present tense even though the accident occurred more than four years ago, &#8220;and a temper to go with it. She&#8217;s my shadow. Wherever I went, Emma was with me.&#8221;

Bill isn&#8217;t sure at exactly what moment his vehicle hit Emma. He assumed Emma was inside with her mother. Bill had gone outside to move his truck so that he could take out his sons&#8217; go-karts.

&#8220;I backed up and pulled up to the curb facing the opposite direction, and that&#8217;s when I ran over her,&#8221; he says. *&#8220;I never saw her. I don&#8217;t know if she came running out, I don&#8217;t know if she was sitting on the sidewalk. I just don&#8217;t know where she came from.&#8221;*

The accident remains a blur for Bill, but he remembers tiny details from the minutes preceding it, as if his mind somehow knew to hold onto those last mementos from his time with his daughter. It was during spring break. They had just returned from a family trip to Disneyland. He remembers Emma cuddled between him and his wife, Abby, on the sofa. He remembers the NASCAR race they were watching. The mint chip ice cream Emma was eating. Then it all fell apart.

*&#8220;In just one second, our whole world was turned upside down,&#8221; he says. &#8220;It has never really been the same.&#8221;*
_

The atheists view this situation from the standpoint of "If there really was a God, how could he have let this happen???" This feeling eats at their soul, and turns from sadness and tragedy, to anger, and then *intense hatred.*

The Christian, which Bill is, cries out in the night, *"God, how could you have let me kill my little girl???"* He weeps for a month straight. He has vivid dreams of his daughter when she was alive. He continually asks God for strength, because without God, without some way to make sense of this, he can only see his way clear to putting a bullet in his brain. And then, the peace begins to wash over him. He realizes that he will see Emma again. He realizes that while there was intense pain for him, Emma was swept up into God's loving arms. He doesn't know why God didn't intervene, but there is a calmness inside of him that says *"God knows what He is doing. God is still in control."* He goes on to form a foundation in Emma's name, and he still talks about what a great kid she was all the time. And he looks forward to the time when the vivid night time dreams of her playful spirit and echoes of her calling him daddy will again become ultimate reality, when he goes to his real home to be with God.

For me, God is the only way to make sense of this world. You can say I'm weak and call that a crutch, but I can't imagine the horror that your life is. The atheist evolutionists can't fret over accidents like this. It is just the way it is. No sense spilling any tears. W*e are all an accident anyway. None of us should have been here, and it won't matter when we are all gone. *On the universe timeline, human existence will be like a micro-second moan. Evolution does guarantee anything, not even the first breath. And it certainly doesn't guarantee anything but the law of the jungle. Under evolution, fitness rules. If you are weak, you will be trampled. It amazes me that the weak and trampled adopt the atheist viewpoint, and that is the only way they can make sense of the lack of acceptance in their lives. It seems like they would gravitate towards knowing that God is there, and that he accepts them regardless of *how cruel and evil the other human animals can be*.

For some reason, we get pigeon holed into only speaking about Creationism from a scientific standpoint. The philosophical ramifications of evolution are more disturbing. In fact, there are certain principles that necessarily abide under the materialistic worldview. If everything comes from nature, than everything is natural. *Even the child molester is only doing what is programmed in his dna.* Have a penchant for kidnapping and raping men, then storing their body parts in your fridge?? Somehow natural selection didn't rid us of the genetic defect that motivated you do such a thing. *And evil? Forget that. There is no such thing.* That is a term those fundies came up with. Smoke meth until you are total freaked and decide your you need to cut off your sons head? All natural. Your decision to smoke meth came from your conscious thought which came from your brain which came from millions of years of tiny changes.  http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/9997015-man-cuts-off-sons-head

Two year old daughter pissing you off? Light her on fire and watch her burn. This guy came from nature. His brain malfunction from millions of years of random mutations. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/07/21/20090721mr-grell0721-ON.html

According to evolution, Lady Gaga has it right. We're just born this way. Do we really have a choice? My dna made me do it, that, and millions of years of natural selection. Heck, there are other animals that eat their own, right?

_Biological determination (also biologism) is the interpretation of humans and human life from a strictly biological point of view, and it is closely related to genetic determinism. Another definition is that biological determinism is the hypothesis that biological factors such as an organism's individual genes (as opposed to social or environmental factors) completely determine how a system behaves or changes over time.

Consider certain human behaviors, such as having a particular taste in music, committing murder, or writing poetry. *A biological determinist would posit that such behaviours, and personality traits in general, are mediated primarily by biological factors, such as genetic makeup.* An extreme variant of biological determinism might assert that an organism's behavior is determined entirely by biological factors, and that all of these factors are innate to that organism e.g. DNA. By asserting that biological factors are the primary determinants of behaviour, biological determinism implies of course that non-biological factors, such as social customs, expectations and education, have less or no effect on behaviour. Similarly, a variant of biological determinism might consider non-innate biological factors, such as the biological aspects of an organism's environment, to have a lesser effect on the organism's behaviour than innate biological factors._

I laugh when evolutionist, and particularly, post modern humanists claim that biological determinism isn't valued because society has influences on behavior. I'm not sure where the logic jumps off for them.* If evil humans aren't genetically predetermined, then it must be society that causes them to do evil acts.* But wait a second, where does society come from? Isn't society made up of humans? Under the materialistic worldview, humans evolved from a common ancestor. Part of the evolutionary process was to evolve into social animals, running in packs or cooperating for the greater good of the tribe. If under materialism, everything comes from matter and random forces, can we really say anything is "evil".

Hollie and Loki, I welcome your non-scientific, philosophical rebuttal to the statement: Under evolution, or materialism, i.e., matter is the only reality, we can not use concepts like evil, because, *even though they shock our senses, these so called "evil" acts are purely natural, and shouldn't be so shocking and upsetting to us when they occur. 
*
You see, it not just that life isn't fair, it is that the concept of fairness should not exist in the little cosmic accident we know of as earth, and even more so, the accident of human existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie, I have been taking some heat for my knowledge about your personal life and what motivates your atheism and deep seeded hate of Christianity. If you can please just confirm or deny my statements about your personal life, I promise I will never bring up your fundamentalist Christian parents again. And if I was incorrect, I will apologize for making those statements about your same-sex attraction being the cause of your hatred for your parents.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> To follow up on the comment in connection with the creationist cosmological  argument, I also see appeals to the creaqtionist teleological argument. The fundie looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since the fundie cannot accept that immense time spans and nature can account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.
> 
> The first error the fundie makes is fairly simple: *If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the Designer exhibits design as well?* Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the classic teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the Designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.



Hollie, this is your best cut and paste attempt at sounding smart yet!! However, the answer to your bolded question above is a resounding "NO!!" Let's construct your argument and include all the unspoken assumptions you are making above. 

If nature is designed, it requires a designer.
Humans are in nature.
Humans have a designer.
Humans design things. 
All designers are designed. 

This is a fallacious argument my dear. Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.



Hollie said:


> Usually the fundie will reply that God(s), being the Designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates,


 Yes!!!



Hollie said:


> else how can he create the laws in the first place?


 No!! The ability to create laws does not necessarily require one to be outside of the intended environment the law is to pertain to and this is where your argument goes fallacious. There is no requirement for a lawmaker to be in or outside the environment he is creating laws for. A US Senator can create laws for the US, in which he resides. A principle can create laws for the third grade classroom, which do not pertain to him.


Hollie said:


> The answer to that is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it?


 Not sure what this question is all about because it doesn't really make sense. Are you assuming God created the laws of physics? Then when was the last time you saw God? Based on your next example, it would infer that you are saying men created the laws of physics. I would argue that the laws of physics as described by humans are just that... descriptions. They attempt to describe ultimate reality but they are not ultimate reality, only attempted descriptions. 



Hollie said:


> For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature.


 Again, your assumption is that the creators of said laws are contained within the environment they created the laws for. This is not the case with the universe. And defintely not the case for created devices of which we are not contained in. For example, I am not subject to the laws of a circuit board. Nor am I subject to the laws of an internal gas combustion engine. I do not require an otto cycle for my motive force. Your argument could state that me, the circuit board, and the engine are all subject to the laws of physics, but the validity of your augment would rest on the claim that I created the laws of physics. 





Hollie said:


> Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.
> Imagine now a law of nature or physics -- let's use gravity as the example. Gravity simply is, and we can both see and test its properties in a myriad of ways.


 Your point here? Humans are subject to gravity. Humans did not create gravity.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie, this is your best cut and paste attempt at sounding smart yet!! However, the answer to your bolded question above is a resounding "NO!!" Let's construct your argument and include all the unspoken assumptions you are making above.
> 
> If nature is designed, it requires a designer.
> Humans are in nature.
> Humans have a designer.
> Humans design things.
> All designers are designed.
> 
> This is a fallacious argument my dear. Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.


 
Oddly, the above is precisely the ebb and flow of your argument. 

You don't seem to be able to understand your own argument for gods is one large circular reference. 





Hollie said:


> Usually the fundie will reply that God(s), being the Designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates,


 Yes!!!

I think it&#8217;s obvious that the entirety of your argument is based upon an irrational precept. You arbitrarily exempt your gods from any rational critique.

Gods have been, like many of the core issues of theism, defined without regard to authority, proofs, or evidence. Effectively, what any single person chooses to say a god is, that god is; the more people agree on some vague referents to the god in question, the more likely that god will be considered the true (sic) god. In essence, the concept of gods relies solely on the irrationality of faith, and far from being the creators of humanity, are actually at the mercy of humanity.

You shield your gods, and thus your argument, in a subjective position of being anything you want them to be. I&#8217;m going to limit my response to only a portion of what you&#8217;ve written because basically, you build entire armies of strawmen only a single, fallacious principle. I see a way out of the irrationality you blanket humanity with (which proves an underlying point-- it&#8217;s not the rationality that makes a mess of things, it&#8217;s the irrationality), and at the same time accept the emotional traits of the human being that makes the irrational possible. I speak of a journey of the human being, not where we are right now at this particular moment. I see the human condition as an evolving one; we once burned people as satanic witches because of the irrational. The rational drove that where it belonged: away. We once believed the earth the center of the universe (although, if the universe is infinite, then every point is the center), at least we believed the earth to be the center of the solar system. Reason put that aside. As usual, you are simply fulminating against rationality. I am presenting my side of the issue with empirical data as my support system but you&#8217;re lashing out against reason, without serving a viable alternative. You might as well curse the sun for its&#8217; brightness.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> In whose rulebook??? A logical claim that the Creator exists outside of space, time, matter and energy, and that It predates the Big Bang, does not necessitate that the Creator follow any of the rules in this universe.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been asking YOU for a logically valid claim of such a Creator ... you have failed to produce.
> 
> However, in you defense, I will say that there can be no rational dispute that an imaginary Creator that "exists outside of space, time, matter and energy,..." is CERTAINLY not obligated by any kind of necessity to "follow any of the rules in this universe."
> 
> I have no idea what you posted here.
> 
> There's no logically valid argument such a Creator would be subject to such a hierarchy--AND HERE'S THE BONUS YOU GET FOR INVITING ME--If you remove the special-pleading fallacy from the Creationist's cosmological argument, such a Creator would still not be subject to such a hierarchy ... because the existence of such a Creator would not be possible according to this improved Creationist's cosmological argument.
> 
> It's not quite fair of you to say this to Hollie, considering how generous she was in ignoring the obvious logical fallacy your entire argument is fatally premised on.
> 
> If you ignore the logical fallacy your entire argument is fatally premised on, then an infinite regression of Creators who Created Creators is necessarily concluded--establishing the "hierarchy of creators" that Hollie asserted.
> 
> And yes, OF COURSE, an infinite regression of anything is rationally repugnant because they don't explain ANYTHING. But avoiding an infinite regression by asserting (without the support of valid logic and verifiable evidence) a Creator "outside of space, time, matter and energy," who is not subject to "any of the rules in this universe" is just as rationally repugnant for the same reason--it doesn't explain ANYTHING.
> 
> This Creator/Designer/God of yours is a null concept.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Loki, *I have no hope that Hollie will ever make such an argument so feel free to jump in her if you have some material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since I (sort of) agreed with you, I guess it's your lucky day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki, wow! I am actually impressed you took the time to put some thought into this. There are no tricks here.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I just have no idea why you'd be impressed _now_, though--no extra time or thought was required.



UltimateReality said:


> I have never pretended my belief in God is a scientific principle. It is not. It is a religious belief.


If you insist that ID is science, and you place an intelligent designer at the foundation of you science, then you are most certainly pretending that your belief in God is a scientific principle--for fuck's sake ... it's the identifying principle of ID "science."



UltimateReality said:


> You will never get a logical valid claim for the Creator, as the term refers to my belief in the Judeo-Christian God, that is, until he appears in the clouds and scoops up all the believers.


Don't be so hard on your Judeo-Christian God--you'll never get a logically valid explanation for any other "Creator." It has nothing at all to do with Christianity, and everything to do with the common role that superstition plays in the assertions of this "Designer" your ID "science" posits as necessary.



UltimateReality said:


> However, I will assert that ID Theory attempts to propose hypothesis that can be scientifically argued, without asserting their metaphysical connotations.


Well, that just an assertion inconsistent with the obvious reality that ID Theory attempts advance superstition under the color of being science.2 people observe the same data:Person A: What an interesting structure!
Person B: What an interesting design!​One of these two is illicitly assigning an unsubstantiated premise to the data--the other one is a scientist.​


UltimateReality said:


> In light of your responses above, could I get your opinion on the multi-verse theory?


It is helpful in selling comic books, and it is frustrating to comic book collectors.

Outside of that, the Multiverse *Hypothesis* (I'm not aware that it's a _scientific_ theory) is pretty meaningless to me. It seems entirely useless for prediction or explanation. But then again if I looked into it more, I might find something useful.



UltimateReality said:


> Would you agree a beginning of anything necessitates a cause?


No. I would say everything that is caused necessarily has a beginning.



UltimateReality said:


> Do you believe there was a cause for the Big Bang?


No. Then again I don't believe it wasn't caused either. I simply have no data at all about anything that didn't occur after the "Big-Bang."



UltimateReality said:


> Obviously since the cause would have been outside of "nature" as we know it, it would have been supernatural, if you insist on using that word.


It's a good word.



UltimateReality said:


> All that word really does for me is make me think of ghosts and halloween though, not God, or multiverses or causes for our universe.


That's why I like the term "superstition." Supernatural gives fairy tales far more credit in nature than fairy tales deserve.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.



Your invisible being is in another dimension not subject to the laws of this universe?

My question is: why is anyone wasting their time with an imbecile of this magnitude? If believing such utter nonsense makes you able to go on in life, good for you, you've found your "opium" so that you don't have to think anymore.
Hollie, move on, there's nothing to debate here. UR is convinced of her invisible superbeing in another dimension for which any size of horseshit pile can explain anything, just adjust the amount.


----------



## Hollie

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your invisible being is in another dimension not subject to the laws of this universe?
> 
> My question is: why is anyone wasting their time with an imbecile of this magnitude? If believing such utter nonsense makes you able to go on in life, good for you, you've found your "opium" so that you don't have to think anymore.
> Hollie, move on, there's nothing to debate here. UR is convinced of her invisible superbeing in another dimension for which any size of horseshit pile can explain anything, just adjust the amount.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate your thoughts.

It's typical for fundies to insist with 100% certainty (and with 0% facts), as to their particular partisan version of gods being true and inerrant to the exclusion of competing religions/ gods. This is done while making special pleadings for an exemption from any requirement to bring forth even the most basic of proofs for their beliefs. What matters of course and what is rejected by the fundie within his demands for allowances to special pleading is the _standards_ by which belief should be applied. The fundie will demand an exemption from any rational standard of support for, and evidence for his claims because absent the requirement that others must accept supernaturalism as his argument, the claims to gods are simply background noise.

If you objectively observe the comparisons between reason and rationality vs. fear and superstition, you will see that fundies will consistently reject the natural explanations in favor of the supernatural assertions (they are hardly explanations), and they will always apply special pleadings when doing so. It's done consistently by the fundies in this thread. Despite clear evidence of various religions building themselves upon fraudulent terms and predefined suppositions, the fundies will to continue to insist upon such circular reasoning as:

"My gods are true and inerrant"

_and how do we know this?_

"This is what I was told the bible says"

_and how do we know the bible is true?_

"Because I believe it is true."

_and why do you believe the bible is true?_

"Because I was told the bible is true"

Despite clear examples of such chicanery with people who are promoting such fraud who are doing it and culling the gullible, fundies exempt their particular beliefs from charges of fraud. They will, of course, reject such fraudulent claims from those who offer the same circular arguments for competing religious belief. 

Fundies do this because they have a deep seated desire to "believe"  and will not apply the strictures of reason, rationality and true knowledge to their claims. So every piece of evidence that comes along that truly dismantles the belief system, they must reject and escape into the special pleading loophole. In discussions like this I've had with fundies, there is a consistent pattern of self inflicted ignorance typically bolstered by such comments as  "I don't care what evidence you got, I ain't believin' in it".


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If man was created on purpose by someone, then the creator must be one stupid, messed up douchesack. So maybe my beef is with whomever created our creator?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one created the creator. Who created the evolver ? God gave man freewill and thaty is why many scumbags are here but their time grows shorter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.
> 
> I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?
Click to expand...


We are finite beings trying to find out how an infinte being created everything. What God is,is beyond our comprehension. His universe and biological creations to are beyond our comprehension.

He who creates is far superior to the object created.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie giraffe conspiracy has been debunked earlier.
> 
> Your silly explanation of blood pressure was addressed by link that debunked a boilerplate creationist claim.
> 
> How embarrassing for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post shows a fundie and that you lack the ability to reason.
> 
> A nonintelligent process would *think to develop this valve* or this sponge in the brain. Yeah right it was debunked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faulty implied premise = existence of said valve is necessarily contingent upon being thought of.
> 
> Your "debunking" = debunked.
Click to expand...


You really do believe in fairytales.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one created the creator. Who created the evolver ? God gave man freewill and thaty is why many scumbags are here but their time grows shorter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.
> 
> I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?
Click to expand...


That is where faith comes in,i have no reason to doubt what the word of God say's.

Just like you would need faith to believe everything is the result of natural processes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In whose rulebook??? A logical claim that the Creator exists outside of space, time, matter and energy, and that It predates the Big Bang, does not necessitate that the Creator follow any of the rules in this universe. How can something that is infinite in both directions on our understanding of the timelien REQUIRE a beginning?* If the Creator has no beginning, please explain logically why It would be subject to such a hierarchy?
> *
> Hollie, you can't just make statements like that and not back them up. Please present a logical argument as the basis of this claim.
> 
> *Loki, *I have no hope that Hollie will ever make such an argument so feel free to jump in her if you have some material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm fascinated by you insisting you're making a logical claim regarding a supernatural, supermagical entity.
> 
> Do tell us how you came to such irrationality.
Click to expand...


You first.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't so terribly amazing *when you posted this before*, why is it now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where you had no rebuttal got ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't have to ... as I pointed out, you pretty much rebutted yourself.
Click to expand...


You are wrong loki.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said any of that!!! You can't replace the coded information and have it mean the same thing!! Just like you can't alter 0's and 1's in a computer program and get the same outcome. Why is this so hard for you to figure out? Your the special needs buffoon that insists on building caricatures and then accusing everyone else of doing it.
> 
> I won't waste my time with you anymore. Seriously, it reminds me of trying to argue with a drunk when I was a cop. Pointless!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I really find so hard to believe is they can actually believe an undirected and a nonintelligent process would think to develop a place where life could thrive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe "... a nonintelligent process would think."
> 
> That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.
> 
> Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe that a non-intelligent process that thinks "would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence."
> 
> That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they really hate is they can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-Sequitur.
> 
> Evolutionists don't really hate that they "can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature."
> 
> Creationists hate that they can't produce ANY logically valid verifiable evidence for this "Creator" they posit--let alone "proof." "[Creationists] can't explain this ... it's inexplicable!"
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... while denying this precision in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naw. We just don't accept your "Texas Sharpshooting" as any kind of valid argument for the "precision in nature" you keep peddling.
Click to expand...


You don't accept logical thinking is what you meant.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.
> 
> I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's not that sophisticated. Someone else made it up for him ... he just believes.
Click to expand...


We all form our opinions from what we learned in the past is that not correct loki ?

I can think for myself how bout you loki ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe "... a nonintelligent process would think."
> 
> That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.
> 
> Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe that a non-intelligent process that thinks "would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence."
> 
> That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.
> 
> Non-Sequitur.
> 
> Evolutionists don't really hate that they "can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature."
> 
> Creationists hate that they can't produce ANY logically valid verifiable evidence for this "Creator" they posit--let alone "proof." "[Creationists] can't explain this ... it's inexplicable!"
> 
> Naw. We just don't accept your "Texas Sharpshooting" as any kind of valid argument for the "precision in nature" you keep peddling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't hate, why are you here???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The meaning (or more likely, the validity) of the premise of your question is unclear; hence I'm not clear about the question that is being asked.
Click to expand...


What are you worried about loki it was just a simple question.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To follow up on the comment in connection with the creationist cosmological  argument, I also see appeals to the creaqtionist teleological argument. The fundie looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since the fundie cannot accept that immense time spans and nature can account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.
> 
> The first error the fundie makes is fairly simple: *If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the Designer exhibits design as well?* Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the classic teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the Designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, this is your best cut and paste attempt at sounding smart yet!! However, the answer to your bolded question above is a resounding "NO!!" Let's construct your argument and include all the unspoken assumptions you are making above.
> 
> If nature is designed, it requires a designer.
> Humans are in nature.
> Humans have a designer.
> Humans design things.
> All designers are designed.
> 
> This is a fallacious argument my dear. Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually the fundie will reply that God(s), being the Designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes!!!
> 
> No!! The ability to create laws does not necessarily require one to be outside of the intended environment the law is to pertain to and this is where your argument goes fallacious. There is no requirement for a lawmaker to be in or outside the environment he is creating laws for. A US Senator can create laws for the US, in which he resides. A principle can create laws for the third grade classroom, which do not pertain to him.
> Not sure what this question is all about because it doesn't really make sense. Are you assuming God created the laws of physics? Then when was the last time you saw God? Based on your next example, it would infer that you are saying men created the laws of physics. I would argue that the laws of physics as described by humans are just that... descriptions. They attempt to describe ultimate reality but they are not ultimate reality, only attempted descriptions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, your assumption is that the creators of said laws are contained within the environment they created the laws for. This is not the case with the universe. And defintely not the case for created devices of which we are not contained in. For example, I am not subject to the laws of a circuit board. Nor am I subject to the laws of an internal gas combustion engine. I do not require an otto cycle for my motive force. Your argument could state that me, the circuit board, and the engine are all subject to the laws of physics, but the validity of your augment would rest on the claim that I created the laws of physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.
> Imagine now a law of nature or physics -- let's use gravity as the example. Gravity simply is, and we can both see and test its properties in a myriad of ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point here? Humans are subject to gravity. Humans did not create gravity.
Click to expand...


She needs to ask herself who created the evolver or how the evolver evolved.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.
> 
> I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is where faith comes in,i have no reason to doubt what the word of God say's.
> 
> Just like you would need faith to believe everything is the result of natural processes.
Click to expand...


No, faith by definition is the belief in something unprovable, whereas science is in the business of finding proof for their theories of natural processes.
But I know, you need to convince yourself that everyone's thinking is built on faith because otherwise you'd feel foolish for being the only one believing in something for which there is zero proof.

Btw, if god had something to say to mankind, don't you think it would speak up? What you're referring to are words written by unknown men who said god told someone. You don't see that as a load of crap?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To follow up on the comment in connection with the creationist cosmological  argument, I also see appeals to the creaqtionist teleological argument. The fundie looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since the fundie cannot accept that immense time spans and nature can account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.
> 
> The first error the fundie makes is fairly simple: *If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the Designer exhibits design as well?* Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the classic teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the Designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, this is your best cut and paste attempt at sounding smart yet!! However, the answer to your bolded question above is a resounding "NO!!" Let's construct your argument and include all the unspoken assumptions you are making above.
> 
> If nature is designed, it requires a designer.
> Humans are in nature.
> Humans have a designer.
> Humans design things.
> All designers are designed.
> 
> This is a fallacious argument my dear. Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.
> 
> Yes!!!
> 
> No!! The ability to create laws does not necessarily require one to be outside of the intended environment the law is to pertain to and this is where your argument goes fallacious. There is no requirement for a lawmaker to be in or outside the environment he is creating laws for. A US Senator can create laws for the US, in which he resides. A principle can create laws for the third grade classroom, which do not pertain to him.
> Not sure what this question is all about because it doesn't really make sense. Are you assuming God created the laws of physics? Then when was the last time you saw God? Based on your next example, it would infer that you are saying men created the laws of physics. I would argue that the laws of physics as described by humans are just that... descriptions. They attempt to describe ultimate reality but they are not ultimate reality, only attempted descriptions.
> 
> Again, your assumption is that the creators of said laws are contained within the environment they created the laws for. This is not the case with the universe. And defintely not the case for created devices of which we are not contained in. For example, I am not subject to the laws of a circuit board. Nor am I subject to the laws of an internal gas combustion engine. I do not require an otto cycle for my motive force. Your argument could state that me, the circuit board, and the engine are all subject to the laws of physics, but the validity of your augment would rest on the claim that I created the laws of physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.
> Imagine now a law of nature or physics -- let's use gravity as the example. Gravity simply is, and we can both see and test its properties in a myriad of ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point here? Humans are subject to gravity. Humans did not create gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She needs to ask herself who created the evolver or how the evolver evolved.
Click to expand...

What a typically nonsensical comment. 

In spite of the claims to supernaturalism, gods and magical events insisted upon by fundies, all completely without evidence and justification, we have every reason to reject such irrationality.  There is no evidence of a personal, designer gods and no evidence of the necessary hierarchy of designers of designer gods. There is no reason to believe that we are created in the image if any God(s). In spite of the requirement for fundies to attach human emotions to their god(s), the universe does not have emotions, desires, feelings, thoughts, longings, or intentions. The universe is neither jealous nor angry,  not forgiving or merciful. The universe does not demand sacrifice, prayer, worship or slaughter of animals. 

All of the feelings, emotions and other human attributes heaped upon gods by superstitious fundies is not advancing of humanity. 

At the end if the day, an uninterested, uninvolved and uncaring entity: a God or God(s) is synonymous with &#8220;nothing&#8221;. So why give &#8220;nothingness&#8221; human attributes?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, this is your best cut and paste attempt at sounding smart yet!! However, the answer to your bolded question above is a resounding "NO!!" Let's construct your argument and include all the unspoken assumptions you are making above.
> 
> If nature is designed, it requires a designer.
> Humans are in nature.
> Humans have a designer.
> Humans design things.
> All designers are designed.
> 
> This is a fallacious argument my dear. Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly, the above is precisely the ebb and flow of your argument.
> 
> You don't seem to be able to understand your own argument for gods is one large circular reference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually the fundie will reply that God(s), being the Designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes!!!
> 
> I think its obvious that the entirety of your argument is based upon an irrational precept. You arbitrarily exempt your gods from any rational critique.
Click to expand...


Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> If you insist that ID is science, and you place an intelligent designer at the foundation of you science, then you are most certainly pretending that your belief in God is a scientific principle--for fuck's sake ... it's the identifying principle of ID "science."



This is where your confusion with ID arises. My belief that the Designer is the Judeo Christian God is a religious belief. ID makes no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer. It just claims the necessity for a designer is evident and arguable from a scientific standpoint. The designer could be an alien life form for all we know under ID, although this would go back to the question of how the aliens arose. Again, ID says we can infer a designer based on empirical evidence. It won't make the claim about any of the attributes or identity of that designer.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your invisible being is in another dimension not subject to the laws of this universe?
> 
> My question is: why is anyone wasting their time with an imbecile of this magnitude? If believing such utter nonsense makes you able to go on in life, good for you, you've found your "opium" so that you don't have to think anymore.
> Hollie, move on, there's nothing to debate here. UR is convinced of her invisible superbeing in another dimension for which any size of horseshit pile can explain anything, just adjust the amount.
Click to expand...


Uma, please respond to the philosophical arguments I presented a few post above if you've got is so figured out and you are on such a higher intellectual plain than everyone else.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your invisible being is in another dimension not subject to the laws of this universe?
> 
> My question is: why is anyone wasting their time with an imbecile of this magnitude? If believing such utter nonsense makes you able to go on in life, good for you, you've found your "opium" so that you don't have to think anymore.
> Hollie, move on, there's nothing to debate here. UR is convinced of her invisible superbeing in another dimension for which any size of horseshit pile can explain anything, just adjust the amount.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can appreciate your thoughts.
> 
> It's typical for fundies to insist with 100% certainty (and with 0% facts), as to their particular partisan version of gods being true and inerrant to the exclusion of competing religions/ gods. This is done while making special pleadings for an exemption from any requirement to bring forth even the most basic of proofs for their beliefs. What matters of course and what is rejected by the fundie within his demands for allowances to special pleading is the _standards_ by which belief should be applied. The fundie will demand an exemption from any rational standard of support for, and evidence for his claims because absent the requirement that others must accept supernaturalism as his argument, the claims to gods are simply background noise.
> 
> If you objectively observe the comparisons between reason and rationality vs. fear and superstition, you will see that fundies will consistently reject the natural explanations in favor of the supernatural assertions (they are hardly explanations), and they will always apply special pleadings when doing so. It's done consistently by the fundies in this thread. Despite clear evidence of various religions building themselves upon fraudulent terms and predefined suppositions, the fundies will to continue to insist upon such circular reasoning as:
> 
> "My gods are true and inerrant"
> 
> _and how do we know this?_
> 
> "This is what I was told the bible says"
> 
> _and how do we know the bible is true?_
> 
> "Because I believe it is true."
> 
> _and why do you believe the bible is true?_
> 
> "Because I was told the bible is true"
> 
> Despite clear examples of such chicanery with people who are promoting such fraud who are doing it and culling the gullible, fundies exempt their particular beliefs from charges of fraud. They will, of course, reject such fraudulent claims from those who offer the same circular arguments for competing religious belief.
> 
> Fundies do this because they have a deep seated desire to "believe"  and will not apply the strictures of reason, rationality and true knowledge to their claims. So every piece of evidence that comes along that truly dismantles the belief system, they must reject and escape into the special pleading loophole. In discussions like this I've had with fundies, there is a consistent pattern of self inflicted ignorance typically bolstered by such comments as  "I don't care what evidence you got, I ain't believin' in it".
Click to expand...


Strawman!! We do not insist with 100% certainty. Belief in God is a religious belief you moron. No one is making it out to be more than that. You are the one going around calling a theory a fact and pretending 100% certainty on something so totally laughable as natural selection!!

What do you *fear*? Why are you so *scared* to confirm or deny things about your personal life?

Daws probably wants to know why you continue to ignore me on these points, especially when *I have agreed to admit I'm wrong if that is the case and not ever mention it again*.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, this is your best cut and paste attempt at sounding smart yet!! However, the answer to your bolded question above is a resounding "NO!!" Let's construct your argument and include all the unspoken assumptions you are making above.
> 
> If nature is designed, it requires a designer.
> Humans are in nature.
> Humans have a designer.
> Humans design things.
> All designers are designed.
> 
> This is a fallacious argument my dear. Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly, the above is precisely the ebb and flow of your argument.
> 
> You don't seem to be able to understand your own argument for gods is one large circular reference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually the fundie will reply that God(s), being the Designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes!!!
> 
> I think its obvious that the entirety of your argument is based upon an irrational precept. You arbitrarily exempt your gods from any rational critique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. There is nothing rational or logical about asserting supernatural entities. By your standards (such as they are), we could presume that plunging large needles into dolls bearing the likeness of humans is also rational and logical. Santaria is just as rational and logical as christianity.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly, the above is precisely the ebb and flow of your argument.
> 
> You don't seem to be able to understand your own argument for gods is one large circular reference.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!!!
> 
> I think its obvious that the entirety of your argument is based upon an irrational precept. You arbitrarily exempt your gods from any rational critique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. There is nothing rational or logical about asserting supernatural entities. By your standards (such as they are), we could presume that plunging large needles into dolls bearing the likeness of humans is also rational and logical. Santaria is just as rational and logical as christianity.
Click to expand...


What do you fear? Why are you so scared to confirm or deny things about your personal life?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, this is your best cut and paste attempt at sounding smart yet!! However, the answer to your bolded question above is a resounding "NO!!" Let's construct your argument and include all the unspoken assumptions you are making above.
> 
> If nature is designed, it requires a designer.
> Humans are in nature.
> Humans have a designer.
> Humans design things.
> All designers are designed.
> 
> This is a fallacious argument my dear. Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.
> 
> Yes!!!
> 
> No!! The ability to create laws does not necessarily require one to be outside of the intended environment the law is to pertain to and this is where your argument goes fallacious. There is no requirement for a lawmaker to be in or outside the environment he is creating laws for. A US Senator can create laws for the US, in which he resides. A principle can create laws for the third grade classroom, which do not pertain to him.
> Not sure what this question is all about because it doesn't really make sense. Are you assuming God created the laws of physics? Then when was the last time you saw God? Based on your next example, it would infer that you are saying men created the laws of physics. I would argue that the laws of physics as described by humans are just that... descriptions. They attempt to describe ultimate reality but they are not ultimate reality, only attempted descriptions.
> 
> Again, your assumption is that the creators of said laws are contained within the environment they created the laws for. This is not the case with the universe. And defintely not the case for created devices of which we are not contained in. For example, I am not subject to the laws of a circuit board. Nor am I subject to the laws of an internal gas combustion engine. I do not require an otto cycle for my motive force. Your argument could state that me, the circuit board, and the engine are all subject to the laws of physics, but the validity of your augment would rest on the claim that I created the laws of physics.  Your point here? Humans are subject to gravity. Humans did not create gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She needs to ask herself who created the evolver or how the evolver evolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a typically nonsensical comment.
> 
> In spite of the claims to supernaturalism, gods and magical events insisted upon by fundies, all completely without evidence and justification, we have every reason to reject such irrationality.  There is no evidence of a personal, designer gods and no evidence of the necessary hierarchy of designers of designer gods. There is no reason to believe that we are created in the image if any God(s). In spite of the requirement for fundies to attach human emotions to their god(s), the universe does not have emotions, desires, feelings, thoughts, longings, or intentions. The universe is neither jealous nor angry,  not forgiving or merciful. The universe does not demand sacrifice, prayer, worship or slaughter of animals.
> 
> All of the feelings, emotions and other human attributes heaped upon gods by superstitious fundies is not advancing of humanity.
> 
> At the end if the day, an uninterested, uninvolved and uncaring entity: a God or God(s) is synonymous with nothing. So why give nothingness human attributes?
Click to expand...


You believe a natural process of evolution caused the diversity of living organisms. Clearly the natural process had to evolve to go from complex organisms to more complex organisms.

How does this unintelligent process think to produce all the necessities for life to exist ? How can this process produce a planet that would sustain these living organisms ?

Takes faith to believe natural processes produced all we can see with purpose in mind.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly, the above is precisely the ebb and flow of your argument.
> 
> You don't seem to be able to understand your own argument for gods is one large circular reference.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!!!
> 
> I think it&#8217;s obvious that the entirety of your argument is based upon an irrational precept. You arbitrarily exempt your gods from any rational critique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. There is nothing rational or logical about asserting supernatural entities. By your standards (such as they are), we could presume that plunging large needles into dolls bearing the likeness of humans is also rational and logical. Santaria is just as rational and logical as christianity.
Click to expand...


The truly important question in this debate because both sides agree that life had a beginning, What was the cause a designer or unintelligent process ?

Intelligence is the only method to produce order. Chaos only produces chaos it cannot produce order.

You can give me any example of chaos or randomness that produced order and we will discuss it.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> The truly important question in this debate because both sides agree that life had a beginning, What was the cause a designer or unintelligent process ?
> 
> Intelligence is the only method to produce order. Chaos only produces chaos it cannot produce order.
> 
> You can give me any example of chaos or randomness that produced order and we will discuss it.



Typically, you beg the question in order to lead the discussion toward your gods. 

There is no supportable reason to believe that intelligence. Your specious claims are not even a challenge for a middle schooler. Your necessary task here is not to make appeals to supernaturalism but to provide a good reason for actually considering the validity of your claims. Until you can do so, you might as well be taking literature courses rather than "Physics, Chemistry, Biology at Advanced Level and University." Because you are not defending a serious idea here with science, you are instead defending dogma with science fiction.

Intelligence is not the only method to produce order and in fact we know your claim to be false. It is just so typical of fundie zealots to make bellicose claims while knowing nothing of the facts. Dismiss the hard evidence all you wish but elements do readily combine to create more complex elements. Perhaps you have not studied biology in favor of religious teachings (which appears to be evident by your specious claims) but you should understand that in the natural world, the lighter (simpler) elements readily combine. See the link below for additional data. Candidly, I&#8217;m not about to expend a great deal of energy attempting to teach you biology 101. 

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

Similarly, we have no reason to believe that chaos cannot produce order. Despite your fundie claims, life does exist on this earth. Something is rather clearly wrong with your data.

Did I say data? What data? You actually have provided us with none, and instead simply made bald unsupported assertions with no basis in fact, just religious dogma.

Go figure.


Otherwise, we now need to hold you to the same standard that you hold others to. You need to tell us how gods came out of nothingness or chaos, or were themselves designed by super-super magical designers. 

I have no reason to exempt your gods from the requirements you assign to nature. You claim your magical gods magically sprang forth from nothingness. Tell us how that happened.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> She needs to ask herself who created the evolver or how the evolver evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> What a typically nonsensical comment.
> 
> In spite of the claims to supernaturalism, gods and magical events insisted upon by fundies, all completely without evidence and justification, we have every reason to reject such irrationality.  There is no evidence of a personal, designer gods and no evidence of the necessary hierarchy of designers of designer gods. There is no reason to believe that we are created in the image if any God(s). In spite of the requirement for fundies to attach human emotions to their god(s), the universe does not have emotions, desires, feelings, thoughts, longings, or intentions. The universe is neither jealous nor angry,  not forgiving or merciful. The universe does not demand sacrifice, prayer, worship or slaughter of animals.
> 
> All of the feelings, emotions and other human attributes heaped upon gods by superstitious fundies is not advancing of humanity.
> 
> At the end if the day, an uninterested, uninvolved and uncaring entity: a God or God(s) is synonymous with nothing. So why give nothingness human attributes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe a natural process of evolution caused the diversity of living organisms. Clearly the natural process had to evolve to go from complex organisms to more complex organisms.
> 
> How does this unintelligent process think to produce all the necessities for life to exist ? How can this process produce a planet that would sustain these living organisms ?
> 
> Takes faith to believe natural processes produced all we can see with purpose in mind.
Click to expand...


Why do you assign an intelligent process to nature? There is no requirement for that.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please point out the lie.
> 
> 
> 
> "Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ."- UR
> you have no proof hollie is gay lie#1
> "                         " that hollie's parents were fundies
> "                          " of god
> "                          that the bible is accurate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll borrow this from your camp.... prove I have no proof.
Click to expand...

that right you have no proof so you make shit up aka lying .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going from memory here, Daws, but I thought it was you who ripped the creationists a new one with a detailed response to the creationist "Giraffe Neck" conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> your memory is correct, but as always  the facts never stop them from babbling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like your answer for origins of life,your answer is Abiogenesis no matter what the experts on your side say . They call that Daws blind faith.
Click to expand...

 does anybody hear an asshole replying to a poster they said they would never again respond to ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now we know you are thoroughly dissociated from reality.  It's like magic! "Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism". It doesn't matter which, because with "the magic code of DNA" (being "chemically independent from the informational code it carries"), *you could replace the bases in DNA with any random reactive chemical, and nothing about "informational code" it carries would change.* Good. Just great.
> 
> WOW! You're retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said any of that!!! You can't replace the coded information and have it mean the same thing!! Just like you can't alter 0's and 1's in a computer program and get the same outcome. Why is this so hard for you to figure out? Your the special needs buffoon that insists on building caricatures and then accusing everyone else of doing it.
> 
> I won't waste my time with you anymore. Seriously, it reminds me of trying to argue with a drunk when I was a cop. Pointless!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I really find so hard to believe is they can actually believe an undirected and a nonintelligent process would think to develop a place where life could thrive. Then it would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence.
> 
> What they really hate is they can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature while denying this precision in nature.
Click to expand...

lollolo!

"What I really find so hard to believe is they can actually believe an undirected and a nonintelligent process would think to develop a place where life could thrive."ywc..
    lolollolol another ywc nonsense classic..... if something is by definition "non intelligent" then it can not think... on the other hand an undirected and a non intelligent process giving the right conditions caused by another  undirected and a non intelligent process would  produce all the the life we see.
your willful ignorance of  cause and effect  is no proof  that a god is needed..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No he is not a hack,he is bringing to you reality.
> 
> 
> 
> ahahahahaha... this coming from the man who believes that Mayans had pet dinosaurs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never suggested this how ever the Asians did.
Click to expand...

bullshit! you have blathered many time that humas lived with dinosaurs ..
BTW why do you keep answering my posts when you said you would not? it must be love!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The genetic code barrier.
> 
> 
> 
> you mean the one there is no proof for?
> btw didn't you say something like: "this is my last post to you... mental midget" -YWC
> do you always fail to keep your word?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really no proof. Why do kinds only reproduce their own kind ? Why have so many groups of organisms gone extinct ?
Click to expand...

 asked and answerd ! "people will say we're in love!"


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Microevolution vs Macroevolution
> Is There A Difference Between Microevolution & Macroevolution?
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> .See More About:evolution & sciencemicroevolution vs macroevolution
> There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called microevolution and macroevolution, two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.
> 
> Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population  changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species coloring or size.
> 
> Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.
> 
> You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution  one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.
> 
> There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they dont use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply dont pay attention to them.
> 
> Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.
> 
> When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons  this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.
> 
> In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error  creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.
> 
> A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.
> 
> Conclusion:
> Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter  and listen to the silence.
> 
> Microevolution vs Macroevolution: Is There A Difference Between Microevolution & Macroevolution?
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists like to erroneously claim that it is impossible for the
> accumulation of microevolutionary changes to produce macroevolutionary
> changes. A "genetic barrier" is oftern cited to account for this, although
> it is never identified. The hypothesis states, "there is a 'genetic
> barrier' that prevents one 'kind' from evolving into another 'kind.'" I have
> yet to see any attempt to justify this hypothesis using actual genetics or
> science. Furthermore, there clearly is not a justification because modern
> genetics has disproved this hypothesis (see below). However, it is another
> creationist buzzword that has no actual scientific value.
> 
> The hypothesis of a "genetic barrier" was not originated by creationists. It
> arose almost a hundred years ago by biologists/evolutionists to describe the
> difference between macroevolution, evolution apparent between species, and
> microevolution, evolution apparent within a species. Creationists like to
> claim that the mechanisms from macroevolution are fundamentally different
> from the mechanisms for microevolution; this is their genetic barrier. They
> then assert that there is no evidence for macroevolution while
> microevolution is well supported. They never show why any evidence
> supporting macro is wrong; they just say it is. A long quote (please forgive
> me) from Futuyma helps explains the issue:
> 
> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the
> Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that 'macroevolutionary'
> differences among organisms--those that distinguish higher taxa--arise from
> the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found
> within species. Opponents of this point of view believed that
> 'macroevolution' is qualitatively different from 'microevolution' within a
> species, and is based on a totally different kind of genetic and
> developmental repatterning. The iconoclastic geneticist Richard Goldschmidt
> (1940), who held this opinion, believed that the evolution of species marks
> the break between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'--that there is a
> 'bridgeless gap' between species that cannot be understood in terms of the
> genetic variation within species. Genetic studies of species differences
> have decisively disproved Goldschmidt's claim. Differences between species
> in morphology, behavior, and the process that underlie reproductive
> isolation all have the same genetic properties as variation within species:
> they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or based
> on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic effects, and
> they can in some instances be traced to specifiable differences in proteins
> or DNA nucleotide differences. The degree of reproductive isolation between
> populations, whether prezygotic or postzygotic, varies from little or none
> to complete. Thus, reproductive isolation, like the divergence of any other
> character, evolves in most cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in
> populations.
> (Evolutionary Biology, third edition. 477-478)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
> 
> Barrierists believe, like Goldschmidt did, that macroevolution and
> microevolution are fundamentally different; however, unlike Goldschmidt,
> they use the absence of a macro-only mechanism as proof of a creator and
> proof against evolution. The reason for the absence of a macro-only
> mechanism is that the same mechanisms apply to both micro- and
> macroevolution. This is not an "easy out" explanation, as they'd have
> laymen believe. It is backed up by genetic and biological observations and
> experiments. Goldschmidt was able to state his claim in 1940 because the
> science of molecular genetics did not exist then. It wasn't until the 1950s
> that Watson and Crick solved the structure of DNA and showed how genetic
> information was passed in cell division via template strands. The genetic
> code was later solved, explaining how DNA encoded proteins. Modern
> sequencing strategies allow us to map molecular genetic mutations to actual
> genes, demonstrating the variability of populations and the power of
> evolution. These sequencing strategies also allow us to map the differences
> between two organisms' genomes. The genetic distinctions for taxa can be
> detected by comparing organisms from different taxa. The data generated from
> such investigations show that distinctions between taxa follow the same
> rules as distinctions within a taxon.
> 
> Genetic Barriers Don't Exist [Archive] - BaptistBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it that prevents different groups from being cross bred ? Why is it that so many groups of organisms go extinct since they can't adjust genetically ? You can't see the limitations this is a very ignorant fundie argument from your side.
Click to expand...

nothing to see because there is no barrier.. 

People Will Say We're In Love Lyrics   


LAUREY

Why do they think up stories that link my name with yours? 

CURLY

Why do the neighbors chatter all day, behind their doors? 

LAUREY

I know a way to prove what they say is quite untrue. 
Here is the gist, a practical list of "don'ts" for you. 
Don't throw bouquets at me 
Don't please my folks too much 
Don't laugh at my jokes too much 
People will say we're in love! 
Don't sigh and gaze at me 
Your sighs are so like mine 
Your eyes mustn't glow like mine 
People will say we're in love! 
Don't start collecting things 
Give me my rose and my glove. 
Sweetheart they're suspecting things 
People will say we're in love. 

CURLY

Some people claim that you are to blame as much as I.
Why do y' take the trouble to bake my favorite pie?
Grantin' your wish, I carved our initials on that tree.
Jist keep a slice of all the advice you give so free.
Don't praise my charm too much 
Don't look so vain with me 
Don't stand in the rain with me 
People will say we're in love! 
Don't take my arm too much 
Don't keep your hand in mine 
Your hand feels so grand in mine 
People will say we're in love! 
Don't dance all night with me 
Till the stars fade from above. 
They'll see it's alright with me 
People will say we're in love.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is: *because I say so!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, are you copying this? ....
> 
> Hollie, Please confirm or deny my statement about your personal life. If you deny that it is true, you will have my apology and I will speak of it no more. If you confirm it, I will also speak of it no more.
Click to expand...

why?you need more proof you're a liar?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your invisible being is in another dimension not subject to the laws of this universe?
> 
> My question is: why is anyone wasting their time with an imbecile of this magnitude? If believing such utter nonsense makes you able to go on in life, good for you, you've found your "opium" so that you don't have to think anymore.
> Hollie, move on, there's nothing to debate here. UR is convinced of her invisible superbeing in another dimension for which any size of horseshit pile can explain anything, just adjust the amount.
> 
> 
> 
> I can appreciate your thoughts.
> 
> It's typical for fundies to insist with 100% certainty (and with 0% facts), as to their particular partisan version of gods being true and inerrant to the exclusion of competing religions/ gods. This is done while making special pleadings for an exemption from any requirement to bring forth even the most basic of proofs for their beliefs. What matters of course and what is rejected by the fundie within his demands for allowances to special pleading is the _standards_ by which belief should be applied. The fundie will demand an exemption from any rational standard of support for, and evidence for his claims because absent the requirement that others must accept supernaturalism as his argument, the claims to gods are simply background noise.
> 
> If you objectively observe the comparisons between reason and rationality vs. fear and superstition, you will see that fundies will consistently reject the natural explanations in favor of the supernatural assertions (they are hardly explanations), and they will always apply special pleadings when doing so. It's done consistently by the fundies in this thread. Despite clear evidence of various religions building themselves upon fraudulent terms and predefined suppositions, the fundies will to continue to insist upon such circular reasoning as:
> 
> "My gods are true and inerrant"
> 
> _and how do we know this?_
> 
> "This is what I was told the bible says"
> 
> _and how do we know the bible is true?_
> 
> "Because I believe it is true."
> 
> _and why do you believe the bible is true?_
> 
> "Because I was told the bible is true"
> 
> Despite clear examples of such chicanery with people who are promoting such fraud who are doing it and culling the gullible, fundies exempt their particular beliefs from charges of fraud. They will, of course, reject such fraudulent claims from those who offer the same circular arguments for competing religious belief.
> 
> Fundies do this because they have a deep seated desire to "believe"  and will not apply the strictures of reason, rationality and true knowledge to their claims. So every piece of evidence that comes along that truly dismantles the belief system, they must reject and escape into the special pleading loophole. In discussions like this I've had with fundies, there is a consistent pattern of self inflicted ignorance typically bolstered by such comments as  "I don't care what evidence you got, I ain't believin' in it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman!! We do not insist with 100% certainty. Belief in God is a religious belief you moron. No one is making it out to be more than that. You are the one going around calling a theory a fact and pretending 100% certainty on something so totally laughable as natural selection!!
> 
> What do you *fear*? Why are you so *scared* to confirm or deny things about your personal life?
> 
> Daws probably wants to know why you continue to ignore me on these points, especially when *I have agreed to admit I'm wrong if that is the case and not ever mention it again*.
Click to expand...

daws already knows your a rationalizing lying sack of shit.
what the point of attemping to pull me into this post?


----------



## Hollie

*New genetic light shed on human evolution*

New genetic light shed on human evolution - FT.com



> A new genetic study of a group of sub-Saharan peoples has challenged the prevailing view that modern humans emerged from one location in Africa before spreading out across the world.
> 
> An international research team found that the Khoe and San groups from southern Africa are descendants of the earliest diversification event in the history of modern humans  100,000 years ago.
> 
> Instead of localising the origin of modern humans to a single geographic region in Africa, the researchers discovered a complex record of interbreeding and genetic stratification, challenging the view of evolution in one place. Details appear in the journal Science.
> 
> *...*
> 
> It is possible that modern humans emerged from a non-homogeneous group, said Mattias Jakobsson from Uppsala University, one of the authors.
> 
> The scientists examined 2.3m DNA variants of 220 individuals representing 11 populations across southern Africa, the largest genomic study ever conducted among the click-speaking Khoe and San groups.
> 
> According to the study, the Khoe-San diverged from other populations more than 100,000 years ago but the genetic structure within the populations dated back to about 35,000 years ago, when it split into a northern and a southern group.



Im always impressed that science, as a process of discovery, is able to explore, expand and even self-correct when new data is added to the base of knowledge.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is: *because I say so!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, are you copying this? ....
> 
> Hollie, Please confirm or deny my statement about your personal life. If you deny that it is true, you will have my apology and I will speak of it no more. If you confirm it, I will also speak of it no more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why?you need more proof you're a liar?
Click to expand...


Foolish Daws. This is the same type of illogical thinking you apply to your Darwinian faith. I am either a liar regarding Hollie or I am not. Hollie could silence me by saying she is not a lesbian and that her parents aren't fundies. Right now you have absolutely no evidence either way, yet you blindly claim I am the one lying. So typical of the twisted pseudoscience thinking of evolutionary theory. You are basically saying, "You are a liar because you are a liar". And no one is buying your or Hollie's fairytale's.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> *New genetic light shed on human evolution*
> 
> New genetic light shed on human evolution - FT.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new genetic study of a group of sub-Saharan peoples has challenged the prevailing view that modern humans emerged from one location in Africa before spreading out across the world.
> 
> An international research team found that the Khoe and San groups from southern Africa are descendants of the earliest diversification event in the history of modern humans  100,000 years ago.
> 
> Instead of localising the origin of modern humans to a single geographic region in Africa, the researchers discovered a complex record of interbreeding and genetic stratification, challenging the view of evolution in one place. Details appear in the journal Science.
> 
> *...*
> 
> It is possible that modern humans emerged from a non-homogeneous group, said Mattias Jakobsson from Uppsala University, one of the authors.
> 
> The scientists examined 2.3m DNA variants of 220 individuals representing 11 populations across southern Africa, the largest genomic study ever conducted among the click-speaking Khoe and San groups.
> 
> According to the study, the Khoe-San diverged from other populations more than 100,000 years ago but the genetic structure within the populations dated back to about 35,000 years ago, when it split into a northern and a southern group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im always impressed that science, as a process of discovery, is able to explore, expand and even self-correct when new data is added to the base of knowledge.
Click to expand...


I am not really impressed with how you continue to ignore challenges to admit your motivations for your intense hatred of fundamentalist Christians.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't hate, why are you here???
> 
> 
> 
> The meaning (or more likely, the validity) of the premise of your question is unclear; hence I'm not clear about the question that is being asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was just a passing remark regarding the intense hatred atheists have for Christians.
Click to expand...

Hmm. "Hate?" Ok. _Intense hate_. Right. Ahem.The issue, I think (because I can't claim to speak for all atheists), is not so much with _Christian_ faith, but with the nihilistic anti-reason of faith in general. And if you object to the phrase "nihilistic anti-reason of faith," please don't voice your objection until you have fully considered nature of the center stage role that faith has played in the ongoing drama featuring the several tribes of superstitious rock chucking retards in the middle east.

And just to be clear; as I have stated before, atheism offers no certain immunity from the anti-rationality of faith--there are clearly atheists around who hold an unstubstantiated conviction that there is just-no-God, and they are no more rational than anyone else holding beliefs by the same retarded standard.

I suspect that here in the U.S., where the privileges that Chistians enjoy are taken for granted, whenever the validiy of faith's realationship with objective reality is questioned, it appears that Christianity is under attack rather than anti-rationality.

Hollie has the end-game of superstious retards characterized precisely: "X is true ... *because I say so.*" "I am right ... *because I say so.*" "You are wrong ... *because I say so.*" You don't dare question this because you can't "PROVE" them wrong.

Which leads to the obstinate hypocricy of the faithful in setting the bar of validation at "*PROOF*" for others, while not even requiring logical validity for themselves, is just the tip of the iceberg that is their sanctimoniously arrogant anti-reason.

You know what? I might be wrong that the issue isn't about Christians. The obvious (undeserved) privilege of deference they enjoy, combined with their manifestly retarded hubris, just serves to make them a bunch of insufferable *****.​How did I do? Did I capture the "hate" well enough for you?

Maybe this guy does a better job.  [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXcdevmiR0U]Sam Harris Simply Destroys Christianity - YouTube[/ame]



UltimateReality said:


> Why do they work so hard at trying to discredit our belief system?


Because some of them are not smart enough to realize that no amount of hard work will suffice to discredit a belief system that is already intellectually and morally bankrupt--faith is bereft of moral and intellectual capital.



UltimateReality said:


> I always think if they were so confident in their atheist beliefs, they would try so hard to prove us wrong.


No one is really trying ... it's just being pointed out. And the reason for pointing out how wrong you are, is the hope that you might develop a moral conscience--that cannot be consoled by obedience to God--such that you will all stop killing everyone--whether through war, genocide, murder, or the cultivation of ignorance.



UltimateReality said:


> They would just go about their business and not worry about folks practicing their freedom of religion.


If the sentiment was at all reciprocal, you would probably not have any reason to make this complaint._"That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some, and to their eternal infamy the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such a business."_--James Madison​


UltimateReality said:


> And they wouldn't work so hard at irradicating the religious heritage of our nation.


This isn't happening the way you think. Christians are literally working hard at irradicating the religious heritage of our nation._"The countries the most famous and the most respected of antiquity are those which distinguished themselves by promoting and patronizing science, and on the contrary those which neglected or discouraged it are universally denominated rude and barbarous."_--Thomas Paine​


UltimateReality said:


> When folks start trying to rewrite history, and twist the truth about the past, I get a little nervous.


If you are not considering talking about David Barton, then you are just talking crazy talk.



UltimateReality said:


> Folks just need to put their big boy panties on and not worry so much about the religious roots of the U.S.


These roots?_"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."_--John Adams​


UltimateReality said:


> Everyone's a victim nowadays.


Including the Christians. No one here is feeding them to lions. I kid you not.



UltimateReality said:


> I don't care what you say, no one is forcing their religion on you.


Oh, let's not pretend that there's no effort among the Christians to advance Christianity though the coercive appurtenances of government._The Rule of Law is second only to the Rule of Love. The here and now is less important than the hereafter._-Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice​


UltimateReality said:


> If you lived in Iraq or Afghanistan, you might have some perspective on what forced religion is.


And if contemporary Christians had some perspective on what forced religion is, they'd stop insisting that their efforts to wedge their religion into government policy are all so innocent.



UltimateReality said:


> So you have to look at "In God We Trust" on the money. Get over it.


Well, rational atheists ARE over it. To us, "In God We Trust" on the money has the same objective intellectual and moral value as "We Throw Salt Over Our Shoulders For Good Luck."  "In God We Trust" just enjoys the benefit of brevity.



UltimateReality said:


> I have look look at the guys bumper sticker in front of me with the F word on it. Somehow it has been twisted that Christians are the radicals, when really, it is the Darwinist movement that is attempt to change things, and I would have to say not for the better.


I can't think of a single uniquely Christian contribution that is of any benefit at all. And to clarify, I'm not speaking of contributions by Christians that are just the rationally valid contributions decent folks would offer regardless of religion.



UltimateReality said:


> Funny thing is, I think most atheists view of Christianity is based on a Christian they knew. Most have never taken the time to study the tenants (HA!) of the religion itself.


The tenets of Christianity-specifically characteristic of Christianity-are not all that, or a bag of chips. They're rather embarrassingly self-indicting.



UltimateReality said:


> Christs main teaching was that we should die to self, that is, rid our bodies of our own desires and needs, and put others before ourselves. This is a beautiful thing in a marriage. Not so much when each partner is seeking their own way. This self denial goes so far as to do without, so that you can meet others needs.


Human sacrifice--even human *self*-sacrifice--is intellectually and morally repugnant. Nihilism, no matter how divinely rationalized, is not a moral paradigm any rational society should embrace.



UltimateReality said:


> Our church raised enough money to build a dormitory for an orphanage in Kenya, and we did so in a crap economy. For you, Christ means oppression. For these precious people, Christ means hope:
> 
> Huruma Children's Home - Ngong 2012 Documentary - YouTube
> 
> We also just raised $75,000 for a leper colony in India. This money will provide food for them for over a year. How amazing is it that Jesus Christ is the reason a church in Chandler is making a difference for Lepers half way around the world!!!
> 
> The Leprosy Project on Vimeo


Well that's just sad. It's sad that without Jesus Christ, there'd just be no reason for the members of your church in Chandler to attempt something so nice. Thanks Jesus!



UltimateReality said:


> I am very much for charity. But charity means the person chooses to give and is a better person for it. I am not for people in facncy hats (otherwise, known as the "govment") stealing my money and giving it to other people.


I agree with this. Entirely. But I am skeptical of the charitable under-pinnings that churches lay claim to.

I have yet to discover a church--ANYWHERE--that when the collection plate is passed around, the kind folks of the congregation are as free of conscience to pull a few bucks out of the plate--for _their_ needs, as they are to put a few bucks in. Why is that?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.
> 
> I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is where faith comes in,i have no reason to doubt what the word of God say's.
Click to expand...

This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.



Youwerecreated said:


> Just like you would need faith to believe everything is the result of natural processes.


This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, this is your best cut and paste attempt at sounding smart yet!! However, the answer to your bolded question above is a resounding "NO!!" Let's construct your argument and include all the unspoken assumptions you are making above.
> 
> If nature is designed, it requires a designer.
> Humans are in nature.
> Humans have a designer.
> Humans design things.
> All designers are designed.
> 
> This is a fallacious argument my dear. Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly, the above is precisely the ebb and flow of your argument.
> 
> You don't seem to be able to understand your own argument for gods is one large circular reference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually the fundie will reply that God(s), being the Designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes!!!
> 
> I think its obvious that the entirety of your argument is based upon an irrational precept. You arbitrarily exempt your gods from any rational critique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.
Click to expand...

The fundamental premises of the religious standpoint is not rational. The arguments that follow may be logical (they're really not), but conclusions remain as irrational as the premises.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you insist that ID is science, and you place an intelligent designer at the foundation of you science, then you are most certainly pretending that your belief in God is a scientific principle--for fuck's sake ... it's the identifying principle of ID "science."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where your confusion with ID arises. My belief that the Designer is the Judeo Christian God is a religious belief. ID makes no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer. It just claims the necessity for a designer is evident and arguable from a scientific standpoint. The designer could be an alien life form for all we know under ID, although this would go back to the question of how the aliens arose. Again, ID says we can infer a designer based on empirical evidence.
Click to expand...

No. You can't. Not without accepting the existence of some designer as a necessary premise for accepting said "empirical evidence" as support for your conclusion.

If you could, you'd have presented your evidence long ago.



UltimateReality said:


> It won't make the claim about any of the attributes or identity of that designer.


This is just a lame attempt to deny that the necessary consequence of this "design" of yours is the "creation" you pretend you're not advancing.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your invisible being is in another dimension not subject to the laws of this universe?
> 
> My question is: why is anyone wasting their time with an imbecile of this magnitude? If believing such utter nonsense makes you able to go on in life, good for you, you've found your "opium" so that you don't have to think anymore.
> Hollie, move on, there's nothing to debate here. UR is convinced of her invisible superbeing in another dimension for which any size of horseshit pile can explain anything, just adjust the amount.
> 
> 
> 
> I can appreciate your thoughts.
> 
> It's typical for fundies to insist with 100% certainty (and with 0% facts), as to their particular partisan version of gods being true and inerrant to the exclusion of competing religions/ gods. This is done while making special pleadings for an exemption from any requirement to bring forth even the most basic of proofs for their beliefs. What matters of course and what is rejected by the fundie within his demands for allowances to special pleading is the _standards_ by which belief should be applied. The fundie will demand an exemption from any rational standard of support for, and evidence for his claims because absent the requirement that others must accept supernaturalism as his argument, the claims to gods are simply background noise.
> 
> If you objectively observe the comparisons between reason and rationality vs. fear and superstition, you will see that fundies will consistently reject the natural explanations in favor of the supernatural assertions (they are hardly explanations), and they will always apply special pleadings when doing so. It's done consistently by the fundies in this thread. Despite clear evidence of various religions building themselves upon fraudulent terms and predefined suppositions, the fundies will to continue to insist upon such circular reasoning as:
> 
> "My gods are true and inerrant"
> 
> _and how do we know this?_
> 
> "This is what I was told the bible says"
> 
> _and how do we know the bible is true?_
> 
> "Because I believe it is true."
> 
> _and why do you believe the bible is true?_
> 
> "Because I was told the bible is true"
> 
> Despite clear examples of such chicanery with people who are promoting such fraud who are doing it and culling the gullible, fundies exempt their particular beliefs from charges of fraud. They will, of course, reject such fraudulent claims from those who offer the same circular arguments for competing religious belief.
> 
> Fundies do this because they have a deep seated desire to "believe"  and will not apply the strictures of reason, rationality and true knowledge to their claims. So every piece of evidence that comes along that truly dismantles the belief system, they must reject and escape into the special pleading loophole. In discussions like this I've had with fundies, there is a consistent pattern of self inflicted ignorance typically bolstered by such comments as  "I don't care what evidence you got, I ain't believin' in it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman!! We do not insist with 100% certainty.
Click to expand...

I had no idea that you were to any degree uncertain about the existence of your God; uncertain that your God loves you; uncertain that your God created you.



UltimateReality said:


> Belief in God is a religious belief you moron. No one is making it out to be more than that.


You're right. No one is. Hence, based upon nothing, you are unconditionally certain that your God is real.



UltimateReality said:


> You are the one going around calling a theory a fact and pretending 100% certainty on something so totally laughable as natural selection!!


There's no pretense a certainty on this side of the issue. That's been demonstrated since natural selection was proposed as hypothesis.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> She needs to ask herself who created the evolver or how the evolver evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> What a typically nonsensical comment.
> 
> In spite of the claims to supernaturalism, gods and magical events insisted upon by fundies, all completely without evidence and justification, we have every reason to reject such irrationality.  There is no evidence of a personal, designer gods and no evidence of the necessary hierarchy of designers of designer gods. There is no reason to believe that we are created in the image if any God(s). In spite of the requirement for fundies to attach human emotions to their god(s), the universe does not have emotions, desires, feelings, thoughts, longings, or intentions. The universe is neither jealous nor angry,  not forgiving or merciful. The universe does not demand sacrifice, prayer, worship or slaughter of animals.
> 
> All of the feelings, emotions and other human attributes heaped upon gods by superstitious fundies is not advancing of humanity.
> 
> At the end if the day, an uninterested, uninvolved and uncaring entity: a God or God(s) is synonymous with nothing. So why give nothingness human attributes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe a natural process of evolution caused the diversity of living organisms.
Click to expand...

Valid logic, applied to the evidence supports the conclusion. Yes.

AGAIN.



Youwerecreated said:


> Clearly the natural process had to evolve to go from complex organisms to more complex organisms.


Non-sequitur. So, no.



Youwerecreated said:


> How does this unintelligent process think to produce all the necessities for life to exist ?


Since no-one but you posits the thinking unintelligent process you assert, no one but you has to explain how this unintelligent process thinks to produce all the necessities for life to exist.



Youwerecreated said:


> How can this process produce a planet that would sustain these living organisms ?


Since no-one but you posits the thinking unintelligent process you assert, no one but you has to explain how this unintelligent process thinks to produce a planet that would sustain these living organisms.



Youwerecreated said:


> Takes faith to believe natural processes produced all we can see with purpose in mind.


This is true, but no one but you is asserting the reality of the thinking unintelligent process you assert.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. There is nothing rational or logical about asserting supernatural entities. By your standards (such as they are), we could presume that plunging large needles into dolls bearing the likeness of humans is also rational and logical. Santaria is just as rational and logical as christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truly important question in this debate because both sides agree that life had a beginning, What was the cause a designer or unintelligent process ?
> 
> Intelligence is the only method to produce order.
Click to expand...

Wrong.



Youwerecreated said:


> Chaos only produces chaos it cannot produce order.


Wrong.



Youwerecreated said:


> You can give me any example of chaos or randomness that produced order and we will discuss it.


Ok.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The meaning (or more likely, the validity) of the premise of your question is unclear; hence I'm not clear about the question that is being asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was just a passing remark regarding the intense hatred atheists have for Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm. "Hate?" Ok. _Intense hate_. Right. Ahem.The issue, I think (because I can't claim to speak for all atheists), is not so much with _Christian_ faith, but with the nihilistic anti-reason of faith in general. And if you object to the phrase "nihilistic anti-reason of faith," please don't voice your objection until you have fully considered nature of the center stage role that faith has played in the ongoing drama featuring the several tribes of superstitious rock chucking retards in the middle east.
> 
> And just to be clear; as I have stated before, atheism offers no certain immunity from the anti-rationality of faith--there are clearly atheists around who hold an unstubstantiated conviction that there is just-no-God, and they are no more rational than anyone else holding beliefs by the same retarded standard.
> 
> I suspect that here in the U.S., where the privileges that Chistians enjoy are taken for granted, whenever the validiy of faith's realationship with objective reality is questioned, it appears that Christianity is under attack rather than anti-rationality.
> 
> Hollie has the end-game of superstious retards characterized precisely: "X is true ... *because I say so.*" "I am right ... *because I say so.*" "You are wrong ... *because I say so.*" You don't dare question this because you can't "PROVE" them wrong.
> 
> Which leads to the obstinate hypocricy of the faithful in setting the bar of validation at "*PROOF*" for others, while not even requiring logical validity for themselves, is just the tip of the iceberg that is their sanctimoniously arrogant anti-reason.
> 
> You know what? I might be wrong that the issue isn't about Christians. The obvious (undeserved) privilege of deference they enjoy, combined with their manifestly retarded hubris, just serves to make them a bunch of insufferable *****.​How did I do? Did I capture the "hate" well enough for you?
> 
> Maybe this guy does a better job.  [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXcdevmiR0U]Sam Harris Simply Destroys Christianity - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Because some of them are not smart enough to realize that no amount of hard work will suffice to discredit a belief system that is already intellectually and morally bankrupt--faith is bereft of moral and intellectual capital.
> 
> No one is really trying ... it's just being pointed out. And the reason for pointing out how wrong you are, is the hope that you might develop a moral conscience--that cannot be consoled by obedience to God--such that you will all stop killing everyone--whether through war, genocide, murder, or the cultivation of ignorance.
> 
> If the sentiment was at all reciprocal, you would probably not have any reason to make this complaint._"That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some, and to their eternal infamy the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such a business."_--James Madison​This isn't happening the way you think. Christians are literally working hard at irradicating the religious heritage of our nation._"The countries the most famous and the most respected of antiquity are those which distinguished themselves by promoting and patronizing science, and on the contrary those which neglected or discouraged it are universally denominated rude and barbarous."_--Thomas Paine​If you are not considering talking about David Barton, then you are just talking crazy talk.
> 
> These roots?_"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."_--John Adams​Including the Christians. No one here is feeding them to lions. I kid you not.
> 
> Oh, let's not pretend that there's no effort among the Christians to advance Christianity though the coercive appurtenances of government._The Rule of Law is second only to the Rule of Love. The here and now is less important than the hereafter._-Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice​And if contemporary Christians had some perspective on what forced religion is, they'd stop insisting that their efforts to wedge their religion into government policy are all so innocent.
> 
> Well, rational atheists ARE over it. To us, "In God We Trust" on the money has the same objective intellectual and moral value as "We Throw Salt Over Our Shoulders For Good Luck."  "In God We Trust" just enjoys the benefit of brevity.
> 
> I can't think of a single uniquely Christian contribution that is of any benefit at all. And to clarify, I'm not speaking of contributions by Christians that are just the rationally valid contributions decent folks would offer regardless of religion.
> 
> The tenets of Christianity-specifically characteristic of Christianity-are not all that, or a bag of chips. They're rather embarrassingly self-indicting.
> 
> Human sacrifice--even human *self*-sacrifice--is intellectually and morally repugnant. Nihilism, no matter how divinely rationalized, is not a moral paradigm any rational society should embrace.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our church raised enough money to build a dormitory for an orphanage in Kenya, and we did so in a crap economy. For you, Christ means oppression. For these precious people, Christ means hope:
> 
> Huruma Children's Home - Ngong 2012 Documentary - YouTube
> 
> We also just raised $75,000 for a leper colony in India. This money will provide food for them for over a year. How amazing is it that Jesus Christ is the reason a church in Chandler is making a difference for Lepers half way around the world!!!
> 
> The Leprosy Project on Vimeo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's just sad. It's sad that without Jesus Christ, there'd just be no reason for the members of your church in Chandler to attempt something so nice. Thanks Jesus!
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am very much for charity. But charity means the person chooses to give and is a better person for it. I am not for people in facncy hats (otherwise, known as the "govment") stealing my money and giving it to other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with this. Entirely. But I am skeptical of the charitable under-pinnings that churches lay claim to.
> 
> I have yet to discover a church--ANYWHERE--that when the collection plate is passed around, the kind folks of the congregation are as free of conscience to pull a few bucks out of the plate--for _their_ needs, as they are to put a few bucks in. Why is that?
Click to expand...


There are so many things wrong with this rebuttal that I don't have time this morning, or today, to get into them all. Funny, that much your post uses assumptive language or the inference that because you have not experienced it, it doesn't exist. You also haven't responded to the horrors of materialism, but try to charaterize Christianity as being morally bankrupt. This is the most preposterous thing of all about your post, that you borrow terms from the theistic worldview and pretend like they have any logical basis in the materialistic worldview. They don't. Let's remind you of what Darwinist Philosopher Wil Provine says about Darwinism:

_"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear . . . 

-There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. 
-There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. Thats the end for me. 
-There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."
_

Will Provine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is where faith comes in,i have no reason to doubt what the word of God say's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you would need faith to believe everything is the result of natural processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.
Click to expand...


That's really the problem isn't it. You are so twisted by the pseudoscience and "just so" stories of evolution, you wouldn't know "valid evidence" if it hit you in the face.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can appreciate your thoughts.
> 
> It's typical for fundies to insist with 100% certainty (and with 0% facts), as to their particular partisan version of gods being true and inerrant to the exclusion of competing religions/ gods. This is done while making special pleadings for an exemption from any requirement to bring forth even the most basic of proofs for their beliefs. What matters of course and what is rejected by the fundie within his demands for allowances to special pleading is the _standards_ by which belief should be applied. The fundie will demand an exemption from any rational standard of support for, and evidence for his claims because absent the requirement that others must accept supernaturalism as his argument, the claims to gods are simply background noise.
> 
> If you objectively observe the comparisons between reason and rationality vs. fear and superstition, you will see that fundies will consistently reject the natural explanations in favor of the supernatural assertions (they are hardly explanations), and they will always apply special pleadings when doing so. It's done consistently by the fundies in this thread. Despite clear evidence of various religions building themselves upon fraudulent terms and predefined suppositions, the fundies will to continue to insist upon such circular reasoning as:
> 
> "My gods are true and inerrant"
> 
> _and how do we know this?_
> 
> "This is what I was told the bible says"
> 
> _and how do we know the bible is true?_
> 
> "Because I believe it is true."
> 
> _and why do you believe the bible is true?_
> 
> "Because I was told the bible is true"
> 
> Despite clear examples of such chicanery with people who are promoting such fraud who are doing it and culling the gullible, fundies exempt their particular beliefs from charges of fraud. They will, of course, reject such fraudulent claims from those who offer the same circular arguments for competing religious belief.
> 
> Fundies do this because they have a deep seated desire to "believe"  and will not apply the strictures of reason, rationality and true knowledge to their claims. So every piece of evidence that comes along that truly dismantles the belief system, they must reject and escape into the special pleading loophole. In discussions like this I've had with fundies, there is a consistent pattern of self inflicted ignorance typically bolstered by such comments as  "I don't care what evidence you got, I ain't believin' in it".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman!! We do not insist with 100% certainty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had no idea that you were to any degree uncertain about the existence of your God; uncertain that your God loves you; uncertain that your God created you.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in God is a religious belief you moron. No one is making it out to be more than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right. No one is. Hence, based upon nothing, you are unconditionally certain that your God is real.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one going around calling a theory a fact and pretending 100% certainty on something so totally laughable as natural selection!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no pretense a certainty on this side of the issue. That's been demonstrated since natural selection was proposed as hypothesis.
Click to expand...


And that is why you continually refer to it as the "fact" of evolution. Quit deluding yourself about the Darwinist belief system and the faith you require.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was just a passing remark regarding the intense hatred atheists have for Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. "Hate?" Ok. _Intense hate_. Right. Ahem.The issue, I think (because I can't claim to speak for all atheists), is not so much with _Christian_ faith, but with the nihilistic anti-reason of faith in general. And if you object to the phrase "nihilistic anti-reason of faith," please don't voice your objection until you have fully considered nature of the center stage role that faith has played in the ongoing drama featuring the several tribes of superstitious rock chucking retards in the middle east.
> 
> And just to be clear; as I have stated before, atheism offers no certain immunity from the anti-rationality of faith--there are clearly atheists around who hold an unstubstantiated conviction that there is just-no-God, and they are no more rational than anyone else holding beliefs by the same retarded standard.
> 
> I suspect that here in the U.S., where the privileges that Chistians enjoy are taken for granted, whenever the validiy of faith's realationship with objective reality is questioned, it appears that Christianity is under attack rather than anti-rationality.
> 
> Hollie has the end-game of superstious retards characterized precisely: "X is true ... *because I say so.*" "I am right ... *because I say so.*" "You are wrong ... *because I say so.*" You don't dare question this because you can't "PROVE" them wrong.
> 
> Which leads to the obstinate hypocricy of the faithful in setting the bar of validation at "*PROOF*" for others, while not even requiring logical validity for themselves, is just the tip of the iceberg that is their sanctimoniously arrogant anti-reason.
> 
> You know what? I might be wrong that the issue isn't about Christians. The obvious (undeserved) privilege of deference they enjoy, combined with their manifestly retarded hubris, just serves to make them a bunch of insufferable *****.​How did I do? Did I capture the "hate" well enough for you?
> 
> Maybe this guy does a better job.  [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXcdevmiR0U]Sam Harris Simply Destroys Christianity - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Because some of them are not smart enough to realize that no amount of hard work will suffice to discredit a belief system that is already intellectually and morally bankrupt--faith is bereft of moral and intellectual capital.
> 
> No one is really trying ... it's just being pointed out. And the reason for pointing out how wrong you are, is the hope that you might develop a moral conscience--that cannot be consoled by obedience to God--such that you will all stop killing everyone--whether through war, genocide, murder, or the cultivation of ignorance.
> 
> If the sentiment was at all reciprocal, you would probably not have any reason to make this complaint._"That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some, and to their eternal infamy the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such a business."_--James Madison​This isn't happening the way you think. Christians are literally working hard at irradicating the religious heritage of our nation._"The countries the most famous and the most respected of antiquity are those which distinguished themselves by promoting and patronizing science, and on the contrary those which neglected or discouraged it are universally denominated rude and barbarous."_--Thomas Paine​If you are not considering talking about David Barton, then you are just talking crazy talk.
> 
> These roots?_"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."_--John Adams​Including the Christians. No one here is feeding them to lions. I kid you not.
> 
> Oh, let's not pretend that there's no effort among the Christians to advance Christianity though the coercive appurtenances of government._The Rule of Law is second only to the Rule of Love. The here and now is less important than the hereafter._-Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice​And if contemporary Christians had some perspective on what forced religion is, they'd stop insisting that their efforts to wedge their religion into government policy are all so innocent.
> 
> Well, rational atheists ARE over it. To us, "In God We Trust" on the money has the same objective intellectual and moral value as "We Throw Salt Over Our Shoulders For Good Luck."  "In God We Trust" just enjoys the benefit of brevity.
> 
> I can't think of a single uniquely Christian contribution that is of any benefit at all. And to clarify, I'm not speaking of contributions by Christians that are just the rationally valid contributions decent folks would offer regardless of religion.
> 
> The tenets of Christianity-specifically characteristic of Christianity-are not all that, or a bag of chips. They're rather embarrassingly self-indicting.
> 
> Human sacrifice--even human *self*-sacrifice--is intellectually and morally repugnant. Nihilism, no matter how divinely rationalized, is not a moral paradigm any rational society should embrace.
> 
> Well that's just sad. It's sad that without Jesus Christ, there'd just be no reason for the members of your church in Chandler to attempt something so nice. Thanks Jesus!
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am very much for charity. But charity means the person chooses to give and is a better person for it. I am not for people in facncy hats (otherwise, known as the "govment") stealing my money and giving it to other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with this. Entirely. But I am skeptical of the charitable under-pinnings that churches lay claim to.
> 
> I have yet to discover a church--ANYWHERE--that when the collection plate is passed around, the kind folks of the congregation are as free of conscience to pull a few bucks out of the plate--for _their_ needs, as they are to put a few bucks in. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are so many things wrong with this rebuttal that I don't have time this morning, or today, to get into them all.
Click to expand...

I'm betting you won't get to them ever, and that has less to do with how much time you have, and more to do with my ability to expose the usual fallacies you employ for rebuttal.



UltimateReality said:


> Funny, that much your post uses assumptive language or the inference that because you have not experienced it, it doesn't exist.


"Assumptive language" is the term you use to describe my statements of conditional certainty ... just before you accuse me of making statements of uncnditional certainity.



UltimateReality said:


> You also haven't responded to the horrors of materialism, but try to charaterize Christianity as being morally bankrupt.


Let's just say your first clause has merit; a pot calling a kettle black, does not make the kettle any less black.



UltimateReality said:


> This is the most preposterous thing of all about your post, that you borrow terms from the theistic worldview and pretend like they have any logical basis in the materialistic worldview.


Wrong. Your pretense that ID is science; that your superstition and every conclusion derived from it is rational, is you taking terms from a rational worldview and insisting your superstitious worldview has any logical basis in reality. They don't.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is where faith comes in,i have no reason to doubt what the word of God say's.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you would need faith to believe everything is the result of natural processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really the problem isn't it. You are so twisted by the pseudoscience and "just so" stories of evolution, you wouldn't know "valid evidence" if it hit you in the face.
Click to expand...

"Just so" is a meaningless term. Your accusation is meaningless.

If there's anything that could be considered a "just so" story, it the story that says the world was designed, and that is evidence for a designer.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman!! We do not insist with 100% certainty.
> 
> 
> 
> I had no idea that you were to any degree uncertain about the existence of your God; uncertain that your God loves you; uncertain that your God created you.
> 
> You're right. No one is. Hence, based upon nothing, you are unconditionally certain that your God is real.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one going around calling a theory a fact and pretending 100% certainty on something so totally laughable as natural selection!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no pretense a certainty on this side of the issue. That's been demonstrated since natural selection was proposed as hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is why you continually refer to it as the "fact" of evolution.
Click to expand...

No one but those who exercise the unconditional certainty of faith, think the expression of fact of evolution is one of unconditional certainty.

Rational people just do not adhere to the superstitious paradigm of the faithful. Get over it.



UltimateReality said:


> Quit deluding yourself about the Darwinist belief system and the faith you require.


No faith required. It's been demonstrated time and again.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. "Hate?" Ok. _Intense hate_. Right. Ahem.The issue, I think (because I can't claim to speak for all atheists), is not so much with _Christian_ faith, but with the nihilistic anti-reason of faith in general. And if you object to the phrase "nihilistic anti-reason of faith," please don't voice your objection until you have fully considered nature of the center stage role that faith has played in the ongoing drama featuring the several tribes of superstitious rock chucking retards in the middle east.
> 
> And just to be clear; as I have stated before, atheism offers no certain immunity from the anti-rationality of faith--there are clearly atheists around who hold an unstubstantiated conviction that there is just-no-God, and they are no more rational than anyone else holding beliefs by the same retarded standard.
> 
> I suspect that here in the U.S., where the privileges that Chistians enjoy are taken for granted, whenever the validiy of faith's realationship with objective reality is questioned, it appears that Christianity is under attack rather than anti-rationality.
> 
> Hollie has the end-game of superstious retards characterized precisely: "X is true ... *because I say so.*" "I am right ... *because I say so.*" "You are wrong ... *because I say so.*" You don't dare question this because you can't "PROVE" them wrong.
> 
> Which leads to the obstinate hypocricy of the faithful in setting the bar of validation at "*PROOF*" for others, while not even requiring logical validity for themselves, is just the tip of the iceberg that is their sanctimoniously arrogant anti-reason.
> 
> You know what? I might be wrong that the issue isn't about Christians. The obvious (undeserved) privilege of deference they enjoy, combined with their manifestly retarded hubris, just serves to make them a bunch of insufferable *****.​How did I do? Did I capture the "hate" well enough for you?
> 
> Maybe this guy does a better job.  Sam Harris Simply Destroys Christianity - YouTube
> 
> Because some of them are not smart enough to realize that no amount of hard work will suffice to discredit a belief system that is already intellectually and morally bankrupt--faith is bereft of moral and intellectual capital.
> 
> No one is really trying ... it's just being pointed out. And the reason for pointing out how wrong you are, is the hope that you might develop a moral conscience--that cannot be consoled by obedience to God--such that you will all stop killing everyone--whether through war, genocide, murder, or the cultivation of ignorance.
> 
> If the sentiment was at all reciprocal, you would probably not have any reason to make this complaint._"That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some, and to their eternal infamy the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such a business."_--James Madison​This isn't happening the way you think. Christians are literally working hard at irradicating the religious heritage of our nation._"The countries the most famous and the most respected of antiquity are those which distinguished themselves by promoting and patronizing science, and on the contrary those which neglected or discouraged it are universally denominated rude and barbarous."_--Thomas Paine​If you are not considering talking about David Barton, then you are just talking crazy talk.
> 
> These roots?_"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."_--John Adams​Including the Christians. No one here is feeding them to lions. I kid you not.
> 
> Oh, let's not pretend that there's no effort among the Christians to advance Christianity though the coercive appurtenances of government._&#8220;The Rule of Law is second only to the Rule of Love. The here and now is less important than the hereafter.&#8221;_&#8211;-Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice​And if contemporary Christians had some perspective on what forced religion is, they'd stop insisting that their efforts to wedge their religion into government policy are all so innocent.
> 
> Well, rational atheists ARE over it. To us, "In God We Trust" on the money has the same objective intellectual and moral value as "We Throw Salt Over Our Shoulders For Good Luck."  "In God We Trust" just enjoys the benefit of brevity.
> 
> I can't think of a single uniquely Christian contribution that is of any benefit at all. And to clarify, I'm not speaking of contributions by Christians that are just the rationally valid contributions decent folks would offer regardless of religion.
> 
> The tenets of Christianity-specifically characteristic of Christianity-are not all that, or a bag of chips. They're rather embarrassingly self-indicting.
> 
> Human sacrifice--even human *self*-sacrifice--is intellectually and morally repugnant. Nihilism, no matter how divinely rationalized, is not a moral paradigm any rational society should embrace.
> 
> Well that's just sad. It's sad that without Jesus Christ, there'd just be no reason for the members of your church in Chandler to attempt something so nice. Thanks Jesus!
> 
> I agree with this. Entirely. But I am skeptical of the charitable under-pinnings that churches lay claim to.
> 
> I have yet to discover a church--ANYWHERE--that when the collection plate is passed around, the kind folks of the congregation are as free of conscience to pull a few bucks out of the plate--for _their_ needs, as they are to put a few bucks in. Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are so many things wrong with this rebuttal that I don't have time this morning, or today, to get into them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm betting you won't get to them ever, and that has less to do with how much time you have, and more to do with my ability to expose the usual fallacies you employ for rebuttal.
> 
> "Assumptive language" is the term you use to describe my statements of conditional certainty ... just before you accuse me of making statements of uncnditional certainity.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also haven't responded to the horrors of materialism, but try to charaterize Christianity as being morally bankrupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's just say your first clause has merit; a pot calling a kettle black, does not make the kettle any less black.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the most preposterous thing of all about your post, that you borrow terms from the theistic worldview and pretend like they have any logical basis in the materialistic worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Your pretense that ID is science; that your superstition and every conclusion derived from it is rational, is you taking terms from a rational worldview and insisting your superstitious worldview has any logical basis in reality. They don't.
Click to expand...


This isn't even a response to my statement you put in quotes. I was referring to your materialist worldview that drives your belief system. Perhaps you should educate yourself on what you actually believe, since your posts scream that you are utterly and totally lost. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself a bit more with the worldview which you espouse...
_
"Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.

Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many,[2][3][4] all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of and how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter.[4]

The materialist view is perhaps best understood in its opposition to the doctrines of immaterial substance applied to the mind historically, famously by René Descartes. However, by itself materialism says nothing about how material substance should be characterized. In practice, it is frequently assimilated to one variety of physicalism or another.

Materialism is often associated with reductionism, according to which the objects or phenomena individuated at one level of description, if they are genuine, must be explicable in terms of the objects or phenomena at some other level of description &#8212; typically, at a more reduced level. Non-reductive materialism explicitly rejects this notion, however, taking the material constitution of all particulars to be consistent with the existence of real objects, properties, or phenomena not explicable in the terms canonically used for the basic material constituents. Jerry Fodor influentially argues this view, according to which empirical laws and explanations in "special sciences" like psychology or geology are invisible from the perspective of basic physics. A lot of vigorous literature has grown up around the relation between these views.

Modern philosophical materialists extend the definition of other scientifically observable entities such as energy, forces, and the curvature of space. However philosophers such as Mary Midgley suggest that the concept of "matter" is elusive and poorly defined.

Materialism typically contrasts with dualism, phenomenalism, idealism, vitalism, and dual-aspect monism. Its materiality can, in some ways, be linked to the concept of Determinism, as espoused by Enlightenment thinkers. It has been criticized as a spiritually empty philosophy.

During the 19th century, Karl Marx extended the concept of materialism to elaborate a materialist conception of history centered on the roughly empirical world of human activity (practice, including labor) and the institutions created, reproduced, or destroyed by that activity (see materialist conception of history)."_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had no idea that you were to any degree uncertain about the existence of your God; uncertain that your God loves you; uncertain that your God created you.
> 
> You're right. No one is. Hence, based upon nothing, you are unconditionally certain that your God is real.
> 
> There's no pretense a certainty on this side of the issue. That's been demonstrated since natural selection was proposed as hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why you continually refer to it as the "fact" of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one but those who exercise the unconditional certainty of faith, think the expression of fact of evolution is one of unconditional certainty.
> 
> Rational people just do not adhere to the superstitious paradigm of the faithful. Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quit deluding yourself about the Darwinist belief system and the faith you require.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No faith required. It's been demonstrated time and again.
Click to expand...


To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

 Amos Bronson Alcott


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> "Assumptive language" is the term you use to describe my statements of conditional certainty ... just before you accuse me of making statements of unconditional certainty.


 [By the way, I corrected your sloppy spelling, cupcake]

Conjunctions aren't your strong suit are they? My quote implies you do both, use assumptive language and pretend that because you aren't aware of it, it doesn't exist. Why is this not clear to you?? I'm saying some statements use assumptive language and others are statements of unconditional certainty.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. "Hate?" Ok. _Intense hate_. Right. Ahem.The issue, I think (because I can't claim to speak for all atheists), is not so much with _Christian_ faith, but with the nihilistic anti-reason of faith in general. And if you object to the phrase "nihilistic anti-reason of faith," please don't voice your objection until you have fully considered nature of the center stage role that faith has played in the ongoing drama featuring the several tribes of superstitious rock chucking retards in the middle east.
> 
> And just to be clear; as I have stated before, atheism offers no certain immunity from the anti-rationality of faith--there are clearly atheists around who hold an unstubstantiated conviction that there is just-no-God, and they are no more rational than anyone else holding beliefs by the same retarded standard.
> 
> I suspect that here in the U.S., where the privileges that Chistians enjoy are taken for granted, whenever the validiy of faith's realationship with objective reality is questioned, it appears that Christianity is under attack rather than anti-rationality.
> 
> Hollie has the end-game of superstious retards characterized precisely: "X is true ... *because I say so.*" "I am right ... *because I say so.*" "You are wrong ... *because I say so.*" You don't dare question this because you can't "PROVE" them wrong.
> 
> Which leads to the obstinate hypocricy of the faithful in setting the bar of validation at "*PROOF*" for others, while not even requiring logical validity for themselves, is just the tip of the iceberg that is their sanctimoniously arrogant anti-reason.
> 
> You know what? I might be wrong that the issue isn't about Christians. The obvious (undeserved) privilege of deference they enjoy, combined with their manifestly retarded hubris, just serves to make them a bunch of insufferable *****.​How did I do? Did I capture the "hate" well enough for you?
> 
> Maybe this guy does a better job.  Sam Harris Simply Destroys Christianity - YouTube
> 
> Because some of them are not smart enough to realize that no amount of hard work will suffice to discredit a belief system that is already intellectually and morally bankrupt--faith is bereft of moral and intellectual capital.
> 
> No one is really trying ... it's just being pointed out. And the reason for pointing out how wrong you are, is the hope that you might develop a moral conscience--that cannot be consoled by obedience to God--such that you will all stop killing everyone--whether through war, genocide, murder, or the cultivation of ignorance.
> 
> If the sentiment was at all reciprocal, you would probably not have any reason to make this complaint._"That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some, and to their eternal infamy the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such a business."_--James Madison​This isn't happening the way you think. Christians are literally working hard at irradicating the religious heritage of our nation._"The countries the most famous and the most respected of antiquity are those which distinguished themselves by promoting and patronizing science, and on the contrary those which neglected or discouraged it are universally denominated rude and barbarous."_--Thomas Paine​If you are not considering talking about David Barton, then you are just talking crazy talk.
> 
> These roots?_"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."_--John Adams​Including the Christians. No one here is feeding them to lions. I kid you not.
> 
> Oh, let's not pretend that there's no effort among the Christians to advance Christianity though the coercive appurtenances of government._&#8220;The Rule of Law is second only to the Rule of Love. The here and now is less important than the hereafter.&#8221;_&#8211;-Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice​And if contemporary Christians had some perspective on what forced religion is, they'd stop insisting that their efforts to wedge their religion into government policy are all so innocent.
> 
> Well, rational atheists ARE over it. To us, "In God We Trust" on the money has the same objective intellectual and moral value as "We Throw Salt Over Our Shoulders For Good Luck."  "In God We Trust" just enjoys the benefit of brevity.
> 
> I can't think of a single uniquely Christian contribution that is of any benefit at all. And to clarify, I'm not speaking of contributions by Christians that are just the rationally valid contributions decent folks would offer regardless of religion.
> 
> The tenets of Christianity-specifically characteristic of Christianity-are not all that, or a bag of chips. They're rather embarrassingly self-indicting.
> 
> Human sacrifice--even human *self*-sacrifice--is intellectually and morally repugnant. Nihilism, no matter how divinely rationalized, is not a moral paradigm any rational society should embrace.
> 
> Well that's just sad. It's sad that without Jesus Christ, there'd just be no reason for the members of your church in Chandler to attempt something so nice. Thanks Jesus!
> 
> I agree with this. Entirely. But I am skeptical of the charitable under-pinnings that churches lay claim to.
> 
> I have yet to discover a church--ANYWHERE--that when the collection plate is passed around, the kind folks of the congregation are as free of conscience to pull a few bucks out of the plate--for _their_ needs, as they are to put a few bucks in. Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are so many things wrong with this rebuttal that I don't have time this morning, or today, to get into them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm betting you won't get to them ever, and that has less to do with how much time you have, and more to do with my ability to expose the usual fallacies you employ for rebuttal.
> 
> "Assumptive language" is the term you use to describe my statements of conditional certainty ... just before you accuse me of making statements of uncnditional certainity.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also haven't responded to the horrors of materialism, but try to charaterize Christianity as being morally bankrupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's just say your first clause has merit; a pot calling a kettle black, does not make the kettle any less black.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the most preposterous thing of all about your post, that you borrow terms from the theistic worldview and pretend like they have any logical basis in the materialistic worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Your pretense that ID is science; that your superstition and every conclusion derived from it is rational, is you taking terms from a rational worldview and insisting your superstitious worldview has any logical basis in reality. They don't.
Click to expand...


Loki, you may be able to trick the weak minded with your absolute statements but anyone with half a brain isn't falling for them. You pretend that the religion of Christianity requires 100% faith, but it requires no more faith than your Darwinian fairytale. The Bible teaches the universe was created from nothing, which totally aligns with Big Bang cosmology. For all of Hollie's sound and fury about Christianity wanting to take science back to the dark ages, it was Einstein's materialistic worldview that caused him to miss the Big Bang. Everything pointed to the universe having a beginning but this idea was repugnant to him, because it aligned with Christianity. 

It is also widely accepted that Jesus existed and is a real historical figure. The Bible is just as much a historical document as it is religious, with 95% of the geographically features and civilizations described therein having been archeologically verified. So the faith component you refer to is about 3 to 5% for believers, not 100% as you so deceptively try to infer. 

&#8220;The quality of New Testament material is almost embarrassing in comparison to other works of antiquity&#8230;Next to the New Testament, the greatest amount of manuscript testimony is of Homers Illiad, which was the bible of the ancient Greeks.&#8221;
Dr. Bruce Metzgar, quoted in Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ, p. 60

&#8220;Contrast that with the depiction of Jesus Christ in the gospels. They talk about someone who actually lived several decades earlier, and they name names&#8211;crucified under Pontius Pilate, when Caiaphas was the high priest, and the father of Alexander and Rufus carried his cross, for example. That&#8217;s concrete historic stuff. It has nothing in common with stories about what *supposedly happened once upon a time.&#8221;*[You think he is referring to Darwin here???]
Dr. Greg Boyd, quoted in Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ, p. 121


----------



## UltimateReality

Favorite internet tactic of Hollie and Loki exposed:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W50yUVi2sgE]William Lane Craig[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Kalam Cosmological Argument


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N80AjfHTvQY]Kalam Cosmological Argument[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtfVds8Kn4s]10 Worst Objections[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> You know what? I might be wrong that the issue isn't about Christians. The obvious (undeserved) privilege of deference they enjoy, combined with their manifestly retarded hubris, just serves to make them a bunch of insufferable *****.[/INDENT]How did I do? Did I capture the "hate" well enough for you?
> 
> Maybe this guy does a better job.  Sam Harris Simply Destroys Christianity - YouTube
> 
> Because some of them are not smart enough to realize that no amount of hard work will suffice to discredit a belief system that is already intellectually and morally bankrupt--faith is bereft of moral and intellectual capital.



Harris builds so many stereotypical caricatures about the Christian Faith I'm not sure how he keeps a straight face. He pokes fun at fundie Christians and superstitious Catholics, and mixes primitive savage religious practices with the Bible. Craig mentions nothing about Christianity, but Harris goes on arguing against different religions but doesn't address Craig's logical arguments on Theism. Craig is not distracted by Harris' red herrings. His stereotypes are the typical atheistic tired BS which shows an utter failure in the understanding of theology of mainstream Christians. After building up some ginormous Strawman, he smugly tears them down, ignoring centuries of positive influence of Christianity, including the FOUNDING OF AMERICA, as well as ignoring a century of horror done in the name of Karl Marx and Materialism, and never responds to the argument at hand. If you want a fair and balanced view, *you can listen to Craig's rebuttal at 100 in the WHOLE video here*. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg] Full Debate here[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Funny thing about this debate is that both sides were "high fiving" that they had won. I found the following interesting "unbiased commentary". Please pardon the language. I am merely linking to this guy...

_A Google search of the debate reveals how much a bro's predispositions influence his opinions on the outcome - several athiest blogs seem convinced that Harris crushed WLC, and Christian apologists are already bragging about their debate superstar chalking up another one.


Here's the deal: WLC wrecked Harris' shit.


Let me qualify that: I'm a trained debater, and from the perspective of a trained debater, this was a fucking bloodbath. WLC has a strict flow, he stuck to the proposition at hand (He constantly affirmed that objective morality must be based in God and can't exist without Him) and he easily and consistently dismissed arguments of Harris' that didn't matter to that proposition.


So when Harris trotted out the problem of evil and the problem of the unevangelized, WLC shrugged those off and went about laying waste to Harris' case like a machine. Yeah, if I'm a judge at a debate tournament, and these two get up and say exactly what was said last night, I'm signing a ballot for WLC and giving high speaks all around. I had never heard of WLC before, so I thought that Sam Harris was going to have no problem, but holy shit. Apparently the bro did debate in high school and in undergrad, and it shows.


Okay, here's my caveat: there's no real clear sense of what it means to win one of these things. Yeah, WLC did a better job of affirming the proposition at hand; but Sam Harris was a much more broadly compelling speaker. He was definitely funnier, and the audience just seemed more stirred by what he had to say. Is that closer to a win? Because really, what's at stake here? Google tells me that pretty much everyone knows that WLC is a fucking badass at debate, so it's not like reputation is the issue - national championships don't get handed out at this level, kids, sorry. So when Harris says something like, "It's odd that, when we have all our preconceptions out of the way, when we were dealing with the world as it is, assumptions stripped bare, that's precisely the time when we have nothing to say about the most important questions of humanity - wouldn't that be strange?" And then sits back down, the rippled whispers might be more important than WLC's rhetoric. It's hard to say.


I would imagine that at ND the audience is a pretty fucking sophisticated group of kids; everyone who goes there has to take philosophy and theology, even the engineers. So when Harris mentions the problem of evil, they all go, "Um, don't we have two bros with definitive solutions to that problem on our faculty?" (Maybe that's up for grabs, but they're definitely two of the most important solutions in the last century, and they're both at ND.) and aren't necessarily impressed. They've probably thought through every word WLC had to say three or four times over in their first two years of undergrad. So just because Harris really stirred them doesn't mean he had better points; maybe he just had newer points. 


Anyway, I'll post a link to the video when it goes up. It was a really interesting debate, even if there wasn't as much clash as I'd like. _

Philosophy Bro: Special Event: Sam Harris v. William Lane Craig


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are so many things wrong with this rebuttal that I don't have time this morning, or today, to get into them all.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm betting you won't get to them ever, and that has less to do with how much time you have, and more to do with my ability to expose the usual fallacies you employ for rebuttal.
> 
> "Assumptive language" is the term you use to describe my statements of conditional certainty ... just before you accuse me of making statements of uncnditional certainity.
> 
> Let's just say your first clause has merit; a pot calling a kettle black, does not make the kettle any less black.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the most preposterous thing of all about your post, that you borrow terms from the theistic worldview and pretend like they have any logical basis in the materialistic worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Your pretense that ID is science; that your superstition and every conclusion derived from it is rational, is you taking terms from a rational worldview and insisting your superstitious worldview has any logical basis in reality. They don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't even a response to my statement you put in quotes. I was referring to your materialist worldview that drives your belief system. Perhaps you should educate yourself on what you actually believe, since your posts scream that you are utterly and totally lost. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself a bit more with the worldview which you espouse...
> _
> "Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.
> 
> Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many,[2][3][4] all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of and how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter.[4]
> 
> The materialist view is perhaps best understood in its opposition to the doctrines of immaterial substance applied to the mind historically, famously by René Descartes. However, by itself materialism says nothing about how material substance should be characterized. In practice, it is frequently assimilated to one variety of physicalism or another.
> 
> Materialism is often associated with reductionism, according to which the objects or phenomena individuated at one level of description, if they are genuine, must be explicable in terms of the objects or phenomena at some other level of description  typically, at a more reduced level. Non-reductive materialism explicitly rejects this notion, however, taking the material constitution of all particulars to be consistent with the existence of real objects, properties, or phenomena not explicable in the terms canonically used for the basic material constituents. Jerry Fodor influentially argues this view, according to which empirical laws and explanations in "special sciences" like psychology or geology are invisible from the perspective of basic physics. A lot of vigorous literature has grown up around the relation between these views.
> 
> Modern philosophical materialists extend the definition of other scientifically observable entities such as energy, forces, and the curvature of space. However philosophers such as Mary Midgley suggest that the concept of "matter" is elusive and poorly defined.
> 
> Materialism typically contrasts with dualism, phenomenalism, idealism, vitalism, and dual-aspect monism. Its materiality can, in some ways, be linked to the concept of Determinism, as espoused by Enlightenment thinkers. It has been criticized as a spiritually empty philosophy.
> 
> During the 19th century, Karl Marx extended the concept of materialism to elaborate a materialist conception of history centered on the roughly empirical world of human activity (practice, including labor) and the institutions created, reproduced, or destroyed by that activity (see materialist conception of history)."_
> 
> Materialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Thank you for that.

I'm sure you think that labeling me a "materialist" will help you assign to me every faulty argument that materialists have made. And it won't work, just like it has not worked the dozens of times some idiot called me a libertarian, or a republican, or a democrat, or a socialist in political debate--for the same reasons.

Consider this your first faulty strategy defeated.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Assumptive language" is the term you use to describe my statements of conditional certainty ... just before you accuse me of making statements of unconditional certainty.
> 
> 
> 
> [By the way, I corrected your sloppy spelling, cupcake]
> 
> Conjunctions aren't your strong suit are they? My quote implies you do both, use assumptive language and pretend that because you aren't aware of it, it doesn't exist. Why is this not clear to you?? I'm saying some statements use assumptive language and others are statements of unconditional certainty.
Click to expand...

I'm demonstrating that the issue is entirely immaterial to you--"assumptive" or "certain" language will inspire an attack based in its reciprocal for no reason but to attack.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are so many things wrong with this rebuttal that I don't have time this morning, or today, to get into them all.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm betting you won't get to them ever, and that has less to do with how much time you have, and more to do with my ability to expose the usual fallacies you employ for rebuttal.
> 
> "Assumptive language" is the term you use to describe my statements of conditional certainty ... just before you accuse me of making statements of uncnditional certainity.
> 
> Let's just say your first clause has merit; a pot calling a kettle black, does not make the kettle any less black.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the most preposterous thing of all about your post, that you borrow terms from the theistic worldview and pretend like they have any logical basis in the materialistic worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Your pretense that ID is science; that your superstition and every conclusion derived from it is rational, is you taking terms from a rational worldview and insisting your superstitious worldview has any logical basis in reality. They don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki, you may be able to trick the weak minded with your absolute statements but anyone with half a brain isn't falling for them.
Click to expand...

Anyone with half a brain isn't falling for this notion of yours that I'm trying to trick anyone. I'm not the one here presenting an invisible friend and trying to peddle the notion he's not imaginary.



UltimateReality said:


> You pretend that the religion of Christianity requires 100% faith, ...


I am not pretending. You're pretending it doesn't.



UltimateReality said:


> ... but it requires no more faith than your Darwinian fairytale.


Whatever you're speaking of, it doesn't apply to me as the notions I have presented are all consistent with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence--hence, no faith needed and not fairy tales.



UltimateReality said:


> The Bible teaches the universe was created from nothing, which totally aligns with Big Bang cosmology.


What a fatuous mischaracterization of everything--BUT yet *a candid admission that your Creator is nothing.*



UltimateReality said:


> For all of Hollie's sound and fury about Christianity wanting to take science back to the dark ages, it was Einstein's materialistic worldview that caused him to miss the Big Bang. Everything pointed to the universe having a beginning but this idea was repugnant to him, because it aligned with Christianity.


Who is trying to trick who? 



UltimateReality said:


> It is also widely accepted that Jesus existed and is a real historical figure. The Bible is just as much a historical document as it is religious, with 95% of the geographically features and civilizations described therein having been archeologically verified. So the faith component you refer to is about 3 to 5% for believers, not 100% as you so deceptively try to infer.
> 
> The quality of New Testament material is almost embarrassing in comparison to other works of antiquityNext to the New Testament, the greatest amount of manuscript testimony is of Homers Illiad, which was the bible of the ancient Greeks.
> Dr. Bruce Metzgar, quoted in Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ, p. 60
> 
> Contrast that with the depiction of Jesus Christ in the gospels. They talk about someone who actually lived several decades earlier, and they name namescrucified under Pontius Pilate, when Caiaphas was the high priest, and the father of Alexander and Rufus carried his cross, for example. Thats concrete historic stuff. It has nothing in common with stories about what *supposedly happened once upon a time.*[You think he is referring to Darwin here???]
> Dr. Greg Boyd, quoted in Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ, p. 121


 The verifiability of the existence of some carpenter named Jesus, and archaeological verification of ancient civilizations, are ENTIRELY immaterial to your belief in this God thing of yours. Hence, still 100% faith.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Funny thing about this debate is that both sides were "high fiving" that they had won. I found the following interesting "unbiased commentary". Please pardon the language. I am merely linking to this guy...
> 
> _A Google search of the debate reveals how much a bro's predispositions influence his opinions on the outcome - several athiest blogs seem convinced that Harris crushed WLC, and Christian apologists are already bragging about their debate superstar chalking up another one.
> 
> 
> Here's the deal: WLC wrecked Harris' shit.
> 
> 
> Let me qualify that: I'm a trained debater, and from the perspective of a trained debater, this was a fucking bloodbath. WLC has a strict flow, he stuck to the proposition at hand (He constantly affirmed that objective morality must be based in God and can't exist without Him) and he easily and consistently dismissed arguments of Harris' that didn't matter to that proposition.
> 
> 
> So when Harris trotted out the problem of evil and the problem of the unevangelized, WLC shrugged those off and went about laying waste to Harris' case like a machine. Yeah, if I'm a judge at a debate tournament, and these two get up and say exactly what was said last night, I'm signing a ballot for WLC and giving high speaks all around. I had never heard of WLC before, so I thought that Sam Harris was going to have no problem, but holy shit. Apparently the bro did debate in high school and in undergrad, and it shows.
> 
> 
> Okay, here's my caveat: there's no real clear sense of what it means to win one of these things. Yeah, WLC did a better job of affirming the proposition at hand; but Sam Harris was a much more broadly compelling speaker. He was definitely funnier, and the audience just seemed more stirred by what he had to say. Is that closer to a win? Because really, what's at stake here? Google tells me that pretty much everyone knows that WLC is a fucking badass at debate, so it's not like reputation is the issue - national championships don't get handed out at this level, kids, sorry. So when Harris says something like, "It's odd that, when we have all our preconceptions out of the way, when we were dealing with the world as it is, assumptions stripped bare, that's precisely the time when we have nothing to say about the most important questions of humanity - wouldn't that be strange?" And then sits back down, the rippled whispers might be more important than WLC's rhetoric. It's hard to say.
> 
> 
> I would imagine that at ND the audience is a pretty fucking sophisticated group of kids; everyone who goes there has to take philosophy and theology, even the engineers. So when Harris mentions the problem of evil, they all go, "Um, don't we have two bros with definitive solutions to that problem on our faculty?" (Maybe that's up for grabs, but they're definitely two of the most important solutions in the last century, and they're both at ND.) and aren't necessarily impressed. They've probably thought through every word WLC had to say three or four times over in their first two years of undergrad. So just because Harris really stirred them doesn't mean he had better points; maybe he just had newer points.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'll post a link to the video when it goes up. It was a really interesting debate, even if there wasn't as much clash as I'd like. _
> 
> Philosophy Bro: Special Event: Sam Harris v. William Lane Craig


Wow.

I really struck a nerve with that Sam Harris YouTube.

I threw that in as an after-thought, just so you wouldn't get confused by the invective of my "intense hate."

You're spending some special time there making sure everyone "knows" how Dr. Harris got punked.

But you're not addressing any points. Why is that?


----------



## ima

loki, you're arguing with a guy who thinks that invisible people are real and you're losing! 

Give it up already. Invisible beings in another dimension that no one has ever been to are hard to defeat!


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> What a fatuous mischaracterization of everything--BUT yet *a candid admission that your Creator is nothing.*



FROM nothing, not BY nothing imbecile.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about this debate is that both sides were "high fiving" that they had won. I found the following interesting "unbiased commentary". Please pardon the language. I am merely linking to this guy...
> 
> _A Google search of the debate reveals how much a bro's predispositions influence his opinions on the outcome - several athiest blogs seem convinced that Harris crushed WLC, and Christian apologists are already bragging about their debate superstar chalking up another one.
> 
> 
> Here's the deal: WLC wrecked Harris' shit.
> 
> 
> Let me qualify that: I'm a trained debater, and from the perspective of a trained debater, this was a fucking bloodbath. WLC has a strict flow, he stuck to the proposition at hand (He constantly affirmed that objective morality must be based in God and can't exist without Him) and he easily and consistently dismissed arguments of Harris' that didn't matter to that proposition.
> 
> 
> So when Harris trotted out the problem of evil and the problem of the unevangelized, WLC shrugged those off and went about laying waste to Harris' case like a machine. Yeah, if I'm a judge at a debate tournament, and these two get up and say exactly what was said last night, I'm signing a ballot for WLC and giving high speaks all around. I had never heard of WLC before, so I thought that Sam Harris was going to have no problem, but holy shit. Apparently the bro did debate in high school and in undergrad, and it shows.
> 
> 
> Okay, here's my caveat: there's no real clear sense of what it means to win one of these things. Yeah, WLC did a better job of affirming the proposition at hand; but Sam Harris was a much more broadly compelling speaker. He was definitely funnier, and the audience just seemed more stirred by what he had to say. Is that closer to a win? Because really, what's at stake here? Google tells me that pretty much everyone knows that WLC is a fucking badass at debate, so it's not like reputation is the issue - national championships don't get handed out at this level, kids, sorry. So when Harris says something like, "It's odd that, when we have all our preconceptions out of the way, when we were dealing with the world as it is, assumptions stripped bare, that's precisely the time when we have nothing to say about the most important questions of humanity - wouldn't that be strange?" And then sits back down, the rippled whispers might be more important than WLC's rhetoric. It's hard to say.
> 
> 
> I would imagine that at ND the audience is a pretty fucking sophisticated group of kids; everyone who goes there has to take philosophy and theology, even the engineers. So when Harris mentions the problem of evil, they all go, "Um, don't we have two bros with definitive solutions to that problem on our faculty?" (Maybe that's up for grabs, but they're definitely two of the most important solutions in the last century, and they're both at ND.) and aren't necessarily impressed. They've probably thought through every word WLC had to say three or four times over in their first two years of undergrad. So just because Harris really stirred them doesn't mean he had better points; maybe he just had newer points.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'll post a link to the video when it goes up. It was a really interesting debate, even if there wasn't as much clash as I'd like. _
> 
> Philosophy Bro: Special Event: Sam Harris v. William Lane Craig
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> I really struck a nerve with that Sam Harris YouTube.
> 
> I threw that in as an after-thought, just so you wouldn't get confused by the invective of my "intense hate."
> 
> You're spending some special time there making sure everyone "knows" how Dr. Harris got punked.
> 
> But you're not addressing any points. Why is that?
Click to expand...


I did above regarding the stereotypical ad hominem attacks Harris spent wasted time going on about instead of addressing the salient point of the debate. Apparently you missed that, or just thought that no one would notice and you could use it as an opportunity to make it look like I hadn't addressed Harris' points.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a fatuous mischaracterization of everything--BUT yet *a candid admission that your Creator is nothing.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FROM nothing, not BY nothing imbecile.
Click to expand...

Ok then. If there was nothing, whence this creator? Try to avoid the question-begging, special-pleading appeals to ignorance you usually attempt to assert.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about this debate is that both sides were "high fiving" that they had won. I found the following interesting "unbiased commentary". Please pardon the language. I am merely linking to this guy...
> 
> _A Google search of the debate reveals how much a bro's predispositions influence his opinions on the outcome - several athiest blogs seem convinced that Harris crushed WLC, and Christian apologists are already bragging about their debate superstar chalking up another one.
> 
> 
> Here's the deal: WLC wrecked Harris' shit.
> 
> 
> Let me qualify that: I'm a trained debater, and from the perspective of a trained debater, this was a fucking bloodbath. WLC has a strict flow, he stuck to the proposition at hand (He constantly affirmed that objective morality must be based in God and can't exist without Him) and he easily and consistently dismissed arguments of Harris' that didn't matter to that proposition.
> 
> 
> So when Harris trotted out the problem of evil and the problem of the unevangelized, WLC shrugged those off and went about laying waste to Harris' case like a machine. Yeah, if I'm a judge at a debate tournament, and these two get up and say exactly what was said last night, I'm signing a ballot for WLC and giving high speaks all around. I had never heard of WLC before, so I thought that Sam Harris was going to have no problem, but holy shit. Apparently the bro did debate in high school and in undergrad, and it shows.
> 
> 
> Okay, here's my caveat: there's no real clear sense of what it means to win one of these things. Yeah, WLC did a better job of affirming the proposition at hand; but Sam Harris was a much more broadly compelling speaker. He was definitely funnier, and the audience just seemed more stirred by what he had to say. Is that closer to a win? Because really, what's at stake here? Google tells me that pretty much everyone knows that WLC is a fucking badass at debate, so it's not like reputation is the issue - national championships don't get handed out at this level, kids, sorry. So when Harris says something like, "It's odd that, when we have all our preconceptions out of the way, when we were dealing with the world as it is, assumptions stripped bare, that's precisely the time when we have nothing to say about the most important questions of humanity - wouldn't that be strange?" And then sits back down, the rippled whispers might be more important than WLC's rhetoric. It's hard to say.
> 
> 
> I would imagine that at ND the audience is a pretty fucking sophisticated group of kids; everyone who goes there has to take philosophy and theology, even the engineers. So when Harris mentions the problem of evil, they all go, "Um, don't we have two bros with definitive solutions to that problem on our faculty?" (Maybe that's up for grabs, but they're definitely two of the most important solutions in the last century, and they're both at ND.) and aren't necessarily impressed. They've probably thought through every word WLC had to say three or four times over in their first two years of undergrad. So just because Harris really stirred them doesn't mean he had better points; maybe he just had newer points.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'll post a link to the video when it goes up. It was a really interesting debate, even if there wasn't as much clash as I'd like. _
> 
> Philosophy Bro: Special Event: Sam Harris v. William Lane Craig
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> I really struck a nerve with that Sam Harris YouTube.
> 
> I threw that in as an after-thought, just so you wouldn't get confused by the invective of my "intense hate."
> 
> You're spending some special time there making sure everyone "knows" how Dr. Harris got punked.
> 
> But you're not addressing any points. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did above regarding the stereotypical ad hominem attacks Harris spent wasted time going on about instead of addressing the salient point of the debate. Apparently you missed that, or just thought that no one would notice and you could use it as an opportunity to make it look like I hadn't addressed Harris' points.
Click to expand...

I explained this clearly; the Harris YouTube was an after-thought. 

You didn't address any of my points.


----------



## daws101

is it just me, or is all religious writing assumptive?


----------



## LOki

daws101 said:


> is it just me, or is all religious writing assumptive?


All religious writing is *pre*sumptive.

I wouldn't call it coincidence that all creationist and intelligent design writings are presumptive as well.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> is it just me, or is all religious writing assumptive?



I believe you're correct.

The inclusion of a particular god or gods in any discussion is a rhetorical tactic, not a genuine discussion of historical fact. Religious sects presume the existence of a god(s), and the arguments proceed from that presumption. It actually does matter to me where the source of these gods derive. Whether the source is myth and legend, these ancient tales typically share a common theme of requiring one to tremble in fear before some deity which is often directing our earthly course through a human timeline.

Its important to remember that entire civilizations have flourished before there was any conception of the gods currently in vogue. The three Abrahamic religions in many respects are just distillations of prior religions as they share many of the same tales, fables, presumptions and preconceptions.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a fatuous mischaracterization of everything--BUT yet *a candid admission that your Creator is nothing.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FROM nothing, not BY nothing imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok then. If there was nothing, whence this creator? Try to avoid the question-begging, special-pleading appeals to ignorance you usually attempt to assert.
Click to expand...


No time, matter, space or energy existed prior to the Big Bang. The Creator exists outside of Creation.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> is it just me, or is all religious writing assumptive?
> 
> 
> 
> All religious writing is *pre*sumptive.
> 
> I wouldn't call it coincidence that all creationist and intelligent design writings are presumptive as well.
Click to expand...


Don't forget to include Darwinian thought in that category.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> FROM nothing, not BY nothing imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then. If there was nothing, whence this creator? Try to avoid the question-begging, special-pleading appeals to ignorance you usually attempt to assert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No time, matter, space or energy existed prior to the Big Bang. The Creator exists outside of Creation.
Click to expand...

Special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> FROM nothing, not BY nothing imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then. If there was nothing, whence this creator? Try to avoid the question-begging, special-pleading appeals to ignorance you usually attempt to assert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No time, matter, space or energy existed prior to the Big Bang. The Creator exists outside of Creation.
Click to expand...


.... because I say so.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is where faith comes in,i have no reason to doubt what the word of God say's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you would need faith to believe everything is the result of natural processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.
Click to expand...


Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.

Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly, the above is precisely the ebb and flow of your argument.
> 
> You don't seem to be able to understand your own argument for gods is one large circular reference.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!!!
> 
> I think its obvious that the entirety of your argument is based upon an irrational precept. You arbitrarily exempt your gods from any rational critique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fundamental premises of the religious standpoint is not rational. The arguments that follow may be logical (they're really not), but conclusions remain as irrational as the premises.
Click to expand...


Provide your valid evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you insist that ID is science, and you place an intelligent designer at the foundation of you science, then you are most certainly pretending that your belief in God is a scientific principle--for fuck's sake ... it's the identifying principle of ID "science."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where your confusion with ID arises. My belief that the Designer is the Judeo Christian God is a religious belief. ID makes no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer. It just claims the necessity for a designer is evident and arguable from a scientific standpoint. The designer could be an alien life form for all we know under ID, although this would go back to the question of how the aliens arose. Again, ID says we can infer a designer based on empirical evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You can't. Not without accepting the existence of some designer as a necessary premise for accepting said "empirical evidence" as support for your conclusion.
> 
> If you could, you'd have presented your evidence long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't make the claim about any of the attributes or identity of that designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is just a lame attempt to deny that the necessary consequence of this "design" of yours is the "creation" you pretend you're not advancing.
Click to expand...


Evidence has been presented but it goes ignored.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a typically nonsensical comment.
> 
> In spite of the claims to supernaturalism, gods and magical events insisted upon by fundies, all completely without evidence and justification, we have every reason to reject such irrationality.  There is no evidence of a personal, designer gods and no evidence of the necessary hierarchy of designers of designer gods. There is no reason to believe that we are created in the image if any God(s). In spite of the requirement for fundies to attach human emotions to their god(s), the universe does not have emotions, desires, feelings, thoughts, longings, or intentions. The universe is neither jealous nor angry,  not forgiving or merciful. The universe does not demand sacrifice, prayer, worship or slaughter of animals.
> 
> All of the feelings, emotions and other human attributes heaped upon gods by superstitious fundies is not advancing of humanity.
> 
> At the end if the day, an uninterested, uninvolved and uncaring entity: a God or God(s) is synonymous with nothing. So why give nothingness human attributes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You believe a natural process of evolution caused the diversity of living organisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Valid logic, applied to the evidence supports the conclusion. Yes.
> 
> AGAIN.
> 
> Non-sequitur. So, no.
> 
> Since no-one but you posits the thinking unintelligent process you assert, no one but you has to explain how this unintelligent process thinks to produce all the necessities for life to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can this process produce a planet that would sustain these living organisms ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since no-one but you posits the thinking unintelligent process you assert, no one but you has to explain how this unintelligent process thinks to produce a planet that would sustain these living organisms.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Takes faith to believe natural processes produced all we can see with purpose in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is true, but no one but you is asserting the reality of the thinking unintelligent process you assert.
Click to expand...


So you prove my point your belief is based on faith not valid evidence thank you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> loki, you're arguing with a guy who thinks that invisible people are real and you're losing!
> 
> Give it up already. Invisible beings in another dimension that no one has ever been to are hard to defeat!



Shoe on other foot,UR is arguing with someone willing to say the theory he defends is based on facts which in turn makes the explanations facts not opinions. This so called evidence is conjecture has never been observed.

Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> is it just me, or is all religious writing assumptive?



No because there were witnesses to some of the events written about.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then. If there was nothing, whence this creator? Try to avoid the question-begging, special-pleading appeals to ignorance you usually attempt to assert.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No time, matter, space or energy existed prior to the Big Bang. The Creator exists outside of Creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance.
Click to expand...


Special pleading  where is this valid evidence you keep spouting about to the questions put to you ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe a natural process of evolution caused the diversity of living organisms.
> 
> 
> 
> Valid logic, applied to the evidence supports the conclusion. Yes.
> 
> AGAIN.
> 
> Non-sequitur. So, no.
> 
> Since no-one but you posits the thinking unintelligent process you assert, no one but you has to explain how this unintelligent process thinks to produce all the necessities for life to exist.
> 
> Since no-one but you posits the thinking unintelligent process you assert, no one but you has to explain how this unintelligent process thinks to produce a planet that would sustain these living organisms.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Takes faith to believe natural processes produced all we can see with purpose in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is true, but no one but you is asserting the reality of the thinking unintelligent process you assert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you prove my point your belief is based on faith not valid evidence thank you.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I prove your point that your strawman of my belief is based on faith not valid evidence. You're welcome.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is where faith comes in,i have no reason to doubt what the word of God say's.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you would need faith to believe everything is the result of natural processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.
> 
> Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?
Click to expand...

The processes that maintain life, and cause it to grow and multiply are all natural processes--they are all interactions of non-living, non-intelligent bits of energy/matter--and when you interrupt those natural processes life ends.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> The fundamental premises of the religious standpoint is not rational. The arguments that follow may be logical (they're really not), but conclusions remain as irrational as the premises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide your valid evidence.
Click to expand...

The fundamental premises (faith) of the religious standpoint are independent of evidence and valid logic, hence irrational.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where your confusion with ID arises. My belief that the Designer is the Judeo Christian God is a religious belief. ID makes no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer. It just claims the necessity for a designer is evident and arguable from a scientific standpoint. The designer could be an alien life form for all we know under ID, although this would go back to the question of how the aliens arose. Again, ID says we can infer a designer based on empirical evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> No. You can't. Not without accepting the existence of some designer as a necessary premise for accepting said "empirical evidence" as support for your conclusion.
> 
> If you could, you'd have presented your evidence long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't make the claim about any of the attributes or identity of that designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is just a lame attempt to deny that the necessary consequence of this "design" of yours is the "creation" you pretend you're not advancing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence has been presented but it goes ignored.
Click to expand...

No it has not. I have responded DIRECTLY to the evidence you submit, but *YOU* fail to address the observation that every bit of this "evidence" you submit is some species of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance.

This has been demonstrated for you, but you just ignore it.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No time, matter, space or energy existed prior to the Big Bang. The Creator exists outside of Creation.
> 
> 
> 
> Special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Special pleading  where is this valid evidence you keep spouting about to the questions put to you ?
Click to expand...

It has been presented to you a thousand times. Literally.

I have answered you questions every time. Yet, I note, *you fail to answer mine*.

Why is that, Pumpkin?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> The fundamental premises of the religious standpoint is not rational. The arguments that follow may be logical (they're really not), but conclusions remain as irrational as the premises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide your valid evidence.
Click to expand...


You are the individual making claims to the existence of an alleged supernatural entity. Therefore the burden of validation for the claim falls to you. How many times does this simple requirement need to be pointed out to you? 

Your supernatural, supermagical gods share the same consistency to rational discourse as similar claims to leprechauns and the Easter Bunny. 

No one is under any obligation to prove the irrationality of your claims. You do remarkably well at that with not a single assist from anyone in this thread.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> loki, you're arguing with a guy who thinks that invisible people are real and you're losing!
> 
> Give it up already. Invisible beings in another dimension that no one has ever been to are hard to defeat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shoe on other foot,UR is arguing with someone willing to say the theory he defends is based on facts which in turn makes the explanations facts not opinions. This so called evidence is conjecture has never been observed.
> 
> Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form.
Click to expand...


That's so silly.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> loki, you're arguing with a guy who thinks that invisible people are real and you're losing!
> 
> Give it up already. Invisible beings in another dimension that no one has ever been to are hard to defeat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shoe on other foot,UR is arguing with someone willing to say the theory he defends is based on facts which in turn makes the explanations facts not opinions. This so called evidence is conjecture has never been observed.
Click to expand...










Youwerecreated said:


> Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form.


 _"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."_ 

 _"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."_ 

 _"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."_ 

 _"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."_ 

 _"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."_ 

 _"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."_ 

 _"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."_ 

 _"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."_ 

 _"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."_ 

 _"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."_ 

 _"Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form."_


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.
> 
> This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.
> 
> Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The processes that maintain life, and cause it to grow and multiply are all natural processes--they are all interactions of non-living, non-intelligent bits of energy/matter--and when you interrupt those natural processes life ends.
Click to expand...


Evidence that natural processes took non living matter and converted it to life please ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.
> 
> This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.
> 
> Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The processes that maintain life, and cause it to grow and multiply are all natural processes--they are all interactions of non-living, non-intelligent bits of energy/matter--and when you interrupt those natural processes life ends.
Click to expand...


Hey someone can build a car and the car will do what it was designed to do correct ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Valid logic, applied to the evidence supports the conclusion. Yes.
> 
> AGAIN.
> 
> Non-sequitur. So, no.
> 
> Since no-one but you posits the thinking unintelligent process you assert, no one but you has to explain how this unintelligent process thinks to produce all the necessities for life to exist.
> 
> Since no-one but you posits the thinking unintelligent process you assert, no one but you has to explain how this unintelligent process thinks to produce a planet that would sustain these living organisms.
> 
> This is true, but no one but you is asserting the reality of the thinking unintelligent process you assert.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you prove my point your belief is based on faith not valid evidence thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. I prove your point that your strawman of my belief is based on faith not valid evidence. You're welcome.
Click to expand...


Present the evidence or are you just bloviating once again ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. You can't. Not without accepting the existence of some designer as a necessary premise for accepting said "empirical evidence" as support for your conclusion.
> 
> If you could, you'd have presented your evidence long ago.
> 
> This is just a lame attempt to deny that the necessary consequence of this "design" of yours is the "creation" you pretend you're not advancing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence has been presented but it goes ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it has not. I have responded DIRECTLY to the evidence you submit, but *YOU* fail to address the observation that every bit of this "evidence" you submit is some species of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance.
> 
> This has been demonstrated for you, but you just ignore it.
Click to expand...


I am asking for evidence that supports your view that natural processes kick started life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special pleading  where is this valid evidence you keep spouting about to the questions put to you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been presented to you a thousand times. Literally.
> 
> I have answered you questions every time. Yet, I note, *you fail to answer mine*.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
Click to expand...


I have given you the formation of a cell being impossible to naturally form itself through natural processes. A cell had to have some kind of guidance forming it.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Special pleading  where is this valid evidence you keep spouting about to the questions put to you ?
> 
> 
> 
> It has been presented to you a thousand times. Literally.
> 
> I have answered you questions every time. Yet, I note, *you fail to answer mine*.
> 
> Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have given you the formation of a cell being impossible to naturally form itself through natural processes. A cell had to have some kind of guidance forming it.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask for that, did I? *So you in fact did not answer me.*

Why is that? "It's a simple question." Why won't you answer?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence has been presented but it goes ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> No it has not. I have responded DIRECTLY to the evidence you submit, but *YOU* fail to address the observation that every bit of this "evidence" you submit is some species of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance.
> 
> This has been demonstrated for you, but you just ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking for evidence that supports your view that natural processes kick started life.
Click to expand...

The natural processes--the interactions of non-living, non-intelligent energy/matter--thorough which life maintains itself and propagates itself; without which life ends, is my evidence that some natural process(es) are the cause of the beginning of life.

Do you deny the existence of the kinds of processes I cite? I didn't think so.

Do you deny that ending those processes also ends life? I didn't think so.

Now, I'm sure you still don't agree that natural processes can account for life in any manner.

And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it. 

No need to refute it any more.

So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

*PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.*


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is where faith comes in,i have no reason to doubt what the word of God say's.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you would need faith to believe everything is the result of natural processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.
> 
> Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?
Click to expand...

asked and answered


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> is it just me, or is all religious writing assumptive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No because there were witnesses to some of the events written about.
Click to expand...

once again why are you answering my posts when you said you wouldn't?
to answer  bullshit  none of the authors of the bible ever talked to directly to eyewitnesses..even if they did  it would be hearsay...and that is not testable evidence.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> loki, you're arguing with a guy who thinks that invisible people are real and you're losing!
> 
> Give it up already. Invisible beings in another dimension that no one has ever been to are hard to defeat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shoe on other foot,UR is arguing with someone willing to say the theory he defends is based on facts which in turn makes the explanations facts not opinions. This so called evidence is conjecture has never been observed.
> 
> Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
Click to expand...

 it's also unprovable LOL! SCRIPTURE QUOTE IN 5....4.....3....2......


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> loki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.
> 
> Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?
> 
> 
> 
> the processes that maintain life, and cause it to grow and multiply are all natural processes--they are all interactions of non-living, non-intelligent bits of energy/matter--and when you interrupt those natural processes life ends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hey someone can build a car and the car will do what it was designed to do correct ?
Click to expand...

false comparison......false premise.... Logical fallacy. Looks like ywc hit the tri fecta of inane on that one!


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shoe on other foot,UR is arguing with someone willing to say the theory he defends is based on facts which in turn makes the explanations facts not opinions. This so called evidence is conjecture has never been observed.
> 
> Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's also unprovable LOL! SCRIPTURE QUOTE IN 5....4.....3....2......
Click to expand...


I was curious to see if the fundie was going to elaborate on the invisible beings (notice the plural, "beings"), that have been observed.  It seems his fancied spirit world is inhabited by many supernatural and invisible beings. 

He is one scary dude.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
> 
> 
> 
> it's also unprovable LOL! SCRIPTURE QUOTE IN 5....4.....3....2......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was curious to see if the fundie was going to elaborate on the invisible beings (notice the plural, "beings"), that have been observed.  It seems his fancied spirit world is inhabited by many supernatural and invisible beings.
> 
> He is one scary dude.
Click to expand...

yep!


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it has not. I have responded DIRECTLY to the evidence you submit, but *YOU* fail to address the observation that every bit of this "evidence" you submit is some species of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance.
> 
> This has been demonstrated for you, but you just ignore it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking for evidence that supports your view that natural processes kick started life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The natural processes--the interactions of non-living, non-intelligent energy/matter--thorough which life maintains itself and propagates itself; without which life ends, is my evidence that some natural process(es) are the cause of the beginning of life.
> 
> Do you deny the existence of the kinds of processes I cite? I didn't think so.
> 
> Do you deny that ending those processes also ends life? I didn't think so.
> 
> Now, I'm sure you still don't agree that natural processes can account for life in any manner.
> 
> And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.
> 
> No need to refute it any more.
> 
> So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> *PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.*
Click to expand...


Please give me one example of non living matter producing a living organism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.
> 
> This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.
> 
> Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answered
Click to expand...


Has never been answered, if it has there would be no debate.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> is it just me, or is all religious writing assumptive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No because there were witnesses to some of the events written about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> once again why are you answering my posts when you said you wouldn't?
> to answer  bullshit  none of the authors of the bible ever talked to directly to eyewitnesses..even if they did  it would be hearsay...and that is not testable evidence.
Click to expand...


Read up on JOSEPHUS !


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shoe on other foot,UR is arguing with someone willing to say the theory he defends is based on facts which in turn makes the explanations facts not opinions. This so called evidence is conjecture has never been observed.
> 
> Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's also unprovable LOL! SCRIPTURE QUOTE IN 5....4.....3....2......
Click to expand...


How bout fallen angel offspring and their DNA that is still with us ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEyi_5I9JrE]GIANTS , Nephilim and Fallen Angels - PHOTOS and evidence - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loki said:
> 
> 
> 
> the processes that maintain life, and cause it to grow and multiply are all natural processes--they are all interactions of non-living, non-intelligent bits of energy/matter--and when you interrupt those natural processes life ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey someone can build a car and the car will do what it was designed to do correct ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false comparison......false premise.... Logical fallacy. Looks like ywc hit the tri fecta of inane on that one!
Click to expand...


Nope,things that are designed do what they were designed to do, Whether they were cars,homes,computers,phones and last but not least biological mechanisms.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.
> 
> This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.
> 
> Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The processes that maintain life, and cause it to grow and multiply are all natural processes--they are all interactions of non-living, non-intelligent bits of energy/matter...
Click to expand...


Because I say so!! 

So let me get this straight... We are alive because are parts aren't?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking for evidence that supports your view that natural processes kick started life.
> 
> 
> 
> The natural processes--the interactions of non-living, non-intelligent energy/matter--thorough which life maintains itself and propagates itself; without which life ends, is my evidence that some natural process(es) are the cause of the beginning of life.
> 
> Do you deny the existence of the kinds of processes I cite? I didn't think so.
> 
> Do you deny that ending those processes also ends life? I didn't think so.
> 
> Now, I'm sure you still don't agree that natural processes can account for life in any manner.
> 
> And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.
> 
> No need to refute it any more.
> 
> So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> *PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please give me one example of non living matter producing a living organism.
Click to expand...


*It is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
*


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.
> 
> Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?
> 
> 
> 
> The processes that maintain life, and cause it to grow and multiply are all natural processes--they are all interactions of non-living, non-intelligent bits of energy/matter...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I say so!!
> 
> So let me get this straight... We are alive because are parts aren't?
Click to expand...

We are alive because of interactions between parts that aren't.

The evidence for this is in the result of interrupting those interactions. This not contestable, is it?

Now, I'm sure you still don't agree that natural processes can account for life in any manner.

_*And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it. 

No need to refute it any more.*_

So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

*PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.*


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey someone can build a car and the car will do what it was designed to do correct ?
> 
> 
> 
> false comparison......false premise.... Logical fallacy. Looks like ywc hit the tri fecta of inane on that one!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope,things that are designed do what they were designed to do, Whether they were cars,homes,computers,phones and last but not least biological mechanisms.
Click to expand...


We can thus assume that your designer gods designed a flawed and imperfect existence wherein disease, death and suffering were a part of their plan.

Either that, or the gods are simply hapless boobs and can't seem to get much of anything right.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly.
> 
> 
> 
> it's also unprovable LOL! SCRIPTURE QUOTE IN 5....4.....3....2......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How bout fallen angel offspring and their DNA that is still with us ?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEyi_5I9JrE]GIANTS , Nephilim and Fallen Angels - PHOTOS and evidence - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Well, if you read it on the internet, it must be true, right? I read somewhere that every YouTube video posted on the internet is true. I read that statement on the internet thus confirming its accuracy. 

So how about fallen angel offspring and their DNA that Is still with us? 

How do we check the DNA of supernatural creatures to confirm this? Not surprisingly, I'll wager you watched a YouTube video proposing exactly your claim. 

Do supernatural creatures have a need for DNA and such biological mechanisms?  I'd have thought the gods would not have burdened angels, jinn and other such supernatural entities with the poorly and carelessly designed biology created for terrestrial life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The natural processes--the interactions of non-living, non-intelligent energy/matter--thorough which life maintains itself and propagates itself; without which life ends, is my evidence that some natural process(es) are the cause of the beginning of life.
> 
> Do you deny the existence of the kinds of processes I cite? I didn't think so.
> 
> Do you deny that ending those processes also ends life? I didn't think so.
> 
> Now, I'm sure you still don't agree that natural processes can account for life in any manner.
> 
> And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.
> 
> No need to refute it any more.
> 
> So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> *PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please give me one example of non living matter producing a living organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> *
Click to expand...


Seriously you have not one piece of evidence to back your claim so what is your view based on ?

What makes you believe this when there is no evidence to support your claim ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The processes that maintain life, and cause it to grow and multiply are all natural processes--they are all interactions of non-living, non-intelligent bits of energy/matter...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I say so!!
> 
> So let me get this straight... We are alive because are parts aren't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are alive because of interactions between parts that aren't.
> 
> The evidence for this is in the result of interrupting those interactions. This not contestable, is it?
> 
> Now, I'm sure you still don't agree that natural processes can account for life in any manner.
> 
> _*And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.
> 
> No need to refute it any more.*_
> 
> So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> *PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.*
Click to expand...


Maybe for someone that wants to believe as they do even though there is no evidence to support the belief.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false comparison......false premise.... Logical fallacy. Looks like ywc hit the tri fecta of inane on that one!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,things that are designed do what they were designed to do, Whether they were cars,homes,computers,phones and last but not least biological mechanisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can thus assume that your designer gods designed a flawed and imperfect existence wherein disease, death and suffering were a part of their plan.
> 
> Either that, or the gods are simply hapless boobs and can't seem to get much of anything right.
Click to expand...


You can assume anything you like you will anyways but that don't make you right.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's also unprovable LOL! SCRIPTURE QUOTE IN 5....4.....3....2......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How bout fallen angel offspring and their DNA that is still with us ?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEyi_5I9JrE]GIANTS , Nephilim and Fallen Angels - PHOTOS and evidence - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you read it on the internet, it must be true, right? I read somewhere that every YouTube video posted on the internet is true. I read that statement on the internet thus confirming its accuracy.
> 
> So how about fallen angel offspring and their DNA that Is still with us?
> 
> How do we check the DNA of supernatural creatures to confirm this? Not surprisingly, I'll wager you watched a YouTube video proposing exactly your claim.
> 
> Do supernatural creatures have a need for DNA and such biological mechanisms?  I'd have thought the gods would not have burdened angels, jinn and other such supernatural entities with the poorly and carelessly designed biology created for terrestrial life.
Click to expand...


Anyone understanding genetics know you can't produce offspring without Genes absent of Dna.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,things that are designed do what they were designed to do, Whether they were cars,homes,computers,phones and last but not least biological mechanisms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can thus assume that your designer gods designed a flawed and imperfect existence wherein disease, death and suffering were a part of their plan.
> 
> Either that, or the gods are simply hapless boobs and can't seem to get much of anything right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can assume anything you like you will anyways but that don't make you right.
Click to expand...

I'm not assuming anything. You are the one making grandiose claims to supernatural entities and offering absolutely nothing in support of those claims. You recoil in angry tirades when your preconceptions and partisan religious biases are challenged but offer nothing except the "because I say so", weasel. 

Your religious tales and fables may be valid to you, and within your own comfort zone that's fine. But by bringing them into the public arena, you have given approval for them to be scrutinized. Whatever your motives are, you cannot offer your point of view in a public forum and then not expect you will be asked to account for that view (well, you can but it's poor cricket). We all know you consider your partisan fundie religious perspectives valid-- but my reply isn't about that, it's about the presumption that your views are sacrosanct and above questioning. 

Well, they're not. I'm convinced that you are clueless as to the damage you do to your credibility when you, for example, suggest that humans and dinosaurs shared the planet.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How bout fallen angel offspring and their DNA that is still with us ?
> 
> GIANTS , Nephilim and Fallen Angels - PHOTOS and evidence - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you read it on the internet, it must be true, right? I read somewhere that every YouTube video posted on the internet is true. I read that statement on the internet thus confirming its accuracy.
> 
> So how about fallen angel offspring and their DNA that Is still with us?
> 
> How do we check the DNA of supernatural creatures to confirm this? Not surprisingly, I'll wager you watched a YouTube video proposing exactly your claim.
> 
> Do supernatural creatures have a need for DNA and such biological mechanisms?  I'd have thought the gods would not have burdened angels, jinn and other such supernatural entities with the poorly and carelessly designed biology created for terrestrial life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone understanding genetics know you can't produce offspring without Genes absent of Dna.
Click to expand...

Do yourself a favor. Read what is written. Attempt to understand it. If you still have difficulty, ("cybernetically") raise your hand and ask questions.

Now, once more for you:

Do supernatural creatures have a need for DNA and such biological mechanisms?  Such weird and wacky inventions as angels and jinn would seem to lose some of their supernatural abilities if constrained by earthly / human limitations.

If angels and jinn are breeding in some celestial boink-fest, are we to assume that angels and jinn are subject to the same issues of biology that afflict humans?

Your world of supernaturalism is becoming more and more difficult for you to invent "on the fly".


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I say so!!
> 
> So let me get this straight... We are alive because are parts aren't?
> 
> 
> 
> We are alive because of interactions between parts that aren't.
> 
> The evidence for this is in the result of interrupting those interactions. This not contestable, is it?
> 
> Now, I'm sure you still don't agree that natural processes can account for life in any manner.
> 
> _*And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.
> 
> No need to refute it any more.*_
> 
> So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> *PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe for someone that wants to believe as they do even though there is no evidence to support the belief.
Click to expand...

_*And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it. 

No need to refute it any more.*_

So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

*PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.*


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are alive because of interactions between parts that aren't.
> 
> The evidence for this is in the result of interrupting those interactions. This not contestable, is it?
> 
> Now, I'm sure you still don't agree that natural processes can account for life in any manner.
> 
> _*And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.
> 
> No need to refute it any more.*_
> 
> So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> *PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe for someone that wants to believe as they do even though there is no evidence to support the belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.
> 
> No need to refute it any more.*_
> 
> So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> *PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.*
Click to expand...


I already have.

Biological organisms were designed with reproduction in mind and that is what living organisms do, they reproduce.

That we now naturally have the ability to reproduce that is what organisms do but that was by design, not by chance.

The key is what jump started these natural processes.

It is nothing more then circular reasoning to assume because we naturally reproduce we came into existence through natural processes and we are not a product of design.

There is no evidence we came into existence through natural processes while there is plenty of evidence suggesting intelligence was behind developing life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you read it on the internet, it must be true, right? I read somewhere that every YouTube video posted on the internet is true. I read that statement on the internet thus confirming its accuracy.
> 
> So how about fallen angel offspring and their DNA that Is still with us?
> 
> How do we check the DNA of supernatural creatures to confirm this? Not surprisingly, I'll wager you watched a YouTube video proposing exactly your claim.
> 
> Do supernatural creatures have a need for DNA and such biological mechanisms?  I'd have thought the gods would not have burdened angels, jinn and other such supernatural entities with the poorly and carelessly designed biology created for terrestrial life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone understanding genetics know you can't produce offspring without Genes absent of Dna.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do yourself a favor. Read what is written. Attempt to understand it. If you still have difficulty, ("cybernetically") raise your hand and ask questions.
> 
> Now, once more for you:
> 
> Do supernatural creatures have a need for DNA and such biological mechanisms?  Such weird and wacky inventions as angels and jinn would seem to lose some of their supernatural abilities if constrained by earthly / human limitations.
> 
> If angels and jinn are breeding in some celestial boink-fest, are we to assume that angels and jinn are subject to the same issues of biology that afflict humans?
> 
> Your world of supernaturalism is becoming more and more difficult for you to invent "on the fly".
Click to expand...


I never said Angels were reproducing,the scriptures do say rebellious Angels took the form of men and did breed with the humans and their offsring were called nephilims,these offspring in the bible were said to be giants and very evil.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please give me one example of non living matter producing a living organism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously you have not one piece of evidence to back your claim so what is your view based on ?
Click to expand...

The clear evidence I presented.

Your obtuse and unsubstantiated denial of that evidence does not change the fact that what I present as evidence to support my claim, is in fact evidence to support my claim.



Youwerecreated said:


> What makes you believe this when there is no evidence to support your claim ?


There is evidence. I presented it. You are denying I have done so, but the evidence of my presentation refutes it. I can copy and paste it back for you (where you have not been able to when asked to present your evidence) I can provide links to the posts where I have presented evidence to support my claims (where you have not been able to when asked to present your evidence), and I can predict with pretty fair accuracy that you will not provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

This is sufficient to prove that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

Consider yourself dismissed.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe for someone that wants to believe as they do even though there is no evidence to support the belief.
> 
> 
> 
> _*And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.
> 
> No need to refute it any more.*_
> 
> So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> *PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have.
> 
> Biological organisms were designed with reproduction in mind and that is what living organisms do, they reproduce.
> 
> That we now naturally have the ability to reproduce that is what organisms do but that was by design, not by chance.
> 
> The key is what jump started these natural processes.
> 
> It is nothing more then circular reasoning to assume because we naturally reproduce we came into existence through natural processes and we are not a product of design.
> 
> There is no evidence we came into existence through natural processes while there is plenty of evidence suggesting intelligence was behind developing life.
Click to expand...

Refuting my claims do not provide any evidence or legitimacy for yours.

You have failed to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

You have demonstrated that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

You are dismissed.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe for someone that wants to believe as they do even though there is no evidence to support the belief.
> 
> 
> 
> _*And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.
> 
> No need to refute it any more.*_
> 
> So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> *PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have.
> 
> Biological organisms were designed with reproduction in mind and that is what living organisms do, they reproduce.
> 
> That we now naturally have the ability to reproduce that is what organisms do but that was by design, not by chance.
> 
> The key is what jump started these natural processes.
> 
> It is nothing more then circular reasoning to assume because we naturally reproduce we came into existence through natural processes and we are not a product of design.
> 
> There is no evidence we came into existence through natural processes while there is plenty of evidence suggesting intelligence was behind developing life.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that "intelligence", as in a supernatural designer, was or is behind life. 

You make these totally unsupported statements while never providing support for review. It's a simple matter to resolve: present the evidence for a supernatural designer god(s).


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.
> 
> Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has never been answered, if it has there would be no debate.
Click to expand...

lol... you've been shown how hundreds of times and rejected the explanation..for one of your own, so in reality it's a false debate propagated by your pathological  need to say god did it.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No because there were witnesses to some of the events written about.
> 
> 
> 
> once again why are you answering my posts when you said you wouldn't?
> to answer  bullshit  none of the authors of the bible ever talked to directly to eyewitnesses..even if they did  it would be hearsay...and that is not testable evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read up on JOSEPHUS !
Click to expand...

JOSEPHUS IS THE PROBLEM"Choking on the Camel
The historical evidence for Jesus
Part 1: The Conspiracy of Silence
Imagine that you were a history student assigned the task of writing a paper on the life of George Washington, America's first president and one of the country's most influential founding fathers.

On its face, this seems like a simple assignment. Encyclopedias and textbooks full of biographical information about Washington, written by notable scholars on his life, abound. Any one of them would provide enough material for a reasonably detailed report. However, this is not good enough for a diligent student such as yourself. To get the most detailed and accurate picture requires skipping the modern references, which were written centuries after the fact, and going straight to the original sources. You decide to base your report on first-hand evidence: letters written by Washington himself, accounts of his life written by people who knew him personally, and stories of his sayings and deeds recorded while he was still alive.

But, as you comb the records, you find something strange: you cannot seem to locate any first-hand sources. Though Washington is claimed to have done many wonderful things - leading the Continental Army, freeing the American colonies from British rule, presiding over the convention that wrote the U.S. Constitution, becoming the first President of the United States - somehow, there are no records of these deeds written by people who actually saw them happen, or even by people who were alive at the time. The historians who were alive during Washington's lifetime, as well as the ones that lived soon afterward, do not mention him at all. The first mentions of him come in disputed and scattered records written decades after his death; over time, these mentions grow more numerous until, by about a hundred years after his death, a chorus of historians who had never seen or met Washington themselves all testify to his existence and his deeds. It is their writings, not any first-hand evidence, that have filtered down to modern times to create the abundance of records we have today.

Would you begin to conclude that there was something very wrong here?

According to the New Testament gospels, Jesus' fame spread far and wide throughout his lifetime. He was known throughout Israel and beyond (Matthew 4:25), renowned not only as a teacher and wise man, but also as a prophet and miraculous healer (Matthew 14:5, Luke 5:15, John 6:2). Great multitudes of people followed him everywhere he went (Luke 12:1). He converted many Jews, enough to draw the anger of the Jerusalem temple elders (John 12:11). He attracted the attention of some of the most prominent leaders of his day, both Roman and Jewish (Matthew 14:1, Luke 19:47). And when he was crucified, portentous and dramatic miracles occurred on a massive scale: a great earthquake (Matthew 27:51), a worldwide three-hour darkness (Luke 23:44), and the bodies of the saints arising from their tombs and walking the streets of Jerusalem, showing themselves to many people (Matthew 27:52-53). 

If these things were true, it is beyond belief that the historians of the day could have failed to notice.

And yet, when we examine the evidence, that is precisely what we do find. Not a single contemporary historian mentions Jesus. The historical record is devoid of references to him for decades after his supposed death. The very first extra-biblical documents that do mention him are two brief passages in the works of the historian Josephus, written around 90 CE, but the longer of the two is widely considered to be a forgery and the shorter is likely to be one as well (see part 2). The first unambiguous extra-biblical references to a historical, human Jesus do not appear until well into the second century.

Few if any Christian apologists will mention these extraordinary facts, but as in the George Washington hypothetical, we can rightfully conclude that there is something wrong here. The rosy picture painted by the gospels of a preaching sage and famous miracle worker followed by crowds of thousands stands in stark contrast to the reality of the extra-biblical historical record, and that reality is that mentions of the man Jesus do not exist until almost the end of the first century.

Why is this? It is not as if there were no capable historians at the time. There was, for example, Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who lived from about 20 BCE to 50 CE. His own beliefs were influenced by Platonic elements that were in some ways similar to Christianity, and his writings show interest in other offshoot sects such as the Essenes and the Therapeutae; he wrote about Pontius Pilate and he was, by some accounts, living in or near Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death and, presumably, the attendant miracles. Yet none of his works contain any mention of Jesus or Christianity.

Other writers of the time show the same pattern. Justus of Tiberius, a native of Galilee who wrote a history around 80 CE covering the time Jesus supposedly lived, does not mention him. The Roman writer Seneca the Younger, who was born around 3 BCE and lived into the 60s CE, wrote extensively about ethics but says nothing about Jesus or his teachings. The historian Pliny the Elder, born around 20 CE, took a special interest in writing about science and natural phenomena, but his thirty-seven-volume Natural History says nothing about an earthquake or a strange darkness around the supposed time of Jesus' death, although he would have been alive at the time it happened. In fact, not a single contemporary record exists of the darkness, and there was a widespread failure to note the earthquake, much less the appearance of the resurrected saints. 

Events such as these create historians. To assume that not a single person who witnessed these monumental events would have felt compelled to write them down, or that no one bothered to preserve those records if they had, violates all standards of credulity. Jesus' healings alone, if news of them became generally known, would have attracted a flood of people from every corner of the Roman Empire desperate to be cured of their ailments; and if in addition news got out of his ability to revive the dead, as the gospels say it did (Matthew 9:25-26), those crowds would have been multiplied tenfold. Surely at least one person somewhere would have written about this, even if only to dismiss it as a peasant superstition. And events such as the darkening of the sun and the resurrection of the saints, if they really happened, would have left a vivid imprint on humanity's collective memory and would have produced a flood of awed and astonished records. To suggest that the succeeding generation simply let all memory of them disappear crosses the line from unbelievable to absurd. 

The only rational way to explain this, if we are not to postulate a "conspiracy of silence" among ancient writers, is that the miraculous events recorded in the gospels never happened. And some non-fundamentalist believers might indeed choose this option. Yes, some might say, the gospels are the work of men. They may have exaggerated Jesus' fame and maybe even invented a few miracles to give the story more pizzazz. But this does not necessarily mean Jesus himself never existed. Might the gospels have preserved a core of historical reality, telling a story about a preaching, reform-minded Galilean rabbi that was built upon and embellished by later generations?

In response to this, it should be noted that the historians of the time not only fail to confirm the particulars of the gospel accounts, they fail to mention Jesus at all. But if he had been a real person who did even some of the things the Bible says, it is not at all unreasonable that at least some historians would have taken notice; Josephus and others do write about other would-be messiahs of their day. Of course, if one postulates a Jesus who did not perform miracles and did not attract much notice during his lifetime, it can never be proved that such a person did not exist. However, as part 3 will show, there is a superior way to explain the origins of Christianity, one that better explains all the evidence without positing a historical Jesus at all.

The gospels cannot help in proving the historicity of Jesus, since the accuracy of the gospels is itself what is in question. When they make extraordinary claims that contemporary records fail to corroborate, as argued above, this alone casts doubt on their reliability. Additionally, their numerous internal contradictions suggest that their authors were not recording historical events they remembered, but rather telling a story, changing events where they felt it necessary to make a point. Finally, and most importantly, the gospels themselves are not first-hand witnesses. In fact, the very first unambiguous references to them do not appear until the writings of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons, around 150 CE! This fact, combined with other evidence, has led to the conclusion that they were written, at the earliest, near the end of the first century - decades after the events they purport to describe, more than enough time for fact to become inextricably entangled with mythology and legend. Nor are the gospels independent witnesses. It has long been known that Mark, the simplest and therefore most likely the earliest gospel, provided the basic story upon which Matthew, Luke, and probably John as well simply elaborated, adding and changing details. At best, then, what the gospels provide is one anonymous, late, theologically driven source providing details which other, contemporary sources fail to confirm.

If Jesus Christ had been an actual, historical person, we would expect to have first-hand, contemporary documentation: records of his words and deeds written by people who actually saw him, or who were at least alive during his lifetime. We would expect the record of his life to be plentiful from the very beginning. On the other hand, if he was only a legend later turned into a real person, we would expect not to have any first-hand witness to his life. We would expect the historical record to be scanty and details elusive or non-existent at first, these details appearing only later as the stories about him grew in the telling. We would expect clear references to him not to appear until long after his supposed death. And of course, this scenario is exactly what we do in fact find.

Christian apologists often insist that the evidence for Jesus' existence is so strong that to deny he ever lived would force one to deny the existence of many other historical figures as well, such as Alexander the Great or Abraham Lincoln. This comparison, however, cannot be sustained. We know that people such as Alexander or Lincoln were historical precisely because we do have first-hand evidence: artifacts made by them, things they wrote, things their contemporaries wrote about them. In Jesus' case, however, we have none of these things. The pattern of evidence much better fits the birth and growth of a legend. No matter who first said it, to uncritically accept the historicity of Jesus is to strain at gnats while attempting to swallow a camel.

But can the man Jesus be dismissed so easily? Modern-day Christian apologists say not. Despite the lack of first-hand evidence, they claim, there is still good reason to believe that their messiah really did once walk the earth. Part 2 will therefore critically examine the evidence they present, demonstrating that it does not hold up under scrutiny.


Part 2: The Apologists' Arguments

Ebon Musings: Choking on the Camel



Examining the Extra-Biblical Evidence for Jesus
March 10, 2011 in Christianity 

This blog post is part of the The Resurrection of Jesus series. In this series, evidence that has been put forward by Christian apologists in support of the idea that Jesus was resurrected will be explored and critically examined. As we shall see, most of this evidence isnt even good evidence in the first place, and they are insufficient to justify the conclusion that the story of the resurrection of Jesus is true.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Roman Empire

The following are names of some of the Roman historians of antiquity who lived in and around the Mediterranean region, including some of the very places that Jesus and his apostles are said to have moved about.

Aulus Persius (60 AD) 
Plutarch (c. 46-c. 119 AD) 
Columella (1st cent. AD) 
Pomponius Mela (40 AD) 
Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-c. 112 AD) 
Justus of Tiberius (c. 80 AD) 
Quintilian (c. 35-c. 100 AD) 
Rufus Curtius (1st cent. AD) 
Livy (59 BC-17 AD) 
Quintus Curtius (1st cent. AD) 
Lucanus (fl. 63 AD) 
Seneca (4 BC?-65 AD) 
Lucius Florus (1st-2nd-cent. AD) 
Silius Italicus (c. 25-101 AD) 
Petronius (d. 66 AD) 
Phaedrus (c. 15 BC-c. 50 AD) 
Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD) 
Pliny the Elder (23?-69 AD) 
Valerius Flaccus (1st cent. AD) 
Valerius Maximus (fl. c. 20 AD)
Not a single one of these historians ever even mentions the existence of Jesus Christ, a man who was supposedly performing miraculous wonders and drawing crowds by the thousands, inciting the Jewish populace, aggravating the Roman authorities, and resurrecting from the dead. For if there were such a man, and he did the things the gospel writers claimed he did, is it possible for him to have gone unmentioned in Roman records? It is noteworthy that Jesus is not even mentioned anywhere in the official Roman historical records of the events in Palestine during the time of he is said to have existed.

As such, there are no contemporaneous (i.e. within his life time) historical records of Jesus.


Examining the Extra-Biblical Evidence for Jesus « Freethought Kampala


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's so silly.
> 
> 
> 
> it's also unprovable lol! Scripture quote in 5....4.....3....2......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how bout fallen angel offspring and their dna that is still with us ?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeyi_5i9jre]giants , nephilim and fallen angels - photos and evidence - youtube[/ame]
Click to expand...

bahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false comparison......false premise.... Logical fallacy. Looks like ywc hit the tri fecta of inane on that one!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,things that are designed do what they were designed to do, Whether they were cars,homes,computers,phones and last but not least biological mechanisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can thus assume that your designer gods designed a flawed and imperfect existence wherein disease, death and suffering were a part of their plan.
> 
> Either that, or the gods are simply hapless boobs and can't seem to get much of anything right.
Click to expand...

Got to give them some credit, they did make boobs!


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope,things that are designed do what they were designed to do, whether they were cars,homes,computers,phones and last but not least biological mechanisms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we can thus assume that your designer gods designed a flawed and imperfect existence wherein disease, death and suffering were a part of their plan.
> 
> Either that, or the gods are simply hapless boobs and can't seem to get much of anything right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can assume anything you like you will anyways but that don't make you right.
Click to expand...

(place a shit load of irony here!)


----------



## LOki

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqB4FOlCtls&feature=player_embedded]Why do people laugh at creationists (part 31) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> once again why are you answering my posts when you said you wouldn't?
> to answer  bullshit  none of the authors of the bible ever talked to directly to eyewitnesses..even if they did  it would be hearsay...and that is not testable evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read up on JOSEPHUS !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JOSEPHUS IS THE PROBLEM"Choking on the Camel
> The historical evidence for Jesus
> Part 1: The Conspiracy of Silence
> Imagine that you were a history student assigned the task of writing a paper on the life of George Washington, America's first president and one of the country's most influential founding fathers.
> 
> On its face, this seems like a simple assignment. Encyclopedias and textbooks full of biographical information about Washington, written by notable scholars on his life, abound. Any one of them would provide enough material for a reasonably detailed report. However, this is not good enough for a diligent student such as yourself. To get the most detailed and accurate picture requires skipping the modern references, which were written centuries after the fact, and going straight to the original sources. You decide to base your report on first-hand evidence: letters written by Washington himself, accounts of his life written by people who knew him personally, and stories of his sayings and deeds recorded while he was still alive.
> 
> But, as you comb the records, you find something strange: you cannot seem to locate any first-hand sources. Though Washington is claimed to have done many wonderful things - leading the Continental Army, freeing the American colonies from British rule, presiding over the convention that wrote the U.S. Constitution, becoming the first President of the United States - somehow, there are no records of these deeds written by people who actually saw them happen, or even by people who were alive at the time. The historians who were alive during Washington's lifetime, as well as the ones that lived soon afterward, do not mention him at all. The first mentions of him come in disputed and scattered records written decades after his death; over time, these mentions grow more numerous until, by about a hundred years after his death, a chorus of historians who had never seen or met Washington themselves all testify to his existence and his deeds. It is their writings, not any first-hand evidence, that have filtered down to modern times to create the abundance of records we have today.
> 
> Would you begin to conclude that there was something very wrong here?
> 
> According to the New Testament gospels, Jesus' fame spread far and wide throughout his lifetime. He was known throughout Israel and beyond (Matthew 4:25), renowned not only as a teacher and wise man, but also as a prophet and miraculous healer (Matthew 14:5, Luke 5:15, John 6:2). Great multitudes of people followed him everywhere he went (Luke 12:1). He converted many Jews, enough to draw the anger of the Jerusalem temple elders (John 12:11). He attracted the attention of some of the most prominent leaders of his day, both Roman and Jewish (Matthew 14:1, Luke 19:47). And when he was crucified, portentous and dramatic miracles occurred on a massive scale: a great earthquake (Matthew 27:51), a worldwide three-hour darkness (Luke 23:44), and the bodies of the saints arising from their tombs and walking the streets of Jerusalem, showing themselves to many people (Matthew 27:52-53).
> 
> If these things were true, it is beyond belief that the historians of the day could have failed to notice.
> 
> And yet, when we examine the evidence, that is precisely what we do find. Not a single contemporary historian mentions Jesus. The historical record is devoid of references to him for decades after his supposed death. The very first extra-biblical documents that do mention him are two brief passages in the works of the historian Josephus, written around 90 CE, but the longer of the two is widely considered to be a forgery and the shorter is likely to be one as well (see part 2). The first unambiguous extra-biblical references to a historical, human Jesus do not appear until well into the second century.
> 
> Few if any Christian apologists will mention these extraordinary facts, but as in the George Washington hypothetical, we can rightfully conclude that there is something wrong here. The rosy picture painted by the gospels of a preaching sage and famous miracle worker followed by crowds of thousands stands in stark contrast to the reality of the extra-biblical historical record, and that reality is that mentions of the man Jesus do not exist until almost the end of the first century.
> 
> Why is this? It is not as if there were no capable historians at the time. There was, for example, Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who lived from about 20 BCE to 50 CE. His own beliefs were influenced by Platonic elements that were in some ways similar to Christianity, and his writings show interest in other offshoot sects such as the Essenes and the Therapeutae; he wrote about Pontius Pilate and he was, by some accounts, living in or near Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death and, presumably, the attendant miracles. Yet none of his works contain any mention of Jesus or Christianity.
> 
> Other writers of the time show the same pattern. Justus of Tiberius, a native of Galilee who wrote a history around 80 CE covering the time Jesus supposedly lived, does not mention him. The Roman writer Seneca the Younger, who was born around 3 BCE and lived into the 60s CE, wrote extensively about ethics but says nothing about Jesus or his teachings. The historian Pliny the Elder, born around 20 CE, took a special interest in writing about science and natural phenomena, but his thirty-seven-volume Natural History says nothing about an earthquake or a strange darkness around the supposed time of Jesus' death, although he would have been alive at the time it happened. In fact, not a single contemporary record exists of the darkness, and there was a widespread failure to note the earthquake, much less the appearance of the resurrected saints.
> 
> Events such as these create historians. To assume that not a single person who witnessed these monumental events would have felt compelled to write them down, or that no one bothered to preserve those records if they had, violates all standards of credulity. Jesus' healings alone, if news of them became generally known, would have attracted a flood of people from every corner of the Roman Empire desperate to be cured of their ailments; and if in addition news got out of his ability to revive the dead, as the gospels say it did (Matthew 9:25-26), those crowds would have been multiplied tenfold. Surely at least one person somewhere would have written about this, even if only to dismiss it as a peasant superstition. And events such as the darkening of the sun and the resurrection of the saints, if they really happened, would have left a vivid imprint on humanity's collective memory and would have produced a flood of awed and astonished records. To suggest that the succeeding generation simply let all memory of them disappear crosses the line from unbelievable to absurd.
> 
> The only rational way to explain this, if we are not to postulate a "conspiracy of silence" among ancient writers, is that the miraculous events recorded in the gospels never happened. And some non-fundamentalist believers might indeed choose this option. Yes, some might say, the gospels are the work of men. They may have exaggerated Jesus' fame and maybe even invented a few miracles to give the story more pizzazz. But this does not necessarily mean Jesus himself never existed. Might the gospels have preserved a core of historical reality, telling a story about a preaching, reform-minded Galilean rabbi that was built upon and embellished by later generations?
> 
> In response to this, it should be noted that the historians of the time not only fail to confirm the particulars of the gospel accounts, they fail to mention Jesus at all. But if he had been a real person who did even some of the things the Bible says, it is not at all unreasonable that at least some historians would have taken notice; Josephus and others do write about other would-be messiahs of their day. Of course, if one postulates a Jesus who did not perform miracles and did not attract much notice during his lifetime, it can never be proved that such a person did not exist. However, as part 3 will show, there is a superior way to explain the origins of Christianity, one that better explains all the evidence without positing a historical Jesus at all.
> 
> The gospels cannot help in proving the historicity of Jesus, since the accuracy of the gospels is itself what is in question. When they make extraordinary claims that contemporary records fail to corroborate, as argued above, this alone casts doubt on their reliability. Additionally, their numerous internal contradictions suggest that their authors were not recording historical events they remembered, but rather telling a story, changing events where they felt it necessary to make a point. Finally, and most importantly, the gospels themselves are not first-hand witnesses. In fact, the very first unambiguous references to them do not appear until the writings of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons, around 150 CE! This fact, combined with other evidence, has led to the conclusion that they were written, at the earliest, near the end of the first century - decades after the events they purport to describe, more than enough time for fact to become inextricably entangled with mythology and legend. Nor are the gospels independent witnesses. It has long been known that Mark, the simplest and therefore most likely the earliest gospel, provided the basic story upon which Matthew, Luke, and probably John as well simply elaborated, adding and changing details. At best, then, what the gospels provide is one anonymous, late, theologically driven source providing details which other, contemporary sources fail to confirm.
> 
> If Jesus Christ had been an actual, historical person, we would expect to have first-hand, contemporary documentation: records of his words and deeds written by people who actually saw him, or who were at least alive during his lifetime. We would expect the record of his life to be plentiful from the very beginning. On the other hand, if he was only a legend later turned into a real person, we would expect not to have any first-hand witness to his life. We would expect the historical record to be scanty and details elusive or non-existent at first, these details appearing only later as the stories about him grew in the telling. We would expect clear references to him not to appear until long after his supposed death. And of course, this scenario is exactly what we do in fact find.
> 
> Christian apologists often insist that the evidence for Jesus' existence is so strong that to deny he ever lived would force one to deny the existence of many other historical figures as well, such as Alexander the Great or Abraham Lincoln. This comparison, however, cannot be sustained. We know that people such as Alexander or Lincoln were historical precisely because we do have first-hand evidence: artifacts made by them, things they wrote, things their contemporaries wrote about them. In Jesus' case, however, we have none of these things. The pattern of evidence much better fits the birth and growth of a legend. No matter who first said it, to uncritically accept the historicity of Jesus is to strain at gnats while attempting to swallow a camel.
> 
> But can the man Jesus be dismissed so easily? Modern-day Christian apologists say not. Despite the lack of first-hand evidence, they claim, there is still good reason to believe that their messiah really did once walk the earth. Part 2 will therefore critically examine the evidence they present, demonstrating that it does not hold up under scrutiny.
> 
> 
> Part 2: The Apologists' Arguments
> 
> Ebon Musings: Choking on the Camel
> 
> 
> 
> Examining the Extra-Biblical Evidence for Jesus
> March 10, 2011 in Christianity
> 
> This blog post is part of the The Resurrection of Jesus series. In this series, evidence that has been put forward by Christian apologists in support of the idea that Jesus was resurrected will be explored and critically examined. As we shall see, most of this evidence isnt even good evidence in the first place, and they are insufficient to justify the conclusion that the story of the resurrection of Jesus is true.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The Roman Empire
> 
> The following are names of some of the Roman historians of antiquity who lived in and around the Mediterranean region, including some of the very places that Jesus and his apostles are said to have moved about.
> 
> Aulus Persius (60 AD)
> Plutarch (c. 46-c. 119 AD)
> Columella (1st cent. AD)
> Pomponius Mela (40 AD)
> Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-c. 112 AD)
> Justus of Tiberius (c. 80 AD)
> Quintilian (c. 35-c. 100 AD)
> Rufus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
> Livy (59 BC-17 AD)
> Quintus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
> Lucanus (fl. 63 AD)
> Seneca (4 BC?-65 AD)
> Lucius Florus (1st-2nd-cent. AD)
> Silius Italicus (c. 25-101 AD)
> Petronius (d. 66 AD)
> Phaedrus (c. 15 BC-c. 50 AD)
> Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD)
> Pliny the Elder (23?-69 AD)
> Valerius Flaccus (1st cent. AD)
> Valerius Maximus (fl. c. 20 AD)
> Not a single one of these historians ever even mentions the existence of Jesus Christ, a man who was supposedly performing miraculous wonders and drawing crowds by the thousands, inciting the Jewish populace, aggravating the Roman authorities, and resurrecting from the dead. For if there were such a man, and he did the things the gospel writers claimed he did, is it possible for him to have gone unmentioned in Roman records? It is noteworthy that Jesus is not even mentioned anywhere in the official Roman historical records of the events in Palestine during the time of he is said to have existed.
> 
> As such, there are no contemporaneous (i.e. within his life time) historical records of Jesus.
> 
> 
> Examining the Extra-Biblical Evidence for Jesus « Freethought Kampala
Click to expand...


Nothing but atheist propaganda.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj3lceK0FCQ]Jesus in History- Proof Outside the Bible - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

Still no one willing to admit they have no evidence that natural processes converted matter into a living organism.

Not one example given to support your view,not surprising though.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Is There Any Proof of Jesus Other Than the Bible? (1of2) - YouTube!


----------



## Youwerecreated

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-u6oiybaYY&feature=relmfu]Is There Any Proof of Jesus Other Than the Bible? (2of2) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Still no one willing to admit they have no evidence that natural processes converted matter into a living organism.
> 
> Not one example given to support your view,not surprising though.


None that has satisfied you. Not a single one.

Not that it even matters to you, right? So far, you've made it patently clear your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

You have proven it to me.

So why do you keep asking for it?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no one willing to admit they have no evidence that natural processes converted matter into a living organism.
> 
> Not one example given to support your view,not surprising though.
> 
> 
> 
> None that has satisfied you. Not a single one.
> 
> Not that it even matters to you, right? So far, you've made it patently clear your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> You have proven it to me.
> 
> So why do you keep asking for it?
Click to expand...


Without evidence that supports a belief what good is the belief ? we have a choice of naturalism or design and creation whichever term you prefer.When we consider the precision in nature and the complexity of life to me that is the evidence of purposeful design not random chance. That is not even including the positionig of planets.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no one willing to admit they have no evidence that natural processes converted matter into a living organism.
> 
> Not one example given to support your view,not surprising though.
> 
> 
> 
> None that has satisfied you. Not a single one.
> 
> Not that it even matters to you, right? So far, you've made it patently clear your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> You have proven it to me.
> 
> So why do you keep asking for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without evidence that supports a belief what good is the belief ?
Click to expand...

So far, you've made it patently clear your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

You have proven it to me.

So why do you keep asking for it?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no one willing to admit they have no evidence that natural processes converted matter into a living organism.
> 
> Not one example given to support your view,not surprising though.
> 
> 
> 
> None that has satisfied you. Not a single one.
> 
> Not that it even matters to you, right? So far, you've made it patently clear your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> You have proven it to me.
> 
> So why do you keep asking for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without evidence that supports a belief what good is the belief ? we have a choice of naturalism or design and creation whichever term you prefer.When we consider the precision in nature and the complexity of life to me that is the evidence of purposeful design not random chance. That is not even including the positionig of planets.
Click to expand...

The above comment is simply a cut and paste of what you have posted before. It has been addressed but here you are, cutting and pasting it again.

What "precision in nature" are you imagining? Much of nature is utterly to life. Much of nature has a habit of relentlessly ending life via hurricanes, floods, drought and a host of other natural disasters. I suppose we could attribute those things to your gods but that would put us into a feedback loop asking "why would the gods design a world where human suffering on a massive scale is a necessary requirement of their design"?

Why do your gods spend such an inordinate amount of time destroying the humanity you claim they created? Are your gods playing a game of one-upsmanship with Stalin, Hitler and a host of other psychopaths?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> None that has satisfied you. Not a single one.
> 
> Not that it even matters to you, right? So far, you've made it patently clear your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> You have proven it to me.
> 
> So why do you keep asking for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without evidence that supports a belief what good is the belief ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So far, you've made it patently clear your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> You have proven it to me.
> 
> So why do you keep asking for it?
Click to expand...


Loki the precision required in forming the first cell is evidence of a designer to me. Just waiting around for just the right precision to happen makes no sense to me at all. This thinking defies logic.

You also needed the right conditions on this planet to sustain life and there is no other planet like ours that we know of.

If everything formed through natural processes there should be new life forms constantly arising and we don't see that. We have not observed not one new life form that came about naturally without the the theory of evolution being applied.

We can't form life in the labs under all the right conditions with all the knowledge and complicated machines.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> None that has satisfied you. Not a single one.
> 
> Not that it even matters to you, right? So far, you've made it patently clear your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> You have proven it to me.
> 
> So why do you keep asking for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without evidence that supports a belief what good is the belief ? we have a choice of naturalism or design and creation whichever term you prefer.When we consider the precision in nature and the complexity of life to me that is the evidence of purposeful design not random chance. That is not even including the positionig of planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above comment is simply a cut and paste of what you have posted before. It has been addressed but here you are, cutting and pasting it again.
> 
> What "precision in nature" are you imagining? Much of nature is utterly to life. Much of nature has a habit of relentlessly ending life via hurricanes, floods, drought and a host of other natural disasters. I suppose we could attribute those things to your gods but that would put us into a feedback loop asking "why would the gods design a world where human suffering on a massive scale is a necessary requirement of their design"?
> 
> Why do your gods spend such an inordinate amount of time destroying the humanity you claim they created? Are your gods playing a game of one-upsmanship with Stalin, Hitler and a host of other psychopaths?
Click to expand...


1. the condition of this planet.
2. the planes planets travel
3. formation of the cell
4. the cell having the ability to reproduce itself
5. male and female having to come together to form life
6. plants having what is needed to reproduce through an A sexual reproduction
7. the DNA information contained in each cell

How many more examples do you need ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> None that has satisfied you. Not a single one.
> 
> Not that it even matters to you, right? So far, you've made it patently clear your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> You have proven it to me.
> 
> So why do you keep asking for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without evidence that supports a belief what good is the belief ? we have a choice of naturalism or design and creation whichever term you prefer.When we consider the precision in nature and the complexity of life to me that is the evidence of purposeful design not random chance. That is not even including the positionig of planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above comment is simply a cut and paste of what you have posted before. It has been addressed but here you are, cutting and pasting it again.
> 
> What "precision in nature" are you imagining? Much of nature is utterly to life. Much of nature has a habit of relentlessly ending life via hurricanes, floods, drought and a host of other natural disasters. I suppose we could attribute those things to your gods but that would put us into a feedback loop asking "why would the gods design a world where human suffering on a massive scale is a necessary requirement of their design"?
> 
> Why do your gods spend such an inordinate amount of time destroying the humanity you claim they created? Are your gods playing a game of one-upsmanship with Stalin, Hitler and a host of other psychopaths?
Click to expand...


Is God destroying anyone these days ? God has made it possible for both the non believers and believers can live out their lives however that may be. God has warned of only one final judgment.

No one will miss this final separation from the goats and the sheep.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without evidence that supports a belief what good is the belief ? we have a choice of naturalism or design and creation whichever term you prefer.When we consider the precision in nature and the complexity of life to me that is the evidence of purposeful design not random chance. That is not even including the positionig of planets.
> 
> 
> 
> The above comment is simply a cut and paste of what you have posted before. It has been addressed but here you are, cutting and pasting it again.
> 
> What "precision in nature" are you imagining? Much of nature is utterly to life. Much of nature has a habit of relentlessly ending life via hurricanes, floods, drought and a host of other natural disasters. I suppose we could attribute those things to your gods but that would put us into a feedback loop asking "why would the gods design a world where human suffering on a massive scale is a necessary requirement of their design"?
> 
> Why do your gods spend such an inordinate amount of time destroying the humanity you claim they created? Are your gods playing a game of one-upsmanship with Stalin, Hitler and a host of other psychopaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. the condition of this planet.
> 2. the planes planets travel
> 3. formation of the cell
> 4. the cell having the ability to reproduce itself
> 5. male and female having to come together to form life
> 6. plants having what is needed to reproduce through an A sexual reproduction
> 7. the DNA information contained in each cell
> 
> How many more examples do you need ?
Click to expand...


None of what you describe is supernatural. those items in your list are largely understood and have no requirement for magical intervention. 

Why did your gods need to design an environment that is so hostile to the design'ees you claim they created?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without evidence that supports a belief what good is the belief ? we have a choice of naturalism or design and creation whichever term you prefer.When we consider the precision in nature and the complexity of life to me that is the evidence of purposeful design not random chance. That is not even including the positionig of planets.
> 
> 
> 
> The above comment is simply a cut and paste of what you have posted before. It has been addressed but here you are, cutting and pasting it again.
> 
> What "precision in nature" are you imagining? Much of nature is utterly to life. Much of nature has a habit of relentlessly ending life via hurricanes, floods, drought and a host of other natural disasters. I suppose we could attribute those things to your gods but that would put us into a feedback loop asking "why would the gods design a world where human suffering on a massive scale is a necessary requirement of their design"?
> 
> Why do your gods spend such an inordinate amount of time destroying the humanity you claim they created? Are your gods playing a game of one-upsmanship with Stalin, Hitler and a host of other psychopaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is God destroying anyone these days ? God has made it possible for both the non believers and believers can live out their lives however that may be. God has warned of only one final judgment.
> 
> No one will miss this final separation from the goats and the sheep.
Click to expand...


Have the gods destroyed anyone in the past? The tales and fables would answer affirmatively (the tale of Noah, for example), but there is no credible evidence of Noah's cruise to nowhere ever occurring. The gods are portrayed as psychopathic killers in the old testament but so what? There is no credible evidence of their mass slaughters.

I really have no use for your attempts to threaten me with your gods.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The above comment is simply a cut and paste of what you have posted before. It has been addressed but here you are, cutting and pasting it again.
> 
> What "precision in nature" are you imagining? Much of nature is utterly to life. Much of nature has a habit of relentlessly ending life via hurricanes, floods, drought and a host of other natural disasters. I suppose we could attribute those things to your gods but that would put us into a feedback loop asking "why would the gods design a world where human suffering on a massive scale is a necessary requirement of their design"?
> 
> Why do your gods spend such an inordinate amount of time destroying the humanity you claim they created? Are your gods playing a game of one-upsmanship with Stalin, Hitler and a host of other psychopaths?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. the condition of this planet.
> 2. the planes planets travel
> 3. formation of the cell
> 4. the cell having the ability to reproduce itself
> 5. male and female having to come together to form life
> 6. plants having what is needed to reproduce through an A sexual reproduction
> 7. the DNA information contained in each cell
> 
> How many more examples do you need ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of what you describe is supernatural. those items in your list are largely understood and have no requirement for magical intervention.
> 
> Why did your gods need to design an environment that is so hostile to the design'ees you claim they created?
Click to expand...


So you rather strike it up to coincedence.

By your reasoning I should let my lawn go it will take care of itself. Maybe I should not worry about my phone it will charge itself. I should not have to maintain my body or my car for it will maintain itself.

Your reasoning lacks logic.

We didn't need science to work and develop technology it would have come about through a natural means.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The above comment is simply a cut and paste of what you have posted before. It has been addressed but here you are, cutting and pasting it again.
> 
> What "precision in nature" are you imagining? Much of nature is utterly to life. Much of nature has a habit of relentlessly ending life via hurricanes, floods, drought and a host of other natural disasters. I suppose we could attribute those things to your gods but that would put us into a feedback loop asking "why would the gods design a world where human suffering on a massive scale is a necessary requirement of their design"?
> 
> Why do your gods spend such an inordinate amount of time destroying the humanity you claim they created? Are your gods playing a game of one-upsmanship with Stalin, Hitler and a host of other psychopaths?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is God destroying anyone these days ? God has made it possible for both the non believers and believers can live out their lives however that may be. God has warned of only one final judgment.
> 
> No one will miss this final separation from the goats and the sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have the gods destroyed anyone in the past? The tales and fables would answer affirmatively (the tale of Noah, for example), but there is no credible evidence of Noah's cruise to nowhere ever occurring. The gods are portrayed as psychopathic killers in the old testament but so what? There is no credible evidence of their mass slaughters.
> 
> I really have no use for your attempts to threaten me with your gods.
Click to expand...


It's not a threat it's just a friendly warning.

Yes God has passed judgment in the past on mankind. He took action so that would never happen again until the final judgment.

God has laws just as most of mankind has laws and enforce them laws. What is your point ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is God destroying anyone these days ? God has made it possible for both the non believers and believers can live out their lives however that may be. God has warned of only one final judgment.
> 
> No one will miss this final separation from the goats and the sheep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have the gods destroyed anyone in the past? The tales and fables would answer affirmatively (the tale of Noah, for example), but there is no credible evidence of Noah's cruise to nowhere ever occurring. The gods are portrayed as psychopathic killers in the old testament but so what? There is no credible evidence of their mass slaughters.
> 
> I really have no use for your attempts to threaten me with your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a threat it's just a friendly warning.
> 
> Yes God has passed judgment in the past on mankind. He took action so that would never happen again until the final judgment.
> 
> God has laws just as most of mankind has laws and enforce them laws. What is your point ?
Click to expand...


We have no valid reasons to accept your threats. So what is your point?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have the gods destroyed anyone in the past? The tales and fables would answer affirmatively (the tale of Noah, for example), but there is no credible evidence of Noah's cruise to nowhere ever occurring. The gods are portrayed as psychopathic killers in the old testament but so what? There is no credible evidence of their mass slaughters.
> 
> I really have no use for your attempts to threaten me with your gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a threat it's just a friendly warning.
> 
> Yes God has passed judgment in the past on mankind. He took action so that would never happen again until the final judgment.
> 
> God has laws just as most of mankind has laws and enforce them laws. What is your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no valid reasons to accept your threats. So what is your point?
Click to expand...


Oh there are reasons to take the warning serious but you chose to ignore and that is ok. You have made a choice that no one else can be held accountable for or be blamed for your decision.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie.

Joh 20:29  Jesus said to him, Because you have seen me you have belief: a blessing will be on those who have belief though they have not seen me!


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie.
> 
> Joh 20:29  Jesus said to him, Because you have seen me you have belief: a blessing will be on those who have belief though they have not seen me!



You mis-wrote the verse.

Jos 20:29 (rev)  oi vey but fundie Christian creationists are a pain in my arse. Why can't I have folks worship me who don't sully my name by threatening others.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The processes that maintain life, and cause it to grow and multiply are all natural processes--they are all interactions of non-living, non-intelligent bits of energy/matter...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I say so!!
> 
> So let me get this straight... We are alive because are parts aren't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are alive because of interactions between parts that aren't.
> 
> The evidence for this is in the result of interrupting those interactions. This not contestable, is it?
> 
> Now, I'm sure you still don't agree that natural processes can account for life in any manner.
> 
> _*And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.
> 
> No need to refute it any more.*_
> 
> So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> *PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.*
Click to expand...


Already done ad nauseum.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone understanding genetics know you can't produce offspring without Genes absent of Dna.
> 
> 
> 
> Do yourself a favor. Read what is written. Attempt to understand it. If you still have difficulty, ("cybernetically") raise your hand and ask questions.
> 
> Now, once more for you:
> 
> Do supernatural creatures have a need for DNA and such biological mechanisms?  Such weird and wacky inventions as angels and jinn would seem to lose some of their supernatural abilities if constrained by earthly / human limitations.
> 
> If angels and jinn are breeding in some celestial boink-fest, are we to assume that angels and jinn are subject to the same issues of biology that afflict humans?
> 
> Your world of supernaturalism is becoming more and more difficult for you to invent "on the fly".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said Angels were reproducing,the scriptures do say rebellious Angels *took the form of men *and did breed with the humans and their offsring were called nephilims,these offspring in the bible were said to be giants and very evil.
Click to expand...


Bolded for Hollie's Strawmanlady.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously you have not one piece of evidence to back your claim so what is your view based on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The clear evidence I presented.
> 
> Your obtuse and unsubstantiated denial of that evidence does not change the fact that what I present as evidence to support my claim, is in fact evidence to support my claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you believe this when there is no evidence to support your claim ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is evidence. I presented it. You are denying I have done so, but the evidence of my presentation refutes it. I can copy and paste it back for you (where you have not been able to when asked to present your evidence) I can provide links to the posts where I have presented evidence to support my claims (where you have not been able to when asked to present your evidence), and I can predict with pretty fair accuracy that you will not provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> This is sufficient to prove that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> Consider yourself dismissed.
Click to expand...


Are you still going on about that lame, fill in 50 gaps, "might have-could have" piece of garbage you posted up? Is that your evidence?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.
> 
> No need to refute it any more.*_
> 
> So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> *PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.
> 
> Biological organisms were designed with reproduction in mind and that is what living organisms do, they reproduce.
> 
> That we now naturally have the ability to reproduce that is what organisms do but that was by design, not by chance.
> 
> The key is what jump started these natural processes.
> 
> It is nothing more then circular reasoning to assume because we naturally reproduce we came into existence through natural processes and we are not a product of design.
> 
> There is no evidence we came into existence through natural processes while there is plenty of evidence suggesting intelligence was behind developing life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refuting my claims do not provide any evidence or legitimacy for yours.
> 
> You have failed to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> You have demonstrated that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> You are dismissed.
Click to expand...


Meyer argument presented. You may have think you refuted it with your nonsense about what "real" information is but you have not. You are a legend in your own mind.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without evidence that supports a belief what good is the belief ?
> 
> 
> 
> So far, you've made it patently clear your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> You have proven it to me.
> 
> So why do you keep asking for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki the precision required in forming the first cell is evidence of a designer to me. Just waiting around for just the right precision to happen makes no sense to me at all. This thinking defies logic.
Click to expand...

Your question-begging appeal to ignorance rationalization is a defiance of logic.



Youwerecreated said:


> You also needed the right conditions on this planet to sustain life and there is no other planet like ours that we know of.


You should become acquainted with the weak anthropic principle.



Youwerecreated said:


> If everything formed through natural processes there should be new life forms constantly arising and we don't see that.


Why? Why should new life forms be constantly arising? Are you presuming--in defiance of all the contrary evidence--that the conditions that exist now have always been the conditions?



Youwerecreated said:


> We have not observed not one new life form that came about naturally without the the theory of evolution being applied.


But the fact that life doesn't just "poof" into existence, as it apparently did according to your Genesis myth, doesn't seem to cause you to have any doubts about your myth.

Life is sustained, maintained, and propagated by the interactions of non-intelligent, non-living, non-conscious bits of energy/matter. Interrupt those interactions, and life ends. No one but you disputes this.



Youwerecreated said:


> We can't form life in the labs under all the right conditions with all the knowledge and complicated machines.


If life was created in the laboratory, you would claim that as evidence of intelligent design, wouldn't you?

This is because you have a conclusion--based on no evidence or valid logic--that you attempt to rationalize as valid by selectively applying "evidence" to.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> None that has satisfied you. Not a single one.
> 
> Not that it even matters to you, right? So far, you've made it patently clear your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> You have proven it to me.
> 
> So why do you keep asking for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without evidence that supports a belief what good is the belief ? we have a choice of naturalism or design and creation whichever term you prefer.When we consider the precision in nature and the complexity of life to me that is the evidence of purposeful design not random chance. That is not even including the positionig of planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above comment is simply a cut and paste of what you have posted before. It has been addressed but here you are, cutting and pasting it again.
> 
> What "precision in nature" are you imagining? Much of nature is utterly to life. Much of nature has a habit of relentlessly ending life via hurricanes, floods, drought and a host of other natural disasters. I suppose we could attribute those things to your gods but that would put us into a feedback loop asking "why would the gods design a world where human suffering on a massive scale is a necessary requirement of their design"?
> 
> Why do your gods spend such an inordinate amount of time destroying the humanity you claim they created? Are your gods playing a game of one-upsmanship with Stalin, Hitler and a host of other psychopaths?
Click to expand...


You can call your master, Satan, a god if you want, but he is actually a created being, not God.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Why? Why should new life forms be constantly arising? Are you presuming--in defiance of all the contrary evidence--that the conditions that exist now have always been the conditions?



So what are those magical conditions, cheesecake? Another might have-could have fairy tale you dreamed up? What is your scientific evidence for these life producing conditions that existed "once upon a time"?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.
> 
> Biological organisms were designed with reproduction in mind and that is what living organisms do, they reproduce.
> 
> That we now naturally have the ability to reproduce that is what organisms do but that was by design, not by chance.
> 
> The key is what jump started these natural processes.
> 
> It is nothing more then circular reasoning to assume because we naturally reproduce we came into existence through natural processes and we are not a product of design.
> 
> There is no evidence we came into existence through natural processes while there is plenty of evidence suggesting intelligence was behind developing life.
> 
> 
> 
> Refuting my claims do not provide any evidence or legitimacy for yours.
> 
> You have failed to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> You have demonstrated that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> You are dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meyer argument presented. You may have think you refuted it with your nonsense about what "real" information is but you have not. You are a legend in your own mind.
Click to expand...

What "nonsense about what "real" information is"?

You're just making that up.

Meyer is so easily rebutted, and that just crushed your presumptively superstitious hope that your fairy tale has some legitimate foundation in reason.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> ]If life was created in the laboratory, you would claim that as evidence of intelligent design, wouldn't you?



Unless you could throw all the ingredients in a test tube, shake it a little, hit it with some neutrino's and a little gas from a volcanic vent, and puke out a complete cell, then...

yeah, pretty much.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refuting my claims do not provide any evidence or legitimacy for yours.
> 
> You have failed to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> You have demonstrated that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> You are dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer argument presented. You may have think you refuted it with your nonsense about what "real" information is but you have not. You are a legend in your own mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "nonsense about what "real" information is"?
> 
> You're just making that up.
> 
> Meyer is so easily rebutted, and that just crushed your presumptively superstitious hope that your fairy tale has some legitimate foundation in reason.
Click to expand...


Whatever. You have provided no evidence against it so that means it exist right? By your twisted logic.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without evidence that supports a belief what good is the belief ? we have a choice of naturalism or design and creation whichever term you prefer.When we consider the precision in nature and the complexity of life to me that is the evidence of purposeful design not random chance. That is not even including the positionig of planets.
> 
> 
> 
> The above comment is simply a cut and paste of what you have posted before. It has been addressed but here you are, cutting and pasting it again.
> 
> What "precision in nature" are you imagining? Much of nature is utterly to life. Much of nature has a habit of relentlessly ending life via hurricanes, floods, drought and a host of other natural disasters. I suppose we could attribute those things to your gods but that would put us into a feedback loop asking "why would the gods design a world where human suffering on a massive scale is a necessary requirement of their design"?
> 
> Why do your gods spend such an inordinate amount of time destroying the humanity you claim they created? Are your gods playing a game of one-upsmanship with Stalin, Hitler and a host of other psychopaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can call your master, Satan, a god if you want, but he is actually a created being, not God.
Click to expand...

Why would I call Satan a god? Is this another of your lurid fantasies?

In the genesis fable, Satan is certainly a creation; a creation of your gods. It's quite a contradiction. The gods you worship created evil and allowed mankind to suffer. The gods chose to lie in connection with the Adam and Eve tale. Satan told the truth. 

It appears that you are the one worshipping evil.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Satan told the truth.



So now we see where your allegiance lies. You affirm Satan and call God the evil one. Perhaps your atheism is just a disguise for your real beliefs?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satan told the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now we see where your allegiance lies. You affirm Satan and call God the evil one. Perhaps your atheism is just a disguise for your real beliefs?
Click to expand...


Satan did tell the truth. 

I didn't write the tales and fables, remember?

If you have a problem with your gods lying and Satan telling the truth, don't come cryin' to me.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer argument presented. You may have think you refuted it with your nonsense about what "real" information is but you have not. You are a legend in your own mind.
> 
> 
> 
> What "nonsense about what "real" information is"?
> 
> You're just making that up.
> 
> Meyer is so easily rebutted, and that just crushed your presumptively superstitious hope that your fairy tale has some legitimate foundation in reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever. You have provided no evidence against it so that means it exist right? By your twisted logic.
Click to expand...

 That's not my logic at all!  

 Mr. "You Can't Prove Me Wrong" 

 *IT'S YOURS!!!!*


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "nonsense about what "real" information is"?
> 
> You're just making that up.
> 
> Meyer is so easily rebutted, and that just crushed your presumptively superstitious hope that your fairy tale has some legitimate foundation in reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever. You have provided no evidence against it so that means it exist right? By your twisted logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not my logic at all!
> 
> Mr. "You Can't Prove Me Wrong"
> 
> *IT'S YOURS!!!!*
Click to expand...


Here, let me repeat what I think your response is saying: In your best 3rd grader voice...

I know you are but what am I?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever. You have provided no evidence against it so that means it exist right? By your twisted logic.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not my logic at all!
> 
> Mr. "You Can't Prove Me Wrong"
> 
> *IT'S YOURS!!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here, let me repeat what I think your response is saying: In your best 3rd grader voice...
> 
> I know you are but what am I?
Click to expand...

Christ! You're such an insufferable douche.

You haven't even bothered to read a single thing I've posted, have you?

It's simply NOT POSSIBLE for you to have come to your conclusions if you had.

Your notions of my point are entirely imaginary. That is clear now. They are just as imaginary, and imaginary for the same reasons, as this designer you keep asserting.

Good luck with that.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.
> 
> Biological organisms were designed with reproduction in mind and that is what living organisms do, they reproduce.
> 
> That we now naturally have the ability to reproduce that is what organisms do but that was by design, not by chance.
> 
> The key is what jump started these natural processes.
> 
> It is nothing more then circular reasoning to assume because we naturally reproduce we came into existence through natural processes and we are not a product of design.
> 
> There is no evidence we came into existence through natural processes while there is plenty of evidence suggesting intelligence was behind developing life.
> 
> 
> 
> Refuting my claims do not provide any evidence or legitimacy for yours.
> 
> You have failed to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> You have demonstrated that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
> 
> You are dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meyer argument presented. You may have think you refuted it with your nonsense about what "real" information is but you have not. You are a legend in your own mind.
Click to expand...


Oh, lordy, man. Not Meyer. WHy did you feel a need to dredge up that hack?

Yet another creationist who made this illustrious list:

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for meyer


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read up on JOSEPHUS !
> 
> 
> 
> JOSEPHUS IS THE PROBLEM"Choking on the Camel
> The historical evidence for Jesus
> Part 1: The Conspiracy of Silence
> Imagine that you were a history student assigned the task of writing a paper on the life of George Washington, America's first president and one of the country's most influential founding fathers.
> 
> On its face, this seems like a simple assignment. Encyclopedias and textbooks full of biographical information about Washington, written by notable scholars on his life, abound. Any one of them would provide enough material for a reasonably detailed report. However, this is not good enough for a diligent student such as yourself. To get the most detailed and accurate picture requires skipping the modern references, which were written centuries after the fact, and going straight to the original sources. You decide to base your report on first-hand evidence: letters written by Washington himself, accounts of his life written by people who knew him personally, and stories of his sayings and deeds recorded while he was still alive.
> 
> But, as you comb the records, you find something strange: you cannot seem to locate any first-hand sources. Though Washington is claimed to have done many wonderful things - leading the Continental Army, freeing the American colonies from British rule, presiding over the convention that wrote the U.S. Constitution, becoming the first President of the United States - somehow, there are no records of these deeds written by people who actually saw them happen, or even by people who were alive at the time. The historians who were alive during Washington's lifetime, as well as the ones that lived soon afterward, do not mention him at all. The first mentions of him come in disputed and scattered records written decades after his death; over time, these mentions grow more numerous until, by about a hundred years after his death, a chorus of historians who had never seen or met Washington themselves all testify to his existence and his deeds. It is their writings, not any first-hand evidence, that have filtered down to modern times to create the abundance of records we have today.
> 
> Would you begin to conclude that there was something very wrong here?
> 
> According to the New Testament gospels, Jesus' fame spread far and wide throughout his lifetime. He was known throughout Israel and beyond (Matthew 4:25), renowned not only as a teacher and wise man, but also as a prophet and miraculous healer (Matthew 14:5, Luke 5:15, John 6:2). Great multitudes of people followed him everywhere he went (Luke 12:1). He converted many Jews, enough to draw the anger of the Jerusalem temple elders (John 12:11). He attracted the attention of some of the most prominent leaders of his day, both Roman and Jewish (Matthew 14:1, Luke 19:47). And when he was crucified, portentous and dramatic miracles occurred on a massive scale: a great earthquake (Matthew 27:51), a worldwide three-hour darkness (Luke 23:44), and the bodies of the saints arising from their tombs and walking the streets of Jerusalem, showing themselves to many people (Matthew 27:52-53).
> 
> If these things were true, it is beyond belief that the historians of the day could have failed to notice.
> 
> And yet, when we examine the evidence, that is precisely what we do find. Not a single contemporary historian mentions Jesus. The historical record is devoid of references to him for decades after his supposed death. The very first extra-biblical documents that do mention him are two brief passages in the works of the historian Josephus, written around 90 CE, but the longer of the two is widely considered to be a forgery and the shorter is likely to be one as well (see part 2). The first unambiguous extra-biblical references to a historical, human Jesus do not appear until well into the second century.
> 
> Few if any Christian apologists will mention these extraordinary facts, but as in the George Washington hypothetical, we can rightfully conclude that there is something wrong here. The rosy picture painted by the gospels of a preaching sage and famous miracle worker followed by crowds of thousands stands in stark contrast to the reality of the extra-biblical historical record, and that reality is that mentions of the man Jesus do not exist until almost the end of the first century.
> 
> Why is this? It is not as if there were no capable historians at the time. There was, for example, Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who lived from about 20 BCE to 50 CE. His own beliefs were influenced by Platonic elements that were in some ways similar to Christianity, and his writings show interest in other offshoot sects such as the Essenes and the Therapeutae; he wrote about Pontius Pilate and he was, by some accounts, living in or near Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death and, presumably, the attendant miracles. Yet none of his works contain any mention of Jesus or Christianity.
> 
> Other writers of the time show the same pattern. Justus of Tiberius, a native of Galilee who wrote a history around 80 CE covering the time Jesus supposedly lived, does not mention him. The Roman writer Seneca the Younger, who was born around 3 BCE and lived into the 60s CE, wrote extensively about ethics but says nothing about Jesus or his teachings. The historian Pliny the Elder, born around 20 CE, took a special interest in writing about science and natural phenomena, but his thirty-seven-volume Natural History says nothing about an earthquake or a strange darkness around the supposed time of Jesus' death, although he would have been alive at the time it happened. In fact, not a single contemporary record exists of the darkness, and there was a widespread failure to note the earthquake, much less the appearance of the resurrected saints.
> 
> Events such as these create historians. To assume that not a single person who witnessed these monumental events would have felt compelled to write them down, or that no one bothered to preserve those records if they had, violates all standards of credulity. Jesus' healings alone, if news of them became generally known, would have attracted a flood of people from every corner of the Roman Empire desperate to be cured of their ailments; and if in addition news got out of his ability to revive the dead, as the gospels say it did (Matthew 9:25-26), those crowds would have been multiplied tenfold. Surely at least one person somewhere would have written about this, even if only to dismiss it as a peasant superstition. And events such as the darkening of the sun and the resurrection of the saints, if they really happened, would have left a vivid imprint on humanity's collective memory and would have produced a flood of awed and astonished records. To suggest that the succeeding generation simply let all memory of them disappear crosses the line from unbelievable to absurd.
> 
> The only rational way to explain this, if we are not to postulate a "conspiracy of silence" among ancient writers, is that the miraculous events recorded in the gospels never happened. And some non-fundamentalist believers might indeed choose this option. Yes, some might say, the gospels are the work of men. They may have exaggerated Jesus' fame and maybe even invented a few miracles to give the story more pizzazz. But this does not necessarily mean Jesus himself never existed. Might the gospels have preserved a core of historical reality, telling a story about a preaching, reform-minded Galilean rabbi that was built upon and embellished by later generations?
> 
> In response to this, it should be noted that the historians of the time not only fail to confirm the particulars of the gospel accounts, they fail to mention Jesus at all. But if he had been a real person who did even some of the things the Bible says, it is not at all unreasonable that at least some historians would have taken notice; Josephus and others do write about other would-be messiahs of their day. Of course, if one postulates a Jesus who did not perform miracles and did not attract much notice during his lifetime, it can never be proved that such a person did not exist. However, as part 3 will show, there is a superior way to explain the origins of Christianity, one that better explains all the evidence without positing a historical Jesus at all.
> 
> The gospels cannot help in proving the historicity of Jesus, since the accuracy of the gospels is itself what is in question. When they make extraordinary claims that contemporary records fail to corroborate, as argued above, this alone casts doubt on their reliability. Additionally, their numerous internal contradictions suggest that their authors were not recording historical events they remembered, but rather telling a story, changing events where they felt it necessary to make a point. Finally, and most importantly, the gospels themselves are not first-hand witnesses. In fact, the very first unambiguous references to them do not appear until the writings of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons, around 150 CE! This fact, combined with other evidence, has led to the conclusion that they were written, at the earliest, near the end of the first century - decades after the events they purport to describe, more than enough time for fact to become inextricably entangled with mythology and legend. Nor are the gospels independent witnesses. It has long been known that Mark, the simplest and therefore most likely the earliest gospel, provided the basic story upon which Matthew, Luke, and probably John as well simply elaborated, adding and changing details. At best, then, what the gospels provide is one anonymous, late, theologically driven source providing details which other, contemporary sources fail to confirm.
> 
> If Jesus Christ had been an actual, historical person, we would expect to have first-hand, contemporary documentation: records of his words and deeds written by people who actually saw him, or who were at least alive during his lifetime. We would expect the record of his life to be plentiful from the very beginning. On the other hand, if he was only a legend later turned into a real person, we would expect not to have any first-hand witness to his life. We would expect the historical record to be scanty and details elusive or non-existent at first, these details appearing only later as the stories about him grew in the telling. We would expect clear references to him not to appear until long after his supposed death. And of course, this scenario is exactly what we do in fact find.
> 
> Christian apologists often insist that the evidence for Jesus' existence is so strong that to deny he ever lived would force one to deny the existence of many other historical figures as well, such as Alexander the Great or Abraham Lincoln. This comparison, however, cannot be sustained. We know that people such as Alexander or Lincoln were historical precisely because we do have first-hand evidence: artifacts made by them, things they wrote, things their contemporaries wrote about them. In Jesus' case, however, we have none of these things. The pattern of evidence much better fits the birth and growth of a legend. No matter who first said it, to uncritically accept the historicity of Jesus is to strain at gnats while attempting to swallow a camel.
> 
> But can the man Jesus be dismissed so easily? Modern-day Christian apologists say not. Despite the lack of first-hand evidence, they claim, there is still good reason to believe that their messiah really did once walk the earth. Part 2 will therefore critically examine the evidence they present, demonstrating that it does not hold up under scrutiny.
> 
> 
> Part 2: The Apologists' Arguments
> 
> Ebon Musings: Choking on the Camel
> 
> 
> 
> Examining the Extra-Biblical Evidence for Jesus
> March 10, 2011 in Christianity
> 
> This blog post is part of the The Resurrection of Jesus series. In this series, evidence that has been put forward by Christian apologists in support of the idea that Jesus was resurrected will be explored and critically examined. As we shall see, most of this evidence isnt even good evidence in the first place, and they are insufficient to justify the conclusion that the story of the resurrection of Jesus is true.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The Roman Empire
> 
> The following are names of some of the Roman historians of antiquity who lived in and around the Mediterranean region, including some of the very places that Jesus and his apostles are said to have moved about.
> 
> Aulus Persius (60 AD)
> Plutarch (c. 46-c. 119 AD)
> Columella (1st cent. AD)
> Pomponius Mela (40 AD)
> Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-c. 112 AD)
> Justus of Tiberius (c. 80 AD)
> Quintilian (c. 35-c. 100 AD)
> Rufus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
> Livy (59 BC-17 AD)
> Quintus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
> Lucanus (fl. 63 AD)
> Seneca (4 BC?-65 AD)
> Lucius Florus (1st-2nd-cent. AD)
> Silius Italicus (c. 25-101 AD)
> Petronius (d. 66 AD)
> Phaedrus (c. 15 BC-c. 50 AD)
> Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD)
> Pliny the Elder (23?-69 AD)
> Valerius Flaccus (1st cent. AD)
> Valerius Maximus (fl. c. 20 AD)
> Not a single one of these historians ever even mentions the existence of Jesus Christ, a man who was supposedly performing miraculous wonders and drawing crowds by the thousands, inciting the Jewish populace, aggravating the Roman authorities, and resurrecting from the dead. For if there were such a man, and he did the things the gospel writers claimed he did, is it possible for him to have gone unmentioned in Roman records? It is noteworthy that Jesus is not even mentioned anywhere in the official Roman historical records of the events in Palestine during the time of he is said to have existed.
> 
> As such, there are no contemporaneous (i.e. within his life time) historical records of Jesus.
> 
> 
> Examining the Extra-Biblical Evidence for Jesus « Freethought Kampala
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but atheist propaganda.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj3lceK0FCQ]Jesus in History- Proof Outside the Bible - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

Nothing but creationist lies, propaganda etc...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. the condition of this planet.
> 2. the planes planets travel
> 3. formation of the cell
> 4. the cell having the ability to reproduce itself
> 5. male and female having to come together to form life
> 6. plants having what is needed to reproduce through an A sexual reproduction
> 7. the DNA information contained in each cell
> 
> How many more examples do you need ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of what you describe is supernatural. those items in your list are largely understood and have no requirement for magical intervention.
> 
> Why did your gods need to design an environment that is so hostile to the design'ees you claim they created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you rather strike it up to coincedence.
> 
> By your reasoning I should let my lawn go it will take care of itself. Maybe I should not worry about my phone it will charge itself. I should not have to maintain my body or my car for it will maintain itself.
> 
> Your reasoning lacks logic.
> 
> We didn't need science to work and develop technology it would have come about through a natural means.
Click to expand...

what the fuck! do you even understand what Coincidence is?
From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively. An example is the birthday problem, where the probability of two individuals sharing a birthday already exceeds 50% with a group of only 23.[1]

Coincidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or Definition of COINCIDENCE
1: the act or condition of coinciding : correspondence 
2: the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection


this statement is telling ..."By your reasoning I should let my lawn go it will take care of itself. Maybe I should not worry about my phone it will charge itself. I should not have to maintain my body or my car for it will maintain itself."ywc
1.your lawn is a 18th European century invention ,your choice to  maintain it  is not god's concern .
if memory serves you live in Arizona a place  god never intended to have lawns 
besides if you let it go it would, in time, evolve into something different and god would like that more than the artificial and out of place feature you made.
2.car and phone maintenance if god had intended you to have those things he would have designed them.  
3.IMO you maintain your body more for reasons of vanity then health.

your whole post stinks of self involvement then the so called works of god.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satan told the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now we see where your allegiance lies. You affirm Satan and call God the evil one. Perhaps your atheism is just a disguise for your real beliefs?
Click to expand...

 that should be a line in a crappy Satan worshiping film from the 50's !


----------



## daws101

Anthropic principleFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search  

In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life. [1]

The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by Barrow and Tipler (see variants) states that this is all the case because the Universe is compelled, in some sense, for conscious life to eventually emerge. English writer Douglas Adams, who wrote The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, used the metaphor of a living puddle examining its own shape, since, to those living creatures, the universe may appear to fit them perfectly (while in fact, they simply fit the universe perfectly). Critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not my logic at all!
> 
> Mr. "You Can't Prove Me Wrong"
> 
> *IT'S YOURS!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here, let me repeat what I think your response is saying: In your best 3rd grader voice...
> 
> I know you are but what am I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christ! You're such an insufferable douche.
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read a single thing I've posted, have you?
> 
> It's simply NOT POSSIBLE for you to have come to your conclusions if you had.
> 
> Your notions of my point are entirely imaginary. That is clear now. They are just as imaginary, and imaginary for the same reasons, as this designer you keep asserting.
> 
> Good luck with that.
Click to expand...


Projecting.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satan told the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now we see where your allegiance lies. You affirm Satan and call God the evil one. Perhaps your atheism is just a disguise for your real beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that should be a line in a crappy Satan worshiping film from the 50's !
Click to expand...


How do you know it wasn't?


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satan told the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now we see where your allegiance lies. You affirm Satan and call God the evil one. Perhaps your atheism is just a disguise for your real beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that should be a line in a crappy Satan worshiping film from the 50's !
Click to expand...


The little fundie is so cute when he's being melodramatic.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, let me repeat what I think your response is saying: In your best 3rd grader voice...
> 
> I know you are but what am I?
> 
> 
> 
> Christ! You're such an insufferable douche.
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read a single thing I've posted, have you?
> 
> It's simply NOT POSSIBLE for you to have come to your conclusions if you had.
> 
> Your notions of my point are entirely imaginary. That is clear now. They are just as imaginary, and imaginary for the same reasons, as this designer you keep asserting.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projecting.
Click to expand...

Delusional. ^


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ! You're such an insufferable douche.
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read a single thing I've posted, have you?
> 
> It's simply NOT POSSIBLE for you to have come to your conclusions if you had.
> 
> Your notions of my point are entirely imaginary. That is clear now. They are just as imaginary, and imaginary for the same reasons, as this designer you keep asserting.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Delusional. ^
Click to expand...


_"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."_ ^
Amos Bronson Alcott


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting.
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional. ^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."_ ^
> Amos Bronson Alcott
Click to expand...

Irony. ^


----------



## nitroz

Baron said:


> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube



......wat?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of what you describe is supernatural. those items in your list are largely understood and have no requirement for magical intervention.
> 
> Why did your gods need to design an environment that is so hostile to the design'ees you claim they created?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you rather strike it up to coincedence.
> 
> By your reasoning I should let my lawn go it will take care of itself. Maybe I should not worry about my phone it will charge itself. I should not have to maintain my body or my car for it will maintain itself.
> 
> Your reasoning lacks logic.
> 
> We didn't need science to work and develop technology it would have come about through a natural means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what the fuck! do you even understand what Coincidence is?
> From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively. An example is the birthday problem, where the probability of two individuals sharing a birthday already exceeds 50% with a group of only 23.[1]
> 
> Coincidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> or Definition of COINCIDENCE
> 1: the act or condition of coinciding : correspondence
> 2: the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection
> 
> 
> this statement is telling ..."By your reasoning I should let my lawn go it will take care of itself. Maybe I should not worry about my phone it will charge itself. I should not have to maintain my body or my car for it will maintain itself."ywc
> 1.your lawn is a 18th European century invention ,your choice to  maintain it  is not god's concern .
> if memory serves you live in Arizona a place  god never intended to have lawns
> besides if you let it go it would, in time, evolve into something different and god would like that more than the artificial and out of place feature you made.
> 2.car and phone maintenance if god had intended you to have those things he would have designed them.
> 3.IMO you maintain your body more for reasons of vanity then health.
> 
> your whole post stinks of self involvement then the so called works of god.
Click to expand...


It is a solid argument against naturalism. Naturalism left undirected would cause chaos and entropy not order and precisions seen in nature. It took order and guidence to produce precision in nature.

Maybe the better terms would have been random chance.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you rather strike it up to coincedence.
> 
> By your reasoning I should let my lawn go it will take care of itself. Maybe I should not worry about my phone it will charge itself. I should not have to maintain my body or my car for it will maintain itself.
> 
> Your reasoning lacks logic.
> 
> We didn't need science to work and develop technology it would have come about through a natural means.
> 
> 
> 
> what the fuck! do you even understand what Coincidence is?
> From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively. An example is the birthday problem, where the probability of two individuals sharing a birthday already exceeds 50% with a group of only 23.[1]
> 
> Coincidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> or Definition of COINCIDENCE
> 1: the act or condition of coinciding : correspondence
> 2: the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection
> 
> 
> this statement is telling ..."By your reasoning I should let my lawn go it will take care of itself. Maybe I should not worry about my phone it will charge itself. I should not have to maintain my body or my car for it will maintain itself."ywc
> 1.your lawn is a 18th European century invention ,your choice to  maintain it  is not god's concern .
> if memory serves you live in Arizona a place  god never intended to have lawns
> besides if you let it go it would, in time, evolve into something different and god would like that more than the artificial and out of place feature you made.
> 2.car and phone maintenance if god had intended you to have those things he would have designed them.
> 3.IMO you maintain your body more for reasons of vanity then health.
> 
> your whole post stinks of self involvement then the so called works of god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a solid argument against naturalism. Naturalism left undirected would cause chaos and entropy not order and precisions seen in nature. It took order and guidence to produce precision in nature.
> 
> Maybe the better terms would have been random chance.
Click to expand...

What nonsense. Nothing about the natural world suggests a supernatural underpinning. In spite of your insistence that your version of gods are responsible for the natural world, we have no reason to believe your gods or anyone else's gods have any involvement in nature. 

We have no reason to believe your silly claim that an undirected nature would cause chaos. The best refutation of that is represented by the natural universe which exhibits no indication of your "directing" gawds.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now we see where your allegiance lies. You affirm Satan and call God the evil one. Perhaps your atheism is just a disguise for your real beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> that should be a line in a crappy Satan worshiping film from the 50's !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know it wasn't?
Click to expand...

never said it wasn't ..you did.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you rather strike it up to coincedence.
> 
> By your reasoning I should let my lawn go it will take care of itself. Maybe I should not worry about my phone it will charge itself. I should not have to maintain my body or my car for it will maintain itself.
> 
> Your reasoning lacks logic.
> 
> We didn't need science to work and develop technology it would have come about through a natural means.
> 
> 
> 
> what the fuck! do you even understand what Coincidence is?
> From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively. An example is the birthday problem, where the probability of two individuals sharing a birthday already exceeds 50% with a group of only 23.[1]
> 
> Coincidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> or Definition of COINCIDENCE
> 1: the act or condition of coinciding : correspondence
> 2: the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection
> 
> 
> this statement is telling ..."By your reasoning I should let my lawn go it will take care of itself. Maybe I should not worry about my phone it will charge itself. I should not have to maintain my body or my car for it will maintain itself."ywc
> 1.your lawn is a 18th European century invention ,your choice to  maintain it  is not god's concern .
> if memory serves you live in Arizona a place  god never intended to have lawns
> besides if you let it go it would, in time, evolve into something different and god would like that more than the artificial and out of place feature you made.
> 2.car and phone maintenance if god had intended you to have those things he would have designed them.
> 3.IMO you maintain your body more for reasons of vanity then health.
> 
> your whole post stinks of self involvement then the so called works of god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a solid argument against naturalism. Naturalism left undirected would cause chaos and entropy not order and precisions seen in nature. It took order and guidence to produce precision in nature.
> 
> Maybe the better terms would have been random chance.
Click to expand...

we're dooooooooomed !


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what the fuck! do you even understand what Coincidence is?
> From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively. An example is the birthday problem, where the probability of two individuals sharing a birthday already exceeds 50% with a group of only 23.[1]
> 
> Coincidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> or Definition of COINCIDENCE
> 1: the act or condition of coinciding : correspondence
> 2: the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection
> 
> 
> this statement is telling ..."By your reasoning I should let my lawn go it will take care of itself. Maybe I should not worry about my phone it will charge itself. I should not have to maintain my body or my car for it will maintain itself."ywc
> 1.your lawn is a 18th European century invention ,your choice to  maintain it  is not god's concern .
> if memory serves you live in Arizona a place  god never intended to have lawns
> besides if you let it go it would, in time, evolve into something different and god would like that more than the artificial and out of place feature you made.
> 2.car and phone maintenance if god had intended you to have those things he would have designed them.
> 3.IMO you maintain your body more for reasons of vanity then health.
> 
> your whole post stinks of self involvement then the so called works of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a solid argument against naturalism. Naturalism left undirected would cause chaos and entropy not order and precisions seen in nature. It took order and guidence to produce precision in nature.
> 
> Maybe the better terms would have been random chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we're dooooooooomed !
Click to expand...


naturalism would have never allowed life because of chaos. It would have prevented what we see on this planet, Need proof ? just look at the other planets.

Don't believe in entropy you are surrounded by it. We have naturalism running things now not the Almighty, well actually satan is running the show for now as the scriptures say.

If God was running things you would see profection not chaos and entropy that we see now. With satan running things we see falling stars and a receding moon genetic disorders.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a solid argument against naturalism. Naturalism left undirected would cause chaos and entropy not order and precisions seen in nature. It took order and guidence to produce precision in nature.
> 
> Maybe the better terms would have been random chance.
> 
> 
> 
> we're dooooooooomed !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> naturalism would have never allowed life because of chaos. It would have prevented what we see on this planet, Need proof ? just look at the other planets.
> 
> Don't believe in entropy you are surrounded by it. We have naturalism running things now not the Almighty, well actually satan is running the show for now as the scriptures say.
> 
> If God was running things you would see profection not chaos and entropy that we see now. With satan running things we see falling stars and a receding moon genetic disorders.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a solid argument against naturalism. Naturalism left undirected would cause chaos and entropy not order and precisions seen in nature. It took order and guidence to produce precision in nature.
> 
> Maybe the better terms would have been random chance.
> 
> 
> 
> we're dooooooooomed !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> naturalism would have never allowed life because of chaos. It would have prevented what we see on this planet, Need proof ? just look at the other planets.
> 
> Don't believe in entropy you are surrounded by it. We have naturalism running things now not the Almighty, well actually satan is running the show for now as the scriptures say.
> 
> If God was running things you would see profection not chaos and entropy that we see now. With satan running things we see falling stars and a receding moon genetic disorders.
Click to expand...

Oh my. Failing stars and a "receding moon genetic disorders".... whatever that means. 

I suppose that we have no choice but to attribute this loveliness to the gods who are ultimately responsible for all. What a shame that the gods allow such nastiness when one would think it is in their power to snap their eternal digits, speak in a thunderous voice and make existence warm sunny days and $2.00 per gallon gasoline. 

Let's bring back Zeus and his cabal of real gods who know how to get the Job done.


----------



## LOki

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> we're dooooooooomed !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> naturalism would have never allowed life because of chaos. It would have prevented what we see on this planet, Need proof ? just look at the other planets.
> 
> Don't believe in entropy you are surrounded by it. We have naturalism running things now not the Almighty, well actually satan is running the show for now as the scriptures say.
> 
> If God was running things you would see profection not chaos and entropy that we see now. With satan running things we see falling stars and a receding moon genetic disorders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my. Failing stars and a "receding moon genetic disorders".... whatever that means.
> 
> I suppose that we have no choice but to attribute this loveliness to the gods who are ultimately responsible for all. What a shame that the gods allow such nastiness when one would think it is in their power to snap their eternal digits, speak in a thunderous voice and make existence warm sunny days and $2.00 per gallon gasoline.
> 
> Let's bring back Zeus and his cabal of real gods who know how to get the Job done.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a solid argument against naturalism. Naturalism left undirected would cause chaos and entropy not order and precisions seen in nature. It took order and guidence to produce precision in nature.
> 
> Maybe the better terms would have been random chance.
> 
> 
> 
> we're dooooooooomed !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> naturalism would have never allowed life because of chaos. It would have prevented what we see on this planet, Need proof ? just look at the other planets.
> 
> Don't believe in entropy you are surrounded by it. We have naturalism running things now not the Almighty, well actually satan is running the show for now as the scriptures say.
> 
> If God was running things you would see profection not chaos and entropy that we see now. With satan running things we see falling stars and a receding moon genetic disorders.
Click to expand...

bahahahahahahahahahaha! bullshit! 
naturalism is a pov  it does not control or infulence nature..the same goes for creationism.
again your proof is not proof but a false justification for your belife.
the whole post is subjective and not provable ...
did you go to a meetin' and get all jesused up before you wrote that nonsensical steaming pile or was it  too much wine with your meds?


----------



## LOki




----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> we're dooooooooomed !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> naturalism would have never allowed life because of chaos. It would have prevented what we see on this planet, Need proof ? just look at the other planets.
> 
> Don't believe in entropy you are surrounded by it. We have naturalism running things now not the Almighty, well actually satan is running the show for now as the scriptures say.
> 
> If God was running things you would see profection not chaos and entropy that we see now. With satan running things we see falling stars and a receding moon genetic disorders.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Not surprising your poster has a shot of nature. Why don't you put up a pic of an automobile, the space shuttle or a circuit board with the same slogan?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> naturalism would have never allowed life because of chaos. It would have prevented what we see on this planet, Need proof ? just look at the other planets.
> 
> Don't believe in entropy you are surrounded by it. We have naturalism running things now not the Almighty, well actually satan is running the show for now as the scriptures say.
> 
> If God was running things you would see profection not chaos and entropy that we see now. With satan running things we see falling stars and a receding moon genetic disorders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not surprising your poster has a shot of nature.
Click to expand...

Of course not.



UltimateReality said:


> Why don't you put up a pic of an automobile, the space shuttle or a circuit board with the same slogan?


Because automobiles, the space shuttle and circuit boards were all designed and built--according to identifiable methodologies--for the specific (also identifiable) purposes of the human beings (also identifiable) who designed and created them.

Now go ahead and make your fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance rejoinder, so that I can point out again that you offer nothing but superstition to this discussion.

Go on, I know you're just dying to do so.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprising your poster has a shot of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you put up a pic of an automobile, the space shuttle or a circuit board with the same slogan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because automobiles, the space shuttle and circuit boards were all designed and built--according to identifiable methodologies--for the specific (also identifiable) purposes of the human beings (also identifiable) who designed and created them.
> 
> Now go ahead and make your fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance rejoinder, so that I can point out again that you offer nothing but superstition to this discussion.
> 
> Go on, I know you're just dying to do so.
Click to expand...


Projecting... again... ad nauseum.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprising your poster has a shot of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you put up a pic of an automobile, the space shuttle or a circuit board with the same slogan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because automobiles, the space shuttle and circuit boards were all designed and built--according to identifiable methodologies--for the specific (also identifiable) purposes of the human beings (also identifiable) who designed and created them.
> 
> Now go ahead and make your fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance rejoinder, so that I can point out again that you offer nothing but superstition to this discussion.
> 
> Go on, I know you're just dying to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projecting... again... ad nauseum.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> we're dooooooooomed !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> naturalism would have never allowed life because of chaos. It would have prevented what we see on this planet, Need proof ? just look at the other planets.
> 
> Don't believe in entropy you are surrounded by it. We have naturalism running things now not the Almighty, well actually satan is running the show for now as the scriptures say.
> 
> If God was running things you would see profection not chaos and entropy that we see now. With satan running things we see falling stars and a receding moon genetic disorders.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


In your pun pointed at believers you kinda make your belief even harder to swallow that precision in nature happens by chance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprising your poster has a shot of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you put up a pic of an automobile, the space shuttle or a circuit board with the same slogan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because automobiles, the space shuttle and circuit boards were all designed and built--according to identifiable methodologies--for the specific (also identifiable) purposes of the human beings (also identifiable) who designed and created them.
> 
> Now go ahead and make your fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance rejoinder, so that I can point out again that you offer nothing but superstition to this discussion.
> 
> Go on, I know you're just dying to do so.
Click to expand...


Where did knowledge and intelligence originate from ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprising your poster has a shot of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you put up a pic of an automobile, the space shuttle or a circuit board with the same slogan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because automobiles, the space shuttle and circuit boards were all designed and built--according to identifiable methodologies--for the specific (also identifiable) purposes of the human beings (also identifiable) who designed and created them.
> 
> Now go ahead and make your fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance rejoinder, so that I can point out again that you offer nothing but superstition to this discussion.
> 
> Go on, I know you're just dying to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did knowledge and intelligence originate from ?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Some folks have hypotheses though.

What I am sure of, is that some fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of a supreme intelligence is no answer to the question at all.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Because automobiles, the space shuttle and circuit boards were all designed and built--according to identifiable methodologies--for the specific (also identifiable) purposes of the human beings (also identifiable) who designed and created them.
> 
> Now go ahead and make your fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance rejoinder, so that I can point out again that you offer nothing but superstition to this discussion.
> 
> Go on, I know you're just dying to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did knowledge and intelligence originate from ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. Some folks have hypotheses though.
> 
> What I am sure of, is that some fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of a supreme intelligence is no answer to the question at all.
Click to expand...


That would be the response you offered for the question.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> naturalism would have never allowed life because of chaos. It would have prevented what we see on this planet, Need proof ? just look at the other planets.
> 
> Don't believe in entropy you are surrounded by it. We have naturalism running things now not the Almighty, well actually satan is running the show for now as the scriptures say.
> 
> If God was running things you would see profection not chaos and entropy that we see now. With satan running things we see falling stars and a receding moon genetic disorders
> 
> In your pun pointed at believers you kinda make your belief even harder to swallow that precision in nature happens by chance.



Mindlessly repeating the "precision in nature" slogan does nothing to support the case of any precision. As we know, nature is not guided and displays no precision at all. Those of us not pressing your particular religious agenda can understand that nature can actually quite hostile to life. Repeating slogans that are nothing more than superstitious appeals to your gods is pointless, especially in view of your inability to offer even the most basic evidence for your gods this "precision" you rattle on about.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did knowledge and intelligence originate from ?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Some folks have hypotheses though.
> 
> What I am sure of, is that some fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of a supreme intelligence is no answer to the question at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be the response you offered for the question.
Click to expand...

Despite the obvious opportunity you had to demonstrate the validity of this assertion of yours, you failed to do so. Why is that, Pumpkin?

Since you never answer such questions anyway, I'll provide the obvious one: The assertion is in fact, not valid.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprising your poster has a shot of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you put up a pic of an automobile, the space shuttle or a circuit board with the same slogan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because automobiles, the space shuttle and circuit boards were all designed and built--according to identifiable methodologies--for the specific (also identifiable) purposes of the human beings (also identifiable) who designed and created them.
> 
> Now go ahead and make your fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance rejoinder, so that I can point out again that you offer nothing but superstition to this discussion.
> 
> Go on, I know you're just dying to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did knowledge and intelligence originate from ?
Click to expand...


Knowledge is the collection, processing, categorizing, testing and description of processes we come to understand. Our sentience has allowed us to explore. Intelligence has derived from the process of evolution (which, of course fundie creationists reject entirely.

Your inability to make learned decisions between religious tales and fables and the documented science is your own failing.

Where does the myth of a gene for things like intelligence come from? | Dorothy Bishop | Science | guardian.co.uk


Where did your gods originate from? While the evidence is clear that your gods are simply reinventions of earlier tales of gods, demons and other ancient superstitions, why not behave like a grown-up and provide a chain of evidence and a clearly delineated, logical progression of arguments that defines your gods as true and extant as opposed to the Greek gods.


----------



## LOki

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> naturalism would have never allowed life because of chaos. It would have prevented what we see on this planet, Need proof ? just look at the other planets.
> 
> Don't believe in entropy you are surrounded by it. We have naturalism running things now not the Almighty, well actually satan is running the show for now as the scriptures say.
> 
> If God was running things you would see profection not chaos and entropy that we see now. With satan running things we see falling stars and a receding moon genetic disorders
> 
> In your pun pointed at believers you kinda make your belief even harder to swallow that precision in nature happens by chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindlessly repeating the "precision in nature" slogan does nothing to support the case of any precision. As we know, nature is not guided and displays no precision at all. Those of us not pressing your particular religious agenda can understand that nature can actually quite hostile to life. Repeating slogans that are nothing more than superstitious appeals to your gods is pointless, especially in view of your inability to offer even the most basic evidence for your gods this "precision" you rattle on about.
Click to expand...

So true.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Mindlessly repeating the "precision in nature" slogan does nothing to support the case of any precision. As we know, nature is not guided and displays no precision at all.



This is up there with your stupid statements. Under your religion of naturalism, everything comes from randomness and matter. That includes humans. It is logical to say if humans are natural and the amazing technology we create with incredibly precision comes from us, then isn't our technology natural as well? If not, then where did this precision come from? Your gods? If under materialism and naturalism, everything under the sun is natural, how can you say nature displays no precision? If we truly originate from nature? Doh!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Some folks have hypotheses though.
> 
> What I am sure of, is that some fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of a supreme intelligence is no answer to the question at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the response you offered for the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity you had to demonstrate the validity of this assertion of yours, you failed to do so. Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> Since you never answer such questions anyway, I'll provide the obvious one: The assertion is in fact, not valid.
Click to expand...


Why bother? You already gave your answer, cupcake.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the response you offered for the question.
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity you had to demonstrate the validity of this assertion of yours, you failed to do so. Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> Since you never answer such questions anyway, I'll provide the obvious one: The assertion is in fact, not valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother? You already gave your answer, cupcake.
Click to expand...

I did, didn't I? And it wasn't some fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of a supreme intelligence.

So, tell us, what's your answer?

If it's the fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of a supreme intelligence you've posted before, don't bother.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindlessly repeating the "precision in nature" slogan does nothing to support the case of any precision. As we know, nature is not guided and displays no precision at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is up there with your stupid statements. Under your religion of naturalism, everything comes from randomness and matter. That includes humans. It is logical to say if humans are natural and the amazing technology we create with incredibly precision comes from us, then isn't our technology natural as well? If not, then where did this precision come from? Your gods? If under materialism and naturalism, everything under the sun is natural, how can you say nature displays no precision? If we truly originate from nature? Doh!!!
Click to expand...


Oh you poor, angry fundie creationist. Naturalism is not a religion. You may be told differently at Harun Yahya. I also find it comical to be lectured about logic from someone who trembles in fear before s host of ancient superstitions.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity you had to demonstrate the validity of this assertion of yours, you failed to do so. Why is that, Pumpkin?
> 
> Since you never answer such questions anyway, I'll provide the obvious one: The assertion is in fact, not valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother? You already gave your answer, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did, didn't I? And it wasn't some fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of a supreme intelligence.
> 
> So, tell us, what's your answer?
> 
> If it's the fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of a supreme intelligence you've posted before, don't bother.
Click to expand...


That is your opinion, not fact. All these posts prove is that your mind is set and you are not open to anything other than your worldview. So why don't you do us all a favor and beat it? Otherwise, some may question your presence here as hate motivated speech, just one thought away from a hate crime.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindlessly repeating the "precision in nature" slogan does nothing to support the case of any precision. As we know, nature is not guided and displays no precision at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is up there with your stupid statements. Under your religion of naturalism, everything comes from randomness and matter. That includes humans. It is logical to say if humans are natural and the amazing technology we create with incredibly precision comes from us, then isn't our technology natural as well? If not, then where did this precision come from? Your gods? If under materialism and naturalism, everything under the sun is natural, how can you say nature displays no precision? If we truly originate from nature? Doh!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you poor, angry fundie creationist. Naturalism is not a religion. You may be told differently at Harun Yahya. I also find it comical to be lectured about logic from someone who trembles in fear before s host of ancient superstitions.
Click to expand...


Oh you poor mental midget. As usual you didn't address the argument!!! In addition to being incredibly evil, you're response, or lack thereof, reveals some deep, psychological disorders. That would explain you being on disability and using taxpayer dollars to sit home eating Oreo's, watching Oprah, and attacking folks of all religions via your computer. It's pretty obvious you don't have a job. 

Please back your statement that nature doesn't produce extreme precision-precision that can launch a spacecraft perfectly timed to reach the moon or mars. Are you saying this precision in items homo sapien creates come from something other than nature? Instead of just making attacks, why not attempt a thoughtful response of your own that you can't cut and paste from an atheist website?

The real result of your response if you are truthful will reveal that even you, in all your glorious ignorance, can recognize design when you see it. Because after all, we know that spaceships, music, consciousness, and computers just come from natural selection acting on random mutations.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother? You already gave your answer, cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> I did, didn't I? And it wasn't some fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of a supreme intelligence.
> 
> So, tell us, what's your answer?
> 
> If it's the fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of a supreme intelligence you've posted before, don't bother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your opinion, not fact.
Click to expand...

It's fact. Present your god/creator/designer/supreme-intelligence and I will prove it to you.



UltimateReality said:


> All these posts prove is that your mind is set and you are not open to anything other than your worldview.


*That's *just your opinion.



UltimateReality said:


> So why don't you do us all a favor and beat it?


No. Not when you're cornered; not when you're in the position to either put up or shut up.



UltimateReality said:


> Otherwise, some may question your presence here as hate motivated speech, just one thought away from a hate crime.


It's no crime, nor hate hate speech, to expose the anti-reason, anti-human being, brain-washing, blood-thirsty, enslaving nihilists who peddle their unsubstantiated, superstitious, opinions as facts of objective reality.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did, didn't I? And it wasn't some fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of a supreme intelligence.
> 
> So, tell us, what's your answer?
> 
> If it's the fatuously anthropomorphic, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of a supreme intelligence you've posted before, don't bother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is your opinion, not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's fact. Present your god/creator/designer/supreme-intelligence and I will prove it to you.
> 
> *That's *just your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you do us all a favor and beat it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Not when you're cornered; not when you're in the position to either put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise, some may question your presence here as hate motivated speech, just one thought away from a hate crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's no crime, nor hate hate speech, to expose the anti-reason, anti-human being, brain-washing, blood-thirsty, enslaving nihilists who peddle their unsubstantiated, superstitious, opinions as facts of objective reality.
Click to expand...


Like I said... discriminatory hate speech.


----------



## hipeter924

I am apathetic about creationism being taught in schools, so long as they teach evolution alongside it. Most of the children will realize mud people made in seven days is far worse an explanation; than non-life turning into life and then through the process of hundreds of millions of years leading to mankind.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is up there with your stupid statements. Under your religion of naturalism, everything comes from randomness and matter. That includes humans. It is logical to say if humans are natural and the amazing technology we create with incredibly precision comes from us, then isn't our technology natural as well? If not, then where did this precision come from? Your gods? If under materialism and naturalism, everything under the sun is natural, how can you say nature displays no precision? If we truly originate from nature? Doh!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor, angry fundie creationist. Naturalism is not a religion. You may be told differently at Harun Yahya. I also find it comical to be lectured about logic from someone who trembles in fear before s host of ancient superstitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you poor mental midget. As usual you didn't address the argument!!! In addition to being incredibly evil, you're response, or lack thereof, reveals some deep, psychological disorders. That would explain you being on disability and using taxpayer dollars to sit home eating Oreo's, watching Oprah, and attacking folks of all religions via your computer. It's pretty obvious you don't have a job.
> 
> Please back your statement that nature doesn't produce extreme precision-precision that can launch a spacecraft perfectly timed to reach the moon or mars. Are you saying this precision in items homo sapien creates come from something other than nature? Instead of just making attacks, why not attempt a thoughtful response of your own that you can't cut and paste from an atheist website?
> 
> The real result of your response if you are truthful will reveal that even you, in all your glorious ignorance, can recognize design when you see it. Because after all, we know that spaceships, music, consciousness, and computers just come from natural selection acting on random mutations.
Click to expand...


Oh you poor angry fundie. Here you are again flailing about in desperate attempts to thrash people with your gods and the gods are not cooperating. Like the other fundie, you have taken up the mantra of _precision in nature_ yet you are hopelessly inadequate in terms of demonstrating these gods you insist are directing this precision. "Precision in nature" is something you no doubt found on Harun Yahya but why do you think anyone else would take that nonsense seriously?

I hadn't realized that it was actually nature that launches spacecraft with such precision. What I do realize is that you and the other bible beater are more and more detached from reality than you realize. The amount of time you spend cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is definately a waste of everyone's time. 

Natural order certainly is not, and does not provide evidence of your claimed supernatural, supermagical "designers". The existense of patterns we see in nature does not indicate a personality or an intent. That is something _you_ are assigning to it. That would be like saying a tornado has the _intent_ to hit one house and by pass another. I suppose your designer gods are then directing this "precision". Chaos patterns (fractals) are considered self created. 

Suggesting chaos or god has any sort of _intent_ is asserted by you, so now once again the onus for proving such intent rests solely with you. I do not assert nor embrace the idea that patterns (out of chaos or not) is in anyway intelligently directed. Chaos is not a personalized spirit or entity with intelligence. It is a force of nature with no specific plan. I understand you are slack-jawed and dumbfounded with disbelief that more complexity can arise out of simpler constructs, and I know you ascribe that dynamic to the interference of one or more gods. But there you stop, and that makes no sense. 

Chemistry. Simpler atoms combine to create more complex substances. Biology. An aggregate of simpler cells working in conjunction with one another to create a more complicated organism.

By what authority do you exempt the gods from the very discipline you insist must be in effect for all existence? It's an old counter argument, but its one the theist cannot solve. You cannot demand a standard for all of existence, and then exempt something that is in existence of the very standard you insist must be applied to all things. You still have offered nothing to indicate how your particular designer gods were designed by the required hierarchy of super-super magical gods who in turn were designed by super-super-super.....

I'll answer for you: _The gods didi it_ 

So it then must be that all the gods that have been claimed to exist prior to your gods were designed by... how many other gods?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Because after all, we know that spaceships, music, consciousness, and computers just come from natural selection acting on random mutations.



Of course. It's magic. If the gods came from nothing, how is it any less absurd that spaceships, music, consciousness, and computers were a product of random mutations and natural selection?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your opinion, not fact.
> 
> 
> 
> It's fact. Present your god/creator/designer/supreme-intelligence and I will prove it to you.
> 
> *That's *just your opinion.
> 
> No. Not when you're cornered; not when you're in the position to either put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise, some may question your presence here as hate motivated speech, just one thought away from a hate crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's no crime, nor hate hate speech, to expose the anti-reason, anti-human being, brain-washing, blood-thirsty, enslaving nihilists who peddle their unsubstantiated, superstitious, opinions as facts of objective reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said... discriminatory hate speech.
Click to expand...

Like I said... neither crime, nor hate speech.


----------



## Hollie

hipeter924 said:


> I am apathetic about creationism being taught in schools, so long as they teach evolution alongside it. Most of the children will realize mud people made in seven days is far worse an explanation; than non-life turning into life and then through the process of hundreds of millions of years leading to mankind.



I'm really much more emphatic that religion -undo the guise of creationism -has no place in public schools. What is really dangerous is the attitudes of the two primary science loathing fundie creationists in this thread who would want creationism (Christian creationism) taught as an alternative to real science. I don't want kids being dumbed-down and taught ancient superstitions in place of science because we live in a world of technology and we need critical thinkers in order to survive in this world. The USA is painfully unscientific enough as it is, and churning out generation after generation of dreamy-eyed creationist knuckleheads condemns us to a horrible fate of an also-ran. This is the kind of "Father Knows Best" nation we were in during the 1950's when suddenly Russia started sailing Sputniks over our heads and believe meI know from my grand-dad that fear then was riveting. Now, the goofy  creationists want us to go back into that womb of ignorance? I think not. This is a technological world and we better be up on it, or we'll be the peasants running around with decaying weapons, not knowing how to fix or use them, and running around stone icons and trampling one another to death to worship our rocks. I want the USA strong in science because I want the USA strong. So keep religion where it belongs-- in the Dark Ages and let our kids learn science based upon knowledge and rational thought processes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am apathetic about creationism being taught in schools, so long as they teach evolution alongside it. Most of the children will realize mud people made in seven days is far worse an explanation; than non-life turning into life and then through the process of hundreds of millions of years leading to mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really much more emphatic that religion -undo the guise of creationism -has no place in public schools. What is really dangerous is the attitudes of the two primary science loathing fundie creationists in this thread who would want creationism (Christian creationism) taught as an alternative to real science. I don't want kids being dumbed-down and taught ancient superstitions in place of science because we live in a world of technology and we need critical thinkers in order to survive in this world. The USA is painfully unscientific enough as it is, and churning out generation after generation of dreamy-eyed creationist knuckleheads condemns us to a horrible fate of an also-ran. This is the kind of "Father Knows Best" nation we were in during the 1950's when suddenly Russia started sailing Sputniks over our heads and believe meI know from my grand-dad that fear then was riveting. Now, the goofy  creationists want us to go back into that womb of ignorance? I think not. This is a technological world and we better be up on it, or we'll be the peasants running around with decaying weapons, not knowing how to fix or use them, and running around stone icons and trampling one another to death to worship our rocks. I want the USA strong in science because I want the USA strong. So keep religion where it belongs-- in the Dark Ages and let our kids learn science based upon knowledge and rational thought processes.
Click to expand...


Many theories being taught in school have no business being taught in school's or atleast in science classes because they were not built by the scientific method. You know,the old test ,study,and observe method.

Maybe creationism and evolution should be taught in philosophy classes not science classes because you can't prove macroevolution and I can't prove God exists. I do believe ID however is more scientific then both.


----------



## Youwerecreated

hipeter924 said:


> I am apathetic about creationism being taught in schools, so long as they teach evolution alongside it. Most of the children will realize mud people made in seven days is far worse an explanation; than non-life turning into life and then through the process of hundreds of millions of years leading to mankind.



Neither theory should be taught as science both lack solid proof. Conjecture does not validate a theory.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am apathetic about creationism being taught in schools, so long as they teach evolution alongside it. Most of the children will realize mud people made in seven days is far worse an explanation; than non-life turning into life and then through the process of hundreds of millions of years leading to mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really much more emphatic that religion -undo the guise of creationism -has no place in public schools. What is really dangerous is the attitudes of the two primary science loathing fundie creationists in this thread who would want creationism (Christian creationism) taught as an alternative to real science. I don't want kids being dumbed-down and taught ancient superstitions in place of science because we live in a world of technology and we need critical thinkers in order to survive in this world. The USA is painfully unscientific enough as it is, and churning out generation after generation of dreamy-eyed creationist knuckleheads condemns us to a horrible fate of an also-ran. This is the kind of "Father Knows Best" nation we were in during the 1950's when suddenly Russia started sailing Sputniks over our heads and believe meI know from my grand-dad that fear then was riveting. Now, the goofy  creationists want us to go back into that womb of ignorance? I think not. This is a technological world and we better be up on it, or we'll be the peasants running around with decaying weapons, not knowing how to fix or use them, and running around stone icons and trampling one another to death to worship our rocks. I want the USA strong in science because I want the USA strong. So keep religion where it belongs-- in the Dark Ages and let our kids learn science based upon knowledge and rational thought processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many theories being taught in school have no business being taught in school's or atleast in science classes because they were not built by the scientific method. You know,the old test ,study,and observe method.
> 
> Maybe creationism and evolution should be taught in philosophy classes not science classes because you can't prove macroevolution and I can't prove God exists. I do believe ID however is more scientific then both.
Click to expand...

Your anti- science, pro-superstition worldview is precisely what should not be inflicted on public schools. 

Fortunately, the court system has a history of keeping your superstitious nonsense out of the school system.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am apathetic about creationism being taught in schools, so long as they teach evolution alongside it. Most of the children will realize mud people made in seven days is far worse an explanation; than non-life turning into life and then through the process of hundreds of millions of years leading to mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither theory should be taught as science both lack solid proof. Conjecture does not validate a theory.
Click to expand...


Clueless.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really much more emphatic that religion -undo the guise of creationism -has no place in public schools. What is really dangerous is the attitudes of the two primary science loathing fundie creationists in this thread who would want creationism (Christian creationism) taught as an alternative to real science. I don't want kids being dumbed-down and taught ancient superstitions in place of science because we live in a world of technology and we need critical thinkers in order to survive in this world. The USA is painfully unscientific enough as it is, and churning out generation after generation of dreamy-eyed creationist knuckleheads condemns us to a horrible fate of an also-ran. This is the kind of "Father Knows Best" nation we were in during the 1950's when suddenly Russia started sailing Sputniks over our heads and believe meI know from my grand-dad that fear then was riveting. Now, the goofy  creationists want us to go back into that womb of ignorance? I think not. This is a technological world and we better be up on it, or we'll be the peasants running around with decaying weapons, not knowing how to fix or use them, and running around stone icons and trampling one another to death to worship our rocks. I want the USA strong in science because I want the USA strong. So keep religion where it belongs-- in the Dark Ages and let our kids learn science based upon knowledge and rational thought processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many theories being taught in school have no business being taught in school's or atleast in science classes because they were not built by the scientific method. You know,the old test ,study,and observe method.
> 
> Maybe creationism and evolution should be taught in philosophy classes not science classes because you can't prove macroevolution and I can't prove God exists. I do believe ID however is more scientific then both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your anti- science, pro-superstition worldview is precisely what should not be inflicted on public schools.
> 
> Fortunately, the court system has a history of keeping your superstitious nonsense out of the school system.
Click to expand...


Blah Blah Blah.

Face reality you can't prove your philosophical views nor can I you have demonstrated that as a fact.

If you are not intelligent enough to admit that you are just a fool.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am apathetic about creationism being taught in schools, so long as they teach evolution alongside it. Most of the children will realize mud people made in seven days is far worse an explanation; than non-life turning into life and then through the process of hundreds of millions of years leading to mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither theory should be taught as science both lack solid proof. Conjecture does not validate a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clueless.
Click to expand...


You poor dear,yes you are.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many theories being taught in school have no business being taught in school's or atleast in science classes because they were not built by the scientific method. You know,the old test ,study,and observe method.
> 
> Maybe creationism and evolution should be taught in philosophy classes not science classes because you can't prove macroevolution and I can't prove God exists. I do believe ID however is more scientific then both.
> 
> 
> 
> Your anti- science, pro-superstition worldview is precisely what should not be inflicted on public schools.
> 
> Fortunately, the court system has a history of keeping your superstitious nonsense out of the school system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah Blah Blah.
> 
> Face reality you can't prove your philosophical views nor can I you have demonstrated that as a fact.
> 
> If you are not intelligent enough to admit that you are just a fool.
Click to expand...

It's a shame that you have no issue with lies and deceit when it serves your religious agenda. 

The methods and discipline of science have been explained to you. You choose to reject the science facts of the natural world. Instead, you continue to lie when it is in furtherance of your religious superstitions.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither theory should be taught as science both lack solid proof. Conjecture does not validate a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You poor dear,yes you are.
Click to expand...


Actually, no. It's just a fact that the court system has consistently sided with the science community to reject Christian creationism as religion. Religion cannot meet the standards of the scientific method and is dismissed as lacking and unreliable in terms if evaluating evidence.

Obviously, you take that as an affront to your religious superstitions. Such is life. 

Consider abandoning your childish superstitions or find a viable argument to present. So far, you have offered only bible thumping.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor, angry fundie creationist. Naturalism is not a religion. You may be told differently at Harun Yahya. I also find it comical to be lectured about logic from someone who trembles in fear before s host of ancient superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor mental midget. As usual you didn't address the argument!!! In addition to being incredibly evil, you're response, or lack thereof, reveals some deep, psychological disorders. That would explain you being on disability and using taxpayer dollars to sit home eating Oreo's, watching Oprah, and attacking folks of all religions via your computer. It's pretty obvious you don't have a job.
> 
> Please back your statement that nature doesn't produce extreme precision-precision that can launch a spacecraft perfectly timed to reach the moon or mars. Are you saying this precision in items homo sapien creates come from something other than nature? Instead of just making attacks, why not attempt a thoughtful response of your own that you can't cut and paste from an atheist website?
> 
> The real result of your response if you are truthful will reveal that even you, in all your glorious ignorance, can recognize design when you see it. Because after all, we know that spaceships, music, consciousness, and computers just come from natural selection acting on random mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you poor angry fundie. Here you are again flailing about in desperate attempts to thrash people with your gods and the gods are not cooperating. Like the other fundie, you have taken up the mantra of _precision in nature_ yet you are hopelessly inadequate in terms of demonstrating these gods you insist are directing this precision. "Precision in nature" is something you no doubt found on Harun Yahya but why do you think anyone else would take that nonsense seriously?
> 
> I hadn't realized that it was actually nature that launches spacecraft with such precision. What I do realize is that you and the other bible beater are more and more detached from reality than you realize. The amount of time you spend cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is definately a waste of everyone's time.
> 
> Natural order certainly is not, and does not provide evidence of your claimed supernatural, supermagical "designers". The existense of patterns we see in nature does not indicate a personality or an intent. That is something _you_ are assigning to it. That would be like saying a tornado has the _intent_ to hit one house and by pass another. I suppose your designer gods are then directing this "precision". Chaos patterns (fractals) are considered self created.
> 
> Suggesting chaos or god has any sort of _intent_ is asserted by you, so now once again the onus for proving such intent rests solely with you. I do not assert nor embrace the idea that patterns (out of chaos or not) is in anyway intelligently directed. Chaos is not a personalized spirit or entity with intelligence. It is a force of nature with no specific plan. I understand you are slack-jawed and dumbfounded with disbelief that more complexity can arise out of simpler constructs, and I know you ascribe that dynamic to the interference of one or more gods. But there you stop, and that makes no sense.
> 
> Chemistry. Simpler atoms combine to create more complex substances. Biology. An aggregate of simpler cells working in conjunction with one another to create a more complicated organism.
> 
> By what authority do you exempt the gods from the very discipline you insist must be in effect for all existence? It's an old counter argument, but its one the theist cannot solve. You cannot demand a standard for all of existence, and then exempt something that is in existence of the very standard you insist must be applied to all things. You still have offered nothing to indicate how your particular designer gods were designed by the required hierarchy of super-super magical gods who in turn were designed by super-super-super.....
> 
> I'll answer for you: _The gods didi it_
> 
> So it then must be that all the gods that have been claimed to exist prior to your gods were designed by... how many other gods?
Click to expand...


Same tired argument refuted numerous times. You need to get some new material from Wil Provines website you poor vicious Christian hater.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor mental midget. As usual you didn't address the argument!!! In addition to being incredibly evil, you're response, or lack thereof, reveals some deep, psychological disorders. That would explain you being on disability and using taxpayer dollars to sit home eating Oreo's, watching Oprah, and attacking folks of all religions via your computer. It's pretty obvious you don't have a job.
> 
> Please back your statement that nature doesn't produce extreme precision-precision that can launch a spacecraft perfectly timed to reach the moon or mars. Are you saying this precision in items homo sapien creates come from something other than nature? Instead of just making attacks, why not attempt a thoughtful response of your own that you can't cut and paste from an atheist website?
> 
> The real result of your response if you are truthful will reveal that even you, in all your glorious ignorance, can recognize design when you see it. Because after all, we know that spaceships, music, consciousness, and computers just come from natural selection acting on random mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor angry fundie. Here you are again flailing about in desperate attempts to thrash people with your gods and the gods are not cooperating. Like the other fundie, you have taken up the mantra of _precision in nature_ yet you are hopelessly inadequate in terms of demonstrating these gods you insist are directing this precision. "Precision in nature" is something you no doubt found on Harun Yahya but why do you think anyone else would take that nonsense seriously?
> 
> I hadn't realized that it was actually nature that launches spacecraft with such precision. What I do realize is that you and the other bible beater are more and more detached from reality than you realize. The amount of time you spend cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is definately a waste of everyone's time.
> 
> Natural order certainly is not, and does not provide evidence of your claimed supernatural, supermagical "designers". The existense of patterns we see in nature does not indicate a personality or an intent. That is something _you_ are assigning to it. That would be like saying a tornado has the _intent_ to hit one house and by pass another. I suppose your designer gods are then directing this "precision". Chaos patterns (fractals) are considered self created.
> 
> Suggesting chaos or god has any sort of _intent_ is asserted by you, so now once again the onus for proving such intent rests solely with you. I do not assert nor embrace the idea that patterns (out of chaos or not) is in anyway intelligently directed. Chaos is not a personalized spirit or entity with intelligence. It is a force of nature with no specific plan. I understand you are slack-jawed and dumbfounded with disbelief that more complexity can arise out of simpler constructs, and I know you ascribe that dynamic to the interference of one or more gods. But there you stop, and that makes no sense.
> 
> Chemistry. Simpler atoms combine to create more complex substances. Biology. An aggregate of simpler cells working in conjunction with one another to create a more complicated organism.
> 
> By what authority do you exempt the gods from the very discipline you insist must be in effect for all existence? It's an old counter argument, but its one the theist cannot solve. You cannot demand a standard for all of existence, and then exempt something that is in existence of the very standard you insist must be applied to all things. You still have offered nothing to indicate how your particular designer gods were designed by the required hierarchy of super-super magical gods who in turn were designed by super-super-super.....
> 
> I'll answer for you: _The gods didi it_
> 
> So it then must be that all the gods that have been claimed to exist prior to your gods were designed by... how many other gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same tired argument refuted numerous times. You need to get some new material from Wil Provines website you poor vicious Christian hater.
Click to expand...


Back to stuttering and mumbling, thumpy.

You're useless when you can't copy and paste from Harun Yahya.


----------



## UltimateReality

J





Hollie said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am apathetic about creationism being taught in schools, so long as they teach evolution alongside it. Most of the children will realize mud people made in seven days is far worse an explanation; than non-life turning into life and then through the process of hundreds of millions of years leading to mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really much more emphatic that religion -undo the guise of creationism -has no place in public schools. What is really dangerous is the attitudes of the two primary science loathing fundie creationists in this thread who would want creationism (Christian creationism) taught as an alternative to real science. I don't want kids being dumbed-down and taught ancient superstitions in place of science because we live in a world of technology and we need critical thinkers in order to survive in this world. The USA is painfully unscientific enough as it is, and churning out generation after generation of dreamy-eyed creationist knuckleheads condemns us to a horrible fate of an also-ran. This is the kind of "Father Knows Best" nation we were in during the 1950's when suddenly Russia started sailing Sputniks over our heads and believe meI know from my grand-dad that fear then was riveting. Now, the goofy  creationists want us to go back into that womb of ignorance? I think not. This is a technological world and we better be up on it, or we'll be the peasants running around with decaying weapons, not knowing how to fix or use them, and running around stone icons and trampling one another to death to worship our rocks. I want the USA strong in science because I want the USA strong. So keep religion where it belongs-- in the Dark Ages and let our kids learn science based upon knowledge and rational thought processes.
Click to expand...


US Darwinists (US ranked 14th) wail over South Korea (ranked 1st), supposedly &#8220;not able to compete&#8221; | Uncommon Descent


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor angry fundie. Here you are again flailing about in desperate attempts to thrash people with your gods and the gods are not cooperating. Like the other fundie, you have taken up the mantra of _precision in nature_ yet you are hopelessly inadequate in terms of demonstrating these gods you insist are directing this precision. "Precision in nature" is something you no doubt found on Harun Yahya but why do you think anyone else would take that nonsense seriously?
> 
> I hadn't realized that it was actually nature that launches spacecraft with such precision. What I do realize is that you and the other bible beater are more and more detached from reality than you realize. The amount of time you spend cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is definately a waste of everyone's time.
> 
> Natural order certainly is not, and does not provide evidence of your claimed supernatural, supermagical "designers". The existense of patterns we see in nature does not indicate a personality or an intent. That is something _you_ are assigning to it. That would be like saying a tornado has the _intent_ to hit one house and by pass another. I suppose your designer gods are then directing this "precision". Chaos patterns (fractals) are considered self created.
> 
> Suggesting chaos or god has any sort of _intent_ is asserted by you, so now once again the onus for proving such intent rests solely with you. I do not assert nor embrace the idea that patterns (out of chaos or not) is in anyway intelligently directed. Chaos is not a personalized spirit or entity with intelligence. It is a force of nature with no specific plan. I understand you are slack-jawed and dumbfounded with disbelief that more complexity can arise out of simpler constructs, and I know you ascribe that dynamic to the interference of one or more gods. But there you stop, and that makes no sense.
> 
> Chemistry. Simpler atoms combine to create more complex substances. Biology. An aggregate of simpler cells working in conjunction with one another to create a more complicated organism.
> 
> By what authority do you exempt the gods from the very discipline you insist must be in effect for all existence? It's an old counter argument, but its one the theist cannot solve. You cannot demand a standard for all of existence, and then exempt something that is in existence of the very standard you insist must be applied to all things. You still have offered nothing to indicate how your particular designer gods were designed by the required hierarchy of super-super magical gods who in turn were designed by super-super-super.....
> 
> I'll answer for you: _The gods didi it_
> 
> So it then must be that all the gods that have been claimed to exist prior to your gods were designed by... how many other gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same tired argument refuted numerous times. You need to get some new material from Wil Provines website you poor vicious Christian hater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to stuttering and mumbling, thumpy.
> 
> You're useless when you can't copy and paste from Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...


A logical thought does not exist in you unless you can cut and paste from Wil Provine.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same tired argument refuted numerous times. You need to get some new material from Wil Provines website you poor vicious Christian hater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to stuttering and mumbling, thumpy.
> 
> You're useless when you can't copy and paste from Harun Yahya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A logical thought does not exist in you unless you can cut and paste from Wil Provine.
Click to expand...


And you're clueless as usual. Just admit it. You're stuttering and mumbling because you're hopelessly inept at refuting my comments. You can't find anything at Harun Yahya to cut and paste. 

You poor, thumpy bible beater.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> J
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am apathetic about creationism being taught in schools, so long as they teach evolution alongside it. Most of the children will realize mud people made in seven days is far worse an explanation; than non-life turning into life and then through the process of hundreds of millions of years leading to mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really much more emphatic that religion -undo the guise of creationism -has no place in public schools. What is really dangerous is the attitudes of the two primary science loathing fundie creationists in this thread who would want creationism (Christian creationism) taught as an alternative to real science. I don't want kids being dumbed-down and taught ancient superstitions in place of science because we live in a world of technology and we need critical thinkers in order to survive in this world. The USA is painfully unscientific enough as it is, and churning out generation after generation of dreamy-eyed creationist knuckleheads condemns us to a horrible fate of an also-ran. This is the kind of "Father Knows Best" nation we were in during the 1950's when suddenly Russia started sailing Sputniks over our heads and believe meI know from my grand-dad that fear then was riveting. Now, the goofy  creationists want us to go back into that womb of ignorance? I think not. This is a technological world and we better be up on it, or we'll be the peasants running around with decaying weapons, not knowing how to fix or use them, and running around stone icons and trampling one another to death to worship our rocks. I want the USA strong in science because I want the USA strong. So keep religion where it belongs-- in the Dark Ages and let our kids learn science based upon knowledge and rational thought processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> US Darwinists (US ranked 14th) wail over South Korea (ranked 1st), supposedly not able to compete | Uncommon Descent
Click to expand...


Not surprisingly, you have only one option - cut and paste from creationist websites. 

You poor thumpy bible beater.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> J
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really much more emphatic that religion -undo the guise of creationism -has no place in public schools. What is really dangerous is the attitudes of the two primary science loathing fundie creationists in this thread who would want creationism (Christian creationism) taught as an alternative to real science. I don't want kids being dumbed-down and taught ancient superstitions in place of science because we live in a world of technology and we need critical thinkers in order to survive in this world. The USA is painfully unscientific enough as it is, and churning out generation after generation of dreamy-eyed creationist knuckleheads condemns us to a horrible fate of an also-ran. This is the kind of "Father Knows Best" nation we were in during the 1950's when suddenly Russia started sailing Sputniks over our heads and believe meI know from my grand-dad that fear then was riveting. Now, the goofy  creationists want us to go back into that womb of ignorance? I think not. This is a technological world and we better be up on it, or we'll be the peasants running around with decaying weapons, not knowing how to fix or use them, and running around stone icons and trampling one another to death to worship our rocks. I want the USA strong in science because I want the USA strong. So keep religion where it belongs-- in the Dark Ages and let our kids learn science based upon knowledge and rational thought processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US Darwinists (US ranked 14th) wail over South Korea (ranked 1st), supposedly not able to compete | Uncommon Descent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly, you have only one option - cut and paste from creationist websites.
> 
> You poor thumpy bible beater.
Click to expand...


A cut and paste which totally proved you wrong.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> J
> 
> US Darwinists (US ranked 14th) wail over South Korea (ranked 1st), supposedly &#8220;not able to compete&#8221; | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly, you have only one option - cut and paste from creationist websites.
> 
> You poor thumpy bible beater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A cut and paste which totally proved you wrong.
Click to expand...

Why do you bother wasting your time by posting such cut and paste nonsense.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...rchaeopteryx-win-over-creationism-south-korea

It seems that in actuality, the South Korean government in conjunction with forward looking scientists have blunted the efforts of fundie Christians to dumb-down the school system. 

As we see, the ID movement is simply nothing more than promotion of fundie Christian polemics.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Same tired argument refuted numerous times.



Link?


Prediction:


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your anti- science, pro-superstition worldview is precisely what should not be inflicted on public schools.
> 
> Fortunately, the court system has a history of keeping your superstitious nonsense out of the school system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah Blah Blah.
> 
> Face reality you can't prove your philosophical views nor can I you have demonstrated that as a fact.
> 
> If you are not intelligent enough to admit that you are just a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a shame that you have no issue with lies and deceit when it serves your religious agenda.
> 
> The methods and discipline of science have been explained to you. You choose to reject the science facts of the natural world. Instead, you continue to lie when it is in furtherance of your religious superstitions.
Click to expand...


Wrong I don't reject real science and I gave you those priciples of real science. Lie about what ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same tired argument refuted numerous times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> Prediction:
Click to expand...


Oh A picture of loki.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah Blah Blah.
> 
> Face reality you can't prove your philosophical views nor can I you have demonstrated that as a fact.
> 
> If you are not intelligent enough to admit that you are just a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that you have no issue with lies and deceit when it serves your religious agenda.
> 
> The methods and discipline of science have been explained to you. You choose to reject the science facts of the natural world. Instead, you continue to lie when it is in furtherance of your religious superstitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong I don't reject real science and I gave you those priciples of real science. Lie about what ?
Click to expand...

You sweeping miss the point when you propose that Christian creationism even remotely approaches any principle of science. I

It has been explained to you more times than I can count that religion is not science. Religious (Christian) creationism relies on supernatural intervention of specific sectarian gods which are, by definition, unseen, unknowable and absent any proofs. 

How many more times does this need to be explained to you?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that you have no issue with lies and deceit when it serves your religious agenda.
> 
> The methods and discipline of science have been explained to you. You choose to reject the science facts of the natural world. Instead, you continue to lie when it is in furtherance of your religious superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I don't reject real science and I gave you those priciples of real science. Lie about what ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sweeping miss the point when you propose that Christian creationism even remotely approaches any principle of science. I
> 
> It has been explained to you more times than I can count that religion is not science. Religious (Christian) creationism relies on supernatural intervention of specific sectarian gods which are, by definition, unseen, unknowable and absent any proofs.
> 
> How many more times does this need to be explained to you?
Click to expand...


How many times does it need to be explained to you that ID Theory and Creationism are NOT the same thing?


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same tired argument refuted numerous times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> Prediction:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh A picture of loki.
Click to expand...


His name is Jiminy and he is there to remind Loki to stop lying incessantly.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I don't reject real science and I gave you those priciples of real science. Lie about what ?
> 
> 
> 
> You sweeping miss the point when you propose that Christian creationism even remotely approaches any principle of science. I
> 
> It has been explained to you more times than I can count that religion is not science. Religious (Christian) creationism relies on supernatural intervention of specific sectarian gods which are, by definition, unseen, unknowable and absent any proofs.
> 
> How many more times does this need to be explained to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times does it need to be explained to you that ID Theory and Creationism are NOT the same thing?
Click to expand...

How many times does it need to be explained to you that both you and the other fundie creationist both appeal to the gods in your versions of supernaturalism. Let's not pretend that your falsely labeled ID theory is anything but a different label for Christian creationism.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is up there with your stupid statements. Under your religion of naturalism, everything comes from randomness and matter. That includes humans. It is logical to say if humans are natural and the amazing technology we create with incredibly precision comes from us, then isn't our technology natural as well? If not, then where did this precision come from? Your gods? If under materialism and naturalism, everything under the sun is natural, how can you say nature displays no precision? If we truly originate from nature? Doh!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor, angry fundie creationist. Naturalism is not a religion. You may be told differently at Harun Yahya. I also find it comical to be lectured about logic from someone who trembles in fear before s host of ancient superstitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you poor mental midget. As usual you didn't address the argument!!! In addition to being incredibly evil, you're response, or lack thereof, reveals some deep, psychological disorders. That would explain you being on disability and using taxpayer dollars to sit home eating Oreo's, watching Oprah, and attacking folks of all religions via your computer. It's pretty obvious you don't have a job.
> 
> Please back your statement that nature doesn't produce extreme precision-precision that can launch a spacecraft perfectly timed to reach the moon or mars. Are you saying this precision in items homo sapien creates come from something other than nature? Instead of just making attacks, why not attempt a thoughtful response of your own that you can't cut and paste from an atheist website?
> 
> The real result of your response if you are truthful will reveal that even you, in all your glorious ignorance, can recognize design when you see it. Because after all, we know that spaceships, music, consciousness, and computers just come from natural selection acting on random mutations.
Click to expand...

once again UR makes shit up .


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I don't reject real science and I gave you those priciples of real science. Lie about what ?
> 
> 
> 
> You sweeping miss the point when you propose that Christian creationism even remotely approaches any principle of science. I
> 
> It has been explained to you more times than I can count that religion is not science. Religious (Christian) creationism relies on supernatural intervention of specific sectarian gods which are, by definition, unseen, unknowable and absent any proofs.
> 
> How many more times does this need to be explained to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times does it need to be explained to you that ID Theory and Creationism are NOT the same thing?
Click to expand...


They *are* the same thing, as evidenced by one of the clearly stated (and undeniable) goals of Intelligent Design:"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that *nature and human beings are created by God*"​
More evidence in the revisions to "_Of Pandas and People_":_"In a new draft of Pandas, *approximately 150 uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creationist", were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design*. The definition remained essentially the same, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", and "intelligent creator" changed to "intelligent agency""​_
You're not fooling anybody.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> Prediction:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh A picture of loki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His name is Jiminy and he is there to remind Loki to stop lying incessantly.
Click to expand...

Despite the obvious opportunity you had to do so, you failed to demonstrate that I have posted any lies. What you _*have*_ done there Cupcake, is a violation of one your God's explicit instructions.

While you're burning in hell for that, you might console yourself with the sure knowledge that this lie you've told about me, serves to validate the prediction in the post you replied to.

Thanks!


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Are there really people posting and trying to convince us that Intelligent Design is NOT an attempt to shoehorn Christian Creationism into public schools? The Discovery Institute, that promulgates Intelligent Design, have clear Christian, theistic intent. Is that a coincidence?

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with anybody challenging the assumptions and theories of any scientist. I also have no problem with approaching Intelligent Design through the branch of philosophy known as _metaphysics_. That is far more appropriate.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor, angry fundie creationist. Naturalism is not a religion. You may be told differently at Harun Yahya. I also find it comical to be lectured about logic from someone who trembles in fear before s host of ancient superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor mental midget. As usual you didn't address the argument!!! In addition to being incredibly evil, you're response, or lack thereof, reveals some deep, psychological disorders. That would explain you being on disability and using taxpayer dollars to sit home eating Oreo's, watching Oprah, and attacking folks of all religions via your computer. It's pretty obvious you don't have a job.
> 
> Please back your statement that nature doesn't produce extreme precision-precision that can launch a spacecraft perfectly timed to reach the moon or mars. Are you saying this precision in items homo sapien creates come from something other than nature? Instead of just making attacks, why not attempt a thoughtful response of your own that you can't cut and paste from an atheist website?
> 
> The real result of your response if you are truthful will reveal that even you, in all your glorious ignorance, can recognize design when you see it. Because after all, we know that spaceships, music, consciousness, and computers just come from natural selection acting on random mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> once again UR makes shit up .
Click to expand...


How can you be so sure? Of course, what would one expect from someone who believes fairytales are facts.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sweeping miss the point when you propose that Christian creationism even remotely approaches any principle of science. I
> 
> It has been explained to you more times than I can count that religion is not science. Religious (Christian) creationism relies on supernatural intervention of specific sectarian gods which are, by definition, unseen, unknowable and absent any proofs.
> 
> How many more times does this need to be explained to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it need to be explained to you that ID Theory and Creationism are NOT the same thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They *are* the same thing, as evidenced by one of the clearly stated (and undeniable) goals of Intelligent Design:"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that *nature and human beings are created by God*"​
> More evidence in the revisions to "_Of Pandas and People_":_"In a new draft of Pandas, *approximately 150 uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creationist", were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design*. The definition remained essentially the same, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", and "intelligent creator" changed to "intelligent agency""​_
> You're not fooling anybody.
Click to expand...


Neither is the pro-evo fundie Wiki. Please find some better sources for your so called "proof".


----------



## UltimateReality

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Are there really people posting and trying to convince us that Intelligent Design is NOT an attempt to shoehorn Christian Creationism into public schools? The Discovery Institute, that promulgates Intelligent Design, have clear Christian, theistic intent. Is that a coincidence?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with anybody challenging the assumptions and theories of any scientist. I also have no problem with approaching Intelligent Design through the branch of philosophy known as _metaphysics_.



Oh I get it, you mean the same branch that the materialistic Darwinist myth should be taught under.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh A picture of loki.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His name is Jiminy and he is there to remind Loki to stop lying incessantly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity you had to do so, you failed to demonstrate that I have posted any lies. What you _*have*_ done there Cupcake, is a violation of one your God's explicit instructions.
> 
> While you're burning in hell for that, you might console yourself with the sure knowledge that this lie you've told about me, serves to validate the prediction in the post you replied to.
> 
> Thanks!
Click to expand...


Really brownie? You allegiance is to the father of lies, snickerdoodle.


----------



## UltimateReality

*Your glory speaks in every language
Across the sky to every nation*
You are beauty
Unimagined
This is who you are
You are the Lord of my salvation
You are the one who lights my way
Through the dark night
You will lead me
This is who you are


You hear the cry of every broken heart
*You give the hopeless soul a brand new start*
You lead the captive in Your freedom song
This is who you are
*And in the night when all our hope is lost*
You are the one who won&#8217;t give up on us
*You hold the orphan in your loving arms*
This is who you are


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> His name is Jiminy and he is there to remind Loki to stop lying incessantly.
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity you had to do so, you failed to demonstrate that I have posted any lies. What you _*have*_ done there Cupcake, is a violation of one your God's explicit instructions.
> 
> While you're burning in hell for that, you might console yourself with the sure knowledge that this lie you've told about me, serves to validate the prediction in the post you replied to.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really brownie? You allegiance is to the father of lies, snickerdoodle.
Click to expand...

Despite the obvious opportunity you had to do so, you have failed to demonstrate that I have posted any lies. Why is that, Cupcake?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity you had to do so, you failed to demonstrate that I have posted any lies. What you _*have*_ done there Cupcake, is a violation of one your God's explicit instructions.
> 
> While you're burning in hell for that, you might console yourself with the sure knowledge that this lie you've told about me, serves to validate the prediction in the post you replied to.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really brownie? You allegiance is to the father of lies, snickerdoodle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity you had to do so, you have failed to demonstrate that I have posted any lies. Why is that, Cupcake?
Click to expand...


Denying that you have ever lied is an obvious lie, truffle.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really brownie? You allegiance is to the father of lies, snickerdoodle.
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the obvious opportunity you had to do so, you have failed to demonstrate that I have posted any lies. Why is that, Cupcake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denying that you have ever lied is an obvious lie, truffle.
Click to expand...

What denial are you talking about? I'm just pointing out the obvious fact of reality that despite the opportunity you had to do so, you have failed to demonstrate that I have posted any lies. Why is that, Cupcake?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there really people posting and trying to convince us that Intelligent Design is NOT an attempt to shoehorn Christian Creationism into public schools? The Discovery Institute, that promulgates Intelligent Design, have clear Christian, theistic intent. Is that a coincidence?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with anybody challenging the assumptions and theories of any scientist. I also have no problem with approaching Intelligent Design through the branch of philosophy known as _metaphysics_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I get it, you mean the same branch that the materialistic Darwinist myth should be taught under.
Click to expand...


Actually, you get nothing. Evolution is a fact that is denied by religious zealots whose tales and fables are threatened by facts and evidence.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it need to be explained to you that ID Theory and Creationism are NOT the same thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They *are* the same thing, as evidenced by one of the clearly stated (and undeniable) goals of Intelligent Design:"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that *nature and human beings are created by God*"​
> More evidence in the revisions to "_Of Pandas and People_":_"In a new draft of Pandas, *approximately 150 uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creationist", were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design*. The definition remained essentially the same, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", and "intelligent creator" changed to "intelligent agency""​_
> You're not fooling anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is the pro-evo fundie Wiki. Please find some better sources for your so called "proof".
Click to expand...

The Discovery Insititute is a "pro-evo fundie Wiki"?

Intelligent Design and Creationism *are* the same thing, as evidenced by one of the clearly stated (and undeniable) goals of Intelligent Design:"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that *nature and human beings are created by God*"​


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> *Your glory speaks in every language
> Across the sky to every nation*
> You are beauty
> Unimagined
> This is who you are
> You are the Lord of my salvation
> You are the one who lights my way
> Through the dark night
> You will lead me
> This is who you are
> 
> 
> You hear the cry of every broken heart
> *You give the hopeless soul a brand new start*
> You lead the captive in Your freedom song
> This is who you are
> *And in the night when all our hope is lost*
> You are the one who wont give up on us
> *You hold the orphan in your loving arms*
> This is who you are


And yet the fundie will represent that ID is somehow different than creationism. They are obviously the same worldview. The court system has repeatedly held that ID is simply rebranded Christian creationism which is why ID has been disallowed in public schools.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your glory speaks in every language
> Across the sky to every nation*
> You are beauty
> Unimagined
> This is who you are
> You are the Lord of my salvation
> You are the one who lights my way
> Through the dark night
> You will lead me
> This is who you are
> 
> 
> You hear the cry of every broken heart
> *You give the hopeless soul a brand new start*
> You lead the captive in Your freedom song
> This is who you are
> *And in the night when all our hope is lost*
> You are the one who wont give up on us
> *You hold the orphan in your loving arms*
> This is who you are
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the fundie will represent that ID is somehow different than creationism. They are obviously the same worldview. The court system has repeatedly held that ID is simply rebranded Christian creationism which is why ID has been disallowed in public schools.
Click to expand...


This fundie can't prove anything she believes nor can she demonstrate that a designer was not needed. Her beliefs are based on vivid imaginations and nothing more.

Still waiting for a viable explanation that nonlife produced life. I am still waiting for a viable explanation that the first cell came into existence through natural processes.

Now listen to the crickets chirp or watch them try and change the subject.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that you have no issue with lies and deceit when it serves your religious agenda.
> 
> The methods and discipline of science have been explained to you. You choose to reject the science facts of the natural world. Instead, you continue to lie when it is in furtherance of your religious superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I don't reject real science and I gave you those priciples of real science. Lie about what ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sweeping miss the point when you propose that Christian creationism even remotely approaches any principle of science. I
> 
> It has been explained to you more times than I can count that religion is not science. Religious (Christian) creationism relies on supernatural intervention of specific sectarian gods which are, by definition, unseen, unknowable and absent any proofs.
> 
> How many more times does this need to be explained to you?
Click to expand...


How is that ? language,technology,science was developed how ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly, you have only one option - cut and paste from creationist websites.
> 
> You poor thumpy bible beater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A cut and paste which totally proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you bother wasting your time by posting such cut and paste nonsense.
> 
> Science and Archaeopteryx Overcome Creationism in South Korea: Scientific American
> 
> It seems that in actuality, the South Korean government in conjunction with forward looking scientists have blunted the efforts of fundie Christians to dumb-down the school system.
> 
> As we see, the ID movement is simply nothing more than promotion of fundie Christian polemics.
Click to expand...


The school system is dumb-downed by thought of a designer,how is that ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor, angry fundie creationist. Naturalism is not a religion. You may be told differently at Harun Yahya. I also find it comical to be lectured about logic from someone who trembles in fear before s host of ancient superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor mental midget. As usual you didn't address the argument!!! In addition to being incredibly evil, you're response, or lack thereof, reveals some deep, psychological disorders. That would explain you being on disability and using taxpayer dollars to sit home eating Oreo's, watching Oprah, and attacking folks of all religions via your computer. It's pretty obvious you don't have a job.
> 
> Please back your statement that nature doesn't produce extreme precision-precision that can launch a spacecraft perfectly timed to reach the moon or mars. Are you saying this precision in items homo sapien creates come from something other than nature? Instead of just making attacks, why not attempt a thoughtful response of your own that you can't cut and paste from an atheist website?
> 
> The real result of your response if you are truthful will reveal that even you, in all your glorious ignorance, can recognize design when you see it. Because after all, we know that spaceships, music, consciousness, and computers just come from natural selection acting on random mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> once again UR makes shit up .
Click to expand...


What did ur make up ? technology and science were the products of what ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Are there really people posting and trying to convince us that Intelligent Design is NOT an attempt to shoehorn Christian Creationism into public schools? The Discovery Institute, that promulgates Intelligent Design, have clear Christian, theistic intent. Is that a coincidence?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with anybody challenging the assumptions and theories of any scientist. I also have no problem with approaching Intelligent Design through the branch of philosophy known as _metaphysics_. That is far more appropriate.



Both creationism and ID infer a designer but the science community have no evidence showing a designer was not needed.

Therefore because there is no evidence proving this designer I believe in naturalism why do you place a higher standard for God and creation then you do naturalism ?

Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your glory speaks in every language
> Across the sky to every nation*
> You are beauty
> Unimagined
> This is who you are
> You are the Lord of my salvation
> You are the one who lights my way
> Through the dark night
> You will lead me
> This is who you are
> 
> 
> You hear the cry of every broken heart
> *You give the hopeless soul a brand new start*
> You lead the captive in Your freedom song
> This is who you are
> *And in the night when all our hope is lost*
> You are the one who wont give up on us
> *You hold the orphan in your loving arms*
> This is who you are
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the fundie will represent that ID is somehow different than creationism. They are obviously the same worldview. The court system has repeatedly held that ID is simply rebranded Christian creationism which is why ID has been disallowed in public schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This fundie can't prove anything she believes nor can she demonstrate that a designer was not needed. Her beliefs are based on vivid imaginations and nothing more.
> 
> Still waiting for a viable explanation that nonlife produced life. I am still waiting for a viable explanation that the first cell came into existence through natural processes.
> 
> Now listen to the crickets chirp or watch them try and change the subject.
Click to expand...


The fundie chooses to maintain a position that he cannot defend, thus the absurd requirement that others must prove a negative: "prove the gods are not needed".

What the fundie chooses to ignore is that I have already proven the gods are not needed.

The fundie has not disproved my disproof. 

As we can see, the "standard" offered by the fundie is completely ridiculous and simply reinforces the true poverty of his alleged argument. 

The fundie proceeds under the assumption that his takes and fables are true and then expects others to accept accept his unfounded "because I say so" claims.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there really people posting and trying to convince us that Intelligent Design is NOT an attempt to shoehorn Christian Creationism into public schools? The Discovery Institute, that promulgates Intelligent Design, have clear Christian, theistic intent. Is that a coincidence?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with anybody challenging the assumptions and theories of any scientist. I also have no problem with approaching Intelligent Design through the branch of philosophy known as _metaphysics_. That is far more appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both creationism and ID infer a designer but the science community have no evidence showing a designer was not needed.
> 
> Therefore because there is no evidence proving this designer I believe in naturalism why do you place a higher standard for God and creation then you do naturalism ?
> 
> Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.
Click to expand...


False. The science community has proven that your gawds are not a requirement for life.

You have not disproven that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the fundie will represent that ID is somehow different than creationism. They are obviously the same worldview. The court system has repeatedly held that ID is simply rebranded Christian creationism which is why ID has been disallowed in public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This fundie can't prove anything she believes nor can she demonstrate that a designer was not needed. Her beliefs are based on vivid imaginations and nothing more.
> 
> Still waiting for a viable explanation that nonlife produced life. I am still waiting for a viable explanation that the first cell came into existence through natural processes.
> 
> Now listen to the crickets chirp or watch them try and change the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fundie chooses to maintain a position that he cannot defend, thus the absurd requirement that others must prove a negative: "prove the gods are not needed".
> 
> What the fundie chooses to ignore is that I have already proven the gods are not needed.
> 
> The fundie has not disproved my disproof.
> 
> As we can see, the "standard" offered by the fundie is completely ridiculous and simply reinforces the true poverty of his alleged argument.
> 
> The fundie proceeds under the assumption that his takes and fables are true and then expects others to accept accept his unfounded "because I say so" claims.
Click to expand...


Speak for yourself, I presented questions that add credibility to my beliefs but what can you offer to support your views ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there really people posting and trying to convince us that Intelligent Design is NOT an attempt to shoehorn Christian Creationism into public schools? The Discovery Institute, that promulgates Intelligent Design, have clear Christian, theistic intent. Is that a coincidence?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with anybody challenging the assumptions and theories of any scientist. I also have no problem with approaching Intelligent Design through the branch of philosophy known as _metaphysics_. That is far more appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both creationism and ID infer a designer but the science community have no evidence showing a designer was not needed.
> 
> Therefore because there is no evidence proving this designer I believe in naturalism why do you place a higher standard for God and creation then you do naturalism ?
> 
> Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. The science community has proven that your gawds are not a requirement for life.
> 
> You have not disproven that.
Click to expand...


Then back your claim with evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie are you once again avoiding my questions ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> A cut and paste which totally proved you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you bother wasting your time by posting such cut and paste nonsense.
> 
> Science and Archaeopteryx Overcome Creationism in South Korea: Scientific American
> 
> It seems that in actuality, the South Korean government in conjunction with forward looking scientists have blunted the efforts of fundie Christians to dumb-down the school system.
> 
> As we see, the ID movement is simply nothing more than promotion of fundie Christian polemics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The school system is dumb-downed by thought of a designer,how is that ?
Click to expand...


Clueless. The courts have protected the school system from science loathing fundie Christians attempting to force Christianity into public education.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie are you once again avoiding my questions ?



Quite clearly, it is you (as usual), who is sidestepping and avoiding.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both creationism and ID infer a designer but the science community have no evidence showing a designer was not needed.
> 
> Therefore because there is no evidence proving this designer I believe in naturalism why do you place a higher standard for God and creation then you do naturalism ?
> 
> Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. The science community has proven that your gawds are not a requirement for life.
> 
> You have not disproven that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then back your claim with evidence.
Click to expand...

Already did. You can't disprove it.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This fundie can't prove anything she believes nor can she demonstrate that a designer was not needed. Her beliefs are based on vivid imaginations and nothing more.
> 
> Still waiting for a viable explanation that nonlife produced life. I am still waiting for a viable explanation that the first cell came into existence through natural processes.
> 
> Now listen to the crickets chirp or watch them try and change the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie chooses to maintain a position that he cannot defend, thus the absurd requirement that others must prove a negative: "prove the gods are not needed".
> 
> What the fundie chooses to ignore is that I have already proven the gods are not needed.
> 
> The fundie has not disproved my disproof.
> 
> As we can see, the "standard" offered by the fundie is completely ridiculous and simply reinforces the true poverty of his alleged argument.
> 
> The fundie proceeds under the assumption that his takes and fables are true and then expects others to accept accept his unfounded "because I say so" claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself, I presented questions that add credibility to my beliefs but what can you offer to support your views ?
Click to expand...

How do questions add credibility to your beliefs? 

Do you spend every hour of your day in such a stupor? 

Did you notice I asked a question? That adds credibility to my claim that you are, in fact, in a stupor.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie are you once again avoiding my questions ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite clearly, it is you (as usual), who is sidestepping and avoiding.
Click to expand...


Go back and look at the questions asked this morning you are avoiding.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. The science community has proven that your gawds are not a requirement for life.
> 
> You have not disproven that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then back your claim with evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did. You can't disprove it.
Click to expand...


Why do you choose to be dishonest hollie ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie chooses to maintain a position that he cannot defend, thus the absurd requirement that others must prove a negative: "prove the gods are not needed".
> 
> What the fundie chooses to ignore is that I have already proven the gods are not needed.
> 
> The fundie has not disproved my disproof.
> 
> As we can see, the "standard" offered by the fundie is completely ridiculous and simply reinforces the true poverty of his alleged argument.
> 
> The fundie proceeds under the assumption that his takes and fables are true and then expects others to accept accept his unfounded "because I say so" claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself, I presented questions that add credibility to my beliefs but what can you offer to support your views ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do questions add credibility to your beliefs?
> 
> Do you spend every hour of your day in such a stupor?
> 
> Did you notice I asked a question? That adds credibility to my claim that you are, in fact, in a stupor.
Click to expand...


You avoiding answering questions honestly are revealing.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie are you once again avoiding my questions ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite clearly, it is you (as usual), who is sidestepping and avoiding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back and look at the questions asked this morning you are avoiding.
Click to expand...


Why are you sidestepping and avoiding?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself, I presented questions that add credibility to my beliefs but what can you offer to support your views ?
> 
> 
> 
> How do questions add credibility to your beliefs?
> 
> Do you spend every hour of your day in such a stupor?
> 
> Did you notice I asked a question? That adds credibility to my claim that you are, in fact, in a stupor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You avoiding answering questions honestly are revealing.
Click to expand...


Your sidestepping and avoiding is expected.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then back your claim with evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Already did. You can't disprove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you choose to be dishonest hollie ?
Click to expand...


Why do you choose to sidestep and avoid?


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

UltimateReality said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there really people posting and trying to convince us that Intelligent Design is NOT an attempt to shoehorn Christian Creationism into public schools? The Discovery Institute, that promulgates Intelligent Design, have clear Christian, theistic intent. Is that a coincidence?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with anybody challenging the assumptions and theories of any scientist. I also have no problem with approaching Intelligent Design through the branch of philosophy known as _metaphysics_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I get it, you mean the same branch that the materialistic Darwinist myth should be taught under.
Click to expand...


You can make whatever assumption about my views that you wish. I'm actually little fascinated with Intelligent Design.

I simply said that The Discovery Institute pushed Intelligent Design, that they have a Christian theistic agenda, and I am correct in that assertion. It was in response to the notion somebody in the thread presented that Creationism and Intelligent Design are two different things. Not really. Prove me wrong.

So, because Intelligent Design has a theistic agenda, then it should be discussed accordingly, within a theistic, or in the case I presented a philosophical/metaphysical context.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there really people posting and trying to convince us that Intelligent Design is NOT an attempt to shoehorn Christian Creationism into public schools? The Discovery Institute, that promulgates Intelligent Design, have clear Christian, theistic intent. Is that a coincidence?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with anybody challenging the assumptions and theories of any scientist. I also have no problem with approaching Intelligent Design through the branch of philosophy known as _metaphysics_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I get it, you mean the same branch that the materialistic Darwinist myth should be taught under.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is a fact...
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there really people posting and trying to convince us that Intelligent Design is NOT an attempt to shoehorn Christian Creationism into public schools? The Discovery Institute, that promulgates Intelligent Design, have clear Christian, theistic intent. Is that a coincidence?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with anybody challenging the assumptions and theories of any scientist. I also have no problem with approaching Intelligent Design through the branch of philosophy known as _metaphysics_. That is far more appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both creationism and ID infer a designer but the science community have no evidence showing a designer was not needed.
> 
> Therefore because there is no evidence proving this designer I believe in naturalism why do you place a higher standard for God and creation then you do naturalism ?
> 
> Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. The science community has proven that your gawds are not a requirement for life.
> 
> You have not disproven that.
Click to expand...


You are delusional. They have proven no such thing.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you bother wasting your time by posting such cut and paste nonsense.
> 
> Science and Archaeopteryx Overcome Creationism in South Korea: Scientific American
> 
> It seems that in actuality, the South Korean government in conjunction with forward looking scientists have blunted the efforts of fundie Christians to dumb-down the school system.
> 
> As we see, the ID movement is simply nothing more than promotion of fundie Christian polemics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The school system is dumb-downed by thought of a designer,how is that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clueless. The courts have protected the school system from science loathing fundie Christians attempting to force Christianity into public education.
Click to expand...


You are so clueless about the history of our education system in the US and in England prior to that. It is the fundie evo's that are continually trying to force God out. Not the other way around bonehead.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The school system is dumb-downed by thought of a designer,how is that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clueless. The courts have protected the school system from science loathing fundie Christians attempting to force Christianity into public education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so clueless about the history of our education system in the US and in England prior to that. It is the fundie evo's that are continually trying to force God out. Not the other way around bonehead.
Click to expand...


Actually, religion and science were not always as mutually exclusive as they are today. Darwin played some role in the schism, as did religions general tendency to be uncomfortable with any idea that rocks the boat.

Over time, Christianity accepts some aspects of science that it initially rejected or suppressed, which is exactly why you have some Creationists that have abandoned the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old, simply because there comes a point when you can only cover you eyes for so long. Now you have Creationists that still believe in creation but acknowledge that the earth cannot only be 6,000 years old.

Be that as it may, as many problems as I have with religion, I am not ignorant to its importance either. Some could argue reasonably that religion was in some respect responsible for science, because religious thought, or the contemplation of a force larger than one's immediate surroundings, brought humanity out of simply focusing on immediate survival and thinking about bigger things. Also, I've come the conclusion after careful consideration that many people need religion in order to have principles and at least behave somewhat like a decent human being. I don't need it for that, but many do. In other words, after many years of hating religion, I've come to terms with it.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both creationism and ID infer a designer but the science community have no evidence showing a designer was not needed.
> 
> Therefore because there is no evidence proving this designer I believe in naturalism why do you place a higher standard for God and creation then you do naturalism ?
> 
> Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. The science community has proven that your gawds are not a requirement for life.
> 
> You have not disproven that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional. They have proven no such thing.
Click to expand...


Of course they have. 

No gawds are required for the existence of life.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The school system is dumb-downed by thought of a designer,how is that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clueless. The courts have protected the school system from science loathing fundie Christians attempting to force Christianity into public education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so clueless about the history of our education system in the US and in England prior to that. It is the fundie evo's that are continually trying to force God out. Not the other way around bonehead.
Click to expand...


That's so silly. Christian creationists (under the different titles they have used in attempts to force their religion on others), have consistently been thwarted in their attempts to put religion into the public school system because religion is not science. You are desperately trying to dumb-down the education system. You have no viable alternative to the fact of evolutionary science yet you insist on thumping people with ancient fears and Dark Ages superstitions.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor mental midget. As usual you didn't address the argument!!! In addition to being incredibly evil, you're response, or lack thereof, reveals some deep, psychological disorders. That would explain you being on disability and using taxpayer dollars to sit home eating Oreo's, watching Oprah, and attacking folks of all religions via your computer. It's pretty obvious you don't have a job.
> 
> Please back your statement that nature doesn't produce extreme precision-precision that can launch a spacecraft perfectly timed to reach the moon or mars. Are you saying this precision in items homo sapien creates come from something other than nature? Instead of just making attacks, why not attempt a thoughtful response of your own that you can't cut and paste from an atheist website?
> 
> The real result of your response if you are truthful will reveal that even you, in all your glorious ignorance, can recognize design when you see it. Because after all, we know that spaceships, music, consciousness, and computers just come from natural selection acting on random mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> once again UR makes shit up .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you be so sure? Of course, what would one expect from someone who believes fairytales are facts.
Click to expand...

this coming from a spewer of the worst kind of nonsense!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> *Your glory speaks in every language
> Across the sky to every nation*
> You are beauty
> Unimagined
> This is who you are
> You are the Lord of my salvation
> You are the one who lights my way
> Through the dark night
> You will lead me
> This is who you are
> 
> 
> You hear the cry of every broken heart
> *You give the hopeless soul a brand new start*
> You lead the captive in Your freedom song
> This is who you are
> *And in the night when all our hope is lost*
> You are the one who wont give up on us
> *You hold the orphan in your loving arms*
> This is who you are


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your glory speaks in every language
> Across the sky to every nation*
> You are beauty
> Unimagined
> This is who you are
> You are the Lord of my salvation
> You are the one who lights my way
> Through the dark night
> You will lead me
> This is who you are
> 
> 
> You hear the cry of every broken heart
> *You give the hopeless soul a brand new start*
> You lead the captive in Your freedom song
> This is who you are
> *And in the night when all our hope is lost*
> You are the one who wont give up on us
> *You hold the orphan in your loving arms*
> This is who you are
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the fundie will represent that ID is somehow different than creationism. They are obviously the same worldview. The court system has repeatedly held that ID is simply rebranded Christian creationism which is why ID has been disallowed in public schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This fundie can't prove anything she believes nor can she demonstrate that a designer was not needed. Her beliefs are based on vivid imaginations and nothing more.
> 
> Still waiting for a viable explanation that nonlife produced life. I am still waiting for a viable explanation that the first cell came into existence through natural processes.
> 
> Now listen to the crickets chirp or watch them try and change the subject.
Click to expand...

asked and answered...if you say it has not, then you're changing the subject .
you have answered it yourself.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I don't reject real science and I gave you those priciples of real science. Lie about what ?
> 
> 
> 
> You sweeping miss the point when you propose that Christian creationism even remotely approaches any principle of science. I
> 
> It has been explained to you more times than I can count that religion is not science. Religious (Christian) creationism relies on supernatural intervention of specific sectarian gods which are, by definition, unseen, unknowable and absent any proofs.
> 
> How many more times does this need to be explained to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that ? language,technology,science was developed how ?
Click to expand...

that's were not was...speaking of dumb downed


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor mental midget. As usual you didn't address the argument!!! In addition to being incredibly evil, you're response, or lack thereof, reveals some deep, psychological disorders. That would explain you being on disability and using taxpayer dollars to sit home eating Oreo's, watching Oprah, and attacking folks of all religions via your computer. It's pretty obvious you don't have a job.
> 
> Please back your statement that nature doesn't produce extreme precision-precision that can launch a spacecraft perfectly timed to reach the moon or mars. Are you saying this precision in items homo sapien creates come from something other than nature? Instead of just making attacks, why not attempt a thoughtful response of your own that you can't cut and paste from an atheist website?
> 
> The real result of your response if you are truthful will reveal that even you, in all your glorious ignorance, can recognize design when you see it. Because after all, we know that spaceships, music, consciousness, and computers just come from natural selection acting on random mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> once again UR makes shit up .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did ur make up ? technology and science were the products of what ?
Click to expand...

your answer is more proof of your reading and comprehension disablity.. the post has fuck all to do with your answer.

it's another of your world famous Non sequiturs: Definition of NON SEQUITUR
2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This fundie can't prove anything she believes nor can she demonstrate that a designer was not needed. Her beliefs are based on vivid imaginations and nothing more.
> 
> Still waiting for a viable explanation that nonlife produced life. I am still waiting for a viable explanation that the first cell came into existence through natural processes.
> 
> Now listen to the crickets chirp or watch them try and change the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie chooses to maintain a position that he cannot defend, thus the absurd requirement that others must prove a negative: "prove the gods are not needed".
> 
> What the fundie chooses to ignore is that I have already proven the gods are not needed.
> 
> The fundie has not disproved my disproof.
> 
> As we can see, the "standard" offered by the fundie is completely ridiculous and simply reinforces the true poverty of his alleged argument.
> 
> The fundie proceeds under the assumption that his takes and fables are true and then expects others to accept accept his unfounded "because I say so" claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself, I presented questions that add credibility to my beliefs but what can you offer to support your views ?
Click to expand...

you presented shit. the non questions you've foisted efinition of FOIST
1a : to introduce or insert surreptitiously or without warrant b : to force another to accept especially by stealth or deceit 
2: to pass off as genuine or worthy <foist costly and valueless products on the public 
on us have no credibility 
: Definition of CREDIBILITY
1: the quality or power of inspiring belief <an account lacking in credibility>

 due to an enormous lack of quantifiable proof.
what has been presented to you as support for "our" view is evidence, that you reject because it runs counter to your willful ignorance.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Both creationism and ID infer a designer...


Correction: "Both creationism and ID *PRESUME* a designer..."



Youwerecreated said:


> ... but the science community have no evidence showing a designer was not needed.


Sure they do. It's not *CONCLUSIVE* evidence, but there is indeed evidence that a designer was not needed.



Youwerecreated said:


> Therefore because there is no evidence proving this designer I believe in naturalism...


First, "proof" is NOT the standard applied--verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is the standard applied.

Secondly, there is no evidence, that is validated with even *BASIC* intellectual rigor, that petitions for the existence of this designer that creationism and intelligent-design *PRESUMES*.



Youwerecreated said:


> why do you place a higher standard for God and creation then you do naturalism ?


We don't! We apply the exact same standard for both! *EXACTLY* the same.

In contrast, no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" was required for you to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit--yet you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer"--as if it should be considered valid in the first place. You (as typical of creationists and intelligent-design promoters) hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an *ENTIRELY* different standard than you hold your own *PREASSUMPTION*.

Why is that? Why do *YOU* require a higher standard from "naturalism" than you do for this "designer" of yours and creationism?



Youwerecreated said:


> Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.


This is just presumptive nonsense. It is a point that has been refuted a thousand times.

For the same reasons you've refused to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I predict that you'll just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.



_"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"_--Douglas Adams​


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clueless. The courts have protected the school system from science loathing fundie Christians attempting to force Christianity into public education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so clueless about the history of our education system in the US and in England prior to that. It is the fundie evo's that are continually trying to force God out. Not the other way around bonehead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's so silly. Christian creationists (under the different titles they have used in attempts to force their religion on others), have consistently been thwarted in their attempts to put religion into the public school system because religion is not science. You are desperately trying to dumb-down the education system. You have no viable alternative to the fact of evolutionary science yet you insist on thumping people with ancient fears and Dark Ages superstitions.
Click to expand...


I think you mean "put it back in" pumpkin.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your glory speaks in every language
> Across the sky to every nation*
> You are beauty
> Unimagined
> This is who you are
> You are the Lord of my salvation
> You are the one who lights my way
> Through the dark night
> You will lead me
> This is who you are
> 
> 
> You hear the cry of every broken heart
> *You give the hopeless soul a brand new start*
> You lead the captive in Your freedom song
> This is who you are
> *And in the night when all our hope is lost*
> You are the one who wont give up on us
> *You hold the orphan in your loving arms*
> This is who you are
Click to expand...


Under Christian thought, humans have free will, which made it possible for them to choose sin, not God. Under evolutionary philosophy, there is no free will for humans.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your glory speaks in every language
> Across the sky to every nation*
> You are beauty
> Unimagined
> This is who you are
> You are the Lord of my salvation
> You are the one who lights my way
> Through the dark night
> You will lead me
> This is who you are
> 
> 
> You hear the cry of every broken heart
> *You give the hopeless soul a brand new start*
> You lead the captive in Your freedom song
> This is who you are
> *And in the night when all our hope is lost*
> You are the one who wont give up on us
> *You hold the orphan in your loving arms*
> This is who you are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under Christian thought, humans have free will, which made it possible for them to choose sin, not God. Under evolutionary philosophy, there is no free will for humans.
Click to expand...


That doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing the logic is that if life evolves then it doesn't have free will? You lost me.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so clueless about the history of our education system in the US and in England prior to that. It is the fundie evo's that are continually trying to force God out. Not the other way around bonehead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly. Christian creationists (under the different titles they have used in attempts to force their religion on others), have consistently been thwarted in their attempts to put religion into the public school system because religion is not science. You are desperately trying to dumb-down the education system. You have no viable alternative to the fact of evolutionary science yet you insist on thumping people with ancient fears and Dark Ages superstitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you mean "put it back in" pumpkin.
Click to expand...


Pay attention DarK Ager and you may learn something.

*Judge rules against intelligent design* 

Religious alternative to evolution barred from public-school science classes

Judge rules against



> HARRISBURG, Pa.  In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching intelligent design in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.
> 
> U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design  into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.



The above is just one of many instances where ancient fears and superstitions promoted by fundie christians under the guise and false label of ID have been exposed as fraud.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both creationism and ID infer a designer but the science community have no evidence showing a designer was not needed.
> 
> Therefore because there is no evidence proving this designer I believe in naturalism why do you place a higher standard for God and creation then you do naturalism ?
> 
> Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. The science community has proven that your gawds are not a requirement for life.
> 
> You have not disproven that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional. They have proven no such thing.
Click to expand...

Your appalling lack of education in the biological and natural sciences is your own failing.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your glory speaks in every language
> Across the sky to every nation*
> You are beauty
> Unimagined
> This is who you are
> You are the Lord of my salvation
> You are the one who lights my way
> Through the dark night
> You will lead me
> This is who you are
> 
> 
> You hear the cry of every broken heart
> *You give the hopeless soul a brand new start*
> You lead the captive in Your freedom song
> This is who you are
> *And in the night when all our hope is lost*
> You are the one who wont give up on us
> *You hold the orphan in your loving arms*
> This is who you are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under Christian thought, humans have free will, which made it possible for them to choose sin, not God. Under evolutionary philosophy, there is no free will for humans.
Click to expand...


Under fundie christian thought, such that it is, free will removes several attributes of omni-everything gods. 

As usual, the religiously crippled dismantle their own arguments for the gods.

What a pathetic joke!


----------



## LOki

*Question Gravity*

*Gravity: The Naturalistic explanation for things falling down to the ground undirected, randomly, and for no reason.*

Arguments Against Gravity

*15 QUESTIONS FOR GRAVITATIONALISTS*

Newtonists *MUST* answer these questions! 

BUT THEY CAN'T!!!

Teach the Controversy!


http://youtu.be/hjiFjIlAk1g?hd=1


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both creationism and ID infer a designer...
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: "Both creationism and ID *PRESUME* a designer..."
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but the science community have no evidence showing a designer was not needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they do. It's not *CONCLUSIVE* evidence, but there is indeed evidence that a designer was not needed.
> 
> First, "proof" is NOT the standard applied--verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is the standard applied.
> 
> Secondly, there is no evidence, that is validated with even *BASIC* intellectual rigor, that petitions for the existence of this designer that creationism and intelligent-design *PRESUMES*.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you place a higher standard for God and creation then you do naturalism ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't! We apply the exact same standard for both! *EXACTLY* the same.
> 
> In contrast, no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" was required for you to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit--yet you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer"--as if it should be considered valid in the first place. You (as typical of creationists and intelligent-design promoters) hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an *ENTIRELY* different standard than you hold your own *PREASSUMPTION*.
> 
> Why is that? Why do *YOU* require a higher standard from "naturalism" than you do for this "designer" of yours and creationism?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is just presumptive nonsense. It is a point that has been refuted a thousand times.
> 
> For the same reasons you've refused to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I predict that you'll just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.
> 
> 
> 
> _"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"_--Douglas Adams​
Click to expand...


The whole theory of evolution is based on a faulty preASSumption. The known outcome of evolution determines  which data in so called experiments is kept and which is thrown out.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. The science community has proven that your gawds are not a requirement for life.
> 
> You have not disproven that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional. They have proven no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your appalling lack of education in the biological and natural sciences is your own failing.
Click to expand...


Omigosh! I just about fell out of my chair laughing at this comment. And just what is your background manhand (rugged touch)???

Cue Loki's cricket chirping picture doublesized!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly. Christian creationists (under the different titles they have used in attempts to force their religion on others), have consistently been thwarted in their attempts to put religion into the public school system because religion is not science. You are desperately trying to dumb-down the education system. You have no viable alternative to the fact of evolutionary science yet you insist on thumping people with ancient fears and Dark Ages superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean "put it back in" pumpkin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay attention DarK Ager and you may learn something.
> 
> *Judge rules against &#8216;intelligent design&#8217;*
> 
> &#8216;Religious alternative&#8217; to evolution barred from public-school science classes
> 
> Judge rules against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HARRISBURG, Pa. &#8212; In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching &#8220;intelligent design&#8221; in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.
> 
> U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design  into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The above is just one of many instances where ancient fears and superstitions promoted by fundie christians under the guise and false label of ID have been exposed as fraud.
Click to expand...


Newsflash manhands!!! There is a long record of English and American History that still exists even though like everything else, you choose to ignore it. Hey, if it doesn't exist in Hollie's world, then it doesn't exist, right cupcake?


----------



## UltimateReality

Jimmy_Jam said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Christian thought, humans have free will, which made it possible for them to choose sin, not God. Under evolutionary philosophy, there is no free will for humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing the logic is that if life evolves then it doesn't have free will? You lost me.
Click to expand...


I don't support evolutionary philosophy. You will have to look elsewhere to substantiate the logical outcome of darwinian thought. You can start here...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI]Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both creationism and ID infer a designer...
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: "Both creationism and ID *PRESUME* a designer..."
> 
> Sure they do. It's not *CONCLUSIVE* evidence, but there is indeed evidence that a designer was not needed.
> 
> First, "proof" is NOT the standard applied--verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is the standard applied.
> 
> Secondly, there is no evidence, that is validated with even *BASIC* intellectual rigor, that petitions for the existence of this designer that creationism and intelligent-design *PRESUMES*.
> 
> We don't! We apply the exact same standard for both! *EXACTLY* the same.
> 
> In contrast, no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" was required for you to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit--yet you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer"--as if it should be considered valid in the first place. You (as typical of creationists and intelligent-design promoters) hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an *ENTIRELY* different standard than you hold your own *PREASSUMPTION*.
> 
> Why is that? Why do *YOU* require a higher standard from "naturalism" than you do for this "designer" of yours and creationism?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is just presumptive nonsense. It is a point that has been refuted a thousand times.
> 
> For the same reasons you've refused to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I predict that you'll just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.
> 
> 
> 
> _"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"_--Douglas Adams​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole theory of evolution is based on a faulty preASSumption.
Click to expand...

I note that you fail to identify it though. Why is that cupcake?



UltimateReality said:


> The known outcome of evolution determines  which data in so called experiments is kept and which is thrown out.


Nice follow-up with a bullshit unsubstantiated accusation. BRAVO! RETARD!


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: "Both creationism and ID *PRESUME* a designer..."
> 
> Sure they do. It's not *CONCLUSIVE* evidence, but there is indeed evidence that a designer was not needed.
> 
> First, "proof" is NOT the standard applied--verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is the standard applied.
> 
> Secondly, there is no evidence, that is validated with even *BASIC* intellectual rigor, that petitions for the existence of this designer that creationism and intelligent-design *PRESUMES*.
> 
> We don't! We apply the exact same standard for both! *EXACTLY* the same.
> 
> In contrast, no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" was required for you to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit--yet you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer"--as if it should be considered valid in the first place. You (as typical of creationists and intelligent-design promoters) hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an *ENTIRELY* different standard than you hold your own *PREASSUMPTION*.
> 
> Why is that? Why do *YOU* require a higher standard from "naturalism" than you do for this "designer" of yours and creationism?
> 
> This is just presumptive nonsense. It is a point that has been refuted a thousand times.
> 
> For the same reasons you've refused to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I predict that you'll just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.
> 
> 
> 
> _"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"_--Douglas Adams​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole theory of evolution is based on a faulty preASSumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I note that you fail to identify it though. Why is that cupcake?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The known outcome of evolution determines  which data in so called experiments is kept and which is thrown out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice follow-up with a bullshit unsubstantiated accusation. BRAVO! RETARD!
Click to expand...


And yours was substantiated??? Loki, you're a legend in your own mind.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole theory of evolution is based on a faulty preASSumption.
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you fail to identify it though. Why is that cupcake?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The known outcome of evolution determines  which data in so called experiments is kept and which is thrown out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice follow-up with a bullshit unsubstantiated accusation. BRAVO! RETARD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yours was substantiated???
Click to expand...

Yes. I note that mine is also not contested.



UltimateReality said:


> Loki, you're a legend in your own mind.


What are you talking about?

I also note that you continue to fail to identify the faulty preassumption that you allege evolution is based upon. Why is that cupcake?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional. They have proven no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Your appalling lack of education in the biological and natural sciences is your own failing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Omigosh! I just about fell out of my chair laughing at this comment. And just what is your background manhand (rugged touch)???
> 
> Cue Loki's cricket chirping picture doublesized!!!
Click to expand...


 It is difficult to help you learn that there is a vast library of science to explore and discover. One of the difficulties shared by fundie creationists is their inability and unwillingness to see anything beyond their angry gods. 

There is really no countering argument to be made that the best tools we have to explore our natural world are evidence and reason. And starting with evidence, we have direct observational evidence that there are such things as natural forces in the universe, chemical and biological mechanisms and methods available to demonstrate and examine those elements. In contrast, we have absolutely no direct observational evidence that there is such a thing as "gods." And this is how we begin to separate fact from fundie religious claims.

Biological evolution (Darwinian or otherwise) presumes the existence of life, and it does not matter what the source of that life might be. It could be abiogenesis or some other biological mechanism we don't yet understand. Evolution studies what has occurred to life in the subsequent 3+ billion years of its existence. It explains the origin and diversity of species, not the origin of life. To pretend that evolution's status as a rigorous science depends on a prior solution to the problem of abiogenesis is the equivalent of insisting that orbital mechanics is not scientific until we have a prior solution to the issues regarding quantum mechanics. Planets still orbit their respective suns in a way that is rigorously understood, even though we do not yet fully understand the behavior of subatomic particles. And humans still evolved from a common ancestor, even though we do not fully understand the origin of the first organism.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean "put it back in" pumpkin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention DarK Ager and you may learn something.
> 
> *Judge rules against intelligent design*
> 
> Religious alternative to evolution barred from public-school science classes
> 
> Judge rules against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HARRISBURG, Pa.  In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching intelligent design in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.
> 
> U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design  into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The above is just one of many instances where ancient fears and superstitions promoted by fundie christians under the guise and false label of ID have been exposed as fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newsflash manhands!!! There is a long record of English and American History that still exists even though like everything else, you choose to ignore it. Hey, if it doesn't exist in Hollie's world, then it doesn't exist, right cupcake?
Click to expand...

What you're having difficulty with is being held accountable for Christian creationist lies. Courts have consistently held that Christian creationism is nothing more than an attempt by zealots such as yourself to impose Christian theology into the school system. Your flailing about with silly claims that your religious beliefs meet the same standards of evidence that science meets is pointless. No one is saying you're prevented from believing in a 6000 year old earth, or that humans roamed around with dinosaurs, or that gods and demons inhabit your lurid fantasy world. You're just prevented from imposing those Dark Age superstitions on public school kids. 

It's just a fact that separation of church and state is a founding tenet of this nation. Christian theology has no place in the public school system. And in spite of your lies to the contrary, Christian creationism is nothing more than an attempt to force christianity on the school system.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you bother wasting your time by posting such cut and paste nonsense.
> 
> Science and Archaeopteryx Overcome Creationism in South Korea: Scientific American
> 
> It seems that in actuality, the South Korean government in conjunction with forward looking scientists have blunted the efforts of fundie Christians to dumb-down the school system.
> 
> As we see, the ID movement is simply nothing more than promotion of fundie Christian polemics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The school system is dumb-downed by thought of a designer,how is that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clueless. The courts have protected the school system from science loathing fundie Christians attempting to force Christianity into public education.
Click to expand...


Where will those judges be when the Almighty returns ? Satans pawns is what the judges are.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Jimmy_Jam said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there really people posting and trying to convince us that Intelligent Design is NOT an attempt to shoehorn Christian Creationism into public schools? The Discovery Institute, that promulgates Intelligent Design, have clear Christian, theistic intent. Is that a coincidence?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with anybody challenging the assumptions and theories of any scientist. I also have no problem with approaching Intelligent Design through the branch of philosophy known as _metaphysics_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I get it, you mean the same branch that the materialistic Darwinist myth should be taught under.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can make whatever assumption about my views that you wish. I'm actually little fascinated with Intelligent Design.
> 
> I simply said that The Discovery Institute pushed Intelligent Design, that they have a Christian theistic agenda, and I am correct in that assertion. It was in response to the notion somebody in the thread presented that Creationism and Intelligent Design are two different things. Not really. Prove me wrong.
> 
> So, because Intelligent Design has a theistic agenda, then it should be discussed accordingly, within a theistic, or in the case I presented a philosophical/metaphysical context.
Click to expand...


What is the agenda of the ones pushing theories in schools that were not developed by the scientific method ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Jimmy_Jam said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clueless. The courts have protected the school system from science loathing fundie Christians attempting to force Christianity into public education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so clueless about the history of our education system in the US and in England prior to that. It is the fundie evo's that are continually trying to force God out. Not the other way around bonehead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, religion and science were not always as mutually exclusive as they are today. Darwin played some role in the schism, as did religions general tendency to be uncomfortable with any idea that rocks the boat.
> 
> Over time, Christianity accepts some aspects of science that it initially rejected or suppressed, which is exactly why you have some Creationists that have abandoned the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old, simply because there comes a point when you can only cover you eyes for so long. Now you have Creationists that still believe in creation but acknowledge that the earth cannot only be 6,000 years old.
> 
> Be that as it may, as many problems as I have with religion, I am not ignorant to its importance either. Some could argue reasonably that religion was in some respect responsible for science, because religious thought, or the contemplation of a force larger than one's immediate surroundings, brought humanity out of simply focusing on immediate survival and thinking about bigger things. Also, I've come the conclusion after careful consideration that many people need religion in order to have principles and at least behave somewhat like a decent human being. I don't need it for that, but many do. In other words, after many years of hating religion, I've come to terms with it.
Click to expand...


Not Christians that trust the data and the ones that actually read the bible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. The science community has proven that your gawds are not a requirement for life.
> 
> You have not disproven that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional. They have proven no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they have.
> 
> No gawds are required for the existence of life.
Click to expand...


Tell us why there was no designer needed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> once again UR makes shit up .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you be so sure? Of course, what would one expect from someone who believes fairytales are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this coming from a spewer of the worst kind of nonsense!
Click to expand...


Do you know how life began daws ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the fundie will represent that ID is somehow different than creationism. They are obviously the same worldview. The court system has repeatedly held that ID is simply rebranded Christian creationism which is why ID has been disallowed in public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This fundie can't prove anything she believes nor can she demonstrate that a designer was not needed. Her beliefs are based on vivid imaginations and nothing more.
> 
> Still waiting for a viable explanation that nonlife produced life. I am still waiting for a viable explanation that the first cell came into existence through natural processes.
> 
> Now listen to the crickets chirp or watch them try and change the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answered...if you say it has not, then you're changing the subject .
> you have answered it yourself.
Click to expand...


Daws you lost credibility when you tried answering the question with the Abiogenesis theory


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sweeping miss the point when you propose that Christian creationism even remotely approaches any principle of science. I
> 
> It has been explained to you more times than I can count that religion is not science. Religious (Christian) creationism relies on supernatural intervention of specific sectarian gods which are, by definition, unseen, unknowable and absent any proofs.
> 
> How many more times does this need to be explained to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that ? language,technology,science was developed how ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's were not was...speaking of dumb downed
Click to expand...


Simple question daws which you and the fundie refuse to awnswer ,why ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie chooses to maintain a position that he cannot defend, thus the absurd requirement that others must prove a negative: "prove the gods are not needed".
> 
> What the fundie chooses to ignore is that I have already proven the gods are not needed.
> 
> The fundie has not disproved my disproof.
> 
> As we can see, the "standard" offered by the fundie is completely ridiculous and simply reinforces the true poverty of his alleged argument.
> 
> The fundie proceeds under the assumption that his takes and fables are true and then expects others to accept accept his unfounded "because I say so" claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself, I presented questions that add credibility to my beliefs but what can you offer to support your views ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you presented shit. the non questions you've foisted efinition of FOIST
> 1a : to introduce or insert surreptitiously or without warrant b : to force another to accept especially by stealth or deceit
> 2: to pass off as genuine or worthy <foist costly and valueless products on the public
> on us have no credibility
> : Definition of CREDIBILITY
> 1: the quality or power of inspiring belief <an account lacking in credibility>
> 
> due to an enormous lack of quantifiable proof.
> what has been presented to you as support for "our" view is evidence, that you reject because it runs counter to your willful ignorance.
Click to expand...


I am a critical thinker that is what separates you and I. I am willing to test my beliefs against reality are you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both creationism and ID infer a designer...
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: "Both creationism and ID *PRESUME* a designer..."
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but the science community have no evidence showing a designer was not needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they do. It's not *CONCLUSIVE* evidence, but there is indeed evidence that a designer was not needed.
> 
> First, "proof" is NOT the standard applied--verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is the standard applied.
> 
> Secondly, there is no evidence, that is validated with even *BASIC* intellectual rigor, that petitions for the existence of this designer that creationism and intelligent-design *PRESUMES*.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you place a higher standard for God and creation then you do naturalism ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't! We apply the exact same standard for both! *EXACTLY* the same.
> 
> In contrast, no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" was required for you to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit--yet you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer"--as if it should be considered valid in the first place. You (as typical of creationists and intelligent-design promoters) hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an *ENTIRELY* different standard than you hold your own *PREASSUMPTION*.
> 
> Why is that? Why do *YOU* require a higher standard from "naturalism" than you do for this "designer" of yours and creationism?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is just presumptive nonsense. It is a point that has been refuted a thousand times.
> 
> For the same reasons you've refused to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I predict that you'll just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.
> 
> 
> 
> _"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"_--Douglas Adams​
Click to expand...


Right,evolutionist infer natural processes are responsible for life but they lack evidence, The rest of your post is not worthy of a response.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. The science community has proven that your gawds are not a requirement for life.
> 
> You have not disproven that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional. They have proven no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your appalling lack of education in the biological and natural sciences is your own failing.
Click to expand...


You can't be serious


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Christian thought, humans have free will, which made it possible for them to choose sin, not God. Under evolutionary philosophy, there is no free will for humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing the logic is that if life evolves then it doesn't have free will? You lost me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support evolutionary philosophy. You will have to look elsewhere to substantiate the logical outcome of darwinian thought. You can start here...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI]Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


That my friends is blind faith in the speakers own words. He does not want to believe in a creator made it very clear.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The school system is dumb-downed by thought of a designer,how is that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clueless. The courts have protected the school system from science loathing fundie Christians attempting to force Christianity into public education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where will those judges be when the Almighty returns ? Satans pawns is what the judges are.
Click to expand...


Coercion and intimidation by way of empty threats is precisely what humanity does not need. 

There really is a certain pathology shared among you and the other fundie wherein you use your angry gods in flaccid attempts to frighten people. Your desire to do that underlies an illness.

You may be able frighten children and the gullible with your threats but they are clearly not going to be a part of the school system.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clueless. The courts have protected the school system from science loathing fundie Christians attempting to force Christianity into public education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where will those judges be when the Almighty returns ? Satans pawns is what the judges are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coercion and intimidation by way of empty threats is precisely what humanity does not need.
> 
> There really is a certain pathology shared among you and the other fundie wherein you use your angry gods in flaccid attempts to frighten people. Your desire to do that underlies an illness.
> 
> You may be able frighten children and the gullible with your threats but they are clearly not going to be a part of the school system.
Click to expand...


By your ignorance you and the Judges have nothing to worry about.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional. They have proven no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Your appalling lack of education in the biological and natural sciences is your own failing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't be serious
Click to expand...


It's true. You and the other fundie are clearly lacking when it comes to available knowledge of science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where will those judges be when the Almighty returns ? Satans pawns is what the judges are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coercion and intimidation by way of empty threats is precisely what humanity does not need.
> 
> There really is a certain pathology shared among you and the other fundie wherein you use your angry gods in flaccid attempts to frighten people. Your desire to do that underlies an illness.
> 
> You may be able frighten children and the gullible with your threats but they are clearly not going to be a part of the school system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your ignorance you and the Judges have nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...


You're lacking the ability to function in the rational world. Obviously you missed it, so to help clear your confusion, the courts have consistently maintained that teaching Christian theology in the public school system is a violation of constitutional law.

You can float all the silly conspiracy theories you wish - creationism is simply a front for Christian theology. That is not allowed in the public schools. 

Here - have a cookie.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both creationism and ID infer a designer...
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: "Both creationism and ID *PRESUME* a designer..."
> 
> Sure they do. It's not *CONCLUSIVE* evidence, but there is indeed evidence that a designer was not needed.
> 
> First, "proof" is NOT the standard applied--verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is the standard applied.
> 
> Secondly, there is no evidence, that is validated with even *BASIC* intellectual rigor, that petitions for the existence of this designer that creationism and intelligent-design *PRESUMES*.
> 
> We don't! We apply the exact same standard for both! *EXACTLY* the same.
> 
> In contrast, no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" was required for you to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit--yet you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer"--as if it should be considered valid in the first place. You (as typical of creationists and intelligent-design promoters) hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an *ENTIRELY* different standard than you hold your own *PREASSUMPTION*.
> 
> Why is that? Why do *YOU* require a higher standard from "naturalism" than you do for this "designer" of yours and creationism?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is just presumptive nonsense. It is a point that has been refuted a thousand times.
> 
> For the same reasons you've refused to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I predict that you'll just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.
> 
> 
> 
> _"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"_--Douglas Adams​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right,evolutionist infer natural processes are responsible for life but they lack evidence, The rest of your post is not worthy of a response.
Click to expand...


Why not perform your usual tactic of threatening people of dire consequences when jay-zus returns.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your appalling lack of education in the biological and natural sciences is your own failing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be serious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's true. You and the other fundie are clearly lacking when it comes to available knowledge of science.
Click to expand...


What causes a mutation hollie ? what causes the mutation to spread through the population ? Give me an example of mistakes upon mistakes making things better ? Hollie why are there mechanisms trying to correct these mistakes called mutations ?

How can codons be affected according to your theory ? what do I mean by codons being affected ?

Do deletion mutations aid in evolution ?

Insertion mutations how do they aid in evolution ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: "Both creationism and ID *PRESUME* a designer..."
> 
> Sure they do. It's not *CONCLUSIVE* evidence, but there is indeed evidence that a designer was not needed.
> 
> First, "proof" is NOT the standard applied--verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is the standard applied.
> 
> Secondly, there is no evidence, that is validated with even *BASIC* intellectual rigor, that petitions for the existence of this designer that creationism and intelligent-design *PRESUMES*.
> 
> We don't! We apply the exact same standard for both! *EXACTLY* the same.
> 
> In contrast, no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" was required for you to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit--yet you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer"--as if it should be considered valid in the first place. You (as typical of creationists and intelligent-design promoters) hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an *ENTIRELY* different standard than you hold your own *PREASSUMPTION*.
> 
> Why is that? Why do *YOU* require a higher standard from "naturalism" than you do for this "designer" of yours and creationism?
> 
> This is just presumptive nonsense. It is a point that has been refuted a thousand times.
> 
> For the same reasons you've refused to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I predict that you'll just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.
> 
> 
> 
> _"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"_--Douglas Adams​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right,evolutionist infer natural processes are responsible for life but they lack evidence, The rest of your post is not worthy of a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not perform your usual tactic of threatening people of dire consequences when jay-zus returns.
Click to expand...


Don't need to your mind is made up.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be serious
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true. You and the other fundie are clearly lacking when it comes to available knowledge of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What causes a mutation hollie ? what causes the mutation to spread through the population ? Give me an example of mistakes upon mistakes making things better ? Hollie why are there mechanisms trying to correct these mistakes called mutations ?
> 
> How can codons be affected according to your theory ? what do I mean by codons being affected ?
> 
> Do deletion mutations aid in evolution ?
> 
> Insertion mutations how do they aid in evolution ?
Click to expand...

All the above has been addressed previously. 

Are you somehow under the impression that hey-Zeus is going to make you a General Field Marshall in charge of whacking people with your bible?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's true. You and the other fundie are clearly lacking when it comes to available knowledge of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What causes a mutation hollie ? what causes the mutation to spread through the population ? Give me an example of mistakes upon mistakes making things better ? Hollie why are there mechanisms trying to correct these mistakes called mutations ?
> 
> How can codons be affected according to your theory ? what do I mean by codons being affected ?
> 
> Do deletion mutations aid in evolution ?
> 
> Insertion mutations how do they aid in evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the above has been addressed previously.
> 
> Are you somehow under the impression that hey-Zeus is going to make you a General Field Marshall in charge of whacking people with your bible?
Click to expand...


You are an ignorant liar. I know your theory better then you do. I am waiting for your answer so i can expose your BS answers.

Honestly I don't think you can answer my questions,you are a troll.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's true. You and the other fundie are clearly lacking when it comes to available knowledge of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What causes a mutation hollie ? what causes the mutation to spread through the population ? Give me an example of mistakes upon mistakes making things better ? Hollie why are there mechanisms trying to correct these mistakes called mutations ?
> 
> How can codons be affected according to your theory ? what do I mean by codons being affected ?
> 
> Do deletion mutations aid in evolution ?
> 
> Insertion mutations how do they aid in evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the above has been addressed previously.
> 
> Are you somehow under the impression that hey-Zeus is going to make you a General Field Marshall in charge of whacking people with your bible?
Click to expand...


What do these mutations have in common hollie ? Come on now you supposedly know science and we are ignorant of science as you claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Poor Hollie,you don't have a clue do you ? You can't copy and paste answers for these questions Hollie because you can only answer these questions if you actually ever taken a college genetics class and worked in a lab as I did.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I challenge your buddies daws and loki to answer my questions since you can't.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What causes a mutation hollie ? what causes the mutation to spread through the population ? Give me an example of mistakes upon mistakes making things better ? Hollie why are there mechanisms trying to correct these mistakes called mutations ?
> 
> How can codons be affected according to your theory ? what do I mean by codons being affected ?
> 
> Do deletion mutations aid in evolution ?
> 
> Insertion mutations how do they aid in evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> All the above has been addressed previously.
> 
> Are you somehow under the impression that hey-Zeus is going to make you a General Field Marshall in charge of whacking people with your bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an ignorant liar. I know your theory better then you do. I am waiting for your answer so i can expose your BS answers.
> 
> Honestly I don't think you can answer my questions,you are a troll.
Click to expand...


The "angry fundie" thing is cute but getting old. As far as you knowing theory, you have demonstrated a definite lack of ability to write with any intelligence on matters of science ir biology.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> I challenge your buddies daws and loki to answer my questions since you can't.



Your "questions" are typically nonsensical cut and paste that you acquire from Harun Yahya or other websites. As I've noted many times before, you have a propensity for cutting and pasting material you don't understand and are unable to defend. No one is under any obligation to "refute" your endless cutting and pasting.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Poor Hollie,you don't have a clue do you ? You can't copy and paste answers for these questions Hollie because you can only answer these questions if you actually ever taken a college genetics class and worked in a lab as I did.



You give yourself credit for things we have no reason to believe you have a background in. 

It's just a shame that you continually sidestep from addressing the issues presented to you. Then again, you're a cut and paster who, absent any ability to address questions on your own, needs to scour Harun Yahya for responses.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What causes a mutation hollie ? what causes the mutation to spread through the population ? Give me an example of mistakes upon mistakes making things better ? Hollie why are there mechanisms trying to correct these mistakes called mutations ?
> 
> How can codons be affected according to your theory ? what do I mean by codons being affected ?
> 
> Do deletion mutations aid in evolution ?
> 
> Insertion mutations how do they aid in evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> All the above has been addressed previously.
> 
> Are you somehow under the impression that hey-Zeus is going to make you a General Field Marshall in charge of whacking people with your bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do these mutations have in common hollie ? Come on now you supposedly know science and we are ignorant of science as you claim.
Click to expand...

Why would your gods design something in such an incompetent fashion? 

More to the point, we are left with quite a dilemma if we're to accept that your gods designed cells that either were the result of incompetent design or were intentionally designed to fail. 

Do your gods have a twisted sense of humor?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you fail to identify it though. Why is that cupcake?
> 
> Nice follow-up with a bullshit unsubstantiated accusation. BRAVO! RETARD!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yours was substantiated???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. I note that mine is also not contested.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, you're a legend in your own mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> I also note that you continue to fail to identify the faulty preassumption that you allege evolution is based upon. Why is that cupcake?
Click to expand...


Your memory must be failing. I posted that pages back regarding the myth of fitness and lack of consensus on what it even is. It definitely can't be verified via the scientific method. You went on from there with some ad hominem attacks and avoided addressing the salient points of the argument.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your appalling lack of education in the biological and natural sciences is your own failing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Omigosh! I just about fell out of my chair laughing at this comment. *And just what is your background manhand (rugged touch)???*
> 
> Cue Loki's cricket chirping picture doublesized!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is difficult to help you learn that there is a vast library of science to explore and discover. One of the difficulties shared by fundie creationists is their inability and unwillingness to see anything beyond their angry gods.
> 
> There is really no countering argument to be made that the best tools we have to explore our natural world are evidence and reason. And starting with evidence, we have direct observational evidence that there are such things as natural forces in the universe, chemical and biological mechanisms and methods available to demonstrate and examine those elements. In contrast, we have absolutely no direct observational evidence that there is such a thing as "gods." And this is how we begin to separate fact from fundie religious claims.
> 
> Biological evolution (Darwinian or otherwise) presumes the existence of life, and it does not matter what the source of that life might be. It could be abiogenesis or some other biological mechanism we don't yet understand. Evolution studies what has occurred to life in the subsequent 3+ billion years of its existence. It explains the origin and diversity of species, not the origin of life. To pretend that evolution's status as a rigorous science depends on a prior solution to the problem of abiogenesis is the equivalent of insisting that orbital mechanics is not scientific until we have a prior solution to the issues regarding quantum mechanics. Planets still orbit their respective suns in a way that is rigorously understood, even though we do not yet fully understand the behavior of subatomic particles. And humans still evolved from a common ancestor, even though we do not fully understand the origin of the first organism.
Click to expand...


Let me say it REAAAAALLLLL SLOOOOOWWWW so you can understand you dimwit, *what is your personal background regarding science? What education or training do you have to qualify you to make such statements? Do you think folks are so stupid on here that they don't notice your continual asinine responses that don't have anything to do with the topics at hand?*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention DarK Ager and you may learn something.
> 
> *Judge rules against intelligent design*
> 
> Religious alternative to evolution barred from public-school science classes
> 
> Judge rules against
> 
> 
> 
> The above is just one of many instances where ancient fears and superstitions promoted by fundie christians under the guise and false label of ID have been exposed as fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash manhands!!! There is a long record of English and American History that still exists even though like everything else, you choose to ignore it. Hey, if it doesn't exist in Hollie's world, then it doesn't exist, right cupcake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're having difficulty with is being held accountable for Christian creationist lies. Courts have consistently held that Christian creationism is nothing more than an attempt by zealots such as yourself to impose Christian theology into the school system. Your flailing about with silly claims that your religious beliefs meet the same standards of evidence that science meets is pointless. No one is saying you're prevented from believing in a 6000 year old earth, or that humans roamed around with dinosaurs, or that gods and demons inhabit your lurid fantasy world. You're just prevented from imposing those Dark Age superstitions on public school kids.
> 
> It's just a fact that separation of church and state is a founding tenet of this nation. Christian theology has no place in the public school system. And in spite of your lies to the contrary, Christian creationism is nothing more than an attempt to force christianity on the school system.
Click to expand...


EPIC FAIL. Your response is totally irrelevant to my statement.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that ? language,technology,science was developed how ?
> 
> 
> 
> that's were not was...speaking of dumb downed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple question daws which you and the fundie refuse to awnswer ,why ?
Click to expand...


Daws buys into Loki's world of 43 "might haves" and "could haves". There's no arguing against their fairy tales apparently. 

But just so you can understand and believe, let me rephrase things so you and Loki can view it as "real" Science. An Intelligent Designer might have been responsible for the big bang. The Creator could have visited the planet recently to tweak the dna of Homo Sapien. See? Now ID Theory is a fact just like Evolution.

You see cupcake, you can guess all you want about what "might have" happened in the distant past, but there is no scientific proof of your story!!! There is no way for you to prove, using the scientific method, that the processes you say "might have" happened, did. How come that is so hard for you to understand?


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing the logic is that if life evolves then it doesn't have free will? You lost me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support evolutionary philosophy. You will have to look elsewhere to substantiate the logical outcome of darwinian thought. You can start here...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI]Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That my friends is blind faith in the speakers own words. He does not want to believe in a creator made it very clear.
Click to expand...


Actually, he is pretty transparent about his motivations for being an evolutionary philosopher. He admits that if he goes to hell he won't have to listen to any Sunday morning preachers and then admits Christianity is nice unless you happen to be gay. Hmmmm, do think this guy has some issues from his childhood about his parents and his same sex attractions? Do sense there is more at play here than merely his lofty goal of science? Negative. His motivation is anger. And we all know anger is really hurt manifested. Reminds me of someone else who posts here.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> You're lacking the ability to function in the rational world.



Yeah, because I am the one on disability spending my days supporting my "campaign of hate" against all religious folk on my computer, not even stopping to take care of my basic hygeine like my rugged touch. Right, man-hands?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the above has been addressed previously.
> 
> Are you somehow under the impression that hey-Zeus is going to make you a General Field Marshall in charge of whacking people with your bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an ignorant liar. I know your theory better then you do. I am waiting for your answer so i can expose your BS answers.
> 
> Honestly I don't think you can answer my questions,you are a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "angry fundie" thing is cute but getting old. As far as you knowing theory, you have demonstrated a definite lack of ability to write with any intelligence on matters of science ir biology.
Click to expand...


Oh, you poor dear. You keep calling YWC and me angry fundies, but please stay in the present, stay in the present. We are not your parents. I repeat, YWC and I are *not* your angry, spit slinging, gay-hating, fundie, Oral Roberts/Jim Baker-loving parents.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Hollie,you don't have a clue do you ? You can't copy and paste answers for these questions Hollie because you can only answer these questions if you actually ever taken a college genetics class and worked in a lab as I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You give yourself credit for things we have no reason to believe you have a background in.
> 
> It's just a shame that you continually sidestep from addressing the issues presented to you. Then again, you're a cut and paster who, absent any ability to address questions on your own, needs to scour Harun Yahya for responses.
Click to expand...


YWC, isn't this almost exactly the same thing you just said to her? Hollie, from now on your new nickname is Parrot. Or should we call you Rugged Talon.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Hollie,you don't have a clue do you ? You can't copy and paste answers for these questions Hollie because you can only answer these questions if you actually ever taken a college genetics class and worked in a lab as I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You give yourself credit for things we have no reason to believe you have a background in.
> 
> It's just a shame that you continually sidestep from addressing the issues presented to you. Then again, you're a cut and paster who, absent any ability to address questions on your own, needs to scour Harun Yahya for responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YWC, isn't this almost exactly the same thing you just said to her? Hollie, from now on your new nickname is Parrot. Or should we call you Rugged Talon.
Click to expand...


Even 12 year olds find your juvenile banter embarrassing.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're lacking the ability to function in the rational world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because I am the one on disability spending my days supporting my "campaign of hate" against all religious folk on my computer, not even stopping to take care of my basic hygeine like my rugged touch. Right, man-hands?
Click to expand...


You sound like a total mess.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both creationism and ID infer a designer...
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: "Both creationism and ID *PRESUME* a designer..."
> 
> Sure they do. It's not *CONCLUSIVE* evidence, but there is indeed evidence that a designer was not needed.
> 
> First, "proof" is NOT the standard applied--verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is the standard applied.
> 
> Secondly, there is no evidence, that is validated with even *BASIC* intellectual rigor, that petitions for the existence of this designer that creationism and intelligent-design *PRESUMES*.
> 
> We don't! We apply the exact same standard for both! *EXACTLY* the same.
> 
> In contrast, no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" was required for you to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit--yet you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer"--as if it should be considered valid in the first place. You (as typical of creationists and intelligent-design promoters) hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an *ENTIRELY* different standard than you hold your own *PREASSUMPTION*.
> 
> Why is that? Why do *YOU* require a higher standard from "naturalism" than you do for this "designer" of yours and creationism?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is just presumptive nonsense. It is a point that has been refuted a thousand times.
> 
> For the same reasons you've refused to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I predict that you'll just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.
> 
> 
> 
> _"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"_--Douglas Adams​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right,evolutionist infer natural processes are responsible for life but they lack evidence.
Click to expand...

There's far more evidence that natural processes are responsible for life than there is for your Designer/Creator/God. *FAR MORE*.



Youwerecreated said:


> The rest of your post is not worthy of a response.


Just as I successfully predicted that you'd refuse to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I have accurately predicted that you'd just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.

Why do you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer," when you required no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit?

Why do you hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an *ENTIRELY* different standard than you hold your own *PREASSUMPTION*?

Why do you (indeed, why do ALL creationists) refuse to answer these questions?


----------



## The Irish Ram

Well, to answer your first question, we'll know when we get there.  
God gave us all the information we humans need for our life on earth. He did not give us all the information.  
But we'll be sure to ask Him for you while we are sitting around His dinner table in a dimension He has always occupied, that we just discovered.

Now you:
Put nothing in one hand, and nothing in the other, then clap, and show me 'something'.

2.  We know by faith, but we enjoy corroborating evidence, which scientists are constantly providing.  The Bible *knew* dimensions. and now we *know* them, and so on. 
 If God didn't understand dimensions  (before Hawking), he could have never described them.  I know for instance, that not only are they there, I know they can be rolled up, stretched, burnt up, torn....  *Scientists don't know that yet.*

And prophecy is something that non believers run from and call vague, or lucky, but they can't reproduce the process.  
6,000 years ago,  we were given a perfect description of a group of people's demeanor.  6,000 years later,  the daily news records that demeanor every night on your TV. 

Now you:
What will the interest be on T-bills in the year 2018?  

3. We don't.  We hold them to the same standards.  Presumption is Einstein's "vigorous math" and Darwin asking us to "overlook" the very links necessary to prove his THEORY.

Now you: 
Show me the monkeyman.........


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You give yourself credit for things we have no reason to believe you have a background in.
> 
> It's just a shame that you continually sidestep from addressing the issues presented to you. Then again, you're a cut and paster who, absent any ability to address questions on your own, needs to scour Harun Yahya for responses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, isn't this almost exactly the same thing you just said to her? Hollie, from now on your new nickname is Parrot. Or should we call you Rugged Talon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even 12 year olds find your juvenile banter embarrassing.
Click to expand...


*what is your personal background regarding science? What education or training do you have to qualify you to make such statements? Do you think folks are so stupid on here that they don't notice your continual asinine responses that don't have anything to do with the topics at hand?*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're lacking the ability to function in the rational world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because I am the one on disability spending my days supporting my "campaign of hate" against all religious folk on my computer, not even stopping to take care of my basic hygeine like my rugged touch. Right, man-hands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a total mess.
Click to expand...


*what is your personal background regarding science? What education or training do you have to qualify you to make such statements? Do you think folks are so stupid on here that they don't notice your continual asinine responses that don't have anything to do with the topics at hand?*


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: "Both creationism and ID *PRESUME* a designer..."
> 
> Sure they do. It's not *CONCLUSIVE* evidence, but there is indeed evidence that a designer was not needed.
> 
> First, "proof" is NOT the standard applied--verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is the standard applied.
> 
> Secondly, there is no evidence, that is validated with even *BASIC* intellectual rigor, that petitions for the existence of this designer that creationism and intelligent-design *PRESUMES*.
> 
> We don't! We apply the exact same standard for both! *EXACTLY* the same.
> 
> In contrast, no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" was required for you to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit--yet you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer"--as if it should be considered valid in the first place. You (as typical of creationists and intelligent-design promoters) hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an *ENTIRELY* different standard than you hold your own *PREASSUMPTION*.
> 
> Why is that? Why do *YOU* require a higher standard from "naturalism" than you do for this "designer" of yours and creationism?
> 
> This is just presumptive nonsense. It is a point that has been refuted a thousand times.
> 
> For the same reasons you've refused to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I predict that you'll just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.
> 
> 
> 
> _"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"_--Douglas Adams​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right,evolutionist infer natural processes are responsible for life but they lack evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's far more evidence that natural processes are responsible for life than there is for your Designer/Creator/God. *FAR MORE*.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your post is not worthy of a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as I successfully predicted that you'd refuse to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I have accurately predicted that you'd just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.
> 
> Why do you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer," when you required no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit?
> 
> Why do you hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an *ENTIRELY* different standard than you hold your own *PREASSUMPTION*?
> 
> Why do you (indeed, why do ALL creationists) refuse to answer these questions?
Click to expand...


We "could have" answered them before. It "might have happened" a few pages back, lollipop.


----------



## UltimateReality

Where is the best place to find low-cost, easy-to-produce, natural, robust and non toxic antibiotics? Easy, in our own bodies. Nature so often provides the solutions we are looking for and, as an aside, that is why the preservation of species from extinction is so important. In this case the solution is natural antibiotics which University of California at Berkeley researchers have confirmed to exist in the tails of certain proteins called cytokeratins. These proteins help our eyes, for example, ward off infections. The eye&#8217;s cornea is remarkably free of pathogens and the research reveals something about how these wonderful proteins work. Once again, however,* the research was not motivated by evolutionary theory.*

This new research is important for what it tells us about antibiotics and for what it tells us about science. *Rationalists [Hollie, Loki] maintain that scientists must operate from a theory of origins in order to do science and that, in particular, that theory must be evolution.* But *science itself demonstrates that there is no such requirement.*

Darwin's God: Evolution (Not) Crucial in Antibiotics Breakthrough: How Science is Actually Done


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because I am the one on disability spending my days supporting my "campaign of hate" against all religious folk on my computer, not even stopping to take care of my basic hygeine like my rugged touch. Right, man-hands?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a total mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *what is your personal background regarding science? What education or training do you have to qualify you to make such statements? Do you think folks are so stupid on here that they don't notice your continual asinine responses that don't have anything to do with the topics at hand?*
Click to expand...


So you have returned to using gargantuan fonts. How cute.

Your blistering above is comical considering your posts are nothing but childish name-calling.


----------



## LOki

The Irish Ram said:


> Well, to answer your first question, we'll know when we get there.


This is an answer to a question? What question is this an actual answer to? One that I asked?



The Irish Ram said:


> God gave us all the information we humans need for our life on earth. He did not give us all the information.


Who? What? God? What are you talking about?



The Irish Ram said:


> But we'll be sure to ask Him for you while we are sitting around His dinner table in a dimension He has always occupied, that we just discovered.











The Irish Ram said:


> Now you:
> Put nothing in one hand, and nothing in the other, then clap, and show me 'something'.


What is the point of this exercise?

Please do not tell me that you submit that as your summary of the big-bang theory.



The Irish Ram said:


> 2.  We know by faith, ...


Which LITERALLY means that you "know" *because* you believe you know; and you "know" you're right *because* you believe you're right.



The Irish Ram said:


> but we enjoy corroborating evidence, ...


No, you don't.



The Irish Ram said:


> ... which scientists are constantly providing.


Evidence which has absolutely no bearing what-so-ever upon what you believe.



The Irish Ram said:


> The Bible *knew* dimensions.


The Bible knows nothing.



The Irish Ram said:


> ... and now we *know* them, and so on.


Right. *Because* you believe you know.



The Irish Ram said:


> If God didn't understand dimensions  (before Hawking), he could have never described them.


You keep referencing this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've gone on, and on about this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.



The Irish Ram said:


> I know for instance, that not only are they there, I know they can be rolled up, stretched, burnt up, torn....  *Scientists don't know that yet.*


So tell me, how do you "know" this?



The Irish Ram said:


> And prophecy is something that non believers run from and call vague, or lucky, but they can't reproduce the process.


Oh, they most certainly can.



The Irish Ram said:


> 6,000 years ago,  we were given a perfect description of a group of people's demeanor.  6,000 years later,  the daily news records that demeanor every night on your TV.


No it doesn't. Shows you what you actually "know."



The Irish Ram said:


> Now you:
> What will the interest be on T-bills in the year 2018?


I don't know. Should I enlist the assistance of a leprechaun?



The Irish Ram said:


> 3. We don't.  We hold them to the same standards.  Presumption is Einstein's "vigorous math" and Darwin asking us to "overlook" the very links necessary to prove his THEORY.


What "presumption"? What "overlook"? WTF are you talking about?



The Irish Ram said:


> Now you:
> Show me the monkeyman.........


What "monkeyman" are you talking about?

Try cogent rational thought on for size.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right,evolutionist infer natural processes are responsible for life but they lack evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> There's far more evidence that natural processes are responsible for life than there is for your Designer/Creator/God. *FAR MORE*.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your post is not worthy of a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as I successfully predicted that you'd refuse to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I have accurately predicted that you'd just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.
> 
> Why do you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer," when you required no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit?
> 
> Why do you hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an *ENTIRELY* different standard than you hold your own *PREASSUMPTION*?
> 
> Why do you (indeed, why do ALL creationists) refuse to answer these questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We "could have" answered them before. It "might have happened" a few pages back, lollipop.
Click to expand...

And typical of your form, you provide no verifiable evidence of such answer. No quote. No link.

No answer. As predicted.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Where is the best place to find low-cost, easy-to-produce, natural, robust and non toxic antibiotics? Easy, in our own bodies. Nature so often provides the solutions we are looking for and, as an aside, that is why the preservation of species from extinction is so important. In this case the solution is natural antibiotics which University of California at Berkeley researchers have confirmed to exist in the tails of certain proteins called cytokeratins. These proteins help our eyes, for example, ward off infections. The eyes cornea is remarkably free of pathogens and the research reveals something about how these wonderful proteins work. Once again, however,* the research was not motivated by evolutionary theory.*
> 
> This new research is important for what it tells us about antibiotics and for what it tells us about science. *Rationalists [Hollie, Loki] maintain that scientists must operate from a theory of origins in order to do science and that, in particular, that theory must be evolution.* But *science itself demonstrates that there is no such requirement.*
> 
> Darwin's God: Evolution (Not) Crucial in Antibiotics Breakthrough: How Science is Actually Done


Is there anything you could cut and paste for us on your gods' design of the cancer cell?

What a masterstroke of design.


----------



## Hollie

Cornelius Hunter - another creationist quack from the Discovery Institute .

If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then... - The Panda's Thumb


----------



## The Irish Ram

Loki, my post that you line item vetoed was in response to your question posted directly above mine, so, to refresh: 



> Why do you (indeed, why do ALL creationists) refuse to answer these questions?


So:

I don't refuse.



> This is an answer to a question? What question is this an actual answer to? One that I asked?


Yes, refreshment above.



> Who? What? God? What are you talking about?


El Shadday, Creator of heaven and earth. 


> Please do not tell me that you submit that as your summary of the big-bang theory.


Ok, I'll do it your way:
0 + 0 = 



> Which LITERALLY means that you "know" because you believe you know; and you "know" you're right because you believe you're right.



Actually I like the C.S. Lewis def. better:
"Faith is merely the virtue by which we hold to our reasoned ideas, despite moods to the contrary."  
With no proof, I would know Him.  With proof I know Him better.



> No, you don't.



Yes, I do.


> Evidence which has absolutely no bearing what-so-ever upon what you believe.



Of course it does.  If God said the earth was triangular, and then later we found out it was round, I would be skeptical about the Word.  Luckily,  it is the other way around. Human's are constantly changing their opinions.  God doesn't. God said round.  We said flat, then  round.
 He described dimensions before we ever figured out there *were* dimensions.  We made Einstein a hero for finding a 4th.



> The Bible knows nothing.



The Bible knows everything.  You know nothing about the Bible.



> Right. Because you believe you know.



No, because science and the Bible tell me the same thing.  Then I know the scientists are starting to "get it."  Hawking has convinced me that there are more than 4 dimensions.   No wait, the Bible convinced me of that long before Hawking figured it out. 
The Bible tells me what those other dimensions can do!  Still waiting for Hawking to get back to me on that......... 
But just for fun, remember what God told us first. Dimensions can bend, tear, be rolled up, burned up, shaken.   Then, when our brightest make the announcement, you'll remember where you *first* became aware of that knowledge.



> You keep referencing this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've gone on, and on about this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.



The Bible is an excellent source of answers to your question.  In fact it is mandatory if you plan on discussing Him with any degree of intellectual information concerning Him.



> So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.



 I have, you just keep rewinding......... 



> So tell me, how do you "know" this?



The God thing......



> Oh, they most certainly can.



Then do it. 



> I don't know.



Exactly.


> What "presumption"? What "overlook"? WTF are you talking about?


Einstein's rigorous math, that he asked his colleagues to ignore, and the complete lack of missing links that Darwin said should be in the millions. 
DARWIN HAD NO PROOF, but said, that shouldn't stop you  from believing:

Darwin> "With respect to the absence of fossil remains serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact . . . those regions which are the most likely to afford remains connecting man with some extinct apelike creature, have not as yet been searched by geologists." 
Yeah, ^ that's it. 
 And he admitted once more: &#8220;The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies,which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower animal."
And that, "this lack of evidence for his theory would not trouble anyone who believes in evolution."
Seems your belief is merely Darwin's belief with no proof to back it up. 



> What "monkeyman" are you talking about?



The one there is no proof of...........


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a total mess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *what is your personal background regarding science? What education or training do you have to qualify you to make such statements? Do you think folks are so stupid on here that they don't notice your continual asinine responses that don't have anything to do with the topics at hand?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have returned to using gargantuan fonts. How cute.
> 
> Your blistering above is comical considering your posts are nothing but childish name-calling.
Click to expand...


Asking a legitimate question related to accusation you made is name calling? Oh you poor dear. Always playing the victim aren't you.

*What is your background? Please share.* Crickets getting deafening.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Cornelius Hunter - another creationist quack from the Discovery Institute .
> 
> If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then... - The Panda's Thumb



Always with the Panda's thumb. Yeah, cause there's an unbiased website... 

Seriously, you must have missed my question... *What are your credentials? What formal science training do you have?*


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's far more evidence that natural processes are responsible for life than there is for your Designer/Creator/God. *FAR MORE*.
> 
> Just as I successfully predicted that you'd refuse to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I have accurately predicted that you'd just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.
> 
> Why do you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer," when you required no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit?
> 
> Why do you hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an *ENTIRELY* different standard than you hold your own *PREASSUMPTION*?
> 
> Why do you (indeed, why do ALL creationists) refuse to answer these questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We "could have" answered them before. It "might have happened" a few pages back, lollipop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And typical of your form, you provide no verifiable evidence of such answer. No quote. No link.
> 
> No answer. As predicted.
Click to expand...


Oh there's an answer there, Little Debbie. You just refuse to acknowledge it. I have presented the same proof that your pathetic Darwinian myth is entirely based on. Based on what I have stated above, we now have the FACT of the Creator. What of your origins fairy tale 43 might haves and could haves are verifiable by any corroborative evidence from the distant past??? Absolutely none, Drumstick.

You still have not responded to my comments regarding your inability to use the scientific method to prove any of your might have/could have just so stories about the distant past. Why do you ignore it? Because to respond would be to admit that your belief system requires just as much faith as theism. Really convenient how you passed over that one.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the best place to find low-cost, easy-to-produce, natural, robust and non toxic antibiotics? Easy, in our own bodies. Nature so often provides the solutions we are looking for and, as an aside, that is why the preservation of species from extinction is so important. In this case the solution is natural antibiotics which University of California at Berkeley researchers have confirmed to exist in the tails of certain proteins called cytokeratins. These proteins help our eyes, for example, ward off infections. The eyes cornea is remarkably free of pathogens and the research reveals something about how these wonderful proteins work. Once again, however,* the research was not motivated by evolutionary theory.*
> 
> This new research is important for what it tells us about antibiotics and for what it tells us about science. *Rationalists [Hollie, Loki] maintain that scientists must operate from a theory of origins in order to do science and that, in particular, that theory must be evolution.* But *science itself demonstrates that there is no such requirement.*
> 
> Darwin's God: Evolution (Not) Crucial in Antibiotics Breakthrough: How Science is Actually Done
> 
> 
> 
> Is there anything you could cut and paste for us on your gods' design of the cancer cell?
> 
> What a masterstroke of design.
Click to expand...


My God didn't invent the cancer cell. That was your god Hollie...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the best place to find low-cost, easy-to-produce, natural, robust and non toxic antibiotics? Easy, in our own bodies. Nature so often provides the solutions we are looking for and, as an aside, that is why the preservation of species from extinction is so important. In this case the solution is natural antibiotics which University of California at Berkeley researchers have confirmed to exist in the tails of certain proteins called cytokeratins. These proteins help our eyes, for example, ward off infections. The eyes cornea is remarkably free of pathogens and the research reveals something about how these wonderful proteins work. Once again, however,* the research was not motivated by evolutionary theory.*
> 
> This new research is important for what it tells us about antibiotics and for what it tells us about science. *Rationalists [Hollie, Loki] maintain that scientists must operate from a theory of origins in order to do science and that, in particular, that theory must be evolution.* But *science itself demonstrates that there is no such requirement.*
> 
> Darwin's God: Evolution (Not) Crucial in Antibiotics Breakthrough: How Science is Actually Done
> 
> 
> 
> Is there anything you could cut and paste for us on your gods' design of the cancer cell?
> 
> What a masterstroke of design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My God didn't invent the cancer cell. That was your god.
Click to expand...


So then, you selectively choose what your gawds have designed?

How convenient.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We "could have" answered them before. It "might have happened" a few pages back, lollipop.
> 
> 
> 
> And typical of your form, you provide no verifiable evidence of such answer. No quote. No link.
> 
> No answer. As predicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh there's an answer there, Little Debbie. You just refuse to acknowledge it. I have presented the same proof that your pathetic Darwinian myth is entirely based on. Based on what I have stated above, we now have the FACT of the Creator. What of your origins fairy tale 43 might haves and could haves are verifiable by any corroborative evidence from the distant past??? Absolutely none, Drumstick.
> 
> You still have not responded to my comments regarding your inability to use the scientific method to prove any of your might have/could have just so stories about the distant past. Why do you ignore it? Because to respond would be to admit that your belief system requires just as much faith as theism. Really convenient how you passed over that one.
Click to expand...


No kidding, we now have the "fact" of your creator gawds?

You're a strange little fundie.


----------



## LOki

The Irish Ram said:


> Loki, my post that you line item vetoed was in response to your question posted directly above mine, so, to refresh:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you (indeed, why do ALL creationists) refuse to answer these questions?
> 
> 
> 
> So:
> 
> I don't refuse.
Click to expand...

Pro Tip: Responding is not the same as answering.



The Irish Ram said:


> This is an answer to a question? What question is this an actual answer to? One that I asked?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, refreshment above.
Click to expand...

Excellent non-answer. BRAVO! 




The Irish Ram said:


> El Shadday, Creator of heaven and earth.


This is meaningless.

You keep referencing this "God" thing--this "Creator; what are you talking about?



The Irish Ram said:


> Ok, I'll do it your way:
> 0 + 0 =


What is this?



The Irish Ram said:


> Actually I like the C.S. Lewis def. better:
> "Faith is merely the virtue by which we hold to our reasoned ideas, despite moods to the contrary."
> With no proof, I would know Him.  With proof I know Him better.


Which LITERALLY means that you "know" because you believe you know; and you "know" you're right because you believe you're right.



The Irish Ram said:


> Yes, I do.


2 things:

1) There is no intellectually rigorous evidence that corroborates faith;
2) If there was, the belief would no longer be faith, but rather a rational belief.



The Irish Ram said:


> Of course it does.  If God said the earth was triangular, and then later we found out it was round, I would be skeptical about the Word.



Your God thing says a body of water that's identical to the sea sitting above the heavens. See Genesis
Your God thing says the world is flat. See Proverbs, Isaiah.
Your God thing says that hares are ruminants. See Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
Your God thing says that the planet is stationary. See Psalms, Job, Samuel, Joshua, Corinthians.
So it does indeed appear that evidence has absolutely no bearing what-so-ever upon what you believe.



The Irish Ram said:


> Luckily,  it is the other way around. Human's are constantly changing their opinions.  God doesn't. God said round.  We said flat, then  round.


Your God thing says the world is circular; flat like a pancake. We believed it, and then discovered it is spherical.



The Irish Ram said:


> He described dimensions before we ever figured out there *were* dimensions.


Made up nonsense.



The Irish Ram said:


> The Bible knows everything.  You know nothing about the Bible.






The Irish Ram said:


> No, because science and the Bible tell me the same thing.  Then I know the scientists are starting to "get it."  Hawking has convinced me that there are more than 4 dimensions.   No wait, the Bible convinced me of that long before Hawking figured it out.
> The Bible tells me what those other dimensions can do!  Still waiting for Hawking to get back to me on that.........
> But just for fun, remember what God told us first. Dimensions can bend, tear, be rolled up, burned up, shaken.   Then, when our brightest make the announcement, you'll remember where you *first* became aware of that knowledge.


No. You validate your belief with the Bible. You then rationalize the validity of the Bible with anything you can find. You ignore EVERYTHING that invalidates the Bible. You "know" because you believe you know; and you "know" you're right because you believe you're right.



The Irish Ram said:


> The Bible is an excellent source of answers to your question.  In fact it is mandatory if you plan on discussing Him with any degree of intellectual information concerning Him.










The Irish Ram said:


> I have, you just keep rewinding.........


Unless your question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of this "God" thing is the explanation you're talking about, you have NOT explained to me what this "God" thing of yours is.



The Irish Ram said:


> The God thing......


You keep referencing this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've gone on, and on about this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.



The Irish Ram said:


> Then do it.


I don't engage in astrology, psychic power, long cons, or any other frauds.



The Irish Ram said:


> Exactly.


Yes, exactly. I do not engage in the practice of first "knowing" because I believe I know; and then "knowing" I'm right because I believe I'm right. That's intellectual hubris.



The Irish Ram said:


> What "presumption"? What "overlook"? WTF are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein's rigorous math, that he asked his colleagues to ignore, ...
Click to expand...

Yes. I read this the first time. WHAT math are you claiming Einstein asked his colleagues to ignore?



The Irish Ram said:


> ... and the complete lack of missing links that Darwin said should be in the millions.
> DARWIN HAD NO PROOF, but said, that shouldn't stop you  from believing:
> 
> Darwin> "With respect to the absence of fossil remains serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact . . . those regions which are the most likely to afford remains connecting man with some extinct apelike creature, have not as yet been searched by geologists."
> Yeah, ^ that's it.
> And he admitted once more: &#8220;The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies,which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower animal."
> And that, "this lack of evidence for his theory would not trouble anyone who believes in evolution."
> Seems your belief is merely Darwin's belief with no proof to back it up.


First, only the faithful assert the requirement of proof in the intellectually dishonest manner you do.

There is BOATLOADS of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, and NONE that support biblical creation tales.

Secondly, your quote-mining expedition fails to point out ANY instance that Darwin requested that lack of evidence be overlooked.



The Irish Ram said:


> What "monkeyman" are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one there is no proof of...........
Click to expand...

Why am I obligated to show you a "monkeyman" that "there is no proof of"?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cornelius Hunter - another creationist quack from the Discovery Institute .
> 
> If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then... - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always with the Panda's thumb. Yeah, cause there's an unbiased website...
> 
> Seriously, you must have missed my question... *What are your credentials? What formal science training do you have?*
Click to expand...


I understand you feel threatened by science because it tends to provide rational explanations to what you hold to be acts by the supermagical gawds. That is why you lash out like a petulant child when the religious hacks you worship are exposed as frauds. 

Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

UltimateReality said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Christian thought, humans have free will, which made it possible for them to choose sin, not God. Under evolutionary philosophy, there is no free will for humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing the logic is that if life evolves then it doesn't have free will? You lost me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support evolutionary philosophy. You will have to look elsewhere to substantiate the logical outcome of darwinian thought. You can start here...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI]Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I didn't ask you what you supported. I asked you to clarify a statement that I didn't understand. Are you saying that evolutionary belief/philosophy/theory, whatever you deem to call it, establishes that humans don't have free will? I don't know yet if I would have an issue with whatever your logic might be, but I might.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cornelius Hunter - another creationist quack from the Discovery Institute .
> 
> If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then... - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always with the Panda's thumb. Yeah, cause there's an unbiased website...
> 
> Seriously, you must have missed my question... *What are your credentials? What formal science training do you have?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you feel threatened by science because it tends to provide rational explanations to what you hold to be acts by the supermagical gawds. That is why you lash out like a petulant child when the religious hacks you worship are exposed as frauds.
> 
> Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship.
Click to expand...


*What are your credentials? What formal science training do you have?*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Always with the Panda's thumb. Yeah, cause there's an unbiased website...
> 
> Seriously, you must have missed my question... *What are your credentials? What formal science training do you have?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you feel threatened by science because it tends to provide rational explanations to what you hold to be acts by the supermagical gawds. That is why you lash out like a petulant child when the religious hacks you worship are exposed as frauds.
> 
> Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What are your credentials? What formal science training do you have?*
Click to expand...


Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Always with the Panda's thumb. Yeah, cause there's an unbiased website...
> 
> Seriously, you must have missed my question... *What are your credentials? What formal science training do you have?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you feel threatened by science because it tends to provide rational explanations to what you hold to be acts by the supermagical gawds. That is why you lash out like a petulant child when the religious hacks you worship are exposed as frauds.
> 
> Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What are your credentials? What formal science training do you have?*
Click to expand...


You notice they ignored my mutation questions ? It's true we know the theory they defend better then they do or they were afraid of my rebuttals if they answered my questions correctly.

I don't believe any of them have taken much college science. Their hate for believers is the only reason they are here. What I find funny is when they copy and paste articles they think answer my questions.

Their copy and paste jobs won't help them on this issue. If they lack such a background in science why do they defend a theory they can't defend,interesting. Why are they so convinced we don't know what we are talking about?Talk about arrogance through ignorance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you feel threatened by science because it tends to provide rational explanations to what you hold to be acts by the supermagical gawds. That is why you lash out like a petulant child when the religious hacks you worship are exposed as frauds.
> 
> Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What are your credentials? What formal science training do you have?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship
Click to expand...


Another rhetoric filled post and nothing of substance.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What are your credentials? What formal science training do you have?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another rhetoric filled post and nothing of substance.
Click to expand...


It was an appropriate response to your typical "rhetoric filled post and nothing of substance."


----------



## UltimateReality

Jimmy_Jam said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing the logic is that if life evolves then it doesn't have free will? You lost me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support evolutionary philosophy. You will have to look elsewhere to substantiate the logical outcome of darwinian thought. You can start here...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI]Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you what you supported. I asked you to clarify a statement that I didn't understand. Are you saying that evolutionary belief/philosophy/theory, whatever you deem to call it, establishes that humans don't have free will? I don't know yet if I would have an issue with whatever your logic might be, but I might.
Click to expand...


No free will is a pretty strong tenet of evolutionary philosophy. It has to do with genetic determinism. Since your responses to stimuli are pre-programed by evolution, choice and free will are really just illusions. Instinct and your genes drive all your decisions.

Genetic determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support evolutionary philosophy. You will have to look elsewhere to substantiate the logical outcome of darwinian thought. You can start here...
> 
> Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you what you supported. I asked you to clarify a statement that I didn't understand. Are you saying that evolutionary belief/philosophy/theory, whatever you deem to call it, establishes that humans don't have free will? I don't know yet if I would have an issue with whatever your logic might be, but I might.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No free will is a pretty strong tenet of evolutionary philosophy. It has to do with genetic determinism. Since your responses to stimuli are pre-programed by evolution, choice and free will are really just illusions. Instinct and your genes drive all your decisions.
> 
> Genetic determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Free will is a religious concept. It has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.


----------



## Hollie

Federal Court Rejects Intelligent Design Curriculum | CNSNews.com 

(CNSNews.com) - A Pennsylvania school system may not include intelligent design in its science curriculum, a federal court ruled Tuesday. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said intelligent design is not a scientific concept.

The ruling is a victory for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which argued that intelligent design is religion in disguise.

"This is a tremendous victory for public schools and religious freedom," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "It means that school board members have no right to impose their personal religious beliefs on students through the school curriculum."

The ACLU and Americans United sued the Dover Area School Board on behalf of parents who objected to having intelligent design taught as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Intelligent design says an intelligent cause rather than natural selection explains the origins of life.

In his ruling, Jones agreed with both groups, saying the Dover school board violated the so-called separation of church and state by voting to introduce intelligent design (ID) into science classes by requiring students to listen to a disclaimer that was critical of the theory of evolution


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another rhetoric filled post and nothing of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was an appropriate response to your typical "rhetoric filled post and nothing of substance."
Click to expand...


Hollie, it really is pretty pathetic how you dodge relevant questions. There are two things possibly here at play: Either you are not smart enough to figure out why the argument went here, or you are smart enough to figure you are intellectually outgunned and so you ignore, ignore, ignore and hope that it will eventually go away. So just in case the first possibility exist, let me explain it to you. You made the accusation that I didn't have a background in science, inferring that you did and that you were somehow more qualified than I am to make statements pertinent to this discussion. That is why I am hassling you and you continue to ignore. I guess I don't know why you won't share anything remotely personal about yourself. What are you afraid of? Do you think someone is going to figure out who you are? So what! I have posted pics of myself and shared personal details. Anyone who knows me would be able to know it was me instantly from this thread. 

What are you hiding??? Oh and just in case you thought this was over...
*
What is your science background?*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another rhetoric filled post and nothing of substance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was an appropriate response to your typical "rhetoric filled post and nothing of substance."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, it really is pretty pathetic how you dodge relevant questions. There are two things possibly here at play: Either you are not smart enough to figure out why the argument went here, or you are smart enough to figure you are intellectually outgunned and so you ignore, ignore, ignore and hope that it will eventually go away. So just in case the first possibility exist, let me explain it to you. You made the accusation that I didn't have a background in science, inferring that you did and that you were somehow more qualified than I am to make statements pertinent to this discussion. That is why I am hassling you and you continue to ignore. I guess I don't know why you won't share anything remotely personal about yourself. What are you afraid of? Do you think someone is going to figure out who you are? So what! I have posted pics of myself and shared personal details. Anyone who knows me would be able to know it was me instantly from this thread.
> 
> What are you hiding??? Oh and just in case you thought this was over...
> *
> What is your science background?*
Click to expand...


You have announced that you're a stalker. Good for you. 

What s shame that your responses are nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie religious websites. That being the case, you should expect to be taken to task for cutting and pasting nonsense.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Federal Court Rejects Intelligent Design Curriculum | CNSNews.com
> 
> (CNSNews.com) - A Pennsylvania school system may not include intelligent design in its science curriculum, a federal court ruled Tuesday. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said intelligent design is not a scientific concept.
> 
> The ruling is a victory for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which argued that intelligent design is religion in disguise.
> 
> "This is a tremendous victory for public schools and religious freedom," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "It means that school board members have no right to impose their personal religious beliefs on students through the school curriculum."
> 
> The ACLU and Americans United sued the Dover Area School Board on behalf of parents who objected to having intelligent design taught as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Intelligent design says an intelligent cause rather than natural selection explains the origins of life.
> 
> In his ruling, Jones agreed with both groups, saying the Dover school board violated the so-called separation of church and state by voting to introduce intelligent design (ID) into science classes by requiring students to listen to a disclaimer that was critical of the theory of evolution



Hollie, how many times can you post up the same thing about Dover??

"First, the *new trend in science toward enlisting the political and judicial system to help one side to prevail in a scientific dispute is highly injurious to the health of science* itself, to say nothing of the polity, and it must be stopped. If a scientific consensus is so insecure that it has to have its claims imposed on the public by court order&#8212;as happened in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover decision in Pennsylvania with respect to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution&#8212;it can scarcely expect to command the respect of that public, and it forfeits whatever intellectual authority it might otherwise be entitled to. Similar efforts are now afoot to impose an artificial consensus on the subject of climate change. They are equally to be deplored."

"*But people understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power.* Physicists have demonstrated the former by resting content with the current uncertainty until better data shall arrive; *Darwinists have demonstrated the latter in abundance by relying on courts to enforce their dogmas.*"

Dear Darwin lobby: The Dover trial is WHY people don

"But *federal judges cannot settle scientific debates*, and a court ruling has no ability to negate the evidence for design in nature. Spend a day in law school, and you'll quickly learn that judges are not inerrant. In this instance, the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling contains many factual and legal mistakes, including that Judge Jones:

    Adopted a false definition of ID by claiming that ID requires "supernatural creation" and is merely a negative argument against evolution;

    Denied the existence of pro-ID, peer-reviewed, scientific publications and research that were testified about in his courtroom;

    Adopted an unfair double-standard of legal analysis where religious implications, beliefs, and motives count against ID but never against materialist theories of origins;

    Presumed it is permissible for a federal judge to try to define science, settle controversial scientific questions, and explain the proper relationship between evolution and religion;

    Attempted to turn science into a voting contest by claiming that popularity is required for an idea to be scientific."

It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views

*Bottom line, Man Hands, you can stop cut and pasting Dover articles incessantly. In this case, Might does NOT make right.  *


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was an appropriate response to your typical "rhetoric filled post and nothing of substance."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, it really is pretty pathetic how you dodge relevant questions. There are two things possibly here at play: Either you are not smart enough to figure out why the argument went here, or you are smart enough to figure you are intellectually outgunned and so you ignore, ignore, ignore and hope that it will eventually go away. So just in case the first possibility exist, let me explain it to you. You made the accusation that I didn't have a background in science, inferring that you did and that you were somehow more qualified than I am to make statements pertinent to this discussion. That is why I am hassling you and you continue to ignore. I guess I don't know why you won't share anything remotely personal about yourself. What are you afraid of? Do you think someone is going to figure out who you are? So what! I have posted pics of myself and shared personal details. Anyone who knows me would be able to know it was me instantly from this thread.
> 
> What are you hiding??? Oh and just in case you thought this was over...
> *
> What is your science background?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have announced that you're a stalker. Good for you.
> 
> What s shame that your responses are nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie religious websites. That being the case, you should expect to be taken to task for cutting and pasting nonsense.
Click to expand...


Well this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you're a total dimwit. Responding to you is like arguing with a drunk. 

Oh and by the way...

*What is your science and educational background? What are you so afraid of?*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, it really is pretty pathetic how you dodge relevant questions. There are two things possibly here at play: Either you are not smart enough to figure out why the argument went here, or you are smart enough to figure you are intellectually outgunned and so you ignore, ignore, ignore and hope that it will eventually go away. So just in case the first possibility exist, let me explain it to you. You made the accusation that I didn't have a background in science, inferring that you did and that you were somehow more qualified than I am to make statements pertinent to this discussion. That is why I am hassling you and you continue to ignore. I guess I don't know why you won't share anything remotely personal about yourself. What are you afraid of? Do you think someone is going to figure out who you are? So what! I have posted pics of myself and shared personal details. Anyone who knows me would be able to know it was me instantly from this thread.
> 
> What are you hiding??? Oh and just in case you thought this was over...
> *
> What is your science background?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have announced that you're a stalker. Good for you.
> 
> What s shame that your responses are nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie religious websites. That being the case, you should expect to be taken to task for cutting and pasting nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you're a total dimwit. Responding to you is like arguing with a drunk.
> 
> Oh and by the way...
> 
> *What is your science and educational background? What are you so afraid of?*
Click to expand...


An Index to Creationist Claims 

Creationist claims are numerous and varied, so it is often difficult to track down information on any given claim. Plus,creationists constantly come up with new claims which need addressing. This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims. It is updated frequently; see the What's New page for the latest changes.

Since most creationism is folklore, the claims are organized in an outline format following that of Stith Thompson's Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. Sections CA through CG deal with claims against conventional science, and sections CH through CJ contain claims about creationism itself.


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:
			
		

> Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship



Court Upholds Denial of ICR Degrees &#8211; Dispatches from the Creation Wars 

A federal court in Texas has upheld a decision by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to deny the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School a certificate of authority to offer masters degrees in science. The ICR moved from California to Texas but now cannot offer MS programs at its school because of this decision. You can see the full ruling here.

This is a ruling for summary judgment, which means both sides agreed to a basic set of facts and legal questions and there was no substantive disagreement on those facts and therefore no need to proceed to a full trial. And the facts here are pretty clear; its the legal questions that the court had to decide.

A panel of science education experts who visited the ICRGS to evaluate the program concluded that much of the course content was outside the realm of science and lacked potential to help students understand the nature of science and the history and nature of the natural world. The board therefore denied the request for authority to grant masters degrees and the ICRGS filed suit.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have announced that you're a stalker. Good for you.
> 
> What s shame that your responses are nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie religious websites. That being the case, you should expect to be taken to task for cutting and pasting nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you're a total dimwit. Responding to you is like arguing with a drunk.
> 
> Oh and by the way...
> 
> *What is your science and educational background? What are you so afraid of?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An Index to Creationist Claims
> 
> Creationist claims are numerous and varied, so it is often difficult to track down information on any given claim. Plus,creationists constantly come up with new claims which need addressing. This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims. It is updated frequently; see the What's New page for the latest changes.
> 
> Since most creationism is folklore, the claims are organized in an outline format following that of Stith Thompson's Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. Sections CA through CG deal with claims against conventional science, and sections CH through CJ contain claims about creationism itself.
Click to expand...


Great cut and paste info, but *what is your science and educational background?*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Court Upholds Denial of ICR Degrees  Dispatches from the Creation Wars
> 
> A federal court in Texas has upheld a decision by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to deny the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School a certificate of authority to offer masters degrees in science. The ICR moved from California to Texas but now cannot offer MS programs at its school because of this decision. You can see the full ruling here.
> 
> This is a ruling for summary judgment, which means both sides agreed to a basic set of facts and legal questions and there was no substantive disagreement on those facts and therefore no need to proceed to a full trial. And the facts here are pretty clear; its the legal questions that the court had to decide.
> 
> A panel of science education experts who visited the ICRGS to evaluate the program concluded that much of the course content was outside the realm of science and lacked potential to help students understand the nature of science and the history and nature of the natural world. The board therefore denied the request for authority to grant masters degrees and the ICRGS filed suit.
Click to expand...


Interesting cut and paste, but *what is your science and educational background?*


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship





MnCSE - Evolution, Creationism and the Courts 20 Questions 

Evolution, Creationism, and the Courts: 20 Questions

Randy Moore & Karen L. Miksch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA RMoore@umn.edu Abstract The teaching of evolution and creationism is controversial to many people in the United States. Knowledge of the many important court-decisions about the teaching of evolution and creationism in the United States can be used not only to resist anti-evolution activities of creationists, but also to help teachers address questions about the teaching of evolution and creationism.

We have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion. If nowhere else, in the relation between Church and State, good fences make good neighbors. Justice Felix Frankfurter, in McCollum v. Board of Education




I want you to have all the academic freedom you want, as long as you wind up saying the Bible account [of creation] is true and all others are not. Jerry Falwell, television preacher and university administrator.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

UltimateReality said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support evolutionary philosophy. You will have to look elsewhere to substantiate the logical outcome of darwinian thought. You can start here...
> 
> Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you what you supported. I asked you to clarify a statement that I didn't understand. Are you saying that evolutionary belief/philosophy/theory, whatever you deem to call it, establishes that humans don't have free will? I don't know yet if I would have an issue with whatever your logic might be, but I might.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No free will is a pretty strong tenet of evolutionary philosophy. It has to do with genetic determinism. Since your responses to stimuli are pre-programed by evolution, choice and free will are really just illusions. Instinct and your genes drive all your decisions.
> 
> Genetic determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Thank you for clarifying. I don't see anything wrong with your logic there.

Incidentally, I believe in God, and that the Universe was set in motion by that power. I just don't entertain Creationism or Intelligent Design as science. Don't get me wrong, I think the evolutionists certainly have their biases, and heavily in some cases, but Creationism is so agenda-driven as to be firmly distinguishable from legitimate scientific inquiry.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MnCSE - Evolution, Creationism and the Courts 20 Questions
> 
> Evolution, Creationism, and the Courts: 20 Questions
> 
> Randy Moore & Karen L. Miksch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA RMoore@umn.edu Abstract The teaching of evolution and creationism is controversial to many people in the United States. Knowledge of the many important court-decisions about the teaching of evolution and creationism in the United States can be used not only to resist anti-evolution activities of creationists, but also to help teachers address questions about the teaching of evolution and creationism.
> 
> We have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion. If nowhere else, in the relation between Church and State, good fences make good neighbors. Justice Felix Frankfurter, in McCollum v. Board of Education
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want you to have all the academic freedom you want, as long as you wind up saying the Bible account [of creation] is true and all others are not. Jerry Falwell, television preacher and university administrator.
Click to expand...


Great info Hollie! *What is your educational background*?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MnCSE - Evolution, Creationism and the Courts 20 Questions
> 
> Evolution, Creationism, and the Courts: 20 Questions
> 
> Randy Moore & Karen L. Miksch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA RMoore@umn.edu Abstract The teaching of evolution and creationism is controversial to many people in the United States. Knowledge of the many important court-decisions about the teaching of evolution and creationism in the United States can be used not only to resist anti-evolution activities of creationists, but also to help teachers address questions about the teaching of evolution and creationism.
> 
> We have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion. If nowhere else, in the relation between Church and State, good fences make good neighbors. Justice Felix Frankfurter, in McCollum v. Board of Education
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want you to have all the academic freedom you want, as long as you wind up saying the Bible account [of creation] is true and all others are not. Jerry Falwell, television preacher and university administrator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great info Hollie! *What is your educational background*?
Click to expand...


It is interesting, don't you think? All the lies and deceit furthered by fundies in connection with some alleged "design" they want introduced into the school system is nothing more than frantic attempts to force christianity.in the school syllabus.

 Jerry Falwell and the Christian Taliban.

BTW, my little personal stalker, I'll require you to continue with the gargantuan fonts.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> MnCSE - Evolution, Creationism and the Courts 20 Questions
> 
> Evolution, Creationism, and the Courts: 20 Questions
> 
> Randy Moore & Karen L. Miksch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA RMoore@umn.edu Abstract The teaching of evolution and creationism is controversial to many people in the United States. Knowledge of the many important court-decisions about the teaching of evolution and creationism in the United States can be used not only to resist anti-evolution activities of creationists, but also to help teachers address questions about the teaching of evolution and creationism.
> 
> &#8220;We have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion. If nowhere else, in the relation between Church and State, good fences make good neighbors.&#8221; Justice Felix Frankfurter, in McCollum v. Board of Education
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;I want you to have all the academic freedom you want, as long as you wind up saying the Bible account [of creation] is true and all others are not.&#8221; Jerry Falwell, television preacher and university administrator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great info Hollie! *What is your educational background*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is interesting, don't you think? All the lies and deceit furthered by fundies in connection with some alleged "design" they want introduced into the school system is nothing more than frantic attempts to force christianity.in the school syllabus.
> 
> Jerry Falwell and the Christian Taliban.
> 
> BTW, my little personal stalker, I'll require you to continue with the gargantuan fonts.
Click to expand...


I totally agree, *but where did you go to college?* *What type of science background do you have?*

You know what Hollie? Your hatred only eats away at YOUR insides, and doesn't affect those you hate. You live under the cloud of hurt and unforgiveness. Forgive your parents and those who have wronged you and you will be free. It is your forgiveness of others that will release your hatred, and unload that huge burden of bitterness you have been carrying since your childhood. Your hate only hurts you. Christ said, "This is my commandment. That ye love one another."


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great info Hollie! *What is your educational background*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting, don't you think? All the lies and deceit furthered by fundies in connection with some alleged "design" they want introduced into the school system is nothing more than frantic attempts to force christianity.in the school syllabus.
> 
> Jerry Falwell and the Christian Taliban.
> 
> BTW, my little personal stalker, I'll require you to continue with the gargantuan fonts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally agree, *but where did you go to college?* *What type of science background do you have?*
> 
> You know what Hollie? Your hatred only eats away at YOUR insides, and doesn't affect those you hate. You live under the cloud of hurt and unforgiveness. Forgive your parents and those who have wronged you and you will be free. It is your forgiveness of others that will release your hatred, and unload that huge burden of bitterness you have been carrying since your childhood. Your hate only hurts you. Christ said, "This is my commandment. That ye love one another."
Click to expand...


You're projecting. Were you abused by a Priest as a youngster? Are you still being abused? Could it be that you have have conflicting feelings about the abuse which is why you allow the abuse to continue?

Your primary objection to this thread and my comments in particular is that you believe criticism of your religious beliefs should not be allowed. In a totalitarian theocracy such as Iran, or other fear societies in the islamist Middle East, the matters discussed within this thread would never see the light of day. 

Having a literal belief, such as yours,  in a 6000 year old earth, jinn, demons and mankind sharing the planet with dinosaurs actually _is_ a viable reason to criticize another person or peoples belief system when that other person insists on forcing those beliefs on others or insists that supernaturalism must be part of a public school syllabus. What you are refusing to address is that your insistence that Harun Yahya type creationism be taught in public schools will similarly be met with demands for many other religions to have equal time. I see no valid reason why we in the West should condemn our students in public, state funded schools to the irrelevancies of ancient superstitions. I happen to think it is outrageous to even consider such absurdities as a geocentric model, a flat earth, seven heavens, mountains stopping the earth from shaking, meteors as missiles against jinn and similar absurdities found in creationist dogma. I really see no mechanism to address these concepts as in any way short of being ludicrous. 

American companies and firms look for truly analytical minds with the capacity for deductive thought and rationality, and an increasingly technical world demands them. I happen to live within a four hour drive of several of the most respected universities in the world. Guess what; none of them include jinn 101 in their course curriculum. I have no desire to see our education system devolve to the point where we churn out the legions of vacant, Koran addled minds exiting Middle Eastern schools.

I've scolded you once already about the gargantuan fonts. I do require you to use gargantuan fonts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Court Upholds Denial of ICR Degrees  Dispatches from the Creation Wars
> 
> A federal court in Texas has upheld a decision by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to deny the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School a certificate of authority to offer masters degrees in science. The ICR moved from California to Texas but now cannot offer MS programs at its school because of this decision. You can see the full ruling here.
> 
> This is a ruling for summary judgment, which means both sides agreed to a basic set of facts and legal questions and there was no substantive disagreement on those facts and therefore no need to proceed to a full trial. And the facts here are pretty clear; its the legal questions that the court had to decide.
> 
> A panel of science education experts who visited the ICRGS to evaluate the program concluded that much of the course content was outside the realm of science and lacked potential to help students understand the nature of science and the history and nature of the natural world. The board therefore denied the request for authority to grant masters degrees and the ICRGS filed suit.
Click to expand...


Hmm how is this relevant ? both myself and UR's edcational background is from the University of Arizona,if i'm not mistaken they have a very good standing in the science community.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> MnCSE - Evolution, Creationism and the Courts 20 Questions
> 
> Evolution, Creationism, and the Courts: 20 Questions
> 
> Randy Moore & Karen L. Miksch University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA RMoore@umn.edu Abstract The teaching of evolution and creationism is controversial to many people in the United States. Knowledge of the many important court-decisions about the teaching of evolution and creationism in the United States can be used not only to resist anti-evolution activities of creationists, but also to help teachers address questions about the teaching of evolution and creationism.
> 
> &#8220;We have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion. If nowhere else, in the relation between Church and State, good fences make good neighbors.&#8221; Justice Felix Frankfurter, in McCollum v. Board of Education
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;I want you to have all the academic freedom you want, as long as you wind up saying the Bible account [of creation] is true and all others are not.&#8221; Jerry Falwell, television preacher and university administrator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great info Hollie! *What is your educational background*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is interesting, don't you think? All the lies and deceit furthered by fundies in connection with some alleged "design" they want introduced into the school system is nothing more than frantic attempts to force christianity.in the school syllabus.
> 
> Jerry Falwell and the Christian Taliban.
> 
> BTW, my little personal stalker, I'll require you to continue with the gargantuan fonts.
Click to expand...


Your religion is humans came from an accumulation of mistakes


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie you probably didn't understand my comment I just directed at you.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great info Hollie! *What is your educational background*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting, don't you think? All the lies and deceit furthered by fundies in connection with some alleged "design" they want introduced into the school system is nothing more than frantic attempts to force christianity.in the school syllabus.
> 
> Jerry Falwell and the Christian Taliban.
> 
> BTW, my little personal stalker, I'll require you to continue with the gargantuan fonts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your religion is humans came from an accumulation of mistakes
Click to expand...

Such is the fundie syndrome from worship at the altar of Harun Yahya.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie you probably didn't understand my comment I just directed at you.



You predictably have trouble writing coherent sentences.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting, don't you think? All the lies and deceit furthered by fundies in connection with some alleged "design" they want introduced into the school system is nothing more than frantic attempts to force christianity.in the school syllabus.
> 
> Jerry Falwell and the Christian Taliban.
> 
> BTW, my little personal stalker, I'll require you to continue with the gargantuan fonts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your religion is humans came from an accumulation of mistakes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such is the fundie syndrome from worship at the altar of Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...


No, right from the evolutionist propaganda book.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you probably didn't understand my comment I just directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You predictably have trouble writing coherent sentences.
Click to expand...


You are in denial or like i said earlier you are not understanding what is being said to you.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your religion is humans came from an accumulation of mistakes
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the fundie syndrome from worship at the altar of Harun Yahya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, right from the evolutionist propaganda book.
Click to expand...


Your comment is not surprising considering both your revulsion for science and your lack of science training.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you probably didn't understand my comment I just directed at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You predictably have trouble writing coherent sentences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are in denial or like i said earlier you are not understanding what is being said to you.
Click to expand...


The issue is yours to address. The problem is that when you're not cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, you're left to defend positions that you have no training or knowledge of.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Court Upholds Denial of ICR Degrees  Dispatches from the Creation Wars
> 
> A federal court in Texas has upheld a decision by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to deny the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School a certificate of authority to offer masters degrees in science. The ICR moved from California to Texas but now cannot offer MS programs at its school because of this decision. You can see the full ruling here.
> 
> This is a ruling for summary judgment, which means both sides agreed to a basic set of facts and legal questions and there was no substantive disagreement on those facts and therefore no need to proceed to a full trial. And the facts here are pretty clear; its the legal questions that the court had to decide.
> 
> A panel of science education experts who visited the ICRGS to evaluate the program concluded that much of the course content was outside the realm of science and lacked potential to help students understand the nature of science and the history and nature of the natural world. The board therefore denied the request for authority to grant masters degrees and the ICRGS filed suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm how is this relevant ? both myself and UR's edcational background is from the University of Arizona,if i'm not mistaken they have a very good standing in the science community.
Click to expand...

It's painfully obvious you are inventing these things as you go. Be honest, you took Tele-courses offered by the ICR, right?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting, don't you think? All the lies and deceit furthered by fundies in connection with some alleged "design" they want introduced into the school system is nothing more than frantic attempts to force christianity.in the school syllabus.
> 
> Jerry Falwell and the Christian Taliban.
> 
> BTW, my little personal stalker, I'll require you to continue with the gargantuan fonts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree, *but where did you go to college?* *What type of science background do you have?*
> 
> You know what Hollie? Your hatred only eats away at YOUR insides, and doesn't affect those you hate. You live under the cloud of hurt and unforgiveness. Forgive your parents and those who have wronged you and you will be free. It is your forgiveness of others that will release your hatred, and unload that huge burden of bitterness you have been carrying since your childhood. Your hate only hurts you. Christ said, "This is my commandment. That ye love one another."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're projecting. Were you abused by a Priest as a youngster? Are you still being abused? Could it be that you have have conflicting feelings about the abuse which is why you allow the abuse to continue?
> 
> Your primary objection to this thread and my comments in particular is that you believe criticism of your religious beliefs should not be allowed. In a totalitarian theocracy such as Iran, or other fear societies in the islamist Middle East, the matters discussed within this thread would never see the light of day.
> 
> Having a literal belief, such as yours,  in a 6000 year old earth, jinn, demons and mankind sharing the planet with dinosaurs actually _is_ a viable reason to criticize another person or peoples belief system when that other person insists on forcing those beliefs on others or insists that supernaturalism must be part of a public school syllabus. What you are refusing to address is that your insistence that Harun Yahya type creationism be taught in public schools will similarly be met with demands for many other religions to have equal time. I see no valid reason why we in the West should condemn our students in public, state funded schools to the irrelevancies of ancient superstitions. I happen to think it is outrageous to even consider such absurdities as a geocentric model, a flat earth, seven heavens, mountains stopping the earth from shaking, meteors as missiles against jinn and similar absurdities found in creationist dogma. I really see no mechanism to address these concepts as in any way short of being ludicrous.
> 
> American companies and firms look for truly analytical minds with the capacity for deductive thought and rationality, and an increasingly technical world demands them. I happen to live within a four hour drive of several of the most respected universities in the world. Guess what; none of them include jinn 101 in their course curriculum. I have no desire to see our education system devolve to the point where we churn out the legions of vacant, Koran addled minds exiting Middle Eastern schools.
> 
> I've scolded you once already about the gargantuan fonts. I do require you to use gargantuan fonts.
Click to expand...


*So what university did you attend?*

Oh and by the way, I'm not Catholic. I was raised Southern Baptist. All our ministers were married. And I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth and nor do I follow this muslim guy you keep incessantly referring to. Hollie, all your flowering thesaurus surfing and cut and paste distrations can't disguise your total and utter lack of formal education and the fact that you are *so thick* you keep confusing YWC and myself.

And YWC is right. I attended Pima Community College in 84/85 and then the University of Arizona from 1985 to 1988. I studied Mechanical Engineering, and took courses like *Fluid Mechanics, Differential Equations, Thermodynamics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Dynamics, Matrices Analysis, First Year Electrical Engineering Courses, and Senior design Mechanical Engineering Classes. *

Now see Hollie. Was that so hard?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting, don't you think? All the lies and deceit furthered by fundies in connection with some alleged "design" they want introduced into the school system is nothing more than frantic attempts to force christianity.in the school syllabus.
> 
> Jerry Falwell and the Christian Taliban.
> 
> BTW, my little personal stalker, I'll require you to continue with the gargantuan fonts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your religion is humans came from an accumulation of mistakes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such is the fundie syndrome from worship at the altar of *Harun Yahya**.
Click to expand...


Just curious why you think two Christian guys would follow this muslim guy. Is it because you lump all religions together that you believe hate gays? Please let me clarify for you, Christ calls Christians to love all sinners, including those engaging in the infamous crime against nature. Harun Yahya on the other hand, **ascribes to a religion that calls for the death of all Christians, and for the beheading of all homosexuals.* I know this has been explained to you numerous times, and it is pretty obvious you really can't present a logical thought, so you just resort to accusations that make absolutely no logical sense.

Almost forgot, *where did you go to college?*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the fundie syndrome from worship at the altar of Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, right from the evolutionist propaganda book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment is not surprising considering both your revulsion for science and your lack of science training.
Click to expand...


*What science training do you have?*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, right from the evolutionist propaganda book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment is not surprising considering both your revulsion for science and your lack of science training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What science training do you have?*
Click to expand...


Freshwater: The big guns come out - The Panda's Thumb



> The big guns are out in the Freshwater appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. A slew of briefs&#8211;including the Board of Education&#8217;s merit brief and amicus briefs from the National Center for Science Education, the Dennis family, Americans United for Separation of Church and State with the Anti-Defamation League, and the American Humanist Association with the Secular Student Alliance, along with requests for permission for attorneys to appear representing several of those organizations&#8211;were filed yesterday with the Court.
> It will take me a while to read all the material, but below the fold I&#8217;ll mention a few highlights from a fast first reading.
> 
> 1. The Board of Education&#8217;s merit brief argues its case to deny Freshwater&#8217;s appeal. It begins its Statement of Facts with the basic argument of the Board:
> Freshwater is not a private citizen when teaching science in a public school classroom. Like it or not, Freshwater takes on the mantle of the Board, and his teaching becomes &#8220;government speech.&#8221; That speech may violate the Establishment Clause; when it does, and Freshwater refuses to stop the violation himself, the Board has every right to remove him from its classroom and cure the Constitutional violation. (p. 1)
> 
> 
> Later, it asserts
> Freshwater essentially urges the Court to analyze this case under a muddled notion of that which the First Amendment protects and proscribes. Under the First Amendment, &#8220;the Establishment Clause forbids &#8216;government speech&#8217; which endorses religion, while the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect private speech endorsing religion.&#8221; (p. 11; citation omitted; italics original)
> 
> 
> And a final quotation:
> An objective observer would recognize that Freshwater&#8217;s decision to promote intelligent design and creationism in an eighth grade science class is an endorsement of religion. &#8220;The history of the ID movement and the development of the strategy to weaken education of by focusing students on alleged gaps in the theorv of evolution is the historical and cultural background against which&#8221; Freshwater chose to teach students. Kitzmiller at 716. He referred students to the Answers in Genesis website and proposed a science education policy developed by the Intelligent Design Network. (Supp. 102-103, Employee Ex. 5). Both organizations are at the forefront of religious promotion in public schools, and Freshwater supported their cause while speaking as a government official, not a private citizen





We're headed once again for a thorough humiliation of christian creationists in the court system.

I have to be concerned for the emotional welfare of fundie Christians as their avenues for denial of the scientific method are becoming more and more desperate and delusional. For example, can either of two primary Christian fundies in this thread think of a way to test Creationism / supermagicalism? Every test that scientists have presented to test creationism has been sidestepped by the Christian creationist fundies by appeals to supermagical intervention by the gods.

A simple test: the distance of stellar objects further than 10,000 light years from this planet dismantles the idea that the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago. Simple, really.
The fundie Creationist solution: God created the light from these distant objects without regard to natural law (yeah, I&#8217;ve heard that as an explanation). How can we prove this? Obviously, we can't. We don't need to. The gods can do whatever they want because they&#8217;re gods. They used methods which are not understandable to humans, and operated by processes which the gods no longer use within the universe.

Another biblical test: there is not enough water on the earth, either now or in the past, to inundate the globe and cover all the mountains as specified in the biblical flood. 
The fundie Creationist solution: The gods can do whatever they want, without the requirement for human explanations --  if they want to instantaneously create enough water to flood the globe, then make all the excess disappear afterwards, they have the power to do so. The gods subsequently left no evidence of a global flood to test our faith.

As long as Christian creationists further this nonsense, they will continue to bear the brunt of the ridicule and derision that they deserve. That is not science, that is religious belief, absent any vaslidation. So any falsification, any test, any request for specifics-- all of these are side-stepped by irrational and outrageous appeals to supernatural gods. There is simply no way that magic, irrationality and mysticism can be part of a scientific theory.


----------



## MarcATL

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.


It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.

I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.

Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.

We must be some luck planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.

Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.

Just saying.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

MarcATL said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.
> 
> I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.
> 
> Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.
> 
> We must be some luck planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.
> 
> Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.
> 
> Just saying.
Click to expand...


There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.

But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain. 

I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?


----------



## MarcATL

MarcATL said:


> It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.
> 
> I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.
> 
> *Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.*
> 
> We must be some luck*y* planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.
> 
> Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.
> 
> Just saying.


After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html




Jimmy_Jam said:


> There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.
> 
> But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain.
> 
> I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?


Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?


----------



## Gadawg73

MarcATL said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.
> 
> I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.
> 
> *Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.*
> 
> We must be some luck*y* planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.
> 
> Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.
> 
> But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain.
> 
> I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?
Click to expand...


Biology 101 and high school science would be a good start for you.
Plenty of evidence here on earth to prove that this planet has been here for millions of years.
NO ONE is saying that PEOPLE have been here for millions of years.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What science training do you have?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freshwater: The big guns come out - The Panda's Thumb
Click to expand...


Well folks, we finally have an answer from Hollie on her science background. I asked and she answered. Her training comes exclusively from hatesite Panda's Thumb. However, cutting and pasting from Panda's Thumb is not what I would consider formal science studies. Sorry, Manhands.

*Now please tell us where you went to College?*


----------



## UltimateReality

MarcATL said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.
> 
> I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.
> 
> *Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.*
> 
> We must be some luck*y* planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.
> 
> Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.
> 
> But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain.
> 
> I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?
Click to expand...


The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.

As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble? 

Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.  

My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture. 

We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't. 

I welcome comments from Creationists.


----------



## Gadawg73

UltimateReality said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.
> 
> I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.
> 
> *Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.*
> 
> We must be some luck*y* planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.
> 
> Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.
> 
> But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain.
> 
> I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.
> 
> As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble?
> 
> Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.
> 
> My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture.
> 
> We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't.
> 
> I welcome comments from Creationists.
Click to expand...


The ID movement has been exposed as frauds and liars in open court by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal Judge in his opinion *Dover v. Kitzmiller*

All the ID movement amounts to is creationism repackaged.
Read the Judge's decision and the mountain of evidence introduced at that trial that confirms that. I have to admit I did feel sorry for the ID side in that case as their case was as weak as it can get and they were beaten at every turn with their BS case. I was looking for something of substance myself but the facts are the facts.
What we saw from the ID movement was a lack of facts and case law to back up anything they claimed.
When one has the law on their side they pound the law.
When one has the facts on their side they pound the facts.
And when one has NEITHER on their side, all they have left to do is pound the table with rank BS.
And that is exactly what they did in the Dover case.
The ID movement's witnesses were almost indicted on perjury charges in that case.
Not a sound bunch of folks to hang one's hat on. ID has no credibility as they have NO facts.
As proven without any doubt in the Dover case. Fraud.


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
> 
> 
> Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.
> 
> As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble?
> 
> Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.
> 
> My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture.
> 
> We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't.
> 
> I welcome comments from Creationists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ID movement has been exposed as frauds and liars in open court by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal Judge in his opinion *Dover v. Kitzmiller*
> 
> All the ID movement amounts to is creationism repackaged.
> Read the Judge's decision and the mountain of evidence introduced at that trial that confirms that. I have to admit I did feel sorry for the ID side in that case as their case was as weak as it can get and they were beaten at every turn with their BS case. I was looking for something of substance myself but the facts are the facts.
> What we saw from the ID movement was a lack of facts and case law to back up anything they claimed.
> When one has the law on their side they pound the law.
> When one has the facts on their side they pound the facts.
> And when one has NEITHER on their side, all they have left to do is pound the table with rank BS.
> And that is exactly what they did in the Dover case.
> The ID movement's witnesses were almost indicted on perjury charges in that case.
> Not a sound bunch of folks to hang one's hat on. ID has no credibility as they have NO facts.
> As proven without any doubt in the Dover case. Fraud.
Click to expand...


Wow, where did you come up with this work of fiction above?

"*But people understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power.* Physicists have demonstrated the former by resting content with the current uncertainty until better data shall arrive; *Darwinists have demonstrated the latter in abundance by relying on courts to enforce their dogmas.*"

Dear Darwin lobby: The Dover trial is WHY people don

"But *federal judges cannot settle scientific debates*, and a court ruling has no ability to negate the evidence for design in nature. Spend a day in law school, and you'll quickly learn that judges are not inerrant. In this instance, the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling contains many factual and legal mistakes, including that Judge Jones:

    Adopted a false definition of ID by claiming that ID requires "supernatural creation" and is merely a negative argument against evolution;

    Denied the existence of pro-ID, peer-reviewed, scientific publications and research that were testified about in his courtroom;

    Adopted an unfair double-standard of legal analysis where religious implications, beliefs, and motives count against ID but never against materialist theories of origins;

    Presumed it is permissible for a federal judge to try to define science, settle controversial scientific questions, and explain the proper relationship between evolution and religion;

    Attempted to turn science into a voting contest by claiming that popularity is required for an idea to be scientific."

It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views

If you are stupid enough to believe that just because a judge says it it is right, then by all means, put your trust in fools. Maybe in the law of the jungle, i.e., darwinism, *Might Makes Right*, but in the real world, absolute truth rules. The guy with the biggest gun can force his lie for a time, but truth always prevails.


----------



## Gadawg73

UltimateReality said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.
> 
> As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble?
> 
> Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.
> 
> My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture.
> 
> We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't.
> 
> I welcome comments from Creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ID movement has been exposed as frauds and liars in open court by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal Judge in his opinion *Dover v. Kitzmiller*
> 
> All the ID movement amounts to is creationism repackaged.
> Read the Judge's decision and the mountain of evidence introduced at that trial that confirms that. I have to admit I did feel sorry for the ID side in that case as their case was as weak as it can get and they were beaten at every turn with their BS case. I was looking for something of substance myself but the facts are the facts.
> What we saw from the ID movement was a lack of facts and case law to back up anything they claimed.
> When one has the law on their side they pound the law.
> When one has the facts on their side they pound the facts.
> And when one has NEITHER on their side, all they have left to do is pound the table with rank BS.
> And that is exactly what they did in the Dover case.
> The ID movement's witnesses were almost indicted on perjury charges in that case.
> Not a sound bunch of folks to hang one's hat on. ID has no credibility as they have NO facts.
> As proven without any doubt in the Dover case. Fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, where did you come up with this work of fiction above?
> 
> "*But people understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power.* Physicists have demonstrated the former by resting content with the current uncertainty until better data shall arrive; *Darwinists have demonstrated the latter in abundance by relying on courts to enforce their dogmas.*"
> 
> Dear Darwin lobby: The Dover trial is WHY people don
> 
> "But *federal judges cannot settle scientific debates*, and a court ruling has no ability to negate the evidence for design in nature. Spend a day in law school, and you'll quickly learn that judges are not inerrant. In this instance, the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling contains many factual and legal mistakes, including that Judge Jones:
> 
> Adopted a false definition of ID by claiming that ID requires "supernatural creation" and is merely a negative argument against evolution;
> 
> Denied the existence of pro-ID, peer-reviewed, scientific publications and research that were testified about in his courtroom;
> 
> Adopted an unfair double-standard of legal analysis where religious implications, beliefs, and motives count against ID but never against materialist theories of origins;
> 
> Presumed it is permissible for a federal judge to try to define science, settle controversial scientific questions, and explain the proper relationship between evolution and religion;
> 
> Attempted to turn science into a voting contest by claiming that popularity is required for an idea to be scientific."
> 
> It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views
> 
> If you are stupid enough to believe that just because a judge says it it is right, then by all means, put your trust in fools. Maybe in the law of the jungle, i.e., darwinism, *Might Makes Right*, but in the real world, absolute truth rules. The guy with the biggest gun can force his lie for a time, but truth always prevails.
Click to expand...


You claim witness testimony in a Federal law suit "fiction".
If you do you are lost beyond all hope.
Read the case if you really are interested in facts.
But I doubt you are. All you have is belief.
I go by the facts. 
Read it and get back to us. 
Your team has to lie and make up their facts.


----------



## Hollie

Gadawg73 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ID movement has been exposed as frauds and liars in open court by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal Judge in his opinion *Dover v. Kitzmiller*
> 
> All the ID movement amounts to is creationism repackaged.
> Read the Judge's decision and the mountain of evidence introduced at that trial that confirms that. I have to admit I did feel sorry for the ID side in that case as their case was as weak as it can get and they were beaten at every turn with their BS case. I was looking for something of substance myself but the facts are the facts.
> What we saw from the ID movement was a lack of facts and case law to back up anything they claimed.
> When one has the law on their side they pound the law.
> When one has the facts on their side they pound the facts.
> And when one has NEITHER on their side, all they have left to do is pound the table with rank BS.
> And that is exactly what they did in the Dover case.
> The ID movement's witnesses were almost indicted on perjury charges in that case.
> Not a sound bunch of folks to hang one's hat on. ID has no credibility as they have NO facts.
> As proven without any doubt in the Dover case. Fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, where did you come up with this work of fiction above?
> 
> "*But people understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power.* Physicists have demonstrated the former by resting content with the current uncertainty until better data shall arrive; *Darwinists have demonstrated the latter in abundance by relying on courts to enforce their dogmas.*"
> 
> Dear Darwin lobby: The Dover trial is WHY people don
> 
> "But *federal judges cannot settle scientific debates*, and a court ruling has no ability to negate the evidence for design in nature. Spend a day in law school, and you'll quickly learn that judges are not inerrant. In this instance, the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling contains many factual and legal mistakes, including that Judge Jones:
> 
> Adopted a false definition of ID by claiming that ID requires "supernatural creation" and is merely a negative argument against evolution;
> 
> Denied the existence of pro-ID, peer-reviewed, scientific publications and research that were testified about in his courtroom;
> 
> Adopted an unfair double-standard of legal analysis where religious implications, beliefs, and motives count against ID but never against materialist theories of origins;
> 
> Presumed it is permissible for a federal judge to try to define science, settle controversial scientific questions, and explain the proper relationship between evolution and religion;
> 
> Attempted to turn science into a voting contest by claiming that popularity is required for an idea to be scientific."
> 
> It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views
> 
> If you are stupid enough to believe that just because a judge says it it is right, then by all means, put your trust in fools. Maybe in the law of the jungle, i.e., darwinism, *Might Makes Right*, but in the real world, absolute truth rules. The guy with the biggest gun can force his lie for a time, but truth always prevails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim witness testimony in a Federal law suit "fiction".
> If you do you are lost beyond all hope.
> Read the case if you really are interested in facts.
> But I doubt you are. All you have is belief.
> I go by the facts.
> Read it and get back to us.
> Your team has to lie and make up their facts.
Click to expand...


Not surprisingly, the fundie is forced to cut and paste from a creationist website so the obvious bias is impossible to miss.

What is not surprising is that the courts have _repeatedly_ thrown out creationism as nothing more than Christian apologetics with a different title. As their arguments are repeatedly dismissed as baseless, they must resort to conspiracy theories and tactics configured to ridicule the court system.

Its just remarkable how creationists / Harun Yahya groupies sidestep the problem of supernatural creation by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that the Creator made the stars, galaxies and _intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies_, in their present configurations some 6000 years ago. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to mislead scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the incorrect conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about...


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ID movement has been exposed as frauds and liars in open court by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal Judge in his opinion *Dover v. Kitzmiller*
> 
> All the ID movement amounts to is creationism repackaged.
> Read the Judge's decision and the mountain of evidence introduced at that trial that confirms that. I have to admit I did feel sorry for the ID side in that case as their case was as weak as it can get and they were beaten at every turn with their BS case. I was looking for something of substance myself but the facts are the facts.
> What we saw from the ID movement was a lack of facts and case law to back up anything they claimed.
> When one has the law on their side they pound the law.
> When one has the facts on their side they pound the facts.
> And when one has NEITHER on their side, all they have left to do is pound the table with rank BS.
> And that is exactly what they did in the Dover case.
> The ID movement's witnesses were almost indicted on perjury charges in that case.
> Not a sound bunch of folks to hang one's hat on. ID has no credibility as they have NO facts.
> As proven without any doubt in the Dover case. Fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, where did you come up with this work of fiction above?
> 
> "*But people understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power.* Physicists have demonstrated the former by resting content with the current uncertainty until better data shall arrive; *Darwinists have demonstrated the latter in abundance by relying on courts to enforce their dogmas.*"
> 
> Dear Darwin lobby: The Dover trial is WHY people don
> 
> "But *federal judges cannot settle scientific debates*, and a court ruling has no ability to negate the evidence for design in nature. Spend a day in law school, and you'll quickly learn that judges are not inerrant. In this instance, the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling contains many factual and legal mistakes, including that Judge Jones:
> 
> Adopted a false definition of ID by claiming that ID requires "supernatural creation" and is merely a negative argument against evolution;
> 
> Denied the existence of pro-ID, peer-reviewed, scientific publications and research that were testified about in his courtroom;
> 
> Adopted an unfair double-standard of legal analysis where religious implications, beliefs, and motives count against ID but never against materialist theories of origins;
> 
> Presumed it is permissible for a federal judge to try to define science, settle controversial scientific questions, and explain the proper relationship between evolution and religion;
> 
> Attempted to turn science into a voting contest by claiming that popularity is required for an idea to be scientific."
> 
> It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views
> 
> If you are stupid enough to believe that just because a judge says it it is right, then by all means, put your trust in fools. Maybe in the law of the jungle, i.e., darwinism, *Might Makes Right*, but in the real world, absolute truth rules. The guy with the biggest gun can force his lie for a time, but truth always prevails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim witness testimony in a Federal law suit "fiction".
> If you do you are lost beyond all hope.
> Read the case if you really are interested in facts.
> But I doubt you are. All you have is belief.
> I go by the facts.
> Read it and get back to us.
> Your team has to lie and make up their facts.
Click to expand...


No, I claimed your statements above were fiction. They are your opinion, not based at all on the facts and evidence presented. I did read the case, and the comments from Evo News and Views above are the actually facts. Plus, since when do judges decide matters of science? Only the Darwinist nutjobs have to use the legal system to make sure their myth is pounded down impressible children without being taught the opposing side of how pathetic the theory really is. 

You have no facts. All you have is faith in an unproven, untested fairy tale about what "might have" or "could have" happened. Then by some HUGE leap of faith, you elevate your "might haves" and "could haves" to FACT status. Unbelievable!!! Darwinism is Pseudoscience. Real scientist laugh at their "interpretation" of the scientific method.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, where did you come up with this work of fiction above?
> 
> "*But people understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power.* Physicists have demonstrated the former by resting content with the current uncertainty until better data shall arrive; *Darwinists have demonstrated the latter in abundance by relying on courts to enforce their dogmas.*"
> 
> Dear Darwin lobby: The Dover trial is WHY people don
> 
> "But *federal judges cannot settle scientific debates*, and a court ruling has no ability to negate the evidence for design in nature. Spend a day in law school, and you'll quickly learn that judges are not inerrant. In this instance, the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling contains many factual and legal mistakes, including that Judge Jones:
> 
> Adopted a false definition of ID by claiming that ID requires "supernatural creation" and is merely a negative argument against evolution;
> 
> Denied the existence of pro-ID, peer-reviewed, scientific publications and research that were testified about in his courtroom;
> 
> Adopted an unfair double-standard of legal analysis where religious implications, beliefs, and motives count against ID but never against materialist theories of origins;
> 
> Presumed it is permissible for a federal judge to try to define science, settle controversial scientific questions, and explain the proper relationship between evolution and religion;
> 
> Attempted to turn science into a voting contest by claiming that popularity is required for an idea to be scientific."
> 
> It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views
> 
> If you are stupid enough to believe that just because a judge says it it is right, then by all means, put your trust in fools. Maybe in the law of the jungle, i.e., darwinism, *Might Makes Right*, but in the real world, absolute truth rules. The guy with the biggest gun can force his lie for a time, but truth always prevails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim witness testimony in a Federal law suit "fiction".
> If you do you are lost beyond all hope.
> Read the case if you really are interested in facts.
> But I doubt you are. All you have is belief.
> I go by the facts.
> Read it and get back to us.
> Your team has to lie and make up their facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly, the fundie is forced to cut and paste from a creationist website so the obvious bias is impossible to miss.
> 
> What is not surprising is that the courts have _repeatedly_ thrown out creationism as nothing more than Christian apologetics with a different title. As their arguments are repeatedly dismissed as baseless, they must resort to conspiracy theories and tactics configured to ridicule the court system.
> 
> It&#8217;s just remarkable how creationists / Harun Yahya groupies sidestep the problem of supernatural creation by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that the Creator made the stars, galaxies and _intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies_, in their present configurations some 6000 years ago. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to mislead scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the incorrect conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.
> 
> Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about...
Click to expand...


Interesting, but please explain what Harun Yahya has to do with CHRISTIAN Creationism?? And if you think by ignoring the elephant in the room it is going away, you are sadly mistaken...

*Where did you attend college?*


----------



## Gadawg73

UltimateReality said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, where did you come up with this work of fiction above?
> 
> "*But people understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power.* Physicists have demonstrated the former by resting content with the current uncertainty until better data shall arrive; *Darwinists have demonstrated the latter in abundance by relying on courts to enforce their dogmas.*"
> 
> Dear Darwin lobby: The Dover trial is WHY people don
> 
> "But *federal judges cannot settle scientific debates*, and a court ruling has no ability to negate the evidence for design in nature. Spend a day in law school, and you'll quickly learn that judges are not inerrant. In this instance, the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling contains many factual and legal mistakes, including that Judge Jones:
> 
> Adopted a false definition of ID by claiming that ID requires "supernatural creation" and is merely a negative argument against evolution;
> 
> Denied the existence of pro-ID, peer-reviewed, scientific publications and research that were testified about in his courtroom;
> 
> Adopted an unfair double-standard of legal analysis where religious implications, beliefs, and motives count against ID but never against materialist theories of origins;
> 
> Presumed it is permissible for a federal judge to try to define science, settle controversial scientific questions, and explain the proper relationship between evolution and religion;
> 
> Attempted to turn science into a voting contest by claiming that popularity is required for an idea to be scientific."
> 
> It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views
> 
> If you are stupid enough to believe that just because a judge says it it is right, then by all means, put your trust in fools. Maybe in the law of the jungle, i.e., darwinism, *Might Makes Right*, but in the real world, absolute truth rules. The guy with the biggest gun can force his lie for a time, but truth always prevails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim witness testimony in a Federal law suit "fiction".
> If you do you are lost beyond all hope.
> Read the case if you really are interested in facts.
> But I doubt you are. All you have is belief.
> I go by the facts.
> Read it and get back to us.
> Your team has to lie and make up their facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I claimed your statements above were fiction. They are your opinion, not based at all on the facts and evidence presented. I did read the case, and the comments from Evo News and Views above are the actually facts. Plus, since when do judges decide matters of science? Only the Darwinist nutjobs have to use the legal system to make sure their myth is pounded down impressible children without being taught the opposing side of how pathetic the theory really is.
> 
> You have no facts. All you have is faith in an unproven, untested fairy tale about what "might have" or "could have" happened. Then by some HUGE leap of faith, you elevate your "might haves" and "could haves" to FACT status. Unbelievable!!! Darwinism is Pseudoscience. Real scientist laugh at their "interpretation" of the scientific method.
Click to expand...


How is the testimony in a law suit my "opinion?
It was YOUR team that started the legal case Moe.
Out of the 10,000 colleges and universities worldwide only TWO do not teach evolution as fact.
And by your theory the other 9998 are all wrong.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim witness testimony in a Federal law suit "fiction".
> If you do you are lost beyond all hope.
> Read the case if you really are interested in facts.
> But I doubt you are. All you have is belief.
> I go by the facts.
> Read it and get back to us.
> Your team has to lie and make up their facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly, the fundie is forced to cut and paste from a creationist website so the obvious bias is impossible to miss.
> 
> What is not surprising is that the courts have _repeatedly_ thrown out creationism as nothing more than Christian apologetics with a different title. As their arguments are repeatedly dismissed as baseless, they must resort to conspiracy theories and tactics configured to ridicule the court system.
> 
> Its just remarkable how creationists / Harun Yahya groupies sidestep the problem of supernatural creation by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that the Creator made the stars, galaxies and _intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies_, in their present configurations some 6000 years ago. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to mislead scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the incorrect conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.
> 
> Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting, but please explain what Harun Yahya has to do with CHRISTIAN Creationism?? And if you think by ignoring the elephant in the room it is going away, you are sadly mistaken...
> 
> *Where did you attend college?*
Click to expand...

Gee, what a shame that the courts are actually enforcing constitutional law and maintaining separation of church and state. As fundies would have it, we should ignore the law and force christianity into the school system.


----------



## newpolitics

This is how I see this debate. There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say god is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that a god exists. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing god as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven gods existence, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, including cosmological, ontological, teleological, or transcendental. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of creationists who need to have their beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, god, can't be shown to exist. That's a problem! Yet, they try to prove him indirectly by pointing to gaps in our scientific knowledge, which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again.  But, the same points remain: those who posit a god hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, without showing how, since it can be explained, largely, without god.


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim witness testimony in a Federal law suit "fiction".
> If you do you are lost beyond all hope.
> Read the case if you really are interested in facts.
> But I doubt you are. All you have is belief.
> I go by the facts.
> Read it and get back to us.
> Your team has to lie and make up their facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I claimed your statements above were fiction. They are your opinion, not based at all on the facts and evidence presented. I did read the case, and the comments from Evo News and Views above are the actually facts. Plus, since when do judges decide matters of science? Only the Darwinist nutjobs have to use the legal system to make sure their myth is pounded down impressible children without being taught the opposing side of how pathetic the theory really is.
> 
> You have no facts. All you have is faith in an unproven, untested fairy tale about what "might have" or "could have" happened. Then by some HUGE leap of faith, you elevate your "might haves" and "could haves" to FACT status. Unbelievable!!! Darwinism is Pseudoscience. Real scientist laugh at their "interpretation" of the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is the testimony in a law suit my "opinion?
> It was YOUR team that started the legal case Moe.
> Out of the 10,000 colleges and universities worldwide only TWO do not teach evolution as fact.
> And by your theory the other 9998 are all wrong.
Click to expand...


Hollie wants to thank you for your logical fallacy:

*Appeal to the People*

If you suggest too strongly that someones claim or argument is correct simply because its what most everyone believes, then your reasoning contains the fallacy of appeal to the people. Similarly, if you suggest too strongly that someones claim or argument is mistaken simply because its not what most everyone believes, then your reasoning also uses the fallacy. Agreement with popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of truth, and deviation from popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of error, but if you assume it is and do so with enthusiasm, then you are using this fallacy. It is essentially the same as the fallacies of ad numerum, appeal to the gallery, appeal to the masses, argument from popularity, argumentum ad populum, common practice, mob appeal, past practice, peer pressure, traditional wisdom. The too strongly mentioned above is important in the description of the fallacy because what most everyone believes is, for that reason, somewhat likely to be true, all things considered. However, the fallacy occurs when this degree of support is overestimated.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly, the fundie is forced to cut and paste from a creationist website so the obvious bias is impossible to miss.
> 
> What is not surprising is that the courts have _repeatedly_ thrown out creationism as nothing more than Christian apologetics with a different title. As their arguments are repeatedly dismissed as baseless, they must resort to conspiracy theories and tactics configured to ridicule the court system.
> 
> Its just remarkable how creationists / Harun Yahya groupies sidestep the problem of supernatural creation by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that the Creator made the stars, galaxies and _intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies_, in their present configurations some 6000 years ago. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to mislead scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the incorrect conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.
> 
> Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, but please explain what Harun Yahya has to do with CHRISTIAN Creationism?? And if you think by ignoring the elephant in the room it is going away, you are sadly mistaken...
> 
> *Where did you attend college?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, what a shame that the courts are actually enforcing constitutional law and maintaining separation of church and state. As fundies would have it, we should ignore the law and force christianity into the school system.
Click to expand...


We've been down this road before. It is Separation of *CHURCH* and state, not religion and state. 

*Where did you attend college?*


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> This is how I see this debate. There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say god is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that a god exists. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing god as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven gods existence, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, including cosmological, ontological, teleological, or transcendental. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of creationists who need to have their beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, god, can't be shown to exist. That's a problem! Yet, they try to prove him indirectly by pointing to gaps in our scientific knowledge, which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again.  But, the same points remain: those who posit a god hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, without showing how, since it can be explained, largely, without god.



Here is the problem with your argument that you are apparently too blind to see:

There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say Darwinism is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for the massive complexity we see in organisms. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing Darwinism as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven random mutation and natural selection can result in vertical progression, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, not with the fossil evidence and not with actual experiments that follow the scientific method. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of evolutionists who need to have their naturalistic and materialist beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, darwinism, can't be proven by legitimate scientific experiments. That's a problem! Yet, they postulate hundreds of "just so" stories about the distant past, filling in the HUGE gaps with "might haves" and "could haves", which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again.  But, the same points remain: those who posit a darwinian hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, showing how with Intelligently guided processes that have never been observed occurring in nature.

"This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological &#8212; *it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."*

"One evident reason for this pessimism is that we cannot isolate traits &#8212; or the mutations producing them &#8212; as if they were independent causal elements. Organism-environment relations present us with so much complexity, so many possible parameters to track, that, apart from obviously disabling cases, there is no way to pronounce on the significance of a mutation for an organism, let alone for a population or for the future of the species."

"But what is really ridiculous is to suggest that empirical work, simply by virtue of being empirical work, offers a proper test of any particular theory. Certainly the work of evolutionary biologists has brought us many wonderful insights into the lives of organisms &#8212; insights of the sort that were being gained long before Darwin. But such insights provide a test of the theory that the origin of species can be adequately explained by natural selection of the fittest organisms only if they do in fact provide a test. Simply refusing to address the question does no one any good."

"You have to have some reasonable notion of &#8220;fitness&#8221; if you are trying to explain all the amazingly complex, well-adapted, and diverse life forms on earth by the fact that nature preferentially selects the fitter organisms to survive. The question, &#8220;What, exactly, is being selected, and how does it explain the observed course of evolution?&#8221; needs to be answered if the theory of evolution by natural selection is to be much of a theory at all."

"This is a stunning place to find ourselves, given the confident pronouncements we heard issuing from Dennett and Dawkins at the outset of our investigation. Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain &#8212; namely, the organism&#8217;s fitness &#8212; cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? *There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration."*

"What we are left to surmise, then, is that the doctrine of randomness has simply been projected onto the phenomena of organic life as a matter of pre-existing *philosophical commitment."*

"In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, *&#8220;Here something random occurs.&#8221;
*
This &#8220;something random&#8221; looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle.* It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a &#8220;Randomness of the gaps,&#8221; demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, &#8220;Can you be a little more explicit here?&#8221;* A faith that fills the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the organism with a potent meaninglessness capable of transforming everything else into an illusion is a faith that could benefit from some minimal grounding."

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I claimed your statements above were fiction. They are your opinion, not based at all on the facts and evidence presented. I did read the case, and the comments from Evo News and Views above are the actually facts. Plus, since when do judges decide matters of science? Only the Darwinist nutjobs have to use the legal system to make sure their myth is pounded down impressible children without being taught the opposing side of how pathetic the theory really is.
> 
> You have no facts. All you have is faith in an unproven, untested fairy tale about what "might have" or "could have" happened. Then by some HUGE leap of faith, you elevate your "might haves" and "could haves" to FACT status. Unbelievable!!! Darwinism is Pseudoscience. Real scientist laugh at their "interpretation" of the scientific method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is the testimony in a law suit my "opinion?
> It was YOUR team that started the legal case Moe.
> Out of the 10,000 colleges and universities worldwide only TWO do not teach evolution as fact.
> And by your theory the other 9998 are all wrong.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie wants to thank you for your logical fallacy:
> 
> *Appeal to the People*
> 
> If you suggest too strongly that someones claim or argument is correct simply because its what most everyone believes, then your reasoning contains the fallacy of appeal to the people. Similarly, if you suggest too strongly that someones claim or argument is mistaken simply because its not what most everyone believes, then your reasoning also uses the fallacy. Agreement with popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of truth, and deviation from popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of error, but if you assume it is and do so with enthusiasm, then you are using this fallacy. It is essentially the same as the fallacies of ad numerum, appeal to the gallery, appeal to the masses, argument from popularity, argumentum ad populum, common practice, mob appeal, past practice, peer pressure, traditional wisdom. The too strongly mentioned above is important in the description of the fallacy because what most everyone believes is, for that reason, somewhat likely to be true, all things considered. However, the fallacy occurs when this degree of support is overestimated.
Click to expand...


There's no reason to pout. You hoped to avoid addressing my earlier comment. In connection with christian theology (under the false label of creationism or ID), being refused a presence in the public school system, The courts have heard the arguments and rejected the creationist / ID law suits. Ironically, your claim that "might doesn't make right" is both foolish and nonsensical. It was the fundie christian element that was attempting to force christianity into the public schools.  

The courts have upheld the constitutional provision of separation of church and state. 

Consider the upside - you now have more hate to promote.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is the testimony in a law suit my "opinion?
> It was YOUR team that started the legal case Moe.
> Out of the 10,000 colleges and universities worldwide only TWO do not teach evolution as fact.
> And by your theory the other 9998 are all wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie wants to thank you for your logical fallacy:
> 
> *Appeal to the People*
> 
> If you suggest too strongly that someones claim or argument is correct simply because its what most everyone believes, then your reasoning contains the fallacy of appeal to the people. Similarly, if you suggest too strongly that someones claim or argument is mistaken simply because its not what most everyone believes, then your reasoning also uses the fallacy. Agreement with popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of truth, and deviation from popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of error, but if you assume it is and do so with enthusiasm, then you are using this fallacy. It is essentially the same as the fallacies of ad numerum, appeal to the gallery, appeal to the masses, argument from popularity, argumentum ad populum, common practice, mob appeal, past practice, peer pressure, traditional wisdom. The too strongly mentioned above is important in the description of the fallacy because what most everyone believes is, for that reason, somewhat likely to be true, all things considered. However, the fallacy occurs when this degree of support is overestimated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no reason to pout. You hoped to avoid addressing my earlier comment. In connection with christian theology (under the false label of creationism or ID), being refused a presence in the public school system, The courts have heard the arguments and rejected the creationist / ID law suits. Ironically, your claim that "might doesn't make right" is both foolish and nonsensical. It was the fundie christian element that was attempting to force christianity into the public schools.
> 
> The courts have upheld the constitutional provision of separation of church and state.
> 
> Consider the upside - you now have more hate to promote.
Click to expand...


*Yeah but where did you go to college?*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how I see this debate. There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say god is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that a god exists. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing god as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven gods existence, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, including cosmological, ontological, teleological, or transcendental. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of creationists who need to have their beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, god, can't be shown to exist. That's a problem! Yet, they try to prove him indirectly by pointing to gaps in our scientific knowledge, which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again.  But, the same points remain: those who posit a god hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, without showing how, since it can be explained, largely, without god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the problem with your argument that you are apparently too blind to see:
> 
> There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say Darwinism is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for the massive complexity we see in organisms. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing Darwinism as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven random mutation and natural selection can result in vertical progression, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, not with the fossil evidence and not with actual experiments that follow the scientific method. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of evolutionists who need to have their naturalistic and materialist beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, darwinism, can't be proven by legitimate scientific experiments. That's a problem! Yet, they postulate hundreds of "just so" stories about the distant past, filling in the HUGE gaps with "might haves" and "could haves", which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again.  But, the same points remain: those who posit a darwinian hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, showing how with Intelligently guided processes that have never been observed occurring in nature.
> 
> "This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological  *it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."*
> 
> "One evident reason for this pessimism is that we cannot isolate traits  or the mutations producing them  as if they were independent causal elements. Organism-environment relations present us with so much complexity, so many possible parameters to track, that, apart from obviously disabling cases, there is no way to pronounce on the significance of a mutation for an organism, let alone for a population or for the future of the species."
> 
> "But what is really ridiculous is to suggest that empirical work, simply by virtue of being empirical work, offers a proper test of any particular theory. Certainly the work of evolutionary biologists has brought us many wonderful insights into the lives of organisms  insights of the sort that were being gained long before Darwin. But such insights provide a test of the theory that the origin of species can be adequately explained by natural selection of the fittest organisms only if they do in fact provide a test. Simply refusing to address the question does no one any good."
> 
> "You have to have some reasonable notion of fitness if you are trying to explain all the amazingly complex, well-adapted, and diverse life forms on earth by the fact that nature preferentially selects the fitter organisms to survive. The question, What, exactly, is being selected, and how does it explain the observed course of evolution? needs to be answered if the theory of evolution by natural selection is to be much of a theory at all."
> 
> "This is a stunning place to find ourselves, given the confident pronouncements we heard issuing from Dennett and Dawkins at the outset of our investigation. Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain  namely, the organisms fitness  cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? *There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration."*
> 
> "What we are left to surmise, then, is that the doctrine of randomness has simply been projected onto the phenomena of organic life as a matter of pre-existing *philosophical commitment."*
> 
> "In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, *Here something random occurs.
> *
> This something random looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle.* It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a Randomness of the gaps, demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, Can you be a little more explicit here?* A faith that fills the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the organism with a potent meaninglessness capable of transforming everything else into an illusion is a faith that could benefit from some minimal grounding."
> 
> The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness
Click to expand...


Too bad. Your cut and paste article from Stephen Talbott is a tragically comic joke.

Arise the vehicle! Arise the cell! | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie, what is your purpose in life?

Loki, what is your purpose in life?

NP, what is your purpose in life?

Oftentimes we hear Darwinists stating that Christians don't live full lives because they fall back on the afterlife as an excuse. This couldn't be farther from the truth and it rests on the false assumption that Darwinists can actually control what happens to them. So then, what is the Darwinist left with when he finds out his 6-year-old daughter has a brain tumor, or his new wife falls from her harness and dies while parasailing on their honeymoon. How does the Darwinist reconcile these instances of no option to live a full life? Do Darwinists deny their religion and actually pretend they have SOME control so they can function? Ah, what a cruel evolutionary joke consciousness is. And even more so, that cruel evolutionary by product called "love".

This is how Christians deal with pain. I'm just curious how materialistic Darwinists make sense of the same types of situations.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBVyrvAWu-o]Jodie Spradlin HD 720p - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how I see this debate. There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say god is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that a god exists. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing god as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven gods existence, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, including cosmological, ontological, teleological, or transcendental. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of creationists who need to have their beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, god, can't be shown to exist. That's a problem! Yet, they try to prove him indirectly by pointing to gaps in our scientific knowledge, which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again.  But, the same points remain: those who posit a god hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, without showing how, since it can be explained, largely, without god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the problem with your argument that you are apparently too blind to see:
> 
> There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say Darwinism is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for the massive complexity we see in organisms. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing Darwinism as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven random mutation and natural selection can result in vertical progression, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, not with the fossil evidence and not with actual experiments that follow the scientific method. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of evolutionists who need to have their naturalistic and materialist beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, darwinism, can't be proven by legitimate scientific experiments. That's a problem! Yet, they postulate hundreds of "just so" stories about the distant past, filling in the HUGE gaps with "might haves" and "could haves", which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again.  But, the same points remain: those who posit a darwinian hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, showing how with Intelligently guided processes that have never been observed occurring in nature.
> 
> "This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological &#8212; *it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."*
> 
> "One evident reason for this pessimism is that we cannot isolate traits &#8212; or the mutations producing them &#8212; as if they were independent causal elements. Organism-environment relations present us with so much complexity, so many possible parameters to track, that, apart from obviously disabling cases, there is no way to pronounce on the significance of a mutation for an organism, let alone for a population or for the future of the species."
> 
> "But what is really ridiculous is to suggest that empirical work, simply by virtue of being empirical work, offers a proper test of any particular theory. Certainly the work of evolutionary biologists has brought us many wonderful insights into the lives of organisms &#8212; insights of the sort that were being gained long before Darwin. But such insights provide a test of the theory that the origin of species can be adequately explained by natural selection of the fittest organisms only if they do in fact provide a test. Simply refusing to address the question does no one any good."
> 
> "You have to have some reasonable notion of &#8220;fitness&#8221; if you are trying to explain all the amazingly complex, well-adapted, and diverse life forms on earth by the fact that nature preferentially selects the fitter organisms to survive. The question, &#8220;What, exactly, is being selected, and how does it explain the observed course of evolution?&#8221; needs to be answered if the theory of evolution by natural selection is to be much of a theory at all."
> 
> "This is a stunning place to find ourselves, given the confident pronouncements we heard issuing from Dennett and Dawkins at the outset of our investigation. Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain &#8212; namely, the organism&#8217;s fitness &#8212; cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? *There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration."*
> 
> "What we are left to surmise, then, is that the doctrine of randomness has simply been projected onto the phenomena of organic life as a matter of pre-existing *philosophical commitment."*
> 
> "In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, *&#8220;Here something random occurs.&#8221;
> *
> This &#8220;something random&#8221; looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle.* It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a &#8220;Randomness of the gaps,&#8221; demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, &#8220;Can you be a little more explicit here?&#8221;* A faith that fills the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the organism with a potent meaninglessness capable of transforming everything else into an illusion is a faith that could benefit from some minimal grounding."
> 
> The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad. Your cut and paste article from Stephen Talbott is a tragically comic joke.
> 
> Arise the vehicle! Arise the cell! | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine
Click to expand...


Instead of Ad Hominem attack and a pathetic cut and paste, why don't you attempt to address some the salient points of the article with your own personal rebuttal?

*Also, why don't you tell us all where you attended college?*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the problem with your argument that you are apparently too blind to see:
> 
> There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say Darwinism is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for the massive complexity we see in organisms. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing Darwinism as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven random mutation and natural selection can result in vertical progression, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, not with the fossil evidence and not with actual experiments that follow the scientific method. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of evolutionists who need to have their naturalistic and materialist beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, darwinism, can't be proven by legitimate scientific experiments. That's a problem! Yet, they postulate hundreds of "just so" stories about the distant past, filling in the HUGE gaps with "might haves" and "could haves", which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again.  But, the same points remain: those who posit a darwinian hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, showing how with Intelligently guided processes that have never been observed occurring in nature.
> 
> "This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological  *it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."*
> 
> "One evident reason for this pessimism is that we cannot isolate traits  or the mutations producing them  as if they were independent causal elements. Organism-environment relations present us with so much complexity, so many possible parameters to track, that, apart from obviously disabling cases, there is no way to pronounce on the significance of a mutation for an organism, let alone for a population or for the future of the species."
> 
> "But what is really ridiculous is to suggest that empirical work, simply by virtue of being empirical work, offers a proper test of any particular theory. Certainly the work of evolutionary biologists has brought us many wonderful insights into the lives of organisms  insights of the sort that were being gained long before Darwin. But such insights provide a test of the theory that the origin of species can be adequately explained by natural selection of the fittest organisms only if they do in fact provide a test. Simply refusing to address the question does no one any good."
> 
> "You have to have some reasonable notion of fitness if you are trying to explain all the amazingly complex, well-adapted, and diverse life forms on earth by the fact that nature preferentially selects the fitter organisms to survive. The question, What, exactly, is being selected, and how does it explain the observed course of evolution? needs to be answered if the theory of evolution by natural selection is to be much of a theory at all."
> 
> "This is a stunning place to find ourselves, given the confident pronouncements we heard issuing from Dennett and Dawkins at the outset of our investigation. Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain  namely, the organisms fitness  cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? *There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration."*
> 
> "What we are left to surmise, then, is that the doctrine of randomness has simply been projected onto the phenomena of organic life as a matter of pre-existing *philosophical commitment."*
> 
> "In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, *Here something random occurs.
> *
> This something random looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle.* It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a Randomness of the gaps, demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, Can you be a little more explicit here?* A faith that fills the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the organism with a potent meaninglessness capable of transforming everything else into an illusion is a faith that could benefit from some minimal grounding."
> 
> The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad. Your cut and paste article from Stephen Talbott is a tragically comic joke.
> 
> Arise the vehicle! Arise the cell! | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of Ad Hominem attack and a pathetic cut and paste, why don't you attempt to address some the salient points of the article with your own personal rebuttal?
> 
> *Also, why don't you tell us all where you attended college?*
Click to expand...


Why would I "refute" something that the author is not able to respond to. Instead of your usual tactic of cutting and pasting articles you scour from the web, and have no understanding of, why don't you review the article you cut and pasted and provide a detailed description of the contents.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how I see this debate. There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say god is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that a god exists. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing god as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven gods existence, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, including cosmological, ontological, teleological, or transcendental. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of creationists who need to have their beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, god, can't be shown to exist. That's a problem! Yet, they try to prove him indirectly by pointing to gaps in our scientific knowledge, which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again.  But, the same points remain: those who posit a god hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, without showing how, since it can be explained, largely, without god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the problem with your argument that you are apparently too blind to see:
> 
> There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say Darwinism is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for the massive complexity we see in organisms. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing Darwinism as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven random mutation and natural selection can result in vertical progression, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, not with the fossil evidence and not with actual experiments that follow the scientific method. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of evolutionists who need to have their naturalistic and materialist beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, darwinism, can't be proven by legitimate scientific experiments. That's a problem! Yet, they postulate hundreds of "just so" stories about the distant past, filling in the HUGE gaps with "might haves" and "could haves", which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again.  But, the same points remain: those who posit a darwinian hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, showing how with Intelligently guided processes that have never been observed occurring in nature.
> 
> "This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological &#8212; *it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."*
> 
> "One evident reason for this pessimism is that we cannot isolate traits &#8212; or the mutations producing them &#8212; as if they were independent causal elements. Organism-environment relations present us with so much complexity, so many possible parameters to track, that, apart from obviously disabling cases, there is no way to pronounce on the significance of a mutation for an organism, let alone for a population or for the future of the species."
> 
> "But what is really ridiculous is to suggest that empirical work, simply by virtue of being empirical work, offers a proper test of any particular theory. Certainly the work of evolutionary biologists has brought us many wonderful insights into the lives of organisms &#8212; insights of the sort that were being gained long before Darwin. But such insights provide a test of the theory that the origin of species can be adequately explained by natural selection of the fittest organisms only if they do in fact provide a test. Simply refusing to address the question does no one any good."
> 
> "You have to have some reasonable notion of &#8220;fitness&#8221; if you are trying to explain all the amazingly complex, well-adapted, and diverse life forms on earth by the fact that nature preferentially selects the fitter organisms to survive. The question, &#8220;What, exactly, is being selected, and how does it explain the observed course of evolution?&#8221; needs to be answered if the theory of evolution by natural selection is to be much of a theory at all."
> 
> "This is a stunning place to find ourselves, given the confident pronouncements we heard issuing from Dennett and Dawkins at the outset of our investigation. Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain &#8212; namely, the organism&#8217;s fitness &#8212; cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? *There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration."*
> 
> "What we are left to surmise, then, is that the doctrine of randomness has simply been projected onto the phenomena of organic life as a matter of pre-existing *philosophical commitment."*
> 
> "In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, *&#8220;Here something random occurs.&#8221;
> *
> This &#8220;something random&#8221; looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle.* It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a &#8220;Randomness of the gaps,&#8221; demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, &#8220;Can you be a little more explicit here?&#8221;* A faith that fills the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the organism with a potent meaninglessness capable of transforming everything else into an illusion is a faith that could benefit from some minimal grounding."
> 
> The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness
Click to expand...


I don't appreciate being mocked in the way that you did.

 I have a hard time reading your super long posts, because along the way, you say so many non-sensical and untrue things, and apparently copy and paste from creation "scientists." They are not scientists. They are idiots. 

Plenty of Christians believe in evolution, so apparently they don't have a problem with it. Why do you?

The point is, you can not prove gods existence. So, how can you posit one as an agent involved in observable phenomena? You can't. Simply attacking evolution doesn't make creationism any more true.  

You can question evolution all you like, but you still have no provided one shred of evidence for god. It is often a mistake of creationists thinking that if evolution is false, creationism is then, by default true. This is a logical fallacy because it rests on a false dichotomy. You have to provide actual evidence for your hypothesis that isn't an argument from ignorance, which you can't. The bible doesn't prove itself, so you can't use that. Using science alone, nothing points to god, despite your rampant, obnoxious attempts at discrediting evolution, which you haven't done AT ALL.

Okay, I actually read through the article you posted, and its all complete nothing. I don't understand why you even posted it. I don't care why this persons opinions are of evolution. They can't demonstrate anything of their own ID theory, at all, because it's not science. They continually bash evolution in an immature attempt to oust the competitor, like this a competition for a mate. That's not how this game works, and that is logic 101. A claim is either supported or refuted on its own grounds, not built on the failure of another competing claim. Keep in mind, I am talking hypotheticals here, because in no way am I saying that evolution has failed. It is the bedrock of many of today's sciences.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how I see this debate. There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say god is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that a god exists. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing god as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven gods existence, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, including cosmological, ontological, teleological, or transcendental. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of creationists who need to have their beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, god, can't be shown to exist. That's a problem! Yet, they try to prove him indirectly by pointing to gaps in our scientific knowledge, which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again.  But, the same points remain: those who posit a god hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, without showing how, since it can be explained, largely, without god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the problem with your argument that you are apparently too blind to see:
> 
> There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say Darwinism is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for the massive complexity we see in organisms. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing Darwinism as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven random mutation and natural selection can result in vertical progression, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, not with the fossil evidence and not with actual experiments that follow the scientific method. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of evolutionists who need to have their naturalistic and materialist beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, darwinism, can't be proven by legitimate scientific experiments. That's a problem! Yet, they postulate hundreds of "just so" stories about the distant past, filling in the HUGE gaps with "might haves" and "could haves", which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again.  But, the same points remain: those who posit a darwinian hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, showing how with Intelligently guided processes that have never been observed occurring in nature.
> 
> "This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological &#8212; *it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."*
> 
> "One evident reason for this pessimism is that we cannot isolate traits &#8212; or the mutations producing them &#8212; as if they were independent causal elements. Organism-environment relations present us with so much complexity, so many possible parameters to track, that, apart from obviously disabling cases, there is no way to pronounce on the significance of a mutation for an organism, let alone for a population or for the future of the species."
> 
> "But what is really ridiculous is to suggest that empirical work, simply by virtue of being empirical work, offers a proper test of any particular theory. Certainly the work of evolutionary biologists has brought us many wonderful insights into the lives of organisms &#8212; insights of the sort that were being gained long before Darwin. But such insights provide a test of the theory that the origin of species can be adequately explained by natural selection of the fittest organisms only if they do in fact provide a test. Simply refusing to address the question does no one any good."
> 
> "You have to have some reasonable notion of &#8220;fitness&#8221; if you are trying to explain all the amazingly complex, well-adapted, and diverse life forms on earth by the fact that nature preferentially selects the fitter organisms to survive. The question, &#8220;What, exactly, is being selected, and how does it explain the observed course of evolution?&#8221; needs to be answered if the theory of evolution by natural selection is to be much of a theory at all."
> 
> "This is a stunning place to find ourselves, given the confident pronouncements we heard issuing from Dennett and Dawkins at the outset of our investigation. Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain &#8212; namely, the organism&#8217;s fitness &#8212; cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? *There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration."*
> 
> "What we are left to surmise, then, is that the doctrine of randomness has simply been projected onto the phenomena of organic life as a matter of pre-existing *philosophical commitment."*
> 
> "In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, *&#8220;Here something random occurs.&#8221;
> *
> This &#8220;something random&#8221; looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle.* It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a &#8220;Randomness of the gaps,&#8221; demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, &#8220;Can you be a little more explicit here?&#8221;* A faith that fills the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the organism with a potent meaninglessness capable of transforming everything else into an illusion is a faith that could benefit from some minimal grounding."
> 
> The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't appreciate being mocked in the way that you did.
> 
> I have a hard time reading your super long posts, because along the way, you say so many non-sensical and untrue things, and apparently copy and paste from creation "scientists." They are not scientists. They are idiots.
> 
> Plenty of Christians believe in evolution, so apparently they don't have a problem with it. Why do you?
> 
> The point is, you can not prove gods existence. So, how can you posit one as an agent involved in observable phenomena? You can't. Simply attacking evolution doesn't make creationism any more true.
> 
> You can question evolution all you like, but you still have no provided one shred of evidence for god. It is often a mistake of creationists thinking that if evolution is false, creationism is then, by default true. This is a logical fallacy because it rests on a false dichotomy. You have to provide actual evidence for your hypothesis that isn't an argument from ignorance, which you can't. The bible doesn't prove itself, so you can't use that. Using science alone, nothing points to god, despite your rampant, obnoxious attempts at discrediting evolution, which you haven't done AT ALL.
> 
> Okay, I actually read through the article you posted, and its all complete nothing. I don't understand why you even posted it. I don't care why this persons opinions are of evolution. They can't demonstrate anything of their own ID theory, at all, because it's not science. They continually bash evolution in an immature attempt to oust the competitor, like this a competition for a mate. That's not how this game works, and that is logic 101. A claim is either supported or refuted on its own grounds, not built on the failure of another competing claim. Keep in mind, I am talking hypotheticals here, because in no way am I saying that evolution has failed. It is the bedrock of many of today's sciences.
Click to expand...


Mocked??? I think you are being a little sensitive and in response, you have resorted to borrowing material from Hollie. 

*My point in rephrasing your post was not to mock,* but to show you that most of your arguments against ID theory could easily be applied to Darwinism by merely substituting evolution for ID in your argument. Then I provided you with further info from "The New Atlantis", which was totally relative to the argument and the fact that Darwinism pretends to be "real" science but totally breaks down when viewed critically with the scientific method in mind.

Again you miss the point. By discounting evolution as the joke that it is, I am not stating that somehow adds credibility to the ID arguments. I am merely posing the question, why do you view evolution as fact, and discount ID as superstition, when I have proven numerous times it requires as much faith to believe the preposterous argument natural selection and random mutations are responsible for all the complex life we see? Why is the darwinian myth more credible than the Christian religion, when both suffer from the same lack of scientific proof?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad. Your cut and paste article from Stephen Talbott is a tragically comic joke.
> 
> Arise the vehicle! Arise the cell! | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of Ad Hominem attack and a pathetic cut and paste, why don't you attempt to address some the salient points of the article with your own personal rebuttal?
> 
> *Also, why don't you tell us all where you attended college?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I "refute" something that the author is not able to respond to. Instead of your usual tactic of cutting and pasting articles you scour from the web, and have no understanding of, why don't you review the article you cut and pasted and provide a detailed description of the contents.
Click to expand...


You can't refute because you can't comprehend the logic outlined in the argument. Here, I will try to make is simple so you don't get overwhelmed and can concentrate on one thing. Let's start by isolating one of the salient points in the argument. What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

I will await your rebuttal. Oh and while you are googling cut and paste material, *please enlighten us on your college background.*


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."


This is a deliberate reductionist mischaracterization. Not surprising at all that it should come from you.

"The kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce, are the kinds of organisms with traits best suited for survival and reproduction in their environment."


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the problem with your argument that you are apparently too blind to see:
> 
> There are gaps in our scientific knowledge. To say Darwinism is an explanation for these gaps, you first have to be able to demonstrate that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for the massive complexity we see in organisms. If you can't do that, then there is no point positing Darwinism as an explanation for anything. So far, no one has proven random mutation and natural selection can result in vertical progression, not with evidence or reasoned arguments, not with the fossil evidence and not with actual experiments that follow the scientific method. So, why is this discussion even being had? Professional philosophers are debating about this constantly, better than we can. It just seems like a lot of ego stroking on the part of evolutionists who need to have their naturalistic and materialist beliefs legitimized scientifically, when the center piece to their hypothesis, darwinism, can't be proven by legitimate scientific experiments. That's a problem! Yet, they postulate hundreds of "just so" stories about the distant past, filling in the HUGE gaps with "might haves" and "could haves", which brings us back to the beginning, and around we go, over, and over, and over again.  But, the same points remain: those who posit a darwinian hypothesis have not shown any evidence for this agent, directly. They presuppose that what we see around us IS evidence, showing how with Intelligently guided processes that have never been observed occurring in nature.
> 
> "This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological &#8212; *it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."*
> 
> "One evident reason for this pessimism is that we cannot isolate traits &#8212; or the mutations producing them &#8212; as if they were independent causal elements. Organism-environment relations present us with so much complexity, so many possible parameters to track, that, apart from obviously disabling cases, there is no way to pronounce on the significance of a mutation for an organism, let alone for a population or for the future of the species."
> 
> "But what is really ridiculous is to suggest that empirical work, simply by virtue of being empirical work, offers a proper test of any particular theory. Certainly the work of evolutionary biologists has brought us many wonderful insights into the lives of organisms &#8212; insights of the sort that were being gained long before Darwin. But such insights provide a test of the theory that the origin of species can be adequately explained by natural selection of the fittest organisms only if they do in fact provide a test. Simply refusing to address the question does no one any good."
> 
> "You have to have some reasonable notion of &#8220;fitness&#8221; if you are trying to explain all the amazingly complex, well-adapted, and diverse life forms on earth by the fact that nature preferentially selects the fitter organisms to survive. The question, &#8220;What, exactly, is being selected, and how does it explain the observed course of evolution?&#8221; needs to be answered if the theory of evolution by natural selection is to be much of a theory at all."
> 
> "This is a stunning place to find ourselves, given the confident pronouncements we heard issuing from Dennett and Dawkins at the outset of our investigation. Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain &#8212; namely, the organism&#8217;s fitness &#8212; cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? *There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration."*
> 
> "What we are left to surmise, then, is that the doctrine of randomness has simply been projected onto the phenomena of organic life as a matter of pre-existing *philosophical commitment."*
> 
> "In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, *&#8220;Here something random occurs.&#8221;
> *
> This &#8220;something random&#8221; looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle.* It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a &#8220;Randomness of the gaps,&#8221; demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, &#8220;Can you be a little more explicit here?&#8221;* A faith that fills the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the organism with a potent meaninglessness capable of transforming everything else into an illusion is a faith that could benefit from some minimal grounding."
> 
> The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't appreciate being mocked in the way that you did.
> 
> I have a hard time reading your super long posts, because along the way, you say so many non-sensical and untrue things, and apparently copy and paste from creation "scientists." They are not scientists. They are idiots.
> 
> Plenty of Christians believe in evolution, so apparently they don't have a problem with it. Why do you?
> 
> The point is, you can not prove gods existence. So, how can you posit one as an agent involved in observable phenomena? You can't. Simply attacking evolution doesn't make creationism any more true.
> 
> You can question evolution all you like, but you still have no provided one shred of evidence for god. It is often a mistake of creationists thinking that if evolution is false, creationism is then, by default true. This is a logical fallacy because it rests on a false dichotomy. You have to provide actual evidence for your hypothesis that isn't an argument from ignorance, which you can't. The bible doesn't prove itself, so you can't use that. Using science alone, nothing points to god, despite your rampant, obnoxious attempts at discrediting evolution, which you haven't done AT ALL.
> 
> Okay, I actually read through the article you posted, and its all complete nothing. I don't understand why you even posted it. I don't care why this persons opinions are of evolution. They can't demonstrate anything of their own ID theory, at all, because it's not science. They continually bash evolution in an immature attempt to oust the competitor, like this a competition for a mate. That's not how this game works, and that is logic 101. A claim is either supported or refuted on its own grounds, not built on the failure of another competing claim. Keep in mind, I am talking hypotheticals here, because in no way am I saying that evolution has failed. It is the bedrock of many of today's sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mocked??? I think you are being a little sensitive and in response, you have resorted to borrowing material from Hollie.
> 
> *My point in rephrasing your post was not to mock,* but to show you that most of your arguments against ID theory could easily be applied to Darwinism by merely substituting evolution for ID in your argument. Then I provided you with further info from "The New Atlantis", which was totally relative to the argument and the fact that Darwinism pretends to be "real" science but totally breaks down when viewed critically with the scientific method in mind.
> 
> Again you miss the point. By discounting evolution as the joke that it is, I am not stating that somehow adds credibility to the ID arguments. I am merely posing the question, why do you view evolution as fact, and discount ID as superstition, when I have proven numerous times it requires as much faith to believe the preposterous argument natural selection and random mutations are responsible for all the complex life we see? Why is the darwinian myth more credible than the Christian religion, when both suffer from the same lack of scientific proof?
Click to expand...


Alright, my bad. I thought you were mocking me. Yes, you can do what you did, but its not the same. You are positing a theory that requires a supernatural being. We have, scientifically, never seen this being or its effect on the world, ever. It is therefore your burden to provide proof for this being if you wish to make your theory valid. Using inductive reasoning, it is more valid to assume a natural cause for everything in the universe, as we do not regularly see supernatural causation for phenomena. If we did, that would be different. Then it would be plausible. By the way, personal testimony of god's "miracles" in someone's life do not count as evidence of supernatural causation, because there is another plausible explanation: neurological functioning. The mind has fascinating abilities to make us think we are experiencing something when we are not. This is more than likely the case for when people "feel god."

Evolution has an insane amount of evidence for it. If it didn't , it simply would not have survived this long. How you are able to deny something so logical, intuitive, and obvious is beside me. 

On the other hand, I can see and admit that sometimes it does seem implausible that we came from a bacteria, and that all of this we see in fact, did. But, upon further study, evolution makes sense of EVERYTHING we see in the animal kingdom. It makes sense of gradually transitioning fossils, of which there are many. It makes sense of virology, embryology, biology, and many other fields, which actively use evolution as part of their study. I find the rejection of evolution to be of the utmost arrogance present in todays society. I simply find it sad that a preference for a certain reality which includes god because it "feels better," is chosen over a reality supported by logic, reason, and evidence. That is tragic, as far as I am concerned. But, to each their own.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie, what is your purpose in life?
> 
> Loki, what is your purpose in life?
> 
> NP, what is your purpose in life?
> 
> Oftentimes we hear Darwinists stating that Christians don't live full lives because they fall back on the afterlife as an excuse. This couldn't be farther from the truth and it rests on the false assumption that Darwinists can actually control what happens to them. So then, what is the Darwinist left with when he finds out his 6-year-old daughter has a brain tumor, or his new wife falls from her harness and dies while parasailing on their honeymoon. How does the Darwinist reconcile these instances of no option to live a full life? Do Darwinists deny their religion and actually pretend they have SOME control so they can function? Ah, what a cruel evolutionary joke consciousness is. And even more so, that cruel evolutionary by product called "love".
> 
> This is how Christians deal with pain. I'm just curious how materialistic Darwinists make sense of the same types of situations.
> 
> Jodie Spradlin HD 720p - YouTube



First of all, please stop calling us Darwinists. It's really condescending, and implies that we worship Darwin. We don't worship Darwin anymore than we worship Newton when observing gravity's effect on our stay here on this planet. 

Dealing with hardships requires the support of others. From your perspective, church can provide that, but so can family and friends in a fully secular realm, without church. We are an intensely social species, because that is how we survived through evolution. It is this evolutionary advantage that gave us the communication skills and brains we have today. As such, we rely on each other immensely, especially in tough times, just as any theist might. We are no different, we simply lack a belief in god. Incidentally, it is these close bonds and relationships that also give our life meaning, because they provide validation for our being here. Love is a powerful thing, even in a secular sense. You don't need god to feel love and connection to other human beings, because as I said, this is a function of our evolutionary upbringing as humans as social animals.  It is "built into us" to desire being connected with eachother, assuming we are socialized correctly during early stages of life and know how to appropriately communicate with people. Humans possess a psychological need for companionship, for belonging, every bit as real as hunger or thirst, and when it is not met, its effects can be seen. Humans left in isolation for long periods of time start to exhibit very bizarre and often anti-social behavior, if it is against their will, such as in solitary confinement. There is a documentary on it on Netflix. It's pretty fascinating. The point is, we need each other. God or no god. We give each other meaning. We are a vulnerable species as a whole, and as individuals, because we are so dependent, though we don't always know it or want to admit it. That's it. That's the meaning. Without eachother, we lose all meaning. That's my theory anyway, and can attest to these having suffered from severe social anxiety, borderline personality disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder. Isolation and feeling cut off from the world really does produce a very grey, dark reality. Feeling connected in any way, is something we all need. Well, most of us, anyway. 

By the way, this is the basis of why I think people are religious. It connects them to others in a very powerful way. I think this uber connection based on sharing belief in a deep cosmic being that is responsible of all our being, makes people feel truly connected to each other, while completely vulnerable, and this is like no other feeling. I think this is "god." People attribute it to an outside force, but I don't think it is. i think it comes back to us being social creatures and wanting to feel connected to eachother.

There is still incredible beauty in love, without god, because love allows us to be vulnerable and accepted by others, usually family and best friends, if we are lucky enough to have these kinds of relationships in our life.

I realize this is a gushy post, but this is how I feel. I don't think god has anything to do with feeling good, of feeling alive, or having meaning. We not only give each other meaning, we give our selves meaning in who we choose to become, and how we grow to interact with the world.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."



Loki already addressed how pointless your comment was. It once again reinforces the utter failure of creationists to present positive evidence in support of their gods so they are left to attacking science.  

As we see with every post by the fundies, creationism is unsupportable. If creationists were prevented from quote mining other creationists or "quoting" from their bibles, they would be unable to provide any information on creationism at all.  All of creationist "science" derives from a book written by non-scientific, pre-technological people who lived in an era where superstitions supplanted knowledge. 

When asked for evidence of their claims to supermagicalism, the consistent answer from fundies is: "It says so in the bible." How do we know the bible is true? "It says so in the bible." 
Super. A viciously circular argument. And one we can dismiss as such.

learning, is the process of spending energy and time to gain knowledge. It is far easier to say "I believe in creationism" than it is to study science, biology, physics and learn the mechanics of these processes. Apparently, many fundies find it easier to "believe" and to abstain from thinking. You might characterize the intellectually lazy exercise of "believing" as a way to refrain from thinking.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Gadawg73 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.
> 
> I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.
> 
> *Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.*
> 
> We must be some luck*y* planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.
> 
> Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.
> 
> But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain.
> 
> I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biology 101 and high school science would be a good start for you.
> Plenty of evidence here on earth to prove that this planet has been here for millions of years.
> NO ONE is saying that PEOPLE have been here for millions of years.
Click to expand...


There is plenty evidence here on this planet and on other planets pointing to a young universe based on solid science, Now what ?


----------



## Gadawg73

The creationists and ID folk, in their ultimate love of God, believe he is too stupid to implement the evolutionary processes in open view on earth today and in the past. 

For those of us that have a strong Christian faith and confidence in it evolution is not a threat.

But for those of weak Christian faith it is.


----------



## Gadawg73

Youwerecreated said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
> 
> 
> Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biology 101 and high school science would be a good start for you.
> Plenty of evidence here on earth to prove that this planet has been here for millions of years.
> NO ONE is saying that PEOPLE have been here for millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is plenty evidence here on this planet and on other planets pointing to a young universe based on solid science, Now what ?
Click to expand...


NOT on this earth.
Your claims that you and the 2 colleges are right and 9998 other universities are wrong is absurd.
Young universe? 
Please educate yourself and get back to us.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.
> 
> I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.
> 
> *Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.*
> 
> We must be some luck*y* planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.
> 
> Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.
> 
> But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain.
> 
> I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.
> 
> As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble?
> 
> Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.
> 
> My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture.
> 
> We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't.
> 
> I welcome comments from Creationists.
Click to expand...


Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 
Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters. 
Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light. And there was light. 
Gen 1:4  And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness. 
Gen 1:5  And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 

If God created with lengthy days that means death happened before the punishment was handed down to man for sin.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n042X-Fuihg]Astounding Evidence for a Young Earth - Bruce Malone - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
> 
> 
> Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.
> 
> As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble?
> 
> Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.
> 
> My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture.
> 
> We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't.
> 
> I welcome comments from Creationists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
> Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
> Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
> Gen 1:4  And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
> Gen 1:5  And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> 
> If God created with lengthy days that means death happened before the punishment was handed down to man for sin.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n042X-Fuihg]Astounding Evidence for a Young Earth - Bruce Malone - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

Astoundingly naive.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
> 
> 
> Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biology 101 and high school science would be a good start for you.
> Plenty of evidence here on earth to prove that this planet has been here for millions of years.
> NO ONE is saying that PEOPLE have been here for millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is plenty evidence here on this planet and on other planets pointing to a young universe based on solid science, Now what ?
Click to expand...


 Why do you presume to believe that others will accept something as true that is known to be false? The bible says that God found his creation to be a disappointment and that he had no more patience or forgiveness, and sent a great flood to drown most of humanity. If you think this is not the very definition of evil, go drown your children. Let us know how that works out. The next time, the gods will use fire. How great is that?

Beyond the staggeringly cruel and immoral implications of that horrific story, the alleged "Great Flood' would have been such a catastrophic event that it would have left unambiguous and unmistakable traces. But none of that evidence can be found. The Flood of Noah is a complete myth. A tale and nothing more. So is the tale of a young earth. The fact is, there is no compelling evidence for a 6000 year old earth.

If you have uncritically bought into the fable that the first man was created from dust or mud, and the first woman was made from his rib, YOUR problems addressing the rational world have only just begun. Time for a reality check!


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki already addressed how pointless your comment was. It once again reinforces the utter failure of creationists to present positive evidence in support of their gods so they are left to attacking science.
> 
> As we see with every post by the fundies, creationism is unsupportable. If creationists were prevented from quote mining other creationists or "quoting" from their bibles, they would be unable to provide any information on creationism at all.  All of creationist "science" derives from a book written by non-scientific, pre-technological people who lived in an era where superstitions supplanted knowledge.
> 
> When asked for evidence of their claims to supermagicalism, the consistent answer from fundies is: "It says so in the bible." How do we know the bible is true? "It says so in the bible."
> Super. A viciously circular argument. And one we can dismiss as such.
> 
> learning, is the process of spending energy and time to gain knowledge. It is far easier to say "I believe in creationism" than it is to study science, biology, physics and learn the mechanics of these processes. Apparently, many fundies find it easier to "believe" and to abstain from thinking. You might characterize the intellectually lazy exercise of "believing" as a way to refrain from thinking.
Click to expand...


Can you explain how those you wrote the bible had knowledge about;

The Hydrologic Cycle:

"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight," (Job. 26:8, NIV). 

"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job 36:27-28, NIV) 

"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course.  All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full.  To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV). 

Within the Bible there are statements consistent with Biology, paleontology, astonomy, meteorology, anthropology, hydrology, geology and physics.

So please explain how these people would know about such things as hyperthermal vents 3000 years before before their discovery by science?

The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.

Job 28:25
To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure. 

The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the worlds hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.


Science and the Bible


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki already addressed how pointless your comment was. It once again reinforces the utter failure of creationists to present positive evidence in support of their gods so they are left to attacking science.
> 
> As we see with every post by the fundies, creationism is unsupportable. If creationists were prevented from quote mining other creationists or "quoting" from their bibles, they would be unable to provide any information on creationism at all.  All of creationist "science" derives from a book written by non-scientific, pre-technological people who lived in an era where superstitions supplanted knowledge.
> 
> When asked for evidence of their claims to supermagicalism, the consistent answer from fundies is: "It says so in the bible." How do we know the bible is true? "It says so in the bible."
> Super. A viciously circular argument. And one we can dismiss as such.
> 
> learning, is the process of spending energy and time to gain knowledge. It is far easier to say "I believe in creationism" than it is to study science, biology, physics and learn the mechanics of these processes. Apparently, many fundies find it easier to "believe" and to abstain from thinking. You might characterize the intellectually lazy exercise of "believing" as a way to refrain from thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain how those you wrote the bible had knowledge about;
> 
> The Hydrologic Cycle:
> 
> "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight," (Job. 26:8, NIV).
> 
> "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job 36:27-28, NIV)
> 
> "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course.  All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full.  To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
> 
> Within the Bible there are statements consistent with Biology, paleontology, astonomy, meteorology, anthropology, hydrology, geology and physics.
> 
> So please explain how these people would know about such things as hyperthermal vents 3000 years before before their discovery by science?
> 
> The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.
> 
> Job 28:25
> To establish a weight for the wind,
> And apportion the waters by measure.
> 
> The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the worlds hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.
> 
> 
> Science and the Bible
Click to expand...

Hi, lonestar. I hope you don't think I'm being rude but I've addressed any number of "scientific miracles" claims before. The "hydrologic cycle miracle" is rather boilerplate so instead of updating an old post from a prior discussion, can I ask you look here:

CH133: Bible describes water cycle


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki already addressed how pointless your comment was. It once again reinforces the utter failure of creationists to present positive evidence in support of their gods so they are left to attacking science.
> 
> As we see with every post by the fundies, creationism is unsupportable. If creationists were prevented from quote mining other creationists or "quoting" from their bibles, they would be unable to provide any information on creationism at all.  All of creationist "science" derives from a book written by non-scientific, pre-technological people who lived in an era where superstitions supplanted knowledge.
> 
> When asked for evidence of their claims to supermagicalism, the consistent answer from fundies is: "It says so in the bible." How do we know the bible is true? "It says so in the bible."
> Super. A viciously circular argument. And one we can dismiss as such.
> 
> learning, is the process of spending energy and time to gain knowledge. It is far easier to say "I believe in creationism" than it is to study science, biology, physics and learn the mechanics of these processes. Apparently, many fundies find it easier to "believe" and to abstain from thinking. You might characterize the intellectually lazy exercise of "believing" as a way to refrain from thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain how those you wrote the bible had knowledge about;
> 
> The Hydrologic Cycle:
> 
> "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight," (Job. 26:8, NIV).
> 
> "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job 36:27-28, NIV)
> 
> "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course.  All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full.  To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
> 
> Within the Bible there are statements consistent with Biology, paleontology, astonomy, meteorology, anthropology, hydrology, geology and physics.
> 
> So please explain how these people would know about such things as hyperthermal vents 3000 years before before their discovery by science?
> 
> The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.
> 
> Job 28:25
> To establish a weight for the wind,
> And apportion the waters by measure.
> 
> The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the worlds hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.
> 
> 
> Science and the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi, lonestar. I hope you don't think I'm being rude but I've addressed any number of "scientific miracles" claims before. The "hydrologic cycle miracle" is rather boilerplate so instead of updating an old post from a prior discussion, can I ask you look here:
> 
> CH133: Bible describes water cycle
Click to expand...


I didn't say anything about "miracles".

The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.

And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?

BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain how those you wrote the bible had knowledge about;
> 
> The Hydrologic Cycle:
> 
> "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight," (Job. 26:8, NIV).
> 
> "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job 36:27-28, NIV)
> 
> "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course.  All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full.  To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
> 
> Within the Bible there are statements consistent with Biology, paleontology, astonomy, meteorology, anthropology, hydrology, geology and physics.
> 
> So please explain how these people would know about such things as hyperthermal vents 3000 years before before their discovery by science?
> 
> The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.
> 
> Job 28:25
> To establish a weight for the wind,
> And apportion the waters by measure.
> 
> The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the worlds hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.
> 
> 
> Science and the Bible
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, lonestar. I hope you don't think I'm being rude but I've addressed any number of "scientific miracles" claims before. The "hydrologic cycle miracle" is rather boilerplate so instead of updating an old post from a prior discussion, can I ask you look here:
> 
> CH133: Bible describes water cycle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about "miracles".
> 
> The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
> 
> And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
> 
> BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
Click to expand...

I think you're going for a bit of a stretch to claim a perfect biblical description of the hydrologic cycle. I saw no description of evaporation, evapotranspiration, etc., that fully describes the hydrologic cycle. 

As far as "miracles in the bible", (which, let's be honest, is where you're going), there are any number of science based sites and how shall we say... "debunking the biblical miracles" based sites that address your claims. 

How do you account for the outright falsehoods and inconsistencies that litter the bible?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, lonestar. I hope you don't think I'm being rude but I've addressed any number of "scientific miracles" claims before. The "hydrologic cycle miracle" is rather boilerplate so instead of updating an old post from a prior discussion, can I ask you look here:
> 
> CH133: Bible describes water cycle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about "miracles".
> 
> The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
> 
> And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
> 
> BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you're going for a bit of a stretch to claim a perfect biblical description of the hydrologic cycle. I saw no description of evaporation, evapotranspiration, etc., that fully describes the hydrologic cycle.
> 
> As far as "miracles in the bible", (which, let's be honest, is where you're going), there are any number of science based sites and how shall we say... "debunking the biblical miracles" based sites that address your claims.
> 
> How do you account for the outright falsehoods and inconsistencies that litter the bible?
Click to expand...


When you have several people telling a story, all will see things differently and interpret what they do see differently, that accounts for the inconsistencies that exist. 

What in the Bible are you claiming is a falsehood?

And as for the hydrologic cycle you have to understand this was a back before science and words like evaporation was known. Therefore it was described in terms they understood. If you cannot understand how these simple verses accurately describe the cycle of rain then you are not as bright as I thought.

Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries. 

Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy? 

Jeremiah 10:13
When He utters His voice,
There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
He makes lightning for the rain,
He brings the wind out of His treasuries. 

Job 26:8
He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it. 

Job 37:11
Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
He scatters His bright clouds.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.
> 
> As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble?
> 
> Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.
> 
> My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture.
> 
> We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't.
> 
> I welcome comments from Creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
> Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
> Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
> Gen 1:4  And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
> Gen 1:5  And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> 
> If God created with lengthy days that means death happened before the punishment was handed down to man for sin.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n042X-Fuihg]Astounding Evidence for a Young Earth - Bruce Malone - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Astoundingly naive.
Click to expand...


Tired of your ignorant posts. You didn't even watch the video Troll. This was between myself and UR or any other proponent of ID that believes in an old earth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about "miracles".
> 
> The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
> 
> And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
> 
> BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going for a bit of a stretch to claim a perfect biblical description of the hydrologic cycle. I saw no description of evaporation, evapotranspiration, etc., that fully describes the hydrologic cycle.
> 
> As far as "miracles in the bible", (which, let's be honest, is where you're going), there are any number of science based sites and how shall we say... "debunking the biblical miracles" based sites that address your claims.
> 
> How do you account for the outright falsehoods and inconsistencies that litter the bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you have several people telling a story, all will see things differently and interpret what they do see differently, that accounts for the inconsistencies that exist.
> 
> What in the Bible are you claiming is a falsehood?
> 
> And as for the hydrologic cycle you have to understand this was a back before science and words like evaporation was known. Therefore it was described in terms they understood. If you cannot understand how these simple verses accurately describe the cycle of rain then you are not as bright as I thought.
> 
> Psalm 135:7
> He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
> He makes lightning for the rain;
> He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
> 
> Job 36:27-29
> For He draws up drops of water,
> Which distill as rain from the mist,
> Which the clouds drop down
> And pour abundantly on man.
> Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
> The thunder from His canopy?
> 
> Jeremiah 10:13
> When He utters His voice,
> There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
> And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
> He makes lightning for the rain,
> He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
> 
> Job 26:8
> He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
> Yet the clouds are not broken under it.
> 
> Job 37:11
> Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
> He scatters His bright clouds.
Click to expand...


You are wasting your time with Hollie the Troll. She has settled for the belief of ignorance.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
> Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
> Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
> Gen 1:4  And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
> Gen 1:5  And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> 
> If God created with lengthy days that means death happened before the punishment was handed down to man for sin.
> 
> Astounding Evidence for a Young Earth - Bruce Malone - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> Astoundingly naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tired of your ignorant posts. You didn't even watch the video Troll. This was between myself and UR or any other proponent of ID that believes in an old earth.
Click to expand...

I think what you're tired of is someone daring to challenge your silly YouTube videos.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going for a bit of a stretch to claim a perfect biblical description of the hydrologic cycle. I saw no description of evaporation, evapotranspiration, etc., that fully describes the hydrologic cycle.
> 
> As far as "miracles in the bible", (which, let's be honest, is where you're going), there are any number of science based sites and how shall we say... "debunking the biblical miracles" based sites that address your claims.
> 
> How do you account for the outright falsehoods and inconsistencies that litter the bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you have several people telling a story, all will see things differently and interpret what they do see differently, that accounts for the inconsistencies that exist.
> 
> What in the Bible are you claiming is a falsehood?
> 
> And as for the hydrologic cycle you have to understand this was a back before science and words like evaporation was known. Therefore it was described in terms they understood. If you cannot understand how these simple verses accurately describe the cycle of rain then you are not as bright as I thought.
> 
> Psalm 135:7
> He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
> He makes lightning for the rain;
> He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
> 
> Job 36:27-29
> For He draws up drops of water,
> Which distill as rain from the mist,
> Which the clouds drop down
> And pour abundantly on man.
> Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
> The thunder from His canopy?
> 
> Jeremiah 10:13
> When He utters His voice,
> There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
> And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
> He makes lightning for the rain,
> He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
> 
> Job 26:8
> He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
> Yet the clouds are not broken under it.
> 
> Job 37:11
> Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
> He scatters His bright clouds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wasting your time with Hollie the Troll. She has settled for the belief of ignorance.
Click to expand...

Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.


----------



## ima

Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;

Otherwise know as a god fart.


----------



## Gadawg73

Hey, I have no problem with the ID or creationism folks.
I would like to see it taught in school if the schools want to teach it. Good idea for students to learn it if they would like.
In religion or philosophy class.
But never in science class because BELIEFS are not science.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have several people telling a story, all will see things differently and interpret what they do see differently, that accounts for the inconsistencies that exist.
> 
> What in the Bible are you claiming is a falsehood?
> 
> And as for the hydrologic cycle you have to understand this was a back before science and words like evaporation was known. Therefore it was described in terms they understood. If you cannot understand how these simple verses accurately describe the cycle of rain then you are not as bright as I thought.
> 
> Psalm 135:7
> He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
> He makes lightning for the rain;
> He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
> 
> Job 36:27-29
> For He draws up drops of water,
> Which distill as rain from the mist,
> Which the clouds drop down
> And pour abundantly on man.
> Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
> The thunder from His canopy?
> 
> Jeremiah 10:13
> When He utters His voice,
> There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
> And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
> He makes lightning for the rain,
> He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
> 
> Job 26:8
> He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
> Yet the clouds are not broken under it.
> 
> Job 37:11
> Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
> He scatters His bright clouds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wasting your time with Hollie the Troll. She has settled for the belief of ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.
Click to expand...


You haven't reacted well yourself.


I'm still waiting for you to explain how can it be that statements in the Bible that are scientifically accurate given the fact it was written over two thousand years ago. 

And what in the Bible do you say is a falsehood?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Psalm 135:7
> He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
> 
> Otherwise know as a god fart.



Spoken like a true second grader.

Shouldn't you be in school?


----------



## LOki

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain how those you wrote the bible had knowledge about;
> 
> The Hydrologic Cycle:
> 
> "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight," (Job. 26:8, NIV).
> 
> "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job 36:27-28, NIV)
> 
> "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course.  All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full.  To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
> 
> Within the Bible there are statements consistent with Biology, paleontology, astonomy, meteorology, anthropology, hydrology, geology and physics.
> 
> So please explain how these people would know about such things as hyperthermal vents 3000 years before before their discovery by science?
> 
> The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.
> 
> Job 28:25
> To establish a weight for the wind,
> And apportion the waters by measure.
> 
> The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the worlds hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.
> 
> 
> Science and the Bible
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, lonestar. I hope you don't think I'm being rude but I've addressed any number of "scientific miracles" claims before. The "hydrologic cycle miracle" is rather boilerplate so instead of updating an old post from a prior discussion, can I ask you look here:
> 
> CH133: Bible describes water cycle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about "miracles".
> 
> The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
> 
> And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
> 
> BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
Click to expand...

What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?

You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wasting your time with Hollie the Troll. She has settled for the belief of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't reacted well yourself.
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to explain how can it be that statements in the Bible that are scientifically accurate given the fact it was written over two thousand years ago.
> 
> And what in the Bible do you say is a falsehood?
Click to expand...

You need to define your terms. You make claims to the bible being "scientifically accurate" when it is not. When you're confronted with scientific principles unknown by the writers of  the bible you make excuses for the lack of a science vocabulary. 

You're not consistent.

If you want a list of biblical errors, there are many sites on the web that can list those errors and falsehoods.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wasting your time with Hollie the Troll. She has settled for the belief of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't reacted well yourself.
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to explain how can it be that statements in the Bible that are scientifically accurate given the fact it was written over two thousand years ago.
> 
> And what in the Bible do you say is a falsehood?
Click to expand...

Duplicate post


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We "could have" answered them before. It "might have happened" a few pages back, lollipop.
> 
> 
> 
> And typical of your form, you provide no verifiable evidence of such answer. No quote. No link.
> 
> No answer. As predicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh there's an answer there, Little Debbie.
Click to expand...

You're not fooling anyone, Pumpkin.



UltimateReality said:


> You just refuse to acknowledge it.


Nonsense.

I have been sincerely asking, and you asshats have been dodging the whole while.

You provide no verifiable evidence of such answer. No quote. No link.

No answer. As predicted.



UltimateReality said:


> I have presented the same proof that your pathetic Darwinian myth is entirely based on.


No quote. No link.

No answer. As predicted.



UltimateReality said:


> Based on what I have stated above, we now have the FACT of the Creator.


Nonsense.



UltimateReality said:


> What of your origins fairy tale 43 might haves and could haves are verifiable by any corroborative evidence from the distant past??? Absolutely none, Drumstick.


Plenty of supportive--not CONCLUSIVE in any absolute sense--evidence has been submitted. You can stop griping about the conclusion not being expressed in an absolute sense. Ok, Cupcake?



UltimateReality said:


> You still have not responded to my comments regarding your inability to use the scientific method to prove any of your might have/could have just so stories about the distant past.


WTF are you going on about now?



UltimateReality said:


> Why do you ignore it?


Ignored what?



UltimateReality said:


> Because to respond would be to admit that your belief system requires just as much faith as theism.


 Nonsense.



UltimateReality said:


> Really convenient how you passed over that one.


Passed over what?


----------



## Gadawg73

LOki said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, lonestar. I hope you don't think I'm being rude but I've addressed any number of "scientific miracles" claims before. The "hydrologic cycle miracle" is rather boilerplate so instead of updating an old post from a prior discussion, can I ask you look here:
> 
> CH133: Bible describes water cycle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about "miracles".
> 
> The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
> 
> And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
> 
> BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?
> 
> You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.
Click to expand...


It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books. 
The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
Elementary science.
Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light. 
Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow. 
The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much. 
Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT  pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".


----------



## Lonestar_logic

LOki said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, lonestar. I hope you don't think I'm being rude but I've addressed any number of "scientific miracles" claims before. The "hydrologic cycle miracle" is rather boilerplate so instead of updating an old post from a prior discussion, can I ask you look here:
> 
> CH133: Bible describes water cycle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about "miracles".
> 
> The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
> 
> And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
> 
> BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?
> 
> You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.
Click to expand...


What claims are those?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Gadawg73 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about "miracles".
> 
> The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
> 
> And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
> 
> BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?
> 
> You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
> The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
> I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
> Elementary science.
> Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
> Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
> And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
> Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
> Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
> The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
> It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
> Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
> Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT  pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".
Click to expand...


Where has anyone said the Bible was MORE scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books?

Either provide the proof or retract your accusation.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't reacted well yourself.
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to explain how can it be that statements in the Bible that are scientifically accurate given the fact it was written over two thousand years ago.
> 
> And what in the Bible do you say is a falsehood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to define your terms. You make claims to the bible being "scientifically accurate" when it is not. When you're confronted with scientific principles unknown by the writers of  the bible you make excuses for the lack of a science vocabulary.
> 
> You're not consistent.
> 
> If you want a list of biblical errors, there are many sites on the web that can list those errors and falsehoods.
Click to expand...


Define my terms?

You made the statement about falsehoods I'm asking what those falsehoods are.

If you have to google them then so be it. I'm not doing your work for you.

And I said there are statements in the Bible that are consistent with science.

And I have shown that to be true.

Please do not try to put words in my mouth.


----------



## Gadawg73

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?
> 
> You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
> The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
> I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
> Elementary science.
> Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
> Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
> And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
> Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
> Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
> The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
> It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
> Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
> Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT  pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where has anyone said the Bible was MORE scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books?
> 
> Either provide the proof or retract your accusation.
Click to expand...


Georgia Congressman Paul Braun and many others recently.
Everyone and anyone that claims the earth is 9000 years old or younger.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't reacted well yourself.
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to explain how can it be that statements in the Bible that are scientifically accurate given the fact it was written over two thousand years ago.
> 
> And what in the Bible do you say is a falsehood?
> 
> 
> 
> You need to define your terms. You make claims to the bible being "scientifically accurate" when it is not. When you're confronted with scientific principles unknown by the writers of  the bible you make excuses for the lack of a science vocabulary.
> 
> You're not consistent.
> 
> If you want a list of biblical errors, there are many sites on the web that can list those errors and falsehoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define my terms?
> 
> You made the statement about falsehoods I'm asking what those falsehoods are.
> 
> If you have to google them then so be it. I'm not doing your work for you.
> 
> And I said there are statements in the Bible that are consistent with science.
> 
> And I have shown that to be true.
> 
> Please do not try to put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...


 Yes. Define your terms. Some of the more blatant falsehoods in the bible would include a global flood, dead men who don't stay dead, seas parting, etc. 

What you seem to object to is anyone pointing out that the bible could be infallible or contains errors. I submit that both are true. Since it is you who in insisting that the bible is not contradicted by science, you are the only one who is actually required to prove anything. Apologists understand this and that's why we are constantly confronted with the most profoundly silly examples of "scientific proofs" of the bible. These "proofs" are not proofs at all and require the believer to be ignorant of both the bible and science to believe them.

We can all imagine that if the gods had really given us a book, they would have managed to drop in a real proof now and then, like, say, the chemical structure of a few of the elements or a comprehensive description of the process of nuclear fusion that powers our sun. But we don't, obviously. Instead we get dumb stuff such as global floods and bushes spontaneously bursting in flames. That's just awful. The people who are propagating that nonsense are slandering your religion. Don't be an accomplice.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
> The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
> I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
> Elementary science.
> Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
> Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
> And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
> Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
> Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
> The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
> It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
> Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
> Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT  pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where has anyone said the Bible was MORE scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books?
> 
> Either provide the proof or retract your accusation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Georgia Congressman Paul Braun and many others recently.
> Everyone and anyone that claims the earth is 9000 years old or younger.
Click to expand...


Link


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to define your terms. You make claims to the bible being "scientifically accurate" when it is not. When you're confronted with scientific principles unknown by the writers of  the bible you make excuses for the lack of a science vocabulary.
> 
> You're not consistent.
> 
> If you want a list of biblical errors, there are many sites on the web that can list those errors and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define my terms?
> 
> You made the statement about falsehoods I'm asking what those falsehoods are.
> 
> If you have to google them then so be it. I'm not doing your work for you.
> 
> And I said there are statements in the Bible that are consistent with science.
> 
> And I have shown that to be true.
> 
> Please do not try to put words in my mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Define your terms. Some of the more blatant falsehoods in the bible would include a global flood, dead men who don't stay dead, seas parting, etc.
> 
> What you seem to object to is anyone pointing out that the bible could be infallible or contains errors. I submit that both are true. Since it is you who in insisting that the bible is not contradicted by science, you are the only one who is actually required to prove anything. Apologists understand this and that's why we are constantly confronted with the most profoundly silly examples of "scientific proofs" of the bible. These "proofs" are not proofs at all and require the believer to be ignorant of both the bible and science to believe them.
> 
> We can all imagine that if the gods had really given us a book, they would have managed to drop in a real proof now and then, like, say, the chemical structure of a few of the elements or a comprehensive description of the process of nuclear fusion that powers our sun. But we don't, obviously. Instead we get dumb stuff such as global floods and bushes spontaneously bursting in flames. That's just awful. The people who are propagating that nonsense are slandering your religion. Don't be an accomplice.
Click to expand...


My terms need no defining. 

What evidence do you have that there was no great flood or no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted?

Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting A Great Biblical Flood


As researchers prove the Red Sea really could have parted... How science backs the Bible's best stories

Once again you're putting words in my mouth.

I never made the claim that the Bible was not contradicted by science. I simply stated that statements in the Bible are consistent with science.

Why do you insist on distorting what I've said?

God could have done the things you mentioned but it would have fell on deaf ears because man was not equipped at the time to understand scientific principles. 

God gave us the ability to seek out and discover the information ourselves at our pace.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?
> 
> You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
> The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
> I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
> Elementary science.
> Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
> Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
> And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
> Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
> Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
> The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
> It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
> Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
> Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT  pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where has anyone said the Bible was MORE scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books?
> 
> Either provide the proof or retract your accusation.
Click to expand...

That's a rather naive claim. It's abundantly clear that bible literalists believe the bible to be  more scientifically accurate than science texts. There is nothing in modern science that confirms global floods, a 6000 year old earth or men rising from the dead. Yet, fundies believe that in spite of the scientific evidence refuting those beliefs.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define my terms?
> 
> You made the statement about falsehoods I'm asking what those falsehoods are.
> 
> If you have to google them then so be it. I'm not doing your work for you.
> 
> And I said there are statements in the Bible that are consistent with science.
> 
> And I have shown that to be true.
> 
> Please do not try to put words in my mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Define your terms. Some of the more blatant falsehoods in the bible would include a global flood, dead men who don't stay dead, seas parting, etc.
> 
> What you seem to object to is anyone pointing out that the bible could be infallible or contains errors. I submit that both are true. Since it is you who in insisting that the bible is not contradicted by science, you are the only one who is actually required to prove anything. Apologists understand this and that's why we are constantly confronted with the most profoundly silly examples of "scientific proofs" of the bible. These "proofs" are not proofs at all and require the believer to be ignorant of both the bible and science to believe them.
> 
> We can all imagine that if the gods had really given us a book, they would have managed to drop in a real proof now and then, like, say, the chemical structure of a few of the elements or a comprehensive description of the process of nuclear fusion that powers our sun. But we don't, obviously. Instead we get dumb stuff such as global floods and bushes spontaneously bursting in flames. That's just awful. The people who are propagating that nonsense are slandering your religion. Don't be an accomplice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My terms need no defining.
> 
> What evidence do you have that there was no great flood or no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted?
> 
> Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting A Great Biblical Flood
> 
> 
> As researchers prove the Red Sea really could have parted... How science backs the Bible's best stories
> 
> Once again you're putting words in my mouth.
> 
> I never made the claim that the Bible was not contradicted by science. I simply stated that statements in the Bible are consistent with science.
> 
> Why do you insist on distorting what I've said?
> 
> God could have done the things you mentioned but it would have fell on deaf ears because man was not equipped at the time to understand scientific principles.
> 
> God gave us the ability to seek out and discover the information ourselves at our pace.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic. 

It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation. 

So yes, I have proof that there was no great flood, that no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted.

Prove I don't.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
> The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
> I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
> Elementary science.
> Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
> Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
> And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
> Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
> Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
> The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
> It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
> Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
> Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT  pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where has anyone said the Bible was MORE scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books?
> 
> Either provide the proof or retract your accusation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a rather naive claim. It's abundantly clear that bible literalists believe the bible to be  more scientifically accurate than science texts. There is nothing in modern science that confirms global floods, a 6000 year old earth or men rising from the dead. Yet, fundies believe that in spite of the scientific evidence refuting those beliefs.
Click to expand...


How can it be abundantly clear when no one has made that claim?

I take it you didn't read the links I posted where they believe they did find evidence of the flood and how the parting of the red sea was possible.


----------



## LOki

Lonestar_logic said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about "miracles".
> 
> The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
> 
> And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
> 
> BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?
> 
> You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What claims are those?
Click to expand...


The Bible says a body of water that's identical to the sea sitting above the heavens. See Genesis
The Bible says the world is flat. See Proverbs, Isaiah.
The Bible says that hares are ruminants. See Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
The Bible says that the planet is stationary. See Psalms, Job, Samuel, Joshua, Corinthians.
Just for starters. There's plenty more.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Define your terms. Some of the more blatant falsehoods in the bible would include a global flood, dead men who don't stay dead, seas parting, etc.
> 
> What you seem to object to is anyone pointing out that the bible could be infallible or contains errors. I submit that both are true. Since it is you who in insisting that the bible is not contradicted by science, you are the only one who is actually required to prove anything. Apologists understand this and that's why we are constantly confronted with the most profoundly silly examples of "scientific proofs" of the bible. These "proofs" are not proofs at all and require the believer to be ignorant of both the bible and science to believe them.
> 
> We can all imagine that if the gods had really given us a book, they would have managed to drop in a real proof now and then, like, say, the chemical structure of a few of the elements or a comprehensive description of the process of nuclear fusion that powers our sun. But we don't, obviously. Instead we get dumb stuff such as global floods and bushes spontaneously bursting in flames. That's just awful. The people who are propagating that nonsense are slandering your religion. Don't be an accomplice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My terms need no defining.
> 
> What evidence do you have that there was no great flood or no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted?
> 
> Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting A Great Biblical Flood
> 
> 
> As researchers prove the Red Sea really could have parted... How science backs the Bible's best stories
> 
> Once again you're putting words in my mouth.
> 
> I never made the claim that the Bible was not contradicted by science. I simply stated that statements in the Bible are consistent with science.
> 
> Why do you insist on distorting what I've said?
> 
> God could have done the things you mentioned but it would have fell on deaf ears because man was not equipped at the time to understand scientific principles.
> 
> God gave us the ability to seek out and discover the information ourselves at our pace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.
> 
> It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.
> 
> So yes, I have proof that there was no great flood, that no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted.
> 
> Prove I don't.
Click to expand...


Well there is evidence that shows some of those things did happen or were at least possible. 

Yet you dismiss those outright.

It's easy to say nothing happened cause you weren't there to see it.

That's probably why we call believing in Christ as having faith. 

You have absolutely nothing to support your argument other than "it didn't happen".

You are a joke and I'm finding out more and more that you're a mere troll.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where has anyone said the Bible was MORE scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books?
> 
> Either provide the proof or retract your accusation.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a rather naive claim. It's abundantly clear that bible literalists believe the bible to be  more scientifically accurate than science texts. There is nothing in modern science that confirms global floods, a 6000 year old earth or men rising from the dead. Yet, fundies believe that in spite of the scientific evidence refuting those beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can it be abundantly clear when no one has made that claim?
> 
> I take it you didn't read the links I posted where they believe they did find evidence of the flood and how the parting of the red sea was possible.
Click to expand...

People believe many things. People believe they have seen Bigfoot and people believe they have been abducted by aliens. 

Why not post the results of the data from the scientists who peer reviewed the data collected by those people in your links. 

Let me guess - there is no peer reviewed data, right?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

LOki said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?
> 
> You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What claims are those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible says a body of water that's identical to the sea sitting above the heavens. See Genesis
> The Bible says the world is flat. See Proverbs, Isaiah.
> The Bible says that hares are ruminants. See Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
> The Bible says that the planet is stationary. See Psalms, Job, Samuel, Joshua, Corinthians.
> Just for starters. There's plenty more.
Click to expand...


Chapter and verse please.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a rather naive claim. It's abundantly clear that bible literalists believe the bible to be  more scientifically accurate than science texts. There is nothing in modern science that confirms global floods, a 6000 year old earth or men rising from the dead. Yet, fundies believe that in spite of the scientific evidence refuting those beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be abundantly clear when no one has made that claim?
> 
> I take it you didn't read the links I posted where they believe they did find evidence of the flood and how the parting of the red sea was possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People believe many things. People believe they have seen Bigfoot and people believe they have been abducted by aliens.
> 
> Why not post the results of the data from the scientists who peer reviewed the data collected by those people in your links.
> 
> Let me guess - there is no peer reviewed data, right?
Click to expand...


So now you want to change the subject?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My terms need no defining.
> 
> What evidence do you have that there was no great flood or no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted?
> 
> Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting A Great Biblical Flood
> 
> 
> As researchers prove the Red Sea really could have parted... How science backs the Bible's best stories
> 
> Once again you're putting words in my mouth.
> 
> I never made the claim that the Bible was not contradicted by science. I simply stated that statements in the Bible are consistent with science.
> 
> Why do you insist on distorting what I've said?
> 
> God could have done the things you mentioned but it would have fell on deaf ears because man was not equipped at the time to understand scientific principles.
> 
> God gave us the ability to seek out and discover the information ourselves at our pace.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.
> 
> It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.
> 
> So yes, I have proof that there was no great flood, that no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted.
> 
> Prove I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well there is evidence that shows some of those things did happen or were at least possible.
> 
> Yet you dismiss those outright.
> 
> It's easy to say nothing happened cause you weren't there to see it.
> 
> That's probably why we call believing in Christ as having faith.
> 
> You have absolutely nothing to support your argument other than "it didn't happen".
> 
> You are a joke and I'm finding out more and more that you're a mere troll.
Click to expand...

That's quite a backstroke. You should try out for the Olympic swim team. 

An event such as a global flood would have left unmistakable evidence. Where is that evidence?

Oh, BTW, when Noah finished his "cruise to nowhere", what did all the carnivorous animals eat?

I guess my requiring you to present a defendable argument makes me a troll?

What does that make you?


----------



## LOki

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My terms need no defining.
> 
> What evidence do you have that there was no great flood or no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted?
> 
> Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting A Great Biblical Flood
> 
> 
> As researchers prove the Red Sea really could have parted... How science backs the Bible's best stories
> 
> Once again you're putting words in my mouth.
> 
> I never made the claim that the Bible was not contradicted by science. I simply stated that statements in the Bible are consistent with science.
> 
> Why do you insist on distorting what I've said?
> 
> God could have done the things you mentioned but it would have fell on deaf ears because man was not equipped at the time to understand scientific principles.
> 
> God gave us the ability to seek out and discover the information ourselves at our pace.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.
> 
> It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.
> 
> So yes, I have proof that there was no great flood, that no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted.
> 
> Prove I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well there is evidence that shows some of those things did happen or were at least possible.
Click to expand...

Not really. Not consistent with the Bible story. Sorry.



Lonestar_logic said:


> Yet you dismiss those outright.


For good reason.



Lonestar_logic said:


> It's easy to say nothing happened cause you weren't there to see it.


You weren't there either. Explain yourself.



Lonestar_logic said:


> That's probably why we call believing in Christ as having faith.


Right. You need neither verifiable evidence nor valid logic to hold your belief, but you insist upon absolute conclusive proof to change your mind.

We are well aware of the intellectual dishonesty practiced by the faithful.



Lonestar_logic said:


> You have absolutely nothing to support your argument other than "it didn't happen".


Nonsense.


----------



## LOki

Lonestar_logic said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What claims are those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says a body of water that's identical to the sea sitting above the heavens. See Genesis
> The Bible says the world is flat. See Proverbs, Isaiah.
> The Bible says that hares are ruminants. See Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
> The Bible says that the planet is stationary. See Psalms, Job, Samuel, Joshua, Corinthians.
> Just for starters. There's plenty more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chapter and verse please.
Click to expand...

No. Do your own homework. I already gave you the chapters.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."
> 
> 
> 
> This is a deliberate reductionist mischaracterization. Not surprising at all that it should come from you.
> 
> "The kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce, are the kinds of organisms with traits best suited for survival and reproduction in their environment."
Click to expand...


Yeah, exactly what I said.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't appreciate being mocked in the way that you did.
> 
> I have a hard time reading your super long posts, because along the way, you say so many non-sensical and untrue things, and apparently copy and paste from creation "scientists." They are not scientists. They are idiots.
> 
> Plenty of Christians believe in evolution, so apparently they don't have a problem with it. Why do you?
> 
> The point is, you can not prove gods existence. So, how can you posit one as an agent involved in observable phenomena? You can't. Simply attacking evolution doesn't make creationism any more true.
> 
> You can question evolution all you like, but you still have no provided one shred of evidence for god. It is often a mistake of creationists thinking that if evolution is false, creationism is then, by default true. This is a logical fallacy because it rests on a false dichotomy. You have to provide actual evidence for your hypothesis that isn't an argument from ignorance, which you can't. The bible doesn't prove itself, so you can't use that. Using science alone, nothing points to god, despite your rampant, obnoxious attempts at discrediting evolution, which you haven't done AT ALL.
> 
> Okay, I actually read through the article you posted, and its all complete nothing. I don't understand why you even posted it. I don't care why this persons opinions are of evolution. They can't demonstrate anything of their own ID theory, at all, because it's not science. They continually bash evolution in an immature attempt to oust the competitor, like this a competition for a mate. That's not how this game works, and that is logic 101. A claim is either supported or refuted on its own grounds, not built on the failure of another competing claim. Keep in mind, I am talking hypotheticals here, because in no way am I saying that evolution has failed. It is the bedrock of many of today's sciences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mocked??? I think you are being a little sensitive and in response, you have resorted to borrowing material from Hollie.
> 
> *My point in rephrasing your post was not to mock,* but to show you that most of your arguments against ID theory could easily be applied to Darwinism by merely substituting evolution for ID in your argument. Then I provided you with further info from "The New Atlantis", which was totally relative to the argument and the fact that Darwinism pretends to be "real" science but totally breaks down when viewed critically with the scientific method in mind.
> 
> Again you miss the point. By discounting evolution as the joke that it is, I am not stating that somehow adds credibility to the ID arguments. I am merely posing the question, why do you view evolution as fact, and discount ID as superstition, when I have proven numerous times it requires as much faith to believe the preposterous argument natural selection and random mutations are responsible for all the complex life we see? Why is the darwinian myth more credible than the Christian religion, when both suffer from the same lack of scientific proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alright, my bad. I thought you were mocking me. Yes, you can do what you did, but its not the same. You are positing a theory that requires a supernatural being. We have, scientifically, never seen this being or its effect on the world, ever. It is therefore your burden to provide proof for this being if you wish to make your theory valid. Using inductive reasoning, it is more valid to assume a natural cause for everything in the universe, as we do not regularly see supernatural causation for phenomena. If we did, that would be different. Then it would be plausible. By the way, personal testimony of god's "miracles" in someone's life do not count as evidence of supernatural causation, because there is another plausible explanation: neurological functioning. The mind has fascinating abilities to make us think we are experiencing something when we are not. This is more than likely the case for when people "feel god."
> 
> Evolution has an insane amount of evidence for it. If it didn't , it simply would not have survived this long. How you are able to deny something so logical, intuitive, and obvious is beside me.
> 
> On the other hand, I can see and admit that sometimes it does seem implausible that we came from a bacteria, and that all of this we see in fact, did. But, upon further study, evolution makes sense of EVERYTHING we see in the animal kingdom. It makes sense of gradually transitioning fossils, of which there are many. It makes sense of virology, embryology, biology, and many other fields, which actively use evolution as part of their study. I find the rejection of evolution to be of the utmost arrogance present in todays society. I simply find it sad that a preference for a certain reality which includes god because it "feels better," is chosen over a reality supported by logic, reason, and evidence. That is tragic, as far as I am concerned. But, to each their own.
Click to expand...


It makes sense because you want it to make sense. Darwinism has survived due to man's sinful nature and the convenience for the purpose of denying God. Do you find it odd that so many youths in religious homes who struggle with same sex attraction seize upon the atheism that the Darwinian myth provides and wind up denying the religion of their youth? Darwinism is merely a tool to rationalize God away. If I can convince myself that God doesn't exist, then maybe I can get rid of all this guilt and shame that comes from giving into my sinful human nature. 

If it turns out that someone comes up with indisputable evidence proving there is no God, I can guarantee you that evolution will not be the reason we eventually find for everything that exists. One day not too long from now people will look back and wonder how so many intelligent people could have bought into such a foolish proposition as the Darwinian Myth. Even if I were to admit God didn't do it, it still doesn't change the fact that natural selection and random mutation didn't either.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, what is your purpose in life?
> 
> Loki, what is your purpose in life?
> 
> NP, what is your purpose in life?
> 
> Oftentimes we hear Darwinists stating that Christians don't live full lives because they fall back on the afterlife as an excuse. This couldn't be farther from the truth and it rests on the false assumption that Darwinists can actually control what happens to them. So then, what is the Darwinist left with when he finds out his 6-year-old daughter has a brain tumor, or his new wife falls from her harness and dies while parasailing on their honeymoon. How does the Darwinist reconcile these instances of no option to live a full life? Do Darwinists deny their religion and actually pretend they have SOME control so they can function? Ah, what a cruel evolutionary joke consciousness is. And even more so, that cruel evolutionary by product called "love".
> 
> This is how Christians deal with pain. I'm just curious how materialistic Darwinists make sense of the same types of situations.
> 
> Jodie Spradlin HD 720p - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, please stop calling us Darwinists. It's really condescending, and implies that we worship Darwin. We don't worship Darwin anymore than we worship Newton when observing gravity's effect on our stay here on this planet.
> 
> Dealing with hardships requires the support of others. From your perspective, church can provide that, but so can family and friends in a fully secular realm, without church. We are an intensely social species, because that is how we survived through evolution. It is this evolutionary advantage that gave us the communication skills and brains we have today. As such, we rely on each other immensely, especially in tough times, just as any theist might. We are no different, we simply lack a belief in god. Incidentally, it is these close bonds and relationships that also give our life meaning, because they provide validation for our being here. Love is a powerful thing, even in a secular sense. You don't need god to feel love and connection to other human beings, because as I said, this is a function of our evolutionary upbringing as humans as social animals.  It is "built into us" to desire being connected with eachother, assuming we are socialized correctly during early stages of life and know how to appropriately communicate with people. Humans possess a psychological need for companionship, for belonging, every bit as real as hunger or thirst, and when it is not met, its effects can be seen. Humans left in isolation for long periods of time start to exhibit very bizarre and often anti-social behavior, if it is against their will, such as in solitary confinement. There is a documentary on it on Netflix. It's pretty fascinating. The point is, we need each other. God or no god. We give each other meaning. We are a vulnerable species as a whole, and as individuals, because we are so dependent, though we don't always know it or want to admit it. That's it. That's the meaning. Without eachother, we lose all meaning. That's my theory anyway, and can attest to these having suffered from severe social anxiety, borderline personality disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder. Isolation and feeling cut off from the world really does produce a very grey, dark reality. Feeling connected in any way, is something we all need. Well, most of us, anyway.
> 
> By the way, this is the basis of why I think people are religious. It connects them to others in a very powerful way. I think this uber connection based on sharing belief in a deep cosmic being that is responsible of all our being, makes people feel truly connected to each other, while completely vulnerable, and this is like no other feeling. I think this is "god." People attribute it to an outside force, but I don't think it is. i think it comes back to us being social creatures and wanting to feel connected to eachother.
> 
> There is still incredible beauty in love, without god, because love allows us to be vulnerable and accepted by others, usually family and best friends, if we are lucky enough to have these kinds of relationships in our life.
> 
> I realize this is a gushy post, but this is how I feel. I don't think god has anything to do with feeling good, of feeling alive, or having meaning. We not only give each other meaning, we give our selves meaning in who we choose to become, and how we grow to interact with the world.
Click to expand...


By your logic, so does a Creationist worship Creation?

"The meaning of "Darwinism" has changed over time, and varies depending on context.[4] In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection.[5]" Athe-Wiki


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, what is your purpose in life?
> 
> Loki, what is your purpose in life?
> 
> NP, what is your purpose in life?
> 
> Oftentimes we hear Darwinists stating that Christians don't live full lives because they fall back on the afterlife as an excuse. This couldn't be farther from the truth and it rests on the false assumption that Darwinists can actually control what happens to them. So then, what is the Darwinist left with when he finds out his 6-year-old daughter has a brain tumor, or his new wife falls from her harness and dies while parasailing on their honeymoon. How does the Darwinist reconcile these instances of no option to live a full life? Do Darwinists deny their religion and actually pretend they have SOME control so they can function? Ah, what a cruel evolutionary joke consciousness is. And even more so, that cruel evolutionary by product called "love".
> 
> This is how Christians deal with pain. I'm just curious how materialistic Darwinists make sense of the same types of situations.
> 
> Jodie Spradlin HD 720p - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, please stop calling us Darwinists. It's really condescending, and implies that we worship Darwin. We don't worship Darwin anymore than we worship Newton when observing gravity's effect on our stay here on this planet.
> 
> Dealing with hardships requires the support of others. From your perspective, church can provide that, but so can family and friends in a fully secular realm, without church. We are an intensely social species, because that is how we survived through evolution. It is this evolutionary advantage that gave us the communication skills and brains we have today. As such, we rely on each other immensely, especially in tough times, just as any theist might. We are no different, we simply lack a belief in god. Incidentally, it is these close bonds and relationships that also give our life meaning, because they provide validation for our being here. Love is a powerful thing, even in a secular sense. You don't need god to feel love and connection to other human beings, because as I said, this is a function of our evolutionary upbringing as humans as social animals.  It is "built into us" to desire being connected with eachother, assuming we are socialized correctly during early stages of life and know how to appropriately communicate with people. Humans possess a psychological need for companionship, for belonging, every bit as real as hunger or thirst, and when it is not met, its effects can be seen. Humans left in isolation for long periods of time start to exhibit very bizarre and often anti-social behavior, if it is against their will, such as in solitary confinement. There is a documentary on it on Netflix. It's pretty fascinating. The point is, we need each other. God or no god. We give each other meaning. We are a vulnerable species as a whole, and as individuals, because we are so dependent, though we don't always know it or want to admit it. That's it. That's the meaning. Without eachother, we lose all meaning. That's my theory anyway, and can attest to these having suffered from severe social anxiety, borderline personality disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder. Isolation and feeling cut off from the world really does produce a very grey, dark reality. Feeling connected in any way, is something we all need. Well, most of us, anyway.
> 
> By the way, this is the basis of why I think people are religious. It connects them to others in a very powerful way. I think this uber connection based on sharing belief in a deep cosmic being that is responsible of all our being, makes people feel truly connected to each other, while completely vulnerable, and this is like no other feeling. I think this is "god." People attribute it to an outside force, but I don't think it is. i think it comes back to us being social creatures and wanting to feel connected to eachother.
> 
> There is still incredible beauty in love, without god, because love allows us to be vulnerable and accepted by others, usually family and best friends, if we are lucky enough to have these kinds of relationships in our life.
> 
> I realize this is a gushy post, but this is how I feel. I don't think god has anything to do with feeling good, of feeling alive, or having meaning. We not only give each other meaning, we give our selves meaning in who we choose to become, and how we grow to interact with the world.
Click to expand...


So do you believe you have a purpose in life? Do you lay awake at night and ask why you are here?

So you believe God is a product of Random Mutations and Natural Selection. I am sure HE just laughs at the thought.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."
> 
> 
> 
> This is a deliberate reductionist mischaracterization. Not surprising at all that it should come from you.
> 
> "The kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce, are the kinds of organisms with traits best suited for survival and reproduction in their environment."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, exactly what I said.
Click to expand...

No, not exactly the same. Your complaint about your strawman expression of natural selection was that it is circular and not falsifiable; what I have provided for you in it's place, is falsifiable and not circular.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki already addressed how pointless your comment was. It once again reinforces the utter failure of creationists to present positive evidence in support of their gods so they are left to attacking science.
> 
> As we see with every post by the fundies, creationism is unsupportable. If creationists were prevented from quote mining other creationists or "quoting" from their bibles, they would be unable to provide any information on creationism at all.  All of creationist "science" derives from a book written by non-scientific, pre-technological people who lived in an era where superstitions supplanted knowledge.
> 
> When asked for evidence of their claims to supermagicalism, the consistent answer from fundies is: "It says so in the bible." How do we know the bible is true? "It says so in the bible."
> Super. A viciously circular argument. And one we can dismiss as such.
> 
> learning, is the process of spending energy and time to gain knowledge. It is far easier to say "I believe in creationism" than it is to study science, biology, physics and learn the mechanics of these processes. Apparently, many fundies find it easier to "believe" and to abstain from thinking. You might characterize the intellectually lazy exercise of "believing" as a way to refrain from thinking.
Click to expand...


You are so utterly lost in your hate and twisted perceptions of people, history and the world. *It makes me wonder, where did you go to college?*


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> The creationists and ID folk, in their ultimate love of God, believe he is too stupid to implement the evolutionary processes in open view on earth today and in the past.
> 
> For those of us that have a strong Christian faith and confidence in it evolution is not a threat.
> 
> But for those of weak Christian faith it is.



So what is your take on me? I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe in ID Theory and I am not falling for the scientifically anemic pseudoscience of the Darwinian Myth. If you want to believe in fairy tales, and it makes you feel better as a Christian, then by all means I am not here to "enlighten" you.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> It makes sense because you want it to make sense. Darwinism has survived due to man's sinful nature and the convenience for the purpose of denying God. Do you find it odd that so many youths in religious homes who struggle with same sex attraction seize upon the atheism that the Darwinian myth provides and wind up denying the religion of their youth? Darwinism is merely a tool to rationalize God away. If I can convince myself that God doesn't exist, then maybe I can get rid of all this guilt and shame that comes from giving into my sinful human nature.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you suffer from self-loathing and religion helps you through the day. Super!
> Do you find it odd that so many who deny their same-sex attraction seek out gods as a way to deny that attraction?
> 
> I don't find it odd at all that you just make up this nonsense as you go along.
> 
> It can only be concluded that your posting more creationist nonsense... unless, of course, you can post some data to support your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it turns out that someone comes up with indisputable evidence proving there is no God, I can guarantee you that evolution will not be the reason we eventually find for everything that exists. One day not too long from now people will look back and wonder how so many intelligent people could have bought into such a foolish proposition as the Darwinian Myth. Even if I were to admit God didn't do it, it still doesn't change the fact that natural selection and random mutation didn't either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a wealth of indisputable evidence proving there is no God. Can you prove their is not?
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biology 101 and high school science would be a good start for you.
> Plenty of evidence here on earth to prove that this planet has been here for millions of years.
> NO ONE is saying that PEOPLE have been here for millions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty evidence here on this planet and on other planets pointing to a young universe based on solid science, Now what ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you presume to believe that others will accept something as true that is known to be false? The bible says that God found his creation to be a disappointment and that he had no more patience or forgiveness, and sent a great flood to drown most of humanity. If you think this is not the very definition of evil, go drown your children. Let us know how that works out. The next time, the gods will use fire. How great is that?
> 
> Beyond the staggeringly cruel and immoral implications of that horrific story, the alleged "Great Flood' would have been such a catastrophic event that it would have left unambiguous and unmistakable traces. But none of that evidence can be found. The Flood of Noah is a complete myth. A tale and nothing more. So is the tale of a young earth. The fact is, there is no compelling evidence for a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> If you have uncritically bought into the fable that the first man was created from dust or mud, and the first woman was made from his rib, YOUR problems addressing the rational world have only just begun. Time for a reality check!
Click to expand...


Oh Hollie. Where is the facepalm emoticon when you need one? Evolution also teaches the first man came from dirt, and the second man, and the third man, and the... so who is the really foolish one here? By the way though, which of the hominids were the first "man'? Also, the word "rib" is a mis-translation. Rib actuall stands for Ribosomes. 

You probably didn't realize that's what you learned in college.* By the way, where was it you attended???*


----------



## UltimateReality

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki already addressed how pointless your comment was. It once again reinforces the utter failure of creationists to present positive evidence in support of their gods so they are left to attacking science.
> 
> As we see with every post by the fundies, creationism is unsupportable. If creationists were prevented from quote mining other creationists or "quoting" from their bibles, they would be unable to provide any information on creationism at all.  All of creationist "science" derives from a book written by non-scientific, pre-technological people who lived in an era where superstitions supplanted knowledge.
> 
> When asked for evidence of their claims to supermagicalism, the consistent answer from fundies is: "It says so in the bible." How do we know the bible is true? "It says so in the bible."
> Super. A viciously circular argument. And one we can dismiss as such.
> 
> learning, is the process of spending energy and time to gain knowledge. It is far easier to say "I believe in creationism" than it is to study science, biology, physics and learn the mechanics of these processes. Apparently, many fundies find it easier to "believe" and to abstain from thinking. You might characterize the intellectually lazy exercise of "believing" as a way to refrain from thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain how those you wrote the bible had knowledge about;
> 
> The Hydrologic Cycle:
> 
> "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight," (Job. 26:8, NIV).
> 
> "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job 36:27-28, NIV)
> 
> "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course.  All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full.  To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
> 
> Within the Bible there are statements consistent with Biology, paleontology, astonomy, meteorology, anthropology, hydrology, geology and physics.
> 
> So please explain how these people would know about such things as hyperthermal vents 3000 years before before their discovery by science?
> 
> The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.
> 
> Job 28:25
> To establish a weight for the wind,
> And apportion the waters by measure.
> 
> The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the worlds hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.
> 
> 
> Science and the Bible
Click to expand...


Don't forget the Bible's reference to "before the beginning of time". This would have been preposterous to Einstein and his crew who believed in an eternal universe, but we have since learned from the fabulous Stephen Hawkins that even time began at the Big Bang. Time did not exist before the Big Bang according to his theory.


----------



## UltimateReality

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about "miracles".
> 
> The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
> 
> And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
> 
> BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going for a bit of a stretch to claim a perfect biblical description of the hydrologic cycle. I saw no description of evaporation, evapotranspiration, etc., that fully describes the hydrologic cycle.
> 
> As far as "miracles in the bible", (which, let's be honest, is where you're going), there are any number of science based sites and how shall we say... "debunking the biblical miracles" based sites that address your claims.
> 
> How do you account for the outright falsehoods and inconsistencies that litter the bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you have several people telling a story, all will see things differently and interpret what they do see differently, that accounts for the inconsistencies that exist.
> 
> What in the Bible are you claiming is a falsehood?
> 
> And as for the hydrologic cycle you have to understand this was a back before science and words like evaporation was known. Therefore it was described in terms they understood. If you cannot understand how these simple verses accurately describe the cycle of rain then you are not as bright as I thought.
> 
> Psalm 135:7
> He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
> He makes lightning for the rain;
> He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
> 
> Job 36:27-29
> For He draws up drops of water,
> Which distill as rain from the mist,
> Which the clouds drop down
> And pour abundantly on man.
> Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
> The thunder from His canopy?
> 
> Jeremiah 10:13
> When He utters His voice,
> There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
> And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
> He makes lightning for the rain,
> He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
> 
> Job 26:8
> He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
> Yet the clouds are not broken under it.
> 
> Job 37:11
> Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
> He scatters His bright clouds.
Click to expand...


Dude, you are wasting your time. Manhands, aka Rugged Touch, aka Hollie, lives in a bubble and according to her, science was never done prior to 1856, the year Darwin published the Origin of the Species.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have several people telling a story, all will see things differently and interpret what they do see differently, that accounts for the inconsistencies that exist.
> 
> What in the Bible are you claiming is a falsehood?
> 
> And as for the hydrologic cycle you have to understand this was a back before science and words like evaporation was known. Therefore it was described in terms they understood. If you cannot understand how these simple verses accurately describe the cycle of rain then you are not as bright as I thought.
> 
> Psalm 135:7
> He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
> He makes lightning for the rain;
> He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
> 
> Job 36:27-29
> For He draws up drops of water,
> Which distill as rain from the mist,
> Which the clouds drop down
> And pour abundantly on man.
> Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
> The thunder from His canopy?
> 
> Jeremiah 10:13
> When He utters His voice,
> There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
> &#8220;And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
> He makes lightning for the rain,
> He brings the wind out of His treasuries.&#8221;
> 
> Job 26:8
> He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
> Yet the clouds are not broken under it.
> 
> Job 37:11
> Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
> He scatters His bright clouds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wasting your time with Hollie the Troll. She has settled for the belief of ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.
Click to expand...


Simpletons don't respond to requests for their educational and science background.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, lonestar. I hope you don't think I'm being rude but I've addressed any number of "scientific miracles" claims before. The "hydrologic cycle miracle" is rather boilerplate so instead of updating an old post from a prior discussion, can I ask you look here:
> 
> CH133: Bible describes water cycle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about "miracles".
> 
> The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
> 
> And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
> 
> BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?
> 
> You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.
Click to expand...


Here we go with the fallacies again trying to sound intelligent. Make sure you whip out your pocket Thesaurus while you are at it to.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> And typical of your form, you provide no verifiable evidence of such answer. No quote. No link.
> 
> No answer. As predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh there's an answer there, Little Debbie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not fooling anyone, Pumpkin.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> I have been sincerely asking, and you asshats have been dodging the whole while.
> 
> You provide no verifiable evidence of such answer. No quote. No link.
> 
> No answer. As predicted.
> 
> No quote. No link.
> 
> No answer. As predicted.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Plenty of supportive--not CONCLUSIVE in any absolute sense--evidence has been submitted. You can stop griping about the conclusion not being expressed in an absolute sense. Ok, Cupcake?
> 
> WTF are you going on about now?
> 
> Ignored what?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because to respond would be to admit that your belief system requires just as much faith as theism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really convenient how you passed over that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Passed over what?
Click to expand...


Hey, some guy in New Jersey found an image of Jesus in the knot of a tree and some gal in Ohio found a piece of toast with the Virgin Mary's likeness in it. If we apply the same burden of proof your pathetic Darwinist pseudoscience requires, I have just located modern day evidence for proof of God. Wake up, Loki!!! Admit what a stretch your pathetic theory is. It does not conform to REAL science.


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about "miracles".
> 
> The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
> 
> And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
> 
> BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?
> 
> You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
> The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
> I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
> Elementary science.
> Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
> Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
> And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
> Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
> Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
> The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
> It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
> Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
> Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT  pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".
Click to expand...


Strawman!!! [Hey, Loki look at me. woo hoo]


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about "miracles".
> 
> The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.
> 
> And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?
> 
> BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?
> 
> You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go with the fallacies again trying to sound intelligent. Make sure you whip out your pocket Thesaurus while you are at it to.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Just demonstrating you're just fucking wrong. *Fractally Wrong*.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a deliberate reductionist mischaracterization. Not surprising at all that it should come from you.
> 
> "The kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce, are the kinds of organisms with traits best suited for survival and reproduction in their environment."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, exactly what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, not exactly the same. Your complaint about your strawman expression of natural selection was that it is circular and not falsifiable; what I have provided for you in it's place, is falsifiable and not circular.
Click to expand...


Please provide a scientifically workable definition of fitness to be applied to these "traits" to make this falsifiable. Also, please show me definitive proof of even one trait that is responsible for a species surviving not in the last 10,000 years?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, exactly what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> No, not exactly the same. Your complaint about your strawman expression of natural selection was that it is circular and not falsifiable; what I have provided for you in it's place, is falsifiable and not circular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please provide a scientifically workable definition of fitness to be applied to these "traits" to make this falsifiable.
Click to expand...

Fuck you.

All you have to do is identify an organism whose traits are suited to surviving in the environment it lives in, and then put that organism in an environment that the organisms traits are NOT suited to survive in.

If the organism survives anyway, then "fitness" is falsified.

Can you grasp that, Skippy?



UltimateReality said:


> Also, please show me definitive proof of even one trait that is responsible for a species surviving not in the last 10,000 years?


No.

I'm done chasing down your retarded questions. If you had the decency of intellectual integrity to answer just one of mine, I would treat you differently. But I have answered all of your dumbass "stumpers" and what do I get in return when I ask you a question?

NOTHING. No quote, no link, no fucking answer.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty evidence here on this planet and on other planets pointing to a young universe based on solid science, Now what ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you presume to believe that others will accept something as true that is known to be false? The bible says that God found his creation to be a disappointment and that he had no more patience or forgiveness, and sent a great flood to drown most of humanity. If you think this is not the very definition of evil, go drown your children. Let us know how that works out. The next time, the gods will use fire. How great is that?
> 
> Beyond the staggeringly cruel and immoral implications of that horrific story, the alleged "Great Flood' would have been such a catastrophic event that it would have left unambiguous and unmistakable traces. But none of that evidence can be found. The Flood of Noah is a complete myth. A tale and nothing more. So is the tale of a young earth. The fact is, there is no compelling evidence for a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> If you have uncritically bought into the fable that the first man was created from dust or mud, and the first woman was made from his rib, YOUR problems addressing the rational world have only just begun. Time for a reality check!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Hollie. Where is the facepalm emoticon when you need one? Evolution also teaches the first man came from dirt, and the second man, and the third man, and the... so who is the really foolish one here? By the way though, which of the hominids were the first "man'? Also, the word "rib" is a mis-translation. Rib actuall stands for Ribosomes.
> 
> You probably didn't realize that's what you learned in college.* By the way, where was it you attended???*
Click to expand...

You have managed to get every statement wrong. 

You should try actually opening a science text instead of spending so much time worshipping at the altar of Harun Yahya.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh there's an answer there, Little Debbie.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not fooling anyone, Pumpkin.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> I have been sincerely asking, and you asshats have been dodging the whole while.
> 
> You provide no verifiable evidence of such answer. No quote. No link.
> 
> No answer. As predicted.
> 
> No quote. No link.
> 
> No answer. As predicted.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Plenty of supportive--not CONCLUSIVE in any absolute sense--evidence has been submitted. You can stop griping about the conclusion not being expressed in an absolute sense. Ok, Cupcake?
> 
> WTF are you going on about now?
> 
> Ignored what?
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really convenient how you passed over that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Passed over what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, some guy in New Jersey found an image of Jesus in the knot of a tree and some gal in Ohio found a piece of toast with the Virgin Mary's likeness in it. If we apply the same burden of proof your pathetic Darwinist pseudoscience requires, I have just located modern day evidence for proof of God. Wake up, Loki!!! Admit what a stretch your pathetic theory is. It does not conform to REAL science.
Click to expand...

It actually does conform to proof of the gods.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh there's an answer there, Little Debbie.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not fooling anyone, Pumpkin.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> I have been sincerely asking, and you asshats have been dodging the whole while.
> 
> You provide no verifiable evidence of such answer. No quote. No link.
> 
> No answer. As predicted.
> 
> No quote. No link.
> 
> No answer. As predicted.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Plenty of supportive--not CONCLUSIVE in any absolute sense--evidence has been submitted. You can stop griping about the conclusion not being expressed in an absolute sense. Ok, Cupcake?
> 
> WTF are you going on about now?
> 
> Ignored what?
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really convenient how you passed over that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Passed over what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, some guy in New Jersey found an image of Jesus in the knot of a tree and some gal in Ohio found a piece of toast with the Virgin Mary's likeness in it. If we apply the same burden of proof your pathetic Darwinist pseudoscience requires, I have just located modern day evidence for proof of God.
Click to expand...

No. You are quite literally using the same burden of proof your superstitious creationism uses to justify it's validity.



UltimateReality said:


> Wake up, Loki!!!


Indeed, your stupidity has become rather boring.



UltimateReality said:


> Admit what a stretch your pathetic theory is.


You are confused. Your strawman of the theory is most certainly a stretch.



UltimateReality said:


> It does not conform to REAL science.


Your strawman of the theory, just like ID, does not conform to REAL science.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?
> 
> You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
> The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
> I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
> Elementary science.
> Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
> Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
> And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
> Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
> Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
> The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
> It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
> Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
> Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT  pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman!!! [Hey, Loki look at me. woo hoo]
Click to expand...

I see you.

I see that you have no idea what the term "strawman" refers to.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
> 
> 
> Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.
> 
> As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble?
> 
> Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.
> 
> My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture.
> 
> We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't.
> 
> I welcome comments from Creationists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
> Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
> Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
> Gen 1:4  And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
> Gen 1:5  And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> 
> If God created with lengthy days that means death happened before the punishment was handed down to man for sin.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n042X-Fuihg]Astounding Evidence for a Young Earth - Bruce Malone - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


YWC, I've watched the video and listened to some of his assertions and I just don't agree with them. He is basing his points of HIS interpretation of the Creation story outlined in Genesis. He says that the you can't refute the fact that Genesis refers to 7 solar days, but for the first three "days" of Creation, we don't even have the sun yet.  Also, he claims the author is repeating himself when talking about man twice. I get the whole argument about the dating methods and their inaccuracy. Even Loki would admit they are scientifically proven for the short timeframe we can measure and account for. However, I've been to the Grand Canyon. I've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to a much older earth. But back to the story:  If I want to take the Creation story literally and chronologically, I have to consider the fact the story about Adam comes later after Creation and after spirit-less hominids, male and female, roamed the earth, and multiplied. There are two stories, one in which male and female are created in a day, and another in which Adam was created, hung out with the animals in the garden for a while and then got lonely. Does it only take Adam 24 hours to name the animals and realize he needs a woman? The speaker has not considered this. He tells me to take the Bible exactly as it is written, but then he does not do so himself. If male and female were created in a solar day, then this does not reconcile with the Adam and Eve story. I believe God did place his new Creation, Homo Sapien, in the garden. Again, let's take the Bible exactly as it is written. We are told Adam and Eve have two sons. We are not told of any other children prior to this. Yet Cain goes to another land and takes a wife. The guy in your video wants to make up the fact that Adam and Eve had other children, but how can this additive story reconcile with the Bible? It can't. Again, your speaker is not taking the Bible for what it exactly says, but is filling in the blanks to make HIS version of the story fit his interpretation. Cain took a Neanderthal wife and there is dna evidence to back this up. Also, this interpretation of the story can be reconciled with fossil evidence, and it doesn't cram all of Creation into 6,000 years. Creationists are locked into as 6,000 year old earth, because they cling to the notion everything was made in six earthly days, including Adam, and then they lock themselves into the calculations of times for the genealogy of Christ. However, if they actually read Genesis for the information it conveyed to the Jews at the time it was written, they would realize that the earth could have existed for billions of years, and the garden of Eden only in the last six to ten thousand years. They also miss the Jewish tradition of leaving un-noteworthy individuals out of the family tree, so the genealogy fails to account for missing generations. I put the garden at 10,000 years ago and believe God visited the earth to create them both with a new dna structure.  Adam would be different than all the hominids before. They would be given the choice. He would no longer act on instinct, but would choose to have God's knowledge of good and evil. An animal does not care that it is naked. An animal has no remorse over killing its food. Adam and Eve would be different. They would see things through God's eyes. Once they ate of the tree, they immediately realized they were naked. 

Some of the points I've made can be crammed fit into the Creation story. Yet, I don't really even feel the need to do that to a point. Jesus was fond of telling parables that conveyed a deeper meaning. How do we, as modern day Christians, know that Moses was writing down a literal story. Maybe it was a parable told to generations of Jews to convey the deeper principles of the fall. The Jews at the time could have no the story was a metaphor, but over the course of thousands of years, someone along the way decided it was literal. Who was that? And again, my question for you, who decided Christ command to gouge out your eye was not literal? There are alot of Christians that just want a little neat black and white story that doesn't beg any questions. They need to fit Christianity into a little box because they don't want to think about the bigger questions. I do want to think about the bigger questions. While I believe the Bible is true, God is not the Bible. And God cannot be contained in the Bible. The Bible says God spat stars out of his "mouth" [I don't believe God has a mouth. The Bible also says God is spirit. Obviously, I believe Jesus had a mouth while he was on earth ]. Do you have any idea how big Star R136a1 is? I don't need to make my massive God fit in 66 tiny little books. I believe the Bible is inspired scripture, but it isn't God. It was written by man, and it can't contain God, or even begin to describe how awesome and how massive our Creator is. If most Christians really had a feel for the reality of that, they would be alot more humble, myself included.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
> The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
> I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
> Elementary science.
> Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
> Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
> And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
> Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
> Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
> The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
> It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
> Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
> Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT  pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman!!! [Hey, Loki look at me. woo hoo]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you.
> 
> I see that you have no idea what the term "strawman" refers to.
Click to expand...


Whatever, Little Debbie. You know exactly what Gadawg is doing here. I don't know why I am even dignifying your childish BS argument with a response, but Gadawg has built up a strawman of claims that myself, or the Texan, aren't making so he can tear them down. I know exactly what a strawman argument is. I just don't need to run around trying to impress everyone because I stayed up late one night memorizing all these so I could impress a bunch of strangers with how educated I am. 

Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Isn't this about the time you get frustrated and move on?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
> The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
> I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
> Elementary science.
> Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
> Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
> And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
> Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
> Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
> The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
> It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
> Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
> Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT  pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where has anyone said the Bible was MORE scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books?
> 
> Either provide the proof or retract your accusation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a rather naive claim. It's abundantly clear that bible literalists believe the bible to be  more scientifically accurate than science texts.
Click to expand...


Keep dreaming, Man-hands. *What school did you go to?*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.
> 
> It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.



Wait, you're talking about Darwinism right? It isn't falsifiable so you can clamor for folks to disprove it. 

*What was the name of the school you attended again?*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a rather naive claim. It's abundantly clear that bible literalists believe the bible to be  more scientifically accurate than science texts. There is nothing in modern science that confirms global floods, a 6000 year old earth or men rising from the dead. Yet, fundies believe that in spite of the scientific evidence refuting those beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be abundantly clear when no one has made that claim?
> 
> I take it you didn't read the links I posted where they believe they did find evidence of the flood and how the parting of the red sea was possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People believe many things. People believe they have seen Bigfoot
Click to expand...


It was really just Hollie before laser hair removal.


----------



## UltimateReality

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be abundantly clear when no one has made that claim?
> 
> I take it you didn't read the links I posted where they believe they did find evidence of the flood and how the parting of the red sea was possible.
> 
> 
> 
> People believe many things. People believe they have seen Bigfoot and people believe they have been abducted by aliens.
> 
> Why not post the results of the data from the scientists who peer reviewed the data collected by those people in your links.
> 
> Let me guess - there is no peer reviewed data, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you want to change the subject?
Click to expand...


He/She has already been given links to over 50 peer-reviewed ID papers and of course, she conveniently pretended like they didn't exist by ignoring them. Just like she is ignoring my questions on her education.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where has anyone said the Bible was MORE scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books?
> 
> Either provide the proof or retract your accusation.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a rather naive claim. It's abundantly clear that bible literalists believe the bible to be  more scientifically accurate than science texts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming, Man-hands. *What school did you go to?*
Click to expand...


If creationists prefer the hypothesis that god created humans over the theory of evolution, then this is exactly what they are doing. For people that believe evolution and god are incompatible, you can not deny that you believe the bible to be more scientifically accurate than modern science books which discuss evolution.


----------



## UltimateReality

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be abundantly clear when no one has made that claim?
> 
> I take it you didn't read the links I posted where they believe they did find evidence of the flood and how the parting of the red sea was possible.
> 
> 
> 
> People believe many things. People believe they have seen Bigfoot and people believe they have been abducted by aliens.
> 
> Why not post the results of the data from the scientists who peer reviewed the data collected by those people in your links.
> 
> Let me guess - there is no peer reviewed data, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you want to change the subject?
Click to expand...


He/She has already been given links to over 50 peer-reviewed ID papers and of course, she conveniently pretended like they didn't exist by ignoring them. Just like she is ignoring my questions on her education. She thinks if she waits long enough everyone, Loki, NP, Daws, will forgot she accused YWC and I of having no science training and also stated we never went to college. But I have the post numbers written down, so when folks get aggravated at continuing to see the large fonts, I will just refer them back to Hollies posts. Hollie has degraded this entire thread into a nonsensical, childish game, and in case you haven't noticed, I'm more than happy to play along. She just posts the same stuff over and over that has no relevance to the topics at hand. She is here to troll and aggravate. Either she is really really stupid [which I'm starting to believe] or she thinks she is manipulating YWC and I by aggravating us. What she hasn't realized is I shook the dust off my sandals many, many pages back and I'm already in the next town.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.
> 
> It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.
> 
> So yes, I have proof that there was no great flood, that no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted.
> 
> Prove I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well there is evidence that shows some of those things did happen or were at least possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really. Not consistent with the Bible story. Sorry.
> 
> For good reason.
> 
> You weren't there either. Explain yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's probably why we call believing in Christ as having faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. You need neither verifiable evidence nor valid logic to hold your belief, but you insist upon absolute conclusive proof to change your mind.
> 
> We are well aware of the intellectual dishonesty practiced by the faithful.
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have absolutely nothing to support your argument other than "it didn't happen".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
Click to expand...


C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] and he "could have" taken two of every animal in with him [we see lots of animals rounded up by men for modern day zoo's] and a flood that covered the whole earth "might have" happened [we've seen some pretty big modern day floods with the tsunami's and all]. Sheesh, that sounds just like one of them there just so Darwin stories you are always spoutin' off about. Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.

In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> People believe many things. People believe they have seen Bigfoot and people believe they have been abducted by aliens.
> 
> Why not post the results of the data from the scientists who peer reviewed the data collected by those people in your links.
> 
> Let me guess - there is no peer reviewed data, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you want to change the subject?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He/She has already been given links to over 50 peer-reviewed ID papers and of course, she conveniently pretended like they didn't exist by ignoring them. Just like she is ignoring my questions on her education.
Click to expand...


Don't mention the number of peer reviewed articles for ID and cite this as evidence that ID is a legitimate scientific theory. In comparison to the number of peer reviewed articles about evolution, it is next to nothing. Why is this? Because the facts for ID don't bear out. 


Project Steve: A list of scientists named Steve, who support the theory of evolution. (hint: it is more than the entire list of creation pseudo-scientists who "dissent from evolution")

Project Steve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes sense because you want it to make sense. Darwinism has survived due to man's sinful nature and the convenience for the purpose of denying God. Do you find it odd that so many youths in religious homes who struggle with same sex attraction seize upon the atheism that the Darwinian myth provides and wind up denying the religion of their youth? Darwinism is merely a tool to rationalize God away. If I can convince myself that God doesn't exist, then maybe I can get rid of all this guilt and shame that comes from giving into my sinful human nature.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you suffer from self-loathing and religion helps you through the day. Super!
> Do you find it odd that so many who deny their same-sex attraction seek out gods as a way to deny that attraction?
> 
> I don't find it odd at all that you just make up this nonsense as you go along.
> 
> It can only be concluded that your posting more creationist nonsense... unless, of course, you can post some data to support your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it turns out that someone comes up with indisputable evidence proving there is no God, I can guarantee you that evolution will not be the reason we eventually find for everything that exists. One day not too long from now people will look back and wonder how so many intelligent people could have bought into such a foolish proposition as the Darwinian Myth. Even if I were to admit God didn't do it, it still doesn't change the fact that natural selection and random mutation didn't either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a wealth of indisputable evidence proving there is no God. Can you prove their is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Can you prove you have any formal education?*
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not exactly the same. Your complaint about your strawman expression of natural selection was that it is circular and not falsifiable; what I have provided for you in it's place, is falsifiable and not circular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a scientifically workable definition of fitness to be applied to these "traits" to make this falsifiable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> All you have to do is identify an organism whose traits are suited to surviving in the environment it lives in, and then put that organism in an environment that the organisms traits are NOT suited to survive in.
> 
> If the organism survives anyway, then "fitness" is falsified.
> 
> Can you grasp that, Skippy?
Click to expand...

 I said a minimum of 10,000 years ago spanky. Any nitwit knows what happens to a fish out of water. Ha! Kind of like you in this thread. 

And yeah, I am grasping your *circular reasoning* loud and clear, Crunchy Jif.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you presume to believe that others will accept something as true that is known to be false? The bible says that God found his creation to be a disappointment and that he had no more patience or forgiveness, and sent a great flood to drown most of humanity. If you think this is not the very definition of evil, go drown your children. Let us know how that works out. The next time, the gods will use fire. How great is that?
> 
> Beyond the staggeringly cruel and immoral implications of that horrific story, the alleged "Great Flood' would have been such a catastrophic event that it would have left unambiguous and unmistakable traces. But none of that evidence can be found. The Flood of Noah is a complete myth. A tale and nothing more. So is the tale of a young earth. The fact is, there is no compelling evidence for a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> If you have uncritically bought into the fable that the first man was created from dust or mud, and the first woman was made from his rib, YOUR problems addressing the rational world have only just begun. Time for a reality check!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Hollie. Where is the facepalm emoticon when you need one? Evolution also teaches the first man came from dirt, and the second man, and the third man, and the... so who is the really foolish one here? By the way though, which of the hominids were the first "man'? Also, the word "rib" is a mis-translation. Rib actuall stands for Ribosomes.
> 
> You probably didn't realize that's what you learned in college.* By the way, where was it you attended???*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have managed to get every statement wrong.
> 
> You should try actually opening a science text instead of spending so much time worshipping at the altar of Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...


Okay, Hollie, you got me! I admit it!!! I love Harun Yahya. He is so dreamy don't you think? I just can't get enough of his teachings. Everything I've learned to post in here comes from this amazing muslim man. He is so wise. Where did you learn all your massive knowledge? *Was it at a college?*


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a rather naive claim. It's abundantly clear that bible literalists believe the bible to be  more scientifically accurate than science texts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreaming, Man-hands. *What school did you go to?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If creationists prefer the hypothesis that god created humans over the theory of evolution, then this is exactly what they are doing. For people that believe evolution and god are incompatible, you can not deny that you believe the *B*ible to be more scientifically accurate than modern science books *which discuss evolution.*
Click to expand...


This bolded addition above was not a caveat of Hollie's post, and I would not deny the statement you have posted above.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you want to change the subject?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He/She has already been given links to over 50 peer-reviewed ID papers and of course, she conveniently pretended like they didn't exist by ignoring them. Just like she is ignoring my questions on her education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't mention the number of peer reviewed articles for ID and cite this as evidence that ID is a legitimate scientific theory. In comparison to the number of peer reviewed articles about evolution, it is next to nothing. Why is this? Because the facts for ID don't bear out.
> 
> 
> Project Steve: A list of scientists named Steve, who support the theory of evolution. (hint: it is more than the entire list of creation pseudo-scientists who "dissent from evolution")
> 
> Project Steve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well there is evidence that shows some of those things did happen or were at least possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Not consistent with the Bible story. Sorry.
> 
> For good reason.
> 
> You weren't there either. Explain yourself.
> 
> Right. You need neither verifiable evidence nor valid logic to hold your belief, but you insist upon absolute conclusive proof to change your mind.
> 
> We are well aware of the intellectual dishonesty practiced by the faithful.
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have absolutely nothing to support your argument other than "it didn't happen".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] ...
Click to expand...

Yet there's no evidence such a vessel was built, and the evidence leads to the conclusion that such a vessel could not have met it's design specification.



UltimateReality said:


> ... and he "could have" taken two of every animal in with him [we see lots of animals rounded up by men for modern day zoo's] ...


Yet the evidence is conclusive that no such thing ever happened.



UltimateReality said:


> ... and a flood that covered the whole earth "might have" happened [we've seen some pretty big modern day floods with the tsunami's and all].


Yet the evidence is conclusive that no such global flood ever happened.



UltimateReality said:


> Sheesh, that sounds just like one of them there just so Darwin stories you are always spoutin' off about.


No. Not really. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence supports evolution.



UltimateReality said:


> Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.


No. you're a remorseless fuck up.



UltimateReality said:


> In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.


You should read your own story. Couldn't have happened. There were only 2 giraffes--if any of them had starved, there'd be no giraffes.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a scientifically workable definition of fitness to be applied to these "traits" to make this falsifiable.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> All you have to do is identify an organism whose traits are suited to surviving in the environment it lives in, and then put that organism in an environment that the organisms traits are NOT suited to survive in.
> 
> If the organism survives anyway, then "fitness" is falsified.
> 
> Can you grasp that, Skippy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said a minimum of 10,000 years ago spanky. Any nitwit knows what happens to a fish out of water. Ha! Kind of like you in this thread.
> 
> And yeah, I am grasping your *circular reasoning* loud and clear, Crunchy Jif.
Click to expand...

There's no circular reasoning, except for that invented by you in the construction of your strawman caricature of natural selection.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> He/She has already been given links to over 50 peer-reviewed ID papers and of course, she conveniently pretended like they didn't exist by ignoring them. Just like she is ignoring my questions on her education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't mention the number of peer reviewed articles for ID and cite this as evidence that ID is a legitimate scientific theory. In comparison to the number of peer reviewed articles about evolution, it is next to nothing. Why is this? Because the facts for ID don't bear out.
> 
> 
> Project Steve: A list of scientists named Steve, who support the theory of evolution. (hint: it is more than the entire list of creation pseudo-scientists who "dissent from evolution")
> 
> Project Steve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.
Click to expand...

It's convenient to claim that peer reviewed papers exist, (peer reviewed by scientists, not ID quacks), you just consistently fail to present evidence for those peer reviewed studies.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Not consistent with the Bible story. Sorry.
> 
> For good reason.
> 
> You weren't there either. Explain yourself.
> 
> Right. You need neither verifiable evidence nor valid logic to hold your belief, but you insist upon absolute conclusive proof to change your mind.
> 
> We are well aware of the intellectual dishonesty practiced by the faithful.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet there's no evidence such a vessel was built, and the evidence leads to the conclusion that such a vessel could not have met it's design specification.
> 
> Yet the evidence is conclusive that no such thing ever happened.
> 
> Yet the evidence is conclusive that no such global flood ever happened.
> 
> No. Not really. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence supports evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. you're a remorseless fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should read your own story. Couldn't have happened. There were only 2 giraffes--if any of them had starved, there'd be no giraffes.
Click to expand...


Maybe the giraffes were considered clean, so he took 7 pairs.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't mention the number of peer reviewed articles for ID and cite this as evidence that ID is a legitimate scientific theory. In comparison to the number of peer reviewed articles about evolution, it is next to nothing. Why is this? Because the facts for ID don't bear out.
> 
> 
> Project Steve: A list of scientists named Steve, who support the theory of evolution. (hint: it is more than the entire list of creation pseudo-scientists who "dissent from evolution")
> 
> Project Steve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's convenient to claim that peer reviewed papers exist, (peer reviewed by scientists, not ID quacks), you just consistently fail to present evidence for those peer reviewed studies.
Click to expand...


*Kind of like the evidence of your college attendance!!!*


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> All you have to do is identify an organism whose traits are suited to surviving in the environment it lives in, and then put that organism in an environment that the organisms traits are NOT suited to survive in.
> 
> If the organism survives anyway, then "fitness" is falsified.
> 
> Can you grasp that, Skippy?
> 
> 
> 
> I said a minimum of 10,000 years ago spanky. Any nitwit knows what happens to a fish out of water. Ha! Kind of like you in this thread.
> 
> And yeah, I am grasping your *circular reasoning* loud and clear, Crunchy Jif.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no circular reasoning, except for that invented by you in the construction of your strawman caricature of natural selection.
Click to expand...


Oh, do tell. Survival of the Fittest is not part of Natural Selection?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.
> 
> 
> 
> It's convenient to claim that peer reviewed papers exist, (peer reviewed by scientists, not ID quacks), you just consistently fail to present evidence for those peer reviewed studies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Kind of like the evidence of your college attendance!!!*
Click to expand...

So you're aware that your fallacious comment about ID, peer reviewed papers is nonsense.

Good for you. You're again exposed as a fraud.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> He/She has already been given links to over 50 peer-reviewed ID papers and of course, she conveniently pretended like they didn't exist by ignoring them. Just like she is ignoring my questions on her education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't mention the number of peer reviewed articles for ID and cite this as evidence that ID is a legitimate scientific theory. In comparison to the number of peer reviewed articles about evolution, it is next to nothing. Why is this? Because the facts for ID don't bear out.
> 
> 
> Project Steve: A list of scientists named Steve, who support the theory of evolution. (hint: it is more than the entire list of creation pseudo-scientists who "dissent from evolution")
> 
> Project Steve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.
Click to expand...


Of course it is an appeal to popular opinion to cite Project Steve, but it still illustrates a point. It doesn't necessarily make the claims of evolution true, and that wasn't why I posted it, but it does mean that thousands upon thousands of experts who know far more than you or I about the subject at hand, do think that evolution is true. What's more, is they are actively using this information in their field to improve and understand our world, demonstrated by the technology we see around us in medical biology (ie, vaccines). This is a concrete example of the fruits of understanding evolution, as it lies at the center of understanding biology. The same can not be said for IDers, as their model provides no predictive power. Name one example of predictive power that ID provides.

If the tables were turned, but the facts of evolution were the same, including its inception time (150 years ago), and there only a handful of scientists who believed in it, and the vast majority of scientists believed in creationism; again, it wouldn't mean that either side was necessarily true or false, but it would mean that people who have the firmest grasp of the material seem to be convinced that the propositions of ID are true. Based on this, I might also more seriously consider that side based simply on popular opinion, because this involves somewhat esoteric knowledge, especially in application, which neither you or I have the capability to do. You may study evolution simply  to further debunk it, which I know you do, but you do not actually attempt to every apply this knowledge to anything in the universe, because your ideas are not empirically tested in any way. That's a critical distinction. Biologists do. Iders don't, because their hypothesis doesn't offer them this capability .


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said a minimum of 10,000 years ago spanky. Any nitwit knows what happens to a fish out of water. Ha! Kind of like you in this thread.
> 
> And yeah, I am grasping your *circular reasoning* loud and clear, Crunchy Jif.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no circular reasoning, except for that invented by you in the construction of your strawman caricature of natural selection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, do tell. Survival of the Fittest is not part of Natural Selection?
Click to expand...


I dont' know why you are bringing up circular reasoning in regards to demonstrating a point like fitness, which their example clearly did.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said a minimum of 10,000 years ago spanky. Any nitwit knows what happens to a fish out of water. Ha! Kind of like you in this thread.
> 
> And yeah, I am grasping your *circular reasoning* loud and clear, Crunchy Jif.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no circular reasoning, except for that invented by you in the construction of your strawman caricature of natural selection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, do tell. Survival of the Fittest is not part of Natural Selection?
Click to expand...

It is. However, your strawman caricature is not.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you suffer from self-loathing and religion helps you through the day. Super!
> Do you find it odd that so many who deny their same-sex attraction seek out gods as a way to deny that attraction?
> 
> I don't find it odd at all that you just make up this nonsense as you go along.
> 
> It can only be concluded that your posting more creationist nonsense... unless, of course, you can post some data to support your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a wealth of indisputable evidence proving there is no God. Can you prove their is not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Can you prove you have any formal education?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May I ask what difference does that make?
> 
> Is no one allowed to reasearch and think for themselves they have to be taught what to think?
> 
> Does a high or low level of education have an effect on forming an opinion on peer reviewed material?
> 
> I have seen many highly educated people with absolutely zero common sense.
Click to expand...


----------



## ima

Lonestar_logic said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Can you prove you have any formal education?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask what difference does that make?
> 
> Is no one allowed to reasearch and think for themselves they have to be taught what to think?
> 
> Does a high or low level of education have an effect on forming an opinion on peer reviewed material?
> 
> *I have seen many highly educated people with absolutely zero common sense.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy with the confederate flag as his avatar.
> You sure got that right.
Click to expand...


----------



## ima

Nothing about Creation can be proven. Get over it already.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask what difference does that make?
> 
> Is no one allowed to reasearch and think for themselves they have to be taught what to think?
> 
> Does a high or low level of education have an effect on forming an opinion on peer reviewed material?
> 
> *I have seen many highly educated people with absolutely zero common sense.*
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with the confederate flag as his avatar.
> You sure got that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have something against southern heritage? Or are you just a bigot?
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have several people telling a story, all will see things differently and interpret what they do see differently, that accounts for the inconsistencies that exist.
> 
> What in the Bible are you claiming is a falsehood?
> 
> And as for the hydrologic cycle you have to understand this was a back before science and words like evaporation was known. Therefore it was described in terms they understood. If you cannot understand how these simple verses accurately describe the cycle of rain then you are not as bright as I thought.
> 
> Psalm 135:7
> He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
> He makes lightning for the rain;
> He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
> 
> Job 36:27-29
> For He draws up drops of water,
> Which distill as rain from the mist,
> Which the clouds drop down
> And pour abundantly on man.
> Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
> The thunder from His canopy?
> 
> Jeremiah 10:13
> When He utters His voice,
> There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
> And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
> He makes lightning for the rain,
> He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
> 
> Job 26:8
> He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
> Yet the clouds are not broken under it.
> 
> Job 37:11
> Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
> He scatters His bright clouds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wasting your time with Hollie the Troll. She has settled for the belief of ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.
Click to expand...


What challenge have you offered ,you run from my questions, you copy and paste things that have nothing to do with my ????. You are bold writing some of the things you write knowing people are reading this thread.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Define your terms. Some of the more blatant falsehoods in the bible would include a global flood, dead men who don't stay dead, seas parting, etc.
> 
> What you seem to object to is anyone pointing out that the bible could be infallible or contains errors. I submit that both are true. Since it is you who in insisting that the bible is not contradicted by science, you are the only one who is actually required to prove anything. Apologists understand this and that's why we are constantly confronted with the most profoundly silly examples of "scientific proofs" of the bible. These "proofs" are not proofs at all and require the believer to be ignorant of both the bible and science to believe them.
> 
> We can all imagine that if the gods had really given us a book, they would have managed to drop in a real proof now and then, like, say, the chemical structure of a few of the elements or a comprehensive description of the process of nuclear fusion that powers our sun. But we don't, obviously. Instead we get dumb stuff such as global floods and bushes spontaneously bursting in flames. That's just awful. The people who are propagating that nonsense are slandering your religion. Don't be an accomplice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My terms need no defining.
> 
> What evidence do you have that there was no great flood or no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted?
> 
> Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting A Great Biblical Flood
> 
> 
> As researchers prove the Red Sea really could have parted... How science backs the Bible's best stories
> 
> Once again you're putting words in my mouth.
> 
> I never made the claim that the Bible was not contradicted by science. I simply stated that statements in the Bible are consistent with science.
> 
> Why do you insist on distorting what I've said?
> 
> God could have done the things you mentioned but it would have fell on deaf ears because man was not equipped at the time to understand scientific principles.
> 
> God gave us the ability to seek out and discover the information ourselves at our pace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.
> 
> It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.
> 
> So yes, I have proof that there was no great flood, that no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted.
> 
> Prove I don't.
Click to expand...


To add to that you can't prove naturlistic processes that converted nonliving matter to living organisms.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wasting your time with Hollie the Troll. She has settled for the belief of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What challenge have you offered ,you run from my questions, you copy and paste things that have nothing to do with my ????. You are bold writing some of the things you write knowing people are reading this thread.
Click to expand...


That, of course, is false. Your questions are not questions at all but endless copying and pasting from fundie creationist websites including Harun Yahya. You really offer nothing but copy and paste material which you demand others "refute". 

I've written about this before: your lack of integrity and failure to understand the "stuff" you copy and paste.


----------



## ima

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with the confederate flag as his avatar.
> You sure got that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have something against southern heritage? Or are you just a bigot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pining to get your slaves back?
Click to expand...


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have something against southern heritage? Or are you just a bigot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pining to get your slaves back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no use for slaves. I prefer to do my own work.
> 
> Thank you for the offer though.
> 
> Oh and why did you ignore the questions?
> 
> I politely answered yours.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not exactly the same. Your complaint about your strawman expression of natural selection was that it is circular and not falsifiable; what I have provided for you in it's place, is falsifiable and not circular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a scientifically workable definition of fitness to be applied to these "traits" to make this falsifiable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> All you have to do is identify an organism whose traits are suited to surviving in the environment it lives in, and then put that organism in an environment that the organisms traits are NOT suited to survive in.
> 
> If the organism survives anyway, then "fitness" is falsified.
> 
> Can you grasp that, Skippy?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, please show me definitive proof of even one trait that is responsible for a species surviving not in the last 10,000 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> I'm done chasing down your retarded questions. If you had the decency of intellectual integrity to answer just one of mine, I would treat you differently. But I have answered all of your dumbass "stumpers" and what do I get in return when I ask you a question?
> 
> NOTHING. No quote, no link, no fucking answer.
Click to expand...


So loki where are all the supposed transitional species that were better adapted to pass on their traits from one species to a destinctly new organism ? Why do we have the beginning species and none of of the transitional species that passed on their better adapted traits ?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

I'm a _creationist _and according to my notes, the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

Just saying...


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.
> 
> As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble?
> 
> Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.
> 
> My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture.
> 
> We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't.
> 
> I welcome comments from Creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
> Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
> Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
> Gen 1:4  And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
> Gen 1:5  And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> 
> If God created with lengthy days that means death happened before the punishment was handed down to man for sin.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n042X-Fuihg]Astounding Evidence for a Young Earth - Bruce Malone - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YWC, I've watched the video and listened to some of his assertions and I just don't agree with them. He is basing his points of HIS interpretation of the Creation story outlined in Genesis. He says that the you can't refute the fact that Genesis refers to 7 solar days, but for the first three "days" of Creation, we don't even have the sun yet.  Also, he claims the author is repeating himself when talking about man twice. I get the whole argument about the dating methods and their inaccuracy. Even Loki would admit they are scientifically proven for the short timeframe we can measure and account for. However, I've been to the Grand Canyon. I've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to a much older earth. But back to the story:  If I want to take the Creation story literally and chronologically, I have to consider the fact the story about Adam comes later after Creation and after spirit-less hominids, male and female, roamed the earth, and multiplied. There are two stories, one in which male and female are created in a day, and another in which Adam was created, hung out with the animals in the garden for a while and then got lonely. Does it only take Adam 24 hours to name the animals and realize he needs a woman? The speaker has not considered this. He tells me to take the Bible exactly as it is written, but then he does not do so himself. If male and female were created in a solar day, then this does not reconcile with the Adam and Eve story. I believe God did place his new Creation, Homo Sapien, in the garden. Again, let's take the Bible exactly as it is written. We are told Adam and Eve have two sons. We are not told of any other children prior to this. Yet Cain goes to another land and takes a wife. The guy in your video wants to make up the fact that Adam and Eve had other children, but how can this additive story reconcile with the Bible? It can't. Again, your speaker is not taking the Bible for what it exactly says, but is filling in the blanks to make HIS version of the story fit his interpretation. Cain took a Neanderthal wife and there is dna evidence to back this up. Also, this interpretation of the story can be reconciled with fossil evidence, and it doesn't cram all of Creation into 6,000 years. Creationists are locked into as 6,000 year old earth, because they cling to the notion everything was made in six earthly days, including Adam, and then they lock themselves into the calculations of times for the genealogy of Christ. However, if they actually read Genesis for the information it conveyed to the Jews at the time it was written, they would realize that the earth could have existed for billions of years, and the garden of Eden only in the last six to ten thousand years. They also miss the Jewish tradition of leaving un-noteworthy individuals out of the family tree, so the genealogy fails to account for missing generations. I put the garden at 10,000 years ago and believe God visited the earth to create them both with a new dna structure.  Adam would be different than all the hominids before. They would be given the choice. He would no longer act on instinct, but would choose to have God's knowledge of good and evil. An animal does not care that it is naked. An animal has no remorse over killing its food. Adam and Eve would be different. They would see things through God's eyes. Once they ate of the tree, they immediately realized they were naked.
> 
> Some of the points I've made can be crammed fit into the Creation story. Yet, I don't really even feel the need to do that to a point. Jesus was fond of telling parables that conveyed a deeper meaning. How do we, as modern day Christians, know that Moses was writing down a literal story. Maybe it was a parable told to generations of Jews to convey the deeper principles of the fall. The Jews at the time could have no the story was a metaphor, but over the course of thousands of years, someone along the way decided it was literal. Who was that? And again, my question for you, who decided Christ command to gouge out your eye was not literal? There are alot of Christians that just want a little neat black and white story that doesn't beg any questions. They need to fit Christianity into a little box because they don't want to think about the bigger questions. I do want to think about the bigger questions. While I believe the Bible is true, God is not the Bible. And God cannot be contained in the Bible. The Bible says God spat stars out of his "mouth" [I don't believe God has a mouth. The Bible also says God is spirit. Obviously, I believe Jesus had a mouth while he was on earth ]. Do you have any idea how big Star R136a1 is? I don't need to make my massive God fit in 66 tiny little books. I believe the Bible is inspired scripture, but it isn't God. It was written by man, and it can't contain God, or even begin to describe how awesome and how massive our Creator is. If most Christians really had a feel for the reality of that, they would be alot more humble, myself included.
Click to expand...


I can't say what the light was before the sun and moon was created but clearly he described a day as we see it. If you do not trust the bible what are your beliefs in God based on ? Why are elements still found in rocks that should have been gone in an old world view ? That is supposedly what the age of the earth is based on correct ? At the rate the moon  and earth are receding that to is a problem for old earth views. If the bible was inspired by God that is the only book that provides an eyewitness to creation and the beginning. If would put text books ahead of what the bible say's in a sense what is being done ?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wasting your time with Hollie the Troll. She has settled for the belief of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What challenge have you offered ,you run from my questions, you copy and paste things that have nothing to do with my ????. You are bold writing some of the things you write knowing people are reading this thread.
Click to expand...


YWC, if you want to use the bible as a credible source, it has to be demonstrated as being a credible source first. You, nor anyone else, can do that, because it simply is not, just like the Koran is not a credible source, or the Bhagavad Gita. It is special pleading to simply ask people to accept the bible as authority without justification. There is plenty reason to think the bible is not credible. It is an ancient book. We know none of the authors, have no signatures, and they are all translations or translations of copies of translations by authors with an agenda. You can not demonstrate empirically that any of it is the word of god, and therefore, that any of it, is actually true, hence why you must take it on faith. So, stop using the bible in this thread as if it means anything here in terms of proving you're point, because it doesn't. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.

You can't demonstrate that all of those different authors, are who they say they are. The historicity of the bible does not even bear out with what we know to be true about history, which is another indictment  against its credibility. For instance, Matt, Mark, Luke and John, were not the authors of their respective gospels. We have no signatures on those documents. Those names were assigned to those gospels later. Who's to say the same wasn't done to books in the OT? Until you can provide justification for someone else to believe the  bible is credible, citing passages from it is really pointless.


----------



## ima

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pining to get your slaves back?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no use for slaves. I prefer to do my own work.
> 
> Thank you for the offer though.
> 
> Oh and why did you ignore the questions?
> 
> I politely answered yours.
Click to expand...


Do I have something against a southern heritage? Aside from inbreeding, pig fucking and bad moonshine? No.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.
> 
> As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble?
> 
> Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.
> 
> My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture.
> 
> We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't.
> 
> I welcome comments from Creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
> Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
> Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
> Gen 1:4  And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
> Gen 1:5  And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> 
> If God created with lengthy days that means death happened before the punishment was handed down to man for sin.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n042X-Fuihg]Astounding Evidence for a Young Earth - Bruce Malone - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YWC, I've watched the video and listened to some of his assertions and I just don't agree with them. He is basing his points of HIS interpretation of the Creation story outlined in Genesis. He says that the you can't refute the fact that Genesis refers to 7 solar days, but for the first three "days" of Creation, we don't even have the sun yet.  Also, he claims the author is repeating himself when talking about man twice. I get the whole argument about the dating methods and their inaccuracy. Even Loki would admit they are scientifically proven for the short timeframe we can measure and account for. However, I've been to the Grand Canyon. I've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to a much older earth. But back to the story:  If I want to take the Creation story literally and chronologically, I have to consider the fact the story about Adam comes later after Creation and after spirit-less hominids, male and female, roamed the earth, and multiplied. There are two stories, one in which male and female are created in a day, and another in which Adam was created, hung out with the animals in the garden for a while and then got lonely. Does it only take Adam 24 hours to name the animals and realize he needs a woman? The speaker has not considered this. He tells me to take the Bible exactly as it is written, but then he does not do so himself. If male and female were created in a solar day, then this does not reconcile with the Adam and Eve story. I believe God did place his new Creation, Homo Sapien, in the garden. Again, let's take the Bible exactly as it is written. We are told Adam and Eve have two sons. We are not told of any other children prior to this. Yet Cain goes to another land and takes a wife. The guy in your video wants to make up the fact that Adam and Eve had other children, but how can this additive story reconcile with the Bible? It can't. Again, your speaker is not taking the Bible for what it exactly says, but is filling in the blanks to make HIS version of the story fit his interpretation. Cain took a Neanderthal wife and there is dna evidence to back this up. Also, this interpretation of the story can be reconciled with fossil evidence, and it doesn't cram all of Creation into 6,000 years. Creationists are locked into as 6,000 year old earth, because they cling to the notion everything was made in six earthly days, including Adam, and then they lock themselves into the calculations of times for the genealogy of Christ. However, if they actually read Genesis for the information it conveyed to the Jews at the time it was written, they would realize that the earth could have existed for billions of years, and the garden of Eden only in the last six to ten thousand years. They also miss the Jewish tradition of leaving un-noteworthy individuals out of the family tree, so the genealogy fails to account for missing generations. I put the garden at 10,000 years ago and believe God visited the earth to create them both with a new dna structure.  Adam would be different than all the hominids before. They would be given the choice. He would no longer act on instinct, but would choose to have God's knowledge of good and evil. An animal does not care that it is naked. An animal has no remorse over killing its food. Adam and Eve would be different. They would see things through God's eyes. Once they ate of the tree, they immediately realized they were naked.
> 
> Some of the points I've made can be crammed fit into the Creation story. Yet, I don't really even feel the need to do that to a point. Jesus was fond of telling parables that conveyed a deeper meaning. How do we, as modern day Christians, know that Moses was writing down a literal story. Maybe it was a parable told to generations of Jews to convey the deeper principles of the fall. The Jews at the time could have no the story was a metaphor, but over the course of thousands of years, someone along the way decided it was literal. Who was that? And again, my question for you, who decided Christ command to gouge out your eye was not literal? There are alot of Christians that just want a little neat black and white story that doesn't beg any questions. They need to fit Christianity into a little box because they don't want to think about the bigger questions. I do want to think about the bigger questions. While I believe the Bible is true, God is not the Bible. And God cannot be contained in the Bible. The Bible says God spat stars out of his "mouth" [I don't believe God has a mouth. The Bible also says God is spirit. Obviously, I believe Jesus had a mouth while he was on earth ]. Do you have any idea how big Star R136a1 is? I don't need to make my massive God fit in 66 tiny little books. I believe the Bible is inspired scripture, but it isn't God. It was written by man, and it can't contain God, or even begin to describe how awesome and how massive our Creator is. If most Christians really had a feel for the reality of that, they would be alot more humble, myself included.
Click to expand...


Sorry UR i have to ask this,you get onto evolutionist using maybe's, might haves, and possible faulty assumptions for evolution but you don't have that same view on the same explanations for the age of the universe and earth, why ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My terms need no defining.
> 
> What evidence do you have that there was no great flood or no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted?
> 
> Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting A Great Biblical Flood
> 
> 
> As researchers prove the Red Sea really could have parted... How science backs the Bible's best stories
> 
> Once again you're putting words in my mouth.
> 
> I never made the claim that the Bible was not contradicted by science. I simply stated that statements in the Bible are consistent with science.
> 
> Why do you insist on distorting what I've said?
> 
> God could have done the things you mentioned but it would have fell on deaf ears because man was not equipped at the time to understand scientific principles.
> 
> God gave us the ability to seek out and discover the information ourselves at our pace.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.
> 
> It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.
> 
> So yes, I have proof that there was no great flood, that no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted.
> 
> Prove I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To add to that you can't prove naturlistic processes that converted nonliving matter to living organisms.
Click to expand...

To add to that, you can't supermagical gods without an entire hierarchy of super - supermagical gods.

The problem you have is believing that a gap in scientific knowledge somehow proves your gods. That, if course, is a false assumption on your part. It really is much less a problem than you are able to comprehend. In terms of defining the origins of life, molecular biologists have made much progress. If you consider that the origin of life is an event that occurred billions of years ago and that experiments must be made using material that was in the early atmosphere, the success that scientists have achieved thus far, limited though it is, is amazing. 

What causes fundies so much angst is that experiments continue and bit by bit, science has taken away the fears and superstitions that fundies require for literal belief in their gods.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well there is evidence that shows some of those things did happen or were at least possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Not consistent with the Bible story. Sorry.
> 
> For good reason.
> 
> You weren't there either. Explain yourself.
> 
> Right. You need neither verifiable evidence nor valid logic to hold your belief, but you insist upon absolute conclusive proof to change your mind.
> 
> We are well aware of the intellectual dishonesty practiced by the faithful.
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have absolutely nothing to support your argument other than "it didn't happen".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] and he "could have" taken two of every animal in with him [we see lots of animals rounded up by men for modern day zoo's] and a flood that covered the whole earth "might have" happened [we've seen some pretty big modern day floods with the tsunami's and all]. Sheesh, that sounds just like one of them there just so Darwin stories you are always spoutin' off about. Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.
> 
> In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.
Click to expand...


Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.



Science has shown that the/a world can't be made in 6 days. THE FIRST FUCKING PAGE!!!!!!


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What challenge have you offered ,you run from my questions, you copy and paste things that have nothing to do with my ????. You are bold writing some of the things you write knowing people are reading this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YWC, if you want to use the bible as a credible source, it has to be demonstrated as being a credible source first. You, nor anyone else, can do that, because it simply is not, just like the Koran is not a credible source, or the Bhagavad Gita. It is special pleading to simply ask people to accept the bible as authority without justification. There is plenty reason to think the bible is not credible. It is an ancient book. We know none of the authors, have no signatures, and they are all translations or translations of copies of translations by authors with an agenda. You can not demonstrate empirically that any of it is the word of god, and therefore, that any of it, is actually true, hence why you must take it on faith. So, stop using the bible in this thread as if it means anything here in terms of proving you're point, because it doesn't. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.
> 
> You can't demonstrate that all of those different authors, are who they say they are. The historicity of the bible does not even bear out with what we know to be true about history, which is another indictment  against its credibility.
Click to expand...


One way to find out if the Bible is credible is to compare it with other sources of history. There are, in fact, many examples of other nations chronicling the wars and deeds of the Israelites. Though they are too numerous to spell out, one example where biblical history is corroborated with other sources is the story of Hezekiah. 

Hezekiah, a brave king of Judah, faced a devastating onslaught from Assyria. Scripture records that Hezekiah built a massive wall around Jerusalem to fortify the city. He also diverted the Gihon spring so that a water supply could be found within the wall (2 Kings 20:20, 2 Chronicles 32:30). God promised that Jerusalem would not fall to the Assyrians; and though the majority of Judah did surrender to Sennacherib, Jerusalem did not. 

Second Chronicles 32:9, 21 reports, "Sennacherib king of Assyria sent his servants to Jerusalem while he was besieging Lachish with all his forces with him, against Hezekiah king of Judah . . . The Lord sent an angel who destroyed every mighty warrior, commander and officer in the camp of the king of Assyria. So [Sennacherib] returned in shame to his own land." 

The physical existence of the wall and the water tunnel can be confirmed in Jerusalem. You can still see both of the striking structures today. However, it seems that if this account were true, Assyrian history would confirm the event. And, in fact, it does. On an artifact called the Lachish Frieze, reliefs depict Sennacheribs attempts to take Jerusalem. 

This is just one example; however, celebrated archaeologist William F. Albright affirms, "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history." 

There are also many instances of corroboration in the New Testament. One striking confirmation is of the darkness and earthquake that occurred while Christ was dying on the cross (Matthew 27:45-52). In his book Pontius Pilate, Paul Maier writes, "Phlegon, a Greek author . . . reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., 33 A.D.) there was the greatest eclipse of the sun and that it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia." 

One of the leading concerns in viewing the Bible as a reliable source is in its transmission. How can we be sure that the sources we rely upon are authentic? This is answered by determining the quality of the manuscripts. 

To analyze this, a comparison is in order. One of historys treasured possessions is Caesars recounting of the Gallic Wars, which he penned during the first century. Without his account, we would know barely anything of these important conflicts. 

However, the actual papyri Caesar recorded his history on are no longer in existence. The earliest copies one might examine are from A.D. 900950. In fact, there are only 10 complete copies and fragments available for inspection. Even so, these documents are taught as historical fact. 

The Bible, on the other hand, has many manuscripts to rely upon. Burnett H. Streeter has assured, "The degree of security that . . . the text has been handed down to us in a reliable form is prima facie, very high." 

There are in existence more than 14,000 Old Testament manuscriptssome dating back as far as 400 B.C.! As for the New Testament, there are over 5,300 manuscripts in existence, with nearly 800 of them written before 1000 A.D.! 

F. F. Bruce sums up the case by saying, "Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands."


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Nothing about Creation can be proven. Get over it already.



Nothing about naturalistic processes producing life can be proven so get over it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Soggy in NOLA said:


> I'm a _creationist _and according to my notes, the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
> 
> Just saying...



Where did your notes originate ?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pining to get your slaves back?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no use for slaves. I prefer to do my own work.
> 
> Thank you for the offer though.
> 
> Oh and why did you ignore the questions?
> 
> I politely answered yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I have something against a southern heritage? Aside from inbreeding, pig fucking and bad moonshine? No.
Click to expand...


And that also answered my second question. Which would be a definite. "yes".


----------



## ima

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no use for slaves. I prefer to do my own work.
> 
> Thank you for the offer though.
> 
> Oh and why did you ignore the questions?
> 
> I politely answered yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have something against a southern heritage? Aside from inbreeding, pig fucking and bad moonshine? No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that also answered my second question. Which would be a definite. "yes".
Click to expand...


What up? The revenuers take away your still?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What challenge have you offered ,you run from my questions, you copy and paste things that have nothing to do with my ????. You are bold writing some of the things you write knowing people are reading this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YWC, if you want to use the bible as a credible source, it has to be demonstrated as being a credible source first. You, nor anyone else, can do that, because it simply is not, just like the Koran is not a credible source, or the Bhagavad Gita. It is special pleading to simply ask people to accept the bible as authority without justification. There is plenty reason to think the bible is not credible. It is an ancient book. We know none of the authors, have no signatures, and they are all translations or translations of copies of translations by authors with an agenda. You can not demonstrate empirically that any of it is the word of god, and therefore, that any of it, is actually true, hence why you must take it on faith. So, stop using the bible in this thread as if it means anything here in terms of proving you're point, because it doesn't. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.
> 
> You can't demonstrate that all of those different authors, are who they say they are. The historicity of the bible does not even bear out with what we know to be true about history, which is another indictment  against its credibility. For instance, Matt, Mark, Luke and John, were not the authors of their respective gospels. We have no signatures on those documents. Those names were assigned to those gospels later. Who's to say the same wasn't done to books in the OT? Until you can provide justification for someone else to believe the  bible is credible, citing passages from it is really pointless.
Click to expand...


I believe the bible has survived all the attacks it has been faced with. I believe it has proven to be a reliable source about the past. I believe it can stand scientific scrutiny. The bible is the only reliable text that provides an eyewitness to the beginning.

The bible has been a credible source to archaeologist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pining to get your slaves back?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no use for slaves. I prefer to do my own work.
> 
> Thank you for the offer though.
> 
> Oh and why did you ignore the questions?
> 
> I politely answered yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I have something against a southern heritage? Aside from inbreeding, pig fucking and bad moonshine? No.
Click to expand...


Wow talk about stereotyping.


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What challenge have you offered ,you run from my questions, you copy and paste things that have nothing to do with my ????. You are bold writing some of the things you write knowing people are reading this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, if you want to use the bible as a credible source, it has to be demonstrated as being a credible source first. You, nor anyone else, can do that, because it simply is not, just like the Koran is not a credible source, or the Bhagavad Gita. It is special pleading to simply ask people to accept the bible as authority without justification. There is plenty reason to think the bible is not credible. It is an ancient book. We know none of the authors, have no signatures, and they are all translations or translations of copies of translations by authors with an agenda. You can not demonstrate empirically that any of it is the word of god, and therefore, that any of it, is actually true, hence why you must take it on faith. So, stop using the bible in this thread as if it means anything here in terms of proving you're point, because it doesn't. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.
> 
> You can't demonstrate that all of those different authors, are who they say they are. The historicity of the bible does not even bear out with what we know to be true about history, which is another indictment  against its credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One way to find out if the Bible is credible is to compare it with other sources of history. There are, in fact, many examples of other nations chronicling the wars and deeds of the Israelites. Though they are too numerous to spell out, one example where biblical history is corroborated with other sources is the story of Hezekiah.
> 
> Hezekiah, a brave king of Judah, faced a devastating onslaught from Assyria. Scripture records that Hezekiah built a massive wall around Jerusalem to fortify the city. He also diverted the Gihon spring so that a water supply could be found within the wall (2 Kings 20:20, 2 Chronicles 32:30). God promised that Jerusalem would not fall to the Assyrians; and though the majority of Judah did surrender to Sennacherib, Jerusalem did not.
> 
> Second Chronicles 32:9, 21 reports, "Sennacherib king of Assyria sent his servants to Jerusalem while he was besieging Lachish with all his forces with him, against Hezekiah king of Judah . . . The Lord sent an angel who destroyed every mighty warrior, commander and officer in the camp of the king of Assyria. So [Sennacherib] returned in shame to his own land."
> 
> The physical existence of the wall and the water tunnel can be confirmed in Jerusalem. You can still see both of the striking structures today. However, it seems that if this account were true, Assyrian history would confirm the event. And, in fact, it does. On an artifact called the Lachish Frieze, reliefs depict Sennacherib&#8217;s attempts to take Jerusalem.
> 
> This is just one example; however, celebrated archaeologist William F. Albright affirms, "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."
> 
> There are also many instances of corroboration in the New Testament. One striking confirmation is of the darkness and earthquake that occurred while Christ was dying on the cross (Matthew 27:45-52). In his book Pontius Pilate, Paul Maier writes, "Phlegon, a Greek author . . . reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., 33 A.D.) there was &#8216;the greatest eclipse of the sun&#8217; and that &#8216;it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia."
> 
> One of the leading concerns in viewing the Bible as a reliable source is in its transmission. How can we be sure that the sources we rely upon are authentic? This is answered by determining the quality of the manuscripts.
> 
> To analyze this, a comparison is in order. One of history&#8217;s treasured possessions is Caesar&#8217;s recounting of the Gallic Wars, which he penned during the first century. Without his account, we would know barely anything of these important conflicts.
> 
> However, the actual papyri Caesar recorded his history on are no longer in existence. The earliest copies one might examine are from A.D. 900&#8212;950. In fact, there are only 10 complete copies and fragments available for inspection. Even so, these documents are taught as historical fact.
> 
> The Bible, on the other hand, has many manuscripts to rely upon. Burnett H. Streeter has assured, "The degree of security that . . . the text has been handed down to us in a reliable form is prima facie, very high."
> 
> There are in existence more than 14,000 Old Testament manuscripts&#8211;some dating back as far as 400 B.C.! As for the New Testament, there are over 5,300 manuscripts in existence, with nearly 800 of them written before 1000 A.D.!
> 
> F. F. Bruce sums up the case by saying, "Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands."
Click to expand...


As the writers of the bible were real people, they are bound to have been privy to what was going on around them. As such, it is reasonable that they will be accurate about certain parts of history, but this has nothing to do with the supernatural claims about god, and does nothing to prove that. Many parts of the bible are also historically unproven or simply false, such as there being no evidence that the exodus ever took place, and is actually refuted by the fact that the egyptian slaves were well paid and well fed, which is not what was indicated in the bible, and contradicts its story. 

Here's a response to what you wrote about the darkness and the crucification. (wikipedia)

Historicity

During the nineteenth century, Kersey Graves argued the biblical account was &#8220;too incredible and too ludicrous to merit serious notice.&#8221;[45] His arguments stemmed from Gibbon&#8217;s comments on the silence of Seneca and Pliny about the crucifixion darkness. Burton Mack suggests the story was an invention originated by the author of the Gospel of Mark.[46]
The unusually long length of time the eclipse is supposed to have lasted has been used as an argument against its historicity, as has the lack of mention of the darkness in secular accounts and the Gospel of John.[47] One view is that the account in the synoptic gospels is a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the sense of importance of a theologically significant event by taking a recent remembered event and applying it to the story of Jesus, just as eclipses were associated in accounts of other historical figures:
"It is probable that, without any factual basis, darkness was added in order to wrap the cross in a rich symbol and/or assimilate Jesus to other worthies".[48]
In the Gospel of Mark, the miraculous darkness accompanies the temple curtain being torn in two.[49] Some scholars question the historicity of the darkness in the Gospel of Mark and suggest that it may have been a literary creation intended to add drama.[49][50] To Mark's account, Matthew adds an earthquake and the resurrection of saints.[51] The Gospel of Luke and the Seven Books of History Against the Pagans by Orosius refer specifically to the darkening of the sun.[37]:150[52] The Gospel of John does not report any wondrous miracles associated with Jesus' crucifixion.

...

The point is, there is no reason to believe that this occurrence lends any more credibility to the supernatural claims of the bible about jesus or god. It is highly possible that a memorable lunar event was incorporated into the story of jesus to make it see more incredible, as this would not have been hard to do, more likely than god having willed it into being.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have something against a southern heritage? Aside from inbreeding, pig fucking and bad moonshine? No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that also answered my second question. Which would be a definite. "yes".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What up? The revenuers take away your still?
Click to expand...


I've never owned a still. 

Your vision of the south and of the southern people show your utter ignorance and bigotry.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science has shown that the/a world can't be made in 6 days. THE FIRST FUCKING PAGE!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Yeah if you leave out the part of a being that is beyond our comprehension.  Genesis say's ten times kinds bring forth adfter their own kind and after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kind.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, if you want to use the bible as a credible source, it has to be demonstrated as being a credible source first. You, nor anyone else, can do that, because it simply is not, just like the Koran is not a credible source, or the Bhagavad Gita. It is special pleading to simply ask people to accept the bible as authority without justification. There is plenty reason to think the bible is not credible. It is an ancient book. We know none of the authors, have no signatures, and they are all translations or translations of copies of translations by authors with an agenda. You can not demonstrate empirically that any of it is the word of god, and therefore, that any of it, is actually true, hence why you must take it on faith. So, stop using the bible in this thread as if it means anything here in terms of proving you're point, because it doesn't. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.
> 
> You can't demonstrate that all of those different authors, are who they say they are. The historicity of the bible does not even bear out with what we know to be true about history, which is another indictment  against its credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One way to find out if the Bible is credible is to compare it with other sources of history. There are, in fact, many examples of other nations chronicling the wars and deeds of the Israelites. Though they are too numerous to spell out, one example where biblical history is corroborated with other sources is the story of Hezekiah.
> 
> Hezekiah, a brave king of Judah, faced a devastating onslaught from Assyria. Scripture records that Hezekiah built a massive wall around Jerusalem to fortify the city. He also diverted the Gihon spring so that a water supply could be found within the wall (2 Kings 20:20, 2 Chronicles 32:30). God promised that Jerusalem would not fall to the Assyrians; and though the majority of Judah did surrender to Sennacherib, Jerusalem did not.
> 
> Second Chronicles 32:9, 21 reports, "Sennacherib king of Assyria sent his servants to Jerusalem while he was besieging Lachish with all his forces with him, against Hezekiah king of Judah . . . The Lord sent an angel who destroyed every mighty warrior, commander and officer in the camp of the king of Assyria. So [Sennacherib] returned in shame to his own land."
> 
> The physical existence of the wall and the water tunnel can be confirmed in Jerusalem. You can still see both of the striking structures today. However, it seems that if this account were true, Assyrian history would confirm the event. And, in fact, it does. On an artifact called the Lachish Frieze, reliefs depict Sennacheribs attempts to take Jerusalem.
> 
> This is just one example; however, celebrated archaeologist William F. Albright affirms, "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."
> 
> There are also many instances of corroboration in the New Testament. One striking confirmation is of the darkness and earthquake that occurred while Christ was dying on the cross (Matthew 27:45-52). In his book Pontius Pilate, Paul Maier writes, "Phlegon, a Greek author . . . reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., 33 A.D.) there was the greatest eclipse of the sun and that it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia."
> 
> One of the leading concerns in viewing the Bible as a reliable source is in its transmission. How can we be sure that the sources we rely upon are authentic? This is answered by determining the quality of the manuscripts.
> 
> To analyze this, a comparison is in order. One of historys treasured possessions is Caesars recounting of the Gallic Wars, which he penned during the first century. Without his account, we would know barely anything of these important conflicts.
> 
> However, the actual papyri Caesar recorded his history on are no longer in existence. The earliest copies one might examine are from A.D. 900950. In fact, there are only 10 complete copies and fragments available for inspection. Even so, these documents are taught as historical fact.
> 
> The Bible, on the other hand, has many manuscripts to rely upon. Burnett H. Streeter has assured, "The degree of security that . . . the text has been handed down to us in a reliable form is prima facie, very high."
> 
> There are in existence more than 14,000 Old Testament manuscriptssome dating back as far as 400 B.C.! As for the New Testament, there are over 5,300 manuscripts in existence, with nearly 800 of them written before 1000 A.D.!
> 
> F. F. Bruce sums up the case by saying, "Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the writers of the bible were real people, they are bound to have been privy to what was going on around them. As such, it is reasonable that they will be accurate about certain parts of history, but this has nothing to do with the supernatural claims about god, and does nothing to prove that. Many parts of the bible are also historically unproven or simply false, such as there being no evidence that the exodus ever took place, and is actually refuted by the fact that the egyptian slaves were well paid and well fed, which is not what was indicated in the bible, and contradicts its story.
> 
> Here's a response to what you wrote about the darkness and the crucification. (wikipedia)
> 
> Historicity
> 
> During the nineteenth century, Kersey Graves argued the biblical account was too incredible and too ludicrous to merit serious notice.[45] His arguments stemmed from Gibbons comments on the silence of Seneca and Pliny about the crucifixion darkness. Burton Mack suggests the story was an invention originated by the author of the Gospel of Mark.[46]
> The unusually long length of time the eclipse is supposed to have lasted has been used as an argument against its historicity, as has the lack of mention of the darkness in secular accounts and the Gospel of John.[47] One view is that the account in the synoptic gospels is a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the sense of importance of a theologically significant event by taking a recent remembered event and applying it to the story of Jesus, just as eclipses were associated in accounts of other historical figures:
> "It is probable that, without any factual basis, darkness was added in order to wrap the cross in a rich symbol and/or assimilate Jesus to other worthies".[48]
> In the Gospel of Mark, the miraculous darkness accompanies the temple curtain being torn in two.[49] Some scholars question the historicity of the darkness in the Gospel of Mark and suggest that it may have been a literary creation intended to add drama.[49][50] To Mark's account, Matthew adds an earthquake and the resurrection of saints.[51] The Gospel of Luke and the Seven Books of History Against the Pagans by Orosius refer specifically to the darkening of the sun.[37]:150[52] The Gospel of John does not report any wondrous miracles associated with Jesus' crucifixion.
> 
> ...
> 
> The point is, there is no reason to believe that this occurrence lends any more credibility to the supernatural claims of the bible about jesus or god.
Click to expand...


You will never concede the credibility of the Bible no matter what evidence is shown to you.

So why do you even bother debating a subject you no doubt don't believe in?

Why are you in a religious forum to begin with?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Not consistent with the Bible story. Sorry.
> 
> For good reason.
> 
> You weren't there either. Explain yourself.
> 
> Right. You need neither verifiable evidence nor valid logic to hold your belief, but you insist upon absolute conclusive proof to change your mind.
> 
> We are well aware of the intellectual dishonesty practiced by the faithful.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] and he "could have" taken two of every animal in with him [we see lots of animals rounded up by men for modern day zoo's] and a flood that covered the whole earth "might have" happened [we've seen some pretty big modern day floods with the tsunami's and all]. Sheesh, that sounds just like one of them there just so Darwin stories you are always spoutin' off about. Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.
> 
> In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.
Click to expand...

Either you accept biblical absurdities or you pretend they don't exist to preserve blind, unquestioning allegiance to an ancient book of tales and fables.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] and he "could have" taken two of every animal in with him [we see lots of animals rounded up by men for modern day zoo's] and a flood that covered the whole earth "might have" happened [we've seen some pretty big modern day floods with the tsunami's and all]. Sheesh, that sounds just like one of them there just so Darwin stories you are always spoutin' off about. Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.
> 
> In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either you accept biblical absurdities or you pretend they don't exist to preserve blind, unquestioning allegiance to an ancient book of tales and fables.
Click to expand...


Why are you in a religious forum if you think that it's absurd?


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> One way to find out if the Bible is credible is to compare it with other sources of history. There are, in fact, many examples of other nations chronicling the wars and deeds of the Israelites. Though they are too numerous to spell out, one example where biblical history is corroborated with other sources is the story of Hezekiah.
> 
> Hezekiah, a brave king of Judah, faced a devastating onslaught from Assyria. Scripture records that Hezekiah built a massive wall around Jerusalem to fortify the city. He also diverted the Gihon spring so that a water supply could be found within the wall (2 Kings 20:20, 2 Chronicles 32:30). God promised that Jerusalem would not fall to the Assyrians; and though the majority of Judah did surrender to Sennacherib, Jerusalem did not.
> 
> Second Chronicles 32:9, 21 reports, "Sennacherib king of Assyria sent his servants to Jerusalem while he was besieging Lachish with all his forces with him, against Hezekiah king of Judah . . . The Lord sent an angel who destroyed every mighty warrior, commander and officer in the camp of the king of Assyria. So [Sennacherib] returned in shame to his own land."
> 
> The physical existence of the wall and the water tunnel can be confirmed in Jerusalem. You can still see both of the striking structures today. However, it seems that if this account were true, Assyrian history would confirm the event. And, in fact, it does. On an artifact called the Lachish Frieze, reliefs depict Sennacheribs attempts to take Jerusalem.
> 
> This is just one example; however, celebrated archaeologist William F. Albright affirms, "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."
> 
> There are also many instances of corroboration in the New Testament. One striking confirmation is of the darkness and earthquake that occurred while Christ was dying on the cross (Matthew 27:45-52). In his book Pontius Pilate, Paul Maier writes, "Phlegon, a Greek author . . . reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., 33 A.D.) there was the greatest eclipse of the sun and that it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia."
> 
> One of the leading concerns in viewing the Bible as a reliable source is in its transmission. How can we be sure that the sources we rely upon are authentic? This is answered by determining the quality of the manuscripts.
> 
> To analyze this, a comparison is in order. One of historys treasured possessions is Caesars recounting of the Gallic Wars, which he penned during the first century. Without his account, we would know barely anything of these important conflicts.
> 
> However, the actual papyri Caesar recorded his history on are no longer in existence. The earliest copies one might examine are from A.D. 900950. In fact, there are only 10 complete copies and fragments available for inspection. Even so, these documents are taught as historical fact.
> 
> The Bible, on the other hand, has many manuscripts to rely upon. Burnett H. Streeter has assured, "The degree of security that . . . the text has been handed down to us in a reliable form is prima facie, very high."
> 
> There are in existence more than 14,000 Old Testament manuscriptssome dating back as far as 400 B.C.! As for the New Testament, there are over 5,300 manuscripts in existence, with nearly 800 of them written before 1000 A.D.!
> 
> F. F. Bruce sums up the case by saying, "Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the writers of the bible were real people, they are bound to have been privy to what was going on around them. As such, it is reasonable that they will be accurate about certain parts of history, but this has nothing to do with the supernatural claims about god, and does nothing to prove that. Many parts of the bible are also historically unproven or simply false, such as there being no evidence that the exodus ever took place, and is actually refuted by the fact that the egyptian slaves were well paid and well fed, which is not what was indicated in the bible, and contradicts its story.
> 
> Here's a response to what you wrote about the darkness and the crucification. (wikipedia)
> 
> Historicity
> 
> During the nineteenth century, Kersey Graves argued the biblical account was too incredible and too ludicrous to merit serious notice.[45] His arguments stemmed from Gibbons comments on the silence of Seneca and Pliny about the crucifixion darkness. Burton Mack suggests the story was an invention originated by the author of the Gospel of Mark.[46]
> The unusually long length of time the eclipse is supposed to have lasted has been used as an argument against its historicity, as has the lack of mention of the darkness in secular accounts and the Gospel of John.[47] One view is that the account in the synoptic gospels is a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the sense of importance of a theologically significant event by taking a recent remembered event and applying it to the story of Jesus, just as eclipses were associated in accounts of other historical figures:
> "It is probable that, without any factual basis, darkness was added in order to wrap the cross in a rich symbol and/or assimilate Jesus to other worthies".[48]
> In the Gospel of Mark, the miraculous darkness accompanies the temple curtain being torn in two.[49] Some scholars question the historicity of the darkness in the Gospel of Mark and suggest that it may have been a literary creation intended to add drama.[49][50] To Mark's account, Matthew adds an earthquake and the resurrection of saints.[51] The Gospel of Luke and the Seven Books of History Against the Pagans by Orosius refer specifically to the darkening of the sun.[37]:150[52] The Gospel of John does not report any wondrous miracles associated with Jesus' crucifixion.
> 
> ...
> 
> The point is, there is no reason to believe that this occurrence lends any more credibility to the supernatural claims of the bible about jesus or god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will never concede the credibility of the Bible no matter what evidence is shown to you.
> 
> So why do you even bother debating a subject you no doubt don't believe in?
> 
> Why are you in a religious forum to begin with?
Click to expand...


Yes, you're right, because it is special pleading. Why don't you believe in the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita? Simply because you were born, geographically where the bible is taught. There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran. They are supernatural claims that can not be backed up. What's worse, is that if this god does exist, why on earth would he be rely on ancient peoples to pass this on in the way that it happened? If this god is omnipotent, and wanted to communicate his message to his beings, he could have chosen a less controversial way to do so. There are too many glaring questions such as these if I were to accept the bible, and so I remain unconvinced about the truth of the bible whatsoever. I think it is an interesting document, but I don't  see how anybody could actually think it was inspired by an all-knowing, ever-present, loving deity. It would seem the opposite, made by a god who doesn't care enough to use better mediums to transmit his message. There is plenty of room for doubt in assessing the bible, and the excuse of faith is not a justification for believing, and it is not virtuous to have faith. It is gullibility, in  my opinion. 


As for why I am here, this is a creationist DEBATE thread made by someone who questioned creationism.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a scientifically workable definition of fitness to be applied to these "traits" to make this falsifiable.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> All you have to do is identify an organism whose traits are suited to surviving in the environment it lives in, and then put that organism in an environment that the organisms traits are NOT suited to survive in.
> 
> If the organism survives anyway, then "fitness" is falsified.
> 
> Can you grasp that, Skippy?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, please show me definitive proof of even one trait that is responsible for a species surviving not in the last 10,000 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> I'm done chasing down your retarded questions. If you had the decency of intellectual integrity to answer just one of mine, I would treat you differently. But I have answered all of your dumbass "stumpers" and what do I get in return when I ask you a question?
> 
> NOTHING. No quote, no link, no fucking answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So loki where are all the supposed transitional species that were better adapted to pass on their traits from one species to a destinctly new organism ? Why do we have the beginning species and none of of the transitional species that passed on their better adapted traits ?
Click to expand...

Demonstrated for you dozens of times already.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the writers of the bible were real people, they are bound to have been privy to what was going on around them. As such, it is reasonable that they will be accurate about certain parts of history, but this has nothing to do with the supernatural claims about god, and does nothing to prove that. Many parts of the bible are also historically unproven or simply false, such as there being no evidence that the exodus ever took place, and is actually refuted by the fact that the egyptian slaves were well paid and well fed, which is not what was indicated in the bible, and contradicts its story.
> 
> Here's a response to what you wrote about the darkness and the crucification. (wikipedia)
> 
> Historicity
> 
> During the nineteenth century, Kersey Graves argued the biblical account was too incredible and too ludicrous to merit serious notice.[45] His arguments stemmed from Gibbons comments on the silence of Seneca and Pliny about the crucifixion darkness. Burton Mack suggests the story was an invention originated by the author of the Gospel of Mark.[46]
> The unusually long length of time the eclipse is supposed to have lasted has been used as an argument against its historicity, as has the lack of mention of the darkness in secular accounts and the Gospel of John.[47] One view is that the account in the synoptic gospels is a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the sense of importance of a theologically significant event by taking a recent remembered event and applying it to the story of Jesus, just as eclipses were associated in accounts of other historical figures:
> "It is probable that, without any factual basis, darkness was added in order to wrap the cross in a rich symbol and/or assimilate Jesus to other worthies".[48]
> In the Gospel of Mark, the miraculous darkness accompanies the temple curtain being torn in two.[49] Some scholars question the historicity of the darkness in the Gospel of Mark and suggest that it may have been a literary creation intended to add drama.[49][50] To Mark's account, Matthew adds an earthquake and the resurrection of saints.[51] The Gospel of Luke and the Seven Books of History Against the Pagans by Orosius refer specifically to the darkening of the sun.[37]:150[52] The Gospel of John does not report any wondrous miracles associated with Jesus' crucifixion.
> 
> ...
> 
> The point is, there is no reason to believe that this occurrence lends any more credibility to the supernatural claims of the bible about jesus or god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will never concede the credibility of the Bible no matter what evidence is shown to you.
> 
> So why do you even bother debating a subject you no doubt don't believe in?
> 
> Why are you in a religious forum to begin with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right, because it is special pleading. Why don't you believe in the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita? Simply because you were born, geographically where the bible is taught. There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran. They are supernatural claims that can not be backed up. What's worse, is that if this god does exist, why on earth would he be rely on ancient peoples to pass this on in the way that it happened? If this god is omnipotent, and wanted to communicate his message to his beings, he could have chosen a less controversial way to do so. There are too many glaring questions such as these if I were to accept the bible, and so I remain unconvinced about the truth of the bible whatsoever. I think it is an interesting document, but I don't  see how anybody could actually think it was inspired by an all-knowing, ever-present, loving deity. It would seem the opposite, made by a god who doesn't care enough to use better mediums to transmit his message. There is plenty of room for doubt in assessing the bible, and the excuse of faith is not a justification for believing, and it is not virtuous to have faith. It is gullibility, in  my opinion.
> 
> 
> As for why I am here, this is a creationist DEBATE thread made by someone who questioned creationism.
Click to expand...


I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. 

But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?

If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will never concede the credibility of the Bible no matter what evidence is shown to you.
> 
> So why do you even bother debating a subject you no doubt don't believe in?
> 
> Why are you in a religious forum to begin with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right, because it is special pleading. Why don't you believe in the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita? Simply because you were born, geographically where the bible is taught. There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran. They are supernatural claims that can not be backed up. What's worse, is that if this god does exist, why on earth would he be rely on ancient peoples to pass this on in the way that it happened? If this god is omnipotent, and wanted to communicate his message to his beings, he could have chosen a less controversial way to do so. There are too many glaring questions such as these if I were to accept the bible, and so I remain unconvinced about the truth of the bible whatsoever. I think it is an interesting document, but I don't  see how anybody could actually think it was inspired by an all-knowing, ever-present, loving deity. It would seem the opposite, made by a god who doesn't care enough to use better mediums to transmit his message. There is plenty of room for doubt in assessing the bible, and the excuse of faith is not a justification for believing, and it is not virtuous to have faith. It is gullibility, in  my opinion.
> 
> 
> As for why I am here, this is a creationist DEBATE thread made by someone who questioned creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
> 
> But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?
> 
> If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?
Click to expand...


It doesn't hurt me. This is a debate. It is fun to exchange ideas. I am still technically open to the idea of a god, if I am convinced. I hold no presuppositions that a god necessarily doesn't exist, since I don't believe that god doesn't exist. I simply don't hold the belief that one does. This distinction may seem non-existent, but it is very important. I tried for many years to be a christian, talking to pastors in college, reading the bible, praying... I was never convinced that any of it was true. I never felt anything, and it never helped me. 

You believe in the god of the Koran too, in the teachings, in the claims?  This is impossible, as the propositions of Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive.  If Jesus said "I am the only way to god," That means that there is no other way, excluding all other possibilities. Muslims believe the Koran is the final word from god, so what it says in that book supercedes anything written in the bible. Christianity and Islam can not both be true. If it can, please tell me how.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right, because it is special pleading. Why don't you believe in the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita? Simply because you were born, geographically where the bible is taught. There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran. They are supernatural claims that can not be backed up. What's worse, is that if this god does exist, why on earth would he be rely on ancient peoples to pass this on in the way that it happened? If this god is omnipotent, and wanted to communicate his message to his beings, he could have chosen a less controversial way to do so. There are too many glaring questions such as these if I were to accept the bible, and so I remain unconvinced about the truth of the bible whatsoever. I think it is an interesting document, but I don't  see how anybody could actually think it was inspired by an all-knowing, ever-present, loving deity. It would seem the opposite, made by a god who doesn't care enough to use better mediums to transmit his message. There is plenty of room for doubt in assessing the bible, and the excuse of faith is not a justification for believing, and it is not virtuous to have faith. It is gullibility, in  my opinion.
> 
> 
> As for why I am here, this is a creationist DEBATE thread made by someone who questioned creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
> 
> But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?
> 
> If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't hurt me. This is a debate. It is fun to exchange ideas. I am still technically open to the idea of a god, if I am convinced. I hold no presuppositions that a god necessarily doesn't exist, since I don't believe that god doesn't exist. I simply don't hold the belief that one does. This distinction may seem non-existent, but it is very important. I tried for many years to be a christian, talking to pastors in college, reading the bible, praying... I was never convinced that any of it was true. I never felt anything, and it never helped me.
> 
> You believe in the god of the Koran too, in the teachings, in the claims?  This is impossible, as the propositions of Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive.  If Jesus said "I am the only way to god," That means that there is no other way, excluding all other possibilities. Muslims believe the Koran is the final word from god, so what it says in that book supercedes anything written in the bible. Christianity and Islam can not both be true. If it can, please tell me how.
Click to expand...


What would it take for you to believe?

Do you need a miracle? Do you need to see God with your own eyes?

As a Christian I believe the only way to The Father is through the Son. So both Chistianity and Islam cannot be true. IMO


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
> 
> But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?
> 
> If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't hurt me. This is a debate. It is fun to exchange ideas. I am still technically open to the idea of a god, if I am convinced. I hold no presuppositions that a god necessarily doesn't exist, since I don't believe that god doesn't exist. I simply don't hold the belief that one does. This distinction may seem non-existent, but it is very important. I tried for many years to be a christian, talking to pastors in college, reading the bible, praying... I was never convinced that any of it was true. I never felt anything, and it never helped me.
> 
> You believe in the god of the Koran too, in the teachings, in the claims?  This is impossible, as the propositions of Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive.  If Jesus said "I am the only way to god," That means that there is no other way, excluding all other possibilities. Muslims believe the Koran is the final word from god, so what it says in that book supercedes anything written in the bible. Christianity and Islam can not both be true. If it can, please tell me how.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would it take for you to believe?
> 
> Do you need a miracle? Do you need to see God with your own eyes?
> 
> As a Christian I believe the only way to The Father is through the Son. So both Chistianity and Islam cannot be true. IMO
Click to expand...


It would take a miracle for me to believe, because at this point, I think the christian god is a logical impossibility, by its very own definition. It is claimed to be a perfect being, yet needs a relationship with us. That is a contradiction. A perfect being wouldn't need anything, and wouldn't be jealous. These are all very human attributes, and so, imperfect. I am therefore absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist. However, I can not be certain that some kind of deity does exist somewhere within, or even outside the universe, such as a deist god. There is so much about the christian god that seems so highly implausible to me at this point. To be honest, I want to believe because I struggle with mental health quite a bit and it causes me a lot of suffering, and an all loving god is a really nice thought, but that doesn't mean it exists. I refuse to let my emotional needs create something to alleviate personal suffering. In other words, I am not going to believe something because it feels good. I want it to be true. I care more about truth, than about what feels good to my limited mind.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will never concede the credibility of the Bible no matter what evidence is shown to you.
> 
> So why do you even bother debating a subject you no doubt don't believe in?
> 
> Why are you in a religious forum to begin with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right, because it is special pleading. Why don't you believe in the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita? Simply because you were born, geographically where the bible is taught. There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran. They are supernatural claims that can not be backed up. What's worse, is that if this god does exist, why on earth would he be rely on ancient peoples to pass this on in the way that it happened? If this god is omnipotent, and wanted to communicate his message to his beings, he could have chosen a less controversial way to do so. There are too many glaring questions such as these if I were to accept the bible, and so I remain unconvinced about the truth of the bible whatsoever. I think it is an interesting document, but I don't  see how anybody could actually think it was inspired by an all-knowing, ever-present, loving deity. It would seem the opposite, made by a god who doesn't care enough to use better mediums to transmit his message. There is plenty of room for doubt in assessing the bible, and the excuse of faith is not a justification for believing, and it is not virtuous to have faith. It is gullibility, in  my opinion.
> 
> 
> As for why I am here, this is a creationist DEBATE thread made by someone who questioned creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
> 
> But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?
> 
> If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?
Click to expand...


It's not so simple to "leave you alone" because the actions of religious people affect others.  
Plenty of people think Bibles and korrans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.

Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against your holy book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".

No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because Christians claim the bible has a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.

Logic allows us to read and understand the contextual message of Bibles at the very start. Without logic and reason, you wouldn't understand the thing at all. I see no reason then, halfway through, to jettison the same rules of logic and reason as magically inapplicable, simply because the book has some sort of special reputation as being "holy".

Read it like fiction. Because that is what it is. How do we know this? Because from the outset, it tells a tale that is demonstrably false, as false as the Origin fables of Valhalla, or the sky lodge of the Iroquois. We never have any debates over the whole "It's turtles all the way down" creation myths, do we?It's always the holy text of the week mythology we wrestle over.

Which is completely without merit.


----------



## newpolitics

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right, because it is special pleading. Why don't you believe in the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita? Simply because you were born, geographically where the bible is taught. There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran. They are supernatural claims that can not be backed up. What's worse, is that if this god does exist, why on earth would he be rely on ancient peoples to pass this on in the way that it happened? If this god is omnipotent, and wanted to communicate his message to his beings, he could have chosen a less controversial way to do so. There are too many glaring questions such as these if I were to accept the bible, and so I remain unconvinced about the truth of the bible whatsoever. I think it is an interesting document, but I don't  see how anybody could actually think it was inspired by an all-knowing, ever-present, loving deity. It would seem the opposite, made by a god who doesn't care enough to use better mediums to transmit his message. There is plenty of room for doubt in assessing the bible, and the excuse of faith is not a justification for believing, and it is not virtuous to have faith. It is gullibility, in  my opinion.
> 
> 
> As for why I am here, this is a creationist DEBATE thread made by someone who questioned creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
> 
> But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?
> 
> If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not so simple to "leave you alone" because the actions of religious people affect others.
> Plenty of people think Bibles and korrans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals&#8217; freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.
> 
> Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against your holy book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".
> 
> No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because Christians claim the bible has a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.
> 
> Logic allows us to read and understand the contextual message of Bibles at the very start. Without logic and reason, you wouldn't understand the thing at all. I see no reason then, halfway through, to jettison the same rules of logic and reason as magically inapplicable, simply because the book has some sort of special reputation as being "holy".
> 
> Read it like fiction. Because that is what it is. How do we know this? Because from the outset, it tells a tale that is demonstrably false, as false as the Origin fables of Valhalla, or the sky lodge of the Iroquois. We never have any debates over the whole "It's turtles all the way down" creation myths, do we?It's always the &#8220;holy text&#8221; of the week mythology we wrestle over.
> 
> Which is completely without merit.
Click to expand...


I concur with Hollie. Lonestar, you ask me to "leave you alone," yet in no way, do you leave me alone. Christians have been trying to inch their way into the political establishment since this country started, and in doing so, attempt to affect my life. It is again, asking for special treatment of me to not bother you, when your beliefs are responsible for attempts at undermining the constitution, and my rights.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't hurt me. This is a debate. It is fun to exchange ideas. I am still technically open to the idea of a god, if I am convinced. I hold no presuppositions that a god necessarily doesn't exist, since I don't believe that god doesn't exist. I simply don't hold the belief that one does. This distinction may seem non-existent, but it is very important. I tried for many years to be a christian, talking to pastors in college, reading the bible, praying... I was never convinced that any of it was true. I never felt anything, and it never helped me.
> 
> You believe in the god of the Koran too, in the teachings, in the claims?  This is impossible, as the propositions of Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive.  If Jesus said "I am the only way to god," That means that there is no other way, excluding all other possibilities. Muslims believe the Koran is the final word from god, so what it says in that book supercedes anything written in the bible. Christianity and Islam can not both be true. If it can, please tell me how.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would it take for you to believe?
> 
> Do you need a miracle? Do you need to see God with your own eyes?
> 
> As a Christian I believe the only way to The Father is through the Son. So both Chistianity and Islam cannot be true. IMO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would take a miracle for me to believe, because at this point, I think the christian god is a logical impossibility, by its very own definition. It is claimed to be a perfect being, yet needs a relationship with us. That is a contradiction. A perfect being wouldn't need anything, and wouldn't be jealous. These are all very human attributes, and so, imperfect. I am therefore absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist. However, I can not be certain that some kind of deity does exist somewhere within, or even outside the universe, such as a deist god. There is so much about the christian god that seems so highly implausible to me at this point. To be honest, I want to believe because I struggle with mental health quite a bit and it causes me a lot of suffering, and an all loving god is a really nice thought, but that doesn't mean it exists. I refuse to let my emotional needs create something to alleviate personal suffering. In other words, I am not going to believe something because it feels good. I want it to be true. I care more about truth, than about what feels good to my limited mind.
Click to expand...


So if one is perect he doesn't need relationships? Explain that.

Why wouldn't God share some of the same attributes as his creations?

In order to be a Christian it requires faith.


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would it take for you to believe?
> 
> Do you need a miracle? Do you need to see God with your own eyes?
> 
> As a Christian I believe the only way to The Father is through the Son. So both Chistianity and Islam cannot be true. IMO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would take a miracle for me to believe, because at this point, I think the christian god is a logical impossibility, by its very own definition. It is claimed to be a perfect being, yet needs a relationship with us. That is a contradiction. A perfect being wouldn't need anything, and wouldn't be jealous. These are all very human attributes, and so, imperfect. I am therefore absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist. However, I can not be certain that some kind of deity does exist somewhere within, or even outside the universe, such as a deist god. There is so much about the christian god that seems so highly implausible to me at this point. To be honest, I want to believe because I struggle with mental health quite a bit and it causes me a lot of suffering, and an all loving god is a really nice thought, but that doesn't mean it exists. I refuse to let my emotional needs create something to alleviate personal suffering. In other words, I am not going to believe something because it feels good. I want it to be true. I care more about truth, than about what feels good to my limited mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if one is perect he doesn't need relationships? Explain that.
> 
> Why wouldn't God share some of the same attributes as his creations?
> 
> In order to be a Christian it requires faith.
Click to expand...


What is faith but a lack of evidence? It's an excuse people give when they don't have proper evidence, reason, or logic. They simply want to believe. That is not a pathway to truth, but one to self-deception. 

Yes, if one is perfect, how can it need anything. It is perfect. It contains no deficiencies. No needs to make it whole, because it is perfect in and itself, without need for anything exterior to it. Explain to me how a perfect being can need anything and still be a perfect being.

 This isn't the only logical contradiction with god. How can he be so stupid as to leave his message with people 2,000 years ago, and being omniscient, would know ahead of time, that the bible would be mistranslated, copied, and used to incite war, genocide, and massive evils. If he really cared, he would have made it crystal clear what the message was, and we would all know. Further, how can a god condemn those he created to eternal torment? That contradicts a god who is omnibenevolent and omnipotent. He could have gotten rid of the devil and hell if he simply wanted to, but doesn't. Therefore, he is not all powerful and all-good, and does not exist, by  his own definition. Christianity gives you the cure to an illness it creates. It tells you that you are sinful, and then gives you the antidote. It's a mindfuck. A trap. It is manipulative, and the god of the bible is an war-mongerer, who uses a loophole in the new testament to fix mistakes he made in the past, again, another contradiction for a perfect being. He should have gotten it right the first time. He didn't need to send his son to forgive us our sins. He can forgive us if he wants to, and knowing everything about us, believing in his son is only a technicality, and shouldn't be the difference between eternal torment and not bliss. That's completely lopsided justice. Simply believing in god does not make anyone a good person. It makes them simply gullible.

Also, justice and mercy are contradictory, because mercy is a suspension of justice. So, you can not define god as being perfectly just and all-merciful. These two attributes can not logically co-exist.

A much more likely explanation for the existence of the concept of god in many people, is that he is made up in order to console our existential qualms with reality, because we are animals that aware of the future, our own mortality, and acutely aware of our own suffering.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't mention the number of peer reviewed articles for ID and cite this as evidence that ID is a legitimate scientific theory. In comparison to the number of peer reviewed articles about evolution, it is next to nothing. Why is this? Because the facts for ID don't bear out.
> 
> 
> Project Steve: A list of scientists named Steve, who support the theory of evolution. (hint: it is more than the entire list of creation pseudo-scientists who "dissent from evolution")
> 
> Project Steve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is an appeal to popular opinion to cite Project Steve, but it still illustrates a point. It doesn't necessarily make the claims of evolution true, and that wasn't why I posted it, but it does mean that thousands upon thousands of experts who know far more than you or I about the subject at hand, do think that evolution is true. What's more, is they are actively using this information in their field to improve and understand our world, demonstrated by the technology we see around us in medical biology (ie, vaccines). This is a concrete example of the fruits of understanding evolution, as it lies at the center of understanding biology. The same can not be said for IDers, as their model provides no predictive power. Name one example of predictive power that ID provides.
Click to expand...


Evolution does not provide predictive power so I'm not sure what your point it. Here is an article for you though...

Darwin's God: Evolution (Not) Crucial in Antibiotics Breakthrough: How Science is Actually Done



newpolitics said:


> If the tables were turned, but the facts of evolution were the same, including its inception time (150 years ago), and there only a handful of scientists who believed in it, and the vast majority of scientists believed in creationism; again, it wouldn't mean that either side was necessarily true or false, but it would mean that people who have the firmest grasp of the material seem to be convinced that the propositions of ID are true. Based on this, I might also more seriously consider that side based simply on popular opinion, because this involves somewhat esoteric knowledge, especially in application, which neither you or I have the capability to do. You may study evolution simply  to further debunk it, which I know you do, but you do not actually attempt to every apply this knowledge to anything in the universe, because your ideas are not empirically tested in any way. That's a critical distinction. Biologists do. Iders don't, because their hypothesis doesn't offer them this capability .



This is nonsense. We would be MUCH farther along if we viewed biology as having been designed. A reverse engineering approach would provide answers much faster than drudging along trying to prove how it randomly happened. More time is wasted trying to bolster the Darwin party line by looking for proof's than is spent actually looking for solutions. If we already know the solution, i.e., it was designed. We can go about the work of scientific advancement. 

Also, don't think for one second the mass brainwashing of scientists doesn't have HUGE metaphysical implications and motivations.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
> 
> But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?
> 
> If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not so simple to "leave you alone" because the actions of religious people affect others.
> Plenty of people think Bibles and korrans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.
> 
> Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against your holy book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".
> 
> No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because Christians claim the bible has a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.
> 
> Logic allows us to read and understand the contextual message of Bibles at the very start. Without logic and reason, you wouldn't understand the thing at all. I see no reason then, halfway through, to jettison the same rules of logic and reason as magically inapplicable, simply because the book has some sort of special reputation as being "holy".
> 
> Read it like fiction. Because that is what it is. How do we know this? Because from the outset, it tells a tale that is demonstrably false, as false as the Origin fables of Valhalla, or the sky lodge of the Iroquois. We never have any debates over the whole "It's turtles all the way down" creation myths, do we?It's always the holy text of the week mythology we wrestle over.
> 
> Which is completely without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I concur with Hollie. Lonestar, you ask me to "leave you alone," yet in no way, do you leave me alone. Christians have been trying to inch their way into the political establishment since this country started, and in doing so, attempt to affect my life. It is again, asking for special treatment of me to not bother you, when your beliefs are responsible for attempts at undermining the constitution, and my rights.
Click to expand...


Well Hollie likes to put words in peoples mouths. I never once asked to be left alone.

As a Christian we were told By Jesus Christ. "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:19-20 NIV)

Religion has always been a part of this nation. And always will be.

How has religion undermined the Constitution?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...so again how does religion undermine the Constitution?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is an appeal to popular opinion to cite Project Steve, but it still illustrates a point. It doesn't necessarily make the claims of evolution true, and that wasn't why I posted it, but it does mean that thousands upon thousands of experts who know far more than you or I about the subject at hand, do think that evolution is true. What's more, is they are actively using this information in their field to improve and understand our world, demonstrated by the technology we see around us in medical biology (ie, vaccines). This is a concrete example of the fruits of understanding evolution, as it lies at the center of understanding biology. The same can not be said for IDers, as their model provides no predictive power. Name one example of predictive power that ID provides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution does not provide predictive power ...
Click to expand...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]Evolution Predicts Ring Species[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
> Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
> Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
> Gen 1:4  And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
> Gen 1:5  And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> 
> If God created with lengthy days that means death happened before the punishment was handed down to man for sin.
> 
> Astounding Evidence for a Young Earth - Bruce Malone - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, I've watched the video and listened to some of his assertions and I just don't agree with them. He is basing his points of HIS interpretation of the Creation story outlined in Genesis. He says that the you can't refute the fact that Genesis refers to 7 solar days, but for the first three "days" of Creation, we don't even have the sun yet.  Also, he claims the author is repeating himself when talking about man twice. I get the whole argument about the dating methods and their inaccuracy. Even Loki would admit they are scientifically proven for the short timeframe we can measure and account for. However, I've been to the Grand Canyon. I've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to a much older earth. But back to the story:  If I want to take the Creation story literally and chronologically, I have to consider the fact the story about Adam comes later after Creation and after spirit-less hominids, male and female, roamed the earth, and multiplied. There are two stories, one in which male and female are created in a day, and another in which Adam was created, hung out with the animals in the garden for a while and then got lonely. Does it only take Adam 24 hours to name the animals and realize he needs a woman? The speaker has not considered this. He tells me to take the Bible exactly as it is written, but then he does not do so himself. If male and female were created in a solar day, then this does not reconcile with the Adam and Eve story. I believe God did place his new Creation, Homo Sapien, in the garden. Again, let's take the Bible exactly as it is written. We are told Adam and Eve have two sons. We are not told of any other children prior to this. Yet Cain goes to another land and takes a wife. The guy in your video wants to make up the fact that Adam and Eve had other children, but how can this additive story reconcile with the Bible? It can't. Again, your speaker is not taking the Bible for what it exactly says, but is filling in the blanks to make HIS version of the story fit his interpretation. Cain took a Neanderthal wife and there is dna evidence to back this up. Also, this interpretation of the story can be reconciled with fossil evidence, and it doesn't cram all of Creation into 6,000 years. Creationists are locked into as 6,000 year old earth, because they cling to the notion everything was made in six earthly days, including Adam, and then they lock themselves into the calculations of times for the genealogy of Christ. However, if they actually read Genesis for the information it conveyed to the Jews at the time it was written, they would realize that the earth could have existed for billions of years, and the garden of Eden only in the last six to ten thousand years. They also miss the Jewish tradition of leaving un-noteworthy individuals out of the family tree, so the genealogy fails to account for missing generations. I put the garden at 10,000 years ago and believe God visited the earth to create them both with a new dna structure.  Adam would be different than all the hominids before. They would be given the choice. He would no longer act on instinct, but would choose to have God's knowledge of good and evil. An animal does not care that it is naked. An animal has no remorse over killing its food. Adam and Eve would be different. They would see things through God's eyes. Once they ate of the tree, they immediately realized they were naked.
> 
> Some of the points I've made can be crammed fit into the Creation story. Yet, I don't really even feel the need to do that to a point. Jesus was fond of telling parables that conveyed a deeper meaning. How do we, as modern day Christians, know that Moses was writing down a literal story. Maybe it was a parable told to generations of Jews to convey the deeper principles of the fall. The Jews at the time could have no the story was a metaphor, but over the course of thousands of years, someone along the way decided it was literal. Who was that? And again, my question for you, who decided Christ command to gouge out your eye was not literal? There are alot of Christians that just want a little neat black and white story that doesn't beg any questions. They need to fit Christianity into a little box because they don't want to think about the bigger questions. I do want to think about the bigger questions. While I believe the Bible is true, God is not the Bible. And God cannot be contained in the Bible. The Bible says God spat stars out of his "mouth" [I don't believe God has a mouth. The Bible also says God is spirit. Obviously, I believe Jesus had a mouth while he was on earth ]. Do you have any idea how big Star R136a1 is? I don't need to make my massive God fit in 66 tiny little books. I believe the Bible is inspired scripture, but it isn't God. It was written by man, and it can't contain God, or even begin to describe how awesome and how massive our Creator is. If most Christians really had a feel for the reality of that, they would be alot more humble, myself included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't say what the light was before the sun and moon was created but clearly he described a day as we see it. If you do not trust the bible what are your beliefs in God based on ? Why are elements still found in rocks that should have been gone in an old world view ? That is supposedly what the age of the earth is based on correct ? At the rate the moon  and earth are receding that to is a problem for old earth views. If the bible was inspired by God that is the only book that provides an eyewitness to creation and the beginning. If would put text books ahead of what the bible say's in a sense what is being done ?
Click to expand...


I disagree. This errors on that fundamentalist belief of "I'm right/You're wrong" or "I'm the only one that has the truth and you don't." I believe the Bible is ABSOLUTELY true. I am just not good with some fundamentalist interpretations of it, 6,000 year old earth being one of them. Most people can't read Genesis without preconceived notions from their parents or pastor or the current religious party line. I take the Bible at exactly what is says. Light and Dark existed because God created photons. The Bible CLEARLY states the Sun and Moon came along after several days of Creation. So how can your guy say there is no doubt these were 7 literal solar days?? Here is a guide on interpretation that might clear some things up. There are a great many denominations that don't have this grasp on interpreting the Bible. It is called Hermenutics:

How to Enjoy Bible Study - Grace to You with John MacArthur

I said it before. When you pretend Genesis was written for us in the 21st Century, you rob it of its originally meaning and power.

"You might have watched, along with some of us, in horror sometime back if you happened to be watching the Trinity Broadcasting Network, they were interviewing a guest on one of their "Talk Shows," and he was explaining the Biblical basis of his ministry of "Possibility Thinking." This is a quote, "My ministry is based entirely on my life verse, Matthew 19:26, 'With God all things are possible.' God gave me that verse (Matthew 19:26) because I was born in 1926." Obviously, intrigued by that method of obtaining a life verse, the host grabbed a Bible and began thumbing through it excitedly. "I was born in 1934," he said. "My life verse must be Matthew 19:34! What does it say?" Then he discovered that Matthew 19 has only 30 verses! Undeterred, he flipped to Luke, and read Luke 19:34, and they said, "The Lord hath need of Him." Thrilled, he exclaimed, "The Lord has need of me, the Lord has need of me!" What a wonderful life verse. I never had a life verse before, but now the Lord has given me one. Thank You, 0h Jesus, Hallelujah. And the studio audience began to applaud.

At that moment, however, the "Talk Show" host's wife who had also turned to Luke 19, said, "Wait a minute, you can't use this. This verse is talking about a donkey!" That incident, while being absolutely ludicrous and bizarre, gives you some idea of the "willy-nilly way" that some Charismatics approach Scripture. Some of them, looking for a word from the Lord, play a sort of Bible roulette. They spin the Bible at random, looking for something that might seem applicable to whatever trial or need they are facing and they find a verse and say, "Well, the Lord gave me that verse." And then the Lord supposedly gave them the interpretation of it. These are silly and foolish ways to approach the study of the Bible."

Charismatic Chaos - By John MacArthur


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What challenge have you offered ,you run from my questions, you copy and paste things that have nothing to do with my ????. You are bold writing some of the things you write knowing people are reading this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YWC, if you want to use the bible as a credible source, it has to be demonstrated as being a credible source first. You, nor anyone else, can do that, because it simply is not, just like the Koran is not a credible source, or the Bhagavad Gita. It is special pleading to simply ask people to accept the bible as authority without justification. There is plenty reason to think the bible is not credible. It is an ancient book. We know none of the authors, have no signatures, and they are all translations or translations of copies of translations by authors with an agenda. You can not demonstrate empirically that any of it is the word of god, and therefore, that any of it, is actually true, hence why you must take it on faith. So, stop using the bible in this thread as if it means anything here in terms of proving you're point, because it doesn't. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.
> 
> You can't demonstrate that all of those different authors, are who they say they are. The historicity of the bible does not even bear out with what we know to be true about history, which is another indictment  against its credibility. For instance, Matt, Mark, Luke and John, were not the authors of their respective gospels. We have no signatures on those documents. Those names were assigned to those gospels later. Who's to say the same wasn't done to books in the OT? Until you can provide justification for someone else to believe the  bible is credible, citing passages from it is really pointless.
Click to expand...


This is preposterous!! No one questions the authorship or credibility of the Illiad and the Odyssey.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is an appeal to popular opinion to cite Project Steve, but it still illustrates a point. It doesn't necessarily make the claims of evolution true, and that wasn't why I posted it, but it does mean that thousands upon thousands of experts who know far more than you or I about the subject at hand, do think that evolution is true. What's more, is they are actively using this information in their field to improve and understand our world, demonstrated by the technology we see around us in medical biology (ie, vaccines). This is a concrete example of the fruits of understanding evolution, as it lies at the center of understanding biology. The same can not be said for IDers, as their model provides no predictive power. Name one example of predictive power that ID provides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution does not provide predictive power so I'm not sure what your point it. Here is an article for you though...
> 
> Darwin's God: Evolution (Not) Crucial in Antibiotics Breakthrough: How Science is Actually Done
> 
> If the tables were turned, but the facts of evolution were the same, including its inception time (150 years ago), and there only a handful of scientists who believed in it, and the vast majority of scientists believed in creationism; again, it wouldn't mean that either side was necessarily true or false, but it would mean that people who have the firmest grasp of the material seem to be convinced that the propositions of ID are true. Based on this, I might also more seriously consider that side based simply on popular opinion, because this involves somewhat esoteric knowledge, especially in application, which neither you or I have the capability to do. You may study evolution simply  to further debunk it, which I know you do, but you do not actually attempt to every apply this knowledge to anything in the universe, because your ideas are not empirically tested in any way. That's a critical distinction. Biologists do. Iders don't, because their hypothesis doesn't offer them this capability .
Click to expand...




> This is nonsense. We would be MUCH farther along if we viewed biology as having been designed. A reverse engineering approach would provide answers much faster than drudging along trying to prove how it randomly happened. More time is wasted trying to bolster the Darwin party line by looking for proof's than is spent actually looking for solutions. If we already know the solution, i.e., it was designed. We can go about the work of scientific advancement.
> 
> Also, don't think for one second the mass brainwashing of scientists doesn't have HUGE metaphysical implications and motivations.



How would we be much farther along? What exactly does the ID hypothesis provide us as far as predictive capability? Could you provide one example.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
> Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
> Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
> Gen 1:4  And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
> Gen 1:5  And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> 
> If God created with lengthy days that means death happened before the punishment was handed down to man for sin.
> 
> Astounding Evidence for a Young Earth - Bruce Malone - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, I've watched the video and listened to some of his assertions and I just don't agree with them. He is basing his points of HIS interpretation of the Creation story outlined in Genesis. He says that the you can't refute the fact that Genesis refers to 7 solar days, but for the first three "days" of Creation, we don't even have the sun yet.  Also, he claims the author is repeating himself when talking about man twice. I get the whole argument about the dating methods and their inaccuracy. Even Loki would admit they are scientifically proven for the short timeframe we can measure and account for. However, I've been to the Grand Canyon. I've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to a much older earth. But back to the story:  If I want to take the Creation story literally and chronologically, I have to consider the fact the story about Adam comes later after Creation and after spirit-less hominids, male and female, roamed the earth, and multiplied. There are two stories, one in which male and female are created in a day, and another in which Adam was created, hung out with the animals in the garden for a while and then got lonely. Does it only take Adam 24 hours to name the animals and realize he needs a woman? The speaker has not considered this. He tells me to take the Bible exactly as it is written, but then he does not do so himself. If male and female were created in a solar day, then this does not reconcile with the Adam and Eve story. I believe God did place his new Creation, Homo Sapien, in the garden. Again, let's take the Bible exactly as it is written. We are told Adam and Eve have two sons. We are not told of any other children prior to this. Yet Cain goes to another land and takes a wife. The guy in your video wants to make up the fact that Adam and Eve had other children, but how can this additive story reconcile with the Bible? It can't. Again, your speaker is not taking the Bible for what it exactly says, but is filling in the blanks to make HIS version of the story fit his interpretation. Cain took a Neanderthal wife and there is dna evidence to back this up. Also, this interpretation of the story can be reconciled with fossil evidence, and it doesn't cram all of Creation into 6,000 years. Creationists are locked into as 6,000 year old earth, because they cling to the notion everything was made in six earthly days, including Adam, and then they lock themselves into the calculations of times for the genealogy of Christ. However, if they actually read Genesis for the information it conveyed to the Jews at the time it was written, they would realize that the earth could have existed for billions of years, and the garden of Eden only in the last six to ten thousand years. They also miss the Jewish tradition of leaving un-noteworthy individuals out of the family tree, so the genealogy fails to account for missing generations. I put the garden at 10,000 years ago and believe God visited the earth to create them both with a new dna structure.  Adam would be different than all the hominids before. They would be given the choice. He would no longer act on instinct, but would choose to have God's knowledge of good and evil. An animal does not care that it is naked. An animal has no remorse over killing its food. Adam and Eve would be different. They would see things through God's eyes. Once they ate of the tree, they immediately realized they were naked.
> 
> Some of the points I've made can be crammed fit into the Creation story. Yet, I don't really even feel the need to do that to a point. Jesus was fond of telling parables that conveyed a deeper meaning. How do we, as modern day Christians, know that Moses was writing down a literal story. Maybe it was a parable told to generations of Jews to convey the deeper principles of the fall. The Jews at the time could have no the story was a metaphor, but over the course of thousands of years, someone along the way decided it was literal. Who was that? And again, my question for you, who decided Christ command to gouge out your eye was not literal? There are alot of Christians that just want a little neat black and white story that doesn't beg any questions. They need to fit Christianity into a little box because they don't want to think about the bigger questions. I do want to think about the bigger questions. While I believe the Bible is true, God is not the Bible. And God cannot be contained in the Bible. The Bible says God spat stars out of his "mouth" [I don't believe God has a mouth. The Bible also says God is spirit. Obviously, I believe Jesus had a mouth while he was on earth ]. Do you have any idea how big Star R136a1 is? I don't need to make my massive God fit in 66 tiny little books. I believe the Bible is inspired scripture, but it isn't God. It was written by man, and it can't contain God, or even begin to describe how awesome and how massive our Creator is. If most Christians really had a feel for the reality of that, they would be alot more humble, myself included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry UR i have to ask this,you get onto evolutionist using maybe's, might haves, and possible faulty assumptions for evolution but you don't have that same view on the same explanations for the age of the universe and earth, why ?
Click to expand...


Like I said, I believe any decay based dating method can't be proven. However, I look at the preponderance of the evidence for an old earth and find it to be overwhelming. I am not saying you don't have valid points. I'm just saying the things young earth Creationist hone in on aren't the entire body of the evidence.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.
> 
> It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.
> 
> So yes, I have proof that there was no great flood, that no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted.
> 
> Prove I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To add to that you can't prove naturlistic processes that converted nonliving matter to living organisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To add to that, you can't supermagical gods without an entire hierarchy of super - supermagical gods.
> 
> The problem you have is believing that a gap in scientific knowledge somehow proves your gods. That, if course, is a false assumption on your part. It really is much less a problem than you are able to comprehend. In terms of defining the origins of life, molecular biologists have made much progress. If you consider that the origin of life is an event that occurred billions of years ago and that experiments must be made using material that was in the early atmosphere, the success that scientists have achieved thus far, limited though it is, is amazing.
> 
> What causes fundies so much angst is that experiments continue and bit by bit, science has taken away the fears and superstitions that fundies require for literal belief in their gods.
Click to expand...


*What about the fear of admitting where you went to college?*


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Not consistent with the Bible story. Sorry.
> 
> For good reason.
> 
> You weren't there either. Explain yourself.
> 
> Right. You need neither verifiable evidence nor valid logic to hold your belief, but you insist upon absolute conclusive proof to change your mind.
> 
> We are well aware of the intellectual dishonesty practiced by the faithful.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] and he "could have" taken two of every animal in with him [we see lots of animals rounded up by men for modern day zoo's] and a flood that covered the whole earth "might have" happened [we've seen some pretty big modern day floods with the tsunami's and all]. Sheesh, that sounds just like one of them there just so Darwin stories you are always spoutin' off about. Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.
> 
> In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.
Click to expand...


I think what you mean is either I believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of the sciptures or I don't. God inspired the book. He isn't the book.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What challenge have you offered ,you run from my questions, you copy and paste things that have nothing to do with my ????. You are bold writing some of the things you write knowing people are reading this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, if you want to use the bible as a credible source, it has to be demonstrated as being a credible source first. You, nor anyone else, can do that, because it simply is not, just like the Koran is not a credible source, or the Bhagavad Gita. It is special pleading to simply ask people to accept the bible as authority without justification. There is plenty reason to think the bible is not credible. It is an ancient book. We know none of the authors, have no signatures, and they are all translations or translations of copies of translations by authors with an agenda. You can not demonstrate empirically that any of it is the word of god, and therefore, that any of it, is actually true, hence why you must take it on faith. So, stop using the bible in this thread as if it means anything here in terms of proving you're point, because it doesn't. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.
> 
> You can't demonstrate that all of those different authors, are who they say they are. The historicity of the bible does not even bear out with what we know to be true about history, which is another indictment  against its credibility. For instance, Matt, Mark, Luke and John, were not the authors of their respective gospels. We have no signatures on those documents. Those names were assigned to those gospels later. Who's to say the same wasn't done to books in the OT? Until you can provide justification for someone else to believe the  bible is credible, citing passages from it is really pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is preposterous!! No one questions the authorship or credibility of the Illiad and the Odyssey.
Click to expand...




Nothing in the Iliad was meant to be taken as gospel, or to be used as a religion to guide people's lives. It is simple a story like any other. It is uncertain whether or not it recounts true events, as the trojan war itself can not be said to have taken place with any certainty. That is a major difference between that and the bible, which attempts to convince people that they will go to hell if they do not believe, because an all-powerful, and all-loving god will send them there.

The iliad and the odyssey do not make claims about a god ruling over our lives, and does not attempt to tell people how to live, because they are not books that attempt to establish any religion. They may mention gods, but not to proselytize. It was merely part of Homer's belief system. The point of the story was not to attempt to convince others to believe in god. It was to relate a story.

Further, the consequence of the iliad being wrong, is of no consequence at all, as far as our lives today go. It doesn't make any extraordinatry claims, so it wouldn't be a big deal.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have something against a southern heritage? Aside from inbreeding, pig fucking and bad moonshine? No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that also answered my second question. Which would be a definite. "yes".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What up? The revenuers take away your still?
Click to expand...


Ima racist. Ima stereotyper. Ooh, look the foolish Christians. Let's feed them to the lions.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is an appeal to popular opinion to cite Project Steve, but it still illustrates a point. It doesn't necessarily make the claims of evolution true, and that wasn't why I posted it, but it does mean that thousands upon thousands of experts who know far more than you or I about the subject at hand, do think that evolution is true. What's more, is they are actively using this information in their field to improve and understand our world, demonstrated by the technology we see around us in medical biology (ie, vaccines). This is a concrete example of the fruits of understanding evolution, as it lies at the center of understanding biology. The same can not be said for IDers, as their model provides no predictive power. Name one example of predictive power that ID provides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution does not provide predictive power so I'm not sure what your point it. Here is an article for you though...
> 
> Darwin's God: Evolution (Not) Crucial in Antibiotics Breakthrough: How Science is Actually Done
> 
> If the tables were turned, but the facts of evolution were the same, including its inception time (150 years ago), and there only a handful of scientists who believed in it, and the vast majority of scientists believed in creationism; again, it wouldn't mean that either side was necessarily true or false, but it would mean that people who have the firmest grasp of the material seem to be convinced that the propositions of ID are true. Based on this, I might also more seriously consider that side based simply on popular opinion, because this involves somewhat esoteric knowledge, especially in application, which neither you or I have the capability to do. You may study evolution simply  to further debunk it, which I know you do, but you do not actually attempt to every apply this knowledge to anything in the universe, because your ideas are not empirically tested in any way. That's a critical distinction. Biologists do. Iders don't, because their hypothesis doesn't offer them this capability .
Click to expand...


This is nonsense. We would be MUCH farther along if we viewed biology as having been designed. A reverse engineering approach would provide answers much faster than drudging along trying to prove how it randomly happened. More time is wasted trying to bolster the Darwin party line by looking for proof's than is spent actually looking for solutions. If we already know the solution, i.e., it was designed. We can go about the work of scientific advancement. 

Also, don't think for one second the mass brainwashing of scientists doesn't have HUGE metaphysical implications and motivations.[/QUOTE]

I'm afraid the fundies' conspiracy theories are getting more deranged.

The problem with your nonsensical claim is that creationists / YEC'ers /Harun Yahya groupies have no intention of objectively studying biology, paleontology, natural sciences, etc., because those disciplines do not support supermagicalism. 

I've pointed out previously that the ICR tenets are unequivocal in their insistence of a literal, biblical earth history. The fundies you want to "reverse engineer" biology are dishonest, untrustworthy and without scruples or integrity when if comes to evaluating data. For that matter, many if the fundies pressing supernaturalism are not even trained in the fields they pretend to represent. 

If the theory of evolution was not based upon verifiable data, it would be doing an awfully fine job of disguising itself as real science. Results of experimentation and observation are regularly and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is a reason why creationist dogma is not - because creationist nonsense doesn't pass the test of peer review.  New discoveries in science are made virtually on a daily basis. Degree programs are offered in the varying fields of science by virtually every university in the world. That stands in rather stark contrast to the ICR which was recently humiliated in the state of Texas.

*Texas Judge Rips Creationism Group in Science Degree Suit*



> Austin federal judge Sam Sparks dismissed a suit by the Dallas-based Institute of Creation Research, which seeks the right to grant a masters degree in science from a biblical perspective. And by dismissed, we mean the judge tore it apart.
> 
> But first, a summary of the suit, as reported today by the San Antonio Express-News. The Institute seeks to offer a masters degree that critiques evolution and champions a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation. Texass higher education board nixed the groups application, because of the proposed programs creationist slant. This, the Institute contended, was a violation of its First Amendment Rights.
> 
> That claim was dismissed by Sparks in an opinion that criticized the Institutes arguments as incoherent. At one point he writes that he will address the groups concerns to the extent [he] is able to understand them. At another, he describes the groups filings as overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information. Click here for the judges opinion.




Any decent university library contains millions of pages of data supporting the theory of evolution either directly or indirectly. The theory has proved itself so well that it is no longer at all in doubt in the mainstream scientific community. It didn't do that by "converting the masses"; it did so by proving its ability to make predictions and to provide a coherent explanation for the evidence we collect and analyze.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran.



Wrong!!! The Bible is a collection of 66 works written over the course of thousands of years. The Koran was written by ONE man with an agenda within the span of a few years.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't hurt me. This is a debate. It is fun to exchange ideas. I am still technically open to the idea of a god, if I am convinced. I hold no presuppositions that a god necessarily doesn't exist, since I don't believe that god doesn't exist. I simply don't hold the belief that one does. This distinction may seem non-existent, but it is very important. I tried for many years to be a christian, talking to pastors in college, reading the bible, praying... I was never convinced that any of it was true. I never felt anything, and it never helped me.
> 
> You believe in the god of the Koran too, in the teachings, in the claims?  This is impossible, as the propositions of Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive.  If Jesus said "I am the only way to god," That means that there is no other way, excluding all other possibilities. Muslims believe the Koran is the final word from god, so what it says in that book supercedes anything written in the bible. Christianity and Islam can not both be true. If it can, please tell me how.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would it take for you to believe?
> 
> Do you need a miracle? Do you need to see God with your own eyes?
> 
> As a Christian I believe the only way to The Father is through the Son. So both Chistianity and Islam cannot be true. IMO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would take a miracle for me to believe, because at this point, I think the christian god is a logical impossibility, by its very own definition. It is claimed to be a perfect being, yet needs a relationship with us. That is a contradiction. A perfect being wouldn't need anything, and wouldn't be jealous. These are all very human attributes, and so, imperfect. I am therefore absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist. However, I can not be certain that some kind of deity does exist somewhere within, or even outside the universe, such as a deist god. There is so much about the christian god that seems so highly implausible to me at this point. To be honest, I want to believe because I struggle with mental health quite a bit and it causes me a lot of suffering, and an all loving god is a really nice thought, but that doesn't mean it exists. I refuse to let my emotional needs create something to alleviate personal suffering. In other words, I am not going to believe something because it feels good. I want it to be true. I care more about truth, than about what feels good to my limited mind.
Click to expand...


Many of the concepts in your post are flawed fundamentalist views of who God is and stem from a lack of understanding of Scripture. Scripture is "God-breathed". It is inspired by God. That does not mean that God's hand entered the authors hand and wrote it out. The Bible is written by real men at real times in history in real cultures. It is written from a human standpoint. How else could man attempt to convey the traits of God but by human descriptions?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right, because it is special pleading. Why don't you believe in the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita? Simply because you were born, geographically where the bible is taught. There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran. They are supernatural claims that can not be backed up. What's worse, is that if this god does exist, why on earth would he be rely on ancient peoples to pass this on in the way that it happened? If this god is omnipotent, and wanted to communicate his message to his beings, he could have chosen a less controversial way to do so. There are too many glaring questions such as these if I were to accept the bible, and so I remain unconvinced about the truth of the bible whatsoever. I think it is an interesting document, but I don't  see how anybody could actually think it was inspired by an all-knowing, ever-present, loving deity. It would seem the opposite, made by a god who doesn't care enough to use better mediums to transmit his message. There is plenty of room for doubt in assessing the bible, and the excuse of faith is not a justification for believing, and it is not virtuous to have faith. It is gullibility, in  my opinion.
> 
> 
> As for why I am here, this is a creationist DEBATE thread made by someone who questioned creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
> 
> But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?
> 
> If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not so simple to "leave you alone" because the actions of religious people affect others.
> Plenty of people think Bibles and korrans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.
Click to expand...


And your atheistic hate view doesn't??? You are living in a dream world Man hands. You are discounting millions of atrocities by atheistic governments. You need a history class!!!! *By the way, where did you go to school?*


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! The Bible is a collection of 66 works written over the course of thousands of years. The Koran was written by ONE man with an agenda within the span of a few years.
Click to expand...


That doesn't make any of the claims in it any more true, especially since half of those authors produced one text, and the other, another text, of two contradictory religions (judaism and christianity). That doesn't speak well for you're attempt at establishing credibility. 

Further, you don't know anything about how the koran was written, or if it was infact written by one man. Have you researched this? Or are you simply just saying it? I don't actually know, that's why I'm asking. Either way, via you're hypothesis of divinely inspired writing, this wouldn't matter.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
> 
> But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?
> 
> If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not so simple to "leave you alone" because the actions of religious people affect others.
> Plenty of people think Bibles and korrans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.
> 
> Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against your holy book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".
> 
> No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because Christians claim the bible has a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.
> 
> Logic allows us to read and understand the contextual message of Bibles at the very start. Without logic and reason, you wouldn't understand the thing at all. I see no reason then, halfway through, to jettison the same rules of logic and reason as magically inapplicable, simply because the book has some sort of special reputation as being "holy".
> 
> Read it like fiction. Because that is what it is. How do we know this? Because from the outset, it tells a tale that is demonstrably false, as false as the Origin fables of Valhalla, or the sky lodge of the Iroquois. We never have any debates over the whole "It's turtles all the way down" creation myths, do we?It's always the holy text of the week mythology we wrestle over.
> 
> Which is completely without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I concur with Hollie. Lonestar, you ask me to "leave you alone," yet in no way, do you leave me alone. Christians have been trying to inch their way into the political establishment since this country started
Click to expand...


Omigosh!! You and Hollie are crazy!!!! This country was founded by Christians and was made up almost entirely of Christians in the beginning. It is the atheist fundie Darwinist who are trying to screw up the country, rid it of morals, and lead it down a path of death and destruction and abortion and STD's and homosexuality and AIDS and rascism and hate and obesity and sloth and greed. These are the tenets of Materialism and Darwinism.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not so simple to "leave you alone" because the actions of religious people affect others.
> Plenty of people think Bibles and korrans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals&#8217; freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.
> 
> Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against your holy book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".
> 
> No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because Christians claim the bible has a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.
> 
> Logic allows us to read and understand the contextual message of Bibles at the very start. Without logic and reason, you wouldn't understand the thing at all. I see no reason then, halfway through, to jettison the same rules of logic and reason as magically inapplicable, simply because the book has some sort of special reputation as being "holy".
> 
> Read it like fiction. Because that is what it is. How do we know this? Because from the outset, it tells a tale that is demonstrably false, as false as the Origin fables of Valhalla, or the sky lodge of the Iroquois. We never have any debates over the whole "It's turtles all the way down" creation myths, do we?It's always the &#8220;holy text&#8221; of the week mythology we wrestle over.
> 
> Which is completely without merit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concur with Hollie. Lonestar, you ask me to "leave you alone," yet in no way, do you leave me alone. Christians have been trying to inch their way into the political establishment since this country started
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Omigosh!! You and Hollie are crazy!!!! This country was founded by Christians and was made up almost entirely of Christians in the beginning. It is the atheist fundie Darwinist who are trying to screw up the country, rid it of morals, and lead it down a path of death and destruction and abortion and STD's and homosexuality and AIDS and rascism and hate and obesity and sloth and greed. These are the tenets of Materialism and Darwinism.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid conspiracy theories and creationist falsehoods are not going help you. This country was established as a nation of secular laws. 

So... You're claiming "Darwinism" is the cause of STD's ?  That is hilarious but not unexpected from a Harun Yahya groupie.


----------



## daws101

Jimmy_Jam said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Christian thought, humans have free will, which made it possible for them to choose sin, not God. Under evolutionary philosophy, there is no free will for humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing the logic is that if life evolves then it doesn't have free will? You lost me.
Click to expand...

nothing UR says makes any sense ...he never lets that simple fact get in his way .....when answering UR and YWC'S POST remember they have zero evidence.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The school system is dumb-downed by thought of a designer,how is that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clueless. The courts have protected the school system from science loathing fundie Christians attempting to force Christianity into public education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where will those judges be when the Almighty returns ? Satans pawns is what the judges are.
Click to expand...

bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
Non sequitur :  in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.
bahahahahahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you be so sure? Of course, what would one expect from someone who believes fairytales are facts.
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from a spewer of the worst kind of nonsense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know how life began daws ?
Click to expand...

no, and neither do you....


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would it take for you to believe?
> 
> Do you need a miracle? Do you need to see God with your own eyes?
> 
> As a Christian I believe the only way to The Father is through the Son. So both Chistianity and Islam cannot be true. IMO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would take a miracle for me to believe, because at this point, I think the christian god is a logical impossibility, by its very own definition. It is claimed to be a perfect being, yet needs a relationship with us. That is a contradiction. A perfect being wouldn't need anything, and wouldn't be jealous. These are all very human attributes, and so, imperfect. I am therefore absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist. However, I can not be certain that some kind of deity does exist somewhere within, or even outside the universe, such as a deist god. There is so much about the christian god that seems so highly implausible to me at this point. To be honest, I want to believe because I struggle with mental health quite a bit and it causes me a lot of suffering, and an all loving god is a really nice thought, but that doesn't mean it exists. I refuse to let my emotional needs create something to alleviate personal suffering. In other words, I am not going to believe something because it feels good. I want it to be true. I care more about truth, than about what feels good to my limited mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of the concepts in your post are flawed fundamentalist views of who God is and stem from a lack of understanding of Scripture. Scripture is "God-breathed". It is inspired by God. That does not mean that God's hand entered the authors hand and wrote it out. The Bible is written by real men at real times in history in real cultures. It is written from a human standpoint. How else could man attempt to convey the traits of God but by human descriptions?
Click to expand...


This sounds like an excuse for why god couldn't deliver a coherent, non-conradictory message. That's all i see. There is plenty of contra-diction in the bible, which itself contradicts that it was even god-breathed. What does god-breathed even mean?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself, I presented questions that add credibility to my beliefs but what can you offer to support your views ?
> 
> 
> 
> you presented shit. the non questions you've foisted efinition of FOIST
> 1a : to introduce or insert surreptitiously or without warrant b : to force another to accept especially by stealth or deceit
> 2: to pass off as genuine or worthy <foist costly and valueless products on the public
> on us have no credibility
> : Definition of CREDIBILITY
> 1: the quality or power of inspiring belief <an account lacking in credibility>
> 
> due to an enormous lack of quantifiable proof.
> what has been presented to you as support for "our" view is evidence, that you reject because it runs counter to your willful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a critical thinker that is what separates you and I. I am willing to test my beliefs against reality are you ?
Click to expand...

another steaming pile of bullshit .....
you don't think at all .
also your use of the term  critical thinking is wrong you use it in the same way all ignorant people use the term common sense.
it's true name is analytical  thinking or analytics 
 Critical thinking calls for the ability to:

Recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems
Understand the importance of prioritization and order of precedence in problem solving
Gather and marshal pertinent (relevant) information
Recognize unstated assumptions and values
Comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discernment
Interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments
Recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions
Draw warranted conclusions and generalizations
Put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives
Reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience
Render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life
you shown NONE OF THE LISTED SKILLS..
you don't have the balls to test your beliefs...
here's a small test, for the next 24 hours  deny the existence of god.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both creationism and ID infer a designer...
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: "Both creationism and ID *PRESUME* a designer..."
> 
> Sure they do. It's not *CONCLUSIVE* evidence, but there is indeed evidence that a designer was not needed.
> 
> First, "proof" is NOT the standard applied--verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is the standard applied.
> 
> Secondly, there is no evidence, that is validated with even *BASIC* intellectual rigor, that petitions for the existence of this designer that creationism and intelligent-design *PRESUMES*.
> 
> We don't! We apply the exact same standard for both! *EXACTLY* the same.
> 
> In contrast, no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" was required for you to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit--yet you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer"--as if it should be considered valid in the first place. You (as typical of creationists and intelligent-design promoters) hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an *ENTIRELY* different standard than you hold your own *PREASSUMPTION*.
> 
> Why is that? Why do *YOU* require a higher standard from "naturalism" than you do for this "designer" of yours and creationism?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is just presumptive nonsense. It is a point that has been refuted a thousand times.
> 
> For the same reasons you've refused to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I predict that you'll just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.
> 
> 
> 
> _"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"_--Douglas Adams​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right,evolutionist infer natural processes are responsible for life but they lack evidence, The rest of your post is not worthy of a response.
Click to expand...

then why did you responed?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be serious
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true. You and the other fundie are clearly lacking when it comes to available knowledge of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What causes a mutation hollie ? what causes the mutation to spread through the population ? Give me an example of mistakes upon mistakes making things better ? Hollie why are there mechanisms trying to correct these mistakes called mutations ?
> 
> How can codons be affected according to your theory ? what do I mean by codons being affected ?
> 
> Do deletion mutations aid in evolution ?
> 
> Insertion mutations how do they aid in evolution ?
Click to expand...

  non sequitur


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself, I presented questions that add credibility to my beliefs but what can you offer to support your views ?
> 
> 
> 
> you presented shit. the non questions you've foisted efinition of FOIST
> 1a : to introduce or insert surreptitiously or without warrant b : to force another to accept especially by stealth or deceit
> 2: to pass off as genuine or worthy <foist costly and valueless products on the public
> on us have no credibility
> : Definition of CREDIBILITY
> 1: the quality or power of inspiring belief <an account lacking in credibility>
> 
> due to an enormous lack of quantifiable proof.
> what has been presented to you as support for "our" view is evidence, that you reject because it runs counter to your willful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I am a critical thinker *that is what separates you and I. I am willing to test my beliefs against reality are you ?
Click to expand...


That's funny.  Good one!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> I challenge your buddies daws and loki to answer my questions since you can't.


asked and answered...besides you don't really want answers.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not so simple to "leave you alone" because the actions of religious people affect others.
> Plenty of people think Bibles and korrans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.
> 
> Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against your holy book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".
> 
> No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because Christians claim the bible has a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.
> 
> Logic allows us to read and understand the contextual message of Bibles at the very start. Without logic and reason, you wouldn't understand the thing at all. I see no reason then, halfway through, to jettison the same rules of logic and reason as magically inapplicable, simply because the book has some sort of special reputation as being "holy".
> 
> Read it like fiction. Because that is what it is. How do we know this? Because from the outset, it tells a tale that is demonstrably false, as false as the Origin fables of Valhalla, or the sky lodge of the Iroquois. We never have any debates over the whole "It's turtles all the way down" creation myths, do we?It's always the holy text of the week mythology we wrestle over.
> 
> Which is completely without merit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concur with Hollie. Lonestar, you ask me to "leave you alone," yet in no way, do you leave me alone. Christians have been trying to inch their way into the political establishment since this country started
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Omigosh!! You and Hollie are crazy!!!! This country was founded by Christians and was made up almost entirely of Christians in the beginning. It is the atheist fundie Darwinist who are trying to screw up the country, rid it of morals, and lead it down a path of death and destruction and abortion and STD's and homosexuality and AIDS and rascism and hate and obesity and sloth and greed. These are the tenets of Materialism and Darwinism.
Click to expand...


This is the harm of religious thinking. Right here. 

The composition of our population and the constitution have nothing to with each other.  What these people gave birth too wasn't necessarily christian just because they were. Anyway, they were deists, who rejected christianity.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great info Hollie! *What is your educational background*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting, don't you think? All the lies and deceit furthered by fundies in connection with some alleged "design" they want introduced into the school system is nothing more than frantic attempts to force christianity.in the school syllabus.
> 
> Jerry Falwell and the Christian Taliban.
> 
> BTW, my little personal stalker, I'll require you to continue with the gargantuan fonts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally agree, *but where did you go to college?* *What type of science background do you have?*
> 
> You know what Hollie? Your hatred only eats away at YOUR insides, and doesn't affect those you hate. You live under the cloud of hurt and unforgiveness. Forgive your parents and those who have wronged you and you will be free. It is your forgiveness of others that will release your hatred, and unload that huge burden of bitterness you have been carrying since your childhood. Your hate only hurts you. Christ said, "This is my commandment. That ye love one another."
Click to expand...

bahahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
> 
> 
> Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biology 101 and high school science would be a good start for you.
> Plenty of evidence here on earth to prove that this planet has been here for millions of years.
> NO ONE is saying that PEOPLE have been here for millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is plenty evidence here on this planet and on other planets pointing to a young universe based on solid science, Now what ?
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wasting your time with Hollie the Troll. She has settled for the belief of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't reacted well yourself.
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to explain how can it be that statements in the Bible that are scientifically accurate given the fact it was written over two thousand years ago.
> 
> And what in the Bible do you say is a falsehood?
Click to expand...

a stopped clock is right twice a day...or or the 50% rule  you  pick..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My terms need no defining.
> 
> What evidence do you have that there was no great flood or no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted?
> 
> Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting A Great Biblical Flood
> 
> 
> As researchers prove the Red Sea really could have parted... How science backs the Bible's best stories
> 
> Once again you're putting words in my mouth.
> 
> I never made the claim that the Bible was not contradicted by science. I simply stated that statements in the Bible are consistent with science.
> 
> Why do you insist on distorting what I've said?
> 
> God could have done the things you mentioned but it would have fell on deaf ears because man was not equipped at the time to understand scientific principles.
> 
> God gave us the ability to seek out and discover the information ourselves at our pace.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.
> 
> It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.
> 
> So yes, I have proof that there was no great flood, that no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted.
> 
> Prove I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To add to that you can't prove naturlistic processes that converted nonliving matter to living organisms.
Click to expand...

fractally wrong  101 up, 2 down 
 Being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. Zooming on every part of one's world view finds beliefs exactly as wrong as one's entire world view.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What challenge have you offered ,you run from my questions, you copy and paste things that have nothing to do with my ????. You are bold writing some of the things you write knowing people are reading this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, if you want to use the bible as a credible source, it has to be demonstrated as being a credible source first. You, nor anyone else, can do that, because it simply is not, just like the Koran is not a credible source, or the Bhagavad Gita. It is special pleading to simply ask people to accept the bible as authority without justification. There is plenty reason to think the bible is not credible. It is an ancient book. We know none of the authors, have no signatures, and they are all translations or translations of copies of translations by authors with an agenda. You can not demonstrate empirically that any of it is the word of god, and therefore, that any of it, is actually true, hence why you must take it on faith. So, stop using the bible in this thread as if it means anything here in terms of proving you're point, because it doesn't. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.
> 
> You can't demonstrate that all of those different authors, are who they say they are. The historicity of the bible does not even bear out with what we know to be true about history, which is another indictment  against its credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One way to find out if the Bible is credible is to compare it with other sources of history. There are, in fact, many examples of other nations chronicling the wars and deeds of the Israelites. Though they are too numerous to spell out, one example where biblical history is corroborated with other sources is the story of Hezekiah.
> 
> Hezekiah, a brave king of Judah, faced a devastating onslaught from Assyria. Scripture records that Hezekiah built a massive wall around Jerusalem to fortify the city. He also diverted the Gihon spring so that a water supply could be found within the wall (2 Kings 20:20, 2 Chronicles 32:30). God promised that Jerusalem would not fall to the Assyrians; and though the majority of Judah did surrender to Sennacherib, Jerusalem did not.
> 
> Second Chronicles 32:9, 21 reports, "Sennacherib king of Assyria sent his servants to Jerusalem while he was besieging Lachish with all his forces with him, against Hezekiah king of Judah . . . The Lord sent an angel who destroyed every mighty warrior, commander and officer in the camp of the king of Assyria. So [Sennacherib] returned in shame to his own land."
> 
> The physical existence of the wall and the water tunnel can be confirmed in Jerusalem. You can still see both of the striking structures today. However, it seems that if this account were true, Assyrian history would confirm the event. And, in fact, it does. On an artifact called the Lachish Frieze, reliefs depict Sennacheribs attempts to take Jerusalem.
> 
> This is just one example; however, celebrated archaeologist William F. Albright affirms, "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."
> 
> There are also many instances of corroboration in the New Testament. One striking confirmation is of the darkness and earthquake that occurred while Christ was dying on the cross (Matthew 27:45-52). In his book Pontius Pilate, Paul Maier writes, "Phlegon, a Greek author . . . reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., 33 A.D.) there was the greatest eclipse of the sun and that it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia."
> 
> One of the leading concerns in viewing the Bible as a reliable source is in its transmission. How can we be sure that the sources we rely upon are authentic? This is answered by determining the quality of the manuscripts.
> 
> To analyze this, a comparison is in order. One of historys treasured possessions is Caesars recounting of the Gallic Wars, which he penned during the first century. Without his account, we would know barely anything of these important conflicts.
> 
> However, the actual papyri Caesar recorded his history on are no longer in existence. The earliest copies one might examine are from A.D. 900950. In fact, there are only 10 complete copies and fragments available for inspection. Even so, these documents are taught as historical fact.
> 
> The Bible, on the other hand, has many manuscripts to rely upon. Burnett H. Streeter has assured, "The degree of security that . . . the text has been handed down to us in a reliable form is prima facie, very high."
> 
> There are in existence more than 14,000 Old Testament manuscriptssome dating back as far as 400 B.C.! As for the New Testament, there are over 5,300 manuscripts in existence, with nearly 800 of them written before 1000 A.D.!
> 
> F. F. Bruce sums up the case by saying, "Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands."
Click to expand...

the bible has no scientific  credibility simply because it's based on a false unprovable premise and  there is  no quantifiable evidence to support the claims of supernatural causation.
also none of scriptures  are original , they are copies of copies .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science has shown that the/a world can't be made in 6 days. THE FIRST FUCKING PAGE!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah if you leave out the part of a being that is beyond our comprehension.  Genesis say's ten times kinds bring forth adfter their own kind and after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kind.
Click to expand...

IMA is right if you take out the bullshit that YWC injected..


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not so simple to "leave you alone" because the actions of religious people affect others.
> Plenty of people think Bibles and korrans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.
> 
> Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against your holy book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".
> 
> No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because Christians claim the bible has a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.
> 
> Logic allows us to read and understand the contextual message of Bibles at the very start. Without logic and reason, you wouldn't understand the thing at all. I see no reason then, halfway through, to jettison the same rules of logic and reason as magically inapplicable, simply because the book has some sort of special reputation as being "holy".
> 
> Read it like fiction. Because that is what it is. How do we know this? Because from the outset, it tells a tale that is demonstrably false, as false as the Origin fables of Valhalla, or the sky lodge of the Iroquois. We never have any debates over the whole "It's turtles all the way down" creation myths, do we?It's always the holy text of the week mythology we wrestle over.
> 
> Which is completely without merit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concur with Hollie. Lonestar, you ask me to "leave you alone," yet in no way, do you leave me alone. Christians have been trying to inch their way into the political establishment since this country started, and in doing so, attempt to affect my life. It is again, asking for special treatment of me to not bother you, when your beliefs are responsible for attempts at undermining the constitution, and my rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Hollie likes to put words in peoples mouths. I never once asked to be left alone.
> 
> As a Christian we were told By Jesus Christ. "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:19-20 NIV)
> 
> Religion has always been a part of this nation. And always will be.
> 
> How has religion undermined the Constitution?
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...so again how does religion undermine the Constitution?
Click to expand...

when it seeks to impose it's pov on fredom of choice and hold itself higher then the law of the nation.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is an appeal to popular opinion to cite Project Steve, but it still illustrates a point. It doesn't necessarily make the claims of evolution true, and that wasn't why I posted it, but it does mean that thousands upon thousands of experts who know far more than you or I about the subject at hand, do think that evolution is true. What's more, is they are actively using this information in their field to improve and understand our world, demonstrated by the technology we see around us in medical biology (ie, vaccines). This is a concrete example of the fruits of understanding evolution, as it lies at the center of understanding biology. The same can not be said for IDers, as their model provides no predictive power. Name one example of predictive power that ID provides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution does not provide predictive power ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]Evolution Predicts Ring Species[/ame]
Click to expand...


This video is hogwash. I saw a bird turn into a bird turn into a bird. How do we get from a microbe to a microbiologist? That's what I want to see.

You've done exactly what you accuse me of doing. You think your attack on Creationism, which I don't subscribe to, bolsters the theory of evolution. It doesn't. Darwinism is still BS. Dogs will always have dogs. Dogs will never breed into elephants or giraffes or tyrannosaurus rex. Vertical change has never been proven. Call it a strawman, but according to evolution, if all the conditions were right, and the right random mutations were selected, this would have to be a possibility under your theory.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, if you want to use the bible as a credible source, it has to be demonstrated as being a credible source first. You, nor anyone else, can do that, because it simply is not, just like the Koran is not a credible source, or the Bhagavad Gita. It is special pleading to simply ask people to accept the bible as authority without justification. There is plenty reason to think the bible is not credible. It is an ancient book. We know none of the authors, have no signatures, and they are all translations or translations of copies of translations by authors with an agenda. You can not demonstrate empirically that any of it is the word of god, and therefore, that any of it, is actually true, hence why you must take it on faith. So, stop using the bible in this thread as if it means anything here in terms of proving you're point, because it doesn't. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.
> 
> You can't demonstrate that all of those different authors, are who they say they are. The historicity of the bible does not even bear out with what we know to be true about history, which is another indictment  against its credibility. For instance, Matt, Mark, Luke and John, were not the authors of their respective gospels. We have no signatures on those documents. Those names were assigned to those gospels later. Who's to say the same wasn't done to books in the OT? Until you can provide justification for someone else to believe the  bible is credible, citing passages from it is really pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is preposterous!! No one questions the authorship or credibility of the Illiad and the Odyssey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the Iliad was meant to be taken as gospel, or to be used as a religion to guide people's lives. It is simple a story like any other. It is uncertain whether or not it recounts true events, as the trojan war itself can not be said to have taken place with any certainty. That is a major difference between that and the bible, which attempts to convince people that they will go to hell if they do not believe, because an all-powerful, and all-loving god will send them there.
> 
> The iliad and the odyssey do not make claims about a god ruling over our lives, and does not attempt to tell people how to live, because they are not books that attempt to establish any religion. They may mention gods, but not to proselytize. It was merely part of Homer's belief system. The point of the story was not to attempt to convince others to believe in god. It was to relate a story.
> 
> Further, the consequence of the iliad being wrong, is of no consequence at all, as far as our lives today go. It doesn't make any extraordinatry claims, so it wouldn't be a big deal.
Click to expand...


Actually, the Bible says people will go to a burning trash dump.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> The problem with your nonsensical claim is that Harun Yahya groupies have no intention...



I love that guy. He's a freakin' rad muslim.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I concur with Hollie. Lonestar, you ask me to "leave you alone," yet in no way, do you leave me alone. Christians have been trying to inch their way into the political establishment since this country started
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Omigosh!! You and Hollie are crazy!!!! This country was founded by Christians and was made up almost entirely of Christians in the beginning. It is the atheist fundie Darwinist who are trying to screw up the country, rid it of morals, and lead it down a path of death and destruction and abortion and STD's and homosexuality and AIDS and rascism and hate and obesity and sloth and greed. These are the tenets of Materialism and Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid conspiracy theories and creationist falsehoods are not going help you. This country was established as a nation of secular laws.
> 
> So... You're claiming "Darwinism" is the cause of STD's?
Click to expand...

 No, that is what you claim. *By the way, where did you go to college?* Please answer. I am running out of nice font colors.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Christian thought, humans have free will, which made it possible for them to choose sin, not God. Under evolutionary philosophy, there is no free will for humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing the logic is that if life evolves then it doesn't have free will? You lost me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing UR says makes any sense ...he never lets that simple fact get in his way .....when answering UR and YWC'S POST remember they have zero evidence.
Click to expand...


Projecting.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would take a miracle for me to believe, because at this point, I think the christian god is a logical impossibility, by its very own definition. It is claimed to be a perfect being, yet needs a relationship with us. That is a contradiction. A perfect being wouldn't need anything, and wouldn't be jealous. These are all very human attributes, and so, imperfect. I am therefore absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist. However, I can not be certain that some kind of deity does exist somewhere within, or even outside the universe, such as a deist god. There is so much about the christian god that seems so highly implausible to me at this point. To be honest, I want to believe because I struggle with mental health quite a bit and it causes me a lot of suffering, and an all loving god is a really nice thought, but that doesn't mean it exists. I refuse to let my emotional needs create something to alleviate personal suffering. In other words, I am not going to believe something because it feels good. I want it to be true. I care more about truth, than about what feels good to my limited mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the concepts in your post are flawed fundamentalist views of who God is and stem from a lack of understanding of Scripture. Scripture is "God-breathed". It is inspired by God. That does not mean that God's hand entered the authors hand and wrote it out. The Bible is written by real men at real times in history in real cultures. It is written from a human standpoint. How else could man attempt to convey the traits of God but by human descriptions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds like an excuse for why god couldn't deliver a coherent, non-conradictory message. That's all i see. There is plenty of contra-diction in the bible, which itself contradicts that it was even god-breathed. What does god-breathed even mean?
Click to expand...


You know what is funny about this?? Everyone always asks, "Why wouldn't God just tell us the answers? Why wouldn't he come to earth and talk to us directly?" Here is a news flash for you. He did. God became a man. His name was Jesus Christ.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I concur with Hollie. Lonestar, you ask me to "leave you alone," yet in no way, do you leave me alone. Christians have been trying to inch their way into the political establishment since this country started
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Omigosh!! You and Hollie are crazy!!!! This country was founded by Christians and was made up almost entirely of Christians in the beginning. It is the atheist fundie Darwinist who are trying to screw up the country, rid it of morals, and lead it down a path of death and destruction and abortion and STD's and homosexuality and AIDS and rascism and hate and obesity and sloth and greed. These are the tenets of Materialism and Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the harm of religious thinking. Right here.
> 
> The composition of our population and the constitution have nothing to with each other.  What these people gave birth too wasn't necessarily christian just because they were. Anyway, they were deists, who rejected christianity.
Click to expand...


Uggggh. I am not even going to argue this. Historical revisionism at its best. We have been down this road before and I have proven first: They weren't Deist in the sense of what we call Deist today, and second, only two of the founders could be categorized as deist. Please stop surfing atheist revisionist websites and bringing this garbage here. I have posted this ad nauseum over 100 times but here it is again. Enlighten yourself. Church services were held in the Supreme Court and House of Representatives up until the end of the 1800's. Yeah, cause that sounds like separation of Religion and State. Here is the link but not sure how much longer it will be active if the revisionists like you and Manhands have their way. Next up: Book Burning. 

Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omigosh!! You and Hollie are crazy!!!! This country was founded by Christians and was made up almost entirely of Christians in the beginning. It is the atheist fundie Darwinist who are trying to screw up the country, rid it of morals, and lead it down a path of death and destruction and abortion and STD's and homosexuality and AIDS and rascism and hate and obesity and sloth and greed. These are the tenets of Materialism and Darwinism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the harm of religious thinking. Right here.
> 
> The composition of our population and the constitution have nothing to with each other.  What these people gave birth too wasn't necessarily christian just because they were. Anyway, they were deists, who rejected christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uggggh. I am not even going to argue this. Historical revisionism at its best. We have been down this road before and I have proven first: They weren't Deist in the sense of what we call Deist today, and second, only two of the founders could be categorized as deist. Please stop surfing atheist revisionist websites and bringing this garbage here. I have posted this ad nauseum over 100 times but here it is again. Enlighten yourself. Church services were held in the Supreme Court and House of Representatives up until the end of the 1800's. Yeah, cause that sounds like separation of Religion and State. Here is the link but not sure how much longer it will be active if the revisionists like you and Manhands have their way. Next up: Book Burning.
> 
> Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
Click to expand...

It is best you don't argue the above because you tend to dismantle your own arguments.

The facts are clear that the Founding Fathers were aware of the dangers of religion, especially Christianity. They also knew that religions are poorly disposed toward competing religions. That is why they crafted a constitution which specifically kept a muzzle on religion.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution does not provide predictive power ...
> 
> 
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]Evolution Predicts Ring Species[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This video is hogwash. I saw a bird turn into a bird turn into a bird. How do we get from a microbe to a microbiologist? That's what I want to see.
> 
> You've done exactly what you accuse me of doing. You think your attack on Creationism, which I don't subscribe to, bolsters the theory of evolution. It doesn't. Darwinism is still BS. Dogs will always have dogs. Dogs will never breed into elephants or giraffes or tyrannosaurus rex. Vertical change has never been proven. Call it a strawman, but according to evolution, if all the conditions were right, and the right random mutations were selected, this would have to be a possibility under your theory.
Click to expand...


Scientists, Darwinists, evilutionists, ect., don't necessarily denigrate creationists for the fact that they disagree with science. The aforementioned might bring forth creationist claims with occassionally unflattering terms but that's because of the sheer ignorance, willful mis-representation and sheer stupidity of creationists. The aforementioned will expose creationists when they falsify references, figures or invent / alter quotations. But we don't denigrate fundies for simply being cultists. Anyone has the right to be a cultist.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is preposterous!! No one questions the authorship or credibility of the Illiad and the Odyssey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the Iliad was meant to be taken as gospel, or to be used as a religion to guide people's lives. It is simple a story like any other. It is uncertain whether or not it recounts true events, as the trojan war itself can not be said to have taken place with any certainty. That is a major difference between that and the bible, which attempts to convince people that they will go to hell if they do not believe, because an all-powerful, and all-loving god will send them there.
> 
> The iliad and the odyssey do not make claims about a god ruling over our lives, and does not attempt to tell people how to live, because they are not books that attempt to establish any religion. They may mention gods, but not to proselytize. It was merely part of Homer's belief system. The point of the story was not to attempt to convince others to believe in god. It was to relate a story.
> 
> Further, the consequence of the iliad being wrong, is of no consequence at all, as far as our lives today go. It doesn't make any extraordinatry claims, so it wouldn't be a big deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Bible says people will go to a burning trash dump.
Click to expand...


That's where the fundie arguments have been relegated to.


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I concur with Hollie. Lonestar, you ask me to "leave you alone," yet in no way, do you leave me alone. Christians have been trying to inch their way into the political establishment since this country started
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Omigosh!! You and Hollie are crazy!!!! This country was founded by Christians and was made up almost entirely of Christians in the beginning. It is the atheist fundie Darwinist who are trying to screw up the country, rid it of morals, and lead it down a path of death and destruction and abortion and STD's and homosexuality and AIDS and rascism and hate and obesity and sloth and greed. These are the tenets of Materialism and Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the harm of religious thinking. Right here.
> 
> The composition of our population and the constitution have nothing to with each other.  What these people gave birth too wasn't necessarily christian just because they were. Anyway, they were deists, who rejected christianity.
Click to expand...


True. It's especially disturbing when creationists are relegated to offering nothing more than really vile, slanderous claims that "Darwinism" is the root cause of societal decay. It;s a total abandonment of any ethical standard on the part of "religious" zealots.

Its a common tactic of creationists to raise the issue of ethics in relation to evolution. Its a common tactic to claim Darwinism is the root of evil. The issue that fundies try to sidestep is that evolutionary science, along with all other science, is ethically neutral. What fundies also try to sidestep is that their religions of fear and superstition can be the true culprits in terms of creating maladjusted personalities.

Attempts have been made by fundies to draw moral conclusions from evolution. One of these attempts is configured as the so-called "social Darwinism" movement. Another is the eugenics movement. Biological science will identify that the fittest organism within a particular environment is more likely to survive. This dynamic is extrapolated to propose that only the fit should survive in society. This approach is not without an entire collection of ancillary assumptions, none of which are purely factual claims.

So the game is played by religionists that Darwinism (aside from being a corrupting force in society), is the root of all insidious forces that corrupt humanity. 

It may be the last, desperate tactic of fundie zealots to denigrate science. Effectively, all the fundie attempts to promote their gods have been dismantled by science so science is the fundie boogyman.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution does not provide predictive power ...
> 
> 
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]Evolution Predicts Ring Species[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This video is hogwash. I saw a bird turn into a bird turn into a bird. How do we get from a microbe to a microbiologist? That's what I want to see.
Click to expand...

I accept your surrender.



UltimateReality said:


> You've done exactly what you accuse me of doing.


Not even remotely true.



UltimateReality said:


> You think your attack on Creationism, which I don't subscribe to, bolsters the theory of evolution. It doesn't.


First, you're a creationist. If you subscribe to ID, you're just a less honest creationist ... and that's the end of that conversation.

Secondly, the facts of the matter is that ring species--not evolution--attacks your bullshit assertion regarding the predictive power of evolutionary theory.



UltimateReality said:


> Darwinism is still BS.


Just like Newtonism, yes we know. Your superstition has all the real answers.



UltimateReality said:


> Dogs will always have dogs.


Not in contention.



UltimateReality said:


> Dogs will never breed into elephants or giraffes or tyrannosaurus rex.


Strong evidence that biblical creationism is an utter farce.



UltimateReality said:


> Vertical change has never been proven.


This is just a denial of reality. Proven in the absolute sense that you demand of everything but your own private prejudices; no. But proven by the strength of the available evidence, most certainly.



UltimateReality said:


> Call it a strawman, but according to evolution, if all the conditions were right, and the right random mutations were selected, this would have to be a possibility under your theory.


The way you present such change as being "according to evolution" is an OBVIOUS strawman ... a DELIBERATE misrepresentation ... a lie repeated by you again and again because you can't accept that your baseless beliefs can possibly be wrong.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the concepts in your post are flawed fundamentalist views of who God is and stem from a lack of understanding of Scripture. Scripture is "God-breathed". It is inspired by God. That does not mean that God's hand entered the authors hand and wrote it out. The Bible is written by real men at real times in history in real cultures. It is written from a human standpoint. How else could man attempt to convey the traits of God but by human descriptions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds like an excuse for why god couldn't deliver a coherent, non-conradictory message. That's all i see. There is plenty of contra-diction in the bible, which itself contradicts that it was even god-breathed. What does god-breathed even mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what is funny about this?? Everyone always asks, "Why wouldn't God just tell us the answers? Why wouldn't he come to earth and talk to us directly?" Here is a news flash for you. He did. God became a man. His name was Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence for this. Just because it is written in a book, doesn't make it so. Multiple attestation is does not offer it any credibility, as multiple attestation can not be confirmed. Again, we have no signatures on ANY of the original documents. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all given later to these documents by someone else. As I said, the bible is not a credible source, especially for supernatural claims. We have no reason to take that book on faith, as this would imply be are skipping over the need for justification for belief. I don't understand how anyone could be so gullible, and actually think the bible is true, but the koran isn't, or that judaism is true. Its just a matter of where you live. If you lived in the middle east, you might be a suicide bomber who took an extremist view on Islam. You've been sold a package of lies, and you believed it. I think that's sad. And now, you can't assess scientific claims on their own merits, because you are holding them up to pre-established notions about how the world works, based on your theology. So, it is hindering your ability to see reality. That is the real tragedy with religious belief.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omigosh!! You and Hollie are crazy!!!! This country was founded by Christians and was made up almost entirely of Christians in the beginning. It is the atheist fundie Darwinist who are trying to screw up the country, rid it of morals, and lead it down a path of death and destruction and abortion and STD's and homosexuality and AIDS and rascism and hate and obesity and sloth and greed. These are the tenets of Materialism and Darwinism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the harm of religious thinking. Right here.
> 
> The composition of our population and the constitution have nothing to with each other.  What these people gave birth too wasn't necessarily christian just because they were. Anyway, they were deists, who rejected christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uggggh. I am not even going to argue this. Historical revisionism at its best. We have been down this road before and I have proven first: They weren't Deist in the sense of what we call Deist today, and second, only two of the founders could be categorized as deist. Please stop surfing atheist revisionist websites and bringing this garbage here. I have posted this ad nauseum over 100 times but here it is again. Enlighten yourself. Church services were held in the Supreme Court and House of Representatives up until the end of the 1800's. Yeah, cause that sounds like separation of Religion and State. Here is the link but not sure how much longer it will be active if the revisionists like you and Manhands have their way. Next up: Book Burning.
> 
> Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
Click to expand...


Even if all of the founders were fundamentalist christians, IT DOESN'T MATTER ONE BIT. So, whether they were deist or whatever, is not of any importance actually. This an argument from authority, in a way. What they produced, what they gave birth to with the constitution, wasn't necessarily christian. It does not follow that what they produced has any of that attributes that they themselves had. If you read a book by a Muslim about walking dogs, does that mean that the information in the book is "Muslim"? No. it's just information about walking dogs. Same thing. It doesn't matter who it came from. If it is sound advice, it must be assessed on its own merit. 

It's the same as an argument from authority because arguments must be assessed on their own merits, not who is making the argument or claim. The same with the constitution. You must assess the constitution and what it tries to establish on its own grounds. When you look at the constitution, the first amendment clearly establishes a separation of church and state, so I don't understand how you can honestly claim that their being christian, or deist, has anything to do with what they produced. It doesn't. It is illogical to say so, and is in fact, a logical fallacy.

I can see how you may say the same for the bible, when I am attacking the credibility of the bible based on lack of authorship. The claims and the purposes of the documents are different. The constitution is not positing the existence of anything in the universe. It is an agreed upon contract. That is not the same as the bible, which tries to convince people of a supernatural diety, and makes claims about the universe, its origins, the after life, etc... none of which is present in the constitution. Besides, we have actual signatures on the constitution, and we have ample historical documentation of those names signed on the document outside of the constitution, verified by other historians. There is barely applicable to the bible. There are hardly any extra-bibilical authors that attest to anything about Jesus existing. Josephus' account is considered by all biblical scholars to be a forgery, and any reference to Jesus is simply as "christus" and only talks about some guy being crucified. Nothing about miracles, nothing about preaching, none of that.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> It is best you don't argue the above because you tend to dismantle your own arguments.



It's best you don't make any statements at all because you dismantled your creidibility along time ago when you refused to tell anyone *where you went to college?*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution Predicts Ring Species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This video is hogwash. I saw a bird turn into a bird turn into a bird. How do we get from a microbe to a microbiologist? That's what I want to see.
> 
> You've done exactly what you accuse me of doing. You think your attack on Creationism, which I don't subscribe to, bolsters the theory of evolution. It doesn't. Darwinism is still BS. Dogs will always have dogs. Dogs will never breed into elephants or giraffes or tyrannosaurus rex. Vertical change has never been proven. Call it a strawman, but according to evolution, if all the conditions were right, and the right random mutations were selected, this would have to be a possibility under your theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...that's because of the sheer ignorance, willful mis-representation and sheer stupidity...
Click to expand...


Now there's the pot calling the kettle black!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution Predicts Ring Species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This video is hogwash. I saw a bird turn into a bird turn into a bird. How do we get from a microbe to a microbiologist? That's what I want to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accept your surrender.
> 
> Not even remotely true.
> 
> First, you're a creationist. If you subscribe to ID, you're just a less honest creationist ... and that's the end of that conversation.
> 
> Secondly, the facts of the matter is that ring species--not evolution--attacks your bullshit assertion regarding the predictive power of evolutionary theory.
> 
> Just like Newtonism, yes we know. Your superstition has all the real answers.
> 
> Not in contention.
> 
> Strong evidence that biblical creationism is an utter farce.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vertical change has never been proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is just a denial of reality. Proven in the absolute sense that you demand of everything but your own private prejudices; no. But proven by the strength of the available evidence, most certainly.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call it a strawman, but according to evolution, if all the conditions were right, and the right random mutations were selected, this would have to be a possibility under your theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way you present such change as being "according to evolution" is an OBVIOUS strawman ... a DELIBERATE misrepresentation ... a lie repeated by you again and again because you can't accept that your baseless beliefs can possibly be wrong.
Click to expand...


You are so full of BS it isn't even funny. There is ZERO evidence for vertical change. Adaptation is all you got, homeslice. Evolution claims with enough time, some random mutations and some natural selection, and a few "just so" stories, a mouse could become a man. You are an absolute LIAR if you claim anything else about the theory or pull out your pocket fallacy guide. 

It is, however, blatantly obvious that you are going the other direction, a man becoming a mouse.


----------



## newpolitics

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omigosh!! You and Hollie are crazy!!!! This country was founded by Christians and was made up almost entirely of Christians in the beginning. It is the atheist fundie Darwinist who are trying to screw up the country, rid it of morals, and lead it down a path of death and destruction and abortion and STD's and homosexuality and AIDS and rascism and hate and obesity and sloth and greed. These are the tenets of Materialism and Darwinism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the harm of religious thinking. Right here.
> 
> The composition of our population and the constitution have nothing to with each other.  What these people gave birth too wasn't necessarily christian just because they were. Anyway, they were deists, who rejected christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. It's especially disturbing when creationists are relegated to offering nothing more than really vile, slanderous claims that "Darwinism" is the root cause of societal decay. It;s a total abandonment of any ethical standard on the part of "religious" zealots.
> 
> It&#8217;s a common tactic of creationists to raise the issue of ethics in relation to evolution. It&#8217;s a common tactic to claim &#8220;Darwinism&#8221; is the root of evil. The issue that fundies try to sidestep is that evolutionary science, along with all other science, is ethically neutral. What fundies also try to sidestep is that their religions of fear and superstition can be the true culprits in terms of creating maladjusted personalities.
> 
> Attempts have been made by fundies to draw moral conclusions from evolution. One of these attempts is configured as the so-called "social Darwinism" movement. Another is the eugenics movement. Biological science will identify that the fittest organism within a particular environment is more likely to survive. This dynamic is extrapolated to propose that only the fit should survive in society. This approach is not without an entire collection of ancillary assumptions, none of which are purely factual claims.
> 
> So the game is played by religionists that &#8220;Darwinism&#8221; (aside from being a corrupting force in society), is the root of all insidious forces that corrupt humanity.
> 
> It may be the last, desperate tactic of fundie zealots to denigrate science. Effectively, all the fundie attempts to promote their gods have been dismantled by science so science is the fundie boogyman.
Click to expand...



Yes, it is actually logical incoherent to try to derive an "ought" from an "is" as David Hume wrote about many years ago. You can not get a prescription for behavior from a description of behavior. Evolution is merely a description of phenomena we see in the natural world, and in particular, patterns we see in the change of species over time. There is no logical way to derive morality from this description. It doesn't logically follow. This is can also be embodied in the naturalistic fallacy, which attempts to say that "what is natural or found in nature, is good," which is essentially the same thing.

Ironically, it is only christians that attempt to derive an ought from an is with regards to evolution in attempt to show that evolution is immoral, but as you said, evolution has nothing to do with morality, as it is simply a description of a natural process, not a prescription for how we should act or behave.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds like an excuse for why god couldn't deliver a coherent, non-conradictory message. That's all i see. There is plenty of contra-diction in the bible, which itself contradicts that it was even god-breathed. What does god-breathed even mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what is funny about this?? Everyone always asks, "Why wouldn't God just tell us the answers? Why wouldn't he come to earth and talk to us directly?" Here is a news flash for you. He did. God became a man. His name was Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence for this. Just because it is written in a book, doesn't make it so. Multiple attestation is does not offer it any credibility, as multiple attestation can not be confirmed. Again, we have no signatures on ANY of the original documents. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all given later to these documents by someone else. As I said, the bible is not a credible source, especially for supernatural claims. We have no reason to take that book on faith, as this would imply be are skipping over the need for justification for belief. I don't understand how anyone could be so gullible, and actually think the bible is true, but the koran isn't, or that judaism is true. Its just a matter of where you live. If you lived in the middle east, you might be a suicide bomber who took an extremist view on Islam. You've been sold a package of lies, and you believed it. *I think that's sad*. And now, you can't assess scientific claims on their own merits, because you are holding them up to pre-established notions about how the world works, based on your theology. So, it is hindering your ability to see reality. That is the real tragedy with religious belief.
Click to expand...


You should feel sad for yourself, because you are so lost. You've admitted already you are searching for something to fill your void but Christianity didn't cut it. You were waiting to get a "feeling" before you followed Christianity, but what you so hopelessly missed was you have to follow Christ first in order for the peace and joy to enter your life. That gnawing sensation in your soul isn't going away, my friend. 

Now you've embraced atheism. How's that working out for you? I'm sure you are totally content and sleeping like a baby at night just like me, huh?

So funny that a made up book, when followed, can result in the most freedom and contentment and joy the human soul is capable of. There is freedom in Christ. When followed, God's teachings result in a totally fulfilled life.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what is funny about this?? Everyone always asks, "Why wouldn't God just tell us the answers? Why wouldn't he come to earth and talk to us directly?" Here is a news flash for you. He did. God became a man. His name was Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence for this. Just because it is written in a book, doesn't make it so. Multiple attestation is does not offer it any credibility, as multiple attestation can not be confirmed. Again, we have no signatures on ANY of the original documents. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all given later to these documents by someone else. As I said, the bible is not a credible source, especially for supernatural claims. We have no reason to take that book on faith, as this would imply be are skipping over the need for justification for belief. I don't understand how anyone could be so gullible, and actually think the bible is true, but the koran isn't, or that judaism is true. Its just a matter of where you live. If you lived in the middle east, you might be a suicide bomber who took an extremist view on Islam. You've been sold a package of lies, and you believed it. *I think that's sad*. And now, you can't assess scientific claims on their own merits, because you are holding them up to pre-established notions about how the world works, based on your theology. So, it is hindering your ability to see reality. That is the real tragedy with religious belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should feel sad for yourself, because you are so lost. You've admitted already you are searching for something to fill your void but Christianity didn't cut it. You were waiting to get a "feeling" before you followed Christianity, but what you so hopelessly missed was you have to follow Christ first in order for the peace and joy to enter your life. That gnawing sensation in your soul isn't going away, my friend.
> 
> Now you've embraced atheism. How's that working out for you? I'm sure you are totally content and sleeping like a baby at night just like me, huh?
> 
> So funny that a made up book, when followed, can result in the most freedom and contentment and joy the human soul is capable of. There is freedom in Christ. When followed, God's teachings result in a totally fulfilled life.
Click to expand...


It's so funny that, a good feeling doesn't mean that god actually exists, at all. It simply means the concept of god makes you feel good. That's all. You associate the reward of good feeling with veracity about the supernatural claims, but that is fallacious. You're increased good feeling can be explained naturally. 


How dare you. You know nothing about me, or why I feel and think the way I do. Mental illness is not the product of lack of faith. It is the product of, for me, of bad formative social experiences that produced trauma and have caused my model of human relationships to be out of whack. The "hole" I find is a result of me being a social animal, and unable to fulfill that need whatsoever. I can not receive love or affection anymore, and do not trust people. I have massive social anxiety. This can be explained naturally within the timeline of my life and there have been times in my life when this was not the case, and it had nothing to do with god, but with relationships being better that are important to me, and my perception about reality being more clear. It is actually contained in the description of borderline personality disorder, that one feels "empty." So, you're prepared to make a scientific claim that this feeling in those with this disorder is caused by a lack of Jesus in their life?! Wow. You're ridiculous man.  You can't be that fucking arrogant to say something like you did based on so little information about me. You're an ass.

Actually, atheism has saved my life, in a sense. It caused me to look at my issues rationally, and I've made GIANT leaps since "recommitting to my atheism" in the last few months (shedding any lingering religious attachments or notions I've had). I have committed myself to logical, critical thinking, and evidence, and applying this to my maladaptive beliefs and thought patterns have more more progress than I ever did when I was attempting to find god. It was religion and superstitious thinking that kept me in my mental anguish for so long. So, go fuck yourself, and you're stupid fucking god. BTW, don't pray for me. It doesn't do anything.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This video is hogwash. I saw a bird turn into a bird turn into a bird. How do we get from a microbe to a microbiologist? That's what I want to see.
> 
> 
> 
> I accept your surrender.
> 
> Not even remotely true.
> 
> First, you're a creationist. If you subscribe to ID, you're just a less honest creationist ... and that's the end of that conversation.
> 
> Secondly, the facts of the matter is that ring species--not evolution--attacks your bullshit assertion regarding the predictive power of evolutionary theory.
> 
> Just like Newtonism, yes we know. Your superstition has all the real answers.
> 
> Not in contention.
> 
> Strong evidence that biblical creationism is an utter farce.
> 
> This is just a denial of reality. Proven in the absolute sense that you demand of everything but your own private prejudices; no. But proven by the strength of the available evidence, most certainly.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call it a strawman, but according to evolution, if all the conditions were right, and the right random mutations were selected, this would have to be a possibility under your theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way you present such change as being "according to evolution" is an OBVIOUS strawman ... a DELIBERATE misrepresentation ... a lie repeated by you again and again because you can't accept that your baseless beliefs can possibly be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so full of BS it isn't even funny.
Click to expand...

Yet you continue to fail to demonstrate.



UltimateReality said:


> There is ZERO evidence for vertical change.


You may be right. I assumed to know what you mean when you use the term "vertical change." It could (and likely is) just more of your bullshit.



UltimateReality said:


> Adaptation is all you got, homeslice.


This is you assuming that you know what you're talking about.



UltimateReality said:


> Evolution claims with enough time, some random mutations and some natural selection, and a few "just so" stories, a mouse could become a man.


No. It doesn't. That's magical thinking. That's creationism.



UltimateReality said:


> You are an absolute LIAR if you claim anything else about the theory or pull out your pocket fallacy guide.


No. You're wrong. Again. 



UltimateReality said:


> It is, however, blatantly obvious that you are going the other direction, a man becoming a mouse.


You're so remorselessly retarded. You never fail to produce the purest dumb.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the harm of religious thinking. Right here.
> 
> The composition of our population and the constitution have nothing to with each other.  What these people gave birth too wasn't necessarily christian just because they were. Anyway, they were deists, who rejected christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uggggh. I am not even going to argue this. Historical revisionism at its best. We have been down this road before and I have proven first: They weren't Deist in the sense of what we call Deist today, and second, only two of the founders could be categorized as deist. Please stop surfing atheist revisionist websites and bringing this garbage here. I have posted this ad nauseum over 100 times but here it is again. Enlighten yourself. Church services were held in the Supreme Court and House of Representatives up until the end of the 1800's. Yeah, cause that sounds like separation of Religion and State. Here is the link but not sure how much longer it will be active if the revisionists like you and Manhands have their way. Next up: Book Burning.
> 
> Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if all of the founders were fundamentalist christians, IT DOESN'T MATTER ONE BIT. So, whether they were deist or whatever, is not of any importance actually. This an argument from authority, in a way. What they produced, what they gave birth to with the constitution, wasn't necessarily christian. It does not follow that what they produced has any of that attributes that they themselves had. If you read a book by a Muslim about walking dogs, does that mean that the information in the book is "Muslim"? No. it's just information about walking dogs. Same thing. It doesn't matter who it came from. If it is sound advice, it must be assessed on its own merit.
Click to expand...

 Wow, for someone who says they just follow the evidence you sure rationalized this one away. What evil hold does Hollie have on you that you are falling for her revisionist BS? Pick up a history book for Man hands sake. England had an official Christian religion. The Pilgrim's came to America to spread the Gospel. The whole culture was steeped in Christianity. Most of the principles the US Government was founded on are Christian principles merely because that is what they all knew at the time. I'm done defending this. It's stupid to argue something so easily researched. And by the way, the *Founders WERE NOT Fundamentalists!!!!* GEEZ, you people are so blinded by your own prejudice its nauseating.



newpolitics said:


> It's the same as an argument from authority because arguments must be assessed on their own merits, not who is making the argument or claim. The same with the constitution. You must assess the constitution and what it tries to establish on its own grounds. When you look at the constitution, the first amendment clearly establishes a separation of church and state, so I don't understand how you can honestly claim that their being christian, or deist, has anything to do with what they produced. It doesn't. It is illogical to say so, and is in fact, a logical fallacy.



Separation of CHURCH and state, not religion and state. The Founders never meant for God to be removed from our government. Abraham [Bible Name] Lincoln prayed publicly all the time. So did a whole slew of other presidents with Jesus Disciple names like Thomas, James, John, and Andrew.



newpolitics said:


> I can see how you may say the same for the bible, when I am attacking the credibility of the bible based on lack of authorship. The claims and the purposes of the documents are different. The constitution is not positing the existence of anything in the universe. It is an agreed upon contract. That is not the same as the bible, which tries to convince people of a supernatural diety, and makes claims about the universe, its origins, the after life, etc... none of which is present in the constitution. Besides, we have actual signatures on the constitution, and we have ample historical documentation of those names signed on the document outside of the constitution, verified by other historians. There is barely applicable to the bible. There are hardly any extra-bibilical authors that attest to anything about Jesus existing. Josephus' account is considered by all biblical scholars to be a forgery, and any reference to Jesus is simply as "christus" and only talks about some guy being crucified. Nothing about miracles, nothing about preaching, none of that.



You treat the Bible as if it is a single book. We do have many other historical accounts. There are many different books in the collection called the New Testament. Just because the works by different authors are lumped together, why aren't they treated on their own merit? Do you have any idea what happened to Rome? And here it comes, your appeal to the masses... funny that such a huge force in the world could be tricked by some sandal wearing dude making some crazy claims about being God. 

History of late ancient Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I accept your surrender.
> 
> Not even remotely true.
> 
> First, you're a creationist. If you subscribe to ID, you're just a less honest creationist ... and that's the end of that conversation.
> 
> Secondly, the facts of the matter is that ring species--not evolution--attacks your bullshit assertion regarding the predictive power of evolutionary theory.
> 
> Just like Newtonism, yes we know. Your superstition has all the real answers.
> 
> Not in contention.
> 
> Strong evidence that biblical creationism is an utter farce.
> 
> This is just a denial of reality. Proven in the absolute sense that you demand of everything but your own private prejudices; no. But proven by the strength of the available evidence, most certainly.
> 
> The way you present such change as being "according to evolution" is an OBVIOUS strawman ... a DELIBERATE misrepresentation ... a lie repeated by you again and again because you can't accept that your baseless beliefs can possibly be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so full of BS it isn't even funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you continue to fail to demonstrate.
> 
> You may be right. I assumed to know what you mean when you use the term "vertical change." It could (and likely is) just more of your bullshit.
> 
> This is you assuming that you know what you're talking about.
> 
> No. It doesn't. That's magical thinking. That's creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an absolute LIAR if you claim anything else about the theory or pull out your pocket fallacy guide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You're wrong. Again.
Click to expand...


You just proved your intellectual dishonesty and what a rabid liar you are. I am done responding to any of your posts. If you can't tell the truth, there is no point in having a discussion with you. Peace.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so full of BS it isn't even funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you continue to fail to demonstrate.
> 
> You may be right. I assumed to know what you mean when you use the term "vertical change." It could (and likely is) just more of your bullshit.
> 
> This is you assuming that you know what you're talking about.
> 
> No. It doesn't. That's magical thinking. That's creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an absolute LIAR if you claim anything else about the theory or pull out your pocket fallacy guide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You're wrong. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just proved your intellectual dishonesty and what a rabid liar you are.
Click to expand...

Yet you cannot demonstrate a single lie ... any dishonesty at all. Why is that Cupcake?



UltimateReality said:


> I am done responding to any of your posts.


If substance is the measure of response, you haven't started responding to my posts.



UltimateReality said:


> If you can't tell the truth, there is no point in having a discussion with you. Peace.


I've told you nothing but truths. Too bad you can't reciprocate.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uggggh. I am not even going to argue this. Historical revisionism at its best. We have been down this road before and I have proven first: They weren't Deist in the sense of what we call Deist today, and second, only two of the founders could be categorized as deist. Please stop surfing atheist revisionist websites and bringing this garbage here. I have posted this ad nauseum over 100 times but here it is again. Enlighten yourself. Church services were held in the Supreme Court and House of Representatives up until the end of the 1800's. Yeah, cause that sounds like separation of Religion and State. Here is the link but not sure how much longer it will be active if the revisionists like you and Manhands have their way. Next up: Book Burning.
> 
> Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if all of the founders were fundamentalist christians, IT DOESN'T MATTER ONE BIT. So, whether they were deist or whatever, is not of any importance actually. This an argument from authority, in a way. What they produced, what they gave birth to with the constitution, wasn't necessarily christian. It does not follow that what they produced has any of that attributes that they themselves had. If you read a book by a Muslim about walking dogs, does that mean that the information in the book is "Muslim"? No. it's just information about walking dogs. Same thing. It doesn't matter who it came from. If it is sound advice, it must be assessed on its own merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, for someone who says they just follow the evidence you sure rationalized this one away. What evil hold does Hollie have on you that you are falling for her revisionist BS? Pick up a history book for Man hands sake. England had an official Christian religion. The Pilgrim's came to America to spread the Gospel. The whole culture was steeped in Christianity. Most of the principles the US Government was founded on are Christian principles merely because that is what they all knew at the time. I'm done defending this. It's stupid to argue something so easily researched. And by the way, the *Founders WERE NOT Fundamentalists!!!!* GEEZ, you people are so blinded by your own prejudice its nauseating.
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same as an argument from authority because arguments must be assessed on their own merits, not who is making the argument or claim. The same with the constitution. You must assess the constitution and what it tries to establish on its own grounds. When you look at the constitution, the first amendment clearly establishes a separation of church and state, so I don't understand how you can honestly claim that their being christian, or deist, has anything to do with what they produced. It doesn't. It is illogical to say so, and is in fact, a logical fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separation of CHURCH and state, not religion and state. The Founders never meant for God to be removed from our government. Abraham [Bible Name] Lincoln prayed publicly all the time. So did a whole slew of other presidents with Jesus Disciple names like Thomas, James, John, and Andrew.
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see how you may say the same for the bible, when I am attacking the credibility of the bible based on lack of authorship. The claims and the purposes of the documents are different. The constitution is not positing the existence of anything in the universe. It is an agreed upon contract. That is not the same as the bible, which tries to convince people of a supernatural diety, and makes claims about the universe, its origins, the after life, etc... none of which is present in the constitution. Besides, we have actual signatures on the constitution, and we have ample historical documentation of those names signed on the document outside of the constitution, verified by other historians. There is barely applicable to the bible. There are hardly any extra-bibilical authors that attest to anything about Jesus existing. Josephus' account is considered by all biblical scholars to be a forgery, and any reference to Jesus is simply as "christus" and only talks about some guy being crucified. Nothing about miracles, nothing about preaching, none of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You treat the Bible as if it is a single book. We do have many other historical accounts. They are many different books in the collection called the New Testament. Just because the works by different authors are lumped together, why aren't they treated on their own merit? Do you have any idea what happened to Rome? And here it comes, your appeal to the masses... funny that such a huge force in the world could be tricked by some sandal wearing dude making some crazy claims about being God.
> 
> History of late ancient Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what they were man. I just threw out fundamentalists because that is the most extreme view of christianity. I don't care what they were. You missed the point. It is non-sequitur to say that their religious affiliation personally, has anything to do with something they created. Whether they were fundie, moderate, whatever. Understand? 


There is no distinction between church and state, and god and state, because then you have to define god outside of scripture or religion, and you can't meaningfully do that, especially if you are going to use it to inform political decision. The more specific about your definition of god, the more it resembles a religion, and the easier it is to reject as such. This is the paradox of god and politics. The most vague definition of god, a deist god, doesn't really offer any prescriptions for living, so wouldn't hinder politics much. 


Funny that the world would be tricked by a lot of things. What's your point? Much of the world was "tricked" by Muhammed, by Moses, by Krishna... you're asking for special pleading to consider christian doctrine as true, when you have no more evidence than the next religion.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the harm of religious thinking. Right here.
> 
> The composition of our population and the constitution have nothing to with each other.  What these people gave birth too wasn't necessarily christian just because they were. Anyway, they were deists, who rejected christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. It's especially disturbing when creationists are relegated to offering nothing more than really vile, slanderous claims that "Darwinism" is the root cause of societal decay. It;s a total abandonment of any ethical standard on the part of "religious" zealots.
> 
> Its a common tactic of creationists to raise the issue of ethics in relation to evolution. Its a common tactic to claim Darwinism is the root of evil. The issue that fundies try to sidestep is that evolutionary science, along with all other science, is ethically neutral. What fundies also try to sidestep is that their religions of fear and superstition can be the true culprits in terms of creating maladjusted personalities.
> 
> Attempts have been made by fundies to draw moral conclusions from evolution. One of these attempts is configured as the so-called "social Darwinism" movement. Another is the eugenics movement. Biological science will identify that the fittest organism within a particular environment is more likely to survive. This dynamic is extrapolated to propose that only the fit should survive in society. This approach is not without an entire collection of ancillary assumptions, none of which are purely factual claims.
> 
> So the game is played by religionists that Darwinism (aside from being a corrupting force in society), is the root of all insidious forces that corrupt humanity.
> 
> It may be the last, desperate tactic of fundie zealots to denigrate science. Effectively, all the fundie attempts to promote their gods have been dismantled by science so science is the fundie boogyman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is actually logical incoherent to try to derive an "ought" from an "is" as David Hume wrote about many years ago. You can not get a prescription for behavior from a description of behavior. Evolution is merely a description of phenomena we see in the natural world,
Click to expand...


What, in your dreams at night?? That is the problem. We don't see new traits from random mutations providing an organism more fitness (that is, whatever definition the pseudoscientists feel like using for fitness at the time)


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. It's especially disturbing when creationists are relegated to offering nothing more than really vile, slanderous claims that "Darwinism" is the root cause of societal decay. It;s a total abandonment of any ethical standard on the part of "religious" zealots.
> 
> It&#8217;s a common tactic of creationists to raise the issue of ethics in relation to evolution. It&#8217;s a common tactic to claim &#8220;Darwinism&#8221; is the root of evil. The issue that fundies try to sidestep is that evolutionary science, along with all other science, is ethically neutral. What fundies also try to sidestep is that their religions of fear and superstition can be the true culprits in terms of creating maladjusted personalities.
> 
> Attempts have been made by fundies to draw moral conclusions from evolution. One of these attempts is configured as the so-called "social Darwinism" movement. Another is the eugenics movement. Biological science will identify that the fittest organism within a particular environment is more likely to survive. This dynamic is extrapolated to propose that only the fit should survive in society. This approach is not without an entire collection of ancillary assumptions, none of which are purely factual claims.
> 
> So the game is played by religionists that &#8220;Darwinism&#8221; (aside from being a corrupting force in society), is the root of all insidious forces that corrupt humanity.
> 
> It may be the last, desperate tactic of fundie zealots to denigrate science. Effectively, all the fundie attempts to promote their gods have been dismantled by science so science is the fundie boogyman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is actually logical incoherent to try to derive an "ought" from an "is" as David Hume wrote about many years ago. You can not get a prescription for behavior from a description of behavior. Evolution is merely a description of phenomena we see in the natural world,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What, in your dreams at night?? That is the problem. We don't see new traits from random mutations providing an organism more fitness (that is, whatever definition the pseudoscientists feel like using for fitness at the time)
Click to expand...

*Lenski.*


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. It's especially disturbing when creationists are relegated to offering nothing more than really vile, slanderous claims that "Darwinism" is the root cause of societal decay. It;s a total abandonment of any ethical standard on the part of "religious" zealots.
> 
> It&#8217;s a common tactic of creationists to raise the issue of ethics in relation to evolution. It&#8217;s a common tactic to claim &#8220;Darwinism&#8221; is the root of evil. The issue that fundies try to sidestep is that evolutionary science, along with all other science, is ethically neutral. What fundies also try to sidestep is that their religions of fear and superstition can be the true culprits in terms of creating maladjusted personalities.
> 
> Attempts have been made by fundies to draw moral conclusions from evolution. One of these attempts is configured as the so-called "social Darwinism" movement. Another is the eugenics movement. Biological science will identify that the fittest organism within a particular environment is more likely to survive. This dynamic is extrapolated to propose that only the fit should survive in society. This approach is not without an entire collection of ancillary assumptions, none of which are purely factual claims.
> 
> So the game is played by religionists that &#8220;Darwinism&#8221; (aside from being a corrupting force in society), is the root of all insidious forces that corrupt humanity.
> 
> It may be the last, desperate tactic of fundie zealots to denigrate science. Effectively, all the fundie attempts to promote their gods have been dismantled by science so science is the fundie boogyman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is actually logical incoherent to try to derive an "ought" from an "is" as David Hume wrote about many years ago. You can not get a prescription for behavior from a description of behavior. Evolution is merely a description of phenomena we see in the natural world,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What, in your dreams at night?? That is the problem. We don't see new traits from random mutations providing an organism more fitness (that is, whatever definition the pseudoscientists feel like using for fitness at the time)
Click to expand...


Uh, no, in reality. How do you know that we don't see new traits from random mutations? This happens every time a virus mutates. That's an example right there! How do you explain that away? It is highly plausible, being that mutations happen all the time as "copying" errors when RNA is used to copy DNA. RNA is not as stable as DNA, as I'm sure you know, and copying errors happen all the time, every day. Most of the time its nothing, but statistically, it is a certainty, that at least some of the time, there will be beneficial mutations. You CAN NOT DENY THIS. It is simple probability, no matter how small. There is no constraint on time with evolution, which means, that eventually, beneficial mutations will occur. It is unavoidable.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence for this. Just because it is written in a book, doesn't make it so. Multiple attestation is does not offer it any credibility, as multiple attestation can not be confirmed. Again, we have no signatures on ANY of the original documents. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all given later to these documents by someone else. As I said, the bible is not a credible source, especially for supernatural claims. We have no reason to take that book on faith, as this would imply be are skipping over the need for justification for belief. I don't understand how anyone could be so gullible, and actually think the bible is true, but the koran isn't, or that judaism is true. Its just a matter of where you live. If you lived in the middle east, you might be a suicide bomber who took an extremist view on Islam. You've been sold a package of lies, and you believed it. *I think that's sad*. And now, you can't assess scientific claims on their own merits, because you are holding them up to pre-established notions about how the world works, based on your theology. So, it is hindering your ability to see reality. That is the real tragedy with religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should feel sad for yourself, because you are so lost. You've admitted already you are searching for something to fill your void but Christianity didn't cut it. You were waiting to get a "feeling" before you followed Christianity, but what you so hopelessly missed was you have to follow Christ first in order for the peace and joy to enter your life. That gnawing sensation in your soul isn't going away, my friend.
> 
> Now you've embraced atheism. How's that working out for you? I'm sure you are totally content and sleeping like a baby at night just like me, huh?
> 
> So funny that a made up book, when followed, can result in the most freedom and contentment and joy the human soul is capable of. There is freedom in Christ. When followed, God's teachings result in a totally fulfilled life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's so funny that, a good feeling doesn't mean that god actually exists, at all. It simply means the concept of god makes you feel good. That's all. *You associate the reward of good feeling with veracity about the supernatural claims, but that is fallacious. *You're increased good feeling can be explained naturally.
Click to expand...


You know nothing of me. ^



newpolitics said:


> How dare you. You know nothing about me, or why I feel and think the way I do. Mental illness is not the product of lack of faith. It is the product of, for me, of bad formative social experiences that produced trauma and have caused my model of human relationships to be out of whack. The "hole" I find is a result of me being a social animal, and unable to fulfill that need whatsoever. I can not receive love or affection anymore, and do not trust people. I have massive social anxiety. This can be explained naturally within the timeline of my life and there have been times in my life when this was not the case, and it had nothing to do with god, but with relationships being better that are important to me, and my perception about reality being more clear. It is actually contained in the description of borderline personality disorder, that one feels "empty." So, you're prepared to make a scientific claim that this feeling in those with this disorder is caused by a lack of Jesus in their life?! Wow. You're ridiculous man.  You can't be that fucking arrogant to say something like you did based on so little information about me. You're an ass.
> 
> Actually, atheism has saved my life, in a sense. It caused me to look at my issues rationally, and I've made GIANT leaps since "recommitting to my atheism" in the last few months (shedding any lingering religious attachments or notions I've had). I have committed myself to logical, critical thinking, and evidence, and applying this to my maladaptive beliefs and thought patterns have more more progress than I ever did when I was attempting to find god. It was religion and superstitious thinking that kept me in my mental anguish for so long. So, go fuck yourself...



I think I will leave that chore for my wife. If you are going to continue to engage in public forums, you will need to learn not take everything so personally. It sounds like some evil was done to you at some time in your life. 

Actually, under the worldview you have chosen, *evil doesn't exist*. Neither does "good". It sounds like some human animals who couldn't help the programming in their flawed dna brains acted in some survival modes towards you in an attempt to prevent your from passing your dna on to the next generation and the really screwed up your normal adaptive response to stimuli. Under your worldview, who cares about you stupid problems? In less than 100 years you will be dead. In less than 200 years there won't even be a memory of you because everyone who knew you will be dead. It was all part of the cosmic joke. Under materialism your existence is meaningless so who gives a flying flip whether you live or die? 

Ah, but under Theism, *You have value!!* You are one of God's children and he cares about you and he will remember you in life and death. And you will be see your loved ones again. This earth, with all its pain and suffering, is not the final chapter. Your life will have mattered because it matters to God. The Bible says even a sparrow can't fall to the ground without God caring so how much more does he care for us. 

I really think you are just running from God. You've found that denying him makes it easier to rationalize your unwanted behaviors.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is actually logical incoherent to try to derive an "ought" from an "is" as David Hume wrote about many years ago. You can not get a prescription for behavior from a description of behavior. Evolution is merely a description of phenomena we see in the natural world,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, in your dreams at night?? That is the problem. We don't see new traits from random mutations providing an organism more fitness (that is, whatever definition the pseudoscientists feel like using for fitness at the time)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Lenski.*
Click to expand...


Hmm, I pretty sure this experiment has input from an *INTELLIGENT AGENT!!!*


----------



## UltimateReality

In general, viruses have been shown to be able to adapt to bind to related host cells that have similar surface features. In almost all cases the virus uses the same binding protein, and the same (mutated) binding site to attach to the new host cell. This also seems to be the case with Lenski's new work. As stated above, the first several mutations apparently strengthen the ability of the J protein to bind to the original site, LamB, while the fourth mutation allows it to bind to OmpF.

As the authors state, however, the mutated viral J protein can still bind to the original protein, LamB, which strongly suggests the same binding site (that is, the same location on the J protein) is being used. It turns out that both LamB and OmpF have similar three-dimensional structures, so that strengthening the binding to one fortuitously led to binding to the other.

In my review (Behe 2010) I discussed why this should be considered a "modification of function" event rather than a gain-of-function one. The bottom line is that the results are interesting and well done, but not particularly novel, nor particularly significant.

To me, the much more significant results of the new paper, although briefly mentioned, were not stressed as they deserved to be. The virus was not the only microbe evolving in the lab. *The E. coli also underwent several mutations. Unlike for lambda, these were not modification-of-function mutations -- they were complete loss-of-function mutations.*

The mechanism the bacterium used to turn off LamB in 99% of cells to resist initial lambda infection was to mutate to destroy its own gene locus called malT, which is normally useful to the cell. After acquiring the fourth mutation the virus could potentially invade and kill all cells. However, E. coli itself then mutated to prevent this, too. It mutated by destroying some genes involved in importing the sugar mannose into the bacterium. It turns out that this "mannose permease" is used by the virus to enter the interior of the cell. In its absence, infection cannot proceed.

So at the end of the day there was left the mutated bacteriophage lambda, still incompetent to invade most E. coli cells, plus mutated E. coli, now with broken genes which remove its ability to metabolize maltose and mannose.* It seems Darwinian evolution took a little step sideways and two big steps backwards.*

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/more_from_lensk055751.html


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should feel sad for yourself, because you are so lost. You've admitted already you are searching for something to fill your void but Christianity didn't cut it. You were waiting to get a "feeling" before you followed Christianity, but what you so hopelessly missed was you have to follow Christ first in order for the peace and joy to enter your life. That gnawing sensation in your soul isn't going away, my friend.
> 
> Now you've embraced atheism. How's that working out for you? I'm sure you are totally content and sleeping like a baby at night just like me, huh?
> 
> So funny that a made up book, when followed, can result in the most freedom and contentment and joy the human soul is capable of. There is freedom in Christ. When followed, God's teachings result in a totally fulfilled life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's so funny that, a good feeling doesn't mean that god actually exists, at all. It simply means the concept of god makes you feel good. That's all. *You associate the reward of good feeling with veracity about the supernatural claims, but that is fallacious. *You're increased good feeling can be explained naturally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know nothing of me. ^
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you. You know nothing about me, or why I feel and think the way I do. Mental illness is not the product of lack of faith. It is the product of, for me, of bad formative social experiences that produced trauma and have caused my model of human relationships to be out of whack. The "hole" I find is a result of me being a social animal, and unable to fulfill that need whatsoever. I can not receive love or affection anymore, and do not trust people. I have massive social anxiety. This can be explained naturally within the timeline of my life and there have been times in my life when this was not the case, and it had nothing to do with god, but with relationships being better that are important to me, and my perception about reality being more clear. It is actually contained in the description of borderline personality disorder, that one feels "empty." So, you're prepared to make a scientific claim that this feeling in those with this disorder is caused by a lack of Jesus in their life?! Wow. You're ridiculous man.  You can't be that fucking arrogant to say something like you did based on so little information about me. You're an ass.
> 
> Actually, atheism has saved my life, in a sense. It caused me to look at my issues rationally, and I've made GIANT leaps since "recommitting to my atheism" in the last few months (shedding any lingering religious attachments or notions I've had). I have committed myself to logical, critical thinking, and evidence, and applying this to my maladaptive beliefs and thought patterns have more more progress than I ever did when I was attempting to find god. It was religion and superstitious thinking that kept me in my mental anguish for so long. So, go fuck yourself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I will leave that chore for my wife. If you are going to continue to engage in public forums, you will need to learn not take everything so personally. It sounds like some evil was done to you at some time in your life.
> 
> Actually, under the worldview you have chosen, *evil doesn't exist*. Neither does "good". It sounds like some human animals who couldn't help the programming in their flawed dna brains acted in some survival modes towards you in an attempt to prevent your from passing your dna on to the next generation and the really screwed up your normal adaptive response to stimuli. Under your worldview, who cares about you stupid problems? In less than 100 years you will be dead. In less than 200 years there won't even be a memory of you because everyone who knew you will be dead. It was all part of the cosmic joke. Under materialism your existence is meaningless so who gives a flying flip whether you live or die?
> 
> Ah, but under Theism, *You have value!!* You are one of God's children and he cares about you and he will remember you in life and death. And you will be see your loved ones again. This earth, with all its pain and suffering, is not the final chapter. Your life will have mattered because it matters to God. The Bible says even a sparrow can't fall to the ground without God caring so how much more does he care for us.
> 
> I really think you are just running from God. You've found that denying him makes it easier to rationalize your unwanted behaviors.
Click to expand...


 Yes, I do take things too personally. I realize this. I have anger issues. But, when you tell me I am lost without a god you can not demonstrate with any evidence or logic, you sound completely ridiculous, and you are being insanely obnoxious. 

Religion and the concept of god actually depresses me, because I think it is so delusional, and requires such gullibility. I am not running from anything. Again, you are being obnoxious saying I am running from something that can't even be demonstrated to exist. It's laughable to me that you would say that.  The judaeo-christian god I am positive, does not exist. It is an internally contradictory concept of a god.


----------



## newpolitics

I will not believe something just because it feels good. I could also believe that I am god. That would be even better. Why not do that? As long as we are waiving truth altogether and simply trying to believe things that feel good, let's believe something that would make us feel truly amazing. 

It's not about feeling good. It's about truth. Reality exists whether we like it or not. It is our job to try and identify as best we can, what that reality consists of. Through logic, reason, and evidence, we can only do the best we can to assess reality using these tools, and at best, only arrive probabilities, unless certain things simply defy logic. Then certainty may be warranted in precluding something from reality (such as the christian god). If ones goal is simply to believe things that are most likely true, then faith becomes out of the question, as it requires no evidence, and as long as this is the standard for forming beliefs, we are vulnerable to believe ANYTHING. This is unacceptable. You are contained in your christianity because the scripture contains clauses which preclude you from entertaining other religious beliefs. If it didn't, christianity would lose its grasp and would never have survived this long. It is a giant sales pitch made by people, not god. Everything about religion can be explained naturally.

If I were to entertain a god at this point, it might be a deist god, but this is functionally pointless, and essentially is identical to atheism as far as my ontology for this universe would go, so I need no need for it.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> In general, viruses have been shown to be able to adapt to bind to related host cells that have similar surface features. In almost all cases the virus uses the same binding protein, and the same (mutated) binding site to attach to the new host cell. This also seems to be the case with Lenski's new work. As stated above, the first several mutations apparently strengthen the ability of the J protein to bind to the original site, LamB, while the fourth mutation allows it to bind to OmpF.
> 
> As the authors state, however, the mutated viral J protein can still bind to the original protein, LamB, which strongly suggests the same binding site (that is, the same location on the J protein) is being used. It turns out that both LamB and OmpF have similar three-dimensional structures, so that strengthening the binding to one fortuitously led to binding to the other.
> 
> In my review (Behe 2010) I discussed why this should be considered a "modification of function" event rather than a gain-of-function one. The bottom line is that the results are interesting and well done, but not particularly novel, nor particularly significant.
> 
> To me, the much more significant results of the new paper, although briefly mentioned, were not stressed as they deserved to be. The virus was not the only microbe evolving in the lab. *The E. coli also underwent several mutations. Unlike for lambda, these were not modification-of-function mutations -- they were complete loss-of-function mutations.*
> 
> The mechanism the bacterium used to turn off LamB in 99% of cells to resist initial lambda infection was to mutate to destroy its own gene locus called malT, which is normally useful to the cell. After acquiring the fourth mutation the virus could potentially invade and kill all cells. However, E. coli itself then mutated to prevent this, too. It mutated by destroying some genes involved in importing the sugar mannose into the bacterium. It turns out that this "mannose permease" is used by the virus to enter the interior of the cell. In its absence, infection cannot proceed.
> 
> So at the end of the day there was left the mutated bacteriophage lambda, still incompetent to invade most E. coli cells, plus mutated E. coli, now with broken genes which remove its ability to metabolize maltose and mannose.* It seems Darwinian evolution took a little step sideways and two big steps backwards.*
> 
> More from Lenski's Lab, Still Spinning Furiously - Evolution News & Views



You quoted an article from fucking Michael Behe? I'll be honest, I am not going to bother to read any of it, because it would be a waste of time. I don't care about some dick heads interpretation whose entire position is based on personal incredulity.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> In general, viruses have been shown to be able to adapt to bind to related host cells that have similar surface features. In almost all cases the virus uses the same binding protein, and the same (mutated) binding site to attach to the new host cell. This also seems to be the case with Lenski's new work. As stated above, the first several mutations apparently strengthen the ability of the J protein to bind to the original site, LamB, while the fourth mutation allows it to bind to OmpF.
> 
> As the authors state, however, the mutated viral J protein can still bind to the original protein, LamB, which strongly suggests the same binding site (that is, the same location on the J protein) is being used. It turns out that both LamB and OmpF have similar three-dimensional structures, so that strengthening the binding to one fortuitously led to binding to the other.
> 
> In my review (Behe 2010) I discussed why this should be considered a "modification of function" event rather than a gain-of-function one. The bottom line is that the results are interesting and well done, but not particularly novel, nor particularly significant.
> 
> To me, the much more significant results of the new paper, although briefly mentioned, were not stressed as they deserved to be. The virus was not the only microbe evolving in the lab. *The E. coli also underwent several mutations. Unlike for lambda, these were not modification-of-function mutations -- they were complete loss-of-function mutations.*
> 
> The mechanism the bacterium used to turn off LamB in 99% of cells to resist initial lambda infection was to mutate to destroy its own gene locus called malT, which is normally useful to the cell. After acquiring the fourth mutation the virus could potentially invade and kill all cells. However, E. coli itself then mutated to prevent this, too. It mutated by destroying some genes involved in importing the sugar mannose into the bacterium. It turns out that this "mannose permease" is used by the virus to enter the interior of the cell. In its absence, infection cannot proceed.
> 
> So at the end of the day there was left the mutated bacteriophage lambda, still incompetent to invade most E. coli cells, plus mutated E. coli, now with broken genes which remove its ability to metabolize maltose and mannose.* It seems Darwinian evolution took a little step sideways and two big steps backwards.*
> 
> More from Lenski's Lab, Still Spinning Furiously - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted an article from fucking Michael Behe? I'll be honest, I am not going to bother to read any of it, because it would be a waste of time. I don't care about some dick heads interpretation whose entire position is based on personal incredulity.
Click to expand...


So you won't read the comments based on who wrote it? So instead of addressing the salient points above, you just discredit the author. Sounds pretty ad hominem to me.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> In general, viruses have been shown to be able to adapt to bind to related host cells that have similar surface features. In almost all cases the virus uses the same binding protein, and the same (mutated) binding site to attach to the new host cell. This also seems to be the case with Lenski's new work. As stated above, the first several mutations apparently strengthen the ability of the J protein to bind to the original site, LamB, while the fourth mutation allows it to bind to OmpF.
> 
> As the authors state, however, the mutated viral J protein can still bind to the original protein, LamB, which strongly suggests the same binding site (that is, the same location on the J protein) is being used. It turns out that both LamB and OmpF have similar three-dimensional structures, so that strengthening the binding to one fortuitously led to binding to the other.
> 
> In my review (Behe 2010) I discussed why this should be considered a "modification of function" event rather than a gain-of-function one. The bottom line is that the results are interesting and well done, but not particularly novel, nor particularly significant.
> 
> To me, the much more significant results of the new paper, although briefly mentioned, were not stressed as they deserved to be. The virus was not the only microbe evolving in the lab. *The E. coli also underwent several mutations. Unlike for lambda, these were not modification-of-function mutations -- they were complete loss-of-function mutations.*
> 
> The mechanism the bacterium used to turn off LamB in 99% of cells to resist initial lambda infection was to mutate to destroy its own gene locus called malT, which is normally useful to the cell. After acquiring the fourth mutation the virus could potentially invade and kill all cells. However, E. coli itself then mutated to prevent this, too. It mutated by destroying some genes involved in importing the sugar mannose into the bacterium. It turns out that this "mannose permease" is used by the virus to enter the interior of the cell. In its absence, infection cannot proceed.
> 
> So at the end of the day there was left the mutated bacteriophage lambda, still incompetent to invade most E. coli cells, plus mutated E. coli, now with broken genes which remove its ability to metabolize maltose and mannose.* It seems Darwinian evolution took a little step sideways and two big steps backwards.*
> 
> More from Lenski's Lab, Still Spinning Furiously - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted an article from fucking Michael Behe? I'll be honest, I am not going to bother to read any of it, because it would be a waste of time. I don't care about some dick heads interpretation whose entire position is based on personal incredulity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you won't read the comments based on who wrote it? So instead of addressing the salient points above, you just discredit the author. Sounds pretty ad hominem to me.
Click to expand...


You'd be right. I have a bias against complete bullshit. His words aren't worth the paper they'd be printed on when it comes to evolution. His opinion is "the human cell is too amazing. Therefore, god did it." If he has so little respect for the truth, I have no respect for what he says. He employs one massive argument from ignorance. 

Not to mention, its all the same BS. Spinning facts to reach the conclusion they've already reached before looking at any evidence. That's not science.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, in your dreams at night?? That is the problem. We don't see new traits from random mutations providing an organism more fitness (that is, whatever definition the pseudoscientists feel like using for fitness at the time)
> 
> 
> 
> *Lenski.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, I pretty sure this experiment has input from an *INTELLIGENT AGENT!!!*
Click to expand...

Oh? You're "pretty sure."

Tell us about this input then. Tell us the means by which the Cit+ trait was intentionally added.

This should prove to be entertaining.


----------



## eots

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



You are confusing Christianity with intelligent design..


----------



## LOki

eots said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing Christianity with intelligent design..
Click to expand...

You're like a child ...


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Actually, under the worldview you have chosen, *evil doesn't exist*. Neither does "good".


This is nonsense. Good and evil are real.

However, with a theistic world view, good and evil are fundamentally interchangeable terms ... they are essentially meaningless in an existence where what is good and what is evil are subject to obedience, and not an objective reality.



UltimateReality said:


> Ah, but under Theism, *You have value!!*


As determined by the amount of money you can bring to the collection plate.



UltimateReality said:


> You are one of God's children and he cares about you and he will remember you in life and death.


This god of yours treats people like food.



UltimateReality said:


> And you will be see your loved ones again. This earth, with all its pain and suffering, is not the final chapter.


100% escapist superstition.



UltimateReality said:


> Your life will have mattered because it matters to God. The Bible says even a sparrow can't fall to the ground without God caring so how much more does he care for us.


*FOOD!*



UltimateReality said:


> I really think you are just running from God.


I think you're running from your intellectually and morally incompetent life.



UltimateReality said:


> You've found that denying him makes it easier to rationalize your unwanted behaviors.


You've found that laying the consequences of your intellectual and moral incompetence on some divine plan--and the assurance of forgiveness for just "believing"--is a convenient dodge for being responsible for your behavior.


----------



## ima

So if the world was made in 6 days and is what, 7000 years old, how are the dinosaur fossils explained?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should feel sad for yourself, because you are so lost. You've admitted already you are searching for something to fill your void but Christianity didn't cut it. You were waiting to get a "feeling" before you followed Christianity, but what you so hopelessly missed was you have to follow Christ first in order for the peace and joy to enter your life. That gnawing sensation in your soul isn't going away, my friend.
> 
> Now you've embraced atheism. How's that working out for you? I'm sure you are totally content and sleeping like a baby at night just like me, huh?
> 
> So funny that a made up book, when followed, can result in the most freedom and contentment and joy the human soul is capable of. There is freedom in Christ. When followed, God's teachings result in a totally fulfilled life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's so funny that, a good feeling doesn't mean that god actually exists, at all. It simply means the concept of god makes you feel good. That's all. *You associate the reward of good feeling with veracity about the supernatural claims, but that is fallacious. *You're increased good feeling can be explained naturally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know nothing of me. ^
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you. You know nothing about me, or why I feel and think the way I do. Mental illness is not the product of lack of faith. It is the product of, for me, of bad formative social experiences that produced trauma and have caused my model of human relationships to be out of whack. The "hole" I find is a result of me being a social animal, and unable to fulfill that need whatsoever. I can not receive love or affection anymore, and do not trust people. I have massive social anxiety. This can be explained naturally within the timeline of my life and there have been times in my life when this was not the case, and it had nothing to do with god, but with relationships being better that are important to me, and my perception about reality being more clear. It is actually contained in the description of borderline personality disorder, that one feels "empty." So, you're prepared to make a scientific claim that this feeling in those with this disorder is caused by a lack of Jesus in their life?! Wow. You're ridiculous man.  You can't be that fucking arrogant to say something like you did based on so little information about me. You're an ass.
> 
> Actually, atheism has saved my life, in a sense. It caused me to look at my issues rationally, and I've made GIANT leaps since "recommitting to my atheism" in the last few months (shedding any lingering religious attachments or notions I've had). I have committed myself to logical, critical thinking, and evidence, and applying this to my maladaptive beliefs and thought patterns have more more progress than I ever did when I was attempting to find god. It was religion and superstitious thinking that kept me in my mental anguish for so long. So, go fuck yourself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I will leave that chore for my wife. If you are going to continue to engage in public forums, you will need to learn not take everything so personally. It sounds like some evil was done to you at some time in your life.
> 
> Actually, under the worldview you have chosen, *evil doesn't exist*. Neither does "good". It sounds like some human animals who couldn't help the programming in their flawed dna brains acted in some survival modes towards you in an attempt to prevent your from passing your dna on to the next generation and the really screwed up your normal adaptive response to stimuli. Under your worldview, who cares about you stupid problems? In less than 100 years you will be dead. In less than 200 years there won't even be a memory of you because everyone who knew you will be dead. It was all part of the cosmic joke. Under materialism your existence is meaningless so who gives a flying flip whether you live or die?
> 
> Ah, but under Theism, *You have value!!* You are one of God's children and he cares about you and he will remember you in life and death. And you will be see your loved ones again. This earth, with all its pain and suffering, is not the final chapter. Your life will have mattered because it matters to God. The Bible says even a sparrow can't fall to the ground without God caring so how much more does he care for us.
> 
> I really think you are just running from God. You've found that denying him makes it easier to rationalize your unwanted behaviors.
Click to expand...


 So here you have the one of the various dynamics that motivates religious beliefs. The deep seated fear of inadequacy; of the inability to function without the security blanket of daddy, (the "father in heaven") to watch over us. I can imagine in the brutal and vicious times of how life came and went a few thousand years ago, there was comfort in the promise of a better life in some alleged afterlife. 

I can also imagine in those brutal, ancient times the deep seated desire that those who commit atrocities suffer greater than humans can manage. The lust for vengeance, and calling it justice. Well, it's not like that. Billions make no effort to examine their religious beliefs, they simply have them, make token nods to them, appeal to them in the hope of dying sooner, rather than later to gain spiritual and carnal rewards and cling to them when they die for comfort. Nothing difficult in that. Surprisingly, the gods are very adept at assisting people into the alleged afterlife. There is no more cruel or psychopathic mass murderer than the Christian gods. They have once wiped the planet of most of humanity simply because humanity was a disappointment. The next humanity wiping tirade will be via fire... because they are gods of love and compassion.

No, it's much harder to face truth coldly. It's far easier to believe in a loving father figure who will reward us (or p u n i s h us) based upon our understanding of a bunch of ancient rules written in the desert somewhere. It's a simple Santa Clause (purposeful mispelling) model that most people can embrace without having to take the time or expend the effort to examine critically.

It's not pleasant to think there's no "ultimate justice" out there. It sucks to realize that a dead Hitler or Mao or Stalin, etc., are beyond suffering for their cruelties. But it's the truth. And we need the truth to function properly, to explore, and learn. Our time is short, and we are beings that want to know what our universe is like, what it is, how it works. 

So what if a dead Hitler is roasting over a spit in a hell somewhere. How much roasting is required to bring justice for the millions upon millions of people who died as the result of his ideology? Justice would have been for the gods to roll a tank over Hitler back in 1939.

But the gods didn't do that. I guess all those millions of people who died during the ensuing war years failed the "test". Or maybe the gods were just too busy with their administrative duties to give a hoot. What the hey - as far as the gods are concerned, humans are a dime a dozen. 

This notion of eternal rewards or eternal punishment for arbitrarily defined offenses to god(s) have all the earmarks of an elite ruling class preying upon the fears and superstitions of others.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> All you have to do is identify an organism whose traits are suited to surviving in the environment it lives in, and then put that organism in an environment that the organisms traits are NOT suited to survive in.
> 
> If the organism survives anyway, then "fitness" is falsified.
> 
> Can you grasp that, Skippy?
> 
> No.
> 
> I'm done chasing down your retarded questions. If you had the decency of intellectual integrity to answer just one of mine, I would treat you differently. But I have answered all of your dumbass "stumpers" and what do I get in return when I ask you a question?
> 
> NOTHING. No quote, no link, no fucking answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So loki where are all the supposed transitional species that were better adapted to pass on their traits from one species to a destinctly new organism ? Why do we have the beginning species and none of of the transitional species that passed on their better adapted traits ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Demonstrated for you dozens of times already.
Click to expand...


Maybe that is what you believe in your mind but that is not the case through evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] and he "could have" taken two of every animal in with him [we see lots of animals rounded up by men for modern day zoo's] and a flood that covered the whole earth "might have" happened [we've seen some pretty big modern day floods with the tsunami's and all]. Sheesh, that sounds just like one of them there just so Darwin stories you are always spoutin' off about. Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.
> 
> In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either you accept biblical absurdities or you pretend they don't exist to preserve blind, unquestioning allegiance to an ancient book of tales and fables.
Click to expand...


The biggest absurdity is non life developed life 

Fables,that is the proper term for evolution not creation and design.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right, because it is special pleading. Why don't you believe in the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita? Simply because you were born, geographically where the bible is taught. There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran. They are supernatural claims that can not be backed up. What's worse, is that if this god does exist, why on earth would he be rely on ancient peoples to pass this on in the way that it happened? If this god is omnipotent, and wanted to communicate his message to his beings, he could have chosen a less controversial way to do so. There are too many glaring questions such as these if I were to accept the bible, and so I remain unconvinced about the truth of the bible whatsoever. I think it is an interesting document, but I don't  see how anybody could actually think it was inspired by an all-knowing, ever-present, loving deity. It would seem the opposite, made by a god who doesn't care enough to use better mediums to transmit his message. There is plenty of room for doubt in assessing the bible, and the excuse of faith is not a justification for believing, and it is not virtuous to have faith. It is gullibility, in  my opinion.
> 
> 
> As for why I am here, this is a creationist DEBATE thread made by someone who questioned creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
> 
> But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?
> 
> If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not so simple to "leave you alone" because the actions of religious people affect others.
> Plenty of people think Bibles and korrans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.
> 
> Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against your holy book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".
> 
> No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because Christians claim the bible has a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.
> 
> Logic allows us to read and understand the contextual message of Bibles at the very start. Without logic and reason, you wouldn't understand the thing at all. I see no reason then, halfway through, to jettison the same rules of logic and reason as magically inapplicable, simply because the book has some sort of special reputation as being "holy".
> 
> Read it like fiction. Because that is what it is. How do we know this? Because from the outset, it tells a tale that is demonstrably false, as false as the Origin fables of Valhalla, or the sky lodge of the Iroquois. We never have any debates over the whole "It's turtles all the way down" creation myths, do we?It's always the holy text of the week mythology we wrestle over.
> 
> Which is completely without merit.
Click to expand...


If i'm not mistaken there is more people that believe in a creator then naruralism. If you go back in time there were far more believers then non believers so who is having an effect on who ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
> 
> But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?
> 
> If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not so simple to "leave you alone" because the actions of religious people affect others.
> Plenty of people think Bibles and korrans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.
> 
> Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against your holy book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".
> 
> No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because Christians claim the bible has a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.
> 
> Logic allows us to read and understand the contextual message of Bibles at the very start. Without logic and reason, you wouldn't understand the thing at all. I see no reason then, halfway through, to jettison the same rules of logic and reason as magically inapplicable, simply because the book has some sort of special reputation as being "holy".
> 
> Read it like fiction. Because that is what it is. How do we know this? Because from the outset, it tells a tale that is demonstrably false, as false as the Origin fables of Valhalla, or the sky lodge of the Iroquois. We never have any debates over the whole "It's turtles all the way down" creation myths, do we?It's always the holy text of the week mythology we wrestle over.
> 
> Which is completely without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I concur with Hollie. Lonestar, you ask me to "leave you alone," yet in no way, do you leave me alone. Christians have been trying to inch their way into the political establishment since this country started, and in doing so, attempt to affect my life. It is again, asking for special treatment of me to not bother you, when your beliefs are responsible for attempts at undermining the constitution, and my rights.
Click to expand...


Wrong,our culture has changed due to people with vivid imaginations trying to say everything is the result of natural processes but have zero evidence supporting their view and you call out Christians for having faith in an unseen force.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would it take for you to believe?
> 
> Do you need a miracle? Do you need to see God with your own eyes?
> 
> As a Christian I believe the only way to The Father is through the Son. So both Chistianity and Islam cannot be true. IMO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would take a miracle for me to believe, because at this point, I think the christian god is a logical impossibility, by its very own definition. It is claimed to be a perfect being, yet needs a relationship with us. That is a contradiction. A perfect being wouldn't need anything, and wouldn't be jealous. These are all very human attributes, and so, imperfect. I am therefore absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist. However, I can not be certain that some kind of deity does exist somewhere within, or even outside the universe, such as a deist god. There is so much about the christian god that seems so highly implausible to me at this point. To be honest, I want to believe because I struggle with mental health quite a bit and it causes me a lot of suffering, and an all loving god is a really nice thought, but that doesn't mean it exists. I refuse to let my emotional needs create something to alleviate personal suffering. In other words, I am not going to believe something because it feels good. I want it to be true. I care more about truth, than about what feels good to my limited mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if one is perect he doesn't need relationships? Explain that.
> 
> Why wouldn't God share some of the same attributes as his creations?
> 
> In order to be a Christian it requires faith.
Click to expand...


The difference is Christians admit their faith the secularists cannot or will not admit to the faith required to believe some of the theories they hold onto. The question is why do they call out others that have faith in their beliefs.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would take a miracle for me to believe, because at this point, I think the christian god is a logical impossibility, by its very own definition. It is claimed to be a perfect being, yet needs a relationship with us. That is a contradiction. A perfect being wouldn't need anything, and wouldn't be jealous. These are all very human attributes, and so, imperfect. I am therefore absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist. However, I can not be certain that some kind of deity does exist somewhere within, or even outside the universe, such as a deist god. There is so much about the christian god that seems so highly implausible to me at this point. To be honest, I want to believe because I struggle with mental health quite a bit and it causes me a lot of suffering, and an all loving god is a really nice thought, but that doesn't mean it exists. I refuse to let my emotional needs create something to alleviate personal suffering. In other words, I am not going to believe something because it feels good. I want it to be true. I care more about truth, than about what feels good to my limited mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if one is perect he doesn't need relationships? Explain that.
> 
> Why wouldn't God share some of the same attributes as his creations?
> 
> In order to be a Christian it requires faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is faith but a lack of evidence? It's an excuse people give when they don't have proper evidence, reason, or logic. They simply want to believe. That is not a pathway to truth, but one to self-deception.
> 
> Yes, if one is perfect, how can it need anything. It is perfect. It contains no deficiencies. No needs to make it whole, because it is perfect in and itself, without need for anything exterior to it. Explain to me how a perfect being can need anything and still be a perfect being.
> 
> This isn't the only logical contradiction with god. How can he be so stupid as to leave his message with people 2,000 years ago, and being omniscient, would know ahead of time, that the bible would be mistranslated, copied, and used to incite war, genocide, and massive evils. If he really cared, he would have made it crystal clear what the message was, and we would all know. Further, how can a god condemn those he created to eternal torment? That contradicts a god who is omnibenevolent and omnipotent. He could have gotten rid of the devil and hell if he simply wanted to, but doesn't. Therefore, he is not all powerful and all-good, and does not exist, by  his own definition. Christianity gives you the cure to an illness it creates. It tells you that you are sinful, and then gives you the antidote. It's a mindfuck. A trap. It is manipulative, and the god of the bible is an war-mongerer, who uses a loophole in the new testament to fix mistakes he made in the past, again, another contradiction for a perfect being. He should have gotten it right the first time. He didn't need to send his son to forgive us our sins. He can forgive us if he wants to, and knowing everything about us, believing in his son is only a technicality, and shouldn't be the difference between eternal torment and not bliss. That's completely lopsided justice. Simply believing in god does not make anyone a good person. It makes them simply gullible.
> 
> Also, justice and mercy are contradictory, because mercy is a suspension of justice. So, you can not define god as being perfectly just and all-merciful. These two attributes can not logically co-exist.
> 
> A much more likely explanation for the existence of the concept of god in many people, is that he is made up in order to console our existential qualms with reality, because we are animals that aware of the future, our own mortality, and acutely aware of our own suffering.
Click to expand...


So what is your evidence for life coming from non-life ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, I've watched the video and listened to some of his assertions and I just don't agree with them. He is basing his points of HIS interpretation of the Creation story outlined in Genesis. He says that the you can't refute the fact that Genesis refers to 7 solar days, but for the first three "days" of Creation, we don't even have the sun yet.  Also, he claims the author is repeating himself when talking about man twice. I get the whole argument about the dating methods and their inaccuracy. Even Loki would admit they are scientifically proven for the short timeframe we can measure and account for. However, I've been to the Grand Canyon. I've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to a much older earth. But back to the story:  If I want to take the Creation story literally and chronologically, I have to consider the fact the story about Adam comes later after Creation and after spirit-less hominids, male and female, roamed the earth, and multiplied. There are two stories, one in which male and female are created in a day, and another in which Adam was created, hung out with the animals in the garden for a while and then got lonely. Does it only take Adam 24 hours to name the animals and realize he needs a woman? The speaker has not considered this. He tells me to take the Bible exactly as it is written, but then he does not do so himself. If male and female were created in a solar day, then this does not reconcile with the Adam and Eve story. I believe God did place his new Creation, Homo Sapien, in the garden. Again, let's take the Bible exactly as it is written. We are told Adam and Eve have two sons. We are not told of any other children prior to this. Yet Cain goes to another land and takes a wife. The guy in your video wants to make up the fact that Adam and Eve had other children, but how can this additive story reconcile with the Bible? It can't. Again, your speaker is not taking the Bible for what it exactly says, but is filling in the blanks to make HIS version of the story fit his interpretation. Cain took a Neanderthal wife and there is dna evidence to back this up. Also, this interpretation of the story can be reconciled with fossil evidence, and it doesn't cram all of Creation into 6,000 years. Creationists are locked into as 6,000 year old earth, because they cling to the notion everything was made in six earthly days, including Adam, and then they lock themselves into the calculations of times for the genealogy of Christ. However, if they actually read Genesis for the information it conveyed to the Jews at the time it was written, they would realize that the earth could have existed for billions of years, and the garden of Eden only in the last six to ten thousand years. They also miss the Jewish tradition of leaving un-noteworthy individuals out of the family tree, so the genealogy fails to account for missing generations. I put the garden at 10,000 years ago and believe God visited the earth to create them both with a new dna structure.  Adam would be different than all the hominids before. They would be given the choice. He would no longer act on instinct, but would choose to have God's knowledge of good and evil. An animal does not care that it is naked. An animal has no remorse over killing its food. Adam and Eve would be different. They would see things through God's eyes. Once they ate of the tree, they immediately realized they were naked.
> 
> Some of the points I've made can be crammed fit into the Creation story. Yet, I don't really even feel the need to do that to a point. Jesus was fond of telling parables that conveyed a deeper meaning. How do we, as modern day Christians, know that Moses was writing down a literal story. Maybe it was a parable told to generations of Jews to convey the deeper principles of the fall. The Jews at the time could have no the story was a metaphor, but over the course of thousands of years, someone along the way decided it was literal. Who was that? And again, my question for you, who decided Christ command to gouge out your eye was not literal? There are alot of Christians that just want a little neat black and white story that doesn't beg any questions. They need to fit Christianity into a little box because they don't want to think about the bigger questions. I do want to think about the bigger questions. While I believe the Bible is true, God is not the Bible. And God cannot be contained in the Bible. The Bible says God spat stars out of his "mouth" [I don't believe God has a mouth. The Bible also says God is spirit. Obviously, I believe Jesus had a mouth while he was on earth ]. Do you have any idea how big Star R136a1 is? I don't need to make my massive God fit in 66 tiny little books. I believe the Bible is inspired scripture, but it isn't God. It was written by man, and it can't contain God, or even begin to describe how awesome and how massive our Creator is. If most Christians really had a feel for the reality of that, they would be alot more humble, myself included.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say what the light was before the sun and moon was created but clearly he described a day as we see it. If you do not trust the bible what are your beliefs in God based on ? Why are elements still found in rocks that should have been gone in an old world view ? That is supposedly what the age of the earth is based on correct ? At the rate the moon  and earth are receding that to is a problem for old earth views. If the bible was inspired by God that is the only book that provides an eyewitness to creation and the beginning. If would put text books ahead of what the bible say's in a sense what is being done ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. This errors on that fundamentalist belief of "I'm right/You're wrong" or "I'm the only one that has the truth and you don't." I believe the Bible is ABSOLUTELY true. I am just not good with some fundamentalist interpretations of it, 6,000 year old earth being one of them. Most people can't read Genesis without preconceived notions from their parents or pastor or the current religious party line. I take the Bible at exactly what is says. Light and Dark existed because God created photons. The Bible CLEARLY states the Sun and Moon came along after several days of Creation. So how can your guy say there is no doubt these were 7 literal solar days?? Here is a guide on interpretation that might clear some things up. There are a great many denominations that don't have this grasp on interpreting the Bible. It is called Hermenutics:
> 
> How to Enjoy Bible Study - Grace to You with John MacArthur
> 
> I said it before. When you pretend Genesis was written for us in the 21st Century, you rob it of its originally meaning and power.
> 
> "You might have watched, along with some of us, in horror sometime back if you happened to be watching the Trinity Broadcasting Network, they were interviewing a guest on one of their "Talk Shows," and he was explaining the Biblical basis of his ministry of "Possibility Thinking." This is a quote, "My ministry is based entirely on my life verse, Matthew 19:26, 'With God all things are possible.' God gave me that verse (Matthew 19:26) because I was born in 1926." Obviously, intrigued by that method of obtaining a life verse, the host grabbed a Bible and began thumbing through it excitedly. "I was born in 1934," he said. "My life verse must be Matthew 19:34! What does it say?" Then he discovered that Matthew 19 has only 30 verses! Undeterred, he flipped to Luke, and read Luke 19:34, and they said, "The Lord hath need of Him." Thrilled, he exclaimed, "The Lord has need of me, the Lord has need of me!" What a wonderful life verse. I never had a life verse before, but now the Lord has given me one. Thank You, 0h Jesus, Hallelujah. And the studio audience began to applaud.
> 
> At that moment, however, the "Talk Show" host's wife who had also turned to Luke 19, said, "Wait a minute, you can't use this. This verse is talking about a donkey!" That incident, while being absolutely ludicrous and bizarre, gives you some idea of the "willy-nilly way" that some Charismatics approach Scripture. Some of them, looking for a word from the Lord, play a sort of Bible roulette. They spin the Bible at random, looking for something that might seem applicable to whatever trial or need they are facing and they find a verse and say, "Well, the Lord gave me that verse." And then the Lord supposedly gave them the interpretation of it. These are silly and foolish ways to approach the study of the Bible."
> 
> Charismatic Chaos - By John MacArthur
Click to expand...


Why are we to believe a day that we witness today was longer back then ? I believe the light that existed when God created was himself. Why is he called the light of the world does that mean just because he is truth ?

So we should ignore the chronology of man that was given by the word of God. I will respectfully disagree with you. If God can say let there be light and there was light we can interpret that as it taking a long period of time for that light to appear.

But still you are basing your views off mans assumptions the same men who say we are products of natural processes and we are all products of evolution. I still think you should watch that video I posted and go through each scripture that is brought to our attention.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, I've watched the video and listened to some of his assertions and I just don't agree with them. He is basing his points of HIS interpretation of the Creation story outlined in Genesis. He says that the you can't refute the fact that Genesis refers to 7 solar days, but for the first three "days" of Creation, we don't even have the sun yet.  Also, he claims the author is repeating himself when talking about man twice. I get the whole argument about the dating methods and their inaccuracy. Even Loki would admit they are scientifically proven for the short timeframe we can measure and account for. However, I've been to the Grand Canyon. I've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to a much older earth. But back to the story:  If I want to take the Creation story literally and chronologically, I have to consider the fact the story about Adam comes later after Creation and after spirit-less hominids, male and female, roamed the earth, and multiplied. There are two stories, one in which male and female are created in a day, and another in which Adam was created, hung out with the animals in the garden for a while and then got lonely. Does it only take Adam 24 hours to name the animals and realize he needs a woman? The speaker has not considered this. He tells me to take the Bible exactly as it is written, but then he does not do so himself. If male and female were created in a solar day, then this does not reconcile with the Adam and Eve story. I believe God did place his new Creation, Homo Sapien, in the garden. Again, let's take the Bible exactly as it is written. We are told Adam and Eve have two sons. We are not told of any other children prior to this. Yet Cain goes to another land and takes a wife. The guy in your video wants to make up the fact that Adam and Eve had other children, but how can this additive story reconcile with the Bible? It can't. Again, your speaker is not taking the Bible for what it exactly says, but is filling in the blanks to make HIS version of the story fit his interpretation. Cain took a Neanderthal wife and there is dna evidence to back this up. Also, this interpretation of the story can be reconciled with fossil evidence, and it doesn't cram all of Creation into 6,000 years. Creationists are locked into as 6,000 year old earth, because they cling to the notion everything was made in six earthly days, including Adam, and then they lock themselves into the calculations of times for the genealogy of Christ. However, if they actually read Genesis for the information it conveyed to the Jews at the time it was written, they would realize that the earth could have existed for billions of years, and the garden of Eden only in the last six to ten thousand years. They also miss the Jewish tradition of leaving un-noteworthy individuals out of the family tree, so the genealogy fails to account for missing generations. I put the garden at 10,000 years ago and believe God visited the earth to create them both with a new dna structure.  Adam would be different than all the hominids before. They would be given the choice. He would no longer act on instinct, but would choose to have God's knowledge of good and evil. An animal does not care that it is naked. An animal has no remorse over killing its food. Adam and Eve would be different. They would see things through God's eyes. Once they ate of the tree, they immediately realized they were naked.
> 
> Some of the points I've made can be crammed fit into the Creation story. Yet, I don't really even feel the need to do that to a point. Jesus was fond of telling parables that conveyed a deeper meaning. How do we, as modern day Christians, know that Moses was writing down a literal story. Maybe it was a parable told to generations of Jews to convey the deeper principles of the fall. The Jews at the time could have no the story was a metaphor, but over the course of thousands of years, someone along the way decided it was literal. Who was that? And again, my question for you, who decided Christ command to gouge out your eye was not literal? There are alot of Christians that just want a little neat black and white story that doesn't beg any questions. They need to fit Christianity into a little box because they don't want to think about the bigger questions. I do want to think about the bigger questions. While I believe the Bible is true, God is not the Bible. And God cannot be contained in the Bible. The Bible says God spat stars out of his "mouth" [I don't believe God has a mouth. The Bible also says God is spirit. Obviously, I believe Jesus had a mouth while he was on earth ]. Do you have any idea how big Star R136a1 is? I don't need to make my massive God fit in 66 tiny little books. I believe the Bible is inspired scripture, but it isn't God. It was written by man, and it can't contain God, or even begin to describe how awesome and how massive our Creator is. If most Christians really had a feel for the reality of that, they would be alot more humble, myself included.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry UR i have to ask this,you get onto evolutionist using maybe's, might haves, and possible faulty assumptions for evolution but you don't have that same view on the same explanations for the age of the universe and earth, why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, I believe any decay based dating method can't be proven. However, I look at the preponderance of the evidence for an old earth and find it to be overwhelming. I am not saying you don't have valid points. I'm just saying the things young earth Creationist hone in on aren't the entire body of the evidence.
Click to expand...


There are many evidences that contradict the conclusions of old earth believers.



The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] and he "could have" taken two of every animal in with him [we see lots of animals rounded up by men for modern day zoo's] and a flood that covered the whole earth "might have" happened [we've seen some pretty big modern day floods with the tsunami's and all]. Sheesh, that sounds just like one of them there just so Darwin stories you are always spoutin' off about. Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.
> 
> In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think what you mean is either I believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of the sciptures or I don't. God inspired the book. He isn't the book.
Click to expand...


Please provide scriptures that support your old earth beliefs. I will provide scriptures in this article that support my position.

Days or ages in Genesis 1


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.
> 
> 
> 
> Either you accept biblical absurdities or you pretend they don't exist to preserve blind, unquestioning allegiance to an ancient book of tales and fables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The biggest absurdity is non life developed life
> 
> Fables,that is the proper term for evolution not creation and design.
Click to expand...


Of course, a visit to any university library would prove you wrong. The problem that fundies cannot confront is that sciences of evolution and earth history (geology), are in direct conflict with a 6000 year old earth. The fundie has no choice but to launch into hysterical denials.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Christian thought, humans have free will, which made it possible for them to choose sin, not God. Under evolutionary philosophy, there is no free will for humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing the logic is that if life evolves then it doesn't have free will? You lost me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing UR says makes any sense ...he never lets that simple fact get in his way .....when answering UR and YWC'S POST remember they have zero evidence.
Click to expand...


I have shown the absudity you believe and you have no rebuttal to it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from a spewer of the worst kind of nonsense!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how life began daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, and neither do you....
Click to expand...


Thank you for finally admitting both our views are based on faith.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think what you mean is either I believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of the sciptures or I don't. God inspired the book. He isn't the book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please provide scriptures that support your old earth beliefs. I will provide scriptures in this article that support my position.
> 
> Days or ages in Genesis 1
Click to expand...


Please provide a meaningful way to test the biblical tales for accuracy.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think what you mean is either I believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of the sciptures or I don't. God inspired the book. He isn't the book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please provide scriptures that support your old earth beliefs. I will provide scriptures in this article that support my position.
> 
> Days or ages in Genesis 1
Click to expand...


Progressive creationism is for those who know the bible is wrong in its 6 days theory. But Moses did only have 40 days to come up with the pantload that he did, so I'll cut him some slack. He must of inhaled too much of the burning bush and been chillin' for most of the 40 days.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either you accept biblical absurdities or you pretend they don't exist to preserve blind, unquestioning allegiance to an ancient book of tales and fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest absurdity is non life developed life
> 
> Fables,that is the proper term for evolution not creation and design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, a visit to any university library would prove you wrong. The problem that fundies cannot confront is that sciences of evolution and earth history (geology), are in direct conflict with a 6000 year old earth. The fundie has no choice but to launch into hysterical denials.
Click to expand...


Your problem is you think we (Christians) all believe in a 6,000 year old earth. I don't know how old the earth is, nor do you or anyone else for that matter.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest absurdity is non life developed life
> 
> Fables,that is the proper term for evolution not creation and design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a visit to any university library would prove you wrong. The problem that fundies cannot confront is that sciences of evolution and earth history (geology), are in direct conflict with a 6000 year old earth. The fundie has no choice but to launch into hysterical denials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your problem is you think we (Christians) all believe in a 6,000 year old earth. I don't know how old the earth is, nor do you or anyone else for that matter.
Click to expand...


A Radiometric Dating Resource List 

Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology - SpringerLink 

As of January, 1999, The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). This is reported in the paper Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada by Samuel A. Bowring & Ian S. Williams; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134(1): 3-16, January 1999. The previous record was 3.96 billion years, set in 1989.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's so funny that, a good feeling doesn't mean that god actually exists, at all. It simply means the concept of god makes you feel good. That's all. *You associate the reward of good feeling with veracity about the supernatural claims, but that is fallacious. *You're increased good feeling can be explained naturally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing of me. ^
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you. You know nothing about me, or why I feel and think the way I do. Mental illness is not the product of lack of faith. It is the product of, for me, of bad formative social experiences that produced trauma and have caused my model of human relationships to be out of whack. The "hole" I find is a result of me being a social animal, and unable to fulfill that need whatsoever. I can not receive love or affection anymore, and do not trust people. I have massive social anxiety. This can be explained naturally within the timeline of my life and there have been times in my life when this was not the case, and it had nothing to do with god, but with relationships being better that are important to me, and my perception about reality being more clear. It is actually contained in the description of borderline personality disorder, that one feels "empty." So, you're prepared to make a scientific claim that this feeling in those with this disorder is caused by a lack of Jesus in their life?! Wow. You're ridiculous man.  You can't be that fucking arrogant to say something like you did based on so little information about me. You're an ass.
> 
> Actually, atheism has saved my life, in a sense. It caused me to look at my issues rationally, and I've made GIANT leaps since "recommitting to my atheism" in the last few months (shedding any lingering religious attachments or notions I've had). I have committed myself to logical, critical thinking, and evidence, and applying this to my maladaptive beliefs and thought patterns have more more progress than I ever did when I was attempting to find god. It was religion and superstitious thinking that kept me in my mental anguish for so long. So, go fuck yourself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I will leave that chore for my wife. If you are going to continue to engage in public forums, you will need to learn not take everything so personally. It sounds like some evil was done to you at some time in your life.
> 
> Actually, under the worldview you have chosen, *evil doesn't exist*. Neither does "good". It sounds like some human animals who couldn't help the programming in their flawed dna brains acted in some survival modes towards you in an attempt to prevent your from passing your dna on to the next generation and the really screwed up your normal adaptive response to stimuli. Under your worldview, who cares about you stupid problems? In less than 100 years you will be dead. In less than 200 years there won't even be a memory of you because everyone who knew you will be dead. It was all part of the cosmic joke. Under materialism your existence is meaningless so who gives a flying flip whether you live or die?
> 
> Ah, but under Theism, *You have value!!* You are one of God's children and he cares about you and he will remember you in life and death. And you will be see your loved ones again. This earth, with all its pain and suffering, is not the final chapter. Your life will have mattered because it matters to God. The Bible says even a sparrow can't fall to the ground without God caring so how much more does he care for us.
> 
> I really think you are just running from God. You've found that denying him makes it easier to rationalize your unwanted behaviors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So here you have the one of the various dynamics that motivates religious beliefs. The deep seated fear of inadequacy; of the inability to function without the security blanket of daddy, (the "father in heaven") to watch over us. I can imagine in the brutal and vicious times of how life came and went a few thousand years ago, there was comfort in the promise of a better life in some alleged afterlife.
> 
> I can also imagine in those brutal, ancient times the deep seated desire that those who commit atrocities suffer greater than humans can manage. The lust for vengeance, and calling it justice. Well, it's not like that. Billions make no effort to examine their religious beliefs, they simply have them, make token nods to them, appeal to them in the hope of dying sooner, rather than later to gain spiritual and carnal rewards and cling to them when they die for comfort. Nothing difficult in that. Surprisingly, the gods are very adept at assisting people into the alleged afterlife. There is no more cruel or psychopathic mass murderer than the Christian gods. They have once wiped the planet of most of humanity simply because humanity was a disappointment. The next humanity wiping tirade will be via fire... because they are gods of love and compassion.
> 
> No, it's much harder to face truth coldly. It's far easier to believe in a loving father figure who will reward us (or p u n i s h us) based upon our understanding of a bunch of ancient rules written in the desert somewhere. It's a simple Santa Clause (purposeful mispelling) model that most people can embrace without having to take the time or expend the effort to examine critically.
> 
> It's not pleasant to think there's no "ultimate justice" out there. It sucks to realize that a dead Hitler or Mao or Stalin, etc., are beyond suffering for their cruelties. But it's the truth. And we need the truth to function properly, to explore, and learn. Our time is short, and we are beings that want to know what our universe is like, what it is, how it works.
> 
> So what if a dead Hitler is roasting over a spit in a hell somewhere. How much roasting is required to bring justice for the millions upon millions of people who died as the result of his ideology? Justice would have been for the gods to roll a tank over Hitler back in 1939.
> 
> But the gods didn't do that. I guess all those millions of people who died during the ensuing war years failed the "test". Or maybe the gods were just too busy with their administrative duties to give a hoot. What the hey - as far as the gods are concerned, humans are a dime a dozen.
> 
> This notion of eternal rewards or eternal punishment for arbitrarily defined offenses to god(s) have all the earmarks of an elite ruling class preying upon the fears and superstitions of others.
Click to expand...


You and Loki live in the dream world of being on disability and never leaving the house. Do you believe brutality doesn't exist today? Loki says Christianity is escapism, like he has a choice when he escapes this world.  Bad crap still happens daily. Young children get killed. Whole populations are wiped out by genocide. Cartel members behead their competition. This all makes perfect sense under the law of the jungle-survival of the fittest!!!
*
By the way, where did you go to college?*


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say what the light was before the sun and moon was created but clearly he described a day as we see it. If you do not trust the bible what are your beliefs in God based on ? Why are elements still found in rocks that should have been gone in an old world view ? That is supposedly what the age of the earth is based on correct ? At the rate the moon  and earth are receding that to is a problem for old earth views. If the bible was inspired by God that is the only book that provides an eyewitness to creation and the beginning. If would put text books ahead of what the bible say's in a sense what is being done ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. This errors on that fundamentalist belief of "I'm right/You're wrong" or "I'm the only one that has the truth and you don't." I believe the Bible is ABSOLUTELY true. I am just not good with some fundamentalist interpretations of it, 6,000 year old earth being one of them. Most people can't read Genesis without preconceived notions from their parents or pastor or the current religious party line. I take the Bible at exactly what is says. Light and Dark existed because God created photons. The Bible CLEARLY states the Sun and Moon came along after several days of Creation. So how can your guy say there is no doubt these were 7 literal solar days?? Here is a guide on interpretation that might clear some things up. There are a great many denominations that don't have this grasp on interpreting the Bible. It is called Hermenutics:
> 
> How to Enjoy Bible Study - Grace to You with John MacArthur
> 
> I said it before. When you pretend Genesis was written for us in the 21st Century, you rob it of its originally meaning and power.
> 
> "You might have watched, along with some of us, in horror sometime back if you happened to be watching the Trinity Broadcasting Network, they were interviewing a guest on one of their "Talk Shows," and he was explaining the Biblical basis of his ministry of "Possibility Thinking." This is a quote, "My ministry is based entirely on my life verse, Matthew 19:26, 'With God all things are possible.' God gave me that verse (Matthew 19:26) because I was born in 1926." Obviously, intrigued by that method of obtaining a life verse, the host grabbed a Bible and began thumbing through it excitedly. "I was born in 1934," he said. "My life verse must be Matthew 19:34! What does it say?" Then he discovered that Matthew 19 has only 30 verses! Undeterred, he flipped to Luke, and read Luke 19:34, and they said, "The Lord hath need of Him." Thrilled, he exclaimed, "The Lord has need of me, the Lord has need of me!" What a wonderful life verse. I never had a life verse before, but now the Lord has given me one. Thank You, 0h Jesus, Hallelujah. And the studio audience began to applaud.
> 
> At that moment, however, the "Talk Show" host's wife who had also turned to Luke 19, said, "Wait a minute, you can't use this. This verse is talking about a donkey!" That incident, while being absolutely ludicrous and bizarre, gives you some idea of the "willy-nilly way" that some Charismatics approach Scripture. Some of them, looking for a word from the Lord, play a sort of Bible roulette. They spin the Bible at random, looking for something that might seem applicable to whatever trial or need they are facing and they find a verse and say, "Well, the Lord gave me that verse." And then the Lord supposedly gave them the interpretation of it. These are silly and foolish ways to approach the study of the Bible."
> 
> Charismatic Chaos - By John MacArthur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are we to believe a day that we witness today was longer back then ? I believe the light that existed when God created was himself. Why is he called the light of the world does that mean just because he is truth ?
> 
> So we should ignore the chronology of man that was given by the word of God. I will respectfully disagree with you. If God can say let there be light and there was light we can interpret that as it taking a long period of time for that light to appear.
> 
> But still you are basing your views off mans assumptions the same men who say we are products of natural processes and we are all products of evolution. I still think you should watch that video I posted and go through each scripture that is brought to our attention.
Click to expand...


How do you reconcile the two creation stories about man? How do reconcile that the Bible speaks of not other offspring of Adam and Eve and yet Cain went to another land and found a wife?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing of me. ^
> 
> 
> 
> I think I will leave that chore for my wife. If you are going to continue to engage in public forums, you will need to learn not take everything so personally. It sounds like some evil was done to you at some time in your life.
> 
> Actually, under the worldview you have chosen, *evil doesn't exist*. Neither does "good". It sounds like some human animals who couldn't help the programming in their flawed dna brains acted in some survival modes towards you in an attempt to prevent your from passing your dna on to the next generation and the really screwed up your normal adaptive response to stimuli. Under your worldview, who cares about you stupid problems? In less than 100 years you will be dead. In less than 200 years there won't even be a memory of you because everyone who knew you will be dead. It was all part of the cosmic joke. Under materialism your existence is meaningless so who gives a flying flip whether you live or die?
> 
> Ah, but under Theism, *You have value!!* You are one of God's children and he cares about you and he will remember you in life and death. And you will be see your loved ones again. This earth, with all its pain and suffering, is not the final chapter. Your life will have mattered because it matters to God. The Bible says even a sparrow can't fall to the ground without God caring so how much more does he care for us.
> 
> I really think you are just running from God. You've found that denying him makes it easier to rationalize your unwanted behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So here you have the one of the various dynamics that motivates religious beliefs. The deep seated fear of inadequacy; of the inability to function without the security blanket of daddy, (the "father in heaven") to watch over us. I can imagine in the brutal and vicious times of how life came and went a few thousand years ago, there was comfort in the promise of a better life in some alleged afterlife.
> 
> I can also imagine in those brutal, ancient times the deep seated desire that those who commit atrocities suffer greater than humans can manage. The lust for vengeance, and calling it justice. Well, it's not like that. Billions make no effort to examine their religious beliefs, they simply have them, make token nods to them, appeal to them in the hope of dying sooner, rather than later to gain spiritual and carnal rewards and cling to them when they die for comfort. Nothing difficult in that. Surprisingly, the gods are very adept at assisting people into the alleged afterlife. There is no more cruel or psychopathic mass murderer than the Christian gods. They have once wiped the planet of most of humanity simply because humanity was a disappointment. The next humanity wiping tirade will be via fire... because they are gods of love and compassion.
> 
> No, it's much harder to face truth coldly. It's far easier to believe in a loving father figure who will reward us (or p u n i s h us) based upon our understanding of a bunch of ancient rules written in the desert somewhere. It's a simple Santa Clause (purposeful mispelling) model that most people can embrace without having to take the time or expend the effort to examine critically.
> 
> It's not pleasant to think there's no "ultimate justice" out there. It sucks to realize that a dead Hitler or Mao or Stalin, etc., are beyond suffering for their cruelties. But it's the truth. And we need the truth to function properly, to explore, and learn. Our time is short, and we are beings that want to know what our universe is like, what it is, how it works.
> 
> So what if a dead Hitler is roasting over a spit in a hell somewhere. How much roasting is required to bring justice for the millions upon millions of people who died as the result of his ideology? Justice would have been for the gods to roll a tank over Hitler back in 1939.
> 
> But the gods didn't do that. I guess all those millions of people who died during the ensuing war years failed the "test". Or maybe the gods were just too busy with their administrative duties to give a hoot. What the hey - as far as the gods are concerned, humans are a dime a dozen.
> 
> This notion of eternal rewards or eternal punishment for arbitrarily defined offenses to god(s) have all the earmarks of an elite ruling class preying upon the fears and superstitions of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Loki live in the dream world of being on disability and never leaving the house. Do you believe brutality doesn't exist today? Loki says Christianity is escapism, like he has a choice when he escapes this world.  Bad crap still happens daily. Young children get killed. Whole populations are wiped out by genocide. Cartel members behead their competition. This all makes perfect sense under the law of the jungle-survival of the fittest!!!
Click to expand...


As usual, you're not making sense. Why should I care about those losers who die. That's part of the gods plan.

Nothing happens 'cept for the will of the gods. 

Who are you to question the gods will? 

It's a mystery.

We'll never know

They're in a better place

Screw those losers. The gods have a purpose for me.

I'm special

They're dead because it's the plan of loving and beneficent gods 

The omni-everything gods have planned that people will die in horrible ways......

Nothing happens 'cept for the will of the gods.....


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think what you mean is either I believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of the sciptures or I don't. God inspired the book. He isn't the book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide scriptures that support your old earth beliefs. I will provide scriptures in this article that support my position.
> 
> Days or ages in Genesis 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please provide a meaningful way to test the biblical tales for accuracy.
Click to expand...


Please provide a way to test the "just so" stories of evolution for accuracy. You can start by providing a scientifically testable definition for fitness. I guess I wouldn't expect you to understand these things with just a high school education.
*
Where did you go to College?*


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a visit to any university library would prove you wrong. The problem that fundies cannot confront is that sciences of evolution and earth history (geology), are in direct conflict with a 6000 year old earth. The fundie has no choice but to launch into hysterical denials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is you think we (Christians) all believe in a 6,000 year old earth. I don't know how old the earth is, nor do you or anyone else for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Radiometric Dating Resource List
> 
> Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology - SpringerLink
> 
> As of January, 1999, The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). This is reported in the paper Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada by Samuel A. Bowring & Ian S. Williams; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134(1): 3-16, January 1999. The previous record was 3.96 billion years, set in 1989.
Click to expand...


The problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make.

Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide scriptures that support your old earth beliefs. I will provide scriptures in this article that support my position.
> 
> Days or ages in Genesis 1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a meaningful way to test the biblical tales for accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please provide a way to test the "just so" stories of evolution for accuracy. You can start by providing a scientifically testable definition for fitness. I guess I wouldn't expect you to understand these things with just a high school education.
> *
> Where did you go to College?*
Click to expand...


If you ever step foot in a university or browse through a library (you can even find links on the web), you will discover there is a wealth of informative and factual data detailing evolutionary science.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is you think we (Christians) all believe in a 6,000 year old earth. I don't know how old the earth is, nor do you or anyone else for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Radiometric Dating Resource List
> 
> Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology - SpringerLink
> 
> As of January, 1999, The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). This is reported in the paper Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada by Samuel A. Bowring & Ian S. Williams; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134(1): 3-16, January 1999. The previous record was 3.96 billion years, set in 1989.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make.
> 
> Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.
Click to expand...


Your sources, as expected, are from creationist websites. Can you provide peer reviewed data to support those claims?

Have you considered that the gods are playing a cruel joke on you?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Radiometric Dating Resource List
> 
> Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology - SpringerLink
> 
> As of January, 1999, The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). This is reported in the paper Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada by Samuel A. Bowring & Ian S. Williams; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134(1): 3-16, January 1999. The previous record was 3.96 billion years, set in 1989.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make.
> 
> Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your sources, as expected, are from creationist websites. Can you provide peer reviewed data to support those claims?
> 
> Have you considered that the gods are playing a cruel joke on you?
> 
> How Old is the Earth: Scientific Age of the Earth
Click to expand...


The source doesn't discount the fact.

I could but you would ignore it.

And you counter with an opinion blog.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make.
> 
> Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your sources, as expected, are from creationist websites. Can you provide peer reviewed data to support those claims?
> 
> Have you considered that the gods are playing a cruel joke on you?
> 
> How Old is the Earth: Scientific Age of the Earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The source doesn't discount the fact.
> 
> I could but you would ignore it.
> 
> And you counter with an opinion blog.
Click to expand...

The source doesn't discount what fact? Can you show me where "Creation Ministries" has submitted their data for peer review? No. I didn't think so. 

Would you agree that "Creation Ministries" suggests a certain agenda in what they promote?

And you're incorrect that my link was to an opinion blog. If you review the link, you will see that material, data and figures are provided with references.


----------



## Hollie

Do fundies not understand that sites such as "Creation Ministries" have an _about_ section that announces their YEC agenda?


About Us


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your sources, as expected, are from creationist websites. Can you provide peer reviewed data to support those claims?
> 
> Have you considered that the gods are playing a cruel joke on you?
> 
> How Old is the Earth: Scientific Age of the Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The source doesn't discount the fact.
> 
> I could but you would ignore it.
> 
> And you counter with an opinion blog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The source doesn't discount what fact? Can you show me where "Creation Ministries" has submitted their data for peer review? No. I didn't think so.
> 
> Would you agree that "Creation Ministries" suggests a certain agenda in what they promote?
> 
> And you're incorrect that my link was to an opinion blog. If you review the link, you will see that material, data and figures are provided with references.
Click to expand...




> The KBS Tuff controversy illustrates many of the problems with radiometric dating, but it equally illustrates that the problems are not insurmountable. The KBS Tuff (for "Kay Behrensmeyer Site," after the geologist who first described it) is a layer of redeposited volcanic ash, so it contains a mixture of older sediments, too. It is still possible to date the layer, but care must be taken to choose only the youngest rocks, else one would be dating the age of older sediments washed into the layer, not the age of the layer itself. This is what happened with the first ages reported from the tuff. In a study to test the feasibility of dating samples from the tuff, the samples were contaminated with non-juvenile components which could not be separated out, giving ages over 200 million years. It was recommended that new samples be collected from which suitable individual crystals could be separated (Fitch and Miller 1970). These new samples were dated at 2.61 +/- 0.26 million years, based on the 40Ar/39Ar dating method (Fitch and Miller 1970). Discrepancies with this date soon turned up, though. Work with animal fossils, particularly of pigs, showed that the strata in question matched younger strata in the nearby Omo Valley. In its early stages, this fossil work was imprecise enough that the 2.61 Myr date could still be justified (Maglio 1972). However, the fossils continued to point to a younger date as the quality of the work on them improved (White and Harris 1977). And in 1975, another lab, using K-Ar dating, reported dates of 1.82 and 1.60 Myr (Curtis et al. 1975). Fitch and Miller turned to an independent method to resolve the discrepancy, fission-track dating. Initial results gave an age of 2.44 +/- 0.08 Myr (Hurford et al. 1976). This fit well with the age of 2.42 Myr, which Fitch et al. (1976) recalculated from their original results. Subsequent 40Ar/39Ar measurements they took gave a scattering of ages from 0.52 +/- 0.33 to 2.6 +/- 0.3 Myr. They attributed the spread to reheating of the crystals after deposition. Paleomagnetic studies gave ambiguous results (Brock and Isaac 1974; Hillhouse et al. 1977). The weight of evidence soon began to converge on an age near 1.9 Myr, though. A study of trace elements in the minerals showed that the KBS Tuff correlates with the H2 tuff in the Shungura Formation, uncontroversially dated about 1.8 Myr (Cerling et al. 1979). The 1.60 Myr age reported by Curtis et al. (1975) was found to be an error due to a faulty balance (Drake et al. 1980). A later fission-track study which took pains to eliminate possible errors gave an age of 1.87 +/- 0.04 Myr (Gleadow 1980). Because the controversy had become quite heated, another expert, Ian McDougall, was called in to do independent dating. He came up with an age of 1.89 +/- 0.01 using K-Ar dating and 1.88 +/- 0.02 using 40Ar/39Ar dating (McDougall et al. 1980; McDougall 1981, 1985). Geological evidence and the consistency of dates derived from various sources indicates that reheating after deposition is unlikely.



This is nothing less than a complete vindication of what creationists have been saying about radiometric dating. It is also an excellent example of just how good evolutionists are at rationalizing away problems. The funny thing is that Talk Origins is clearly totally blind to how well this illustrates the truth of what creationists say about the process of radiometric dating. 

Here they have dates all over the place, not only by different methods, but by the same methods. Given this, it was the fossils that led the way. In the end they came up with three dates that agreed with each other and the fossils, all of which had also given erroneous results. Simply put, what happened here is that evolutionists kept making measurements until they found results that they liked.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Do fundies not understand that sites such as "Creation Ministries" have an _about_ section that announces their YEC agenda?
> 
> 
> About Us



Highly qualified individuals with the credentials to back them up.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The source doesn't discount the fact.
> 
> I could but you would ignore it.
> 
> And you counter with an opinion blog.
> 
> 
> 
> The source doesn't discount what fact? Can you show me where "Creation Ministries" has submitted their data for peer review? No. I didn't think so.
> 
> Would you agree that "Creation Ministries" suggests a certain agenda in what they promote?
> 
> And you're incorrect that my link was to an opinion blog. If you review the link, you will see that material, data and figures are provided with references.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KBS Tuff controversy illustrates many of the problems with radiometric dating, but it equally illustrates that the problems are not insurmountable. The KBS Tuff (for "Kay Behrensmeyer Site," after the geologist who first described it) is a layer of redeposited volcanic ash, so it contains a mixture of older sediments, too. It is still possible to date the layer, but care must be taken to choose only the youngest rocks, else one would be dating the age of older sediments washed into the layer, not the age of the layer itself. This is what happened with the first ages reported from the tuff. In a study to test the feasibility of dating samples from the tuff, the samples were contaminated with non-juvenile components which could not be separated out, giving ages over 200 million years. It was recommended that new samples be collected from which suitable individual crystals could be separated (Fitch and Miller 1970). These new samples were dated at 2.61 +/- 0.26 million years, based on the 40Ar/39Ar dating method (Fitch and Miller 1970). Discrepancies with this date soon turned up, though. Work with animal fossils, particularly of pigs, showed that the strata in question matched younger strata in the nearby Omo Valley. In its early stages, this fossil work was imprecise enough that the 2.61 Myr date could still be justified (Maglio 1972). However, the fossils continued to point to a younger date as the quality of the work on them improved (White and Harris 1977). And in 1975, another lab, using K-Ar dating, reported dates of 1.82 and 1.60 Myr (Curtis et al. 1975). Fitch and Miller turned to an independent method to resolve the discrepancy, fission-track dating. Initial results gave an age of 2.44 +/- 0.08 Myr (Hurford et al. 1976). This fit well with the age of 2.42 Myr, which Fitch et al. (1976) recalculated from their original results. Subsequent 40Ar/39Ar measurements they took gave a scattering of ages from 0.52 +/- 0.33 to 2.6 +/- 0.3 Myr. They attributed the spread to reheating of the crystals after deposition. Paleomagnetic studies gave ambiguous results (Brock and Isaac 1974; Hillhouse et al. 1977). The weight of evidence soon began to converge on an age near 1.9 Myr, though. A study of trace elements in the minerals showed that the KBS Tuff correlates with the H2 tuff in the Shungura Formation, uncontroversially dated about 1.8 Myr (Cerling et al. 1979). The 1.60 Myr age reported by Curtis et al. (1975) was found to be an error due to a faulty balance (Drake et al. 1980). A later fission-track study which took pains to eliminate possible errors gave an age of 1.87 +/- 0.04 Myr (Gleadow 1980). Because the controversy had become quite heated, another expert, Ian McDougall, was called in to do independent dating. He came up with an age of 1.89 +/- 0.01 using K-Ar dating and 1.88 +/- 0.02 using 40Ar/39Ar dating (McDougall et al. 1980; McDougall 1981, 1985). Geological evidence and the consistency of dates derived from various sources indicates that reheating after deposition is unlikely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is nothing less than a complete vindication of what creationists have been saying about radiometric dating. It is also an excellent example of just how good evolutionists are at rationalizing away problems. The funny thing is that Talk Origins is clearly totally blind to how well this illustrates the truth of what creationists say about the process of radiometric dating.
> 
> Here they have dates all over the place, not only by different methods, but by the same methods. Given this, it was the fossils that led the way. In the end they came up with three dates that agreed with each other and the fossils, all of which had also given erroneous results. Simply put, what happened here is that evolutionists kept making measurements until they found results that they liked.
Click to expand...

Do you find it at all strange that your article (from creation wiki), references Marvin Lubenow?

creation.com/marvin-lubenow Marvin Lubenow is Professor of Bible/Apologetics at Christian Heritage College in San Diego California. 

I see. A professor of bible apologetics is your source?

Chuckle.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The source doesn't discount what fact? Can you show me where "Creation Ministries" has submitted their data for peer review? No. I didn't think so.
> 
> Would you agree that "Creation Ministries" suggests a certain agenda in what they promote?
> 
> And you're incorrect that my link was to an opinion blog. If you review the link, you will see that material, data and figures are provided with references.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KBS Tuff controversy illustrates many of the problems with radiometric dating, but it equally illustrates that the problems are not insurmountable. The KBS Tuff (for "Kay Behrensmeyer Site," after the geologist who first described it) is a layer of redeposited volcanic ash, so it contains a mixture of older sediments, too. It is still possible to date the layer, but care must be taken to choose only the youngest rocks, else one would be dating the age of older sediments washed into the layer, not the age of the layer itself. This is what happened with the first ages reported from the tuff. In a study to test the feasibility of dating samples from the tuff, the samples were contaminated with non-juvenile components which could not be separated out, giving ages over 200 million years. It was recommended that new samples be collected from which suitable individual crystals could be separated (Fitch and Miller 1970). These new samples were dated at 2.61 +/- 0.26 million years, based on the 40Ar/39Ar dating method (Fitch and Miller 1970). Discrepancies with this date soon turned up, though. Work with animal fossils, particularly of pigs, showed that the strata in question matched younger strata in the nearby Omo Valley. In its early stages, this fossil work was imprecise enough that the 2.61 Myr date could still be justified (Maglio 1972). However, the fossils continued to point to a younger date as the quality of the work on them improved (White and Harris 1977). And in 1975, another lab, using K-Ar dating, reported dates of 1.82 and 1.60 Myr (Curtis et al. 1975). Fitch and Miller turned to an independent method to resolve the discrepancy, fission-track dating. Initial results gave an age of 2.44 +/- 0.08 Myr (Hurford et al. 1976). This fit well with the age of 2.42 Myr, which Fitch et al. (1976) recalculated from their original results. Subsequent 40Ar/39Ar measurements they took gave a scattering of ages from 0.52 +/- 0.33 to 2.6 +/- 0.3 Myr. They attributed the spread to reheating of the crystals after deposition. Paleomagnetic studies gave ambiguous results (Brock and Isaac 1974; Hillhouse et al. 1977). The weight of evidence soon began to converge on an age near 1.9 Myr, though. A study of trace elements in the minerals showed that the KBS Tuff correlates with the H2 tuff in the Shungura Formation, uncontroversially dated about 1.8 Myr (Cerling et al. 1979). The 1.60 Myr age reported by Curtis et al. (1975) was found to be an error due to a faulty balance (Drake et al. 1980). A later fission-track study which took pains to eliminate possible errors gave an age of 1.87 +/- 0.04 Myr (Gleadow 1980). Because the controversy had become quite heated, another expert, Ian McDougall, was called in to do independent dating. He came up with an age of 1.89 +/- 0.01 using K-Ar dating and 1.88 +/- 0.02 using 40Ar/39Ar dating (McDougall et al. 1980; McDougall 1981, 1985). Geological evidence and the consistency of dates derived from various sources indicates that reheating after deposition is unlikely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is nothing less than a complete vindication of what creationists have been saying about radiometric dating. It is also an excellent example of just how good evolutionists are at rationalizing away problems. The funny thing is that Talk Origins is clearly totally blind to how well this illustrates the truth of what creationists say about the process of radiometric dating.
> 
> Here they have dates all over the place, not only by different methods, but by the same methods. Given this, it was the fossils that led the way. In the end they came up with three dates that agreed with each other and the fossils, all of which had also given erroneous results. Simply put, what happened here is that evolutionists kept making measurements until they found results that they liked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you find it at all strange that your article (from creation wiki), references Marvin Lubenow?
> 
> creation.com/marvin-lubenow Marvin Lubenow is Professor of Bible/Apologetics at Christian Heritage College in San Diego California.
> 
> I see. A professor of bible apologetics is your source?
> 
> Chuckle.
Click to expand...


You are a troll with no objectivity at all.

Radiometric dating is flawed. No one knows how old rocks are.

You're dismissed.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is nothing less than a complete vindication of what creationists have been saying about radiometric dating. It is also an excellent example of just how good evolutionists are at rationalizing away problems. The funny thing is that Talk Origins is clearly totally blind to how well this illustrates the truth of what creationists say about the process of radiometric dating.
> 
> Here they have dates all over the place, not only by different methods, but by the same methods. Given this, it was the fossils that led the way. In the end they came up with three dates that agreed with each other and the fossils, all of which had also given erroneous results. Simply put, what happened here is that evolutionists kept making measurements until they found results that they liked.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you find it at all strange that your article (from creation wiki), references Marvin Lubenow?
> 
> creation.com/marvin-lubenow Marvin Lubenow is Professor of Bible/Apologetics at Christian Heritage College in San Diego California.
> 
> I see. A professor of bible apologetics is your source?
> 
> Chuckle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a troll with no objectivity at all.
> 
> Radiometric dating is flawed. No one knows how old rocks are.
> 
> You're dismissed.
Click to expand...

I was hoping you could help me understand how a professor of bible apologetics came to be a reliable source for interpretation of radiometric data?

I'm actually being objective and hoping you could provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor to authoritatively interpret the data. 

Could you perhaps revise your post to affirmatively end your statement regarding " no one knows how old rocks are" with the exclamation _because I say so._


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you find it at all strange that your article (from creation wiki), references Marvin Lubenow?
> 
> creation.com/marvin-lubenow Marvin Lubenow is Professor of Bible/Apologetics at Christian Heritage College in San Diego California.
> 
> I see. A professor of bible apologetics is your source?
> 
> Chuckle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a troll with no objectivity at all.
> 
> Radiometric dating is flawed. No one knows how old rocks are.
> 
> You're dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was hoping you could help me understand how a professor of bible apologetics came to be a reliable source for interpretation of radiometric data?
> 
> I'm actually being objective and hoping you could provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor to authoritatively interpret the data.
> 
> Could you perhaps revise your post to affirmatively end your statement regarding " no one knows how old rocks are" with the exclamation _because I say so._
Click to expand...


He was not the author of "Talk Origins".

But why bother you with facts. You will simply ignore them.

After all you ignored the fact that Lubenow has a Master of Science degree with a major in anthropology.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a troll with no objectivity at all.
> 
> Radiometric dating is flawed. No one knows how old rocks are.
> 
> You're dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping you could help me understand how a professor of bible apologetics came to be a reliable source for interpretation of radiometric data?
> 
> I'm actually being objective and hoping you could provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor to authoritatively interpret the data.
> 
> Could you perhaps revise your post to affirmatively end your statement regarding " no one knows how old rocks are" with the exclamation _because I say so._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was not the author of "Talk Origins".
> 
> But why bother you with facts. You will simply ignore them.
> 
> After all you ignored the fact that Lubenow has a Master of Science degree with a major in anthropology.
Click to expand...

The gods will punish me. 

In the meantime, could you provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor, with a degree in anthropology, to authoritatively interpret the data?

Is there any chance the professor published his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping you could help me understand how a professor of bible apologetics came to be a reliable source for interpretation of radiometric data?
> 
> I'm actually being objective and hoping you could provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor to authoritatively interpret the data.
> 
> Could you perhaps revise your post to affirmatively end your statement regarding " no one knows how old rocks are" with the exclamation _because I say so._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was not the author of "Talk Origins".
> 
> But why bother you with facts. You will simply ignore them.
> 
> After all you ignored the fact that Lubenow has a Master of Science degree with a major in anthropology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gods will punish me.
> 
> In the meantime, could you provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor, with a degree in anthropology, to authoritatively interpret the data?
> 
> Is there any chance the professor published his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals?
Click to expand...


I have no time to have a pissing contest with a troll.

You're dismissed......again.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was not the author of "Talk Origins".
> 
> But why bother you with facts. You will simply ignore them.
> 
> After all you ignored the fact that Lubenow has a Master of Science degree with a major in anthropology.
> 
> 
> 
> The gods will punish me.
> 
> In the meantime, could you provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor, with a degree in anthropology, to authoritatively interpret the data?
> 
> Is there any chance the professor published his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no time to have a pissing contest with a troll.
> 
> You're dismissed......again.
Click to expand...

My questions to you don't appear to be particularly difficult to understand. Peer review is a valuable process of science wherein results of experimentation can be presented to scientists in similar fields for review, falsification and/or repeatable tests. 

It's just a consistent pattern where creationists refuse to publish their work for the scrutiny of peer review. If, as you suggest, the entirety of mainstream scientists have gotten the data regarding a very ancient earth so completely wrong, why would creationists have such pause not to produce their data?


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say what the light was before the sun and moon was created but clearly he described a day as we see it. If you do not trust the bible what are your beliefs in God based on ? Why are elements still found in rocks that should have been gone in an old world view ? That is supposedly what the age of the earth is based on correct ? At the rate the moon  and earth are receding that to is a problem for old earth views. If the bible was inspired by God that is the only book that provides an eyewitness to creation and the beginning. If would put text books ahead of what the bible say's in a sense what is being done ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. This errors on that fundamentalist belief of "I'm right/You're wrong" or "I'm the only one that has the truth and you don't." I believe the Bible is ABSOLUTELY true. I am just not good with some fundamentalist interpretations of it, 6,000 year old earth being one of them. Most people can't read Genesis without preconceived notions from their parents or pastor or the current religious party line. I take the Bible at exactly what is says. Light and Dark existed because God created photons. The Bible CLEARLY states the Sun and Moon came along after several days of Creation. So how can your guy say there is no doubt these were 7 literal solar days?? Here is a guide on interpretation that might clear some things up. There are a great many denominations that don't have this grasp on interpreting the Bible. It is called Hermenutics:
> 
> How to Enjoy Bible Study - Grace to You with John MacArthur
> 
> I said it before. When you pretend Genesis was written for us in the 21st Century, you rob it of its originally meaning and power.
> 
> "You might have watched, along with some of us, in horror sometime back if you happened to be watching the Trinity Broadcasting Network, they were interviewing a guest on one of their "Talk Shows," and he was explaining the Biblical basis of his ministry of "Possibility Thinking." This is a quote, "My ministry is based entirely on my life verse, Matthew 19:26, 'With God all things are possible.' God gave me that verse (Matthew 19:26) because I was born in 1926." Obviously, intrigued by that method of obtaining a life verse, the host grabbed a Bible and began thumbing through it excitedly. "I was born in 1934," he said. "My life verse must be Matthew 19:34! What does it say?" Then he discovered that Matthew 19 has only 30 verses! Undeterred, he flipped to Luke, and read Luke 19:34, and they said, "The Lord hath need of Him." Thrilled, he exclaimed, "The Lord has need of me, the Lord has need of me!" What a wonderful life verse. I never had a life verse before, but now the Lord has given me one. Thank You, 0h Jesus, Hallelujah. And the studio audience began to applaud.
> 
> At that moment, however, the "Talk Show" host's wife who had also turned to Luke 19, said, "Wait a minute, you can't use this. This verse is talking about a donkey!" That incident, while being absolutely ludicrous and bizarre, gives you some idea of the "willy-nilly way" that some Charismatics approach Scripture. Some of them, looking for a word from the Lord, play a sort of Bible roulette. They spin the Bible at random, looking for something that might seem applicable to whatever trial or need they are facing and they find a verse and say, "Well, the Lord gave me that verse." And then the Lord supposedly gave them the interpretation of it. These are silly and foolish ways to approach the study of the Bible."
> 
> Charismatic Chaos - By John MacArthur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are we to believe a day that we witness today was longer back then ? I believe the light that existed when God created was himself. Why is he called the light of the world does that mean just because he is truth ?
> 
> So we should ignore the chronology of man that was given by the word of God. I will respectfully disagree with you. If God can say let there be light and there was light we can interpret that as it taking a long period of time for that light to appear.
> 
> But still you are basing your views off mans assumptions the same men who say we are products of natural processes and we are all products of evolution. I still think you should watch that video I posted and go through each scripture that is brought to our attention.
Click to expand...


The question isn't about solar days, but really your reasons why you believe that passage is meant to be taken literally and others in the Bible are not? Who has decided this for you?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gods will punish me.
> 
> In the meantime, could you provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor, with a degree in anthropology, to authoritatively interpret the data?
> 
> Is there any chance the professor published his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no time to have a pissing contest with a troll.
> 
> You're dismissed......again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My questions to you don't appear to be particularly difficult to understand. Peer review is a valuable process of science wherein results of experimentation can be presented to scientists in similar fields for review, falsification and/or repeatable tests.
> 
> It's just a consistent pattern where creationists refuse to publish their work for the scrutiny of peer review. If, as you suggest, the entirety of mainstream scientists have gotten the data regarding a very ancient earth so completely wrong, why would creationists have such pause not to produce their data?
Click to expand...


THIS VIDEO IS LACED WITH SARCASM (to those who have difficulty sensing it). *Scientists admit that radiometric dating*, one of the fundamental techniques used to show the earth is billions of years old *is flawed*!!!


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no time to have a pissing contest with a troll.
> 
> You're dismissed......again.
> 
> 
> 
> My questions to you don't appear to be particularly difficult to understand. Peer review is a valuable process of science wherein results of experimentation can be presented to scientists in similar fields for review, falsification and/or repeatable tests.
> 
> It's just a consistent pattern where creationists refuse to publish their work for the scrutiny of peer review. If, as you suggest, the entirety of mainstream scientists have gotten the data regarding a very ancient earth so completely wrong, why would creationists have such pause not to produce their data?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THIS VIDEO IS LACED WITH SARCASM (to those who have difficulty sensing it). *Scientists admit that radiometric dating*, one of the fundamental techniques used to show the earth is billions of years old *is flawed*!!!
Click to expand...


I thought it was dishonest to claim that *Scientists admit that radiometric dating*, one of the fundamental techniques used to show the earth is billions of years old *is flawed*!!! when I saw no scientist admit such a thing.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gods will punish me.
> 
> In the meantime, could you provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor, with a degree in anthropology, to authoritatively interpret the data?
> 
> Is there any chance the professor published his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no time to have a pissing contest with a troll.
> 
> You're dismissed......again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My questions to you don't appear to be particularly difficult to understand. Peer review is a valuable process of science wherein results of experimentation can be presented to scientists in similar fields for review, falsification and/or repeatable tests.
> 
> It's just a consistent pattern where creationists refuse to publish their work for the scrutiny of peer review. If, as you suggest, the entirety of mainstream scientists have gotten the data regarding a very ancient earth so completely wrong, why would creationists have such pause not to produce their data?
Click to expand...


What is difficult to understand is why you say YWC and I don't have any education background, when we have both have stated what it is, and you continue to ignore questions about *where you went to college?*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping you could help me understand how a professor of bible apologetics came to be a reliable source for interpretation of radiometric data?
> 
> I'm actually being objective and hoping you could provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor to authoritatively interpret the data.
> 
> Could you perhaps revise your post to affirmatively end your statement regarding " no one knows how old rocks are" with the exclamation _because I say so._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was not the author of "Talk Origins".
> 
> But why bother you with facts. You will simply ignore them.
> 
> After all you ignored the fact that Lubenow has a Master of Science degree with a major in anthropology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gods will punish me.
> 
> In the meantime, could you provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor, with a degree in anthropology, to authoritatively interpret the data?
> 
> Is there any chance the professor published his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals?
Click to expand...


Do you really think you are in a position to question anyone else's credentials Rugged man hands??


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was not the author of "Talk Origins".
> 
> But why bother you with facts. You will simply ignore them.
> 
> After all you ignored the fact that Lubenow has a Master of Science degree with a major in anthropology.
> 
> 
> 
> The gods will punish me.
> 
> In the meantime, could you provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor, with a degree in anthropology, to authoritatively interpret the data?
> 
> Is there any chance the professor published his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think you are in a position to question anyone else's credentials Rugged man hands??
Click to expand...


Your writing / emotional skill level is barely 7th grade so yes, I am perfectly positioned to understand you're a goofy little boy.

Run along now. Scoot.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a troll with no objectivity at all.
> 
> Radiometric dating is flawed. No one knows how old rocks are.
> 
> You're dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping you could help me understand how a professor of bible apologetics came to be a reliable source for interpretation of radiometric data?
> 
> I'm actually being objective and hoping you could provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor to authoritatively interpret the data.
> 
> Could you perhaps revise your post to affirmatively end your statement regarding " no one knows how old rocks are" with the exclamation _because I say so._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was not the author of "Talk Origins".
> 
> But why bother you with facts. You will simply ignore them.
> 
> After all you ignored the fact that Lubenow has a Master of Science degree with a major in anthropology.
Click to expand...


For your use and information, there are a host of articles on radiometric dating at the linked site. Included in this post are the _references_ to peer reviewed papers and scientific journals appearing just one of the articles.


Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale



References (also refer to "Other sources")

Baadsgaard, H.; Lerbekmo, J.F.; Wijbrans, J.R., 1993. Multimethod radiometric age for a bentonite near the top of the Baculites reesidei Zone of southwestern Saskatchewan (Campanian-Maastrichtian stage boundary?). Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.30, p.769-775.

Baadsgaard, H. and Lerbekmo, J.F., 1988. A radiometric age for the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary based on K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb ages of bentonites from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Montana. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.25, p.1088-1097.

Eberth, D.A. and Braman, D., 1990. Stratigraphy, sedimentology, and vertebrate paleontology of the Judith River Formation (Campanian) near Muddy Lake, west-central Saskatchewan. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, v.38, no.4, p.387-406.

Goodwin, M.B. and Deino, A.L., 1989. The first radiometric ages from the Judith River Formation (Upper Cretaceous), Hill County, Montana. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.26, p.1384-1391.

Gradstein, F. M.; Agterberg, F.P.; Ogg, J.G.; Hardenbol, J.; van Veen, P.; Thierry, J. and Zehui Huang., 1995. A Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous time scale.  IN: Bergren, W. A. ; Kent, D.V.; Aubry, M-P. and Hardenbol, J. (eds.), Geochronology, Time Scales, and Global Stratigraphic Correlation. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication No. 54, p.95-126.

Harland, W.B., Cox, A.V.; Llewellyn, P.G.; Pickton, C.A.G.; Smith, A.G.; and Walters, R., 1982. A Geologic Time Scale: 1982 edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 131p.

Harland, W.B.; Armstrong, R.L.; Cox, A.V.; Craig, L.E.; Smith, A.G.; Smith, D.G., 1990. A Geologic Time Scale, 1989 edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, p.1-263. ISBN 0-521-38765-5

Harper, C.W., Jr., 1980.  Relative age inference in paleontology.  Lethaia, v.13, p.239-248.

Lubenow, M.L., 1992.  Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils.   Baker Book House: Grand Rapids.

Obradovich, J.D., 1993. A Cretaceous time scale. IN: Caldwell, W.G.E. and Kauffman, E.G. (eds.). Evolution of the Western Interior Basin. Geological Association of Canada, Special Paper 39, p.379-396.

Palmer, Allison R. (compiler), 1983.  The Decade of North American Geology 1983 Geologic Time Scale.  Geology, v.11, p.503-504.  [Also available on-line from the Geological Society of America web site at http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/public/geotime1.htm {Now broken link. See archived copy instead. -- September 12, 2004 } ]

Rastall, R.H., 1956.  Geology.  Encyclopaedia Britannica 10, p.168.  Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.: Chicago.  [As cited in Harper (1980).]

Rogers, R.R.; Swisher, C.C. III, Horner, J.R., 1993. 40Ar/39Ar age and correlation of the nonmarine Two Medicine Formation (Upper Cretaceous), northwestern Montana, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.30, 1066-1075.

 Woodmorappe, J. (pseudonym), 1979.  Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised.  Creation Research Society Quarterly, v.16, p.102-129. [Also available in the book "Studies in Flood Geology", published by the Institute for Creation Research.]

Other Sources

This document discusses the way radiometric dating is used in geology rather than the details of how radiometric techniques work. It therefore assumes the reader has some familiarity with radiometric dating. For a technical introduction to the methods, I highly recommend these two books:


Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991. The Age of the Earth. Stanford University Press: Stanford, 474 pp. ISBN 0-8047-1569-6

Faure, G., 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd. edition. John Wiley and Sons: New York, p.1-589. ISBN 0-471-86412-9
 An excellent introduction to radiometric dating can also be found in the talk.origins FAQ archive:

Age of the Earth FAQ
 Isochron dating FAQ
 Both are by Chris Stassen. 
An excellent source about the integration of radiometric dating, biostratigraphy (the study of fossil succession) and general stratigraphic principles is:


Blatt, H.; Berry, W.B.N.; and Brande, S., 1991. Principles of Stratigraphic Analysis. Blackwell Scientific Publications: Boston, 512p. ISBN 0-86542-069-6.
 The history of the geologic time scale is ably described in: 

Berry, W.B.N., 1987. Growth of a Prehistoric Time Scale. Blackwell Scientific Publications: Boston, 202p.

And a good summary is in "Changing views of the history of  the Earth" by Richard Harter and Chris Stassen.




I would be pleased to review the peer reviewed papers and scientific journals that appear as references relative to your earlier posting.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So loki where are all the supposed transitional species that were better adapted to pass on their traits from one species to a destinctly new organism ? Why do we have the beginning species and none of of the transitional species that passed on their better adapted traits ?
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrated for you dozens of times already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe that is what you believe in your mind but that is not the case through evidence.
Click to expand...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ"]Then let's restart here[/ame]

And in anticipation of your refusal to accept any evidence of transitional species:"Evolutionists have shown that indeed there are transitional fossils, and there are plenty of examples of them.  For instance, see this article.  Here is the key point...even if young earth creation science experts accept these examples of transitional fossils, they will still claim that there are no transitional fossils!  These fossils will either be called  unique species, or they will come up with some reason (disease, birth defect, etc) that accounts for the apparent transition feature. 
...

The fact that young earth creationists will not be convinced, no matter how much evidence is presented, makes this a weak argument.  The argument is not based on science, but on assumptions based on a young earth interpretation of creation."--Old Earth Ministries​


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.
> 
> 
> 
> Either you accept biblical absurdities or you pretend they don't exist to preserve blind, unquestioning allegiance to an ancient book of tales and fables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The biggest absurdity is non life developed life
> 
> Fables,that is the proper term for evolution not creation and design.
Click to expand...


The evidence is overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, the interactions non-living things; why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?

And how is it not absurd, that the creator/designer you posit can be the source of life?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would take a miracle for me to believe, because at this point, I think the christian god is a logical impossibility, by its very own definition. It is claimed to be a perfect being, yet needs a relationship with us. That is a contradiction. A perfect being wouldn't need anything, and wouldn't be jealous. These are all very human attributes, and so, imperfect. I am therefore absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist. However, I can not be certain that some kind of deity does exist somewhere within, or even outside the universe, such as a deist god. There is so much about the christian god that seems so highly implausible to me at this point. To be honest, I want to believe because I struggle with mental health quite a bit and it causes me a lot of suffering, and an all loving god is a really nice thought, but that doesn't mean it exists. I refuse to let my emotional needs create something to alleviate personal suffering. In other words, I am not going to believe something because it feels good. I want it to be true. I care more about truth, than about what feels good to my limited mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if one is perect he doesn't need relationships? Explain that.
> 
> Why wouldn't God share some of the same attributes as his creations?
> 
> In order to be a Christian it requires faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is Christians admit their faith the secularists cannot or will not admit to the faith required to believe some of the theories they hold onto.
Click to expand...

There is no faith requirement for secularism.

The real difference is that Christians refuse to admit that their superstition is just as irrational as homeopathy and astrology.



Youwerecreated said:


> The question is why do they call out others that have faith in their beliefs.


The better question is:_"Upon what basis then should your "explanation" be considered superior to any other creation story unfounded in evidence and/or valid logic? On what basis should it be considered more intellectually honest?"_​


----------



## LOki

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is you think we (Christians) all believe in a 6,000 year old earth. I don't know how old the earth is, nor do you or anyone else for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Radiometric Dating Resource List
> 
> Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology - SpringerLink
> 
> As of January, 1999, The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). This is reported in the paper Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada by Samuel A. Bowring & Ian S. Williams; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134(1): 3-16, January 1999. The previous record was 3.96 billion years, set in 1989.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make.
Click to expand...

Not Really.



Lonestar_logic said:


> Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.


Not really.


----------



## LOki

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The source doesn't discount the fact.
> 
> I could but you would ignore it.
> 
> And you counter with an opinion blog.
> 
> 
> 
> The source doesn't discount what fact? Can you show me where "Creation Ministries" has submitted their data for peer review? No. I didn't think so.
> 
> Would you agree that "Creation Ministries" suggests a certain agenda in what they promote?
> 
> And you're incorrect that my link was to an opinion blog. If you review the link, you will see that material, data and figures are provided with references.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KBS Tuff controversy illustrates many of the problems with radiometric dating, but it equally illustrates that the problems are not insurmountable. The KBS Tuff (for "Kay Behrensmeyer Site," after the geologist who first described it) is a layer of redeposited volcanic ash, so it contains a mixture of older sediments, too. It is still possible to date the layer, but care must be taken to choose only the youngest rocks, else one would be dating the age of older sediments washed into the layer, not the age of the layer itself. This is what happened with the first ages reported from the tuff. In a study to test the feasibility of dating samples from the tuff, the samples were contaminated with non-juvenile components which could not be separated out, giving ages over 200 million years. It was recommended that new samples be collected from which suitable individual crystals could be separated (Fitch and Miller 1970). These new samples were dated at 2.61 +/- 0.26 million years, based on the 40Ar/39Ar dating method (Fitch and Miller 1970). Discrepancies with this date soon turned up, though. Work with animal fossils, particularly of pigs, showed that the strata in question matched younger strata in the nearby Omo Valley. In its early stages, this fossil work was imprecise enough that the 2.61 Myr date could still be justified (Maglio 1972). However, the fossils continued to point to a younger date as the quality of the work on them improved (White and Harris 1977). And in 1975, another lab, using K-Ar dating, reported dates of 1.82 and 1.60 Myr (Curtis et al. 1975). Fitch and Miller turned to an independent method to resolve the discrepancy, fission-track dating. Initial results gave an age of 2.44 +/- 0.08 Myr (Hurford et al. 1976). This fit well with the age of 2.42 Myr, which Fitch et al. (1976) recalculated from their original results. Subsequent 40Ar/39Ar measurements they took gave a scattering of ages from 0.52 +/- 0.33 to 2.6 +/- 0.3 Myr. They attributed the spread to reheating of the crystals after deposition. Paleomagnetic studies gave ambiguous results (Brock and Isaac 1974; Hillhouse et al. 1977). The weight of evidence soon began to converge on an age near 1.9 Myr, though. A study of trace elements in the minerals showed that the KBS Tuff correlates with the H2 tuff in the Shungura Formation, uncontroversially dated about 1.8 Myr (Cerling et al. 1979). The 1.60 Myr age reported by Curtis et al. (1975) was found to be an error due to a faulty balance (Drake et al. 1980). A later fission-track study which took pains to eliminate possible errors gave an age of 1.87 +/- 0.04 Myr (Gleadow 1980). Because the controversy had become quite heated, another expert, Ian McDougall, was called in to do independent dating. He came up with an age of 1.89 +/- 0.01 using K-Ar dating and 1.88 +/- 0.02 using 40Ar/39Ar dating (McDougall et al. 1980; McDougall 1981, 1985). Geological evidence and the consistency of dates derived from various sources indicates that reheating after deposition is unlikely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is nothing less than a complete vindication of what creationists have been saying about radiometric dating. It is also an excellent example of just how good evolutionists are at rationalizing away problems. The funny thing is that Talk Origins is clearly totally blind to how well this illustrates the truth of what creationists say about the process of radiometric dating.
> 
> Here they have dates all over the place, not only by different methods, but by the same methods. Given this, it was the fossils that led the way. In the end they came up with three dates that agreed with each other and the fossils, all of which had also given erroneous results. Simply put, what happened here is that evolutionists kept making measurements until they found results that they liked.
Click to expand...


"The KBS Tuff controversy illustrates many of the problems with radiometric dating, but it equally illustrates that the problems are not insurmountable."


----------



## LOki

Lonestar_logic said:


> Radiometric dating is flawed.


Not so much.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. This errors on that fundamentalist belief of "I'm right/You're wrong" or "I'm the only one that has the truth and you don't." I believe the Bible is ABSOLUTELY true. I am just not good with some fundamentalist interpretations of it, 6,000 year old earth being one of them. Most people can't read Genesis without preconceived notions from their parents or pastor or the current religious party line. I take the Bible at exactly what is says. Light and Dark existed because God created photons. The Bible CLEARLY states the Sun and Moon came along after several days of Creation. So how can your guy say there is no doubt these were 7 literal solar days?? Here is a guide on interpretation that might clear some things up. There are a great many denominations that don't have this grasp on interpreting the Bible. It is called Hermenutics:
> 
> How to Enjoy Bible Study - Grace to You with John MacArthur
> 
> I said it before. When you pretend Genesis was written for us in the 21st Century, you rob it of its originally meaning and power.
> 
> "You might have watched, along with some of us, in horror sometime back if you happened to be watching the Trinity Broadcasting Network, they were interviewing a guest on one of their "Talk Shows," and he was explaining the Biblical basis of his ministry of "Possibility Thinking." This is a quote, "My ministry is based entirely on my life verse, Matthew 19:26, 'With God all things are possible.' God gave me that verse (Matthew 19:26) because I was born in 1926." Obviously, intrigued by that method of obtaining a life verse, the host grabbed a Bible and began thumbing through it excitedly. "I was born in 1934," he said. "My life verse must be Matthew 19:34! What does it say?" Then he discovered that Matthew 19 has only 30 verses! Undeterred, he flipped to Luke, and read Luke 19:34, and they said, "The Lord hath need of Him." Thrilled, he exclaimed, "The Lord has need of me, the Lord has need of me!" What a wonderful life verse. I never had a life verse before, but now the Lord has given me one. Thank You, 0h Jesus, Hallelujah. And the studio audience began to applaud.
> 
> At that moment, however, the "Talk Show" host's wife who had also turned to Luke 19, said, "Wait a minute, you can't use this. This verse is talking about a donkey!" That incident, while being absolutely ludicrous and bizarre, gives you some idea of the "willy-nilly way" that some Charismatics approach Scripture. Some of them, looking for a word from the Lord, play a sort of Bible roulette. They spin the Bible at random, looking for something that might seem applicable to whatever trial or need they are facing and they find a verse and say, "Well, the Lord gave me that verse." And then the Lord supposedly gave them the interpretation of it. These are silly and foolish ways to approach the study of the Bible."
> 
> Charismatic Chaos - By John MacArthur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are we to believe a day that we witness today was longer back then ? I believe the light that existed when God created was himself. Why is he called the light of the world does that mean just because he is truth ?
> 
> So we should ignore the chronology of man that was given by the word of God. I will respectfully disagree with you. If God can say let there be light and there was light we can interpret that as it taking a long period of time for that light to appear.
> 
> But still you are basing your views off mans assumptions the same men who say we are products of natural processes and we are all products of evolution. I still think you should watch that video I posted and go through each scripture that is brought to our attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question isn't about solar days, but really your reasons why you believe that passage is meant to be taken literally and others in the Bible are not? Who has decided this for you?
Click to expand...


40 years of not just reading scriptures but studying them.  I am merely asking you for scriptures that support an old earth view. Why were days of creation longer then the days of man ? How long do you believe man was on this planet ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either you accept biblical absurdities or you pretend they don't exist to preserve blind, unquestioning allegiance to an ancient book of tales and fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest absurdity is non life developed life
> 
> Fables,that is the proper term for evolution not creation and design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, the interactions non-living things; why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?
> 
> And how is it not absurd, that the creator/designer you posit can be the source of life?
Click to expand...


Now if you only had an explanation for the natural process that put life into motion. We don't disagree that life now naturally keeps being reproduced over and over through natural processes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My questions to you don't appear to be particularly difficult to understand. Peer review is a valuable process of science wherein results of experimentation can be presented to scientists in similar fields for review, falsification and/or repeatable tests.
> 
> It's just a consistent pattern where creationists refuse to publish their work for the scrutiny of peer review. If, as you suggest, the entirety of mainstream scientists have gotten the data regarding a very ancient earth so completely wrong, why would creationists have such pause not to produce their data?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS VIDEO IS LACED WITH SARCASM (to those who have difficulty sensing it). *Scientists admit that radiometric dating*, one of the fundamental techniques used to show the earth is billions of years old *is flawed*!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was dishonest to claim that *Scientists admit that radiometric dating*, one of the fundamental techniques used to show the earth is billions of years old *is flawed*!!! when I saw no scientist admit such a thing.
Click to expand...


Many do because of the assumptions that are used in the method.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Radiometric dating is flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much.
Click to expand...


Are you saying their assumptions are not flawed ?


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think what you mean is either I believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of the sciptures or I don't. God inspired the book. He isn't the book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please provide scriptures that support your old earth beliefs. I will provide scriptures in this article that support my position.
> 
> Days or ages in Genesis 1
Click to expand...


Read it. For the most part I side with Ross and I have never heard of him or read his works. So does that mean the Holy Spirit revealed it to me? And I am not even joking!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a meaningful way to test the biblical tales for accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a way to test the "just so" stories of evolution for accuracy. You can start by providing a scientifically testable definition for fitness. I guess I wouldn't expect you to understand these things with just a high school education.
> *
> Where did you go to College?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you ever step foot in a university or browse through a library (you can even find links on the web), you will discover there is a wealth of informative and factual data detailing evolutionary science.
Click to expand...


How would you know?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Radiometric Dating Resource List
> 
> Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology - SpringerLink
> 
> As of January, 1999, The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). This is reported in the paper Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada by Samuel A. Bowring & Ian S. Williams; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134(1): 3-16, January 1999. The previous record was 3.96 billion years, set in 1989.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make.
> 
> Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your sources, as expected, are from creationist websites.
Click to expand...


Of course they are. Do you expect him to cut and paste from Panda's Thumb to support his arguments? You know, Hollie, you ain't the sharpest tool in the shed. 

*Probably because you didn't got to College.*


----------



## UltimateReality

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is nothing less than a complete vindication of what creationists have been saying about radiometric dating. It is also an excellent example of just how good evolutionists are at rationalizing away problems. The funny thing is that Talk Origins is clearly totally blind to how well this illustrates the truth of what creationists say about the process of radiometric dating.
> 
> Here they have dates all over the place, not only by different methods, but by the same methods. Given this, it was the fossils that led the way. In the end they came up with three dates that agreed with each other and the fossils, all of which had also given erroneous results. Simply put, what happened here is that evolutionists kept making measurements until they found results that they liked.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you find it at all strange that your article (from creation wiki), references Marvin Lubenow?
> 
> creation.com/marvin-lubenow Marvin Lubenow is Professor of Bible/Apologetics at Christian Heritage College in San Diego California.
> 
> I see. A professor of bible apologetics is your source?
> 
> Chuckle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a troll with no objectivity at all.
Click to expand...


When I obsess over Hollie late at night, I kind of picture her as a troll. Big hairy feet, scraggly hair, and one of those chick mustaches that should be waxed. Oh and really thick man hands that have a Rugged Touch.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gods will punish me.
> 
> In the meantime, could you provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor, with a degree in anthropology, to authoritatively interpret the data?
> 
> Is there any chance the professor published his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think you are in a position to question anyone else's credentials Rugged man hands??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your writing / emotional skill level is barely 7th grade so yes, I am perfectly positioned to understand you're a goofy little boy.
> 
> Run along now. Scoot.
Click to expand...


Oh you poor dear. Can't handle the heat so you want me to run along? *How is your GED coming along?*


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are we to believe a day that we witness today was longer back then ? I believe the light that existed when God created was himself. Why is he called the light of the world does that mean just because he is truth ?
> 
> So we should ignore the chronology of man that was given by the word of God. I will respectfully disagree with you. If God can say let there be light and there was light we can interpret that as it taking a long period of time for that light to appear.
> 
> But still you are basing your views off mans assumptions the same men who say we are products of natural processes and we are all products of evolution. I still think you should watch that video I posted and go through each scripture that is brought to our attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question isn't about solar days, but really your reasons why you believe that passage is meant to be taken literally and others in the Bible are not? Who has decided this for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40 years of not just reading scriptures but studying them.  I am merely asking you for scriptures that support an old earth view. Why were days of creation longer then the days of man ? How long do you believe man was on this planet ?
Click to expand...


I believe God put Adam in the garden about 10,000 years ago.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Radiometric dating is flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying their assumptions are not flawed ?
Click to expand...


Now YWC, please quit harassing Loki. He has already conceded that he has no problem with 43 "might haves" and "could haves" coming together miraculously to produce life. He is demonstrating it takes just as much faith to believe in his fairy tale as it does for us to believe in ours. He is just too arrogant and too scared of God to admit it.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest absurdity is non life developed life
> 
> Fables,that is the proper term for evolution not creation and design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, the interactions non-living things; why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?
> 
> And how is it not absurd, that the creator/designer you posit can be the source of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now if you only had an explanation for the natural process that put life into motion.
Click to expand...

There are a number of hypotheses. It remains an open question, however.



Youwerecreated said:


> We don't disagree that life now naturally keeps being reproduced over and over through natural processes.


Excellent. Why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?_"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​Considering that you assert that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary and logically valid explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.

Failing to do this, how is it not absurd that this "Creator" you posit can be the source of life?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying their assumptions are not flawed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now YWC, please quit harassing Loki. He has already conceded that he has no problem with 43 "might haves" and "could haves" coming together miraculously to produce life.
Click to expand...

Disinformation.



UltimateReality said:


> He is demonstrating it takes just as much faith to believe in his fairy tale as it does for us to believe in ours.


I don't engage any faith.



UltimateReality said:


> He is just too arrogant and too scared of God to admit it.


Arrogance is your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend; and I have nothing to fear from your imaginary superfriend.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cd36WJ79z4"]"I don't feel frightened by not knowing things."--Richard Feynman[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, the interactions non-living things; why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?
> 
> And how is it not absurd, that the creator/designer you posit can be the source of life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you only had an explanation for the natural process that put life into motion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a number of hypotheses. It remains an open question, however.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't disagree that life now naturally keeps being reproduced over and over through natural processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent. Why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?_"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​Considering that you assert that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary and logically valid explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Failing to do this, how is it not absurd that this "Creator" you posit can be the source of life?
Click to expand...


Already been done several times with the reprint of Stephen Meyers scientific theory. It is currently the best explanation that an intelligent agent was the source of information in dna, and ultimately, the source for the micro machines that all had to be in place wholly functional for the contraption to work.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying their assumptions are not flawed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now YWC, please quit harassing Loki. He has already conceded that he has no problem with 43 "might haves" and "could haves" coming together miraculously to produce life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is demonstrating it takes just as much faith to believe in his fairy tale as it does for us to believe in ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't engage any faith.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is just too arrogant and too scared of God to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arrogance is your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend; and I have nothing to fear from your imaginary superfriend.
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cd36WJ79z4"]"I don't feel frightened by not knowing things."--Richard Feynman[/ame]
Click to expand...


Your Darwinism isn't falsifiable either, so I am failing to see the contrast you are hopelessly failing at. Still waiting on that testable, agreed upon, definition of fitness. Let me know when you come up with something.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now YWC, please quit harassing Loki. He has already conceded that he has no problem with 43 "might haves" and "could haves" coming together miraculously to produce life.
> 
> 
> 
> Disinformation.
> 
> I don't engage any faith.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is just too arrogant and too scared of God to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arrogance is your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend; and I have nothing to fear from your imaginary superfriend.
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cd36WJ79z4"]"I don't feel frightened by not knowing things."--Richard Feynman[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your Darwinism isn't falsifiable either, so I am failing to see the contrast you are hopelessly failing at. Still waiting on that testable, agreed upon, definition of fitness. Let me know when you come up with something.
Click to expand...

Try this.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question isn't about solar days, but really your reasons why you believe that passage is meant to be taken literally and others in the Bible are not? Who has decided this for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40 years of not just reading scriptures but studying them.  I am merely asking you for scriptures that support an old earth view. Why were days of creation longer then the days of man ? How long do you believe man was on this planet ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe God put Adam in the garden about 10,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

Other people believe aliens have done something similar. These notions are no less absurd than yours.

But that explain your revulsion for science.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you only had an explanation for the natural process that put life into motion.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a number of hypotheses. It remains an open question, however.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't disagree that life now naturally keeps being reproduced over and over through natural processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent. Why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?_"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​Considering that you assert that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary and logically valid explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Failing to do this, how is it not absurd that this "Creator" you posit can be the source of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already been done several times with the reprint of Stephen Meyers scientific theory.
Click to expand...

Refuted every time you post it.



UltimateReality said:


> It is currently the best explanation that an intelligent agent was the source of information in dna, and ultimately, the source for the micro machines that all had to be in place wholly functional for the contraption to work.


It is no explanation at all for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you only had an explanation for the natural process that put life into motion.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a number of hypotheses. It remains an open question, however.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't disagree that life now naturally keeps being reproduced over and over through natural processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent. Why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life oriiginated in the interactions non-living things?_"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​Considering that you assert that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary and logically valid explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Failing to do this, how is it not absurd that this "Creator" you posit can be the source of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already been done several times with the reprint of Stephen Meyers scientific theory. It is currently the best explanation that an intelligent agent was the source of information in dna, and ultimately, the source for the micro machines that all had to be in place wholly functional for the contraption to work.
Click to expand...

Meyers never demonstrates this supermagical agent you carry on about. Therefore, there we are left with no reason to accept any appeals to supermagical agents.


----------



## Hollie

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #276: Stephen Meyer 

Stephen C. Meyer is a philosopher and one of the hotshots of the Discovery Institute. And like some philosophers and all Discovery Institute people, he likes to make grand claims about scientific fields about which he must be counted as an illiterate. Meyer helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the major hive for the ID creationist movement. Meyer is currently vice president and a senior fellow at CSC, and a director of the Access Research Network. He has been described as &#8220;the person who brought ID (intelligent design) to DI (Discovery Institute)&#8221;, he contributed to the second edition of Dean Kenyon&#8217;s &#8220;Of Pandas and People&#8221;, wrote (with Ralph Seelke) the ID textbook &#8220;Explore Evolution&#8221;, was appointed by the Texas Board of Education to be on the committee reviewing Texas&#8217;s science curriculum standards, is the primary link to DI sponsor and Taliban theocrat loon Howard Ahmanson, and was partly responsible for the Wedge Strategy,as well as an active speaker and debate panelist.


----------



## ima

If god made creationists then we're made in the image of a simpleton.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think what you mean is either I believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of the sciptures or I don't. God inspired the book. He isn't the book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide scriptures that support your old earth beliefs. I will provide scriptures in this article that support my position.
> 
> Days or ages in Genesis 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read it. For the most part I side with Ross and I have never heard of him or read his works. So does that mean the Holy Spirit revealed it to me? And I am not even joking!!
Click to expand...


Progressive creationism is built on assumptions not facts just like many scientific theories. What was the point of God handing down judgment on adam if things were already dying.

I still have not seen any scriptures that would make me consider an old earth view. People can believe as they wish but for me my doctrine comes from the bible. Are all my beliefs in line with what the scrptures say ? I believe they are I don't believe doctrine that I don't see in the scrptures.

I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question isn't about solar days, but really your reasons why you believe that passage is meant to be taken literally and others in the Bible are not? Who has decided this for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40 years of not just reading scriptures but studying them.  I am merely asking you for scriptures that support an old earth view. Why were days of creation longer then the days of man ? How long do you believe man was on this planet ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe God put Adam in the garden about 10,000 years ago.
Click to expand...


Chronology of man according to the scriptures suggest 6,000 years, Why do you believe 10,000 years ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, the interactions non-living things; why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?
> 
> And how is it not absurd, that the creator/designer you posit can be the source of life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you only had an explanation for the natural process that put life into motion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a number of hypotheses. It remains an open question, however.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't disagree that life now naturally keeps being reproduced over and over through natural processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent. Why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?_"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​Considering that you assert that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary and logically valid explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Failing to do this, how is it not absurd that this "Creator" you posit can be the source of life?
Click to expand...


Great much conjecture, why do you rule out a creator ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> If god made creationists then we're made in the image of a simpleton.



What are your credentials to make such a claim ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If god made creationists then we're made in the image of a simpleton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your credentials to make such a claim ?
Click to expand...


IDers trying to get intelligent design into a SCIENCE class, as opposed to getting it accepted in an ethics or philosophy class. 
Any dumber than that, and you die. Evolution and natural selection have seen to that.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide scriptures that support your old earth beliefs. I will provide scriptures in this article that support my position.
> 
> Days or ages in Genesis 1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read it. For the most part I side with Ross and I have never heard of him or read his works. So does that mean the Holy Spirit revealed it to me? And I am not even joking!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progressive creationism is built on assumptions not facts just like many scientific theories. What was the point of God handing down judgment on adam if things were already dying.
> 
> I still have not seen any scriptures that would make me consider an old earth view. People can believe as they wish but for me my doctrine comes from the bible. Are all my beliefs in line with what the scrptures say ? I believe they are I don't believe doctrine that I don't see in the scrptures.
> 
> I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's.
Click to expand...


I always find it tragically comic that fundies will make comments such as: "I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's"

The fact is, all of the alleged "holy texts" are undeniably written by men. 

Its quite simple, really: A book is simply that, a book. There is no solid reason to connect any supernatural entity with the authorship of a book. Never, ever, in all of the history of humanity has any god made their existence extant. Never in human history has any one of the 14,000 or so alleged gods presented themselves in a fashion understandable to humans, And in fact, all of the alleged gods have eventually been superseded and/or replaced by the more currently in-vogue gods. Its just a fact that the bible was written by men, edited, revised and compiled by many men. That is not conjecture or assumption on my part, its just a fact. I care about these inventions of supernatural entities because religions and supernatural beliefs can have the effect of keeping humanity in bondage, both mentally and physically. Im forced to acknowledge these various religious beliefs because countless billions of people are made to live their lives in trembling fear of an asserted supernatural entity who will bring forth such things as hell and plagues and various "wraths", "curses" and "spells". Faith, then, is ultimately a confused marriage of blind, uncritical trust, and wishful thinking. No matter how fervently one believes in an improbability or an outright contradiction, it will not suddenly spring into being merely because people wish it so. As Anatole France said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If god made creationists then we're made in the image of a simpleton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your credentials to make such a claim ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IDers trying to get intelligent design into a SCIENCE class, as opposed to getting it accepted in an ethics or philosophy class.
> Any dumber than that, and you die. Evolution and natural selection have seen to that.
Click to expand...


My comment was directed at your comment concerning creationists not IDers.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

MarcATL said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.
> 
> I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.
> 
> *Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.*
> 
> We must be some luck*y* planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.
> 
> Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.
> 
> But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain.
> 
> I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?
Click to expand...


Well, I didn't dig too deeply into the old thread, but if you're asking why we are so lucky, I guess I don't understand the question. The universe is simply too vast to know that we ARE totally unique. It seems rather arrogant to me to assume that, given that virtually incomprehensible vastness, that we are the only planet with life, whether one believes we are created by a higher power or not. 

Incidentally, you appear to making an assumption that I am an atheist. That's understandable given the polarized nature of culture today. If somebody weighs in or makes an observation, it is natural these days for people to draw their lines and place that person on one side or the other, and the only two options, I'm guessing, would be Christian and atheist. My beliefs are irrelevant. Either we are seeing stars that are billions of light years away or we are not, and all considerations of spiritual beliefs are entirely out of the equation of whether or not that is true.

Evolutionary science, like ALL science, makes assumptions. You can't get by in life without assumptions. I walk out to my car every morning making an assumption that it is going to start. If we didn't make assumptions we would simply stagnate to inertia. My problem with fundamental religious belief is that it doesn't make assumptions, it makes extraordinary assertions. These assertions are sometimes, some would say often, contradicted by natural law. I can't help that. I accept the natural laws of my Creator on their own terms. To me it seems insulting to those laws to accept somebody's word for it that a human being resurrected from the dead when natural law would tell us that this is impossible. The burden of proof of such a thing rests with the person making the claim, and not with me or anybody else to _disprove_. This does not mean that I don't believe in a Creator, nor does it diminish my capacity to do so.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read it. For the most part I side with Ross and I have never heard of him or read his works. So does that mean the Holy Spirit revealed it to me? And I am not even joking!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive creationism is built on assumptions not facts just like many scientific theories. What was the point of God handing down judgment on adam if things were already dying.
> 
> I still have not seen any scriptures that would make me consider an old earth view. People can believe as they wish but for me my doctrine comes from the bible. Are all my beliefs in line with what the scrptures say ? I believe they are I don't believe doctrine that I don't see in the scrptures.
> 
> I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always find it tragically comic that fundies will make comments such as: "I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's"
> 
> The fact is, all of the alleged "holy texts" are undeniably written by men.
> 
> Its quite simple, really: A book is simply that, a book. There is no solid reason to connect any supernatural entity with the authorship of a book. Never, ever, in all of the history of humanity has any god made their existence extant. Never in human history has any one of the 14,000 or so alleged gods presented themselves in a fashion understandable to humans, And in fact, all of the alleged gods have eventually been superseded and/or replaced by the more currently in-vogue gods. Its just a fact that the bible was written by men, edited, revised and compiled by many men. That is not conjecture or assumption on my part, its just a fact. I care about these inventions of supernatural entities because religions and supernatural beliefs can have the effect of keeping humanity in bondage, both mentally and physically. Im forced to acknowledge these various religious beliefs because countless billions of people are made to live their lives in trembling fear of an asserted supernatural entity who will bring forth such things as hell and plagues and various "wraths", "curses" and "spells". Faith, then, is ultimately a confused marriage of blind, uncritical trust, and wishful thinking. No matter how fervently one believes in an improbability or an outright contradiction, it will not suddenly spring into being merely because people wish it so. As Anatole France said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
Click to expand...


Many of the writings confirm a superior being inspired the writings. There are things mentioned in the writings that man did know at that time. These writings had to be inspired from someone superior to man.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Jimmy_Jam said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It baffles me how one can seriously believe the earth is millions and millions of years too.
> 
> I created a thread a while, back, asking the question how lucky must we earthlings be to have existed on this planet without having a MASSIVE meteor totally obliterate it.
> 
> *Basically, no one answered it. I'll have to look for it again.*
> 
> We must be some luck*y* planet...if you believe, as you do, that the earth is millions of years old and that humankind came up from amoebas to eventually cavemen to eventually what we are today.
> 
> Actually, I'm not that baffled, as Scripture speaks about man and his penchant for his own foolish thoughts and imaginings.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is this little thing called the Starlight Problem that vexes Young Earth creationists. Light travels at a finite speed, and the distances of stars observed in space is pretty solid science, and there are stars detected that are billions of light years away. If YE creationists were correct, then only stars that are a few thousand light years away could be seen.
> 
> But creationists will be not be swayed with simple logic. No, instead they came up with the theory of C-Decay, that when God created the universe light traveled much faster than it does today, and has been decaying exponentially ever since. This theory had some ground with creationists in the 80's but lost steam when the absurd premises needed to support it became impossible to maintain.
> 
> I believe in God, I just don't believe in a God that is in contradiction to Natural Law. Why would God create a Universe that continually contradicts its own laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I didn't dig too deeply into the old thread, but if you're asking why we are so lucky, I guess I don't understand the question. The universe is simply too vast to know that we ARE totally unique. It seems rather arrogant to me to assume that, given that virtually incomprehensible vastness, that we are the only planet with life, whether one believes we are created by a higher power or not.
> 
> Incidentally, you appear to making an assumption that I am an atheist. That's understandable given the polarized nature of culture today. If somebody weighs in or makes an observation, it is natural these days for people to draw their lines and place that person on one side or the other, and the only two options, I'm guessing, would be Christian and atheist. My beliefs are irrelevant. Either we are seeing stars that are billions of light years away or we are not, and all considerations of spiritual beliefs are entirely out of the equation of whether or not that is true.
> 
> Evolutionary science, like ALL science, makes assumptions. You can't get by in life without assumptions. I walk out to my car every morning making an assumption that it is going to start. If we didn't make assumptions we would simply stagnate to inertia. My problem with fundamental religious belief is that it doesn't make assumptions, it makes extraordinary assertions. These assertions are sometimes, some would say often, contradicted by natural law. I can't help that. I accept the natural laws of my Creator on their own terms. To me it seems insulting to those laws to accept somebody's word for it that a human being resurrected from the dead when natural law would tell us that this is impossible. The burden of proof of such a thing rests with the person making the claim, and not with me or anybody else to _disprove_. This does not mean that I don't believe in a Creator, nor does it diminish my capacity to do so.
Click to expand...


We are lucky to get the precision in nature that is observed and required for lifes survival. Don't you feel lucky if it all just happened by chance ?


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Youwerecreated said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
> 
> 
> Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I didn't dig too deeply into the old thread, but if you're asking why we are so lucky, I guess I don't understand the question. The universe is simply too vast to know that we ARE totally unique. It seems rather arrogant to me to assume that, given that virtually incomprehensible vastness, that we are the only planet with life, whether one believes we are created by a higher power or not.
> 
> Incidentally, you appear to making an assumption that I am an atheist. That's understandable given the polarized nature of culture today. If somebody weighs in or makes an observation, it is natural these days for people to draw their lines and place that person on one side or the other, and the only two options, I'm guessing, would be Christian and atheist. My beliefs are irrelevant. Either we are seeing stars that are billions of light years away or we are not, and all considerations of spiritual beliefs are entirely out of the equation of whether or not that is true.
> 
> Evolutionary science, like ALL science, makes assumptions. You can't get by in life without assumptions. I walk out to my car every morning making an assumption that it is going to start. If we didn't make assumptions we would simply stagnate to inertia. My problem with fundamental religious belief is that it doesn't make assumptions, it makes extraordinary assertions. These assertions are sometimes, some would say often, contradicted by natural law. I can't help that. I accept the natural laws of my Creator on their own terms. To me it seems insulting to those laws to accept somebody's word for it that a human being resurrected from the dead when natural law would tell us that this is impossible. The burden of proof of such a thing rests with the person making the claim, and not with me or anybody else to _disprove_. This does not mean that I don't believe in a Creator, nor does it diminish my capacity to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are lucky to get the precision in nature that is observed and required for lifes survival. Don't you feel lucky if it all just happened by chance ?
Click to expand...


I was responding to an earlier post by marcATL that intrigued me. I'm not trying to get involved in the pointless ping-pong match between you and Hollie. If you want to engage with me, that's fine, but please be a little clearer about what you are asking or what you are trying to establish. I can't escape the feeling that you are trying to bait me into something, I just don't know what.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive creationism is built on assumptions not facts just like many scientific theories. What was the point of God handing down judgment on adam if things were already dying.
> 
> I still have not seen any scriptures that would make me consider an old earth view. People can believe as they wish but for me my doctrine comes from the bible. Are all my beliefs in line with what the scrptures say ? I believe they are I don't believe doctrine that I don't see in the scrptures.
> 
> I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always find it tragically comic that fundies will make comments such as: "I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's"
> 
> The fact is, all of the alleged "holy texts" are undeniably written by men.
> 
> Its quite simple, really: A book is simply that, a book. There is no solid reason to connect any supernatural entity with the authorship of a book. Never, ever, in all of the history of humanity has any god made their existence extant. Never in human history has any one of the 14,000 or so alleged gods presented themselves in a fashion understandable to humans, And in fact, all of the alleged gods have eventually been superseded and/or replaced by the more currently in-vogue gods. Its just a fact that the bible was written by men, edited, revised and compiled by many men. That is not conjecture or assumption on my part, its just a fact. I care about these inventions of supernatural entities because religions and supernatural beliefs can have the effect of keeping humanity in bondage, both mentally and physically. Im forced to acknowledge these various religious beliefs because countless billions of people are made to live their lives in trembling fear of an asserted supernatural entity who will bring forth such things as hell and plagues and various "wraths", "curses" and "spells". Faith, then, is ultimately a confused marriage of blind, uncritical trust, and wishful thinking. No matter how fervently one believes in an improbability or an outright contradiction, it will not suddenly spring into being merely because people wish it so. As Anatole France said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of the writings confirm a superior being inspired the writings. There are things mentioned in the writings that man did know at that time. These writings had to be inspired from someone superior to man.
Click to expand...

What writings confirm a "superior being". Be specific and identify how a book, inarguably written by men, confirms such a statement. Be specific and identify how the "superior being" communicated these inspired writings to men. Be specific and identify how any of the men who wrote the bible received these inspired writings from a being that was authentically a "superior being"

Be specific and identify what "many things" man did not know that were "revealed" by a 'superior being"

Be specific and identify why the bible (which we know was written by men) "had to be inspired" by some superior being.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UR the scrptures say in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. When was that beginning ? 

Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 
Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters. 
Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light. And there was light. 
Gen 1:4  And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness. 
Gen 1:5  And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

It say's this was the first day how do we measure a day ? There is day and there is night.

God does not specify what the light was on the first day we can only speculate but he did separate night from day but together they formed one 24 hour day.

What was the LIGHT of the FIRST DAY of Creation?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you only had an explanation for the natural process that put life into motion.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a number of hypotheses. It remains an open question, however.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't disagree that life now naturally keeps being reproduced over and over through natural processes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent. Why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?_"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​Considering that you assert that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary and logically valid explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Failing to do this, how is it not absurd that this "Creator" you posit can be the source of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great much conjecture, why do you rule out a creator ?
Click to expand...

I don't. Never had.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always find it tragically comic that fundies will make comments such as: "I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's"
> 
> The fact is, all of the alleged "holy texts" are undeniably written by men.
> 
> Its quite simple, really: A book is simply that, a book. There is no solid reason to connect any supernatural entity with the authorship of a book. Never, ever, in all of the history of humanity has any god made their existence extant. Never in human history has any one of the 14,000 or so alleged gods presented themselves in a fashion understandable to humans, And in fact, all of the alleged gods have eventually been superseded and/or replaced by the more currently in-vogue gods. Its just a fact that the bible was written by men, edited, revised and compiled by many men. That is not conjecture or assumption on my part, its just a fact. I care about these inventions of supernatural entities because religions and supernatural beliefs can have the effect of keeping humanity in bondage, both mentally and physically. Im forced to acknowledge these various religious beliefs because countless billions of people are made to live their lives in trembling fear of an asserted supernatural entity who will bring forth such things as hell and plagues and various "wraths", "curses" and "spells". Faith, then, is ultimately a confused marriage of blind, uncritical trust, and wishful thinking. No matter how fervently one believes in an improbability or an outright contradiction, it will not suddenly spring into being merely because people wish it so. As Anatole France said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the writings confirm a superior being inspired the writings. There are things mentioned in the writings that man did know at that time. These writings had to be inspired from someone superior to man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What writings confirm a "superior being". Be specific and identify how a book, inarguably written by men, confirms such a statement. Be specific and identify how the "superior being" communicated these inspired writings to men. Be specific and identify how any of the men who wrote the bible received these inspired writings from a being that was authentically a "superior being"
> 
> Be specific and identify what "many things" man did not know that were "revealed" by a 'superior being"
> 
> Be specific and identify why the bible (which we know was written by men) "had to be inspired" by some superior being.
Click to expand...


Hollie how many times must I post the evidence that was not confirmed until modern day science but was written about in the scriptures long before technology allowed us to confirm the writings.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
> 
> 
> Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I didn't dig too deeply into the old thread, but if you're asking why we are so lucky, I guess I don't understand the question. The universe is simply too vast to know that we ARE totally unique. It seems rather arrogant to me to assume that, given that virtually incomprehensible vastness, that we are the only planet with life, whether one believes we are created by a higher power or not.
> 
> Incidentally, you appear to making an assumption that I am an atheist. That's understandable given the polarized nature of culture today. If somebody weighs in or makes an observation, it is natural these days for people to draw their lines and place that person on one side or the other, and the only two options, I'm guessing, would be Christian and atheist. My beliefs are irrelevant. Either we are seeing stars that are billions of light years away or we are not, and all considerations of spiritual beliefs are entirely out of the equation of whether or not that is true.
> 
> Evolutionary science, like ALL science, makes assumptions. You can't get by in life without assumptions. I walk out to my car every morning making an assumption that it is going to start. If we didn't make assumptions we would simply stagnate to inertia. My problem with fundamental religious belief is that it doesn't make assumptions, it makes extraordinary assertions. These assertions are sometimes, some would say often, contradicted by natural law. I can't help that. I accept the natural laws of my Creator on their own terms. To me it seems insulting to those laws to accept somebody's word for it that a human being resurrected from the dead when natural law would tell us that this is impossible. The burden of proof of such a thing rests with the person making the claim, and not with me or anybody else to _disprove_. This does not mean that I don't believe in a Creator, nor does it diminish my capacity to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are lucky to get the precision in nature that is observed and required for lifes survival. Don't you feel lucky if it all just happened by chance ?
Click to expand...

Once again you make nonsensical comments about "precision in nature" yet you ignore how imprecise nature actually is. 

How "precise" are tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunami, meteor impacts, etc?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a number of hypotheses. It remains an open question, however.
> 
> Excellent. Why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?_"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​Considering that you assert that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary and logically valid explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Failing to do this, how is it not absurd that this "Creator" you posit can be the source of life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great much conjecture, why do you rule out a creator ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't. Never had.
Click to expand...


Ok that is not the impression you give.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the writings confirm a superior being inspired the writings. There are things mentioned in the writings that man did know at that time. These writings had to be inspired from someone superior to man.
> 
> 
> 
> What writings confirm a "superior being". Be specific and identify how a book, inarguably written by men, confirms such a statement. Be specific and identify how the "superior being" communicated these inspired writings to men. Be specific and identify how any of the men who wrote the bible received these inspired writings from a being that was authentically a "superior being"
> 
> Be specific and identify what "many things" man did not know that were "revealed" by a 'superior being"
> 
> Be specific and identify why the bible (which we know was written by men) "had to be inspired" by some superior being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie how many times must I post the evidence that was not confirmed until modern day science but was written about in the scriptures long before technology allowed us to confirm the writings.
Click to expand...

How many times must you be instructed to post such evidence of a "superior being" which you consistently fail to do. 

Once again - provide something - something narrow and specific - something that someone without a prior committment to fundie dogma could identify explicitly as being provided by a "superior being" and confirmed only by modern science.

I really can't recall how many times you have been instructed to do so and you have failed every time.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the writings confirm a superior being inspired the writings. There are things mentioned in the writings that man did know at that time. These writings had to be inspired from someone superior to man.
> 
> 
> 
> What writings confirm a "superior being". Be specific and identify how a book, inarguably written by men, confirms such a statement. Be specific and identify how the "superior being" communicated these inspired writings to men. Be specific and identify how any of the men who wrote the bible received these inspired writings from a being that was authentically a "superior being"
> 
> Be specific and identify what "many things" man did not know that were "revealed" by a 'superior being"
> 
> Be specific and identify why the bible (which we know was written by men) "had to be inspired" by some superior being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie how many times must I post the evidence that was not confirmed until modern day science but was written about in the scriptures long before technology allowed us to confirm the writings.
Click to expand...


Humor me, give me one example.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html
> 
> 
> Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I didn't dig too deeply into the old thread, but if you're asking why we are so lucky, I guess I don't understand the question. The universe is simply too vast to know that we ARE totally unique. It seems rather arrogant to me to assume that, given that virtually incomprehensible vastness, that we are the only planet with life, whether one believes we are created by a higher power or not.
> 
> Incidentally, you appear to making an assumption that I am an atheist. That's understandable given the polarized nature of culture today. If somebody weighs in or makes an observation, it is natural these days for people to draw their lines and place that person on one side or the other, and the only two options, I'm guessing, would be Christian and atheist. My beliefs are irrelevant. Either we are seeing stars that are billions of light years away or we are not, and all considerations of spiritual beliefs are entirely out of the equation of whether or not that is true.
> 
> Evolutionary science, like ALL science, makes assumptions. You can't get by in life without assumptions. I walk out to my car every morning making an assumption that it is going to start. If we didn't make assumptions we would simply stagnate to inertia. My problem with fundamental religious belief is that it doesn't make assumptions, it makes extraordinary assertions. These assertions are sometimes, some would say often, contradicted by natural law. I can't help that. I accept the natural laws of my Creator on their own terms. To me it seems insulting to those laws to accept somebody's word for it that a human being resurrected from the dead when natural law would tell us that this is impossible. The burden of proof of such a thing rests with the person making the claim, and not with me or anybody else to _disprove_. This does not mean that I don't believe in a Creator, nor does it diminish my capacity to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are lucky to get the precision in nature that is observed and required for lifes survival.
Click to expand...

This "precision" you claim is observed--is it a conclusion from correlations observed in a given sample, but only after the sample has already been drawn?



Youwerecreated said:


> Don't you feel lucky if it all just happened by chance ?


As I have answered every time you've asked: no; not really.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great much conjecture, why do you rule out a creator ?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. Never had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok that is not the impression you give.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you can be confused. It's been my explicit position the whole time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I didn't dig too deeply into the old thread, but if you're asking why we are so lucky, I guess I don't understand the question. The universe is simply too vast to know that we ARE totally unique. It seems rather arrogant to me to assume that, given that virtually incomprehensible vastness, that we are the only planet with life, whether one believes we are created by a higher power or not.
> 
> Incidentally, you appear to making an assumption that I am an atheist. That's understandable given the polarized nature of culture today. If somebody weighs in or makes an observation, it is natural these days for people to draw their lines and place that person on one side or the other, and the only two options, I'm guessing, would be Christian and atheist. My beliefs are irrelevant. Either we are seeing stars that are billions of light years away or we are not, and all considerations of spiritual beliefs are entirely out of the equation of whether or not that is true.
> 
> Evolutionary science, like ALL science, makes assumptions. You can't get by in life without assumptions. I walk out to my car every morning making an assumption that it is going to start. If we didn't make assumptions we would simply stagnate to inertia. My problem with fundamental religious belief is that it doesn't make assumptions, it makes extraordinary assertions. These assertions are sometimes, some would say often, contradicted by natural law. I can't help that. I accept the natural laws of my Creator on their own terms. To me it seems insulting to those laws to accept somebody's word for it that a human being resurrected from the dead when natural law would tell us that this is impossible. The burden of proof of such a thing rests with the person making the claim, and not with me or anybody else to _disprove_. This does not mean that I don't believe in a Creator, nor does it diminish my capacity to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are lucky to get the precision in nature that is observed and required for lifes survival. Don't you feel lucky if it all just happened by chance ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you make nonsensical comments about "precision in nature" yet you ignore how imprecise nature actually is.
> 
> How "precise" are tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunami, meteor impacts, etc?
Click to expand...



Why do you deny precision in nature ? A planet that can sustain life, No doubt we we no loner have perfection in nature but we still have precision in nature. Why do you confuse the two ?

If it were not for precision in biological sequences you would not have life. The bible gives us a reason for imperfection but precision in nature is still needed.

Take a quick look at precision in nature in action.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU]Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What writings confirm a "superior being". Be specific and identify how a book, inarguably written by men, confirms such a statement. Be specific and identify how the "superior being" communicated these inspired writings to men. Be specific and identify how any of the men who wrote the bible received these inspired writings from a being that was authentically a "superior being"
> 
> Be specific and identify what "many things" man did not know that were "revealed" by a 'superior being"
> 
> Be specific and identify why the bible (which we know was written by men) "had to be inspired" by some superior being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how many times must I post the evidence that was not confirmed until modern day science but was written about in the scriptures long before technology allowed us to confirm the writings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times must you be instructed to post such evidence of a "superior being" which you consistently fail to do.
> 
> Once again - provide something - something narrow and specific - something that someone without a prior committment to fundie dogma could identify explicitly as being provided by a "superior being" and confirmed only by modern science.
> 
> I really can't recall how many times you have been instructed to do so and you have failed every time.
Click to expand...


Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What writings confirm a "superior being". Be specific and identify how a book, inarguably written by men, confirms such a statement. Be specific and identify how the "superior being" communicated these inspired writings to men. Be specific and identify how any of the men who wrote the bible received these inspired writings from a being that was authentically a "superior being"
> 
> Be specific and identify what "many things" man did not know that were "revealed" by a 'superior being"
> 
> Be specific and identify why the bible (which we know was written by men) "had to be inspired" by some superior being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how many times must I post the evidence that was not confirmed until modern day science but was written about in the scriptures long before technology allowed us to confirm the writings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humor me, give me one example.
Click to expand...


Take your pick.

 1.
The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.

Visit:
Modern Science In An Ancient (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.
Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Visit:
All About Atoms (Jefferson Lab)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.
The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.

Visit:
The Arks perfect dimensions (Answers In Genesis)
Safety investigation of Noahs Ark in a seaway (Answers In Genesis)
Noahs Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.
When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.

Visit:
-Why do I need to wash my hands? 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.
Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.
Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

Visit:
Springs of the Ocean (ICR)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.
There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

Visit:
Numerical Simulations Of Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8.
Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creators presence  in Your presence is fullness of joy (Psalm 16:11).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9.
Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were bled and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood long before science understood its function.

Visit:
Life in the Blood (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.
The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe  namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.

Visit:
Things You May Not Know About Evolution (ICR)
Creation - Evolution (ICR)
Evolution and the Bible (ICR)
The Fossil Record: Intermediate Links (ChristianAnswers.net)
Archaeopteryx A Feathered Reptile? (ChristianAnswers.net)
The Ape-Man: Missing Link (ChristianAnswers.net)
Biological Evolution Darwin's Finches (ChristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11.
Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwins theory of the survival of the fittest.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12.
Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.

Visit:
What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg? (ICR)
The Egg/Chicken Conundrum (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13.
Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

Visit:
Things that are Made (ICR)
Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality (ICR)
Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories (ICR)
The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14.
Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements  all of which are found in the earth.

Visit:
The elements of the periodic table sorted by their presence in human body. (Lenntech)
The Bible is a Textbook of Science (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.
The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16.
The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)Then God said, Let there be light (energy). No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17.
The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18.
The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.

Visit:
Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth 
Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19.
Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20.
Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow in the cloud as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets  which act as a prism  separating white light into its color spectrum.

Visit:
What causes a rainbow? (CristianAnswers.net)
The Rainbow And The Cloud (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be parted and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago  God declared this four millennia ago!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22.
Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the paths of the seas. In the 19th century Matthew Maury  the father of oceanography  after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maurys data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23.
Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body, and that those who commit homosexual sin would receive in themselves the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.

Visit
Sex Habits Linked to Early Death, Disability (Fox News)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24.
Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25.
Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars  thats a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26.
The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along  He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27.
The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28.
Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.

Visit:
Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality (ICR)
Is Creation One of the Traditional Values? (ICR)
Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism (ICR)
Would China Benefit from Christianity? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29.
The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was Gods judgment on mans wickedness.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30.
Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.

Visit:
The Origin of Coal (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31.
The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent  just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

32.
Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the fountains of the great deep were broken up. This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.

Visit:
Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

33.
Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often  By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.

Visit:
Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains (ICR)
Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible (ICR)
The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

34.
Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

Visit:
Is the unborn human less than human? (CristianAnswers.net)
Cloning: Redefining When Life Begins Exposing Flaws in the Preembryo-Embryo Distinction (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

35.
God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an intricate unity in the womb.

Visit:
Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

36.
DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Visit:
Curiously Wrought (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

37.
God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

Visit:
One Blood: The biblical answer to racism (CristianAnswers.net) 
Where Did The Races Come From? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

38.
Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Visit:
Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR) 
On the Origin of Language (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39.
Origin of the different races explained (Genesis 11). As Noahs descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

Visit:
Where did the human races come from? (CristianAnswers.net)
Evolution and Modern Racism (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

40.
God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along  there are healing compounds found in plants.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

41.
Healthy dietary laws (Leviticus 11:9-12). Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales. We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

42.
The Bible warns against eating birds of prey (Leviticus 11:13-19). Scientists now recognize that those birds which eat carrion (putrefying flesh), often spread disease.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

43.
Avoid swine (Deuteronomy 14:8). Not so long ago, science learned that eating undercooked pork causes an infection of parasites called trichinosis. Now consider this: the Bible forbid the eating of swine more than 3,000 years before we learned how to cook pork safely.

Visit:
The Dietary Law (Pacific Heath Center)
Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. (NCBI)
Bulletin Of The History Of Medicine (Johns Hopkins Institute)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44.
Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, Gods Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as Mother and naturalism is enshrined.

Visit:
Earth Day, Environmentalism, and the Bible (ICR)
The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)
The Hyper-Environmentalists (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

45.
Black holes and dark matter anticipated (Matthew 25:30; Jude 1:13; Isaiah 50:3). Cosmologists now speculate that over 98% of the known universe is comprised of dark matter, with dark energy and black holes. A black holes gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls outer darkness or the blackness of darkness forever.

Visit:
The Outer Darkness (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

46.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God  resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is grow(ing) old like a garment (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.

Visit:
Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures (Institute For Creation Research)
Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ChrisitanAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

47.
Cains wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry  therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.

Visit:
Where did Cain get his wife? (CristianAnswers.net)
Cain's Wife: It Really Does Matter! (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48.
Incest laws established (Leviticus 18:6). To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common. Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice. The reason is simple  the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses day the genetic errors had swelled. Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed.

Visit:
The Blind Gunman (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

49.
Genetic mixing of different seeds forbidden (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9). The Bible warns against mixing seeds  as this will result in an inferior or dangerous crop. There is now growing evidence that unnatural, genetically engineered crops may be harmful.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

50.
Hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Jeremiah 10:13; Amos 9:6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man (Job 36:27-28). The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

51.
The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity  the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit  just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

52.
Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Visit:
Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day (Apologetics Press)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

53.
God has given us just the right amount of water to sustain life (Isaiah 40:12). We now recognize that if there was significantly more or less water, the earth would not support life as we know it.

Visit:
The Anthropic Principle: Is the Earth Fine-Tuned for Life? (ChristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

54.
The earth was designed for biological life (Isaiah 45:18). Scientists have discovered that the most fundamental characteristics of our earth and cosmos are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist. This is called the Anthropic Principle and it agrees with the Bible which states that God formed the earth to be inhabited.

Visit:
The Earth: Unique in All the Universe (ICR)
Design in Nature: The Anthropic Principle (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

55.
The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Eisntein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago  the universe is expanding!

Visit:
The Battle for the Cosmic Center (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

56.
Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, Gods life, created all life.

Visit:
Chemical Evolution: Spontaneous generation; Stanley Miller Experiment (ChristianAnswers.net)
Evolution is Biologically Impossible (ICR)
The Myth Of Chemical Evolution (ICR)
Virgil's Aeneid, by Chance Alone? (ICR)
The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

57.
Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).

Visit:
How did bad things come about? (CristianAnswers.net)
Extinction (ICR)
Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

58.
Light travels in a path (Job 38:19). Light is said to have a way [Hebrew: derek, literally a traveled path or road]. Until the 17th century it was believed that light was transmitted instantaneously. We now know that light is a form of energy that travels at ~186,000 miles per second in a straight line. Indeed, there is a way of light.

Visit:
Light travels in a path was foretold in the Bible hundreds of years before scientists discovered it (creationists.org)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

59.
Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established a weight for the wind. In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

60.
Jet stream anticipated (Ecclesiastes 1:6). At a time when it was thought that winds blew straight, the Bible declares The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit. King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago. Now consider this: it was not until World War II that airmen discovered the jet stream circuit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

61.
Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

62.
Each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the advent of the telescope, the Bible declared what only God and the angels knew  each star varies in size and intensity!

Visit:
The Stars of Heaven (Institute For Creation Research)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

63.
The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing  electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send lightnings which indeed speak when they arrive.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

64.
Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, A merry heart does good, like medicine. For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.

Visit:
Benefits of Laughter (Personal-Development.com)
Humor and Laughter: Health Benefits and Online Sources (helpguide.org)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

65.
Intense sorrow or stress is harmful to your health (Proverbs 18:14; Mark 14:34). Researchers have studied individuals with no prior medical problems who showed symptoms of stress cardiomyopathy including chest pain, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, and even heart failure  following a stressful incident.

Visit:
The Physical Dangers of Stress (Fitness Article)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

66.
Microorganisms anticipated (Exodus 22:31). The Bible warns Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the LORD (Leviticus 22:8). Today we understand that a decaying carcass is full of disease causing germs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

67.
The Bible cautions against consuming fat (Leviticus 7:23). Only in recent decades has the medical community determined that fat clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

68.
Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:12). A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood. However, the Creator repeatedly told His people to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:20; 21:25). Of course, modern science reveals that consuming raw blood is dangerous.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

69.
The Bible describes dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24). In 1842, Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosaur, meaning terrible lizard, after discovering large reptilian-like fossils. However in the Book of Job, written 4,000 years earlier, God describes the behemoth as: the largest of all land creatures, plant eating (herbivore), with great strength in its hips and legs, powerful stomach muscles, a tail like a cedar tree, and bones like bars of iron. This is an accurate description of sauropods  the largest known dinosaur family.

Visit:
The Great Dinosaur Mystery (CristianAnswers.net)
How Do The Dinosaurs Fit In? (ICR)
Did Dinosaurs Survive The Flood? (ICR)
Dragons in Paradise (ICR)
Leviathan (ICR)
Dinosaurs And The Bible (ICR)
Dinosaur Mania and Our Children (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

70.
Pleasure explained (Psalm 36:8). Evolution cannot explain pleasure  even the most complex chemicals do not experience bliss. However, the Bible states that God gives us richly all things to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17). Pleasure is a gift from God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

71.
Life is more than matter and energy (Genesis 2:7; Job 12:7-10). We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Even though its body may be perfectly intact, and air and energy are reintroduced to spark life, the body remains dead. Scripture agrees with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. Life cannot be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone  as evolutionists would lead us to believe.

Visit:
Breath And Spirit (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

72.
Origin of music explained (Psalm 40:3). Evolution cannot explain the origin of music. The Bible says that every good gift comes from God (James 1:17). This includes joyful melodies. God has given both man and angels the gift of music-making (Genesis 4:21; Ezekiel 28:13). Singing is intended to express rejoicing in and worship of the Lord (Job 38:7; Psalm 95:1-2).

Visit:
Music or Evolution
Musicevidence of creation (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

73.
Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with Gods Word.

Visit:
Ancient civilizations and modern man (Answers In Genesis)
The mystery of ancient man (Answers In Genesis)
Language, Creation and the Inner Man (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

74.
Cavemen described in the Bible (Job 30:1-8). Four thousand years ago, Job describes certain vile men who were driven from society to forage among the bushes for survival and who live in the clefts of the valleys, (and) in caves of the earth and the rocks. Therefore cavemen were simply outcasts and vagabounds  not our primitive ancestors as evolutionists speculate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

75.
Environmental devastation of the planet foreseen (Revelation 11:18). Though evolution imagines that things should be getting better, the Bible foresaw what is really occurring today: pollution, destruction and corrupt dominion.

Visit:
Creation and the Environment (ICR)
The Bible, Creation, and Ecology (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

76.
The seed of a plant contains its life (Genesis 1:11; 29). As stated in the Book of Genesis, we now recognize that inside the humble seed is life itself. Within the seed is a tiny factory of amazing complexity. No scientist can build a synthetic seed and no seed is simple!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

77.
A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells give their lives to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

78.
The order of creation agrees with true science (Genesis 1). Plants require sunlight, water, and minerals in order to survive. In the first chapter of Genesis we read that God created light first (v.3), then water (v. 6), then soil (v. 9), and then He created plant life (v. 11).

Visit:
What is the order of events in the biblical Creation? (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

79.
God created lights in the heavens for signs and seasons, and for days and years (Genesis 1:14-16). We now know that a year is the time required for the earth to travel once around the sun. The seasons are caused by the changing position of the earth in relation to the sun. The moons phases follow one another in clock-like precision  constituting the lunar calendar Evolution teaches that the cosmos evolved by random chance, yet the Bible agrees with the observable evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

80.
The Bible speaks of heaven and the highest heavens (Deuteronomy 10:14). Long before the Hubble Space Telescope, Scripture spoke of the heaven of heavens and the third heaven (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Corinthians 12:2). We now know that the heavens consist of our immediate atmosphere and the vast reaches of outer space  as well as Gods wonderful abode.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

81.
Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him  pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

82.
Man is fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). We are only beginning to probe the complexity of the DNA molecule, the eye, the brain, and all the intricate components of life. No human invention compares to the marvelous wonders of Gods creation.

Visit:
Mankind- The Pinnacle of God's Creation (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

83.
Beauty understood (Genesis 1:31; 2:9; Job 40:10; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Matthew 6:28-30). Beauty surrounds us: radiant sunsets, majestic mountains, brightly colored flowers, glowing gems, soothing foliage, brilliantly adorned birds, etc. Beauty is a mystery to the evolutionist. However, Scripture reveals that God creates beautiful things for our benefit and His glory.

Visit:
Beauty (oldpaths.com)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

84.
Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Physicists do not understand what binds the atoms nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that all things consist  or are held together by the Creator  Jesus Christ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

85.
Atomic fission anticipated (2 Peter 3:10-12). Scripture states that the elements will melt with fervent heat when the earth and the heavens are dissolved by fire. Today we understand that if the elements of the atom are loosed, there would be an enormous release of heat and energy (radiation).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

86.
The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

87.
Safe drinking water (Leviticus 11:33-36). God forbade drinking from vessels or stagnant water that had been contaminated by coming into contact with a dead animal. It is only in the last 100 years that medical science has learned that contaminated water can cause typhoid and cholera.

Visit:
The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis)
Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

88.
Pest control (Leviticus 25:1-24). Farmers are plagued today with insects. Yet God gave a sure-fire remedy to control pests centuries ago. Moses commanded Israel to set aside one year in seven when no crops were raised. Insects winter in the stalks of last years harvest, hatch in the spring, and are perpetuated by laying eggs in the new crop. If the crop is denied one year in seven, the pests have nothing to subsist upon, and are thereby controlled.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

89.
Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if Gods commands were followed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

90.
Animal instincts understood (Job 39; Proverbs 30:24-28; Jeremiah 8:7). A newly hatched spider weaves an intricate web without being taught. A recently emerged butterfly somehow knows to navigate a 2,500-mile migration route without a guide. God explains that He has endowed each creature with specific knowledge. Scripture, not evolution, explains animal instincts.

Visit:
Instinct, Wise Behavior, Unlearned Knowledge And Abilities (oldpaths.com)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

91.
Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in Gods image.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

92.
Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science). True science agrees with the Creators Word.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

93.
Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews  which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.

Visit:
DNA Evidence And The Book Of Mormon (CristianAnswers.net)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

94.
Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

95.
Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, Gods Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.

Visit:
Is Man a "Higher" Animal? (ICR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

96.
The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donors character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

97.
The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted  introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98.
Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die  The soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of Gods Law. To see if you will die, please review Gods Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then youre an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creators name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy  and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99.
Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death  which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100.
Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person  free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

101.
The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away (Revelation 21:4).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bible is inspired by the Creator. Therefore it is no surprise that lifes ultimate questions are answered within its pages. The Bible reveals the purpose of our existence. Scripture alone explains where our conscience came from. And no other source explains the root cause of death. Seeing that all die, wouldnt it be wise to search for the remedy in the only book that proves it was inspired by God? The Bible offers the only remedy for sin, suffering, and death. Gods Word presents the only perfect, sinless Savior  one who died for our sins and rose from the dead. Jesus is the Creator (John 1; Colossians 1). He said I and My Father are one (John 10:30). He said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:6). And He promises His followers: I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish (John 10:28). Your eternal destiny will be determined by your choice. There is only one provision for sin. Jesus died in your place. Only by faith in Christs finished work will you be saved. This is Gods free gift offered to all. Please do not let pride, religion, opinions, or love for sin separate you from God. No sin is worth an eternity in hell. Please heed Jesus words  Repent, and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15). If you do, you will live in heaven with our awesome Creator forever!



Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge


----------



## LOki

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What writings confirm a "superior being". Be specific and identify how a book, inarguably written by men, confirms such a statement. Be specific and identify how the "superior being" communicated these inspired writings to men. Be specific and identify how any of the men who wrote the bible received these inspired writings from a being that was authentically a "superior being"
> 
> Be specific and identify what "many things" man did not know that were "revealed" by a 'superior being"
> 
> Be specific and identify why the bible (which we know was written by men) "had to be inspired" by some superior being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how many times must I post the evidence that was not confirmed until modern day science but was written about in the scriptures long before technology allowed us to confirm the writings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humor me, give me one example.
Click to expand...

Now you've done it. You've invited him to copy/paste vomit his 101 examples of Texas-Sharpshooting that have been thoroughly refuted on these forums and elsewhere.


----------



## ima

LOki said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how many times must I post the evidence that was not confirmed until modern day science but was written about in the scriptures long before technology allowed us to confirm the writings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humor me, give me one example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you've done it. You've invited him to copy/paste vomit his 101 examples of Texas-Sharpshooting that have been thoroughly refuted on these forums and elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Ok, found the link. You, never mind.


----------



## ima

1.The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true &#8211; &#8220;He hangs the earth on nothing.&#8221;

I didn't realize that gravity=nothing. Geez, their first fucking example.




.


----------



## Hollie

ima said:


> 1.The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.
> 
> I didn't realize that gravity=nothing. Geez, their first fucking example.
> .



I noticed that also.  Job 26:7 makes no mention of gravity.

It is remarkable how dishonest fundies are. They simply re-write and edit their bibles as they see fit.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disinformation.
> 
> I don't engage any faith.
> 
> Arrogance is your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend; and I have nothing to fear from your imaginary superfriend.
> 
> "I don't feel frightened by not knowing things."--Richard Feynman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Darwinism isn't falsifiable either, so I am failing to see the contrast you are hopelessly failing at. Still waiting on that testable, agreed upon, definition of fitness. Let me know when you come up with something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try this.
Click to expand...


Yeah, couldn't find anything.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 40 years of not just reading scriptures but studying them.  I am merely asking you for scriptures that support an old earth view. Why were days of creation longer then the days of man ? How long do you believe man was on this planet ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God put Adam in the garden about 10,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other people believe aliens have done something similar. These notions are no less absurd than yours.
> 
> But that explain your revulsion for science.
Click to expand...


*Please explain your revulsion for Formal Higher Education.*


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a number of hypotheses. It remains an open question, however.
> 
> Excellent. Why then is it absurd to make the assertion that life originated in the interactions non-living things?_"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​Considering that you assert that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary and logically valid explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Failing to do this, how is it not absurd that this "Creator" you posit can be the source of life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already been done several times with the reprint of Stephen Meyers scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refuted every time you post it.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is currently the best explanation that an intelligent agent was the source of information in dna, and ultimately, the source for the micro machines that all had to be in place wholly functional for the contraption to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is no explanation at all for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.
Click to expand...


Yes, it presents a proof that an intelligent agent is responsible based on present observations.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 40 years of not just reading scriptures but studying them.  I am merely asking you for scriptures that support an old earth view. Why were days of creation longer then the days of man ? How long do you believe man was on this planet ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God put Adam in the garden about 10,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chronology of man according to the scriptures suggest 6,000 years, Why do you believe 10,000 years ?
Click to expand...


Fossil evidence.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God put Adam in the garden about 10,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chronology of man according to the scriptures suggest 6,000 years, Why do you believe 10,000 years ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fossil evidence.
Click to expand...


How convenient that creationists will selectively cite fossil evidence when it can be manipulated to further creationist claims.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide scriptures that support your old earth beliefs. I will provide scriptures in this article that support my position.
> 
> Days or ages in Genesis 1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read it. For the most part I side with Ross and I have never heard of him or read his works. So does that mean the Holy Spirit revealed it to me? And I am not even joking!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progressive creationism is built on assumptions not facts just like many scientific theories. What was the point of God handing down judgment on adam if things were already dying.
Click to expand...


Let's take this logic one step further. Christ conquered death on the cross. I believe in him and confess that God has raised him from the dead. Yet, I will still die a physical death. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Yet Christians still perish physically. What on earth could John be talking about? Are you saying the Bible's definition of death is contradictory?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already been done several times with the reprint of Stephen Meyers scientific theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Refuted every time you post it.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is currently the best explanation that an intelligent agent was the source of information in dna, and ultimately, the source for the micro machines that all had to be in place wholly functional for the contraption to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is no explanation at all for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it presents a proof that an intelligent agent is responsible based on present observations.
Click to expand...


Using supermagicalism as "proof" of anything is an exercise in silliness.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read it. For the most part I side with Ross and I have never heard of him or read his works. So does that mean the Holy Spirit revealed it to me? And I am not even joking!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive creationism is built on assumptions not facts just like many scientific theories. What was the point of God handing down judgment on adam if things were already dying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take this logic one step further. Christ conquered death on the cross. I believe in him and confess that God has raised him from the dead. Yet, I will still die a physical death. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Yet Christians still perish physically. What on earth could John be talking about? Are you saying the Bible's definition of death is contradictory?
Click to expand...

So much else within christianity is contradictory, why agonize over this detail?


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God put Adam in the garden about 10,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chronology of man according to the scriptures suggest 6,000 years, Why do you believe 10,000 years ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fossil evidence.
Click to expand...


How do you explain starlight from objects that are well beyond 10,000 light years away? I have seen a number of ideas presented by YE Creationists, but they are so far-fetched as to be devoid of the slighted bit of merit.

I've seen the Omphalos hypothesis that states that the Universe only _appears_ old. Even many YE Creationists are uncomfortable with this one because it strongly suggests a deliberately deceptive Creator.

One of my favorites is the "c decay," which proposes that the speed of light was much, much faster at the time of creation, and has been slowing down exponentially since that time. I've got no words for that one.

Another work of fantasy is the "Anisotropic Synchrony Convention," which proposes that light travels at an infinite speed to Earth, but travels away from Earth at the recognized constant. This is the ultimate in "the Earth is the center of the Universe" thinking that plagued the Church in the Dark Ages, as this suggests that light travels away from Earth in all directions at one speed, but comes to Earth from everywhere else at infinite speeds.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UR the scrptures say in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. When was that beginning ?



4.5 Billion years ago.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I didn't dig too deeply into the old thread, but if you're asking why we are so lucky, I guess I don't understand the question. The universe is simply too vast to know that we ARE totally unique. It seems rather arrogant to me to assume that, given that virtually incomprehensible vastness, that we are the only planet with life, whether one believes we are created by a higher power or not.
> 
> Incidentally, you appear to making an assumption that I am an atheist. That's understandable given the polarized nature of culture today. If somebody weighs in or makes an observation, it is natural these days for people to draw their lines and place that person on one side or the other, and the only two options, I'm guessing, would be Christian and atheist. My beliefs are irrelevant. Either we are seeing stars that are billions of light years away or we are not, and all considerations of spiritual beliefs are entirely out of the equation of whether or not that is true.
> 
> Evolutionary science, like ALL science, makes assumptions. You can't get by in life without assumptions. I walk out to my car every morning making an assumption that it is going to start. If we didn't make assumptions we would simply stagnate to inertia. My problem with fundamental religious belief is that it doesn't make assumptions, it makes extraordinary assertions. These assertions are sometimes, some would say often, contradicted by natural law. I can't help that. I accept the natural laws of my Creator on their own terms. To me it seems insulting to those laws to accept somebody's word for it that a human being resurrected from the dead when natural law would tell us that this is impossible. The burden of proof of such a thing rests with the person making the claim, and not with me or anybody else to _disprove_. This does not mean that I don't believe in a Creator, nor does it diminish my capacity to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are lucky to get the precision in nature that is observed and required for lifes survival. Don't you feel lucky if it all just happened by chance ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you make nonsensical comments about "precision in nature" yet you ignore how imprecise nature actually is.
> 
> How "precise" are tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunami, meteor impacts, etc?
Click to expand...


Not as precise as circuit boards, spaceships, and internal combustion engines.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are lucky to get the precision in nature that is observed and required for lifes survival. Don't you feel lucky if it all just happened by chance ?
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you make nonsensical comments about "precision in nature" yet you ignore how imprecise nature actually is.
> 
> How "precise" are tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunami, meteor impacts, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as precise as circuit boards, spaceships, and internal combustion engines.
Click to expand...


The gods created the conditions that lend rise to tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, meteor impacts, etc.... because they are gods of love and compassion.... or just incompetent designers.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refuted every time you post it.
> 
> It is no explanation at all for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it presents a proof that an intelligent agent is responsible based on present observations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using supermagicalism as "proof" of anything is an exercise in silliness.
Click to expand...


Tell that to Stephen Hawkins and his multiple universe theory. Tell that to all the Quantum physicists. Maybe you would have studied these instances* if you had gone to college.*


----------



## UltimateReality

Jimmy_Jam said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chronology of man according to the scriptures suggest 6,000 years, Why do you believe 10,000 years ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you explain starlight from objects that are well beyond 10,000 light years away?
Click to expand...


Jimmy, you have failed to follow the points in the discussion between myself and YWC. My claim that God placed Adam in the garden 10,000 years ago makes no inference that was when the earth was created.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it presents a proof that an intelligent agent is responsible based on present observations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using supermagicalism as "proof" of anything is an exercise in silliness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to Stephen Hawkins and his multiple universe theory. Tell that to all the Quantum physicists. Maybe you would have studied these instances* if you had gone to college.*
Click to expand...


Your goofy comment makes no sense.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you make nonsensical comments about "precision in nature" yet you ignore how imprecise nature actually is.
> 
> How "precise" are tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunami, meteor impacts, etc?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as precise as circuit boards, spaceships, and internal combustion engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gods created the conditions that lend rise to tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, meteor impacts, etc.... because they are gods of love and compassion.... or just incompetent designers.
Click to expand...


I thought we already settled this point but you keep bringing it up. I hate to say it Hollie, but your posts reveal you might have some learning disabilities. 

Christianity teaches that *Hollie's god, Satan*, is the god of this world and he is the master of chaos, responsible for decay and destruction we see, and is the father of lies. God created angels with a choice. He created us with a choice. Google dualism. 

However, since you are a Darwinists, you don't have a choice. Your behavior is determined by your programed response to stimuli.

*That and the fact you have never been formally educated. *


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using supermagicalism as "proof" of anything is an exercise in silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to Stephen Hawkins and his multiple universe theory. Tell that to all the Quantum physicists. Maybe you would have studied these instances* if you had gone to college.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your goofy comment makes no sense.
Click to expand...


Not to you because of your lack of education.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as precise as circuit boards, spaceships, and internal combustion engines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gods created the conditions that lend rise to tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, meteor impacts, etc.... because they are gods of love and compassion.... or just incompetent designers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought we already settled this point but you keep bringing it up. I hate to say it Hollie, but your posts reveal you might have some learning disabilities.
> 
> Your god, Satan, is the god of this world and he is the master of chaos, responsible for decay and destruction we see, and is the father of lies. God created angels with a choice. He created us with a choice. Google dualism.
> 
> However, since you are a Darwinists, you don't have a choice. Your behavior is determined by your programed response to stimuli.
> 
> *That and the fact you have never been formally educated. *
Click to expand...

As is typical of your posts, your comments are disjointed, confused and rambling. 

If you had ever read the creation tale, it was your god who created Satan. You are very typical of the fundie crowd. You really know nothing of the creation tales and fables but nevertheless, build entire worldviews on fables you change and edit per a whim.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to Stephen Hawkins and his multiple universe theory. Tell that to all the Quantum physicists. Maybe you would have studied these instances* if you had gone to college.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your goofy comment makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to you because of your lack of education.
Click to expand...


Oh you poor fundie. Are you finding that a degree from the ICR is not embraced by employers who snicker when they find your job skills are limited to....well... nothing


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your goofy comment makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to you because of your lack of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you poor fundie. Are you finding that a degree from the ICR is not embraced by employers who snicker when they find your job skills are limited to....well... nothing
Click to expand...


Better than your degree from Haran Yahya online university.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

UltimateReality said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain starlight from objects that are well beyond 10,000 light years away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jimmy, you have failed to follow the points in the discussion between myself and YWC. My claim that God placed Adam in the garden 10,000 years ago makes no inference that was when the earth was created.
Click to expand...


This thread is far too enormous for me to spend that much time on it. So, your beliefs allow for a Universe that is potentially billions of year old? Okay then.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to you because of your lack of education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor fundie. Are you finding that a degree from the ICR is not embraced by employers who snicker when they find your job skills are limited to....well... nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better than your degree from Haran Yahya online university.
Click to expand...


There is no such degree. I suppose you're furious that the ICR suffered a humiliating setback in their attempts to offer degree programs in Texas. Take a cue and phony-up your credentials as many fundies do. You're in appropriate company.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read it. For the most part I side with Ross and I have never heard of him or read his works. So does that mean the Holy Spirit revealed it to me? And I am not even joking!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive creationism is built on assumptions not facts just like many scientific theories. What was the point of God handing down judgment on adam if things were already dying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take this *logic* one step further. *Christ conquered death on the cross*. I believe in him and confess that God has raised him from the dead. Yet, I will still die a physical death. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Yet Christians still perish physically. What on earth could John be talking about? Are you saying the Bible's definition of death is contradictory?
Click to expand...


Logic would say instead that there's no real proof that Jesus was on a cross. Or even existed.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should feel sad for yourself, because you are so lost. You've admitted already you are searching for something to fill your void but Christianity didn't cut it. You were waiting to get a "feeling" before you followed Christianity, but what you so hopelessly missed was you have to follow Christ first in order for the peace and joy to enter your life. That gnawing sensation in your soul isn't going away, my friend.
> 
> Now you've embraced atheism. How's that working out for you? I'm sure you are totally content and sleeping like a baby at night just like me, huh?
> 
> So funny that a made up book, when followed, can result in the most freedom and contentment and joy the human soul is capable of. There is freedom in Christ. When followed, God's teachings result in a totally fulfilled life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's so funny that, a good feeling doesn't mean that god actually exists, at all. It simply means the concept of god makes you feel good. That's all. *You associate the reward of good feeling with veracity about the supernatural claims, but that is fallacious. *You're increased good feeling can be explained naturally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know nothing of me. ^
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you. You know nothing about me, or why I feel and think the way I do. Mental illness is not the product of lack of faith. It is the product of, for me, of bad formative social experiences that produced trauma and have caused my model of human relationships to be out of whack. The "hole" I find is a result of me being a social animal, and unable to fulfill that need whatsoever. I can not receive love or affection anymore, and do not trust people. I have massive social anxiety. This can be explained naturally within the timeline of my life and there have been times in my life when this was not the case, and it had nothing to do with god, but with relationships being better that are important to me, and my perception about reality being more clear. It is actually contained in the description of borderline personality disorder, that one feels "empty." So, you're prepared to make a scientific claim that this feeling in those with this disorder is caused by a lack of Jesus in their life?! Wow. You're ridiculous man.  You can't be that fucking arrogant to say something like you did based on so little information about me. You're an ass.
> 
> Actually, atheism has saved my life, in a sense. It caused me to look at my issues rationally, and I've made GIANT leaps since "recommitting to my atheism" in the last few months (shedding any lingering religious attachments or notions I've had). I have committed myself to logical, critical thinking, and evidence, and applying this to my maladaptive beliefs and thought patterns have more more progress than I ever did when I was attempting to find god. It was religion and superstitious thinking that kept me in my mental anguish for so long. So, go fuck yourself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I will leave that chore for my wife. If you are going to continue to engage in public forums, you will need to learn not take everything so personally. It sounds like some evil was done to you at some time in your life.
> 
> Actually, under the worldview you have chosen, *evil doesn't exist*. Neither does "good". It sounds like some human animals who couldn't help the programming in their flawed dna brains acted in some survival modes towards you in an attempt to prevent your from passing your dna on to the next generation and the really screwed up your normal adaptive response to stimuli. Under your worldview, who cares about you stupid problems? In less than 100 years you will be dead. In less than 200 years there won't even be a memory of you because everyone who knew you will be dead. It was all part of the cosmic joke. Under materialism your existence is meaningless so who gives a flying flip whether you live or die?
> 
> Ah, but under Theism, *You have value!!* You are one of God's children and he cares about you and he will remember you in life and death. And you will be see your loved ones again. This earth, with all its pain and suffering, is not the final chapter. Your life will have mattered because it matters to God. The Bible says even a sparrow can't fall to the ground without God caring so how much more does he care for us.
> 
> I really think you are just running from God. You've found that denying him makes it easier to rationalize your unwanted behaviors.
Click to expand...

where's the remote ?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Darwinism isn't falsifiable either, so I am failing to see the contrast you are hopelessly failing at. Still waiting on that testable, agreed upon, definition of fitness. Let me know when you come up with something.
> 
> 
> 
> Try this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, couldn't find anything.
Click to expand...

An organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


The state of being suitably adapted to an environment.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology .a.  the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.
b.  the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in succeeding generations.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce,​If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that* fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively. *


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductive offspring as compared to competing organisms; also : the contribution of an allele or genotype to the gene pool of subsequent generations as compared to that of other alleles or genotypes​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


_Biology_. The extent to which an organism is adapted to or able to produce offspring in a particular environment.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


Biology an organisms ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) _Biology_
a.  the degree of adaptation of an organism to its environment, determined by its genetic constitution
b.  the ability of an organism to produce viable offspring capable of surviving to the next generation​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


The average number of offspring produced by individuals with a certain genotype, relative to the number produced by individuals with other genotypes.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


the contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of the next generation relative to the contributions of other individuals.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


Absolute fitness is the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


Average fitness
[is t]he mean absolute fitness value exhibited by all the members of a population.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


Relative fitness
[is t]he potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection, as compared to the average fitness exhibited by the population in which this individual is a member.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


Allelic or genotypic fitness describes the relative contribution of one allele or geno-type to the next generation as compared to that of possible alternate alleles or genotypes. ​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


Direct fitness is a measure of how many alleles, on average, a genotype contributes to the subsequent generation's gene pool by reproducing.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


Indirect fitness is a measure of how many alleles identical to its own it helps to enter the gene pool.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


From an evolutionary perspective, fitness - the relative competitive ability of one cell type versus others in the population - is the fundamental parameter that determines which organisms increase their numbers in a population.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


In the crudest terms, fitness involves the ability of organisms or, more rarely, populations or species to survive and reproduce in the environment in which they find themselves​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


Absolute fitness is a statistic that is usually assigned to a genotype and it typically refers to a genotypes expected total fitness, that complex mix of viability, mating success, fecundity, etc. As such, absolute fitness, symbolized W, is a quantity that can be greater than or equal to zero​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


The relative fitness of a genotype, symbolized _w_, equals its absolute fitness normalized in some way. In the most common normalization, the absolute fitness of each genotype is divided by the absolute fitness of the fittest genotype, such that the fittest genotype has a relative fitness of one.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


 fitness of a biological trait describes how successful an organism has been at passing on its genes. The more likely that an individual is able to survive and live longer to reproduce, the higher is the fitness of that individual.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


The relative probability of survival and reproduction for a genotype B as compared to a genotype A​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit"  bigger, faster or stronger  or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


_Relative Fitness_
A measure of biological fitness expressed as the ratio of the absolute fitness of an individual (or of a genotype or of a phenotype) and the absolute fitness of a reference individual (or of genotype or of phenotype).​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


Absolute Fitness
A measure of biological fitness expressed as the total number of gene copies transmitted to the subsequent generation or the total number of surviving offspring that an individual produces during its lifetime.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.


In essence, the fitness of a trait is its propensity to affect, positively or negatively, the reproductive success of an organism.​


UltimateReality said:


> Yeah, couldn't find anything.



Well, I guess you're just a little retarded then.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already been done several times with the reprint of Stephen Meyers scientific theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Refuted every time you post it.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is currently the best explanation that an intelligent agent was the source of information in dna, and ultimately, the source for the micro machines that all had to be in place wholly functional for the contraption to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is no explanation at all for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it presents a proof that an intelligent agent is responsible based on present observations.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Not in any manner what so ever. Stephen Meyers' "theory" is nothing but question-begging, special-pleading creationist woo-woo.


----------



## Hollie

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, couldn't find anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​The state of being suitably adapted to an environment.​Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology .a.  the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.
> b.  the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in succeeding generations.​It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce,​If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that* fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively. *
> the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductive offspring as compared to competing organisms; also : the contribution of an allele or genotype to the gene pool of subsequent generations as compared to that of other alleles or genotypes​A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population.​_Biology_. The extent to which an organism is adapted to or able to produce offspring in a particular environment.​Biology an organism&#8217;s ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) _Biology_
> a.  the degree of adaptation of an organism to its environment, determined by its genetic constitution
> b.  the ability of an organism to produce viable offspring capable of surviving to the next generation​The average number of offspring produced by individuals with a certain genotype, relative to the number produced by individuals with other genotypes.​the contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of the next generation relative to the contributions of other individuals.​fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.​Absolute fitness is the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection.​Average fitness
> [is t]he mean absolute fitness value exhibited by all the members of a population.​Relative fitness
> [is t]he potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection, as compared to the average fitness exhibited by the population in which this individual is a member.​Allelic or genotypic fitness describes the relative contribution of one allele or geno-type to the next generation as compared to that of possible alternate alleles or genotypes. ​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​Direct fitness is a measure of how many alleles, on average, a genotype contributes to the subsequent generation's gene pool by reproducing.​Indirect fitness is a measure of how many alleles identical to its own it helps to enter the gene pool.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​From an evolutionary perspective, fitness - the relative competitive ability of one cell type versus others in the population - is the fundamental parameter that determines which organisms increase their numbers in a population.​In the crudest terms, fitness involves the ability of organisms&#8212; or, more rarely, populations or species&#8212; to survive and reproduce in the environment in which they find themselves​Absolute fitness is a statistic that is usually assigned to a genotype and it typically refers to a genotype&#8217;s expected total fitness, that complex mix of viability, mating success, fecundity, etc. As such, absolute fitness, symbolized W, is a quantity that can be greater than or equal to zero​The relative fitness of a genotype, symbolized _w_, equals its absolute fitness normalized in some way. In the most common normalization, the absolute fitness of each genotype is divided by the absolute fitness of the fittest genotype, such that the fittest genotype has a relative fitness of one.​ fitness of a biological trait describes how successful an organism has been at passing on its genes. The more likely that an individual is able to survive and live longer to reproduce, the higher is the fitness of that individual.​The relative probability of survival and reproduction for a genotype B as compared to a genotype A​In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" &#8211; bigger, faster or stronger &#8211; or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.​_Relative Fitness_
> A measure of biological fitness expressed as the ratio of the absolute fitness of an individual (or of a genotype or of a phenotype) and the absolute fitness of a reference individual (or of genotype or of phenotype).​Absolute Fitness
> A measure of biological fitness expressed as the total number of gene copies transmitted to the subsequent generation or the total number of surviving offspring that an individual produces during its lifetime.​
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, couldn't find anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In essence, the &#8220;fitness&#8221; of a trait is its propensity to affect, positively or negatively, the reproductive success of an organism.​
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, couldn't find anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you're just a little retarded then.
Click to expand...


Oh my. After that slash and burn, there won't be enough left of _yeah, couldn't find anything_ to sweep up into a dust pan.


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's so funny that, a good feeling doesn't mean that god actually exists, at all. It simply means the concept of god makes you feel good. That's all. *You associate the reward of good feeling with veracity about the supernatural claims, but that is fallacious. *You're increased good feeling can be explained naturally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing of me. ^
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you. You know nothing about me, or why I feel and think the way I do. Mental illness is not the product of lack of faith. It is the product of, for me, of bad formative social experiences that produced trauma and have caused my model of human relationships to be out of whack. The "hole" I find is a result of me being a social animal, and unable to fulfill that need whatsoever. I can not receive love or affection anymore, and do not trust people. I have massive social anxiety. This can be explained naturally within the timeline of my life and there have been times in my life when this was not the case, and it had nothing to do with god, but with relationships being better that are important to me, and my perception about reality being more clear. It is actually contained in the description of borderline personality disorder, that one feels "empty." So, you're prepared to make a scientific claim that this feeling in those with this disorder is caused by a lack of Jesus in their life?! Wow. You're ridiculous man.  You can't be that fucking arrogant to say something like you did based on so little information about me. You're an ass.
> 
> Actually, atheism has saved my life, in a sense. It caused me to look at my issues rationally, and I've made GIANT leaps since "recommitting to my atheism" in the last few months (shedding any lingering religious attachments or notions I've had). I have committed myself to logical, critical thinking, and evidence, and applying this to my maladaptive beliefs and thought patterns have more more progress than I ever did when I was attempting to find god. It was religion and superstitious thinking that kept me in my mental anguish for so long. So, go fuck yourself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I will leave that chore for my wife. If you are going to continue to engage in public forums, you will need to learn not take everything so personally. It sounds like some evil was done to you at some time in your life.
> 
> Actually, under the worldview you have chosen, *evil doesn't exist*. Neither does "good". It sounds like some human animals who couldn't help the programming in their flawed dna brains acted in some survival modes towards you in an attempt to prevent your from passing your dna on to the next generation and the really screwed up your normal adaptive response to stimuli. Under your worldview, who cares about you stupid problems? In less than 100 years you will be dead. In less than 200 years there won't even be a memory of you because everyone who knew you will be dead. It was all part of the cosmic joke. Under materialism your existence is meaningless so who gives a flying flip whether you live or die?
> 
> Ah, but under Theism, *You have value!!* You are one of God's children and he cares about you and he will remember you in life and death. And you will be see your loved ones again. This earth, with all its pain and suffering, is not the final chapter. Your life will have mattered because it matters to God. The Bible says even a sparrow can't fall to the ground without God caring so how much more does he care for us.
> 
> I really think you are just running from God. You've found that denying him makes it easier to rationalize your unwanted behaviors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do take things too personally. I realize this. I have anger issues. But, when you tell me I am lost without a god you can not demonstrate with any evidence or logic, you sound completely ridiculous, and you are being insanely obnoxious.
> 
> Religion and the concept of god actually depresses me, because I think it is so delusional, and requires such gullibility. I am not running from anything. Again, you are being obnoxious saying I am running from something that can't even be demonstrated to exist. It's laughable to me that you would say that.  The judaeo-christian god I am positive, does not exist. It is an internally contradictory concept of a god.
Click to expand...

HEY NP don't waste your energy being offended by UR or YWC. the shit they post is farce, made even more humorous by asinine quotes like this: "Your life will have mattered because it matters to God" he might as well have said without god your life doesn't matter.
the fact is life is just life  , you make your own meaning.
a concept foreign to Jesus junkies like YWC & UR Who from my pov have fucked up so bad in there lives that they found god to escape taking responsibility for their actions.
it's been my experience that ass hats like them who spend so much time denying  fact and preaching nonsense are desperately attempting to fill a bottomless void in their lives .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing the logic is that if life evolves then it doesn't have free will? You lost me.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing UR says makes any sense ...he never lets that simple fact get in his way .....when answering UR and YWC'S POST remember they have zero evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have shown the absudity you believe and you have no rebuttal to it.
Click to expand...

keep telling yourself that lie.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how life began daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> no, and neither do you....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for finally admitting both our views are based on faith.
Click to expand...

thanks for showing you bias and ignorance.
I stated fact "no one really knows how life started."
I freely admit that.
you, lying piece of shit  will say you do based on your  faith but since faith proves nothing but faith..you have no evidence corroborating that faith so in reality you don't really know and won't admit it.
making you a dishonest slapdick. 
btw I have no faith by your defintion..


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is nothing less than a complete vindication of what creationists have been saying about radiometric dating. It is also an excellent example of just how good evolutionists are at rationalizing away problems. The funny thing is that Talk Origins is clearly totally blind to how well this illustrates the truth of what creationists say about the process of radiometric dating.
> 
> Here they have dates all over the place, not only by different methods, but by the same methods. Given this, it was the fossils that led the way. In the end they came up with three dates that agreed with each other and the fossils, all of which had also given erroneous results. Simply put, what happened here is that evolutionists kept making measurements until they found results that they liked.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you find it at all strange that your article (from creation wiki), references Marvin Lubenow?
> 
> creation.com/marvin-lubenow Marvin Lubenow is Professor of Bible/Apologetics at Christian Heritage College in San Diego California.
> 
> I see. A professor of bible apologetics is your source?
> 
> Chuckle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a troll with no objectivity at all.
> 
> Radiometric dating is flawed. No one knows how old rocks are.
> 
> You're dismissed.
Click to expand...

sombody's dodging and it ain't HOLLIE.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you find it at all strange that your article (from creation wiki), references Marvin Lubenow?
> 
> creation.com/marvin-lubenow Marvin Lubenow is Professor of Bible/Apologetics at Christian Heritage College in San Diego California.
> 
> I see. A professor of bible apologetics is your source?
> 
> Chuckle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a troll with no objectivity at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I obsess over Hollie late at night, I kind of picture her as a troll. Big hairy feet, scraggly hair, and one of those chick mustaches that should be waxed. Oh and really thick man hands that have a Rugged Touch.
Click to expand...

I read that kind of fantasy hurts more then helps sexually dysfunctional men like yourself .
on the other hand it's spot on proof that at 48 you still have not matured past puberty..
too bad god doesn't exist or you'd be sucking Satan's cock just for thinking that .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive creationism is built on assumptions not facts just like many scientific theories. What was the point of God handing down judgment on adam if things were already dying.
> 
> I still have not seen any scriptures that would make me consider an old earth view. People can believe as they wish but for me my doctrine comes from the bible. Are all my beliefs in line with what the scrptures say ? I believe they are I don't believe doctrine that I don't see in the scrptures.
> 
> I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always find it tragically comic that fundies will make comments such as: "I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's"
> 
> The fact is, all of the alleged "holy texts" are undeniably written by men.
> 
> Its quite simple, really: A book is simply that, a book. There is no solid reason to connect any supernatural entity with the authorship of a book. Never, ever, in all of the history of humanity has any god made their existence extant. Never in human history has any one of the 14,000 or so alleged gods presented themselves in a fashion understandable to humans, And in fact, all of the alleged gods have eventually been superseded and/or replaced by the more currently in-vogue gods. Its just a fact that the bible was written by men, edited, revised and compiled by many men. That is not conjecture or assumption on my part, its just a fact. I care about these inventions of supernatural entities because religions and supernatural beliefs can have the effect of keeping humanity in bondage, both mentally and physically. Im forced to acknowledge these various religious beliefs because countless billions of people are made to live their lives in trembling fear of an asserted supernatural entity who will bring forth such things as hell and plagues and various "wraths", "curses" and "spells". Faith, then, is ultimately a confused marriage of blind, uncritical trust, and wishful thinking. No matter how fervently one believes in an improbability or an outright contradiction, it will not suddenly spring into being merely because people wish it so. As Anatole France said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of the writings confirm a superior being inspired the writings. There are things mentioned in the writings that man did know at that time. These writings had to be inspired from someone superior to man.
Click to expand...

not this steaming pile of shit again.
those many writings only confirm a bias not fact.
your belief that "they had to be" is unprovable and nonsense ...asshat!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor fundie. Are you finding that a degree from the ICR is not embraced by employers who snicker when they find your job skills are limited to....well... nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better than your degree from Haran Yahya online university.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such degree. I suppose you're furious that the ICR suffered a humiliating setback in their attempts to offer degree programs in Texas. Take a cue and phony-up your credentials as many fundies do. You're in appropriate company.
Click to expand...


You mean like your phony diploma from Haran Yahya online university?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, couldn't find anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​The state of being suitably adapted to an environment.​Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology .a.  the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.
> b.  the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in succeeding generations.​It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce,​If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that* fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively. *
> the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductive offspring as compared to competing organisms; also : the contribution of an allele or genotype to the gene pool of subsequent generations as compared to that of other alleles or genotypes​A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population.​_Biology_. The extent to which an organism is adapted to or able to produce offspring in a particular environment.​Biology an organisms ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) _Biology_
> a.  the degree of adaptation of an organism to its environment, determined by its genetic constitution
> b.  the ability of an organism to produce viable offspring capable of surviving to the next generation​The average number of offspring produced by individuals with a certain genotype, relative to the number produced by individuals with other genotypes.​the contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of the next generation relative to the contributions of other individuals.​fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.​Absolute fitness is the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection.​Average fitness
> [is t]he mean absolute fitness value exhibited by all the members of a population.​Relative fitness
> [is t]he potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection, as compared to the average fitness exhibited by the population in which this individual is a member.​Allelic or genotypic fitness describes the relative contribution of one allele or geno-type to the next generation as compared to that of possible alternate alleles or genotypes. ​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​Direct fitness is a measure of how many alleles, on average, a genotype contributes to the subsequent generation's gene pool by reproducing.​Indirect fitness is a measure of how many alleles identical to its own it helps to enter the gene pool.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​From an evolutionary perspective, fitness - the relative competitive ability of one cell type versus others in the population - is the fundamental parameter that determines which organisms increase their numbers in a population.​In the crudest terms, fitness involves the ability of organisms or, more rarely, populations or species to survive and reproduce in the environment in which they find themselves​Absolute fitness is a statistic that is usually assigned to a genotype and it typically refers to a genotypes expected total fitness, that complex mix of viability, mating success, fecundity, etc. As such, absolute fitness, symbolized W, is a quantity that can be greater than or equal to zero​The relative fitness of a genotype, symbolized _w_, equals its absolute fitness normalized in some way. In the most common normalization, the absolute fitness of each genotype is divided by the absolute fitness of the fittest genotype, such that the fittest genotype has a relative fitness of one.​ fitness of a biological trait describes how successful an organism has been at passing on its genes. The more likely that an individual is able to survive and live longer to reproduce, the higher is the fitness of that individual.​The relative probability of survival and reproduction for a genotype B as compared to a genotype A​In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit"  bigger, faster or stronger  or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.​_Relative Fitness_
> A measure of biological fitness expressed as the ratio of the absolute fitness of an individual (or of a genotype or of a phenotype) and the absolute fitness of a reference individual (or of genotype or of phenotype).​Absolute Fitness
> A measure of biological fitness expressed as the total number of gene copies transmitted to the subsequent generation or the total number of surviving offspring that an individual produces during its lifetime.​
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, couldn't find anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In essence, the fitness of a trait is its propensity to affect, positively or negatively, the reproductive success of an organism.​
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, couldn't find anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you're just a little retarded then.
Click to expand...


Wow, you wasted a half hour re-quoting your circular reasoning. These species were fit because they survived. Are all Darwinists researchers Captain Obvious wannabe's like you? Think about what you are saying. The fit species survived and passed along their genes and the non-fit species didn't. This is evolutions main claim!!! You are basically saying evolution is true because evolution is true. I can't believe your are too blind, or too stupid, to see the absurdity of this circular argument. You are using your assumption to prove your assumption. Hello? McFly?

What you didn't like to was an actual agreed upon and testable definition of fitness. Without this, there is no way to do a scientific test for, much less prove, that evolution exists.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> ...he might as well have said without god your life doesn't matter...



Yes, I'm saying that too. Prove that under materialism and naturalism that statement is not true. If this planet and humankind are accidents, randomly generated, how does your life matter. When you die, it won't have mattered. When everyone who knew you is gone, it will have meant nothing.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, couldn't find anything.
> 
> 
> 
> An organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​The state of being suitably adapted to an environment.​Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology .a.  the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.
> b.  the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in succeeding generations.​It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce,​If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that* fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively. *
> the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductive offspring as compared to competing organisms; also : the contribution of an allele or genotype to the gene pool of subsequent generations as compared to that of other alleles or genotypes​A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population.​_Biology_. The extent to which an organism is adapted to or able to produce offspring in a particular environment.​Biology an organisms ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) _Biology_
> a.  the degree of adaptation of an organism to its environment, determined by its genetic constitution
> b.  the ability of an organism to produce viable offspring capable of surviving to the next generation​The average number of offspring produced by individuals with a certain genotype, relative to the number produced by individuals with other genotypes.​the contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of the next generation relative to the contributions of other individuals.​fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.​Absolute fitness is the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection.​Average fitness
> [is t]he mean absolute fitness value exhibited by all the members of a population.​Relative fitness
> [is t]he potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection, as compared to the average fitness exhibited by the population in which this individual is a member.​Allelic or genotypic fitness describes the relative contribution of one allele or geno-type to the next generation as compared to that of possible alternate alleles or genotypes. ​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​Direct fitness is a measure of how many alleles, on average, a genotype contributes to the subsequent generation's gene pool by reproducing.​Indirect fitness is a measure of how many alleles identical to its own it helps to enter the gene pool.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​From an evolutionary perspective, fitness - the relative competitive ability of one cell type versus others in the population - is the fundamental parameter that determines which organisms increase their numbers in a population.​In the crudest terms, fitness involves the ability of organisms or, more rarely, populations or species to survive and reproduce in the environment in which they find themselves​Absolute fitness is a statistic that is usually assigned to a genotype and it typically refers to a genotypes expected total fitness, that complex mix of viability, mating success, fecundity, etc. As such, absolute fitness, symbolized W, is a quantity that can be greater than or equal to zero​The relative fitness of a genotype, symbolized _w_, equals its absolute fitness normalized in some way. In the most common normalization, the absolute fitness of each genotype is divided by the absolute fitness of the fittest genotype, such that the fittest genotype has a relative fitness of one.​ fitness of a biological trait describes how successful an organism has been at passing on its genes. The more likely that an individual is able to survive and live longer to reproduce, the higher is the fitness of that individual.​The relative probability of survival and reproduction for a genotype B as compared to a genotype A​In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit"  bigger, faster or stronger  or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.​_Relative Fitness_
> A measure of biological fitness expressed as the ratio of the absolute fitness of an individual (or of a genotype or of a phenotype) and the absolute fitness of a reference individual (or of genotype or of phenotype).​Absolute Fitness
> A measure of biological fitness expressed as the total number of gene copies transmitted to the subsequent generation or the total number of surviving offspring that an individual produces during its lifetime.​In essence, the fitness of a trait is its propensity to affect, positively or negatively, the reproductive success of an organism.​
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, couldn't find anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you're just a little retarded then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my. After that slash and burn, there won't be enough left of _yeah, couldn't find anything_ to sweep up into a dust pan.
Click to expand...


Pretty obvious, *as usual, you didn't actually click on the links*. Many of them were to the same generic definition page.

And this one Loki linked actually says what I was claiming!!!!

[/URL].[/INDENT]fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.

This was basically an article with more opinions about opinions. 

"_Philosophers do continue to seek an broad philosophical account of fitness, but agree that it is not tautological, and that it does describe a general tendency of a trait or organism, not  as EE prefers  a description of the actual performance of an organism. Thus, an individual can be fit (possess traits which ought to increase its reproductive success) but not reproduce. It could be struck by lightning, for instance. Treating fitness as a tendency eliminates any circularity, just as recognizing that salt tends to dissolve in water allows you to describe salt as soluble even if it never is placed in water. A gene can tend to be more fit without making each individual possessing that trait produce more offspring._" 

Proof that no one still can agree, much less comply with the scientific method to test for evolution. And so you cling to your Darwinian Myth. You are going to have to come up with some better material than this, Loki, if you want to be taken seriously on here.​


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, couldn't find anything.
> 
> 
> 
> An organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​The state of being suitably adapted to an environment.​Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology .a.  the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.
> b.  the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in succeeding generations.​It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce,​If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that* fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively. *
> the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductive offspring as compared to competing organisms; also : the contribution of an allele or genotype to the gene pool of subsequent generations as compared to that of other alleles or genotypes​A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population.​_Biology_. The extent to which an organism is adapted to or able to produce offspring in a particular environment.​Biology an organisms ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) _Biology_
> a.  the degree of adaptation of an organism to its environment, determined by its genetic constitution
> b.  the ability of an organism to produce viable offspring capable of surviving to the next generation​The average number of offspring produced by individuals with a certain genotype, relative to the number produced by individuals with other genotypes.​the contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of the next generation relative to the contributions of other individuals.​fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.​Absolute fitness is the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection.​Average fitness
> [is t]he mean absolute fitness value exhibited by all the members of a population.​Relative fitness
> [is t]he potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection, as compared to the average fitness exhibited by the population in which this individual is a member.​Allelic or genotypic fitness describes the relative contribution of one allele or geno-type to the next generation as compared to that of possible alternate alleles or genotypes. ​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​Direct fitness is a measure of how many alleles, on average, a genotype contributes to the subsequent generation's gene pool by reproducing.​Indirect fitness is a measure of how many alleles identical to its own it helps to enter the gene pool.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​From an evolutionary perspective, fitness - the relative competitive ability of one cell type versus others in the population - is the fundamental parameter that determines which organisms increase their numbers in a population.​In the crudest terms, fitness involves the ability of organisms or, more rarely, populations or species to survive and reproduce in the environment in which they find themselves​Absolute fitness is a statistic that is usually assigned to a genotype and it typically refers to a genotypes expected total fitness, that complex mix of viability, mating success, fecundity, etc. As such, absolute fitness, symbolized W, is a quantity that can be greater than or equal to zero​The relative fitness of a genotype, symbolized _w_, equals its absolute fitness normalized in some way. In the most common normalization, the absolute fitness of each genotype is divided by the absolute fitness of the fittest genotype, such that the fittest genotype has a relative fitness of one.​ fitness of a biological trait describes how successful an organism has been at passing on its genes. The more likely that an individual is able to survive and live longer to reproduce, the higher is the fitness of that individual.​The relative probability of survival and reproduction for a genotype B as compared to a genotype A​In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit"  bigger, faster or stronger  or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.​_Relative Fitness_
> A measure of biological fitness expressed as the ratio of the absolute fitness of an individual (or of a genotype or of a phenotype) and the absolute fitness of a reference individual (or of genotype or of phenotype).​Absolute Fitness
> A measure of biological fitness expressed as the total number of gene copies transmitted to the subsequent generation or the total number of surviving offspring that an individual produces during its lifetime.​In essence, the fitness of a trait is its propensity to affect, positively or negatively, the reproductive success of an organism.​
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, couldn't find anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you're just a little retarded then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you wasted a half hour re-quoting your circular reasoning. These species were fit because they survived. Are all Darwinists researchers Captain Obvious wannabe's like you? Think about what you are saying. The fit species survived and passed along their genes and the non-fit species didn't. This is evolutions main claim!!! You are basically saying evolution is true because evolution is true. I can't believe your are too blind, or too stupid, to see the absurdity of this circular argument. You are using your assumption to prove your assumption. Hello? McFly?
> 
> What you didn't like to was an actual agreed upon and testable definition of fitness. Without this, there is no way to do a scientific test for, much less prove, that evolution exists.
Click to expand...


 I don't know of any single term that will send creationists into fits of denial like the term "evolution". Creationists typically have a strictly literal interpretation of the bible and the concept of Original Sin as conceived by Adam and Eve. Per Christian dogma, Original Sin is the reason all humans are born depraved sinners. By default, humanity is  condemned to Hell, and is in need of Salvation and Jesus.

Without a literal Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden, one can reasonably ask the question, "what is the true source of Original Sin", and if there indeed is Original Sin at all. If there is no Original Sin, then Salvation, Jesus and Christianity suddenly become unnecessary.

The problem that plagues fundies is that if you take one passage of the bible metaphorically, then that puts you squarely in the slippery slope dilema, and each irrational or contradictory passage in the bible will then be taken metaphorically, and where does it all end? Fundies therefore must reject the idea that the bible contains ANY metaphors whatsoever.

Evolution tends to repulse creationists because the science surrounding the many, varied fields of science that supports evolution is not in question among the relevant science community. An ancient earth and a rather clearly defined fossil record simply doesn't leave any wiggle room for a 6000 year old earth. And this is what causes creationists to become so reactive.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> An organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​The state of being suitably adapted to an environment.​Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology .a.  the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.
> b.  the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in succeeding generations.​It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce,​If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that* fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively. *
> the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductive offspring as compared to competing organisms; also : the contribution of an allele or genotype to the gene pool of subsequent generations as compared to that of other alleles or genotypes​A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population.​_Biology_. The extent to which an organism is adapted to or able to produce offspring in a particular environment.​Biology an organisms ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) _Biology_
> a.  the degree of adaptation of an organism to its environment, determined by its genetic constitution
> b.  the ability of an organism to produce viable offspring capable of surviving to the next generation​The average number of offspring produced by individuals with a certain genotype, relative to the number produced by individuals with other genotypes.​the contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of the next generation relative to the contributions of other individuals.​fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.​Absolute fitness is the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection.​Average fitness
> [is t]he mean absolute fitness value exhibited by all the members of a population.​Relative fitness
> [is t]he potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection, as compared to the average fitness exhibited by the population in which this individual is a member.​Allelic or genotypic fitness describes the relative contribution of one allele or geno-type to the next generation as compared to that of possible alternate alleles or genotypes. ​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​Direct fitness is a measure of how many alleles, on average, a genotype contributes to the subsequent generation's gene pool by reproducing.​Indirect fitness is a measure of how many alleles identical to its own it helps to enter the gene pool.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​From an evolutionary perspective, fitness - the relative competitive ability of one cell type versus others in the population - is the fundamental parameter that determines which organisms increase their numbers in a population.​In the crudest terms, fitness involves the ability of organisms or, more rarely, populations or species to survive and reproduce in the environment in which they find themselves​Absolute fitness is a statistic that is usually assigned to a genotype and it typically refers to a genotypes expected total fitness, that complex mix of viability, mating success, fecundity, etc. As such, absolute fitness, symbolized W, is a quantity that can be greater than or equal to zero​The relative fitness of a genotype, symbolized _w_, equals its absolute fitness normalized in some way. In the most common normalization, the absolute fitness of each genotype is divided by the absolute fitness of the fittest genotype, such that the fittest genotype has a relative fitness of one.​ fitness of a biological trait describes how successful an organism has been at passing on its genes. The more likely that an individual is able to survive and live longer to reproduce, the higher is the fitness of that individual.​The relative probability of survival and reproduction for a genotype B as compared to a genotype A​In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit"  bigger, faster or stronger  or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.​_Relative Fitness_
> A measure of biological fitness expressed as the ratio of the absolute fitness of an individual (or of a genotype or of a phenotype) and the absolute fitness of a reference individual (or of genotype or of phenotype).​Absolute Fitness
> A measure of biological fitness expressed as the total number of gene copies transmitted to the subsequent generation or the total number of surviving offspring that an individual produces during its lifetime.​In essence, the fitness of a trait is its propensity to affect, positively or negatively, the reproductive success of an organism.​
> Well, I guess you're just a little retarded then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. After that slash and burn, there won't be enough left of _yeah, couldn't find anything_ to sweep up into a dust pan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty obvious, *as usual, you didn't actually click on the links*. Many of them were to the same generic definition page.
> 
> And this one Loki linked actually says what I was claiming!!!!
> 
> [/URL].[/INDENT]fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.
> 
> This was basically an article with more opinions about opinions.
> 
> "_Philosophers do continue to seek an broad philosophical account of fitness, but agree that it is not tautological, and that it does describe a general tendency of a trait or organism, not  as EE prefers  a description of the actual performance of an organism. Thus, an individual can be fit (possess traits which ought to increase its reproductive success) but not reproduce. It could be struck by lightning, for instance. Treating fitness as a tendency eliminates any circularity, just as recognizing that salt tends to dissolve in water allows you to describe salt as soluble even if it never is placed in water. A gene can tend to be more fit without making each individual possessing that trait produce more offspring._"
> 
> Proof that no one still can agree, much less comply with the scientific method to test for evolution. And so you cling to your Darwinian Myth. You are going to have to come up with some better material than this, Loki, if you want to be taken seriously on here.​
Click to expand...



Oh you poor fundie. It was you who didn't read the link. The portion you referenced identified "philosophers" as having difficulty defining fitness for survival. Scientists have no such dilemma. 

To the back of the line you go with your gods and other supernatural things that go bump in the night.​


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, couldn't find anything.
> 
> 
> 
> An organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​The state of being suitably adapted to an environment.​Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology .a.  the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.
> b.  the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in succeeding generations.​It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce,​If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that* fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively. *
> the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductive offspring as compared to competing organisms; also : the contribution of an allele or genotype to the gene pool of subsequent generations as compared to that of other alleles or genotypes​A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population.​_Biology_. The extent to which an organism is adapted to or able to produce offspring in a particular environment.​Biology an organisms ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) _Biology_
> a.  the degree of adaptation of an organism to its environment, determined by its genetic constitution
> b.  the ability of an organism to produce viable offspring capable of surviving to the next generation​The average number of offspring produced by individuals with a certain genotype, relative to the number produced by individuals with other genotypes.​the contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of the next generation relative to the contributions of other individuals.​fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.​Absolute fitness is the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection.​Average fitness
> [is t]he mean absolute fitness value exhibited by all the members of a population.​Relative fitness
> [is t]he potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection, as compared to the average fitness exhibited by the population in which this individual is a member.​Allelic or genotypic fitness describes the relative contribution of one allele or geno-type to the next generation as compared to that of possible alternate alleles or genotypes. ​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​Direct fitness is a measure of how many alleles, on average, a genotype contributes to the subsequent generation's gene pool by reproducing.​Indirect fitness is a measure of how many alleles identical to its own it helps to enter the gene pool.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​From an evolutionary perspective, fitness - the relative competitive ability of one cell type versus others in the population - is the fundamental parameter that determines which organisms increase their numbers in a population.​In the crudest terms, fitness involves the ability of organisms or, more rarely, populations or species to survive and reproduce in the environment in which they find themselves​Absolute fitness is a statistic that is usually assigned to a genotype and it typically refers to a genotypes expected total fitness, that complex mix of viability, mating success, fecundity, etc. As such, absolute fitness, symbolized W, is a quantity that can be greater than or equal to zero​The relative fitness of a genotype, symbolized _w_, equals its absolute fitness normalized in some way. In the most common normalization, the absolute fitness of each genotype is divided by the absolute fitness of the fittest genotype, such that the fittest genotype has a relative fitness of one.​ fitness of a biological trait describes how successful an organism has been at passing on its genes. The more likely that an individual is able to survive and live longer to reproduce, the higher is the fitness of that individual.​The relative probability of survival and reproduction for a genotype B as compared to a genotype A​In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit"  bigger, faster or stronger  or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.​_Relative Fitness_
> A measure of biological fitness expressed as the ratio of the absolute fitness of an individual (or of a genotype or of a phenotype) and the absolute fitness of a reference individual (or of genotype or of phenotype).​Absolute Fitness
> A measure of biological fitness expressed as the total number of gene copies transmitted to the subsequent generation or the total number of surviving offspring that an individual produces during its lifetime.​In essence, the fitness of a trait is its propensity to affect, positively or negatively, the reproductive success of an organism.​
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, couldn't find anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess you're just a little retarded then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you wasted a half hour re-quoting your circular reasoning.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about?



UltimateReality said:


> These species were fit because they survived.


1) WHAT species are you talking about?
2) Regardless of what species you think I mentioned ... your cart before the horse strawman is patently invalid.



UltimateReality said:


> Are all Darwinists researchers Captain Obvious wannabe's like you? Think about what you are saying. The fit species survived and passed along their genes and the non-fit species didn't.


You consider this observation invalid?



UltimateReality said:


> This is evolutions main claim!!!


Claim? As in evolutionists recognize that organisms that die before they reproduce contribute no genetic information to subsequent generations? You have an alternative notion regarding the non-random persistence of specific genetic information? Is it magic? WOOOoooooOOO!



UltimateReality said:


> You are basically saying evolution is true because evolution is true.


WTF are you talking about?



UltimateReality said:


> I can't believe your are too blind, or too stupid, to see the absurdity of this circular argument.


WHAT FUCKING ARGUMENT?

The observation that organisms that die before they reproduce contribute no genetic information to subsequent generations? 

That's not an argument ... it's an observation.



UltimateReality said:


> You are using your assumption to prove your assumption. Hello? McFly?


You're making no fucking sense what-so-ever.



UltimateReality said:


> What you didn't like to was an actual agreed upon and testable definition of fitness.


WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

You have to decide what you want. Do you want something testable? That would be a hypothesis or a theory.

Do want a definition? Well then, there won't be any test, because definitions are ... FUCKING DEFINITIVE!



UltimateReality said:


> Without this, there is no way to do a scientific test for, much less prove, that evolution exists.


You're making no fucking sense what-so-ever.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Well, I guess you're just a little retarded then.


 Says the pot calling the kettle black.



LOki said:


> WTF are you talking about?


 I am talking about the time you took to type out this post with numerous useless links, some of which support my position, but in the end, do nothing more than present your same stupid, circularly reasoned argument that the types of animals that survive and reproduce are the types of animals that survive and reproduce. 



LOki said:


> 1) WHAT species are you talking about?


 ANY of the species your links refer to. 


LOki said:


> 2) Regardless of what species you think I mentioned ... your cart before the horse strawman is patently invalid.


 Whatever. Your fallacy is fallacious. 



LOki said:


> You consider this observation invalid?


 Yes. You attempt to prove this assumption with your assumption. Evolution claims that only fit species pass along their dna over time, and that is what we are supposed to be able to test to support the theory of evolution. Yet, instead of trying to test the theory to determine if fitness is really responsible for natural selection, you make the same circular argument above. This is the last time I a going to explain this to you, pumpkin. 



LOki said:


> Claim? As in evolutionists recognize that organisms that die before they reproduce contribute no genetic information to subsequent generations?


 No cheesecake, that only species with more "fitness" survive long enough to pass on their dna. 





LOki said:


> Is it magic? WOOOoooooOOO!


 Yes, the theory of evolution would appear as such. 



LOki said:


> WTF are you talking about?


 I won't believe you are this stupid.



LOki said:


> WHAT FUCKING ARGUMENT?


 The argument that evolution can be tested, donut. 



LOki said:


> WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?


 I asked you to provide me with a testable definition of fitness largely accepted by the scientific community. You epically failed. All of your links employ the same basic flawed reasoning, i.e., the current species we have are the most fit ones because if they weren't the most fit they wouldn't be here. But you can't prove this is true and therefore you can't even begin to say there is evidence for evolution. Why are you having such a difficult time following the argument? Did you go off your meds again?



LOki said:


> Do you want something testable? That would be a hypothesis or a theory.


 You mean like the theory of evolution we have been talking about for the last 500 pages?? 



LOki said:


> Do want a definition? Well then, there won't be any test, because definitions are ... FUCKING DEFINITIVE!


 NO! We need to define what constitutes fitness, and that isn't your "just so" stories or circular proof, before you can began to claim that some trait was kept because it made the organism more fit. If you don't have a workable definition, how can you make your silly claims that the giraffe survived because its longer neck allowed it to reach higher fruit or run faster or whatever. Your whole "fact" of evolution is based on guesses as to what traits contribute to an organisms fitness. Your pseudo science starts from the assumption that evolution has to be true (not setting out to prove it is true) so you look at the giraffe and observe it has a long neck. There is no other reason for his long neck other than evolution. The theory of evolution tells us the long neck HAD to contribute to the giraffe's fitness in it's environment. Otherwise, it wouldn't have a long neck. The assumption of evolution is present prior to the observation. Survival of the fittest has to be true because the organisms alive today must have been the fittests or they wouln't have survived. This is not falsifiable!!! And it definitely isn't testable under any REAL scientific method I am aware of. This birth's the "just so" stories that are presented as *fact* in school textbooks. 

And we are back to square one after all your hand waving and link pasting and that is: The long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological &#8212; it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce.

"And in 1975, the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote that no biologist &#8220;can judge reliably which &#8216;characters&#8217; are useful, neutral, or harmful in a given species.&#8221;

&#8220;What is required is an experimental program of unpacking &#8216;fitness.&#8217; This involves determining experimentally how different genotypes juxtapose different aspects of the external world, how they alter that world and how those different environments that they construct affect their own biological processes and the biological processes of others.&#8221;[22] I doubt whether anyone has even pretended to do this unpacking in a way adequate to demonstrate the randomness of mutations relative to fitness."

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the Loki."


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. After that slash and burn, there won't be enough left of _yeah, couldn't find anything_ to sweep up into a dust pan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty obvious, *as usual, you didn't actually click on the links*. Many of them were to the same generic definition page.
> 
> And this one Loki linked actually says what I was claiming!!!!
> 
> [/URL].[/INDENT]fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.
> 
> This was basically an article with more opinions about opinions.
> 
> "_Philosophers do continue to seek an broad philosophical account of fitness, but agree that it is not tautological, and that it does describe a general tendency of a trait or organism, not  as EE prefers  a description of the actual performance of an organism. Thus, an individual can be fit (possess traits which ought to increase its reproductive success) but not reproduce. It could be struck by lightning, for instance. Treating fitness as a tendency eliminates any circularity, just as recognizing that salt tends to dissolve in water allows you to describe salt as soluble even if it never is placed in water. A gene can tend to be more fit without making each individual possessing that trait produce more offspring._"
> 
> Proof that no one still can agree, much less comply with the scientific method to test for evolution. And so you cling to your Darwinian Myth. You are going to have to come up with some better material than this, Loki, if you want to be taken seriously on here.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor fundie. It was you who didn't read the link. The portion you referenced identified "philosophers" as having difficulty defining fitness for survival. Scientists have no such dilemma.
> 
> To the back of the line you go with your gods and other supernatural things that go bump in the night.​
Click to expand...



Hollie, you are in way over your head on this one. Why don't you leave this for the folks *with a college education.*​


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how many times must I post the evidence that was not confirmed until modern day science but was written about in the scriptures long before technology allowed us to confirm the writings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humor me, give me one example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you've done it. You've invited him to copy/paste vomit his 101 examples of Texas-Sharpshooting that have been thoroughly refuted on these forums and elsewhere.
Click to expand...


In your dreams.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> 1.The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.
> 
> I didn't realize that gravity=nothing. Geez, their first fucking example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Can gravity be seen or is it like the wind you can only see it's effects ?

Do you believe the Hebrew language back then can be spoken in the same pattern that english is spoken today ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.
> 
> I didn't realize that gravity=nothing. Geez, their first fucking example.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that also.  Job 26:7 makes no mention of gravity.
> 
> It is remarkable how dishonest fundies are. They simply re-write and edit their bibles as they see fit.
Click to expand...


It's not surprising you lack the ability to reason.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive creationism is built on assumptions not facts just like many scientific theories. What was the point of God handing down judgment on adam if things were already dying.
> 
> I still have not seen any scriptures that would make me consider an old earth view. People can believe as they wish but for me my doctrine comes from the bible. Are all my beliefs in line with what the scrptures say ? I believe they are I don't believe doctrine that I don't see in the scrptures.
> 
> I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always find it tragically comic that fundies will make comments such as: "I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's"
> 
> The fact is, all of the alleged "holy texts" are undeniably written by men.
> 
> Its quite simple, really: A book is simply that, a book. There is no solid reason to connect any supernatural entity with the authorship of a book. Never, ever, in all of the history of humanity has any god made their existence extant. Never in human history has any one of the 14,000 or so alleged gods presented themselves in a fashion understandable to humans, And in fact, all of the alleged gods have eventually been superseded and/or replaced by the more currently in-vogue gods. Its just a fact that the bible was written by men, edited, revised and compiled by many men. That is not conjecture or assumption on my part, its just a fact. I care about these inventions of supernatural entities because religions and supernatural beliefs can have the effect of keeping humanity in bondage, both mentally and physically. Im forced to acknowledge these various religious beliefs because countless billions of people are made to live their lives in trembling fear of an asserted supernatural entity who will bring forth such things as hell and plagues and various "wraths", "curses" and "spells". Faith, then, is ultimately a confused marriage of blind, uncritical trust, and wishful thinking. No matter how fervently one believes in an improbability or an outright contradiction, it will not suddenly spring into being merely because people wish it so. As Anatole France said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of the writings confirm a superior being inspired the writings. There are things mentioned in the writings that man did know at that time. These writings had to be inspired from someone superior to man.
Click to expand...


No, the writings in the bible do not objectively confirm a superior AT ALL. If this was the case, everybody would believe. Only to one who already believes, would the bible or the koran carry this kind of significance, but that is saying nothing about the objective veracity of the bible. It requires faith to be believe in the bible as true, because there is nothing special about the bible, unless you grant it special privilege, because you already believe in it. It is circular no matter which way you cut it. 

There is ZERO specific knowledge in the bible that suggests the writers knew more than was possible at that time. Please, provide an example, and I will debunk it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God put Adam in the garden about 10,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chronology of man according to the scriptures suggest 6,000 years, Why do you believe 10,000 years ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fossil evidence.
Click to expand...


Ok that is where we part in beliefs the dating methods.

Do you trust carbon 14 dating when things like stones were dated much older then carbon  could last and in those stones carbon was found in the stones.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.
> 
> I didn't realize that gravity=nothing. Geez, their first fucking example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can gravity be seen or is it like the wind you can only see it's effects ?
> 
> Do you believe the Hebrew language back then can be spoken in the same pattern that english is spoken today ?
Click to expand...


That's a lame excuse. The concepts are the same. They clearly were not aware of gravity whatsoever, as this only happened with Isaac Newton. An ancient greek had already figured out that the earth was round, so you can't use that one either, and besides, the bible doesn't allude to the earth by a sphere, but a circle. A 2-dimensional circle. You're missing an entire dimension!


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.
> 
> I didn't realize that gravity=nothing. Geez, their first fucking example.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that also.  Job 26:7 makes no mention of gravity.
> 
> It is remarkable how dishonest fundies are. They simply re-write and edit their bibles as they see fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not surprising you lack the ability to reason.
Click to expand...


You shouldn't talk to anybody about reason as a young earth creationist. You believe a book written two millennia simply because it proclaims itself to be true. That's not reasonable. That's gullibility.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive creationism is built on assumptions not facts just like many scientific theories. What was the point of God handing down judgment on adam if things were already dying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take this *logic* one step further. *Christ conquered death on the cross*. I believe in him and confess that God has raised him from the dead. Yet, I will still die a physical death. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Yet Christians still perish physically. What on earth could John be talking about? Are you saying the Bible's definition of death is contradictory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logic would say instead that there's no real proof that Jesus was on a cross. Or even existed.
Click to expand...


Believe as you wish historians have written about Jesus.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always find it tragically comic that fundies will make comments such as: "I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's"
> 
> The fact is, all of the alleged "holy texts" are undeniably written by men.
> 
> Its quite simple, really: A book is simply that, a book. There is no solid reason to connect any supernatural entity with the authorship of a book. Never, ever, in all of the history of humanity has any god made their existence extant. Never in human history has any one of the 14,000 or so alleged gods presented themselves in a fashion understandable to humans, And in fact, all of the alleged gods have eventually been superseded and/or replaced by the more currently in-vogue gods. Its just a fact that the bible was written by men, edited, revised and compiled by many men. That is not conjecture or assumption on my part, its just a fact. I care about these inventions of supernatural entities because religions and supernatural beliefs can have the effect of keeping humanity in bondage, both mentally and physically. Im forced to acknowledge these various religious beliefs because countless billions of people are made to live their lives in trembling fear of an asserted supernatural entity who will bring forth such things as hell and plagues and various "wraths", "curses" and "spells". Faith, then, is ultimately a confused marriage of blind, uncritical trust, and wishful thinking. No matter how fervently one believes in an improbability or an outright contradiction, it will not suddenly spring into being merely because people wish it so. As Anatole France said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the writings confirm a superior being inspired the writings. There are things mentioned in the writings that man did know at that time. These writings had to be inspired from someone superior to man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the writings in the bible do not objectively confirm a superior AT ALL. If this was the case, everybody would believe. Only to one who already believes, would the bible or the koran carry this kind of significance, but that is saying nothing about the objective veracity of the bible. It requires faith to be believe in the bible as true, because there is nothing special about the bible, unless you grant it special privilege, because you already believe in it. It is circular no matter which way you cut it.
> 
> There is ZERO specific knowledge in the bible that suggests the writers knew more than was possible at that time. Please, provide an example, and I will debunk it.
Click to expand...


Really ? Jesus knew a day like this would come and predicted it.

2Pe 3:1  Beloved, I now write this second letter to you, in which I stir up your pure mind by reminder 
2Pe 3:2  to remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of the Lord and Savior by us, the apostles. 
2Pe 3:3  First, knowing this, that there will come in the last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.
> 
> I didn't realize that gravity=nothing. Geez, their first fucking example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can gravity be seen or is it like the wind you can only see it's effects ?
> 
> Do you believe the Hebrew language back then can be spoken in the same pattern that english is spoken today ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lame excuse. The concepts are the same. They clearly were not aware of gravity whatsoever, as this only happened with Isaac Newton. An ancient greek had already figured out that the earth was round, so you can't use that one either, and besides, the bible doesn't allude to the earth by a sphere, but a circle. A 2-dimensional circle. You're missing an entire dimension!
Click to expand...


Planets appear to be free floating and held by nothing but they are held by something are they not ?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the writings confirm a superior being inspired the writings. There are things mentioned in the writings that man did know at that time. These writings had to be inspired from someone superior to man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the writings in the bible do not objectively confirm a superior AT ALL. If this was the case, everybody would believe. Only to one who already believes, would the bible or the koran carry this kind of significance, but that is saying nothing about the objective veracity of the bible. It requires faith to be believe in the bible as true, because there is nothing special about the bible, unless you grant it special privilege, because you already believe in it. It is circular no matter which way you cut it.
> 
> There is ZERO specific knowledge in the bible that suggests the writers knew more than was possible at that time. Please, provide an example, and I will debunk it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really ? Jesus knew a day like this would come and predicted it.
> 
> 2Pe 3:1  Beloved, I now write this second letter to you, in which I stir up your pure mind by reminder
> 2Pe 3:2  to remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of the Lord and Savior by us, the apostles.
> 2Pe 3:3  First, knowing this, that there will come in the last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts
Click to expand...


This is as meaningless as reading astrological predictions. Utterly vague, and therefore, always true to a degree, just like in astrology. Same tactic. If you keep things vague enough, such as "There will be War. People will fight. Families will be torn apart...," you'll never be completely wrong. Any idiot with a brain can say with CERTAINTY that these conditions will continue on as long humans exist. I don't see why you think this is so special. You are displaying massive confirmation bias with your interpretation of the bible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that also.  Job 26:7 makes no mention of gravity.
> 
> It is remarkable how dishonest fundies are. They simply re-write and edit their bibles as they see fit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not surprising you lack the ability to reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You shouldn't talk to anybody about reason as a young earth creationist. You believe a book written two millennia simply because it proclaims itself to be true. That's not reasonable. That's gullibility.
Click to expand...


There are many reasons I trust the bible as a credible source, sorry if that disappoints you.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can gravity be seen or is it like the wind you can only see it's effects ?
> 
> Do you believe the Hebrew language back then can be spoken in the same pattern that english is spoken today ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lame excuse. The concepts are the same. They clearly were not aware of gravity whatsoever, as this only happened with Isaac Newton. An ancient greek had already figured out that the earth was round, so you can't use that one either, and besides, the bible doesn't allude to the earth by a sphere, but a circle. A 2-dimensional circle. You're missing an entire dimension!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Planets appear to be free floating and held by nothing but they are held by something are they not ?
Click to expand...


They didn't know about "planets." They only knew about Earth. They didn't know it was round. Their metaphysical understanding of the earth and its place in the universe resemble nothing of what we know to be true today. So, I don't care if they were "close." If I picture myself back then, looking up at blackness and with lights all over the sky, I don't think it would be outlandish to conclude that we are held in "nothingness." That is the only reasonable thing to conclude, absent verifiable scientific facts. Their observation is what you would expect from someone before technology and science.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not surprising you lack the ability to reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't talk to anybody about reason as a young earth creationist. You believe a book written two millennia simply because it proclaims itself to be true. That's not reasonable. That's gullibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many reasons I trust the bible as a credible source, sorry if that disappoints you.
Click to expand...


That's fine. I don't have a problem with you believing something. If you makes you happy, that's cool. But, you use the bible to try to convince people of things, and that is a problem, and at that point, I have a right to say something, because you are making claims about reality based on something with no credibility as far as reality goes. The bible can not demonstrated to be what it claims to be, and that is crucial. If you want to take it on faith because it serves you, fine. If you are going to use it to try to create arguments and convince others to your side, then others have every right to call the credibility of the bible into question, which it should. Saying the bible is true is simply special pleading. There is no more reason to believe the bible is true over the koran, or any other ancient or modern religious text.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the writings in the bible do not objectively confirm a superior AT ALL. If this was the case, everybody would believe. Only to one who already believes, would the bible or the koran carry this kind of significance, but that is saying nothing about the objective veracity of the bible. It requires faith to be believe in the bible as true, because there is nothing special about the bible, unless you grant it special privilege, because you already believe in it. It is circular no matter which way you cut it.
> 
> There is ZERO specific knowledge in the bible that suggests the writers knew more than was possible at that time. Please, provide an example, and I will debunk it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? Jesus knew a day like this would come and predicted it.
> 
> 2Pe 3:1  Beloved, I now write this second letter to you, in which I stir up your pure mind by reminder
> 2Pe 3:2  to remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of the Lord and Savior by us, the apostles.
> 2Pe 3:3  First, knowing this, that there will come in the last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is as meaningless as reading astrological predictions. Utterly vague, and therefore, always true to a degree, just like in astrology. Same tactic. If you keep things vague enough, such as "There will be War. People will fight. Families will be torn apart...," you'll never be completely wrong. Any idiot with a brain can say with CERTAINTY that these conditions will continue on as long humans exist. I don't see why you think this is so special. You are displaying massive confirmation bias with your interpretation of the bible.
Click to expand...


Scoffers have become many today.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? Jesus knew a day like this would come and predicted it.
> 
> 2Pe 3:1  Beloved, I now write this second letter to you, in which I stir up your pure mind by reminder
> 2Pe 3:2  to remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of the Lord and Savior by us, the apostles.
> 2Pe 3:3  First, knowing this, that there will come in the last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is as meaningless as reading astrological predictions. Utterly vague, and therefore, always true to a degree, just like in astrology. Same tactic. If you keep things vague enough, such as "There will be War. People will fight. Families will be torn apart...," you'll never be completely wrong. Any idiot with a brain can say with CERTAINTY that these conditions will continue on as long humans exist. I don't see why you think this is so special. You are displaying massive confirmation bias with your interpretation of the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scoffers have become many today.
Click to expand...



Oh, so if I scoff, that means the bible is true? So, the bible can say anything, and then simply including this "scoffing clause" and therefore, anybody who doubts means the bible is more true, because it predicted people might doubt it? That's terrible, and evil. It means people MUST believe this book, without question. People can not and should not think for themselves, and should not question an authority. It is this kind of thinking that allows and propagates so much evil in this world.

It manipulative and dishonest, and again, an obvious "prophecy" that in no way confirms or is evidence of the bible. 

I am going to make a proclamation:

"The Flying Spaghetti Monster Exists.  Mark my words, there will be those who scoff at and deny His existence. Pay no attention. They will suffer eternally. However, those that believe in him shall have everlasting life"

Now, if you doubt the Spaghetti monster, you are only confirming what my prophetic statement of what will happen, meaning, I must have had prophetic knowledge, which confirms that I am in touch with this almighty Spaghetti Monster. 

Hopefully, you can see the absurdity of this logic, yet it perfectly mirrors what you quoted.

The point is, anyone can play this game. It doesn't prove anything being true about the bible. Simply that the person who wrote it, foresaw that some might doubt it, so included this. That's not incredibly difficult to foresee, or and even easier to include in the bible. You just write it down.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can gravity be seen or is it like the wind you can only see it's effects ?
> 
> Do you believe the Hebrew language back then can be spoken in the same pattern that english is spoken today ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lame excuse. The concepts are the same. They clearly were not aware of gravity whatsoever, as this only happened with Isaac Newton. An ancient greek had already figured out that the earth was round, so you can't use that one either, and besides, the bible doesn't allude to the earth by a sphere, but a circle. A 2-dimensional circle. You're missing an entire dimension!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Planets appear to be free floating and held by nothing but they are held by something are they not ?
Click to expand...


Well, not really. The whole universe is held together by an invisible force, which, in spite of all the leaps and bounds in science, has no observable mechanism. Only its effects are understood, and now even those are being called into question.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lame excuse. The concepts are the same. They clearly were not aware of gravity whatsoever, as this only happened with Isaac Newton. An ancient greek had already figured out that the earth was round, so you can't use that one either, and besides, the bible doesn't allude to the earth by a sphere, but a circle. A 2-dimensional circle. You're missing an entire dimension!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planets appear to be free floating and held by nothing but they are held by something are they not ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, not really. The whole universe is held together by an invisible force, which, in spite of all the leaps and bounds in science, has no observable mechanism. Only its effects are understood, and now even those are being called into question.
Click to expand...


Actually, objects in the universe have been detected to be heading away from each other, so no, the universe isn't held together by an invisible force and in fact the moon has been measured to be moving away from earth and will eventually escape earth's gravitational pull.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty obvious, *as usual, you didn't actually click on the links*. Many of them were to the same generic definition page.
> 
> And this one Loki linked actually says what I was claiming!!!!
> 
> [/URL].[/INDENT]fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.
> 
> This was basically an article with more opinions about opinions.
> 
> "_Philosophers do continue to seek an broad philosophical account of fitness, but agree that it is not tautological, and that it does describe a general tendency of a trait or organism, not &#8212; as EE prefers &#8212; a description of the actual performance of an organism. Thus, an individual can be fit (possess traits which ought to increase its reproductive success) but not reproduce. It could be struck by lightning, for instance. Treating fitness as a tendency eliminates any circularity, just as recognizing that salt tends to dissolve in water allows you to describe salt as soluble even if it never is placed in water. A gene can tend to be more fit without making each individual possessing that trait produce more offspring._"
> 
> Proof that no one still can agree, much less comply with the scientific method to test for evolution. And so you cling to your Darwinian Myth. You are going to have to come up with some better material than this, Loki, if you want to be taken seriously on here.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor fundie. It was you who didn't read the link. The portion you referenced identified "philosophers" as having difficulty defining fitness for survival. Scientists have no such dilemma.
> 
> To the back of the line you go with your gods and other supernatural things that go bump in the night.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you are in way over your head on this one. Why don't you leave this for the folks *with a college education.*​
Click to expand...



 I did expect that you would sidestep any accounting of my comments relative to original sin. That is an issue which speaks to the core of christianity. 

The reason why certain fundie type of Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile.

But more to the point, there is a certain personality type that is consumed by self-hate, insecurity and doubt. Those personality types seem especially vulnerable to manipulation by fear and suggestion of such things as eternal torment. While such installation of scare tactics can cohere certain groups of people, why would you expect anyone else to accept such a prescription for a maladjusted personality. And worse, why would you expect anyone else would want such feelings of self-hate and hopelessness imposed on school children.​


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lame excuse. The concepts are the same. They clearly were not aware of gravity whatsoever, as this only happened with Isaac Newton. An ancient greek had already figured out that the earth was round, so you can't use that one either, and besides, the bible doesn't allude to the earth by a sphere, but a circle. A 2-dimensional circle. You're missing an entire dimension!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planets appear to be free floating and held by nothing but they are held by something are they not ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, not really. The whole universe is held together by an invisible force, which, in spite of all the leaps and bounds in science, has no observable mechanism. Only its effects are understood, and now even those are being called into question.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately. this is the mindlessness that grips creationists. Invisible forces like invisible gods are convenient excuses to halt any examination and any exploration. The greatest fear that fundies is fear of knowledge because knowledge provides explanations and an understanding of events.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? Jesus knew a day like this would come and predicted it.
> 
> 2Pe 3:1  Beloved, I now write this second letter to you, in which I stir up your pure mind by reminder
> 2Pe 3:2  to remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of the Lord and Savior by us, the apostles.
> 2Pe 3:3  First, knowing this, that there will come in the last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is as meaningless as reading astrological predictions. Utterly vague, and therefore, always true to a degree, just like in astrology. Same tactic. If you keep things vague enough, such as "There will be War. People will fight. Families will be torn apart...," you'll never be completely wrong. Any idiot with a brain can say with CERTAINTY that these conditions will continue on as long humans exist. I don't see why you think this is so special. You are displaying massive confirmation bias with your interpretation of the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scoffers have become many today.
Click to expand...

There are many more "scoffers" because religions simply don't have ability to instill the paralyzing fear they once had. As knowledge has peeled back the layers of superstition that define religious belief, we have come to understand that natural events (planetary eclipse, tornadoes, thunder, lightning, etc.), are not the results of angry gods but are forces of nature. We largely understand those forces and events. If you want to know the date and time of every lunar eclipse in the next 1,000 years, you could consult a fundie (who might tell you "it's up to the will of the gods" and may want to slaughter a lamb ), or you could ask an astronomer who will explain the orbits of planets around the sun and the coincidence of planets in those orbits. 

The instillation of fear as a means to enforce religious belief is still a  tactic, but that tactic is much less effective when science counters fear and ignorance with knowledge and reason.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lame excuse. The concepts are the same. They clearly were not aware of gravity whatsoever, as this only happened with Isaac Newton. An ancient greek had already figured out that the earth was round, so you can't use that one either, and besides, the bible doesn't allude to the earth by a sphere, but a circle. A 2-dimensional circle. You're missing an entire dimension!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planets appear to be free floating and held by nothing but they are held by something are they not ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't know about "planets." They only knew about Earth. They didn't know it was round. Their metaphysical understanding of the earth and its place in the universe resemble nothing of what we know to be true today. So, I don't care if they were "close." If I picture myself back then, looking up at blackness and with lights all over the sky, I don't think it would be outlandish to conclude that we are held in "nothingness." That is the only reasonable thing to conclude, absent verifiable scientific facts. Their observation is what you would expect from someone before technology and science.
Click to expand...


You can say that other planets were held by nothing but they could not have known the eartth was held by nothing. It is reasonable what you are suggesting but what about this scripture.

Isa 48:13  My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens. I called; they stood up together. 

This is poetic but very interesting. God set it's foundations,what would these foundations be ? the proper plane,gravity. He has stretched out the heavens how could man at that time know of the expanding universe that we can see  ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Planets appear to be free floating and held by nothing but they are held by something are they not ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't know about "planets." They only knew about Earth. They didn't know it was round. Their metaphysical understanding of the earth and its place in the universe resemble nothing of what we know to be true today. So, I don't care if they were "close." If I picture myself back then, looking up at blackness and with lights all over the sky, I don't think it would be outlandish to conclude that we are held in "nothingness." That is the only reasonable thing to conclude, absent verifiable scientific facts. Their observation is what you would expect from someone before technology and science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can say that other planets were held by nothing but they could not have known the eartth was held by nothing. It is reasonable what you are suggesting but what about this scripture.
> 
> Isa 48:13  My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens. I called; they stood up together.
> 
> This is poetic but very interesting. God set it's foundations,what would these foundations be ? the proper plane,gravity. He has stretched out the heavens how could man at that time know of the expanding universe that we can see  ?
Click to expand...

The obvious resolution to this would have been for the gods to simply provide a concise description of gravity - not like the verse you falsified. Is that so difficult?

All of this subjective interpretation begs the question: "why are the gods so inept at communicating their message in a clear and precise manner"?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is as meaningless as reading astrological predictions. Utterly vague, and therefore, always true to a degree, just like in astrology. Same tactic. If you keep things vague enough, such as "There will be War. People will fight. Families will be torn apart...," you'll never be completely wrong. Any idiot with a brain can say with CERTAINTY that these conditions will continue on as long humans exist. I don't see why you think this is so special. You are displaying massive confirmation bias with your interpretation of the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scoffers have become many today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so if I scoff, that means the bible is true? So, the bible can say anything, and then simply including this "scoffing clause" and therefore, anybody who doubts means the bible is more true, because it predicted people might doubt it? That's terrible, and evil. It means people MUST believe this book, without question. People can not and should not think for themselves, and should not question an authority. It is this kind of thinking that allows and propagates so much evil in this world.
> 
> It manipulative and dishonest, and again, an obvious "prophecy" that in no way confirms or is evidence of the bible.
> 
> I am going to make a proclamation:
> 
> "The Flying Spaghetti Monster Exists.  Mark my words, there will be those who scoff at and deny His existence. Pay no attention. They will suffer eternally. However, those that believe in him shall have everlasting life"
> 
> Now, if you doubt the Spaghetti monster, you are only confirming what my prophetic statement of what will happen, meaning, I must have had prophetic knowledge, which confirms that I am in touch with this almighty Spaghetti Monster.
> 
> Hopefully, you can see the absurdity of this logic, yet it perfectly mirrors what you quoted.
> 
> The point is, anyone can play this game. It doesn't prove anything being true about the bible. Simply that the person who wrote it, foresaw that some might doubt it, so included this. That's not incredibly difficult to foresee, or and even easier to include in the bible. You just write it down.
Click to expand...


It warned of scoffers but it also warned of something else I would like to point out.

1Ti 1:3  Even as I begged you to remain at Ephesus, when I was going to Macedonia, that you might charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 
1Ti 1:4  nor to give heed to fables and endless genealogies (which provide doubts rather than the nurture of God in faith). 


2Pe 1:14  knowing that the putting off of my tabernacle is soon, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. 
2Pe 1:15  And I will also be diligent to cause you to always have memory of these things after my departure. 
2Pe 1:16  For not having followed fables having been cunningly devised, but becoming eyewitnesses of the majesty of Jesus Christ, we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord. 



fables
folklore basics




Definition: A short allegorical narrative making a moral point, traditionally by means of animal characters who speak and act like human beings.

Expanded Definition: What Is a Fable?


"In the first place, the fable must exhibit the animals as being endowed with human reason, and initiated into all the customs and conditions of our mode of living, so that their behavior has nothing at all odd in it." -- Jacob Grimm


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Planets appear to be free floating and held by nothing but they are held by something are they not ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not really. The whole universe is held together by an invisible force, which, in spite of all the leaps and bounds in science, has no observable mechanism. Only its effects are understood, and now even those are being called into question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, objects in the universe have been detected to be heading away from each other, so no, the universe isn't held together by an invisible force and in fact the moon has been measured to be moving away from earth and will eventually escape earth's gravitational pull.
Click to expand...


How would man at that time know of an expanding universe.

Isa 48:13  My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens. I called; they stood up together.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is as meaningless as reading astrological predictions. Utterly vague, and therefore, always true to a degree, just like in astrology. Same tactic. If you keep things vague enough, such as "There will be War. People will fight. Families will be torn apart...," you'll never be completely wrong. Any idiot with a brain can say with CERTAINTY that these conditions will continue on as long humans exist. I don't see why you think this is so special. You are displaying massive confirmation bias with your interpretation of the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scoffers have become many today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are many more "scoffers" because religions simply don't have ability to instill the paralyzing fear they once had. As knowledge has peeled back the layers of superstition that define religious belief, we have come to understand that natural events (planetary eclipse, tornadoes, thunder, lightning, etc.), are not the results of angry gods but are forces of nature. We largely understand those forces and events. If you want to know the date and time of every lunar eclipse in the next 1,000 years, you could consult a fundie (who might tell you "it's up to the will of the gods" and may want to slaughter a lamb ), or you could ask an astronomer who will explain the orbits of planets around the sun and the coincidence of planets in those orbits.
> 
> The instillation of fear as a means to enforce religious belief is still a  tactic, but that tactic is much less effective when science counters fear and ignorance with knowledge and reason.
Click to expand...


I don't believe true believers believe in God out of fear. My only fear of God is respect. I worship him because I choose to. I used my freewill just as you have used yours not to believe in him.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't know about "planets." They only knew about Earth. They didn't know it was round. Their metaphysical understanding of the earth and its place in the universe resemble nothing of what we know to be true today. So, I don't care if they were "close." If I picture myself back then, looking up at blackness and with lights all over the sky, I don't think it would be outlandish to conclude that we are held in "nothingness." That is the only reasonable thing to conclude, absent verifiable scientific facts. Their observation is what you would expect from someone before technology and science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can say that other planets were held by nothing but they could not have known the eartth was held by nothing. It is reasonable what you are suggesting but what about this scripture.
> 
> Isa 48:13  My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens. I called; they stood up together.
> 
> This is poetic but very interesting. God set it's foundations,what would these foundations be ? the proper plane,gravity. He has stretched out the heavens how could man at that time know of the expanding universe that we can see  ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The obvious resolution to this would have been for the gods to simply provide a concise description of gravity - not like the verse you falsified. Is that so difficult?
> 
> All of this subjective interpretation begs the question: "why are the gods so inept at communicating their message in a clear and precise manner"?
Click to expand...


So because God did not fully explain his creations he doesn't exist ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not really. The whole universe is held together by an invisible force, which, in spite of all the leaps and bounds in science, has no observable mechanism. Only its effects are understood, and now even those are being called into question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, objects in the universe have been detected to be heading away from each other, so no, the universe isn't held together by an invisible force and in fact the moon has been measured to be moving away from earth and will eventually escape earth's gravitational pull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would man at that time know of an expanding universe.
> 
> Isa 48:13  My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens. I called; they stood up together.
Click to expand...


It's difficult not to miss your generous allowance for adding to bible verses what was not in the verse. As much as you prefer to falsify verses to add content of your own, we call that being dishonest.

The verse you posted (if not altered by you), never proposes the concept of an expanding universe. In fact, the verse never references a "universe" at all, but rather "heavens", in rather glaring contradiction to your allegation.

There was no conception of an expanding universe at writing of the bible. "Heavens" was simply the sky above.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can say that other planets were held by nothing but they could not have known the eartth was held by nothing. It is reasonable what you are suggesting but what about this scripture.
> 
> Isa 48:13  My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens. I called; they stood up together.
> 
> This is poetic but very interesting. God set it's foundations,what would these foundations be ? the proper plane,gravity. He has stretched out the heavens how could man at that time know of the expanding universe that we can see  ?
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious resolution to this would have been for the gods to simply provide a concise description of gravity - not like the verse you falsified. Is that so difficult?
> 
> All of this subjective interpretation begs the question: "why are the gods so inept at communicating their message in a clear and precise manner"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So because God did not fully explain his creations he doesn't exist ?
Click to expand...

So are you insisting that gods exist because you read that in an ancient book of tales and fables?  What "creation" are you attributing to these gods you claim exist?

How about Leprechauns? do you believe they exist? I've read about them in books.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Planets appear to be free floating and held by nothing but they are held by something are they not ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not really. The whole universe is held together by an invisible force, which, in spite of all the leaps and bounds in science, has no observable mechanism. Only its effects are understood, and now even those are being called into question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, objects in the universe have been detected to be heading away from each other, so no, the universe isn't held together by an invisible force and in fact the moon has been measured to be moving away from earth and will eventually escape earth's gravitational pull.
Click to expand...


I was talking about Gravity.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Planets appear to be free floating and held by nothing but they are held by something are they not ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not really. The whole universe is held together by an invisible force, which, in spite of all the leaps and bounds in science, has no observable mechanism. Only its effects are understood, and now even those are being called into question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately. this is the mindlessness that grips creationists. Invisible forces like invisible gods are convenient excuses to halt any examination and any exploration. The greatest fear that fundies is fear of knowledge because knowledge provides explanations and an understanding of events.
Click to expand...


Actually, I was talking about the invisible force YOU believe in called Gravity. It is one of those forces that just is. We can measure it. We can see it's effects. But there is no observable mechanism, even at the atomic level, for why mass attracts other mass. Or for why the force of it is exactly inversely proportional to distance. God is kind of like gravity. You can deny gravity exists all you want, but if you jump off a building, you will find out the hard way gravity is very real. 

If you had a *college education,* you might have caught on to this.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is as meaningless as reading astrological predictions. Utterly vague, and therefore, always true to a degree, just like in astrology. Same tactic. If you keep things vague enough, such as "There will be War. People will fight. Families will be torn apart...," you'll never be completely wrong. Any idiot with a brain can say with CERTAINTY that these conditions will continue on as long humans exist. I don't see why you think this is so special. You are displaying massive confirmation bias with your interpretation of the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scoffers have become many today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are many more "scoffers" because religions simply don't have ability to instill the paralyzing fear they once had. As knowledge has peeled back the layers of superstition that define religious belief, we have come to understand that natural events (planetary eclipse, tornadoes, thunder, lightning, etc.), are not the results of angry gods but are forces of nature. We largely understand those forces and events. If you want to know the date and time of every lunar eclipse in the next 1,000 years, you could consult a fundie (who might tell you "it's up to the will of the gods" and may want to slaughter a lamb ), or you could ask an astronomer who will explain the orbits of planets around the sun and the coincidence of planets in those orbits.
> 
> The instillation of fear as a means to enforce religious belief is still a  tactic, but that tactic is much less effective when science counters fear and ignorance with knowledge and reason.
Click to expand...


If humans randomly come from nature, and circuit boards, spaceships, and engines comes from humans, don't circuit boards, spaceships, and engines come from nature?


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can say that other planets were held by nothing but they could not have known the eartth was held by nothing. It is reasonable what you are suggesting but what about this scripture.
> 
> Isa 48:13  My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens. I called; they stood up together.
> 
> This is poetic but very interesting. God set it's foundations,what would these foundations be ? the proper plane,gravity. He has stretched out the heavens how could man at that time know of the expanding universe that we can see  ?
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious resolution to this would have been for the gods to simply provide a concise description of gravity - not like the verse you falsified. Is that so difficult?
> 
> All of this subjective interpretation begs the question: "why are the gods so inept at communicating their message in a clear and precise manner"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So because God did not fully explain his creations he doesn't exist ?
Click to expand...


I guess Hollie doesn't exist because she has never explained her educational background that makes her qualified to spew the same, repetitive dribble she endlessly and mindlessly cuts and pastes.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious resolution to this would have been for the gods to simply provide a concise description of gravity - not like the verse you falsified. Is that so difficult?
> 
> All of this subjective interpretation begs the question: "why are the gods so inept at communicating their message in a clear and precise manner"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So because God did not fully explain his creations he doesn't exist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are you insisting that gods exist because you read that in an ancient book of tales and fables?  What "creation" are you attributing to these gods you claim exist?
> 
> How about Leprechauns? do you believe they exist? I've read about them in books.
Click to expand...


No leprechauns, but I have personally interacted with trolls right her on this very forum.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So because God did not fully explain his creations he doesn't exist ?
> 
> 
> 
> So are you insisting that gods exist because you read that in an ancient book of tales and fables?  What "creation" are you attributing to these gods you claim exist?
> 
> How about Leprechauns? do you believe they exist? I've read about them in books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No leprechauns, but I have personally interacted with trolls right her on this very forum.
Click to expand...


Would you define a troll as a creepy stalker who has spent multiple pages pressing another poster for personal information?

Would a troll be defined as a creepy stalker who posts spam for multiple pages of posts with no intention or ability to respond to salient points.

Your stalking makes my skin crawl. Others have noticed your creepy behavior. Twelve year olds such as yourself should have a time- out.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not really. The whole universe is held together by an invisible force, which, in spite of all the leaps and bounds in science, has no observable mechanism. Only its effects are understood, and now even those are being called into question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, objects in the universe have been detected to be heading away from each other, so no, the universe isn't held together by an invisible force and in fact the moon has been measured to be moving away from earth and will eventually escape earth's gravitational pull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about Gravity.
Click to expand...

The universe isn't held together by gravity, like I said, things are moving away from each other as though they came from an explosion. Better luck next time. Please try again soon.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...he might as well have said without god your life doesn't matter...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm saying that too. Prove that under materialism and naturalism that statement is not true. If this planet and humankind are accidents, randomly generated, how does your life matter. When you die, it won't have mattered. When everyone who knew you is gone, it will have meant nothing.
Click to expand...

and you'd be talking out your ass as always.. 
there is no need for me to prove anything, the burden of proof is yours.
in your twisted pov you've some how extremely over estimated your own importance, you like everyone else who doesn't make it into the history books will be forgotten.
btw nice job of cherrypicking.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.
> 
> I didn't realize that gravity=nothing. Geez, their first fucking example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can gravity be seen or is it like the wind you can only see it's effects ?
> 
> Do you believe the Hebrew language back then can be spoken in the same pattern that english is spoken today ?
Click to expand...

 two bullshit statements by ywc...
there is no way to directly "see" gravity" as it is not a form of radiation.

modern Hebrew is not spoken in the same pattern as modern English  so there is no reason to expect ancient hebrew would.
fun fact!  both languages  have evolved over time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, objects in the universe have been detected to be heading away from each other, so no, the universe isn't held together by an invisible force and in fact the moon has been measured to be moving away from earth and will eventually escape earth's gravitational pull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about Gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The universe isn't held together by gravity, like I said, things are moving away from each other as though they came from an explosion. Better luck next time. Please try again soon.
Click to expand...


By explosion do you mean the big bang ?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scoffers have become many today.
> 
> 
> 
> There are many more "scoffers" because religions simply don't have ability to instill the paralyzing fear they once had. As knowledge has peeled back the layers of superstition that define religious belief, we have come to understand that natural events (planetary eclipse, tornadoes, thunder, lightning, etc.), are not the results of angry gods but are forces of nature. We largely understand those forces and events. If you want to know the date and time of every lunar eclipse in the next 1,000 years, you could consult a fundie (who might tell you "it's up to the will of the gods" and may want to slaughter a lamb ), or you could ask an astronomer who will explain the orbits of planets around the sun and the coincidence of planets in those orbits.
> 
> The instillation of fear as a means to enforce religious belief is still a  tactic, but that tactic is much less effective when science counters fear and ignorance with knowledge and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If humans randomly come from nature, and circuit boards, spaceships, and engines comes from nature, don't circuit boards, spaceships, and engines come from nature?
Click to expand...

false comparison


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true  He hangs the earth on nothing.
> 
> I didn't realize that gravity=nothing. Geez, their first fucking example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can gravity be seen or is it like the wind you can only see it's effects ?
> 
> Do you believe the Hebrew language back then can be spoken in the same pattern that english is spoken today ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> two bullshit statements by ywc...
> there is no way to directly "see" gravity" as it is not a form of radiation.
> 
> modern Hebrew is not spoken in the same pattern as modern English  so there is no reason to expect ancient hebrew would.
> fun fact!  both languages  have evolved over time.
Click to expand...


I did not say you can see gravity, What I said was you can see it's effects.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many more "scoffers" because religions simply don't have ability to instill the paralyzing fear they once had. As knowledge has peeled back the layers of superstition that define religious belief, we have come to understand that natural events (planetary eclipse, tornadoes, thunder, lightning, etc.), are not the results of angry gods but are forces of nature. We largely understand those forces and events. If you want to know the date and time of every lunar eclipse in the next 1,000 years, you could consult a fundie (who might tell you "it's up to the will of the gods" and may want to slaughter a lamb ), or you could ask an astronomer who will explain the orbits of planets around the sun and the coincidence of planets in those orbits.
> 
> The instillation of fear as a means to enforce religious belief is still a  tactic, but that tactic is much less effective when science counters fear and ignorance with knowledge and reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If humans randomly come from nature, and circuit boards, spaceships, and engines comes from nature, don't circuit boards, spaceships, and engines come from nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false comparison
Click to expand...


Explain your ignorant comment ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about Gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> The universe isn't held together by gravity, like I said, things are moving away from each other as though they came from an explosion. Better luck next time. Please try again soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By explosion do you mean the big bang ?
Click to expand...

 could be...but....ever heard planetary collision?
another fun fact! everything in the universe is moving everywhere all the time.
the phenomenon our new friend is talking about is called red or blue shift depending on  what direction the object is heading.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can gravity be seen or is it like the wind you can only see it's effects ?
> 
> Do you believe the Hebrew language back then can be spoken in the same pattern that english is spoken today ?
> 
> 
> 
> two bullshit statements by ywc...
> there is no way to directly "see" gravity" as it is not a form of radiation.
> 
> modern Hebrew is not spoken in the same pattern as modern English  so there is no reason to expect ancient hebrew would.
> fun fact!  both languages  have evolved over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say you can see gravity, What I said was you can see it's effects.
Click to expand...

your lying :"Can gravity be seen"


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If humans randomly come from nature, and circuit boards, spaceships, and engines comes from nature, don't circuit boards, spaceships, and engines come from nature?
> 
> 
> 
> false comparison
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain your ignorant comment ?
Click to expand...

since it's not an ignorant comment and self explanitory ,there is no need .


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe isn't held together by gravity, like I said, things are moving away from each other as though they came from an explosion. Better luck next time. Please try again soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By explosion do you mean the big bang ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> could be...but....ever heard planetary collision?
> another fun fact! everything in the universe is moving everywhere all the time.
> the phenomenon our new friend is talking about is called red or blue shift depending on  what direction the object is heading.
Click to expand...


Nonsense, the planets in our solar system travel the same direction on the same plane. How do you explain Venus and Uranus traveling on the same plane,going the same direction,but spinning the opposite direction of other planets ? Defies logic if it was the product of an explosion and this contradicts your comment above.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> two bullshit statements by ywc...
> there is no way to directly "see" gravity" as it is not a form of radiation.
> 
> modern Hebrew is not spoken in the same pattern as modern English  so there is no reason to expect ancient hebrew would.
> fun fact!  both languages  have evolved over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say you can see gravity, What I said was you can see it's effects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your lying :"Can gravity be seen"
Click to expand...


The wind cannot be seen either only it's effects.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false comparison
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain your ignorant comment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since it's not an ignorant comment and self explanitory ,there is no need .
Click to expand...


Enlighten us or once again did you make an ignorant comment and are now just catching on ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie is not the only dense one here.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie is not the only dense one here.



Your lack of critical thinking skills is no reason to lash out at me in childish tantrums. 

You can't defend your notions of gods, supernaturalism and mysticism. That's your fault, no one else's.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say you can see gravity, What I said was you can see it's effects.
> 
> 
> 
> your lying :"Can gravity be seen"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wind cannot be seen either only it's effects.
Click to expand...


That must be one of the more profound things they teach at Harun Yahya.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> By explosion do you mean the big bang ?
> 
> 
> 
> could be...but....ever heard planetary collision?
> another fun fact! everything in the universe is moving everywhere all the time.
> the phenomenon our new friend is talking about is called red or blue shift depending on  what direction the object is heading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense, the planets in our solar system travel the same direction on the same plane. How do you explain Venus and Uranus traveling on the same plane,going the same direction,but spinning the opposite direction of other planets ? Defies logic if it was the product of an explosion and this contradicts your comment above.
Click to expand...

you truly are ignorant .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain your ignorant comment ?
> 
> 
> 
> since it's not an ignorant comment and self explanitory ,there is no need .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enlighten us or once again did you make an ignorant comment and are now just catching on ?
Click to expand...

asked and answerd ..

"If humans randomly come from nature, and circuit boards, spaceships, and engines comes from nature, don't circuit boards, spaceships, and engines come from nature?" ur
 if you can't see the misconceptions and flaws in logic in the above statement.. then it's not surprising you're a silly fuck.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your lying :"Can gravity be seen"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wind cannot be seen either only it's effects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That must be one of the more profound things they teach at Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...

 it's in the capt obvious course.
actually you can "see" the air or wind, next time you barbecue and the coals are red  look at the heat ripples rising from the lid or the grill.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about the time you took to type out this post with numerous useless links, some of which support my position, but in the end, do nothing more than present your same stupid, circularly reasoned argument that the types of animals that survive and reproduce are the types of animals that survive and reproduce.
Click to expand...

First, I clearly demonstrated that there are plenty of sources where a definition for fitness can be found ... despite your obtuse insistence that you "... couldn't find anything."

Secondly, your strawman caricature of fitness in NO WAY invalidates the actual concept as used by population geneticists, hence in NO WAY invalidates the actual concept as used evolutionary theorists.

Fitness is not an argument. It is a description. It has a useful definitition. The fact that you can't find one (ANYWHERE, apparently) amongst the many provided, suggests that you are profoundly retarded.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are all Darwinists researchers Captain Obvious wannabe's like you? Think about what you are saying. The fit species survived and passed along their genes and the non-fit species didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> You consider this observation invalid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...

In what way is this *observation* invalid?



UltimateReality said:


> You attempt to prove this assumption with your assumption.


*WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?*



UltimateReality said:


> Evolution claims that only fit species pass along their dna over time, and that is what we are supposed to be able to test to support the theory of evolution.


_Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an organism lives__, but by how successful it is at reproducing. If an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes will become more common in the adult population of the next generation._​You seem to be asserting here that an organism's phenotypes have unverified, untested, and entirely assumed effects upon that organism's successful reproduction. You seem to be asserting that the link between phenotype and genotype has NEVER been tested; has NEVER been confirmed; is ONLY an assumption that is used to "prove" some "other" assumption.

You seem to be a moron.



UltimateReality said:


> Yet, instead of trying to test the theory to determine if fitness is really responsible for natural selection, you make the same circular argument above.


Fitness is not an argument. So, ... WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?



UltimateReality said:


> This is the last time I a going to explain this to you, pumpkin.


If you never again try to explain evolution to me in your intellectually dishonest manner, it will be too soon.



UltimateReality said:


> No cheesecake, that only species with more "fitness" survive long enough to pass on their dna.


I suppose if fitness was actually a hypothesis or theory, then it could be falsifable (hence not a circular argument) if someone could demonstrate how genetic information can be passed to the next generation from member of a population that failed to survive.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe your are too blind, or too stupid, to see the absurdity of this circular argument.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT FUCKING ARGUMENT?
> 
> The observation that organisms that die before they reproduce contribute no genetic information to subsequent generations?
> 
> That's not an argument ... it's an observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument that evolution can be tested, donut.
Click to expand...

Evolution CAN be tested. WTF is wrong with you?



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you didn't like to was an actual agreed upon and testable definition of fitness.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you to provide me with a testable definition of fitness largely accepted by the scientific community. You epically failed.
Click to expand...

No I didn't.

The fact that you have zero concept of what definition means, in no way disqualifies ANY of the links I provided to you.

However, if you meant to say "measured" rather than "tested," I provided that too. If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that* fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively.*



UltimateReality said:


> All of your links employ the same basic flawed reasoning, i.e., the current species we have are the most fit ones because if they weren't the most fit they wouldn't be here.


*NONE* employed that reasoning.



UltimateReality said:


> But you can't prove this is true and therefore you can't even begin to say there is evidence for evolution. Why are you having such a difficult time following the argument? Did you go off your meds again?


There is no disproving the strawman arguments you purposfully engineer to not be proveable, and then require me to disprove. 

Since you're the one making up these arguments ... YOU disprove them.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want something testable? That would be a hypothesis or a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the theory of evolution we have been talking about for the last 500 pages??
Click to expand...

Yes.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do want a definition? Well then, there won't be any test, because definitions are ... FUCKING DEFINITIVE!
> 
> 
> 
> NO! We need to define what constitutes fitness, ...
Click to expand...

This has been done for you.



UltimateReality said:


> ... and that isn't your "just so" stories or circular proof, ...


WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Your own made-up nonsense about evolution? That shit isn't my responsibility ... it's YOURS!



UltimateReality said:


> ...  before you can began to claim that some trait was kept because it made the organism more fit. If you don't have a workable definition, how can you make your silly claims that the giraffe survived because its longer neck allowed it to reach higher fruit or run faster or whatever.


There IS a definition for fitness ... I have no idea what your problem could possibly be.



UltimateReality said:


> Your whole "fact" of evolution is based on guesses as to what traits contribute to an organisms fitness.


No. Why don't you get an education--somewhere outside of Sunday School--about evolution.



UltimateReality said:


> Your pseudo science starts from the assumption that evolution has to be true ...


No. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.



UltimateReality said:


> ... (not setting out to prove it is true) ...


Evolutionists don't do this either. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.



UltimateReality said:


> ... so you look at the giraffe and observe it has a long neck. There is no other reason for his long neck other than evolution.


Evolutionists don't do this either. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.

You're just griping because they won't invent a creator and call it "science," and they won't accept your imaginary superfriend as any kind of scientific explanation for anything.



UltimateReality said:


> The theory of evolution tells us the long neck HAD to contribute to the giraffe's fitness in it's environment.Otherwise, it wouldn't have a long neck.


No it doesn't. Why do you make this shit up?

Oh yeah ... that's how you deal with everything.



UltimateReality said:


> The assumption of evolution is present prior to the observation.


No. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.



UltimateReality said:


> Survival of the fittest has to be true because the organisms alive today must have been the fittests or they wouln't have survived. This is not falsifiable!!!


AND ... It's NOT what evolution claims either. Your insistence that evolution puts the cart before the horse is just another one of your desperate strawmen.



UltimateReality said:


> And it definitely isn't testable under any REAL scientific method I am aware of.


Well what do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to not be testable under any REAL scientific method ANYONE is aware of?



UltimateReality said:


> This birth's the "just so" stories that are presented as *fact* in school textbooks.


"Just so stories" is your invention too.



UltimateReality said:


> And we are back to square one after all your hand waving and link pasting and that is: The long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological &#8212; it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce.


Well, what do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to be tautological? What do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to not be falsifiable? What do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented that is founded upon "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce"?

Are you really surprised that your invention--your "just so" story--turned out just the way you engineered it to?

I'm not.



UltimateReality said:


> "And in 1975, the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote that no biologist &#8220;can judge reliably which &#8216;characters&#8217; are useful, neutral, or harmful in a given species.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;What is required is an experimental program of unpacking &#8216;fitness.&#8217; This involves determining experimentally how different genotypes juxtapose different aspects of the external world, how they alter that world and how those different environments that they construct affect their own biological processes and the biological processes of others.&#8221;[22] I doubt whether anyone has even pretended to do this unpacking in a way adequate to demonstrate the randomness of mutations relative to fitness."


It looks like this might be happening.



UltimateReality said:


> "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the Loki."


Yet despite your every opportunity to do so, you just refuse to demonstrae this with any kind of intellectual rigor. Why is that, Cupcake?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humor me, give me one example.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you've done it. You've invited him to copy/paste vomit his 101 examples of Texas-Sharpshooting that have been thoroughly refuted on these forums and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your dreams.
Click to expand...

No. Right here and here.

Seriously. I've not seen 101 rebuttals from you. (101 denials of reality don't count.)


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many more "scoffers" because religions simply don't have ability to instill the paralyzing fear they once had. As knowledge has peeled back the layers of superstition that define religious belief, we have come to understand that natural events (planetary eclipse, tornadoes, thunder, lightning, etc.), are not the results of angry gods but are forces of nature. We largely understand those forces and events. If you want to know the date and time of every lunar eclipse in the next 1,000 years, you could consult a fundie (who might tell you "it's up to the will of the gods" and may want to slaughter a lamb ), or you could ask an astronomer who will explain the orbits of planets around the sun and the coincidence of planets in those orbits.
> 
> The instillation of fear as a means to enforce religious belief is still a  tactic, but that tactic is much less effective when science counters fear and ignorance with knowledge and reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If humans randomly come from nature, and circuit boards, spaceships, and engines comes from *humans*, don't circuit boards, spaceships, and engines come from nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false comparison
Click to expand...


I had a typo. See above.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your lying :"Can gravity be seen"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wind cannot be seen either only it's effects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That must be one of the more profound things they teach at Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...


You should know since your online degree Is from there.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about the time you took to type out this post with numerous useless links, some of which support my position, but in the end, do nothing more than present your same stupid, circularly reasoned argument that the types of animals that survive and reproduce are the types of animals that survive and reproduce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, I clearly demonstrated that there are plenty of sources where a definition for fitness can be found ... despite your obtuse insistence that you "... couldn't find anything."
> 
> Secondly, your strawman caricature of fitness in NO WAY invalidates the actual concept as used by population geneticists, hence in NO WAY invalidates the actual concept as used evolutionary theorists.
> 
> Fitness is not an argument. It is a description. It has a useful definitition. The fact that you can't find one (ANYWHERE, apparently) amongst the many provided, suggests that you are profoundly retarded.
> 
> In what way is this *observation* invalid?
> 
> *WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?*
> 
> _Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an organism lives__, but by how successful it is at reproducing. If an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes will become more common in the adult population of the next generation._​You seem to be asserting here that an organism's phenotypes have unverified, untested, and entirely assumed effects upon that organism's successful reproduction. You seem to be asserting that the link between phenotype and genotype has NEVER been tested; has NEVER been confirmed; is ONLY an assumption that is used to "prove" some "other" assumption.
> 
> You seem to be a moron.
> 
> Fitness is not an argument. So, ... WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
> 
> If you never again try to explain evolution to me in your intellectually dishonest manner, it will be too soon.
> 
> I suppose if fitness was actually a hypothesis or theory, then it could be falsifable (hence not a circular argument) if someone could demonstrate how genetic information can be passed to the next generation from member of a population that failed to survive.
> 
> Evolution CAN be tested. WTF is wrong with you?
> 
> No I didn't.
> 
> The fact that you have zero concept of what definition means, in no way disqualifies ANY of the links I provided to you.
> 
> However, if you meant to say "measured" rather than "tested," I provided that too. If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that* fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively.*
> 
> *NONE* employed that reasoning.
> 
> There is no disproving the strawman arguments you purposfully engineer to not be proveable, and then require me to disprove.
> 
> Since you're the one making up these arguments ... YOU disprove them.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> This has been done for you.
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
> 
> Your own made-up nonsense about evolution? That shit isn't my responsibility ... it's YOURS!
> 
> There IS a definition for fitness ... I have no idea what your problem could possibly be.
> 
> No. Why don't you get an education--somewhere outside of Sunday School--about evolution.
> 
> No. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.
> 
> Evolutionists don't do this either. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.
> 
> Evolutionists don't do this either. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.
> 
> You're just griping because they won't invent a creator and call it "science," and they won't accept your imaginary superfriend as any kind of scientific explanation for anything.
> 
> No it doesn't. Why do you make this shit up?
> 
> Oh yeah ... that's how you deal with everything.
> 
> No. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.
> 
> AND ... It's NOT what evolution claims either. Your insistence that evolution puts the cart before the horse is just another one of your desperate strawmen.
> 
> Well what do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to not be testable under any REAL scientific method ANYONE is aware of?
> 
> "Just so stories" is your invention too.
> 
> Well, what do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to be tautological? What do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to not be falsifiable? What do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented that is founded upon "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce"?
> 
> Are you really surprised that your invention--your "just so" story--turned out just the way you engineered it to?
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "And in 1975, the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote that no biologist &#8220;can judge reliably which &#8216;characters&#8217; are useful, neutral, or harmful in a given species.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;What is required is an experimental program of unpacking &#8216;fitness.&#8217; This involves determining experimentally how different genotypes juxtapose different aspects of the external world, how they alter that world and how those different environments that they construct affect their own biological processes and the biological processes of others.&#8221;[22] I doubt whether anyone has even pretended to do this unpacking in a way adequate to demonstrate the randomness of mutations relative to fitness."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It looks like this might be happening.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the Loki."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet despite your every opportunity to do so, you just refuse to demonstrae this with any kind of intellectual rigor. Why is that, Cupcake?
Click to expand...


There are so many things wrong with your responses I don't even know where to begin. I won't waste my time anymore trying to reason with a total moron who keeps responding while simultaneously claiming he doesn't know what I'm talking about. 

But just a few preposterous things a cursory read reveals:

You post numerous links for DIFFERENT definitions of fitness but claim there is consensus in the scientific community. 

Anytime you get backed into a corner you scream strawman. This may work on ignorant people, but since you never actually explain why it's a strawman with evidence, any casual observer can't be falling for your distraction technique. 

In order for traits to continue in an organism that organism must reproduce. That means the organism must survive until reproductive maturity. Evolution assumes that the more fit specimen in a specific species survives longer than less fit specimens, thus giving it more time to reproduce more offspring. Therefore one can deduce, based on the principles of evolution, that the giraffes long neck offered some reproductive advantage. According to evolutionary theory, if the long neck didn't offer some reproductive advantage, that trait would not have survived. Please explain where the strawman lies here.

Sorry I couldn't address more but I am typing from my iPad while traveling and just can't take the time for the typing needed to break this down to a 3rd grade comprehension level.


----------



## UltimateReality

Doubletap


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about the time you took to type out this post with numerous useless links, some of which support my position, but in the end, do nothing more than present your same stupid, circularly reasoned argument that the types of animals that survive and reproduce are the types of animals that survive and reproduce.
> 
> 
> 
> First, I clearly demonstrated that there are plenty of sources where a definition for fitness can be found ... despite your obtuse insistence that you "... couldn't find anything."
> 
> Secondly, your strawman caricature of fitness in NO WAY invalidates the actual concept as used by population geneticists, hence in NO WAY invalidates the actual concept as used evolutionary theorists.
> 
> Fitness is not an argument. It is a description. It has a useful definitition. The fact that you can't find one (ANYWHERE, apparently) amongst the many provided, suggests that you are profoundly retarded.
> 
> In what way is this *observation* invalid?
> 
> *WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?*
> 
> _Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an organism lives__, but by how successful it is at reproducing. If an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes will become more common in the adult population of the next generation._​You seem to be asserting here that an organism's phenotypes have unverified, untested, and entirely assumed effects upon that organism's successful reproduction. You seem to be asserting that the link between phenotype and genotype has NEVER been tested; has NEVER been confirmed; is ONLY an assumption that is used to "prove" some "other" assumption.
> 
> You seem to be a moron.
> 
> Fitness is not an argument. So, ... WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
> 
> If you never again try to explain evolution to me in your intellectually dishonest manner, it will be too soon.
> 
> I suppose if fitness was actually a hypothesis or theory, then it could be falsifable (hence not a circular argument) if someone could demonstrate how genetic information can be passed to the next generation from member of a population that failed to survive.
> 
> Evolution CAN be tested. WTF is wrong with you?
> 
> No I didn't.
> 
> The fact that you have zero concept of what definition means, in no way disqualifies ANY of the links I provided to you.
> 
> However, if you meant to say "measured" rather than "tested," I provided that too. If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that* fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively.*
> 
> *NONE* employed that reasoning.
> 
> There is no disproving the strawman arguments you purposfully engineer to not be proveable, and then require me to disprove.
> 
> Since you're the one making up these arguments ... YOU disprove them.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> This has been done for you.
> 
> WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
> 
> Your own made-up nonsense about evolution? That shit isn't my responsibility ... it's YOURS!
> 
> There IS a definition for fitness ... I have no idea what your problem could possibly be.
> 
> No. Why don't you get an education--somewhere outside of Sunday School--about evolution.
> 
> No. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.
> 
> Evolutionists don't do this either. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.
> 
> Evolutionists don't do this either. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.
> 
> You're just griping because they won't invent a creator and call it "science," and they won't accept your imaginary superfriend as any kind of scientific explanation for anything.
> 
> No it doesn't. Why do you make this shit up?
> 
> Oh yeah ... that's how you deal with everything.
> 
> No. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.
> 
> AND ... It's NOT what evolution claims either. Your insistence that evolution puts the cart before the horse is just another one of your desperate strawmen.
> 
> Well what do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to not be testable under any REAL scientific method ANYONE is aware of?
> 
> "Just so stories" is your invention too.
> 
> Well, what do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to be tautological? What do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to not be falsifiable? What do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented that is founded upon "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce"?
> 
> Are you really surprised that your invention--your "just so" story--turned out just the way you engineered it to?
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> It looks like this might be happening.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the Loki."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet despite your every opportunity to do so, you just refuse to demonstrate this with any kind of intellectual rigor. Why is that, Cupcake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are so many things wrong with your responses I don't even know where to begin.
Click to expand...

Just another case where you rationalize an excuse for your inability to present any substantive account for how I am wrong.



UltimateReality said:


> I won't waste my time anymore trying to reason with a total moron who keeps responding while simultaneously claiming he doesn't know what I'm talking about.


I would find it ALOT easier to respond to you if you knew what you were talking about.



UltimateReality said:


> But just a few preposterous things a cursory read reveals:
> 
> You post numerous links for DIFFERENT definitions of fitness but claim there is consensus in the scientific community.
> 
> Anytime you get backed into a corner you scream strawman. This may work on ignorant people, but since you never actually explain why it's a strawman with evidence, any casual observer can't be falling for your distraction technique.


You backed me into nowhere, retard. While I don't have to explain--certainly not to you--why your inventions are your inventions, the fact of reality you refuse to acknowledge *is that I often do anyway*. <---This link posted earlier, is posted for you again.



UltimateReality said:


> In order for traits to continue in an organism that organism must reproduce. That means the organism must survive until reproductive maturity.


Why do you present this as if it's contentious?



UltimateReality said:


> Evolution assumes that the more fit specimen in a specific species survives longer than less fit specimens, thus giving it more time to reproduce more offspring.


Strawman. Specifically explained to you earlier, BTW._Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing. If an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes will become more common in the adult population of the next generation._​


UltimateReality said:


> Therefore one can deduce, based on the principles of evolution, that the giraffes long neck offered some reproductive advantage. According to evolutionary theory, if the long neck didn't offer some reproductive advantage, that trait would not have survived. Please explain where the strawman lies here.


There is no principle of the actual theory of evolution that says, "if [a trait does] not offer some reproductive advantage, that trait would not survive."

Example: You have skin, I have skin, all humans have skin--having skin offers no reproductive advantage. This is because if we all have this "advantage" it CANNOT be considered an advantage (over other humans who all have skin); it fails to meet the definition of advantage. So, based upon this principle of the version of evolution (that you invented for the purpose of disproving actual evolution), skin--which does not offer reproductive advantage (for some humans over other humans)--should not be present. Yet it is!

The presence of skin among all humans is only contentious under this principle of your particular bullshit version of evolution.

Got that, Pumpkin? Has it now been sufficiently illuminated that the strawman you invented is your invention?

Are you really still surprised that your invention--your "just so" story--turned out to be plain crap, just the way you engineered it to be?

I'm not.



UltimateReality said:


> Sorry I couldn't address more but I am typing from my iPad while traveling and just can't take the time for the typing needed to break this down to a 3rd grade comprehension level.


Right.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> could be...but....ever heard planetary collision?
> another fun fact! everything in the universe is moving everywhere all the time.
> the phenomenon our new friend is talking about is called red or blue shift depending on  what direction the object is heading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense, the planets in our solar system travel the same direction on the same plane. How do you explain Venus and Uranus traveling on the same plane,going the same direction,but spinning the opposite direction of other planets ? Defies logic if it was the product of an explosion and this contradicts your comment above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you truly are ignorant .
Click to expand...


Is that the best you've got ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since it's not an ignorant comment and self explanitory ,there is no need .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us or once again did you make an ignorant comment and are now just catching on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answerd ..
> 
> "If humans randomly come from nature, and circuit boards, spaceships, and engines comes from nature, don't circuit boards, spaceships, and engines come from nature?" ur
> if you can't see the misconceptions and flaws in logic in the above statement.. then it's not surprising you're a silly fuck.
Click to expand...


I guess I need drugs to understand your thinking.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you've done it. You've invited him to copy/paste vomit his 101 examples of Texas-Sharpshooting that have been thoroughly refuted on these forums and elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Right here and here.
> 
> Seriously. I've not seen 101 rebuttals from you. (101 denials of reality don't count.)
Click to expand...


Like I said in your dreams.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Right here and here.
> 
> Seriously. I've not seen 101 rebuttals from you. (101 denials of reality don't count.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said in your dreams.
Click to expand...


No. In reality. The reality you find impossible to separate from superstition and mysticism.  

In every instance that I have seen from the fundie element, creationist "rebuttals" are shown to be a litany of fallacious reasoning, describing impossible mechanics, tossing away and dismissing rock-hard (yes, that was a pun) evidence, offering falsified and edited bible verses and making non-comparable comparisons, until finally when reason pushes them into a corner where their unsupported and unsupportable claims are utterly dismantled, they escape into "the gods did it" safety net or become sarcastic. And with the lack of evidence and falsified claims, they still expect creationism to be accepted as "science".

What is the point of this? I've yet to see a creationist actually challenge the evolutionary perspective with verifiable evidence of the supernatural. They can't, and the reason is simple: creationist claims are nothing more than religious dogma. Creationists can't answer even the simplest questions surrounding existence without resorting to supernaturalism or "quoting" bible verses. No one is denying creationist entitlements to a partisan religious belief, but it's a religious belief, nothing more. Trying to force a religious belief into a scientific paradigm is foolish and time-wasting.

This thread clearly shows there's no real discussion to be made on the part of creationists. What is always striking about the creationist position is that there is never any true effort put forth to demonstrate gods. The entirety of the creationist position amounts to desperate attempts to discredit science with the presumption that a discredited science somehow magically proves supernaturalism.


----------



## newpolitics

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn_EPW17Fdc&feature=relmfu]Why I am no longer a Creationist - Part 1: Genus Homo - YouTube[/ame]

I realize that posting this an argument ad populum, and doesn't verify evolution just because someone, somewhere switched to being a non-creationist, so you can spare telling me that.

However, the same can not be said of this next video by the same person, who demonstrates an understanding of evolution. I know that posting videos is not the best argumentation form, and may not be particularly convincing, but I thought it was worth a shot.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Why I am no longer a Creationist - Part 1: Genus Homo - YouTube
> 
> I realize that posting this an argument ad populum, and doesn't verify evolution just because someone, somewhere switched to being a non-creationist, so you can spare telling me that.
> 
> However, the same can not be said of this next video by the same person, who demonstrates an understanding of evolution. I know that posting videos is not the best argumentation form, and may not be particularly convincing, but I thought it was worth a shot.
> 
> Why I am no longer a creationist -- Part 2.1: Missing Links - Proboscidea - YouTube



Cute video's. However, at the risk of you falling into the "Creationist trap" the narrator in the video alludes to, i.e., not looking for evidence, perhaps you should check out the opposing viewpoint if you are serious about wanting to be fully informed. You can start here:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Origins-Ann-Gauger/dp/193659904X/ref=pd_sim_b_18]Science and Human Origins: Ann Gauger,Douglas Axe,Casey Luskin: 9781936599042: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Back home now and I can actually type normally to break down the argument Loki can't seem to grasp:

From Wiki: "The *central concept* of *natural selection* is the evolutionary fitness of an organism.[94] Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation.[94] However, fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring: *instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's genes.*[95] For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness.[94]"

From Wiki: "Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central idea in evolutionary theory. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce, and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by an average individual of the specified genotype or phenotype. If differences between alleles of a given gene affect fitness, then the frequencies of the alleles will change over generations; the alleles with higher fitness become more common. This process is called natural selection."

So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and must have contributed those genes. And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here. But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection? Have we proven this or is it still a theory? The very core of evolutionary theory rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness attempts its proof by assuming it is true. Mr. Fallacy, aka, Loki, should recognize this as begging the question. We conclude that the fittest species pass along their dna because if they weren't fit, they wouldn't pass on their dna. Said another way... the types of organisms that survive and reproduce are the types of organisms that survive and reproduce. How many more ways can I say it? Your links prove the very thing you deny. But the end result is exactly what I posted pages back:

"Bethell argued that evolutionary theory based on natural selection (survival of the fittest) is vacuous: it states that, first, evolution can be explained by the fact that, on the whole, *only the fitter organisms survive and achieve reproductive success; and second, what makes an organism fit is the fact that it survives and successfully reproduces.* This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological &#8212; it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

*Begging the question*, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning *assuming the initial point*), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself. If the premise is questionable, then the argument is bad.

So Loki, that brings me to my next question: Is it true (*or STRAWMAN*) that evolutionary theory teaches man came from a single cell ancestor. Let's see what Darwin himself said:

"[W]ould it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which the great First Cause endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end?"

"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

So we are led to believe that a single cell, with natural selection acting on random variations through a large number of subsequent generations, produced a man? Are you saying this is a strawman?

*And if it isn't a strawman, we are told this process succeeded, because the organisms that weren't fit, didn't have reproductive success.*  Then we are given some bird examples and some moth examples that show a single trait change, i.e., length of beak in the case of the bird and color in the case of the month, and we're told these changes happened, because the other organisms that didn't have these changes didn't survive. However, the punch line to both stories is that the original trait that supposedly didn't contribute to reproductive success in the specific environment, reappeared when the rains came back or the pollution went away. We are given a "just so" story about the color of the moths contributing to their survival. *Can you please link me to a study where a scientific sample was taken and birds were actually observed eating more of one color moth?* Or did we simply notice more black moths and make up a neat story of why they survived, having never ruled out other causes for why black moths or white moths might flourish?

And finally, we are asked to believe that based on these typically lame examples, that this "selection" of better equipped species, (or can I even say that anymore??) or more successful reproductive species, that this has produced the amazing complexity of life we see around us. We are supposed to believe that this process gave rise to the chemically complex process of blood clotting or for that matter, *human consciousness?*

What has the theory of evolution proven? *Absolutely NOTHING.*
It basically tells us that the surviving organisms survived because their ancestors were good at reproducing successfully. Where is is the explanation for more complex species arising from less complex species? Or would you argue that an Ecoli is just as complex as a species that can make music and send one of its members to the moon? Based on this simplistic explanation for fitness, how do we arrive at the human eyeball? And why do we still have single cell organisms billions of years later? Why were some with slight genetic changes able to reproduce successfully enough to produce a human over millions of generations, but others remained virtually unchanged for billions of years, also successfully reproducing like crazy. Is E coli more fit that a man or vice versa? Under your new, modern definition of fitness, the answer is a resounding NO! So if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man? How did the soup become the soup nazi? Before you whine, STRAWMAN!! STRAWMAN! I am not falling for your semantics tricks. I am not making the claim that man's ancestor is E coli. I am merely drawing an example for argumentative purposes, which in your ignorance you fail to grasp, or you resort to playing word games. No, evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards, but in principle, this is what it claims. The TOE claims that Humans could have come from an "amoeba-LIKE" organism, or an amoeba like organism could be a distant ancestor. So I'm not falling for your black and white explanation denials, for the fact of the matter is, the TOE makes some preposterous generalized claims, but then says, but we really don't know the actual players. 

From Wiki: "The last universal ancestor (LUA), also called the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), or the cenancestor, i*s the most recent organism from which all organisms now living on Earth descend*.[1] Thus it is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all current life on Earth. The LUA is estimated to have lived some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago (sometime in the Paleoarchean era).[2][3]

Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in his book On the Origin of Species, saying, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."


----------



## UltimateReality

Loki posted up this stupid and asinine example:

"There is no principle of the actual theory of evolution that says, "if [a trait does] not offer some reproductive advantage, that trait would not survive."

Example: You have skin, I have skin, all humans have skin--having skin offers no reproductive advantage. This is because if we all have this "advantage" it CANNOT be considered an advantage (over other humans who all have skin); it fails to meet the definition of advantage. So, based upon this principle of the version of evolution (that you invented for the purpose of disproving actual evolution), skin--which does not offer reproductive advantage (for some humans over other humans)--should not be present. Yet it is!"

Before you speak for the theory of evolution, I think you should ponder your statement above. It is the negative of the positive statement, traits that offer reproductive advantage will be more common in subsequent generations of a species. However, evolution tells us at some point, the traits that dominate will result in a new species. Back your skin example up a few million generations and then we could make up a "just so" story that humans have skin, because the ones without skin didn't survive. Answer me the question, what if one of the humans above is born without skin??? Will he have the reproductive advantage? *We know all random mutations can do is give or take away right? *Eventually the skinless humans were out bred by the humans with skin. Skin had to offer an advantage or humans wouldn't have it (Tautological argument) But in your stupid example above, you have not made this clarification. In fact, your Neo-Darwinistic definition of Fitness no longer requires any of your just so stories. It just is because it is. 

All your bogus example above does is prove how silly the TOE really is. It really can't tell us anything can it? According to your flawed logic above, it can provide any hypothesis for the complex life we see around us. Because this is what you just said:

Traits that *don't offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain unchanged in a species. Traits that *do offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain in a species. So your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go back to all the fossil evidence and dna evidence and tell us which ones are which.


----------



## UltimateReality

Loki (is that plural for little Lokee's?)

Let's look at your "link in lieu of cut and paste" from your atheist, canned-response website you somehow think proves your point:

*Claim CA500:*
Natural selection, or "survival of the fittest," is tautologous (i.e., uses circular reasoning) because it says that the fittest individuals leave the most offspring, but it defines the fittest individuals as those that leave the most offspring. 

UR: Whuh? This is what Loki quoted from Wiki:     Modern evolutionary theory *defines fitness* not by how long an organism lives, but *by how successful it is at reproducing*. If an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes will become more common in the adult population of the next generation.

This also from Wiki: However, this does not imply that natural selection is always directional and results in adaptive evolution; natural selection often results in the maintenance of the status quo by eliminating *less fit variants*. Now with Loki's definition from the same article: Natural Selection often results in maintenance of the status quo by eliminating animals that *don't reproduce offspring that make it to adulthood as successfully as others*???? WHuh? What does that even mean? Sounds tautological to me!!!

From Wiki: "Overall, the combined effect of all selection pressures at various levels determines the overall fitness of an individual, and hence the outcome of natural selection." Once again, let's fill in Loki's definition. *Overall, the combined effect of all selection pressures at various levels determines the overall ability of an organism to pass its genes to the next adult generation, and hence the outcome of natural selection.*    What the?


Response:

*"Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about evolution.* Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been, experimentally verified (Weiner 1994).

    The phrase cannot be a tautology if it is not trivially true. Yet there have been theories proposing that the fittest individuals perish:
        Alpheus Hyatt proposed that lineages, like individuals, inevitably go through stages of youth, maturity, old age, and death. Towards the end of this cycle, the fittest individuals are more likely to perish than others (Hyatt 1866; Lefalophodon n.d.).
        The theory of orthogenesis says that certain trends, once started, kept progressing even though they become detrimental and lead to extinction. For example, it was held that Irish elks, which had enormous antlers, died out because the size increase became too much to support.
      The "fittest" individuals could be considered those that are ideally suited to a particular environment. Such ideal adaptation, however, comes at the cost of being more poorly adapted to other environments. If the environment changes, the fittest individuals from it will no longer be well adapted to any environment, and the less fit but more widely adapted organisms will survive. *[What the Freak does this even mean? I read, sometimes organisms better suited to the environment don't survive because their environment changes and then the ones that shouldn't be there because they aren't suite to the environment become suited to the new environment. WTfreak? Huh? Can't we come up with something better than this for the FACT of evolution????? UR]*

    The fittest, to Darwin, were not those which survived, but* those which could be expected to survive on the basis of their traits*. For example, wild dogs selectively prey on impalas which are weaker according to bone marrow index (Pole et al. 2003). With that definition, survival of the fittest is not a tautology.* [Yeah but this is no longer what Neo-Dariwinism says. They gave up on "just so" stories of might be's and could be's and just settled on "natural selection keeps the traits of the species that are the best reproducers of adult offspring. But in light of this over simplified natural selection, how do we get from the point a to b it claims?] * Similarly, survival can be defined not in terms of the individual's life span, but in terms of leaving a relatively large contribution to the next generation. Defined thus, survival of the fittest becomes more or less what Darwin said, and is not a tautology. *[No it doesn't!!!]*


Did everyone just read what I just read? Didn't this guy just say it is not tautological because it is not tautological??? HA! This comment you posted above, Einstein, says we really don't have a way of determining which animals are most fit other than the fact that they survive more. There is no rhyme or reason to be applied to fitness because sometimes the biggest and strongest aren't the ones that survive. Yet we are asked to believe this process without a point, evolution, is responsible for the complexity we see all around us. We aren't talking about horizontal adaptive change. We are talking about a human being coming from a single-celled ancestor. So what does this response above tell us about that process that supposedly occurred over billions of years? I will tell you what this response says. We don't know how it did it we just know it did it because it did it.

We have been told all along that natural selection causes species to evolve by keeping traits that are an accidental "improvement" (random mutation) and that is how humans came from apes, who came from blank, who came from blank and so on and so forth. [I am assuming that one would consider the eyeball an improvement over light sensitive cells] So now we're told the theory really doesn't even have a way to determine what is an improvement and what isn't. All we can really say now is that we got here because our ancestors had traits which were good/bad, offered improvement/no improvement, that help them have more offspring than other animals that didn't have the traits which were good/bad, offered improvement/no improvement.

And finally, the FACT of evolution totally breaks down with this little Wiki gem: Re: "survival of the fittest": "Although the phrase is still often used by non-biologists, *modern biologists avoid it because it is tautological if "fittest" is read to mean "functionally superior" and is applied to individuals rather than considered as an averaged quantity over populations.* 

How can this be? Is this saying we have opposable thumbs, NOT because they are functionally superior, but because the dudes with opposable thumbs donated more genes to the next generation than their non-opposed thumb buddies? Are eyeballs not functionally superior to light sensitive cells? Are we saying the animals with eyeballs didn't survive because their eyes were functionally superior to their light sensitive counterparts, but that the animals with eyeballs were more fit only because they contributed more genes to the next generation. Man this evolution thing seems totally confused.

Under this model, an asexual animal that could run extremely fast while simultaneously managing a 45 second gestation period of 1,000 offspring in a single litter, would be the logical evolutionary outcome. If reproductive success is the only measure, humans, with their one or two offspring litter and 9 month gestation period would seem the illogical outcome of such a process. 

Darwin said it. I believe it. That settles it!


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> Loki posted up this stupid and asinine example:
> 
> "There is no principle of the actual theory of evolution that says, "if [a trait does] not offer some reproductive advantage, that trait would not survive."
> 
> Example: You have skin, I have skin, all humans have skin--having skin offers no reproductive advantage. This is because if we all have this "advantage" it CANNOT be considered an advantage (over other humans who all have skin); it fails to meet the definition of advantage. So, based upon this principle of the version of evolution (that you invented for the purpose of disproving actual evolution), skin--which does not offer reproductive advantage (for some humans over other humans)--should not be present. Yet it is!"
> 
> Before you speak for the theory of evolution, I think you should ponder your statement above. It is the negative of the positive statement, traits that offer reproductive advantage will be more common in subsequent generations of a species. However, evolution tells us at some point, the traits that dominate will result in a new species. Back your skin example up a few million generations and then we could make up a "just so" story that humans have skin, because the ones without skin didn't survive. Answer me the question, what if one of the humans above is born without skin??? Will he have the reproductive advantage? *We know all random mutations can do is give or take away right? *Eventually the skinless humans were out bred by the humans with skin. Skin had to offer an advantage or humans wouldn't have it (Tautological argument) But in your stupid example above, you have not made this clarification. In fact, your Neo-Darwinistic definition of Fitness no longer requires any of your just so stories. It just is because it is.
> 
> All your bogus example above does is prove how silly the TOE really is. It really can't tell us anything can it? According to your flawed logic above, it can provide any hypothesis for the complex life we see around us. Because this is what you just said:
> 
> Traits that *don't offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain unchanged in a species. Traits that *do offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain in a species. So your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go back to all the fossil evidence and dna evidence and tell us which ones are which.


Sorry loki but your skin example is bogus. Black folks skin is better for resisting the sun's rays, so not all skin is the same. Please try again.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I am no longer a Creationist - Part 1: Genus Homo - YouTube
> 
> I realize that posting this an argument ad populum, and doesn't verify evolution just because someone, somewhere switched to being a non-creationist, so you can spare telling me that.
> 
> However, the same can not be said of this next video by the same person, who demonstrates an understanding of evolution. I know that posting videos is not the best argumentation form, and may not be particularly convincing, but I thought it was worth a shot.
> 
> Why I am no longer a creationist -- Part 2.1: Missing Links - Proboscidea - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute video's. However, at the risk of you falling into the "Creationist trap" the narrator in the video alludes to, i.e., not looking for evidence, perhaps you should check out the opposing viewpoint if you are serious about wanting to be fully informed. You can start here:
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Origins-Ann-Gauger/dp/193659904X/ref=pd_sim_b_18]Science and Human Origins: Ann Gauger,Douglas Axe,Casey Luskin: 9781936599042: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
Click to expand...



The fundie Christian movement faces many hurdles. Among those issues is a lack of credibility. Following string after string of humiliating defeats in the courts for failing to introduce Christian theology into the school system, the movement has become more reactionary, less coherent and more delusional.

There has become a standard roll call of Christian fundamentalist preachers who are trotted out by the Christian creationist ministries. The vast majority of these fundamentalist Christians appear prominently in news and media where they only discredit the very christian fundamentalism they are preaching. 



Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for luskin

 #246: Casey Luskin

a.k.a. the Baghdad Bob of creationism

Casey Luskin is a lawyer (and not a scientist, although he seems to be a little confused about what such credentials do or don't mean) and one of the primary spokespeople for the Discovery Institute. Mr. Luskin obtained a Bachelor of Science and a Masters Degree in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, and has as a lawyer published Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover, and Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools (published in the Journal of Church and State). His work illustrates well the actual goal of the Discovery Institute to get religion, in the form of intelligent design creationism, into public school curricula (not to do any actual scientific research).

Luskin is by far most notorious for his ability to distort scientific evidence to suggest conclusions completely opposite to what the evidence suggests (and curiously always to fit his preconceived notions of what it ought to show), such as here. An even better example of the distortions and quote mining (to put it mildly) he usually reverts to is perhaps this one (or this one). And if you are feeling particularly sadistic, you can watch Luskin getting completely eviscerated here.

The problem with Luskin and his ilk is that they're ignorant of a topic about which they believe they're experts (see The Dunning-Kruger Effect). Luskin appears to believe hes an expert with absolute confidence and pride,but to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the fields in question his failings are miserably obvious (see also this). In fact, his misunderstandings of science and his lack of awareness of his own lack of understanding often reach epic proportions.

Luskin is also interestingly paranoid,going so far as to claim that published articles on evolution contain veiled threats against the creationists and that Nature, for instance, has launched a propaganda war on creationism. Of course, science itself is a threat to creationism; what Luskin fails to grasp is the fact that science is concerned with evidence, not argument and polemics. By failing to see the difference (and furthermore failing to distinguish criticism from personal attacks) he comes to equate scientific evidence against his dogmatic beliefs with personal attacks from the scientists who have discovered the evidence (for more on Luskins lack of understanding of how science works, see this).

A good assignment in an introductory critical thinking class is to identify some of the mistakes Luskin makes here (I have used it myself).

Diagnosis: Staggeringly cranky illustration of where Dunning-Kruger, confirmation bias and complete lack of understanding of science can lead you. He is very productive and vociferous, and must be considered rather dangerous to a rationality-based, modern civilization. 



Encyclopedia of American Loons: #140: Ann Gauger

 #140: Ann Gauger

Gauger has a PhD in zoology and is a signatory of Discovery Institutes 2005 petition Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Shes currently associated with the Discovery affiliated creationist think-tank the Biologic Institute whose goal is to perform real research on ID and which has yet to produce a single publication supporting ID creationism despite big budgets and numerous employed scientists.

A rather infamous incident occurred when Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium, 2007, in Boston, Massachusetts. She discussed leaky growth in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner, a real scientist, asked the obvious question: So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab? at which point the moderator halted questioning - Gauger has earlier argued that any evolutionary change is non-adaptive.

Diagnosis: Surely intelligent, but caught up in a system of self-reassuring but misguided views on how reality hangs together. The Biologic Institute is supposed to provided creationism with a sheen of scientific legitimacy, and although its existence may carry some influence on general perception of creationism (then again, probably not), it has failed to fool scientists or scholars in general (apart from Robin Collins).


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I am no longer a Creationist - Part 1: Genus Homo - YouTube
> 
> I realize that posting this an argument ad populum, and doesn't verify evolution just because someone, somewhere switched to being a non-creationist, so you can spare telling me that.
> 
> However, the same can not be said of this next video by the same person, who demonstrates an understanding of evolution. I know that posting videos is not the best argumentation form, and may not be particularly convincing, but I thought it was worth a shot.
> 
> Why I am no longer a creationist -- Part 2.1: Missing Links - Proboscidea - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute video's. However, at the risk of you falling into the "Creationist trap" the narrator in the video alludes to, i.e., not looking for evidence, perhaps you should check out the opposing viewpoint if you are serious about wanting to be fully informed. You can start here:
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Origins-Ann-Gauger/dp/193659904X/ref=pd_sim_b_18]Science and Human Origins: Ann Gauger,Douglas Axe,Casey Luskin: 9781936599042: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie Christian movement faces many hurdles. Among those issues is a lack of credibility. Following string after string of humiliating defeats in the courts for failing to introduce Christian theology into the school system, the movement has become more reactionary, less coherent and more delusional.
> 
> There has become a standard roll call of Christian fundamentalist preachers who are trotted out by the Christian creationist ministries. The vast majority of these fundamentalist Christians appear prominently in news and media where they only discredit the very christian fundamentalism they are preaching.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for luskin
> 
> #246: Casey Luskin
> 
> a.k.a. the Baghdad Bob of creationism
> 
> Casey Luskin is a lawyer (and not a scientist, although he seems to be a little confused about what such credentials do or don't mean) and one of the primary spokespeople for the Discovery Institute. Mr. Luskin obtained a Bachelor of Science and a Masters Degree in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, and has as a lawyer published &#8220;Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover&#8221;, and &#8220;Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools&#8221; (published in the Journal of Church and State). His work illustrates well the actual goal of the Discovery Institute &#8211;to get religion, in the form of intelligent design creationism, into public school curricula (not to do any actual scientific research).
> 
> Luskin is by far most notorious for his ability to distort scientific evidence to suggest conclusions completely opposite to what the evidence suggests (and curiously always to fit his preconceived notions of what it ought to show), such as here. An even better example of the distortions and quote mining (to put it mildly) he usually reverts to is perhaps this one (or this one). And if you are feeling particularly sadistic, you can watch Luskin getting completely eviscerated here.
> 
> The problem with Luskin and his ilk is that they're ignorant of a topic about which they believe they're experts (see The Dunning-Kruger Effect). Luskin appears to believe he&#8217;s an expert with absolute confidence and pride,but to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the fields in question his failings are miserably obvious (see also this). In fact, his misunderstandings of science &#8211;and his lack of awareness of his own lack of understanding &#8211;often reach epic proportions.
> 
> Luskin is also interestingly paranoid,going so far as to claim that published articles on evolution contain &#8220;veiled threats&#8221; against the creationists and that Nature, for instance, has launched a propaganda war on creationism. Of course, science itself is a threat to creationism; what Luskin fails to grasp is the fact that science is concerned with evidence, not argument and polemics. By failing to see the difference (and furthermore failing to distinguish criticism from personal attacks) he comes to equate scientific evidence against his dogmatic beliefs with personal attacks from the scientists who have discovered the evidence (for more on Luskin&#8217;s lack of understanding of how science works, see this).
> 
> A good assignment in an introductory critical thinking class is to identify some of the mistakes Luskin makes here (I have used it myself).
> 
> Diagnosis: Staggeringly cranky illustration of where Dunning-Kruger, confirmation bias and complete lack of understanding of science can lead you. He is very productive and vociferous, and must be considered rather dangerous to a rationality-based, modern civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #140: Ann Gauger
> 
> #140: Ann Gauger
> 
> Gauger has a PhD in zoology and is a signatory of Discovery Institute&#8217;s 2005 petition &#8220;Scientific Dissent from Darwinism&#8221;. She&#8217;s currently associated with the Discovery affiliated creationist think-tank the Biologic Institute whose goal is to perform real research on ID and which has yet to produce a single publication supporting ID creationism despite big budgets and numerous employed &#8220;scientists&#8221;.
> 
> A rather infamous incident occurred when Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium, 2007, in Boston, Massachusetts. She discussed &#8220;leaky growth&#8221; in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner, a real scientist, asked the obvious question: &#8220;So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?&#8221; at which point the moderator halted questioning - Gauger has earlier argued that any evolutionary change is non-adaptive.
> 
> Diagnosis: Surely intelligent, but caught up in a system of self-reassuring but misguided views on how reality hangs together. The Biologic Institute is supposed to provided creationism with a sheen of scientific legitimacy, and although its existence may carry some influence on general perception of creationism (then again, probably not), it has failed to fool scientists or scholars in general (apart from Robin Collins).
Click to expand...


Judges are not scientists,the science they do have is very basic. They have been brainwashed for many years as most students.

I could care less what the courts think after all they support the law to murder babies. Our society are turning their backs on God and eventually will pay a price you might be seeing that as we speak.

So instead of thinking well the courts support our views why don't you give evidence that supports your view rather then conjecture as evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki posted up this stupid and asinine example:
> 
> "There is no principle of the actual theory of evolution that says, "if [a trait does] not offer some reproductive advantage, that trait would not survive."
> 
> Example: You have skin, I have skin, all humans have skin--having skin offers no reproductive advantage. This is because if we all have this "advantage" it CANNOT be considered an advantage (over other humans who all have skin); it fails to meet the definition of advantage. So, based upon this principle of the version of evolution (that you invented for the purpose of disproving actual evolution), skin--which does not offer reproductive advantage (for some humans over other humans)--should not be present. Yet it is!"
> 
> Before you speak for the theory of evolution, I think you should ponder your statement above. It is the negative of the positive statement, traits that offer reproductive advantage will be more common in subsequent generations of a species. However, evolution tells us at some point, the traits that dominate will result in a new species. Back your skin example up a few million generations and then we could make up a "just so" story that humans have skin, because the ones without skin didn't survive. Answer me the question, what if one of the humans above is born without skin??? Will he have the reproductive advantage? *We know all random mutations can do is give or take away right? *Eventually the skinless humans were out bred by the humans with skin. Skin had to offer an advantage or humans wouldn't have it (Tautological argument) But in your stupid example above, you have not made this clarification. In fact, your Neo-Darwinistic definition of Fitness no longer requires any of your just so stories. It just is because it is.
> 
> All your bogus example above does is prove how silly the TOE really is. It really can't tell us anything can it? According to your flawed logic above, it can provide any hypothesis for the complex life we see around us. Because this is what you just said:
> 
> Traits that *don't offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain unchanged in a species. Traits that *do offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain in a species. So your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go back to all the fossil evidence and dna evidence and tell us which ones are which.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry loki but your skin example is bogus. Black folks skin is better for resisting the sun's rays, so not all skin is the same. Please try again.
Click to expand...


All traits are a product of our DNA information.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cute video's. However, at the risk of you falling into the "Creationist trap" the narrator in the video alludes to, i.e., not looking for evidence, perhaps you should check out the opposing viewpoint if you are serious about wanting to be fully informed. You can start here:
> 
> Science and Human Origins: Ann Gauger,Douglas Axe,Casey Luskin: 9781936599042: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie Christian movement faces many hurdles. Among those issues is a lack of credibility. Following string after string of humiliating defeats in the courts for failing to introduce Christian theology into the school system, the movement has become more reactionary, less coherent and more delusional.
> 
> There has become a standard roll call of Christian fundamentalist preachers who are trotted out by the Christian creationist ministries. The vast majority of these fundamentalist Christians appear prominently in news and media where they only discredit the very christian fundamentalism they are preaching.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for luskin
> 
> #246: Casey Luskin
> 
> a.k.a. the Baghdad Bob of creationism
> 
> Casey Luskin is a lawyer (and not a scientist, although he seems to be a little confused about what such credentials do or don't mean) and one of the primary spokespeople for the Discovery Institute. Mr. Luskin obtained a Bachelor of Science and a Masters Degree in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, and has as a lawyer published Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover, and Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools (published in the Journal of Church and State). His work illustrates well the actual goal of the Discovery Institute to get religion, in the form of intelligent design creationism, into public school curricula (not to do any actual scientific research).
> 
> Luskin is by far most notorious for his ability to distort scientific evidence to suggest conclusions completely opposite to what the evidence suggests (and curiously always to fit his preconceived notions of what it ought to show), such as here. An even better example of the distortions and quote mining (to put it mildly) he usually reverts to is perhaps this one (or this one). And if you are feeling particularly sadistic, you can watch Luskin getting completely eviscerated here.
> 
> The problem with Luskin and his ilk is that they're ignorant of a topic about which they believe they're experts (see The Dunning-Kruger Effect). Luskin appears to believe hes an expert with absolute confidence and pride,but to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the fields in question his failings are miserably obvious (see also this). In fact, his misunderstandings of science and his lack of awareness of his own lack of understanding often reach epic proportions.
> 
> Luskin is also interestingly paranoid,going so far as to claim that published articles on evolution contain veiled threats against the creationists and that Nature, for instance, has launched a propaganda war on creationism. Of course, science itself is a threat to creationism; what Luskin fails to grasp is the fact that science is concerned with evidence, not argument and polemics. By failing to see the difference (and furthermore failing to distinguish criticism from personal attacks) he comes to equate scientific evidence against his dogmatic beliefs with personal attacks from the scientists who have discovered the evidence (for more on Luskins lack of understanding of how science works, see this).
> 
> A good assignment in an introductory critical thinking class is to identify some of the mistakes Luskin makes here (I have used it myself).
> 
> Diagnosis: Staggeringly cranky illustration of where Dunning-Kruger, confirmation bias and complete lack of understanding of science can lead you. He is very productive and vociferous, and must be considered rather dangerous to a rationality-based, modern civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #140: Ann Gauger
> 
> #140: Ann Gauger
> 
> Gauger has a PhD in zoology and is a signatory of Discovery Institutes 2005 petition Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Shes currently associated with the Discovery affiliated creationist think-tank the Biologic Institute whose goal is to perform real research on ID and which has yet to produce a single publication supporting ID creationism despite big budgets and numerous employed scientists.
> 
> A rather infamous incident occurred when Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium, 2007, in Boston, Massachusetts. She discussed leaky growth in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner, a real scientist, asked the obvious question: So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab? at which point the moderator halted questioning - Gauger has earlier argued that any evolutionary change is non-adaptive.
> 
> Diagnosis: Surely intelligent, but caught up in a system of self-reassuring but misguided views on how reality hangs together. The Biologic Institute is supposed to provided creationism with a sheen of scientific legitimacy, and although its existence may carry some influence on general perception of creationism (then again, probably not), it has failed to fool scientists or scholars in general (apart from Robin Collins).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges are not scientists,the science they do have is very basic. They have been brainwashed for many years as most students.
> 
> I could care less what the courts think after all they support the law to murder babies. Our society are turning their backs on God and eventually will pay a price you might be seeing that as we speak.
> 
> So instead of thinking well the courts support our views why don't you give evidence that supports your view rather then conjecture as evidence.
Click to expand...


 It's obvious you would disagree with the consistent decisions of the court system regarding your insistence that Christian theology be inserted into the public school. What you refuse to acknowledge is that based upon the evidence presented before the courts, creationism is nothing more than Christian theology under an assumed name. 

What you find galling is that the courts are upholding and confirming basic principles that are a foundation of the constitution: separation of church and state. Religious zealots would, of course, prefer to suspend parts of the constitution that limit their ability to force their religion on others. Fortunately, the court decisions have represented the workable mechanism that was framed by the founding fathers.

I can't tell you how pleased I am that I have a constitution that protects me from Christian Taliban.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I am no longer a Creationist - Part 1: Genus Homo - YouTube
> 
> I realize that posting this an argument ad populum, and doesn't verify evolution just because someone, somewhere switched to being a non-creationist, so you can spare telling me that.
> 
> However, the same can not be said of this next video by the same person, who demonstrates an understanding of evolution. I know that posting videos is not the best argumentation form, and may not be particularly convincing, but I thought it was worth a shot.
> 
> Why I am no longer a creationist -- Part 2.1: Missing Links - Proboscidea - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute video's. However, at the risk of you falling into the "Creationist trap" the narrator in the video alludes to, i.e., not looking for evidence, perhaps you should check out the opposing viewpoint if you are serious about wanting to be fully informed. You can start here:
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Origins-Ann-Gauger/dp/193659904X/ref=pd_sim_b_18]Science and Human Origins: Ann Gauger,Douglas Axe,Casey Luskin: 9781936599042: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie Christian movement faces many hurdles. Among those issues is a lack of credibility. Following string after string of humiliating defeats in the courts for failing to introduce Christian theology into the school system, the movement has become more reactionary, less coherent and more delusional.
> 
> There has become a standard roll call of Christian fundamentalist preachers who are trotted out by the Christian creationist ministries. The vast majority of these fundamentalist Christians appear prominently in news and media where they only discredit the very christian fundamentalism they are preaching.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for luskin
> 
> #246: Casey Luskin
> 
> a.k.a. the Baghdad Bob of creationism
> 
> Casey Luskin is a lawyer (and not a scientist, although he seems to be a little confused about what such credentials do or don't mean) and one of the primary spokespeople for the Discovery Institute. Mr. Luskin obtained a Bachelor of Science and a Masters Degree in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, and has as a lawyer published Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover, and Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools (published in the Journal of Church and State). His work illustrates well the actual goal of the Discovery Institute to get religion, in the form of intelligent design creationism, into public school curricula (not to do any actual scientific research).
> 
> Luskin is by far most notorious for his ability to distort scientific evidence to suggest conclusions completely opposite to what the evidence suggests (and curiously always to fit his preconceived notions of what it ought to show), such as here. An even better example of the distortions and quote mining (to put it mildly) he usually reverts to is perhaps this one (or this one). And if you are feeling particularly sadistic, you can watch Luskin getting completely eviscerated here.
> 
> The problem with Luskin and his ilk is that they're ignorant of a topic about which they believe they're experts (see The Dunning-Kruger Effect). Luskin appears to believe hes an expert with absolute confidence and pride,but to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the fields in question his failings are miserably obvious (see also this). In fact, his misunderstandings of science and his lack of awareness of his own lack of understanding often reach epic proportions.
> 
> Luskin is also interestingly paranoid,going so far as to claim that published articles on evolution contain veiled threats against the creationists and that Nature, for instance, has launched a propaganda war on creationism. Of course, science itself is a threat to creationism; what Luskin fails to grasp is the fact that science is concerned with evidence, not argument and polemics. By failing to see the difference (and furthermore failing to distinguish criticism from personal attacks) he comes to equate scientific evidence against his dogmatic beliefs with personal attacks from the scientists who have discovered the evidence (for more on Luskins lack of understanding of how science works, see this).
> 
> A good assignment in an introductory critical thinking class is to identify some of the mistakes Luskin makes here (I have used it myself).
> 
> Diagnosis: Staggeringly cranky illustration of where Dunning-Kruger, confirmation bias and complete lack of understanding of science can lead you. He is very productive and vociferous, and must be considered rather dangerous to a rationality-based, modern civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #140: Ann Gauger
> 
> #140: Ann Gauger
> 
> Gauger has a PhD in zoology and is a signatory of Discovery Institutes 2005 petition Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Shes currently associated with the Discovery affiliated creationist think-tank the Biologic Institute whose goal is to perform real research on ID and which has yet to produce a single publication supporting ID creationism despite big budgets and numerous employed scientists.
> 
> A rather infamous incident occurred when Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium, 2007, in Boston, Massachusetts. She discussed leaky growth in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner, a real scientist, asked the obvious question: So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab? at which point the moderator halted questioning - Gauger has earlier argued that any evolutionary change is non-adaptive.
> 
> Diagnosis: Surely intelligent, but caught up in a system of self-reassuring but misguided views on how reality hangs together. The Biologic Institute is supposed to provided creationism with a sheen of scientific legitimacy, and although its existence may carry some influence on general perception of creationism (then again, probably not), it has failed to fool scientists or scholars in general (apart from Robin Collins).
Click to expand...


Ad Hollieman is back!!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie Christian movement faces many hurdles. Among those issues is a lack of credibility. Following string after string of humiliating defeats in the courts for failing to introduce Christian theology into the school system, the movement has become more reactionary, less coherent and more delusional.
> 
> There has become a standard roll call of Christian fundamentalist preachers who are trotted out by the Christian creationist ministries. The vast majority of these fundamentalist Christians appear prominently in news and media where they only discredit the very christian fundamentalism they are preaching.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for luskin
> 
> #246: Casey Luskin
> 
> a.k.a. the Baghdad Bob of creationism
> 
> Casey Luskin is a lawyer (and not a scientist, although he seems to be a little confused about what such credentials do or don't mean) and one of the primary spokespeople for the Discovery Institute. Mr. Luskin obtained a Bachelor of Science and a Masters Degree in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, and has as a lawyer published Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover, and Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools (published in the Journal of Church and State). His work illustrates well the actual goal of the Discovery Institute to get religion, in the form of intelligent design creationism, into public school curricula (not to do any actual scientific research).
> 
> Luskin is by far most notorious for his ability to distort scientific evidence to suggest conclusions completely opposite to what the evidence suggests (and curiously always to fit his preconceived notions of what it ought to show), such as here. An even better example of the distortions and quote mining (to put it mildly) he usually reverts to is perhaps this one (or this one). And if you are feeling particularly sadistic, you can watch Luskin getting completely eviscerated here.
> 
> The problem with Luskin and his ilk is that they're ignorant of a topic about which they believe they're experts (see The Dunning-Kruger Effect). Luskin appears to believe hes an expert with absolute confidence and pride,but to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the fields in question his failings are miserably obvious (see also this). In fact, his misunderstandings of science and his lack of awareness of his own lack of understanding often reach epic proportions.
> 
> Luskin is also interestingly paranoid,going so far as to claim that published articles on evolution contain veiled threats against the creationists and that Nature, for instance, has launched a propaganda war on creationism. Of course, science itself is a threat to creationism; what Luskin fails to grasp is the fact that science is concerned with evidence, not argument and polemics. By failing to see the difference (and furthermore failing to distinguish criticism from personal attacks) he comes to equate scientific evidence against his dogmatic beliefs with personal attacks from the scientists who have discovered the evidence (for more on Luskins lack of understanding of how science works, see this).
> 
> A good assignment in an introductory critical thinking class is to identify some of the mistakes Luskin makes here (I have used it myself).
> 
> Diagnosis: Staggeringly cranky illustration of where Dunning-Kruger, confirmation bias and complete lack of understanding of science can lead you. He is very productive and vociferous, and must be considered rather dangerous to a rationality-based, modern civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #140: Ann Gauger
> 
> #140: Ann Gauger
> 
> Gauger has a PhD in zoology and is a signatory of Discovery Institutes 2005 petition Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Shes currently associated with the Discovery affiliated creationist think-tank the Biologic Institute whose goal is to perform real research on ID and which has yet to produce a single publication supporting ID creationism despite big budgets and numerous employed scientists.
> 
> A rather infamous incident occurred when Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium, 2007, in Boston, Massachusetts. She discussed leaky growth in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner, a real scientist, asked the obvious question: So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab? at which point the moderator halted questioning - Gauger has earlier argued that any evolutionary change is non-adaptive.
> 
> Diagnosis: Surely intelligent, but caught up in a system of self-reassuring but misguided views on how reality hangs together. The Biologic Institute is supposed to provided creationism with a sheen of scientific legitimacy, and although its existence may carry some influence on general perception of creationism (then again, probably not), it has failed to fool scientists or scholars in general (apart from Robin Collins).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges are not scientists,the science they do have is very basic. They have been brainwashed for many years as most students.
> 
> I could care less what the courts think after all they support the law to murder babies. Our society are turning their backs on God and eventually will pay a price you might be seeing that as we speak.
> 
> So instead of thinking well the courts support our views why don't you give evidence that supports your view rather then conjecture as evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious you would disagree with the consistent decisions of the court system regarding your insistence that Christian theology be inserted into the public school. What you refuse to acknowledge is that based upon the evidence presented before the courts, creationism is nothing more than Christian theology under an assumed name.
> 
> What you find galling is that the courts are upholding and confirming basic principles that are a foundation of the constitution: separation of church and state. Religious zealots would, of course, prefer to suspend parts of the constitution that limit their ability to force their religion on others. Fortunately, the court decisions have represented the workable mechanism that was framed by the founding fathers.
> 
> I can't tell you how pleased I am that I have a constitution that protects me from Christian Taliban.
Click to expand...


Do you see the error of your silly logic here? You are bagging on Casey Luskin, stating he is a lawyer and has no business discussing matters of science, but in the same breath you claim another lawyer, a judge, has every right to decide matters of science. Which is it Rugged ManHands?

*Where did you attend college?*


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If humans randomly come from nature, and circuit boards, spaceships, and engines comes from *humans*, don't circuit boards, spaceships, and engines come from nature?
> 
> 
> 
> false comparison
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had a typo. See above.
Click to expand...

a typo  doesn't make it   any less a false comparison


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cute video's. However, at the risk of you falling into the "Creationist trap" the narrator in the video alludes to, i.e., not looking for evidence, perhaps you should check out the opposing viewpoint if you are serious about wanting to be fully informed. You can start here:
> 
> Science and Human Origins: Ann Gauger,Douglas Axe,Casey Luskin: 9781936599042: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie Christian movement faces many hurdles. Among those issues is a lack of credibility. Following string after string of humiliating defeats in the courts for failing to introduce Christian theology into the school system, the movement has become more reactionary, less coherent and more delusional.
> 
> There has become a standard roll call of Christian fundamentalist preachers who are trotted out by the Christian creationist ministries. The vast majority of these fundamentalist Christians appear prominently in news and media where they only discredit the very christian fundamentalism they are preaching.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for luskin
> 
> #246: Casey Luskin
> 
> a.k.a. the Baghdad Bob of creationism
> 
> Casey Luskin is a lawyer (and not a scientist, although he seems to be a little confused about what such credentials do or don't mean) and one of the primary spokespeople for the Discovery Institute. Mr. Luskin obtained a Bachelor of Science and a Masters Degree in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, and has as a lawyer published Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover, and Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools (published in the Journal of Church and State). His work illustrates well the actual goal of the Discovery Institute to get religion, in the form of intelligent design creationism, into public school curricula (not to do any actual scientific research).
> 
> Luskin is by far most notorious for his ability to distort scientific evidence to suggest conclusions completely opposite to what the evidence suggests (and curiously always to fit his preconceived notions of what it ought to show), such as here. An even better example of the distortions and quote mining (to put it mildly) he usually reverts to is perhaps this one (or this one). And if you are feeling particularly sadistic, you can watch Luskin getting completely eviscerated here.
> 
> The problem with Luskin and his ilk is that they're ignorant of a topic about which they believe they're experts (see The Dunning-Kruger Effect). Luskin appears to believe hes an expert with absolute confidence and pride,but to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the fields in question his failings are miserably obvious (see also this). In fact, his misunderstandings of science and his lack of awareness of his own lack of understanding often reach epic proportions.
> 
> Luskin is also interestingly paranoid,going so far as to claim that published articles on evolution contain veiled threats against the creationists and that Nature, for instance, has launched a propaganda war on creationism. Of course, science itself is a threat to creationism; what Luskin fails to grasp is the fact that science is concerned with evidence, not argument and polemics. By failing to see the difference (and furthermore failing to distinguish criticism from personal attacks) he comes to equate scientific evidence against his dogmatic beliefs with personal attacks from the scientists who have discovered the evidence (for more on Luskins lack of understanding of how science works, see this).
> 
> A good assignment in an introductory critical thinking class is to identify some of the mistakes Luskin makes here (I have used it myself).
> 
> Diagnosis: Staggeringly cranky illustration of where Dunning-Kruger, confirmation bias and complete lack of understanding of science can lead you. He is very productive and vociferous, and must be considered rather dangerous to a rationality-based, modern civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #140: Ann Gauger
> 
> #140: Ann Gauger
> 
> Gauger has a PhD in zoology and is a signatory of Discovery Institutes 2005 petition Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Shes currently associated with the Discovery affiliated creationist think-tank the Biologic Institute whose goal is to perform real research on ID and which has yet to produce a single publication supporting ID creationism despite big budgets and numerous employed scientists.
> 
> A rather infamous incident occurred when Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium, 2007, in Boston, Massachusetts. She discussed leaky growth in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner, a real scientist, asked the obvious question: So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab? at which point the moderator halted questioning - Gauger has earlier argued that any evolutionary change is non-adaptive.
> 
> Diagnosis: Surely intelligent, but caught up in a system of self-reassuring but misguided views on how reality hangs together. The Biologic Institute is supposed to provided creationism with a sheen of scientific legitimacy, and although its existence may carry some influence on general perception of creationism (then again, probably not), it has failed to fool scientists or scholars in general (apart from Robin Collins).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ad Hollieman is back!!!!
Click to expand...

And your juvenile banter is as pointless as usual.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wind cannot be seen either only it's effects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That must be one of the more profound things they teach at Harun Yahya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should know since your online degree Is from there.
Click to expand...

actually the  nonsense you spew is more in line (or online) with Harun Yahya then anything hollie could dream up.
especially the steaming pile on materialism.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judges are not scientists,the science they do have is very basic. They have been brainwashed for many years as most students.
> 
> I could care less what the courts think after all they support the law to murder babies. Our society are turning their backs on God and eventually will pay a price you might be seeing that as we speak.
> 
> So instead of thinking well the courts support our views why don't you give evidence that supports your view rather then conjecture as evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you would disagree with the consistent decisions of the court system regarding your insistence that Christian theology be inserted into the public school. What you refuse to acknowledge is that based upon the evidence presented before the courts, creationism is nothing more than Christian theology under an assumed name.
> 
> What you find galling is that the courts are upholding and confirming basic principles that are a foundation of the constitution: separation of church and state. Religious zealots would, of course, prefer to suspend parts of the constitution that limit their ability to force their religion on others. Fortunately, the court decisions have represented the workable mechanism that was framed by the founding fathers.
> 
> I can't tell you how pleased I am that I have a constitution that protects me from Christian Taliban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you see the error of your silly logic here? You are bagging on Casey Luskin, stating he is a lawyer and has no business discussing matters of science, but in the same breath you claim another lawyer, a judge, has every right to decide matters of science. Which is it Rugged ManHands?
> 
> *Where did you attend college?*
Click to expand...

As expected, the Christian creationists should not be expected to understand the process here. The judge made a decision based on evidence presented before the court. 

I suppose it would be best to explain these things to fundies in short sentences of gawd friendly monosyllables.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense, the planets in our solar system travel the same direction on the same plane. How do you explain Venus and Uranus traveling on the same plane,going the same direction,but spinning the opposite direction of other planets ? Defies logic if it was the product of an explosion and this contradicts your comment above.
> 
> 
> 
> you truly are ignorant .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best you've got ?
Click to expand...

don't need anything else your answer speaks volumes.


Evidence of Huge Planetary Collision Found

Two planets suffer violent collision 

Any collisions between planets happened early in the Solar System, and they most certainly did. Our Moon was made by something Mars-sized smacking into the Earth very early on (over 4 billion years ago), and Mars has a giant, very old (about the same age, but ages are pretty uncertain once we get away from the Earth and Moon) crater that makes the northern part of the planet quite a bit lower than the southern part. So, when the inner solar system was forming, all four of the inner planets were probably getting hit a lot by comparable-sized objects (and smaller stuff as well). Thankfully, most of that stuff either collided with something or was eventually knocked out of the area by Jupiter, so it won't collide with a planet any more.

Curious About Astronomy: Can planets collide with one another?

Physics 101: Redshift and the Expanding Universe
by Pearl Tesler


Throughout our universe, light is bursting from stars, bouncing off planets, diving into black holes, wandering into nebulae, and generally going every which way. Meanwhile, a little bit of it actually shows up here on earth.

The light that does arrive here all seems to bear the same message: the universe is expanding.

How can light from the night sky tell us that the universe is growing in size? The main clue comes from something called redshift.

Redshift is light's version of a phenomenon we experience all the time with sound. Have you ever noticed how the pitch of a police siren seems to drop suddenly as the car zooms by you? As the siren approaches you, the waves of sound are squeezed together, and you hear them as being higher-pitched. After the car passes by, sound waves from the receding siren are stretched apart. You hear these stretched waves as being lower-pitched.


Follow the car to see a Shockwave demonstration of Doppler. 
This apparent change in the pitch (or frequency) of sound is called Doppler shift. Light from distant stars and galaxies can be shifted in much the same way.

Like sound, light is a wave that can be described in terms of its frequency, the number of wave peaks that pass by each second. Just like a cosmic police car, a star zooming toward you has its light waves squeezed together. You see these light waves as having a higher frequency than normal. Since blue is at the high-frequency end of the visible spectrum, we say the light from an approaching star is shifted toward blue, or blueshifted.

Likewise, if a star is zooming away from you, any light it emits gets stretched. You see these stretched-out light waves as having a lower frequency. Since red is at the low-frequency end of the visible spectrum, we say that light from a receding star is shifted toward red, or redshifted.

 Imagine you're moving to the left with this arrowhead. Light emitted from galaxies moving toward you would be squished, making the wavelength shorter and the light bluer. On earth, we perceive the light from galaxies moving away from us (as it appears almost all galaxies are) . . . . as being somewhat stretched, with longer wavelengths that make it look redder. 

The amount of the shift depends on the speed of the star, relative to you. For a moving object to create an appreciable redshift or blueshift requires some pretty serious speeds. To get just a 1% change in the frequency of light, a star has to be moving 1,864 miles per second. For a blue lightbulb to look red, it would have to be flying away from you at 3/4 of the speed of light.

Studying light from galaxies throughout our universe, astronomers have noticed something surprising: almost all of it is redshifted. In fact, not only is it redshifted, galaxies that are farther away are more redshifted than closer ones. So it seems that not only are all the galaxies in the universe moving away from us, the farther ones are moving away from us the fastest.

On first glance, this seems to put us at ground zero of a major cosmological exodus. . .what is it, our 


Show yourself why it always seems that we're the center of the universe. (requires Shockwave Flash)  
breath? In fact, we aren't really at the center of the expansion. In an expanding universe, anyone standing anywhere in the universe would see everything as moving away, or redshifted.

What puzzles astronomers most now is not that the universe is expanding, but that the rate of this expansion seems to be increasing. Using data from the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers hope to be able to figure out the likely fate of our universe: Will it expand forever, or will the expansion reverse and cause the universe to collapse back into another Big Bang? Stay tuned. 





For a more in-depth look at how astronomers can use redshift to determine speed and other properties of celestial objects, check out this presentation from NOVA's "Runaway Universe" Web site.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us or once again did you make an ignorant comment and are now just catching on ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd ..
> 
> "If humans randomly come from nature, and circuit boards, spaceships, and engines comes from nature, don't circuit boards, spaceships, and engines come from nature?" ur
> if you can't see the misconceptions and flaws in logic in the above statement.. then it's not surprising you're a silly fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I need drugs to understand your thinking.
Click to expand...

you mean other than the ones you're on?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you would disagree with the consistent decisions of the court system regarding your insistence that Christian theology be inserted into the public school. What you refuse to acknowledge is that based upon the evidence presented before the courts, creationism is nothing more than Christian theology under an assumed name.
> 
> What you find galling is that the courts are upholding and confirming basic principles that are a foundation of the constitution: separation of church and state. Religious zealots would, of course, prefer to suspend parts of the constitution that limit their ability to force their religion on others. Fortunately, the court decisions have represented the workable mechanism that was framed by the founding fathers.
> 
> I can't tell you how pleased I am that I have a constitution that protects me from Christian Taliban.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see the error of your silly logic here? You are bagging on Casey Luskin, stating he is a lawyer and has no business discussing matters of science, but in the same breath you claim another lawyer, a judge, has every right to decide matters of science. Which is it Rugged ManHands?
> 
> *Where did you attend college?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As expected, the Christian creationists should not be expected to understand the process here.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because as the lead investigator on several high profile cases, I never spent any time in court or before a judge. *What is your legal background?*


Hollie said:


> The judge made a decision based on evidence presented before the court.
> 
> I suppose it would be best to explain these things to fundies in short sentences of gawd friendly monosyllables.



And you know that Casey Luskin didn't base his information on evidence without having ever read the book? You are so foolish, *probably because you didn't go to college.*


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That must be one of the more profound things they teach at Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should know since your online degree Is from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually the  nonsense you spew is more in line (or online) with Harun Yahya then anything hollie could dream up.
> especially the steaming pile on materialism.
Click to expand...


So your taking Harun Yahya's classes too? Astonishing you and Hollie would subscribe to the same online degree program.


----------



## daws101

uote=ima;6160908]





UltimateReality said:


> Loki posted up this stupid and asinine example:
> 
> "There is no principle of the actual theory of evolution that says, "if [a trait does] not offer some reproductive advantage, that trait would not survive."
> 
> Example: You have skin, I have skin, all humans have skin--having skin offers no reproductive advantage. This is because if we all have this "advantage" it CANNOT be considered an advantage (over other humans who all have skin); it fails to meet the definition of advantage. So, based upon this principle of the version of evolution (that you invented for the purpose of disproving actual evolution), skin--which does not offer reproductive advantage (for some humans over other humans)--should not be present. Yet it is!"
> 
> Before you speak for the theory of evolution, I think you should ponder your statement above. It is the negative of the positive statement, traits that offer reproductive advantage will be more common in subsequent generations of a species. However, evolution tells us at some point, the traits that dominate will result in a new species. Back your skin example up a few million generations and then we could make up a "just so" story that humans have skin, because the ones without skin didn't survive. Answer me the question, what if one of the humans above is born without skin??? Will he have the reproductive advantage? *We know all random mutations can do is give or take away right? *Eventually the skinless humans were out bred by the humans with skin. Skin had to offer an advantage or humans wouldn't have it (Tautological argument) But in your stupid example above, you have not made this clarification. In fact, your Neo-Darwinistic definition of Fitness no longer requires any of your just so stories. It just is because it is.
> 
> All your bogus example above does is prove how silly the TOE really is. It really can't tell us anything can it? According to your flawed logic above, it can provide any hypothesis for the complex life we see around us. Because this is what you just said:
> 
> Traits that *don't offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain unchanged in a species. Traits that *do offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain in a species. So your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go back to all the fossil evidence and dna evidence and tell us which ones are which.


Sorry loki but your skin example is bogus. Black folks skin is better for resisting the sun's rays, so not all skin is the same. Please try again.[/QUOTE]also remember the longer UR'S posts are the higher the bullshit to truth ratio becomes.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cute video's. However, at the risk of you falling into the "Creationist trap" the narrator in the video alludes to, i.e., not looking for evidence, perhaps you should check out the opposing viewpoint if you are serious about wanting to be fully informed. You can start here:
> 
> Science and Human Origins: Ann Gauger,Douglas Axe,Casey Luskin: 9781936599042: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie Christian movement faces many hurdles. Among those issues is a lack of credibility. Following string after string of humiliating defeats in the courts for failing to introduce Christian theology into the school system, the movement has become more reactionary, less coherent and more delusional.
> 
> There has become a standard roll call of Christian fundamentalist preachers who are trotted out by the Christian creationist ministries. The vast majority of these fundamentalist Christians appear prominently in news and media where they only discredit the very christian fundamentalism they are preaching.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for luskin
> 
> #246: Casey Luskin
> 
> a.k.a. the Baghdad Bob of creationism
> 
> Casey Luskin is a lawyer (and not a scientist, although he seems to be a little confused about what such credentials do or don't mean) and one of the primary spokespeople for the Discovery Institute. Mr. Luskin obtained a Bachelor of Science and a Masters Degree in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, and has as a lawyer published &#8220;Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover&#8221;, and &#8220;Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools&#8221; (published in the Journal of Church and State). His work illustrates well the actual goal of the Discovery Institute &#8211;to get religion, in the form of intelligent design creationism, into public school curricula (not to do any actual scientific research).
> 
> Luskin is by far most notorious for his ability to distort scientific evidence to suggest conclusions completely opposite to what the evidence suggests (and curiously always to fit his preconceived notions of what it ought to show), such as here. An even better example of the distortions and quote mining (to put it mildly) he usually reverts to is perhaps this one (or this one). And if you are feeling particularly sadistic, you can watch Luskin getting completely eviscerated here.
> 
> The problem with Luskin and his ilk is that they're ignorant of a topic about which they believe they're experts (see The Dunning-Kruger Effect). Luskin appears to believe he&#8217;s an expert with absolute confidence and pride,but to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the fields in question his failings are miserably obvious (see also this). In fact, his misunderstandings of science &#8211;and his lack of awareness of his own lack of understanding &#8211;often reach epic proportions.
> 
> Luskin is also interestingly paranoid,going so far as to claim that published articles on evolution contain &#8220;veiled threats&#8221; against the creationists and that Nature, for instance, has launched a propaganda war on creationism. Of course, science itself is a threat to creationism; what Luskin fails to grasp is the fact that science is concerned with evidence, not argument and polemics. By failing to see the difference (and furthermore failing to distinguish criticism from personal attacks) he comes to equate scientific evidence against his dogmatic beliefs with personal attacks from the scientists who have discovered the evidence (for more on Luskin&#8217;s lack of understanding of how science works, see this).
> 
> A good assignment in an introductory critical thinking class is to identify some of the mistakes Luskin makes here (I have used it myself).
> 
> Diagnosis: Staggeringly cranky illustration of where Dunning-Kruger, confirmation bias and complete lack of understanding of science can lead you. He is very productive and vociferous, and must be considered rather dangerous to a rationality-based, modern civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #140: Ann Gauger
> 
> #140: Ann Gauger
> 
> Gauger has a PhD in zoology and is a signatory of Discovery Institute&#8217;s 2005 petition &#8220;Scientific Dissent from Darwinism&#8221;. She&#8217;s currently associated with the Discovery affiliated creationist think-tank the Biologic Institute whose goal is to perform real research on ID and which has yet to produce a single publication supporting ID creationism despite big budgets and numerous employed &#8220;scientists&#8221;.
> 
> A rather infamous incident occurred when Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium, 2007, in Boston, Massachusetts. She discussed &#8220;leaky growth&#8221; in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner, a real scientist, asked the obvious question: &#8220;So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?&#8221; at which point the moderator halted questioning - Gauger has earlier argued that any evolutionary change is non-adaptive.
> 
> Diagnosis: Surely intelligent, but caught up in a system of self-reassuring but misguided views on how reality hangs together. The Biologic Institute is supposed to provided creationism with a sheen of scientific legitimacy, and although its existence may carry some influence on general perception of creationism (then again, probably not), it has failed to fool scientists or scholars in general (apart from Robin Collins).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judges are not scientists,the science they do have is very basic. They have been brainwashed for many years as most students.
> 
> I could care less what the courts think after all they support the law to murder babies. Our society are turning their backs on God and eventually will pay a price you might be seeing that as we speak.
> 
> So instead of thinking well the courts support our views why don't you give evidence that supports your view rather then conjecture as evidence.
Click to expand...

  you have no evidence of brainwashing by the federal or state or government or the public school system.
on the other hand your belief system relies on indoctrination, coercion, fear and willful ignorance to fill it's ranks .

these statements :They have been brainwashed for many years as most students.

("I could care less what the courts think after all they support the law to murder babies. Our society are turning their backs on God and eventually will pay a price you might be seeing that as we speak".ywc) are from a rational pov clear evidence of brain washing  and a cult mentality..

my personal fav is the courts bullshit..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki posted up this stupid and asinine example:
> 
> "There is no principle of the actual theory of evolution that says, "if [a trait does] not offer some reproductive advantage, that trait would not survive."
> 
> Example: You have skin, I have skin, all humans have skin--having skin offers no reproductive advantage. This is because if we all have this "advantage" it CANNOT be considered an advantage (over other humans who all have skin); it fails to meet the definition of advantage. So, based upon this principle of the version of evolution (that you invented for the purpose of disproving actual evolution), skin--which does not offer reproductive advantage (for some humans over other humans)--should not be present. Yet it is!"
> 
> Before you speak for the theory of evolution, I think you should ponder your statement above. It is the negative of the positive statement, traits that offer reproductive advantage will be more common in subsequent generations of a species. However, evolution tells us at some point, the traits that dominate will result in a new species. Back your skin example up a few million generations and then we could make up a "just so" story that humans have skin, because the ones without skin didn't survive. Answer me the question, what if one of the humans above is born without skin??? Will he have the reproductive advantage? *We know all random mutations can do is give or take away right? *Eventually the skinless humans were out bred by the humans with skin. Skin had to offer an advantage or humans wouldn't have it (Tautological argument) But in your stupid example above, you have not made this clarification. In fact, your Neo-Darwinistic definition of Fitness no longer requires any of your just so stories. It just is because it is.
> 
> All your bogus example above does is prove how silly the TOE really is. It really can't tell us anything can it? According to your flawed logic above, it can provide any hypothesis for the complex life we see around us. Because this is what you just said:
> 
> Traits that *don't offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain unchanged in a species. Traits that *do offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain in a species. So your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go back to all the fossil evidence and dna evidence and tell us which ones are which.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry loki but your skin example is bogus. Black folks skin is better for resisting the sun's rays, so not all skin is the same. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All traits are a product of our DNA information.
Click to expand...

non sequitur....


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should know since your online degree Is from there.
> 
> 
> 
> actually the  nonsense you spew is more in line (or online) with Harun Yahya then anything hollie could dream up.
> especially the steaming pile on materialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your taking Harun Yahya's classes too? Astonishing you and Hollie would subscribe to the same online degree program.
Click to expand...

Ur is again lying to avoid the fact that he and Harun Yahya spew the same shit..


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see the error of your silly logic here? You are bagging on Casey Luskin, stating he is a lawyer and has no business discussing matters of science, but in the same breath you claim another lawyer, a judge, has every right to decide matters of science. Which is it Rugged ManHands?
> 
> *Where did you attend college?*
> 
> 
> 
> As expected, the Christian creationists should not be expected to understand the process here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because as the lead investigator on several high profile cases, I never spent any time in court or before a judge. *What is your legal background?*
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The judge made a decision based on evidence presented before the court.
> 
> I suppose it would be best to explain these things to fundies in short sentences of gawd friendly monosyllables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know that Casey Luskin didn't base his information on evidence without having ever read the book? You are so foolish, *probably because you didn't go to college.*
Click to expand...



Oh my. The little Christian zealot is as frantic as usual, offering up nothing (as usual), but gargantuan fonts.

Im always suspicious of creationist authors who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. Thats why its actually comical when a zoologist and a fundie Christian attorney author a book regarding human origins. It should be a red flag when credentials assigned to fundie creationists have no real connection to the material they are authoring.

Neither Gauger or Luskin have any academic credentials to give them credibility for work in the field of human origins. Neither is an archeologist or biologist and neither have degrees that  coincide with the knowledge necessary to develop a thriving biological dissertation on life origins. 

It's a shame that all of the above will be lost on the fundie zealot who understands nothing but what he is instructed by creationist ministries.

Out-of-the-madrassah and-into-the-classroom zealots are a danger to themselves and those around them. Most folks do not support Christian zealots controlling science education in this country  obviously the constitution disallows that. 

Christian Taliban can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive efforts of fear and superstition to impose their personal failings upon others is antithetical to the human ideal of freedom of (from) religion..


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Back home now and I can actually type normally to break down the argument Loki can't seem to grasp:
> 
> From Wiki: "The *central concept* of *natural selection* is the evolutionary fitness of an organism.[94] Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation.[94] However, fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring: *instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's genes.*[95] For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness.[94]"
> 
> From Wiki: "Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central idea in evolutionary theory. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce, and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by an average individual of the specified genotype or phenotype. If differences between alleles of a given gene affect fitness, then the frequencies of the alleles will change over generations; the alleles with higher fitness become more common. This process is called natural selection."
> 
> So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and must have contributed those genes.


Unless you are in denial of the relationship between genotype and phenotype, and that genetics is fundamentally about inheritable phenotypes, then I am faiuling to see your point in tracing and retracing the *DEFINITION* of fitness.



UltimateReality said:


> And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, *this organism must be the result of natural selection*, and its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here.


Strawman. No such presumption is made, except in the bullshit version of evolution you have created for the sole purpose of claiming you have invalidated the actual theory of evolution.



UltimateReality said:


> But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection? Have we proven this or is it still a theory?


What you're bitching about half the time (when you find it convenient) is something like, "Evolution says "fitness" means "fitness," and that's a "question-begging" arguement. The thing is, "fitness" is not presented as an argument; it's not an "argument" at all.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding (or more likely a DELIBERATE misunderstanding) of the conditions under a tautolgy is illegitimate (question-begging). In formal logic (rather than rhetoric), tautologies are ALWAYS valid. *DEFINITIONS* are inherently tautological AND formally valid. They LITERALLY use different words to say the same thing. They HAVE TO!

A *THEORY* is something else entirely. 

"FITNESS" is not the theory you say it is. While fitness is certainly "a central concept of natural selection," fitness IS NOT natural selection. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I mean, after all, the definition of "fitness" is fully applicable in the Creationist notions of design--organisms are "designed" to be fit--that is to say, the "Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun designed organisms to successfully reproduce and pass their genetic material to their progeny.

I told you before that you had to decide what you want, a *DEFINITION* or a *THEORY*. You have chosen BOTH so you can illegitimately and dishonestly switch your usage to meet the convenience of your argument. Just like every other member of your intellectually dishonest, superstitious tribe of retards.



UltimateReality said:


> The very core of evolutionary theory rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness attempts its proof by assuming it is true.


Fitness is NOT A *THEORY*. Fitness is not the same thing as NATURAL SELECTION you equivocating douche-bag.



UltimateReality said:


> Mr. Fallacy, aka, Loki, should recognize this as begging the question.


There is no question-begging involved, except in the STRAWMAN version of evolution you created where "fitness" is the EXACT SAME THING as "natural selection."



UltimateReality said:


> We conclude that the fittest species pass along their dna because if they weren't fit, they wouldn't pass on their dna.


This is consistent with the *DEFINITION* of "fitness."



UltimateReality said:


> Said another way... the types of organisms that survive and reproduce are the types of organisms that survive and reproduce.


This also is consistent with the *DEFINITION* of "fitness."



UltimateReality said:


> How many more ways can I say it? Your links prove the very thing you deny.


You are wrong. So woefully wrong. So purposefully wrong.



UltimateReality said:


> But the end result is exactly what I posted pages back:
> 
> "Bethell argued that evolutionary theory based on natural selection (survival of the fittest) is vacuous: it states that, first, evolution can be explained by the fact that, on the whole, *only the fitter organisms survive and achieve reproductive success; and second, what makes an organism fit is the fact that it survives and successfully reproduces.* This is the long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological &#8212; it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."


Bethell is just fatuously arguing that *DEFINITION* are tautologies, and that in the case of evolution the use of *DEFINITION* for terms makes the whole theory an illegitimate tautology.

You and Bethell are BOTH retarded.

Seriously. Once you get past the fact that FITNESS is not the same thing as NATURAL SELECTION, what you and Bethell are actually expressing denial of, is the well established relationship between genotype and phenotype. You are expressing a denial that so many of the functional structures and processes exhibited by living things are determined solely by the genetics of that living thing--and those functional structures and processes have peceptable effect on that organism's survival, and that they are inheritable.

And the explanation you offer as an alternative to the reality you deny is literally ... *MAGIC*!



UltimateReality said:


> *Begging the question*, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning *assuming the initial point*), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself. If the premise is questionable, then the argument is bad.


I am aware of this ... I have been pointing out that you have no evidence for your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun that doesn't ultimatley rely upon first believing your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun is real in order to accept that the "evidence" submitted validates the existence of your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun.



UltimateReality said:


> So Loki, that brings me to my next question: Is it true (*or STRAWMAN*) that evolutionary theory teaches man came from a single cell ancestor. Let's see what Darwin himself said:
> 
> "[W]ould it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which the great First Cause endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end?"
> 
> "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."
> 
> So we are led to believe that a single cell, with natural selection acting on random variations through a large number of subsequent generations, produced a man? Are you saying this is a strawman?


Aside from the fact that the variations within a gene-pool are not random, no this is not a strawman.



UltimateReality said:


> *And if it isn't a strawman, we are told this process succeeded, because the organisms that weren't fit, didn't have reproductive success.*


This is consistent with the *DEFINITION* of fitness.

I just cannot wait for you to get to yout point.



UltimateReality said:


> Then we are given some bird examples and some moth examples that show a single trait change, i.e., length of beak in the case of the bird and color in the case of the month, and we're told these changes happened, because the other organisms that didn't have these changes didn't survive.


Strawman. You are not told that at all, except in the bullshit version of evolution you created for the sole purpose of claiming you have invalidated the actual theory of evolution.



UltimateReality said:


> However, the punch line to both stories is that the original trait that supposedly didn't contribute to reproductive success in the specific environment, reappeared when the rains came back or the pollution went away. We are given a *"just so" story* about the color of the moths contributing to their survival. *Can you please link me to a study where a scientific sample was taken and birds were actually observed eating more of one color moth?*


Why do I have to provide validation for your retarded notions?



UltimateReality said:


> Or did we simply notice more black moths and make up a neat story of why they survived, having never ruled out other causes for why black moths or white moths might flourish?


If by "we" you mean "you" and your "neat story" about your invisible superfriend, then yes.

If anything qualifies for a "just so" story about anything, it's your story about how your personal imaginary friend just magics everything to be just the way you believe it is.



UltimateReality said:


> And finally, we are asked to believe that based on these typically lame examples, that this "selection" of better equipped species, (or can I even say that anymore??) or more successful reproductive species, that this has produced the amazing complexity of life we see around us. We are supposed to believe that this process gave rise to the chemically complex process of blood clotting or for that matter, *human consciousness?*


No. No one but your strawman evolutionists bases their conclusions "on these typically lame examples."



UltimateReality said:


> What has the theory of evolution proven? *Absolutely NOTHING.*


So what? The theory of evolution (or any other scientific theory) is not a tool to "prove" anything.

Real scientists do not conform to the bullshit paradigm of superstitious retards who are desperately trying to *PROVE* that their imaginary superfriends are real.



UltimateReality said:


> It basically tells us that the surviving organisms survived because their ancestors were good at reproducing successfully. Where is is the explanation for more complex species arising from less complex species?


"Our simulations show that such mutational events, coupled with a selective pressure, leads to growth of pathways. These results indicate that pathways could be driven toward complexity via simple evolutionary mechanisms and that complexity can arise without any specific selective pressure for it. Furthermore, we find that the level of complexity that pathways evolve toward depends on the selection criteria. In general, we find that final pathway size tends to be lower when pathways evolve under stringent selection criteria. This leads to the counterintuitive conclusion that simple response requirements on a pathway would facilitate its evolution toward higher complexity." (Soyer and Bonhoeffer 2006).​


UltimateReality said:


> Or would you argue that an Ecoli is just as complex as a species that can make music and send one of its members to the moon?


No.



UltimateReality said:


> Based on this simplistic explanation for fitness, how do we arrive at the human eyeball?


The human eyball is not explained by fitness.



UltimateReality said:


> And why do we still have single cell organisms billions of years later?


Does the actual theory of evolution predict single cell organisms sould not exist now, or is it just your strawman version that predicts this?



UltimateReality said:


> Why were some with slight genetic changes able to reproduce successfully enough to produce a human over millions of generations, but others remained virtually unchanged for billions of years, also successfully reproducing like crazy.


I suppose the answer could be magic, but I'll stand by the notion that every microbe that ever lived did not exists under the exact same conditions, and did not magically experience the exact same mutations at exactly the same time ... or anything even close.



UltimateReality said:


> Is E coli more fit that a man or vice versa?


Yes to both.



UltimateReality said:


> Under your new, modern definition of fitness, the answer is a resounding NO!


Wrong. Under your personally engineered, strawman theory of evolution, the answer is a resounding NO!



UltimateReality said:


> So if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man?


Why do I have to explain or validate your strawman?



UltimateReality said:


> How did the soup become the soup nazi? Before you whine, STRAWMAN!! STRAWMAN! I am not falling for your semantics tricks.


Between us, I'm not engaging in semantic tricks.



UltimateReality said:


> I am not making the claim that man's ancestor is E coli.


But you would if you found it convenient. I'll bet that you will, just as soon as you find it convenient. You have no principled refutation for evolution ... you just grasp at any opportunity--even if it means contradicting yourself.



UltimateReality said:


> I am merely drawing an example for argumentative purposes, which in your ignorance you fail to grasp, or you resort to playing word games.


Nonsense.



UltimateReality said:


> No, evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards, but in principle, this is what it claims.


Nope. Not even in principle.



UltimateReality said:


> The TOE claims that Humans could have come from an "amoeba-LIKE" organism, or an amoeba like organism could be a distant ancestor. So I'm not falling for your black and white explanation denials, for the fact of the matter is, the TOE makes some preposterous generalized claims, but then says, but we really don't know the actual players.


Not at all surprising. I have pointed this out to you before, and I will point it out to you once again, without any fear that you will refuse to understand what is being explained to you.

Science _ideally_ seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing--and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanations of reality derived from that certainty. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.

Scientists--real scientists, practicing actual valid science--allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything they observe; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion. However, there is no ontological barrier that would prevent a real scientist--practicing actual valid science--from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything he observes if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

Christian Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of theirs, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusions. Christian Creationists have imposed upon themselves an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support their conclusions. Christian Creationists have sanctimoniously, without basis in any valid reasoning, for the purposes of promoting the illusion of their intellectual/spiritual/moral superiority, imposed upon themselves an ontological barrier preventing them from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything they observe; especially if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Loki posted up this stupid and asinine example:
> 
> "There is no principle of the actual theory of evolution that says, "if [a trait does] not offer some reproductive advantage, that trait would not survive."
> 
> Example: You have skin, I have skin, all humans have skin--having skin offers no reproductive advantage. This is because if we all have this "advantage" it CANNOT be considered an advantage (over other humans who all have skin); it fails to meet the definition of advantage. So, based upon this principle of the version of evolution (that you invented for the purpose of disproving actual evolution), skin--which does not offer reproductive advantage (for some humans over other humans)--should not be present. Yet it is!"
> 
> Before you speak for the theory of evolution, I think you should ponder your statement above.


The statement you are referreing to is not mine ... *IT IS YOURS*!



UltimateReality said:


> It is the negative of the positive statement, traits that offer reproductive advantage will be more common in subsequent generations of a species.


And the positive statement (which you clearly did not make) makes a great deal of sense.



UltimateReality said:


> However, evolution tells us at some point, the traits that dominate will result in a new species. Back your skin example up a few million generations and then we could make up a "just so" story that humans have skin, because the ones without skin didn't survive.


Just to be clear, YOU are making up this ""just so" story that humans have skin, because the ones without skin didn't survive."

This is all YOU.



UltimateReality said:


> Answer me the question, what if one of the humans above is born without skin??? Will he have the reproductive advantage?


I couldn't tell you ... it's your "just so" story. In your "just so" story the environmental conditions--for whatever reason you might invent--might be such that this skinless human does indeed enjoy some reproductive advantage.

Or maybe this skinless human's invisible superfriend intervenes, and by design causes him and all his future progeny to live and pass on their skinless legacy.

Like I said, I couldn't tell you about your "just so" story.



UltimateReality said:


> *We know all random mutations can do is give or take away right? *


Give or take away what?



UltimateReality said:


> Eventually the skinless humans were out bred by the humans with skin.


Ok. If you say so.



UltimateReality said:


> Skin had to offer an advantage or humans wouldn't have it (Tautological argument).


Not an argument, but rather just consistent with the definition of fitness.



UltimateReality said:


> But in your stupid example above, you have not made this clarification. In fact, your Neo-Darwinistic definition of Fitness no longer requires any of your just so stories. It just is because it is.


That's just how definitions are.



UltimateReality said:


> All your bogus example above does is prove how silly the TOE really is. It really can't tell us anything can it? According to your flawed logic above, it can provide any hypothesis for the complex life we see around us. Because this is what you just said:
> 
> Traits that *don't offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain unchanged in a species. Traits that *do offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain in a species. So your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go back to all the fossil evidence and dna evidence and tell us which ones are which.


All of this, is due to your confusion about the difference between what constitutes a definition of terms, and what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.

Until you get that all straightened out, your best strategy is to just STFU.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Loki (is that plural for little Lokee's?)
> 
> Let's look at your "link in lieu of cut and paste" from your atheist, canned-response website you somehow think proves your point:
> 
> *Claim CA500:*
> Natural selection, or "survival of the fittest," is tautologous (i.e., uses circular reasoning) because it says that the fittest individuals leave the most offspring, but it defines the fittest individuals as those that leave the most offspring.
> 
> UR: Whuh? This is what Loki quoted from Wiki:     Modern evolutionary theory *defines fitness* not by how long an organism lives, but *by how successful it is at reproducing*. If an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes will become more common in the adult population of the next generation.


This was a response to your strawman that alleged that fitness was about how long the organism survived.

I can't help it if Gish presents your bullshit better than you do.



UltimateReality said:


> This also from Wiki: However, this does not imply that natural selection is always directional and results in adaptive evolution; natural selection often results in the maintenance of the status quo by eliminating *less fit variants*. Now with Loki's definition from the same article: Natural Selection often results in maintenance of the status quo by eliminating animals that *don't reproduce offspring that make it to adulthood as successfully as others*???? WHuh? What does that even mean? Sounds tautological to me!!!


That's just the nature of definitions, you retard.



UltimateReality said:


> From Wiki: "Overall, the combined effect of all selection pressures at various levels determines the overall fitness of an individual, and hence the outcome of natural selection." Once again, let's fill in Loki's definition. *Overall, the combined effect of all selection pressures at various levels determines the overall ability of an organism to pass its genes to the next adult generation, and hence the outcome of natural selection.*    What the?


"What the?" indeed. Here, you confuse a discussion of the theory of natural selection (and the role fitness plays in it) with the definition of fitness itself.

Why do you insist upon doing that?




UltimateReality said:


> Response:
> 
> *"Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about evolution.* Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been, experimentally verified (Weiner 1994).
> 
> The phrase cannot be a tautology if it is not trivially true. Yet there have been theories proposing that the fittest individuals perish:
> Alpheus Hyatt proposed that lineages, like individuals, inevitably go through stages of youth, maturity, old age, and death. Towards the end of this cycle, the fittest individuals are more likely to perish than others (Hyatt 1866; Lefalophodon n.d.).
> The theory of orthogenesis says that certain trends, once started, kept progressing even though they become detrimental and lead to extinction. For example, it was held that Irish elks, which had enormous antlers, died out because the size increase became too much to support.
> The "fittest" individuals could be considered those that are ideally suited to a particular environment. Such ideal adaptation, however, comes at the cost of being more poorly adapted to other environments. If the environment changes, the fittest individuals from it will no longer be well adapted to any environment, and the less fit but more widely adapted organisms will survive. *[What the Freak does this even mean? I read, sometimes organisms better suited to the environment don't survive because their environment changes and then the ones that shouldn't be there because they aren't suite to the environment become suited to the new environment. WTfreak? Huh? Can't we come up with something better than this for the FACT of evolution????? UR]*


Of course. Can't you manage just a little bit better reading comprehension?



UltimateReality said:


> The fittest, to Darwin, were not those which survived, but* those which could be expected to survive on the basis of their traits*. For example, wild dogs selectively prey on impalas which are weaker according to bone marrow index (Pole et al. 2003). With that definition, survival of the fittest is not a tautology.* [Yeah but this is no longer what Neo-Dariwinism says. They gave up on "just so" stories of might be's and could be's and just settled on "natural selection keeps the traits of the species that are the best reproducers of adult offspring. But in light of this over simplified natural selection, how do we get from the point a to b it claims?] * Similarly, survival can be defined not in terms of the individual's life span, but in terms of leaving a relatively large contribution to the next generation. Defined thus, survival of the fittest becomes more or less what Darwin said, and is not a tautology. *[No it doesn't!!!]*


Sure it does.



UltimateReality said:


> Did everyone just read what I just read?


Yes. The difference is the sensible among us all understood it.



UltimateReality said:


> Didn't this guy just say it is not tautological because it is not tautological???


No.



UltimateReality said:


> HA! This comment you posted above, Einstein, says we really don't have a way of determining which animals are most fit other than the fact that they survive more.


Nonsense. Fitness is measurable.



UltimateReality said:


> There is no rhyme or reason to be applied to fitness because sometimes the biggest and strongest aren't the ones that survive.


You just refuse to accept the definition of fitness is not the same thing a natural selection.



UltimateReality said:


> Yet we are asked to believe this process without a point, evolution, is responsible for the complexity we see all around us.


Do you have a better one? Besides magic?



UltimateReality said:


> We aren't talking about horizontal adaptive change. We are talking about a human being coming from a single-celled ancestor. So what does this response above tell us about that process that supposedly occurred over billions of years? I will tell you what this response says. We don't know how it did it we just know it did it because it did it.


Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence.



UltimateReality said:


> We have been told all along that natural selection causes species to evolve by keeping traits that are an accidental "improvement" (random mutation) and that is how humans came from apes, who came from blank, who came from blank and so on and so forth. [I am assuming that one would consider the eyeball an improvement over light sensitive cells] So now we're told the theory really doesn't even have a way to determine what is an improvement and what isn't.


That is correct. It's not magic. Natural selection is not sentient. There is not predisposed "direction" or "plan" or "design."



UltimateReality said:


> All we can really say now is that we got here because our ancestors had traits which were good/bad, offered improvement/no improvement, that help them have more offspring than other animals that didn't have the traits which were good/bad, offered improvement/no


Your opinion of what is good or bad is entirely irrelevent to the point.

Which is the root of your issue with the theory of evolution.



UltimateReality said:


> And finally, the FACT of evolution totally breaks down with this little Wiki gem: Re: "survival of the fittest": "Although the phrase is still often used by non-biologists, *modern biologists avoid it because it is tautological if "fittest" is read to mean "functionally superior" and is applied to individuals rather than considered as an averaged quantity over populations.*


See? You are a non-biologist, and you insist upon asserting your tautological notions of "survival of the fittest" is the same thing as the notion of "natural selection used by actual biologists.



UltimateReality said:


> How can this be? Is this saying we have opposable thumbs, NOT because they are functionally superior, but because the dudes with opposable thumbs donated more genes to the next generation than their non-opposed thumb buddies?


This would be consistent with the definition of fitness. "Fitness" is not an explanation for why traits are selected for--fitness is a measurable observation *that* traits were selected for.



UltimateReality said:


> Are eyeballs not functionally superior to light sensitive cells?


In the dark? No. Where a "Creator" selects--by design--light-sensitive cells over eyes, functional superiority is ENTIRELY irrellevent.



UltimateReality said:


> Are we saying the animals with eyeballs didn't survive because their eyes were functionally superior to their light sensitive counterparts, but that the animals with eyeballs were more fit only because they contributed more genes to the next generation.


*YES!*



UltimateReality said:


> Man this evolution thing seems totally confused.


No. YOU are confused.



UltimateReality said:


> Under this model, an asexual animal that could run extremely fast while simultaneously managing a 45 second gestation period of 1,000 offspring in a single litter, would be the logical evolutionary outcome.


No.



UltimateReality said:


> If reproductive success is the only measure, humans, with their one or two offspring litter and 9 month gestation period would seem the illogical outcome of such a process.


Reproductive success is NOT the ONLY measure of evolutionary success.



UltimateReality said:


> Darwin said it. I believe it. That settles it!


Sorry pal, evolutionists are not afflicted by the same cult of personality that you "Hovindists" are.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As expected, the Christian creationists should not be expected to understand the process here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because as the lead investigator on several high profile cases, I never spent any time in court or before a judge. *What is your legal background?*
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The judge made a decision based on evidence presented before the court.
> 
> I suppose it would be best to explain these things to fundies in short sentences of gawd friendly monosyllables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know that Casey Luskin didn't base his information on evidence without having ever read the book? You are so foolish, *probably because you didn't go to college.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. The little Christian zealot is as frantic as usual, offering up nothing (as usual), but gargantuan fonts.
> 
> Im always suspicious of creationist authors who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. Thats why its actually comical when a zoologist and a fundie Christian attorney author a book regarding human origins. It should be a red flag when credentials assigned to fundie creationists have no real connection to the material they are authoring.
> 
> Neither Gauger or Luskin have any academic credentials to give them credibility for work in the field of human origins. Neither is an archeologist or biologist and neither have degrees that  coincide with the knowledge necessary to develop a thriving biological dissertation on life origins.
> 
> It's a shame that all of the above will be lost on the fundie zealot who understands nothing but what he is instructed by creationist ministries.
> 
> Out-of-the-madrassah and-into-the-classroom zealots are a danger to themselves and those around them. Most folks do not support Christian zealots controlling science education in this country  obviously the constitution disallows that.
> 
> Christian Taliban can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive efforts of fear and superstition to impose their personal failings upon others is antithetical to the human ideal of freedom of (from) religion..
Click to expand...


Second Ad Holliemen attack. I am always surprised when people on forums ignore questions about their qualifications to make such statements and a*re evasive about what their educational background is.  *


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Useless, repetitive nonsense deleted for brevity.



Loki, you can say fitness is not natural selection 100 times but it still won't fool anyone that your claim is anything but a strawman. Please go back through my 3 posts and find one instance where I made the claim fitness IS natural selection. Again, your reading comprehension is way off.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Science _ideally_ seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties.


 Lie #1. Numerous "scientist" regularly refer to the FACT of evolution, presuming it to be true in all cases, and scoff at those who would question its validity. 


LOki said:


> Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does.


 Lie #2. The majority of evolutionary biologists enter into "experiments" with the preconceived notion that evolution has to be true. This almost always influences the outcome. Data that does not support their conclusions is assumed to be wrong and many times thrown out. 


LOki said:


> The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith.


 Lie #3. Evolutionary scientists make multiple assumptions, which actually could be valid, stand-alone processes in the present, but do not occur naturally, and combine them, such as the 43 might haves and could haves previously quoted, into a presumed, specifically ordered sequence, with absolutely no evidence from the distant past to support their claim, and no observation in the present for even two of the processes occurring natrually in sequence and then entertain this fairy tale as a legitimate and distinct possibility for the outcome they are trying to support. This type of reasoning takes IMMENSE Faith.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki posted up this stupid and asinine example:
> 
> "There is no principle of the actual theory of evolution that says, "if [a trait does] not offer some reproductive advantage, that trait would not survive."
> 
> Example: You have skin, I have skin, all humans have skin--having skin offers no reproductive advantage. This is because if we all have this "advantage" it CANNOT be considered an advantage (over other humans who all have skin); it fails to meet the definition of advantage. So, based upon this principle of the version of evolution (that you invented for the purpose of disproving actual evolution), skin--which does not offer reproductive advantage (for some humans over other humans)--should not be present. Yet it is!"
> 
> Before you speak for the theory of evolution, I think you should ponder your statement above.
> 
> 
> 
> The statement you are referreing to is not mine ... *IT IS YOURS*!
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the negative of the positive statement, traits that offer reproductive advantage will be more common in subsequent generations of a species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the positive statement (which you clearly did not make) makes a great deal of sense.
> 
> Just to be clear, YOU are making up this ""just so" story that humans have skin, because the ones without skin didn't survive."
> 
> This is all YOU.
> 
> I couldn't tell you ... it's your "just so" story. In your "just so" story the environmental conditions--for whatever reason you might invent--might be such that this skinless human does indeed enjoy some reproductive advantage.
> 
> Or maybe this skinless human's invisible superfriend intervenes, and by design causes him and all his future progeny to live and pass on their skinless legacy.
> 
> Like I said, I couldn't tell you about your "just so" story.
> 
> Give or take away what?
> 
> Ok. If you say so.
> 
> Not an argument, but rather just consistent with the definition of fitness.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> But in your stupid example above, you have not made this clarification. In fact, your Neo-Darwinistic definition of Fitness no longer requires any of your just so stories. It just is because it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just how definitions are.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> All your bogus example above does is prove how silly the TOE really is. It really can't tell us anything can it? According to your flawed logic above, it can provide any hypothesis for the complex life we see around us. Because this is what you just said:
> 
> Traits that *don't offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain unchanged in a species. Traits that *do offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain in a species. So your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go back to all the fossil evidence and dna evidence and tell us which ones are which.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of this, is due to your confusion about the difference between what constitutes a definition of terms, and what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.
> 
> Until you get that all straightened out, your best strategy is to just STFU.
Click to expand...



Whatever, you have made this claim over and over but you can't seem to rebut it with an actual argument. This is so typical of all you posts. Without the ability to cut and paste, your as useless as Obama without a teleprompter.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence.



You have repeated this phrase numerous times throughout this thread. Sounds alot like a cut and paste from Immanuel Kant or some other philosopher although I can't quite put my finger on it. You should use quotes and links and avoid plagiarizing like Hollie.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Sorry pal, evolutionists are not afflicted by the same cult of personality that you "Hovindists" are.



Only in your dreams, pumpkin. Only in your dreams.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki posted up this stupid and asinine example:
> 
> "There is no principle of the actual theory of evolution that says, "if [a trait does] not offer some reproductive advantage, that trait would not survive."
> 
> Example: You have skin, I have skin, all humans have skin--having skin offers no reproductive advantage. This is because if we all have this "advantage" it CANNOT be considered an advantage (over other humans who all have skin); it fails to meet the definition of advantage. So, based upon this principle of the version of evolution (that you invented for the purpose of disproving actual evolution), skin--which does not offer reproductive advantage (for some humans over other humans)--should not be present. Yet it is!"
> 
> Before you speak for the theory of evolution, I think you should ponder your statement above.
> 
> 
> 
> The statement you are referreing to is not mine ... *IT IS YOURS*!
> 
> And the positive statement (which you clearly did not make) makes a great deal of sense.
> 
> Just to be clear, YOU are making up this ""just so" story that humans have skin, because the ones without skin didn't survive."
> 
> This is all YOU.
> 
> I couldn't tell you ... it's your "just so" story. In your "just so" story the environmental conditions--for whatever reason you might invent--might be such that this skinless human does indeed enjoy some reproductive advantage.
> 
> Or maybe this skinless human's invisible superfriend intervenes, and by design causes him and all his future progeny to live and pass on their skinless legacy.
> 
> Like I said, I couldn't tell you about your "just so" story.
> 
> Give or take away what?
> 
> Ok. If you say so.
> 
> Not an argument, but rather just consistent with the definition of fitness.
> 
> That's just how definitions are.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> All your bogus example above does is prove how silly the TOE really is. It really can't tell us anything can it? According to your flawed logic above, it can provide any hypothesis for the complex life we see around us. Because this is what you just said:
> 
> Traits that *don't offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain unchanged in a species. Traits that *do offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain in a species. So your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go back to all the fossil evidence and dna evidence and tell us which ones are which.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of this, is due to your confusion about the difference between what constitutes a definition of terms, and what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.
> 
> Until you get that all straightened out, your best strategy is to just STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever, you have made this claim over and over but you can't seem to rebut it with an actual argument. This is so typical of all you posts. Without the ability to cut and paste, your as useless as Obama without a teleprompter.
Click to expand...

Your surrender is accepted.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have repeated this phrase numerous times throughout this thread. Sounds alot like a cut and paste from Immanuel Kant or some other philosopher although I can't quite put my finger on it. You should use quotes and links and avoid plagiarizing like Hollie.
Click to expand...

I can't plagiarize myself.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki posted up this stupid and asinine example:
> 
> "There is no principle of the actual theory of evolution that says, "if [a trait does] not offer some reproductive advantage, that trait would not survive."
> 
> Example: You have skin, I have skin, all humans have skin--having skin offers no reproductive advantage. This is because if we all have this "advantage" it CANNOT be considered an advantage (over other humans who all have skin); it fails to meet the definition of advantage. So, based upon this principle of the version of evolution (that you invented for the purpose of disproving actual evolution), skin--which does not offer reproductive advantage (for some humans over other humans)--should not be present. Yet it is!"
> 
> Before you speak for the theory of evolution, I think you should ponder your statement above.
> 
> 
> 
> The statement you are referreing to is not mine ... *IT IS YOURS*!
> 
> And the positive statement (which you clearly did not make) makes a great deal of sense.
> 
> Just to be clear, YOU are making up this ""just so" story that humans have skin, because the ones without skin didn't survive."
> 
> This is all YOU.
> 
> I couldn't tell you ... it's your "just so" story. In your "just so" story the environmental conditions--for whatever reason you might invent--might be such that this skinless human does indeed enjoy some reproductive advantage.
> 
> Or maybe this skinless human's invisible superfriend intervenes, and by design causes him and all his future progeny to live and pass on their skinless legacy.
> 
> Like I said, I couldn't tell you about your "just so" story.
> 
> Give or take away what?
> 
> Ok. If you say so.
> 
> Not an argument, but rather just consistent with the definition of fitness.
> 
> That's just how definitions are.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> All your bogus example above does is prove how silly the TOE really is. It really can't tell us anything can it? According to your flawed logic above, it can provide any hypothesis for the complex life we see around us. Because this is what you just said:
> 
> Traits that *don't offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain unchanged in a species. Traits that *do offer* reproductive advantage can survive and remain in a species. So your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go back to all the fossil evidence and dna evidence and tell us which ones are which.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of this, is due to your confusion about the difference between what constitutes a definition of terms, and what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.
> 
> Until you get that all straightened out, your best strategy is to just STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever, you have made this claim over and over but you can't seem to rebut it with an actual argument. This is so typical of all you posts. Without the ability to cut and paste, your as useless as Obama without a teleprompter.
Click to expand...

Your retarded "argument" (that "fitness" is question-begging) has been thoroughly CRUSHED._"These species were fit because they survived."

"The fit species survived and passed along their genes and the non-fit species didn't."

"... circularly reasoned argument that the types of animals that survive and reproduce are the types of animals that survive and reproduce."

"Evolution claims that only fit species pass along their dna over time, and that is what we are supposed to be able to test to support the theory of evolution. Yet, instead of trying to test the theory to determine if fitness is really responsible for natural selection, you make the same circular argument above."

"... the current species we have are the most fit ones because if they weren't the most fit they wouldn't be here."

"Survival of the fittest has to be true because the organisms alive today must have been the fittests or they wouln't have survived. This is not falsifiable!!!"

" It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

"So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and must have contributed those genes. And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here. But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection? Have we proven this or is it still a theory? The very core of evolutionary theory rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness attempts its proof by assuming it is true."​_Go on say it one more time, and tell us you're not confused about the difference between what constitutes a definition of terms, and what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.


"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of UltimateReality."


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because as the lead investigator on several high profile cases, I never spent any time in court or before a judge. *What is your legal background?*
> 
> 
> And you know that Casey Luskin didn't base his information on evidence without having ever read the book? You are so foolish, *probably because you didn't go to college.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. The little Christian zealot is as frantic as usual, offering up nothing (as usual), but gargantuan fonts.
> 
> I&#8217;m always suspicious of creationist &#8220;authors&#8221; who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. That&#8217;s why it&#8217;s actually comical when a zoologist and a fundie Christian attorney &#8220;author&#8221; a book regarding human origins. It should be a red flag when credentials assigned to fundie creationists have no real connection to the material they are authoring.
> 
> Neither Gauger or Luskin have any academic credentials to give them credibility for work in the field of &#8220;human origins&#8221;. Neither is an archeologist or biologist and neither have degrees that  coincide with the knowledge necessary to develop a thriving biological dissertation on life origins.
> 
> It's a shame that all of the above will be lost on the fundie zealot who understands nothing but what he is instructed by creationist ministries.
> 
> Out-of-the-madrassah and-into-the-classroom zealots are a danger to themselves and those around them. Most folks do not support Christian zealots controlling science education in this country &#8211; obviously the constitution disallows that.
> 
> Christian Taliban can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive efforts of fear and superstition to impose their personal failings upon others is antithetical to the human ideal of freedom of (from) religion..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Second Ad Holliemen attack. I am always surprised when people on forums ignore questions about their qualifications to make such statements and a*re evasive about what their educational background is.  *
Click to expand...

I see this as a pattern of behavior with fundie zealots. Unwilling to address their requirement that constitutional protections be abandoned, they launch into frantic states of denial about what the law actually provides for.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. The little Christian zealot is as frantic as usual, offering up nothing (as usual), but gargantuan fonts.
> 
> Im always suspicious of creationist authors who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. Thats why its actually comical when a zoologist and a fundie Christian attorney author a book regarding human origins. It should be a red flag when credentials assigned to fundie creationists have no real connection to the material they are authoring.
> 
> Neither Gauger or Luskin have any academic credentials to give them credibility for work in the field of human origins. Neither is an archeologist or biologist and neither have degrees that  coincide with the knowledge necessary to develop a thriving biological dissertation on life origins.
> 
> It's a shame that all of the above will be lost on the fundie zealot who understands nothing but what he is instructed by creationist ministries.
> 
> Out-of-the-madrassah and-into-the-classroom zealots are a danger to themselves and those around them. Most folks do not support Christian zealots controlling science education in this country  obviously the constitution disallows that.
> 
> Christian Taliban can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive efforts of fear and superstition to impose their personal failings upon others is antithetical to the human ideal of freedom of (from) religion..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second Ad Holliemen attack. I am always surprised when people on forums ignore questions about their qualifications to make such statements and a*re evasive about what their educational background is.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see this as a pattern of behavior with fundie zealots. Unwilling to address their requirement that constitutional protections be abandoned, they launch into frantic states of denial about what the law actually provides for.
Click to expand...


Talk about a fundie zealot,and you don't even understand the theory you are a zealot for.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie Christian movement faces many hurdles. Among those issues is a lack of credibility. Following string after string of humiliating defeats in the courts for failing to introduce Christian theology into the school system, the movement has become more reactionary, less coherent and more delusional.
> 
> There has become a standard roll call of Christian fundamentalist preachers who are trotted out by the Christian creationist ministries. The vast majority of these fundamentalist Christians appear prominently in news and media where they only discredit the very christian fundamentalism they are preaching.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for luskin
> 
> #246: Casey Luskin
> 
> a.k.a. the Baghdad Bob of creationism
> 
> Casey Luskin is a lawyer (and not a scientist, although he seems to be a little confused about what such credentials do or don't mean) and one of the primary spokespeople for the Discovery Institute. Mr. Luskin obtained a Bachelor of Science and a Masters Degree in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, and has as a lawyer published &#8220;Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover&#8221;, and &#8220;Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools&#8221; (published in the Journal of Church and State). His work illustrates well the actual goal of the Discovery Institute &#8211;to get religion, in the form of intelligent design creationism, into public school curricula (not to do any actual scientific research).
> 
> Luskin is by far most notorious for his ability to distort scientific evidence to suggest conclusions completely opposite to what the evidence suggests (and curiously always to fit his preconceived notions of what it ought to show), such as here. An even better example of the distortions and quote mining (to put it mildly) he usually reverts to is perhaps this one (or this one). And if you are feeling particularly sadistic, you can watch Luskin getting completely eviscerated here.
> 
> The problem with Luskin and his ilk is that they're ignorant of a topic about which they believe they're experts (see The Dunning-Kruger Effect). Luskin appears to believe he&#8217;s an expert with absolute confidence and pride,but to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the fields in question his failings are miserably obvious (see also this). In fact, his misunderstandings of science &#8211;and his lack of awareness of his own lack of understanding &#8211;often reach epic proportions.
> 
> Luskin is also interestingly paranoid,going so far as to claim that published articles on evolution contain &#8220;veiled threats&#8221; against the creationists and that Nature, for instance, has launched a propaganda war on creationism. Of course, science itself is a threat to creationism; what Luskin fails to grasp is the fact that science is concerned with evidence, not argument and polemics. By failing to see the difference (and furthermore failing to distinguish criticism from personal attacks) he comes to equate scientific evidence against his dogmatic beliefs with personal attacks from the scientists who have discovered the evidence (for more on Luskin&#8217;s lack of understanding of how science works, see this).
> 
> A good assignment in an introductory critical thinking class is to identify some of the mistakes Luskin makes here (I have used it myself).
> 
> Diagnosis: Staggeringly cranky illustration of where Dunning-Kruger, confirmation bias and complete lack of understanding of science can lead you. He is very productive and vociferous, and must be considered rather dangerous to a rationality-based, modern civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #140: Ann Gauger
> 
> #140: Ann Gauger
> 
> Gauger has a PhD in zoology and is a signatory of Discovery Institute&#8217;s 2005 petition &#8220;Scientific Dissent from Darwinism&#8221;. She&#8217;s currently associated with the Discovery affiliated creationist think-tank the Biologic Institute whose goal is to perform real research on ID and which has yet to produce a single publication supporting ID creationism despite big budgets and numerous employed &#8220;scientists&#8221;.
> 
> A rather infamous incident occurred when Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium, 2007, in Boston, Massachusetts. She discussed &#8220;leaky growth&#8221; in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner, a real scientist, asked the obvious question: &#8220;So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?&#8221; at which point the moderator halted questioning - Gauger has earlier argued that any evolutionary change is non-adaptive.
> 
> Diagnosis: Surely intelligent, but caught up in a system of self-reassuring but misguided views on how reality hangs together. The Biologic Institute is supposed to provided creationism with a sheen of scientific legitimacy, and although its existence may carry some influence on general perception of creationism (then again, probably not), it has failed to fool scientists or scholars in general (apart from Robin Collins).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges are not scientists,the science they do have is very basic. They have been brainwashed for many years as most students.
> 
> I could care less what the courts think after all they support the law to murder babies. Our society are turning their backs on God and eventually will pay a price you might be seeing that as we speak.
> 
> So instead of thinking well the courts support our views why don't you give evidence that supports your view rather then conjecture as evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no evidence of brainwashing by the federal or state or government or the public school system.
> on the other hand your belief system relies on indoctrination, coercion, fear and willful ignorance to fill it's ranks .
> 
> these statements :They have been brainwashed for many years as most students.
> 
> ("I could care less what the courts think after all they support the law to murder babies. Our society are turning their backs on God and eventually will pay a price you might be seeing that as we speak".ywc) are from a rational pov clear evidence of brain washing  and a cult mentality..
> 
> my personal fav is the courts bullshit..
Click to expand...


It's not hard to tell the difference from the brainwashed from the ones that actually know the theory and believe it.

I would consider you and hollie as one of the brainwashed. You have taken your limited knowledge of the theory as the gospel because of what you were taught in grade school when you were young and what you have read online.

If you fully understood the real problems for the theory that both myself and UR has pointed out to you,you would be a little more open minded and less arrogant.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry loki but your skin example is bogus. Black folks skin is better for resisting the sun's rays, so not all skin is the same. Please try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All traits are a product of our DNA information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> non sequitur....
Click to expand...


It is right on target once again you show your ignorance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually the  nonsense you spew is more in line (or online) with Harun Yahya then anything hollie could dream up.
> especially the steaming pile on materialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your taking Harun Yahya's classes too? Astonishing you and Hollie would subscribe to the same online degree program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ur is again lying to avoid the fact that he and Harun Yahya spew the same shit..
Click to expand...


Can you refute creationism ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back home now and I can actually type normally to break down the argument Loki can't seem to grasp:
> 
> From Wiki: "The *central concept* of *natural selection* is the evolutionary fitness of an organism.[94] Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation.[94] However, fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring: *instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's genes.*[95] For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness.[94]"
> 
> From Wiki: "Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central idea in evolutionary theory. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce, and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by an average individual of the specified genotype or phenotype. If differences between alleles of a given gene affect fitness, then the frequencies of the alleles will change over generations; the alleles with higher fitness become more common. This process is called natural selection."
> 
> So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and must have contributed those genes.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are in denial of the relationship between genotype and phenotype, and that genetics is fundamentally about inheritable phenotypes, then I am faiuling to see your point in tracing and retracing the *DEFINITION* of fitness.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, *this organism must be the result of natural selection*, and its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman. No such presumption is made, except in the bullshit version of evolution you have created for the sole purpose of claiming you have invalidated the actual theory of evolution.
> 
> What you're bitching about half the time (when you find it convenient) is something like, "Evolution says "fitness" means "fitness," and that's a "question-begging" arguement. The thing is, "fitness" is not presented as an argument; it's not an "argument" at all.
> 
> You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding (or more likely a DELIBERATE misunderstanding) of the conditions under a tautolgy is illegitimate (question-begging). In formal logic (rather than rhetoric), tautologies are ALWAYS valid. *DEFINITIONS* are inherently tautological AND formally valid. They LITERALLY use different words to say the same thing. They HAVE TO!
> 
> A *THEORY* is something else entirely.
> 
> "FITNESS" is not the theory you say it is. While fitness is certainly "a central concept of natural selection," fitness IS NOT natural selection. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I mean, after all, the definition of "fitness" is fully applicable in the Creationist notions of design--organisms are "designed" to be fit--that is to say, the "Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun designed organisms to successfully reproduce and pass their genetic material to their progeny.
> 
> I told you before that you had to decide what you want, a *DEFINITION* or a *THEORY*. You have chosen BOTH so you can illegitimately and dishonestly switch your usage to meet the convenience of your argument. Just like every other member of your intellectually dishonest, superstitious tribe of retards.
> 
> Fitness is NOT A *THEORY*. Fitness is not the same thing as NATURAL SELECTION you equivocating douche-bag.
> 
> There is no question-begging involved, except in the STRAWMAN version of evolution you created where "fitness" is the EXACT SAME THING as "natural selection."
> 
> This is consistent with the *DEFINITION* of "fitness."
> 
> This also is consistent with the *DEFINITION* of "fitness."
> 
> You are wrong. So woefully wrong. So purposefully wrong.
> 
> Bethell is just fatuously arguing that *DEFINITION* are tautologies, and that in the case of evolution the use of *DEFINITION* for terms makes the whole theory an illegitimate tautology.
> 
> You and Bethell are BOTH retarded.
> 
> Seriously. Once you get past the fact that FITNESS is not the same thing as NATURAL SELECTION, what you and Bethell are actually expressing denial of, is the well established relationship between genotype and phenotype. You are expressing a denial that so many of the functional structures and processes exhibited by living things are determined solely by the genetics of that living thing--and those functional structures and processes have peceptable effect on that organism's survival, and that they are inheritable.
> 
> And the explanation you offer as an alternative to the reality you deny is literally ... *MAGIC*!
> 
> I am aware of this ... I have been pointing out that you have no evidence for your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun that doesn't ultimatley rely upon first believing your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun is real in order to accept that the "evidence" submitted validates the existence of your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun.
> 
> Aside from the fact that the variations within a gene-pool are not random, no this is not a strawman.
> 
> This is consistent with the *DEFINITION* of fitness.
> 
> I just cannot wait for you to get to yout point.
> 
> Strawman. You are not told that at all, except in the bullshit version of evolution you created for the sole purpose of claiming you have invalidated the actual theory of evolution.
> 
> Why do I have to provide validation for your retarded notions?
> 
> If by "we" you mean "you" and your "neat story" about your invisible superfriend, then yes.
> 
> If anything qualifies for a "just so" story about anything, it's your story about how your personal imaginary friend just magics everything to be just the way you believe it is.
> 
> No. No one but your strawman evolutionists bases their conclusions "on these typically lame examples."
> 
> So what? The theory of evolution (or any other scientific theory) is not a tool to "prove" anything.
> 
> Real scientists do not conform to the bullshit paradigm of superstitious retards who are desperately trying to *PROVE* that their imaginary superfriends are real.
> 
> "Our simulations show that such mutational events, coupled with a selective pressure, leads to growth of pathways. These results indicate that pathways could be driven toward complexity via simple evolutionary mechanisms and that complexity can arise without any specific selective pressure for it. Furthermore, we find that the level of complexity that pathways evolve toward depends on the selection criteria. In general, we find that final pathway size tends to be lower when pathways evolve under stringent selection criteria. This leads to the counterintuitive conclusion that simple response requirements on a pathway would facilitate its evolution toward higher complexity." (Soyer and Bonhoeffer 2006).​No.
> 
> The human eyball is not explained by fitness.
> 
> Does the actual theory of evolution predict single cell organisms sould not exist now, or is it just your strawman version that predicts this?
> 
> I suppose the answer could be magic, but I'll stand by the notion that every microbe that ever lived did not exists under the exact same conditions, and did not magically experience the exact same mutations at exactly the same time ... or anything even close.
> 
> Yes to both.
> 
> Wrong. Under your personally engineered, strawman theory of evolution, the answer is a resounding NO!
> 
> Why do I have to explain or validate your strawman?
> 
> Between us, I'm not engaging in semantic tricks.
> 
> But you would if you found it convenient. I'll bet that you will, just as soon as you find it convenient. You have no principled refutation for evolution ... you just grasp at any opportunity--even if it means contradicting yourself.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards, but in principle, this is what it claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Not even in principle.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The TOE claims that Humans could have come from an "amoeba-LIKE" organism, or an amoeba like organism could be a distant ancestor. So I'm not falling for your black and white explanation denials, for the fact of the matter is, the TOE makes some preposterous generalized claims, but then says, but we really don't know the actual players.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all surprising. I have pointed this out to you before, and I will point it out to you once again, without any fear that you will refuse to understand what is being explained to you.
> 
> Science _ideally_ seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing--and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanations of reality derived from that certainty. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.
> 
> Scientists--real scientists, practicing actual valid science--allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything they observe; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion. However, there is no ontological barrier that would prevent a real scientist--practicing actual valid science--from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything he observes if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
> 
> Christian Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of theirs, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusions. Christian Creationists have imposed upon themselves an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support their conclusions. Christian Creationists have sanctimoniously, without basis in any valid reasoning, for the purposes of promoting the illusion of their intellectual/spiritual/moral superiority, imposed upon themselves an ontological barrier preventing them from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything they observe; especially if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
> 
> Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.
Click to expand...


Loki how many times must I ask you this before it sinks in.

If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?

This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.

You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki (is that plural for little Lokee's?)
> 
> Let's look at your "link in lieu of cut and paste" from your atheist, canned-response website you somehow think proves your point:
> 
> *Claim CA500:*
> Natural selection, or "survival of the fittest," is tautologous (i.e., uses circular reasoning) because it says that the fittest individuals leave the most offspring, but it defines the fittest individuals as those that leave the most offspring.
> 
> UR: Whuh? This is what Loki quoted from Wiki:     Modern evolutionary theory *defines fitness* not by how long an organism lives, but *by how successful it is at reproducing*. If an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes will become more common in the adult population of the next generation.
> 
> 
> 
> This was a response to your strawman that alleged that fitness was about how long the organism survived.
> 
> I can't help it if Gish presents your bullshit better than you do.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This also from Wiki: However, this does not imply that natural selection is always directional and results in adaptive evolution; natural selection often results in the maintenance of the status quo by eliminating *less fit variants*. Now with Loki's definition from the same article: Natural Selection often results in maintenance of the status quo by eliminating animals that *don't reproduce offspring that make it to adulthood as successfully as others*???? WHuh? What does that even mean? Sounds tautological to me!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just the nature of definitions, you retard.
> 
> "What the?" indeed. Here, you confuse a discussion of the theory of natural selection (and the role fitness plays in it) with the definition of fitness itself.
> 
> Why do you insist upon doing that?
> 
> 
> Of course. Can't you manage just a little bit better reading comprehension?
> 
> Sure it does.
> 
> Yes. The difference is the sensible among us all understood it.
> 
> No.
> 
> Nonsense. Fitness is measurable.
> 
> You just refuse to accept the definition of fitness is not the same thing a natural selection.
> 
> Do you have a better one? Besides magic?
> 
> Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence.
> 
> That is correct. It's not magic. Natural selection is not sentient. There is not predisposed "direction" or "plan" or "design."
> 
> Your opinion of what is good or bad is entirely irrelevent to the point.
> 
> Which is the root of your issue with the theory of evolution.
> 
> See? You are a non-biologist, and you insist upon asserting your tautological notions of "survival of the fittest" is the same thing as the notion of "natural selection used by actual biologists.
> 
> This would be consistent with the definition of fitness. "Fitness" is not an explanation for why traits are selected for--fitness is a measurable observation *that* traits were selected for.
> 
> In the dark? No. Where a "Creator" selects--by design--light-sensitive cells over eyes, functional superiority is ENTIRELY irrellevent.
> 
> *YES!*
> 
> No. YOU are confused.
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If reproductive success is the only measure, humans, with their one or two offspring litter and 9 month gestation period would seem the illogical outcome of such a process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reproductive success is NOT the ONLY measure of evolutionary success.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin said it. I believe it. That settles it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry pal, evolutionists are not afflicted by the same cult of personality that you "Hovindists" are.
Click to expand...


See question above.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science _ideally_ seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties.
> 
> 
> 
> Lie #1. Numerous "scientist" regularly refer to the FACT of evolution, presuming it to be true in all cases, and scoff at those who would question its validity.
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie #2. The majority of evolutionary biologists enter into "experiments" with the preconceived notion that evolution has to be true. This almost always influences the outcome. Data that does not support their conclusions is assumed to be wrong and many times thrown out.
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie #3. Evolutionary scientists make multiple assumptions, which actually could be valid, stand-alone processes in the present, but do not occur naturally, and combine them, such as the 43 might haves and could haves previously quoted, into a presumed, specifically ordered sequence, with absolutely no evidence from the distant past to support their claim, and no observation in the present for even two of the processes occurring natrually in sequence and then entertain this fairy tale as a legitimate and distinct possibility for the outcome they are trying to support. This type of reasoning takes IMMENSE Faith.
Click to expand...


Yes,presuppositions do affect explanations it is funny they deny this fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statement you are referreing to is not mine ... *IT IS YOURS*!
> 
> And the positive statement (which you clearly did not make) makes a great deal of sense.
> 
> Just to be clear, YOU are making up this ""just so" story that humans have skin, because the ones without skin didn't survive."
> 
> This is all YOU.
> 
> I couldn't tell you ... it's your "just so" story. In your "just so" story the environmental conditions--for whatever reason you might invent--might be such that this skinless human does indeed enjoy some reproductive advantage.
> 
> Or maybe this skinless human's invisible superfriend intervenes, and by design causes him and all his future progeny to live and pass on their skinless legacy.
> 
> Like I said, I couldn't tell you about your "just so" story.
> 
> Give or take away what?
> 
> Ok. If you say so.
> 
> Not an argument, but rather just consistent with the definition of fitness.
> 
> That's just how definitions are.
> 
> All of this, is due to your confusion about the difference between what constitutes a definition of terms, and what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.
> 
> Until you get that all straightened out, your best strategy is to just STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever, you have made this claim over and over but you can't seem to rebut it with an actual argument. This is so typical of all you posts. Without the ability to cut and paste, your as useless as Obama without a teleprompter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your surrender is accepted.
Click to expand...


You hope we surrender but what are we surrendering to ?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have repeated this phrase numerous times throughout this thread. Sounds alot like a cut and paste from Immanuel Kant or some other philosopher although I can't quite put my finger on it. You should use quotes and links and avoid plagiarizing like Hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't plagiarize myself.
Click to expand...


Whatever, Hollie.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second Ad Holliemen attack. I am always surprised when people on forums ignore questions about their qualifications to make such statements and a*re evasive about what their educational background is.  *
> 
> 
> 
> I see this as a pattern of behavior with fundie zealots. Unwilling to address their requirement that constitutional protections be abandoned, they launch into frantic states of denial about what the law actually provides for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about a fundie zealot,and you don't even understand the theory you are a zealot for.
Click to expand...

You're not making sense. 

Science loathing Christian zealots frequently make the same nonsensical claims as yours such that the process of evolutionary science requires a "belief", and of course it does not. Christian zealots will choose not to separate the fact of evolutionary science being entirely divorced from literal bible tales and fables.

There is need or requirement to "believe in evolution". The science can withstand critical evaluation. The religious entities have every opportunity to perform the same tests and evaluations on fosill remains that scientists perform and publish their work in peer reviewed science publications. But of course, they don't. What fundies cannot address is that a 6000 year old earth would contain nothing of the ancient fosill record that exists. It's a matter of actually studying  the physical evidence and drawing reasonable conclusions.

That is something the fundies can't do.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back home now and I can actually type normally to break down the argument Loki can't seem to grasp:
> 
> From Wiki: "The *central concept* of *natural selection* is the evolutionary fitness of an organism.[94] Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation.[94] However, fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring: *instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's genes.*[95] For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness.[94]"
> 
> From Wiki: "Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central idea in evolutionary theory. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce, and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by an average individual of the specified genotype or phenotype. If differences between alleles of a given gene affect fitness, then the frequencies of the alleles will change over generations; the alleles with higher fitness become more common. This process is called natural selection."
> 
> So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and must have contributed those genes.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are in denial of the relationship between genotype and phenotype, and that genetics is fundamentally about inheritable phenotypes, then I am faiuling to see your point in tracing and retracing the *DEFINITION* of fitness.
> 
> Strawman. No such presumption is made, except in the bullshit version of evolution you have created for the sole purpose of claiming you have invalidated the actual theory of evolution.
> 
> What you're bitching about half the time (when you find it convenient) is something like, "Evolution says "fitness" means "fitness," and that's a "question-begging" arguement. The thing is, "fitness" is not presented as an argument; it's not an "argument" at all.
> 
> You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding (or more likely a DELIBERATE misunderstanding) of the conditions under a tautolgy is illegitimate (question-begging). In formal logic (rather than rhetoric), tautologies are ALWAYS valid. *DEFINITIONS* are inherently tautological AND formally valid. They LITERALLY use different words to say the same thing. They HAVE TO!
> 
> A *THEORY* is something else entirely.
> 
> "FITNESS" is not the theory you say it is. While fitness is certainly "a central concept of natural selection," fitness IS NOT natural selection. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I mean, after all, the definition of "fitness" is fully applicable in the Creationist notions of design--organisms are "designed" to be fit--that is to say, the "Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun designed organisms to successfully reproduce and pass their genetic material to their progeny.
> 
> I told you before that you had to decide what you want, a *DEFINITION* or a *THEORY*. You have chosen BOTH so you can illegitimately and dishonestly switch your usage to meet the convenience of your argument. Just like every other member of your intellectually dishonest, superstitious tribe of retards.
> 
> Fitness is NOT A *THEORY*. Fitness is not the same thing as NATURAL SELECTION you equivocating douche-bag.
> 
> There is no question-begging involved, except in the STRAWMAN version of evolution you created where "fitness" is the EXACT SAME THING as "natural selection."
> 
> This is consistent with the *DEFINITION* of "fitness."
> 
> This also is consistent with the *DEFINITION* of "fitness."
> 
> You are wrong. So woefully wrong. So purposefully wrong.
> 
> Bethell is just fatuously arguing that *DEFINITION* are tautologies, and that in the case of evolution the use of *DEFINITION* for terms makes the whole theory an illegitimate tautology.
> 
> You and Bethell are BOTH retarded.
> 
> Seriously. Once you get past the fact that FITNESS is not the same thing as NATURAL SELECTION, what you and Bethell are actually expressing denial of, is the well established relationship between genotype and phenotype. You are expressing a denial that so many of the functional structures and processes exhibited by living things are determined solely by the genetics of that living thing--and those functional structures and processes have peceptable effect on that organism's survival, and that they are inheritable.
> 
> And the explanation you offer as an alternative to the reality you deny is literally ... *MAGIC*!
> 
> I am aware of this ... I have been pointing out that you have no evidence for your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun that doesn't ultimatley rely upon first believing your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun is real in order to accept that the "evidence" submitted validates the existence of your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun.
> 
> Aside from the fact that the variations within a gene-pool are not random, no this is not a strawman.
> 
> This is consistent with the *DEFINITION* of fitness.
> 
> I just cannot wait for you to get to yout point.
> 
> Strawman. You are not told that at all, except in the bullshit version of evolution you created for the sole purpose of claiming you have invalidated the actual theory of evolution.
> 
> Why do I have to provide validation for your retarded notions?
> 
> If by "we" you mean "you" and your "neat story" about your invisible superfriend, then yes.
> 
> If anything qualifies for a "just so" story about anything, it's your story about how your personal imaginary friend just magics everything to be just the way you believe it is.
> 
> No. No one but your strawman evolutionists bases their conclusions "on these typically lame examples."
> 
> So what? The theory of evolution (or any other scientific theory) is not a tool to "prove" anything.
> 
> Real scientists do not conform to the bullshit paradigm of superstitious retards who are desperately trying to *PROVE* that their imaginary superfriends are real.
> 
> "Our simulations show that such mutational events, coupled with a selective pressure, leads to growth of pathways. These results indicate that pathways could be driven toward complexity via simple evolutionary mechanisms and that complexity can arise without any specific selective pressure for it. Furthermore, we find that the level of complexity that pathways evolve toward depends on the selection criteria. In general, we find that final pathway size tends to be lower when pathways evolve under stringent selection criteria. This leads to the counterintuitive conclusion that simple response requirements on a pathway would facilitate its evolution toward higher complexity." (Soyer and Bonhoeffer 2006).​No.
> 
> The human eyball is not explained by fitness.
> 
> Does the actual theory of evolution predict single cell organisms sould not exist now, or is it just your strawman version that predicts this?
> 
> I suppose the answer could be magic, but I'll stand by the notion that every microbe that ever lived did not exists under the exact same conditions, and did not magically experience the exact same mutations at exactly the same time ... or anything even close.
> 
> Yes to both.
> 
> Wrong. Under your personally engineered, strawman theory of evolution, the answer is a resounding NO!
> 
> Why do I have to explain or validate your strawman?
> 
> Between us, I'm not engaging in semantic tricks.
> 
> But you would if you found it convenient. I'll bet that you will, just as soon as you find it convenient. You have no principled refutation for evolution ... you just grasp at any opportunity--even if it means contradicting yourself.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Nope. Not even in principle.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The TOE claims that Humans could have come from an "amoeba-LIKE" organism, or an amoeba like organism could be a distant ancestor. So I'm not falling for your black and white explanation denials, for the fact of the matter is, the TOE makes some preposterous generalized claims, but then says, but we really don't know the actual players.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all surprising. I have pointed this out to you before, and I will point it out to you once again, without any fear that you will refuse to understand what is being explained to you.
> 
> Science _ideally_ seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing--and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanations of reality derived from that certainty. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.
> 
> Scientists--real scientists, practicing actual valid science--allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything they observe; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion. However, there is no ontological barrier that would prevent a real scientist--practicing actual valid science--from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything he observes if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
> 
> Christian Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of theirs, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusions. Christian Creationists have imposed upon themselves an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support their conclusions. Christian Creationists have sanctimoniously, without basis in any valid reasoning, for the purposes of promoting the illusion of their intellectual/spiritual/moral superiority, imposed upon themselves an ontological barrier preventing them from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything they observe; especially if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
> 
> Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki how many times must I ask you this before it sinks in.
> 
> If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?
> 
> This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
> 
> You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
Click to expand...


YWC, Loki already answered this. He says it is because they wound up in different environments. Really, all Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today. 

Furthermore, evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see this as a pattern of behavior with fundie zealots. Unwilling to address their requirement that constitutional protections be abandoned, they launch into frantic states of denial about what the law actually provides for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about a fundie zealot,and you don't even understand the theory you are a zealot for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not making sense.
> 
> Science loathing Christian zealots frequently make the same nonsensical claims as yours such that the process of evolutionary science requires a "belief", and of course it does not. Christian zealots will choose not to separate the fact of evolutionary science being entirely divorced from literal bible tales and fables.
> 
> There is need or requirement to "believe in evolution". The science can withstand critical evaluation. The religious entities have every opportunity to perform the same tests and evaluations on fosill remains that scientists perform and publish their work in peer reviewed science publications. But of course, they don't. What fundies cannot address is that a 6000 year old earth would contain nothing of the ancient fosill record that exists. It's a matter of actually studying  the physical evidence and drawing reasonable conclusions.
> 
> That is something the fundies can't do.
Click to expand...


I really wouldn't consider your online degree from Haran Yahya's website to be a solid formal education.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have repeated this phrase numerous times throughout this thread. Sounds alot like a cut and paste from Immanuel Kant or some other philosopher although I can't quite put my finger on it. You should use quotes and links and avoid plagiarizing like Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't plagiarize myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever, Hollie.
Click to expand...


Wrong poster, fundie.

I understand that absent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, your comments are best left to silly one-liners.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about a fundie zealot,and you don't even understand the theory you are a zealot for.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not making sense.
> 
> Science loathing Christian zealots frequently make the same nonsensical claims as yours such that the process of evolutionary science requires a "belief", and of course it does not. Christian zealots will choose not to separate the fact of evolutionary science being entirely divorced from literal bible tales and fables.
> 
> There is need or requirement to "believe in evolution". The science can withstand critical evaluation. The religious entities have every opportunity to perform the same tests and evaluations on fosill remains that scientists perform and publish their work in peer reviewed science publications. But of course, they don't. What fundies cannot address is that a 6000 year old earth would contain nothing of the ancient fosill record that exists. It's a matter of actually studying  the physical evidence and drawing reasonable conclusions.
> 
> That is something the fundies can't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really wouldn't consider your online degree from Haran Yahya's website to be a solid formal education.
Click to expand...


Gargantuan fonts, fundie. 

I'll require you to continue your nonsensical habit of spamming with gargantuan fonts.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statement you are referreing to is not mine ... *IT IS YOURS*!
> 
> And the positive statement (which you clearly did not make) makes a great deal of sense.
> 
> Just to be clear, YOU are making up this ""just so" story that humans have skin, because the ones without skin didn't survive."
> 
> This is all YOU.
> 
> I couldn't tell you ... it's your "just so" story. In your "just so" story the environmental conditions--for whatever reason you might invent--might be such that this skinless human does indeed enjoy some reproductive advantage.
> 
> Or maybe this skinless human's invisible superfriend intervenes, and by design causes him and all his future progeny to live and pass on their skinless legacy.
> 
> Like I said, I couldn't tell you about your "just so" story.
> 
> Give or take away what?
> 
> Ok. If you say so.
> 
> Not an argument, but rather just consistent with the definition of fitness.
> 
> That's just how definitions are.
> 
> All of this, is due to your confusion about the difference between what constitutes a definition of terms, and what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.
> 
> Until you get that all straightened out, your best strategy is to just STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever, you have made this claim over and over but you can't seem to rebut it with an actual argument. This is so typical of all you posts. Without the ability to cut and paste, your as useless as Obama without a teleprompter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your retarded "argument" (that "fitness" is question-begging) has been thoroughly CRUSHED._"These species were fit because they survived."
> 
> "The fit species survived and passed along their genes and the non-fit species didn't."
> 
> "... circularly reasoned argument that the types of animals that survive and reproduce are the types of animals that survive and reproduce."
> 
> "Evolution claims that only fit species pass along their dna over time, and that is what we are supposed to be able to test to support the theory of evolution. Yet, instead of trying to test the theory to determine if fitness is really responsible for natural selection, you make the same circular argument above."
> 
> "... the current species we have are the most fit ones because if they weren't the most fit they wouldn't be here."
> 
> "Survival of the fittest has to be true because the organisms alive today must have been the fittests or they wouln't have survived. This is not falsifiable!!!"
> 
> " It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."
> 
> "So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and must have contributed those genes. And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here. But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection? Have we proven this or is it still a theory? The very core of evolutionary theory rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness attempts its proof by assuming it is true."​_Go on say it one more time, and tell us you're not confused about the difference between what constitutes a definition of terms, and what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.
> 
> 
> "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of UltimateReality."
Click to expand...


Oh you poor dear, Loki. You can't follow a paragraph long enough to make the leap that the only theory we are talking about is evolution, not the "theory" of fitness. You keep strawmanning what I am saying and it is simply because you can't follow a logical thought for more than two sentences. I guess if I have to write on a third grade level for you to understand, I will. Here, does this help you in your limited understanding of what is being said, pumpkin? Can we finally put your silly false accusation to bed with this clarification?

"So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and MUST HAVE contributed those genes. And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and _*according to the theory of evolution*_ its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here. But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection?* And isn't natural selection a central concept of the TOE?* Have we proven *the TOE *or *am I mis-informd that the TOE *is it still a theory? The very core of *evolutionary theory* rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness, *by including the assumption the TOE is true within its definition*, attempts its proof *of the TOE* by assuming *the TOE is* true." And that my friends, is known as begging the question.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not making sense.
> 
> Science loathing Christian zealots frequently make the same nonsensical claims as yours such that the process of evolutionary science requires a "belief", and of course it does not. Christian zealots will choose not to separate the fact of evolutionary science being entirely divorced from literal bible tales and fables.
> 
> There is need or requirement to "believe in evolution". The science can withstand critical evaluation. The religious entities have every opportunity to perform the same tests and evaluations on fosill remains that scientists perform and publish their work in peer reviewed science publications. But of course, they don't. What fundies cannot address is that a 6000 year old earth would contain nothing of the ancient fosill record that exists. It's a matter of actually studying  the physical evidence and drawing reasonable conclusions.
> 
> That is something the fundies can't do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really wouldn't consider your online degree from Haran Yahya's website to be a solid formal education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gargantuan fonts, fundie.
> 
> I'll require you to continue your nonsensical habit of spamming with gargantuan fonts.
Click to expand...


I will require you to continue posting up nonsensical verbiage that has nothing to do with the topics at hand and continue to *evade questions about your educational background* all the while Hypocritically questioning everyone else's and pretending your *online degree from Haran Yahya is legitimate.*

Are you happy now, cheeseslice?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really wouldn't consider your online degree from Haran Yahya's website to be a solid formal education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gargantuan fonts, fundie.
> 
> I'll require you to continue your nonsensical habit of spamming with gargantuan fonts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will require you to continue posting up nonsensical verbiage that has nothing to do with the topics at hand and continue to *evade questions about your educational background* all the while Hypocritically questioning everyone else's and pretending your *online degree from Haran Yahya is legitimate.*
> 
> Are you happy now, cheeseslice?
Click to expand...

On the contrary, it is you who has been spamming this thread with your silly gargantuan fonts.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, *why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct *?
> 
> This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
> 
> You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?


Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gargantuan fonts, fundie.
> 
> I'll require you to continue your nonsensical habit of spamming with gargantuan fonts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will require you to continue posting up nonsensical verbiage that has nothing to do with the topics at hand and continue to *evade questions about your educational background* all the while Hypocritically questioning everyone else's and pretending your *online degree from Haran Yahya is legitimate.*
> 
> Are you happy now, cheeseslice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary, it is you who has been spamming this thread with your silly gargantuan fonts.
Click to expand...


Oh you poor dear. You're the troll here, continually spamming the same phrases over and over. The large font just keeps reminding everyone that I have REQUIRED you to do one of two options: NEVER make any comments about any poster's educational background, OR *provide details of your educational background. *

It is *YOU* who CHOOSE to continue the large fonts with your failure to comply.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, *why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct *?
> 
> This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
> 
> You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
> 
> 
> 
> Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.
Click to expand...


So who is this mythical common ancestor? Bigfoot? Do we have fossil evidence for our common Hominid father? And if so, who was his ancestor? A lizard? A bird? A fish? A flying squirrel?

What does modern dna evidence tell us about Darwin's "Tree"  of life?


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, *why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct *?
> 
> This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
> 
> You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
> 
> 
> 
> Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who is this mythical common ancestor? Bigfoot? Do we have fossil evidence for our common Hominid father? And if so, who was his ancestor? A lizard? A bird? A fish? A flying squirrel?
> 
> What does modern dna evidence tell us about Darwin's "Tree"  of life?
Click to expand...

I didn't know him personally, but I hear his name was Bob. 

C'mon, spit it out. What are you trying to say. C'mon, you can do it.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will require you to continue posting up nonsensical verbiage that has nothing to do with the topics at hand and continue to *evade questions about your educational background* all the while Hypocritically questioning everyone else's and pretending your *online degree from Haran Yahya is legitimate.*
> 
> Are you happy now, cheeseslice?
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, it is you who has been spamming this thread with your silly gargantuan fonts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. You're the troll here, continually spamming the same phrases over and over. The large font just keeps reminding everyone that I have REQUIRED you to do one of two options: NEVER make any comments about any poster's educational background, OR *provide details of your educational background. *
> 
> It is *YOU* who CHOOSE to continue the large fonts with your failure to comply.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Your propensity for being a creepy stalker is not your fault.


----------



## Hollie

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who is this mythical common ancestor? Bigfoot? Do we have fossil evidence for our common Hominid father? And if so, who was his ancestor? A lizard? A bird? A fish? A flying squirrel?
> 
> What does modern dna evidence tell us about Darwin's "Tree"  of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't know him personally, but I hear his name was Bob.
> 
> C'mon, spit it out. What are you trying to say. C'mon, you can do it.
Click to expand...

Both of the Christian Taliban are having a difficult time understanding evolutionary theory.


----------



## Hollie

The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution

The link above may be helpful for the fundies who have limited knowledge of the science that supports evolutionary theory and fact.

One of the issues facing fundies is that they don't understand that since Darwin proposed his theory, many different fields of science have been responsible for supporting evolution. Fundies have a view that science is as static as Christian dogma. In fact, the science supporting evolution has progressed far beyond what Darwin could have imagined and far beyond the hateful dogma and ignorance inspired by fundie apologetics.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, *why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct *?
> 
> This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
> 
> You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
> 
> 
> 
> Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.
Click to expand...


If that is truly what you believe then why do they continue to point to chimp and human DNA similarity as evidence ?

Oh and you can answer UR's question as well.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who is this mythical common ancestor? Bigfoot? Do we have fossil evidence for our common Hominid father? And if so, who was his ancestor? A lizard? A bird? A fish? A flying squirrel?
> 
> What does modern dna evidence tell us about Darwin's "Tree"  of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't know him personally, but I hear his name was Bob.
> 
> C'mon, spit it out. What are you trying to say. C'mon, you can do it.
Click to expand...


You spit it out what did humans evolve from ? you were saying ?

How Humans Became Masters of the Earth | Human Ancestors & Climate Change | LiveScience


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judges are not scientists,the science they do have is very basic. They have been brainwashed for many years as most students.
> 
> I could care less what the courts think after all they support the law to murder babies. Our society are turning their backs on God and eventually will pay a price you might be seeing that as we speak.
> 
> So instead of thinking well the courts support our views why don't you give evidence that supports your view rather then conjecture as evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> you have no evidence of brainwashing by the federal or state or government or the public school system.
> on the other hand your belief system relies on indoctrination, coercion, fear and willful ignorance to fill it's ranks .
> 
> these statements :They have been brainwashed for many years as most students.
> 
> ("I could care less what the courts think after all they support the law to murder babies. Our society are turning their backs on God and eventually will pay a price you might be seeing that as we speak".ywc) are from a rational pov clear evidence of brain washing  and a cult mentality..
> 
> my personal fav is the courts bullshit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not hard to tell the difference from the brainwashed from the ones that actually know the theory and believe it.
> 
> I would consider you and hollie as one of the brainwashed. You have taken your limited knowledge of the theory as the gospel because of what you were taught in grade school when you were young and what you have read online.
> 
> If you fully understood the real problems for the theory that both myself and UR has pointed out to you,you would be a little more open minded and less arrogant.
Click to expand...

what you consider is meaningless and erroneous ,in other words you don't have a fucking clue..
1. it's obvious from your posts that you have been indoctrinated into believing that faith is proof ,when in reality faith (especially in invisible sky gods ) is a piss poor substitute for evidence. it's an ironic farce that the most brainwashed and lowest IQ poster on this thread (you) would do the most damage to his faith by intentionally misusing it.

2. this steaming pile:" I  would consider you and hollie as one of the brainwashed. You have taken your limited knowledge of the theory as the gospel because of what you were taught in grade school when you were young and what you have read online."-YWC

IS A complete fabrication.
did you take any science classes in high school?
if you did then you would know the TOE is taught in it's entirety in 10th grade.
also shit stick I spent 8 years in college for 3 of those years biology is necessary to gain a degree (any degree) the TOE is biology..
so when you say "your limited knowledge" you're as always talking out your ass.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> All traits are a product of our DNA information.
> 
> 
> 
> non sequitur....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is right on target once again you show your ignorance.
Click to expand...

actually it you who's ignorance shines  through....if you understood what a non sequitur is you never would have answered that way!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your taking Harun Yahya's classes too? Astonishing you and Hollie would subscribe to the same online degree program.
> 
> 
> 
> Ur is again lying to avoid the fact that he and Harun Yahya spew the same shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you refute creationism ?
Click to expand...

all ready have! btw your answer is another non sequitur!


----------



## daws101

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, *why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct *?
> 
> This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
> 
> You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
> 
> 
> 
> Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.
Click to expand...

facts like that have never impressed YWC or UR, They're more fantasy oriented ,like the Noah or Ezekiel myths.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, *why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct *?
> 
> This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
> 
> You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
> 
> 
> 
> Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is truly what you believe then why do they continue to point to chimp and human DNA similarity as evidence ?
> 
> Oh and you can answer UR's question as well.
Click to expand...

could it be because they're 98% the same.
again wyc's reading problem rears it's ugly head ...
apes are not our ancestors because they're NOT DEAD....They are however or closest living relatives....you have no evidence to prove otherwise .
if you say you do you're lying ...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, *why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct *?
> 
> This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
> 
> You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
> 
> 
> 
> Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is truly what you believe then why do they continue to point to chimp and human DNA similarity as evidence ?
> 
> Oh and you can a
> nswer UR's question as well.
Click to expand...

This has been addressed many times before but you still don't understand. Humans and primates shared a common ancestor but split onto different evolutionary paths. It is therefore not surprising that we would share similarities in DNA structure. 

Your primary objection to the above is a literal Adam and Eve and a 6000 year old earth. Virtually all of the relevant science community will refute such a scenario as implausible or simply ridiculous. As science has demonstrated overwhelming evidence of an ancient earth, universe and immense distances across the solar system, you're on the wrong side of reality. 

Embrace the fact of science or the nonsense of creationist tales and fables.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is truly what you believe then why do they continue to point to chimp and human DNA similarity as evidence ?
> 
> Oh and you can answer UR's question as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> could it be because they're 98% the same.
> again wyc's reading problem rears it's ugly head ...
> apes are not our ancestors because they're NOT DEAD....They are however or closest living relatives....you have no evidence to prove otherwise .
> if you say you do you're lying ...
Click to expand...

If his mouth is moving or his fingers are typing, he's lying.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is truly what you believe then why do they continue to point to chimp and human DNA similarity as evidence ?
> 
> Oh and you can answer UR's question as well.
> 
> 
> 
> could it be because they're 98% the same.
> again wyc's reading problem rears it's ugly head ...
> apes are not our ancestors because they're NOT DEAD....They are however or closest living relatives....you have no evidence to prove otherwise .
> if you say you do you're lying ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If his mouth is moving or his fingers are typing, he's lying.
Click to expand...

 yeah ..but he's lying for god ....


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Loki how many times must I ask you this before it sinks in.
> 
> If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?


And I answer again that there is nothing about this that is in any way inconsistent with the actual theory of evolution.

There are numerous reasons why other descendants of the group we evolved from are still here, and the better adapted transitional groups that lead to human beings have gone extinct.

The most obvious of these is that these transitional species that lead to human beings were themselves in direct competition for survival resources with humans, rather than the common ancestor species.



Youwerecreated said:


> This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.


Well, you just got one of several. What's your point now?



Youwerecreated said:


> You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?


Your denial of reality does not actually make your alternative--*MAGIC!*--any more compelling.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science _ideally_ seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties.
> 
> 
> 
> Lie #1. Numerous "scientist" regularly refer to the FACT of evolution, presuming it to be true in all cases, and scoff at those who would question its validity.
Click to expand...

Evolution is a FACT.

There is no way to deny that the frequency of organisms of traits found in populations can change over time such that later generations are markedly different than their forebears. There is so much evidence confirming this FACT of reality, that only the more dereistic of thinkers could possibly be in denial of this.

You may object on your irrational and superstitious grounds that such differences can by any means what-so-ever lead to speciation, but evolution is not in question among rational human beings.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does.
> 
> 
> 
> Lie #2. The majority of evolutionary biologists enter into "experiments" with the preconceived notion that evolution has to be true. This almost always influences the outcome. Data that does not support their conclusions is assumed to be wrong and many times thrown out.
Click to expand...

"Creation science" is not science.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Lie #3. Evolutionary scientists make multiple assumptions, which actually could be valid, stand-alone processes in the present, but do not occur naturally, and combine them, such as the 43 might haves and could haves previously quoted, into a presumed, specifically ordered sequence, with absolutely no evidence from the distant past to support their claim, and no observation in the present for even two of the processes occurring natrually in sequence and then entertain this fairy tale as a legitimate and distinct possibility for the outcome they are trying to support. This type of reasoning takes IMMENSE Faith.
Click to expand...

Your "43 might haves and could haves" complain is ENTIRELY bullshit in light of the OBVIOUS fact of reality that "... scientists never really claim ... absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties." There are NO UNCERTAINTIES in faith ... otherwise you asshats would not have an ontological dispute with natural selection.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are in denial of the relationship between genotype and phenotype, and that genetics is fundamentally about inheritable phenotypes, then I am faiuling to see your point in tracing and retracing the *DEFINITION* of fitness.
> 
> Strawman. No such presumption is made, except in the bullshit version of evolution you have created for the sole purpose of claiming you have invalidated the actual theory of evolution.
> 
> What you're bitching about half the time (when you find it convenient) is something like, "Evolution says "fitness" means "fitness," and that's a "question-begging" arguement. The thing is, "fitness" is not presented as an argument; it's not an "argument" at all.
> 
> You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding (or more likely a DELIBERATE misunderstanding) of the conditions under a tautolgy is illegitimate (question-begging). In formal logic (rather than rhetoric), tautologies are ALWAYS valid. *DEFINITIONS* are inherently tautological AND formally valid. They LITERALLY use different words to say the same thing. They HAVE TO!
> 
> A *THEORY* is something else entirely.
> 
> "FITNESS" is not the theory you say it is. While fitness is certainly "a central concept of natural selection," fitness IS NOT natural selection. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I mean, after all, the definition of "fitness" is fully applicable in the Creationist notions of design--organisms are "designed" to be fit--that is to say, the "Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun designed organisms to successfully reproduce and pass their genetic material to their progeny.
> 
> I told you before that you had to decide what you want, a *DEFINITION* or a *THEORY*. You have chosen BOTH so you can illegitimately and dishonestly switch your usage to meet the convenience of your argument. Just like every other member of your intellectually dishonest, superstitious tribe of retards.
> 
> Fitness is NOT A *THEORY*. Fitness is not the same thing as NATURAL SELECTION you equivocating douche-bag.
> 
> There is no question-begging involved, except in the STRAWMAN version of evolution you created where "fitness" is the EXACT SAME THING as "natural selection."
> 
> This is consistent with the *DEFINITION* of "fitness."
> 
> This also is consistent with the *DEFINITION* of "fitness."
> 
> You are wrong. So woefully wrong. So purposefully wrong.
> 
> Bethell is just fatuously arguing that *DEFINITION* are tautologies, and that in the case of evolution the use of *DEFINITION* for terms makes the whole theory an illegitimate tautology.
> 
> You and Bethell are BOTH retarded.
> 
> Seriously. Once you get past the fact that FITNESS is not the same thing as NATURAL SELECTION, what you and Bethell are actually expressing denial of, is the well established relationship between genotype and phenotype. You are expressing a denial that so many of the functional structures and processes exhibited by living things are determined solely by the genetics of that living thing--and those functional structures and processes have peceptable effect on that organism's survival, and that they are inheritable.
> 
> And the explanation you offer as an alternative to the reality you deny is literally ... *MAGIC*!
> 
> I am aware of this ... I have been pointing out that you have no evidence for your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun that doesn't ultimatley rely upon first believing your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun is real in order to accept that the "evidence" submitted validates the existence of your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun.
> 
> Aside from the fact that the variations within a gene-pool are not random, no this is not a strawman.
> 
> This is consistent with the *DEFINITION* of fitness.
> 
> I just cannot wait for you to get to yout point.
> 
> Strawman. You are not told that at all, except in the bullshit version of evolution you created for the sole purpose of claiming you have invalidated the actual theory of evolution.
> 
> Why do I have to provide validation for your retarded notions?
> 
> If by "we" you mean "you" and your "neat story" about your invisible superfriend, then yes.
> 
> If anything qualifies for a "just so" story about anything, it's your story about how your personal imaginary friend just magics everything to be just the way you believe it is.
> 
> No. No one but your strawman evolutionists bases their conclusions "on these typically lame examples."
> 
> So what? The theory of evolution (or any other scientific theory) is not a tool to "prove" anything.
> 
> Real scientists do not conform to the bullshit paradigm of superstitious retards who are desperately trying to *PROVE* that their imaginary superfriends are real.
> 
> "Our simulations show that such mutational events, coupled with a selective pressure, leads to growth of pathways. These results indicate that pathways could be driven toward complexity via simple evolutionary mechanisms and that complexity can arise without any specific selective pressure for it. Furthermore, we find that the level of complexity that pathways evolve toward depends on the selection criteria. In general, we find that final pathway size tends to be lower when pathways evolve under stringent selection criteria. This leads to the counterintuitive conclusion that simple response requirements on a pathway would facilitate its evolution toward higher complexity." (Soyer and Bonhoeffer 2006).​No.
> 
> The human eyball is not explained by fitness.
> 
> Does the actual theory of evolution predict single cell organisms sould not exist now, or is it just your strawman version that predicts this?
> 
> I suppose the answer could be magic, but I'll stand by the notion that every microbe that ever lived did not exists under the exact same conditions, and did not magically experience the exact same mutations at exactly the same time ... or anything even close.
> 
> Yes to both.
> 
> Wrong. Under your personally engineered, strawman theory of evolution, the answer is a resounding NO!
> 
> Why do I have to explain or validate your strawman?
> 
> Between us, I'm not engaging in semantic tricks.
> 
> But you would if you found it convenient. I'll bet that you will, just as soon as you find it convenient. You have no principled refutation for evolution ... you just grasp at any opportunity--even if it means contradicting yourself.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Nope. Not even in principle.
> 
> Not at all surprising. I have pointed this out to you before, and I will point it out to you once again, without any fear that you will refuse to understand what is being explained to you.
> 
> Science _ideally_ seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing--and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanations of reality derived from that certainty. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.
> 
> Scientists--real scientists, practicing actual valid science--allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything they observe; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion. However, there is no ontological barrier that would prevent a real scientist--practicing actual valid science--from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything he observes if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
> 
> Christian Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of theirs, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusions. Christian Creationists have imposed upon themselves an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support their conclusions. Christian Creationists have sanctimoniously, without basis in any valid reasoning, for the purposes of promoting the illusion of their intellectual/spiritual/moral superiority, imposed upon themselves an ontological barrier preventing them from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything they observe; especially if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
> 
> Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki how many times must I ask you this before it sinks in.
> 
> If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?
> 
> This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
> 
> You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YWC, Loki already answered this. He says it is because they wound up in different environments. Really, all Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today.
Click to expand...

Correction:"Really, all UR's strawman version of Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today. "​Fixed.



UltimateReality said:


> Furthermore, UR's strawman version of evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same.


Correction:"Furthermore, UR's strawman version of evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur UR's strawman version of natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to UR's strawman version of Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same."​Fixed.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science _ideally_ seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties.
> 
> 
> 
> Lie #1. Numerous "scientist" regularly refer to the FACT of evolution, presuming it to be true in all cases, and scoff at those who would question its validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is a FACT.
> 
> There is no way to deny that the frequency of organisms of traits found in populations can change over time such that later generations are markedly different than their forebears. There is so much evidence confirming this FACT of reality, that only the more dereistic of thinkers could possibly be in denial of this.
> 
> You may object on your irrational and superstitious grounds that such differences can by any means what-so-ever lead to speciation, but evolution is not in question among rational human beings.
> 
> "Creation science" is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie #3. Evolutionary scientists make multiple assumptions, which actually could be valid, stand-alone processes in the present, but do not occur naturally, and combine them, such as the 43 might haves and could haves previously quoted, into a presumed, specifically ordered sequence, with absolutely no evidence from the distant past to support their claim, and no observation in the present for even two of the processes occurring natrually in sequence and then entertain this fairy tale as a legitimate and distinct possibility for the outcome they are trying to support. This type of reasoning takes IMMENSE Faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "43 might haves and could haves" complain is ENTIRELY bullshit in light of the OBVIOUS fact of reality that "... scientists never really claim ... absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties." There are NO UNCERTAINTIES in faith ... otherwise you asshats would not have an ontological dispute with natural selection.
Click to expand...


- Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. (source)

- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)

- Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)

- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)

- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).

- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)


The number of genes across a few tested species can be compared on HomoloGene.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever, you have made this claim over and over but you can't seem to rebut it with an actual argument. This is so typical of all you posts. Without the ability to cut and paste, your as useless as Obama without a teleprompter.
> 
> 
> 
> Your retarded "argument" (that "fitness" is question-begging) has been thoroughly CRUSHED._"These species were fit because they survived."
> 
> "The fit species survived and passed along their genes and the non-fit species didn't."
> 
> "... circularly reasoned argument that the types of animals that survive and reproduce are the types of animals that survive and reproduce."
> 
> "Evolution claims that only fit species pass along their dna over time, and that is what we are supposed to be able to test to support the theory of evolution. Yet, instead of trying to test the theory to determine if fitness is really responsible for natural selection, you make the same circular argument above."
> 
> "... the current species we have are the most fit ones because if they weren't the most fit they wouldn't be here."
> 
> "Survival of the fittest has to be true because the organisms alive today must have been the fittests or they wouln't have survived. This is not falsifiable!!!"
> 
> " It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."
> 
> "So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and must have contributed those genes. And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here. But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection? Have we proven this or is it still a theory? The very core of evolutionary theory rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness attempts its proof by assuming it is true."​_Go on say it one more time, and tell us you're not confused about the difference between what constitutes a definition of terms, and what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.
> 
> 
> "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of UltimateReality."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear, Loki. You can't follow a paragraph long enough to make the leap that the only theory we are talking about is evolution, not the "theory" of fitness. You keep strawmanning what I am saying and it is simply because you can't follow a logical thought for more than two sentences. I guess if I have to write on a third grade level for you to understand, I will. Here, does this help you in your limited understanding of what is being said, pumpkin? Can we finally put your silly false accusation to bed with this clarification?
> 
> "So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and MUST HAVE contributed those genes. And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and _*according to the theory of evolution*_ its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here. But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection?* And isn't natural selection a central concept of the TOE?* Have we proven *the TOE *or *am I mis-informd that the TOE *is it still a theory? The very core of *evolutionary theory* rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness, *by including the assumption the TOE is true within its definition*, attempts its proof *of the TOE* by assuming *the TOE is* true." And that my friends, is known as begging the question.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are not getting *DEFINITION* confused with *THEORY* again. Perhaps you are not still hung up on the reality that *DEFINITIONS* are formal tautologies, hence valid. Even if so, you're wrong.

Perhaps you mean the "Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection."

You're still wrong. Recognizing the fact that the real and measurable quality of *FITNESS* is central to Natural Selection, with the fact that Natural Selection is central to the Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection, does not--of itself--make a question-begging argument.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Lonestar_logic said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lie #1. Numerous "scientist" regularly refer to the FACT of evolution, presuming it to be true in all cases, and scoff at those who would question its validity.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a FACT.
> 
> There is no way to deny that the frequency of organisms of traits found in populations can change over time such that later generations are markedly different than their forebears. There is so much evidence confirming this FACT of reality, that only the more dereistic of thinkers could possibly be in denial of this.
> 
> You may object on your irrational and superstitious grounds that such differences can by any means what-so-ever lead to speciation, but evolution is not in question among rational human beings.
> 
> "Creation science" is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lie #3. Evolutionary scientists make multiple assumptions, which actually could be valid, stand-alone processes in the present, but do not occur naturally, and combine them, such as the 43 might haves and could haves previously quoted, into a presumed, specifically ordered sequence, with absolutely no evidence from the distant past to support their claim, and no observation in the present for even two of the processes occurring natrually in sequence and then entertain this fairy tale as a legitimate and distinct possibility for the outcome they are trying to support. This type of reasoning takes IMMENSE Faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "43 might haves and could haves" complain is ENTIRELY bullshit in light of the OBVIOUS fact of reality that "... scientists never really claim ... absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties." There are NO UNCERTAINTIES in faith ... otherwise you asshats would not have an ontological dispute with natural selection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> - Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)
> 
> - Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. (source)
> 
> - Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)
> 
> - Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)
> 
> - 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)
> 
> - The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).
> 
> - About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)
> 
> 
> The number of genes across a few tested species can be compared on HomoloGene.
Click to expand...


Hmm, I tried telling them how foolish it is to try and use DNA similarity as an argument. I have told them DNA similarity proves nothing. It just shows how the designer was able to use the same substance and produce the diversity seen.

DNA similarity but vastly different genetic information. This will go ignored as usual.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who is this mythical common ancestor? Bigfoot? Do we have fossil evidence for our common Hominid father? And if so, who was his ancestor? A lizard? A bird? A fish? A flying squirrel?
> 
> What does modern dna evidence tell us about Darwin's "Tree"  of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't know him personally, but I hear his name was Bob.
> 
> C'mon, spit it out. What are you trying to say. C'mon, you can do it.
Click to expand...


Spit out what? I have posed several questions to you. Care to take a stab at them? 

Is there fossil evidence for the common ancestor of man, gorillas, and chimpanzees? 

If so, what life form precedes this common ancestor? 

What does modern dna evidence tell us about this common ancestor of apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, and man?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki how many times must I ask you this before it sinks in.
> 
> If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?
> 
> 
> 
> And I answer again that there is nothing about this that is in any way inconsistent with the actual theory of evolution.
> 
> There are numerous reasons why other descendants of the group we evolved from are still here, and the better adapted transitional groups that lead to human beings have gone extinct.
> 
> The most obvious of these is that these transitional species that lead to human beings were themselves in direct competition for survival resources with humans, rather than the common ancestor species.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you just got one of several. What's your point now?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your denial of reality does not actually make your alternative--*MAGIC!*--any more compelling.
Click to expand...


Ahh, the false dilemma fallacy. Why can't you just defend evolution on the basis of its merits? Instead, you have presented the false dilemma fallacy numerous times in this thread. You infer by fallacious reasoning that there are only two choices-either believe in evolution or believe in magic. This is not the case at all. We can reject the materialistic driven TOE as the psuedoscience that it is, and begin to explore MANY other better scientific explanations that don't have anything to do with Creationism.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science _ideally_ seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties.
> 
> 
> 
> Lie #1. Numerous "scientist" regularly refer to the FACT of evolution, presuming it to be true in all cases, and scoff at those who would question its validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is a FACT.
> 
> There is no way to deny that the frequency of organisms of traits found in populations can change over time such that later generations are markedly different than their forebears. There is so much evidence confirming this FACT of reality, that only the more dereistic of thinkers could possibly be in denial of this.
> 
> You may object on your irrational and superstitious grounds that such differences can by any means what-so-ever lead to speciation, but evolution is not in question among rational human beings.
> 
> "Creation science" is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie #3. Evolutionary scientists make multiple assumptions, which actually could be valid, stand-alone processes in the present, but do not occur naturally, and combine them, such as the 43 might haves and could haves previously quoted, into a presumed, specifically ordered sequence, with absolutely no evidence from the distant past to support their claim, and no observation in the present for even two of the processes occurring natrually in sequence and then entertain this fairy tale as a legitimate and distinct possibility for the outcome they are trying to support. This type of reasoning takes IMMENSE Faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "43 might haves and could haves" complain is ENTIRELY bullshit in light of the OBVIOUS fact of reality that "... *scientists never really claim ... absolute certainty*--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties." There are NO UNCERTAINTIES in faith ... otherwise you asshats would not have an ontological dispute with natural selection.
Click to expand...


Wow, am I in the twilight zone right now? Cause I could swear you just claimed absolute certainty for the "fact" of evolution above. And no, there is not definitive proof that natural selection acting on random mutations can result in speciation. And while beneficial mutations may have been shown in viruses, they have never been documented in complex organisms like mice or humans.

It is a fact that God exists. There is so much evidence confirming this FACT of reality, that only the more dereistic of thinkers could possibly be in denial of this.

You may object on your irrational and materialistic grounds that such a Being can not exist, but the existence of God is not in question among rational human beings.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki how many times must I ask you this before it sinks in.
> 
> If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?
> 
> This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.
> 
> You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, Loki already answered this. He says it is because they wound up in different environments. Really, all Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correction:"Really, all UR's strawman version of Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today. "​Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, UR's strawman version of evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correction:"Furthermore, UR's strawman version of evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur UR's strawman version of natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to UR's strawman version of Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same."​Fixed.
Click to expand...


Here lets clarify for the third grader among us. The specific reference above is referring to genetic "evidence" that neanderthal and homo sapien diverge approximately 600,000 years ago. However, there just isn't enough time for the changes required to differentiate N for HS according to Darwin's theory to occur in that relatively short time. So if Loki was the legend in his own mind that he likes to try and convince everyone else of, he would be aware of this facts and he would have know that this was inferred from my statement above. Let's refer back to my un-Loki-polluted statement:

"Furthermore, evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur *[in the time periods claimed]*, it needs to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years."

And Loki's typical response??? Just yell Strawman and maybe no one will notice what an incompetent moron you are. Please Loki, explain this strawman...

"Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor *about 660,000 years ago.*[95][96][97] However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with anatomically modern humans circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (at the approximate time that modern humans migrated out from Africa, but before they dispersed into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).[98] Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA,[98] and this finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that the divergence of some human alleles dates to one Ma, although the interpretation of these studies has been questioned."

"Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a *population bottleneck *resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[112][113][114] *Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances.* These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes."

*Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.*[231] In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or *small populations*. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population and the organisms undergoing speciation and *rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats *and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.

Allopatric speciation suggests that *species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume* and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. *Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow.* In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your retarded "argument" (that "fitness" is question-begging) has been thoroughly CRUSHED._"These species were fit because they survived."
> 
> "The fit species survived and passed along their genes and the non-fit species didn't."
> 
> "... circularly reasoned argument that the types of animals that survive and reproduce are the types of animals that survive and reproduce."
> 
> "Evolution claims that only fit species pass along their dna over time, and that is what we are supposed to be able to test to support the theory of evolution. Yet, instead of trying to test the theory to determine if fitness is really responsible for natural selection, you make the same circular argument above."
> 
> "... the current species we have are the most fit ones because if they weren't the most fit they wouldn't be here."
> 
> "Survival of the fittest has to be true because the organisms alive today must have been the fittests or they wouln't have survived. This is not falsifiable!!!"
> 
> " It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."
> 
> "So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and must have contributed those genes. And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here. But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection? Have we proven this or is it still a theory? The very core of evolutionary theory rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness attempts its proof by assuming it is true."​_Go on say it one more time, and tell us you're not confused about the difference between what constitutes a definition of terms, and what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.
> 
> 
> "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of UltimateReality."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear, Loki. You can't follow a paragraph long enough to make the leap that the only theory we are talking about is evolution, not the "theory" of fitness. You keep strawmanning what I am saying and it is simply because you can't follow a logical thought for more than two sentences. I guess if I have to write on a third grade level for you to understand, I will. Here, does this help you in your limited understanding of what is being said, pumpkin? Can we finally put your silly false accusation to bed with this clarification?
> 
> "So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and MUST HAVE contributed those genes. And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and _*according to the theory of evolution*_ its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here. But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection?* And isn't natural selection a central concept of the TOE?* Have we proven *the TOE *or *am I mis-informd that the TOE *is it still a theory? The very core of *evolutionary theory* rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness, *by including the assumption the TOE is true within its definition*, attempts its proof *of the TOE* by assuming *the TOE is* true." And that my friends, is known as begging the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you are not getting *DEFINITION* confused with *THEORY* again. Perhaps you are not still hung up on the reality that *DEFINITIONS* are formal tautologies, hence valid. Even if so, you're wrong.
> 
> Perhaps you mean the "Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection."
> 
> You're still wrong. Recognizing the fact that the real and measurable quality of *FITNESS* is central to Natural Selection, with the fact that Natural Selection is central to the Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection, does not--of itself--make a question-begging argument.
Click to expand...


I think you are just plain confused, cheesecake. You just built a strawman. Look, it's a strawman. Does anyone see the strawman??? Strawman, strawman, strawman! Marcia, Marcia, Marcia. Look!! There goes a strawman!!! Look ma, no strawman! Strawman got your tongue? Strawman's going to get you. Hollie to Loki: You're the Strawman of my dreams. Loki to Hollie: Your Straw-manhands are kind of Rugged.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear, Loki. You can't follow a paragraph long enough to make the leap that the only theory we are talking about is evolution, not the "theory" of fitness. You keep strawmanning what I am saying and it is simply because you can't follow a logical thought for more than two sentences. I guess if I have to write on a third grade level for you to understand, I will. Here, does this help you in your limited understanding of what is being said, pumpkin? Can we finally put your silly false accusation to bed with this clarification?
> 
> "So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and MUST HAVE contributed those genes. And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and _*according to the theory of evolution*_ its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here. But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection?* And isn't natural selection a central concept of the TOE?* Have we proven *the TOE *or *am I mis-informd that the TOE *is it still a theory? The very core of *evolutionary theory* rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness, *by including the assumption the TOE is true within its definition*, attempts its proof *of the TOE* by assuming *the TOE is* true." And that my friends, is known as begging the question.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are not getting *DEFINITION* confused with *THEORY* again. Perhaps you are not still hung up on the reality that *DEFINITIONS* are formal tautologies, hence valid. Even if so, you're wrong.
> 
> Perhaps you mean the "Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection."
> 
> You're still wrong. Recognizing the fact that the real and measurable quality of *FITNESS* is central to Natural Selection, with the fact that Natural Selection is central to the Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection, does not--of itself--make a question-begging argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are just plain confused, cheesecake. You just built a strawman. Look, it's a strawman. Does anyone see the strawman??? Strawman, strawman, strawman! Marcia, Marcia, Marcia. Look!! There goes a strawman!!! Look ma, no strawman! Strawman got your tongue? Strawman's going to get you. Hollie to Loki: You're the Strawman of my dreams. Loki to Hollie: Your Straw-manhands are kind of Rugged.
Click to expand...

What's the matter Pumpkin? Having difficulty with accepting that your fraud has been exposed? Is it just not fair that valid logic applied to verifiable evidence offers no support for your belief in magic; that it always supports evolution?

Face it Cupcake, the only hope you have to appear that you have refuted the Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection, is to make up your own nonsense to refute and hope nobody notices it's your own made-up nonsense.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, Loki already answered this. He says it is because they wound up in different environments. Really, all Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today.
> 
> 
> 
> Correction:"Really, all UR's strawman version of Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today. "​Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, UR's strawman version of evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correction:"Furthermore, UR's strawman version of evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur UR's strawman version of natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to UR's strawman version of Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same."​Fixed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here lets clarify for the third grader among us. The specific reference above is referring to genetic "evidence" that neanderthal and homo sapien diverge approximately 600,000 years ago. However, there just isn't enough time for the changes required to differentiate N for HS according to Darwin's theory to occur in that relatively short time. So if Loki was the legend in his own mind that he likes to try and convince everyone else of, he would be aware of this facts and he would have know that this was inferred from my statement above. Let's refer back to my un-Loki-polluted statement:
> 
> "Furthermore, evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur *[in the time periods claimed]*, it needs to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years."
> 
> And Loki's typical response??? Just yell Strawman and maybe no one will notice what an incompetent moron you are. Please Loki, explain this strawman...
> 
> "Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor *about 660,000 years ago.*[95][96][97] However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with anatomically modern humans circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (at the approximate time that modern humans migrated out from Africa, but before they dispersed into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).[98] Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA,[98] and this finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that the divergence of some human alleles dates to one Ma, although the interpretation of these studies has been questioned."
> 
> "Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a *population bottleneck *resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[112][113][114] *Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances.* These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes."
> 
> *Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.*[231] In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or *small populations*. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population and the organisms undergoing speciation and *rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats *and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.
> 
> Allopatric speciation suggests that *species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume* and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. *Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow.* In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance.
> 
> Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


How strange that the science hating, evolution denying fundie has spent a considerable amount of time cutting and pasting material from wiki which does not refute evolution.

I couldn't help but also notice that the rabid cut and paster is generous when he self-describes  "my earlier comment" which was a cut and paste from wiki.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction:"Really, all UR's strawman version of Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today. "​Fixed.
> 
> Correction:"Furthermore, UR's strawman version of evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur UR's strawman version of natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to UR's strawman version of Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same."​Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here lets clarify for the third grader among us. The specific reference above is referring to genetic "evidence" that neanderthal and homo sapien diverge approximately 600,000 years ago. However, there just isn't enough time for the changes required to differentiate N for HS according to Darwin's theory to occur in that relatively short time. So if Loki was the legend in his own mind that he likes to try and convince everyone else of, he would be aware of this facts and he would have know that this was inferred from my statement above. Let's refer back to my un-Loki-polluted statement:
> 
> "Furthermore, evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur *[in the time periods claimed]*, it needs to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years."
> 
> And Loki's typical response??? Just yell Strawman and maybe no one will notice what an incompetent moron you are. Please Loki, explain this strawman...
> 
> "Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor *about 660,000 years ago.*[95][96][97] However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with anatomically modern humans circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (at the approximate time that modern humans migrated out from Africa, but before they dispersed into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).[98] Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA,[98] and this finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that the divergence of some human alleles dates to one Ma, although the interpretation of these studies has been questioned."
> 
> "Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a *population bottleneck *resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[112][113][114] *Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances.* These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes."
> 
> *Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.*[231] In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or *small populations*. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population and the organisms undergoing speciation and *rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats *and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.
> 
> Allopatric speciation suggests that *species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume* and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. *Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow.* In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance.
> 
> Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How strange that the science hating, evolution denying fundie has spent a considerable amount of time cutting and pasting material from wiki which does not refute evolution.
> 
> I couldn't help but also notice that the rabid cut and paster is generous when he self-describes  "my earlier comment" which was a cut and paste from wiki.
Click to expand...


There is nothing to refute your theory is built on conjecture. What little evidence your partners have put on display have been refuted. The theory refutes itself with their mechanisms that evolutionist claim to be the engine of evolution.

Did you not see loki's silly answer given after I asked why all supposed transitional species are extinct ?

How did their traits get passed on if they were going extinct ? Where did the genetic information go for even earlier transitional species ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here lets clarify for the third grader among us. The specific reference above is referring to genetic "evidence" that neanderthal and homo sapien diverge approximately 600,000 years ago. However, there just isn't enough time for the changes required to differentiate N for HS according to Darwin's theory to occur in that relatively short time. So if Loki was the legend in his own mind that he likes to try and convince everyone else of, he would be aware of this facts and he would have know that this was inferred from my statement above. Let's refer back to my un-Loki-polluted statement:
> 
> "Furthermore, evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur *[in the time periods claimed]*, it needs to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years."
> 
> And Loki's typical response??? Just yell Strawman and maybe no one will notice what an incompetent moron you are. Please Loki, explain this strawman...
> 
> "Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor *about 660,000 years ago.*[95][96][97] However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with anatomically modern humans circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (at the approximate time that modern humans migrated out from Africa, but before they dispersed into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).[98] Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA,[98] and this finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that the divergence of some human alleles dates to one Ma, although the interpretation of these studies has been questioned."
> 
> "Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a *population bottleneck *resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[112][113][114] *Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances.* These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes."
> 
> *Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.*[231] In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or *small populations*. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population and the organisms undergoing speciation and *rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats *and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.
> 
> Allopatric speciation suggests that *species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume* and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. *Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow.* In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance.
> 
> Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that the science hating, evolution denying fundie has spent a considerable amount of time cutting and pasting material from wiki which does not refute evolution.
> 
> I couldn't help but also notice that the rabid cut and paster is generous when he self-describes  "my earlier comment" which was a cut and paste from wiki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing to refute your theory is built on conjecture. What little evidence your partners have put on display have been refuted. The theory refutes itself with their mechanisms that evolutionist claim to be the engine of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's stereotypical for religious zealots to blind themselves to science. You are free to believe that science is one, enormous conspiracy theory. Those who deny evolution, that certain "grandeur in this view of life" as Darwin characterized it, should be granted a special exemption from the process predicated upon their self-evident inability to adapt and thrive. If you are incapable of recognizing the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it is obviously a function of religious zealotry and the ignorance that malady breeds, so you're excused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not see loki's silly answer given after I asked why all supposed transitional species are extinct ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you be so foolish to believe all transitional species are extinct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did their traits get passed on if they were going extinct ? Where did the genetic information go for even earlier transitional species ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid your lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of biology and science makes you appear to be quite the pathetic buffoon.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are not getting *DEFINITION* confused with *THEORY* again. Perhaps you are not still hung up on the reality that *DEFINITIONS* are formal tautologies, hence valid. Even if so, you're wrong.
> 
> Perhaps you mean the "Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection."
> 
> You're still wrong. Recognizing the fact that the real and measurable quality of *FITNESS* is central to Natural Selection, with the fact that Natural Selection is central to the Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection, does not--of itself--make a question-begging argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are just plain confused, cheesecake. You just built a strawman. Look, it's a strawman. Does anyone see the strawman??? Strawman, strawman, strawman! Marcia, Marcia, Marcia. Look!! There goes a strawman!!! Look ma, no strawman! Strawman got your tongue? Strawman's going to get you. Hollie to Loki: You're the Strawman of my dreams. Loki to Hollie: Your Straw-manhands are kind of Rugged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's the matter Pumpkin? Having difficulty with accepting that your fraud has been exposed? Is it just not fair that valid logic applied to verifiable evidence offers no support for your belief in magic; that it always supports evolution?
> 
> Face it Cupcake, the only hope you have to appear that you have refuted the Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection, is to make up your own nonsense to refute and hope nobody notices it's your own made-up nonsense.
Click to expand...


Would that made up nonsense include all the Wiki quotes above which prove your strawman accusations to be TOTALLY BOGUS??? Funny how you don't respond to the posts where you get totally OWNED.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that the science hating, evolution denying fundie has spent a considerable amount of time cutting and pasting material from wiki which does not refute evolution.
> 
> I couldn't help but also notice that the rabid cut and paster is generous when he self-describes  "my earlier comment" which was a cut and paste from wiki.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stereotypical for religious zealots to blind themselves to science. You are free to believe that science is one, enormous conspiracy theory. Those who deny evolution, that certain "grandeur in this view of life" as Darwin characterized it, should be granted a special exemption from the process predicated upon their self-evident inability to adapt and thrive. If you are incapable of recognizing the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it is obviously a function of religious zealotry and the ignorance that malady breeds, so you're excused.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you be so foolish to believe all transitional species are extinct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did their traits get passed on if they were going extinct ? Where did the genetic information go for even earlier transitional species ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid your lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of biology and science makes you appear to be quite the pathetic buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, you really just revealed your total and utter ignorance, or the fact that you never read any of the posts before re-posting your same tired, repetitive nonsense. Doesn't your online degree from Haran Yahya address this?
> 
> What you failed to grasp in your limited understanding, is that my Wiki cut and pastes were not to support MY argument, but to prove that Loki's constant strawman accusations have no basis in reality. Everything I have claimed the TOE claims is right there in black and white for anyone to see.
> 
> *Where else did you go to school besides online?*
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear CBirch2 and YouWereCreated:



cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> Meh. It baffles me.



YWC mentioned not knowing what animals were on the ark 5000 years ago.

Are you both or neither open to the idea of interpreting the 6000 year timeline
in the Bible as stages, where each period (referred to as 1000 years, but that just means a very long time spanning multiple generations) represents a Day to God,
so that the world is created in Stages?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lie #1. Numerous "scientist" regularly refer to the FACT of evolution, presuming it to be true in all cases, and scoff at those who would question its validity.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a FACT.
> 
> There is no way to deny that the frequency of organisms of traits found in populations can change over time such that later generations are markedly different than their forebears. There is so much evidence confirming this FACT of reality, that only the more dereistic of thinkers could possibly be in denial of this.
> 
> You may object on your irrational and superstitious grounds that such differences can by any means what-so-ever lead to speciation, but evolution is not in question among rational human beings.
> 
> "Creation science" is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lie #3. Evolutionary scientists make multiple assumptions, which actually could be valid, stand-alone processes in the present, but do not occur naturally, and combine them, such as the 43 might haves and could haves previously quoted, into a presumed, specifically ordered sequence, with absolutely no evidence from the distant past to support their claim, and no observation in the present for even two of the processes occurring natrually in sequence and then entertain this fairy tale as a legitimate and distinct possibility for the outcome they are trying to support. This type of reasoning takes IMMENSE Faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "43 might haves and could haves" complain is ENTIRELY bullshit in light of the OBVIOUS fact of reality that "... *scientists never really claim ... absolute certainty*--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties." There are NO UNCERTAINTIES in faith ... otherwise you asshats would not have an ontological dispute with natural selection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, am I in the twilight zone right now? Cause I could swear you just claimed absolute certainty for the "fact" of evolution above. And no, there is not definitive proof that natural selection acting on random mutations can result in speciation. And while beneficial mutations may have been shown in viruses, they have never been documented in complex organisms like mice or humans.
> 
> It is a fact that God exists. There is so much evidence confirming this FACT of reality, that only the more dereistic of thinkers could possibly be in denial of this.
> 
> You may object on your irrational and materialistic grounds that such a Being can not exist, but the existence of God is not in question among rational human beings.
Click to expand...


Evolution is fact. It is also a theory. That you deny the fact of evolution means you also deny artificial selection, something which I assume you accept, so you are contradicting yourself without knowing it, such as what we see with dogs evolving from the grey wolf. That is an example of evolution. That this was by artificial selection is not important: it is change in species over time. That is the definition of evolution. Do you deny artificial selection? Do you deny that a poodle came from a wolf many years ago? How is this ANY DIFFERENT from humans descending from a common ancestor with apes many years ago? It is not. It is you're theological holdings which disallow this thought to enter your head as a serious contender for reality.

 Natural selection accomplishes the same thing as artificial selection: selecting for traits which are better suited for survival in any given environment. It is non-random. How you sustain your misunderstanding of evolution given what you know about it, is really miraculous to me. Please explain to me how you can deny the process of natural selection. Please, and how is it different from artificial selection, in terms of its effects?

Yes, UL, you can take everybody's post and substitute words in to make it appear arbitrary, good for you. That's not hard to do. You have zero evidence for god, and have not dispelled evolution.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's stereotypical for religious zealots to blind themselves to science. You are free to believe that science is one, enormous conspiracy theory. Those who deny evolution, that certain "grandeur in this view of life" as Darwin characterized it, should be granted a special exemption from the process predicated upon their self-evident inability to adapt and thrive. If you are incapable of recognizing the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it is obviously a function of religious zealotry and the ignorance that malady breeds, so you're excused.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you be so foolish to believe all transitional species are extinct?
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of biology and science makes you appear to be quite the pathetic buffoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you really just revealed your total and utter ignorance, or the fact that you never read any of the posts before re-posting your same tired, repetitive nonsense. Doesn't your online degree from Haran Yahya address this?
> 
> What you failed to grasp in your limited understanding, is that my Wiki cut and pastes were not to support MY argument, but to prove that Loki's constant strawman accusations have no basis in reality. Everything I have claimed the TOE claims is right there in black and white for anyone to see.
> 
> *Where else did you go to school besides online?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHO CARES? This is none of your business, and has no bearing on this discussion. I normally wouldn't intervene, but this is getting annoying.
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If humans randomly come from nature, and circuit boards, spaceships, and engines comes from nature, don't circuit boards, spaceships, and engines come from nature?
> 
> 
> 
> false comparison
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain your ignorant comment ?
Click to expand...


We know that humans built things that humans built... we were here. We've been here to build it. To suggest otherwise is so fucking assinine, I don't even know how to sit in my chair. Therefore, we don't see these things coming from nature. 

Humans are not circuit boards, are not spaceships, are not engines. Why do creationists think these are valid comparisons and think inductive reasoning is valid here in order to assume ID? It is so dishonest and just... stupid as fuck.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's stereotypical for religious zealots to blind themselves to science. You are free to believe that science is one, enormous conspiracy theory. Those who deny evolution, that certain "grandeur in this view of life" as Darwin characterized it, should be granted a special exemption from the process predicated upon their self-evident inability to adapt and thrive. If you are incapable of recognizing the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it is obviously a function of religious zealotry and the ignorance that malady breeds, so you're excused.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you be so foolish to believe all transitional species are extinct?
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of biology and science makes you appear to be quite the pathetic buffoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you really just revealed your total and utter ignorance, or the fact that you never read any of the posts before re-posting your same tired, repetitive nonsense. Doesn't your online degree from Haran Yahya address this?
> 
> What you failed to grasp in your limited understanding, is that my Wiki cut and pastes were not to support MY argument, but to prove that Loki's constant strawman accusations have no basis in reality. Everything I have claimed the TOE claims is right there in black and white for anyone to see.
> 
> *Where else did you go to school besides online?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is you who literally screams out the absurdities you cut and paste from from Harun Yahya in failed attempts to prove your creationist fantasies. What you failed to grasp is that your rabid cutting and pasting of subject matter you don't understand renders your posts as silly as those of the other fundie.
> 
> You should demand a refund of the tuition you wasted at the Harun Yahya academy.
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I am no longer a Creationist - Part 1: Genus Homo - YouTube
> 
> I realize that posting this an argument ad populum, and doesn't verify evolution just because someone, somewhere switched to being a non-creationist, so you can spare telling me that.
> 
> However, the same can not be said of this next video by the same person, who demonstrates an understanding of evolution. I know that posting videos is not the best argumentation form, and may not be particularly convincing, but I thought it was worth a shot.
> 
> Why I am no longer a creationist -- Part 2.1: Missing Links - Proboscidea - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute video's. However, at the risk of you falling into the "Creationist trap" the narrator in the video alludes to, i.e., not looking for evidence, perhaps you should check out the opposing viewpoint if you are serious about wanting to be fully informed. You can start here:
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Origins-Ann-Gauger/dp/193659904X/ref=pd_sim_b_18]Science and Human Origins: Ann Gauger,Douglas Axe,Casey Luskin: 9781936599042: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
Click to expand...


Ummm... you want me to spend money to learn about creationism? Yeah, no thanks. Point me to a website if you like, but there no way I am buying a book on creationism. I am fully aware of  the creationist viewpoint. It would be a waste of my time and brain cells to store such information.


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I am no longer a Creationist - Part 1: Genus Homo - YouTube
> 
> I realize that posting this an argument ad populum, and doesn't verify evolution just because someone, somewhere switched to being a non-creationist, so you can spare telling me that.
> 
> However, the same can not be said of this next video by the same person, who demonstrates an understanding of evolution. I know that posting videos is not the best argumentation form, and may not be particularly convincing, but I thought it was worth a shot.
> 
> Why I am no longer a creationist -- Part 2.1: Missing Links - Proboscidea - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute video's. However, at the risk of you falling into the "Creationist trap" the narrator in the video alludes to, i.e., not looking for evidence, perhaps you should check out the opposing viewpoint if you are serious about wanting to be fully informed. You can start here:
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Origins-Ann-Gauger/dp/193659904X/ref=pd_sim_b_18]Science and Human Origins: Ann Gauger,Douglas Axe,Casey Luskin: 9781936599042: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm... you want me to spend money to learn about creationism? Yeah, no thanks. Point me to a website if you like, but there no way I am buying a book on creationism. I am fully aware of  the creationist viewpoint. It would be a waste of my time and brain cells to store such information.
Click to expand...


 Douglas Axe is yet another Loon flailing his pom poms on behalf of the Discovery Institute. 

How embarrassing for the creationist industry that the spokesmen are so often people who shouldn't be allowed in grown-up company.



Encyclopedia of American Loons: #8: Douglas Axe

 Axe is a zealous creationist associated with the Discovery Institute (he is the director at their Biologic Institute"). Axe is a molecular biologist, and thus actually knows some science. He uses this knowledge to write mundane papers, at least two of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals - despite being uninteresting and mundane. Axes work is hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views. Of course, there is no actual support of intelligent design in these published papers, and Axe himself admits as much: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function - The Panda's Thumb

Insofar as Axe is a creationist with real scientific publications to his name, Axes work is one of the main contributions to a sheen of legitimacy for the ID movement. But given that his publications do not at all support or even touch on their views (but are willfully interpreted as such by other ID-proponents without Axe complaining) he is an important contributor to erecting the framework of dishonesty that is the ID movement.

Diagnosis: Dishonest wingnut who might pose a genuine if minor threat to science and rationality as a creationist with actually published (though unrelated) material.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you really just revealed your total and utter ignorance, or the fact that you never read any of the posts before re-posting your same tired, repetitive nonsense. Doesn't your online degree from Haran Yahya address this?
> 
> What you failed to grasp in your limited understanding, is that my Wiki cut and pastes were not to support MY argument, but to prove that Loki's constant strawman accusations have no basis in reality. Everything I have claimed the TOE claims is right there in black and white for anyone to see.
> 
> *Where else did you go to school besides online?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO CARES? This is none of your business, and has no bearing on this discussion. I normally wouldn't intervene, but this is getting annoying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Is it as annoying as Hollie detracting from and denying others educational background while simultaneously refusing to provide any basis for her own?*
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I am no longer a Creationist - Part 1: Genus Homo - YouTube
> 
> I realize that posting this an argument ad populum, and doesn't verify evolution just because someone, somewhere switched to being a non-creationist, so you can spare telling me that.
> 
> However, the same can not be said of this next video by the same person, who demonstrates an understanding of evolution. I know that posting videos is not the best argumentation form, and may not be particularly convincing, but I thought it was worth a shot.
> 
> Why I am no longer a creationist -- Part 2.1: Missing Links - Proboscidea - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute video's. However, at the risk of you falling into the "Creationist trap" the narrator in the video alludes to, i.e., not looking for evidence, perhaps you should check out the opposing viewpoint if you are serious about wanting to be fully informed. You can start here:
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Origins-Ann-Gauger/dp/193659904X/ref=pd_sim_b_18]Science and Human Origins: Ann Gauger,Douglas Axe,Casey Luskin: 9781936599042: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm... you want me to spend money to learn about creationism? Yeah, no thanks. Point me to a website if you like, but there no way I am buying a book on creationism. I am fully aware of  the creationist viewpoint. It would be a waste of my time and brain cells to store such information.
Click to expand...


Its not a Creationist book and you responded very predictably. A majority of the folks in the opposition here, like yourself, isn't interested in the truth. You have been brainwashed hook, line, and sinker and you are quite content to remain in such a state because the alternative would force a change. Either that, or you fall into the Christian persecution and discrimination group.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cute video's. However, at the risk of you falling into the "Creationist trap" the narrator in the video alludes to, i.e., not looking for evidence, perhaps you should check out the opposing viewpoint if you are serious about wanting to be fully informed. You can start here:
> 
> Science and Human Origins: Ann Gauger,Douglas Axe,Casey Luskin: 9781936599042: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm... you want me to spend money to learn about creationism? Yeah, no thanks. Point me to a website if you like, but there no way I am buying a book on creationism. I am fully aware of  the creationist viewpoint. It would be a waste of my time and brain cells to store such information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Douglas Axe is yet another Loon flailing his pom poms on behalf of the Discovery Institute.
> 
> How embarrassing for the creationist industry that the spokesmen are so often people who shouldn't be allowed in grown-up company.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #8: Douglas Axe
> 
> Axe is a zealous creationist associated with the Discovery Institute (he is the director at their Biologic Institute"). Axe is a molecular biologist, and thus actually knows some science. He uses this knowledge to write mundane papers, at least two of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals - despite being uninteresting and mundane. Axes work is hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views. Of course, there is no actual support of intelligent design in these published papers, and Axe himself admits as much: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> Insofar as Axe is a creationist with real scientific publications to his name, Axes work is one of the main contributions to a sheen of legitimacy for the ID movement. But given that his publications do not at all support or even touch on their views (but are willfully interpreted as such by other ID-proponents without Axe complaining) he is an important contributor to erecting the framework of dishonesty that is the ID movement.
> 
> Diagnosis: Dishonest wingnut who might pose a genuine if minor threat to science and rationality as a creationist with actually published (though unrelated) material.
Click to expand...


Typical of fundie evo's. You can't respond logically to the arguments presented so you resort to silly Ad Hollimen attacks. Oh you poor dear. You wouldn't know how to reason your way out of a paper bag as evidenced by your continued nonsensical posts here. *Your comments also show a deep lack of formal education. *


----------



## UltimateReality

"For centuries now theologians, philosophers and scientists have insisted upon the truth of this naturalistic origin of the world for religious reasons. Today we simply say that evolution is a fact. The problem, however, is that the origin of species by strictly natural means runs afoul of the science. Over and over evolutions explanations and expectations turn up false or unlikely. One problem, such as with the evening primrose, is that the biological change we do observe tends to be in the form of rapid and effective directed adaptations to environmental changes brought about by built-in sophisticated mechanisms."

Darwin's God: Evolutionists Now Claim Directed Adaptation is Evolution in &#8220;Real Time&#8221;


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cute video's. However, at the risk of you falling into the "Creationist trap" the narrator in the video alludes to, i.e., not looking for evidence, perhaps you should check out the opposing viewpoint if you are serious about wanting to be fully informed. You can start here:
> 
> Science and Human Origins: Ann Gauger,Douglas Axe,Casey Luskin: 9781936599042: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm... you want me to spend money to learn about creationism? Yeah, no thanks. Point me to a website if you like, but there no way I am buying a book on creationism. I am fully aware of  the creationist viewpoint. It would be a waste of my time and brain cells to store such information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not a Creationist book and you responded very predictably. A majority of the folks in the opposition here, like yourself, isn't interested in the truth. You have been brainwashed hook, line, and sinker and you are quite content to remain in such a state because the alternative would force a change. Either that, or you fall into the Christian persecution and discrimination group.
Click to expand...


Really? Then what is it, a book on evolution? 

How can you talk about brainwashing? I can't tell you how ridiculous you sound. I am an anti-creationist, just as much as you are anti-evolutionist. 

You are so arrogant to use the word truth, as if you know the what truth is, without having to establish or demonstrate it. You simply claim to, without providing any evidence, logic, or reason to even establish god.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm... you want me to spend money to learn about creationism? Yeah, no thanks. Point me to a website if you like, but there no way I am buying a book on creationism. I am fully aware of  the creationist viewpoint. It would be a waste of my time and brain cells to store such information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Douglas Axe is yet another Loon flailing his pom poms on behalf of the Discovery Institute.
> 
> How embarrassing for the creationist industry that the spokesmen are so often people who shouldn't be allowed in grown-up company.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #8: Douglas Axe
> 
> Axe is a zealous creationist associated with the Discovery Institute (he is the director at their Biologic Institute"). Axe is a molecular biologist, and thus actually knows some science. He uses this knowledge to write mundane papers, at least two of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals - despite being uninteresting and mundane. Axes work is hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views. Of course, there is no actual support of intelligent design in these published papers, and Axe himself admits as much: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> Insofar as Axe is a creationist with real scientific publications to his name, Axes work is one of the main contributions to a sheen of legitimacy for the ID movement. But given that his publications do not at all support or even touch on their views (but are willfully interpreted as such by other ID-proponents without Axe complaining) he is an important contributor to erecting the framework of dishonesty that is the ID movement.
> 
> Diagnosis: Dishonest wingnut who might pose a genuine if minor threat to science and rationality as a creationist with actually published (though unrelated) material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical of fundie evo's. You can't respond logically to the arguments presented so you resort to silly Ad Hollimen attacks. Oh you poor dear. You wouldn't know how to reason your way out of a paper bag as evidenced by your continued nonsensical posts here. *Your comments also show a deep lack of formal education. *
Click to expand...


Your worshipping at the altar of fear, superstition and ignorance shows a deep lack of self confidence and formal education.

Consider getting some formal education in the fields of science and biology. You will appear as something less than a mindless zealot.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> "For centuries now theologians, philosophers and scientists have insisted upon the truth of this naturalistic origin of the world for religious reasons. Today we simply say that evolution is a fact. The problem, however, is that the origin of species by strictly natural means runs afoul of the science. Over and over evolutions explanations and expectations turn up false or unlikely. One problem, such as with the evening primrose, is that the biological change we do observe tends to be in the form of rapid and effective directed adaptations to environmental changes brought about by built-in sophisticated mechanisms."
> 
> Darwin's God: Evolutionists Now Claim Directed Adaptation is Evolution in Real Time



Predictable!

The usual cut and paste from creationist propaganda sites.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cute video's. However, at the risk of you falling into the "Creationist trap" the narrator in the video alludes to, i.e., not looking for evidence, perhaps you should check out the opposing viewpoint if you are serious about wanting to be fully informed. You can start here:
> 
> Science and Human Origins: Ann Gauger,Douglas Axe,Casey Luskin: 9781936599042: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm... you want me to spend money to learn about creationism? Yeah, no thanks. Point me to a website if you like, but there no way I am buying a book on creationism. I am fully aware of  the creationist viewpoint. It would be a waste of my time and brain cells to store such information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not a Creationist book and you responded very predictably. A majority of the folks in the opposition here, like yourself, isn't interested in the truth. You have been brainwashed hook, line, and sinker and you are quite content to remain in such a state because the alternative would force a change. Either that, or you fall into the Christian persecution and discrimination group.
Click to expand...


It's comically tragic that a Christian creationist would seek to lecture anyone regarding truth when the Christian creationist propaganda industry is drenched in lies, deceit and falsified claims.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm... you want me to spend money to learn about creationism? Yeah, no thanks. Point me to a website if you like, but there no way I am buying a book on creationism. I am fully aware of  the creationist viewpoint. It would be a waste of my time and brain cells to store such information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a Creationist book and you responded very predictably. A majority of the folks in the opposition here, like yourself, isn't interested in the truth. You have been brainwashed hook, line, and sinker and you are quite content to remain in such a state because the alternative would force a change. Either that, or you fall into the Christian persecution and discrimination group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's comically tragic that a Christian creationist would seek to lecture anyone regarding truth when the Christian creationist propaganda industry is drenched in lies, deceit and falsified claims.
Click to expand...


...says the foolish Rugged Touch Man/Woman who posts under fake names and continuously commits lies of omission and milks the taxpayers for disability payments and foodstamps just because he/she is grossly obese... Hollie "I am of the male persuasion" Man Touch.

At least when Loki plagiarizes, at least he switches the words around enough so a simple google search can't find him out.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a Creationist book and you responded very predictably. A majority of the folks in the opposition here, like yourself, isn't interested in the truth. You have been brainwashed hook, line, and sinker and you are quite content to remain in such a state because the alternative would force a change. Either that, or you fall into the Christian persecution and discrimination group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's comically tragic that a Christian creationist would seek to lecture anyone regarding truth when the Christian creationist propaganda industry is drenched in lies, deceit and falsified claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...says the foolish Rugged Touch Man/Woman who posts under fake names and continuously commits lies of omission and milks the taxpayers for disability payments and foodstamps just because he/she is grossly obese... Hollie "I am of the male persuasion" Man Touch.
> 
> At least when Loki plagiarizes, at least he switches the words around enough so a simple google search can't find him out.
Click to expand...

Here we see the result of what is churned out by the Christian creationist / flat earth ministries: legions of angry, disaffected, semi-literate types with limited emotional / intellectual maturity.

As their attacks on science are shown to be groundless claims intended only to prop up religious dogma, they get more reactive and less coherent as they are confronted with a vibrant science.

Hate, hate, hate. They hate themselves, they hate each other and their hate is used to sustain their hateful ideology.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that the science hating, evolution denying fundie has spent a considerable amount of time cutting and pasting material from wiki which does not refute evolution.
> 
> I couldn't help but also notice that the rabid cut and paster is generous when he self-describes  "my earlier comment" which was a cut and paste from wiki.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stereotypical for religious zealots to blind themselves to science. You are free to believe that science is one, enormous conspiracy theory. Those who deny evolution, that certain "grandeur in this view of life" as Darwin characterized it, should be granted a special exemption from the process predicated upon their self-evident inability to adapt and thrive. If you are incapable of recognizing the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it is obviously a function of religious zealotry and the ignorance that malady breeds, so you're excused.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you be so foolish to believe all transitional species are extinct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did their traits get passed on if they were going extinct ? Where did the genetic information go for even earlier transitional species ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid your lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of biology and science makes you appear to be quite the pathetic buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't say it's a consptracy theory but I do say it is built on vivid imaginations. Not built on the scientific method it can't be put to the test and it has never been observed.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

emilynghiem said:


> Dear CBirch2 and YouWereCreated:
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YWC mentioned not knowing what animals were on the ark 5000 years ago.
> 
> Are you both or neither open to the idea of interpreting the 6000 year timeline
> in the Bible as stages, where each period (referred to as 1000 years, but that just means a very long time spanning multiple generations) represents a Day to God,
> so that the world is created in Stages?
Click to expand...


This could be possible I am not sure if each day of creation was a thousand years. I think that would produce death before it was handed down to adam and eve and go against the scriptures.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you really just revealed your total and utter ignorance, or the fact that you never read any of the posts before re-posting your same tired, repetitive nonsense. Doesn't your online degree from Haran Yahya address this?
> 
> What you failed to grasp in your limited understanding, is that my Wiki cut and pastes were not to support MY argument, but to prove that Loki's constant strawman accusations have no basis in reality. Everything I have claimed the TOE claims is right there in black and white for anyone to see.
> 
> *Where else did you go to school besides online?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO CARES? This is none of your business, and has no bearing on this discussion. I normally wouldn't intervene, but this is getting annoying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a second it was ok for Hollie to call us out about our education and when we responded to her accusation,she get's a pass on the same question ?
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false comparison
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain your ignorant comment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know that humans built things that humans built... we were here. We've been here to build it. To suggest otherwise is so fucking assinine, I don't even know how to sit in my chair. Therefore, we don't see these things coming from nature.
> 
> Humans are not circuit boards, are not spaceships, are not engines. Why do creationists think these are valid comparisons and think inductive reasoning is valid here in order to assume ID? It is so dishonest and just... stupid as fuck.
Click to expand...


So how can you conclude that because we know man can design and build things but biological organisms that are much more complex just came into existence by chance and luck ? Your opinion defies logic.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I am no longer a Creationist - Part 1: Genus Homo - YouTube
> 
> I realize that posting this an argument ad populum, and doesn't verify evolution just because someone, somewhere switched to being a non-creationist, so you can spare telling me that.
> 
> However, the same can not be said of this next video by the same person, who demonstrates an understanding of evolution. I know that posting videos is not the best argumentation form, and may not be particularly convincing, but I thought it was worth a shot.
> 
> Why I am no longer a creationist -- Part 2.1: Missing Links - Proboscidea - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute video's. However, at the risk of you falling into the "Creationist trap" the narrator in the video alludes to, i.e., not looking for evidence, perhaps you should check out the opposing viewpoint if you are serious about wanting to be fully informed. You can start here:
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Origins-Ann-Gauger/dp/193659904X/ref=pd_sim_b_18]Science and Human Origins: Ann Gauger,Douglas Axe,Casey Luskin: 9781936599042: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm... you want me to spend money to learn about creationism? Yeah, no thanks. Point me to a website if you like, but there no way I am buying a book on creationism. I am fully aware of  the creationist viewpoint. It would be a waste of my time and brain cells to store such information.
Click to expand...


No you kids should be learning real science not theories that are built on vivid imaginations and can never be demostrated through testing and the scientific method.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> "For centuries now theologians, philosophers and scientists have insisted upon the truth of this naturalistic origin of the world for religious reasons. Today we simply say that evolution is a fact. The problem, however, is that the origin of species by strictly natural means runs afoul of the science. Over and over evolutions explanations and expectations turn up false or unlikely. One problem, such as with the evening primrose, is that the biological change we do observe tends to be in the form of rapid and effective directed adaptations to environmental changes brought about by built-in sophisticated mechanisms."
> 
> Darwin's God: Evolutionists Now Claim Directed Adaptation is Evolution in Real Time



uh oh.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "For centuries now theologians, philosophers and scientists have insisted upon the truth of this naturalistic origin of the world for religious reasons. Today we simply say that evolution is a fact. The problem, however, is that the origin of species by strictly natural means runs afoul of the science. Over and over evolution&#8217;s explanations and expectations turn up false or unlikely. One problem, such as with the evening primrose, is that the biological change we do observe tends to be in the form of rapid and effective directed adaptations to environmental changes brought about by built-in sophisticated mechanisms."
> 
> Darwin's God: Evolutionists Now Claim Directed Adaptation is Evolution in &#8220;Real Time&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Predictable!
> 
> The usual cut and paste from creationist propaganda sites.
Click to expand...


Typical evo fundie response.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain your ignorant comment ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know that humans built things that humans built... we were here. We've been here to build it. To suggest otherwise is so fucking assinine, I don't even know how to sit in my chair. Therefore, we don't see these things coming from nature.
> 
> Humans are not circuit boards, are not spaceships, are not engines. Why do creationists think these are valid comparisons and think inductive reasoning is valid here in order to assume ID? It is so dishonest and just... stupid as fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how can you conclude that because we know man can design and build things but biological organisms that are much more complex just came into existence by chance and luck ? Your opinion defies logic.
Click to expand...

The act of considered thought seems to defy you. "Organisms that are much more complex" didn't just come into existence. Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record. 

What defies logic (and all of earth history) is the fantastically absurd notion of a 6000 year old earth, zapped into existence by an angry, immoral god.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "For centuries now theologians, philosophers and scientists have insisted upon the truth of this naturalistic origin of the world for religious reasons. Today we simply say that evolution is a fact. The problem, however, is that the origin of species by strictly natural means runs afoul of the science. Over and over evolutions explanations and expectations turn up false or unlikely. One problem, such as with the evening primrose, is that the biological change we do observe tends to be in the form of rapid and effective directed adaptations to environmental changes brought about by built-in sophisticated mechanisms."
> 
> Darwin's God: Evolutionists Now Claim Directed Adaptation is Evolution in Real Time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Predictable!
> 
> The usual cut and paste from creationist propaganda sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical evo fundie response.
Click to expand...

An appropriate response to an angry, self-hating Christian zealot who offers nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie Christian ministries.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHO CARES? This is none of your business, and has no bearing on this discussion. I normally wouldn't intervene, but this is getting annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Is it as annoying as Hollie detracting from and denying others educational background while simultaneously refusing to provide any basis for her own?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Use some of you're christian superpowers of forgiveness and let it go. It's annoying as shit for the rest of us, you keep on using huge fonts in PINK COLOR.
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain your ignorant comment ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know that humans built things that humans built... we were here. We've been here to build it. To suggest otherwise is so fucking assinine, I don't even know how to sit in my chair. Therefore, we don't see these things coming from nature.
> 
> Humans are not circuit boards, are not spaceships, are not engines. Why do creationists think these are valid comparisons and think inductive reasoning is valid here in order to assume ID? It is so dishonest and just... stupid as fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how can you conclude that because we know man can design and build things but biological organisms that are much more complex just came into existence by chance and luck ? Your opinion defies logic.
Click to expand...


Actually, it is you who is defying logic. You can not say, 

1. Humans make complex things
2.Nature contains complexity
3. Nature has a builder

This is fallacious inductive reasoning. You can not establish, merely on the basis of inductive reasoning, the complexity in nature necessarily means there was a designer, SIMPLY BECAUSE HUMANS ALSO BUILD "COMPLEX" things. First of all, "complex" is a subjective term that is relative and doesn't carry objective meaning. Second, inductive reasoning, at best, can only establish probabilities, not certainty, as can deductive reasoning. So, for ANYONE to use this watchmaker argument to conclude definitively that a designer must exist is DEFYING THE RULES OF LOGIC. 

So, it is you who is defying logic. Now, stop with this stupid fucking argument. It is MEANINGLESS.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know that humans built things that humans built... we were here. We've been here to build it. To suggest otherwise is so fucking assinine, I don't even know how to sit in my chair. Therefore, we don't see these things coming from nature.
> 
> Humans are not circuit boards, are not spaceships, are not engines. Why do creationists think these are valid comparisons and think inductive reasoning is valid here in order to assume ID? It is so dishonest and just... stupid as fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how can you conclude that because we know man can design and build things but biological organisms that are much more complex just came into existence by chance and luck ? Your opinion defies logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The act of considered thought seems to defy you. "Organisms that are much more complex" didn't just come into existence. Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.
> 
> What defies logic (and all of earth history) is the fantastically absurd notion of a 6000 year old earth, zapped into existence by an angry, immoral god.
Click to expand...


Prove what you are saying.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Predictable!
> 
> The usual cut and paste from creationist propaganda sites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical evo fundie response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An appropriate response to an angry, self-hating Christian zealot who offers nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie Christian ministries.
Click to expand...


You need some new material.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is it as annoying as Hollie detracting from and denying others educational background while simultaneously refusing to provide any basis for her own?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use some of you're christian superpowers of forgiveness and let it go. It's annoying as shit for the rest of us, you keep on using huge fonts in PINK COLOR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe if he got a response to his questions the fonts would go away but i find it amusing.
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how can you conclude that because we know man can design and build things but biological organisms that are much more complex just came into existence by chance and luck ? Your opinion defies logic.
> 
> 
> 
> The act of considered thought seems to defy you. "Organisms that are much more complex" didn't just come into existence. Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.
> 
> What defies logic (and all of earth history) is the fantastically absurd notion of a 6000 year old earth, zapped into existence by an angry, immoral god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove what you are saying.
Click to expand...


She doesn't need to. You can learn about this yourself. Look it up. You  have the internet. If you choose not to accept facts, then this debate should be over. You don't simply get to deny facts in order to continue your ridiculous assertions about a 6,000 year old earth that DEFIES ALL EVIDENCE we have. You're personal incredulity should not be made into anyone else's problem. How selfish and narcissistic can you be?!


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know that humans built things that humans built... we were here. We've been here to build it. To suggest otherwise is so fucking assinine, I don't even know how to sit in my chair. Therefore, we don't see these things coming from nature.
> 
> Humans are not circuit boards, are not spaceships, are not engines. Why do creationists think these are valid comparisons and think inductive reasoning is valid here in order to assume ID? It is so dishonest and just... stupid as fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how can you conclude that because we know man can design and build things but biological organisms that are much more complex just came into existence by chance and luck ? Your opinion defies logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is you who is defying logic. You can not say,
> 
> 1. Humans make complex things
> 2.Nature contains complexity
> 3. Nature has a builder
> 
> This is fallacious inductive reasoning. You can not establish, merely on the basis of inductive reasoning, the complexity in nature necessarily means there was a designer, SIMPLY BECAUSE HUMANS ALSO BUILD "COMPLEX" things. First of all, "complex" is a subjective term that is relative and doesn't carry objective meaning. Second, inductive reasoning, at best, can only establish probabilities, not certainty, as can deductive reasoning. So, for ANYONE to use this watchmaker argument to conclude definitively that a designer must exist is DEFYING THE RULES OF LOGIC.
> 
> So, it is you who is defying logic. Now, stop with this stupid fucking argument. It is MEANINGLESS.
Click to expand...


How can you say this ? when it is on your side to produce and show natural processes can build and design things necessary for life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The act of considered thought seems to defy you. "Organisms that are much more complex" didn't just come into existence. Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.
> 
> What defies logic (and all of earth history) is the fantastically absurd notion of a 6000 year old earth, zapped into existence by an angry, immoral god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove what you are saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She doesn't need to. You can learn about this yourself. Look it up. You  have the internet. If you choose not to accept facts, then this debate should be over. You don't simply get to deny facts in order to continue your ridiculous assertions about a 6,000 year old earth that DEFIES ALL EVIDENCE we have. You're personal incredulity should not be made into anyone else's problem. How selfish and narcissistic can you be?!
Click to expand...


What she say's has never been shown to be possible, If it has there would be no debate.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how can you conclude that because we know man can design and build things but biological organisms that are much more complex just came into existence by chance and luck ? Your opinion defies logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is you who is defying logic. You can not say,
> 
> 1. Humans make complex things
> 2.Nature contains complexity
> 3. Nature has a builder
> 
> This is fallacious inductive reasoning. You can not establish, merely on the basis of inductive reasoning, the complexity in nature necessarily means there was a designer, SIMPLY BECAUSE HUMANS ALSO BUILD "COMPLEX" things. First of all, "complex" is a subjective term that is relative and doesn't carry objective meaning. Second, inductive reasoning, at best, can only establish probabilities, not certainty, as can deductive reasoning. So, for ANYONE to use this watchmaker argument to conclude definitively that a designer must exist is DEFYING THE RULES OF LOGIC.
> 
> So, it is you who is defying logic. Now, stop with this stupid fucking argument. It is MEANINGLESS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you say this ? when it is on your side to produce and show natural processes can build and design things necessary for life.
Click to expand...


It is not on my side to prove this. Evolution does not rest on abiogenesis being true. Evolution is demonstrable and observable, provable, and verifiable with fossils, DNA evidence, geologic evidence. Everything converges on evolution being true.

Abiogenesis is a theory about how that first cell formed, at which point, evolution took over. 
Therefore, it is not on "my side" to prove abiogenesis in a lab in order for evolution to be true. The two are non-contingent upon each other.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how can you conclude that because we know man can design and build things but biological organisms that are much more complex just came into existence by chance and luck ? Your opinion defies logic.
> 
> 
> 
> The act of considered thought seems to defy you. "Organisms that are much more complex" didn't just come into existence. Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.
> 
> What defies logic (and all of earth history) is the fantastically absurd notion of a 6000 year old earth, zapped into existence by an angry, immoral god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove what you are saying.
Click to expand...

Already done. As much as science can offer "proof", there is no argument among the relevant science community as to an ancient earth, more complex biology evolving from less complex, etc.

With virtual certainty, it is only the fundie religious (Christian), haters and social misfits who are pressing an anti-science agenda.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove what you are saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She doesn't need to. You can learn about this yourself. Look it up. You  have the internet. If you choose not to accept facts, then this debate should be over. You don't simply get to deny facts in order to continue your ridiculous assertions about a 6,000 year old earth that DEFIES ALL EVIDENCE we have. You're personal incredulity should not be made into anyone else's problem. How selfish and narcissistic can you be?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What she say's has never been shown to be possible, If it has there would be no debate.
Click to expand...


An ancient earth, a vast solar system and universe, the process of evolution have never been shown to be possible? That is just absurd. 

Your comments continually call into question your grasp of reality and your ability to function in a rational world. This is one more example in continuing examples of just how dishonest fundie Christians really can be.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, Loki already answered this. He says it is because they wound up in different environments. Really, all Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today.
> 
> 
> 
> Correction:"Really, all UR's strawman version of Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today. "​Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, UR's strawman version of evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correction:"Furthermore, UR's strawman version of evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur UR's strawman version of natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to UR's strawman version of Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same."​Fixed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here lets clarify for the third grader among us. The specific reference above is referring to genetic "evidence" that neanderthal and homo sapien diverge approximately 600,000 years ago. However, there just isn't enough time for the changes required to differentiate N for HS according to Darwin's theory to occur in that relatively short time. So if Loki was the legend in his own mind that he likes to try and convince everyone else of, he would be aware of this facts and he would have know that this was inferred from my statement above. Let's refer back to my un-Loki-polluted statement:
> 
> "Furthermore, evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur *[in the time periods claimed]*, it needs to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years."
> 
> And Loki's typical response??? Just yell Strawman and maybe no one will notice what an incompetent moron you are. Please Loki, explain this strawman...
> 
> "Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor *about 660,000 years ago.*[95][96][97] However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with anatomically modern humans circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (at the approximate time that modern humans migrated out from Africa, but before they dispersed into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).[98] Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA,[98] and this finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that the divergence of some human alleles dates to one Ma, although the interpretation of these studies has been questioned."
> 
> "Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a *population bottleneck *resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[112][113][114] *Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances.* These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes."
> 
> *Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.*[231] In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or *small populations*. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population and the organisms undergoing speciation and *rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats *and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.
> 
> Allopatric speciation suggests that *species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume* and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. *Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow.* In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance.
> 
> Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

 the bullshit to fact ratio rises when UR is compelled to use bold and oversized type,


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lie #1. Numerous "scientist" regularly refer to the FACT of evolution, presuming it to be true in all cases, and scoff at those who would question its validity.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a FACT.
> 
> There is no way to deny that the frequency of organisms of traits found in populations can change over time such that later generations are markedly different than their forebears. There is so much evidence confirming this FACT of reality, that only the more dereistic of thinkers could possibly be in denial of this.
> 
> You may object on your irrational and superstitious grounds that such differences can by any means what-so-ever lead to speciation, but evolution is not in question among rational human beings.
> 
> "Creation science" is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lie #3. Evolutionary scientists make multiple assumptions, which actually could be valid, stand-alone processes in the present, but do not occur naturally, and combine them, such as the 43 might haves and could haves previously quoted, into a presumed, specifically ordered sequence, with absolutely no evidence from the distant past to support their claim, and no observation in the present for even two of the processes occurring natrually in sequence and then entertain this fairy tale as a legitimate and distinct possibility for the outcome they are trying to support. This type of reasoning takes IMMENSE Faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "43 might haves and could haves" complain is ENTIRELY bullshit in light of the OBVIOUS fact of reality that "... scientists never really claim ... absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties." There are NO UNCERTAINTIES in faith ... otherwise you asshats would not have an ontological dispute with natural selection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> - Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)
> 
> - Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. (source)
> 
> - Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)
> 
> - Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)
> 
> - 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)
> 
> - The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).
> 
> - About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)
> 
> 
> The number of genes across a few tested species can be compared on HomoloGene.
Click to expand...

those facts in no way futher your argument that god did it!


----------



## Gadawg73

I just returned from Jamaica, a wonderful country with great people. One of the waiters was a Jamaican man with a pregnant wife with their first child. We came to know this young man well the 9 days we were there. He is very religious and also inquisitive of everything and anything science. He was praying daily for the child to be a boy. After a few discussions on the science of it all he was floored to learn that it is the male chromosome, HIM, that determines the sex of the child. He did not believe us when we informed us of that and was upset about it. The next day at breakfast he sought us out and apologized to us. We told him he owed us no apology. He again said he did because his preacher told him we were wrong and that God only decides the sex of the child. He had done his homework and found on the internet office there at the resort the science behind it.
Ditto for all science.
Creationism is NOT science.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a FACT.
> 
> There is no way to deny that the frequency of organisms of traits found in populations can change over time such that later generations are markedly different than their forebears. There is so much evidence confirming this FACT of reality, that only the more dereistic of thinkers could possibly be in denial of this.
> 
> You may object on your irrational and superstitious grounds that such differences can by any means what-so-ever lead to speciation, but evolution is not in question among rational human beings.
> 
> "Creation science" is not science.
> 
> Your "43 might haves and could haves" complain is ENTIRELY bullshit in light of the OBVIOUS fact of reality that "... scientists never really claim ... absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties." There are NO UNCERTAINTIES in faith ... otherwise you asshats would not have an ontological dispute with natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)
> 
> - Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. (source)
> 
> - Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)
> 
> - Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)
> 
> - 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)
> 
> - The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).
> 
> - About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)
> 
> 
> The number of genes across a few tested species can be compared on HomoloGene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those facts in no way futher your argument that god did it!
Click to expand...


Wasn't my intent.

I was simply showing that humans share DNA with a variety of species. Most of which DNA has yet to be compared with. We even have similarities in DNA with certain plants.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> - Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)
> 
> - Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. (source)
> 
> - Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)
> 
> - Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)
> 
> - 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)
> 
> - The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).
> 
> - About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)
> 
> 
> The number of genes across a few tested species can be compared on HomoloGene.
> 
> 
> 
> those facts in no way futher your argument that god did it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't my intent.
> 
> I was simply showing that humans share DNA with a variety of species. Most of which DNA has yet to be compared with. We even have similarities in DNA with certain plants.
Click to expand...

yes we do...everything is made of the same elements ...your point?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> those facts in no way futher your argument that god did it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't my intent.
> 
> I was simply showing that humans share DNA with a variety of species. Most of which DNA has yet to be compared with. We even have similarities in DNA with certain plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes we do...everything is made of the same elements ...your point?
Click to expand...


Was made.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Predictable!
> 
> The usual cut and paste from creationist propaganda sites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical evo fundie response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An appropriate response to an angry, self-hating Christian zealot who offers nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie Christian ministries.
Click to expand...


Ah, the self-hating accusation. I can assure that I have a healthy self image and am a contrubuting, functioning member of society. By a strictly materialistic viewpoint, I have every thing the world puts value on... Fat custom house in a gated lake community, sweet car, every iGadget made, and a beautiful wife (all of which came to me by God's blessing for sure). However, the world has proven over and over again how miserable most people are who achieve any semblance of wealth. They run on the hamster wheel towards more and more STUFF and nothing satisfies. Nope, my peace and self-worth come from Christ and his amazing love for me. God's love is lasting, through eternity in fact, and not fleeting like so many things the world offers.

I guess the real point is I was self-hating to some extent, but that was BEFORE I gave my life to Christ. Hollie, it is evident to all you're still stuck there.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is you who is defying logic. You can not say,
> 
> 1. Humans make complex things
> 2.Nature contains complexity
> 3. Nature has a builder
> 
> This is fallacious inductive reasoning. You can not establish, merely on the basis of inductive reasoning, the complexity in nature necessarily means there was a designer, SIMPLY BECAUSE HUMANS ALSO BUILD "COMPLEX" things. First of all, "complex" is a subjective term that is relative and doesn't carry objective meaning. Second, inductive reasoning, at best, can only establish probabilities, not certainty, as can deductive reasoning. So, for ANYONE to use this watchmaker argument to conclude definitively that a designer must exist is DEFYING THE RULES OF LOGIC.
> 
> So, it is you who is defying logic. Now, stop with this stupid fucking argument. It is MEANINGLESS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you say this ? when it is on your side to produce and show natural processes can build and design things necessary for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not on my side to prove this. Evolution does not rest on abiogenesis being true. Evolution is demonstrable and observable, provable, and verifiable with fossils, DNA evidence, geologic evidence. Everything converges on evolution being true.
> 
> Abiogenesis is a theory about how that first cell formed, at which point, evolution took over.
> Therefore, it is not on "my side" to prove abiogenesis in a lab in order for evolution to be true. *The two are non-contingent upon each other.*
Click to expand...


How can you say this?!?!?! They absolutely are. This is a totally fallacy your side is ever prone to.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The act of considered thought seems to defy you. "Organisms that are much more complex" didn't just come into existence. Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.
> 
> What defies logic (and all of earth history) is the fantastically absurd notion of a 6000 year old earth, zapped into existence by an angry, immoral god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove what you are saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already done. As much as science can offer "proof", there is no argument among the relevant science community as to an ancient earth, more complex biology evolving from less complex, etc.
> 
> With virtual certainty, it is only the *fundie* religious (Christian), *haters* and *social misfits* who are pressing an anti-science agenda.
Click to expand...


Why do you keep describing yourself and continue to project your self-loathing existence on others?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction:"Really, all UR's strawman version of Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today. "​Fixed.
> 
> Correction:"Furthermore, UR's strawman version of evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur UR's strawman version of natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to UR's strawman version of Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same."​Fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here lets clarify for the third grader among us. The specific reference above is referring to genetic "evidence" that neanderthal and homo sapien diverge approximately 600,000 years ago. However, there just isn't enough time for the changes required to differentiate N for HS according to Darwin's theory to occur in that relatively short time. So if Loki was the legend in his own mind that he likes to try and convince everyone else of, he would be aware of this facts and he would have know that this was inferred from my statement above. Let's refer back to my un-Loki-polluted statement:
> 
> "Furthermore, evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur *[in the time periods claimed]*, it needs to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years."
> 
> And Loki's typical response??? Just yell Strawman and maybe no one will notice what an incompetent moron you are. Please Loki, explain this strawman...
> 
> "Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor *about 660,000 years ago.*[95][96][97] However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with anatomically modern humans circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (at the approximate time that modern humans migrated out from Africa, but before they dispersed into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).[98] Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA,[98] and this finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that the divergence of some human alleles dates to one Ma, although the interpretation of these studies has been questioned."
> 
> "Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a *population bottleneck *resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[112][113][114] *Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances.* These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes."
> 
> *Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.*[231] In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or *small populations*. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population and the organisms undergoing speciation and *rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats *and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.
> 
> Allopatric speciation suggests that *species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume* and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. *Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow.* In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance.
> 
> Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the bullshit to fact ratio rises when UR is compelled to use bold and oversized type,
Click to expand...


Says the man who doesn't even understand the exchange between Loki and myself, nor the fact that I used the atheist-sympathizing Wiki to prove him wrong. Bold type is the fact he denied for emphasis. And where is Loki? As it typical of Loki, rather than admit he was wrong, he has tucked his tail and skedaddled.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you say this ? when it is on your side to produce and show natural processes can build and design things necessary for life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not on my side to prove this. Evolution does not rest on abiogenesis being true. Evolution is demonstrable and observable, provable, and verifiable with fossils, DNA evidence, geologic evidence. Everything converges on evolution being true.
> 
> Abiogenesis is a theory about how that first cell formed, at which point, evolution took over.
> Therefore, it is not on "my side" to prove abiogenesis in a lab in order for evolution to be true. *The two are non-contingent upon each other.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you say this?!?!?! They absolutely are. This is a totally fallacy your side is ever prone to.
Click to expand...


This is the issue that Christian fundies refuse to come to terms with. It is often a result of profound stupidity and / or a refusal to understand the terms being used: that the theory and fact of evolution is not contingent upon whatever mechanism ignited the first cell. Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus even other Christians who have no trouble with the scientific perspective.

It is not the issue of abiogenesis that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is irrelevant to the actual disagreement with science, and many creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And specifically, the issue is about the evolution of human beings, not the origin of the first cell.

Organisms still evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. And all the relevant the evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists.

And it is the problem they are running from when they are unable to reconcile the relevant subjects of abiogensis vs. evolution.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove what you are saying.
> 
> 
> 
> Already done. As much as science can offer "proof", there is no argument among the relevant science community as to an ancient earth, more complex biology evolving from less complex, etc.
> 
> With virtual certainty, it is only the *fundie* religious (Christian), *haters* and *social misfits* who are pressing an anti-science agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep describing yourself and continue to project your self-loathing existence on others?
Click to expand...


Fundie christians, haters and social misfits tend to get defensive when their arguments are thoroughly dismantled. That is one reason why they spend entire threads avoiding any real discussion of the issues and rely instead on juvenile tactics of posting meaningless messages with garguntuan fonts.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical evo fundie response.
> 
> 
> 
> An appropriate response to an angry, self-hating Christian zealot who offers nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie Christian ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the self-hating accusation. I can assure that I have a healthy self image and am a contrubuting, functioning member of society. By a strictly materialistic viewpoint, I have every thing the world puts value on... Fat custom house in a gated lake community, sweet car, every iGadget made, and a beautiful wife (all of which came to me by God's blessing for sure). However, the world has proven over and over again how miserable most people are who achieve any semblance of wealth. They run on the hamster wheel towards more and more STUFF and nothing satisfies. Nope, my peace and self-worth come from Christ and his amazing love for me. God's love is lasting, through eternity in fact, and not fleeting like so many things the world offers.
> 
> I guess the real point is I was self-hating to some extent, but that was BEFORE I gave my life to Christ. Hollie, it is evident to all you're still stuck there.
Click to expand...


A lot of pointless and unfounded generalizations that calm an emotional requirement to have someone or something to blame for self-inflicted failures. 

If you need a daddy-figure to protect you from yourself (and to protect us from you), your belief in magical gods may be best for all concerned. It's the rudderless and directionless who are often the greatest threat. Being unable to get through your day without the prospect of eternal rewards for good behaviour however, is your personality fracture, not something (your hateful religious perspective), that you need to inflict on others.


----------



## Gadawg73

The religious nature of creationism are always apparent to an objective observer. The very supporters that claim there is scientific evidence to support creationism describe it as a religious argument. Their creator is the God of Christianity. Accordingly, creationism is a religious view ONLY. Religious views ARE NOT SCIENCE. 
The goal of the creationists is to avoid scientific scrutiny, discourage critical thought and foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with creationism.
Creationists only want to promote their religious beliefs.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is it as annoying as Hollie detracting from and denying others educational background while simultaneously refusing to provide any basis for her own?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use some of you're christian superpowers of forgiveness and let it go. It's annoying as shit for the rest of us, you keep on using huge fonts in PINK COLOR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kind of like the pink.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The act of considered thought seems to defy you. "Organisms that are much more complex" didn't just come into existence. Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.
> 
> What defies logic (and all of earth history) is the fantastically absurd notion of a 6000 year old earth, zapped into existence by an angry, immoral god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove what you are saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She doesn't need to. You can learn about this yourself. Look it up. You  have the internet. If you choose not to accept facts, then this debate should be over. You don't simply get to deny facts in order to continue your ridiculous assertions about a 6,000 year old earth that DEFIES ALL EVIDENCE we have. You're personal incredulity should not be made into anyone else's problem. How selfish and narcissistic can you be?!
Click to expand...



Earlier in this thread I made the argument how mutation fixation can never happen the way evolutionist claim. I could not find it but I found an article discussing the same nine reasons why evolution through mutations can never happen. Now if you guys wish to go down this road read this article and let's get to it. In other words poop or get off the pot.



Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution 
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A. 
Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.

NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION 
Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1

1. Natural Environment

Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population. 2

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

2. No Structural Change

Byles's second condition is: "There must be no pleiotropic effect involved with the locus or loci, or, if such effect exists, all the phenotypic structures involved must be selectively neutral." This means that there either must be no changes in physical structure involved, or they must be selectively neutral. If none are involved, then of course evolution does not occur. But if only those occur that are selectively neutral, then they are of no advantage to the mutant and survival of the fittest does not affect it or its non-mutant relatives; again, no evolution.

Not only would mutations that met this condition appear to contribute little or nothing to evolution, but also they would appear never to happen--or nearly never, anyway. G. Ledyard Stebbins tells us that within the gene there is no such thing as an inactive site at which a mutation will not affect the adaptive properties of the gene. 4 "Every character of an organism is affected by all genes," writes Ernst Mayr, "and every gene affects all characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole." 5

In other words, there may well be no such thing as a mutation having no structural change in the organism. Yet Byles says that a requirement for the fixation of a mutation is that it have none, or that the effect it has must be selectively neutral. Neither case appears ever to happen, and even if the latter did, it would not lead to macro-evolution since it would leave the mutant no more "fit" than any of its relatives. Indeed it would probably be less "fit" because of the tendency of natural selection to weed out rather than preserve mutations in a gene pool.

3. Net Effect Must be Unidirectional

Byles's third condition is: ". . . the mutational event must be recurrent and, furthermore, the rate of back mutation must be so small as to be irrelevant." Byles himself admits, though, that even recurrent mutations are almost never retained in the population: ". . . non-recurrent mutations have a very low probability of remaining in the genepool at all . . . the odds against a recurrent mutation being retained in the gene pool for any significant number of generations are very high." And even "most recurrent mutations have been observed to retain the potential for back mutation." It seems that neither part of his third condition will be fulfilled; yet Byles makes it clear in his article that all the conditions must be fulfilled in order for mutations to be fixed in a population.

4. High Mutation Rate

Byles's fourth condition is: "The mutation rate at the relevant locus or loci must be very large." Yet Francisco Ayala says, "It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation." 6

Byles himself comments on Lerner's estimate of one hundred mutations per one million gametes (one in ten thousand). "Obviously, a mutation rate this small, even given a complete absence of back mutation (which appears never to occur), would result in a very small change in a given gene pool, even given large numbers of generations. This has long been considered one of the major stumbling blocks to the [Probably Mutation Effect] . . . In order for the P.M.E. to be effective, very high mutation rates are clearly necessary."

So it appears that this condition, too, is likely never met in nature.

5. Large Population

Byles's fifth condition is that the population involved must be large. He stipulates this because small populations can easily be destroyed by a mutation. And, as population size decreases, the probability that a mutation will be eliminated increases.

Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steers, however, postulate that a small population with much inbreeding is important: ". . . the ideal conditions for rapid evolution . . . are provided by a species which is divided into a number of small local sub-populations that are nearly but not completely isolated and small enough so that a moderate degree of inbreeding takes place. . . . The division of a species into two or more subspecies is of course dependent on complete isolation being achieved in some way." 7

It seems that evolutionists themselves have realized a great problem but are unable to deal with it. In a small population, a mutation will almost certainly be eliminated. Yet a small population is needed for evolution to occur. Here indeed is an impasse. But the problem gets worse.

Byles adds (in contradiction of Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere), "If the investigator is dealing with a population which is undergoing contact with genetically dissimilar neighbors, the effect of the mutation is inevitably so minor as to be undetectable. Therefore, to argue that mutation is the cause of change in the population's genetic structure, one must also of necessity argue that this population is not undergoing a process of hybridization." In other words, if the population is large, the effect of the mutation is almost nil. Even when Byles's condition is met, then, the effects of the mutations are almost zero on the entire population. And, furthermore, while Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere say some interbreeding between dissimilar populations is necessary, Byles says it is death to evolutionary change.

6. Selective Neutrality of Polygenes

Byles's sixth condition is: "Polygenes are not relevant to this argument, unless the entire anatomical complex is itself selectively neutral." This means that for organisms of many genes, the mutation cannot be fixed unless the whole anatomical structure of the organism is selectively neutral relative to the gene which mutates. That this does not occur was shown in our discussion of the second condition.

7. Little Hybridization

Byles's seventh condition is: "There must be little or no hybridizing admixture." This of course is to avoid making the mutation itself insignificant. But if the effect is actually significant, then this contradicts his second condition, which was that the mutation must cause no significant structural change (see under point 2 above). Furthermore, the only way in which to have no hybridizing admixture is to have a small population that is isolated from others of the same kind. This contradicts his fifth condition. If the population is small, the probability of a mutant gene's being eliminated rises steeply.

This seventh condition, if fulfilled, makes evolution impossible because the mutation would not be retained due to the necessarily small population. But if unfulfilled, it leaves evolution impossible due to the insignificance of the effect of the mutation.

8. Necessity of High Penetrance

Byles's eighth condition is: "The genetic structures involved must have high 'penetrance.'" Put simply, this means that the genes must be highly susceptible to mutation. It thus means almost the same as Condition Four.

Yet it occasions another problem. As soon as the structure becomes highly susceptible to mutation, it must also become highly susceptible to back mutation. But his third condition states that the rate of back mutation must be irrelevant. Again there is contradiction: fulfill Condition Eight and you can't fulfill Condition Three. Fulfill Condition Three and you can't fulfill Condition Eight. Yet Byles says that all of the conditions must be fulfilled for mutation fixation to occur; and without mutation fixation there is no macro-evolution.

9. High Heritability

Byles's ninth condition is: "The phenotype must have high heritability." This condition is almost never met for mutational phenotypes. Byles himself told us that the probability of retaining even a recurring mutation is "very low."

TALLYING THE SCORE 
It appears that the probability of meeting any one of these conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent. Recall now that the fifth and seventh conditions effectively cancel each other out, as do the third and eighth, and we are forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to meet all the conditions. Mutation cannot be the mechanism for macro-evolution.


Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> An appropriate response to an angry, self-hating Christian zealot who offers nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie Christian ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the self-hating accusation. I can assure that I have a healthy self image and am a contrubuting, functioning member of society. By a strictly materialistic viewpoint, I have every thing the world puts value on... Fat custom house in a gated lake community, sweet car, every iGadget made, and a beautiful wife (all of which came to me by God's blessing for sure). However, the world has proven over and over again how miserable most people are who achieve any semblance of wealth. They run on the hamster wheel towards more and more STUFF and nothing satisfies. Nope, my peace and self-worth come from Christ and his amazing love for me. God's love is lasting, through eternity in fact, and not fleeting like so many things the world offers.
> 
> I guess the real point is I was self-hating to some extent, but that was BEFORE I gave my life to Christ. Hollie, it is evident to all you're still stuck there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of pointless and unfounded generalizations that calm an emotional requirement to have someone or something to blame for self-inflicted failures.
> 
> If you need a daddy-figure to protect you from yourself (and to protect us from you), your belief in magical gods may be best for all concerned. It's the rudderless and directionless who are often the greatest threat. Being unable to get through your day without the prospect of eternal rewards for good behaviour however, is your personality fracture, not something (your hateful religious perspective), that you need to inflict on others.
Click to expand...


What gives your life meaning? *Your educational background you refuse to divulge?*


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> I just returned from Jamaica, a wonderful country with great people. One of the waiters was a Jamaican man with a pregnant wife with their first child. We came to know this young man well the 9 days we were there. He is very religious and also inquisitive of everything and anything science. He was praying daily for the child to be a boy. After a few discussions on the science of it all he was floored to learn that it is the male chromosome, HIM, that determines the sex of the child. He did not believe us when we informed us of that and was upset about it. The next day at breakfast he sought us out and apologized to us. We told him he owed us no apology. He again said he did because his preacher told him we were wrong and that God only decides the sex of the child. He had done his homework and found on the internet office there at the resort the science behind it.
> Ditto for all science.
> Creationism is NOT science.



I just returned from Kenya, a war torn country with some fabulous people. While we were there, we had the chance to visit one of the largest ghetto's in the world-1 million people living in one square mile. One of the children from the orphanage there, who had recently started his first year of college, was to be our guide. While walking we through the ghetto, we came up on dead bird, which was full of maggots. Myself and the other Creationist friend I was with began to talk about how curious spontaneous generation was. How maggots could spontaneously generate out of nothing, and overtake the dead carcass. Our guide was quick to correct us, informing us that spontaneous generation had long been dis proven. He went on to explain, that although we didn't witness it happen, flies had actually laid tiny eggs inside the dead bird, which were not visible to our human eyes, and the maggots had not really spontaneously generated, but had grown from these fly eggs. He was also quick to point out that it was our ignorance of a process which was invisible to us that had led us to an incorrect belief that the organisms had spontaneously generated out of nothing. He laughed arrogantly that we could have been so foolish as to believe that life could arise from the soil spontaneously. It was at this point I looked him straight in the eye and said, "Someone should update the evolutionary biologists on that concept." I went on to explain to him that there were some foolish scientists out there that actually believed dna and the cell spontaneously generated from this thing called primordial soup. The student was flabbergasted. How could intelligent men be so stupid as to believe such nonsense? I guess this goes to prove that like bad fashion, even really bogus science concepts comes back around. 


"Spontaneous generation is an *obsolete body of thought* on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. Typically, the idea was that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. A variant idea was that of equivocal generation, in which species such as tapeworms arose from unrelated living organisms, now understood to be their hosts."

"Ultimately, the ideas of spontaneous generation were displaced by advances in germ theory and cell theory."

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey look, ma, I can make up neat little stories too!! Hey BadDawg, how about posting up some pics of your recent trip?


----------



## UltimateReality

"I have often wondered: What would it take for a biology professor to see some living organism, study it and then clap his hand to his forehead and say: "Wow, natural selection couldn't possibly have done THAT!"

Answer: Nothing. They are locked into a materialist worldview, and they think that anything outside it is unscientific. They have already accepted Lewontin's Law about the necessity of a "prior commitment to materialism." They will look at any strange organism you may show them and say: "Well, it exists doesn't it? How else did it get here, if not by gradual stages, bit by bit, starting with molecules in motion, finally building up to what we see in front of us? What other choice is there?"

How to Talk About "Evolution" - Evolution News & Views


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> The religious nature of creationism are always apparent to an objective observe. The very supporters that claim there is scientific evidence to support creationism describe it as a religious argument. Their creator is the God of Christianity. Accordingly, creationism is a religious view ONLY. Religious views ARE NOT SCIENCE.
> The goal of the creationists is to avoid scientific scrutiny, discourage critical thought and foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with creationism.
> Creationists only want to promote their religious beliefs.



I really don't think anyone here, including YWC, is claiming Creationism is anything but religion. And I would disagree that creationists avoid scientific scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true. While Creationists admit their beliefs about Creation are religious and faith based, they seek to prove that they are compatible with science. Materialists, on the other hand, pretend their beliefs are strictly science, and require no faith in order to accept. Evolutionists mix their metaphysical and philosophical beliefs with science, and most of the time, pseudoscience, and then desperately hope that no one will notice the difference. Either that, or they can't see it becuase they are in it. The bias and blindness of those holding the materialistic world view prevents their acknowledgement of their clearly religious beliefs about origins. The existence of God is just as easty to believe AND prove, as the belief that natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for the complex life forms on the planet.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The religious nature of creationism are always apparent to an objective observe. The very supporters that claim there is scientific evidence to support creationism describe it as a religious argument. Their creator is the God of Christianity. Accordingly, creationism is a religious view ONLY. Religious views ARE NOT SCIENCE.
> The goal of the creationists is to avoid scientific scrutiny, discourage critical thought and foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with creationism.
> Creationists only want to promote their religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think anyone here, including YWC, is claiming Creationism is anything but religion. And I would disagree that creationists avoid scientific scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true. While Creationists admit their beliefs about Creation are religious and faith based, they seek to prove that they are compatible with science. Materialists, on the other hand, pretend their beliefs are strictly science, and require no faith in order to accept. Evolutionists mix their metaphysical and philosophical beliefs with science, and most of the time, pseudoscience, and then desperately hope that no one will notice the difference. Either that, or they can't see it becuase they are in it. The bias and blindness of those holding the materialistic world view prevents their acknowledgement of their clearly religious beliefs about origins. The existence of God is just as easty to believe AND prove, as the belief that natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for the complex life forms on the planet.
Click to expand...

That was as pointless and absurd as your typical silly cut and paste babble.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The religious nature of creationism are always apparent to an objective observe. The very supporters that claim there is scientific evidence to support creationism describe it as a religious argument. Their creator is the God of Christianity. Accordingly, creationism is a religious view ONLY. Religious views ARE NOT SCIENCE.
> The goal of the creationists is to avoid scientific scrutiny, discourage critical thought and foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with creationism.
> Creationists only want to promote their religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think anyone here, including YWC, is claiming Creationism is anything but religion. And I would disagree that creationists avoid scientific scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true. While Creationists admit their beliefs about Creation are religious and faith based, they seek to prove that they are compatible with science. Materialists, on the other hand, pretend their beliefs are strictly science, and require no faith in order to accept. Evolutionists mix their metaphysical and philosophical beliefs with science, and most of the time, pseudoscience, and then desperately hope that no one will notice the difference. Either that, or they can't see it becuase they are in it. The bias and blindness of those holding the materialistic world view prevents their acknowledgement of their clearly religious beliefs about origins. The existence of God is just as easty to believe AND prove, as the belief that natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for the complex life forms on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was as pointless and absurd as your typical silly cut and paste babble.
Click to expand...


You are wrong again, UR hit it out of the park.


----------



## Youwerecreated

God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.



God is fiction. Want proof? You first heard about him from a book.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think anyone here, including YWC, is claiming Creationism is anything but religion. And I would disagree that creationists avoid scientific scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true. While Creationists admit their beliefs about Creation are religious and faith based, they seek to prove that they are compatible with science. Materialists, on the other hand, pretend their beliefs are strictly science, and require no faith in order to accept. Evolutionists mix their metaphysical and philosophical beliefs with science, and most of the time, pseudoscience, and then desperately hope that no one will notice the difference. Either that, or they can't see it becuase they are in it. The bias and blindness of those holding the materialistic world view prevents their acknowledgement of their clearly religious beliefs about origins. The existence of God is just as easty to believe AND prove, as the belief that natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for the complex life forms on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> That was as pointless and absurd as your typical silly cut and paste babble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong again, UR hit it out of the park.
Click to expand...


 Wrong as usual. What the fundie actually did was trash virtually all of his prior claims to creationism being "science" to finally admitting that creationism is nothing more than religion (christianity), under a fraudulent veneer. 

What a laughable joke.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.



The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is fiction. Want proof? You first heard about him from a book.
Click to expand...


Books are full of nonfictional characters you must try again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was as pointless and absurd as your typical silly cut and paste babble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again, UR hit it out of the park.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong as usual. What the fundie actually did was trash virtually all of his prior claims to creationism being "science" to finally admitting that creationism is nothing more than religion (christianity), under a fraudulent veneer.
> 
> What a laughable joke.
Click to expand...


Nope,tell me how detecting design in nature is nonscientific ?


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is fiction. Want proof? You first heard about him from a book.
Click to expand...


Darwinism is fiction. Want proof? You first heard about it in a book called Origin of the Species.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was as pointless and absurd as your typical silly cut and paste babble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again, UR hit it out of the park.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong as usual. What the fundie actually did was trash virtually all of his prior claims to creationism being "science" to finally admitting that creationism is nothing more than religion (christianity), under a fraudulent veneer.
> 
> What a laughable joke.
Click to expand...


Ah Hollie, the only laughable joke here is your reading comprehension. I have claimed ID is science. I made no such claim about Creationism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.
Click to expand...


God is greater then man and you are putting your faith in falliable man but should I be surprised.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.
Click to expand...


Evolution works by magic (notice you didn't comment about my spontaneous generation strory)... and preying on the ignorant and the gullible.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again, UR hit it out of the park.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong as usual. What the fundie actually did was trash virtually all of his prior claims to creationism being "science" to finally admitting that creationism is nothing more than religion (christianity), under a fraudulent veneer.
> 
> What a laughable joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope,tell me how detecting design in nature is nonscientific ?
Click to expand...


Your "detecting" is simply making nonsensical claims that appeal to superstition.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution works by magic (notice you didn't comment about my spontaneous generation strory)... and preying on the ignorant and the gullible.
Click to expand...


Evolution works by methods confirmed by many different fields of science. You confuse religious superstitions with verifiable science. 

You have already agreed with the other fundie that creationism is religion. Religion is not science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is greater then man and you are putting your faith in falliable man but should I be surprised.
Click to expand...


The gods who created your gods are somewhat less fallible than your gods. And the gods who created the gods who created your gods are a bit less fallible. 

Why would you put your faith in the most fallible, lowest order gods?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong as usual. What the fundie actually did was trash virtually all of his prior claims to creationism being "science" to finally admitting that creationism is nothing more than religion (christianity), under a fraudulent veneer.
> 
> What a laughable joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,tell me how detecting design in nature is nonscientific ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "detecting" is simply making nonsensical claims that appeal to superstition.
Click to expand...


Hmm you can't tell when something has been designed


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is greater then man and you are putting your faith in falliable man but should I be surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gods who created your gods are somewhat less fallible than your gods. And the gods who created the gods who created your gods are a bit less fallible.
> 
> Why would you put your faith in the most fallible, lowest order gods?
Click to expand...


If there is a creator you are saying he is more falliable then man that don't know how life began? ok


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie you are a joke but good for a laugh at your reasoning.


----------



## UltimateReality

In addition to Hollie's seething hate of all things Christian due to her gay-hating fundie parents, Hollie's limited exposure to education and the arts contributes to her incorrect worldview that Christianity has given nothing to the world...

Som Sabadell flashmob - YouTube

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_(Handel)


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is greater then man and you are putting your faith in falliable man but should I be surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gods who created your gods are somewhat less fallible than your gods. And the gods who created the gods who created your gods are a bit less fallible.
> 
> Why would you put your faith in the most fallible, lowest order gods?
Click to expand...


Refuted ad nauseum.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,tell me how detecting design in nature is nonscientific ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "detecting" is simply making nonsensical claims that appeal to superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm you can't tell when something has been designed
Click to expand...


Hollie believes this was the result of wind and erosion. If you squint your eyes just right it almost looks like...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,tell me how detecting design in nature is nonscientific ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "detecting" is simply making nonsensical claims that appeal to superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm you can't tell when something has been designed
Click to expand...


You can't differentiate rationality from irrationality


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is greater then man and you are putting your faith in falliable man but should I be surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gods who created your gods are somewhat less fallible than your gods. And the gods who created the gods who created your gods are a bit less fallible.
> 
> Why would you put your faith in the most fallible, lowest order gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Refuted ad nauseum.
Click to expand...


Not so. Your childish "because I say so" argument is nonsensical.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> In addition to Hollie's seething hate of all things Christian due to her gay-hating fundie parents, Hollie's limited exposure to education and the arts contributes to her incorrect worldview that Christianity has given nothing to the world...
> 
> Som Sabadell flashmob - YouTube
> 
> Messiah (Handel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Such silliness. Of course, silliness defines the creationist argument.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "detecting" is simply making nonsensical claims that appeal to superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm you can't tell when something has been designed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie believes this was the result of wind and erosion. If you squint your eyes just right it almost looks like...
Click to expand...


Yours is an especially nonsensical claim, even by fundie creationist standards.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to Hollie's seething hate of all things Christian due to her gay-hating fundie parents, Hollie's limited exposure to education and the arts contributes to her incorrect worldview that Christianity has given nothing to the world...
> 
> Som Sabadell flashmob - YouTube
> 
> Messiah (Handel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such silliness. Of course, silliness defines the creationist argument.
Click to expand...


For your info, that wasn't a Creationist argument, silly man hand person.


----------



## Gadawg73

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is greater then man and you are putting your faith in falliable man but should I be surprised.
Click to expand...


That is YOUR Christian belief, not science, and I am not stating that your beliefs are wrong.
Go get on your house roof at the highest point. Get your wife at the bottom on the ground. Then ask God to save you while you dive on your head on the ground.
Or listen to your wife who is screaming to you not to do it.
Your wife knows science.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to Hollie's seething hate of all things Christian due to her gay-hating fundie parents, Hollie's limited exposure to education and the arts contributes to her incorrect worldview that Christianity has given nothing to the world...
> 
> Som Sabadell flashmob - YouTube
> 
> Messiah (Handel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such silliness. Of course, silliness defines the creationist argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For your info, that wasn't a Creationist argument, silly man hand person.
Click to expand...

You're projecting again.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie you are a joke but good for a laugh at your reasoning.



The joke is actually watching you and the other creationist self-refute all your earlier claims with the admission that creationism is merely a "front" for religion. 

The other joke is seeing just how miserable and self-hating the creationism industry really is. Clearly you cannot reconcile the vicious circle you are in. You cower in fear before an angry desert deity because of an inability to live your life and take responsibility for your actions. That attitude colors your every post. You despise science and knowledge because it scares you. You despise humanity because progress and knowledge diminish your appelas to supernaturalism and magic. If you are bleak as to the outcome of humanity, then you are part of the problem, aren't you.

What you are doing is applying the query, "If there's no god, then isn't everything meaningless?" to all of existence, and that's a macro of nihilism I see no reason to embrace.

Man's baser instincts are clearly evolving. We are not as dispassionate as we once were. We are not as superstitious as we once were. We have gone from using simplistic tools to building space-based telescopes to see nearly to the moment of the the big bang. 

These are acheivements of human spirit, and you reap the benefits even as you despise the efforts it took to gain those achievements.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here lets clarify for the third grader among us. The specific reference above is referring to genetic "evidence" that neanderthal and homo sapien diverge approximately 600,000 years ago. However, there just isn't enough time for the changes required to differentiate N for HS according to Darwin's theory to occur in that relatively short time. So if Loki was the legend in his own mind that he likes to try and convince everyone else of, he would be aware of this facts and he would have know that this was inferred from my statement above. Let's refer back to my un-Loki-polluted statement:
> 
> "Furthermore, evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur *[in the time periods claimed]*, it needs to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years."
> 
> And Loki's typical response??? Just yell Strawman and maybe no one will notice what an incompetent moron you are. Please Loki, explain this strawman...
> 
> "Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor *about 660,000 years ago.*[95][96][97] However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with anatomically modern humans circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (at the approximate time that modern humans migrated out from Africa, but before they dispersed into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).[98] Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA,[98] and this finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that the divergence of some human alleles dates to one Ma, although the interpretation of these studies has been questioned."
> 
> "Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a *population bottleneck *resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[112][113][114] *Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances.* These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes."
> 
> *Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.*[231] In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or *small populations*. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population and the organisms undergoing speciation and *rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats *and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.
> 
> Allopatric speciation suggests that *species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume* and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. *Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow.* In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance.
> 
> Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that the science hating, evolution denying fundie has spent a considerable amount of time cutting and pasting material from wiki which does not refute evolution.
> 
> I couldn't help but also notice that the rabid cut and paster is generous when he self-describes  "my earlier comment" which was a cut and paste from wiki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to refute your theory is built on conjecture.
Click to expand...

Says the superstitious retard who posits a personal invisible friend who created everything to be just the way Youwerecreated believes everything is. 



Youwerecreated said:


> What little evidence your partners have put on display have been refuted.


If this was actually so, you would have refuted said evidence, rather than your nonsense conclusions about it.

Besides, that "little evidence" carries far more weight than the zero evidence you bring for a personal invisible friend who created everything to be just the way you believe everything is.



Youwerecreated said:


> The theory refutes itself with their mechanisms that evolutionist claim to be the engine of evolution.


Your made-up nonsense refutes itself. All of it. Noty only your made-up nonsense regarding evolutionary theory, but also your made-up nonsense about this magical creator who created everything to be just the way you believe everything is.



Youwerecreated said:


> Did you not see loki's silly answer given after I asked why all supposed transitional species are extinct ?


I know I didn't.



Youwerecreated said:


> How did their traits get passed on if they were going extinct ?


Because every member of a species need not go extinct all at once as if by magic.



Youwerecreated said:


> Where did the genetic information go for even earlier transitional species ?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are just plain confused, cheesecake. You just built a strawman. Look, it's a strawman. Does anyone see the strawman??? Strawman, strawman, strawman! Marcia, Marcia, Marcia. Look!! There goes a strawman!!! Look ma, no strawman! Strawman got your tongue? Strawman's going to get you. Hollie to Loki: You're the Strawman of my dreams. Loki to Hollie: Your Straw-manhands are kind of Rugged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the matter Pumpkin? Having difficulty with accepting that your fraud has been exposed? Is it just not fair that valid logic applied to verifiable evidence offers no support for your belief in magic; that it always supports evolution?
> 
> Face it Cupcake, the only hope you have to appear that you have refuted the Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection, is to make up your own nonsense to refute and hope nobody notices it's your own made-up nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would that made up nonsense include all the Wiki quotes above which prove your strawman accusations to be TOTALLY BOGUS???
Click to expand...

 All those wiki-quotes actually support my position and demonstrate your assertions to be strawmen.



UltimateReality said:


> Funny how you don't respond to the posts where you get totally OWNED.


 Seek professional help. Seriously.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a Creationist book and you responded very predictably. A majority of the folks in the opposition here, like yourself, isn't interested in the truth. You have been brainwashed hook, line, and sinker and you are quite content to remain in such a state because the alternative would force a change. Either that, or you fall into the Christian persecution and discrimination group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's comically tragic that a Christian creationist would seek to lecture anyone regarding truth when the Christian creationist propaganda industry is drenched in lies, deceit and falsified claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...says the foolish Rugged Touch Man/Woman who posts under fake names and continuously commits lies of omission and milks the taxpayers for disability payments and foodstamps just because he/she is grossly obese... Hollie "I am of the male persuasion" Man Touch.
> 
> At least when Loki plagiarizes, at least he switches the words around enough so a simple google search can't find him out.
Click to expand...

Which is to say, "UltimateReality" made the accusation LOki plagiarized someone; but since evidence of such plagiarism is not necessary for UltimateReality to hold that accusation as valid, UltimateReality demands that the accusation is valid just because he believes it is so.

Just like his invisible superfriend.


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is greater then man and you are putting your faith in falliable man but should I be surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is YOUR Christian belief, not science, and I am not stating that your beliefs are wrong.
> Go get on your house roof at the highest point. Get your wife at the bottom on the ground. Then ask God to save you while you dive on your head on the ground.
> Or listen to your wife who is screaming to you not to do it.
> Your wife knows science.
Click to expand...


You're the Devil...

Matthew 4:

1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the *devil.* 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, &#8220;If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.&#8221;

4 Jesus answered, &#8220;It is written: &#8216;Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.&#8217;*&#8221;

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 &#8220;If you are the Son of God,&#8221; he said, &#8220;throw yourself down. For it is written:

&#8220;&#8216;He will command his angels concerning you,
    and they will lift you up in their hands,
    so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.&#8217;[c]&#8221;

7 Jesus answered him, &#8220;It is also written: &#8216;Do not put the Lord your God to the test.&#8217;[d]&#8221;*


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's comically tragic that a Christian creationist would seek to lecture anyone regarding truth when the Christian creationist propaganda industry is drenched in lies, deceit and falsified claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...says the foolish Rugged Touch Man/Woman who posts under fake names and continuously commits lies of omission and milks the taxpayers for disability payments and foodstamps just because he/she is grossly obese... Hollie "I am of the male persuasion" Man Touch.
> 
> At least when Loki plagiarizes, at least he switches the words around enough so a simple google search can't find him out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is to say, "UltimateReality" made the accusation LOki plagiarized someone; but since evidence of such plagiarism is not necessary for UltimateReality to hold that accusation as valid, UltimateReality demands that the accusation is valid just because he believes it is so.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


Sounds alot like Darwinism.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove what you are saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She doesn't need to. You can learn about this yourself. Look it up. You  have the internet. If you choose not to accept facts, then this debate should be over. You don't simply get to deny facts in order to continue your ridiculous assertions about a 6,000 year old earth that DEFIES ALL EVIDENCE we have. You're personal incredulity should not be made into anyone else's problem. How selfish and narcissistic can you be?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What she say's has never been shown to be possible, If it has there would be no debate.
Click to expand...

There is no debate.

There's just us exposing that your superstitious assertions--of how your imaginary creator used magic to create everything just the way you believe--are just retarded. And that you are so retarded that you deny yourself any sense of integrity in intellectual honesty just so that you can say you've never been "proven" wrong.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you are a joke but good for a laugh at your reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The joke is actually watching you and the other creationist self-refute all your earlier claims with the admission that creationism is merely a "front" for religion.
> 
> The other joke is seeing just how miserable and self-hating the creationism industry really is. Clearly you cannot reconcile the vicious circle you are in. You cower in fear before an angry desert deity because of an inability to live your life and take responsibility for your actions. That attitude colors your every post. You despise science and knowledge because it scares you. You despise humanity because progress and knowledge diminish your appelas to supernaturalism and magic. If you are bleak as to the outcome of humanity, then you are part of the problem, aren't you.
> 
> What you are doing is applying the query, "If there's no god, then isn't everything meaningless?" to all of existence, and that's a macro of nihilism I see no reason to embrace.
> 
> Man's baser instincts are clearly evolving. We are not as dispassionate as we once were. We are not as superstitious as we once were. We have gone from using simplistic tools to building space-based telescopes to see nearly to the moment of the the big bang.
> 
> These are acheivements of human spirit, and you reap the benefits even as you despise the efforts it took to gain those achievements.
Click to expand...


Actually, just the opposite is happening. The return to materialism is resulting in a more brutal, violent, and depraved society. If you got out from behind your computer screen and actually left your group home, you would know this.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here lets clarify for the third grader among us. The specific reference above is referring to genetic "evidence" that neanderthal and homo sapien diverge approximately 600,000 years ago. However, there just isn't enough time for the changes required to differentiate N for HS according to Darwin's theory to occur in that relatively short time. So if Loki was the legend in his own mind that he likes to try and convince everyone else of, he would be aware of this facts and he would have know that this was inferred from my statement above. Let's refer back to my un-Loki-polluted statement:
> 
> "Furthermore, evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur *[in the time periods claimed]*, it needs to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years."
> 
> And Loki's typical response??? Just yell Strawman and maybe no one will notice what an incompetent moron you are. Please Loki, explain this strawman...
> 
> "Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor *about 660,000 years ago.*[95][96][97] However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with anatomically modern humans circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (at the approximate time that modern humans migrated out from Africa, but before they dispersed into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).[98] Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA,[98] and this finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that the divergence of some human alleles dates to one Ma, although the interpretation of these studies has been questioned."
> 
> "Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a *population bottleneck *resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[112][113][114] *Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances.* These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes."
> 
> *Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.*[231] In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or *small populations*. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population and the organisms undergoing speciation and *rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats *and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.
> 
> Allopatric speciation suggests that *species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume* and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. *Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow.* In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance.
> 
> Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> the bullshit to fact ratio rises when UR is compelled to use bold and oversized type,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the man who doesn't even understand the exchange between Loki and myself, nor the fact that I used the atheist-sympathizing Wiki to prove him wrong. Bold type is the fact he denied for emphasis. And where is Loki? As it typical of Loki, rather than admit he was wrong, he has tucked his tail and skedaddled.
Click to expand...

I suppose that when no one else can find a reason to congratulate you, you can just congratulate yourself.

Oh, right! I suppose your imaginary friend is congratulating you right now!


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove what you are saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She doesn't need to. You can learn about this yourself. Look it up. You  have the internet. If you choose not to accept facts, then this debate should be over. You don't simply get to deny facts in order to continue your ridiculous assertions about a 6,000 year old earth that DEFIES ALL EVIDENCE we have. You're personal incredulity should not be made into anyone else's problem. How selfish and narcissistic can you be?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier in this thread I made the argument how mutation fixation can never happen the way evolutionist claim. I could not find it but I found an article discussing the same nine reasons why evolution through mutations can never happen. Now if you guys wish to go down this road read this article and let's get to it. In other words poop or get off the pot.
> 
> 
> 
> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
> by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
> Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.
> 
> Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
> 
> NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION
> Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1
> 
> *--COPY/PASTE VOMIT PILE SNIPPED--​*
> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
Click to expand...

A better title for this little piece of creationist misinformation is:

NINE NON-EXISTENT CONDITIONS THAT PREVENT MUTATION FIXATION

Seriously. Give that thing a thorough read. I think that nearly every single sentence expresses or serves a fundamental misunderstanding (more likely deliberate mischaracterization) of reality.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The religious nature of creationism are always apparent to an objective observe. The very supporters that claim there is scientific evidence to support creationism describe it as a religious argument. Their creator is the God of Christianity. Accordingly, creationism is a religious view ONLY. Religious views ARE NOT SCIENCE.
> The goal of the creationists is to avoid scientific scrutiny, discourage critical thought and foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with creationism.
> Creationists only want to promote their religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think anyone here, including YWC, is claiming Creationism is anything but religion. And I would disagree that creationists avoid scientific scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true.
Click to expand...

HOLY SHIT! I AGREE WITH YOU!



UltimateReality said:


> While Creationists admit their beliefs about Creation are religious and faith based, they seek to prove that they are compatible with science.


Well, this is complete bullshit.

The superstitious, like you, are always so keen to challenge folks like me to "prove" you wrong, and you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our assertions. Denying evidence is like breathing air for you retards--but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then we would have finally brought a real test of your faith--if you manage to maintain your retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourself that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows.

Creationists have no interest what-so-ever in demonstrating what they believe has any basis in objective reality. Science for you asshats is a test of your denial of reality; it is a test of your belief based upon nothing but your belief; it is a test of your faith.



UltimateReality said:


> Materialists, on the other hand, pretend their beliefs are strictly science, and require no faith in order to accept.


And they don't.



UltimateReality said:


> Evolutionists mix their metaphysical and philosophical beliefs with science, and most of the time, pseudoscience, and then desperately hope that no one will notice the difference.


Pathological projection.

Evolutionists do not subscribe to the intellectually dishonest Creationist paradigm that Hovindists assign to them.



UltimateReality said:


> Either that, or they can't see it becuase they are in it. The bias and blindness of those holding the materialistic world view prevents their acknowledgement of their clearly religious beliefs about origins.


Just alot of made-up nonsense.



UltimateReality said:


> The existence of God is just as easty to believe AND prove, as the belief that natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for the complex life forms on the planet.


Oh good!

This "God" thing you reference. I have no idea what you're talking about. You say the existence of this "God" thing of yours is easy prove.

Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and prove this "God" thing you reference.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.
Click to expand...


???

Hollie: for the effects of "forgiveness" therapy on healing the mind and body, both medical studies and psychology studies have shown this process works consisently. science and faith need not be hostile or adverse/opposites, but the same things taught in religion can be shown to work using scientific methods and study. Natural laws are part of creation also.

As for YWC God may not need science, but secular Gentiles who understand and appreciate the world through science may need this as a tool to resolve questions and conflicts. I believe God gave us the abilities we have in our minds and conscience to reason and compare consequences and cause/effect so we CAN reach an understanding by free will.
One day, we won't have to rely so much on blind faith, but can back it up with science and history, to show WHY certain choices in life and relationships are better than others.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think anyone here, including YWC, is claiming Creationism is anything but religion. And I would disagree that creationists avoid scientific scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true. While Creationists admit their beliefs about Creation are religious and faith based, they seek to prove that they are compatible with science. Materialists, on the other hand, pretend their beliefs are strictly science, and require no faith in order to accept. Evolutionists mix their metaphysical and philosophical beliefs with science, and most of the time, pseudoscience, and then desperately hope that no one will notice the difference. Either that, or they can't see it becuase they are in it. The bias and blindness of those holding the materialistic world view prevents their acknowledgement of their clearly religious beliefs about origins. The existence of God is just as easty to believe AND prove, as the belief that natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for the complex life forms on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> That was as pointless and absurd as your typical silly cut and paste babble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong again, UR hit it out of the park.
Click to expand...

Ah! Yes. The eternal evader make another fatuous victory claim for superstitious retards.

Since you've so smugly asserted that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

If, as you have vehemently demanded, intelligence can ONLY arise from intelligence, and no intelligence "programmed" your Designer, from where came the intelligence of your  Designer?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again, UR hit it out of the park.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong as usual. What the fundie actually did was trash virtually all of his prior claims to creationism being "science" to finally admitting that creationism is nothing more than religion (christianity), under a fraudulent veneer.
> 
> What a laughable joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope,tell me how detecting design in nature is nonscientific ?
Click to expand...

The method you use presumes the existence of the Designer you posit, to validate the presence of the design you "detect," that validates the Designer you posit, which demonstrates the design you "detect."

Every bit of "design" you present REQUIRES belief in the Designer you posit is the author of the design you present.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is greater then man and you are putting your faith in falliable man but should I be surprised.
Click to expand...

You keep referencing this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've gone on, and on about this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...says the foolish Rugged Touch Man/Woman who posts under fake names and continuously commits lies of omission and milks the taxpayers for disability payments and foodstamps just because he/she is grossly obese... Hollie "I am of the male persuasion" Man Touch.
> 
> At least when Loki plagiarizes, at least he switches the words around enough so a simple google search can't find him out.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is to say, "UltimateReality" made the accusation LOki plagiarized someone; but since evidence of such plagiarism is not necessary for UltimateReality to hold that accusation as valid, UltimateReality demands that the accusation is valid just because he believes it is so.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds alot like Darwinism.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true Hovindist.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is greater then man and you are putting your faith in falliable man but should I be surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is YOUR Christian belief, not science, and I am not stating that your beliefs are wrong.
> Go get on your house roof at the highest point. Get your wife at the bottom on the ground. Then ask God to save you while you dive on your head on the ground.
> Or listen to your wife who is screaming to you not to do it.
> Your wife knows science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the Devil...
> 
> Matthew 4:
> 
> 1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the *devil.* 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.
> 
> 4 Jesus answered, It is written: Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.*
> 
> 5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 If you are the Son of God, he said, throw yourself down. For it is written:
> 
> He will command his angels concerning you,
> and they will lift you up in their hands,
> so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.[c]
> 
> 7 Jesus answered him, It is also written: Do not put the Lord your God to the test.[d]*
Click to expand...

*
8 Oi vey but these superstitious fools are gullible so that you will intentionally strike your forehead against a stone...repeatedly.*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> ...says the foolish Rugged Touch Man/Woman who posts under fake names and continuously commits lies of omission and milks the taxpayers for disability payments and foodstamps just because he/she is grossly obese... Hollie "I am of the male persuasion" Man Touch.


There's that true Christian spirit of hate, derision, false claims, lies and....uplifting of the human condition.


----------



## Hollie

emilynghiem said:


> The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.
> 
> ???
> 
> Hollie: for the effects of "forgiveness" therapy on healing the mind and body, both medical studies and psychology studies have shown this process works consisently. science and faith need not be hostile or adverse/opposites, but the same things taught in religion can be shown to work using scientific methods and study. Natural laws are part of creation also.



You make a number of vacuous claims but provide no support for any of them.

Science and faith actually _are_ hostile to one-another when &#8220;faith&#8221; is substituted for, and used in place of, reason and knowledge. Unless one is "all-knowing", you cannot rule the supermagical out as a _possible_ answer. However, by a simple exercise we can show that asserting a supermagical explanation plunges us into a world of nihilism. Consider:

In the religious worldview, what accounts for the existence of all is a supernatural, supermagical &#8220;Supreme Being&#8221; whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose mind we can never know, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond the gods&#8217; ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).

This, the religionist claims, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be an answer to anything?. Well, what has the religionist "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, for unknowable, self-contradictory reasons, created everything. This "answer" is not only superfluous and tantamount to _no_ answer, it is also purposely accepting _no_ answer as _the_ answer precluding one from ever discovering _any_ answer.

Why bother with science at all then? Let's just accept the religious admonition, "God did it" and be done with all questions about existence.

As to your comment providing for &#8220;things taught in religion can be shown to work using scientific methods and study&#8221;, I would have to largely disagree with at least as it relates to the rational world. First, _all_ is assumption in the religious, ie. Supernatural paradigm, (the religionist assumes god(s), the materialist assumes logic, rationality and reason). Given the abundance of gods throughout human history, none of which are open to any proof, yes, it is rational, reasonable and logical to conclude that gods are invented to explain phenomenon. Unless you are willing to argue that any number of assertions of gods other than the one you select as "true" doesn't illustrate this fact very clearly. I for one have a hard time imagining you supporting the Greek, multi-god theories, which are obviously meant to "explain existence". The Greek gods have no more or less authority than that of the Judeo-Christian god(s).

Your assertion being &#8220;Natural laws are part of creation also&#8221;, is fine given the &#8220;because I say so&#8221;, argument but why should anyone accept such a baseless claim?

Many of the superstitions inherited by people today were culled from earlier civilizations, which  is, of course, damning our own society with faint praise. As a culture, we are also profoundly superstitious. But we, for some reason I can only speculate  as to why, call our preferred superstitions "religions" and assign to them a host of exclusions from rationality that it is not clear they deserve.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> She doesn't need to. You can learn about this yourself. Look it up. You  have the internet. If you choose not to accept facts, then this debate should be over. You don't simply get to deny facts in order to continue your ridiculous assertions about a 6,000 year old earth that DEFIES ALL EVIDENCE we have. You're personal incredulity should not be made into anyone else's problem. How selfish and narcissistic can you be?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier in this thread I made the argument how mutation fixation can never happen the way evolutionist claim. I could not find it but I found an article discussing the same nine reasons why evolution through mutations can never happen. Now if you guys wish to go down this road read this article and let's get to it. In other words poop or get off the pot.
> 
> 
> 
> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
> by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
> Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.
> 
> Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
> 
> NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION
> Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1
> 
> *--COPY/PASTE VOMIT PILE SNIPPED--​*
> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A better title for this little piece of creationist misinformation is:
> 
> NINE NON-EXISTENT CONDITIONS THAT PREVENT MUTATION FIXATION
> 
> Seriously. Give that thing a thorough read. I think that nearly every single sentence expresses or serves a fundamental misunderstanding (more likely deliberate mischaracterization) of reality.
Click to expand...


You are talking my language now, please point out the misunderstandings and we will go from there.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was as pointless and absurd as your typical silly cut and paste babble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong again, UR hit it out of the park.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah! Yes. The eternal evader make another fatuous victory claim for superstitious retards.
> 
> Since you've so smugly asserted that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.
> 
> If, as you have vehemently demanded, intelligence can ONLY arise from intelligence, and no intelligence "programmed" your Designer, from where came the intelligence of your  Designer?
Click to expand...


You are almost as funny as hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong as usual. What the fundie actually did was trash virtually all of his prior claims to creationism being "science" to finally admitting that creationism is nothing more than religion (christianity), under a fraudulent veneer.
> 
> What a laughable joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,tell me how detecting design in nature is nonscientific ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The method you use presumes the existence of the Designer you posit, to validate the presence of the design you "detect," that validates the Designer you posit, which demonstrates the design you "detect."
> 
> Every bit of "design" you present REQUIRES belief in the Designer you posit is the author of the design you present.
Click to expand...


What you determine happened by chance and luck i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is to say, "UltimateReality" made the accusation LOki plagiarized someone; but since evidence of such plagiarism is not necessary for UltimateReality to hold that accusation as valid, UltimateReality demands that the accusation is valid just because he believes it is so.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds alot like Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spoken like a true Hovindist.
Click to expand...


Hollie is that you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

I will await loki to give a rebuttal on mutation fixation and the conditions that were brought out in the article I posted he said they don't exist,now that was funny.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the matter Pumpkin? Having difficulty with accepting that your fraud has been exposed? Is it just not fair that valid logic applied to verifiable evidence offers no support for your belief in magic; that it always supports evolution?
> 
> Face it Cupcake, the only hope you have to appear that you have refuted the Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection, is to make up your own nonsense to refute and hope nobody notices it's your own made-up nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would that made up nonsense include all the Wiki quotes above which prove your strawman accusations to be TOTALLY BOGUS???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those wiki-quotes actually support my position and demonstrate your assertions to be strawmen.
Click to expand...


Are you serious right now? You were absolutely wrong. Everything I claimed about evolutions claims, which you REFUTED, were proven true by the Wiki quotes. I see how this goes. Just like everything else in the TOE, you think if you repeat something over and over enough, people will start to believe. You were WRONG and the strawman was a figment of your vivid imagination. Why can't you admit it?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the bullshit to fact ratio rises when UR is compelled to use bold and oversized type,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man who doesn't even understand the exchange between Loki and myself, nor the fact that I used the atheist-sympathizing Wiki to prove him wrong. Bold type is the fact he denied for emphasis. And where is Loki? As it typical of Loki, rather than admit he was wrong, he has tucked his tail and skedaddled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose that when no one else can find a reason to congratulate you, you can just congratulate yourself.
> 
> Oh, right! I suppose your imaginary friend is congratulating you right now!
Click to expand...


Revisionism runs in yours and Hollie's veins. Why would assume anything else other than your total and complete denial of the truth? You are a LIAR and anyone with half a brain that read the threads can see right through your shenanigans.

I said it before but now you have convinced me, arguing with you is akin to arguing with a drunk. There is no logic or reasoning to be found with you and no honor whatsoever.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The religious nature of creationism are always apparent to an objective observe. The very supporters that claim there is scientific evidence to support creationism describe it as a religious argument. Their creator is the God of Christianity. Accordingly, creationism is a religious view ONLY. Religious views ARE NOT SCIENCE.
> The goal of the creationists is to avoid scientific scrutiny, discourage critical thought and foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with creationism.
> Creationists only want to promote their religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think anyone here, including YWC, is claiming Creationism is anything but religion. And I would disagree that creationists avoid scientific scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HOLY SHIT! I AGREE WITH YOU!
> 
> Well, this is complete bullshit.
> 
> The superstitious, like you, are always so keen to challenge folks like me to "prove" you wrong, and you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our assertions. Denying evidence is like breathing air for you retards--but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then we would have finally brought a real test of your faith--if you manage to maintain your retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourself that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows.
> 
> Creationists have no interest what-so-ever in demonstrating what they believe has any basis in objective reality. Science for you asshats is a test of your denial of reality; it is a test of your belief based upon nothing but your belief; it is a test of your faith.
> 
> And they don't.
> 
> Pathological projection.
> 
> Evolutionists do not subscribe to the intellectually dishonest Creationist paradigm that Hovindists assign to them.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either that, or they can't see it becuase they are in it. The bias and blindness of those holding the materialistic world view prevents their acknowledgement of their clearly religious beliefs about origins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just alot of made-up nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of God is just as easty to believe AND prove, as the belief that natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for the complex life forms on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh good!
> 
> This "God" thing you reference. I have no idea what you're talking about. You say the existence of this "God" thing of yours is easy prove.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and prove this "God" thing you reference.
Click to expand...


The lies are strong with this one.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The religious nature of creationism are always apparent to an objective observe. The very supporters that claim there is scientific evidence to support creationism describe it as a religious argument. Their creator is the God of Christianity. Accordingly, creationism is a religious view ONLY. Religious views ARE NOT SCIENCE.
> The goal of the creationists is to avoid scientific scrutiny, discourage critical thought and foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with creationism.
> Creationists only want to promote their religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think anyone here, including YWC, is claiming Creationism is anything but religion. And I would disagree that creationists avoid scientific scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HOLY SHIT! I AGREE WITH YOU!
> 
> Well, this is complete bullshit.
> 
> The superstitious, like you, are always so keen to challenge folks like me to "prove" you wrong, and you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our assertions. Denying evidence is like breathing air for you retards--but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then we would have finally brought a real test of your faith--if you manage to maintain your retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourself that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows.
> 
> Creationists have no interest what-so-ever in demonstrating what they believe has any basis in objective reality. Science for you asshats is a test of your denial of reality; it is a test of your belief based upon nothing but your belief; it is a test of your faith.
> 
> And they don't.
> 
> Pathological projection.
> 
> Evolutionists do not subscribe to the intellectually dishonest Creationist paradigm that Hovindists assign to them.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either that, or they can't see it becuase they are in it. The bias and blindness of those holding the materialistic world view prevents their acknowledgement of their clearly religious beliefs about origins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just alot of made-up nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of God is just as easty to believe AND prove, as the belief that natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for the complex life forms on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh good!
> 
> This "God" thing you reference. I have no idea what you're talking about. You say the existence of this "God" thing of yours is easy prove.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and prove this "God" thing you reference.
Click to expand...


Oh you poor dear. That is not what I said. What is your educational background that you can't seem to comprehend a simple sentence? Here, let me say it reeaaaal slow so you can get it. The existence of God is just as easy to believe in and prove, as the belief in evolution. One more time for the short bus rider: it is just as easy to believe in and prove God exists as it is to believe in and prove evolution is real.


----------



## UltimateReality

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Hollie: for the effects of "forgiveness" therapy on healing the mind and body, both medical studies and psychology studies have shown this process works consisently. science and faith need not be hostile or adverse/opposites, but the same things taught in religion can be shown to work using scientific methods and study. Natural laws are part of creation also.
> 
> As for YWC God may not need science, but secular Gentiles who understand and appreciate the world through science may need this as a tool to resolve questions and conflicts. I believe God gave us the abilities we have in our minds and conscience to reason and compare consequences and cause/effect so we CAN reach an understanding by free will.
> One day, we won't have to rely so much on blind faith, but can back it up with science and history, to show WHY certain choices in life and relationships are better than others.
Click to expand...


You are wasting your time. Until Hollie learns to forgive her gay-hating, fundamentalist Christian parents, she will forever be blinded by her seething hate for all Christians. She has found solace in the study of evolution, because it helps here reconcile the turmoil that is within her soul by helping her pretend God doesn't exist.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong as usual. What the fundie actually did was trash virtually all of his prior claims to creationism being "science" to finally admitting that creationism is nothing more than religion (christianity), under a fraudulent veneer.
> 
> What a laughable joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,tell me how detecting design in nature is nonscientific ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The method you use presumes the existence of the Designer you posit, to validate the presence of the design you "detect," that validates the Designer you posit, which demonstrates the design you "detect."
> 
> Every bit of "design" you present REQUIRES belief in the Designer you posit is the author of the design you present.
Click to expand...


Hello everyone. Meet Parrot. Loki just changed the players and repeated back what I posted a few pages back:

"I have often wondered: What would it take for a biology professor to see some living organism, study it and then clap his hand to his forehead and say: "Wow, natural selection couldn't possibly have done THAT!"

Answer: Nothing. They are locked into a materialist worldview, and they think that anything outside it is unscientific. They have already accepted Lewontin's Law about the necessity of a "prior commitment to materialism." They will look at any strange organism you may show them and say: "Well, it exists doesn't it? How else did it get here, if not by gradual stages, bit by bit, starting with molecules in motion, finally building up to what we see in front of us? What other choice is there?"


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is greater then man and you are putting your faith in falliable man but should I be surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep referencing this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've gone on, and on about this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
Click to expand...


Says Loki as he goes about his business in a 7-day week in a year referenced by the time Christ lived and sipping on a cup of coffee he paid for with a piece of paper that says "In God We Trust" on it while he chats online with Andrew, Mark, Luke, John, Mary, Martha, David, Ben, James, Matt, Joe, Zach, Ruth, Sam, etc., etc.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is YOUR Christian belief, not science, and I am not stating that your beliefs are wrong.
> Go get on your house roof at the highest point. Get your wife at the bottom on the ground. Then ask God to save you while you dive on your head on the ground.
> Or listen to your wife who is screaming to you not to do it.
> Your wife knows science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the Devil...
> 
> Matthew 4:
> 
> 1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the *devil.* 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.
> 
> 4 Jesus answered, It is written: Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.*
> 
> 5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 If you are the Son of God, he said, throw yourself down. For it is written:
> 
> He will command his angels concerning you,
> and they will lift you up in their hands,
> so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.[c]
> 
> 7 Jesus answered him, It is also written: Do not put the Lord your God to the test.[d]*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 8 Oi vey but these superstitious fools are gullible so that you will intentionally strike your forehead against a stone...repeatedly.*
Click to expand...

*

You mean like trying to have a logical conversation with you???  *


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...says the foolish Rugged Touch Man/Woman who posts under fake names and continuously commits lies of omission and milks the taxpayers for disability payments and foodstamps just because he/she is grossly obese... Hollie "I am of the male persuasion" Man Touch.
> 
> 
> 
> There's that true Christian spirit of hate, derision, *false claims, lies* and....uplifting of the human condition.
Click to expand...


Nope, I am speaking the truth in love. Please do share. What facts above that I wrote about you aren't true? You really can't call someone a liar without substantiating your claim. 

A simple yes or no will do:

Did you mislead others on another forum by pretending to be a man posing under the name Rugged Touch? 

Are you on disability?

Are you obese?

Were your parents fundamentalist Christians?

*Have you ever been to college?*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think anyone here, including YWC, is claiming Creationism is anything but religion. And I would disagree that creationists avoid scientific scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true.
> 
> 
> 
> HOLY SHIT! I AGREE WITH YOU!
> 
> Well, this is complete bullshit.
> 
> The superstitious, like you, are always so keen to challenge folks like me to "prove" you wrong, and you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our assertions. Denying evidence is like breathing air for you retards--but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then we would have finally brought a real test of your faith--if you manage to maintain your retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourself that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows.
> 
> Creationists have no interest what-so-ever in demonstrating what they believe has any basis in objective reality. Science for you asshats is a test of your denial of reality; it is a test of your belief based upon nothing but your belief; it is a test of your faith.
> 
> And they don't.
> 
> Pathological projection.
> 
> Evolutionists do not subscribe to the intellectually dishonest Creationist paradigm that Hovindists assign to them.
> 
> Just alot of made-up nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of God is just as easty to believe AND prove, as the belief that natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for the complex life forms on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh good!
> 
> This "God" thing you reference. I have no idea what you're talking about. You say the existence of this "God" thing of yours is easy prove.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and prove this "God" thing you reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. That is not what I said. What is your educational background that you can't seem to comprehend a simple sentence? Here, let me say it reeaaaal slow so you can get it. The existence of God is just as easy to believe in and prove, as the belief in evolution. One more time for the short bus rider: it is just as easy to believe in and prove God exists as it is to believe in and prove evolution is real.
Click to expand...

Oh you poor Harun Yahya groupie. Proof of the gods would negate any requirement for religious faith. 

As there is no proof for any gods, you're left with belief in the supermagical.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...says the foolish Rugged Touch Man/Woman who posts under fake names and continuously commits lies of omission and milks the taxpayers for disability payments and foodstamps just because he/she is grossly obese... Hollie "I am of the male persuasion" Man Touch.
> 
> 
> 
> There's that true Christian spirit of hate, derision, *false claims, lies* and....uplifting of the human condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, I am speaking the truth in love. Please do share. What facts above that I wrote about you aren't true? You really can't call someone a liar without substantiating your claim.
> 
> A simple yes or no will do:
> 
> Did you mislead others on another forum by pretending to be a man posing under the name Rugged Touch?
> 
> Are you on disability?
> 
> Are you obese?
> 
> Were your parents fundamentalist Christians?
> 
> *Have you ever been to college?*
Click to expand...

I wouldn't let your lack of education be a barrier to ignorance. Many fundie Christians are able to wander through life with nothing more a bible to thump people with and an abiding will to collect welfare.

 Did you mislead others on another forum by pretending to be a man posing under the name Rugged slut?

Are you on disability because the gods are punishing?

Are you obese because the gods are punishing you?

Were your parents fundamentalist Christians as opposed to Harun Yahya groupies?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Hollie: for the effects of "forgiveness" therapy on healing the mind and body, both medical studies and psychology studies have shown this process works consisently. science and faith need not be hostile or adverse/opposites, but the same things taught in religion can be shown to work using scientific methods and study. Natural laws are part of creation also.
> 
> As for YWC God may not need science, but secular Gentiles who understand and appreciate the world through science may need this as a tool to resolve questions and conflicts. I believe God gave us the abilities we have in our minds and conscience to reason and compare consequences and cause/effect so we CAN reach an understanding by free will.
> One day, we won't have to rely so much on blind faith, but can back it up with science and history, to show WHY certain choices in life and relationships are better than others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wasting your time. Until Hollie learns to forgive her gay-hating, fundamentalist Christian parents, she will forever be blinded by her seething hate for all Christians. She has found solace in the study of evolution, because it helps here reconcile the turmoil that is within her soul by helping her pretend God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

This is, of course, the problem faced by fundie Christians. Their ideology of hate causes them to lash out at anyone who presents a rational argument that contradicts their worldview of fear and self-loathing.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,tell me how detecting design in nature is nonscientific ?
> 
> 
> 
> The method you use presumes the existence of the Designer you posit, to validate the presence of the design you "detect," that validates the Designer you posit, which demonstrates the design you "detect."
> 
> Every bit of "design" you present REQUIRES belief in the Designer you posit is the author of the design you present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you determine happened by chance and luck i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.
Click to expand...

Why would you worship such an incompetent designer as one alluded to in just one of the ancient books of tales and fabled that is so rife with errors and contradictions?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man who doesn't even understand the exchange between Loki and myself, nor the fact that I used the atheist-sympathizing Wiki to prove him wrong. Bold type is the fact he denied for emphasis. And where is Loki? As it typical of Loki, rather than admit he was wrong, he has tucked his tail and skedaddled.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that when no one else can find a reason to congratulate you, you can just congratulate yourself.
> 
> Oh, right! I suppose your imaginary friend is congratulating you right now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revisionism runs in yours and Hollie's veins. Why would assume anything else other than your total and complete denial of the truth? You are a LIAR and anyone with half a brain that read the threads can see right through your shenanigans.
> 
> I said it before but now you have convinced me, arguing with you is akin to arguing with a drunk. There is no logic or reasoning to be found with you and no honor whatsoever.
Click to expand...

How strange that you would make reference to logic and reasoning. You and the other fundie had insisted that creation "science" was a viable method to counter evolution, the biological sciences and the physical sciences. You both recently abandoned that strategy  altogether and finally admitted that creation science is simply lies, deceit and falsehood as mere attempts to assign credibility to what amounts to fear and superstition.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier in this thread I made the argument how mutation fixation can never happen the way evolutionist claim. I could not find it but I found an article discussing the same nine reasons why evolution through mutations can never happen. Now if you guys wish to go down this road read this article and let's get to it. In other words poop or get off the pot.
> 
> 
> 
> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
> by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
> Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.
> 
> Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
> 
> NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION
> Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1
> 
> *--COPY/PASTE VOMIT PILE SNIPPED--​*
> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
> 
> 
> 
> A better title for this little piece of creationist misinformation is:
> 
> NINE NON-EXISTENT CONDITIONS THAT PREVENT MUTATION FIXATION
> 
> Seriously. Give that thing a thorough read. I think that nearly every single sentence expresses or serves a fundamental misunderstanding (more likely deliberate mischaracterization) of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are talking my language now, please point out the misunderstandings and we will go from there.
Click to expand...

You're not talking a language at all. You are simply cutting and pasting from creationist websites material that is manufactured from non-scientists. That Is why you have admitted that creation science is nothing more than appeals to religion.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the Devil...
> 
> Matthew 4:
> 
> 1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the *devil.* 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.
> 
> 4 Jesus answered, It is written: Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.*
> 
> 5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 If you are the Son of God, he said, throw yourself down. For it is written:
> 
> He will command his angels concerning you,
> and they will lift you up in their hands,
> so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.[c]
> 
> 7 Jesus answered him, It is also written: Do not put the Lord your God to the test.[d]*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 8 Oi vey but these superstitious fools are gullible so that you will intentionally strike your forehead against a stone...repeatedly.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> You mean like trying to have a logical conversation with you???  *
Click to expand...

*
What conversation can be had with a cut and paste bible thumper?*


----------



## ima

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 Oi vey but these superstitious fools are gullible so that you will intentionally strike your forehead against a stone...repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like trying to have a logical conversation with you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What conversation can be had with a cut and paste bible thumper?
Click to expand...


UR lives his life by a douche book of fairy tales and can't think for himself but can only quote a book of fiction, written generations, and sometimes hundreds of years after the events. Give it up Hollie, he reached his intellectual limit a long time ago.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,tell me how detecting design in nature is nonscientific ?
> 
> 
> 
> The method you use presumes the existence of the Designer you posit, to validate the presence of the design you "detect," that validates the Designer you posit, which demonstrates the design you "detect."
> 
> Every bit of "design" you present REQUIRES belief in the Designer you posit is the author of the design you present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you determine happened by chance and luck ...
Click to expand...





Youwerecreated said:


> ... i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.


Superstition.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> I will await loki to give a rebuttal on mutation fixation and the conditions that were brought out in the article I posted he said they don't exist,now that was funny.


I'll give you the first one only. I'm not going through all 9--they all exhibit the same flavor of disinformation. Then I expect you to stop evading my requests for information.



			
				E. Calvin Beisner said:
			
		

> Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population.


This is a deliberately deceptive application of only half of the mechanism. While it is true that "natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations" that degrade fitness, it is also true that natural selection tends to favor fixation of mutations that enhance fitness.



			
				E. Calvin Beisner said:
			
		

> Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change.


True for the case where mutation enhances fitness, not true where the mutation degrades fitness.



			
				E. Calvin Beisner said:
			
		

> B. Clarke points out that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population.


I have no idea who B.Clark is, but if he's an actual scientist he should punch Beisner right in the face for attributing this retarded nonsense--that exhibits a profound lack of understanding of everything--to him.



			
				E. Calvin Beisner said:
			
		

> The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change.


Unless this is just an affirmation that there is no deliberation, no cognitive bias on the part of the environment, this "condition" is just nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that fitness is not dissociable from environmental conditions. Environmental conditions--rather than being neutral--BIAS fixation in favor of fitness.



			
				E. Calvin Beisner said:
			
		

> But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.


Either Byles is retarded, or more likely, E. Calvin Beisner is a quote-mining, intellectually-dishonest, disinforming, superstitious retard of the first order.

The remaining 8 of Beisners contributions to making the world a dumber place is just as fractally wrong as the first.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would that made up nonsense include all the Wiki quotes above which prove your strawman accusations to be TOTALLY BOGUS???
> 
> 
> 
> All those wiki-quotes actually support my position and demonstrate your assertions to be strawmen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious right now?
Click to expand...

Yes.



UltimateReality said:


> You were absolutely wrong.


No.



UltimateReality said:


> Everything I claimed about evolutions claims, which you REFUTED, were proven true by the Wiki quotes.


Wrong. All those wiki-quotes actually support my position and demonstrate your assertions to be strawmen.



UltimateReality said:


> I see how this goes.


No, you really don't. For those of the faithful paradigm, believing is seeing. You just "see" it goes the way you believe it goes.



UltimateReality said:


> Just like everything else in the TOE, you think if you repeat something over and over enough, people will start to believe.


This is what you believe. It is made-up nonsense.



UltimateReality said:


> You were WRONG and the strawman was a figment of your vivid imagination.


This is what you believe. It is made-up nonsense.



UltimateReality said:


> Why can't you admit it?


I do not accept your made-up nonsense as validly real. That's why.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man who doesn't even understand the exchange between Loki and myself, nor the fact that I used the atheist-sympathizing Wiki to prove him wrong. Bold type is the fact he denied for emphasis. And where is Loki? As it typical of Loki, rather than admit he was wrong, he has tucked his tail and skedaddled.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that when no one else can find a reason to congratulate you, you can just congratulate yourself.
> 
> Oh, right! I suppose your imaginary friend is congratulating you right now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revisionism runs in yours and Hollie's veins.
Click to expand...

What revisionism? The revisionism you are making-up? The revisionism you just believe is occuring?



UltimateReality said:


> Why would assume anything else other than your total and complete denial of the truth?


What truth is being denied? The "UltimateTruth" of the "UltimateReality" that you just so happen to know all about?



UltimateReality said:


> You are a LIAR and anyone with half a brain that read the threads can see right through your shenanigans.


Yet you fail to demonstrate that I have lied. Why is that, Cupcake?



UltimateReality said:


> I said it before but now you have convinced me, arguing with you is akin to arguing with a drunk. There is no logic or reasoning to be found with you and no honor whatsoever.


Ah. No doubt true--only in your made-up "UltimateReality."


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> The lies are strong with this one.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Oh you poor dear. That is not what I said. What is your educational background that you can't seem to comprehend a simple sentence? Here, let me say it reeaaaal slow so you can get it. The existence of God is just as easy to believe in and prove, as the belief in evolution. One more time for the short bus rider: it is just as easy to believe in and prove God exists as it is to believe in and prove evolution is real.


Oh good!

You reference this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,tell me how detecting design in nature is nonscientific ?
> 
> 
> 
> The method you use presumes the existence of the Designer you posit, to validate the presence of the design you "detect," that validates the Designer you posit, which demonstrates the design you "detect."
> 
> Every bit of "design" you present REQUIRES belief in the Designer you posit is the author of the design you present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello everyone. Meet Parrot. Loki just changed the players and repeated back what I posted a few pages back:
> 
> "I have often wondered: What would it take for a biology professor to see some living organism, study it and then clap his hand to his forehead and say: "Wow, natural selection couldn't possibly have done THAT!"
> 
> Answer: Nothing. They are locked into a materialist worldview, and they think that anything outside it is unscientific. They have already accepted Lewontin's Law about the necessity of a "prior commitment to materialism." They will look at any strange organism you may show them and say: "Well, it exists doesn't it? How else did it get here, if not by gradual stages, bit by bit, starting with molecules in motion, finally building up to what we see in front of us? What other choice is there?"
Click to expand...

Whereas the application of the Hovindist paradigm is patently inappropriate to scientists, it is unquestionably appropriate to apply it to you and your superstitious tribe who just CANNOT MANAGE to come up with an explanation of their "God" thing that is not some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of some "God."


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is greater then man and you are putting your faith in falliable man but should I be surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep referencing this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've gone on, and on about this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says Loki as he goes about his business in a 7-day week in a year referenced by the time Christ lived and sipping on a cup of coffee he paid for with a piece of paper that says "In God We Trust" on it while he chats online with Andrew, Mark, Luke, John, Mary, Martha, David, Ben, James, Matt, Joe, Zach, Ruth, Sam, etc., etc.
Click to expand...

What's your point?

I take it that you are referring to something that is real. Should I not?

If I should, then I have no idea what you're talking about. You've gone on about this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The method you use presumes the existence of the Designer you posit, to validate the presence of the design you "detect," that validates the Designer you posit, which demonstrates the design you "detect."
> 
> Every bit of "design" you present REQUIRES belief in the Designer you posit is the author of the design you present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you determine happened by chance and luck i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you worship such an incompetent designer as one alluded to in just one of the ancient books of tales and fabled that is so rife with errors and contradictions?
Click to expand...


You think the cell was designed incompetence ? holiie this is exactly why we have a problem with you. The cell is so complex that it causes the greatest minds to marvel over them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> A better title for this little piece of creationist misinformation is:
> 
> NINE NON-EXISTENT CONDITIONS THAT PREVENT MUTATION FIXATION
> 
> Seriously. Give that thing a thorough read. I think that nearly every single sentence expresses or serves a fundamental misunderstanding (more likely deliberate mischaracterization) of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking my language now, please point out the misunderstandings and we will go from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not talking a language at all. You are simply cutting and pasting from creationist websites material that is manufactured from non-scientists. That Is why you have admitted that creation science is nothing more than appeals to religion.
Click to expand...


The difference is hollie I have training to help me understand what I cut and pasted. I am sure loki will attempt a response but he like you does not understand the problems with mutation fixation. I will be more then happy to discuss it with you guys.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 Oi vey but these superstitious fools are gullible so that you will intentionally strike your forehead against a stone...repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like trying to have a logical conversation with you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What conversation can be had with a cut and paste bible thumper?
Click to expand...


That cut and paste deals with known facts hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like trying to have a logical conversation with you???
> 
> 
> 
> What conversation can be had with a cut and paste bible thumper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UR lives his life by a douche book of fairy tales and can't think for himself but can only quote a book of fiction, written generations, and sometimes hundreds of years after the events. Give it up Hollie, he reached his intellectual limit a long time ago.
Click to expand...


If you wish to talk science then do so but quit resorting to talking points and rhetoric.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The method you use presumes the existence of the Designer you posit, to validate the presence of the design you "detect," that validates the Designer you posit, which demonstrates the design you "detect."
> 
> Every bit of "design" you present REQUIRES belief in the Designer you posit is the author of the design you present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you determine happened by chance and luck ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Superstition.
Click to expand...


Molecular machines are superstition ? Biological Defense mechanisms are superstitions ? Biological transcription mechanisms are superstitions ? these designs do not have a purpose ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will await loki to give a rebuttal on mutation fixation and the conditions that were brought out in the article I posted he said they don't exist,now that was funny.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you the first one only. I'm not going through all 9--they all exhibit the same flavor of disinformation. Then I expect you to stop evading my requests for information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a deliberately deceptive application of only half of the mechanism. While it is true that "natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations" that degrade fitness, it is also true that natural selection tends to favor fixation of mutations that enhance fitness.
> 
> True for the case where mutation enhances fitness, not true where the mutation degrades fitness.
> 
> I have no idea who B.Clark is, but if he's an actual scientist he should punch Beisner right in the face for attributing this retarded nonsense--that exhibits a profound lack of understanding of everything--to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless this is just an affirmation that there is no deliberation, no cognitive bias on the part of the environment, this "condition" is just nonsense.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that fitness is not dissociable from environmental conditions. Environmental conditions--rather than being neutral--BIAS fixation in favor of fitness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either Byles is retarded, or more likely, E. Calvin Beisner is a quote-mining, intellectually-dishonest, disinforming, superstitious retard of the first order.
> 
> The remaining 8 of Beisners contributions to making the world a dumber place is just as fractally wrong as the first.
Click to expand...


Loki your attempt is really wrong. If what you say is true why is that we can point to many more destructive mutations over beneficial mutations ?

Loki you need to consider not just the one problem but all 9 to understand why these conditions present a major hurdle to mutation fixation.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you determine happened by chance and luck i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you worship such an incompetent designer as one alluded to in just one of the ancient books of tales and fabled that is so rife with errors and contradictions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the cell was designed by an incompetence ? holiie this is exactly why we have a problem with you. The cell is so complex that it causes the greatest minds to marvel over them.
Click to expand...


Your problem is not with me but with the limits you place on your own yourself. Your inability to understand this seems to be more a function of a limited imagination that is stunted by a religious mandate. I suspect that by we having a problem with me you are including yourself and the other fundie. That is quite a roll call of unimportant, uneducated and superstitious knuckleheads who choose to live in fear of education and enlightenment. 

People used to marvel over the gods ability to cause earthquakes, thunderstorms, lightning and even how the gods required human and animal sacrifice to appease their nasty and capricious nature.

Most of us know understand that those things once ascribed to the gods have completely natural causations. The difficulty you face is that science and the knowledge gained have reduced the need for your gods to interfere in our lives.

That people marvel over cells does not indicate anything supernatural about them. But yes, thunder and lightning is so complex that we should still "marvel" it and presumptively assume _the gods did it_. I guess this means that the next time there is thunder and lightning you better find a goat and make ritual sacrifice to your gods.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you determine happened by chance and luck ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Molecular machines are superstition ? Biological Defense mechanisms are superstitions ? Biological transcription mechanisms are superstitions ? these designs do not have a purpose ?
Click to expand...


"Molecular machines"?

You're simply quote-mining that nonsensical slogan from creationist ministries. Don't be an accomplice to the fear and superstition they hope to instill in the fearful and superstitious.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like trying to have a logical conversation with you???
> 
> 
> 
> What conversation can be had with a cut and paste bible thumper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That cut and paste deals with known facts hollie.
Click to expand...


That cut and paste is standard boilerplate superstition furthered by those who prey on the superstitious.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Loki ask yourself why these defense mechnisms are in place to repair copying errors ? please explain why more copying errors known as mutations get into the population then beneficial mutations getting into the population ? we have 6,000 genetic disorders and counting but your side can only point to a few beneficial mutations but once you dig a little deeper these benficial mutations are not all that beneficial because affect proper function.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking my language now, please point out the misunderstandings and we will go from there.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not talking a language at all. You are simply cutting and pasting from creationist websites material that is manufactured from non-scientists. That Is why you have admitted that creation science is nothing more than appeals to religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is hollie I have training to help me understand what I cut and pasted. I am sure loki will attempt a response but he like you does not understand the problems with mutation fixation. I will be more then happy to discuss it with you guys.
Click to expand...


You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.

You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on science intended to further religion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you worship such an incompetent designer as one alluded to in just one of the ancient books of tales and fabled that is so rife with errors and contradictions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think the cell was designed by an incompetence ? holiie this is exactly why we have a problem with you. The cell is so complex that it causes the greatest minds to marvel over them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your problem is not with me but with the limits you place on your own yourself. Your inability to understand this seems to be more a function of a limited imagination that is stunted by a religious mandate. I suspect that by we having a problem with me you are including yourself and the other fundie. That is quite a roll call of unimportant, uneducated and superstitious knuckleheads who choose to live in fear of education and enlightenment.
> 
> People used to marvel over the gods ability to cause earthquakes, thunderstorms, lightning and even how the gods required human and animal sacrifice to appease their nasty and capricious nature.
> 
> Most of us know understand that those things once ascribed to the gods have completely natural causations. The difficulty you face is that science and the knowledge gained have reduced the need for your gods to interfere in our lives.
> 
> That people marvel over cells does not indicate anything supernatural about them. But yes, thunder and lightning is so complex that we should still "marvel" it and presumptively assume _the gods did it_. I guess this means that the next time there is thunder and lightning you better find a goat and make ritual sacrifice to your gods.
Click to expand...


Hollie let's see if you can stay on topic.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think the cell was designed by an incompetence ? holiie this is exactly why we have a problem with you. The cell is so complex that it causes the greatest minds to marvel over them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is not with me but with the limits you place on your own yourself. Your inability to understand this seems to be more a function of a limited imagination that is stunted by a religious mandate. I suspect that by we having a problem with me you are including yourself and the other fundie. That is quite a roll call of unimportant, uneducated and superstitious knuckleheads who choose to live in fear of education and enlightenment.
> 
> People used to marvel over the gods ability to cause earthquakes, thunderstorms, lightning and even how the gods required human and animal sacrifice to appease their nasty and capricious nature.
> 
> Most of us know understand that those things once ascribed to the gods have completely natural causations. The difficulty you face is that science and the knowledge gained have reduced the need for your gods to interfere in our lives.
> 
> That people marvel over cells does not indicate anything supernatural about them. But yes, thunder and lightning is so complex that we should still "marvel" it and presumptively assume _the gods did it_. I guess this means that the next time there is thunder and lightning you better find a goat and make ritual sacrifice to your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie let's see if you can stay on topic.
Click to expand...


You are not on board with the topic. You're hoping to introduce some level of supernaturalism and magic into a thoroughly natural configuration. 

There's no need to invoke your gods where they are not needed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Molecular machines are superstition ? Biological Defense mechanisms are superstitions ? Biological transcription mechanisms are superstitions ? these designs do not have a purpose ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Molecular machines"?
> 
> You're simply quote-mining that nonsensical slogan from creationist ministries. Don't be an accomplice to the fear and superstition they hope to instill in the fearful and superstitious.
Click to expand...


They are little machines that have a function, What is their function ? I know the term molecular machine bothers you.

Drew Berry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMPXu6GF18M]Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rohJjghQCmw]Molecular Machines - YouTube[/ame]


So hollie there are no molecular machines ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not talking a language at all. You are simply cutting and pasting from creationist websites material that is manufactured from non-scientists. That Is why you have admitted that creation science is nothing more than appeals to religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is hollie I have training to help me understand what I cut and pasted. I am sure loki will attempt a response but he like you does not understand the problems with mutation fixation. I will be more then happy to discuss it with you guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.
> 
> You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on science intended to further religion.
Click to expand...


Hollie, when are you gonna open the discussion on mutation fixation ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Molecular machines are superstition ? Biological Defense mechanisms are superstitions ? Biological transcription mechanisms are superstitions ? these designs do not have a purpose ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Molecular machines"?
> 
> You're simply quote-mining that nonsensical slogan from creationist ministries. Don't be an accomplice to the fear and superstition they hope to instill in the fearful and superstitious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are little machines that have a function, What is their function ? I know the term molecular machine bothers you.
> 
> Drew Berry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMPXu6GF18M]Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rohJjghQCmw]Molecular Machines - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9ff4FQ39CE&feature=related]The machine of DNA in real time - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> So hollie there are no molecular machines ?
Click to expand...


So fundie, you need to insist on silly slogans that are meaningless?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is hollie I have training to help me understand what I cut and pasted. I am sure loki will attempt a response but he like you does not understand the problems with mutation fixation. I will be more then happy to discuss it with you guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.
> 
> You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on science intended to further religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, when are you gonna open the discussion on mutation fixation ?
Click to expand...


What mutation fixation? This is another sill slogan emenating from the creationist ministries. 

You didn't realize that your one, small contribution to honesty (your admission that creationism is stealth religion), only further discredits any cutting and pasting you will hope to deluge the thead with. Your comments are pre-defined to press a religious agenda and that agenda involves lies, deceit and falsified data aimed at biology and the sciences.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Molecular machines"?
> 
> You're simply quote-mining that nonsensical slogan from creationist ministries. Don't be an accomplice to the fear and superstition they hope to instill in the fearful and superstitious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are little machines that have a function, What is their function ? I know the term molecular machine bothers you.
> 
> Drew Berry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMPXu6GF18M]Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rohJjghQCmw]Molecular Machines - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9ff4FQ39CE&feature=related]The machine of DNA in real time - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> So hollie there are no molecular machines ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So fundie, you need to insist on silly slogans that are meaningless?
Click to expand...


Molecular machine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.
> 
> You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on science intended to further religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, when are you gonna open the discussion on mutation fixation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What mutation fixation? This is another sill slogan emenating from the creationist ministries.
> 
> You didn't realize that your one, small contribution to honesty (your admission that creationism is stealth religion), only further discredits any cutting and pasting you will hope to deluge the thead with. Your comments are pre-defined to press a religious agenda and that agenda involves lies, deceit and falsified data aimed at biology and the sciences.
Click to expand...


You are very ignorant to science hollie.


Fixation (population genetics)


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 Jump to: navigation, search


In population genetics, fixation is the change in a gene pool from a situation where there exists at least two variants of a particular gene (allele) to a situation where only one of the alleles remains. The term can refer to a gene in general or particular nucleotide position in the DNA chain (locus).

In the process of substitution, a previously non-existent allele arises by mutation and undergoes fixation by spreading through the population by random genetic drift and/or positive selection. Once the frequency of the allele is at 100%, i.e. being the only gene variant present in any member, it is said to be "fixed" in the population.

Similarly, genetic differences between taxa are said to have been fixed in each species.

[edit] Probability of fixation

Under conditions of genetic drift alone, every finite set of genes or alleles has a "coalescent point" at which all descendants converge to a single ancestor (i.e. they 'coalesce'). This fact can be used to derive the rate of gene fixation of a neutral allele (that is, one not under any form of selection) for a population of varying size (provided that it is finite and nonzero). Because the effect of natural selection is stipulated to be negligible, the probability at any given time that an allele will ultimately become fixed at its locus is simply its frequency in the population at that time. For example, if a population includes allele A with frequency equal to 20%, and allele a with frequency equal to 80%, there is an 80% chance that after an infinite number of generations a will be fixed at the locus (assuming genetic drift is the only operating evolutionary force).

For a diploid population of size N and neutral mutation rate , the initial frequency of a novel mutation is simply 1/(2N), and the number of new mutations per generation is . Since the fixation rate is the rate of novel neutral mutation multiplied by their probability of fixation, the overall fixation rate is . Thus, the rate of fixation for a mutation not subject to selection is simply the rate of introduction of such mutations.

[edit] References
 Gillespie, J.H. (1994) The Causes of Molecular Evolution. Oxford University Press Inc., USA.
 Hartl, D.L. and Clark, A.G. (2006) Principles of Population Genetics (4th edition). Sinauer Associates Inc., USA.
 Kimura, M. (1962) On the Probability of Fixation of Mutant Genes in a Population. Genetics 47: 713&#8211;719. PubMed Central






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(population_genetics)


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, when are you gonna open the discussion on mutation fixation ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What mutation fixation? This is another sill slogan emenating from the creationist ministries.
> 
> You didn't realize that your one, small contribution to honesty (your admission that creationism is stealth religion), only further discredits any cutting and pasting you will hope to deluge the thead with. Your comments are pre-defined to press a religious agenda and that agenda involves lies, deceit and falsified data aimed at biology and the sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are very ignorant to science hollie.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(population_genetics)
Click to expand...


Have you considered your comments in relation to your cutting and pasting from wiki.

I do understand that so many of the charlatans representing creationist ministries have long ago been exposed as frauds so I can understand that you must scour wiki for your creationist anti-science agenda.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you determine happened by chance and luck ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Molecular machines are superstition ?
Click to expand...

Believing in an invisible creator of molecular machines is superstition.



Youwerecreated said:


> Biological Defense mechanisms are superstitions ?


Believing in an invisible creator of biological Defense mechanisms is superstition.



Youwerecreated said:


> Biological transcription mechanisms are superstitions ?


Believing in an invisible creator of biological transcription mechanisms is superstition.



Youwerecreated said:


> these designs do not have a purpose ?


What designs are you talking about? You have submitted identifiable processes that serve functions, but you fail to identify any design.

If you are tempted to respond with some automobile, or circuit board, or house analogy again, I will again make the point you failed to rebut when you last tried that strategy:If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."​I will also remind you that an attempt to quote-mine Francis Crick will prove to be a failure for you again:_"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​Ultimately Youwerecreated, your denial that your "Designer" is nothing but superstition, is just a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of those who possess an unconditional certainty that they are right, because they can't be proven wrong about their imaginary superfriends.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will await loki to give a rebuttal on mutation fixation and the conditions that were brought out in the article I posted he said they don't exist,now that was funny.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you the first one only. I'm not going through all 9--they all exhibit the same flavor of disinformation. Then I expect you to stop evading my requests for information.
> 
> This is a deliberately deceptive application of only half of the mechanism. While it is true that "natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations" that degrade fitness, it is also true that natural selection tends to favor fixation of mutations that enhance fitness.
> 
> True for the case where mutation enhances fitness, not true where the mutation degrades fitness.
> 
> I have no idea who B.Clark is, but if he's an actual scientist he should punch Beisner right in the face for attributing this retarded nonsense--that exhibits a profound lack of understanding of everything--to him.
> 
> Unless this is just an affirmation that there is no deliberation, no cognitive bias on the part of the environment, this "condition" is just nonsense.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that fitness is not dissociable from environmental conditions. Environmental conditions--rather than being neutral--BIAS fixation in favor of fitness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either Byles is retarded, or more likely, E. Calvin Beisner is a quote-mining, intellectually-dishonest, disinforming, superstitious retard of the first order.
> 
> The remaining 8 of Beisners contributions to making the world a dumber place is just as fractally wrong as the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki your attempt is really wrong. If what you say is true why is that we can point to many more destructive mutations over beneficial mutations ?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? If--for the purposes of your point--you accept the evolutionary premises of mutation that conclude a mutation is destructive, intellectual honesty obliges you to the same evolutionary premises of mutation that conclude a mutation is beneficial.

When you accept your obligation to intellectual honesty, you cannot say that "we can point to many more destructive mutations over beneficial mutations."



Youwerecreated said:


> Loki you need to consider not just the one problem but all 9 to understand why these conditions present a major hurdle to mutation fixation.


I *HAVE* considered all nine. I'm just not going to perform the unnecessary exercise of demonstrating the OBVIOUS fractal wrongness of the remaining 8, just to have you assert your dopey superstition motivated denials.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Loki ask yourself why these defense mechnisms are in place to repair copying errors ?


Ok. Consider it asked. The answer, by natural selection, is that the presence of genetic repair mechanisms enhances the fitness of organisms that possess them. While it is patently evident that repair mechanisms serve a function, there is no reason to insist that such mechanisms are in place to serve somebody's purpose. 



Youwerecreated said:


> please explain why more copying errors known as mutations get into the population then beneficial mutations getting into the population ?


This is your claim. I don't have to explain your claims.



Youwerecreated said:


> we have 6,000 genetic disorders and counting but your side can only point to a few beneficial mutations...


This is not true. You only accept the notion of mutation if it results in a disorder, otherwise you reject the notion that any phenotype that enhances fitness can be the result of mutation.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... but once you dig a little deeper these benficial mutations are not all that beneficial because affect proper function.


This is nothing but a denial of the relationship phenotype has with genotype.


----------



## Hollie

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Molecular machines are superstition ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Believing in an invisible creator of molecular machines is superstition.
> 
> Believing in an invisible creator of biological Defense mechanisms is superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biological transcription mechanisms are superstitions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Believing in an invisible creator of biological transcription mechanisms is superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> these designs do not have a purpose ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What designs are you talking about? You have submitted identifiable processes that serve functions, but you fail to identify any design.
> 
> If you are tempted to respond with some automobile, or circuit board, or house analogy again, I will again make the point you failed to rebut when you last tried that strategy:If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."​I will also remind you that an attempt to quote-mine Francis Crick will prove to be a failure for you again:_"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​Ultimately Youwerecreated, your denial that your "Designer" is nothing but superstition, is just a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of those who possess an unconditional certainty that they are right, because they can't be proven wrong about their imaginary superfriends.
Click to expand...

 
Kudos, Loki. Good catch. Way, way back even before this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5631185-post5749.html

I took the fundie to task for posting altered "quotes" by Crick and others. It was a dishonest and sleazy tactic that the fundie still uses even though he has been exposed as a fraud and a liar.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> HOLY SHIT! I AGREE WITH YOU!
> 
> Well, this is complete bullshit.
> 
> The superstitious, like you, are always so keen to challenge folks like me to "prove" you wrong, and you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our assertions. Denying evidence is like breathing air for you retards--but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then we would have finally brought a real test of your faith--if you manage to maintain your retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourself that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows.
> 
> Creationists have no interest what-so-ever in demonstrating what they believe has any basis in objective reality. Science for you asshats is a test of your denial of reality; it is a test of your belief based upon nothing but your belief; it is a test of your faith.
> 
> And they don't.
> 
> Pathological projection.
> 
> Evolutionists do not subscribe to the intellectually dishonest Creationist paradigm that Hovindists assign to them.
> 
> Just alot of made-up nonsense.
> 
> Oh good!
> 
> This "God" thing you reference. I have no idea what you're talking about. You say the existence of this "God" thing of yours is easy prove.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and prove this "God" thing you reference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. That is not what I said. What is your educational background that you can't seem to comprehend a simple sentence? Here, let me say it reeaaaal slow so you can get it. The existence of God is just as easy to believe in and prove, as the belief in evolution. One more time for the short bus rider: it is just as easy to believe in and prove God exists as it is to believe in and prove evolution is real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh you poor Harun Yahya groupie. Proof of the gods would negate any requirement for religious faith.
> 
> As there is no proof for any gods, you're left with belief in the supermagical.
Click to expand...


Go figure. You missed the comparison as well.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's that true Christian spirit of hate, derision, *false claims, lies* and....uplifting of the human condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I am speaking the truth in love. Please do share. What facts above that I wrote about you aren't true? You really can't call someone a liar without substantiating your claim.
> 
> A simple yes or no will do:
> 
> Did you mislead others on another forum by pretending to be a man posing under the name Rugged Touch?
> 
> Are you on disability?
> 
> Are you obese?
> 
> Were your parents fundamentalist Christians?
> 
> *Have you ever been to college?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't let your lack of education be a barrier to ignorance. Many fundie Christians are able to wander through life with nothing more a bible to thump people with and an abiding will to collect welfare.
Click to expand...


 Did you mislead others on another forum by pretending to be a man posing under the name Rugged slut? *No.*

Are you on disability because the gods are punishing? *No. I have never received government assistance.*

Are you obese because the gods are punishing you? *No, I am very fit. At 46 I still do weight training 3 times a week with the addition of 25 to 30 minutes of cardio. I try to eat healthy but typically blow it about once a week when we go out to dinner. 
*

Were your parents fundamentalist Christians as opposed to Harun Yahya groupies? *Yes, my parents were Southern Baptists. No, they didn't follow Islam. They were quite legalistic although my dad would give the shirt off his back to help someone in need. My mother volunteered for our church her whole life and led the nursing home ministries for quite a few years before succumbing to Alzheimers. *

*See Hollie, that wasn't so hard was it?*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that when no one else can find a reason to congratulate you, you can just congratulate yourself.
> 
> Oh, right! I suppose your imaginary friend is congratulating you right now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionism runs in yours and Hollie's veins. Why would assume anything else other than your total and complete denial of the truth? You are a LIAR and anyone with half a brain that read the threads can see right through your shenanigans.
> 
> I said it before but now you have convinced me, arguing with you is akin to arguing with a drunk. There is no logic or reasoning to be found with you and no honor whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How strange that you would make reference to logic and reasoning. You and the other fundie had insisted that creation "science" was a viable method to counter evolution, the biological sciences and the physical sciences. You both recently abandoned that strategy  altogether and finally admitted that creation science is simply lies, deceit and falsehood as mere attempts to assign credibility to what amounts to fear and superstition.
Click to expand...


Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. Seriously, Hollie, you and Loki think if you repeat something enough times it will be true. I have never claimed Creationism is anything but religion. Please produce a link or cease and desist with your LIES.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will await loki to give a rebuttal on mutation fixation and the conditions that were brought out in the article I posted he said they don't exist,now that was funny.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you the first one only. I'm not going through all 9--they all exhibit the same flavor of disinformation. Then I expect you to stop evading my requests for information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a deliberately deceptive application of only half of the mechanism. While it is true that "natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations" that degrade fitness, it is also true that natural selection tends to favor fixation of mutations that enhance fitness.
Click to expand...


So I think I understand what you are saying. Natural selection tends to favor fixation of mutations that enhance an organisms ability to survive and reproduce. So basically you are saying our evidence for this is the fact that any mutations that survived must have been the ones that contributed to the organisms ability to survive and reproduce or they wouldn't have survived and reproduced.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that when no one else can find a reason to congratulate you, you can just congratulate yourself.
> 
> Oh, right! I suppose your imaginary friend is congratulating you right now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionism runs in yours and Hollie's veins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What revisionism? The revisionism you are making-up? The revisionism you just believe is occuring?
> 
> What truth is being denied? The "UltimateTruth" of the "UltimateReality" that you just so happen to know all about?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a LIAR and anyone with half a brain that read the threads can see right through your shenanigans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you fail to demonstrate that I have lied. Why is that, Cupcake?
Click to expand...


The wiki quotes demonstrated your strawman claim, like all of your fallacious fallacy accusations, was a lie. Just go back and read it. That is where I demonstrated it. I really can't believe you are this stupid. But I will accept your bait to demonstrate it again.

Remember, in the context of the conversation, we were talking about hominids:



LOki said:


> Correction:
> 
> "Furthermore, *UR's strawman version of evolution* would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations.



Wiki: "In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or small populations."

"the organisms undergoing speciation and rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils." [This is consistent with the fossil evidence of Neanderthal and HS.]

"Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow."



LOki said:


> Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years.



Wiki: "Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor about 660,000 years ago.




LOki said:


> Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur *UR's strawman version* of natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to UR's strawman version of Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same."
> 
> Fixed.



Wiki: "Allopatric speciation suggests that species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments."

And thus, rather than admit his lie, Loki chooses not to admit his BLATANT intellectual dishonesty.

Lest we forget the topic that started this whole discussion: And so it is the case in the "just so" stories of Darwinism, we are asked to believe that none of the claims made for the Hominids we were discussing above, never happened to E'coli, which has remain largely unchanged for 2 billion years.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. That is not what I said. What is your educational background that you can't seem to comprehend a simple sentence? Here, let me say it reeaaaal slow so you can get it. The existence of God is just as easy to believe in and prove, as the belief in evolution. One more time for the short bus rider: it is just as easy to believe in and prove God exists as it is to believe in and prove evolution is real.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good!
> 
> You reference this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference.
Click to expand...


Mental midget.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you determine happened by chance and luck i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you worship such an incompetent designer as one alluded to in just one of the ancient books of tales and fabled that is so rife with errors and contradictions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the cell was designed incompetence ? holiie this is exactly why we have a problem with you. The cell is so complex that it causes the greatest minds to marvel over them.
Click to expand...


Greatest Minds being the operative word there.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not talking a language at all. You are simply cutting and pasting from creationist websites material that is manufactured from non-scientists. That Is why you have admitted that creation science is nothing more than appeals to religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is hollie I have training to help me understand what I cut and pasted. I am sure loki will attempt a response but he like you does not understand the problems with mutation fixation. I will be more then happy to discuss it with you guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.
> 
> You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on science intended to further religion.
Click to expand...


Where does your information come from? Oh that's right. You never actually provide any!!!!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. That is not what I said. What is your educational background that you can't seem to comprehend a simple sentence? Here, let me say it reeaaaal slow so you can get it. The existence of God is just as easy to believe in and prove, as the belief in evolution. One more time for the short bus rider: it is just as easy to believe in and prove God exists as it is to believe in and prove evolution is real.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor Harun Yahya groupie. Proof of the gods would negate any requirement for religious faith.
> 
> As there is no proof for any gods, you're left with belief in the supermagical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go figure. You missed the comparison as well.
Click to expand...

There was nothing to figure. Your silly attempts at comparison are typically connected to supernatural entities.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is hollie I have training to help me understand what I cut and pasted. I am sure loki will attempt a response but he like you does not understand the problems with mutation fixation. I will be more then happy to discuss it with you guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.
> 
> You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on scienceintended to further religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does your information come from? Oh that's right. You never actually provide any!!!!
Click to expand...

You have already identified that your "information" comes from sources that are religious based. What information are you going to cut and paste from fundie websites that anyone needs to be bother refuting?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I am speaking the truth in love. Please do share. What facts above that I wrote about you aren't true? You really can't call someone a liar without substantiating your claim.
> 
> A simple yes or no will do:
> 
> Did you mislead others on another forum by pretending to be a man posing under the name Rugged Touch?
> 
> Are you on disability?
> 
> Are you obese?
> 
> Were your parents fundamentalist Christians?
> 
> *Have you ever been to college?*
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't let your lack of education be a barrier to ignorance. Many fundie Christians are able to wander through life with nothing more a bible to thump people with and an abiding will to collect welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you mislead others on another forum by pretending to be a man posing under the name Rugged slut? *No.*
> 
> Are you on disability because the gods are punishing? *No. I have never received government assistance.*
> 
> Are you obese because the gods are punishing you? *No, I am very fit. At 46 I still do weight training 3 times a week with the addition of 25 to 30 minutes of cardio. I try to eat healthy but typically blow it about once a week when we go out to dinner.
> *
> 
> Were your parents fundamentalist Christians as opposed to Harun Yahya groupies? *Yes, my parents were Southern Baptists. No, they didn't follow Islam. They were quite legalistic although my dad would give the shirt off his back to help someone in need. My mother volunteered for our church her whole life and led the nursing home ministries for quite a few years before succumbing to Alzheimers. *
> 
> *See Hollie, that wasn't so hard was it?*
Click to expand...

Oh gee whiz. Did you copy and paste that from a creationist ministry?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionism runs in yours and Hollie's veins. Why would assume anything else other than your total and complete denial of the truth? You are a LIAR and anyone with half a brain that read the threads can see right through your shenanigans.
> 
> I said it before but now you have convinced me, arguing with you is akin to arguing with a drunk. There is no logic or reasoning to be found with you and no honor whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that you would make reference to logic and reasoning. You and the other fundie had insisted that creation "science" was a viable method to counter evolution, the biological sciences and the physical sciences. You both recently abandoned that strategy  altogether and finally admitted that creation science is simply lies, deceit and falsehood as mere attempts to assign credibility to what amounts to fear and superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. Seriously, Hollie, you and Loki think if you repeat something enough times it will be true. I have never claimed Creationism is anything but religion. Please produce a link or cease and desist with your LIES.
Click to expand...

Oh you poor dear. You're having second thoughts about admitting the agenda of the creationist ministries you copy and paste from. Your agenda was always to promote "creation science" as a viable alternative to verifiable, peer reviewed science. Of course it is not and for some unknown reason, you expect to have appeals to a supermagical entity taken seriously.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is hollie I have training to help me understand what I cut and pasted. I am sure loki will attempt a response but he like you does not understand the problems with mutation fixation. I will be more then happy to discuss it with you guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.
> 
> You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on science intended to further religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, when are you gonna open the discussion on mutation fixation ?
Click to expand...


I think you are giving him way too much credit.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What mutation fixation? This is another sill slogan emenating from the creationist ministries.
> 
> You didn't realize that your one, small contribution to honesty (your admission that creationism is stealth religion), only further discredits any cutting and pasting you will hope to deluge the thead with. Your comments are pre-defined to press a religious agenda and that agenda involves lies, deceit and falsified data aimed at biology and the sciences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are very ignorant to science hollie.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(population_genetics)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you considered your comments in relation to your cutting and pasting from wiki.
> 
> I do understand that so many of the charlatans representing creationist ministries have long ago been exposed as frauds so I can understand that you must scour wiki for your creationist anti-science agenda.
Click to expand...


Hollie, just in case you think we forgot, we still remember how you cut and pasted one of your own posts from 5 years ago. Please, please, please, do us all a favor and come up with some new material.  And quit accusing everyone else of what you are more guilty of than anyone else.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.
> 
> You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on scienceintended to further religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does your information come from? Oh that's right. You never actually provide any!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already identified that your "information" comes from sources that are religious based.
Click to expand...


You are just being manipulative or you are a complete moron. My last source was Wiki, the atheist, evolution friendly pseudo-clopedia.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.
> 
> You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on scienceintended to further religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does your information come from? Oh that's right. You never actually provide any!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already identified that your "information" comes from sources that are religious based.
Click to expand...


You are just being manipulative or you are a total moron. My last source was Wiki- the atheist, evolution friendly pseudo-clopedia. Is that religious-based?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't let your lack of education be a barrier to ignorance. Many fundie Christians are able to wander through life with nothing more a bible to thump people with and an abiding will to collect welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mislead others on another forum by pretending to be a man posing under the name Rugged slut? *No.*
> 
> Are you on disability because the gods are punishing? *No. I have never received government assistance.*
> 
> Are you obese because the gods are punishing you? *No, I am very fit. At 46 I still do weight training 3 times a week with the addition of 25 to 30 minutes of cardio. I try to eat healthy but typically blow it about once a week when we go out to dinner.
> *
> 
> Were your parents fundamentalist Christians as opposed to Harun Yahya groupies? *Yes, my parents were Southern Baptists. No, they didn't follow Islam. They were quite legalistic although my dad would give the shirt off his back to help someone in need. My mother volunteered for our church her whole life and led the nursing home ministries for quite a few years before succumbing to Alzheimers. *
> 
> *See Hollie, that wasn't so hard was it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh gee whiz. Did you copy and paste that from a creationist ministry?
Click to expand...


Guess it was too hard. In your absence of denial, we are left to assume that it's all true.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mislead others on another forum by pretending to be a man posing under the name Rugged slut? *No.*
> 
> Are you on disability because the gods are punishing? *No. I have never received government assistance.*
> 
> Are you obese because the gods are punishing you? *No, I am very fit. At 46 I still do weight training 3 times a week with the addition of 25 to 30 minutes of cardio. I try to eat healthy but typically blow it about once a week when we go out to dinner.
> *
> 
> Were your parents fundamentalist Christians as opposed to Harun Yahya groupies? *Yes, my parents were Southern Baptists. No, they didn't follow Islam. They were quite legalistic although my dad would give the shirt off his back to help someone in need. My mother volunteered for our church her whole life and led the nursing home ministries for quite a few years before succumbing to Alzheimers. *
> 
> *See Hollie, that wasn't so hard was it?*
> 
> 
> 
> Oh gee whiz. Did you copy and paste that from a creationist ministry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess it was too hard. In your absence of denial, we are left to assume that it's all true.
Click to expand...

Yes, we are left to believe that you are the social misfit you have admitted to be.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does your information come from? Oh that's right. You never actually provide any!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> You have already identified that your "information" comes from sources that are religious based.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just being manipulative or you are a total moron. My last source was Wiki- the atheist, evolution friendly pseudo-clopedia. Is that religious-based?
Click to expand...

You really can't believe that anyone takes your whining seriously.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will await loki to give a rebuttal on mutation fixation and the conditions that were brought out in the article I posted he said they don't exist,now that was funny.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you the first one only. I'm not going through all 9--they all exhibit the same flavor of disinformation. Then I expect you to stop evading my requests for information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a deliberately deceptive application of only half of the mechanism. While it is true that "natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations" that degrade fitness, it is also true that natural selection tends to favor fixation of mutations that enhance fitness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I think I understand what you are saying.
Click to expand...

I have my doubts, but hope spring eternal, I suppose. 



UltimateReality said:


> Natural selection tends to favor fixation of mutations that enhance an organisms ability to survive and reproduce.


As explained, this is not the entirety of the theory; aside from that, I have no disagreement with this.



UltimateReality said:


> So basically you are saying our evidence for this is the fact that any mutations that survived *must have been* the ones that contributed to the organisms ability to survive and reproduce or they wouldn't have survived and reproduced. [_Emphasis added by LOki_]


No. You simply REFUSE to disabuse yourself of your logically fallacious paradigm.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionism runs in yours and Hollie's veins.
> 
> 
> 
> What revisionism? The revisionism you are making-up? The revisionism you just believe is occuring?
> 
> What truth is being denied? The "UltimateTruth" of the "UltimateReality" that you just so happen to know all about?
> 
> Yet you fail to demonstrate that I have lied. Why is that, Cupcake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wiki quotes demonstrated your strawman claim, like all of your fallacious fallacy accusations, was a lie. Just go back and read it. That is where I demonstrated it. I really can't believe you are this stupid. But I will accept your bait to demonstrate it again.
> 
> Remember, in the context of the conversation, we were talking about hominids:
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki: "In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or small populations."
> 
> "the organisms undergoing speciation and rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils." [This is consistent with the fossil evidence of Neanderthal and HS.]
> 
> "Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow."
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wiki: "Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor about 660,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur *UR's strawman version* of natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to UR's strawman version of Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same."
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wiki: "Allopatric speciation suggests that species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments."
> 
> And thus, rather than admit his lie, Loki chooses not to admit his BLATANT intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Your capacity to C/P wiki entries no matter how valid, is not the same thing as your equivocating use of the vocabulary in those entries to misrepresent what they are describing.

There is simply no intellectual dishonesty for me to admit to. Seriously, you shouldn't quote-mine wikipedia, and then accuse me of "blatant" intellectual dishonesty.



UltimateReality said:


> Lest we forget the topic that started this whole discussion: And so it is the case in the "just so" stories of Darwinism, we are asked to believe that none of the claims made for the Hominids were were discussing above, never happened to E'coli, which has remain argely unchanged for 2 billion years.


And now we see how the irony of your bullshit accusation against me plays out. BRAVO!


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. That is not what I said. What is your educational background that you can't seem to comprehend a simple sentence? Here, let me say it reeaaaal slow so you can get it. The existence of God is just as easy to believe in and prove, as the belief in evolution. One more time for the short bus rider: it is just as easy to believe in and prove God exists as it is to believe in and prove evolution is real.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good!
> 
> You reference this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mental midget.
Click to expand...

Agreed. 

So what's your problem now? Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours? Is it because I'm a mental midget? Is that it?

So I admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God." 

Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that you would make reference to logic and reasoning. You and the other fundie had insisted that creation "science" was a viable method to counter evolution, the biological sciences and the physical sciences. You both recently abandoned that strategy  altogether and finally admitted that creation science is simply lies, deceit and falsehood as mere attempts to assign credibility to what amounts to fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. Seriously, Hollie, you and Loki think if you repeat something enough times it will be true. I have never claimed Creationism is anything but religion. Please produce a link or cease and desist with your LIES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh you poor dear. You're having second thoughts about admitting the agenda of the creationist ministries you copy and paste from. Your agenda was always to promote "creation science" as a viable alternative to verifiable, peer reviewed science. Of course it is not and for some unknown reason, you expect to have appeals to a supermagical entity taken seriously.
Click to expand...


So where's the link? Provide it now or I will require you to cease and desist.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you the first one only. I'm not going through all 9--they all exhibit the same flavor of disinformation. Then I expect you to stop evading my requests for information.
> 
> This is a deliberately deceptive application of only half of the mechanism. While it is true that "natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations" that degrade fitness, it is also true that natural selection tends to favor fixation of mutations that enhance fitness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I think I understand what you are saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have my doubts, but hope spring eternal, I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection tends to favor fixation of mutations that enhance an organisms ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As explained, this is not the entirety of the theory; aside from that, I have no disagreement with this.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you are saying our evidence for this is the fact that any mutations that survived *must have been* the ones that contributed to the organisms ability to survive and reproduce or they wouldn't have survived and reproduced. [_Emphasis added by LOki_]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You simply REFUSE to disabuse yourself of your logically fallacious paradigm.
Click to expand...


Guess even sarcasm alludes you.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What revisionism? The revisionism you are making-up? The revisionism you just believe is occuring?
> 
> What truth is being denied? The "UltimateTruth" of the "UltimateReality" that you just so happen to know all about?
> 
> Yet you fail to demonstrate that I have lied. Why is that, Cupcake?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wiki quotes demonstrated your strawman claim, like all of your fallacious fallacy accusations, was a lie. Just go back and read it. That is where I demonstrated it. I really can't believe you are this stupid. But I will accept your bait to demonstrate it again.
> 
> Remember, in the context of the conversation, we were talking about hominids:
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki: "In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or small populations."
> 
> "the organisms undergoing speciation and rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils." [This is consistent with the fossil evidence of Neanderthal and HS.]
> 
> "Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow."
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki: "Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor about 660,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki: "Allopatric speciation suggests that species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments."
> 
> And thus, rather than admit his lie, Loki chooses not to admit his BLATANT intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Your capacity to C/P wiki entries no matter how valid, is not the same thing as your equivocating use of the vocabulary in those entries to misrepresent what they are describing.
> 
> There is simply no intellectual dishonesty for me to admit to. Seriously, you shouldn't quote-mine wikipedia, and then accuse me of "blatant" intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lest we forget the topic that started this whole discussion: And so it is the case in the "just so" stories of Darwinism, we are asked to believe that none of the claims made for the Hominids we were discussing above, never happened to E'coli, which has remain largely unchanged for 2 billion years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now we see how the irony of your bullshit accusation against me plays out. BRAVO!
Click to expand...


Plays out?? I don't know where you've been but this is what we were discussing all along, Strawboy. And so your lying denial continues.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good!
> 
> You reference this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mental midget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> So what's your problem now? Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours? Is it because I'm a mental midget? Is that it?
> 
> So I admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? *Even a mental midget can see that those "God" things are obviously fraudulent.* ...
Click to expand...


No, YOU cannot. The man that subscribes to only naturalism, like yourself, is darkened in his understanding. The concept of God is foolishness to you. Unfortunately for you, for now, you don't have the ability to comprehend such things. Perhaps this is why you continue with your intellectual dishonesty above:

*1 Corinthians 2:14*

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for * they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them*, because they are spiritually discerned.

*Romans 1:20-22(NIV)*

20 For since the creation of the world God&#8217;s invisible qualities&#8212;his eternal power and divine nature&#8212;have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made [Creation], so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and *their foolish hearts were darkened*. 22 *Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mental midget.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> So what's your problem now? Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours? Is it because I'm a mental midget? Is that it?
> 
> So I admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? *Even a mental midget can see that those "God" things are obviously fraudulent.* ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, YOU cannot. The man that subscribes to only naturalism, like yourself, is darkened in his understanding. The concept of God is foolishness to you. Unfortunately for you, for now, you don't have the ability to comprehend such things. Perhaps this is why you continue with your intellectual dishonesty above:
> 
> *1 Corinthians 2:14*
> 
> 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for * they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them*, because they are spiritually discerned.
> 
> *Romans 1:20-22(NIV)*
> 
> 20 For since the creation of the world Gods invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made [Creation], so that people are without excuse.
> 
> 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and *their foolish hearts were darkened*. 22 *Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.*
Click to expand...


I'm afraid that assaulting people by thumping them with your bible is a failed tactic.

The juvenile tactic of posting verses is meaningless when when what you're posting is confused, convoluted, contradictory and incorrect.

ON SEEING GOD
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18

ON THE POWER OF GOD
"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19 Note: not "would not" but could not.

ON MAKING GRAVEN IMAGES
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water". (Lev. 26:1)

"[And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying...] And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them." (Exodus 25:18)

ON PUNISHING CRIME
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5

ON TEMPTATION
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1

ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
"Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26

ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
"...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9

"...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29

OOPS!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. Seriously, Hollie, you and Loki think if you repeat something enough times it will be true. I have never claimed Creationism is anything but religion. Please produce a link or cease and desist with your LIES.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. You're having second thoughts about admitting the agenda of the creationist ministries you copy and paste from. Your agenda was always to promote "creation science" as a viable alternative to verifiable, peer reviewed science. Of course it is not and for some unknown reason, you expect to have appeals to a supermagical entity taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where's the link? Provide it now or I will require you to cease and desist.
Click to expand...


Lies certainly are a part of the creationist agenda. Isn't it a shame that you aside from your cut and paste arguments failing, you eventually were forced to admit that your entire agenda was a religious one and not a truthful or accurate one.


----------



## ima

If man was made by intelligent design, who made our creator?

Also, if we were made by intelligent design, why?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionism runs in yours and Hollie's veins. Why would assume anything else other than your total and complete denial of the truth? You are a LIAR and anyone with half a brain that read the threads can see right through your shenanigans.
> 
> I said it before but now you have convinced me, arguing with you is akin to arguing with a drunk. There is no logic or reasoning to be found with you and no honor whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that you would make reference to logic and reasoning. You and the other fundie had insisted that creation "science" was a viable method to counter evolution, the biological sciences and the physical sciences. You both recently abandoned that strategy  altogether and finally admitted that creation science is simply lies, deceit and falsehood as mere attempts to assign credibility to what amounts to fear and superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. Seriously, Hollie, you and Loki think if you repeat something enough times it will be true. I have never claimed Creationism is anything but religion. Please produce a link or cease and desist with your LIES.
Click to expand...

So, you admit that Creationism is religion, correct? And Intelligent-Design theory is demonstrably (and has been demonstrated both in this forum and in court of law) Creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science, correct? And you maintain that Intelligent-Design theory is science, correct?  

Hence, ...


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mental midget.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> So what's your problem now? Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours? Is it because I'm a mental midget? Is that it?
> 
> So I admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? *Even a mental midget can see that those "God" things are obviously fraudulent.* ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, YOU cannot.
> --*QUESTION-BEGGING SUPERSTITIOUS APPEAL TO SCRIPTURE SNIPPED*--
Click to expand...





So what's your problem now? *Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours*?

I admitted that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is. *WHY IS THAT?*

Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God." 

Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those logically fallacious accounts "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I think I understand what you are saying.
> 
> 
> 
> I have my doubts, but hope spring eternal, I suppose.
> 
> As explained, this is not the entirety of the theory; aside from that, I have no disagreement with this.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you are saying our evidence for this is the fact that any mutations that survived *must have been* the ones that contributed to the organisms ability to survive and reproduce or they wouldn't have survived and reproduced. [_Emphasis added by LOki_]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You simply REFUSE to disabuse yourself of your logically fallacious paradigm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess even sarcasm alludes you.
Click to expand...

No. This attempt of yours to crawfish away from your intentional misrepresentations by calling them "sarcasm," is a dog that just won't hunt.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie, thanks for your strawman fundie evangelical insights into the Bible. I'm sure these beliefs about the Bible of yours came from your gay-hating fundie parents.  Or like you always do, you cut and pasted from a atheist fundie website. However, the Bible is not a magical book. It is collection of 66 different books, by many different authors, being written at different points in history, to specific cultures in each instance. While scripture is inspired by God, it must be taken in the context of the time and customs and peoples for which it was written. 


ON SEEING GOD
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30 Verse taken out of context. The whole passage describes a dream in which Jacob wrestled with a man all night, who he wound up perceiving as God. 

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18

ON THE POWER OF GOD
"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19 Note: not "would not" but could not. The "He" here refers to Judah, not God. While all things are possible, sometimes they are not according to God's purpose.


ON MAKING GRAVEN IMAGES

"[And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying...] And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them." (Exodus 25:18)

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water". (Lev. 26:1)

 Nice try on reversing the order of these verses. Exodus came before Leviticus chronologically. The Levitical law was laid down after Exodus. 

ON PUNISHING CRIME

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5 This verse, when taken in context, is a punctuation to the commandment of worshiping other gods. 

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

Again, let's reverse the order above to put in proper context and read Ezekiel 18:3. You will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child-both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die. [This verse hints at a NEW Covenant that God was going to make with Israel]

ON TEMPTATION
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1 Most translations read "tested Abraham". Again, James was written LONG after Genesis, and while Genesis was inspired scripture, James was also written after God had come to the earth and dwelt among us. 

ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
"Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26 Again, you are plucking this verse out of context, and not only the context of this specific passage, but also the context of everything else Jesus said while he was here on earth. In the context of the passage, Jesus knew that many relatives would react adversely to a person's conversion. He is just saying you need to love Me more and do My will, rather than succumbing to pressure from parents or siblings that would want you to renounce Christ and continue in the Jewish tradition. 

ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
"...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9

"...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29

Jews to this day have differing views about heaven or the afterlife. 

Jewish Views of the Afterlife - The Afterlife in Judaism

Up until Christ came, there was not much mention in the Old Testament of the afterlife. However, the passage you quoted from John is Christ speaking directly. This is God in the flesh, speaking absolute truth. Many are confused why Christ came to earth, but he tells us in John 18:37, when he was about to be crucified and Pilate was questioning him "...the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." Jesus came to earth to tell us what ultimate reality is. 

You will find many so called "contridictions" when you apply your fundie, strawman view of the Bible to the Bible. You lack understanding and therefore, you cannot perceive spiritual things.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor dear. You're having second thoughts about admitting the agenda of the creationist ministries you copy and paste from. Your agenda was always to promote "creation science" as a viable alternative to verifiable, peer reviewed science. Of course it is not and for some unknown reason, you expect to have appeals to a supermagical entity taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where's the link? Provide it now or I will require you to cease and desist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies certainly are a part of the creationist agenda. Isn't it a shame that you aside from your cut and paste arguments failing, you eventually were forced to admit that your entire agenda was a religious one and not a truthful or accurate one.
Click to expand...


Provide a link to my posts or cease and desist.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> If man was made by intelligent design, who made our creator?
> 
> Also, if we were made by intelligent design, why?



Catch up, will you? The Creator has always been and will always be. He has no beginning and no end. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. Before you scream foul, and try to employ your turtles all the way down fallacy like Hollie blatantly continues to do even in light of evidence refuting here fallacious argument, you should know that during Einsteins time as a scientist, they believed the universe had always existed and was eternal. So now, Hollie, thinking she is on par with Einstein, continues to believe that a Creator who has no beginning and no end, is impossible, and she continue to misapply the argument of a beginning necessitating a cause. Since our Creator has no beginning, He has no need for a cause, and no need for another creator of Him. This is a metaphysical argument, not provable by science (neither is the multiple universe theory or many quantum arguments). However, it is entirely LOGICAL. Hollie's and your argument, in light of the stated beliefs of Christians about the Creator, is very much NOT logical.

Of course this won't stop Rugged Touch from saying it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that you would make reference to logic and reasoning. You and the other fundie had insisted that creation "science" was a viable method to counter evolution, the biological sciences and the physical sciences. You both recently abandoned that strategy  altogether and finally admitted that creation science is simply lies, deceit and falsehood as mere attempts to assign credibility to what amounts to fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. Seriously, Hollie, you and Loki think if you repeat something enough times it will be true. I have never claimed Creationism is anything but religion. Please produce a link or cease and desist with your LIES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you admit that Creationism is religion, correct? And Intelligent-Design theory is demonstrably (and has been demonstrated both in this forum and in court of law) Creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science, correct? And you maintain that Intelligent-Design theory is science, correct?
> 
> Hence, ...
Click to expand...


You are correct. Courts of law cannot be depended on to make declarations about science philosophy. To keep quoting Dover is REALY, REALLY pathetic on evo-fundies part.... REALLY PATHETIC. Why don't you and your Rugged buddy use that mush sloshing around in your head to come up with something better than "the court said so!"???  The court also says it is okay to murder unborn babies but this is a large part of the population that believes this is the worst type of genocide, and extremely EVIL.

"But people [who aren't totally blinded by their metaphysical materialism] understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the* truth standards of power.*"

"First, t*he new trend in science toward enlisting the political and judicial system to help one side to prevail in a scientific dispute is highly injurious to the health of science itself*, to say nothing of the polity, and it must be stopped. If a scientific consensus is so insecure that it has to have its claims imposed on the public by court order&#8212;as happened in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover decision in Pennsylvania with respect to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution&#8212;it can scarcely expect to command the respect of that public, and it forfeits whatever intellectual authority it might otherwise be entitled to. Similar efforts are now afoot to impose an artificial consensus on the subject of climate change. They are equally to be deplored."

"A judge could rule that Einstein is right and the faster-than-light neutrinos are wrong. Or that you can&#8217;t teach about them in school. Or whatever. That then becomes the official &#8220;truth.&#8221;"

http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2011/11/06/our-science-good/#more-996


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie, thanks for your strawman fundie evangelical insights into the Bible. I'm sure these beliefs about the Bible of yours came from your gay-hating fundie parents.  Or like you always do, you cut and pasted from a atheist fundie website. However, the Bible is not a magical book. It is collection of 66 different books, by many different authors, being written at different points in history, to specific cultures in each instance. While scripture is inspired by God, it must be taken in the context of the time and customs and peoples for which it was written.
> 
> 
> ON SEEING GOD
> "... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30 Verse taken out of context. The whole passage describes a dream in which Jacob wrestled with a man all night, who he wound up perceiving as God.
> 
> "No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18
> 
> ON THE POWER OF GOD
> "... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26
> 
> "...The LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19 Note: not "would not" but could not. The "He" here refers to Judah, not God. While all things are possible, sometimes they are not according to God's purpose.
> 
> 
> ON MAKING GRAVEN IMAGES
> 
> "[And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying...] And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them." (Exodus 25:18)
> 
> "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water". (Lev. 26:1)
> 
> Nice try on reversing the order of these verses. Exodus came before Leviticus chronologically. The Levitical law was laid down after Exodus.
> 
> ON PUNISHING CRIME
> 
> "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5 This verse, when taken in context, is a punctuation to the commandment of worshiping other gods.
> 
> "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
> 
> Again, let's reverse the order above to put in proper context and read Ezekiel 18:3. You will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child-both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die. [This verse hints at a NEW Covenant that God was going to make with Israel]
> 
> ON TEMPTATION
> "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13
> 
> "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1 Most translations read "tested Abraham". Again, James was written LONG after Genesis, and while Genesis was inspired scripture, James was also written after God had come to the earth and dwelt among us.
> 
> ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
> "Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12
> 
> "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26 Again, you are plucking this verse out of context, and not only the context of this specific passage, but also the context of everything else Jesus said while he was here on earth. In the context of the passage, Jesus knew that many relatives would react adversely to a person's conversion. He is just saying you need to love Me more and do My will, rather than succumbing to pressure from parents or siblings that would want you to renounce Christ and continue in the Jewish tradition.
> 
> ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
> "...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9
> 
> "...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29
> 
> Jews to this day have differing views about heaven or the afterlife.
> 
> Jewish Views of the Afterlife - The Afterlife in Judaism
> 
> Up until Christ came, there was not much mention in the Old Testament of the afterlife. However, the passage you quoted from John is Christ speaking directly. This is God in the flesh, speaking absolute truth. Many are confused why Christ came to earth, but he tells us in John 18:37, when he was about to be crucified and Pilate was questioning him "...the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." Jesus came to earth to tell us what ultimate reality is.
> 
> You will find many so called "contridictions" when you apply your fundie, strawman view of the Bible to the Bible. You lack understanding and therefore, you cannot perceive spiritual things.


Well gee, hon, I suspect your gay hating, fundie parents never explained to you the obvious errors and contradictions that riddle the bible. You can certainly re- write the portions that are contradictory and add your own context to explain the errors and contradictions, but they still exist. What a shame that the various authors of the bible were sloppy editors. What a shame that the various authors didn't cross check their work. It should have been a simple exercise to maintain a certain consistency in the tales and fables but that never happened. 

You should consider cutting and pasting more excuses from fundie websites


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> So what's your problem now? Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours? Is it because I'm a mental midget? Is that it?
> 
> So I admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? *Even a mental midget can see that those "God" things are obviously fraudulent.* ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU cannot.
> --*QUESTION-BEGGING SUPERSTITIOUS APPEAL TO SCRIPTURE SNIPPED*--
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your problem now? *Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours*?
> 
> I admitted that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is. *WHY IS THAT?*
> 
> Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those logically fallacious accounts "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.
Click to expand...


You can quit with your strawman argument anytime now.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, thanks for your strawman fundie evangelical insights into the Bible. I'm sure these beliefs about the Bible of yours came from your gay-hating fundie parents.  Or like you always do, you cut and pasted from a atheist fundie website. However, the Bible is not a magical book. It is collection of 66 different books, by many different authors, being written at different points in history, to specific cultures in each instance. While scripture is inspired by God, it must be taken in the context of the time and customs and peoples for which it was written.
> 
> 
> ON SEEING GOD
> "... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30 Verse taken out of context. The whole passage describes a dream in which Jacob wrestled with a man all night, who he wound up perceiving as God.
> 
> "No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18
> 
> ON THE POWER OF GOD
> "... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26
> 
> "...The LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19 Note: not "would not" but could not. The "He" here refers to Judah, not God. While all things are possible, sometimes they are not according to God's purpose.
> 
> 
> ON MAKING GRAVEN IMAGES
> 
> "[And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying...] And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them." (Exodus 25:18)
> 
> "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water". (Lev. 26:1)
> 
> Nice try on reversing the order of these verses. Exodus came before Leviticus chronologically. The Levitical law was laid down after Exodus.
> 
> ON PUNISHING CRIME
> 
> "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5 This verse, when taken in context, is a punctuation to the commandment of worshiping other gods.
> 
> "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
> 
> Again, let's reverse the order above to put in proper context and read Ezekiel 18:3. You will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child-both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die. [This verse hints at a NEW Covenant that God was going to make with Israel]
> 
> ON TEMPTATION
> "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13
> 
> "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1 Most translations read "tested Abraham". Again, James was written LONG after Genesis, and while Genesis was inspired scripture, James was also written after God had come to the earth and dwelt among us.
> 
> ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
> "Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12
> 
> "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26 Again, you are plucking this verse out of context, and not only the context of this specific passage, but also the context of everything else Jesus said while he was here on earth. In the context of the passage, Jesus knew that many relatives would react adversely to a person's conversion. He is just saying you need to love Me more and do My will, rather than succumbing to pressure from parents or siblings that would want you to renounce Christ and continue in the Jewish tradition.
> 
> ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
> "...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9
> 
> "...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29
> 
> Jews to this day have differing views about heaven or the afterlife.
> 
> Jewish Views of the Afterlife - The Afterlife in Judaism
> 
> Up until Christ came, there was not much mention in the Old Testament of the afterlife. However, the passage you quoted from John is Christ speaking directly. This is God in the flesh, speaking absolute truth. Many are confused why Christ came to earth, but he tells us in John 18:37, when he was about to be crucified and Pilate was questioning him "...the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." Jesus came to earth to tell us what ultimate reality is.
> 
> You will find many so called "contridictions" when you apply your fundie, strawman view of the Bible to the Bible. You lack understanding and therefore, you cannot perceive spiritual things.
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee, hon, I suspect your gay hating, fundie parents never explained to you the obvious errors and contradictions that riddle the bible. You can certainly re- write the portions that are contradictory and add your own context to explain the errors and contradictions, but they still exist. What a shame that the various authors of the bible were sloppy editors. What a shame that the various authors didn't cross check their work. It should have been a simple exercise to maintain a certain consistency in the tales and fables but that never happened.
> 
> You should consider cutting and pasting more excuses from fundie websites
Click to expand...


Unlike you, poor dear, all the red letters are my OWN THOUGHTS. If you could just stop hating your gay-hating, fundie parents, a huge weight will be lifted from you. Your intense hatred for them is poisoning your soul.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If man was made by intelligent design, who made our creator?
> 
> Also, if we were made by intelligent design, why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catch up, will you? The Creator has always been and will always be. He has no beginning and no end. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. Before you scream foul, and try to employ your turtles all the way down fallacy like Hollie blatantly continues to do even in light of evidence refuting here fallacious argument, you should know that during Einsteins time as a scientist, they believed the universe had always existed and was eternal. So now, Hollie, thinking she is on par with Einstein, continues to believe that a Creator who has no beginning and no end, is impossible, and she continue to misapply the argument of a beginning necessitating a cause. Since our Creator has no beginning, He has no need for a cause, and no need for another creator of Him. This is a metaphysical argument, not provable by science (neither is the multiple universe theory or many quantum arguments). However, it is entirely LOGICAL. Hollie's and your argument, in light of the stated beliefs of Christians about the Creator, is very much NOT logical.
> 
> Of course this won't stop Rugged Touch from saying it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
Click to expand...

Fundies are so cute when they manufacture their arguments to excuse their gods from any rational, logical point of consistency.

The fundie argument is simply to appeal to magic as an argument for the gods. 

What fundies cannot address is the hierarchy of gods which would have been required to manufacture their gods.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have my doubts, but hope spring eternal, I suppose.
> 
> As explained, this is not the entirety of the theory; aside from that, I have no disagreement with this.
> 
> No. You simply REFUSE to disabuse yourself of your logically fallacious paradigm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess even sarcasm alludes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. This attempt of yours to crawfish away from your intentional misrepresentations by calling them "sarcasm," is a dog that just won't hunt.
Click to expand...


The dog that won't hunt is your lack of reading comprehension and education. I was referring to my sarcastic phrase "So I think I understand what you are saying" and the fact that you were so easily baited back into my circular argument assertion about the theory of evolution.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, thanks for your strawman fundie evangelical insights into the Bible. I'm sure these beliefs about the Bible of yours came from your gay-hating fundie parents.  Or like you always do, you cut and pasted from a atheist fundie website. However, the Bible is not a magical book. It is collection of 66 different books, by many different authors, being written at different points in history, to specific cultures in each instance. While scripture is inspired by God, it must be taken in the context of the time and customs and peoples for which it was written.
> 
> 
> ON SEEING GOD
> "... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30 Verse taken out of context. The whole passage describes a dream in which Jacob wrestled with a man all night, who he wound up perceiving as God.
> 
> "No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18
> 
> ON THE POWER OF GOD
> "... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26
> 
> "...The LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19 Note: not "would not" but could not. The "He" here refers to Judah, not God. While all things are possible, sometimes they are not according to God's purpose.
> 
> 
> ON MAKING GRAVEN IMAGES
> 
> "[And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying...] And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them." (Exodus 25:18)
> 
> "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water". (Lev. 26:1)
> 
> Nice try on reversing the order of these verses. Exodus came before Leviticus chronologically. The Levitical law was laid down after Exodus.
> 
> ON PUNISHING CRIME
> 
> "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5 This verse, when taken in context, is a punctuation to the commandment of worshiping other gods.
> 
> "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
> 
> Again, let's reverse the order above to put in proper context and read Ezekiel 18:3. You will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child-both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die. [This verse hints at a NEW Covenant that God was going to make with Israel]
> 
> ON TEMPTATION
> "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13
> 
> "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1 Most translations read "tested Abraham". Again, James was written LONG after Genesis, and while Genesis was inspired scripture, James was also written after God had come to the earth and dwelt among us.
> 
> ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
> "Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12
> 
> "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26 Again, you are plucking this verse out of context, and not only the context of this specific passage, but also the context of everything else Jesus said while he was here on earth. In the context of the passage, Jesus knew that many relatives would react adversely to a person's conversion. He is just saying you need to love Me more and do My will, rather than succumbing to pressure from parents or siblings that would want you to renounce Christ and continue in the Jewish tradition.
> 
> ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
> "...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9
> 
> "...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29
> 
> Jews to this day have differing views about heaven or the afterlife.
> 
> Jewish Views of the Afterlife - The Afterlife in Judaism
> 
> Up until Christ came, there was not much mention in the Old Testament of the afterlife. However, the passage you quoted from John is Christ speaking directly. This is God in the flesh, speaking absolute truth. Many are confused why Christ came to earth, but he tells us in John 18:37, when he was about to be crucified and Pilate was questioning him "...the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." Jesus came to earth to tell us what ultimate reality is.
> 
> You will find many so called "contridictions" when you apply your fundie, strawman view of the Bible to the Bible. You lack understanding and therefore, you cannot perceive spiritual things.
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee, hon, I suspect your gay hating, fundie parents never explained to you the obvious errors and contradictions that riddle the bible. You can certainly re- write the portions that are contradictory and add your own context to explain the errors and contradictions, but they still exist. What a shame that the various authors of the bible were sloppy editors. What a shame that the various authors didn't cross check their work. It should have been a simple exercise to maintain a certain consistency in the tales and fables but that never happened.
> 
> You should consider cutting and pasting more excuses from fundie websites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, poor dear, all the red letters are my OWN THOUGHTS. If you could just stop hating your gay-hating, fundie parents, a huge weight will be lifted from you. Your intense hatred for them is poisoning your soul.
Click to expand...


Honestly, dear, forgive your gay hating fundie parents for the damage they have caused you. 

Let go of fear and superstition and you will no longer be a slave to living in trembling fear of ancient tales designed to coerce behavior from the ignorant and gullible.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If man was made by intelligent design, who made our creator?
> 
> Also, if we were made by intelligent design, why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catch up, will you? The Creator has always been and will always be. He has no beginning and no end. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. Before you scream foul, and try to employ your turtles all the way down fallacy like Hollie blatantly continues to do even in light of evidence refuting here fallacious argument, you should know that during Einsteins time as a scientist, they believed the universe had always existed and was eternal. So now, Hollie, thinking she is on par with Einstein, continues to believe that a Creator who has no beginning and no end, is impossible, and she continue to misapply the argument of a beginning necessitating a cause. Since our Creator has no beginning, He has no need for a cause, and no need for another creator of Him. This is a metaphysical argument, not provable by science (neither is the multiple universe theory or many quantum arguments). However, it is entirely LOGICAL. Hollie's and your argument, in light of the stated beliefs of Christians about the Creator, is very much NOT logical.
> 
> Of course this won't stop Rugged Touch from saying it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fundies are so cute when they manufacture their arguments to excuse their gods from any rational, logical point of consistency.
> 
> The fundie argument is simply to appeal to magic as an argument for the gods.
> 
> What fundies cannot address is the hierarchy of gods which would have been required to manufacture their gods.
Click to expand...


So what of Einsteins belief in an eternal universe? I suppose in your psychosis you believe you are smarter than he is.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee, hon, I suspect your gay hating, fundie parents never explained to you the obvious errors and contradictions that riddle the bible. You can certainly re- write the portions that are contradictory and add your own context to explain the errors and contradictions, but they still exist. What a shame that the various authors of the bible were sloppy editors. What a shame that the various authors didn't cross check their work. It should have been a simple exercise to maintain a certain consistency in the tales and fables but that never happened.
> 
> You should consider cutting and pasting more excuses from fundie websites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, poor dear, all the red letters are my OWN THOUGHTS. If you could just stop hating your gay-hating, fundie parents, a huge weight will be lifted from you. Your intense hatred for them is poisoning your soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, dear, forgive your gay hating fundie parents for the damage they have caused you.
> 
> Let go of fear and superstition and you will no longer be a slave to living in trembling fear of ancient tales designed to coerce behavior from the ignorant and gullible.
Click to expand...


Hollie, I think actions tell the real story. Let's compare the actions of my life to yours offline and see who the slave is. What do you do on a daily basis for anyone other than yourself? Your hatred for yourself and others seethes into your written words. Your lonely and loathsome life screams out every time you type a sentence.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU cannot.
> --*QUESTION-BEGGING SUPERSTITIOUS APPEAL TO SCRIPTURE SNIPPED*--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your problem now? *Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours*?
> 
> I admitted that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is. *WHY IS THAT?*
> 
> Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those logically fallacious accounts "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can quit with your strawman argument anytime now.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid that the strawman argument was yours. Claiming that "creation science" was anything other than a "front' for fundie Christian dogma was a terrible mistake on your part, although, 'creation science" was debunked as science long before your admission. 

Can I get a pa-rayze heyzoos brothas' and sistas'


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU cannot.
> --*QUESTION-BEGGING SUPERSTITIOUS APPEAL TO SCRIPTURE SNIPPED*--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your problem now? *Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours*?
> 
> I admitted that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is. *WHY IS THAT?*
> 
> Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those logically fallacious accounts "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can quit with your strawman argument anytime now.
Click to expand...

What strawman? My request for your explanation of this "God" thing of yours cannot by any means be considered an argument for or against anything ... let alone a strawman argument.

What is really going on here, is that you are as aware as I am that your "God" thing has as much validity in reality as the Easter Bunny.

The demonstrable reality of that fact is the most inconvenient fact of your superstitious Intelligent-Design theorizing. Which is why ID "science" is far more concerned with rhetorical attempts to "punch holes" in evolution, than actually doing some real science.


----------



## NATURALSELECTOR

Belief in god = psycosis


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, poor dear, all the red letters are my OWN THOUGHTS. If you could just stop hating your gay-hating, fundie parents, a huge weight will be lifted from you. Your intense hatred for them is poisoning your soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, dear, forgive your gay hating fundie parents for the damage they have caused you.
> 
> Let go of fear and superstition and you will no longer be a slave to living in trembling fear of ancient tales designed to coerce behavior from the ignorant and gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, I think actions tell the real story. Let's compare the actions of my life to yours offline and see who the slave is. What do you do on a daily basis for anyone other than yourself? Your hatred for yourself and others seethes into your written words. Your lonely and loathsome life screams out every time you type a sentence.
Click to expand...

Oh my, but we've employed the self serving claims to "fundie-dom" that you are deserving of special dispensations because of your religious beliefs. 

It seems to me that if fundie religious belief makes people like you more hateful, more reactionary and more anti-human, then what good is it?


----------



## justpassingby

I post this because it is a view I had never heard before. As a Christian the hate thing is disturbing. I do believe Willy is wrong and I want your views on this to straighten me out. Is Willy right or not?

WillyWonka787 posts the following:
Why Do People Hate The Jews? 

Historians have classified six explanations as to why people *hate* the Jews: 
Economic -- "We *hate* Jews because they possess too much wealth and power." 
Chosen People -- "We *hate *Jews because they arrogantly claim that they are the chosen people." 
Deicide -- "We* hate* Jews because they killed Jesus." 
Outsiders -- "We *hate* Jews because they are different than us." (The dislike of the unlike.) 
Racial Theory -- "We* hate* Jews because they are an inferior race." 
Economic -- The Jews of 17th- 20th century Poland and Russia were dirt poor, had no influence and yet they were *hated*. 
Scapegoat -- Any group must already be *hated* to be an effective scapegoat. 

Every other *hated* group is hated for a relatively defined reason. We Jews, however, *are hated* in paradoxes: Jews are* hated *for being a lazy and inferior race - but also for dominating the economy and taking over the world. We are *hated* for stubbornly maintaining our separateness - 


In the above post Willy used the term hate 12 times and he seems to be speaking for the Jewish people. Cleary he is wrong, Christians do not hate Jews. This is a demented look at life that does not exist in the real world. What is even more distorted is why he thinks Christians hate Jews. 

WillyWonka787 goes on to say:
Anti-Semitism: 2000 Years of Christian Love 
This is about the active hatred and oppression of Jews in history and at present. 
*The history of organized anti-Semitism is a history of Christian influence*... 


WillyWonka787 then explains the reason for anti-, its Christian based

Nearly every culture that came into contact with Western Christianity tolerated and accepted Jews until Christianity spread its violent anti-Jewish message across the West. *Only with Christian principles was anti-semitism made possible.*
 No other religion has hated the Jews as much as Christian communities. Anti-Semitism spread from Christianity, 

The above are not my words, they are Willy's words. As a Christian I must ask, what gives him this demented view, Christians do not hate Jews and never have, period. 
What is your view on this?
I had to remove the link to Willy's words but they are his and if you email me I can provide the links that say it


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your problem now? *Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours*?
> 
> I admitted that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is. *WHY IS THAT?*
> 
> Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those logically fallacious accounts "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can quit with your strawman argument anytime now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What strawman? My request for your explanation of this "God" thing of yours cannot by any means be considered an argument for or against anything ... let alone a strawman argument.
> 
> What is really going on here, is that you are as aware as I am that your "God" thing has as much validity in reality as the Easter Bunny.
> 
> The demonstrable reality of that fact is the most inconvenient fact of your superstitious Intelligent-Design theorizing. Which is why ID "science" is far more concerned with rhetorical attempts to "punch holes" in evolution, than actually doing some real science.
Click to expand...


This is nothing more than a strawman argument. How many times can you go on about such a fallacious claim? If you can try to address what was really said, I might respond to you but I will not entertain your false claims for what I was arguing.


----------



## UltimateReality

NATURALSELECTOR said:


> Belief in god = psycosis



Your statement might carry a bit more weight if you spelled psychosis right.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, dear, forgive your gay hating fundie parents for the damage they have caused you.
> 
> Let go of fear and superstition and you will no longer be a slave to living in trembling fear of ancient tales designed to coerce behavior from the ignorant and gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, I think actions tell the real story. Let's compare the actions of my life to yours offline and see who the slave is. What do you do on a daily basis for anyone other than yourself? Your hatred for yourself and others seethes into your written words. Your lonely and loathsome life screams out every time you type a sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my, but we've employed the self serving claims to "fundie-dom" that you are deserving of special dispensations because of your religious beliefs.
> 
> It seems to me that if fundie religious belief makes people like you more hateful, more reactionary and more anti-human, then what good is it?
Click to expand...


Put up or shut up.


----------



## UltimateReality

justpassingby said:


> I post this because it is a view I had never heard before. As a Christian the hate thing is disturbing. I do believe Willy is wrong and I want your views on this to straighten me out. Is Willy right or not?
> 
> WillyWonka787 posts the following:
> Why Do People Hate The Jews?
> 
> Historians have classified six explanations as to why people *hate* the Jews:
> Economic -- "We *hate* Jews because they possess too much wealth and power."
> Chosen People -- "We *hate *Jews because they arrogantly claim that they are the chosen people."
> Deicide -- "We* hate* Jews because they killed Jesus."
> Outsiders -- "We *hate* Jews because they are different than us." (The dislike of the unlike.)
> Racial Theory -- "We* hate* Jews because they are an inferior race."
> Economic -- The Jews of 17th- 20th century Poland and Russia were dirt poor, had no influence and yet they were *hated*.
> Scapegoat -- Any group must already be *hated* to be an effective scapegoat.
> 
> Every other *hated* group is hated for a relatively defined reason. We Jews, however, *are hated* in paradoxes: Jews are* hated *for being a lazy and inferior race - but also for dominating the economy and taking over the world. We are *hated* for stubbornly maintaining our separateness -
> 
> 
> In the above post Willy used the term hate 12 times and he seems to be speaking for the Jewish people. Cleary he is wrong, Christians do not hate Jews. This is a demented look at life that does not exist in the real world. What is even more distorted is why he thinks Christians hate Jews.
> 
> WillyWonka787 goes on to say:
> Anti-Semitism: 2000 Years of Christian Love
> This is about the active hatred and oppression of Jews in history and at present.
> *The history of organized anti-Semitism is a history of Christian influence*...
> 
> 
> WillyWonka787 then explains the reason for anti-, its Christian based
> 
> Nearly every culture that came into contact with Western Christianity tolerated and accepted Jews until Christianity spread its violent anti-Jewish message across the West. *Only with Christian principles was anti-semitism made possible.*
> No other religion has hated the Jews as much as Christian communities. Anti-Semitism spread from Christianity,
> 
> The above are not my words, they are Willy's words. As a Christian I must ask, what gives him this demented view, Christians do not hate Jews and never have, period.
> What is your view on this?
> I had to remove the link to Willy's words but they are his and if you email me I can provide the links that say it



There are several radical white supremest groups that claim hate for jews for several of the reasons above. However, it is America's Christian heritage that contributes to our support of the nation of Israel.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, I think actions tell the real story. Let's compare the actions of my life to yours offline and see who the slave is. What do you do on a daily basis for anyone other than yourself? Your hatred for yourself and others seethes into your written words. Your lonely and loathsome life screams out every time you type a sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, but we've employed the self serving claims to "fundie-dom" that you are deserving of special dispensations because of your religious beliefs.
> 
> It seems to me that if fundie religious belief makes people like you more hateful, more reactionary and more anti-human, then what good is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...


You're still angry. I can understand that. It must be difficult to have made such a fool of yourself by claiming creation science relies on the same standards as peer reviewed science only to abandon that premise and identify the true (religious) agenda of creationism - ID.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> justpassingby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post this because it is a view I had never heard before. As a Christian the hate thing is disturbing. I do believe Willy is wrong and I want your views on this to straighten me out. Is Willy right or not?
> 
> WillyWonka787 posts the following:
> Why Do People Hate The Jews?
> 
> Historians have classified six explanations as to why people *hate* the Jews:
> Economic -- "We *hate* Jews because they possess too much wealth and power."
> Chosen People -- "We *hate *Jews because they arrogantly claim that they are the chosen people."
> Deicide -- "We* hate* Jews because they killed Jesus."
> Outsiders -- "We *hate* Jews because they are different than us." (The dislike of the unlike.)
> Racial Theory -- "We* hate* Jews because they are an inferior race."
> Economic -- The Jews of 17th- 20th century Poland and Russia were dirt poor, had no influence and yet they were *hated*.
> Scapegoat -- Any group must already be *hated* to be an effective scapegoat.
> 
> Every other *hated* group is hated for a relatively defined reason. We Jews, however, *are hated* in paradoxes: Jews are* hated *for being a lazy and inferior race - but also for dominating the economy and taking over the world. We are *hated* for stubbornly maintaining our separateness -
> 
> 
> In the above post Willy used the term hate 12 times and he seems to be speaking for the Jewish people. Cleary he is wrong, Christians do not hate Jews. This is a demented look at life that does not exist in the real world. What is even more distorted is why he thinks Christians hate Jews.
> 
> WillyWonka787 goes on to say:
> Anti-Semitism: 2000 Years of Christian Love
> This is about the active hatred and oppression of Jews in history and at present.
> *The history of organized anti-Semitism is a history of Christian influence*...
> 
> 
> WillyWonka787 then explains the reason for anti-, its Christian based
> 
> Nearly every culture that came into contact with Western Christianity tolerated and accepted Jews until Christianity spread its violent anti-Jewish message across the West. *Only with Christian principles was anti-semitism made possible.*
> No other religion has hated the Jews as much as Christian communities. Anti-Semitism spread from Christianity,
> 
> The above are not my words, they are Willy's words. As a Christian I must ask, what gives him this demented view, Christians do not hate Jews and never have, period.
> What is your view on this?
> I had to remove the link to Willy's words but they are his and if you email me I can provide the links that say it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are several radical white supremest groups that claim hate for jews for several of the reasons above. However, it is America's Christian heritage that contributes to our support of the nation of Israel.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid the fundie is being predictably dishonest.

Christians historically have persecuted, killed, and oppressed non-Christians (particularly Jews) and have justified these acts based on their Christian teaching, faith and the Teachings of the Church Fathers.  For example, the NT contains language that negatively depicts Jews, ie; "the synagogue of Satan",  and all those who "deny Christ". The NT is clear that for those who "deny Christ", their fate is extinction and eternal damnation (excepting for the few who convert to Christianity in the end-times). Lovely!

In the days when the Church ascended to power under Roman Emperor Constantine, the Church debated whether to conduct a Holy Genocide against the Jews for the crime of deicide. (Saint) Augustine argued that the Jews should not be slain, but denied that they should they be able to live "in equality and harmony" with Christians.  

Augustine identified Cain as a symbol of the Jews and his slain brother Abel as a preconfiguration of Jesus. For their guilt in the murder of Jesus, the Jews (like Cain) had been exiled from their land, and in exile they would continue to livein sorrow, anxiety, and servitudeuntil the end of time.

This, according to Augustine, was Gods will, mandated by Psalm 59:12, _Slay them not, lest at any time they forget Your law; scatter them in Your might_.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can quit with your strawman argument anytime now.
> 
> 
> 
> What strawman? My request for your explanation of this "God" thing of yours cannot by any means be considered an argument for or against anything ... let alone a strawman argument.
> 
> What is really going on here, is that you are as aware as I am that your "God" thing has as much validity in reality as the Easter Bunny.
> 
> The demonstrable reality of that fact is the most inconvenient fact of your superstitious Intelligent-Design theorizing. Which is why ID "science" is far more concerned with rhetorical attempts to "punch holes" in evolution, than actually doing some real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is nothing more than a strawman argument.
Click to expand...

It is no misrepresentation of your argument what-so-ever. Hence, it cannot be a strawman.



UltimateReality said:


> How many times can you go on about such a fallacious claim?


There is nothing false about it. Not in the least bit. If you disagree, demonstrate.



UltimateReality said:


> If you can try to address what was really said, I might respond to you but I will not entertain your false claims for what I was arguing.


You have said nothing. Your "argument" is that I'm a mental midget. I addressed it. Your response was a question-begging appeal to scripture.

OBVIOUSLY fallacious.

The fact of the matter is that you are as aware as I am that your "God" thing has as much validity in reality as the Easter Bunny.

The demonstrable reality of that fact, is the most inconvenient fact of your superstitious Intelligent-Design theorizing. Which is why ID "science" is far more concerned with rhetorical attempts to "punch holes" in evolution, than actually doing some real science.

If you actually had an explanation that was not one of the literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God" I have already been exposed to, you'd have produced it long ago.

You're not being coy, you're being a coward.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, but we've employed the self serving claims to "fundie-dom" that you are deserving of special dispensations because of your religious beliefs.
> 
> It seems to me that if fundie religious belief makes people like you more hateful, more reactionary and more anti-human, then what good is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still angry. I can understand that. It must be difficult to have made such a fool of yourself by claiming creation science relies on the same standards as peer reviewed science only to abandon that premise and identify the true (religious) agenda of creationism - ID.
Click to expand...


You are so hopelessly lost you can't stay on topic for more than one post. *I might have to do with the fact you never went to college.
*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justpassingby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I post this because it is a view I had never heard before. As a Christian the hate thing is disturbing. I do believe Willy is wrong and I want your views on this to straighten me out. Is Willy right or not?
> 
> WillyWonka787 posts the following:
> Why Do People Hate The Jews?
> 
> Historians have classified six explanations as to why people *hate* the Jews:
> Economic -- "We *hate* Jews because they possess too much wealth and power."
> Chosen People -- "We *hate *Jews because they arrogantly claim that they are the chosen people."
> Deicide -- "We* hate* Jews because they killed Jesus."
> Outsiders -- "We *hate* Jews because they are different than us." (The dislike of the unlike.)
> Racial Theory -- "We* hate* Jews because they are an inferior race."
> Economic -- The Jews of 17th- 20th century Poland and Russia were dirt poor, had no influence and yet they were *hated*.
> Scapegoat -- Any group must already be *hated* to be an effective scapegoat.
> 
> Every other *hated* group is hated for a relatively defined reason. We Jews, however, *are hated* in paradoxes: Jews are* hated *for being a lazy and inferior race - but also for dominating the economy and taking over the world. We are *hated* for stubbornly maintaining our separateness -
> 
> 
> In the above post Willy used the term hate 12 times and he seems to be speaking for the Jewish people. Cleary he is wrong, Christians do not hate Jews. This is a demented look at life that does not exist in the real world. What is even more distorted is why he thinks Christians hate Jews.
> 
> WillyWonka787 goes on to say:
> Anti-Semitism: 2000 Years of Christian Love
> This is about the active hatred and oppression of Jews in history and at present.
> *The history of organized anti-Semitism is a history of Christian influence*...
> 
> 
> WillyWonka787 then explains the reason for anti-, its Christian based
> 
> Nearly every culture that came into contact with Western Christianity tolerated and accepted Jews until Christianity spread its violent anti-Jewish message across the West. *Only with Christian principles was anti-semitism made possible.*
> No other religion has hated the Jews as much as Christian communities. Anti-Semitism spread from Christianity,
> 
> The above are not my words, they are Willy's words. As a Christian I must ask, what gives him this demented view, Christians do not hate Jews and never have, period.
> What is your view on this?
> I had to remove the link to Willy's words but they are his and if you email me I can provide the links that say it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are several radical white supremest groups that claim hate for jews for several of the reasons above. However, it is America's Christian heritage that contributes to our support of the nation of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid the fundie is being predictably dishonest.
> 
> Christians historically have persecuted, killed, and oppressed non-Christians (particularly Jews) and have justified these acts based on their Christian teaching, faith and the Teachings of the Church Fathers.  For example, the NT contains language that negatively depicts Jews, ie; "the synagogue of Satan",  and all those who "deny Christ". The NT is clear that for those who "deny Christ", their fate is extinction and eternal damnation (excepting for the few who convert to Christianity in the end-times). Lovely!
> 
> In the days when the Church ascended to power under Roman Emperor Constantine, the Church debated whether to conduct a Holy Genocide against the Jews for the crime of deicide. (Saint) Augustine argued that the Jews should not be slain, but denied that they should they be able to live "in equality and harmony" with Christians.
> 
> Augustine identified Cain as a symbol of the Jews and his slain brother Abel as a preconfiguration of Jesus. For their guilt in the murder of Jesus, the Jews (like Cain) had been exiled from their land, and in exile they would continue to livein sorrow, anxiety, and servitudeuntil the end of time.
> 
> This, according to Augustine, was Gods will, mandated by Psalm 59:12, _Slay them not, lest at any time they forget Your law; scatter them in Your might_.
Click to expand...


Please quit talking out your backside and post up some legitimate evidence for your LIES.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What strawman? My request for your explanation of this "God" thing of yours cannot by any means be considered an argument for or against anything ... let alone a strawman argument.
> 
> What is really going on here, is that you are as aware as I am that your "God" thing has as much validity in reality as the Easter Bunny.
> 
> The demonstrable reality of that fact is the most inconvenient fact of your superstitious Intelligent-Design theorizing. Which is why ID "science" is far more concerned with rhetorical attempts to "punch holes" in evolution, than actually doing some real science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is nothing more than a strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is no misrepresentation of your argument what-so-ever. Hence, it cannot be a strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times can you go on about such a fallacious claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing false about it. Not in the least bit. If you disagree, demonstrate.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can try to address what was really said, I might respond to you but I will not entertain your false claims for what I was arguing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have said nothing. Your "argument" is that I'm a mental midget. I addressed it. Your response was a question-begging appeal to scripture.
> 
> OBVIOUSLY fallacious.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that you are as aware as I am that your "God" thing has as much validity in reality as the Easter Bunny.
> 
> The demonstrable reality of that fact, is the most inconvenient fact of your superstitious Intelligent-Design theorizing. Which is why ID "science" is far more concerned with rhetorical attempts to "punch holes" in evolution, than actually doing some real science.
> 
> If you actually had an explanation that was not one of the literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God" I have already been exposed to, you'd have produced it long ago.
> 
> You're not being coy, you're being a coward.
Click to expand...


Still waiting. Re-posting the same strawman over and over isn't going to make it anymore valid. Are you the guy that thinks talking louder will make someone who doesn't understand English understand you better??


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is nothing more than a strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> It is no misrepresentation of your argument what-so-ever. Hence, it cannot be a strawman.
> 
> There is nothing false about it. Not in the least bit. If you disagree, demonstrate.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can try to address what was really said, I might respond to you but I will not entertain your false claims for what I was arguing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have said nothing. Your "argument" is that I'm a mental midget. I addressed it. Your response was a question-begging appeal to scripture.
> 
> OBVIOUSLY fallacious.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that you are as aware as I am that your "God" thing has as much validity in reality as the Easter Bunny.
> 
> The demonstrable reality of that fact, is the most inconvenient fact of your superstitious Intelligent-Design theorizing. Which is why ID "science" is far more concerned with rhetorical attempts to "punch holes" in evolution, than actually doing some real science.
> 
> If you actually had an explanation that was not one of the literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God" I have already been exposed to, you'd have produced it long ago.
> 
> You're not being coy, you're being a coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting.
Click to expand...

For what?



UltimateReality said:


> Re-posting the same strawman over and over isn't going to make it anymore valid.


Identify the strawman.



UltimateReality said:


> Are you the guy that thinks talking louder will make someone who doesn't understand English understand you better??


No.

I'm the guy asking for information.

Are you the guy who who won't provide the information because he declares the request a strawman?


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> NATURALSELECTOR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in god = psycosis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement might carry a bit more weight if you spelled psychosis right.
Click to expand...


Because spelling is all you can fault his statement for?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are several radical white supremest groups that claim hate for jews for several of the reasons above. However, it is America's Christian heritage that contributes to our support of the nation of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid the fundie is being predictably dishonest.
> 
> Christians historically have persecuted, killed, and oppressed non-Christians (particularly Jews) and have justified these acts based on their Christian teaching, faith and the Teachings of the Church Fathers.  For example, the NT contains language that negatively depicts Jews, ie; "the synagogue of Satan",  and all those who "deny Christ". The NT is clear that for those who "deny Christ", their fate is extinction and eternal damnation (excepting for the few who convert to Christianity in the end-times). Lovely!
> 
> In the days when the Church ascended to power under Roman Emperor Constantine, the Church debated whether to conduct a Holy Genocide against the Jews for the crime of deicide. (Saint) Augustine argued that the Jews should not be slain, but denied that they should they be able to live "in equality and harmony" with Christians.
> 
> Augustine identified Cain as a symbol of the Jews and his slain brother Abel as a preconfiguration of Jesus. For their guilt in the murder of Jesus, the Jews (like Cain) had been exiled from their land, and in exile they would continue to livein sorrow, anxiety, and servitudeuntil the end of time.
> 
> This, according to Augustine, was Gods will, mandated by Psalm 59:12, _Slay them not, lest at any time they forget Your law; scatter them in Your might_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please quit talking out your backside and post up some legitimate evidence for your LIES.
Click to expand...

Oh, you poor fundie. You're upset to find that the hate you have for yourself and others derives from your religious beliefs.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is no misrepresentation of your argument what-so-ever. Hence, it cannot be a strawman.
> 
> There is nothing false about it. Not in the least bit. If you disagree, demonstrate.
> 
> You have said nothing. Your "argument" is that I'm a mental midget. I addressed it. Your response was a question-begging appeal to scripture.
> 
> OBVIOUSLY fallacious.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that you are as aware as I am that your "God" thing has as much validity in reality as the Easter Bunny.
> 
> The demonstrable reality of that fact, is the most inconvenient fact of your superstitious Intelligent-Design theorizing. Which is why ID "science" is far more concerned with rhetorical attempts to "punch holes" in evolution, than actually doing some real science.
> 
> If you actually had an explanation that was not one of the literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God" I have already been exposed to, you'd have produced it long ago.
> 
> You're not being coy, you're being a coward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For what?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Re-posting the same strawman over and over isn't going to make it anymore valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Identify the strawman.
Click to expand...


Here you go... 



LOki said:


> Why do I have to explain or validate your strawman?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid the fundie is being predictably dishonest.
> 
> Christians historically have persecuted, killed, and oppressed non-Christians (particularly Jews) and have justified these acts based on their Christian teaching, faith and the Teachings of the Church Fathers.  For example, the NT contains language that negatively depicts Jews, ie; "the synagogue of Satan",  and all those who "deny Christ". The NT is clear that for those who "deny Christ", their fate is extinction and eternal damnation (excepting for the few who convert to Christianity in the end-times). Lovely!
> 
> In the days when the Church ascended to power under Roman Emperor Constantine, the Church debated whether to conduct a Holy Genocide against the Jews for the crime of deicide. (Saint) Augustine argued that the Jews should not be slain, but denied that they should they be able to live "in equality and harmony" with Christians.
> 
> Augustine identified Cain as a symbol of the Jews and his slain brother Abel as a preconfiguration of Jesus. For their guilt in the murder of Jesus, the Jews (like Cain) had been exiled from their land, and in exile they would continue to livein sorrow, anxiety, and servitudeuntil the end of time.
> 
> This, according to Augustine, was Gods will, mandated by Psalm 59:12, _Slay them not, lest at any time they forget Your law; scatter them in Your might_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please quit talking out your backside and post up some legitimate evidence for your LIES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, you poor fundie. You're upset to find that the hate you have for yourself and others derives from your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


Typical lame response that doesn't address the issue.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please quit talking out your backside and post up some legitimate evidence for your LIES.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you poor fundie. You're upset to find that the hate you have for yourself and others derives from your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical lame response that doesn't address the issue.
Click to expand...


I'm not responsible for addressing your anger and self hate issues. These appear to be deep seated problems. People such as yourself often use religion as a balm that only covers, but doesn't cure, a major personality wound. Forgive your fundie family members for the emotional and traumatic damage they have caused you. Leave the fold of Harun Yahya and invest in some education. 

You can thank me later.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you poor fundie. You're upset to find that the hate you have for yourself and others derives from your religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical lame response that doesn't address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not responsible for addressing your anger and self hate issues. These appear to be deep seated problems. People such as yourself often use religion as a balm that only covers, but doesn't cure, a major personality wound. Forgive your fundie family members for the emotional and traumatic damage they have caused you. Leave the fold of Harun Yahya and invest in some education.
> 
> You can thank me later.
Click to expand...


Hello??? McFly??? I am talking about supporting documentation for asserting Christianity is responsible for Antisemitism. Geeezzz! Are you really so clueless that you can't stay on track for two posts???? *Might be because you didn't go to college.*


----------



## UltimateReality

"Human prehistory has descended into a state of chaos which can only be described as farcical. New research, summarized in an October 2012 review by Aylwyn Scally and Richard Durbin (Revising the human mutation rate: implications for the understanding human evolution in Nature Reviews Genetics 13:745-753, doi:10.1038/nrg3295) suggests that the molecular clock used to date events in hominid prehistory may run more slowly than previously thought, and at variable speeds, throwing the timetable of evolutionary events into confusion.

The new research has staggering implications for the date of the split between the lineage leading to orangutans in Asia and the line leading to humans, chimps and gorillas in Africa: its been revised from 13-14 million years ago to anywhere from 34 to 46 million years ago  *an impossible result* that has researchers scratching their heads."

New research points to a 40 million-year-old split between the ancestors of humans and orangutans | Uncommon Descent


----------



## UltimateReality

"The data show that birds and mammals at Rancho La Brea show complete stasis and were unresponsive to the major climate change that occurred at 20 ka, consistent with other studies of Pleistocene animals and plants. Most explanations for such stasis (stabilizing selection, canalization) fail in this setting where climate is changing. One possible explanation is that most large birds and mammals are very broadly adapted and relatively insensitive to changes in their environments, although even the small mammals of the Pleistocene show stasis."

"I work at the other end of the size spectrum, on protein molecules rather than whole animals. Its interesting that* attempts to catch evolution in the act of doing the amazing things that the textbooks attribute to it seem to fail at both ends of the spectrum*."

Douglas Axe: &#8220;Tar Pit Study Shows Complete Absence of Evolutionary Change&#8221; | Uncommon Descent


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical lame response that doesn't address the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not responsible for addressing your anger and self hate issues. These appear to be deep seated problems. People such as yourself often use religion as a balm that only covers, but doesn't cure, a major personality wound. Forgive your fundie family members for the emotional and traumatic damage they have caused you. Leave the fold of Harun Yahya and invest in some education.
> 
> You can thank me later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello??? McFly??? I am talking about supporting documentation for asserting Christianity is responsible for Antisemitism. Geeezzz! Are you really so clueless that you can't stay on track for two posts???? *Might be because you didn't go to college.*
Click to expand...


Your lack of ability to focus may have something to do with your abysmal lack of a college education.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> "The data show that birds and mammals at Rancho La Brea show complete stasis and were unresponsive to the major climate change that occurred at 20 ka, consistent with other studies of Pleistocene animals and plants. Most explanations for such stasis (stabilizing selection, canalization) fail in this setting where climate is changing. One possible explanation is that most large birds and mammals are very broadly adapted and relatively insensitive to changes in their environments, although even the small mammals of the Pleistocene show stasis."
> 
> "I work at the other end of the size spectrum, on protein molecules rather than whole animals. Its interesting that* attempts to catch evolution in the act of doing the amazing things that the textbooks attribute to it seem to fail at both ends of the spectrum*."
> 
> Douglas Axe: Tar Pit Study Shows Complete Absence of Evolutionary Change | Uncommon Descent


As you have already admitted that creationism is nothing more than stealth religion, cutting and pasting from goofy Christian creationist websites is nothing more than failed attempts at slandering of science.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The data show that birds and mammals at Rancho La Brea show complete stasis and were unresponsive to the major climate change that occurred at 20 ka, consistent with other studies of Pleistocene animals and plants. Most explanations for such stasis (stabilizing selection, canalization) fail in this setting where climate is changing. One possible explanation is that most large birds and mammals are very broadly adapted and relatively insensitive to changes in their environments, although even the small mammals of the Pleistocene show stasis."
> 
> "I work at the other end of the size spectrum, on protein molecules rather than whole animals. Its interesting that* attempts to catch evolution in the act of doing the amazing things that the textbooks attribute to it seem to fail at both ends of the spectrum*."
> 
> Douglas Axe: Tar Pit Study Shows Complete Absence of Evolutionary Change | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> As you have already admitted that creationism is nothing more than stealth religion, cutting and pasting from goofy Christian creationist websites is nothing more than failed attempts at slandering of science.
Click to expand...


Typical uneducated response.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The data show that birds and mammals at Rancho La Brea show complete stasis and were unresponsive to the major climate change that occurred at 20 ka, consistent with other studies of Pleistocene animals and plants. Most explanations for such stasis (stabilizing selection, canalization) fail in this setting where climate is changing. One possible explanation is that most large birds and mammals are very broadly adapted and relatively insensitive to changes in their environments, although even the small mammals of the Pleistocene show stasis."
> 
> "I work at the other end of the size spectrum, on protein molecules rather than whole animals. Its interesting that* attempts to catch evolution in the act of doing the amazing things that the textbooks attribute to it seem to fail at both ends of the spectrum*."
> 
> Douglas Axe: Tar Pit Study Shows Complete Absence of Evolutionary Change | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> As you have already admitted that creationism is nothing more than stealth religion, cutting and pasting from goofy Christian creationist websites is nothing more than failed attempts at slandering of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical uneducated response.
Click to expand...

Typical uneducated cut and paste. 

Why would you expect anyone to take "creation science" / ID cut and paste seriously? 

The agenda of creationism is clear: to press a religious viewpoint. The charlatans who run the creationist ministries don't perform actual peer reviewed science. As we see from your rabid cutting and pasting, your agenda is only to vilify science and attempt to make the hopeless case that any gap in science or knowkedge somehow translates into proof of your gods. It's silly and pointless. It's as silly and pointless as ywc cutting and pasting falsified "quotes" that were debunked in this very thread. That is so typical of the lies and sleazy tactics used by Christian creationists to further their religious agenda. 

Creation ministries aren't performing experimentation and tests to validate your gods because science can't test for supernatural / invented / metaphysical gods. What they do is offer lies and misinformation in failed attempts to vilify science.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you have already admitted that creationism is nothing more than stealth religion, cutting and pasting from goofy Christian creationist websites is nothing more than failed attempts at slandering of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical uneducated response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical uneducated cut and paste.
> 
> Why would you expect anyone to take "creation science" / ID cut and paste seriously?
> 
> The agenda of creationism is clear: to press a religious viewpoint. The charlatans who run the creationist ministries don't perform actual peer reviewed science. As we see from your rabid cutting and pasting, your agenda is only to vilify science and attempt to make the hopeless case that any gap in science or knowkedge somehow translates into proof of your gods. It's silly and pointless. It's as silly and pointless as ywc cutting and pasting falsified "quotes" that were debunked in this very thread. That is so typical of the lies and sleazy tactics used by Christian creationists to further their religious agenda.
> 
> Creation ministries aren't performing experimentation and tests to validate your gods because science can't test for supernatural / invented / metaphysical gods. What they do is offer lies and misinformation in failed attempts to vilify science.
Click to expand...


Yawn.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> "The data show that birds and mammals at Rancho La Brea show complete stasis and were unresponsive to the major climate change that occurred at 20 ka, consistent with other studies of Pleistocene animals and plants. Most explanations for such stasis (stabilizing selection, canalization) fail in this setting where climate is changing. One possible explanation is that most large birds and mammals are very broadly adapted and relatively insensitive to changes in their environments, although even the small mammals of the Pleistocene show stasis."
> 
> "I work at the other end of the size spectrum, on protein molecules rather than whole animals. Its interesting that* attempts to catch evolution in the act of doing the amazing things that the textbooks attribute to it seem to fail at both ends of the spectrum*."
> 
> Douglas Axe: Tar Pit Study Shows Complete Absence of Evolutionary Change | Uncommon Descent


Douglas Axe is a shill for the Disco ' tute who admits there is no verifiable data to support ID. 

Why do you insist on cutting and pasting links to creationist ministries when both they and you admit that creationism and ID are nothing more than appeals to religion.


Encyclopedia of American Loons: #8: Douglas Axe


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical uneducated response.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical uneducated cut and paste.
> 
> Why would you expect anyone to take "creation science" / ID cut and paste seriously?
> 
> The agenda of creationism is clear: to press a religious viewpoint. The charlatans who run the creationist ministries don't perform actual peer reviewed science. As we see from your rabid cutting and pasting, your agenda is only to vilify science and attempt to make the hopeless case that any gap in science or knowkedge somehow translates into proof of your gods. It's silly and pointless. It's as silly and pointless as ywc cutting and pasting falsified "quotes" that were debunked in this very thread. That is so typical of the lies and sleazy tactics used by Christian creationists to further their religious agenda.
> 
> Creation ministries aren't performing experimentation and tests to validate your gods because science can't test for supernatural / invented / metaphysical gods. What they do is offer lies and misinformation in failed attempts to vilify science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn.
Click to expand...

Quitting before it's your turn to be fired was a prudent choice.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> For what?
> 
> Identify the strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go...
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I have to explain or validate your strawman?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Good.

That was a response to this:





UltimateReality said:


> So if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man?


This question is founded upon a number of fatuously bullshit premises that the reader is implicitly required identify and refute, or accept--premises that the theory of evolution by natural selection does not assert. Such fatuously bullshit premises would include:
Humans were descended from E. Coli.
If E. coli is an ancestor to humans, then E. coli should be extinct.
E. Coli and humans directly compete for the same survival resources.
The single-celled ancestors of human beings directly competed with E. coli for the same survival resources.
E. coli does not share any common ancestry with humans.
In order for E. coli and humans to have common ancestry, one must cause the extinction of the other.
If E. coli is more fit for it's environment than humans, then humans should be extinct.
If humans are more fit for their environment than E. coli, then E. coli should be extinct.
This list of possible bullshit premises just doesn't end. And there are no valid premises to your question, because there is nothing about the fitness of either E. coli or humans that calls into question human evolution, or the notion of a single-celled common ancestor for both E. coli and humans.

So, the patently presumptive assertion of ANY of the bullshit premises, that your question is necessarily founded upon, as being an actual assertion made by the theory of evolution by natural selection would be what? What would you call your ignoring actual assertions of the theory of evolution by natural selection and substituting your own distorted, exaggerated, misrepresented, and demonstrably bullshit versions of it's assertions?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> That was a response to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man?
> 
> 
> 
> This question is founded upon a number of fatuously bullshit premises that the reader is implicitly required identify and refute, or accept--premises that the theory of evolution by natural selection does not assert. Such fatuously bullshit premises would include:
> Humans were descended from E. Coli.
> If E. coli is an ancestor to humans, then E. coli should be extinct.
> E. Coli and humans directly compete for the same survival resources.
> The single-celled ancestors of human beings directly competed with E. coli for the same survival resources.
> E. coli does not share any common ancestry with humans.
> In order for E. coli and humans to have common ancestry, one must cause the extinction of the other.
> If E. coli is more fit for it's environment than humans, then humans should be extinct.
> If humans are more fit for their environment than E. coli, then E. coli should be extinct.
Click to expand...




Ahhh Loki, you poor dear. Once again your lack of education and reading comprehension fail you miserably. Why not quote me in entirety??? Had you read on for another sentence, you would have seen how predictable and silly I made you look then, but even more foolish now that you would waste your time claiming all the strawman inferences above above when I had already refuted them in anticipation of your intellectually dishonest overuse of fallacy accusations. There is no strawman here...only your vivid imagination.



UltimateReality said:


> So if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man? How did the soup become the soup nazi? Before you whine, STRAWMAN!! STRAWMAN! I am not falling for your semantics tricks. *I am not making the claim that man's ancestor is E coli. *I am merely drawing an example for argumentative purposes, which in your ignorance you fail to grasp, or you resort to playing word games. *No, evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards,* but in principle, this is what it claims. The TOE claims that Humans could have come from an *"amoeba-LIKE"* organism, or an *amoeba like* organism could be a distant ancestor.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical uneducated cut and paste.
> 
> Why would you expect anyone to take "creation science" / ID cut and paste seriously?
> 
> The agenda of creationism is clear: to press a religious viewpoint. The charlatans who run the creationist ministries don't perform actual peer reviewed science. As we see from your rabid cutting and pasting, your agenda is only to vilify science and attempt to make the hopeless case that any gap in science or knowkedge somehow translates into proof of your gods. It's silly and pointless. It's as silly and pointless as ywc cutting and pasting falsified "quotes" that were debunked in this very thread. That is so typical of the lies and sleazy tactics used by Christian creationists to further their religious agenda.
> 
> Creation ministries aren't performing experimentation and tests to validate your gods because science can't test for supernatural / invented / metaphysical gods. What they do is offer lies and misinformation in failed attempts to vilify science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quitting before it's your turn to be fired was a prudent choice.
Click to expand...


Only in your vivid fantasies.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> 
> 
> Quitting before it's your turn to be fired was a prudent choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only in your vivid fantasies.
Click to expand...


Your descent to flaccid and gratuitous one-liners is noted. That you would abandon your earlier claims to "creation science" for mere superstition / supermagicalism does not provide much assurance that you will even continue to try and support your claims to magic.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a response to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man?
> 
> 
> 
> This question is founded upon a number of fatuously bullshit premises that the reader is implicitly required identify and refute, or accept--premises that the theory of evolution by natural selection does not assert. Such fatuously bullshit premises would include:
> Humans were descended from E. Coli.
> If E. coli is an ancestor to humans, then E. coli should be extinct.
> E. Coli and humans directly compete for the same survival resources.
> The single-celled ancestors of human beings directly competed with E. coli for the same survival resources.
> E. coli does not share any common ancestry with humans.
> In order for E. coli and humans to have common ancestry, one must cause the extinction of the other.
> If E. coli is more fit for it's environment than humans, then humans should be extinct.
> If humans are more fit for their environment than E. coli, then E. coli should be extinct.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh Loki, you poor dear. Once again your lack of education and reading comprehension fail you miserably. Why not quote me in entirety???
Click to expand...

I quoted the entire statement that I responded to. If you thought there should have been more, you should have brought it up in your challenge.



UltimateReality said:


> Had you read on for another sentence, you would have seen how predictable and silly I made you look then, but even more foolish now that you would waste your time claiming all the strawman inferences above above when I had already refuted them in anticipation of your intellectually dishonest overuse of fallacy accusations.


You see, this is the hilarious part ... you did no such thing.



UltimateReality said:


> There is no strawman here...only your vivid imagination.


Yeah. There actually is. It was ... how did you put it precisely? Oh, yes! It was " ... drawing an example for *argumentative purposes*."

That's right. You said it was what evolution claimed ... what were your exact words? Oh yes! You said, "evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards, *but in principle, this is what it claims*."



UltimateReality said:


> So if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man? How did the soup become the soup nazi? Before you whine, STRAWMAN!! STRAWMAN! I am not falling for your semantics tricks. *I am not making the claim that man's ancestor is E coli. *I am merely drawing an example for argumentative purposes, which in your ignorance you fail to grasp, or you resort to playing word games. *No, evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards,* but in principle, this is what it claims. The TOE claims that Humans could have come from an *"amoeba-LIKE"* organism, or an *amoeba like* organism could be a distant ancestor.


Why did you edit out the following?





UltimateReality said:


> So I'm not falling for your black and white explanation denials, for the fact of the matter is, the TOE makes some preposterous generalized claims, but then says, but we really don't know the actual players.


Why didn't you "_quote [yourself] in entirety???_"

Ah yes, because I had a response to the dopey endgame of your string of bullshit, which was your perennial complaint regarding the uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions).


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a response to this:This question is founded upon a number of fatuously bullshit premises that the reader is implicitly required identify and refute, or accept--premises that the theory of evolution by natural selection does not assert. Such fatuously bullshit premises would include:
> Humans were descended from E. Coli.
> If E. coli is an ancestor to humans, then E. coli should be extinct.
> E. Coli and humans directly compete for the same survival resources.
> The single-celled ancestors of human beings directly competed with E. coli for the same survival resources.
> E. coli does not share any common ancestry with humans.
> In order for E. coli and humans to have common ancestry, one must cause the extinction of the other.
> If E. coli is more fit for it's environment than humans, then humans should be extinct.
> If humans are more fit for their environment than E. coli, then E. coli should be extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh Loki, you poor dear. Once again your lack of education and reading comprehension fail you miserably. Why not quote me in entirety???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quoted the entire statement that I responded to. If you thought there should have been more, you should have brought it up in your challenge.
> 
> You see, this is the hilarious part ... you did no such thing.
> 
> Yeah. There actually is. It was ... how did you put it precisely? Oh, yes! It was " ... drawing an example for *argumentative purposes*."
> 
> That's right. You said it was what evolution claimed ... what were your exact words? Oh yes! You said, "evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards, *but in principle, this is what it claims*."
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man? How did the soup become the soup nazi? Before you whine, STRAWMAN!! STRAWMAN! I am not falling for your semantics tricks. *I am not making the claim that man's ancestor is E coli. *I am merely drawing an example for argumentative purposes, which in your ignorance you fail to grasp, or you resort to playing word games. *No, evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards,* but in principle, this is what it claims. The TOE claims that Humans could have come from an *"amoeba-LIKE"* organism, or an *amoeba like* organism could be a distant ancestor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did you edit out the following?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm not falling for your black and white explanation denials, for the fact of the matter is, the TOE makes some preposterous generalized claims, but then says, but we really don't know the actual players.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't you "_quote [yourself] in entirety???_"
> 
> Ah yes, because I had a response to the dopey endgame of your string of bullshit, which was your perennial complaint regarding the uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions).
Click to expand...


Guess you missed the part *"in principle"*. *Definition: [adverb] with regard to fundamentals although not concerning details*; Synonyms: In essence, in theory. 

You still loose, cantelope. Your whole response is an EPIC FAIL.

So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, what single cell organism is man's ancestor?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quitting before it's your turn to be fired was a prudent choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your vivid fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your descent to flaccid and gratuitous one-liners is noted. That you would abandon your earlier claims to "creation science" for mere superstition / supermagicalism does not provide much assurance that you will even continue to try and support your claims to magic.
Click to expand...


I'm confused. Do you mean the superstition and supermagicalism of the TOE? Or your *hallucinations about where you went to college??*


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh Loki, you poor dear. Once again your lack of education and reading comprehension fail you miserably. Why not quote me in entirety???
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted the entire statement that I responded to. If you thought there should have been more, you should have brought it up in your challenge.
> 
> You see, this is the hilarious part ... you did no such thing.
> 
> Yeah. There actually is. It was ... how did you put it precisely? Oh, yes! It was " ... drawing an example for *argumentative purposes*."
> 
> That's right. You said it was what evolution claimed ... what were your exact words? Oh yes! You said, "evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards, *but in principle, this is what it claims*."
> 
> Why did you edit out the following?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm not falling for your black and white explanation denials, for the fact of the matter is, the TOE makes some preposterous generalized claims, but then says, but we really don't know the actual players.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't you "_quote [yourself] in entirety???_"
> 
> Ah yes, because I had a response to the dopey endgame of your string of bullshit, which was your perennial complaint regarding the uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess you missed the part *"in principle"*. *Definition: [adverb] with regard to fundamentals although not concerning details*; Synonyms: In essence, in theory.
Click to expand...


*prin·ci·ple*&#8194; &#8194;[prin-suh-puhl]
*noun**1.*  an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
*2.*  a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
*3.*  a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
*4.*  principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
*5. * guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.

*Idioms*
*14.*  in principle, in essence or substance; fundamentally: to accept a plan in principle.​Ah. So you're hanging your hat on idiomatic usage. Grand.

Even in essence or substance, the theory of evolution does not assert that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards.

And let's not forget that there are no valid premises to your question ("_So, if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man?_"), because there is nothing about the fitness of either E. coli or humans that calls into question human evolution, or the notion of a single-celled common ancestor for both E. coli and humans.

Let's not forget all the possible bullshit premises involved in asking that question as you desperately try to keep the whole reading world focused only on one of them.



UltimateReality said:


> You still loose, cantelope. Your whole response is an EPIC FAIL.


Whatever you say Mr. Adverb.</sarcasm>



UltimateReality said:


> So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, ...


And it is. No rational person denies it. Even the intellectually dishonest retards at the Discovery Institute accepts this; the fucking POPE accepts this.



UltimateReality said:


> ... what single cell organism is man's ancestor?


How the fuck should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life.

So now why is it that you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours?

I admitted that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is. *WHY IS THAT?*

Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God." 

Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those logically fallacious accounts "God" things are obviously fraudulent.

So help me out here, and finally explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your vivid fantasies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your descent to flaccid and gratuitous one-liners is noted. That you would abandon your earlier claims to "creation science" for mere superstition / supermagicalism does not provide much assurance that you will even continue to try and support your claims to magic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm confused. Do you mean the superstition and supermagicalism of the TOE? Or your *hallucinations about where you went to college??*
Click to expand...


The science community has no doubts about the veracity of the theory of evolution or the science fact supporting it. Typically, it is fundamentalist Christians who have an inability to accept the science. 

I was simply pointing out that your rants are of the puerile sort that serve no pragmatic purpose other than to let the fundie blow off steam. It was absolutely not of any positive contribution to the thread, and certainly would do nothing more than further reduce your nearly non-existent credibility.   

As to your lack of college degree, that is evident in your really appalling lack of ability to present a coherent argument.


----------



## ima

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your descent to flaccid and gratuitous one-liners is noted. That you would abandon your earlier claims to "creation science" for mere superstition / supermagicalism does not provide much assurance that you will even continue to try and support your claims to magic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused. Do you mean the superstition and supermagicalism of the TOE? Or your *hallucinations about where you went to college??*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The science community has no doubts about the veracity of the theory of evolution or the science fact supporting it. Typically, it is fundamentalist Christians who have an inability to accept the science.
> 
> I was simply pointing out that your rants are of the puerile sort that serve no pragmatic purpose other than to let the fundie blow off steam. It was absolutely not of any positive contribution to the thread, and certainly would do nothing more than further reduce your nearly non-existent credibility.
> 
> As to your lack of college degree, that is evident in your really appalling lack of ability to present a coherent argument.
Click to expand...


The church needed science to tell them that the world was not flat.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted the entire statement that I responded to. If you thought there should have been more, you should have brought it up in your challenge.
> 
> You see, this is the hilarious part ... you did no such thing.
> 
> Yeah. There actually is. It was ... how did you put it precisely? Oh, yes! It was " ... drawing an example for *argumentative purposes*."
> 
> That's right. You said it was what evolution claimed ... what were your exact words? Oh yes! You said, "evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards, *but in principle, this is what it claims*."
> 
> Why did you edit out the following?Why didn't you "_quote [yourself] in entirety???_"
> 
> Ah yes, because I had a response to the dopey endgame of your string of bullshit, which was your perennial complaint regarding the uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you missed the part *"in principle"*. *Definition: [adverb] with regard to fundamentals although not concerning details*; Synonyms: In essence, in theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *prin·ci·ple*&#8194; &#8194;[prin-suh-puhl]
> *noun**1.*  an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
> *2.*  a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
> *3.*  a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
> *4.*  principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
> *5. * guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.
> 
> *Idioms*
> *14.*  in principle, in essence or substance; fundamentally: to accept a plan in principle.​Ah. So you're hanging your hat on idiomatic usage. Grand.
> 
> Even in essence or substance, the theory of evolution does not assert that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards.
> 
> And let's not forget that there are no valid premises to your question ("_So, if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man?_"), because there is nothing about the fitness of either E. coli or humans that calls into question human evolution, or the notion of a single-celled common ancestor for both E. coli and humans.
> 
> Let's not forget all the possible bullshit premises involved in asking that question as you desperately try to keep the whole reading world focused only on one of them.
> 
> Whatever you say Mr. Adverb.</sarcasm>
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it is. No rational person denies it. Even the intellectually dishonest retards at the Discovery Institute accepts this; the fucking POPE accepts this.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... what single cell organism is man's ancestor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the fuck should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life.
> 
> So now why is it that you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours?
> 
> I admitted that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is. *WHY IS THAT?*
> 
> Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those logically fallacious accounts "God" things are obviously fraudulent.
> 
> So help me out here, and finally explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.
Click to expand...


The "God thing" you refer to has been explained to you numerous times in the past 600 pages. If you don't understand the concept that has been explained to you numerous times by now, then you will probably never be able to grasp the religious and philosophical notions of the Creator. Your lack of understanding also brings to light your failure to grasp your OWN Darwinian religious beliefs as well.

Let's look at your quote, "How the %^&$ should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life."

From Wiki:
_"In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.[1][2]"

"The last universal ancestor (LUA) (also called the last universal common ancestor, LUCA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms,[1] is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago."

"Considering what we know of the offspring groups (see phylogenetic bracketing),* the LUA was a small, single-cell organism.* It would have had a cell wall and a ring-shaped coil of DNA floating freely within the cell, like modern bacteria."_

_"Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in his book On the Origin of Species, saying, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."_

It is no wonder you struggle with the religious concept of God when you have so blatantly demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the very metaphysical beliefs on origins you espouse. Digging deeper into the LUA, we come across the concept of horizontal gene transfer. If there was ever an example of evolutionary biologists making up "just so" stories to force the evidence to fit their theory, this is it. Your denial of the presupposition of the Darwinian party line when it comes to evidence just demonstrates your blind faith in the concept. *Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory.* Their response when genetic evidence didn't add up??? Evolution has to be true so the genes *must have* transferred. What an absolute joke!!! And you call this science? Yeah, whatever. 

I suppose I can try and explain God to you one more time. If we just assume for a second all the made up BS about evolution is true, ID theory's hypothesis could easily be applied to Darwin's statement above as the intelligent agent (lower case) responsible for "breathing life" into the so called LUA. However, ID goes farther because there is evidence that the same intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms. ID makes no references to the intelligent agent's identity, only hypothesizes that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe. MY *religious belief* is that the intelligent agent is the Intelligent Agent (upper case) described in the collection of 66 books known as the Bible. This Agent as identified as the God Jehovah or Yahweh.

Finally, trying to detract from the concept of God by continually referring to him as invisible just demonstrates your mental midgetry. Gravity is invisible. So is the wind. Your ignorant use of the adjective infers that just because something is invisible to the human eye, it doesn't exist. Yet we know that the wind and gravity are real.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you missed the part *"in principle"*. *Definition: [adverb] with regard to fundamentals although not concerning details*; Synonyms: In essence, in theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *prin·ci·ple*&#8194; &#8194;[prin-suh-puhl]
> *noun**1.*  an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
> *2.*  a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
> *3.*  a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
> *4.*  principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
> *5. * guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.
> 
> *Idioms*
> *14.*  in principle, in essence or substance; fundamentally: to accept a plan in principle.​Ah. So you're hanging your hat on idiomatic usage. Grand.
> 
> Even in essence or substance, the theory of evolution does not assert that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards.
> 
> And let's not forget that there are no valid premises to your question ("_So, if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man?_"), because there is nothing about the fitness of either E. coli or humans that calls into question human evolution, or the notion of a single-celled common ancestor for both E. coli and humans.
> 
> Let's not forget all the possible bullshit premises involved in asking that question as you desperately try to keep the whole reading world focused only on one of them.
> 
> Whatever you say Mr. Adverb.</sarcasm>
> 
> And it is. No rational person denies it. Even the intellectually dishonest retards at the Discovery Institute accepts this; the fucking POPE accepts this.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... what single cell organism is man's ancestor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the fuck should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life.
> 
> So now why is it that you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours?
> 
> I admitted that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is. *WHY IS THAT?*
> 
> Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those logically fallacious accounts "God" things are obviously fraudulent.
> 
> So help me out here, and finally explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "God thing" you refer to has been explained to you numerous times in the past 600 pages. If you don't understand the concept that has been explained to you numerous times by now, then you will probably never be able to grasp the religious and philosophical notions of the Creator. Your lack of understanding also brings to light your failure to grasp your OWN Darwinian religious beliefs as well.
> 
> Let's look at your quote, "How the %^&$ should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life."
> 
> From Wiki:
> _"In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.[1][2]"
> 
> "The last universal ancestor (LUA) (also called the last universal common ancestor, LUCA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms,[1] is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago."
> 
> "Considering what we know of the offspring groups (see phylogenetic bracketing),* the LUA was a small, single-cell organism.* It would have had a cell wall and a ring-shaped coil of DNA floating freely within the cell, like modern bacteria."_
> 
> _"Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in his book On the Origin of Species, saying, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."_
> 
> It is no wonder you struggle with the religious concept of God when you have so blatantly demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the very metaphysical beliefs on origins you espouse. Digging deeper into the LUA, we come across the concept of horizontal gene transfer. If there was ever an example of evolutionary biologists making up "just so" stories to force the evidence to fit their theory, this is it. Your denial of the presupposition of the Darwinian party line when it comes to evidence just demonstrates your blind faith in the concept. *Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory.* Their response when genetic evidence didn't add up??? Evolution has to be true so the genes *must have* transferred. What an absolute joke!!! And you call this science? Yeah, whatever.
> 
> I suppose I can try and explain God to you one more time. If we just assume for a second all the made up BS about evolution is true, ID theory's hypothesis could easily be applied to Darwin's statement above as the intelligent agent (lower case) responsible for "breathing life" into the so called LUA. However, ID goes farther because there is evidence that the same intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms. ID makes no references to the intelligent agent's identity, only hypothesizes that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe. MY *religious belief* is that the intelligent agent is the Intelligent Agent (upper case) described in the collection of 66 books known as the Bible. This Agent as identified as the God Jehovah or Yahweh.
> 
> Finally, trying to detract from the concept of God by continually referring to him as invisible just demonstrates your mental midgetry. Gravity is invisible. So is the wind. Your ignorant use of the adjective infers that just because something is invisible to the human eye, it doesn't exist. Yet we know that the wind and gravity are real.
Click to expand...


The above is just a reiteration of the boilerplate, science loathing diatribe weve read before.

Purely superficially, if one takes the time to briefly read their history, one will quickly realize that gods are a convenience, usually for politically motivated reasons. In ancient times to the present, it is quite simple to whip up a populace into agreeing with a specific idea if you can convince that populace that there is an unseen being that is resolutely on their side. This is an extension of our tribal instincts, wherein we place the mantle of superiority upon a person or persons, providing they can deliver the things we have convinced ourselves we want. No mere mortal can come close to instilling a sense of loyalty and duty that a god can, especially as over the millennia god's powers have been enhanced and expanded. 

Its odd that evidences of  the gods would take the form of a book that we know was created by men and which we know was changed, edited and revised such that we have no way of knowing the original contents. In practice, this is the egregious sin of idolatry - specifically, worshiping a book - and a book containing no eyewitness reportage re: the religious traditions that were the basis for the religion, an arbitrary compilation of writings from murky sources collected and edited centuries after the alleged occurrence of the events for which the believers would maintain it provides an infallible account, thus readily attributing divinity to writers unknown (and not to those haphazardly excluded), the compilers, editors, translators, scribes, etc., who had a hand, literally or figuratively, in the literary project. To err is human - unless you are amongst the legions of book worshippers upon whom the believers bestow godhead.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *prin·ci·ple*&#8194; &#8194;[prin-suh-puhl]
> *noun**1.*  an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
> *2.*  a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
> *3.*  a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
> *4.*  principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
> *5. * guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.
> 
> *Idioms*
> *14.*  in principle, in essence or substance; fundamentally: to accept a plan in principle.​Ah. So you're hanging your hat on idiomatic usage. Grand.
> 
> Even in essence or substance, the theory of evolution does not assert that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards.
> 
> And let's not forget that there are no valid premises to your question ("_So, if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man?_"), because there is nothing about the fitness of either E. coli or humans that calls into question human evolution, or the notion of a single-celled common ancestor for both E. coli and humans.
> 
> Let's not forget all the possible bullshit premises involved in asking that question as you desperately try to keep the whole reading world focused only on one of them.
> 
> Whatever you say Mr. Adverb.</sarcasm>
> 
> And it is. No rational person denies it. Even the intellectually dishonest retards at the Discovery Institute accepts this; the fucking POPE accepts this.
> 
> How the fuck should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life.
> 
> So now why is it that you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours?
> 
> I admitted that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is. *WHY IS THAT?*
> 
> Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those logically fallacious accounts "God" things are obviously fraudulent.
> 
> So help me out here, and finally explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "God thing" you refer to has been explained to you numerous times in the past 600 pages. If you don't understand the concept that has been explained to you numerous times by now, then you will probably never be able to grasp the religious and philosophical notions of the Creator. Your lack of understanding also brings to light your failure to grasp your OWN Darwinian religious beliefs as well.
> 
> Let's look at your quote, "How the %^&$ should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life."
> 
> From Wiki:
> _"In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.[1][2]"
> 
> "The last universal ancestor (LUA) (also called the last universal common ancestor, LUCA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms,[1] is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago."
> 
> "Considering what we know of the offspring groups (see phylogenetic bracketing),* the LUA was a small, single-cell organism.* It would have had a cell wall and a ring-shaped coil of DNA floating freely within the cell, like modern bacteria."_
> 
> _"Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in his book On the Origin of Species, saying, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."_
> 
> It is no wonder you struggle with the religious concept of God when you have so blatantly demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the very metaphysical beliefs on origins you espouse. Digging deeper into the LUA, we come across the concept of horizontal gene transfer. If there was ever an example of evolutionary biologists making up "just so" stories to force the evidence to fit their theory, this is it. Your denial of the presupposition of the Darwinian party line when it comes to evidence just demonstrates your blind faith in the concept. *Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory.* Their response when genetic evidence didn't add up??? Evolution has to be true so the genes *must have* transferred. What an absolute joke!!! And you call this science? Yeah, whatever.
> 
> I suppose I can try and explain God to you one more time. If we just assume for a second all the made up BS about evolution is true, ID theory's hypothesis could easily be applied to Darwin's statement above as the intelligent agent (lower case) responsible for "breathing life" into the so called LUA. However, ID goes farther because there is evidence that the same intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms. ID makes no references to the intelligent agent's identity, only hypothesizes that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe. MY *religious belief* is that the intelligent agent is the Intelligent Agent (upper case) described in the collection of 66 books known as the Bible. This Agent as identified as the God Jehovah or Yahweh.
> 
> Finally, trying to detract from the concept of God by continually referring to him as invisible just demonstrates your mental midgetry. Gravity is invisible. So is the wind. Your ignorant use of the adjective infers that just because something is invisible to the human eye, it doesn't exist. Yet we know that the wind and gravity are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The above is just a reiteration of the boilerplate, science loathing diatribe we&#8217;ve read before.
> 
> Purely superficially, if one takes the time to briefly read their history, one will quickly realize that gods are a convenience, usually for politically motivated reasons. In ancient times to the present, it is quite simple to whip up a populace into agreeing with a specific idea if you can convince that populace that there is an unseen being that is resolutely on their side. This is an extension of our tribal instincts, wherein we place the mantle of superiority upon a person or persons, providing they can deliver the things we have convinced ourselves we want. No mere mortal can come close to instilling a sense of loyalty and duty that a god can, especially as over the millennia god's powers have been enhanced and expanded.
> 
> It&#8217;s odd that evidences of  the gods would take the form of a book that we know was created by men and which we know was changed, edited and revised such that we have no way of knowing the original contents. In practice, this is the egregious sin of idolatry - specifically, worshiping a book - and a book containing no eyewitness reportage re: the religious traditions that were the basis for the religion, an arbitrary compilation of writings from murky sources collected and edited centuries after the alleged occurrence of the events for which the believers would maintain it provides an infallible account, thus readily attributing divinity to writers unknown (and not to those haphazardly excluded), the compilers, editors, translators, scribes, etc., who had a hand, literally or figuratively, in the literary project. To err is human - unless you are amongst the legions of book worshippers upon whom the believers bestow godhead.
Click to expand...


Interesting. Please tell me more about the Koran.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "God thing" you refer to has been explained to you numerous times in the past 600 pages. If you don't understand the concept that has been explained to you numerous times by now, then you will probably never be able to grasp the religious and philosophical notions of the Creator. Your lack of understanding also brings to light your failure to grasp your OWN Darwinian religious beliefs as well.
> 
> Let's look at your quote, "How the %^&$ should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life."
> 
> From Wiki:
> _"In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.[1][2]"
> 
> "The last universal ancestor (LUA) (also called the last universal common ancestor, LUCA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms,[1] is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago."
> 
> "Considering what we know of the offspring groups (see phylogenetic bracketing),* the LUA was a small, single-cell organism.* It would have had a cell wall and a ring-shaped coil of DNA floating freely within the cell, like modern bacteria."_
> 
> _"Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in his book On the Origin of Species, saying, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."_
> 
> It is no wonder you struggle with the religious concept of God when you have so blatantly demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the very metaphysical beliefs on origins you espouse. Digging deeper into the LUA, we come across the concept of horizontal gene transfer. If there was ever an example of evolutionary biologists making up "just so" stories to force the evidence to fit their theory, this is it. Your denial of the presupposition of the Darwinian party line when it comes to evidence just demonstrates your blind faith in the concept. *Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory.* Their response when genetic evidence didn't add up??? Evolution has to be true so the genes *must have* transferred. What an absolute joke!!! And you call this science? Yeah, whatever.
> 
> I suppose I can try and explain God to you one more time. If we just assume for a second all the made up BS about evolution is true, ID theory's hypothesis could easily be applied to Darwin's statement above as the intelligent agent (lower case) responsible for "breathing life" into the so called LUA. However, ID goes farther because there is evidence that the same intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms. ID makes no references to the intelligent agent's identity, only hypothesizes that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe. MY *religious belief* is that the intelligent agent is the Intelligent Agent (upper case) described in the collection of 66 books known as the Bible. This Agent as identified as the God Jehovah or Yahweh.
> 
> Finally, trying to detract from the concept of God by continually referring to him as invisible just demonstrates your mental midgetry. Gravity is invisible. So is the wind. Your ignorant use of the adjective infers that just because something is invisible to the human eye, it doesn't exist. Yet we know that the wind and gravity are real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is just a reiteration of the boilerplate, science loathing diatribe weve read before.
> 
> Purely superficially, if one takes the time to briefly read their history, one will quickly realize that gods are a convenience, usually for politically motivated reasons. In ancient times to the present, it is quite simple to whip up a populace into agreeing with a specific idea if you can convince that populace that there is an unseen being that is resolutely on their side. This is an extension of our tribal instincts, wherein we place the mantle of superiority upon a person or persons, providing they can deliver the things we have convinced ourselves we want. No mere mortal can come close to instilling a sense of loyalty and duty that a god can, especially as over the millennia god's powers have been enhanced and expanded.
> 
> Its odd that evidences of  the gods would take the form of a book that we know was created by men and which we know was changed, edited and revised such that we have no way of knowing the original contents. In practice, this is the egregious sin of idolatry - specifically, worshiping a book - and a book containing no eyewitness reportage re: the religious traditions that were the basis for the religion, an arbitrary compilation of writings from murky sources collected and edited centuries after the alleged occurrence of the events for which the believers would maintain it provides an infallible account, thus readily attributing divinity to writers unknown (and not to those haphazardly excluded), the compilers, editors, translators, scribes, etc., who had a hand, literally or figuratively, in the literary project. To err is human - unless you are amongst the legions of book worshippers upon whom the believers bestow godhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. Please tell me more about the Koran.
Click to expand...


Your worshipping at the altar of Harun Yahya should have given you some insight into the koran. 

Pretending that the bibles are materially different is wishful thinking. The classic argument against the proposed attributes of the gods (the omni's) show that the triune characteristics define gods that cannot possibly exist. One cannot be all good, all powerful and all knowing in any logical sense, at least not within the strictures of our present existence. The fact that there is suffering, death, and evil (if one is compelled to believe in things such as good and evil as concepts that exist as realities and not simply as human conventions), establishes that a god, if he is to have created all, has allowed such things to exist in the first place. This is not consistent with omnibenvolence. If a thing is all good, then by definition there can be nothing evil about it; certainly it is incapable of creating anything that in and of itself can be considered evil. 

But of course for fundies, logic and rational thinking doesn't account for much.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The above is just a reiteration of the boilerplate, science loathing diatribe we&#8217;ve read before.
> 
> Purely superficially, if one takes the time to briefly read their history, one will quickly realize that gods are a convenience, usually for politically motivated reasons. In ancient times to the present, it is quite simple to whip up a populace into agreeing with a specific idea if you can convince that populace that there is an unseen being that is resolutely on their side. This is an extension of our tribal instincts, wherein we place the mantle of superiority upon a person or persons, providing they can deliver the things we have convinced ourselves we want. No mere mortal can come close to instilling a sense of loyalty and duty that a god can, especially as over the millennia god's powers have been enhanced and expanded.
> 
> It&#8217;s odd that evidences of  the gods would take the form of a book that we know was created by men and which we know was changed, edited and revised such that we have no way of knowing the original contents. In practice, this is the egregious sin of idolatry - specifically, worshiping a book - and a book containing no eyewitness reportage re: the religious traditions that were the basis for the religion, an arbitrary compilation of writings from murky sources collected and edited centuries after the alleged occurrence of the events for which the believers would maintain it provides an infallible account, thus readily attributing divinity to writers unknown (and not to those haphazardly excluded), the compilers, editors, translators, scribes, etc., who had a hand, literally or figuratively, in the literary project. To err is human - unless you are amongst the legions of book worshippers upon whom the believers bestow godhead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Please tell me more about the Koran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your worshipping at the altar of Harun Yahya should have given you some insight into the koran.
> 
> Pretending that the bibles are materially different is wishful thinking. The classic argument against the proposed attributes of the gods (the omni's) show that the triune characteristics define gods that cannot possibly exist. One cannot be all good, all powerful and all knowing in any logical sense, at least not within the strictures of our present existence. The fact that there is suffering, death, and evil (if one is compelled to believe in things such as good and evil as concepts that exist as realities and not simply as human conventions), establishes that a god, if he is to have created all, has allowed such things to exist in the first place. This is not consistent with omnibenvolence. If a thing is all good, then by definition there can be nothing evil about it; certainly it is incapable of creating anything that in and of itself can be considered evil.
> 
> But of course for fundies, logic and rational thinking doesn't account for much.
Click to expand...


Haran Yahya is an infidel. I will require you never to mention his name in the same sentence as mine.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Please tell me more about the Koran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your worshipping at the altar of Harun Yahya should have given you some insight into the koran.
> 
> Pretending that the bibles are materially different is wishful thinking. The classic argument against the proposed attributes of the gods (the omni's) show that the triune characteristics define gods that cannot possibly exist. One cannot be all good, all powerful and all knowing in any logical sense, at least not within the strictures of our present existence. The fact that there is suffering, death, and evil (if one is compelled to believe in things such as good and evil as concepts that exist as realities and not simply as human conventions), establishes that a god, if he is to have created all, has allowed such things to exist in the first place. This is not consistent with omnibenvolence. If a thing is all good, then by definition there can be nothing evil about it; certainly it is incapable of creating anything that in and of itself can be considered evil.
> 
> But of course for fundies, logic and rational thinking doesn't account for much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haran Yahya is an infidel. I will require you never to mention his name in the same sentence as mine.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense for you to criticize Harun Yahya as so much of the anti-science agenda and falsified science is ruthlessly stolen from fundie Christians.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your worshipping... [useless repetitive dribble deleted for brevity]... much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haran Yahya is an infidel. I will require you never to mention his name in the same sentence as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't make sense for you to criticize Harun Yahya as so much of the anti-science agenda and falsified science is ruthlessly stolen from fundie Christians.
Click to expand...


I will require you a 2nd time never to mention the infidel's name in the same sentence referencing me.

And by the way...

*where did you go to college?*


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor Harun Yahya groupie. Proof of the gods would negate any requirement for religious faith.
> 
> As there is no proof for any gods, you're left with belief in the supermagical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure. You missed the comparison as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was nothing to figure. Your silly attempts at comparison are typically connected to supernatural entities.
Click to expand...


Look Hollie, I hold a degree in science. Can someone who holds a degree in science look at evidence and infer design verses your invisible creator through naturalism ? if i can't please provide an answer as to why ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.
> 
> You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on scienceintended to further religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does your information come from? Oh that's right. You never actually provide any!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already identified that your "information" comes from sources that are religious based. What information are you going to cut and paste from fundie websites that anyone needs to be bother refuting?
Click to expand...


Holie some information has come from people actually holding degrees in science. The people holding the same degrees that believe in naturalism how are they superior in grey matter ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.
> 
> You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on science intended to further religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, when are you gonna open the discussion on mutation fixation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are giving him way too much credit.
Click to expand...


Yep,apparently so and the other fundie only wants to talk about one issue not all 9 that was raised.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> The "God thing" you refer to has been explained to you numerous times in the past 600 pages.


I do not dispute this. I think I was very clear that, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Even though you refuse to acknowledge this verifiable fact of reality, it remains certainly true; does it not?

Of course it does.



UltimateReality said:


> If you don't understand the concept that has been explained to you numerous times by now, then you will probably never be able to grasp the religious and philosophical notions of the Creator.


You'll just have to excuse me for giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might have an account for this "Creator" you posit, that is NOT a self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account.

You do recognize that such fundamentally flawed notions are impossible to accept as intellectually valid? You don't actually expect me to consider any of those self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts to be worth considering as accounts of a real thing, by any intellectually rigorous standard, do you?

I wouldn't think so if you considered yourself a rational human being. If I am to assume that you are a rational human being, I cannot assume that you would accept such accounts so fundamentally flawed that they lack logical validity. So again, excuse me for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

If you have an account for this "Creator" you posit, that is NOT a self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account, please share it.

Because I cannot imagine any reason consistent with integrity of intellectual honesty that you would refuse to do so.



UltimateReality said:


> Your lack of understanding also brings to light your failure to grasp your OWN Darwinian religious beliefs as well.


Spoken like a true Hovindist.



UltimateReality said:


> Let's look at your quote, "How the %^&$ should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life."
> 
> From Wiki:
> _"In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.[1][2]"_


_Three things are thus far made apparent from your source: 
  "trong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor" strongly refutes the notion that such position has any corresponding relationship with religion (in the belief in supernatural agencies, and "ritual observance of faith" sense).[*]  That the notion "that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor" is not quite a "just so story" in quite the manner of so many accounts of a "Creator" who created an existence that is "just so" precisely the way the believers of their "Creator" say it is.[*]  There's nothing that would lead one to the conclusion that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life. I accept the possibility that your source might later support a different conclusion.



UltimateReality said:



			From Wiki:
"The last universal ancestor (LUA) (also called the last universal common ancestor, LUCA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms,[1] is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago."
		
Click to expand...

This appears to be consistent with the evidence. However, I fail to see that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.



UltimateReality said:



			From Wiki:
"Considering what we know of the offspring groups (see phylogenetic bracketing),* the LUA was a small, single-cell organism.* It would have had a cell wall and a ring-shaped coil of DNA floating freely within the cell, like modern bacteria."
		
Click to expand...

Yes. This description appears to be a sensible conclusion drawn from the available data, but its not an implication that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.



UltimateReality said:



			From Wiki:
"Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in his book On the Origin of Species, saying, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone would dispute that Darwin is not presenting the Theory of Evolution as a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.



UltimateReality said:



			It is no wonder you struggle with the religious concept of God when you have so blatantly demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the very metaphysical beliefs on origins you espouse.
		
Click to expand...

"Metaphysical" is an awfully big word to be used by someone who struggled with difference between what constitutes a definition, what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.

The fact that I do not accept the dopey notions you assign to me; the fact that my metaphysical beliefs are entirely alien to your superstitious metaphysics; is no indication at all that I have any lack of understanding of the metaphysical beliefs on origins that I actually espouse.

Let me remind you that where you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe, no such barrier prevents me from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything I observe if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.



UltimateReality said:



			Digging deeper into the LUA, we come across the concept of horizontal gene transfer. If there was ever an example of evolutionary biologists making up "just so" stories to force the evidence to fit their theory, this is it.
		
Click to expand...

Seriously? "Just so story"?

I'm not at all certain you know what you're talking about. I am pretty certain that you're misusing the term though.

Horizontal gene transfer cannot be a "Just-So story considering that the mechanisms for it seem pretty well understood--you know, in precisely the way the "Creator" of most typical accounts is not.



UltimateReality said:



			Your denial of the presupposition of the Darwinian party line when it comes to evidence just demonstrates your blind faith in the concept.
		
Click to expand...

You're just making this shit up--just like a true Hovindist. Seriously. It's the precise made-up bullshit from you I have been exposing this whole time. The same made-up bullshit that you wish us all to believe is some kind of heady "sarcasm" that is lost on the "mental midgets" that surround you.

Having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of yours, you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, SOLEY on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless conclusions.

Having placed yourself on a pedestal with your absolute certainty, you simply refuse to accept that others refuse to conform to your bullshit intellectual paradigm; that others are capable of refusing to conform to your bullshit intellectual paradigm.



UltimateReality said:



*Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory.*

Click to expand...

I will remind you again UltimateReality (CHRIST! Your nick is prima-facie evidence of your sanctimonious hubris), that where you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe, no such barrier prevents me from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything I observe if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.



UltimateReality said:



			Their response when genetic evidence didn't add up??? Evolution has to be true so the genes *must have* transferred. What an absolute joke!!! And you call this science? Yeah, whatever.
		
Click to expand...

This is how you wish to go about this? You're just going to deny the verifiable reality of horizontal gene transfer, and then use that denial as a rationalization to assign to your opponents assertions that they simply do not make, and then you're going to accuse *them* of sumitting "Just-So" stories as evidence? Really?

Considering your brilliant and uncompromising track record, I really thought I could no longer be surprised by your intellectual dishonesty--*HOLY FUCK WAS I WRONG!*



UltimateReality said:



			I suppose I can try and explain God to you one more time.
		
Click to expand...

(*FINALLY!*) Please do!



UltimateReality said:



			If we just assume for a second all the made up BS about evolution is true, ID theory's hypothesis could easily be applied to Darwin's statement above as the intelligent agent (lower case) responsible for "breathing life" into the so called LUA.
		
Click to expand...

I REFUSE to dispute this. Seriously. You CANNOT from this point forward EVER claim I "... presuppose Darwinism (you Hovindist retard) is true and force fit the evidence to the theory."



UltimateReality said:



			However, ID goes farther because there is evidence that the same intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms.
		
Click to expand...

Oh!

AWESOME! I can't wait! For you SURELY are about to present this evidence. Yes? 

I have been hoping one of you guys would finally come through, and UltimateReality ... you're really going to do it! Right?

And considering your complaint regarding how "Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory", I can expect that the evidence you will shortly provide will no no way require me to presuppose this "intelligent agent" you posit is real in order for me to conclude that said "evidence" is actually "... evidence that [an] intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms."

Just for the record ... is there a secret number of times someone must ask? I just can't figure why you guys have been holding back for so long!



UltimateReality said:



			ID makes no references to the intelligent agent's identity, only hypothesizes that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe.
		
Click to expand...

Whoa! WHOA *WHOA*! Pal!

First, there is NO FUCKING DOUBT that Intelligent Design identifies the "intelligent agent's" identity.*"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic world view, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."*​
Who cares? Right? Because you're about to lay on us that evidence!

Except that you don't. :frownyface: WTF?

You just claim that ID ... WHAT? "... *hypothesizes* that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe."

Do you mean to tell me that all every time you asshats went on about how "there is evidence" to support your claims, you were just presenting some fucking *HYPOTHESIS* that there is such evidence? NOT that there *IS* evidence, but that you've got some really good reason to assert there is evidence; and perhaps you predict you're going to find some? *REALLY?!?!?*



UltimateReality said:



			MY *religious belief* is that the intelligent agent is the Intelligent Agent (upper case) described in the collection of 66 books known as the Bible. This Agent as identified as the God Jehovah or Yahweh.
		
Click to expand...

Aren't you just lucky then that your Intelligent Agent (upper case) is the same intelligent agent identified when Intelligent Design expresses it's goal to "... replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."



UltimateReality said:



			Finally, trying to detract from the concept of God by continually referring to him as invisible just demonstrates your mental midgetry.
		
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? Are you claiming your "God" thing is visible? Based on claims made about Him, I fail to understand why he can't make some time so He can be visible to me, and put this whole thing to rest.

Also, I assert that the concept of your personal "God" thing is objectively real--just as the concept of leprechauns is also objectively real. Your task (which I am certain you will refuse to accept) is to demonstrate in what way leprechauns are verifiably less real than any "God" thing you might posit.



UltimateReality said:



			Gravity is invisible.
		
Click to expand...

And it's effect is quantifiable. It's properties are describable in a meaningful, verifiable, and useful manner. It has so many things in common with other objectively real things.



UltimateReality said:



			So is the wind.
		
Click to expand...

And it's effect is quantifiable. It's properties are describable in a meaningful, verifiable, and useful manner. It has so many things in common with other objectively real things.



UltimateReality said:



			Your ignorant use of the adjective infers that just because something is invisible to the human eye, it doesn't exist.
		
Click to expand...

You'll just have to excuse me for not creating a comprehensive inventory of all the properties of verifiable real things that every "God" thing I have been exposed to fails to exhibit, and all the properties those "Gods" share with verifiable imaginary things.



UltimateReality said:



			Yet we know that the wind and gravity are real.
		
Click to expand...

And we have evidence that these various and sundry "God" things--including yours--is not._


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good!
> 
> You reference this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mental midget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> So what's your problem now? Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours? Is it because I'm a mental midget? Is that it?
> 
> So I admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.
Click to expand...


Loki explain how life sprang into existence through this invisible method of naturalism ? if you can't explain it how is this not faith to believe something you can't see or verify and in the process explain it to us ?

Why do you knock someone who believes life was designed ? The bible explains our creator pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know God.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> So what's your problem now? Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours? Is it because I'm a mental midget? Is that it?
> 
> So I admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? *Even a mental midget can see that those "God" things are obviously fraudulent.* ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU cannot. The man that subscribes to only naturalism, like yourself, is darkened in his understanding. The concept of God is foolishness to you. Unfortunately for you, for now, you don't have the ability to comprehend such things. Perhaps this is why you continue with your intellectual dishonesty above:
> 
> *1 Corinthians 2:14*
> 
> 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for * they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them*, because they are spiritually discerned.
> 
> *Romans 1:20-22(NIV)*
> 
> 20 For since the creation of the world God&#8217;s invisible qualities&#8212;his eternal power and divine nature&#8212;have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made [Creation], so that people are without excuse.
> 
> 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and *their foolish hearts were darkened*. 22 *Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid that assaulting people by thumping them with your bible is a failed tactic.
> 
> The juvenile tactic of posting verses is meaningless when when what you're posting is confused, convoluted, contradictory and incorrect.
> 
> ON SEEING GOD
> "... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30
> 
> "No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18
> 
> ON THE POWER OF GOD
> "... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26
> 
> "...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19 Note: not "would not" but could not.
> 
> ON MAKING GRAVEN IMAGES
> "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water". (Lev. 26:1)
> 
> "[And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying...] And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them." (Exodus 25:18)
> 
> ON PUNISHING CRIME
> "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
> 
> "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5
> 
> ON TEMPTATION
> "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13
> 
> "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1
> 
> ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
> "Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12
> 
> "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26
> 
> ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
> "...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9
> 
> "...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29
> 
> OOPS!
Click to expand...


Hollie you should be thankful he came and poured out his blood for all so he no longer has to use those methods.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that you would make reference to logic and reasoning. You and the other fundie had insisted that creation "science" was a viable method to counter evolution, the biological sciences and the physical sciences. You both recently abandoned that strategy  altogether and finally admitted that creation science is simply lies, deceit and falsehood as mere attempts to assign credibility to what amounts to fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. Seriously, Hollie, you and Loki think if you repeat something enough times it will be true. I have never claimed Creationism is anything but religion. Please produce a link or cease and desist with your LIES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you admit that Creationism is religion, correct? And Intelligent-Design theory is demonstrably (and has been demonstrated both in this forum and in court of law) Creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science, correct? And you maintain that Intelligent-Design theory is science, correct?
> 
> Hence, ...
Click to expand...


Look all three of our views can be inferred through science. Some are better supported by science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. Seriously, Hollie, you and Loki think if you repeat something enough times it will be true. I have never claimed Creationism is anything but religion. Please produce a link or cease and desist with your LIES.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit that Creationism is religion, correct? And Intelligent-Design theory is demonstrably (and has been demonstrated both in this forum and in court of law) Creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science, correct? And you maintain that Intelligent-Design theory is science, correct?
> 
> Hence, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct. Courts of law cannot be depended on to make declarations about science philosophy. To keep quoting Dover is REALY, REALLY pathetic on evo-fundies part.... REALLY PATHETIC. Why don't you and your Rugged buddy use that mush sloshing around in your head to come up with something better than "the court said so!"???  The court also says it is okay to murder unborn babies but this is a large part of the population that believes this is the worst type of genocide, and extremely EVIL.
> 
> "But people [who aren't totally blinded by their metaphysical materialism] understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the* truth standards of power.*"
> 
> "First, t*he new trend in science toward enlisting the political and judicial system to help one side to prevail in a scientific dispute is highly injurious to the health of science itself*, to say nothing of the polity, and it must be stopped. If a scientific consensus is so insecure that it has to have its claims imposed on the public by court orderas happened in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover decision in Pennsylvania with respect to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolutionit can scarcely expect to command the respect of that public, and it forfeits whatever intellectual authority it might otherwise be entitled to. Similar efforts are now afoot to impose an artificial consensus on the subject of climate change. They are equally to be deplored."
> 
> "A judge could rule that Einstein is right and the faster-than-light neutrinos are wrong. Or that you cant teach about them in school. Or whatever. That then becomes the official truth."
> 
> When "Our Best Science" Is Not Good Enough
Click to expand...


This is really funny, a lawyer making decisions concerning science


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NATURALSELECTOR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in god = psycosis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement might carry a bit more weight if you spelled psychosis right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because spelling is all you can fault his statement for?
Click to expand...


Can you prove it's an accurate statement ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what?
> 
> Identify the strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good.
> 
> That was a response to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This question is founded upon a number of fatuously bullshit premises that the reader is implicitly required identify and refute, or accept--premises that the theory of evolution by natural selection does not assert. Such fatuously bullshit premises would include:
> Humans were descended from E. Coli.
> If E. coli is an ancestor to humans, then E. coli should be extinct.
> E. Coli and humans directly compete for the same survival resources.
> The single-celled ancestors of human beings directly competed with E. coli for the same survival resources.
> E. coli does not share any common ancestry with humans.
> In order for E. coli and humans to have common ancestry, one must cause the extinction of the other.
> If E. coli is more fit for it's environment than humans, then humans should be extinct.
> If humans are more fit for their environment than E. coli, then E. coli should be extinct.
> This list of possible bullshit premises just doesn't end. And there are no valid premises to your question, because there is nothing about the fitness of either E. coli or humans that calls into question human evolution, or the notion of a single-celled common ancestor for both E. coli and humans.
> 
> So, the patently presumptive assertion of ANY of the bullshit premises, that your question is necessarily founded upon, as being an actual assertion made by the theory of evolution by natural selection would be what? What would you call your ignoring actual assertions of the theory of evolution by natural selection and substituting your own distorted, exaggerated, misrepresented, and demonstrably bullshit versions of it's assertions?
Click to expand...


Talk about a fundie


----------



## Youwerecreated

Loki, this planet is literally covered with bacterium if what you are suggesting there should be new life forms popping all over this planet definitely things we have never laid eyes on.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mental midget.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> So what's your problem now? Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours? Is it because I'm a mental midget? Is that it?
> 
> So I admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki explain how life sprang into existence through this invisible method of naturalism ?
Click to expand...

_"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​I think I'll go with that. A "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

What the "exact" sequence is, is something I honestly don't know--I don't have or believe in postcognition. However, I KNOW you have been presented with several hypotheses which offer the details I'm sure you demand as "proof." I see no reason why I should be required to reprise them just because you find them inadequate as "proof."

Particularly in light of the fact that you required no evidence--let alone proof--of the validity of your creation story to believe it is valid with an absolute conviction of certainty.



Youwerecreated said:


> if you can't explain it how is this not faith to believe something you can't see or verify and in the process explain it to us ?


Because it *can* be explained. Because there is evidence that supports those explanations.

The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.

Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.



Youwerecreated said:


> Why do you knock someone who believes life was designed ?


Because it's a vacuous assertion. It's literally a fairy tale--complete with a central fairy, which was (unimaginatively) declared omnipotent, and (conveniently) not subject to any kind of verification.



Youwerecreated said:


> The bible explains our creator pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know God.


I've read the Bible. It demonstrates nothing. The Eddas explain our creator. Pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know Odin.

What makes your God and your creation story in the Bible objectively more real and valid than Odin and the creation story in the Eddas?

Besides, I asked for an account that was NOT some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of "God."


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. Seriously, Hollie, you and Loki think if you repeat something enough times it will be true. I have never claimed Creationism is anything but religion. Please produce a link or cease and desist with your LIES.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit that Creationism is religion, correct? And Intelligent-Design theory is demonstrably (and has been demonstrated both in this forum and in court of law) Creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science, correct? And you maintain that Intelligent-Design theory is science, correct?
> 
> Hence, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct. Courts of law cannot be depended on to make declarations about science philosophy. To keep quoting Dover is REALY, REALLY pathetic on evo-fundies part.... REALLY PATHETIC. Why don't you and your Rugged buddy use that mush sloshing around in your head to come up with something better than "the court said so!"???  The court also says it is okay to murder unborn babies but this is a large part of the population that believes this is the worst type of genocide, and extremely EVIL.
> 
> "But people [who aren't totally blinded by their metaphysical materialism] understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the* truth standards of power.*"
> 
> "First, t*he new trend in science toward enlisting the political and judicial system to help one side to prevail in a scientific dispute is highly injurious to the health of science itself*, to say nothing of the polity, and it must be stopped. If a scientific consensus is so insecure that it has to have its claims imposed on the public by court order&#8212;as happened in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover decision in Pennsylvania with respect to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution&#8212;it can scarcely expect to command the respect of that public, and it forfeits whatever intellectual authority it might otherwise be entitled to. Similar efforts are now afoot to impose an artificial consensus on the subject of climate change. They are equally to be deplored."
> 
> "A judge could rule that Einstein is right and the faster-than-light neutrinos are wrong. Or that you can&#8217;t teach about them in school. Or whatever. That then becomes the official &#8220;truth.&#8221;"
> 
> When "Our Best Science" Is Not Good Enough
Click to expand...



*"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."--William Dembski (Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999)*​
Is this clear enough? Not only is Intelligent Design just creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science, it is really apparent that Intelligent Design is specifically *Christian Creationism* dressed up in the vocabulary of science.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Loki, this planet is literally covered with bacterium if what you are suggesting there should be new life forms popping all over this planet definitely things we have never laid eyes on.


If you mean new life spontaneously arising, you have no idea what you are talking about Mr. Peanutbutter-Jar.

If you are talking about changes in existing populations, then yeah, that's happening all the time.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement might carry a bit more weight if you spelled psychosis right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because spelling is all you can fault his statement for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you prove it's an accurate statement ?
Click to expand...


You're the one who could only find fault in the spelling of his statement, not in the actual statement.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> So what's your problem now? Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours? Is it because I'm a mental midget? Is that it?
> 
> So I admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki explain how life sprang into existence through this invisible method of naturalism ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​I think I'll go with that. A "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."
> 
> What the "exact" sequence is, is something I honestly don't know--I don't have or believe in postcognition. However, I KNOW you have been presented with several hypotheses which offer the details I'm sure you demand as "proof." I see no reason why I should be required to reprise them just because you find them inadequate as "proof."
> 
> Particularly in light of the fact that you required no evidence--let alone proof--of the validity of your creation story to believe it is valid with an absolute conviction of certainty.
> 
> Because it *can* be explained. Because there is evidence that supports those explanations.
> 
> The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.
> 
> Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you knock someone who believes life was designed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's a vacuous assertion. It's literally a fairy tale--complete with a central fairy, which was (unimaginatively) declared omnipotent, and (conveniently) not subject to any kind of verification.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible explains our creator pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've read the Bible. It demonstrates nothing. The Eddas explain our creator. Pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know Odin.
> 
> What makes your God and your creation story in the Bible objectively more real and valid than Odin and the creation story in the Eddas?
> 
> Besides, I asked for an account that was NOT some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of "God."
Click to expand...



You can't prove that chemicals came together undirected and produced life can you ?

Science can only show these chemicals are needed for life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, this planet is literally covered with bacterium if what you are suggesting there should be new life forms popping all over this planet definitely things we have never laid eyes on.
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean new life spontaneously arising, you have no idea what you are talking about Mr. Peanutbutter-Jar.
> 
> If you are talking about changes in existing populations, then yeah, that's happening all the time.
Click to expand...


Nonsense loki.

Great you turn to a theory that has no data backing the theory once again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because spelling is all you can fault his statement for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove it's an accurate statement ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who could only find fault in the spelling of his statement, not in the actual statement.
Click to expand...


That was not I.

Like I asked and will ask again,can you back that comment up with facts or is it just more rhetoric ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Ima we could come to the same conclusion of people that actually believe humans are related to apes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Loki there is not enough evidence to suggest a theory for the origins of life.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Loki there is not enough evidence to suggest a theory for the origins of life.



But there's enough evidence to suggest that a magical being in another dimension that no one has ever been to, has made everything we see?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki there is not enough evidence to suggest a theory for the origins of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there's enough evidence to suggest that a magical being in another dimension that no one has ever been to, has made everything we see?
Click to expand...


The way this planet is set up and all the necessary organs and blood so on and so on yes I believe there is plenty of evidence of a designer.

I don't believe in miracles that are caused by naturalism. I believe all miracles are the result of a life force. Chance does not pass the smell test.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki there is not enough evidence to suggest a theory for the origins of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there's enough evidence to suggest that a magical being in another dimension that no one has ever been to, has made everything we see?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way this planet is set up and all the necessary organs and blood so on and so on yes I believe there is plenty of evidence of a designer.
> 
> I don't believe in miracles that are caused by naturalism. I believe all miracles are the result of a life force. Chance does not pass the smell test.
Click to expand...

But you believe in miracles performed by some guy you can't see and don't know where he is?

So your designer designed gay people? Who designed your designer?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki explain how life sprang into existence through this invisible method of naturalism ?
> 
> 
> 
> _"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​I think I'll go with that. A "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."
> 
> What the "exact" sequence is, is something I honestly don't know--I don't have or believe in postcognition. However, I KNOW you have been presented with several hypotheses which offer the details I'm sure you demand as "proof." I see no reason why I should be required to reprise them just because you find them inadequate as "proof."
> 
> Particularly in light of the fact that you required no evidence--let alone proof--of the validity of your creation story to believe it is valid with an absolute conviction of certainty.
> 
> Because it *can* be explained. Because there is evidence that supports those explanations.
> 
> The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.
> 
> Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.
> 
> Because it's a vacuous assertion. It's literally a fairy tale--complete with a central fairy, which was (unimaginatively) declared omnipotent, and (conveniently) not subject to any kind of verification.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible explains our creator pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've read the Bible. It demonstrates nothing. The Eddas explain our creator. Pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know Odin.
> 
> What makes your God and your creation story in the Bible objectively more real and valid than Odin and the creation story in the Eddas?
> 
> Besides, I asked for an account that was NOT some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of "God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove that chemicals came together undirected and produced life can you ?
Click to expand...

I don't have to.

Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.



Youwerecreated said:


> Science can only show these chemicals are needed for life.


The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there's enough evidence to suggest that a magical being in another dimension that no one has ever been to, has made everything we see?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way this planet is set up and all the necessary organs and blood so on and so on yes I believe there is plenty of evidence of a designer.
> 
> I don't believe in miracles that are caused by naturalism. I believe all miracles are the result of a life force. Chance does not pass the smell test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you believe in miracles performed by some guy you can't see and don't know where he is?
> 
> So your designer designed gay people? Who designed your designer?
Click to expand...


They are miracles to man not God. Design is not accomplished with miracles it is done through knowledge.

Gay people are gay because they choose to be there is no science that can show it's a genetic effect. If it is a genetic effect perfection was lost with adam and eve.

No one, he has always existed.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, this planet is literally covered with bacterium if what you are suggesting there should be new life forms popping all over this planet definitely things we have never laid eyes on.
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean new life spontaneously arising, you have no idea what you are talking about Mr. Peanutbutter-Jar.
> 
> If you are talking about changes in existing populations, then yeah, that's happening all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense loki.
> 
> Great you turn to a theory that has no data backing the theory once again.
Click to expand...

This  statement from you is entirely meaningless. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the data and evidence that supports the theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​I think I'll go with that. A "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."
> 
> What the "exact" sequence is, is something I honestly don't know--I don't have or believe in postcognition. However, I KNOW you have been presented with several hypotheses which offer the details I'm sure you demand as "proof." I see no reason why I should be required to reprise them just because you find them inadequate as "proof."
> 
> Particularly in light of the fact that you required no evidence--let alone proof--of the validity of your creation story to believe it is valid with an absolute conviction of certainty.
> 
> Because it *can* be explained. Because there is evidence that supports those explanations.
> 
> The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.
> 
> Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.
> 
> Because it's a vacuous assertion. It's literally a fairy tale--complete with a central fairy, which was (unimaginatively) declared omnipotent, and (conveniently) not subject to any kind of verification.
> 
> I've read the Bible. It demonstrates nothing. The Eddas explain our creator. Pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know Odin.
> 
> What makes your God and your creation story in the Bible objectively more real and valid than Odin and the creation story in the Eddas?
> 
> Besides, I asked for an account that was NOT some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of "God."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove that chemicals came together undirected and produced life can you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to.
> 
> Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science can only show these chemicals are needed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.
Click to expand...



Then I don't have to prove we were created. Show me evidence of amino acids forming naturally outside a living organism ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean new life spontaneously arising, you have no idea what you are talking about Mr. Peanutbutter-Jar.
> 
> If you are talking about changes in existing populations, then yeah, that's happening all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense loki.
> 
> Great you turn to a theory that has no data backing the theory once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This  statement from you is entirely meaningless. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the data and evidence that supports the theory.
Click to expand...


Loki there is no evidence supporting the thought of abiogenesis, zero, none. The evidence is so weak abiogenesis should even be considered a theory.

If the evidence is overwhelming for abiogenesis then you should be able to provide some and explain it.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "God thing" you refer to has been explained to you numerous times in the past 600 pages.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not dispute this. I think I was very clear that, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
Click to expand...

*WRONG!!* ID Theory on the source of information in DNA is none of these. 


LOki said:


> Even though you refuse to acknowledge this verifiable fact of reality, it remains certainly true; does it not?
> 
> Of course it does.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't understand the concept that has been explained to you numerous times by now, then you will probably never be able to grasp the religious and philosophical notions of the Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll just have to excuse me for giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might have an account for this "Creator" you posit, that is NOT a self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account.
> 
> You do recognize that such fundamentally flawed notions are impossible to accept as intellectually valid? You don't actually expect me to consider any of those self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts to be worth considering as accounts of a real thing, by any intellectually rigorous standard, do you?
Click to expand...

 No, not when you consider you've ignored the valid scientific arguments presented to you ad nauseum.



LOki said:


> I wouldn't think so if you considered yourself a rational human being. If I am to assume that you are a rational human being, I cannot assume that you would accept such accounts so fundamentally flawed that they lack logical validity. So again, excuse me for giving you the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> If you have an account for this "Creator" you posit, that is NOT a self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account, please share it.


 Please repeat this again. Someone might not have got it the first 10 times. 


LOki said:


> Because I cannot imagine any reason consistent with integrity of intellectual honesty that you would refuse to do so.
> 
> Spoken like a true Hovindist.
> 
> Three things are thus far made apparent from your source:
> "trong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor" strongly refutes the notion that such position has any corresponding relationship with religion (in the belief in supernatural agencies, and "ritual observance of faith" sense).[*]  That the notion "that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor" is not quite a "just so story" in quite the manner of so many accounts of a "Creator" who created an existence that is "just so" precisely the way the believers of their "Creator" say it is.[*]  There's nothing that would lead one to the conclusion that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.



* Loki, did you think that by moving the goal posts no one would notice that I have shown you to be entirely inept at understanding components of the TOE. And that I have shown without a doubt the claims I made about evolutionary theories claims are 100% true, and your false assertion of a strawman argument is another example of your utter and total intellectualy dishonesty. When I made the assertion that the TOE claimed man descended from a single cell organism, or an amoeba like organism, you screamed STRAWMAN!! Did you forget the whole reason I posted up this evidence from Wiki??? It has proven your strawman accusation wrong again and exposed your ignorance. Your distraction technique of yelling strawman when you don't have an answer has thus far failed miserably.*


LOki said:


> I accept the possibility that your source might later support a different conclusion.






LOki said:


> This appears to be consistent with the evidence. However, I fail to see that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.


 Strawman.



LOki said:


> Yes. This description appears to be a sensible conclusion drawn from the available data, but its not an implication that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.


 Strawman.



LOki said:


> I don't think that anyone would dispute that Darwin is not presenting the Theory of Evolution as a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.


 Strawman.


LOki said:


> "Metaphysical" is an awfully big word to be used by someone who struggled with difference between what constitutes a definition, what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.
> 
> The fact that I do not accept the dopey notions you assign to me; the fact that my metaphysical beliefs are entirely alien to your superstitious metaphysics; is no indication at all that I have any lack of understanding of the metaphysical beliefs on origins that I actually espouse.
> 
> Let me remind you that where you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe, no such barrier prevents me from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything I observe if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
> 
> Seriously? "Just so story"?
> 
> I'm not at all certain you know what you're talking about. I am pretty certain that you're misusing the term though.
> 
> Horizontal gene transfer cannot be a "Just-So story considering that the mechanisms for it seem pretty well understood--you know, in precisely the way the "Creator" of most typical accounts is not.
> 
> You're just making this shit up--just like a true Hovindist. Seriously. It's the precise made-up bullshit from you I have been exposing this whole time. The* same made-up bullshit *that you wish us all to believe is some kind of heady "sarcasm" that is lost on the "mental midgets" that surround you.


 This is pot calling the kettle black.


LOki said:


> Having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of yours, you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, SOLEY on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless conclusions.
> 
> Having placed yourself on a pedestal with your absolute certainty, you simply refuse to accept that others refuse to conform to your bullshit intellectual paradigm; that others are capable of refusing to conform to your bullshit intellectual paradigm.


 Strawman. I lost count. How many is that you've presented so far?


LOki said:


> I will remind you again UltimateReality (CHRIST! Your nick is prima-facie evidence of your sanctimonious hubris), that where you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe, no such barrier prevents me from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything I observe if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.


 Whatever. You wouldn't know valid logic if it hit you in the face. 


LOki said:


> This is how you wish to go about this? You're just going to deny the verifiable reality of horizontal gene transfer, and then use that denial as a rationalization to assign to your opponents assertions that they simply do not make, and then you're going to accuse _*them*_ of sumitting "Just-So" stories as evidence? Really?


 Yes, really. By the way, you can quite wasting you time because I haven't clicked on a single link you've attached. You ruined that along time ago with your childish behavior linking to stupid pictures or other nonsense. You're a child. 





LOki said:


> Considering your brilliant and uncompromising track record, I really thought I could no longer be surprised by your intellectual dishonesty--*HOLY FUCK WAS I WRONG!*


 Ad Hominem attack. And really it is you has proven time and again that you lack integrity, so you can stop projecting your behavior on me.





LOki said:


> (*FINALLY!*) Please do!
> 
> I REFUSE to dispute this. Seriously. You CANNOT from this point forward EVER claim I "... presuppose Darwinism (you Hovindist retard) is true and force fit the evidence to the theory."


 If the shoe fits...


LOki said:


> Oh!
> 
> AWESOME! I can't wait! For you SURELY are about to present this evidence. Yes?
> 
> I have been hoping one of you guys would finally come through, and UltimateReality ... you're really going to do it! Right?
> 
> And considering your complaint regarding how "Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory", I can expect that the evidence you will shortly provide will no no way require me to presuppose this "intelligent agent" you posit is real in order for me to conclude that said "evidence" is actually "... evidence that [an] intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms."
> 
> Just for the record ... is there a secret number of times someone must ask? I just can't figure why you guys have been holding back for so long!
> 
> Whoa! WHOA *WHOA*! Pal!
> 
> First, there is NO FUCKING DOUBT that Intelligent Design identifies the "intelligent agent's" identity.*"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic world view, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."*​
> Who cares? Right? Because you're about to lay on us that evidence!
> 
> Except that you don't. :frownyface: WTF?
> 
> You just claim that ID ... WHAT? "... *hypothesizes* that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe."
> 
> Do you mean to tell me that all every time you asshats went on about how "there is evidence" to support your claims, you were just presenting some fucking *HYPOTHESIS* that there is such evidence? NOT that there *IS* evidence, but that you've got some really good reason to assert there is evidence; and perhaps you predict you're going to find some? *REALLY?!?!?*


 And this differs from evolutionary theorizing how???


LOki said:


> Aren't you just lucky then that your Intelligent Agent (upper case) is the same intelligent agent identified when Intelligent Design expresses it's goal to "... replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."


 Please explain to me how my religious beliefs make me lucky??? The powerball is up to 80 million so I really want to know.


LOki said:


> Why do you say that? Are you claiming your "God" thing is visible? Based on claims made about Him, I fail to understand why he can't make some time so He can be visible to me, and put this whole thing to rest.


 Nope, it was just another comparison that you seem totally inept at understanding.


LOki said:


> Also, I assert that the concept of your personal "God" thing is objectively real--just as the concept of leprechauns is also objectively real. Your task (which I am certain you will refuse to accept) is to demonstrate in what way leprechauns are verifiably less real than any "God" thing you might posit.
> 
> And it's effect is quantifiable. It's properties are describable in a meaningful, verifiable, and useful manner. It has so many things in common with other objectively real things.
> 
> And it's effect is quantifiable. It's properties are describable in a meaningful, verifiable, and useful manner. It has so many things in common with other objectively real things.


 Please apply this same logic and explain the multiple universe theory to me. While you are at it, please help me understand the M-theory parameters required for reconciliation of Quantum mechanics and string theory with theoretical physics.


----------



## ima

Does ID mean that god created gay people and animals?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Loki there is not enough evidence to suggest a theory for the origins of life.


You are wrong. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have imposed upon yourself an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support your conclusions; you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe; you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless conclusions.

You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the evidence that supports the theory.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> So what's your problem now? Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours? Is it because I'm a mental midget? Is that it?
> 
> So I admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki explain how life sprang into existence through this invisible method of naturalism ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​I think I'll go with that. A "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."
Click to expand...

 What Crick doesn't tell you is the odds of carrying out 43 "might haves" in specific order with time constraints. Yeah, cause that doesn't take faith!!!


LOki said:


> What the "exact" sequence is, is something I honestly don't know--I don't have or believe in postcognition. However, I KNOW you have been presented with several hypotheses which offer the details I'm sure you demand as "proof." I see no reason why I should be required to reprise them just because you find them inadequate as "proof."
> 
> Particularly in light of the fact that you required no evidence--let alone proof--of the validity of your creation story to believe it is valid with an absolute conviction of certainty.


 Why do you continually mix the religious beliefs presented with rigorous scientific method of ID?? Do you need to use trickery, i.e., intellectual dishonesty to validate your points? This is a strawman if there ever was one!!!


LOki said:


> Because it *can* be explained. Because there is evidence that supports those explanations.
> 
> The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.


 This is great "just so" fairy tale for the origin of the DNA molecule. But can you please explain how the information got there? Can you please tell me how a magnetic tape with the encyclopedia Britannica stored on it PHYSICALLY varies from a blank magnetic tape?


LOki said:


> Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.


 Again, you fallaciously mix religion with science. I guess this is natural for you to do, since your TOE does it all the time. But ID theory stands on science alone, not religion. 


LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you knock someone who believes life was designed ?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's a vacuous assertion. It's literally a fairy tale--complete with a central fairy, which was (unimaginatively) declared omnipotent, and (conveniently) not subject to any kind of verification.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible explains our creator pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've read the Bible. It demonstrates nothing. The Eddas explain our creator. Pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know Odin.
> 
> What makes your God and your creation story in the Bible objectively more real and valid than Odin and the creation story in the Eddas?
Click to expand...

 the fact it easily reconciled with scientific observation and evidence.


LOki said:


> Besides, I asked for an account that was NOT some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of "God."


[/QUOTE] I didn't quite understand the question. Can you repeat this?


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Does ID mean that god created gay people and animals?


 No.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit that Creationism is religion, correct? And Intelligent-Design theory is demonstrably (and has been demonstrated both in this forum and in court of law) Creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science, correct? And you maintain that Intelligent-Design theory is science, correct?
> 
> Hence, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Courts of law cannot be depended on to make declarations about science philosophy. To keep quoting Dover is REALY, REALLY pathetic on evo-fundies part.... REALLY PATHETIC. Why don't you and your Rugged buddy use that mush sloshing around in your head to come up with something better than "the court said so!"???  The court also says it is okay to murder unborn babies but this is a large part of the population that believes this is the worst type of genocide, and extremely EVIL.
> 
> "But people [who aren't totally blinded by their metaphysical materialism] understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the* truth standards of power.*"
> 
> "First, t*he new trend in science toward enlisting the political and judicial system to help one side to prevail in a scientific dispute is highly injurious to the health of science itself*, to say nothing of the polity, and it must be stopped. If a scientific consensus is so insecure that it has to have its claims imposed on the public by court orderas happened in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover decision in Pennsylvania with respect to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolutionit can scarcely expect to command the respect of that public, and it forfeits whatever intellectual authority it might otherwise be entitled to. Similar efforts are now afoot to impose an artificial consensus on the subject of climate change. They are equally to be deplored."
> 
> "A judge could rule that Einstein is right and the faster-than-light neutrinos are wrong. Or that you cant teach about them in school. Or whatever. That then becomes the official truth."
> 
> When "Our Best Science" Is Not Good Enough
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."--William Dembski (Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999)*​
> Is this clear enough? Not only is Intelligent Design just creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science, it is really apparent that Intelligent Design is specifically *Christian Creationism* dressed up in the vocabulary of science.
Click to expand...


Funny. I couldn't find a single source of this quote that wasn't Wiki or an atheist website.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki explain how life sprang into existence through this invisible method of naturalism ?
> 
> 
> 
> _"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​I think I'll go with that. A "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."
> 
> What the "exact" sequence is, is something I honestly don't know--I don't have or believe in postcognition. However, I KNOW you have been presented with several hypotheses which offer the details I'm sure you demand as "proof." I see no reason why I should be required to reprise them just because you find them inadequate as "proof."
> 
> Particularly in light of the fact that you required no evidence--let alone proof--of the validity of your creation story to believe it is valid with an absolute conviction of certainty.
> 
> Because it *can* be explained. Because there is evidence that supports those explanations.
> 
> The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.
> 
> Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.
> 
> Because it's a vacuous assertion. It's literally a fairy tale--complete with a central fairy, which was (unimaginatively) declared omnipotent, and (conveniently) not subject to any kind of verification.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible explains our creator pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've read the Bible. It demonstrates nothing. The Eddas explain our creator. Pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know Odin.
> 
> What makes your God and your creation story in the Bible objectively more real and valid than Odin and the creation story in the Eddas?
> 
> Besides, I asked for an account that was NOT some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of "God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove that chemicals came together undirected and produced life can you ?
> 
> Science can only show these chemicals are needed for life.
Click to expand...



Yeah, Loki, please show me where these experiments following the steps outlined produced a living cell. If they are so possible, shouldn't we be able to recreate all of them in order in a lab and come up with a fully functioning cell with all the micro-machines for DNA transcription and translation?


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there's enough evidence to suggest that a magical being in another dimension that no one has ever been to, has made everything we see?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way this planet is set up and all the necessary organs and blood so on and so on yes I believe there is plenty of evidence of a designer.
> 
> I don't believe in miracles that are caused by naturalism. I believe all miracles are the result of a life force. Chance does not pass the smell test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you believe in miracles performed by some guy you can't see and don't know where he is?
> 
> So your designer designed gay people? Who designed your designer?
Click to expand...


Oh here we go!!! Why do gays always wind up finding their way to atheism and evolution so they can stomp on fundie's?? If they actually studied the Bible, they would find out that we all are sinners and that God still loves us in spite of our sin.

And yes, God designed your anus. I'm not sure why he didn't design an "exit only" sign to go with it though.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean new life spontaneously arising, you have no idea what you are talking about Mr. Peanutbutter-Jar.
> 
> If you are talking about changes in existing populations, then yeah, that's happening all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense loki.
> 
> Great you turn to a theory that has no data backing the theory once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This  statement from you is entirely meaningless. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the data and evidence that supports the theory.
Click to expand...

I think you did that about 500 pages ago.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical evo fundie response.
> 
> 
> 
> An appropriate response to an angry, self-hating Christian zealot who offers nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie Christian ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the self-hating accusation. I can assure that I have a healthy self image and am a contrubuting, functioning member of society. By a strictly materialistic viewpoint, I have every thing the world puts value on... Fat custom house in a gated lake community, sweet car, every iGadget made, and a beautiful wife (all of which came to me by God's blessing for sure). However, the world has proven over and over again how miserable most people are who achieve any semblance of wealth. They run on the hamster wheel towards more and more STUFF and nothing satisfies. Nope, my peace and self-worth come from Christ and his amazing love for me. God's love is lasting, through eternity in fact, and not fleeting like so many things the world offers.
> 
> I guess the real point is I was self-hating to some extent, but that was BEFORE I gave my life to Christ. Hollie, it is evident to all you're still stuck there.
Click to expand...

the above sales pitch for "what god gave U.R." 
is prime example of talking out of both sides of your mouth .
it makes all clams U.R. has made about the evils of materialism void.
I'm positive that he'd go bat shit if any of his toys were lost, just like any other materialist.
what U.R and all other faux Christians forget "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 
35For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. 
36For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? (Mark 8:34-36)

4. The rich will regret their wealth. 

btw I've made and spent more money then U.R. EVER WILL


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here lets clarify for the third grader among us. The specific reference above is referring to genetic "evidence" that neanderthal and homo sapien diverge approximately 600,000 years ago. However, there just isn't enough time for the changes required to differentiate N for HS according to Darwin's theory to occur in that relatively short time. So if Loki was the legend in his own mind that he likes to try and convince everyone else of, he would be aware of this facts and he would have know that this was inferred from my statement above. Let's refer back to my un-Loki-polluted statement:
> 
> "Furthermore, evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur *[in the time periods claimed]*, it needs to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years."
> 
> And Loki's typical response??? Just yell Strawman and maybe no one will notice what an incompetent moron you are. Please Loki, explain this strawman...
> 
> "Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor *about 660,000 years ago.*[95][96][97] However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with anatomically modern humans circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (at the approximate time that modern humans migrated out from Africa, but before they dispersed into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).[98] Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA,[98] and this finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that the divergence of some human alleles dates to one Ma, although the interpretation of these studies has been questioned."
> 
> "Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a *population bottleneck *resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[112][113][114] *Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances.* These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes."
> 
> *Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.*[231] In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or *small populations*. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population and the organisms undergoing speciation and *rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats *and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.
> 
> Allopatric speciation suggests that *species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume* and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. *Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow.* In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance.
> 
> Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> the bullshit to fact ratio rises when UR is compelled to use bold and oversized type,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the man who doesn't even understand the exchange between Loki and myself, nor the fact that I used the atheist-sympathizing Wiki to prove him wrong. Bold type is the fact he denied for emphasis. And where is Loki? As it typical of Loki, rather than admit he was wrong, he has tucked his tail and skedaddled.
Click to expand...

JUST KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT LIE, It proves my point for me!


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki there is not enough evidence to suggest a theory for the origins of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there's enough evidence to suggest that a magical being in another dimension that no one has ever been to, has made everything we see?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way this planet is set up and all the necessary organs and blood so on and so on yes I believe there is plenty of evidence of a designer.
Click to expand...




Youwerecreated said:


> I don't believe in miracles that are caused by naturalism.


I'm surprised. Such self-contradicting concepts are just the kind of unprovable bullshit folks like you like to trot out as tautological truths.



Youwerecreated said:


> I believe all miracles are the result of a life force.


_A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. _&#8213; Friedrich Nietzsche​


Youwerecreated said:


> Chance does not pass the smell test.


Nor do miracles, leprechauns, the Easter Bunny, or your God.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove what you are saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She doesn't need to. You can learn about this yourself. Look it up. You  have the internet. If you choose not to accept facts, then this debate should be over. You don't simply get to deny facts in order to continue your ridiculous assertions about a 6,000 year old earth that DEFIES ALL EVIDENCE we have. You're personal incredulity should not be made into anyone else's problem. How selfish and narcissistic can you be?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier in this thread I made the argument how mutation fixation can never happen the way evolutionist claim. I could not find it but I found an article discussing the same nine reasons why evolution through mutations can never happen. Now if you guys wish to go down this road read this article and let's get to it. In other words poop or get off the pot.
> 
> 
> 
> THE REMAINDER OF THIS POST WAS DELETED AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE CLAIMS MADE THEREIN
> THE SOURCE MATERIAL Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution  IS HIGHLY BIAS AND SPECULATIVE.
> 
> ALSO THE REFERENCE MATERIAL ON WHICH THE ARTICLE IS BASED HAS BEEN PROVEN  ERRONEOUS AND OUT OF DATE...
Click to expand...


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does ID mean that god created gay people and animals?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


So who did?


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> god is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.


assumption not fact


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove that chemicals came together undirected and produced life can you ?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to.
> 
> Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science can only show these chemicals are needed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then I don't have to prove we were created.
Click to expand...

I never said you did. As a matter of fact, I distinctly remember explaining to you that that I do not require you to prove we were created.

So what's your point here?



Youwerecreated said:


> Show me evidence of amino acids forming naturally outside a living organism ?


Why? Tell me exactly why I have to show you evidence of amino acids forming naturally outside a living organism; and tell me what the result will be when I do.

I am insisting upon this because I am tired of meeting every one of your fatuous requests, and being rewarded with your refusal to meet any of mine. You still owe me answers; your intellectual integrity account is bankrupt, and I now find carrying and refuting your retarded rhetoric to be boring.


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> god is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> god is fiction. Want proof? You first heard about him from a book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> books are full of nonfictional characters you must try again. :d
Click to expand...

yes, other books are, the same cannot be said for the bible.


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> god is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the gods work by magic.... And by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> god is greater then man and you are putting your faith in falliable man but should i be surprised.
Click to expand...

assumption not fact.


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your "detecting" is simply making nonsensical claims that appeal to superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmm you can't tell when something has been designed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hollie believes this was the result of wind and erosion. If you squint your eyes just right it almost looks like...
Click to expand...

erroneous comparison


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense loki.
> 
> Great you turn to a theory that has no data backing the theory once again.
> 
> 
> 
> This  statement from you is entirely meaningless. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the data and evidence that supports the theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki there is no evidence supporting the thought of abiogenesis, zero, none.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the data and evidence that supports abiogenesis.



Youwerecreated said:


> The evidence is so weak abiogenesis should even be considered a theory.


The way you retards conflate evolution and abiogenesis, it becomes difficult to keep track of what you are currently disputing.

That said, I'm not at all certain that abiogenesis is considered to be a scientific theory. My impression is that there are several hypotheses of abiogenesis.



Youwerecreated said:


> If the evidence is overwhelming for abiogenesis then you should be able to provide some and explain it.


The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.


----------



## ima

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> god is fiction. Want proof? You first heard about him from a book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> books are full of nonfictional characters you must try again. :d
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, other books are, the same cannot be said for the bible.
Click to expand...


Without the bible to tell you so, you wouldn't even know that a god exists.


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> loki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope,tell me how detecting design in nature is nonscientific ?
> 
> 
> 
> the method you use presumes the existence of the designer you posit, to validate the presence of the design you "detect," that validates the designer you posit, which demonstrates the design you "detect."
> 
> every bit of "design" you present requires belief in the designer you posit is the author of the design you present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what you determine happened by chance and luck i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.
Click to expand...

assumption not fact.
You have no proof of a designer .
If and until quantifiable evidence of said designer is presented, any claims made  on the appearance of design, will be for lack of proof be deemed false.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think anyone here, including YWC, is claiming Creationism is anything but religion. And I would disagree that creationists avoid scientific scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true.
> 
> 
> 
> HOLY SHIT! I AGREE WITH YOU!
> 
> Well, this is complete bullshit.
> 
> The superstitious, like you, are always so keen to challenge folks like me to "prove" you wrong, and you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our assertions. Denying evidence is like breathing air for you retards--but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then we would have finally brought a real test of your faith--if you manage to maintain your retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourself that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows.
> 
> Creationists have no interest what-so-ever in demonstrating what they believe has any basis in objective reality. Science for you asshats is a test of your denial of reality; it is a test of your belief based upon nothing but your belief; it is a test of your faith.
> 
> And they don't.
> 
> Pathological projection.
> 
> Evolutionists do not subscribe to the intellectually dishonest Creationist paradigm that Hovindists assign to them.
> 
> Just alot of made-up nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of God is just as easty to believe AND prove, as the belief that natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for the complex life forms on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh good!
> 
> This "God" thing you reference. I have no idea what you're talking about. You say the existence of this "God" thing of yours is easy prove.
> 
> Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and prove this "God" thing you reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lies are strong with this one.
Click to expand...

PARAPHRASING STAR WARS AND MONTY PYTHON ....CAN ONLY MEAN u.r. IS BEREFT OF ORIGINALITY AND INTEGRITY


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there's enough evidence to suggest that a magical being in another dimension that no one has ever been to, has made everything we see?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way this planet is set up and all the necessary organs and blood so on and so on yes I believe there is plenty of evidence of a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm surprised. Such self-contradicting concepts are just the kind of unprovable bullshit folks like you like to trot out as tautological truths.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe all miracles are the result of a life force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. _&#8213; Friedrich Nietzsche​
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chance does not pass the smell test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor do miracles, leprechauns, the Easter Bunny, or your God.
Click to expand...


I have physically seen the easter bunny with my own eyes. My daughter took a picture with him.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> An appropriate response to an angry, self-hating Christian zealot who offers nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie Christian ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the self-hating accusation. I can assure that I have a healthy self image and am a contrubuting, functioning member of society. By a strictly materialistic viewpoint, I have every thing the world puts value on... Fat custom house in a gated lake community, sweet car, every iGadget made, and a beautiful wife (all of which came to me by God's blessing for sure). However, the world has proven over and over again how miserable most people are who achieve any semblance of wealth. They run on the hamster wheel towards more and more STUFF and nothing satisfies. Nope, my peace and self-worth come from Christ and his amazing love for me. God's love is lasting, through eternity in fact, and not fleeting like so many things the world offers.
> 
> I guess the real point is I was self-hating to some extent, but that was BEFORE I gave my life to Christ. Hollie, it is evident to all you're still stuck there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the above sales pitch for "what god gave U.R."
> is prime example of talking out of both sides of your mouth .
> it makes all clams U.R. has made about the evils of materialism void.
> I'm positive that he'd go bat shit if any of his toys were lost, just like any other materialist.
> what U.R and all other faux Christians forget "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
> 35For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.
> 36For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? (Mark 8:34-36)
> 
> 4. The rich will regret their wealth.
> 
> btw I've made and spent more money then U.R. EVER WILL
Click to expand...


Of course you have.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> books are full of nonfictional characters you must try again. :d
> 
> 
> 
> yes, other books are, the same cannot be said for the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without the bible to tell you so, you wouldn't even know that a god exists.
Click to expand...


That's not what the Founding Fathers thought. They believed in the Natural Law, that is, that God's law is written on every man's heart. Many cultures around the world that don't have a Holy Book believe in a god.


----------



## UltimateReality

loki, yahweh of mischief, speaking of your primal-facial   evidence of your sanctimonious hubris, why have you not responded to the question I posed about abiogenesis? If you have theory which includes a bunch of actual processes, why don't you test it by doing an experiment that produces a living cell?? Oh wait, you mean to tell me your "just so" story isn't falsifiable??? Where did the information in DNA come from?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, other books are, the same cannot be said for the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without the bible to tell you so, you wouldn't even know that a god exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the Founding Fathers thought. They believed in the Natural Law, that is, that God's law is written on every man's heart. Many cultures around the world that don't have a Holy Book believe in a god.
Click to expand...

Its more than just a little presumptuous for you to assign your fundie religious beliefs to the FFs. Not all the FFs were Christian and we have no reason to believe that you speak authoritatively on their behalf. Your nonsense claim that God's law is written on every man's heart, is obviously false. Its a common theme of fundies to attempt to force their religious beliefs on others but we have historical fact to refute your hysterical claims. 

Certainly many cultures didn't have a Holy Book and those cultures often believed in many gods but certainly not _your_ gods. Many cultures have invented gods to perform the function that was served by the Judeo-Christian gods: to provide answers to natural phenomenon not understood at the time. That is precisely why your currently configured gods are fading in terms of importance and relevance.  That is why the fundie creationists find it impossible to construct a theoretical model that would test the integrity of the creation hypothesis. It would clearly be shown to be a hoax, as creationism has repeatedly shown itself to be.

That is why creationists sidestep the problem altogether by stating, without any evidence offered in support, that some creator gawd(s) made the stars, galaxies and all of existence appearing in its present configuration. All this was done, were to believe, to give the appearance of a very old and vast universe, and to therefore mislead scientists and the rest of the rational world to the false conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? 
Those gods  theyre such kidders.


----------



## emilynghiem

Re: proving the existence of God by consensus on meaning
I should clarify that "presenting evidence" is not the pr'oof in itself.
I find most proof of God works by eliminating the objections or conflicts
preventing agreement on what we are talking about and
what we "mean" by God and Jesus, etc. (It is almost like presenting
the conclusion, and then working backwards to eliminate
anything to the contrary. We don't know what people's objections
are until they are presented with something that conflicts, 
so these issues are brought out to be addressed and resolved.)

So I can "present" a meaning to God/Jesus as universal truth, but the proof process
lies in resolving all the objections and reasons for
rejection that people have. So again the proof will
work as long as participants agree to RESOLVE all
the issues that come up in the process. If they don't
agree, those people can observe and give input and
work in separate groups, and join in later when they
can make the commitment to resolve all issues and conflicts.

This way, everyone can be included directly or indirectly.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure. You missed the comparison as well.
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing to figure. Your silly attempts at comparison are typically connected to supernatural entities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look Hollie, I hold a degree in science. Can someone who holds a degree in science look at evidence and infer design verses your invisible creator through naturalism ? if i can't please provide an answer as to why ?
Click to expand...


Firstly, I have no reason to believe that you hold a science degree. Secondly, you infer design as a result of your religious belief which is nothing more than mere assertion of supernatural agents. As we see with regularity, your best attempt at proving your gods amounts to flaccid attempts to vilify science. You offer no support for evidence of your supernatural gods and we have every reason to accept that your gods are nothing more than re-telling of earlier tales and fables with adjustments to those earlier superstitious tales.

You make really ignorant statements such as  verses (versus -ed.) your invisible creator through naturalism. Thats just ridiculous. You reject the vast and overwhelming evidence for evolution because evolution makes yours gods superfluous and unnecessary.  Anyone can gainsay an argument. Facts to support an argument are something different. Can you supply any facts to support the argument for your gods? No. That was a rhetorical question because your gods are currently configured conceptions of earlier gods emanating from earlier superstitious tales and fables.

At the core of the arguments separating science, technology, biology and _reason_ from superstition, fear and ignorance lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective facts drawn from genetic and taxonomic evidence. It is a simple matter to resolve and to dismiss the non-objectivity, grandiose claims and explicit superstitions surrounding creationist holy text literalism. There are literally hundreds of claims to superstitions and fears of supernatural realms similar to yours, all without a single piece of hard evidence to support them.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way this planet is set up and all the necessary organs and blood so on and so on yes I believe there is plenty of evidence of a designer.
> 
> I don't believe in miracles that are caused by naturalism. I believe all miracles are the result of a life force. Chance does not pass the smell test.
> 
> 
> 
> But you believe in miracles performed by some guy you can't see and don't know where he is?
> 
> So your designer designed gay people? Who designed your designer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are miracles to man not God. Design is not accomplished with miracles it is done through knowledge.
> 
> Gay people are gay because they choose to be there is no science that can show it's a genetic effect. If it is a genetic effect perfection was lost with adam and eve.
> 
> No one, he has always existed.
Click to expand...


Only through a miraculous appeal to fear and ignorance could anyone accept your baseless claims.

Its a common tactic taken by flat-earthers to make outrageous claims, totally unsupported and expect others to accept their partisan claims to one or more gods. When that tactic fails, flat-earthers do an intellectual drop ten and punt, and demand that others _prove it isnt_. 

Science is not a process of disproving the existence of supernatural gods. Flat-earthers do that quite well by offering no supportable evidence of their claims.

Everyone in this thread has read the preposterous and outrageous positions regarding creationism and ID which as you and the other fundie have acknowledged are nothing more than appeals to one, partisan conception of god(s).  Im in no real position to take seriously those nonsensical appeals to fear and superstition simply because the conclusion is predicated on an irrational assumption and the irrational assumption is used to support theirrational conclusion.which is used to bolster appeals to fear and superstition because the conclusion is predicated on an irrational assumption and the irrational assumption is used to support theirrational conclusion. 

Some arguments are circular but little more than silly and naïve. Arguments such as those presented by flat-earthers' are viciously and hopelessly circular.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense loki.
> 
> Great you turn to a theory that has no data backing the theory once again.
> 
> 
> 
> This  statement from you is entirely meaningless. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the data and evidence that supports the theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki there is no evidence supporting the thought of abiogenesis, zero, none. The evidence is so weak abiogenesis should even be considered a theory.
> 
> If the evidence is overwhelming for abiogenesis then you should be able to provide some and explain it.
Click to expand...


Not surprisingly, your bellicose, unfounded claim is wrong.

The Origin of Life

This is the problem that the flat-earth types are confronted with. Science relentlessly discovers, probes, asks questions and even self-corrects. Even if we assume (incorrectly), that one or more gods actually did spark the first cell, evolution is still confirmed as the best supported and most clearly delineated path for life to develop, adapt and thrive.

For all those endless demands by flat-earthers that science prove a nothing doesn't exist, it is only this-- that God(s) are a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness".


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does ID mean that god created gay people and animals?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who did?
Click to expand...


ID Theory doesn't mean that God created anyone. It is not a religious belief.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the bible to tell you so, you wouldn't even know that a god exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the Founding Fathers thought. They believed in the Natural Law, that is, that God's law is written on every man's heart. Many cultures around the world that don't have a Holy Book believe in a god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its more than just a little presumptuous for you to assign your fundie religious beliefs to the FFs. Not all the FFs were Christian and we have no reason to believe that you speak authoritatively on their behalf. Your nonsense claim that God's law is written on every man's heart, is obviously false. Its a common theme of fundies to attempt to force their religious beliefs on others but we have historical fact to refute your hysterical claims.
> 
> Certainly many cultures didn't have a Holy Book and those cultures often believed in many gods but certainly not _your_ gods. Many cultures have invented gods to perform the function that was served by the Judeo-Christian gods: to provide answers to natural phenomenon not understood at the time. That is precisely why your currently configured gods are fading in terms of importance and relevance.  That is why the fundie creationists find it impossible to construct a theoretical model that would test the integrity of the creation hypothesis. It would clearly be shown to be a hoax, as creationism has repeatedly shown itself to be.
> 
> That is why creationists sidestep the problem altogether by stating, without any evidence offered in support, that some creator gawd(s) made the stars, galaxies and all of existence appearing in its present configuration. All this was done, were to believe, to give the appearance of a very old and vast universe, and to therefore mislead scientists and the rest of the rational world to the false conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.
> 
> Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words?
> Those gods  theyre such kidders.
Click to expand...


Oh well. I guess I know the peanut gallery couldn't stay away for long.


----------



## UltimateReality

emilynghiem said:


> Re: proving the existence of ... by consensus on meaning
> I should clarify that "presenting evidence" is not the pr'oof in itself.
> I find most proof ... works by eliminating the objections or conflicts
> preventing agreement on what we are talking about and
> what we "mean" ... (It is almost like presenting
> the conclusion, and then working backwards to eliminate
> anything to the contrary.



Congratulations! You've just described the Theory of Evolution!!  Don't forget enlisting the courts to enforce your scientific opinions.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing to figure. Your silly attempts at comparison are typically connected to supernatural entities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look Hollie, I hold a degree in science. Can someone who holds a degree in science look at evidence and infer design verses your invisible creator through naturalism ? if i can't please provide an answer as to why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, I have no reason to believe that you hold a science degree. Secondly, you infer design as a result of your religious belief which is nothing more than mere assertion of supernatural agents. As we see with regularity, your best attempt at proving your gods amounts to flaccid attempts to vilify science. You offer no support for evidence of your supernatural gods and we have every reason to accept that your gods are nothing more than re-telling of earlier tales and fables with adjustments to those earlier superstitious tales.
> 
> You make really ignorant statements such as  verses (versus -ed.) your invisible creator through naturalism. Thats just ridiculous. You reject the vast and overwhelming evidence for evolution because evolution makes yours gods superfluous and unnecessary.  Anyone can gainsay an argument. Facts to support an argument are something different. Can you supply any facts to support the argument for your gods? No. That was a rhetorical question because your gods are currently configured conceptions of earlier gods emanating from earlier superstitious tales and fables.
> 
> At the core of the arguments separating science, technology, biology and _reason_ from superstition, fear and ignorance lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective facts drawn from genetic and taxonomic evidence. It is a simple matter to resolve and to dismiss the non-objectivity, grandiose claims and explicit superstitions surrounding creationist holy text literalism. There are literally hundreds of claims to superstitions and fears of supernatural realms similar to yours, all without a single piece of hard evidence to support them.
Click to expand...


Yawn.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> This  statement from you is entirely meaningless. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the data and evidence that supports the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki there is no evidence supporting the thought of abiogenesis, zero, none. The evidence is so weak abiogenesis should even be considered a theory.
> 
> If the evidence is overwhelming for abiogenesis then you should be able to provide some and explain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly, your bellicose, unfounded claim is wrong.
> 
> The Origin of Life
> 
> This is the problem that the *flat-earth* types are confronted with. Science relentlessly discovers, probes, asks questions and even self-corrects. Even if we assume (incorrectly), that one or more gods actually did spark the first cell, evolution is still confirmed as the best supported and most clearly delineated path for life to develop, adapt and thrive.
> 
> For all those endless demands by *flat-earthers* that science prove &#8220;a nothing doesn't exist&#8221;, it is only this-- that God(s) are a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness".
Click to expand...


Oh no!!! Hollie found a new nickname and now she is running with it fullbore. Maybe if we ignore it she will forget. Kind of like *she forgot where she went to college.*


----------



## UltimateReality

Loki has the right to remain silent, especially when he gets totally owned.



UltimateReality said:


> * Loki, did you think that by moving the goal posts no one would notice that I have shown you to be entirely inept at understanding components of the TOE. And that I have shown without a doubt the claim I made about evolutionary theory's claims are 100% true, and your false assertion of a strawman argument is another example of your utter and total intellectualy dishonesty. When I made the assertion that the TOE claimed man descended from a single cell organism, or an amoeba like organism, you screamed STRAWMAN!! Did you forget the whole reason I posted up this evidence from Wiki??? It has proven your strawman accusation wrong again and exposed your ignorance. Your distraction technique of yelling strawman when you don't have an answer has thus far failed miserably.*





UltimateReality said:


> loki, yahweh of mischief, speaking of your primal-facial   evidence of your sanctimonious hubris, why have you not responded to the question I posed about abiogenesis? If you have theory which includes a bunch of actual processes, why don't you test it by doing an experiment that produces a living cell?? Oh wait, you mean to tell me your "just so" story isn't falsifiable??? Where did the information in DNA come from?



Hollie, feel free to chime in here to. Please produce evidence of an experiment that engages the processes outlined in your "just so" story which produces the micro-machines capable of DNA translation and transcription. If it "could happen" that way, why don't we just test the hypothesis??? After all, the "ordinary chemical reactions" shouldn't be that hard to reproduce. I'll even do you one better. Feel free to have all the outside intelligent input you want. You can use computers and mini motors and whatever you like. All you have to do is take the raw chemicals and produce a working cell. That shouldn't be too hard should it? Especially since we can guide process and it we don't need to wait around for an "accident".


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ID Theory doesn't mean that God created anyone. It is not a religious belief.
Click to expand...


False. It seems you are confused about both religion and science.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki there is no evidence supporting the thought of abiogenesis, zero, none. The evidence is so weak abiogenesis should even be considered a theory.
> 
> If the evidence is overwhelming for abiogenesis then you should be able to provide some and explain it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly, your bellicose, unfounded claim is wrong.
> 
> The Origin of Life
> 
> This is the problem that the *flat-earth* types are confronted with. Science relentlessly discovers, probes, asks questions and even self-corrects. Even if we assume (incorrectly), that one or more gods actually did spark the first cell, evolution is still confirmed as the best supported and most clearly delineated path for life to develop, adapt and thrive.
> 
> For all those endless demands by *flat-earthers* that science prove a nothing doesn't exist, it is only this-- that God(s) are a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no!!! Hollie found a new nickname and now she is running with it fullbore. Maybe if we ignore it she will forget. Kind of like *she forgot where she went to college.*
Click to expand...


Some of us value the college experience unlike you who has failed.

Angry gods - angry fundies.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Loki has the right to remain silent, especially when he gets totally owned.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Loki, did you think that by moving the goal posts no one would notice that I have shown you to be entirely inept at understanding components of the TOE. And that I have shown without a doubt the claim I made about evolutionary theory's claims are 100% true, and your false assertion of a strawman argument is another example of your utter and total intellectualy dishonesty. When I made the assertion that the TOE claimed man descended from a single cell organism, or an amoeba like organism, you screamed STRAWMAN!! Did you forget the whole reason I posted up this evidence from Wiki??? It has proven your strawman accusation wrong again and exposed your ignorance. Your distraction technique of yelling strawman when you don't have an answer has thus far failed miserably.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> loki, yahweh of mischief, speaking of your primal-facial   evidence of your sanctimonious hubris, why have you not responded to the question I posed about abiogenesis? If you have theory which includes a bunch of actual processes, why don't you test it by doing an experiment that produces a living cell?? Oh wait, you mean to tell me your "just so" story isn't falsifiable??? Where did the information in DNA come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, feel free to chime in here to. Please produce evidence of an experiment that engages the processes outlined in your "just so" story which produces the micro-machines capable of DNA translation and transcription. If it "could happen" that way, why don't we just test the hypothesis??? After all, the "ordinary chemical reactions" shouldn't be that hard to reproduce. I'll even do you one better. Feel free to have all the outside intelligent input you want. You can use computers and mini motors and whatever you like. All you have to do is take the raw chemicals and produce a working cell. That shouldn't be too hard should it? Especially since we can guide process and it we don't need to wait around for an "accident".
Click to expand...

You missed a brilliant opportunity to stay silent and not make a fool of yourself.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ID Theory doesn't mean that God created anyone. It is not a religious belief.
Click to expand...


wtf? God didn't make man in his own image? I believe that that's written in the bibble?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look Hollie, I hold a degree in science. Can someone who holds a degree in science look at evidence and infer design verses your invisible creator through naturalism ? if i can't please provide an answer as to why ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, I have no reason to believe that you hold a science degree. Secondly, you infer design as a result of your religious belief which is nothing more than mere assertion of supernatural agents. As we see with regularity, your best attempt at proving your gods amounts to flaccid attempts to vilify science. You offer no support for evidence of your supernatural gods and we have every reason to accept that your gods are nothing more than re-telling of earlier tales and fables with adjustments to those earlier superstitious tales.
> 
> You make really ignorant statements such as  verses (versus -ed.) your invisible creator through naturalism. Thats just ridiculous. You reject the vast and overwhelming evidence for evolution because evolution makes yours gods superfluous and unnecessary.  Anyone can gainsay an argument. Facts to support an argument are something different. Can you supply any facts to support the argument for your gods? No. That was a rhetorical question because your gods are currently configured conceptions of earlier gods emanating from earlier superstitious tales and fables.
> 
> At the core of the arguments separating science, technology, biology and _reason_ from superstition, fear and ignorance lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective facts drawn from genetic and taxonomic evidence. It is a simple matter to resolve and to dismiss the non-objectivity, grandiose claims and explicit superstitions surrounding creationist holy text literalism. There are literally hundreds of claims to superstitions and fears of supernatural realms similar to yours, all without a single piece of hard evidence to support them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn.
Click to expand...

Present a rational argument to flat-earthers' and it sends them running for the exits.


----------



## Hollie

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ID Theory doesn't mean that God created anyone. It is not a religious belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf? God didn't make man in his own image? I believe that that's written in the bibble?
Click to expand...


I'm afraid for many fundies, christianity has become a confused amalgam of superstition, supernaturalism, magic, specious claims and falsified "quotes".


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the Founding Fathers thought. They believed in the Natural Law, that is, that God's law is written on every man's heart. Many cultures around the world that don't have a Holy Book believe in a god.
> 
> 
> 
> Its more than just a little presumptuous for you to assign your fundie religious beliefs to the FFs. Not all the FFs were Christian and we have no reason to believe that you speak authoritatively on their behalf. Your nonsense claim that God's law is written on every man's heart, is obviously false. Its a common theme of fundies to attempt to force their religious beliefs on others but we have historical fact to refute your hysterical claims.
> 
> Certainly many cultures didn't have a Holy Book and those cultures often believed in many gods but certainly not _your_ gods. Many cultures have invented gods to perform the function that was served by the Judeo-Christian gods: to provide answers to natural phenomenon not understood at the time. That is precisely why your currently configured gods are fading in terms of importance and relevance.  That is why the fundie creationists find it impossible to construct a theoretical model that would test the integrity of the creation hypothesis. It would clearly be shown to be a hoax, as creationism has repeatedly shown itself to be.
> 
> That is why creationists sidestep the problem altogether by stating, without any evidence offered in support, that some creator gawd(s) made the stars, galaxies and all of existence appearing in its present configuration. All this was done, were to believe, to give the appearance of a very old and vast universe, and to therefore mislead scientists and the rest of the rational world to the false conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.
> 
> Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words?
> Those gods  theyre such kidders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh well. I guess I know the peanut gallery couldn't stay away for long.
Click to expand...


Yep, the flat-earthers own book of tales and fables is as bankrupt as their claims to gods, jinn and other claims to supermagicalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki there is not enough evidence to suggest a theory for the origins of life.
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have imposed upon yourself an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support your conclusions; you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe; you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless conclusions.
> 
> You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the evidence that supports the theory.
Click to expand...



No, I simply made a decision after looking at evidence and the explanations of the evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does ID mean that god created gay people and animals?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who did?
Click to expand...


The egg of your mother and the sperm of your father.hmm how did nature think to create male and female one producing something the other needed for reproduction.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> god is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> assumption not fact
Click to expand...


True.


So is macroevolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing to figure. Your silly attempts at comparison are typically connected to supernatural entities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look Hollie, I hold a degree in science. Can someone who holds a degree in science look at evidence and infer design verses your invisible creator through naturalism ? if i can't please provide an answer as to why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, I have no reason to believe that you hold a science degree. Secondly, you infer design as a result of your religious belief which is nothing more than mere assertion of supernatural agents. As we see with regularity, your best attempt at proving your gods amounts to flaccid attempts to vilify science. You offer no support for evidence of your supernatural gods and we have every reason to accept that your gods are nothing more than re-telling of earlier tales and fables with adjustments to those earlier superstitious tales.
> 
> You make really ignorant statements such as  verses (versus -ed.) your invisible creator through naturalism. Thats just ridiculous. You reject the vast and overwhelming evidence for evolution because evolution makes yours gods superfluous and unnecessary.  Anyone can gainsay an argument. Facts to support an argument are something different. Can you supply any facts to support the argument for your gods? No. That was a rhetorical question because your gods are currently configured conceptions of earlier gods emanating from earlier superstitious tales and fables.
> 
> At the core of the arguments separating science, technology, biology and _reason_ from superstition, fear and ignorance lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective facts drawn from genetic and taxonomic evidence. It is a simple matter to resolve and to dismiss the non-objectivity, grandiose claims and explicit superstitions surrounding creationist holy text literalism. There are literally hundreds of claims to superstitions and fears of supernatural realms similar to yours, all without a single piece of hard evidence to support them.
Click to expand...


Hollie you are in over your head your posts are not worthy of a response, Done wasting my time on a nitwit.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its more than just a little presumptuous for you to assign your fundie religious beliefs to the FFs. Not all the FFs were Christian and we have no reason to believe that you speak authoritatively on their behalf. Your nonsense claim that God's law is written on every man's heart, is obviously false. Its a common theme of fundies to attempt to force their religious beliefs on others but we have historical fact to refute your hysterical claims.
> 
> Certainly many cultures didn't have a Holy Book and those cultures often believed in many gods but certainly not _your_ gods. Many cultures have invented gods to perform the function that was served by the Judeo-Christian gods: to provide answers to natural phenomenon not understood at the time. That is precisely why your currently configured gods are fading in terms of importance and relevance.  That is why the fundie creationists find it impossible to construct a theoretical model that would test the integrity of the creation hypothesis. It would clearly be shown to be a hoax, as creationism has repeatedly shown itself to be.
> 
> That is why creationists sidestep the problem altogether by stating, without any evidence offered in support, that some creator gawd(s) made the stars, galaxies and all of existence appearing in its present configuration. All this was done, were to believe, to give the appearance of a very old and vast universe, and to therefore mislead scientists and the rest of the rational world to the false conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.
> 
> Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words?
> Those gods  theyre such kidders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well. I guess I know the peanut gallery couldn't stay away for long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, the flat-earthers own book of tales and fables is as bankrupt as their claims to gods, jinn and other claims to supermagicalism.
Click to expand...


Still avoiding the questions put to you ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> god is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> assumption not fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> So is macroevolution.
Click to expand...


False. Unfortunately, your masters at the creationist ministries don't understand the subject matter and neither do you.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> assumption not fact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> So is macroevolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. Unfortunately, your masters at the creationist ministries don't understand the subject matter and neither do you.
Click to expand...


Apparently neither do you.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well. I guess I know the peanut gallery couldn't stay away for long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the flat-earthers own book of tales and fables is as bankrupt as their claims to gods, jinn and other claims to supermagicalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still avoiding the questions put to you ?
Click to expand...


You're still dodging and sidestepping any attempt at addressing why you can't account for your gods?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> So is macroevolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Unfortunately, your masters at the creationist ministries don't understand the subject matter and neither do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently neither do you.
Click to expand...


Actually, and while it will come as a shock to you, the science of evolution is well established and not in doubt among the relevant science community. I used the term "relevant science community" because creationist / Flat Earth society communities are pressing a religious agenda veiled as science and as such, are not relevant to the process of exploration and discovery.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. Unfortunately, your masters at the creationist ministries don't understand the subject matter and neither do you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently neither do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, and while it will come as a shock to you, the science of evolution is well established and not in doubt among the relevant science community. I used the term "relevant science community" because creationist / Flat Earth society communities are pressing a religious agenda veiled as science and as such, are not relevant to the process of exploration and discovery.
Click to expand...


Well established does not mean certainty nor factual.

And it's nice the way you dismiss sciences that does not fit your preconceived ideas.

These flat earthers as you call them have some of the the same credentials as those you do consider relevant. 

If you think that the so-called "relevant science community" doesn't have their own agenda then you are seriously stupid.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently neither do you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, and while it will come as a shock to you, the science of evolution is well established and not in doubt among the relevant science community. I used the term "relevant science community" because creationist / Flat Earth society communities are pressing a religious agenda veiled as science and as such, are not relevant to the process of exploration and discovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well established does not mean certainty nor factual.
> 
> And it's nice the way you dismiss sciences that does not fit your preconceived ideas.
> 
> These flat earthers as you call them have some of the the same credentials as those you do consider relevant.
> 
> If you think that the so-called "relevant science community" doesn't have their own agenda then you are seriously stupid.
Click to expand...


 Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods. 

Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.

The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.

This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation. 

Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, and while it will come as a shock to you, the science of evolution is well established and not in doubt among the relevant science community. I used the term "relevant science community" because creationist / Flat Earth society communities are pressing a religious agenda veiled as science and as such, are not relevant to the process of exploration and discovery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well established does not mean certainty nor factual.
> 
> And it's nice the way you dismiss sciences that does not fit your preconceived ideas.
> 
> These flat earthers as you call them have some of the the same credentials as those you do consider relevant.
> 
> If you think that the so-called "relevant science community" doesn't have their own agenda then you are seriously stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods.
> 
> Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.
> 
> The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.
> 
> This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.
> 
> Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.
Click to expand...


I don't loathe science.

But I'm smart enough to know that scientist will keep experimenting until they achieve their desired result and dismiss everything that doesn't. 

Why did humans stop evolving?

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution. 

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind." 

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that: 



> . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1



The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action. 

Full source and references here.


----------



## Gadawg73

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well established does not mean certainty nor factual.
> 
> And it's nice the way you dismiss sciences that does not fit your preconceived ideas.
> 
> These flat earthers as you call them have some of the the same credentials as those you do consider relevant.
> 
> If you think that the so-called "relevant science community" doesn't have their own agenda then you are seriously stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods.
> 
> Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.
> 
> The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.
> 
> This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.
> 
> Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't loathe science.
> 
> But I'm smart enough to know that scientist will keep experimenting until they achieve their desired result and dismiss everything that doesn't.
> 
> Why did humans stop evolving?
> 
> Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.
> 
> First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
> 
> Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
> 
> A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
> 
> Full source and references here.
Click to expand...


You do not understand the scientific method.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods.
> 
> Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.
> 
> The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.
> 
> This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.
> 
> Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't loathe science.
> 
> But I'm smart enough to know that scientist will keep experimenting until they achieve their desired result and dismiss everything that doesn't.
> 
> Why did humans stop evolving?
> 
> Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.
> 
> First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
> 
> Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
> 
> A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
> 
> Full source and references here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not understand the scientific method.
Click to expand...


You didn't read the article.


BTW you have no idea what I do or do not understand.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't loathe science.
> 
> But I'm smart enough to know that scientist will keep experimenting until they achieve their desired result and dismiss everything that doesn't.
> 
> Why did humans stop evolving?
> 
> Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.
> 
> First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
> 
> Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
> 
> A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
> 
> Full source and references here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not understand the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the article.
> 
> 
> BTW you have no idea what I do or do not understand.
Click to expand...

I see the problem. You're an ICR groupie. As is often the case with creationists, they tend to get sloppy, creative and dishonest with "quotes". 

The "quote" you cut and pasted from the ICR referencing Jeffrey Schwartz is one of hundreds and hundreds falsified by creationist ministries and then cut and pasted by apologists who haven't the first clue regarding evolutionary science. 

Quote Mine Project: Contents Sorted by Author


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ID Theory doesn't mean that God created anyone. It is not a religious belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf? God didn't make man in his own image? I believe that that's written in the bibble?
Click to expand...


You are confusing ID Theory with the religious belief of Creationism.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, and while it will come as a shock to you, the science of evolution is well established and not in doubt among the relevant science community. I used the term "relevant science community" because creationist / Flat Earth society communities are pressing a religious agenda veiled as science and as such, are not relevant to the process of exploration and discovery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well established does not mean certainty nor factual.
> 
> And it's nice the way you dismiss sciences that does not fit your preconceived ideas.
> 
> These flat earthers as you call them have some of the the same credentials as those you do consider relevant.
> 
> If you think that the so-called "relevant science community" doesn't have their own agenda then you are seriously stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods.
> 
> Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.
> 
> The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.
> 
> This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.
> 
> Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.
Click to expand...


Double YAWN.


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods.
> 
> Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.
> 
> The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.
> 
> This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.
> 
> Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't loathe science.
> 
> But I'm smart enough to know that scientist will keep experimenting until they achieve their desired result and dismiss everything that doesn't.
> 
> Why did humans stop evolving?
> 
> Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.
> 
> First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
> 
> Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
> 
> A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
> 
> Full source and references here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not understand the scientific method.
Click to expand...


Wait, are you referring to the twisted pseudo-scientific method proposed by Darwinists? The one that has bastardized *REAL* science in many other fields?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well established does not mean certainty nor factual.
> 
> And it's nice the way you dismiss sciences that does not fit your preconceived ideas.
> 
> These flat earthers as you call them have some of the the same credentials as those you do consider relevant.
> 
> If you think that the so-called "relevant science community" doesn't have their own agenda then you are seriously stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods.
> 
> Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.
> 
> The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.
> 
> This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.
> 
> Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Double YAWN.
Click to expand...

Speaking of ICR groupies, yet another pointless waste of bandwidth by a flat-earther who knows nothing of science.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not understand the scientific method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the article.
> 
> 
> BTW you have no idea what I do or do not understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the problem. You're an ICR groupie. As is often the case with creationists, they tend to get sloppy, creative and dishonest with "quotes".
> 
> The "quote" you cut and pasted from the ICR referencing Jeffrey Schwartz is one of hundreds and hundreds falsified by creationist ministries and then cut and pasted by apologists who haven't the first clue regarding evolutionary science.
> 
> Quote Mine Project: Contents Sorted by Author
Click to expand...


In the words of Romney, your attacks to do not, and have never, constituted a valid argument on this thread. You can do nothing but regurgitate your same, tired, accusations. How many times have you used the terms "Haran Yahya", "ICR", and "fundie" in 600 pages? It is getting really tiring.

Kind of like: *Where do you go to college?*

*Your endless attacks and cut and pasting from atheist websites is getting pathetic. Now why don't you run along.*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods.
> 
> Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.
> 
> The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.
> 
> This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.
> 
> Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Double YAWN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of ICR groupies, yet another pointless waste of bandwidth by a flat-earther who knows nothing of science.
Click to expand...


Wasted bandwidth? Ha!!! Physician heal thyself!!!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't loathe science.
> 
> But I'm smart enough to know that scientist will keep experimenting until they achieve their desired result and dismiss everything that doesn't.
> 
> Why did humans stop evolving?
> 
> Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.
> 
> First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
> 
> Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
> 
> A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
> 
> Full source and references here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not understand the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, are you referring to the twisted pseudo-scientific method proposed by Darwinists? The one that has bastardized real science in many other fields?
Click to expand...

Yet another display of the dangers inherent in the pursuit of ignorance characterized by Christian creationists.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not understand the scientific method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, are you referring to the twisted pseudo-scientific method proposed by Darwinists? The one that has bastardized real science in many other fields?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another display of the dangers inherent in the pursuit of ignorance characterized by Christian creationists.
Click to expand...


Pathetic.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Double YAWN.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of ICR groupies, yet another pointless waste of bandwidth by a flat-earther who knows nothing of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasted bandwidth? Ha!!! Physician heal thyself!!!
Click to expand...


In the flat-earther mindset, that would mean praying to plastic statues on dashboards, lighting smelly incense, magic beads and reading tea leaves.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, are you referring to the twisted pseudo-scientific method proposed by Darwinists? The one that has bastardized real science in many other fields?
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another display of the dangers inherent in the pursuit of ignorance characterized by Christian creationists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pathetic.
Click to expand...


Your embracing of ignorance is certainly pathetic.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not understand the scientific method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the article.
> 
> 
> BTW you have no idea what I do or do not understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the problem. You're an ICR groupie. As is often the case with creationists, they tend to get sloppy, creative and dishonest with "quotes".
> 
> The "quote" you cut and pasted from the ICR referencing Jeffrey Schwartz is one of hundreds and hundreds falsified by creationist ministries and then cut and pasted by apologists who haven't the first clue regarding evolutionary science.
> 
> Quote Mine Project: Contents Sorted by Author
Click to expand...


You're problem is your blinded by your own prejudices.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the article.
> 
> 
> BTW you have no idea what I do or do not understand.
> 
> 
> 
> I see the problem. You're an ICR groupie. As is often the case with creationists, they tend to get sloppy, creative and dishonest with "quotes".
> 
> The "quote" you cut and pasted from the ICR referencing Jeffrey Schwartz is one of hundreds and hundreds falsified by creationist ministries and then cut and pasted by apologists who haven't the first clue regarding evolutionary science.
> 
> Quote Mine Project: Contents Sorted by Author
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're problem is your blinded by your own prejudices.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. I've opened my eyes to the dishonest tactics of creationists who falsifying "quotes" and take no issue with that tactic.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the problem. You're an ICR groupie. As is often the case with creationists, they tend to get sloppy, creative and dishonest with "quotes".
> 
> The "quote" you cut and pasted from the ICR referencing Jeffrey Schwartz is one of hundreds and hundreds falsified by creationist ministries and then cut and pasted by apologists who haven't the first clue regarding evolutionary science.
> 
> Quote Mine Project: Contents Sorted by Author
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're problem is your blinded by your own prejudices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no. I've opened my eyes to the dishonest tactics of creationists who falsifying "quotes" and take no issue with that tactic.
Click to expand...


You haven't shown the quote to be "falsified".

And yes, you are blinded by your own prejudices.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're problem is your blinded by your own prejudices.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no. I've opened my eyes to the dishonest tactics of creationists who falsifying "quotes" and take no issue with that tactic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't shown the quote to be "falsified".
> 
> And yes, you are blinded by your own prejudices.
Click to expand...


This is the perverse ignorance displayed by fundies. You don't have the first clue as to what you cut and pasted.

Review your posted "quote" and you will see that what you "quoted" was actually commentary by Henry Morris who was offering his slanted commentary on a partial "quote" (allegedly) by Jeffrey Schwartz. This bit of intellectual sloth was familiar and the same dishonest and sloppy "quoting" has been done before.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no. I've opened my eyes to the dishonest tactics of creationists who falsifying "quotes" and take no issue with that tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't shown the quote to be "falsified".
> 
> And yes, you are blinded by your own prejudices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the perverse ignorance displayed by fundies. You don't have the first clue as to what you cut and pasted.
Click to expand...


Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. The only thing you can do is namecall. You have NEVER posted a thoughtful, logical rebuttal to anything in the time and bandwidth you have wasted here.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't shown the quote to be "falsified".
> 
> And yes, you are blinded by your own prejudices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the perverse ignorance displayed by fundies. You don't have the first clue as to what you cut and pasted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. The only thing you can do is namecall. You have NEVER posted a thoughtful, logical rebuttal to anything in the time and bandwidth you have wasted here.
Click to expand...


You're having difficulty paying attention. You have failed to offer a response to posts of mine and to posts of others without mindless babble. It is you who mindlessly drones on about magical gods without ever offering anything but juvenile cut and paste. 

Have you not looked back through tens of pages and noticed your childish pattern of spamming with gargantuan fonts?

This latest post of spam was yet another desperate plea for my attention. You're a love struck schoolboy with big, weepy doe-eyes looking for attention who has crossed over into creepy stalking.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the self-hating accusation. I can assure that I have a healthy self image and am a contrubuting, functioning member of society. By a strictly materialistic viewpoint, I have every thing the world puts value on... Fat custom house in a gated lake community, sweet car, every iGadget made, and a beautiful wife (all of which came to me by God's blessing for sure). However, the world has proven over and over again how miserable most people are who achieve any semblance of wealth. They run on the hamster wheel towards more and more STUFF and nothing satisfies. Nope, my peace and self-worth come from Christ and his amazing love for me. God's love is lasting, through eternity in fact, and not fleeting like so many things the world offers.
> 
> I guess the real point is I was self-hating to some extent, but that was BEFORE I gave my life to Christ. Hollie, it is evident to all you're still stuck there.
> 
> 
> 
> the above sales pitch for "what god gave U.R."
> is prime example of talking out of both sides of your mouth .
> it makes all clams U.R. has made about the evils of materialism void.
> I'm positive that he'd go bat shit if any of his toys were lost, just like any other materialist.
> what U.R and all other faux Christians forget "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
> 35For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.
> 36For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? (Mark 8:34-36)
> 
> 4. The rich will regret their wealth.
> 
> btw I've made and spent more money then U.R. EVER WILL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you have.
Click to expand...

yes I have, faux Christian


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does ID mean that god created gay people and animals?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

lie...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way this planet is set up and all the necessary organs and blood so on and so on yes I believe there is plenty of evidence of a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised. Such self-contradicting concepts are just the kind of unprovable bullshit folks like you like to trot out as tautological truths.
> 
> _A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. _&#8213; Friedrich Nietzsche​
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chance does not pass the smell test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor do miracles, leprechauns, the Easter Bunny, or your God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have physically seen the easter bunny with my own eyes. My daughter took a picture with him.
Click to expand...

of course you have


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, other books are, the same cannot be said for the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without the bible to tell you so, you wouldn't even know that a god exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the Founding Fathers thought. They believed in the Natural Law, that is, that God's law is written on every man's heart. Many cultures around the world that don't have a Holy Book believe in a god.
Click to expand...

wrong again.....Although the Declaration of Independence mentioned Natures God and the Creator, the Constitution made no reference to a divine being, Christian or otherwise, and the First Amendment explicitly forbid the establishment of any official church or creed. There is also a story, probably apocryphal, that Benjamin Franklins proposal to call in a chaplain to offer a prayer when a particularly controversial issue was being debated in the Constitutional Convention prompted Hamilton to observe that he saw no reason to call in foreign aid. If there is a clear legacy bequeathed by the founders, it is the insistence that religion was a private matter in which the state should not interfere.

In recent decades Christian advocacy groups, prompted by motives that have been questioned by some, have felt a powerful urge to enlist the Founding Fathers in their respective congregations. But recovering the spiritual convictions of the Founders, in all their messy integrity, is not an easy task. Once again, diversity is the dominant pattern. Franklin and Jefferson were deists, Washington harbored a pantheistic sense of providential destiny, John Adams began a Congregationalist and ended a Unitarian, Hamilton was a lukewarm Anglican for most of his life but embraced a more actively Christian posture after his son died in a duel.

One quasi-religious conviction they all shared, however, was a discernible obsession with living on in the memory of posterity. One reason the modern editions of their papers are so monstrously large is that most of the Founders were compulsively fastidious about preserving every scrap of paper they wrote or received, all as part of a desire to leave a written record that would assure their secular immortality in the history books. (When John Adams and Jefferson discussed the possibility of a more conventional immortality, they tended to describe heaven as a place where they could resume their ongoing argument on earth.) Adams, irreverent to the end, declared that, if it could ever be demonstrated conclusively that no future state existed, his advice to every man, woman, and child was to take opium. The only afterlife which they considered certain was in the memory of subsequent generations, which is to say us. In that sense, these very blog posts are a testimonial to their everlasting life.

The U.S. Founding Fathers: Their Religious Beliefs | Britannica Blog


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing to figure. Your silly attempts at comparison are typically connected to supernatural entities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look Hollie, I hold a degree in science. Can someone who holds a degree in science look at evidence and infer design verses your invisible creator through naturalism ? if i can't please provide an answer as to why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, I have no reason to believe that you hold a science degree. Secondly, you infer design as a result of your religious belief which is nothing more than mere assertion of supernatural agents. As we see with regularity, your best attempt at proving your gods amounts to flaccid attempts to vilify science. You offer no support for evidence of your supernatural gods and we have every reason to accept that your gods are nothing more than re-telling of earlier tales and fables with adjustments to those earlier superstitious tales.
> 
> You make really ignorant statements such as  verses (versus -ed.) your invisible creator through naturalism. Thats just ridiculous. You reject the vast and overwhelming evidence for evolution because evolution makes yours gods superfluous and unnecessary.  Anyone can gainsay an argument. Facts to support an argument are something different. Can you supply any facts to support the argument for your gods? No. That was a rhetorical question because your gods are currently configured conceptions of earlier gods emanating from earlier superstitious tales and fables.
> 
> At the core of the arguments separating science, technology, biology and _reason_ from superstition, fear and ignorance lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective facts drawn from genetic and taxonomic evidence. It is a simple matter to resolve and to dismiss the non-objectivity, grandiose claims and explicit superstitions surrounding creationist holy text literalism. There are literally hundreds of claims to superstitions and fears of supernatural realms similar to yours, all without a single piece of hard evidence to support them.
Click to expand...

Hollie, ywc' does have a degree in biology an AA degree (2year) which carries just enough clout to get him a lab assistant job.
in other words he's qualified to clean petri dishes and handle biological waste.
any "theories" he adheres to do not remotely qualify him as a scientist of any kind.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the perverse ignorance displayed by fundies. You don't have the first clue as to what you cut and pasted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. The only thing you can do is namecall. You have NEVER posted a thoughtful, logical rebuttal to anything in the time and bandwidth you have wasted here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're having difficulty paying attention. You have failed to offer a response to posts of mine and to posts of others without mindless babble. It is you who mindlessly drones on about magical gods without ever offering anything but juvenile cut and paste.
> 
> Have you not looked back through tens of pages and noticed your childish pattern of spamming with gargantuan fonts?
> 
> This latest post of spam was yet another desperate plea for my attention. You're a love struck schoolboy with big, weepy doe-eyes looking for attention who has crossed over into creepy stalking.
Click to expand...


You're delusional.

Hollie, is that you???


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the above sales pitch for "what god gave U.R."
> is prime example of talking out of both sides of your mouth .
> it makes all clams U.R. has made about the evils of materialism void.
> I'm positive that he'd go bat shit if any of his toys were lost, just like any other materialist.
> what U.R and all other faux Christians forget "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
> 35For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.
> 36For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? (Mark 8:34-36)
> 
> 4. The rich will regret their wealth.
> 
> btw I've made and spent more money then U.R. EVER WILL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes I have, faux Christian
Click to expand...


My dad can beat up your dad.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the bible to tell you so, you wouldn't even know that a god exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the Founding Fathers thought. They believed in the Natural Law, that is, that God's law is written on every man's heart. Many cultures around the world that don't have a Holy Book believe in a god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong again.....Although the Declaration of Independence mentioned Natures God and the Creator, the Constitution made no reference to a divine being, Christian or otherwise, and the First Amendment explicitly forbid the establishment of any official church or creed. There is also a story, probably apocryphal, that Benjamin Franklins proposal to call in a chaplain to offer a prayer when a particularly controversial issue was being debated in the Constitutional Convention prompted Hamilton to observe that he saw no reason to call in foreign aid. If there is a clear legacy bequeathed by the founders, it is the insistence that religion was a private matter in which the state should not interfere.
> 
> In recent decades Christian advocacy groups, prompted by motives that have been questioned by some, have felt a powerful urge to enlist the Founding Fathers in their respective congregations. But recovering the spiritual convictions of the Founders, in all their messy integrity, is not an easy task. Once again, diversity is the dominant pattern. Franklin and Jefferson were deists, Washington harbored a pantheistic sense of providential destiny, John Adams began a Congregationalist and ended a Unitarian, Hamilton was a lukewarm Anglican for most of his life but embraced a more actively Christian posture after his son died in a duel.
> 
> One quasi-religious conviction they all shared, however, was a discernible obsession with living on in the memory of posterity. One reason the modern editions of their papers are so monstrously large is that most of the Founders were compulsively fastidious about preserving every scrap of paper they wrote or received, all as part of a desire to leave a written record that would assure their secular immortality in the history books. (When John Adams and Jefferson discussed the possibility of a more conventional immortality, they tended to describe heaven as a place where they could resume their ongoing argument on earth.) Adams, irreverent to the end, declared that, if it could ever be demonstrated conclusively that no future state existed, his advice to every man, woman, and child was to take opium. The only afterlife which they considered certain was in the memory of subsequent generations, which is to say us. In that sense, these very blog posts are a testimonial to their everlasting life.
> 
> The U.S. Founding Fathers: Their Religious Beliefs | Britannica Blog
Click to expand...


Daws, have you been following Strawman Loki's example??? I said nothing about the Constitution. So nice teardown of your made up argument for me.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. The only thing you can do is namecall. You have NEVER posted a thoughtful, logical rebuttal to anything in the time and bandwidth you have wasted here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're having difficulty paying attention. You have failed to offer a response to posts of mine and to posts of others without mindless babble. It is you who mindlessly drones on about magical gods without ever offering anything but juvenile cut and paste.
> 
> Have you not looked back through tens of pages and noticed your childish pattern of spamming with gargantuan fonts?
> 
> This latest post of spam was yet another desperate plea for my attention. You're a love struck schoolboy with big, weepy doe-eyes looking for attention who has crossed over into creepy stalking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're delusional.
Click to expand...

There's a good Christian. You can feel better about yourself by poking fun at someone with medical issues.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki there is not enough evidence to suggest a theory for the origins of life.
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have imposed upon yourself an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support your conclusions; you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe; you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless conclusions.
> 
> You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the evidence that supports the theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I simply made a decision after looking at evidence and the explanations of the evidence.
Click to expand...

bullshit ! the "decision"(if it could be called that) you made was not based on an objective examination of the evidence, it was however based on a lifetime of rabid indoctrination, denial of fact,  threats of eternal damnation.
any (lol) "decision" you claim to have made was bias from the start.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The egg of your mother and the sperm of your father.hmm how did nature think to create male and female one producing something the other needed for reproduction.
Click to expand...

another false claim nature does not "think" in the way you wish it did.
nature also "thought" of : 
As a general rule, animals cannot reproduce asexually. However, there are exceptions. 

Amoebas and other single-celled organisms reproduce asexually, being too small to have gender. 

Certain larger animals may reproduce asexually through either: 

parthenogenesis under certain circumstances (that is, reproduction via self-cloning),
gynogenesis (via the catalyst of a male nearby which does not actually fertilize the eggs).

Greenflies clone themselves once every 20 minutes. 
Whiptail lizards, Aphids, some bees wasps and hornets, some fish and water fleas reproduce by parthenogenesis. Komodo Dragons, some sharks, some snails do as well.
Parthenogenesis has been laboratory induced in some species, such as urchins and turkeys, but this does not occur in the wild.

Read more: What are five animals that reproduce asexually 

asshat


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> god is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> assumption not fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> So is macroevolution.
Click to expand...

assumption not fact


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you have.
> 
> 
> 
> yes I have, faux Christian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My dad can beat up your dad.
Click to expand...

 again proving my point


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're having difficulty paying attention. You have failed to offer a response to posts of mine and to posts of others without mindless babble. It is you who mindlessly drones on about magical gods without ever offering anything but juvenile cut and paste.
> 
> Have you not looked back through tens of pages and noticed your childish pattern of spamming with gargantuan fonts?
> 
> This latest post of spam was yet another desperate plea for my attention. You're a love struck schoolboy with big, weepy doe-eyes looking for attention who has crossed over into creepy stalking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a good Christian. You can feel better about yourself by poking fun at someone with medical issues.
Click to expand...


Wow, you don't know how bad you just put her down. She is a college professor. You know what college is, don't you?

Oregon professor: Climate change skeptics diseased, need treatment - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

When I dream about you at night, this is the picture that comes to mind...


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes I have, faux Christian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dad can beat up your dad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again proving my point
Click to expand...


Yes, my sarcasm did *prove *how childish you are, feeling the need to take my comments out of context and then brag about how much better you are.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the Founding Fathers thought. They believed in the Natural Law, that is, that God's law is written on every man's heart. Many cultures around the world that don't have a Holy Book believe in a god.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again.....Although the Declaration of Independence mentioned Natures God and the Creator, the Constitution made no reference to a divine being, Christian or otherwise, and the First Amendment explicitly forbid the establishment of any official church or creed. There is also a story, probably apocryphal, that Benjamin Franklins proposal to call in a chaplain to offer a prayer when a particularly controversial issue was being debated in the Constitutional Convention prompted Hamilton to observe that he saw no reason to call in foreign aid. If there is a clear legacy bequeathed by the founders, it is the insistence that religion was a private matter in which the state should not interfere.
> 
> In recent decades Christian advocacy groups, prompted by motives that have been questioned by some, have felt a powerful urge to enlist the Founding Fathers in their respective congregations. But recovering the spiritual convictions of the Founders, in all their messy integrity, is not an easy task. Once again, diversity is the dominant pattern. Franklin and Jefferson were deists, Washington harbored a pantheistic sense of providential destiny, John Adams began a Congregationalist and ended a Unitarian, Hamilton was a lukewarm Anglican for most of his life but embraced a more actively Christian posture after his son died in a duel.
> 
> One quasi-religious conviction they all shared, however, was a discernible obsession with living on in the memory of posterity. One reason the modern editions of their papers are so monstrously large is that most of the Founders were compulsively fastidious about preserving every scrap of paper they wrote or received, all as part of a desire to leave a written record that would assure their secular immortality in the history books. (When John Adams and Jefferson discussed the possibility of a more conventional immortality, they tended to describe heaven as a place where they could resume their ongoing argument on earth.) Adams, irreverent to the end, declared that, if it could ever be demonstrated conclusively that no future state existed, his advice to every man, woman, and child was to take opium. The only afterlife which they considered certain was in the memory of subsequent generations, which is to say us. In that sense, these very blog posts are a testimonial to their everlasting life.
> 
> The U.S. Founding Fathers: Their Religious Beliefs | Britannica Blog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, have you been following Strawman Loki's example??? I said nothing about the Constitution. So nice teardown of your made up argument for me.
Click to expand...

failed dodge.
the article goes right to heart of the f.f. thought about god ....faux christian asshat.


----------



## UltimateReality

All kidding aside, I located this pic of Rugged Touch from her Islam hating forum days...


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again.....Although the Declaration of Independence mentioned &#8220;Nature&#8217;s God&#8221; and the &#8220;Creator,&#8221; the Constitution made no reference to a divine being, Christian or otherwise, and the First Amendment explicitly forbid the establishment of any official church or creed. There is also a story, probably apocryphal, that Benjamin Franklin&#8217;s proposal to call in a chaplain to offer a prayer when a particularly controversial issue was being debated in the Constitutional Convention prompted Hamilton to observe that he saw no reason to call in foreign aid. If there is a clear legacy bequeathed by the founders, it is the insistence that religion was a private matter in which the state should not interfere.
> 
> In recent decades Christian advocacy groups, prompted by motives that have been questioned by some, have felt a powerful urge to enlist the Founding Fathers in their respective congregations. But recovering the spiritual convictions of the Founders, in all their messy integrity, is not an easy task. Once again, diversity is the dominant pattern. Franklin and Jefferson were deists, Washington harbored a pantheistic sense of providential destiny, John Adams began a Congregationalist and ended a Unitarian, Hamilton was a lukewarm Anglican for most of his life but embraced a more actively Christian posture after his son died in a duel.
> 
> One quasi-religious conviction they all shared, however, was a discernible obsession with living on in the memory of posterity. One reason the modern editions of their papers are so monstrously large is that most of the Founders were compulsively fastidious about preserving every scrap of paper they wrote or received, all as part of a desire to leave a written record that would assure their secular immortality in the history books. (When John Adams and Jefferson discussed the possibility of a more conventional immortality, they tended to describe heaven as a place where they could resume their ongoing argument on earth.) Adams, irreverent to the end, declared that, if it could ever be demonstrated conclusively that no future state existed, his advice to every man, woman, and child was to &#8220;take opium.&#8221; The only afterlife which they considered certain was in the memory of subsequent generations, which is to say us. In that sense, these very blog posts are a testimonial to their everlasting life.
> 
> The U.S. Founding Fathers: Their Religious Beliefs | Britannica Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, have you been following Strawman Loki's example??? I said nothing about the Constitution. So nice teardown of your made up argument for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> failed dodge.
> the article goes right to heart of the f.f. thought about god ....faux christian asshat.
Click to expand...


It says nothing about their beliefs, only about the structure of the government. Try again, Spanky. 

My founders were better than your founders. I've forgotten more about the founders than Daws ever learned. Look Daws, I can be as mature as you. 

Obviously your massive wealth wasn't spent on education.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> My dad can beat up your dad.
> 
> 
> 
> again proving my point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, my sarcasm did *prove *how childish you are, feeling the need to take my comments out of context and then brag about how much better you are.
Click to expand...

since your comments have no context at all, anywhere ,the need to brag is all yours.

your sarcasm ....lol...lol.

me being  better then you is not braggadocio, just one of the wonders of evolution.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, have you been following Strawman Loki's example??? I said nothing about the Constitution. So nice teardown of your made up argument for me.
> 
> 
> 
> failed dodge.
> the article goes right to heart of the f.f. thought about god ....faux christian asshat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says nothing about their beliefs, only about the structure of the government. Try again, Spanky.
> 
> My founders were better than your founders. I've forgotten more about the founders than Daws ever learned. Look Daws, I can be as mature as you.
> 
> Obviously your massive wealth wasn't spent on education.
Click to expand...

another failed dodge.
IT's not possible for you to have forgotten more about the founders than I ,simply because everything you believe about them is false..
so in reality you know nothing so you can forget nothing. 

  as to this" "Obviously your massive wealth wasn't spent on education"

you just keep telling yourself that as it's  just as wrong as you thinking giving your life to god has any  real purpose.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> All kidding aside, I located this pic of Rugged Touch from her Islam hating forum days...


 that pic says far more about the poster than the subject...me smells a little Oedipus.....


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a good Christian. You can feel better about yourself by poking fun at someone with medical issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you don't know how bad you just put her down. She is a college professor. You know what college is, don't you?
> 
> Oregon professor: Climate change skeptics diseased, need treatment - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com
> 
> When I dream about you at night, this is the picture that comes to mind...
Click to expand...


You dream about me at night? That's creepy. And here I was thinking you were just a harmless social misfit. 

Good heavens, fundie-boy! With all due respect (and I say that with not a little reservation) I do believe that you may be afflicted with one of the worst cases of _Creepy Stalker Disease_ I've yet encountered online. I can understand your pre-adolescent fantasies are a bit on the pathetic side and Im sure that your mommy would take you to task for your creepy fantasies.

I'm considering my audience here. You might be surprised to discover that in the rational world, religious fanaticism coupled with stunted emotional health is the cause of things we read about in the newspapers.  You might propose that it's wrong for me to suggest a Dark Ages religious zealot is a danger to himself and others but you need help. You must also think that people with your various afflictions rock (dude).

I don't know whether to contact your parents, to urge them to force their adolescent boy to put down the modeling glue and go outside for some fresh air, or if I need to drink large quantities of alcohol so that I can learn more about your fascinating ideas.

Now, if you'll excuse me, dear emotional cripple from the surreal frontiers of fringe lunacy, good day/evening to you, and thanks again - for your twisted insight, entertainment, and continued existence as far away from me as possible.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> All kidding aside, I located this pic of Rugged Touch from her Islam hating forum days...



Yet more of your pathetic attempts at begging for my attention. 

What's strange is that during you frequent episodes of masturbation, is that the image you pleasure yourself to?


----------



## daws101

The term theory is used with surprising frequency in everyday language. It is often used in to mean a guess, hunch or supposition. You may even hear people dismiss certain information because it is "only a theory." It is important to note as you study psychology and other scientific topics, that a theory in science is not the same as the colloquial use of the term.

A theory is a based upon a hypothesis and backed by evidence. A theory presents a concept or idea that is testable. In science, a theory is not merely a guess. A theory is a fact-based framework for describing a phenomenon.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> All kidding aside, I located this pic of Rugged Touch from her Islam hating forum days...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet more of your pathetic attempts at begging for my attention.
> 
> What's strange is that during you frequent episodes of masturbation, is that the image you pleasure yourself to?
Click to expand...

  my guess is U.r. is a Kobe Bryant sausage spanker kind of guy or guns and ammo ?


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> All kidding aside, I located this pic of Rugged Touch from her Islam hating forum days...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet more of your pathetic attempts at begging for my attention.
> 
> What's strange is that during you frequent episodes of masturbation, is that the image you pleasure yourself to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> my guess is U.r. is a Kobe Bryant sausage spanker kind of guy or guns and ammo ?
Click to expand...


Having grown up with two older brothers, I know adolescent boys can act out at times but I think you're right - the fundie displays indications of deviant behavior.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Now, if you'll excuse me, dear emotional cripple from the surreal frontiers of fringe lunacy, good day/evening to you, and thanks again - for your twisted insight, entertainment, and *continued existence as far away from me as possible.*



Could it be really true? Please tell me you aren't joking? You are finally leaving the thread forever!?!?!?!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, if you'll excuse me, dear emotional cripple from the surreal frontiers of fringe lunacy, good day/evening to you, and thanks again - for your twisted insight, entertainment, and *continued existence as far away from me as possible.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could it be really true? Please tell me you aren't joking? You are finally leaving the thread forever!?!?!?!
Click to expand...


Not at all my creepy stalker. I find it interesting to see creepy stalkers self destruct.


----------



## UltimateReality

Wow, post up a couple of pics and the peanut gallery goes crazy!!!! ... projecting all their own sick, twisted, and deviant materialistic behaviors on me. Ewwwwww! Gross.


----------



## UltimateReality

"Ann Gauger and I have shown that Darwin's mechanism cannot accomplish what appears to be one of the more favorable functional transitions among proteins. Specifically, we've presented experimental evidence that the protein pictured here on the left cannot evolve to perform the function of the protein shown on the right, despite their striking similarity and the generous assumptions we granted.

We completely agree with Moran that this exact transition never happened in the history of enzyme evolution (and said as much in our paper). But evidently we expect more of Darwin's theory than he does. In particular, we expect it to conform to the established norm of offering universal principles instead of *just-so stories*."

Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime? - Evolution News & Views

Soon folks are going to start waking up to the fantasy that is the TOE. People will look back and wonder how so many educated people (Daws, Loki, and Hollie excluded) could have fallen for the Darwinian myth.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> "Ann Gauger and I have shown that Darwin's mechanism cannot accomplish what appears to be one of the more favorable functional transitions among proteins. Specifically, we've presented experimental evidence that the protein pictured here on the left cannot evolve to perform the function of the protein shown on the right, despite their striking similarity and the generous assumptions we granted.
> 
> We completely agree with Moran that this exact transition never happened in the history of enzyme evolution (and said as much in our paper). But evidently we expect more of Darwin's theory than he does. In particular, we expect it to conform to the established norm of offering universal principles instead of *just-so stories*."
> 
> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime? - Evolution News & Views
> 
> Soon folks are going to start waking up to the fantasy that is the TOE. People will look back and wonder how so many educated people (Daws, Loki, and Hollie excluded) could have fallen for the Darwinian myth.



Ah yes. Ann Gauger. Another hack who fronts for the goofy christian fundie movement.

It's a shame that the creationist industry of charlatans and whack-jobs is made up of such loons but then again, when you're pressing religion under the guise of science, I suppose you're only going to get crackpots and fools.



Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for gauger

#140: Ann Gauger 



Gauger has a PhD in zoology and is a signatory of Discovery Institutes 2005 petition Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Shes currently associated with the Discovery affiliated creationist think-tank the Biologic Institute whose goal is to perform real research on ID and which has yet to produce a single publication supporting ID creationism despite big budgets and numerous employed scientists.

A rather infamous incident occurred when Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium, 2007, in Boston, Massachusetts. She discussed leaky growth in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner, a real scientist, asked the obvious question: So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab? at which point the moderator halted questioning - Gauger has earlier argued that any evolutionary change is non-adaptive.

Diagnosis: Surely intelligent, but caught up in a system of self-reassuring but misguided views on how reality hangs together. The Biologic Institute is supposed to provided creationism with a sheen of scientific legitimacy, and although its existence may carry some influence on general perception of creationism (then again, probably not), it has failed to fool scientists or scholars in general (apart from Robin Collins).


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Wow, post up a couple of pics and the peanut gallery goes crazy!!!! ... projecting all their own sick, twisted, and deviant materialistic behaviors on me. Ewwwwww! Gross.



Most everyone is grossed out by you. Juvenile behavior is expected of 12 year olds but your behavior is a pathology. 

You're just disgusting. Get help.


----------



## Hollie

This article reminded me of the creationist tactic of trotting out people such as Ann Gauger, a thoroughly discredited hack who humiliates herself by thoroughly discrediting her own arguments and those of christian fundies.


*Creationist Lies That Never Die*

Creationist Lies That Never Die &#8211; Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Anyone who has dealt with creationists can tell you about the game of creationist whack-a-mole. Whack-a-mole is that game where you have a mallet and these moles pop out of various holes and you have to whack them with the mallet, but as soon as you whack one of them, another one comes up in another hole. It never seems to end. That is exactly what its like dealing with creationists. No matter how many times you disprove a creationist claim, it simply pops up in another hole and you have to whack it all over again. I was reminded of this yet again when I came across this essay:

Dust on the Moon 

on a creationist webpage that rehashes the long-discredited moon dust argument.
The moon dust argument is sort of a creationist classic, first advanced by Henry Morris in the early 70s, just after the first manned moon landing in 1969. The argument goes like this: meteoritic dust accumulates at a particular rate on the Earth (Morris used a figure of 14 million tons per year). On the Earth, erosion and other processes makes this negligible, but on the moon, where there is no atmosphere, that dust would simply accumulate. At that rate of influx, if the moon is really 4 billion years old it should have hundreds of feet of meteoritic dust on the surface; however, we only find a few inches of dust on the moon, which means it must be only a few thousand years old.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> This article reminded me of the creationist tactic of trotting out people such as Ann Gauger, a thoroughly discredited hack who humiliates herself by thoroughly discrediting her own arguments and those of christian fundies.
> 
> 
> *Creationist Lies That Never Die*
> 
> Creationist Lies That Never Die &#8211; Dispatches from the Creation Wars
> 
> Anyone who has dealt with creationists can tell you about the game of creationist whack-a-mole. Whack-a-mole is that game where you have a mallet and these moles pop out of various holes and you have to whack them with the mallet, but as soon as you whack one of them, another one comes up in another hole. It never seems to end. That is exactly what it&#8217;s like dealing with creationists. No matter how many times you disprove a creationist claim, it simply pops up in another hole and you have to whack it all over again. I was reminded of this yet again when I came across this essay:
> 
> Dust on the Moon
> 
> on a creationist webpage that rehashes the long-discredited &#8220;moon dust&#8221; argument.
> The moon dust argument is sort of a creationist classic, first advanced by Henry Morris in the early 70s, just after the first manned moon landing in 1969. The argument goes like this: meteoritic dust accumulates at a particular rate on the Earth (Morris used a figure of 14 million tons per year). On the Earth, erosion and other processes makes this negligible, but on the moon, where there is no atmosphere, that dust would simply accumulate. At that rate of influx, if the moon is really 4 billion years old it should have hundreds of feet of meteoritic dust on the surface; however, we only find a few inches of dust on the moon, which means it must be only a few thousand years old.



So funny that in your psychosis you continually respond to ID's scientific arguments with religious Creationist cut and paste responses. That is just further proof that you can't actually argue the critical points, but continue in your bait and switch methodology to conceal your blatant ignorance. 

Pathetic.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Most everyone is grossed out by you. Juvenile behavior is expected of 12 year olds but your behavior is a pathology.
> 
> You're just disgusting. Get help.





Hollie said:


> What's strange is that during you frequent episodes of masturbation, is that the image you pleasure yourself to?



Hmmm. I'm the disgusting one? The things you are picturing in your mind are making me EXTREMELY uncomfortable. I will require you to cease exposing your disgusting thoughts on a public forum.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Ann Gauger and I have shown that Darwin's mechanism cannot accomplish what appears to be one of the more favorable functional transitions among proteins. Specifically, we've presented experimental evidence that the protein pictured here on the left cannot evolve to perform the function of the protein shown on the right, despite their striking similarity and the generous assumptions we granted.
> 
> We completely agree with Moran that this exact transition never happened in the history of enzyme evolution (and said as much in our paper). But evidently we expect more of Darwin's theory than he does. In particular, we expect it to conform to the established norm of offering universal principles instead of *just-so stories*."
> 
> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime? - Evolution News & Views
> 
> Soon folks are going to start waking up to the fantasy that is the TOE. People will look back and wonder how so many educated people (Daws, Loki, and Hollie excluded) could have fallen for the Darwinian myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes. Ann Gauger. Another hack who fronts for the goofy christian fundie movement.
> 
> It's a shame that the creationist industry of charlatans and whack-jobs is made up of such loons but then again, when you're pressing religion under the guise of science, I suppose you're only going to get crackpots and fools.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for gauger
> 
> #140: Ann Gauger
> 
> 
> 
> Gauger has a PhD in zoology and is a signatory of Discovery Institute&#8217;s 2005 petition &#8220;Scientific Dissent from Darwinism&#8221;. She&#8217;s currently associated with the Discovery affiliated creationist think-tank the Biologic Institute whose goal is to perform real research on ID and which has yet to produce a single publication supporting ID creationism despite big budgets and numerous employed &#8220;scientists&#8221;.
> 
> A rather infamous incident occurred when Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium, 2007, in Boston, Massachusetts. She discussed &#8220;leaky growth&#8221; in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner, a real scientist, asked the obvious question: &#8220;So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?&#8221; at which point the moderator halted questioning - Gauger has earlier argued that any evolutionary change is non-adaptive.
> 
> Diagnosis: Surely intelligent, but caught up in a system of self-reassuring but misguided views on how reality hangs together. The Biologic Institute is supposed to provided creationism with a sheen of scientific legitimacy, and although its existence may carry some influence on general perception of creationism (then again, probably not), it has failed to fool scientists or scholars in general (apart from Robin Collins).
Click to expand...


Oh Hollie, you poor dear. You are so easily led astray. Funny with all your complaining about lack of education that you would put so much faith in a graduate student in philosophy to know anything about scientific arguments. But then again, you are driven by your confirmation bias, and not really the truth, so it makes perfect sense. 

Pathetic.

Frederick*Haraldsen - University of Miami - RateMyProfessors.com

"The problem with Haraldsen&#8217;s criticisms is that his only strategy centers around maniacally endeavoring to cover the subject in question with as much *ad hominem manure* as possible, so that he can stand back, point to the person in question, and exclaim for all to hear: &#8220;Look everybody! He is covered in manure!&#8221; "

Ah, Ad Hollimen and this guy are like two peas and a pod. No wonder Rugged Hollie Touch likes quoting him so much. Poor Hollie, so easily led astray...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This article reminded me of the creationist tactic of trotting out people such as Ann Gauger, a thoroughly discredited hack who humiliates herself by thoroughly discrediting her own arguments and those of christian fundies.
> 
> 
> *Creationist Lies That Never Die*
> 
> Creationist Lies That Never Die  Dispatches from the Creation Wars
> 
> Anyone who has dealt with creationists can tell you about the game of creationist whack-a-mole. Whack-a-mole is that game where you have a mallet and these moles pop out of various holes and you have to whack them with the mallet, but as soon as you whack one of them, another one comes up in another hole. It never seems to end. That is exactly what its like dealing with creationists. No matter how many times you disprove a creationist claim, it simply pops up in another hole and you have to whack it all over again. I was reminded of this yet again when I came across this essay:
> 
> Dust on the Moon
> 
> on a creationist webpage that rehashes the long-discredited moon dust argument.
> The moon dust argument is sort of a creationist classic, first advanced by Henry Morris in the early 70s, just after the first manned moon landing in 1969. The argument goes like this: meteoritic dust accumulates at a particular rate on the Earth (Morris used a figure of 14 million tons per year). On the Earth, erosion and other processes makes this negligible, but on the moon, where there is no atmosphere, that dust would simply accumulate. At that rate of influx, if the moon is really 4 billion years old it should have hundreds of feet of meteoritic dust on the surface; however, we only find a few inches of dust on the moon, which means it must be only a few thousand years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So funny that in your psychosis you continually respond to ID's scientific arguments with religious Creationist cut and paste responses. That is just further proof that you can't actually argue the critical points, but continue in your bait and switch methodology to conceal your blatant ignorance.
> 
> Pathetic.
Click to expand...

So funny that you that you insist your goofy creationist claims are not religiously based.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most everyone is grossed out by you. Juvenile behavior is expected of 12 year olds but your behavior is a pathology.
> 
> You're just disgusting. Get help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's strange is that during you frequent episodes of masturbation, is that the image you pleasure yourself to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm. I'm the disgusting one? The things you are picturing in your mind are making me EXTREMELY uncomfortable. I will require you to cease exposing your disgusting thoughts on a public forum.
Click to expand...


Go wash up.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Ann Gauger and I have shown that Darwin's mechanism cannot accomplish what appears to be one of the more favorable functional transitions among proteins. Specifically, we've presented experimental evidence that the protein pictured here on the left cannot evolve to perform the function of the protein shown on the right, despite their striking similarity and the generous assumptions we granted.
> 
> We completely agree with Moran that this exact transition never happened in the history of enzyme evolution (and said as much in our paper). But evidently we expect more of Darwin's theory than he does. In particular, we expect it to conform to the established norm of offering universal principles instead of *just-so stories*."
> 
> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime? - Evolution News & Views
> 
> Soon folks are going to start waking up to the fantasy that is the TOE. People will look back and wonder how so many educated people (Daws, Loki, and Hollie excluded) could have fallen for the Darwinian myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes. Ann Gauger. Another hack who fronts for the goofy christian fundie movement.
> 
> It's a shame that the creationist industry of charlatans and whack-jobs is made up of such loons but then again, when you're pressing religion under the guise of science, I suppose you're only going to get crackpots and fools.
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for gauger
> 
> #140: Ann Gauger
> 
> 
> 
> Gauger has a PhD in zoology and is a signatory of Discovery Institutes 2005 petition Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Shes currently associated with the Discovery affiliated creationist think-tank the Biologic Institute whose goal is to perform real research on ID and which has yet to produce a single publication supporting ID creationism despite big budgets and numerous employed scientists.
> 
> A rather infamous incident occurred when Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium, 2007, in Boston, Massachusetts. She discussed leaky growth in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner, a real scientist, asked the obvious question: So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab? at which point the moderator halted questioning - Gauger has earlier argued that any evolutionary change is non-adaptive.
> 
> Diagnosis: Surely intelligent, but caught up in a system of self-reassuring but misguided views on how reality hangs together. The Biologic Institute is supposed to provided creationism with a sheen of scientific legitimacy, and although its existence may carry some influence on general perception of creationism (then again, probably not), it has failed to fool scientists or scholars in general (apart from Robin Collins).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Hollie, you poor dear. You are so easily led astray. Funny with all your complaining about lack of education that you would put so much faith in a graduate student in philosophy to know anything about scientific arguments. But then again, you are driven by your confirmation bias, and not really the truth, so it makes perfect sense.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Frederick*Haraldsen - University of Miami - RateMyProfessors.com
> 
> "The problem with Haraldsens criticisms is that his only strategy centers around maniacally endeavoring to cover the subject in question with as much *ad hominem manure* as possible, so that he can stand back, point to the person in question, and exclaim for all to hear: Look everybody! He is covered in manure! "
> 
> Ah, Ad Hollimen and this guy are like two peas and a pod. No wonder Rugged Hollie Touch likes quoting him so much. Poor Hollie, so easily led astray...
Click to expand...

Pointless babble.


----------



## ima

So if we were made by ID, why did they make humans so stupid?


----------



## Hollie

ima said:


> So if we were made by ID, why did they make humans so stupid?



I think that we first need to acknowledge that ID is nothing more than Christian creationism in a burqa. Christian creationists were humiliated when their attempts to introduce fundie Christian religious dogma into the school system were thrown out by the courts as unconstitutional. Their next attempt was to put lipstick and a burqa on "creationism" by calling it ID. This tactic was also rejected by the courts, and for the same reasons that creationism was rejected. 

At the end of the day, humans weren't "made stupid". However, there are those who will choose to live under the strictures of religious dogma and will choose fear and ignorance in favor of knowledge and enlightenment. The two Christian creationists in this thread are examples of that. They choose to believe in supernatural causations instead of explanations for existence that are entirely explainable and consistent with processes we understand. 

It's an entitlement to self delusion that Christian creationists cling to and unfortunately seek to force on others.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no. I've opened my eyes to the dishonest tactics of creationists who falsifying "quotes" and take no issue with that tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't shown the quote to be "falsified".
> 
> And yes, you are blinded by your own prejudices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the perverse ignorance displayed by fundies. You don't have the first clue as to what you cut and pasted.
> 
> Review your posted "quote" and you will see that what you "quoted" was actually commentary by Henry Morris who was offering his slanted commentary on a partial "quote" (allegedly) by Jeffrey Schwartz. This bit of intellectual sloth was familiar and the same dishonest and sloppy "quoting" has been done before.
Click to expand...


And what you posted did not, in any way, refute any part of that quote.

Perhaps you should read your own links.

BTW I read every word of the link I provided.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're having difficulty paying attention. You have failed to offer a response to posts of mine and to posts of others without mindless babble. It is you who mindlessly drones on about magical gods without ever offering anything but juvenile cut and paste.
> 
> Have you not looked back through tens of pages and noticed your childish pattern of spamming with gargantuan fonts?
> 
> This latest post of spam was yet another desperate plea for my attention. You're a love struck schoolboy with big, weepy doe-eyes looking for attention who has crossed over into creepy stalking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a good Christian. You can feel better about yourself by poking fun at someone with medical issues.
Click to expand...


How can you tell from a photo this girl has medical issues? Other than the need for glasses that is.


----------



## Gadawg73

Other than evolution and how old the earth is what other science do you creationists disagree with?
Is it just coincidence that the only 2 you disagree with have religious implications and the Bible is that influence?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't shown the quote to be "falsified".
> 
> And yes, you are blinded by your own prejudices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the perverse ignorance displayed by fundies. You don't have the first clue as to what you cut and pasted.
> 
> Review your posted "quote" and you will see that what you "quoted" was actually commentary by Henry Morris who was offering his slanted commentary on a partial "quote" (allegedly) by Jeffrey Schwartz. This bit of intellectual sloth was familiar and the same dishonest and sloppy "quoting" has been done before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what you posted did not, in any way, refute any part of that quote.
> 
> Perhaps you should read your own links.
> 
> BTW I read every word of the link I provided.
Click to expand...

A common tactic of creationists is to cut and paste "quotes" from websites such as the ICR without spending the time to verify the authenticity of the material they "quote". That resulted in you falsely and incorrectly attributed a "quote" to an individual who never made such statements. Your carelessness (or was it deception), in falsely attributing "quotes" is a tactic seen often in this thread by creationists who have no ethical standards in connection with what they cut and paste.


----------



## Gadawg73

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the perverse ignorance displayed by fundies. You don't have the first clue as to what you cut and pasted.
> 
> Review your posted "quote" and you will see that what you "quoted" was actually commentary by Henry Morris who was offering his slanted commentary on a partial "quote" (allegedly) by Jeffrey Schwartz. This bit of intellectual sloth was familiar and the same dishonest and sloppy "quoting" has been done before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what you posted did not, in any way, refute any part of that quote.
> 
> Perhaps you should read your own links.
> 
> BTW I read every word of the link I provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A common tactic of creationists is to cut and paste "quotes" from websites such as the ICR without spending the time to verify the authenticity of the material they "quote". That us you falsely and incorrectly attributed a "quote" to an individual who never made such statements. Your carelessness (or was it deception), in falsely attributing "quotes" is a tactic seen often in this thread by creationists who have no ethical standards in connection to what they cut and paste.
Click to expand...


Just like the authors _Of Pandas and People._


----------



## Hollie

Gadawg73 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what you posted did not, in any way, refute any part of that quote.
> 
> Perhaps you should read your own links.
> 
> BTW I read every word of the link I provided.
> 
> 
> 
> A common tactic of creationists is to cut and paste "quotes" from websites such as the ICR without spending the time to verify the authenticity of the material they "quote". That us you falsely and incorrectly attributed a "quote" to an individual who never made such statements. Your carelessness (or was it deception), in falsely attributing "quotes" is a tactic seen often in this thread by creationists who have no ethical standards in connection to what they cut and paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like the authors _Of Pandas and People._
Click to expand...

Yes. That is a great example. 

The NCSE has a number of reviews on their website of the book and the reviewers have no qualms about exposing the absurdities of the material presented. 

Sonleitner's "What's Wrong with 'Pandas' "? | NCSE


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the flat-earthers own book of tales and fables is as bankrupt as their claims to gods, jinn and other claims to supermagicalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still avoiding the questions put to you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still dodging and sidestepping any attempt at addressing why you can't account for your gods?
Click to expand...


Hollie I don't believe in gods,I believe in the the one God creator of all. Do you actually read what I post ? I said my beliefs are based in Faith but I do see things in nature as being designed and not products of chance or accident. That to me is evidence of the creator.

If you ask this again I will ignore it.Now present your evidence that living organisms are a product of natural processes mainly the first life form that started this thing you call evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Similar to the behavior of the two fundies in this thread, you appear to share a similar loathing of the sciences of biology, anthropology, geology and evolution that have advanced since Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species". That loathing derives specifically from the challenges presented to the model of supernaturalism and gods that defines religion. Flat-earthers see the physical sciences as a threat to the primacy of their gods.
> 
> Like all of evolution, and human evolution in particular, we don't see a straight line from species ir sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by flat-earthers but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes. complete dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent in that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- (a round of thanks for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases) and the general amount of waste is phenomenal in scope.
> 
> The point is, inefficiency, waste, ineptitude and incompetence are not hallmarks of the gods. Inefficiency in nature is the result of nature not being intellectually directed by your gods or anyone else's gods. That is why we see evolution sometimes retaining things (body parts, appendages in animals), it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.
> 
> This is entirely consistent with the way our understanding of both human, animal and plant evolution has grown and improved using the process and the discipline of science. BTW, It is interesting to notice that creationists make such noise and fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry which has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.
> 
> Lastly, let's not pretend that the creationist ministries are actually doing anything to prove gods and supernatural mechanisms. The entirety of the creationist agenda is to vilify science with the assumption that doing so will somehow, by magic, lead to "the gods for it". That is why the creationist ministries refuse to publish in peer reviewed science journals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't loathe science.
> 
> But I'm smart enough to know that scientist will keep experimenting until they achieve their desired result and dismiss everything that doesn't.
> 
> Why did humans stop evolving?
> 
> Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.
> 
> First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
> 
> Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
> 
> A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
> 
> Full source and references here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not understand the scientific method.
Click to expand...


I have not seen one of you on your side yet understand it.

Test study and observe. How do you test and study something that has never been observed ? do you really want to know how ? faulty assumptions and vivid imaginations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does ID mean that god created gay people and animals?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lie...
Click to expand...


No lie,what God created was perfect without blemish. Since the fall of adam that is when entropy came into play. By the way are people admitting being gay is wrong ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look Hollie, I hold a degree in science. Can someone who holds a degree in science look at evidence and infer design verses your invisible creator through naturalism ? if i can't please provide an answer as to why ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, I have no reason to believe that you hold a science degree. Secondly, you infer design as a result of your religious belief which is nothing more than mere assertion of supernatural agents. As we see with regularity, your best attempt at proving your gods amounts to flaccid attempts to vilify science. You offer no support for evidence of your supernatural gods and we have every reason to accept that your gods are nothing more than re-telling of earlier tales and fables with adjustments to those earlier superstitious tales.
> 
> You make really ignorant statements such as  verses (versus -ed.) your invisible creator through naturalism. Thats just ridiculous. You reject the vast and overwhelming evidence for evolution because evolution makes yours gods superfluous and unnecessary.  Anyone can gainsay an argument. Facts to support an argument are something different. Can you supply any facts to support the argument for your gods? No. That was a rhetorical question because your gods are currently configured conceptions of earlier gods emanating from earlier superstitious tales and fables.
> 
> At the core of the arguments separating science, technology, biology and _reason_ from superstition, fear and ignorance lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective facts drawn from genetic and taxonomic evidence. It is a simple matter to resolve and to dismiss the non-objectivity, grandiose claims and explicit superstitions surrounding creationist holy text literalism. There are literally hundreds of claims to superstitions and fears of supernatural realms similar to yours, all without a single piece of hard evidence to support them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie, ywc' does have a degree in biology an AA degree (2year) which carries just enough clout to get him a lab assistant job.
> in other words he's qualified to clean petri dishes and handle biological waste.
> any "theories" he adheres to do not remotely qualify him as a scientist of any kind.
Click to expand...


Wrong as usual,not the lab I worked for you are just ignorant.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have imposed upon yourself an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support your conclusions; you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe; you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless conclusions.
> 
> You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the evidence that supports the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I simply made a decision after looking at evidence and the explanations of the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit ! the "decision"(if it could be called that) you made was not based on an objective examination of the evidence, it was however based on a lifetime of rabid indoctrination, denial of fact,  threats of eternal damnation.
> any (lol) "decision" you claim to have made was bias from the start.
Click to expand...


When you actually address science we will continue.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't loathe science.
> 
> But I'm smart enough to know that scientist will keep experimenting until they achieve their desired result and dismiss everything that doesn't.
> 
> Why did humans stop evolving?
> 
> Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.
> 
> First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
> 
> Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
> 
> A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
> 
> Full source and references here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not understand the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not seen one of you on your side yet understand it.
> 
> Test study and observe. How do you test and study something that has never been observed ? do you really want to know how faulty assumptions and vivid imaginations.
Click to expand...

You are grossly ignorant regarding evolution which of course has been observed. 

How does anyone test for supernatural gods and the designers of, the designers of, the designers of your supernatural gods?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The egg of your mother and the sperm of your father.hmm how did nature think to create male and female one producing something the other needed for reproduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false claim nature does not "think" in the way you wish it did.
> nature also "thought" of :
> As a general rule, animals cannot reproduce asexually. However, there are exceptions.
> 
> Amoebas and other single-celled organisms reproduce asexually, being too small to have gender.
> 
> Certain larger animals may reproduce asexually through either:
> 
> parthenogenesis under certain circumstances (that is, reproduction via self-cloning),
> gynogenesis (via the catalyst of a male nearby which does not actually fertilize the eggs).
> 
> Greenflies clone themselves once every 20 minutes.
> Whiptail lizards, Aphids, some bees wasps and hornets, some fish and water fleas reproduce by parthenogenesis. Komodo Dragons, some sharks, some snails do as well.
> Parthenogenesis has been laboratory induced in some species, such as urchins and turkeys, but this does not occur in the wild.
> 
> Read more: What are five animals that reproduce asexually
> 
> asshat
Click to expand...


Really,nature don't think, then you must believe in miracles not design from a designer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> So if we were made by ID, why did they make humans so stupid?



If humans are related to apes why are we so intelligent and they are not ?

Speak for yourself.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, I have no reason to believe that you hold a science degree. Secondly, you infer design as a result of your religious belief which is nothing more than mere assertion of supernatural agents. As we see with regularity, your best attempt at proving your gods amounts to flaccid attempts to vilify science. You offer no support for evidence of your supernatural gods and we have every reason to accept that your gods are nothing more than re-telling of earlier tales and fables with adjustments to those earlier superstitious tales.
> 
> You make really ignorant statements such as  verses (versus -ed.) your invisible creator through naturalism. Thats just ridiculous. You reject the vast and overwhelming evidence for evolution because evolution makes yours gods superfluous and unnecessary.  Anyone can gainsay an argument. Facts to support an argument are something different. Can you supply any facts to support the argument for your gods? No. That was a rhetorical question because your gods are currently configured conceptions of earlier gods emanating from earlier superstitious tales and fables.
> 
> At the core of the arguments separating science, technology, biology and _reason_ from superstition, fear and ignorance lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective facts drawn from genetic and taxonomic evidence. It is a simple matter to resolve and to dismiss the non-objectivity, grandiose claims and explicit superstitions surrounding creationist holy text literalism. There are literally hundreds of claims to superstitions and fears of supernatural realms similar to yours, all without a single piece of hard evidence to support them.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, ywc' does have a degree in biology an AA degree (2year) which carries just enough clout to get him a lab assistant job.
> in other words he's qualified to clean petri dishes and handle biological waste.
> any "theories" he adheres to do not remotely qualify him as a scientist of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong as usual,not the lab I worked for you are just ignorant.
Click to expand...

As daws correctly established, you have no degree in biology. That has been evident by your inability to offer anything but cutting and pasting from fundie websites. You have never offered any commentary of your own regarding creationist attempts to undermine biology that supports evolution because you understand none of it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Gadawg73 said:


> Other than evolution and how old the earth is what other science do you creationists disagree with?
> Is it just coincidence that the only 2 you disagree with have religious implications and the Bible is that influence?



We disagree probably on some doctrine but on this issue mainly dating methods.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if we were made by ID, why did they make humans so stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If humans are related to apes why are we so intelligent and they are not ?
> 
> Speak for yourself.
Click to expand...


For that matter, why did the gods make apes stronger by comparison than humans?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not understand the scientific method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not seen one of you on your side yet understand it.
> 
> Test study and observe. How do you test and study something that has never been observed ? do you really want to know how faulty assumptions and vivid imaginations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are grossly ignorant regarding evolution which of course has been observed.
> 
> How does anyone test for supernatural gods and the designers of, the designers of, the designers of your supernatural gods?
Click to expand...


You have experienced too many mutations in your family line.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, ywc' does have a degree in biology an AA degree (2year) which carries just enough clout to get him a lab assistant job.
> in other words he's qualified to clean petri dishes and handle biological waste.
> any "theories" he adheres to do not remotely qualify him as a scientist of any kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong as usual,not the lab I worked for you are just ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As daws correctly established, you have no degree in biology. That has been evident by your inability to offer anything but cutting and pasting from fundie websites. You have never offered any commentary of your own regarding creationist attempts to undermine biology that supports evolution because you understand none of it.
Click to expand...


What has been clear since you entered the argument ,you are a dishonest person and know very little of the things I have discussed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if we were made by ID, why did they make humans so stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If humans are related to apes why are we so intelligent and they are not ?
> 
> Speak for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For that matter, why did the gods make apes stronger by comparison than humans?
Click to expand...


Good question,why did not the superior traits such as strength,sense of smell,and land speed not get passed on to humans if we are related ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If humans are related to apes why are we so intelligent and they are not ?
> 
> Speak for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For that matter, why did the gods make apes stronger by comparison than humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question,why did not the superior traits such as strength,sense of smell,and land speed not get passed on to humans if we are related ?
Click to expand...


Evolutionary imperatives. 

Why do you think the gods would create species so similar in form, function and biology and then allow a fosill to exist that traces a common ancestry back tens of thousands of years. 

These gods -they're just messin' with us, no?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the perverse ignorance displayed by fundies. You don't have the first clue as to what you cut and pasted.
> 
> Review your posted "quote" and you will see that what you "quoted" was actually commentary by Henry Morris who was offering his slanted commentary on a partial "quote" (allegedly) by Jeffrey Schwartz. This bit of intellectual sloth was familiar and the same dishonest and sloppy "quoting" has been done before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what you posted did not, in any way, refute any part of that quote.
> 
> Perhaps you should read your own links.
> 
> BTW I read every word of the link I provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A common tactic of creationists is to cut and paste "quotes" from websites such as the ICR without spending the time to verify the authenticity of the material they "quote". That resulted in you falsely and incorrectly attributed a "quote" to an individual who never made such statements. Your carelessness (or was it deception), in falsely attributing "quotes" is a tactic seen often in this thread by creationists who have no ethical standards in connection with what they cut and paste.
Click to expand...


Yet you fail to verify such a tactic was used as you have failed to prove the quote to be false.

You only assume that this was the case since you deem it common practice. wWhich is yet another point you fail to prove.


I guess we should just take your word for it huh?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if we were made by ID, why did they make humans so stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that we first need to acknowledge that ID is nothing more than Christian creationism in a burqa. Christian creationists were humiliated when their attempts to introduce fundie Christian religious dogma into the school system were thrown out by the courts as unconstitutional. Their next attempt was to put lipstick and a burqa on "creationism" by calling it ID. This tactic was also rejected by the courts, and for the same reasons that creationism was rejected.
> 
> At the end of the day, humans weren't "made stupid". However, there are those who will choose to live under the strictures of religious dogma and will choose fear and ignorance in favor of knowledge and enlightenment. The two Christian creationists in this thread are examples of that. They choose to believe in supernatural causations instead of explanations for existence that are entirely explainable and consistent with processes we understand.
> 
> It's an entitlement to self delusion that Christian creationists cling to and unfortunately seek to force on others.
Click to expand...


Yawn.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the perverse ignorance displayed by fundies. You don't have the first clue as to what you cut and pasted.
> 
> Review your posted "quote" and you will see that what you "quoted" was actually commentary by Henry Morris who was offering his slanted commentary on a partial "quote" (allegedly) by Jeffrey Schwartz. This bit of intellectual sloth was familiar and the same dishonest and sloppy "quoting" has been done before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what you posted did not, in any way, refute any part of that quote.
> 
> Perhaps you should read your own links.
> 
> BTW I read every word of the link I provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A common tactic of creationists is to cut and paste "quotes" from websites such as the ICR without spending the time to verify the authenticity of the material they "quote". That resulted in you falsely and incorrectly attributed a "quote" to an individual who never made such statements. Your carelessness (or was it deception), in falsely attributing "quotes" is a tactic seen often in this thread by creationists who have no ethical standards in connection with what they cut and paste.
Click to expand...


Hollie's "ICR" Quote Repeated in 627 pages:87 times


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still avoiding the questions put to you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still dodging and sidestepping any attempt at addressing why you can't account for your gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie I don't believe in gods,I believe in the the one God creator of all.
Click to expand...


Times UR and YWC have clarified this point to Hollie in 627 pages: 62 

Only a rabid imbecile would keep repeating the wrong thing over and over.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, ywc' does have a degree in biology an AA degree (2year) which carries just enough clout to get him a lab assistant job.
> in other words he's qualified to clean petri dishes and handle biological waste.
> any "theories" he adheres to do not remotely qualify him as a scientist of any kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong as usual,not the lab I worked for you are just ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As daws correctly established, you have no degree in biology. That has been evident by your inability to offer anything but cutting and pasting from fundie websites. You have never offered any commentary of your own regarding creationist attempts to undermine biology that supports evolution because you understand none of it.
Click to expand...


...says the imbecile that has never disclosed his/her educational background or gender.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what you posted did not, in any way, refute any part of that quote.
> 
> Perhaps you should read your own links.
> 
> BTW I read every word of the link I provided.
> 
> 
> 
> A common tactic of creationists is to cut and paste "quotes" from websites such as the ICR without spending the time to verify the authenticity of the material they "quote". That resulted in you falsely and incorrectly attributed a "quote" to an individual who never made such statements. Your carelessness (or was it deception), in falsely attributing "quotes" is a tactic seen often in this thread by creationists who have no ethical standards in connection with what they cut and paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you fail to verify such a tactic was used as you have failed to prove the quote to be false.
> 
> You only assume that this was the case since you deem it common practice. wWhich is yet another point you fail to prove.
> 
> 
> I guess we should just take your word for it huh?
Click to expand...

You have failed to provide a "quote" attributed to Schwartz. What you cut and pasted was commentary by Henry Morris relative to a couple of sentences allegedly made by Schwartz. 

You falsely and mistakenly attributed to Schwartz, commentary by Henry Morris. I have no way of knowing what portion or portions of comments allegedly attributed to Schwartz were parsed, edited or altered. How does anyone refute something you haven't provided.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong as usual,not the lab I worked for you are just ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> As daws correctly established, you have no degree in biology. That has been evident by your inability to offer anything but cutting and pasting from fundie websites. You have never offered any commentary of your own regarding creationist attempts to undermine biology that supports evolution because you understand none of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...says the imbecile that has never disclosed his/her educational background or gender.
Click to expand...


...says the creepy stalker who has never disclosed his prior record of arrest and convictions for stalking.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still dodging and sidestepping any attempt at addressing why you can't account for your gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie I don't believe in gods,I believe in the the one God creator of all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Times UR and YWC have clarified this point to Hollie in 627 pages: 62
> 
> Only a rabid imbecile would keep repeating the wrong thing over and over.
Click to expand...


You clarified only that you are a dishonest, Christian creationist.

I apologize for the redundancy of the terms "dishonest" and "Christian creationist" as one term implies the other.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong as usual,not the lab I worked for you are just ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> As daws correctly established, you have no degree in biology. That has been evident by your inability to offer anything but cutting and pasting from fundie websites. You have never offered any commentary of your own regarding creationist attempts to undermine biology that supports evolution because you understand none of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...says the imbecile that has never disclosed his/her educational background or gender.
Click to expand...


It is apparently a pattern with stalkers to become obsessed (thus the term "stalking), with someone such that their creepy advances, when met with rejection, causes them to lash out in fits of rage. You have already identified that you have dreams involving me. 

An emotionally healthy individual would not use a message board as a vehicle to pursue your lurid and creepy fantasies. Your creepy stalking, coupled with your religious fanaticism suggests you have had issues in the past. 

Seek help, fundie. Or take a cue from Jim Jones and do the right thing.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if we were made by ID, why did they make humans so stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If humans are related to apes why are we so intelligent and they are not ?
> 
> Speak for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For that matter, why did the gods make apes stronger by comparison than humans?
Click to expand...


How do you know Apes didn't come from Humans??


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For that matter, why did the gods make apes stronger by comparison than humans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question,why did not the superior traits such as strength,sense of smell,and land speed not get passed on to humans if we are related ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolutionary imperatives.
> 
> Why do you think the gods would create species so similar in form, function and biology and then allow a fosill to exist that traces a common ancestry back tens of thousands of years.
> 
> These gods -they're just messin' with us, no?
Click to expand...


In Darwin's theory, evolution was produced by gradual change over millions of years. If this is the case, why don't we see thousands of hominid species which are in various states of evolving. Why are there no inbetweener's with gradual differences from us. The same applies for any species on the planet. Please do tell in your OWN WORDS Hollie.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As daws correctly established, you have no degree in biology. That has been evident by your inability to offer anything but cutting and pasting from fundie websites. You have never offered any commentary of your own regarding creationist attempts to undermine biology that supports evolution because you understand none of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...says the imbecile that has never disclosed his/her educational background or gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is apparently a pattern with stalkers to become obsessed (thus the term "stalking), with someone such that their creepy advances, when met with rejection, causes them to lash out in fits of rage. You have already identified that you have dreams involving me.
> 
> An emotionally healthy individual would not use a message board as a vehicle to pursue your lurid and creepy fantasies. Your creepy stalking, coupled with your religious fanaticism suggests you have had issues in the past.
> 
> Seek help, fundie. Or take a cue from Jim Jones and do the right thing.
Click to expand...


You never answer the questions, ever. From now on, until you actuallly answer a question, my response to you will simply be the same ad hominem attacks you spew continually. I will cut out all your cut and pasted flowery language and merely call it like it is...

You're an imbecile.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A common tactic of creationists is to cut and paste "quotes" from websites such as the ICR without spending the time to verify the authenticity of the material they "quote". That resulted in you falsely and incorrectly attributed a "quote" to an individual who never made such statements. Your carelessness (or was it deception), in falsely attributing "quotes" is a tactic seen often in this thread by creationists who have no ethical standards in connection with what they cut and paste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you fail to verify such a tactic was used as you have failed to prove the quote to be false.
> 
> You only assume that this was the case since you deem it common practice. wWhich is yet another point you fail to prove.
> 
> 
> I guess we should just take your word for it huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have failed to provide a "quote" attributed to Schwartz. What you cut and pasted was commentary by Henry Morris relative to a couple of sentences allegedly made by Schwartz.
> 
> You falsely and mistakenly attributed to Schwartz, commentary by Henry Morris. I have no way of knowing what portion or portions of comments allegedly attributed to Schwartz were parsed, edited or altered. How does anyone refute something you haven't provided.
Click to expand...


Hollie, the real American Loon.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question,why did not the superior traits such as strength,sense of smell,and land speed not get passed on to humans if we are related ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionary imperatives.
> 
> Why do you think the gods would create species so similar in form, function and biology and then allow a fosill to exist that traces a common ancestry back tens of thousands of years.
> 
> These gods -they're just messin' with us, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Darwin's theory, evolution was produced by gradual change over millions of years. If this is the case, why don't we see thousands of hominid species which are in various states of evolving. Why are there no inbetweener's with gradual differences from us. The same applies for any species on the planet. Please do tell in your OWN WORDS Hollie.
Click to expand...


Thus has been addressed repeatedly. Your responses have been childish insults and cut / pasted nonsense from fundie websites. 

There are numerous transitional species. Your creationist mindset will not allow you to accept that, however, your self-imposed limitations are not my problem. 

Why would the gods have allowed any indication at all of transitional species, fosill evidence and the science that confirms these things?

Have you sought help yet for your dreams that include me and your perverse need to stalk me?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you fail to verify such a tactic was used as you have failed to prove the quote to be false.
> 
> You only assume that this was the case since you deem it common practice. wWhich is yet another point you fail to prove.
> 
> 
> I guess we should just take your word for it huh?
> 
> 
> 
> You have failed to provide a "quote" attributed to Schwartz. What you cut and pasted was commentary by Henry Morris relative to a couple of sentences allegedly made by Schwartz.
> 
> You falsely and mistakenly attributed to Schwartz, commentary by Henry Morris. I have no way of knowing what portion or portions of comments allegedly attributed to Schwartz were parsed, edited or altered. How does anyone refute something you haven't provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, the real American Loon.
Click to expand...


Ah, this is the angry, xtian zealot persona?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If humans are related to apes why are we so intelligent and they are not ?
> 
> Speak for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For that matter, why did the gods make apes stronger by comparison than humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question,why did not the superior traits such as strength,sense of smell,and land speed not get passed on to humans if we are related ?
Click to expand...


Because that's how evolution works, some species pick up things that they need and others don't pick up the same traits. Humans have better brains so they needed less strength, speed, ... than other species.


----------



## Hollie

For today's edition of _The bad, the Stupid, and creationists_...


*Lying for Jesus: Humans lived with dinosaurs*

Lying for Jesus: Humans lived with dinosaurs « Why Evolution Is True 

If people ever say we&#8217;re exaggerating the ravages of creationism in the United States, have a look at this video. Check out the title in the subject line. The answer, of course, is a resounding, &#8220;YES! Praise Jesus!&#8221;

Dinosaurs with Man | Creation Today 

Non-American readers: be prepared to be gobsmacked by the stupidity here.

Eric Hovind and Paul Taylor are your hosts at this 30-minute episode on the Creation Today show. For most of the show Hovind is lecturing to kids. I can&#8217;t think of anything more vile than promulgating such lies to children.

Hovind comes off, I must say, as a bit unhinged: as an amalgam of Jimmy Swaggart and Soupy Sales.


 Among the highlights:

4:02: Hovind claims to prove that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible (as &#8220;dragons&#8221 and concludes without doubt that those dragons were really dinosaurs. (He later says that dragons are mentioned 35 times in the Bible, and Hovind determined that at least 23 of those refer to real dragons.) 


5:00: Hovind claims that the dinosaurs faced a &#8220;very hostile environment&#8221; after the Flood. But how did they survive it? He doesn&#8217;t mention that they were on the Ark. And the dinos went extinct because of the debilitating post-flood climate. How do we know? Because the human lifespan dropped from over 900 years before the flood (Methuselah) to 400, then 200, then 100. 

7:42: People also helped bring about the extinction of dinosaurs: they were killed for meat, to protect the kids, and even for medicinal purposes (ancient remedies called for &#8220;dragon blood&#8221. 

10:45. The Bible refers to dragons and serpents breathing fire. Since the Bible is literally true, Hovind has to show that dinos could do that. But of course they couldn&#8217;t. What does he do: had adduces &#8220;animals alive to day with those kinds of capabilities.&#8221; He&#8217;s apparently referring to bombadier beetle. How that proves that reptiles breathed fire is beyond me. More proof: the walls of Babylon had dragons engraved on them. And of course there are the stories of Beowulf and Grendel, and St. George and the dragon. More evidence! The Grand Canyon has Native American carvings of dragons! 

17:13: Hovind asserts that &#8220;behemoth&#8221; mention in the Book of Job was &#8220;obviously&#8221; a dinosaur 

20:25: Satan twisted God&#8217;s creation by making scientists say that dinosaurs really lived million years ago 

22:25: Hovind offers the kids a choice between evolution (obviously disproven) and a creator. 

23 Hovind tells the kids that evolutionists are deceiving people about the evidence we have to support our theory. (I&#8217;m checking myself for horns).

Of all the horrible aspects of religion, the worst is the imperative to brainwash kids with lies that support your own faith.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> For today's edition of _The bad, the Stupid, and creationists_...
> 
> 
> *Lying for Jesus: Humans lived with dinosaurs*
> 
> Lying for Jesus: Humans lived with dinosaurs « Why Evolution Is True
> 
> If people ever say were exaggerating the ravages of creationism in the United States, have a look at this video. Check out the title in the subject line. The answer, of course, is a resounding, YES! Praise Jesus!
> 
> Dinosaurs with Man | Creation Today
> 
> Non-American readers: be prepared to be gobsmacked by the stupidity here.
> 
> Eric Hovind and Paul Taylor are your hosts at this 30-minute episode on the Creation Today show. For most of the show Hovind is lecturing to kids. I cant think of anything more vile than promulgating such lies to children.
> 
> Hovind comes off, I must say, as a bit unhinged: as an amalgam of Jimmy Swaggart and Soupy Sales.
> 
> 
> Among the highlights:
> 
> 4:02: Hovind claims to prove that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible (as dragons) and concludes without doubt that those dragons were really dinosaurs. (He later says that dragons are mentioned 35 times in the Bible, and Hovind determined that at least 23 of those refer to real dragons.)
> 
> 
> 5:00: Hovind claims that the dinosaurs faced a very hostile environment after the Flood. But how did they survive it? He doesnt mention that they were on the Ark. And the dinos went extinct because of the debilitating post-flood climate. How do we know? Because the human lifespan dropped from over 900 years before the flood (Methuselah) to 400, then 200, then 100.
> 
> 7:42: People also helped bring about the extinction of dinosaurs: they were killed for meat, to protect the kids, and even for medicinal purposes (ancient remedies called for dragon blood).
> 
> 10:45. The Bible refers to dragons and serpents breathing fire. Since the Bible is literally true, Hovind has to show that dinos could do that. But of course they couldnt. What does he do: had adduces animals alive to day with those kinds of capabilities. Hes apparently referring to bombadier beetle. How that proves that reptiles breathed fire is beyond me. More proof: the walls of Babylon had dragons engraved on them. And of course there are the stories of Beowulf and Grendel, and St. George and the dragon. More evidence! The Grand Canyon has Native American carvings of dragons!
> 
> 17:13: Hovind asserts that behemoth mention in the Book of Job was obviously a dinosaur
> 
> 20:25: Satan twisted Gods creation by making scientists say that dinosaurs really lived million years ago
> 
> 22:25: Hovind offers the kids a choice between evolution (obviously disproven) and a creator.
> 
> 23 Hovind tells the kids that evolutionists are deceiving people about the evidence we have to support our theory. (Im checking myself for horns).
> 
> Of all the horrible aspects of religion, the worst is the imperative to brainwash kids with lies that support your own faith.



Hollie, #1 American Loon.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For that matter, why did the gods make apes stronger by comparison than humans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question,why did not the superior traits such as strength,sense of smell,and land speed not get passed on to humans if we are related ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because that's how evolution works, some species pick up things that they need and others don't pick up the same traits. Humans have better brains so they needed less strength, speed, ... than other species.
Click to expand...


Nice try. Modern evolution does not claim this. Catch up!!!


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question,why did not the superior traits such as strength,sense of smell,and land speed not get passed on to humans if we are related ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that's how evolution works, some species pick up things that they need and others don't pick up the same traits. Humans have better brains so they needed less strength, speed, ... than other species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try. Modern evolution does not claim this. Catch up!!!
Click to expand...


Ok, if you prefer to deny reality, that's cool. I mean, you already believe in an invisible superbeing in another dimension that you pray to to run your life, so what's a little more delusion?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For today's edition of _The bad, the Stupid, and creationists_...
> 
> 
> *Lying for Jesus: Humans lived with dinosaurs*
> 
> Lying for Jesus: Humans lived with dinosaurs « Why Evolution Is True
> 
> If people ever say were exaggerating the ravages of creationism in the United States, have a look at this video. Check out the title in the subject line. The answer, of course, is a resounding, YES! Praise Jesus!
> 
> Dinosaurs with Man | Creation Today
> 
> Non-American readers: be prepared to be gobsmacked by the stupidity here.
> 
> Eric Hovind and Paul Taylor are your hosts at this 30-minute episode on the Creation Today show. For most of the show Hovind is lecturing to kids. I cant think of anything more vile than promulgating such lies to children.
> 
> Hovind comes off, I must say, as a bit unhinged: as an amalgam of Jimmy Swaggart and Soupy Sales.
> 
> 
> Among the highlights:
> 
> 4:02: Hovind claims to prove that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible (as dragons) and concludes without doubt that those dragons were really dinosaurs. (He later says that dragons are mentioned 35 times in the Bible, and Hovind determined that at least 23 of those refer to real dragons.)
> 
> 
> 5:00: Hovind claims that the dinosaurs faced a very hostile environment after the Flood. But how did they survive it? He doesnt mention that they were on the Ark. And the dinos went extinct because of the debilitating post-flood climate. How do we know? Because the human lifespan dropped from over 900 years before the flood (Methuselah) to 400, then 200, then 100.
> 
> 7:42: People also helped bring about the extinction of dinosaurs: they were killed for meat, to protect the kids, and even for medicinal purposes (ancient remedies called for dragon blood).
> 
> 10:45. The Bible refers to dragons and serpents breathing fire. Since the Bible is literally true, Hovind has to show that dinos could do that. But of course they couldnt. What does he do: had adduces animals alive to day with those kinds of capabilities. Hes apparently referring to bombadier beetle. How that proves that reptiles breathed fire is beyond me. More proof: the walls of Babylon had dragons engraved on them. And of course there are the stories of Beowulf and Grendel, and St. George and the dragon. More evidence! The Grand Canyon has Native American carvings of dragons!
> 
> 17:13: Hovind asserts that behemoth mention in the Book of Job was obviously a dinosaur
> 
> 20:25: Satan twisted Gods creation by making scientists say that dinosaurs really lived million years ago
> 
> 22:25: Hovind offers the kids a choice between evolution (obviously disproven) and a creator.
> 
> 23 Hovind tells the kids that evolutionists are deceiving people about the evidence we have to support our theory. (Im checking myself for horns).
> 
> Of all the horrible aspects of religion, the worst is the imperative to brainwash kids with lies that support your own faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, #1 American Loon.
Click to expand...

Oh, you poor angry fundie. Absent stalking me through post after post, you're left with nothing to contribute. 

What lovely Dark Ages superstition your brethren from a twisted alternate reality promulgate. Such are the dangers of fundamentalist christianity.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question,why did not the superior traits such as strength,sense of smell,and land speed not get passed on to humans if we are related ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that's how evolution works, some species pick up things that they need and others don't pick up the same traits. Humans have better brains so they needed less strength, speed, ... than other species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try. Modern evolution does not claim this. Catch up!!!
Click to expand...


How ironic that a science hating Christian creationist would seek to lecture anyone regarding "modern evolution". Is there such a thing as "modern evolution"?


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because that's how evolution works, some species pick up things that they need and others don't pick up the same traits. Humans have better brains so they needed less strength, speed, ... than other species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try. Modern evolution does not claim this. Catch up!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How ironic that a science hating Christian creationist would seek to lecture anyone regarding "modern evolution". Is there such a thing as "modern evolution"?
Click to expand...



Good stuff Hollie. Where do you find these cretins??


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try. Modern evolution does not claim this. Catch up!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How ironic that a science hating Christian creationist would seek to lecture anyone regarding "modern evolution". Is there such a thing as "modern evolution"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good stuff Hollie. Where do you find these cretins??
Click to expand...


At the Clearwater revival. Duh.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because that's how evolution works, some species pick up things that they need and others don't pick up the same traits. Humans have better brains so they needed less strength, speed, ... than other species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try. Modern evolution does not claim this. Catch up!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How ironic that a science hating Christian creationist would seek to lecture anyone regarding "modern evolution". Is there such a thing as "modern evolution"? Why am I such a loon?
Click to expand...


Yes. This isn't your dad's TOE's mobile.


----------



## 1smallstep4ham

Yes, don't believe liberals! Liberals are bad! No conservative has ever lied, cheated, covered anything up, or been corrupt in some way. Conservatives are people of God, and therefore, are better and have the moral high ground no matter what they do. Calling people on their shit, one thing. Having a double standard while doing it, doesn't make you any better.


----------



## eots

ima said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> for that matter, why did the gods make apes stronger by comparison than humans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> good question,why did not the superior traits such as strength,sense of smell,and land speed not get passed on to humans if we are related ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because that's how evolution works, some species pick up things that they need and others don't pick up the same traits. Humans have better brains so they needed less strength, speed, ... Than other species.
Click to expand...


oh fuck dont pretend you know...


----------



## eots

The fairy story of the end of the neanderthal and arrival of the cro-mag is enough to show they have no clue..its not really science..


----------



## CandySlice

eots said:


> The fairy story of the end of the neanderthal and arrival of the cro-mag is enough to show they have no clue..its not really science..



Eots. Aren't you the ding bat that still thinks 9/11 was an inside job?? How good could your grip on reality be??


----------



## CandySlice

As for Darwins discoveries, it would be helpful to remember that Darwin specifically said he didn't know where the original cell or cells came from and he wasn't going to guess. He said the origin of life itself was a hopeless inquiry. In Origin of the Species (and how many here have actually READ that interesting book?) Darwin said that in the beginning it was the Creator (with a capital c) who breathed life into the first single cell or several single cells, and it would be far in the future before the answer would be made clear. I wonder if he could have invisioned DNA?
Now notice, if you will, Darwin probably did more than any other person to  extinguish religious faith among educated people and yet he was NOT an athiest. He bows to the Creator.
He probabaly couldn't even concieve of being an atheist. In his day not even the most daring, rationalistic  philosophers, not even David Hume professed to be athiests.  It's not until the end of the 19th century we are met with the first athiest of any prominence :Nietzche. I suspect Darwin  figured that since nobody had the foggiest idea as to what created life in the first place, why not just lay it off on the Creator and let it go at that?

Keep in mind, the origin of the species and the origins of life are two entirely different concepts.

Darwin was not a neuro-scientist. His knowledge of the human brain was primitive at best. He knew nothing of genetics even though they  were discovered by a contemporary of his, an Austrian monk named Gregor Johann Mendel- whose work strengthens the case for evolution tremendously. But Darwin did something more fundamental. He obliterated the cardinal distinction between Man and the beasts of the field. It had always been a truism that Man was a rational being and the beasts operated on 'instinct'. But what is instinct? It's what we now know to be  the genetic code an animal is born with.

If man is an animal to what extent does his genetic code govern his life? Here we get into the realm of spiirtualism---or perhaps a little help from a higher life form, possibly from outside this universe (Pan Spermia?)
The ancient Sumerians plainly state in their texts that the 'Gods' bred us, as we are today--more or less, so we could function as slaves for those higher beings.
Strange stuff but it does answer a few basic  questions and I don't think any discussion on this subject can go very far without considering our 'true' origins.

And this doesn't go against the concept of God at all. It merely makes Him bigger. No matter, if you will, who created US, SOMEBODY created THEM.


----------



## CandySlice

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How ironic that a science hating Christian creationist would seek to lecture anyone regarding "modern evolution". Is there such a thing as "modern evolution"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good stuff Hollie. Where do you find these cretins??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the Clearwater revival. Duh.
Click to expand...


Duh sums you up very nicely. Your name calling and nonsense relegates you to the level of non-intellectual. You are easily overlooked.


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good stuff Hollie. Where do you find these cretins??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the Clearwater revival. Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh sums you up very nicely. Your name calling and nonsense relegates you to the level of non-intellectual. You are easily overlooked.
Click to expand...

 You just revealed your age and immaturity as that joke went right over your head.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creedence_Clearwater_Revival

Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the Clearwater revival. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duh sums you up very nicely. Your name calling and nonsense relegates you to the level of non-intellectual. You are easily overlooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.
Click to expand...


Oh my, it's the angry stalker.


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> As for Darwins discoveries, it would be helpful to remember that Darwin specifically said he didn't know where the original cell or cells came from and *he wasn't going to guess.*


 Let's do a little fact check and look at Darwin's guess:

&#8220;It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.&#8221; Charles Darwin in a letter to Joseph Hooker-1871



CandySlice said:


> He said... USELESS MADE UP COMMENTARY DELETED FOR BREVITY ...why not just lay it off on the Creator and let it go at that?
> 
> Keep in mind, *the origin of the species and the origins of life are two entirely different concepts.*


 Says who? Modern Atheist? The scientists of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries certainly didn't view them as such. 

"The problem of the nature of life and the problem of its origin have become inseparable." Aleksandr Oparin



CandySlice said:


> Darwin was not a neuro-scientist. His knowledge of the human brain was primitive at best. He knew nothing of genetics even though they  were discovered by a contemporary of his, an Austrian monk named Gregor Johann Mendel- whose work strengthens the case for evolution tremendously. But Darwin did something more fundamental. He obliterated the cardinal distinction between Man and the beasts of the field. It had always been a truism that Man was a rational being and the beasts operated on 'instinct'. But what is instinct? It's what we now know to be  the genetic code an animal is born with.
> 
> If man is an animal to what extent does his genetic code govern his life? Here we get into the realm of spiirtualism---or perhaps a little help from a higher life form, possibly from outside this universe (Pan Spermia?)
> The ancient Sumerians plainly state in their texts that the 'Gods' bred us, as we are today--more or less, so we could function as slaves for those higher beings.
> Strange stuff but it does answer a few basic  questions and I don't think any discussion on this subject can go very far without considering our 'true' origins.
> 
> And this doesn't go against the concept of God at all. It merely makes Him bigger. No matter, if you will, who created US, *SOMEBODY created THEM.*


This statement has be repeated over and over by Hollie but it is NOT a logical requirement of Theism. This atheist "cut and paste" argument is the fallacious application of the statement "A BEGINNING necessitates a CAUSE." However, the Christian form of Theism teaches that the Judeo-Christian God has always existed, and predates the Big Bang. Since the Judeo-Christian God exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The Christian God has always existed and was never created. Atheists seem to ignore this fact continually. We are talking about religious theology. And these claims about God's pre-existence and having no beginning are outlined in the Christian Holy Book the Bible. So obviously, when atheist refer to a god that requires a creator, they cannot logically be referring to the Christian God as described in the Bible. This is what happens when folks on the internet cut and paste statements from atheist propaganda websites without a full understanding of the logic behind the arguments they are cutting and pasting.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duh sums you up very nicely. Your name calling and nonsense relegates you to the level of non-intellectual. You are easily overlooked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my, it's the angry stalker.
Click to expand...

 Stalker??? How is it that you can be gone for 24 hours but the second I post, you jump in. Okay pot, remind me again who the stalker is?

I like your alter ego Candyslice better. Or maybe Rugged Touch should make an appearance here.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:
			
		

> This statement has be repeated over and over by Hollie but it is NOT a logical requirement of Theism. This atheist cut and paste argument in the fallacious application of the statement "A BEGINNING necessitates a CAUSE." However, the Christian form of Theism teaches that the Judeo-Christian God has always existed, and predates the Big Bang. Since the Judeo-Christian God exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The Christian God has always existed and was never created. Atheists seem to ignore this fact continually. We are talking about religious theology. And these claims about God's pre-existence and having no beginning are outlined in the Christian Holy Book the Bible. So obviously, when atheist refer to a god that requires a creator, they cannot logically be referring to the Christian God as described in the Bible. This is what happens when folks on the internet cut and paste statements from atheist propaganda websites without a full understanding of the logic behind the arguments they are cutting and pasting.



The appeals to supernaturalism are cut and asted over and over by my stalker. He will make claims to his gods being uncaused, existing eternally, etc., etc., because it excuses the fundies from the discipline of reason and rationality.

Instead of the "christian god" as used by my stalker, substitute _"The Easter Bunny_". 

According to my stalker, a "logical requirement" for _"The Easter Bunny_" flows along the lines of: Since _"The Easter Bunny_" exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He (_"The Easter Bunny_" -ed.) should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The _"The Easter Bunny_" has always existed and was never created.

It's all very logical in the weird and twisted world of _"The Easter Bunny'ists_"


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, it's the angry stalker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stalker??? How is it that you can be gone for 24 hours but the second I post, you jump in. Okay pot, remind me again who the stalker is?
> 
> I like your alter ego Candyslice better. Or maybe Rugged Touch should make an appearance here.
Click to expand...


A stalker with paranoid delusions. Never saw that one comin".


----------



## Hollie

More lying creationists, now with Biblical justification « Why Evolution Is True

*More lying creationists, now with Biblical justification*

There seems to be no limit to the duplicity of creationists when trying to sell their snake oil to the public. The latest example involves the movie &#8220;The Voyage That Shook the World,&#8221; (http://www.thevoyage.tv/a) movie that looks very like a historical documentary, produced by the Australian Company &#8220;Fathom Media&#8221;. But this company turns out to be a front for Creation Ministries International. (Creation - Creation Ministries International)

&#8220;Fathom&#8221; secured the participation of three eminent historians of science, Sandra Herbert, Peter Bowler, and Janet Browne, who appear as talking heads in the movie. None of these people knew who was really backing that movie nor that it would have a creationist slant.

Now the familiar story unfolds: these interviews were subsequently edited to paint a denigrating picture of Darwin and evolution. Herbert, Bowler, and Browne report how they were taken in and bowdlerized in a short piece in the History of Science Society&#8217;s newsletter:
The interviews filmed with us have been edited to highlight certain aspects of Darwin&#8217;s views and character. Janet Browne&#8217;s remarks about his childhood delight in making up stories to impress people is used to imply that the same motive may have driven his scientific thinking. Peter Bowler&#8217;s description of Darwin&#8217;s later views on racial inequality is used in the film, but not Bowler&#8217;s account of Adrian Desmond and James Moore&#8217;s thesis that Darwin was inspired by his opposition to racism and slavery. Sandra Herbert&#8217;s comment that Darwin&#8217;s theory required explanation of many aspects of life was edited down to imply that his theory required explanation of all aspects of life. The overall impression is given that Darwin had an enquiring mind but was led astray by his theoretical preconceptions, a view backed up through interviews with several scientists, including one who expresses open doubts about evolution. The film also suggests that what is ultimately at stake is a clash of world views rather than the resolution of scientific questions.

The producers admit that they were duplicitous, but claim that this lying was for the greater good. As William Crawley, a blogger for the BBC, reports:
Phil Bell, CEO of Creation Ministries UK, acknoweged [sic] that his organisation established a &#8220;front company&#8221; called Fathom Media, because they were concerned that experts such as Peter Bowler would not agree to take part in the film if they realised it was an &#8220;overtly Creationist&#8221; production. &#8220;At the end of the day,&#8221; he said, &#8220;[when] people see &#8216;Creationist&#8217;, instantly the shutters go up and that would have shut us off from talking to the sort of experts, such as Professor Bowler, that we wanted to get to.&#8221;


----------



## CandySlice

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the Clearwater revival. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duh sums you up very nicely. Your name calling and nonsense relegates you to the level of non-intellectual. You are easily overlooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just revealed your age and immaturity as that joke went right over your head.  Creedence Clearwater Revival - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.
Click to expand...


Was that supposed t be a joke? I didn't get any further into your mindset than 'Duh'. As for CCR, what does that have to do with anything?


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, it's the angry stalker.
> 
> 
> 
> Stalker??? How is it that you can be gone for 24 hours but the second I post, you jump in. Okay pot, remind me again who the stalker is?
> 
> I like your alter ego Candyslice better. Or maybe Rugged Touch should make an appearance here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A stalker with paranoid delusions. Never saw that one comin".
Click to expand...


HOLLIE, since you are me now, why don't you pay the electric this month? Im tapped How dumb is this guy anyway?? I guess when you play those childish games you expect everyone else to do it too. What a pity.
By the way, Hol, if I HAD to be somebody else, you wouldn't be a bad choice. I sure don't want to be that corn nugget Ultimate Embarassment, THAT'S for sure.


----------



## konradv

Can we all agree to end this thread at 10,000 posts?  Hasn't it all been said hundreds of times already?


----------



## CandySlice

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Darwins discoveries, it would be helpful to remember that Darwin specifically said he didn't know where the original cell or cells came from and *he wasn't going to guess.*
> 
> 
> 
> Let's do a little fact check and look at Darwin's guess:
> 
> &#8220;It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.&#8221; Charles Darwin in a letter to Joseph Hooker-1871
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said... USELESS MADE UP COMMENTARY DELETED FOR BREVITY ...why not just lay it off on the Creator and let it go at that?
> 
> Keep in mind, *the origin of the species and the origins of life are two entirely different concepts.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who? Modern Atheist? The scientists of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries certainly didn't view them as such.
> 
> "The problem of the nature of life and the problem of its origin have become inseparable." Aleksandr Oparin
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin was not a neuro-scientist. His knowledge of the human brain was primitive at best. He knew nothing of genetics even though they  were discovered by a contemporary of his, an Austrian monk named Gregor Johann Mendel- whose work strengthens the case for evolution tremendously. But Darwin did something more fundamental. He obliterated the cardinal distinction between Man and the beasts of the field. It had always been a truism that Man was a rational being and the beasts operated on 'instinct'. But what is instinct? It's what we now know to be  the genetic code an animal is born with.
> 
> If man is an animal to what extent does his genetic code govern his life? Here we get into the realm of spiirtualism---or perhaps a little help from a higher life form, possibly from outside this universe (Pan Spermia?)
> The ancient Sumerians plainly state in their texts that the 'Gods' bred us, as we are today--more or less, so we could function as slaves for those higher beings.
> Strange stuff but it does answer a few basic  questions and I don't think any discussion on this subject can go very far without considering our 'true' origins.
> 
> And this doesn't go against the concept of God at all. It merely makes Him bigger. No matter, if you will, who created US, *SOMEBODY created THEM.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This statement has be repeated over and over by Hollie but it is NOT a logical requirement of Theism. This atheist "cut and paste" argument is the fallacious application of the statement "A BEGINNING necessitates a CAUSE." However, the Christian form of Theism teaches that the Judeo-Christian God has always existed, and predates the Big Bang. Since the Judeo-Christian God exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The Christian God has always existed and was never created. Atheists seem to ignore this fact continually. We are talking about religious theology. And these claims about God's pre-existence and having no beginning are outlined in the Christian Holy Book the Bible. So obviously, when atheist refer to a god that requires a creator, they cannot logically be referring to the Christian God as described in the Bible. This is what happens when folks on the internet cut and paste statements from atheist propaganda websites without a full understanding of the logic behind the arguments they are cutting and pasting.
Click to expand...


Cut and paste? Those are MY words. Get over yourself you self aggrandizing little putz. I aimed that statement at people MUCH wiser than you but thanks for your repetitive, sophomoric input none-the-less.:clap
The funny part is you missed the entire point.


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duh sums you up very nicely. Your name calling and nonsense relegates you to the level of non-intellectual. You are easily overlooked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my, it's the angry stalker.
Click to expand...


I figured it was something like that. A hold-over from the old AOL message boards. Childish to say the least and totally unable to come up with any new material after all this time.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement has be repeated over and over by Hollie but it is NOT a logical requirement of Theism. This atheist cut and paste argument in the fallacious application of the statement "A BEGINNING necessitates a CAUSE." However, the Christian form of Theism teaches that the Judeo-Christian God has always existed, and predates the Big Bang. Since the Judeo-Christian God exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The Christian God has always existed and was never created. Atheists seem to ignore this fact continually. We are talking about religious theology. And these claims about God's pre-existence and having no beginning are outlined in the Christian Holy Book the Bible. So obviously, when atheist refer to a god that requires a creator, they cannot logically be referring to the Christian God as described in the Bible. This is what happens when folks on the internet cut and paste statements from atheist propaganda websites without a full understanding of the logic behind the arguments they are cutting and pasting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The appeals to supernaturalism are cut and asted over and over by my stalker. He will make claims to his gods being uncaused, existing eternally, etc., etc., because it excuses the fundies from the discipline of reason and rationality.
> 
> Instead of the "christian god" as used by my stalker, substitute _"The Easter Bunny_".
> 
> According to my stalker, a "logical requirement" for _"The Easter Bunny_" flows along the lines of: Since _"The Easter Bunny_" exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He (_"The Easter Bunny_" -ed.) should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The _"The Easter Bunny_" has always existed and was never created.
> 
> It's all very logical in the weird and twisted world of _"The Easter Bunny'ists_"
Click to expand...


I guess when you are in it, you don't see how foolish you really look. Your argument about a creator begetting a creator assumes a creator. So you choose to assume whose creator? If you are going to argue against the Christian Creator, then follow the common teachings about the Christian Creator, i.e., he has ALWAYS existed. This really isn't that hard. If you want to argue about the Easter Bunny, then you need to pick which Easter Bunny you are going to argue against and then for that Easter Bunny, attack the tenets and teachings widely accepted for that particular Easter Bunny. Please tell me you really aren't this stupid to apply the Easter Bunny logic to a Christian Creationist argument that you are attempting to dismantle? Your continued ignorance in this realm just shows your unfamiliarity with the four commonly accepted worldviews: Materialism, Theism, Deism, and Pantheism. Your creator of the creator argument can only logically be applied to Deism or Pantheism.

I just started to read Stephen Meyer's Signature In The Cell again and I am amazed at what a thoughtful and accurate account it is of the current schools of thought regarding origins. Again, what amazes me about you, Daws, and Loki is the fact that you are so brainwashed in your worldview that you don't take the time to actually read an opposing viewpoint. Your ramblings trying to tear down ID sound like a child, because you have never actually explored what it is you are fighting against. I study current evolutionary thought quite regularly, devoting as much time reading about it as I do reading about ID. I have embarrassed Loki with is ignorance of what modern evolutionary theory teaches. Like you, he is hopelessly left cutting and pasting from wiki and atheist websites, but isn't familiar with many new claims of current evolutionary thought. It's not surprising that he hasn't read a book on ID like Signature In The Cell. You and he rely on what others with an agenda have to say about it, and like sheep, you put your blind trust in internet atheist haters rather than exploring things on your own. 

Pathetic.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> More lying creationists, now with Biblical justification « Why Evolution Is True
> 
> *More lying creationists, now with Biblical justification*
> 
> There seems to be no limit to the duplicity of creationists when trying to sell their snake oil to the public. The latest example involves the movie &#8220;The Voyage That Shook the World,&#8221; (http://www.thevoyage.tv/a) movie that looks very like a historical documentary, produced by the Australian Company &#8220;Fathom Media&#8221;. But this company turns out to be a front for Creation Ministries International. (Creation - Creation Ministries International)
> 
> &#8220;Fathom&#8221; secured the participation of three eminent historians of science, Sandra Herbert, Peter Bowler, and Janet Browne, who appear as talking heads in the movie. None of these people knew who was really backing that movie nor that it would have a creationist slant.
> 
> Now the familiar story unfolds: these interviews were subsequently edited to paint a denigrating picture of Darwin and evolution. Herbert, Bowler, and Browne report how they were taken in and bowdlerized in a short piece in the History of Science Society&#8217;s newsletter:
> The interviews filmed with us have been edited to highlight certain aspects of Darwin&#8217;s views and character. Janet Browne&#8217;s remarks about his childhood delight in making up stories to impress people is used to imply that the same motive may have driven his scientific thinking. Peter Bowler&#8217;s description of Darwin&#8217;s later views on racial inequality is used in the film, but not Bowler&#8217;s account of Adrian Desmond and James Moore&#8217;s thesis that Darwin was inspired by his opposition to racism and slavery. Sandra Herbert&#8217;s comment that Darwin&#8217;s theory required explanation of many aspects of life was edited down to imply that his theory required explanation of all aspects of life. The overall impression is given that Darwin had an enquiring mind but was led astray by his theoretical preconceptions, a view backed up through interviews with several scientists, including one who expresses open doubts about evolution. The film also suggests that what is ultimately at stake is a clash of world views rather than the resolution of scientific questions.
> 
> The producers admit that they were duplicitous, but claim that this lying was for the greater good. As William Crawley, a blogger for the BBC, reports:
> Phil Bell, CEO of Creation Ministries UK, acknoweged [sic] that his organisation established a &#8220;front company&#8221; called Fathom Media, because they were concerned that experts such as Peter Bowler would not agree to take part in the film if they realised it was an &#8220;overtly Creationist&#8221; production. &#8220;At the end of the day,&#8221; he said, &#8220;[when] people see &#8216;Creationist&#8217;, instantly the shutters go up and that would have shut us off from talking to the sort of experts, such as Professor Bowler, that we wanted to get to.&#8221;



More cutting and pasting from stalker man(persuasion). Double Yawn.


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duh sums you up very nicely. Your name calling and nonsense relegates you to the level of non-intellectual. You are easily overlooked.
> 
> 
> 
> You just revealed your age and immaturity as that joke went right over your head.  Creedence Clearwater Revival - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was that supposed t be a joke? I didn't get any further into your mindset than 'Duh'. As for CCR, what does that have to do with anything?
Click to expand...


It has to do with your obvious lack of understanding of the joke that was presented as a play on words. Geez, do I have to spell it out for you?


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalker??? How is it that you can be gone for 24 hours but the second I post, you jump in. Okay pot, remind me again who the stalker is?
> 
> I like your alter ego Candyslice better. Or maybe Rugged Touch should make an appearance here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A stalker with paranoid delusions. Never saw that one comin".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HOLLIE, since you are me now, why don't you pay the electric this month? Im tapped How dumb is this guy anyway?? I guess when you play those childish games you expect everyone else to do it too. What a pity.
> By the way, *Hol, if I HAD to be somebody else, you wouldn't be a bad choice.* I sure don't want to be that corn nugget Ultimate Embarassment, THAT'S for sure.
Click to expand...


Okay, give it up Hollie. Now we know this is you. Pathetic.


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Darwins discoveries, it would be helpful to remember that Darwin specifically said he didn't know where the original cell or cells came from and *he wasn't going to guess.*
> 
> 
> 
> Let's do a little fact check and look at Darwin's guess:
> 
> &#8220;It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.&#8221; Charles Darwin in a letter to Joseph Hooker-1871
> 
> Says who? Modern Atheist? The scientists of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries certainly didn't view them as such.
> 
> "The problem of the nature of life and the problem of its origin have become inseparable." Aleksandr Oparin
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin was not a neuro-scientist. His knowledge of the human brain was primitive at best. He knew nothing of genetics even though they  were discovered by a contemporary of his, an Austrian monk named Gregor Johann Mendel- whose work strengthens the case for evolution tremendously. But Darwin did something more fundamental. He obliterated the cardinal distinction between Man and the beasts of the field. It had always been a truism that Man was a rational being and the beasts operated on 'instinct'. But what is instinct? It's what we now know to be  the genetic code an animal is born with.
> 
> If man is an animal to what extent does his genetic code govern his life? Here we get into the realm of spiirtualism---or perhaps a little help from a higher life form, possibly from outside this universe (Pan Spermia?)
> The ancient Sumerians plainly state in their texts that the 'Gods' bred us, as we are today--more or less, so we could function as slaves for those higher beings.
> Strange stuff but it does answer a few basic  questions and I don't think any discussion on this subject can go very far without considering our 'true' origins.
> 
> And this doesn't go against the concept of God at all. It merely makes Him bigger. No matter, if you will, who created US, *SOMEBODY created THEM.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This statement has be repeated over and over by Hollie but it is NOT a logical requirement of Theism. This atheist "cut and paste" argument is the fallacious application of the statement "A BEGINNING necessitates a CAUSE." However, the Christian form of Theism teaches that the Judeo-Christian God has always existed, and predates the Big Bang. Since the Judeo-Christian God exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The Christian God has always existed and was never created. Atheists seem to ignore this fact continually. We are talking about religious theology. And these claims about God's pre-existence and having no beginning are outlined in the Christian Holy Book the Bible. So obviously, when atheist refer to a god that requires a creator, they cannot logically be referring to the Christian God as described in the Bible. This is what happens when folks on the internet cut and paste statements from atheist propaganda websites without a full understanding of the logic behind the arguments they are cutting and pasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cut and paste? Those are MY words. Get over yourself you self aggrandizing little putz. I aimed that statement at people MUCH wiser than you but thanks for your repetitive, sophomoric input none-the-less.:clap
> The funny part is you missed the entire point.
Click to expand...


Whatever Hollie. Are you talking about the point where you blatantly misrepresented two very important historical facts in order to prove it? Or the fact that your ad hominem attack against me says nothing about how your statements about Darwin and origins are totally made up?


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, it's the angry stalker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I figured it was something like that. A hold-over from the old AOL message boards. Childish to say the least and totally unable to come up with any new material after all this time.
Click to expand...


More like a holdover from the Islamic Forums instead of AOL. Yeah, new material would be nice, but you, I mean, Hollie thought those poor Muslim boys were obsessed with her back then too. She also liked accusing adults of being teenagers. Seems Rugged Hollie Touch is the one who is delusional...



  Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## UltimateReality

Hmmm... does this sound familiar? Somewhere along the way Rugged Hollie failed to make the transition to the Creationist forum and brought all her muslim put downs with her.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## lloollwwuutt

if it doesnt hurt you why does it matter use a little empathy and dont be a douchebag how would you feel if creationists were the status quo and they were bashing on your evolution besides if you look real deep into science you will see godlike phenomina i forget why at the moment but ive known before im just tryna get to 15 posts so i can post this shit on the war on drugs with links cause that is seriously fucked. but i digress ... let it be it do you no harm you will only cause hate by ridiculing a minority thats all tight knit like creationalists


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement has be repeated over and over by Hollie but it is NOT a logical requirement of Theism. This atheist cut and paste argument in the fallacious application of the statement "A BEGINNING necessitates a CAUSE." However, the Christian form of Theism teaches that the Judeo-Christian God has always existed, and predates the Big Bang. Since the Judeo-Christian God exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The Christian God has always existed and was never created. Atheists seem to ignore this fact continually. We are talking about religious theology. And these claims about God's pre-existence and having no beginning are outlined in the Christian Holy Book the Bible. So obviously, when atheist refer to a god that requires a creator, they cannot logically be referring to the Christian God as described in the Bible. This is what happens when folks on the internet cut and paste statements from atheist propaganda websites without a full understanding of the logic behind the arguments they are cutting and pasting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The appeals to supernaturalism are cut and asted over and over by my stalker. He will make claims to his gods being uncaused, existing eternally, etc., etc., because it excuses the fundies from the discipline of reason and rationality.
> 
> Instead of the "christian god" as used by my stalker, substitute _"The Easter Bunny_".
> 
> According to my stalker, a "logical requirement" for _"The Easter Bunny_" flows along the lines of: Since _"The Easter Bunny_" exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He (_"The Easter Bunny_" -ed.) should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The _"The Easter Bunny_" has always existed and was never created.
> 
> It's all very logical in the weird and twisted world of _"The Easter Bunny'ists_"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess when you are in it, you don't see how foolish you really look. Your argument about a creator begetting a creator assumes a creator. So you choose to assume whose creator? If you are going to argue against the Christian Creator, then follow the common teachings about the Christian Creator, i.e., he has ALWAYS existed. This really isn't that hard. If you want to argue about the Easter Bunny, then you need to pick which Easter Bunny you are going to argue against and then for that Easter Bunny, attack the tenets and teachings widely accepted for that particular Easter Bunny. Please tell me you really aren't this stupid to apply the Easter Bunny logic to a Christian Creationist argument that you are attempting to dismantle? Your continued ignorance in this realm just shows your unfamiliarity with the four commonly accepted worldviews: Materialism, Theism, Deism, and Pantheism. Your creator of the creator argument can only logically be applied to Deism or Pantheism.
> 
> I just started to read Stephen Meyer's Signature In The Cell again and I am amazed at what a thoughtful and accurate account it is of the current schools of thought regarding origins. Again, what amazes me about you, Daws, and Loki is the fact that you are so brainwashed in your worldview that you don't take the time to actually read an opposing viewpoint. Your ramblings trying to tear down ID sound like a child, because you have never actually explored what it is you are fighting against. I study current evolutionary thought quite regularly, devoting as much time reading about it as I do reading about ID. I have embarrassed Loki with is ignorance of what modern evolutionary theory teaches. Like you, he is hopelessly left cutting and pasting from wiki and atheist websites, but isn't familiar with many new claims of current evolutionary thought. It's not surprising that he hasn't read a book on ID like Signature In The Cell. You and he rely on what others with an agenda have to say about it, and like sheep, you put your blind trust in internet atheist haters rather than exploring things on your own.
> 
> Pathetic.
Click to expand...


Yes. That really was pathetic.

You still haven't resolved the obvious contradiction whereby you lead your argument with a falsehood and then continue to invent falsehoods built upon falsehoods.

So correct. That really was pathetic.


----------



## Hollie

lloollwwuutt said:


> if it doesnt hurt you why does it matter use a little empathy and dont be a douchebag how would you feel if creationists were the status quo and they were bashing on your evolution besides if you look real deep into science you will see godlike phenomina i forget why at the moment but ive known before im just tryna get to 15 posts so i can post this shit on the war on drugs with links cause that is seriously fucked. but i digress ... let it be it do you no harm you will only cause hate by ridiculing a minority thats all tight knit like creationalists



As you can see, stalking is a pathology. 

My stalker is completely consumed with me, feverishly scouring the web in search of material he attributes to me. My stalker apparently posted elsewhere under the name Rugged Slut... yeah, I know it's strange but just look at the behavior of my stalker.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's do a little fact check and look at Darwin's guess:
> 
> It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. Charles Darwin in a letter to Joseph Hooker-1871
> 
> Says who? Modern Atheist? The scientists of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries certainly didn't view them as such.
> 
> "The problem of the nature of life and the problem of its origin have become inseparable." Aleksandr Oparin
> 
> 
> This statement has be repeated over and over by Hollie but it is NOT a logical requirement of Theism. This atheist "cut and paste" argument is the fallacious application of the statement "A BEGINNING necessitates a CAUSE." However, the Christian form of Theism teaches that the Judeo-Christian God has always existed, and predates the Big Bang. Since the Judeo-Christian God exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The Christian God has always existed and was never created. Atheists seem to ignore this fact continually. We are talking about religious theology. And these claims about God's pre-existence and having no beginning are outlined in the Christian Holy Book the Bible. So obviously, when atheist refer to a god that requires a creator, they cannot logically be referring to the Christian God as described in the Bible. This is what happens when folks on the internet cut and paste statements from atheist propaganda websites without a full understanding of the logic behind the arguments they are cutting and pasting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cut and paste? Those are MY words. Get over yourself you self aggrandizing little putz. I aimed that statement at people MUCH wiser than you but thanks for your repetitive, sophomoric input none-the-less.:clap
> The funny part is you missed the entire point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever Hollie. Are you talking about the point where you blatantly misrepresented two very important historical facts in order to prove it? Or the fact that your ad hominem attack against me says nothing about how your statements about Darwin and origins are totally made up?
Click to expand...


I'm afraid my stalker is descending even further into his lurid fantasy world.


----------



## ima

I think UR and hollie should rent a room , get naked, and slobber all over each other for a night.


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cut and paste? Those are MY words. Get over yourself you self aggrandizing little putz. I aimed that statement at people MUCH wiser than you but thanks for your repetitive, sophomoric input none-the-less.:clap
> The funny part is you missed the entire point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever Hollie. Are you talking about the point where you blatantly misrepresented two very important historical facts in order to prove it? Or the fact that your ad hominem attack against me says nothing about how your statements about Darwin and origins are totally made up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid my stalker is descending even further into his lurid fantasy world.
Click to expand...


If you really want to piss off a stalker you ignore him. As far as I'm concerned Ultimate Embarassment adds nothing to any conversation and is easily relegated to the dust bin. AND as an extra added bonus it cleans up the thread rather nicely.


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever Hollie. Are you talking about the point where you blatantly misrepresented two very important historical facts in order to prove it? Or the fact that your ad hominem attack against me says nothing about how your statements about Darwin and origins are totally made up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid my stalker is descending even further into his lurid fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you really want to piss off a stalker you ignore him. As far as I'm concerned Ultimate Embarassment adds nothing to any conversation and is easily relegated to the dust bin. AND as an extra added bonus it cleans up the thread rather nicely.
Click to expand...


Whatever Hollie. When all else fails and you can't present a logical rebuttal to the argument, just resort to ad hominem attacks and maybe no one will notice your epic FAIL. You still haven't addressed the historical facts you REVISED to make your argument.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The appeals to supernaturalism are cut and asted over and over by my stalker. He will make claims to his gods being uncaused, existing eternally, etc., etc., because it excuses the fundies from the discipline of reason and rationality.
> 
> Instead of the "christian god" as used by my stalker, substitute _"The Easter Bunny_".
> 
> According to my stalker, a "logical requirement" for _"The Easter Bunny_" flows along the lines of: Since _"The Easter Bunny_" exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He (_"The Easter Bunny_" -ed.) should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The _"The Easter Bunny_" has always existed and was never created.
> 
> It's all very logical in the weird and twisted world of _"The Easter Bunny'ists_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess when you are in it, you don't see how foolish you really look. Your argument about a creator begetting a creator assumes a creator. So you choose to assume whose creator? If you are going to argue against the Christian Creator, then follow the common teachings about the Christian Creator, i.e., he has ALWAYS existed. This really isn't that hard. If you want to argue about the Easter Bunny, then you need to pick which Easter Bunny you are going to argue against and then for that Easter Bunny, attack the tenets and teachings widely accepted for that particular Easter Bunny. Please tell me you really aren't this stupid to apply the Easter Bunny logic to a Christian Creationist argument that you are attempting to dismantle? Your continued ignorance in this realm just shows your unfamiliarity with the four commonly accepted worldviews: Materialism, Theism, Deism, and Pantheism. Your creator of the creator argument can only logically be applied to Deism or Pantheism.
> 
> I just started to read Stephen Meyer's Signature In The Cell again and I am amazed at what a thoughtful and accurate account it is of the current schools of thought regarding origins. Again, what amazes me about you, Daws, and Loki is the fact that you are so brainwashed in your worldview that you don't take the time to actually read an opposing viewpoint. Your ramblings trying to tear down ID sound like a child, because you have never actually explored what it is you are fighting against. I study current evolutionary thought quite regularly, devoting as much time reading about it as I do reading about ID. I have embarrassed Loki with is ignorance of what modern evolutionary theory teaches. Like you, he is hopelessly left cutting and pasting from wiki and atheist websites, but isn't familiar with many new claims of current evolutionary thought. It's not surprising that he hasn't read a book on ID like Signature In The Cell. You and he rely on what others with an agenda have to say about it, and like sheep, you put your blind trust in internet atheist haters rather than exploring things on your own.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. That really was pathetic.
> 
> You still haven't resolved the obvious contradiction whereby you lead your argument with a falsehood and then continue to invent falsehoods built upon falsehoods.
> 
> So correct. That really was pathetic.
Click to expand...


What's pathetic is you missed the entire point. Your argument supposedly rests on the claims of Christian Theism yet you strawman those claims so you can appear to be right. So correct, REALLY pathetic. By the way...

*Where did you go to college??*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid my stalker is descending even further into his lurid fantasy world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really want to piss off a stalker you ignore him. As far as I'm concerned Ultimate Embarassment adds nothing to any conversation and is easily relegated to the dust bin. AND as an extra added bonus it cleans up the thread rather nicely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever Hollie. When all else fails and you can't present a logical rebuttal to the argument, just resort to ad hominem attacks and maybe no one will notice your epic FAIL. You still haven't addressed the historical facts you REVISED to make your argument.
Click to expand...


The fundies paranoid delusions are deepening.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess when you are in it, you don't see how foolish you really look. Your argument about a creator begetting a creator assumes a creator. So you choose to assume whose creator? If you are going to argue against the Christian Creator, then follow the common teachings about the Christian Creator, i.e., he has ALWAYS existed. This really isn't that hard. If you want to argue about the Easter Bunny, then you need to pick which Easter Bunny you are going to argue against and then for that Easter Bunny, attack the tenets and teachings widely accepted for that particular Easter Bunny. Please tell me you really aren't this stupid to apply the Easter Bunny logic to a Christian Creationist argument that you are attempting to dismantle? Your continued ignorance in this realm just shows your unfamiliarity with the four commonly accepted worldviews: Materialism, Theism, Deism, and Pantheism. Your creator of the creator argument can only logically be applied to Deism or Pantheism.
> 
> I just started to read Stephen Meyer's Signature In The Cell again and I am amazed at what a thoughtful and accurate account it is of the current schools of thought regarding origins. Again, what amazes me about you, Daws, and Loki is the fact that you are so brainwashed in your worldview that you don't take the time to actually read an opposing viewpoint. Your ramblings trying to tear down ID sound like a child, because you have never actually explored what it is you are fighting against. I study current evolutionary thought quite regularly, devoting as much time reading about it as I do reading about ID. I have embarrassed Loki with is ignorance of what modern evolutionary theory teaches. Like you, he is hopelessly left cutting and pasting from wiki and atheist websites, but isn't familiar with many new claims of current evolutionary thought. It's not surprising that he hasn't read a book on ID like Signature In The Cell. You and he rely on what others with an agenda have to say about it, and like sheep, you put your blind trust in internet atheist haters rather than exploring things on your own.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That really was pathetic.
> 
> You still haven't resolved the obvious contradiction whereby you lead your argument with a falsehood and then continue to invent falsehoods built upon falsehoods.
> 
> So correct. That really was pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's pathetic is you missed the entire point. Your argument supposedly rests on the claims of Christian Theism yet you strawman those claims so you can appear to be right. So correct, REALLY pathetic. By the way...
> 
> *Where did you go to college??*
Click to expand...


What "point" are you pretending that you made?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you really want to piss off a stalker you ignore him. As far as I'm concerned Ultimate Embarassment adds nothing to any conversation and is easily relegated to the dust bin. AND as an extra added bonus it cleans up the thread rather nicely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever Hollie. When all else fails and you can't present a logical rebuttal to the argument, just resort to ad hominem attacks and maybe no one will notice your epic FAIL. You still haven't addressed the historical facts you REVISED to make your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY paranoid delusions are deepening.
Click to expand...


Wow, the stalker must have me on auto response. It took her all of one minute to spew more useless verbiage to my post.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever Hollie. When all else fails and you can't present a logical rebuttal to the argument, just resort to ad hominem attacks and maybe no one will notice your epic FAIL. You still haven't addressed the historical facts you REVISED to make your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fundies paranoid delusions are deepening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, the stalker must have me on auto response. It took her all of one minute to spew more useless verbiage to my post.
Click to expand...


You made no coherent post to respond to.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That really was pathetic.
> 
> You still haven't resolved the obvious contradiction whereby you lead your argument with a falsehood and then continue to invent falsehoods built upon falsehoods.
> 
> So correct. That really was pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's pathetic is you missed the entire point. Your argument supposedly rests on the claims of Christian Theism yet you strawman those claims so you can appear to be right. So correct, REALLY pathetic. By the way...
> 
> *Where did you go to college??*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "point" are you pretending that you made?
Click to expand...


If you can't hold a thought in your prejudice, hating noggin' for more than a page that really isn't my job to help you understand. I try to write at a 3rd grade reading level but apparently that still doesn't help you.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's pathetic is you missed the entire point. Your argument supposedly rests on the claims of Christian Theism yet you strawman those claims so you can appear to be right. So correct, REALLY pathetic. By the way...
> 
> *Where did you go to college??*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "point" are you pretending that you made?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't hold a thought in your prejudice, hating noggin' for more than a page that really isn't my job to help you understand. I try to write at a 3rd grade reading level but apparently that still doesn't help you.
Click to expand...


The "angry fundie" thing is so cute.

Does it come with a jingle?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fundies paranoid delusions are deepening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, the stalker must have me on auto response. It took her all of one minute to spew more useless verbiage to my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made no coherent post to respond to.
Click to expand...


So then why did you respond??


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, the stalker must have me on auto response. It took her all of one minute to spew more useless verbiage to my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made no coherent post to respond to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then why did you respond??
Click to expand...


Respond to what?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made no coherent post to respond to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then why did you respond??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Respond to what? Which way did he go George??
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then why did you respond??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Respond to what? Which way did he go George??
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Insightful.


----------



## UltimateReality

You and your other screen name CS have dragged this thread into the toilet. Your continual ad hominem attacks, repetitive references to ICR and Haran Yahya, and your non-relevant cut and pastes make it un-enjoyable for everyone viewing. I am putting you and Candyslice (you) on ignore. If you can actually post up a coherent thought of your own, I might respond, but we will just have to wait and see.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> You and your other screen name CS have dragged this thread into the toilet. Your continual ad hominem attacks, repetitive references to ICR and Haran Yahya, and your non-relevant cut and pastes make it un-enjoyable for everyone viewing. I am putting you and Candyslice (you) on ignore. If you can actually post up a coherent thought of your own, I might respond, but we will just have to wait and see.



If you're putting me on ignore, how you will you know if I've responded?

Silly 12 year old!


----------



## ima

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and your other screen name CS have dragged this thread into the toilet. Your continual ad hominem attacks, repetitive references to ICR and Haran Yahya, and your non-relevant cut and pastes make it un-enjoyable for everyone viewing. I am putting you and Candyslice (you) on ignore. If you can actually post up a coherent thought of your own, I might respond, but we will just have to wait and see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're putting me on ignore, how you will you know if I've responded?
> 
> Silly 12 year old!
Click to expand...

C'mon you two, admit it, you'd like to lick each other's wrinkly skin.


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and your other screen name CS have dragged this thread into the toilet. Your continual ad hominem attacks, repetitive references to ICR and Haran Yahya, and your non-relevant cut and pastes make it un-enjoyable for everyone viewing. I am putting you and Candyslice (you) on ignore. If you can actually post up a coherent thought of your own, I might respond, but we will just have to wait and see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're putting me on ignore, how you will you know if I've responded?
> 
> Silly 12 year old!
Click to expand...


Earlier today I dropped the little thing like a hot rock, so not to be outdone I guess, he has to save face by ignoring us. . .too little too late though it may be. Poor fragile ego just can't stand the heat.


----------



## konradv

Kill this thread.  It deserved to die 5,000 posts ago.


----------



## UltimateReality

The title says it all...

 Penis Worm Shakes Evolutionary Tree: Scientific American


----------



## UltimateReality

"...much of contemporary evolutionary genetics departs from the conception of evolution underlying neo-Darwinism, resulting in a widening gap between what formal models allow, and what the prevailing view of the causes of evolution suggests."

Biology Direct | Abstract | Constructive neutral evolution: exploring evolutionary theory's curious disconnect


----------



## UltimateReality

*Five Myths of ID:*

*MYTH #1*: Intelligent Design (ID) is just a fancy name for Creationism. 

The true story: Intelligent Design theory is not a form of, nor is it synonymous with &#8220;creationism.&#8221; Rather, it is an over-arching scientific theory that disputes wholly naturalistic/materialistic accounts of the origin of the universe and the origin of life. As such it is an indispensable ally for those who espouse various creation models. ID makes NO CLAIM about the age of the earth.

*MYTH #2*: ID has been dis-proven by the fossil record, which supports common descent. 

The true story: ID does not rule out the theory of common descent, nor does it support it. It is true that some advocates of ID also doubt the integrity of the theory of common descent, but that question is completely separate from ID theory, strictly speaking. One of the leading scientists in the ID movement, biochemist Michael Behe, Ph.D., is comfortable with the theory of common descent. Other ID scientists are more skeptical of common descent, such as biologist Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

*MYTH #3*: ID claims that the &#8220;intelligent agent&#8221; had to supernaturally intervene in natural history over and over again. 

The true story: ID&#8217;s claim is much more modest. ID simply states that there are characteristics of the universe and of living systems that are BEST EXPLAINED by a designing intelligence. ID is not &#8220;interventionist&#8221; as many theistic evolutionists (and atheistic evolutionists) like to claim. The idea of a designing intelligence steadily and purposefully guiding the development of life at the sub-atomic level is compatible with ID, but that particular scenario is not required by ID, either.

*MYTH #4*: ID uses a disguised form of the &#8220;God of the gaps&#8221; fallacy.

The true story: ID does not say &#8220;We don&#8217;t yet know how life emerged from non-life, therefore an intelligence must have done it.&#8221; Rather, it makes a two-fold argument: 1) Neo-Darwinian explanations for the emergence and divergence of life are sorely insufficient in their explanatory power and 2) there are features of nature, such as the specified complexity of the digital information in DNA, that are best explained by intelligent agency. We already know from direct experience how to detect intelligence in other branches of science, so inferring intelligence based on the same type of observed effects is completely reasonable. In scientific practice, we infer the existing cause that is KNOWN to produce the effect in question. Since biochemistry contains information, ID theorists infer that there must be an informer, because there are no other sources of information. Ironically, whenever a materialist says, &#8220;We don&#8217;t yet know how life emerged from non-life, but one day science will explain it,&#8221; they are actually using the Science of the Gaps fallacy.

*MYTH #5*: ID research has not produced peer-reviewed literature.

The true story: There are more than 50 peer-reviewed papers that have come out of ID research. A list has been compiled HERE. An important article on this topic can be found HERE.

Top Five Myths Christians (and Non-Christians) Often Believe About Intelligent Design « Hard-Core Christianity


----------



## VoteForTheDucks

If you tell someone the same thing over and over again at a young enough age, most people will believe it for the rest of their lives.


----------



## eots

VoteForTheDucks said:


> If you tell someone the same thing over and over again at a young enough age, most people will believe it for the rest of their lives.



Is that what they told you..


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "God thing" you refer to has been explained to you numerous times in the past 600 pages.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not dispute this. I think I was very clear that, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *WRONG!!* ID Theory on the source of information in DNA is none of these.
Click to expand...

Really?

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that change in information leads only to loss of specificity of the information or loss of generality of the information, then it makes a self-contradicting case for both the Designer as well as its design--particularly in light of the demonstrable fact that Intelligent Design Theorists agree that mutation (i.e. genetic mutation) has been observed to increase information in a genome (even if IDT demands such phenomina are useless to NDT) in the well documented instances of micro-evolution.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the source (i.e., their "Designer") of information in DNA (indeed, ALL information) is NOT subject to the theory's assertion that all information must have an intelligent source, then it is making a special-pleading case for the Designer it posits.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the intelligent source of information is self informed; which it necessarily must be in order that information should exist at all, then Intelligent Design Theory is making a question-begging case for the source of information.

If Intelligent Design Theory asserts the necessary existence of an intelligent source of information because Intelligent Design Theorists do not know of, or cannot imagine, a source of information that is not intelligent, then Intelligent Design Theory is making an appeal-to-ignorance case for the source of information.

I am pretty sure the Intelligent Design Theory is at least one of these.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though you refuse to acknowledge this verifiable fact of reality, it remains certainly true; does it not?
> 
> Of course it does.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't understand the concept that has been explained to you numerous times by now, then you will probably never be able to grasp the religious and philosophical notions of the Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll just have to excuse me for giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might have an account for this "Creator" you posit, that is NOT a self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account.
> 
> You do recognize that such fundamentally flawed notions are impossible to accept as intellectually valid? You don't actually expect me to consider any of those self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts to be worth considering as accounts of a real thing, by any intellectually rigorous standard, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, not when you consider you've ignored the valid scientific arguments presented to you ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you believe I have ignored the "valid scientific arguments" presented by you, but that belief is held in denial of the attention I gave those argument in rebutting them, or linking to rebuttals of them.

The fact that you literally refuse (ad-nauseam) to aknowledge any rebuttals to your arguments, is no evidence at all to support your accusation that I have ignored any valid scientific arguments presented to me.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't think so if you considered yourself a rational human being. If I am to assume that you are a rational human being, I cannot assume that you would accept such accounts so fundamentally flawed that they lack logical validity. So again, excuse me for giving you the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> If you have an account for this "Creator" you posit, that is NOT a self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account, please share it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please repeat this again. Someone might not have got it the first 10 times.
Click to expand...

Happily!

OR ... you could just admit that you believe in magic.

If asshats like you would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.
Q. How do explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
A. God made everything using magic.

Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.

Q. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.

Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...

Q. Why? Why do that?
A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.

Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I cannot imagine any reason consistent with integrity of intellectual honesty that you would refuse to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of understanding also brings to light your failure to grasp your OWN Darwinian religious beliefs as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true Hovindist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at your QUOTE, "How the FUCK should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life."
> 
> From Wiki:
> _"In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.[1][2]"_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Three things are thus far made apparent from your source:
> "trong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor" strongly refutes the notion that such position has any corresponding relationship with religion (in the belief in supernatural agencies, and "ritual observance of faith" sense).[*]  That the notion "that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor" is not quite a "just so story" in quite the manner of so many accounts of a "Creator" who created an existence that is "just so" precisely the way the believers of their "Creator" say it is.[*]  There's nothing that would lead one to the conclusion that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life. I accept the possibility that your source might later support a different conclusion.
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> * Loki, did you think that by moving the goal posts no one would notice that I have shown you to be entirely inept at understanding components of the TOE. And that I have shown without a doubt the claims I made about evolutionary theories claims are 100% true, and your false assertion of a strawman argument is another example of your utter and total intellectualy dishonesty. When I made the assertion that the TOE claimed man descended from a single cell organism, or an amoeba like organism, you screamed STRAWMAN!! Did you forget the whole reason I posted up this evidence from Wiki??? It has proven your strawman accusation wrong again and exposed your ignorance. Your distraction technique of yelling strawman when you don't have an answer has thus far failed miserably.*_
Click to expand...

_

I didn't move any goal posts. I just respond directly to your dopey moving target--the target that moves to a different subject each and every time I point out your retarded errors of fact, your fatal errors of logic, your disingenuous semantic equivocations, and your lack of integrity in intellectual honesty.



UltimateReality said:





LOki said:





UltimateReality said:



			From Wiki:
"The last universal ancestor (LUA) (also called the last universal common ancestor, LUCA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms,[1] is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago."
		
Click to expand...

This appears to be consistent with the evidence. However, I fail to see that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.
		
Click to expand...


Strawman.
		
Click to expand...

You use this wiki entry to somehow demonstrate that via the TOE I should be able to tell you what single celled organism human beings ultimately evolved from; I point out that your wiki entry does no such thing--because it does no such thing--and you want yo call that a strawman?

 You're just hilarious!  Do it again!



UltimateReality said:





LOki said:





UltimateReality said:



			From Wiki:
"Considering what we know of the offspring groups (see phylogenetic bracketing),* the LUA was a small, single-cell organism.* It would have had a cell wall and a ring-shaped coil of DNA floating freely within the cell, like modern bacteria."
		
Click to expand...

Yes. This description appears to be a sensible conclusion drawn from the available data, but its not an implication that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.
		
Click to expand...


Strawman.
		
Click to expand...

 Just HILARIOUS! 



UltimateReality said:





LOki said:





UltimateReality said:



			From Wiki:
"Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in his book On the Origin of Species, saying, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone would dispute that Darwin is not presenting the Theory of Evolution as a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.
		
Click to expand...


Strawman.
		
Click to expand...









UltimateReality said:





LOki said:





UltimateReality said:



			It is no wonder you struggle with the religious concept of God when you have so blatantly demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the very metaphysical beliefs on origins you espouse.
		
Click to expand...

"Metaphysical" is an awfully big word to be used by someone who struggled with difference between what constitutes a definition, what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.

The fact that I do not accept the dopey notions you assign to me; the fact that my metaphysical beliefs are entirely alien to your superstitious metaphysics; is no indication at all that I have any lack of understanding of the metaphysical beliefs on origins that I actually espouse.

Let me remind you that where you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe, no such barrier prevents me from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything I observe if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
		
Click to expand...

CRICKETS CHIRPING
		
Click to expand...




UltimateReality said:





LOki said:





UltimateReality said:



			Digging deeper into the LUA, we come across the concept of horizontal gene transfer. If there was ever an example of evolutionary biologists making up "just so" stories to force the evidence to fit their theory, this is it.
		
Click to expand...

Seriously? "Just so story"?

I'm not at all certain you know what you're talking about. I am pretty certain that you're misusing the term though.

Horizontal gene transfer cannot be a "Just-So story considering that the mechanisms for it seem pretty well understood--you know, in precisely the way the "Creator" of most typical accounts is not.
		
Click to expand...




LOki said:





UltimateReality said:



			Your denial of the presupposition of the Darwinian party line when it comes to evidence just demonstrates your blind faith in the concept.
		
Click to expand...

You're just making this shit up--just like a true Hovindist. Seriously. It's the precise made-up bullshit from you I have been exposing this whole time. The same made-up bullshit that you wish us all to believe is some kind of heady "sarcasm" that is lost on the "mental midgets" that surround you.
		
Click to expand...


This is pot calling the kettle black.
		
Click to expand...

^This is just your wishful thinking talking; it is the kettle calling the clean white china black.



UltimateReality said:





LOki said:



			Having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of yours, you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, SOLEY on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless conclusions.

Having placed yourself on a pedestal with your absolute certainty, you simply refuse to accept that others refuse to conform to your bullshit intellectual paradigm; that others are capable of refusing to conform to your bullshit intellectual paradigm.
		
Click to expand...


Strawman. I lost count. How many is that you've presented so far?
		
Click to expand...

ZERO.



UltimateReality said:





LOki said:





UltimateReality said:



*Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory.*

Click to expand...

I will remind you again UltimateReality (CHRIST! Your nick is prima-facie evidence of your sanctimonious hubris), that where you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe, no such barrier prevents me from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything I observe if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
		
Click to expand...


Whatever. You wouldn't know valid logic if it hit you in the face.
		
Click to expand...

Since you have not directly observed me being being hit in the face (or presented with, in any other manner) a logically valid assertion by you or any of your intellectually and morally deficient tribe, I fail to see how--with any intellectual integrity at all--you fell qualified make this accusation about me.



UltimateReality said:





LOki said:





UltimateReality said:



			Their response when genetic evidence didn't add up??? Evolution has to be true so the genes *must have* transferred. What an absolute joke!!! And you call this science? Yeah, whatever.
		
Click to expand...

This is how you wish to go about this? You're just going to deny the verifiable reality of horizontal gene transfer, and then use that denial as a rationalization to assign to your opponents assertions that they simply do not make, and then you're going to accuse *them* of sumitting "Just-So" stories as evidence? Really?
		
Click to expand...


Yes, really. By the way, you can quite wasting you time because I haven't clicked on a single link you've attached. You ruined that along time ago with your childish behavior linking to stupid pictures or other nonsense. You're a child.
		
Click to expand...

*AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS!*​
A candid admission from the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard's own mouth--failure to substantiate one's position is NOT due to any failure to produce it, but rather UltimateReality's REFUSAL to consider it!

LET'S HAVE A BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR OUR INTELLECTUALLY AND MORALLY DEFECTIVE WOO-PEDDLER!

You should all consider UltimateReality the definitive example of the intellectual integrity of Intelligent Design proponents.



UltimateReality said:





LOki said:



			Considering your brilliant and uncompromising track record, I really thought I could no longer be surprised by your intellectual dishonesty--*HOLY FUCK WAS I WRONG!*

Click to expand...


Ad Hominem attack. And really it is you has proven time and again that you lack integrity, so you can stop projecting your behavior on me.
		
Click to expand...

Look here Pumpkin, considering your candid admission that your a desperate denialist, don't you think that this accusation (as well as all the others) is  just a tad self-indicting?

Of course not! That's what denialism is all about! 



UltimateReality said:





LOki said:





UltimateReality said:



			I suppose I can try and explain God to you one more time.
		
Click to expand...

(*FINALLY!*) Please do!



UltimateReality said:



			If we just assume for a second all the made up BS about evolution is true, ID theory's hypothesis could easily be applied to Darwin's statement above as the intelligent agent (lower case) responsible for "breathing life" into the so called LUA.
		
Click to expand...

I REFUSE to dispute this. Seriously. You CANNOT from this point forward EVER claim I "... presuppose Darwinism (you Hovindist retard) is true and force fit the evidence to the theory."
		
Click to expand...


If the shoe fits...
		
Click to expand...

I should shove it right up your ass where it fits the best. 

No Problem.



UltimateReality said:





LOki said:





UltimateReality said:



			However, ID goes farther because there is evidence that the same intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms.
		
Click to expand...

Oh!

AWESOME! I can't wait! For you SURELY are about to present this evidence. Yes? 

I have been hoping one of you guys would finally come through, and UltimateReality ... you're really going to do it! Right?

And considering your complaint regarding how "Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory", I can expect that the evidence you will shortly provide will no no way require me to presuppose this "intelligent agent" you posit is real in order for me to conclude that said "evidence" is actually "... evidence that [an] intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms."

Just for the record ... is there a secret number of times someone must ask? I just can't figure why you guys have been holding back for so long!



UltimateReality said:



			ID makes no references to the intelligent agent's identity, only hypothesizes that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe.
		
Click to expand...

Whoa! WHOA *WHOA*! Pal!

First, there is NO FUCKING DOUBT that Intelligent Design identifies the "intelligent agent's" identity.*"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic world view, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."*​
Who cares? Right? Because you're about to lay on us that evidence!

Except that you don't. :frownyface: WTF?

You just claim that ID ... WHAT? "... *hypothesizes* that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe."

Do you mean to tell me that all every time you asshats went on about how "there is evidence" to support your claims, you were just presenting some fucking *HYPOTHESIS* that there is such evidence? NOT that there *IS* evidence, but that you've got some really good reason to assert there is evidence; and perhaps you predict you're going to find some? *REALLY?!?!?*

Click to expand...


And this differs from evolutionary theorizing how???
		
Click to expand...

In that the evidence that supports the theory of evolution demonstrably exists, is what immediately comes to mind.



UltimateReality said:





LOki said:





UltimateReality said:



			MY *religious belief* is that the intelligent agent is the Intelligent Agent (upper case) described in the collection of 66 books known as the Bible. This Agent as identified as the God Jehovah or Yahweh.
		
Click to expand...

Aren't you just lucky then that your Intelligent Agent (upper case) is the same intelligent agent identified when Intelligent Design expresses it's goal to "... replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
		
Click to expand...


Please explain to me how my religious beliefs make me lucky??? The powerball is up to 80 million so I really want to know.
		
Click to expand...

Why? Particularly since I didn't say your religious beliefs made you lucky. I said that you were lucky that your Intelligent Agent (upper case) is the same intelligent agent identified when Intelligent Design expresses it's goal to "... replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Not the same thing.



UltimateReality said:





LOki said:



			Why do you say that? Are you claiming your "God" thing is visible? Based on claims made about Him, I fail to understand why he can't make some time so He can be visible to me, and put this whole thing to rest.
		
Click to expand...

 Nope, it was just another comparison that you seem totally inept at understanding.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps I understood it all to well, and just had a lapse in my disbelief in your reliability in disingenuously framing my point.

And you complain that I should parse your semantics so carefully. Tsk.



UltimateReality said:





LOki said:



			Also, I assert that the concept of your personal "God" thing is objectively real--just as the concept of leprechauns is also objectively real. Your task (which I am certain you will refuse to accept) is to demonstrate in what way leprechauns are verifiably less real than any "God" thing you might posit.

And it's effect is quantifiable. It's properties are describable in a meaningful, verifiable, and useful manner. It has so many things in common with other objectively real things.
		
Click to expand...

 Please apply this same logic and explain the multiple universe theory to me.
		
Click to expand...

Why? Why should I accept the multi-verse hypothesis to be an established scientific theory? Besides the fact that you're terribly uncomfortable with the way your Intelligent Design "Theory" is panning out here; why should I do this for you?



UltimateReality said:



			While you are at it, please help me understand the M-theory parameters required for reconciliation of Quantum mechanics and string theory with theoretical physics.
		
Click to expand...

Granted that you are desperate to change the subject to one you feel more comfortable with, why should I just agree to do this for you?



UltimateReality said:





LOki said:





UltimateReality said:



			Your ignorant use of the adjective infers that just because something is invisible to the human eye, it doesn't exist.
		
Click to expand...

You'll just have to excuse me for not creating a comprehensive inventory of all the properties of verifiable real things that every "God" thing I have been exposed to fails to exhibit, and all the properties those "Gods" share with verifiable imaginary things.
		
Click to expand...


CRICKETS CHIRPING

Click to expand...




UltimateReality said:





LOki said:





UltimateReality said:



			Yet we know that the wind and gravity are real.
		
Click to expand...

And we have evidence that these various and sundry "God" things--including yours--is not.
		
Click to expand...


CRICKETS CHIRPING

Click to expand...

_


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki explain how life sprang into existence through this invisible method of naturalism ?
> 
> 
> 
> _"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​I think I'll go with that. A "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Crick doesn't tell you is the odds of carrying out 43 "might haves" in specific order with time constraints. Yeah, cause that doesn't take faith!!!
Click to expand...

That's correct it doesn't require any faith.

Whereas your certainty that a "Designer" magicked up everything absolutely does.



UltimateReality said:


> Why do you continually mix the religious beliefs presented with rigorous scientific method of ID?? Do you need to use trickery, i.e., intellectual dishonesty to validate your points? This is a strawman if there ever was one!!!


Nonsesnse. Your denial that Intelligent Design Theory is just Creationism dresses in the vocabulary of science is the intellectually dishonest trickery being perpetrated here.



UltimateReality said:


> This is great "just so" fairy tale for the origin of the DNA molecule. But can you please explain how the information got there?


"... by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*."



UltimateReality said:


> Can you please tell me how a magnetic tape with the encyclopedia Britannica stored on it PHYSICALLY varies from a blank magnetic tape?


I know you'd rather change the subject, but why must I explain how recording heads transfer signal to magnetic tape?

Why do I have to explain AGAIN that DNA cannot be a "code" in the equivocating way you retards insist it is?



UltimateReality said:


> Again, you fallaciously mix religion with science. I guess this is natural for you to do, since your TOE does it all the time. But ID theory stands on science alone, not religion.


There is no science going on in Intelligent Design Theory; it is ALL religion.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's a vacuous assertion. It's literally a fairy tale--complete with a central fairy, which was (unimaginatively) declared omnipotent, and (conveniently) not subject to any kind of verification.
> 
> I've read the Bible. It demonstrates nothing. The Eddas explain our creator. Pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know Odin.
> 
> What makes your God and your creation story in the Bible objectively more real and valid than Odin and the creation story in the Eddas?
> 
> 
> 
> the fact it easily reconciled with scientific observation and evidence.
Click to expand...

Then do it!



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, I asked for an account that was NOT some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of "God."
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't quite understand the question. Can you repeat this?
Click to expand...

Sure!


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Courts of law cannot be depended on to make declarations about science philosophy. To keep quoting Dover is REALY, REALLY pathetic on evo-fundies part.... REALLY PATHETIC. Why don't you and your Rugged buddy use that mush sloshing around in your head to come up with something better than "the court said so!"???  The court also says it is okay to murder unborn babies but this is a large part of the population that believes this is the worst type of genocide, and extremely EVIL.
> 
> "But people [who aren't totally blinded by their metaphysical materialism] understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the* truth standards of power.*"
> 
> "First, t*he new trend in science toward enlisting the political and judicial system to help one side to prevail in a scientific dispute is highly injurious to the health of science itself*, to say nothing of the polity, and it must be stopped. If a scientific consensus is so insecure that it has to have its claims imposed on the public by court orderas happened in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover decision in Pennsylvania with respect to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolutionit can scarcely expect to command the respect of that public, and it forfeits whatever intellectual authority it might otherwise be entitled to. Similar efforts are now afoot to impose an artificial consensus on the subject of climate change. They are equally to be deplored."
> 
> "A judge could rule that Einstein is right and the faster-than-light neutrinos are wrong. Or that you cant teach about them in school. Or whatever. That then becomes the official truth."
> 
> When "Our Best Science" Is Not Good Enough
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."--William Dembski (Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999)*​
> Is this clear enough? Not only is Intelligent Design just creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science, it is really apparent that Intelligent Design is specifically *Christian Creationism* dressed up in the vocabulary of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny. I couldn't find a single source of this quote that wasn't Wiki or an atheist website.
Click to expand...

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to the *ONE PLACE* this jackass just couldn't be bothered to look for this quote?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Loki has the right to remain silent, especially when he gets totally owned.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Loki, did you think that by moving the goal posts no one would notice that I have shown you to be entirely inept at understanding components of the TOE. And that I have shown without a doubt the claim I made about evolutionary theory's claims are 100% true, and your false assertion of a strawman argument is another example of your utter and total intellectualy dishonesty. When I made the assertion that the TOE claimed man descended from a single cell organism, or an amoeba like organism, you screamed STRAWMAN!! Did you forget the whole reason I posted up this evidence from Wiki??? It has proven your strawman accusation wrong again and exposed your ignorance. Your distraction technique of yelling strawman when you don't have an answer has thus far failed miserably.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> loki, yahweh of mischief, speaking of your primal-facial   evidence of your sanctimonious hubris, why have you not responded to the question I posed about abiogenesis? If you have theory which includes a bunch of actual processes, why don't you test it by doing an experiment that produces a living cell?? Oh wait, you mean to tell me your "just so" story isn't falsifiable??? Where did the information in DNA come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

"Owned."  HILARIOUS! 

Mr. "Just-so" Story.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki there is not enough evidence to suggest a theory for the origins of life.
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have imposed upon yourself an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support your conclusions; you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe; you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless conclusions.
> 
> You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the evidence that supports the theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I simply made a decision after looking at evidence and the explanations of the evidence.
Click to expand...

You have made it unambiguously clear that evidence has no bearing what-so-ever on what you choose to believe.


----------



## ima

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not dispute this. I think I was very clear that, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *WRONG!!* ID Theory on the source of information in DNA is none of these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> 
> If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that change in information leads only to loss of specificity of the information or loss of generality of the information, then it makes a self-contradicting case for both the Designer as well as its design--particularly in light of the demonstrable fact that Intelligent Design Theorists agree that mutation (i.e. genetic mutation) has been observed to increase information in a genome (even if IDT demands such phenomina are useless to NDT) in the well documented instances of micro-evolution.
> 
> If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the source (i.e., their "Designer") of information in DNA (indeed, ALL information) is NOT subject to the theory's assertion that all information must have an intelligent source, then it is making a special-pleading case for the Designer it posits.
> 
> If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the intelligent source of information is self informed; which it necessarily must be in order that information should exist at all, then Intelligent Design Theory is making a question-begging case for the source of information.
> 
> If Intelligent Design Theory asserts the necessary existence of an intelligent source of information because Intelligent Design Theorists do not know of, or cannot imagine, a source of information that is not intelligent, then Intelligent Design Theory is making an appeal-to-ignorance case for the source of information.
> 
> I am pretty sure the Intelligent Design Theory is at least one of these.
> 
> I'm sure you believe I have ignored the "valid scientific arguments" presented by you, but that belief is held in denial of the attention I gave those argument in rebutting them, or linking to rebuttals of them.
> 
> The fact that you literally refuse (ad-nauseam) to aknowledge any rebuttals to your arguments, is no evidence at all to support your accusation that I have ignored any valid scientific arguments presented to me.
> 
> Happily!
> 
> OR ... you could just admit that you believe in magic.
> 
> If asshats like you would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.
> Q. How do explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
> A. God made everything using magic.
> 
> Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
> A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.
> 
> Q. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
> A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.
> 
> Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
> A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...
> 
> Q. Why? Why do that?
> A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.
> 
> Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
> A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't move any goal posts. I just respond directly to your dopey moving target--the target that moves to a different subject each and every time I point out your retarded errors of fact, your fatal errors of logic, your disingenuous semantic equivocations, and your lack of integrity in intellectual honesty.
> 
> You use this wiki entry to somehow demonstrate that via the TOE I should be able to tell you what single celled organism human beings ultimately evolved from; I point out that your wiki entry does no such thing--because it does no such thing--and you want yo call that a strawman?
> 
> You're just hilarious!  Do it again!
> 
> Just HILARIOUS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^This is just your wishful thinking talking; it is the kettle calling the clean white china black.
> 
> ZERO.
> 
> Since you have not directly observed me being being hit in the face (or presented with, in any other manner) a logically valid assertion by you or any of your intellectually and morally deficient tribe, I fail to see how--with any intellectual integrity at all--you fell qualified make this accusation about me.
> 
> *AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS!*​
> A candid admission from the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard's own mouth--failure to substantiate one's position is NOT due to any failure to produce it, but rather UltimateReality's REFUSAL to consider it!
> 
> LET'S HAVE A BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR OUR INTELLECTUALLY AND MORALLY DEFECTIVE WOO-PEDDLER!
> 
> You should all consider UltimateReality the definitive example of the intellectual integrity of Intelligent Design proponents.
> 
> Look here Pumpkin, considering your candid admission that your a desperate denialist, don't you think that this accusation (as well as all the others) is  just a tad self-indicting?
> 
> Of course not! That's what denialism is all about!
> 
> I should shove it right up your ass where it fits the best.
> 
> No Problem.
> 
> In that the evidence that supports the theory of evolution demonstrably exists, is what immediately comes to mind.
> 
> Why? Particularly since I didn't say your religious beliefs made you lucky. I said that you were lucky that your Intelligent Agent (upper case) is the same intelligent agent identified when Intelligent Design expresses it's goal to "... replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
> 
> Not the same thing.
> 
> Perhaps I understood it all to well, and just had a lapse in my disbelief in your reliability in disingenuously framing my point.
> 
> And you complain that I should parse your semantics so carefully. Tsk.
> 
> Why? Why should I accept the multi-verse hypothesis to be an established scientific theory? Besides the fact that you're terribly uncomfortable with the way your Intelligent Design "Theory" is panning out here; why should I do this for you?
> 
> Granted that you are desperate to change the subject to one you feel more comfortable with, why should I just agree to do this for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we have evidence that these various and sundry "God" things--including yours--is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CRICKETS CHIRPING
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Loki, you need to get a life.


----------



## ima

ima said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *WRONG!!* ID Theory on the source of information in DNA is none of these.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that change in information leads only to loss of specificity of the information or loss of generality of the information, then it makes a self-contradicting case for both the Designer as well as its design--particularly in light of the demonstrable fact that Intelligent Design Theorists agree that mutation (i.e. genetic mutation) has been observed to increase information in a genome (even if IDT demands such phenomina are useless to NDT) in the well documented instances of micro-evolution.
> 
> If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the source (i.e., their "Designer") of information in DNA (indeed, ALL information) is NOT subject to the theory's assertion that all information must have an intelligent source, then it is making a special-pleading case for the Designer it posits.
> 
> If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the intelligent source of information is self informed; which it necessarily must be in order that information should exist at all, then Intelligent Design Theory is making a question-begging case for the source of information.
> 
> If Intelligent Design Theory asserts the necessary existence of an intelligent source of information because Intelligent Design Theorists do not know of, or cannot imagine, a source of information that is not intelligent, then Intelligent Design Theory is making an appeal-to-ignorance case for the source of information.
> 
> I am pretty sure the Intelligent Design Theory is at least one of these.
> 
> I'm sure you believe I have ignored the "valid scientific arguments" presented by you, but that belief is held in denial of the attention I gave those argument in rebutting them, or linking to rebuttals of them.
> 
> The fact that you literally refuse (ad-nauseam) to aknowledge any rebuttals to your arguments, is no evidence at all to support your accusation that I have ignored any valid scientific arguments presented to me.
> 
> Happily!
> 
> OR ... you could just admit that you believe in magic.
> 
> If asshats like you would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.
> Q. How do explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
> A. God made everything using magic.
> 
> Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
> A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.
> 
> Q. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
> A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.
> 
> Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
> A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...
> 
> Q. Why? Why do that?
> A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.
> 
> Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
> A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't move any goal posts. I just respond directly to your dopey moving target--the target that moves to a different subject each and every time I point out your retarded errors of fact, your fatal errors of logic, your disingenuous semantic equivocations, and your lack of integrity in intellectual honesty.
> 
> You use this wiki entry to somehow demonstrate that via the TOE I should be able to tell you what single celled organism human beings ultimately evolved from; I point out that your wiki entry does no such thing--because it does no such thing--and you want yo call that a strawman?
> 
> You're just hilarious!  Do it again!
> 
> Just HILARIOUS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^This is just your wishful thinking talking; it is the kettle calling the clean white china black.
> 
> ZERO.
> 
> Since you have not directly observed me being being hit in the face (or presented with, in any other manner) a logically valid assertion by you or any of your intellectually and morally deficient tribe, I fail to see how--with any intellectual integrity at all--you fell qualified make this accusation about me.
> 
> *AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS!*​
> A candid admission from the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard's own mouth--failure to substantiate one's position is NOT due to any failure to produce it, but rather UltimateReality's REFUSAL to consider it!
> 
> LET'S HAVE A BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR OUR INTELLECTUALLY AND MORALLY DEFECTIVE WOO-PEDDLER!
> 
> You should all consider UltimateReality the definitive example of the intellectual integrity of Intelligent Design proponents.
> 
> Look here Pumpkin, considering your candid admission that your a desperate denialist, don't you think that this accusation (as well as all the others) is  just a tad self-indicting?
> 
> Of course not! That's what denialism is all about!
> 
> I should shove it right up your ass where it fits the best.
> 
> No Problem.
> 
> In that the evidence that supports the theory of evolution demonstrably exists, is what immediately comes to mind.
> 
> Why? Particularly since I didn't say your religious beliefs made you lucky. I said that you were lucky that your Intelligent Agent (upper case) is the same intelligent agent identified when Intelligent Design expresses it's goal to "... replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
> 
> Not the same thing.
> 
> Perhaps I understood it all to well, and just had a lapse in my disbelief in your reliability in disingenuously framing my point.
> 
> And you complain that I should parse your semantics so carefully. Tsk.
> 
> Why? Why should I accept the multi-verse hypothesis to be an established scientific theory? Besides the fact that you're terribly uncomfortable with the way your Intelligent Design "Theory" is panning out here; why should I do this for you?
> 
> Granted that you are desperate to change the subject to one you feel more comfortable with, why should I just agree to do this for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> CRICKETS CHIRPING
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Loki, you need to get a life.
Click to expand...


Seriously.


----------



## Hollie

Fact and Fiction on Evolution Intelligent design's five favorite myths

Fact and Fiction on Evolution - Reason.com

IDiots delight.


 Evolution is just a theory; it's not verifiable or provable, and shouldn't be taught as fact.

Evolution is, in fact, the foundation of the entire science of modern biology and much of modern medicine. No, there is no absolute ''proof" of evolution, but that's not how science works. The evolutionary theory of origin of species is supported by abundant evidence from the fossil record and genetics research&#8212;indicating, for instance, that both humans and modern apes are related to primates who lived millions of years ago or that modern birds are related to dinosaurs. And how much scientific evidence is there disproving evolutionary theory ? Zero. Yes, there are many unanswered questions about evolution. But the answer to these questions is more scientific research, not filling the gaps with ''God did it."



Opponents of intelligent design are intolerant, closed -minded ''Darwinian fundamentalists" who don't want to allow alternative viewpoints in the classroom. If their position is so strong, what are they afraid of?

Opponents of intelligent design don't want science classrooms to become a platform for pseudoscience. Would it be intolerant for high school health classes to exclude material about the healing power of pyramids or about demonic possession as a cause of mental illness ? Is it intolerant not to teach Holocaust denial in history classes ?



One thing that worries scientists and champions of science is that acceptance of intelligent design will undermine students' understanding of the scientific method itself. And those worries aren't groundless. Here's what conservative columnist Tony Snow says in support of teaching intelligent design: ''ID is useful largely because it punctures the myth of scientific invincibility, while providing a basis for promoting the cause of 'hard' science. . . . Let science teachers tell kids that science is a matter of inspired guesswork, not of invincible decree." Of course, no true scientist believes science is ''invincible"; scientific research is all about trial and error. But the notion that science is ''inspired guesswork" merely promotes scientific illiteracy and irrationalism.


The science establishment opposes intelligent design because it doesn't want challenges to the status quo.

This argument shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how science works. Scientific hypotheses are constantly challenged, revised, and even disproved. For every scientist invested in the prevailing ''orthodoxy," there are probably at least 10 who would love nothing more than to revolutionize their field. But the status quo must be challenged through scientific inquiry, not wishful thinking.


Intelligent design is a science -based challenge to evolution.

The words of intelligent-design champions themselves leave no doubt that their motivation is religious, not scientific. A good overview of the topic is given by University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne in the August 22 New Republic. Coyne quotes mathematician William Dembski, one of the much -vaunted ''real scientists" who champion intelligent design: ''At a fundamental level . . . what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world."


Darwinism is a vehicle for atheism and materialism.

Newsflash: Charles Darwin was a Christian. The Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Lutheran World Federation, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis have all issued statements that evolutionary science is not incompatible with the basic tenets of religious faith. In Catholic schools, evolution has been taught for years, with no fuss, as part of the science curriculum.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not dispute this. I think I was very clear that, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *WRONG!!* ID Theory on the source of information in DNA is none of these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> 
> If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that change in information leads only to loss of specificity of the information or loss of generality of the information, then it makes a self-contradicting case for both the Designer as well as its design--particularly in light of the demonstrable fact that Intelligent Design Theorists agree that mutation (i.e. genetic mutation) has been observed to increase information in a genome (even if IDT demands such phenomina are useless to NDT) in the well documented instances of micro-evolution.
> 
> If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the source (i.e., their "Designer") of information in DNA (indeed, ALL information) is NOT subject to the theory's assertion that all information must have an intelligent source, then it is making a special-pleading case for the Designer it posits.
> 
> If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the intelligent source of information is self informed; which it necessarily must be in order that information should exist at all, then Intelligent Design Theory is making a question-begging case for the source of information.
> 
> If Intelligent Design Theory asserts the necessary existence of an intelligent source of information because Intelligent Design Theorists do not know of, or cannot imagine, a source of information that is not intelligent, then Intelligent Design Theory is making an appeal-to-ignorance case for the source of information.
> 
> I am pretty sure the Intelligent Design Theory is at least one of these.
> 
> I'm sure you believe I have ignored the "valid scientific arguments" presented by you, but that belief is held in denial of the attention I gave those argument in rebutting them, or linking to rebuttals of them.
> 
> The fact that you literally refuse (ad-nauseam) to aknowledge any rebuttals to your arguments, is no evidence at all to support your accusation that I have ignored any valid scientific arguments presented to me.
> 
> Happily!
> 
> OR ... you could just admit that you believe in magic.
> 
> If asshats like you would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.
> Q. How do explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
> A. God made everything using magic.
> 
> Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
> A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.
> 
> Q. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
> A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.
> 
> Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
> A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...
> 
> Q. Why? Why do that?
> A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.
> 
> Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
> A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't move any goal posts. I just respond directly to your dopey moving target--the target that moves to a different subject each and every time I point out your retarded errors of fact, your fatal errors of logic, your disingenuous semantic equivocations, and your lack of integrity in intellectual honesty.
> 
> You use this wiki entry to somehow demonstrate that via the TOE I should be able to tell you what single celled organism human beings ultimately evolved from; I point out that your wiki entry does no such thing--because it does no such thing--and you want yo call that a strawman?
> 
> You're just hilarious!  Do it again!
> 
> Just HILARIOUS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^This is just your wishful thinking talking; it is the kettle calling the clean white china black.
> 
> ZERO.
> 
> Since you have not directly observed me being being hit in the face (or presented with, in any other manner) a logically valid assertion by you or any of your intellectually and morally deficient tribe, I fail to see how--with any intellectual integrity at all--you fell qualified make this accusation about me.
> 
> *AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS!*​
> A candid admission from the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard's own mouth--failure to substantiate one's position is NOT due to any failure to produce it, but rather UltimateReality's REFUSAL to consider it!
> 
> LET'S HAVE A BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR OUR INTELLECTUALLY AND MORALLY DEFECTIVE WOO-PEDDLER!
> 
> You should all consider UltimateReality the definitive example of the intellectual integrity of Intelligent Design proponents.
> 
> Look here Pumpkin, considering your candid admission that your a desperate denialist, don't you think that this accusation (as well as all the others) is  just a tad self-indicting?
> 
> Of course not! That's what denialism is all about!
> 
> I should shove it right up your ass where it fits the best.
> 
> No Problem.
> 
> In that the evidence that supports the theory of evolution demonstrably exists, is what immediately comes to mind.
> 
> Why? Particularly since I didn't say your religious beliefs made you lucky. I said that you were lucky that your Intelligent Agent (upper case) is the same intelligent agent identified when Intelligent Design expresses it's goal to "... replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
> 
> Not the same thing.
> 
> Perhaps I understood it all to well, and just had a lapse in my disbelief in your reliability in disingenuously framing my point.
> 
> And you complain that I should parse your semantics so carefully. Tsk.
> 
> Why? Why should I accept the multi-verse hypothesis to be an established scientific theory? Besides the fact that you're terribly uncomfortable with the way your Intelligent Design "Theory" is panning out here; why should I do this for you?
> 
> Granted that you are desperate to change the subject to one you feel more comfortable with, why should I just agree to do this for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we have evidence that these various and sundry "God" things--including yours--is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CRICKETS CHIRPING
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


As I have stated in the past, you get the prize for using the most words to say absolutely nothing. You still, after all this time, don't seem to grasp or understand that have invalidated your strawman accusations. All your "much ado about nothing" cannot conceal that fact to anyone with a 3rd grade education who can read. Nice try though. 

Also, you have proven time and again you are totally inept at drawing comparisons. The reason I mentioned the multi-universe theory and quantum mechanics is because these are area's of science that can't stay true to the naturalistic and materialistic party line you so vehemently defend.  For science to progress, sometimes outside the box thinking is required. What I find interesting is that all of the posters on here who argue against ID prove time and again that it is not science that drives their belief system, but their materialistic belief system that drives their science. These folks never make good scientists because they arrogantly think they already know the outcome before they begin. 

Finally, although it has been pointed out to you numerous times, you continue the intellectually dishonest tactic of switching to Creationism in the middle of your argument. You seem totally incapable of distinguishing the differences in the two concepts although they have been explained to you too many times to count. If you want to address your perceived deficiencies in ID Theory, please stick to that. Don't play your intellectually dishonest game of peppering Creationism, which is a religious belief that requires faith, in with your response. This is your typical strawman tactic that you apply when you are losing. I have never argued that the Bible or my religious belief system is anything but that. While I have stated I believe it does not contradict science, I have never made many of the claims you attribute to me in your strawman rebuttals. I think you, like Hollie, are either too stupid, or too intellectually dishonest, to make the distinction between myself and YWC.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *WRONG!!* ID Theory on the source of information in DNA is none of these.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that change in information leads only to loss of specificity of the information or loss of generality of the information, then it makes a self-contradicting case for both the Designer as well as its design--particularly in light of the demonstrable fact that Intelligent Design Theorists agree that mutation (i.e. genetic mutation) has been observed to increase information in a genome (even if IDT demands such phenomina are useless to NDT) in the well documented instances of micro-evolution.
> 
> If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the source (i.e., their "Designer") of information in DNA (indeed, ALL information) is NOT subject to the theory's assertion that all information must have an intelligent source, then it is making a special-pleading case for the Designer it posits.
> 
> If Intelligent Design Theory asserts that the intelligent source of information is self informed; which it necessarily must be in order that information should exist at all, then Intelligent Design Theory is making a question-begging case for the source of information.
> 
> If Intelligent Design Theory asserts the necessary existence of an intelligent source of information because Intelligent Design Theorists do not know of, or cannot imagine, a source of information that is not intelligent, then Intelligent Design Theory is making an appeal-to-ignorance case for the source of information.
> 
> I am pretty sure the Intelligent Design Theory is at least one of these.
> 
> I'm sure you believe I have ignored the "valid scientific arguments" presented by you, but that belief is held in denial of the attention I gave those argument in rebutting them, or linking to rebuttals of them.
> 
> The fact that you literally refuse (ad-nauseam) to aknowledge any rebuttals to your arguments, is no evidence at all to support your accusation that I have ignored any valid scientific arguments presented to me.
> 
> Happily!
> 
> OR ... you could just admit that you believe in magic.
> 
> If asshats like you would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.
> Q. How do explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
> A. God made everything using magic.
> 
> Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
> A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.
> 
> Q. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
> A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.
> 
> Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
> A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...
> 
> Q. Why? Why do that?
> A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.
> 
> Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
> A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't move any goal posts. I just respond directly to your dopey moving target--the target that moves to a different subject each and every time I point out your retarded errors of fact, your fatal errors of logic, your disingenuous semantic equivocations, and your lack of integrity in intellectual honesty.
> 
> You use this wiki entry to somehow demonstrate that via the TOE I should be able to tell you what single celled organism human beings ultimately evolved from; I point out that your wiki entry does no such thing--because it does no such thing--and you want yo call that a strawman?
> 
> You're just hilarious!  Do it again!
> 
> Just HILARIOUS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^This is just your wishful thinking talking; it is the kettle calling the clean white china black.
> 
> ZERO.
> 
> Since you have not directly observed me being being hit in the face (or presented with, in any other manner) a logically valid assertion by you or any of your intellectually and morally deficient tribe, I fail to see how--with any intellectual integrity at all--you fell qualified make this accusation about me.
> 
> *AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS!*​
> A candid admission from the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard's own mouth--failure to substantiate one's position is NOT due to any failure to produce it, but rather UltimateReality's REFUSAL to consider it!
> 
> LET'S HAVE A BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR OUR INTELLECTUALLY AND MORALLY DEFECTIVE WOO-PEDDLER!
> 
> You should all consider UltimateReality the definitive example of the intellectual integrity of Intelligent Design proponents.
> 
> Look here Pumpkin, considering your candid admission that your a desperate denialist, don't you think that this accusation (as well as all the others) is  just a tad self-indicting?
> 
> Of course not! That's what denialism is all about!
> 
> I should shove it right up your ass where it fits the best.
> 
> No Problem.
> 
> In that the evidence that supports the theory of evolution demonstrably exists, is what immediately comes to mind.
> 
> Why? Particularly since I didn't say your religious beliefs made you lucky. I said that you were lucky that your Intelligent Agent (upper case) is the same intelligent agent identified when Intelligent Design expresses it's goal to "... replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
> 
> Not the same thing.
> 
> Perhaps I understood it all to well, and just had a lapse in my disbelief in your reliability in disingenuously framing my point.
> 
> And you complain that I should parse your semantics so carefully. Tsk.
> 
> Why? Why should I accept the multi-verse hypothesis to be an established scientific theory? Besides the fact that you're terribly uncomfortable with the way your Intelligent Design "Theory" is panning out here; why should I do this for you?
> 
> Granted that you are desperate to change the subject to one you feel more comfortable with, why should I just agree to do this for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> CRICKETS CHIRPING
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have stated in the past, you get the prize for using the most words to say absolutely nothing. You still, after all this time, don't seem to grasp or understand that have invalidated your strawman accusations. All your much ado about nothing cannot conceal that fact to anyone with a 3rd grade education that can read. Nice try though.
> 
> Also, you have proven time and again you are totally inept at drawing comparisons. The reason I mentioned the multi-universe theory and quantum mechanics is because these are area's of science that can't stay true to the naturalistic and materialistic party line you so vehemently defend.  For science to progress, sometimes outside the box thinking is required. What I find interesting is that all of the posters on here who argue against ID prove time and again that it is not science that drives their belief system, but their materialistic belief system that drives their science. These folks never make good scientists because they arrogantly think they already know the outcome before they begin.
> 
> Finally, although it has been pointed out to you numerous times, you continue the intellectually dishonest tactic of switching to Creationism in the middle of your argument. You seem totally incapable of distinguishing the differences in the two concepts although they have been explained to you too many times to count. If you want to address your perceived deficiencies in ID Theory, please stick to that. Don't play your intellectually dishonest game of peppering Creationism, which is a religious belief that requires faith, in with your response. This is your typical strawman tactic that you apply when you are losing. I have never argued that the Bible or my religious belief system is anything but that. While I have stated I believe it does not contradict science, I have never made many of the claims you attribute to me in your strawman rebuttals. I think you, like Hollie, are either too stupid, or too intellectually dishonest, to make the distinction between myself and YWC.
Click to expand...


And the creationist continues to stalk me


----------



## UltimateReality

Quote: Originally Posted by LOki 
"This appears to be consistent with the evidence. However, I fail to see that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life."

Strawman.

So typical of Loki to deny this is a strawman argument. He cannot go back and find any quote where I claimed that the TOE is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor. This is more of his intellectual dishonesty and trickery. He knows good and well that *I know* this is not a main tenet of evolutionary theory, but it is certainly a a goal of researchers. TOE researchers are dedicating money and time in an attempt to prove common ancestry and one of the goals of that research would be to identify genetically, the Last Universal Ancestor for as far back as the evidence would lead. In his quote above, he is dishonestly insinuating I have made this claim. I never did. He also dishonestly portrays himself to be confused that my question asking him to identify the single-celled organism is somehow a statement by me. He knows that *I knew the answer to he question when I asked it.* Researchers have not been able to yet identify a *specific *single-cell organism they claim *all *life descended from. But as you have seen demonstrated over and over by Loki in 600 pages, he does not like to be backed in a corner by being asked to respond to a question where the answer is "I don't know". Rather than admit that science, and more importantly, *HE doesn't have the answer,* he plays the intellectually dishonest game of distraction and fallacy accusation. Either that, or with all his thesaurus supplied flowery language, he really just doesn't get it. Either way, he is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly foolish.

I will not subject myself to his dishonest games anymore after I complete my responses to his current posts. Arguing with fools will merely give you gray hair and to what outcome?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*._--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​I think I'll go with that. A "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."
> 
> 
> 
> What Crick doesn't tell you is the odds of carrying out 43 "might haves" in specific order with time constraints. Yeah, cause that doesn't take faith!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's correct it doesn't require any faith.
> 
> Whereas your certainty that a "Designer" magicked up everything absolutely does.
> 
> Nonsesnse. Your denial that Intelligent Design Theory is just Creationism dresses in the vocabulary of science is the intellectually dishonest trickery being perpetrated here.
> 
> "... by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*."
> 
> I know you'd rather change the subject, but why must I explain how recording heads transfer signal to magnetic tape?
> 
> Why do I have to explain AGAIN that DNA cannot be a "code" in the equivocating way you retards insist it is?
> 
> There is no science going on in Intelligent Design Theory; it is ALL religion.
> 
> Then do it!
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, I asked for an account that was NOT some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of "God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't quite understand the question. Can you repeat this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure!
Click to expand...


Just what have I claimed about the code? It contains Shannon information, but not just Shannon information, but information with specificity. Here, maybe this example will help you understand: Both the following number sequences contain the same amount of Shannon information, 33.2 bytes: 3480397121 and 602 545 1256. However, the first sequence does not specify anything. The second, however, when entered into a telephone keypad, will result in an electronic communication line being opened. You have presented your strawman argument before about the "abstractness" of the English alphabet to argue against DNA "code", which I'm sure you just read on an atheist rebuttal website and you really had no understanding of what you were arguing. ID does not claim what you keep strawmanning about code. It claims DNA contains complex information or Shannon information, but it also claims information that specifies something, which distinguishes it from the gibberish you want to infer "just happened" in the primordial soup. 

Your entire post above is quite the joke. Rather than pick up a book like Signature In The Cell and read what claims are being made by ID, you rely on atheist websites for all your information. Your only source of information on the topic is what you have read on the internet. How sad. You will remain hopelessly lost in your ignorance.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki has the right to remain silent, especially when he gets totally owned.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Loki, did you think that by moving the goal posts no one would notice that I have shown you to be entirely inept at understanding components of the TOE. And that I have shown without a doubt the claim I made about evolutionary theory's claims are 100% true, and your false assertion of a strawman argument is another example of your utter and total intellectualy dishonesty. When I made the assertion that the TOE claimed man descended from a single cell organism, or an amoeba like organism, you screamed STRAWMAN!! Did you forget the whole reason I posted up this evidence from Wiki??? It has proven your strawman accusation wrong again and exposed your ignorance. Your distraction technique of yelling strawman when you don't have an answer has thus far failed miserably.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> loki, yahweh of mischief, speaking of your primal-facial   evidence of your sanctimonious hubris, why have you not responded to the question I posed about abiogenesis? If you have theory which includes a bunch of actual processes, why don't you test it by doing an experiment that produces a living cell?? Oh wait, you mean to tell me your "just so" story isn't falsifiable??? Where did the information in DNA come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Owned."  HILARIOUS!
> 
> Mr. "Just-so" Story.
Click to expand...


LOL emoticon's do not count as a logical rebuttal. 

Please point me to the experiment that uses "ordinary chemical reactions" to produce highly specified molecular machines that not only build proteins, but make incredibly accurate copies of the original information in the information carrying molecule. And while you are at it, please address the enigma of how the very machines that make the copies or build the proteins require the very code they are using to exist in the first place? If there ever was a chicken/egg problem, this is it. I'll be waiting.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Crick doesn't tell you is the odds of carrying out 43 "might haves" in specific order with time constraints. Yeah, cause that doesn't take faith!!!
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct it doesn't require any faith.
> 
> Whereas your certainty that a "Designer" magicked up everything absolutely does.
> 
> Nonsesnse. Your denial that Intelligent Design Theory is just Creationism dresses in the vocabulary of science is the intellectually dishonest trickery being perpetrated here.
> 
> "... by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*."
> 
> I know you'd rather change the subject, but why must I explain how recording heads transfer signal to magnetic tape?
> 
> Why do I have to explain AGAIN that DNA cannot be a "code" in the equivocating way you retards insist it is?
> 
> There is no science going on in Intelligent Design Theory; it is ALL religion.
> 
> Then do it!
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't quite understand the question. Can you repeat this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just what have I claimed about the code? It contains Shannon information, but not just Shannon information, but information with specificity. Here, maybe this example will help you understand: Both the following number sequences contain the same amount of Shannon information, 33.2 bytes: 3480397121 and 602 545 1256. However, the first sequence does not specify anything. The second, however, when entered into a telephone keypad, will result in an electronic communication line being opened. You have presented your strawman argument before about the "abstractness" of the English alphabet to argue against DNA "code", which I'm sure you just read on an atheist rebuttal website and you really had no understanding of what you were arguing. ID does not claim what you keep strawmanning about code. It claims DNA contains complex information or Shannon information, but it also claims information that specifies something, which distinguishes it from the gibberish you want to infer "just happened" in the primordial soup.
> 
> Your entire post above is quite the joke. Rather than pick up a book like Signature In The Cell and read what claims are being made by ID, you rely on atheist websites for all your information. Your only source of information on the topic is what you have read on the internet. How sad. You will remain hopelessly lost in your ignorance.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid that Meyers has only regurgitated the same foolish creationist claims that have been debunked repeatedly. Yet another piece of crooked timber holding up the fraud of creationism. 

Signature in the Cell: self-contradiction and repetition - The Panda's Thumb 


Of late the IDists have been complaining about the dearth of reviews by ID skeptics of Stephen Meyers book Signature in the Cell. I agree, it would be nice if there were more reviews out there, but (a) the arguments boil down to the same old fallacious improbability of assembly of functional sequence all at once from scratch by brute chance creationist argument that dates back to at least the 1960s creation science literature, and (b) the book is tedious and repetitive, basically making the same unsupported assertions again and again in slightly different ways. I.e. information comes from intelligence and is too improbable to explain by chance, therefore intelligence! The actual known origin of the vast majority of genetic information  DNA duplication followed by mutation and selection is (1) almost completely ignored by Meyer and (2) directly refutes Meyers key claim, which is that the only known explanation of new information is intelligence. So in one sense, there is not a heck of a lot to review in Meyers book. If you are a sufficient wonk about the ID debate, there is some interesting stuff about Meyers highly revisionist account of his own history and the history of the ID movement, and there is an interesting study to be made of the science that Meyer left out of his book, but that makes for a big project, so it will be awhile before I or someone else get it out there.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct it doesn't require any faith.
> 
> Whereas your certainty that a "Designer" magicked up everything absolutely does.
> 
> Nonsesnse. Your denial that Intelligent Design Theory is just Creationism dresses in the vocabulary of science is the intellectually dishonest trickery being perpetrated here.
> 
> "... by a *perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions*."
> 
> I know you'd rather change the subject, but why must I explain how recording heads transfer signal to magnetic tape?
> 
> Why do I have to explain AGAIN that DNA cannot be a "code" in the equivocating way you retards insist it is?
> 
> There is no science going on in Intelligent Design Theory; it is ALL religion.
> 
> Then do it!
> 
> Sure!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just what have I claimed about the code? It contains Shannon information, but not just Shannon information, but information with specificity. Here, maybe this example will help you understand: Both the following number sequences contain the same amount of Shannon information, 33.2 bytes: 3480397121 and 602 545 1256. However, the first sequence does not specify anything. The second, however, when entered into a telephone keypad, will result in an electronic communication line being opened. You have presented your strawman argument before about the "abstractness" of the English alphabet to argue against DNA "code", which I'm sure you just read on an atheist rebuttal website and you really had no understanding of what you were arguing. ID does not claim what you keep strawmanning about code. It claims DNA contains complex information or Shannon information, but it also claims information that specifies something, which distinguishes it from the gibberish you want to infer "just happened" in the primordial soup.
> 
> Your entire post above is quite the joke. Rather than pick up a book like Signature In The Cell and read what claims are being made by ID, you rely on atheist websites for all your information. Your only source of information on the topic is what you have read on the internet. How sad. You will remain hopelessly lost in your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid that Meyers has only regurgitated the same foolish creationist claims that have been debunked repeatedly. Yet another piece of crooked timber holding up the fraud of creationism.
> 
> Signature in the Cell: self-contradiction and repetition - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> Of late the IDists have been complaining about the dearth of reviews by ID skeptics of Stephen Meyer&#8217;s book Signature in the Cell. I agree, it would be nice if there were more reviews out there, but (a) the arguments boil down to the same old fallacious &#8220;improbability of assembly of functional sequence all at once from scratch by brute chance&#8221; creationist argument that dates back to at least the 1960s creation science literature, and (b) the book is tedious and repetitive, basically making the same unsupported assertions again and again in slightly different ways. I.e. information comes from intelligence and is too improbable to explain by chance, therefore intelligence! The actual known origin of the vast majority of genetic &#8220;information&#8221; &#8211; DNA duplication followed by mutation and selection is (1) almost completely ignored by Meyer and (2) directly refutes Meyer&#8217;s key claim, which is that the only known explanation of new information is intelligence. So in one sense, there is not a heck of a lot to review in Meyer&#8217;s book. If you are a sufficient wonk about the ID debate, there is some interesting stuff about Meyer&#8217;s highly revisionist account of his own history and the history of the ID movement, and there is an interesting study to be made of the science that Meyer left out of his book, but that makes for a big project, so it will be awhile before I or someone else get it out there.
Click to expand...


This review is so far off the mark with mis-information it is blatantly obvious that whomever you cut and pasted this from obviously hasn't read the entire book.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> "Ann Gauger and I have shown that Darwin's mechanism cannot accomplish what appears to be one of the more favorable functional transitions among proteins. Specifically, we've presented experimental evidence that the protein pictured here on the left cannot evolve to perform the function of the protein shown on the right, despite their striking similarity and the generous assumptions we granted.
> 
> We completely agree with Moran that this exact transition never happened in the history of enzyme evolution (and said as much in our paper). But evidently we expect more of Darwin's theory than he does. In particular, we expect it to conform to the established norm of offering universal principles instead of *just-so stories*."
> 
> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime? - Evolution News & Views
> 
> Soon folks are going to start waking up to the fantasy that is the TOE. People will look back and wonder how so many educated people (Daws, Loki, and Hollie excluded) could have fallen for the Darwinian myth.


I find it just hilarious that you deny so rabidly that Intelligent Design Theory has NOTHING to say regarding the identity of the "Designer" it posits; that it is in NO WAY Christian Creationism dressed up in scientific vocabulary, yet you cite from a source that explicitly claims that one of it's governing goals is "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

It claims quite clearly that, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what have I claimed about the code? It contains Shannon information, but not just Shannon information, but information with specificity. Here, maybe this example will help you understand: Both the following number sequences contain the same amount of Shannon information, 33.2 bytes: 3480397121 and 602 545 1256. However, the first sequence does not specify anything. The second, however, when entered into a telephone keypad, will result in an electronic communication line being opened. You have presented your strawman argument before about the "abstractness" of the English alphabet to argue against DNA "code", which I'm sure you just read on an atheist rebuttal website and you really had no understanding of what you were arguing. ID does not claim what you keep strawmanning about code. It claims DNA contains complex information or Shannon information, but it also claims information that specifies something, which distinguishes it from the gibberish you want to infer "just happened" in the primordial soup.
> 
> Your entire post above is quite the joke. Rather than pick up a book like Signature In The Cell and read what claims are being made by ID, you rely on atheist websites for all your information. Your only source of information on the topic is what you have read on the internet. How sad. You will remain hopelessly lost in your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid that Meyers has only regurgitated the same foolish creationist claims that have been debunked repeatedly. Yet another piece of crooked timber holding up the fraud of creationism.
> 
> Signature in the Cell: self-contradiction and repetition - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> Of late the IDists have been complaining about the dearth of reviews by ID skeptics of Stephen Meyers book Signature in the Cell. I agree, it would be nice if there were more reviews out there, but (a) the arguments boil down to the same old fallacious improbability of assembly of functional sequence all at once from scratch by brute chance creationist argument that dates back to at least the 1960s creation science literature, and (b) the book is tedious and repetitive, basically making the same unsupported assertions again and again in slightly different ways. I.e. information comes from intelligence and is too improbable to explain by chance, therefore intelligence! The actual known origin of the vast majority of genetic information  DNA duplication followed by mutation and selection is (1) almost completely ignored by Meyer and (2) directly refutes Meyers key claim, which is that the only known explanation of new information is intelligence. So in one sense, there is not a heck of a lot to review in Meyers book. If you are a sufficient wonk about the ID debate, there is some interesting stuff about Meyers highly revisionist account of his own history and the history of the ID movement, and there is an interesting study to be made of the science that Meyer left out of his book, but that makes for a big project, so it will be awhile before I or someone else get it out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This review is so far off the mark with mis-information it is blatantly obvious that whomever you cut and pasted this from obviously hasn't read the entire book.
Click to expand...


It was predictable that you would reject any criticism of Meyer and his unscientific methods. As one of the darlings of the Flat Earth crowd, he draws a certain amount of worship among that contingent.

As we saw with Meyers' work and with virtually all of the creationist ministry material, peer review was absent, and for obvious reasons.

When is the last time anyone read an "intelligent design" study issued by a biology department at a leading accredited university? Contrast that with the number of studies related to the biology of evolution from those departments. Creationists will launch goofy conspiracy theories suggesting reasons for that but there is simply no rational reason to suggest that there is a vast political conspiracy of literally thousands of scientists, across every major university, and hundreds of smaller schools, over a hundred years, in every country on the planet. A simpler and comprehensive explanation is that while we still haven't figured out all the mechanics and the precise history of evolution on the planet (just like we haven't resolved exactly how gravity works) there isn't any serious doubt among actual biologists that evolution has happened and is happening (just like there is no serious doubt among physicists that gravity does actually happen.)

That's because "intelligent design creationism" is not a science. It starts with an unprovable and improble hypothesis and then builds what is nothing more than a pyramid scheme of polemics around that unprovable hypothesis. I haven't read anything in the intelligent design literature that is a scientific process and reviews of the religious dogma wrapped in a burqa and pressed by Meyer as "science" is consistent only with a religious agenda.


----------



## Hollie

*Signature in the Cell?

*Signature in the Cell? - The Panda's Thumb

(The following is a follow-up to a comment I made in this thread: Signature in the Cell: self-contradiction and repetition - The Panda's Thumb) 

There is much abuzz in the ID-o-sphere regarding Stephen Meyers new book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. The book is a lengthy recapitulation of the main themes that ID proponents have been talking about for the past 15 years or so; indeed, there will be precious little that is new for seasoned veterans of the internet discussions and staged debates that have occurred over the years.

Long though the book is, it is built around one central theme - the idea that the genetic code harbors evidence for design. Indeed, the genetic code - the triplet-amino acid correspondence that is seen in life - is the Signature in the Cell. Meyer contends that the genetic code cannot have originated without the intervention of intelligence, that physics and chemistry cannot on their own accords account for the origin of the code.

It is this context that a recent paper by Yarus et al. (Yarus M, Widmann JJ, Knight R, 2009, RNA-Amino Acid Binding: A Stereochemical Era for the Genetic Code, J Mol Evol 69:406-429) (Journal of Molecular Evolution, Volume 69, Number 5 - SpringerLink) merits discussion. This paper sums up several avenues of investigation into the mode of RNA-amino acid interaction, and places the body of work into an interesting light with respect to the origin of the genetic code. The bottom line, in terms that relate to Meyers book, is that chemistry and physics (to use Meyers phraseology) can account for the origin of the genetic code. In other words, the very heart of Meyers thesis (and his book) is wrong.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Ann Gauger and I have shown that Darwin's mechanism cannot accomplish what appears to be one of the more favorable functional transitions among proteins. Specifically, we've presented experimental evidence that the protein pictured here on the left cannot evolve to perform the function of the protein shown on the right, despite their striking similarity and the generous assumptions we granted.
> 
> We completely agree with Moran that this exact transition never happened in the history of enzyme evolution (and said as much in our paper). But evidently we expect more of Darwin's theory than he does. In particular, we expect it to conform to the established norm of offering universal principles instead of *just-so stories*."
> 
> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime? - Evolution News & Views
> 
> Soon folks are going to start waking up to the fantasy that is the TOE. People will look back and wonder how so many educated people (Daws, Loki, and Hollie excluded) could have fallen for the Darwinian myth.
> 
> 
> 
> I find it just hilarious that you deny so rabidly that Intelligent Design Theory has NOTHING to say regarding the identity of the "Designer" it posits; that it is in NO WAY Christian Creationism dressed up in scientific vocabulary, yet you cite from a source that explicitly claims that one of it's governing goals is "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
> 
> It claims quite clearly that, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Click to expand...


Please point me to the experiment that uses "ordinary chemical reactions" to produce highly specified molecular machines that not only build proteins, but make incredibly accurate copies of the original information in the information carrying molecule. And while you are at it, please address the enigma of how the very machines that make the copies or build the proteins require the very code they are using to exist in the first place? If there ever was a chicken/egg problem, this is it. I'll be waiting.


----------



## Moldth6

Where ever did you get that idea?  I am a christian and know the bible fairly well and I can tell you now the earth is far, far older than 6,000 years.  Who told you that?  I am new to your board.  Look forward to discussing this with you.  - Moldth6


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> *MYTH #1*: Intelligent Design (ID) is just a fancy name for Creationism.
> 
> The true story: Intelligent Design theory is not a form of, nor is it synonymous with &#8220;creationism.&#8221; Rather, it is an over-arching scientific theory that disputes wholly naturalistic/materialistic accounts of the origin of the universe and the origin of life. As such it is an indispensable ally for those who espouse various creation models. ID makes NO CLAIM about the age of the earth.


FACT: "*Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.*"--William Dembski (Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999)



UltimateReality said:


> *MYTH #2*: ID has been dis-proven by the fossil record, which supports common descent.
> 
> The true story: ID does not rule out the theory of common descent, nor does it support it. It is true that some advocates of ID also doubt the integrity of the theory of common descent, but that question is completely separate from ID theory, strictly speaking. One of the leading scientists in the ID movement, biochemist Michael Behe, Ph.D., is comfortable with the theory of common descent. Other ID scientists are more skeptical of common descent, such as biologist Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.


FACT: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."



UltimateReality said:


> *MYTH #3*: ID claims that the &#8220;intelligent agent&#8221; had to supernaturally intervene in natural history over and over again.
> 
> The true story: ID&#8217;s claim is much more modest. ID simply states that there are characteristics of the universe and of living systems that are BEST EXPLAINED by a designing intelligence. ID is not &#8220;interventionist&#8221; as many theistic evolutionists (and atheistic evolutionists) like to claim. The idea of a designing intelligence steadily and purposefully guiding the development of life at the sub-atomic level is compatible with ID, but that particular scenario is not required by ID, either.


FACT: "Governing Goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."



UltimateReality said:


> *MYTH #4*: ID uses a disguised form of the &#8220;God of the gaps&#8221; fallacy.
> 
> The true story: ID does not say &#8220;We don&#8217;t yet know how life emerged from non-life, therefore an intelligence must have done it.&#8221; Rather, it makes a two-fold argument: 1) Neo-Darwinian explanations for the emergence and divergence of life are sorely insufficient in their explanatory power and 2) there are features of nature, such as the specified complexity of the digital information in DNA, that are best explained by intelligent agency. We already know from direct experience how to detect intelligence in other branches of science, so inferring intelligence based on the same type of observed effects is completely reasonable. In scientific practice, we infer the existing cause that is KNOWN to produce the effect in question. Since biochemistry contains information, ID theorists infer that there must be an informer, because there are no other sources of information. Ironically, whenever a materialist says, &#8220;We don&#8217;t yet know how life emerged from non-life, but one day science will explain it,&#8221; they are actually using the Science of the Gaps fallacy.


FACT: "Governing Goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."



UltimateReality said:


> *MYTH #5*: ID research has not produced peer-reviewed literature.
> 
> The true story: There are more than 50 peer-reviewed papers that have come out of ID research. A list has been compiled HERE. An important article on this topic can be found HERE.


FACT: This is pretty much a list of FAIL.

"Unable to convince the scientific establishment of the merits of their views, creationists have long been engaged in the project of constructing a counterestablishment, which mimics &#8212; or perhaps the _mot juste_ is &#8220;apes&#8221; &#8212; not only peer-reviewed journals but also professional societies, textbook publishers, media organizations, natural history museums, and graduate programs at accredited universities."--The Latest &#8220;Intelligent Design&#8221; Journal


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> As I have stated in the past, you get the prize for using the most words to say absolutely nothing. You still, after all this time, don't seem to grasp or understand that have invalidated your strawman accusations. All your "much ado about nothing" cannot conceal that fact to anyone with a 3rd grade education who can read. Nice try though.


As was explained clearly to you earlier, your capacity to C/P from wikipedia does not in any way change the fact that your willingness to ignore the inconvenient content of the support you brought to bear to defend yourself, and your disingenuous equivocations you apply to the rest results in strawman arguments.



UltimateReality said:


> Also, you have proven time and again you are totally inept at drawing comparisons.


Really? What comparisons have i drawn that you find issue with?



UltimateReality said:


> The reason I mentioned the multi-universe theory and quantum mechanics is because these are area's of science that can't stay true to the naturalistic and materialistic party line you so vehemently defend.


Oh, I see--YOU drew a comparison. YOU were inept.



UltimateReality said:


> For science to progress, sometimes outside the box thinking is required. What I find interesting is that all of the posters on here who argue against ID prove time and again that it is not science that drives their belief system, but their materialistic belief system that drives their science. These folks never make good scientists because they arrogantly think they already know the outcome before they begin.



This is just pathological projection. You are the asshat that insists upon applying the premise of a Designer, to vailidate the evidence of a Designer, that demonstrates the existence of a Designer.

AND YOU INSIST THIS IS SCIENCE!

Your denialism is a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of those who possess an unconditional certainty that they are right, because they can't be proven wrong about their imaginary superfriends.

While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unconditional "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.



UltimateReality said:


> Finally, although it has been pointed out to you numerous times, you continue the intellectually dishonest tactic of switching to Creationism in the middle of your argument.


That's a bullshit accusation, considering the irrefutable evidence that demonstrates that Intelligent Design Theory is Christian Creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science.



UltimateReality said:


> You seem totally incapable of distinguishing the differences in the two concepts although they have been explained to you too many times to count.


You are in denial that Intelligent Design Theory has been thoroughly outed as Christian Creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science.



UltimateReality said:


> If you want to address your perceived deficiencies in ID Theory, please stick to that. Don't play your intellectually dishonest game of peppering Creationism, which is a religious belief that requires faith, in with your response.


*"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."--William Dembski (Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999)



UltimateReality said:



			This is your typical strawman tactic that you apply when you are losing.
		
Click to expand...

 Lolsome! 



UltimateReality said:



			I have never argued that the Bible or my religious belief system is anything but that. While I have stated I believe it does not contradict science, I have never made many of the claims you attribute to me in your strawman rebuttals.
		
Click to expand...

Since I quote you directly, you make the exact claims I say you do.



UltimateReality said:



			I think you, like Hollie, are either too stupid, or too intellectually dishonest, to make the distinction between myself and YWC.
		
Click to expand...

There is no meaningful distinction to be made, except the one I made earlier--that creationists who are openly so, are just a little bit more intellectually honest than Intelligent Design Theorists.*


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by LOki
> "This appears to be consistent with the evidence. However, I fail to see that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life."
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> So typical of Loki to deny this is a strawman argument. He cannot go back and find any quote where I claimed that the TOE is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor.


Oh really?

How does this grab you?





UltimateReality said:


> So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, what single cell organism is man's ancestor?





UltimateReality said:


> This is more of his intellectual dishonesty and trickery.


Really? Let's just replay that last accusation:

UltimateReality said:


> So typical of Loki to deny this is a strawman argument. He cannot go back and find any quote where I claimed that the TOE is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor.


Oh really?

How does this grab you?





UltimateReality said:


> So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, what single cell organism is man's ancestor?





UltimateReality said:


> He knows good and well that *I know* this is not a main tenet of evolutionary theory, but it is certainly a a goal of researchers. TOE researchers are dedicating money and time in an attempt to prove common ancestry and one of the goals of that research would be to identify genetically, the Last Universal Ancestor for as far back as the evidence would lead. In his quote above, he is dishonestly insinuating I have made this claim.


Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:

UltimateReality said:


> So typical of Loki to deny this is a strawman argument. He cannot go back and find any quote where I claimed that the TOE is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor.


Oh really?

How does this grab you?





UltimateReality said:


> So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, what single cell organism is man's ancestor?





UltimateReality said:


> I never did.


Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:

UltimateReality said:


> So typical of Loki to deny this is a strawman argument. He cannot go back and find any quote where I claimed that the TOE is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor.


Oh really?

How does this grab you?





UltimateReality said:


> So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, what single cell organism is man's ancestor?





UltimateReality said:


> He also dishonestly portrays himself to be confused that my question asking him to identify the single-celled organism is somehow a statement by me.


Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:

UltimateReality said:


> So typical of Loki to deny this is a strawman argument. He cannot go back and find any quote where I claimed that the TOE is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor.


Oh really?

How does this grab you?





UltimateReality said:


> So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, what single cell organism is man's ancestor?





UltimateReality said:


> He knows that *I knew the answer to he question when I asked it.* Researchers have not been able to yet identify a *specific *single-cell organism they claim *all *life descended from.


The fact that you knew the answer to he question when you asked it, yet asked it ANYWAY as if failing to identify the specific single-cell organism in question is a failure of evolutionary theory, exposes the exact strawman you deny you made.



UltimateReality said:


> But as you have seen demonstrated over and over by Loki in 600 pages, he does not like to be backed in a corner by being asked to respond to a question where the answer is "I don't know".


Spoken right after I said, "How the fuck should I know?" 



UltimateReality said:


> Rather than admit that science, and more importantly, *HE doesn't have the answer,* he plays the intellectually dishonest game of distraction and fallacy accusation. Either that, or with all his thesaurus supplied flowery language, he really just doesn't get it. Either way, he is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly foolish.


It is only appropriate that you should feel as helplessly out-classed by my vocabulary, as you are out-classed by my happy capacity to expose each of your purposefully distracting fallacies--including this latest (and lamest), "He uses big werdz cuz he thinks he's so smart" gambit.



UltimateReality said:


> I will not subject myself to his dishonest games anymore after I complete my responses to his current posts. Arguing with fools will merely give you gray hair and to what outcome?


You just get exposed for being the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard that you are. Your surrender is accepted.


----------



## LOki

I find it rather hilarious that you wish to change the subject rather than face the fact you've been ... how did you put it? .... Oh yes! OWNED.



UltimateReality said:


> Please point me to the experiment that uses "ordinary chemical reactions" to produce highly specified molecular machines that not only build proteins, but make incredibly accurate copies of the original information in the information carrying molecule.


Which gene-splicing paper do you wish me to cite? Which denial of the existence of GMOs are you going to trot out as your rebuttal?



UltimateReality said:


> And while you are at it, please address the enigma of how the very machines that make the copies or build the proteins require the very code they are using to exist in the first place? If there ever was a chicken/egg problem, this is it. I'll be waiting.


How many times must the hypotheses of abiogenesis be presented to you?


----------



## ima

Moldth6 said:


> Where ever did you get that idea?  I am a christian and know the bible fairly well and I can tell you now the earth is far, far older than 6,000 years.  Who told you that?  I am new to your board.  Look forward to discussing this with you.  - Moldth6



If you think that the world is much older than 6000 years, then you're not a real christian.

PS Jesus was gay.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MYTH #1*: Intelligent Design (ID) is just a fancy name for Creationism.
> 
> The true story: Intelligent Design theory is not a form of, nor is it synonymous with creationism. Rather, it is an over-arching scientific theory that disputes wholly naturalistic/materialistic accounts of the origin of the universe and the origin of life. As such it is an indispensable ally for those who espouse various creation models. ID makes NO CLAIM about the age of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: "*Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.*"--William Dembski (Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999)
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MYTH #2*: ID has been dis-proven by the fossil record, which supports common descent.
> 
> The true story: ID does not rule out the theory of common descent, nor does it support it. It is true that some advocates of ID also doubt the integrity of the theory of common descent, but that question is completely separate from ID theory, strictly speaking. One of the leading scientists in the ID movement, biochemist Michael Behe, Ph.D., is comfortable with the theory of common descent. Other ID scientists are more skeptical of common descent, such as biologist Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FACT: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
> 
> FACT: "Governing Goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MYTH #4*: ID uses a disguised form of the God of the gaps fallacy.
> 
> The true story: ID does not say We dont yet know how life emerged from non-life, therefore an intelligence must have done it. Rather, it makes a two-fold argument: 1) Neo-Darwinian explanations for the emergence and divergence of life are sorely insufficient in their explanatory power and 2) there are features of nature, such as the specified complexity of the digital information in DNA, that are best explained by intelligent agency. We already know from direct experience how to detect intelligence in other branches of science, so inferring intelligence based on the same type of observed effects is completely reasonable. In scientific practice, we infer the existing cause that is KNOWN to produce the effect in question. Since biochemistry contains information, ID theorists infer that there must be an informer, because there are no other sources of information. Ironically, whenever a materialist says, We dont yet know how life emerged from non-life, but one day science will explain it, they are actually using the Science of the Gaps fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FACT: "Governing Goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MYTH #5*: ID research has not produced peer-reviewed literature.
> 
> The true story: There are more than 50 peer-reviewed papers that have come out of ID research. A list has been compiled HERE. An important article on this topic can be found HERE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FACT: This is pretty much a list of FAIL.
> 
> "Unable to convince the scientific establishment of the merits of their views, creationists have long been engaged in the project of constructing a counterestablishment, which mimics  or perhaps the _mot juste_ is apes  not only peer-reviewed journals but also professional societies, textbook publishers, media organizations, natural history museums, and graduate programs at accredited universities."--The Latest Intelligent Design Journal
Click to expand...


I see you are continuing with your intellectual dishonesty with some confirmation bias quote mining. However, these quotes don't apply to ID as a whole.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by LOki
> "This appears to be consistent with the evidence. However, I fail to see that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life."
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> So typical of Loki to deny this is a strawman argument. He cannot go back and find any quote where I claimed that the TOE is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How does this grab you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, what single cell organism is man's ancestor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Let's just replay that last accusation:Oh really?
> 
> How does this grab you?​
> Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:Oh really?
> 
> How does this grab you?​
> Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:Oh really?
> 
> How does this grab you?​
> Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:Oh really?
> 
> How does this grab you?​
> The fact that you knew the answer to he question when you asked it, yet asked it ANYWAY as if failing to identify the specific single-cell organism in question is a failure of evolutionary theory, exposes the exact strawman you deny you made.
> 
> Spoken right after I said, "How the fuck should I know?"
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than admit that science, and more importantly, *HE doesn't have the answer,* he plays the intellectually dishonest game of distraction and fallacy accusation. Either that, or with all his thesaurus supplied flowery language, he really just doesn't get it. Either way, he is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is only appropriate that you should feel as helplessly out-classed by my vocabulary, as you are out-classed by my happy capacity to expose each of your purposefully distracting fallacies--including this latest (and lamest), "He uses big werdz cuz he thinks he's so smart" gambit.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will not subject myself to his dishonest games anymore after I complete my responses to his current posts. Arguing with fools will merely give you gray hair and to what outcome?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just get exposed for being the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard that you are. Your surrender is accepted.
Click to expand...


Loki, I am sorry. But for someone who pretends to be so intelligent, you are probably one of the more ignorant posters I've ever encountered. I am astonished that you would keep repeating the question asking you to identify the single cell organism as if: 1) My question is somehow a statement of fact and 2) in the very same post you are responding to, I explain I already knew the answer to the question and you did too. Your foolish pride just won't let you say "I don't know". No surprise here you follow the brainwashing technique used so much by materialist. Repeating the question 50 times will not make your assertion this was a claim (and not simply a question) any more valid. All it does is make you look like a 3-year-old child having a temper tantrum and is proof positive of your mental midgetry.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> I find it rather hilarious that you wish to change the subject rather than face the fact you've been ... how did you put it? .... Oh yes! OWNED.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please point me to the experiment that uses "ordinary chemical reactions" to produce highly specified molecular machines that not only build proteins, but make incredibly accurate copies of the original information in the information carrying molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> Which gene-splicing paper do you wish me to cite? Which denial of the existence of GMOs are you going to trot out as your rebuttal?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And while you are at it, please address the enigma of how the very machines that make the copies or build the proteins require the very code they are using to exist in the first place? If there ever was a chicken/egg problem, this is it. I'll be waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times must the hypotheses of abiogenesis be presented to you?
Click to expand...


How curious. Still no link?? Please, no fairy tales with 43 "must haves", "might haves", and "could haves". I want to see an experiment where they produce a molecular machine that can make copies of information contained in the dna.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Wow, post up a couple of pics and the peanut gallery goes crazy!!!! ... projecting all their own sick, twisted, and deviant materialistic behaviors on me. Ewwwwww! Gross.


says the faux Christian materialist !


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most everyone is grossed out by you. Juvenile behavior is expected of 12 year olds but your behavior is a pathology.
> 
> You're just disgusting. Get help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's strange is that during you frequent episodes of masturbation, is that the image you pleasure yourself to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm. I'm the disgusting one? The things you are picturing in your mind are making me EXTREMELY uncomfortable. I will require you to cease exposing your disgusting thoughts on a public forum.
Click to expand...

you're in no postion to require or request anything from any other poster on this thread ..you and your BUDDY YWC.. HAVE SPEWED MORE TWISTED AND NAUSEA EVOKING HATE THEN ANY TEN OTHER POSTERS COMBINED


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, post up a couple of pics and the peanut gallery goes crazy!!!! ... projecting all their own sick, twisted, and deviant materialistic behaviors on me. Ewwwwww! Gross.
> 
> 
> 
> says the faux Christian materialist !
Click to expand...


Please explain your flawed logic on how having wealth precludes you from following Christ. Please don't quote mine Bible verses taking them out of context.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most everyone is grossed out by you. Juvenile behavior is expected of 12 year olds but your behavior is a pathology.
> 
> You're just disgusting. Get help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's strange is that during you frequent episodes of masturbation, is that the image you pleasure yourself to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm. I'm the disgusting one? The things you are picturing in your mind are making me EXTREMELY uncomfortable. I will require you to cease exposing your disgusting thoughts on a public forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're in no postion to require or request anything from any other poster on this thread ..you and your BUDDY YWC.. HAVE SPEWED MORE TWISTED AND NAUSEA EVOKING HATE THEN ANY TEN OTHER POSTERS COMBINED
Click to expand...


Daws, please quit dreaming buddy. Please post up some of my "hate" quotes that caused you to get nauseated. Please post pics of you taking Mylanta. 

My statement with the term "require" is just parroting back Hollie's original same demand. Just pointing out Rugged's silliness of thinking she has any chance of forcing the behavior of a complete stranger on an internet forum. 

Guess you missed it so I will require you to go back to sleep now.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still avoiding the questions put to you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still dodging and sidestepping any attempt at addressing why you can't account for your gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie I don't believe in gods,I believe in the the one God creator of all. Do you actually read what I post ? I said my beliefs are based in Faith but I do see things in nature as being designed and not products of chance or accident. That to me is evidence of the creator.
> 
> If you ask this again I will ignore it.Now present your evidence that living organisms are a product of natural processes mainly the first life form that started this thing you call evolution.
Click to expand...

 ONCE AGAIN YOU MAKE CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT PROVABLE 
YOUR BELIEF PROVES NOTHING BUT BELIEF 
  BELIEF IS SUBJECTIVE ,BY ANY STANDARD IT'S NOT EVIDENCE.
FOR YOUR FAITH TO BE EVIDENCE IT HAS TO BE QUANTIFIED  (to make explicit the logical quantity of )
Your childish threat to ignore questions about presenting hard proof of your god is denial at it's most ignorant.
it is however highly damaging evidence that you cannot produce any of the proofs you need to make your pov valid.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm. I'm the disgusting one? The things you are picturing in your mind are making me EXTREMELY uncomfortable. I will require you to cease exposing your disgusting thoughts on a public forum.
> 
> 
> 
> you're in no postion to require or request anything from any other poster on this thread ..you and your BUDDY YWC.. HAVE SPEWED MORE TWISTED AND NAUSEA EVOKING HATE THEN ANY TEN OTHER POSTERS COMBINED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, please quit dreaming buddy. Please post up some of my "hate" quotes that caused you to get nauseated. Please post pics of you taking Mylanta.
> 
> My statement with the term "require" is just parroting back Hollie's original same demand. Just pointing out Rugged's silliness of thinking she has any chance of forcing the behavior of a complete stranger on an internet forum.
> 
> Guess you missed it so I will require you to go back to sleep now.
Click to expand...


Parroting the comments of others does give the thread a momentary pause from your endless cutting and pasting from creationist websites.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> lie...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No lie,what God created was perfect without blemish. Since the fall of adam that is when entropy came into play. By the way are people admitting being gay is wrong ?
Click to expand...

assumption not proof.
there is no proof that Adam existed or that god caused entropy!
as to this non sequitur " By the way are people admitting being gay is wrong ?"ywc
god made gay people. if you say otherwise you'd be lying


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I simply made a decision after looking at evidence and the explanations of the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit ! the "decision"(if it could be called that) you made was not based on an objective examination of the evidence, it was however based on a lifetime of rabid indoctrination, denial of fact,  threats of eternal damnation.
> any (lol) "decision" you claim to have made was bias from the start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you actually address science we will continue.
Click to expand...

dodge 
your post was not in any way scientific  it was just what I said it was.
and as always when your ass is in a crack, you dodge.
BTW what science should I address?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The egg of your mother and the sperm of your father.hmm how did nature think to create male and female one producing something the other needed for reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> another false claim nature does not "think" in the way you wish it did.
> nature also "thought" of :
> As a general rule, animals cannot reproduce asexually. However, there are exceptions.
> 
> Amoebas and other single-celled organisms reproduce asexually, being too small to have gender.
> 
> Certain larger animals may reproduce asexually through either:
> 
> parthenogenesis under certain circumstances (that is, reproduction via self-cloning),
> gynogenesis (via the catalyst of a male nearby which does not actually fertilize the eggs).
> 
> Greenflies clone themselves once every 20 minutes.
> Whiptail lizards, Aphids, some bees wasps and hornets, some fish and water fleas reproduce by parthenogenesis. Komodo Dragons, some sharks, some snails do as well.
> Parthenogenesis has been laboratory induced in some species, such as urchins and turkeys, but this does not occur in the wild.
> 
> Read more: What are five animals that reproduce asexually
> 
> asshat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really,nature don't think, then you must believe in miracles not design from a designer.
Click to expand...

that's doesn't and again your inability to read trip's you up again.


your wish that nature thinks in the same manner we do is subjective and unprovable.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong as usual,not the lab I worked for you are just ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> As daws correctly established, you have no degree in biology. That has been evident by your inability to offer anything but cutting and pasting from fundie websites. You have never offered any commentary of your own regarding creationist attempts to undermine biology that supports evolution because you understand none of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has been clear since you entered the argument ,you are a dishonest person and know very little of the things I have discussed.
Click to expand...

what you have discussed proves you are no biologist any dishonesty is all yours.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If humans are related to apes why are we so intelligent and they are not ?
> 
> Speak for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For that matter, why did the gods make apes stronger by comparison than humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know Apes didn't come from Humans??
Click to expand...

 
I was taught that there were no stupid questions, but there are exceptions to every rule!


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> The fairy story of the end of the neanderthal and arrival of the cro-mag is enough to show they have no clue..its not really science..


did the circle jerk end early?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the Clearwater revival. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duh sums you up very nicely. Your name calling and nonsense relegates you to the level of non-intellectual. You are easily overlooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just revealed your age and immaturity as that joke went right over your head.  Creedence Clearwater Revival - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.
Click to expand...

 PLEASE SHIT STICK I'M 53 and was 8 in 1967  when CCR first hit the scene.
they were only a band till 1972.
so they had come and gone before you stopped wearing a diaper.
you lying sack of shit.
stop attempting to play it off like you old enough to appreciate them first hand... poser!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Let's do a little fact check and look at Darwin's guess:
> 
> &#8220;It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.&#8221; Charles Darwin in a letter to Joseph Hooker-1871



I thought this earlier bit of IDiot-speak encapsulates much of the flawed thinking (such as it is) and abject denial of the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution that permeates the Christian creationist mindset. IDiots will refuse to acknowledge the underlying evidence for evolution. They will steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that Darwin's theory has only become more widely accepted as the tools of knowledge and of science have allowed the theory to meet the test of the scientific method. As such, the IDiots are forced to quote-mine material that they hope will calm a requirement to vilify science. 

 For the purpose of dragging a fundie out of the very dark place of self-imposed fear and superstition, it should be pointed out that "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them. Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.

His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.

Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact:  "Natural Selection." Contrary to the claim by IDiots that "the gods did it" by magical means as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or supermagicalism. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.

What many people (especially IDiots, creationists, or whatever invented term is used to describe their supernaturalism) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the young and growing scientific community (growing in sophistication and testing methods), did not embrace all of his theory. However, they were convinced by "Origin of Species" that the fact of evolution was true. It was only during the decades after his death that his basic theory was combined with the new science of population genetics that convinced biologists that Natural Selection provides the best answers toward explaining the biological diversity on the planet. The principle of the scientific method and process is that such theories are  tested and open to peer review. Exceeding what Darwin could have hoped for, the testing that continues even now, and the continued scientific verification of theory, has only strengthened the support for biological evolution.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, post up a couple of pics and the peanut gallery goes crazy!!!! ... projecting all their own sick, twisted, and deviant materialistic behaviors on me. Ewwwwww! Gross.
> 
> 
> 
> says the faux Christian materialist !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain your flawed logic on how having wealth precludes you from following Christ. Please don't quote mine Bible verses taking them out of context.
Click to expand...

in some cases it doesn't,  yours, since it's not real wealth is an exception.
you are most likley in debt so deep you'll never get out it.
your so called conversion is an illusion, if it weren't  you'd not brag endlessly about how god made it possible, (an illusion in it's self) from my pov all you've done is switch addictions.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm. I'm the disgusting one? The things you are picturing in your mind are making me EXTREMELY uncomfortable. I will require you to cease exposing your disgusting thoughts on a public forum.
> 
> 
> 
> you're in no postion to require or request anything from any other poster on this thread ..you and your BUDDY YWC.. HAVE SPEWED MORE TWISTED AND NAUSEA EVOKING HATE THEN ANY TEN OTHER POSTERS COMBINED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, please quit dreaming buddy. Please post up some of my "hate" quotes that caused you to get nauseated. Please post pics of you taking Mylanta.
> 
> My statement with the term "require" is just parroting back Hollie's original same demand. Just pointing out Rugged's silliness of thinking she has any chance of forcing the behavior of a complete stranger on an internet forum.
> 
> Guess you missed it so I will require you to go back to sleep now.
Click to expand...

all of your quotes come from hate every time you do the where did you go to college gag or falsely accuse another poster of anything it comes from hate.
so there!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lie...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No lie,what God created was perfect without blemish. Since the fall of adam that is when entropy came into play. By the way are people admitting being gay is wrong ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> assumption not proof.
> there is no proof that Adam existed or that god caused entropy!
> as to this non sequitur " By the way are people admitting being gay is wrong ?"ywc
> god made gay people. if you say otherwise you'd be lying
Click to expand...


God made gay people. But did God make people gay???? 

By making this statement you are inferring that God exists. You are also inferring that God makes people. We can logically deduct that if God makes people, then he designed people. Based on the truth that God designed people, we need to ask ourselves, do males and females appear to be designed to go together? The answer must be overwhelmingly yes. Upon further examination of the human body, we must logically conclude that the large intestine and anus was designed for eliminating waste products from our body. It takes an extreme leap of logic to conclude that God designed your anus for another man to stick his penis into. In fact, we know that our large intestine contains many strains of bateria, such as Ecoli, that are deadly if ingested into the wrong part of our bodies. We also know that the large intestine is fragile enough that diseases such as the AIDS virus are easily introduced there if God's design intent is abandoned. Let the flames begin...


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're in no postion to require or request anything from any other poster on this thread ..you and your BUDDY YWC.. HAVE SPEWED MORE TWISTED AND NAUSEA EVOKING HATE THEN ANY TEN OTHER POSTERS COMBINED
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, please quit dreaming buddy. Please post up some of my "hate" quotes that caused you to get nauseated. Please post pics of you taking Mylanta.
> 
> My statement with the term "require" is just parroting back Hollie's original same demand. Just pointing out Rugged's silliness of thinking she has any chance of forcing the behavior of a complete stranger on an internet forum.
> 
> Guess you missed it so I will require you to go back to sleep now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of your quotes come from hate every time you do the where did you go to college gag or falsely accuse another poster of anything it comes from hate.
> so there!
Click to expand...


So it makes you nauseated when I call someone out for bashing other's education credentials when heshe won't supply any of herhis own?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duh sums you up very nicely. Your name calling and nonsense relegates you to the level of non-intellectual. You are easily overlooked.
> 
> 
> 
> You just revealed your age and immaturity as that joke went right over your head.  Creedence Clearwater Revival - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PLEASE SHIT STICK I'M 53 and was 8 in 1967  when CCR first hit the scene.
> they were only a band till 1972.
> so they had come and gone before you stopped wearing a diaper.
> you lying sack of shit.
> stop attempting to play it off like you old enough to appreciate them first hand... poser!
Click to expand...


Okay Hollie. Because you know me so well. I was born in 1966 and was totally done with diapers in 1969.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> says the faux Christian materialist !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain your flawed logic on how having wealth precludes you from following Christ. Please don't quote mine Bible verses taking them out of context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in some cases it doesn't,  yours, since it's not real wealth is an exception.
> you are most likley in debt so deep you'll never get out it.
> your so called conversion is an illusion, if it weren't  you'd not brag endlessly about how god made it possible, (an illusion in it's self) from my pov all you've done is switch addictions.
Click to expand...


Daws, I was not bragging and I will not say anymore about it. Think what you want.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No lie,what God created was perfect without blemish. Since the fall of adam that is when entropy came into play. By the way are people admitting being gay is wrong ?
> 
> 
> 
> assumption not proof.
> there is no proof that Adam existed or that god caused entropy!
> as to this non sequitur " By the way are people admitting being gay is wrong ?"ywc
> god made gay people. if you say otherwise you'd be lying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God made gay people. But did God make people gay????
> 
> By making this statement you are inferring that God exists. You are also inferring that God makes people. We can logically deduct that if God makes people, then he designed people. Based on the truth that God designed people, we need to ask ourselves, do males and females appear to be designed to go together? The answer must be overwhelmingly yes. Upon further examination of the human body, we must logically conclude that the large intestine and anus was designed for eliminating waste products from our body. It takes an extreme leap of logic to conclude that God designed your anus for another man to stick his penis into. In fact, we know that our large intestine contains many strains of bateria, such as Ecoli, that are deadly if ingested into the wrong part of our bodies. We also know that the large intestine is fragile enough that diseases such as the AIDS virus are easily introduced there if God's design intent is abandoned. Let the flames begin...
Click to expand...

There is nothing rational to infer about supernaturalism or magical gods. 

What we can infer about your magical gods (aside from the self-refuting nature of your absurd claims), is an endless hierarchy of gods designed by super gods who in turn were designed by super-super gods who in turn...

We also know that disease such as AIDS must have been (according to your worldview of fear and superstition) designed by one or more of your gods. 

Why are your gods so hateful? Wiping most of humanity from the planet, disease, starvation, floods, earthquakes... Your gods are the most prolific serial mass murderers ever imagined. To worship such evil is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. And you have made yourself the posterboy for maladjusted personalities.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just revealed your age and immaturity as that joke went right over your head.  Creedence Clearwater Revival - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE SHIT STICK I'M 53 and was 8 in 1967  when CCR first hit the scene.
> they were only a band till 1972.
> so they had come and gone before you stopped wearing a diaper.
> you lying sack of shit.
> stop attempting to play it off like you old enough to appreciate them first hand... poser!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay Hollie. Because you know me so well. I was born in 1966 and was totally done with diapers in 1969.
Click to expand...


Wrong poster. It seems your stalking pathology is causing you to completely lose touch with reality. 

Drink the Kool-aid.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain your flawed logic on how having wealth precludes you from following Christ. Please don't quote mine Bible verses taking them out of context.
> 
> 
> 
> in some cases it doesn't,  yours, since it's not real wealth is an exception.
> you are most likley in debt so deep you'll never get out it.
> your so called conversion is an illusion, if it weren't  you'd not brag endlessly about how god made it possible, (an illusion in it's self) from my pov all you've done is switch addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, I was not bragging and I will not say anymore about it. Think what you want.
Click to expand...


It seems the stalker believes that material gains are a function of belief in gods. Evangelism is rewarded with electronic toys. 

It seems that fundies thoroughly cheapen religious faith by demanding material gains from their gods. 

The gods serve a purpose not unlike vending machines.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, please quit dreaming buddy. Please post up some of my "hate" quotes that caused you to get nauseated. Please post pics of you taking Mylanta.
> 
> My statement with the term "require" is just parroting back Hollie's original same demand. Just pointing out Rugged's silliness of thinking she has any chance of forcing the behavior of a complete stranger on an internet forum.
> 
> Guess you missed it so I will require you to go back to sleep now.
> 
> 
> 
> all of your quotes come from hate every time you do the where did you go to college gag or falsely accuse another poster of anything it comes from hate.
> so there!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it makes you nauseated when I call someone out for bashing other's education credentials when heshe won't supply any of herhis own?
Click to expand...

What makes people nauseated is your false claim to an education you show no signs of having earned.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No lie,what God created was perfect without blemish. Since the fall of adam that is when entropy came into play. By the way are people admitting being gay is wrong ?
> 
> 
> 
> assumption not proof.
> there is no proof that Adam existed or that god caused entropy!
> as to this non sequitur " By the way are people admitting being gay is wrong ?"ywc
> god made gay people. if you say otherwise you'd be lying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God made gay people. But did God make people gay????
> 
> By making this statement you are inferring that God exists. You are also inferring that God makes people. We can logically deduct that if God makes people, then he designed people. Based on the truth that God designed people, we need to ask ourselves, do males and females appear to be designed to go together? The answer must be overwhelmingly yes. Upon further examination of the human body, we must logically conclude that the large intestine and anus was designed for eliminating waste products from our body. It takes an extreme leap of logic to conclude that God designed your anus for another man to stick his penis into. In fact, we know that our large intestine contains many strains of bateria, such as Ecoli, that are deadly if ingested into the wrong part of our bodies. We also know that the large intestine is fragile enough that diseases such as the AIDS virus are easily introduced there if God's design intent is abandoned. Let the flames begin...
Click to expand...

wrong, more assumption, the exsitance of god is not logical as logic is based on proof (Definition of LOGIC
1a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge .
also the inference that that homosexuality causes aids and was dreamed up by satan is is again not provable.
your post  like all your posts is  a steaming pile of specious assumption, hate fear and desperation. 

it does however showcase your ignorace of facetiousness.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, please quit dreaming buddy. Please post up some of my "hate" quotes that caused you to get nauseated. Please post pics of you taking Mylanta.
> 
> My statement with the term "require" is just parroting back Hollie's original same demand. Just pointing out Rugged's silliness of thinking she has any chance of forcing the behavior of a complete stranger on an internet forum.
> 
> Guess you missed it so I will require you to go back to sleep now.
> 
> 
> 
> all of your quotes come from hate every time you do the where did you go to college gag or falsely accuse another poster of anything it comes from hate.
> so there!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it makes you nauseated when I call someone out for bashing other's education credentials when heshe won't supply any of herhis own?
Click to expand...

no ,that just makes me laugh as it only relevant WHEN non intellects like yourself and ywc try to con others in to thinking  your pseudoscience is science.
 what makes me nauseous is your whole disingenuous braggadocio, paper tiger, faux Christian, short dick, snake oil salesman persona.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Just what have I claimed about the code? It contains Shannon information, but not just Shannon information, but information with specificity.


You said,"the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions."​Which is just hilarious. 



UltimateReality said:


> Here, maybe this example will help you understand: Both the following number sequences contain the same amount of Shannon information, 33.2 bytes: 3480397121 and 602 545 1256. However, the first sequence does not specify anything. The second, however, when entered into a telephone keypad, will result in an electronic communication line being opened.


If you say so. I am not certain that 3480397121 does not specify an electronic communication line being opened, but I am certain that there is nothing (neither in information content or specificity) inherently about it that prevents it from resulting in an electronic communication line being opened when entered into a telephone keypad.

As a matter of fact, it could be arranged such that 3480397121 results in opening the electronic communication line opened by 602 545 1256, and the sequence 602 545 1256 not specify anything. This is because they are symbols, and symbols have only the information we assign to them.

This is illustrated more clearly by erasing the numbers from your telephone keypad, and replacing them with letters such that 1234567890 become ABCDEFGHIJ. Then punching in FJB EDE ABEF would result in THE EXACT SAME electronic communication line being opened.

This is because altering symbols CANNOT alter the real things they represent. The reason for this is that the actual nature of things symbolized is independent of the symbols that represent them. This is the point I made that you deny is valid; that you are yet rather insistent upon asserting is valid as you demand that "the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions."

This is demonstrably NOT the case for the "information and instructions" for protiens that are "coded" for in DNA.



UltimateReality said:


> You have presented your strawman argument before about the "abstractness" of the English alphabet to argue against DNA "code", which I'm sure you just read on an atheist rebuttal website and you really had no understanding of what you were arguing. ID does not claim what you keep strawmanning about code.


Well, maybe Intelligent Design Theory doesn't say anything you claim it says, but you insist that ""proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code," and that "... dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!

You are rather emphatic on this point, and it seems rather consistent with the pertinent literature you post from the Intelligent Design sources you cite as definitive. Hence, I am at a loss as to why you insist that I have in any manner constructed a strawman of the notion of "code" utilized by Intelligent Design theorists.

The actual fact of reality is that proteins are not symbols, and the information and instructions contained in "code" form in DNA is chemically indissociable from the DNA molecule.

If proteins were symbols as you say, then polysaccharides could be functionally indistinguishable from polypeptides, as you would be simply exchanging one symbol (peptide) for another (sugar).

If the "the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions" as you say, you could substitute nucleic acids (provided you did so systematically) and the information transferred (being "chemically independent" from the DNA molecule) would result in the same protein the unaltered DNA molecule coded for.

In fact, if such chemical independence was actually the case, you could systematically replace adenine with say ... a methyl group; you could then replace cytosine with an acetyl group; you could replace guanine with an alcohol; and you could replace thymine with an ester. Being merely symbols, all of these molecules would be chemically independent of the "the information and instructions" they represent. The resulting molecule would be in every sense "code" for the same protein that the DNA molecule was--with necessarily the exact same "information" content and specificity, since we are only exchanging symbols. Then we would expect that this new molecule would function just like a strand of DNA.

This of course, is just ludicrous.

The reason for this is that DNA IS NOT A "CODE" in the manner you say it is!

Such substitutions cannot be made in DNA if the product of its function is to remain consistent. If DNA actually has it's very own discrete, specific, necessary, and self-defining function in the production of proteins (I think it does), then it's not actually a symbol for proteins--DNA then is not "code" that means proteins, because DNA doesn't actually function (in the genetics of organisms) that way. 



UltimateReality said:


> It claims DNA contains complex information or Shannon information, but it also claims information that specifies something, which distinguishes it from the gibberish you want to infer "just happened" in the primordial soup.


As plainly demonstrated above, I am NOT the one whose notions result in gibberish.



UltimateReality said:


> Your entire post above is quite the joke.


You're the joke.



UltimateReality said:


> Rather than pick up a book like Signature In The Cell and read what claims are being made by ID, you rely on atheist websites for all your information. Your only source of information on the topic is what you have read on the internet. How sad. You will remain hopelessly lost in your ignorance.


Whatever you say Mr. "dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!"


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just revealed your age and immaturity as that joke went right over your head.  Creedence Clearwater Revival - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE SHIT STICK I'M 53 and was 8 in 1967  when CCR first hit the scene.
> they were only a band till 1972.
> so they had come and gone before you stopped wearing a diaper.
> you lying sack of shit.
> stop attempting to play it off like you old enough to appreciate them first hand... poser!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay Hollie. Because you know me so well. I was born in 1966 and was totally done with diapers in 1969.
Click to expand...

dodge! so my statement stands  

poser!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain your flawed logic on how having wealth precludes you from following Christ. Please don't quote mine Bible verses taking them out of context.
> 
> 
> 
> in some cases it doesn't,  yours, since it's not real wealth is an exception.
> you are most likley in debt so deep you'll never get out it.
> your so called conversion is an illusion, if it weren't  you'd not brag endlessly about how god made it possible, (an illusion in it's self) from my pov all you've done is switch addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, I was not bragging and I will not say anymore about it. Think what you want.
Click to expand...

Iwill and I will be correct.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE SHIT STICK I'M 53 and was 8 in 1967  when CCR first hit the scene.
> they were only a band till 1972.
> so they had come and gone before you stopped wearing a diaper.
> you lying sack of shit.
> stop attempting to play it off like you old enough to appreciate them first hand... poser!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay Hollie. Because you know me so well. I was born in 1966 and was totally done with diapers in 1969.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong poster. It seems your stalking pathology is causing you to completely lose touch with reality.
> 
> Drink the Kool-aid.
Click to expand...

 and he thinks you have multiple personalities


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MYTH #1*: Intelligent Design (ID) is just a fancy name for Creationism.
> 
> The true story: Intelligent Design theory is not a form of, nor is it synonymous with &#8220;creationism.&#8221; Rather, it is an over-arching scientific theory that disputes wholly naturalistic/materialistic accounts of the origin of the universe and the origin of life. As such it is an indispensable ally for those who espouse various creation models. ID makes NO CLAIM about the age of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: "*Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.*"--William Dembski (Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999)
> 
> FACT: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
> 
> FACT: "Governing Goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
> 
> FACT: "Governing Goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MYTH #5*: ID research has not produced peer-reviewed literature.
> 
> The true story: There are more than 50 peer-reviewed papers that have come out of ID research. A list has been compiled HERE. An important article on this topic can be found HERE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FACT: This is pretty much a list of FAIL.
> 
> "Unable to convince the scientific establishment of the merits of their views, creationists have long been engaged in the project of constructing a counterestablishment, which mimics &#8212; or perhaps the _mot juste_ is &#8220;apes&#8221; &#8212; not only peer-reviewed journals but also professional societies, textbook publishers, media organizations, natural history museums, and graduate programs at accredited universities."--The Latest &#8220;Intelligent Design&#8221; Journal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you are continuing with your intellectual dishonesty with some confirmation bias quote mining. However, these quotes don't apply to ID as a whole.
Click to expand...

How is it quote-mining when I have not in any manner misrepresented what the source intended to say? How is it that the quotes don't apply to ID as a whole when every source you cite--particularly Meyer--endorses the explicit goals expressed? How is that?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it rather hilarious that you wish to change the subject rather than face the fact you've been ... how did you put it? .... Oh yes! OWNED.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please point me to the experiment that uses "ordinary chemical reactions" to produce highly specified molecular machines that not only build proteins, but make incredibly accurate copies of the original information in the information carrying molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> Which gene-splicing paper do you wish me to cite? Which denial of the existence of GMOs are you going to trot out as your rebuttal?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And while you are at it, please address the enigma of how the very machines that make the copies or build the proteins require the very code they are using to exist in the first place? If there ever was a chicken/egg problem, this is it. I'll be waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times must the hypotheses of abiogenesis be presented to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How curious. Still no link?? Please, no fairy tales with 43 "must haves", "might haves", and "could haves". I want to see an experiment where they produce a molecular machine that can make copies of information contained in the dna.
Click to expand...

Why should I do this for you? Considering how you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs; and how you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and how you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs, why should I even make the attempt?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by LOki
> "This appears to be consistent with the evidence. However, I fail to see that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life."
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> So typical of Loki to deny this is a strawman argument. He cannot go back and find any quote where I claimed that the TOE is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How does this grab you?
> 
> Really? Let's just replay that last accusation:Oh really?
> 
> How does this grab you?​
> Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:Oh really?
> 
> How does this grab you?​
> Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:Oh really?
> 
> How does this grab you?​
> Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:Oh really?
> 
> How does this grab you?​
> The fact that you knew the answer to he question when you asked it, yet asked it ANYWAY as if failing to identify the specific single-cell organism in question is a failure of evolutionary theory, exposes the exact strawman you deny you made.
> 
> Spoken right after I said, "How the fuck should I know?"
> 
> It is only appropriate that you should feel as helplessly out-classed by my vocabulary, as you are out-classed by my happy capacity to expose each of your purposefully distracting fallacies--including this latest (and lamest), "He uses big werdz cuz he thinks he's so smart" gambit.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will not subject myself to his dishonest games anymore after I complete my responses to his current posts. Arguing with fools will merely give you gray hair and to what outcome?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just get exposed for being the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard that you are. Your surrender is accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki, I am sorry. But for someone who pretends to be so intelligent, you are probably one of the more ignorant posters I've ever encountered. I am astonished that you would keep repeating the question asking you to identify the single cell organism as if: 1) My question is somehow a statement of fact and 2) in the very same post you are responding to, I explain I already knew the answer to the question and you did too. Your foolish pride just won't let you say "I don't know".
Click to expand...

"How the fuck should I know?" is a response fully equivalent to "I don't know".



UltimateReality said:


> No surprise here you follow the brainwashing technique used so much by materialist. Repeating the question 50 times will not make your assertion this was a claim (and not simply a question) any more valid. All it does is make you look like a 3-year-old child having a temper tantrum and is proof positive of your mental midgetry.


You *UNAMBIGUOSLY* presented the question as if I made any indication that I should have answer; as if I stated as if my position required an answer to the question; as if failing to answer that question could invalidate my position.

And then you went on to C/P wikipedia as if evolution WAS a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life;  as if your effort in any way was a means to establish you did not get caught attempting to misrepresent your opposition.

You sir, are the intellectually dishonest dickweed here. Embrace the fact you've been outed (again) and move on.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> all of your quotes come from hate every time you do the where did you go to college gag or falsely accuse another poster of anything it comes from hate.
> so there!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it makes you nauseated when I call someone out for bashing other's education credentials when heshe won't supply any of herhis own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes people nauseated is your false claim to an education you show no signs of having earned.
Click to expand...


I think I'm going to throw up.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> assumption not proof.
> there is no proof that Adam existed or that god caused entropy!
> as to this non sequitur " By the way are people admitting being gay is wrong ?"ywc
> god made gay people. if you say otherwise you'd be lying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God made gay people. But did God make people gay????
> 
> By making this statement you are inferring that God exists. You are also inferring that God makes people. We can logically deduct that if God makes people, then he designed people. Based on the truth that God designed people, we need to ask ourselves, do males and females appear to be designed to go together? The answer must be overwhelmingly yes. Upon further examination of the human body, we must logically conclude that the large intestine and anus was designed for eliminating waste products from our body. It takes an extreme leap of logic to conclude that God designed your anus for another man to stick his penis into. In fact, we know that our large intestine contains many strains of bateria, such as Ecoli, that are deadly if ingested into the wrong part of our bodies. We also know that the large intestine is fragile enough that diseases such as the AIDS virus are easily introduced there if God's design intent is abandoned. Let the flames begin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing rational to infer about supernaturalism or magical gods.
> 
> What we can infer about your magical gods (aside from the self-refuting nature of your absurd claims), is an endless hierarchy of gods designed by super gods who in turn were designed by super-super gods who in turn...
> 
> We also know that disease such as AIDS must have been (according to your worldview of fear and superstition) designed by one or more of your gods.
> 
> Why are your gods so hateful? Wiping most of humanity from the planet, disease, starvation, floods, earthquakes... Your gods are the most prolific serial mass murderers ever imagined. To worship such evil is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. And you have made yourself the posterboy for maladjusted personalities.
Click to expand...

You are confusing the god you worship, Satan, who is responsible for the actions you describe above, with the God of Christianity. You obviously have no concept of dualism or free will.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> in some cases it doesn't,  yours, since it's not real wealth is an exception.
> you are most likley in debt so deep you'll never get out it.
> your so called conversion is an illusion, if it weren't  you'd not brag endlessly about how god made it possible, (an illusion in it's self) from my pov all you've done is switch addictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, I was not bragging and I will not say anymore about it. Think what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems the stalker believes that material gains are a function of belief in gods. Evangelism is rewarded with electronic toys.
> 
> It seems that fundies thoroughly cheapen religious faith by demanding material gains from their gods.
> 
> The gods serve a purpose not unlike vending machines.
Click to expand...


Strawman.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For that matter, why did the gods make apes stronger by comparison than humans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question,why did not the superior traits such as strength,sense of smell,and land speed not get passed on to humans if we are related ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because that's how evolution works, some species pick up things that they need and others don't pick up the same traits. Humans have better brains so they needed less strength, speed, ... than other species.
Click to expand...


In other words, your knowledge of the theory you defend, you don't really understand do you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because that's how evolution works, some species pick up things that they need and others don't pick up the same traits. Humans have better brains so they needed less strength, speed, ... than other species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try. Modern evolution does not claim this. Catch up!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, if you prefer to deny reality, that's cool. I mean, you already believe in an invisible superbeing in another dimension that you pray to to run your life, so what's a little more delusion?
Click to expand...


Figures,the other ignorant loons agree with you


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try. Modern evolution does not claim this. Catch up!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How ironic that a science hating Christian creationist would seek to lecture anyone regarding "modern evolution". Is there such a thing as "modern evolution"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good stuff Hollie. Where do you find these cretins??
Click to expand...


I suggest you learn the theory before you correct someone that better understands the theory you are ignorant of.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> assumption not proof.
> there is no proof that Adam existed or that god caused entropy!
> as to this non sequitur " By the way are people admitting being gay is wrong ?"ywc
> god made gay people. if you say otherwise you'd be lying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God made gay people. But did God make people gay????
> 
> By making this statement you are inferring that God exists. You are also inferring that God makes people. We can logically deduct that if God makes people, then he designed people. Based on the truth that God designed people, we need to ask ourselves, do males and females appear to be designed to go together? The answer must be overwhelmingly yes. Upon further examination of the human body, we must logically conclude that the large intestine and anus was designed for eliminating waste products from our body. It takes an extreme leap of logic to conclude that God designed your anus for another man to stick his penis into. In fact, we know that our large intestine contains many strains of bateria, such as Ecoli, that are deadly if ingested into the wrong part of our bodies. We also know that the large intestine is fragile enough that diseases such as the AIDS virus are easily introduced there if God's design intent is abandoned. Let the flames begin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong, more assumption, the exsitance of god is not logical as logic is based on proof (Definition of LOGIC
> 1a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge .
> also the inference that that homosexuality causes aids and was dreamed up by satan is is again not provable.
> your post  like all your posts is  a steaming pile of specious assumption, hate fear and desperation.
> 
> it does however showcase your ignorace of facetiousness.
Click to expand...


Not surprising you totally missed the point. An atheist posed the question: "Does God make gay people?" My comments refer to this specific question and that is clearly stated in my post. The question infers God exists, Einstein. 

Regarding AIDS, Satan didn't have to invent it. When you go against the Designer's intent, bad juju is always a possibility. You wouldn't use a chainsaw to cut someone's hair would you? As a rational human being (giving you a lot of credit here Daws) you can logically deduce that a chainsaw is not designed for that purpose. You should also be able to infer you shouldn't stick your penis in another man's poop shoot or you could get a disease. I'm just saying.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fairy story of the end of the neanderthal and arrival of the cro-mag is enough to show they have no clue..its not really science..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eots. Aren't you the ding bat that still thinks 9/11 was an inside job?? How good could your grip on reality be??
Click to expand...


I asked a simple question, got a completely ignorant answer for it and you agreed with him ,need I say more.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> all of your quotes come from hate every time you do the where did you go to college gag or falsely accuse another poster of anything it comes from hate.
> so there!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it makes you nauseated when I call someone out for bashing other's education credentials when heshe won't supply any of herhis own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no ,that just makes me laugh as it only relevant WHEN non intellects like yourself and ywc try to con others in to thinking  your pseudoscience is science.
> what makes me nauseous is your whole disingenuous braggadocio, paper tiger, faux Christian, short dick, snake oil salesman persona.
Click to expand...


You're projecting again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> As for Darwins discoveries, it would be helpful to remember that Darwin specifically said he didn't know where the original cell or cells came from and he wasn't going to guess. He said the origin of life itself was a hopeless inquiry. In Origin of the Species (and how many here have actually READ that interesting book?) Darwin said that in the beginning it was the Creator (with a capital c) who breathed life into the first single cell or several single cells, and it would be far in the future before the answer would be made clear. I wonder if he could have invisioned DNA?
> Now notice, if you will, Darwin probably did more than any other person to  extinguish religious faith among educated people and yet he was NOT an athiest. He bows to the Creator.
> He probabaly couldn't even concieve of being an atheist. In his day not even the most daring, rationalistic  philosophers, not even David Hume professed to be athiests.  It's not until the end of the 19th century we are met with the first athiest of any prominence :Nietzche. I suspect Darwin  figured that since nobody had the foggiest idea as to what created life in the first place, why not just lay it off on the Creator and let it go at that?
> 
> Keep in mind, the origin of the species and the origins of life are two entirely different concepts.
> 
> Darwin was not a neuro-scientist. His knowledge of the human brain was primitive at best. He knew nothing of genetics even though they  were discovered by a contemporary of his, an Austrian monk named Gregor Johann Mendel- whose work strengthens the case for evolution tremendously. But Darwin did something more fundamental. He obliterated the cardinal distinction between Man and the beasts of the field. It had always been a truism that Man was a rational being and the beasts operated on 'instinct'. But what is instinct? It's what we now know to be  the genetic code an animal is born with.
> 
> If man is an animal to what extent does his genetic code govern his life? Here we get into the realm of spiirtualism---or perhaps a little help from a higher life form, possibly from outside this universe (Pan Spermia?)
> The ancient Sumerians plainly state in their texts that the 'Gods' bred us, as we are today--more or less, so we could function as slaves for those higher beings.
> Strange stuff but it does answer a few basic  questions and I don't think any discussion on this subject can go very far without considering our 'true' origins.
> 
> And this doesn't go against the concept of God at all. It merely makes Him bigger. No matter, if you will, who created US, SOMEBODY created THEM.



Origins is a dirty word for evolutionist


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> I think UR and hollie should rent a room , get naked, and slobber all over each other for a night.



Hollie is a guy and UR don't roll that way.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever Hollie. Are you talking about the point where you blatantly misrepresented two very important historical facts in order to prove it? Or the fact that your ad hominem attack against me says nothing about how your statements about Darwin and origins are totally made up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid my stalker is descending even further into his lurid fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you really want to piss off a stalker you ignore him. As far as I'm concerned Ultimate Embarassment adds nothing to any conversation and is easily relegated to the dust bin. AND as an extra added bonus it cleans up the thread rather nicely.
Click to expand...


Hollie, the only thing she or he ignores are facts.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what have I claimed about the code? It contains Shannon information, but not just Shannon information, but information with specificity.
> 
> 
> 
> You said,"the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions."​Which is just hilarious.
Click to expand...

 Your stupidity on the topic would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. I'm not sure what you find so amusing since you never actually provide a logical rebuttal or information to back up you silly claims.





LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, maybe this example will help you understand: Both the following number sequences contain the same amount of Shannon information, 33.2 bytes: 3480397121 and 602 545 1256. However, the first sequence does not specify anything. The second, however, when entered into a telephone keypad, will result in an electronic communication line being opened.
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so. I am not certain that 3480397121 does not specify an electronic communication line being opened, but I am certain that there is nothing (neither in information content or specificity) inherently about it that prevents it from resulting in an electronic communication line being opened when entered into a telephone keypad.
> 
> As a matter of fact, it could be arranged such that 3480397121 results in opening the electronic communication line opened by 602 545 1256, and the sequence 602 545 1256 not specify anything. This is because they are symbols, and symbols have only the information we assign to them.
> 
> This is illustrated more clearly by erasing the numbers from your telephone keypad, and replacing them with letters such that 1234567890 become ABCDEFGHIJ. Then punching in FJB EDE ABEF would result in THE EXACT SAME electronic communication line being opened.
> 
> This is because altering symbols CANNOT alter the real things they represent. The reason for this is that the actual nature of things symbolized is independent of the symbols that represent them. This is the point I made that you deny is valid; that you are yet rather insistent upon asserting is valid as you demand that "the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions."
> 
> This is demonstrably NOT the case for the "information and instructions" for protiens that are "coded" for in DNA.
Click to expand...

 I'm not sure what you are arguing here and I'm not sure you know what you are arguing either. What are you arguing? Your information diatribe above sounds like the ramblings of a mad man. So what is your point? Are you saying dna does not contain code? Are you saying dna doesn't contain Shannon information? Are you saying dna doesn't contain Shannon information that imparts a function? Please do tell. 


LOki said:


> Well, maybe Intelligent Design Theory doesn't say anything you claim it says, but you insist that ""proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code," and that "... dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!
> 
> You are rather emphatic on this point, and it seems rather consistent with the pertinent literature you post from the Intelligent Design sources you cite as definitive. Hence, I am at a loss as to why you insist that I have in any manner constructed a strawman of the notion of "code" utilized by Intelligent Design theorists.
> 
> The actual fact of reality is that proteins are not symbols, and the information and instructions contained in "code" form in DNA is chemically indissociable from the DNA molecule.


 Please tell me you are joking. This is about the dumbest thing you've said in a week, and boy have you said some stupid crap. As usual you miss the point. So you are saying that if I shake up the molecule and shift all the nucleotides around, the dna will still contain functional information. Not!!! Please clarify this is not what you are inferring before you become the laughing stock of this entire 638 pages!!


LOki said:


> If proteins were symbols as you say,


 Once again I drew a comparison, which you have proven totally inept at grasping.





LOki said:


> then polysaccharides could be functionally indistinguishable from polypeptides, as you would be simply exchanging one symbol (peptide) for another (sugar).
> 
> If the "the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions" as you say, you could substitute nucleic acids (provided you did so systematically) and the information transferred (being "chemically independent" from the DNA molecule) would result in the same protein the unaltered DNA molecule coded for.


 I'm really not sure why you keep repeating this strawman, but you just did it again for the 5th time. Is it making you feel better? 





LOki said:


> In fact, if such chemical independence was actually the case, you could systematically replace adenine with say ... a methyl group; you could then replace cytosine with an acetyl group; you could replace guanine with an alcohol; and you could replace thymine with an ester. Being merely symbols, all of these molecules would be chemically independent of the "the information and instructions" they represent. The resulting molecule would be in every sense "code" for the same protein that the DNA molecule was--with necessarily the exact same "information" content and specificity, since we are only exchanging symbols. Then we would expect that this new molecule would function just like a strand of DNA.
> 
> This of course, is just ludicrous.


 It most certainly is. And a strawman argument entirely of your imagination and not at all what ID is claiming. The information in dna is carried by the dna. It is a code and that information is independent of the medium carrying it just as as the chemistry of the magnetic tape is independent of the zero's and one's contained on it. 





LOki said:


> The reason for this is that DNA IS NOT A "CODE" in the manner you say it is!


 Are you talking about the manner which is a figment of your strawman imagination???





LOki said:


> Such substitutions cannot be made in DNA if the product of its function is to remain consistent. If DNA actually has it's very own discrete, specific, necessary, and self-defining function in the production of proteins (I think it does), then it's not actually a symbol for proteins--DNA then is not "code" that means proteins, because DNA doesn't actually function (in the genetics of organisms) that way.


 It sure is nice of you to share information we are already aware of. Once again, I am left trying to remember what point it is that you are making??? You trail off into your delusions of Strawman. Is Toto there with you? Let's see if you agree with these statements: in computer science, a specific sequence of zero's and one's can be used to code for the symbol 'A".(T/F) In computer science, a combination of blocks of these specific sequences of zero's and ones, placed in a specific order, can be used to code for the string of symbols 'D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L' (T/F). A specific sequence of G's, T's, C's and A's can be used to code for a specific amino acid. (T/F) A combination of blocks of these specific sequences of G's, T's, C's and A's, placed in a specific order, can be used to code a string of amino acids that result in the protein, say, collagen or keratin (T/F).


LOki said:


> As plainly demonstrated above, I am NOT the one whose notions result in gibberish.


 Of course you aren't. Pay no mind to the nice gentlemen in white coats. 


LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire post above is quite the joke.
> 
> 
> 
> You're the joke.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than pick up a book like Signature In The Cell and read what claims are being made by ID, you rely on atheist websites for all your information. Your only source of information on the topic is what you have read on the internet. How sad. You will remain hopelessly lost in your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever you say Mr. "dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!"
Click to expand...


You are hopelessly lost and I won't repeat the same thing over and over again which you can't seem to understand. The information bearing properties of dna are independent of the molecule. Jumble the G's, T's, C's and A's around and dna will not produce specific and functional proteins, nor will it make copies of itself. Without the specific arrangement of the nucleotides, functional information is not present, not even by chance. Without the specific arrangement of the nucleotides, which, when translated, impart a function, there would be shannon information but not information with specificity. The information in dna, while being expressed chemically, is merely carried by the molecule. The information is chemically independent from the chemistry just like words on a newspaper are independent from the chemistry of the ink, pulp, and other chemical ingredients that make up the information transfer medium known as newspaper. I can't understand why you are unable to grasp this. That is the last time I will explain it for you.

From Wiki:

"_Deoxyribonucleic acid (Listeni/di&#716;&#594;ksi&#716;ra&#618;b&#629;.nju&#720;&#716;kle&#618;.&#616;k &#712;æs&#618;d/; DNA) molecules are *informational molecules* en*coding* the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses. Along with RNA and proteins, DNA is one of the three major macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life. Genetic information is encoded as a sequence of nucleotides, recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. Most DNA molecules are double-stranded helices, consisting of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of alternating sugars (deoxyribose) and phosphate groups, with the nucleobases (G, A, T, C) attached to the sugars. DNA is well-suited for biological information storage, since the DNA backbone is resistant to cleavage and the double-stranded structure provides the molecule with a built-in duplicate of the en*coded **information*._"

_"It is the sequence of these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes information. This information is read using the *genetic code*, which* specifies the sequence* of the amino acids within proteins. The *code is read by copying stretches of DNA* into the related nucleic acid RNA in a process called transcription."_

So Loki, what is with all the teleological verbiage from Wiki on this subject????? I'm not really sure why you refuse to accept it is code. You keep strawmanning about a false claim of what type of code you believe ID to be proposing. Nice waste of bandwidth above tearing down your strawman you built, pumpkin. DNA is digital code, regardless of whether you can fit that in your worldview or not.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay Hollie. Because you know me so well. I was born in 1966 and was totally done with diapers in 1969.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong poster. It seems your stalking pathology is causing you to completely lose touch with reality.
> 
> Drink the Kool-aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and he thinks you have multiple personalities
Click to expand...


Calling you Hollie was purposeful. Guess it went right over both your heads.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Moldth6 said:


> Where ever did you get that idea?  I am a christian and know the bible fairly well and I can tell you now the earth is far, far older than 6,000 years.  Who told you that?  I am new to your board.  Look forward to discussing this with you.  - Moldth6



How old is the earth? and what do you base the age on ?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: "*Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.*"--William Dembski (Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999)
> 
> FACT: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
> 
> FACT: "Governing Goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
> 
> FACT: "Governing Goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
> 
> FACT: This is pretty much a list of FAIL.
> 
> "Unable to convince the scientific establishment of the merits of their views, creationists have long been engaged in the project of constructing a counterestablishment, which mimics  or perhaps the _mot juste_ is apes  not only peer-reviewed journals but also professional societies, textbook publishers, media organizations, natural history museums, and graduate programs at accredited universities."--The Latest Intelligent Design Journal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you are continuing with your intellectual dishonesty with some confirmation bias quote mining. However, these quotes don't apply to ID as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it quote-mining when I have not in any manner misrepresented what the source intended to say? How is it that the quotes don't apply to ID as a whole when every source you cite--particularly Meyer--endorses the explicit goals expressed? How is that?
Click to expand...


Please provide a link to a quote from Meyer supporting any one of your strawman quote mines above. *Still waiting for your origins experiment link.*


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it rather hilarious that you wish to change the subject rather than face the fact you've been ... how did you put it? .... Oh yes! OWNED.
> 
> Which gene-splicing paper do you wish me to cite? Which denial of the existence of GMOs are you going to trot out as your rebuttal?
> 
> How many times must the hypotheses of abiogenesis be presented to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How curious. Still no link?? Please, no fairy tales with 43 "must haves", "might haves", and "could haves". I want to see an experiment where they produce a molecular machine that can make copies of information contained in the dna.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I do this for you? Considering how you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs; and how you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and how you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs, why should I even make the attempt?
Click to expand...


Because it doesn't exist. Go ahead. Say it. No such experiment exists because the fairy tales you propose are not testable and not falsifiable.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How does this grab you?
> 
> Really? Let's just replay that last accusation:Oh really?
> 
> How does this grab you?​
> Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:Oh really?
> 
> How does this grab you?​
> Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:Oh really?
> 
> How does this grab you?​
> Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:Oh really?
> 
> How does this grab you?​
> The fact that you knew the answer to he question when you asked it, yet asked it ANYWAY as if failing to identify the specific single-cell organism in question is a failure of evolutionary theory, exposes the exact strawman you deny you made.
> 
> Spoken right after I said, "How the fuck should I know?"
> 
> It is only appropriate that you should feel as helplessly out-classed by my vocabulary, as you are out-classed by my happy capacity to expose each of your purposefully distracting fallacies--including this latest (and lamest), "He uses big werdz cuz he thinks he's so smart" gambit.
> 
> You just get exposed for being the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard that you are. Your surrender is accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, I am sorry. But for someone who pretends to be so intelligent, you are probably one of the more ignorant posters I've ever encountered. I am astonished that you would keep repeating the question asking you to identify the single cell organism as if: 1) My question is somehow a statement of fact and 2) in the very same post you are responding to, I explain I already knew the answer to the question and you did too. Your foolish pride just won't let you say "I don't know".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "How the fuck should I know?" is a response fully equivalent to "I don't know".
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise here you follow the brainwashing technique used so much by materialist. Repeating the question 50 times will not make your assertion this was a claim (and not simply a question) any more valid. All it does is make you look like a 3-year-old child having a temper tantrum and is proof positive of your mental midgetry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You *UNAMBIGUOSLY* presented the question as if I made any indication that I should have answer; as if I stated as if my position required an answer to the question; as if failing to answer that question could invalidate my position.
> 
> And then you went on to C/P wikipedia as if evolution WAS a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life;  as if your effort in any way was a means to establish you did not get caught attempting to misrepresent your opposition.
> 
> You sir, are the intellectually dishonest dickweed here. Embrace the fact you've been outed (again) and move on.
Click to expand...


You got totally owned and you just can't admit it.  Your strawman accusation was a lie and you were caught red handed in it. We both knew the answer to the question was that modern evolutionary biology has no clue what specific single cell organism was the common ancestor. They can't prove it or falsify it but that doesn't stop them from saying all life on the planet came from one, muffin.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you are continuing with your intellectual dishonesty with some confirmation bias quote mining. However, these quotes don't apply to ID as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> How is it quote-mining when I have not in any manner misrepresented what the source intended to say? How is it that the quotes don't apply to ID as a whole when every source you cite--particularly Meyer--endorses the explicit goals expressed? How is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please provide a link to a quote from Meyer supporting any one of your strawman quote mines above.
Click to expand...

Meyer is the Director of the organization that claims as one of its "governing goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."



UltimateReality said:


> *Still waiting for your origins experiment link.*


"The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front"--M. J. RUSSELL & A. J. HALL


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what have I claimed about the code? It contains Shannon information, but not just Shannon information, but information with specificity.
> 
> 
> 
> You said,"the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions."​Which is just hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your stupidity on the topic would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. I'm not sure what you find so amusing since you never actually provide a logical rebuttal or information to back up you silly claims. I'm not sure what you are arguing here and I'm not sure you know what you are arguing either. What are you arguing? Your information diatribe above sounds like the ramblings of a mad man. So what is your point? Are you saying dna does not contain code? Are you saying dna doesn't contain Shannon information? Are you saying dna doesn't contain Shannon information that imparts a function? Please do tell.
> Please tell me you are joking. This is about the dumbest thing you've said in a week, and boy have you said some stupid crap. As usual you miss the point. So you are saying that if I shake up the molecule and shift all the nucleotides around, the dna will still contain functional information. Not!!! Please clarify this is not what you are inferring before you become the laughing stock of this entire 638 pages!!
> Once again I drew a comparison, which you have proven totally inept at grasping. I'm really not sure why you keep repeating this strawman, but you just did it again for the 5th time. Is it making you feel better?  It most certainly is. And a strawman argument entirely of your imagination and not at all what ID is claiming. The information in dna is carried by the dna. It is a code and that information is independent of the medium carrying it just as as the chemistry of the magnetic tape is independent of the zero's and one's contained on it.  Are you talking about the manner which is a figment of your strawman imagination??? It sure is nice of you to share information we are already aware of. Once again, I am left trying to remember what point it is that you are making??? You trail off into your delusions of Strawman. Is Toto there with you? Let's see if you agree with these statements: in computer science, a specific sequence of zero's and one's can be used to code for the symbol 'A".(T/F) In computer science, a combination of blocks of these specific sequences of zero's and ones, placed in a specific order, can be used to code for the string of symbols 'D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L' (T/F). A specific sequence of G's, T's, C's and A's can be used to code for a specific amino acid. (T/F) A combination of blocks of these specific sequences of G's, T's, C's and A's, placed in a specific order, can be used to code a string of amino acids that result in the protein, say, collagen or keratin (T/F).
> Of course you aren't. Pay no mind to the nice gentlemen in white coats.
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the joke.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than pick up a book like Signature In The Cell and read what claims are being made by ID, you rely on atheist websites for all your information. Your only source of information on the topic is what you have read on the internet. How sad. You will remain hopelessly lost in your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever you say Mr. "dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are hopelessly lost and I won't repeat the same thing over and over again which you can't seem to understand. The information bearing properties of dna are independent of the molecule. Jumble the G's, T's, C's and A's around and dna will not produce specific and functional proteins, nor will it make copies of itself. Without the specific arrangement of the nucleotides, functional information is not present, not even by chance. Without the specific arrangement of the nucleotides, which, when translated, impart a function, there would be shannon information but not information with specificity. The information in dna, while being expressed chemically, is merely carried by the molecule. The information is chemically independent from the chemistry just like words on a newspaper are independent from the chemistry of the ink, pulp, and other chemical ingredients that make up the information transfer medium known as newspaper. I can't understand why you are unable to grasp this. That is the last time I will explain it for you.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> "_Deoxyribonucleic acid (Listeni/di&#716;&#594;ksi&#716;ra&#618;b&#629;.nju&#720;&#716;kle&#618;.&#616;k &#712;æs&#618;d/; DNA) molecules are *informational molecules* en*coding* the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses. Along with RNA and proteins, DNA is one of the three major macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life. Genetic information is encoded as a sequence of nucleotides, recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. Most DNA molecules are double-stranded helices, consisting of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of alternating sugars (deoxyribose) and phosphate groups, with the nucleobases (G, A, T, C) attached to the sugars. DNA is well-suited for biological information storage, since the DNA backbone is resistant to cleavage and the double-stranded structure provides the molecule with a built-in duplicate of the en*coded **information*._"
> 
> _"It is the sequence of these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes information. This information is read using the *genetic code*, which* specifies the sequence* of the amino acids within proteins. The *code is read by copying stretches of DNA* into the related nucleic acid RNA in a process called transcription."_
> 
> So Loki, what is with all the teleological verbiage from Wiki on this subject????? I'm not really sure why you refuse to accept it is code. You keep strawmanning about a false claim of what type of code you believe ID to be proposing. Nice waste of bandwidth above tearing down your strawman you built, pumpkin. DNA is digital code, regardless of whether you can fit that in your worldview or not.
Click to expand...

Your denialism is just hilarious. This self-contradicting statement illustrates the point I'm making about your retarded notions: "The information bearing properties of dna are independent of the molecule. Jumble the G's, T's, C's and A's around and dna will not produce specific and functional proteins, nor will it make copies of itself. Without the specific arrangement of the nucleotides, functional information is not present, not even by chance."


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid my stalker is descending even further into his lurid fantasy world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really want to piss off a stalker you ignore him. As far as I'm concerned Ultimate Embarassment adds nothing to any conversation and is easily relegated to the dust bin. AND as an extra added bonus it cleans up the thread rather nicely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, the only thing she or he ignores are facts.
Click to expand...


Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds. 

This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong poster. It seems your stalking pathology is causing you to completely lose touch with reality.
> 
> Drink the Kool-aid.
> 
> 
> 
> and he thinks you have multiple personalities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling you Hollie was purposeful. Guess it went right over both your heads.
Click to expand...


You're simply confused as to who you are stalking.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Darwins discoveries, it would be helpful to remember that Darwin specifically said he didn't know where the original cell or cells came from and he wasn't going to guess. He said the origin of life itself was a hopeless inquiry. In Origin of the Species (and how many here have actually READ that interesting book?) Darwin said that in the beginning it was the Creator (with a capital c) who breathed life into the first single cell or several single cells, and it would be far in the future before the answer would be made clear. I wonder if he could have invisioned DNA?
> Now notice, if you will, Darwin probably did more than any other person to  extinguish religious faith among educated people and yet he was NOT an athiest. He bows to the Creator.
> He probabaly couldn't even concieve of being an atheist. In his day not even the most daring, rationalistic  philosophers, not even David Hume professed to be athiests.  It's not until the end of the 19th century we are met with the first athiest of any prominence :Nietzche. I suspect Darwin  figured that since nobody had the foggiest idea as to what created life in the first place, why not just lay it off on the Creator and let it go at that?
> 
> Keep in mind, the origin of the species and the origins of life are two entirely different concepts.
> 
> Darwin was not a neuro-scientist. His knowledge of the human brain was primitive at best. He knew nothing of genetics even though they  were discovered by a contemporary of his, an Austrian monk named Gregor Johann Mendel- whose work strengthens the case for evolution tremendously. But Darwin did something more fundamental. He obliterated the cardinal distinction between Man and the beasts of the field. It had always been a truism that Man was a rational being and the beasts operated on 'instinct'. But what is instinct? It's what we now know to be  the genetic code an animal is born with.
> 
> If man is an animal to what extent does his genetic code govern his life? Here we get into the realm of spiirtualism---or perhaps a little help from a higher life form, possibly from outside this universe (Pan Spermia?)
> The ancient Sumerians plainly state in their texts that the 'Gods' bred us, as we are today--more or less, so we could function as slaves for those higher beings.
> Strange stuff but it does answer a few basic  questions and I don't think any discussion on this subject can go very far without considering our 'true' origins.
> 
> And this doesn't go against the concept of God at all. It merely makes Him bigger. No matter, if you will, who created US, SOMEBODY created THEM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Origins is a dirty word for evolutionist
Click to expand...

Predictably clueless. Origins, (the origin of life), is not a subject relevant to the TOE. This is an issue that typically causes confusion among Flat-Earthers'.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, I am sorry. But for someone who pretends to be so intelligent, you are probably one of the more ignorant posters I've ever encountered. I am astonished that you would keep repeating the question asking you to identify the single cell organism as if: 1) My question is somehow a statement of fact and 2) in the very same post you are responding to, I explain I already knew the answer to the question and you did too. Your foolish pride just won't let you say "I don't know".
> 
> 
> 
> "How the fuck should I know?" is a response fully equivalent to "I don't know".
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise here you follow the brainwashing technique used so much by materialist. Repeating the question 50 times will not make your assertion this was a claim (and not simply a question) any more valid. All it does is make you look like a 3-year-old child having a temper tantrum and is proof positive of your mental midgetry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You *UNAMBIGUOSLY* presented the question as if I made any indication that I should have answer; as if I stated as if my position required an answer to the question; as if failing to answer that question could invalidate my position.
> 
> And then you went on to C/P wikipedia as if evolution WAS a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life;  as if your effort in any way was a means to establish you did not get caught attempting to misrepresent your opposition.
> 
> You sir, are the intellectually dishonest dickweed here. Embrace the fact you've been outed (again) and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got totally owned and you just can't admit it.
Click to expand...

The evidence--rather than your belief--leads to an entirely different conclusion.



UltimateReality said:


> Your strawman accusation was a lie and you were caught red handed in it.


Baseless accusation, as demonstrated.



UltimateReality said:


> We both knew the answer to the question was that modern evolutionary biology has no clue what specific single cell organism was the common ancestor.


This fact of reality is the very fact of reality that validates my point, and indicts you.



UltimateReality said:


> They can't prove it or falsify it but that doesn't stop them from saying all life on the planet came from one, muffin.


Ah, the turd who requires no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of his beliefs; who demands absolute unqualified "proof" to refute his baseless beliefs; and who requires that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs, demands "proof" again.

The fact of reality is that valid logic applied to the current verifiable evidence requires the conclusion that all life had a common ancestor.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it makes you nauseated when I call someone out for bashing other's education credentials when heshe won't supply any of herhis own?
> 
> 
> 
> What makes people nauseated is your false claim to an education you show no signs of having earned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I'm going to throw up.
Click to expand...

non sequitur/dodge


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> God made gay people. But did God make people gay????
> 
> By making this statement you are inferring that God exists. You are also inferring that God makes people. We can logically deduct that if God makes people, then he designed people. Based on the truth that God designed people, we need to ask ourselves, do males and females appear to be designed to go together? The answer must be overwhelmingly yes. Upon further examination of the human body, we must logically conclude that the large intestine and anus was designed for eliminating waste products from our body. It takes an extreme leap of logic to conclude that God designed your anus for another man to stick his penis into. In fact, we know that our large intestine contains many strains of bateria, such as Ecoli, that are deadly if ingested into the wrong part of our bodies. We also know that the large intestine is fragile enough that diseases such as the AIDS virus are easily introduced there if God's design intent is abandoned. Let the flames begin...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing rational to infer about supernaturalism or magical gods.
> 
> What we can infer about your magical gods (aside from the self-refuting nature of your absurd claims), is an endless hierarchy of gods designed by super gods who in turn were designed by super-super gods who in turn...
> 
> We also know that disease such as AIDS must have been (according to your worldview of fear and superstition) designed by one or more of your gods.
> 
> Why are your gods so hateful? Wiping most of humanity from the planet, disease, starvation, floods, earthquakes... Your gods are the most prolific serial mass murderers ever imagined. To worship such evil is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. And you have made yourself the posterboy for maladjusted personalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing the god you worship, Satan, who is responsible for the actions you describe above, with the God of Christianity. You obviously have no concept of dualism or free will.
Click to expand...

Let's see.... as I understand it, dualism is a concept where in the case of an imagined god, that god  is good and evil at the same time.
that would mean  that Satan is god behaving badly.
also since they are one in the same, god is just as responsible for what Satan does as Satan is responsible for what god does .
since there is no proof that god or Satan exist together or as separate entities,then logic would dictate that other than natural catastrophes ,WE humans are responsible for our own actions for good or evil!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> God made gay people. But did God make people gay????
> 
> By making this statement you are inferring that God exists. You are also inferring that God makes people. We can logically deduct that if God makes people, then he designed people. Based on the truth that God designed people, we need to ask ourselves, do males and females appear to be designed to go together? The answer must be overwhelmingly yes. Upon further examination of the human body, we must logically conclude that the large intestine and anus was designed for eliminating waste products from our body. It takes an extreme leap of logic to conclude that God designed your anus for another man to stick his penis into. In fact, we know that our large intestine contains many strains of bateria, such as Ecoli, that are deadly if ingested into the wrong part of our bodies. We also know that the large intestine is fragile enough that diseases such as the AIDS virus are easily introduced there if God's design intent is abandoned. Let the flames begin...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong, more assumption, the exsitance of god is not logical as logic is based on proof (Definition of LOGIC
> 1a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge .
> also the inference that that homosexuality causes aids and was dreamed up by satan is is again not provable.
> your post  like all your posts is  a steaming pile of specious assumption, hate fear and desperation.
> 
> it does however showcase your ignorace of facetiousness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not surprising you totally missed the point. An atheist posed the question: "Does God make gay people?" My comments refer to this specific question and that is clearly stated in my post. The question infers God exists, Einstein.
> 
> Regarding AIDS, Satan didn't have to invent it. When you go against the Designer's intent, bad juju is always a possibility. You wouldn't use a chainsaw to cut someone's hair would you? As a rational human being (giving you a lot of credit here Daws) you can logically deduce that a chainsaw is not designed for that purpose. You should also be able to infer you shouldn't stick your penis in another man's poop shoot or you could get a disease. I'm just saying.
Click to expand...

again you are wrong, I ask no such question(I made a facetious and sarcastic statement that you intentionally misinterpreted to make a meaningless point)   therefore your unnecessary answer to an unasked question is total hubris.
btw you beliving you're a good judge of what and who is rational is an ironic gut buster!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it makes you nauseated when I call someone out for bashing other's education credentials when heshe won't supply any of herhis own?
> 
> 
> 
> no ,that just makes me laugh as it only relevant WHEN non intellects like yourself and ywc try to con others in to thinking  your pseudoscience is science.
> what makes me nauseous is your whole disingenuous braggadocio, paper tiger, faux Christian, short dick, snake oil salesman persona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're projecting again.
Click to expand...

ahh no...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong poster. It seems your stalking pathology is causing you to completely lose touch with reality.
> 
> Drink the Kool-aid.
> 
> 
> 
> and he thinks you have multiple personalities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling you Hollie was purposeful. Guess it went right over both your heads.
Click to expand...

wrong! it was amateurish, Immature.
there was nothing to go over our heads,
your answer in this post " Calling you Hollie was purposeful"- U.R. ....Proves that


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you really want to piss off a stalker you ignore him. As far as I'm concerned Ultimate Embarassment adds nothing to any conversation and is easily relegated to the dust bin. AND as an extra added bonus it cleans up the thread rather nicely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, the only thing she or he ignores are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.
> 
> This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.
Click to expand...


Ok let's try this again shall we.

Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.

1. superior eye sight
2. superior land speed
3. superior strength
4. superior sense of smell

This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.

Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and he thinks you have multiple personalities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling you Hollie was purposeful. Guess it went right over both your heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're simply confused as to who you are stalking.
Click to expand...

U.R. is the evangelical equivalent of a totally talentless and unfunny comic ,who hasn't the wit or the brians to realize that when you have to explain a joke or in this case a " you're to dumb to get it razz" that it has missed it's mark , is not because the intended audience didn't "get it"  but because the "comic" is not near as smart or funny as he believes he is.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, the only thing she or he ignores are facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.
> 
> This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok let's try this again shall we.
> 
> Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.
> 
> 1. superior eye sight
> 2. superior land speed
> 3. superior strength
> 4. superior sense of smell
> 
> This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.
> 
> Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?
Click to expand...

1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
 making you first statement false.
2. since  humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve  high running speed because none was necessary for survival.   you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
3. we are the strongest of our species
your's is a false comparison.
 4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins.


"if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..

I'll ask you  TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.
> 
> This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's try this again shall we.
> 
> Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.
> 
> 1. superior eye sight
> 2. superior land speed
> 3. superior strength
> 4. superior sense of smell
> 
> This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.
> 
> Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth. *FALSE!*
> making you first statement false.
> 2. since  humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve  high running speed because none was necessary for survival. *Nice "JUST SO" Story not based in fact or empirical evidence.*  you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
> 3. we are the strongest of our species *FALSE! Not Physically by a long shot.*
> your's is a false comparison.
> 4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins. *They may be your cousins knuckle dragger.
> *
> 
> "if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..
> 
> I'll ask you  TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.
Click to expand...

-


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's try this again shall we.
> 
> Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.
> 
> 1. superior eye sight
> 2. superior land speed
> 3. superior strength
> 4. superior sense of smell
> 
> This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.
> 
> Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth. *FALSE!*
> making you first statement false.
> 2. since  humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve  high running speed because none was necessary for survival. *Nice "JUST SO" Story not based in fact or empirical evidence.*  you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
> 3. we are the strongest of our species *FALSE! Not Physically by a long shot.*
> your's is a false comparison.
> 4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins. *They may be your cousins knuckle dragger.
> *
> 
> "if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..
> 
> I'll ask you  TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -
Click to expand...

 your tantrum in red huge font is just  more proof you have no evidence to counter the facts  presented.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what have I claimed about the code? It contains Shannon information, but not just Shannon information, but information with specificity.
> 
> 
> 
> You said,"the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions."​Which is just hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your stupidity on the topic would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. I'm not sure what you find so amusing since you never actually provide a logical rebuttal or information to back up you silly claims.
Click to expand...

Just because you refuse to consider any rebuttal on the basis that rebuttals of your stupid assertions are defacto invalid, it does not follow that a logical and fully valid rebuttal was not provided.

Case in point:


UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, maybe this example will help you understand: Both the following number sequences contain the same amount of Shannon information, 33.2 bytes: 3480397121 and 602 545 1256. However, the first sequence does not specify anything. The second, however, when entered into a telephone keypad, will result in an electronic communication line being opened.
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so. I am not certain that 3480397121 does not specify an electronic communication line being opened, but I am certain that there is nothing (neither in information content or specificity) inherently about it that prevents it from resulting in an electronic communication line being opened when entered into a telephone keypad.
> 
> As a matter of fact, it could be arranged such that 3480397121 results in opening the electronic communication line opened by 602 545 1256, and the sequence 602 545 1256 not specify anything. This is because they are symbols, and symbols have only the information we assign to them.
> 
> This is illustrated more clearly by erasing the numbers from your telephone keypad, and replacing them with letters such that 1234567890 become ABCDEFGHIJ. Then punching in FJB EDE ABEF would result in THE EXACT SAME electronic communication line being opened.
> 
> This is because altering symbols CANNOT alter the real things they represent. The reason for this is that the actual nature of things symbolized is independent of the symbols that represent them. This is the point I made that you deny is valid; that you are yet rather insistent upon asserting is valid as you demand that "the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions."
> 
> This is demonstrably NOT the case for the "information and instructions" for proteins that are "coded" for in DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure what you are arguing here and I'm not sure you know what you are arguing either. What are you arguing? Your information diatribe above sounds like the ramblings of a mad man.
Click to expand...

Do you see what you did here? Everyone else does. So committed to your denial that you could possibly be wrong, you just refused to read and follow the plainly laid out points provided for you, and instead opted to apply an ad-hominem argument, asserting my points to be incomprehensible because they are just "the ramblings of a mad man."

Just like every other instance where you've been confronted by your fatal case of cognitive dissonance, resort to your arsenal of red-herrings: you make some shit up, or ask questions loaded with bullshit premises, or you change the subject, or you just plainly misrepresent the points made.



UltimateReality said:


> So what is your point?


DNA does not contain symbols; DNA is not symbolic; DNA is NOT "code" in the equivocating manner you are using the term, because the information and instructions contained in DNA is *DEPENDENT* upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is *INDISSOCIABLE* from the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

I've got a bonus point for you: You're going to agree with the above point most emphatically ... ONLY for the opportunity to falsely accuse me of building a strawman of your argument. Then you will immediately return to your patently bullshit notions regarding the magical relationship (i.e. independence) between the information in DNA and the chemistry of DNA; because without your magical DNA, your whole notion of the informed "code" in DNA becomes internally self-destructive.



UltimateReality said:


> Are you saying dna does not contain code?


"Code" in the manner geneticists use the term? DNA absolutely contains code. "Code" in the equivocating manner you and your retarded tribe use it? DNA does *NOT* contain code.



UltimateReality said:


> Are you saying dna doesn't contain Shannon information?


I'm not even talking about Shannon Information. We all know you're uncomfortable with the way your ass is getting kicked, so nobody is surprised that you wish to change the subject. So to answer your question; I see no reason to assert that with DNA, the uncertainty regarding the expected information transmitted, and the actual information received, equals zero. That assertion however, should not be construed as a denial that DNA contains Shannon Information.



UltimateReality said:


> Are you saying dna doesn't contain Shannon information that imparts a function? Please do tell.


I would say that Shannon Information _serves_ a function in DNA, but it does not impart any function to DNA.

You OBVIOUSLY have no fucking clue as to what you're talking about or you wouldn't sincerely ask these vacuous questions. OR, you might THINK you know what you're talking about; in which case you've prepared yourself to leverage ANY answer offered against me, whether the answers are correct or not. OR, you actually DO know what you're talking about, in which case you know just as well as I do that *NO* answer offered actually matters, since a) there's nothing necessarily meaningful about information according to Shannon, and much more importantly, b) I wasn't making ANY point regarding Shannon Information.

Ain't that right, Pumpkin?



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe Intelligent Design Theory doesn't say anything you claim it says, but you insist that ""proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code," and that "... dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!
> 
> You are rather emphatic on this point, and it seems rather consistent with the pertinent literature you post from the Intelligent Design sources you cite as definitive. Hence, I am at a loss as to why you insist that I have in any manner constructed a strawman of the notion of "code" utilized by Intelligent Design theorists.
> 
> The actual fact of reality is that proteins are not symbols, and the information and instructions contained in "code" form in DNA is chemically indissociable from the DNA molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me you are joking. This is about the dumbest thing you've said in a week, and boy have you said some stupid crap. As usual you miss the point.
Click to expand...

Neither joking, nor dumb, nor stupid, nor missing your point.

The only way you could possibly support such an accusation is to just make some shit up, and misrepresent what I said.



UltimateReality said:


> So you are saying that if I shake up the molecule and shift all the nucleotides around, the dna will still contain functional information.


Right on queue!



UltimateReality said:


> Not!!! Please clarify this is not what you are inferring before you become the laughing stock of this entire 638 pages!!


The risk you run, when you refuse to even contemplate any rebuttal to your nonsense, is that you become the laughing stock of this entire 638 pages.

Despite the fact that it is plainly clear that I did not say "that if [you] shake up the molecule and shift all the nucleotides around, the dna will still contain functional information."

I mean really. It's OBVIOUS! It's just as OBVIOUS that I am saying that my position is that you CANNOT shake up the molecule and shift all the nucleotides around, the DNA will still contain functional information.

What is also OBVIOUS, is that I am saying that my position is that you CANNOT systematically substitute the nucleotides that up the molecule and expect the molecule to contain functional information--IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO YOUR EXPLICIT CLAIMS.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If proteins were symbols as you say, ...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again I drew a comparison, which you have proven totally inept at grasping.
Click to expand...

Let's just review the record then:





UltimateReality said:


> The evo fundies demand that the TGAC's stand for something. Well they do stupid!!  They stand for proteins. Proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code.


WOW! Is that just a little embarrassing for you!

It's not as if you said, "Proteins are LIKE the symbols that are transferred within the code." You know, as if you were making a comparison.

No, you put your dick right in there, and insisted like the retard you are that that nucleotides are symbols for proteins, and emphatically that "proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code."



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... then polysaccharides could be functionally indistinguishable from polypeptides, as you would be simply exchanging one symbol (peptide) for another (sugar).
> 
> If the "the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions" as you say, you could substitute nucleic acids (provided you did so systematically) and the information transferred (being "chemically independent" from the DNA molecule) would result in the same protein the unaltered DNA molecule coded for.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really not sure why you keep repeating this strawman, but you just did it again for the 5th time. Is it making you feel better?
Click to expand...

I have clearly NOT been repeating any strawman. The evidence is incontrovertible on this point.

In light of the fact that your clearly stated positions are mutually compatible and that they support and reinforce each other each time you repeath them, THERE IS JUST NO FUCKING WAY you can validly accuse me of creating a strawman version of your claims.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, if such chemical independence was actually the case, you could systematically replace adenine with say ... a methyl group; you could then replace cytosine with an acetyl group; you could replace guanine with an alcohol; and you could replace thymine with an ester. Being merely symbols, all of these molecules would be chemically independent of the "the information and instructions" they represent. The resulting molecule would be in every sense "code" for the same protein that the DNA molecule was--with necessarily the exact same "information" content and specificity, since we are only exchanging symbols. Then we would expect that this new molecule would function just like a strand of DNA.
> 
> This of course, is just ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> It most certainly is.
Click to expand...

And as predicted, you fully contradict yourself for one purpose only:





UltimateReality said:


> And a strawman argument entirely of your imagination and not at all what ID is claiming.


Ah! There it is. Drowning in your cognitive dissonance, you agree with ALL the "the ramblings of a mad man" just to take the opportunity to declare I have created a "strawman argument entirely of [my] imagination."

FUKAN LOLSOME! 

Let's just se if you turn right back around to deny everything you just agreed with, now that you voiced your bullshit accusation.





UltimateReality said:


> The information in dna is carried by the dna. It is a code and that information is independent of the medium carrying it just as as the chemistry of the magnetic tape is independent of the zero's and one's contained on it.


YEP! BRAVO RETARD!!!! 



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason for this is that DNA IS NOT A "CODE" in the manner you say it is!
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the manner which is a figment of your strawman imagination???
Click to expand...

No! Not at all you retard! I am saying that DNA IS NOT A "CODE" in the actual manner you say it is--which is that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such substitutions cannot be made in DNA if the product of its function is to remain consistent. If DNA actually has it's very own discrete, specific, necessary, and self-defining function in the production of proteins (I think it does), then it's not actually a symbol for proteins--DNA then is not "code" that means proteins, because DNA doesn't actually function (in the genetics of organisms) that way.
> 
> 
> 
> It sure is nice of you to share information we are already aware of. Once again, I am left trying to remember what point it is that you are making??? You trail off into your delusions of Strawman. Is Toto there with you?
Click to expand...

You can deny all fucking day long that you have not repeatedly claimed that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

But it is plainly clear that the ONLY time you deny it, is for the purposes of fatuously accusing me of making a strawman even when I quote you directly.

I'm holding you to your actual and unambiguous position that, DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

Let's see where you go with that...



UltimateReality said:


> Let's see if you agree with these statements: in computer science, a specific sequence of zero's and one's can be used to code for the symbol 'A".(T/F)


True.



UltimateReality said:


> In computer science, a combination of blocks of these specific sequences of zero's and ones, placed in a specific order, can be used to code for the string of symbols 'D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L' (T/F).


True! lol: Such hilarious irony! )



UltimateReality said:


> A specific sequence of G's, T's, C's and A's can be used to code for a specific amino acid. (T/F)


True.



UltimateReality said:


> A combination of blocks of these specific sequences of G's, T's, C's and A's, placed in a specific order, can be used to code a string of amino acids that result in the protein, say, collagen or keratin (T/F).


True.
Regarding question 1) Do you know what else is true? In computer science, a specific sequence of "on's" and "off's" can be used to code for the symbol 'A". In fact, you can use any symbols you like because the information "A" is independent of the symbol used to code for it.

Regarding question 2) Do you know what else is true? In computer science, a combination of blocks of these specific sequences of zero's and ones, placed in a specific order, can be used to code for the string of symbols 'D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L', and regardless of label used, or the code for that label, nothing--no accusations of strawman, no fatuous denials of what you said--changes the reality that you're getting owned right now. This is because reality is independent of the symbols used to represent it. Changing the symbols cannot change the thing symbolized.

Regarding question 3) Do you know what else is true? A specific sequence of W's, X's, Y's and Z's can be used to "code" for a specific amino acid, because the specific amino acid is not determined by the symbols used to represent the nucleotides that code for that amino acid. 

Regarding question 4) Do you know what else is true? No combination of blocks of any specific sequences of any letters, numbers or other symbols, placed in a specific order, can ever be used to produce a string of amino acids that result in the protein, say, collagen or keratin. This is because DNA is not a "code" in the sense you use it. Sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--they cannot be substituted with other symbols. The information contained in DNA is *DEPENDENT* upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is *INDISSOCIABLE* from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> As plainly demonstrated above, I am NOT the one whose notions result in gibberish.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you aren't. Pay no mind to the nice gentlemen in white coats.
Click to expand...

Oh I won't! Don't worry Cupcake, they're taking you to a place where everyone else has imaginary superfriends who made the whole world to be just the way they believe it is.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire post above is quite the joke.
> 
> 
> 
> You're the joke.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than pick up a book like Signature In The Cell and read what claims are being made by ID, you rely on atheist websites for all your information. Your only source of information on the topic is what you have read on the internet. How sad. You will remain hopelessly lost in your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever you say Mr. "dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are hopelessly lost and I won't repeat the same thing over and over again which you can't seem to understand. The information bearing properties of dna are independent of the molecule. Jumble the G's, T's, C's and A's around and dna will not produce specific and functional proteins, nor will it make copies of itself. Without the specific arrangement of the nucleotides, functional information is not present, not even by chance. Without the specific arrangement of the nucleotides, which, when translated, impart a function, there would be shannon information but not information with specificity. The information in dna, while being expressed chemically, is merely carried by the molecule. The information is chemically independent from the chemistry just like words on a newspaper are independent from the chemistry of the ink, pulp, and other chemical ingredients that make up the information transfer medium known as newspaper. I can't understand why you are unable to grasp this. That is the last time I will explain it for you.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> "_Deoxyribonucleic acid (Listeni/di&#716;&#594;ksi&#716;ra&#618;b&#629;.nju&#720;&#716;kle&#618;.&#616;k &#712;æs&#618;d/; DNA) molecules are *informational molecules* en*coding* the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses. Along with RNA and proteins, DNA is one of the three major macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life. Genetic information is encoded as a sequence of nucleotides, recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. Most DNA molecules are double-stranded helices, consisting of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of alternating sugars (deoxyribose) and phosphate groups, with the nucleobases (G, A, T, C) attached to the sugars. DNA is well-suited for biological information storage, since the DNA backbone is resistant to cleavage and the double-stranded structure provides the molecule with a built-in duplicate of the en*coded **information*._"
> 
> _"It is the sequence of these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes information. This information is read using the *genetic code*, which* specifies the sequence* of the amino acids within proteins. The *code is read by copying stretches of DNA* into the related nucleic acid RNA in a process called transcription."_
> 
> So Loki, what is with all the teleological verbiage from Wiki on this subject?????
Click to expand...

There is little chance that I can know what you're talking about, when you have no idea what you're saying.



UltimateReality said:


> I'm not really sure why you refuse to accept it is code.


I accept that it's code. Or code even.

I don't accept that it's "code."



UltimateReality said:


> You keep strawmanning about a false claim of what type of code you believe ID to be proposing.


As I said earlier, maybe Intelligent Design Theory doesn't say anything you claim it says, but *YOU* insist that ""proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code," and that "... dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!

It is OBVIOUS that DNA is not "code" in the manner yuo use the term.



UltimateReality said:


> Nice waste of bandwidth above tearing down your strawman you built, pumpkin. DNA is digital code, regardless of whether you can fit that in your worldview or not.


Sorry about your retarded luck, Cupcake. It is OBVIOUS that DNA is not "code" in the manner you use the term.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you really want to piss off a stalker you ignore him. As far as I'm concerned Ultimate Embarassment adds nothing to any conversation and is easily relegated to the dust bin. AND as an extra added bonus it cleans up the thread rather nicely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, the only thing she or he ignores are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.
> 
> This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.
Click to expand...


Speak for yourself Troll.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Darwins discoveries, it would be helpful to remember that Darwin specifically said he didn't know where the original cell or cells came from and he wasn't going to guess. He said the origin of life itself was a hopeless inquiry. In Origin of the Species (and how many here have actually READ that interesting book?) Darwin said that in the beginning it was the Creator (with a capital c) who breathed life into the first single cell or several single cells, and it would be far in the future before the answer would be made clear. I wonder if he could have invisioned DNA?
> Now notice, if you will, Darwin probably did more than any other person to  extinguish religious faith among educated people and yet he was NOT an athiest. He bows to the Creator.
> He probabaly couldn't even concieve of being an atheist. In his day not even the most daring, rationalistic  philosophers, not even David Hume professed to be athiests.  It's not until the end of the 19th century we are met with the first athiest of any prominence :Nietzche. I suspect Darwin  figured that since nobody had the foggiest idea as to what created life in the first place, why not just lay it off on the Creator and let it go at that?
> 
> Keep in mind, the origin of the species and the origins of life are two entirely different concepts.
> 
> Darwin was not a neuro-scientist. His knowledge of the human brain was primitive at best. He knew nothing of genetics even though they  were discovered by a contemporary of his, an Austrian monk named Gregor Johann Mendel- whose work strengthens the case for evolution tremendously. But Darwin did something more fundamental. He obliterated the cardinal distinction between Man and the beasts of the field. It had always been a truism that Man was a rational being and the beasts operated on 'instinct'. But what is instinct? It's what we now know to be  the genetic code an animal is born with.
> 
> If man is an animal to what extent does his genetic code govern his life? Here we get into the realm of spiirtualism---or perhaps a little help from a higher life form, possibly from outside this universe (Pan Spermia?)
> The ancient Sumerians plainly state in their texts that the 'Gods' bred us, as we are today--more or less, so we could function as slaves for those higher beings.
> Strange stuff but it does answer a few basic  questions and I don't think any discussion on this subject can go very far without considering our 'true' origins.
> 
> And this doesn't go against the concept of God at all. It merely makes Him bigger. No matter, if you will, who created US, SOMEBODY created THEM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Origins is a dirty word for evolutionist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Predictably clueless. Origins, (the origin of life), is not a subject relevant to the TOE. This is an issue that typically causes confusion among Flat-Earthers'.
Click to expand...


Prove it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.
> 
> This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's try this again shall we.
> 
> Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.
> 
> 1. superior eye sight
> 2. superior land speed
> 3. superior strength
> 4. superior sense of smell
> 
> This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.
> 
> Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
> making you first statement false.
> 2. since  humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve  high running speed because none was necessary for survival.   you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
> 3. we are the strongest of our species
> your's is a false comparison.
> 4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins.
> 
> 
> "if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..
> 
> I'll ask you  TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.
Click to expand...


Think again.

1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
3. The Secret To Chimp Strength

You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.

Nice dodge ! and misinformation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said,"the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions."​Which is just hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity on the topic would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. I'm not sure what you find so amusing since you never actually provide a logical rebuttal or information to back up you silly claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because you refuse to consider any rebuttal on the basis that rebuttals of your stupid assertions are defacto invalid, it does not follow that a logical and fully valid rebuttal was not provided.
> 
> Case in point:
> Do you see what you did here? Everyone else does. So committed to your denial that you could possibly be wrong, you just refused to read and follow the plainly laid out points provided for you, and instead opted to apply an ad-hominem argument, asserting my points to be incomprehensible because they are just "the ramblings of a mad man."
> 
> Just like every other instance where you've been confronted by your fatal case of cognitive dissonance, resort to your arsenal of red-herrings: you make some shit up, or ask questions loaded with bullshit premises, or you change the subject, or you just plainly misrepresent the points made.
> 
> DNA does not contain symbols; DNA is not symbolic; DNA is NOT "code" in the equivocating manner you are using the term, because the information and instructions contained in DNA is *DEPENDENT* upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is *INDISSOCIABLE* from the chemistry of the DNA molecule.
> 
> I've got a bonus point for you: You're going to agree with the above point most emphatically ... ONLY for the opportunity to falsely accuse me of building a strawman of your argument. Then you will immediately return to your patently bullshit notions regarding the magical relationship (i.e. independence) between the information in DNA and the chemistry of DNA; because without your magical DNA, your whole notion of the informed "code" in DNA becomes internally self-destructive.
> 
> "Code" in the manner geneticists use the term? DNA absolutely contains code. "Code" in the equivocating manner you and your retarded tribe use it? DNA does *NOT* contain code.
> 
> I'm not even talking about Shannon Information. We all know you're uncomfortable with the way your ass is getting kicked, so nobody is surprised that you wish to change the subject. So to answer your question; I see no reason to assert that with DNA, the uncertainty regarding the expected information transmitted, and the actual information received, equals zero. That assertion however, should not be construed as a denial that DNA contains Shannon Information.
> 
> I would say that Shannon Information _serves_ a function in DNA, but it does not impart any function to DNA.
> 
> You OBVIOUSLY have no fucking clue as to what you're talking about or you wouldn't sincerely ask these vacuous questions. OR, you might THINK you know what you're talking about; in which case you've prepared yourself to leverage ANY answer offered against me, whether the answers are correct or not. OR, you actually DO know what you're talking about, in which case you know just as well as I do that *NO* answer offered actually matters, since a) there's nothing necessarily meaningful about information according to Shannon, and much more importantly, b) I wasn't making ANY point regarding Shannon Information.
> 
> Ain't that right, Pumpkin?
> 
> Neither joking, nor dumb, nor stupid, nor missing your point.
> 
> The only way you could possibly support such an accusation is to just make some shit up, and misrepresent what I said.
> 
> Right on queue!
> 
> The risk you run, when you refuse to even contemplate any rebuttal to your nonsense, is that you become the laughing stock of this entire 638 pages.
> 
> Despite the fact that it is plainly clear that I did not say "that if [you] shake up the molecule and shift all the nucleotides around, the dna will still contain functional information."
> 
> I mean really. It's OBVIOUS! It's just as OBVIOUS that I am saying that my position is that you CANNOT shake up the molecule and shift all the nucleotides around, the DNA will still contain functional information.
> 
> What is also OBVIOUS, is that I am saying that my position is that you CANNOT systematically substitute the nucleotides that up the molecule and expect the molecule to contain functional information--IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO YOUR EXPLICIT CLAIMS.
> 
> Let's just review the record then:WOW! Is that just a little embarrassing for you!
> 
> It's not as if you said, "Proteins are LIKE the symbols that are transferred within the code." You know, as if you were making a comparison.
> 
> No, you put your dick right in there, and insisted like the retard you are that that nucleotides are symbols for proteins, and emphatically that "proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code."
> 
> I have clearly NOT been repeating any strawman. The evidence is incontrovertible on this point.
> 
> In light of the fact that your clearly stated positions are mutually compatible and that they support and reinforce each other each time you repeath them, THERE IS JUST NO FUCKING WAY you can validly accuse me of creating a strawman version of your claims.
> 
> And as predicted, you fully contradict yourself for one purpose only:Ah! There it is. Drowning in your cognitive dissonance, you agree with ALL the "the ramblings of a mad man" just to take the opportunity to declare I have created a "strawman argument entirely of [my] imagination."
> 
> FUKAN LOLSOME!
> 
> Let's just se if you turn right back around to deny everything you just agreed with, now that you voiced your bullshit accusation.YEP! BRAVO RETARD!!!!
> 
> No! Not at all you retard! I am saying that DNA IS NOT A "CODE" in the actual manner you say it is--which is that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.
> 
> You can deny all fucking day long that you have not repeatedly claimed that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.
> 
> But it is plainly clear that the ONLY time you deny it, is for the purposes of fatuously accusing me of making a strawman even when I quote you directly.
> 
> I'm holding you to your actual and unambiguous position that, DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.
> 
> Let's see where you go with that...
> True.
> True! lol: Such hilarious irony! )
> True.
> True.
> Regarding question 1) Do you know what else is true? In computer science, a specific sequence of "on's" and "off's" can be used to code for the symbol 'A". In fact, you can use any symbols you like because the information "A" is independent of the symbol used to code for it.
> 
> Regarding question 2) Do you know what else is true? In computer science, a combination of blocks of these specific sequences of zero's and ones, placed in a specific order, can be used to code for the string of symbols 'D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L', and regardless of label used, or the code for that label, nothing--no accusations of strawman, no fatuous denials of what you said--changes the reality that you're getting owned right now. This is because reality is independent of the symbols used to represent it. Changing the symbols cannot change the thing symbolized.
> 
> Regarding question 3) Do you know what else is true? A specific sequence of W's, X's, Y's and Z's can be used to "code" for a specific amino acid, because the specific amino acid is not determined by the symbols used to represent the nucleotides that code for that amino acid.
> 
> Regarding question 4) Do you know what else is true? No combination of blocks of any specific sequences of any letters, numbers or other symbols, placed in a specific order, can ever be used to produce a string of amino acids that result in the protein, say, collagen or keratin. This is because DNA is not a "code" in the sense you use it. Sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--they cannot be substituted with other symbols. The information contained in DNA is *DEPENDENT* upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is *INDISSOCIABLE* from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.
> 
> Oh I won't! Don't worry Cupcake, they're taking you to a place where everyone else has imaginary superfriends who made the whole world to be just the way they believe it is.
> 
> There is little chance that I can know what you're talking about, when you have no idea what you're saying.
> 
> I accept that it's code. Or code even.
> 
> I don't accept that it's "code."
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep strawmanning about a false claim of what type of code you believe ID to be proposing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said earlier, maybe Intelligent Design Theory doesn't say anything you claim it says, but *YOU* insist that ""proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code," and that "... dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!
> 
> It is OBVIOUS that DNA is not "code" in the manner yuo use the term.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice waste of bandwidth above tearing down your strawman you built, pumpkin. DNA is digital code, regardless of whether you can fit that in your worldview or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry about your retarded luck, Cupcake. It is OBVIOUS that DNA is not "code" in the manner you use the term.
Click to expand...


Geez UR is right about these long posts saying nothing.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Geez UR is right about these long posts saying nothing.


They cannot possibly say anything to those who just refuse to read them (because they already "know" the post says nothing).


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez UR is right about these long posts saying nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> They cannot possibly say anything to those who just refuse to read them (because they already "know" the post says nothing).
Click to expand...


Loki, yahweh of misinformation.... Rather than quote your lengthy post that says nothing again as YWC did above, I would first like to say that the link you provided to dictionary.com for code that dna isn't, contained definitions for genetic code. Do you even read your own links, Pumpkin Head???

My other response to your pages of symbols made up of 0's and 1's that communicate absolutely no information is this: Let's return to the original argument I made before you took us down the twisted road of your insane tangents and strawman claims for what code I was claiming, which was: *DNA contains digital Code just like a computer contains digital code.* Your endless rambling nonsense has gotten so far off track you don't even remember what started the whole argument. Let me say it one more time. *DNA contains digital code just like a computer contains digital code. * For this claim, I present the following evidence:

From Wiki: _"A Binary code is a way of representing...computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular...instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 255 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different...instructions."_

_"An instruction set, or instruction set architecture (ISA), is the part of the computer architecture related to programming, including the native data types, instructions, registers, addressing modes, memory architecture, interrupt and exception handling, and external I/O. An ISA includes a specification of the set of opcodes (machine language), and the native commands implemented by a particular processor."
_

_"DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area."_

"Enzyme based DNA computers are usually of the form of a simple Turing machine; there is analogous hardware, in the form of an enzyme, and *software, in the form of DNA"*

The field of *DNA computing* was established in Leonard M. Adelman&#8217;s seminal paper.[1] His work is significant for a number of reasons:

-*It shows how one could use the highly parallel nature of computation performed by DNA to solve problems that are difficult or almost impossible to solve using the traditional methods.

-It's an example of computation at a molecular level, on the lines of nanocomputing, and this potentially is a major advantage as far as the information density on storage media is considered, which can never be reached by the semiconductor industry.

-It demonstrates unique aspects of DNA as a data structure.

-This capability for massively parallel computation in DNA computing can be exploited in solving many computational problems on an enormously large scale such as cell-based computational systems for cancer diagnostics and treatment, and ultra-high density storage media.*

*Quaternary Code*:

Quaternary is the base-4 numeral system. It uses the digits 0, 1, 2 and 3 to represent any real number.

Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).


----------



## UltimateReality

"Scientists have for the first time used DNA to encode the contents of a book. At 53,000 words, and including 11 images and a computer program, it is the largest amount of data yet stored artificially using the genetic material.

The researchers claim that the cost of DNA coding is dropping so quickly that within five to 10 years it could be cheaper to store information using this method than in conventional digital devices.

Deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA  the chemical that stores genetic instructions in almost all known organisms  has an impressive data capacity. *One gram can store up to 455bn gigabytes: the contents of more than 100bn DVDs,* making it the ultimate in compact storage media."

Book written in DNA code | Science | The Guardian


----------



## UltimateReality

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech

"Scientists have been eyeing up DNA as a potential storage medium for a long time, for three very good reasons: It&#8217;s incredibly dense (you can store one bit per base, and a base is only a few atoms large); it&#8217;s volumetric (beaker) rather than planar (hard disk); and it&#8217;s incredibly stable &#8212; where other bleeding-edge storage mediums need to be kept in sub-zero vacuums, DNA can survive for hundreds of thousands of years in a box in your garage."

http://vimeo.com/47615970


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, the only thing she or he ignores are facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.
> 
> This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok let's try this again shall we.
> 
> Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.
> 
> 1. superior eye sight
> 2. superior land speed
> 3. superior strength
> 4. superior sense of smell
> 
> This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.
> 
> Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?
Click to expand...


 It appears that both daws and LOki have taken the threads primary Flat-Earth proponent to task for his utterly ridiculous claims. Your claim to "superior traits" possessed but not passed down to modern humans is ridiculous, unsupported and without substantiation and is thus dismissed as absurd. What we can take away from the comments of ywc is that Creationism  / ID should appropriately be re-named to "Christian Theological Objectionism", or possibly "Non-scientific Anti-evolutionism", or better; _"The Stupid_

At the core of all the anti-evolution and anti-science rhetoric you will find, crouching behind pseudo-scientific sounding terminology is literal adherence to biblical scripture that will tolerate no interpretation.

The Anti-evolution / Anti-science Christian ministries do absolutely rely on mis-characterations, promotion of fear, ignorance and a revulsion for science. 

"Scientific Creationism" and ID are two of the biggest anti-science smokescreens. They are nothing more than Christian polemics and present baseless objections to the fact of evolution in desperate attempts to cause doubt and confusion in the non-scientific public. They're trying to sway the fence-sitters, as well as reassure their followers. The fitness of a species represents largely the ability of the individuals of the species to efficiently exploit the resources of its environment. This has nothing to do with any one species "evolving into another species". If the environment changes, or if the species relocates to a new environment, or a new species enters the environment and competes, evolution will probably occur in both species - or one or the other species may become extinct.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's try this again shall we.
> 
> Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.
> 
> 1. superior eye sight
> 2. superior land speed
> 3. superior strength
> 4. superior sense of smell
> 
> This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.
> 
> Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
> making you first statement false.
> 2. since  humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve  high running speed because none was necessary for survival.   you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
> 3. we are the strongest of our species
> your's is a false comparison.
> 4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins.
> 
> 
> "if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..
> 
> I'll ask you  TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think again.
> 
> 1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
> 2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
> 3. The Secret To Chimp Strength
> 
> You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.
> 
> Nice dodge ! and misinformation.
Click to expand...

The above is more creationist nonsense. Beginning with a false assumption and then proceeding to false conclusions is a creationist pathology. To presume that "former human ancestors" possessed superior physical attributes but somehow lost them is utterly ridiculous. As usual, the creationist is unable to present a defendable case for his claims and reduced to making outrageous claims building upon presumption and false notions.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez UR is right about these long posts saying nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> They cannot possibly say anything to those who just refuse to read them (because they already "know" the post says nothing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki, yahweh of misinformation.... Rather than quote your lengthy post that says nothing again as YWC did above, I would first like to say that the link you provided to dictionary.com for code that dna isn't, contained definitions for genetic code. Do you even read your own links, Pumpkin Head???
> 
> My other response to your pages of symbols made up of 0's and 1's that communicate absolutely no information is this: Let's return to the original argument I made before you took us down the twisted road of your insane tangents and strawman claims for what code I was claiming, which was: *DNA contains digital Code just like a computer contains digital code.* Your endless rambling nonsense has gotten so far off track you don't even remember what started the whole argument. Let me say it one more time. *DNA contains digital code just like a computer contains digital code. * For this claim, I present the following evidence:
> 
> From Wiki: _"A Binary code is a way of representing...computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular...instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 255 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different...instructions."_
> 
> _"An instruction set, or instruction set architecture (ISA), is the part of the computer architecture related to programming, including the native data types, instructions, registers, addressing modes, memory architecture, interrupt and exception handling, and external I/O. An ISA includes a specification of the set of opcodes (machine language), and the native commands implemented by a particular processor."
> _
> 
> _"DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area."_
> 
> "Enzyme based DNA computers are usually of the form of a simple Turing machine; there is analogous hardware, in the form of an enzyme, and *software, in the form of DNA"*
> 
> The field of *DNA computing* was established in Leonard M. Adelmans seminal paper.[1] His work is significant for a number of reasons:
> 
> -*It shows how one could use the highly parallel nature of computation performed by DNA to solve problems that are difficult or almost impossible to solve using the traditional methods.
> 
> -It's an example of computation at a molecular level, on the lines of nanocomputing, and this potentially is a major advantage as far as the information density on storage media is considered, which can never be reached by the semiconductor industry.
> 
> -It demonstrates unique aspects of DNA as a data structure.
> 
> -This capability for massively parallel computation in DNA computing can be exploited in solving many computational problems on an enormously large scale such as cell-based computational systems for cancer diagnostics and treatment, and ultra-high density storage media.*
> 
> *Quaternary Code*:
> 
> Quaternary is the base-4 numeral system. It uses the digits 0, 1, 2 and 3 to represent any real number.
> 
> Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]
> 
> For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
Click to expand...

Does the goofy creationst not understand that his claim to "digital code" includes a wiki quote that not once references "digital", but rather, binary?

The goofy creationist seems to have lost track of the earlier reference to creationist claims that DNA is too complex to have evolved and thus must have been from the gods. We're left with the goofy creationist still unable to make any case that DNA is the result of any supernatural intervention - his gods or anyone else's gods.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez UR is right about these long posts saying nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> They cannot possibly say anything to those who just refuse to read them (because they already "know" the post says nothing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki, yahweh of misinformation.... Rather than quote your lengthy post that says nothing again as YWC did above, ...
Click to expand...

Typical. Both of you superstitious retards are in desperate denial that your precious notion regarding DNA being an "informed" molecule has been shit-canned for such easily and plainly understood reasons. 

You really have no substantive rebuttal to offer, so you console your butt-hurt with a dismissive denial of reality.



UltimateReality said:


> ... I would first like to say that the link you provided to dictionary.com for code that dna isn't, contained definitions for genetic code. Do you even read your own links, Pumpkin Head???


Yet you still FLATLY REFUSE to acknowledge the distinction made.

BRAVO RETARD! 



UltimateReality said:


> My other response to your pages of symbols made up of 0's and 1's that communicate absolutely no information is this: Let's return to the original argument I made ....
> 
> ---PREVIOUSLY REFUTED CRAP SNIPPED---​



... which was demonstrably faulty; where you were just wrong, for the same reasons you refuse to acknowledge now.

Did you enjoy your trip down memory lane?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> --DESPERATE EQUIVOCATING SNIPPED--​


Your error in refusing to acknowledge the distinction in the the way geneticists use the term _code_ cannot be resolved by insisting upon applying your error of equivocation in the use of the term "code."


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> --YOUR FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR EQUIVOCATION SNIPPED--​


Thanks for sharing.


----------



## ima

Anyone who claims that the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing is obviously a moron. Now go vote for Mitt Romney.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.
> 
> This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's try this again shall we.
> 
> Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.
> 
> 1. superior eye sight
> 2. superior land speed
> 3. superior strength
> 4. superior sense of smell
> 
> This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.
> 
> Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears that both daws and LOki have taken the threads primary Flat-Earth proponent to task for his utterly ridiculous claims. Your claim to "superior traits" possessed but not passed down to modern humans is ridiculous, unsupported and without substantiation and is thus dismissed as absurd. What we can take away from the comments of ywc is that Creationism  / ID should appropriately be re-named to "Christian Theological Objectionism", or possibly "Non-scientific Anti-evolutionism", or better; _"The Stupid_
> 
> At the core of all the anti-evolution and anti-science rhetoric you will find, crouching behind pseudo-scientific sounding terminology is literal adherence to biblical scripture that will tolerate no interpretation.
> 
> The Anti-evolution / Anti-science Christian ministries do absolutely rely on mis-characterations, promotion of fear, ignorance and a revulsion for science.
> 
> "Scientific Creationism" and ID are two of the biggest anti-science smokescreens. They are nothing more than Christian polemics and present baseless objections to the fact of evolution in desperate attempts to cause doubt and confusion in the non-scientific public. They're trying to sway the fence-sitters, as well as reassure their followers. The fitness of a species represents largely the ability of the individuals of the species to efficiently exploit the resources of its environment. This has nothing to do with any one species "evolving into another species". If the environment changes, or if the species relocates to a new environment, or a new species enters the environment and competes, evolution will probably occur in both species - or one or the other species may become extinct.
Click to expand...


It shows their desperate attempt to hold on to a lie. Where did the genes go ? Were they eliminated by Natural selection ?

Evolutionist want everyone to believe that humans came from Africa and humans are still there so what is this enviornment argument ? Do you actually think before you type or are this ignorant of the theory you attempt to defend ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
> making you first statement false.
> 2. since  humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve  high running speed because none was necessary for survival.   you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
> 3. we are the strongest of our species
> your's is a false comparison.
> 4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins.
> 
> 
> "if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..
> 
> I'll ask you  TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think again.
> 
> 1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
> 2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
> 3. The Secret To Chimp Strength
> 
> You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.
> 
> Nice dodge ! and misinformation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above is more creationist nonsense. Beginning with a false assumption and then proceeding to false conclusions is a creationist pathology. To presume that "former human ancestors" possessed superior physical attributes but somehow lost them is utterly ridiculous. As usual, the creationist is unable to present a defendable case for his claims and reduced to making outrageous claims building upon presumption and false notions.
Click to expand...


This has noting to do with me being a creationist. These are legitimate questions your side still have no way to explain. The reason is they try to make a theory fit the evidence and it doesn't. It never happened the evolutionist claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> --DESPERATE EQUIVOCATING SNIPPED--​
> 
> 
> 
> Your error in refusing to acknowledge the distinction in the the way geneticists use the term _code_ cannot be resolved by insisting upon applying your error of equivocation in the use of the term "code."
Click to expand...


Loki do you understand DNA transcription ? why does this take place ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
> making you first statement false.
> 2. since  humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve  high running speed because none was necessary for survival.   you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
> 3. we are the strongest of our species
> your's is a false comparison.
> 4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins.
> 
> 
> "if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..
> 
> I'll ask you  TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think again.
> 
> 1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
> 2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
> 3. The Secret To Chimp Strength
> 
> You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.
> 
> Nice dodge ! and misinformation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above is more creationist nonsense. Beginning with a false assumption and then proceeding to false conclusions is a creationist pathology. To presume that "former human ancestors" possessed superior physical attributes but somehow lost them is utterly ridiculous. As usual, the creationist is unable to present a defendable case for his claims and reduced to making outrageous claims building upon presumption and false notions.
Click to expand...


You show your ignorance on genetics and the genepool.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Anyone who claims that the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing is obviously a moron. Now go vote for Mitt Romney.



Anyone who believes in a myth and their relatives were chimps and that wants to destroy the culture of America go vote for obama.

One of these days I hope you wise up.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who claims that the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing is obviously a moron. Now go vote for Mitt Romney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes in a myth and their relatives were chimps and that wants to destroy the culture of America go vote for obama.
> 
> One of these days I hope you wise up.
Click to expand...


Seriously though, anyone who writes that Noah was 600 years old can't count.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> --DESPERATE EQUIVOCATING SNIPPED--​
> 
> 
> 
> Your error in refusing to acknowledge the distinction in the the way geneticists use the term _code_ cannot be resolved by insisting upon applying your error of equivocation in the use of the term "code."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki do you understand DNA transcription ?
Click to expand...

Yes. At least far better than UltimateReality does.



Youwerecreated said:


> why does this take place ?


It happens because the sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides *CANNOT* be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is *DEPENDENT* upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is *INDISSOCIABLE* from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think again.
> 
> 1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
> 2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
> 3. The Secret To Chimp Strength
> 
> You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.
> 
> Nice dodge ! and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> The above is more creationist nonsense. Beginning with a false assumption and then proceeding to false conclusions is a creationist pathology. To presume that "former human ancestors" possessed superior physical attributes but somehow lost them is utterly ridiculous. As usual, the creationist is unable to present a defendable case for his claims and reduced to making outrageous claims building upon presumption and false notions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You show your ignorance on genetics and the genepool.
Click to expand...



Actually, you inability to deal honestly with the failure of Christian creationism to present a workable framework for how "the gods did it"  is the reason for the utter absurdity of creationist beliefs. Christian creationist views of science are, of course, skewed in desperate attempts to alter science to "fit' literal biblical tales and fables. 

You should also be aware that the framing of your silly claims regarding the alleged lost attributes of modern humans vs. earlier ancestors is an explicit recognition of the process of evolution. That simply won't fit the literal Christian creation tale. What is laughable, however, is your claim that modern humans somehow lost a number of attributes possessed by earlier ancestors. Of course, you failed to demonstrate that those earlier ancestors actually possessed the attributes you have assigned to them and you failed to address any lineage connecting those alleged earlier ancestors with modern humans. 

Basically, your comments amount to a disjointed, irrelevant and specious series of claims, totally unsupported and not requiring anything more than dismissal as a waste of time.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who claims that the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing is obviously a moron. Now go vote for Mitt Romney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes in a myth and their relatives were chimps and that wants to destroy the culture of America go vote for obama.
> 
> One of these days I hope you wise up.
Click to expand...


I can scarsely think of a worse fate for the US than to be dragged back into the Dark Ages of fear and superstition furthered by Christian fundamentalists.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> They cannot possibly say anything to those who just refuse to read them (because they already "know" the post says nothing).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, yahweh of misinformation.... Rather than quote your lengthy post that says nothing again as YWC did above, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical. Both of you superstitious retards are in desperate denial that your precious notion regarding DNA being an "informed" molecule has been shit-canned for such easily and plainly understood reasons.
> 
> You really have no substantive rebuttal to offer, so you console your butt-hurt with a dismissive denial of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I would first like to say that the link you provided to dictionary.com for code that dna isn't, contained definitions for genetic code. Do you even read your own links, Pumpkin Head???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you still FLATLY REFUSE to acknowledge the distinction made.
> 
> BRAVO RETARD!
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> My other response to your pages of symbols made up of 0's and 1's that communicate absolutely no information is this: Let's return to the original argument I made ....
> 
> ---PREVIOUSLY REFUTED CRAP SNIPPED---​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... which was demonstrably faulty; where you were just wrong, for the same reasons you refuse to acknowledge now.
> 
> Did you enjoy your trip down memory lane?
Click to expand...


How can you say this is wrong in light of the evidence just presented? You have proven your intellectual dishonesty time and again and now have lost any shred of credibility you were clinging onto for dear life. You are in pathological denial and hopelessly lost in your ignorance. Good luck with that, Almond Joy.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your error in refusing to acknowledge the distinction in the the way geneticists use the term _code_ cannot be resolved by insisting upon applying your error of equivocation in the use of the term "code."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki do you understand DNA transcription ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. At least far better than UltimateReality does.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> why does this take place ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It happens because the sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides *CANNOT* be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is *DEPENDENT* upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is *INDISSOCIABLE* from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.
Click to expand...


Strawman and repetitive irrelevant point. Bravo, Short Bus!!! Again, no one is claiming this. What I did claim was that the DNA molecule contains information that is independent from the molecule itself. This has been proven as the molecule has been used a storage medium for information other than used for protein building. But hey, please don't let me stop you from making your totally irrelevant point to the argument a 10th time, M&M.


----------



## ima

So with all those animals on his boat, how much shit did Noah have to shovel during those 40 days and nights? I bet he had to make sure not to shovel it all to one side of the boat though.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> --DESPERATE EQUIVOCATING SNIPPED--​
> 
> 
> 
> Your error in refusing to acknowledge the distinction in the the way geneticists use the term _code_ cannot be resolved by insisting upon applying your error of equivocation in the use of the term "code."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loki do you understand DNA transcription ? why does this take place ?
Click to expand...


No, he just doesn't get it. Lack of a formal education has left him to attempt understanding by what he reads on the internet without external guidance to put it into context.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> So with all those animals on his boat, how much shit did Noah have to shovel ...?



Just a little more than the amount YWC and I have had to wade through from you, Hollie, Daws, and Loki in this thread.


----------



## ima

If Noah had lions and tigers, which eat meat, did he have extra chickens and goats and stuff? Or did god give him a magic bowl of dog food that never ran dry?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki, yahweh of misinformation.... Rather than quote your lengthy post that says nothing again as YWC did above, ...
> 
> 
> 
> Typical. Both of you superstitious retards are in desperate denial that your precious notion regarding DNA being an "informed" molecule has been shit-canned for such easily and plainly understood reasons.
> 
> You really have no substantive rebuttal to offer, so you console your butt-hurt with a dismissive denial of reality.
> 
> Yet you still FLATLY REFUSE to acknowledge the distinction made.
> 
> BRAVO RETARD!
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> My other response to your pages of symbols made up of 0's and 1's that communicate absolutely no information is this: Let's return to the original argument I made ....
> 
> ---PREVIOUSLY REFUTED CRAP SNIPPED---​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... which was demonstrably faulty; where you were just wrong, for the same reasons you refuse to acknowledge now.
> 
> Did you enjoy your trip down memory lane?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you say this is wrong in light of the evidence just presented?
Click to expand...

Evidence? Evidence that DNA can be used in a computer? This has already been addressed!

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is the information transferred and decoding to assemble proteins, it is now be revealed that information in the non-coding, i.e., non protein building dna is responsible for the higher processes involving the building of cells into organs and organs into complex organisms.
> 
> You are still missing the point, although I have stated it several times (!!!) the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions. Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism. What you can't get is that dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!
> 
> ID Vindicated | Uncommon Descent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good. Now we know you are thoroughly dissociated from reality.  It's like magic! "Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism". It doesn't matter which, because with "the magic code of DNA" (being "chemically independent from the informational code it carries"), you could [systematically] replace the bases in DNA with any random reactive chemical, and nothing about "informational code" it carries would change. Good. Just great.
> 
> WOW! You're retarded.
Click to expand...

It bears repeating to you and your dumbass sidekick: _*DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms.*_There is nothing--LITERALLY NOTHING--in the "evidence" you presented that leads anyone but you to believe that if you encoded all of Shakespeare's work into a DNA computer, and took that DNA and placed it into a living organism that you should expect to get ANY Shakespeare out. Likewise, if you were to pull the entire genetic content of a living organism into a DNA computer, no one but you expects any organism to come out.

The reason for this is ... DNA can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms.

NOBODY is disputing that DNA *CAN* be used to code in the manner you use the term.

And when you percieve an opportunity to declare my rebuttal to your position a strawman, NOBODY disputes my point that sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides CANNOT be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is DEPENDENT upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is INDISSOCIABLE from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.



UltimateReality said:


> You have proven your intellectual dishonesty time and again and now have lost any shred of credibility you were clinging onto for dear life. You are in pathological denial and hopelessly lost in your ignorance. Good luck with that, Almond Joy.


 *LOLSOME!* Such hilarious irony. You are the definitive example of pathological projection.

What you are demonstrating is your boundless capacity to produce a bushel of oranges, and shamelessly declare that they are apples.

And if I should point out that you have oranges, and NOT apples, you fatuously ignore the obvious point made and declare that I have presented a strawman, because you are not holding a bushel of apples.

Then you declare that I am intellectually dishonest, clinging for dear life on to credibility, and in denial and hopelessly lost in my ignorance because I maintain that your bushel of oranges is not apples.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki do you understand DNA transcription ?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. At least far better than UltimateReality does.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> why does this take place ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It happens because the sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides *CANNOT* be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is *DEPENDENT* upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is *INDISSOCIABLE* from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman and repetitive irrelevant point. Bravo, Short Bus!!! Again, no one is claiming this. What I did claim was that the DNA molecule contains information that is independent from the molecule itself.
Click to expand...

Let's just review the record:





UltimateReality said:


> What you can't get is that dna as a molecule is *chemically independent* from the informational code it carries!!


Where's the stawman now?



UltimateReality said:


> This has been proven as the molecule has been used a storage medium for information other than used for protein building. But hey, please don't let me stop you from making your totally irrelevant point to the argument a 10th time, M&M.


NOBODY is disputing that DNA *CAN* be used to code in the manner you use the term.

And when you percieve an opportunity to declare my rebuttal to your position a strawman, NOBODY disputes my point that sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides CANNOT be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is DEPENDENT upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is INDISSOCIABLE from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your error in refusing to acknowledge the distinction in the the way geneticists use the term _code_ cannot be resolved by insisting upon applying your error of equivocation in the use of the term "code."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki do you understand DNA transcription ? why does this take place ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he just doesn't get it. Lack of a formal education has left him to attempt understanding by what he reads on the internet without external guidance to put it into context.
Click to expand...

I've had sufficient formal education to disabuse myself of the superstitious notion that the DNA in living things must be an informed molecule based upon the premise that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.


----------



## ima

If Adam and Eve had 3 sons, how did they have children? With monkeys? Goats? With their mom?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So with all those animals on his boat, how much shit did Noah have to shovel ...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a little more than the amount YWC and I have had to wade through from you, Hollie, Daws, and Loki in this thread.
Click to expand...


You give yourself too little credit for the rabidly bible thumping, science loathing agenda you press. Biology, anthropology, geology and the physical science all contribute to the knowledge of earth's history and the biological process of evolution. All of that combined evidence provides the most complete and explainable process that has allowed life to develop on the planet. 

It is abundantly clear that the Christian creationists offer nothing in support of their claim to "the gods did it". The Flat Earthers' are left with the entirety of their arguments being attacks on science. Most every page in this thread provides hard science facts and evidence supporting biological evolution. The Flat Earthers' are left to cut and paste falsified "quotes" and bible verses as attacks on science, not support for their arguments. That dynamic truly defines the chasm separating science fact from religious dogma.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who claims that the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing is obviously a moron. Now go vote for Mitt Romney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes in a myth and their relatives were chimps and that wants to destroy the culture of America go vote for obama.
> 
> One of these days I hope you wise up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously though, anyone who writes that Noah was 600 years old can't count.
Click to expand...


How do you know ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your error in refusing to acknowledge the distinction in the the way geneticists use the term _code_ cannot be resolved by insisting upon applying your error of equivocation in the use of the term "code."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki do you understand DNA transcription ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. At least far better than UltimateReality does.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> why does this take place ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It happens because the sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides *CANNOT* be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is *DEPENDENT* upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is *INDISSOCIABLE* from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.
Click to expand...


Dependent, does that not suggest a necessity,do you believe chance produces a necessity ? So what happens if a mutation happens ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes in a myth and their relatives were chimps and that wants to destroy the culture of America go vote for obama.
> 
> One of these days I hope you wise up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, anyone who writes that Noah was 600 years old can't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know ?
Click to expand...


Humans didn't live that long back then. They still don't.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who claims that the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing is obviously a moron. Now go vote for Mitt Romney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes in a myth and their relatives were chimps and that wants to destroy the culture of America go vote for obama.
> 
> One of these days I hope you wise up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can scarsely think of a worse fate for the US than to be dragged back into the Dark Ages of fear and superstition furthered by Christian fundamentalists.
Click to expand...


Romney a Christian fundamentalist  One man does not make law.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> So with all those animals on his boat, how much shit did Noah have to shovel during those 40 days and nights? I bet he had to make sure not to shovel it all to one side of the boat though.



Don't know,what's your point ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your error in refusing to acknowledge the distinction in the the way geneticists use the term _code_ cannot be resolved by insisting upon applying your error of equivocation in the use of the term "code."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loki do you understand DNA transcription ? why does this take place ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he just doesn't get it. Lack of a formal education has left him to attempt understanding by what he reads on the internet without external guidance to put it into context.
Click to expand...


He is somewhat on the right track but I am trying to let make his own case for purposeful design.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> If Noah had lions and tigers, which eat meat, did he have extra chickens and goats and stuff? Or did god give him a magic bowl of dog food that never ran dry?



According to the scriptures all organisms were vegetarians except humans,that did not change until after the boat ride.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So with all those animals on his boat, how much shit did Noah have to shovel during those 40 days and nights? I bet he had to make sure not to shovel it all to one side of the boat though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know,what's your point ?
Click to expand...


Point being, Noah sounds like he shovelled a lot of shit. Must have been hard for a 600 year old. What do you think?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki do you understand DNA transcription ? why does this take place ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he just doesn't get it. Lack of a formal education has left him to attempt understanding by what he reads on the internet without external guidance to put it into context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've had sufficient formal education to disabuse myself of the superstitious notion that the DNA in living things must be an informed molecule based upon the premise that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.
Click to expand...


Where did the code come from ? what happens if the instructions are not followed in most cases ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> If Adam and Eve had 3 sons, how did they have children? With monkeys? Goats? With their mom?



Enough is enough you had your chance to discuss things like an adult your time has come and is now gone.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So with all those animals on his boat, how much shit did Noah have to shovel during those 40 days and nights? I bet he had to make sure not to shovel it all to one side of the boat though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know,what's your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Point being, Noah sounds like he shovelled a lot of shit. Must have been hard for a 600 year old. What do you think?
Click to expand...


Yes,kinda like UR and I.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki do you understand DNA transcription ?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. At least far better than UltimateReality does.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> why does this take place ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It happens because the sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides *CANNOT* be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is *DEPENDENT* upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is *INDISSOCIABLE* from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dependent, does that not suggest a necessity,do you believe chance produces a necessity ?
Click to expand...

There is no answer to this nonsense question. Do you believe blue adds up to 27?



Youwerecreated said:


> So what happens if a mutation happens ?


Nothing, *IF* DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule, as the disingenuous retard you defend so enthusiastically demands.

OTOH if I am correct, and DNA is a NOT symbol for proteins, but a molecule whose information is dependent on... no, MORE than just dependent on... *INHERENT* in its chemistry; if, as I have clearly stated, you CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and then expect no alteration of the initial protein coded for, then there will be a change expressed in the product (i.e. the protein in this case) of the altered information that constitutes the mutation.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he just doesn't get it. Lack of a formal education has left him to attempt understanding by what he reads on the internet without external guidance to put it into context.
> 
> 
> 
> I've had sufficient formal education to disabuse myself of the superstitious notion that the DNA in living things must be an informed molecule based upon the premise that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did the code come from ? what happens if the instructions are not followed in most cases ?
Click to expand...


In the grown-up world, we use terms such as evolution and cell mutation?

Where did your gods come from? Define for us the hierarchy of gods who zapped into existence the subordinate gods who in turn zapped into existence the lower order of subordinate gods until we eventually got the lowest order of subordinate gods, ie., your gods. 

What happens to your gods if they don't follow the orders of the gods they are junior to?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loki do you understand DNA transcription ? why does this take place ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he just doesn't get it. Lack of a formal education has left him to attempt understanding by what he reads on the internet without external guidance to put it into context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is somewhat on the right track but I am trying to let make his own case for purposeful design.
Click to expand...


Any case to be made for purposeful design is incumbent on those who assert a "designer".

To date, nothing has been submitted to suggest a designer of any sort. We have only seen failed attacks on science as alleged proof of a designer. This is a common tactic of the Christian anti-science ministries. No evidence of any "designer" gods is available so the creationist cabal attempts attacks on science to deflect criticism of their failings to offer positive evidence.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Noah had lions and tigers, which eat meat, did he have extra chickens and goats and stuff? Or did god give him a magic bowl of dog food that never ran dry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the scriptures all organisms were vegetarians except humans,that did not change until after the boat ride.
Click to expand...


In the grown-up world of education and knowledge, we know that there are animals we rationally define as "carnivores". You can look for the definition of this term and take the first step toward being a grown-up.

So.... after Noah's cruise (the "cruise to nowhere"), which the serial mass murderer gods acted as travel agents for so they could wipe humanity from the planet, what did the carnivorous animals eat?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he just doesn't get it. Lack of a formal education has left him to attempt understanding by what he reads on the internet without external guidance to put it into context.
> 
> 
> 
> I've had sufficient formal education to disabuse myself of the superstitious notion that the DNA in living things must be an informed molecule based upon the premise that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did the code come from ?
Click to expand...

If by "code" you mean;
"A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
"a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
"a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
"A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
"A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
"A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
"a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
"a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"
"a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
"a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
"a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"
"Computing program instructions;"
 then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA isn't a symbol for proteins in living things; it is just the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.



Youwerecreated said:


> what happens if the instructions are not followed in most cases ?


If by "instructions" you mean;
"a direction calling for compliance;"
"an outline or manual of technical procedure;"
"a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation;"
"the act of furnishing with authoritative directions;"
"orders or directions;"
"commands given to a computer to carry out a particular operation;"
"the process or act of imparting knowledge;"
"a part of a program consisting of a coded command to the computer to perform a specified function;"
 then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA is just a molecule whose effect on the ordinary reactions of protein synthesis promotes specific amino acid sequences in proteins.

I am certain that if there was less room for equivocating in your usage of the terms, I could give you better answers. But then the answers then given wouldn't be consistent with your faith, or subject to typical and predictable red-herring refutations.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. At least far better than UltimateReality does.
> 
> It happens because the sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides *CANNOT* be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is *DEPENDENT* upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is *INDISSOCIABLE* from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman and repetitive irrelevant point. Bravo, Short Bus!!! Again, no one is claiming this. What I did claim was that the DNA molecule contains information that is independent from the molecule itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's just review the record:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you can't get is that dna as a molecule is *chemically independent* from the informational code it carries!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the stawman now?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been proven as the molecule has been used a storage medium for information other than used for protein building. But hey, please don't let me stop you from making your totally irrelevant point to the argument a 10th time, M&M.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NOBODY is disputing that DNA *CAN* be used to code in the manner you use the term.
> 
> And when you percieve an opportunity to declare my rebuttal to your position a strawman, NOBODY disputes my point that sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides CANNOT be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is DEPENDENT upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is INDISSOCIABLE from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.
Click to expand...


Strawman assertion #17. This is not the claim but your typical semantics twist of what is being claimed. For the 10th time, I'm not saying the nucleotides can be substituted. What I am saying the information dna carries is independent of the mere chemistry of the molecule. Unless the information in DNA is specific, it cannot be used to assemble the multitude of proteins that exist in the cell. The DNA molecule bears the information required to assemble proteins, but this information is not a result of the chemistry, it is a result of the specific information contained in the code. There is overwhelming evidence it didn't get there randomly, but the required informational sequences were programmed in. How many times can I say the same thing and you still assert I am saying something different. Guess we will find out when you say the same thing again, Snickers.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. At least far better than UltimateReality does.
> 
> It happens because the sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides *CANNOT* be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is *DEPENDENT* upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is *INDISSOCIABLE* from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dependent, does that not suggest a necessity,do you believe chance produces a necessity ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no answer to this nonsense question. Do you believe blue adds up to 27?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what happens if a mutation happens ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing, *IF* DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule, as the disingenuous retard you defend so enthusiastically demands.
Click to expand...


You're a disingenuous liar. I did not say DNA was a symbol for proteins. I said the nucleotides otherwise know as G, T, C, A code for proteins just like 0's and 1's code for symbols like A, B, C, and D. Basically, the nucleotides are the code and the protein is the symbol. It was you that applied your vividimagination to this statement, ineptly couldn't see the comparison as usual, and went off for pages about what I fool I am when it was really your ignorance that led you down that path. 

*Loki's ignorance of Loki's ignorance is the malady of the Loki. *

The binary sequence 10010011001110100010110100001010100 when decoded by a machine produces the string of symbols: INEPT

The dna sequence AGTAAAGGAGAAGAACTTTTCACTGGAGTC, when decoded by a molecular machine, stands for the amino acids in specific order Ser-Lys-Gly-Glu-Glu-Leu-Phe-Thr-Gly-Val- which can be represented by *SKGEELFTGV* which, in turn, is part of the full specifically ordered code required to assemble the polyprotein represented by the following sequence:

MGSV*SKGEELFTGV*VPILVELDGDVNGHKFSVSGEGEGDATYGKLTLKFICTTGKLPVPWPTLVTTLTYGVQCFSRYPDHMKQHDFFKSAMPEGYVQERTIFFKDDGNYKTRAEVKFEGDTLVNRIELKGIDFKEDGNILGHKLEYNYNSHNVYIMADKQKNGIKVNFKIRHNIEDGSVQLADHYQQNTPIGDGPVLLPDNHYLSTQSALSKDPNEKRDHMVLLEFVTAAGITLGMDELYKAITTLGSQVSTQRSGSHENSNSATEGSTINYTTINYYKDSYAATAGKQSLKQDPDKFANPVKDIFTEMAAPLKSPSAEACGYSDRVAQLTIGNSTITTQEAANIIVGYGEWPSYCSDDDATAVDKPTRPDVSVNRFYTLDTKLWEKSSKGWYWKFPDVLTETGVFGQNAQFHYLYRSGFCIHVQCNASKFHQGALLVAILPEYVIGTVAGGTGTEDSHPPYKQTQPGADGFELQHPYVLDAGIPISQLTVCPHQWINLRTNNCATIIVPYMNTLPFDSALNHCNFGLLVVPISPLDFDQGATPVIPITITLAPMCSEFAGLRQAVTQGFPTEPKPGTNQFLTTDDGVSAPILPNFHPTPCIHIPGEVRNLLELCQVETILEVNNVPTNATSLMERLRFPVSAQAGKGELCAVFRADPGRDGPWQSTMLGQLCGYYTQWSGSLEVTFMFTGSFMATGKMLIAYTPPGGPLPKDRATAMLGTHVIWDFGLQSSVTLVIPWISNTHYRAHARDGVFDYYTTGLVSIWYQTNYVVPIGAPNTAYIIALAAAQKNFTMKLCKDTSHILQTASIQGDRVADVIESSIGDSVSRALTQALPAPTGQNTQVSSHRLDTGEVPALQAAEIGASSNTSDESMIETRCVLNSHSTAETTLDSFFSRAGLVGEIDLPLEGTTNPNGYANWDIDITGYAQMRRKVELFTYMRFDAEFTFVACTPTGGVVPQLLQYMFVPPGAPKPESRESLAWQTATNPSVFVKLTDPPAQVSVPFMSPASAYQWFYDGYPTFGEHKQEKDLEYGACPNNMMGTFSVRTVGSLKSKYPLVVRIYMRMKHVRAWIPRPMRNQNYLFKANPNYAGNSIKPTGTSRTAITTLGKFGQQSGAIYVGNFRVVNRHLATHNDWANLVWEDSSRDLLVSSTTAQGCDTIARCDCQTGVYYCNSKRKHYPVSFSKPSLIYVEASEYYPARYQSHLMLAAGHSEPGDCGGILRCQHGVVGIVSTGGNGLVGFADVRDLLWLDEEAMEQGVSDYIKGLGDAFGTGFTDAVSREVEALKNHLIGSEGAVEKILKNLIKLISALVIVIRSDYDMVTLTATLALIGCHGSPWAWIKAKTASILGIPIAQKQSASWLKKFNDMANAAKGLEWISSKISKFIDWLKEKIIPAAREKVEFLNNLKQLPLLENQISNLEQSAASQEDLEAMFGNVSYLAHFCRKFQPLYAAEAKRVYALEKRMNNYMQFKSKHRIEPVCLIIRGSPGTGKSLATGIIARAIADKYHSSVYSLPPDPDHFDGYKQQVVTVMDDLCQNPDGKDMSLFCQMVSTVDFIPPMASLEEKGVSFTSKFVIASTNSSNIIVPTVSDSDAIRRRFYMDCDIEVTDSYKTDLGRLDAGRAAKLCSENNTANFKRCSPLVCGKAIQLRDRKSKVRYSVDTVVSELIREYNNRSAIGNTIEALFQGPPKFRPIRISLEEKPAPDAISDLLASVDSEEVRQYCRDQGWIIPETPTNVERHLNRAVLVXQSIATVVAVVSLVYVIYKLFAGFQGAYSGAPKQILKKPVLRTATVQGPSLDFALSLLRRNIRQVQTDQGHFTMLGVRDRLAVLPRHSQPGKTIWVEHKLVNILDAVELVDEQGVNLELTLITLDTNEKFRDITKFIPESISAASDATLVINTEHMPSMFVPVGDVVQYGFLNLSGKPTHRTMMYNFPTKAGQCGGVVTSVGKVIGIHIGGNGRQGFCAGLKRSYFASEQGEIQWVKPNKETGRLNINGPTRTKLEPSVFHDVFEGNKEPAVLHSKDPRLEVDFEQALFSKYVGNTLYEPDEYIKEAALHYANQLKQLDIDTSQMSMEEACYGTENLEAIDLHTSAGYPYSALGIKKRDILDSTTRDVSKMKFYMDKYGLDLPYSTYVKDELRSIDKIKKGKSRLIEASSLNDSVYLRMTFGHLYETFHANPGTVTGSAVGCNPDTFWSKLPILLPGSLFAFDYSGYDASLSPVWFRALELVLREIGYSEEAVSLVEGINHTHHVYRNKTYCVLGGMPSGCSGTSIFNSMINNIIIRALLIKTFKGIDLDELNMVAYGDDVLASYPFPIDCLELARTGKEYGLTMTPADKSPCFNEVNWDNATFLKRGFLPDEQFPFLIHPTMPMKEIHESIRWTKDARNTQDHVRSLCLLAWHNGKQEYEKFVSAIRSVPVGKALAIPNYENLRRNWLELF

Loki would have you believe that these instructions, carried by the specific arrangement of nucleotides in the dna molecule randomly occurred and just happen to puke out a fully functional protein with all the correct bends to form its extremely complex structure. Not only that, but this protein interacts with 1000's of other proteins inside an organism to produce just one of many functions required for that orgainism's survival. Do you possibly have any grasp the odds against producing this protein much less producing this and the other proteins with as much or more complexity to work in concert together with each other inside a complex organism. Only a fool would believe that time was the "magic" that made this happen all by itself. 

But just keep telling yourself it wasn't designed... it wasn't designed.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've had sufficient formal education to disabuse myself of the superstitious notion that the DNA in living things must be an informed molecule based upon the premise that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the code come from ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by "code" you mean;
> "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
> "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
> "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
> "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
> "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
> *"A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"*
> "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
> "*a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"* *But of course, the digits identify the correct amino acid for the molecular machine provide information on which order they should be selected in.*
> "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
> "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
> *"a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"* *Yes, the specific arrangement of nucleotides identifies which amino acid will be selected for a particular machine.*
> "Computing program instructions;"
> then I have no idea what you're talking about, because *DNA isn't a symbol for proteins* [You are correct. But comparing dna to binary code in a computer, just like the letter 'A' is a symbol that can be transmitted by a particular order of 0's and 1's, so too can the instructions to build a protein be transmitted by G's, T's, C's, and A's.]  so is the protein of symboin living things; it is just the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> what happens if the instructions are not followed in most cases ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by "instructions" you mean;
> "a direction calling for compliance;"
> "an outline or manual of technical procedure;"
> *"a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation;"*
> "the act of furnishing with authoritative directions;"
> "orders or directions;"
> *"commands given to a computer to carry out a particular operation;"*
> "the process or act of imparting knowledge;"
> *"a part of a program consisting of a coded command to the computer to perform a specified function;"*
> then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA is just a molecule whose effect on the ordinary reactions* of protein synthesis promotes specific amino acid sequences in proteins. **Assumptive language and pathetic attempt at subtle brainwashing. This is the type of stuff poor dear Hollie falls for.*
> 
> I am certain that if there was less room for equivocating in your usage of the terms, I could give you better answers. But then the answers then given wouldn't be consistent with your faith, or subject to typical and predictable red-herring refutations.
Click to expand...


Bingo Twix. All of the bolded above can be implied. DNA carries instructions, by way of quaternary code, that tell a molecular machine what specific ingredients it needs in what specific order to assemble a component for another molecular machine.

The "ordinary reactions" that Sweetart refers to above assemble complex  proteins like this one:

_"While the pretty pictures published on book covers and journals are indeed accurate, they only tell part of the story. These images don't represent every possible form of the molecule, or perhaps even the most biologically interesting ones. Rather these are the most stable or crystallizable states, what North Carolina State University physicist Keith Weninger calls &#8220;landmarks in a conformational landscape.&#8221;

And that's just in vitro; what a protein looks like in vivo may differ even more. &#8220;Living cells are amazing things,&#8221; Weninger says. &#8220;They maintain non-equilibrium conditions; the system keeps gradients that shouldn't exist, and very non-equilibrium flows, and those are hard to reproduce outside of a cell. Those conditions can affect biology, which is why people want to develop high-resolution methods to look at protein structure in cells.&#8221;

The Photosystem membrane protein complex, deduced using femtosecond X-ray protein nanocrystallography _


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman and repetitive irrelevant point. Bravo, Short Bus!!! Again, no one is claiming this. What I did claim was that the DNA molecule contains information that is independent from the molecule itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just review the record:Where's the stawman now?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been proven as the molecule has been used a storage medium for information other than used for protein building. But hey, please don't let me stop you from making your totally irrelevant point to the argument a 10th time, M&M.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NOBODY is disputing that DNA *CAN* be used to code in the manner you use the term.
> 
> And when you percieve an opportunity to declare my rebuttal to your position a strawman, NOBODY disputes my point that sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides CANNOT be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is DEPENDENT upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is INDISSOCIABLE from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman assertion #17. This is not the claim but your typical semantics twist of what is being claimed. For the 10th time, I'm not saying the nucleotides can be substituted.
Click to expand...

You most certainly are.


UltimateReality said:


> What I am saying the information dna carries is independent of the mere chemistry of the molecule.


See? You indeed are saying that any systematic substitution of nucleotides will impart the same function; no need to use DNA at all to carry the information because, "the information dna carries is independent of the mere chemistry of the molecule."



UltimateReality said:


> Unless the information in DNA is specific, it cannot be used to assemble the multitude of proteins that exist in the cell.


The information in DNA is either so specific that it is not a symbol for proteins and is not independent of the chemistry of the molecule--OR--any systematic substitution of nucleotides (with other nucleotides or other chemical groups) will impart the same function because "the information dna carries is independent of the mere chemistry of the molecule."



UltimateReality said:


> The DNA molecule bears the information required to assemble proteins, but this information is not a result of the chemistry, it is a result of the specific information contained in the code.


Then you indeed are saying that any systematic substitution of nucleotides will impart the same function; no need to use DNA at all to carry the information because, "the information dna carries is independent of the mere chemistry of the molecule."



UltimateReality said:


> There is overwhelming evidence it didn't get there randomly, ...


Not in dispute. Everyone but you seems to understand that this is because the information DNA carries is inherent in the chemistry of the molecule.



UltimateReality said:


> ... but the required informational sequences were programmed in. How many times can I say the same thing and you still assert I am saying something different. Guess we will find out when you say the same thing again, Snickers.


As predicted hundreds of posts ago, all you bring is some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of some "God."


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dependent, does that not suggest a necessity,do you believe chance produces a necessity ?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no answer to this nonsense question. Do you believe blue adds up to 27?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what happens if a mutation happens ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing, *IF* DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule, as the disingenuous retard you defend so enthusiastically demands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a disingenuous liar. I did not say DNA was a symbol for proteins.
Click to expand...

Let's just review ... aw fuck it ... we all know how the internet works, and I have demonstrated you have said this.



UltimateReality said:


> I said the nucleotides otherwise know as G, T, C, A code for proteins just like 0's and 1's code for symbols like A, B, C, and D. Basically, the nucleotides are the code and the protein is the symbol. It was you that applied your vividimagination to this statement, ineptly couldn't see the comparison as usual, and went off for pages about what I fool I am when it was really your ignorance that led you down that path.


It is only in your mendacious imagination that you were not so exceedingly clear about, and insistent upon your assertions that there was no room for misinterpretation.

So DESPERATE in your cognitive dissonance are you, that you are brought to this:


UltimateReality said:


> *Loki's ignorance of Loki's ignorance is the malady of the Loki. *
> 
> The binary sequence 10010011001110100010110100001010100 when decoded by a machine produces the string of symbols: INEPT
> 
> The dna sequence AGTAAAGGAGAAGAACTTTTCACTGGAGTC, when decoded by a molecular machine, stands for the amino acids in specific order Ser-Lys-Gly-Glu-Glu-Leu-Phe-Thr-Gly-Val- which can be represented by *SKGEELFTGV* which, in turn, is part of the full specifically ordered code required to assemble the polyprotein represented by the following sequence:
> 
> MGSV*SKGEELFTGV*VPILVELDGDVNGHKFSVSGEGEGDATYGKLTLKFICTTGKLPVPWPTLVTTLTYGVQCFSRYPDHMKQHDFFKSAMPEGYVQERTIFFKDDGNYKTRAEVKFEGDTLVNRIELKGIDFKEDGNILGHKLEYNYNSHNVYIMADKQKNGIKVNFKIRHNIEDGSVQLADHYQQNTPIGDGPVLLPDNHYLSTQSALSKDPNEKRDHMVLLEFVTAAGITLGMDELYKAITTLGSQVSTQRSGSHENSNSATEGSTINYTTINYYKDSYAATAGKQSLKQDPDKFANPVKDIFTEMAAPLKSPSAEACGYSDRVAQLTIGNSTITTQEAANIIVGYGEWPSYCSDDDATAVDKPTRPDVSVNRFYTLDTKLWEKSSKGWYWKFPDVLTETGVFGQNAQFHYLYRSGFCIHVQCNASKFHQGALLVAILPEYVIGTVAGGTGTEDSHPPYKQTQPGADGFELQHPYVLDAGIPISQLTVCPHQWINLRTNNCATIIVPYMNTLPFDSALNHCNFGLLVVPISPLDFDQGATPVIPITITLAPMCSEFAGLRQAVTQGFPTEPKPGTNQFLTTDDGVSAPILPNFHPTPCIHIPGEVRNLLELCQVETILEVNNVPTNATSLMERLRFPVSAQAGKGELCAVFRADPGRDGPWQSTMLGQLCGYYTQWSGSLEVTFMFTGSFMATGKMLIAYTPPGGPLPKDRATAMLGTHVIWDFGLQSSVTLVIPWISNTHYRAHARDGVFDYYTTGLVSIWYQTNYVVPIGAPNTAYIIALAAAQKNFTMKLCKDTSHILQTASIQGDRVADVIESSIGDSVSRALTQALPAPTGQNTQVSSHRLDTGEVPALQAAEIGASSNTSDESMIETRCVLNSHSTAETTLDSFFSRAGLVGEIDLPLEGTTNPNGYANWDIDITGYAQMRRKVELFTYMRFDAEFTFVACTPTGGVVPQLLQYMFVPPGAPKPESRESLAWQTATNPSVFVKLTDPPAQVSVPFMSPASAYQWFYDGYPTFGEHKQEKDLEYGACPNNMMGTFSVRTVGSLKSKYPLVVRIYMRMKHVRAWIPRPMRNQNYLFKANPNYAGNSIKPTGTSRTAITTLGKFGQQSGAIYVGNFRVVNRHLATHNDWANLVWEDSSRDLLVSSTTAQGCDTIARCDCQTGVYYCNSKRKHYPVSFSKPSLIYVEASEYYPARYQSHLMLAAGHSEPGDCGGILRCQHGVVGIVSTGGNGLVGFADVRDLLWLDEEAMEQGVSDYIKGLGDAFGTGFTDAVSREVEALKNHLIGSEGAVEKILKNLIKLISALVIVIRSDYDMVTLTATLALIGCHGSPWAWIKAKTASILGIPIAQKQSASWLKKFNDMANAAKGLEWISSKISKFIDWLKEKIIPAAREKVEFLNNLKQLPLLENQISNLEQSAASQEDLEAMFGNVSYLAHFCRKFQPLYAAEAKRVYALEKRMNNYMQFKSKHRIEPVCLIIRGSPGTGKSLATGIIARAIADKYHSSVYSLPPDPDHFDGYKQQVVTVMDDLCQNPDGKDMSLFCQMVSTVDFIPPMASLEEKGVSFTSKFVIASTNSSNIIVPTVSDSDAIRRRFYMDCDIEVTDSYKTDLGRLDAGRAAKLCSENNTANFKRCSPLVCGKAIQLRDRKSKVRYSVDTVVSELIREYNNRSAIGNTIEALFQGPPKFRPIRISLEEKPAPDAISDLLASVDSEEVRQYCRDQGWIIPETPTNVERHLNRAVLVXQSIATVVAVVSLVYVIYKLFAGFQGAYSGAPKQILKKPVLRTATVQGPSLDFALSLLRRNIRQVQTDQGHFTMLGVRDRLAVLPRHSQPGKTIWVEHKLVNILDAVELVDEQGVNLELTLITLDTNEKFRDITKFIPESISAASDATLVINTEHMPSMFVPVGDVVQYGFLNLSGKPTHRTMMYNFPTKAGQCGGVVTSVGKVIGIHIGGNGRQGFCAGLKRSYFASEQGEIQWVKPNKETGRLNINGPTRTKLEPSVFHDVFEGNKEPAVLHSKDPRLEVDFEQALFSKYVGNTLYEPDEYIKEAALHYANQLKQLDIDTSQMSMEEACYGTENLEAIDLHTSAGYPYSALGIKKRDILDSTTRDVSKMKFYMDKYGLDLPYSTYVKDELRSIDKIKKGKSRLIEASSLNDSVYLRMTFGHLYETFHANPGTVTGSAVGCNPDTFWSKLPILLPGSLFAFDYSGYDASLSPVWFRALELVLREIGYSEEAVSLVEGINHTHHVYRNKTYCVLGGMPSGCSGTSIFNSMINNIIIRALLIKTFKGIDLDELNMVAYGDDVLASYPFPIDCLELARTGKEYGLTMTPADKSPCFNEVNWDNATFLKRGFLPDEQFPFLIHPTMPMKEIHESIRWTKDARNTQDHVRSLCLLAWHNGKQEYEKFVSAIRSVPVGKALAIPNYENLRRNWLELF
> 
> Loki would have you believe that these instructions, carried by the specific arrangement of nucleotides in the dna molecule randomly occurred and just happen to puke out a fully functional protein with all the correct bends to form its extremely complex structure.


We've all seen this from you numerous times, and we all know that it is just a distorted misrepresentation of my position.



UltimateReality said:


> Not only that, but this protein interacts with 1000's of other proteins inside an organism to produce just one of many functions required for that orgainism's survival.


Apparently *only* "the information dna carries is independent of the mere chemistry of the molecule." 



UltimateReality said:


> Do you possibly have any grasp the odds against producing this protein much less producing this and the other proteins with as much or more complexity to work in concert together with each other inside a complex organism. Only a fool would believe that time was the "magic" that made this happen all by itself.
> 
> But just keep telling yourself it wasn't designed... it wasn't designed.


Why? Why should I do that? What purpose would telling myself that serve?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:
			
		

> But just keep telling yourself it wasn't designed... it wasn't designed.


Here we have the entirety of the creationist rebuttal to science and knowledge: "its complicated, therefore we knew with certainty that _the gods did it"_. 

It's the classical argument from ignorance that defines the creationist agenda.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. At least far better than UltimateReality does.
> 
> It happens because the sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides *CANNOT* be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is *DEPENDENT* upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is *INDISSOCIABLE* from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dependent, does that not suggest a necessity,do you believe chance produces a necessity ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no answer to this nonsense question. Do you believe blue adds up to 27?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what happens if a mutation happens ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing, *IF* DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule, as the disingenuous retard you defend so enthusiastically demands.
> 
> OTOH if I am correct, and DNA is a NOT symbol for proteins, but a molecule whose information is dependent on... no, MORE than just dependent on... *INHERENT* in its chemistry; if, as I have clearly stated, you CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and then expect no alteration of the initial protein coded for, then there will be a change expressed in the product (i.e. the protein in this case) of the altered information that constitutes the mutation.
Click to expand...


You have something transcribing the information then if an error happens you have another mechanism to try and correct that mistake and you think that just happened through chance ?

While this is going on you have the diversity of livinging organisms with only a four letter alphabet.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've had sufficient formal education to disabuse myself of the superstitious notion that the DNA in living things must be an informed molecule based upon the premise that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the code come from ? what happens if the instructions are not followed in most cases ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the grown-up world, we use terms such as evolution and cell mutation?
> 
> Where did your gods come from? Define for us the hierarchy of gods who zapped into existence the subordinate gods who in turn zapped into existence the lower order of subordinate gods until we eventually got the lowest order of subordinate gods, ie., your gods.
> 
> What happens to your gods if they don't follow the orders of the gods they are junior to?
Click to expand...


My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he just doesn't get it. Lack of a formal education has left him to attempt understanding by what he reads on the internet without external guidance to put it into context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is somewhat on the right track but I am trying to let make his own case for purposeful design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any case to be made for purposeful design is incumbent on those who assert a "designer".
> 
> To date, nothing has been submitted to suggest a designer of any sort. We have only seen failed attacks on science as alleged proof of a designer. This is a common tactic of the Christian anti-science ministries. No evidence of any "designer" gods is available so the creationist cabal attempts attacks on science to deflect criticism of their failings to offer positive evidence.
Click to expand...


The same can be said about evolutionist but do they ?

This is not an attack on science,it's an attack on Ideologues to provide evidence that life spontaneously produced mechanisms within a cell for a purpose and are a neccessity,that you once denied existed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Noah had lions and tigers, which eat meat, did he have extra chickens and goats and stuff? Or did god give him a magic bowl of dog food that never ran dry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the scriptures all organisms were vegetarians except humans,that did not change until after the boat ride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the grown-up world of education and knowledge, we know that there are animals we rationally define as "carnivores". You can look for the definition of this term and take the first step toward being a grown-up.
> 
> So.... after Noah's cruise (the "cruise to nowhere"), which the serial mass murderer gods acted as travel agents for so they could wipe humanity from the planet, what did the carnivorous animals eat?
Click to expand...


How do you prove the diet of creatures human eye's never saw ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've had sufficient formal education to disabuse myself of the superstitious notion that the DNA in living things must be an informed molecule based upon the premise that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the code come from ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by "code" you mean;
> "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
> "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
> "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
> "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
> "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
> "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
> "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
> "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"
> "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
> "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
> "a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"
> "Computing program instructions;"
> then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA isn't a symbol for proteins in living things; it is just the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> what happens if the instructions are not followed in most cases ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by "instructions" you mean;
> "a direction calling for compliance;"
> "an outline or manual of technical procedure;"
> "a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation;"
> "the act of furnishing with authoritative directions;"
> "orders or directions;"
> "commands given to a computer to carry out a particular operation;"
> "the process or act of imparting knowledge;"
> "a part of a program consisting of a coded command to the computer to perform a specified function;"
> then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA is just a molecule whose effect on the ordinary reactions of protein synthesis promotes specific amino acid sequences in proteins.
> 
> I am certain that if there was less room for equivocating in your usage of the terms, I could give you better answers. But then the answers then given wouldn't be consistent with your faith, or subject to typical and predictable red-herring refutations.
Click to expand...


It is a form of communication, there is no form of communication that was the product absent of intelligence. So you assert that this biological code is a product of natural processes abent of intelligence.

You don't see this as a contradiction ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the code come from ?
> 
> 
> 
> If by "code" you mean;
> "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
> "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
> "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
> "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
> "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
> *"A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"*
> "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
> "*a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"* *But of course, the digits identify the correct amino acid for the molecular machine provide information on which order they should be selected in.*
> "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
> "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
> *"a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"* *Yes, the specific arrangement of nucleotides identifies which amino acid will be selected for a particular machine.*
> "Computing program instructions;"
> then I have no idea what you're talking about, because *DNA isn't a symbol for proteins* [You are correct. But comparing dna to binary code in a computer, just like the letter 'A' is a symbol that can be transmitted by a particular order of 0's and 1's, so too can the instructions to build a protein be transmitted by G's, T's, C's, and A's.]  so is the protein of symboin living things; it is just the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> what happens if the instructions are not followed in most cases ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by "instructions" you mean;
> "a direction calling for compliance;"
> "an outline or manual of technical procedure;"
> *"a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation;"*
> "the act of furnishing with authoritative directions;"
> "orders or directions;"
> *"commands given to a computer to carry out a particular operation;"*
> "the process or act of imparting knowledge;"
> *"a part of a program consisting of a coded command to the computer to perform a specified function;"*
> then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA is just a molecule whose effect on the ordinary reactions* of protein synthesis promotes specific amino acid sequences in proteins. **Assumptive language and pathetic attempt at subtle brainwashing. This is the type of stuff poor dear Hollie falls for.*
> 
> I am certain that if there was less room for equivocating in your usage of the terms, I could give you better answers. But then the answers then given wouldn't be consistent with your faith, or subject to typical and predictable red-herring refutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo Twix. All of the bolded above can be implied. DNA carries instructions, by way of quaternary code, that tell a molecular machine what specific ingredients it needs in what specific order to assemble a component for another molecular machine.
> 
> The "ordinary reactions" that Sweetart refers to above assemble complex  proteins like this one:
> 
> _"While the pretty pictures published on book covers and journals are indeed accurate, they only tell part of the story. These images don't represent every possible form of the molecule, or perhaps even the most biologically interesting ones. Rather these are the most stable or crystallizable states, what North Carolina State University physicist Keith Weninger calls landmarks in a conformational landscape.
> 
> And that's just in vitro; what a protein looks like in vivo may differ even more. Living cells are amazing things, Weninger says. They maintain non-equilibrium conditions; the system keeps gradients that shouldn't exist, and very non-equilibrium flows, and those are hard to reproduce outside of a cell. Those conditions can affect biology, which is why people want to develop high-resolution methods to look at protein structure in cells.
> 
> The Photosystem membrane protein complex, deduced using femtosecond X-ray protein nanocrystallography _
Click to expand...


You are doing a very good job in explaining the facts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just review the record:Where's the stawman now?
> 
> NOBODY is disputing that DNA *CAN* be used to code in the manner you use the term.
> 
> And when you percieve an opportunity to declare my rebuttal to your position a strawman, NOBODY disputes my point that sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides CANNOT be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is DEPENDENT upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is INDISSOCIABLE from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman assertion #17. This is not the claim but your typical semantics twist of what is being claimed. For the 10th time, I'm not saying the nucleotides can be substituted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You most certainly are.
> See? You indeed are saying that any systematic substitution of nucleotides will impart the same function; no need to use DNA at all to carry the information because, "the information dna carries is independent of the mere chemistry of the molecule."
> 
> The information in DNA is either so specific that it is not a symbol for proteins and is not independent of the chemistry of the molecule--OR--any systematic substitution of nucleotides (with other nucleotides or other chemical groups) will impart the same function because "the information dna carries is independent of the mere chemistry of the molecule."
> 
> Then you indeed are saying that any systematic substitution of nucleotides will impart the same function; no need to use DNA at all to carry the information because, "the information dna carries is independent of the mere chemistry of the molecule."
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is overwhelming evidence it didn't get there randomly, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in dispute. Everyone but you seems to understand that this is because the information DNA carries is inherent in the chemistry of the molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but the required informational sequences were programmed in. How many times can I say the same thing and you still assert I am saying something different. Guess we will find out when you say the same thing again, Snickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As predicted hundreds of posts ago, all you bring is some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of some "God."
Click to expand...


Oh boy


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But just keep telling yourself it wasn't designed... it wasn't designed.
> 
> 
> 
> Here we have the entirety of the creationist rebuttal to science and knowledge: "its complicated, therefore we knew with certainty that _the gods did it"_.
> 
> It's the classical argument from ignorance that defines the creationist agenda.
Click to expand...


You both are in denial of the facts and can't see it.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the code come from ? what happens if the instructions are not followed in most cases ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the grown-up world, we use terms such as evolution and cell mutation?
> 
> Where did your gods come from? Define for us the hierarchy of gods who zapped into existence the subordinate gods who in turn zapped into existence the lower order of subordinate gods until we eventually got the lowest order of subordinate gods, ie., your gods.
> 
> What happens to your gods if they don't follow the orders of the gods they are junior to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.
Click to expand...


Yours, of course, is the mindless prattle used by creationists to justify their beliefs: "_the bible is true because I was told the bible is true and because I believe the bible is true it is therefore true"_. It's a mindless and intellectually dishonest way to come to conclusions about reality but the reality challenged don't have a great need for intellectual honesty. 

Creationist dogma will never increase our understanding or knowledge of the physical world because knowledge is antithetical to the creationist.  What is not already written in the bible is relegated to the unknowable hand of God moving in his creation.  Fear and superstition has caused the Genesis story to be repeated for three thousand years and we know no more of existence now than when that tale was first written by the hand of man. In the last two hundred years of taking a scientific approach to studying the natural world, we have learned most of what we know about how living things work. This seeking of knowledge is what infuriates creationists such as the two fundies in thus thread.  

Similarly, to try and find ways to make the Genesis fable fit the natural world is to miss the point of Genesis entirely.  There is no reason why angry, jealous gods would need any of the physical processes we know and understand to womp up the universe.  All the reinvention and equivocation required by creationists to explain the errors and inaccuracies of biblical tales does nothing to further clarify the absurdities of creationism.

The only legitimate challenge to evolutionary fact and theory would be a competing theory that legitimately fits the criteria for how we _define_ a theory. If such a competing theory existed and provided a better account of the demonstrable facts related to evolution than the current facts and theory, that would be worthy of investigation. Creationism fits no such derinition. Ask a creationist on what basis the creation story could supplant the fact of evolutionary science and we're met with silly demands that the  creation story is true because it appears in a book (written by superstitious men), that is true in its entirety "because I was told it was true".

Creationism / ID are neither science nor theory. They do not meet the criteria of science and cannot resolve their internal contradictions. The falsified "quotes" from creationist crackpots and the reliance on lies, deceit and falsehoods to buttress creationist dogma relegates creationism to mythology.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But just keep telling yourself it wasn't designed... it wasn't designed.
> 
> 
> 
> Here we have the entirety of the creationist rebuttal to science and knowledge: "its complicated, therefore we knew with certainty that _the gods did it"_.
> 
> It's the classical argument from ignorance that defines the creationist agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You both are in denial of the facts and can't see it.
Click to expand...


You and the other creationist have presented no facts. Has it missed you entirely that you present no evidence of your gods? Your entire argument is the tired and silly "god of the gaps", claim. You and the other creationist rely on attacks aimed at science as somehow proving your gods. 

Yours is a silly and pointless argument but absent a workable theory and evidence to support the theory, you're relegated to attacking what terrifies creationists: scientific knowledge.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the grown-up world, we use terms such as evolution and cell mutation?
> 
> Where did your gods come from? Define for us the hierarchy of gods who zapped into existence the subordinate gods who in turn zapped into existence the lower order of subordinate gods until we eventually got the lowest order of subordinate gods, ie., your gods.
> 
> What happens to your gods if they don't follow the orders of the gods they are junior to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours, of course, is the mindless prattle used by creationists to justify their beliefs: "_the bible is true because I was told the bible is true and because I believe the bible is true it is therefore true"_. It's a mindless and intellectually dishonest way to come to conclusions about reality but the reality challenged don't have a great need for intellectual honesty.
> 
> Creationist dogma will never increase our understanding or knowledge of the physical world because knowledge is antithetical to the creationist.  What is not already written in the bible is relegated to the unknowable hand of God moving in his creation.  Fear and superstition has caused the Genesis story to be repeated for three thousand years and we know no more of existence now than when that tale was first written by the hand of man. In the last two hundred years of taking a scientific approach to studying the natural world, we have learned most of what we know about how living things work. This seeking of knowledge is what infuriates creationists such as the two fundies in thus thread.
> 
> Similarly, to try and find ways to make the Genesis fable fit the natural world is to miss the point of Genesis entirely.  There is no reason why angry, jealous gods would need any of the physical processes we know and understand to womp up the universe.  All the reinvention and equivocation required by creationists to explain the errors and inaccuracies of biblical tales does nothing to further clarify the absurdities of creationism.
> 
> The only legitimate challenge to evolutionary fact and theory would be a competing theory that legitimately fits the criteria for how we _define_ a theory. If such a competing theory existed and provided a better account of the demonstrable facts related to evolution than the current facts and theory, that would be worthy of investigation. Creationism fits no such derinition. Ask a creationist on what basis the creation story could supplant the fact of evolutionary science and we're met with silly demands that the  creation story is true because it appears in a book (written by superstitious men), that is true in its entirety "because I was told it was true".
> 
> Creationism / ID are neither science nor theory. They do not meet the criteria of science and cannot resolve their internal contradictions. The falsified "quotes" from creationist crackpots and the reliance on lies, deceit and falsehoods to buttress creationist dogma relegates creationism to mythology.
Click to expand...


Ok I have been asking what scientific method have been used to add credibility to the theory you cling to ? What evidence convinced you that life spontaneously came into existence ? If you can't provide answers to these questions what you are doing is no different from a creationist except that we don't believe life could have come in to existence without a directed process.

It is pretty simple really,a car,a computer did not come into existence by chance it was designed and built. Why do you draw the line with much more complex biological organisms ? you need to believe a whole lot of could haves and maybes to believe what you do.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we have the entirety of the creationist rebuttal to science and knowledge: "its complicated, therefore we knew with certainty that _the gods did it"_.
> 
> It's the classical argument from ignorance that defines the creationist agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You both are in denial of the facts and can't see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and the other creationist have presented no facts. Has it missed you entirely that you present no evidence of your gods? Your entire argument is the tired and silly "god of the gaps", claim. You and the other creationist rely on attacks aimed at science as somehow proving your gods.
> 
> Yours is a silly and pointless argument but absent a workable theory and evidence to support the theory, you're relegated to attacking what terrifies creationists: scientific knowledge.
Click to expand...


I can't help it you can't see all the necessary functions within a living organism that was needed for life. Let's face facts,evolutionists believe in chance,coincidence and miracles but just are not willing to admit it.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But just keep telling yourself it wasn't designed... it wasn't designed.
> 
> 
> 
> Here we have the entirety of the creationist rebuttal to science and knowledge: "its complicated, therefore we knew with certainty that _the gods did it"_.
> 
> It's the classical argument from ignorance that defines the creationist agenda.
Click to expand...


Not just complicated, but the odds it happened by chance are so small we can say with 100% certainty it didn't happen by chance.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the grown-up world, we use terms such as evolution and cell mutation?
> 
> Where did your gods come from? Define for us the hierarchy of gods who zapped into existence the subordinate gods who in turn zapped into existence the lower order of subordinate gods until we eventually got the lowest order of subordinate gods, ie., your gods.
> 
> What happens to your gods if they don't follow the orders of the gods they are junior to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours, of course, is the mindless prattle used by creationists to justify their beliefs: "_the bible is true because I was told the bible is true and because I believe the bible is true it is therefore true"_. It's a mindless and intellectually dishonest way to come to conclusions about reality but the reality challenged don't have a great need for intellectual honesty.
> 
> Creationist dogma will never increase our understanding or knowledge of the physical world because knowledge is antithetical to the creationist.  What is not already written in the bible is relegated to the unknowable hand of God moving in his creation.  Fear and superstition has caused the Genesis story to be repeated for three thousand years and we know no more of existence now than when that tale was first written by the hand of man. In the last two hundred years of taking a scientific approach to studying the natural world, we have learned most of what we know about how living things work. This seeking of knowledge is what infuriates creationists such as the two fundies in thus thread.
> 
> Similarly, to try and find ways to make the Genesis fable fit the natural world is to miss the point of Genesis entirely.  There is no reason why angry, jealous gods would need any of the physical processes we know and understand to womp up the universe.  All the reinvention and equivocation required by creationists to explain the errors and inaccuracies of biblical tales does nothing to further clarify the absurdities of creationism.
> 
> The only legitimate challenge to evolutionary fact and theory would be a competing theory that legitimately fits the criteria for how we _define_ a theory. If such a competing theory existed and provided a better account of the demonstrable facts related to evolution than the current facts and theory, that would be worthy of investigation. Creationism fits no such derinition. Ask a creationist on what basis the creation story could supplant the fact of evolutionary science and we're met with silly demands that the  creation story is true because it appears in a book (written by superstitious men), that is true in its entirety "because I was told it was true".
> 
> Creationism / ID are neither science nor theory. They do not meet the criteria of science and cannot resolve their internal contradictions. The falsified "quotes" from creationist crackpots and the reliance on lies, deceit and falsehoods to buttress creationist dogma relegates creationism to mythology.
Click to expand...


Hollie has been schooled on this numerous times. She continues to borrow parts and pieces of Christian Theology for her fallacious arguments but ignores the pertinent parts of Biblical teaching that God has always existed and pre-dates the Big Bang in order to make her argument appear sound. Only by using some doctrines and not others is she able to make her fallacious, logic-lacking "turtles all the way down" argument and then she keeps repeating it over and over in these pages as if doing so will somehow eventually make the argument valid. Doh! Of course her next post will say nothing to rebut my comments but will trail off into some Ad Hominem attack that involves the terms ICR and Haran Yahya. PATHETIC!!!

And, like an ignorant retard, she will continue to use the term "gods" when referencing a monotheistic religion like Judaism. This is her repeated attempt at a dig against Christians but after being called out about it over 100 times she continues to look more and more like the village idiot because she just can't grasp that it childish and moronic.


----------



## UltimateReality

Great Big Bang Info!!!

The Universe & Big Bang Theory | Universe History, Age & Structure, Space Exploration | Space.com

WMAP Big Bang Concepts


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You both are in denial of the facts and can't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and the other creationist have presented no facts. Has it missed you entirely that you present no evidence of your gods? Your entire argument is the tired and silly "god of the gaps", claim. You and the other creationist rely on attacks aimed at science as somehow proving your gods.
> 
> Yours is a silly and pointless argument but absent a workable theory and evidence to support the theory, you're relegated to attacking what terrifies creationists: scientific knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't help it you can't see all the necessary functions within a living organism that was needed for life. Let's face facts,evolutionists believe in chance,coincidence and miracles but just are not willing to admit it.
Click to expand...


As expected, you have a need to denigrate science, somehow thinking that adds credibility to creationist takes and fables. What you don't acknowledge is that science is built on a foundation of hypothesis, testing and examination. None of those processes are available as a means for testing the supermagical realm of Christian creationism.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yours, of course, is the mindless prattle used by creationists to justify their beliefs: "_the bible is true because I was told the bible is true and because I believe the bible is true it is therefore true"_. It's a mindless and intellectually dishonest way to come to conclusions about reality but the reality challenged don't have a great need for intellectual honesty.
> 
> Creationist dogma will never increase our understanding or knowledge of the physical world because knowledge is antithetical to the creationist.  What is not already written in the bible is relegated to the unknowable hand of God moving in his creation.  Fear and superstition has caused the Genesis story to be repeated for three thousand years and we know no more of existence now than when that tale was first written by the hand of man. In the last two hundred years of taking a scientific approach to studying the natural world, we have learned most of what we know about how living things work. This seeking of knowledge is what infuriates creationists such as the two fundies in thus thread.
> 
> Similarly, to try and find ways to make the Genesis fable fit the natural world is to miss the point of Genesis entirely.  There is no reason why angry, jealous gods would need any of the physical processes we know and understand to womp up the universe.  All the reinvention and equivocation required by creationists to explain the errors and inaccuracies of biblical tales does nothing to further clarify the absurdities of creationism.
> 
> The only legitimate challenge to evolutionary fact and theory would be a competing theory that legitimately fits the criteria for how we _define_ a theory. If such a competing theory existed and provided a better account of the demonstrable facts related to evolution than the current facts and theory, that would be worthy of investigation. Creationism fits no such derinition. Ask a creationist on what basis the creation story could supplant the fact of evolutionary science and we're met with silly demands that the  creation story is true because it appears in a book (written by superstitious men), that is true in its entirety "because I was told it was true".
> 
> Creationism / ID are neither science nor theory. They do not meet the criteria of science and cannot resolve their internal contradictions. The falsified "quotes" from creationist crackpots and the reliance on lies, deceit and falsehoods to buttress creationist dogma relegates creationism to mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie has been schooled on this numerous times. She continues to borrow parts and pieces of Christian Theology for her fallacious arguments but ignores the pertinent parts of Biblical teaching that God has always existed and pre-dates the Big Bang in order to make her argument appear sound. Only by using some doctrines and not others is she able to make her fallacious, logic-lacking "turtles all the way down" argument and then she keeps repeating it over and over in these pages as if doing so will somehow eventually make the argument valid. Doh! Of course her next post will say nothing to rebut my comments but will trail off into some Ad Hominem attack that involves the terms ICR and Haran Yahya. PATHETIC!!!
> 
> And, like an ignorant retard, she will continue to use the term "gods" when referencing a monotheistic religion like Judaism. This is her repeated attempt at a dig against Christians but after being called out about it over 100 times she continues to look more and more like the village idiot because she just can't grasp that it childish and moronic.
Click to expand...

Christian creationists will recoil in defensive postures when their sacred cows are challenged. They get defensive when their falsified "quotes" are exposed as frauds and when their gods are identified as serial mass murderers.  Christuan creationists get defensive when their cutting and pasting from creationist ministries and Harun Yahya is exposed as fraudulent. 

Why do Christian creationist complain about their frauds being exposed?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But just keep telling yourself it wasn't designed... it wasn't designed.
> 
> 
> 
> Here we have the entirety of the creationist rebuttal to science and knowledge: "its complicated, therefore we knew with certainty that _the gods did it"_.
> 
> It's the classical argument from ignorance that defines the creationist agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just complicated, but the odds it happened by chance are so small we can say with 100% certainty it didn't happen by chance.
Click to expand...


We can say with certainty that your silly statement is ridiculous. As I already identified, yours is just more of the fraudulent "god of the gaps" nonsense.

We know with 100% certainty that claims to supernatural Christian gods and the designers of your supernatural gods are utterly absent verification.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yours, of course, is the mindless prattle used by creationists to justify their beliefs: "_the bible is true because I was told the bible is true and because I believe the bible is true it is therefore true"_. It's a mindless and intellectually dishonest way to come to conclusions about reality but the reality challenged don't have a great need for intellectual honesty.
> 
> Creationist dogma will never increase our understanding or knowledge of the physical world because knowledge is antithetical to the creationist.  What is not already written in the bible is relegated to the unknowable hand of God moving in his creation.  Fear and superstition has caused the Genesis story to be repeated for three thousand years and we know no more of existence now than when that tale was first written by the hand of man. In the last two hundred years of taking a scientific approach to studying the natural world, we have learned most of what we know about how living things work. This seeking of knowledge is what infuriates creationists such as the two fundies in thus thread.
> 
> Similarly, to try and find ways to make the Genesis fable fit the natural world is to miss the point of Genesis entirely.  There is no reason why angry, jealous gods would need any of the physical processes we know and understand to womp up the universe.  All the reinvention and equivocation required by creationists to explain the errors and inaccuracies of biblical tales does nothing to further clarify the absurdities of creationism.
> 
> The only legitimate challenge to evolutionary fact and theory would be a competing theory that legitimately fits the criteria for how we _define_ a theory. If such a competing theory existed and provided a better account of the demonstrable facts related to evolution than the current facts and theory, that would be worthy of investigation. Creationism fits no such derinition. Ask a creationist on what basis the creation story could supplant the fact of evolutionary science and we're met with silly demands that the  creation story is true because it appears in a book (written by superstitious men), that is true in its entirety "because I was told it was true".
> 
> Creationism / ID are neither science nor theory. They do not meet the criteria of science and cannot resolve their internal contradictions. The falsified "quotes" from creationist crackpots and the reliance on lies, deceit and falsehoods to buttress creationist dogma relegates creationism to mythology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok I have been asking what scientific method have been used to add credibility to the theory you cling to ? What evidence convinced you that life spontaneously came into existence ? If you can't provide answers to these questions what you are doing is no different from a creationist except that we don't believe life could have come in to existence without a directed process.
> 
> It is pretty simple really,a car,a computer did not come into existence by chance it was designed and built. Why do you draw the line with much more complex biological organisms ? you need to believe a whole lot of could haves and maybes to believe what you do.
Click to expand...

Firstly, it has been explained to you both repeatedly and tediously that the Theory of Evolution does not address the beginning of life. You continue to suffer real confusion as to that distinction. Not having the barest understanding of a science vocabulary does make zsuch distinctions difficult but try paying attention to what is addressed to you and when you're confused, ask appropriate questions. 

There is no reason to believe that your gods had anything to do with the beginning of life. Even if there was evidence of that (which there is not), so what? Biological evolution is still the mechanism that is responsible for the diversity of life on the planet. As a biblical literalist, you will deny evolution, an ancient earth and solar system and the ability of science to reveal those mechanisms but that is your need to embrace fear and superstition, not an inability of science to explore and discover.

Secondly, your goofy "analogy" of cars, computers and biological mechanisms is a boilerplate claim repeated on all the creation ministry websites. It's pointless, silly and absurd. If only serves to reinforce the stereotype of a fundie clone whose profound ignorance of science makes him a danger to himself and others.

If you were able to identify the genetic code of a GMC Suburban, its possible you might be able to make sense of such absurd and meaningless analogy. But since automobiles and computers don't procreate and pass on variations through a genetic mechanism, we are left to dismiss your "analogy" as so much creationist babble and consider your technical and intellectual naivete as a sad commentary on Christian zealots. 

As you continue to insist that a "designer" is required to explain existence, you continue to evade the question of the necessary hierarchy of designer gods who designed _your_ gods.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

I occasionally drop in an view this ongoing thread, usually with fascination over the sheer level of animosity that borders on hatred. 

It is sad the schism between science and religious thought. Today is a far cry from Thomas Aquinas and days of scholasticism. I actually have no problem with religion or spiritual education in public schools, I just don't see how creationism has any business in a science class. There is really nothing to be gained by it. 

Instead, it makes much more sense to include such contemplations for the philosophical realm of _metaphysics_, where it properly belongs, and in which more appropriate and productive exchanges can take place. However, unfortunately, the mainstream world of philosophy has condensed metaphysics, and particularly spiritual aspects of it, to a minor role in philosophy. That is a shame, because spiritual considerations belong in education to some extent. 

Take morality for example. Morality, in an intellectual context, belongs firmly in the realm of philosophy. Moral questions have been considered as philosophical since the ancient Greeks, and they included spiritual considerations within that paradigm. And why not? Nobody can _prove_ the existence of morality, or good or evil from a scientific approach. It simply cannot be done. However, one can qualitatively define good/evil/right/wrong, and other moral considerations through philosophy, and since metaphysics is a perfectly accepted branch of philosophy, spiritual considerations of the same are right at home. 

It's not my fault that philosophy is as absent as it is in American high school curriculum. I think that is a shame. Philosophy, whether spiritually driven or otherwise, is a valuable tool in helping our adolescents develop their moral compasses. I am not a Christian, but if Christians wanted to campaign to have their spiritual considerations included in the classroom, I would be the first to support the idea of advancing philosophy education at the high school level (it was once upon a time), and to support the inclusion of theological aspects. I still can't see anything to be gained from shoehorning creationism into science classes, for anybody, including Christians.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the code come from ?
> 
> 
> 
> If by "code" you mean;
> "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
> "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
> "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
> "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
> "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
> *"A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"*
> "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
> "*a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"* *But of course, the digits identify the correct amino acid for the molecular machine provide information on which order they should be selected in.*
> "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
> "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
> *"a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"* *Yes, the specific arrangement of nucleotides identifies which amino acid will be selected for a particular machine.*
> "Computing program instructions;"
> then I have no idea what you're talking about, because *DNA isn't a symbol for proteins* [You are correct. But comparing dna to binary code in a computer, just like the letter 'A' is a symbol that can be transmitted by a particular order of 0's and 1's, so too can the instructions to build a protein be transmitted by G's, T's, C's, and A's.]  so is the protein of symboin living things; it is just the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> what happens if the instructions are not followed in most cases ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by "instructions" you mean;
> "a direction calling for compliance;"
> "an outline or manual of technical procedure;"
> *"a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation;"*
> "the act of furnishing with authoritative directions;"
> "orders or directions;"
> *"commands given to a computer to carry out a particular operation;"*
> "the process or act of imparting knowledge;"
> *"a part of a program consisting of a coded command to the computer to perform a specified function;"*
> then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA is just a molecule whose effect on the ordinary reactions* of protein synthesis promotes specific amino acid sequences in proteins. **Assumptive language and pathetic attempt at subtle brainwashing. This is the type of stuff poor dear Hollie falls for.*
> 
> I am certain that if there was less room for equivocating in your usage of the terms, I could give you better answers. But then the answers then given wouldn't be consistent with your faith, or subject to typical and predictable red-herring refutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo Twix. All of the bolded above can be implied. DNA carries instructions, by way of quaternary code, that tell a molecular machine what specific ingredients it needs in what specific order to assemble a component for another molecular machine.
> 
> The "ordinary reactions" that Sweetart refers to above assemble complex  proteins like this one:
> 
> _"While the pretty pictures published on book covers and journals are indeed accurate, they only tell part of the story. These images don't represent every possible form of the molecule, or perhaps even the most biologically interesting ones. Rather these are the most stable or crystallizable states, what North Carolina State University physicist Keith Weninger calls landmarks in a conformational landscape.
> 
> And that's just in vitro; what a protein looks like in vivo may differ even more. Living cells are amazing things, Weninger says. They maintain non-equilibrium conditions; the system keeps gradients that shouldn't exist, and very non-equilibrium flows, and those are hard to reproduce outside of a cell. Those conditions can affect biology, which is why people want to develop high-resolution methods to look at protein structure in cells.
> 
> The Photosystem membrane protein complex, deduced using femtosecond X-ray protein nanocrystallography _
Click to expand...

I suppose thanks are in order for your unintentional exposition of the logical fallacy you have been applying since I pointed it out to you over 1700 posts ago. No doubt you believe that equivocation is an impenetrable defense for your stolid refusal to acknowledge the facts of reality, but you should now be aware that you have sold yourself out.

As observed over 1700 posts ago, it is only through the function of equivocal language that your specious notions of the genetic code have any traction.

So thank you, for saving me the effort of having to illuminate your bullshit. Thank you very much.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the code come from ?
> 
> 
> 
> If by "code" you mean;
> "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
> "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
> "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
> "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
> "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
> "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
> "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
> "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"
> "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
> "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
> "a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"
> "Computing program instructions;"
> then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA isn't a symbol for proteins in living things; it is just the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> what happens if the instructions are not followed in most cases ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by "instructions" you mean;
> "a direction calling for compliance;"
> "an outline or manual of technical procedure;"
> "a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation;"
> "the act of furnishing with authoritative directions;"
> "orders or directions;"
> "commands given to a computer to carry out a particular operation;"
> "the process or act of imparting knowledge;"
> "a part of a program consisting of a coded command to the computer to perform a specified function;"
> then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA is just a molecule whose effect on the ordinary reactions of protein synthesis promotes specific amino acid sequences in proteins.
> 
> I am certain that if there was less room for equivocating in your usage of the terms, I could give you better answers. But then the answers then given wouldn't be consistent with your faith, or subject to typical and predictable red-herring refutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a form of communication, ...
Click to expand...

If acid-base reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, polymerization reactions, etc... are also forms of communication, then I suppose so ... otherwise, DNA is just a part of an ordinary chemical reaction.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... there is no form of communication that was the product absent of intelligence.


Apparently not. Apparently there are countless forms of communication that are absent of any intelligence (including the obvious poke at superstitious retards).

HOWEVER, I do perceive (even if you do not) how this patently nonsensical notion of yours is fully consistent with your fatuous demand that DNA is a symbol for protein whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.



Youwerecreated said:


> So you assert that this biological code is a product of natural processes abent of intelligence.
> 
> You don't see this as a contradiction ?


*No.*


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But just keep telling yourself it wasn't designed... it wasn't designed.
> 
> 
> 
> Here we have the entirety of the creationist rebuttal to science and knowledge: "its complicated, therefore we knew with certainty that _the gods did it"_.
> 
> It's the classical argument from ignorance that defines the creationist agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just complicated, but the odds it happened by chance are so small we can say with 100% certainty it didn't happen by chance.
Click to expand...

Two can play this game because, if it happened by chance, there is a 100% probability that it happened by chance.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If by "code" you mean;
> "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
> "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
> "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
> "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
> "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
> *"A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"*
> "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
> "*a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"* *But of course, the digits identify the correct amino acid for the molecular machine provide information on which order they should be selected in.*
> "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
> "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
> *"a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"* *Yes, the specific arrangement of nucleotides identifies which amino acid will be selected for a particular machine.*
> "Computing program instructions;"
> then I have no idea what you're talking about, because *DNA isn't a symbol for proteins* [You are correct. But comparing dna to binary code in a computer, just like the letter 'A' is a symbol that can be transmitted by a particular order of 0's and 1's, so too can the instructions to build a protein be transmitted by G's, T's, C's, and A's.]  so is the protein of symboin living things; it is just the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.
> 
> If by "instructions" you mean;
> "a direction calling for compliance;"
> "an outline or manual of technical procedure;"
> *"a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation;"*
> "the act of furnishing with authoritative directions;"
> "orders or directions;"
> *"commands given to a computer to carry out a particular operation;"*
> "the process or act of imparting knowledge;"
> *"a part of a program consisting of a coded command to the computer to perform a specified function;"*
> then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA is just a molecule whose effect on the ordinary reactions* of protein synthesis promotes specific amino acid sequences in proteins. **Assumptive language and pathetic attempt at subtle brainwashing. This is the type of stuff poor dear Hollie falls for.*
> 
> I am certain that if there was less room for equivocating in your usage of the terms, I could give you better answers. But then the answers then given wouldn't be consistent with your faith, or subject to typical and predictable red-herring refutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo Twix. All of the bolded above can be implied. DNA carries instructions, by way of quaternary code, that tell a molecular machine what specific ingredients it needs in what specific order to assemble a component for another molecular machine.
> 
> The "ordinary reactions" that Sweetart refers to above assemble complex  proteins like this one:
> 
> _"While the pretty pictures published on book covers and journals are indeed accurate, they only tell part of the story. These images don't represent every possible form of the molecule, or perhaps even the most biologically interesting ones. Rather these are the most stable or crystallizable states, what North Carolina State University physicist Keith Weninger calls landmarks in a conformational landscape.
> 
> And that's just in vitro; what a protein looks like in vivo may differ even more. Living cells are amazing things, Weninger says. They maintain non-equilibrium conditions; the system keeps gradients that shouldn't exist, and very non-equilibrium flows, and those are hard to reproduce outside of a cell. Those conditions can affect biology, which is why people want to develop high-resolution methods to look at protein structure in cells.
> 
> The Photosystem membrane protein complex, deduced using femtosecond X-ray protein nanocrystallography _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose thanks are in order for your unintentional exposition of the logical fallacy you have been applying since I pointed it out to you over 1700 posts ago. No doubt you believe that equivocation is an impenetrable defense for your stolid refusal to acknowledge the facts of reality, but you should now be aware that you have sold yourself out.
> 
> As observed over 1700 posts ago, it is only through the function of equivocal language that your specious notions of the genetic code have any traction.
> 
> So thank you, for saving me the effort of having to illuminate your bullshit. Thank you very much.
Click to expand...


I'll take your repeated use and reference to the equivocation fallacy to be on the same level as you FALSELY screaming strawman when you don't have the wherewithal to present a logical rebuttal to an argument. So thank you for making yet again another fallacy accusation which proves your total intellectual dishonesty. Thank you very much. Maybe you don't know what a strawman argument really is... shall I provide a link for you???


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If by "code" you mean;
> "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
> "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
> "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
> "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
> "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
> "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
> "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
> "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"
> "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
> "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
> "a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"
> "Computing program instructions;"
> then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA isn't a symbol for proteins in living things; it is just the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.
> 
> If by "instructions" you mean;
> "a direction calling for compliance;"
> "an outline or manual of technical procedure;"
> "a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation;"
> "the act of furnishing with authoritative directions;"
> "orders or directions;"
> "commands given to a computer to carry out a particular operation;"
> "the process or act of imparting knowledge;"
> "a part of a program consisting of a coded command to the computer to perform a specified function;"
> then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA is just a molecule whose effect on the ordinary reactions of protein synthesis promotes specific amino acid sequences in proteins.
> 
> I am certain that if there was less room for equivocating in your usage of the terms, I could give you better answers. But then the answers then given wouldn't be consistent with your faith, or subject to typical and predictable red-herring refutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a form of communication, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If acid-base reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, polymerization reactions, etc... are also forms of communication, then I suppose so ... otherwise, DNA is just a part of an ordinary chemical reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... there is no form of communication that was the product absent of intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently not. Apparently there are countless forms of communication that are absent of any intelligence (including the obvious poke at superstitious retards).
> 
> HOWEVER, I do perceive (even if you do not) how this patently nonsensical notion of yours is fully consistent with your fatuous demand that DNA is a symbol for protein whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you assert that this biological code is a product of natural processes abent of intelligence.
> 
> You don't see this as a contradiction ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No.*
Click to expand...


Why do you FALSELY keep claiming "DNA is a symbol for protein"? Are 0's and 1's a symbol for the letter 'A'?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, the only thing she or he ignores are facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.
> 
> This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok let's try this again shall we.
> 
> Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.
> 
> 1. superior eye sight
> 2. superior land speed
> 3. superior strength
> 4. superior sense of smell
> 
> This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.
> 
> Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?
Click to expand...


Simple. There would be no evolutionary selective pressure to produce a "super-animal," which is basically what you described. An animal evolves only as much as it needs to survive to pass on DNA. If an animal became over-evoved, it will kill all of its prey, and then it would die out from starvation. There's you're answer. 

As an aside, one could argue that humans are over-evolved. We are TOO smart and have over-powered our environment. However, this is because we evolved in emergency, drought conditions in East Africa, and had to learn to become extremely cooperative problem-solvers in order to find food and water. When we emerged from those drought conditions, we were easily able to negotiate and dominate more livable environment


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a form of communication, ...
> 
> 
> 
> If acid-base reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, polymerization reactions, etc... are also forms of communication, then I suppose so ... otherwise, DNA is just a part of an ordinary chemical reaction.
> 
> Apparently not. Apparently there are countless forms of communication that are absent of any intelligence (including the obvious poke at superstitious retards).
> 
> HOWEVER, I do perceive (even if you do not) how this patently nonsensical notion of yours is fully consistent with your fatuous demand that DNA is a symbol for protein whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you assert that this biological code is a product of natural processes abent of intelligence.
> 
> You don't see this as a contradiction ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you FALSELY keep claiming "DNA is a symbol for protein"?
Click to expand...

This tu toque non-sequitur is just as bullshit as the other you keep trying to sell.



UltimateReality said:


> Are 0's and 1's a symbol for the letter 'A'?


0's and 1's are among the many symbols that can be used to represent the letter "A".


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours, of course, is the mindless prattle used by creationists to justify their beliefs: "_the bible is true because I was told the bible is true and because I believe the bible is true it is therefore true"_. It's a mindless and intellectually dishonest way to come to conclusions about reality but the reality challenged don't have a great need for intellectual honesty.
> 
> Creationist dogma will never increase our understanding or knowledge of the physical world because knowledge is antithetical to the creationist.  What is not already written in the bible is relegated to the unknowable hand of God moving in his creation.  Fear and superstition has caused the Genesis story to be repeated for three thousand years and we know no more of existence now than when that tale was first written by the hand of man. In the last two hundred years of taking a scientific approach to studying the natural world, we have learned most of what we know about how living things work. This seeking of knowledge is what infuriates creationists such as the two fundies in thus thread.
> 
> Similarly, to try and find ways to make the Genesis fable fit the natural world is to miss the point of Genesis entirely.  There is no reason why angry, jealous gods would need any of the physical processes we know and understand to womp up the universe.  All the reinvention and equivocation required by creationists to explain the errors and inaccuracies of biblical tales does nothing to further clarify the absurdities of creationism.
> 
> The only legitimate challenge to evolutionary fact and theory would be a competing theory that legitimately fits the criteria for how we _define_ a theory. If such a competing theory existed and provided a better account of the demonstrable facts related to evolution than the current facts and theory, that would be worthy of investigation. Creationism fits no such derinition. Ask a creationist on what basis the creation story could supplant the fact of evolutionary science and we're met with silly demands that the  creation story is true because it appears in a book (written by superstitious men), that is true in its entirety "because I was told it was true".
> 
> Creationism / ID are neither science nor theory. They do not meet the criteria of science and cannot resolve their internal contradictions. The falsified "quotes" from creationist crackpots and the reliance on lies, deceit and falsehoods to buttress creationist dogma relegates creationism to mythology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie has been schooled on this numerous times. She continues to borrow parts and pieces of Christian Theology for her fallacious arguments but ignores the pertinent parts of Biblical teaching that God has always existed and pre-dates the Big Bang in order to make her argument appear sound. Only by using some doctrines and not others is she able to make her fallacious, logic-lacking "turtles all the way down" argument and then she keeps repeating it over and over in these pages as if doing so will somehow eventually make the argument valid. Doh! Of course her next post will say nothing to rebut my comments but will trail off into some Ad Hominem attack that involves the terms ICR and Haran Yahya. PATHETIC!!!
> 
> And, like an ignorant retard, she will continue to use the term "gods" when referencing a monotheistic religion like Judaism. This is her repeated attempt at a dig against Christians but after being called out about it over 100 times she continues to look more and more like the village idiot because she just can't grasp that it childish and moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christian creationists will recoil in defensive postures when their sacred cows are challenged. They get defensive when their falsified "quotes" are exposed as frauds and when their gods are identified as serial mass murderers.  Christuan creationists get defensive when their cutting and pasting from creationist ministries and Harun Yahya is exposed as fraudulent.
> 
> Why do Christian creationist complain about their frauds being exposed?
Click to expand...


It looks like by your posts i only see you feeling challenged,your lack of response to questions is revealing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If by "code" you mean;
> "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
> "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
> "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
> "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
> "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
> "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
> "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
> "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"
> "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
> "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
> "a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"
> "Computing program instructions;"
> then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA isn't a symbol for proteins in living things; it is just the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.
> 
> If by "instructions" you mean;
> "a direction calling for compliance;"
> "an outline or manual of technical procedure;"
> "a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation;"
> "the act of furnishing with authoritative directions;"
> "orders or directions;"
> "commands given to a computer to carry out a particular operation;"
> "the process or act of imparting knowledge;"
> "a part of a program consisting of a coded command to the computer to perform a specified function;"
> then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA is just a molecule whose effect on the ordinary reactions of protein synthesis promotes specific amino acid sequences in proteins.
> 
> I am certain that if there was less room for equivocating in your usage of the terms, I could give you better answers. But then the answers then given wouldn't be consistent with your faith, or subject to typical and predictable red-herring refutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a form of communication, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If acid-base reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, polymerization reactions, etc... are also forms of communication, then I suppose so ... otherwise, DNA is just a part of an ordinary chemical reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... there is no form of communication that was the product absent of intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently not. Apparently there are countless forms of communication that are absent of any intelligence (including the obvious poke at superstitious retards).
> 
> HOWEVER, I do perceive (even if you do not) how this patently nonsensical notion of yours is fully consistent with your fatuous demand that DNA is a symbol for protein whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you assert that this biological code is a product of natural processes abent of intelligence.
> 
> You don't see this as a contradiction ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No.*
Click to expand...


You can balk at the thought of the genetic code being a form of communication all you like and question whether genes are data that get transcribed but there are mountains of literature that agree with my view on this suject.

That being a fact we can infer there is no form of language or a code that was not designed or developed absent of an intelligent mind.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we have the entirety of the creationist rebuttal to science and knowledge: "its complicated, therefore we knew with certainty that _the gods did it"_.
> 
> It's the classical argument from ignorance that defines the creationist agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just complicated, but the odds it happened by chance are so small we can say with 100% certainty it didn't happen by chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two can play this game because, if it happened by chance, there is a 100% probability that it happened by chance.
Click to expand...


Then you do believe in miracles.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.
> 
> This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's try this again shall we.
> 
> Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.
> 
> 1. superior eye sight
> 2. superior land speed
> 3. superior strength
> 4. superior sense of smell
> 
> This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.
> 
> Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple. There would be no evolutionary selective pressure to produce a "super-animal," which is basically what you described. An animal evolves only as much as it needs to survive to pass on DNA. If an animal became over-evoved, it will kill all of its prey, and then it would die out from starvation. There's you're answer.
> 
> As an aside, one could argue that humans are over-evolved. We are TOO smart and have over-powered our environment. However, this is because we evolved in emergency, drought conditions in East Africa, and had to learn to become extremely cooperative problem-solvers in order to find food and water. When we emerged from those drought conditions, we were easily able to negotiate and dominate more livable environment
Click to expand...


You are not really answering the question and you are going against your own theory. The point is traits that help an organism survive and pass on traits why would these traits of survival not be passed on ? Where did these traits go ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a form of communication, ...
> 
> 
> 
> If acid-base reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, polymerization reactions, etc... are also forms of communication, then I suppose so ... otherwise, DNA is just a part of an ordinary chemical reaction.
> 
> Apparently not. Apparently there are countless forms of communication that are absent of any intelligence (including the obvious poke at superstitious retards).
> 
> HOWEVER, I do perceive (even if you do not) how this patently nonsensical notion of yours is fully consistent with your fatuous demand that DNA is a symbol for protein whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you assert that this biological code is a product of natural processes abent of intelligence.
> 
> You don't see this as a contradiction ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can balk at the thought of the genetic code being a form of communication all you like and question whether genes are data that get transcribed but there are mountains of literature that agree with my view on this suject.
Click to expand...

All of it question-begging.



Youwerecreated said:


> That being a fact we can infer there is no form of language or a code that was not designed or developed absent of an intelligent mind.


Equivocation.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just complicated, but the odds it happened by chance are so small we can say with 100% certainty it didn't happen by chance.
> 
> 
> 
> Two can play this game because, if it happened by chance, there is a 100% probability that it happened by chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you do believe in miracles.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.
> 
> This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's try this again shall we.
> 
> Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.
> 
> 1. superior eye sight
> 2. superior land speed
> 3. superior strength
> 4. superior sense of smell
> 
> This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.
> 
> Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple. There would be no evolutionary selective pressure to produce a "super-animal," which is basically what you described. An animal evolves only as much as it needs to survive to pass on DNA. If an animal became over-evoved, it will kill all of its prey, and then it would die out from starvation. There's you're answer.
> 
> As an aside, one could argue that humans are over-evolved. We are TOO smart and have over-powered our environment. However, this is because we evolved in emergency, drought conditions in East Africa, and had to learn to become extremely cooperative problem-solvers in order to find food and water. When we emerged from those drought conditions, we were easily able to negotiate and dominate more livable environment
Click to expand...


Ahhhh, such a nice story. Please tell me more about what happened. However, you should know that currently, evolution doesn't make such claims as you make above. All it says it the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce and the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce. The TOE makes no claims about fitness in regards to your description above but only says if the species survived, it must have been the most fit.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie has been schooled on this numerous times. She continues to borrow parts and pieces of Christian Theology for her fallacious arguments but ignores the pertinent parts of Biblical teaching that God has always existed and pre-dates the Big Bang in order to make her argument appear sound. Only by using some doctrines and not others is she able to make her fallacious, logic-lacking "turtles all the way down" argument and then she keeps repeating it over and over in these pages as if doing so will somehow eventually make the argument valid. Doh! Of course her next post will say nothing to rebut my comments but will trail off into some Ad Hominem attack that involves the terms ICR and Haran Yahya. PATHETIC!!!
> 
> And, like an ignorant retard, she will continue to use the term "gods" when referencing a monotheistic religion like Judaism. This is her repeated attempt at a dig against Christians but after being called out about it over 100 times she continues to look more and more like the village idiot because she just can't grasp that it childish and moronic.
> 
> 
> 
> Christian creationists will recoil in defensive postures when their sacred cows are challenged. They get defensive when their falsified "quotes" are exposed as frauds and when their gods are identified as serial mass murderers.  Christuan creationists get defensive when their cutting and pasting from creationist ministries and Harun Yahya is exposed as fraudulent.
> 
> Why do Christian creationist complain about their frauds being exposed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It looks like by your posts i only see you feeling challenged,your lack of response to questions is revealing.
Click to expand...

There's nothing challenging about claims to supernaturalism. You just keep repeating the slogans over and over without any effort on your part to substantiate your claims. It's disingenuous to expect that anyone else has any reason to accept your totally unsupported claims to gods, miracles and magic as an answer to the complexity of life on the planet. 

You demand unequivocal proof of scientific theory but accept superstitious tales and fables in connection with belief in your gods. 

So here we are, still, with you rejecting scientific fact in place of superstition and magic.You continue to evade any rational explanation of how magic was the mechanism used in the hierarchy of super-gods who created your gods.

In fact, it is your lack of response that is revealing.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If acid-base reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, polymerization reactions, etc... are also forms of communication, then I suppose so ... otherwise, DNA is just a part of an ordinary chemical reaction.
> 
> Apparently not. Apparently there are countless forms of communication that are absent of any intelligence (including the obvious poke at superstitious retards).
> 
> HOWEVER, I do perceive (even if you do not) how this patently nonsensical notion of yours is fully consistent with your fatuous demand that DNA is a symbol for protein whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.
> 
> *No.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you FALSELY keep claiming "DNA is a symbol for protein"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This tu toque non-sequitur is just as bullshit as the other you keep trying to sell.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are 0's and 1's a symbol for the letter 'A'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 0's and 1's are among the many symbols that can be used to represent the letter "A".
Click to expand...


Riiiiiiight. Except you have it backwards regarding DNA genomesplice. And you incorrect in that the 0's and 1's aren't symbols in computer code. They represent on or off, or in the case of flash memory, the presence of an electron or no electron. You can reaname these vaules, but you can't change the electrical and physical properties, the G's, T's... err, I mean the 0's and 1's represtent. Sound familiar???

So just like G's, T's, C's and A's represent the chemical bases in DNA, the 0's and 1's represent an electrical property of the processor or storage medium. You don't have to use 0 and 1 to represent this property, but you can't change the property. Yet, still, the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If acid-base reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, polymerization reactions, etc... are also forms of communication, then I suppose so ... otherwise, DNA is just a part of an ordinary chemical reaction.
> 
> Apparently not. Apparently there are countless forms of communication that are absent of any intelligence (including the obvious poke at superstitious retards).
> 
> HOWEVER, I do perceive (even if you do not) how this patently nonsensical notion of yours is fully consistent with your fatuous demand that DNA is a symbol for protein whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.
> 
> *No.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can balk at the thought of the genetic code being a form of communication all you like and question whether genes are data that get transcribed but there are mountains of literature that agree with my view on this suject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of it question-begging.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That being a fact we can infer there is no form of language or a code that was not designed or developed absent of an intelligent mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equivocation.
Click to expand...


Great response. Too bad you have relied on equivocation.  Are you on that "pick a word from the dictionary and use it for a week" program?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christian creationists will recoil in defensive postures when their sacred cows are challenged. They get defensive when their falsified "quotes" are exposed as frauds and when their gods are identified as serial mass murderers.  Christuan creationists get defensive when their cutting and pasting from creationist ministries and Harun Yahya is exposed as fraudulent.
> 
> Why do Christian creationist complain about their frauds being exposed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like by your posts i only see you feeling challenged,your lack of response to questions is revealing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just keep repeating the slogans over and over ...
Click to expand...


I just spit coffee all over my keyboard.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like by your posts i only see you feeling challenged,your lack of response to questions is revealing.
> 
> 
> 
> You just keep repeating the slogans over and over ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just spit coffee all over my keyboard.
Click to expand...


You have something on your chin.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you FALSELY keep claiming "DNA is a symbol for protein"?
> 
> 
> 
> This tu toque non-sequitur is just as bullshit as the other you keep trying to sell.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are 0's and 1's a symbol for the letter 'A'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 0's and 1's are among the many symbols that can be used to represent the letter "A".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiight. Except you have it backwards regarding DNA genomesplice.
Click to expand...

I don't have anything backwards ... except (apparently) when you wish to accuse me of attacking a strawman.



UltimateReality said:


> And you incorrect in that the 0's and 1's aren't symbols in computer code.


I said 0's and 1's ARE symbols in computer code.



UltimateReality said:


> They represent on or off, or in the case of flash memory, the presence of an electron or no electron.


Hence, the 1's and 0's are ACTUALLY (as I have clearly stated) symbols! "They *represent* on or off, or in the case of flash memory, the presence of an electron or no electron."

If you substitute electrical and physical properties of a computer with something else, the symbols you posit become irrelevant; you just get a null product. Just as with DNA in a living thing.



UltimateReality said:


> You can reaname these vaules, but you can't change the electrical and physical properties, the G's, T's... err, I mean the 0's and 1's represtent. Sound familiar???


This sounds like the instances you agree with me solely for the purposes of accusing me of attacking a strawman; after which, you resume promoting the precise argument you claimed was the strawman.



UltimateReality said:


> So just like G's, T's, C's and A's represent the chemical bases in DNA, the 0's and 1's represent an electrical property of the processor or storage medium. You don't have to use 0 and 1 to represent this property, but you can't change the property. Yet, still, the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it.


You're still equivocating, as well as using a false analogy. The function of computer "code" is the manipulation of any symbols that can represent any information, such that any information can be (and is) stored as symbols. As useful as it may be to think of DNA as "code," DNA in living things functions differently.

You're still trying to say that "the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it," but the information in flash memory is still dependent on the electrical properties of the flash memory used to store it, in such a way that without the electrical properties you get nothing. 

Which is just a little less dumb a thing to say as: "... dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries," but the informational code is still dependent on the chemistry of the molecule, in such a way that without that particular chemistry you get nothing.

You were wrong over 1700 posts ago ... you're still wrong now, for the same reasons.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can balk at the thought of the genetic code being a form of communication all you like and question whether genes are data that get transcribed but there are mountains of literature that agree with my view on this suject.
> 
> 
> 
> All of it question-begging.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That being a fact we can infer there is no form of language or a code that was not designed or developed absent of an intelligent mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equivocation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great response. Too bad you have relied on equivocation.
Click to expand...

Despite the obvious opportunity you had, you failed to demonstrate this. Why is that?



UltimateReality said:


> Are you on that "pick a word from the dictionary and use it for a week" program?


We all are aware that if you believe it is so, that is sufficient for you to be absolutely certain that it is so, because no one can prove to you that it is not so.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's try this again shall we.
> 
> Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.
> 
> 1. superior eye sight
> 2. superior land speed
> 3. superior strength
> 4. superior sense of smell
> 
> This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.
> 
> Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple. There would be no evolutionary selective pressure to produce a "super-animal," which is basically what you described. An animal evolves only as much as it needs to survive to pass on DNA. If an animal became over-evoved, it will kill all of its prey, and then it would die out from starvation. There's you're answer.
> 
> As an aside, one could argue that humans are over-evolved. We are TOO smart and have over-powered our environment. However, this is because we evolved in emergency, drought conditions in East Africa, and had to learn to become extremely cooperative problem-solvers in order to find food and water. When we emerged from those drought conditions, we were easily able to negotiate and dominate more livable environment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not really answering the question and you are going against your own theory. The point is traits that help an organism survive and pass on traits why would these traits of survival not be passed on ? Where did these traits go ?
Click to expand...


 Where did what traits go? You imply we should be a hybrid of every organism, ever.  I am not qualified to address such a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. This is not what evolutionary theory would ever predict. Try for a second, to study the theory you pretend to debunk.

Also, landmasses, terrains, and cimate are in a state of continuous change and have been since the beginning of the earth 4.5 Billion years ago. Therefore, what worked for an organism  5 million years ago, might not necessarily work now. Change is required.


----------



## LOki

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple. There would be no evolutionary selective pressure to produce a "super-animal," which is basically what you described. An animal evolves only as much as it needs to survive to pass on DNA. If an animal became over-evoved, it will kill all of its prey, and then it would die out from starvation. There's you're answer.
> 
> As an aside, one could argue that humans are over-evolved. We are TOO smart and have over-powered our environment. However, this is because we evolved in emergency, drought conditions in East Africa, and had to learn to become extremely cooperative problem-solvers in order to find food and water. When we emerged from those drought conditions, we were easily able to negotiate and dominate more livable environment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not really answering the question and you are going against your own theory. The point is traits that help an organism survive and pass on traits why would these traits of survival not be passed on ? Where did these traits go ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did what traits go? You imply we should be a hybrid of every organism, ever.  I am not qualified to address such a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. This is not what evolutionary theory would ever predict. Try for a second, to study the theory you pretend to debunk.
> 
> Also, landmasses, terrains, and cimate are in a state of continuous change and have been since the beginning of the earth 4.5 Billion years ago. Therefore, what worked for an organism  5 million years ago, might not necessarily work now. Change is required.
Click to expand...

The trouble with this asshat's "tuffies" is the *bullshit premises* built into them, that you have to accept in order to offer an answer.

The way to deal with his "tuffies" is to require him to first defend his bullshit premises.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dependent, does that not suggest a necessity,do you believe chance produces a necessity ?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no answer to this nonsense question. Do you believe blue adds up to 27?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what happens if a mutation happens ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing, *IF* DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule, as the disingenuous retard you defend so enthusiastically demands.
> 
> OTOH if I am correct, and DNA is a NOT symbol for proteins, but a molecule whose information is dependent on... no, MORE than just dependent on... *INHERENT* in its chemistry; if, as I have clearly stated, you CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and then expect no alteration of the initial protein coded for, then there will be a change expressed in the product (i.e. the protein in this case) of the altered information that constitutes the mutation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have something transcribing the information then if an error happens you have another mechanism to try and correct that mistake and you think that just happened through chance ?
Click to expand...

Perhaps if I imagined that a leprechaun caused it to happen, and then demanded that you had to prove it wrong would be more convincing to you.

But the rational world would still call it crap.



Youwerecreated said:


> While this is going on you have the diversity of livinging organisms with only a four letter alphabet.


The diversity of organisms has nothing to do with any alphabet--and it's a good thing too, since the vast majority of organisms that ever existed, didn't even _have_ an alphabet.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.


*VS​*


			
				Linus van Pelt said:
			
		

> My one and only Great Pumpkin has always existed. There is only one Great Pumpkin you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.


If Youwerecreated cannot prove Linus wrong, then Youwerecreated is wrong!


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> This tu toque non-sequitur is just as bullshit as the other you keep trying to sell.
> 
> 0's and 1's are among the many symbols that can be used to represent the letter "A".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiight. Except you have it backwards regarding DNA genomesplice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have anything backwards ... except (apparently) when you wish to accuse me of attacking a strawman.
> 
> I said 0's and 1's ARE symbols in computer code.
> 
> Hence, the 1's and 0's are ACTUALLY (as I have clearly stated) symbols! "They *represent* on or off, or in the case of flash memory, the presence of an electron or no electron."
> 
> If you substitute electrical and physical properties of a computer with something else, the symbols you posit become irrelevant; you just get a null product. Just as with DNA in a living thing.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can reaname these vaules, but you can't change the electrical and physical properties, the G's, T's... err, I mean the 0's and 1's represtent. Sound familiar???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This sounds like the instances you agree with me solely for the purposes of accusing me of attacking a strawman; after which, you resume promoting the precise argument you claimed was the strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just like G's, T's, C's and A's represent the chemical bases in DNA, the 0's and 1's represent an electrical property of the processor or storage medium. You don't have to use 0 and 1 to represent this property, but you can't change the property. Yet, still, the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still equivocating, as well as using a false analogy. The function of computer "code" is the manipulation of any symbols that can represent any information, such that any information can be (and is) stored as symbols. As useful as it may be to think of DNA as "code," DNA in living things functions differently.
> 
> You're still trying to say that "the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it," but the information in flash memory is still dependent on the electrical properties of the flash memory used to store it, in such a way that without the electrical properties you get nothing.
> 
> Which is just a little less dumb a thing to say as: "... dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries," but the informational code is still dependent on the chemistry of the molecule, in such a way that without that particular chemistry you get nothing.
> 
> You were wrong over 1700 posts ago ... you're still wrong now, for the same reasons.
Click to expand...


And you still are hopelessly lost and don't get it.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no answer to this nonsense question. Do you believe blue adds up to 27?
> 
> Nothing, *IF* DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule, as the disingenuous retard you defend so enthusiastically demands.
> 
> OTOH if I am correct, and DNA is a NOT symbol for proteins, but a molecule whose information is dependent on... no, MORE than just dependent on... *INHERENT* in its chemistry; if, as I have clearly stated, you CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and then expect no alteration of the initial protein coded for, then there will be a change expressed in the product (i.e. the protein in this case) of the altered information that constitutes the mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have something transcribing the information then if an error happens you have another mechanism to try and correct that mistake and you think that just happened through chance ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps if I imagined that a leprechaun caused it to happen, and then demanded that you had to prove it wrong would be more convincing to you.
Click to expand...

False analogy.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> This tu toque non-sequitur is just as bullshit as the other you keep trying to sell.
> 
> 0's and 1's are among the many symbols that can be used to represent the letter "A".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiight. Except you have it backwards regarding DNA genomesplice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have anything backwards ... except (apparently) when you wish to accuse me of attacking a strawman.
> 
> I said 0's and 1's ARE symbols in computer code.
> 
> Hence, the 1's and 0's are ACTUALLY (as I have clearly stated) symbols! "They *represent* on or off, or in the case of flash memory, the presence of an electron or no electron."
> 
> If you substitute electrical and physical properties of a computer with something else, the symbols you posit become irrelevant; you just get a null product. Just as with DNA in a living thing.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can reaname these vaules, but you can't change the electrical and physical properties, the G's, T's... err, I mean the 0's and 1's represtent. Sound familiar???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This sounds like the instances you agree with me solely for the purposes of accusing me of attacking a strawman; after which, you resume promoting the precise argument you claimed was the strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just like G's, T's, C's and A's represent the chemical bases in DNA, the 0's and 1's represent an electrical property of the processor or storage medium. You don't have to use 0 and 1 to represent this property, but you can't change the property. Yet, still, the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still equivocating, as well as using a false analogy. The function of computer "code" is the manipulation of any symbols that can represent any information, such that any information can be (and is) stored as symbols.
Click to expand...

 The specific arrangement of bases determines the amino acid used in the "word" for a specific protein. Manipulation of the bases and their order results in information for a different protein being stored. I guess instead of your endless gibberish attacks, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. The real point you are desperately trying to make is that the *information in DNA* happened by chance. This is the source of your semantics trickery and intellectual dishonesty in your feeble attempt to distract from a truth you can't logically deny. 

The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.
DNA contains information with specificity. 
Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source. 

Before you engage in your typical intellectually dishonest behavior and scream non sequitur, you must realize you would be falsely accusing me of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. But for that to be applicable, there would have to be other sources of information with specificity that I have left out. This is your mission, and so far no one has been able to, not even Dawkins with his computer program trickery: Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, other than an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.

Finally, if Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Because to admit it would cause you to have to concede the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple. There would be no evolutionary selective pressure to produce a "super-animal," which is basically what you described. An animal evolves only as much as it needs to survive to pass on DNA. If an animal became over-evoved, it will kill all of its prey, and then it would die out from starvation. There's you're answer.
> 
> As an aside, one could argue that humans are over-evolved. We are TOO smart and have over-powered our environment. However, this is because we evolved in emergency, drought conditions in East Africa, and had to learn to become extremely cooperative problem-solvers in order to find food and water. When we emerged from those drought conditions, we were easily able to negotiate and dominate more livable environment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not really answering the question and you are going against your own theory. The point is traits that help an organism survive and pass on traits why would these traits of survival not be passed on ? Where did these traits go ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did what traits go? You imply we should be a hybrid of every organism, ever.  I am not qualified to address such a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. This is not what evolutionary theory would ever predict. Try for a second, to study the theory you pretend to debunk.
> 
> Also, landmasses, terrains, and cimate are in a state of continuous change and have been since the beginning of the earth 4.5 Billion years ago. Therefore, what worked for an organism  5 million years ago, might not necessarily work now. Change is required.
Click to expand...


I have studied it for many years. Your theory is based on change over time through mutations and natural selection. I have listed the traits that should not have been eliminated from the genepool that humans came from. Those were superior traits that would allow humans to survive and pass on these traits. Face it, if you had an ounce of reasoning you would understand why I asked.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> *VS​*
> 
> 
> 
> Linus van Pelt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My one and only Great Pumpkin has always existed. There is only one Great Pumpkin you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Youwerecreated cannot prove Linus wrong, then Youwerecreated is wrong!
Click to expand...


Your childish games reveal a lot about you loki. Face it you believe life began through chance that needed miracles. I believe life began because a brilliant designer.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not really answering the question and you are going against your own theory. The point is traits that help an organism survive and pass on traits why would these traits of survival not be passed on ? Where did these traits go ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did what traits go? You imply we should be a hybrid of every organism, ever.  I am not qualified to address such a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. This is not what evolutionary theory would ever predict. Try for a second, to study the theory you pretend to debunk.
> 
> Also, landmasses, terrains, and cimate are in a state of continuous change and have been since the beginning of the earth 4.5 Billion years ago. Therefore, what worked for an organism  5 million years ago, might not necessarily work now. Change is required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have studied it for many years. Your theory is based on change over time through mutations and natural selection. I have listed the traits that should not have been eliminated from the genepool that humans came from. Those were superior traits that would allow humans to survive and pass on these traits. Face it, if you had an ounce of reasoning you would understand why I asked.
Click to expand...


Why don't you paint a more specific picture for me, of what you think should have happened? Try to describe exactly what traits you think humans should have, and how and why this would have come about. If you can't describe this, then don't put it down.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiight. Except you have it backwards regarding DNA genomesplice.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have anything backwards ... except (apparently) when you wish to accuse me of attacking a strawman.
> 
> I said 0's and 1's ARE symbols in computer code.
> 
> Hence, the 1's and 0's are ACTUALLY (as I have clearly stated) symbols! "They *represent* on or off, or in the case of flash memory, the presence of an electron or no electron."
> 
> If you substitute electrical and physical properties of a computer with something else, the symbols you posit become irrelevant; you just get a null product. Just as with DNA in a living thing.
> 
> This sounds like the instances you agree with me solely for the purposes of accusing me of attacking a strawman; after which, you resume promoting the precise argument you claimed was the strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just like G's, T's, C's and A's represent the chemical bases in DNA, the 0's and 1's represent an electrical property of the processor or storage medium. You don't have to use 0 and 1 to represent this property, but you can't change the property. Yet, still, the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still equivocating, as well as using a false analogy. The function of computer "code" is the manipulation of any symbols that can represent any information, such that any information can be (and is) stored as symbols.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The specific arrangement of bases determines the amino acid used in the "word" for a specific protein. Manipulation of the bases and their order results in information for a different protein being stored. I guess instead of your endless gibberish attacks, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. The real point you are desperately trying to make is that the *information in DNA* happened by chance. This is the source of your semantics trickery and intellectual dishonesty in your feeble attempt to distract from a truth you can't logically deny.
> 
> The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
> All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.
> DNA contains information with specificity.
> Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.
> 
> Before you engage in your typical intellectually dishonest behavior and scream non sequitur, you must realize you would be falsely accusing me of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. But for that to be applicable, there would have to be other sources of information with specificity that I have left out. This is your mission, and so far no one has been able to, not even Dawkins with his computer program trickery: Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, other than an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.
> 
> Finally, if Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Because to admit it would cause you to have to concede the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source?
Click to expand...


 I'm afraid my stalker is simply cutting and pasting from Stephen Meyer and propaganda taken from creationist ministries with his silly cliches' and slogans that follow the creationist politburo party line: "the cell is complicated, therefore it must have been designed".  Throughout the thread, that is the crestionist agenda: to "prove" their gods with the "god of the gaps", fallacy. One would think that evidence and facts as used by science to support knowledge would be the mechanism to support the proposal for gods but as we see with consistency, evidence for supernaturalism is not in the creationist agenda. 

That truly is the reality of the Christian creationist agenda. It's just a shame that creationists don't understand that employing the science they despise in intellectually dishonest attempts to refute science only further weakens their arguments. For all the false analogies, ridiculous comparisons and logical errors: _"the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source"_? we're left with fundie Christians using lies and deceit in desperate attempts to press their religious agenda. 

What I find interesting about fundies is just how arbitrary their "belief" really is. The two fundies in this thread are are Christian for no reason other than parentage. Let's be honest and conclude that for the overwhelming majority of people, their religious affiliation is nothing more than accepting the religion of their parents or the majority religion. Had the two fundies in this thread been raised in Middle East, they would be muhammud worshippers insisting man was made from clay. That is precisely why (aside from the ridiculous analogies and false assumptions noted above), the boilerplate creationist polemics are cut and pasted from creationist ministries. 

If you raise a child in the middle of a remote jungle with no exposure to concepts relating to gods, there's no reason to suspect the child will arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings. No humans display inherent theism. Has any child ever suddenly generated belief in or knowledge of Amun Ra or allah? If you raise a baby in a Buddhist culture, it will almost certainly embrace Buddhism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. Those religious beliefs are learned behavior. 


Here is a portion of an article from a 2009 review about religion published in _Science_ (On the Origion of Religion, Elizabeth Culotta; very interesting by the way):

On the Origin of Religion - Origins 


From the article: "Barrett and others see the roots of religion in our sophisticated social cognition. Humans, they say, have a tendency to see signs of "agents" minds like our own at work in the world. "We have a tremendous capacity to imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness, and this is at the core of many religious beliefs," says Yale psychologist Paul Bloom. 

Notice the roots of religion: "our sophisticated social cognition". No mention of gods. Further, the comment regarding we humans "imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness...and this is at the core of many religious beliefs". Here again, no mention of gods but rather attaching human-based desires to inanimate objects such as idols, golden icons, plastic effigies and other symbols.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiight. Except you have it backwards regarding DNA genomesplice.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have anything backwards ... except (apparently) when you wish to accuse me of attacking a strawman.
> 
> I said 0's and 1's ARE symbols in computer code.
> 
> Hence, the 1's and 0's are ACTUALLY (as I have clearly stated) symbols! "They *represent* on or off, or in the case of flash memory, the presence of an electron or no electron."
> 
> If you substitute electrical and physical properties of a computer with something else, the symbols you posit become irrelevant; you just get a null product. Just as with DNA in a living thing.
> 
> This sounds like the instances you agree with me solely for the purposes of accusing me of attacking a strawman; after which, you resume promoting the precise argument you claimed was the strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just like G's, T's, C's and A's represent the chemical bases in DNA, the 0's and 1's represent an electrical property of the processor or storage medium. You don't have to use 0 and 1 to represent this property, but you can't change the property. Yet, still, the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still equivocating, as well as using a false analogy. The function of computer "code" is the manipulation of any symbols that can represent any information, such that any information can be (and is) stored as symbols. As useful as it may be to think of DNA as "code," DNA in living things functions differently.
> 
> You're still trying to say that "the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it," but the information in flash memory is still dependent on the electrical properties of the flash memory used to store it, in such a way that without the electrical properties you get nothing.
> 
> Which is just a little less dumb a thing to say as: "... dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries," but the informational code is still dependent on the chemistry of the molecule, in such a way that without that particular chemistry you get nothing.
> 
> You were wrong over 1700 posts ago ... you're still wrong now, for the same reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you still are hopelessly lost and don't get it.
Click to expand...


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have something transcribing the information then if an error happens you have another mechanism to try and correct that mistake and you think that just happened through chance ?
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if I imagined that a leprechaun caused it to happen, and then demanded that you had to prove it wrong would be more convincing to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False analogy.
Click to expand...

Not even an analogy.


----------



## ima

I think we were created. God was trying to make more monkeys and he mistakenly made us.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
> All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.


Contentious premise.



UltimateReality said:


> DNA contains information with specificity.


So does everything else.



UltimateReality said:


> Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.


Question begging conclusion.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> *VS​*
> 
> 
> 
> Linus van Pelt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My one and only Great Pumpkin has always existed. There is only one Great Pumpkin you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Youwerecreated cannot prove Linus wrong, then Youwerecreated is wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your childish games reveal a lot about you loki.
Click to expand...

Like what? That like  child I can see that the emperors new clothes are a fraud? The same as the "Designer" you posit is so wonderful?



Youwerecreated said:


> Face it you believe life began through chance that needed miracles.


NO SALE!



Youwerecreated said:


> I believe life began because a brilliant designer.


But you can't disprove the Great Pumpkin; therefore according to your argumentative paradigm, you are wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did what traits go? You imply we should be a hybrid of every organism, ever.  I am not qualified to address such a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. This is not what evolutionary theory would ever predict. Try for a second, to study the theory you pretend to debunk.
> 
> Also, landmasses, terrains, and cimate are in a state of continuous change and have been since the beginning of the earth 4.5 Billion years ago. Therefore, what worked for an organism  5 million years ago, might not necessarily work now. Change is required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have studied it for many years. Your theory is based on change over time through mutations and natural selection. I have listed the traits that should not have been eliminated from the genepool that humans came from. Those were superior traits that would allow humans to survive and pass on these traits. Face it, if you had an ounce of reasoning you would understand why I asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you paint a more specific picture for me, of what you think should have happened? Try to describe exactly what traits you think humans should have, and how and why this would have come about. If you can't describe this, then don't put it down.
Click to expand...


1. Land speed
2. vision
3. sense of smell
4. strength

To name a few but this went with only one attempt and a poor attempt to explain why these traits did not get passed to humans. We can agree according to natural selection these are traits that would aid in survival of any group that possessed them.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have studied it for many years. Your theory is based on change over time through mutations and natural selection. I have listed the traits that should not have been eliminated from the genepool that humans came from. Those were superior traits that would allow humans to survive and pass on these traits. Face it, if you had an ounce of reasoning you would understand why I asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you paint a more specific picture for me, of what you think should have happened? Try to describe exactly what traits you think humans should have, and how and why this would have come about. If you can't describe this, then don't put it down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Land speed
> 2. vision
> 3. sense of smell
> 4. strength
> 
> To name a few but this went with only one attempt and a poor attempt to explain why these traits did not get passed to humans. We can agree according to natural selection these are traits that would aid in survival of any group that possessed them.
Click to expand...


Yours are the claims of a simpleton. 

Those traits that are valuable as adaptive to the environment would most likely be passed from generation to generation. 

Land speed is valuable to a plains dwelling creature but is much less valuable to a forest dweller. 

Even your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya (which is dumbfounding) is more precise than you left to your own devices.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
> All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.
> 
> 
> 
> Contentious premise.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA contains information with specificity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So does everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Question begging conclusion.
Click to expand...


No,it's logical to infer a designer not blind chance and miracles being the cause. Not question begging, it's question begging to suggest DNA information came about in the way you believe it came about.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *VS​*If Youwerecreated cannot prove Linus wrong, then Youwerecreated is wrong!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your childish games reveal a lot about you loki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what? That like  child I can see that the emperors new clothes are a fraud? The same as the "Designer" you posit is so wonderful?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Face it you believe life began through chance that needed miracles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO SALE!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe life began because a brilliant designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you can't disprove the Great Pumpkin; therefore according to your argumentative paradigm, you are wrong.
Click to expand...


Then Loki you are hanging your hat on purposeful chance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you paint a more specific picture for me, of what you think should have happened? Try to describe exactly what traits you think humans should have, and how and why this would have come about. If you can't describe this, then don't put it down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Land speed
> 2. vision
> 3. sense of smell
> 4. strength
> 
> To name a few but this went with only one attempt and a poor attempt to explain why these traits did not get passed to humans. We can agree according to natural selection these are traits that would aid in survival of any group that possessed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours are the claims of a simpleton.
> 
> Those traits that are valuable as adaptive to the environment would most likely be passed from generation to generation.
> 
> Land speed is valuable to a plains dwelling creature but is much less valuable to a forest dweller.
> 
> Even your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya (which is dumbfounding) is more precise than you left to your own devices.
Click to expand...


You could not be more wrong


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Land speed
> 2. vision
> 3. sense of smell
> 4. strength
> 
> To name a few but this went with only one attempt and a poor attempt to explain why these traits did not get passed to humans. We can agree according to natural selection these are traits that would aid in survival of any group that possessed them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yours are the claims of a simpleton.
> 
> Those traits that are valuable as adaptive to the environment would most likely be passed from generation to generation.
> 
> Land speed is valuable to a plains dwelling creature but is much less valuable to a forest dweller.
> 
> Even your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya (which is dumbfounding) is more precise than you left to your own devices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could not be more wrong
Click to expand...


I fully expected a nonsense answer. That's perfectly fine. The true poverty of the creationist worldview is the inability of its adherents to present cogent facts. Even the simplest terms and concepts of biology confound the argument of supernatural creation. That is why the creationist position is one of special pleading, exemption from nature and natural laws that are largely understood and a perceived exemption from presenting a rational argument. 

That's to be expected when the worldview is encapsulated by supernaturalism, fear and superstition.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
> All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.
> 
> 
> 
> Contentious premise.
> 
> So does everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Question begging conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,it's logical to infer a designer...
Click to expand...

Using fallacious logic.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... not blind chance and miracles being the cause.


So what?



Youwerecreated said:


> Not question begging, ...


You're just denying the obvious reality just demonstrated to you.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... it's question begging to suggest DNA information came about in the way you believe it came about.


Yet despite the obvious opportunity you had to demonstrate this, you have refused to do so. Why is that?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your childish games reveal a lot about you loki.
> 
> 
> 
> Like what? That like  child I can see that the emperors new clothes are a fraud? The same as the "Designer" you posit is so wonderful?
> 
> NO SALE!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe life began because a brilliant designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you can't disprove the Great Pumpkin; therefore according to your argumentative paradigm, you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Loki you are hanging your hat on purposeful chance.
Click to expand...

Really? Is that what I'm doing? Or is it just what you _believe_ I am doing; and since you won't be convinced I'm doing something else, there is no way to "prove" to you I'm doing something else?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
> All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.
> 
> 
> 
> Contentious premise.
Click to expand...

 So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.


LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA contains information with specificity.
> 
> 
> 
> So does everything else.
Click to expand...

 Again, I'm sure you can list numerous examples. The one I am looking for is the presently observable source that isn't an intelligent agent.


LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.
> 
> 
> 
> Question begging conclusion.
Click to expand...

 Typical false fallacy accusation without any backup.

Dang. I wish I hadn't waded through so much of your semantics trickery (equivocation) and just cut to the chase long ago. In doing so, we have seen your epic fail in response to the argument. And we see how you ignore questions that would back you into a corner as usual. Let's try again...

For claims to have any merit, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. How do the systems of dna storage and retrieval functional differ from a machine language and binary code when it comes to information storage and retrieval, error correction, translation, and transcription?

If Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Why do you deviate from the Darwinism party line?

Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.


----------



## Hollie

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like what? That like  child I can see that the emperors new clothes are a fraud? The same as the "Designer" you posit is so wonderful?
> 
> NO SALE!
> 
> But you can't disprove the Great Pumpkin; therefore according to your argumentative paradigm, you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Loki you are hanging your hat on purposeful chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Is that what I'm doing? Or is it just what you _believe_ I am doing; and since you won't be convinced I'm doing something else, there is no way to "prove" to you I'm doing something else?
Click to expand...


"Purposeful chance". 

I often shrug my shoulders and wince at the contradictory, inane and just plain juvenile comments that emanate from the creationist / IDiot crowd but the well of IDiosy just gets deeper and deeper.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have anything backwards ... except (apparently) when you wish to accuse me of attacking a strawman.
> 
> I said 0's and 1's ARE symbols in computer code.
> 
> Hence, the 1's and 0's are ACTUALLY (as I have clearly stated) symbols! "They *represent* on or off, or in the case of flash memory, the presence of an electron or no electron."
> 
> If you substitute electrical and physical properties of a computer with something else, the symbols you posit become irrelevant; you just get a null product. Just as with DNA in a living thing.
> 
> This sounds like the instances you agree with me solely for the purposes of accusing me of attacking a strawman; after which, you resume promoting the precise argument you claimed was the strawman.
> 
> You're still equivocating, as well as using a false analogy. The function of computer "code" is the manipulation of any symbols that can represent any information, such that any information can be (and is) stored as symbols.
> 
> 
> 
> The specific arrangement of bases determines the amino acid used in the "word" for a specific protein. Manipulation of the bases and their order results in information for a different protein being stored. I guess instead of your endless gibberish attacks, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. The real point you are desperately trying to make is that the *information in DNA* happened by chance. This is the source of your semantics trickery and intellectual dishonesty in your feeble attempt to distract from a truth you can't logically deny.
> 
> The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
> All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.
> DNA contains information with specificity.
> Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.
> 
> Before you engage in your typical intellectually dishonest behavior and scream non sequitur, you must realize you would be falsely accusing me of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. But for that to be applicable, there would have to be other sources of information with specificity that I have left out. This is your mission, and so far no one has been able to, not even Dawkins with his computer program trickery: Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, other than an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.
> 
> Finally, if Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Because to admit it would cause you to have to concede the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid my stalker is simply cutting and pasting from Stephen Meyer and propaganda taken from creationist ministries with his silly cliches' and slogans that follow the creationist politburo party line: "the cell is complicated, therefore it must have been designed".  Throughout the thread, that is the crestionist agenda: to "prove" their gods with the "god of the gaps", fallacy. One would think that evidence and facts as used by science to support knowledge would be the mechanism to support the proposal for gods but as we see with consistency, evidence for supernaturalism is not in the creationist agenda.
> 
> That truly is the reality of the Christian creationist agenda. It's just a shame that creationists don't understand that employing the science they despise in intellectually dishonest attempts to refute science only further weakens their arguments. For all the false analogies, ridiculous comparisons and logical errors: _"the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source"_? we're left with fundie Christians using lies and deceit in desperate attempts to press their religious agenda.
> 
> What I find interesting about fundies is just how arbitrary their "belief" really is. The two fundies in this thread are are Christian for no reason other than parentage. Let's be honest and conclude that for the overwhelming majority of people, their religious affiliation is nothing more than accepting the religion of their parents or the majority religion. Had the two fundies in this thread been raised in Middle East, they would be muhammud worshippers insisting man was made from clay. That is precisely why (aside from the ridiculous analogies and false assumptions noted above), the boilerplate creationist polemics are cut and pasted from creationist ministries.
> 
> If you raise a child in the middle of a remote jungle with no exposure to concepts relating to gods, there's no reason to suspect the child will arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings. No humans display inherent theism. Has any child ever suddenly generated belief in or knowledge of Amun Ra or allah? If you raise a baby in a Buddhist culture, it will almost certainly embrace Buddhism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. Those religious beliefs are learned behavior.
> 
> 
> Here is a portion of an article from a 2009 review about religion published in _Science_ (On the Origion of Religion, Elizabeth Culotta; very interesting by the way):
> 
> On the Origin of Religion - Origins
> 
> 
> From the article: "Barrett and others see the roots of religion in our sophisticated social cognition. Humans, they say, have a tendency to see signs of "agents" minds like our own at work in the world. "We have a tremendous capacity to imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness, and this is at the core of many religious beliefs," says Yale psychologist Paul Bloom.
> 
> Notice the roots of religion: "our sophisticated social cognition". No mention of gods. Further, the comment regarding we humans "imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness...and this is at the core of many religious beliefs". Here again, no mention of gods but rather attaching human-based desires to inanimate objects such as idols, golden icons, plastic effigies and other symbols.
Click to expand...


As this thread becomes more and more technical, it just reveals how totally ill equipped you are to keep up with the discussion. You aren't going to be able to play with cut and pastes. You are going to have to put some logical thought into your responses or risk total irrelevancy.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
> All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.
> 
> 
> 
> Contentious premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.
> Again, I'm sure you can list numerous examples. The one I am looking for is the presently observable source that isn't an intelligent agent.
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Question begging conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical false fallacy accusation without any backup.
> 
> Dang. I wish I hadn't waded through so much of your semantics trickery (equivocation) and just cut to the chase long ago. In doing so, we have seen your epic fail in response to the argument. And we see how you ignore questions that would back you into a corner as usual. Let's try again...
> 
> For claims to have any merit, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. How do the systems of dna storage and retrieval functional differ from a machine language and binary code when it comes to information storage and retrieval, error correction, translation, and transcription?
> 
> If Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Why do you deviate from the Darwinism party line?
> 
> Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.
Click to expand...


What "observable source" is the result of your gods, ie: this " agent" you are unable to define?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if I imagined that a leprechaun caused it to happen, and then demanded that you had to prove it wrong would be more convincing to you.
> 
> 
> 
> False analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even an analogy.
Click to expand...


...Says the intellectually dishonest poster.

*Definition of ANALOGY*:

-inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others

-A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

-A correspondence or partial similarity.

Please deny that you are comparing the Leprechaun to the Christian God or to the Designer and strawmanning my and YWC's challenge for proof.... 

LIAR.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contentious premise.
> 
> 
> 
> So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.
> Again, I'm sure you can list numerous examples. The one I am looking for is the presently observable source that isn't an intelligent agent.
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question begging conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical false fallacy accusation without any backup.
> 
> Dang. I wish I hadn't waded through so much of your semantics trickery (equivocation) and just cut to the chase long ago. In doing so, we have seen your epic fail in response to the argument. And we see how you ignore questions that would back you into a corner as usual. Let's try again...
> 
> For claims to have any merit, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. How do the systems of dna storage and retrieval functional differ from a machine language and binary code when it comes to information storage and retrieval, error correction, translation, and transcription?
> 
> If Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Why do you deviate from the Darwinism party line?
> 
> Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "observable source" is the result of your gods, ie: this " agent" you are unable to define?
Click to expand...


What we've been talking about for the last 50 pages. DNA silly.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you paint a more specific picture for me, of what you think should have happened? Try to describe exactly what traits you think humans should have, and how and why this would have come about. If you can't describe this, then don't put it down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Land speed
> 2. vision
> 3. sense of smell
> 4. strength
> 
> To name a few but this went with only one attempt and a poor attempt to explain why these traits did not get passed to humans. We can agree according to natural selection these are traits that would aid in survival of any group that possessed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours are the claims of a simpleton.
> 
> Those traits that are valuable as adaptive to the environment would most likely be passed from generation to generation.
> 
> Land speed is valuable to a plains dwelling creature but is much less valuable to a forest dweller.
> 
> *Even your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya* (which is dumbfounding) is more precise than you left to your own devices.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> You just keep repeating the slogans over and over


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like what? That like  child I can see that the emperors new clothes are a fraud? The same as the "Designer" you posit is so wonderful?
> 
> NO SALE!
> 
> But you can't disprove the Great Pumpkin; therefore according to your argumentative paradigm, you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Loki you are hanging your hat on purposeful chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Is that what I'm doing? Or is it just what you _believe_ I am doing; and since you won't be convinced I'm doing something else, there is no way to "prove" to you I'm doing something else?
Click to expand...


Equivocation


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The specific arrangement of bases determines the amino acid used in the "word" for a specific protein. Manipulation of the bases and their order results in information for a different protein being stored. I guess instead of your endless gibberish attacks, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. The real point you are desperately trying to make is that the *information in DNA* happened by chance. This is the source of your semantics trickery and intellectual dishonesty in your feeble attempt to distract from a truth you can't logically deny.
> 
> The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
> All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.
> DNA contains information with specificity.
> Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.
> 
> Before you engage in your typical intellectually dishonest behavior and scream non sequitur, you must realize you would be falsely accusing me of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. But for that to be applicable, there would have to be other sources of information with specificity that I have left out. This is your mission, and so far no one has been able to, not even Dawkins with his computer program trickery: Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, other than an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.
> 
> Finally, if Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Because to admit it would cause you to have to concede the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid my stalker is simply cutting and pasting from Stephen Meyer and propaganda taken from creationist ministries with his silly cliches' and slogans that follow the creationist politburo party line: "the cell is complicated, therefore it must have been designed".  Throughout the thread, that is the crestionist agenda: to "prove" their gods with the "god of the gaps", fallacy. One would think that evidence and facts as used by science to support knowledge would be the mechanism to support the proposal for gods but as we see with consistency, evidence for supernaturalism is not in the creationist agenda.
> 
> That truly is the reality of the Christian creationist agenda. It's just a shame that creationists don't understand that employing the science they despise in intellectually dishonest attempts to refute science only further weakens their arguments. For all the false analogies, ridiculous comparisons and logical errors: _"the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source"_? we're left with fundie Christians using lies and deceit in desperate attempts to press their religious agenda.
> 
> What I find interesting about fundies is just how arbitrary their "belief" really is. The two fundies in this thread are are Christian for no reason other than parentage. Let's be honest and conclude that for the overwhelming majority of people, their religious affiliation is nothing more than accepting the religion of their parents or the majority religion. Had the two fundies in this thread been raised in Middle East, they would be muhammud worshippers insisting man was made from clay. That is precisely why (aside from the ridiculous analogies and false assumptions noted above), the boilerplate creationist polemics are cut and pasted from creationist ministries.
> 
> If you raise a child in the middle of a remote jungle with no exposure to concepts relating to gods, there's no reason to suspect the child will arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings. No humans display inherent theism. Has any child ever suddenly generated belief in or knowledge of Amun Ra or allah? If you raise a baby in a Buddhist culture, it will almost certainly embrace Buddhism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. Those religious beliefs are learned behavior.
> 
> 
> Here is a portion of an article from a 2009 review about religion published in _Science_ (On the Origion of Religion, Elizabeth Culotta; very interesting by the way):
> 
> On the Origin of Religion - Origins
> 
> 
> From the article: "Barrett and others see the roots of religion in our sophisticated social cognition. Humans, they say, have a tendency to see signs of "agents" minds like our own at work in the world. "We have a tremendous capacity to imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness, and this is at the core of many religious beliefs," says Yale psychologist Paul Bloom.
> 
> Notice the roots of religion: "our sophisticated social cognition". No mention of gods. Further, the comment regarding we humans "imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness...and this is at the core of many religious beliefs". Here again, no mention of gods but rather attaching human-based desires to inanimate objects such as idols, golden icons, plastic effigies and other symbols.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As this thread becomes more and more technical, it just reveals how totally ill equipped you are to keep up with the discussion. You aren't going to be able to play with cut and pastes. You are going to have to put some logical thought into your responses or risk total irrelevancy.
Click to expand...


I see you are forced to retreat from offering a cogent response absent cutting and pasting. As the thread becomes more technical, your deficiencies become more glaring. In defense of your gods, you are becoming more strident in your rhetoric, retreating to employing meaningless analogies and being reduced to deeper levels of special pleading. 

Yours is basically the last resort of IDiots. As your false claims are stripped way and your arguments crumble before you, you're reduced to frantic "because I say so" argument.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Land speed
> 2. vision
> 3. sense of smell
> 4. strength
> 
> To name a few but this went with only one attempt and a poor attempt to explain why these traits did not get passed to humans. We can agree according to natural selection these are traits that would aid in survival of any group that possessed them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yours are the claims of a simpleton.
> 
> Those traits that are valuable as adaptive to the environment would most likely be passed from generation to generation.
> 
> Land speed is valuable to a plains dwelling creature but is much less valuable to a forest dweller.
> 
> *Even your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya* (which is dumbfounding) is more precise than you left to your own devices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just keep repeating the slogans over and over
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Emoticons comprise your best responses. It relieves you of the need to scour the web for cut and paste material.

It's just constantly amazing how little knowledge fundies actually possess in connection with material knowledge they hope to refute with little more than "the gods did it".


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then Loki you are hanging your hat on purposeful chance.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Is that what I'm doing? Or is it just what you _believe_ I am doing; and since you won't be convinced I'm doing something else, there is no way to "prove" to you I'm doing something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equivocation
Click to expand...


Repeating slogans. IDiots delight.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
> All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.
> 
> 
> 
> Contentious premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.
Click to expand...

Walk outside. Pick up anything you think is not a source of specified information, come back and tell us about it, and realize you are wrong.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA contains information with specificity.
> 
> 
> 
> So does everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I'm sure you can list numerous examples. The one I am looking for is the presently observable source that isn't an intelligent agent.
Click to expand...

Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.
> 
> 
> 
> Question begging conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical false fallacy accusation without any backup.
Click to expand...

Just another expression of *your denialism.* It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend.



UltimateReality said:


> Dang. I wish I hadn't waded through so much of your semantics trickery (equivocation) and just cut to the chase long ago. In doing so, we have seen your epic fail in response to the argument. And we see how you ignore questions that would back you into a corner as usual. Let's try again...
> 
> For claims to have any merit, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. How do the systems of dna storage and retrieval functional differ from a machine language and binary code when it comes to information storage and retrieval, error correction, translation, and transcription?


IF I accept you bullshit premises, then your conclusions certainly follow--I just am not obliged to accept your bullshit premises in order to prove your conclusions wrong. 

And I have made it abundantly clear how your premises are bullshit.



UltimateReality said:


> If Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Why do you deviate from the Darwinism party line?


What you claim via equivocation is "the truth about information in the cell" is a bullshit premise.



UltimateReality said:


> Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.


Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on you purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.

Based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information, there is no reason anyone should expect you to renounce your belief in Intelligent Design Theory for any rational reason.

That's why I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong; I wouldn't try if I could.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> False analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> Not even an analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...Says the intellectually dishonest poster.
> 
> *Definition of ANALOGY*:
> 
> -inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
> 
> -A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
> 
> -A correspondence or partial similarity.
> 
> Please deny that you are comparing the Leprechaun to the Christian God or to the Designer and strawmanning my and YWC's challenge for proof....
Click to expand...

I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...

and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.



UltimateReality said:


> LIAR.


I clearly am not.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then Loki you are hanging your hat on purposeful chance.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Is that what I'm doing? Or is it just what you _believe_ I am doing; and since you won't be convinced I'm doing something else, there is no way to "prove" to you I'm doing something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equivocation
Click to expand...

Yours? Youwerecreated's? Certainly.

Thank you again for your candid confession that your entire point has traction only in logical fallacy.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.
> Again, I'm sure you can list numerous examples. The one I am looking for is the presently observable source that isn't an intelligent agent.
> Typical false fallacy accusation without any backup.
> 
> Dang. I wish I hadn't waded through so much of your semantics trickery (equivocation) and just cut to the chase long ago. In doing so, we have seen your epic fail in response to the argument. And we see how you ignore questions that would back you into a corner as usual. Let's try again...
> 
> For claims to have any merit, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. How do the systems of dna storage and retrieval functional differ from a machine language and binary code when it comes to information storage and retrieval, error correction, translation, and transcription?
> 
> If Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Why do you deviate from the Darwinism party line?
> 
> Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "observable source" is the result of your gods, ie: this " agent" you are unable to define?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we've been talking about for the last 50 pages. DNA stupid.
Click to expand...

You have presented nothing that would lead anyone to be convinced that there are designer gods. You therefore compound a logical fallacy by presuming there are designer gods who have designed DNA. 

Why would you expect anyone not sharing your preconceptions and biases favoring christianity to accept your foolish assumptions?

Stupid assumptions on your part are shared only by those with your preconceptions and biases.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid my stalker is simply cutting and pasting from Stephen Meyer and propaganda taken from creationist ministries with his silly cliches' and slogans that follow the creationist politburo party line: "the cell is complicated, therefore it must have been designed".  Throughout the thread, that is the crestionist agenda: to "prove" their gods with the "god of the gaps", fallacy. One would think that evidence and facts as used by science to support knowledge would be the mechanism to support the proposal for gods but as we see with consistency, evidence for supernaturalism is not in the creationist agenda.
> 
> That truly is the reality of the Christian creationist agenda. It's just a shame that creationists don't understand that employing the science they despise in intellectually dishonest attempts to refute science only further weakens their arguments. For all the false analogies, ridiculous comparisons and logical errors: _"the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source"_? we're left with fundie Christians using lies and deceit in desperate attempts to press their religious agenda.
> 
> What I find interesting about fundies is just how arbitrary their "belief" really is. The two fundies in this thread are are Christian for no reason other than parentage. Let's be honest and conclude that for the overwhelming majority of people, their religious affiliation is nothing more than accepting the religion of their parents or the majority religion. Had the two fundies in this thread been raised in Middle East, they would be muhammud worshippers insisting man was made from clay. That is precisely why (aside from the ridiculous analogies and false assumptions noted above), the boilerplate creationist polemics are cut and pasted from creationist ministries.
> 
> If you raise a child in the middle of a remote jungle with no exposure to concepts relating to gods, there's no reason to suspect the child will arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings. No humans display inherent theism. Has any child ever suddenly generated belief in or knowledge of Amun Ra or allah? If you raise a baby in a Buddhist culture, it will almost certainly embrace Buddhism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. Those religious beliefs are learned behavior.
> 
> 
> Here is a portion of an article from a 2009 review about religion published in _Science_ (On the Origion of Religion, Elizabeth Culotta; very interesting by the way):
> 
> On the Origin of Religion - Origins
> 
> 
> From the article: "Barrett and others see the roots of religion in our sophisticated social cognition. Humans, they say, have a tendency to see signs of "agents" minds like our own at work in the world. "We have a tremendous capacity to imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness, and this is at the core of many religious beliefs," says Yale psychologist Paul Bloom.
> 
> Notice the roots of religion: "our sophisticated social cognition". No mention of gods. Further, the comment regarding we humans "imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness...and this is at the core of many religious beliefs". Here again, no mention of gods but rather attaching human-based desires to inanimate objects such as idols, golden icons, plastic effigies and other symbols.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As this thread becomes more and more technical, it just reveals how totally ill equipped you are to keep up with the discussion. You aren't going to be able to play with cut and pastes. You are going to have to put some logical thought into your responses or risk total irrelevancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you are forced to retreat from offering a cogent response absent cutting and pasting. As the thread becomes more technical, your deficiencies become more glaring. In defense of your gods, you are becoming more strident in your rhetoric, retreating to employing meaningless analogies and being reduced to deeper levels of special pleading.
> 
> Yours is basically the last resort of IDiots. As your false claims are stripped way and your arguments crumble before you, you're reduced to frantic "because I say so" argument.
Click to expand...


This as he or she takes a left haymaker to the chin


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours are the claims of a simpleton.
> 
> Those traits that are valuable as adaptive to the environment would most likely be passed from generation to generation.
> 
> Land speed is valuable to a plains dwelling creature but is much less valuable to a forest dweller.
> 
> *Even your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya* (which is dumbfounding) is more precise than you left to your own devices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just keep repeating the slogans over and over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emoticons comprise your best responses. It relieves you of the need to scour the web for cut and paste material.
> 
> It's just constantly amazing how little knowledge fundies actually possess in connection with material knowledge they hope to refute with little more than "the gods did it".
Click to expand...


Hollie look at your responses,enough said.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contentious premise.
> 
> 
> 
> So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Walk outside. Pick up anything you think is not a source of specified information, come back and tell us about it, and realize you are wrong.
> 
> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> Just another expression of *your denialism.* It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend.
> 
> IF I accept you bullshit premises, then your conclusions certainly follow--I just am not obliged to accept your bullshit premises in order to prove your conclusions wrong.
> 
> And I have made it abundantly clear how your premises are bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Why do you deviate from the Darwinism party line?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you claim via equivocation is "the truth about information in the cell" is a bullshit premise.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on you purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> Based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information, there is no reason anyone should expect you to renounce your belief in Intelligent Design Theory for any rational reason.
> 
> That's why I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong; I wouldn't try if I could.
Click to expand...


Ok we can play this game if you like. Everything is made up of matter so where did the matter come from ? before time existed nothing existed not even our universe correct ? This is according to mans theories and laws of physics. Where did the information come from to form matter ? then matter forming all we see ?

To many unanswered questions for you to say there is no evidence of a designer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even an analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Says the intellectually dishonest poster.
> 
> *Definition of ANALOGY*:
> 
> -inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
> 
> -A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
> 
> -A correspondence or partial similarity.
> 
> Please deny that you are comparing the Leprechaun to the Christian God or to the Designer and strawmanning my and YWC's challenge for proof....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...
> 
> and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I clearly am not.
Click to expand...


You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct. Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> As this thread becomes more and more technical, it just reveals how totally ill equipped you are to keep up with the discussion. You aren't going to be able to play with cut and pastes. You are going to have to put some logical thought into your responses or risk total irrelevancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you are forced to retreat from offering a cogent response absent cutting and pasting. As the thread becomes more technical, your deficiencies become more glaring. In defense of your gods, you are becoming more strident in your rhetoric, retreating to employing meaningless analogies and being reduced to deeper levels of special pleading.
> 
> Yours is basically the last resort of IDiots. As your false claims are stripped way and your arguments crumble before you, you're reduced to frantic "because I say so" argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This as he or she takes a left haymaker to the chin
Click to expand...

This, as the fundies sit slackjawed and dumbfounded.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Says the intellectually dishonest poster.
> 
> *Definition of ANALOGY*:
> 
> -inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
> 
> -A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
> 
> -A correspondence or partial similarity.
> 
> Please deny that you are comparing the Leprechaun to the Christian God or to the Designer and strawmanning my and YWC's challenge for proof....
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...
> 
> and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I clearly am not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct. Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.
Click to expand...

Neither you or the other fundie has made any substantive case for your gods as an intelligent agent. 

Why the need to use euphanisms for your gods? You both have previously admitted that your creationist agenda is nothing more than a front for pressing Christianity. Thus, there is no need for deception and lies with references to some "intelligent agent". You're just being deceitful and that's... well... sleazy.  But maybe that's the Christian thing to do?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Says the intellectually dishonest poster.
> 
> *Definition of ANALOGY*:
> 
> -inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
> 
> -A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
> 
> -A correspondence or partial similarity.
> 
> Please deny that you are comparing the Leprechaun to the Christian God or to the Designer and strawmanning my and YWC's challenge for proof....
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...
> 
> and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I clearly am not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct. Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.
Click to expand...


Natural processes are the only processes we have knowledge of. What supernatural (or un-natural) processes are you aware of? Can you demonstrate these un-natural processes?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.
> 
> 
> 
> Walk outside. Pick up anything you think is not a source of specified information, come back and tell us about it, and realize you are wrong.
> 
> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> Just another expression of *your denialism.* It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend.
> 
> IF I accept you bullshit premises, then your conclusions certainly follow--I just am not obliged to accept your bullshit premises in order to prove your conclusions wrong.
> 
> And I have made it abundantly clear how your premises are bullshit.
> 
> What you claim via equivocation is "the truth about information in the cell" is a bullshit premise.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on you purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> Based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information, there is no reason anyone should expect you to renounce your belief in Intelligent Design Theory for any rational reason.
> 
> That's why I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong; I wouldn't try if I could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok we can play this game if you like.
Click to expand...

 loooooooooooooooooooooooool! 



Youwerecreated said:


> Everything is made up of matter so where did the matter come from ?


How the fuck should I know? 

That said, I see no reason to make up an explanationless leprechaun to serve as an explanation for where matter came from.



Youwerecreated said:


> before time existed nothing existed not even our universe correct ?


How the fuck should I know? 

That said, I can be pretty sure that existence is not subject to this notion you posit regarding time.

Regardless of what I am sure of and what I'm not sure of, nothing about it is a reason to make up an explanationless leprechaun to serve as an explanation for where everything came from.



Youwerecreated said:


> This is according to mans theories and laws of physics.


I have only heard such accounts of "mans theories and laws of physics" from the likes of superstitious retards; I don't listen to those idiots ... neither should you.



Youwerecreated said:


> Where did the information come from to form matter ?


How the fuck should I know?

That said, I see no reason to make up an explanationless leprechaun to serve as an explanation for where the information to form matter came from.



Youwerecreated said:


> then matter forming all we see ?


There seems to be some pretty good explanations for matter forming that is based upon empirical evidence.



Youwerecreated said:


> To many unanswered questions for you to say there is no evidence of a designer.


Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain the explanations provided by our current state of scientific endeavor might prove to be, such explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the existence and function of all intelligence, information, matter, energy, time, and life, than this obviously imaginary "Designer" of you insist upon positing as the question-begging premise that validates your evidence.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Says the intellectually dishonest poster.
> 
> *Definition of ANALOGY*:
> 
> -inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
> 
> -A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
> 
> -A correspondence or partial similarity.
> 
> Please deny that you are comparing the Leprechaun to the Christian God or to the Designer and strawmanning my and YWC's challenge for proof....
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...
> 
> and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I clearly am not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct.
Click to expand...

Since there is ONLY evidence of natural processes forming all we see, it follows that I am correct by the standard of evidence.



Youwerecreated said:


> Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.


No. I am avoiding making-up an explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for information.

Why don't you give that a try?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contentious premise.
> 
> 
> 
> So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Walk outside. Pick up anything you think is not a source of specified information, come back and tell us about it, and realize you are wrong.
Click to expand...

 Ha!!! Finally you say uncle!!! Your intellectually dishonesty cannot conceal your failure to respond to the question. I accept your surrender. 


LOki said:


> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> Just another expression of *your denialism.* It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend.
> 
> IF I accept you bullshit premises, then your conclusions certainly follow--I just am not obliged to accept your bullshit premises in order to prove your conclusions wrong.
> 
> And I have made it abundantly clear how your premises are bullshit.


 Hmmm. Would you be referring to your epic failure above telling me I can find specifiable information? How silly of you. Again, why don't *YOU* give me an example of some presently observable specified information that has a source other than an intelligent agent? I will tell you why. *Because you can't!* 


LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Why do you deviate from the Darwinism party line?
> 
> 
> 
> What you claim via equivocation is "the truth about information in the cell" is a bullshit premise.
Click to expand...

 Fail!!! You have not even come close to showing it is a bs premise. Try again, homeslice. 


LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on you purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> Based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information, there is no reason anyone should expect you to renounce your belief in Intelligent Design Theory for any rational reason.
Click to expand...

 Oh, Loki you poor dear. Always with the intellectual dishonesty and lies. There is nothing about my argument that is ontological. We see specifiable information all around us that has an intelligent agent as its source and you claim this is a metaphysical premise??? Maybe in your twisted view of reality. The logic and argument are sound and you've been beat my friend. It is made even more blatantly obvious by you ignoring relevant questions for clarifications requested of you.

Here, I have bolded it and increased the type size since maybe you didn't see it. I have asked for you to clarify your claim of equivocation but you have so far ignored requests.

*For your claims to have any merit, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. How do the systems of dna storage and retrieval functional differ from a machine language and binary code when it comes to information storage and retrieval, error correction, translation, and transcription?*


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...
> 
> and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.
> 
> I clearly am not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since there is ONLY evidence of natural processes *forming* all we *see* *IN NATURE with the exception of DNA and living organisms,* it follows that I am correct by the standard of evidence.
Click to expand...

 Here Loki, I helped you out there so your statement wouldn't be a foolish lie. However, your argument is fallacious because that is not the claim of the argument. You just need to open your eyes. I* see* the results of an intelligent agent all around me in my office and specifically I see words *forming* on my Binary Code using computer right now. 


LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am avoiding making-up an explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for information.
> 
> Why don't you give that a try?
Click to expand...


I think it is about time for you to tuck and run isn't it.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid my stalker is simply cutting and pasting from Stephen Meyer and propaganda taken from creationist ministries with his silly cliches' and slogans that follow the creationist politburo party line: "the cell is complicated, therefore it must have been designed".  Throughout the thread, that is the crestionist agenda: to "prove" their gods with the "god of the gaps", fallacy. One would think that evidence and facts as used by science to support knowledge would be the mechanism to support the proposal for gods but as we see with consistency, evidence for supernaturalism is not in the creationist agenda.
> 
> That truly is the reality of the Christian creationist agenda. It's just a shame that creationists don't understand that employing the science they despise in intellectually dishonest attempts to refute science only further weakens their arguments. For all the false analogies, ridiculous comparisons and logical errors: _"the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source"_? we're left with fundie Christians using lies and deceit in desperate attempts to press their religious agenda.
> 
> What I find interesting about fundies is just how arbitrary their "belief" really is. The two fundies in this thread are are Christian for no reason other than parentage. Let's be honest and conclude that for the overwhelming majority of people, their religious affiliation is nothing more than accepting the religion of their parents or the majority religion. Had the two fundies in this thread been raised in Middle East, they would be muhammud worshippers insisting man was made from clay. That is precisely why (aside from the ridiculous analogies and false assumptions noted above), the boilerplate creationist polemics are cut and pasted from creationist ministries.
> 
> If you raise a child in the middle of a remote jungle with no exposure to concepts relating to gods, there's no reason to suspect the child will arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings. No humans display inherent theism. Has any child ever suddenly generated belief in or knowledge of Amun Ra or allah? If you raise a baby in a Buddhist culture, it will almost certainly embrace Buddhism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. Those religious beliefs are learned behavior.
> 
> 
> Here is a portion of an article from a 2009 review about religion published in _Science_ (On the Origion of Religion, Elizabeth Culotta; very interesting by the way):
> 
> On the Origin of Religion - Origins
> 
> 
> From the article: "Barrett and others see the roots of religion in our sophisticated social cognition. Humans, they say, have a tendency to see signs of "agents" minds like our own at work in the world. "We have a tremendous capacity to imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness, and this is at the core of many religious beliefs," says Yale psychologist Paul Bloom.
> 
> Notice the roots of religion: "our sophisticated social cognition". No mention of gods. Further, the comment regarding we humans "imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness...and this is at the core of many religious beliefs". Here again, no mention of gods but rather attaching human-based desires to inanimate objects such as idols, golden icons, plastic effigies and other symbols.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As this thread becomes more and more technical, it just reveals how totally ill equipped you are to keep up with the discussion. You aren't going to be able to play with cut and pastes. You are going to have to put some logical thought into your responses or risk total irrelevancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you are forced to retreat from offering a cogent response absent cutting and pasting. As the thread becomes more technical, your deficiencies become more glaring. In defense of your gods, you are becoming more strident in your rhetoric, retreating to employing meaningless analogies and being reduced to deeper levels of special pleading.
> 
> Yours is basically the last resort of IDiots. As your false claims are stripped way and your arguments crumble before you, you're reduced to frantic "because I say so" argument.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even an analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Says the intellectually dishonest poster.
> 
> *Definition of ANALOGY*:
> 
> -inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
> 
> -A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
> 
> -A correspondence or partial similarity.
> 
> Please deny that you are comparing the Leprechaun to the Christian God or to the Designer and strawmanning my and YWC's challenge for proof....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...
> 
> and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I clearly am not.
Click to expand...


You're claim was that your reference to the Leprechaun was... 





LOki said:


> Not even an analogy.


 It most certainly was, liar, as you have proven in this very post.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "observable source" is the result of your gods, ie: this " agent" you are unable to define?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we've been talking about for the last 50 pages. DNA stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have presented nothing that would lead anyone to be convinced that there are designer gods. You therefore compound a logical fallacy by presuming there are designer gods who have designed DNA.
> 
> Why would you expect anyone not sharing your preconceptions and biases favoring christianity to accept your foolish assumptions?
> 
> Stupid assumptions on your part are shared only by those with your preconceptions and biases.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...
> 
> and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.
> 
> I clearly am not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct. Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither you or the other fundie has made any substantive case for your gods as an intelligent agent.
> 
> Why the need to use euphanisms for your gods? You both have previously admitted that your creationist agenda is nothing more than a front for pressing Christianity. Thus, there is no need for deception and lies with references to some "intelligent agent". You're just being deceitful and that's... well... sleazy.  But maybe that's the Christian thing to do?
Click to expand...


For the sake of argument, go ahead and assume the i.a. is an alien race that evolved quickly in the first 5 billion years of the universe and then had another 4 billion years to think about their designs before the earth formed. This will eliminate any perceived religious implications that are blinding you from the argument at hand and allow you to remove your metaphysical materialistic prejudices long enough for you to consider the VALID logical argument that: all presently observable specified information on earth has an intelligent agent as its source.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...
> 
> and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.
> 
> I clearly am not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct. Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural processes are the only processes we have knowledge of. What supernatural (or un-natural) processes are you aware of? Can you demonstrate these un-natural processes?
Click to expand...


Nice dodge. But not applicable to the argument at hand genomesplice.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.
> 
> 
> 
> Walk outside. Pick up anything you think is not a source of specified information, come back and tell us about it, and realize you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha!!! Finally you say uncle!!! Your intellectually dishonesty cannot conceal your failure to respond to the question. I accept your surrender.
Click to expand...

Your failure to bring ANYTHING you think is not a source of specified information is proof of logically invalid premise.

Thanks for playing.



UltimateReality said:


> Hmmm. Would you be referring to your epic failure above telling me I can find specifiable information? How silly of you. Again, why don't *YOU* give me an example of some presently observable specified information that has a source other than an intelligent agent? I will tell you why. *Because you can't!*


Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.



UltimateReality said:


> Fail!!! You have not even come close to showing it is a bs premise. Try again, homeslice.


*YOU* have revealed your premise to be bullshit. And nicely done too! 



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on you purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> Based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information, there is no reason anyone should expect you to renounce your belief in Intelligent Design Theory for any rational reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, Loki you poor dear. Always with the intellectual dishonesty and lies. There is nothing about my argument that is ontological. We see specifiable information all around us that has an intelligent agent as its source and you claim this is a metaphysical premise??? Maybe in your twisted view of reality. The logic and argument are sound and you've been beat my friend. It is made even more blatantly obvious by you ignoring relevant questions for clarifications requested of you.
> 
> Here, I have bolded it and increased the type size since maybe you didn't see it. I have asked for you to clarify your claim of equivocation but you have so far ignored requests.
> 
> *For your claims to have any merit, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. How do the systems of dna storage and retrieval functional differ from a machine language and binary code when it comes to information storage and retrieval, error correction, translation, and transcription?*
Click to expand...

*IF* I accept you bullshit premises, then your conclusions certainly follow--*I just am not obliged to accept your bullshit premises in order to prove your conclusions wrong. *

And I have made it abundantly clear (with your own help. Thanks!) how your premises are bullshit. your premises are bullshit.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is ONLY evidence of natural processes *forming* all we *see* *IN NATURE with the exception of DNA and living organisms,* it follows that I am correct by the standard of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here Loki, I helped you out there so your statement wouldn't be a foolish lie. However, your argument is fallacious because that is not the claim of the argument.
Click to expand...

Thank you for exposing your bullshit premises for everyone to see!



UltimateReality said:


> You just need to open your eyes. I* see* the results of an intelligent agent all around me in my office and specifically I see words *forming* on my Binary Code using computer right now.


Yes. We all know this. You and every other delusional sees what they believe.

The rational believe what they see, and your intelligent designer is suspiciously absent.



UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am avoiding making-up an explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for information.
> 
> Why don't you give that a try?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is about time for you to tuck and run isn't it.
Click to expand...

I think it's time for you to admit that you have been making-up an explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Says the intellectually dishonest poster.
> 
> *Definition of ANALOGY*:
> 
> -inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
> 
> -A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
> 
> -A correspondence or partial similarity.
> 
> Please deny that you are comparing the Leprechaun to the Christian God or to the Designer and strawmanning my and YWC's challenge for proof....
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...
> 
> and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.
> 
> I clearly am not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're claim was that your reference to the Leprechaun was...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even an analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It most certainly was, liar, as you have proven in this very post.
Click to expand...

Clearly not.

Sorry about you retarded luck.


----------



## ima

Creationists don't need science, they live in a fantasy world where unexplained phenomena are attributed to invisible superbeings in another dimension that no one has ever been to. I wonder if their world is still flat?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.
> 
> 
> 
> Walk outside. Pick up anything you think is not a source of specified information, come back and tell us about it, and realize you are wrong.
> 
> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> Just another expression of *your denialism.* It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend.
> 
> IF I accept you bullshit premises, then your conclusions certainly follow--I just am not obliged to accept your bullshit premises in order to prove your conclusions wrong.
> 
> And I have made it abundantly clear how your premises are bullshit.
> 
> What you claim via equivocation is "the truth about information in the cell" is a bullshit premise.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on you purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> Based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information, there is no reason anyone should expect you to renounce your belief in Intelligent Design Theory for any rational reason.
> 
> That's why I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong; I wouldn't try if I could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok we can play this game if you like. Everything is made up of matter so where did the matter come from ? before time existed nothing existed not even our universe correct ? This is according to mans theories and laws of physics. Where did the information come from to form matter ? then matter forming all we see ?
> 
> To many unanswered questions for you to say there is no evidence of a designer.
Click to expand...

Yours is a juvenile appeal to ignorance. Unanswered questions does not imply a designer.

Or, are you willing to acknowledge that unanswered questions regarding cures for Aids, cancer, etc., implies a designer of illness and disease.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.
> 
> 
> 
> Walk outside. Pick up anything you think is not a source of specified information, come back and tell us about it, and realize you are wrong.
> 
> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> Just another expression of *your denialism.* It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend.
> 
> IF I accept you bullshit premises, then your conclusions certainly follow--I just am not obliged to accept your bullshit premises in order to prove your conclusions wrong.
> 
> And I have made it abundantly clear how your premises are bullshit.
> 
> What you claim via equivocation is "the truth about information in the cell" is a bullshit premise.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on you purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> Based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information, there is no reason anyone should expect you to renounce your belief in Intelligent Design Theory for any rational reason.
> 
> That's why I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong; I wouldn't try if I could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok we can play this game if you like. Everything is made up of matter so where did the matter come from ? before time existed nothing existed not even our universe correct ? This is according to mans theories and laws of physics. Where did the information come from to form matter ? then matter forming all we see ?
> 
> To many unanswered questions for you to say there is no evidence of a designer.
Click to expand...

Using your premise that everything is made of matter, where did your gods come from?

We understand your intention is to excuse your gods from the very standard of existence you insist must be applied to _all_ of existence but unfortunately, you've come across those who will not blindly accept your need to embrace ignorance and magic as rational answers.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct. Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural processes are the only processes we have knowledge of. What supernatural (or un-natural) processes are you aware of? Can you demonstrate these un-natural processes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. But not applicable to the argument at hand genomesplice.
Click to expand...


No dodge at all. I wrote out in clearly delineated terms that even a Flat-Earther such as yourself could understand. I see no supernatural or "un-natural" processes anywhere in our existence. I made the simple request (keeping it simple for the Flat-Earth contingent), that your claims to supernaturalism, or "un-naturalism", are needlessly absent evidence.

Here's your chance to prove all of those dirty, heathen, atheist, evilutionist scientists wrong while proving your gods are true and extant.

I'll make this simple for the simpletons with a simple fill in the blank exercise.

"My gods are true as exampled by the supernatural / un-natural event of ________________" which is testable by peer reviewed experimentation."


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...
> 
> and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.
> 
> I clearly am not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct. Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural processes are the only processes we have knowledge of. What supernatural (or un-natural) processes are you aware of? Can you demonstrate these un-natural processes?
Click to expand...


Yes you have evidence of natural processes that perform fucntions but you ignore the fact that these natural processes had to be designed to perform their functions continually. What you ignore as weell is what put these natural processes in motion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walk outside. Pick up anything you think is not a source of specified information, come back and tell us about it, and realize you are wrong.
> 
> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> Just another expression of *your denialism.* It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend.
> 
> IF I accept you bullshit premises, then your conclusions certainly follow--I just am not obliged to accept your bullshit premises in order to prove your conclusions wrong.
> 
> And I have made it abundantly clear how your premises are bullshit.
> 
> What you claim via equivocation is "the truth about information in the cell" is a bullshit premise.
> 
> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on you purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> Based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information, there is no reason anyone should expect you to renounce your belief in Intelligent Design Theory for any rational reason.
> 
> That's why I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong; I wouldn't try if I could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok we can play this game if you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> loooooooooooooooooooooooool!
> 
> How the fuck should I know?
> 
> That said, I see no reason to make up an explanationless leprechaun to serve as an explanation for where matter came from.
> 
> How the fuck should I know?
> 
> That said, I can be pretty sure that existence is not subject to this notion you posit regarding time.
> 
> Regardless of what I am sure of and what I'm not sure of, nothing about it is a reason to make up an explanationless leprechaun to serve as an explanation for where everything came from.
> 
> I have only heard such accounts of "mans theories and laws of physics" from the likes of superstitious retards; I don't listen to those idiots ... neither should you.
> 
> How the fuck should I know?
> 
> That said, I see no reason to make up an explanationless leprechaun to serve as an explanation for where the information to form matter came from.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> then matter forming all we see ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There seems to be some pretty good explanations for matter forming that is based upon empirical evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To many unanswered questions for you to say there is no evidence of a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain the explanations provided by our current state of scientific endeavor might prove to be, such explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the existence and function of all intelligence, information, matter, energy, time, and life, than this obviously imaginary "Designer" of you insist upon positing as the question-begging premise that validates your evidence.
Click to expand...


Then maybe you should be more careful of your comments.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct. Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural processes are the only processes we have knowledge of. What supernatural (or un-natural) processes are you aware of? Can you demonstrate these un-natural processes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you have evidence of natural processes that perform fucntions but you ignore the fact that these natural processes had to be designed to perform their functions continually. What you ignore as weell is what put these natural processes in motion.
Click to expand...


Words thrown carelessly around can lose all association to their intrinsic meaning. You use the term "fact" in connection with claims to your gods when no such facts exist. 

Why do you purposely require others to accept your baseless claims when you have been told repeatedly that your claims to supernaturalism are groundless. 

Please review my _fill-in-the-blank exercise for fundies_.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Creationists don't need science, they live in a fantasy world where unexplained phenomena are attributed to invisible superbeings in another dimension that no one has ever been to. I wonder if their world is still flat?



Evolutionists don't need science, they live in a fantasy world where unexplained phenomena are attributed to complete chance,luck,miracles, and natural processes coming into existence on their own to which they have no evidence for this giant assumption that came from vivid imaginations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walk outside. Pick up anything you think is not a source of specified information, come back and tell us about it, and realize you are wrong.
> 
> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> Just another expression of *your denialism.* It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend.
> 
> IF I accept you bullshit premises, then your conclusions certainly follow--I just am not obliged to accept your bullshit premises in order to prove your conclusions wrong.
> 
> And I have made it abundantly clear how your premises are bullshit.
> 
> What you claim via equivocation is "the truth about information in the cell" is a bullshit premise.
> 
> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on you purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> Based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information, there is no reason anyone should expect you to renounce your belief in Intelligent Design Theory for any rational reason.
> 
> That's why I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong; I wouldn't try if I could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok we can play this game if you like. Everything is made up of matter so where did the matter come from ? before time existed nothing existed not even our universe correct ? This is according to mans theories and laws of physics. Where did the information come from to form matter ? then matter forming all we see ?
> 
> To many unanswered questions for you to say there is no evidence of a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours is a juvenile appeal to ignorance. Unanswered questions does not imply a designer.
> 
> Or, are you willing to acknowledge that unanswered questions regarding cures for Aids, cancer, etc., implies a designer of illness and disease.
Click to expand...


You admit to not having no answers to questions but turn and answer questions with explanations that lack evidence to back it up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural processes are the only processes we have knowledge of. What supernatural (or un-natural) processes are you aware of? Can you demonstrate these un-natural processes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. But not applicable to the argument at hand genomesplice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dodge at all. I wrote out in clearly delineated terms that even a Flat-Earther such as yourself could understand. I see no supernatural or "un-natural" processes anywhere in our existence. I made the simple request (keeping it simple for the Flat-Earth contingent), that your claims to supernaturalism, or "un-naturalism", are needlessly absent evidence.
> 
> Here's your chance to prove all of those dirty, heathen, atheist, evilutionist scientists wrong while proving your gods are true and extant.
> 
> I'll make this simple for the simpletons with a simple fill in the blank exercise.
> 
> "My gods are true as exampled by the supernatural / un-natural event of ________________" which is testable by peer reviewed experimentation."
Click to expand...


It would have taken Unnatural processes to produce natural processes to work and produce all that we see over and over again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural processes are the only processes we have knowledge of. What supernatural (or un-natural) processes are you aware of? Can you demonstrate these un-natural processes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you have evidence of natural processes that perform fucntions but you ignore the fact that these natural processes had to be designed to perform their functions continually. What you ignore as weell is what put these natural processes in motion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words thrown carelessly around can lose all association to their intrinsic meaning. You use the term "fact" in connection with claims to your gods when no such facts exist.
> 
> Why do you purposely require others to accept your baseless claims when you have been told repeatedly that your claims to supernaturalism are groundless.
> 
> Please review my _fill-in-the-blank exercise for fundies_.
Click to expand...


Inanimate objects and living organisms show signs of design who or what is the designer hollie ?


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok we can play this game if you like.
> 
> 
> 
> loooooooooooooooooooooooool!
> 
> How the fuck should I know?
> 
> That said, I see no reason to make up an explanationless leprechaun to serve as an explanation for where matter came from.
> 
> How the fuck should I know?
> 
> That said, I can be pretty sure that existence is not subject to this notion you posit regarding time.
> 
> Regardless of what I am sure of and what I'm not sure of, nothing about it is a reason to make up an explanationless leprechaun to serve as an explanation for where everything came from.
> 
> I have only heard such accounts of "mans theories and laws of physics" from the likes of superstitious retards; I don't listen to those idiots ... neither should you.
> 
> How the fuck should I know?
> 
> That said, I see no reason to make up an explanationless leprechaun to serve as an explanation for where the information to form matter came from.
> 
> There seems to be some pretty good explanations for matter forming that is based upon empirical evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To many unanswered questions for you to say there is no evidence of a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain the explanations provided by our current state of scientific endeavor might prove to be, such explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the existence and function of all intelligence, information, matter, energy, time, and life, than this obviously imaginary "Designer" of you insist upon positing as the question-begging premise that validates your evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then maybe you should be more careful of your comments.
Click to expand...

In what way, exactly?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you have evidence of natural processes that perform fucntions but you ignore the fact that these natural processes had to be designed to perform their functions continually. What you ignore as weell is what put these natural processes in motion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Words thrown carelessly around can lose all association to their intrinsic meaning. You use the term "fact" in connection with claims to your gods when no such facts exist.
> 
> Why do you purposely require others to accept your baseless claims when you have been told repeatedly that your claims to supernaturalism are groundless.
> 
> Please review my _fill-in-the-blank exercise for fundies_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inanimate objects and living organisms show signs of design who or what is the designer hollie ?
Click to expand...

You require your gods to be "designers" when "designers" are not in evidence. 

In what way do living organisms show design? Do you necessarily then see design in the  living organism that causes leukemia?

Other than to provide your gods with busy work other than paper shuffling, why do you think living organisms require your "designer" as opposed to a different designer or no  designer at all?


----------



## Youwerecreated

LOki said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> loooooooooooooooooooooooool!
> 
> How the fuck should I know?
> 
> That said, I see no reason to make up an explanationless leprechaun to serve as an explanation for where matter came from.
> 
> How the fuck should I know?
> 
> That said, I can be pretty sure that existence is not subject to this notion you posit regarding time.
> 
> Regardless of what I am sure of and what I'm not sure of, nothing about it is a reason to make up an explanationless leprechaun to serve as an explanation for where everything came from.
> 
> I have only heard such accounts of "mans theories and laws of physics" from the likes of superstitious retards; I don't listen to those idiots ... neither should you.
> 
> How the fuck should I know?
> 
> That said, I see no reason to make up an explanationless leprechaun to serve as an explanation for where the information to form matter came from.
> 
> There seems to be some pretty good explanations for matter forming that is based upon empirical evidence.
> 
> Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain the explanations provided by our current state of scientific endeavor might prove to be, such explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the existence and function of all intelligence, information, matter, energy, time, and life, than this obviously imaginary "Designer" of you insist upon positing as the question-begging premise that validates your evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe you should be more careful of your comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In what way, exactly?
Click to expand...


My questions came from your comment that only raised more questions. Then when asked for an answer to a question your comment raised you say how the F-U-C-K am i suppose to know. So your response shows your answer lacked credibility. If you can't see why my question needed to be asked that is not my problem but your problem.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words thrown carelessly around can lose all association to their intrinsic meaning. You use the term "fact" in connection with claims to your gods when no such facts exist.
> 
> Why do you purposely require others to accept your baseless claims when you have been told repeatedly that your claims to supernaturalism are groundless.
> 
> Please review my _fill-in-the-blank exercise for fundies_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inanimate objects and living organisms show signs of design who or what is the designer hollie ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You require your gods to be "designers" when "designers" are not in evidence.
> 
> In what way do living organisms show design? Do you necessarily then see design in the  living organism that causes leukemia?
> 
> Other than to provide your gods with busy work other than paper shuffling, why do you think living organisms require your "designer" as opposed to a different designer or no  designer at all?
Click to expand...


Answer the question this comment raises that I keep asking you ? Why do you reject evidence of purposeful design and rely on chance,luck,and miracles for it to come in to existence absent of an intelligent agent ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. But not applicable to the argument at hand genomesplice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dodge at all. I wrote out in clearly delineated terms that even a Flat-Earther such as yourself could understand. I see no supernatural or "un-natural" processes anywhere in our existence. I made the simple request (keeping it simple for the Flat-Earth contingent), that your claims to supernaturalism, or "un-naturalism", are needlessly absent evidence.
> 
> Here's your chance to prove all of those dirty, heathen, atheist, evilutionist scientists wrong while proving your gods are true and extant.
> 
> I'll make this simple for the simpletons with a simple fill in the blank exercise.
> 
> "My gods are true as exampled by the supernatural / un-natural event of ________________" which is testable by peer reviewed experimentation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would have taken Unnatural processes to produce natural processes to work and produce all that we see over and over again.
Click to expand...


Your "because I say so" argument is pointless. 

Example for us something in the natural world that shows evidence of supermagic design. 

There must be something you can point to and exclaim with authority "see that ________"(<--- put your supernatural _object de art_ here). That is supernatural and was designed by the gods"

Easy, right?

I'm tingling with excitement, waiting for you to identify for us your supernatural object.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inanimate objects and living organisms show signs of design who or what is the designer hollie ?
> 
> 
> 
> You require your gods to be "designers" when "designers" are not in evidence.
> 
> In what way do living organisms show design? Do you necessarily then see design in the  living organism that causes leukemia?
> 
> Other than to provide your gods with busy work other than paper shuffling, why do you think living organisms require your "designer" as opposed to a different designer or no  designer at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer the question this comment raises that I keep asking you ? Why do you reject evidence of purposeful design and rely on chance,luck,and miracles for it to come in to existence absent of an intelligent agent ?
Click to expand...


This is the problem people like you are forced to confront when you understand so little of science and christianity.

"Miracles" are a component of many religions are little more than hearsay tales of legend building or tales meant to explain events not understood by earlier, less knowledgeable people. Has it occurred to you that as mankind has become better educated and more knowledgeable that the claims to "miracles" have dwindled?  When was the last time a dead man rose from the grave? When was the last time shrubbery spontaneously erupted in flames or spoke in a deep, booming voice?


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walk outside. Pick up anything you think is not a source of specified information, come back and tell us about it, and realize you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha!!! Finally you say uncle!!! Your intellectually dishonesty cannot conceal your failure to respond to the question. I accept your surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your failure to bring ANYTHING you think is not a source of specified information is proof of logically invalid premise.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> *YOU* have revealed your premise to be bullshit. And nicely done too!
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on you purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> Based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information, there is no reason anyone should expect you to renounce your belief in Intelligent Design Theory for any rational reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, Loki you poor dear. Always with the intellectual dishonesty and lies. There is nothing about my argument that is ontological. We see specifiable information all around us that has an intelligent agent as its source and you claim this is a metaphysical premise??? Maybe in your twisted view of reality. The logic and argument are sound and you've been beat my friend. It is made even more blatantly obvious by you ignoring relevant questions for clarifications requested of you.
> 
> Here, I have bolded it and increased the type size since maybe you didn't see it. I have asked for you to clarify your claim of equivocation but you have so far ignored requests.
> 
> *For your claims to have any merit, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. How do the systems of dna storage and retrieval functional differ from a machine language and binary code when it comes to information storage and retrieval, error correction, translation, and transcription?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *IF* I accept you bullshit premises, then your conclusions certainly follow--*I just am not obliged to accept your bullshit premises in order to prove your conclusions wrong. *
> 
> And I have made it abundantly clear (with your own help. Thanks!) how your premises are bullshit. your premises are bullshit.
Click to expand...


Whatever Loki. "Because I say so" responses won't get you out of this one. You FAIL. 

You claimed comparing DNA to computer binary code was not a good analogy. You screamed that I was changing definitions on you to make my argument. Surely you can back up your argument and tell us your reasons for why it isn't a good analogy. Oh wait, your the guy that lies about analogies... nevermind.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is ONLY evidence of natural processes *forming* all we *see* *IN NATURE with the exception of DNA and living organisms,* it follows that I am correct by the standard of evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Here Loki, I helped you out there so your statement wouldn't be a foolish lie. However, your argument is fallacious because that is not the claim of the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for exposing your bullshit premises for everyone to see!
> 
> Yes. We all know this. You and every other delusional sees what they believe.
> 
> The rational believe what they see, and your intelligent designer is suspiciously absent.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am avoiding making-up an explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for information.
> 
> Why don't you give that a try?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is about time for you to tuck and run isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's time for you to admit that you have been making-up an explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything.
Click to expand...


You have obviously checked out of the argument. Go ahead and run along now.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Creationists don't need science, they live in a fantasy world where unexplained phenomena are attributed to invisible superbeings in another dimension that no one has ever been to. I wonder if their world is still flat?



Hollie, is that you?


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe you should be more careful of your comments.
> 
> 
> 
> In what way, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My questions came from your comment that only raised more questions. Then when asked for an answer to a question your comment raised you say how the F-U-C-K am i suppose to know. So your response shows your answer lacked credibility. If you can't see why my question needed to be asked that is not my problem but your problem.
Click to expand...


Typical bait and switch Loki intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You require your gods to be "designers" when "designers" are not in evidence.
> 
> In what way do living organisms show design? Do you necessarily then see design in the  living organism that causes leukemia?
> 
> Other than to provide your gods with busy work other than paper shuffling, why do you think living organisms require your "designer" as opposed to a different designer or no  designer at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question this comment raises that I keep asking you ? Why do you reject evidence of purposeful design and rely on chance,luck,and miracles for it to come in to existence absent of an intelligent agent ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the problem people like you are forced to confront when you understand so little of science and christianity.
> 
> "Miracles" are a component of many religions are little more than hearsay tales of legend building or tales meant to explain events not understood by earlier, less knowledgeable people. Has it occurred to you that as mankind has become better educated and more knowledgeable that the claims to "miracles" have dwindled?  When was the last time a dead man rose from the grave? When was the last time shrubbery spontaneously erupted in flames or spoke in a deep, booming voice?
Click to expand...


You didn't answer the question.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha!!! Finally you say uncle!!! Your intellectually dishonesty cannot conceal your failure to respond to the question. I accept your surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Your failure to bring ANYTHING you think is not a source of specified information is proof of logically invalid premise.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.
> 
> *YOU* have revealed your premise to be bullshit. And nicely done too!
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Loki you poor dear. Always with the intellectual dishonesty and lies. There is nothing about my argument that is ontological. We see specifiable information all around us that has an intelligent agent as its source and you claim this is a metaphysical premise??? Maybe in your twisted view of reality. The logic and argument are sound and you've been beat my friend. It is made even more blatantly obvious by you ignoring relevant questions for clarifications requested of you.
> 
> Here, I have bolded it and increased the type size since maybe you didn't see it. I have asked for you to clarify your claim of equivocation but you have so far ignored requests.
> 
> *For your claims to have any merit, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. How do the systems of dna storage and retrieval functional differ from a machine language and binary code when it comes to information storage and retrieval, error correction, translation, and transcription?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *IF* I accept you bullshit premises, then your conclusions certainly follow--*I just am not obliged to accept your bullshit premises in order to prove your conclusions wrong. *
> 
> And I have made it abundantly clear (with your own help. Thanks!) how your premises are bullshit. your premises are bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever Loki. "Because I say so" responses won't get you out of this one. You FAIL.
> 
> You claimed comparing DNA to computer binary code was not a good analogy.
Click to expand...

You aren't making an analogy. You are claiming DNA IS a code, just as binary code is a code in computers.



UltimateReality said:


> You screamed that I was changing definitions on you to make my argument.


And you clearly are.



UltimateReality said:


> Surely you can back up your argument and tell us your reasons for why it isn't a good analogy.


It's a fine analogy, but it's only fine as far as the analogy can go ... which is not where you wish to take it. While it is useful to express DNA in living things like a computer code, it is NOT computer code as you insist.



UltimateReality said:


> Oh wait, your the guy that lies about analogies... nevermind.


Didn't lie once. We can add Poisoning The Well to your bullshit rhetorical arsenal.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here Loki, I helped you out there so your statement wouldn't be a foolish lie. However, your argument is fallacious because that is not the claim of the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for exposing your bullshit premises for everyone to see!
> 
> Yes. We all know this. You and every other delusional sees what they believe.
> 
> The rational believe what they see, and your intelligent designer is suspiciously absent.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is about time for you to tuck and run isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's time for you to admit that you have been making-up an explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have obviously checked out of the argument. Go ahead and run along now.
Click to expand...

You obviously can't bring anything but the pretense that the invalidity of your fundamental premise has not been fully exposed.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what way, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My questions came from your comment that only raised more questions. Then when asked for an answer to a question your comment raised you say how the F-U-C-K am i suppose to know. So your response shows your answer lacked credibility. If you can't see why my question needed to be asked that is not my problem but your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical bait and switch Loki intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...

More of your lolsome denialism.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question this comment raises that I keep asking you ? Why do you reject evidence of purposeful design and rely on chance,luck,and miracles for it to come in to existence absent of an intelligent agent ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the problem people like you are forced to confront when you understand so little of science and christianity.
> 
> "Miracles" are a component of many religions are little more than hearsay tales of legend building or tales meant to explain events not understood by earlier, less knowledgeable people. Has it occurred to you that as mankind has become better educated and more knowledgeable that the claims to "miracles" have dwindled?  When was the last time a dead man rose from the grave? When was the last time shrubbery spontaneously erupted in flames or spoke in a deep, booming voice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
Click to expand...

You're afraid of the answer.


----------



## LOki

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inanimate objects and living organisms show signs of design who or what is the designer hollie ?
> 
> 
> 
> You require your gods to be "designers" when "designers" are not in evidence.
> 
> In what way do living organisms show design? Do you necessarily then see design in the  living organism that causes leukemia?
> 
> Other than to provide your gods with busy work other than paper shuffling, why do you think living organisms require your "designer" as opposed to a different designer or no  designer at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer the question this comment raises that I keep asking you ? Why do you reject evidence of purposeful design ...
Click to expand...

The only "evidence of purposeful design" being rejected here is that which has been presented that relies entirely upon accepting the very contentious premise that it supposed to be supporting.



Youwerecreated said:


> ... and rely on chance,luck,and miracles for it to come in to existence absent of an intelligent agent ?


 As far as "chance" and "luck" are concerned, you are just refusing to accept how narrowly constrained the probabilities discussed are, by the well understood limitations of the processes in the explanations described; and there are no "miracles" involved in the descriptions of natural processes, so you can just stop beating that tired drum.

"Miracles" are the nonsense product of this magical and explanationless "intelligent agent" you keep positing as an explanation for everything.


----------



## LOki

And let me add to this:





UltimateReality said:


> Whatever Loki. "Because I say so" responses won't get you out of this one. You FAIL.


"Because I say so" is what positing your explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything actually is.

Your "intelligent agent" exists ONLY because you say so. Your "intelligent agent" is an explanation ONLY because you say so.


----------



## ima

If we were made by intelligent design, this thread wouldn't be so dumb.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, the only thing she or he ignores are facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.
> 
> This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself Troll.
Click to expand...

ooooooow scathing retort !


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for exposing your bullshit premises for everyone to see!
> 
> Yes. We all know this. You and every other delusional sees what they believe.
> 
> The rational believe what they see, and your intelligent designer is suspiciously absent.
> 
> I think it's time for you to admit that you have been making-up an explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have obviously checked out of the argument. Go ahead and run along now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously can't bring anything but the pretense that the invalidity of your fundamental premise has not been fully exposed.
Click to expand...


Because it hasn't. And you certainly haven't exposed anything about the fundamental premise other than to say "it is bs, BECAUSE I SAID SO!"


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the problem people like you are forced to confront when you understand so little of science and christianity.
> 
> "Miracles" are a component of many religions are little more than hearsay tales of legend building or tales meant to explain events not understood by earlier, less knowledgeable people. Has it occurred to you that as mankind has become better educated and more knowledgeable that the claims to "miracles" have dwindled?  When was the last time a dead man rose from the grave? When was the last time shrubbery spontaneously erupted in flames or spoke in a deep, booming voice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're afraid of the answer.
Click to expand...


Dodge.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> And let me add to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever Loki. "Because I say so" responses won't get you out of this one. You FAIL.
> 
> 
> 
> "Because I say so" is what positing your explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything actually is.
> 
> Your "intelligent agent" exists ONLY because you say so. Your "intelligent agent" is an explanation ONLY because you say so.
Click to expand...


And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?

_"Historical sciences like Darwinian evolution and intelligent design rely on the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that *"the present is the key to the past."* Under this methodology, scientists study causes at work in the present-day world in order, as geologist Charles Lyell put it, to "explain the former changes of the Earth's surface by reference to *causes now in operation*."

Darwinian evolution applies this method by studying causes like mutation and selection in order to recognize their causal abilities and effects in the world at present. Darwinian scientists then try to explain the historical record in terms of those causes, seeking to recognize the known effects of mutation and selection in the historical record.

Intelligent design applies this same method by studying causes like intelligence in order to recognize its causal abilities and effects in the present-day world. ID theorists are interested in understanding the information-generative powers of intelligent agents. ID theorists then try to explain the historical record by including appeals to that cause, seeking to recognize the known effects of intelligent design in the historical record.

So whether you appeal to materialistic causes like mutation and selection, or non-material causes like intelligent design, you are using the same basic uniformitarian reasoning that is well-accepted in historical sciences."_


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's try this again shall we.
> 
> Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.
> 
> 1. superior eye sight
> 2. superior land speed
> 3. superior strength
> 4. superior sense of smell
> 
> This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.
> 
> Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
> making you first statement false.
> 2. since  humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve  high running speed because none was necessary for survival.   you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
> 3. we are the strongest of our species
> your's is a false comparison.
> 
> 4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..
> 
> I'll ask you  TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think again.
> 
> 1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
> 2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
> 3. The Secret To Chimp Strength
> 
> You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.
> 
> Nice dodge ! and misinformation.
Click to expand...

thanks for giving me this opportunity to highlight you ignorance and showcase reading comprehension disability...

1.my statement: (humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
 making you first statement false.)
the operative phrase (is ALL round use)
here is a list of functions that our eyes have or do that other animals can't :

For one, humans have their eyes set closer together than many other animals, which gives us wonderful depth perception. In exchange, we lose some of our ability to have good peripheral vision


Vision
Normal human vision is 20/20. In comparison, dog vision is between 20/50 and 20/100, horses are at about 20/33, and cats are at 20/100. (However, these number can vary significantly, because it is quite difficult to measure animal vision.)

Visual Acuity
Because animals have less visual acuity than humans, they do not perceive things as sharply as humans do. Their vision could be likened to watching a blurry Internet video as opposed to watching television.


Color Vision
Dogs perceive color almost like humans who are red-green colorblind. Both cats and dogs respond to blue and yellow best, and have trouble seeing shades of green and red. Cats perceive shades of red as black, and shades of green as white. To a cat, your front lawn looks like a textured bed sheet.



Read more: How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com

just to name a few.



(Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.) either ywc is lying or it's that pesky reading comp problem.

my answer:"again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins." 
 The convention is that humans have notoriously poor senses of smell compared to animals. Some scientists say that humans have lost 60% of their olfactory receptors over the process of evolution. (Wilson) However, this is as specious as the statement, &#8220;Humans only use 10% of their brain.&#8221; Humans have some commendable feats regarding the nose. Mice choose mates by smelling the difference in a certain gene. Humans can smell the difference between the mice strains using solely their sense of smell. (Gilbert) Dog owners can identify which blanket their pet slept compared to other dogs. Humans can also discern what kind of wood a popsicle stick is made of by just smelling the ice cream it was sitting in (of course, they also could refer to original samples of wood). They can also follow a chocolate trail with smell when their other senses are inhibited, but when smell is inhibited they cannot follow it at all. Furthermore, when humans are trained to follow scent trails, their tracking speed increases greatly. Also, humans and dogs have the same sensitivity to the smell that we use to track cocaine. (Gilbert)

Macrosmatic means with a good sense of smell and microsmatic means with a poor sense of smell. Conventionally, scientists judge a species' ability to smell by the internal surface area of the nasal cavity, but that has no effect on the amount of sensory tissue in the nose or the number of olfactory nerve cells in a certain area. We have in fact discovered that humans and animals have somewhat equivalent senses of smell.

http://appsychtextbk.wikispaces.com/Animal+vs.+Human+Smell

so again proving wyc..ignorant.

what  relatives other than primates are you failing to alude to. ?  



How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? ::Ask the Experts::October 23, 2000::2 Comments::Email:rint.How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? 


humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and their extinct ancestors form a family of organisms known as the Hominidae. Researchers generally agree that among the living animals in this group, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, judging from comparisons of anatomy and genetics. 

If life is the result of "descent with modification," as Charles Darwin put it, we can try to represent its history as a kind of family tree derived from these morphological and genetic characteristics. The tips of such a tree show organisms that are alive today. The nodes of the tree denote the common ancestors of all the tips connected to that node. Biologists refer to such nodes as the last common ancestor of a group of organisms, and all tips that connect to a particular node form a clade. In the diagram of the Hominidae at right, the clade designated by node 2 includes gorillas, humans and chimps. Within that clade the animal with which humans share the most recent common ancestor is the chimpanzee. 



Source: COURTESY OF BERNHARD HAUBOLD
FAMILY TREE of the Hominidae shows that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives. 

There are two major classes of evidence that allow us to estimate how old a particular clade is: fossil data and comparative data from living organisms. Fossils are conceptually easy to interpret. Once the age of the fossil is determined (using radiocarbon or thermoluminescence dating techniques, for example), we then know that an ancestor of the organism in question existed at least that long ago. There are, however, few good fossils available compared with the vast biodiversity around us. Thus, researchers also consider comparative data. We all know that siblings are more similar to each other than are cousins, which reflects the fact that siblings have a more recent common ancestor (parents) than do cousins (grandparents). Analogously, the greater similarity between humans and chimps than between humans and plants is taken as evidence that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps is far more recent than the last common ancestor of humans and plants. Similarity, in this context, refers to morphological features such as eyes and skeletal structure. 

One problem with morphological data is that it is sometimes difficult to interpret. For example, ascertaining which similarities resulted from common ancestry and which resulted from convergent evolution can, on occasion, prove tricky. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to obtain time estimates from these data. So despite analyses of anatomy, the evolutionary relationships among many groups of organisms remained unclear due to lack of suitable data. 

This changed in the 1950s and 1960s when protein sequence data and DNA sequence data, respectively, became available. The sequences of a protein (say, hemoglobin) from two organisms can be compared and the number of positions where the two sequences differ counted. It was soon learned from such studies that for a given protein, the number of amino acid substitutions per year could--as a first approximation--be treated as constant. This discovery became known as the "molecular clock." If the clock is calibrated using fossil data or data on continental drift, then the ages of various groups of organisms can theoretically be calculated based on comparisons of their sequences. 

Using such reasoning, it has been estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (with whom we share 99 percent of our genes) lived five million years ago. Going back a little farther, the Hominidae clade is 13 million years old. If we continue farther back in time, we find that placental mammals are between 60 and 80 million years old and that the oldest four-limbed animal, or tetrapod, lived between 300 and 350 million years ago and the earliest chordates (animals with a notochord) appeared about 990 million years ago. Humans belong to each of these successively broader groups. 

How far back can we go in this way? If we try to trace all life on our planet, we are constrained by the earth's age of 4.5 billion years. The oldest bacteria-like fossils are 3.5 billion years old, so this is the upper estimate for the age of life on the earth. The question is whether at some point before this date a last common ancestor for all forms of life, a "universal ancestor," existed. Over the past 30 years the underlying biochemical unity of all plants, animals and microbes has become increasingly apparent. All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other. It took more than two billion years for this earliest form of life to evolve into the first eukaryotic cell. This gave rise to the last common ancestor of plants, fungi and animals, which lived some 1.6 billion years ago. 

The controversies surrounding biological evolution today reflect the fact that biologists were late in accepting evolutionary thinking. One reason for this is that significant modifications of living things are difficult to observe during a lifetime. Darwin never saw evolution taking place in nature and had to rely on evidence from fossils, as well as plant and animal breeding. His idea that the differences observed within a species are transformed in time into differences between species remained the most plausible theory of biodiversity in his time, but there was an awkward lack of direct observations of this process. Today this situation has changed. There are now a number of very striking accounts of evolution in nature, including exceptional work on the finches of the Galapagos Islands--the same animals that first inspired Darwin's work. 

FURTHER READING: 


The Beak of the Finch : A Story of Evolution in Our Time (Vintage Books, 1995) 

  one more just for fun  3. "we are the strongest of our species" because we are the only extant creatures of our kind. 
you ignorant asshat!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let me add to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever Loki. "Because I say so" responses won't get you out of this one. You FAIL.
> 
> 
> 
> "Because I say so" is what positing your explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything actually is.
> 
> Your "intelligent agent" exists ONLY because you say so. Your "intelligent agent" is an explanation ONLY because you say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?
Click to expand...

evidence! the thing you don't have. makes all the difference.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> You're afraid of the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodge.
Click to expand...


I understand your dodge. It's typical of creationist blowhards. 

Because the question remains fully unanswered, maybe you can define for us how alleged biblical  "miracles" have ceased to occur as humankind has grown more scientific and less superstitious.


----------



## daws101

ima said:


> So with all those animals on his boat, how much shit did Noah have to shovel during those 40 days and nights? I bet he had to make sure not to shovel it all to one side of the boat though.


that would not have been a problem since the biomass of the insects alone would have held the ark in place and the rain would have filled it. 
(try to imagine the weight of all the insects in on the planet all crammed in to a small space.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let me add to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever Loki. "Because I say so" responses won't get you out of this one. You FAIL.
> 
> 
> 
> "Because I say so" is what positing your explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything actually is.
> 
> Your "intelligent agent" exists ONLY because you say so. Your "intelligent agent" is an explanation ONLY because you say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?
> 
> _"Historical sciences like Darwinian evolution and intelligent design rely on the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that *"the present is the key to the past."* Under this methodology, scientists study causes at work in the present-day world in order, as geologist Charles Lyell put it, to "explain the former changes of the Earth's surface by reference to *causes now in operation*."
> 
> Darwinian evolution applies this method by studying causes like mutation and selection in order to recognize their causal abilities and effects in the world at present. Darwinian scientists then try to explain the historical record in terms of those causes, seeking to recognize the known effects of mutation and selection in the historical record.
> 
> Intelligent design applies this same method by studying causes like intelligence in order to recognize its causal abilities and effects in the present-day world. ID theorists are interested in understanding the information-generative powers of intelligent agents. ID theorists then try to explain the historical record by including appeals to that cause, seeking to recognize the known effects of intelligent design in the historical record.
> 
> So whether you appeal to materialistic causes like mutation and selection, or non-material causes like intelligent design, you are using the same basic uniformitarian reasoning that is well-accepted in historical sciences."_
Click to expand...

Nonsensical cut and paste. 

Before cutting and pasting creationist babble, you should make an effort to understand the scientific method and the consensus it brings. The scientific method incorporates the rational study and analysis of data. ID creationism is simply an appeal to supernaturalism and partisan gods. Make an effort to understand rationality vs. mystical gods and superstition.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have obviously checked out of the argument. Go ahead and run along now.
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously can't bring anything but the pretense that the invalidity of your fundamental premise has not been fully exposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it hasn't.
Click to expand...

More of your fatuous denialism ...



UltimateReality said:


> And you certainly haven't exposed anything about the fundamental premise other than to say "it is bs, BECAUSE I SAID SO!"


... and pathological projecting.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
> making you first statement false.
> 2. since  humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve  high running speed because none was necessary for survival.   you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
> 3. we are the strongest of our species
> your's is a false comparison.
> 
> 4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..
> 
> I'll ask you  TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think again.
> 
> 1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
> 2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
> 3. The Secret To Chimp Strength
> 
> You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.
> 
> Nice dodge ! and misinformation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks for giving me this opportunity to highlight you ignorance and showcase reading comprehension disability...
> 
> 1.my statement: (humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
> making you first statement false.)
> the operative phrase (is ALL round use)
> here is a list of functions that our eyes have or do that other animals can't :
> 
> For one, humans have their eyes set closer together than many other animals, which gives us wonderful depth perception. In exchange, we lose some of our ability to have good peripheral vision
> 
> 
> Vision
> Normal human vision is 20/20. In comparison, dog vision is between 20/50 and 20/100, horses are at about 20/33, and cats are at 20/100. (However, these number can vary significantly, because it is quite difficult to measure animal vision.)
> 
> Visual Acuity
> Because animals have less visual acuity than humans, they do not perceive things as sharply as humans do. Their vision could be likened to watching a blurry Internet video as opposed to watching television.
> 
> 
> Color Vision
> Dogs perceive color almost like humans who are red-green colorblind. Both cats and dogs respond to blue and yellow best, and have trouble seeing shades of green and red. Cats perceive shades of red as black, and shades of green as white. To a cat, your front lawn looks like a textured bed sheet.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com
> 
> just to name a few.
> 
> 
> 
> (Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.) either ywc is lying or it's that pesky reading comp problem.
> 
> my answer:"again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins."
> The convention is that humans have notoriously poor senses of smell compared to animals. Some scientists say that humans have lost 60% of their olfactory receptors over the process of evolution. (Wilson) However, this is as specious as the statement, Humans only use 10% of their brain. Humans have some commendable feats regarding the nose. Mice choose mates by smelling the difference in a certain gene. Humans can smell the difference between the mice strains using solely their sense of smell. (Gilbert) Dog owners can identify which blanket their pet slept compared to other dogs. Humans can also discern what kind of wood a popsicle stick is made of by just smelling the ice cream it was sitting in (of course, they also could refer to original samples of wood). They can also follow a chocolate trail with smell when their other senses are inhibited, but when smell is inhibited they cannot follow it at all. Furthermore, when humans are trained to follow scent trails, their tracking speed increases greatly. Also, humans and dogs have the same sensitivity to the smell that we use to track cocaine. (Gilbert)
> 
> Macrosmatic means with a good sense of smell and microsmatic means with a poor sense of smell. Conventionally, scientists judge a species' ability to smell by the internal surface area of the nasal cavity, but that has no effect on the amount of sensory tissue in the nose or the number of olfactory nerve cells in a certain area. We have in fact discovered that humans and animals have somewhat equivalent senses of smell.
> 
> http://appsychtextbk.wikispaces.com/Animal+vs.+Human+Smell
> 
> so again proving wyc..ignorant.
> 
> what  relatives other than primates are you failing to alude to. ?
> 
> 
> 
> How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? ::Ask the Experts::October 23, 2000::2 Comments::Email:rint.How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all?
> 
> 
> humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and their extinct ancestors form a family of organisms known as the Hominidae. Researchers generally agree that among the living animals in this group, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, judging from comparisons of anatomy and genetics.
> 
> If life is the result of "descent with modification," as Charles Darwin put it, we can try to represent its history as a kind of family tree derived from these morphological and genetic characteristics. The tips of such a tree show organisms that are alive today. The nodes of the tree denote the common ancestors of all the tips connected to that node. Biologists refer to such nodes as the last common ancestor of a group of organisms, and all tips that connect to a particular node form a clade. In the diagram of the Hominidae at right, the clade designated by node 2 includes gorillas, humans and chimps. Within that clade the animal with which humans share the most recent common ancestor is the chimpanzee.
> 
> 
> 
> Source: COURTESY OF BERNHARD HAUBOLD
> FAMILY TREE of the Hominidae shows that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives.
> 
> There are two major classes of evidence that allow us to estimate how old a particular clade is: fossil data and comparative data from living organisms. Fossils are conceptually easy to interpret. Once the age of the fossil is determined (using radiocarbon or thermoluminescence dating techniques, for example), we then know that an ancestor of the organism in question existed at least that long ago. There are, however, few good fossils available compared with the vast biodiversity around us. Thus, researchers also consider comparative data. We all know that siblings are more similar to each other than are cousins, which reflects the fact that siblings have a more recent common ancestor (parents) than do cousins (grandparents). Analogously, the greater similarity between humans and chimps than between humans and plants is taken as evidence that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps is far more recent than the last common ancestor of humans and plants. Similarity, in this context, refers to morphological features such as eyes and skeletal structure.
> 
> One problem with morphological data is that it is sometimes difficult to interpret. For example, ascertaining which similarities resulted from common ancestry and which resulted from convergent evolution can, on occasion, prove tricky. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to obtain time estimates from these data. So despite analyses of anatomy, the evolutionary relationships among many groups of organisms remained unclear due to lack of suitable data.
> 
> This changed in the 1950s and 1960s when protein sequence data and DNA sequence data, respectively, became available. The sequences of a protein (say, hemoglobin) from two organisms can be compared and the number of positions where the two sequences differ counted. It was soon learned from such studies that for a given protein, the number of amino acid substitutions per year could--as a first approximation--be treated as constant. This discovery became known as the "molecular clock." If the clock is calibrated using fossil data or data on continental drift, then the ages of various groups of organisms can theoretically be calculated based on comparisons of their sequences.
> 
> Using such reasoning, it has been estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (with whom we share 99 percent of our genes) lived five million years ago. Going back a little farther, the Hominidae clade is 13 million years old. If we continue farther back in time, we find that placental mammals are between 60 and 80 million years old and that the oldest four-limbed animal, or tetrapod, lived between 300 and 350 million years ago and the earliest chordates (animals with a notochord) appeared about 990 million years ago. Humans belong to each of these successively broader groups.
> 
> How far back can we go in this way? If we try to trace all life on our planet, we are constrained by the earth's age of 4.5 billion years. The oldest bacteria-like fossils are 3.5 billion years old, so this is the upper estimate for the age of life on the earth. The question is whether at some point before this date a last common ancestor for all forms of life, a "universal ancestor," existed. Over the past 30 years the underlying biochemical unity of all plants, animals and microbes has become increasingly apparent. All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other. It took more than two billion years for this earliest form of life to evolve into the first eukaryotic cell. This gave rise to the last common ancestor of plants, fungi and animals, which lived some 1.6 billion years ago.
> 
> The controversies surrounding biological evolution today reflect the fact that biologists were late in accepting evolutionary thinking. One reason for this is that significant modifications of living things are difficult to observe during a lifetime. Darwin never saw evolution taking place in nature and had to rely on evidence from fossils, as well as plant and animal breeding. His idea that the differences observed within a species are transformed in time into differences between species remained the most plausible theory of biodiversity in his time, but there was an awkward lack of direct observations of this process. Today this situation has changed. There are now a number of very striking accounts of evolution in nature, including exceptional work on the finches of the Galapagos Islands--the same animals that first inspired Darwin's work.
> 
> FURTHER READING:
> 
> 
> The Beak of the Finch : A Story of Evolution in Our Time (Vintage Books, 1995)
> 
> one more just for fun  3. "we are the strongest of our species" because we are the only extant creatures of our kind.
> you ignorant asshat!
Click to expand...


Wrong that was just going from one creature you claim we are related to, the ape. If you use the argument that all organisms are related which you have to since all life origionated from one source, Your sides argument is DNA similarity proves ancestry. So we all came from the same genepool and according to evolutionist we are definitely in the ape genepool. Now actually the answer why these traits did not get passed on to humans or if the ape evoleved from us how did they end up with the superior traits why didn't they end up with brains like ours ?


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let me add to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever Loki. "Because I say so" responses won't get you out of this one. You FAIL.
> 
> 
> 
> "Because I say so" is what positing your explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything actually is.
> 
> Your "intelligent agent" exists ONLY because you say so. Your "intelligent agent" is an explanation ONLY because you say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?
Click to expand...

In every single way that has been repeatedly explained and practically diagrammed in crayon just for you.



UltimateReality said:


> _"Historical sciences like Darwinian evolution ...
> 
> --*PATHETIC APOLOGY FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN'S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S QUESTION-BEGGING APPEAL-TO-IGNORANCE PREMISE SNIPPED*--​
> ... historical sciences."_



The explanationless "Designer" posited by Intelligent Design Theory as the explanation for everything, is a question-begging non-explanation. Rather, it is a thinly veiled pantomime of the scientific method designed to inject superstitions into science classrooms by co-opting the vocabulary of science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think again.
> 
> 1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
> 2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
> 3. The Secret To Chimp Strength
> 
> You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.
> 
> Nice dodge ! and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for giving me this opportunity to highlight you ignorance and showcase reading comprehension disability...
> 
> 1.my statement: (humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
> making you first statement false.)
> the operative phrase (is ALL round use)
> here is a list of functions that our eyes have or do that other animals can't :
> 
> For one, humans have their eyes set closer together than many other animals, which gives us wonderful depth perception. In exchange, we lose some of our ability to have good peripheral vision
> 
> 
> Vision
> Normal human vision is 20/20. In comparison, dog vision is between 20/50 and 20/100, horses are at about 20/33, and cats are at 20/100. (However, these number can vary significantly, because it is quite difficult to measure animal vision.)
> 
> Visual Acuity
> Because animals have less visual acuity than humans, they do not perceive things as sharply as humans do. Their vision could be likened to watching a blurry Internet video as opposed to watching television.
> 
> 
> Color Vision
> Dogs perceive color almost like humans who are red-green colorblind. Both cats and dogs respond to blue and yellow best, and have trouble seeing shades of green and red. Cats perceive shades of red as black, and shades of green as white. To a cat, your front lawn looks like a textured bed sheet.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com
> 
> just to name a few.
> 
> 
> 
> (Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.) either ywc is lying or it's that pesky reading comp problem.
> 
> my answer:"again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins."
> The convention is that humans have notoriously poor senses of smell compared to animals. Some scientists say that humans have lost 60% of their olfactory receptors over the process of evolution. (Wilson) However, this is as specious as the statement, Humans only use 10% of their brain. Humans have some commendable feats regarding the nose. Mice choose mates by smelling the difference in a certain gene. Humans can smell the difference between the mice strains using solely their sense of smell. (Gilbert) Dog owners can identify which blanket their pet slept compared to other dogs. Humans can also discern what kind of wood a popsicle stick is made of by just smelling the ice cream it was sitting in (of course, they also could refer to original samples of wood). They can also follow a chocolate trail with smell when their other senses are inhibited, but when smell is inhibited they cannot follow it at all. Furthermore, when humans are trained to follow scent trails, their tracking speed increases greatly. Also, humans and dogs have the same sensitivity to the smell that we use to track cocaine. (Gilbert)
> 
> Macrosmatic means with a good sense of smell and microsmatic means with a poor sense of smell. Conventionally, scientists judge a species' ability to smell by the internal surface area of the nasal cavity, but that has no effect on the amount of sensory tissue in the nose or the number of olfactory nerve cells in a certain area. We have in fact discovered that humans and animals have somewhat equivalent senses of smell.
> 
> http://appsychtextbk.wikispaces.com/Animal+vs.+Human+Smell
> 
> so again proving wyc..ignorant.
> 
> what  relatives other than primates are you failing to alude to. ?
> 
> 
> 
> How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? ::Ask the Experts::October 23, 2000::2 Comments::Email:rint.How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all?
> 
> 
> humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and their extinct ancestors form a family of organisms known as the Hominidae. Researchers generally agree that among the living animals in this group, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, judging from comparisons of anatomy and genetics.
> 
> If life is the result of "descent with modification," as Charles Darwin put it, we can try to represent its history as a kind of family tree derived from these morphological and genetic characteristics. The tips of such a tree show organisms that are alive today. The nodes of the tree denote the common ancestors of all the tips connected to that node. Biologists refer to such nodes as the last common ancestor of a group of organisms, and all tips that connect to a particular node form a clade. In the diagram of the Hominidae at right, the clade designated by node 2 includes gorillas, humans and chimps. Within that clade the animal with which humans share the most recent common ancestor is the chimpanzee.
> 
> 
> 
> Source: COURTESY OF BERNHARD HAUBOLD
> FAMILY TREE of the Hominidae shows that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives.
> 
> There are two major classes of evidence that allow us to estimate how old a particular clade is: fossil data and comparative data from living organisms. Fossils are conceptually easy to interpret. Once the age of the fossil is determined (using radiocarbon or thermoluminescence dating techniques, for example), we then know that an ancestor of the organism in question existed at least that long ago. There are, however, few good fossils available compared with the vast biodiversity around us. Thus, researchers also consider comparative data. We all know that siblings are more similar to each other than are cousins, which reflects the fact that siblings have a more recent common ancestor (parents) than do cousins (grandparents). Analogously, the greater similarity between humans and chimps than between humans and plants is taken as evidence that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps is far more recent than the last common ancestor of humans and plants. Similarity, in this context, refers to morphological features such as eyes and skeletal structure.
> 
> One problem with morphological data is that it is sometimes difficult to interpret. For example, ascertaining which similarities resulted from common ancestry and which resulted from convergent evolution can, on occasion, prove tricky. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to obtain time estimates from these data. So despite analyses of anatomy, the evolutionary relationships among many groups of organisms remained unclear due to lack of suitable data.
> 
> This changed in the 1950s and 1960s when protein sequence data and DNA sequence data, respectively, became available. The sequences of a protein (say, hemoglobin) from two organisms can be compared and the number of positions where the two sequences differ counted. It was soon learned from such studies that for a given protein, the number of amino acid substitutions per year could--as a first approximation--be treated as constant. This discovery became known as the "molecular clock." If the clock is calibrated using fossil data or data on continental drift, then the ages of various groups of organisms can theoretically be calculated based on comparisons of their sequences.
> 
> Using such reasoning, it has been estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (with whom we share 99 percent of our genes) lived five million years ago. Going back a little farther, the Hominidae clade is 13 million years old. If we continue farther back in time, we find that placental mammals are between 60 and 80 million years old and that the oldest four-limbed animal, or tetrapod, lived between 300 and 350 million years ago and the earliest chordates (animals with a notochord) appeared about 990 million years ago. Humans belong to each of these successively broader groups.
> 
> How far back can we go in this way? If we try to trace all life on our planet, we are constrained by the earth's age of 4.5 billion years. The oldest bacteria-like fossils are 3.5 billion years old, so this is the upper estimate for the age of life on the earth. The question is whether at some point before this date a last common ancestor for all forms of life, a "universal ancestor," existed. Over the past 30 years the underlying biochemical unity of all plants, animals and microbes has become increasingly apparent. All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other. It took more than two billion years for this earliest form of life to evolve into the first eukaryotic cell. This gave rise to the last common ancestor of plants, fungi and animals, which lived some 1.6 billion years ago.
> 
> The controversies surrounding biological evolution today reflect the fact that biologists were late in accepting evolutionary thinking. One reason for this is that significant modifications of living things are difficult to observe during a lifetime. Darwin never saw evolution taking place in nature and had to rely on evidence from fossils, as well as plant and animal breeding. His idea that the differences observed within a species are transformed in time into differences between species remained the most plausible theory of biodiversity in his time, but there was an awkward lack of direct observations of this process. Today this situation has changed. There are now a number of very striking accounts of evolution in nature, including exceptional work on the finches of the Galapagos Islands--the same animals that first inspired Darwin's work.
> 
> FURTHER READING:
> 
> 
> The Beak of the Finch : A Story of Evolution in Our Time (Vintage Books, 1995)
> 
> one more just for fun  3. "we are the strongest of our species" because we are the only extant creatures of our kind.
> you ignorant asshat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong that was just going from one creature you claim we are related to, the ape. If you use the argument that all organisms are related which you have to since all life origionated from one source, Your sides argument is DNA similarity proves ancestry. So we all came from the same genepool and according to evolutionist we are definitely in the ape genepool. Now actually the answer why these traits did not get passed on to humans or if the ape evoleved from us how did they end up with the superior traits why didn't they end up with brains like ours ?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what your issue is. You seem to have evolved the brain of an ape. So... you seem to have answered your own question.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let me add to this:"Because I say so" is what positing your explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything actually is.
> 
> Your "intelligent agent" exists ONLY because you say so. Your "intelligent agent" is an explanation ONLY because you say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?
> 
> _"Historical sciences like Darwinian evolution and intelligent design rely on the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that *"the present is the key to the past."* Under this methodology, scientists study causes at work in the present-day world in order, as geologist Charles Lyell put it, to "explain the former changes of the Earth's surface by reference to *causes now in operation*."
> 
> Darwinian evolution applies this method by studying causes like mutation and selection in order to recognize their causal abilities and effects in the world at present. Darwinian scientists then try to explain the historical record in terms of those causes, seeking to recognize the known effects of mutation and selection in the historical record.
> 
> Intelligent design applies this same method by studying causes like intelligence in order to recognize its causal abilities and effects in the present-day world. ID theorists are interested in understanding the information-generative powers of intelligent agents. ID theorists then try to explain the historical record by including appeals to that cause, seeking to recognize the known effects of intelligent design in the historical record.
> 
> So whether you appeal to materialistic causes like mutation and selection, or non-material causes like intelligent design, you are using the same basic uniformitarian reasoning that is well-accepted in historical sciences."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical cut and paste.
> 
> Before cutting and pasting creationist babble, you should make an effort to understand the scientific method and the consensus it brings. The scientific method incorporates the rational study and analysis of data. ID creationism is simply an appeal to supernaturalism and partisan gods. Make an effort to understand rationality vs. mystical gods and superstition.
Click to expand...


You really have no clue what you are talking about do you?  Your posts have become totally irrelevant.


----------



## UltimateReality

LOki said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let me add to this:"Because I say so" is what positing your explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything actually is.
> 
> Your "intelligent agent" exists ONLY because you say so. Your "intelligent agent" is an explanation ONLY because you say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In every single way that has been repeatedly explained and practically diagrammed in crayon just for you.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Historical sciences like Darwinian evolution ...
> 
> --*PATHETIC APOLOGY FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN'S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S QUESTION-BEGGING APPEAL-TO-IGNORANCE PREMISE SNIPPED*--​
> ... historical sciences."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The explanationless "Designer" posited by Intelligent Design Theory as the explanation for everything, is a question-begging non-explanation. Rather, it is a thinly veiled pantomime of the scientific method designed to inject superstitions into science classrooms by co-opting the vocabulary of science.
Click to expand...


Really? You have reduced yourself to Ad Hominem attacks and Strawman building? The ID argument doesn't claim an "explanation for everything". You have already been cold busted in numerous lies, totally shredding your already severely lacking credibility. Instead of continuing with your trickery, it's time for you to run along now.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for giving me this opportunity to highlight you ignorance and showcase reading comprehension disability...
> 
> 1.my statement: (humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
> making you first statement false.)
> the operative phrase (is ALL round use)
> here is a list of functions that our eyes have or do that other animals can't :
> 
> For one, humans have their eyes set closer together than many other animals, which gives us wonderful depth perception. In exchange, we lose some of our ability to have good peripheral vision
> 
> 
> Vision
> Normal human vision is 20/20. In comparison, dog vision is between 20/50 and 20/100, horses are at about 20/33, and cats are at 20/100. (However, these number can vary significantly, because it is quite difficult to measure animal vision.)
> 
> Visual Acuity
> Because animals have less visual acuity than humans, they do not perceive things as sharply as humans do. Their vision could be likened to watching a blurry Internet video as opposed to watching television.
> 
> 
> Color Vision
> Dogs perceive color almost like humans who are red-green colorblind. Both cats and dogs respond to blue and yellow best, and have trouble seeing shades of green and red. Cats perceive shades of red as black, and shades of green as white. To a cat, your front lawn looks like a textured bed sheet.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com
> 
> just to name a few.
> 
> 
> 
> (Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.) either ywc is lying or it's that pesky reading comp problem.
> 
> my answer:"again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins."
> The convention is that humans have notoriously poor senses of smell compared to animals. Some scientists say that humans have lost 60% of their olfactory receptors over the process of evolution. (Wilson) However, this is as specious as the statement, Humans only use 10% of their brain. Humans have some commendable feats regarding the nose. Mice choose mates by smelling the difference in a certain gene. Humans can smell the difference between the mice strains using solely their sense of smell. (Gilbert) Dog owners can identify which blanket their pet slept compared to other dogs. Humans can also discern what kind of wood a popsicle stick is made of by just smelling the ice cream it was sitting in (of course, they also could refer to original samples of wood). They can also follow a chocolate trail with smell when their other senses are inhibited, but when smell is inhibited they cannot follow it at all. Furthermore, when humans are trained to follow scent trails, their tracking speed increases greatly. Also, humans and dogs have the same sensitivity to the smell that we use to track cocaine. (Gilbert)
> 
> Macrosmatic means with a good sense of smell and microsmatic means with a poor sense of smell. Conventionally, scientists judge a species' ability to smell by the internal surface area of the nasal cavity, but that has no effect on the amount of sensory tissue in the nose or the number of olfactory nerve cells in a certain area. We have in fact discovered that humans and animals have somewhat equivalent senses of smell.
> 
> http://appsychtextbk.wikispaces.com/Animal+vs.+Human+Smell
> 
> so again proving wyc..ignorant.
> 
> what  relatives other than primates are you failing to alude to. ?
> 
> 
> 
> How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? ::Ask the Experts::October 23, 2000::2 Comments::Email:rint.How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all?
> 
> 
> humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and their extinct ancestors form a family of organisms known as the Hominidae. Researchers generally agree that among the living animals in this group, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, judging from comparisons of anatomy and genetics.
> 
> If life is the result of "descent with modification," as Charles Darwin put it, we can try to represent its history as a kind of family tree derived from these morphological and genetic characteristics. The tips of such a tree show organisms that are alive today. The nodes of the tree denote the common ancestors of all the tips connected to that node. Biologists refer to such nodes as the last common ancestor of a group of organisms, and all tips that connect to a particular node form a clade. In the diagram of the Hominidae at right, the clade designated by node 2 includes gorillas, humans and chimps. Within that clade the animal with which humans share the most recent common ancestor is the chimpanzee.
> 
> 
> 
> Source: COURTESY OF BERNHARD HAUBOLD
> FAMILY TREE of the Hominidae shows that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives.
> 
> There are two major classes of evidence that allow us to estimate how old a particular clade is: fossil data and comparative data from living organisms. Fossils are conceptually easy to interpret. Once the age of the fossil is determined (using radiocarbon or thermoluminescence dating techniques, for example), we then know that an ancestor of the organism in question existed at least that long ago. There are, however, few good fossils available compared with the vast biodiversity around us. Thus, researchers also consider comparative data. We all know that siblings are more similar to each other than are cousins, which reflects the fact that siblings have a more recent common ancestor (parents) than do cousins (grandparents). Analogously, the greater similarity between humans and chimps than between humans and plants is taken as evidence that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps is far more recent than the last common ancestor of humans and plants. Similarity, in this context, refers to morphological features such as eyes and skeletal structure.
> 
> One problem with morphological data is that it is sometimes difficult to interpret. For example, ascertaining which similarities resulted from common ancestry and which resulted from convergent evolution can, on occasion, prove tricky. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to obtain time estimates from these data. So despite analyses of anatomy, the evolutionary relationships among many groups of organisms remained unclear due to lack of suitable data.
> 
> This changed in the 1950s and 1960s when protein sequence data and DNA sequence data, respectively, became available. The sequences of a protein (say, hemoglobin) from two organisms can be compared and the number of positions where the two sequences differ counted. It was soon learned from such studies that for a given protein, the number of amino acid substitutions per year could--as a first approximation--be treated as constant. This discovery became known as the "molecular clock." If the clock is calibrated using fossil data or data on continental drift, then the ages of various groups of organisms can theoretically be calculated based on comparisons of their sequences.
> 
> Using such reasoning, it has been estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (with whom we share 99 percent of our genes) lived five million years ago. Going back a little farther, the Hominidae clade is 13 million years old. If we continue farther back in time, we find that placental mammals are between 60 and 80 million years old and that the oldest four-limbed animal, or tetrapod, lived between 300 and 350 million years ago and the earliest chordates (animals with a notochord) appeared about 990 million years ago. Humans belong to each of these successively broader groups.
> 
> How far back can we go in this way? If we try to trace all life on our planet, we are constrained by the earth's age of 4.5 billion years. The oldest bacteria-like fossils are 3.5 billion years old, so this is the upper estimate for the age of life on the earth. The question is whether at some point before this date a last common ancestor for all forms of life, a "universal ancestor," existed. Over the past 30 years the underlying biochemical unity of all plants, animals and microbes has become increasingly apparent. All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other. It took more than two billion years for this earliest form of life to evolve into the first eukaryotic cell. This gave rise to the last common ancestor of plants, fungi and animals, which lived some 1.6 billion years ago.
> 
> The controversies surrounding biological evolution today reflect the fact that biologists were late in accepting evolutionary thinking. One reason for this is that significant modifications of living things are difficult to observe during a lifetime. Darwin never saw evolution taking place in nature and had to rely on evidence from fossils, as well as plant and animal breeding. His idea that the differences observed within a species are transformed in time into differences between species remained the most plausible theory of biodiversity in his time, but there was an awkward lack of direct observations of this process. Today this situation has changed. There are now a number of very striking accounts of evolution in nature, including exceptional work on the finches of the Galapagos Islands--the same animals that first inspired Darwin's work.
> 
> FURTHER READING:
> 
> 
> The Beak of the Finch : A Story of Evolution in Our Time (Vintage Books, 1995)
> 
> one more just for fun  3. "we are the strongest of our species" because we are the only extant creatures of our kind.
> you ignorant asshat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong that was just going from one creature you claim we are related to, the ape. If you use the argument that all organisms are related which you have to since all life origionated from one source, Your sides argument is DNA similarity proves ancestry. So we all came from the same genepool and according to evolutionist we are definitely in the ape genepool. Now actually the answer why these traits did not get passed on to humans or if the ape evoleved from us how did they end up with the superior traits why didn't they end up with brains like ours ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your issue is. You seem to have evolved the brain of an ape. So... you seem to have answered your own question.
Click to expand...


You seem to have evolved the brain of a man, or is it a woman, or a man, or a woman?

*By the way, Hoki, where did you and Lollie go to college?*


----------



## newpolitics

This is what I don't understand about this thread:


If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove 
1.) God's existence
2.) that God created the universe
3.) and that God created life or mankind

You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game.  The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have studied it for many years. Your theory is based on change over time through mutations and natural selection. I have listed the traits that should not have been eliminated from the genepool that humans came from. Those were superior traits that would allow humans to survive and pass on these traits. Face it, if you had an ounce of reasoning you would understand why I asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you paint a more specific picture for me, of what you think should have happened? Try to describe exactly what traits you think humans should have, and how and why this would have come about. If you can't describe this, then don't put it down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Land speed
> 2. vision
> 3. sense of smell
> 4. strength
> 
> To name a few but this went with only one attempt and a poor attempt to explain why these traits did not get passed to humans. We can agree according to natural selection these are traits that would aid in survival of any group that possessed them.
Click to expand...


You need a reason for these traits to form and/or increase in quality. They will not simply develop because you think they are better. There is no objective mind here guiding this process, as far as the theory goes. You would need a selective pressure, whether it is natural selection, or sexual selection, or a combination of the two. If members of a species are able to survive with a given set of traits, and there is no pressure to increase the quality of those traits, then this is as evolved as the species will become, until a greater selective pressure arises, simply because those that survive are passing on their DNA. It is all about the passage of DNA to the next generation. Hence, why I asked, how do you propose these animals simply get faster, when the gene pool is dominated by individuals with genes encoding for traits that allow survival. Animals, including humans, can simply be seen as vehicles for passing on DNA. If that animal is fit enough to pass on its DNA, then that genetic information stays. You wouldn't expect cheetahs to simply get faster and faster because to you, being faster is better. The question is, are those that run at 60 mph surviving and passing on their DNA? If yes, then there is no pressure to make them increase their speed. By "pressure," i basically mean death to any that no longer fall within trait parameters that allow survival, and hence, the passage of DNA. It is all about the presence of the information held in the DNA. . There is no objective "fitness." It is all relatively to the organisms environment.  You are coming at this as if it a calculated by a mind, and this is because you are subconsciously harboring this notion as a presupposition, which is disallowing you to asses evolution on its own grounds. This is my guess, anyways, inferred form your expectations here about evolution.


----------



## LOki

UltimateReality said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?
> 
> 
> 
> In every single way that has been repeatedly explained and practically diagrammed in crayon just for you.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Historical sciences like Darwinian evolution ...
> 
> --*PATHETIC APOLOGY FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN'S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S QUESTION-BEGGING APPEAL-TO-IGNORANCE PREMISE SNIPPED*--​
> ... historical sciences."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The explanationless "Designer" posited by Intelligent Design Theory as the explanation for everything, is a question-begging non-explanation. Rather, it is a thinly veiled pantomime of the scientific method designed to inject superstitions into science classrooms by co-opting the vocabulary of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You have reduced yourself to Ad Hominem attacks ...
Click to expand...

And what of it?



UltimateReality said:


> ... and Strawman building?


Obviously not. You can't but help making up nonsense.



UltimateReality said:


> The ID argument doesn't claim an "explanation for everything".


*"Governing Goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."​*


UltimateReality said:


> You have already been cold busted in numerous lies, totally shredding your already severely lacking credibility.


Except you cannot demonstrate a single one, can you pumpkin? Why is that Mr. Ad-Hominem Argument?



UltimateReality said:


> Instead of continuing with your trickery, it's time for you to run along now.


Why? Because you cannot stand having the the fact of reality pointed out that Intelligent Design Theory is a thinly veiled pantomime of the scientific method designed to inject superstitions into science classrooms by co-opting the vocabulary of science?

As long as you try to assert otherwise, I'll be happy to expose you.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?
> 
> _"Historical sciences like Darwinian evolution and intelligent design rely on the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that *"the present is the key to the past."* Under this methodology, scientists study causes at work in the present-day world in order, as geologist Charles Lyell put it, to "explain the former changes of the Earth's surface by reference to *causes now in operation*."
> 
> Darwinian evolution applies this method by studying causes like mutation and selection in order to recognize their causal abilities and effects in the world at present. Darwinian scientists then try to explain the historical record in terms of those causes, seeking to recognize the known effects of mutation and selection in the historical record.
> 
> Intelligent design applies this same method by studying causes like intelligence in order to recognize its causal abilities and effects in the present-day world. ID theorists are interested in understanding the information-generative powers of intelligent agents. ID theorists then try to explain the historical record by including appeals to that cause, seeking to recognize the known effects of intelligent design in the historical record.
> 
> So whether you appeal to materialistic causes like mutation and selection, or non-material causes like intelligent design, you are using the same basic uniformitarian reasoning that is well-accepted in historical sciences."_
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsensical cut and paste.
> 
> Before cutting and pasting creationist babble, you should make an effort to understand the scientific method and the consensus it brings. The scientific method incorporates the rational study and analysis of data. ID creationism is simply an appeal to supernaturalism and partisan gods. Make an effort to understand rationality vs. mystical gods and superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really have no clue what you are talking about do you?  Your posts have become totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It's not surprising that you're unable to defend ID creationism.


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> This is what I don't understand about this thread:
> 
> 
> If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
> 1.) God's existence
> 2.) that God created the universe
> 3.) and that God created life or mankind
> 
> You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game.  The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.


The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I don't understand about this thread:
> 
> 
> If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
> 1.) God's existence
> 2.) that God created the universe
> 3.) and that God created life or mankind
> 
> You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game.  The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.
Click to expand...


It relies soley on faith.

Not unlike the faith you have in science.


----------



## Gadawg73

newpolitics said:


> This is what I don't understand about this thread:
> 
> 
> If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
> 1.) God's existence
> 2.) that God created the universe
> 3.) and that God created life or mankind
> 
> You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game.  The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.



Religious beliefs, all 1001 of them, are not supposed to be "logical".
Faith is not about logic. Faith, unlike science, can never be proven or disproven.
That is why they use it against evolution. 
The only argument they have.


----------



## Gadawg73

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I don't understand about this thread:
> 
> 
> If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
> 1.) God's existence
> 2.) that God created the universe
> 3.) and that God created life or mankind
> 
> You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game.  The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It relies soley on faith.
> 
> Not unlike the faith you have in science.
Click to expand...


Reminds me of the shipwrecked mariner that had faith.
His boat was taking on water and his bilge was not working right. He was alone and was close to get it to work but the water was coming in. He prayed about it.
Another boat came by and offered to pick him up. He declined as he stated God was on his side and would help him fix the bilge. A charter boat came by and offered help with the same response. A helicopter saw him and he waved them off.
The boat goes under and he drowns. After passing the pearly gates he meets God. "God, I prayed about it and my prayers went unanswered. I had faith in you, what happened?"
"Not my fault son, I sent you 2 boats and a helicopter. What else could I have done?"
Faith has nothing to do with science. Unplug your TV and see if power comes to it. Plug it back in and see it work.
I know and believe you know better but you, as many other intelligent folks, are BLINDED by your faith.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I don't understand about this thread:
> 
> 
> If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
> 1.) God's existence
> 2.) that God created the universe
> 3.) and that God created life or mankind
> 
> You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game.  The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It relies soley on faith.
> 
> Not unlike the faith you have in science.
Click to expand...


Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim. 

"Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers.  NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours.  I.D.er's have presented  no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally).  ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of. 

I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of.  Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It relies soley on faith.
> 
> Not unlike the faith you have in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the shipwrecked mariner that had faith.
> His boat was taking on water and his bilge was not working right. He was alone and was close to get it to work but the water was coming in. He prayed about it.
> Another boat came by and offered to pick him up. He declined as he stated God was on his side and would help him fix the bilge. A charter boat came by and offered help with the same response. A helicopter saw him and he waved them off.
> The boat goes under and he drowns. After passing the pearly gates he meets God. "God, I prayed about it and my prayers went unanswered. I had faith in you, what happened?"
> "Not my fault son, I sent you 2 boats and a helicopter. What else could I have done?"
> Faith has nothing to do with science. Unplug your TV and see if power comes to it. Plug it back in and see it work.
> I know and believe you know better but you, as many other intelligent folks, are BLINDED by your faith.
Click to expand...


A made up story is supposed to convince me of what exactly?


I know better?

Better than what?

You say I'm blinded by faith yet you know nothing of my faith or of me.

Psalm 118:8


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I don't understand about this thread:
> 
> 
> If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
> 1.) God's existence
> 2.) that God created the universe
> 3.) and that God created life or mankind
> 
> You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game.  The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It relies soley on faith.
> 
> Not unlike the faith you have in science.
Click to expand...


You are equivocating on the meaning of the word "faith", which is the only thing that allows you make statements like this. 

Faith, with respect to religion, refers to belief in a very specific epistemic claim: god exists. 

Faith, when used casually, simply refers to trust. 

These two meanings are worlds apart, and defenders of faith equivocate on these two definitions constantly to try and show that faith is justified. This is logically fallacious, because you are sneakily switching definitions of faith, interchanging them as needed. 

Faith: belief in something without evidence. Trust: a state of confidence in something. Being that trust and faith are not identical, they are not interchangeable, which is what you are doing. Hence, the equivocation fallacy here.


A state of trust can be earned, based on evidence and the formation of reasonable expectations. It is therefore, a state of belief that can be justified (i.e., trust in a neighbor, trust in the chair you are sitting in). We are justified in "trusting" and using inductive reasoning to say that universal physical laws, on which science and our everyday experience depends, will be here tomorrow because these constants have been here everyday prior since the beginning of time, whatever you think that beginning is. 

However, Trust in an unseen entity, for which there is no evidence aside from personal interpretation of reality, is not justifiable to anyone except the person making those interpretations. Inherently then, this trust is subjective, and can not be justifiable to anyone else but the direct observer or believer, which calls into question the subjective nature of theistic belief. Inherently, this subjective interpretation is not objective, and this discrepancy is validated by the fact that there is no physical, empirical, or logical evidence or proof of god. So far, a strong case can be made that god merely exists in the brain. 

For example, just because someone interprets an event as miraculous, and assigns the cause of that event to god, does not mean they are correct. Yet, they may live their life according to this sort of heuristic, where any events beyond explanation are deemed as having a supernatural cause. In this mindset, any events that seem incredible or unlikely and are deemed to have being caused by a god, strengthen their faith and the action of this heuristic. What I am describing is the psychology of faith. It's like a muscle. The more it gets used, the stronger and more convincing it gets, but all it is are neuronal connections that manifest as interpretations of reality, where god is left open as an explanation for anything that is inexplicable. That doesn't mean it reflects reality. Simply that it is a comfortable, oft used pattern of thinking.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It relies soley on faith.
> 
> Not unlike the faith you have in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim.
> 
> "Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers.  NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours.  I.D.er's have presented  no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally).  ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.
> 
> I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of.  Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.
Click to expand...


Yes your faith in science.

Has science created a life form out of nothing? A life form that can and will evolve into several different species with very different and distinct attributes where some will develop reasoning and logic while other rely soley on instinct?  I didn't think so. 

We all have the same facts but they are just being interpreted differently. The reason is because each side as their own axioms.

Unlike you , I don't need a scientific theory to explain natural phenomena.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It relies soley on faith.
> 
> Not unlike the faith you have in science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim.
> 
> "Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers.  NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours.  I.D.er's have presented  no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally).  ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.
> 
> I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of.  Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes your faith in science.
> 
> Has science created a life form out of nothing? A life form that can and will evolve into several different species with very different and distinct attributes where some will develop reasoning and logic while other rely soley on instinct?  I didn't think so.
> 
> We all have the same facts but they are just being interpreted differently. The reason is because each side as their own axioms.
> 
> Unlike you , I don't need a scientific theory to explain natural phenomena.
Click to expand...

No. There is no requirement for faith in science. 

Have your gods created a life form out of nothing? There is no reason to believe your claims to supermagicalism.

Your "I don't think so" claim regarding evolutionary processes is consistent with a religious claim that only through supermagical processes could life have magically popped into existence, however, in the grown-up world, "magic" is decidedly an unreliable explanation


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim.
> 
> "Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers.  NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours.  I.D.er's have presented  no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally).  ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.
> 
> I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of.  Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes your faith in science.
> 
> Has science created a life form out of nothing? A life form that can and will evolve into several different species with very different and distinct attributes where some will develop reasoning and logic while other rely soley on instinct?  I didn't think so.
> 
> We all have the same facts but they are just being interpreted differently. The reason is because each side as their own axioms.
> 
> Unlike you , I don't need a scientific theory to explain natural phenomena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There is no requirement for faith in science.
> 
> Have your gods created a life form out of nothing? There is no reason to believe your claims to supermagicalism.
> 
> Your "I don't think so" claim regarding evolutionary processes is consistent with a religious claim that only through supermagical processes could life have magically popped into existence, however, in the grown-up world, "magic" is decidedly an unreliable explanation
Click to expand...


That's a matter of opinion.

Yes my God has.

My "I don't think so" claim is honest and accurate.

You can call it magic if it makes you feel superior and all grown up.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes your faith in science.
> 
> Has science created a life form out of nothing? A life form that can and will evolve into several different species with very different and distinct attributes where some will develop reasoning and logic while other rely soley on instinct?  I didn't think so.
> 
> We all have the same facts but they are just being interpreted differently. The reason is because each side as their own axioms.
> 
> Unlike you , I don't need a scientific theory to explain natural phenomena.
> 
> 
> 
> No. There is no requirement for faith in science.
> 
> Have your gods created a life form out of nothing? There is no reason to believe your claims to supermagicalism.
> 
> Your "I don't think so" claim regarding evolutionary processes is consistent with a religious claim that only through supermagical processes could life have magically popped into existence, however, in the grown-up world, "magic" is decidedly an unreliable explanation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a matter of opinion.
> 
> Yes my God has.
> 
> My "I don't think so" claim is honest and accurate.
> 
> You can call it magic if it makes you feel superior and all grown up.
Click to expand...

Your claims to gods are precisely the same bellicose claims to gods that others make. 

My reaction is that your beliefs being held as sacrosanct suggests a certain naïveté. Interestingly, One of the great living disproofs of books being useful as a way to a god(s) assertion is that rarely can anyone agree on what is even being offered in those books, other than the utter fundamentals, like: "Yeah, there is a god". This is why you have numerous factions of religionists, all asserting either directly or indirectly that they are right, which means -- despite the claims of absolute certainty, the others must be wrong.

No religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Christians are really right." Uh, not likely.)

If you are a Jew as opposed to a Christian, your very self-identification tells me that you are announcing Judaism to be right, and Christianity to be wrong-- unless you are purposely following a doctrine you believe is wrong (I suppose some people might do that, but whatever for?). 

If making absolute clains to certainty of your gods makes you feel superior, may the other extant gods get their eventual revenge.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. There is no requirement for faith in science.
> 
> Have your gods created a life form out of nothing? There is no reason to believe your claims to supermagicalism.
> 
> Your "I don't think so" claim regarding evolutionary processes is consistent with a religious claim that only through supermagical processes could life have magically popped into existence, however, in the grown-up world, "magic" is decidedly an unreliable explanation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of opinion.
> 
> Yes my God has.
> 
> My "I don't think so" claim is honest and accurate.
> 
> You can call it magic if it makes you feel superior and all grown up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claims to gods are precisely the same bellicose claims to gods that others make.
> 
> My reaction is that your beliefs being held as sacrosanct suggests a certain naïveté. Interestingly, One of the great living disproofs of books being useful as a way to a god(s) assertion is that rarely can anyone agree on what is even being offered in those books, other than the utter fundamentals, like: "Yeah, there is a god". This is why you have numerous factions of religionists, all asserting either directly or indirectly that they are right, which means -- despite the claims of absolute certainty, the others must be wrong.
> 
> No religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Christians are really right." Uh, not likely.)
> 
> If you are a Jew as opposed to a Christian, your very self-identification tells me that you are announcing Judaism to be right, and Christianity to be wrong-- unless you are purposely following a doctrine you believe is wrong (I suppose some people might do that, but whatever for?).
> 
> If making absolute clains to certainty of your gods makes you feel superior, may the other extant gods get their eventual revenge.
Click to expand...


Make claims are not bellicose. Why do you think they are?

The reason there is so many variations is quite simple. The Bible, in my opinion, is meant to speak to each person individually. Two people reading the same verse may come away with two very different interpretations. That doesn't mean one is wrong, on the contrary, both may be right. 

Yes it's true we all claim to be on the right side of God. But perhaps no one or everyone is. 

God does not make me feel superior. And only those that are on the losing side needs revenge.

I can with all certainty say that there is a God and I have a personal relationship with Him and He has never let me down. What I am certain of cannot be proven in this stage of life. God has nothing to prove.


----------



## Gadawg73

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It relies soley on faith.
> 
> Not unlike the faith you have in science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the shipwrecked mariner that had faith.
> His boat was taking on water and his bilge was not working right. He was alone and was close to get it to work but the water was coming in. He prayed about it.
> Another boat came by and offered to pick him up. He declined as he stated God was on his side and would help him fix the bilge. A charter boat came by and offered help with the same response. A helicopter saw him and he waved them off.
> The boat goes under and he drowns. After passing the pearly gates he meets God. "God, I prayed about it and my prayers went unanswered. I had faith in you, what happened?"
> "Not my fault son, I sent you 2 boats and a helicopter. What else could I have done?"
> Faith has nothing to do with science. Unplug your TV and see if power comes to it. Plug it back in and see it work.
> I know and believe you know better but you, as many other intelligent folks, are BLINDED by your faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A made up story is supposed to convince me of what exactly?
> 
> 
> I know better?
> 
> Better than what?
> 
> You say I'm blinded by faith yet you know nothing of my faith or of me.
> 
> Psalm 118:8
Click to expand...


Better than your made up story that there is a man in the sky sitting on a gold throne with the streets lined with gold also. 
You are a stick in the mud Lonestar. Lighten up, that story was funny.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the shipwrecked mariner that had faith.
> His boat was taking on water and his bilge was not working right. He was alone and was close to get it to work but the water was coming in. He prayed about it.
> Another boat came by and offered to pick him up. He declined as he stated God was on his side and would help him fix the bilge. A charter boat came by and offered help with the same response. A helicopter saw him and he waved them off.
> The boat goes under and he drowns. After passing the pearly gates he meets God. "God, I prayed about it and my prayers went unanswered. I had faith in you, what happened?"
> "Not my fault son, I sent you 2 boats and a helicopter. What else could I have done?"
> Faith has nothing to do with science. Unplug your TV and see if power comes to it. Plug it back in and see it work.
> I know and believe you know better but you, as many other intelligent folks, are BLINDED by your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A made up story is supposed to convince me of what exactly?
> 
> 
> I know better?
> 
> Better than what?
> 
> You say I'm blinded by faith yet you know nothing of my faith or of me.
> 
> Psalm 118:8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better than your made up story that there is a man in the sky sitting on a gold throne with the streets lined with gold also.
> You are a stick in the mud Lonestar. Lighten up, that story was funny.
Click to expand...


I have no made up story. When have I said that there is a man in the sky sitting on a gold throne with the streets lined with gold also?

Humor is subjective. Good to see you laugh at your own perceived humor.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> You are equivocating on the meaning of the word "faith", which is the only thing that allows you make statements like this.



Equivocating? Is this Hoki Loki? Seriously, you go on to give both applications of the word faith the same definition so you deny your own claim of equivocation.



newpolitics said:


> Trust in an unseen entity, for which there is no evidence aside from personal interpretation of reality, is not justifiable to anyone except the person making those interpretations.



Congratulations! You've just described a better part of the Theory of Evolution!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. There is no requirement for faith in science.
> 
> Have your gods created a life form out of nothing? There is no reason to believe your claims to supermagicalism.
> 
> Your "I don't think so" claim regarding evolutionary processes is consistent with a religious claim that only through supermagical processes could life have magically popped into existence, however, in the grown-up world, "magic" is decidedly an unreliable explanation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of opinion.
> 
> Yes my God has.
> 
> My "I don't think so" claim is honest and accurate.
> 
> You can call it magic if it makes you feel superior and all grown up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claims to gods are precisely the same *bellicose* claims to gods that others make.
> 
> My reaction is that your beliefs being held as *sacrosanct* suggests a certain naïveté. Interestingly, One of the great living disproofs of books being useful as a way to a god(s) assertion is that rarely can anyone agree on what is even being offered in those books, other than the utter fundamentals, like: "Yeah, there is a god". This is why you have numerous factions of religionists, all asserting either directly or indirectly that they are right, which means -- despite the claims of absolute certainty, the others must be wrong.
> 
> No religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Christians are really right." Uh, not likely.)
> 
> If you are a Jew as opposed to a Christian, your very self-identification tells me that you are announcing Judaism to be right, and Christianity to be wrong-- unless you are purposely following a doctrine you believe is wrong (I suppose some people might do that, but whatever for?).
> 
> If making absolute clains to certainty of your gods makes you feel superior, may the other extant gods get their eventual revenge.
Click to expand...


Oh no! Here we go again. Hollie's got her pocket Thesaurus out again.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It relies soley on faith.
> 
> Not unlike the faith you have in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim.
> 
> "Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers.  NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours.  I.D.er's have presented  no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally).  ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.
> 
> I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of.
Click to expand...

 Only in your total denial. We have concrete evidence that no presently observable specified information exists that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. If we apply the historical science methods of Lyell and Darwin, we conclude that the best explanation for the specified information is DNA is intelligence. Only in Hoki Lollie world do we get to pretend things don't exist if we just ignore them. 





Hollie said:


> Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.



We are talking about Historical science in case you missed the last 600 pages. And yes, faith is required for Historical science you poor dear.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It relies soley on faith.
> 
> Not unlike the faith you have in science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim.
> 
> "Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers.  NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours.  I.D.er's have presented  no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally).  ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.
> 
> I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in your total denial. We have concrete evidence that no presently observable specified information exists that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. If we apply the historical science methods of Lyell and Darwin, we conclude that the best explanation for the specified information is DNA is intelligence. Only in Hoki Lollie world do we get to pretend things don't exist if we just ignore them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking about Historical science in case you missed the last 600 pages. And yes, faith is required for Historical science you poor dear.
Click to expand...

What silliness. " Concrete" evidence that doesn't exist. We call fantasy. The fantastical world of the supernaturalist.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of opinion.
> 
> Yes my God has.
> 
> My "I don't think so" claim is honest and accurate.
> 
> You can call it magic if it makes you feel superior and all grown up.
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims to gods are precisely the same *bellicose* claims to gods that others make.
> 
> My reaction is that your beliefs being held as *sacrosanct* suggests a certain naïveté. Interestingly, One of the great living disproofs of books being useful as a way to a god(s) assertion is that rarely can anyone agree on what is even being offered in those books, other than the utter fundamentals, like: "Yeah, there is a god". This is why you have numerous factions of religionists, all asserting either directly or indirectly that they are right, which means -- despite the claims of absolute certainty, the others must be wrong.
> 
> No religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Christians are really right." Uh, not likely.)
> 
> If you are a Jew as opposed to a Christian, your very self-identification tells me that you are announcing Judaism to be right, and Christianity to be wrong-- unless you are purposely following a doctrine you believe is wrong (I suppose some people might do that, but whatever for?).
> 
> If making absolute clains to certainty of your gods makes you feel superior, may the other extant gods get their eventual revenge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no! Here we go again. Hollie's got her pocket Thesaurus out again.
Click to expand...

Here we go again. My stalker is babbling incoherently with no ability to form meaningful sentences.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It relies soley on faith.
> 
> Not unlike the faith you have in science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim.
> 
> "Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers.  NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours.  I.D.er's have presented  no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally).  ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.
> 
> I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in your total denial. We have concrete evidence that no presently observable specified information exists that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. If we apply the historical science methods of Lyell and Darwin, we conclude that the best explanation for the specified information is DNA is intelligence. Only in Hoki Lollie world do we get to pretend things don't exist if we just ignore them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking about Historical science in case you missed the last 600 pages. And yes, faith is required for Historical science you poor dear.
Click to expand...

As usual, you're sweeping incorrect. 

Faith is not needed to understand science. Free yourself from fear and superstition.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim.
> 
> "Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers.  NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours.  I.D.er's have presented  no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally).  ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.
> 
> I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of.
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your total denial. We have concrete evidence that no presently observable specified information exists that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. If we apply the historical science methods of Lyell and Darwin, we conclude that the best explanation for the specified information is DNA is intelligence. Only in Hoki Lollie world do we get to pretend things don't exist if we just ignore them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking about Historical science in case you missed the last 600 pages. And yes, faith is required for Historical science you poor dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What silliness. " Concrete" evidence that doesn't exist. We call fantasy. The fantastical world of the supernaturalist.
Click to expand...


Please show me an example where the source is not an intelligent agent. Put up or shut up.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think again.
> 
> 1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
> 2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
> 3. The Secret To Chimp Strength
> 
> You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.
> 
> Nice dodge ! and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for giving me this opportunity to highlight you ignorance and showcase reading comprehension disability...
> 
> 1.my statement: (humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
> making you first statement false.)
> the operative phrase (is ALL round use)
> here is a list of functions that our eyes have or do what other animals can't :
> 
> For one, humans have their eyes set closer together than many other animals, which gives us wonderful depth perception. In exchange, we lose some of our ability to have good peripheral vision
> 
> 
> Vision
> Normal human vision is 20/20. In comparison, dog vision is between 20/50 and 20/100, horses are at about 20/33, and cats are at 20/100. (However, these number can vary significantly, because it is quite difficult to measure animal vision.)
> 
> Visual Acuity
> Because animals have less visual acuity than humans, they do not perceive things as sharply as humans do. Their vision could be likened to watching a blurry Internet video as opposed to watching television.
> 
> 
> Color Vision
> Dogs perceive color almost like humans who are red-green colorblind. Both cats and dogs respond to blue and yellow best, and have trouble seeing shades of green and red. Cats perceive shades of red as black, and shades of green as white. To a cat, your front lawn looks like a textured bed sheet.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com
> 
> just to name a few.
> 
> 
> 
> (Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.) either ywc is lying or it's that pesky reading comp problem.
> 
> my answer:"again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins."
> The convention is that humans have notoriously poor senses of smell compared to animals. Some scientists say that humans have lost 60% of their olfactory receptors over the process of evolution. (Wilson) However, this is as specious as the statement, Humans only use 10% of their brain. Humans have some commendable feats regarding the nose. Mice choose mates by smelling the difference in a certain gene. Humans can smell the difference between the mice strains using solely their sense of smell. (Gilbert) Dog owners can identify which blanket their pet slept compared to other dogs. Humans can also discern what kind of wood a popsicle stick is made of by just smelling the ice cream it was sitting in (of course, they also could refer to original samples of wood). They can also follow a chocolate trail with smell when their other senses are inhibited, but when smell is inhibited they cannot follow it at all. Furthermore, when humans are trained to follow scent trails, their tracking speed increases greatly. Also, humans and dogs have the same sensitivity to the smell that we use to track cocaine. (Gilbert)
> 
> Macrosmatic means with a good sense of smell and microsmatic means with a poor sense of smell. Conventionally, scientists judge a species' ability to smell by the internal surface area of the nasal cavity, but that has no effect on the amount of sensory tissue in the nose or the number of olfactory nerve cells in a certain area. We have in fact discovered that humans and animals have somewhat equivalent senses of smell.
> 
> http://appsychtextbk.wikispaces.com/Animal+vs.+Human+Smell
> 
> so again proving wyc..ignorant.
> 
> what  relatives other than primates are you failing to alude to. ?
> 
> 
> 
> How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? ::Ask the Experts::October 23, 2000::2 Comments::Email:rint.How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all?
> 
> 
> humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and their extinct ancestors form a family of organisms known as the Hominidae. Researchers generally agree that among the living animals in this group, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, judging from comparisons of anatomy and genetics.
> 
> If life is the result of "descent with modification," as Charles Darwin put it, we can try to represent its history as a kind of family tree derived from these morphological and genetic characteristics. The tips of such a tree show organisms that are alive today. The nodes of the tree denote the common ancestors of all the tips connected to that node. Biologists refer to such nodes as the last common ancestor of a group of organisms, and all tips that connect to a particular node form a clade. In the diagram of the Hominidae at right, the clade designated by node 2 includes gorillas, humans and chimps. Within that clade the animal with which humans share the most recent common ancestor is the chimpanzee.
> 
> 
> 
> Source: COURTESY OF BERNHARD HAUBOLD
> FAMILY TREE of the Hominidae shows that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives.
> 
> There are two major classes of evidence that allow us to estimate how old a particular clade is: fossil data and comparative data from living organisms. Fossils are conceptually easy to interpret. Once the age of the fossil is determined (using radiocarbon or thermoluminescence dating techniques, for example), we then know that an ancestor of the organism in question existed at least that long ago. There are, however, few good fossils available compared with the vast biodiversity around us. Thus, researchers also consider comparative data. We all know that siblings are more similar to each other than are cousins, which reflects the fact that siblings have a more recent common ancestor (parents) than do cousins (grandparents). Analogously, the greater similarity between humans and chimps than between humans and plants is taken as evidence that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps is far more recent than the last common ancestor of humans and plants. Similarity, in this context, refers to morphological features such as eyes and skeletal structure.
> 
> One problem with morphological data is that it is sometimes difficult to interpret. For example, ascertaining which similarities resulted from common ancestry and which resulted from convergent evolution can, on occasion, prove tricky. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to obtain time estimates from these data. So despite analyses of anatomy, the evolutionary relationships among many groups of organisms remained unclear due to lack of suitable data.
> 
> This changed in the 1950s and 1960s when protein sequence data and DNA sequence data, respectively, became available. The sequences of a protein (say, hemoglobin) from two organisms can be compared and the number of positions where the two sequences differ counted. It was soon learned from such studies that for a given protein, the number of amino acid substitutions per year could--as a first approximation--be treated as constant. This discovery became known as the "molecular clock." If the clock is calibrated using fossil data or data on continental drift, then the ages of various groups of organisms can theoretically be calculated based on comparisons of their sequences.
> 
> Using such reasoning, it has been estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (with whom we share 99 percent of our genes) lived five million years ago. Going back a little farther, the Hominidae clade is 13 million years old. If we continue farther back in time, we find that placental mammals are between 60 and 80 million years old and that the oldest four-limbed animal, or tetrapod, lived between 300 and 350 million years ago and the earliest chordates (animals with a notochord) appeared about 990 million years ago. Humans belong to each of these successively broader groups.
> 
> How far back can we go in this way? If we try to trace all life on our planet, we are constrained by the earth's age of 4.5 billion years. The oldest bacteria-like fossils are 3.5 billion years old, so this is the upper estimate for the age of life on the earth. The question is whether at some point before this date a last common ancestor for all forms of life, a "universal ancestor," existed. Over the past 30 years the underlying biochemical unity of all plants, animals and microbes has become increasingly apparent. All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other. It took more than two billion years for this earliest form of life to evolve into the first eukaryotic cell. This gave rise to the last common ancestor of plants, fungi and animals, which lived some 1.6 billion years ago.
> 
> The controversies surrounding biological evolution today reflect the fact that biologists were late in accepting evolutionary thinking. One reason for this is that significant modifications of living things are difficult to observe during a lifetime. Darwin never saw evolution taking place in nature and had to rely on evidence from fossils, as well as plant and animal breeding. His idea that the differences observed within a species are transformed in time into differences between species remained the most plausible theory of biodiversity in his time, but there was an awkward lack of direct observations of this process. Today this situation has changed. There are now a number of very striking accounts of evolution in nature, including exceptional work on the finches of the Galapagos Islands--the same animals that first inspired Darwin's work.
> 
> FURTHER READING:
> 
> 
> The Beak of the Finch : A Story of Evolution in Our Time (Vintage Books, 1995)
> 
> one more just for fun  3. "we are the strongest of our species" because we are the only extant creatures of our kind.
> you ignorant asshat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong that was just going from one creature you claim we are related to, the ape. If you use the argument that all organisms are related which you have to since all life origionated from one source, Your sides argument is DNA similarity proves ancestry. So we all came from the same genepool and according to evolutionist we are definitely in the ape genepool. Now actually the answer why these traits did not get passed on to humans or if the ape evoleved from us how did they end up with the superior traits why didn't they end up with brains like ours ?
Click to expand...

could you possibly rewrite this post in english and not when you are drunk or on your meds ?

1.apes did not evolve FROM US  you asshat!
we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths) 
once again your willful ignorance shines.

 Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge
ScienceDaily (Nov. 17, 2006)  Six million years ago, chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor and evolved into unique species. Now UCLA scientists have identified a new way to pinpoint the genes that separate us from our closest living relative -- and make us uniquely human. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports the study in its Nov. 13 online edition. 


"We share more than 95 percent of our genetic blueprint with chimps," explained Dr. Daniel Geschwind, principal investigator and Gordon and Virginia MacDonald Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine. "What sets us apart from chimps are our brains: homo sapiens means 'the knowing man.' 

"During evolution, changes in some genes altered how the human brain functions," he added. "Our research has identified an entirely new way to identify those genes in the small portion of our DNA that differs from the chimpanzee's." 

By evaluating the correlated activity of thousands of genes, the UCLA team identified not just individual genes, but entire networks of interconnected genes whose expression patterns within the brains of humans varied from those in the chimpanzee. 

"Genes don't operate in isolation -- each functions within a system of related genes," said first author Michael Oldham, UCLA genetics researcher. "If we examined each gene individually, it would be similar to reading every fifth word in a paragraph -- you don't get to see how each word relates to the other. So instead we used a systems biology approach to study each gene within its context." 

The scientists identified networks of genes that correspond to specific brain regions. When they compared these networks between humans and chimps, they found that the gene networks differed the most widely in the cerebral cortex -- the brain's most highly evolved region, which is three times larger in humans than chimps.

Secondly, the researchers discovered that many of the genes that play a central role in cerebral cortex networks in humans, but not in the chimpanzee, also show significant changes at the DNA level. 

"When we see alterations in a gene network that correspond to functional changes in the genome, it implies that these differences are very meaningful," said Oldham. "This finding supports the theory that variations in the DNA sequence contributed to human evolution." 

Relying on a new analytical approach developed by corresponding author Steve Horvath, UCLA associate professor of human genetics and biostatistics, the UCLA team used data from DNA microarrays -- vast collections of tiny DNA spots -- to map the activity of virtually every gene in the genome simultaneously. By comparing gene activity in different areas of the brain, the team identified gene networks that correlated to specific brain regions. Then they compared the strength of these correlations between humans and chimps. 

Many of the human-specific gene networks identified by the scientists related to learning, brain cell activity and energy metabolism. 

"If you view the brain as the body's engine, our findings suggest that the human brain fires like a 12-cylinder engine, while the chimp brain works more like a 6-cylinder engine," explained Geschwind. "It's possible that our genes adapted to allow our brains to increase in size, operate at different speeds, metabolize energy faster and enhance connections between brain cells across different brain regions." 

Future UCLA studies will focus on linking the expression of evolutionary genes to specific regions of the brain, such as those that regulate language, speech and other uniquely human abilities. 

The study was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the National Institute of Mental Health. 

Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge


origin and related don't mean what you wish them to mean.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for giving me this opportunity to highlight you ignorance and showcase reading comprehension disability...
> 
> 1.my statement: (humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
> making you first statement false.)
> the operative phrase (is ALL round use)
> here is a list of functions that our eyes have or do that other animals can't :
> 
> For one, humans have their eyes set closer together than many other animals, which gives us wonderful depth perception. In exchange, we lose some of our ability to have good peripheral vision
> 
> 
> Vision
> Normal human vision is 20/20. In comparison, dog vision is between 20/50 and 20/100, horses are at about 20/33, and cats are at 20/100. (However, these number can vary significantly, because it is quite difficult to measure animal vision.)
> 
> Visual Acuity
> Because animals have less visual acuity than humans, they do not perceive things as sharply as humans do. Their vision could be likened to watching a blurry Internet video as opposed to watching television.
> 
> 
> Color Vision
> Dogs perceive color almost like humans who are red-green colorblind. Both cats and dogs respond to blue and yellow best, and have trouble seeing shades of green and red. Cats perceive shades of red as black, and shades of green as white. To a cat, your front lawn looks like a textured bed sheet.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com
> 
> just to name a few.
> 
> 
> 
> (Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.) either ywc is lying or it's that pesky reading comp problem.
> 
> my answer:"again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins."
> The convention is that humans have notoriously poor senses of smell compared to animals. Some scientists say that humans have lost 60% of their olfactory receptors over the process of evolution. (Wilson) However, this is as specious as the statement, Humans only use 10% of their brain. Humans have some commendable feats regarding the nose. Mice choose mates by smelling the difference in a certain gene. Humans can smell the difference between the mice strains using solely their sense of smell. (Gilbert) Dog owners can identify which blanket their pet slept compared to other dogs. Humans can also discern what kind of wood a popsicle stick is made of by just smelling the ice cream it was sitting in (of course, they also could refer to original samples of wood). They can also follow a chocolate trail with smell when their other senses are inhibited, but when smell is inhibited they cannot follow it at all. Furthermore, when humans are trained to follow scent trails, their tracking speed increases greatly. Also, humans and dogs have the same sensitivity to the smell that we use to track cocaine. (Gilbert)
> 
> Macrosmatic means with a good sense of smell and microsmatic means with a poor sense of smell. Conventionally, scientists judge a species' ability to smell by the internal surface area of the nasal cavity, but that has no effect on the amount of sensory tissue in the nose or the number of olfactory nerve cells in a certain area. We have in fact discovered that humans and animals have somewhat equivalent senses of smell.
> 
> http://appsychtextbk.wikispaces.com/Animal+vs.+Human+Smell
> 
> so again proving wyc..ignorant.
> 
> what  relatives other than primates are you failing to alude to. ?
> 
> 
> 
> How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? ::Ask the Experts::October 23, 2000::2 Comments::Email:rint.How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all?
> 
> 
> humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and their extinct ancestors form a family of organisms known as the Hominidae. Researchers generally agree that among the living animals in this group, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, judging from comparisons of anatomy and genetics.
> 
> If life is the result of "descent with modification," as Charles Darwin put it, we can try to represent its history as a kind of family tree derived from these morphological and genetic characteristics. The tips of such a tree show organisms that are alive today. The nodes of the tree denote the common ancestors of all the tips connected to that node. Biologists refer to such nodes as the last common ancestor of a group of organisms, and all tips that connect to a particular node form a clade. In the diagram of the Hominidae at right, the clade designated by node 2 includes gorillas, humans and chimps. Within that clade the animal with which humans share the most recent common ancestor is the chimpanzee.
> 
> 
> 
> Source: COURTESY OF BERNHARD HAUBOLD
> FAMILY TREE of the Hominidae shows that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives.
> 
> There are two major classes of evidence that allow us to estimate how old a particular clade is: fossil data and comparative data from living organisms. Fossils are conceptually easy to interpret. Once the age of the fossil is determined (using radiocarbon or thermoluminescence dating techniques, for example), we then know that an ancestor of the organism in question existed at least that long ago. There are, however, few good fossils available compared with the vast biodiversity around us. Thus, researchers also consider comparative data. We all know that siblings are more similar to each other than are cousins, which reflects the fact that siblings have a more recent common ancestor (parents) than do cousins (grandparents). Analogously, the greater similarity between humans and chimps than between humans and plants is taken as evidence that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps is far more recent than the last common ancestor of humans and plants. Similarity, in this context, refers to morphological features such as eyes and skeletal structure.
> 
> One problem with morphological data is that it is sometimes difficult to interpret. For example, ascertaining which similarities resulted from common ancestry and which resulted from convergent evolution can, on occasion, prove tricky. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to obtain time estimates from these data. So despite analyses of anatomy, the evolutionary relationships among many groups of organisms remained unclear due to lack of suitable data.
> 
> This changed in the 1950s and 1960s when protein sequence data and DNA sequence data, respectively, became available. The sequences of a protein (say, hemoglobin) from two organisms can be compared and the number of positions where the two sequences differ counted. It was soon learned from such studies that for a given protein, the number of amino acid substitutions per year could--as a first approximation--be treated as constant. This discovery became known as the "molecular clock." If the clock is calibrated using fossil data or data on continental drift, then the ages of various groups of organisms can theoretically be calculated based on comparisons of their sequences.
> 
> Using such reasoning, it has been estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (with whom we share 99 percent of our genes) lived five million years ago. Going back a little farther, the Hominidae clade is 13 million years old. If we continue farther back in time, we find that placental mammals are between 60 and 80 million years old and that the oldest four-limbed animal, or tetrapod, lived between 300 and 350 million years ago and the earliest chordates (animals with a notochord) appeared about 990 million years ago. Humans belong to each of these successively broader groups.
> 
> How far back can we go in this way? If we try to trace all life on our planet, we are constrained by the earth's age of 4.5 billion years. The oldest bacteria-like fossils are 3.5 billion years old, so this is the upper estimate for the age of life on the earth. The question is whether at some point before this date a last common ancestor for all forms of life, a "universal ancestor," existed. Over the past 30 years the underlying biochemical unity of all plants, animals and microbes has become increasingly apparent. All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other. It took more than two billion years for this earliest form of life to evolve into the first eukaryotic cell. This gave rise to the last common ancestor of plants, fungi and animals, which lived some 1.6 billion years ago.
> 
> The controversies surrounding biological evolution today reflect the fact that biologists were late in accepting evolutionary thinking. One reason for this is that significant modifications of living things are difficult to observe during a lifetime. Darwin never saw evolution taking place in nature and had to rely on evidence from fossils, as well as plant and animal breeding. His idea that the differences observed within a species are transformed in time into differences between species remained the most plausible theory of biodiversity in his time, but there was an awkward lack of direct observations of this process. Today this situation has changed. There are now a number of very striking accounts of evolution in nature, including exceptional work on the finches of the Galapagos Islands--the same animals that first inspired Darwin's work.
> 
> FURTHER READING:
> 
> 
> The Beak of the Finch : A Story of Evolution in Our Time (Vintage Books, 1995)
> 
> one more just for fun  3. "we are the strongest of our species" because we are the only extant creatures of our kind.
> you ignorant asshat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong that was just going from one creature you claim we are related to, the ape. If you use the argument that all organisms are related which you have to since all life origionated from one source, Your sides argument is DNA similarity proves ancestry. So we all came from the same genepool and according to evolutionist we are definitely in the ape genepool. Now actually the answer why these traits did not get passed on to humans or if the ape evoleved from us how did they end up with the superior traits why didn't they end up with brains like ours ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your issue is. You seem to have evolved the brain of an ape. So... you seem to have answered your own question.
Click to expand...

only if ywc was fucked up on some thing!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is different from Evolutionary thought how?
> 
> _"Historical sciences like Darwinian evolution and intelligent design rely on the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that *"the present is the key to the past."* Under this methodology, scientists study causes at work in the present-day world in order, as geologist Charles Lyell put it, to "explain the former changes of the Earth's surface by reference to *causes now in operation*."
> 
> Darwinian evolution applies this method by studying causes like mutation and selection in order to recognize their causal abilities and effects in the world at present. Darwinian scientists then try to explain the historical record in terms of those causes, seeking to recognize the known effects of mutation and selection in the historical record.
> 
> Intelligent design applies this same method by studying causes like intelligence in order to recognize its causal abilities and effects in the present-day world. ID theorists are interested in understanding the information-generative powers of intelligent agents. ID theorists then try to explain the historical record by including appeals to that cause, seeking to recognize the known effects of intelligent design in the historical record.
> 
> So whether you appeal to materialistic causes like mutation and selection, or non-material causes like intelligent design, you are using the same basic uniformitarian reasoning that is well-accepted in historical sciences."_
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsensical cut and paste.
> 
> Before cutting and pasting creationist babble, you should make an effort to understand the scientific method and the consensus it brings. The scientific method incorporates the rational study and analysis of data. ID creationism is simply an appeal to supernaturalism and partisan gods. Make an effort to understand rationality vs. mystical gods and superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really have no clue what you are talking about do you?  Your posts have become totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

really? your answer screams desperation and that is highly  relevant.......


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I don't understand about this thread:
> 
> 
> If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
> 1.) God's existence
> 2.) that God created the universe
> 3.) and that God created life or mankind
> 
> You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game.  The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It relies soley on faith.
> 
> Not unlike the faith you have in science.
Click to expand...

bullshit!

: Several people have written that they have thoroughly studied both creation and evolution and find that both are forms of faith in that they assume events that occurred before the time of man. They both have an element of trust needed to believe that either are correct or incorrect. Please comment.  

Panelist Responses: < back to intro page 


Francisco Ayala 

 First, the way in which the word "faith" is used by the person who poses the question is quite different in science and in religious beliefs. All scientific constructs or so-called theories are constructs of the mind. In that sense, we accept them just in terms of whatever evidence we can gather in their favor or against them. In the case of scientific theories, what we do is to formulate them in such a way that they can be used to make predictions about the states of affairs in the real world. And then we do confirm or corroborate the theories by making those observations or experiments that deal with predictions derived from the theories. 

So if we have a theory, which is a construct of the mind, and we are able to corroborate it or reject it by subjecting it to verification or corroboration, as I said, we're confronting it with observations or experiments that we make. Religious faith belongs to a completely different realm of knowledge. In the case of faith, we are accepting revelation or teachings that we do not expect to corroborate in an empirical way. We corroborate them or accept them in terms of the implications they may have, the effects they may have for our own personal life and the life of other individuals. 

But this is a very different kind of corroboration from what we do in science, where any experiment or observation made in favor or against a theory can, in turn, be confirmed or rejected by other individuals. That is, it is possible always to replicate the observations or to make alternate observations derived from the same theory. In the case of religious faith, we don't have this kind of experimental verification, the possibility of subjecting theories to verification by reproducible testing, the possibility of having other individuals doing the same observations for experiment.  


Robert Pollack 

 As a scientist I would argue that, as Ronald Reagan said famously about dealing with the Soviet Union, "trust but verify." It is necessary to trust in both cases, but in the case of science it is possible to verify what one trusts is so, by the accumulation of predictions tested by experiments which generate results predicted by the model. This notion that your faith can be buttressed by evidence is the difference between science as a human enterprise, a "faith," if you will, and other faiths, which depend on equally strong certainty emerging from within, but not testable by evidence.

Now within a religion, one may say the evidence is that which stands off from nature. So a miracle is, in a sense, evidence for faith. And the singular moment of creation instantaneously is, in fact, a miraculous event outside the laws of science as we understand them. So if one has the faith that that happened, it is indeed a valid faith, but it is not testable by science. That makes the faith of creation different from the evidence for natural selection and a single, natural origin of the universe and life within it.

The reasons for the emergence of the curiosity that generates evidence in science are similar, I think, to the reasons that allow the emergence of religious faith. That is, we are a species that must give meaning to our surroundings. But these -- science and religious faith -- are different tools that generate different results because they start from different premises. No serious religious person, I think, is a believer because of the proof they have from nature; they are believers because of the certainty they have in their hearts.  

Evolution: Religion: Science and Faith


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong that was just going from one creature you claim we are related to, the ape. If you use the argument that all organisms are related which you have to since all life origionated from one source, Your sides argument is DNA similarity proves ancestry. So we all came from the same genepool and according to evolutionist we are definitely in the ape genepool. Now actually the answer why these traits did not get passed on to humans or if the ape evoleved from us how did they end up with the superior traits why didn't they end up with brains like ours ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your issue is. You seem to have evolved the brain of an ape. So... you seem to have answered your own question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have evolved the brain of a man, or is it a woman, or a man, or a woman?
> 
> *By the way, Hoki, where did you and Lollie go to college?*
Click to expand...

then your (UR) brain must be damaged or genetically inferior because you keep asking the same totally irrelevant question.
maybe you have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder?
saying or doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is solid proof of mental illness...


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> This is what I don't understand about this thread:
> 
> 
> If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
> 1.) God's existence
> 2.) that God created the universe
> 3.) and that God created life or mankind
> 
> You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game.  The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.



Yes the bible alone prevents us in believing in this theory not to mention all the rational view on the evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you paint a more specific picture for me, of what you think should have happened? Try to describe exactly what traits you think humans should have, and how and why this would have come about. If you can't describe this, then don't put it down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Land speed
> 2. vision
> 3. sense of smell
> 4. strength
> 
> To name a few but this went with only one attempt and a poor attempt to explain why these traits did not get passed to humans. We can agree according to natural selection these are traits that would aid in survival of any group that possessed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need a reason for these traits to form and/or increase in quality. They will not simply develop because you think they are better. There is no objective mind here guiding this process, as far as the theory goes. You would need a selective pressure, whether it is natural selection, or sexual selection, or a combination of the two. If members of a species are able to survive with a given set of traits, and there is no pressure to increase the quality of those traits, then this is as evolved as the species will become, until a greater selective pressure arises, simply because those that survive are passing on their DNA. It is all about the passage of DNA to the next generation. Hence, why I asked, how do you propose these animals simply get faster, when the gene pool is dominated by individuals with genes encoding for traits that allow survival. Animals, including humans, can simply be seen as vehicles for passing on DNA. If that animal is fit enough to pass on its DNA, then that genetic information stays. You wouldn't expect cheetahs to simply get faster and faster because to you, being faster is better. The question is, are those that run at 60 mph surviving and passing on their DNA? If yes, then there is no pressure to make them increase their speed. By "pressure," i basically mean death to any that no longer fall within trait parameters that allow survival, and hence, the passage of DNA. It is all about the presence of the information held in the DNA. . There is no objective "fitness." It is all relatively to the organisms environment.  You are coming at this as if it a calculated by a mind, and this is because you are subconsciously harboring this notion as a presupposition, which is disallowing you to asses evolution on its own grounds. This is my guess, anyways, inferred form your expectations here about evolution.
Click to expand...


Traits that better allow an organism to adapt to pass on their traits.


natural selection
&#8194; 

noun 
the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations. 

Now do you understand why I ask the question ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I don't understand about this thread:
> 
> 
> If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
> 1.) God's existence
> 2.) that God created the universe
> 3.) and that God created life or mankind
> 
> You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game.  The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.
Click to expand...


Give us the miracle you believe that cause the beginning of life. I believe the creator did not use miracles like any other designer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in science? That's a silly, stereotypical creationist claim.
> 
> "Faith" It is not necessary requirement for science. Facts and evidence prove that a supermagical "designer" is not required for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers.  NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours.  I.D.er's have presented  no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally).  ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.
> 
> I have no "faith" in the naturalistic explanation of life. Natural explanations are all we have evidence of.  Should the complex formulas of calculus cause us to assume a supermagical designer of mathematics? Of course not. I have no "faith" in math. I have no "faith" in the science of chemistry or the science of medicine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes your faith in science.
> 
> Has science created a life form out of nothing? A life form that can and will evolve into several different species with very different and distinct attributes where some will develop reasoning and logic while other rely soley on instinct?  I didn't think so.
> 
> We all have the same facts but they are just being interpreted differently. The reason is because each side as their own axioms.
> 
> Unlike you , I don't need a scientific theory to explain natural phenomena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There is no requirement for faith in science.
> 
> Have your gods created a life form out of nothing? There is no reason to believe your claims to supermagicalism.
> 
> Your "I don't think so" claim regarding evolutionary processes is consistent with a religious claim that only through supermagical processes could life have magically popped into existence, however, in the grown-up world, "magic" is decidedly an unreliable explanation
Click to expand...


Purposeful design does not require miracles your theory does, get it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the shipwrecked mariner that had faith.
> His boat was taking on water and his bilge was not working right. He was alone and was close to get it to work but the water was coming in. He prayed about it.
> Another boat came by and offered to pick him up. He declined as he stated God was on his side and would help him fix the bilge. A charter boat came by and offered help with the same response. A helicopter saw him and he waved them off.
> The boat goes under and he drowns. After passing the pearly gates he meets God. "God, I prayed about it and my prayers went unanswered. I had faith in you, what happened?"
> "Not my fault son, I sent you 2 boats and a helicopter. What else could I have done?"
> Faith has nothing to do with science. Unplug your TV and see if power comes to it. Plug it back in and see it work.
> I know and believe you know better but you, as many other intelligent folks, are BLINDED by your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A made up story is supposed to convince me of what exactly?
> 
> 
> I know better?
> 
> Better than what?
> 
> You say I'm blinded by faith yet you know nothing of my faith or of me.
> 
> Psalm 118:8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better than your made up story that there is a man in the sky sitting on a gold throne with the streets lined with gold also.
> You are a stick in the mud Lonestar. Lighten up, that story was funny.
Click to expand...


Pathetic but typical response..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I don't understand about this thread:
> 
> 
> If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
> 1.) God's existence
> 2.) that God created the universe
> 3.) and that God created life or mankind
> 
> You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game.  The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the bible alone prevents us in believing in this theory not to mention all the rational view on the evidence.
Click to expand...

wrong! the bible  has no intrinsic power it's an inanimate (Definition of INANIMATE
1: not animate: a : not endowed with life or spirit <an inanimate object> b : lacking consciousness or power of motion <an inanimate body> 
object.
any actions or thoughts attributed to it are in them mind of the reader.
by definition a supernatural view of evidence is NOT rational.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I don't understand about this thread:
> 
> 
> If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
> 1.) God's existence
> 2.) that God created the universe
> 3.) and that God created life or mankind
> 
> You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game.  The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us the miracle you believe that cause the beginning of life. I believe the creator did not use miracles like any other designer.
Click to expand...

another false comparison ...

A miracle (Definition of MIRACLE
1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs )
assumes facts not in evidence  i.e. an intention.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes your faith in science.
> 
> Has science created a life form out of nothing? A life form that can and will evolve into several different species with very different and distinct attributes where some will develop reasoning and logic while other rely soley on instinct?  I didn't think so.
> 
> We all have the same facts but they are just being interpreted differently. The reason is because each side as their own axioms.
> 
> Unlike you , I don't need a scientific theory to explain natural phenomena.
> 
> 
> 
> No. There is no requirement for faith in science.
> 
> Have your gods created a life form out of nothing? There is no reason to believe your claims to supermagicalism.
> 
> Your "I don't think so" claim regarding evolutionary processes is consistent with a religious claim that only through supermagical processes could life have magically popped into existence, however, in the grown-up world, "magic" is decidedly an unreliable explanation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Purposeful design does not require miracles your theory does, get it ?
Click to expand...

again no proof of purpose or design.

get it?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for giving me this opportunity to highlight you ignorance and showcase reading comprehension disability...
> 
> 1.my statement: (humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
> making you first statement false.)
> the operative phrase (is ALL round use)
> here is a list of functions that our eyes have or do what other animals can't :
> 
> For one, humans have their eyes set closer together than many other animals, which gives us wonderful depth perception. In exchange, we lose some of our ability to have good peripheral vision
> 
> 
> Vision
> Normal human vision is 20/20. In comparison, dog vision is between 20/50 and 20/100, horses are at about 20/33, and cats are at 20/100. (However, these number can vary significantly, because it is quite difficult to measure animal vision.)
> 
> Visual Acuity
> Because animals have less visual acuity than humans, they do not perceive things as sharply as humans do. Their vision could be likened to watching a blurry Internet video as opposed to watching television.
> 
> 
> Color Vision
> Dogs perceive color almost like humans who are red-green colorblind. Both cats and dogs respond to blue and yellow best, and have trouble seeing shades of green and red. Cats perceive shades of red as black, and shades of green as white. To a cat, your front lawn looks like a textured bed sheet.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com How Does the Human Eye Compare to the Eyes of Other Animals? | eHow.com
> 
> just to name a few.
> 
> 
> 
> (Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.) either ywc is lying or it's that pesky reading comp problem.
> 
> my answer:"again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins."
> The convention is that humans have notoriously poor senses of smell compared to animals. Some scientists say that humans have lost 60% of their olfactory receptors over the process of evolution. (Wilson) However, this is as specious as the statement, Humans only use 10% of their brain. Humans have some commendable feats regarding the nose. Mice choose mates by smelling the difference in a certain gene. Humans can smell the difference between the mice strains using solely their sense of smell. (Gilbert) Dog owners can identify which blanket their pet slept compared to other dogs. Humans can also discern what kind of wood a popsicle stick is made of by just smelling the ice cream it was sitting in (of course, they also could refer to original samples of wood). They can also follow a chocolate trail with smell when their other senses are inhibited, but when smell is inhibited they cannot follow it at all. Furthermore, when humans are trained to follow scent trails, their tracking speed increases greatly. Also, humans and dogs have the same sensitivity to the smell that we use to track cocaine. (Gilbert)
> 
> Macrosmatic means with a good sense of smell and microsmatic means with a poor sense of smell. Conventionally, scientists judge a species' ability to smell by the internal surface area of the nasal cavity, but that has no effect on the amount of sensory tissue in the nose or the number of olfactory nerve cells in a certain area. We have in fact discovered that humans and animals have somewhat equivalent senses of smell.
> 
> http://appsychtextbk.wikispaces.com/Animal+vs.+Human+Smell
> 
> so again proving wyc..ignorant.
> 
> what  relatives other than primates are you failing to alude to. ?
> 
> 
> 
> How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? ::Ask the Experts::October 23, 2000::2 Comments::Email:rint.How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all?
> 
> 
> humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and their extinct ancestors form a family of organisms known as the Hominidae. Researchers generally agree that among the living animals in this group, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, judging from comparisons of anatomy and genetics.
> 
> If life is the result of "descent with modification," as Charles Darwin put it, we can try to represent its history as a kind of family tree derived from these morphological and genetic characteristics. The tips of such a tree show organisms that are alive today. The nodes of the tree denote the common ancestors of all the tips connected to that node. Biologists refer to such nodes as the last common ancestor of a group of organisms, and all tips that connect to a particular node form a clade. In the diagram of the Hominidae at right, the clade designated by node 2 includes gorillas, humans and chimps. Within that clade the animal with which humans share the most recent common ancestor is the chimpanzee.
> 
> 
> 
> Source: COURTESY OF BERNHARD HAUBOLD
> FAMILY TREE of the Hominidae shows that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives.
> 
> There are two major classes of evidence that allow us to estimate how old a particular clade is: fossil data and comparative data from living organisms. Fossils are conceptually easy to interpret. Once the age of the fossil is determined (using radiocarbon or thermoluminescence dating techniques, for example), we then know that an ancestor of the organism in question existed at least that long ago. There are, however, few good fossils available compared with the vast biodiversity around us. Thus, researchers also consider comparative data. We all know that siblings are more similar to each other than are cousins, which reflects the fact that siblings have a more recent common ancestor (parents) than do cousins (grandparents). Analogously, the greater similarity between humans and chimps than between humans and plants is taken as evidence that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps is far more recent than the last common ancestor of humans and plants. Similarity, in this context, refers to morphological features such as eyes and skeletal structure.
> 
> One problem with morphological data is that it is sometimes difficult to interpret. For example, ascertaining which similarities resulted from common ancestry and which resulted from convergent evolution can, on occasion, prove tricky. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to obtain time estimates from these data. So despite analyses of anatomy, the evolutionary relationships among many groups of organisms remained unclear due to lack of suitable data.
> 
> This changed in the 1950s and 1960s when protein sequence data and DNA sequence data, respectively, became available. The sequences of a protein (say, hemoglobin) from two organisms can be compared and the number of positions where the two sequences differ counted. It was soon learned from such studies that for a given protein, the number of amino acid substitutions per year could--as a first approximation--be treated as constant. This discovery became known as the "molecular clock." If the clock is calibrated using fossil data or data on continental drift, then the ages of various groups of organisms can theoretically be calculated based on comparisons of their sequences.
> 
> Using such reasoning, it has been estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (with whom we share 99 percent of our genes) lived five million years ago. Going back a little farther, the Hominidae clade is 13 million years old. If we continue farther back in time, we find that placental mammals are between 60 and 80 million years old and that the oldest four-limbed animal, or tetrapod, lived between 300 and 350 million years ago and the earliest chordates (animals with a notochord) appeared about 990 million years ago. Humans belong to each of these successively broader groups.
> 
> How far back can we go in this way? If we try to trace all life on our planet, we are constrained by the earth's age of 4.5 billion years. The oldest bacteria-like fossils are 3.5 billion years old, so this is the upper estimate for the age of life on the earth. The question is whether at some point before this date a last common ancestor for all forms of life, a "universal ancestor," existed. Over the past 30 years the underlying biochemical unity of all plants, animals and microbes has become increasingly apparent. All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other. It took more than two billion years for this earliest form of life to evolve into the first eukaryotic cell. This gave rise to the last common ancestor of plants, fungi and animals, which lived some 1.6 billion years ago.
> 
> The controversies surrounding biological evolution today reflect the fact that biologists were late in accepting evolutionary thinking. One reason for this is that significant modifications of living things are difficult to observe during a lifetime. Darwin never saw evolution taking place in nature and had to rely on evidence from fossils, as well as plant and animal breeding. His idea that the differences observed within a species are transformed in time into differences between species remained the most plausible theory of biodiversity in his time, but there was an awkward lack of direct observations of this process. Today this situation has changed. There are now a number of very striking accounts of evolution in nature, including exceptional work on the finches of the Galapagos Islands--the same animals that first inspired Darwin's work.
> 
> FURTHER READING:
> 
> 
> The Beak of the Finch : A Story of Evolution in Our Time (Vintage Books, 1995)
> 
> one more just for fun  3. "we are the strongest of our species" because we are the only extant creatures of our kind.
> you ignorant asshat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong that was just going from one creature you claim we are related to, the ape. If you use the argument that all organisms are related which you have to since all life origionated from one source, Your sides argument is DNA similarity proves ancestry. So we all came from the same genepool and according to evolutionist we are definitely in the ape genepool. Now actually the answer why these traits did not get passed on to humans or if the ape evoleved from us how did they end up with the superior traits why didn't they end up with brains like ours ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> could you possibly rewrite this post in english and not when you are drunk or on your meds ?
> 
> 1.apes did not evolve FROM US  you asshat!
> we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
> once again your willful ignorance shines.
> 
> Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge
> ScienceDaily (Nov. 17, 2006)  Six million years ago, chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor and evolved into unique species. Now UCLA scientists have identified a new way to pinpoint the genes that separate us from our closest living relative -- and make us uniquely human. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports the study in its Nov. 13 online edition.
> 
> 
> "We share more than 95 percent of our genetic blueprint with chimps," explained Dr. Daniel Geschwind, principal investigator and Gordon and Virginia MacDonald Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine. "What sets us apart from chimps are our brains: homo sapiens means 'the knowing man.'
> 
> "During evolution, changes in some genes altered how the human brain functions," he added. "Our research has identified an entirely new way to identify those genes in the small portion of our DNA that differs from the chimpanzee's."
> 
> By evaluating the correlated activity of thousands of genes, the UCLA team identified not just individual genes, but entire networks of interconnected genes whose expression patterns within the brains of humans varied from those in the chimpanzee.
> 
> "Genes don't operate in isolation -- each functions within a system of related genes," said first author Michael Oldham, UCLA genetics researcher. "If we examined each gene individually, it would be similar to reading every fifth word in a paragraph -- you don't get to see how each word relates to the other. So instead we used a systems biology approach to study each gene within its context."
> 
> The scientists identified networks of genes that correspond to specific brain regions. When they compared these networks between humans and chimps, they found that the gene networks differed the most widely in the cerebral cortex -- the brain's most highly evolved region, which is three times larger in humans than chimps.
> 
> Secondly, the researchers discovered that many of the genes that play a central role in cerebral cortex networks in humans, but not in the chimpanzee, also show significant changes at the DNA level.
> 
> "When we see alterations in a gene network that correspond to functional changes in the genome, it implies that these differences are very meaningful," said Oldham. "This finding supports the theory that variations in the DNA sequence contributed to human evolution."
> 
> Relying on a new analytical approach developed by corresponding author Steve Horvath, UCLA associate professor of human genetics and biostatistics, the UCLA team used data from DNA microarrays -- vast collections of tiny DNA spots -- to map the activity of virtually every gene in the genome simultaneously. By comparing gene activity in different areas of the brain, the team identified gene networks that correlated to specific brain regions. Then they compared the strength of these correlations between humans and chimps.
> 
> Many of the human-specific gene networks identified by the scientists related to learning, brain cell activity and energy metabolism.
> 
> "If you view the brain as the body's engine, our findings suggest that the human brain fires like a 12-cylinder engine, while the chimp brain works more like a 6-cylinder engine," explained Geschwind. "It's possible that our genes adapted to allow our brains to increase in size, operate at different speeds, metabolize energy faster and enhance connections between brain cells across different brain regions."
> 
> Future UCLA studies will focus on linking the expression of evolutionary genes to specific regions of the brain, such as those that regulate language, speech and other uniquely human abilities.
> 
> The study was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the National Institute of Mental Health.
> 
> Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge
> 
> 
> origin and related don't mean what you wish them to mean.
Click to expand...


More conjecture 

Are we realated to apes ?did apes come before humans? who evolved from who ? why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It relies soley on faith.
> 
> Not unlike the faith you have in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> : Several people have written that they have thoroughly studied both creation and evolution and find that both are forms of faith in that they assume events that occurred before the time of man. They both have an element of trust needed to believe that either are correct or incorrect. Please comment.
> 
> Panelist Responses: < back to intro page
> 
> 
> Francisco Ayala
> 
> First, the way in which the word "faith" is used by the person who poses the question is quite different in science and in religious beliefs. All scientific constructs or so-called theories are constructs of the mind. In that sense, we accept them just in terms of whatever evidence we can gather in their favor or against them. In the case of scientific theories, what we do is to formulate them in such a way that they can be used to make predictions about the states of affairs in the real world. And then we do confirm or corroborate the theories by making those observations or experiments that deal with predictions derived from the theories.
> 
> So if we have a theory, which is a construct of the mind, and we are able to corroborate it or reject it by subjecting it to verification or corroboration, as I said, we're confronting it with observations or experiments that we make. Religious faith belongs to a completely different realm of knowledge. In the case of faith, we are accepting revelation or teachings that we do not expect to corroborate in an empirical way. We corroborate them or accept them in terms of the implications they may have, the effects they may have for our own personal life and the life of other individuals.
> 
> But this is a very different kind of corroboration from what we do in science, where any experiment or observation made in favor or against a theory can, in turn, be confirmed or rejected by other individuals. That is, it is possible always to replicate the observations or to make alternate observations derived from the same theory. In the case of religious faith, we don't have this kind of experimental verification, the possibility of subjecting theories to verification by reproducible testing, the possibility of having other individuals doing the same observations for experiment.
> 
> 
> Robert Pollack
> 
> As a scientist I would argue that, as Ronald Reagan said famously about dealing with the Soviet Union, "trust but verify." It is necessary to trust in both cases, but in the case of science it is possible to verify what one trusts is so, by the accumulation of predictions tested by experiments which generate results predicted by the model. This notion that your faith can be buttressed by evidence is the difference between science as a human enterprise, a "faith," if you will, and other faiths, which depend on equally strong certainty emerging from within, but not testable by evidence.
> 
> Now within a religion, one may say the evidence is that which stands off from nature. So a miracle is, in a sense, evidence for faith. And the singular moment of creation instantaneously is, in fact, a miraculous event outside the laws of science as we understand them. So if one has the faith that that happened, it is indeed a valid faith, but it is not testable by science. That makes the faith of creation different from the evidence for natural selection and a single, natural origin of the universe and life within it.
> 
> The reasons for the emergence of the curiosity that generates evidence in science are similar, I think, to the reasons that allow the emergence of religious faith. That is, we are a species that must give meaning to our surroundings. But these -- science and religious faith -- are different tools that generate different results because they start from different premises. No serious religious person, I think, is a believer because of the proof they have from nature; they are believers because of the certainty they have in their hearts.
> 
> Evolution: Religion: Science and Faith
Click to expand...


Reading comprehension is your friend.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It relies soley on faith.
> 
> Not unlike the faith you have in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> : Several people have written that they have thoroughly studied both creation and evolution and find that both are forms of faith in that they assume events that occurred before the time of man. They both have an element of trust needed to believe that either are correct or incorrect. Please comment.
> 
> Panelist Responses: < back to intro page
> 
> 
> Francisco Ayala
> 
> First, the way in which the word "faith" is used by the person who poses the question is quite different in science and in religious beliefs. All scientific constructs or so-called theories are constructs of the mind. In that sense, we accept them just in terms of whatever evidence we can gather in their favor or against them. In the case of scientific theories, what we do is to formulate them in such a way that they can be used to make predictions about the states of affairs in the real world. And then we do confirm or corroborate the theories by making those observations or experiments that deal with predictions derived from the theories.
> 
> So if we have a theory, which is a construct of the mind, and we are able to corroborate it or reject it by subjecting it to verification or corroboration, as I said, we're confronting it with observations or experiments that we make. Religious faith belongs to a completely different realm of knowledge. In the case of faith, we are accepting revelation or teachings that we do not expect to corroborate in an empirical way. We corroborate them or accept them in terms of the implications they may have, the effects they may have for our own personal life and the life of other individuals.
> 
> But this is a very different kind of corroboration from what we do in science, where any experiment or observation made in favor or against a theory can, in turn, be confirmed or rejected by other individuals. That is, it is possible always to replicate the observations or to make alternate observations derived from the same theory. In the case of religious faith, we don't have this kind of experimental verification, the possibility of subjecting theories to verification by reproducible testing, the possibility of having other individuals doing the same observations for experiment.
> 
> 
> Robert Pollack
> 
> As a scientist I would argue that, as Ronald Reagan said famously about dealing with the Soviet Union, "trust but verify." It is necessary to trust in both cases, but in the case of science it is possible to verify what one trusts is so, by the accumulation of predictions tested by experiments which generate results predicted by the model. This notion that your faith can be buttressed by evidence is the difference between science as a human enterprise, a "faith," if you will, and other faiths, which depend on equally strong certainty emerging from within, but not testable by evidence.
> 
> Now within a religion, one may say the evidence is that which stands off from nature. So a miracle is, in a sense, evidence for faith. And the singular moment of creation instantaneously is, in fact, a miraculous event outside the laws of science as we understand them. So if one has the faith that that happened, it is indeed a valid faith, but it is not testable by science. That makes the faith of creation different from the evidence for natural selection and a single, natural origin of the universe and life within it.
> 
> The reasons for the emergence of the curiosity that generates evidence in science are similar, I think, to the reasons that allow the emergence of religious faith. That is, we are a species that must give meaning to our surroundings. But these -- science and religious faith -- are different tools that generate different results because they start from different premises. No serious religious person, I think, is a believer because of the proof they have from nature; they are believers because of the certainty they have in their hearts.
> 
> Evolution: Religion: Science and Faith
Click to expand...


Nope,design is not achieved by miracles it is achieved by purposefl design. If you believe as you do you had to rely on miracles that can't be duplicated in the labs around the world. Even if the labs achieve it was done by intelligence and purposeful design.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I don't understand about this thread:
> 
> 
> If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
> 1.) God's existence
> 2.) that God created the universe
> 3.) and that God created life or mankind
> 
> You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game.  The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the bible alone prevents us in believing in this theory not to mention all the rational view on the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong! the bible  has no intrinsic power it's an inanimate (Definition of INANIMATE
> 1: not animate: a : not endowed with life or spirit <an inanimate object> b : lacking consciousness or power of motion <an inanimate body>
> object.
> any actions or thoughts attributed to it are in them mind of the reader.
> by definition a supernatural view of evidence is NOT rational.
Click to expand...


I believe what the scriptures say.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give us the miracle you believe that cause the beginning of life. I believe the creator did not use miracles like any other designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false comparison ...
> 
> A miracle (Definition of MIRACLE
> 1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs )
> assumes facts not in evidence  i.e. an intention.
Click to expand...


Dodge!

So the persons that designed cars or medicine used miracles ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong that was just going from one creature you claim we are related to, the ape. If you use the argument that all organisms are related which you have to since all life origionated from one source, Your sides argument is DNA similarity proves ancestry. So we all came from the same genepool and according to evolutionist we are definitely in the ape genepool. Now actually the answer why these traits did not get passed on to humans or if the ape evoleved from us how did they end up with the superior traits why didn't they end up with brains like ours ?
> 
> 
> 
> could you possibly rewrite this post in english and not when you are drunk or on your meds ?
> 
> 1.apes did not evolve FROM US  you asshat!
> we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
> once again your willful ignorance shines.
> 
> Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge
> ScienceDaily (Nov. 17, 2006)  Six million years ago, chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor and evolved into unique species. Now UCLA scientists have identified a new way to pinpoint the genes that separate us from our closest living relative -- and make us uniquely human. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports the study in its Nov. 13 online edition.
> 
> 
> "We share more than 95 percent of our genetic blueprint with chimps," explained Dr. Daniel Geschwind, principal investigator and Gordon and Virginia MacDonald Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine. "What sets us apart from chimps are our brains: homo sapiens means 'the knowing man.'
> 
> "During evolution, changes in some genes altered how the human brain functions," he added. "Our research has identified an entirely new way to identify those genes in the small portion of our DNA that differs from the chimpanzee's."
> 
> By evaluating the correlated activity of thousands of genes, the UCLA team identified not just individual genes, but entire networks of interconnected genes whose expression patterns within the brains of humans varied from those in the chimpanzee.
> 
> "Genes don't operate in isolation -- each functions within a system of related genes," said first author Michael Oldham, UCLA genetics researcher. "If we examined each gene individually, it would be similar to reading every fifth word in a paragraph -- you don't get to see how each word relates to the other. So instead we used a systems biology approach to study each gene within its context."
> 
> The scientists identified networks of genes that correspond to specific brain regions. When they compared these networks between humans and chimps, they found that the gene networks differed the most widely in the cerebral cortex -- the brain's most highly evolved region, which is three times larger in humans than chimps.
> 
> Secondly, the researchers discovered that many of the genes that play a central role in cerebral cortex networks in humans, but not in the chimpanzee, also show significant changes at the DNA level.
> 
> "When we see alterations in a gene network that correspond to functional changes in the genome, it implies that these differences are very meaningful," said Oldham. "This finding supports the theory that variations in the DNA sequence contributed to human evolution."
> 
> Relying on a new analytical approach developed by corresponding author Steve Horvath, UCLA associate professor of human genetics and biostatistics, the UCLA team used data from DNA microarrays -- vast collections of tiny DNA spots -- to map the activity of virtually every gene in the genome simultaneously. By comparing gene activity in different areas of the brain, the team identified gene networks that correlated to specific brain regions. Then they compared the strength of these correlations between humans and chimps.
> 
> Many of the human-specific gene networks identified by the scientists related to learning, brain cell activity and energy metabolism.
> 
> "If you view the brain as the body's engine, our findings suggest that the human brain fires like a 12-cylinder engine, while the chimp brain works more like a 6-cylinder engine," explained Geschwind. "It's possible that our genes adapted to allow our brains to increase in size, operate at different speeds, metabolize energy faster and enhance connections between brain cells across different brain regions."
> 
> Future UCLA studies will focus on linking the expression of evolutionary genes to specific regions of the brain, such as those that regulate language, speech and other uniquely human abilities.
> 
> The study was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the National Institute of Mental Health.
> 
> Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge
> 
> 
> origin and related don't mean what you wish them to mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More conjecture
> 
> Are we realated to apes ?did apes come before humans? who evolved from who ? why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?
Click to expand...

asked and answerd asshat:apes did not evolve FROM US  you asshat!
we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths) 
once again your willful ignorance shines.


why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?YWC 

separate evolutionary paths
apes do not have Superior survival traits then humans, they have just the traits needed to survive and reproduce nothing more.
the same is true of humans.
different evolutionary paths  different dominate traits.
as always you're comparing apples to screwdrivers


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It relies soley on faith.
> 
> Not unlike the faith you have in science.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> : Several people have written that they have thoroughly studied both creation and evolution and find that both are forms of faith in that they assume events that occurred before the time of man. They both have an element of trust needed to believe that either are correct or incorrect. Please comment.
> 
> Panelist Responses: < back to intro page
> 
> 
> Francisco Ayala
> 
> First, the way in which the word "faith" is used by the person who poses the question is quite different in science and in religious beliefs. All scientific constructs or so-called theories are constructs of the mind. In that sense, we accept them just in terms of whatever evidence we can gather in their favor or against them. In the case of scientific theories, what we do is to formulate them in such a way that they can be used to make predictions about the states of affairs in the real world. And then we do confirm or corroborate the theories by making those observations or experiments that deal with predictions derived from the theories.
> 
> So if we have a theory, which is a construct of the mind, and we are able to corroborate it or reject it by subjecting it to verification or corroboration, as I said, we're confronting it with observations or experiments that we make. Religious faith belongs to a completely different realm of knowledge. In the case of faith, we are accepting revelation or teachings that we do not expect to corroborate in an empirical way. We corroborate them or accept them in terms of the implications they may have, the effects they may have for our own personal life and the life of other individuals.
> 
> But this is a very different kind of corroboration from what we do in science, where any experiment or observation made in favor or against a theory can, in turn, be confirmed or rejected by other individuals. That is, it is possible always to replicate the observations or to make alternate observations derived from the same theory. In the case of religious faith, we don't have this kind of experimental verification, the possibility of subjecting theories to verification by reproducible testing, the possibility of having other individuals doing the same observations for experiment.
> 
> 
> Robert Pollack
> 
> As a scientist I would argue that, as Ronald Reagan said famously about dealing with the Soviet Union, "trust but verify." It is necessary to trust in both cases, but in the case of science it is possible to verify what one trusts is so, by the accumulation of predictions tested by experiments which generate results predicted by the model. This notion that your faith can be buttressed by evidence is the difference between science as a human enterprise, a "faith," if you will, and other faiths, which depend on equally strong certainty emerging from within, but not testable by evidence.
> 
> Now within a religion, one may say the evidence is that which stands off from nature. So a miracle is, in a sense, evidence for faith. And the singular moment of creation instantaneously is, in fact, a miraculous event outside the laws of science as we understand them. So if one has the faith that that happened, it is indeed a valid faith, but it is not testable by science. That makes the faith of creation different from the evidence for natural selection and a single, natural origin of the universe and life within it.
> 
> The reasons for the emergence of the curiosity that generates evidence in science are similar, I think, to the reasons that allow the emergence of religious faith. That is, we are a species that must give meaning to our surroundings. But these -- science and religious faith -- are different tools that generate different results because they start from different premises. No serious religious person, I think, is a believer because of the proof they have from nature; they are believers because of the certainty they have in their hearts.
> 
> Evolution: Religion: Science and Faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension is your friend.
Click to expand...

true! you should take a course in it!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It relies soley on faith.
> 
> Not unlike the faith you have in science.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> : Several people have written that they have thoroughly studied both creation and evolution and find that both are forms of faith in that they assume events that occurred before the time of man. They both have an element of trust needed to believe that either are correct or incorrect. Please comment.
> 
> Panelist Responses: < back to intro page
> 
> 
> Francisco Ayala
> 
> First, the way in which the word "faith" is used by the person who poses the question is quite different in science and in religious beliefs. All scientific constructs or so-called theories are constructs of the mind. In that sense, we accept them just in terms of whatever evidence we can gather in their favor or against them. In the case of scientific theories, what we do is to formulate them in such a way that they can be used to make predictions about the states of affairs in the real world. And then we do confirm or corroborate the theories by making those observations or experiments that deal with predictions derived from the theories.
> 
> So if we have a theory, which is a construct of the mind, and we are able to corroborate it or reject it by subjecting it to verification or corroboration, as I said, we're confronting it with observations or experiments that we make. Religious faith belongs to a completely different realm of knowledge. In the case of faith, we are accepting revelation or teachings that we do not expect to corroborate in an empirical way. We corroborate them or accept them in terms of the implications they may have, the effects they may have for our own personal life and the life of other individuals.
> 
> But this is a very different kind of corroboration from what we do in science, where any experiment or observation made in favor or against a theory can, in turn, be confirmed or rejected by other individuals. That is, it is possible always to replicate the observations or to make alternate observations derived from the same theory. In the case of religious faith, we don't have this kind of experimental verification, the possibility of subjecting theories to verification by reproducible testing, the possibility of having other individuals doing the same observations for experiment.
> 
> 
> Robert Pollack
> 
> As a scientist I would argue that, as Ronald Reagan said famously about dealing with the Soviet Union, "trust but verify." It is necessary to trust in both cases, but in the case of science it is possible to verify what one trusts is so, by the accumulation of predictions tested by experiments which generate results predicted by the model. This notion that your faith can be buttressed by evidence is the difference between science as a human enterprise, a "faith," if you will, and other faiths, which depend on equally strong certainty emerging from within, but not testable by evidence.
> 
> Now within a religion, one may say the evidence is that which stands off from nature. So a miracle is, in a sense, evidence for faith. And the singular moment of creation instantaneously is, in fact, a miraculous event outside the laws of science as we understand them. So if one has the faith that that happened, it is indeed a valid faith, but it is not testable by science. That makes the faith of creation different from the evidence for natural selection and a single, natural origin of the universe and life within it.
> 
> The reasons for the emergence of the curiosity that generates evidence in science are similar, I think, to the reasons that allow the emergence of religious faith. That is, we are a species that must give meaning to our surroundings. But these -- science and religious faith -- are different tools that generate different results because they start from different premises. No serious religious person, I think, is a believer because of the proof they have from nature; they are believers because of the certainty they have in their hearts.
> 
> Evolution: Religion: Science and Faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope,design is not achieved by miracles it is achieved by purposefl design. If you believe as you do you had to rely on miracles that can't be duplicated in the labs around the world. Even if the labs achieve it was done by intelligence and purposeful design.
Click to expand...


nope what?  another false comparison ...

A miracle (Definition of MIRACLE
1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs )
assumes facts not in evidence i.e. an intention.  
Today 12:39 PM


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I don't understand about this thread:
> 
> 
> If you were hypothetically able to completely debunk evolution or the big bang theory, that would not do anything to prove
> 1.) God's existence
> 2.) that God created the universe
> 3.) and that God created life or mankind
> 
> You still need to actually prove these positive claims yourself. The tactic here seems to be that for any point won against evolution, is a point for creationism. But this is epistemically incoherent. This is not a zero sum game.  The assumption with creationists is that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, and that by debunking one, you prove the other. Logic 101 says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us the miracle you believe that cause the beginning of life. I believe the creator did not use miracles like any other designer.
Click to expand...

There is no reason to believe a "miracle" was required for life to begin. As usual, you dodge and sidestep the functional reality that "miracles" are of myth and legend. 

You dwell in this fantasy world of miracles, supernaturalism, designer gods surrounded by fat, naked babies playing harps and winged horses pulling chariots, cruising through the clouds. These are the takes and fables you were taught as a child and you believe them still.

It's interesting to note that had you been raised in a different culture, you would have simply accepted the tales and fables of that predominant society. Had you been raised in the Islamic Middle East, I can easily envision you being one of the many clones spilling out of a madrassah on a mission for muhammud. 

This "creator" you posit is a mere recycled version of many earlier "creators", " designer gods" and mythical figures. Get to the back of the line with your gods. Scoot!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. There is no requirement for faith in science.
> 
> Have your gods created a life form out of nothing? There is no reason to believe your claims to supermagicalism.
> 
> Your "I don't think so" claim regarding evolutionary processes is consistent with a religious claim that only through supermagical processes could life have magically popped into existence, however, in the grown-up world, "magic" is decidedly an unreliable explanation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Purposeful design does not require miracles your theory does, get it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again no proof of purpose or design.
> 
> get it?
Click to expand...


There is plenty of evidence of purposeful design.

Can you imagine life absent of any of these.

1.DNA
2. Amino acids
3. Proteins
4. Heart
5. Lungs
6. Blood
7. Veins
8. Bones
9. Liver
10. Red an White blood cells
11. A nervous system
12. A brain that runs the nervous system
13. Oxygen
14. Water

Yes if you hold on to your views you believe in miracles.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the bible alone prevents us in believing in this theory not to mention all the rational view on the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! the bible  has no intrinsic power it's an inanimate (Definition of INANIMATE
> 1: not animate: a : not endowed with life or spirit <an inanimate object> b : lacking consciousness or power of motion <an inanimate body>
> object.
> any actions or thoughts attributed to it are in them mind of the reader.
> by definition a supernatural view of evidence is NOT rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe what the scriptures say.
Click to expand...

 that's no proof and a shitty argument.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> could you possibly rewrite this post in english and not when you are drunk or on your meds ?
> 
> 1.apes did not evolve FROM US  you asshat!
> we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
> once again your willful ignorance shines.
> 
> Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge
> ScienceDaily (Nov. 17, 2006)  Six million years ago, chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor and evolved into unique species. Now UCLA scientists have identified a new way to pinpoint the genes that separate us from our closest living relative -- and make us uniquely human. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports the study in its Nov. 13 online edition.
> 
> 
> "We share more than 95 percent of our genetic blueprint with chimps," explained Dr. Daniel Geschwind, principal investigator and Gordon and Virginia MacDonald Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine. "What sets us apart from chimps are our brains: homo sapiens means 'the knowing man.'
> 
> "During evolution, changes in some genes altered how the human brain functions," he added. "Our research has identified an entirely new way to identify those genes in the small portion of our DNA that differs from the chimpanzee's."
> 
> By evaluating the correlated activity of thousands of genes, the UCLA team identified not just individual genes, but entire networks of interconnected genes whose expression patterns within the brains of humans varied from those in the chimpanzee.
> 
> "Genes don't operate in isolation -- each functions within a system of related genes," said first author Michael Oldham, UCLA genetics researcher. "If we examined each gene individually, it would be similar to reading every fifth word in a paragraph -- you don't get to see how each word relates to the other. So instead we used a systems biology approach to study each gene within its context."
> 
> The scientists identified networks of genes that correspond to specific brain regions. When they compared these networks between humans and chimps, they found that the gene networks differed the most widely in the cerebral cortex -- the brain's most highly evolved region, which is three times larger in humans than chimps.
> 
> Secondly, the researchers discovered that many of the genes that play a central role in cerebral cortex networks in humans, but not in the chimpanzee, also show significant changes at the DNA level.
> 
> "When we see alterations in a gene network that correspond to functional changes in the genome, it implies that these differences are very meaningful," said Oldham. "This finding supports the theory that variations in the DNA sequence contributed to human evolution."
> 
> Relying on a new analytical approach developed by corresponding author Steve Horvath, UCLA associate professor of human genetics and biostatistics, the UCLA team used data from DNA microarrays -- vast collections of tiny DNA spots -- to map the activity of virtually every gene in the genome simultaneously. By comparing gene activity in different areas of the brain, the team identified gene networks that correlated to specific brain regions. Then they compared the strength of these correlations between humans and chimps.
> 
> Many of the human-specific gene networks identified by the scientists related to learning, brain cell activity and energy metabolism.
> 
> "If you view the brain as the body's engine, our findings suggest that the human brain fires like a 12-cylinder engine, while the chimp brain works more like a 6-cylinder engine," explained Geschwind. "It's possible that our genes adapted to allow our brains to increase in size, operate at different speeds, metabolize energy faster and enhance connections between brain cells across different brain regions."
> 
> Future UCLA studies will focus on linking the expression of evolutionary genes to specific regions of the brain, such as those that regulate language, speech and other uniquely human abilities.
> 
> The study was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the National Institute of Mental Health.
> 
> Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge
> 
> 
> origin and related don't mean what you wish them to mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More conjecture
> 
> Are we realated to apes ?did apes come before humans? who evolved from who ? why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answerd asshat:apes did not evolve FROM US  you asshat!
> we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
> once again your willful ignorance shines.
> 
> 
> why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?YWC
> 
> separate evolutionary paths
> apes do not have Superior survival traits then humans, they have just the traits needed to survive and reproduce nothing more.
> the same is true of humans.
> different evolutionary paths  different dominate traits.
> as always you're comparing apples to screwdrivers
Click to expand...


Talk about ignorance,if we share a common ancestor we share common traits.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> could you possibly rewrite this post in english and not when you are drunk or on your meds ?
> 
> 1.apes did not evolve FROM US  you asshat!
> we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
> once again your willful ignorance shines.
> 
> Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge
> ScienceDaily (Nov. 17, 2006)  Six million years ago, chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor and evolved into unique species. Now UCLA scientists have identified a new way to pinpoint the genes that separate us from our closest living relative -- and make us uniquely human. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports the study in its Nov. 13 online edition.
> 
> 
> "We share more than 95 percent of our genetic blueprint with chimps," explained Dr. Daniel Geschwind, principal investigator and Gordon and Virginia MacDonald Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine. "What sets us apart from chimps are our brains: homo sapiens means 'the knowing man.'
> 
> "During evolution, changes in some genes altered how the human brain functions," he added. "Our research has identified an entirely new way to identify those genes in the small portion of our DNA that differs from the chimpanzee's."
> 
> By evaluating the correlated activity of thousands of genes, the UCLA team identified not just individual genes, but entire networks of interconnected genes whose expression patterns within the brains of humans varied from those in the chimpanzee.
> 
> "Genes don't operate in isolation -- each functions within a system of related genes," said first author Michael Oldham, UCLA genetics researcher. "If we examined each gene individually, it would be similar to reading every fifth word in a paragraph -- you don't get to see how each word relates to the other. So instead we used a systems biology approach to study each gene within its context."
> 
> The scientists identified networks of genes that correspond to specific brain regions. When they compared these networks between humans and chimps, they found that the gene networks differed the most widely in the cerebral cortex -- the brain's most highly evolved region, which is three times larger in humans than chimps.
> 
> Secondly, the researchers discovered that many of the genes that play a central role in cerebral cortex networks in humans, but not in the chimpanzee, also show significant changes at the DNA level.
> 
> "When we see alterations in a gene network that correspond to functional changes in the genome, it implies that these differences are very meaningful," said Oldham. "This finding supports the theory that variations in the DNA sequence contributed to human evolution."
> 
> Relying on a new analytical approach developed by corresponding author Steve Horvath, UCLA associate professor of human genetics and biostatistics, the UCLA team used data from DNA microarrays -- vast collections of tiny DNA spots -- to map the activity of virtually every gene in the genome simultaneously. By comparing gene activity in different areas of the brain, the team identified gene networks that correlated to specific brain regions. Then they compared the strength of these correlations between humans and chimps.
> 
> Many of the human-specific gene networks identified by the scientists related to learning, brain cell activity and energy metabolism.
> 
> "If you view the brain as the body's engine, our findings suggest that the human brain fires like a 12-cylinder engine, while the chimp brain works more like a 6-cylinder engine," explained Geschwind. "It's possible that our genes adapted to allow our brains to increase in size, operate at different speeds, metabolize energy faster and enhance connections between brain cells across different brain regions."
> 
> Future UCLA studies will focus on linking the expression of evolutionary genes to specific regions of the brain, such as those that regulate language, speech and other uniquely human abilities.
> 
> The study was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the National Institute of Mental Health.
> 
> Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge
> 
> 
> origin and related don't mean what you wish them to mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More conjecture
> 
> Are we realated to apes ?did apes come before humans? who evolved from who ? why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answerd asshat:apes did not evolve FROM US  you asshat!
> we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
> once again your willful ignorance shines.
> 
> 
> why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?YWC
> 
> separate evolutionary paths
> apes do not have Superior survival traits then humans, they have just the traits needed to survive and reproduce nothing more.
> the same is true of humans.
> different evolutionary paths  different dominate traits.
> as always you're comparing apples to screwdrivers
Click to expand...


What is most troubling about fundies such as ywc are his calculated and purposeful lies about accepted evolutionary science.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give us the miracle you believe that cause the beginning of life. I believe the creator did not use miracles like any other designer.
> 
> 
> 
> another false comparison ...
> 
> A miracle (Definition of MIRACLE
> 1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs )
> assumes facts not in evidence  i.e. an intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodge!
> 
> So the persons that designed cars or medicine used miracles ?
Click to expand...

false comparison

there is no actual proof that A  paranormal  sentient life form designed anything.
attempting to argue it's existence with nothing but faith ...is fucking ignorant.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> More conjecture
> 
> Are we realated to apes ?did apes come before humans? who evolved from who ? why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd asshat:apes did not evolve FROM US  you asshat!
> we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
> once again your willful ignorance shines.
> 
> 
> why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?YWC
> 
> separate evolutionary paths
> apes do not have Superior survival traits then humans, they have just the traits needed to survive and reproduce nothing more.
> the same is true of humans.
> different evolutionary paths  different dominate traits.
> as always you're comparing apples to screwdrivers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about ignorance,if we share a common ancestor we share common traits.
Click to expand...

Some. Yes. 

Consider that your first lesson.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> : Several people have written that they have thoroughly studied both creation and evolution and find that both are forms of faith in that they assume events that occurred before the time of man. They both have an element of trust needed to believe that either are correct or incorrect. Please comment.
> 
> Panelist Responses: < back to intro page
> 
> 
> Francisco Ayala
> 
> First, the way in which the word "faith" is used by the person who poses the question is quite different in science and in religious beliefs. All scientific constructs or so-called theories are constructs of the mind. In that sense, we accept them just in terms of whatever evidence we can gather in their favor or against them. In the case of scientific theories, what we do is to formulate them in such a way that they can be used to make predictions about the states of affairs in the real world. And then we do confirm or corroborate the theories by making those observations or experiments that deal with predictions derived from the theories.
> 
> So if we have a theory, which is a construct of the mind, and we are able to corroborate it or reject it by subjecting it to verification or corroboration, as I said, we're confronting it with observations or experiments that we make. Religious faith belongs to a completely different realm of knowledge. In the case of faith, we are accepting revelation or teachings that we do not expect to corroborate in an empirical way. We corroborate them or accept them in terms of the implications they may have, the effects they may have for our own personal life and the life of other individuals.
> 
> But this is a very different kind of corroboration from what we do in science, where any experiment or observation made in favor or against a theory can, in turn, be confirmed or rejected by other individuals. That is, it is possible always to replicate the observations or to make alternate observations derived from the same theory. In the case of religious faith, we don't have this kind of experimental verification, the possibility of subjecting theories to verification by reproducible testing, the possibility of having other individuals doing the same observations for experiment.
> 
> 
> Robert Pollack
> 
> As a scientist I would argue that, as Ronald Reagan said famously about dealing with the Soviet Union, "trust but verify." It is necessary to trust in both cases, but in the case of science it is possible to verify what one trusts is so, by the accumulation of predictions tested by experiments which generate results predicted by the model. This notion that your faith can be buttressed by evidence is the difference between science as a human enterprise, a "faith," if you will, and other faiths, which depend on equally strong certainty emerging from within, but not testable by evidence.
> 
> Now within a religion, one may say the evidence is that which stands off from nature. So a miracle is, in a sense, evidence for faith. And the singular moment of creation instantaneously is, in fact, a miraculous event outside the laws of science as we understand them. So if one has the faith that that happened, it is indeed a valid faith, but it is not testable by science. That makes the faith of creation different from the evidence for natural selection and a single, natural origin of the universe and life within it.
> 
> The reasons for the emergence of the curiosity that generates evidence in science are similar, I think, to the reasons that allow the emergence of religious faith. That is, we are a species that must give meaning to our surroundings. But these -- science and religious faith -- are different tools that generate different results because they start from different premises. No serious religious person, I think, is a believer because of the proof they have from nature; they are believers because of the certainty they have in their hearts.
> 
> Evolution: Religion: Science and Faith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension is your friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> true! you should take a course in it!
Click to expand...


You're the one needing it . 

You took a lot of words to basically say the same thing I said. The faith you have in evolution isn't unlike the faith I have in creationism. 

Why is there no recorded history before app. 4000 BC?

If mankind evolved from the same primitive life source, then why are there 7000 different languages spoken? Did they not communicate?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Purposeful design does not require miracles your theory does, get it ?
> 
> 
> 
> again no proof of purpose or design.
> 
> get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence of purposeful design.
> 
> Can you imagine life absent of any of these.
> 
> 1.DNA
> 2. Amino acids
> 3. Proteins
> 4. Heart
> 5. Lungs
> 6. Blood
> 7. Veins
> 8. Bones
> 9. Liver
> 10. Red an White blood cells
> 11. A nervous system
> 12. A brain that runs the nervous system
> 13. Oxygen
> 14. Water
> 
> Yes if you hold on to your views you believe in miracles.
Click to expand...

since I don't "believe" your insistence that I do is just more desperate ignorance.. 
as to your list, none of it is proof of conjecture or purposeful design.
BTW, how long are we going to have to put up with your soup of the day buzz words, 
(purposeful design.and miracles.) before you have an epiphany and realize we're not buying the bullshit?


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again no proof of purpose or design.
> 
> get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence of purposeful design.
> 
> Can you imagine life absent of any of these.
> 
> 1.DNA
> 2. Amino acids
> 3. Proteins
> 4. Heart
> 5. Lungs
> 6. Blood
> 7. Veins
> 8. Bones
> 9. Liver
> 10. Red an White blood cells
> 11. A nervous system
> 12. A brain that runs the nervous system
> 13. Oxygen
> 14. Water
> 
> Yes if you hold on to your views you believe in miracles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since I don't "believe" your insistence that I do is just more desperate ignorance..
> as to your list, none of it is proof of conjecture or purposeful design.
> BTW, how long are we going to have to put up with your soup of the day buzz words,
> (purposeful design.and miracles.) before you have an epiphany and realize we're not buying the bullshit?
Click to expand...

I'm curious to know if un-purposeful design (those oops moments that the gods get now and then), would be:

1.  Blueprint for the cancer cell
2.  AIDS virus
3.  The rotation of the planet (tornadoes and such)
4.  Movement of tectonic plates (earthquakes and such)

What, the gods never heard of "review your work", like we all got in grammar school?


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension is your friend.
> 
> 
> 
> true! you should take a course in it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one needing it .
> 
> You took a lot of words to basically say the same thing I said. The faith you have in evolution isn't unlike the faith I have in creationism.
> 
> Why is there no recorded history before app. 4000 BC?
> 
> If mankind evolved from the same primitive life source, then why are there 7000 different languages spoken? Did they not communicate?
Click to expand...

sorry but no . faith in science is not at all like faith in religion as that article CLEARLY SHOWS.
THE REST IS A STEAMING PILE OF CREATIONIST SHIT.. 
1. DEFINE RECORDED HISTORY .
Humans have been creating non alphabetical recorded events (history)(glyphs and cave painting ) for 100,000 years or more.
making your false question moot.
the evolution of language is far better proof of evolution then assumed creation.
did god intentionally  leave out a common language gene or did he just fuck up?
BTW the 7000 languages do have one thing in common vowels, A,E,O,U sometimes Y. 
Also saying that the "source" we evolved from was primitive is extremely bias and ethnocentric.
since no life existed on earth for billions of years any "life source" that could take hold and thrive is anything but primitive.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence of purposeful design.
> 
> Can you imagine life absent of any of these.
> 
> 1.DNA
> 2. Amino acids
> 3. Proteins
> 4. Heart
> 5. Lungs
> 6. Blood
> 7. Veins
> 8. Bones
> 9. Liver
> 10. Red an White blood cells
> 11. A nervous system
> 12. A brain that runs the nervous system
> 13. Oxygen
> 14. Water
> 
> Yes if you hold on to your views you believe in miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> since I don't "believe" your insistence that I do is just more desperate ignorance..
> as to your list, none of it is proof of conjecture or purposeful design.
> BTW, how long are we going to have to put up with your soup of the day buzz words,
> (purposeful design.and miracles.) before you have an epiphany and realize we're not buying the bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm curious to know if un-purposeful design (those oops moments that the gods get now and then), would be:
> 
> 1.  Blueprint for the cancer cell
> 2.  AIDS virus
> 3.  The rotation of the planet (tornadoes and such)
> 4.  Movement of tectonic plates (earthquakes and such)
> 
> What, the gods never heard of "review your work", like we all got in grammar school?
Click to expand...

I would add deadly chemical substances to that list.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> true! you should take a course in it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one needing it .
> 
> You took a lot of words to basically say the same thing I said. The faith you have in evolution isn't unlike the faith I have in creationism.
> 
> Why is there no recorded history before app. 4000 BC?
> 
> If mankind evolved from the same primitive life source, then why are there 7000 different languages spoken? Did they not communicate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry but no . faith in science is not at all like faith in religion as that article CLEARLY SHOWS.
> THE REST IS A STEAMING PILE OF CREATIONIST SHIT..
> 1. DEFINE RECORDED HISTORY .
> Humans have been creating non alphabetical recorded events (history)(glyphs and cave painting ) for 100,000 years or more.
> making your false question moot.
> the evolution of language is far better proof of evolution then assumed creation.
> did god intentionally  leave out a common language gene or did he just fuck up?
> BTW the 7000 languages do have one thing in common vowels, A,E,O,U sometimes Y.
> Also saying that the "source" we evolved from was primitive is extremely bias and ethnocentric.
> since no life existed on earth for billions of years any "life source" that could take hold and thrive is anything but primitive.
Click to expand...


Shall I define "faith" for you?

You say these drawings are 100,000 years or older but yet you have really no proof. You have faith that the science that told you how old these drawings are, are correct. 

If you read the Bible, especially the part about the Tower of Babel, you will see that God was responsible for the different languages. 

If not primitive then what? Developed? Modern? Sophisticated?

Which adjective would you rather I use?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsensical cut and paste.
> 
> Before cutting and pasting creationist babble, you should make an effort to understand the scientific method and the consensus it brings. The scientific method incorporates the rational study and analysis of data. ID creationism is simply an appeal to supernaturalism and partisan gods. Make an effort to understand rationality vs. mystical gods and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really have no clue what you are talking about do you?  Your posts have become totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? your answer screams desperation and that is highly  relevant.......
Click to expand...


Can someone please clarify what this mythical "asshat" is? Daws, can you go to your closet and snap a picture of one?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one needing it .
> 
> You took a lot of words to basically say the same thing I said. The faith you have in evolution isn't unlike the faith I have in creationism.
> 
> Why is there no recorded history before app. 4000 BC?
> 
> If mankind evolved from the same primitive life source, then why are there 7000 different languages spoken? Did they not communicate?
> 
> 
> 
> sorry but no . faith in science is not at all like faith in religion as that article CLEARLY SHOWS.
> THE REST IS A STEAMING PILE OF CREATIONIST SHIT..
> 1. DEFINE RECORDED HISTORY .
> Humans have been creating non alphabetical recorded events (history)(glyphs and cave painting ) for 100,000 years or more.
> making your false question moot.
> the evolution of language is far better proof of evolution then assumed creation.
> did god intentionally  leave out a common language gene or did he just fuck up?
> BTW the 7000 languages do have one thing in common vowels, A,E,O,U sometimes Y.
> Also saying that the "source" we evolved from was primitive is extremely bias and ethnocentric.
> since no life existed on earth for billions of years any "life source" that could take hold and thrive is anything but primitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall I define "faith" for you?
> 
> You say these drawings are 100,000 years or older but yet you have really no proof. You have faith that the science that told you how old these drawings are, are correct.
> 
> If you read the Bible, especially the part about the Tower of Babel, you will see that God was responsible for the different languages.
> 
> If not primitive then what? Developed? Modern? Sophisticated?
> 
> Which adjective would you rather I use?
Click to expand...

It's interesting that fundies are quick to selectively condemn those evil scientists and their inaccurate methods... until they're sick and in need of a diagnostic medical expert. At that time, will they "pray" for a cure or will they seek competent medical advise?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your issue is. You seem to have evolved the brain of an ape. So... you seem to have answered your own question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have evolved the brain of a man, or is it a woman, or a man, or a woman?
> 
> *By the way, Hoki, where did you and Lollie go to college?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then your (UR) brain must be damaged or genetically inferior because you keep asking the same totally irrelevant question.
> maybe you have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder?
> *saying* or doing *the same thing over and over again* and expecting a different outcome* is solid proof of mental illness*...
Click to expand...

Why are you talking about Hollie like that? I thought you guys were man friends.



Hollie said:


> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> could you possibly rewrite this post in english and not when you are drunk or on your meds ?
> 
> 1.apes did not evolve FROM US  you asshat!
> we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
> once again your willful ignorance shines.
> 
> Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge
> ScienceDaily (Nov. 17, 2006) &#8212; Six million years ago, chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor and evolved into unique species. Now UCLA scientists have identified a new way to pinpoint the genes that separate us from our closest living relative -- and make us uniquely human. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports the study in its Nov. 13 online edition.
> 
> 
> "We share more than 95 percent of our genetic blueprint with chimps," explained Dr. Daniel Geschwind, principal investigator and Gordon and Virginia MacDonald Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine. "What sets us apart from chimps are our brains: homo sapiens means 'the knowing man.'
> 
> "During evolution, changes in some genes altered how the human brain functions," he added. "Our research has identified an entirely new way to identify those genes in the small portion of our DNA that differs from the chimpanzee's."
> 
> By evaluating the correlated activity of thousands of genes, the UCLA team identified not just individual genes, but entire networks of interconnected genes whose expression patterns within the brains of humans varied from those in the chimpanzee.
> 
> "Genes don't operate in isolation -- each functions within a system of related genes," said first author Michael Oldham, UCLA genetics researcher. "If we examined each gene individually, it would be similar to reading every fifth word in a paragraph -- you don't get to see how each word relates to the other. So instead we used a systems biology approach to study each gene within its context."
> 
> The scientists identified networks of genes that correspond to specific brain regions. When they compared these networks between humans and chimps, they found that the gene networks differed the most widely in the cerebral cortex -- the brain's most highly evolved region, which is three times larger in humans than chimps.
> 
> Secondly, the researchers discovered that many of the genes that play a central role in cerebral cortex networks in humans, but not in the chimpanzee, also show significant changes at the DNA level.
> 
> "When we see alterations in a gene network that correspond to functional changes in the genome, it implies that these differences are very meaningful," said Oldham. "This finding supports the theory that variations in the DNA sequence contributed to human evolution."
> 
> Relying on a new analytical approach developed by corresponding author Steve Horvath, UCLA associate professor of human genetics and biostatistics, the UCLA team used data from DNA microarrays -- vast collections of tiny DNA spots -- to map the activity of virtually every gene in the genome simultaneously. By comparing gene activity in different areas of the brain, the team identified gene networks that correlated to specific brain regions. Then they compared the strength of these correlations between humans and chimps.
> 
> Many of the human-specific gene networks identified by the scientists related to learning, brain cell activity and energy metabolism.
> 
> "If you view the brain as the body's engine, our findings suggest that the human brain fires like a 12-cylinder engine, while the chimp brain works more like a 6-cylinder engine," explained Geschwind. "It's possible that our genes adapted to allow our brains to increase in size, operate at different speeds, metabolize energy faster and enhance connections between brain cells across different brain regions."
> 
> Future UCLA studies will focus on linking the expression of evolutionary genes to specific regions of the brain, such as those that regulate language, speech and other uniquely human abilities.
> 
> The study was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the National Institute of Mental Health.
> 
> Unraveling Where Chimp And Human Brains Diverge
> 
> 
> origin and related don't mean what you wish them to mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More conjecture
> 
> Are we realated to apes ?did apes come before humans? who evolved from who ? why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answerd asshat:apes did not evolve FROM US you asshat!
> we (apes and humans share a common ancestor BUT took separate evolutionary paths)
> once again your willful ignorance shines.
> 
> 
> why do humans have different superior survival traits over our ape relatives ? Why do apes have superior survival traits that humans don't have ?YWC
> 
> separate evolutionary paths
> apes do not have Superior survival traits then humans, they have just the traits needed to survive and reproduce nothing more.
> the same is true of humans.
> different evolutionary paths different dominate traits.
> as always you're comparing apples to screwdrivers
Click to expand...


Daws, were you there when they split? Here, I changed your quote above to be more truthful.*No altering quotes of other members-Meister*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have evolved the brain of a man, or is it a woman, or a man, or a woman?
> 
> *By the way, Hoki, where did you and Lollie go to college?*
> 
> 
> 
> then your (UR) brain must be damaged or genetically inferior because you keep asking the same totally irrelevant question.
> maybe you have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder?
> *saying* or doing *the same thing over and over again* and expecting a different outcome* is solid proof of mental illness*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you talking about Hollie like that? I thought you guys were man friends.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Oh my, but my creepy stalker is sinking deeper into the abyss of emotional illness.

She has now resumed the gargantuan font thing. Such desperate pleas for attention.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The paradigm of ID / creationism is inherently illogical as it relies on supernaturalism and magic. Certainly, it is true that the two creationists posture their arguments for supermagical intervention of their gods as attacks on science and rationality. That is the hopeless position of ID creationism. There is no positive assertion of supernaturalism available so the arguments for supermagicalism devolves into strident and, as we see so often, screaming, juvenile name-calling from the desperate fundies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give us the miracle you believe that cause the beginning of life. I believe the creator did not use miracles like any other designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no reason to believe a "miracle" was required for life to begin. As usual, you dodge and sidestep the functional reality that "miracles" are of myth and legend.
> 
> You dwell in this fantasy world of miracles, supernaturalism, designer gods surrounded by fat, naked babies playing harps and winged horses pulling chariots, cruising through the clouds. These are the takes and fables you were taught as a child and you believe them still.
> 
> It's interesting to note that had you been raised in a different culture, you would have simply accepted the tales and fables of that predominant society. Had you been raised in the Islamic Middle East, I can easily envision you being one of the many clones spilling out of a madrassah on a mission for muhammud.
> 
> This "creator" you posit is a mere recycled version of many earlier "creators", " designer gods" and mythical figures. Get to the back of the line with your gods. Scoot!
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another false comparison ...
> 
> A miracle (Definition of MIRACLE
> 1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs )
> assumes facts not in evidence  i.e. an intention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge!
> 
> So the persons that designed cars or medicine used miracles ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false comparison
> 
> there is no actual proof that A  paranormal  sentient life form designed anything.
> attempting to argue it's existence with nothing but faith ...is fucking ignorant.
Click to expand...


Okay, pretend it was an alien race and then address the salient points of the specified information argument.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give us the miracle you believe that cause the beginning of life. I believe the creator did not use miracles like any other designer.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to believe a "miracle" was required for life to begin. As usual, you dodge and sidestep the functional reality that "miracles" are of myth and legend.
> 
> You dwell in this fantasy world of miracles, supernaturalism, designer gods surrounded by fat, naked babies playing harps and winged horses pulling chariots, cruising through the clouds. These are the takes and fables you were taught as a child and you believe them still.
> 
> It's interesting to note that had you been raised in a different culture, you would have simply accepted the tales and fables of that predominant society. Had you been raised in the Islamic Middle East, I can easily envision you being one of the many clones spilling out of a madrassah on a mission for muhammud.
> 
> This "creator" you posit is a mere recycled version of many earlier "creators", " designer gods" and mythical figures. Get to the back of the line with your gods. Scoot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Such are the wages of the religiously damaged.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence of purposeful design.
> 
> Can you imagine life absent of any of these.
> 
> 1.DNA
> 2. Amino acids
> 3. Proteins
> 4. Heart
> 5. Lungs
> 6. Blood
> 7. Veins
> 8. Bones
> 9. Liver
> 10. Red an White blood cells
> 11. A nervous system
> 12. A brain that runs the nervous system
> 13. Oxygen
> 14. Water
> 
> Yes if you hold on to your views you believe in miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> since I don't "believe" your insistence that I do is just more desperate ignorance..
> as to your list, none of it is proof of conjecture or purposeful design.
> BTW, how long are we going to have to put up with your soup of the day buzz words,
> (purposeful design.and miracles.) before you have an epiphany and realize we're not buying the bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm curious to know if un-purposeful design (those oops moments that the gods get now and then), would be:
> 
> 1.  Blueprint for the cancer cell
> 2.  AIDS virus
> 3.  The rotation of the planet (tornadoes and such)
> 4.  Movement of tectonic plates (earthquakes and such)
> 
> What, the gods never heard of "review your work", like we all got in grammar school?
Click to expand...


Asked and answered based on Christian Theology many times before.



Hollie said:


> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry but no . faith in science is not at all like faith in religion as that article CLEARLY SHOWS.
> THE REST IS A STEAMING PILE OF CREATIONIST SHIT..
> 1. DEFINE RECORDED HISTORY .
> Humans have been creating non alphabetical recorded events (history)(glyphs and cave painting ) for 100,000 years or more.
> making your false question moot.
> the evolution of language is far better proof of evolution then assumed creation.
> did god intentionally  leave out a common language gene or did he just fuck up?
> BTW the 7000 languages do have one thing in common vowels, A,E,O,U sometimes Y.
> Also saying that the "source" we evolved from was primitive is extremely bias and ethnocentric.
> since no life existed on earth for billions of years any "life source" that could take hold and thrive is anything but primitive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I define "faith" for you?
> 
> You say these drawings are 100,000 years or older but yet you have really no proof. You have faith that the science that told you how old these drawings are, are correct.
> 
> If you read the Bible, especially the part about the Tower of Babel, you will see that God was responsible for the different languages.
> 
> If not primitive then what? Developed? Modern? Sophisticated?
> 
> Which adjective would you rather I use?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's interesting that fundies are quick to selectively condemn those evil scientists and their inaccurate methods... until they're sick and in need of a diagnostic medical expert. At that time, will they "pray" for a cure or will they seek competent medical advise?
Click to expand...


And for the 800th time Hollie shows her severe disconnect with the history of science before the 1900's.



Hollie said:


> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> then your (UR) brain must be damaged or genetically inferior because you keep asking the same totally irrelevant question.
> maybe you have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder?
> *saying* or doing *the same thing over and over again* and expecting a different outcome* is solid proof of mental illness*...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about Hollie like that? I thought you guys were man friends.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my, but my *creepy stalker* is sinking deeper into the abyss of emotional illness.
> 
> She has now resumed the gargantuan font thing. Such desperate pleas for attention.
Click to expand...


Curious you have developed the same delusions about me that you did with those poor Muslim boys on the other forum. Is believing people of the opposite sex are stalking you a way for you to deal with your feelings of inadequacy brought on by your same sex attraction and intolerant fundie parents?

 2nd December 2010, 00:41 #11
*Ruggedtouch*
Senior Member
Join Date
    Sep 2008
Posts
    249	

Default Re: Hapless Jackels

_*Quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman *
    If you think you're so good at guessing people's age perhaps should make a carnival job out of it. You know, like the guy who guesses your weight. Although I wouldn't 
    recommend it, since with me you're almost eleven years off. I notice, by the way, that you still haven't answered vinod's question."_

Your *begging for my attention* is really *creepy*.

Hapless Jackels


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since I don't "believe" your insistence that I do is just more desperate ignorance..
> as to your list, none of it is proof of conjecture or purposeful design.
> BTW, how long are we going to have to put up with your soup of the day buzz words,
> (purposeful design.and miracles.) before you have an epiphany and realize we're not buying the bullshit?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious to know if un-purposeful design (those oops moments that the gods get now and then), would be:
> 
> 1.  Blueprint for the cancer cell
> 2.  AIDS virus
> 3.  The rotation of the planet (tornadoes and such)
> 4.  Movement of tectonic plates (earthquakes and such)
> 
> What, the gods never heard of "review your work", like we all got in grammar school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asked and answered based on Christian Theology many times before.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Addressed and identified as Christian theology being flawed, self-refuting, inaccurate and unreliable.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about Hollie like that? I thought you guys were man friends.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, but my creepy stalker is sinking deeper into the abyss of emotional illness.
> 
> She has now resumed the gargantuan font thing. Such desperate pleas for attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Curious you have developed the same delusions about me that you did with those poor Muslim boys on the other forum. Is believing people of the opposite sex are stalking you a way for you to deal with your feelings of inadequacy brought on by your same sex attraction and intolerant fundie parents?
Click to expand...


You are not of the opposite sex and you display the damage done to you by religious zealots.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious to know if un-purposeful design (those oops moments that the gods get now and then), would be:
> 
> 1.  Blueprint for the cancer cell
> 2.  AIDS virus
> 3.  The rotation of the planet (tornadoes and such)
> 4.  Movement of tectonic plates (earthquakes and such)
> 
> What, the gods never heard of "review your work", like we all got in grammar school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asked and answered based on Christian Theology many times before.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Addressed and identified as *Christian theology being flawed, self-refuting, inaccurate and unreliable*.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, but my creepy stalker is sinking deeper into the abyss of emotional illness.
> 
> She has now resumed the gargantuan font thing. Such desperate pleas for attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curious you have developed the same delusions about me that you did with those poor Muslim boys on the other forum. Is believing people of the opposite sex are stalking you a way for you to deal with your feelings of inadequacy brought on by your same sex attraction and intolerant fundie parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not of the opposite sex and you display the damage done to you by religious zealots.
Click to expand...


You mean I am not of the opposite sex *persuasion*??


----------



## UltimateReality

Thinking about tonight, I bet I am right about one thing: Hollie, Daws, Loki and NP are for four more years of handouts, entitlements, excessive spending, free money for failed alternative energy companies, DOJ gun running schemes, and wealth redistribution.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asked and answered based on Christian Theology many times before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Addressed and identified as *Christian theology being flawed, self-refuting, inaccurate and unreliable*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The results of xtian fundamentalism.


----------



## Gadawg73

If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.


----------



## Hollie

Gadawg73 said:


> If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
> If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
> Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.



Those are good observations and I think there are two issues facing the fundies in this thread. Christianity is a proselytizing religion and there are no "takers", especially considering (as much as "because of") the fundies who are proselytizing and secondly, biblical literalists reel at the discipline of science and the knowledge it brings. 

If you step back and objectively observe the behavior of the fundies, you will see that they will reject the natural explanations over and over in favor of the supernatural assertions (they are hardly explanations), and they will always apply special pleadings when doing so. It's done in this thread-- despite clear evidence of various religions building themselves up on fraudulent terms (think about it: every religion other than your particular religion you must consider fraudulent else why aren't you a believer in them?), despite clear examples of such religion building by chicanery with people who are alive today who are doing it and culling the gullible, people exempt their particular religion from it as "being untrue".

Fundies do this because they desire to believe in it, and will not apply the strictures of true knowledge to the claims. So every piece of evidence that comes along that truly dismantles their belief system, they must reject and escape into the special pleading loophole.
And candidly, the mantra of virtually every single Theist I've ever debated with generally resolves to: "I don't care what evidence you got, I ain't believin' in it".


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Thinking about tonight, I bet I am right about one thing: Hollie, Daws, Loki and NP are for four more years of handouts, entitlements, excessive spending, free money for failed alternative energy companies, DOJ gun running schemes, and wealth redistribution.



Yes,they think obama is gonna pay for their internet connection and give them free health care.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Gadawg73 said:


> If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
> If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
> Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.



Those questions apply to your side as well.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again no proof of purpose or design.
> 
> get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence of purposeful design.
> 
> Can you imagine life absent of any of these.
> 
> 1.DNA
> 2. Amino acids
> 3. Proteins
> 4. Heart
> 5. Lungs
> 6. Blood
> 7. Veins
> 8. Bones
> 9. Liver
> 10. Red an White blood cells
> 11. A nervous system
> 12. A brain that runs the nervous system
> 13. Oxygen
> 14. Water
> 
> Yes if you hold on to your views you believe in miracles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since I don't "believe" your insistence that I do is just more desperate ignorance..
> as to your list, none of it is proof of conjecture or purposeful design.
> BTW, how long are we going to have to put up with your soup of the day buzz words,
> (purposeful design.and miracles.) before you have an epiphany and realize we're not buying the bullshit?
Click to expand...


Does everything I listed serve a purpose ? Now a lesson in design.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eJIZgQ8jB4]Intelligent Design: Evidence from Molecular Biology 9-8-2012 by Paul Giem - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

Oh god(s), the neo-Harun Yahya'ist is back with his goofy videos.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
> If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
> Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those questions apply to your side as well.
Click to expand...


Actually, that is false. There is clearly an issue where facts about science are important to be presented to counter and correct the falsified "quotes" and outright misrepresentations that you have posted


----------



## ima

Intelligent design points to an intelligent being that was created itself since IDers don't believe in unexplained creation and that everything was created by someone with intent. But by whom?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry but no . faith in science is not at all like faith in religion as that article CLEARLY SHOWS.
> THE REST IS A STEAMING PILE OF CREATIONIST SHIT..
> 1. DEFINE RECORDED HISTORY .
> Humans have been creating non alphabetical recorded events (history)(glyphs and cave painting ) for 100,000 years or more.
> making your false question moot.
> the evolution of language is far better proof of evolution then assumed creation.
> did god intentionally  leave out a common language gene or did he just fuck up?
> BTW the 7000 languages do have one thing in common vowels, A,E,O,U sometimes Y.
> Also saying that the "source" we evolved from was primitive is extremely bias and ethnocentric.
> since no life existed on earth for billions of years any "life source" that could take hold and thrive is anything but primitive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I define "faith" for you?
> 
> You say these drawings are 100,000 years or older but yet you have really no proof. You have faith that the science that told you how old these drawings are, are correct.
> 
> If you read the Bible, especially the part about the Tower of Babel, you will see that God was responsible for the different languages.
> 
> If not primitive then what? Developed? Modern? Sophisticated?
> 
> Which adjective would you rather I use?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's interesting that fundies are quick to selectively condemn those evil scientists and their inaccurate methods... until they're sick and in need of a diagnostic medical expert. At that time, will they "pray" for a cure or will they seek competent medical advise?
Click to expand...


I condemn no one. I just don't place any faith on their supposed findings because as I've said before they seek a desired outcome and throw out all experiments that do not conform.

I do not not confuse medical science with evolutionary science and you shouldn't either.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Gadawg73 said:


> If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
> If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
> Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.



Who is worried?

You can nore more prove the theory of evolution than I can prove God. 

The difference is, I do not need proof in my beliefs. Evolutionist will spend the rest of eternity seeking to prove the unprovable.


----------



## Gadawg73

Youwerecreated said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
> If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
> Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those questions apply to your side as well.
Click to expand...


Bull shit. You can believe and teach whatever you want in your religion classes.


----------



## Gadawg73

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
> If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
> Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is worried?
> 
> You can nore more prove the theory of evolution than I can prove God.
> 
> The difference is, I do not need proof in my beliefs. Evolutionist will spend the rest of eternity seeking to prove the unprovable.
Click to expand...


Take a look at yourself and see. I have arrowheads and other 4500 year old artifacts collected on my grandfathers property in Clintondale NY in the Hudson River valley. 
Tell me you are the same human now as what those folks looked like.
YOU and us are constantly evolving.
That is the process. Take a look at cell structure from sharks and the wing structure of birds and the tree of evolution.
Have you taken Biology 101 in college?
Why is it that 9998 colleges and universities worldwide teach evolutionary theory as fact and only a handful do not?
"I do not care what they teach" is your answer.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
> If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
> Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is worried?
> 
> You can nore more prove the theory of evolution than I can prove God.
> 
> The difference is, I do not need proof in my beliefs. Evolutionist will spend the rest of eternity seeking to prove the unprovable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a look at yourself and see. I have arrowheads and other 4500 year old artifacts collected on my grandfathers property in Clintondale NY in the Hudson River valley.
> Tell me you are the same human now as what those folks looked like.
> YOU and us are constantly evolving.
> That is the process. Take a look at cell structure from sharks and the wing structure of birds and the tree of evolution.
> Have you taken Biology 101 in college?
> Why is it that 9998 colleges and universities worldwide teach evolutionary theory as fact and only a handful do not?
> "I do not care what they teach" is your answer.
Click to expand...


How do you know how old those artifacts are?

Because a scientist told you and you have faith it's the truth?

They can teach anything they want.  Isn't that what you said about religious teachings?

Nice try at answering for me. Just goes to show how little you know about me or the subject at hand.

Oh and finding similarities in different species doesn't provide evidence for evolution.


----------



## pjnlsn

Youwerecreated said:


> Give us the miracle you believe that cause the beginning of life. I believe the creator did not use miracles like any other designer.



Unfortunately, perhaps, there is no proof of God, or even the possibility of such, given the most common definition of a god. Regardless of what else is or is not known.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I define "faith" for you?
> 
> You say these drawings are 100,000 years or older but yet you have really no proof. You have faith that the science that told you how old these drawings are, are correct.
> 
> If you read the Bible, especially the part about the Tower of Babel, you will see that God was responsible for the different languages.
> 
> If not primitive then what? Developed? Modern? Sophisticated?
> 
> Which adjective would you rather I use?
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that fundies are quick to selectively condemn those evil scientists and their inaccurate methods... until they're sick and in need of a diagnostic medical expert. At that time, will they "pray" for a cure or will they seek competent medical advise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I condemn no one. I just don't place any faith on their supposed findings because as I've said before they seek a desired outcome and throw out all experiments that do not conform.
> 
> I do not not confuse medical science with evolutionary science and you shouldn't either.
Click to expand...


Your use of the phrase "supposed findings" speaks volumes about the denial syndrome that sends fundies screaming into the night. Do you consider the cures for disease as the result of medical science nothing mire than "supposed findings"? How about biology, paleontology, earth history? Are those disciplines nothing more than "supposed findings" Or, do you selectively dismiss those science discoveries that conflict with a literal rendering of Genesis.

 I think the terms "feeling, intuition, spirituality", adequately convey metaphysical concepts that are within the realm of supernaturalism. In the realm of the rational, natural world, we would replace those terms with such expressions as peer reviewed data, falsify, test and verify.

I thing you need to come to terms with and understand that reason and rationality operate in a realm separated from supernaturalism. As for establishing whether or not you believe the complexity in nature is the result of supernatural creation depends on whether you believe in metaphysics, creationism or some form of "intelligent design", typically modeled on a benevolent creator. It is possible that all living species and all of life as we know it --even all of the universe--could have been created by a cosmic, supernatural designer/creator who deceived us by giving all of our physical world the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and immense time spans. And of course, that deception could have been performed by any of the gods because as we know, your god(s) is only one conception of god(s). I've found that creationists recoil at this argument because if true, it means their preference for "intelligent designer" would be quite obviously lying about creation and that would not do for their arguments. So, creationists persist in using metaphysics as the core of their argument or they hope to show that the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and the immense time spans we see in nature reveals supernatural design if only the evidence is correctly interpreted by the methods they propose, (i.e., pseudoscience).


----------



## ima

Why are people who believe in Intelligent Design so stupid?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that fundies are quick to selectively condemn those evil scientists and their inaccurate methods... until they're sick and in need of a diagnostic medical expert. At that time, will they "pray" for a cure or will they seek competent medical advise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I condemn no one. I just don't place any faith on their supposed findings because as I've said before they seek a desired outcome and throw out all experiments that do not conform.
> 
> I do not not confuse medical science with evolutionary science and you shouldn't either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your use of the phrase "supposed findings" speaks volumes about the denial syndrome that sends fundies screaming into the night. Do you consider the cures for disease as the result of medical science nothing mire than "supposed findings"? How about biology, paleontology, earth history? Are those disciplines nothing more than "supposed findings" Or, do you selectively dismiss those science discoveries that conflict with a literal rendering of Genesis.
> 
> I think the terms "feeling, intuition, spirituality", adequately convey metaphysical concepts that are within the realm of supernaturalism. In the realm of the rational, natural world, we would replace those terms with such expressions as peer reviewed data, falsify, test and verify.
> 
> I thing you need to come to terms with and understand that reason and rationality operate in a realm separated from supernaturalism. As for establishing whether or not you believe the complexity in nature is the result of supernatural creation depends on whether you believe in metaphysics, creationism or some form of "intelligent design", typically modeled on a benevolent creator. It is possible that all living species and all of life as we know it --even all of the universe--could have been created by a cosmic, supernatural designer/creator who deceived us by giving all of our physical world the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and immense time spans. And of course, that deception could have been performed by any of the gods because as we know, your god(s) is only one conception of god(s). I've found that creationists recoil at this argument because if true, it means their preference for "intelligent designer" would be quite obviously lying about creation and that would not do for their arguments. So, creationists persist in using metaphysics as the core of their argument or they hope to show that the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and the immense time spans we see in nature reveals supernatural design if only the evidence is correctly interpreted by the methods they propose, (i.e., pseudoscience).
Click to expand...


Denial? I don' tdeny the fact they think they can tell how old a rock is.

As I've stated before. Do not confuse medical science with evolutionary theory. It makes you look foolish and desperate.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I condemn no one. I just don't place any faith on their supposed findings because as I've said before they seek a desired outcome and throw out all experiments that do not conform.
> 
> I do not not confuse medical science with evolutionary science and you shouldn't either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of the phrase "supposed findings" speaks volumes about the denial syndrome that sends fundies screaming into the night. Do you consider the cures for disease as the result of medical science nothing mire than "supposed findings"? How about biology, paleontology, earth history? Are those disciplines nothing more than "supposed findings" Or, do you selectively dismiss those science discoveries that conflict with a literal rendering of Genesis.
> 
> I think the terms "feeling, intuition, spirituality", adequately convey metaphysical concepts that are within the realm of supernaturalism. In the realm of the rational, natural world, we would replace those terms with such expressions as peer reviewed data, falsify, test and verify.
> 
> I thing you need to come to terms with and understand that reason and rationality operate in a realm separated from supernaturalism. As for establishing whether or not you believe the complexity in nature is the result of supernatural creation depends on whether you believe in metaphysics, creationism or some form of "intelligent design", typically modeled on a benevolent creator. It is possible that all living species and all of life as we know it --even all of the universe--could have been created by a cosmic, supernatural designer/creator who deceived us by giving all of our physical world the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and immense time spans. And of course, that deception could have been performed by any of the gods because as we know, your god(s) is only one conception of god(s). I've found that creationists recoil at this argument because if true, it means their preference for "intelligent designer" would be quite obviously lying about creation and that would not do for their arguments. So, creationists persist in using metaphysics as the core of their argument or they hope to show that the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and the immense time spans we see in nature reveals supernatural design if only the evidence is correctly interpreted by the methods they propose, (i.e., pseudoscience).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denial? I don' tdeny the fact they think they can tell how old a rock is.
> 
> As I've stated before. Do not confuse medical science with evolutionary theory. It makes you look foolish and desperate.
Click to expand...


Have you been convinced by religious authorities that various dating methods accepted by scientists is one huge conspiracy theory? For that to be the case,  your conspiracy would necessarily require conspirators from all of the leading teaching universities in all the developed nations. 

I think looking foolish and desperate is a function of Christian creationists who selectively accept only the science which they feel is not a direct threat to their religious beliefs. You should also be aware that aside from christianity and islam, there really does not exist an anti-science / anti-evolution movement.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of the phrase "supposed findings" speaks volumes about the denial syndrome that sends fundies screaming into the night. Do you consider the cures for disease as the result of medical science nothing mire than "supposed findings"? How about biology, paleontology, earth history? Are those disciplines nothing more than "supposed findings" Or, do you selectively dismiss those science discoveries that conflict with a literal rendering of Genesis.
> 
> I think the terms "feeling, intuition, spirituality", adequately convey metaphysical concepts that are within the realm of supernaturalism. In the realm of the rational, natural world, we would replace those terms with such expressions as peer reviewed data, falsify, test and verify.
> 
> I thing you need to come to terms with and understand that reason and rationality operate in a realm separated from supernaturalism. As for establishing whether or not you believe the complexity in nature is the result of supernatural creation depends on whether you believe in metaphysics, creationism or some form of "intelligent design", typically modeled on a benevolent creator. It is possible that all living species and all of life as we know it --even all of the universe--could have been created by a cosmic, supernatural designer/creator who deceived us by giving all of our physical world the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and immense time spans. And of course, that deception could have been performed by any of the gods because as we know, your god(s) is only one conception of god(s). I've found that creationists recoil at this argument because if true, it means their preference for "intelligent designer" would be quite obviously lying about creation and that would not do for their arguments. So, creationists persist in using metaphysics as the core of their argument or they hope to show that the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and the immense time spans we see in nature reveals supernatural design if only the evidence is correctly interpreted by the methods they propose, (i.e., pseudoscience).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denial? I don' tdeny the fact they think they can tell how old a rock is.
> 
> As I've stated before. Do not confuse medical science with evolutionary theory. It makes you look foolish and desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you been convinced by religious authorities that various dating methods accepted by scientists is one huge conspiracy theory? For that to be the case,  your conspiracy would necessarily require conspirators from all of the leading teaching universities in all the developed nations.
> 
> I think looking foolish and desperate is a function of Christian creationists who selectively accept only the science which they feel is not a direct threat to their religious beliefs. You should also be aware that aside from christianity and islam, there really does not exist an anti-science / anti-evolution movement.
Click to expand...


No. No religious authority was needed to convince me that dating methods are flawed.

Your foolishly veiled insult is noted.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denial? I don' tdeny the fact they think they can tell how old a rock is.
> 
> As I've stated before. Do not confuse medical science with evolutionary theory. It makes you look foolish and desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you been convinced by religious authorities that various dating methods accepted by scientists is one huge conspiracy theory? For that to be the case,  your conspiracy would necessarily require conspirators from all of the leading teaching universities in all the developed nations.
> 
> I think looking foolish and desperate is a function of Christian creationists who selectively accept only the science which they feel is not a direct threat to their religious beliefs. You should also be aware that aside from christianity and islam, there really does not exist an anti-science / anti-evolution movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. No religious authority was needed to convince me that dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Your foolishly veiled insult is noted.
Click to expand...


Why do think dating methods are flawed? Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe?

Was your earlier insult to be ignored? I've come to expect insults from religious people when challenges to their beliefs are presented. Do you enter a public discussion board and expect others to accept "because I say so claims"?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you been convinced by religious authorities that various dating methods accepted by scientists is one huge conspiracy theory? For that to be the case,  your conspiracy would necessarily require conspirators from all of the leading teaching universities in all the developed nations.
> 
> I think looking foolish and desperate is a function of Christian creationists who selectively accept only the science which they feel is not a direct threat to their religious beliefs. You should also be aware that aside from christianity and islam, there really does not exist an anti-science / anti-evolution movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. No religious authority was needed to convince me that dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Your foolishly veiled insult is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do think dating methods are flawed? Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe?
> 
> Was your earlier insult to be ignored? I've come to expect insults from religious people when challenges to their beliefs are presented. Do you enter a public discussion board and expect others to accept "because I say so claims"?
Click to expand...


Why? Because the methods have been proven to be flawed. 

"Arizona State University anthropologist Geoffrey Clark echoed this view in 1997 when he wrote that 'we select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions -- a process that is, at once, both political and subjective.'  Clark suggested 'that paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of a science."

Icons of Evolution - Science or Myth? Jonathan Wells, page 223

In the case of fossils; which are essentially bones that have fossilized, meaning turned to stone; fossils are generally dated on the basis of factors other than radiometric dating; such as a particular date may be chosen for a fossil because the date is consistent with aspects of the theory of evolution.

In other words, in dating fossils it is quite common that an assumption that the theory of evolution is true is used as a factor in dating fossils.  This is a self-serving way of dating fossils, but it is a common tactic because scientists are so confident that the theory of evolution is true.

For example, by using morphology and an assumption of the theory of evolution, it may be assumed that "Fossil A" evolved before "Species B" "evolved."  Thus, if "Fossil A" is believed to be 4,000,000 years old, "Fossil B" may be dated to be 3,700,000 years old solely on the basis of the date of "Fossil A" and a belief in evolution (i.e. it is dated based on where "Fossil B" fits on the phylogenetic tree relative to "Fossil A").

While the reader may assume that it takes millions of years to turn a biological specimen to stone, actually it has been demonstrated to have happened in less than 100 years (not 100 million years, just 100 years).  This is not theory; it is based on actual samples.

Also:

Scientists have never observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex.  All evidence of genetics indicates that this will not happen a single time in the next billion years.  Yet, it had to happen hundreds of millions of times for all the species on the earth to be explained.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. No religious authority was needed to convince me that dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Your foolishly veiled insult is noted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do think dating methods are flawed? Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe?
> 
> Was your earlier insult to be ignored? I've come to expect insults from religious people when challenges to their beliefs are presented. Do you enter a public discussion board and expect others to accept "because I say so claims"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Because the methods have been proven to be flawed.
> 
> "Arizona State University anthropologist Geoffrey Clark echoed this view in 1997 when he wrote that 'we select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions -- a process that is, at once, both political and subjective.'  Clark suggested 'that paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of a science."
> 
> Icons of Evolution - Science or Myth? Jonathan Wells, page 223
> 
> In the case of fossils; which are essentially bones that have fossilized, meaning turned to stone; fossils are generally dated on the basis of factors other than radiometric dating; such as a particular date may be chosen for a fossil because the date is consistent with aspects of the theory of evolution.
> 
> In other words, in dating fossils it is quite common that an assumption that the theory of evolution is true is used as a factor in dating fossils.  This is a self-serving way of dating fossils, but it is a common tactic because scientists are so confident that the theory of evolution is true.
> 
> For example, by using morphology and an assumption of the theory of evolution, it may be assumed that "Fossil A" evolved before "Species B" "evolved."  Thus, if "Fossil A" is believed to be 4,000,000 years old, "Fossil B" may be dated to be 3,700,000 years old solely on the basis of the date of "Fossil A" and a belief in evolution (i.e. it is dated based on where "Fossil B" fits on the phylogenetic tree relative to "Fossil A").
> 
> While the reader may assume that it takes millions of years to turn a biological specimen to stone, actually it has been demonstrated to have happened in less than 100 years (not 100 million years, just 100 years).  This is not theory; it is based on actual samples.
> 
> Also:
> 
> Scientists have never observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex.  All evidence of genetics indicates that this will not happen a single time in the next billion years.  Yet, it had to happen hundreds of millions of times for all the species on the earth to be explained.
Click to expand...

Ah, Jonathan Wells. Your link was familiar as the cast of characters are predictably connected with the Disco' tute.

10 Answers to Jonathan Wells's "10 Questions" | NCSE


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do think dating methods are flawed? Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe?
> 
> Was your earlier insult to be ignored? I've come to expect insults from religious people when challenges to their beliefs are presented. Do you enter a public discussion board and expect others to accept "because I say so claims"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because the methods have been proven to be flawed.
> 
> "Arizona State University anthropologist Geoffrey Clark echoed this view in 1997 when he wrote that 'we select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions -- a process that is, at once, both political and subjective.'  Clark suggested 'that paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of a science."
> 
> Icons of Evolution - Science or Myth? Jonathan Wells, page 223
> 
> In the case of fossils; which are essentially bones that have fossilized, meaning turned to stone; fossils are generally dated on the basis of factors other than radiometric dating; such as a particular date may be chosen for a fossil because the date is consistent with aspects of the theory of evolution.
> 
> In other words, in dating fossils it is quite common that an assumption that the theory of evolution is true is used as a factor in dating fossils.  This is a self-serving way of dating fossils, but it is a common tactic because scientists are so confident that the theory of evolution is true.
> 
> For example, by using morphology and an assumption of the theory of evolution, it may be assumed that "Fossil A" evolved before "Species B" "evolved."  Thus, if "Fossil A" is believed to be 4,000,000 years old, "Fossil B" may be dated to be 3,700,000 years old solely on the basis of the date of "Fossil A" and a belief in evolution (i.e. it is dated based on where "Fossil B" fits on the phylogenetic tree relative to "Fossil A").
> 
> While the reader may assume that it takes millions of years to turn a biological specimen to stone, actually it has been demonstrated to have happened in less than 100 years (not 100 million years, just 100 years).  This is not theory; it is based on actual samples.
> 
> Also:
> 
> Scientists have never observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex.  All evidence of genetics indicates that this will not happen a single time in the next billion years.  Yet, it had to happen hundreds of millions of times for all the species on the earth to be explained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, Jonathan Wells. Your link was familiar as the cast of characters are predictably connected with the Disco' tute.
> 
> 10 Answers to Jonathan Wells's "10 Questions" | NCSE
Click to expand...


Your concession is duly noted.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because the methods have been proven to be flawed.
> 
> "Arizona State University anthropologist Geoffrey Clark echoed this view in 1997 when he wrote that 'we select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions -- a process that is, at once, both political and subjective.'  Clark suggested 'that paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of a science."
> 
> Icons of Evolution - Science or Myth? Jonathan Wells, page 223
> 
> In the case of fossils; which are essentially bones that have fossilized, meaning turned to stone; fossils are generally dated on the basis of factors other than radiometric dating; such as a particular date may be chosen for a fossil because the date is consistent with aspects of the theory of evolution.
> 
> In other words, in dating fossils it is quite common that an assumption that the theory of evolution is true is used as a factor in dating fossils.  This is a self-serving way of dating fossils, but it is a common tactic because scientists are so confident that the theory of evolution is true.
> 
> For example, by using morphology and an assumption of the theory of evolution, it may be assumed that "Fossil A" evolved before "Species B" "evolved."  Thus, if "Fossil A" is believed to be 4,000,000 years old, "Fossil B" may be dated to be 3,700,000 years old solely on the basis of the date of "Fossil A" and a belief in evolution (i.e. it is dated based on where "Fossil B" fits on the phylogenetic tree relative to "Fossil A").
> 
> While the reader may assume that it takes millions of years to turn a biological specimen to stone, actually it has been demonstrated to have happened in less than 100 years (not 100 million years, just 100 years).  This is not theory; it is based on actual samples.
> 
> Also:
> 
> Scientists have never observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex.  All evidence of genetics indicates that this will not happen a single time in the next billion years.  Yet, it had to happen hundreds of millions of times for all the species on the earth to be explained.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, Jonathan Wells. Your link was familiar as the cast of characters are predictably connected with the Disco' tute.
> 
> 10 Answers to Jonathan Wells's "10 Questions" | NCSE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted.
Click to expand...

What did I concede? Nothing? That's correct thank you. 

What you confirmed was that it is true, the primary anti- science movement originates from Christian fundamentalists. The Disco-tute' is one of several Christian ministries that furthers the anti- science agenda.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, Jonathan Wells. Your link was familiar as the cast of characters are predictably connected with the Disco' tute.
> 
> 10 Answers to Jonathan Wells's "10 Questions" | NCSE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did I concede? Nothing? That's correct thank you.
> 
> What you confirmed was that it is true, the primary anti- science movement originates from Christian fundamentalists. The Disco-tute' is one of several Christian ministries that furthers the anti- science agenda.
Click to expand...


Well you did nothing to disprove the claims of flawed dating methods or the fact that scientists have never observed the random creation of new genetic information.

In every case where science claims they have witnessed evolution, one of three things has happened:

1) It was a case of microevolution,
2) It was a case of microevolution coupled with tricky definitions,
3) It was a case of point mutations which resulted in a loss of genetic information, but due to environmental reasons, there was a survival benefit.

They have never witnessed, and will never witness, a new gene complex being created by evolution.  Never!!

The theory of evolution is not a fact.  In reality, it is not even a theory.  The theory of evolution is scientific nonsense - or as one person put it, is nothing but a "fairy tale."

The two most basic pieces of the theory of evolution are the "first living cell" and the theory that randomly mutating very highly precise DNA strings will create new and improved genetic information and intelligence and it will create new and improved superior species.

However, there is absolutely zero scientific evidence for either of these things.

In fact, every piece of true scientific and mathematical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution does not exist in science; it only exists in the minds of those who assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy, the theory behind genetic chaos, etc. etc.


----------



## UltimateReality

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I define "faith" for you?
> 
> You say these drawings are 100,000 years or older but yet you have really no proof. You have faith that the science that told you how old these drawings are, are correct.
> 
> If you read the Bible, especially the part about the Tower of Babel, you will see that God was responsible for the different languages.
> 
> If not primitive then what? Developed? Modern? Sophisticated?
> 
> Which adjective would you rather I use?
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that fundies are quick to selectively condemn those evil scientists and their inaccurate methods... until they're sick and in need of a diagnostic medical expert. At that time, will they "pray" for a cure or will they seek competent medical advise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I condemn no one. I just don't place any faith on their supposed findings because as I've said before they seek a desired outcome and throw out all experiments that do not conform.
> 
> I do not not confuse medical science with evolutionary science and you shouldn't either.
Click to expand...


Lollie continues to fail to grasp the parameters of the Historic Sciences.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted.
> 
> 
> 
> What did I concede? Nothing? That's correct thank you.
> 
> What you confirmed was that it is true, the primary anti- science movement originates from Christian fundamentalists. The Disco-tute' is one of several Christian ministries that furthers the anti- science agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you did nothing to disprove the claims of flawed dating methods or the fact that scientists have never observed the random creation of new genetic information.
> 
> In every case where science claims they have witnessed evolution, one of three things has happened:
> 
> 1) It was a case of microevolution,
> 2) It was a case of microevolution coupled with tricky definitions,
> 3) It was a case of point mutations which resulted in a loss of genetic information, but due to environmental reasons, there was a survival benefit.
> 
> They have never witnessed, and will never witness, a new gene complex being created by evolution.  Never!!
> 
> The theory of evolution is not a fact.  In reality, it is not even a theory.  The theory of evolution is scientific nonsense - or as one person put it, is nothing but a "fairy tale."
> 
> The two most basic pieces of the theory of evolution are the "first living cell" and the theory that randomly mutating very highly precise DNA strings will create new and improved genetic information and intelligence and it will create new and improved superior species.
> 
> However, there is absolutely zero scientific evidence for either of these things.
> 
> In fact, every piece of true scientific and mathematical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution.
> 
> The theory of evolution does not exist in science; it only exists in the minds of those who assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy, the theory behind genetic chaos, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that your characterization of the first living cell as a piece of the theory of evolution denotes a primary ignorance of evolutionary theory. You are arguing against the very science you have no knowledge of. This is unfortunately a function of Christian ministries which use falsified information to cull the gullible and those with no science background. 

The Theory and the fact of evolution is only denied by those with an abiding revulsion for science as promoted by creationist charlatans. That is why the strident anti-science agenda emanates so strongly from christianity.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that fundies are quick to selectively condemn those evil scientists and their inaccurate methods... until they're sick and in need of a diagnostic medical expert. At that time, will they "pray" for a cure or will they seek competent medical advise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I condemn no one. I just don't place any faith on their supposed findings because as I've said before they seek a desired outcome and throw out all experiments that do not conform.
> 
> I do not not confuse medical science with evolutionary science and you shouldn't either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lollie continues to fail to grasp the parameters of the Historic Sciences.
Click to expand...


My goofy stalker is desperate for my attention.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I condemn no one. I just don't place any faith on their supposed findings because as I've said before they seek a desired outcome and throw out all experiments that do not conform.
> 
> I do not not confuse medical science with evolutionary science and you shouldn't either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lollie continues to fail to grasp the parameters of the Historic Sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My goofy stalker is desperate for my attention.
Click to expand...


I think you have me confused with the Muslim boys on the Islamic Forum.




Hollie said:


> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> In fact, every piece of true scientific and mathematical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution.
> The theory of evolution does not exist in science; it only exists in the minds of those who assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy, the theory behind genetic chaos, etc. etc.



Have you considered emailing the science departments of leading universities with your creationist claims?  I'm sure those universities would be interested to learn that your cutting and pasting from the Disco-tute' has rendered all of evolutionary science as null and void. 

Shall we substitute a "praise hey-zoos" in place of the biological sciences?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lollie continues to fail to grasp the parameters of the Historic Sciences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goofy stalker is desperate for my attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you have me confused with the Muslim boys on the Islamic Forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Desperate bids for attention. Are you confusing me with Muslim boys you have this creepy fascination with?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I concede? Nothing? That's correct thank you.
> 
> What you confirmed was that it is true, the primary anti- science movement originates from Christian fundamentalists. The Disco-tute' is one of several Christian ministries that furthers the anti- science agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you did nothing to disprove the claims of flawed dating methods or the fact that scientists have never observed the random creation of new genetic information.
> 
> In every case where science claims they have witnessed evolution, one of three things has happened:
> 
> 1) It was a case of microevolution,
> 2) It was a case of microevolution coupled with tricky definitions,
> 3) It was a case of point mutations which resulted in a loss of genetic information, but due to environmental reasons, there was a survival benefit.
> 
> They have never witnessed, and will never witness, a new gene complex being created by evolution.  Never!!
> 
> The theory of evolution is not a fact.  In reality, it is not even a theory.  The theory of evolution is scientific nonsense - or as one person put it, is nothing but a "fairy tale."
> 
> The two most basic pieces of the theory of evolution are the "first living cell" and the theory that randomly mutating very highly precise DNA strings will create new and improved genetic information and intelligence and it will create new and improved superior species.
> 
> However, there is absolutely zero scientific evidence for either of these things.
> 
> In fact, every piece of true scientific and mathematical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution.
> 
> The theory of evolution does not exist in science; it only exists in the minds of those who assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy, the theory behind genetic chaos, etc. etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid that your characterization of the first living cell as a piece of the theory of evolution denotes a primary ignorance of evolutionary theory. You are arguing against the very science you have no knowledge of. This is unfortunately a function of Christian ministries which use falsified information to cull the gullible and those with no science background.
> 
> The Theory and the fact of evolution is only denied by those with an abiding revulsion for science as promoted by creationist charlatans. That is why the strident anti-science agenda emanates so strongly from christianity.
Click to expand...


That has been your argument this entire time. 

Yet you provide NO FACTS to support your argument.

You claim my characterization is wrong yet you offer no characterization of your own.

You claim I don't understand evolutionary science yet you offer no valid argument to refute the facts I offered. 

You claim my information is false. So prove that it's false.  Just saying it doesn't make it so.

When my children were growing up, I used to play mind-games with them.  One person would try to mentally "kill" the other person.  However, the person could not directly "kill" the other person in the imaginary story, they could only put the other person in a situation from which it was impossible to escape alive.

For example, the conversation might go like this:

Me:             The bad news is that you fell out of an airplane at
30,000 feet.
Son:            The good news is that I had a parachute.
Me:             The bad news is that your parachute didn't open.
Son:            The good news is that I was headed for a haystack.
Me:             The bad news is that there was a pitchfork in the
haystack.
Son:            The good news is that I missed the pitchfork.
Me:             The bad news is that you missed the haystack.
Son:            The good news is that I landed on a pile of manure.
Me:             The bad news is that the manure was frozen solid.
Son:            The good news is that my suit of armor was very hot
and melted the frozen manure instantly.

and so on.

This is a good demonstration of the evolution debate.  It doesn't matter how ludicrous the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution is, or how bad the probability is, evolutionists will simply come up with some new spin to justify the theory of evolution.

I will give you a simple counterexample to the concept of "survival of the fittest."  Have you ever seen a liter of kittens just about the time they are able to leave the mother and go out into the dangerous world by themselves?  Who goes out first?  The strongest and most ambitious kitten goes out first.  Is this kitten ready to take on the world?  Absolutely not.

In fact, the strongest and most ambitious kittens are frequently killed because they are so ambitious they are most likely to leave the protection of their mother long before they are strong enough to defend themselves.

Of course, the evolutionists would disagree because they will always disagree with anything a creation scientist says.  And that is the point.  It doesn't matter what you say.

The battle between the theory of evolution and creation science will not end until the end of the world.  That is the fact.  There are so many people who want the theory of evolution to be true, for a multitude of different reasons; they will never give up their cherished theory.

If an unbiased "jury" were to look at the true scientific evidence from both sides of the debate, the theory of evolution would be rejected as scientific nonsense.

The problem is there is no such thing as an unbiased jury.  Nor is there such a thing as an unbiased judge.

But even if there was, the media would never give any publicity to any debate the theory of evolution lost.  So what would be the point of the debate?

In 1966, at the Wistar symposium, the theory of evolution lost badly.  Several world-famous evolutionists were at the symposium and had no answers for the criticisms of the theory of evolution generated by computer simulations and mathematics.  At that time scientists knew a little about DNA, but they had absolutely no clue how sophisticated DNA was.  And the theory of evolution still got hammered!!

It didn't matter.  After the symposium the evolutionists simply brushed themselves off, and continued to write new evolution books and preach the theory of evolution.  They were not interested in finding the truth; they were interested in supporting their egos.

The battle will go on and on and on.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, every piece of true scientific and mathematical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution.
> The theory of evolution does not exist in science; it only exists in the minds of those who assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy, the theory behind genetic chaos, etc. etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered emailing the science departments of leading universities with your creationist claims?  I'm sure those universities would be interested to learn that your cutting and pasting from the Disco-tute' has rendered all of evolutionary science as null and void.
> 
> Shall we substitute a "praise hey-zoos" in place of the biological sciences?
Click to expand...


Have you ever considering countering my argument with facts?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you did nothing to disprove the claims of flawed dating methods or the fact that scientists have never observed the random creation of new genetic information.
> 
> In every case where science claims they have witnessed evolution, one of three things has happened:
> 
> 1) It was a case of microevolution,
> 2) It was a case of microevolution coupled with tricky definitions,
> 3) It was a case of point mutations which resulted in a loss of genetic information, but due to environmental reasons, there was a survival benefit.
> 
> They have never witnessed, and will never witness, a new gene complex being created by evolution.  Never!!
> 
> The theory of evolution is not a fact.  In reality, it is not even a theory.  The theory of evolution is scientific nonsense - or as one person put it, is nothing but a "fairy tale."
> 
> The two most basic pieces of the theory of evolution are the "first living cell" and the theory that randomly mutating very highly precise DNA strings will create new and improved genetic information and intelligence and it will create new and improved superior species.
> 
> However, there is absolutely zero scientific evidence for either of these things.
> 
> In fact, every piece of true scientific and mathematical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution.
> 
> The theory of evolution does not exist in science; it only exists in the minds of those who assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy, the theory behind genetic chaos, etc. etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid that your characterization of the first living cell as a piece of the theory of evolution denotes a primary ignorance of evolutionary theory. You are arguing against the very science you have no knowledge of. This is unfortunately a function of Christian ministries which use falsified information to cull the gullible and those with no science background.
> 
> The Theory and the fact of evolution is only denied by those with an abiding revulsion for science as promoted by creationist charlatans. That is why the strident anti-science agenda emanates so strongly from christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has been your argument this entire time.
> 
> Yet you provide NO FACTS to support your argument.
> 
> You claim my characterization is wrong yet you offer no characterization of your own.
> 
> You claim I don't understand evolutionary science yet you offer no valid argument to refute the facts I offered.
> 
> You claim my information is false. So prove that it's false.  Just saying it doesn't make it so.
> 
> When my children were growing up, I used to play mind-games with them.  One person would try to mentally "kill" the other person.  However, the person could not directly "kill" the other person in the imaginary story, they could only put the other person in a situation from which it was impossible to escape alive.
> 
> For example, the conversation might go like this:
> 
> Me:             The bad news is that you fell out of an airplane at
> 30,000 feet.
> Son:            The good news is that I had a parachute.
> Me:             The bad news is that your parachute didn't open.
> Son:            The good news is that I was headed for a haystack.
> Me:             The bad news is that there was a pitchfork in the
> haystack.
> Son:            The good news is that I missed the pitchfork.
> Me:             The bad news is that you missed the haystack.
> Son:            The good news is that I landed on a pile of manure.
> Me:             The bad news is that the manure was frozen solid.
> Son:            The good news is that my suit of armor was very hot
> and melted the frozen manure instantly.
> 
> and so on.
> 
> This is a good demonstration of the evolution debate.  It doesn't matter how ludicrous the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution is, or how bad the probability is, evolutionists will simply come up with some new spin to justify the theory of evolution.
> 
> I will give you a simple counterexample to the concept of "survival of the fittest."  Have you ever seen a liter of kittens just about the time they are able to leave the mother and go out into the dangerous world by themselves?  Who goes out first?  The strongest and most ambitious kitten goes out first.  Is this kitten ready to take on the world?  Absolutely not.
> 
> In fact, the strongest and most ambitious kittens are frequently killed because they are so ambitious they are most likely to leave the protection of their mother long before they are strong enough to defend themselves.
> 
> Of course, the evolutionists would disagree because they will always disagree with anything a creation scientist says.  And that is the point.  It doesn't matter what you say.
> 
> The battle between the theory of evolution and creation science will not end until the end of the world.  That is the fact.  There are so many people who want the theory of evolution to be true, for a multitude of different reasons; they will never give up their cherished theory.
> 
> If an unbiased "jury" were to look at the true scientific evidence from both sides of the debate, the theory of evolution would be rejected as scientific nonsense.
> 
> The problem is there is no such thing as an unbiased jury.  Nor is there such a thing as an unbiased judge.
> 
> But even if there was, the media would never give any publicity to any debate the theory of evolution lost.  So what would be the point of the debate?
> 
> In 1966, at the Wistar symposium, the theory of evolution lost badly.  Several world-famous evolutionists were at the symposium and had no answers for the criticisms of the theory of evolution generated by computer simulations and mathematics.  At that time scientists knew a little about DNA, but they had absolutely no clue how sophisticated DNA was.  And the theory of evolution still got hammered!!
> 
> It didn't matter.  After the symposium the evolutionists simply brushed themselves off, and continued to write new evolution books and preach the theory of evolution.  They were not interested in finding the truth; they were interested in supporting their egos.
> 
> The battle will go on and on and on.
Click to expand...

There really is no battle. As noted, the only objection to science comess from fundie Christians. Your subjective impressions of kittens in a litter are hardly meaningful. 

It really is a shame that fundie Christians share this siege mentality when it comes to science and they will retreat into silly conspiracy theories to defend their gods.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, every piece of true scientific and mathematical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution.
> The theory of evolution does not exist in science; it only exists in the minds of those who assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy, the theory behind genetic chaos, etc. etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered emailing the science departments of leading universities with your creationist claims?  I'm sure those universities would be interested to learn that your cutting and pasting from the Disco-tute' has rendered all of evolutionary science as null and void.
> 
> Shall we substitute a "praise hey-zoos" in place of the biological sciences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever considering countering my argument with facts?
Click to expand...

What facts have you presented?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, every piece of true scientific and mathematical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution.
> The theory of evolution does not exist in science; it only exists in the minds of those who assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy, the theory behind genetic chaos, etc. etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered emailing the science departments of leading universities with your creationist claims?  I'm sure those universities would be interested to learn that your cutting and pasting from the Disco-tute' has rendered all of evolutionary science as null and void.
> 
> Shall we substitute a "praise hey-zoos" in place of the biological sciences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever considering countering my argument with facts?
Click to expand...

The wistar symposium was a laughable joke. 

ID: Intelligent Design as Imitatio Dei (report on the 2007 'Wistar Retrospective Symposium') - The Panda's Thumb


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid that your characterization of the first living cell as a piece of the theory of evolution denotes a primary ignorance of evolutionary theory. You are arguing against the very science you have no knowledge of. This is unfortunately a function of Christian ministries which use falsified information to cull the gullible and those with no science background.
> 
> The Theory and the fact of evolution is only denied by those with an abiding revulsion for science as promoted by creationist charlatans. That is why the strident anti-science agenda emanates so strongly from christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has been your argument this entire time.
> 
> Yet you provide NO FACTS to support your argument.
> 
> You claim my characterization is wrong yet you offer no characterization of your own.
> 
> You claim I don't understand evolutionary science yet you offer no valid argument to refute the facts I offered.
> 
> You claim my information is false. So prove that it's false.  Just saying it doesn't make it so.
> 
> When my children were growing up, I used to play mind-games with them.  One person would try to mentally "kill" the other person.  However, the person could not directly "kill" the other person in the imaginary story, they could only put the other person in a situation from which it was impossible to escape alive.
> 
> For example, the conversation might go like this:
> 
> Me:             The bad news is that you fell out of an airplane at
> 30,000 feet.
> Son:            The good news is that I had a parachute.
> Me:             The bad news is that your parachute didn't open.
> Son:            The good news is that I was headed for a haystack.
> Me:             The bad news is that there was a pitchfork in the
> haystack.
> Son:            The good news is that I missed the pitchfork.
> Me:             The bad news is that you missed the haystack.
> Son:            The good news is that I landed on a pile of manure.
> Me:             The bad news is that the manure was frozen solid.
> Son:            The good news is that my suit of armor was very hot
> and melted the frozen manure instantly.
> 
> and so on.
> 
> This is a good demonstration of the evolution debate.  It doesn't matter how ludicrous the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution is, or how bad the probability is, evolutionists will simply come up with some new spin to justify the theory of evolution.
> 
> I will give you a simple counterexample to the concept of "survival of the fittest."  Have you ever seen a liter of kittens just about the time they are able to leave the mother and go out into the dangerous world by themselves?  Who goes out first?  The strongest and most ambitious kitten goes out first.  Is this kitten ready to take on the world?  Absolutely not.
> 
> In fact, the strongest and most ambitious kittens are frequently killed because they are so ambitious they are most likely to leave the protection of their mother long before they are strong enough to defend themselves.
> 
> Of course, the evolutionists would disagree because they will always disagree with anything a creation scientist says.  And that is the point.  It doesn't matter what you say.
> 
> The battle between the theory of evolution and creation science will not end until the end of the world.  That is the fact.  There are so many people who want the theory of evolution to be true, for a multitude of different reasons; they will never give up their cherished theory.
> 
> If an unbiased "jury" were to look at the true scientific evidence from both sides of the debate, the theory of evolution would be rejected as scientific nonsense.
> 
> The problem is there is no such thing as an unbiased jury.  Nor is there such a thing as an unbiased judge.
> 
> But even if there was, the media would never give any publicity to any debate the theory of evolution lost.  So what would be the point of the debate?
> 
> In 1966, at the Wistar symposium, the theory of evolution lost badly.  Several world-famous evolutionists were at the symposium and had no answers for the criticisms of the theory of evolution generated by computer simulations and mathematics.  At that time scientists knew a little about DNA, but they had absolutely no clue how sophisticated DNA was.  And the theory of evolution still got hammered!!
> 
> It didn't matter.  After the symposium the evolutionists simply brushed themselves off, and continued to write new evolution books and preach the theory of evolution.  They were not interested in finding the truth; they were interested in supporting their egos.
> 
> The battle will go on and on and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There really is no battle. As noted, the only objection to science comess from fundie Christians. Your subjective impressions of kittens in a litter are hardly meaningful.
> 
> It really is a shame that fundie Christians share this siege mentality when it comes to science and they will retreat into silly conspiracy theories to defend their gods.
Click to expand...


Same old stale argument with no facts to support anything you say or to dispute anything I've claimed.

Class dismissed.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered emailing the science departments of leading universities with your creationist claims?  I'm sure those universities would be interested to learn that your cutting and pasting from the Disco-tute' has rendered all of evolutionary science as null and void.
> 
> Shall we substitute a "praise hey-zoos" in place of the biological sciences?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever considering countering my argument with facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wistar symposium was a laughable joke.
> 
> ID: Intelligent Design as Imitatio Dei (report on the 2007 'Wistar Retrospective Symposium') - The Panda's Thumb
Click to expand...


Yet still no proof of evolution.

You do know it's called a "theory" for a reason.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has been your argument this entire time.
> 
> Yet you provide NO FACTS to support your argument.
> 
> You claim my characterization is wrong yet you offer no characterization of your own.
> 
> You claim I don't understand evolutionary science yet you offer no valid argument to refute the facts I offered.
> 
> You claim my information is false. So prove that it's false.  Just saying it doesn't make it so.
> 
> When my children were growing up, I used to play mind-games with them.  One person would try to mentally "kill" the other person.  However, the person could not directly "kill" the other person in the imaginary story, they could only put the other person in a situation from which it was impossible to escape alive.
> 
> For example, the conversation might go like this:
> 
> Me:             The bad news is that you fell out of an airplane at
> 30,000 feet.
> Son:            The good news is that I had a parachute.p
> Me:             The bad news is that your parachute didn't open.
> Son:            The good news is that I was headed for a haystack.
> Me:             The bad news is that there was a pitchfork in the
> haystack.
> Son:            The good news is that I missed the pitchfork.
> Me:             The bad news is that you missed the haystack.
> Son:            The good news is that I landed on a pile of manure.
> Me:             The bad news is that the manure was frozen solid.
> Son:            The good news is that my suit of armor was very hot
> and melted the frozen manure instantly.
> 
> and so on.
> 
> This is a good demonstration of the evolution debate.  It doesn't matter how ludicrous the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution is, or how bad the probability is, evolutionists will simply come up with some new spin to justify the theory of evolution.
> 
> I will give you a simple counterexample to the concept of "survival of the fittest."  Have you ever seen a liter of kittens just about the time they are able to leave the mother and go out into the dangerous world by themselves?  Who goes out first?  The strongest and most ambitious kitten goes out first.  Is this kitten ready to take on the world?  Absolutely not.
> 
> In fact, the strongest and most ambitious kittens are frequently killed because they are so ambitious they are most likely to leave the protection of their mother long before they are strong enough to defend themselves.
> 
> Of course, the evolutionists would disagree because they will always disagree with anything a creation scientist says.  And that is the point.  It doesn't matter what you say.
> 
> The battle between the theory of evolution and creation science will not end until the end of the world.  That is the fact.  There are so many people who want the theory of evolution to be true, for a multitude of different reasons; they will never give up their cherished theory.
> 
> If an unbiased "jury" were to look at the true scientific evidence from both sides of the debate, the theory of evolution would be rejected as scientific nonsense.
> 
> The problem is there is no such thing as an unbiased jury.  Nor is there such a thing as an unbiased judge.
> 
> But even if there was, the media would never give any publicity to any debate the theory of evolution lost.  So what would be the point of the debate?
> 
> In 1966, at the Wistar symposium, the theory of evolution lost badly.  Several world-famous evolutionists were at the symposium and had no answers for the criticisms of the theory of evolution generated by computer simulations and mathematics.  At that time scientists knew a little about DNA, but they had absolutely no clue how sophisticated DNA was.  And the theory of evolution still got hammered!!
> 
> It didn't matter.  After the symposium the evolutionists simply brushed themselves off, and continued to write new evolution books and preach the theory of evolution.  They were not interested in finding the truth; they were interested in supporting their egos.
> 
> The battle will go on and on and on.
> 
> 
> 
> There really is no battle. As noted, the only objection to science comess from fundie Christians. Your subjective impressions of kittens in a litter are hardly meaningful.
> 
> It really is a shame that fundie Christians share this siege mentality when it comes to science and they will retreat into silly conspiracy theories to defend their gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same old stale argument with no facts to support anything you say or to dispute anything I've claimed.
> 
> Class dismissed.
Click to expand...


Run and hide if you wish. You seem confused that your homespun stories and tales of kitten litters somehow represents an argument worth reading or responding to. 

Your cut and paste about the wistar symposium is a lot of flaming about creationist propaganda that was ridiculed for being silly creationists flailing their pom poms with no allowance for peer reviewed refutation. 

I see no creationist "facts" supporting a compelling case for your gods, only the typical science hating fundie bluster.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever considering countering my argument with facts?
> 
> 
> 
> The wistar symposium was a laughable joke.
> 
> ID: Intelligent Design as Imitatio Dei (report on the 2007 'Wistar Retrospective Symposium') - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet still no proof of evolution.
> 
> You do know it's called a "theory" for a reason.
Click to expand...


You would need some education in science to understand biological evolution. As you demonstrated earlier, your only exposure to evolutionary theory was the twisted and falsified accounts furthered by Christian creationist ministries. Your account of evolutionary theory was completely wrong and showed an abysmal level of the most basic scientific concepts surrounding the subject. 

As for proof of evolution, there is ample proof. You can research that proof at any college or university library or on the web. Your conspiracy theories that hinge upon a vast, global network of conspirators who have conspired to defeat your belief in supermagical gods is... unhinged.  But you do have a right to be unhinged.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one needing it .
> 
> You took a lot of words to basically say the same thing I said. The faith you have in evolution isn't unlike the faith I have in creationism.
> 
> Why is there no recorded history before app. 4000 BC?
> 
> If mankind evolved from the same primitive life source, then why are there 7000 different languages spoken? Did they not communicate?
> 
> 
> 
> sorry but no . faith in science is not at all like faith in religion as that article CLEARLY SHOWS.
> THE REST IS A STEAMING PILE OF CREATIONIST SHIT..
> 1. DEFINE RECORDED HISTORY .
> Humans have been creating non alphabetical recorded events (history)(glyphs and cave painting ) for 100,000 years or more.
> making your false question moot.
> the evolution of language is far better proof of evolution then assumed creation.
> did god intentionally  leave out a common language gene or did he just fuck up?
> BTW the 7000 languages do have one thing in common vowels, A,E,O,U sometimes Y.
> Also saying that the "source" we evolved from was primitive is extremely bias and ethnocentric.
> since no life existed on earth for billions of years any "life source" that could take hold and thrive is anything but primitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall I define "faith" for you?
> 
> You say these drawings are 100,000 years or older but yet you have really no proof. You have faith that the science that told you how old these drawings are, are correct.
> 
> If you read the Bible, especially the part about the Tower of Babel, you will see that God was responsible for the different languages.
> 
> If not primitive then what? Developed? Modern? Sophisticated?
> 
> Which adjective would you rather I use?
Click to expand...

  not the old "if you read the bible" bullshit.  I have read it many times and the tower of bable is a parable ( a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious )
and is no actual proof of a tower or a god or that god was responsible. 
"faith" ( firm belief in something for which there is no proof ) 
on the other hand there is   actual proof of the drawings mentioned earlier ...
1. the drawings, glyphs and paintings in and of themselves are evidence .
there is  absolutly zero for the tower of bable.
2 before you go on about how dating methods are wrong and all the other denial of fact you'd like to throw in ,even if the dating methods were off by several thousand years they would still be thousands of years older then your creation fantasy allows...

 Spanish Cave Paintings Shown as Oldest in World

By SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press  Thu, Jun 14, 2012
Spanish cave paintings shown as oldest in world | 2012: What's the 'real' truth? 

WASHINGTON (AP)  New tests show that crude Spanish cavepaintings of a red sphere and handprints are the oldest in the world, so ancient they may not have been by modern man.Some scientists say they might have even been made by the much maligned Neanderthals, but others disagree.Testing the coating of paintings in 11 Spanish caves, researchers found that one is at least 40,800 years old, which is at least 15,000 years older than previously thought. That makes them older than the more famous French cave paintings by thousands of years.

Scientists dated the Spanish cave paintings by measuring the decay of uranium atoms, instead of traditional carbon-dating, according to a report released Thursday by the journal Science. The paintings were first discovered in the 1870s.

The oldest of the paintings is a red sphere from a cave called El Castillo. About 25 outlined handprints in another cave are at least 37,300 years old. Slightly younger paintings include horses.

Cave paintings are one of the most exquisite examples of human symbolic behavior, said study co-author Joao Zilhao, an anthropologist at the University of Barcelona. And that, thats what makes us human.

There is older sculpture and other portable art. Before the latest test, the oldest known cave paintings were those Frances Chauvet cave, considered between 32,000 and 37,000 years old.

What makes the dating of the Spanish cave paintings important is that its around the time whenmodern humans first came into Europe from Africa.

Study authors say they could have been from modern man decorating their new digs or they could have been the working of the long-time former tenant of Europe: the Neanderthal. Scientists said Neanderthals were in Europe from about 250,000 years ago until about 35,000 years ago. Modern humans arrived in Europe about 41,000 to 45,000 years ago  with some claims they moved in even earlier  and replaced Neanderthals.

There is a strong chance that these results imply Neanderthal authorship, Zilhao said. But I will not say we have proven it because we havent.

In a telephone press conference, Zilhao said Neanderthals recently have gotten bad press over their abilities. They decorated their tools and bodies. So, he said, they could have painted caves.But theres a debate in the scientific community about Neanderthals. Other anthropologists say Zilhao is in a minority of researchers who believe in more complex abilities of Neanderthals.

Eric Delson, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and John Shea at Long Islands Stony Brook University said the dating work in the Science paper is compelling and important, but they didnt quite buy the theory that Neanderthals could have been the artists.

There is no clear evidence of paintings associated with Neanderthal tools or fossils, so any such evidence would be surprising, Delson said. He said around 41,000 years ago Neanderthals were already moving south in Europe, away from modern man and these caves.

Shea said it is more likely that modern humans were making such paintings in Africa even earlier, but the works didnt survive because of the different geology on the continent.The people who came in to Europe were very much like us. They used art, they used symbols, Shea said.

They were not like Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble.

http://consciouslyconnecting.blog.com/2012/06/15/spanish-cave-paintings-shown-as-oldest-in-world/


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered emailing the science departments of leading universities with your creationist claims?  I'm sure those universities would be interested to learn that your cutting and pasting from the Disco-tute' has rendered all of evolutionary science as null and void.
> 
> Shall we substitute a "praise hey-zoos" in place of the biological sciences?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever considering countering my argument with facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What facts have you presented?
Click to expand...


At least you admit you don't read my post.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There really is no battle. As noted, the only objection to science comess from fundie Christians. Your subjective impressions of kittens in a litter are hardly meaningful.
> 
> It really is a shame that fundie Christians share this siege mentality when it comes to science and they will retreat into silly conspiracy theories to defend their gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same old stale argument with no facts to support anything you say or to dispute anything I've claimed.
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Run and hide if you wish. You seem confused that your homespun stories and tales of kitten litters somehow represents an argument worth reading or responding to.
> 
> Your cut and paste about the wistar symposium is a lot of flaming about creationist propaganda that was ridiculed for being silly creationists flailing their pom poms with no allowance for peer reviewed refutation.
> 
> I see no creationist "facts" supporting a compelling case for your gods, only the typical science hating fundie bluster.
Click to expand...


I don't run nor do I hide.

You have presented NOTHING but dismissals of facts.

Prove evolution is a FACT.


I'll wait.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry but no . faith in science is not at all like faith in religion as that article CLEARLY SHOWS.
> THE REST IS A STEAMING PILE OF CREATIONIST SHIT..
> 1. DEFINE RECORDED HISTORY .
> Humans have been creating non alphabetical recorded events (history)(glyphs and cave painting ) for 100,000 years or more.
> making your false question moot.
> the evolution of language is far better proof of evolution then assumed creation.
> did god intentionally  leave out a common language gene or did he just fuck up?
> BTW the 7000 languages do have one thing in common vowels, A,E,O,U sometimes Y.
> Also saying that the "source" we evolved from was primitive is extremely bias and ethnocentric.
> since no life existed on earth for billions of years any "life source" that could take hold and thrive is anything but primitive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I define "faith" for you?
> 
> You say these drawings are 100,000 years or older but yet you have really no proof. You have faith that the science that told you how old these drawings are, are correct.
> 
> If you read the Bible, especially the part about the Tower of Babel, you will see that God was responsible for the different languages.
> 
> If not primitive then what? Developed? Modern? Sophisticated?
> 
> Which adjective would you rather I use?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not the old "if you read the bible" bullshit.  I have read it many times and the tower of bable is a parable ( a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious )
> and is no actual proof of a tower or a god or that god was responsible.
> "faith" ( firm belief in something for which there is no proof )
> on the other hand there is   actual proof of the drawings mentioned earlier ...
> 1. the drawings, glyphs and paintings in and of themselves are evidence .
> there is  absolutly zero for the tower of bable.
> 2 before you go on about how dating methods are wrong and all the other denial of fact you'd like to throw in ,even if the dating methods were off by several thousand years they would still be thousands of years older then your creation fantasy allows...
> 
> Spanish Cave Paintings Shown as Oldest in World
> 
> By SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press  Thu, Jun 14, 2012
> Spanish cave paintings shown as oldest in world | 2012: What's the 'real' truth?
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP)  New tests show that crude Spanish cavepaintings of a red sphere and handprints are the oldest in the world, so ancient they may not have been by modern man.Some scientists say they might have even been made by the much maligned Neanderthals, but others disagree.Testing the coating of paintings in 11 Spanish caves, researchers found that one is at least 40,800 years old, which is at least 15,000 years older than previously thought. That makes them older than the more famous French cave paintings by thousands of years.
> 
> Scientists dated the Spanish cave paintings by measuring the decay of uranium atoms, instead of traditional carbon-dating, according to a report released Thursday by the journal Science. The paintings were first discovered in the 1870s.
> 
> The oldest of the paintings is a red sphere from a cave called El Castillo. About 25 outlined handprints in another cave are at least 37,300 years old. Slightly younger paintings include horses.
> 
> Cave paintings are one of the most exquisite examples of human symbolic behavior, said study co-author Joao Zilhao, an anthropologist at the University of Barcelona. And that, thats what makes us human.
> 
> There is older sculpture and other portable art. Before the latest test, the oldest known cave paintings were those Frances Chauvet cave, considered between 32,000 and 37,000 years old.
> 
> What makes the dating of the Spanish cave paintings important is that its around the time whenmodern humans first came into Europe from Africa.
> 
> Study authors say they could have been from modern man decorating their new digs or they could have been the working of the long-time former tenant of Europe: the Neanderthal. Scientists said Neanderthals were in Europe from about 250,000 years ago until about 35,000 years ago. Modern humans arrived in Europe about 41,000 to 45,000 years ago  with some claims they moved in even earlier  and replaced Neanderthals.
> 
> There is a strong chance that these results imply Neanderthal authorship, Zilhao said. But I will not say we have proven it because we havent.
> 
> In a telephone press conference, Zilhao said Neanderthals recently have gotten bad press over their abilities. They decorated their tools and bodies. So, he said, they could have painted caves.But theres a debate in the scientific community about Neanderthals. Other anthropologists say Zilhao is in a minority of researchers who believe in more complex abilities of Neanderthals.
> 
> Eric Delson, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and John Shea at Long Islands Stony Brook University said the dating work in the Science paper is compelling and important, but they didnt quite buy the theory that Neanderthals could have been the artists.
> 
> There is no clear evidence of paintings associated with Neanderthal tools or fossils, so any such evidence would be surprising, Delson said. He said around 41,000 years ago Neanderthals were already moving south in Europe, away from modern man and these caves.
> 
> Shea said it is more likely that modern humans were making such paintings in Africa even earlier, but the works didnt survive because of the different geology on the continent.The people who came in to Europe were very much like us. They used art, they used symbols, Shea said.
> 
> They were not like Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble.
> 
> http://consciouslyconnecting.blog.com/2012/06/15/spanish-cave-paintings-shown-as-oldest-in-world/
Click to expand...


Ficticious? Why because you say so?

Sorry if I don't take your word for it.

And as I've said dating methods are flawed and since that is a fact, then all presumptions about how old something is, is just that a presumption.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever considering countering my argument with facts?
> 
> 
> 
> What facts have you presented?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you admit you don't read my post.
Click to expand...


Where did I admit that, or did you just invent that claim.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I define "faith" for you?
> 
> You say these drawings are 100,000 years or older but yet you have really no proof. You have faith that the science that told you how old these drawings are, are correct.
> 
> If you read the Bible, especially the part about the Tower of Babel, you will see that God was responsible for the different languages.
> 
> If not primitive then what? Developed? Modern? Sophisticated?
> 
> Which adjective would you rather I use?
> 
> 
> 
> not the old "if you read the bible" bullshit.  I have read it many times and the tower of bable is a parable ( a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious )
> and is no actual proof of a tower or a god or that god was responsible.
> "faith" ( firm belief in something for which there is no proof )
> on the other hand there is   actual proof of the drawings mentioned earlier ...
> 1. the drawings, glyphs and paintings in and of themselves are evidence .
> there is  absolutly zero for the tower of bable.
> 2 before you go on about how dating methods are wrong and all the other denial of fact you'd like to throw in ,even if the dating methods were off by several thousand years they would still be thousands of years older then your creation fantasy allows...
> 
> Spanish Cave Paintings Shown as Oldest in World
> 
> By SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press  Thu, Jun 14, 2012
> Spanish cave paintings shown as oldest in world | 2012: What's the 'real' truth?
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP)  New tests show that crude Spanish cavepaintings of a red sphere and handprints are the oldest in the world, so ancient they may not have been by modern man.Some scientists say they might have even been made by the much maligned Neanderthals, but others disagree.Testing the coating of paintings in 11 Spanish caves, researchers found that one is at least 40,800 years old, which is at least 15,000 years older than previously thought. That makes them older than the more famous French cave paintings by thousands of years.
> 
> Scientists dated the Spanish cave paintings by measuring the decay of uranium atoms, instead of traditional carbon-dating, according to a report released Thursday by the journal Science. The paintings were first discovered in the 1870s.
> 
> The oldest of the paintings is a red sphere from a cave called El Castillo. About 25 outlined handprints in another cave are at least 37,300 years old. Slightly younger paintings include horses.
> 
> Cave paintings are one of the most exquisite examples of human symbolic behavior, said study co-author Joao Zilhao, an anthropologist at the University of Barcelona. And that, thats what makes us human.
> 
> There is older sculpture and other portable art. Before the latest test, the oldest known cave paintings were those Frances Chauvet cave, considered between 32,000 and 37,000 years old.
> 
> What makes the dating of the Spanish cave paintings important is that its around the time whenmodern humans first came into Europe from Africa.
> 
> Study authors say they could have been from modern man decorating their new digs or they could have been the working of the long-time former tenant of Europe: the Neanderthal. Scientists said Neanderthals were in Europe from about 250,000 years ago until about 35,000 years ago. Modern humans arrived in Europe about 41,000 to 45,000 years ago  with some claims they moved in even earlier  and replaced Neanderthals.
> 
> There is a strong chance that these results imply Neanderthal authorship, Zilhao said. But I will not say we have proven it because we havent.
> 
> In a telephone press conference, Zilhao said Neanderthals recently have gotten bad press over their abilities. They decorated their tools and bodies. So, he said, they could have painted caves.But theres a debate in the scientific community about Neanderthals. Other anthropologists say Zilhao is in a minority of researchers who believe in more complex abilities of Neanderthals.
> 
> Eric Delson, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and John Shea at Long Islands Stony Brook University said the dating work in the Science paper is compelling and important, but they didnt quite buy the theory that Neanderthals could have been the artists.
> 
> There is no clear evidence of paintings associated with Neanderthal tools or fossils, so any such evidence would be surprising, Delson said. He said around 41,000 years ago Neanderthals were already moving south in Europe, away from modern man and these caves.
> 
> Shea said it is more likely that modern humans were making such paintings in Africa even earlier, but the works didnt survive because of the different geology on the continent.The people who came in to Europe were very much like us. They used art, they used symbols, Shea said.
> 
> They were not like Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble.
> 
> http://consciouslyconnecting.blog.com/2012/06/15/spanish-cave-paintings-shown-as-oldest-in-world/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ficticious? Why because you say so?
> 
> Sorry if I don't take your word for it.
> 
> And as I've said dating methods are flawed and since that is a fact, then all presumptions about how old something is, is just that a presumption.
Click to expand...

Yours is a flawed and unsupportable statement.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered emailing the science departments of leading universities with your creationist claims?  I'm sure those universities would be interested to learn that your cutting and pasting from the Disco-tute' has rendered all of evolutionary science as null and void.
> 
> Shall we substitute a "praise hey-zoos" in place of the biological sciences?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever considering countering my argument with facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What facts have you presented?
Click to expand...


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What facts have you presented?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least you admit you don't read my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I admit that, or did you just invent that claim.
Click to expand...


It was an assumption based on the fact that you had to ask what facts I presented in which there are a few.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wistar symposium was a laughable joke.
> 
> ID: Intelligent Design as Imitatio Dei (report on the 2007 'Wistar Retrospective Symposium') - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet still no proof of evolution.
> 
> You do know it's called a "theory" for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You would need some education in science to understand biological evolution.*
Click to expand...


*Where did you go to college??*


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not the old "if you read the bible" bullshit.  I have read it many times and the tower of bable is a parable ( a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious )
> and is no actual proof of a tower or a god or that god was responsible.
> "faith" ( firm belief in something for which there is no proof )
> on the other hand there is   actual proof of the drawings mentioned earlier ...
> 1. the drawings, glyphs and paintings in and of themselves are evidence .
> there is  absolutly zero for the tower of bable.
> 2 before you go on about how dating methods are wrong and all the other denial of fact you'd like to throw in ,even if the dating methods were off by several thousand years they would still be thousands of years older then your creation fantasy allows...
> 
> Spanish Cave Paintings Shown as Oldest in World
> 
> By SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press  Thu, Jun 14, 2012
> Spanish cave paintings shown as oldest in world | 2012: What's the 'real' truth?
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP)  New tests show that crude Spanish cavepaintings of a red sphere and handprints are the oldest in the world, so ancient they may not have been by modern man.Some scientists say they might have even been made by the much maligned Neanderthals, but others disagree.Testing the coating of paintings in 11 Spanish caves, researchers found that one is at least 40,800 years old, which is at least 15,000 years older than previously thought. That makes them older than the more famous French cave paintings by thousands of years.
> 
> Scientists dated the Spanish cave paintings by measuring the decay of uranium atoms, instead of traditional carbon-dating, according to a report released Thursday by the journal Science. The paintings were first discovered in the 1870s.
> 
> The oldest of the paintings is a red sphere from a cave called El Castillo. About 25 outlined handprints in another cave are at least 37,300 years old. Slightly younger paintings include horses.
> 
> Cave paintings are one of the most exquisite examples of human symbolic behavior, said study co-author Joao Zilhao, an anthropologist at the University of Barcelona. And that, thats what makes us human.
> 
> There is older sculpture and other portable art. Before the latest test, the oldest known cave paintings were those Frances Chauvet cave, considered between 32,000 and 37,000 years old.
> 
> What makes the dating of the Spanish cave paintings important is that its around the time whenmodern humans first came into Europe from Africa.
> 
> Study authors say they could have been from modern man decorating their new digs or they could have been the working of the long-time former tenant of Europe: the Neanderthal. Scientists said Neanderthals were in Europe from about 250,000 years ago until about 35,000 years ago. Modern humans arrived in Europe about 41,000 to 45,000 years ago  with some claims they moved in even earlier  and replaced Neanderthals.
> 
> There is a strong chance that these results imply Neanderthal authorship, Zilhao said. But I will not say we have proven it because we havent.
> 
> In a telephone press conference, Zilhao said Neanderthals recently have gotten bad press over their abilities. They decorated their tools and bodies. So, he said, they could have painted caves.But theres a debate in the scientific community about Neanderthals. Other anthropologists say Zilhao is in a minority of researchers who believe in more complex abilities of Neanderthals.
> 
> Eric Delson, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and John Shea at Long Islands Stony Brook University said the dating work in the Science paper is compelling and important, but they didnt quite buy the theory that Neanderthals could have been the artists.
> 
> There is no clear evidence of paintings associated with Neanderthal tools or fossils, so any such evidence would be surprising, Delson said. He said around 41,000 years ago Neanderthals were already moving south in Europe, away from modern man and these caves.
> 
> Shea said it is more likely that modern humans were making such paintings in Africa even earlier, but the works didnt survive because of the different geology on the continent.The people who came in to Europe were very much like us. They used art, they used symbols, Shea said.
> 
> They were not like Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble.
> 
> http://consciouslyconnecting.blog.com/2012/06/15/spanish-cave-paintings-shown-as-oldest-in-world/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ficticious? Why because you say so?
> 
> Sorry if I don't take your word for it.
> 
> And as I've said dating methods are flawed and since that is a fact, then all presumptions about how old something is, is just that a presumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours is a flawed and unsupportable statement.
Click to expand...


Why because you say so?

Prove anything I have stated is flawed.

And I have supported my claim that dating test are flawed several times in this thread. Those are some of the FACTS you said you didn't see.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not the old "if you read the bible" bullshit.  I have read it many times and the tower of bable is a parable ( a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious )
> and is no actual proof of a tower or a god or that god was responsible.
> "faith" ( firm belief in something for which there is no proof )
> on the other hand there is   actual proof of the drawings mentioned earlier ...
> 1. the drawings, glyphs and paintings in and of themselves are evidence .
> there is  absolutly zero for the tower of bable.
> 2 before you go on about how dating methods are wrong and all the other denial of fact you'd like to throw in ,even if the dating methods were off by several thousand years they would still be thousands of years older then your creation fantasy allows...
> 
> Spanish Cave Paintings Shown as Oldest in World
> 
> By SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press  Thu, Jun 14, 2012
> Spanish cave paintings shown as oldest in world | 2012: What's the 'real' truth?
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP)  New tests show that crude Spanish cavepaintings of a red sphere and handprints are the oldest in the world, so ancient they may not have been by modern man.Some scientists say they might have even been made by the much maligned Neanderthals, but others disagree.Testing the coating of paintings in 11 Spanish caves, researchers found that one is at least 40,800 years old, which is at least 15,000 years older than previously thought. That makes them older than the more famous French cave paintings by thousands of years.
> 
> Scientists dated the Spanish cave paintings by measuring the decay of uranium atoms, instead of traditional carbon-dating, according to a report released Thursday by the journal Science. The paintings were first discovered in the 1870s.
> 
> The oldest of the paintings is a red sphere from a cave called El Castillo. About 25 outlined handprints in another cave are at least 37,300 years old. Slightly younger paintings include horses.
> 
> Cave paintings are one of the most exquisite examples of human symbolic behavior, said study co-author Joao Zilhao, an anthropologist at the University of Barcelona. And that, thats what makes us human.
> 
> There is older sculpture and other portable art. Before the latest test, the oldest known cave paintings were those Frances Chauvet cave, considered between 32,000 and 37,000 years old.
> 
> What makes the dating of the Spanish cave paintings important is that its around the time whenmodern humans first came into Europe from Africa.
> 
> Study authors say they could have been from modern man decorating their new digs or they could have been the working of the long-time former tenant of Europe: the Neanderthal. Scientists said Neanderthals were in Europe from about 250,000 years ago until about 35,000 years ago. Modern humans arrived in Europe about 41,000 to 45,000 years ago  with some claims they moved in even earlier  and replaced Neanderthals.
> 
> There is a strong chance that these results imply Neanderthal authorship, Zilhao said. But I will not say we have proven it because we havent.
> 
> In a telephone press conference, Zilhao said Neanderthals recently have gotten bad press over their abilities. They decorated their tools and bodies. So, he said, they could have painted caves.But theres a debate in the scientific community about Neanderthals. Other anthropologists say Zilhao is in a minority of researchers who believe in more complex abilities of Neanderthals.
> 
> Eric Delson, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and John Shea at Long Islands Stony Brook University said the dating work in the Science paper is compelling and important, but they didnt quite buy the theory that Neanderthals could have been the artists.
> 
> There is no clear evidence of paintings associated with Neanderthal tools or fossils, so any such evidence would be surprising, Delson said. He said around 41,000 years ago Neanderthals were already moving south in Europe, away from modern man and these caves.
> 
> Shea said it is more likely that modern humans were making such paintings in Africa even earlier, but the works didnt survive because of the different geology on the continent.The people who came in to Europe were very much like us. They used art, they used symbols, Shea said.
> 
> They were not like Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble.
> 
> http://consciouslyconnecting.blog.com/2012/06/15/spanish-cave-paintings-shown-as-oldest-in-world/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ficticious? Why because you say so?
> 
> Sorry if I don't take your word for it.
> 
> And as I've said dating methods are flawed and since that is a fact, then all presumptions about how old something is, is just that a presumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours is a flawed and unsupportable statement.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> *You would need some education in science to understand biological evolution.*


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same old stale argument with no facts to support anything you say or to dispute anything I've claimed.
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Run and hide if you wish. You seem confused that your homespun stories and tales of kitten litters somehow represents an argument worth reading or responding to.
> 
> Your cut and paste about the wistar symposium is a lot of flaming about creationist propaganda that was ridiculed for being silly creationists flailing their pom poms with no allowance for peer reviewed refutation.
> 
> I see no creationist "facts" supporting a compelling case for your gods, only the typical science hating fundie bluster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't run nor do I hide.
> 
> You have presented NOTHING but dismissals of facts.
> 
> Prove evolution is a FACT.
> 
> 
> I'll wait.
Click to expand...

You can start here: The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs


I'm still hoping you will reveal how your kitten litter tale is a compelling refutation of evolution.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I define "faith" for you?
> 
> You say these drawings are 100,000 years or older but yet you have really no proof. You have faith that the science that told you how old these drawings are, are correct.
> 
> If you read the Bible, especially the part about the Tower of Babel, you will see that God was responsible for the different languages.
> 
> If not primitive then what? Developed? Modern? Sophisticated?
> 
> Which adjective would you rather I use?
> 
> 
> 
> not the old "if you read the bible" bullshit.  I have read it many times and the tower of bable is a parable ( a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious )
> and is no actual proof of a tower or a god or that god was responsible.
> "faith" ( firm belief in something for which there is no proof )
> on the other hand there is   actual proof of the drawings mentioned earlier ...
> 1. the drawings, glyphs and paintings in and of themselves are evidence .
> there is  absolutly zero for the tower of bable.
> 2 before you go on about how dating methods are wrong and all the other denial of fact you'd like to throw in ,even if the dating methods were off by several thousand years they would still be thousands of years older then your creation fantasy allows...
> 
> Spanish Cave Paintings Shown as Oldest in World
> 
> By SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press  Thu, Jun 14, 2012
> Spanish cave paintings shown as oldest in world | 2012: What's the 'real' truth?
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP)  New tests show that crude Spanish cavepaintings of a red sphere and handprints are the oldest in the world, so ancient they may not have been by modern man.Some scientists say they might have even been made by the much maligned Neanderthals, but others disagree.Testing the coating of paintings in 11 Spanish caves, researchers found that one is at least 40,800 years old, which is at least 15,000 years older than previously thought. That makes them older than the more famous French cave paintings by thousands of years.
> 
> Scientists dated the Spanish cave paintings by measuring the decay of uranium atoms, instead of traditional carbon-dating, according to a report released Thursday by the journal Science. The paintings were first discovered in the 1870s.
> 
> The oldest of the paintings is a red sphere from a cave called El Castillo. About 25 outlined handprints in another cave are at least 37,300 years old. Slightly younger paintings include horses.
> 
> Cave paintings are one of the most exquisite examples of human symbolic behavior, said study co-author Joao Zilhao, an anthropologist at the University of Barcelona. And that, thats what makes us human.
> 
> There is older sculpture and other portable art. Before the latest test, the oldest known cave paintings were those Frances Chauvet cave, considered between 32,000 and 37,000 years old.
> 
> What makes the dating of the Spanish cave paintings important is that its around the time whenmodern humans first came into Europe from Africa.
> 
> Study authors say they could have been from modern man decorating their new digs or they could have been the working of the long-time former tenant of Europe: the Neanderthal. Scientists said Neanderthals were in Europe from about 250,000 years ago until about 35,000 years ago. Modern humans arrived in Europe about 41,000 to 45,000 years ago  with some claims they moved in even earlier  and replaced Neanderthals.
> 
> There is a strong chance that these results imply Neanderthal authorship, Zilhao said. But I will not say we have proven it because we havent.
> 
> In a telephone press conference, Zilhao said Neanderthals recently have gotten bad press over their abilities. They decorated their tools and bodies. So, he said, they could have painted caves.But theres a debate in the scientific community about Neanderthals. Other anthropologists say Zilhao is in a minority of researchers who believe in more complex abilities of Neanderthals.
> 
> Eric Delson, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and John Shea at Long Islands Stony Brook University said the dating work in the Science paper is compelling and important, but they didnt quite buy the theory that Neanderthals could have been the artists.
> 
> There is no clear evidence of paintings associated with Neanderthal tools or fossils, so any such evidence would be surprising, Delson said. He said around 41,000 years ago Neanderthals were already moving south in Europe, away from modern man and these caves.
> 
> Shea said it is more likely that modern humans were making such paintings in Africa even earlier, but the works didnt survive because of the different geology on the continent.The people who came in to Europe were very much like us. They used art, they used symbols, Shea said.
> 
> They were not like Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble.
> 
> http://consciouslyconnecting.blog.com/2012/06/15/spanish-cave-paintings-shown-as-oldest-in-world/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ficticious? Why because you say so?
> 
> Sorry if I don't take your word for it.
> 
> And as I've said dating methods are flawed and since that is a fact, then all presumptions about how old something is, is just that a presumption.
Click to expand...

 it's fictious because there's no evidence to support it .
 your denial of dating methods is a dodge
it is true that they are flawed but even if they were only right 50% of the time it would still make them far more accurate then the no proof answers you provide.
BTW the bible is the most flawed and inaccurate book ever written....but you still use it...


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Run and hide if you wish. You seem confused that your homespun stories and tales of kitten litters somehow represents an argument worth reading or responding to.
> 
> Your cut and paste about the wistar symposium is a lot of flaming about creationist propaganda that was ridiculed for being silly creationists flailing their pom poms with no allowance for peer reviewed refutation.
> 
> I see no creationist "facts" supporting a compelling case for your gods, only the typical science hating fundie bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't run nor do I hide.
> 
> You have presented NOTHING but dismissals of facts.
> 
> Prove evolution is a FACT.
> 
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can start here: The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs
> 
> 
> I'm still hoping you will reveal how your kitten litter tale is a compelling refutation of evolution.
Click to expand...


I've heard all the arguments FOR evolution. WHERE IS THE PROOF?

Stuck on the kitten analogy are ya?

Where is the observable random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not the old "if you read the bible" bullshit.  I have read it many times and the tower of bable is a parable ( a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious )
> and is no actual proof of a tower or a god or that god was responsible.
> "faith" ( firm belief in something for which there is no proof )
> on the other hand there is   actual proof of the drawings mentioned earlier ...
> 1. the drawings, glyphs and paintings in and of themselves are evidence .
> there is  absolutly zero for the tower of bable.
> 2 before you go on about how dating methods are wrong and all the other denial of fact you'd like to throw in ,even if the dating methods were off by several thousand years they would still be thousands of years older then your creation fantasy allows...
> 
> Spanish Cave Paintings Shown as Oldest in World
> 
> By SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press  Thu, Jun 14, 2012
> Spanish cave paintings shown as oldest in world | 2012: What's the 'real' truth?
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP)  New tests show that crude Spanish cavepaintings of a red sphere and handprints are the oldest in the world, so ancient they may not have been by modern man.Some scientists say they might have even been made by the much maligned Neanderthals, but others disagree.Testing the coating of paintings in 11 Spanish caves, researchers found that one is at least 40,800 years old, which is at least 15,000 years older than previously thought. That makes them older than the more famous French cave paintings by thousands of years.
> 
> Scientists dated the Spanish cave paintings by measuring the decay of uranium atoms, instead of traditional carbon-dating, according to a report released Thursday by the journal Science. The paintings were first discovered in the 1870s.
> 
> The oldest of the paintings is a red sphere from a cave called El Castillo. About 25 outlined handprints in another cave are at least 37,300 years old. Slightly younger paintings include horses.
> 
> Cave paintings are one of the most exquisite examples of human symbolic behavior, said study co-author Joao Zilhao, an anthropologist at the University of Barcelona. And that, thats what makes us human.
> 
> There is older sculpture and other portable art. Before the latest test, the oldest known cave paintings were those Frances Chauvet cave, considered between 32,000 and 37,000 years old.
> 
> What makes the dating of the Spanish cave paintings important is that its around the time whenmodern humans first came into Europe from Africa.
> 
> Study authors say they could have been from modern man decorating their new digs or they could have been the working of the long-time former tenant of Europe: the Neanderthal. Scientists said Neanderthals were in Europe from about 250,000 years ago until about 35,000 years ago. Modern humans arrived in Europe about 41,000 to 45,000 years ago  with some claims they moved in even earlier  and replaced Neanderthals.
> 
> There is a strong chance that these results imply Neanderthal authorship, Zilhao said. But I will not say we have proven it because we havent.
> 
> In a telephone press conference, Zilhao said Neanderthals recently have gotten bad press over their abilities. They decorated their tools and bodies. So, he said, they could have painted caves.But theres a debate in the scientific community about Neanderthals. Other anthropologists say Zilhao is in a minority of researchers who believe in more complex abilities of Neanderthals.
> 
> Eric Delson, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and John Shea at Long Islands Stony Brook University said the dating work in the Science paper is compelling and important, but they didnt quite buy the theory that Neanderthals could have been the artists.
> 
> There is no clear evidence of paintings associated with Neanderthal tools or fossils, so any such evidence would be surprising, Delson said. He said around 41,000 years ago Neanderthals were already moving south in Europe, away from modern man and these caves.
> 
> Shea said it is more likely that modern humans were making such paintings in Africa even earlier, but the works didnt survive because of the different geology on the continent.The people who came in to Europe were very much like us. They used art, they used symbols, Shea said.
> 
> They were not like Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble.
> 
> http://consciouslyconnecting.blog.com/2012/06/15/spanish-cave-paintings-shown-as-oldest-in-world/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ficticious? Why because you say so?
> 
> Sorry if I don't take your word for it.
> 
> And as I've said dating methods are flawed and since that is a fact, then all presumptions about how old something is, is just that a presumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's fictious because there's no evidence to support it .
> your denial of dating methods is a dodge
> it is true that they are flawed but even if they were only right 50% of the time it would still make them far more accurate then the no proof answers you provide.
> BTW the bible is the most flawed and inaccurate book ever written....but you still use it...
Click to expand...


The only requirement is faith.

Dating methods have been proven to be flawed. Not a dodge but simply the truth. 

Using your logic that the dating methods are correct 50 percent of the time, then how can you be certain which result is correct and which result isn't? Flip a coin? It'd be about the same odds.

Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact. 

Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't run nor do I hide.
> 
> You have presented NOTHING but dismissals of facts.
> 
> Prove evolution is a FACT.
> 
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> You can start here: The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs
> 
> 
> I'm still hoping you will reveal how your kitten litter tale is a compelling refutation of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard all the arguments FOR evolution. WHERE IS THE PROOF?
> 
> Stuck on the kitten analogy are ya?
> 
> Where is the observable random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
Click to expand...

 Not surprisingly, you never opened the link sent to you. The facts are there. 

Let's look at this from the perspective of a conspiratorial mindset and we'll presume that all the facts and evidence supporting evolution are wrong.

How does that support your claims to the gods? As we see with consistency, the conspiracy theory addled fundie is utterly unable to present evidence for his gods, thus the entirety of the fundie argument in favor of the gods is reduced to attacks on science.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least you admit you don't read my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I admit that, or did you just invent that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was an assumption based on the fact that you had to ask what facts I presented in which there are a few.
Click to expand...


There are facts you possess that prove your gods? 

Super. Present them.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can start here: The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs
> 
> 
> I'm still hoping you will reveal how your kitten litter tale is a compelling refutation of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard all the arguments FOR evolution. WHERE IS THE PROOF?
> 
> Stuck on the kitten analogy are ya?
> 
> Where is the observable random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not surprisingly, you never opened the link sent to you. The facts are there.
> 
> Let's look at this from the perspective of a conspiratorial mindset and we'll presume that all the facts and evidence supporting evolution are wrong.
> 
> How does that support your claims to the gods? As we see with consistency, the conspiracy theory addled fundie is utterly unable to present evidence for his gods, thus the entirety of the fundie argument in favor of the gods is reduced to attacks on science.
Click to expand...


Yes I opened it and found NO PROOF.

Gods?  I made no claim about gods.

The thing is my faith needs no proof. Yours does.

Evolutionary science is junk science.

They have zero evidence that life can be created from non-life.  They have zero evidence that any new information or intelligence has been created by random mutations of nucleotides.  And so on.

So what do they use for their "evidence?"

Their primary evidence is to assume the theory of evolution is true and to claim that each new discovery in biology or genetic research is the result of evolution.

The scenario goes something like this:

1) Scientists assume the theory of evolution is true,
2) Then they look at the "data" and spin whatever kind of story they can come up with to "prove" the theory of evolution is true,
3) They then claim they have "evidence" for the theory of evolution.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't run nor do I hide.
> 
> You have presented NOTHING but dismissals of facts.
> 
> Prove evolution is a FACT.
> 
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> You can start here: The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs
> 
> 
> I'm still hoping you will reveal how your kitten litter tale is a compelling refutation of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard all the arguments FOR evolution. WHERE IS THE PROOF?
> 
> Stuck on the kitten analogy are ya?
> 
> Where is the observable random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
Click to expand...

You need to petition your creationist ministries to update their propaganda regarding new, functional gene complexes.


More on the origination of new protein-coding genes - The Panda's Thumb 

Of course, we can assume all the above is a conspiracy theory. That will allow you to present your facts proving the gods.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I admit that, or did you just invent that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was an assumption based on the fact that you had to ask what facts I presented in which there are a few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are facts you possess that prove your gods?
> 
> Super. Present them.
Click to expand...


Why would I need proof of something I acknowledge exists?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can start here: The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs
> 
> 
> I'm still hoping you will reveal how your kitten litter tale is a compelling refutation of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard all the arguments FOR evolution. WHERE IS THE PROOF?
> 
> Stuck on the kitten analogy are ya?
> 
> Where is the observable random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to petition your creationist ministries to update their propaganda regarding new, functional gene complexes.
> 
> 
> More on the origination of new protein-coding genes - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> Of course, we can assume all the above is a conspiracy theory. That will allow you to present your facts proving the gods.
Click to expand...


I have no "creation ministries".


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Thinking about tonight, I bet I am right about one thing: Hollie, Daws, Loki and NP are for four more years of handouts, entitlements, excessive spending, free money for failed alternative energy companies, DOJ gun running schemes, and wealth redistribution.



 There is no god.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard all the arguments FOR evolution. WHERE IS THE PROOF?
> 
> Stuck on the kitten analogy are ya?
> 
> Where is the observable random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly, you never opened the link sent to you. The facts are there.
> 
> Let's look at this from the perspective of a conspiratorial mindset and we'll presume that all the facts and evidence supporting evolution are wrong.
> 
> How does that support your claims to the gods? As we see with consistency, the conspiracy theory addled fundie is utterly unable to present evidence for his gods, thus the entirety of the fundie argument in favor of the gods is reduced to attacks on science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I opened it and found NO PROOF.
> 
> Gods?  I made no claim about gods.
> 
> The thing is my faith needs no proof. Yours does.
> 
> Evolutionary science is junk science.
> 
> They have zero evidence that life can be created from non-life.  They have zero evidence that any new information or intelligence has been created by random mutations of nucleotides.  And so on.
> 
> So what do they use for their "evidence?"
> 
> Their primary evidence is to assume the theory of evolution is true and to claim that each new discovery in biology or genetic research is the result of evolution.
> 
> The scenario goes something like this:
> 
> 1) Scientists assume the theory of evolution is true,
> 2) Then they look at the "data" and spin whatever kind of story they can come up with to "prove" the theory of evolution is true,
> 3) They then claim they have "evidence" for the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...

The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. Why are you arguing against an established field of science when you have no knowledge of even the most basic principles of that discipline? You stumble over your own arguments as they are meaningless regarding evolution. Shouldn't you have at least a middling understanding of evolutionary principles before you attempt to argue against it?

The scientific method does not operate in the manner you describe. It seems that you and the two other Christian fundies all cut and paste from the same websites that have made you accomplices to ignorance, fear and superstition. 

The discipline of science has what us known as "peer review". That is a process wherein data, results of testing and claims to theories or observed test results are subject to ruthless re-testing and examination by others. 

Thus is the most glaring exception for creationist charlatans who explicitly do not submit their anti-science efforts for peer review. The reasons are obvious: the Christian creationist charlatans have an explicit agenda of denigrating science as a perceived mechanism to vilify science. Those efforts have crashed and burned as the creationist ministries have been repeatedly exposed as frauds, such as the snake-oil salesmen at the Disco-tute'.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was an assumption based on the fact that you had to ask what facts I presented in which there are a few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are facts you possess that prove your gods?
> 
> Super. Present them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I need proof of something I acknowledge exists?
Click to expand...


If that were true, why do you so desperately need to thrash away at science and evolution? 

It's a common these with fundies: evolution is a threat to their belief in supermagical gods just as evolution is a threat. Science strips away fear and ignorance. Just as we now understand that natural forces are not of any gods, knowledge has inevitably reduced your gods from being the eternal winders of the universe to mere paper-shuffling laggards and lay-abouts.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly, you never opened the link sent to you. The facts are there.
> 
> Let's look at this from the perspective of a conspiratorial mindset and we'll presume that all the facts and evidence supporting evolution are wrong.
> 
> How does that support your claims to the gods? As we see with consistency, the conspiracy theory addled fundie is utterly unable to present evidence for his gods, thus the entirety of the fundie argument in favor of the gods is reduced to attacks on science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I opened it and found NO PROOF.
> 
> Gods?  I made no claim about gods.
> 
> The thing is my faith needs no proof. Yours does.
> 
> Evolutionary science is junk science.
> 
> They have zero evidence that life can be created from non-life.  They have zero evidence that any new information or intelligence has been created by random mutations of nucleotides.  And so on.
> 
> So what do they use for their "evidence?"
> 
> Their primary evidence is to assume the theory of evolution is true and to claim that each new discovery in biology or genetic research is the result of evolution.
> 
> The scenario goes something like this:
> 
> 1) Scientists assume the theory of evolution is true,
> 2) Then they look at the "data" and spin whatever kind of story they can come up with to "prove" the theory of evolution is true,
> 3) They then claim they have "evidence" for the theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. Why are you arguing against an established field of science when you have no knowledge of even the most basic principles of that discipline? You stumble over your own arguments as they are meaningless regarding evolution. Shouldn't you have at least a middling understanding of evolutionary principles before you attempt to argue against it?
> 
> The scientific method does not operate in the manner you describe. It seems that you and the two other Christian fundies all cut and paste from the same websites that have made you accomplices to ignorance, fear and superstition.
> 
> The discipline of science has what us known as "peer review". That is a process wherein data, results of testing and claims to theories or observed test results are subject to ruthless re-testing and examination by others.
> 
> Thus is the most glaring exception for creationist charlatans who explicitly do not submit their anti-science efforts for peer review. The reasons are obvious: the Christian creationist charlatans have an explicit agenda of denigrating science as a perceived mechanism to vilify science. Those efforts have crashed and burned as the creationist ministries have been repeatedly exposed as frauds, such as the snake-oil salesmen at the Disco-tute'.
Click to expand...


If the "theory" of evolution doesn't involve the "origin of life" then at what point did evolution begin? 

BTW peer review doesn't mean squat in this case. You have fellow evolutionary scientist agreeing with each other. Big deal. Proves nothing. 

Evolutionist don't have an agenda?

I have no idea what the disco-tute is or why you keep referring to it. 

Why is an unproven theory used as fact?

How did the "sexes" come to be?

Regardless of whether we are talking about animals, fish, or plant life, it's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties. If evolution is a fact how did that come about?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are facts you possess that prove your gods?
> 
> Super. Present them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I need proof of something I acknowledge exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were true, why do you so desperately need to thrash away at science and evolution?
> 
> It's a common these with fundies: evolution is a threat to their belief in supermagical gods just as evolution is a threat. Science strips away fear and ignorance. Just as we now understand that natural forces are not of any gods, knowledge has inevitably reduced your gods from being the eternal winders of the universe to mere paper-shuffling laggards and lay-abouts.
Click to expand...


Oh but it is true.

I'm trying to save your foolish ass from future embarrassment. It's my Christian nature to help the less fortunate. 

Trust me, evolution is no threat to my beliefs in any way. I find it amusing to watch you people flop around like a fish out of water trying to prove the silliness you profess to be fact.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I opened it and found NO PROOF.
> 
> Gods?  I made no claim about gods.
> 
> The thing is my faith needs no proof. Yours does.
> 
> Evolutionary science is junk science.
> 
> They have zero evidence that life can be created from non-life.  They have zero evidence that any new information or intelligence has been created by random mutations of nucleotides.  And so on.
> 
> So what do they use for their "evidence?"
> 
> Their primary evidence is to assume the theory of evolution is true and to claim that each new discovery in biology or genetic research is the result of evolution.
> 
> The scenario goes something like this:
> 
> 1) Scientists assume the theory of evolution is true,
> 2) Then they look at the "data" and spin whatever kind of story they can come up with to "prove" the theory of evolution is true,
> 3) They then claim they have "evidence" for the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. Why are you arguing against an established field of science when you have no knowledge of even the most basic principles of that discipline? You stumble over your own arguments as they are meaningless regarding evolution. Shouldn't you have at least a middling understanding of evolutionary principles before you attempt to argue against it?
> 
> The scientific method does not operate in the manner you describe. It seems that you and the two other Christian fundies all cut and paste from the same websites that have made you accomplices to ignorance, fear and superstition.
> 
> The discipline of science has what us known as "peer review". That is a process wherein data, results of testing and claims to theories or observed test results are subject to ruthless re-testing and examination by others.
> 
> Thus is the most glaring exception for creationist charlatans who explicitly do not submit their anti-science efforts for peer review. The reasons are obvious: the Christian creationist charlatans have an explicit agenda of denigrating science as a perceived mechanism to vilify science. Those efforts have crashed and burned as the creationist ministries have been repeatedly exposed as frauds, such as the snake-oil salesmen at the Disco-tute'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the "theory" of evolution doesn't involve the "origin of life" then at what point did evolution begin?
> 
> BTW peer review doesn't mean squat in this case. You have fellow evolutionary scientist agreeing with each other. Big deal. Proves nothing.
> 
> Evolutionist don't have an agenda?
> 
> I have no idea what the disco-tute is or why you keep referring to it.
> 
> Why is an unproven theory used as fact?
> 
> How did the "sexes" come to be?
> 
> Regardless of whether we are talking about animals, fish, or plant life, it's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties. If evolution is a fact how did that come about?
Click to expand...

Regarding the science of evolution, you really should take some time and acquaint yourself with what science has discovered. Did you hear the news: thunder and lightning is not the result of angry gods. 

BTW, peer review is a vital component of science discovery and exploration. I gave a brief description earlier. Here too, you really should spend some time and learn something of the discipline you hope to denigrate but understand so little of.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. Why are you arguing against an established field of science when you have no knowledge of even the most basic principles of that discipline? You stumble over your own arguments as they are meaningless regarding evolution. Shouldn't you have at least a middling understanding of evolutionary principles before you attempt to argue against it?
> 
> The scientific method does not operate in the manner you describe. It seems that you and the two other Christian fundies all cut and paste from the same websites that have made you accomplices to ignorance, fear and superstition.
> 
> The discipline of science has what us known as "peer review". That is a process wherein data, results of testing and claims to theories or observed test results are subject to ruthless re-testing and examination by others.
> 
> Thus is the most glaring exception for creationist charlatans who explicitly do not submit their anti-science efforts for peer review. The reasons are obvious: the Christian creationist charlatans have an explicit agenda of denigrating science as a perceived mechanism to vilify science. Those efforts have crashed and burned as the creationist ministries have been repeatedly exposed as frauds, such as the snake-oil salesmen at the Disco-tute'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the "theory" of evolution doesn't involve the "origin of life" then at what point did evolution begin?
> 
> BTW peer review doesn't mean squat in this case. You have fellow evolutionary scientist agreeing with each other. Big deal. Proves nothing.
> 
> Evolutionist don't have an agenda?
> 
> I have no idea what the disco-tute is or why you keep referring to it.
> 
> Why is an unproven theory used as fact?
> 
> How did the "sexes" come to be?
> 
> Regardless of whether we are talking about animals, fish, or plant life, it's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties. If evolution is a fact how did that come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regarding the science of evolution, you really should take some time and acquaint yourself with what science has discovered. Did you hear the news: thunder and lightning is not the result of angry gods.
> 
> BTW, peer review is a vital component of science discovery and exploration. I gave a brief description earlier. Here too, you really should spend some time and learn something of the discipline you hope to denigrate but understand so little of.
Click to expand...


Why male and female?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I need proof of something I acknowledge exists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true, why do you so desperately need to thrash away at science and evolution?
> 
> It's a common these with fundies: evolution is a threat to their belief in supermagical gods just as evolution is a threat. Science strips away fear and ignorance. Just as we now understand that natural forces are not of any gods, knowledge has inevitably reduced your gods from being the eternal winders of the universe to mere paper-shuffling laggards and lay-abouts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh but it is true.
> 
> I'm trying to save your foolish ass from future embarrassment. It's my Christian nature to help the less fortunate.
> 
> Trust me, evolution is no threat to my beliefs in any way. I find it amusing to watch you people flop around like a fish out of water trying to prove the silliness you profess to be fact.
Click to expand...


floating conspiracy theories about global, subversive efforts to promote evilution are entertaining but get tiresome. You appear to mimic the two other Christian fundies in thus thread who similarly view the worldwide plague of education and learning as a real and imminent threat. I just find it curious that the most education loathing, science hating folks seem to be Christian. Is that also part of your Christian nature? Let's hope you... evolve... into a rational, thinking human. 

Are you of the fundie persuasion that uses prayer instead of medicine to promote healing?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the "theory" of evolution doesn't involve the "origin of life" then at what point did evolution begin?
> 
> BTW peer review doesn't mean squat in this case. You have fellow evolutionary scientist agreeing with each other. Big deal. Proves nothing.
> 
> Evolutionist don't have an agenda?
> 
> I have no idea what the disco-tute is or why you keep referring to it.
> 
> Why is an unproven theory used as fact?
> 
> How did the "sexes" come to be?
> 
> Regardless of whether we are talking about animals, fish, or plant life, it's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties. If evolution is a fact how did that come about?
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the science of evolution, you really should take some time and acquaint yourself with what science has discovered. Did you hear the news: thunder and lightning is not the result of angry gods.
> 
> BTW, peer review is a vital component of science discovery and exploration. I gave a brief description earlier. Here too, you really should spend some time and learn something of the discipline you hope to denigrate but understand so little of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why male and female?
Click to expand...

I suppose the gods have urges too. After all, we invented the gods in our image. 

Haven't you noticed that the plastic hey-zoos on your dashboard has very "waspy" features.

How cool is that, an Anglo Hey-zoos.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ficticious? Why because you say so?
> 
> Sorry if I don't take your word for it.
> 
> And as I've said dating methods are flawed and since that is a fact, then all presumptions about how old something is, is just that a presumption.
> 
> 
> 
> it's fictious because there's no evidence to support it .
> your denial of dating methods is a dodge
> it is true that they are flawed but even if they were only right 50% of the time it would still make them far more accurate then the no proof answers you provide.
> BTW the bible is the most flawed and inaccurate book ever written....but you still use it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only requirement is faith.
> 
> Dating methods have been proven to be flawed. Not a dodge but simply the truth.
> 
> Using your logic that the dating methods are correct 50 percent of the time, then how can you be certain which result is correct and which result isn't? Flip a coin? It'd be about the same odds.
> 
> Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact.
> 
> Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy.
Click to expand...

and using your "logic" you missed the "IF" the fact is dating methods are far more accurate then  50%  more like 97or 98 % percent depending on the method,unlike the claims in the bible that are not supported by evidence,the following claims are erroneous in the extreme : "Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact." L.S

Bible Science Debunked



A Brief Introduction To Biblical Cosmology

It is not uncommon for biblical apologists to make the claim that the Bible miraculously revealed advanced scientific principles long before they were discovered by modern science.  If true, this would lend credibility to the notion that the Bible is divinely inspired (or that the Bible authors were incredibly astute).  But can these claims really be substantiated through an objective analysis of the biblical citations that are presented to support this premise?  In order to find out, I searched the Internet for Christian apologetic websites that tout the Bible as a source of revelatory scientific insight and settled on one developed by a Mr. David Pyles entitled, &#65533;Scientific Facts and Accuracy in the Bible.&#65533;  I chose Mr. Pyles&#65533; website because it contained more citations than most and included claims that routinely appear on other such websites.  

Before examining Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims for the Bible&#65533;s amazing scientific accuracy, it is helpful to first set the stage by providing an overview of the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe.  According to the Harper's Bible Dictionary, 

&#65533;The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and round [disk], covered by the great solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars, (Job 26:11; 37:18). The blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters that the firmament separated from the earth (Gen. 1:7). The earth was thus surrounded by waters above and below (Gen. 1:6,7; cf. Psalms 24:2; 148:4, Deut. 5:8). The firmament was thought to be substantial; it had pillars (Job 26:11) and foundations (2 Sam. 22:8). When the windows of it were opened, rain fell (Gen. 7:11-12; 8:2). The sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 19:4,6). It was also the abode of the birds (Gen. 1:20; Deut. 4:17). Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead (Num. 16:30-33; Isa. 14:9,15)."

Yes, those Bronze Age science wizards whose creation folktales were collected in the Old Testament really did believe that the earth was covered by a solid dome.  The Hebrew word translated as firmament in Genesis is "raqiya."  Strong's Lexicon (searchable at the Blue Letter Bible website) translates the word as "extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament."  In keeping with the notion of solidity, the dome was thought to be impervious to water, i.e., it separated the waters above it from the waters below, to contain windows that regulated precipitation, to serve as a surface across which the sun, moon, and stars traveled, and to serve as a sub-floor for the mythical reservoirs of snow and hail (Job 38:22).

The concept of a solid dome in the sky is also exemplified by Job 37:18 which describes God as spreading out the heavens and making them "as strong as a cast metal mirror." (NKJV)   In Isa. 40:22, the heavens are likened to the fabric of a curtain or tent.  And in a footnote to "raqiya," Strong's Lexicon states, "...considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting "waters above."

A depiction of this archaic concept of a dome-covered universe and further discussion on the subject can found here. 

Incidentally, the sky is not blue because a make-believe firmament partially transmits the color of &#65533;chaotic waters&#65533; confined above it.  It is blue because of a phenomenon known as Rayleigh scattering.



Examining the Claims



In consideration of the foregoing, it is difficult to identify anything that might come close to qualifying as cutting-edge science.  Truth be told, the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe is manifestly unscientific and something that any Typical Scientifically-Ignorant Bronze Age Goat Herder (TSIBAGH) might be expected to have dreamed up.  Be that as it may, in what follows, let&#65533;s see how Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims stand up to scrutiny.  (It appears Mr. Pyles has used the KJV Bible for most of his biblical citations.  I have done likewise, unless otherwise specified.)

Claim 1.

Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." 

Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."

My Response:

Genesis gets off to a rather dubious start in the science department because it violates one of the principal tenets of the scientific method, i.e., it invokes supernatural causation.  Science deals exclusively with natural causes and effects.  (See here.) God, a supernatural entity, cannot be invoked as a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe (or anything else for that matter).  Scientific theories dealing with the origin of the universe do not include reference to any creator gods because to do so would render them utterly unscientific. 

According to an earlier understanding of  &#65533;Big Bang&#65533; theory of the origin of the universe (based on general relativity factors), time started when matter/energy originated and was set in motion through space.   The thinking was that the process began with a so-called singularity in which matter/energy was compressed to an incredibly high density (similar to the condition that is thought to exist at the center of black holes).  Now, taking into account additional factors relating to quantum mechanics, it is the consensus of cosmologists that there was no singularity at the start of the Big Bang. This means that time did not necessarily begin with the Big Bang and that the universe could extend back in time with no limit, i.e., it may have existed in one form or another forever.  In other words, and in contradiction to Genesis, there may well not have been a beginning of the universe for anyone or any thing to cause.  The Genesis creation story provides none of this insight and consists of nothing that a TSIBAGH could not have dreamed up.  More to the point, it is precisely the type of mythical folktale a TSIBAGH would be expected to dream up.

Although Genesis 1:1-3 makes general statements about what God supposedly did, it provides no information regarding how He did it.  Scientific explanations include information not only about what happened, but also about how (using only naturalistic mechanisms) it happened.  Not only does Genesis get virtually everything wrong, it also leaves out far too many details to qualify as a source of useful scientific information on the origin of the universe. 

Arbitrarily assigning scientific meanings to words in ancient documents does not automatically lend any scientific credibility to the stories they tell.  One can play the same word game with a number of ancient creation stories.  Consider the following from a part of a Chinese creation story:

In the beginning (time), the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos.  The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself.  After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep.  He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might (power) to crack open the egg.  The light, clear part of it floated up (motion) and formed the heavens (space), the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth (matter). 

I have inserted the words "time," "power," "motion," "space," and "matter" using the same logic (or lack thereof) that Mr. Pyles used in his example above.  Does this lend any scientific credibility to the creation story of Pan Gu?  I don&#65533;t think so.  Neither do I think it does so when Mr. Pyles uses the same specious approach with the Bible.

Bible Science Debunked


"Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy  L.S."


How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?By Austin Cline, About.com GuideJuly 30, 2009

Quite a few Christians believe that the Bible is 100% accurate in every detail - not a single error or contradiction can be found in the text. Other Christians believe that many allegedly historical passages are only metaphorical and that the authors, being fallible, made mistakes from time to time. Which end of this spectrum do you think is most reasonable and, more importantly, why? What sorts of evidence or reasoning can be presented to more literalist Christians to explain why the Bible is not a perfect historical record? 

It's obvious that some parts of the Bible were only ever intended to be metaphorical or allegorical stories  the Bible is, after all, a collection of texts written over a long period of time and they represent many different genres of writing. Even those intended to relate actual events, though, were not written from the perspective of purely factual, objective history because that genre didn't exist at the time  for most of history, writing "history" meant pursuing a political, ideological, or religious agenda at the same time. 

Even if we ignore that, however, distinguishing between the portions that are allegories or metaphors and the portions which are meant to be historical isn't always easy. Sometimes there are markers, but so often religious believers insist that some stories are allegories even though no such markers are present  apparently, anything that obviously couldn't be true must have been intended to be allegory all along while anything that might be true must be true. Where doe such an attitude come from and why is it only applied to one's own religion? 

.Weekly Poll: How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?

One more thing ..why is it when searching those statements  do you only find conformation on Christian bias sites?
 you would think that if those fables were fact you find them on  actual  historical and scientific sites not pseudoscience or pseudohistoric ones?


----------



## Gadawg73

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard all the arguments FOR evolution. WHERE IS THE PROOF?
> 
> Stuck on the kitten analogy are ya?
> 
> Where is the observable random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly, you never opened the link sent to you. The facts are there.
> 
> Let's look at this from the perspective of a conspiratorial mindset and we'll presume that all the facts and evidence supporting evolution are wrong.
> 
> How does that support your claims to the gods? As we see with consistency, the conspiracy theory addled fundie is utterly unable to present evidence for his gods, thus the entirety of the fundie argument in favor of the gods is reduced to attacks on science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I opened it and found NO PROOF.
> 
> Gods?  I made no claim about gods.
> 
> The thing is my faith needs no proof. Yours does.
> 
> Evolutionary science is junk science.
> 
> They have zero evidence that life can be created from non-life.  They have zero evidence that any new information or intelligence has been created by random mutations of nucleotides.  And so on.
> 
> So what do they use for their "evidence?"
> 
> Their primary evidence is to assume the theory of evolution is true and to claim that each new discovery in biology or genetic research is the result of evolution.
> 
> The scenario goes something like this:
> 
> 1) Scientists assume the theory of evolution is true,
> 2) Then they look at the "data" and spin whatever kind of story they can come up with to "prove" the theory of evolution is true,
> 3) They then claim they have "evidence" for the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...


So all scientists are frauds spinning all of their studies to purposely make fraudulent conclusions.
And since the entire world scientific community accepted evolution as fact in the 1870s this global fraud has been ongoing for 140 years.
And the tens of thousands of scientific studies on the theory of evolution, many conducted at The Beacon Center for the Study of evolution in action at Texas A & M as well as many at The University of Texas and most all top universities in The United States of America, are all bogus to the core and scientific frauds.
That is your argument. All the science is a fraud with the thousands of studies using the scientific method, which by reading your 1, 2, 3 Kaptain Kangaroo scientific method, is all there is.

Anyone that seriously believes Texas A & M, The University of Texas and all other scientists everywhere uses your above 1, 2, 3 scenario to conduct scientific testing in any way, shape or form is ignorant.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Gadawg73 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
> If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
> Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those questions apply to your side as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit. You can believe and teach whatever you want in your religion classes.
Click to expand...


I learned it in the classes you should have learned it,not to mention the lab.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you been convinced by religious authorities that various dating methods accepted by scientists is one huge conspiracy theory? For that to be the case,  your conspiracy would necessarily require conspirators from all of the leading teaching universities in all the developed nations.
> 
> I think looking foolish and desperate is a function of Christian creationists who selectively accept only the science which they feel is not a direct threat to their religious beliefs. You should also be aware that aside from christianity and islam, there really does not exist an anti-science / anti-evolution movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. No religious authority was needed to convince me that dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Your foolishly veiled insult is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do think dating methods are flawed? Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe?
> 
> Was your earlier insult to be ignored? I've come to expect insults from religious people when challenges to their beliefs are presented. Do you enter a public discussion board and expect others to accept "because I say so claims"?
Click to expand...


Please explain how diamonds that were dated to a couple of million years old were found to contain carbon ?


----------



## Gadawg73

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's fictious because there's no evidence to support it .
> your denial of dating methods is a dodge
> it is true that they are flawed but even if they were only right 50% of the time it would still make them far more accurate then the no proof answers you provide.
> BTW the bible is the most flawed and inaccurate book ever written....but you still use it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only requirement is faith.
> 
> Dating methods have been proven to be flawed. Not a dodge but simply the truth.
> 
> Using your logic that the dating methods are correct 50 percent of the time, then how can you be certain which result is correct and which result isn't? Flip a coin? It'd be about the same odds.
> 
> Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact.
> 
> Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and using your "logic" you missed the "IF" the fact is dating methods are far more accurate then  50%  more like 97or 98 % percent depending on the method,unlike the claims in the bible that are not supported by evidence,the following claims are erroneous in the extreme : "Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact." L.S
> 
> Bible Science Debunked
> 
> 
> 
> A Brief Introduction To Biblical Cosmology
> 
> It is not uncommon for biblical apologists to make the claim that the Bible miraculously revealed advanced scientific principles long before they were discovered by modern science.  If true, this would lend credibility to the notion that the Bible is divinely inspired (or that the Bible authors were incredibly astute).  But can these claims really be substantiated through an objective analysis of the biblical citations that are presented to support this premise?  In order to find out, I searched the Internet for Christian apologetic websites that tout the Bible as a source of revelatory scientific insight and settled on one developed by a Mr. David Pyles entitled, &#65533;Scientific Facts and Accuracy in the Bible.&#65533;  I chose Mr. Pyles&#65533; website because it contained more citations than most and included claims that routinely appear on other such websites.
> 
> Before examining Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims for the Bible&#65533;s amazing scientific accuracy, it is helpful to first set the stage by providing an overview of the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe.  According to the Harper's Bible Dictionary,
> 
> &#65533;The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and round [disk], covered by the great solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars, (Job 26:11; 37:18). The blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters that the firmament separated from the earth (Gen. 1:7). The earth was thus surrounded by waters above and below (Gen. 1:6,7; cf. Psalms 24:2; 148:4, Deut. 5:8). The firmament was thought to be substantial; it had pillars (Job 26:11) and foundations (2 Sam. 22:8). When the windows of it were opened, rain fell (Gen. 7:11-12; 8:2). The sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 19:4,6). It was also the abode of the birds (Gen. 1:20; Deut. 4:17). Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead (Num. 16:30-33; Isa. 14:9,15)."
> 
> Yes, those Bronze Age science wizards whose creation folktales were collected in the Old Testament really did believe that the earth was covered by a solid dome.  The Hebrew word translated as firmament in Genesis is "raqiya."  Strong's Lexicon (searchable at the Blue Letter Bible website) translates the word as "extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament."  In keeping with the notion of solidity, the dome was thought to be impervious to water, i.e., it separated the waters above it from the waters below, to contain windows that regulated precipitation, to serve as a surface across which the sun, moon, and stars traveled, and to serve as a sub-floor for the mythical reservoirs of snow and hail (Job 38:22).
> 
> The concept of a solid dome in the sky is also exemplified by Job 37:18 which describes God as spreading out the heavens and making them "as strong as a cast metal mirror." (NKJV)   In Isa. 40:22, the heavens are likened to the fabric of a curtain or tent.  And in a footnote to "raqiya," Strong's Lexicon states, "...considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting "waters above."
> 
> A depiction of this archaic concept of a dome-covered universe and further discussion on the subject can found here.
> 
> Incidentally, the sky is not blue because a make-believe firmament partially transmits the color of &#65533;chaotic waters&#65533; confined above it.  It is blue because of a phenomenon known as Rayleigh scattering.
> 
> 
> 
> Examining the Claims
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the foregoing, it is difficult to identify anything that might come close to qualifying as cutting-edge science.  Truth be told, the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe is manifestly unscientific and something that any Typical Scientifically-Ignorant Bronze Age Goat Herder (TSIBAGH) might be expected to have dreamed up.  Be that as it may, in what follows, let&#65533;s see how Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims stand up to scrutiny.  (It appears Mr. Pyles has used the KJV Bible for most of his biblical citations.  I have done likewise, unless otherwise specified.)
> 
> Claim 1.
> 
> Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
> 
> Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."
> 
> My Response:
> 
> Genesis gets off to a rather dubious start in the science department because it violates one of the principal tenets of the scientific method, i.e., it invokes supernatural causation.  Science deals exclusively with natural causes and effects.  (See here.) God, a supernatural entity, cannot be invoked as a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe (or anything else for that matter).  Scientific theories dealing with the origin of the universe do not include reference to any creator gods because to do so would render them utterly unscientific.
> 
> According to an earlier understanding of  &#65533;Big Bang&#65533; theory of the origin of the universe (based on general relativity factors), time started when matter/energy originated and was set in motion through space.   The thinking was that the process began with a so-called singularity in which matter/energy was compressed to an incredibly high density (similar to the condition that is thought to exist at the center of black holes).  Now, taking into account additional factors relating to quantum mechanics, it is the consensus of cosmologists that there was no singularity at the start of the Big Bang. This means that time did not necessarily begin with the Big Bang and that the universe could extend back in time with no limit, i.e., it may have existed in one form or another forever.  In other words, and in contradiction to Genesis, there may well not have been a beginning of the universe for anyone or any thing to cause.  The Genesis creation story provides none of this insight and consists of nothing that a TSIBAGH could not have dreamed up.  More to the point, it is precisely the type of mythical folktale a TSIBAGH would be expected to dream up.
> 
> Although Genesis 1:1-3 makes general statements about what God supposedly did, it provides no information regarding how He did it.  Scientific explanations include information not only about what happened, but also about how (using only naturalistic mechanisms) it happened.  Not only does Genesis get virtually everything wrong, it also leaves out far too many details to qualify as a source of useful scientific information on the origin of the universe.
> 
> Arbitrarily assigning scientific meanings to words in ancient documents does not automatically lend any scientific credibility to the stories they tell.  One can play the same word game with a number of ancient creation stories.  Consider the following from a part of a Chinese creation story:
> 
> In the beginning (time), the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos.  The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself.  After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep.  He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might (power) to crack open the egg.  The light, clear part of it floated up (motion) and formed the heavens (space), the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth (matter).
> 
> I have inserted the words "time," "power," "motion," "space," and "matter" using the same logic (or lack thereof) that Mr. Pyles used in his example above.  Does this lend any scientific credibility to the creation story of Pan Gu?  I don&#65533;t think so.  Neither do I think it does so when Mr. Pyles uses the same specious approach with the Bible.
> 
> Bible Science Debunked
> 
> 
> "Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy  L.S."
> 
> 
> How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?By Austin Cline, About.com GuideJuly 30, 2009
> 
> Quite a few Christians believe that the Bible is 100% accurate in every detail - not a single error or contradiction can be found in the text. Other Christians believe that many allegedly historical passages are only metaphorical and that the authors, being fallible, made mistakes from time to time. Which end of this spectrum do you think is most reasonable and, more importantly, why? What sorts of evidence or reasoning can be presented to more literalist Christians to explain why the Bible is not a perfect historical record?
> 
> It's obvious that some parts of the Bible were only ever intended to be metaphorical or allegorical stories  the Bible is, after all, a collection of texts written over a long period of time and they represent many different genres of writing. Even those intended to relate actual events, though, were not written from the perspective of purely factual, objective history because that genre didn't exist at the time  for most of history, writing "history" meant pursuing a political, ideological, or religious agenda at the same time.
> 
> Even if we ignore that, however, distinguishing between the portions that are allegories or metaphors and the portions which are meant to be historical isn't always easy. Sometimes there are markers, but so often religious believers insist that some stories are allegories even though no such markers are present  apparently, anything that obviously couldn't be true must have been intended to be allegory all along while anything that might be true must be true. Where doe such an attitude come from and why is it only applied to one's own religion?
> 
> .Weekly Poll: How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?
> 
> One more thing ..why is it when searching those statements  do you only find conformation on Christian bias sites?
> you would think that if those fables were fact you find them on  actual  historical and scientific sites not pseudoscience or pseudohistoric ones?
Click to expand...


What really sticks in my ribs are these claims because on so many other things we encounter in life The Bible is a great map and course for many things.
That is what it is and is supposed to be.
A person follow Biblical principles in so many areas, they will make it work.
Nothing about science, it is not a science book and was never intended to be one.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Run and hide if you wish. You seem confused that your homespun stories and tales of kitten litters somehow represents an argument worth reading or responding to.
> 
> Your cut and paste about the wistar symposium is a lot of flaming about creationist propaganda that was ridiculed for being silly creationists flailing their pom poms with no allowance for peer reviewed refutation.
> 
> I see no creationist "facts" supporting a compelling case for your gods, only the typical science hating fundie bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't run nor do I hide.
> 
> You have presented NOTHING but dismissals of facts.
> 
> Prove evolution is a FACT.
> 
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can start here: The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs
> 
> 
> I'm still hoping you will reveal how your kitten litter tale is a compelling refutation of evolution.
Click to expand...


I have been familliar with that site for several years. Give us a summary of what you read there clearly you do not understand the theory well enough to speak for yourself.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true, why do you so desperately need to thrash away at science and evolution?
> 
> It's a common these with fundies: evolution is a threat to their belief in supermagical gods just as evolution is a threat. Science strips away fear and ignorance. Just as we now understand that natural forces are not of any gods, knowledge has inevitably reduced your gods from being the eternal winders of the universe to mere paper-shuffling laggards and lay-abouts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but it is true.
> 
> I'm trying to save your foolish ass from future embarrassment. It's my Christian nature to help the less fortunate.
> 
> Trust me, evolution is no threat to my beliefs in any way. I find it amusing to watch you people flop around like a fish out of water trying to prove the silliness you profess to be fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> floating conspiracy theories about global, subversive efforts to promote evilution are entertaining but get tiresome. You appear to mimic the two other Christian fundies in thus thread who similarly view the worldwide plague of education and learning as a real and imminent threat. I just find it curious that the most education loathing, science hating folks seem to be Christian. Is that also part of your Christian nature? Let's hope you... evolve... into a rational, thinking human.
> 
> Are you of the fundie persuasion that uses prayer instead of medicine to promote healing?
Click to expand...


I have no idea what a fundie is other than that's your description of those that have an opposing view.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not the old "if you read the bible" bullshit.  I have read it many times and the tower of bable is a parable ( a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious )
> and is no actual proof of a tower or a god or that god was responsible.
> "faith" ( firm belief in something for which there is no proof )
> on the other hand there is   actual proof of the drawings mentioned earlier ...
> 1. the drawings, glyphs and paintings in and of themselves are evidence .
> there is  absolutly zero for the tower of bable.
> 2 before you go on about how dating methods are wrong and all the other denial of fact you'd like to throw in ,even if the dating methods were off by several thousand years they would still be thousands of years older then your creation fantasy allows...
> 
> Spanish Cave Paintings Shown as Oldest in World
> 
> By SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press  Thu, Jun 14, 2012
> Spanish cave paintings shown as oldest in world | 2012: What's the 'real' truth?
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP)  New tests show that crude Spanish cavepaintings of a red sphere and handprints are the oldest in the world, so ancient they may not have been by modern man.Some scientists say they might have even been made by the much maligned Neanderthals, but others disagree.Testing the coating of paintings in 11 Spanish caves, researchers found that one is at least 40,800 years old, which is at least 15,000 years older than previously thought. That makes them older than the more famous French cave paintings by thousands of years.
> 
> Scientists dated the Spanish cave paintings by measuring the decay of uranium atoms, instead of traditional carbon-dating, according to a report released Thursday by the journal Science. The paintings were first discovered in the 1870s.
> 
> The oldest of the paintings is a red sphere from a cave called El Castillo. About 25 outlined handprints in another cave are at least 37,300 years old. Slightly younger paintings include horses.
> 
> Cave paintings are one of the most exquisite examples of human symbolic behavior, said study co-author Joao Zilhao, an anthropologist at the University of Barcelona. And that, thats what makes us human.
> 
> There is older sculpture and other portable art. Before the latest test, the oldest known cave paintings were those Frances Chauvet cave, considered between 32,000 and 37,000 years old.
> 
> What makes the dating of the Spanish cave paintings important is that its around the time whenmodern humans first came into Europe from Africa.
> 
> Study authors say they could have been from modern man decorating their new digs or they could have been the working of the long-time former tenant of Europe: the Neanderthal. Scientists said Neanderthals were in Europe from about 250,000 years ago until about 35,000 years ago. Modern humans arrived in Europe about 41,000 to 45,000 years ago  with some claims they moved in even earlier  and replaced Neanderthals.
> 
> There is a strong chance that these results imply Neanderthal authorship, Zilhao said. But I will not say we have proven it because we havent.
> 
> In a telephone press conference, Zilhao said Neanderthals recently have gotten bad press over their abilities. They decorated their tools and bodies. So, he said, they could have painted caves.But theres a debate in the scientific community about Neanderthals. Other anthropologists say Zilhao is in a minority of researchers who believe in more complex abilities of Neanderthals.
> 
> Eric Delson, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and John Shea at Long Islands Stony Brook University said the dating work in the Science paper is compelling and important, but they didnt quite buy the theory that Neanderthals could have been the artists.
> 
> There is no clear evidence of paintings associated with Neanderthal tools or fossils, so any such evidence would be surprising, Delson said. He said around 41,000 years ago Neanderthals were already moving south in Europe, away from modern man and these caves.
> 
> Shea said it is more likely that modern humans were making such paintings in Africa even earlier, but the works didnt survive because of the different geology on the continent.The people who came in to Europe were very much like us. They used art, they used symbols, Shea said.
> 
> They were not like Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble.
> 
> http://consciouslyconnecting.blog.com/2012/06/15/spanish-cave-paintings-shown-as-oldest-in-world/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ficticious? Why because you say so?
> 
> Sorry if I don't take your word for it.
> 
> And as I've said dating methods are flawed and since that is a fact, then all presumptions about how old something is, is just that a presumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's fictious because there's no evidence to support it .
> your denial of dating methods is a dodge
> it is true that they are flawed but even if they were only right 50% of the time it would still make them far more accurate then the no proof answers you provide.
> BTW the bible is the most flawed and inaccurate book ever written....but you still use it...
Click to expand...


You are in denial of the evidence that shows dating methods are not reliable.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the science of evolution, you really should take some time and acquaint yourself with what science has discovered. Did you hear the news: thunder and lightning is not the result of angry gods.
> 
> BTW, peer review is a vital component of science discovery and exploration. I gave a brief description earlier. Here too, you really should spend some time and learn something of the discipline you hope to denigrate but understand so little of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why male and female?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose the gods have urges too. After all, we invented the gods in our image.
> 
> Haven't you noticed that the plastic hey-zoos on your dashboard has very "waspy" features.
> 
> How cool is that, an Anglo Hey-zoos.
Click to expand...


Funny.... now answer the question.

I have no idea what a hey-zoos is but I'm certain there's not one on my dashboard. Unless you call a radar detecter a hey-zoos.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking about tonight, I bet I am right about one thing: Hollie, Daws, Loki and NP are for four more years of handouts, entitlements, excessive spending, free money for failed alternative energy companies, DOJ gun running schemes, and wealth redistribution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no god.
Click to expand...


Prove it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's fictious because there's no evidence to support it .
> your denial of dating methods is a dodge
> it is true that they are flawed but even if they were only right 50% of the time it would still make them far more accurate then the no proof answers you provide.
> BTW the bible is the most flawed and inaccurate book ever written....but you still use it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only requirement is faith.
> 
> Dating methods have been proven to be flawed. Not a dodge but simply the truth.
> 
> Using your logic that the dating methods are correct 50 percent of the time, then how can you be certain which result is correct and which result isn't? Flip a coin? It'd be about the same odds.
> 
> Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact.
> 
> Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and using your "logic" you missed the "IF" the fact is dating methods are far more accurate then  50%  more like 97or 98 % percent depending on the method,unlike the claims in the bible that are not supported by evidence,the following claims are erroneous in the extreme : "Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact." L.S
> 
> Bible Science Debunked
> 
> 
> 
> A Brief Introduction To Biblical Cosmology
> 
> It is not uncommon for biblical apologists to make the claim that the Bible miraculously revealed advanced scientific principles long before they were discovered by modern science.  If true, this would lend credibility to the notion that the Bible is divinely inspired (or that the Bible authors were incredibly astute).  But can these claims really be substantiated through an objective analysis of the biblical citations that are presented to support this premise?  In order to find out, I searched the Internet for Christian apologetic websites that tout the Bible as a source of revelatory scientific insight and settled on one developed by a Mr. David Pyles entitled, &#65533;Scientific Facts and Accuracy in the Bible.&#65533;  I chose Mr. Pyles&#65533; website because it contained more citations than most and included claims that routinely appear on other such websites.
> 
> Before examining Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims for the Bible&#65533;s amazing scientific accuracy, it is helpful to first set the stage by providing an overview of the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe.  According to the Harper's Bible Dictionary,
> 
> &#65533;The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and round [disk], covered by the great solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars, (Job 26:11; 37:18). The blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters that the firmament separated from the earth (Gen. 1:7). The earth was thus surrounded by waters above and below (Gen. 1:6,7; cf. Psalms 24:2; 148:4, Deut. 5:8). The firmament was thought to be substantial; it had pillars (Job 26:11) and foundations (2 Sam. 22:8). When the windows of it were opened, rain fell (Gen. 7:11-12; 8:2). The sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 19:4,6). It was also the abode of the birds (Gen. 1:20; Deut. 4:17). Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead (Num. 16:30-33; Isa. 14:9,15)."
> 
> Yes, those Bronze Age science wizards whose creation folktales were collected in the Old Testament really did believe that the earth was covered by a solid dome.  The Hebrew word translated as firmament in Genesis is "raqiya."  Strong's Lexicon (searchable at the Blue Letter Bible website) translates the word as "extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament."  In keeping with the notion of solidity, the dome was thought to be impervious to water, i.e., it separated the waters above it from the waters below, to contain windows that regulated precipitation, to serve as a surface across which the sun, moon, and stars traveled, and to serve as a sub-floor for the mythical reservoirs of snow and hail (Job 38:22).
> 
> The concept of a solid dome in the sky is also exemplified by Job 37:18 which describes God as spreading out the heavens and making them "as strong as a cast metal mirror." (NKJV)   In Isa. 40:22, the heavens are likened to the fabric of a curtain or tent.  And in a footnote to "raqiya," Strong's Lexicon states, "...considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting "waters above."
> 
> A depiction of this archaic concept of a dome-covered universe and further discussion on the subject can found here.
> 
> Incidentally, the sky is not blue because a make-believe firmament partially transmits the color of &#65533;chaotic waters&#65533; confined above it.  It is blue because of a phenomenon known as Rayleigh scattering.
> 
> 
> 
> Examining the Claims
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the foregoing, it is difficult to identify anything that might come close to qualifying as cutting-edge science.  Truth be told, the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe is manifestly unscientific and something that any Typical Scientifically-Ignorant Bronze Age Goat Herder (TSIBAGH) might be expected to have dreamed up.  Be that as it may, in what follows, let&#65533;s see how Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims stand up to scrutiny.  (It appears Mr. Pyles has used the KJV Bible for most of his biblical citations.  I have done likewise, unless otherwise specified.)
> 
> Claim 1.
> 
> Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
> 
> Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."
> 
> My Response:
> 
> Genesis gets off to a rather dubious start in the science department because it violates one of the principal tenets of the scientific method, i.e., it invokes supernatural causation.  Science deals exclusively with natural causes and effects.  (See here.) God, a supernatural entity, cannot be invoked as a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe (or anything else for that matter).  Scientific theories dealing with the origin of the universe do not include reference to any creator gods because to do so would render them utterly unscientific.
> 
> According to an earlier understanding of  &#65533;Big Bang&#65533; theory of the origin of the universe (based on general relativity factors), time started when matter/energy originated and was set in motion through space.   The thinking was that the process began with a so-called singularity in which matter/energy was compressed to an incredibly high density (similar to the condition that is thought to exist at the center of black holes).  Now, taking into account additional factors relating to quantum mechanics, it is the consensus of cosmologists that there was no singularity at the start of the Big Bang. This means that time did not necessarily begin with the Big Bang and that the universe could extend back in time with no limit, i.e., it may have existed in one form or another forever.  In other words, and in contradiction to Genesis, there may well not have been a beginning of the universe for anyone or any thing to cause.  The Genesis creation story provides none of this insight and consists of nothing that a TSIBAGH could not have dreamed up.  More to the point, it is precisely the type of mythical folktale a TSIBAGH would be expected to dream up.
> 
> Although Genesis 1:1-3 makes general statements about what God supposedly did, it provides no information regarding how He did it.  Scientific explanations include information not only about what happened, but also about how (using only naturalistic mechanisms) it happened.  Not only does Genesis get virtually everything wrong, it also leaves out far too many details to qualify as a source of useful scientific information on the origin of the universe.
> 
> Arbitrarily assigning scientific meanings to words in ancient documents does not automatically lend any scientific credibility to the stories they tell.  One can play the same word game with a number of ancient creation stories.  Consider the following from a part of a Chinese creation story:
> 
> In the beginning (time), the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos.  The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself.  After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep.  He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might (power) to crack open the egg.  The light, clear part of it floated up (motion) and formed the heavens (space), the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth (matter).
> 
> I have inserted the words "time," "power," "motion," "space," and "matter" using the same logic (or lack thereof) that Mr. Pyles used in his example above.  Does this lend any scientific credibility to the creation story of Pan Gu?  I don&#65533;t think so.  Neither do I think it does so when Mr. Pyles uses the same specious approach with the Bible.
> 
> Bible Science Debunked
> 
> 
> "Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy  L.S."
> 
> 
> How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?By Austin Cline, About.com GuideJuly 30, 2009
> 
> Quite a few Christians believe that the Bible is 100% accurate in every detail - not a single error or contradiction can be found in the text. Other Christians believe that many allegedly historical passages are only metaphorical and that the authors, being fallible, made mistakes from time to time. Which end of this spectrum do you think is most reasonable and, more importantly, why? What sorts of evidence or reasoning can be presented to more literalist Christians to explain why the Bible is not a perfect historical record?
> 
> It's obvious that some parts of the Bible were only ever intended to be metaphorical or allegorical stories  the Bible is, after all, a collection of texts written over a long period of time and they represent many different genres of writing. Even those intended to relate actual events, though, were not written from the perspective of purely factual, objective history because that genre didn't exist at the time  for most of history, writing "history" meant pursuing a political, ideological, or religious agenda at the same time.
> 
> Even if we ignore that, however, distinguishing between the portions that are allegories or metaphors and the portions which are meant to be historical isn't always easy. Sometimes there are markers, but so often religious believers insist that some stories are allegories even though no such markers are present  apparently, anything that obviously couldn't be true must have been intended to be allegory all along while anything that might be true must be true. Where doe such an attitude come from and why is it only applied to one's own religion?
> 
> .Weekly Poll: How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?
> 
> One more thing ..why is it when searching those statements  do you only find conformation on Christian bias sites?
> you would think that if those fables were fact you find them on  actual  historical and scientific sites not pseudoscience or pseudohistoric ones?
Click to expand...


I ain't got time to read all that. If you can't make a point in a coupe of paragraphs then I feel sorry for you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly, you never opened the link sent to you. The facts are there.
> 
> Let's look at this from the perspective of a conspiratorial mindset and we'll presume that all the facts and evidence supporting evolution are wrong.
> 
> How does that support your claims to the gods? As we see with consistency, the conspiracy theory addled fundie is utterly unable to present evidence for his gods, thus the entirety of the fundie argument in favor of the gods is reduced to attacks on science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I opened it and found NO PROOF.
> 
> Gods?  I made no claim about gods.
> 
> The thing is my faith needs no proof. Yours does.
> 
> Evolutionary science is junk science.
> 
> They have zero evidence that life can be created from non-life.  They have zero evidence that any new information or intelligence has been created by random mutations of nucleotides.  And so on.
> 
> So what do they use for their "evidence?"
> 
> Their primary evidence is to assume the theory of evolution is true and to claim that each new discovery in biology or genetic research is the result of evolution.
> 
> The scenario goes something like this:
> 
> 1) Scientists assume the theory of evolution is true,
> 2) Then they look at the "data" and spin whatever kind of story they can come up with to "prove" the theory of evolution is true,
> 3) They then claim they have "evidence" for the theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. Why are you arguing against an established field of science when you have no knowledge of even the most basic principles of that discipline? You stumble over your own arguments as they are meaningless regarding evolution. Shouldn't you have at least a middling understanding of evolutionary principles before you attempt to argue against it?
> 
> The scientific method does not operate in the manner you describe. It seems that you and the two other Christian fundies all cut and paste from the same websites that have made you accomplices to ignorance, fear and superstition.
> 
> The discipline of science has what us known as "peer review". That is a process wherein data, results of testing and claims to theories or observed test results are subject to ruthless re-testing and examination by others.
> 
> Thus is the most glaring exception for creationist charlatans who explicitly do not submit their anti-science efforts for peer review. The reasons are obvious: the Christian creationist charlatans have an explicit agenda of denigrating science as a perceived mechanism to vilify science. Those efforts have crashed and burned as the creationist ministries have been repeatedly exposed as frauds, such as the snake-oil salesmen at the Disco-tute'.
Click to expand...


Baloney, they have been working on origins for many years they have no viable explanation for origins so they resort to the same argument you just made.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Gadawg73 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only requirement is faith.
> 
> Dating methods have been proven to be flawed. Not a dodge but simply the truth.
> 
> Using your logic that the dating methods are correct 50 percent of the time, then how can you be certain which result is correct and which result isn't? Flip a coin? It'd be about the same odds.
> 
> Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact.
> 
> Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> and using your "logic" you missed the "IF" the fact is dating methods are far more accurate then  50%  more like 97or 98 % percent depending on the method,unlike the claims in the bible that are not supported by evidence,the following claims are erroneous in the extreme : "Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact." L.S
> 
> Bible Science Debunked
> 
> 
> 
> A Brief Introduction To Biblical Cosmology
> 
> It is not uncommon for biblical apologists to make the claim that the Bible miraculously revealed advanced scientific principles long before they were discovered by modern science.  If true, this would lend credibility to the notion that the Bible is divinely inspired (or that the Bible authors were incredibly astute).  But can these claims really be substantiated through an objective analysis of the biblical citations that are presented to support this premise?  In order to find out, I searched the Internet for Christian apologetic websites that tout the Bible as a source of revelatory scientific insight and settled on one developed by a Mr. David Pyles entitled, &#65533;Scientific Facts and Accuracy in the Bible.&#65533;  I chose Mr. Pyles&#65533; website because it contained more citations than most and included claims that routinely appear on other such websites.
> 
> Before examining Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims for the Bible&#65533;s amazing scientific accuracy, it is helpful to first set the stage by providing an overview of the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe.  According to the Harper's Bible Dictionary,
> 
> &#65533;The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and round [disk], covered by the great solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars, (Job 26:11; 37:18). The blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters that the firmament separated from the earth (Gen. 1:7). The earth was thus surrounded by waters above and below (Gen. 1:6,7; cf. Psalms 24:2; 148:4, Deut. 5:8). The firmament was thought to be substantial; it had pillars (Job 26:11) and foundations (2 Sam. 22:8). When the windows of it were opened, rain fell (Gen. 7:11-12; 8:2). The sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 19:4,6). It was also the abode of the birds (Gen. 1:20; Deut. 4:17). Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead (Num. 16:30-33; Isa. 14:9,15)."
> 
> Yes, those Bronze Age science wizards whose creation folktales were collected in the Old Testament really did believe that the earth was covered by a solid dome.  The Hebrew word translated as firmament in Genesis is "raqiya."  Strong's Lexicon (searchable at the Blue Letter Bible website) translates the word as "extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament."  In keeping with the notion of solidity, the dome was thought to be impervious to water, i.e., it separated the waters above it from the waters below, to contain windows that regulated precipitation, to serve as a surface across which the sun, moon, and stars traveled, and to serve as a sub-floor for the mythical reservoirs of snow and hail (Job 38:22).
> 
> The concept of a solid dome in the sky is also exemplified by Job 37:18 which describes God as spreading out the heavens and making them "as strong as a cast metal mirror." (NKJV)   In Isa. 40:22, the heavens are likened to the fabric of a curtain or tent.  And in a footnote to "raqiya," Strong's Lexicon states, "...considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting "waters above."
> 
> A depiction of this archaic concept of a dome-covered universe and further discussion on the subject can found here.
> 
> Incidentally, the sky is not blue because a make-believe firmament partially transmits the color of &#65533;chaotic waters&#65533; confined above it.  It is blue because of a phenomenon known as Rayleigh scattering.
> 
> 
> 
> Examining the Claims
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the foregoing, it is difficult to identify anything that might come close to qualifying as cutting-edge science.  Truth be told, the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe is manifestly unscientific and something that any Typical Scientifically-Ignorant Bronze Age Goat Herder (TSIBAGH) might be expected to have dreamed up.  Be that as it may, in what follows, let&#65533;s see how Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims stand up to scrutiny.  (It appears Mr. Pyles has used the KJV Bible for most of his biblical citations.  I have done likewise, unless otherwise specified.)
> 
> Claim 1.
> 
> Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
> 
> Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."
> 
> My Response:
> 
> Genesis gets off to a rather dubious start in the science department because it violates one of the principal tenets of the scientific method, i.e., it invokes supernatural causation.  Science deals exclusively with natural causes and effects.  (See here.) God, a supernatural entity, cannot be invoked as a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe (or anything else for that matter).  Scientific theories dealing with the origin of the universe do not include reference to any creator gods because to do so would render them utterly unscientific.
> 
> According to an earlier understanding of  &#65533;Big Bang&#65533; theory of the origin of the universe (based on general relativity factors), time started when matter/energy originated and was set in motion through space.   The thinking was that the process began with a so-called singularity in which matter/energy was compressed to an incredibly high density (similar to the condition that is thought to exist at the center of black holes).  Now, taking into account additional factors relating to quantum mechanics, it is the consensus of cosmologists that there was no singularity at the start of the Big Bang. This means that time did not necessarily begin with the Big Bang and that the universe could extend back in time with no limit, i.e., it may have existed in one form or another forever.  In other words, and in contradiction to Genesis, there may well not have been a beginning of the universe for anyone or any thing to cause.  The Genesis creation story provides none of this insight and consists of nothing that a TSIBAGH could not have dreamed up.  More to the point, it is precisely the type of mythical folktale a TSIBAGH would be expected to dream up.
> 
> Although Genesis 1:1-3 makes general statements about what God supposedly did, it provides no information regarding how He did it.  Scientific explanations include information not only about what happened, but also about how (using only naturalistic mechanisms) it happened.  Not only does Genesis get virtually everything wrong, it also leaves out far too many details to qualify as a source of useful scientific information on the origin of the universe.
> 
> Arbitrarily assigning scientific meanings to words in ancient documents does not automatically lend any scientific credibility to the stories they tell.  One can play the same word game with a number of ancient creation stories.  Consider the following from a part of a Chinese creation story:
> 
> In the beginning (time), the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos.  The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself.  After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep.  He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might (power) to crack open the egg.  The light, clear part of it floated up (motion) and formed the heavens (space), the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth (matter).
> 
> I have inserted the words "time," "power," "motion," "space," and "matter" using the same logic (or lack thereof) that Mr. Pyles used in his example above.  Does this lend any scientific credibility to the creation story of Pan Gu?  I don&#65533;t think so.  Neither do I think it does so when Mr. Pyles uses the same specious approach with the Bible.
> 
> Bible Science Debunked
> 
> 
> "Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy  L.S."
> 
> 
> How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?By Austin Cline, About.com GuideJuly 30, 2009
> 
> Quite a few Christians believe that the Bible is 100% accurate in every detail - not a single error or contradiction can be found in the text. Other Christians believe that many allegedly historical passages are only metaphorical and that the authors, being fallible, made mistakes from time to time. Which end of this spectrum do you think is most reasonable and, more importantly, why? What sorts of evidence or reasoning can be presented to more literalist Christians to explain why the Bible is not a perfect historical record?
> 
> It's obvious that some parts of the Bible were only ever intended to be metaphorical or allegorical stories &#8212; the Bible is, after all, a collection of texts written over a long period of time and they represent many different genres of writing. Even those intended to relate actual events, though, were not written from the perspective of purely factual, objective history because that genre didn't exist at the time &#8212; for most of history, writing "history" meant pursuing a political, ideological, or religious agenda at the same time.
> 
> Even if we ignore that, however, distinguishing between the portions that are allegories or metaphors and the portions which are meant to be historical isn't always easy. Sometimes there are markers, but so often religious believers insist that some stories are allegories even though no such markers are present &#8212; apparently, anything that obviously couldn't be true must have been intended to be allegory all along while anything that might be true must be true. Where doe such an attitude come from and why is it only applied to one's own religion?
> 
> .Weekly Poll: How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?
> 
> One more thing ..why is it when searching those statements  do you only find conformation on Christian bias sites?
> you would think that if those fables were fact you find them on  actual  historical and scientific sites not pseudoscience or pseudohistoric ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What really sticks in my ribs are these claims because on so many other things we encounter in life The Bible is a great map and course for many things.
> That is what it is and is supposed to be.
> A person follow Biblical principles in so many areas, they will make it work.
> Nothing about science, it is not a science book and was never intended to be one.
Click to expand...


I will agree to a point,God did not need a science book to complete his work. There are many references in the bible however that can be tested by science which you ignore.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are facts you possess that prove your gods?
> 
> Super. Present them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I need proof of something I acknowledge exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were true, why do you so desperately need to thrash away at science and evolution?
> 
> It's a common these with fundies: evolution is a threat to their belief in supermagical gods just as evolution is a threat. Science strips away fear and ignorance. Just as we now understand that natural forces are not of any gods, knowledge has inevitably reduced your gods from being the eternal winders of the universe to mere paper-shuffling laggards and lay-abouts.
Click to expand...


So what is your reason for being here?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. Why are you arguing against an established field of science when you have no knowledge of even the most basic principles of that discipline? You stumble over your own arguments as they are meaningless regarding evolution. Shouldn't you have at least a middling understanding of evolutionary principles before you attempt to argue against it?
> 
> The scientific method does not operate in the manner you describe. It seems that you and the two other Christian fundies all cut and paste from the same websites that have made you accomplices to ignorance, fear and superstition.
> 
> The discipline of science has what us known as "peer review". That is a process wherein data, results of testing and claims to theories or observed test results are subject to ruthless re-testing and examination by others.
> 
> Thus is the most glaring exception for creationist charlatans who explicitly do not submit their anti-science efforts for peer review. The reasons are obvious: the Christian creationist charlatans have an explicit agenda of denigrating science as a perceived mechanism to vilify science. Those efforts have crashed and burned as the creationist ministries have been repeatedly exposed as frauds, such as the snake-oil salesmen at the Disco-tute'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the "theory" of evolution doesn't involve the "origin of life" then at what point did evolution begin?
> 
> BTW peer review doesn't mean squat in this case. You have fellow evolutionary scientist agreeing with each other. Big deal. Proves nothing.
> 
> Evolutionist don't have an agenda?
> 
> I have no idea what the disco-tute is or why you keep referring to it.
> 
> Why is an unproven theory used as fact?
> 
> How did the "sexes" come to be?
> 
> Regardless of whether we are talking about animals, fish, or plant life, it's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties. If evolution is a fact how did that come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regarding the science of evolution, you really should take some time and acquaint yourself with what science has discovered....
Click to expand...

 What? Like you have?


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only requirement is faith.
> 
> Dating methods have been proven to be flawed. Not a dodge but simply the truth.
> 
> Using your logic that the dating methods are correct 50 percent of the time, then how can you be certain which result is correct and which result isn't? Flip a coin? It'd be about the same odds.
> 
> Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact.
> 
> Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> and using your "logic" you missed the "IF" the fact is dating methods are far more accurate then  50%  more like 97or 98 % percent depending on the method,unlike the claims in the bible that are not supported by evidence,the following claims are erroneous in the extreme : "Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact." L.S
> 
> Bible Science Debunked
> 
> 
> 
> A Brief Introduction To Biblical Cosmology
> 
> It is not uncommon for biblical apologists to make the claim that the Bible miraculously revealed advanced scientific principles long before they were discovered by modern science.  If true, this would lend credibility to the notion that the Bible is divinely inspired (or that the Bible authors were incredibly astute).  But can these claims really be substantiated through an objective analysis of the biblical citations that are presented to support this premise?  In order to find out, I searched the Internet for Christian apologetic websites that tout the Bible as a source of revelatory scientific insight and settled on one developed by a Mr. David Pyles entitled, &#65533;Scientific Facts and Accuracy in the Bible.&#65533;  I chose Mr. Pyles&#65533; website because it contained more citations than most and included claims that routinely appear on other such websites.
> 
> Before examining Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims for the Bible&#65533;s amazing scientific accuracy, it is helpful to first set the stage by providing an overview of the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe.  According to the Harper's Bible Dictionary,
> 
> &#65533;The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and round [disk], covered by the great solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars, (Job 26:11; 37:18). The blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters that the firmament separated from the earth (Gen. 1:7). The earth was thus surrounded by waters above and below (Gen. 1:6,7; cf. Psalms 24:2; 148:4, Deut. 5:8). The firmament was thought to be substantial; it had pillars (Job 26:11) and foundations (2 Sam. 22:8). When the windows of it were opened, rain fell (Gen. 7:11-12; 8:2). The sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 19:4,6). It was also the abode of the birds (Gen. 1:20; Deut. 4:17). Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead (Num. 16:30-33; Isa. 14:9,15)."
> 
> Yes, those Bronze Age science wizards whose creation folktales were collected in the Old Testament really did believe that the earth was covered by a solid dome.  The Hebrew word translated as firmament in Genesis is "raqiya."  Strong's Lexicon (searchable at the Blue Letter Bible website) translates the word as "extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament."  In keeping with the notion of solidity, the dome was thought to be impervious to water, i.e., it separated the waters above it from the waters below, to contain windows that regulated precipitation, to serve as a surface across which the sun, moon, and stars traveled, and to serve as a sub-floor for the mythical reservoirs of snow and hail (Job 38:22).
> 
> The concept of a solid dome in the sky is also exemplified by Job 37:18 which describes God as spreading out the heavens and making them "as strong as a cast metal mirror." (NKJV)   In Isa. 40:22, the heavens are likened to the fabric of a curtain or tent.  And in a footnote to "raqiya," Strong's Lexicon states, "...considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting "waters above."
> 
> A depiction of this archaic concept of a dome-covered universe and further discussion on the subject can found here.
> 
> Incidentally, the sky is not blue because a make-believe firmament partially transmits the color of &#65533;chaotic waters&#65533; confined above it.  It is blue because of a phenomenon known as Rayleigh scattering.
> 
> 
> 
> Examining the Claims
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the foregoing, it is difficult to identify anything that might come close to qualifying as cutting-edge science.  Truth be told, the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe is manifestly unscientific and something that any Typical Scientifically-Ignorant Bronze Age Goat Herder (TSIBAGH) might be expected to have dreamed up.  Be that as it may, in what follows, let&#65533;s see how Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims stand up to scrutiny.  (It appears Mr. Pyles has used the KJV Bible for most of his biblical citations.  I have done likewise, unless otherwise specified.)
> 
> Claim 1.
> 
> Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
> 
> Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."
> 
> My Response:
> 
> Genesis gets off to a rather dubious start in the science department because it violates one of the principal tenets of the scientific method, i.e., it invokes supernatural causation.  Science deals exclusively with natural causes and effects.  (See here.) God, a supernatural entity, cannot be invoked as a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe (or anything else for that matter).  Scientific theories dealing with the origin of the universe do not include reference to any creator gods because to do so would render them utterly unscientific.
> 
> According to an earlier understanding of  &#65533;Big Bang&#65533; theory of the origin of the universe (based on general relativity factors), time started when matter/energy originated and was set in motion through space.   The thinking was that the process began with a so-called singularity in which matter/energy was compressed to an incredibly high density (similar to the condition that is thought to exist at the center of black holes).  Now, taking into account additional factors relating to quantum mechanics, it is the consensus of cosmologists that there was no singularity at the start of the Big Bang. This means that time did not necessarily begin with the Big Bang and that the universe could extend back in time with no limit, i.e., it may have existed in one form or another forever.  In other words, and in contradiction to Genesis, there may well not have been a beginning of the universe for anyone or any thing to cause.  The Genesis creation story provides none of this insight and consists of nothing that a TSIBAGH could not have dreamed up.  More to the point, it is precisely the type of mythical folktale a TSIBAGH would be expected to dream up.
> 
> Although Genesis 1:1-3 makes general statements about what God supposedly did, it provides no information regarding how He did it.  Scientific explanations include information not only about what happened, but also about how (using only naturalistic mechanisms) it happened.  Not only does Genesis get virtually everything wrong, it also leaves out far too many details to qualify as a source of useful scientific information on the origin of the universe.
> 
> Arbitrarily assigning scientific meanings to words in ancient documents does not automatically lend any scientific credibility to the stories they tell.  One can play the same word game with a number of ancient creation stories.  Consider the following from a part of a Chinese creation story:
> 
> In the beginning (time), the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos.  The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself.  After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep.  He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might (power) to crack open the egg.  The light, clear part of it floated up (motion) and formed the heavens (space), the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth (matter).
> 
> I have inserted the words "time," "power," "motion," "space," and "matter" using the same logic (or lack thereof) that Mr. Pyles used in his example above.  Does this lend any scientific credibility to the creation story of Pan Gu?  I don&#65533;t think so.  Neither do I think it does so when Mr. Pyles uses the same specious approach with the Bible.
> 
> Bible Science Debunked
> 
> 
> "Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy  L.S."
> 
> 
> How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?By Austin Cline, About.com GuideJuly 30, 2009
> 
> Quite a few Christians believe that the Bible is 100% accurate in every detail - not a single error or contradiction can be found in the text. Other Christians believe that many allegedly historical passages are only metaphorical and that the authors, being fallible, made mistakes from time to time. Which end of this spectrum do you think is most reasonable and, more importantly, why? What sorts of evidence or reasoning can be presented to more literalist Christians to explain why the Bible is not a perfect historical record?
> 
> It's obvious that some parts of the Bible were only ever intended to be metaphorical or allegorical stories  the Bible is, after all, a collection of texts written over a long period of time and they represent many different genres of writing. Even those intended to relate actual events, though, were not written from the perspective of purely factual, objective history because that genre didn't exist at the time  for most of history, writing "history" meant pursuing a political, ideological, or religious agenda at the same time.
> 
> Even if we ignore that, however, distinguishing between the portions that are allegories or metaphors and the portions which are meant to be historical isn't always easy. Sometimes there are markers, but so often religious believers insist that some stories are allegories even though no such markers are present  apparently, anything that obviously couldn't be true must have been intended to be allegory all along while anything that might be true must be true. Where doe such an attitude come from and why is it only applied to one's own religion?
> 
> .Weekly Poll: How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?
> 
> One more thing ..why is it when searching those statements  do you only find conformation on Christian bias sites?
> you would think that if those fables were fact you find them on  actual  historical and scientific sites not pseudoscience or pseudohistoric ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What really sticks in my ribs are these claims because on so many other things we encounter in life The Bible is a great map and course for many things.
> That is what it is and is supposed to be.
> A person follow Biblical principles in so many areas, they will make it work.
> Nothing about science, *it is not a science book and was never intended to be one.*
Click to expand...

 Strawman. But neither was that little work of fiction titled the ORigin of the Species.


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> The thing is my faith needs no proof. Yours does.



This is a tautology. Faith is defined as belief without evidence. What you just said is "my belief without evidence needs no evidence."


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is my faith needs no proof. Yours does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a tautology. Faith is defined as belief without evidence. What you just said is "my belief without evidence needs no evidence."
Click to expand...


*Faith (noun)*:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: _faith in another's ability._

2. belief that is not based on proof: _He had faith that his hypothesis about the origin of the cell would eventually be proven as fact._

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: _the firm faith of the Pilgrims._

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: _to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty._

5.a system of religious belief:_ the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. _


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I opened it and found NO PROOF.
> 
> Gods?  I made no claim about gods.
> 
> The thing is my faith needs no proof. Yours does.
> 
> Evolutionary science is junk science.
> 
> They have zero evidence that life can be created from non-life.  They have zero evidence that any new information or intelligence has been created by random mutations of nucleotides.  And so on.
> 
> So what do they use for their "evidence?"
> 
> Their primary evidence is to assume the theory of evolution is true and to claim that each new discovery in biology or genetic research is the result of evolution.
> 
> The scenario goes something like this:
> 
> 1) Scientists assume the theory of evolution is true,
> 2) Then they look at the "data" and spin whatever kind of story they can come up with to "prove" the theory of evolution is true,
> 3) They then claim they have "evidence" for the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. Why are you arguing against an established field of science when you have no knowledge of even the most basic principles of that discipline? You stumble over your own arguments as they are meaningless regarding evolution. Shouldn't you have at least a middling understanding of evolutionary principles before you attempt to argue against it?
> 
> The scientific method does not operate in the manner you describe. It seems that you and the two other Christian fundies all cut and paste from the same websites that have made you accomplices to ignorance, fear and superstition.
> 
> The discipline of science has what us known as "peer review". That is a process wherein data, results of testing and claims to theories or observed test results are subject to ruthless re-testing and examination by others.
> 
> Thus is the most glaring exception for creationist charlatans who explicitly do not submit their anti-science efforts for peer review. The reasons are obvious: the Christian creationist charlatans have an explicit agenda of denigrating science as a perceived mechanism to vilify science. Those efforts have crashed and burned as the creationist ministries have been repeatedly exposed as frauds, such as the snake-oil salesmen at the Disco-tute'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baloney, they have been working on origins for many years they have no viable explanation for origins so they resort to the same argument you just made.
Click to expand...

Your quaint notion that science not providing every answer to every question somehow is default proof of your gods is creationist silliness. 

If anyone needs to see how bankrupt the fundie worldview has become, one only needs to see the creationist hissing and spitting at science while never being able to offer positive evidence for their gods.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and using your "logic" you missed the "IF" the fact is dating methods are far more accurate then  50%  more like 97or 98 % percent depending on the method,unlike the claims in the bible that are not supported by evidence,the following claims are erroneous in the extreme : "Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact." L.S
> 
> Bible Science Debunked
> 
> 
> 
> A Brief Introduction To Biblical Cosmology
> 
> It is not uncommon for biblical apologists to make the claim that the Bible miraculously revealed advanced scientific principles long before they were discovered by modern science.  If true, this would lend credibility to the notion that the Bible is divinely inspired (or that the Bible authors were incredibly astute).  But can these claims really be substantiated through an objective analysis of the biblical citations that are presented to support this premise?  In order to find out, I searched the Internet for Christian apologetic websites that tout the Bible as a source of revelatory scientific insight and settled on one developed by a Mr. David Pyles entitled, &#65533;Scientific Facts and Accuracy in the Bible.&#65533;  I chose Mr. Pyles&#65533; website because it contained more citations than most and included claims that routinely appear on other such websites.
> 
> Before examining Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims for the Bible&#65533;s amazing scientific accuracy, it is helpful to first set the stage by providing an overview of the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe.  According to the Harper's Bible Dictionary,
> 
> &#65533;The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and round [disk], covered by the great solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars, (Job 26:11; 37:18). The blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters that the firmament separated from the earth (Gen. 1:7). The earth was thus surrounded by waters above and below (Gen. 1:6,7; cf. Psalms 24:2; 148:4, Deut. 5:8). The firmament was thought to be substantial; it had pillars (Job 26:11) and foundations (2 Sam. 22:8). When the windows of it were opened, rain fell (Gen. 7:11-12; 8:2). The sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 19:4,6). It was also the abode of the birds (Gen. 1:20; Deut. 4:17). Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead (Num. 16:30-33; Isa. 14:9,15)."
> 
> Yes, those Bronze Age science wizards whose creation folktales were collected in the Old Testament really did believe that the earth was covered by a solid dome.  The Hebrew word translated as firmament in Genesis is "raqiya."  Strong's Lexicon (searchable at the Blue Letter Bible website) translates the word as "extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament."  In keeping with the notion of solidity, the dome was thought to be impervious to water, i.e., it separated the waters above it from the waters below, to contain windows that regulated precipitation, to serve as a surface across which the sun, moon, and stars traveled, and to serve as a sub-floor for the mythical reservoirs of snow and hail (Job 38:22).
> 
> The concept of a solid dome in the sky is also exemplified by Job 37:18 which describes God as spreading out the heavens and making them "as strong as a cast metal mirror." (NKJV)   In Isa. 40:22, the heavens are likened to the fabric of a curtain or tent.  And in a footnote to "raqiya," Strong's Lexicon states, "...considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting "waters above."
> 
> A depiction of this archaic concept of a dome-covered universe and further discussion on the subject can found here.
> 
> Incidentally, the sky is not blue because a make-believe firmament partially transmits the color of &#65533;chaotic waters&#65533; confined above it.  It is blue because of a phenomenon known as Rayleigh scattering.
> 
> 
> 
> Examining the Claims
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the foregoing, it is difficult to identify anything that might come close to qualifying as cutting-edge science.  Truth be told, the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe is manifestly unscientific and something that any Typical Scientifically-Ignorant Bronze Age Goat Herder (TSIBAGH) might be expected to have dreamed up.  Be that as it may, in what follows, let&#65533;s see how Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims stand up to scrutiny.  (It appears Mr. Pyles has used the KJV Bible for most of his biblical citations.  I have done likewise, unless otherwise specified.)
> 
> Claim 1.
> 
> Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
> 
> Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."
> 
> My Response:
> 
> Genesis gets off to a rather dubious start in the science department because it violates one of the principal tenets of the scientific method, i.e., it invokes supernatural causation.  Science deals exclusively with natural causes and effects.  (See here.) God, a supernatural entity, cannot be invoked as a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe (or anything else for that matter).  Scientific theories dealing with the origin of the universe do not include reference to any creator gods because to do so would render them utterly unscientific.
> 
> According to an earlier understanding of  &#65533;Big Bang&#65533; theory of the origin of the universe (based on general relativity factors), time started when matter/energy originated and was set in motion through space.   The thinking was that the process began with a so-called singularity in which matter/energy was compressed to an incredibly high density (similar to the condition that is thought to exist at the center of black holes).  Now, taking into account additional factors relating to quantum mechanics, it is the consensus of cosmologists that there was no singularity at the start of the Big Bang. This means that time did not necessarily begin with the Big Bang and that the universe could extend back in time with no limit, i.e., it may have existed in one form or another forever.  In other words, and in contradiction to Genesis, there may well not have been a beginning of the universe for anyone or any thing to cause.  The Genesis creation story provides none of this insight and consists of nothing that a TSIBAGH could not have dreamed up.  More to the point, it is precisely the type of mythical folktale a TSIBAGH would be expected to dream up.
> 
> Although Genesis 1:1-3 makes general statements about what God supposedly did, it provides no information regarding how He did it.  Scientific explanations include information not only about what happened, but also about how (using only naturalistic mechanisms) it happened.  Not only does Genesis get virtually everything wrong, it also leaves out far too many details to qualify as a source of useful scientific information on the origin of the universe.
> 
> Arbitrarily assigning scientific meanings to words in ancient documents does not automatically lend any scientific credibility to the stories they tell.  One can play the same word game with a number of ancient creation stories.  Consider the following from a part of a Chinese creation story:
> 
> In the beginning (time), the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos.  The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself.  After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep.  He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might (power) to crack open the egg.  The light, clear part of it floated up (motion) and formed the heavens (space), the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth (matter).
> 
> I have inserted the words "time," "power," "motion," "space," and "matter" using the same logic (or lack thereof) that Mr. Pyles used in his example above.  Does this lend any scientific credibility to the creation story of Pan Gu?  I don&#65533;t think so.  Neither do I think it does so when Mr. Pyles uses the same specious approach with the Bible.
> 
> Bible Science Debunked
> 
> 
> "Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy  L.S."
> 
> 
> How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?By Austin Cline, About.com GuideJuly 30, 2009
> 
> Quite a few Christians believe that the Bible is 100% accurate in every detail - not a single error or contradiction can be found in the text. Other Christians believe that many allegedly historical passages are only metaphorical and that the authors, being fallible, made mistakes from time to time. Which end of this spectrum do you think is most reasonable and, more importantly, why? What sorts of evidence or reasoning can be presented to more literalist Christians to explain why the Bible is not a perfect historical record?
> 
> It's obvious that some parts of the Bible were only ever intended to be metaphorical or allegorical stories  the Bible is, after all, a collection of texts written over a long period of time and they represent many different genres of writing. Even those intended to relate actual events, though, were not written from the perspective of purely factual, objective history because that genre didn't exist at the time  for most of history, writing "history" meant pursuing a political, ideological, or religious agenda at the same time.
> 
> Even if we ignore that, however, distinguishing between the portions that are allegories or metaphors and the portions which are meant to be historical isn't always easy. Sometimes there are markers, but so often religious believers insist that some stories are allegories even though no such markers are present  apparently, anything that obviously couldn't be true must have been intended to be allegory all along while anything that might be true must be true. Where doe such an attitude come from and why is it only applied to one's own religion?
> 
> .Weekly Poll: How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?
> 
> One more thing ..why is it when searching those statements  do you only find conformation on Christian bias sites?
> you would think that if those fables were fact you find them on  actual  historical and scientific sites not pseudoscience or pseudohistoric ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What really sticks in my ribs are these claims because on so many other things we encounter in life The Bible is a great map and course for many things.
> That is what it is and is supposed to be.
> A person follow Biblical principles in so many areas, they will make it work.
> Nothing about science, it is not a science book and was never intended to be one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will agree to a point,God did not need a science book to complete his work. There are many references in the bible however that can be tested by science which you ignore.
Click to expand...


....and which you are unable to identify.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking about tonight, I bet I am right about one thing: Hollie, Daws, Loki and NP are for four more years of handouts, entitlements, excessive spending, free money for failed alternative energy companies, DOJ gun running schemes, and wealth redistribution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...


 I was returning one red herring for another. 

I would never actually make the claim "there is no god" because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative existential claim. 

I can however, prove that the christian god does not exist, because it is logically incongruous. As defined, the judeo-christian god is said to be perfect, yet this being needs or wants a relationship? A perfect being wouldn't need anything. It would never be jealous, as the bible often indicates. Also, omniscience and omnipotence are also logically incongruous. If you know every action you are going to take in the future, you are powerless to change them.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. No religious authority was needed to convince me that dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Your foolishly veiled insult is noted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do think dating methods are flawed? Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe?
> 
> Was your earlier insult to be ignored? I've come to expect insults from religious people when challenges to their beliefs are presented. Do you enter a public discussion board and expect others to accept "because I say so claims"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain how diamonds that were dated to a couple of million years old were found to contain carbon ?
Click to expand...

are youreally this ignorant?
In mineralogy, diamond (from the ancient Greek &#945;&#948;&#940;&#956;&#945;&#962;  adámas "unbreakable") is an allotrope of carbon, where the carbon atoms are arranged in a variation of the face-centered cubic crystal structure called a diamond lattice. Diamond is less stable than graphite, but the conversion rate from diamond to graphite is negligible at ambient conditions

Diamond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

btw graphite is also carbon...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ficticious? Why because you say so?
> 
> Sorry if I don't take your word for it.
> 
> And as I've said dating methods are flawed and since that is a fact, then all presumptions about how old something is, is just that a presumption.
> 
> 
> 
> it's fictious because there's no evidence to support it .
> your denial of dating methods is a dodge
> it is true that they are flawed but even if they were only right 50% of the time it would still make them far more accurate then the no proof answers you provide.
> BTW the bible is the most flawed and inaccurate book ever written....but you still use it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are in denial of the evidence that shows dating methods are not reliable.
Click to expand...

lol...asshat  

Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
Michael Benton
articlehighlights
Fossil dating is accurate since the method follows strict scientific guidelines:

the age of rocks around a fossil can be considered
mathematical calculations are used
the state of decay, carbon-14, and isotopes figure in calculations
tree of life relationships often help sort the dates
read articlelearn moreget involvededucator resources January 2001 
Fossils provide a record of the history of life. 
Engraving from William Smiths 1815 monograph on identifying strata based on fossils. Smith (1759-1839) is known as the Father of English Geology. Source: Oxford Library.
Our understanding of the shape and pattern of the history of life depends on the accuracy of fossils and dating methods. Some critics, particularly religious fundamentalists, argue that neither fossils nor dating can be trusted, and that their interpretations are better. Other critics, perhaps more familiar with the data, question certain aspects of the quality of the fossil record and of its dating. These skeptics do not provide scientific evidence for their views. Current understanding of the history of life is probably close to the truth because it is based on repeated and careful testing and consideration of data.

The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:

Millions of fossils have been discovered.They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds  have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.
Some skeptics believe that all fossils are the same age.Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noahs flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow drowned by the flood.
Rejecting fossil data cannot be supported by proof.The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.
Fossils occur in sequences
Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution. Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. The first work was done in England and France.

Fossil hunting began by accident in England around 1800.Around 1800, William Smith in England, who was a canal surveyor, noticed that he could map out great tracts of rocks on the basis of their contained fossils. The sequences he saw in one part of the country could be correlated (matched) precisely with the sequences in another. He, and others at the time, had discovered the first principles of stratigraphy  that older rocks lie below younger rocks and that fossils occur in a particular, predictable order.
Stratigraphy, the study of rock layers, led to paleontology, the study of fossils.Then, geologists began to build up the stratigraphic column, the familiar listing of divisions of geological time  Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and so on. Each time unit was characterized by particular fossils. The scheme worked all round the world, without fail.

From the 1830s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Clearly, there was some kind of progress going on.

All became clear, of course, in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his On the origin of species. The progress shown by the fossils was a documentation of the grand pattern of evolution through long spans of time.

Accuracy of the fossils
Fossils prove that humans did not exist alongside dinosaurs.Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great tree of life. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.

Scientists now use phylogeny, mathematics, and other computations to date fossils.Paleontologists now apply sophisticated mathematical techniques to assess the relative quality of particular fossil successions, as well as the entire fossil record. These demonstrate that, of course, we do not know everything (and clearly never will), but we know enough. Today, innovative techniques provide further confirmation and understanding of the history of life. Biologists actually have at their disposal several independent ways of looking at the history of life - not only from the order of fossils in the rocks, but also through phylogenetic trees.

Phylogenetic trees are the family trees of particular groups of plants or animals, showing how all the species relate to each other.

Phylogenetic trees are drawn up mathematically, using lists of morphological (external form) or molecular (gene sequence) characters.

Modern phylogenetic trees have no input from stratigraphy, so they can be used in a broad way to make comparisons between tree shape and stratigraphy.

The majority of test cases show good agreement, so the fossil record tells the same story as the molecules enclosed in living organisms.

Accuracy of dating
Dating in geology may be relative or absolute. Relative dating is done by observing fossils, as described above, and recording which fossil is younger, which is older. The discovery of means for absolute dating in the early 1900s was a huge advance. The methods are all based on radioactive decay:

Fossils may be dated by calculating the rate of decay of certain elements.Certain naturally occurring elements are radioactive, and they decay, or break down, at predictable rates.
Chemists measure the half-life of such elements, i.e., the time it takes for half of the radioactive parent element to break down to the stable daughter element. Sometimes, one isotope, or naturally occurring form, of an element decays into another, more stable form of the same element.
By comparing the proportions of parent to daughter element in a rock sample, and knowing the half-life, the age can be calculated.
Older fossils cannot be dated by carbon-14 methods and require radiometric dating.Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:

The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes.The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rocks age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.

There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology.Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.

Conclusion: The strict rules of the scientific method ensure the accuracy of fossil dating.Conclusion
The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Fossils document the order of appearance of groups and they tell us about some of the amazing plants and animals that died out long ago. Fossils can also show us how major crises, such as mass extinctions, happened, and how life recovered after them. If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.

© 2001, American Institute of Biological Sciences. Educators have permission to reprint articles for classroom use; other users, please contact editor@actionbioscience.org for reprint permission. See reprint policy.

Michael Benton, Ph.D., is a vertebrate paleontologist with particular interests in dinosaur origins and fossil history. Currently, he is studying certain basal dinosaurs from the Late Triassic and the quality of different segments of the fossil record. He holds the Chair in Vertebrate Paleontology at the University of Bristol, UK, in addition to chairing the Masters program in paleobiology at the university. He has written some 30 books on dinosaurs and paleobiology, ranging from professional tomes to popular kids books. 
People: Earth Sciences: University of Bristol

Actionbioscience | Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only requirement is faith.
> 
> Dating methods have been proven to be flawed. Not a dodge but simply the truth.
> 
> Using your logic that the dating methods are correct 50 percent of the time, then how can you be certain which result is correct and which result isn't? Flip a coin? It'd be about the same odds.
> 
> Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact.
> 
> Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> and using your "logic" you missed the "IF" the fact is dating methods are far more accurate then  50%  more like 97or 98 % percent depending on the method,unlike the claims in the bible that are not supported by evidence,the following claims are erroneous in the extreme : "Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact." L.S
> 
> Bible Science Debunked
> 
> 
> 
> A Brief Introduction To Biblical Cosmology
> 
> It is not uncommon for biblical apologists to make the claim that the Bible miraculously revealed advanced scientific principles long before they were discovered by modern science.  If true, this would lend credibility to the notion that the Bible is divinely inspired (or that the Bible authors were incredibly astute).  But can these claims really be substantiated through an objective analysis of the biblical citations that are presented to support this premise?  In order to find out, I searched the Internet for Christian apologetic websites that tout the Bible as a source of revelatory scientific insight and settled on one developed by a Mr. David Pyles entitled, &#65533;Scientific Facts and Accuracy in the Bible.&#65533;  I chose Mr. Pyles&#65533; website because it contained more citations than most and included claims that routinely appear on other such websites.
> 
> Before examining Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims for the Bible&#65533;s amazing scientific accuracy, it is helpful to first set the stage by providing an overview of the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe.  According to the Harper's Bible Dictionary,
> 
> &#65533;The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and round [disk], covered by the great solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars, (Job 26:11; 37:18). The blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters that the firmament separated from the earth (Gen. 1:7). The earth was thus surrounded by waters above and below (Gen. 1:6,7; cf. Psalms 24:2; 148:4, Deut. 5:8). The firmament was thought to be substantial; it had pillars (Job 26:11) and foundations (2 Sam. 22:8). When the windows of it were opened, rain fell (Gen. 7:11-12; 8:2). The sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 19:4,6). It was also the abode of the birds (Gen. 1:20; Deut. 4:17). Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead (Num. 16:30-33; Isa. 14:9,15)."
> 
> Yes, those Bronze Age science wizards whose creation folktales were collected in the Old Testament really did believe that the earth was covered by a solid dome.  The Hebrew word translated as firmament in Genesis is "raqiya."  Strong's Lexicon (searchable at the Blue Letter Bible website) translates the word as "extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament."  In keeping with the notion of solidity, the dome was thought to be impervious to water, i.e., it separated the waters above it from the waters below, to contain windows that regulated precipitation, to serve as a surface across which the sun, moon, and stars traveled, and to serve as a sub-floor for the mythical reservoirs of snow and hail (Job 38:22).
> 
> The concept of a solid dome in the sky is also exemplified by Job 37:18 which describes God as spreading out the heavens and making them "as strong as a cast metal mirror." (NKJV)   In Isa. 40:22, the heavens are likened to the fabric of a curtain or tent.  And in a footnote to "raqiya," Strong's Lexicon states, "...considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting "waters above."
> 
> A depiction of this archaic concept of a dome-covered universe and further discussion on the subject can found here.
> 
> Incidentally, the sky is not blue because a make-believe firmament partially transmits the color of &#65533;chaotic waters&#65533; confined above it.  It is blue because of a phenomenon known as Rayleigh scattering.
> 
> 
> 
> Examining the Claims
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the foregoing, it is difficult to identify anything that might come close to qualifying as cutting-edge science.  Truth be told, the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe is manifestly unscientific and something that any Typical Scientifically-Ignorant Bronze Age Goat Herder (TSIBAGH) might be expected to have dreamed up.  Be that as it may, in what follows, let&#65533;s see how Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims stand up to scrutiny.  (It appears Mr. Pyles has used the KJV Bible for most of his biblical citations.  I have done likewise, unless otherwise specified.)
> 
> Claim 1.
> 
> Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
> 
> Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."
> 
> My Response:
> 
> Genesis gets off to a rather dubious start in the science department because it violates one of the principal tenets of the scientific method, i.e., it invokes supernatural causation.  Science deals exclusively with natural causes and effects.  (See here.) God, a supernatural entity, cannot be invoked as a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe (or anything else for that matter).  Scientific theories dealing with the origin of the universe do not include reference to any creator gods because to do so would render them utterly unscientific.
> 
> According to an earlier understanding of  &#65533;Big Bang&#65533; theory of the origin of the universe (based on general relativity factors), time started when matter/energy originated and was set in motion through space.   The thinking was that the process began with a so-called singularity in which matter/energy was compressed to an incredibly high density (similar to the condition that is thought to exist at the center of black holes).  Now, taking into account additional factors relating to quantum mechanics, it is the consensus of cosmologists that there was no singularity at the start of the Big Bang. This means that time did not necessarily begin with the Big Bang and that the universe could extend back in time with no limit, i.e., it may have existed in one form or another forever.  In other words, and in contradiction to Genesis, there may well not have been a beginning of the universe for anyone or any thing to cause.  The Genesis creation story provides none of this insight and consists of nothing that a TSIBAGH could not have dreamed up.  More to the point, it is precisely the type of mythical folktale a TSIBAGH would be expected to dream up.
> 
> Although Genesis 1:1-3 makes general statements about what God supposedly did, it provides no information regarding how He did it.  Scientific explanations include information not only about what happened, but also about how (using only naturalistic mechanisms) it happened.  Not only does Genesis get virtually everything wrong, it also leaves out far too many details to qualify as a source of useful scientific information on the origin of the universe.
> 
> Arbitrarily assigning scientific meanings to words in ancient documents does not automatically lend any scientific credibility to the stories they tell.  One can play the same word game with a number of ancient creation stories.  Consider the following from a part of a Chinese creation story:
> 
> In the beginning (time), the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos.  The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself.  After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep.  He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might (power) to crack open the egg.  The light, clear part of it floated up (motion) and formed the heavens (space), the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth (matter).
> 
> I have inserted the words "time," "power," "motion," "space," and "matter" using the same logic (or lack thereof) that Mr. Pyles used in his example above.  Does this lend any scientific credibility to the creation story of Pan Gu?  I don&#65533;t think so.  Neither do I think it does so when Mr. Pyles uses the same specious approach with the Bible.
> 
> Bible Science Debunked
> 
> 
> "Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy  L.S."
> 
> 
> How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?By Austin Cline, About.com GuideJuly 30, 2009
> 
> Quite a few Christians believe that the Bible is 100% accurate in every detail - not a single error or contradiction can be found in the text. Other Christians believe that many allegedly historical passages are only metaphorical and that the authors, being fallible, made mistakes from time to time. Which end of this spectrum do you think is most reasonable and, more importantly, why? What sorts of evidence or reasoning can be presented to more literalist Christians to explain why the Bible is not a perfect historical record?
> 
> It's obvious that some parts of the Bible were only ever intended to be metaphorical or allegorical stories  the Bible is, after all, a collection of texts written over a long period of time and they represent many different genres of writing. Even those intended to relate actual events, though, were not written from the perspective of purely factual, objective history because that genre didn't exist at the time  for most of history, writing "history" meant pursuing a political, ideological, or religious agenda at the same time.
> 
> Even if we ignore that, however, distinguishing between the portions that are allegories or metaphors and the portions which are meant to be historical isn't always easy. Sometimes there are markers, but so often religious believers insist that some stories are allegories even though no such markers are present  apparently, anything that obviously couldn't be true must have been intended to be allegory all along while anything that might be true must be true. Where doe such an attitude come from and why is it only applied to one's own religion?
> 
> .Weekly Poll: How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?
> 
> One more thing ..why is it when searching those statements  do you only find conformation on Christian bias sites?
> you would think that if those fables were fact you find them on  actual  historical and scientific sites not pseudoscience or pseudohistoric ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ain't got time to read all that. If you can't make a point in a coupe of paragraphs then I feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...

translation: I'm illiterate and the concept that the facts may take more than a couple of paragraphs is too much for me....even my bible has pictures.


----------



## pjnlsn

It's hard to find a specific post to quote, but as to evolution, the core of the idea is very simple. And is just to note that there are these fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out how it happened.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and using your "logic" you missed the "IF" the fact is dating methods are far more accurate then  50%  more like 97or 98 % percent depending on the method,unlike the claims in the bible that are not supported by evidence,the following claims are erroneous in the extreme : "Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact." L.S
> 
> Bible Science Debunked
> 
> 
> 
> A Brief Introduction To Biblical Cosmology
> 
> It is not uncommon for biblical apologists to make the claim that the Bible miraculously revealed advanced scientific principles long before they were discovered by modern science.  If true, this would lend credibility to the notion that the Bible is divinely inspired (or that the Bible authors were incredibly astute).  But can these claims really be substantiated through an objective analysis of the biblical citations that are presented to support this premise?  In order to find out, I searched the Internet for Christian apologetic websites that tout the Bible as a source of revelatory scientific insight and settled on one developed by a Mr. David Pyles entitled, &#65533;Scientific Facts and Accuracy in the Bible.&#65533;  I chose Mr. Pyles&#65533; website because it contained more citations than most and included claims that routinely appear on other such websites.
> 
> Before examining Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims for the Bible&#65533;s amazing scientific accuracy, it is helpful to first set the stage by providing an overview of the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe.  According to the Harper's Bible Dictionary,
> 
> &#65533;The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and round [disk], covered by the great solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars, (Job 26:11; 37:18). The blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters that the firmament separated from the earth (Gen. 1:7). The earth was thus surrounded by waters above and below (Gen. 1:6,7; cf. Psalms 24:2; 148:4, Deut. 5:8). The firmament was thought to be substantial; it had pillars (Job 26:11) and foundations (2 Sam. 22:8). When the windows of it were opened, rain fell (Gen. 7:11-12; 8:2). The sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 19:4,6). It was also the abode of the birds (Gen. 1:20; Deut. 4:17). Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead (Num. 16:30-33; Isa. 14:9,15)."
> 
> Yes, those Bronze Age science wizards whose creation folktales were collected in the Old Testament really did believe that the earth was covered by a solid dome.  The Hebrew word translated as firmament in Genesis is "raqiya."  Strong's Lexicon (searchable at the Blue Letter Bible website) translates the word as "extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament."  In keeping with the notion of solidity, the dome was thought to be impervious to water, i.e., it separated the waters above it from the waters below, to contain windows that regulated precipitation, to serve as a surface across which the sun, moon, and stars traveled, and to serve as a sub-floor for the mythical reservoirs of snow and hail (Job 38:22).
> 
> The concept of a solid dome in the sky is also exemplified by Job 37:18 which describes God as spreading out the heavens and making them "as strong as a cast metal mirror." (NKJV)   In Isa. 40:22, the heavens are likened to the fabric of a curtain or tent.  And in a footnote to "raqiya," Strong's Lexicon states, "...considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting "waters above."
> 
> A depiction of this archaic concept of a dome-covered universe and further discussion on the subject can found here.
> 
> Incidentally, the sky is not blue because a make-believe firmament partially transmits the color of &#65533;chaotic waters&#65533; confined above it.  It is blue because of a phenomenon known as Rayleigh scattering.
> 
> 
> 
> Examining the Claims
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the foregoing, it is difficult to identify anything that might come close to qualifying as cutting-edge science.  Truth be told, the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe is manifestly unscientific and something that any Typical Scientifically-Ignorant Bronze Age Goat Herder (TSIBAGH) might be expected to have dreamed up.  Be that as it may, in what follows, let&#65533;s see how Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims stand up to scrutiny.  (It appears Mr. Pyles has used the KJV Bible for most of his biblical citations.  I have done likewise, unless otherwise specified.)
> 
> Claim 1.
> 
> Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
> 
> Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."
> 
> My Response:
> 
> Genesis gets off to a rather dubious start in the science department because it violates one of the principal tenets of the scientific method, i.e., it invokes supernatural causation.  Science deals exclusively with natural causes and effects.  (See here.) God, a supernatural entity, cannot be invoked as a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe (or anything else for that matter).  Scientific theories dealing with the origin of the universe do not include reference to any creator gods because to do so would render them utterly unscientific.
> 
> According to an earlier understanding of  &#65533;Big Bang&#65533; theory of the origin of the universe (based on general relativity factors), time started when matter/energy originated and was set in motion through space.   The thinking was that the process began with a so-called singularity in which matter/energy was compressed to an incredibly high density (similar to the condition that is thought to exist at the center of black holes).  Now, taking into account additional factors relating to quantum mechanics, it is the consensus of cosmologists that there was no singularity at the start of the Big Bang. This means that time did not necessarily begin with the Big Bang and that the universe could extend back in time with no limit, i.e., it may have existed in one form or another forever.  In other words, and in contradiction to Genesis, there may well not have been a beginning of the universe for anyone or any thing to cause.  The Genesis creation story provides none of this insight and consists of nothing that a TSIBAGH could not have dreamed up.  More to the point, it is precisely the type of mythical folktale a TSIBAGH would be expected to dream up.
> 
> Although Genesis 1:1-3 makes general statements about what God supposedly did, it provides no information regarding how He did it.  Scientific explanations include information not only about what happened, but also about how (using only naturalistic mechanisms) it happened.  Not only does Genesis get virtually everything wrong, it also leaves out far too many details to qualify as a source of useful scientific information on the origin of the universe.
> 
> Arbitrarily assigning scientific meanings to words in ancient documents does not automatically lend any scientific credibility to the stories they tell.  One can play the same word game with a number of ancient creation stories.  Consider the following from a part of a Chinese creation story:
> 
> In the beginning (time), the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos.  The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself.  After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep.  He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might (power) to crack open the egg.  The light, clear part of it floated up (motion) and formed the heavens (space), the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth (matter).
> 
> I have inserted the words "time," "power," "motion," "space," and "matter" using the same logic (or lack thereof) that Mr. Pyles used in his example above.  Does this lend any scientific credibility to the creation story of Pan Gu?  I don&#65533;t think so.  Neither do I think it does so when Mr. Pyles uses the same specious approach with the Bible.
> 
> Bible Science Debunked
> 
> 
> "Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy  L.S."
> 
> 
> How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?By Austin Cline, About.com GuideJuly 30, 2009
> 
> Quite a few Christians believe that the Bible is 100% accurate in every detail - not a single error or contradiction can be found in the text. Other Christians believe that many allegedly historical passages are only metaphorical and that the authors, being fallible, made mistakes from time to time. Which end of this spectrum do you think is most reasonable and, more importantly, why? What sorts of evidence or reasoning can be presented to more literalist Christians to explain why the Bible is not a perfect historical record?
> 
> It's obvious that some parts of the Bible were only ever intended to be metaphorical or allegorical stories &#8212; the Bible is, after all, a collection of texts written over a long period of time and they represent many different genres of writing. Even those intended to relate actual events, though, were not written from the perspective of purely factual, objective history because that genre didn't exist at the time &#8212; for most of history, writing "history" meant pursuing a political, ideological, or religious agenda at the same time.
> 
> Even if we ignore that, however, distinguishing between the portions that are allegories or metaphors and the portions which are meant to be historical isn't always easy. Sometimes there are markers, but so often religious believers insist that some stories are allegories even though no such markers are present &#8212; apparently, anything that obviously couldn't be true must have been intended to be allegory all along while anything that might be true must be true. Where doe such an attitude come from and why is it only applied to one's own religion?
> 
> .Weekly Poll: How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?
> 
> One more thing ..why is it when searching those statements  do you only find conformation on Christian bias sites?
> you would think that if those fables were fact you find them on  actual  historical and scientific sites not pseudoscience or pseudohistoric ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ain't got time to read all that. If you can't make a point in a coupe of paragraphs then I feel sorry for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> translation: I'm illiterate and the concept that the facts may take more than a couple of paragraphs is too much for me....even my bible has pictures.
Click to expand...


I don't read your super long irrelevant posts either.  You've already proven you are totally clueless so why would I waste precious moments of my life reading more of your endless vitriol???


----------



## UltimateReality

_"Saying something doesn't make it so. Darwinists have a bad habit of saying this or that wonder "evolved" with no sense of obligation to say how it evolved. Tracking down the individual lucky accidents that led to a complex adaptation (behavior included) is too hard, so here's what they do: assume evolution, then just assert that the trait evolved, because *evolution is already assumed to be a fact.*"

"It may well be that flying fish gained their adaptations from fish that did not have them. It would seem improbable, but not impossible, to imagine the fins growing longer as certain fish leaped above the water to avoid predators. Perhaps this kind of adaptability is itself a product of design. But with no fossil record of the transition, we need a lot more than a Darwinian evolutionist's word for it that a blind, purposeless process produced a functional adaptation.

Instead, we are told that these fish "evolved so that they could escape predators by 'gliding' over-water to safety."* No transitional forms are needed; no accounting of mutations is required. The magic occurs in a black box the audience can't see, and presto! -- a fully functioning flying fish leaps above the water, complete with brain software to know how to use its new equipment.*

I*f we demanded that evolutionists drop all teleological language to be consistent with their anti-teleological worldview, evolution would be a very boring act.* If we insisted on looking into the black box to see how the trick was done, there would be a loud hissing sound as the hot air escapes. What would be left, if anything, would undoubtedly be a finely tuned, designed mechanism for producing adaptive change. That's not natural selection; *that's intelligent design.*"_


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> _"Saying something doesn't make it so. Darwinists have a bad habit of saying this or that wonder "evolved" with no sense of obligation to say how it evolved. Tracking down the individual lucky accidents that led to a complex adaptation (behavior included) is too hard, so here's what they do: assume evolution, then just assert that the trait evolved, because *evolution is already assumed to be a fact.*"
> 
> "It may well be that flying fish gained their adaptations from fish that did not have them. It would seem improbable, but not impossible, to imagine the fins growing longer as certain fish leaped above the water to avoid predators. Perhaps this kind of adaptability is itself a product of design. But with no fossil record of the transition, we need a lot more than a Darwinian evolutionist's word for it that a blind, purposeless process produced a functional adaptation.
> 
> Instead, we are told that these fish "evolved so that they could escape predators by 'gliding' over-water to safety."* No transitional forms are needed; no accounting of mutations is required. The magic occurs in a black box the audience can't see, and presto! -- a fully functioning flying fish leaps above the water, complete with brain software to know how to use its new equipment.*
> 
> I*f we demanded that evolutionists drop all teleological language to be consistent with their anti-teleological worldview, evolution would be a very boring act.* If we insisted on looking into the black box to see how the trick was done, there would be a loud hissing sound as the hot air escapes. What would be left, if anything, would undoubtedly be a finely tuned, designed mechanism for producing adaptive change. That's not natural selection; *that's intelligent design.*"_


What silly creationist cut and paste.


----------



## ima

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was returning one red herring for another.
> 
> I would never actually make the claim "there is no god" because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative existential claim.
> 
> I can however, prove that the christian god does not exist, because it is logically incongruous. As defined, the judeo-christian god is said to be perfect, yet this being needs or wants a relationship? A perfect being wouldn't need anything. It would never be jealous, as the bible often indicates. Also, omniscience and omnipotence are also logically incongruous. If you know every action you are going to take in the future, you are powerless to change them.
Click to expand...

You could add that the creator, if real, had to have been created himself.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and using your "logic" you missed the "IF" the fact is dating methods are far more accurate then  50%  more like 97or 98 % percent depending on the method,unlike the claims in the bible that are not supported by evidence,the following claims are erroneous in the extreme : "Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact." L.S
> 
> Bible Science Debunked
> 
> 
> 
> A Brief Introduction To Biblical Cosmology
> 
> It is not uncommon for biblical apologists to make the claim that the Bible miraculously revealed advanced scientific principles long before they were discovered by modern science.  If true, this would lend credibility to the notion that the Bible is divinely inspired (or that the Bible authors were incredibly astute).  But can these claims really be substantiated through an objective analysis of the biblical citations that are presented to support this premise?  In order to find out, I searched the Internet for Christian apologetic websites that tout the Bible as a source of revelatory scientific insight and settled on one developed by a Mr. David Pyles entitled, &#65533;Scientific Facts and Accuracy in the Bible.&#65533;  I chose Mr. Pyles&#65533; website because it contained more citations than most and included claims that routinely appear on other such websites.
> 
> Before examining Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims for the Bible&#65533;s amazing scientific accuracy, it is helpful to first set the stage by providing an overview of the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe.  According to the Harper's Bible Dictionary,
> 
> &#65533;The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and round [disk], covered by the great solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars, (Job 26:11; 37:18). The blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters that the firmament separated from the earth (Gen. 1:7). The earth was thus surrounded by waters above and below (Gen. 1:6,7; cf. Psalms 24:2; 148:4, Deut. 5:8). The firmament was thought to be substantial; it had pillars (Job 26:11) and foundations (2 Sam. 22:8). When the windows of it were opened, rain fell (Gen. 7:11-12; 8:2). The sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 19:4,6). It was also the abode of the birds (Gen. 1:20; Deut. 4:17). Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead (Num. 16:30-33; Isa. 14:9,15)."
> 
> Yes, those Bronze Age science wizards whose creation folktales were collected in the Old Testament really did believe that the earth was covered by a solid dome.  The Hebrew word translated as firmament in Genesis is "raqiya."  Strong's Lexicon (searchable at the Blue Letter Bible website) translates the word as "extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament."  In keeping with the notion of solidity, the dome was thought to be impervious to water, i.e., it separated the waters above it from the waters below, to contain windows that regulated precipitation, to serve as a surface across which the sun, moon, and stars traveled, and to serve as a sub-floor for the mythical reservoirs of snow and hail (Job 38:22).
> 
> The concept of a solid dome in the sky is also exemplified by Job 37:18 which describes God as spreading out the heavens and making them "as strong as a cast metal mirror." (NKJV)   In Isa. 40:22, the heavens are likened to the fabric of a curtain or tent.  And in a footnote to "raqiya," Strong's Lexicon states, "...considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting "waters above."
> 
> A depiction of this archaic concept of a dome-covered universe and further discussion on the subject can found here.
> 
> Incidentally, the sky is not blue because a make-believe firmament partially transmits the color of &#65533;chaotic waters&#65533; confined above it.  It is blue because of a phenomenon known as Rayleigh scattering.
> 
> 
> 
> Examining the Claims
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the foregoing, it is difficult to identify anything that might come close to qualifying as cutting-edge science.  Truth be told, the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe is manifestly unscientific and something that any Typical Scientifically-Ignorant Bronze Age Goat Herder (TSIBAGH) might be expected to have dreamed up.  Be that as it may, in what follows, let&#65533;s see how Mr. Pyles&#65533; claims stand up to scrutiny.  (It appears Mr. Pyles has used the KJV Bible for most of his biblical citations.  I have done likewise, unless otherwise specified.)
> 
> Claim 1.
> 
> Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
> 
> Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."
> 
> My Response:
> 
> Genesis gets off to a rather dubious start in the science department because it violates one of the principal tenets of the scientific method, i.e., it invokes supernatural causation.  Science deals exclusively with natural causes and effects.  (See here.) God, a supernatural entity, cannot be invoked as a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe (or anything else for that matter).  Scientific theories dealing with the origin of the universe do not include reference to any creator gods because to do so would render them utterly unscientific.
> 
> According to an earlier understanding of  &#65533;Big Bang&#65533; theory of the origin of the universe (based on general relativity factors), time started when matter/energy originated and was set in motion through space.   The thinking was that the process began with a so-called singularity in which matter/energy was compressed to an incredibly high density (similar to the condition that is thought to exist at the center of black holes).  Now, taking into account additional factors relating to quantum mechanics, it is the consensus of cosmologists that there was no singularity at the start of the Big Bang. This means that time did not necessarily begin with the Big Bang and that the universe could extend back in time with no limit, i.e., it may have existed in one form or another forever.  In other words, and in contradiction to Genesis, there may well not have been a beginning of the universe for anyone or any thing to cause.  The Genesis creation story provides none of this insight and consists of nothing that a TSIBAGH could not have dreamed up.  More to the point, it is precisely the type of mythical folktale a TSIBAGH would be expected to dream up.
> 
> Although Genesis 1:1-3 makes general statements about what God supposedly did, it provides no information regarding how He did it.  Scientific explanations include information not only about what happened, but also about how (using only naturalistic mechanisms) it happened.  Not only does Genesis get virtually everything wrong, it also leaves out far too many details to qualify as a source of useful scientific information on the origin of the universe.
> 
> Arbitrarily assigning scientific meanings to words in ancient documents does not automatically lend any scientific credibility to the stories they tell.  One can play the same word game with a number of ancient creation stories.  Consider the following from a part of a Chinese creation story:
> 
> In the beginning (time), the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos.  The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself.  After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep.  He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might (power) to crack open the egg.  The light, clear part of it floated up (motion) and formed the heavens (space), the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth (matter).
> 
> I have inserted the words "time," "power," "motion," "space," and "matter" using the same logic (or lack thereof) that Mr. Pyles used in his example above.  Does this lend any scientific credibility to the creation story of Pan Gu?  I don&#65533;t think so.  Neither do I think it does so when Mr. Pyles uses the same specious approach with the Bible.
> 
> Bible Science Debunked
> 
> 
> "Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy  L.S."
> 
> 
> How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?By Austin Cline, About.com GuideJuly 30, 2009
> 
> Quite a few Christians believe that the Bible is 100% accurate in every detail - not a single error or contradiction can be found in the text. Other Christians believe that many allegedly historical passages are only metaphorical and that the authors, being fallible, made mistakes from time to time. Which end of this spectrum do you think is most reasonable and, more importantly, why? What sorts of evidence or reasoning can be presented to more literalist Christians to explain why the Bible is not a perfect historical record?
> 
> It's obvious that some parts of the Bible were only ever intended to be metaphorical or allegorical stories  the Bible is, after all, a collection of texts written over a long period of time and they represent many different genres of writing. Even those intended to relate actual events, though, were not written from the perspective of purely factual, objective history because that genre didn't exist at the time  for most of history, writing "history" meant pursuing a political, ideological, or religious agenda at the same time.
> 
> Even if we ignore that, however, distinguishing between the portions that are allegories or metaphors and the portions which are meant to be historical isn't always easy. Sometimes there are markers, but so often religious believers insist that some stories are allegories even though no such markers are present  apparently, anything that obviously couldn't be true must have been intended to be allegory all along while anything that might be true must be true. Where doe such an attitude come from and why is it only applied to one's own religion?
> 
> .Weekly Poll: How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?
> 
> One more thing ..why is it when searching those statements  do you only find conformation on Christian bias sites?
> you would think that if those fables were fact you find them on  actual  historical and scientific sites not pseudoscience or pseudohistoric ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ain't got time to read all that. If you can't make a point in a coupe of paragraphs then I feel sorry for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> translation: I'm illiterate and the concept that the facts may take more than a couple of paragraphs is too much for me....even my bible has pictures.
Click to expand...


Reality: I have a job and don't have the time to read of bunch of nonsense.

FTR.... There are no pictures in my Bible.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

pjnlsn said:


> It's hard to find a specific post to quote, but as to evolution, the core of the idea is very simple. And is just to note that there are these fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out how it happened.



Fossils prove what exactly?

There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwins theory of evolution  facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.

  The key problem is this: Darwins theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it: 


> Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What really sticks in my ribs are these claims because on so many other things we encounter in life The Bible is a great map and course for many things.
> That is what it is and is supposed to be.
> A person follow Biblical principles in so many areas, they will make it work.
> Nothing about science, it is not a science book and was never intended to be one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will agree to a point,God did not need a science book to complete his work. There are many references in the bible however that can be tested by science which you ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....and which you are unable to identify.
Click to expand...


I won't waste my time listing them again everyone in this thread has seen them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was returning one red herring for another.
> 
> I would never actually make the claim "there is no god" because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative existential claim.
> 
> I can however, prove that the christian god does not exist, because it is logically incongruous. As defined, the judeo-christian god is said to be perfect, yet this being needs or wants a relationship? A perfect being wouldn't need anything. It would never be jealous, as the bible often indicates. Also, omniscience and omnipotence are also logically incongruous. If you know every action you are going to take in the future, you are powerless to change them.
Click to expand...


Then you admit your views to are based in faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do think dating methods are flawed? Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe?
> 
> Was your earlier insult to be ignored? I've come to expect insults from religious people when challenges to their beliefs are presented. Do you enter a public discussion board and expect others to accept "because I say so claims"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how diamonds that were dated to a couple of million years old were found to contain carbon ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are youreally this ignorant?
> In mineralogy, diamond (from the ancient Greek &#945;&#948;&#940;&#956;&#945;&#962;  adámas "unbreakable") is an allotrope of carbon, where the carbon atoms are arranged in a variation of the face-centered cubic crystal structure called a diamond lattice. Diamond is less stable than graphite, but the conversion rate from diamond to graphite is negligible at ambient conditions
> 
> Diamond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> btw graphite is also carbon...
Click to expand...


I don't need your answers based on conjecture. I just want you to answer why carbon is found on stones that should not be there according to the dating methods.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's fictious because there's no evidence to support it .
> your denial of dating methods is a dodge
> it is true that they are flawed but even if they were only right 50% of the time it would still make them far more accurate then the no proof answers you provide.
> BTW the bible is the most flawed and inaccurate book ever written....but you still use it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are in denial of the evidence that shows dating methods are not reliable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol...asshat
> 
> Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
> Michael Benton
> articlehighlights
> Fossil dating is accurate since the method follows strict scientific guidelines:
> 
> the age of rocks around a fossil can be considered
> mathematical calculations are used
> the state of decay, carbon-14, and isotopes figure in calculations
> tree of life relationships often help sort the dates
> read articlelearn moreget involvededucator resources January 2001
> Fossils provide a record of the history of life.
> Engraving from William Smiths 1815 monograph on identifying strata based on fossils. Smith (1759-1839) is known as the Father of English Geology. Source: Oxford Library.
> Our understanding of the shape and pattern of the history of life depends on the accuracy of fossils and dating methods. Some critics, particularly religious fundamentalists, argue that neither fossils nor dating can be trusted, and that their interpretations are better. Other critics, perhaps more familiar with the data, question certain aspects of the quality of the fossil record and of its dating. These skeptics do not provide scientific evidence for their views. Current understanding of the history of life is probably close to the truth because it is based on repeated and careful testing and consideration of data.
> 
> The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:
> 
> Millions of fossils have been discovered.They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds  have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.
> Some skeptics believe that all fossils are the same age.Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noahs flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow drowned by the flood.
> Rejecting fossil data cannot be supported by proof.The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.
> Fossils occur in sequences
> Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution. Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. The first work was done in England and France.
> 
> Fossil hunting began by accident in England around 1800.Around 1800, William Smith in England, who was a canal surveyor, noticed that he could map out great tracts of rocks on the basis of their contained fossils. The sequences he saw in one part of the country could be correlated (matched) precisely with the sequences in another. He, and others at the time, had discovered the first principles of stratigraphy  that older rocks lie below younger rocks and that fossils occur in a particular, predictable order.
> Stratigraphy, the study of rock layers, led to paleontology, the study of fossils.Then, geologists began to build up the stratigraphic column, the familiar listing of divisions of geological time  Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and so on. Each time unit was characterized by particular fossils. The scheme worked all round the world, without fail.
> 
> From the 1830s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Clearly, there was some kind of progress going on.
> 
> All became clear, of course, in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his On the origin of species. The progress shown by the fossils was a documentation of the grand pattern of evolution through long spans of time.
> 
> Accuracy of the fossils
> Fossils prove that humans did not exist alongside dinosaurs.Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great tree of life. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.
> 
> Scientists now use phylogeny, mathematics, and other computations to date fossils.Paleontologists now apply sophisticated mathematical techniques to assess the relative quality of particular fossil successions, as well as the entire fossil record. These demonstrate that, of course, we do not know everything (and clearly never will), but we know enough. Today, innovative techniques provide further confirmation and understanding of the history of life. Biologists actually have at their disposal several independent ways of looking at the history of life - not only from the order of fossils in the rocks, but also through phylogenetic trees.
> 
> Phylogenetic trees are the family trees of particular groups of plants or animals, showing how all the species relate to each other.
> 
> Phylogenetic trees are drawn up mathematically, using lists of morphological (external form) or molecular (gene sequence) characters.
> 
> Modern phylogenetic trees have no input from stratigraphy, so they can be used in a broad way to make comparisons between tree shape and stratigraphy.
> 
> The majority of test cases show good agreement, so the fossil record tells the same story as the molecules enclosed in living organisms.
> 
> Accuracy of dating
> Dating in geology may be relative or absolute. Relative dating is done by observing fossils, as described above, and recording which fossil is younger, which is older. The discovery of means for absolute dating in the early 1900s was a huge advance. The methods are all based on radioactive decay:
> 
> Fossils may be dated by calculating the rate of decay of certain elements.Certain naturally occurring elements are radioactive, and they decay, or break down, at predictable rates.
> Chemists measure the half-life of such elements, i.e., the time it takes for half of the radioactive parent element to break down to the stable daughter element. Sometimes, one isotope, or naturally occurring form, of an element decays into another, more stable form of the same element.
> By comparing the proportions of parent to daughter element in a rock sample, and knowing the half-life, the age can be calculated.
> Older fossils cannot be dated by carbon-14 methods and require radiometric dating.Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:
> 
> The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
> Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
> Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes.The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rocks age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.
> 
> There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology.Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.
> 
> Conclusion: The strict rules of the scientific method ensure the accuracy of fossil dating.Conclusion
> The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Fossils document the order of appearance of groups and they tell us about some of the amazing plants and animals that died out long ago. Fossils can also show us how major crises, such as mass extinctions, happened, and how life recovered after them. If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.
> 
> © 2001, American Institute of Biological Sciences. Educators have permission to reprint articles for classroom use; other users, please contact editor@actionbioscience.org for reprint permission. See reprint policy.
> 
> Michael Benton, Ph.D., is a vertebrate paleontologist with particular interests in dinosaur origins and fossil history. Currently, he is studying certain basal dinosaurs from the Late Triassic and the quality of different segments of the fossil record. He holds the Chair in Vertebrate Paleontology at the University of Bristol, UK, in addition to chairing the Masters program in paleobiology at the university. He has written some 30 books on dinosaurs and paleobiology, ranging from professional tomes to popular kids books.
> People: Earth Sciences: University of Bristol
> 
> Actionbioscience | Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
Click to expand...


Not only was carbon found on stones while you are at it explain why dinosaur fossils found contain carbon. Asshat


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was returning one red herring for another.
> 
> I would never actually make the claim "there is no god" because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative existential claim.
> 
> I can however, prove that the christian god does not exist, because it is logically incongruous. As defined, the judeo-christian god is said to be perfect, yet this being needs or wants a relationship? A perfect being wouldn't need anything. It would never be jealous, as the bible often indicates. Also, omniscience and omnipotence are also logically incongruous. If you know every action you are going to take in the future, you are powerless to change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could add that the creator, if real, had to have been created himself.
Click to expand...


Prove it,this is to easy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ain't got time to read all that. If you can't make a point in a coupe of paragraphs then I feel sorry for you.
> 
> 
> 
> translation: I'm illiterate and the concept that the facts may take more than a couple of paragraphs is too much for me....even my bible has pictures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality: I have a job and don't have the time to read of bunch of nonsense.
> 
> FTR.... There are no pictures in my Bible.
Click to expand...


Funny,the bible does not have artistic renditions of events or creatures described but evolutionist however do,it must make it more credible for them.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ain't got time to read all that. If you can't make a point in a coupe of paragraphs then I feel sorry for you.
> 
> 
> 
> translation: I'm illiterate and the concept that the facts may take more than a couple of paragraphs is too much for me....even my bible has pictures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality: I have a job and don't have the time to read of bunch of nonsense.
> 
> FTR.... There are no pictures in my Bible.
Click to expand...

dodge and a lie...
I have a job and I manage to find the time to read your fantasies.
the truth is you're too chicken shit or prejudiced to want to learn any thing that might take you out of your comfort zone .


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is my faith needs no proof. Yours does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a tautology. Faith is defined as belief without evidence. What you just said is "my belief without evidence needs no evidence."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Faith (noun)*:
> 
> 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: _faith in another's ability._
> 
> 2. belief that is not based on proof: _He had faith that his hypothesis about the origin of the cell would eventually be proven as fact._
> 
> 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: _the firm faith of the Pilgrims._
> 
> 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: _to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty._
> 
> 5.a system of religious belief:_ the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. _
Click to expand...

is it just me or in the that definition there is no metion of  faith being proof or fact or evidence of anything but faith itself.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ain't got time to read all that. If you can't make a point in a coupe of paragraphs then I feel sorry for you.
> 
> 
> 
> translation: I'm illiterate and the concept that the facts may take more than a couple of paragraphs is too much for me....even my bible has pictures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't read your super long irrelevant posts either.  You've already proven you are totally clueless so why would I waste precious moments of my life reading more of your endless vitriol???
Click to expand...

 this from the queen of super long irrelevant posts !

(place irony here)


----------



## ima

There's no proof that god isn't a retard.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how diamonds that were dated to a couple of million years old were found to contain carbon ?
> 
> 
> 
> are youreally this ignorant?
> In mineralogy, diamond (from the ancient Greek &#945;&#948;&#940;&#956;&#945;&#962; &#8211; adámas "unbreakable") is an allotrope of carbon, where the carbon atoms are arranged in a variation of the face-centered cubic crystal structure called a diamond lattice. Diamond is less stable than graphite, but the conversion rate from diamond to graphite is negligible at ambient conditions
> 
> Diamond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> btw graphite is also carbon...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need your answers based on conjecture. I just want you to answer why carbon is found on stones that should not be there according to the dating methods.
Click to expand...

since it's not conjecture the answer stands.
first there is no should in geology...
you do understand the concepts of plate tectonic, volcanism, erosion, glacial expantion and retraction, flooding? all these things move shit around and mix things up .so finding carbon mixed with other stones is no big suprise.
discribe what kind of dating method it was,
better yet give me the link to the site where you read that.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in denial of the evidence that shows dating methods are not reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> lol...asshat
> 
> Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
> Michael Benton
> articlehighlights
> Fossil dating is accurate since the method follows strict scientific guidelines:
> 
> &#8226;the age of rocks around a fossil can be considered
> &#8226;mathematical calculations are used
> &#8226;the state of decay, carbon-14, and isotopes figure in calculations
> &#8226;tree of life relationships often help sort the dates
> read articlelearn moreget involvededucator resources January 2001
> Fossils provide a record of the history of life.
> Engraving from William Smith&#8217;s 1815 monograph on identifying strata based on fossils. Smith (1759-1839) is known as the Father of English Geology. Source: Oxford Library.
> Our understanding of the shape and pattern of the history of life depends on the accuracy of fossils and dating methods. Some critics, particularly religious fundamentalists, argue that neither fossils nor dating can be trusted, and that their interpretations are better. Other critics, perhaps more familiar with the data, question certain aspects of the quality of the fossil record and of its dating. These skeptics do not provide scientific evidence for their views. Current understanding of the history of life is probably close to the truth because it is based on repeated and careful testing and consideration of data.
> 
> The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:
> 
> Millions of fossils have been discovered.&#8226;They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds &#8212; have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.
> Some skeptics believe that all fossils are the same age.&#8226;Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah&#8217;s flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow &#8216;drowned&#8217; by the flood.
> Rejecting fossil data cannot be supported by proof.&#8226;The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.
> Fossils occur in sequences
> Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution. Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. The first work was done in England and France.
> 
> Fossil hunting began by accident in England around 1800.&#8226;Around 1800, William Smith in England, who was a canal surveyor, noticed that he could map out great tracts of rocks on the basis of their contained fossils. The sequences he saw in one part of the country could be correlated (matched) precisely with the sequences in another. He, and others at the time, had discovered the first principles of stratigraphy &#8212; that older rocks lie below younger rocks and that fossils occur in a particular, predictable order.
> Stratigraphy, the study of rock layers, led to paleontology, the study of fossils.&#8226;Then, geologists began to build up the stratigraphic column, the familiar listing of divisions of geological time &#8212; Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and so on. Each time unit was characterized by particular fossils. The scheme worked all round the world, without fail.
> 
> &#8226;From the 1830s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Clearly, there was some kind of &#8216;progress&#8217; going on.
> 
> &#8226;All became clear, of course, in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his &#8220;On the origin of species&#8221;. The &#8216;progress&#8217; shown by the fossils was a documentation of the grand pattern of evolution through long spans of time.
> 
> Accuracy of the fossils
> Fossils prove that humans did not exist alongside dinosaurs.Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great &#8216;tree of life&#8217;. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.
> 
> Scientists now use phylogeny, mathematics, and other computations to date fossils.Paleontologists now apply sophisticated mathematical techniques to assess the relative quality of particular fossil successions, as well as the entire fossil record. These demonstrate that, of course, we do not know everything (and clearly never will), but we know enough. Today, innovative techniques provide further confirmation and understanding of the history of life. Biologists actually have at their disposal several independent ways of looking at the history of life - not only from the order of fossils in the rocks, but also through phylogenetic trees.
> 
> &#8226;Phylogenetic trees are the family trees of particular groups of plants or animals, showing how all the species relate to each other.
> 
> &#8226;Phylogenetic trees are drawn up mathematically, using lists of morphological (external form) or molecular (gene sequence) characters.
> 
> &#8226;Modern phylogenetic trees have no input from stratigraphy, so they can be used in a broad way to make comparisons between tree shape and stratigraphy.
> 
> &#8226;The majority of test cases show good agreement, so the fossil record tells the same story as the molecules enclosed in living organisms.
> 
> Accuracy of dating
> Dating in geology may be relative or absolute. Relative dating is done by observing fossils, as described above, and recording which fossil is younger, which is older. The discovery of means for absolute dating in the early 1900s was a huge advance. The methods are all based on radioactive decay:
> 
> Fossils may be dated by calculating the rate of decay of certain elements.&#8226;Certain naturally occurring elements are radioactive, and they decay, or break down, at predictable rates.
> &#8226;Chemists measure the half-life of such elements, i.e., the time it takes for half of the radioactive parent element to break down to the stable daughter element. Sometimes, one isotope, or naturally occurring form, of an element decays into another, more stable form of the same element.
> &#8226;By comparing the proportions of parent to daughter element in a rock sample, and knowing the half-life, the age can be calculated.
> Older fossils cannot be dated by carbon-14 methods and require radiometric dating.Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:
> 
> &#8226;The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
> &#8226;Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
> Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes.The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock&#8217;s age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.
> 
> There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology.Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.
> 
> Conclusion: The strict rules of the scientific method ensure the accuracy of fossil dating.Conclusion
> The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Fossils document the order of appearance of groups and they tell us about some of the amazing plants and animals that died out long ago. Fossils can also show us how major crises, such as mass extinctions, happened, and how life recovered after them. If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.
> 
> © 2001, American Institute of Biological Sciences. Educators have permission to reprint articles for classroom use; other users, please contact editor@actionbioscience.org for reprint permission. See reprint policy.
> 
> Michael Benton, Ph.D., is a vertebrate paleontologist with particular interests in dinosaur origins and fossil history. Currently, he is studying certain basal dinosaurs from the Late Triassic and the quality of different segments of the fossil record. He holds the Chair in Vertebrate Paleontology at the University of Bristol, UK, in addition to chairing the Masters program in paleobiology at the university. He has written some 30 books on dinosaurs and paleobiology, ranging from professional tomes to popular kids&#8217; books.
> People: Earth Sciences: University of Bristol
> 
> Actionbioscience | Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only was carbon found on stones while you are at it explain why dinosaur fossils found contain carbon. Asshat
Click to expand...

yes you are as ignorant as you seem 

Carbon pools in the major reservoirs on earth.[2] Pool Quantity (gigatons) 
Atmosphere 720 
Oceans (total) 38,400 
Total inorganic 37,400 
Total organic 1,000 
Surface layer 670 
Deep layer 36,730 
Lithosphere  
Sedimentary carbonates > 60,000,000 
Kerogens 15,000,000 
Terrestrial biosphere (total) 2,000 
Living biomass 600 - 1,000 
Dead biomass 1,200 
Aquatic biosphere 1 - 2 
Fossil fuels (total) 4,130 
Coal 3,510 
Oil 230 
Gas 140 
Other (peat) 250 

if that does not explain it  nothing will.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> translation: I'm illiterate and the concept that the facts may take more than a couple of paragraphs is too much for me....even my bible has pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality: I have a job and don't have the time to read of bunch of nonsense.
> 
> FTR.... There are no pictures in my Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny,the bible does not have artistic renditions of events or creatures described but evolutionist however do,it must make it more credible for them.
Click to expand...

more of your ignorance come shinning through.

ever hear the term ilumnated bible or manuscript?
all of the bibles construted during the dark ages all had artistic (  showing imaginative skill in arrangement or execution )   repesentations of events and creatures 
the practice still goes on today.
so as always you are talking out your ass.


----------



## pjnlsn

Lonestar_logic said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to find a specific post to quote, but as to evolution, the core of the idea is very simple. And is just to note that there are these fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out how it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fossils prove what exactly?
> 
> There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwins theory of evolution  facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.
> 
> The key problem is this: Darwins theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:
> 
> 
> 
> Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


None of this contradicts what I said, though I can clarify, I suppose.

The core of that idea which can summarize that section of biology (circa the present day) is simply to say that there are fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out what happened in the minutia.


----------



## Hollie

pjnlsn said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to find a specific post to quote, but as to evolution, the core of the idea is very simple. And is just to note that there are these fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out how it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fossils prove what exactly?
> 
> There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwins theory of evolution  facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.
> 
> The key problem is this: Darwins theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:
> 
> 
> 
> Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of this contradicts what I said, though I can clarify, I suppose.
> 
> The core of that idea which can summarize that section of biology (circa the present day) is simply to say that there are fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out what happened in the minutia.
Click to expand...

Your earlier comment was perfectly legitimate and essentially true, pjnlsn

Clarification on your part wasn't necessarily required as you were confronted with a pattern of behavior among fundie Christian creationists that has been observed frequently in this thread. 

The poster, Lonestar, is repeating a process called "quote mining". The process (better termed "pathology") afflicts fundie Christians who dishonesty, insidiously and purposefully post "quotes" that are altered, parsed, edited, manufactured or revised with the intention to mislead a reader as to what the author of the quoted text intended to convey. 

The "quote" that was posted by Lonestar was such a fraud. Charles Darwin is among the many, many scientists whose "quotes" are fraudulently edited and Lonestars' cut and paste was immediately familiar as a fraud. 

If you Look here:

Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"

and scroll down the page to quote #75, you will see what actually Darwin wrote, in context, in "Origin of Species". 

You can derive your own conclusions.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> translation: I'm illiterate and the concept that the facts may take more than a couple of paragraphs is too much for me....even my bible has pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality: I have a job and don't have the time to read of bunch of nonsense.
> 
> FTR.... There are no pictures in my Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dodge and a lie...
> I have a job and I manage to find the time to read your fantasies.
> the truth is you're too chicken shit or prejudiced to want to learn any thing that might take you out of your comfort zone .
Click to expand...


A dodge and a lie? You're more stupid than I thought.


Look asshole, I've been reading evolutionist jibberish for more years than I care to remember. It's all the same old bullshit. They accept results that fit their preconceived notions and disregard the rest. Fact is dating methods are flawed and in so being all dated material is questionable. 

Get it through that neanderthal skull of yours and wise up!


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality: I have a job and don't have the time to read of bunch of nonsense.
> 
> FTR.... There are no pictures in my Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> dodge and a lie...
> I have a job and I manage to find the time to read your fantasies.
> the truth is you're too chicken shit or prejudiced to want to learn any thing that might take you out of your comfort zone .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A dodge and a lie? You're more stupid than I thought.
> 
> 
> Look asshole, I've been reading evolutionist jibberish for more years than I care to remember. It's all the same old bullshit. They accept results that fit their preconceived notions and disregard the rest. Fact is dating methods are flawed and in so being all dated material is questionable.
> 
> Get it through that neanderthal skull of yours and wise up!
Click to expand...

Dating methods are flawed? 

Yet another fabrication coming out of the creationist ministries.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossils prove what exactly?
> 
> There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwins theory of evolution  facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.
> 
> The key problem is this: Darwins theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this contradicts what I said, though I can clarify, I suppose.
> 
> The core of that idea which can summarize that section of biology (circa the present day) is simply to say that there are fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out what happened in the minutia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your earlier comment was perfectly legitimate and essentially true, pjnlsn
> 
> Clarification on your part wasn't necessarily required as you were confronted with a pattern of behavior among fundie Christian creationists that has been observed frequently in this thread.
> 
> The poster, Lonestar, is repeating a process called "quote mining". The process (better termed "pathology") afflicts fundie Christians who dishonesty, insidiously and purposefully post "quotes" that are altered, parsed, edited, manufactured or revised with the intention to mislead a reader as to what the author of the quoted text intended to convey.
> 
> The "quote" that was posted by Lonestar was such a fraud. Charles Darwin is among the many, many scientists whose "quotes" are fraudulently edited and Lonestars' cut and paste was immediately familiar as a fraud.
> 
> If you Look here:
> 
> Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"
> 
> and scroll down the page to quote #75, you will see what actually Darwin wrote, in context, in "Origin of Species".
> 
> You can derive your own conclusions.
Click to expand...


Ha! The quote stands on it's on merits you can quote the entire book and still not unsay what it said. You can't spin that no matter how hard you try!!


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> dodge and a lie...
> I have a job and I manage to find the time to read your fantasies.
> the truth is you're too chicken shit or prejudiced to want to learn any thing that might take you out of your comfort zone .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A dodge and a lie? You're more stupid than I thought.
> 
> 
> Look asshole, I've been reading evolutionist jibberish for more years than I care to remember. It's all the same old bullshit. They accept results that fit their preconceived notions and disregard the rest. Fact is dating methods are flawed and in so being all dated material is questionable.
> 
> Get it through that neanderthal skull of yours and wise up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dating methods are flawed?
> 
> Yet another fabrication coming out of the creationist ministries.
Click to expand...


Yes dating methods are flawed.

Evidence has been provided yet you chose to ignore it.

Stay stuck on stupid if you wish.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this contradicts what I said, though I can clarify, I suppose.
> 
> The core of that idea which can summarize that section of biology (circa the present day) is simply to say that there are fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out what happened in the minutia.
> 
> 
> 
> Your earlier comment was perfectly legitimate and essentially true, pjnlsn
> 
> Clarification on your part wasn't necessarily required as you were confronted with a pattern of behavior among fundie Christian creationists that has been observed frequently in this thread.
> 
> The poster, Lonestar, is repeating a process called "quote mining". The process (better termed "pathology") afflicts fundie Christians who dishonesty, insidiously and purposefully post "quotes" that are altered, parsed, edited, manufactured or revised with the intention to mislead a reader as to what the author of the quoted text intended to convey.
> 
> The "quote" that was posted by Lonestar was such a fraud. Charles Darwin is among the many, many scientists whose "quotes" are fraudulently edited and Lonestars' cut and paste was immediately familiar as a fraud.
> 
> If you Look here:
> 
> Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"
> 
> and scroll down the page to quote #75, you will see what actually Darwin wrote, in context, in "Origin of Species".
> 
> You can derive your own conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha! The quote stands on it's on merits you can quote the entire book and still not unsay what it said. You can't spin that no matter how hard you try!!
Click to expand...


I have nothing to spin. When you cut and paste lies, those lies become your own.

If you're comfortable with dishonesty, I'm happy for you. I just have no issue exposing the lies that you are comfortable with when "quotes" are purposely altered, parsed and forged to represent something not intended by the author.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your earlier comment was perfectly legitimate and essentially true, pjnlsn
> 
> Clarification on your part wasn't necessarily required as you were confronted with a pattern of behavior among fundie Christian creationists that has been observed frequently in this thread.
> 
> The poster, Lonestar, is repeating a process called "quote mining". The process (better termed "pathology") afflicts fundie Christians who dishonesty, insidiously and purposefully post "quotes" that are altered, parsed, edited, manufactured or revised with the intention to mislead a reader as to what the author of the quoted text intended to convey.
> 
> The "quote" that was posted by Lonestar was such a fraud. Charles Darwin is among the many, many scientists whose "quotes" are fraudulently edited and Lonestars' cut and paste was immediately familiar as a fraud.
> 
> If you Look here:
> 
> Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"
> 
> and scroll down the page to quote #75, you will see what actually Darwin wrote, in context, in "Origin of Species".
> 
> You can derive your own conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! The quote stands on it's on merits you can quote the entire book and still not unsay what it said. You can't spin that no matter how hard you try!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have nothing to spin. When you cut and paste lies, those lies become your own.
> 
> If you're comfortable with dishonesty, I'm happy for you. I just have no issue exposing the lies that you are comfortable with when "quotes" are purposely altered, parsed and forged to represent something not intended by the author.
Click to expand...


Lies? It was quote straight from his book it was not altered, parsed or forged in any way, shape or form.

He readily admits there is an unexplainable gap in the fossil record.













.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:
			
		

> Ha! The quote stands on it's on merits you can quote the entire book and still not unsay what it said. You can't spin that no matter how hard you try!!





> I have nothing to spin. When you cut and paste lies, those lies become your own.
> 
> If you're comfortable with dishonesty, I'm happy for you. I just have no issue exposing the lies that you are comfortable with when "quotes" are purposely altered, parsed and forged to represent something not intended by the author.





> Lies? It was quote straight from his book it was not altered, parsed or forged in any way, shape or form.
> 
> He readily admits there is an unexplainable gap in the fossil record.



you share the pathology that afflicts the other fundies in this thread who take no issue with lies in furtherance of their religion.


----------



## pjnlsn

Lonestar_logic said:


> Yes dating methods are flawed.



If by "flawed," you mean "less than perfect," this is irrelevant in any comparison. All things are imperfect, by definition. If instead it is a reference to that biological history is less certain than biological present, this is, similarly, largely unavoidable.


----------



## pjnlsn

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this contradicts what I said, though I can clarify, I suppose.
> 
> The core of that idea which can summarize that section of biology (circa the present day) is simply to say that there are fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out what happened in the minutia.
> 
> 
> 
> Your earlier comment was perfectly legitimate and essentially true, pjnlsn
> 
> Clarification on your part wasn't necessarily required as you were confronted with a pattern of behavior among fundie Christian creationists that has been observed frequently in this thread.
> 
> The poster, Lonestar, is repeating a process called "quote mining". The process (better termed "pathology") afflicts fundie Christians who dishonesty, insidiously and purposefully post "quotes" that are altered, parsed, edited, manufactured or revised with the intention to mislead a reader as to what the author of the quoted text intended to convey.
> 
> The "quote" that was posted by Lonestar was such a fraud. Charles Darwin is among the many, many scientists whose "quotes" are fraudulently edited and Lonestars' cut and paste was immediately familiar as a fraud.
> 
> If you Look here:
> 
> Talk Origins - Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"
> 
> and scroll down the page to quote #75, you will see what actually Darwin wrote, in context, in "Origin of Species".
> 
> You can derive your own conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha! The quote stands on it's on merits you can quote the entire book and still not unsay what it said. You can't spin that no matter how hard you try!!
Click to expand...


The above does not contradict what comes before it, despite the tone in which it's written.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality: I have a job and don't have the time to read of bunch of nonsense.
> 
> FTR.... There are no pictures in my Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> dodge and a lie...
> I have a job and I manage to find the time to read your fantasies.
> the truth is you're too chicken shit or prejudiced to want to learn any thing that might take you out of your comfort zone .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A dodge and a lie? You're more stupid than I thought.
> 
> 
> Look asshole, I've been reading evolutionist jibberish for more years than I care to remember. It's all the same old bullshit. They accept results that fit their preconceived notions and disregard the rest. Fact is dating methods are flawed and in so being all dated material is questionable.
> 
> Get it through that neanderthal skull of yours and wise up!
Click to expand...

thanks for proving my statement to be true..


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Saying something doesn't make it so. Darwinists have a bad habit of saying this or that wonder "evolved" with no sense of obligation to say how it evolved. Tracking down the individual lucky accidents that led to a complex adaptation (behavior included) is too hard, so here's what they do: assume evolution, then just assert that the trait evolved, because *evolution is already assumed to be a fact.*"
> 
> "It may well be that flying fish gained their adaptations from fish that did not have them. It would seem improbable, but not impossible, to imagine the fins growing longer as certain fish leaped above the water to avoid predators. Perhaps this kind of adaptability is itself a product of design. But with no fossil record of the transition, we need a lot more than a Darwinian evolutionist's word for it that a blind, purposeless process produced a functional adaptation.
> 
> Instead, we are told that these fish "evolved so that they could escape predators by 'gliding' over-water to safety."* No transitional forms are needed; no accounting of mutations is required. The magic occurs in a black box the audience can't see, and presto! -- a fully functioning flying fish leaps above the water, complete with brain software to know how to use its new equipment.*
> 
> I*f we demanded that evolutionists drop all teleological language to be consistent with their anti-teleological worldview, evolution would be a very boring act.* If we insisted on looking into the black box to see how the trick was done, there would be a loud hissing sound as the hot air escapes. What would be left, if anything, would undoubtedly be a finely tuned, designed mechanism for producing adaptive change. That's not natural selection; *that's intelligent design.*"_
> 
> 
> 
> What silly creationist cut and paste.
Click to expand...


Typical irrelevant Ad Hominem attack.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> ...retard.


 Why would you make fun of your own last name like this?


----------



## UltimateReality

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your total denial. We have concrete evidence that no presently observable specified information exists that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. If we apply the historical science methods of Lyell and Darwin, we conclude that the best explanation for the specified information is DNA is intelligence. Only in Hoki Lollie world do we get to pretend things don't exist if we just ignore them.
> 
> We are talking about Historical science in case you missed the last 600 pages. And yes, faith is required for Historical science you poor dear.
> 
> 
> 
> What silliness. " Concrete" evidence that doesn't exist. We call fantasy. The fantastical world of the supernaturalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please show me an example where the source is not an intelligent agent. Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...


Still waiting for Hollie and Loki's example. Maybe if they ignore it, everyone will forget they can't win this argument because they don't have an answer.


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to find a specific post to quote, but as to evolution, the core of the idea is very simple. And is just to note that there are these fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out how it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fossils prove what exactly?
> 
> There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwins theory of evolution  facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.
> 
> The key problem is this: Darwins theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:
> 
> 
> 
> Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was returning one red herring for another.
> 
> I would never actually make the claim "there is no god" because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative existential claim.
> 
> I can however, prove that the christian god does not exist, because it is logically incongruous. As defined, the judeo-christian god is said to be perfect, yet this being needs or wants a relationship? A perfect being wouldn't need anything. It would never be jealous, as the bible often indicates. Also, omniscience and omnipotence are also logically incongruous. If you know every action you are going to take in the future, you are powerless to change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you admit your views to are based in faith.
Click to expand...


Actually, as I said clearly and demonstrated above, my views on the impossibility and non-existence of the judaeo-christian god are based on logic. Pure and simple logic. How you can attempt to dishonestly conflate logic and faith is just incredible.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to find a specific post to quote, but as to evolution, the core of the idea is very simple. And is just to note that there are these fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out how it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fossils prove what exactly?
> 
> There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwin&#8217;s theory of evolution &#8211; facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.
> 
> The key problem is this: Darwin&#8217;s theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:
> 
> 
> 
> Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.
Click to expand...


So you are saying this quote was taken out of context?? I am confused:

_"In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?* Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. *

[...]

He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, *but often falsely apparent*, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: *I can answer this latter question only hypothetically*, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean." _ Charles Darwin

This chapter actually reminds me of a police detective, who, while investigating a murder scene, implies any physical evidence left behind is some type of trickery. "While the knife sticking out of the victim's chest with bloody finger prints on it that are not the victim's looks like someone else did it, really the victim must have fallen on the knife himself and the bloody fingerprints were on the knife before he fell. The shattered glass window was probably from some boys playing baseball and I'm sure the victim's wallet is just missing because he lost it last week. Darwin sounds like Crick... even though there is absolutely no evidence of gradual change, here are all the reasons why what we see isn't really what is plainly apparent. You just can't see the magic but here are a thousands reasons why. You can read the whole pathetic fairy tale supportive argument here:

The Origin of Species: Chapter 9


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What silliness. " Concrete" evidence that doesn't exist. We call fantasy. The fantastical world of the supernaturalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me an example where the source is not an intelligent agent. Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting for Hollie and Loki's example. Maybe if they ignore it, everyone will forget they can't win this argument because they don't have an answer.
Click to expand...


Already proven false. Still waiting for the fundies to disprove that.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossils prove what exactly?
> 
> There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwins theory of evolution  facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.
> 
> The key problem is this: Darwins theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying this quote was taken out of context?? I am confused:
> 
> _"In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?* Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. *
> 
> [...]
> 
> He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, *but often falsely apparent*, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: *I can answer this latter question only hypothetically*, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean." _ Charles Darwin
> 
> This chapter actually reminds me of a police detective, who, while investigating a murder scene, implies any physical evidence left behind is some type of trickery. "While the knife sticking out of the victim's chest with bloody finger prints on it that are not the victim's looks like someone else did it, really the victim must have fallen on the knife himself and the bloody fingerprints were on the knife before he fell. The shattered glass window was probably from some boys playing baseball and I'm sure the victim's wallet is just missing because he lost it last week. Darwin sounds like Crick... even though there is absolutely no evidence of gradual change, here are all the reasons why what we see isn't really what is plainly apparent. You just can't see the magic but here are a thousands reasons why. You can read the whole pathetic fairy tale supportive argument here:
> 
> The Origin of Species: Chapter 9
Click to expand...

So once again, fundie Christians are exposed as  liars.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> There's no proof that god isn't a retard.



Before I show the ignorance in this post I ask you why do you suggest God is a retard ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> are youreally this ignorant?
> In mineralogy, diamond (from the ancient Greek &#945;&#948;&#940;&#956;&#945;&#962;  adámas "unbreakable") is an allotrope of carbon, where the carbon atoms are arranged in a variation of the face-centered cubic crystal structure called a diamond lattice. Diamond is less stable than graphite, but the conversion rate from diamond to graphite is negligible at ambient conditions
> 
> Diamond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> btw graphite is also carbon...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need your answers based on conjecture. I just want you to answer why carbon is found on stones that should not be there according to the dating methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since it's not conjecture the answer stands.
> first there is no should in geology...
> you do understand the concepts of plate tectonic, volcanism, erosion, glacial expantion and retraction, flooding? all these things move shit around and mix things up .so finding carbon mixed with other stones is no big suprise.
> discribe what kind of dating method it was,
> better yet give me the link to the site where you read that.
Click to expand...


What you don't understand, they found carbon inside the stones. Carbon only lasts so long they know this,They know it can't last longer then a few thousand years. Once again you give an answer that really doesn't answer the question and it's based on conjecture.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol...asshat
> 
> Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
> Michael Benton
> articlehighlights
> Fossil dating is accurate since the method follows strict scientific guidelines:
> 
> the age of rocks around a fossil can be considered
> mathematical calculations are used
> the state of decay, carbon-14, and isotopes figure in calculations
> tree of life relationships often help sort the dates
> read articlelearn moreget involvededucator resources January 2001
> Fossils provide a record of the history of life.
> Engraving from William Smiths 1815 monograph on identifying strata based on fossils. Smith (1759-1839) is known as the Father of English Geology. Source: Oxford Library.
> Our understanding of the shape and pattern of the history of life depends on the accuracy of fossils and dating methods. Some critics, particularly religious fundamentalists, argue that neither fossils nor dating can be trusted, and that their interpretations are better. Other critics, perhaps more familiar with the data, question certain aspects of the quality of the fossil record and of its dating. These skeptics do not provide scientific evidence for their views. Current understanding of the history of life is probably close to the truth because it is based on repeated and careful testing and consideration of data.
> 
> The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:
> 
> Millions of fossils have been discovered.They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds  have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.
> Some skeptics believe that all fossils are the same age.Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noahs flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow drowned by the flood.
> Rejecting fossil data cannot be supported by proof.The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.
> Fossils occur in sequences
> Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution. Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. The first work was done in England and France.
> 
> Fossil hunting began by accident in England around 1800.Around 1800, William Smith in England, who was a canal surveyor, noticed that he could map out great tracts of rocks on the basis of their contained fossils. The sequences he saw in one part of the country could be correlated (matched) precisely with the sequences in another. He, and others at the time, had discovered the first principles of stratigraphy  that older rocks lie below younger rocks and that fossils occur in a particular, predictable order.
> Stratigraphy, the study of rock layers, led to paleontology, the study of fossils.Then, geologists began to build up the stratigraphic column, the familiar listing of divisions of geological time  Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and so on. Each time unit was characterized by particular fossils. The scheme worked all round the world, without fail.
> 
> From the 1830s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Clearly, there was some kind of progress going on.
> 
> All became clear, of course, in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his On the origin of species. The progress shown by the fossils was a documentation of the grand pattern of evolution through long spans of time.
> 
> Accuracy of the fossils
> Fossils prove that humans did not exist alongside dinosaurs.Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great tree of life. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.
> 
> Scientists now use phylogeny, mathematics, and other computations to date fossils.Paleontologists now apply sophisticated mathematical techniques to assess the relative quality of particular fossil successions, as well as the entire fossil record. These demonstrate that, of course, we do not know everything (and clearly never will), but we know enough. Today, innovative techniques provide further confirmation and understanding of the history of life. Biologists actually have at their disposal several independent ways of looking at the history of life - not only from the order of fossils in the rocks, but also through phylogenetic trees.
> 
> Phylogenetic trees are the family trees of particular groups of plants or animals, showing how all the species relate to each other.
> 
> Phylogenetic trees are drawn up mathematically, using lists of morphological (external form) or molecular (gene sequence) characters.
> 
> Modern phylogenetic trees have no input from stratigraphy, so they can be used in a broad way to make comparisons between tree shape and stratigraphy.
> 
> The majority of test cases show good agreement, so the fossil record tells the same story as the molecules enclosed in living organisms.
> 
> Accuracy of dating
> Dating in geology may be relative or absolute. Relative dating is done by observing fossils, as described above, and recording which fossil is younger, which is older. The discovery of means for absolute dating in the early 1900s was a huge advance. The methods are all based on radioactive decay:
> 
> Fossils may be dated by calculating the rate of decay of certain elements.Certain naturally occurring elements are radioactive, and they decay, or break down, at predictable rates.
> Chemists measure the half-life of such elements, i.e., the time it takes for half of the radioactive parent element to break down to the stable daughter element. Sometimes, one isotope, or naturally occurring form, of an element decays into another, more stable form of the same element.
> By comparing the proportions of parent to daughter element in a rock sample, and knowing the half-life, the age can be calculated.
> Older fossils cannot be dated by carbon-14 methods and require radiometric dating.Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:
> 
> The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
> Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
> Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes.The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rocks age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.
> 
> There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology.Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.
> 
> Conclusion: The strict rules of the scientific method ensure the accuracy of fossil dating.Conclusion
> The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Fossils document the order of appearance of groups and they tell us about some of the amazing plants and animals that died out long ago. Fossils can also show us how major crises, such as mass extinctions, happened, and how life recovered after them. If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.
> 
> © 2001, American Institute of Biological Sciences. Educators have permission to reprint articles for classroom use; other users, please contact editor@actionbioscience.org for reprint permission. See reprint policy.
> 
> Michael Benton, Ph.D., is a vertebrate paleontologist with particular interests in dinosaur origins and fossil history. Currently, he is studying certain basal dinosaurs from the Late Triassic and the quality of different segments of the fossil record. He holds the Chair in Vertebrate Paleontology at the University of Bristol, UK, in addition to chairing the Masters program in paleobiology at the university. He has written some 30 books on dinosaurs and paleobiology, ranging from professional tomes to popular kids books.
> People: Earth Sciences: University of Bristol
> 
> Actionbioscience | Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only was carbon found on stones while you are at it explain why dinosaur fossils found contain carbon. Asshat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes you are as ignorant as you seem
> 
> Carbon pools in the major reservoirs on earth.[2] Pool Quantity (gigatons)
> Atmosphere 720
> Oceans (total) 38,400
> Total inorganic 37,400
> Total organic 1,000
> Surface layer 670
> Deep layer 36,730
> Lithosphere
> Sedimentary carbonates > 60,000,000
> Kerogens 15,000,000
> Terrestrial biosphere (total) 2,000
> Living biomass 600 - 1,000
> Dead biomass 1,200
> Aquatic biosphere 1 - 2
> Fossil fuels (total) 4,130
> Coal 3,510
> Oil 230
> Gas 140
> Other (peat) 250
> 
> if that does not explain it  nothing will.
Click to expand...


You still don't get it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality: I have a job and don't have the time to read of bunch of nonsense.
> 
> FTR.... There are no pictures in my Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny,the bible does not have artistic renditions of events or creatures described but evolutionist however do,it must make it more credible for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more of your ignorance come shinning through.
> 
> ever hear the term ilumnated bible or manuscript?
> all of the bibles construted during the dark ages all had artistic (  showing imaginative skill in arrangement or execution )   repesentations of events and creatures
> the practice still goes on today.
> so as always you are talking out your ass.
Click to expand...


Daws my bible contains no artistic renditions. Care to point out the ancient manuscripts that contained artistic renditions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! The quote stands on it's on merits you can quote the entire book and still not unsay what it said. You can't spin that no matter how hard you try!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have nothing to spin. When you cut and paste lies, those lies become your own.
> 
> If you're comfortable with dishonesty, I'm happy for you. I just have no issue exposing the lies that you are comfortable with when "quotes" are purposely altered, parsed and forged to represent something not intended by the author.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies? It was quote straight from his book it was not altered, parsed or forged in any way, shape or form.
> 
> He readily admits there is an unexplainable gap in the fossil record.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


There are many gaps that go ignored by their side. They have been spinning ever since punctuated equilibrium when it was first proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972. The reason it was proposed because fossils showed they went from non complex to complex absent of transitional fossils. It was like they appeared suddenly. That evidence fits with creation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! The quote stands on it's on merits you can quote the entire book and still not unsay what it said. You can't spin that no matter how hard you try!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have nothing to spin. When you cut and paste lies, those lies become your own.
> 
> If you're comfortable with dishonesty, I'm happy for you. I just have no issue exposing the lies that you are comfortable with when "quotes" are purposely altered, parsed and forged to represent something not intended by the author.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lies? It was quote straight from his book it was not altered, parsed or forged in any way, shape or form.
> 
> He readily admits there is an unexplainable gap in the fossil record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you share the pathology that afflicts the other fundies in this thread who take no issue with lies in furtherance of their religion.
Click to expand...


Hollie, reality escapes you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to find a specific post to quote, but as to evolution, the core of the idea is very simple. And is just to note that there are these fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out how it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fossils prove what exactly?
> 
> There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwins theory of evolution  facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.
> 
> The key problem is this: Darwins theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:
> 
> 
> 
> Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.
Click to expand...


Whoa easy there fella you are not standing on solid ground.


----------



## ima

Creationists are simple minded people who need magic in their lives, even if it's fake magic.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossils prove what exactly?
> 
> There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwins theory of evolution  facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.
> 
> The key problem is this: Darwins theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa easy there fella you are not standing on solid ground.
Click to expand...


Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic.  If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism: 

1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.

2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory. 

This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained  component".

The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development  of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! The quote stands on it's on merits you can quote the entire book and still not unsay what it said. You can't spin that no matter how hard you try!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lies? It was quote straight from his book it was not altered, parsed or forged in any way, shape or form.
> 
> He readily admits there is an unexplainable gap in the fossil record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you share the pathology that afflicts the other fundies in this thread who take no issue with lies in furtherance of their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, reality escapes you.
Click to expand...


That reality includes multiple occasions when you have been taken to account for forged, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" from creationist ministries, just as Lonestar has. 

Isn't there something about lies and deceit, and why they are wrong, that you should have learned from your mommy.... or maybe your 1st grade teacher?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have nothing to spin. When you cut and paste lies, those lies become your own.
> 
> If you're comfortable with dishonesty, I'm happy for you. I just have no issue exposing the lies that you are comfortable with when "quotes" are purposely altered, parsed and forged to represent something not intended by the author.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lies? It was quote straight from his book it was not altered, parsed or forged in any way, shape or form.
> 
> He readily admits there is an unexplainable gap in the fossil record.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many gaps that go ignored by their side. They have been spinning ever since punctuated equilibrium when it was first proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972. The reason it was proposed because fossils showed they went from non complex to complex absent of transitional fossils. It was like they appeared suddenly. That evidence fits with creation.
Click to expand...

...and as usual, you sputter along with completely irrelevant and unsupported babbling.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me an example where the source is not an intelligent agent. Put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for Hollie and Loki's example. Maybe if they ignore it, everyone will forget they can't win this argument because they don't have an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already proven false. Still waiting for the fundies to disprove that.
Click to expand...


Please point me to your post proven this as totally false or risked being exposed as the total liar that you are.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Creationists are simple minded people who need magic in their lives, even if it's fake magic.



Would that be as opposed to real magic??


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa easy there fella you are not standing on solid ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic.  If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:
> 
> 1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.
> 
> 2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.
> 
> This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained  component".
> 
> The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development  of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.
Click to expand...


Pathetic. You are so disconnected from current evolutionary thought that I'm not sure this ignorant statement above would have even been relevant 20 years ago.

From Wiki:

*Pasteur and Darwin*

"By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Louis Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."[7][8]

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[9] *Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond,* with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[10] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory."

*Abiogenesis (/&#716;e&#618;ba&#618;.&#629;&#712;d&#658;&#603;n&#616;s&#618;s/ AY-by-oh-JEN-&#601;-siss[1])* or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through *natural processes.* In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen. Abiogenesis likely occurred between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, in the Eoarchean era (i.e. the time after the Hadean era in which the Earth was essentially molten).

Hypotheses about the origins of life may be divided into several categories. Most approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. For example, the Miller&#8211;Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", were shown to be racemically synthesized in conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you share the pathology that afflicts the other fundies in this thread who take no issue with lies in furtherance of their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, reality escapes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That reality includes multiple occasions when you have been taken to account for forged, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" from creationist ministries, just as Lonestar has.
> 
> Isn't there something about lies and deceit, and why they are wrong, that you should have learned from your mommy.... or maybe your 1st grade teacher?
Click to expand...


So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for Hollie and Loki's example. Maybe if they ignore it, everyone will forget they can't win this argument because they don't have an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already proven false. Still waiting for the fundies to disprove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point me to your post proven this as totally false or risked being exposed as the total liar that you are.
Click to expand...


Melodrama! How cute.

Prove your gods or you will be exposed as the liar you have demonstrated yourself to be.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, reality escapes you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That reality includes multiple occasions when you have been taken to account for forged, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" from creationist ministries, just as Lonestar has.
> 
> Isn't there something about lies and deceit, and why they are wrong, that you should have learned from your mommy.... or maybe your 1st grade teacher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?
Click to expand...

The "angry fundie", persona. 

Ain't they cute?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa easy there fella you are not standing on solid ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic.  If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:
> 
> 1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.
> 
> 2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.
> 
> This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained  component".
> 
> The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development  of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pathetic. You are so disconnected from current evolutionary thought that I'm not sure this ignorant statement above would have even been relevant 20 years ago.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> *Pasteur and Darwin*
> 
> "By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Louis Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."[7][8]
> 
> In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[9] *Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond,* with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[10] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory."
> 
> *Abiogenesis (/&#716;e&#618;ba&#618;.&#629;&#712;d&#658;&#603;n&#616;s&#618;s/ AY-by-oh-JEN-&#601;-siss[1])* or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through *natural processes.* In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen. Abiogenesis likely occurred between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, in the Eoarchean era (i.e. the time after the Hadean era in which the Earth was essentially molten).
> 
> Hypotheses about the origins of life may be divided into several categories. Most approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. For example, the MillerUrey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", were shown to be racemically synthesized in conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.
Click to expand...

Pathetic. 

The usual cutting and pasting from the science loathing fundie creationists who can't defend her appeals to the gods.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already proven false. Still waiting for the fundies to disprove that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please point me to your post proven this as totally false or risked being exposed as the total liar that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Melodrama! How cute.
> 
> Prove your gods or you will be exposed as the liar you have demonstrated yourself to be.
Click to expand...


LIAR. Oh you poor dear. Are you so stupid as to think that you can make such nonsensical claims, not back them up, and then no one will notice? REALLY Pathetic.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic.  If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:
> 
> 1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.
> 
> 2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.
> 
> This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained  component".
> 
> The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development  of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic. You are so disconnected from current evolutionary thought that I'm not sure this ignorant statement above would have even been relevant 20 years ago.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> *Pasteur and Darwin*
> 
> "By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Louis Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."[7][8]
> 
> In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[9] *Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond,* with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[10] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory."
> 
> *Abiogenesis (/&#716;e&#618;ba&#618;.&#629;&#712;d&#658;&#603;n&#616;s&#618;s/ AY-by-oh-JEN-&#601;-siss[1])* or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through *natural processes.* In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen. Abiogenesis likely occurred between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, in the Eoarchean era (i.e. the time after the Hadean era in which the Earth was essentially molten).
> 
> Hypotheses about the origins of life may be divided into several categories. Most approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. For example, the MillerUrey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", were shown to be racemically synthesized in conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> The usual cutting and pasting from the science loathing fundie creationists who can't defend her appeals to the gods.
Click to expand...




Yep, the usual cutting and pasting that continues to show your claims are totally detached from reality.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That reality includes multiple occasions when you have been taken to account for forged, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" from creationist ministries, just as Lonestar has.
> 
> Isn't there something about lies and deceit, and why they are wrong, that you should have learned from your mommy.... or maybe your 1st grade teacher?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "angry fundie", persona.
> 
> Ain't they cute?
Click to expand...


The clueless evofundie persona. Ain't they just like a broken record?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa easy there fella you are not standing on solid ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic.  If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:
> 
> 1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.
> 
> 2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.
> 
> This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained  component".
> 
> The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development  of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.
Click to expand...


When did evolution begin if not at the beginning of life?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please point me to your post proven this as totally false or risked being exposed as the total liar that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Melodrama! How cute.
> 
> Prove your gods or you will be exposed as the liar you have demonstrated yourself to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR. Oh you poor dear. Are you so stupid as to think that you can make such nonsensical claims, not back them up, and then no one will notice? REALLY Pathetic.
Click to expand...


Oh my. The angry fundie has made her typical nonsensical claims and when pressed to support them, finds herself totally incapable.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa easy there fella you are not standing on solid ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic.  If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:
> 
> 1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.
> 
> 2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.
> 
> This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained  component".
> 
> The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development  of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did evolution begin if not at the beginning of life?
Click to expand...

It begins with you taking time to educate yourself about that which you argue against with no understanding of the subject matter.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?
> 
> 
> 
> The "angry fundie", persona.
> 
> Ain't they cute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The clueless evofundie persona. Ain't they just like a broken record?
Click to expand...


That would define your claims to gods which cause you to react with childish responses when required to support your groundless claims to supernaturalism.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need your answers based on conjecture. I just want you to answer why carbon is found on stones that should not be there according to the dating methods.
> 
> 
> 
> since it's not conjecture the answer stands.
> first there is no should in geology...
> you do understand the concepts of plate tectonic, volcanism, erosion, glacial expantion and retraction, flooding? all these things move shit around and mix things up .so finding carbon mixed with other stones is no big suprise.
> discribe what kind of dating method it was,
> better yet give me the link to the site where you read that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you don't understand, they found carbon inside the stones. Carbon only lasts so long they know this,They know it can't last longer then a few thousand years. Once again you give an answer that really doesn't answer the question and it's based on conjecture.
Click to expand...

dodge ....
again ywc pulls misinformation for an unscientific source The Age of the Earth
making the question invalid...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny,the bible does not have artistic renditions of events or creatures described but evolutionist however do,it must make it more credible for them.
> 
> 
> 
> more of your ignorance come shinning through.
> 
> ever hear the term ilumnated bible or manuscript?
> all of the bibles construted during the dark ages all had artistic (  showing imaginative skill in arrangement or execution )   repesentations of events and creatures
> the practice still goes on today.
> so as always you are talking out your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws my bible contains no artistic renditions. Care to point out the ancient manuscripts that contained artistic renditions.
Click to expand...

already have 

but if I must :The Bible moralisée.[2] is a later name for the most important example of the medieval picture bibles, called in general "biblia pauperum", to have survived. They are heavily illustrated, and extremely expensive, illuminated manuscripts of the thirteenth century, and from the copies that still survive it is clear that they existed in at least two versions with different contents. They were similar in the choice and order of the Biblical texts selected, but differed in the allegorical and moral deductions drawn from these passages.

Though large, the manuscripts only contained selections of the text of the Bible, along with commentary and illustrations. Each page pairs Old and New Testament episodes with illustrations explaining their moral signicance in terms of typology.

There are seven surviving manuscripts of the Bible moralisée group;[3] all date from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries and were designed for the personal use of the French royal family.[4] Four were created in the early thirteenth century,[5] when church art dominated the decorative arts. As common in stained glass and other Gothic art of the time, the illustrations are framed within medallions.[6] The text explained the theological and moral meanings of the text.[5] Many artists were involved in the creation of each of the Bibles moralisées, and their identities and shares of the work remain unclear.[7]

Bible moralisée - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

btw before you try to "move the goal posts"  the first copies of the bible had no illustrations but there is lot of depicted  bible stories on christian church walls. so none of you guys every owned a family bible aka a coffee table bible they all have pictures none of which are accurate depictions of events or people.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, reality escapes you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That reality includes multiple occasions when you have been taken to account for forged, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" from creationist ministries, just as Lonestar has.
> 
> Isn't there something about lies and deceit, and why they are wrong, that you should have learned from your mommy.... or maybe your 1st grade teacher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?
Click to expand...

ME smells some more of ur's rationalizing....


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa easy there fella you are not standing on solid ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic.  If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:
> 
> 1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.
> 
> 2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.
> 
> This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained  component".
> 
> The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development  of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did evolution begin if not at the beginning of life?
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, reality escapes you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That reality includes multiple occasions when you have been taken to account for forged, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" from creationist ministries, just as Lonestar has.
> 
> Isn't there something about lies and deceit, and why they are wrong, that you should have learned from your mommy.... or maybe your 1st grade teacher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?
Click to expand...

You're projecting.


----------



## pjnlsn

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa easy there fella you are not standing on solid ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic.  If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:
> 
> 1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.
> 
> 2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.
> 
> This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained  component".
> 
> The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development  of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pathetic. You are so disconnected from current evolutionary thought that I'm not sure this ignorant statement above would have even been relevant 20 years ago.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> *Pasteur and Darwin*
> 
> "By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Louis Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."[7][8]
> 
> In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[9] *Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond,* with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[10] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory."
> 
> *Abiogenesis (/&#716;e&#618;ba&#618;.&#629;&#712;d&#658;&#603;n&#616;s&#618;s/ AY-by-oh-JEN-&#601;-siss[1])* or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through *natural processes.* In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen. Abiogenesis likely occurred between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, in the Eoarchean era (i.e. the time after the Hadean era in which the Earth was essentially molten).
> 
> Hypotheses about the origins of life may be divided into several categories. Most approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. For example, the Miller&#8211;Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", were shown to be racemically synthesized in conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.
Click to expand...


None of this contradicts the post which it quotes. 

It _may_ have been a simple mistake, and, offhand, there's nothing in particular that's inherently wrong below the first line, but most commonly, in this context, evolution refers to the changes in sexually reproducing organisms, and not a change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That reality includes multiple occasions when you have been taken to account for forged, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" from creationist ministries, just as Lonestar has.
> 
> Isn't there something about lies and deceit, and why they are wrong, that you should have learned from your mommy.... or maybe your 1st grade teacher?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're projecting.
Click to expand...


You're a liar and a fake RT.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "angry fundie", persona.
> 
> Ain't they cute?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The clueless evofundie persona. Ain't they just like a broken record?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would define your claims to gods which cause you to react with childish responses when required to support your groundless claims to supernaturalism.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic.  If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:
> 
> 1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.
> 
> 2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.
> 
> This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained  component".
> 
> The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development  of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did evolution begin if not at the beginning of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It begins with you taking time to educate yourself about that which you argue against with no understanding of the subject matter.
Click to expand...


You should follow you own advice. 



Hollie said:


> ... You would need some education in science to understand biological evolution.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?
> 
> 
> 
> You're projecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a liar and a fake RT.
Click to expand...


Your arguments are failures and you're an angry, frustrated fundie. Your inability to offer a rational argument is a function of an irrational belief.

Your layers of lies upon lies have caused you to become reactive and to lash out. 

Such are the wages of fundie'dom.


----------



## UltimateReality

_"So where are we at, now? We now have a multiverse which is radically contingent (as shown by the fact that it had a beginning) and which therefore seems to require an explanation beyond itself. What&#8217;s more, the multiverse itself appears to have been fine-tuned to produce a universe like ours, which is capable of supporting life and whose underlying physics is unexpectedly elegant and beautiful, since there would be absolutely no reason to expect this happy confluence of life-friendliness and mathematical beauty, if the multiverse that generated it had not been fine-tuned. Of course, the theist has a ready explanation for these striking facts: our multiverse was produced by an Intelligent Agent, Who made a choice to produce the kind of world that could not only support life, but also support intelligent life-forms who could appreciate its underlying beauty. That&#8217;s the conclusion argued for by astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher Jay Richards, who contend in their book The Privileged Planet (Regnery Publishing, 2004) that conditions on Earth, especially those that make human life possible, have also been optimized for scientific investigation. In short: &#8220;the correlation between habitability and measurability&#8221; is a remarkable coincidence, which constitutes &#8220;a signal revealing a universe so skillfully created for life and discovery that it seems to whisper of an extraterrestrial intelligence immeasurably more vast, more ancient, and more magnificent than anything we&#8217;ve been willing to expect or imagine.&#8221;_

Libby Anne: Portrait of an atheist feminist | Uncommon Descent

_"Fortunately, there exists such an effect: the proteins we find in living things. They&#8217;re my third and final &#8220;big fact.&#8221; Proteins, which are made up of amino acids, are fundamental components of all living cells and include many substances, such as enzymes, hormones, and antibodies, that are necessary for the proper functioning of an organism. They&#8217;re involved in practically all biological processes. To fulfill their tasks, proteins need to be folded into a complicated three-dimensional structure. Proteins can tolerate slight changes in their amino acid sequences, but a single change of the wrong kind can render them incapable of folding up, and hence, totally incapable of doing any kind of useful work within the cell. That&#8217;s why not every amino-acid sequence represents a protein: only one that can fold up properly and perform a useful function within the cell can be called a protein." _

This is presented for the Theist who frequent this thread. I have no expectation that Hollie, Loki, or Daws could actually take the time to read this, understand it, and present facts to support a logical rebuttal to the principles presented. However, my reasonable expection is the same, tired references to "cut and pasting" from "Haran Y" and "ICR" totally devoid of any and all thought processes actually required for a real, logical rebuttal.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossils prove what exactly?
> 
> There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwin&#8217;s theory of evolution &#8211; facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.
> 
> The key problem is this: Darwin&#8217;s theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying this quote was taken out of context?? I am confused:
> 
> _"In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?* Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. *
> 
> [...]
> 
> He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, *but often falsely apparent*, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: *I can answer this latter question only hypothetically*, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean." _ Charles Darwin
> 
> This chapter actually reminds me of a police detective, who, while investigating a murder scene, implies any physical evidence left behind is some type of trickery. "While the knife sticking out of the victim's chest with bloody finger prints on it that are not the victim's looks like someone else did it, really the victim must have fallen on the knife himself and the bloody fingerprints were on the knife before he fell. The shattered glass window was probably from some boys playing baseball and I'm sure the victim's wallet is just missing because he lost it last week. Darwin sounds like Crick... even though there is absolutely no evidence of gradual change, here are all the reasons why what we see isn't really what is plainly apparent. You just can't see the magic but here are a thousands reasons why. You can read the whole pathetic fairy tale supportive argument here:
> 
> The Origin of Species: Chapter 9
Click to expand...



Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you. 

This common quote mine is irrelevant, even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did. This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.

But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part. It's a mischaracterization of why  he was saying what he did.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying this quote was taken out of context?? I am confused:
> 
> _"In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?* Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. *
> 
> [...]
> 
> He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, *but often falsely apparent*, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: *I can answer this latter question only hypothetically*, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean." _ Charles Darwin
> 
> This chapter actually reminds me of a police detective, who, while investigating a murder scene, implies any physical evidence left behind is some type of trickery. "While the knife sticking out of the victim's chest with bloody finger prints on it that are not the victim's looks like someone else did it, really the victim must have fallen on the knife himself and the bloody fingerprints were on the knife before he fell. The shattered glass window was probably from some boys playing baseball and I'm sure the victim's wallet is just missing because he lost it last week. Darwin sounds like Crick... even though there is absolutely no evidence of gradual change, here are all the reasons why what we see isn't really what is plainly apparent. You just can't see the magic but here are a thousands reasons why. You can read the whole pathetic fairy tale supportive argument here:
> 
> The Origin of Species: Chapter 9
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.
> 
> This common quote mine is irrelevant, *even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did.* This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.
> 
> But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. *To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part.* It's a mischaracterization of why  he was saying what he did.
Click to expand...


Strawman.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying this quote was taken out of context?? I am confused:
> 
> _"In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?* Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. *
> 
> [...]
> 
> He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, *but often falsely apparent*, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: *I can answer this latter question only hypothetically*, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean." _ Charles Darwin
> 
> This chapter actually reminds me of a police detective, who, while investigating a murder scene, implies any physical evidence left behind is some type of trickery. "While the knife sticking out of the victim's chest with bloody finger prints on it that are not the victim's looks like someone else did it, really the victim must have fallen on the knife himself and the bloody fingerprints were on the knife before he fell. The shattered glass window was probably from some boys playing baseball and I'm sure the victim's wallet is just missing because he lost it last week. Darwin sounds like Crick... even though there is absolutely no evidence of gradual change, here are all the reasons why what we see isn't really what is plainly apparent. You just can't see the magic but here are a thousands reasons why. You can read the whole pathetic fairy tale supportive argument here:
> 
> The Origin of Species: Chapter 9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.
> 
> This common quote mine is irrelevant, *even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did.* This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.
> 
> But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. *To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part.* It's a mischaracterization of why  he was saying what he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.
Click to expand...


Red Herring. The emboldened sections have little to do with the point I am trying to make.  I could have omitted both emboldened sentences, and it would not detract from my argument here.


----------



## newpolitics

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That reality includes multiple occasions when you have been taken to account for forged, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" from creationist ministries, just as Lonestar has.
> 
> Isn't there something about lies and deceit, and why they are wrong, that you should have learned from your mommy.... or maybe your 1st grade teacher?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ME smells some more of ur's rationalizing....
Click to expand...



UR, this is an argument from ignorance.

You claim that the explanation for our morals is god, and because this hasn't been disproven, it must be correct. There are other explanations for our moralistic senses, ones which do not involve god.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHoKnrw9I7Q]Doors of Perception... Out of the jar....mash up by eots - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is your moral compass, or should I say, where does your lack of a moral compass come from? How is it that you are able to tell lie upon lie without any sense of remorse?
> 
> 
> 
> ME smells some more of ur's rationalizing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> UR, this is an argument from ignorance.
> 
> You claim that the explanation for our morals is god, and because this hasn't been disproven, it must be correct. There are other explanations for our moralistic senses, ones which do not involve god.
Click to expand...


The argument from ignorance seems to define so much of the creationist argument. They are forced to attack Charles Darwin specifically not understanding that his theory and subsequent testing over the last century have borne out the fact of evolution. 

It is the stereotypical appeals to ignorance and the promotion of misinformation that characterizes the creationist agenda.


----------



## ima

If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?



So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, yeah, he is. It's difficult to miss the agenda of Christian fundies (typically Biblical literalists), who have an inability to reconcile science, biology and evolutionary fact which identifies evolutionary biology and abiogenesis as separate and distinct topics. Christian fundies have no legitimate countering argument to either topic.  If fundies accept the definitions of either abiogenesis or biological evolution, they lose the entirety of their arguments for supermagicalism:
> 
> 1. "Evilution" doesn't account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Fundies have an impossible task denying evolution, since the evidence for it is overwhelming, and the creationist ministries have been forced, because of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to retreat into tiresome equivocations that evilution has never produced a new, living species. Yet another ploy used by creationists so that they can continue to deny the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.
> 
> 2. Creationists will claim : "if science is to remain exclusively within the natural (rational) realm, the term 'evolution' must somehow be further redefined and extended to include the emergence of life from non-life, i.e., evolutionary science must also account for a revised, Christian fundie defined inclusion of abiogenesis into evolutionary theory.
> 
> This defines the abysmal and desperate tactics of the Christian fundies. It truly makes it nearly impossible to even reply in any manner of seriousness. The core of the creationist argument truly devolves to: "If christian creationism is to survive against the science of evolutionary theory, it must include an origin of life component so that creationism has an "argument" and can claim that evolutionary theory includes an unexplained  component".
> 
> The theory of evolution is typically misinterpreted by fundies (purposefully so), to include the origin of life. The theory of biological evolution has never included an account for the first development  of life. It simply explains the diversity of life we see on earth today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did evolution begin if not at the beginning of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It begins with you taking time to educate yourself about that which you argue against with no understanding of the subject matter.
Click to expand...


In other words. you don't know.

I'm sorry the question proved too difficult for you.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying this quote was taken out of context?? I am confused:
> 
> _"In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?* Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. *
> 
> [...]
> 
> He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, *but often falsely apparent*, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: *I can answer this latter question only hypothetically*, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean." _ Charles Darwin
> 
> This chapter actually reminds me of a police detective, who, while investigating a murder scene, implies any physical evidence left behind is some type of trickery. "While the knife sticking out of the victim's chest with bloody finger prints on it that are not the victim's looks like someone else did it, really the victim must have fallen on the knife himself and the bloody fingerprints were on the knife before he fell. The shattered glass window was probably from some boys playing baseball and I'm sure the victim's wallet is just missing because he lost it last week. Darwin sounds like Crick... even though there is absolutely no evidence of gradual change, here are all the reasons why what we see isn't really what is plainly apparent. You just can't see the magic but here are a thousands reasons why. You can read the whole pathetic fairy tale supportive argument here:
> 
> The Origin of Species: Chapter 9
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.
> 
> This common quote mine is irrelevant, even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did. This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.
> 
> But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part. It's a mischaracterization of why  he was saying what he did.
Click to expand...


If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory. 

The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.

Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.


----------



## Gadawg73

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.
Click to expand...


God must have thought man were dumb asses then.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God must have thought man were dumb asses then.
Click to expand...


My comment was sarcasm directed at the dumbasses in this forum. You were the first to take the bait.


----------



## Gadawg73

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God must have thought man were dumb asses then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My comment was sarcasm directed at the dumbasses in this forum. You were the first to take the bait.
Click to expand...


Those that did not pick up that my comment was also sarcasm are  dumbasses.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God must have thought man were dumb asses then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My comment was sarcasm directed at the dumbasses in this forum. You were the first to take the bait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those that did not pick up that my comment was also sarcasm are  dumbasses.
Click to expand...


No yours was not sarcasm.  

But nice try.


----------



## Gadawg73

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My comment was sarcasm directed at the dumbasses in this forum. You were the first to take the bait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those that did not pick up that my comment was also sarcasm are  dumbasses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No yours was not sarcasm.
> 
> But nice try.
Click to expand...


Your was not either.
Na na na na, na na.


----------



## Gadawg73

Old stick in the mud Lone Star once again.
Master of wit in his own mind.


----------



## ima

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.
Click to expand...


Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.

Please try again.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.
> 
> Please try again.
Click to expand...


So your comparing irrational animal behavior to rational behavoir of man?

Do you beleive the two to be homogenous?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ME smells some more of ur's rationalizing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UR, this is an argument from ignorance.
> 
> You claim that the explanation for our morals is god, and because this hasn't been disproven, it must be correct. There are other explanations for our moralistic senses, ones which do not involve god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The argument from ignorance seems to define so much of the creationist argument. They are forced to attack Charles Darwin specifically not understanding that his theory and subsequent testing over the last century have borne out the fact of evolution.
> 
> It is the stereotypical appeals to ignorance and the promotion of misinformation that characterizes the creationist agenda.
Click to expand...


How did my question you haven't answered become an "argument"?


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.
> 
> Please try again.
Click to expand...


Humans aren't animals. They are created in the image of God.


----------



## UltimateReality

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your comparing irrational animal behavior to rational behavoir of man?
> 
> Do you beleive the two to be homogenous?
Click to expand...


Apparently so. Ima, when you see a good looking chick at the mall, do you immediately commence with humping her leg?  Or maybe you just sniff her butt.


----------



## UltimateReality

More from the link I posted above...

_"The reader might ask: &#8220;How does all this relate to arguments for God&#8217;s existence?&#8221; It&#8217;s important, because our world contains molecules essential to life &#8211; proteins and RNA molecules, but at the same time, it can be demonstrated mathematically that all the unguided natural processes we know of are utterly unable to generate these molecules (barring a statistical miracle) in the time available. The only process which is known to be capable of generating these molecules in the time available is intelligent agency.* Here, at last, we have the smoking gun: an effect which points unambiguously to an intelligent cause, and can be shown to do so using the tools of science and mathematics, rather than philosophy. *The only way to evade the full force of this argument is to take refuge in *unknown forces of Nature *that might have produced life &#8211; which is really an *appeal to ignorance,* and a lame one at that."_

_Hollie's "&#8220;Who made the Designer?&#8221; objection loses force, however, once we get to a Being outside the multiverse altogether. Since such a Being would not be subject to physical laws of any kind, it would be meaningless to apply the terms &#8220;simple&#8221; and &#8220;complex&#8221; to such a Being. Hence Professor Richard Dawkins&#8217; Ultimate 747 gambit never gets off the ground."_


----------



## UltimateReality

More:

_"What I&#8217;d like to suggest in this post is that Libby Anne&#8217;s belief in evolutionary naturalism springs from a faulty epistemology on her part, which leads her (and many other people with similar tendencies) to *gullibly accept *scientific &#8220;answers&#8221; to problems, which should be treated with skepticism. Specifically, Libby Anne fails to heed the following five maxims:

    1. Scientific plausibility isn&#8217;t the same thing as scientific possibility. In order for a proposed explanation of an empirical phenomenon to be regarded as scientifically possible, it has to not only appeal to processes which are plausible, but also show that these processes are either sufficient to generate the phenomenon, or at least reasonably likely to do so, within the time available. The term &#8220;reasonably likely&#8221; means that the probability of success must exceed some minimum threshold.

    2. Scientific inferences are adductive. When trying to account for an event, scientists look for the best possible explanation of that event.

    3. Science is an open endeavor. There should be no restrictions at the outset on what kinds of explanations scientists are allowed to posit, when formulating hypotheses about the world. [Faulty Assumption that Naturalism can be the only possibility]

    4. Speculative proposals require mathematical models to back them up. No process should be judged capable of generating an empirical phenomenon E, without either concrete evidence of P actually producing E, or (at least) a mathematical model showing that P is reasonably likely to generate E under ideal or simplified conditions. *[Loki and Hollie continue to gullibly fall for explanations that posit this faulty epistemology regarding naturalistic origins]*

    5. Empirical evidence comes first. Psychological speculation isn&#8217;t evidence. Arguments based on empirical evidence should always trump hypothetical arguments based on psychological reasoning, when you&#8217;re doing science."_


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> More from the link I posted above...
> 
> _"The reader might ask: How does all this relate to arguments for Gods existence? Its important, because our world contains molecules essential to life  proteins and RNA molecules, but at the same time, it can be demonstrated mathematically that all the unguided natural processes we know of are utterly unable to generate these molecules (barring a statistical miracle) in the time available. The only process which is known to be capable of generating these molecules in the time available is intelligent agency.* Here, at last, we have the smoking gun: an effect which points unambiguously to an intelligent cause, and can be shown to do so using the tools of science and mathematics, rather than philosophy. *The only way to evade the full force of this argument is to take refuge in *unknown forces of Nature *that might have produced life  which is really an *appeal to ignorance,* and a lame one at that."_
> 
> _Hollie's "Who made the Designer? objection loses force, however, once we get to a Being outside the multiverse altogether. Since such a Being would not be subject to physical laws of any kind, it would be meaningless to apply the terms simple and complex to such a Being. Hence Professor Richard Dawkins Ultimate 747 gambit never gets off the ground."_



I'm afraid this is just more creationist babble. It's a failed tactic of creationists to exempt their gods from the very standard of existence they apply to all of existence. 

We still have no accounting from Christian creationists as to the hierarchy of gods required for the creation of their partisan gods.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> More:
> 
> _"What Id like to suggest in this post is that Libby Annes belief in evolutionary naturalism springs from a faulty epistemology on her part, which leads her (and many other people with similar tendencies) to *gullibly accept *scientific answers to problems, which should be treated with skepticism. Specifically, Libby Anne fails to heed the following five maxims:
> 
> 1. Scientific plausibility isnt the same thing as scientific possibility. In order for a proposed explanation of an empirical phenomenon to be regarded as scientifically possible, it has to not only appeal to processes which are plausible, but also show that these processes are either sufficient to generate the phenomenon, or at least reasonably likely to do so, within the time available. The term reasonably likely means that the probability of success must exceed some minimum threshold.
> 
> 2. Scientific inferences are adductive. When trying to account for an event, scientists look for the best possible explanation of that event.
> 
> 3. Science is an open endeavor. There should be no restrictions at the outset on what kinds of explanations scientists are allowed to posit, when formulating hypotheses about the world. [Faulty Assumption that Naturalism can be the only possibility]
> 
> 4. Speculative proposals require mathematical models to back them up. No process should be judged capable of generating an empirical phenomenon E, without either concrete evidence of P actually producing E, or (at least) a mathematical model showing that P is reasonably likely to generate E under ideal or simplified conditions. *[Loki and Hollie continue to gullibly fall for explanations that posit this faulty epistemology regarding naturalistic origins]*
> 
> 5. Empirical evidence comes first. Psychological speculation isnt evidence. Arguments based on empirical evidence should always trump hypothetical arguments based on psychological reasoning, when youre doing science."_



And yet the Flat-earther destroys her own argument by posting item #5. 

The best case for refuting the arguments of the YEC'ers is to allow them to cut and paste from fundie websites and they will eventualiy refute themselves.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did evolution begin if not at the beginning of life?
> 
> 
> 
> It begins with you taking time to educate yourself about that which you argue against with no understanding of the subject matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words. you don't know.
> 
> I'm sorry the question proved too difficult for you.
Click to expand...


In other words, you're intellectually lazy and "the gods for it", answers questions regarding your embrace of fear and ignorance.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying this quote was taken out of context?? I am confused:
> 
> _"In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?* Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. *
> 
> [...]
> 
> He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, *but often falsely apparent*, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: *I can answer this latter question only hypothetically*, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean." _ Charles Darwin
> 
> This chapter actually reminds me of a police detective, who, while investigating a murder scene, implies any physical evidence left behind is some type of trickery. "While the knife sticking out of the victim's chest with bloody finger prints on it that are not the victim's looks like someone else did it, really the victim must have fallen on the knife himself and the bloody fingerprints were on the knife before he fell. The shattered glass window was probably from some boys playing baseball and I'm sure the victim's wallet is just missing because he lost it last week. Darwin sounds like Crick... even though there is absolutely no evidence of gradual change, here are all the reasons why what we see isn't really what is plainly apparent. You just can't see the magic but here are a thousands reasons why. You can read the whole pathetic fairy tale supportive argument here:
> 
> The Origin of Species: Chapter 9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.
> 
> This common quote mine is irrelevant, even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did. This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.
> 
> But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part. It's a mischaracterization of why  he was saying what he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.
> 
> The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.
> 
> Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.
Click to expand...


Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It begins with you taking time to educate yourself about that which you argue against with no understanding of the subject matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words. you don't know.
> 
> I'm sorry the question proved too difficult for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you're intellectually lazy and "the gods for it", answers questions regarding your embrace of fear and ignorance.
Click to expand...


Thank you for admitting you cannot answer the question.

Your concession is duly noted.

BTW this link answered the question that you could not. 

The evolution from the beginning


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans aren't animals. They are created in the image of God.
Click to expand...


False. 

The Christian gods actually bear the likeness of a WASP'y Anglo.

Christians have created gods in their own image. Just more of the invention that surrounds christianity.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words. you don't know.
> 
> I'm sorry the question proved too difficult for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you're intellectually lazy and "the gods for it", answers questions regarding your embrace of fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you cannot answer the question.
> 
> Your concession is duly noted.
> 
> BTW this link answered the question that you could not.
> 
> The evolution from the beginning
Click to expand...


On the contrary, evolution is firmly supported. 

Thank you for admitting the failure of creationists to offer even the most basic of proofs for their gods.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.
> 
> This common quote mine is irrelevant, even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did. This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.
> 
> But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part. It's a mischaracterization of why  he was saying what he did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.
> 
> The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.
> 
> Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.
Click to expand...


It has?

When?

Why wasn't it front page news?

Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?

When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?



Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you're intellectually lazy and "the gods for it", answers questions regarding your embrace of fear and ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you cannot answer the question.
> 
> Your concession is duly noted.
> 
> BTW this link answered the question that you could not.
> 
> The evolution from the beginning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, evolution is firmly supported.
> 
> Thank you for admitting the failure of creationists to offer even the most basic of proofs for their gods.
Click to expand...


Supported does not mean proven fact.

I'll concede that many people including yourself have bought into the evolutionist bullshit. But it still does not prove anything. 

I didn't fail at anything.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.
> 
> The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.
> 
> Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has?
> 
> When?
> 
> Why wasn't it front page news?
> 
> Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?
> 
> When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?
Click to expand...

I'm afraid the questions having been answered is causing you such angst. As you have already demonstrated, your science loathing agenda causes you to recoil when your chains to the supernatural are debunked. 

I don't expect you to be able to address proofs for gods, but your science loathing agenda 
makes you appear quite desperate. 

So, your concession to inadequacy is accepted.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you cannot answer the question.
> 
> Your concession is duly noted.
> 
> BTW this link answered the question that you could not.
> 
> The evolution from the beginning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, evolution is firmly supported.
> 
> Thank you for admitting the failure of creationists to offer even the most basic of proofs for their gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supported does not mean proven fact.
> 
> I'll concede that many people including yourself have bought into the evolutionist bullshit. But it still does not prove anything.
> 
> I didn't fail at anything.
Click to expand...


You actually failed with every post. 

Despite your conspiracy theory implicating universities and scientists across the globe accepting the fact of evolution, we've come to learn that the failure of creationists to price their gods is part of the problem they share with their invented conspiracies.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you cannot answer the question.
> 
> Your concession is duly noted.
> 
> BTW this link answered the question that you could not.
> 
> The evolution from the beginning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, evolution is firmly supported.
> 
> Thank you for admitting the failure of creationists to offer even the most basic of proofs for their gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supported does not mean proven fact.
> 
> I'll concede that many people including yourself have bought into the evolutionist bullshit. But it still does not prove anything.
> 
> I didn't fail at anything.
Click to expand...


Proven fact means proven fact in connection with the facts of evolution. 

Magic and supernaturalism is what defines your gods.


----------



## Hollie

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

 Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast,the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century. - Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology,2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15


----------



## Hollie

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

 Introduction to Evolutionary Biology Version 2 Copyright © 1996-1997 by Chris Colby [Last Update: January 7, 1996]

volution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it. One common mistake is believing that species can be arranged on an evolutionary ladder from bacteria through "lower" animals, to "higher" animals and, finally, up to man. Mistakes permeate popular science expositions of evolutionary biology. Mistakes even filter into biology journals and texts. For example, Lodish, et. al., in their cell biology text, proclaim, "It was Charles Darwin's great insight that organisms are all related in a great chain of being..." In fact, the idea of a great chain of being, which traces to Linnaeus, was overturned by Darwin's idea of common descent.

Misunderstandings about evolution are damaging to the study of evolution and biology as a whole. People who have a general interest in science are likely to dismiss evolution as a soft science after absorbing the pop science nonsense that abounds. The impression of it being a soft science is reinforced when biologists in unrelated fields speculate publicly about evolution.

This is a brief introduction to evolutionary biology. I attempt to explain basics of the theory of evolution and correct many of the misconceptions.

What is Evolution?

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.

The English moth, Biston betularia,is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. [gene: a hereditary unit] So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution.

The increase in relative abundance of the dark type was due to natural selection. The late eighteen hundreds was the time of England's industrial revolution. Soot from factories darkened the birch trees the moths landed on. Against a sooty background, birds could see the lighter colored moths better and ate more of them. As a result, more dark moths survived until reproductive age and left offspring. The greater number of offspring left by dark moths is what caused their increase in frequency. This is an example of natural selection.

Populations evolve. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of an entire population unless there is no variation within that population. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain the same genes throughout their life. When a population is evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing -- each individual organism within a population does not change. For example, in the previous example, the frequency of black moths increased; the moths did not turn from light to gray to dark in concert. The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

Evolution can be divided into microevolution and macroevolution. The kind of evolution documented above is microevolution. Larger changes, such as when a new species is formed, are called macroevolution. Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change. Others think the distinction between the two is arbitrary -- macroevolution is cumulative microevolution.

The word evolution has a variety of meanings. The fact that all organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often called evolution. The theory of how the first living organisms appeared is often called evolution. This should be called abiogenesis. And frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean natural selection -- one of the many mechanisms of evolution.

Common Misconceptions about Evolution

Evolution can occur without morphological change; and morphological change can occur without evolution. Humans are larger now than in the recent past, a result of better diet and medicine. Phenotypic changes, like this, induced solely by changes in environment do not count as evolution because they are not heritable; in other words the change is not passed on to the organism's offspring. Phenotype is the morphological, physiological, biochemical, behavioral and other properties exhibited by a living organism. An organism's phenotype is determined by its genes and its environment. Most changes due to environment are fairly subtle, for example size differences. Large scale phenotypic changes are obviously due to genetic changes, and therefore are evolution.

Evolution is not progress. Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings. They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time. A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. Paquin and Adams demonstrated this experimentally. They founded a yeast culture and maintained it for many generations. Occasionally, a mutation would arise that allowed its bearer to reproduce better than its contemporaries. These mutant strains would crowd out the formerly dominant strains. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken at a variety of times. In later competition experiments, each strain would outcompete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could outcompete strains that arose late in the experiment. Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. For most traits or behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones. Evolution can be like a game of paper/scissors/rock.

Organisms are not passive targets of their environment. Each species modifies its own environment. At the least, organisms remove nutrients from and add waste to their surroundings. Often, waste products benefit other species. Animal dung is fertilizer for plants. Conversely, the oxygen we breathe is a waste product of plants. Species do not simply change to fit their environment; they modify their environment to suit them as well. Beavers build a dam to create a pond suitable to sustain them and raise young. Alternately, when the environment changes, species can migrate to suitable climes or seek out microenvironments to which they are adapted


----------



## 4Horsemen

Never ask an Evolutionist about Creationism.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> More:
> 
> _"What Id like to suggest in this post is that Libby Annes belief in evolutionary naturalism springs from a faulty epistemology on her part, which leads her (and many other people with similar tendencies) to *gullibly accept *scientific answers to problems, which should be treated with skepticism. Specifically, Libby Anne fails to heed the following five maxims:
> 
> 1. Scientific plausibility isnt the same thing as scientific possibility. In order for a proposed explanation of an empirical phenomenon to be regarded as scientifically possible, it has to not only appeal to processes which are plausible, but also show that these processes are either sufficient to generate the phenomenon, or at least reasonably likely to do so, within the time available. The term reasonably likely means that the probability of success must exceed some minimum threshold.
> 
> 2. Scientific inferences are adductive. When trying to account for an event, scientists look for the best possible explanation of that event.
> 
> 3. Science is an open endeavor. There should be no restrictions at the outset on what kinds of explanations scientists are allowed to posit, when formulating hypotheses about the world. [Faulty Assumption that Naturalism can be the only possibility]
> 
> 4. Speculative proposals require mathematical models to back them up. No process should be judged capable of generating an empirical phenomenon E, without either concrete evidence of P actually producing E, or (at least) a mathematical model showing that P is reasonably likely to generate E under ideal or simplified conditions. *[Loki and Hollie continue to gullibly fall for explanations that posit this faulty epistemology regarding naturalistic origins]*
> 
> 5. Empirical evidence comes first. Psychological speculation isnt evidence. Arguments based on empirical evidence should always trump hypothetical arguments based on psychological reasoning, when youre doing science."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the Flat-earther destroys her own argument by posting item #5.
> 
> The best case for refuting the arguments of the YEC'ers is to allow them to cut and paste from fundie websites and they will eventualiy refute themselves.
Click to expand...


Your statement about #5 is inaccurate and therefore, flawed.

_"In her blog article entitled, Young Earth Creationism and Me, Libby Anne is clearly impressed by the following argument for evolution:

    [M]any animals actually show evidence of very bad design. 

There are several comments Id like to make here.

First, even if Intelligent Design proponents had no good explanation for the instances of poor design cited by neo-Darwinian evolutionists, these awkward examples of bad design would still be trumped by the evidence from proteins and RNA, which demonstrate on mathematical grounds that life must have been designed. Why? Because thats the way science works. Empirical evidence comes first. Show me a bio-molecule (such as a protein) which unguided natural processes couldnt have put together in the time available, and Ill have to infer a Designer. Arguments based on structures found in living things which appear to have been poorly designed can never over-rule that kind of evidence, because its based on solid empirical facts and mathematical calculations. Examples of poor design in living organisms rely on a hypothetical counterfactual about the Creator: A Designer would never have done it that way. Really? Do you know that? No, you dont. Until you can find some rigorous way of quantifying the probability that a Designer would act in a certain way, your argument will not hold water.

Second, the fact that some features of living things were designed doesnt mean that all of them were. Maybe proteins were designed, but the pandas thumb wasnt. Maybe the Designer only designed the first living thing  or the distinctive body plans for the major groups of organisms  and let Darwinian processes take over at lower taxonomic levels, meaning that species-specific traits were not designed. Who knows?

Third, even the most clear-cut cases of poor design are open to an alternative, design-friendly interpretation. Consider that most comical of anatomical imperfections, the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, cited by Professor Richard Dawkins as excellent evidence for Darwinian evolution. Now, if the laryngeal nerve were just involved in controlling the larynx, then Dawkins might have a good point. The laryngeal nerve comes down from the brain and loops around the arteries near the heart and then goes back up to the larynx. In the giraffe, this seems like particularly bad design. However, the laryngeal nerve actually has several branches all along its length that go to the heart, esophagus, trachea, and thyroid gland. Thus it is involved in a whole system of control of various related organs. It would be very unintelligent to have a single nerve, controlling only the larynx. It would be more intelligent to have it control a lot of related systems all along its length (see this article .) Hence the laryngeal nerve, far from being a problem for intelligent design, actually vindicates it."_

More examples here: Libby Anne: Portrait of an atheist feminist | Uncommon Descent


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has?
> 
> When?
> 
> Why wasn't it front page news?
> 
> Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?
> 
> When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid the questions having been answered is causing you such angst. As you have already demonstrated, your science loathing agenda causes you to recoil when your chains to the supernatural are debunked.
> 
> I don't expect you to be able to address proofs for gods, but your science loathing agenda
> makes you appear quite desperate.
> 
> So, your concession to inadequacy is accepted.
Click to expand...


Hollie, if you believe it happened then it must have happened. Don't let a little think like providing proof stop you. Oh and pay no mind to the nice gentlemen in the white coats approaching your front door.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
> 
> Introduction to Evolutionary Biology Version 2 Copyright © 1996-1997 by Chris Colby [Last Update: January 7, 1996]
> 
> volution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it. One common mistake is believing that species can be arranged on an evolutionary ladder from bacteria through "lower" animals, to "higher" animals and, finally, up to man. Mistakes permeate popular science expositions of evolutionary biology. Mistakes even filter into biology journals and texts. For example, Lodish, et. al., in their cell biology text, proclaim, "It was Charles Darwin's great insight that organisms are all related in a great chain of being..." In fact, the idea of a great chain of being, which traces to Linnaeus, was overturned by Darwin's idea of common descent.
> 
> Misunderstandings about evolution are damaging to the study of evolution and biology as a whole. People who have a general interest in science are likely to dismiss evolution as a soft science after absorbing the pop science nonsense that abounds. The impression of it being a soft science is reinforced when biologists in unrelated fields speculate publicly about evolution.
> 
> This is a brief introduction to evolutionary biology. I attempt to explain basics of the theory of evolution and correct many of the misconceptions.
> 
> What is Evolution?
> 
> Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.
> 
> The English moth, Biston betularia,is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. [gene: a hereditary unit] So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution.
> 
> The increase in relative abundance of the dark type was due to natural selection. The late eighteen hundreds was the time of England's industrial revolution. Soot from factories darkened the birch trees the moths landed on. Against a sooty background, birds could see the lighter colored moths better and ate more of them. As a result, more dark moths survived until reproductive age and left offspring. The greater number of offspring left by dark moths is what caused their increase in frequency. This is an example of natural selection.
> 
> Populations evolve. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of an entire population unless there is no variation within that population. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain the same genes throughout their life. When a population is evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing -- each individual organism within a population does not change. For example, in the previous example, the frequency of black moths increased; the moths did not turn from light to gray to dark in concert. The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.
> 
> Evolution can be divided into microevolution and macroevolution. The kind of evolution documented above is microevolution. Larger changes, such as when a new species is formed, are called macroevolution. Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change. Others think the distinction between the two is arbitrary -- macroevolution is cumulative microevolution.
> 
> The word evolution has a variety of meanings. The fact that all organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often called evolution. The theory of how the first living organisms appeared is often called evolution. This should be called abiogenesis. And frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean natural selection -- one of the many mechanisms of evolution.
> 
> Common Misconceptions about Evolution
> 
> Evolution can occur without morphological change; and morphological change can occur without evolution. Humans are larger now than in the recent past, a result of better diet and medicine. Phenotypic changes, like this, induced solely by changes in environment do not count as evolution because they are not heritable; in other words the change is not passed on to the organism's offspring. Phenotype is the morphological, physiological, biochemical, behavioral and other properties exhibited by a living organism. An organism's phenotype is determined by its genes and its environment. Most changes due to environment are fairly subtle, for example size differences. Large scale phenotypic changes are obviously due to genetic changes, and therefore are evolution.
> 
> Evolution is not progress. Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings. They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time. A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. Paquin and Adams demonstrated this experimentally. They founded a yeast culture and maintained it for many generations. Occasionally, a mutation would arise that allowed its bearer to reproduce better than its contemporaries. These mutant strains would crowd out the formerly dominant strains. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken at a variety of times. In later competition experiments, each strain would outcompete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could outcompete strains that arose late in the experiment. Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. For most traits or behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones. Evolution can be like a game of paper/scissors/rock.
> 
> Organisms are not passive targets of their environment. Each species modifies its own environment. At the least, organisms remove nutrients from and add waste to their surroundings. Often, waste products benefit other species. Animal dung is fertilizer for plants. Conversely, the oxygen we breathe is a waste product of plants. Species do not simply change to fit their environment; they modify their environment to suit them as well. Beavers build a dam to create a pond suitable to sustain them and raise young. Alternately, when the environment changes, species can migrate to suitable climes or seek out microenvironments to which they are adapted



You really should follow your own advice rabid cut and paster...



Hollie said:


> Regarding the science of evolution, you really should take some time and acquaint yourself with what science has discovered....


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has?
> 
> When?
> 
> Why wasn't it front page news?
> 
> Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?
> 
> When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid the questions having been answered is causing you such angst. As you have already demonstrated, your science loathing agenda causes you to recoil when your chains to the supernatural are debunked.
> 
> I don't expect you to be able to address proofs for gods, but your science loathing agenda
> makes you appear quite desperate.
> 
> So, your concession to inadequacy is accepted.
Click to expand...


The questions have not been answered.

Face the fact, _you_ cannot answer any of these questions. You can only cut and paste from sources you believe has the answer. 

Inadequacy is your strong suit. not mine.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has?
> 
> When?
> 
> Why wasn't it front page news?
> 
> Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?
> 
> When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid the questions having been answered is causing you such angst. As you have already demonstrated, your science loathing agenda causes you to recoil when your chains to the supernatural are debunked.
> 
> I don't expect you to be able to address proofs for gods, but your science loathing agenda
> makes you appear quite desperate.
> 
> So, your concession to inadequacy is accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, if you believe it happened then it must have happened. Don't let a little think like providing proof stop you. Oh and pay no mind to the nice gentlemen in the white coats approaching your front door.
Click to expand...


There is proof of evolution. 

There is no proof of your gods. 

Don't let a little thing like credibility crowd out your ignorance and superstitions.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, evolution is firmly supported.
> 
> Thank you for admitting the failure of creationists to offer even the most basic of proofs for their gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supported does not mean proven fact.
> 
> I'll concede that many people including yourself have bought into the evolutionist bullshit. But it still does not prove anything.
> 
> I didn't fail at anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You actually failed with every post.
> 
> Despite your conspiracy theory implicating universities and scientists across the globe accepting the fact of evolution, we've come to learn that the failure of creationists to price their gods is part of the problem they share with their invented conspiracies.
Click to expand...


Specifically what is it you believe I failed at?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has?
> 
> When?
> 
> Why wasn't it front page news?
> 
> Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?
> 
> When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid the questions having been answered is causing you such angst. As you have already demonstrated, your science loathing agenda causes you to recoil when your chains to the supernatural are debunked.
> 
> I don't expect you to be able to address proofs for gods, but your science loathing agenda
> makes you appear quite desperate.
> 
> So, your concession to inadequacy is accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The questions have not been answered.
> 
> Face the fact, _you_ cannot answer any of these questions. You can only cut and paste from sources you believe has the answer.
> 
> Inadequacy is your strong suit. not mine.
Click to expand...

The questions have been answered. 

Your inadequacy toward making a case for your gods is not my problem.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
> 
> One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:
> 
> A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast,the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century. - Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology,2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15



Yet none of this hogwash can be proven.

The fossil gap alone discredits evolution.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supported does not mean proven fact.
> 
> I'll concede that many people including yourself have bought into the evolutionist bullshit. But it still does not prove anything.
> 
> I didn't fail at anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually failed with every post.
> 
> Despite your conspiracy theory implicating universities and scientists across the globe accepting the fact of evolution, we've come to learn that the failure of creationists to price their gods is part of the problem they share with their invented conspiracies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specifically what is it you believe I failed at?
Click to expand...

Specifically, you have achieved embracing fear and superstition. You have failed to denigrate science in favor of your gods and your have failed to make a case for your conspiracy theory whereby every major university in the world has accepted the fact of evolution. 

Basically, you failed at everything.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid the questions having been answered is causing you such angst. As you have already demonstrated, your science loathing agenda causes you to recoil when your chains to the supernatural are debunked.
> 
> I don't expect you to be able to address proofs for gods, but your science loathing agenda
> makes you appear quite desperate.
> 
> So, your concession to inadequacy is accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, if you believe it happened then it must have happened. Don't let a little think like providing proof stop you. Oh and pay no mind to the nice gentlemen in the white coats approaching your front door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is proof of evolution.
> 
> There is no proof of your gods.
> 
> Don't let a little thing like credibility crowd out your ignorance and superstitions.
Click to expand...


No, there is perceived proof of evolution.

There is proof, but in order to witness it there are things you first must do. Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior would be one of the first steps.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid the questions having been answered is causing you such angst. As you have already demonstrated, your science loathing agenda causes you to recoil when your chains to the supernatural are debunked.
> 
> I don't expect you to be able to address proofs for gods, but your science loathing agenda
> makes you appear quite desperate.
> 
> So, your concession to inadequacy is accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The questions have not been answered.
> 
> Face the fact, _you_ cannot answer any of these questions. You can only cut and paste from sources you believe has the answer.
> 
> Inadequacy is your strong suit. not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The questions have been answered.
> 
> Your inadequacy toward making a case for your gods is not my problem.
Click to expand...


My God does not need me to make a case for Him. He as done that himself. You simply choose to ignore it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You actually failed with every post.
> 
> Despite your conspiracy theory implicating universities and scientists across the globe accepting the fact of evolution, we've come to learn that the failure of creationists to price their gods is part of the problem they share with their invented conspiracies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically what is it you believe I failed at?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Specifically, you have achieved embracing fear and superstition. You have failed to denigrate science in favor of your gods and your have failed to make a case for your conspiracy theory whereby every major university in the world has accepted the fact of evolution.
> 
> Basically, you failed at everything.
Click to expand...


I do not fear anything or anyone and I'm not at all superstitious. 

Science (namely evultionary science) denigrates itself just fine without my help.

I have no conspiracy theory. I do have is facts.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
> 
> One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:
> 
> A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast,the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century. - Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology,2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet none of this hogwash can be proven.
> 
> The fossil gap alone discredits evolution.
Click to expand...

Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.

The goofy comment about the fosill gap discrediting evolution is nothing more than the nonsense spewed by the Christian creationist ministries. 

That's why the science world has dismissed the Christian creationist ministries as quacks and why the courts have rejected such quacks from participation in the public schools.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
> 
> One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:
> 
> A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast,the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century. - Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology,2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet none of this hogwash can be proven.
> 
> The fossil gap alone discredits evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.
> 
> The goofy comment about the fosill gap discrediting evolution is nothing more than the nonsense spewed by the Christian creationist ministries.
> 
> That's why the science world has dismissed the Christian creationist ministries as quacks and why the courts have rejected such quacks from participation in the public schools.
Click to expand...


Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.


The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed. 

Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.

Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing. 

Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.

Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils. 

Fact: Evolution has never been observed.

Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics

Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.


Class dismissed.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet none of this hogwash can be proven.
> 
> The fossil gap alone discredits evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.
> 
> The goofy comment about the fosill gap discrediting evolution is nothing more than the nonsense spewed by the Christian creationist ministries.
> 
> That's why the science world has dismissed the Christian creationist ministries as quacks and why the courts have rejected such quacks from participation in the public schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
> 
> 
> The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> 
> Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
> 
> Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
> 
> Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> 
> Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
> 
> 
> Class dismissed.
Click to expand...

I do understand your insensate hatred for science and knowledge but your listing of alleged "facts"are false. The creationist ministries are adept at culling the uneducated and the gullible such as yourself but peer reviewed science contradicts your sloppy and carelessly cut and pasted creationist falsehoods.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.
> 
> The goofy comment about the fosill gap discrediting evolution is nothing more than the nonsense spewed by the Christian creationist ministries.
> 
> That's why the science world has dismissed the Christian creationist ministries as quacks and why the courts have rejected such quacks from participation in the public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
> 
> 
> The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> 
> Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
> 
> Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
> 
> Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> 
> Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
> 
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do understand your insensate hatred for science and knowledge but your listing of alleged "facts"are false. The creationist ministries are adept at culling the uneducated and the gullible such as yourself but peer reviewed science contradicts your sloppy and carelessly cut and pasted creationist falsehoods.
Click to expand...


I do not hate anyone or anything.  Jesus taught me to love my neighbor as I love myself.

None of those facts are false.

Peer reviewed means nothing. A bunch of guys agreeing with each other hardly makes anything a fact. 

Face it. You have no intelligent response. Just the same old rehashed garbage. 

I think your accusation regarding my educational background is a veiled attempt to hide your own inept background.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You actually failed with every post.
> 
> Despite your conspiracy theory implicating universities and scientists across the globe accepting the fact of evolution, we've come to learn that the failure of creationists to price their gods is part of the problem they share with their invented conspiracies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically what is it you believe I failed at?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Specifically, you have achieved embracing fear and superstition. You have failed to denigrate science in favor of your gods and your have failed to make a case for your conspiracy theory whereby *every major university in the world has accepted the fact of evolution.*
Click to expand...


Appeal to the People Fallacy. You really are very gullible.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
> 
> One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:
> 
> A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast,the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century. - Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology,2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet none of this hogwash can be proven.
> 
> The fossil gap alone discredits evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college...
Click to expand...


*Why don't you tell us where you went to college first?*

You poor dear. Everytime you question someone else's education I am forced to bombard you with the large fonts the next 5 pages. When will you learn?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.
> 
> The goofy comment about the fosill gap discrediting evolution is nothing more than the nonsense spewed by the Christian creationist ministries.
> 
> That's why the science world has dismissed the Christian creationist ministries as quacks and why the courts have rejected such quacks from participation in the public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
> 
> 
> The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> 
> Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
> 
> Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
> 
> Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> 
> Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
> 
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do understand your insensate hatred for science and knowledge but your listing of alleged "facts"are false. The creationist ministries are adept at culling the uneducated and the gullible such as yourself but peer reviewed science contradicts your sloppy and carelessly cut and pasted creationist falsehoods.
Click to expand...


Pathetic. Just once I would like to see you posit an actual rebuttal that you didn't cut and paste.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
> 
> 
> The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> 
> Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
> 
> Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
> 
> Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> 
> Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
> 
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> I do understand your insensate hatred for science and knowledge but your listing of alleged "facts"are false. The creationist ministries are adept at culling the uneducated and the gullible such as yourself but peer reviewed science contradicts your sloppy and carelessly cut and pasted creationist falsehoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not hate anyone or anything.  Jesus taught me to love my neighbor as I love myself.
> 
> None of those facts are false.
> 
> Peer reviewed means nothing. A bunch of guys agreeing with each other hardly makes anything a fact.
> 
> Face it. You have no intelligent response. Just the same old rehashed garbage.
> 
> I think your accusation regarding my educational background is a veiled attempt to hide your own inept background.
Click to expand...

Not surprisingly, you are helpless with regard to supporting your "facts" which are nothing but boilerplate Christian creationist rubbish found on all of the creationist ministry websites. 

Your angry responses are also stereotypical Christian creationist reactions to knowledge and reason dismantling your claims to supernaturalism and magic as inept explanations for the diversity if life on the planet. 

As to your lack of education, that is apparent in your inability to offer anything but creationist ministry cut and paste which is the irrelevant, angry Christian fundie revulsion for science and knowledge.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
> 
> 
> The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> 
> Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
> 
> Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
> 
> Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> 
> Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
> 
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> I do understand your insensate hatred for science and knowledge but your listing of alleged "facts"are false. The creationist ministries are adept at culling the uneducated and the gullible such as yourself but peer reviewed science contradicts your sloppy and carelessly cut and pasted creationist falsehoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pathetic. Just once I would like to see you posit an actual rebuttal that you didn't cut and paste.
Click to expand...

I agree. The fundies in this thread are unable to offer coherent sentences on their own so are forced to cut and paste creationist slogans and falsehoods.

Pathetic.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet none of this hogwash can be proven.
> 
> The fossil gap alone discredits evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why don't you tell us where you went to college first?*
> 
> You poor dear. Everytime you question someone else's education I am forced to bombard you with the large fonts the next 5 pages. When will you learn?
Click to expand...


Actually, dear, you're just a creepy stalker desperate for my attention.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do understand your insensate hatred for science and knowledge but your listing of alleged "facts"are false. The creationist ministries are adept at culling the uneducated and the gullible such as yourself but peer reviewed science contradicts your sloppy and carelessly cut and pasted creationist falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not hate anyone or anything.  Jesus taught me to love my neighbor as I love myself.
> 
> None of those facts are false.
> 
> Peer reviewed means nothing. A bunch of guys agreeing with each other hardly makes anything a fact.
> 
> Face it. You have no intelligent response. Just the same old rehashed garbage.
> 
> I think your accusation regarding my educational background is a veiled attempt to hide your own inept background.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not surprisingly, you are helpless with regard to supporting your "facts" which are nothing but boilerplate Christian creationist rubbish found on all of the creationist ministry websites.
> 
> Your angry responses are also stereotypical Christian creationist reactions to knowledge and reason dismantling your claims to supernaturalism and magic as inept explanations for the diversity if life on the planet.
> 
> As to your lack of education, that is apparent in your inability to offer anything but creationist ministry cut and paste which is the irrelevant, angry Christian fundie revulsion for science and knowledge.
Click to expand...


There are pages upon pages within this thread supporting everything I stated.

Why do you insist on projecting your emotions upon me? I hate no one, I'm not angry with anyone and I do have a formal educational background.

The material I offer is just as relevant as that which you offer. 

Evolution stands upon many assumptions.

What about the "God particle" or the Higgs boson?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do understand your insensate hatred for science and knowledge but your listing of alleged "facts"are false. The creationist ministries are adept at culling the uneducated and the gullible such as yourself but peer reviewed science contradicts your sloppy and carelessly cut and pasted creationist falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not hate anyone or anything.  Jesus taught me to love my neighbor as I love myself.
> 
> None of those facts are false.
> 
> Peer reviewed means nothing. A bunch of guys agreeing with each other hardly makes anything a fact.
> 
> Face it. You have no intelligent response. Just the same old rehashed garbage.
> 
> I think your accusation regarding my educational background is a veiled attempt to hide your own inept background.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not surprisingly, you are helpless with regard to supporting your "facts" which are nothing but boilerplate Christian creationist rubbish found on all of the creationist ministry websites.
> 
> Your angry responses are also stereotypical Christian creationist reactions to knowledge and reason dismantling your claims to supernaturalism and magic as inept explanations for the diversity if life on the planet.
> 
> As to your lack of education, that is apparent in your inability to offer anything but creationist ministry cut and paste which is the irrelevant, angry Christian fundie revulsion for science and knowledge.
Click to expand...


*Where did you go to college?*


----------



## UltimateReality

I actually don't really expect a response. Hollie has proven over and over again that she most like never finished junior high.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not hate anyone or anything.  Jesus taught me to love my neighbor as I love myself.
> 
> None of those facts are false.
> 
> Peer reviewed means nothing. A bunch of guys agreeing with each other hardly makes anything a fact.
> 
> Face it. You have no intelligent response. Just the same old rehashed garbage.
> 
> I think your accusation regarding my educational background is a veiled attempt to hide your own inept background.
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly, you are helpless with regard to supporting your "facts" which are nothing but boilerplate Christian creationist rubbish found on all of the creationist ministry websites.
> 
> Your angry responses are also stereotypical Christian creationist reactions to knowledge and reason dismantling your claims to supernaturalism and magic as inept explanations for the diversity if life on the planet.
> 
> As to your lack of education, that is apparent in your inability to offer anything but creationist ministry cut and paste which is the irrelevant, angry Christian fundie revulsion for science and knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are pages upon pages within this thread supporting everything I stated.
> 
> Why do you insist on projecting your emotions upon me? I hate no one, I'm not angry with anyone and I do have a formal educational background.
> 
> The material I offer is just as relevant as that which you offer.
> 
> Evolution stands upon many assumptions.
> 
> What about the "God particle" or the Higgs boson?
Click to expand...


That is simply false. There are pages and pages of cutting and pasting from creationist ministries that have long ago been debunked as false. The material you cut and paste is creationist appeals to fear and ignorance. 

For your review and enlightenment, I recommend that you actually crack open an issue of the journal "_Evolution_" and read it before copying and pasting from creationist ministries. They make yuou look foolish. Get a year's subscription to the "Journal of Theoretical Biology" and look at the content. "Paleobiology" contains a vast amount of research work related to theoretical issues of evolutionary importance to life's history. 

So..... what about the "God particle" or the Higgs boson? Are you expecting one or more of your gods to pop out of a sub-atomic particle and announce "here'sssss johnny!

This may come as a surprise to you but new discoveries made as the result of the super collider will be.... think about this.... naturally occurring phenomenon. How do you think any new discovery in science could be "supernatural" when the processes and mechanisms used to make the discovery are made by non-supernatural humans?

What would be supernatural about a sub-atomic particle discovered by science. Wouldn't callling such a discovery of a naturally occurring particle as "supernatural" be silly and ridiculous ?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> I actually don't really expect a response. Hollie has proven over and over again that she most like never finished junior high.



Such an attention starved stalker.


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying this quote was taken out of context?? I am confused:
> 
> _"In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?* Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. *
> 
> [...]
> 
> He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, *but often falsely apparent*, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: *I can answer this latter question only hypothetically*, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean." _ Charles Darwin
> 
> This chapter actually reminds me of a police detective, who, while investigating a murder scene, implies any physical evidence left behind is some type of trickery. "While the knife sticking out of the victim's chest with bloody finger prints on it that are not the victim's looks like someone else did it, really the victim must have fallen on the knife himself and the bloody fingerprints were on the knife before he fell. The shattered glass window was probably from some boys playing baseball and I'm sure the victim's wallet is just missing because he lost it last week. Darwin sounds like Crick... even though there is absolutely no evidence of gradual change, here are all the reasons why what we see isn't really what is plainly apparent. You just can't see the magic but here are a thousands reasons why. You can read the whole pathetic fairy tale supportive argument here:
> 
> The Origin of Species: Chapter 9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.
> 
> This common quote mine is irrelevant, even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did. This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.
> 
> But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part. It's a mischaracterization of why  he was saying what he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.
> 
> The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.
> 
> Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.
Click to expand...


Nope. Did you read any of what I wrote? I guess I have to write it again, because you can't read. 

It wouldn't matter what he thought about his own theory. This is an argument from authority.

The argument from authority isn't excused, simply because that authority is the author of his own theory, in this case, Darwin and the TOE. There is no such stipulation anywhere for this logical debate fallacy. If you can find it, let me know, otherwise, drop this point. It is fruitless.


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.
> 
> The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.
> 
> Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has?
> 
> When?
> 
> Why wasn't it front page news?
> 
> Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?
> 
> When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?
Click to expand...


Do you know what a scientific theory is? Gravity is still a theory.

Please, educate yourself about science, just a little bit, before you pretend to refute it.


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has?
> 
> When?
> 
> Why wasn't it front page news?
> 
> Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?
> 
> When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what a scientific theory is? Gravity is still a theory.
> 
> Please, educate yourself about science, just a little bit, before you pretend to refute it.
Click to expand...


The gross ignorance of fundies regarding their arguments against subjects they don't understand seems to define the creationist lot. Fundies' confusion about terms such as "theory" is a result of blind obedience to creationist ministries with an overt agenda of  placating the ignorance of creationists. This is demonstrated  clearly among the creationists in this thread who statements such as: _"But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law,_" or _"It's a theory, not a fact,"_.  They demonstrate a willful ignorance of science and a regrettable allegiance to their creationist ministries which are clueless regarding the meanings of the words they're using.

"Theory" does not mean a simple hypothesis, or a guess, or a proposal. Further, a scientific theory does not gain does not gain status as a scientific law with the arrival or accumulation of more recent or better defined evidence. A theory always remains a   theory and will never become a scientific law. Similarly, a scientific law will remain a scientific law. 

The following definitions, based on information from the _National Academy of Sciences_, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory." 

Evolution Resources from the National Academies



> A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.
> 
> A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.
> 
> For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually don't really expect a response. Hollie has proven over and over again that she most like never finished junior high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such an attention starved stalker.
Click to expand...


*Was it your lack of attention that caused you to never attend college?*


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.
> 
> This common quote mine is irrelevant, even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did. This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.
> 
> But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part. It's a mischaracterization of why  he was saying what he did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.
> 
> The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.
> 
> Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Did you read any of what I wrote? I guess I have to write it again, because you can't read.
> 
> It wouldn't matter what he thought about his own theory. This is an argument from authority.
> 
> The argument from authority isn't excused, simply because that authority is the author of his own theory, in this case, Darwin and the TOE. There is no such stipulation anywhere for this logical debate fallacy. If you can find it, let me know, otherwise, drop this point. It is fruitless.
Click to expand...


I have to interject here. If is fairly common for someone "making up" a theory to think about all the objections that others might have for the theory and attempt to head them off with a rebuttal ahead of time. Darwin did this numerous times in his little fictional book. One of the mistakes he made was that he spoke of the future and his belief that science would develop and discover more evidence to support his theory. At the time he wrote OOTS, they had barely "scratched the surface" of the fossil record and they knew very little about the workings of the cell. Unfortunately for Darwin, hundreds of thousands of fossils later and there still is no more better evidence in the fossil record for his theory.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has?
> 
> When?
> 
> Why wasn't it front page news?
> 
> Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?
> 
> When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what a scientific theory is? Gravity is still a theory.
> 
> Please, educate yourself about science, just a little bit, before you pretend to refute it.
Click to expand...


Always with the fundie evo's and their distorted views of laws and theories. Just goes to show that the pseudoscience of evolution has spilled over into the legitimate sciences and bastardized them too. Always with the evofundies comparing gravity to evolution. They aren't even the same type of science. Evolution falls into the category of a Historical Science, which is not even on the same level as physics and astronomy my friend. Please educate yourself just a little bit before you start speaking from a point of arrogance which isn't even correct and then wind up looking foolish. This is what happens when you get all your info from biased atheist websites that twist the truth and practice historical revisionism. 

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

_"If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the *definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline*. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably."

"Science in and of itself means &#8220;knowledge&#8221; and knowledge can be attained through two types of sciences: observational and historical.  Operational science is the broad field of science where experiments are performed and results are observed.  In this field, which includes chemistry, physics, hydraulics, engineering, modern technology, etc., *experiments can be done to test a hypothesis, and the experiment can be repeated to measure validity and reliability.*  This is the type of science that has given us computers, cell phones, televisions, and put men on the moon.  Historical science includes the fields of archaeology and paleontology, to name a few.  These scientists &#8220;dig up the past&#8221; and come to conclusions based on interpretations of the evidence.  The interpretations are typically based on the scientist&#8217;s worldview and therefore are subjective."_


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has?
> 
> When?
> 
> Why wasn't it front page news?
> 
> Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?
> 
> When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what a scientific theory is? Gravity is still a theory.
> 
> Please, educate yourself about science, just a little bit, before you pretend to refute it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gross ignorance of fundies regarding their arguments against subjects they don't understand seems to define the creationist lot. Fundies' confusion about terms such as "theory" is a result of blind obedience to creationist ministries with an overt agenda of  placating the ignorance of creationists. This is demonstrated  clearly among the creationists in this thread who statements such as: _"But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law,_" or _"It's a theory, not a fact,"_.  They demonstrate a willful ignorance of science and a regrettable allegiance to their creationist ministries which are clueless regarding the meanings of the words they're using.
> 
> "Theory" does not mean a simple hypothesis, or a guess, or a proposal. Further, a scientific theory does not gain does not gain status as a scientific law with the arrival or accumulation of more recent or better defined evidence. A theory always remains a   theory and will never become a scientific law. Similarly, a scientific law will remain a scientific law.
> 
> The following definitions, based on information from the _National Academy of Sciences_, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."
> 
> Evolution Resources from the National Academies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.
> 
> A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.
> 
> For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Omigosh!!! You did not just cut and paste this nonsense from the National Academy of Science!!!  Typical materialistic propaganda. Don't be fooled by scientific revisionism. A theory becomes a law if the body of repeatable experiments supporting the theory becomes so large that the theory can be said to apply in every instance. The theory of gravity is now the law of gravity here on earth. It is not violated here EVER. However, on the astronomical level, there does appear to be observed instances where a more comprehensive theory of universal gravity is needed. The biggest joke of this foolish comparison is that we can actually set up experiments and test our predictions about the way gravity behaves. We can't set up experiments to test for natural selection because the TOE is a historical science. The events happened in the past and we can only look at evidence from a prior event and make deductions about the causes of that prior outcome. It is utterly foolish and silly when materialist attempt to compare the operational sciences with historical sciences and pretend they are somehow on the same level. Hollie, you really are so gullible that you fall for this nonsense and believe it hook, line and sinker. They got you brainwashed good.  

*
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering researc*h, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the public good.

"It is important for us to understand the mindset of the hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) because they are the ones whose alleged expertise on &#8220;global warming&#8221; will justify the Democrats&#8217; cap-and-tax legislation. Over the last 50 years, *the NAS hierarchy has become one of the most poisonous organizations in America, a nest of atheists who base their pseudo-scientific dogma on the arbitrary rejection of God, and not upon empirical evidence and the scientific method."*

The Atheist-Dominated National Academy of Sciences | Conservative News, Views & Books

It is really sad when organizations like this with an agenda actually gain so much influence that they are able to bastardize the legitimate sciences and force policies in public education that pukes out brainwashed zombies like Hollie and NP. They are so deep in it they don't yet realize the mind fu... dge that has been played on them.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what a scientific theory is? Gravity is still a theory.
> 
> Please, educate yourself about science, just a little bit, before you pretend to refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gross ignorance of fundies regarding their arguments against subjects they don't understand seems to define the creationist lot. Fundies' confusion about terms such as "theory" is a result of blind obedience to creationist ministries with an overt agenda of  placating the ignorance of creationists. This is demonstrated  clearly among the creationists in this thread who statements such as: _"But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law,_" or _"It's a theory, not a fact,"_.  They demonstrate a willful ignorance of science and a regrettable allegiance to their creationist ministries which are clueless regarding the meanings of the words they're using.
> 
> "Theory" does not mean a simple hypothesis, or a guess, or a proposal. Further, a scientific theory does not gain does not gain status as a scientific law with the arrival or accumulation of more recent or better defined evidence. A theory always remains a   theory and will never become a scientific law. Similarly, a scientific law will remain a scientific law.
> 
> The following definitions, based on information from the _National Academy of Sciences_, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."
> 
> Evolution Resources from the National Academies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.
> 
> A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.
> 
> For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Omigosh!!! You did not just cut and paste this nonsense from the National Academy of Science!!!  Typical materialistic propaganda. Don't be fooled by scientific revisionism. A theory becomes a law if the body of repeatable experiments supporting the theory becomes so large that the theory can be said to apply in every instance. The theory of gravity is now the law of gravity here on earth. It is not violated here EVER. However, on the astronomical level, there does appear to be observed instances where a more comprehensive theory of universal gravity is needed. The biggest joke of this foolish comparison is that we can actually set up experiments and test our predictions about the way gravity behaves. We can't set up experiments to test for natural selection because the TOE is a historical science. The events happened in the past and we can only look at evidence from a prior event and make deductions about the causes of that prior outcome. It is utterly foolish and silly when materialist attempt to compare the operational sciences with historical sciences and pretend they are somehow on the same level. Hollie, you really are so gullible that you fall for this nonsense and believe it hook, line and sinker. They got you brainwashed good.
> 
> *
> The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering researc*h, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the public good.
> 
> "It is important for us to understand the mindset of the hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) because they are the ones whose alleged expertise on global warming will justify the Democrats cap-and-tax legislation. Over the last 50 years, *the NAS hierarchy has become one of the most poisonous organizations in America, a nest of atheists who base their pseudo-scientific dogma on the arbitrary rejection of God, and not upon empirical evidence and the scientific method."*
> 
> The Atheist-Dominated National Academy of Sciences | Conservative News, Views & Books
> 
> It is really sad when organizations like this with an agenda actually gain so much influence that they are able to bastardize the legitimate sciences and force policies in public education that pukes out brainwashed zombies like Hollie and NP. They are so deep in it they don't yet realize the mind fu... dge that has been played on them.
Click to expand...


"A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease." (wikipedia)

Before you criticize my source, wikipedia has been found to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News


A theory never becomes a law. A theory is used to describe "why" or "how" an observed phenomenon happens, not that it happens. A law is simply a description of something that does happen (ie, 2nd law of thermodynamics). Therefore, a theory and a law are categorically distinct, and one never becomes the other. Theories are often supported by laws. There could be a theory to describe why the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists, but this theory would never become a law, as this would be a categorical error. 

 The theory of gravity has not become a law. Newton's universal law of gravitation is a very specific mathematical description of gravity within certain parameters. It does not apply in all instances, such as where the general theory of relativity is concerned. So, it is not universally applicable, therefore, nor is it a law. It is called a law, because for what it describes, it is always true. 

None of this actually matters, because it fails to address the most important point in all of this: Lonestar's use of the word "theory" is incompatabile with any use of the word "theory" in science. 

The fact that you attack the NAS on your own subjective grounds is laughable. This is an ad hominem attack at its finest. The definition put forth by them is firmly operational.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> The interpretations are typically based on the scientist&#8217;s worldview and therefore are subjective."[/I]



This begs a philosophical discussion, because this sentence is asinine. 

 Are you positing the view that there is no objective reality? Certainly you have to concede that at some point, the amount of evidence (ie, matter in the universe) will reach such a point that a theory to explain these facts is justified (the universe exists)? I gave the broadest example to make a point: we are not entitled to our own facts. Facts are objective. Vacillation between competing explanations becomes less and less possible with the more facts you have corroborating one certain theory or explanation. This is because of one simple fact: there are many scientists, not just one, and consensus is an important feature of the scientific method in establishing a theory to be credible. In other words, a scientist's worldview is not important in determining the nature of scientific theory. They stand or fall under the weight of the evidence, which is assessed and evaluated by many, with each onlooking scientist having total incentive to try and disprove the theory. You're implication that the theory evolution is a kind of group think fueled by materialistic outlooks is a copout to explain why so many highly educated people across several disciplines of science all converge on evolution. 

There is an objective reality outside of our subjective one, and science attempts, better than any method known, to reach this, without confirmation bias. This is the miracle of science. It gets us past our own cognitive biases. Religion, is the opposite. It is the projection of all of our egoistic urges onto reality, and trying to pass this off as "objective." It is the greatest psychological ploy of all time. The  irony is that religious people then attack science for something they themselves are the grandmasters of, without realizing us. Funny that you made that quote about ignorance. Apply it to yourself, please.


----------



## pjnlsn

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your comparing irrational animal behavior to rational behavoir of man?
> 
> Do you beleive the two to be homogenous?
Click to expand...


No true scotsman. Or: Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is.

The question is more meaningful phrased this way: If God made animals and man, why does one do this, and think like this, and the other not, such that some call one rational and the other irrational?

However, despite the tone of some of your posts in response to others about this, an answer to the question, and others like it, is not very meaningful beyond that the answerer has a brain and a small amount of creativity (and this is assuming that the one who answered was the first one to come up with it).

That one can fit their beliefs to reality, or make it so they do not contradict, does not make them true, and, as before, requires only a modicum of intelligence. As for their truth, by the most common definition of a god, it is not possible for it's existence, or any effect of it, so long as these things remain undetailed, to be proven.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gross ignorance of fundies regarding their arguments against subjects they don't understand seems to define the creationist lot. Fundies' confusion about terms such as "theory" is a result of blind obedience to creationist ministries with an overt agenda of  placating the ignorance of creationists. This is demonstrated  clearly among the creationists in this thread who statements such as: _"But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law,_" or _"It's a theory, not a fact,"_.  They demonstrate a willful ignorance of science and a regrettable allegiance to their creationist ministries which are clueless regarding the meanings of the words they're using.
> 
> "Theory" does not mean a simple hypothesis, or a guess, or a proposal. Further, a scientific theory does not gain does not gain status as a scientific law with the arrival or accumulation of more recent or better defined evidence. A theory always remains a   theory and will never become a scientific law. Similarly, a scientific law will remain a scientific law.
> 
> The following definitions, based on information from the _National Academy of Sciences_, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."
> 
> Evolution Resources from the National Academies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Omigosh!!! You did not just cut and paste this nonsense from the National Academy of Science!!!  Typical materialistic propaganda. Don't be fooled by scientific revisionism. A theory becomes a law if the body of repeatable experiments supporting the theory becomes so large that the theory can be said to apply in every instance. The theory of gravity is now the law of gravity here on earth. It is not violated here EVER. However, on the astronomical level, there does appear to be observed instances where a more comprehensive theory of universal gravity is needed. The biggest joke of this foolish comparison is that we can actually set up experiments and test our predictions about the way gravity behaves. We can't set up experiments to test for natural selection because the TOE is a historical science. The events happened in the past and we can only look at evidence from a prior event and make deductions about the causes of that prior outcome. It is utterly foolish and silly when materialist attempt to compare the operational sciences with historical sciences and pretend they are somehow on the same level. Hollie, you really are so gullible that you fall for this nonsense and believe it hook, line and sinker. They got you brainwashed good.
> 
> *
> The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering researc*h, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the public good.
> 
> "It is important for us to understand the mindset of the hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) because they are the ones whose alleged expertise on &#8220;global warming&#8221; will justify the Democrats&#8217; cap-and-tax legislation. Over the last 50 years, *the NAS hierarchy has become one of the most poisonous organizations in America, a nest of atheists who base their pseudo-scientific dogma on the arbitrary rejection of God, and not upon empirical evidence and the scientific method."*
> 
> The Atheist-Dominated National Academy of Sciences | Conservative News, Views & Books
> 
> It is really sad when organizations like this with an agenda actually gain so much influence that they are able to bastardize the legitimate sciences and force policies in public education that pukes out brainwashed zombies like Hollie and NP. They are so deep in it they don't yet realize the mind fu... dge that has been played on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
> The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease." (wikipedia)
> 
> Before you criticize my source, *wikipedia has been found to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica*.
Click to expand...

 And I have some swamp land in Florida I can sell you.


newpolitics said:


> Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News
> 
> 
> A theory never becomes a law.


  Oh you poor dear. More bastardized pseudoscience from the NAS. So let me get this straight... The apple fell on Newton's head it was immediately proclaimed the law of gravity.  You and Hollie need to lay of the NAS koolaid. 



newpolitics said:


> A theory is used to describe "why" or "how" an observed phenomenon happens, not that it happens. A law is simply a description of something that does happen (ie, 2nd law of thermodynamics). Therefore, a theory and a law are categorically distinct, and one never becomes the other. Theories are often supported by laws. There could be a theory to describe why the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists, but this theory would never become a law, as this would be a categorical error.
> 
> The theory of gravity has not become a law. Newton's universal law of gravitation is a very specific mathematical description of gravity within certain parameters. It does not apply in all instances, such as where the general theory of relativity is concerned. So, it is not universally applicable, therefore, nor is it a law. It is called a law, because for what it describes, it is always true.
> 
> None of this actually matters, because it fails to address the most important point in all of this: Lonestar's use of the word "theory" is incompatabile with any use of the word "theory" in science.
> 
> The fact that you attack the NAS on your own subjective grounds is laughable. This is an ad hominem attack at its finest. The definition put forth by them is firmly operational.



Just keep repeating that over and over and maybe it will come true like it does in Hollie's world.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretations are typically based on the scientist&#8217;s worldview and therefore are subjective."[/I]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This begs a philosophical discussion, because this sentence is asinine.
> 
> Are you positing the view that there is no objective reality? Certainly you have to concede that at some point, the amount of evidence (ie, matter in the universe) will reach such a point that a theory to explain these facts is justified (the universe exists)? I gave the broadest example to make a point: we are not entitled to our own facts. Facts are objective. Vacillation between competing explanations becomes less and less possible with the more facts you have corroborating one certain theory or explanation. This is because of one simple fact: there are many scientists, not just one, and consensus is an important feature of the scientific method in establishing a theory to be credible. In other words, a scientist's worldview is not important in determining the nature of scientific theory. They stand or fall under the weight of the evidence, which is assessed and evaluated by many, with each onlooking scientist having total incentive to try and disprove the theory. You're implication that the theory evolution is a kind of group think fueled by materialistic outlooks is a copout to explain why so many highly educated people across several disciplines of science all converge on evolution.
> 
> There is an objective reality outside of our subjective one, and science attempts, better than any method known, to reach this, without confirmation bias. This is the miracle of science. It gets us past our own cognitive biases. Religion, is the opposite. It is the projection of all of our egoistic urges onto reality, and trying to pass this off as "objective." It is the greatest psychological ploy of all time. The  irony is that religious people then attack science for something they themselves are the grandmasters of, without realizing us. Funny that you made that quote about ignorance. Apply it to yourself, please.
Click to expand...


More materialistic brainwashing. There are 3 other worldviews besides materialism and depending on which one the scientist claims, his interpretations of "evidence" will be tainted by his pre-assumptions about the world. Are you claiming that materialists have cornered the market on Ultimate Reality??? That is really laughable. The NAS religious viewpoints, i.e., materialism and darwinism, drive their "scientific" outcomes.


----------



## pjnlsn

UltimateReality said:


> Evolution falls into the category of a Historical Science, which is not even on the same level as physics and astronomy my friend.



Barring possible difference in how words are defined between writer and readers, this is true. But lest anyone put an undue amount of importance on this, that Biological History is less certain than Biological Fact is a thing largely unavoidable.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omigosh!!! You did not just cut and paste this nonsense from the National Academy of Science!!!  Typical materialistic propaganda. Don't be fooled by scientific revisionism. A theory becomes a law if the body of repeatable experiments supporting the theory becomes so large that the theory can be said to apply in every instance. The theory of gravity is now the law of gravity here on earth. It is not violated here EVER. However, on the astronomical level, there does appear to be observed instances where a more comprehensive theory of universal gravity is needed. The biggest joke of this foolish comparison is that we can actually set up experiments and test our predictions about the way gravity behaves. We can't set up experiments to test for natural selection because the TOE is a historical science. The events happened in the past and we can only look at evidence from a prior event and make deductions about the causes of that prior outcome. It is utterly foolish and silly when materialist attempt to compare the operational sciences with historical sciences and pretend they are somehow on the same level. Hollie, you really are so gullible that you fall for this nonsense and believe it hook, line and sinker. They got you brainwashed good.
> 
> *
> The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering researc*h, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the public good.
> 
> "It is important for us to understand the mindset of the hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) because they are the ones whose alleged expertise on &#8220;global warming&#8221; will justify the Democrats&#8217; cap-and-tax legislation. Over the last 50 years, *the NAS hierarchy has become one of the most poisonous organizations in America, a nest of atheists who base their pseudo-scientific dogma on the arbitrary rejection of God, and not upon empirical evidence and the scientific method."*
> 
> The Atheist-Dominated National Academy of Sciences | Conservative News, Views & Books
> 
> It is really sad when organizations like this with an agenda actually gain so much influence that they are able to bastardize the legitimate sciences and force policies in public education that pukes out brainwashed zombies like Hollie and NP. They are so deep in it they don't yet realize the mind fu... dge that has been played on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
> The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease." (wikipedia)
> 
> Before you criticize my source, *wikipedia has been found to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I have some swamp land in Florida I can sell you.
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News
> 
> 
> A theory never becomes a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh you poor dear. More bastardized pseudoscience from the NAS. So let me get this straight... The apple fell on Newton's head it was immediately proclaimed the law of gravity.  You and Hollie need to lay of the NAS koolaid.
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> A theory is used to describe "why" or "how" an observed phenomenon happens, not that it happens. A law is simply a description of something that does happen (ie, 2nd law of thermodynamics). Therefore, a theory and a law are categorically distinct, and one never becomes the other. Theories are often supported by laws. There could be a theory to describe why the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists, but this theory would never become a law, as this would be a categorical error.
> 
> The theory of gravity has not become a law. Newton's universal law of gravitation is a very specific mathematical description of gravity within certain parameters. It does not apply in all instances, such as where the general theory of relativity is concerned. So, it is not universally applicable, therefore, nor is it a law. It is called a law, because for what it describes, it is always true.
> 
> None of this actually matters, because it fails to address the most important point in all of this: Lonestar's use of the word "theory" is incompatabile with any use of the word "theory" in science.
> 
> The fact that you attack the NAS on your own subjective grounds is laughable. This is an ad hominem attack at its finest. The definition put forth by them is firmly operational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just keep repeating that over and over and maybe it will come true like it does in Hollie's world.
Click to expand...


You have shown yourself to be a charlatan. You are not worth debating, and are guilty of every piece of ridicule you throw at others. For the record, I have never consulted nor was even familiar with NAS until now. But, even so, I can simply say you're rejection of its definition is an ad hominem attack. You don't address the actual definition, you just attack the organization who produced it, which is meaningless, considering this definition is not special in any way, and could be found any numbers of places, so you're attack on the NAS is moot in trying to defile this definition.

Once again, you don't address any of my actual points, because you can't. You just use emoticons and so "oh my poor dear" and laugh, just like a charlatan would. You only show yourself to be a complete snob who doesn't care what the other side is arguing. You ignore all counter-arguments, and continue on your merry way. As a creationists, I guess you have to, because you have no real arguments of your own. Just a bunch of vacuous attacks on evolution that demonstrate a total unwillingness to accept reality.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretations are typically based on the scientists worldview and therefore are subjective."[/I]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This begs a philosophical discussion, because this sentence is asinine.
> 
> Are you positing the view that there is no objective reality? Certainly you have to concede that at some point, the amount of evidence (ie, matter in the universe) will reach such a point that a theory to explain these facts is justified (the universe exists)? I gave the broadest example to make a point: we are not entitled to our own facts. Facts are objective. Vacillation between competing explanations becomes less and less possible with the more facts you have corroborating one certain theory or explanation. This is because of one simple fact: there are many scientists, not just one, and consensus is an important feature of the scientific method in establishing a theory to be credible. In other words, a scientist's worldview is not important in determining the nature of scientific theory. They stand or fall under the weight of the evidence, which is assessed and evaluated by many, with each onlooking scientist having total incentive to try and disprove the theory. You're implication that the theory evolution is a kind of group think fueled by materialistic outlooks is a copout to explain why so many highly educated people across several disciplines of science all converge on evolution.
> 
> There is an objective reality outside of our subjective one, and science attempts, better than any method known, to reach this, without confirmation bias. This is the miracle of science. It gets us past our own cognitive biases. Religion, is the opposite. It is the projection of all of our egoistic urges onto reality, and trying to pass this off as "objective." It is the greatest psychological ploy of all time. The  irony is that religious people then attack science for something they themselves are the grandmasters of, without realizing us. Funny that you made that quote about ignorance. Apply it to yourself, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More materialistic brainwashing. There are 3 other worldviews besides materialism and depending on which one the scientist claims, his interpretations of "evidence" will be tainted by his pre-assumptions about the world. Are you claiming that materialists have cornered the market on Ultimate Reality??? That is really laughable. The NAS religious viewpoints, i.e., materialism and darwinism, drive their "scientific" outcomes.
Click to expand...


This actually is hilarious. Do you have evidence of anything besides that which exists in this universe? No. No one does, yet... you KNOW that a god exists outside of space and time, because of a book. How cute. The only place these three other world views exist are in the mind, as they certainly don't exist in reality.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.
> 
> The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.
> 
> Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Did you read any of what I wrote? I guess I have to write it again, because you can't read.
> 
> It wouldn't matter what he thought about his own theory. This is an argument from authority.
> 
> The argument from authority isn't excused, simply because that authority is the author of his own theory, in this case, Darwin and the TOE. There is no such stipulation anywhere for this logical debate fallacy. If you can find it, let me know, otherwise, drop this point. It is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to interject here. If is fairly common for someone "making up" a theory to think about all the objections that others might have for the theory and attempt to head them off with a rebuttal ahead of time. Darwin did this numerous times in his little fictional book. One of the mistakes he made was that he spoke of the future and his belief that science would develop and discover more evidence to support his theory. At the time he wrote OOTS, they had barely "scratched the surface" of the fossil record and they knew very little about the workings of the cell. Unfortunately for Darwin, hundreds of thousands of fossils later and there still is no more better evidence in the fossil record for his theory.
Click to expand...


Except for the small fact that, from fossils, geology, and DNA, there is a lot of evidence that has been gotten since Darwin's' time, corroborating and strengthening his theory to the point where it is almost universally accepted amongst scientists. You can sit there and deny the evidence for evolution all day, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you don't accept it because you don't want to, because it would hurt your little theory about a magic man in the sky willing things into existence.


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gross ignorance of fundies regarding their arguments against subjects they don't understand seems to define the creationist lot. Fundies' confusion about terms such as "theory" is a result of blind obedience to creationist ministries with an overt agenda of  placating the ignorance of creationists. This is demonstrated  clearly among the creationists in this thread who statements such as: _"But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law,_" or _"It's a theory, not a fact,"_.  They demonstrate a willful ignorance of science and a regrettable allegiance to their creationist ministries which are clueless regarding the meanings of the words they're using.
> 
> "Theory" does not mean a simple hypothesis, or a guess, or a proposal. Further, a scientific theory does not gain does not gain status as a scientific law with the arrival or accumulation of more recent or better defined evidence. A theory always remains a   theory and will never become a scientific law. Similarly, a scientific law will remain a scientific law.
> 
> The following definitions, based on information from the _National Academy of Sciences_, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."
> 
> Evolution Resources from the National Academies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Omigosh!!! You did not just cut and paste this nonsense from the National Academy of Science!!!  Typical materialistic propaganda. Don't be fooled by scientific revisionism. A theory becomes a law if the body of repeatable experiments supporting the theory becomes so large that the theory can be said to apply in every instance. The theory of gravity is now the law of gravity here on earth. It is not violated here EVER. However, on the astronomical level, there does appear to be observed instances where a more comprehensive theory of universal gravity is needed. The biggest joke of this foolish comparison is that we can actually set up experiments and test our predictions about the way gravity behaves. We can't set up experiments to test for natural selection because the TOE is a historical science. The events happened in the past and we can only look at evidence from a prior event and make deductions about the causes of that prior outcome. It is utterly foolish and silly when materialist attempt to compare the operational sciences with historical sciences and pretend they are somehow on the same level. Hollie, you really are so gullible that you fall for this nonsense and believe it hook, line and sinker. They got you brainwashed good.
> 
> *
> The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering researc*h, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the public good.
> 
> "It is important for us to understand the mindset of the hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) because they are the ones whose alleged expertise on global warming will justify the Democrats cap-and-tax legislation. Over the last 50 years, *the NAS hierarchy has become one of the most poisonous organizations in America, a nest of atheists who base their pseudo-scientific dogma on the arbitrary rejection of God, and not upon empirical evidence and the scientific method."*
> 
> The Atheist-Dominated National Academy of Sciences | Conservative News, Views & Books
> 
> It is really sad when organizations like this with an agenda actually gain so much influence that they are able to bastardize the legitimate sciences and force policies in public education that pukes out brainwashed zombies like Hollie and NP. They are so deep in it they don't yet realize the mind fu... dge that has been played on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
> The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease." (wikipedia)
> 
> Before you criticize my source, wikipedia has been found to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica.
> 
> Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News
> 
> 
> A theory never becomes a law. A theory is used to describe "why" or "how" an observed phenomenon happens, not that it happens. A law is simply a description of something that does happen (ie, 2nd law of thermodynamics). Therefore, a theory and a law are categorically distinct, and one never becomes the other. Theories are often supported by laws. There could be a theory to describe why the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists, but this theory would never become a law, as this would be a categorical error.
> 
> The theory of gravity has not become a law. Newton's universal law of gravitation is a very specific mathematical description of gravity within certain parameters. It does not apply in all instances, such as where the general theory of relativity is concerned. So, it is not universally applicable, therefore, nor is it a law. It is called a law, because for what it describes, it is always true.
> 
> None of this actually matters, because it fails to address the most important point in all of this: Lonestar's use of the word "theory" is incompatabile with any use of the word "theory" in science.
> 
> The fact that you attack the NAS on your own subjective grounds is laughable. This is an ad hominem attack at its finest. The definition put forth by them is firmly operational.
Click to expand...


It's certainly predictable that a science loathing Christian creationist would react in panic to an organization that promotes science and learning. The greatest threat to fundies is knowledge and enlightenment. Promoting knowledge absolutely terrifies creationists because their need to further fear and ignorance is directly challenged. 

This is why creationists react so negatively to science and understanding and why they are forced to attack science in the defense of their gods. In every instance, creationist supernaturalism is shown to be a litany of fallacious reasoning, describing impossible mechanics, tossing away and dismissing physical evidence, making meaningless comparisons, until finally when reason pushes them into a corner where their unsupported and unsupportable claims are again, no linger defendable, they escape into the "God did it" safety net.

 We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present. So it is left for creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods.  That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.

 Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge. 
That dynamic is displayed prominently by the screaming, hysterical fundies who see their gods being made unusable and unnecessary and so react with tirades, posting of gargantuan fonts and juvenile tirades.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.
> 
> This common quote mine is irrelevant, even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did. This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.
> 
> But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part. It's a mischaracterization of why  he was saying what he did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.
> 
> The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.
> 
> Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Did you read any of what I wrote? I guess I have to write it again, because you can't read.
> 
> It wouldn't matter what he thought about his own theory. This is an argument from authority.
> 
> The argument from authority isn't excused, simply because that authority is the author of his own theory, in this case, Darwin and the TOE. There is no such stipulation anywhere for this logical debate fallacy. If you can find it, let me know, otherwise, drop this point. It is fruitless.
Click to expand...


Yes an argument against one's own theory isn't excused.

You can write it a hundred times it does not make it true. It's your opinion. 

Fact is Darwin was troubled by the lack of transistional fossils and admitted this would be a huge problem. And it is.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has?
> 
> When?
> 
> Why wasn't it front page news?
> 
> Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?
> 
> When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what a scientific theory is? Gravity is still a theory.
> 
> Please, educate yourself about science, just a little bit, before you pretend to refute it.
Click to expand...


And your point is?

A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment.

In experimental sciences, a theory can never be "proved", it can only be "disproved" by experiment.

So your point is moot.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

pjnlsn said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your comparing irrational animal behavior to rational behavoir of man?
> 
> Do you beleive the two to be homogenous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No true scotsman. Or: Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is.
> 
> The question is more meaningful phrased this way: If God made animals and man, *why does one do this, and think like this, and the other not*, such that some call one rational and the other irrational?
> 
> However, despite the tone of some of your posts in response to others about this, an answer to the question, and others like it, is not very meaningful beyond that the answerer has a brain and a small amount of creativity (and this is assuming that the one who answered was the first one to come up with it).
> 
> That one can fit their beliefs to reality, or make it so they do not contradict, does not make them true, and, as before, requires only a modicum of intelligence. As for their truth, by the most common definition of a god, it is not possible for it's existence, or any effect of it, so long as these things remain undetailed, to be proven.
Click to expand...


Becasue animals act and react on instinct. Humans use logic and reason.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.
> 
> The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.
> 
> Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Did you read any of what I wrote? I guess I have to write it again, because you can't read.
> 
> It wouldn't matter what he thought about his own theory. This is an argument from authority.
> 
> The argument from authority isn't excused, simply because that authority is the author of his own theory, in this case, Darwin and the TOE. There is no such stipulation anywhere for this logical debate fallacy. If you can find it, let me know, otherwise, drop this point. It is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes an argument against one's own theory isn't excused.
> 
> You can write it a hundred times it does not make it true. It's your opinion.
> 
> Fact is Darwin was troubled by the lack of transistional fossils and admitted this would be a huge problem. And it is.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, being a clone of the creationist ministries with an appalling lack of a science vocabulary, you're unable to understand the nonsense you promote as an enlightened view of evolutionary science. 

The fact is, your "facts" are not facts at all but boilerplate creationist cut and paste. The creationist "transitional fosill" argument has long ago been debunked as nonsensical.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has?
> 
> When?
> 
> Why wasn't it front page news?
> 
> Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?
> 
> When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what a scientific theory is? Gravity is still a theory.
> 
> Please, educate yourself about science, just a little bit, before you pretend to refute it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point is?
> 
> A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment.
> 
> In experimental sciences, a theory can never be "proved", it can only be "disproved" by experiment.
> 
> So your point is moot.
Click to expand...

It's obvious you feel that your religious propaganda is under scrutiny and causes you to lash out. There's no need, really. You're entitled to belief in supernaturalism and magic that defines the spirit world of gods, jinn and supermagicalism, but bring those elements into a discussion of reason and rationality and your claims are taken as religious dogma.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Did you read any of what I wrote? I guess I have to write it again, because you can't read.
> 
> It wouldn't matter what he thought about his own theory. This is an argument from authority.
> 
> The argument from authority isn't excused, simply because that authority is the author of his own theory, in this case, Darwin and the TOE. There is no such stipulation anywhere for this logical debate fallacy. If you can find it, let me know, otherwise, drop this point. It is fruitless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes an argument against one's own theory isn't excused.
> 
> You can write it a hundred times it does not make it true. It's your opinion.
> 
> Fact is Darwin was troubled by the lack of transistional fossils and admitted this would be a huge problem. And it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, being a clone of the creationist ministries with an appalling lack of a science vocabulary, you're unable to understand the nonsense you promote as an enlightened view of evolutionary science.
> 
> The fact is, your "facts" are not facts at all but boilerplate creationist cut and paste. The creationist "transitional fosill" argument has long ago been debunked as nonsensical.
Click to expand...


Stop projecting and please stop pretending you know anything about me. Your constant misrepresentation of my character is annoying. But seeing that's your only weapon I can see why you use it. 

Your insults toward me does nothing for your credibility or lack thereof.

Please show me the millions of transitional fossils that have been found and while your at it show me proof that scientist created life out of nothing. 

Answer these questions without your usual cut and paste crap:

Which evolved first, male or female?

If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why cant all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?

Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what a scientific theory is? Gravity is still a theory.
> 
> Please, educate yourself about science, just a little bit, before you pretend to refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is?
> 
> A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment.
> 
> In experimental sciences, a theory can never be "proved", it can only be "disproved" by experiment.
> 
> So your point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's obvious you feel that your religious propaganda is under scrutiny and causes you to lash out. There's no need, really. You're entitled to belief in supernaturalism and magic that defines the spirit world of gods, jinn and supermagicalism, but bring those elements into a discussion of reason and rationality and your claims are taken as religious dogma.
Click to expand...


I've made no mention of religion. Ah I see another strawman is being created or perhaps another lame attempt at pettifogging the issue.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is?
> 
> A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment.
> 
> In experimental sciences, a theory can never be "proved", it can only be "disproved" by experiment.
> 
> So your point is moot.
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you feel that your religious propaganda is under scrutiny and causes you to lash out. There's no need, really. You're entitled to belief in supernaturalism and magic that defines the spirit world of gods, jinn and supermagicalism, but bring those elements into a discussion of reason and rationality and your claims are taken as religious dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've made no mention of religion. Ah I see another strawman is being created or perhaps another lame attempt at pettifogging the issue.
Click to expand...

Yet another failed attempt to conceal your religious agenda. It's a typical pattern of behavior where Christian creationists will go to extensive lengths to denigrate science in the hope that will somehow promote their gods. That is why fundies erect legions of strawman arguments proposing perceived flaws in Darwin's TOE while they can't seem to understand that the theory has been confirmed for the last century by science and experimentation.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes an argument against one's own theory isn't excused.
> 
> You can write it a hundred times it does not make it true. It's your opinion.
> 
> Fact is Darwin was troubled by the lack of transistional fossils and admitted this would be a huge problem. And it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, being a clone of the creationist ministries with an appalling lack of a science vocabulary, you're unable to understand the nonsense you promote as an enlightened view of evolutionary science.
> 
> The fact is, your "facts" are not facts at all but boilerplate creationist cut and paste. The creationist "transitional fosill" argument has long ago been debunked as nonsensical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop projecting and please stop pretending you know anything about me. Your constant misrepresentation of my character is annoying. But seeing that's your only weapon I can see why you use it.
> 
> Your insults toward me does nothing for your credibility or lack thereof.
> 
> Please show me the millions of transitional fossils that have been found and while your at it show me proof that scientist created life out of nothing.
> 
> Answer these questions without your usual cut and paste crap:
> 
> Which evolved first, male or female?
> 
> If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why cant all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?
> 
> Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?
Click to expand...

The "angry fundie" persona is not at all becoming. The answers to your cut and paste questions (obviously boilerplate cut and paste from crestionist ministries), have been addressed repeatedly in this thread. It's a common tactic of Christian creationists to ignore the data presented to them while launching into fits of conspiracy theory babble and seek ways to confuse themselves. 

The difficult component in dealing with Christian creationists is their usual lack of exposure to a science curriculum and so even basic concepts such as definitions of "scientific theory" utterly escapes them. That was evident in your posts as despite the clearly delineated progression of sentence structure defying the concept of scientific theory, you gave yet to grasp that fairly simple description.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you feel that your religious propaganda is under scrutiny and causes you to lash out. There's no need, really. You're entitled to belief in supernaturalism and magic that defines the spirit world of gods, jinn and supermagicalism, but bring those elements into a discussion of reason and rationality and your claims are taken as religious dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've made no mention of religion. Ah I see another strawman is being created or perhaps another lame attempt at pettifogging the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another failed attempt to conceal your religious agenda. It's a typical pattern of behavior where Christian creationists will go to extensive lengths to denigrate science in the hope that will somehow promote their gods. That is why fundies erect legions of strawman arguments proposing perceived flaws in Darwin's TOE while they can't seem to understand that the theory has been confirmed for the last century by science and experimentation.
Click to expand...


Why do you insist on the same dull argument?

Face it, you do not know half of what you claim. You simply cannot answer a direct challenge instead you pettifog the issue or create strawman arguments.

I've laid out the facts, you choose to ignore them.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, being a clone of the creationist ministries with an appalling lack of a science vocabulary, you're unable to understand the nonsense you promote as an enlightened view of evolutionary science.
> 
> The fact is, your "facts" are not facts at all but boilerplate creationist cut and paste. The creationist "transitional fosill" argument has long ago been debunked as nonsensical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop projecting and please stop pretending you know anything about me. Your constant misrepresentation of my character is annoying. But seeing that's your only weapon I can see why you use it.
> 
> Your insults toward me does nothing for your credibility or lack thereof.
> 
> Please show me the millions of transitional fossils that have been found and while your at it show me proof that scientist created life out of nothing.
> 
> Answer these questions without your usual cut and paste crap:
> 
> Which evolved first, male or female?
> 
> If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why cant all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?
> 
> Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "angry fundie" persona is not at all becoming. The answers to your cut and paste questions (obviously boilerplate cut and paste from crestionist ministries), have been addressed repeatedly in this thread. It's a common tactic of Christian creationists to ignore the data presented to them while launching into fits of conspiracy theory babble and seek ways to confuse themselves.
> 
> The difficult component in dealing with Christian creationists is their usual lack of exposure to a science curriculum and so even basic concepts such as definitions of "scientific theory" utterly escapes them. That was evident in your posts as despite the clearly delineated progression of sentence structure defying the concept of scientific theory, you gave yet to grasp that fairly simple description.
Click to expand...


You're the only that thinks I'm angry. Even after I assurd you I wasn't. But I suppose your constant ignoring of facts, it's to be expected. 

I figured you wouldn't be able to answer the questions. You really do not have a clue as to what you're even defending. My grandchild has more knowledge about evolutionary theory than you do. And she's a much greater debater than you . She answers direct questions with specific answers and does not rely on saying the same thing over and over and over  etc.......

I'm given the definition of "scientific theory". And to be honest the "theory of evolution" isn't really a theory it's a hypothesis.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made no mention of religion. Ah I see another strawman is being created or perhaps another lame attempt at pettifogging the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another failed attempt to conceal your religious agenda. It's a typical pattern of behavior where Christian creationists will go to extensive lengths to denigrate science in the hope that will somehow promote their gods. That is why fundies erect legions of strawman arguments proposing perceived flaws in Darwin's TOE while they can't seem to understand that the theory has been confirmed for the last century by science and experimentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on the same dull argument?
> 
> Face it, you do not know half of what you claim. You simply cannot answer a direct challenge instead you pettifog the issue or create strawman arguments.
> 
> I've laid out the facts, you choose to ignore them.
Click to expand...

The science of explaining the natural world is not at all dull. Christian creationists would prefer to dumb-down all of existence with the simple minded "the gods did it". But as we know, there are entirely natural explanations for existence that don't require the ignorance invoked by fear and superstition.

Creationist straw man arguments denigrating scientific knowledge with appeals to magic and supernaturalism are inherently constraining and only serve to further ignorance.  This is why creationists cannot respond to direct challenges to present evidence of their gods.  

The science community has addressed creationist claims to supernaturalism with rational answers that creationists have been forced to respond to with incredible claims, improbable scenarios and fantastical flights of imagination


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another failed attempt to conceal your religious agenda. It's a typical pattern of behavior where Christian creationists will go to extensive lengths to denigrate science in the hope that will somehow promote their gods. That is why fundies erect legions of strawman arguments proposing perceived flaws in Darwin's TOE while they can't seem to understand that the theory has been confirmed for the last century by science and experimentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on the same dull argument?
> 
> Face it, you do not know half of what you claim. You simply cannot answer a direct challenge instead you pettifog the issue or create strawman arguments.
> 
> I've laid out the facts, you choose to ignore them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The science of explaining the natural world is not at all dull. Christian creationists would prefer to dumb-down all of existence with the simple minded "the gods did it". But as we know, there are entirely natural explanations for existence that don't require the ignorance invoked by fear and superstition.
> 
> Creationist straw man arguments denigrating scientific knowledge with appeals to magic and supernaturalism are inherently constraining and only serve to further ignorance.  This is why creationists cannot respond to direct challenges to present evidence of their gods.
> 
> The science community has addressed creationist claims to supernaturalism with rational answers that creationists have been forced to respond to with incredible claims, improbable scenarios and fantastical flights of imagination
Click to expand...


Your entire argument is dull. You offer nothing but the same rehashed garbage.

The only one creating strawmen is you and once I called you out on it you try to turn it around as if I'm the one creating them. You can't even come up with your own argument, you have to copy mine!  If it wasn't so sad, it'd be funny.

When you reach the age of maturity come back.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
> The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease." (wikipedia)
> 
> Before you criticize my source, *wikipedia has been found to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica*.
> 
> 
> 
> And I have some swamp land in Florida I can sell you.
> Oh you poor dear. More bastardized pseudoscience from the NAS. So let me get this straight... The apple fell on Newton's head it was immediately proclaimed the law of gravity.  You and Hollie need to lay of the NAS koolaid.
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> A theory is used to describe "why" or "how" an observed phenomenon happens, not that it happens. A law is simply a description of something that does happen (ie, 2nd law of thermodynamics). Therefore, a theory and a law are categorically distinct, and one never becomes the other. Theories are often supported by laws. There could be a theory to describe why the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists, but this theory would never become a law, as this would be a categorical error.
> 
> The theory of gravity has not become a law. Newton's universal law of gravitation is a very specific mathematical description of gravity within certain parameters. It does not apply in all instances, such as where the general theory of relativity is concerned. So, it is not universally applicable, therefore, nor is it a law. It is called a law, because for what it describes, it is always true.
> 
> None of this actually matters, because it fails to address the most important point in all of this: Lonestar's use of the word "theory" is incompatabile with any use of the word "theory" in science.
> 
> The fact that you attack the NAS on your own subjective grounds is laughable. This is an ad hominem attack at its finest. The definition put forth by them is firmly operational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just keep repeating that over and over and maybe it will come true like it does in Hollie's world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have shown yourself to be a *charlatan.* *You are not worth debating*, and are *guilty *of every piece of ridicule you throw at others. For the record, I have never consulted nor was even familiar with NAS until now. But, even so, I can simply say you're rejection of its definition is an ad hominem attack. You don't address the actual definition, you just attack the organization who produced it, which is meaningless, considering this definition is not special in any way, and could be found any numbers of places, so you're attack on the NAS is moot in trying to defile this definition.
> 
> Once again, you don't address any of my actual points, because you can't. You just use emoticons and so "oh my poor dear" and laugh, just like a *charlatan* would. You only show yourself to be a *complete snob* who doesn't care what the other side is arguing. You ignore all counter-arguments, and continue on your merry way. As a *creationists*, I guess you have to, because you have no real arguments of your own. Just a bunch of vacuous attacks on evolution that demonstrate a total unwillingness to accept reality.
Click to expand...


You have just demonstrated IRONY. Your whole response was an Ad Hominem attack.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Did you read any of what I wrote? I guess I have to write it again, because you can't read.
> 
> It wouldn't matter what he thought about his own theory. This is an argument from authority.
> 
> The argument from authority isn't excused, simply because that authority is the author of his own theory, in this case, Darwin and the TOE. There is no such stipulation anywhere for this logical debate fallacy. If you can find it, let me know, otherwise, drop this point. It is fruitless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to interject here. If is fairly common for someone "making up" a theory to think about all the objections that others might have for the theory and attempt to head them off with a rebuttal ahead of time. Darwin did this numerous times in his little fictional book. One of the mistakes he made was that he spoke of the future and his belief that science would develop and discover more evidence to support his theory. At the time he wrote OOTS, they had barely "scratched the surface" of the fossil record and they knew very little about the workings of the cell. Unfortunately for Darwin, hundreds of thousands of fossils later and there still is no more better evidence in the fossil record for his theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for the small fact that, from fossils, geology, and DNA, there is a lot of evidence that has been gotten since Darwin's' time, corroborating and strengthening his theory to the point where it is almost universally accepted amongst scientists. You can sit there and deny the evidence for evolution all day, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you don't accept it because you don't want to, because it would hurt your little theory about a magic man in the sky willing things into existence.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what evidence you are looking at but genetic research has shredded Darwin's tree of life and the fossil evidence has shredded gradualism, giving rise to theories like punctuated equilibrium. You want to believe in Darwinism because it supports your anti-God agenda. It is pointless to argue with you, Hollie, Loki and Daws because it is not science that drives your hatred, it is your anti-God materialistic beliefs. Science is just a crutch you use to help you sleep at night. You are all total slaves to confirmation bias and you can't see it cause you're in it.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omigosh!!! You did not just cut and paste this nonsense from the National Academy of Science!!!  Typical materialistic propaganda. Don't be fooled by scientific revisionism. A theory becomes a law if the body of repeatable experiments supporting the theory becomes so large that the theory can be said to apply in every instance. The theory of gravity is now the law of gravity here on earth. It is not violated here EVER. However, on the astronomical level, there does appear to be observed instances where a more comprehensive theory of universal gravity is needed. The biggest joke of this foolish comparison is that we can actually set up experiments and test our predictions about the way gravity behaves. We can't set up experiments to test for natural selection because the TOE is a historical science. The events happened in the past and we can only look at evidence from a prior event and make deductions about the causes of that prior outcome. It is utterly foolish and silly when materialist attempt to compare the operational sciences with historical sciences and pretend they are somehow on the same level. Hollie, you really are so gullible that you fall for this nonsense and believe it hook, line and sinker. They got you brainwashed good.
> 
> *
> The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering researc*h, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the public good.
> 
> "It is important for us to understand the mindset of the hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) because they are the ones whose alleged expertise on global warming will justify the Democrats cap-and-tax legislation. Over the last 50 years, *the NAS hierarchy has become one of the most poisonous organizations in America, a nest of atheists who base their pseudo-scientific dogma on the arbitrary rejection of God, and not upon empirical evidence and the scientific method."*
> 
> The Atheist-Dominated National Academy of Sciences | Conservative News, Views & Books
> 
> It is really sad when organizations like this with an agenda actually gain so much influence that they are able to bastardize the legitimate sciences and force policies in public education that pukes out brainwashed zombies like Hollie and NP. They are so deep in it they don't yet realize the mind fu... dge that has been played on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
> The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease." (wikipedia)
> 
> Before you criticize my source, wikipedia has been found to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica.
> 
> Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News
> 
> 
> A theory never becomes a law. A theory is used to describe "why" or "how" an observed phenomenon happens, not that it happens. A law is simply a description of something that does happen (ie, 2nd law of thermodynamics). Therefore, a theory and a law are categorically distinct, and one never becomes the other. Theories are often supported by laws. There could be a theory to describe why the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists, but this theory would never become a law, as this would be a categorical error.
> 
> The theory of gravity has not become a law. Newton's universal law of gravitation is a very specific mathematical description of gravity within certain parameters. It does not apply in all instances, such as where the general theory of relativity is concerned. So, it is not universally applicable, therefore, nor is it a law. It is called a law, because for what it describes, it is always true.
> 
> None of this actually matters, because it fails to address the most important point in all of this: Lonestar's use of the word "theory" is incompatabile with any use of the word "theory" in science.
> 
> The fact that you attack the NAS on your own subjective grounds is laughable. This is an ad hominem attack at its finest. The definition put forth by them is firmly operational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's certainly predictable that a science loathing Christian creationist would react in panic to an organization that promotes science and learning. The greatest threat to fundies is knowledge and enlightenment. Promoting knowledge absolutely terrifies creationists because their need to further fear and ignorance is directly challenged.
> 
> This is why creationists react so negatively to science and understanding and why they are forced to attack science in the defense of their gods. In every instance, creationist supernaturalism is shown to be a litany of fallacious reasoning, describing impossible mechanics, tossing away and dismissing physical evidence, making meaningless comparisons, until finally when reason pushes them into a corner where their unsupported and unsupportable claims are again, no linger defendable, they escape into the "God did it" safety net.
> 
> We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present. So it is left for creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods.  That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.
> 
> Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.
> That dynamic is displayed prominently by the screaming, hysterical fundies who see their gods being made unusable and unnecessary and so react with tirades, posting of gargantuan fonts and juvenile tirades.
Click to expand...


*So why don't you share? Where did you go to college? If you actually had any formal education, you would answer the question. To remain silent is to give an answer. *


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Did you read any of what I wrote? I guess I have to write it again, because you can't read.
> 
> It wouldn't matter what he thought about his own theory. This is an argument from authority.
> 
> The argument from authority isn't excused, simply because that authority is the author of his own theory, in this case, Darwin and the TOE. There is no such stipulation anywhere for this logical debate fallacy. If you can find it, let me know, otherwise, drop this point. It is fruitless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes an argument against one's own theory isn't excused.
> 
> You can write it a hundred times it does not make it true. It's your opinion.
> 
> Fact is Darwin was troubled by the lack of transistional fossils and admitted this would be a huge problem. And it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, being a clone of the creationist ministries with an appalling lack of a science vocabulary, you're unable to understand the nonsense you promote as an enlightened view of evolutionary science.
> 
> The fact is, your "facts" are not facts at all but boilerplate creationist cut and paste. The creationist "transitional fosill" argument has long ago been debunked as nonsensical.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*


 and it is obvious from your silence on the topic, *you never went to college. *


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another failed attempt to conceal your religious agenda. It's a typical pattern of behavior where Christian creationists will go to extensive lengths to denigrate science in the hope that will somehow promote their gods. That is why fundies erect legions of strawman arguments proposing perceived flaws in Darwin's TOE while they can't seem to understand that the theory has been confirmed for the last century by science and experimentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on the same dull argument?
> 
> Face it, you do not know half of what you claim. You simply cannot answer a direct challenge instead you pettifog the issue or create strawman arguments.
> 
> I've laid out the facts, you choose to ignore them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The science of explaining the natural world is not at all dull. Christian creationists would prefer to dumb-down all of existence with the simple minded "the gods did it". But as we know, there are entirely natural explanations for existence that don't require the ignorance invoked by fear and superstition.
> 
> Creationist straw man arguments denigrating scientific knowledge with appeals to magic and supernaturalism are inherently constraining and only serve to further ignorance.  This is why creationists cannot respond to direct challenges to present evidence of their gods.
> 
> The science community has addressed creationist claims to supernaturalism with rational answers that creationists have been forced to respond to with incredible claims, improbable scenarios and fantastical flights of imagination
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*




Hollie believes that all of science started with the printing of the OOTS. She has chosen to ignore the other 4000 years of scientific inquiry done by people who believed in God. Her pathetic ignorance would be funny if it wasn't so sad. She is a historical revisionist in the worst sense of the word. Her days are spent vomiting out her misplaced hate for her evangelical, gay-hating, parents. She wants to believe I'm a fundie like mom and dad so she can unload on me like she wishes she could do to her parents. What she continues to ignore is that I am not a fundamentalist Christian in the stereotypical sense. Our church welcomes gay people, just like we welcome couples that are living together. We condemn the sin, not the person, and our congregation loves on them while continuing to gently espouse God's Truth for an abundant life.


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.
> 
> This common quote mine is irrelevant, *even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did.* This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.
> 
> But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. *To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part.* It's a mischaracterization of why  he was saying what he did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Red Herring. The emboldened sections have little to do with the point I am trying to make.  I could have omitted both emboldened sentences, and it would not detract from my argument here.
Click to expand...

speaking of EMBOLDING, ALTERING OR FUCKING AROUND OF ANY KIND  WITH A POST EVEN IN A REPLY IS GROUNDS TO GET TOSSED OFF THIS BOARD....


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on the same dull argument?
> 
> Face it, you do not know half of what you claim. You simply cannot answer a direct challenge instead you pettifog the issue or create strawman arguments.
> 
> I've laid out the facts, you choose to ignore them.
> 
> 
> 
> The science of explaining the natural world is not at all dull. Christian creationists would prefer to dumb-down all of existence with the simple minded "the gods did it". But as we know, there are entirely natural explanations for existence that don't require the ignorance invoked by fear and superstition.
> 
> Creationist straw man arguments denigrating scientific knowledge with appeals to magic and supernaturalism are inherently constraining and only serve to further ignorance.  This is why creationists cannot respond to direct challenges to present evidence of their gods.
> 
> The science community has addressed creationist claims to supernaturalism with rational answers that creationists have been forced to respond to with incredible claims, improbable scenarios and fantastical flights of imagination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie believes that all of science started with the printing of the OOTS. She has chosen to ignore the other 4000 years of scientific inquiry done by people who believed in God. Her pathetic ignorance would be funny if it wasn't so sad. She is a historical revisionist in the worst sense of the word. Her days are spent vomiting out her misplaced hate for her evangelical, gay-hating, parents. She wants to believe I'm a fundie like mom and dad so she can unload on me like she wishes she could do to her parents. What she continues to ignore is that I am not a fundamentalist Christian in the stereotypical sense. Our church welcomes gay people, just like we welcome couples that are living together. We condemn the sin, not the person, and our congregation loves on them while continuing to gently espouse God's Truth for an abundant life.
Click to expand...


In your lurid fantasies of begging for attention, you managed to get everything wrong, except for the part of you being a stereotypical fundie. You're completely stereotypical.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I have some swamp land in Florida I can sell you.
> Oh you poor dear. More bastardized pseudoscience from the NAS. So let me get this straight... The apple fell on Newton's head it was immediately proclaimed the law of gravity.  You and Hollie need to lay of the NAS koolaid.
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep repeating that over and over and maybe it will come true like it does in Hollie's world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have shown yourself to be a *charlatan.* *You are not worth debating*, and are *guilty *of every piece of ridicule you throw at others. For the record, I have never consulted nor was even familiar with NAS until now. But, even so, I can simply say you're rejection of its definition is an ad hominem attack. You don't address the actual definition, you just attack the organization who produced it, which is meaningless, considering this definition is not special in any way, and could be found any numbers of places, so you're attack on the NAS is moot in trying to defile this definition.
> 
> Once again, you don't address any of my actual points, because you can't. You just use emoticons and so "oh my poor dear" and laugh, just like a *charlatan* would. You only show yourself to be a *complete snob* who doesn't care what the other side is arguing. You ignore all counter-arguments, and continue on your merry way. As a *creationists*, I guess you have to, because you have no real arguments of your own. Just a bunch of vacuous attacks on evolution that demonstrate a total unwillingness to accept reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have just demonstrated IRONY. Your whole response was an Ad Hominem attack.
Click to expand...

There's no irony regarding your inability to address topics that you can't respond to without cutting and pasting from creationist ministries.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your comparing irrational animal behavior to rational behavoir of man?
> 
> Do you beleive the two to be homogenous?
Click to expand...

 since man is an animal (mammal) Definition of MAMMAL
: any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (as placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less covered with hair, and include humans .
eating  shit by "lower" animals is not an  irrational act  it is caused by decease or extreme hunger. as they appear not to posses the power of reason...
 humans are the only creatures that can be irrational.
fun fact  http://www.thedailysheeple.com/there-is-a-staggering-amount-of-feces-in-our-food_102012


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans aren't animals. They are created in the image of God.
Click to expand...

 bullshit !


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your comparing irrational animal behavior to rational behavoir of man?
> 
> Do you beleive the two to be homogenous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since man is an animal (mammal) Definition of MAMMAL
> : any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (as placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less covered with hair, and include humans .
> eating  shit by "lower" animals is not an  irrational act  it is caused by decease or extreme hunger. as they appear not to posses the power of reason...
> humans are the only creatures that can be irrational.
> fun fact  http://www.thedailysheeple.com/there-is-a-staggering-amount-of-feces-in-our-food_102012
Click to expand...


Well if you think eating shit is rational behavoir. Then don't let me stop you.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, if you believe it happened then it must have happened. Don't let a little think like providing proof stop you. Oh and pay no mind to the nice gentlemen in the white coats approaching your front door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is proof of evolution.
> 
> There is no proof of your gods.
> 
> Don't let a little thing like credibility crowd out your ignorance and superstitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is perceived proof of evolution.
> 
> There is proof, but in order to witness it there are things you first must do. Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior would be one of the first steps.
Click to expand...

major bullshit ! real evidence is is self evident, it has dimension, weight and is measurable, quantifiable.it needs no accepting of a god to see.  
what you laughingly call proof is subjective, illusory ( based on or producing illusion : deceptive) and is based entirely on a total misperceived POV. 


"No, there is perceived proof of evolution." -lonestar 
wrong! there is misperceived  proof of god....


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your comparing irrational animal behavior to rational behavoir of man?
> 
> Do you beleive the two to be homogenous?
> 
> 
> 
> since man is an animal (mammal) Definition of MAMMAL
> : any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (as placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less covered with hair, and include humans .
> eating  shit by "lower" animals is not an  irrational act  it is caused by decease or extreme hunger. as they appear not to posses the power of reason...
> humans are the only creatures that can be irrational.
> fun fact  There Is A Staggering Amount Of Feces In Our Food
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you think eating shit is rational behavoir. Then don't let me stop you.
Click to expand...

as always missed  the point completely....
hint: making false comparisons!


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is proof of evolution.
> 
> There is no proof of your gods.
> 
> Don't let a little thing like credibility crowd out your ignorance and superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is perceived proof of evolution.
> 
> There is proof, but in order to witness it there are things you first must do. Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior would be one of the first steps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> major bullshit ! real evidence is is self evident, it has dimension, weight and is measurable, quantifiable.it needs no accepting of a god to see.
> what you laughingly call proof is subjective, illusory ( based on or producing illusion : deceptive) and is based entirely on a total misperceived POV.
> 
> 
> "No, there is perceived proof of evolution." -lonestar
> wrong! there is misperceived  proof of god....
Click to expand...


There is no "real" evidence.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The questions have not been answered.
> 
> Face the fact, _you_ cannot answer any of these questions. You can only cut and paste from sources you believe has the answer.
> 
> Inadequacy is your strong suit. not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> The questions have been answered.
> 
> Your inadequacy toward making a case for your gods is not my problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My God does not need me to make a case for Him. He as done that himself. You simply choose to ignore it.
Click to expand...

nothing to ignore...you have no proof of god..
just a belief ....and that proves nothing but belief


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since man is an animal (mammal) Definition of MAMMAL
> : any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (as placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less covered with hair, and include humans .
> eating  shit by "lower" animals is not an  irrational act  it is caused by decease or extreme hunger. as they appear not to posses the power of reason...
> humans are the only creatures that can be irrational.
> fun fact  There Is A Staggering Amount Of Feces In Our Food
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you think eating shit is rational behavoir. Then don't let me stop you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as always missed  the point completely....
> hint: making false comparisons!
Click to expand...


I missed nothing. You seem to place humans on the same level as animals. Which is a false comparison you made.  

Eating shit is irrational behavior in my opinion. Now you're free to have a differing opinion.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is perceived proof of evolution.
> 
> There is proof, but in order to witness it there are things you first must do. Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior would be one of the first steps.
> 
> 
> 
> major bullshit ! real evidence is is self evident, it has dimension, weight and is measurable, quantifiable.it needs no accepting of a god to see.
> what you laughingly call proof is subjective, illusory ( based on or producing illusion : deceptive) and is based entirely on a total misperceived POV.
> 
> 
> "No, there is perceived proof of evolution." -lonestar
> wrong! there is misperceived  proof of god....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "real" evidence.
Click to expand...

 subjective!


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you think eating shit is rational behavoir. Then don't let me stop you.
> 
> 
> 
> as always missed  the point completely....
> hint: making false comparisons!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I missed nothing. You seem to place humans on the same level as animals. Which is a false comparison you made.
> 
> Eating shit is irrational behavior in my opinion. Now you're free to have a differing opinion.
Click to expand...

only in humans ..so my answer stands.


now I'm free! thanks massa!  btw fuck you .


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as always missed  the point completely....
> hint: making false comparisons!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I missed nothing. You seem to place humans on the same level as animals. Which is a false comparison you made.
> 
> Eating shit is irrational behavior in my opinion. Now you're free to have a differing opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in humans ..so my answer stands.
> 
> 
> now I'm free! thanks massa!  btw fuck you .
Click to expand...


Keep your fantasies to yourself.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red Herring. The emboldened sections have little to do with the point I am trying to make.  I could have omitted both emboldened sentences, and it would not detract from my argument here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> speaking of EMBOLDING, ALTERING OR FUCKING AROUND OF ANY KIND  WITH A POST EVEN IN A REPLY IS GROUNDS TO GET TOSSED OFF THIS BOARD....
Click to expand...


So *Daws is the little weasel tattletale*. Nice try Daws. I have already verified with the mods that bolding a portion of someone's response in order to clarify the points you are addressing is perfectly fine. 

So you can't win on the merits of your arguments so you resort to shady tactics to eliminate the people that call you out on your foolishness? I see right through you. Thanks for outing yourself.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as always missed  the point completely....
> hint: making false comparisons!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I missed nothing. You seem to place humans on the same level as animals. Which is a false comparison you made.
> 
> Eating shit is irrational behavior in my opinion. Now you're free to have a differing opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in humans ..so my answer stands.
> 
> 
> now I'm free! thanks massa!  btw fuck you .
Click to expand...


You're such a class act, Daws. I think I'll let the mods know about your little racial slur right there which is an obvious stab at African Americans as slaves.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is perceived proof of evolution.
> 
> There is proof, but in order to witness it there are things you first must do. Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior would be one of the first steps.
> 
> 
> 
> major bullshit ! real evidence is is self evident, it has dimension, weight and is measurable, quantifiable.it needs no accepting of a god to see.
> what you laughingly call proof is subjective, illusory ( based on or producing illusion : deceptive) and is based entirely on a total misperceived POV.
> 
> 
> "No, there is perceived proof of evolution." -lonestar
> wrong! there is misperceived  proof of god....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "real" evidence.
Click to expand...


Of course there is real evidence. Your denial of the evidence is a failing on your part.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The science of explaining the natural world is not at all dull. Christian creationists would prefer to dumb-down all of existence with the simple minded "the gods did it". But as we know, there are entirely natural explanations for existence that don't require the ignorance invoked by fear and superstition.
> 
> Creationist straw man arguments denigrating scientific knowledge with appeals to magic and supernaturalism are inherently constraining and only serve to further ignorance.  This is why creationists cannot respond to direct challenges to present evidence of their gods.
> 
> The science community has addressed creationist claims to supernaturalism with rational answers that creationists have been forced to respond to with incredible claims, improbable scenarios and fantastical flights of imagination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You just keep repeating the slogans over and over*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie believes that all of science started with the printing of the OOTS. She has chosen to ignore the other 4000 years of scientific inquiry done by people who believed in God. Her pathetic ignorance would be funny if it wasn't so sad. She is a historical revisionist in the worst sense of the word. Her days are spent vomiting out her misplaced hate for her evangelical, gay-hating, parents. She wants to believe I'm a fundie like mom and dad so she can unload on me like she wishes she could do to her parents. What she continues to ignore is that I am not a fundamentalist Christian in the stereotypical sense. Our church welcomes gay people, just like we welcome couples that are living together. We condemn the sin, not the person, and our congregation loves on them while continuing to gently espouse God's Truth for an abundant life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your lurid fantasies of begging for attention, you managed to get everything wrong, except for the part of you being a stereotypical fundie. You're completely stereotypical.
Click to expand...


Well Omigosh and bless my soul!!! I think we finally might be making some progress here. There it is folks, in black and white!!! Hollie says that I got everything wrong which includes my assertion that her parents were gay-hating fundies. I always claimed that if she stopped cut and pasting long enough to deny my claims about her were true, I would stop. Being true to my word, I will not mention her parents ever again. Now if we could just get her to fess up about here lack of education and stop her from questioning everyone else's, I could quit with the ginormous fonts!!!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie believes that all of science started with the printing of the OOTS. She has chosen to ignore the other 4000 years of scientific inquiry done by people who believed in God. Her pathetic ignorance would be funny if it wasn't so sad. She is a historical revisionist in the worst sense of the word. Her days are spent vomiting out her misplaced hate for her evangelical, gay-hating, parents. She wants to believe I'm a fundie like mom and dad so she can unload on me like she wishes she could do to her parents. What she continues to ignore is that I am not a fundamentalist Christian in the stereotypical sense. Our church welcomes gay people, just like we welcome couples that are living together. We condemn the sin, not the person, and our congregation loves on them while continuing to gently espouse God's Truth for an abundant life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your lurid fantasies of begging for attention, you managed to get everything wrong, except for the part of you being a stereotypical fundie. You're completely stereotypical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Omigosh and bless my soul!!! I think we finally might be making some progress here. There it is folks, in black and white!!! Hollie says that I got everything wrong which includes my assertion that her parents were gay-hating fundies. I always claimed that if she stopped cut and pasting long enough to deny my claims about her were true, I would stop. Being true to my word, I will not mention her parents ever again. Now if we could just get her to fess up about here lack of education and stop her from questioning everyone else's, I could quit with the ginormous fonts!!!
Click to expand...

What a creepy stalker.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> major bullshit ! real evidence is is self evident, it has dimension, weight and is measurable, quantifiable.it needs no accepting of a god to see.
> what you laughingly call proof is subjective, illusory ( based on or producing illusion : deceptive) and is based entirely on a total misperceived POV.
> 
> 
> "No, there is perceived proof of evolution." -lonestar
> wrong! there is misperceived  proof of god....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "real" evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there is real evidence. Your denial of the evidence is a failing on your part.
Click to expand...


Oh that's right. You're the only one allowed to deny evidence.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The questions have been answered.
> 
> Your inadequacy toward making a case for your gods is not my problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My God does not need me to make a case for Him. He as done that himself. You simply choose to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing to ignore...you have no proof of god..
> just a belief ....and that proves nothing but belief
Click to expand...


I'm not the one needing proof of God.  I know for a fact He exists.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "real" evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is real evidence. Your denial of the evidence is a failing on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh that's right. You're the only one allowed to deny evidence.
Click to expand...


You make absolutely no sense. I embrace the fact of evolution because evidence supports the theory. Denial of that reality is, almost exclusively, a fundie Christian syndrome. There does not exist outside of christianity such a frantic, anti- science and anti-knowledge agenda. It is exclusively fundie Christians who drive the anti-science creationist ministries.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is real evidence. Your denial of the evidence is a failing on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that's right. You're the only one allowed to deny evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make absolutely no sense. I embrace the fact of evolution because evidence supports the theory. Denial of that reality is, almost exclusively, a fundie Christian syndrome. There does not exist outside of christianity such a frantic, anti- science and anti-knowledge agenda. It is exclusively fundie Christians who drive the anti-science creationist ministries.
Click to expand...


Evolution is not a science. Your first mistake is in thinking it is. "Science" means "to study". How can you study something that doesn't exist?

Evolution CANNOT be repeated, CANNOT be tested, CANNOT be observed, Cannot be studied...it is NOT science.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet none of this hogwash can be proven.
> 
> The fossil gap alone discredits evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.
> 
> The goofy comment about the fosill gap discrediting evolution is nothing more than the nonsense spewed by the Christian creationist ministries.
> 
> That's why the science world has dismissed the Christian creationist ministries as quacks and why the courts have rejected such quacks from participation in the public schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
> 
> 
> The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> 
> Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
> 
> Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
> 
> Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> 
> Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
> 
> 
> Class dismissed.
Click to expand...

wow a whole list of false comparisons.
I'll debunk just three...

Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
bullshit!

Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways. 

First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex. 

Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing. 

Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human. 

Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300. 

Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298. 

But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents. 

Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small. 

So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest. 

Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics


Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
bullshit! misnomer.
the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
2.   paleontology and  archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences  and  the've only explored about 1/10  or the areas the contain fossils.

Fact: Evolution has never been observed
more bullshit! 

Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.   

Observed Natural Selection
What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read. 

The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.) 

  Ring Species & Evolution
There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are. 

Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species. 

Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species. 

 Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind. 

Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another. 

The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale. 

To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis  that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line. 

The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc. 



Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I missed nothing. You seem to place humans on the same level as animals. Which is a false comparison you made.
> 
> Eating shit is irrational behavior in my opinion. Now you're free to have a differing opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> only in humans ..so my answer stands.
> 
> 
> now I'm free! thanks massa!  btw fuck you .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're such a class act, Daws. I think I'll let the mods know about your little racial slur right there which is an obvious stab at African Americans as slaves.
Click to expand...

and as ways you'd be wrong I made no slur at  you.   or African Americans  lying about it to the mods is chicken shit .
It's obvious who I was replying too..
you whinny pussy


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.
> 
> The goofy comment about the fosill gap discrediting evolution is nothing more than the nonsense spewed by the Christian creationist ministries.
> 
> That's why the science world has dismissed the Christian creationist ministries as quacks and why the courts have rejected such quacks from participation in the public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
> 
> 
> The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> 
> Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
> 
> Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
> 
> Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> 
> Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
> 
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow a whole list of false comparisons.
> I'll debunk just three...
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> bullshit!
> 
> Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.
> 
> First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.
> 
> Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.
> 
> Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.
> 
> Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.
> 
> Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.
> 
> But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.
> 
> Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.
> 
> So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> 
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> bullshit! misnomer.
> the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
> because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
> 2.   paleontology and  archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences  and  the've only explored about 1/10  or the areas the contain fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed
> more bullshit!
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.
> 
> Observed Natural Selection
> What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.
> 
> The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)
> 
> Ring Species & Evolution
> There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.
> 
> Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.
> 
> Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.
> 
> Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
> As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.
> 
> Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.
> 
> The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.
> 
> To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis  that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.
> 
> The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
Click to expand...


More cut and paste.


If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution.  For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth.  Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival.  The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual.  If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years?  Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.  

Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today?  Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food?  This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest.  What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense.  Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your comparing irrational animal behavior to rational behavoir of man?
> 
> Do you beleive the two to be homogenous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No true scotsman. Or: Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is.
> 
> The question is more meaningful phrased this way: If God made animals and man, *why does one do this, and think like this, and the other not*, such that some call one rational and the other irrational?
> 
> However, despite the tone of some of your posts in response to others about this, an answer to the question, and others like it, is not very meaningful beyond that the answerer has a brain and a small amount of creativity (and this is assuming that the one who answered was the first one to come up with it).
> 
> That one can fit their beliefs to reality, or make it so they do not contradict, does not make them true, and, as before, requires only a modicum of intelligence. As for their truth, by the most common definition of a god, it is not possible for it's existence, or any effect of it, so long as these things remain undetailed, to be proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Becasue animals act and react on instinct. Humans use logic and reason.
Click to expand...

wrong again! humans "somtimes"use logic and reason.
what's really laughable is your (all of you fundies argument) is based not on reason or logic but on a primal fear...Ie. the unknown..


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I missed nothing. You seem to place humans on the same level as animals. Which is a false comparison you made.
> 
> Eating shit is irrational behavior in my opinion. Now you're free to have a differing opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> only in humans ..so my answer stands.
> 
> 
> now I'm free! thanks massa!  btw fuck you .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep your fantasies to yourself.
Click to expand...

one could only whis you would!


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you think eating shit is rational behavoir. Then don't let me stop you.
> 
> 
> 
> as always missed  the point completely....
> hint: making false comparisons!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I missed nothing. You seem to place humans on the same level as animals. Which is a false comparison you made.
> 
> Eating shit is irrational behavior in my opinion. Now you're free to have a differing opinion.
Click to expand...

WE are  animals....


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red Herring. The emboldened sections have little to do with the point I am trying to make.  I could have omitted both emboldened sentences, and it would not detract from my argument here.
> 
> 
> 
> speaking of EMBOLDING, ALTERING OR FUCKING AROUND OF ANY KIND  WITH A POST EVEN IN A REPLY IS GROUNDS TO GET TOSSED OFF THIS BOARD....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So *Daws is the little weasel tattletale*. Nice try Daws. I have already verified with the mods that bolding a portion of someone's response in order to clarify the points you are addressing is perfectly fine.
> 
> So you can't win on the merits of your arguments so you resort to shady tactics to eliminate the people that call you out on your foolishness? I see right through you. Thanks for outing yourself.
Click to expand...

nothing to out .. so your temper tantrum is wasted.
do enjoy the hubris though and the ignorance 
it seems you fail to understand  that these arguments are not win or lose.
thinking that they are is an epic fail....


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No true scotsman. Or: Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is.
> 
> The question is more meaningful phrased this way: If God made animals and man, *why does one do this, and think like this, and the other not*, such that some call one rational and the other irrational?
> 
> However, despite the tone of some of your posts in response to others about this, an answer to the question, and others like it, is not very meaningful beyond that the answerer has a brain and a small amount of creativity (and this is assuming that the one who answered was the first one to come up with it).
> 
> That one can fit their beliefs to reality, or make it so they do not contradict, does not make them true, and, as before, requires only a modicum of intelligence. As for their truth, by the most common definition of a god, it is not possible for it's existence, or any effect of it, so long as these things remain undetailed, to be proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Becasue animals act and react on instinct. Humans use logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong again! humans "somtimes"use logic and reason.
> what's really laughable is your (all of you fundies argument) is based not on reason or logic but on a primal fear...Ie. the unknown..
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "real" evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is real evidence. Your denial of the evidence is a failing on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh that's right. You're the only one allowed to deny evidence.
Click to expand...

yeah that is right.. as you've presented no evidence no extrapolation of evidence no, fact  no extrapolation of fact.
what you have presented is subjective, erroneous, specious, fantasy. 

so once you get those little inconveniences out of the way and present some real evidence
then we can then deny it...


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My God does not need me to make a case for Him. He as done that himself. You simply choose to ignore it.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing to ignore...you have no proof of god..
> just a belief ....and that proves nothing but belief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one needing proof of God.  I know for a fact He exists.
Click to expand...

no, you don't 
all you know is you believe he exists.

the two are not the same


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
> 
> 
> The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> 
> Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
> 
> Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
> 
> Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> 
> Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
> 
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> wow a whole list of false comparisons.
> I'll debunk just three...
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> bullshit!
> 
> Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.
> 
> First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.
> 
> Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.
> 
> Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.
> 
> Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.
> 
> Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.
> 
> But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.
> 
> Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.
> 
> So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> 
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> bullshit! misnomer.
> the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
> because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
> 2.   paleontology and  archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences  and  the've only explored about 1/10  or the areas the contain fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed
> more bullshit!
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.
> 
> Observed Natural Selection
> What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.
> 
> The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)
> 
> Ring Species & Evolution
> There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.
> 
> Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.
> 
> Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.
> 
> Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
> As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.
> 
> Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.
> 
> The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.
> 
> To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis  that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.
> 
> The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution.  For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth.  Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival.  The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual.  If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years?  Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.
> 
> Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today?  Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food?  This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest.  What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense.  Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.
Click to expand...

not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....

must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Becasue animals act and react on instinct. Humans use logic and reason.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again! humans "somtimes"use logic and reason.
> what's really laughable is your (all of you fundies argument) is based not on reason or logic but on a primal fear...Ie. the unknown..
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

thanks again for proving statement true...


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is real evidence. Your denial of the evidence is a failing on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that's right. You're the only one allowed to deny evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah that is right.. as you've presented no evidence no extrapolation of evidence no, fact  no extrapolation of fact.
> what you have presented is subjective, erroneous, specious, fantasy.
> 
> so once you get those little inconveniences out of the way and present some real evidence
> then we can then deny it...
Click to expand...


I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.

Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils. 

Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow a whole list of false comparisons.
> I'll debunk just three...
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> bullshit!
> 
> Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.
> 
> First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.
> 
> Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.
> 
> Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.
> 
> Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.
> 
> Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.
> 
> But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.
> 
> Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.
> 
> So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> 
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> bullshit! misnomer.
> the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
> because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
> 2.   paleontology and  archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences  and  the've only explored about 1/10  or the areas the contain fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed
> more bullshit!
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.
> 
> Observed Natural Selection
> What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.
> 
> The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)
> 
> Ring Species & Evolution
> There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.
> 
> Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.
> 
> Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.
> 
> Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
> As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.
> 
> Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.
> 
> The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.
> 
> To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis  that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.
> 
> The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution.  For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth.  Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival.  The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual.  If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years?  Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.
> 
> Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today?  Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food?  This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest.  What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense.  Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....
> 
> must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...
Click to expand...


Yes and it still puts the brakes on your natural selection argument.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again! humans "somtimes"use logic and reason.
> what's really laughable is your (all of you fundies argument) is based not on reason or logic but on a primal fear...Ie. the unknown..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks again for proving statement true...
Click to expand...


Nothing you have stated thus for has been proven to be true.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow a whole list of false comparisons.
> I'll debunk just three...
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> bullshit!
> 
> Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.
> 
> First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.
> 
> Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.
> 
> Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.
> 
> Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.
> 
> Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.
> 
> But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.
> 
> Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.
> 
> So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> 
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> bullshit! misnomer.
> the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
> because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
> 2.   paleontology and  archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences  and  the've only explored about 1/10  or the areas the contain fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed
> more bullshit!
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.
> 
> Observed Natural Selection
> What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.
> 
> The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)
> 
> Ring Species & Evolution
> There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.
> 
> Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.
> 
> Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.
> 
> Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
> As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.
> 
> Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.
> 
> The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.
> 
> To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis  that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.
> 
> The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution.  For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth.  Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival.  The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual.  If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years?  Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.
> 
> Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today?  Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food?  This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest.  What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense.  Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....
> 
> must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...
Click to expand...


Yes. The boilerplate, fundie "giraffe" argument. 

It's as though fundies have all graduated from the Disco-tute' school of _The Stupid_ and there is not a reasonable argument among the lot. They simply cut and paste the same assinine creationist nonsense.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution.  For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth.  Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival.  The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual.  If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years?  Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.
> 
> Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today?  Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food?  This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest.  What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense.  Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....
> 
> must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and it still puts the brakes on your natural selection argument.
Click to expand...


Actually, it doesn't. The same nonsensical "giraffe" cut and paste was thoroughly debunked previously. Fundie Christians cut and paste from the same creationist ministries so we see a pattern of these same laughable arguments going around and around. 

Among thinking humans and among those with a background in science, it really is an embarrassment for fundies to cut and paste the same, tired arguments. 

It's as though ignorance and simple mindedness is thought to be a virtue among the knowledge-crippled. The same poster who dumped the earlier 'giraffe" cut and paste in the thread is the most prolific liar and "quote-miner" among the very few YEC'ers / Flat-Earthers / religiously crippled to not be embarrassed to post such tripe... until you arrived.


----------



## AlexWA

It is very difficult to ignore the evolutionary progress of life on Earth. Nobody can fully explain how the universe began, but one thing is certain, the Earth is billions of years old and we didn't just appear out of nowhere.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that's right. You're the only one allowed to deny evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah that is right.. as you've presented no evidence no extrapolation of evidence no, fact  no extrapolation of fact.
> what you have presented is subjective, erroneous, specious, fantasy.
> 
> so once you get those little inconveniences out of the way and present some real evidence
> then we can then deny it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.
> 
> Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.
> 
> Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.
Click to expand...

actually no you can't
the burden of proof issue was settled long ago. 
evolution is not a claim it's fact.
there are no shoulds in science  shit either happens or it does not either there's evidence or there's not .
in the case of transitional  fossils there are just as many as needed to prove evolution correct.
more are being found all the time .

but you  keep on rationalizing !


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution.  For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth.  Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival.  The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual.  If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years?  Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.
> 
> Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today?  Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food?  This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest.  What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense.  Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....
> 
> must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and it still puts the brakes on your natural selection argument.
Click to expand...

false assumption... if it did why is it nowere to be found other than the places you expect to find fantasy?


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks again for proving statement true...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing you have stated thus for has been proven to be true.
Click to expand...

this  was one of  those times where keeping your mouth shut and letting people think your an ignorant asshole  might have been appropriate. 
oops! too late.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My God does not need me to make a case for Him. He as done that himself. You simply choose to ignore it.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing to ignore...you have no proof of god..
> just a belief ....and that proves nothing but belief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one needing proof of God.  I know for a fact He exists.
Click to expand...


You're confusing your gods with the Easter Bunny.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that's right. You're the only one allowed to deny evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah that is right.. as you've presented no evidence no extrapolation of evidence no, fact  no extrapolation of fact.
> what you have presented is subjective, erroneous, specious, fantasy.
> 
> so once you get those little inconveniences out of the way and present some real evidence
> then we can then deny it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.
> 
> Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.
> 
> Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.
Click to expand...

If, as the Flat-Earthers claim, there is no fosill record, how do the Flat-Earthers account for the fosill record that actually does exist?.

Is the existing fosill record a part of the vast, global conspiracy that Flat-Earthers are convinced exists and which goals are to further evilution?

Or, is it a reality that the Flat-Earthers will choose to believe in fantasies, vast conspiracies and will live in denial of the relevant truths?


----------



## pjnlsn

ima said:


> If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?





Lonestar_logic said:


> So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.





pjnlsn said:


> No true scotsman. Or: Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is.
> 
> The question is more meaningful phrased this way: If God made animals and man, why does one do this, and think like this, and the other not, such that some call one rational and the other irrational?
> 
> However, despite the tone of some of your posts in response to others about this, an answer to the question, and others like it, is not very meaningful beyond that the answerer has a brain and a small amount of creativity (and this is assuming that the one who answered was the first one to come up with it).
> 
> That one can fit their beliefs to reality, or make it so they do not contradict, does not make them true, and, as before, requires only a modicum of intelligence. As for their truth, by the most common definition of a god, it is not possible for it's existence, or any effect of it, so long as these things remain undetailed, to be proven.





Lonestar_logic said:


> Becasue animals act and react on instinct. Humans use logic and reason.



An argument which fits the form referred to as "No true scotsman" is invalid, or inconsequential. Or, in other words, calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. And, similarly, splitting two things into categories, and naming them, is not an explanation of, say, some more fundamental order, or, perhaps, intent.

In any case....



pjnlsn said:


> ...an answer to the question, and others like it, is not very meaningful beyond that the answerer has a brain and a small amount of creativity (and this is assuming that the one who answered was the first one to come up with it).
> 
> That one can fit their beliefs to reality, or make it so they do not contradict, does not make them true, and, as before, requires only a modicum of intelligence. As for their truth, by the most common definition of a god, it is not possible for it's existence, or any effect of it, so long as these things remain undetailed, to be proven.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in humans ..so my answer stands.
> 
> 
> now I'm free! thanks massa!  btw fuck you .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a class act, Daws. I think I'll let the mods know about your little racial slur right there which is an obvious stab at African Americans as slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and as ways you'd be wrong I made no slur at  you.   or African Americans  lying about it to the mods is chicken shit .
> It's obvious who I was replying too..
> you whinny pussy
Click to expand...


Oh contrare! You were the one whining about me bolding comments in someone's post and going on about how it would get you kicked off the boards. Obviously it was you that ratted me out to the moderators. So who's the real little kitty??? That's the thing about the internet, any one can go back and look at your post and realize you are projecting again.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow a whole list of false comparisons.
> I'll debunk just three...
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> bullshit!
> 
> Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.
> 
> First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.
> 
> Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.
> 
> Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.
> 
> Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.
> 
> Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.
> 
> But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.
> 
> Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.
> 
> So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> 
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> bullshit! misnomer.
> the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
> because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
> 2.   paleontology and  archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences  and  the've only explored about 1/10  or the areas the contain fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed
> more bullshit!
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.
> 
> Observed Natural Selection
> What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.
> 
> The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)
> 
> Ring Species & Evolution
> There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.
> 
> Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.
> 
> Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.
> 
> Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
> As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.
> 
> Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.
> 
> The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.
> 
> To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis  that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.
> 
> The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution.  For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth.  Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival.  The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual.  If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years?  Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.
> 
> Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today?  Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food?  This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest.  What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense.  Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....
> 
> must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...
Click to expand...


Debunked? That is hilarious. You think Loki proved anything in our exchange?? Here is what was debunked, that evolutionists have any agreed upon definition of fitness. In fact, they are so lost at what fitness really means that they no longer even lay claim to survival of the fittest, having abandoned once again another original tenet of Darwinian thought. Now instead of babbling some "just so" stories about why certain animals survive, they live comfortably in the simplistic circular argument that the animals that survived and reproduced must have been the kind of animals that survive and reproduce. Otherwise, they wouldn't have survived and reproduced. 

Daws and Hollie claim debunked but they have absolutely no concrete evidence for why the giraffe has a long neck based on evolution other than to say, "The long neck must have provided some level of fitness or the long neck would have been naturally selected away. What an absolute utter scientifically bankrupt concept!!!! 

*Lonestar,* you can read about the silliness of their bogus concept of Fitness here. :

The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution.  For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth.  Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival.  The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual.  If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years?  Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.
> 
> Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today?  Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food?  This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest.  What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense.  Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....
> 
> must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. The boilerplate, fundie "giraffe" argument.
> 
> It's as though fundies have all graduated from the Disco-tute' school of _The Stupid_ and there is not a reasonable argument among the lot. They simply cut and paste the same assinine creationist nonsense.
Click to expand...


I noticed you didn't have thought in your head you could contribute to the discussion Loki and I had about fitness. All you did was continue with your same repetitive nonsense like you are doing now. You are sick and twisted. I am guessing you don't work since you are always quick on the response. You must be part of the fakers and takers that voted for Obama.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....
> 
> must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and it still puts the brakes on your natural selection argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it doesn't. The same nonsensical "giraffe" cut and paste was thoroughly debunked previously. Fundie Christians cut and paste from the same creationist ministries so we see a pattern of these same laughable arguments going around and around.
> 
> Among thinking humans and among those with a background in science, it really is an embarrassment for fundies to cut and paste the same, tired arguments.
> 
> It's as though ignorance and simple mindedness is thought to be a virtue among the knowledge-crippled. The same poster who dumped the earlier 'giraffe" cut and paste in the thread is the most prolific liar and "quote-miner" among the very few YEC'ers / Flat-Earthers / religiously crippled to not be embarrassed to post such tripe... until you arrived.
Click to expand...


 This is hilarious!!! Now you pretend like you even have a clue what was being discussed??? This is what happens when evofundies get angry and start lashing out without even know what they are really lashing out about. Pathetic.

You and Daws both completely missed what the discussion was about. It went right over your uneducated heads. It wasn't even about giraffe's. It was about the evolutionary definition of fitness. But nice attempt on pretending you knew what we were arguing about.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah that is right.. as you've presented no evidence no extrapolation of evidence no, fact  no extrapolation of fact.
> what you have presented is subjective, erroneous, specious, fantasy.
> 
> so once you get those little inconveniences out of the way and present some real evidence
> then we can then deny it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.
> 
> Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.
> 
> Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually no you can't
> the burden of proof issue was settled long ago.
> evolution is not a claim it's fact.
> there are no shoulds in science  shit either happens or it does not either there's evidence or there's not .
> in the case of transitional  fossils there are just as many as needed to prove evolution correct.
> more are being found all the time .
> 
> but you  keep on rationalizing !
Click to expand...


This thread has really gone into the gutter with the preposterous claims. Evolution is full of "might haves" and "could haves"!!!! In fact, Darwinists can't relate any one of their "just so" stories without filling their narratives full of "might haves" and "could haves". Wake up, Daws!! Your brainwashing is showing. 

Pick any story about evolution and this is what you can count on. This just happens to be from Wiki on Abiogenesis, which we know is not part of Darwinism, but you get the picture:

*Current models*

There is no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures such as the following, listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

    The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis suggests that the atmosphere of the early Earth *may have been *chemically reducing in nature, composed primarily of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent.
    In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller&#8211;Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
    Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) *can form* lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
    A fundamental question is about the nature of the first self-replicating molecule. Since replication is accomplished in modern cells through the cooperative action of proteins and nucleic acids, the major schools of thought about how the process originated can be broadly classified as "proteins first" and "nucleic acids first".
    The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows:
        The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules *might have resulted in *self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)
        Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity *might have resulted in* ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome *might have been created by such a process*, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.
        Synthesized proteins *might then outcompete* ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.


----------



## UltimateReality

pjnlsn said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Becasue animals act and react on instinct. Humans use logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument which fits the form referred to as "No true scotsman" is invalid, or inconsequential. Or, in other words, calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. And, similarly, splitting two things into categories, and naming them, is not an explanation of, say, some more fundamental order, or, perhaps, intent.
> 
> In any case....
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...an answer to the question, and others like it, is not very meaningful beyond that the answerer has a brain and a small amount of creativity (and this is assuming that the one who answered was the first one to come up with it).
> 
> That one can fit their beliefs to reality, or make it so they do not contradict, does not make them true, and, as before, requires only a modicum of intelligence. As for their truth, by the most common definition of a god, it is not possible for it's existence, or any effect of it, so long as these things remain undetailed, to be proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Oh no!!! Another poster happened onto Loki's beginners guide to fallacy accusations. Please make it stop. Here, does anyone else want to pick a few and start throwing them around to try and sound intelligent? Here's the link...

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/


----------



## UltimateReality

More of Daws "concrete" evidence, from NP's trusted source, Wiki:

* Taxonomy and evolution*

The giraffe is one of only two living species of the family Giraffidae, the other being the okapi. The family was once much more extensive, with over 10 fossil genera described. Giraffids first arose 8 million years ago (mya) in south-central Europe during the Miocene epoch. The superfamily Giraffoidea, together with the family Antilocapridae (whose only extant species is the pronghorn), evolved from the extinct family Palaeomerycidae.[9] The earliest known giraffid was the deer-like Climacoceras.

While the progressive elongation of the neck and limbs can be found throughout the giraffid lineage, it became more pronounced in genera such as Giraffokeryx, Palaeotragus (*possible *ancestor of the okapi), Samotherium and Bohlinia.[9] Bohlinia entered China and northern India in response to climate change. From here, the genus Giraffa evolved and, around 7 mya, entered Africa. Further climate changes caused the extinction of the Asian giraffes, while the African ones survived and radiated into several new species. G. camelopardalis arose around 1 mya in eastern Africa during the Pleistocene.[9] *Some biologists suggest that the modern giraffe descended from G. jumae;[10] others find G. gracilis a more likely candidate.*[9] It is believed that the main driver for the evolution of the giraffes was the change from extensive forests to more open habitats, which began 8 mya.[9] Some researchers have hypothesized that this new habitat with a different diet, including Acacia,* may have exposed* giraffe ancestors to toxins that caused higher mutation rates and a higher rate of evolution.[11] *[Notice that they don't have to provide any information on what this new habitat or fast mutation inducing diet was. Nor do they have to actually do experiments to find out if there are foods that produce positive mutations.]*

The giraffe was one of the many species first described by Carl Linnaeus in 1758. He gave it the binomial name Cervus camelopardalis. Morten Thrane Brünnich classified the genus Giraffa in 1772.[12] In the early 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck *believed* that the giraffe's long neck was an "acquired characteristic", developed as generations of ancestral giraffes strived to reach the leaves of tall trees.[13] *This theory was eventually rejected, and scientists now believe that the giraffe's neck arose through Darwinian natural selection&#8212;that ancestral giraffes with long necks thereby had a competitive advantage that better enabled them to reproduce and pass on their genes.*[13]  EXACTLY!!!! We don't really know why it has a long neck or if natural selection did it but it must have, because the giraffe passed on its genes. So you see Lonestar, evolution says we have proved natural selection because they types of animals that survive and reproduce are the kinds of animals that survive and reproduce. Darwinists have been busted so many times making up "just so" stories with "might haves", "may haves", and "could haves", that they don't even try anymore to figure out what phenotype in one species makes it more "fit" and why. Natural selection must be true because isn't obvious, if it wasn't, the giraffe wouldn't have that long neck. Consider yourself debunked. 

When you actually become aware of the massive amounts of assumptive language that are used in Darwinian fairy tales, you can actually see through the fairy tale. Daws, Loki, NP, and Hollie are still brainwashed by their NAS sponsored public education and I doubt they would recognize assumptive language if it hit them in the face.


----------



## pjnlsn

UltimateReality said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An argument which fits the form referred to as "No true scotsman" is invalid, or inconsequential. Or, in other words, calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. And, similarly, splitting two things into categories, and naming them, is not an explanation of, say, some more fundamental order, or, perhaps, intent.
> 
> In any case....
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...an answer to the question, and others like it, is not very meaningful beyond that the answerer has a brain and a small amount of creativity (and this is assuming that the one who answered was the first one to come up with it).
> 
> That one can fit their beliefs to reality, or make it so they do not contradict, does not make them true, and, as before, requires only a modicum of intelligence. As for their truth, by the most common definition of a god, it is not possible for it's existence, or any effect of it, so long as these things remain undetailed, to be proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no!!! Another poster happened onto Loki's beginners guide to fallacy accusations. Please make it stop. Here, does anyone else want to pick a few and start throwing them around to try and sound intelligent? Here's the link...
> 
> Fallacies [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Click to expand...


That you dislike it or something associated to some degree does not make what was written false.


----------



## ima

If we were made in His image, does god have a small cock?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah that is right.. as you've presented no evidence no extrapolation of evidence no, fact  no extrapolation of fact.
> what you have presented is subjective, erroneous, specious, fantasy.
> 
> so once you get those little inconveniences out of the way and present some real evidence
> then we can then deny it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.
> 
> Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.
> 
> Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually no you can't
> the burden of proof issue was settled long ago.
> evolution is not a claim it's fact.
> there are no shoulds in science  shit either happens or it does not either there's evidence or there's not .
> in the case of transitional  fossils there are just as many as needed to prove evolution correct.
> more are being found all the time .
> 
> but you  keep on rationalizing !
Click to expand...


Actually, yes I can.

Evoltuion has NEVER been proven. That is a fact.

Evolution is not science.

There should be MILLIONS of transitional fossils _if_ evolution occurred. 

Besides what evolutionist call transitional fossil aren't even that.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....
> 
> must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and it still puts the brakes on your natural selection argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false assumption... if it did why is it nowere to be found other than the places you expect to find fantasy?
Click to expand...


Sorry..... but it's true.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing to ignore...you have no proof of god..
> just a belief ....and that proves nothing but belief
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one needing proof of God.  I know for a fact He exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confusing your gods with the Easter Bunny.
Click to expand...


No confusion here. Stop projecting.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah that is right.. as you've presented no evidence no extrapolation of evidence no, fact  no extrapolation of fact.
> what you have presented is subjective, erroneous, specious, fantasy.
> 
> so once you get those little inconveniences out of the way and present some real evidence
> then we can then deny it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.
> 
> Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.
> 
> Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If, as the Flat-Earthers claim, there is no fosill record, how do the Flat-Earthers account for the fosill record that actually does exist?.
> 
> Is the existing fosill record a part of the vast, global conspiracy that Flat-Earthers are convinced exists and which goals are to further evilution?
> 
> Or, is it a reality that the Flat-Earthers will choose to believe in fantasies, vast conspiracies and will live in denial of the relevant truths?
Click to expand...


World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science."

Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests. 

World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science."

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...." And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. (I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!)

Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."

*Concerning transitional fossils*, world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted that "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Not one.

read more here


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one needing proof of God.  I know for a fact He exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing your gods with the Easter Bunny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No confusion here. Stop projecting.
Click to expand...


Your fascination with supermagical Easter Bunnies is cause for concern.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.
> 
> Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.
> 
> Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> actually no you can't
> the burden of proof issue was settled long ago.
> evolution is not a claim it's fact.
> there are no shoulds in science  shit either happens or it does not either there's evidence or there's not .
> in the case of transitional  fossils there are just as many as needed to prove evolution correct.
> more are being found all the time .
> 
> but you  keep on rationalizing !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yes I can.
> 
> Evoltuion has NEVER been proven. That is a fact.
> 
> Evolution is not science.
> 
> There should be MILLIONS of transitional fossils _if_ evolution occurred.
> 
> Besides what evolutionist call transitional fossil aren't even that.
Click to expand...

Evolution certainly has been proven. Denial and ignorance on your part is your own issue to resolve.


----------



## ima

In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> More of Daws "concrete" evidence, from NP's trusted source, Wiki:
> 
> * Taxonomy and evolution*
> 
> The giraffe is one of only two living species of the family Giraffidae, the other being the okapi. The family was once much more extensive, with over 10 fossil genera described. Giraffids first arose 8 million years ago (mya) in south-central Europe during the Miocene epoch. The superfamily Giraffoidea, together with the family Antilocapridae (whose only extant species is the pronghorn), evolved from the extinct family Palaeomerycidae.[9] The earliest known giraffid was the deer-like Climacoceras.
> 
> While the progressive elongation of the neck and limbs can be found throughout the giraffid lineage, it became more pronounced in genera such as Giraffokeryx, Palaeotragus (*possible *ancestor of the okapi), Samotherium and Bohlinia.[9] Bohlinia entered China and northern India in response to climate change. From here, the genus Giraffa evolved and, around 7 mya, entered Africa. Further climate changes caused the extinction of the Asian giraffes, while the African ones survived and radiated into several new species. G. camelopardalis arose around 1 mya in eastern Africa during the Pleistocene.[9] *Some biologists suggest that the modern giraffe descended from G. jumae;[10] others find G. gracilis a more likely candidate.*[9] It is believed that the main driver for the evolution of the giraffes was the change from extensive forests to more open habitats, which began 8 mya.[9] Some researchers have hypothesized that this new habitat with a different diet, including Acacia,* may have exposed* giraffe ancestors to toxins that caused higher mutation rates and a higher rate of evolution.[11] *[Notice that they don't have to provide any information on what this new habitat or fast mutation inducing diet was. Nor do they have to actually do experiments to find out if there are foods that produce positive mutations.]*
> 
> The giraffe was one of the many species first described by Carl Linnaeus in 1758. He gave it the binomial name Cervus camelopardalis. Morten Thrane Brünnich classified the genus Giraffa in 1772.[12] In the early 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck *believed* that the giraffe's long neck was an "acquired characteristic", developed as generations of ancestral giraffes strived to reach the leaves of tall trees.[13] *This theory was eventually rejected, and scientists now believe that the giraffe's neck arose through Darwinian natural selectionthat ancestral giraffes with long necks thereby had a competitive advantage that better enabled them to reproduce and pass on their genes.*[13]  EXACTLY!!!! We don't really know why it has a long neck or if natural selection did it but it must have, because the giraffe passed on its genes. So you see Lonestar, evolution says we have proved natural selection because they types of animals that survive and reproduce are the kinds of animals that survive and reproduce. Darwinists have been busted so many times making up "just so" stories with "might haves", "may haves", and "could haves", that they don't even try anymore to figure out what phenotype in one species makes it more "fit" and why. Natural selection must be true because isn't obvious, if it wasn't, the giraffe wouldn't have that long neck. Consider yourself debunked.
> 
> When you actually become aware of the massive amounts of assumptive language that are used in Darwinian fairy tales, you can actually see through the fairy tale. Daws, Loki, NP, and Hollie are still brainwashed by their NAS sponsored public education and I doubt they would recognize assumptive language if it hit them in the face.



 Oh my, but it seems that the YEC'ers have an inviting new conspiracy we'll call the "Giraffe neck conspiracy". A reading of the YEC complaints regarding their objections to the evilutionist perspectives is simply enduring the expected creationist misinformation and contradictory claims. As we see with regularity, the YEC'ers will insist that any refinement of the scientific perspective is a reason to expect "the gods did it".  YEC'ers can't be expected to understand that process of science is one of discovery and of testing. If new data is confirmed that supplants older data, the process will adjust and flex. That is not possible in the world of the YEC'er. In their narrow worldview, unthinking and unquestioning kowtowing to a haphazard collection of takes and fables suggesting supernatural entities defines their worldview. 

What the YEC'ers cannot resolve is that the entire "Giraffe conspiracy" could be immediately resolved with clear and precise evidence that all of the science data is wrong with a demonstration of Giraffe lineage to Noah's Ark. Simple really, but the YEC'ers refuse to do that. 

Similarly, the YEC'ers cannot account for the fosill evidence that shows Giraffe evolution. Quite clearly, there should be NO fosill evidence if the YEC claims were true. The YEC'ers resolve this absurdity of theirs by simply denying that ANY fosill evidence exists. Even the fosill evidence that actually does exist is denied by the YEC'ers. 

It's a pathology that afflicts the YEC'ers: "Reality Denial Syndrome"

One of the darlings of the YEC crowd is Francis Hitching. He is "quote mined" ruthlessly by the YEC crowd. He is also as just as dishonest and sleazy as the YEC'ers are in their falsification of information. 

Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists

 Francis Hitching is the author of, among other books,The Neck of the Giraffe. He believes evolution is directed by some sort of cosmic force, but does not like Darwinism. He wrote in this book [The Neck of the Giraffe,Ticknor & Fields, New Haven, Connecticut, 1982, p. 12 (p. 4, paperback)] that:

For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble. Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two centuries from geology, paleontology, molecular biol- ogy and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this ..., the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms.... On the other hand Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism, its modern version) is a theory that seeks to explain evolution. It has not, contrary to general belief, and despite very great efforts, been proved.

Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the "Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years."

Hitching believes in the paranormal and has written on Mayan pyramid energy and for some "In Search Of..." episodes on BBC television. The reference work Contemporary Authors, Vol. 103, page 208, lists him as a member of the Society for Psychical Research, the British Society of Dowsers and of the American Society of Dowsers. His writings include: Earth Magic, Dowsing: The Psi Connection, Mysterious World: An Atlas of the Unexplained, Fraud, Mischief, and the Supernatural and Instead of Darwin.

Hitching's book spends much of its time attacking Darwinian evolution, borrowing heavily and uncritically from young-earth creationist arguments. Many of Hitching's "references" are lifted from young-earth creationist literature rather than being quoted directly from their original sources. One magazine had this to say [Creation/Evolution Newsletter,7, No. 5, pp. 15-16, September/October 1987]:

Speaking of the Biblical Creation Society, there was an interesting letter in the January 1983 issue of their journal Biblical Creation (p. 74) concerning a review of Francis Hitching's 1982 book The Neck of the Giraffe. Hitching's book is strongly anti- Darwinist, and is enthusiastically hailed by most creationists (though he also pokes fun at fundamentalist creationists). The letter, by creationist Malcolm Bowden (author of The Rise of the Evolution Fraud), points out that Hitching simply "culled his information from the creationist literature." This is indeed the case: many creationist works are cited favorably (Anderson, Coffin, Clark, Daly, Davidheiser, Dewar, Gish, Morris, Segraves, Whitcomb, and Wysong, plus various anti-Darwinists). Hitching does cite Bowden's earlier book Ape-Men -- Fact or Fallacy?,but Bowden accuses Hitching of "lifting" several passages and illustrations from his book without acknowledgment: in other words, plagiarism. "Hitchin's [sic] book is largely an exposition of the creationists [sic] viewpoint from the beginning to almost the end," Bowden points out.... Hitching is also a paranormalist, an advocate of psychic evolution.... [Hitching's book] Earth Magic is a wild, extremely entertaining and thoroughly psychic interpretation of megalithic structures.... Hitching also includes in his scheme cosmic cataclysms, Atlantis, pyramidology, dowsing, ESP, miraculous healing, and astrology.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your lurid fantasies of begging for attention, you managed to get everything wrong, except for the part of you being a stereotypical fundie. You're completely stereotypical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Omigosh and bless my soul!!! I think we finally might be making some progress here. There it is folks, in black and white!!! Hollie says that I got everything wrong which includes my assertion that her parents were gay-hating fundies. I always claimed that if she stopped cut and pasting long enough to deny my claims about her were true, I would stop. Being true to my word, I will not mention her parents ever again. Now if we could just get her to fess up about here lack of education and stop her from questioning everyone else's, I could quit with the ginormous fonts!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a creepy stalker.
Click to expand...


What a boring dipshit !


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.
> 
> The goofy comment about the fosill gap discrediting evolution is nothing more than the nonsense spewed by the Christian creationist ministries.
> 
> That's why the science world has dismissed the Christian creationist ministries as quacks and why the courts have rejected such quacks from participation in the public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
> 
> 
> The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> 
> Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
> 
> Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
> 
> Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> 
> Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
> 
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow a whole list of false comparisons.
> I'll debunk just three...
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> bullshit!
> 
> Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.
> 
> First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.
> 
> Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.
> 
> Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.
> 
> Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.
> 
> Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.
> 
> But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.
> 
> Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.
> 
> So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> 
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> bullshit! misnomer.
> the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
> because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
> 2.   paleontology and  archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences  and  the've only explored about 1/10  or the areas the contain fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed
> more bullshit!
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.
> 
> Observed Natural Selection
> What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.
> 
> The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)
> 
> Ring Species & Evolution
> There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.
> 
> Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.
> 
> Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.
> 
> Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
> As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.
> 
> Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.
> 
> The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.
> 
> To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis  that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.
> 
> The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
Click to expand...


Macroevolution is not real science,it can't be tested,studied or observed.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Omigosh and bless my soul!!! I think we finally might be making some progress here. There it is folks, in black and white!!! Hollie says that I got everything wrong which includes my assertion that her parents were gay-hating fundies. I always claimed that if she stopped cut and pasting long enough to deny my claims about her were true, I would stop. Being true to my word, I will not mention her parents ever again. Now if we could just get her to fess up about here lack of education and stop her from questioning everyone else's, I could quit with the ginormous fonts!!!
> 
> 
> 
> What a creepy stalker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a boring dipshit !
Click to expand...


An angry fundie. How stereotypical.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proofs abound. Had you graduated a public school system and gone on to college you would have had some exposure to science.
> 
> The goofy comment about the fosill gap discrediting evolution is nothing more than the nonsense spewed by the Christian creationist ministries.
> 
> That's why the science world has dismissed the Christian creationist ministries as quacks and why the courts have rejected such quacks from participation in the public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
> 
> 
> The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> 
> Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
> 
> Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
> 
> Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> 
> Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasn&#8217;t been proved.
> 
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow a whole list of false comparisons.
> I'll debunk just three...
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> bullshit!
> 
> Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.
> 
> First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.
> 
> Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.
> 
> Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.
> 
> Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.
> 
> Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.
> 
> But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.
> 
> Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.
> 
> So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> 
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> bullshit! misnomer.
> the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
> because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
> 2.   paleontology and  archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences  and  the've only explored about 1/10  or the areas the contain fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed
> more bullshit!
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.
> 
> Observed Natural Selection
> What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.
> 
> The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)
> 
> Ring Species & Evolution
> There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.
> 
> Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.
> 
> Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.
> 
> Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
> As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.
> 
> Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.
> 
> The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.
> 
> To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis &#8212; that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.
> 
> The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
Click to expand...


Quit giving evidence for microadaptations for your rediculous theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
> 
> 
> The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> 
> Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
> 
> Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
> 
> Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> 
> Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
> 
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> wow a whole list of false comparisons.
> I'll debunk just three...
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> bullshit!
> 
> Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.
> 
> First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.
> 
> Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.
> 
> Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.
> 
> Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.
> 
> Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.
> 
> But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.
> 
> Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.
> 
> So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> 
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> bullshit! misnomer.
> the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
> because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
> 2.   paleontology and  archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences  and  the've only explored about 1/10  or the areas the contain fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed
> more bullshit!
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.
> 
> Observed Natural Selection
> What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.
> 
> The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)
> 
> Ring Species & Evolution
> There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.
> 
> Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.
> 
> Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.
> 
> Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
> As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.
> 
> Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.
> 
> The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.
> 
> To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis  that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.
> 
> The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution.  For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth.  Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival.  The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual.  If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years?  Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.
> 
> Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today?  Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food?  This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest.  What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense.  Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.
Click to expand...


They oppose the Almighty without reason.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
> 
> 
> The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> 
> Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
> 
> Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
> 
> Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> 
> Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
> 
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> wow a whole list of false comparisons.
> I'll debunk just three...
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> bullshit!
> 
> Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.
> 
> First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.
> 
> Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.
> 
> Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.
> 
> Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.
> 
> Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.
> 
> But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.
> 
> Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.
> 
> So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> 
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> bullshit! misnomer.
> the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
> because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
> 2.   paleontology and  archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences  and  the've only explored about 1/10  or the areas the contain fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed
> more bullshit!
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.
> 
> Observed Natural Selection
> What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.
> 
> The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)
> 
> Ring Species & Evolution
> There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.
> 
> Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.
> 
> Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.
> 
> Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
> As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.
> 
> Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.
> 
> The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.
> 
> To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis  that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.
> 
> The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Macroevolution is not real science,it can't be tested,studied or observed.
Click to expand...

Macroevolution actually is real science. 

Lies and falsehoods from YEC'ers are easily exposed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as always missed  the point completely....
> hint: making false comparisons!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I missed nothing. You seem to place humans on the same level as animals. Which is a false comparison you made.
> 
> Eating shit is irrational behavior in my opinion. Now you're free to have a differing opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WE are  animals....
Click to expand...


Who is we , do you have a mouse in your pocket ?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.
> 
> Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.
> 
> Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> If, as the Flat-Earthers claim, there is no fosill record, how do the Flat-Earthers account for the fosill record that actually does exist?.
> 
> Is the existing fosill record a part of the vast, global conspiracy that Flat-Earthers are convinced exists and which goals are to further evilution?
> 
> Or, is it a reality that the Flat-Earthers will choose to believe in fantasies, vast conspiracies and will live in denial of the relevant truths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
> 
> Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.
> 
> World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
> 
> Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...." And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. (I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!)
> 
> Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."
> 
> *Concerning transitional fossils*, world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted that "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Not one.
> 
> read more here
Click to expand...


I'm afraid this lying, "quote-mining" fundie is nothing more than a clone of the other two lying, "quote-mining" fundies who cut and paste from creationist websites. 

Don't the fundies have any sense of honor or integrity?

Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow a whole list of false comparisons.
> I'll debunk just three...
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> bullshit!
> 
> Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.
> 
> First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.
> 
> Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.
> 
> Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.
> 
> Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.
> 
> Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.
> 
> But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.
> 
> Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.
> 
> So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> 
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> bullshit! misnomer.
> the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
> because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
> 2.   paleontology and  archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences  and  the've only explored about 1/10  or the areas the contain fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed
> more bullshit!
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.
> 
> Observed Natural Selection
> What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.
> 
> The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)
> 
> Ring Species & Evolution
> There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.
> 
> Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.
> 
> Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.
> 
> Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
> As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.
> 
> Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.
> 
> The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.
> 
> To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis  that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.
> 
> The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution.  For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth.  Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival.  The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual.  If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years?  Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.
> 
> Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today?  Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food?  This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest.  What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense.  Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....
> 
> must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...
Click to expand...


No you are just to ignorant to reason on the evidence. Hmm a sponge connected to the brain that holds enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when he quickly raises his head and a valve to prevent all the blood rushing to his head and blowing his brains out. Oh and don't forget just the right size heart to pump that blood up that neck.

You live in fanatasy land.


----------



## ima

If we were created by ID, why is this thread so dumb?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.
> 
> Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.
> 
> Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> If, as the Flat-Earthers claim, there is no fosill record, how do the Flat-Earthers account for the fosill record that actually does exist?.
> 
> Is the existing fosill record a part of the vast, global conspiracy that Flat-Earthers are convinced exists and which goals are to further evilution?
> 
> Or, is it a reality that the Flat-Earthers will choose to believe in fantasies, vast conspiracies and will live in denial of the relevant truths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
> 
> Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.
> 
> World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
> 
> Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...." And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. (I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!)
> 
> Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."
> 
> *Concerning transitional fossils*, world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted that "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Not one.
> 
> read more here
Click to expand...

Here we have more lies and creationist "quote -mining" from YEC charlatans.

An Account of a Debate with a Creationist


----------



## Youwerecreated

AlexWA said:


> It is very difficult to ignore the evolutionary progress of life on Earth. Nobody can fully explain how the universe began, but one thing is certain, the Earth is billions of years old and we didn't just appear out of nowhere.



Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah that is right.. as you've presented no evidence no extrapolation of evidence no, fact  no extrapolation of fact.
> what you have presented is subjective, erroneous, specious, fantasy.
> 
> so once you get those little inconveniences out of the way and present some real evidence
> then we can then deny it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.
> 
> Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.
> 
> Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually no you can't
> the burden of proof issue was settled long ago.
> evolution is not a claim it's fact.
> there are no shoulds in science  shit either happens or it does not either there's evidence or there's not .
> in the case of transitional  fossils there are just as many as needed to prove evolution correct.
> more are being found all the time .
> 
> but you  keep on rationalizing !
Click to expand...


Daws your brain has been taken over.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....
> 
> must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and it still puts the brakes on your natural selection argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false assumption... if it did why is it nowere to be found other than the places you expect to find fantasy?
Click to expand...


I am still waiting for a viable answer from you why didn't the superior traits of survival didn't get passed on through natural selection to the human genepool ?was  the trade off  human abilities that make us superior and put us at the top of the food chain?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks again for proving statement true...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you have stated thus for has been proven to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this  was one of  those times where keeping your mouth shut and letting people think your an ignorant asshole  might have been appropriate.
> oops! too late.
Click to expand...


Daws you think to much of youyrself Mr. theatre woman or man I am not sure.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.



Yes,and everyone on your side of the issue have chosen that road.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> AlexWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very difficult to ignore the evolutionary progress of life on Earth. Nobody can fully explain how the universe began, but one thing is certain, the Earth is billions of years old and we didn't just appear out of nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.
Click to expand...


Are you confused about your own arguments for gods?

As fundies would present it, their gods were poofed into existence from an obvious hierarchy of gods who later poofed into existence humanity.

Such silliness.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,and everyone on your side of the issue have chosen that road.
Click to expand...


Sorry, that's false. Choosing fear and ignorance over enlightenment is almost exclusively a fundie Christian endeavor.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,and everyone on your side of the issue have chosen that road.
Click to expand...


Well yes, because to the fundies in this thread, the bible is the only book anyone needs to read.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and it still puts the brakes on your natural selection argument.
> 
> 
> 
> false assumption... if it did why is it nowere to be found other than the places you expect to find fantasy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for a viable answer from you why didn't the superior traits of survival didn't get passed on through natural selection to the human genepool ?was  the trade off  human abilities that make us superior and put us at the top of the food chain?
Click to expand...


Some did. With this having been explained to you on numerous occasions, how many more times do you need it explained?

Is it a learning disability or your religious fundamentalism (or both) that causes you to forget what you have been told repeatedly?


----------



## emilynghiem

ima said:


> If we were created by ID, why is this thread so dumb?



We are using our intellectual freedom, given by God, to work through the learning curve, where those with strong knowledge in one area share with others who are lacking, and VICE VERSA: As we learn that just because someone is weak in one area, doesn't mean that they don't have something to offer us in another, then we learn how equal we are. Nobody has all the answers; where we can't see our own blindspots, someone is glad to point it out!


----------



## 4Horsemen

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,and everyone on your side of the issue have chosen that road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, because to the fundies in this thread, the bible is the only book anyone needs to read.
Click to expand...


Well it is the *only *book on the planet that accurately tells our origin.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Sorry, that's false. Choosing fear and ignorance over enlightenment is almost exclusively a fundie Christian endeavor.



Equally FALSE. Ask the doctors who were pursuing scientific studies on prayer. They found just as many "fundamental atheists" opposing the research as "fundamental Christians" opposed. The problem was MUTUAL fear and false division between faith and science; and there were "fundies" on BOTH SIDES rejecting the other and attempts to prove both right!

Hollie if you close your mind, and keep assuming Christianity means to limit oneself to the Bible, then you are acting as closedminded out of fear, as the people you project blame on.

If you believe Christians are hypocrites, for projecting blame on others for what they do,
then don't do this yourself or you are hardly different!

The Christians I know are in agreement that they are also called to respect civil authority.
So if Constitutional laws call for equal religious freedom, then that is a Christian value also.
Christians may struggle with this, but they are not the only ones. The Atheists who oppose Christian influence on the govt/secular/public institutions struggle just as much!


----------



## emilynghiem

daws101 said:


> WE are  animals....



First get the vocabulary on the same page. Animals has two meanings, if you mean "animals as opposed to humans." Just like calling humanity by the term "man": We are all included in the term MAN, but if you mean "man opposed to woman" then "man" in that context means something different. Same with the term "animal" so please clarify first to avoid confusion.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a creepy stalker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a boring dipshit !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An angry fundie. How stereotypical.
Click to expand...


Also the stereotype of the anti-theist in equal denial but projecting all that responsibility on the theists for their part in the same. And claiming the other side needs to take responsibility, while not setting an example by doing just that. Typical of both sides? No?

Do you not recognize equal denial and projection on both sides?


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Specifically, you have achieved embracing fear and superstition. You have failed to denigrate science in favor of your gods and your have failed to make a case for your conspiracy theory whereby every major university in the world has accepted the fact of evolution.
> 
> Basically, you failed at everything.



Dear Hollie: proving evolution still does "not negate" that all life including the evolutionary processes can come from the same source which people call God or the author of life.

Why not take on proof of something that has a chance of helping more people?

Look up spiritual healing as taught and practiced freely by successful leaders in this field:
Dr. Francis MacNutt author of HEALING (1999 edition adds references to a medical study on Rheumatoid Arthritis where patients successfully healed had better results than relying on medication that only placating symptoms but didn't address or cure the root cause of crippling pain) Christian Healing Ministries
Dr. Phillip Goldfedder Healing Is Yours A professional neurosurgeon who found out how spiritual healing worked after he saw proof, and uses it now as his regular practice because it is more effective and less invasive/expensive especially in cases that prevent the need for surgery or medicine.
Olivia Reiner 713-829-0899  a personal friend of mine who is seeking medical documentation of over 30 years of healing outreach to help cancer patients and victims of abuse to be freed of disease, addictions or mental illness that are healed by removing obstructions caused by unforgiven conflicts or issues from the past, so people's minds/bodies can naturally heal.

Hollie, if you are NOT the closedminded type you fault Christian fundies for being who "won't look at scientific proof" then you would welcome this opportunity to reconcile science with faith to stop the proselytizing and judging going on. 

If you refuse to look at this field, then count yourself equal as fundies who won't look either.


----------



## AlexWA

Youwerecreated said:


> AlexWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very difficult to ignore the evolutionary progress of life on Earth. Nobody can fully explain how the universe began, but one thing is certain, the Earth is billions of years old and we didn't just appear out of nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.
Click to expand...


I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings.  

Now to the point of flat-Earth creationists there is a difference between believing that God created the universe and people evolved into what we see today and that of human beings and life as we know it have only been around for 6+ thousand years.


----------



## emilynghiem

4Horsemen said:


> Well it is the *only *book on the planet that accurately tells our origin.



It spells it out symbolically, as do other creation myths using allegories and symbols.

What the Bible does have unique is capturing the role of Jesus in changing our historic path, from the old ways in the OT of living by the letter of the law corrupted by greed for power and need for retributive justice by judgment and punishment which fails,
to the new ways in the NT of living by the spirit of the laws, by truth and justice with mercy, with mutual forgiveness and correction as instructed in the Bible to confess and correct our own faults with one another that we may be healed, this being the spirit of Restorative Justice that Christ Jesus embodies to save our relations and bring salvation to all humanity.

That transformation from the path to death to the path to life in Christ Jesus is unique in Christianity, yet at the same time, this universal spirit and message fulfills ALL other path, all laws and all systems of authority that govern human relations, including natural laws.

So the message that Christ brings in the Bible is both unique to Jesus, as it is universal to all people even without using the Bible but using other laws to govern our relationships.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

AlexWA said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlexWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very difficult to ignore the evolutionary progress of life on Earth. Nobody can fully explain how the universe began, but one thing is certain, the Earth is billions of years old and we didn't just appear out of nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings.
> 
> Now to the point of flat-Earth creationists there is a difference between believing that God created the universe and people evolved into what we see today and that of human beings and life as we know it have only been around for 6+ thousand years.
Click to expand...


Evolutionist believe all creatures derived from a common ancestor. And there is no evidence that suppports that theory.

You are talking more about adaptation than evolution. Mankind and animalkind have adapted to certain environments over a perod of time but there is no proof that a fish ever became a bird etc.....


----------



## AlexWA

Lonestar_logic said:


> AlexWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings.
> 
> Now to the point of flat-Earth creationists there is a difference between believing that God created the universe and people evolved into what we see today and that of human beings and life as we know it have only been around for 6+ thousand years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolutionist believe all creatures derived from a common ancestor. And there is no evidence that suppports that theory.
> 
> You are talking more about adaptation than evolution. Mankind and animalkind have adapted to certain environments over a perod of time but there is no proof that a fish ever became a bird etc.....
Click to expand...


Out of curiosity where do you believe the human species came from, where did they start from, and when?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

AlexWA said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlexWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings.
> 
> Now to the point of flat-Earth creationists there is a difference between believing that God created the universe and people evolved into what we see today and that of human beings and life as we know it have only been around for 6+ thousand years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist believe all creatures derived from a common ancestor. And there is no evidence that suppports that theory.
> 
> You are talking more about adaptation than evolution. Mankind and animalkind have adapted to certain environments over a perod of time but there is no proof that a fish ever became a bird etc.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity where do you believe the human species came from, where did they start from, and when?
Click to expand...


I believe mankind came about as it's been described in Genesis.  To me it makes more sense than all life beginning from a single cell.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah that is right.. as you've presented no evidence no extrapolation of evidence no, fact  no extrapolation of fact.
> what you have presented is subjective, erroneous, specious, fantasy.
> 
> so once you get those little inconveniences out of the way and present some real evidence
> then we can then deny it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.
> 
> Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.
> 
> Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If, as the Flat-Earthers claim, there is no fosill record, how do the Flat-Earthers account for the fosill record that actually does exist?.
> 
> Is the existing fosill record a part of the vast, global conspiracy that Flat-Earthers are convinced exists and which goals are to further evilution?
> 
> Or, is it a reality that the Flat-Earthers will choose to believe in fantasies, vast conspiracies and will live in denial of the relevant truths?
Click to expand...

I'LL take fantasy for 1000.. Alex!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> More of Daws "concrete" evidence, from NP's trusted source, Wiki:
> 
> * Taxonomy and evolution*
> 
> The giraffe is one of only two living species of the family Giraffidae, the other being the okapi. The family was once much more extensive, with over 10 fossil genera described. Giraffids first arose 8 million years ago (mya) in south-central Europe during the Miocene epoch. The superfamily Giraffoidea, together with the family Antilocapridae (whose only extant species is the pronghorn), evolved from the extinct family Palaeomerycidae.[9] The earliest known giraffid was the deer-like Climacoceras.
> 
> While the progressive elongation of the neck and limbs can be found throughout the giraffid lineage, it became more pronounced in genera such as Giraffokeryx, Palaeotragus (*possible *ancestor of the okapi), Samotherium and Bohlinia.[9] Bohlinia entered China and northern India in response to climate change. From here, the genus Giraffa evolved and, around 7 mya, entered Africa. Further climate changes caused the extinction of the Asian giraffes, while the African ones survived and radiated into several new species. G. camelopardalis arose around 1 mya in eastern Africa during the Pleistocene.[9] *Some biologists suggest that the modern giraffe descended from G. jumae;[10] others find G. gracilis a more likely candidate.*[9] It is believed that the main driver for the evolution of the giraffes was the change from extensive forests to more open habitats, which began 8 mya.[9] Some researchers have hypothesized that this new habitat with a different diet, including Acacia,* may have exposed* giraffe ancestors to toxins that caused higher mutation rates and a higher rate of evolution.[11] *[Notice that they don't have to provide any information on what this new habitat or fast mutation inducing diet was. Nor do they have to actually do experiments to find out if there are foods that produce positive mutations.]*
> 
> The giraffe was one of the many species first described by Carl Linnaeus in 1758. He gave it the binomial name Cervus camelopardalis. Morten Thrane Brünnich classified the genus Giraffa in 1772.[12] In the early 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck *believed* that the giraffe's long neck was an "acquired characteristic", developed as generations of ancestral giraffes strived to reach the leaves of tall trees.[13] *This theory was eventually rejected, and scientists now believe that the giraffe's neck arose through Darwinian natural selectionthat ancestral giraffes with long necks thereby had a competitive advantage that better enabled them to reproduce and pass on their genes.*[13]  EXACTLY!!!! We don't really know why it has a long neck or if natural selection did it but it must have, because the giraffe passed on its genes. So you see Lonestar, evolution says we have proved natural selection because they types of animals that survive and reproduce are the kinds of animals that survive and reproduce. Darwinists have been busted so many times making up "just so" stories with "might haves", "may haves", and "could haves", that they don't even try anymore to figure out what phenotype in one species makes it more "fit" and why. Natural selection must be true because isn't obvious, if it wasn't, the giraffe wouldn't have that long neck. Consider yourself debunked.
> 
> When you actually become aware of the massive amounts of assumptive language that are used in Darwinian fairy tales, you can actually see through the fairy tale. Daws, Loki, NP, and Hollie are still brainwashed by their NAS sponsored public education and I doubt they would recognize assumptive language if it hit them in the face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, but it seems that the YEC'ers have an inviting new conspiracy we'll call the "Giraffe neck conspiracy". A reading of the YEC complaints regarding their objections to the evilutionist perspectives is simply enduring the expected creationist misinformation and contradictory claims. As we see with regularity, the YEC'ers will insist that any refinement of the scientific perspective is a reason to expect "the gods did it".  YEC'ers can't be expected to understand that process of science is one of discovery and of testing. If new data is confirmed that supplants older data, the process will adjust and flex. That is not possible in the world of the YEC'er. In their narrow worldview, unthinking and unquestioning kowtowing to a haphazard collection of takes and fables suggesting supernatural entities defines their worldview.
> 
> What the YEC'ers cannot resolve is that the entire "Giraffe conspiracy" could be immediately resolved with clear and precise evidence that all of the science data is wrong with a demonstration of Giraffe lineage to Noah's Ark. Simple really, but the YEC'ers refuse to do that.
> 
> Similarly, the YEC'ers cannot account for the fosill evidence that shows Giraffe evolution. Quite clearly, there should be NO fosill evidence if the YEC claims were true. The YEC'ers resolve this absurdity of theirs by simply denying that ANY fosill evidence exists. Even the fosill evidence that actually does exist is denied by the YEC'ers.
> 
> It's a pathology that afflicts the YEC'ers: "Reality Denial Syndrome"
> 
> One of the darlings of the YEC crowd is Francis Hitching. He is "quote mined" ruthlessly by the YEC crowd. He is also as just as dishonest and sleazy as the YEC'ers are in their falsification of information.
> 
> Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists
> 
> Francis Hitching is the author of, among other books,The Neck of the Giraffe. He believes evolution is directed by some sort of cosmic force, but does not like Darwinism. He wrote in this book [The Neck of the Giraffe,Ticknor & Fields, New Haven, Connecticut, 1982, p. 12 (p. 4, paperback)] that:
> 
> For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble. Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two centuries from geology, paleontology, molecular biol- ogy and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this ..., the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms.... On the other hand Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism, its modern version) is a theory that seeks to explain evolution. It has not, contrary to general belief, and despite very great efforts, been proved.
> 
> Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the "Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years."
> 
> Hitching believes in the paranormal and has written on Mayan pyramid energy and for some "In Search Of..." episodes on BBC television. The reference work Contemporary Authors, Vol. 103, page 208, lists him as a member of the Society for Psychical Research, the British Society of Dowsers and of the American Society of Dowsers. His writings include: Earth Magic, Dowsing: The Psi Connection, Mysterious World: An Atlas of the Unexplained, Fraud, Mischief, and the Supernatural and Instead of Darwin.
> 
> Hitching's book spends much of its time attacking Darwinian evolution, borrowing heavily and uncritically from young-earth creationist arguments. Many of Hitching's "references" are lifted from young-earth creationist literature rather than being quoted directly from their original sources. One magazine had this to say [Creation/Evolution Newsletter,7, No. 5, pp. 15-16, September/October 1987]:
> 
> Speaking of the Biblical Creation Society, there was an interesting letter in the January 1983 issue of their journal Biblical Creation (p. 74) concerning a review of Francis Hitching's 1982 book The Neck of the Giraffe. Hitching's book is strongly anti- Darwinist, and is enthusiastically hailed by most creationists (though he also pokes fun at fundamentalist creationists). The letter, by creationist Malcolm Bowden (author of The Rise of the Evolution Fraud), points out that Hitching simply "culled his information from the creationist literature." This is indeed the case: many creationist works are cited favorably (Anderson, Coffin, Clark, Daly, Davidheiser, Dewar, Gish, Morris, Segraves, Whitcomb, and Wysong, plus various anti-Darwinists). Hitching does cite Bowden's earlier book Ape-Men -- Fact or Fallacy?,but Bowden accuses Hitching of "lifting" several passages and illustrations from his book without acknowledgment: in other words, plagiarism. "Hitchin's [sic] book is largely an exposition of the creationists [sic] viewpoint from the beginning to almost the end," Bowden points out.... Hitching is also a paranormalist, an advocate of psychic evolution.... [Hitching's book] Earth Magic is a wild, extremely entertaining and thoroughly psychic interpretation of megalithic structures.... Hitching also includes in his scheme cosmic cataclysms, Atlantis, pyramidology, dowsing, ESP, miraculous healing, and astrology.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the useless post. We are talking about a workable definition of fitness that actually takes into account phenotypes that increase a species survivability. Funny in all your wordiness above you haven't addressed that issue. And you still haven't addressed....

*where you went to college?*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a creepy stalker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a boring dipshit !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An angry fundie. How stereotypical.
Click to expand...


An angry Daws and Hollie nipping at both ears.... how *STEREO* typical.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow a whole list of false comparisons.
> I'll debunk just three...
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> bullshit!
> 
> Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.
> 
> First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.
> 
> Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.
> 
> Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.
> 
> Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.
> 
> Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.
> 
> But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.
> 
> Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.
> 
> So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> 
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> bullshit! misnomer.
> the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
> because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
> 2.   paleontology and  archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences  and  the've only explored about 1/10  or the areas the contain fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed
> more bullshit!
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.
> 
> Observed Natural Selection
> What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.
> 
> The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)
> 
> Ring Species & Evolution
> There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.
> 
> Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.
> 
> Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.
> 
> Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
> As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.
> 
> Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.
> 
> The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.
> 
> To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis  that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.
> 
> The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Macroevolution is not real science,it can't be tested,studied or observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Macroevolution actually is real science.
> 
> Lies and falsehoods from YEC'ers are easily exposed.
Click to expand...


*What isn't exposed is your education level that makes you think you have the right to call others out on theirs.*


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> If we were created by ID, why is this thread so dumb?



The evolved, knuckle draggers here tend to drag the whole thing down.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlexWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very difficult to ignore the evolutionary progress of life on Earth. Nobody can fully explain how the universe began, but one thing is certain, the Earth is billions of years old and we didn't just appear out of nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you confused about your own arguments for gods?
> 
> As fundies would present it, their gods were poofed into existence from an obvious hierarchy of gods who later poofed into existence humanity.
> 
> Such silliness.
Click to expand...


Still with the "gods" thing. You obviously took the short bus to school.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a class act, Daws. I think I'll let the mods know about your little racial slur right there which is an obvious stab at African Americans as slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> and as ways you'd be wrong I made no slur at  you.   or African Americans  lying about it to the mods is chicken shit .
> It's obvious who I was replying too..
> you whinny pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh contrare! You were the one whining about me bolding comments in someone's post and going on about how it would get you kicked off the boards. Obviously it was you that ratted me out to the moderators. So who's the real little kitty??? That's the thing about the internet, any one can go back and look at your post and realize you are projecting again.
Click to expand...

MY ASS!  I did no whining, I caught you by the nuts, you knew that altering other peoples posts in any fashion is not only againt site policy, it is a chickenshit tactic, just like your cowardly attempts at character assasination.
what's more is I will report you as needed untill you stop the bullshit or get off the board.
BTW emboldening or in any way fucking with other posters posts is forbidden.
the clarification lie you use will not wash.


----------



## UltimateReality

AlexWA said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlexWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very difficult to ignore the evolutionary progress of life on Earth. Nobody can fully explain how the universe began, but one thing is certain, the Earth is billions of years old and we didn't just appear out of nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings.  ...
Click to expand...


Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and as ways you'd be wrong I made no slur at  you.   or African Americans  lying about it to the mods is chicken shit .
> It's obvious who I was replying too..
> you whinny pussy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh contrare! You were the one whining about me bolding comments in someone's post and going on about how it would get you kicked off the boards. Obviously it was you that ratted me out to the moderators. So who's the real little kitty??? That's the thing about the internet, any one can go back and look at your post and realize you are projecting again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MY ASS!  I did no whining, I caught you by the nuts...
Click to expand...

 Again with the fantasies. Ewwww! 

Well looky there. I just deleted part of your post. Now run along and tattle* little whiney boy*. Oh and if you think your little tattles will silence me I would remind you that I have 4 other computers in my household with which to set up another account.

This is so typical of evolutionists. They can't win on the merits of their pathetic arguments so they resort to strong arm tactics to silence the opposition. Have you seen the movie Expelled??


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution.  For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth.  Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival.  The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual.  If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years?  Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.
> 
> Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today?  Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food?  This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest.  What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense.  Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....
> 
> must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked? That is hilarious. You think Loki proved anything in our exchange?? Here is what was debunked, that evolutionists have any agreed upon definition of fitness. In fact, they are so lost at what fitness really means that they no longer even lay claim to survival of the fittest, having abandoned once again another original tenet of Darwinian thought. Now instead of babbling some "just so" stories about why certain animals survive, they live comfortably in the simplistic circular argument that the animals that survived and reproduced must have been the kind of animals that survive and reproduce. Otherwise, they wouldn't have survived and reproduced.
> 
> Daws and Hollie claim debunked but they have absolutely no concrete evidence for why the giraffe has a long neck based on evolution other than to say, "The long neck must have provided some level of fitness or the long neck would have been naturally selected away. What an absolute utter scientifically bankrupt concept!!!!
> 
> *Lonestar,* you can read about the silliness of their bogus concept of Fitness here. :
> 
> The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness
Click to expand...

more meaningless babble. as to your source bahahahahahahahahahahaha. can you say pseudoscience....


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.
> 
> 
> The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed.
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> 
> Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.
> 
> Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.
> 
> Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed.
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> 
> Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proved.
> 
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> wow a whole list of false comparisons.
> I'll debunk just three...
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
> bullshit!
> 
> Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.
> 
> First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.
> 
> Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.
> 
> Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.
> 
> Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.
> 
> Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.
> 
> But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.
> 
> Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.
> 
> So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> 
> 
> Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> bullshit! misnomer.
> the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
> because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
> 2.   paleontology and  archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences  and  the've only explored about 1/10  or the areas the contain fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed
> more bullshit!
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.
> 
> Observed Natural Selection
> What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.
> 
> The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)
> 
> Ring Species & Evolution
> There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.
> 
> Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.
> 
> Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.
> 
> Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
> As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.
> 
> Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.
> 
> The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.
> 
> To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis  that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.
> 
> The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Macroevolution is not real science,it can't be tested,studied or observed.
Click to expand...



BULLSHIT   As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind. 

Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another. 

The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale. 

To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis  that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.


----------



## AlexWA

UltimateReality said:


> AlexWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??
Click to expand...


Before homosapiens there were other human species that splintered off and either evolved further or went extinct. We are the result of the homosapien evolution.


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow a whole list of false comparisons.
> I'll debunk just three...
> 
> Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics
> bullshit!
> 
> Now let's look at the application of the second law of thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.
> 
> First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. Complexity of design. There is no reason that i am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.
> 
> Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the second law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the second law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.
> 
> Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the second law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." that means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.
> 
> Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.
> 
> Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.
> 
> But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.
> 
> Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the second law of thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.
> 
> So the bottom line is, the second law of thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics any more than it violates newton's law of gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.
> 
> evolution and the second law of thermodynamics
> 
> 
> fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
> Bullshit! Misnomer.
> The "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
> Because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
> 2.   Paleontology and  archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences  and  the've only explored about 1/10  or the areas the contain fossils.
> 
> Fact: Evolution has never been observed
> more bullshit!
> 
> Observing evolution - how evolution has been observed
> natural selection, macroevolution, and ring species
> by austin cline, about.com guide
> the most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.
> 
> Observed natural selection
> what's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.
> 
> The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)
> 
> ring species & evolution
> there is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: Ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point a and point b. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point a the more like the species at point a the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point b the more like the species at point b the organisms are.
> 
> Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.
> 
> Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.
> 
> Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
> as with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.
> 
> Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.
> 
> The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: For example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.
> 
> To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis  that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.
> 
> The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> observing evolution - how evolution has been observed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution.  For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth.  Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival.  The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual.  If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years?  Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.
> 
> Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today?  Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food?  This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest.  What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense.  Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they oppose the almighty without reason.
Click to expand...

another non sequitur


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I missed nothing. You seem to place humans on the same level as animals. Which is a false comparison you made.
> 
> Eating shit is irrational behavior in my opinion. Now you're free to have a differing opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> WE are  animals....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is we , do you have a mouse in your pocket ?
Click to expand...

 more denial of fact.


----------



## AlexWA

FYI accepting evolution and respecting science is NOT a sin or any sort of damnable offense. You can still believe in God and that God has His hand in all of it.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you confused about your own arguments for gods?
> 
> As fundies would present it, their gods were poofed into existence from an obvious hierarchy of gods who later poofed into existence humanity.
> 
> Such silliness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still with the "gods" thing. You obviously took the short bus to school.
Click to expand...

Still with the utterly silly exemptions you make for your gods.


----------



## daws101

emilynghiem said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE are  animals....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First get the vocabulary on the same page. Animals has two meanings, if you mean "animals as opposed to humans." Just like calling humanity by the term "man": We are all included in the term MAN, but if you mean "man opposed to woman" then "man" in that context means something different. Same with the term "animal" so please clarify first to avoid confusion.
Click to expand...

yours is a distinction without a difference..
it's also meaningless minutia  

the only distinction necessary is  that we are mamals..
the rest is obvious.


----------



## daws101

4Horsemen said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,and everyone on your side of the issue have chosen that road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, because to the fundies in this thread, the bible is the only book anyone needs to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it is the *only *book on the planet that accurately tells our origin.
Click to expand...

ahhh no it's neither accurate or the whole story .
every culture on earth has creation myths .
the bible is no more accurate then any of them.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and it still puts the brakes on your natural selection argument.
> 
> 
> 
> false assumption... if it did why is it nowere to be found other than the places you expect to find fantasy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for a viable answer from you why didn't the superior traits of survival didn't get passed on through natural selection to the human genepool ?was  the trade off  human abilities that make us superior and put us at the top of the food chain?
Click to expand...

asked and answered.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> AlexWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??
Click to expand...

Actually, yours is a pointless and totally unsupported claim. Blathering on about your imagined gods is no more believable than appeals to the Easter Bunny.


----------



## Hollie

AlexWA said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlexWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before homosapiens there were other human species that splintered off and either evolved further or went extinct. We are the result of the homosapien evolution.
Click to expand...

You will find that the two YEC'ers are bible literalists. They despise all of science. A rigid, literal interpretation of the bible is all they understand. 

You may also find one of them to be a serial stalker.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Macroevolution is not real science,it can't be tested,studied or observed.
> 
> 
> 
> Macroevolution actually is real science.
> 
> Lies and falsehoods from YEC'ers are easily exposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What isn't exposed is your education level that makes you think you have the right to call others out on theirs.*[/QUOTE
> 
> As noted, creepy stalkers and their lies and falsehoods are easily exposed.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you have stated thus for has been proven to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> this  was one of  those times where keeping your mouth shut and letting people think your an ignorant asshole  might have been appropriate.
> oops! too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws you think to much of youyrself Mr. theatre woman or man I am not sure.
Click to expand...

 having  no real rebuttal, YWC flails and fails...
in my experience people who make sexual innuendo remarks are uncomfortable with their own sexuality....


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution.  For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth.  Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival.  The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual.  If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years?  Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.
> 
> Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today?  Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food?  This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest.  What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense.  Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....
> 
> must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you are just to ignorant to reason on the evidence. Hmm a sponge connected to the brain that holds enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when he quickly raises his head and a valve to prevent all the blood rushing to his head and blowing his brains out. Oh and don't forget just the right size heart to pump that blood up that neck.
> 
> You live in fanatasy land.
Click to expand...


It really is strange that you're still carrying on about the silly creationist _Giraffe Conspiracy_&#8482; when the creationist attempts to babble on as you have were long ago dismissed as mere creationist inventions.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....
> 
> must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you are just to ignorant to reason on the evidence. Hmm a sponge connected to the brain that holds enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when he quickly raises his head and a valve to prevent all the blood rushing to his head and blowing his brains out. Oh and don't forget just the right size heart to pump that blood up that neck.
> 
> You live in fanatasy land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is strange that you're still carrying on about the silly creationist _Giraffe Conspiracy_ when the creationist attempts to babble on as you have were long ago dismissed as mere creationist inventions.
Click to expand...

they've
yet to learn (if ever) the old rule , if you have nothing to say, say nothing.


----------



## pjnlsn

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.
> 
> Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.
> 
> Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> actually no you can't
> the burden of proof issue was settled long ago.
> evolution is not a claim it's fact.
> there are no shoulds in science  shit either happens or it does not either there's evidence or there's not .
> in the case of transitional  fossils there are just as many as needed to prove evolution correct.
> more are being found all the time .
> 
> but you  keep on rationalizing !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yes I can.
> 
> Evoltuion has NEVER been proven. That is a fact.
> 
> Evolution is not science.
> 
> There should be MILLIONS of transitional fossils _if_ evolution occurred.
> 
> Besides what evolutionist call transitional fossil aren't even that.
Click to expand...


Whatever you call it, barring differences in what the term is referencing or is defined, and how words in descriptions of it are defined; Whether you say it's not science or not proven, it is, at the very, very least, likely.

As to those differences, and as wrote elsewhere: "The core of that idea which can summarize that section of biology (circa the present day) is simply to say that there are fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out what happened in the minutia."

What is not known is that, if there was change in the life forms on this planet, and presumably you would add the condition: "except if involving a being one would call godly," that there must have been a certain amount of animals, must have passed a certain amount of time, must have been conditions over that time, and must have been excavated those locations so as to produce that rough amount of fossils in the public record. Perhaps without the last part.


----------



## UltimateReality

AlexWA said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlexWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before homosapiens there were other human species that splintered off and either evolved further or went extinct. We are the result of the homosapien evolution.
Click to expand...


That is not what I am referring to. Let's stick to Homo Sapien. I'll give you the oldest undisputed fossil as being approx. 20,000 years old. So how has Homo Sapien changed physically in 20,000 years? Please provide examples of a different species that descended from Homo Sapien and went extinct.


----------



## UltimateReality

AlexWA said:


> FYI accepting evolution and respecting science is NOT a sin or any sort of damnable offense. You can still believe in God and that God has His hand in all of it.



No one is denying this. If God wanted to use evolution to create all the species on the planet, I wouldn't have a problem with this. The problem is when you start to peel back the layers of evolutionary theory you find it is a myth, mass brainwashing, and a scientific fairy tale. Let's just assume there isn't a God for a second. You are still going to have to come up with a better origins theory than evolution. An actual scientific theory based on sound reason and the actual evidence would be a good start. Most of Darwins theory has been replaced anyway. Google Neo Darwinism, genetic evidence for tree of life, punctuated equilibrium, and then check out the stupid icons of evolution. Ha! Really? This is the best they can come up with as proof? Bird beaks and moth wings... total nutjobs!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you confused about your own arguments for gods?
> 
> As fundies would present it, their gods were poofed into existence from an obvious hierarchy of gods who later poofed into existence humanity.
> 
> Such silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still with the "gods" thing. You obviously took the short bus to school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still with the utterly silly exemptions you make for your gods.
Click to expand...


Oh you poor dear. What a sad result of the dumbed down democrat/socialists public school system.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlexWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, yours is a pointless and totally unsupported claim. Blathering on about your imagined gods is no more believable than appeals to the Easter Bunny.
Click to expand...


Hollie, can you read?? Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Why do you continue to act like a retard on here. What are you accomplishing with your endless, repetitive ad hominem attacks?


----------



## UltimateReality

_Lenski's lab did an immense amount of careful work and deserves much praise. Yet the entirely separate, $64,000 question is, what do the results show about the power of the Darwinian mechanism? The answer is, they do not show it to be capable of anything more than what was already known. For example, in my review of lab evolution experiments I discussed the work of Zinser et al. (2003) where a sequence rearrangement brought a promoter close to a gene that had lacked one. I also discussed experiments such as Licis and van Duin (2006) where multiple sequential mutations increased the ability of a FCT. Despite Lenski's visually startling result -- where a usually clear flask became cloudy with the overgrowth of bacteria on citrate -- at the molecular level nothing novel occurred.

Another person who follows Lenski's results closely is Dennis Venema, chair of the Biology Department at Trinity Western University and contributor to the BioLogos website. Founded by Francis Collins, BioLogos defends the compatibility of Darwinian science and Christian theology. I agree that the Darwinian mechanism (rightly understood) is theoretically compatible with Christian theology. However, I also think Darwinism is grossly inadequate on scientific grounds. A number of BioLogos writers think it is adequate, and attempt to defend it against skeptics of Darwinism, most especially against proponents of intelligent design such as myself. _

Rose-Colored Glasses: Lenski, Citrate, and BioLogos - Evolution News & Views


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> AlexWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before homosapiens there were other human species that splintered off and either evolved further or went extinct. We are the result of the homosapien evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what I am referring to. Let's stick to Homo Sapien. I'll give you the oldest undisputed fossil as being approx. 20,000 years old. So how has Homo Sapien changed physically in 20,000 years? Please provide examples of a different species that descended from Homo Sapien and went extinct.
Click to expand...

P
What silliness. We know from the Christian creationist agenda that dating methods are "flawed" so you, as a fundie creationist, cannot even maintain a consistent argument. Secondly, the fundie creationist claim is that the earth is 6,000 years old so once again, you're confused as to what you're even arguing. 

Lastly, to suggest that a different species has necessarily evolved in the last 20,000 years from Homo Sapiens is yet another mindless claim emanating from someone never having exposure to an academic science education. You represent the dangers inherent in Christian creationist charlatans who have not a clue what they're writing about


----------



## ima

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlexWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before homosapiens there were other human species that splintered off and either evolved further or went extinct. We are the result of the homosapien evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what I am referring to. Let's stick to Homo Sapien. I'll give you the oldest undisputed fossil *as being approx. 20,000 years old*. So how has Homo Sapien changed physically in 20,000 years? Please provide examples of a different species that descended from Homo Sapien and went extinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> P
> What silliness. We know from the Christian creationist agenda that dating methods are "flawed" so you, as a fundie creationist, cannot even maintain a consistent argument. Secondly, the fundie creationist claim is that the earth is 6,000 years old so once again, you're confused as to what you're even arguing.
> 
> Lastly, to suggest that a different species has necessarily evolved in the last 20,000 years from Homo Sapiens is yet another mindless claim emanating from someone never having exposure to an academic science education. You represent the dangers inherent in Christian creationist charlatans who have not a clue what they're writing about
Click to expand...


Don't creationists put the age of the earth at something like 6000 years old?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, yours is a pointless and totally unsupported claim. Blathering on about your imagined gods is no more believable than appeals to the Easter Bunny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, can you read?? Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Why do you continue to act like a retard on here. What are you accomplishing with your endless, repetitive ad hominem attacks?
Click to expand...


You should have taken the time to read what you tried in vain to respond to. You continue to have great difficulty in associating the posts of others and responding with coherent sentences that address the salient points.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, yours is a pointless and totally unsupported claim. Blathering on about your imagined gods is no more believable than appeals to the Easter Bunny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, can you read?? Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Why do you continue to act like a retard on here. What are you accomplishing with your endless, repetitive ad hominem attacks?
Click to expand...


Your feelings are hurt. We understand that. Your continuing efforts at proselytizing are going nowhere and your attacks on science with endless cutting and pasting from creationist ministries amounts only to making you look foolish and desperate. 

This would be a your time to post your nonsense of gargantuan fonts in failed attempts to defend your ignorance.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlexWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before homosapiens there were other human species that splintered off and either evolved further or went extinct. We are the result of the homosapien evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what I am referring to. Let's stick to Homo Sapien. I'll give you the oldest undisputed fossil as being approx. 20,000 years old. So how has Homo Sapien changed physically in 20,000 years? Please provide examples of a different species that descended from Homo Sapien and went extinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> P
> What silliness. We know from the Christian creationist agenda that dating methods are "flawed" so you, as a fundie creationist, cannot even maintain a consistent argument. Secondly, the fundie creationist claim is that the earth is *6,000 years old* so once again, *you're confused as to what you're even arguing*.
Click to expand...


Hollie, I'm sorry but you are just downright stupid. I have told you at least ten times I am not a Creationist and I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. If you can't grasp something as simple as this after being told numerous times it is not surprising that you are unable to grasp other more complex concepts. Have you ever been tested for a learning disability?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, yours is a pointless and totally unsupported claim. Blathering on about your imagined gods is no more believable than appeals to the Easter Bunny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, can you read?? Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Why do you continue to act like a retard on here. What are you accomplishing with your endless, repetitive ad hominem attacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should have taken the time to read what you tried in vain to respond to. You continue to have great difficulty in associating the posts of others and responding with coherent sentences that address the salient points.
Click to expand...


That is what I just said to you Parrot.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, yours is a pointless and totally unsupported claim. Blathering on about your imagined gods is no more believable than appeals to the Easter Bunny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, can you read?? Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Why do you continue to act like a retard on here. What are you accomplishing with your endless, repetitive ad hominem attacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your feelings are hurt. We understand that. Your continuing efforts at proselytizing are going nowhere and your attacks on science with endless cutting and pasting from creationist ministries amounts only to making you look foolish and desperate.
> 
> This would be a your time to post your nonsense of gargantuan fonts in failed attempts to defend your ignorance.
Click to expand...


Would you be referring to *your* ignorance that comes from *never going to college??*


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....
> 
> must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you are just to ignorant to reason on the evidence. Hmm a sponge connected to the brain that holds enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when he quickly raises his head and a valve to prevent all the blood rushing to his head and blowing his brains out. Oh and don't forget just the right size heart to pump that blood up that neck.
> 
> You live in fanatasy land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is strange that you're still carrying on about the silly creationist _Giraffe Conspiracy_ when the creationist attempts to babble on as you have were long ago dismissed as mere creationist inventions.
Click to expand...


You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what I am referring to. Let's stick to Homo Sapien. I'll give you the oldest undisputed fossil *as being approx. 20,000 years old*. So how has Homo Sapien changed physically in 20,000 years? Please provide examples of a different species that descended from Homo Sapien and went extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> P
> What silliness. We know from the Christian creationist agenda that dating methods are "flawed" so you, as a fundie creationist, cannot even maintain a consistent argument. Secondly, the fundie creationist claim is that the earth is 6,000 years old so once again, you're confused as to what you're even arguing.
> 
> Lastly, to suggest that a different species has necessarily evolved in the last 20,000 years from Homo Sapiens is yet another mindless claim emanating from someone never having exposure to an academic science education. You represent the dangers inherent in Christian creationist charlatans who have not a clue what they're writing about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't creationists put the age of the earth at something like 6000 years old?
Click to expand...


No. I believe that age is what they estimate how long ago man was created. 

The earth's age in unknown and will always be so.

When God made creation it took seven days. But one can only guess how long a day is. Since time is a man-made concept a day to God could have been millions of years or the blink of an eye. IMO


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what I am referring to. Let's stick to Homo Sapien. I'll give you the oldest undisputed fossil as being approx. 20,000 years old. So how has Homo Sapien changed physically in 20,000 years? Please provide examples of a different species that descended from Homo Sapien and went extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> P
> What silliness. We know from the Christian creationist agenda that dating methods are "flawed" so you, as a fundie creationist, cannot even maintain a consistent argument. Secondly, the fundie creationist claim is that the earth is *6,000 years old* so once again, *you're confused as to what you're even arguing*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, I'm sorry but you are just downright stupid. I have told you at least ten times I am not a Creationist and I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. If you can't grasp something as simple as this after being told numerous times it is not surprising that you are unable to grasp other more complex concepts. Have you ever been tested for a learning disability?
Click to expand...


Actually, the stupidity is yours for confusing your own arguments with these of the YEC'ers. If you're not understanding the religious agenda you hope to press, you may wish to spend some time and figure out what you are?

You were home schooled by fundie, science loathing people which you have become, right?


----------



## planetXplore

the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, can you read?? Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Why do you continue to act like a retard on here. What are you accomplishing with your endless, repetitive ad hominem attacks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your feelings are hurt. We understand that. Your continuing efforts at proselytizing are going nowhere and your attacks on science with endless cutting and pasting from creationist ministries amounts only to making you look foolish and desperate.
> 
> This would be a your time to post your nonsense of gargantuan fonts in failed attempts to defend your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you be referring to *your* ignorance that comes from *never going to college??*
Click to expand...

Actually, you're projecting. 

You obviously have an inferiority complex about your lack of education.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> P
> What silliness. We know from the Christian creationist agenda that dating methods are "flawed" so you, as a fundie creationist, cannot even maintain a consistent argument. Secondly, the fundie creationist claim is that the earth is 6,000 years old so once again, you're confused as to what you're even arguing.
> 
> Lastly, to suggest that a different species has necessarily evolved in the last 20,000 years from Homo Sapiens is yet another mindless claim emanating from someone never having exposure to an academic science education. You represent the dangers inherent in Christian creationist charlatans who have not a clue what they're writing about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't creationists put the age of the earth at something like 6000 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I believe that age is what they estimate how long ago man was created.
> 
> The earth's age in unknown and will always be so.
> 
> When God made creation it took seven days. But one can only guess how long a day is. Since time is a man-made concept a day to God could have been millions of years or the blink of an eye. IMO
Click to expand...

That's convenient, of course. It allows you an exclusion from meeting any standard of proof or definition. You can just make it up as you go along.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your feelings are hurt. We understand that. Your continuing efforts at proselytizing are going nowhere and your attacks on science with endless cutting and pasting from creationist ministries amounts only to making you look foolish and desperate.
> 
> This would be a your time to post your nonsense of gargantuan fonts in failed attempts to defend your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be referring to *your* ignorance that comes from *never going to college??*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you're projecting.
> 
> You obviously have an inferiority complex about your lack of education.
Click to expand...


I studied Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona and did quite well. See? That wasn't so hard was it? Well, that is....


*If you actually went to college!!!*


----------



## UltimateReality

planetXplore said:


> the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years



Scientist believe that. It is not a fact and it could change.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you are just to ignorant to reason on the evidence. Hmm a sponge connected to the brain that holds enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when he quickly raises his head and a valve to prevent all the blood rushing to his head and blowing his brains out. Oh and don't forget just the right size heart to pump that blood up that neck.
> 
> You live in fanatasy land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is strange that you're still carrying on about the silly creationist _Giraffe Conspiracy_ when the creationist attempts to babble on as you have were long ago dismissed as mere creationist inventions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.
Click to expand...

That's so silly. As we see throughout nature, the alleged designs of your alleged designer are clumsy, amateurish, incompetent and failure-prone. 

The designer gods of your gods and including the hierarchy of designer gods got so little correct, they should have been fired by the supervisory designer gods for incompetence.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> P
> What silliness. We know from the Christian creationist agenda that dating methods are "flawed" so you, as a fundie creationist, cannot even maintain a consistent argument. Secondly, the fundie creationist claim is that the earth is *6,000 years old* so once again, *you're confused as to what you're even arguing*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, I'm sorry but you are just downright stupid. I have told you at least ten times I am not a Creationist and I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. If you can't grasp something as simple as this after being told numerous times it is not surprising that you are unable to grasp other more complex concepts. Have you ever been tested for a learning disability?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the stupidity is yours for confusing your own arguments with these of the YEC'ers. If you're not understanding the religious agenda you hope to press, you may wish to spend some time and figure out what you are?
> 
> You were home schooled by fundie, science loathing people which you have become, right?
Click to expand...


Your ad hominem attacks can't disguise your ineptness and inability to comprehend information that has been repeated to you numerous times.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is strange that you're still carrying on about the silly creationist _Giraffe Conspiracy_ when the creationist attempts to babble on as you have were long ago dismissed as mere creationist inventions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's so silly. As we see throughout nature, the alleged designs of your alleged designer are clumsy, amateurish, incompetent and failure-prone.
> 
> The designer gods of your gods and including the hierarchy of designer gods got so little correct, they should have been fired by the supervisory designer gods for incompetence.
Click to expand...


These comments are not surprising coming from someone with their own god delusion.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be referring to *your* ignorance that comes from *never going to college??*
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you're projecting.
> 
> You obviously have an inferiority complex about your lack of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I studied Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona and did quite well. See? That wasn't so hard was it? Well, that is....
> 
> 
> *If you actually went to college!!!*
Click to expand...


Don't be ashamed of your lack of education beyond what appears to be an eighth grade level. The world needs truck drivers and ditch diggers, too.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, I'm sorry but you are just downright stupid. I have told you at least ten times I am not a Creationist and I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. If you can't grasp something as simple as this after being told numerous times it is not surprising that you are unable to grasp other more complex concepts. Have you ever been tested for a learning disability?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the stupidity is yours for confusing your own arguments with these of the YEC'ers. If you're not understanding the religious agenda you hope to press, you may wish to spend some time and figure out what you are?
> 
> You were home schooled by fundie, science loathing people which you have become, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ad hominem attacks can't disguise your ineptness and inability to comprehend information that has been repeated to you numerous times.
Click to expand...

What attacks? Your ineptitude and unwillingness to learn results from your religious indoctrination and lack of formal education. Don't let that be a barrier to posting gargantuan fonts. Take your time, spell words as best you can and if the bright colors help you through this, we're making progress.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be referring to *your* ignorance that comes from *never going to college??*
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you're projecting.
> 
> You obviously have an inferiority complex about your lack of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I studied Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona and did quite well. See? That wasn't so hard was it? Well, that is....
> 
> 
> *If you actually went to college!!!*
Click to expand...


If it helps you, use a consistent color for your gargantuan fonts. Be sure to "sound-out' the words as you spell them and try moving your fingers along the bottom of the short sentences to proof your work. Go slow and when you have trouble, raise your hand and ask for help.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> planetXplore said:
> 
> 
> 
> the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientist believe that. It is not a fact and it could change.
Click to expand...


4.5 billion years is actually 7 days in jeebus time.  Remember jeebus standard/ daylight saving time? Jeebus ahead - fall back.


----------



## ima

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> planetXplore said:
> 
> 
> 
> the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientist believe that. It is not a fact and it could change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4.5 billion years is actually 7 days in jeebus time.  Remember jeebus standard/ daylight saving time? Jeebus ahead - fall back.
Click to expand...


So one the seventh day He slept for about 650 millions years? Is that when everything went wrong because He was playing hookey?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't creationists put the age of the earth at something like 6000 years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I believe that age is what they estimate how long ago man was created.
> 
> The earth's age in unknown and will always be so.
> 
> When God made creation it took seven days. But one can only guess how long a day is. Since time is a man-made concept a day to God could have been millions of years or the blink of an eye. IMO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's convenient, of course. It allows you an exclusion from meeting any standard of proof or definition. You can just make it up as you go along.
Click to expand...


I've witnessed proof.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> _Lenski's lab did an immense amount of careful work and deserves much praise. Yet the entirely separate, $64,000 question is, what do the results show about the power of the Darwinian mechanism? The answer is, they do not show it to be capable of anything more than what was already known. For example, in my review of lab evolution experiments I discussed the work of Zinser et al. (2003) where a sequence rearrangement brought a promoter close to a gene that had lacked one. I also discussed experiments such as Licis and van Duin (2006) where multiple sequential mutations increased the ability of a FCT. Despite Lenski's visually startling result -- where a usually clear flask became cloudy with the overgrowth of bacteria on citrate -- at the molecular level nothing novel occurred.
> 
> Another person who follows Lenski's results closely is Dennis Venema, chair of the Biology Department at Trinity Western University and contributor to the BioLogos website. Founded by Francis Collins, BioLogos defends the compatibility of Darwinian science and Christian theology. I agree that the Darwinian mechanism (rightly understood) is theoretically compatible with Christian theology. However, I also think Darwinism is grossly inadequate on scientific grounds. A number of BioLogos writers think it is adequate, and attempt to defend it against skeptics of Darwinism, most especially against proponents of intelligent design such as myself. _
> 
> Rose-Colored Glasses: Lenski, Citrate, and BioLogos - Evolution News & Views


is not credible...

 Discovery Institute intelligent design campaignsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Part of a series on 
Intelligent design 

see: Watchmaker analogy 
Concepts 
Irreducible complexity
Specified complexity
Fine-tuned universe
Intelligent designer
Theistic science
Neo-creationism 
Intelligent design
movement 
Timeline
Wedge strategy
Politics
Kitzmiller v. Dover 
Campaigns 
Critical Analysis of Evolution
Teach the Controversy 
Organisations 
Discovery Institute
Center for Science and Culture
Centre for Intelligent Design
ISCID
Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
Truth in Science

Reactions 
Jewish · Roman Catholic
Scientific organizations

Creationism



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Book ·  Category · Portal 
v ·t ·e 

The Discovery Institute has conducted a series of related public relations campaigns which seek to promote intelligent design while attempting to discredit evolutionary biology, which the Institute terms "Darwinism."[1] The Discovery Institute is the driving force behind the intelligent design movement and the Institute directs the campaigns through its Center for Science and Culture division with guidance from its public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts.[2]

Prominent Institute campaigns have been to 'Teach the Controversy' and to allow 'Critical Analysis of Evolution'. Other campaigns have claimed that intelligent design advocates (most notably Richard Sternberg) have been discriminated against, and thus that Academic Freedom bills are needed to protect academics' and teachers' ability to criticise evolution, and that there is a link from evolution to ideologies such as Nazism and eugenics. These three claims are all publicised in the pro-ID movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Other campaigns have included petitions, most notably A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

The theory of evolution is accepted by overwhelming scientific consensus.[3] Intelligent design has been rejected, both by the vast majority of scientists and by court findings, as being a religious view and not science.

Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what I am referring to. Let's stick to Homo Sapien. I'll give you the oldest undisputed fossil as being approx. 20,000 years old. So how has Homo Sapien changed physically in 20,000 years? Please provide examples of a different species that descended from Homo Sapien and went extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> P
> What silliness. We know from the Christian creationist agenda that dating methods are "flawed" so you, as a fundie creationist, cannot even maintain a consistent argument. Secondly, the fundie creationist claim is that the earth is *6,000 years old* so once again, *you're confused as to what you're even arguing*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, I'm sorry but you are just downright stupid. I have told you at least ten times I am not a Creationist and I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. If you can't grasp something as simple as this after being told numerous times it is not surprising that you are unable to grasp other more complex concepts. Have you ever been tested for a learning disability?
Click to expand...

that's a good lie if you can get the ignorant to buy it..you are just as much a creationist as YWC OR LS. 
all you've done is slap lipstick on a pig a claim it's a unicorn.


or  same bullshit different format!


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I believe that age is what they estimate how long ago man was created.
> 
> The earth's age in unknown and will always be so.
> 
> When God made creation it took seven days. But one can only guess how long a day is. Since time is a man-made concept a day to God could have been millions of years or the blink of an eye. IMO
> 
> 
> 
> That's convenient, of course. It allows you an exclusion from meeting any standard of proof or definition. You can just make it up as you go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've witnessed proof.
Click to expand...


You also command the French forces at waterloo, right?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you are just to ignorant to reason on the evidence. Hmm a sponge connected to the brain that holds enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when he quickly raises his head and a valve to prevent all the blood rushing to his head and blowing his brains out. Oh and don't forget just the right size heart to pump that blood up that neck.
> 
> You live in fanatasy land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is strange that you're still carrying on about the silly creationist _Giraffe Conspiracy_ when the creationist attempts to babble on as you have were long ago dismissed as mere creationist inventions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.
Click to expand...

really funny since you have no proof of a "thinking" designer.
ahh "the process" is far from random


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> P
> What silliness. We know from the Christian creationist agenda that dating methods are "flawed" so you, as a fundie creationist, cannot even maintain a consistent argument. Secondly, the fundie creationist claim is that the earth is 6,000 years old so once again, you're confused as to what you're even arguing.
> 
> Lastly, to suggest that a different species has necessarily evolved in the last 20,000 years from Homo Sapiens is yet another mindless claim emanating from someone never having exposure to an academic science education. You represent the dangers inherent in Christian creationist charlatans who have not a clue what they're writing about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't creationists put the age of the earth at something like 6000 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I believe that age is what they estimate how long ago man was created.
> 
> The earth's age in unknown and will always be so.
> 
> When God made creation it took seven days. But one can only guess how long a day is. Since time is a man-made concept a day to God could have been millions of years or the blink of an eye. IMO
Click to expand...

what you believe has no bering on reality,,,


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be referring to *your* ignorance that comes from *never going to college??*
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you're projecting.
> 
> You obviously have an inferiority complex about your lack of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I studied Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona and did quite well. See? That wasn't so hard was it? Well, that is....
> 
> 
> *If you actually went to college!!!*
Click to expand...

yeah.... but did you graduate and what degree do you have...?
is it just me or does anybody else find it ironic that our two top fundies went to the same school?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> planetXplore said:
> 
> 
> 
> the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientist believe that. It is not a fact and it could change.
Click to expand...

no it a fact, proven mathematically...  but you are right it could change science changes with evidence unlike religion.btw that change would most likely  date the earth to be older not younger.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I believe that age is what they estimate how long ago man was created.
> 
> The earth's age in unknown and will always be so.
> 
> When God made creation it took seven days. But one can only guess how long a day is. Since time is a man-made concept a day to God could have been millions of years or the blink of an eye. IMO
> 
> 
> 
> That's convenient, of course. It allows you an exclusion from meeting any standard of proof or definition. You can just make it up as you go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've witnessed proof.
Click to expand...

no you haven't ,you either had an hallucination of some kind either brought on by stress from the revival meeting you were attending and worked yourself up to it.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's convenient, of course. It allows you an exclusion from meeting any standard of proof or definition. You can just make it up as you go along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You also command the French forces at waterloo, right?
Click to expand...


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't creationists put the age of the earth at something like 6000 years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I believe that age is what they estimate how long ago man was created.
> 
> The earth's age in unknown and will always be so.
> 
> When God made creation it took seven days. But one can only guess how long a day is. Since time is a man-made concept a day to God could have been millions of years or the blink of an eye. IMO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you believe has no bering on reality,,,
Click to expand...


Hey moron it's spelled "bearing".

My beliefs are just as valid as yours.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's convenient, of course. It allows you an exclusion from meeting any standard of proof or definition. You can just make it up as you go along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you haven't ,you either had an hallucination of some kind either brought on by stress from the revival meeting you were attending and worked yourself up to it.
Click to expand...


You do know that what your doing is fulfulling biblical prophecy.

So keep it up!


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed proof.
> 
> 
> 
> no you haven't ,you either had an hallucination of some kind either brought on by stress from the revival meeting you were attending and worked yourself up to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that what your doing is fulfulling biblical prophecy.
> 
> So keep it up!
Click to expand...


Uh oh. The fundie is threatening us with his gods.


----------



## konradv

Do I have to start negging everyone that keeps posting to this thread?  I said 10,000 posts is enough and I meant it!  Everything's been said 100s of times already.  Enough is enough.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Lenski's lab did an immense amount of careful work and deserves much praise. Yet the entirely separate, $64,000 question is, what do the results show about the power of the Darwinian mechanism? The answer is, they do not show it to be capable of anything more than what was already known. For example, in my review of lab evolution experiments I discussed the work of Zinser et al. (2003) where a sequence rearrangement brought a promoter close to a gene that had lacked one. I also discussed experiments such as Licis and van Duin (2006) where multiple sequential mutations increased the ability of a FCT. Despite Lenski's visually startling result -- where a usually clear flask became cloudy with the overgrowth of bacteria on citrate -- at the molecular level nothing novel occurred.
> 
> Another person who follows Lenski's results closely is Dennis Venema, chair of the Biology Department at Trinity Western University and contributor to the BioLogos website. Founded by Francis Collins, BioLogos defends the compatibility of Darwinian science and Christian theology. I agree that the Darwinian mechanism (rightly understood) is theoretically compatible with Christian theology. However, I also think Darwinism is grossly inadequate on scientific grounds. A number of BioLogos writers think it is adequate, and attempt to defend it against skeptics of Darwinism, most especially against proponents of intelligent design such as myself. _
> 
> Rose-Colored Glasses: Lenski, Citrate, and BioLogos - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> is not credible...
> 
> Discovery Institute intelligent design campaignsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Part of a series on
> Intelligent design
> 
> see: Watchmaker analogy
> Concepts
> Irreducible complexity
> Specified complexity
> Fine-tuned universe
> Intelligent designer
> Theistic science
> Neo-creationism
> Intelligent design
> movement
> Timeline
> Wedge strategy
> Politics
> Kitzmiller v. Dover
> Campaigns
> Critical Analysis of Evolution
> Teach the Controversy
> Organisations
> Discovery Institute
> Center for Science and Culture
> Centre for Intelligent Design
> ISCID
> Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
> Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
> Truth in Science
> 
> Reactions
> Jewish · Roman Catholic
> Scientific organizations
> 
> Creationism
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Book ·  Category · Portal
> v ·t ·e
> 
> The Discovery Institute has conducted a series of related public relations campaigns which seek to promote intelligent design while attempting to discredit evolutionary biology, which the Institute terms "Darwinism."[1] The Discovery Institute is the driving force behind the intelligent design movement and the Institute directs the campaigns through its Center for Science and Culture division with guidance from its public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts.[2]
> 
> Prominent Institute campaigns have been to 'Teach the Controversy' and to allow 'Critical Analysis of Evolution'. Other campaigns have claimed that intelligent design advocates (most notably Richard Sternberg) have been discriminated against, and thus that Academic Freedom bills are needed to protect academics' and teachers' ability to criticise evolution, and that there is a link from evolution to ideologies such as Nazism and eugenics. These three claims are all publicised in the pro-ID movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Other campaigns have included petitions, most notably A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.
> 
> The theory of evolution is accepted by overwhelming scientific consensus.[3] Intelligent design has been rejected, both by the vast majority of scientists and by court findings, as being a religious view and not science.
> 
> Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


What's your point?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> P
> What silliness. We know from the Christian creationist agenda that dating methods are "flawed" so you, as a fundie creationist, cannot even maintain a consistent argument. Secondly, the fundie creationist claim is that the earth is *6,000 years old* so once again, *you're confused as to what you're even arguing*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, I'm sorry but you are just downright stupid. I have told you at least ten times I am not a Creationist and I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. If you can't grasp something as simple as this after being told numerous times it is not surprising that you are unable to grasp other more complex concepts. Have you ever been tested for a learning disability?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's a good lie if you can get the ignorant to buy it..you are just as much a creationist as YWC OR LS.
> all you've done is slap lipstick on a pig a claim it's a unicorn.
> 
> 
> or  same bullshit different format!
Click to expand...


I thought I told you to run a long little whiney boy. So beat it.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is strange that you're still carrying on about the silly creationist _Giraffe Conspiracy_&#8482; when the creationist attempts to babble on as you have were long ago dismissed as mere creationist inventions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really funny since you have no proof of a "thinking" designer.
> ahh "the process" is far from random
Click to expand...


This is the biggest farce of all of evolutiondom. Natural selection doesn't make it not random. Random mutations are required or the whole thing false apart. Don't be so gullible. You obviously buy everything you read at the atheist websites without giving it a thought or questioning anything on your own. You're a sheep.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you're projecting.
> 
> You obviously have an inferiority complex about your lack of education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I studied Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona and did quite well. See? That wasn't so hard was it? Well, that is....
> 
> 
> *If you actually went to college!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah.... but did you graduate and what degree do you have...?
Click to expand...


You and Hollie tell me where you went to college and I will gladly answer your question.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> planetXplore said:
> 
> 
> 
> the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientist believe that. It is not a fact and it could change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it a fact, proven mathematically...  but you are right it could change science changes with evidence unlike religion.btw that change would most likely  date the earth to be older not younger.
Click to expand...


Wow that sounds intelligent. So it's a fact until new evidence comes to light. Doh!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> Do I have to start negging everyone that keeps posting to this thread?  I said 10,000 posts is enough and I meant it!  Everything's been said 100s of times already.  Enough is enough.



This is a America... well, maybe for a little longer. You are free to put this thread on ignore anytime.


----------



## konradv

UltimateReality said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have to start negging everyone that keeps posting to this thread?  I said 10,000 posts is enough and I meant it!  Everything's been said 100s of times already.  Enough is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a America... well, maybe for a little longer. You are free to put this thread on ignore anytime.
Click to expand...


Negged for for being really, really boring.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I studied Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona and did quite well. See? That wasn't so hard was it? Well, that is....
> 
> 
> *If you actually went to college!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> yeah.... but did you graduate and what degree do you have...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Hollie tell me where you went to college and I will gladly answer your question.
Click to expand...


I'll require to practice using more user-friendly monosyllables. The gargantuan fonts and bright colors are required as that will tend to increase the attention span of folks with your educational challenges.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> AlexWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI accepting evolution and respecting science is NOT a sin or any sort of damnable offense. You can still believe in God and that God has His hand in all of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is denying this. If God wanted to use evolution to create all the species on the planet, I wouldn't have a problem with this. The problem is when you start to peel back the layers of evolutionary theory you find it is a myth, mass brainwashing, and a scientific fairy tale. Let's just assume there isn't a God for a second. You are still going to have to come up with a better origins theory than evolution. An actual scientific theory based on sound reason and the actual evidence would be a good start. Most of Darwins theory has been replaced anyway. Google Neo Darwinism, genetic evidence for tree of life, punctuated equilibrium, and then check out the stupid icons of evolution. Ha! Really? This is the best they can come up with as proof? Bird beaks and moth wings... total nutjobs!!!
Click to expand...



Actually, you wouldn't need any new theory if you assume there is no god. Funny that no one else thinks this accept creationists.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientist believe that. It is not a fact and it could change.
> 
> 
> 
> no it a fact, proven mathematically...  but you are right it could change science changes with evidence unlike religion.btw that change would most likely  date the earth to be older not younger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow that sounds intelligent. So it's a fact until new evidence comes to light. Doh!!!
Click to expand...


Funny that you should laugh. You have a better method of determining events that happened over 4 billion years ago? Let's see it. How utterly obnoxious can you be?? You sit back and reap all of the benefits of science, from health care to transportation, yet you mock science because it can't deliver a specific or accurate enough date for the inception of the earth? I can't tell you how ridiculous that is, especially when you have nothing better.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.
> 
> 
> 
> really funny since you have no proof of a "thinking" designer.
> ahh "the process" is far from random
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the biggest farce of all of evolutiondom. Natural selection doesn't make it not random. Random mutations are required or the whole thing false apart. Don't be so gullible. You obviously buy everything you read at the atheist websites without giving it a thought or questioning anything on your own. You're a sheep.
Click to expand...


Natural selection does make it non-random. It is right there in the word "selection," next to the word which describes the mechanism doing the selecting: "nature". It's not called "random selection." Mutations may be random, but they still have to pass the selection process. So, random mutations are entirely beholden to the natural selection process. Evolution does not equal "random mutations". If anything, evolution is more equivalent to natural selection. Random mutations just help bump it along sometimes. 

 To sum it up, just because a part of evolution is random, doesn't mean evolution is random.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you are just to ignorant to reason on the evidence. Hmm a sponge connected to the brain that holds enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when he quickly raises his head and a valve to prevent all the blood rushing to his head and blowing his brains out. Oh and don't forget just the right size heart to pump that blood up that neck.
> 
> You live in fanatasy land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is strange that you're still carrying on about the silly creationist _Giraffe Conspiracy_ when the creationist attempts to babble on as you have were long ago dismissed as mere creationist inventions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.
Click to expand...


Evolution is. not. totally. random.

It's not even random.

It's not even close to random.

It is guided by natural selection. How do you not know this by now???? What has this whole thread been for? Are you trying to take in ANY information presented to you or are you simply denying everything that is written about evolution?

If so, what is the point in us being here? You might as well live in your solipsistic little world and spare us the effort of all this.


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that's right. You're the only one allowed to deny evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make absolutely no sense. I embrace the fact of evolution because evidence supports the theory. Denial of that reality is, almost exclusively, a fundie Christian syndrome. There does not exist outside of christianity such a frantic, anti- science and anti-knowledge agenda. It is exclusively fundie Christians who drive the anti-science creationist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is not a science. Your first mistake is in thinking it is. "Science" means "to study". How can you study something that doesn't exist?
> 
> Evolution CANNOT be repeated, CANNOT be tested, CANNOT be observed, Cannot be studied...it is NOT science.
Click to expand...

 
One of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Ever heard of speciation being demonstrated in a laboratory?

Ever heard of genetics studies used to verify common ancestry? 

Ever heard of viruses mutating over time? 

Ever heard of fossil evidence which clearly shows a linear progression in the anatomy of species over time?

Hmm... yeah. Every one of you're claims about evolution is utterly false. Stick to what you know.


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I believe that age is what they estimate how long ago man was created.
> 
> The earth's age in unknown and will always be so.
> 
> When God made creation it took seven days. But one can only guess how long a day is. Since time is a man-made concept a day to God could have been millions of years or the blink of an eye. IMO
> 
> 
> 
> That's convenient, of course. It allows you an exclusion from meeting any standard of proof or definition. You can just make it up as you go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've witnessed proof.
Click to expand...


Really?! What proof was this?!!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is strange that you're still carrying on about the silly creationist _Giraffe Conspiracy_ when the creationist attempts to babble on as you have were long ago dismissed as mere creationist inventions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is. not. totally. random.
> 
> It's not even random.
> 
> It's not even close to random.
> 
> It is guided by natural selection. How do you not know this by now???? What has this whole thread been for? Are you trying to take in ANY information presented to you or are you simply denying everything that is written about evolution?
> 
> If so, what is the point in us being here? You might as well live in your solipsistic little world and spare us the effort of all this.
Click to expand...


So what is guiding natural selection ? Surely it takes intelligence to lead or guide no ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make absolutely no sense. I embrace the fact of evolution because evidence supports the theory. Denial of that reality is, almost exclusively, a fundie Christian syndrome. There does not exist outside of christianity such a frantic, anti- science and anti-knowledge agenda. It is exclusively fundie Christians who drive the anti-science creationist ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not a science. Your first mistake is in thinking it is. "Science" means "to study". How can you study something that doesn't exist?
> 
> Evolution CANNOT be repeated, CANNOT be tested, CANNOT be observed, Cannot be studied...it is NOT science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
> 
> Ever heard of speciation being demonstrated in a laboratory?
> 
> Ever heard of genetics studies used to verify common ancestry?
> 
> Ever heard of viruses mutating over time?
> 
> Ever heard of fossil evidence which clearly shows a linear progression in the anatomy of species over time?
> 
> Hmm... yeah. Every one of you're claims about evolution is utterly false. Stick to what you know.
Click to expand...


You let us know when this speciation leads to macroevolution.

Have you ever heard that many things have genes similar to humans but they are not related to humans how can that be by your reasoning ?

Again you let us know when mutating viruses are no longer a virus.

Please stop with this nonsense of transitional fossils, good grief.

Everything you claimed are faulty assumptions of the evidence.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah.... but did you graduate and what degree do you have...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and Hollie tell me where you went to college and I will gladly answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll require to practice using more user-friendly monosyllables. The gargantuan fonts and bright colors are required as that will tend to increase the attention span of folks with your educational challenges.
Click to expand...


Dodge!


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlexWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI accepting evolution and respecting science is NOT a sin or any sort of damnable offense. You can still believe in God and that God has His hand in all of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is denying this. If God wanted to use evolution to create all the species on the planet, I wouldn't have a problem with this. The problem is when you start to peel back the layers of evolutionary theory you find it is a myth, mass brainwashing, and a scientific fairy tale. Let's just assume there isn't a God for a second. You are still going to have to come up with a better origins theory than evolution. An actual scientific theory based on sound reason and the actual evidence would be a good start. Most of Darwins theory has been replaced anyway. Google Neo Darwinism, genetic evidence for tree of life, punctuated equilibrium, and then check out the stupid icons of evolution. Ha! Really? This is the best they can come up with as proof? Bird beaks and moth wings... total nutjobs!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you wouldn't need any new theory if you assume there is no god. Funny that no one else thinks this accept creationists.
Click to expand...


Is that because there isn't a shred of the old theory left with the discovery of dna?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it a *fact*, proven mathematically...  but you are right it could change science changes with evidence unlike religion.btw that change would most likely  date the earth to be older not younger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that sounds intelligent. So it's a fact until new evidence comes to light. Doh!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that you should laugh. You have a better method of determining events that happened over 4 billion years ago? Let's see it. How utterly obnoxious can you be?? You sit back and reap all of the benefits of science, from health care to transportation, yet you mock science because it can't deliver a specific or accurate enough date for the inception of the earth? I can't tell you how ridiculous that is, especially when you have nothing better.
Click to expand...


I can't tell you how ignorant and inept your response to this comment is. I am not denying the science or the age of the earth, but there is not enough evidence to call it a "fact". Even REAL scientists say they "believe" the earth is 4 billion years old. Heck, I believe it is too, but it is far from a fact my friend. Comprende?

Look Daws, you whiney little girl, I bolded your original post. But I didn't violate forum rules because although I was tempted, I didn't correct your baby talk. No, it a fact mommy. It a fact.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really funny since you have no proof of a "thinking" designer.
> ahh "the process" is far from random
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the biggest farce of all of evolutiondom. Natural selection doesn't make it not random. Random mutations are required or the whole thing false apart. Don't be so gullible. You obviously buy everything you read at the atheist websites without giving it a thought or questioning anything on your own. You're a sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural selection does make it non-random. It is right there in the word "selection," next to the word which describes the mechanism doing the selecting: "nature". It's not called "random selection." Mutations may be random, but they still have to pass the selection process. So, random mutations are entirely beholden to the natural selection process. Evolution does not equal "random mutations". If anything, evolution is more equivalent to natural selection. Random mutations just help bump it along sometimes.
> 
> To sum it up, just because a part of evolution is random, doesn't mean evolution is random.
Click to expand...


Omigosh!! You would fall for this semantics nonsense. When you look up gullible in the dictionary, is your picture there?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is strange that you're still carrying on about the silly creationist _Giraffe Conspiracy_&#8482; when the creationist attempts to babble on as you have were long ago dismissed as mere creationist inventions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is. not. totally. random.
> 
> It's not even random.
> 
> It's not even close to random.
> 
> *It is guided by natural selection.*..
Click to expand...


*per·son·i·fi·ca·tion  (pr-sn-f-kshn)*
n.
1. The act of personifying.
2. A person or thing typifying a certain quality or idea; an embodiment or exemplification: "He's invisible, a walking personification of the Negative" (Ralph Ellison).
*3. A figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities or are represented as possessing human form, as in Hunger sat shivering on the road or Flowers danced about the lawn. Also called prosopopeia.*
4. Artistic representation of an abstract quality or idea as a person.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is denying this. If God wanted to use evolution to create all the species on the planet, I wouldn't have a problem with this. The problem is when you start to peel back the layers of evolutionary theory you find it is a myth, mass brainwashing, and a scientific fairy tale. Let's just assume there isn't a God for a second. You are still going to have to come up with a better origins theory than evolution. An actual scientific theory based on sound reason and the actual evidence would be a good start. Most of Darwins theory has been replaced anyway. Google Neo Darwinism, genetic evidence for tree of life, punctuated equilibrium, and then check out the stupid icons of evolution. Ha! Really? This is the best they can come up with as proof? Bird beaks and moth wings... total nutjobs!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you wouldn't need any new theory if you assume there is no god. Funny that no one else thinks this accept creationists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that because there isn't a shred of the old theory left with the discovery of dna?
Click to expand...


I can do nothing but smile after reading your question. It's funny, but hey, its your choice to be as stubborn as you are.

I'll let someone else do the talking. A christian theist, in fact, who argues for theistic evolution:

"Nothing in Biology makes sense except in light of Evolution."- Theodosius Dobzhansky.

Remember him? Yeah, I posted this one before. Stop thinking you know the truth smart guy. You don't.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is. not. totally. random.
> 
> It's not even random.
> 
> It's not even close to random.
> 
> *It is guided by natural selection.*..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *per·son·i·fi·ca·tion  (pr-sn-f-kshn)*
> n.
> 1. The act of personifying.
> 2. A person or thing typifying a certain quality or idea; an embodiment or exemplification: "He's invisible, a walking personification of the Negative" (Ralph Ellison).
> *3. A figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities or are represented as possessing human form, as in Hunger sat shivering on the road or Flowers danced about the lawn. Also called prosopopeia.*
> 4. Artistic representation of an abstract quality or idea as a person.
Click to expand...


ummm... okay. thanks for the definition. I'm not sure what that has to do with me. I did no such thing. It is only your misconception. Maybe you should put on your glasses.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the biggest farce of all of evolutiondom. Natural selection doesn't make it not random. Random mutations are required or the whole thing false apart. Don't be so gullible. You obviously buy everything you read at the atheist websites without giving it a thought or questioning anything on your own. You're a sheep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection does make it non-random. It is right there in the word "selection," next to the word which describes the mechanism doing the selecting: "nature". It's not called "random selection." Mutations may be random, but they still have to pass the selection process. So, random mutations are entirely beholden to the natural selection process. Evolution does not equal "random mutations". If anything, evolution is more equivalent to natural selection. Random mutations just help bump it along sometimes.
> 
> To sum it up, just because a part of evolution is random, doesn't mean evolution is random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Omigosh!! You would fall for this semantics nonsense. When you look up gullible in the dictionary, is your picture there?
Click to expand...


Are you able to actually respond to anything without an appeal to ridicule? You are weak sauce tonight!

Btw, that was a terrible joke. The last time I heard it, I think I was in fifth grade.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that sounds intelligent. So it's a fact until new evidence comes to light. Doh!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that you should laugh. You have a better method of determining events that happened over 4 billion years ago? Let's see it. How utterly obnoxious can you be?? You sit back and reap all of the benefits of science, from health care to transportation, yet you mock science because it can't deliver a specific or accurate enough date for the inception of the earth? I can't tell you how ridiculous that is, especially when you have nothing better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't tell you how ignorant and inept your response to this comment is. I am not denying the science or the age of the earth, but there is not enough evidence to call it a "fact". Even REAL scientists say they "believe" the earth is 4 billion years old. Heck, I believe it is too, but it is far from a fact my friend. Comprende?
> 
> Look Daws, you whiney little girl, I bolded your original post. But I didn't violate forum rules because although I was tempted, I didn't correct your baby talk. No, it a fact mommy. It a fact.
Click to expand...


I can't tell you how annoying it is that you continually copt syntactic style as a means to try and belittle those you are responding to. Grow up! 

By the way, the fact that you don't like my post doesn't make it ignorant, until you demonstrate how it is ignorant. What is considered a fact has to do with our current epistemology, which in this case, is involved with science. So, considering science is our best and only current method at ascertaining objective reality, we have no other choice but to call it "fact" because belief would simply not be accurate.   You're attempt at demoting scientific claims really shows you're bias against science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is. not. totally. random.
> 
> It's not even random.
> 
> It's not even close to random.
> 
> It is guided by natural selection. How do you not know this by now???? What has this whole thread been for? Are you trying to take in ANY information presented to you or are you simply denying everything that is written about evolution?
> 
> If so, what is the point in us being here? You might as well live in your solipsistic little world and spare us the effort of all this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what is guiding natural selection ? Surely it takes intelligence to lead or guide no ?
Click to expand...

No. As with most of your uneducated comments, your lack of education in science coupled with your religious affliction leaves you unable to make rational choices. 

Your comment make no sense with regard to the process of evolution. If you are referring to gods with your comment: "Surely it takes intelligence to lead or guide no?", that leaves you in the precarious position of defending your gods who can only be described as incompetent and inept as intelligent leaders.

Why would you worship incompetence and ineptitude other than you just mindlessly accepted the religious beliefs of your fundie parents.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is. not. totally. random.
> 
> It's not even random.
> 
> It's not even close to random.
> 
> *It is guided by natural selection.*..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *per·son·i·fi·ca·tion  (pr-sn-f-kshn)*
> n.
> 1. The act of personifying.
> 2. A person or thing typifying a certain quality or idea; an embodiment or exemplification: "He's invisible, a walking personification of the Negative" (Ralph Ellison).
> *3. A figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities or are represented as possessing human form, as in Hunger sat shivering on the road or Flowers danced about the lawn. Also called prosopopeia.*
> 4. Artistic representation of an abstract quality or idea as a person.
Click to expand...

This definition would apply to the human attributes that fundies attach to their gods. It is ironic that fundies apply human qualities such as emotions to their gods. I suppose it is understandable in view of the fact that gods are little more than extensions of the human desire to find answers to phenomenon that they don't fully understand.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Hollie tell me where you went to college and I will gladly answer your question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll require to practice using more user-friendly monosyllables. The gargantuan fonts and bright colors are required as that will tend to increase the attention span of folks with your educational challenges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodge!
Click to expand...


Now, now dear. We're only trying to help. For people like you, it is repetitive tasks that are models for success. 

On, BTW, is the gargantuan font thing comparable to men with guns? There are studies that suggest feelings of inadequacy and self-hate are some reasons why men buy big guns.

I could send you some reading litersture?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not a science. Your first mistake is in thinking it is. "Science" means "to study". How can you study something that doesn't exist?
> 
> Evolution CANNOT be repeated, CANNOT be tested, CANNOT be observed, Cannot be studied...it is NOT science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
> 
> Ever heard of speciation being demonstrated in a laboratory?
> 
> Ever heard of genetics studies used to verify common ancestry?
> 
> Ever heard of viruses mutating over time?
> 
> Ever heard of fossil evidence which clearly shows a linear progression in the anatomy of species over time?
> 
> Hmm... yeah. Every one of you're claims about evolution is utterly false. Stick to what you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You let us know when this speciation leads to macroevolution.
> 
> Have you ever heard that many things have genes similar to humans but they are not related to humans how can that be by your reasoning ?
> 
> Again you let us know when mutating viruses are no longer a virus.
> 
> Please stop with this nonsense of transitional fossils, good grief.
> 
> Everything you claimed are faulty assumptions of the evidence.
Click to expand...

You have obviously been spending too much time worshipping at the altar of Harun Yahya..

For the science literate (and for those not completely incapacitated by religious fundamentalism), there is an entire world that exists external to the fear and superstition you choose.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make absolutely no sense. I embrace the fact of evolution because evidence supports the theory. Denial of that reality is, almost exclusively, a fundie Christian syndrome. There does not exist outside of christianity such a frantic, anti- science and anti-knowledge agenda. It is exclusively fundie Christians who drive the anti-science creationist ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not a science. Your first mistake is in thinking it is. "Science" means "to study". How can you study something that doesn't exist?
> 
> Evolution CANNOT be repeated, CANNOT be tested, CANNOT be observed, Cannot be studied...it is NOT science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
> 
> Ever heard of speciation being demonstrated in a laboratory?
> 
> Ever heard of genetics studies used to verify common ancestry?
> 
> Ever heard of viruses mutating over time?
> 
> Ever heard of fossil evidence which clearly shows a linear progression in the anatomy of species over time?
> 
> Hmm... yeah. Every one of you're claims about evolution is utterly false. Stick to what you know.
Click to expand...


Hardly anything you mentioned involves evolution much less proves it.

By all accounts the fossil record should indicate millions of transitional fossils. 

A virus mutating is still a virus. 

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's convenient, of course. It allows you an exclusion from meeting any standard of proof or definition. You can just make it up as you go along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?! What proof was this?!!!
Click to expand...


I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is. not. totally. random.
> 
> It's not even random.
> 
> It's not even close to random.
> 
> It is guided by natural selection. How do you not know this by now???? What has this whole thread been for? Are you trying to take in ANY information presented to you or are you simply denying everything that is written about evolution?
> 
> If so, what is the point in us being here? You might as well live in your solipsistic little world and spare us the effort of all this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what is guiding natural selection ? Surely it takes intelligence to lead or guide no ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. As with most of your uneducated comments, your lack of education in science coupled with your religious affliction leaves you unable to make rational choices.
> 
> Your comment make no sense with regard to the process of evolution. If you are referring to gods with your comment: "Surely it takes intelligence to lead or guide no?", that leaves you in the precarious position of defending your gods who can only be described as incompetent and inept as intelligent leaders.
> 
> Why would you worship incompetence and ineptitude other than you just mindlessly accepted the religious beliefs of your fundie parents.
Click to expand...


You funny


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
> 
> Ever heard of speciation being demonstrated in a laboratory?
> 
> Ever heard of genetics studies used to verify common ancestry?
> 
> Ever heard of viruses mutating over time?
> 
> Ever heard of fossil evidence which clearly shows a linear progression in the anatomy of species over time?
> 
> Hmm... yeah. Every one of you're claims about evolution is utterly false. Stick to what you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You let us know when this speciation leads to macroevolution.
> 
> Have you ever heard that many things have genes similar to humans but they are not related to humans how can that be by your reasoning ?
> 
> Again you let us know when mutating viruses are no longer a virus.
> 
> Please stop with this nonsense of transitional fossils, good grief.
> 
> Everything you claimed are faulty assumptions of the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have obviously been spending too much time worshipping at the altar of Harun Yahya..
> 
> For the science literate (and for those not completely incapacitated by religious fundamentalism), there is an entire world that exists external to the fear and superstition you choose.
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
Click to expand...


Why do you paste things you do not understand ?


----------



## ima

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?! What proof was this?!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.
Click to expand...


Just plain old self-delusion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?! What proof was this?!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just plain old self-delusion.
Click to expand...


What if the self-delusion is yours ?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?! What proof was this?!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just plain old self-delusion.
Click to expand...


Don't judge until you've walked a mile in my shoes.


----------



## ima

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just plain old self-delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't judge until you've walked a mile in my shoes.
Click to expand...


Hey, I'm glad that you feel better about your life, even if you have to convince yourself that a 2000 year old made up guy saved you.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just plain old self-delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't judge until you've walked a mile in my shoes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm glad that you feel better about your life, even if you have to convince yourself that a 2000 year old made up guy saved you.
Click to expand...


I'm glad that your marginalization of someone's faith brings you joy. You should feel proud.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just plain old self-delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if the self-delusion is yours ?
Click to expand...


How can a 2000 year old dead guy that might not even have existed save you today? That makes no sense.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that you should laugh. You have a better method of determining events that happened over 4 billion years ago? Let's see it. How utterly obnoxious can you be?? You sit back and reap all of the benefits of science, from health care to transportation, yet you mock science because it can't deliver a specific or accurate enough date for the inception of the earth? I can't tell you how ridiculous that is, especially when you have nothing better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't tell you how ignorant and inept your response to this comment is. I am not denying the science or the age of the earth, but there is not enough evidence to call it a "fact". Even REAL scientists say they "believe" the earth is 4 billion years old. Heck, I believe it is too, but it is far from a fact my friend. Comprende?
> 
> Look Daws, you whiney little girl, I bolded your original post. But I didn't violate forum rules because although I was tempted, I didn't correct your baby talk. No, it a fact mommy. It a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't tell you how annoying it is that you continually copt syntactic style as a means to try and belittle those you are responding to. Grow up!
> 
> By the way, the fact that you don't like my post doesn't make it ignorant, until you demonstrate how it is ignorant. What is considered a fact has to do with our current epistemology, which in this case, is involved with science. So, considering science is our best and only current method at ascertaining objective reality, we have no other choice but to call it "fact" because belief would simply not be accurate.   You're attempt at demoting scientific claims really shows you're bias against science.
Click to expand...


Okay, Hollie.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll require to practice using more user-friendly monosyllables. The gargantuan fonts and bright colors are required as that will tend to increase the attention span of folks with your educational challenges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, now dear. We're only trying to help. For people like you, it is repetitive tasks that are models for success.
> 
> On, BTW, is the gargantuan font thing comparable to men with guns? There are studies that suggest feelings of inadequacy and self-hate are some reasons why men buy big guns.
> 
> I could send you some reading litersture?
Click to expand...


Second dodge. You've said alot but we still haven't heard* where you went to college.* Your silence on the topic says you didn't go anywhere.

I'm just over here clinging to my God and guns.  

You obviously suffer from hoplophobia:

_"Cooper's opinion was that "the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user."_

Hoplophobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just plain old self-delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if the self-delusion is yours ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can a 2000 year old dead guy that might not even have existed save you today? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...


But yet the God that spat stars out of his mouth humbled himself and became human. And not a human born to royalty, but born to the poorest and most humble family, so much so that he was born in a stable and laid in a feeding trough. You may have heard of this story. It is actually a national holiday and it's called Christmas.


----------



## UltimateReality

Wiki as reliable as Britannica:

_Theorist David Deamer explains: "This optimistic picture began to change in the late 1970s, when it became increasingly clear that the early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers..." (David W. Deamer, "The First Living Systems: a Bioenergetic Perspective," Microbiology & Molecular Biology Reviews, Vol. 61:239 (1997).)

Likewise, the journal Science states:

    The so-called Miller-Urey experiment simulated the prebiotic atmosphere by mixing molecules they presumed were present on the early Earth: methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water. They then zapped this soup with an electrical charge to mimic lightning, which in turn produced small amounts of amino acids--the building blocks of proteins, which are critical to all living things. "[That study] had a tremendously important role in making chemists aware that the whole question of origin of life could be approached by lab experiments," says NSCORT's Arrhenius. "It became an acceptable field."

    Yet today, Arrhenius and many other researchers dismiss the experiment itself because they contend that the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation. Basically, Miller and Urey relied on a "reducing" atmosphere, a condition in which molecules are fat with hydrogen atoms. As Miller showed later, he could not make organics in an "oxidizing" atmosphere.

    (Jon Cohen, "Novel Center Seeks to Add Spark to Origins of Life," Science, Vol. 270:1925-1926 (December 22, 1995) (emphasis added).)

Every once in a while, however, we hear resurrected claim that amino acids can be produced under realistic early-Earthlike conditions. These claims rarely pan out. But that hasn't stopped Wikipedia from recounting them. On its page dedicated to the Miller-Urey experiment, Wikipedia states:

ome evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller-Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller-Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecule._ 

On the Miller-Urey Experiment, Wikipedia Offers a Citation Bluff - Evolution News & Views


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not a science. Your first mistake is in thinking it is. "Science" means "to study". How can you study something that doesn't exist?
> 
> Evolution CANNOT be repeated, CANNOT be tested, CANNOT be observed, Cannot be studied...it is NOT science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
> 
> Ever heard of speciation being demonstrated in a laboratory?
> 
> Ever heard of genetics studies used to verify common ancestry?
> 
> Ever heard of viruses mutating over time?
> 
> Ever heard of fossil evidence which clearly shows a linear progression in the anatomy of species over time?
> 
> Hmm... yeah. Every one of you're claims about evolution is utterly false. Stick to what you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly anything you mentioned involves evolution much less proves it.
> 
> By all accounts the fossil record should indicate millions of transitional fossils.
> 
> A virus mutating is still a virus.
> 
> Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.
> 
> So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!
Click to expand...

Your comments are typical of the ignorance promoted by creation ministries.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is guiding natural selection ? Surely it takes intelligence to lead or guide no ?
> 
> 
> 
> No. As with most of your uneducated comments, your lack of education in science coupled with your religious affliction leaves you unable to make rational choices.
> 
> Your comment make no sense with regard to the process of evolution. If you are referring to gods with your comment: "Surely it takes intelligence to lead or guide no?", that leaves you in the precarious position of defending your gods who can only be described as incompetent and inept as intelligent leaders.
> 
> Why would you worship incompetence and ineptitude other than you just mindlessly accepted the religious beliefs of your fundie parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You funny
Click to expand...

Worshipping an incompetent, inept configuration of a supermagical entity - now that's funny.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You let us know when this speciation leads to macroevolution.
> 
> Have you ever heard that many things have genes similar to humans but they are not related to humans how can that be by your reasoning ?
> 
> Again you let us know when mutating viruses are no longer a virus.
> 
> Please stop with this nonsense of transitional fossils, good grief.
> 
> Everything you claimed are faulty assumptions of the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> You have obviously been spending too much time worshipping at the altar of Harun Yahya..
> 
> For the science literate (and for those not completely incapacitated by religious fundamentalism), there is an entire world that exists external to the fear and superstition you choose.
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you paste things you do not understand ?
Click to expand...


These things are not particularly difficult to understand. Science and knowledge may seem daunting to those like you who have been indoctrinated with belief in angry, supernatural beings but don't give up hope for future enlightenment.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't tell you how ignorant and inept your response to this comment is. I am not denying the science or the age of the earth, but there is not enough evidence to call it a "fact". Even REAL scientists say they "believe" the earth is 4 billion years old. Heck, I believe it is too, but it is far from a fact my friend. Comprende?
> 
> Look Daws, you whiney little girl, I bolded your original post. But I didn't violate forum rules because although I was tempted, I didn't correct your baby talk. No, it a fact mommy. It a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't tell you how annoying it is that you continually copt syntactic style as a means to try and belittle those you are responding to. Grow up!
> 
> By the way, the fact that you don't like my post doesn't make it ignorant, until you demonstrate how it is ignorant. What is considered a fact has to do with our current epistemology, which in this case, is involved with science. So, considering science is our best and only current method at ascertaining objective reality, we have no other choice but to call it "fact" because belief would simply not be accurate.   You're attempt at demoting scientific claims really shows you're bias against science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, Hollie.
Click to expand...

That won't shield your inability to post a coherent response.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, now dear. We're only trying to help. For people like you, it is repetitive tasks that are models for success.
> 
> On, BTW, is the gargantuan font thing comparable to men with guns? There are studies that suggest feelings of inadequacy and self-hate are some reasons why men buy big guns.
> 
> I could send you some reading litersture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Second dodge. You've said alot but we still haven't heard* where you went to college.* Your silence on the topic says you didn't go anywhere.
> 
> I'm just over here clinging to my God and guns.
> 
> You obviously suffer from hoplophobia:
> 
> _"Cooper's opinion was that "the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the ideaw that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user."_
> 
> Hoplophobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

That's a good boy. 

Keep practicing with gargantuan fonts and bright text colors. 

For those with your afflictions, repetitive tasks can yield results.


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not a science. Your first mistake is in thinking it is. "Science" means "to study". How can you study something that doesn't exist?
> 
> Evolution CANNOT be repeated, CANNOT be tested, CANNOT be observed, Cannot be studied...it is NOT science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
> 
> Ever heard of speciation being demonstrated in a laboratory?
> 
> Ever heard of genetics studies used to verify common ancestry?
> 
> Ever heard of viruses mutating over time?
> 
> Ever heard of fossil evidence which clearly shows a linear progression in the anatomy of species over time?
> 
> Hmm... yeah. Every one of you're claims about evolution is utterly false. Stick to what you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly anything you mentioned involves evolution much less proves it.
> 
> By all accounts the fossil record should indicate millions of transitional fossils.
> 
> A virus mutating is still a virus.
> 
> Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.
> 
> So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!
Click to expand...




Actually, all of my examples demonstrate the fact of evolution, by definition. You can deny it all day. That's your choice. 

 There are no "shoulds" when it comes to the earth and what it "should" produce "for us" so that we can feel better about ourselves. What it has given us, in terms of fossils, is what we get. The fossil record shouldn't give us anything. The fact that it has is nice. DNA evidence alone confirms common ancestry, so we don't even need fossils, technically, to prove evolution to be true.

Why you would expect a mutating virus to become anything other than a virus is simply beyond me. What's more hilarious is that you think its lack of ability to turn into something else, is a point against evolution. You're blatant misapprehension of the concepts within evolution  are what you give you the ability to apparently deny it. In other words, once again, you argue against a straw man of evolution, not evolution.

You really sealed the deal with your scientific ignorance when you stated how "evolutionists" believe life came from non-life. Life from non-life has nothing to do with evolution. Many christians believe fully in evolution, because abiogenesis is a different event from evolution.

You really live up to your name: lonestar logic.


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?! What proof was this?!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.
Click to expand...


You have no evidence that this was in fact god that changed anyones life.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the self-delusion is yours ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can a 2000 year old dead guy that might not even have existed save you today? That makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But yet the God that spat stars out of his mouth humbled himself and became human. And not a human born to royalty, but born to the poorest and most humble family, so much so that he was born in a stable and laid in a feeding trough. You may have heard of this story. It is actually a national holiday and it's called Christmas.
Click to expand...


Show me some proof that Jesus was born on Dec 25th. 

"But yet the God that spat stars out of his mouth humbled himself and became human." You have ZERO proof of this. What's it like living in a fantasy world?


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can a 2000 year old dead guy that might not even have existed save you today? That makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But yet the God that spat stars out of his mouth humbled himself and became human. And not a human born to royalty, but born to the poorest and most humble family, so much so that he was born in a stable and laid in a feeding trough. You may have heard of this story. It is actually a national holiday and it's called Christmas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me some proof that Jesus was born on Dec 25th.
> 
> "But yet the God that spat stars out of his mouth humbled himself and became human." You have ZERO proof of this. What's it like living in a fantasy world?
Click to expand...


Christians don't claim Jesus was born on December 25th Dork. That's just the day Catholics picked to celebrate to edge the pagan winter solstice rituals out. The accuracy of Christ's birth is less than 33 years off. In case you haven't noticed, our dating system is based on his birth and AD is translated "In the year of our Lord". Since Jesus lived for 33 years, we know that his birth was 2012 years ago give or take 33 years.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just plain old self-delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if the self-delusion is yours ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can a 2000 year old dead guy that might not even have existed save you today? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...


I believe we are living the final act to which you will get your answer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
> 
> Ever heard of speciation being demonstrated in a laboratory?
> 
> Ever heard of genetics studies used to verify common ancestry?
> 
> Ever heard of viruses mutating over time?
> 
> Ever heard of fossil evidence which clearly shows a linear progression in the anatomy of species over time?
> 
> Hmm... yeah. Every one of you're claims about evolution is utterly false. Stick to what you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly anything you mentioned involves evolution much less proves it.
> 
> By all accounts the fossil record should indicate millions of transitional fossils.
> 
> A virus mutating is still a virus.
> 
> Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.
> 
> So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comments are typical of the ignorance promoted by creation ministries.
Click to expand...


Actually Hollie these are the facts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have obviously been spending too much time worshipping at the altar of Harun Yahya..
> 
> For the science literate (and for those not completely incapacitated by religious fundamentalism), there is an entire world that exists external to the fear and superstition you choose.
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you paste things you do not understand ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These things are not particularly difficult to understand. Science and knowledge may seem daunting to those like you who have been indoctrinated with belief in angry, supernatural beings but don't give up hope for future enlightenment.
Click to expand...


Hollie, why lie ? you can't seem to give a summary of what you read. I feel that is because of your ignorance on science which has been on display for to long.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can a 2000 year old dead guy that might not even have existed save you today? That makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But yet the God that spat stars out of his mouth humbled himself and became human. And not a human born to royalty, but born to the poorest and most humble family, so much so that he was born in a stable and laid in a feeding trough. You may have heard of this story. It is actually a national holiday and it's called Christmas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me some proof that Jesus was born on Dec 25th.
> 
> "But yet the God that spat stars out of his mouth humbled himself and became human." You have ZERO proof of this. What's it like living in a fantasy world?
Click to expand...


Considering the sheperds were in the field I doubt Jesus was born Dec 25th in the middle of winter.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly anything you mentioned involves evolution much less proves it.
> 
> By all accounts the fossil record should indicate millions of transitional fossils.
> 
> A virus mutating is still a virus.
> 
> Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.
> 
> So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments are typical of the ignorance promoted by creation ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Hollie these are the facts.
Click to expand...


Haha... no, they are not. They are idiotic misconceptions of reality, far from anything one might call "fact."


----------



## newpolitics

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&feature=g-all-c]9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube[/ame]

9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism.  Good stuff here. For the creatards.


----------



## newpolitics

Some more creationist ass-whooping. 




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc&feature=channel&list=UL]10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## pjnlsn

UltimateReality said:


> No one is denying this. If God wanted to use evolution to create all the species on the planet, I wouldn't have a problem with this. The problem is when you start to peel back the layers of evolutionary theory you find it is a myth, mass brainwashing, and a scientific fairy tale. Let's just assume there isn't a God for a second. You are still going to have to come up with a better origins theory than evolution. An actual scientific theory based on sound reason and the actual evidence would be a good start. Most of Darwins theory has been replaced anyway. Google Neo Darwinism, genetic evidence for tree of life, punctuated equilibrium, and then check out the stupid icons of evolution. Ha! Really? This is the best they can come up with as proof? Bird beaks and moth wings... total nutjobs!!!



Whatever you call it, barring differences in what the term is referencing or is defined, and how words in descriptions of it are defined; Whether you say it's a myth, a mass brainwashing, a scientific fairy tail, it is, at the very, very least, likely. Assuming you're talking about 'Biological History' as I've written of before. 

Also, You speak of "God" as if you know of it, or at least, as if, if the thing in question wanted something, with the assumption that it has a kind of personality, that you would know about it. But it is not known that there is, or has been, any kind of godly being, in any location, this being mostly due to that the definition, or at least, the most common one given, is so vague and insubstantial that it is not possible to prove it existing anywhere or anytime.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments are typical of the ignorance promoted by creation ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Hollie these are the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha... no, they are not. They are idiotic misconceptions of reality, far from anything one might call "fact."
Click to expand...


No matter how hard they work at trying to build the puzzle there will always be missing pieces showing this theory to be fabricated from vivid minds.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> 9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube
> 
> 9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism.  Good stuff here. For the creatards.



More like for the brainwashed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Some more creationist ass-whooping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube



Can you reconize conjecture when you see it ? Like i said before all things would have to had been genetically related according to your sides own reasoning on Dna similarity.

It is so dang rediculous how your side ignores problems for your theory,your side simply looks away at contradicting evidence or give some explanation that is filled with conjecture why is that ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some more creationist ass-whooping.
> 10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you reconize conjecture when you see it ? Like i said before all things would have to had been genetically related according to your sides own reasoning on Dna similarity.
> 
> It is so dang rediculous how your side ignores problems for your theory,your side simply looks away at contradicting evidence or give some explanation that is filled with conjecture why is that ?
Click to expand...

Youwerecreated, do you think that you were created on an off day?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Hollie these are the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha... no, they are not. They are idiotic misconceptions of reality, far from anything one might call "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how hard they work at trying to build the puzzle there will always be missing pieces showing this theory to be fabricated from vivid minds.
Click to expand...


You're in denial as the entirety of science. The history of knowledge has been to reduce the fear and superstition that defines the worldview you espouse. Living in fear and ignorance is a sad existence. Living in denial of the natural world in favor of comforting myths of a father figure who is watching over you is attempting to escape from reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha... no, they are not. They are idiotic misconceptions of reality, far from anything one might call "fact."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how hard they work at trying to build the puzzle there will always be missing pieces showing this theory to be fabricated from vivid minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're in denial as the entirety of science. The history of knowledge has been to reduce the fear and superstition that defines the worldview you espouse. Living in fear and ignorance is a sad existence. Living in denial of the natural world in favor of comforting myths of a father figure who is watching over you is attempting to escape from reality.
Click to expand...


There is no escaping reality we are surrounded by it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some more creationist ass-whooping.
> 10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you reconize conjecture when you see it ? Like i said before all things would have to had been genetically related according to your sides own reasoning on Dna similarity.
> 
> It is so dang rediculous how your side ignores problems for your theory,your side simply looks away at contradicting evidence or give some explanation that is filled with conjecture why is that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youwerecreated, do you think that you were created on an off day?
Click to expand...


I am the product of natural laws put in to motion, so are you and everything around us. Everything is here for a reason this all did not simply happen by luck or chance. If a piece of your brain was missing you would not function properly. How can you take obvious evidence of design and pervert it with your biased logic.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how hard they work at trying to build the puzzle there will always be missing pieces showing this theory to be fabricated from vivid minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're in denial as the entirety of science. The history of knowledge has been to reduce the fear and superstition that defines the worldview you espouse. Living in fear and ignorance is a sad existence. Living in denial of the natural world in favor of comforting myths of a father figure who is watching over you is attempting to escape from reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no escaping reality we are surrounded by it.
Click to expand...


Reality, by definition. is separate from your spirit world of supernatural gods and unverified claims to miraculous events. Your attempted escapes from reality are your own to come to terms with.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you reconize conjecture when you see it ? Like i said before all things would have to had been genetically related according to your sides own reasoning on Dna similarity.
> 
> It is so dang rediculous how your side ignores problems for your theory,your side simply looks away at contradicting evidence or give some explanation that is filled with conjecture why is that ?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated, do you think that you were created on an off day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am the product of natural laws put in to motion, so are you and everything around us. Everything is here for a reason this all did not simply happen by luck or chance. If a piece of your brain was missing you would not function properly. How can you take obvious evidence of design and pervert it with your biased logic.
Click to expand...

You rattle on about your designer gawds yet you consistently fail to offer support for these gawds.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some more creationist ass-whooping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you reconize conjecture when you see it ? Like i said before all things would have to had been genetically related according to your sides own reasoning on Dna similarity.
> 
> It is so dang rediculous how your side ignores problems for your theory,your side simply looks away at contradicting evidence or give some explanation that is filled with conjecture why is that ?
Click to expand...

The fact that you don't understand the theory is what causes you such angst.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha... no, they are not. They are idiotic misconceptions of reality, far from anything one might call "fact."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how hard they work at trying to build the puzzle there will always be missing pieces showing this theory to be fabricated from vivid minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're in denial as the *entirety* of science...
Click to expand...


You wish ID Theorist and Christian Creationists were all or nothing when it comes to science. You keep repeated this slogan as if it will come true. However, you are discounting 3000 years of scientific enquiry made by scientists of the Judeo-Christian religion. You do this over and over, just like a good little atheistic revisionist should.  FYI, no one is fallling for it.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated, do you think that you were created on an off day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am the product of natural laws put in to motion, so are you and everything around us. Everything is here for a reason this all did not simply happen by luck or chance. If a piece of your brain was missing you would not function properly. How can you take obvious evidence of design and pervert it with your biased logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You rattle on about your designer gawds yet you consistently fail to offer support for these gawds.
Click to expand...


Done, numerous times, whether you choose to ignore it or not. This is not surprising, since you have failed to grasp over and over the fact that the majority of posters here believe in *one* God and the fact that you can't seem to differentiate between myself and YWC in 600 pages of posts. Have you been tested for attention deficit disorder?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some more creationist ass-whooping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you reconize conjecture when you see it ? Like i said before all things would have to had been genetically related according to your sides own reasoning on Dna similarity.
> 
> It is so dang rediculous how your side ignores problems for your theory,your side simply looks away at contradicting evidence or give some explanation that is filled with conjecture why is that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you don't understand the theory is what causes you such angst.
Click to expand...


And you do?   You funny, funny shemale.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you reconize conjecture when you see it ? Like i said before all things would have to had been genetically related according to your sides own reasoning on Dna similarity.
> 
> It is so dang rediculous how your side ignores problems for your theory,your side simply looks away at contradicting evidence or give some explanation that is filled with conjecture why is that ?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you don't understand the theory is what causes you such angst.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you do?   You funny, funny shemale.
Click to expand...


Typical nonsense from the self-hating fundie.


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am the product of natural laws put in to motion, so are you and everything around us. Everything is here for a reason this all did not simply happen by luck or chance. If a piece of your brain was missing you would not function properly. How can you take obvious evidence of design and pervert it with your biased logic.
> 
> 
> 
> You rattle on about your designer gawds yet you consistently fail to offer support for these gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Done, numerous times, whether you choose to ignore it or not. This is not surprising, since you have failed to grasp over and over the fact that the majority of posters here believe in *one* God and the fact that you can't seem to differentiate between myself and YWC in 600 pages of posts. Have you been tested for attention deficit disorder?
Click to expand...


Truth is not encumbant on a poll or majority vote.  "Most" people can be and are wrong much of the time.  It has been a difficult road for intelligent people as much of the history of organised religion has focused it's "argument" towards agreement on murdering it's opposition.  Pure publicly accepted reason is a very recent developement.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am the product of natural laws put in to motion, so are you and everything around us. Everything is here for a reason this all did not simply happen by luck or chance. If a piece of your brain was missing you would not function properly. How can you take obvious evidence of design and pervert it with your biased logic.
> 
> 
> 
> You rattle on about your designer gawds yet you consistently fail to offer support for these gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Done, numerous times, whether you choose to ignore it or not. This is not surprising, since you have failed to grasp over and over the fact that the majority of posters here believe in *one* God and the fact that you can't seem to differentiate between myself and YWC in 600 pages of posts. Have you been tested for attention deficit disorder?
Click to expand...


What you're unable to grasp is that you and the other fundie both are unable to offer support for your gawds so take the position of the science-loathing blowhard. You don't understand that your claims to one gawd or many is pointless absent any verification. 

Here is some news for you: biological evolution is fact; the planet is older than 6,000 years and your self-hate is self-destructive. The only difference between you and the other fundie is the appalling lack vs. the abysmal lack of tact and education you both sorely are in need of.


----------



## pjnlsn

Youwerecreated said:


> No matter how hard they work at trying to build the puzzle there will always be missing pieces showing this theory to be fabricated from vivid minds.



If you were to think that because not all is known, nothing is known, but this is false. 

In any case, whatever glee you may have from that there are missing pieces, does not mean that the pieces found do not exist.

p.s. or perhaps you think that these people do not have all the pieces, but you have them all. Or perhaps you think that an effervescent being has all the pieces, and you identify strongly with this concept, but in both cases, assuming that it is indeed the belief in a god that you would associate with this, and again:



pjnlsn said:


> Also, You speak of "God" as if you know of it, or at least, as if, if the thing in question wanted something, with the assumption that it has a kind of personality, that you would know about it. But it is not known that there is, or has been, any kind of godly being, in any location, this being mostly due to that the definition, or at least, the most common one given, is so vague and insubstantial that it is not possible to prove it existing anywhere or anytime.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You rattle on about your designer gawds yet you consistently fail to offer support for these gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Done, numerous times, whether you choose to ignore it or not. This is not surprising, since you have failed to grasp over and over the fact that the majority of posters here believe in *one* God and the fact that you can't seem to differentiate between myself and YWC in 600 pages of posts. Have you been tested for attention deficit disorder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're unable to grasp is that you and the other fundie both are unable to offer support for your gawds so take the position of the science-loathing blowhard. You don't understand that your claims to one gawd or many is pointless absent any verification.
> 
> Here is some news for you: biological evolution is fact; the planet is older than 6,000 years and your self-hate is self-destructive. The only difference between you and the other fundie is the appalling lack vs. the abysmal lack of tact and education you both sorely are in need of.
Click to expand...


Now we get to see the angry evofundie lash out in all her saliva slinging viciousness. 







You continue to project your own, self-hating, sexually confused, bigotry and your own silence on the topic of education screams volumes about here own severe lack of formal training and your absolute lack of qualifications to make comments on any of the topics at hand. This would also explain the fact that, in over 600 pages, he/she has failed to present a single logical rebuttal of her/his own, but continues the same, tired ad hominem attacks in a feeble attempt to disguise not just her own utter ignorance on the topics at hand, but her intense self-hatred stemming from same sex attraction.

Hollie, you are the most science loathing of all, as evidenced by the fact you never attempted to take any formal science classes and the fact that your frantic cut and pasting shows absolutely no working knowledge of the things you cut and paste.


----------



## UltimateReality

pjnlsn said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how hard they work at trying to build the puzzle there will always be missing pieces showing this theory to be fabricated from vivid minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were to think that because not all is known, nothing is known, but this is false.
> 
> In any case, whatever glee you may have from that there are missing pieces, does not mean that the pieces found do not exist.
Click to expand...


In any case, whatever glee you may have from that you have missed evidence for God, does not mean that God does not exist.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You rattle on about your designer gawds yet you consistently fail to offer support for these gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Done, numerous times, whether you choose to ignore it or not. This is not surprising, since you have failed to grasp over and over the fact that the majority of posters here believe in *one* God and the fact that you can't seem to differentiate between myself and YWC in 600 pages of posts. Have you been tested for attention deficit disorder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth is not encumbant on a poll or majority vote.  "Most" people can be and are wrong much of the time.  It has been a difficult road for intelligent people as much of the history of organised religion has focused it's "argument" towards agreement on murdering it's opposition.  Pure publicly accepted reason is a very recent developement.
Click to expand...


It sounds like you must have seen the movie Expelled. Are you talking about the materialistic zealots that use the courts and formal education, as well as a policy of zero tolerance of any opposing thought in the workplace, to foist their Darwinisitic religious views on everyone?


----------



## pjnlsn

UltimateReality said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how hard they work at trying to build the puzzle there will always be missing pieces showing this theory to be fabricated from vivid minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were to think that because not all is known, nothing is known, but this is false.
> 
> In any case, whatever glee you may have from that there are missing pieces, does not mean that the pieces found do not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In any case, whatever glee you may have from that you have missed evidence for God, does not mean that God does not exist.
Click to expand...


This doesn't follow from the above, and so the following qualifies as a tangent. However, and again:



pjnlsn said:


> Also, You speak [, or have spoken,] of "God" as if you know of it. [...] But it is not known that there is, or has been, any kind of godly being, in any location, this being mostly due to that the definition, or at least, the most common one given, is so vague and insubstantial that it is not possible to prove it existing anywhere or anytime.


----------



## HUGGY

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=SSxgnu3Hww8]Top Ten Creationist Arguments - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Done, numerous times, whether you choose to ignore it or not. This is not surprising, since you have failed to grasp over and over the fact that the majority of posters here believe in *one* God and the fact that you can't seem to differentiate between myself and YWC in 600 pages of posts. Have you been tested for attention deficit disorder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you're unable to grasp is that you and the other fundie both are unable to offer support for your gawds so take the position of the science-loathing blowhard. You don't understand that your claims to one gawd or many is pointless absent any verification.
> 
> Here is some news for you: biological evolution is fact; the planet is older than 6,000 years and your self-hate is self-destructive. The only difference between you and the other fundie is the appalling lack vs. the abysmal lack of tact and education you both sorely are in need of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we get to see the angry evofundie lash out in all her saliva slinging viciousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to project your own, self-hating, sexually confused, bigotry and your own silence on the topic of education screams volumes about here own severe lack of formal training and your absolute lack of qualifications to make comments on any of the topics at hand. This would also explain the fact that, in over 600 pages, he/she has failed to present a single logical rebuttal of her/his own, but continues the same, tired ad hominem attacks in a feeble attempt to disguise not just her own utter ignorance on the topics at hand, but her intense self-hatred stemming from same sex attraction.
> 
> Hollie, you are the most science loathing of all, as evidenced by the fact you never attempted to take any formal science classes and the fact that your frantic cut and pasting shows absolutely no working knowledge of the things you cut and paste.
Click to expand...

You're projecting.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Done, numerous times, whether you choose to ignore it or not. This is not surprising, since you have failed to grasp over and over the fact that the majority of posters here believe in *one* God and the fact that you can't seem to differentiate between myself and YWC in 600 pages of posts. Have you been tested for attention deficit disorder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is not encumbant on a poll or majority vote.  "Most" people can be and are wrong much of the time.  It has been a difficult road for intelligent people as much of the history of organised religion has focused it's "argument" towards agreement on murdering it's opposition.  Pure publicly accepted reason is a very recent developement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds like you must have seen the movie Expelled. Are you talking about the materialistic zealots that use the courts and formal education, as well as a policy of zero tolerance of any opposing thought in the workplace, to foist their Darwinisitic religious views on everyone?
Click to expand...

What a shame that the Christian Taliban take exception to the courts enforcing the law.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how hard they work at trying to build the puzzle there will always be missing pieces showing this theory to be fabricated from vivid minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were to think that because not all is known, nothing is known, but this is false.
> 
> In any case, whatever glee you may have from that there are missing pieces, does not mean that the pieces found do not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In any case, whatever glee you may have from that you have missed evidence for God, does not mean that God does not exist.
Click to expand...

In any case, your pointless "because I say so" claim to your gods is not something that thinking humans will accept from fundie zealots.


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Done, numerous times, whether you choose to ignore it or not. This is not surprising, since you have failed to grasp over and over the fact that the majority of posters here believe in *one* God and the fact that you can't seem to differentiate between myself and YWC in 600 pages of posts. Have you been tested for attention deficit disorder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is not encumbant on a poll or majority vote.  "Most" people can be and are wrong much of the time.  It has been a difficult road for intelligent people as much of the history of organised religion has focused it's "argument" towards agreement on murdering it's opposition.  Pure publicly accepted reason is a very recent developement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It sounds like you must have seen the movie Expelled*. Are you talking about the materialistic zealots that use the courts and formal education, as well as a policy of zero tolerance of any opposing thought in the workplace, to foist their Darwinisitic religious views on everyone?
Click to expand...


I have not.  Just saw the trailer... I'm not going to watch an hour and 38 minutes of it.


----------



## Gadawg73

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is not encumbant on a poll or majority vote.  "Most" people can be and are wrong much of the time.  It has been a difficult road for intelligent people as much of the history of organised religion has focused it's "argument" towards agreement on murdering it's opposition.  Pure publicly accepted reason is a very recent developement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It sounds like you must have seen the movie Expelled*. Are you talking about the materialistic zealots that use the courts and formal education, as well as a policy of zero tolerance of any opposing thought in the workplace, to foist their Darwinisitic religious views on everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not.  Just saw the trailer... I'm not going to watch an hour and 38 minutes of it.
Click to expand...


Amazing the hour and so videos folk put up here as if we would watch that.
If there are nekked women up to something in it, probably then.


----------



## HUGGY

Gadawg73 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It sounds like you must have seen the movie Expelled*. Are you talking about the materialistic zealots that use the courts and formal education, as well as a policy of zero tolerance of any opposing thought in the workplace, to foist their Darwinisitic religious views on everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not.  Just saw the trailer... I'm not going to watch an hour and 38 minutes of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing the hour and so videos folk put up here as if we would watch that.
> If there are nekked women up to something in it, probably then.
Click to expand...


Imagine that!  Naked women having more attraction than your propaganda.  Astonishing!


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some more creationist ass-whooping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you reconize conjecture when you see it ? Like i said before all things would have to had been genetically related according to your sides own reasoning on Dna similarity.
> 
> It is so dang rediculous how your side ignores problems for your theory,your side simply looks away at contradicting evidence or give some explanation that is filled with conjecture why is that ?
Click to expand...


You need to be a little more specific. 

All things are genetically related. 

What problems for our side? There is no contradiction in evidence or logic with evolution, or unfilled explanations. It is entirely logically sound and evidentially backed.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some more creationist ass-whooping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you reconize conjecture when you see it ? Like i said before all things would have to had been genetically related according to your sides own reasoning on Dna similarity.
> 
> It is so dang rediculous how your side ignores problems for your theory,your side simply looks away at contradicting evidence or give some explanation that is filled with conjecture why is that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to be a little more specific.
> 
> All things are genetically related.
> 
> What problems for our side? There is no contradiction in evidence or logic with evolution, or unfilled explanations. It is entirely logically sound and evidentially backed.
Click to expand...


You continue to make the rookie error of thinking a Historical Science like Evolutionary Theory can actually meet the same burden of proof as an operational science like physics or chemistry. It can't. You can claim Evolutionary Theory is "evidentially" backed, but much of the "so called" evidence is open to great interpretation.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is not encumbant on a poll or majority vote.  "Most" people can be and are wrong much of the time.  It has been a difficult road for intelligent people as much of the history of organised religion has focused it's "argument" towards agreement on murdering it's opposition.  Pure publicly accepted reason is a very recent developement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you must have seen the movie Expelled. Are you talking about the materialistic zealots that use the courts and formal education, as well as a policy of zero tolerance of any opposing thought in the workplace, to foist their Darwinisitic religious views on everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a shame that the Christian Taliban take exception to the courts enforcing the law.
Click to expand...


I have hope for you Hollie. Some of the most bigoted, vehement haters of Christianity have become some of the most enthusiastic converts. Your shackles are VERY evident in your writing and there is amazing freedom in Christ.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you reconize conjecture when you see it ? Like i said before all things would have to had been genetically related according to your sides own reasoning on Dna similarity.
> 
> It is so dang rediculous how your side ignores problems for your theory,your side simply looks away at contradicting evidence or give some explanation that is filled with conjecture why is that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to be a little more specific.
> 
> All things are genetically related.
> 
> What problems for our side? There is no contradiction in evidence or logic with evolution, or unfilled explanations. It is entirely logically sound and evidentially backed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to make the rookie error of thinking a Historical Science like Evolutionary Theory can actually meet the same burden of proof as an operational science like physics or chemistry. It can't. You can claim Evolutionary Theory is "evidentially" backed, but much of the "so called" evidence is open to great interpretation.
Click to expand...


By whom? Creationists?


----------



## pjnlsn

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you reconize conjecture when you see it ? Like i said before all things would have to had been genetically related according to your sides own reasoning on Dna similarity.
> 
> It is so dang rediculous how your side ignores problems for your theory,your side simply looks away at contradicting evidence or give some explanation that is filled with conjecture why is that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to be a little more specific.
> 
> All things are genetically related.
> 
> What problems for our side? There is no contradiction in evidence or logic with evolution, or unfilled explanations. It is entirely logically sound and evidentially backed.
Click to expand...




UltimateReality said:


> You continue to make the rookie error of thinking a Historical Science like Evolutionary Theory can actually meet the same burden of proof as an operational science like physics or chemistry. It can't.



That isn't in the post yours follows, nor (IIRC) in any of his posts.

In any case, again:



pjnlsn said:


> But lest anyone put an undue amount of importance on this, that Biological History is less certain than Biological Fact is a thing largely unavoidable.



::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::



UltimateReality said:


> You can claim Evolutionary Theory is "evidentially" backed, but much of the "so called" evidence is open to great interpretation.



Firstly, calling something by a particular name doesn't change what it is, if indeed that's what we're talking about. Secondly, the above quote also applies, and (again), despite the phrasing "(statement A), but (statement B)," if I know what he and you mean, that isn't a contradiction, for:



pjnlsn said:


> that Biological History is less certain than Biological Fact is a thing largely unavoidable.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you reconize conjecture when you see it ? Like i said before all things would have to had been genetically related according to your sides own reasoning on Dna similarity.
> 
> It is so dang rediculous how your side ignores problems for your theory,your side simply looks away at contradicting evidence or give some explanation that is filled with conjecture why is that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to be a little more specific.
> 
> All things are genetically related.
> 
> What problems for our side? There is no contradiction in evidence or logic with evolution, or unfilled explanations. It is entirely logically sound and evidentially backed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to make the rookie error of thinking a Historical Science like Evolutionary Theory can actually meet the same burden of proof as an operational science like physics or chemistry. It can't. You can claim Evolutionary Theory is "evidentially" backed, but much of the "so called" evidence is open to great interpretation.
Click to expand...

What the Christian Taliban don't understand is that evolutionary science incorporates the very "historical sciences" that the Christian Taliban reject. Inasmuch as fundie beliefs are pick and choose in connection with belief in their supernatural gawds, they similarly take a pick and choose approach to science and will reject it out of hand. Science and knowledge are the opposite of supernaturalism and ignorance and it is the latter that is embraced by fundies.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you must have seen the movie Expelled. Are you talking about the materialistic zealots that use the courts and formal education, as well as a policy of zero tolerance of any opposing thought in the workplace, to foist their Darwinisitic religious views on everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> What a shame that the Christian Taliban take exception to the courts enforcing the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have hope for you Hollie. Some of the most bigoted, vehement haters of Christianity have become some of the most enthusiastic converts. Your shackles are VERY evident in your writing and there is amazing freedom in Christ.
Click to expand...


You don't seem to understand that others can see the harm caused by unquestioning adherence to belief in ancient tales and fables. Why do think anyone would choose to be an adherent to a belief system that causes the hate and fear you project?


----------



## ima

UR, the Church used to think that the earth was flat and tortured people who disagreed with them. Now the church thinks that the earth is round. Their thinking evolved because of scientific proof. See how evolution works? I can give you some more concrete examples of evolution all around you if you need.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
> 
> Ever heard of speciation being demonstrated in a laboratory?
> 
> Ever heard of genetics studies used to verify common ancestry?
> 
> Ever heard of viruses mutating over time?
> 
> Ever heard of fossil evidence which clearly shows a linear progression in the anatomy of species over time?
> 
> Hmm... yeah. Every one of you're claims about evolution is utterly false. Stick to what you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly anything you mentioned involves evolution much less proves it.
> 
> By all accounts the fossil record should indicate millions of transitional fossils.
> 
> A virus mutating is still a virus.
> 
> Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.
> 
> So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, all of my examples demonstrate the fact of evolution, by definition. You can deny it all day. That's your choice.
> 
> There are no "shoulds" when it comes to the earth and what it "should" produce "for us" so that we can feel better about ourselves. What it has given us, in terms of fossils, is what we get. The fossil record shouldn't give us anything. The fact that it has is nice. DNA evidence alone confirms common ancestry, so we don't even need fossils, technically, to prove evolution to be true.
> 
> Why you would expect a mutating virus to become anything other than a virus is simply beyond me. What's more hilarious is that you think its lack of ability to turn into something else, is a point against evolution. You're blatant misapprehension of the concepts within evolution  are what you give you the ability to apparently deny it. In other words, once again, you argue against a straw man of evolution, not evolution.
> 
> You really sealed the deal with your scientific ignorance when you stated how "evolutionists" believe life came from non-life. Life from non-life has nothing to do with evolution. Many christians believe fully in evolution, because abiogenesis is a different event from evolution.
> 
> You really live up to your name: lonestar logic.
Click to expand...


Common ancestry does not prove evolution. And the fossil record does not show any evidence of evolution. Evolutionist take what they see and GUESS based on their preconceived ideas.

The entire premise behind evolution is one species evolving into another. A virus mutating is still a virus.



> The theory of evolution seeks to explain the *origin of life* on Earth and the origin of different species. Despite the fact that most of the scientific community has regarded it as fact for more than a century, a large number of people still dispute the theory of evolution, and various public controversies have resulted from this disagreement.
> 
> According to evolutionary theory, life began billions of years ago, when a group of chemicals inadvertently organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This tiny molecule gave rise to everything that has ever lived on the planet. Different and more complex organisms grew from this simple beginning through mutation of DNA and natural selection.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a shame that the Christian Taliban take exception to the courts enforcing the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have hope for you Hollie. Some of the most bigoted, vehement haters of Christianity have become some of the most enthusiastic converts. Your shackles are VERY evident in your writing and there is amazing freedom in Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand that others can see the harm caused by unquestioning adherence to belief in ancient tales and fables. Why do think anyone would choose to be an adherent to a belief system that causes the hate and fear you project?
Click to expand...


Once again you are projecting your own hate and bigoted fear against Christians on me. I don't hate anyone, not even you Hollie. Now I do get incredibly frustrated with you, which we all know is your tactic. You purposely repeat phrases over and over and continually spew the same ad hominem attacks and you are able to get Christians to act unbecomingly, which we all know is your goal. However, just I because I loose patience with you doesn't mean I am any less forgiven nor does it mean that I hate you. You, on the other hand, have a deep-seated viscious hate for Christians which is evident in all your posts. The Apostle Paul also hated Christians intently. He was actually there holding the coats for the men who stoned Stephen and he was also responsible for hunting down and killing many Christians. His conversion was nothing short of a miracle and he went on to write many of the letters to the various early churches which wound up becoming many of the books in the New Testament. All I was saying is people like you that have so much hate are sometimes the ones that have the most amazing conversions. I think it might have to do with the huge burden that is lifted when you let go of your intense hate. Most people don't realize it and think their hate is hurting the people they hate, when the real destruction is happening to YOUR insides. Your hate and bigotry is eating away at your soul and you are so trapped in it, you don't realize it.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have hope for you Hollie. Some of the most bigoted, vehement haters of Christianity have become some of the most enthusiastic converts. Your shackles are VERY evident in your writing and there is amazing freedom in Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand that others can see the harm caused by unquestioning adherence to belief in ancient tales and fables. Why do think anyone would choose to be an adherent to a belief system that causes the hate and fear you project?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you are projecting your own hate and bigoted fear against Christians on me. I don't hate anyone, not even you Hollie. Now I do get incredibly frustrated with you, which we all know is your tactic. You purposely repeat phrases over and over and continually spew the same ad hominem attacks and you are able to get Christians to act unbecomingly, which we all know is your goal. However, just I because I loose patience with you doesn't mean I am any less forgiven nor does it mean that I hate you. You, on the other hand, have a deep-seated viscious hate for Christians which is evident in all your posts. The Apostle Paul also hated Christians intently. He was actually there holding the coats for the men who stoned Stephen and he was also responsible for hunting down and killing many Christians. His conversion was nothing short of a miracle and he went on to write many of the letters to the various early churches which wound up becoming many of the books in the New Testament. All I was saying is people like you that have so much hate are sometimes the ones that have the most amazing conversions. I think it might have to do with the huge burden that is lifted when you let go of your intense hate. Most people don't realize it and think their hate is hurting the people they hate, when the real destruction is happening to YOUR insides. Your hate and bigotry is eating away at your soul and you are so trapped in it, you don't realize it.
Click to expand...

Oh, my but you are an angry fundie. 

There's mo need to project your hate and insecurity on others. If living in fear and superstition gives you a sense of belonging and purpose, you're free to live that way. 

There's just no reason for you to project those fears and superstitions on others. 

I should advise that there are groups which can separate you from your cult. There us help available for you.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly anything you mentioned involves evolution much less proves it.
> 
> By all accounts the fossil record should indicate millions of transitional fossils.
> 
> A virus mutating is still a virus.
> 
> Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.
> 
> So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, all of my examples demonstrate the fact of evolution, by definition. You can deny it all day. That's your choice.
> 
> There are no "shoulds" when it comes to the earth and what it "should" produce "for us" so that we can feel better about ourselves. What it has given us, in terms of fossils, is what we get. The fossil record shouldn't give us anything. The fact that it has is nice. DNA evidence alone confirms common ancestry, so we don't even need fossils, technically, to prove evolution to be true.
> 
> Why you would expect a mutating virus to become anything other than a virus is simply beyond me. What's more hilarious is that you think its lack of ability to turn into something else, is a point against evolution. You're blatant misapprehension of the concepts within evolution  are what you give you the ability to apparently deny it. In other words, once again, you argue against a straw man of evolution, not evolution.
> 
> You really sealed the deal with your scientific ignorance when you stated how "evolutionists" believe life came from non-life. Life from non-life has nothing to do with evolution. Many christians believe fully in evolution, because abiogenesis is a different event from evolution.
> 
> You really live up to your name: lonestar logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common ancestry does not prove evolution. And the fossil record does not show any evidence of evolution. Evolutionist take what they see and GUESS based on their preconceived ideas.
> 
> The entire premise behind evolution is one species evolving into another. A virus mutating is still a virus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution seeks to explain the *origin of life* on Earth and the origin of different species. Despite the fact that most of the scientific community has regarded it as fact for more than a century, a large number of people still dispute the theory of evolution, and various public controversies have resulted from this disagreement.
> 
> According to evolutionary theory, life began billions of years ago, when a group of chemicals inadvertently organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This tiny molecule gave rise to everything that has ever lived on the planet. Different and more complex organisms grew from this simple beginning through mutation of DNA and natural selection.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yours are the standard cut and paste misrepresentations from creationist ministries.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 


Because fundie Christians continue to be confused and/or choose to lie about evolution, its important to teach them that evolution and the beginning of life are separate issues.

Do all Christian fundies avoid knowledge and an education in science?


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UR, the Church used to think that the earth was flat and tortured people who disagreed with them. Now the church thinks that the earth is round. Their thinking evolved because of scientific proof. See how evolution works? I can give you some more concrete examples of evolution all around you if you need.



Ahh, more revisionist BS. Perhaps you should bone up on your history my friend. This is a common lie of atheists. People like Hollie don't care what the real truth is. She just likes to use her term "flat earthers" as a put down to Christians. She is not interested in the real facts or the truth:

From Wiki:

_*The misconception that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief, has been referred to as the "Myth of the Flat Earth".[9] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[10]*_

In fact, the council attempted to stop Columbus based on the immense distance they thought he would have to sail due to calculations from Eratosthenes. They turned out to be right, because if Christopher had not bumped into the New World, he and his crew would have surely perished before making it to India. 

From Wiki:
*Eratosthenes
*
_Eratosthenes (276&#8211;194 BC) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BC. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to fifteen percent.[17][18][19] Eratosthenes used rough estimates and round numbers, but depending on the length of the stadion, his result is within a margin of between 2% and 20% of the actual meridional circumference, 40,008 kilometres (24,860 mi). Note that Eratosthenes could only measure the circumference of the Earth by assuming that the distance to the Sun is so great that the rays of sunlight are essentially parallel._


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand that others can see the harm caused by unquestioning adherence to belief in ancient tales and fables. Why do think anyone would choose to be an adherent to a belief system that causes the hate and fear you project?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you are projecting your own hate and bigoted fear against Christians on me. I don't hate anyone, not even you Hollie. Now I do get incredibly frustrated with you, which we all know is your tactic. You purposely repeat phrases over and over and continually spew the same ad hominem attacks and you are able to get Christians to act unbecomingly, which we all know is your goal. However, just I because I loose patience with you doesn't mean I am any less forgiven nor does it mean that I hate you. You, on the other hand, have a deep-seated viscious hate for Christians which is evident in all your posts. The Apostle Paul also hated Christians intently. He was actually there holding the coats for the men who stoned Stephen and he was also responsible for hunting down and killing many Christians. His conversion was nothing short of a miracle and he went on to write many of the letters to the various early churches which wound up becoming many of the books in the New Testament. All I was saying is people like you that have so much hate are sometimes the ones that have the most amazing conversions. I think it might have to do with the huge burden that is lifted when you let go of your intense hate. Most people don't realize it and think their hate is hurting the people they hate, when the real destruction is happening to YOUR insides. Your hate and bigotry is eating away at your soul and you are so trapped in it, you don't realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, my but you are an angry fundie.
> 
> There's mo need to project your hate and insecurity on others. If living in fear and superstition gives you a sense of belonging and purpose, you're free to live that way.
> 
> There's just no reason for you to project those fears and superstitions on others.
> 
> I should advise that there are groups which can separate you from your cult. There us help available for you.
Click to expand...


There is hope for you if you just let go of your bigotry and hate.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, all of my examples demonstrate the fact of evolution, by definition. You can deny it all day. That's your choice.
> 
> There are no "shoulds" when it comes to the earth and what it "should" produce "for us" so that we can feel better about ourselves. What it has given us, in terms of fossils, is what we get. The fossil record shouldn't give us anything. The fact that it has is nice. DNA evidence alone confirms common ancestry, so we don't even need fossils, technically, to prove evolution to be true.
> 
> Why you would expect a mutating virus to become anything other than a virus is simply beyond me. What's more hilarious is that you think its lack of ability to turn into something else, is a point against evolution. You're blatant misapprehension of the concepts within evolution  are what you give you the ability to apparently deny it. In other words, once again, you argue against a straw man of evolution, not evolution.
> 
> You really sealed the deal with your scientific ignorance when you stated how "evolutionists" believe life came from non-life. Life from non-life has nothing to do with evolution. Many christians believe fully in evolution, because abiogenesis is a different event from evolution.
> 
> You really live up to your name: lonestar logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Common ancestry does not prove evolution. And the fossil record does not show any evidence of evolution. Evolutionist take what they see and GUESS based on their preconceived ideas.
> 
> The entire premise behind evolution is one species evolving into another. A virus mutating is still a virus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution seeks to explain the *origin of life* on Earth and the origin of different species. Despite the fact that most of the scientific community has regarded it as fact for more than a century, a large number of people still dispute the theory of evolution, and various public controversies have resulted from this disagreement.
> 
> According to evolutionary theory, life began billions of years ago, when a group of chemicals inadvertently organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This tiny molecule gave rise to everything that has ever lived on the planet. Different and more complex organisms grew from this simple beginning through mutation of DNA and natural selection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours are the standard cut and paste misrepresentations from creationist ministries.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> 
> Because fundie Christians continue to be confused and/or choose to lie about evolution, its important to teach them that evolution and the beginning of life are separate issues.
> 
> Do all Christian fundies avoid knowledge and an education in science?
Click to expand...


Actually it was from the Discovery Channel.

Tell me when did evolution begin if not at the origin of life?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you are projecting your own hate and bigoted fear against Christians on me. I don't hate anyone, not even you Hollie. Now I do get incredibly frustrated with you, which we all know is your tactic. You purposely repeat phrases over and over and continually spew the same ad hominem attacks and you are able to get Christians to act unbecomingly, which we all know is your goal. However, just I because I loose patience with you doesn't mean I am any less forgiven nor does it mean that I hate you. You, on the other hand, have a deep-seated viscious hate for Christians which is evident in all your posts. The Apostle Paul also hated Christians intently. He was actually there holding the coats for the men who stoned Stephen and he was also responsible for hunting down and killing many Christians. His conversion was nothing short of a miracle and he went on to write many of the letters to the various early churches which wound up becoming many of the books in the New Testament. All I was saying is people like you that have so much hate are sometimes the ones that have the most amazing conversions. I think it might have to do with the huge burden that is lifted when you let go of your intense hate. Most people don't realize it and think their hate is hurting the people they hate, when the real destruction is happening to YOUR insides. Your hate and bigotry is eating away at your soul and you are so trapped in it, you don't realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my but you are an angry fundie.
> 
> There's mo need to project your hate and insecurity on others. If living in fear and superstition gives you a sense of belonging and purpose, you're free to live that way.
> 
> There's just no reason for you to project those fears and superstitions on others.
> 
> I should advise that there are groups which can separate you from your cult. There us help available for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is hope for you if you just let go of your bigotry and hate.
Click to expand...

Does your cult leader keep jars of Kool-Aid on the shelf?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, all of my examples demonstrate the fact of evolution, by definition. You can deny it all day. That's your choice.
> 
> There are no "shoulds" when it comes to the earth and what it "should" produce "for us" so that we can feel better about ourselves. What it has given us, in terms of fossils, is what we get. The fossil record shouldn't give us anything. The fact that it has is nice. DNA evidence alone confirms common ancestry, so we don't even need fossils, technically, to prove evolution to be true.
> 
> Why you would expect a mutating virus to become anything other than a virus is simply beyond me. What's more hilarious is that you think its lack of ability to turn into something else, is a point against evolution. You're blatant misapprehension of the concepts within evolution  are what you give you the ability to apparently deny it. In other words, once again, you argue against a straw man of evolution, not evolution.
> 
> You really sealed the deal with your scientific ignorance when you stated how "evolutionists" believe life came from non-life. Life from non-life has nothing to do with evolution. Many christians believe fully in evolution, because abiogenesis is a different event from evolution.
> 
> You really live up to your name: lonestar logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Common ancestry does not prove evolution. And the fossil record does not show any evidence of evolution. Evolutionist take what they see and GUESS based on their preconceived ideas.
> 
> The entire premise behind evolution is one species evolving into another. A virus mutating is still a virus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution seeks to explain the *origin of life* on Earth and the origin of different species. Despite the fact that most of the scientific community has regarded it as fact for more than a century, a large number of people still dispute the theory of evolution, and various public controversies have resulted from this disagreement.
> 
> According to evolutionary theory, life began billions of years ago, when a group of chemicals inadvertently organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This tiny molecule gave rise to everything that has ever lived on the planet. Different and more complex organisms grew from this simple beginning through mutation of DNA and natural selection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours are the standard cut and paste misrepresentations from creationist ministries.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> 
> Because fundie Christians continue to be confused and/or choose to lie about evolution, its important to teach them that evolution and the beginning of life are separate issues.
> 
> Do all Christian fundies avoid knowledge and an education in science?
Click to expand...


Hollie, you know I see through your attempts to frustrate people. You pretend to be super ignorant but you know good and well your continued accusations about others education while remaining silent on your own aggravate people's sense of fairness. Your intense hate for Christians, or basically your hate for any religion that believes in God, is the cause of your repeated attempts to frustrate them by acting stupid, like coninuing to refer to the God of a monotheistic religion as "gawds" or "gods". Again, you have lied numerous times and yet you accuse others of the behavior. I'm really not falling for your manipulations and *I hope the other Christian posters won't feed the beast anymore either.* Without others feeding your hate, I believe you would shrivel up and float away. 

The point is, no amount of truth or scientific evidence will change your underlying atheistic worldview, so you are just noise in this thread. You aren't interested in truth, only hate, bigotry and persecuting others. I wonder how you can sleep at night??


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my but you are an angry fundie.
> 
> There's mo need to project your hate and insecurity on others. If living in fear and superstition gives you a sense of belonging and purpose, you're free to live that way.
> 
> There's just no reason for you to project those fears and superstitions on others.
> 
> I should advise that there are groups which can separate you from your cult. There us help available for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is hope for you if you just let go of your bigotry and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does your cult leader keep jars of Kool-Aid on the shelf?
Click to expand...


Manipulative, Bigoted Post. Please try to stay on topic.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Common ancestry does not prove evolution. And the fossil record does not show any evidence of evolution. Evolutionist take what they see and GUESS based on their preconceived ideas.
> 
> The entire premise behind evolution is one species evolving into another. A virus mutating is still a virus.
> 
> 
> 
> Yours are the standard cut and paste misrepresentations from creationist ministries.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> 
> Because fundie Christians continue to be confused and/or choose to lie about evolution, its important to teach them that evolution and the beginning of life are separate issues.
> 
> Do all Christian fundies avoid knowledge and an education in science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it was from the Discovery Channel.
> 
> Tell me when did evolution begin if not at the origin of life?
Click to expand...

As noted, yours is a common misrepresentation of Christian ministries. Have you ever studied science at an accredited school?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Common ancestry does not prove evolution. And the fossil record does not show any evidence of evolution. Evolutionist take what they see and GUESS based on their preconceived ideas.
> 
> The entire premise behind evolution is one species evolving into another. A virus mutating is still a virus.
> 
> 
> 
> Yours are the standard cut and paste misrepresentations from creationist ministries.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> 
> Because fundie Christians continue to be confused and/or choose to lie about evolution, its important to teach them that evolution and the beginning of life are separate issues.
> 
> Do all Christian fundies avoid knowledge and an education in science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, you know I see through your attempts to frustrate people. You pretend to be super ignorant but you know good and well your continued accusations about others education while remaining silent on your own aggravate people's sense of fairness. Your intense hate for Christians, or basically your hate for any religion that believes in God, is the cause of your repeated attempts to frustrate them by acting stupid, like coninuing to refer to the God of a monotheistic religion as "gawds" or "gods". Again, you have lied numerous times and yet you accuse others of the behavior. I'm really not falling for your manipulations and *I hope the other Christian posters won't feed the beast anymore either.* Without others feeding your hate, I believe you would shrivel up and float away.
> 
> The point is, no amount of truth or scientific evidence will change your underlying atheistic worldview, so you are just noise in this thread. You aren't interested in truth, only hate, bigotry and persecuting others. I wonder how you can sleep at night??
Click to expand...

I'm afraid no amount of your religiously inspired hate is going to help you see the damage done to you by your cult indoctrination.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours are the standard cut and paste misrepresentations from creationist ministries.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> 
> Because fundie Christians continue to be confused and/or choose to lie about evolution, its important to teach them that evolution and the beginning of life are separate issues.
> 
> Do all Christian fundies avoid knowledge and an education in science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was from the Discovery Channel.
> 
> Tell me *when did evolution begin if not at the origin of life?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As noted, yours is a common misrepresentation of Christian ministries. Have you ever studied science at an accredited school?
Click to expand...


Answer my question please.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is hope for you if you just let go of your bigotry and hate.
> 
> 
> 
> Does your cult leader keep jars of Kool-Aid on the shelf?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Manipulative, Bigoted Post. Please try to stay on topic.
Click to expand...


What part of your religiously inspired hate is on topic?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was from the Discovery Channel.
> 
> Tell me *when did evolution begin if not at the origin of life?*
> 
> 
> 
> As noted, yours is a common misrepresentation of Christian ministries. Have you ever studied science at an accredited school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer my question please.
Click to expand...


Post a legitimate question. Do you think selectively cutting and pasting from the discovery channel is a legitimate source for a science vocabulary?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As noted, yours is a common misrepresentation of Christian ministries. Have you ever studied science at an accredited school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a legitimate question. Do you think selectively cutting and pasting from the discovery channel is a legitimate source for a science vocabulary?
Click to expand...


It is a legitimate question.

Now please answer it.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours are the standard cut and paste misrepresentations from creationist ministries.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> 
> Because fundie Christians continue to be confused and/or choose to lie about evolution, its important to teach them that evolution and the beginning of life are separate issues.
> 
> Do all Christian fundies avoid knowledge and an education in science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was from the Discovery Channel.
> 
> Tell me when did evolution begin if not at the origin of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As noted, yours is a common misrepresentation of Christian ministries. Have you ever studied science at an accredited school?
Click to expand...


Baiting, education-questioning post. Please try to stay on topic.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours are the standard cut and paste misrepresentations from creationist ministries.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> 
> Because fundie Christians continue to be confused and/or choose to lie about evolution, its important to teach them that evolution and the beginning of life are separate issues.
> 
> Do all Christian fundies avoid knowledge and an education in science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you know I see through your attempts to frustrate people. You pretend to be super ignorant but you know good and well your continued accusations about others education while remaining silent on your own aggravate people's sense of fairness. Your intense hate for Christians, or basically your hate for any religion that believes in God, is the cause of your repeated attempts to frustrate them by acting stupid, like coninuing to refer to the God of a monotheistic religion as "gawds" or "gods". Again, you have lied numerous times and yet you accuse others of the behavior. I'm really not falling for your manipulations and *I hope the other Christian posters won't feed the beast anymore either.* Without others feeding your hate, I believe you would shrivel up and float away.
> 
> The point is, no amount of truth or scientific evidence will change your underlying atheistic worldview, so you are just noise in this thread. You aren't interested in truth, only hate, bigotry and persecuting others. I wonder how you can sleep at night??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid no amount of your religiously inspired hate is going to help you see the damage done to you by your cult indoctrination.
Click to expand...


Referring to the Christian religion as a cult is a manipulative, baiting technique. Please try to refrain from these types of posts and stick to the topics at hand.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you know I see through your attempts to frustrate people. You pretend to be super ignorant but you know good and well your continued accusations about others education while remaining silent on your own aggravate people's sense of fairness. Your intense hate for Christians, or basically your hate for any religion that believes in God, is the cause of your repeated attempts to frustrate them by acting stupid, like coninuing to refer to the God of a monotheistic religion as "gawds" or "gods". Again, you have lied numerous times and yet you accuse others of the behavior. I'm really not falling for your manipulations and *I hope the other Christian posters won't feed the beast anymore either.* Without others feeding your hate, I believe you would shrivel up and float away.
> 
> The point is, no amount of truth or scientific evidence will change your underlying atheistic worldview, so you are just noise in this thread. You aren't interested in truth, only hate, bigotry and persecuting others. I wonder how you can sleep at night??
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid no amount of your religiously inspired hate is going to help you see the damage done to you by your cult indoctrination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Referring to the Christian religion as a cult is a manipulative, baiting technique. Please try to refrain from these types of posts and stick to the topics at hand.
Click to expand...

Using your religion as a means to denigrate science and promote hate is a manipulative, baiting technique.

This is not the forum for evangelizing, proselytizing or thumping people with your bibles.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid no amount of your religiously inspired hate is going to help you see the damage done to you by your cult indoctrination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Referring to the Christian religion as a cult is a manipulative, baiting technique. Please try to refrain from these types of posts and stick to the topics at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using your religion as a means to denigrate science and promote hate is a manipulative, baiting technique.
> 
> This is not the forum for evangelizing, proselytizing or thumping people with your bibles.
Click to expand...


Your continued use of derogatory comments adds nothing to the thread. Please try to stick to talking about Evolution and Creationism. Thanks.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Referring to the Christian religion as a cult is a manipulative, baiting technique. Please try to refrain from these types of posts and stick to the topics at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> Using your religion as a means to denigrate science and promote hate is a manipulative, baiting technique.
> 
> This is not the forum for evangelizing, proselytizing or thumping people with your bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your continued use of derogatory comments adds nothing to the thread. Please try to stick to talking about Evolution and Creationism. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Your spewing of hate directed at anyone who refutes the lies from your Christian creationist ministries is not furthering of honest discussion. 

You need to go elsewhere for proselytizing and thumping. Thanks.


----------



## Hollie

Some comic relief from one of the prominent Christian creationist ministries.


Do People Really Believe In Evolution? 

Do People Really Believe In Evolution? by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Strange as it may seem, the answer to this question is surprisingly complex. Most students "believe" in evolution&#8212;that's the only view they've ever been exposed to. Most adults also "believe" in evolution; after all, how could all those scientists be wrong? But, when careful polls are taken on which people have to think carefully, the majority always claim belief in some form of creation, not evolution. It seems that many identify with evolution, but don't really believe it. Please allow me to give you the results of my own, very unofficial poll.

ICR-related duties keep me in airplanes a good bit. As often as I can, I try to witness to the person sitting next to me. The initial small talk inevitably turns to what I do, and I use everyone's innate interest in the creation/evolution question to bring up spiritual matters.

One of my favorite ploys is to tell how I work at a scientific research think tank interested in the subject of origins. But, I say, as scientists, we're also Christians who feel the scientific evidence supports creation rather than evolution. Many times there's an initial stiffening as the person reacts to talking to one of those "ignorant" creationists until I say, "As creationists, we are certain that you didn't come from a fish."

Here's the result of my poll. Never, never, has anyone responded, "No, I believe in evolution, I insist that I came from a fish." Everyone has said something like,"You know, I never really believed that anyway." Obviously the door is wide open for further discussion.

You see, there are really only two alternatives. Either we descended from fishy ancestors or we didn't. Strict evolution says this transformation was by purely natural processes, like natural selection, with no supernatural agent involved. Theistic evolution says that God either guided the process along, or that He started it off and then left it alone to continue by natural processes. Either way there is no objective evidence that the change really happened, and either way, we came from a fish!


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post a legitimate question. Do you think selectively cutting and pasting from the discovery channel is a legitimate source for a science vocabulary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a legitimate question.
> 
> Now please answer it.
Click to expand...


I take your non-answer as a concession.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post a legitimate question. Do you think selectively cutting and pasting from the discovery channel is a legitimate source for a science vocabulary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a legitimate question.
> 
> Now please answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take your non-answer as a concession.
Click to expand...


I can only take your inability to post a legitimate question as an admission regarding the failure of your argument. 

Your lack of study and knowledge regarding science is not made less bankrupt by failed attempts at defending a sectarian religious viewpoint.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a legitimate question.
> 
> Now please answer it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take your non-answer as a concession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can only take your inability to post a legitimate question as an admission regarding the failure of your argument.
> 
> Your lack of study and knowledge regarding science is not made less bankrupt by failed attempts at defending a sectarian religious viewpoint.
Click to expand...


When did evolution begin?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take your non-answer as a concession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can only take your inability to post a legitimate question as an admission regarding the failure of your argument.
> 
> Your lack of study and knowledge regarding science is not made less bankrupt by failed attempts at defending a sectarian religious viewpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did evolution begin?
Click to expand...


According to the Christian creationists in this thread - never.  They believe in a worldwide conspiracy involving all of the accredited universities, the vast majority of scientists and all of those yet un-named conspirators who planted the fossil evidence under cover of darkness. 

So.... what did the carnivorous animals eat when Noah docked his Ark?


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I believe that age is what they estimate how long ago man was created.
> 
> The earth's age in unknown and will always be so.
> 
> When God made creation it took seven days. But one can only guess how long a day is. Since time is a man-made concept a day to God could have been millions of years or the blink of an eye. IMO
> 
> 
> 
> what you believe has no bering on reality,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey moron it's spelled "bearing".
> 
> My beliefs are just as valid as yours.
Click to expand...

oops a typo on my part..
as beliefs they are valid but not as evidence...you guys are unable or unwilling to see the difference..


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed proof.
> 
> 
> 
> no you haven't ,you either had an hallucination of some kind either brought on by stress from the revival meeting you were attending and worked yourself up to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that what your doing is fulfulling biblical prophecy.
> 
> So keep it up!
Click to expand...

right.....more paranoid shit ..no biblical prophecy has ever come to pass..


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I studied Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona and did quite well. See? That wasn't so hard was it? Well, that is....
> 
> 
> *If you actually went to college!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> yeah.... but did you graduate and what degree do you have...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Hollie tell me where you went to college and I will gladly answer your question.
Click to expand...

hey slapdick you already did (Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona) 

I've posted my educational background several times...no needed to post it again.


----------



## Desperado

These morons also believe that the people in the bible lived to be 800 years old too.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can only take your inability to post a legitimate question as an admission regarding the failure of your argument.
> 
> Your lack of study and knowledge regarding science is not made less bankrupt by failed attempts at defending a sectarian religious viewpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did evolution begin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the Christian creationists in this thread - never.  They believe in a worldwide conspiracy involving all of the accredited universities, the vast majority of scientists and all of those yet un-named conspirators who planted the fossil evidence under cover of darkness.
> 
> So.... what did the carnivorous animals eat when Noah docked his Ark?
Click to expand...


It's hard to believe a simple question such as that stumped you. But...it did.

To answer your question. Many carnivorous animals can manage on a vegetarian diet including lions and tigers.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what you believe has no bering on reality,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey moron it's spelled "bearing".
> 
> My beliefs are just as valid as yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oops a typo on my part..
> as beliefs they are valid but not as evidence...you guys are unable or unwilling to see the difference..
Click to expand...


No one has tried to make that distinction. But go ahead and create a strawman.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no you haven't ,you either had an hallucination of some kind either brought on by stress from the revival meeting you were attending and worked yourself up to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that what your doing is fulfulling biblical prophecy.
> 
> So keep it up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right.....more paranoid shit ..no biblical prophecy has ever come to pass..
Click to expand...


Sure it has and there is plenty of evidence that proves it. Here a just a few of the most recent ones.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a legitimate question.
> 
> Now please answer it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take your non-answer as a concession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can only take your inability to post a legitimate question as an admission regarding the failure of your argument.
> 
> *Your lack of study and knowledge regarding science* is not made less bankrupt by failed attempts at defending a sectarian religious viewpoint.
Click to expand...


Manipulitive post aimed at baiting the other poster into an educational credentials discussion. Please try to keep your posts on topic. Thanks.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did evolution begin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Christian creationists in this thread - never.  They believe in a worldwide conspiracy involving all of the accredited universities, the vast majority of scientists and all of those yet un-named conspirators who planted the fossil evidence under cover of darkness.
> 
> So.... what did the carnivorous animals eat when Noah docked his Ark?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe a simple question such as that stumped you. But...it did.
> 
> To answer your question. Many carnivorous animals can manage on a vegetarian diet including lions and tigers.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. So, can you confirm for us that Noah brought provisions to sustain carnivorous animals for many months after the flood? Was there competition for food between the more modern carnivores and dinosaurs? I'd be curious to know if the carnivorous dinosaurs could similarly survive on a vegetarian diet as you claim to know lions and tigers could do.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah.... but did you graduate and what degree do you have...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and Hollie tell me where you went to college and I will gladly answer your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey slapdick you already did (Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona)
> 
> I've posted my educational background several times...no needed to post it again.
Click to expand...


Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona (7 words)

I've posted my educational background several times...no needed to post it again. (13 words) 

Wouldn't it have been easier just to post it again?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take your non-answer as a concession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can only take your inability to post a legitimate question as an admission regarding the failure of your argument.
> 
> *Your lack of study and knowledge regarding science* is not made less bankrupt by failed attempts at defending a sectarian religious viewpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Manipulitive post aimed at baiting the other poster into an educational credentials discussion. Please try to keep your posts on topic. Thanks.
Click to expand...


You poor, dear. 

Can you entertain us with your relentless stalking and posting of gargantuan fonts?

Try to follow the discussion and entertain us with more bible thumping.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Christian creationists in this thread - never.  They believe in a worldwide conspiracy involving all of the accredited universities, the vast majority of scientists and all of those yet un-named conspirators who planted the fossil evidence under cover of darkness.
> 
> So.... what did the carnivorous animals eat when Noah docked his Ark?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe a simple question such as that stumped you. But...it did.
> 
> To answer your question. Many carnivorous animals can manage on a vegetarian diet including lions and tigers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's interesting. So, can you confirm for us that Noah brought provisions to sustain carnivorous animals for many months after the flood? Was there competition for food between the more modern carnivores and dinosaurs? I'd be curious to know if the carnivorous dinosaurs could similarly survive on a vegetarian diet as you claim to know lions and tigers could do.
Click to expand...


I can no more confirm the events on the Ark as you can confirm the beginning of evolution. But I do know that many canivores can manage on a vegetarian diet. I'll concede that they cannot maintain such a diet for a great length of time.

But the Ark had many animals that could multiply in a matter of days. For instance a rabbits gestation period is 28 to 30 days. The Opposum 12 to 13 days. 

The dinosaur bit is just more pettifogging on your part.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Hollie tell me where you went to college and I will gladly answer your question.
> 
> 
> 
> hey slapdick you already did (Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona)
> 
> I've posted my educational background several times...no needed to post it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona (7 words)
> 
> I've posted my educational background several times...no needed to post it again. (13 words)
> 
> Wouldn't it have been easier just to post it again?
Click to expand...


Be honest, dear. You actually attended the class of Friday afternoon, graduating from the Jimmy Swaggert school of "Pants Down Around the Ankles, right?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe a simple question such as that stumped you. But...it did.
> 
> To answer your question. Many carnivorous animals can manage on a vegetarian diet including lions and tigers.
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting. So, can you confirm for us that Noah brought provisions to sustain carnivorous animals for many months after the flood? Was there competition for food between the more modern carnivores and dinosaurs? I'd be curious to know if the carnivorous dinosaurs could similarly survive on a vegetarian diet as you claim to know lions and tigers could do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can no more confirm the events on the Ark as you can confirm the beginning of evolution. But I do know that many canivores can manage on a vegetarian diet. I'll concede that they cannot maintain such a diet for a great length of time.
> 
> But the Ark had many animals that could multiply in a matter of days. For instance a rabbits gestation period is 28 to 30 days. The Opposum 12 to 13 days.
> 
> The dinosaur bit is just more pettifogging on your part.
Click to expand...


You don't know your creationist history. Ken Ham's museum clearly depicts humans frollicking with dinosaurs. Could that have been before Noah's cruise?


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?! What proof was this?!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.
Click to expand...

how did I know you'd say that...people changing their behavior is no proof that Jesus had any thing to do with it. 

it has far more to do with  with early indoctrination to a belief system and the individual  personality of the "acceptor".
studies have shown that nearly all "the saved" are undereducated and  highly sugestable.
there are also the conditions called suspension of disbelief and crowd psychology


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting. So, can you confirm for us that Noah brought provisions to sustain carnivorous animals for many months after the flood? Was there competition for food between the more modern carnivores and dinosaurs? I'd be curious to know if the carnivorous dinosaurs could similarly survive on a vegetarian diet as you claim to know lions and tigers could do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can no more confirm the events on the Ark as you can confirm the beginning of evolution. But I do know that many canivores can manage on a vegetarian diet. I'll concede that they cannot maintain such a diet for a great length of time.
> 
> But the Ark had many animals that could multiply in a matter of days. For instance a rabbits gestation period is 28 to 30 days. The Opposum 12 to 13 days.
> 
> The dinosaur bit is just more pettifogging on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know your creationist history. Ken Ham's museum clearly depicts humans frollicking with dinosaurs. Could that have been before Noah's cruise?
Click to expand...


The Bible speaks of dinosaurs but it doesn't go into great lengths as to what their diet consisted of or how the competition for food was.

Try Reading the book of Enoch, it has a lot about the dinosaurs in it.

I have no idea who Ken Hamm is, nor do I care.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?! What proof was this?!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how did I know you'd say that...people changing their behavior is no proof that Jesus had any thing to do with it.
> 
> it has far more to do with  with early indoctrination to a belief system and the individual  personality of the "acceptor".
> studies have shown that nearly all "the saved" are undereducated and  highly sugestable.
> there are also the conditions called suspension of disbelief and crowd psychology
Click to expand...


Link to those studies please.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?! What proof was this?!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how did I know you'd say that...people changing their behavior is no proof that Jesus had any thing to do with it.
> 
> it has far more to do with  with early indoctrination to a belief system and the individual  personality of the "acceptor".
> studies have shown that nearly all "the saved" are undereducated and  highly sugestable.
> there are also the conditions called suspension of disbelief and crowd psychology
Click to expand...


People have changed their lives after accepting David Koresh as a prophet. Charismatic figures like Jim Jones can persuade the gullible to end their lives. People sacrificed animals to appease your gawds. 

There are always rubes ripe to be fleeced.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can no more confirm the events on the Ark as you can confirm the beginning of evolution. But I do know that many canivores can manage on a vegetarian diet. I'll concede that they cannot maintain such a diet for a great length of time.
> 
> But the Ark had many animals that could multiply in a matter of days. For instance a rabbits gestation period is 28 to 30 days. The Opposum 12 to 13 days.
> 
> The dinosaur bit is just more pettifogging on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know your creationist history. Ken Ham's museum clearly depicts humans frollicking with dinosaurs. Could that have been before Noah's cruise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible speaks of dinosaurs but it doesn't go into great lengths as to what their diet consisted of or how the competition for food was.
> 
> Try Reading the book of Enoch, it has a lot about the dinosaurs in it.
> 
> I have no idea who Ken Hamm is, nor do I care.
Click to expand...

Why do you think such little detail is devoted to the gawds wiping humanity from the planet? That seems like an important detail.

Any thoughts as to why the gawds would litter the planet with fosill relics that depict an ancient earth when the planet is only 6,000 years old?

Have the gawds played a cruel joke on you?


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just plain old self-delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't judge until you've walked a mile in my shoes.
Click to expand...

no need, your story is no different from any other of the saved.
it most likely goes like this...you were  raised in some branch of fundamentalism and  some how lost faith , someone died or you got addicted or got someone pregnant etc..    

OR you were raised in a family that had a faith but didn't  attend church a lot and some or all of the previously mentioned stuff happened.
then you hit bottom or fucked up hard and went looking for answers.
no matter how you answer,  I know  I'm  fairly close to the truth.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the self-delusion is yours ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can a 2000 year old dead guy that might not even have existed save you today? That makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But yet the God that spat stars out of his mouth humbled himself and became human. And not a human born to royalty, but born to the poorest and most humble family, so much so that he was born in a stable and laid in a feeding trough. You may have heard of this story. It is actually a national holiday and it's called Christmas.
Click to expand...

another biblical fiction .
christmas is a usurped holiday : The History of Christmas and Its Pagan Origins
Christmas from a Non-Christian Perspective
Jennifer Claerr, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Nov 10, 2007 "Share your voice on Yahoo! websites. Start Here."
.More:Christmas.Christmas Cakes.tweet27PrintFlagCloseMany people suffer from the misconception that Christmas is a Christian holiday. The earliest history of Christmas is composed of "pagan" (non-Christian) fertility rites and practices which predate Jesus by centuries. The truth is, in short, the real history of Christmas has nothing to do with Christianity. Many of the traditions which we hold dear, such as decorating Christmas trees, singing Christmas carols, and giving Christmas gifts, are rooted in the traditions of non-Christian religions.
We do not observe Christmas on December 25th because it was the date in history when Jesus was born. Nobody knows exactly what that date was, but references in the Bible show it most likely did not take place in winter. Rather it is because this was the date that the Romans historically celebrated the winter solstice. This celebration was about dies natalis solis invicti: the day of the birth of the unconquerable sun, which took place on December 22nd. The winter solstice held the promise of the return of springtime and earthly renewal. In Roman history, this was the time of Saturnalia, honoring the God of Agriculture, for the week before the solstice, and Juvenalia, a feast in honor of the children of Rome, around the same time. On the 25th of the month they celebrated the birth of the sun-god Mithra. Masters and servants traded places temporarily, and everybody had a rollicking good time. It was during Saturnalia that the tradition of exchanging gifts was established. They gave one another Stenae or fruits which were intended to bring good luck. The Romans placed an enormous amount of pressure on the early Christians to rejoice along with them, and around the time of the fourth century, they began to celebrate Christmas around the same time. It was inevitable that Christians should make a connection between the rebirth of the sun and the birth of the Son.

In the Middle Ages, Christmas was a raucous, drunken celebration which resembled a carnival. Poor people would go on a Christmas"trick or treat" around the richer neighborhoods, causing them misery if they didn't get what they wanted.

Many other pagan traditions have been incorporated into Christmas. Yule was celebrated by the Norse in Scandanavia around the time of the winter solstice by bringing in large logs for the fire, in recognition of the eventual return of the sun. It could take as much as twelve days for the log to burn down. Meanwhile, the Norse would feast. The holiday usually lasted through January.

The Germans did not so much celebrate as honor the winter solstice. They believed that their god, Oden, flew through the sky at night passing judgment on his people. Generally, they would stay indoors during this season. When the Germanic people were converted to Christianity, their winter festival was naturally adopted as a celebration of the birth of Christ.

To the pagans, evergreens served as a symbol of winter's inability to stop the cycle of renewal. They were important fertility symbols which were highly revered by many cultures, including the Germans and the Celts. They helped to soothe the pagans' fears that the sun would never return, and that winter would reign eternal.

Contrary to popular belief, the tradition of cutting down a Christmas tree, bringing it into the home and decorating it is not pagan in origin, and did not appear until centuries after Christ's broth. The Romans decorated their homes and temples with evergreen clippings, but allowed the trees to remain intact, often decorating live trees with religious icons. The Druids tied fruit to the branches of live trees, and baked cakes in the shape of fish, birds and other animals, to offer to their god, Woden. We also inherited the tradition of kissing under the mistletoe from the Druids. The Christmas tree tradition we currently practice had its origins in 16th century Western Germany. "Paradise trees" were cut down to commemorate the Feast of Adam and Eve, which took place on Christmas eve every year.

Many Christians were opposed to the merrymaking and pagan origins of the Christmas festivities, especially the more solemn Christians such as the Puritans. In England in 1645, Christmas was actually canceled. In Boston between 1659 and 1681 Christmas was outlawed, and merrymakers incurred fines for their mirth.

Early carols were sung in a circle dance by European Celts in medieval times, as a part of their fertility rituals, and were later adopted as a way to celebrate Christmas. As a result they became unpopular among Christian authority. Over the ages multiple attempts have been made to ban Christmas carols. Christmas carols enjoyed a revival when St. Francis of Assisi began to favor a more joyous celebration of the Christmas season. Another pagan custom called wassailing, or singing from door to door, also became very popular among Christmas celebrants.

Many people mistakenly state that "Jesus is the reason for the season." They do so, because they believe people have lost sight of the true meaning of Christmas. It simply isn't true. Christmas can be celebrated as completely secular because ultimately it is not a Christian holiday. Christmas goes beyond religious and cultural differences, and addresses something universal in all of us. For this reason it has become popular in non-Christian countries such as Japan. The truth is that Christian and pagan traditions have a great deal in common. The real need behind all of these traditions was to find a source of joy, happiness, hope, goodwill and generosity. There was a need to find ways to cope with our fears about the darkness and cold of wintertime, and to celebrate the return of the sun and the longer days of spring.

In fact, Christianity and pre-Christian pagan religion have a great deal in common. Various pagan religions shared the Christian practice of worshiping a god-man who could offer salvation in the form of heaven or condemnation in the form of hell. The concept that a son of God could be born of a mortal woman is seen in many different religions spanning the globe. These concepts are universal, except to those who are extremely divisive and have a tendency to pick nits.

The pagans were smart people who had quite a few good ideas. They respected the earth, and we have benefited greatly from their practices. There is no reason for Christians to fear "pagan" universal and earth-centered traditions. At Christmas, rather than fretting that non-Christians have forgotten about Jesus we should focus on the deeper purpose of the holiday. The main problem is that Christmas has become far too commercial and this has gotten us away from the pagan tradition of connecting with the earth. Instead, we spend the whole holiday trashing the planet with excessive buying, and cutting down millions of Christmas trees which must then be discarded less than a month later. Environmental destruction and consumerism has passed for merrymaking for many years now, but it's an empty tradition. Celebrating the fertility of the earth is better by far. There is a strong need for a return to the family- and society-centered traditions which were established in Roman times and reestablished in the 19th century. Washington Irving's writings helped Americans to establish Christmas as a time of giving to those who are most in need, and bridging the gap between the rich and the poor. These traditions had their roots in the practices of the real St. Nicholas, who lived in Myra in the fourth century A.D. He was born rich and inherited a great deal of money on the death of his parents, all of which he gave away. St. Nicholas is said to have thrown bags of gold into the windows of dowerless girls to save them from lives of prostitution or slavery. He was also well know for his love and protection of children. St. Nicholas is the figure behind our modern day Santa Claus myth of a generous man who delivered hand-made toys to children all over the world.

So rather than viewing Christmas as a time to break the bank, we can take advantage of it as a time to help the less fortunate. Many people ask that their friends and loved ones give to charity rather than buy them a gift. This sort of gift giving is popular among yogis who see Christmas as a way to extend their practice.

Fortunately there are many ways to reconnect with the original purpose and meaning of Christmas. Small traditions, such as placing apples or cookies on the tree, or decorating a live tree instead of a cut one, are a good way to get in touch with the way that our ancestors celebrated Christmas. Respecting the planet and understanding its powers and its limitations are important. The pagans were aware of the changing seasons and found earth-centered and social ways to cope with them. They were aware and appreciative of the sun. They exchanged gifts, but their gift exchange was not commercialized. Instead the focus was on bringing good fortune. Giving gifts of fruit has been a common practice throughout history, and is still popular today.

The Christmas holiday season is about unity, not divisiveness. At the holiday season we should forget about our religious differences, abandon commercialism and think about what is best for the planet and for humanity.

The History of Christmas and Its Pagan Origins - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know your creationist history. Ken Ham's museum clearly depicts humans frollicking with dinosaurs. Could that have been before Noah's cruise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible speaks of dinosaurs but it doesn't go into great lengths as to what their diet consisted of or how the competition for food was.
> 
> Try Reading the book of Enoch, it has a lot about the dinosaurs in it.
> 
> I have no idea who Ken Hamm is, nor do I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think such little detail is devoted to the gawds wiping humanity from the planet? That seems like an important detail.
> 
> Any thoughts as to why the gawds would litter the planet with fosill relics that depict an ancient earth when the planet is only 6,000 years old?
> 
> Have the gawds played a cruel joke on you?
Click to expand...


What are gawds? Humanity hasn't been wiped from the planet.

6,000 years old is a number you keep bringing up. Not me.

It's clear that you cannot have an honest debate. You have done nothing but pettifog, insult and ridicule that which you don't believe nor know anything about. 

You cannot even muster a defensible argument to support your position without cut and pasting. 

I'll take your inability to discuss manners in a rational manner as a concession.

Class dismissed.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the self-delusion is yours ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can a 2000 year old dead guy that might not even have existed save you today? That makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe we are living the final act to which you will get your answer.
Click to expand...

what you believe is not relevant..it's also a non answer.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just plain old self-delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't judge until you've walked a mile in my shoes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need, your story is no different from any other of the saved.
> it most likely goes like this...you were  raised in some branch of fundamentalism and  some how lost faith , someone died or you got addicted or got someone pregnant etc..
> 
> OR you were raised in a family that had a faith but didn't  attend church a lot and some or all of the previously mentioned stuff happened.
> then you hit bottom or fucked up hard and went looking for answers.
> no matter how you answer,  I know  I'm  fairly close to the truth.
Click to expand...


You don't know the first thing about my life. So please don't flatter yourself.

And your assumptions were not even close to the truth.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how hard they work at trying to build the puzzle there will always be missing pieces showing this theory to be fabricated from vivid minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're in denial as the entirety of science. The history of knowledge has been to reduce the fear and superstition that defines the worldview you espouse. Living in fear and ignorance is a sad existence. Living in denial of the natural world in favor of comforting myths of a father figure who is watching over you is attempting to escape from reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no escaping reality we are surrounded by it.
Click to expand...

you are right, too bad it's not your reality,as much as you wish it to be.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible speaks of dinosaurs but it doesn't go into great lengths as to what their diet consisted of or how the competition for food was.
> 
> Try Reading the book of Enoch, it has a lot about the dinosaurs in it.
> 
> I have no idea who Ken Hamm is, nor do I care.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think such little detail is devoted to the gawds wiping humanity from the planet? That seems like an important detail.
> 
> Any thoughts as to why the gawds would litter the planet with fosill relics that depict an ancient earth when the planet is only 6,000 years old?
> 
> Have the gawds played a cruel joke on you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are gawds? Humanity hasn't been wiped from the planet.
> 
> 6,000 years old is a number you keep bringing up. Not me.
> 
> It's clear that you cannot have an honest debate. You have done nothing but pettifog, insult and ridicule that which you don't believe nor know anything about.
> 
> You cannot even muster a defensible argument to support your position without cut and pasting.
> 
> I'll take your inability to discuss manners in a rational manner as a concession.
> 
> Class dismissed.
Click to expand...

Bailing out when the questions are difficult, as usual. That's a common tactic of fundies. It's a simple matter to make grandiose claims and cut and paste alleged bible prophesies but when you're pressed to defend such silliness, you head for the exits in panic.

I will admit to an inability to discuss supernaturalism, your alleged spirit world, magic and a litany of creationist claims to magic in a rational fashion when creationists are unable to themselves discuss such silliness in a rational manner. 

What is rational about supermagicalism?


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> Top Ten Creationist Arguments - YouTube


bravo!


----------



## pjnlsn

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was from the Discovery Channel.
> 
> Tell me *when did evolution begin if not at the origin of life?*
> 
> 
> 
> As noted, yours is a common misrepresentation of Christian ministries. Have you ever studied science at an accredited school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer my question please.
Click to expand...


By the definition of 'begin' and 'origin,' if the other terms coincide, a question asking if the origin of A is the beginning of B will have an affirmative answer.

"When did * begin if not at the origin of *?"  or: "* began when it originated"

But, if by chance you thought that an answer to your question would be of some great value, it's merely true by definition.

Also, if you meant to link this with other things you have written or quoted:



Lonestar_logic said:


> According to evolutionary theory, life began billions of years ago, when a group of chemicals inadvertently organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This tiny molecule gave rise to everything that has ever lived on the planet. Different and more complex organisms grew from this simple beginning through mutation of DNA and natural selection.
Click to expand...


Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and defining something a certain way doesn't mean anyone you communicate with defines it similarly. 

You could define evolutionary theory as the change from when there was no cellular matter to when there was, you could say evolutionary theory is the study of strawberry cultivation, it's still not, if I know what he means, what he is talking about, in the posts which precede the above by a few pages. What has been referenced is that section of biology.

If perhaps your question bolded at the top stands alone, and you associate it with nothing, then so be it. But the answer is unsurprising, if you expected otherwise.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think such little detail is devoted to the gawds wiping humanity from the planet? That seems like an important detail.
> 
> Any thoughts as to why the gawds would litter the planet with fosill relics that depict an ancient earth when the planet is only 6,000 years old?
> 
> Have the gawds played a cruel joke on you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are gawds? Humanity hasn't been wiped from the planet.
> 
> 6,000 years old is a number you keep bringing up. Not me.
> 
> It's clear that you cannot have an honest debate. You have done nothing but pettifog, insult and ridicule that which you don't believe nor know anything about.
> 
> You cannot even muster a defensible argument to support your position without cut and pasting.
> 
> I'll take your inability to discuss manners in a rational manner as a concession.
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bailing out when the questions are difficult, as usual. That's a common tactic of fundies. It's a simple matter to make grandiose claims and cut and paste alleged bible prophesies but when you're pressed to defend such silliness, you head for the exits in panic.
> 
> I will admit to an inability to discuss supernaturalism, your alleged spirit world, magic and a litany of creationist claims to magic in a rational fashion when creationists are unable to themselves discuss such silliness in a rational manner.
> 
> What is rational about supermagicalism?
Click to expand...


I've answered your questions. And I haven't bailed out on or dodged any of them with the exception of the strawmen arguments you created. Those are not worth my time.

You haven't challenged any prophecies for me to have to defend. Oh but that's just yet another strawman of your creation.

Supermagicalism isn't even a word. Just another creation of your own delusional thinking.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

pjnlsn said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As noted, yours is a common misrepresentation of Christian ministries. Have you ever studied science at an accredited school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the definition of 'begin' and 'origin,' if the other terms coincide, a question asking if the origin of A is the beginning of B will have an affirmative answer.
> 
> "When did * begin if not at the origin of *?"  or: "* began when it originated"
> 
> But, if by chance you thought that an answer to your question would be of some great value, it's merely true by definition.
> 
> Also, if you meant to link this with other things you have written or quoted:
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to evolutionary theory, life began billions of years ago, when a group of chemicals inadvertently organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This tiny molecule gave rise to everything that has ever lived on the planet. Different and more complex organisms grew from this simple beginning through mutation of DNA and natural selection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and defining something a certain way doesn't mean anyone you communicate with defines it similarly.
> 
> You could define evolutionary theory as the change from when there was no cellular matter to when there was, you could say evolutionary theory is the study of strawberry cultivation, it's still not, if I know what he means, what he is talking about, in the posts which precede the above by a few pages. What has been referenced is that section of biology.
> 
> If perhaps your question bolded at the top stands alone, and you associate it with nothing, then so be it. But the answer is unsurprising, if you expected otherwise.
Click to expand...


Definiton of "origin":

1: ancestry, parentage 
2(a) : rise, beginning, or derivation from a source (b) : the point at which something begins or rises or from which it derives <the origin of the custom>; also : something that creates, causes, or gives rise to another <a spring is the origin of the brook>


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that what your doing is fulfulling biblical prophecy.
> 
> So keep it up!
> 
> 
> 
> right.....more paranoid shit ..no biblical prophecy has ever come to pass..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it has and there is plenty of evidence that proves it. Here a just a few of the most recent ones.
Click to expand...

sadly no what you posted is a intentional misinterpretation of un provable past events and not present day or future events.
not one has any quantifiable evidence to bolster those claims


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> right.....more paranoid shit ..no biblical prophecy has ever come to pass..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it has and there is plenty of evidence that proves it. Here a just a few of the most recent ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sadly no what you posted is a intentional misinterpretation of un provable past events and not present day or future events.
> not one has any quantifiable evidence to bolster those claims
Click to expand...


Same has been said about the dating methods of evolutionist.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Hollie tell me where you went to college and I will gladly answer your question.
> 
> 
> 
> hey slapdick you already did (Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona)
> 
> I've posted my educational background several times...no needed to post it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona (7 words)
> 
> I've posted my educational background several times...no needed to post it again. (13 words)
> 
> Wouldn't it have been easier just to post it again?
Click to expand...

no.. why? funny that you would get all anal about the number of words as you've used ten of thousands to describe A steaming pile of shit (5) words.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.
> 
> 
> 
> how did I know you'd say that...people changing their behavior is no proof that Jesus had any thing to do with it.
> 
> it has far more to do with  with early indoctrination to a belief system and the individual  personality of the "acceptor".
> studies have shown that nearly all "the saved" are undereducated and  highly sugestable.
> there are also the conditions called suspension of disbelief and crowd psychology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link to those studies please.
Click to expand...

it's called google ..maybe you should try it..


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't judge until you've walked a mile in my shoes.
> 
> 
> 
> no need, your story is no different from any other of the saved.
> it most likely goes like this...you were  raised in some branch of fundamentalism and  some how lost faith , someone died or you got addicted or got someone pregnant etc..
> 
> OR you were raised in a family that had a faith but didn't  attend church a lot and some or all of the previously mentioned stuff happened.
> then you hit bottom or fucked up hard and went looking for answers.
> no matter how you answer,  I know  I'm  fairly close to the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the first thing about my life. So please don't flatter yourself.
> 
> And your assumptions were not even close to the truth.
Click to expand...

 I'm not assuming and your answer proves it.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it has and there is plenty of evidence that proves it. Here a just a few of the most recent ones.
> 
> 
> 
> sadly no what you posted is a intentional misinterpretation of un provable past events and not present day or future events.
> not one has any quantifiable evidence to bolster those claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same has been said about the dating methods of evolutionist.
Click to expand...

and it was wrong done for the same reason you needed to answer my statement.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how did I know you'd say that...people changing their behavior is no proof that Jesus had any thing to do with it.
> 
> it has far more to do with  with early indoctrination to a belief system and the individual  personality of the "acceptor".
> studies have shown that nearly all "the saved" are undereducated and  highly sugestable.
> there are also the conditions called suspension of disbelief and crowd psychology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to those studies please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's called google ..maybe you should try it..
Click to expand...


You made the claim. Either you support it or admit you lied. 

Makes no difference to me.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no need, your story is no different from any other of the saved.
> it most likely goes like this...you were  raised in some branch of fundamentalism and  some how lost faith , someone died or you got addicted or got someone pregnant etc..
> 
> OR you were raised in a family that had a faith but didn't  attend church a lot and some or all of the previously mentioned stuff happened.
> then you hit bottom or fucked up hard and went looking for answers.
> no matter how you answer,  I know  I'm  fairly close to the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know the first thing about my life. So please don't flatter yourself.
> 
> And your assumptions were not even close to the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not assuming and your answer proves it.
Click to expand...


Sure you were. You have no knowledge of my upbringing or what trials I may or may not have had in my life.

Nice try but a major fail on your part.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to those studies please.
> 
> 
> 
> it's called google ..maybe you should try it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made the claim. Either you support it or admit you lied.
> 
> Makes no difference to me.
Click to expand...

BY posting what I did, automatically means I support it.
the onus is on you to prove it wrong..
calling me a liar is chicken shit.
doesn't the bible say something about bearing false wittiness?


----------



## emilynghiem

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible speaks of dinosaurs but it doesn't go into great lengths as to what their diet consisted of or how the competition for food was.
> 
> Try Reading the book of Enoch, it has a lot about the dinosaurs in it.
> 
> I have no idea who Ken Hamm is, nor do I care.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think such little detail is devoted to the gawds wiping humanity from the planet? That seems like an important detail.
> 
> Any thoughts as to why the gawds would litter the planet with fosill relics that depict an ancient earth when the planet is only 6,000 years old?
> 
> Have the gawds played a cruel joke on you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are gawds? Humanity hasn't been wiped from the planet.
> 
> 6,000 years old is a number you keep bringing up. Not me.
> 
> It's clear that you cannot have an honest debate. You have done nothing but pettifog, insult and ridicule that which you don't believe nor know anything about.
> 
> You cannot even muster a defensible argument to support your position without cut and pasting.
> 
> I'll take your inability to discuss manners in a rational manner as a concession.
> 
> Class dismissed.
Click to expand...


Gee, I hope this debate/discussion does not go on another 2,000-6,000 years!

The simplest way I know to settle this is to interpret 1,000 years as 1 day or age.
So the world is created in 6 stages, and in the 7th stage we are supposed to
evolve to spiritual maturity and achieve heavenly peace on earth.

it does not have to be LITERALLY 6 days or 6,000 years, but it is SYMBOLIC of stages.

The 6,000 years refers to the Mosaic lineage under Judaic law, for the Jews Christians and Muslims. The Gentiles under natural laws are going through a similar but separate process.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know the first thing about my life. So please don't flatter yourself.
> 
> And your assumptions were not even close to the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming and your answer proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you were. You have no knowledge of my upbringing or what trials I may or may not have had in my life.
> 
> Nice try but a major fail on your part.
Click to expand...

wrong again it's  not assuming, simply because your individual tale of woe  falls into  well worn patterns of behavior.
you're not nearly as seperate as you wish you were.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's called google ..maybe you should try it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made the claim. Either you support it or admit you lied.
> 
> Makes no difference to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BY posting what I did, automatically means I support it.
> the onus is on you to prove it wrong..
> calling me a liar is chicken shit.
> doesn't the bible say something about bearing false wittiness?
Click to expand...


No, it means you made the claim. Now it's up to you to support it with some documentation. 

The onus is own you to prove your claim. Otherwise I have no choice but to think you are lying.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made the claim. Either you support it or admit you lied.
> 
> Makes no difference to me.
> 
> 
> 
> BY posting what I did, automatically means I support it.
> the onus is on you to prove it wrong..
> calling me a liar is chicken shit.
> doesn't the bible say something about bearing false wittiness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it means you made the claim. Now it's up to you to support it with some documentation.
> 
> The onus is own you to prove your claim. Otherwise I have no choice but to think you are lying.
Click to expand...

 your ignorance prevents you from doing anything else.
like finding out for yourself


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming and your answer proves it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you were. You have no knowledge of my upbringing or what trials I may or may not have had in my life.
> 
> Nice try but a major fail on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong again it's  not assuming, simply because your individual tale of woe  falls into  well worn patterns of behavior.
> you're not nearly as seperate as you wish you were.
Click to expand...


Sorry to dissappoint you but your assumption is still incorrect.

I have no tales of woe.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BY posting what I did, automatically means I support it.
> the onus is on you to prove it wrong..
> calling me a liar is chicken shit.
> doesn't the bible say something about bearing false wittiness?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means you made the claim. Now it's up to you to support it with some documentation.
> 
> The onus is own you to prove your claim. Otherwise I have no choice but to think you are lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your ignorance prevents you from doing anything else.
> like finding out for yourself
Click to expand...


So you admit there is no such information available.

Duly noted.


----------



## emilynghiem

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?! What proof was this?!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how did I know you'd say that...people changing their behavior is no proof that Jesus had any thing to do with it.
> 
> it has far more to do with  with early indoctrination to a belief system and the individual  personality of the "acceptor".
> studies have shown that nearly all "the saved" are undereducated and  highly sugestable.
> there are also the conditions called suspension of disbelief and crowd psychology
Click to expand...


Hi Daws: don't mean to bust the stereotype on this, but I can cite at least 2-3 neurosurgeons that changed their minds when they saw proof, even incorporating healing prayer into their practice. One doctor found it so much more effective, he no longer practices neurosurgery as he did for over 12 years before discovering that spiritual healing was real (see Dr. Phillip Goldfedder, Healing Is Yours). Another well known psychiatrist and author Dr. Scott Peck wrote a book about "how he changed his mind" about exorcism and deliverance methods of diagnosis and treatment, after he observed this process himself with a team that work with two "incureable" schizophrenic patients and saw them regain their minds and wills back from being hijacked by demonic obsessions beyond their control. So this is a growing field, and you will see more scientists and medical research backing up what Christians have been saying about the power of forgiveness prayer and therapy on healing the mind and body.

Sources: "Healing" by Dr. Francis MacNutt Christian Healing Ministries
"Glimpses of the Devil" by Dr. Scott M. Peck
Dr. Phillip Goldfedder Healing Is Yours
My friend Olivia Reiner who works with children and families in the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX, and has 30 years of successful testimonies and cases 713-829-0899

This can be proven by science, so there is no need to judge anyone by IQ or education level.
It's as natural as the laws of gravity, once you understand how spiritual healing works, then people can work with these methods ALONG WITH science and medicine to heal the whole person, body mind and spirit, instead of leaving out steps where healing is obstructed. The point of spiritual healing is to identify and remove issues or conflicts of "unforgiveness" keeping people stuck and blocking their minds and bodies from healing by natural design.


----------



## pjnlsn

Lonestar_logic said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the definition of 'begin' and 'origin,' if the other terms coincide, a question asking if the origin of A is the beginning of B will have an affirmative answer.
> 
> "When did * begin if not at the origin of *?"  or: "* began when it originated"
> 
> But, if by chance you thought that an answer to your question would be of some great value, it's merely true by definition.
> 
> Also, if you meant to link this with other things you have written or quoted:
> 
> 
> Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and defining something a certain way doesn't mean anyone you communicate with defines it similarly.
> 
> You could define evolutionary theory as the change from when there was no cellular matter to when there was, you could say evolutionary theory is the study of strawberry cultivation, it's still not, if I know what he means, what he is talking about, in the posts which precede the above by a few pages. What has been referenced is that section of biology.
> 
> If perhaps your question bolded at the top stands alone, and you associate it with nothing, then so be it. But the answer is unsurprising, if you expected otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definiton of "origin":
> 
> 1: ancestry, parentage
> 2(a) : rise, beginning, or derivation from a source (b) : the point at which something begins or rises or from which it derives <the origin of the custom>; also : something that creates, causes, or gives rise to another <a spring is the origin of the brook>
Click to expand...


If "origin" was meant as something significantly different than "beginning," then what? Otherwise, and, again:



pjnlsn said:


> If perhaps your question [...] at the top stands alone, and you associate it with nothing, then so be it. But the answer is unsurprising, if you expected otherwise.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are gawds? Humanity hasn't been wiped from the planet.
> 
> 6,000 years old is a number you keep bringing up. Not me.
> 
> It's clear that you cannot have an honest debate. You have done nothing but pettifog, insult and ridicule that which you don't believe nor know anything about.
> 
> You cannot even muster a defensible argument to support your position without cut and pasting.
> 
> I'll take your inability to discuss manners in a rational manner as a concession.
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> Bailing out when the questions are difficult, as usual. That's a common tactic of fundies. It's a simple matter to make grandiose claims and cut and paste alleged bible prophesies but when you're pressed to defend such silliness, you head for the exits in panic.
> 
> I will admit to an inability to discuss supernaturalism, your alleged spirit world, magic and a litany of creationist claims to magic in a rational fashion when creationists are unable to themselves discuss such silliness in a rational manner.
> 
> What is rational about supermagicalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've answered your questions. And I haven't bailed out on or dodged any of them with the exception of the strawmen arguments you created. Those are not worth my time.
> 
> You haven't challenged any prophecies for me to have to defend. Oh but that's just yet another strawman of your creation.
> 
> Supermagicalism isn't even a word. Just another creation of your own delusional thinking.
Click to expand...


I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.

I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths may be acceptable when it's internal but as were aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others. 

I think that the problem most people have with rationality is that they perceive that it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions; hence they feel _reason_ and rationality is somehow inadequate. It's this lack of reason that causes zealots to maintain that the entire body of knowledge regarding the physical sciences is a grand conspiracy. Since there is no quantifiable way to prove when one's faith is "true" or not, then you have no way of knowing your faith is not totally false.

Faith is dangerous when it insists against evidence that shows it contrary. Then it tends to be blind fanaticism, wherein unsupported claims take on immutable law. In human beings, in the extreme, this leads to flying airplanes full of innocent people into buildings full of other innocent people or it can lead to fundie christian zealots believing in worldwide conspiracies..


----------



## Hollie

emilynghiem said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.
> 
> 
> 
> how did I know you'd say that...people changing their behavior is no proof that Jesus had any thing to do with it.
> 
> it has far more to do with  with early indoctrination to a belief system and the individual  personality of the "acceptor".
> studies have shown that nearly all "the saved" are undereducated and  highly sugestable.
> there are also the conditions called suspension of disbelief and crowd psychology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Daws: don't mean to bust the stereotype on this, but I can cite at least 2-3 neurosurgeons that changed their minds when they saw proof, even incorporating healing prayer into their practice. One doctor found it so much more effective, he no longer practices neurosurgery as he did for over 12 years before discovering that spiritual healing was real (see Dr. Phillip Goldfedder, Healing Is Yours). Another well known psychiatrist and author Dr. Scott Peck wrote a book about "how he changed his mind" about exorcism and deliverance methods of diagnosis and treatment, after he observed this process himself with a team that work with two "incureable" schizophrenic patients and saw them regain their minds and wills back from being hijacked by demonic obsessions beyond their control. So this is a growing field, and you will see more scientists and medical research backing up what Christians have been saying about the power of forgiveness prayer and therapy on healing the mind and body.
> 
> Sources: "Healing" by Dr. Francis MacNutt Christian Healing Ministries
> "Glimpses of the Devil" by Dr. Scott M. Peck
> Dr. Phillip Goldfedder Healing Is Yours
> My friend Olivia Reiner who works with children and families in the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX, and has 30 years of successful testimonies and cases 713-829-0899
> 
> This can be proven by science, so there is no need to judge anyone by IQ or education level.
> It's as natural as the laws of gravity, once you understand how spiritual healing works, then people can work with these methods ALONG WITH science and medicine to heal the whole person, body mind and spirit, instead of leaving out steps where healing is obstructed. The point of spiritual healing is to identify and remove issues or conflicts of "unforgiveness" keeping people stuck and blocking their minds and bodies from healing by natural design.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but there is no such thing as "spiritual healing". If you are suggesting that prayers to one or more of the gods is going to heal broken bones or cure disease, you will need to provide some verified case studies. 

One certainly can read tea leaves, rattle bones, light smelly incense or pray in an attempt to cure disease, there's just no reason to believe that it will work. In fact, if you, as a parent, chose to deny competent medical care to a child in favor of reading tea leaves, rattling bones, lighting smelly incense or praying, you can be arrested and charged with a criminal offense. 

The fact is, there is no evidence to indicate that reading tea leaves, rattling bones, lighting smelly incense or praying has ever cured disease. If you know otherwise, please demonstrate your evidence. 

Never, ever, has anyone who has had a missing limb suddenly grown one back in alllll the millions of people who trek to Lourdes or Fatima or other such places. Never. It's always "unseen" diseases -- no one has ever had their spine regenerated. Never. No one has ever been healed by gods. At best, it's their own belief they were healed which healed them, which is called "psychosomatic" -- cancer and other diseases are known to go into spontaneous remission, and even we atheists are known to self cure. gods have nothing to do with it, as evidenced by our life span-- the farther back you go, the less medicine there was, the quicker people croaked. At Jesus' time, the life expectancy was about 40 years. Today it's 65. The difference? Rational medicine and science. So, since people died much earlier back in those days, again we can blame god for not getting his lazy butt up and healing them. People died of _toothaches_. But, typically, the believer attributes all the good to gods, and nothing whatsoever to man. Next time you need surgery-- go to god. I'll go to a doctor. We'll see who lives and who dies.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can only take your inability to post a legitimate question as an admission regarding the failure of your argument.
> 
> *Your lack of study and knowledge regarding science* is not made less bankrupt by failed attempts at defending a sectarian religious viewpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manipulitive post aimed at baiting the other poster into an educational credentials discussion. Please try to keep your posts on topic. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You poor, dear.
> 
> Can you entertain us with your relentless stalking and posting of gargantuan fonts?
> 
> Try to follow the discussion and entertain us with more bible thumping.
Click to expand...


The term "Bible thumping" should be considered an offensive and bigoted remark. Please stick to the discussion.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey slapdick you already did (Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona)
> 
> I've posted my educational background several times...no needed to post it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona (7 words)
> 
> I've posted my educational background several times...no needed to post it again. (13 words)
> 
> Wouldn't it have been easier just to post it again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be honest, dear. You actually attended the class of Friday afternoon, graduating from the Jimmy Swaggert school of "Pants Down Around the Ankles, right?
Click to expand...


These types of remarks really don't add anything to the discussion. Please try to keep it on an adult level.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting. So, can you confirm for us that Noah brought provisions to sustain carnivorous animals for many months after the flood? Was there competition for food between the more modern carnivores and dinosaurs? I'd be curious to know if the carnivorous dinosaurs could similarly survive on a vegetarian diet as you claim to know lions and tigers could do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can no more confirm the events on the Ark as you can confirm the beginning of evolution. But I do know that many canivores can manage on a vegetarian diet. I'll concede that they cannot maintain such a diet for a great length of time.
> 
> But the Ark had many animals that could multiply in a matter of days. For instance a rabbits gestation period is 28 to 30 days. The Opposum 12 to 13 days.
> 
> The dinosaur bit is just more pettifogging on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know your creationist history. Ken Ham's museum clearly depicts humans frollicking with dinosaurs. Could that have been before Noah's cruise?
Click to expand...


I'm sure I am not the only one that has noticed you never address the valid ID Theory arguments. You keep picking the same two or three Creationist arguments that only one person posting her believes and continue to poke fun at them in a feeble attempt to make yourself look more intelligent. Just FYI, it's not working.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.
> 
> 
> 
> how did I know you'd say that...people changing their behavior is no proof that Jesus had any thing to do with it.
> 
> it has far more to do with  with early indoctrination to a belief system and the individual  personality of the "acceptor".
> studies have shown that nearly all "the saved" are undereducated and  highly sugestable.
> there are also the conditions called suspension of disbelief and crowd psychology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People have changed their lives after accepting David Koresh as a prophet. Charismatic figures like Jim Jones can persuade the gullible to end their lives. People sacrificed animals to appease your gawds.
> 
> There are always rubes ripe to be fleeced.
Click to expand...


Again, if you want to discuss all the horrific things that have been done in the name of atheism, please let me know. Otherwise, your attacks on a few fringe lunatics are not representative of the large group you are attempting a bigoted attack against. You wouldn't last a week as an employer, because in case you weren't aware of it, discrimination based on religion is against the law. For now it is obvious you enjoy the freedom internet forums provide for you to engage in bigoted behavior and hate speech. But to whose detriment? Certainly not the people you are attacking. I can assure you that no one here is losing sleep over your racist behavior and old fashioned ignorance that spurs your attacks on others that don't think exactly like you. In the end, only your mental health will suffer from all the seething hate in you. I actually feel compassion for you. You are so lost and apparently longing for human interaction.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can a 2000 year old dead guy that might not even have existed save you today? That makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But yet the God that spat stars out of his mouth humbled himself and became human. And not a human born to royalty, but born to the poorest and most humble family, so much so that he was born in a stable and laid in a feeding trough. You may have heard of this story. It is actually a national holiday and it's called Christmas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another biblical fiction .
> christmas is a usurped holiday : The History of Christmas and Its Pagan Origins
> Christmas from a Non-Christian Perspective
> Jennifer Claerr, Yahoo! Contributor Network
> Nov 10, 2007 "Share your voice on Yahoo! websites. Start Here."
> .More:Christmas.Christmas Cakes.tweet27PrintFlagCloseMany people suffer from the misconception that Christmas is a Christian holiday. The earliest history of Christmas is composed of "pagan" (non-Christian) fertility rites and practices which predate Jesus by centuries. The truth is, in short, the real history of Christmas has nothing to do with Christianity. Many of the traditions which we hold dear, such as decorating Christmas trees, singing Christmas carols, and giving Christmas gifts, are rooted in the traditions of non-Christian religions.
> We do not observe Christmas on December 25th because it was the date in history when Jesus was born. Nobody knows exactly what that date was, but references in the Bible show it most likely did not take place in winter. Rather it is because this was the date that the Romans historically celebrated the winter solstice. This celebration was about dies natalis solis invicti: the day of the birth of the unconquerable sun, which took place on December 22nd. The winter solstice held the promise of the return of springtime and earthly renewal. In Roman history, this was the time of Saturnalia, honoring the God of Agriculture, for the week before the solstice, and Juvenalia, a feast in honor of the children of Rome, around the same time. On the 25th of the month they celebrated the birth of the sun-god Mithra. Masters and servants traded places temporarily, and everybody had a rollicking good time. It was during Saturnalia that the tradition of exchanging gifts was established. They gave one another Stenae or fruits which were intended to bring good luck. The Romans placed an enormous amount of pressure on the early Christians to rejoice along with them, and around the time of the fourth century, they began to celebrate Christmas around the same time. It was inevitable that Christians should make a connection between the rebirth of the sun and the birth of the Son.
> 
> In the Middle Ages, Christmas was a raucous, drunken celebration which resembled a carnival. Poor people would go on a Christmas"trick or treat" around the richer neighborhoods, causing them misery if they didn't get what they wanted.
> 
> Many other pagan traditions have been incorporated into Christmas. Yule was celebrated by the Norse in Scandanavia around the time of the winter solstice by bringing in large logs for the fire, in recognition of the eventual return of the sun. It could take as much as twelve days for the log to burn down. Meanwhile, the Norse would feast. The holiday usually lasted through January.
> 
> The Germans did not so much celebrate as honor the winter solstice. They believed that their god, Oden, flew through the sky at night passing judgment on his people. Generally, they would stay indoors during this season. When the Germanic people were converted to Christianity, their winter festival was naturally adopted as a celebration of the birth of Christ.
> 
> To the pagans, evergreens served as a symbol of winter's inability to stop the cycle of renewal. They were important fertility symbols which were highly revered by many cultures, including the Germans and the Celts. They helped to soothe the pagans' fears that the sun would never return, and that winter would reign eternal.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, the tradition of cutting down a Christmas tree, bringing it into the home and decorating it is not pagan in origin, and did not appear until centuries after Christ's broth. The Romans decorated their homes and temples with evergreen clippings, but allowed the trees to remain intact, often decorating live trees with religious icons. The Druids tied fruit to the branches of live trees, and baked cakes in the shape of fish, birds and other animals, to offer to their god, Woden. We also inherited the tradition of kissing under the mistletoe from the Druids. The Christmas tree tradition we currently practice had its origins in 16th century Western Germany. "Paradise trees" were cut down to commemorate the Feast of Adam and Eve, which took place on Christmas eve every year.
> 
> Many Christians were opposed to the merrymaking and pagan origins of the Christmas festivities, especially the more solemn Christians such as the Puritans. In England in 1645, Christmas was actually canceled. In Boston between 1659 and 1681 Christmas was outlawed, and merrymakers incurred fines for their mirth.
> 
> Early carols were sung in a circle dance by European Celts in medieval times, as a part of their fertility rituals, and were later adopted as a way to celebrate Christmas. As a result they became unpopular among Christian authority. Over the ages multiple attempts have been made to ban Christmas carols. Christmas carols enjoyed a revival when St. Francis of Assisi began to favor a more joyous celebration of the Christmas season. Another pagan custom called wassailing, or singing from door to door, also became very popular among Christmas celebrants.
> 
> Many people mistakenly state that "Jesus is the reason for the season." They do so, because they believe people have lost sight of the true meaning of Christmas. It simply isn't true. Christmas can be celebrated as completely secular because ultimately it is not a Christian holiday. Christmas goes beyond religious and cultural differences, and addresses something universal in all of us. For this reason it has become popular in non-Christian countries such as Japan. The truth is that Christian and pagan traditions have a great deal in common. The real need behind all of these traditions was to find a source of joy, happiness, hope, goodwill and generosity. There was a need to find ways to cope with our fears about the darkness and cold of wintertime, and to celebrate the return of the sun and the longer days of spring.
> 
> In fact, Christianity and pre-Christian pagan religion have a great deal in common. Various pagan religions shared the Christian practice of worshiping a god-man who could offer salvation in the form of heaven or condemnation in the form of hell. The concept that a son of God could be born of a mortal woman is seen in many different religions spanning the globe. These concepts are universal, except to those who are extremely divisive and have a tendency to pick nits.
> 
> The pagans were smart people who had quite a few good ideas. They respected the earth, and we have benefited greatly from their practices. There is no reason for Christians to fear "pagan" universal and earth-centered traditions. At Christmas, rather than fretting that non-Christians have forgotten about Jesus we should focus on the deeper purpose of the holiday. The main problem is that Christmas has become far too commercial and this has gotten us away from the pagan tradition of connecting with the earth. Instead, we spend the whole holiday trashing the planet with excessive buying, and cutting down millions of Christmas trees which must then be discarded less than a month later. Environmental destruction and consumerism has passed for merrymaking for many years now, but it's an empty tradition. Celebrating the fertility of the earth is better by far. There is a strong need for a return to the family- and society-centered traditions which were established in Roman times and reestablished in the 19th century. Washington Irving's writings helped Americans to establish Christmas as a time of giving to those who are most in need, and bridging the gap between the rich and the poor. These traditions had their roots in the practices of the real St. Nicholas, who lived in Myra in the fourth century A.D. He was born rich and inherited a great deal of money on the death of his parents, all of which he gave away. St. Nicholas is said to have thrown bags of gold into the windows of dowerless girls to save them from lives of prostitution or slavery. He was also well know for his love and protection of children. St. Nicholas is the figure behind our modern day Santa Claus myth of a generous man who delivered hand-made toys to children all over the world.
> 
> So rather than viewing Christmas as a time to break the bank, we can take advantage of it as a time to help the less fortunate. Many people ask that their friends and loved ones give to charity rather than buy them a gift. This sort of gift giving is popular among yogis who see Christmas as a way to extend their practice.
> 
> Fortunately there are many ways to reconnect with the original purpose and meaning of Christmas. Small traditions, such as placing apples or cookies on the tree, or decorating a live tree instead of a cut one, are a good way to get in touch with the way that our ancestors celebrated Christmas. Respecting the planet and understanding its powers and its limitations are important. The pagans were aware of the changing seasons and found earth-centered and social ways to cope with them. They were aware and appreciative of the sun. They exchanged gifts, but their gift exchange was not commercialized. Instead the focus was on bringing good fortune. Giving gifts of fruit has been a common practice throughout history, and is still popular today.
> 
> The Christmas holiday season is about unity, not divisiveness. At the holiday season we should forget about our religious differences, abandon commercialism and think about what is best for the planet and for humanity.
> 
> The History of Christmas and Its Pagan Origins - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
Click to expand...


Daws, I'm not sure what your point is. Everything you have posted is fairly accurate and fulfills the words Christ spoke in the Bible. Christ claimed during his ministry on earth that the pagans would eventually become the Christian Church. The fact that many pagan rituals became Christian holidays is exactly what Christ stated would happen. So you have just presented evidence for another prophecy that was fulfilled.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think such little detail is devoted to the gawds wiping humanity from the planet? That seems like an important detail.
> 
> Any thoughts as to why the gawds would litter the planet with fosill relics that depict an ancient earth when the planet is only 6,000 years old?
> 
> Have the gawds played a cruel joke on you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are gawds? Humanity hasn't been wiped from the planet.
> 
> 6,000 years old is a number you keep bringing up. Not me.
> 
> It's clear that you cannot have an honest debate. You have done nothing but pettifog, insult and ridicule that which you don't believe nor know anything about.
> 
> You cannot even muster a defensible argument to support your position without cut and pasting.
> 
> I'll take your inability to discuss manners in a rational manner as a concession.
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bailing out when the questions are difficult, as usual. That's a common tactic of fundies. It's a simple matter to make grandiose claims and cut and paste alleged bible prophesies but when you're pressed to defend such silliness, you head for the exits in panic.
> 
> I will admit to an inability to discuss supernaturalism, your alleged spirit world, magic and a litany of creationist claims to magic in a rational fashion when creationists are unable to themselves discuss such silliness in a rational manner.
> 
> What is rational about supermagicalism?
Click to expand...


Hollie, why is that you never discuss the evidence presented from ID Theory? You continue to attack religious beliefs as a substitute for a scientific discussion. Is it because you don't feel comfortable debating the matter on its scientific merit?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey slapdick you already did (Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona)
> 
> I've posted my educational background several times...no needed to post it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona (7 words)
> 
> I've posted my educational background several times...no needed to post it again. (13 words)
> 
> Wouldn't it have been easier just to post it again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no.. why? funny that you would get all anal about the number of words as you've used ten of thousands to describe A steaming pile of shit (5) words.
Click to expand...


Wow. That went right over your head. It only took me 7 words to post my educational background. I was commenting that instead of dodging the question with 13 words, wouldn't have been easier just to post up what you studied and where you went to school?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are gawds? Humanity hasn't been wiped from the planet.
> 
> 6,000 years old is a number you keep bringing up. Not me.
> 
> It's clear that you cannot have an honest debate. You have done nothing but pettifog, insult and ridicule that which you don't believe nor know anything about.
> 
> You cannot even muster a defensible argument to support your position without cut and pasting.
> 
> I'll take your inability to discuss manners in a rational manner as a concession.
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> Bailing out when the questions are difficult, as usual. That's a common tactic of fundies. It's a simple matter to make grandiose claims and cut and paste alleged bible prophesies but when you're pressed to defend such silliness, you head for the exits in panic.
> 
> I will admit to an inability to discuss supernaturalism, your alleged spirit world, magic and a litany of creationist claims to magic in a rational fashion when creationists are unable to themselves discuss such silliness in a rational manner.
> 
> What is rational about supermagicalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, why is that you never discuss the evidence presented from ID Theory? You continue to attack religious beliefs as a substitute for a scientific discussion. Is it because you don't feel comfortable debating the matter on its scientific merit?
Click to expand...



If I may step in here and venture to guess: it is probably because there is no evidence for the ID hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is an argument from ignorance.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bailing out when the questions are difficult, as usual. That's a common tactic of fundies. It's a simple matter to make grandiose claims and cut and paste alleged bible prophesies but when you're pressed to defend such silliness, you head for the exits in panic.
> 
> I will admit to an inability to discuss supernaturalism, your alleged spirit world, magic and a litany of creationist claims to magic in a rational fashion when creationists are unable to themselves discuss such silliness in a rational manner.
> 
> What is rational about supermagicalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered your questions. And I haven't bailed out on or dodged any of them with the exception of the strawmen arguments you created. Those are not worth my time.
> 
> You haven't challenged any prophecies for me to have to defend. Oh but that's just yet another strawman of your creation.
> 
> Supermagicalism isn't even a word. Just another creation of your own delusional thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.
> 
> I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. *Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths* may be acceptable when it's internal but as were aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others. ...
Click to expand...


Please clarify. Are you describing the Darwin Myth and the fact that atheist use it to force their beliefs on others?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bailing out when the questions are difficult, as usual. That's a common tactic of fundies. It's a simple matter to make grandiose claims and cut and paste alleged bible prophesies but when you're pressed to defend such silliness, you head for the exits in panic.
> 
> I will admit to an inability to discuss supernaturalism, your alleged spirit world, magic and a litany of creationist claims to magic in a rational fashion when creationists are unable to themselves discuss such silliness in a rational manner.
> 
> What is rational about supermagicalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, why is that you never discuss the evidence presented from ID Theory? You continue to attack religious beliefs as a substitute for a scientific discussion. Is it because you don't feel comfortable debating the matter on its scientific merit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If I may step in here and venture to guess: it is probably because there is no evidence for the ID hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is an argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...


That is your opinion, but it comes from a denial of the science involved. The only ignorance is your unfamiliarity with the merits of the arguments. Please read Signature in the Cell and then get back to me. You will see your ignorant statement above totally exposed for the lie which you've obviously bought hook line and sinker from the atheist websites you frequent. Only a truly ignorant person would attempt to discredit something they have never actually read.


----------



## Intense

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



Not all Creationists believe the Earth is 6000 Years old. You might need to get out more. 

Trick Question, being that you are into Children's Stories, How long was the first Day?


----------



## pjnlsn

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered your questions. And I haven't bailed out on or dodged any of them with the exception of the strawmen arguments you created. Those are not worth my time.
> 
> You haven't challenged any prophecies for me to have to defend. Oh but that's just yet another strawman of your creation.
> 
> Supermagicalism isn't even a word. Just another creation of your own delusional thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.
> 
> I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. *Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths* may be acceptable when it's internal but as were aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please clarify. Are you describing the Darwin Myth and the fact that atheist use it to force their beliefs on others?
Click to expand...


Reference to phrase; As before:



pjnlsn said:


> Whatever you call it, barring differences in what the term is referencing or is defined, and how words in descriptions of it are defined; Whether you say it's a myth, [...] it is, at the very, very least, likely. Assuming you're talking about 'Biological History' as I've written of before.


----------



## pjnlsn

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, why is that you never discuss the evidence presented from ID Theory? You continue to attack religious beliefs as a substitute for a scientific discussion. Is it because you don't feel comfortable debating the matter on its scientific merit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I may step in here and venture to guess: it is probably because there is no evidence for the ID hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is an argument from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your opinion, but it comes from a denial of the science involved. The only ignorance is your unfamiliarity with the merits of the arguments. Please read Signature in the Cell and then get back to me. You will see your ignorant statement above totally exposed for the lie which you've obviously bought hook line and sinker from the atheist websites you frequent. Only a truly ignorant person would attempt to discredit something they have never actually read.
Click to expand...


You are being presumptuous.

In any case, regardless of how anyone words this idea, "Signature in the Cell" does not establish that there was a designer, and that it did create or influence the development of certain aspects of what one might call proto-life, which is the issue most would be concerned with regarding the book, and which is what 'newpolitics' is getting at.

This is not to say that the book is simply a long collection of falsified statements, if, in writing something which objects to a statement by the user known as 'newpolitics,' stating that what he has written is in conflict with "the science," you refer to that most of the book takes the form of a history of various aspects of chemistry and biology, in particular the discovery of the various chemical forms through which life is maintained and given anchor, so to speak, and that all these facts are true.

However, the book does not justify that there is an intelligent designer, and to say so is not to contradict the chronological succession of facts contained in the book, even if, as you apparently make reference to, these are facts gathered by scientific means.


----------



## UltimateReality

pjnlsn said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I may step in here and venture to guess: it is probably because there is no evidence for the ID hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is an argument from ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is your opinion, but it comes from a denial of the science involved. The only ignorance is your unfamiliarity with the merits of the arguments. Please read Signature in the Cell and then get back to me. You will see your ignorant statement above totally exposed for the lie which you've obviously bought hook line and sinker from the atheist websites you frequent. Only a truly ignorant person would attempt to discredit something they have never actually read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are being presumptuous.
> 
> In any case, regardless of how anyone words this idea, "*Signature in the Cell" does not establish that there was a designer, and that it did create or influence the development of certain aspects of what one might call proto-life,* which is the issue most would be concerned with regarding the book, and which is what 'newpolitics' is getting at.
> 
> This is not to say that the book is simply a long collection of falsified statements, if, in writing something which objects to a statement by the user known as 'newpolitics,' stating that what he has written is in conflict with "the science," you refer to that most of the book takes the form of a history of various aspects of chemistry and biology, in particular the discovery of the various chemical forms through which life is maintained and given anchor, so to speak, and that all these facts are true.
> 
> However, *the book does not justify that there is an intelligent designer*, and to say so is not to contradict the chronological succession of facts contained in the book, even if, as you apparently make reference to, these are facts gathered by scientific means.
Click to expand...


Ignorant poster #2. You obviously haven't read the book based on both your completely false, bolded comments above, so your claims are just as preposterous and ignorant as NP's. Instead of surfing atheist websites for your misinformation, if you really want to speak intelligently on the topic, you need to have read it. If you are truly interested in the truth, which I seriously doubt you are, then take a cue from the author Meyer, who rigorously investigated all the opposing viewpoints and weighs in on each one. The fact he has examined the current materialistic thinking on origins lends just that much more credibility to his argument when he finally presents the argument for intelligent agent as the best possible explanation for the source of dna. His scientific theory has yet to be falsified, and provides the "best explanation" for dna since it is directly related to observable phenomena we see today, not some as of yet not proven 43 step magical process proposed by materialists. *The book absolutely makes a case for an intelligent agent being responsible for the digital code in dna.* It refutes both the chance and necessity arguments for the origins of dna. 

Perhaps you don't quite understand. The first cell containing replicating code originated some 3 to 4 billion years ago. This was an event of tremendous significance and occurred in the distant past. It no longer occurs today. We do not see life spontaneously arising in "warm little ponds". What we do find is intelligent agent after intelligent agent producing digital code. So falsifiability is fairly simple. Find a specifiable, functional digital code originating spontaneously somewhere, anywhere, on earth right now, that does not have an intelligent agent as its source. You buddy Dawkins has tried and failed with his little computer code that knows the outcome before it begins but so far no one has even come close. Deny all you want, but the *theory posited by Meyer is a legitimate, testable and falsifiable scientific theory*, and if you are to remain intellectually honest, you must absolutely admit it as so. Scientists even continue to bolster the theory and provide more evidence, not less, of the similarity of dna to flash memory and binary information storage. In fact, Harvard students have effectively used dna as a digital storage medium.

Go *actually* read the book and then get back to me with your thoughtful rebuttals.


----------



## UltimateReality

pjnlsn said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.
> 
> I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. *Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths* may be acceptable when it's internal but as we&#8217;re aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please clarify. Are you describing the Darwin Myth and the fact that atheist use it to force their beliefs on others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reference to phrase; As before:
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever you call it, barring differences in what the term is referencing or is defined, and how words in descriptions of it are defined; Whether you say it's a myth, [...] it is, at the very, very least, likely. Assuming you're talking about 'Biological History' as I've written of before.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Repeating the same phrase over and over won't make it come true. *It is NOT very, very, very likely *and while it makes for a nice story, there is not a single modern example of natural selection acting on a POSITIVE or ADDITIVE mutation to bring about a change in a particular species phenotype. And there certainly isn't a shred of evidence to support that new species result from such a process. Before you quote the Ecoli experiments, you should know that the citrate digestion mutation came from a reduction in genetic information, not an additive one.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are gawds? Humanity hasn't been wiped from the planet.
> 
> 6,000 years old is a number you keep bringing up. Not me.
> 
> It's clear that you cannot have an honest debate. You have done nothing but pettifog, insult and ridicule that which you don't believe nor know anything about.
> 
> You cannot even muster a defensible argument to support your position without cut and pasting.
> 
> I'll take your inability to discuss manners in a rational manner as a concession.
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> Bailing out when the questions are difficult, as usual. That's a common tactic of fundies. It's a simple matter to make grandiose claims and cut and paste alleged bible prophesies but when you're pressed to defend such silliness, you head for the exits in panic.
> 
> I will admit to an inability to discuss supernaturalism, your alleged spirit world, magic and a litany of creationist claims to magic in a rational fashion when creationists are unable to themselves discuss such silliness in a rational manner.
> 
> What is rational about supermagicalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, why is that you never discuss the evidence presented from ID Theory? You continue to attack religious beliefs as a substitute for a scientific discussion. Is it because you don't feel comfortable debating the matter on its scientific merit?
Click to expand...

There is no reason to take bible thumping as a serious discussion. You're being too generous to define ID theory as anything more than Christian apologetics describing supermagical processes.

You're just wasting time.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please clarify. Are you describing the Darwin Myth and the fact that atheist use it to force their beliefs on others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reference to phrase; As before:
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever you call it, barring differences in what the term is referencing or is defined, and how words in descriptions of it are defined; Whether you say it's a myth, [...] it is, at the very, very least, likely. Assuming you're talking about 'Biological History' as I've written of before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating the same phrase over and over won't make it come true. *It is NOT very, very, very likely *and while it makes for a nice story, there is not a single modern example of natural selection acting on a POSITIVE or ADDITIVE mutation to bring about a change in a particular species phenotype. And there certainly isn't a shred of evidence to support that new species result from such a process. Before you quote the Ecoli experiments, you should know that the citrate digestion mutation came from a reduction in genetic information, not an additive one.
Click to expand...

As usual, you're simply repeating slogans from bible thumping creationist ministries.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your opinion, but it comes from a denial of the science involved. The only ignorance is your unfamiliarity with the merits of the arguments. Please read Signature in the Cell and then get back to me. You will see your ignorant statement above totally exposed for the lie which you've obviously bought hook line and sinker from the atheist websites you frequent. Only a truly ignorant person would attempt to discredit something they have never actually read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are being presumptuous.
> 
> In any case, regardless of how anyone words this idea, "*Signature in the Cell" does not establish that there was a designer, and that it did create or influence the development of certain aspects of what one might call proto-life,* which is the issue most would be concerned with regarding the book, and which is what 'newpolitics' is getting at.
> 
> This is not to say that the book is simply a long collection of falsified statements, if, in writing something which objects to a statement by the user known as 'newpolitics,' stating that what he has written is in conflict with "the science," you refer to that most of the book takes the form of a history of various aspects of chemistry and biology, in particular the discovery of the various chemical forms through which life is maintained and given anchor, so to speak, and that all these facts are true.
> 
> However, *the book does not justify that there is an intelligent designer*, and to say so is not to contradict the chronological succession of facts contained in the book, even if, as you apparently make reference to, these are facts gathered by scientific means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorant poster #2. You obviously haven't read the book based on both your completely false, bolded comments above, so your claims are just as preposterous and ignorant as NP's. Instead of surfing atheist websites for your misinformation, if you really want to speak intelligently on the topic, you need to have read it. If you are truly interested in the truth, which I seriously doubt you are, then take a cue from the author Meyer, who rigorously investigated all the opposing viewpoints and weighs in on each one. The fact he has examined the current materialistic thinking on origins lends just that much more credibility to his argument when he finally presents the argument for intelligent agent as the best possible explanation for the source of dna. His scientific theory has yet to be falsified, and provides the "best explanation" for dna since it is directly related to observable phenomena we see today, not some as of yet not proven 43 step magical process proposed by materialists. *The book absolutely makes a case for an intelligent agent being responsible for the digital code in dna.* It refutes both the chance and necessity arguments for the origins of dna.
> 
> Perhaps you don't quite understand. The first cell containing replicating code originated some 3 to 4 billion years ago. This was an event of tremendous significance and occurred in the distant past. It no longer occurs today. We do not see life spontaneously arising in "warm little ponds". What we do find is intelligent agent after intelligent agent producing digital code. So falsifiability is fairly simple. Find a specifiable, functional digital code originating spontaneously somewhere, anywhere, on earth right now, that does not have an intelligent agent as its source. You buddy Dawkins has tried and failed with his little computer code that knows the outcome before it begins but so far no one has even come close. Deny all you want, but the *theory posited by Meyer is a legitimate, testable and falsifiable scientific theory*, and if you are to remain intellectually honest, you must absolutely admit it as so. Scientists even continue to bolster the theory and provide more evidence, not less, of the similarity of dna to flash memory and binary information storage. In fact, Harvard students have effectively used dna as a digital storage medium.
> 
> Go *actually* read the book and then get back to me with your thoughtful rebuttals.
Click to expand...


Yours are same ignorant claims made by Behe, later stolen by Meyer and now part of the bible thumpers frantic boilerplate. The entirety of the thumper argument resolves to "it couldn't possibly have occured by natural means, therefore the gods did it". That is simplistic, naive and nothing more than appeals to ignorance and Christian apologetics. 

The thumpers agenda has become so desperate that you are reduced to nonsensical proclamations that others must accept your religious views with the same authority as peer-reviewed science. 

Your desperation is noted.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bailing out when the questions are difficult, as usual. That's a common tactic of fundies. It's a simple matter to make grandiose claims and cut and paste alleged bible prophesies but when you're pressed to defend such silliness, you head for the exits in panic.
> 
> I will admit to an inability to discuss supernaturalism, your alleged spirit world, magic and a litany of creationist claims to magic in a rational fashion when creationists are unable to themselves discuss such silliness in a rational manner.
> 
> What is rational about supermagicalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered your questions. And I haven't bailed out on or dodged any of them with the exception of the strawmen arguments you created. Those are not worth my time.
> 
> You haven't challenged any prophecies for me to have to defend. Oh but that's just yet another strawman of your creation.
> 
> Supermagicalism isn't even a word. Just another creation of your own delusional thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.
> 
> I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths may be acceptable when it's internal but as were aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others.
> 
> I think that the problem most people have with rationality is that they perceive that it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions; hence they feel _reason_ and rationality is somehow inadequate. It's this lack of reason that causes zealots to maintain that the entire body of knowledge regarding the physical sciences is a grand conspiracy. Since there is no quantifiable way to prove when one's faith is "true" or not, then you have no way of knowing your faith is not totally false.
> 
> Faith is dangerous when it insists against evidence that shows it contrary. Then it tends to be blind fanaticism, wherein unsupported claims take on immutable law. In human beings, in the extreme, this leads to flying airplanes full of innocent people into buildings full of other innocent people or it can lead to fundie christian zealots believing in worldwide conspiracies..
Click to expand...


All you have are insults and marginalizing what you don't understand.

I'll pray for you.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered your questions. And I haven't bailed out on or dodged any of them with the exception of the strawmen arguments you created. Those are not worth my time.
> 
> You haven't challenged any prophecies for me to have to defend. Oh but that's just yet another strawman of your creation.
> 
> Supermagicalism isn't even a word. Just another creation of your own delusional thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.
> 
> I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths may be acceptable when it's internal but as were aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others.
> 
> I think that the problem most people have with rationality is that they perceive that it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions; hence they feel _reason_ and rationality is somehow inadequate. It's this lack of reason that causes zealots to maintain that the entire body of knowledge regarding the physical sciences is a grand conspiracy. Since there is no quantifiable way to prove when one's faith is "true" or not, then you have no way of knowing your faith is not totally false.
> 
> Faith is dangerous when it insists against evidence that shows it contrary. Then it tends to be blind fanaticism, wherein unsupported claims take on immutable law. In human beings, in the extreme, this leads to flying airplanes full of innocent people into buildings full of other innocent people or it can lead to fundie christian zealots believing in worldwide conspiracies..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have are insults and marginalizing what you don't understand.
> 
> I'll pray for you.
Click to expand...

What you object to is an uncompromising assessment of creationist claims. As to my understanding, I understand very well creationist appeals to supernaturalism and ignorance. I just see no reason to believe those things are advancing of humanity.

I'll offer hope for you.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.
> 
> I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths may be acceptable when it's internal but as were aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others.
> 
> I think that the problem most people have with rationality is that they perceive that it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions; hence they feel _reason_ and rationality is somehow inadequate. It's this lack of reason that causes zealots to maintain that the entire body of knowledge regarding the physical sciences is a grand conspiracy. Since there is no quantifiable way to prove when one's faith is "true" or not, then you have no way of knowing your faith is not totally false.
> 
> Faith is dangerous when it insists against evidence that shows it contrary. Then it tends to be blind fanaticism, wherein unsupported claims take on immutable law. In human beings, in the extreme, this leads to flying airplanes full of innocent people into buildings full of other innocent people or it can lead to fundie christian zealots believing in worldwide conspiracies..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are insults and marginalizing what you don't understand.
> 
> I'll pray for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you object to is an uncompromising assessment of creationist claims. As to my understanding, I understand very well creationist appeals to supernaturalism and ignorance. I just see no reason to believe those things are advancing of humanity.
> 
> I'll offer hope for you.
Click to expand...


You understand your own bigotry. That is all.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are insults and marginalizing what you don't understand.
> 
> I'll pray for you.
> 
> 
> 
> What you object to is an uncompromising assessment of creationist claims. As to my understanding, I understand very well creationist appeals to supernaturalism and ignorance. I just see no reason to believe those things are advancing of humanity.
> 
> I'll offer hope for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You understand your own bigotry. That is all.
Click to expand...


You further your religiously inspired hate. There is more.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you object to is an uncompromising assessment of creationist claims. As to my understanding, I understand very well creationist appeals to supernaturalism and ignorance. I just see no reason to believe those things are advancing of humanity.
> 
> I'll offer hope for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You understand your own bigotry. That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You further your religiously inspired hate. There is more.
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving me right.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You understand your own bigotry. That is all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You further your religiously inspired hate. There is more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving me right.
Click to expand...


You proved the dangers of religious bigotry in dramatic fashion.


----------



## Intense

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You further your religiously inspired hate. There is more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You proved the dangers of religious bigotry in dramatic fashion.
Click to expand...


I think you are confusing Religion with Human Nature.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You further your religiously inspired hate. There is more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You proved the dangers of religious bigotry in dramatic fashion.
Click to expand...


You're pathetic. You can't even come up with an original argument.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving me right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You proved the dangers of religious bigotry in dramatic fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're pathetic. You can't even come up with an original argument.
Click to expand...


The "angry fundie", persona is getting old. 

Your arguments are not arguments at all but juvenile tactics to defend your claims to supernaturalism. Cutting and pasting from creationist ministries really defines a total departure from an original argument as creationist arguments require a predefined conclusion. 

I understand your frustration at being unable to present a defendable argument for your gawds, but your anger needs to be directed elsewhere.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are being presumptuous.
> 
> In any case, regardless of how anyone words this idea, "*Signature in the Cell" does not establish that there was a designer, and that it did create or influence the development of certain aspects of what one might call proto-life,* which is the issue most would be concerned with regarding the book, and which is what 'newpolitics' is getting at.
> 
> This is not to say that the book is simply a long collection of falsified statements, if, in writing something which objects to a statement by the user known as 'newpolitics,' stating that what he has written is in conflict with "the science," you refer to that most of the book takes the form of a history of various aspects of chemistry and biology, in particular the discovery of the various chemical forms through which life is maintained and given anchor, so to speak, and that all these facts are true.
> 
> However, *the book does not justify that there is an intelligent designer*, and to say so is not to contradict the chronological succession of facts contained in the book, even if, as you apparently make reference to, these are facts gathered by scientific means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant poster #2. You obviously haven't read the book based on both your completely false, bolded comments above, so your claims are just as preposterous and ignorant as NP's. Instead of surfing atheist websites for your misinformation, if you really want to speak intelligently on the topic, you need to have read it. If you are truly interested in the truth, which I seriously doubt you are, then take a cue from the author Meyer, who rigorously investigated all the opposing viewpoints and weighs in on each one. The fact he has examined the current materialistic thinking on origins lends just that much more credibility to his argument when he finally presents the argument for intelligent agent as the best possible explanation for the source of dna. His scientific theory has yet to be falsified, and provides the "best explanation" for dna since it is directly related to observable phenomena we see today, not some as of yet not proven 43 step magical process proposed by materialists. *The book absolutely makes a case for an intelligent agent being responsible for the digital code in dna.* It refutes both the chance and necessity arguments for the origins of dna.
> 
> Perhaps you don't quite understand. The first cell containing replicating code originated some 3 to 4 billion years ago. This was an event of tremendous significance and occurred in the distant past. It no longer occurs today. We do not see life spontaneously arising in "warm little ponds". What we do find is intelligent agent after intelligent agent producing digital code. So falsifiability is fairly simple. Find a specifiable, functional digital code originating spontaneously somewhere, anywhere, on earth right now, that does not have an intelligent agent as its source. You buddy Dawkins has tried and failed with his little computer code that knows the outcome before it begins but so far no one has even come close. Deny all you want, but the *theory posited by Meyer is a legitimate, testable and falsifiable scientific theory*, and if you are to remain intellectually honest, you must absolutely admit it as so. Scientists even continue to bolster the theory and provide more evidence, not less, of the similarity of dna to flash memory and binary information storage. In fact, Harvard students have effectively used dna as a digital storage medium.
> 
> Go *actually* read the book and then get back to me with your thoughtful rebuttals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours are same ignorant claims made by Behe, later stolen by Meyer and now part of the bible thumpers frantic boilerplate. The entirety of the thumper argument resolves to "it couldn't possibly have occured by natural means, therefore the gods did it". That is simplistic, naive and nothing more than appeals to ignorance and Christian apologetics.
> 
> The thumpers agenda has become so desperate that you are reduced to nonsensical proclamations that others must accept your religious views with the same authority as peer-reviewed science.
> 
> Your desperation is noted.
Click to expand...


That is not the argument at all. You are obviously not familiar with the book at all and are speaking from a point of total ignorance. You have proven repeatedly you are not interested in the truth. You are just here to harass Christians and spew hate. But Jesus still loves you even in your bigotry.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.
> 
> I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths may be acceptable when it's internal but as were aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others.
> 
> I think that the problem most people have with rationality is that they perceive that it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions; hence they feel _reason_ and rationality is somehow inadequate. It's this lack of reason that causes zealots to maintain that the entire body of knowledge regarding the physical sciences is a grand conspiracy. Since there is no quantifiable way to prove when one's faith is "true" or not, then you have no way of knowing your faith is not totally false.
> 
> Faith is dangerous when it insists against evidence that shows it contrary. Then it tends to be blind fanaticism, wherein unsupported claims take on immutable law. In human beings, in the extreme, this leads to flying airplanes full of innocent people into buildings full of other innocent people or it can lead to fundie christian zealots believing in worldwide conspiracies..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are insults and marginalizing what you don't understand.
> 
> I'll pray for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you object to is an uncompromising assessment of creationist claims. As to my understanding, I understand very well creationist appeals to supernaturalism and ignorance. I just see no reason to believe those things are advancing of humanity.
> 
> I'll offer hope for you.
Click to expand...


You are fabulous at attacking the religious aspects of Creationism, which you and I both know will not be proven by science. However, you continue to ignore the valid scientific points of ID Theory, which you have proven you don't have a real understanding of. I would buy the book for you and send it to you if you have an alias and a friends address you would like to supply me in a PM.


----------



## ima

Jesus was probably gay: he only hung around with guys, wore a dress, only banged a girl once to see if he'd like it (he didn't), looks effeminite in all the drawings or paintings, and he rode that gay pride symbol, the donkey!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You proved the dangers of religious bigotry in dramatic fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're pathetic. You can't even come up with an original argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "angry fundie", persona is getting old. ....
Click to expand...


I would agree. *YOUR* angry, evo-fundie, hate rhetoric is totally exhausting.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Jesus was probably gay: he only hung around with guys, wore a dress, only banged a girl once to see if he'd like it (he didn't), looks effeminite in all the drawings or paintings, and he rode that gay pride symbol, the donkey!



You think you are being funny and offending Christians here but you are just fulfilling prophecy and you don't even realize it. 

Just FYI, I am not offended. I just feel quite sorry for you. You could spit in Jesus' face in person and he would still stretch out his arms and die for you. In fact, Jesus carried the sin of the whole world to the Cross. Can you imagine the horror of that? Carrying the images of the acts of people like Jeffrey Dahmer or the atheist nazi's running the death camps? But yes, Jesus died for everyone's sins, past and future.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are insults and marginalizing what you don't understand.
> 
> I'll pray for you.
> 
> 
> 
> What you object to is an uncompromising assessment of creationist claims. As to my understanding, I understand very well creationist appeals to supernaturalism and ignorance. I just see no reason to believe those things are advancing of humanity.
> 
> I'll offer hope for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are fabulous at attacking the religious aspects of Creationism, which you and I both know will not be proven by science. However, you continue to ignore the valid scientific points of ID Theory, which you have proven you don't have a real understanding of. I would buy the book for you and send it to you if you have an alias and a friends address you would like to supply me in a PM.
Click to expand...

You have the false impression that creationism is anything but a thin veneer covering your religious belief. Religion is not science and to suggest that science can illuminate the supernatural is nonsense. Similarly, there are no valid scientific points of IDiocy (relabeled Christian fundamentalism). You have proven that you don't have an understanding of science theory or the scientific method which is why you continue to represent your religious belief as meeting the standards of peer reviewed science, which it does not.

I have no intention of giving someone like you names or addresses for myself or anyone I know.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus was probably gay: he only hung around with guys, wore a dress, only banged a girl once to see if he'd like it (he didn't), looks effeminite in all the drawings or paintings, and he rode that gay pride symbol, the donkey!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think you are being funny and offending Christians here but you are just fulfilling prophecy and you don't even realize it.
> 
> Just FYI, I am not offended. I just feel quite sorry for you. You could spit in Jesus' face in person and he would still stretch out his arms and die for you. In fact, Jesus carried the sin of the whole world to the Cross. Can you imagine the horror of that? Carrying the images of the acts of people like Jeffrey Dahmer or the atheist nazi's running the death camps? But yes, Jesus died for everyone's sins, past and future.
Click to expand...


Atheist Nazi's?

The confused fundie should learn history and will realize that Hitler was Christian. The Nazi's wore belt buckles with the inscription "Gott mit Uns' (god with us).


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, why is that you never discuss the evidence presented from ID Theory? You continue to attack religious beliefs as a substitute for a scientific discussion. Is it because you don't feel comfortable debating the matter on its scientific merit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I may step in here and venture to guess: it is probably because there is no evidence for the ID hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is an argument from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your opinion, but it comes from a denial of the science involved. The only ignorance is your unfamiliarity with the merits of the arguments. Please read Signature in the Cell and then get back to me. You will see your ignorant statement above totally exposed for the lie which you've obviously bought hook line and sinker from the atheist websites you frequent. Only a truly ignorant person would attempt to discredit something they have never actually read.
Click to expand...


ID is itself, a denial of science. My unfamiliarity of the arguments? You mean the ones that say: 

1.) DNA is a binary code
2.) Binary Code is designed
3.) DNA is designed

DNA is not binary code as we know it, it is a bunch of chemicals, and you can't use inductive reasoning here to conclude that because we have made binary code, and DNA resembles a binary code, DNA must also have been designed. Sorry. That's a logical fallacy. 

This nonsense is not a sound argument. Or how about the one where Michael Behe looks at the innards of a cell, and can't believe how incredible it is, so there MUST be an intelligent designer, because this just isn't possible without one. 

How wonderfully scientific.

No thanks on your little reading list. I'm not going to waste my time. I've seen enough of the ID arguments and they all fail to be science.


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I may step in here and venture to guess: it is probably because there is no evidence for the ID hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is an argument from ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is your opinion, but it comes from a denial of the science involved. The only ignorance is your unfamiliarity with the merits of the arguments. Please read Signature in the Cell and then get back to me. You will see your ignorant statement above totally exposed for the lie which you've obviously bought hook line and sinker from the atheist websites you frequent. Only a truly ignorant person would attempt to discredit something they have never actually read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ID is itself, a denial of science. My unfamiliarity of the arguments? You mean the ones that say:
> 
> 1.) DNA is a binary code
> 2.) Binary Code is designed
> 3.) DNA is designed
> 
> DNA is not binary code as we know it, it is a bunch of chemicals, and you can't use inductive reasoning here to conclude that because we have made binary code, and DNA resembles a binary code, DNA must also have been designed. Sorry. That's a logical fallacy.
> 
> This nonsense is not a sound argument. Or how about the one where Michael Behe looks at the innards of a cell, and can't believe how incredible it is, so there MUST be an intelligent designer, because this just isn't possible without one.
> 
> How wonderfully scientific.
> 
> No thanks on your little reading list. I'm not going to waste my time. I've seen enough of the ID arguments and they all fail to be science.
Click to expand...


I'm fond of the creationist argument such that:

1.) DNA is a "digital machine"
2.) All machines are designed
3.) DNA is therefore the product of a designer
4.) Ba dum bump *cymbals*


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You proved the dangers of religious bigotry in dramatic fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're pathetic. You can't even come up with an original argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "angry fundie", persona is getting old.
> 
> Your arguments are not arguments at all but juvenile tactics to defend your claims to supernaturalism. Cutting and pasting from creationist ministries really defines a total departure from an original argument as creationist arguments require a predefined conclusion.
> 
> I understand your frustration at being unable to present a defendable argument for your gawds, but your anger needs to be directed elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Stop projecting.


----------



## Gadawg73

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are insults and marginalizing what you don't understand.
> 
> I'll pray for you.
> 
> 
> 
> What you object to is an uncompromising assessment of creationist claims. As to my understanding, I understand very well creationist appeals to supernaturalism and ignorance. I just see no reason to believe those things are advancing of humanity.
> 
> I'll offer hope for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are fabulous at attacking the religious aspects of Creationism, which you and I both know will not be proven by science. However, you continue to ignore the valid scientific points of ID Theory, which you have proven you don't have a real understanding of. I would buy the book for you and send it to you if you have an alias and a friends address you would like to supply me in a PM.
Click to expand...


ID has never been a theory. It is a belief. In dozens of court cases all over the country, most all with conservative Republican appointed or elected judges, ID has been proven over and over and over again as re-packaged creationism. They were made damn fools of and liars in open court in the Dover v. Kitzmiller case.
If the case for ID is so strong why do they have to lie in court? 
I was glad to see that they were not charged with perjury though. The school board members admitted their lies as they were coached into doing so by the national ID movement that was there for the trial.
Liars, frauds, repackaging the frauds, hiding behind the lies is all part of their game plan. 
Wake the hell up folks. Admit it and move on.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're pathetic. You can't even come up with an original argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "angry fundie", persona is getting old.
> 
> Your arguments are not arguments at all but juvenile tactics to defend your claims to supernaturalism. Cutting and pasting from creationist ministries really defines a total departure from an original argument as creationist arguments require a predefined conclusion.
> 
> I understand your frustration at being unable to present a defendable argument for your gawds, but your anger needs to be directed elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop projecting.
Click to expand...


Stop whining. 

I have no reason to "project". The science truths are defendable without recourse to supernatural causes. Scientific investigation might be described as a progressive layering of evidence built around a competition for repeatable test results. Where are the religious ones? There aren't any!

What I find remarkable is how consistent the religious /creationist / IDiot,  the gods did it arguments really are. They are not just similar, they are identical. And since so many of them are identically false, it is almost inconceivable that creationists continue to make the false claim that creationism is science or is in any way supportable. 

There is a reason why the process of science deserves so much credibility in comparison to the claimed but factually absent absolute truths of creationism. Science, to include chemistry and biology etc., provides evidence that entitles them to qualifications for rational testing. There is a reason why science has proven to be a positively impactful and influential of human endeavor. That is because science formally recognizes the fluid nature of all our human knowledge and will flex and adjust as new knowledge is gained. That stands in stark contrast to the never changing, unalterable "twoofs" of gods and magic.

Asserting supernaturalism as the core if existence means there are questions we can never hope to attain true knowledge about, and that means true understanding of the universe is hopelessly and forever beyond us. This creates a hopeless point of view, and creationists don't connect the dots to this inescapable conclusion. The Dead End remains forever in place-- "The Gods did it, and that's that."


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you were. You have no knowledge of my upbringing or what trials I may or may not have had in my life.
> 
> Nice try but a major fail on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again it's  not assuming, simply because your individual tale of woe  falls into  well worn patterns of behavior.
> you're not nearly as seperate as you wish you were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to dissappoint you but your assumption is still incorrect.
> 
> I have no tales of woe.
Click to expand...

if that's the case then you've been lying and have always been a creationist slapdick...


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means you made the claim. Now it's up to you to support it with some documentation.
> 
> The onus is own you to prove your claim. Otherwise I have no choice but to think you are lying.
> 
> 
> 
> your ignorance prevents you from doing anything else.
> like finding out for yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit there is no such information available.
> 
> Duly noted.
Click to expand...

another willfully ignorant answer ...it's out there but you're too much of a coward to search it out.


----------



## daws101

emilynghiem said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.
> 
> 
> 
> how did I know you'd say that...people changing their behavior is no proof that Jesus had any thing to do with it.
> 
> it has far more to do with  with early indoctrination to a belief system and the individual  personality of the "acceptor".
> studies have shown that nearly all "the saved" are undereducated and  highly sugestable.
> there are also the conditions called suspension of disbelief and crowd psychology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Daws: don't mean to bust the stereotype on this, but I can cite at least 2-3 neurosurgeons that changed their minds when they saw proof, even incorporating healing prayer into their practice. One doctor found it so much more effective, he no longer practices neurosurgery as he did for over 12 years before discovering that spiritual healing was real (see Dr. Phillip Goldfedder, Healing Is Yours). Another well known psychiatrist and author Dr. Scott Peck wrote a book about "how he changed his mind" about exorcism and deliverance methods of diagnosis and treatment, after he observed this process himself with a team that work with two "incureable" schizophrenic patients and saw them regain their minds and wills back from being hijacked by demonic obsessions beyond their control. So this is a growing field, and you will see more scientists and medical research backing up what Christians have been saying about the power of forgiveness prayer and therapy on healing the mind and body.
> 
> Sources: "Healing" by Dr. Francis MacNutt Christian Healing Ministries
> "Glimpses of the Devil" by Dr. Scott M. Peck
> Dr. Phillip Goldfedder Healing Is Yours
> My friend Olivia Reiner who works with children and families in the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX, and has 30 years of successful testimonies and cases 713-829-0899
> 
> This can be proven by science, so there is no need to judge anyone by IQ or education level.
> It's as natural as the laws of gravity, once you understand how spiritual healing works, then people can work with these methods ALONG WITH science and medicine to heal the whole person, body mind and spirit, instead of leaving out steps where healing is obstructed. The point of spiritual healing is to identify and remove issues or conflicts of "unforgiveness" keeping people stuck and blocking their minds and bodies from healing by natural design.
Click to expand...

you've busted nothing the results you are yammering about are at best temporary..
the power of payer has zero to do with a god.
a more accurate description is :it's not the thing believed in but the action of belief itself that causes chemical changes in the brain that heal ,no supernatural entity needed.
the Chinese  call it chi..


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Manipulitive post aimed at baiting the other poster into an educational credentials discussion. Please try to keep your posts on topic. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You poor, dear.
> 
> Can you entertain us with your relentless stalking and posting of gargantuan fonts?
> 
> Try to follow the discussion and entertain us with more bible thumping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term "Bible thumping" should be considered an offensive and bigoted remark. Please stick to the discussion.
Click to expand...

 hey guys UR has introduced his new line of bullshit  I call it the sticking to the rules ploy.. guess the angry thumper act was bombing...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona (7 words)
> 
> I've posted my educational background several times...no needed to post it again. (13 words)
> 
> Wouldn't it have been easier just to post it again?
> 
> 
> 
> no.. why? funny that you would get all anal about the number of words as you've used ten of thousands to describe A steaming pile of shit (5) words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. That went right over your head. It only took me 7 words to post my educational background. I was commenting that instead of dodging the question with 13 words, wouldn't have been easier just to post up what you studied and where you went to school?
Click to expand...

as stated before you know where I WENT TO SCHOOL AND MY DEGREES.
AND, NO NOTHING YOU POST "GOES OVER MY HEAD" Beneath notice ,not worthy of an answer, yes. but goes over my head? never!
it just another one of your masturbatory fantasies..
besides for my to list just my degrees would be 7 letters.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered your questions. And I haven't bailed out on or dodged any of them with the exception of the strawmen arguments you created. Those are not worth my time.
> 
> You haven't challenged any prophecies for me to have to defend. Oh but that's just yet another strawman of your creation.
> 
> Supermagicalism isn't even a word. Just another creation of your own delusional thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.
> 
> I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. *Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths* may be acceptable when it's internal but as we&#8217;re aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please clarify. Are you describing the Darwin Myth and the fact that atheist use it to force their beliefs on others?
Click to expand...

bahahahahaha! that's a fucking lie, even it it were true.
it would not  comparable  to the horrors that Christianity has performed for the last 2000 years.
Christianity makes the romans look like pussies


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.
> 
> I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. *Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths* may be acceptable when it's internal but as were aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please clarify. Are you describing the Darwin Myth and the fact that atheist use it to force their beliefs on others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bahahahahaha! that's a fucking lie, even it it were true.
> it would not comparable to the horrors that Christianity has performed for the last 2000 years.
> Christianity makes the romans look like pussies
Click to expand...


I think the panic-stricken fundie is having issues resolving several simple observations.

First, evolutionary theory has only been better supported since it was published by Charles Darwin. The theory meets the rigorous testing of the scientific method, completely unlike dogmatic Christian creationism.

Secondly, evolutionary theiory is not "ancient" as misrepresented by the fundie zealot.

Lastly, Darwinian theory which includes and is complimented by related sciences such as biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. is not forced on anyone but is included as part of a relevant education in the sciences. While Christian zealots would hope to force their religious beliefs into the public school system, we are fortunate enough to have a legal system that upholds the constitution as it relates to disallowing religion to be taught in public schools.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please clarify. Are you describing the Darwin Myth and the fact that atheist use it to force their beliefs on others?
> 
> 
> 
> bahahahahaha! that's a fucking lie, even it it were true.
> it would not comparable to the horrors that Christianity has performed for the last 2000 years.
> Christianity makes the romans look like pussies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the panic-stricken fundie is having issues resolving several simple observations.
> 
> First, evolutionary theory has only been better supported since it was published by Charles Darwin. The theory meets the rigorous testing of the scientific method, completely unlike dogmatic Christian creationism.
> 
> Secondly, evolutionary theiory is not "ancient" as misrepresented by the fundie zealot.
> 
> Lastly, Darwinian theory which includes and is complimented by related sciences such as biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. is not forced on anyone but is included as part of a relevant education in the sciences. While Christian zealots would hope to force their religious beliefs into the public school system, we are fortunate enough to have a legal system that upholds the constitution as it relates to disallowing religion to be taught in public schools.
Click to expand...


----------



## pjnlsn

UltimateReality said:


> Ignorant poster #2. You obviously haven't read the book based on both your completely false, bolded comments above, so your claims are just as preposterous and ignorant as NP's. Instead of surfing atheist websites for your misinformation, if you really want to speak intelligently on the topic, you need to have read it. If you are truly interested in the truth, which I seriously doubt you are, then take a cue from the author Meyer, who rigorously investigated all the opposing viewpoints and weighs in on each one. The fact he has examined the current materialistic thinking on origins lends just that much more credibility to his argument when he finally presents the argument for intelligent agent as the best possible explanation for the source of dna. His scientific theory has yet to be falsified, and provides the "best explanation" for dna since it is directly related to observable phenomena we see today, not some as of yet not proven 43 step magical process proposed by materialists. *The book absolutely makes a case for an intelligent agent being responsible for the digital code in dna.* It refutes both the chance and necessity arguments for the origins of dna.
> 
> Perhaps you don't quite understand. The first cell containing replicating code originated some 3 to 4 billion years ago. This was an event of tremendous significance and occurred in the distant past. It no longer occurs today. We do not see life spontaneously arising in "warm little ponds". What we do find is intelligent agent after intelligent agent producing digital code. So falsifiability is fairly simple. Find a specifiable, functional digital code originating spontaneously somewhere, anywhere, on earth right now, that does not have an intelligent agent as its source. You buddy Dawkins has tried and failed with his little computer code that knows the outcome before it begins but so far no one has even come close. Deny all you want, but the *theory posited by Meyer is a legitimate, testable and falsifiable scientific theory*, and if you are to remain intellectually honest, you must absolutely admit it as so. Scientists even continue to bolster the theory and provide more evidence, not less, of the similarity of dna to flash memory and binary information storage. In fact, Harvard students have effectively used dna as a digital storage medium.
> 
> Go *actually* read the book and then get back to me with your thoughtful rebuttals.



Barring differences in how terms are defined between writer and reader, none of the above rebuts what was written by NP and me, despite your apparent attitude towards it:



pjnlsn said:


> the book does not [establish] that there is an intelligent designer, and to say so is not to contradict the chronological succession of facts contained in the book, even if, as you apparently make reference to, these are facts gathered by scientific means.



And so the following qualifies as a tangent. But if any of your post was intended to be, at most, a rebuttal, then, and with elaboration similar to before:



UltimateReality said:


> Perhaps you don't quite understand. The first cell containing replicating code originated some 3 to 4 billion years ago. This was an event of tremendous significance and occurred in the distant past. It no longer occurs today. We do not see life spontaneously arising in "warm little ponds". What we do find is intelligent agent after intelligent agent producing digital code. So falsifiability is fairly simple. Find a specifiable, functional digital code originating spontaneously somewhere, anywhere, on earth right now, that does not have an intelligent agent as its source.



Literally, all or most of these statements you've made do not strictly lead to any conclusion which contradicts what was written by me (or an extrapolation of it). However, if I know what you were thinking when you wrote these in particular, the following will be  relevant to your thought process:  DNA does not bear any markings of having been designed or made by humans, who are of course, the only known example of an intelligent agent as you speak of it, "anywhere on earth right now," or in the past. And certainly not of any significant similarity to digital curcuitry, of storage devices or otherwise. No doubt you were using the word as a form of embellishment, but as it's written....

Also, as a general comment, what is required for DNA to exist at all is merely a process of sufficient orderliness and predictability, one of the possible forms of which is, of course, by definition (and by the definition I think you would give it), an intelligent agent. But this is only one possibility.

More may follow.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, all of my examples demonstrate the fact of evolution, by definition. You can deny it all day. That's your choice.
> 
> There are no "shoulds" when it comes to the earth and what it "should" produce "for us" so that we can feel better about ourselves. What it has given us, in terms of fossils, is what we get. The fossil record shouldn't give us anything. The fact that it has is nice. DNA evidence alone confirms common ancestry, so we don't even need fossils, technically, to prove evolution to be true.
> 
> Why you would expect a mutating virus to become anything other than a virus is simply beyond me. What's more hilarious is that you think its lack of ability to turn into something else, is a point against evolution. You're blatant misapprehension of the concepts within evolution  are what you give you the ability to apparently deny it. In other words, once again, you argue against a straw man of evolution, not evolution.
> 
> You really sealed the deal with your scientific ignorance when you stated how "evolutionists" believe life came from non-life. Life from non-life has nothing to do with evolution. Many christians believe fully in evolution, because abiogenesis is a different event from evolution.
> 
> You really live up to your name: lonestar logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Common ancestry does not prove evolution. And the fossil record does not show any evidence of evolution. Evolutionist take what they see and GUESS based on their preconceived ideas.
> 
> The entire premise behind evolution is one species evolving into another. A virus mutating is still a virus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution seeks to explain the *origin of life* on Earth and the origin of different species. Despite the fact that most of the scientific community has regarded it as fact for more than a century, a large number of people still dispute the theory of evolution, and various public controversies have resulted from this disagreement.
> 
> According to evolutionary theory, life began billions of years ago, when a group of chemicals inadvertently organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This tiny molecule gave rise to everything that has ever lived on the planet. Different and more complex organisms grew from this simple beginning through mutation of DNA and natural selection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours are the standard cut and paste misrepresentations from creationist ministries.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> 
> Because fundie Christians continue to be confused and/or choose to lie about evolution, its important to teach them that evolution and the beginning of life are separate issues.
> 
> Do all Christian fundies avoid knowledge and an education in science?
Click to expand...


The old Douglas Theobald argument for macrevolution. I was wondering when you would copy and paste nonsense from your religous site talk origins like this nonsense. On one hand evolutionist claim the reason macroevolution can't be observed or has never been observed is becasue it takes to long for it to happen on the other hand they turn to micro adaptations as their evidence for macroevolution how cute.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Common ancestry does not prove evolution. And the fossil record does not show any evidence of evolution. Evolutionist take what they see and GUESS based on their preconceived ideas.
> 
> The entire premise behind evolution is one species evolving into another. A virus mutating is still a virus.
> 
> 
> 
> Yours are the standard cut and paste misrepresentations from creationist ministries.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> 
> Because fundie Christians continue to be confused and/or choose to lie about evolution, its important to teach them that evolution and the beginning of life are separate issues.
> 
> Do all Christian fundies avoid knowledge and an education in science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it was from the Discovery Channel.
> 
> Tell me when did evolution begin if not at the origin of life?
Click to expand...


Funny, the first cell didn't evolve  they have no answer for it their copout is origins had nothing to do with evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As noted, yours is a common misrepresentation of Christian ministries. Have you ever studied science at an accredited school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a legitimate question. Do you think selectively cutting and pasting from the discovery channel is a legitimate source for a science vocabulary?
Click to expand...


Uh oh is someone once again stuck between a rock and a hard spot again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Referring to the Christian religion as a cult is a manipulative, baiting technique. Please try to refrain from these types of posts and stick to the topics at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> Using your religion as a means to denigrate science and promote hate is a manipulative, baiting technique.
> 
> This is not the forum for evangelizing, proselytizing or thumping people with your bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your continued use of derogatory comments adds nothing to the thread. Please try to stick to talking about Evolution and Creationism. Thanks.
Click to expand...


He/she does not know enough on either subject.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a legitimate question.
> 
> Now please answer it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take your non-answer as a concession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can only take your inability to post a legitimate question as an admission regarding the failure of your argument.
> 
> Your lack of study and knowledge regarding science is not made less bankrupt by failed attempts at defending a sectarian religious viewpoint.
Click to expand...


It's pretty easy you simpleton,how did the first living cell form if it was not by evolution ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can only take your inability to post a legitimate question as an admission regarding the failure of your argument.
> 
> Your lack of study and knowledge regarding science is not made less bankrupt by failed attempts at defending a sectarian religious viewpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did evolution begin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the Christian creationists in this thread - never.  They believe in a worldwide conspiracy involving all of the accredited universities, the vast majority of scientists and all of those yet un-named conspirators who planted the fossil evidence under cover of darkness.
> 
> So.... what did the carnivorous animals eat when Noah docked his Ark?
Click to expand...


Hollie another Dodge !


----------



## Youwerecreated

Desperado said:


> These morons also believe that the people in the bible lived to be 800 years old too.



Can you prove otherwise ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can a 2000 year old dead guy that might not even have existed save you today? That makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe we are living the final act to which you will get your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you believe is not relevant..it's also a non answer.
Click to expand...


Oh but it is an answer and a warning.


----------



## konradv

*Boooooooooooring!*


----------



## jtw4796

Some Christians believe that you can believe both evolution and the bible because they say we do not know how long a day was in the Genesis. Other will tell you 2 peter 3:5 says people today will be ignorant of the fact that water once covered the earth and what it could have caused. I have always thought until evolution could be 100% proven than both creation and evolution should be taught. If I understand right the Jehovah's Witnesses believe in old earth.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take your non-answer as a concession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can only take your inability to post a legitimate question as an admission regarding the failure of your argument.
> 
> Your lack of study and knowledge regarding science is not made less bankrupt by failed attempts at defending a sectarian religious viewpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty easy you simpleton,how did the first living cell form if it was not by evolution ?
Click to expand...

My goodness, all through the pages of this thread, you have been given an education in the definition of evolution and you still are clueless.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe we are living the final act to which you will get your answer.
> 
> 
> 
> what you believe is not relevant..it's also a non answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh but it is an answer and a warning.
Click to expand...


Oh my. The angry fundie promoting his angry gawds.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> These morons also believe that the people in the bible lived to be 800 years old too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove otherwise ?
Click to expand...


Sure. Already proven otherwise. Can you prove otherwise?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using your religion as a means to denigrate science and promote hate is a manipulative, baiting technique.
> 
> This is not the forum for evangelizing, proselytizing or thumping people with your bibles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your continued use of derogatory comments adds nothing to the thread. Please try to stick to talking about Evolution and Creationism. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He/she does not know enough on either subject.
Click to expand...


Not at all, angry fundie. I have tried to offer you knowledge and insight into the processes of the natural world. You seem unable to shed the bonds of your cult indoctrination.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you object to is an uncompromising assessment of creationist claims. As to my understanding, I understand very well creationist appeals to supernaturalism and ignorance. I just see no reason to believe those things are advancing of humanity.
> 
> I'll offer hope for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are fabulous at attacking the religious aspects of Creationism, which you and I both know will not be proven by science. However, you continue to ignore the valid scientific points of ID Theory, which you have proven you don't have a real understanding of. I would buy the book for you and send it to you if you have an alias and a friends address you would like to supply me in a PM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the false impression that creationism is anything but a thin veneer covering your religious belief. Religion is not science and to suggest that science can illuminate the supernatural is nonsense. Similarly, there are no valid scientific points of IDiocy (relabeled Christian fundamentalism). You have proven that you don't have an understanding of science theory or the scientific method which is why you continue to represent your religious belief as meeting the standards of peer reviewed science, which it does not.
Click to expand...


Hollie, sometimes I wonder about you. I just got through saying religion isn't science and you repeated my phrase over like it was a rebuttal. Are you actually reading the posts? 



Hollie said:


> I have no intention of giving someone like you names or addresses for myself or anyone I know.


Of course you wouldn't accept a free book!! Then you would have no excuse for you inability to present a logical rebuttal!! 

Again, you apparently didn't read the post. Do you know what an alias is?? Have you ever heard of general delivery?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus was probably gay: he only hung around with guys, wore a dress, only banged a girl once to see if he'd like it (he didn't), looks effeminite in all the drawings or paintings, and he rode that gay pride symbol, the donkey!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think you are being funny and offending Christians here but you are just fulfilling prophecy and you don't even realize it.
> 
> Just FYI, I am not offended. I just feel quite sorry for you. You could spit in Jesus' face in person and he would still stretch out his arms and die for you. In fact, Jesus carried the sin of the whole world to the Cross. Can you imagine the horror of that? Carrying the images of the acts of people like Jeffrey Dahmer or the atheist nazi's running the death camps? But yes, Jesus died for everyone's sins, past and future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheist Nazi's?
> 
> The confused fundie should learn history and will realize that Hitler was Christian. ...
Click to expand...




Hollie, thanks for the comic relief. I've read the atheist propaganda websites making this revisionist claim. It figures you would fall for it.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think you are being funny and offending Christians here but you are just fulfilling prophecy and you don't even realize it.
> 
> Just FYI, I am not offended. I just feel quite sorry for you. You could spit in Jesus' face in person and he would still stretch out his arms and die for you. In fact, Jesus carried the sin of the whole world to the Cross. Can you imagine the horror of that? Carrying the images of the acts of people like Jeffrey Dahmer or the atheist nazi's running the death camps? But yes, Jesus died for everyone's sins, past and future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist Nazi's?
> 
> The confused fundie should learn history and will realize that Hitler was Christian. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, thanks for the comic relief. I've read the atheist propaganda websites making this revisionist claim. It figures you would fall for it.
Click to expand...

I don't say that if Jesus existed, he likely would have been gay just to piss people off, I say it because of the evidence, even though the last one about the donkey is funny, real men rode horses back them, usually it was only the women and children who rode donkeys.

As for Hitler being Christian, he was. He was brought up catholic and developed an admiration for Martin Luther.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I may step in here and venture to guess: it is probably because there is no evidence for the ID hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is an argument from ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is your opinion, but it comes from a denial of the science involved. The only ignorance is your unfamiliarity with the merits of the arguments. Please read Signature in the Cell and then get back to me. You will see your ignorant statement above totally exposed for the lie which you've obviously bought hook line and sinker from the atheist websites you frequent. Only a truly ignorant person would attempt to discredit something they have never actually read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ID is itself, a denial of science. My unfamiliarity of the arguments? You mean the ones that say:
> 
> 1.) DNA is a binary code
> 2.) Binary Code is designed
> 3.) DNA is designed
> 
> DNA is not binary code as we know it, it is a bunch of chemicals, and you can't use inductive reasoning here to conclude that because we have made binary code, and DNA resembles a binary code, DNA must also have been designed. Sorry. That's a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...


Omigosh, your second post is even more ignorant than your first. First, let's just clear this up. DNA is not a binary code. It is a quaternary code. Second, your description of the argument above is not accurate. Darwin and Lyell  both believed the present is the key to the past. We can observe the present and make predictions or theories about events occurring in the past. The only source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. DNA contains digital code that no naturalistic methodology can explain. The best explanation for its origin, based on presently observable processes, is that it had an intelligent agent as it source. However, the argument presented in the book goes much deeper than that. 

From your favorite source:

*Genetics*

Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).

Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Capabilities*

DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, Caltech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands, which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10]

DNA computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> No thanks on your little reading list. I'm not going to waste my time. I've seen enough of the ID arguments and they all fail to be science.



Of course not. You are not interested in the truth. You just rather make up stuff about what you "think" the book says. This is a common personality trait among evolutionists.


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you object to is an uncompromising assessment of creationist claims. As to my understanding, I understand very well creationist appeals to supernaturalism and ignorance. I just see no reason to believe those things are advancing of humanity.
> 
> I'll offer hope for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are fabulous at attacking the religious aspects of Creationism, which you and I both know will not be proven by science. However, you continue to ignore the valid scientific points of ID Theory, which you have proven you don't have a real understanding of. I would buy the book for you and send it to you if you have an alias and a friends address you would like to supply me in a PM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ID has never been a theory. It is a belief. In dozens of court cases all over the country, most all with conservative Republican appointed or elected judges, ID has been proven over and over and over again as re-packaged creationism. They were made damn fools of and liars in open court in the Dover v. Kitzmiller case.
> If the case for ID is so strong why do they have to lie in court?
> I was glad to see that they were not charged with perjury though. The school board members admitted their lies as they were coached into doing so by the national ID movement that was there for the trial.
> Liars, frauds, repackaging the frauds, hiding behind the lies is all part of their game plan.
> Wake the hell up folks. Admit it and move on.
Click to expand...


Where have you been? You think the courts can determine the legitimacy of science??  *And please tell me the specific person and what they specifically said that was  a lie.* I've heard this atheistic propaganda over and over and no one can ever back it up. 

*Meyer's theory is most certainly a valid, scientific theory. *Saying it isn't over and over won't make it come true. Wake the heck up and actually get out of the house more often. You might actually want to read some literary works that are part of your atheistic propaganda websites.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "angry fundie", persona is getting old.
> 
> Your arguments are not arguments at all but juvenile tactics to defend your claims to supernaturalism. Cutting and pasting from creationist ministries really defines a total departure from an original argument as creationist arguments require a predefined conclusion.
> 
> I understand your frustration at being unable to present a defendable argument for your gawds, but your anger needs to be directed elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop projecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop whining.
> 
> I have no reason to "project". The science truths are defendable without recourse to supernatural causes. Scientific investigation might be described as a progressive layering of evidence built around a competition for repeatable test results. Where are the religious ones? There aren't any!
> 
> What I find remarkable is how consistent the religious /creationist / IDiot,  the gods did it arguments really are. They are not just similar, they are identical. And since so many of them are identically false, it is almost inconceivable that creationists continue to make the false claim that creationism is science or is in any way supportable.
> 
> There is a reason why the process of science deserves so much credibility in comparison to the claimed but factually absent absolute truths of creationism. Science, to include chemistry and biology etc., provides evidence that entitles them to qualifications for rational testing. There is a reason why science has proven to be a positively impactful and influential of human endeavor. That is because science formally recognizes the fluid nature of all our human knowledge and will flex and adjust as new knowledge is gained. That stands in stark contrast to the never changing, unalterable "twoofs" of gods and magic.
> 
> Asserting supernaturalism as the core if existence means there are questions we can never hope to attain true knowledge about, and that means true understanding of the universe is hopelessly and forever beyond us. This creates a hopeless point of view, and creationists don't connect the dots to this inescapable conclusion. The Dead End remains forever in place-- "The Gods did it, and that's that."
Click to expand...


Tangent. Please stick the the discussion at hand and refrain from reposting the same thing over and over again.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your ignorance prevents you from doing anything else.
> like finding out for yourself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit there is no such information available.
> 
> Duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another willfully ignorant answer ...it's out there but you're too much of a coward to search it out.
Click to expand...


I thought I told you to run along you little whiney girl. What are you still doing here?


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are fabulous at attacking the religious aspects of Creationism, which you and I both know will not be proven by science. However, you continue to ignore the valid scientific points of ID Theory, which you have proven you don't have a real understanding of. I would buy the book for you and send it to you if you have an alias and a friends address you would like to supply me in a PM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ID has never been a theory. It is a belief. In dozens of court cases all over the country, most all with conservative Republican appointed or elected judges, ID has been proven over and over and over again as re-packaged creationism. They were made damn fools of and liars in open court in the Dover v. Kitzmiller case.
> If the case for ID is so strong why do they have to lie in court?
> I was glad to see that they were not charged with perjury though. The school board members admitted their lies as they were coached into doing so by the national ID movement that was there for the trial.
> Liars, frauds, repackaging the frauds, hiding behind the lies is all part of their game plan.
> Wake the hell up folks. Admit it and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have you been? You think the courts can determine the legitimacy of science??  *And please tell me the specific person and what they specifically said that was  a lie.* I've heard this atheistic propaganda over and over and no one can ever back it up.
> 
> Meyer's theory is most certainly a valid, scientific theory. Saying it isn't over and over won't make it come true. Wake the heck up and actually get out of the house more often. You might actually want to read some literary works that are part of your atheistic propaganda websites.
Click to expand...

If the courts can't determine the legitimacy of science, then why did the courts not let ID into science class?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You poor, dear.
> 
> Can you entertain us with your relentless stalking and posting of gargantuan fonts?
> 
> Try to follow the discussion and entertain us with more bible thumping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term "Bible thumping" should be considered an offensive and bigoted remark. Please stick to the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey guys UR has introduced his new line of bullshit  I call it the sticking to the rules ploy.. guess the angry thumper act was bombing...
Click to expand...


Notice you didn't respond to my embolded post of yours. Guess you were *WRONG.*


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no.. why? funny that you would get all anal about the number of words as you've used ten of thousands to describe A steaming pile of shit (5) words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. That went right over your head. It only took me 7 words to post my educational background. I was commenting that instead of dodging the question with 13 words, wouldn't have been easier just to post up what you studied and where you went to school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as stated before you know where I WENT TO SCHOOL AND MY DEGREES.
> AND, NO NOTHING YOU POST "GOES OVER MY HEAD" Beneath notice ,not worthy of an answer, yes. but goes over my head? never!
> it just another one of your masturbatory fantasies..
> besides for my to list just my degrees would be 7 letters.
Click to expand...


You have never posted up where you went to school or your degrees. Nice try.

So you are not only incredibly wealthy, but you have 7 degrees? Isn't the internet great??? You can say or be anything you want and no one can prove you wrong. I will say that for someone with 7 degrees it is a curious thing that your writing style is that of a 3rd grader.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please clarify. Are you describing the Darwin Myth and the fact that atheist use it to force their beliefs on others?
> 
> 
> 
> bahahahahaha! that's a fucking lie, even it it were true.
> it would not comparable to the horrors that Christianity has performed for the last 2000 years.
> Christianity makes the romans look like pussies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the panic-stricken fundie is having issues resolving several simple observations.
> 
> First, evolutionary theory has only been better supported since it was published by Charles Darwin. The theory meets the rigorous testing of the scientific method, completely unlike dogmatic Christian creationism.
> 
> Secondly, evolutionary theiory is not "ancient" as misrepresented by the fundie zealot.
> 
> Lastly, Darwinian theory which includes and is complimented by related sciences such as biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. is not forced on anyone but is included as part of a relevant education in the sciences. While Christian zealots would hope to force their religious beliefs into the public school system, we are fortunate enough to have a legal system that upholds the constitution as it relates to disallowing religion to be taught in public schools.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the trip down fantasy lane. Now please come back to reality.


----------



## UltimateReality

pjnlsn said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant poster #2. You obviously haven't read the book based on both your completely false, bolded comments above, so your claims are just as preposterous and ignorant as NP's. Instead of surfing atheist websites for your misinformation, if you really want to speak intelligently on the topic, you need to have read it. If you are truly interested in the truth, which I seriously doubt you are, then take a cue from the author Meyer, who rigorously investigated all the opposing viewpoints and weighs in on each one. The fact he has examined the current materialistic thinking on origins lends just that much more credibility to his argument when he finally presents the argument for intelligent agent as the best possible explanation for the source of dna. His scientific theory has yet to be falsified, and provides the "best explanation" for dna since it is directly related to observable phenomena we see today, not some as of yet not proven 43 step magical process proposed by materialists. *The book absolutely makes a case for an intelligent agent being responsible for the digital code in dna.* It refutes both the chance and necessity arguments for the origins of dna.
> 
> Perhaps you don't quite understand. The first cell containing replicating code originated some 3 to 4 billion years ago. This was an event of tremendous significance and occurred in the distant past. It no longer occurs today. We do not see life spontaneously arising in "warm little ponds". What we do find is intelligent agent after intelligent agent producing digital code. So falsifiability is fairly simple. Find a specifiable, functional digital code originating spontaneously somewhere, anywhere, on earth right now, that does not have an intelligent agent as its source. You buddy Dawkins has tried and failed with his little computer code that knows the outcome before it begins but so far no one has even come close. Deny all you want, but the *theory posited by Meyer is a legitimate, testable and falsifiable scientific theory*, and if you are to remain intellectually honest, you must absolutely admit it as so. Scientists even continue to bolster the theory and provide more evidence, not less, of the similarity of dna to flash memory and binary information storage. In fact, Harvard students have effectively used dna as a digital storage medium.
> 
> Go *actually* read the book and then get back to me with your thoughtful rebuttals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barring differences in how terms are defined between writer and reader, none of the above rebuts what was written by NP and me, despite your apparent attitude towards it:
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> the book does not [establish] that there is an intelligent designer, and to say so is not to contradict the chronological succession of facts contained in the book, even if, as you apparently make reference to, these are facts gathered by scientific means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the following qualifies as a tangent. But if any of your post was intended to be, at most, a rebuttal, then, and with elaboration similar to before:
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you don't quite understand. The first cell containing replicating code originated some 3 to 4 billion years ago. This was an event of tremendous significance and occurred in the distant past. It no longer occurs today. We do not see life spontaneously arising in "warm little ponds". What we do find is intelligent agent after intelligent agent producing digital code. So falsifiability is fairly simple. Find a specifiable, functional digital code originating spontaneously somewhere, anywhere, on earth right now, that does not have an intelligent agent as its source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Literally, all or most of these statements you've made do not strictly lead to any conclusion which contradicts what was written by me (or an extrapolation of it). However, if I know what you were thinking when you wrote these in particular, the following will be  relevant to your thought process:  DNA does not bear any markings of having been designed or made by humans, who are of course, the only known example of an intelligent agent as you speak of it, "anywhere on earth right now," or in the past. *And certainly not of any significant similarity to digital curcuitry, of storage devices or otherwise.*
Click to expand...


Maybe you should get out of the house more often: 

_"Scientists have been eyeing up DNA as a potential storage medium for a long time, for three very good reasons: It&#8217;s incredibly dense (you can store one bit per base, and a base is only a few atoms large); it&#8217;s volumetric (beaker) rather than planar (hard disk); and it&#8217;s incredibly stable &#8212; *where other bleeding-edge storage mediums need to be kept in sub-zero vacuums, DNA can survive for hundreds of thousands of years in a box in your garage.*

It is only with recent advances in microfluidics and labs-on-a-chip that synthesizing and sequencing DNA has become an everyday task, though. While it took years for the original Human Genome Project to analyze a single human genome (some 3 billion DNA base pairs), modern lab equipment with microfluidic chips can do it in hours. Now this isn&#8217;t to say that Church and Kosuri&#8217;s DNA storage is fast &#8212; but it&#8217;s fast enough for very-long-term archival.

Just think about it for a moment: *One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. *That&#8217;s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs&#8230; in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives &#8212; the densest storage medium in use today &#8212; you&#8217;d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuri&#8217;s case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA &#8212; Church&#8217;s latest book, in fact &#8212; and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored."_

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your continued use of derogatory comments adds nothing to the thread. Please try to stick to talking about Evolution and Creationism. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He/she does not know enough on either subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all, angry fundie. I have tried to offer you knowledge and insight into the processes of the natural world. You seem unable to shed the bonds of your cult indoctrination.
Click to expand...


Are you referring to your rabid cutting and pasting from atheistic propaganda websites? I'd hardly consider this offering knowledge.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist Nazi's?
> 
> The confused fundie should learn history and will realize that Hitler was Christian. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, thanks for the comic relief. I've read the atheist propaganda websites making this revisionist claim. It figures you would fall for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't say that if Jesus existed, he likely would have been gay just to piss people off, I say it because of the evidence, even though the last one about the donkey is funny, real men rode horses back them, usually it was only the women and children who rode donkeys.
> 
> As for Hitler being Christian, he was. He was brought up catholic and developed an admiration for Martin Luther.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Daws was brought up Catholic but that doesn't make him a Christian. You logic is completely flawed. This is a historical revisionistic atheist claim in response to the fact that millions of people were slaughtered in the 20th century by atheistic regimes, nothing more.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID has never been a theory. It is a belief. In dozens of court cases all over the country, most all with conservative Republican appointed or elected judges, ID has been proven over and over and over again as re-packaged creationism. They were made damn fools of and liars in open court in the Dover v. Kitzmiller case.
> If the case for ID is so strong why do they have to lie in court?
> I was glad to see that they were not charged with perjury though. The school board members admitted their lies as they were coached into doing so by the national ID movement that was there for the trial.
> Liars, frauds, repackaging the frauds, hiding behind the lies is all part of their game plan.
> Wake the hell up folks. Admit it and move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you been? You think the courts can determine the legitimacy of science??  *And please tell me the specific person and what they specifically said that was  a lie.* I've heard this atheistic propaganda over and over and no one can ever back it up.
> 
> Meyer's theory is most certainly a valid, scientific theory. Saying it isn't over and over won't make it come true. Wake the heck up and actually get out of the house more often. You might actually want to read some literary works that are part of your atheistic propaganda websites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the courts can't determine the legitimacy of science, then why did the courts not let ID into science class?
Click to expand...


Are you talking about the same court system that advocates the murder of unborn babies? Or the one that wants to strip us of our First and Second Amendment rights? Maybe you are talking about the court system that let's criminals who are injured during the commission of a crime sue the victim. I think you can figure that out.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you been? You think the courts can determine the legitimacy of science??  *And please tell me the specific person and what they specifically said that was  a lie.* I've heard this atheistic propaganda over and over and no one can ever back it up.
> 
> Meyer's theory is most certainly a valid, scientific theory. Saying it isn't over and over won't make it come true. Wake the heck up and actually get out of the house more often. You might actually want to read some literary works that are part of your atheistic propaganda websites.
> 
> 
> 
> If the courts can't determine the legitimacy of science, then why did the courts not let ID into science class?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you can figure that out.
Click to expand...

Because ID isn't science, more like philosophy?


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, thanks for the comic relief. I've read the atheist propaganda websites making this revisionist claim. It figures you would fall for it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't say that if Jesus existed, he likely would have been gay just to piss people off, I say it because of the evidence, even though the last one about the donkey is funny, real men rode horses back them, usually it was only the women and children who rode donkeys.
> 
> As for Hitler being Christian, he was. He was brought up catholic and developed an admiration for Martin Luther.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws was brought up Catholic but that doesn't make him a Christian. You logic is completely flawed. This is a historical revisionistic atheist claim in response to the fact that millions of people were slaughtered in the 20th century by atheistic regimes, nothing more.
Click to expand...


He was a vegetarian, not an atheist. Link please?


----------



## ima

And I think Jesus was incontinent, that's why they nailed him to the cross in a diaper.


----------



## Gadawg73

*NO* scientific community *ANYWHERE* approved ID as science to be taught as science.
It was threats from the religious right against long term teachers that got this into the courts.
Teach ID as science as dictated by a school board member with a 9th grade education was the mandate.

And the SCIENCE teachers rebelled and wanted to *TEACH SCIENCE*
And science won.
One only has to look at the EVIDENCE to see that all ID is is re-packaged creationism.
Sore losers.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are fabulous at attacking the religious aspects of Creationism, which you and I both know will not be proven by science. However, you continue to ignore the valid scientific points of ID Theory, which you have proven you don't have a real understanding of. I would buy the book for you and send it to you if you have an alias and a friends address you would like to supply me in a PM.
> 
> 
> 
> You have the false impression that creationism is anything but a thin veneer covering your religious belief. Religion is not science and to suggest that science can illuminate the supernatural is nonsense. Similarly, there are no valid scientific points of IDiocy (relabeled Christian fundamentalism). You have proven that you don't have an understanding of science theory or the scientific method which is why you continue to represent your religious belief as meeting the standards of peer reviewed science, which it does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, sometimes I wonder about you. I just got through saying religion isn't science and you repeated my phrase over like it was a rebuttal. Are you actually reading the posts?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no intention of giving someone like you names or addresses for myself or anyone I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you wouldn't accept a free book!! Then you would have no excuse for you inability to present a logical rebuttal!!
> 
> Again, you apparently didn't read the post. Do you know what an alias is?? Have you ever heard of general delivery?
Click to expand...

You have a difficult time understanding what you have posted in earlier threads. It has been explained to you repeatedly that religion is not science yet you continue to insist that your religious views supplant scientific knowledge. You will even insist that the methide of science are flawed and that there is a vast, global conspiracy of scientists and educators evo have somehow been duped into following the discipline of science as opposed to blindly accepting your partisan religious claims, totally unsupported and relying only on appeals to fear and superstition. 

As to your book offer which is a continuation of your creepy pattern of stalking, what part of NO are you having trouble understanding?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you been? You think the courts can determine the legitimacy of science??  *And please tell me the specific person and what they specifically said that was  a lie.* I've heard this atheistic propaganda over and over and no one can ever back it up.
> 
> Meyer's theory is most certainly a valid, scientific theory. Saying it isn't over and over won't make it come true. Wake the heck up and actually get out of the house more often. You might actually want to read some literary works that are part of your atheistic propaganda websites.
> 
> 
> 
> If the courts can't determine the legitimacy of science, then why did the courts not let ID into science class?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the same court system that advocates the murder of unborn babies? Or the one that wants to strip us of our First and Second Amendment rights? Maybe you are talking about the court system that let's criminals who are injured during the commission of a crime sue the victim. I think you can figure that out.
Click to expand...


Actually, we're talking about the courts that uphold the constitution in regard to disallowing religion to be taught in public schools. 

You, of course would prefer an exception to the law when it suits your desire to force your religious beliefs on others. However, the courts have ruled consistently that Christian creationism or the falsely labeled ID nonsense is nothing more than a guise for religion. 

Peddle your religion by thumping on street corners if you wish but your religion is not allowed in schools.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are fabulous at attacking the religious aspects of Creationism, which you and I both know will not be proven by science. However, you continue to ignore the valid scientific points of ID Theory, which you have proven you don't have a real understanding of. I would buy the book for you and send it to you if you have an alias and a friends address you would like to supply me in a PM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ID has never been a theory. It is a belief. In dozens of court cases all over the country, most all with conservative Republican appointed or elected judges, ID has been proven over and over and over again as re-packaged creationism. They were made damn fools of and liars in open court in the Dover v. Kitzmiller case.
> If the case for ID is so strong why do they have to lie in court?
> I was glad to see that they were not charged with perjury though. The school board members admitted their lies as they were coached into doing so by the national ID movement that was there for the trial.
> Liars, frauds, repackaging the frauds, hiding behind the lies is all part of their game plan.
> Wake the hell up folks. Admit it and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have you been? You think the courts can determine the legitimacy of science??  *And please tell me the specific person and what they specifically said that was  a lie.* I've heard this atheistic propaganda over and over and no one can ever back it up.
> 
> *Meyer's theory is most certainly a valid, scientific theory. *Saying it isn't over and over won't make it come true. Wake the heck up and actually get out of the house more often. You might actually want to read some literary works that are part of your atheistic propaganda websites.
Click to expand...


Meyers' propaganda is nothing more than a re-packaging of Behe's silly slogans which resolve to nothing more than "...it's complicated, therefore the gods did it".


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thanks on your little reading list. I'm not going to waste my time. I've seen enough of the ID arguments and they all fail to be science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. You are not interested in the truth. You just rather make up stuff about what you "think" the book says. This is a common personality trait among evolutionists.
Click to expand...


This is the core of the creationist argument: "all of science is a conspiracy".


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop projecting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop whining.
> 
> I have no reason to "project". The science truths are defendable without recourse to supernatural causes. Scientific investigation might be described as a progressive layering of evidence built around a competition for repeatable test results. Where are the religious ones? There aren't any!
> 
> What I find remarkable is how consistent the religious /creationist / IDiot,  the gods did it arguments really are. They are not just similar, they are identical. And since so many of them are identically false, it is almost inconceivable that creationists continue to make the false claim that creationism is science or is in any way supportable.
> 
> There is a reason why the process of science deserves so much credibility in comparison to the claimed but factually absent absolute truths of creationism. Science, to include chemistry and biology etc., provides evidence that entitles them to qualifications for rational testing. There is a reason why science has proven to be a positively impactful and influential of human endeavor. That is because science formally recognizes the fluid nature of all our human knowledge and will flex and adjust as new knowledge is gained. That stands in stark contrast to the never changing, unalterable "twoofs" of gods and magic.
> 
> Asserting supernaturalism as the core if existence means there are questions we can never hope to attain true knowledge about, and that means true understanding of the universe is hopelessly and forever beyond us. This creates a hopeless point of view, and creationists don't connect the dots to this inescapable conclusion. The Dead End remains forever in place-- "The Gods did it, and that's that."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tangent. Please stick the the discussion at hand and refrain from reposting the same thing over and over again.
Click to expand...

Your comment is off topic.

It's important to make a distinction between the rigorous methods of science and the spirit world of supernaturalism that Christian creationists propose. You react with pith and vinegar when anyone challenges your belief in spirits and magic but inventing conspiracy theories involving global participation by scientists and universities makes you appear quite desperate and, well, a little dangerous to yourself and others.


----------



## Hollie

The Fruitlessness of ID &#8220;Research&#8221;

The Fruitlessness of ID "Research" - The Panda's Thumb 

By Jeffrey Shallit on November 30, 2009 8:37 AM | 81 Comments

Scientists point out, quite rightly, that the religio-political charade known as &#8220;intelligent design&#8221; (ID) is not good science. But how do we know this?

One of the hallmarks of science is that it is fruitful. A good scientific paper will usually lead to much work along the same lines, work that confirms and extends the results, and work that produces more new ideas inspired by the paper. Although citation counts are not completely reliable metrics for evaluating scientific papers, they do give some general information about what papers are considered important.

ID advocates like to point to lists of &#8220;peer-reviewed publications&#8221; advocating their position. Upon closer examination, their lists are misleading, packed with publications that are either not in scientific journals, or that appeared in venues of questionable quality, or papers whose relationship to ID is tangential at best. Today, however, I&#8217;d like to look at a different issue: the fruitfulness of intelligent design. Let&#8217;s take a particular ID publication, one that was trumpeted by ID advocates as a &#8220;breakthrough&#8221;, and see how much further scientific work it inspired.

The paper I have in mind is Stephen Meyer&#8217;s paper &#8220;The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories&#8221;, which was published, amid some controversy, in the relatively obscure journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004. Critics pointed out that the paper was not suited to the journal, which is usually devoted to taxonomic issues, and that the paper was riddled with mistakes and misleading claims. In response, the editors of the journal issued a disclaimer repudiating the paper.

Putting these considerations aside, what I want to do here is look at every scientific publication that has cited Meyer&#8217;s paper to determine whether his work can fairly said to be &#8220;fruitful&#8221;. I used the ISI Web of Science Database to do a &#8220;cited reference&#8221; search on his article. This database, which used to be called Science Citation Index, is generally acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive available. The search I did included Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Even such a search will miss some papers, of course, but it will still give a general idea of how much the scientific community has been inspired by Meyer&#8217;s work.

I found exactly 9 citations to Meyer&#8217;s paper in this database. Of these, counting generously, exactly 1 is a scientific research paper that cites Meyer approvingly.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours are the standard cut and paste misrepresentations from creationist ministries.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> 
> Because fundie Christians continue to be confused and/or choose to lie about evolution, its important to teach them that evolution and the beginning of life are separate issues.
> 
> Do all Christian fundies avoid knowledge and an education in science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was from the Discovery Channel.
> 
> Tell me when did evolution begin if not at the origin of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, the first cell didn't evolve  they have no answer for it their copout is origins had nothing to do with evolution.
Click to expand...

what's funny is you making a declarative statement with no basis in fact or evidence to support it .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe we are living the final act to which you will get your answer.
> 
> 
> 
> what you believe is not relevant..it's also a non answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh but it is an answer and a warning.
Click to expand...

YWC's grip on reality loosens


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your opinion, but it comes from a denial of the science involved. The only ignorance is your unfamiliarity with the merits of the arguments. Please read Signature in the Cell and then get back to me. You will see your ignorant statement above totally exposed for the lie which you've obviously bought hook line and sinker from the atheist websites you frequent. Only a truly ignorant person would attempt to discredit something they have never actually read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ID is itself, a denial of science. My unfamiliarity of the arguments? You mean the ones that say:
> 
> 1.) DNA is a binary code
> 2.) Binary Code is designed
> 3.) DNA is designed
> 
> DNA is not binary code as we know it, it is a bunch of chemicals, and you can't use inductive reasoning here to conclude that because we have made binary code, and DNA resembles a binary code, DNA must also have been designed. Sorry. That's a logical fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Omigosh, your second post is even more ignorant than your first. First, let's just clear this up. DNA is not a binary code. It is a quaternary code. Second, your description of the argument above is not accurate. Darwin and Lyell  both believed the present is the key to the past. We can observe the present and make predictions or theories about events occurring in the past. The only source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. DNA contains digital code that no naturalistic methodology can explain. The best explanation for its origin, based on presently observable processes, is that it had an intelligent agent as it source. However, the argument presented in the book goes much deeper than that.
> 
> From your favorite source:
> 
> *Genetics*
> 
> Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]
> 
> For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
> 
> Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Capabilities*
> 
> DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, Caltech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands, which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10]
> 
> DNA computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech
Click to expand...

so what? none of it is an argument for or proof of Id.. 
it does prove however ,with stunning clarity the power of obsessive delusions


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thanks on your little reading list. I'm not going to waste my time. I've seen enough of the ID arguments and they all fail to be science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. You are not interested in the truth. You just rather make up stuff about what you "think" the book says. This is a common personality trait among evolutionists.
Click to expand...

lo0k who's talking about made up shit 

your "version" of "truth" lacks several vital characteristics  ..the most important is :CoherenceSee also: Coherence theory of truth
Coherence refers to a consistent and overarching explanation for all facts. To be coherent, all pertinent facts must be arranged in a consistent and cohesive fashion as an integrated whole. The theory which most effectively reconciles all facts in this fashion may be considered most likely to be true. Coherence is the most potentially effective test of truth because it most adequately addresses all elements. The main limitation lies not in the standard, but in the human inability to acquire all facts of an experience. Only an omniscient mind could be aware of all of the relevant information. A scholar must accept this limitation and accept as true the most coherent explanation for the available facts. Coherence is difficult to dispute as a criterion of truth, since arguing against coherence is validating incoherence, which is inherently illogical.[5]

Criteria of truth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

also since all religious writing is what the authors thought not actual, on scene, breaking news or corroborated fact ,your accusation is just as  "true" about you.
slap dick...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. That went right over your head. It only took me 7 words to post my educational background. I was commenting that instead of dodging the question with 13 words, wouldn't have been easier just to post up what you studied and where you went to school?
> 
> 
> 
> as stated before you know where I WENT TO SCHOOL AND MY DEGREES.
> AND, NO NOTHING YOU POST "GOES OVER MY HEAD" Beneath notice ,not worthy of an answer, yes. but goes over my head? never!
> it just another one of your masturbatory fantasies..
> besides for my to list just my degrees would be 7 letters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have never posted up where you went to school or your degrees. Nice try.
> 
> So you are not only incredibly wealthy, but you have 7 degrees? Isn't the internet great??? You can say or be anything you want and no one can prove you wrong. I will say that for someone with 7 degrees it is a curious thing that your writing style is that of a 3rd grader.
Click to expand...

Ur again proves just how powerful obsession is... 
never said  I was incredibility wealthy  (you created that)
never said I had seven degrees (I have three) , I have on more then one occasion ,posted my educational background.
your obsessive complusive insistence that I have not is just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.

this statement :"Isn't the internet great??? You can say or be anything you want and no one can prove you wrong." -UR 
JUST SCREAMS HUBRIS..
IT'S THE BASIS OF EVERY LIE, SPIN, INTENTIONALY IGNORANT STEAMING PILE YOU POST.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, thanks for the comic relief. I've read the atheist propaganda websites making this revisionist claim. It figures you would fall for it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't say that if Jesus existed, he likely would have been gay just to piss people off, I say it because of the evidence, even though the last one about the donkey is funny, real men rode horses back them, usually it was only the women and children who rode donkeys.
> 
> As for Hitler being Christian, he was. He was brought up catholic and developed an admiration for Martin Luther.Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws was brought up Catholic but that doesn't make him a Christian. You logic is completely flawed. This is a historical revisionistic atheist claim in response to the fact that millions of people were slaughtered in the 20th century by atheistic regimes, nothing more.
Click to expand...

another lie from  UR ... I was not brought up catholic  TRY TO HAVE THE BALLS TO POST ME DIRECTLY IF YOU'RE LIE ABOUT ME...
ANYTHING ELSE IS COWARDICE..... OOPS THAT'S STATING THE OBVIOUS!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are fabulous at attacking the religious aspects of Creationism, which you and I both know will not be proven by science. However, you continue to ignore the valid scientific points of ID Theory, which you have proven you don't have a real understanding of. I would buy the book for you and send it to you if you have an alias and a friends address you would like to supply me in a PM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ID has never been a theory. It is a belief. In dozens of court cases all over the country, most all with conservative Republican appointed or elected judges, ID has been proven over and over and over again as re-packaged creationism. They were made damn fools of and liars in open court in the Dover v. Kitzmiller case.
> If the case for ID is so strong why do they have to lie in court?
> I was glad to see that they were not charged with perjury though. The school board members admitted their lies as they were coached into doing so by the national ID movement that was there for the trial.
> Liars, frauds, repackaging the frauds, hiding behind the lies is all part of their game plan.
> Wake the hell up folks. Admit it and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have you been? You think the courts can determine the legitimacy of science??  *And please tell me the specific person and what they specifically said that was  a lie.* I've heard this atheistic propaganda over and over and no one can ever back it up.
> 
> *Meyer's theory is most certainly a valid, scientific theory. *Saying it isn't over and over won't make it come true. Wake the heck up and actually get out of the house more often. You might actually want to read some literary works that are part of your atheistic propaganda websites.
Click to expand...


From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute, which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the "intelligent design movement".[16][n 1] They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[17]

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", 

GAME, SET, MATCH !


----------



## pjnlsn

UltimateReality said:


> The book absolutely makes a case for an intelligent agent being responsible for the digital code in dna.





pjnlsn said:


> And certainly not [does DNA have] any significant similarity to digital curcuitry, of storage devices or otherwise.





UltimateReality said:


> Maybe you should get out of the house more often:
> 
> _"Scientists have been eyeing up DNA as a potential storage medium for a long time, for three very good reasons: Its incredibly dense (you can store one bit per base, and a base is only a few atoms large); its volumetric (beaker) rather than planar (hard disk); and its incredibly stable  *where other bleeding-edge storage mediums need to be kept in sub-zero vacuums, DNA can survive for hundreds of thousands of years in a box in your garage.*
> 
> It is only with recent advances in microfluidics and labs-on-a-chip that synthesizing and sequencing DNA has become an everyday task, though. While it took years for the original Human Genome Project to analyze a single human genome (some 3 billion DNA base pairs), modern lab equipment with microfluidic chips can do it in hours. Now this isnt to say that Church and Kosuris DNA storage is fast  but its fast enough for very-long-term archival.
> 
> Just think about it for a moment: *One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. *Thats 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives  the densest storage medium in use today  youd need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuris case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA  Churchs latest book, in fact  and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored."_
> 
> Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech



None of the this contradicts the above. Regardless of it's potential uses, it bears no significant similarity to (e.g.) networks of copper/iron alloyed pathways etched in silicon, be they part of, say, a flash memory device, or any particular example of digital circuitry.

But again, you appeared to be using the word merely for embellishment, anyway.


----------



## pjnlsn

Youwerecreated said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours are the standard cut and paste misrepresentations from creationist ministries.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
> 
> 
> Because fundie Christians continue to be confused and/or choose to lie about evolution, its important to teach them that evolution and the beginning of life are separate issues.
> 
> Do all Christian fundies avoid knowledge and an education in science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was from the Discovery Channel.
> 
> Tell me when did evolution begin if not at the origin of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, the first cell didn't evolve  they have no answer for it their copout is origins had nothing to do with evolution.
Click to expand...


If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.

If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having _nothing_ to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.


----------



## pjnlsn

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take your non-answer as a concession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can only take your inability to post a legitimate question as an admission regarding the failure of your argument.
> 
> Your lack of study and knowledge regarding science is not made less bankrupt by failed attempts at defending a sectarian religious viewpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty easy you simpleton,how did the first living cell form if it was not by evolution ?
Click to expand...


If the question asks for details of the change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was, this, to the degree of accuracy one assumes you wish it to be, is not known.


----------



## pjnlsn

UltimateReality said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please clarify. Are you describing the Darwin Myth and the fact that atheist use it to force their beliefs on others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reference to phrase; As before:
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever you call it, barring differences in what the term is referencing or is defined, and how words in descriptions of it are defined; Whether you say it's a myth, [...] it is, at the very, very least, likely. Assuming you're talking about 'Biological History' as I've written of before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating the same phrase over and over won't make it come true. *It is NOT very, very, very likely *and while it makes for a nice story, there is not a single modern example of natural selection acting on a POSITIVE or ADDITIVE mutation to bring about a change in a particular species phenotype. And there certainly isn't a shred of evidence to support that new species result from such a process. Before you quote the Ecoli experiments, you should know that the citrate digestion mutation came from a reduction in genetic information, not an additive one.
Click to expand...


The second sentence literally contradicts the post it follows, but none of the rest leads to it. 

Again:



pjnlsn said:


> Whatever you call it, barring differences in what the term is referencing or is defined, and how words in descriptions of it are defined; Whether you say it's a myth, [...] it is, at the very, very least, likely. Assuming you're talking about 'Biological History' as I've written of before.


----------



## Youwerecreated

pjnlsn said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was from the Discovery Channel.
> 
> Tell me when did evolution begin if not at the origin of life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the first cell didn't evolve  they have no answer for it their copout is origins had nothing to do with evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.
> 
> If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having _nothing_ to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.
Click to expand...


I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.

To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.

Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

pjnlsn said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can only take your inability to post a legitimate question as an admission regarding the failure of your argument.
> 
> Your lack of study and knowledge regarding science is not made less bankrupt by failed attempts at defending a sectarian religious viewpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty easy you simpleton,how did the first living cell form if it was not by evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the question asks for details of the change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was, this, to the degree of accuracy one assumes you wish it to be, is not known.
Click to expand...


I know but this question can help in the reasoning of the evidence to draw an adequate conclusion.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the courts can't determine the legitimacy of science, then why did the courts not let ID into science class?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the same court system that advocates the murder of unborn babies? Or the one that wants to strip us of our First and Second Amendment rights? Maybe you are talking about the court system that let's criminals who are injured during the commission of a crime sue the victim. I think you can figure that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we're talking about the courts that uphold the constitution in regard to disallowing religion to be taught in public schools.
> 
> You, of course would prefer an exception to the law when it suits your desire to force your religious beliefs on others. However, the courts have ruled consistently that Christian creationism or the falsely labeled ID nonsense is nothing more than a guise for religion.
> 
> Peddle your religion by thumping on street corners if you wish but your religion is not allowed in schools.
Click to expand...


News flash: Religion was taught in public schools for the first 100 years in our nations history. You are the worst kind of rabid revisionist.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID has never been a theory. It is a belief. In dozens of court cases all over the country, most all with conservative Republican appointed or elected judges, ID has been proven over and over and over again as re-packaged creationism. They were made damn fools of and liars in open court in the Dover v. Kitzmiller case.
> If the case for ID is so strong why do they have to lie in court?
> I was glad to see that they were not charged with perjury though. The school board members admitted their lies as they were coached into doing so by the national ID movement that was there for the trial.
> Liars, frauds, repackaging the frauds, hiding behind the lies is all part of their game plan.
> Wake the hell up folks. Admit it and move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you been? You think the courts can determine the legitimacy of science??  *And please tell me the specific person and what they specifically said that was  a lie.* I've heard this atheistic propaganda over and over and no one can ever back it up.
> 
> *Meyer's theory is most certainly a valid, scientific theory. *Saying it isn't over and over won't make it come true. Wake the heck up and actually get out of the house more often. You might actually want to read some literary works that are part of your atheistic propaganda websites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meyers' propaganda is nothing more than a re-packaging of Behe's silly slogans which resolve to nothing more than "...it's complicated, therefore the gods did it".
Click to expand...


So clueless about the book. Only a total ignoramus would make false claims about printed book which are so easily refuted. Pathetic!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thanks on your little reading list. I'm not going to waste my time. I've seen enough of the ID arguments and they all fail to be science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. You are not interested in the truth. You just rather make up stuff about what you "think" the book says. This is a common personality trait among evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the core of the creationist argument: "all of science is a conspiracy".
Click to expand...


Revisionist claim.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as stated before you know where I WENT TO SCHOOL AND MY DEGREES.
> AND, NO NOTHING YOU POST "GOES OVER MY HEAD" Beneath notice ,not worthy of an answer, yes. but goes over my head? never!
> it just another one of your masturbatory fantasies..
> besides for my to list just my degrees would be 7 letters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have never posted up where you went to school or your degrees. Nice try.
> 
> So you are not only incredibly wealthy, but you have 7 degrees? Isn't the internet great??? You can say or be anything you want and no one can prove you wrong. I will say that for someone with 7 degrees it is a curious thing that your writing style is that of a 3rd grader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ur again proves just how powerful obsession is...
> never said  I was incredibility wealthy  (you created that)
> never said I had seven degrees (I have three) , I have on more then one occasion ,posted my educational background.
> your obsessive complusive insistence that I have not is just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.
> 
> this statement :"Isn't the internet great??? You can say or be anything you want and no one can prove you wrong." -UR
> JUST SCREAMS HUBRIS..
> IT'S THE BASIS OF EVERY LIE, SPIN, INTENTIONALY IGNORANT STEAMING PILE YOU POST.
Click to expand...


And still no education info. Typical wordy DODGE!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't say that if Jesus existed, he likely would have been gay just to piss people off, I say it because of the evidence, even though the last one about the donkey is funny, real men rode horses back them, usually it was only the women and children who rode donkeys.
> 
> As for Hitler being Christian, he was. He was brought up catholic and developed an admiration for Martin Luther.Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws was brought up Catholic but that doesn't make him a Christian. You logic is completely flawed. This is a historical revisionistic atheist claim in response to the fact that millions of people were slaughtered in the 20th century by atheistic regimes, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another lie from  UR ... I was not brought up catholic  TRY TO HAVE THE BALLS TO POST ME DIRECTLY IF YOU'RE LIE ABOUT ME...
> ANYTHING ELSE IS COWARDICE..... OOPS THAT'S STATING THE OBVIOUS!
Click to expand...


Would you be referring to the cowardice of your Internet bullying and your whiney little girl threats to tattle to the mods about something you FALSELY claimed was against forum rules?


----------



## UltimateReality

pjnlsn said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The book absolutely makes a case for an intelligent agent being responsible for the digital code in dna.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And certainly not [does DNA have] any significant similarity to digital curcuitry, of storage devices or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should get out of the house more often:
> 
> _"Scientists have been eyeing up DNA as a potential storage medium for a long time, for three very good reasons: Its incredibly dense (you can store one bit per base, and a base is only a few atoms large); its volumetric (beaker) rather than planar (hard disk); and its incredibly stable  *where other bleeding-edge storage mediums need to be kept in sub-zero vacuums, DNA can survive for hundreds of thousands of years in a box in your garage.*
> 
> It is only with recent advances in microfluidics and labs-on-a-chip that synthesizing and sequencing DNA has become an everyday task, though. While it took years for the original Human Genome Project to analyze a single human genome (some 3 billion DNA base pairs), modern lab equipment with microfluidic chips can do it in hours. Now this isnt to say that Church and Kosuris DNA storage is fast  but its fast enough for very-long-term archival.
> 
> Just think about it for a moment: *One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. *Thats 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives  the densest storage medium in use today  youd need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuris case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA  Churchs latest book, in fact  and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored."_
> 
> Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the this contradicts the above. Regardless of it's potential uses, it bears no significant similarity to (e.g.) networks of copper/iron alloyed pathways etched in silicon, be they part of, say, a flash memory device, or any particular example of digital circuitry.
> 
> But again, you appeared to be using the word merely for embellishment, anyway.
Click to expand...


Nice try. But you just got owned.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thanks on your little reading list. I'm not going to waste my time. I've seen enough of the ID arguments and they all fail to be science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. You are not interested in the truth. You just rather make up stuff about what you "think" the book says. This is a common personality trait among evolutionists.
Click to expand...


I am aware of the claims of creationists. Don't presume to know what I know about these arguments and they are not anywhere near truth. I have spent quite a bit of time assessing them, and they all fail. If you wish to make a case that you think I haven't heard, go ahead, otherwise, don't get pissy when I don't choose to follow your every suggestion on a book. You're asking me to spend money and a large time commitment, and when I don't, you accuse me of being this or that. Have some integrity. If you wish to convince of something, just state what it says in the book, and I'm sure I can find it online. No, this would be too much work for you. Instead, you want me to spend my money to learn this bullshit.


----------



## newpolitics

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpeHrkbx9LU&feature=g-all-c]How could creationism not be dishonest? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you been? You think the courts can determine the legitimacy of science??  *And please tell me the specific person and what they specifically said that was  a lie.* I've heard this atheistic propaganda over and over and no one can ever back it up.
> 
> *Meyer's theory is most certainly a valid, scientific theory. *Saying it isn't over and over won't make it come true. Wake the heck up and actually get out of the house more often. You might actually want to read some literary works that are part of your atheistic propaganda websites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meyers' propaganda is nothing more than a re-packaging of Behe's silly slogans which resolve to nothing more than "...it's complicated, therefore the gods did it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So clueless about the book. Only a total ignoramus would make false claims about printed book which are so easily refuted. Pathetic!
Click to expand...


You refuted nothing. The point is, Meyer makes the same nonsensical claim that Behe makes: the chances for spontaneous life are too remote to allow that life to develop.

Find yourself a street corner and thump there, rather than here.


----------



## UltimateReality

pjnlsn said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was from the Discovery Channel.
> 
> Tell me when did evolution begin if not at the origin of life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the first cell didn't evolve  they have no answer for it their copout is origins had nothing to do with evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.
> 
> If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having _nothing_ to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.
Click to expand...


You can pretend this, but Darwinists avoidance of Origins discussions goes deeper to the core of their religious beliefs. The origin of life cannot be explained by a purely naturalistic process and this calls into question the central dogma of the Darwinistic materialist religion. So instead, Darwinists just ignore it, thinking if they don't look at it it will go away.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the first cell didn't evolve  they have no answer for it their copout is origins had nothing to do with evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.
> 
> If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having _nothing_ to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend this, but Darwinists avoidance of Origins discussions goes deeper to the core of their religious beliefs. The origin of life cannot be explained by a purely naturalistic process and this calls into question the central dogma of the Darwinistic materialist religion. So instead, Darwinists just ignore it, thinking if they don't look at it it will go away.
Click to expand...


No, its because abiogenesis and evolution are categorically distinct. It's that simple. One has nothing to do with the other ontologically.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. You are not interested in the truth. You just rather make up stuff about what you "think" the book says. This is a common personality trait among evolutionists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the core of the creationist argument: "all of science is a conspiracy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revisionist claim.
Click to expand...


Not so. Science as a conspiracy theory is the tool used by Flat-Earthers to defend their gawds.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the first cell didn't evolve  they have no answer for it their copout is origins had nothing to do with evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.
> 
> If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having _nothing_ to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.
> 
> To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.
Click to expand...

Your silly "precision in nature" theory has been thoroughly debunked previously. You're reduced to dredging up tired, refuted creationist prattle.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the same court system that advocates the murder of unborn babies? Or the one that wants to strip us of our First and Second Amendment rights? Maybe you are talking about the court system that let's criminals who are injured during the commission of a crime sue the victim. I think you can figure that out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we're talking about the courts that uphold the constitution in regard to disallowing religion to be taught in public schools.
> 
> You, of course would prefer an exception to the law when it suits your desire to force your religious beliefs on others. However, the courts have ruled consistently that Christian creationism or the falsely labeled ID nonsense is nothing more than a guise for religion.
> 
> Peddle your religion by thumping on street corners if you wish but your religion is not allowed in schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> News flash: Religion was taught in public schools for the first 100 years in our nations history. You are the worst kind of rabid revisionist.
Click to expand...

Go peddle your thumping elsewhere. 

Your religion has no place in public schools. You are the worst kind of religious totalitarian.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.
> 
> If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having _nothing_ to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can pretend this, but Darwinists avoidance of Origins discussions goes deeper to the core of their religious beliefs. The origin of life cannot be explained by a purely naturalistic process and this calls into question the central dogma of the Darwinistic materialist religion. So instead, Darwinists just ignore it, thinking if they don't look at it it will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, its because abiogenesis and evolution are categorically distinct. It's that simple. One has nothing to do with the other ontologically.
Click to expand...


You can say and believe this if you wish but you are just wrong. Ever heard of chemical evolution ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.
> 
> If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having _nothing_ to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.
> 
> To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your silly "precision in nature" theory has been thoroughly debunked previously. You're reduced to dredging up tired, refuted creationist prattle.
Click to expand...


The only thing silly is you posting in this thread being ignorant of the three main theories discussed.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meyers' propaganda is nothing more than a re-packaging of Behe's silly slogans which resolve to nothing more than "...it's complicated, therefore the gods did it".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So clueless about the book. Only a total ignoramus would make false claims about printed book which are so easily refuted. Pathetic!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You refuted nothing. The point is, Meyer makes the same nonsensical claim that Behe makes: the chances for spontaneous life are too remote to allow that life to develop.
> 
> Find yourself a street corner and thump there, rather than here.
Click to expand...


You have presented no evidence to substantiate it is a nonsensical claim.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.
> 
> If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having _nothing_ to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can pretend this, but Darwinists avoidance of Origins discussions goes deeper to the core of their religious beliefs. The origin of life cannot be explained by a purely naturalistic process and this calls into question the central dogma of the Darwinistic materialist religion. So instead, Darwinists just ignore it, thinking if they don't look at it it will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, its because abiogenesis and evolution are categorically distinct. It's that simple. One has nothing to do with the other ontologically.
Click to expand...


Just keep telling yourself that and maybe it will come true.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the core of the creationist argument: "all of science is a conspiracy".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so. Science as a conspiracy theory is the tool used by Flat-Earthers to defend their gawds.
Click to expand...


More lies. You have become totally irrelevant to this thread.


----------



## UltimateReality

I think today it is fitting to honor the Christians that originally settled this great country of ours and who suffered so that we could live freely in the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Their tireless committment to God and each other is the reason we are here today. 

Mayflower Compact:

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, *for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith *and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.[12]


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. Science as a conspiracy theory is the tool used by Flat-Earthers to defend their gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More lies. You have become totally irrelevant to this thread.
Click to expand...


Not at all, Flat-Earther. Your conspiracy theories are what is irrelevant.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> I think today it is fitting to honor the Christians that originally settled this great country of ours and who suffered so that we could live freely in the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Their tireless committment to God and each other is the reason we are here today.
> 
> Mayflower Compact:
> 
> In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
> Having undertaken, *for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith *and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
> In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.[12]



How nice. An opportunity for your self-serving proselytizing.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.
> 
> To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Your silly "precision in nature" theory has been thoroughly debunked previously. You're reduced to dredging up tired, refuted creationist prattle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing silly is you posting in this thread being ignorant of the three main theories discussed.
Click to expand...


There are not three main theories that meet the definition plausible scientific theories. 

It is actually _your_ ignorance that needs to be adressed.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think today it is fitting to honor the Christians that originally settled this great country of ours and who suffered so that we could live freely in the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Their tireless committment to God and each other is the reason we are here today.
> 
> Mayflower Compact:
> 
> In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
> Having undertaken, *for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith *and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
> In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.[12]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How nice. An opportunity for your self-serving proselytizing.
Click to expand...


Please explain how noting history is self-serving.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think today it is fitting to honor the Christians that originally settled this great country of ours and who suffered so that we could live freely in the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Their tireless committment to God and each other is the reason we are here today.
> 
> Mayflower Compact:
> 
> In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
> Having undertaken, *for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith *and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
> In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.[12]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How nice. An opportunity for your self-serving proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain how noting history is self-serving.
Click to expand...


Noting history (your slanted, fundie view of history), is self-serving proselytizing when you assume that it was entirely and completely christians that settled in America.

Thumping is not appropriate in this therad.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can pretend this, but Darwinists avoidance of Origins discussions goes deeper to the core of their religious beliefs. The origin of life cannot be explained by a purely naturalistic process and this calls into question the central dogma of the Darwinistic materialist religion. So instead, Darwinists just ignore it, thinking if they don't look at it it will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, its because abiogenesis and evolution are categorically distinct. It's that simple. One has nothing to do with the other ontologically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just keep telling yourself that and maybe it will come true.
Click to expand...


Had you been exposed to an education in science, you would have learned the basic concepts and fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution and its core concepts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your silly "precision in nature" theory has been thoroughly debunked previously. You're reduced to dredging up tired, refuted creationist prattle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing silly is you posting in this thread being ignorant of the three main theories discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are not three main theories that meet the definition plausible scientific theories.
> 
> It is actually _your_ ignorance that needs to be adressed.
Click to expand...


There you go again showing you are an Ideologue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your silly "precision in nature" theory has been thoroughly debunked previously. You're reduced to dredging up tired, refuted creationist prattle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing silly is you posting in this thread being ignorant of the three main theories discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are not three main theories that meet the definition plausible scientific theories.
> 
> It is actually _your_ ignorance that needs to be adressed.
Click to expand...


If you say so.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How nice. An opportunity for your self-serving proselytizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how noting history is self-serving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Noting history (your slanted, fundie view of history), is self-serving proselytizing when you assume that it was entirely and completely christians that settled in America.
> 
> Thumping is not appropriate in this therad.
Click to expand...


Who is proselytizing ? the majority were Christians but now in this country the majority do believe in a creator.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, its because abiogenesis and evolution are categorically distinct. It's that simple. One has nothing to do with the other ontologically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep telling yourself that and maybe it will come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had you been exposed to an education in science, you would have learned the basic concepts and fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution and its core concepts.
Click to expand...


You are in denial and there are no limits to your ignorance.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep telling yourself that and maybe it will come true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had you been exposed to an education in science, you would have learned the basic concepts and fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution and its core concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are in denial and there are no limits to your ignorance.
Click to expand...


I doubt any intelligent person can deny that there are a lot of some really stupid and scared people on the planet with many people such as yourself that "pray/prey" on them.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep telling yourself that and maybe it will come true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had you been exposed to an education in science, you would have learned the basic concepts and fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution and its core concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are in denial and there are no limits to your ignorance.
Click to expand...


Youre angry because your claims to gawds and supermagicalism ring hollow and do nothing more than promote fear and ignorance. 

I am continually amazed at the insistence of YECers to think that their Christian fundamentalist beliefs can be applied to refute evolutionary science. I'm also amazed at the derogatory implications of the word "religion" when used by religionists in reference to evolution. 

The fundies have been suffered humiliating defeats in the courts with their attempts to push Christianity into the school system. Academia has refuted creationism / IDiosy for failing to provide testable methods for supernaturalism. To say that evolution is a fact is merely acknowledging the sheer weight of testable and verifiable evidence. Christian Fundies can only counter the facts with conspiracy theories which is irresponsible in any sense. Paraphrasing Daniel Dennett in _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, the hope by Christian fundies that evolution will someday be refuted by some shattering new breakthrough is about as reasonable as the hope that we will return to an earth centered universe and abandon Copernicus.

To reiterate for the Christian fundies: creation "science" / IDiocy is not science. Fundies may insist otherwise but Christian creationism / supermagicalism is a fact only to fundies. Certainly, magic does not deserve equal time in a public school classroom as proponents of Creationism / IDiosy would like to see.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How nice. An opportunity for your self-serving proselytizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how noting history is self-serving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Noting history (your slanted, fundie view of history), is self-serving proselytizing when you assume that it was entirely and completely christians that settled in America.
> 
> Thumping is not appropriate in this therad.
Click to expand...


It's not an assumption. It's history.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, its because abiogenesis and evolution are categorically distinct. It's that simple. One has nothing to do with the other ontologically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep telling yourself that and maybe it will come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had you been exposed to an education in science, you would have learned the basic concepts and fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution and its core concepts.
Click to expand...


Baiting. Please don't attack others when you are not willing to provide info on your own lack of education.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had you been exposed to an education in science, you would have learned the basic concepts and fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution and its core concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are in denial and there are no limits to your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youre angry because your claims to gawds and supermagicalism ring hollow and do nothing more than promote fear and ignorance.
> 
> I am continually amazed at the insistence of YECers to think that their Christian fundamentalist beliefs can be applied to refute evolutionary science. I'm also amazed at the derogatory implications of the word "religion" when used by religionists in reference to evolution.
> 
> The fundies have been suffered humiliating defeats in the courts with their attempts to push Christianity into the school system. Academia has refuted creationism / IDiosy for failing to provide testable methods for supernaturalism. To say that evolution is a fact is merely acknowledging the sheer weight of testable and verifiable evidence. Christian Fundies can only counter the facts with conspiracy theories which is irresponsible in any sense. Paraphrasing Daniel Dennett in _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, the hope by Christian fundies that evolution will someday be refuted by some shattering new breakthrough is about as reasonable as the hope that we will return to an earth centered universe and abandon Copernicus.
> 
> To reiterate for the Christian fundies: creation "science" / IDiocy is not science. Fundies may insist otherwise but Christian creationism / supermagicalism is a fact only to fundies. Certainly, magic does not deserve equal time in a public school classroom as proponents of Creationism / IDiosy would like to see.
Click to expand...


Please try to stay on topic.


----------



## ima

So who made god?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep telling yourself that and maybe it will come true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had you been exposed to an education in science, you would have learned the basic concepts and fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution and its core concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baiting. Please don't attack others when you are not willing to provide info on your own lack of education.
Click to expand...

You and the other creationist are sorely lacking in an understanding of the science defining evolution. 

There is no harm in pointing that out.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in denial and there are no limits to your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youre angry because your claims to gawds and supermagicalism ring hollow and do nothing more than promote fear and ignorance.
> 
> I am continually amazed at the insistence of YECers to think that their Christian fundamentalist beliefs can be applied to refute evolutionary science. I'm also amazed at the derogatory implications of the word "religion" when used by religionists in reference to evolution.
> 
> The fundies have been suffered humiliating defeats in the courts with their attempts to push Christianity into the school system. Academia has refuted creationism / IDiosy for failing to provide testable methods for supernaturalism. To say that evolution is a fact is merely acknowledging the sheer weight of testable and verifiable evidence. Christian Fundies can only counter the facts with conspiracy theories which is irresponsible in any sense. Paraphrasing Daniel Dennett in _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, the hope by Christian fundies that evolution will someday be refuted by some shattering new breakthrough is about as reasonable as the hope that we will return to an earth centered universe and abandon Copernicus.
> 
> To reiterate for the Christian fundies: creation "science" / IDiocy is not science. Fundies may insist otherwise but Christian creationism / supermagicalism is a fact only to fundies. Certainly, magic does not deserve equal time in a public school classroom as proponents of Creationism / IDiosy would like to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please try to stay on topic.
Click to expand...


It is on topic and your inability to provide a refutation is obvious. 

Simply reiterating slogans and cliches' alluding to the supermagical "gods did it" is lacking and hardly warrants consideration as a challenge to the discipline of science.


----------



## ima

ID is a theory, and is certainly not actual proof, because there is none.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

ima said:


> ID is a theory, and is certainly not actual proof, because there is none.



Im sure somewhere in this 700 page thread/novel this was already covered but in the event that you missed it... A scientific theory is a falsifiable hypothesis that explains a set of observations and has been rigorously scrutinised and tested. Evolution would fall under this category. However ID is considered something quite different, a joke.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had you been exposed to an education in science, you would have learned the basic concepts and fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution and its core concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are in denial and there are no limits to your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt any intelligent person can deny that there are a lot of some really stupid and scared people on the planet with many people such as yourself that "pray/prey" on them.
Click to expand...


I don't prey on people I pray for people. I don't force my views on anyone I tell them what I do know and I try and get them to reason on the evidence that I have been exposed to. How can you accept your views as a fact in your own mind without putting it to the test ?

Remember, I was once on your side of the argument until I reasoned and put the theory to the test by reasoning on the evidence. It was no magical pastor that convinced me my beliefs on thetheory were wrong ,it was the Lord himself that exposed the lies and his word that did it for me. I just others will do the same and not let themselves to be lead down the wrong road.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had you been exposed to an education in science, you would have learned the basic concepts and fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution and its core concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are in denial and there are no limits to your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youre angry because your claims to gawds and supermagicalism ring hollow and do nothing more than promote fear and ignorance.
> 
> I am continually amazed at the insistence of YECers to think that their Christian fundamentalist beliefs can be applied to refute evolutionary science. I'm also amazed at the derogatory implications of the word "religion" when used by religionists in reference to evolution.
> 
> The fundies have been suffered humiliating defeats in the courts with their attempts to push Christianity into the school system. Academia has refuted creationism / IDiosy for failing to provide testable methods for supernaturalism. To say that evolution is a fact is merely acknowledging the sheer weight of testable and verifiable evidence. Christian Fundies can only counter the facts with conspiracy theories which is irresponsible in any sense. Paraphrasing Daniel Dennett in _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, the hope by Christian fundies that evolution will someday be refuted by some shattering new breakthrough is about as reasonable as the hope that we will return to an earth centered universe and abandon Copernicus.
> 
> To reiterate for the Christian fundies: creation "science" / IDiocy is not science. Fundies may insist otherwise but Christian creationism / supermagicalism is a fact only to fundies. Certainly, magic does not deserve equal time in a public school classroom as proponents of Creationism / IDiosy would like to see.
Click to expand...


What is there to be angry about ? you have the right to choose your own path to follow. The only thing that might anger me is your inability to dicuss things like an adult and insult people who clearly know more on the subject the thread is about.


----------



## Youwerecreated

PretentiousGuy said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID is a theory, and is certainly not actual proof, because there is none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure somewhere in this 700 page thread/novel this was already covered but in the event that you missed it... A scientific theory is a falsifiable hypothesis that explains a set of observations and has been rigorously scrutinised and tested. Evolution would fall under this category. However ID is considered something quite different, a joke.
Click to expand...


This may seem important to the ones seeking supposed knowledge,however the creator didn't need a professor to teach him how to design with a purpose in mind.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can pretend this, but Darwinists avoidance of Origins discussions goes deeper to the core of their religious beliefs. The origin of life cannot be explained by a purely naturalistic process and this calls into question the central dogma of the Darwinistic materialist religion. So instead, Darwinists just ignore it, thinking if they don't look at it it will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, its because abiogenesis and evolution are categorically distinct. It's that simple. One has nothing to do with the other ontologically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just keep telling yourself that and maybe it will come true.
Click to expand...


Right back at you. The thing is that I actually have logic and reason on my side. You just have blind assertion and wishful thinking.

If you think abiogenesis and evolution are somehow blurred or interchangeable points in time, demonstrate this. Show me how this is possible. 

Abiogenesis came before Evolution. You can't evolution without a self-replicating life form to work with, and abiogenesis is the process that produced that self-replicating life form from organic materials present on earth, and highly abundant throughout the universe.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the first cell didn't evolve  they have no answer for it their copout is origins had nothing to do with evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.
> 
> If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having _nothing_ to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.
> 
> To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.
Click to expand...

is it just me or does YWC not even know what he does not know..?
btw YWC, pjnlsn was not admitting anything, just stating fact .
the rest of your post is the same old mix of willful ignorance name calling and the standard line of subjective bullshit...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never posted up where you went to school or your degrees. Nice try.
> 
> So you are not only incredibly wealthy, but you have 7 degrees? Isn't the internet great??? You can say or be anything you want and no one can prove you wrong. I will say that for someone with 7 degrees it is a curious thing that your writing style is that of a 3rd grader.
> 
> 
> 
> Ur again proves just how powerful obsession is...
> never said  I was incredibility wealthy  (you created that)
> never said I had seven degrees (I have three) , I have on more then one occasion ,posted my educational background.
> your obsessive complusive insistence that I have not is just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.
> 
> this statement :"Isn't the internet great??? You can say or be anything you want and no one can prove you wrong." -UR
> JUST SCREAMS HUBRIS..
> IT'S THE BASIS OF EVERY LIE, SPIN, INTENTIONALY IGNORANT STEAMING PILE YOU POST.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And still no education info. Typical wordy DODGE!
Click to expand...

your obsessive complusive insistence that I have not is just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws was brought up Catholic but that doesn't make him a Christian. You logic is completely flawed. This is a historical revisionistic atheist claim in response to the fact that millions of people were slaughtered in the 20th century by atheistic regimes, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> another lie from  UR ... I was not brought up catholic  TRY TO HAVE THE BALLS TO POST ME DIRECTLY IF YOU'RE LIE ABOUT ME...
> ANYTHING ELSE IS COWARDICE..... OOPS THAT'S STATING THE OBVIOUS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you be referring to the cowardice of your Internet bullying and your whiney little girl threats to tattle to the mods about something you FALSELY claimed was against forum rules?
Click to expand...

  more spin !


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> How could creationism not be dishonest? - YouTube


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think today it is fitting to honor the Christians that originally settled this great country of ours and who suffered so that we could live freely in the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Their tireless committment to God and each other is the reason we are here today.
> 
> Mayflower Compact:
> 
> In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
> Having undertaken, *for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith *and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
> In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.[12]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How nice. An opportunity for your self-serving proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain how noting history is self-serving.
Click to expand...

everything you post is self serving. you do for self aggrandizement not for the glory of gawd but to "get over"  all this ego must be compensation for other huge flaws ...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in denial and there are no limits to your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt any intelligent person can deny that there are a lot of some really stupid and scared people on the planet with many people such as yourself that "pray/prey" on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't prey on people I pray for people. I don't force my views on anyone I tell them what I do know and I try and get them to reason on the evidence that I have been exposed to. How can you accept your views as a fact in your own mind without putting it to the test ?
> 
> Remember, I was once on your side of the argument until I reasoned and put the theory to the test by reasoning on the evidence. It was no magical pastor that convinced me my beliefs on thetheory were wrong ,it was the Lord himself that exposed the lies and his word that did it for me. I just others will do the same and not let themselves to be lead down the wrong road.
Click to expand...

(snicker) so you saying you acually saw and talked to god?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in denial and there are no limits to your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youre angry because your claims to gawds and supermagicalism ring hollow and do nothing more than promote fear and ignorance.
> 
> I am continually amazed at the insistence of YECers to think that their Christian fundamentalist beliefs can be applied to refute evolutionary science. I'm also amazed at the derogatory implications of the word "religion" when used by religionists in reference to evolution.
> 
> The fundies have been suffered humiliating defeats in the courts with their attempts to push Christianity into the school system. Academia has refuted creationism / IDiosy for failing to provide testable methods for supernaturalism. To say that evolution is a fact is merely acknowledging the sheer weight of testable and verifiable evidence. Christian Fundies can only counter the facts with conspiracy theories which is irresponsible in any sense. Paraphrasing Daniel Dennett in _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, the hope by Christian fundies that evolution will someday be refuted by some shattering new breakthrough is about as reasonable as the hope that we will return to an earth centered universe and abandon Copernicus.
> 
> To reiterate for the Christian fundies: creation "science" / IDiocy is not science. Fundies may insist otherwise but Christian creationism / supermagicalism is a fact only to fundies. Certainly, magic does not deserve equal time in a public school classroom as proponents of Creationism / IDiosy would like to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is there to be angry about ? you have the right to choose your own path to follow. The only thing that might anger me is your inability to dicuss things like an adult and insult people who clearly know more on the subject the thread is about.
Click to expand...

subjective and false, you 've shown no more knowledge about "the subject" than any other poster ,
mostly just subjective wishes and pseudoscience.
  "dicuss" things like an adult"


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID is a theory, and is certainly not actual proof, because there is none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure somewhere in this 700 page thread/novel this was already covered but in the event that you missed it... A scientific theory is a falsifiable hypothesis that explains a set of observations and has been rigorously scrutinised and tested. Evolution would fall under this category. However ID is considered something quite different, a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This may seem important to the ones seeking supposed knowledge,however the creator didn't need a professor to teach him how to design with a purpose in mind.
Click to expand...

you've topped yourself on meaninglessness with that one..
two unprovable statements "creator and design with a purpose in mind"
there is no proof of a sentient  creator so anything that the creator might have in it's mind is pure speculation.. 
got to give you style points for vivid imagination!


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in denial and there are no limits to your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt any intelligent person can deny that there are a lot of some really stupid and scared people on the planet with many people such as yourself that "pray/prey" on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't prey on people I pray for people. I don't force my views on anyone I tell them what I do know and I try and get them to reason on the evidence that I have been exposed to. How can you accept your views as a fact in your own mind without putting it to the test ?
> 
> Remember, I was once on your side of the argument until I reasoned and put the theory to the test by reasoning on the evidence. It was no magical pastor that convinced me my beliefs on thetheory were wrong ,it was the Lord himself that exposed the lies and his word that did it for me. I just others will do the same and not let themselves to be lead down the wrong road.
Click to expand...


I do not believe you.  No one "reasons" their way to believing in a god.  What I believe is that you are not telling the whole story.  People are weak so when something traumatic occurs in their life or in the life of someone close to them or just about any tragedy that happens can push some people to looking past what they find impossible to understand and look for justification in the "mysterious ways" of a god.  

You were never like me.  You were obviously "on the fence" about it and something pushed you over to the "faith" excuse.

I have never believed in a god.  I had all the usual religious upbringing and found the bible laughable.  I saw people in church praying and saw that they did it because they were indoctirnated to do so.  Telling a child to put his or her hands together and kneel down, close their eyes and do what?  Nigga...please... You have been bleating your case on this thread thousands of times and you have moved the LOS no closer to the goal line.  

It's simple...go have a heart to heart pow wow with your sky fairy and tell him/she/it that he will get lots of followers if it will just show up in person and stop treating human beings like idiots.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in denial and there are no limits to your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt any intelligent person can deny that there are a lot of some really stupid and scared people on the planet with many people such as yourself that "pray/prey" on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't prey on people I pray for people. I don't force my views on anyone I tell them what I do know and I try and get them to reason on the evidence that I have been exposed to. How can you accept your views as a fact in your own mind without putting it to the test ?
> 
> Remember, I was once on your side of the argument until I reasoned and put the theory to the test by reasoning on the evidence. It was no magical pastor that convinced me my beliefs on thetheory were wrong ,it was the Lord himself that exposed the lies and his word that did it for me. I just others will do the same and not let themselves to be lead down the wrong road.
Click to expand...

That's really untrue. You use this forum for proselytizing just as the other fundie does. 

Secondly, how does anyone test the supernatural? If you believe that creationist ministries are going to lead you down the correct path, why would the information you cut and paste from them need to further lies and falsehoods?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.
> 
> If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having _nothing_ to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.
> 
> To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is it just me or does YWC not even know what he does not know..?
> btw YWC, pjnlsn was not admitting anything, just stating fact .
> the rest of your post is the same old mix of willful ignorance name calling and the standard line of subjective bullshit...
Click to expand...


Your fact checker has been in error just to much for my taste.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How nice. An opportunity for your self-serving proselytizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how noting history is self-serving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> everything you post is self serving. you do for self aggrandizement not for the glory of gawd but to "get over"  all this ego must be compensation for other huge flaws ...
Click to expand...


 you have got to be kidding.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt any intelligent person can deny that there are a lot of some really stupid and scared people on the planet with many people such as yourself that "pray/prey" on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't prey on people I pray for people. I don't force my views on anyone I tell them what I do know and I try and get them to reason on the evidence that I have been exposed to. How can you accept your views as a fact in your own mind without putting it to the test ?
> 
> Remember, I was once on your side of the argument until I reasoned and put the theory to the test by reasoning on the evidence. It was no magical pastor that convinced me my beliefs on thetheory were wrong ,it was the Lord himself that exposed the lies and his word that did it for me. I just others will do the same and not let themselves to be lead down the wrong road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (snicker) so you saying you acually saw and talked to god?
Click to expand...


Gods word reveals the foolishness of man in many ways.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre angry because your claims to gawds and supermagicalism ring hollow and do nothing more than promote fear and ignorance.
> 
> I am continually amazed at the insistence of YECers to think that their Christian fundamentalist beliefs can be applied to refute evolutionary science. I'm also amazed at the derogatory implications of the word "religion" when used by religionists in reference to evolution.
> 
> The fundies have been suffered humiliating defeats in the courts with their attempts to push Christianity into the school system. Academia has refuted creationism / IDiosy for failing to provide testable methods for supernaturalism. To say that evolution is a fact is merely acknowledging the sheer weight of testable and verifiable evidence. Christian Fundies can only counter the facts with conspiracy theories which is irresponsible in any sense. Paraphrasing Daniel Dennett in _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, the hope by Christian fundies that evolution will someday be refuted by some shattering new breakthrough is about as reasonable as the hope that we will return to an earth centered universe and abandon Copernicus.
> 
> To reiterate for the Christian fundies: creation "science" / IDiocy is not science. Fundies may insist otherwise but Christian creationism / supermagicalism is a fact only to fundies. Certainly, magic does not deserve equal time in a public school classroom as proponents of Creationism / IDiosy would like to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is there to be angry about ? you have the right to choose your own path to follow. The only thing that might anger me is your inability to dicuss things like an adult and insult people who clearly know more on the subject the thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> subjective and false, you 've shown no more knowledge about "the subject" than any other poster ,
> mostly just subjective wishes and pseudoscience.
> "dicuss" things like an adult"
Click to expand...


Oh I have posted many things you people have no answer for. I destroyed your theory with the problems of mutation fixation that OI think went over you and your partners head. You had no explanation as to why natural selection removed superior traits that would have allowed humans to be better adapted. Do I really need to continue.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in denial and there are no limits to your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youre angry because your claims to gawds and supermagicalism ring hollow and do nothing more than promote fear and ignorance.
> 
> I am continually amazed at the insistence of YECers to think that their Christian fundamentalist beliefs can be applied to refute evolutionary science. I'm also amazed at the derogatory implications of the word "religion" when used by religionists in reference to evolution.
> 
> The fundies have been suffered humiliating defeats in the courts with their attempts to push Christianity into the school system. Academia has refuted creationism / IDiosy for failing to provide testable methods for supernaturalism. To say that evolution is a fact is merely acknowledging the sheer weight of testable and verifiable evidence. Christian Fundies can only counter the facts with conspiracy theories which is irresponsible in any sense. Paraphrasing Daniel Dennett in _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, the hope by Christian fundies that evolution will someday be refuted by some shattering new breakthrough is about as reasonable as the hope that we will return to an earth centered universe and abandon Copernicus.
> 
> To reiterate for the Christian fundies: creation "science" / IDiocy is not science. Fundies may insist otherwise but Christian creationism / supermagicalism is a fact only to fundies. Certainly, magic does not deserve equal time in a public school classroom as proponents of Creationism / IDiosy would like to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is there to be angry about ? you have the right to choose your own path to follow. The only thing that might anger me is your inability to dicuss things like an adult and insult people who clearly know more on the subject the thread is about.
Click to expand...

You and the other fundie really do define the "angry fundie" persona. Your hateful attitude toward anyone who disagrees with your claims to supernaturalism is palpable, even on a text based message board. As to discussing things like an adult, why don't you read back through the thread and report back to us who is posting gargantuan fonts with juvenile name-calling through twenty pages of this thread. 

 I will also note that this thread is about creationism. I fully reject your claim to knowing more about creationism than me of anyone else. I have no reason to believe that you or anyone else knows more about creationism than alliowed by the four words "the gods did it"


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure somewhere in this 700 page thread/novel this was already covered but in the event that you missed it... A scientific theory is a falsifiable hypothesis that explains a set of observations and has been rigorously scrutinised and tested. Evolution would fall under this category. However ID is considered something quite different, a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may seem important to the ones seeking supposed knowledge,however the creator didn't need a professor to teach him how to design with a purpose in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you've topped yourself on meaninglessness with that one..
> two unprovable statements "creator and design with a purpose in mind"
> there is no proof of a sentient  creator so anything that the creator might have in it's mind is pure speculation..
> got to give you style points for vivid imagination!
Click to expand...


Does the brain have a purpose daws ? How bout the lungs ? maybe the heart ? the sun ? the moon ? biological chemicals ? how bout red and white blood cells ? How bout Genes ?

Now try and B.S. your way out.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt any intelligent person can deny that there are a lot of some really stupid and scared people on the planet with many people such as yourself that "pray/prey" on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't prey on people I pray for people. I don't force my views on anyone I tell them what I do know and I try and get them to reason on the evidence that I have been exposed to. How can you accept your views as a fact in your own mind without putting it to the test ?
> 
> Remember, I was once on your side of the argument until I reasoned and put the theory to the test by reasoning on the evidence. It was no magical pastor that convinced me my beliefs on thetheory were wrong ,it was the Lord himself that exposed the lies and his word that did it for me. I just others will do the same and not let themselves to be lead down the wrong road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not believe you.  No one "reasons" their way to believing in a god.  What I believe is that you are not telling the whole story.  People are weak so when something traumatic occurs in their life or in the life of someone close to them or just about any tragedy that happens can push some people to looking past what they find impossible to understand and look for justification in the "mysterious ways" of a god.
> 
> You were never like me.  You were obviously "on the fence" about it and something pushed you over to the "faith" excuse.
> 
> I have never believed in a god.  I had all the usual religious upbringing and found the bible laughable.  I saw people in church praying and saw that they did it because they were indoctirnated to do so.  Telling a child to put his or her hands together and kneel down, close their eyes and do what?  Nigga...please... You have been bleating your case on this thread thousands of times and you have moved the LOS no closer to the goal line.
> 
> It's simple...go have a heart to heart pow wow with your sky fairy and tell him/she/it that he will get lots of followers if it will just show up in person and stop treating human beings like idiots.
Click to expand...


Then you clearly lack logic.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't prey on people I pray for people. I don't force my views on anyone I tell them what I do know and I try and get them to reason on the evidence that I have been exposed to. How can you accept your views as a fact in your own mind without putting it to the test ?
> 
> Remember, I was once on your side of the argument until I reasoned and put the theory to the test by reasoning on the evidence. It was no magical pastor that convinced me my beliefs on thetheory were wrong ,it was the Lord himself that exposed the lies and his word that did it for me. I just others will do the same and not let themselves to be lead down the wrong road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe you.  No one "reasons" their way to believing in a god.  What I believe is that you are not telling the whole story.  People are weak so when something traumatic occurs in their life or in the life of someone close to them or just about any tragedy that happens can push some people to looking past what they find impossible to understand and look for justification in the "mysterious ways" of a god.
> 
> You were never like me.  You were obviously "on the fence" about it and something pushed you over to the "faith" excuse.
> 
> I have never believed in a god.  I had all the usual religious upbringing and found the bible laughable.  I saw people in church praying and saw that they did it because they were indoctirnated to do so.  Telling a child to put his or her hands together and kneel down, close their eyes and do what?  Nigga...please... You have been bleating your case on this thread thousands of times and you have moved the LOS no closer to the goal line.
> 
> It's simple...go have a heart to heart pow wow with your sky fairy and tell him/she/it that he will get lots of followers if it will just show up in person and stop treating human beings like idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you clearly lack logic.
Click to expand...


Gotta love the crazy Christians..  Up is down..Black is white.. Fantasy is logical..  Reason is nonsense.

Do you really think in all these thousands of posts that you have convinced anyone to believe in your make believe?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may seem important to the ones seeking supposed knowledge,however the creator didn't need a professor to teach him how to design with a purpose in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> you've topped yourself on meaninglessness with that one..
> two unprovable statements "creator and design with a purpose in mind"
> there is no proof of a sentient  creator so anything that the creator might have in it's mind is pure speculation..
> got to give you style points for vivid imagination!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the brain have a purpose daws ? How bout the lungs ? maybe the heart ? the sun ? the moon ? biological chemicals ? how bout red and white blood cells ? How bout Genes ?
> 
> Now try and B.S. your way out.
Click to expand...


What silly creationist nonsense. Does the cancer cell have a purpose? How about the bacteria that cause infections? Do tornadoes have a purpose? Asteroid impact - do they have a purpose?


----------



## Hollie

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe you.  No one "reasons" their way to believing in a god.  What I believe is that you are not telling the whole story.  People are weak so when something traumatic occurs in their life or in the life of someone close to them or just about any tragedy that happens can push some people to looking past what they find impossible to understand and look for justification in the "mysterious ways" of a god.
> 
> You were never like me.  You were obviously "on the fence" about it and something pushed you over to the "faith" excuse.
> 
> I have never believed in a god.  I had all the usual religious upbringing and found the bible laughable.  I saw people in church praying and saw that they did it because they were indoctirnated to do so.  Telling a child to put his or her hands together and kneel down, close their eyes and do what?  Nigga...please... You have been bleating your case on this thread thousands of times and you have moved the LOS no closer to the goal line.
> 
> It's simple...go have a heart to heart pow wow with your sky fairy and tell him/she/it that he will get lots of followers if it will just show up in person and stop treating human beings like idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you clearly lack logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gotta love the crazy Christians..  Up is down..Black is white.. Fantasy is logical..  Reason is nonsense.
> 
> Do you really think in all these thousands of posts that you have convinced anyone to believe in your make believe?
Click to expand...

Good observation. On the contrary, I think the worst examples of religious fanaticism and belligerent ignorance is demonstrated by the fundies in this thread.


----------



## HUGGY

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you've topped yourself on meaninglessness with that one..
> two unprovable statements "creator and design with a purpose in mind"
> there is no proof of a sentient  creator so anything that the creator might have in it's mind is pure speculation..
> got to give you style points for vivid imagination!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the brain have a purpose daws ? How bout the lungs ? maybe the heart ? the sun ? the moon ? biological chemicals ? how bout red and white blood cells ? How bout Genes ?
> 
> Now try and B.S. your way out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What silly creationist nonsense. Does the cancer cell have a purpose? How about the bacteria that cause infections? Do tornadoes have a purpose? Asteroid impact - do they have a purpose?
Click to expand...


Everything they cannot explain is covered in the "mysterious ways" claus..  

Nothing EVER has to make sense to the "faith".


----------



## HUGGY

Hollie said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you clearly lack logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love the crazy Christians..  Up is down..Black is white.. Fantasy is logical..  Reason is nonsense.
> 
> Do you really think in all these thousands of posts that you have convinced anyone to believe in your make believe?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good observation. On the contrary, I think the worst examples of religious fanaticism and belligerent ignorance is demonstrated by the fundies in this thread.
Click to expand...


Naw...  these idiots are just persistant.  I don't think there are any snake handlers hanging around USMB.


----------



## emilynghiem

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt any intelligent person can deny that there are a lot of some really stupid and scared people on the planet with many people such as yourself that "pray/prey" on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't prey on people I pray for people. I don't force my views on anyone I tell them what I do know and I try and get them to reason on the evidence that I have been exposed to. How can you accept your views as a fact in your own mind without putting it to the test ?
> 
> Remember, I was once on your side of the argument until I reasoned and put the theory to the test by reasoning on the evidence. It was no magical pastor that convinced me my beliefs on thetheory were wrong ,it was the Lord himself that exposed the lies and his word that did it for me. I just others will do the same and not let themselves to be lead down the wrong road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (snicker) so you saying you acually saw and talked to god?
Click to expand...


Dear Daws: I saw your comments to YWC, one where you perceived his msgs as "self-serving" and this one here, where talking with God sounds silly to you.

Compared with my friends who are intolerably self-serving, YWC seems very straight up to me. So maybe compared to what you are used to, YWC sounds self-righteous or something.
Not to me. I think this must be relative then?

As for talking with God, this requires someone to be very still and very humble to listen to what God is saying. You cannot be "full of yourself" and listen to God, who will just let you make a fool of yourself until you get over your pride and put that aside.

I don't see that YWC falls into that group of people, as I know many who do. 

The Voice of God is like the Voice of Reason, or Wisdom, or Truth.

I have friends who talk with God in almost intangible ways.
I have friends who get messages from God that are VERY direct instructions.
Some stories I think would make you REALLY LAUGH out of disbelief (not just snicker).

I think if you had the same friends I do, and saw the WIDE RANGE of interacting or talking with God, you would see it is natural and not something supernatural or made up.

When people get insights, or ideas of the future that actually lead to the right answers,
that is another way God talks with some of us.

When Buckminster Fuller suddenly had a brainstorm of revelations and new ideas, that came to him after he changed his mind about committing suicide and had an epiphany about
the purpose of life being to help others, that was like God talking with him and giving him
visions of the future (some of which like the Geodesic Dome changed society and the world).

I hope you would consider there may be more to what
YWC and others are talking about, even if secular people
like you and me don't experience these things the same way Christians do.

Again, if you REALLY want to hear some WILD stories, post a thread asking for those,
and I'll be glad to post my stories and some from my friend Olivia who has a bunch.

I don't think you would worry about YWC after that!

Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't prey on people I pray for people. I don't force my views on anyone I tell them what I do know and I try and get them to reason on the evidence that I have been exposed to. How can you accept your views as a fact in your own mind without putting it to the test ?
> 
> Remember, I was once on your side of the argument until I reasoned and put the theory to the test by reasoning on the evidence. It was no magical pastor that convinced me my beliefs on thetheory were wrong ,it was the Lord himself that exposed the lies and his word that did it for me. I just others will do the same and not let themselves to be lead down the wrong road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe you.  No one "reasons" their way to believing in a god.  What I believe is that you are not telling the whole story.  People are weak so when something traumatic occurs in their life or in the life of someone close to them or just about any tragedy that happens can push some people to looking past what they find impossible to understand and look for justification in the "mysterious ways" of a god.
> 
> You were never like me.  You were obviously "on the fence" about it and something pushed you over to the "faith" excuse.
> 
> I have never believed in a god.  I had all the usual religious upbringing and found the bible laughable.  I saw people in church praying and saw that they did it because they were indoctirnated to do so.  Telling a child to put his or her hands together and kneel down, close their eyes and do what?  Nigga...please... You have been bleating your case on this thread thousands of times and you have moved the LOS no closer to the goal line.
> 
> It's simple...go have a heart to heart pow wow with your sky fairy and tell him/she/it that he will get lots of followers if it will just show up in person and stop treating human beings like idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you clearly lack logic.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't be the one to level this kind of comment when you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and all you have to do is look up each night at the starlight from stars that are billions of light-years away to know this is demonstrably false.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe you.  No one "reasons" their way to believing in a god.  What I believe is that you are not telling the whole story.  People are weak so when something traumatic occurs in their life or in the life of someone close to them or just about any tragedy that happens can push some people to looking past what they find impossible to understand and look for justification in the "mysterious ways" of a god.
> 
> You were never like me.  You were obviously "on the fence" about it and something pushed you over to the "faith" excuse.
> 
> I have never believed in a god.  I had all the usual religious upbringing and found the bible laughable.  I saw people in church praying and saw that they did it because they were indoctirnated to do so.  Telling a child to put his or her hands together and kneel down, close their eyes and do what?  Nigga...please... You have been bleating your case on this thread thousands of times and you have moved the LOS no closer to the goal line.
> 
> It's simple...go have a heart to heart pow wow with your sky fairy and tell him/she/it that he will get lots of followers if it will just show up in person and stop treating human beings like idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you clearly lack logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gotta love the crazy Christians..  Up is down..Black is white.. Fantasy is logical..  Reason is nonsense.
> 
> Do you really think in all these thousands of posts that you have convinced anyone to believe in your make believe?
Click to expand...


Yeah it is funny,not sure have not taken a poll  but I will ask you the same question, do you think a believer would put their beliefs aside for the arguments that have been put forth by your side ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the brain have a purpose daws ? How bout the lungs ? maybe the heart ? the sun ? the moon ? biological chemicals ? how bout red and white blood cells ? How bout Genes ?
> 
> Now try and B.S. your way out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What silly creationist nonsense. Does the cancer cell have a purpose? How about the bacteria that cause infections? Do tornadoes have a purpose? Asteroid impact - do they have a purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything they cannot explain is covered in the "mysterious ways" claus..
> 
> Nothing EVER has to make sense to the "faith".
Click to expand...


What has made sense with the evolution argument ?


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you clearly lack logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love the crazy Christians..  Up is down..Black is white.. Fantasy is logical..  Reason is nonsense.
> 
> Do you really think in all these thousands of posts that you have convinced anyone to believe in your make believe?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah it is funny,not sure have not taken a poll  but I will ask you the same question, do you think a believer would put their beliefs aside for the arguments that have been put forth by your side ?
Click to expand...


All I would hope is that people start thinking critically about anything in their lives that matters to them.  I am not trying to sell anything unlike you.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may seem important to the ones seeking supposed knowledge,however the creator didn't need a professor to teach him how to design with a purpose in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> you've topped yourself on meaninglessness with that one..
> two unprovable statements "creator and design with a purpose in mind"
> there is no proof of a sentient  creator so anything that the creator might have in it's mind is pure speculation..
> got to give you style points for vivid imagination!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the brain have a purpose daws ? How bout the lungs ? maybe the heart ? the sun ? the moon ? biological chemicals ? how bout red and white blood cells ? How bout Genes ?
> 
> Now try and B.S. your way out.
Click to expand...

Sure ill answer this question as well as ask a couple counter-questions later on. I may be alone in this as this is influenced by a nihilistic point of view (not a very popular position to hold) all of these things only have purpose if we them a purpose.

If designer had created everything with a purpose than what would be the purpose of small pox, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS?  What does it say about the aforementioned creator? So if we were accept this the door would swing both ways.


Maybe I am giving you too much credit but it seems to me you are going after a crude watchmaker argument that the very complexity of creation shouts the need for a creator. This really fails considering the creator would necessarily have to be more complex than his creation so the creator would then need an even more complex designer. This spirals into an ugly infinite regress and other insanity.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What silly creationist nonsense. Does the cancer cell have a purpose? How about the bacteria that cause infections? Do tornadoes have a purpose? Asteroid impact - do they have a purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything they cannot explain is covered in the "mysterious ways" claus..
> 
> Nothing EVER has to make sense to the "faith".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has made sense with the evolution argument ?
Click to expand...


Facts.


----------



## FckingAmazing

an american doctor  Laurence B. Brown
good video i recommend 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjLbxmSJTVI&feature=related]Allah var m[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't prey on people I pray for people. I don't force my views on anyone I tell them what I do know and I try and get them to reason on the evidence that I have been exposed to. How can you accept your views as a fact in your own mind without putting it to the test ?
> 
> Remember, I was once on your side of the argument until I reasoned and put the theory to the test by reasoning on the evidence. It was no magical pastor that convinced me my beliefs on thetheory were wrong ,it was the Lord himself that exposed the lies and his word that did it for me. I just others will do the same and not let themselves to be lead down the wrong road.
> 
> 
> 
> (snicker) so you saying you acually saw and talked to god?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gods word reveals the foolishness of man in many ways.
Click to expand...

Hearing voices are we?


----------



## UltimateReality

PretentiousGuy said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID is a theory, and is certainly not actual proof, because there is none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure somewhere in this 700 page thread/novel this was already covered but in the event that you missed it... A scientific theory is a falsifiable hypothesis that explains a set of observations and has been rigorously scrutinised and tested. Evolution would fall under this category. However ID is considered something quite different, a joke.
Click to expand...


Please enlighten me on how you have tested natural selection acting on a random mutation which results in an organism having increased fitness? I think the joke is on you.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, its because abiogenesis and evolution are categorically distinct. It's that simple. One has nothing to do with the other ontologically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep telling yourself that and maybe it will come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right back at you. The thing is that I actually have logic and reason on my side. You just have blind assertion and wishful thinking.
> 
> If you think abiogenesis and evolution are somehow blurred or interchangeable points in time, demonstrate this. Show me how this is possible.
> 
> Abiogenesis came before Evolution. You can't evolution without a self-replicating life form to work with, and abiogenesis is the process that produced that self-replicating life form from organic materials present on earth, and highly abundant throughout the universe.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is astounding. The ID theory is absolutely logical and is more reasonable as the best explanation for the self-replicating life form. All the naturalistic explanations for Abiogenesis are an utter and complete joke. If you had actually studied any of them, you would know this. Why don't you stick to discussing things you have read up on?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ur again proves just how powerful obsession is...
> never said  I was incredibility wealthy  (you created that)
> never said I had seven degrees (I have three) , I have on more then one occasion ,posted my educational background.
> your obsessive complusive insistence that I have not is just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.
> 
> this statement :"Isn't the internet great??? You can say or be anything you want and no one can prove you wrong." -UR
> JUST SCREAMS HUBRIS..
> IT'S THE BASIS OF EVERY LIE, SPIN, INTENTIONALY IGNORANT STEAMING PILE YOU POST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And still no education info. Typical wordy DODGE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your obsessive complusive insistence that I have not is just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.
Click to expand...


And you silence persists. Still no admission of your lack of education.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How nice. An opportunity for your self-serving proselytizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how noting history is self-serving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> everything you post is self serving. you do for self aggrandizement not for the glory of gawd but to "get over"  all this ego must be compensation for other huge flaws ...
Click to expand...


Projecting... again.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt any intelligent person can deny that there are a lot of some really stupid and scared people on the planet with many people such as yourself that "pray/prey" on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't prey on people I pray for people. I don't force my views on anyone I tell them what I do know and I try and get them to reason on the evidence that I have been exposed to. How can you accept your views as a fact in your own mind without putting it to the test ?
> 
> Remember, I was once on your side of the argument until I reasoned and put the theory to the test by reasoning on the evidence. It was no magical pastor that convinced me my beliefs on thetheory were wrong ,it was the Lord himself that exposed the lies and his word that did it for me. I just others will do the same and not let themselves to be lead down the wrong road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not believe you.  No one "reasons" their way to believing in a god.  What I believe is that you are not telling the whole story.  People are weak so when something traumatic occurs in their life or in the life of someone close to them or just about any tragedy that happens can push some people to looking past what they find impossible to understand and look for justification in the "mysterious ways" of a god.
> 
> You were never like me.  You were obviously "on the fence" about it and something pushed you over to the "faith" excuse.
> 
> I have never believed in a god.  I had all the usual religious upbringing and found the bible laughable.  I saw people in church praying and saw that they did it because they were indoctirnated to do so.  Telling a child to put his or her hands together and kneel down, close their eyes and do what?  Nigga...please... You have been bleating your case on this thread thousands of times and you have moved the LOS no closer to the goal line.
> 
> It's simple...go have a heart to heart pow wow with your sky fairy and tell him/she/it that he will get lots of followers if it will just show up in person and stop treating human beings like idiots.
Click to expand...


You might want to check out CS Lewis' biography before you make such silly absolute statements not founded in reality.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep telling yourself that and maybe it will come true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right back at you. The thing is that I actually have logic and reason on my side. You just have blind assertion and wishful thinking.
> 
> If you think abiogenesis and evolution are somehow blurred or interchangeable points in time, demonstrate this. Show me how this is possible.
> 
> Abiogenesis came before Evolution. You can't evolution without a self-replicating life form to work with, and abiogenesis is the process that produced that self-replicating life form from organic materials present on earth, and highly abundant throughout the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is astounding. The ID theory is absolutely logical and is more reasonable as the best explanation for the self-replicating life form. All the naturalistic explanations for Abiogenesis are an utter and complete joke. If you had actually studied any of them, you would know this. Why don't you stick to discussing things you have read up on?
Click to expand...


This little side-debate isn't about the merits of abiogenesis, its about whether abiogenesis is categorically distinct from evolution. Let's stick to one topic at a time.

As for you opinions on the merits of ID and abiogenesis, I disagree with your point on ID entirely (whether it is logical or not is irrelevant), and it is clear you know nothing about abiogenesis, because the science behind abiogenesis is not clear or set it stone, and NO ONE IS CLAIMING IT IS. Though, they have many promising leads, and despite your incredulity on the matter, the Miller-Urey experiments were valuable insights into how organic compounds could be produced naturally. Even though you will claim the gaseous mixture used in the experiments were inaccurate in depicting early earth conditions, and you'd be right, in correcting for this mistake, they found that even more organic compounds could be produced naturally. So, it seems very plausible that given enough time, which we had, and enough energy (lightning), of which there was plenty, that organic compounds would inevitably be produced. To write off abiogenesis because it is "naturalistic" is simply biased towards a supernaturalistic explanation, just as you accuse metaphysical naturalists of doing when dealing with creation.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre angry because your claims to gawds and supermagicalism ring hollow and do nothing more than promote fear and ignorance.
> 
> I am continually amazed at the insistence of YECers to think that their Christian fundamentalist beliefs can be applied to refute evolutionary science. I'm also amazed at the derogatory implications of the word "religion" when used by religionists in reference to evolution.
> 
> The fundies have been suffered humiliating defeats in the courts with their attempts to push Christianity into the school system. Academia has refuted creationism / IDiosy for failing to provide testable methods for supernaturalism. To say that evolution is a fact is merely acknowledging the sheer weight of testable and verifiable evidence. Christian Fundies can only counter the facts with conspiracy theories which is irresponsible in any sense. Paraphrasing Daniel Dennett in _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, the hope by Christian fundies that evolution will someday be refuted by some shattering new breakthrough is about as reasonable as the hope that we will return to an earth centered universe and abandon Copernicus.
> 
> To reiterate for the Christian fundies: creation "science" / IDiocy is not science. Fundies may insist otherwise but Christian creationism / supermagicalism is a fact only to fundies. Certainly, magic does not deserve equal time in a public school classroom as proponents of Creationism / IDiosy would like to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is there to be angry about ? you have the right to choose your own path to follow. The only thing that might anger me is your inability to dicuss things like an adult and insult people who clearly know more on the subject the thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and the other fundie really do define the "angry fundie" persona. Your hateful attitude toward anyone who disagrees with your claims to supernaturalism is palpable, even on a text based message board. As to discussing things like an adult, why don't you read back through the thread and report back to us who is posting gargantuan fonts with juvenile name-calling through twenty pages of this thread.
> 
> I will also note that this thread is about creationism. I fully reject your claim to knowing more about creationism than me of anyone else. I have no reason to believe that you or anyone else knows more about creationism than alliowed by the four words "the gods did it"
Click to expand...


Hollie, your ignorance is astounding. You are a pathological denier. How many times have you questioned someone else's education while remaining silent about your own qualifications? You know exactly why the large fonts were used, to call you out on your continual BS. You choose to remain in denial. Either that, or you are really, really incompetent.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love the crazy Christians..  Up is down..Black is white.. Fantasy is logical..  Reason is nonsense.
> 
> Do you really think in all these thousands of posts that you have convinced anyone to believe in your make believe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good observation. On the contrary, I think the worst examples of religious fanaticism and belligerent ignorance is demonstrated by the fundies in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw...  these idiots are just persistant.  I don't think there are any snake handlers hanging around USMB.
Click to expand...


You both have been presented with valid scientific evidence proving an intelligent agent was the best explanation for the digital code in dna and you both have been presented with numerous, serious flaws in evolutionary theory. You just choose to ignore the truth because of your commitment to your atheistic religion.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still no education info. Typical wordy DODGE!
> 
> 
> 
> your obsessive complusive insistence that I have not is just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you silence persists. Still no admission of your lack of education.
Click to expand...


Your asking for everyone's education is inappropriate. Please stop doing it. It's actually awkward to look at.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love the crazy Christians..  Up is down..Black is white.. Fantasy is logical..  Reason is nonsense.
> 
> Do you really think in all these thousands of posts that you have convinced anyone to believe in your make believe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good observation. On the contrary, I think the worst examples of religious fanaticism and belligerent ignorance is demonstrated by the fundies in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Naw...  these idiots are just persistant.*
Click to expand...


You sure are!! Hollie has been repeating the same few slogans over and over again for over 700 pages while frantically cutting and pasting from the same, tired atheistic websites like panda's thumb, all the while having not given a single response of her own to an argument presented. Now that is persistance!!! Not only that, the internet shows she has been harassing various forms of theistic religions, including Islam, for years!!! Pathetic!! No, really pathetic. Someone needs to get a life!


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right back at you. The thing is that I actually have logic and reason on my side. You just have blind assertion and wishful thinking.
> 
> If you think abiogenesis and evolution are somehow blurred or interchangeable points in time, demonstrate this. Show me how this is possible.
> 
> Abiogenesis came before Evolution. You can't evolution without a self-replicating life form to work with, and abiogenesis is the process that produced that self-replicating life form from organic materials present on earth, and highly abundant throughout the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is astounding. The ID theory is absolutely logical and is more reasonable as the best explanation for the self-replicating life form. All the naturalistic explanations for Abiogenesis are an utter and complete joke. If you had actually studied any of them, you would know this. Why don't you stick to discussing things you have read up on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This little side-debate isn't about the merits of abiogenesis, its about whether abiogenesis is categorically distinct from evolution. Let's stick to one topic at a time.
> 
> As for you opinions on the merits of ID and abiogenesis, I disagree with your point on ID entirely (whether it is logical or not is irrelevant), and* it is clear you know nothing about abiogenesis*
Click to expand...


NP, even you can go to Wiki and read about 19 possible DIFFERENT explanations, all of them severely lacking of any REAL science...

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is astounding. The ID theory is absolutely logical and is more reasonable as the best explanation for the self-replicating life form. All the naturalistic explanations for Abiogenesis are an utter and complete joke. If you had actually studied any of them, you would know this. Why don't you stick to discussing things you have read up on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This little side-debate isn't about the merits of abiogenesis, its about whether abiogenesis is categorically distinct from evolution. Let's stick to one topic at a time.
> 
> As for you opinions on the merits of ID and abiogenesis, I disagree with your point on ID entirely (whether it is logical or not is irrelevant), and* it is clear you know nothing about abiogenesis*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NP, even you can go to Wiki and read about 19 possible DIFFERENT explanations, all of them severely lacking of any REAL science...
> 
> Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


As I said, the scientific "story" behind Abiogenesis is not set in stone, as we would expect practically zero evidence from that event to survive. The fact that there many scenarios depicting abiogenesis only confirms what I said. I am not arguing this, so I  am not sure why you think this would be new information. Again, you assume that science is "dogmatic" for an atheist, when it isn't. I am perfectly okay with there being a gap in knowledge there. I am not okay with filling a gap simply because it is uncomfortable, and calling that gap "God" and then supplying myself with a story that is then personally believable. This is not a pathway to truth. This is a pathway to fiction. 

As I see it, the point of abiogenesis is that it is possible for life to arise naturally. That is all that needs to be proved. With the Miller-Urey Experiments as well as finding ready-made amino acids on incoming meteorites, we have evidence that it is probable that life can form on its own.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> This little side-debate isn't about the merits of abiogenesis, its about whether abiogenesis is categorically distinct from evolution. Let's stick to one topic at a time.


You and the Neo-Darwinists wish!! Abiogenisis presents a serious problem for Darwinists since the discovery of dna. Even Darwin himself believed the "warm little pond" to be the naturalistic origin of life and the two were linked together more and more, that is, up until the discovery of dna when the materialists began to frantically attempt to divorce themselves from Abiogenesis. You are just a product of that revisionism that teaches the two are not related. What a joke!!! You want to believe the Darwinists religious teaching that evolution and Abiogenis are mutually exclusive because your religion won't allow you to accept otherwise.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (snicker) so you saying you acually saw and talked to god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word reveals the foolishness of man in many ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hearing voices are we?
Click to expand...


Posting under multiple genders and personalities are we?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your obsessive complusive insistence that I have not is just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you silence persists. Still no admission of your lack of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your asking for everyone's education is inappropriate. Please stop doing it. It's actually awkward to look at.
Click to expand...


What? Are you Hollie's minion now? What is inappropriate is for attackers to make claims about the lack of others' education while deliberately concealing their own lack of education. Have you appointed yourself the hypocritical Daws and hypocritical Hollie's defender?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This little side-debate isn't about the merits of abiogenesis, its about whether abiogenesis is categorically distinct from evolution. Let's stick to one topic at a time.
> 
> As for you opinions on the merits of ID and abiogenesis, I disagree with your point on ID entirely (whether it is logical or not is irrelevant), and* it is clear you know nothing about abiogenesis*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NP, even you can go to Wiki and read about 19 possible DIFFERENT explanations, all of them severely lacking of any REAL science...
> 
> Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, the scientific "story" behind Abiogenesis is not set in stone, as we would expect practically zero evidence from that event to survive. The fact that there many scenarios depicting abiogenesis only confirms what I said. I am not arguing this, so I  am not sure why you think this would be new information. Again, you assume that science is "dogmatic" for an atheist, when it isn't. I am perfectly okay with there being a gap in knowledge there. I am not okay with filling a gap simply because it is uncomfortable, and calling that gap "God" and then supplying myself with a story that is then personally believable. This is not a pathway to truth. This is a pathway to fiction.
> 
> As I see it, the point of abiogenesis is that it is possible for life to arise naturally. That is all that needs to be proved. With the Miller-Urey Experiments as well as finding ready-made amino acids on incoming meteorites,* we have evidence that it is probable that life can form on its own.*
Click to expand...


Now that is faith my friend!!! I'll say it again for the terminally slow among us, Darwin and Lyell both believed the key to the past was presently observable actions. We do not see complex and specifiable information spontaneously arising in nature. All presently observable digital code has an intelligent agent as its source. For now, that is the best explanation for the digitally-coded information we find in dna, not some as of yet randomly unseen magical process with 43 steps of "might haves" and "could haves" that are not even scientifically verifiable by experiments. Why does your logic not allow you to accept this? Back before the Big Bang Theory, when Einstein and other scientists believed the universe was eternal, panspermia was a considered a valid candidate as an explanation for abiogenesis. I guess the fact the earth is only 4.7 billion years old has thrown a monkey wrench in all the chance, necessity, and chance with necessity arguments posited so far. Your faith in a naturalistic process is more preposterous than my scientific inference that an intelligent agent of some type put the digitally coded information there, because I can look around in nature and observe the process occurring all around me right now. Darwin and Lyell would be proud.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP, even you can go to Wiki and read about 19 possible DIFFERENT explanations, all of them severely lacking of any REAL science...
> 
> Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, the scientific "story" behind Abiogenesis is not set in stone, as we would expect practically zero evidence from that event to survive. The fact that there many scenarios depicting abiogenesis only confirms what I said. I am not arguing this, so I  am not sure why you think this would be new information. Again, you assume that science is "dogmatic" for an atheist, when it isn't. I am perfectly okay with there being a gap in knowledge there. I am not okay with filling a gap simply because it is uncomfortable, and calling that gap "God" and then supplying myself with a story that is then personally believable. This is not a pathway to truth. This is a pathway to fiction.
> 
> As I see it, the point of abiogenesis is that it is possible for life to arise naturally. That is all that needs to be proved. With the Miller-Urey Experiments as well as finding ready-made amino acids on incoming meteorites,* we have evidence that it is probable that life can form on its own.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that is faith my friend!!! I'll say it again for the terminally slow among us, Darwin and Lyell both believed the key to the past was presently observable actions. We do not see complex and specifiable information spontaneously arising in nature. All presently observable digital code has an intelligent agent as its source. For now, that is the best explanation for the digitally-coded information we find in dna, not some as of yet randomly unseen magical process with 43 steps of "might haves" and "could haves" that are not even scientifically verifiable by experiments. Why does your logic not allow you to accept this? Back before the Big Bang Theory, when Einstein and other scientists believed the universe was eternal, panspermia was a considered a valid candidate as an explanation for abiogenesis. I guess the fact the earth is only 4.7 billion years old has thrown a monkey wrench in all the chance, necessity, and chance with necessity arguments posited so far. Your faith in a naturalistic process is more preposterous than my scientific inference that an intelligent agent of some type put the digitally coded information there, because I can look around in nature and observe the process occurring all around me right now. Darwin and Lyell would be proud.
Click to expand...


You're use of inductive reasoning to conclude that anything with a code or information must have been created by a mind is fallacious. Bottom line, and that is all you have: inductive reasoning, and it simply is not strong enough to warrant such a conclusion. 

Certainly, problems with induction have been noted, hence the problem of induction, yet we have more reason to believe that tomorrow will be like today than DNA must have been created by an intelligent designer. The degrees of induction being used are so vastly different in these two instances. We have knowledge of the four physical forces of the universe, and as far as we can tell, have been constant since just after the big bang. This forms the basis for our inductive reasoning day to day, which we all rely on. However, looking at DNA and seeing that it might resemble a binary code, and then looking at the binary code we created, and concluding that because we created binary code that DNA must also have been created by a mind, is invalid logic.  For one, it is an oversimplification of the matter, and it is a projection of personal theological beliefs onto physical reality. 


The fact that we don't see life forms arise today is irrelevant, since conditions are different today than they were 4.5 billion years ago. We wouldn't expect such a thing. Conditions today are vastly different, and you know this, so I consider this sort of objection to be intellectually dishonest, or stupid, and I know you're not stupid, so try a little harder to be honest.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you silence persists. Still no admission of your lack of education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your asking for everyone's education is inappropriate. Please stop doing it. It's actually awkward to look at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Are you Hollie's minion now? What is inappropriate is for attackers to make claims about the lack of others' education while deliberately concealing their own lack of education. Have you appointed yourself the hypocritical Daws and hypocritical Hollie's defender?
Click to expand...


I never see Hollie or Daws asking you for your educational credentials. I only witness you constantly asking them, in huge pink bold lettering, for their credentials. This is really annoying, and is inappropriate, as it has nothing to do with the debate at hand. If you are simply trying to get back at them, then stop acting so immature. Get over it, and move on.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This little side-debate isn't about the merits of abiogenesis, its about whether abiogenesis is categorically distinct from evolution. Let's stick to one topic at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> You and the Neo-Darwinists wish!! Abiogenisis presents a serious problem for Darwinists since the discovery of dna. Even Darwin himself believed the "warm little pond" to be the naturalistic origin of life and the two were linked together more and more, that is, up until the discovery of dna when the materialists began to frantically attempt to divorce themselves from Abiogenesis. You are just a product of that revisionism that teaches the two are not related. What a joke!!! You want to believe the Darwinists religious teaching that evolution and Abiogenis are mutually exclusive because your religion won't allow you to accept otherwise.
Click to expand...


The joke is that I am trying to settle one point at a time, and you keep on wanting to run away from your own assertions. 

You are the one who made the point about abiogenesis and evolution not being distinct ideas, yet you have not shown this, so you have failed in proving your assertion. You try to obfuscate around this and use red-herrings left and right to try and distract me from the fact that you have an unsubstantiated assertion still standing. 

For the second time, demonstrate how abiogenesis and evolution are the same. 

Just to be sure, for the sake of this side-debate, I don't care about evolution and abiogenesis individually. I only care about them categorically and how they relate to each other. You mentioned that they are not mutually exclusive. Please demonstrate. 

If you can not, then stop making baseless assertions and then running away.


----------



## Youwerecreated

PretentiousGuy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you've topped yourself on meaninglessness with that one..
> two unprovable statements "creator and design with a purpose in mind"
> there is no proof of a sentient  creator so anything that the creator might have in it's mind is pure speculation..
> got to give you style points for vivid imagination!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the brain have a purpose daws ? How bout the lungs ? maybe the heart ? the sun ? the moon ? biological chemicals ? how bout red and white blood cells ? How bout Genes ?
> 
> Now try and B.S. your way out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure ill answer this question as well as ask a couple counter-questions later on. I may be alone in this as this is influenced by a nihilistic point of view (not a very popular position to hold) all of these things only have purpose if we them a purpose.
> 
> If designer had created everything with a purpose than what would be the purpose of small pox, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS?  What does it say about the aforementioned creator? So if we were accept this the door would swing both ways.
> 
> 
> Maybe I am giving you too much credit but it seems to me you are going after a crude watchmaker argument that the very complexity of creation shouts the need for a creator. This really fails considering the creator would necessarily have to be more complex than his creation so the creator would then need an even more complex designer. This spirals into an ugly infinite regress and other insanity.
Click to expand...


Yes most things related to nature does possess a purpose. Since the fall of man everything has been in a constant state of entropy. Imperfections does not mean the designer is a bad designer especially if it was a punishment to all men that sin.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe you.  No one "reasons" their way to believing in a god.  What I believe is that you are not telling the whole story.  People are weak so when something traumatic occurs in their life or in the life of someone close to them or just about any tragedy that happens can push some people to looking past what they find impossible to understand and look for justification in the "mysterious ways" of a god.
> 
> You were never like me.  You were obviously "on the fence" about it and something pushed you over to the "faith" excuse.
> 
> I have never believed in a god.  I had all the usual religious upbringing and found the bible laughable.  I saw people in church praying and saw that they did it because they were indoctirnated to do so.  Telling a child to put his or her hands together and kneel down, close their eyes and do what?  Nigga...please... You have been bleating your case on this thread thousands of times and you have moved the LOS no closer to the goal line.
> 
> It's simple...go have a heart to heart pow wow with your sky fairy and tell him/she/it that he will get lots of followers if it will just show up in person and stop treating human beings like idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you clearly lack logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be the one to level this kind of comment when you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and all you have to do is look up each night at the starlight from stars that are billions of light-years away to know this is demonstrably false.
Click to expand...


You can't prove the age of the earth so how do you know I am wrong in my beliefs ?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, the scientific "story" behind Abiogenesis is not set in stone, as we would expect practically zero evidence from that event to survive. The fact that there many scenarios depicting abiogenesis only confirms what I said. I am not arguing this, so I  am not sure why you think this would be new information. Again, you assume that science is "dogmatic" for an atheist, when it isn't. I am perfectly okay with there being a gap in knowledge there. I am not okay with filling a gap simply because it is uncomfortable, and calling that gap "God" and then supplying myself with a story that is then personally believable. This is not a pathway to truth. This is a pathway to fiction.
> 
> As I see it, the point of abiogenesis is that it is possible for life to arise naturally. That is all that needs to be proved. With the Miller-Urey Experiments as well as finding ready-made amino acids on incoming meteorites,* we have evidence that it is probable that life can form on its own.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is faith my friend!!! I'll say it again for the terminally slow among us, Darwin and Lyell both believed the key to the past was presently observable actions. We do not see complex and specifiable information spontaneously arising in nature. All presently observable digital code has an intelligent agent as its source. For now, that is the best explanation for the digitally-coded information we find in dna, not some as of yet randomly unseen magical process with 43 steps of "might haves" and "could haves" that are not even scientifically verifiable by experiments. Why does your logic not allow you to accept this? Back before the Big Bang Theory, when Einstein and other scientists believed the universe was eternal, panspermia was a considered a valid candidate as an explanation for abiogenesis. I guess the fact the earth is only 4.7 billion years old has thrown a monkey wrench in all the chance, necessity, and chance with necessity arguments posited so far. Your faith in a naturalistic process is more preposterous than my scientific inference that an intelligent agent of some type put the digitally coded information there, because I can look around in nature and observe the process occurring all around me right now. Darwin and Lyell would be proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're use of inductive reasoning to conclude that anything with a code or information must have been created by a mind is fallacious.
Click to expand...

Nice strawman, but this is not what is claimed. The claim is any digital code that is complex and has specificity has a intelligent agent as it's source. I challenge you to find a presently observable example of specifiable, complex digital information code arising by a naturalistic process or one that does not have an intelligent agent as its source. 


newpolitics said:


> Bottom line, and that is all you have: inductive reasoning, and it simply is not strong enough to warrant such a conclusion.


Wrong. This is a fallacious response. Meyer is using the very method that Darwin and Lyell espoused in evolutionary theory... i.e., the present is the key to the past. If Meyer's argument is fallacious, then so is Darwin's whole Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. 


newpolitics said:


> Certainly, problems with induction have been noted, hence the problem of induction, yet we have more reason to believe that tomorrow will be like today than DNA must have been created by an intelligent designer.


 Huh? You need to rewrite this sentence so it is comprehensible.



newpolitics said:


> The degrees of induction being used are so vastly different in these two instances. We have knowledge of the four physical forces of the universe, and as far as we can tell, have been constant since just after the big bang. This forms the basis for our inductive reasoning day to day, which we all rely on. However, looking at DNA and seeing that it might resemble a binary code, and then looking at the binary code we created, and concluding that because we created binary code that DNA must also have been created by a mind, is invalid logic.  For one, it is an oversimplification of the matter, and it is a projection of personal theological beliefs onto physical reality.


 Wrong. First, Quaternary code is more complex than binary code. Second, it is you that is using fallacious reasoning and induction. Do intelligent agents exist presently? Yes. What is the only source for specifiable, digital code that is presently being created. It is an intelligent agent. Until Darwinists come up with something better than chance and necessity for the specificity in the Complex DNA Code, then its source being an intelligent agent is currently the best explanation we have based on the physical evidence around us. It has nothing to do with religion, no matter how much you wish you could make it about faith. It isn't. It is about Darwin's and Lyell's scientific method for studying the historical sciences. 




newpolitics said:


> The fact that we don't see life forms arise today is irrelevant,


 Wrong! Try to stay on topic. What you mean to say is we don't see life arising. "Life" hasn't arisen spontaneously on the planet for 4 billion years. Any organism "alive" today had it's life spark passed down from millions of generations ago.  





newpolitics said:


> since conditions are different today than they were 4.5 billion years ago. We wouldn't expect such a thing. Conditions today are vastly different, and you know this, so I consider this sort of objection to be intellectually dishonest, or stupid, and I know you're not stupid, so try a little harder to be honest.


 Nice Ad Hominem attack but it won't change the serious shortcomings of your arguments above or the fact that their is not ONE VIABLE, TESTABLE, or even PROBABLE theory on Abiogenesis that can account for, not only the "self-replicating" properties of dna (dna does not self replicate by the way) by the complex molecular machines in the cell, but also even the origins of the *information itself* digitally coded into the molecule. There is a serious chicken and egg enigma at play here. *The very machines that copy and transcribe dna are assembled by the instructions contained in the digital code in dna that is being copied!!!!*

Game, set, match.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your asking for everyone's education is inappropriate. Please stop doing it. It's actually awkward to look at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? Are you Hollie's minion now? What is inappropriate is for attackers to make claims about the lack of others' education while deliberately concealing their own lack of education. Have you appointed yourself the hypocritical Daws and hypocritical Hollie's defender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never see Hollie or Daws asking you for your educational credentials.
Click to expand...

 There are a great many things you choose not to see. Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again. 





newpolitics said:


> I only witness you constantly asking them, in huge pink bold lettering, for their credentials. *This is really annoying*, and is *inappropriate*, as it has nothing to do with the debate at hand. If you are simply trying to get back at them, then *stop acting so immature*. Get over it, and move on.


 Ahhh, you choose to remain in your blindness and your logic about the huge, pink fonts is a fail. You have chosen not to "see" Hollie's constant attack accusations that YWC and I lack education. If you had paid attention to the threads, you would see the huge pink fonts always follow her ad hominem attack accusations on someone regarding their level of education. The only thing anyone needs to get over here is your one sided blindness and prejudicial auto ignore mode. Also, your veiled ad hominem attacks (bolded) above don't go unnoticed. Maybe it is you who should grow up.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This little side-debate isn't about the merits of abiogenesis, its about whether abiogenesis is categorically distinct from evolution. Let's stick to one topic at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> You and the Neo-Darwinists wish!! Abiogenisis presents a serious problem for Darwinists since the discovery of dna. Even Darwin himself believed the "warm little pond" to be the naturalistic origin of life and the two were linked together more and more, that is, up until the discovery of dna when the materialists began to frantically attempt to divorce themselves from Abiogenesis. You are just a product of that revisionism that teaches the two are not related. What a joke!!! You want to believe the Darwinists religious teaching that evolution and Abiogenis are mutually exclusive because your religion won't allow you to accept otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The joke is that I am trying to settle one point at a time, and you keep on wanting to run away from your own assertions.
> 
> You are the one who made the point about abiogenesis and evolution not being distinct ideas,
Click to expand...

 Strawman. I did not say they were not distinct ideas. I said they were inextricably related. 





newpolitics said:


> yet you have not shown this, so you have failed in proving your assertion.


 It has been done previously. As usual you are latching onto the back end of a discussion with another poster and missing the salient points in this post. http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-630.html#post6234710 

You can read more about the "Charles Darwin of the 20th Century" here:

Alexander Oparin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


newpolitics said:


> You try to obfuscate around this and use red-herrings left and right to try and distract me from the fact that you have an unsubstantiated assertion still standing.
> 
> For the second time, demonstrate how abiogenesis and evolution are the same.


 Strawman. No claim has been made they are the same. 



newpolitics said:


> Just to be sure, for the sake of this side-debate, I don't care about evolution and abiogenesis individually. I only care about them categorically and how they relate to each other. You mentioned that they are not mutually exclusive. Please demonstrate.
> 
> If you can not, then stop making baseless assertions and then running away.


 Nice try. But I can back up all my assertions. It is you who is having a bit of a challenge in that area. And as far as running away, please point to where I have not responded to your fallacious claims with sound, logical rebuttals.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the brain have a purpose daws ? How bout the lungs ? maybe the heart ? the sun ? the moon ? biological chemicals ? how bout red and white blood cells ? How bout Genes ?
> 
> Now try and B.S. your way out.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure ill answer this question as well as ask a couple counter-questions later on. I may be alone in this as this is influenced by a nihilistic point of view (not a very popular position to hold) all of these things only have purpose if we them a purpose.
> 
> If designer had created everything with a purpose than what would be the purpose of small pox, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS?  What does it say about the aforementioned creator? So if we were accept this the door would swing both ways.
> 
> 
> Maybe I am giving you too much credit but it seems to me you are going after a crude watchmaker argument that the very complexity of creation shouts the need for a creator. This really fails considering the creator would necessarily have to be more complex than his creation so the creator would then need an even more complex designer. This spirals into an ugly infinite regress and other insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)Yes most things related to nature does possess a purpose. 2) Since the fall of man everything has been in a constant state of entropy. 3) Imperfections does not mean the designer is a bad designer 4) especially if it was a punishment to all men that sin.
Click to expand...


1)You assert this but do not back it up.

2)Entropy has nothing to do with small pox or hiv/aids. So wtf are you talking about? Do you even know?

3) They aren't imperfections they are viruses that if were designed by a mortal man they would be wanted for crimes against humanity. The issue isn't perfection/imperfection in that example the issue is the great malice shown in the supposed creation.

4) Sins like existing, having fun, or seeking knowledge?


----------



## PretentiousGuy

UltimateReality said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID is a theory, and is certainly not actual proof, because there is none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure somewhere in this 700 page thread/novel this was already covered but in the event that you missed it... A scientific theory is a falsifiable hypothesis that explains a set of observations and has been rigorously scrutinised and tested. Evolution would fall under this category. However ID is considered something quite different, a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please enlighten me on how you have tested natural selection acting on a random mutation which results in an organism having increased fitness? I think the joke is on you.
Click to expand...


Mutation doesn't mean increased fitness; the mutation could have an adverse effect on the organism but through the process of natural selection those that are capable of surviving to reproduce are the organism.

Taking 3 seconds to research would answer this question. You can test evolution with bacteria, fruit flies,  or any organism that goes through generations rapidly. On top of the fossil record that confirms the theory makes for a compelling case especially when compared to the "god dunnit" crowd.

Next time do a bit of research before next time you think of wasting my time with facile questions.


----------



## konradv

PretentiousGuy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure ill answer this question as well as ask a couple counter-questions later on. I may be alone in this as this is influenced by a nihilistic point of view (not a very popular position to hold) all of these things only have purpose if we them a purpose.
> 
> If designer had created everything with a purpose than what would be the purpose of small pox, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS?  What does it say about the aforementioned creator? So if we were accept this the door would swing both ways.
> 
> 
> Maybe I am giving you too much credit but it seems to me you are going after a crude watchmaker argument that the very complexity of creation shouts the need for a creator. This really fails considering the creator would necessarily have to be more complex than his creation so the creator would then need an even more complex designer. This spirals into an ugly infinite regress and other insanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)Yes most things related to nature does possess a purpose. 2) Since the fall of man everything has been in a constant state of entropy. 3) Imperfections does not mean the designer is a bad designer 4) especially if it was a punishment to all men that sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)You assert this but do not back it up.
> 
> 2)Entropy has nothing to do with small pox or hiv/aids. So wtf are you talking about? Do you even know?
> 
> 3) They aren't imperfections they are viruses that if were designed by a mortal man they would be wanted for crimes against humanity. The issue isn't perfection/imperfection in that example the issue is the great malice shown in the supposed creation.
> 
> 4) Sins like existing, having fun, or seeking knowledge?
Click to expand...


Fair warning, this thread has been going on for over 10,000 posts and everything has been repeated hundreds of times.  Be prepared to be bored out of your mind.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

konradv said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)Yes most things related to nature does possess a purpose. 2) Since the fall of man everything has been in a constant state of entropy. 3) Imperfections does not mean the designer is a bad designer 4) especially if it was a punishment to all men that sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)You assert this but do not back it up.
> 
> 2)Entropy has nothing to do with small pox or hiv/aids. So wtf are you talking about? Do you even know?
> 
> 3) They aren't imperfections they are viruses that if were designed by a mortal man they would be wanted for crimes against humanity. The issue isn't perfection/imperfection in that example the issue is the great malice shown in the supposed creation.
> 
> 4) Sins like existing, having fun, or seeking knowledge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair warning, this thread has been going on for over 10,000 posts and everything has been repeated hundreds of times.  Be prepared to be bored out of your mind.
Click to expand...


I haven't heard a new argument from a creationist or theologian in a while but I do it just in case I can change a mind. To some it might seem like a Sisyphean task but if someone wouldn't have argued with me I would be quite a different person right now.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you silence persists. Still no admission of your lack of education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your asking for everyone's education is inappropriate. Please stop doing it. It's actually awkward to look at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Are you Hollie's minion now? What is inappropriate is for attackers to make claims about the lack of others' education while deliberately concealing their own lack of education. Have you appointed yourself the hypocritical Daws and hypocritical Hollie's defender?
Click to expand...


Comments about your lack of education are certainly appropriate when your ignorance of science matters is displayed in such lurid fashion.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? Are you Hollie's minion now? What is inappropriate is for attackers to make claims about the lack of others' education while deliberately concealing their own lack of education. Have you appointed yourself the hypocritical Daws and hypocritical Hollie's defender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never see Hollie or Daws asking you for your educational credentials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a great many things you choose not to see. Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only witness you constantly asking them, in huge pink bold lettering, for their credentials. *This is really annoying*, and is *inappropriate*, as it has nothing to do with the debate at hand. If you are simply trying to get back at them, then *stop acting so immature*. Get over it, and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh, you choose to remain in your blindness and your logic about the huge, pink fonts is a fail. You have chosen not to "see" Hollie's constant attack accusations that YWC and I lack education. If you had paid attention to the threads, you would see the huge pink fonts always follow her ad hominem attack accusations on someone regarding their level of education. The only thing anyone needs to get over here is your one sided blindness and prejudicial auto ignore mode. Also, your veiled ad hominem attacks (bolded) above don't go unnoticed. Maybe it is you who should grow up.
Click to expand...


Well, you do lack education. When you cut and paste from Harun Yahya, you are actually screaming out that lack education. 

Your incessant use of gargantuan, pink fonts in failed attempts to deflect from addressing refutations of your cut and pasted Harun Yahya nonsense only reinforces your inability to compose coherent sentences.


----------



## HUGGY

What religious people do not understand....besides EVERYTHING!

The average person's IQ is 100.  100 average people are not smarter than one person with an IQ of 110.  A thousand people with an IQ of 120 are not smarter than one person with an IQ 130.  A million people with an IQ of 130 are not smarter than one person with an IQ of 140. and so on.

My point is that more than half the population has an IQ of 100 or less.  These people are easily indoctrinated into whatever more's get them ahead or allow them access to any advantage in their lives which they need because they cannot compete on their own as successfully as the smarter people.  

This is not an absolute rule but in general it holds water pretty well.

From my observation there are few if any dumb atheists.  There are a few people with IQs over 140 that devoutly believe in a god.  I would guess that most if not all Atheists have an IQ over 100.  

If given the choice to get advice in the areas of monetary investment or education in any other area than religion who would chose to get information from someone with an IQ of 100 or less?  Few would.  

So in an argument in support of a supreme being what is the value of saying most people believe in a god?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.
> 
> To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> is it just me or does YWC not even know what he does not know..?
> btw YWC, pjnlsn was not admitting anything, just stating fact .
> the rest of your post is the same old mix of willful ignorance name calling and the standard line of subjective bullshit...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fact checker has been in error just to much for my taste.
Click to expand...

another subjective non sequitur.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how noting history is self-serving.
> 
> 
> 
> everything you post is self serving. you do for self aggrandizement not for the glory of gawd but to "get over"  all this ego must be compensation for other huge flaws ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have got to be kidding.
Click to expand...

 no just stating fact.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't prey on people I pray for people. I don't force my views on anyone I tell them what I do know and I try and get them to reason on the evidence that I have been exposed to. How can you accept your views as a fact in your own mind without putting it to the test ?
> 
> Remember, I was once on your side of the argument until I reasoned and put the theory to the test by reasoning on the evidence. It was no magical pastor that convinced me my beliefs on thetheory were wrong ,it was the Lord himself that exposed the lies and his word that did it for me. I just others will do the same and not let themselves to be lead down the wrong road.
> 
> 
> 
> (snicker) so you saying you acually saw and talked to god?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gods word reveals the foolishness of man in many ways.
Click to expand...

that's not an answer..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is there to be angry about ? you have the right to choose your own path to follow. The only thing that might anger me is your inability to dicuss things like an adult and insult people who clearly know more on the subject the thread is about.
> 
> 
> 
> subjective and false, you 've shown no more knowledge about "the subject" than any other poster ,
> mostly just subjective wishes and pseudoscience.
> "dicuss" things like an adult"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I have posted many things you people have no answer for. I destroyed your theory with the problems of mutation fixation that OI think went over you and your partners head. You had no explanation as to why natural selection removed superior traits that would have allowed humans to be better adapted. Do I really need to continue.
Click to expand...

ahh.no you have not, you as always the mistake of believing that what you post has any merit .
all of your challenges have been answered ,debunked and been found wanting.
as always in your one live brain cell of a mind you "think" (if it can be called that) that any un answered shit you spew is a victory.
nothing is further from the truth..
What you constantly and epically fail to grasp is that the TOE could be totally wrong but  
even if it was, that would be no proof your gawd fantasy is correct.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may seem important to the ones seeking supposed knowledge,however the creator didn't need a professor to teach him how to design with a purpose in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> you've topped yourself on meaninglessness with that one..
> two unprovable statements "creator and design with a purpose in mind"
> there is no proof of a sentient  creator so anything that the creator might have in it's mind is pure speculation..
> got to give you style points for vivid imagination!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the brain have a purpose daws ? How bout the lungs ? maybe the heart ? the sun ? the moon ? biological chemicals ? how bout red and white blood cells ? How bout Genes ?
> 
> Now try and B.S. your way out.
Click to expand...

since I never bs my way out of anything you might try not bullshiting your way out of this. : "creator and design with a purpose in mind"
there is no proof of a sentient  creator so anything that the creator might have in it's mind is pure speculation..


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe you.  No one "reasons" their way to believing in a god.  What I believe is that you are not telling the whole story.  People are weak so when something traumatic occurs in their life or in the life of someone close to them or just about any tragedy that happens can push some people to looking past what they find impossible to understand and look for justification in the "mysterious ways" of a god.
> 
> You were never like me.  You were obviously "on the fence" about it and something pushed you over to the "faith" excuse.
> 
> I have never believed in a god.  I had all the usual religious upbringing and found the bible laughable.  I saw people in church praying and saw that they did it because they were indoctirnated to do so.  Telling a child to put his or her hands together and kneel down, close their eyes and do what?  Nigga...please... You have been bleating your case on this thread thousands of times and you have moved the LOS no closer to the goal line.
> 
> It's simple...go have a heart to heart pow wow with your sky fairy and tell him/she/it that he will get lots of followers if it will just show up in person and stop treating human beings like idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you clearly lack logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gotta love the crazy Christians..  Up is down..Black is white.. Fantasy is logical..  Reason is nonsense.
> 
> Do you really think in all these thousands of posts that you have convinced anyone to believe in your make believe?
Click to expand...

 he does and that's truly scary.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still no education info. Typical wordy DODGE!
> 
> 
> 
> your obsessive complusive insistence that I have not is just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you silence persists. Still no admission of your lack of education.
Click to expand...

what persists is your dishonest slap dickery as you already know my educational credentials were posted long ago....


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your obsessive complusive insistence that I have not is just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you silence persists. Still no admission of your lack of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your asking for everyone's education is inappropriate. Please stop doing it. It's actually awkward to look at.
Click to expand...

not only that Ur has already seen my educational credentials as i said before :just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination


----------



## UltimateReality

PretentiousGuy said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure somewhere in this 700 page thread/novel this was already covered but in the event that you missed it... A scientific theory is a falsifiable hypothesis that explains a set of observations and has been rigorously scrutinised and tested. Evolution would fall under this category. However ID is considered something quite different, a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please enlighten me on how you have tested natural selection acting on a random mutation which results in an organism having increased fitness? I think the joke is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Mutation doesn't mean increased fitness; the mutation could have an adverse effect on the organism*
Click to expand...

 Strawman. I think a "no duh" would be in order here. That was not the argument. Evolution's claim is that natural selection acts on random mutations to bring about increased fitness or better survivability.





PretentiousGuy said:


> but through the process of natural selection those that are capable of surviving to reproduce are the organism.


 Yes. Please provide the modern day example, test, or experiment that shows this in action.



PretentiousGuy said:


> Taking 3 seconds to research would answer this question. You can test evolution with bacteria, fruit flies,  or any organism that goes through generations rapidly. On top of the fossil record that confirms the theory makes for a compelling case especially when compared to the "god dunnit" crowd.
> 
> Next time do a bit of research before next time you think of wasting my time with facile questions.



_"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."_ Amos Bronson Alcot

It is you who should do a bit of research my arrogant but wrong friend. NONE of the generational studies of fruit flies, Ecoli or any other organism have resulted in an additive mutation. All mutations involved the destruction of genetic code. And in the fruit fly example, the mutations resulted in deformities that made the organism less fit. Perhaps you should go back to my original request for an example and produce this mountain of research you are referring to for an actual experiment or test that reveals natural selection acting on a random mutation occurring in nature which provides the organism *increased *fitness.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you silence persists. Still no admission of your lack of education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your asking for everyone's education is inappropriate. Please stop doing it. It's actually awkward to look at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not only that Ur has already seen my educational credentials as i said before :just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination
Click to expand...


Again, still no education information. How many posts is that where Daws goes on and on but never answers the question?


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)Yes most things related to nature does possess a purpose. 2) Since the fall of man everything has been in a constant state of entropy. 3) Imperfections does not mean the designer is a bad designer 4) especially if it was a punishment to all men that sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)You assert this but do not back it up.
> 
> 2)Entropy has nothing to do with small pox or hiv/aids. So wtf are you talking about? Do you even know?
> 
> 3) They aren't imperfections they are viruses that if were designed by a mortal man they would be wanted for crimes against humanity. The issue isn't perfection/imperfection in that example the issue is the great malice shown in the supposed creation.
> 
> 4) Sins like existing, having fun, or seeking knowledge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair warning, this thread has been going on for over 10,000 posts and everything has been repeated hundreds of times.  Be prepared to be bored out of your mind.
Click to expand...


If you are so bored, why are you still here?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never see Hollie or Daws asking you for your educational credentials.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a great many things you choose not to see. Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only witness you constantly asking them, in huge pink bold lettering, for their credentials. *This is really annoying*, and is *inappropriate*, as it has nothing to do with the debate at hand. If you are simply trying to get back at them, then *stop acting so immature*. Get over it, and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh, you choose to remain in your blindness and your logic about the huge, pink fonts is a fail. You have chosen not to "see" Hollie's constant attack accusations that YWC and I lack education. If you had paid attention to the threads, you would see the huge pink fonts always follow her ad hominem attack accusations on someone regarding their level of education. The only thing anyone needs to get over here is your one sided blindness and prejudicial auto ignore mode. Also, your veiled ad hominem attacks (bolded) above don't go unnoticed. Maybe it is you who should grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do lack education. When you cut and paste from Harun Yahya,
Click to expand...


Wow, look at how vicious the angry Darwinists Zealot is getting. *I have NEVER cut and paste from Harun Yahya*. *You are a LIAR and a TROLL*. Show me one post where I cut and pasted from this website you have repeated the name of over 100 times.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> What religious people do not understand....besides EVERYTHING!
> 
> The average person's IQ is 100.  100 average people are not smarter than one person with an IQ of 110.  A thousand people with an IQ of 120 are not smarter than one person with an IQ 130.  A million people with an IQ of 130 are not smarter than one person with an IQ of 140. and so on.
> 
> My point is that more than half the population has an IQ of 100 or less.  These people are easily indoctrinated into whatever more's get them ahead or allow them access to any advantage in their lives which they need because they cannot compete on their own as successfully as the smarter people.
> 
> This is not an absolute rule but in general it holds water pretty well.
> 
> From my observation there are few if any dumb atheists.  There are a few people with IQs over 140 that devoutly believe in a god.  I would guess that* most if not all Atheists have an IQ over 100.*


  Well they certainly haven't made an appearance here. I have yet to encounter anyone that can posit their own logical rebuttal to any of the arguments that have been made.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your obsessive complusive insistence that I have not is just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you silence persists. Still no admission of your lack of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what persists is your dishonest slap dickery as you already know my educational credentials were posted long ago....
Click to expand...


Provide the link. Put up or shut up.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the brain have a purpose daws ? How bout the lungs ? maybe the heart ? the sun ? the moon ? biological chemicals ? how bout red and white blood cells ? How bout Genes ?
> 
> Now try and B.S. your way out.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure ill answer this question as well as ask a couple counter-questions later on. I may be alone in this as this is influenced by a nihilistic point of view (not a very popular position to hold) all of these things only have purpose if we them a purpose.
> 
> If designer had created everything with a purpose than what would be the purpose of small pox, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS?  What does it say about the aforementioned creator? So if we were accept this the door would swing both ways.
> 
> 
> Maybe I am giving you too much credit but it seems to me you are going after a crude watchmaker argument that the very complexity of creation shouts the need for a creator. This really fails considering the creator would necessarily have to be more complex than his creation so the creator would then need an even more complex designer. This spirals into an ugly infinite regress and other insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes most things related to nature does possess a purpose.
> everything has been in a constant state of entropy. Imperfections does not mean the designer is a bad designer especially if it was a punishment to all men that sin.
Click to expand...

another heaping steaming pile of subjective unprovable babble.  stacked high and deep by YWC.
1."Yes most things related to nature does possess a purpose."  ywc-
besides the bad grammer , what does realted to nature mean?
since nature encompasses everything,the statement presupposes (without proof)  that some things are not natural.
2."Since the fall of man" is also a subjective  unprovable statement .there is no evidence that man was ever in a "higher state" to fall from.

3."possess a purpose." is another presupposition and a logical fallacy.  

 4. "state of entropy" is only partially true statement, there is no evidence of causation by a sentient being.

5."Imperfections does not mean the designer is a bad designer especially if it was a punishment to all men that sin."

since there is no proof of a designer ,then the idea that imperfection as punishment is not only absured but stupid as well.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you silence persists. Still no admission of your lack of education.
> 
> 
> 
> what persists is your dishonest slap dickery as you already know my educational credentials were posted long ago....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide the link. Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

no, you know I'm right and if you are so hot to prove me wrong then why not do it yourself...? chickenshit ...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you clearly lack logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be the one to level this kind of comment when you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and all you have to do is look up each night at the starlight from stars that are billions of light-years away to know this is demonstrably false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't prove the age of the earth so how do you know I am wrong in my beliefs ?
Click to expand...

another asked and answerd rehash by ywc.
you're not wrong in your beliefs they're just not based on fact.
and that's were you're wrong .


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? Are you Hollie's minion now? What is inappropriate is for attackers to make claims about the lack of others' education while deliberately concealing their own lack of education. Have you appointed yourself the hypocritical Daws and hypocritical Hollie's defender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never see Hollie or Daws asking you for your educational credentials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a great many things you choose not to see. Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only witness you constantly asking them, in huge pink bold lettering, for their credentials. *This is really annoying*, and is *inappropriate*, as it has nothing to do with the debate at hand. If you are simply trying to get back at them, then *stop acting so immature*. Get over it, and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh, you choose to remain in your blindness and your logic about the huge, pink fonts is a fail. You have chosen not to "see" Hollie's constant attack accusations that YWC and I lack education. If you had paid attention to the threads, you would see the huge pink fonts always follow her ad hominem attack accusations on someone regarding their level of education. The only thing anyone needs to get over here is your one sided blindness and prejudicial auto ignore mode. Also, your veiled ad hominem attacks (bolded) above don't go unnoticed. Maybe it is you who should grow up.
Click to expand...



"Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again." ur-... nice dodge!
the truth is ur has never said if he graduated or not.
looking at what he has presented as as proof it does not seem likely.
it's also odd that a degreed credentialed mechanical engineer would give up a presumably lucrative career for a much less lucrative,dangerous and stressful stint in law enforcement ,then give that up or be "released from service" to sell industrial heating and air conditioning units only to spend many of his off hours on the net proselytizing religious nonsense and pseudoscience..just saying!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your asking for everyone's education is inappropriate. Please stop doing it. It's actually awkward to look at.
> 
> 
> 
> not only that Ur has already seen my educational credentials as i said before :just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, still no education information. How many posts is that where Daws goes on and on but never answers the question?
Click to expand...

that would be none since the question was answered long ago. just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.


----------



## Youwerecreated

PretentiousGuy said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure somewhere in this 700 page thread/novel this was already covered but in the event that you missed it... A scientific theory is a falsifiable hypothesis that explains a set of observations and has been rigorously scrutinised and tested. Evolution would fall under this category. However ID is considered something quite different, a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please enlighten me on how you have tested natural selection acting on a random mutation which results in an organism having increased fitness? I think the joke is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutation doesn't mean increased fitness; the mutation could have an adverse effect on the organism but through the process of natural selection those that are capable of surviving to reproduce are the organism.
> 
> Taking 3 seconds to research would answer this question. You can test evolution with bacteria, fruit flies,  or any organism that goes through generations rapidly. On top of the fossil record that confirms the theory makes for a compelling case especially when compared to the "god dunnit" crowd.
> 
> Next time do a bit of research before next time you think of wasting my time with facile questions.
Click to expand...


Mutations do produce fitness according to the theory or your theory of evolution is dead on arrival. Somehow you are of the crowd that believes that only neutral or beneficial mutations get passed on and we know by the numbers that this is not true. 6,000 genetic disorders and counting. How many beneficial mutations can you point out ? I am willing to bet just a few.

The mutation could have an adverse effect on the organism ? I know for a fact in most cases it has an adverse condition on the organism. I worked in a research lab for over 11 years studying mutations and cells. The majority of flies that showed any change at all were deformed and all flies suffered a shorter life span. The only flies that showed any kind of trait changes over a few generations those traits were lost and the flies reverted back to the origional traits.

I suggest you do some research before you call someone else out. Start with the conditions needed for mutation fixation. I pointed out nine conditions needed for mutation fixation to happen then how these conditions are impossible to be met. So let me suggest since you like Google to google mutation fixation and you will find several articles on it and why it is needed for evolution to happen.

There is nothing compelling about the theory unless you care for conjecture and vivid imaginations. Just about anything you can throw out there has been already dealt with within this thread. You can borrow your buddies copy and paste jobs because all you are doing is regurgitatiing what they have already pasted. Not meaning to be short but I don't like attitude from Ideologues.


----------



## Youwerecreated

PretentiousGuy said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)You assert this but do not back it up.
> 
> 2)Entropy has nothing to do with small pox or hiv/aids. So wtf are you talking about? Do you even know?
> 
> 3) They aren't imperfections they are viruses that if were designed by a mortal man they would be wanted for crimes against humanity. The issue isn't perfection/imperfection in that example the issue is the great malice shown in the supposed creation.
> 
> 4) Sins like existing, having fun, or seeking knowledge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair warning, this thread has been going on for over 10,000 posts and everything has been repeated hundreds of times.  Be prepared to be bored out of your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't heard a new argument from a creationist or theologian in a while but I do it just in case I can change a mind. To some it might seem like a Sisyphean task but if someone wouldn't have argued with me I would be quite a different person right now.
Click to expand...


I have not heard in argument from an evolutionist that I can't reduce to dribble.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> subjective and false, you 've shown no more knowledge about "the subject" than any other poster ,
> mostly just subjective wishes and pseudoscience.
> "dicuss" things like an adult"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I have posted many things you people have no answer for. I destroyed your theory with the problems of mutation fixation that OI think went over you and your partners head. You had no explanation as to why natural selection removed superior traits that would have allowed humans to be better adapted. Do I really need to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ahh.no you have not, you as always the mistake of believing that what you post has any merit .
> all of your challenges have been answered ,debunked and been found wanting.
> as always in your one live brain cell of a mind you "think" (if it can be called that) that any un answered shit you spew is a victory.
> nothing is further from the truth..
> What you constantly and epically fail to grasp is that the TOE could be totally wrong but
> even if it was, that would be no proof your gawd fantasy is correct.
Click to expand...


I have grown bored of your posts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you've topped yourself on meaninglessness with that one..
> two unprovable statements "creator and design with a purpose in mind"
> there is no proof of a sentient  creator so anything that the creator might have in it's mind is pure speculation..
> got to give you style points for vivid imagination!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the brain have a purpose daws ? How bout the lungs ? maybe the heart ? the sun ? the moon ? biological chemicals ? how bout red and white blood cells ? How bout Genes ?
> 
> Now try and B.S. your way out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since I never bs my way out of anything you might try not bullshiting your way out of this. : "creator and design with a purpose in mind"
> there is no proof of a sentient  creator so anything that the creator might have in it's mind is pure speculation..
Click to expand...


Only to the blind Daws.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your asking for everyone's education is inappropriate. Please stop doing it. It's actually awkward to look at.
> 
> 
> 
> not only that Ur has already seen my educational credentials as i said before :just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, still no education information. How many posts is that where Daws goes on and on but never answers the question?
Click to expand...


I believe he claimed to have taken classes in theatre that explains why he has to copy and paste so much and he does not understand many of his paste jobs never address the questions asked he is fun to have around sometimes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be the one to level this kind of comment when you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and all you have to do is look up each night at the starlight from stars that are billions of light-years away to know this is demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove the age of the earth so how do you know I am wrong in my beliefs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another asked and answerd rehash by ywc.
> you're not wrong in your beliefs they're just not based on fact.
> and that's were you're wrong .
Click to expand...


From now on I will no longer respond to your posts unless worthy of a response. I'm thinking we won't be debating much.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair warning, this thread has been going on for over 10,000 posts and everything has been repeated hundreds of times.  Be prepared to be bored out of your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't heard a new argument from a creationist or theologian in a while but I do it just in case I can change a mind. To some it might seem like a Sisyphean task but if someone wouldn't have argued with me I would be quite a different person right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not heard in argument from an evolutionist that I can't reduce to dribble.
Click to expand...


That's strange because you have never refuted the fact of evolution and have only countered science fact with silly claims to supernaturalism.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> What religious people do not understand....besides EVERYTHING!
> 
> The average person's IQ is 100.  100 average people are not smarter than one person with an IQ of 110.  A thousand people with an IQ of 120 are not smarter than one person with an IQ 130.  A million people with an IQ of 130 are not smarter than one person with an IQ of 140. and so on.
> 
> My point is that more than half the population has an IQ of 100 or less.  These people are easily indoctrinated into whatever more's get them ahead or allow them access to any advantage in their lives which they need because they cannot compete on their own as successfully as the smarter people.
> 
> This is not an absolute rule but in general it holds water pretty well.
> 
> From my observation there are few if any dumb atheists.  There are a few people with IQs over 140 that devoutly believe in a god.  I would guess that* most if not all Atheists have an IQ over 100.*
> 
> 
> 
> Well they certainly haven't made an appearance here. I have yet to encounter anyone that can posit their own logical rebuttal to any of the arguments that have been made.
Click to expand...


The goofy creationist arguments have been utterly trashed... repeatedly. That is why the fundies retreat into the nonsensical "the gawds did it", safe house.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please enlighten me on how you have tested natural selection acting on a random mutation which results in an organism having increased fitness? I think the joke is on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutation doesn't mean increased fitness; the mutation could have an adverse effect on the organism but through the process of natural selection those that are capable of surviving to reproduce are the organism.
> 
> Taking 3 seconds to research would answer this question. You can test evolution with bacteria, fruit flies,  or any organism that goes through generations rapidly. On top of the fossil record that confirms the theory makes for a compelling case especially when compared to the "god dunnit" crowd.
> 
> Next time do a bit of research before next time you think of wasting my time with facile questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations do produce fitness according to the theory or your theory of evolution is dead on arrival. Somehow you are of the crowd that believes that only neutral or beneficial mutations get passed on and we know by the numbers that this is not true. 6,000 genetic disorders and counting. How many beneficial mutations can you point out ? I am willing to bet just a few.
> 
> The mutation could have an adverse effect on the organism ? I know for a fact in most cases it has an adverse condition on the organism. I worked in a research lab for over 11 years studying mutations and cells. The majority of flies that showed any change at all were deformed and all flies suffered a shorter life span. The only flies that showed any kind of trait changes over a few generations those traits were lost and the flies reverted back to the origional traits.
> 
> I suggest you do some research before you call someone else out. Start with the conditions needed for mutation fixation. I pointed out nine conditions needed for mutation fixation to happen then how these conditions are impossible to be met. So let me suggest since you like Google to google mutation fixation and you will find several articles on it and why it is needed for evolution to happen.
> 
> There is nothing compelling about the theory unless you care for conjecture and vivid imaginations. Just about anything you can throw out there has been already dealt with within this thread. You can borrow your buddies copy and paste jobs because all you are doing is regurgitatiing what they have already pasted. Not meaning to be short but I don't like attitude from Ideologues.
Click to expand...


Did you happen to notice that in your continued attempt to replace science with supermagical gawds, you admitted that mutations do occur, thus confirming a component of evolution.

I'm afraid that your conspiracy theories involving global participants in science and academia have again been destroyed... by you.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you clearly lack logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be the one to level this kind of comment when you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and all you have to do is look up each night at the starlight from stars that are billions of light-years away to know this is demonstrably false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't prove the age of the earth so how do you know I am wrong in my beliefs ?
Click to expand...


I can prove it is a lot older than 6 thousand years. I mentioned how as well.  You must have not read what you yourself quoted... When the sun goes down, look up. Notice that you see stars. Stars which are known to be as far as 13 billion light years away. That means... 13 billion years old, at least, that this universe has been around. Granted, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants here, for the speed of light and the measurements to those stars, but these are all rigorous measurements, and I am right in using them. So, there you go. 6,000 years refuted.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is faith my friend!!! I'll say it again for the terminally slow among us, Darwin and Lyell both believed the key to the past was presently observable actions. We do not see complex and specifiable information spontaneously arising in nature. All presently observable digital code has an intelligent agent as its source. For now, that is the best explanation for the digitally-coded information we find in dna, not some as of yet randomly unseen magical process with 43 steps of "might haves" and "could haves" that are not even scientifically verifiable by experiments. Why does your logic not allow you to accept this? Back before the Big Bang Theory, when Einstein and other scientists believed the universe was eternal, panspermia was a considered a valid candidate as an explanation for abiogenesis. I guess the fact the earth is only 4.7 billion years old has thrown a monkey wrench in all the chance, necessity, and chance with necessity arguments posited so far. Your faith in a naturalistic process is more preposterous than my scientific inference that an intelligent agent of some type put the digitally coded information there, because I can look around in nature and observe the process occurring all around me right now. Darwin and Lyell would be proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're use of inductive reasoning to conclude that anything with a code or information must have been created by a mind is fallacious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice strawman, but this is not what is claimed. The claim is any digital code that is complex and has specificity has a intelligent agent as it's source. I challenge you to find a presently observable example of specifiable, complex digital information code arising by a naturalistic process or one that does not have an intelligent agent as its source.
> Wrong. This is a fallacious response. Meyer is using the very method that Darwin and Lyell espoused in evolutionary theory... i.e., the present is the key to the past. If Meyer's argument is fallacious, then so is Darwin's whole Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
> Huh? You need to rewrite this sentence so it is comprehensible.
> 
> Wrong. First, Quaternary code is more complex than binary code. Second, it is you that is using fallacious reasoning and induction. Do intelligent agents exist presently? Yes. What is the only source for specifiable, digital code that is presently being created. It is an intelligent agent. Until Darwinists come up with something better than chance and necessity for the specificity in the Complex DNA Code, then its source being an intelligent agent is currently the best explanation we have based on the physical evidence around us. It has nothing to do with religion, no matter how much you wish you could make it about faith. It isn't. It is about Darwin's and Lyell's scientific method for studying the historical sciences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we don't see life forms arise today is irrelevant,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong! Try to stay on topic. What you mean to say is we don't see life arising. "Life" hasn't arisen spontaneously on the planet for 4 billion years. Any organism "alive" today had it's life spark passed down from millions of generations ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> since conditions are different today than they were 4.5 billion years ago. We wouldn't expect such a thing. Conditions today are vastly different, and you know this, so I consider this sort of objection to be intellectually dishonest, or stupid, and I know you're not stupid, so try a little harder to be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice Ad Hominem attack but it won't change the serious shortcomings of your arguments above or the fact that their is not ONE VIABLE, TESTABLE, or even PROBABLE theory on Abiogenesis that can account for, not only the "self-replicating" properties of dna (dna does not self replicate by the way) by the complex molecular machines in the cell, but also even the origins of the *information itself* digitally coded into the molecule. There is a serious chicken and egg enigma at play here. *The very machines that copy and transcribe dna are assembled by the instructions contained in the digital code in dna that is being copied!!!!*
> 
> Game, set, match.
Click to expand...


I don't know how to quote posts as you do, so I can't respond in segments as you did, which I would need to do to properly address all the fallacies you just posted. 

Basically, you said I was using a strawman when I wasn't, in referring to using inductive reasoning to claim that a binary "digital" code must have an intelligent designer. Your argument is pretty much how I described, albeit a little more general, but give me a break.  It's the same concept that I already outlined in a syllogism previously. Again, here's your dishonesty coming into play.

1. DNA is a binary code
2. The only binary code we know of is made by intelligent minds
3. DNA is made by an intelligent mind

Is this pretty much your argument? I'm not logician, so forgive me if this would not be the exact syllogism, but its a ballpark figure. 

This is using straight induction to conclude that DNA MUST have an intelligent mind, because another completely unrelated code, digital code, is also binary and happens to be made by humans. Sorry, this is completely inadequate for concluding scientifically that therefore, DNA must ALSO be designed by intelligence. This is simply not true, and not sound or valid structurally. DNA and digital code are completely unrelated. One is used to program computers that humans have created, and one is used to program humans themselves. I don't see any other relation or any logical connectivity that would allow you or anyone to make such a logical leap.  There are other possibilities for DNA's existence, and that is natural abiogenesis, for which there are hypothesis which are very logical and entirely plausible. 

ID is not a scientific theory at all. Stop saying it is. It is an argument from ignorance, once again, and uses false inductive reasoning to make an unwarranted conclusion, and then mislabel this procress of reasoning as being "scientific." What a joke!


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? Are you Hollie's minion now? What is inappropriate is for attackers to make claims about the lack of others' education while deliberately concealing their own lack of education. Have you appointed yourself the hypocritical Daws and hypocritical Hollie's defender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never see Hollie or Daws asking you for your educational credentials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a great many things you choose not to see. Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only witness you constantly asking them, in huge pink bold lettering, for their credentials. *This is really annoying*, and is *inappropriate*, as it has nothing to do with the debate at hand. If you are simply trying to get back at them, then *stop acting so immature*. Get over it, and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh, you choose to remain in your blindness and your logic about the huge, pink fonts is a fail. You have chosen not to "see" Hollie's constant attack accusations that YWC and I lack education. If you had paid attention to the threads, you would see the huge pink fonts always follow her ad hominem attack accusations on someone regarding their level of education. The only thing anyone needs to get over here is your one sided blindness and prejudicial auto ignore mode. Also, your veiled ad hominem attacks (bolded) above don't go unnoticed. Maybe it is you who should grow up.
Click to expand...



First of all, this wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, so stop over-using this term. A personal attack is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack, unless that attack is used as a debate tactic, used to distract from the actual arguments.  I am not trying to distract from the debate, but commenting on your behavior which itself, was an ad hominem attack. You don't just get to throw around "ad hominem" attack everytime someone insults you.  That's such a cop out. Funny that you accuse me of an ad hominem when asking for education credentials would be the epitome of an ad hominem debate tactic. Their credentials have nothing to do with their arguments, and the same goes for them asking for your credentials. You didn't have to give it to them. 

I see you insulting Daws and Hollie all the time, so don't cry "ad hominem." Also, I don't spend as much time here as some others, so I simply wasn't here when Daws or Hollie asked for your education credentials. I am not defending them, I am only commenting on what I see when I come here. Stop trying to make it seem like I am only picking on you because I disagree with you. That is not the case. You are the only one I see doing it. Life is unfair sometimes.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're use of inductive reasoning to conclude that anything with a code or information must have been created by a mind is fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice strawman, but this is not what is claimed. The claim is any digital code that is complex and has specificity has a intelligent agent as it's source. I challenge you to find a presently observable example of specifiable, complex digital information code arising by a naturalistic process or one that does not have an intelligent agent as its source.
> Wrong. This is a fallacious response. Meyer is using the very method that Darwin and Lyell espoused in evolutionary theory... i.e., the present is the key to the past. If Meyer's argument is fallacious, then so is Darwin's whole Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
> Huh? You need to rewrite this sentence so it is comprehensible.
> 
> Wrong. First, Quaternary code is more complex than binary code. Second, it is you that is using fallacious reasoning and induction. Do intelligent agents exist presently? Yes. What is the only source for specifiable, digital code that is presently being created. It is an intelligent agent. Until Darwinists come up with something better than chance and necessity for the specificity in the Complex DNA Code, then its source being an intelligent agent is currently the best explanation we have based on the physical evidence around us. It has nothing to do with religion, no matter how much you wish you could make it about faith. It isn't. It is about Darwin's and Lyell's scientific method for studying the historical sciences.
> 
> 
> Wrong! Try to stay on topic. What you mean to say is we don't see life arising. "Life" hasn't arisen spontaneously on the planet for 4 billion years. Any organism "alive" today had it's life spark passed down from millions of generations ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> since conditions are different today than they were 4.5 billion years ago. We wouldn't expect such a thing. Conditions today are vastly different, and you know this, so I consider this sort of objection to be intellectually dishonest, or stupid, and I know you're not stupid, so try a little harder to be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice Ad Hominem attack but it won't change the serious shortcomings of your arguments above or the fact that their is not ONE VIABLE, TESTABLE, or even PROBABLE theory on Abiogenesis that can account for, not only the "self-replicating" properties of dna (dna does not self replicate by the way) by the complex molecular machines in the cell, but also even the origins of the *information itself* digitally coded into the molecule. There is a serious chicken and egg enigma at play here. *The very machines that copy and transcribe dna are assembled by the instructions contained in the digital code in dna that is being copied!!!!*
> 
> Game, set, match.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how to quote posts as you do, so I can't respond in segments as you did, which I would need to do to properly address all the fallacies you just posted.
> 
> Basically, you said I was using a strawman when I wasn't, in referring to using inductive reasoning to claim that a binary "digital" code must have an intelligent designer. Your argument is pretty much how I described, albeit a little more general, but give me a break.  It's the same concept that I already outlined in a syllogism previously. Again, here's your dishonesty coming into play.
> 
> 1. DNA is a binary code
> 2. The only binary code we know of is made by intelligent minds
> 3. DNA is made by an intelligent mind
> 
> Is this pretty much your argument? I'm not logician, so forgive me if this would not be the exact syllogism, but its a ballpark figure.
> 
> This is using straight induction to conclude that DNA MUST have an intelligent mind, because another completely unrelated code, digital code, is also binary and happens to be made by humans. Sorry, this is completely inadequate for concluding scientifically that therefore, DNA must ALSO be designed by intelligence. This is simply not true, and not sound or valid structurally. DNA and digital code are completely unrelated. One is used to program computers that humans have created, and one is used to program humans themselves. I don't see any other relation or any logical connectivity that would allow you or anyone to make such a logical leap.  There are other possibilities for DNA's existence, and that is natural abiogenesis, for which there are hypothesis which are very logical and entirely plausible.
> 
> ID is not a scientific theory at all. Stop saying it is. It is an argument from ignorance, once again, and uses false inductive reasoning to make an unwarranted conclusion, and then mislabel this procress of reasoning as being "scientific." What a joke!
Click to expand...


No, you still haven't grasped the theory. Meyer's theory uses the exact same scientific method Darwin and Lyell used so for you to question its validity is for you to deny you very own theory of evolution. Since in several posts you haven't comprehended the salient points of the theory, I would encourage you to get the book and read it if you want to continue the discussion. Short of you doing that, it is pointless for you to debate something you know nothing about. 

To segment posts, add "[QU..TE]" before your comment and then when you are done commenting, add the VERY first bracketed term "





			
				Newp... said:
			
		

> " by copying and pasting it each time. HINT: you could have figured this out on your own every time you quote me by looking to see what I was inserting to segment the post. That is how I figured it out.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never see Hollie or Daws asking you for your educational credentials.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a great many things you choose not to see. Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only witness you constantly asking them, in huge pink bold lettering, for their credentials. *This is really annoying*, and is *inappropriate*, as it has nothing to do with the debate at hand. If you are simply trying to get back at them, then *stop acting so immature*. Get over it, and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh, you choose to remain in your blindness and your logic about the huge, pink fonts is a fail. You have chosen not to "see" Hollie's constant attack accusations that YWC and I lack education. If you had paid attention to the threads, you would see the huge pink fonts always follow her ad hominem attack accusations on someone regarding their level of education. The only thing anyone needs to get over here is your one sided blindness and prejudicial auto ignore mode. Also, your veiled ad hominem attacks (bolded) above don't go unnoticed. Maybe it is you who should grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, this wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, so stop over-using this term. A personal attack is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack, unless that attack is used as a debate tactic, used to distract from the actual arguments.  I am not trying to distract from the debate, but commenting on your behavior which itself, was an ad hominem attack. You don't just get to throw around "ad hominem" attack everytime someone insults you.  That's such a cop out. Funny that you accuse me of an ad hominem when asking for education credentials would be the epitome of an ad hominem debate tactic. Their credentials have nothing to do with their arguments, and the same goes for them asking for your credentials. You didn't have to give it to them.
> 
> I see you insulting Daws and Hollie all the time, so don't cry "ad hominem." Also, I don't spend as much time here as some others, so I simply wasn't here when Daws or Hollie asked for your education credentials. I am not defending them, I am only commenting on what I see when I come here. Stop trying to make it seem like *I am only picking on you because I disagree with you.*
Click to expand...

 Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now. 





newpolitics said:


> That is not the case. You are the only one I see doing it. Life is unfair sometimes.



You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.


----------



## UltimateReality

_Nagel is not afraid to take unpopular positions, and he does not seem to mind the obloquy that goes with that territory. "In the present climate of a dominant scientific naturalism," he writes, "heavily dependent on speculative Darwinian explanations of practically everything, and armed to the teeth against attacks from religion, I have thought it useful to speculate about possible alternatives. Above all, I would like to extend the boundaries of what is not regarded as unthinkable, in light of how little we really understand about the world." Nagel has endorsed the negative conclusions of the much-maligned Intelligent Design movement, and he has defended it from the charge that it is inherently unscientific. In 2009 he even went so far as to recommend Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, a flagship declaration of Intelligent Design, as a book of the year. For that piece of blasphemy Nagel paid the predictable price; he was said to be arrogant, dangerous to children, a disgrace, hypocritical, ignorant, mind-polluting, reprehensible, stupid, unscientific, and in general a less than wholly upstanding citizen of the republic of letters.

His new book will probably call forth similar denunciations: *except for atheism, Nagel rejects nearly every contention of materialist naturalism.* Mind and Cosmos rejects, first, *the claim that life has come to be just by the workings of the laws of physics and chemistry.** As Nagel points out, this is extremely improbable, at least given current evidence: no one has suggested any reasonably plausible process whereby this could have happened.* As Nagel remarks, "It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis."
_

In <em>The New Republic</em>, Plantinga on Nagel (and Stephen Meyer) - Evolution News & Views


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a great many things you choose not to see. Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again.  Ahhh, you choose to remain in your blindness and your logic about the huge, pink fonts is a fail. You have chosen not to "see" Hollie's constant attack accusations that YWC and I lack education. If you had paid attention to the threads, you would see the huge pink fonts always follow her ad hominem attack accusations on someone regarding their level of education. The only thing anyone needs to get over here is your one sided blindness and prejudicial auto ignore mode. Also, your veiled ad hominem attacks (bolded) above don't go unnoticed. Maybe it is you who should grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, this wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, so stop over-using this term. A personal attack is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack, unless that attack is used as a debate tactic, used to distract from the actual arguments.  I am not trying to distract from the debate, but commenting on your behavior which itself, was an ad hominem attack. You don't just get to throw around "ad hominem" attack everytime someone insults you.  That's such a cop out. Funny that you accuse me of an ad hominem when asking for education credentials would be the epitome of an ad hominem debate tactic. Their credentials have nothing to do with their arguments, and the same goes for them asking for your credentials. You didn't have to give it to them.
> 
> I see you insulting Daws and Hollie all the time, so don't cry "ad hominem." Also, I don't spend as much time here as some others, so I simply wasn't here when Daws or Hollie asked for your education credentials. I am not defending them, I am only commenting on what I see when I come here. Stop trying to make it seem like *I am only picking on you because I disagree with you.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the case. You are the only one I see doing it. Life is unfair sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.
Click to expand...


-I am not an arbiter here, and I never claimed I was, so I am not sure why you are holding me to this standard. You would have to pay me to do this, and would imply that I can not have a position on either side. I am engaged in this debate, so can not be an arbiter. 

-I don't care for your reasons in asking for credentials. You are missing the point. I just care about the fact that I have to look at huge bold pink lettering, which is being used to get some non-related information to the discussion, and that this is a completely self-involved act that has nothing to do with anybody else. That is why it is annoying. Send them a message if you must, but unless someone is stating expertise and using an argument from authority, I don't see how this information is ever pertinent.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> _Nagel is not afraid to take unpopular positions, and he does not seem to mind the obloquy that goes with that territory. "In the present climate of a dominant scientific naturalism," he writes, "heavily dependent on speculative Darwinian explanations of practically everything, and armed to the teeth against attacks from religion, I have thought it useful to speculate about possible alternatives. Above all, I would like to extend the boundaries of what is not regarded as unthinkable, in light of how little we really understand about the world." Nagel has endorsed the negative conclusions of the much-maligned Intelligent Design movement, and he has defended it from the charge that it is inherently unscientific. In 2009 he even went so far as to recommend Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, a flagship declaration of Intelligent Design, as a book of the year. For that piece of blasphemy Nagel paid the predictable price; he was said to be arrogant, dangerous to children, a disgrace, hypocritical, ignorant, mind-polluting, reprehensible, stupid, unscientific, and in general a less than wholly upstanding citizen of the republic of letters.
> 
> His new book will probably call forth similar denunciations: *except for atheism, Nagel rejects nearly every contention of materialist naturalism.* Mind and Cosmos rejects, first, *the claim that life has come to be just by the workings of the laws of physics and chemistry.** As Nagel points out, this is extremely improbable, at least given current evidence: no one has suggested any reasonably plausible process whereby this could have happened.* As Nagel remarks, "It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis."
> _
> 
> In <em>The New Republic</em>, Plantinga on Nagel (and Stephen Meyer) - Evolution News & Views



Argument from popularity. What's your point here? Just because a smart person agrees with this theory, doesn't give it any more credibility.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice strawman, but this is not what is claimed. The claim is any digital code that is complex and has specificity has a intelligent agent as it's source. I challenge you to find a presently observable example of specifiable, complex digital information code arising by a naturalistic process or one that does not have an intelligent agent as its source.
> Wrong. This is a fallacious response. Meyer is using the very method that Darwin and Lyell espoused in evolutionary theory... i.e., the present is the key to the past. If Meyer's argument is fallacious, then so is Darwin's whole Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
> Huh? You need to rewrite this sentence so it is comprehensible.
> 
> Wrong. First, Quaternary code is more complex than binary code. Second, it is you that is using fallacious reasoning and induction. Do intelligent agents exist presently? Yes. What is the only source for specifiable, digital code that is presently being created. It is an intelligent agent. Until Darwinists come up with something better than chance and necessity for the specificity in the Complex DNA Code, then its source being an intelligent agent is currently the best explanation we have based on the physical evidence around us. It has nothing to do with religion, no matter how much you wish you could make it about faith. It isn't. It is about Darwin's and Lyell's scientific method for studying the historical sciences.
> 
> 
> Wrong! Try to stay on topic. What you mean to say is we don't see life arising. "Life" hasn't arisen spontaneously on the planet for 4 billion years. Any organism "alive" today had it's life spark passed down from millions of generations ago.   Nice Ad Hominem attack but it won't change the serious shortcomings of your arguments above or the fact that their is not ONE VIABLE, TESTABLE, or even PROBABLE theory on Abiogenesis that can account for, not only the "self-replicating" properties of dna (dna does not self replicate by the way) by the complex molecular machines in the cell, but also even the origins of the *information itself* digitally coded into the molecule. There is a serious chicken and egg enigma at play here. *The very machines that copy and transcribe dna are assembled by the instructions contained in the digital code in dna that is being copied!!!!*
> 
> Game, set, match.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how to quote posts as you do, so I can't respond in segments as you did, which I would need to do to properly address all the fallacies you just posted.
> 
> Basically, you said I was using a strawman when I wasn't, in referring to using inductive reasoning to claim that a binary "digital" code must have an intelligent designer. Your argument is pretty much how I described, albeit a little more general, but give me a break.  It's the same concept that I already outlined in a syllogism previously. Again, here's your dishonesty coming into play.
> 
> 1. DNA is a binary code
> 2. The only binary code we know of is made by intelligent minds
> 3. DNA is made by an intelligent mind
> 
> Is this pretty much your argument? I'm not logician, so forgive me if this would not be the exact syllogism, but its a ballpark figure.
> 
> This is using straight induction to conclude that DNA MUST have an intelligent mind, because another completely unrelated code, digital code, is also binary and happens to be made by humans. Sorry, this is completely inadequate for concluding scientifically that therefore, DNA must ALSO be designed by intelligence. This is simply not true, and not sound or valid structurally. DNA and digital code are completely unrelated. One is used to program computers that humans have created, and one is used to program humans themselves. I don't see any other relation or any logical connectivity that would allow you or anyone to make such a logical leap.  There are other possibilities for DNA's existence, and that is natural abiogenesis, for which there are hypothesis which are very logical and entirely plausible.
> 
> ID is not a scientific theory at all. Stop saying it is. It is an argument from ignorance, once again, and uses false inductive reasoning to make an unwarranted conclusion, and then mislabel this procress of reasoning as being "scientific." What a joke!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you still haven't grasped the theory. Meyer's theory uses the exact same scientific method Darwin and Lyell used so for you to question its validity is for you to deny you very own theory of evolution. Since in several posts you haven't comprehended the salient points of the theory, I would encourage you to get the book and read it if you want to continue the discussion. Short of you doing that, it is pointless for you to debate something you know nothing about.
> 
> To segment posts, add "[QU..TE]" before your comment and then when you are done commenting, add the VERY first bracketed term "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newp... said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " by copying and pasting it each time. HINT: you could have figured this out on your own every time you quote me by looking to see what I was inserting to segment the post. That is how I figured it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the tip...
> 
> 
> Meyer's theory does not use the scientific method. His methods of assessment may be scientific, in studying cells or in assessing the universe, but where he is drawing his conclusions from, makes his method unscientific. He draws conclusions from incredulity and induction, not deduction. He has no direct evidence for his claims, and simply says "I can't imagine how this could have happened naturally, so, there must be an intelligent designer. Oh, and, we have proof of other binary codes being made by intelligent minds, so this is further proof."
> 
> ... That's not proof, evidence, or science. This is just personal incredulity and a lack of imagination.
> 
> Tell me what I am missing UR. I realize this is a very basic overview, but no amount of detail will change what ID is at its base. It is an argument from argument/personal incredulity, once again. There is no point at which enough information will make this not an argument from ignorance. It always will be, because there is no direct evidence for an intelligent designer. If there was, this wouldn't be a debate.
> 
> You're telling me I don't understand ID, yet, here it is, in all its glory:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
> 
> Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed. (www.intelligentdesign.org)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is laughable, and coming from the mouth of the intelligent design movement, so don't tell me I don't know understand Intelligent Design. This proves my argument. I don't care that the information is specified or complex. It DOESN'T MATTER. That doesn't give you the right to simply conclude, based on similarities with digital binary code, that they are created in the same way. That's absurd thinking. Also, irreducible complexity is a term made up by creationists and adopted here. It holds no water scientifically. The eye is not irreducibly complex, and shown by Dawkins thirty years ago, and neither is anything else. Besides, even if we perceived things to be irreducibly complex, that doesn't mean you can simply conclude intelligence. This is still an argument from ignorance. None of this is proof of an intelligent designer. It is a subjective incredulity to a naturalistic explanation.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice strawman, but this is not what is claimed. The claim is any digital code that is complex and has specificity has a intelligent agent as it's source. I challenge you to find a presently observable example of specifiable, complex digital information code arising by a naturalistic process or one that does not have an intelligent agent as its source.
> Wrong. This is a fallacious response. Meyer is using the very method that Darwin and Lyell espoused in evolutionary theory... i.e., the present is the key to the past. If Meyer's argument is fallacious, then so is Darwin's whole Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
> Huh? You need to rewrite this sentence so it is comprehensible.
> 
> Wrong. First, Quaternary code is more complex than binary code. Second, it is you that is using fallacious reasoning and induction. Do intelligent agents exist presently? Yes. What is the only source for specifiable, digital code that is presently being created. It is an intelligent agent. Until Darwinists come up with something better than chance and necessity for the specificity in the Complex DNA Code, then its source being an intelligent agent is currently the best explanation we have based on the physical evidence around us. It has nothing to do with religion, no matter how much you wish you could make it about faith. It isn't. It is about Darwin's and Lyell's scientific method for studying the historical sciences.
> 
> 
> Wrong! Try to stay on topic. What you mean to say is we don't see life arising. "Life" hasn't arisen spontaneously on the planet for 4 billion years. Any organism "alive" today had it's life spark passed down from millions of generations ago.   Nice Ad Hominem attack but it won't change the serious shortcomings of your arguments above or the fact that their is not ONE VIABLE, TESTABLE, or even PROBABLE theory on Abiogenesis that can account for, not only the "self-replicating" properties of dna (dna does not self replicate by the way) by the complex molecular machines in the cell, but also even the origins of the *information itself* digitally coded into the molecule. There is a serious chicken and egg enigma at play here. *The very machines that copy and transcribe dna are assembled by the instructions contained in the digital code in dna that is being copied!!!!*
> 
> Game, set, match.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how to quote posts as you do, so I can't respond in segments as you did, which I would need to do to properly address all the fallacies you just posted.
> 
> Basically, you said I was using a strawman when I wasn't, in referring to using inductive reasoning to claim that a binary "digital" code must have an intelligent designer. Your argument is pretty much how I described, albeit a little more general, but give me a break.  It's the same concept that I already outlined in a syllogism previously. Again, here's your dishonesty coming into play.
> 
> 1. DNA is a binary code
> 2. The only binary code we know of is made by intelligent minds
> 3. DNA is made by an intelligent mind
> 
> Is this pretty much your argument? I'm not logician, so forgive me if this would not be the exact syllogism, but its a ballpark figure.
> 
> This is using straight induction to conclude that DNA MUST have an intelligent mind, because another completely unrelated code, digital code, is also binary and happens to be made by humans. Sorry, this is completely inadequate for concluding scientifically that therefore, DNA must ALSO be designed by intelligence. This is simply not true, and not sound or valid structurally. DNA and digital code are completely unrelated. One is used to program computers that humans have created, and one is used to program humans themselves. I don't see any other relation or any logical connectivity that would allow you or anyone to make such a logical leap.  There are other possibilities for DNA's existence, and that is natural abiogenesis, for which there are hypothesis which are very logical and entirely plausible.
> 
> ID is not a scientific theory at all. Stop saying it is. It is an argument from ignorance, once again, and uses false inductive reasoning to make an unwarranted conclusion, and then mislabel this procress of reasoning as being "scientific." What a joke!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you still haven't grasped the theory. Meyer's theory uses the exact same scientific method Darwin and Lyell used so for you to question its validity is for you to deny you very own theory of evolution. Since in several posts you haven't comprehended the salient points of the theory, I would encourage you to get the book and read it if you want to continue the discussion. Short of you doing that, it is pointless for you to debate something you know nothing about.
> 
> To segment posts, add "[QU..TE]" before your comment and then when you are done commenting, add the VERY first bracketed term "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newp... said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " by copying and pasting it each time. HINT: you could have figured this out on your own every time you quote me by looking to see what I was inserting to segment the post. That is how I figured it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What nonsense. Meyer simply and carelessly steals from Behe and supplements that nonsensical drivel with the classic "god of the gods" fallacy.
> 
> No one expects you to be honest but let's remember that Meyer represents a Christian creationist ministry: the Disco' tute.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a great many things you choose not to see. Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again.  Ahhh, you choose to remain in your blindness and your logic about the huge, pink fonts is a fail. You have chosen not to "see" Hollie's constant attack accusations that YWC and I lack education. If you had paid attention to the threads, you would see the huge pink fonts always follow her ad hominem attack accusations on someone regarding their level of education. The only thing anyone needs to get over here is your one sided blindness and prejudicial auto ignore mode. Also, your veiled ad hominem attacks (bolded) above don't go unnoticed. Maybe it is you who should grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, this wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, so stop over-using this term. A personal attack is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack, unless that attack is used as a debate tactic, used to distract from the actual arguments.  I am not trying to distract from the debate, but commenting on your behavior which itself, was an ad hominem attack. You don't just get to throw around "ad hominem" attack everytime someone insults you.  That's such a cop out. Funny that you accuse me of an ad hominem when asking for education credentials would be the epitome of an ad hominem debate tactic. Their credentials have nothing to do with their arguments, and the same goes for them asking for your credentials. You didn't have to give it to them.
> 
> I see you insulting Daws and Hollie all the time, so don't cry "ad hominem." Also, I don't spend as much time here as some others, so I simply wasn't here when Daws or Hollie asked for your education credentials. I am not defending them, I am only commenting on what I see when I come here. Stop trying to make it seem like *I am only picking on you because I disagree with you.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the case. You are the only one I see doing it. Life is unfair sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.
Click to expand...


Here again, we see the fundie has a stalkers' obsession with me. I'm afraid the fundie is hoping to compensate for his own lack of education and inability to come to terms with his own failings. 

Come on fundie, let's see more of your posting in gargantuan fonts, trying desperately to pry personal information to placate your lurid obsession. 

And while you're lecturing people on "logic", please tell us how logic is used to delineate your supernatural world of gawds and demons.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again it's  not assuming, simply because your individual tale of woe  falls into  well worn patterns of behavior.
> you're not nearly as seperate as you wish you were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to dissappoint you but your assumption is still incorrect.
> 
> I have no tales of woe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if that's the case then you've been lying and have always been a creationist slapdick...
Click to expand...


Insults is all you people have.


I pity you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't heard a new argument from a creationist or theologian in a while but I do it just in case I can change a mind. To some it might seem like a Sisyphean task but if someone wouldn't have argued with me I would be quite a different person right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not heard in argument from an evolutionist that I can't reduce to dribble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's strange because you have never refuted the fact of evolution and have only countered science fact with silly claims to supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


Hollow you have yet to present an argument pertaining to the theory that has not been refuted,who are you kidding.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutation doesn't mean increased fitness; the mutation could have an adverse effect on the organism but through the process of natural selection those that are capable of surviving to reproduce are the organism.
> 
> Taking 3 seconds to research would answer this question. You can test evolution with bacteria, fruit flies,  or any organism that goes through generations rapidly. On top of the fossil record that confirms the theory makes for a compelling case especially when compared to the "god dunnit" crowd.
> 
> Next time do a bit of research before next time you think of wasting my time with facile questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations do produce fitness according to the theory or your theory of evolution is dead on arrival. Somehow you are of the crowd that believes that only neutral or beneficial mutations get passed on and we know by the numbers that this is not true. 6,000 genetic disorders and counting. How many beneficial mutations can you point out ? I am willing to bet just a few.
> 
> The mutation could have an adverse effect on the organism ? I know for a fact in most cases it has an adverse condition on the organism. I worked in a research lab for over 11 years studying mutations and cells. The majority of flies that showed any change at all were deformed and all flies suffered a shorter life span. The only flies that showed any kind of trait changes over a few generations those traits were lost and the flies reverted back to the origional traits.
> 
> I suggest you do some research before you call someone else out. Start with the conditions needed for mutation fixation. I pointed out nine conditions needed for mutation fixation to happen then how these conditions are impossible to be met. So let me suggest since you like Google to google mutation fixation and you will find several articles on it and why it is needed for evolution to happen.
> 
> There is nothing compelling about the theory unless you care for conjecture and vivid imaginations. Just about anything you can throw out there has been already dealt with within this thread. You can borrow your buddies copy and paste jobs because all you are doing is regurgitatiing what they have already pasted. Not meaning to be short but I don't like attitude from Ideologues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you happen to notice that in your continued attempt to replace science with supermagical gawds, you admitted that mutations do occur, thus confirming a component of evolution.
> 
> I'm afraid that your conspiracy theories involving global participants in science and academia have again been destroyed... by you.
Click to expand...

You have failed in understanding the true effects come from mutations. Mutations are copying errors,tell me things are not better adapted because copying errors in the DNA ?  When you make errors while writing an essay do you leave the mistakes or correct the mistakes ? Will your essay be better if you allow the mistakes to remain ?  I would like to know how things get more fit through mistakes that does not defy logic.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be the one to level this kind of comment when you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and all you have to do is look up each night at the starlight from stars that are billions of light-years away to know this is demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove the age of the earth so how do you know I am wrong in my beliefs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can prove it is a lot older than 6 thousand years. I mentioned how as well.  You must have not read what you yourself quoted... When the sun goes down, look up. Notice that you see stars. Stars which are known to be as far as 13 billion light years away. That means... 13 billion years old, at least, that this universe has been around. Granted, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants here, for the speed of light and the measurements to those stars, but these are all rigorous measurements, and I am right in using them. So, there you go. 6,000 years refuted.
Click to expand...


make my day then I will point out the flaws with your methods.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove the age of the earth so how do you know I am wrong in my beliefs ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can prove it is a lot older than 6 thousand years. I mentioned how as well.  You must have not read what you yourself quoted... When the sun goes down, look up. Notice that you see stars. Stars which are known to be as far as 13 billion light years away. That means... 13 billion years old, at least, that this universe has been around. Granted, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants here, for the speed of light and the measurements to those stars, but these are all rigorous measurements, and I am right in using them. So, there you go. 6,000 years refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> make my day then I will point out the flaws with your methods.
Click to expand...


No, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can prove it is a lot older than 6 thousand years. I mentioned how as well.  You must have not read what you yourself quoted... When the sun goes down, look up. Notice that you see stars. Stars which are known to be as far as 13 billion light years away. That means... 13 billion years old, at least, that this universe has been around. Granted, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants here, for the speed of light and the measurements to those stars, but these are all rigorous measurements, and I am right in using them. So, there you go. 6,000 years refuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> make my day then I will point out the flaws with your methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?
Click to expand...


Light year is a measure of distance. not a measure of time.


----------



## newpolitics

lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> make my day then i will point out the flaws with your methods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> light year is a measure of distance. Not a measure of time.
Click to expand...


No way!! 

Thank you, Captain Obvious.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> light year is a measure of distance. Not a measure of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No way!!
> 
> Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Click to expand...


It must not have been that obvious to you since you made this statement. 

Stars which are known to be as far as* 13 billion light years away*. *That means... 13 billion years old*.....


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> light year is a measure of distance. Not a measure of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way!!
> 
> Thank you, Captain Obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It must not have been that obvious to you since you made this statement.
> 
> Stars which are known to be as far as* 13 billion light years away*. *That means... 13 billion years old*.....
Click to expand...


... making young earth creationism demonstrably false, which was my point, which I already stated. Why did you feel the need to say this and how do you think you are refuting my position? You have aided it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No way!!
> 
> Thank you, Captain Obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must not have been that obvious to you since you made this statement.
> 
> Stars which are known to be as far as* 13 billion light years away*. *That means... 13 billion years old*.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... making young earth creationism demonstrably false, which was my point, which I already stated. Why did you feel the need to say this and how do you think you are refuting my position? You have aided it.
Click to expand...


I haven't seen anyone on here claiming the earth was young. That's a strawman that your side created.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not heard in argument from an evolutionist that I can't reduce to dribble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's strange because you have never refuted the fact of evolution and have only countered science fact with silly claims to supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollow you have yet to present an argument pertaining to the theory that has not been refuted,who are you kidding.
Click to expand...


Goofy name-caller, your claim in nonsense. Your refusal to accept established science that confirms the theory of evolution is a function of your religious indoctrination and your own limited imagination. Your appeals to magical gawds is an untenable position. 

You are free to promote whatever conspiracy theories you wish and you can cut and paste from Harun Yahya as you choose, but your lies and falsehoods have been refuted many times in this thread.


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must not have been that obvious to you since you made this statement.
> 
> Stars which are known to be as far as* 13 billion light years away*. *That means... 13 billion years old*.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... making young earth creationism demonstrably false, which was my point, which I already stated. Why did you feel the need to say this and how do you think you are refuting my position? You have aided it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anyone on here claiming the earth was young. That's a strawman that your side created.
Click to expand...




Youwerecreated is a young earther on this thread, who believes the earth is no older than 10,000 years old. There are many others, like him, who have added up the ages of the people in the bible and deduced the aged of the earth this way. It is called Young-Earth Creationism. How have you not heard of this? Are you joking with me right now? You've got to be trolling.

Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Watch this video from the master imbecile on YEC:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tbRzV8Ti0Q]Creation Today: More Evidence of a Young Earth - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## HUGGY

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> light year is a measure of distance. Not a measure of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way!!
> 
> Thank you, Captain Obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It must not have been that obvious to you since you made this statement.
> 
> Stars which are known to be as far as* 13 billion light years away*. *That means... 13 billion years old*.....
Click to expand...


You are kinda dense Texas.  They were 13 billion years old when we first viewed them.  They or their remains are twice that old now.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must not have been that obvious to you since you made this statement.
> 
> Stars which are known to be as far as* 13 billion light years away*. *That means... 13 billion years old*.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... making young earth creationism demonstrably false, which was my point, which I already stated. Why did you feel the need to say this and how do you think you are refuting my position? You have aided it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anyone on here claiming the earth was young. That's a strawman that your side created.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you're writing about. Youwerecreated is a YEC'ist who believes in a literal rendering of the Genesis fable, the Noah fable and a literal bible.


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... making young earth creationism demonstrably false, which was my point, which I already stated. Why did you feel the need to say this and how do you think you are refuting my position? You have aided it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anyone on here claiming the earth was young. That's a strawman that your side created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you haven't seen or heard of other christians claiming the earth is young, then you don't know too much about other christians.
> 
> Youwerecreated is a young earther on this thread, who believes the earth is no older than 10,000 years old. There are many others, like him, who have added up the ages of the people in the bible and deduced the aged of the earth this way. It is called Young-Earth Creationism. How have you not heard of this? Are you joking with me right now? You've got to be trolling.
> 
> Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tbRzV8Ti0Q]Creation Today: More Evidence of a Young Earth - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> This is not a strawman, and not something my side created, evidenced above.
Click to expand...


I was looking for an earlier post with some idiot in a white lab coat (I suppose an effort to exert credibility) who rattled on about literal belief in biblical tales and fables.


----------



## newpolitics

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1msS71xL00]Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube[/ame]

Found it. Don't get sucked in Lonestar.


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> light year is a measure of distance. Not a measure of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No way!!
> 
> Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Click to expand...


I suppose in the Christian creationist mindset, _miles per hour_ or distance over time is computed differently than in the non-Christian world. 

Good gawd these people are scary.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> Found it. Don't get sucked in Lonestar.



So?

My statement stands.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> light year is a measure of distance. Not a measure of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way!!
> 
> Thank you, Captain Obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose in the Christian creationist mindset, _miles per hour_ or distance over time is computed differently than in the non-Christian world.
> 
> Good gawd these people are scary.
Click to expand...


So you admit that you don't really care about facts.

Fact is: A light year is a measurement of distance..... not time. 

Your numbnutted buddy was wrong in claiming a star 13 billion lights years away means that it's 13 billion years old. 

What's scary is your stupidity.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> Found it. Don't get sucked in Lonestar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> My statement stands.
Click to expand...


You do realize that the speed of light is measurable, right? That the science of physics and optics (and that "gravity" thingy) can be used by astronomers to study the solar system and universe?

Have you ever heard that there is a delay when radio signals are received/transmitted between the earth and the Mars rovers? In a vacuum, radio waves travel at the speed of light. That suggests that Mars is kinda' far away. 

Have you heard that the earth is actually spherical?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> Found it. Don't get sucked in Lonestar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> My statement stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that the speed of light is measurable, right? That the science of physics and optics (and that "gravity" thingy) can be used by astronomers to study the solar system and universe?
> 
> Have you ever heard that there is a delay when radio signals are received/transmitted between the earth and the Mars rovers? In a vacuum, radio waves travel at the speed of light. That suggests that Mars is kinda' far away.
> 
> Have you heard that the earth is actually spherical?
Click to expand...


Do you undertand that a light-year is a measure of distance, not time?

Are you this stupid all the time?


----------



## HUGGY

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No way!!
> 
> Thank you, Captain Obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose in the Christian creationist mindset, _miles per hour_ or distance over time is computed differently than in the non-Christian world.
> 
> Good gawd these people are scary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that you don't really care about facts.
> 
> Fact is: A light year is a measurement of distance..... not time.
> 
> *Your numbnutted buddy was wrong in claiming a star 13 billion lights years away means that it's 13 billion years old. *What's scary is your stupidity.
Click to expand...


That's what you claimed ya Texas halfwit.  If the universe was at one point the size of a basketball and it exploded then it took at least your 13 billions years to get 13 billion light years from our observation.  THAT means it was 13 billion PLUS the time it took the light we observe to get to us.  Comprede'?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> My statement stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the speed of light is measurable, right? That the science of physics and optics (and that "gravity" thingy) can be used by astronomers to study the solar system and universe?
> 
> Have you ever heard that there is a delay when radio signals are received/transmitted between the earth and the Mars rovers? In a vacuum, radio waves travel at the speed of light. That suggests that Mars is kinda' far away.
> 
> Have you heard that the earth is actually spherical?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you undertand that a light-year is a measure of distance, not time?
> 
> Are you this stupid all the time?
Click to expand...

You are trying to defend an indefensible position. 

It's another case of Christian creationists needing to live in denial in order to believe in their gawds.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

HUGGY said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose in the Christian creationist mindset, _miles per hour_ or distance over time is computed differently than in the non-Christian world.
> 
> Good gawd these people are scary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that you don't really care about facts.
> 
> Fact is: A light year is a measurement of distance..... not time.
> 
> *Your numbnutted buddy was wrong in claiming a star 13 billion lights years away means that it's 13 billion years old. *What's scary is your stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you claimed ya Texas halfwit.  If the universe was at one point the size of a basketball and it exploded then it took at least your 13 billions years to get 13 billion light years from our observation.  THAT means it was *13 billion PLUS *the time it took the light we observe to get to us.  Comprede'?
Click to expand...


Please learn how to spell when addressing me. And thanks for supporting my argument.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the speed of light is measurable, right? That the science of physics and optics (and that "gravity" thingy) can be used by astronomers to study the solar system and universe?
> 
> Have you ever heard that there is a delay when radio signals are received/transmitted between the earth and the Mars rovers? In a vacuum, radio waves travel at the speed of light. That suggests that Mars is kinda' far away.
> 
> Have you heard that the earth is actually spherical?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undertand that a light-year is a measure of distance, not time?
> 
> Are you this stupid all the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are trying to defend an indefensible position.
> 
> It's another case of Christian creationists needing to live in denial in order to believe in their gawds.
Click to expand...


No but you are.


And you really should try a different argument.


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> My statement stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the speed of light is measurable, right? That the science of physics and optics (and that "gravity" thingy) can be used by astronomers to study the solar system and universe?
> 
> Have you ever heard that there is a delay when radio signals are received/transmitted between the earth and the Mars rovers? In a vacuum, radio waves travel at the speed of light. That suggests that Mars is kinda' far away.
> 
> Have you heard that the earth is actually spherical?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you undertand that a light-year is a measure of distance, not time?
> 
> Are you this stupid all the time?
Click to expand...


You do understand that the speed of light is used to calculate the distance of a light-year, right? Therefore, the measurement known as the light-year is fully dependent upon the speed of light.

Are you really this ignorant to science and math?


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> Found it. Don't get sucked in Lonestar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> My statement stands.
Click to expand...


Which statement, that young-earth creationists don't exist??? 

This is a demonstration of willful ignorance in the making.

How can you stand by your statement when I just demonstrated it to be false? Young-Earth Creationists are real, and exist, not only in general, but on this very thread. Ask Youwerecreated.

It's almost as if you make assertions, and then release all association you have to that assertion, but before you do, you declare victory, so that no matter how much your claim is disproven, you still somehow claim victory. This is insanity.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undertand that a light-year is a measure of distance, not time?
> 
> Are you this stupid all the time?
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to defend an indefensible position.
> 
> It's another case of Christian creationists needing to live in denial in order to believe in their gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No but you are.
> 
> 
> And you really should try a different argument.
Click to expand...

And we're left to cringe at the notion that fundies want to introduce creationism into the school system. 

Would you really want to inflict your "thinking" on school kids who will eventually compete in the job market?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the speed of light is measurable, right? That the science of physics and optics (and that "gravity" thingy) can be used by astronomers to study the solar system and universe?
> 
> Have you ever heard that there is a delay when radio signals are received/transmitted between the earth and the Mars rovers? In a vacuum, radio waves travel at the speed of light. That suggests that Mars is kinda' far away.
> 
> Have you heard that the earth is actually spherical?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undertand that a light-year is a measure of distance, not time?
> 
> Are you this stupid all the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do understand that the speed of light is used to calculate the distance of a light-year, right? Therefore, the measurement known as the light-year is fully dependent upon the speed of light.
> 
> Are you really this ignorant to science and math?
Click to expand...


No, but it's quite obvious you were.

You used a light year as a means to determine age of a planet. Now I understand you want to walk that back, but it was your initial claim.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to defend an indefensible position.
> 
> It's another case of Christian creationists needing to live in denial in order to believe in their gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but you are.
> 
> 
> And you really should try a different argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we're left to cringe at the notion that fundies want to introduce creationism into the school system.
> 
> Would you really want to inflict your "thinking" on school kids who will eventually compete in the job market?
Click to expand...


I would want my children to hear both sides of the argument and draw their own conclusions.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but you are.
> 
> 
> And you really should try a different argument.
> 
> 
> 
> And we're left to cringe at the notion that fundies want to introduce creationism into the school system.
> 
> Would you really want to inflict your "thinking" on school kids who will eventually compete in the job market?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would want my children to hear both sides of the argument and draw their own conclusions.
Click to expand...

I think its abundantly clear that for you and the other fundies, there is only one side of the argument. The science loathing / knowledge hating attitudes could not be clearer.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, this wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, so stop over-using this term. A personal attack is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack, unless that attack is used as a debate tactic, used to distract from the actual arguments.  I am not trying to distract from the debate, but commenting on your behavior which itself, was an ad hominem attack. You don't just get to throw around "ad hominem" attack everytime someone insults you.  That's such a cop out. Funny that you accuse me of an ad hominem when asking for education credentials would be the epitome of an ad hominem debate tactic. Their credentials have nothing to do with their arguments, and the same goes for them asking for your credentials. You didn't have to give it to them.
> 
> I see you insulting Daws and Hollie all the time, so don't cry "ad hominem." Also, I don't spend as much time here as some others, so I simply wasn't here when Daws or Hollie asked for your education credentials. I am not defending them, I am only commenting on what I see when I come here. Stop trying to make it seem like *I am only picking on you because I disagree with you.*
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the case. You are the only one I see doing it. Life is unfair sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here again, we see the fundie has a stalkers' obsession with me. I'm afraid the fundie is hoping to compensate *for his own lack of education and inability to come to terms with his own failings. *
Click to expand...

 Baiting again??? I'm coming to terms with the fact this is your clever way to disguise your own ignorance. 


Hollie said:


> Come on fundie, let's see more of your posting in gargantuan fonts, trying desperately to pry personal information to placate your lurid obsession.
> 
> And while you're lecturing people on "logic", please tell us how logic is used to delineate your supernatural world of gawds and demons.



You can start by reading the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas. His arguments for the existence of God are based on logic and reasoning, something which is very foreign to you and I would not expect you to recognize.


----------



## HUGGY

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but you are.
> 
> 
> And you really should try a different argument.
> 
> 
> 
> And we're left to cringe at the notion that fundies want to introduce creationism into the school system.
> 
> Would you really want to inflict your "thinking" on school kids who will eventually compete in the job market?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would want my children to hear both sides of the argument and draw their own conclusions.
Click to expand...


Mr. "assless chaps" offers the little tykes two glasses of liquid. One is pure water the other not so much..  could be filled with piss.  Now kids... drink from both glasses and tell me which you prefer!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's strange because you have never refuted the fact of evolution and have only countered science fact with silly claims to supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollow you have yet to present an argument pertaining to the theory that has not been refuted,who are you kidding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goofy name-caller, your claim in nonsense. Your refusal to accept established science that confirms the theory of evolution is a function of your religious indoctrination and your own limited imagination. Your appeals to magical gawds is an untenable position.
> 
> You are free to promote whatever conspiracy theories you wish and you can cut and paste from Harun Yahya as you choose, but your lies and falsehoods have been refuted many times in this thread.
Click to expand...


*You are a LIAR.* You have yet to prove anyone has cut and pasted from Harun Yahya. Yet, you rabidly cut and paste from Panda's Thumb and have NEVER presented your own logical rebuttal. You are not fooling anyone.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.
> 
> You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here again, we see the fundie has a stalkers' obsession with me. I'm afraid the fundie is hoping to compensate *for his own lack of education and inability to come to terms with his own failings. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baiting again??? I'm coming to terms with the fact this is your clever way to disguise your own ignorance.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on fundie, let's see more of your posting in gargantuan fonts, trying desperately to pry personal information to placate your lurid obsession.
> 
> And while you're lecturing people on "logic", please tell us how logic is used to delineate your supernatural world of gawds and demons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can start by reading the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas. His arguments for the existence of God are based on logic and reasoning, something which is very foreign to you and I would not expect you to recognize.
Click to expand...


Wow, so because they are based on logic and reasoning, you think they prove god? None of the syllogistic arguments for god prove its existence, because none of them are both valid and sound.


----------



## newpolitics

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> light year is a measure of distance. Not a measure of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way!!
> 
> Thank you, Captain Obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose in the Christian creationist mindset, _miles per hour_ or distance over time is computed differently than in the non-Christian world.
> 
> Good gawd these people are scary.
Click to expand...


Apparently, they use a different set of calculations than everyone else, yet arrive at the same number. What kind of sorcery is this?


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No way!!
> 
> Thank you, Captain Obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must not have been that obvious to you since you made this statement.
> 
> Stars which are known to be as far as* 13 billion light years away*. *That means... 13 billion years old*.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are kinda dense Texas.  They were 13 billion years old when we first viewed them.  They or their remains are twice that old now.
Click to expand...


It figures Hollie would thank you for your fallacious math!!  It took the light 13 billion years to get here. You don't now how old the star was when the llight started it's journey and your statement that is twice is old shows yours and Hollies glaring ignorance of science. The universe has been dated at 13.7 to 14 billion years old, so the remains of the star obviously can't be older than 14 billion years old. 

It is always quite amusing when someone arrogantly attempts to correct someone else.... with the *WRONG *info. Time for my favorite quote again...

*"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." *Amos Bronson Alcott


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undertand that a light-year is a measure of distance, not time?
> 
> Are you this stupid all the time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that the speed of light is used to calculate the distance of a light-year, right? Therefore, the measurement known as the light-year is fully dependent upon the speed of light.
> 
> Are you really this ignorant to science and math?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but it's quite obvious you were.
> 
> You used a light year as a means to determine age of a planet. Now I understand you want to walk that back, but it was your initial claim.
Click to expand...


I did no such thing. Maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension, because you misunderstood everything I wrote. Incidentally, you are now arguing against a strawman. 

All I was demonstrating was that the claims of young-earth creationism are demonstrably false simply by looking at starlight. All I need to do is point out that anything in the universe is older than their estimated age of the universe, which is what I did.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> Found it. Don't get sucked in Lonestar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> My statement stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that the speed of light is measurable, right? That the science of physics and optics (and that "gravity" thingy) can be used by astronomers to study the solar system and universe?
> 
> Have you ever heard that there is a delay when radio signals are received/transmitted between the earth and the Mars rovers? In a vacuum, radio waves travel at the speed of light. That suggests that Mars is kinda' far away.
> 
> Have you heard that the earth is actually spherical?
Click to expand...

 You show your ignorance again. The earth is not a perfect sphere.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the speed of light is measurable, right? That the science of physics and optics (and that "gravity" thingy) can be used by astronomers to study the solar system and universe?
> 
> Have you ever heard that there is a delay when radio signals are received/transmitted between the earth and the Mars rovers? In a vacuum, radio waves travel at the speed of light. That suggests that Mars is kinda' far away.
> 
> Have you heard that the earth is actually spherical?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undertand that a light-year is a measure of distance, not time?
> 
> Are you this stupid all the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do understand that the speed of light is used to calculate the distance of a light-year, right? Therefore, the measurement known as the light-year is fully dependent upon the speed of light.
> 
> Are you really this ignorant to science and math?
Click to expand...


Wow!! Ignorant people shouting ignorance to others all over the place. I doubt you, Hollie or Huggy have any comprehension of the theory of relativity.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> Found it. Don't get sucked in Lonestar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> My statement stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which statement, that young-earth creationists don't exist???
> 
> This is a demonstration of willful ignorance in the making.
> 
> How can you stand by your statement when I just demonstrated it to be false? Young-Earth Creationists are real, and exist, not only in general, but on this very thread. Ask Youwerecreated.
> 
> It's almost as if you make assertions, and then release all association you have to that assertion, but before you do, you declare victory, so that no matter how much your claim is disproven, you still somehow claim victory. This is insanity.
Click to expand...


The statement that I haven't seen anyone on here other than those on your side making a claim for a young earth.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we're left to cringe at the notion that fundies want to introduce creationism into the school system.
> 
> Would you really want to inflict your "thinking" on school kids who will eventually compete in the job market?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would want my children to hear both sides of the argument and draw their own conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think its abundantly clear that for you and the other fundies, there is only one side of the argument. The science loathing / knowledge hating attitudes could not be clearer.
Click to expand...


If you think that, then you _are_ stupid.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

HUGGY said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we're left to cringe at the notion that fundies want to introduce creationism into the school system.
> 
> Would you really want to inflict your "thinking" on school kids who will eventually compete in the job market?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would want my children to hear both sides of the argument and draw their own conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. "assless chaps" offers the little tykes two glasses of liquid. One is pure water the other not so much..  could be filled with piss.  Now kids... drink from both glasses and tell me which you prefer!
Click to expand...


You lame insults aside. Your strawman is pathetic.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to defend an indefensible position.
> 
> It's another case of Christian creationists needing to live in denial in order to believe in their gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but you are.
> 
> 
> And you really should try a different argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we're left to cringe at the notion that fundies want to introduce creationism into the school system.
> 
> Would you really want to inflict your "thinking" on school kids who will eventually compete in the job market?
Click to expand...


Oh you poor dear. You really are incredibly stupid aren't you? There are more believers of God in the work place than there are atheists. In fact, Theists are responsible for 95% of the scientific advancements and scientific discoveries made in the United States in the last 200 years. You need to break out of your bubble of evolutionary science. There are other science categories you know.


----------



## UltimateReality

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but you are.
> 
> 
> And you really should try a different argument.
> 
> 
> 
> And we're left to cringe at the notion that fundies want to introduce creationism into the school system.
> 
> Would you really want to inflict your "thinking" on school kids who will eventually compete in the job market?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would want my children to hear both sides of the argument and draw their own conclusions.
Click to expand...


Lonestar, but that would screw up their materialistic agenda to indoctrinate the school children as atheists. Look around. You can see how well that agenda is working out in America today. A bunch of fakers and takers. How do think Hollie has so much time on the computer? She draws disability for a fake disease.


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> My statement stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which statement, that young-earth creationists don't exist???
> 
> This is a demonstration of willful ignorance in the making.
> 
> How can you stand by your statement when I just demonstrated it to be false? Young-Earth Creationists are real, and exist, not only in general, but on this very thread. Ask Youwerecreated.
> 
> It's almost as if you make assertions, and then release all association you have to that assertion, but before you do, you declare victory, so that no matter how much your claim is disproven, you still somehow claim victory. This is insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statement that I haven't seen anyone on here other than those on your side making a claim for a young earth.
Click to expand...


Who on my side makes claims about a young earth? You are making things up. You jump all over the place. Try to be a little more logical.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here again, we see the fundie has a stalkers' obsession with me. I'm afraid the fundie is hoping to compensate *for his own lack of education and inability to come to terms with his own failings. *
> 
> 
> 
> Baiting again??? I'm coming to terms with the fact this is your clever way to disguise your own ignorance.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on fundie, let's see more of your posting in gargantuan fonts, trying desperately to pry personal information to placate your lurid obsession.
> 
> And while you're lecturing people on "logic", please tell us how logic is used to delineate your supernatural world of gawds and demons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can start by reading the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas. His arguments for the existence of God are based on logic and reasoning, something which is very foreign to you and I would not expect you to recognize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, so because they are based on logic and reasoning, you think they prove god? None of the syllogistic arguments for god prove its existence, because none of them are both valid and sound.
Click to expand...


Why? Because you say so? You seem to think you are so attuned to fallacies so please identify the one you just committed above.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No way!!
> 
> Thank you, Captain Obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose in the Christian creationist mindset, _miles per hour_ or distance over time is computed differently than in the non-Christian world.
> 
> Good gawd these people are scary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, they use a different set of calculations than everyone else, yet arrive at the same number. What kind of sorcery is this?
Click to expand...


Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.
> 
> You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here again, we see the fundie has a stalkers' obsession with me. I'm afraid the fundie is hoping to compensate *for his own lack of education and inability to come to terms with his own failings. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baiting again??? I'm coming to terms with the fact this is your clever way to disguise your own ignorance.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on fundie, let's see more of your posting in gargantuan fonts, trying desperately to pry personal information to placate your lurid obsession.
> 
> And while you're lecturing people on "logic", please tell us how logic is used to delineate your supernatural world of gawds and demons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can start by reading the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas. His arguments for the existence of God are based on logic and reasoning, something which is very foreign to you and I would not expect you to recognize.
Click to expand...


You might start by picking up some classes at a community college.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which statement, that young-earth creationists don't exist???
> 
> This is a demonstration of willful ignorance in the making.
> 
> How can you stand by your statement when I just demonstrated it to be false? Young-Earth Creationists are real, and exist, not only in general, but on this very thread. Ask Youwerecreated.
> 
> It's almost as if you make assertions, and then release all association you have to that assertion, but before you do, you declare victory, so that no matter how much your claim is disproven, you still somehow claim victory. This is insanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The statement that I haven't seen anyone on here other than those on your side making a claim for a young earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who on my side makes claims about a young earth? You are making things up. You jump all over the place. *Try to be a little more logical.*
Click to expand...


You mean like you?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undertand that a light-year is a measure of distance, not time?
> 
> Are you this stupid all the time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that the speed of light is used to calculate the distance of a light-year, right? Therefore, the measurement known as the light-year is fully dependent upon the speed of light.
> 
> Are you really this ignorant to science and math?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!! Ignorant people shouting ignorance to others all over the place. I doubt you, Hollie or Huggy have any comprehension of the theory of relativity.
Click to expand...


What does relativity have to with this discussion? Absolutely nothing. Stop pea-cocking for no reason. This isn't a dating website.


----------



## UltimateReality

hollie said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> here again, we see the fundie has a stalkers' obsession with me. I'm afraid the fundie is hoping to compensate *for his own lack of education and inability to come to terms with his own failings. *
> 
> 
> 
> baiting again??? I'm coming to terms with the fact this is your clever way to disguise your own ignorance.
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> come on fundie, let's see more of your posting in gargantuan fonts, trying desperately to pry personal information to placate your lurid obsession.
> 
> And while you're lecturing people on "logic", please tell us how logic is used to delineate your supernatural world of gawds and demons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can start by reading the summa theologica by thomas aquinas. His arguments for the existence of god are based on logic and reasoning, something which is very foreign to you and i would not expect you to recognize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you might start by picking up some classes at a community college.
Click to expand...


* You are a proven LIAR. Nothing else you say here is credible. Now run along.*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose in the Christian creationist mindset, _miles per hour_ or distance over time is computed differently than in the non-Christian world.
> 
> Good gawd these people are scary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, they use a different set of calculations than everyone else, yet arrive at the same number. What kind of sorcery is this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?
Click to expand...


There's no reason for you to get hung up on such things as simple speed over distance calculations. 

All the math you need is in the bible. The earth is 6,000 years old. That's all the math a fundie needs to know.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that the speed of light is used to calculate the distance of a light-year, right? Therefore, the measurement known as the light-year is fully dependent upon the speed of light.
> 
> Are you really this ignorant to science and math?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!! Ignorant people shouting ignorance to others all over the place. I doubt you, Hollie or Huggy have any comprehension of the theory of relativity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What does relativity have to with this discussion?* Absolutely nothing. Stop pea-cocking for no reason. This isn't a dating website.
Click to expand...


We were discussing the speed of light in the universe, right? For those of you who missed it...

*"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." *Amos Bronson Alcott


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statement that I haven't seen anyone on here other than those on your side making a claim for a young earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who on my side makes claims about a young earth? You are making things up. You jump all over the place. *Try to be a little more logical.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like you?
Click to expand...


Are you implying that you are the standard of rationality? C'mon. We both know that ain't true. 


 Lonestar is misrepresenting my arguments left and right, something I know you dont appreciate.


By the way, would you please tell him that young earth creationism is a real thing? Maybe he will listen to you. He is so blinded by hatred for atheists than he can't represent anything I write with any kind of accuracy.


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose in the Christian creationist mindset, _miles per hour_ or distance over time is computed differently than in the non-Christian world.
> 
> Good gawd these people are scary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, they use a different set of calculations than everyone else, yet arrive at the same number. What kind of sorcery is this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?
Click to expand...


You don't like my math?  You don't believe that something observed 13 billion light years away from us took at least 13 billion light years to get that far away from us and the observed light took at least 13 billion years to get back to us so it could be observed?  I suppose you could argue that it took the matter only half that amount of time(as we could be travelling in an opposit direction from it as the universe expands) to travel that distance if you believe that the matter travelled at light speed to get there.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, they use a different set of calculations than everyone else, yet arrive at the same number. What kind of sorcery is this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no reason for you to get hung up on such things as simple speed over distance calculations...
Click to expand...


Not shocking you would take this stance. We've seen your penchant for lack of details when it comes to science facts.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, they use a different set of calculations than everyone else, yet arrive at the same number. What kind of sorcery is this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't like my math?  You don't believe that something observed 13 billion light years away from us took at least 13 billion light years to get that far away from us and the observed light took at least 13 billion years to get back to us so it could be observed?  I suppose you could argue that it took the matter only half that amount of time(as we could be travelling in an opposit direction from it as the universe expands) to travel that distance if you believe that the matter travelled at light speed to get there.
Click to expand...


Wow, for someone bashing someone else's reading comprehension you aren't keeping up very well. I won't waste my time to explain this to you but you might want to go back and re-read the last few pages before you look even more foolish.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, they use a different set of calculations than everyone else, yet arrive at the same number. What kind of sorcery is this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't like my math?  You don't believe that something observed 13 billion light years away from us took at least 13 billion light years to get that far away from us and the observed light took at least 13 billion years to get back to us so it could be observed?  I suppose you could argue that it took the matter only half that amount of time(as we could be travelling in an opposit direction from it as the universe expands) to travel that distance if you believe that the matter travelled at light speed to get there.
Click to expand...


Nice dodge. I am talking about your fallacious assertion the star would be twice as old as 13 billion years now based on your ignorance of the fact that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old and the fact there is no way to tell how old the star was when the light began its journey.


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like my math?  You don't believe that something observed 13 billion light years away from us took at least 13 billion light years to get that far away from us and the observed light took at least 13 billion years to get back to us so it could be observed?  I suppose you could argue that it took the matter only half that amount of time(as we could be travelling in an opposit direction from it as the universe expands) to travel that distance if you believe that the matter travelled at light speed to get there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, for someone bashing someone else's reading comprehension you aren't keeping up very well. I won't waste my time to explain this to you but you might want to go back and re-read the last few pages before you look even more foolish.
Click to expand...


Ya right.  I don't care that much.  The  s were aimed at my math.  I stand by it.  If you have something previously posted that contradicts my math feel free to link.  I can always use a good chuckle.


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like my math?  You don't believe that something observed 13 billion light years away from us took at least 13 billion light years to get that far away from us and the observed light took at least 13 billion years to get back to us so it could be observed?  I suppose you could argue that it took the matter only half that amount of time(as we could be travelling in an opposit direction from it as the universe expands) to travel that distance if you believe that the matter travelled at light speed to get there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. I am talking about your fallacious assertion the star would be twice as old as 13 billion years now based on your ignorance of the fact that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old and the fact there is no way to tell how old the star was when the light began its journey.
Click to expand...


If one believes in the big bang and that no matter can travel faster than light then it is impossible for one to observe something (matter, such as a star) 13.7 light years away in real time.  One must account for the time it took the matter to get to that place in the universe 13.7 billion light years from us.

PS...  It also takes a star a long time to form so you can observe it...add that to the time table.  

Gravitational Collapse

How long does it take for a cloud to condense to form a star? We assume that the least time for this to happen is when the cloud condenses entirely under the influence of gravity and neglect any internal pressure resisting the collpase. This is called the free-fall collapse time, and can be shown to depend only on the cloud's initial density and not its mass.

tff = 2.11 x 10-3 / D1/2years       where D is the average density of the cloud 

You can add this to your observable distance and the time it took the dust to get there.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason for you to get hung up on such things as simple speed over distance calculations...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not shocking you would take this stance. We've seen your penchant for lack of details when it comes to science facts.
Click to expand...


On the contrary, your lack of relevant education in the physical sciences has been the cause of your confusion regarding the science you have been introduced to in this thread.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason for you to get hung up on such things as simple speed over distance calculations...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not shocking you would take this stance. We've seen your penchant for lack of details when it comes to science facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, your lack of relevant education in the physical sciences has been the cause of your confusion regarding the science you have been introduced to in this thread.
Click to expand...


Who can believe anything you post now that you are a *proven LIAR*? You have lost all credibility. Thanks for playing.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No way!!
> 
> Thank you, Captain Obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must not have been that obvious to you since you made this statement.
> 
> Stars which are known to be as far as* 13 billion light years away*. *That means... 13 billion years old*.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are kinda dense Texas.  They were 13 billion years old when we first viewed them.  *They or their remains are twice that old now.*
Click to expand...


You stated the stars remains were 26 billion years old and Hollie thanked you. You did this as you were calling another poster dense. That is the math I am referring to.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which statement, that young-earth creationists don't exist???
> 
> This is a demonstration of willful ignorance in the making.
> 
> How can you stand by your statement when I just demonstrated it to be false? Young-Earth Creationists are real, and exist, not only in general, but on this very thread. Ask Youwerecreated.
> 
> It's almost as if you make assertions, and then release all association you have to that assertion, but before you do, you declare victory, so that no matter how much your claim is disproven, you still somehow claim victory. This is insanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The statement that I haven't seen anyone on here other than those on your side making a claim for a young earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who on my side makes claims about a young earth? You are making things up. You jump all over the place. Try to be a little more logical.
Click to expand...


I digress, it's your side that keeps bringing up the 6,000 year old earth argument.


----------



## Hollie

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like my math?  You don't believe that something observed 13 billion light years away from us took at least 13 billion light years to get that far away from us and the observed light took at least 13 billion years to get back to us so it could be observed?  I suppose you could argue that it took the matter only half that amount of time(as we could be travelling in an opposit direction from it as the universe expands) to travel that distance if you believe that the matter travelled at light speed to get there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. I am talking about your fallacious assertion the star would be twice as old as 13 billion years now based on your ignorance of the fact that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old and the fact there is no way to tell how old the star was when the light began its journey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one believes in the big bang and that no matter can travel faster than light then it is impossible for one to observe something (matter, such as a star) 13.7 light years away in real time.  One must account for the time it took the matter to get to that place in the universe 13.7 billion light years from us.
Click to expand...


I'd be curious to know if the fundies had ever read of NASA's Dark Field work with the Hubble... or if they're convinced it's all a conspiracy.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like my math?  You don't believe that something observed 13 billion light years away from us took at least 13 billion light years to get that far away from us and the observed light took at least 13 billion years to get back to us so it could be observed?  I suppose you could argue that it took the matter only half that amount of time(as we could be travelling in an opposit direction from it as the universe expands) to travel that distance if you believe that the matter travelled at light speed to get there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. I am talking about your fallacious assertion the star would be twice as old as 13 billion years now based on your ignorance of the fact that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old and the fact there is no way to tell how old the star was when the light began its journey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one believes in the big bang and that no matter can travel faster than light then it is impossible for one to observe something (matter, such as a star) 13.7 light years away in real time.  One must account for the time it took the matter to get to that place in the universe 13.7 billion light years from us.
Click to expand...


In particle physics, there are particles that "communicate" faster than the speed of light.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. I am talking about your fallacious assertion the star would be twice as old as 13 billion years now based on your ignorance of the fact that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old and the fact there is no way to tell how old the star was when the light began its journey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one believes in the big bang and that no matter can travel faster than light then it is impossible for one to observe something (matter, such as a star) 13.7 light years away in real time.  One must account for the time it took the matter to get to that place in the universe 13.7 billion light years from us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be curious to know if the fundies had ever read of NASA's Dark Field work with the Hubble... or if they're convinced it's all a conspiracy.
Click to expand...


You lack credibility due to your continued proven lies. Why do you continue to waste your time posting here?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statement that I haven't seen anyone on here other than those on your side making a claim for a young earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who on my side makes claims about a young earth? You are making things up. You jump all over the place. Try to be a little more logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I digress, it's your side that keeps bringing up the 6,000 year old earth argument.
Click to expand...


Actually, no. That would be one of the fundies who is a YEC'ist.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one believes in the big bang and that no matter can travel faster than light then it is impossible for one to observe something (matter, such as a star) 13.7 light years away in real time.  One must account for the time it took the matter to get to that place in the universe 13.7 billion light years from us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be curious to know if the fundies had ever read of NASA's Dark Field work with the Hubble... or if they're convinced it's all a conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lack credibility due to your continued proven lies. Why do you continue to waste your time posting here?
Click to expand...


That itself would be a lie. Link us to a proven lie, you creepy stalker.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who on my side makes claims about a young earth? You are making things up. You jump all over the place. Try to be a little more logical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I digress, it's your side that keeps bringing up the 6,000 year old earth argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no. That would be one of the fundies who is a YEC'ist.
Click to expand...


I guess you 're too stupid to remember what you write.


Post #10763 proves you wrong.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be curious to know if the fundies had ever read of NASA's Dark Field work with the Hubble... or if they're convinced it's all a conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lack credibility due to your continued proven lies. Why do you continue to waste your time posting here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That itself would be a lie. *Link us to a proven lie*, you creepy stalker.
Click to expand...


Here we go...



Hollie said:


> Well, you do lack education. When *you cut and paste from Harun Yahya*, you are actually screaming out that lack education.
> 
> Your incessant use of gargantuan, pink fonts in failed attempts to deflect from addressing *refutations of your cut and pasted Harun Yahya nonsense* only reinforces your inability to compose coherent sentences.



Niether myself or YWC have ever cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, *LIAR.* 

If you try to ignore this, it is not going away. Now run along you poor dear.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not shocking you would take this stance. We've seen your penchant for lack of details when it comes to science facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, your lack of relevant education in the physical sciences has been the cause of your confusion regarding the science you have been introduced to in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who can believe anything you post now that you are a *proven LIAR*? You have lost all credibility. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...




argumetum ad hominem...  Logical fallacies are now valid?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lack credibility due to your continued proven lies. Why do you continue to waste your time posting here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That itself would be a lie. *Link us to a proven lie*, you creepy stalker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you do lack education. When *you cut and paste from Harun Yahya*, you are actually screaming out that lack education.
> 
> Your incessant use of gargantuan, pink fonts in failed attempts to deflect from addressing *refutations of your cut and pasted Harun Yahya nonsense* only reinforces your inability to compose coherent sentences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Niether myself or YWC have ever cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, *LIAR.*
> 
> If you try to ignore this, it is not going away. Now run along you poor dear.
Click to expand...

lie. I called YWC out on that subject previously. 

Now run along you creepy stalker.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That itself would be a lie. *Link us to a proven lie*, you creepy stalker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you do lack education. When *you cut and paste from Harun Yahya*, you are actually screaming out that lack education.
> 
> Your incessant use of gargantuan, pink fonts in failed attempts to deflect from addressing *refutations of your cut and pasted Harun Yahya nonsense* only reinforces your inability to compose coherent sentences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Niether myself or YWC have ever cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, *LIAR.*
> 
> If you try to ignore this, it is not going away. Now run along you poor dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lie. I called YWC out on that subject previously.
> 
> Now run along you creepy stalker.
Click to expand...


Provide a link or get lost LIAR. You need to be able to back up you lying accusations or you have no credibility here. 

I will be waiting for the link where I or YWC quoted Harun Yahya.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can prove it is a lot older than 6 thousand years. I mentioned how as well.  You must have not read what you yourself quoted... When the sun goes down, look up. Notice that you see stars. Stars which are known to be as far as 13 billion light years away. That means... 13 billion years old, at least, that this universe has been around. Granted, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants here, for the speed of light and the measurements to those stars, but these are all rigorous measurements, and I am right in using them. So, there you go. 6,000 years refuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> make my day then I will point out the flaws with your methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?
Click to expand...


Your faulty assumption is based on those objects all came from the big bang,Now prove the big bang happened.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must not have been that obvious to you since you made this statement.
> 
> Stars which are known to be as far as* 13 billion light years away*. *That means... 13 billion years old*.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... making young earth creationism demonstrably false, which was my point, which I already stated. Why did you feel the need to say this and how do you think you are refuting my position? You have aided it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anyone on here claiming the earth was young. That's a strawman that your side created.
Click to expand...


No man knows how old the universe is nor the earth. I feel the bible gives us that timeline. I believe the earth can be between 6,000 and 13,000 years old.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No way!!
> 
> Thank you, Captain Obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must not have been that obvious to you since you made this statement.
> 
> Stars which are known to be as far as* 13 billion light years away*. *That means... 13 billion years old*.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are kinda dense Texas.  They were 13 billion years old when we first viewed them.  They or their remains are twice that old now.
Click to expand...


The only way your side can win this argument is if you can prove the bug bang happened when you claim it happened.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... making young earth creationism demonstrably false, which was my point, which I already stated. Why did you feel the need to say this and how do you think you are refuting my position? You have aided it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anyone on here claiming the earth was young. That's a strawman that your side created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No man knows how old the universe is nor the earth. I feel the bible gives us that timeline. I believe the earth can be between 6,000 and 13,000 years old.
Click to expand...


I'm happy for your ability to paint this fantasy life.  Please stay out of politics.  Your inability to handle reality could be dangerous to others.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... making young earth creationism demonstrably false, which was my point, which I already stated. Why did you feel the need to say this and how do you think you are refuting my position? You have aided it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anyone on here claiming the earth was young. That's a strawman that your side created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you're writing about. Youwerecreated is a YEC'ist who believes in a literal rendering of the Genesis fable, the Noah fable and a literal bible.
Click to expand...


Correct almost, it is determined by interpretation. The earth is between 6,000 and 13,000 years old.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose in the Christian creationist mindset, _miles per hour_ or distance over time is computed differently than in the non-Christian world.
> 
> Good gawd these people are scary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that you don't really care about facts.
> 
> Fact is: A light year is a measurement of distance..... not time.
> 
> *Your numbnutted buddy was wrong in claiming a star 13 billion lights years away means that it's 13 billion years old. *What's scary is your stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you claimed ya Texas halfwit.  If the universe was at one point the size of a basketball and it exploded then it took at least your 13 billions years to get 13 billion light years from our observation.  THAT means it was 13 billion PLUS the time it took the light we observe to get to us.  Comprede'?
Click to expand...


Bingo now prove the Big Bang happened.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, they use a different set of calculations than everyone else, yet arrive at the same number. What kind of sorcery is this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Huggy's math? The same math that Hollie was quick to thank him for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't like my math?  You don't believe that something observed 13 billion light years away from us took at least 13 billion light years to get that far away from us and the observed light took at least 13 billion years to get back to us so it could be observed?  I suppose you could argue that it took the matter only half that amount of time(as we could be travelling in an opposit direction from it as the universe expands) to travel that distance if you believe that the matter travelled at light speed to get there.
Click to expand...


You believe speed is constant even if the big bang happened the speed should be slowing but it is not it is speeding up hmm.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

Youwerecreated said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... making young earth creationism demonstrably false, which was my point, which I already stated. Why did you feel the need to say this and how do you think you are refuting my position? You have aided it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anyone on here claiming the earth was young. That's a strawman that your side created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No man knows how old the universe is nor the earth. I feel the bible gives us that timeline. I believe the earth can be between 6,000 and 13,000 years old.
Click to expand...


As for the later end; 6k is completely laughable open up any history book and that is done with. The earliest complex human society we know of is dated back to 12k years ago. As for the earlier end Radiometric dating? Basic chemistry completely blows that out of the water.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go...
> 
> 
> 
> Niether myself or YWC have ever cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, *LIAR.*
> 
> If you try to ignore this, it is not going away. Now run along you poor dear.
> 
> 
> 
> lie. I called YWC out on that subject previously.
> 
> Now run along you creepy stalker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide a link or get lost LIAR. You need to be able to back up you lying accusations or you have no credibility here.
> 
> I will be waiting for the link where I or YWC quoted Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...


Oh my. Aren't you the angry fundie. The melodrama is so cute.

YWC is posting. Why don't you ask him?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that you don't really care about facts.
> 
> Fact is: A light year is a measurement of distance..... not time.
> 
> *Your numbnutted buddy was wrong in claiming a star 13 billion lights years away means that it's 13 billion years old. *What's scary is your stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you claimed ya Texas halfwit.  If the universe was at one point the size of a basketball and it exploded then it took at least your 13 billions years to get 13 billion light years from our observation.  THAT means it was 13 billion PLUS the time it took the light we observe to get to us.  Comprede'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo now prove the Big Bang happened.
Click to expand...

Do a search with the terms 'penzias and Wilson".


----------



## PretentiousGuy

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that you don't really care about facts.
> 
> Fact is: A light year is a measurement of distance..... not time.
> 
> *Your numbnutted buddy was wrong in claiming a star 13 billion lights years away means that it's 13 billion years old. *What's scary is your stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you claimed ya Texas halfwit.  If the universe was at one point the size of a basketball and it exploded then it took at least your 13 billions years to get 13 billion light years from our observation.  THAT means it was 13 billion PLUS the time it took the light we observe to get to us.  Comprede'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo now prove the Big Bang happened.
Click to expand...


We can still pick up on the radiation caused by the big bang...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair warning, this thread has been going on for over 10,000 posts and everything has been repeated hundreds of times.  Be prepared to be bored out of your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't heard a new argument from a creationist or theologian in a while but I do it just in case I can change a mind. To some it might seem like a Sisyphean task but if someone wouldn't have argued with me I would be quite a different person right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not heard in argument from an evolutionist that I can't reduce to dribble.
Click to expand...

WAKE UP....YWC.....WAKE UP! You're having that dream again where you believe that you've got the education and intellectual wherewithal to actually make sense.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I have posted many things you people have no answer for. I destroyed your theory with the problems of mutation fixation that OI think went over you and your partners head. You had no explanation as to why natural selection removed superior traits that would have allowed humans to be better adapted. Do I really need to continue.
> 
> 
> 
> ahh.no you have not, you as always the mistake of believing that what you post has any merit .
> all of your challenges have been answered ,debunked and been found wanting.
> as always in your one live brain cell of a mind you "think" (if it can be called that) that any un answered shit you spew is a victory.
> nothing is further from the truth..
> What you constantly and epically fail to grasp is that the TOE could be totally wrong but
> even if it was, that would be no proof your gawd fantasy is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have grown bored of your posts.
Click to expand...

in other words you cannot reduce my aguments to dribble... so you pull up your skirts and run away.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the brain have a purpose daws ? How bout the lungs ? maybe the heart ? the sun ? the moon ? biological chemicals ? how bout red and white blood cells ? How bout Genes ?
> 
> Now try and B.S. your way out.
> 
> 
> 
> since I never bs my way out of anything you might try not bullshiting your way out of this. : "creator and design with a purpose in mind"
> there is no proof of a sentient  creator so anything that the creator might have in it's mind is pure speculation..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only to the blind Daws.
Click to expand...

then you must be blind .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not only that Ur has already seen my educational credentials as i said before :just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, still no education information. How many posts is that where Daws goes on and on but never answers the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe he claimed to have taken classes in theatre that explains why he has to copy and paste so much and he does not understand many of his paste jobs never address the questions asked he is fun to have around sometimes.
Click to expand...

another intentional misrepresentation of  my education and a completely erroneous  assumption on what I do or don't understand.
that's  ironic coming from  the absolute lord of cut and paste !
how many times have you been warned about wall of text...20 ...50.? I  never have.


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> lie. I called YWC out on that subject previously.
> 
> Now run along you creepy stalker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a link or get lost LIAR. You need to be able to back up you lying accusations or you have no credibility here.
> 
> I will be waiting for the link where I or YWC quoted Harun Yahya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my. Aren't you the angry fundie. The melodrama is so cute.
> 
> YWC is posting. Why don't you ask him?
Click to expand...


Where's my stalker?  He's suddenly gone silent... hiked up his women's underwear and run away.

Do you need help finding the link?... you lying cretin.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove the age of the earth so how do you know I am wrong in my beliefs ?
> 
> 
> 
> another asked and answerd rehash by ywc.
> you're not wrong in your beliefs they're just not based on fact.
> and that's were you're wrong .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From now on I will no longer respond to your posts unless worthy of a response. I'm thinking we won't be debating much.
Click to expand...

that's the second time you've made that claim.
anyone want to bet YWC will be yammering at me within aweek?


----------



## Youwerecreated

PretentiousGuy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anyone on here claiming the earth was young. That's a strawman that your side created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No man knows how old the universe is nor the earth. I feel the bible gives us that timeline. I believe the earth can be between 6,000 and 13,000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for the later end; 6k is completely laughable open up any history book and that is done with. The earliest complex human society we know of is dated back to 12k years ago. As for the earlier end Radiometric dating? Basic chemistry completely blows that out of the water.
Click to expand...


I said between 6,000 and 13,000 years depending on interpretation of the scriptures.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a great many things you choose not to see. Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again.  Ahhh, you choose to remain in your blindness and your logic about the huge, pink fonts is a fail. You have chosen not to "see" Hollie's constant attack accusations that YWC and I lack education. If you had paid attention to the threads, you would see the huge pink fonts always follow her ad hominem attack accusations on someone regarding their level of education. The only thing anyone needs to get over here is your one sided blindness and prejudicial auto ignore mode. Also, your veiled ad hominem attacks (bolded) above don't go unnoticed. Maybe it is you who should grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, this wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, so stop over-using this term. A personal attack is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack, unless that attack is used as a debate tactic, used to distract from the actual arguments.  I am not trying to distract from the debate, but commenting on your behavior which itself, was an ad hominem attack. You don't just get to throw around "ad hominem" attack everytime someone insults you.  That's such a cop out. Funny that you accuse me of an ad hominem when asking for education credentials would be the epitome of an ad hominem debate tactic. Their credentials have nothing to do with their arguments, and the same goes for them asking for your credentials. You didn't have to give it to them.
> 
> I see you insulting Daws and Hollie all the time, so don't cry "ad hominem." Also, I don't spend as much time here as some others, so I simply wasn't here when Daws or Hollie asked for your education credentials. I am not defending them, I am only commenting on what I see when I come here. Stop trying to make it seem like *I am only picking on you because I disagree with you.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the case. You are the only one I see doing it. Life is unfair sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.
Click to expand...

me thinks the slapdick doth quote the bard out of context ...if any poster prostesth too much tis thou O URINAL ROT. 
Daw's profanity is is well met in this debating forum as it fairly shouts of the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
as to the good Hollie HIS sex is vexing only to the envious dullards who's cod pieces are as small as the shrunked goo that sleeps in  their tiny minds.
Hollie's campaigns are not of hate  but of true knowledge that seeketh to Pierce the bloated and rotting falsehoods and fakery of the addled.


----------



## HUGGY

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, this wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, so stop over-using this term. A personal attack is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack, unless that attack is used as a debate tactic, used to distract from the actual arguments.  I am not trying to distract from the debate, but commenting on your behavior which itself, was an ad hominem attack. You don't just get to throw around "ad hominem" attack everytime someone insults you.  That's such a cop out. Funny that you accuse me of an ad hominem when asking for education credentials would be the epitome of an ad hominem debate tactic. Their credentials have nothing to do with their arguments, and the same goes for them asking for your credentials. You didn't have to give it to them.
> 
> I see you insulting Daws and Hollie all the time, so don't cry "ad hominem." Also, I don't spend as much time here as some others, so I simply wasn't here when Daws or Hollie asked for your education credentials. I am not defending them, I am only commenting on what I see when I come here. Stop trying to make it seem like *I am only picking on you because I disagree with you.*
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the case. You are the only one I see doing it. Life is unfair sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> me thinks the slapdick doth quote the bard out of context ...if any poster prostesth too much tis thou O URINAL ROT.
> Daw's profanity is is well met in this debating forum as it fairly shouts of the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
> as to the good Hollie HIS sex is vexing only to the envious dullards who's cod pieces are as small as the shrunked goo that sleeps in  their tiny minds.
> Hollie's campaigns are not of hate  but of true knowledge that seeketh to Pierce the bloated and rotting falsehoods and fakery of the addled.
Click to expand...


Huh?


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> make my day then I will point out the flaws with your methods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Light year is a measure of distance. not a measure of time.
Click to expand...

wrong! are you really this ignorant...
a light YEAR    is a measure of HOW FAR LIGHT TRAVELS IN A YEAR ..so by defintion it's a measure of time


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must not have been that obvious to you since you made this statement.
> 
> Stars which are known to be as far as* 13 billion light years away*. *That means... 13 billion years old*.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... making young earth creationism demonstrably false, which was my point, which I already stated. Why did you feel the need to say this and how do you think you are refuting my position? You have aided it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anyone on here claiming the earth was young. That's a strawman that your side created.
Click to expand...

then your head must bee up your ass as it's ywc argument for creationism ....try to keep up!


----------



## HUGGY

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Light year is a measure of distance. not a measure of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong! are you really this ignorant...
> a light YEAR    is a measure of HOW FAR LIGHT TRAVELS IN A YEAR ..so by defintion it's a measure of time
Click to expand...


It's both actually.  Since light is a constant the time it travels in one year can be a measurement in miles.  It is scientific shorthand as the distances it refers to are awkward numbers.  It is clearly also a reference to time.  That's why they call it a light *YEAR*.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but you are.
> 
> 
> And you really should try a different argument.
> 
> 
> 
> And we're left to cringe at the notion that fundies want to introduce creationism into the school system.
> 
> Would you really want to inflict your "thinking" on school kids who will eventually compete in the job market?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would want my children to hear both sides of the argument and draw their own conclusions.
Click to expand...

 how do I put this with out sounding condescending? sure you do.. 

what happens when or if their conclusion runs counter to yours?
my guess is you'll go bat shit and throw bible verses at them.


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Light year is a measure of distance. not a measure of time.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! are you really this ignorant...
> a light YEAR    is a measure of HOW FAR LIGHT TRAVELS IN A YEAR ..so by defintion it's a measure of time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's both actually.  Since light is a constant the time it travels in one year can be a measurement in miles.  It is scientific shorthand as the distances it refers to are awkward numbers.  It is clearly also a reference to time.  That's why they call it a light *YEAR*.
Click to expand...

thanks huggy I was attempting to let "them" reason that out for themselves ....with no luck it seems


----------



## HUGGY

daws101 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! are you really this ignorant...
> a light YEAR    is a measure of HOW FAR LIGHT TRAVELS IN A YEAR ..so by defintion it's a measure of time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's both actually.  Since light is a constant the time it travels in one year can be a measurement in miles.  It is scientific shorthand as the distances it refers to are awkward numbers.  It is clearly also a reference to time.  That's why they call it a light *YEAR*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks huggy I was attempting to let "them" reason that out for themselves ....with no luck it seems
Click to expand...


There is something seriously defective about an adult in this day and age of access to all this information and still insists the earth's age is in the thousands of years.

That person is scary stupid.  A group of people that stupid is a danger to any community.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Light year is a measure of distance. not a measure of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong! are you really this ignorant...
> a light YEAR    is a measure of HOW FAR LIGHT TRAVELS IN A YEAR ..so by defintion it's a measure of time
Click to expand...


A light-year, also light year or lightyear (symbol: ly), is a unit of length equal to just under 10 trillion kilometres (or about 6 trillion miles). As defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a light-year is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one Julian year.[1]

*The light-year is mostly used to measure distances *to stars and other distances on a galactic scale, especially in non-specialist and popular science publications. The preferred unit in astrometry is the parsec (approximately 3.26 light-years), because it can be more easily derived from, and compared with, observational data.[1]

*Note that the light-year is a measure of distance (rather than, as is sometimes misunderstood, a measure of time).*


A light-year is a unit of distance.

A light year is a way of measuring distance. That doesn't make much sense because "light year" contains the word "year," which is normally a unit of time. Even so, light years measure distance.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... making young earth creationism demonstrably false, which was my point, which I already stated. Why did you feel the need to say this and how do you think you are refuting my position? You have aided it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anyone on here claiming the earth was young. That's a strawman that your side created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then your head must bee up your ass as it's ywc argument for creationism ....try to keep up!
Click to expand...


I think you need another drink.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.
> 
> You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here again, we see the fundie has a stalkers' obsession with me. I'm afraid the fundie is hoping to compensate *for his own lack of education and inability to come to terms with his own failings. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baiting again??? I'm coming to terms with the fact this is your clever way to disguise your own ignorance.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on fundie, let's see more of your posting in gargantuan fonts, trying desperately to pry personal information to placate your lurid obsession.
> 
> And while you're lecturing people on "logic", please tell us how logic is used to delineate your supernatural world of gawds and demons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can start by reading the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas. His arguments for the existence of God are based on logic and reasoning, something which is very foreign to you and I would not expect you to recognize.
Click to expand...

I have, and and you are right but 
with all it's logic and reasoning it's false, as Aquinas's assumptions are unprovable he ,just like you have no tangible, testable, objective, quantifiable evidence to corroborate it.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go...
> 
> 
> 
> Niether myself or YWC have ever cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, *LIAR.*
> 
> If you try to ignore this, it is not going away. Now run along you poor dear.
> 
> 
> 
> lie. I called YWC out on that subject previously.
> 
> Now run along you creepy stalker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide a link or get lost LIAR. You need to be able to back up you lying accusations or you have no credibility here.
> 
> I will be waiting for the link where I or YWC quoted Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...

WHERE DO YOU GET THE IDEA THAT YOUR RAVINGS ARE CREDIBLE ?
The only corroboration you can provide  is pseudoscience and the opinions  of people who suffer from the same delusional thinking you do.
in short, you have no credibilty now ,will have none in the future.


----------



## Youwerecreated

PretentiousGuy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you claimed ya Texas halfwit.  If the universe was at one point the size of a basketball and it exploded then it took at least your 13 billions years to get 13 billion light years from our observation.  THAT means it was 13 billion PLUS the time it took the light we observe to get to us.  Comprede'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo now prove the Big Bang happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can still pick up on the radiation caused by the big bang...
Click to expand...


Oh boy  let me educate you on this as well.


1st law of thermo dynamics.
The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.

So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?

Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.

"in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"

This goes agains't the laws of physics,so they can't logically account for the energy.

So where did all the matter come from to form all we see ?

Let's go back to the textbook. " the tiny speck began to expand by 3 minutes atomic nuclei appeared" They can't tell us if the Big Bang took place 6 billion years ago or 13 billion years ago or 20 billion years ago so its constantly changing,yet they are gonna tell us what happened at the 3 minute mark  This doesn't make any sense what so ever. This is a religous belief it's not based on testable observable science.

I found this.

A letter signed by dozens of scientists that appeared in the New Scientist (Bucking the Big Bang,182(2448)20,May 22nd 2004) statements included.

"The Big Bang theory can't boast NO predictions that have been validated by observation. Claimed sucesses consist of retrospectively making observations fit by adding adjustable parameters."

Let's look at some of their adjustable parameters they added.

1. cosmic collisions are one of the magic wands which prop up the failed materialistic predictions.

Uranus is tilted over; Venus rotates the wrong direction; mars' atmosphere is too thin; Mercury is too dense; therefore,something collided with them to cause them not to fit the predictions !

The letter included statements such as :
The big bang relies on a groiwing number of never observed entities such as, inflation,dark matter,dark energy and can't survive without these fudge factors,in no other field of Physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted,its only accepted because it's a religous belief not observable testable science.

Another proof thrown out is red-shifted starlight.

Possible causes include :

1. Stellar motion. assumes stars are speeding outward from the big bang.

other examples of causes of red-shifted starlight.

1. Second order Doppler effect.
a light source moving at right angles to an observer always appears red-shifted,implying the universe is in a circular motion not expanding.

2. Gravitation. The star's gravity or the gravity of a galaxy may lengthen the wavelenglenth of the starlight. Light could be speeding toward or away from the earth.

3. Photon Interaction. That light waves lose energy while traveling across space,reddening its light.

4. other hypotheses include: the slowing of light or galaxies spiraling toward earth may cause the apparent red-shift.


So redshift is not evidence of the big bang.

Now getting to your comment.

They claim MBR is leftover energy from the supposed big bang. they leave out alot of problems with this, for instance, without hypothetical inflation the big bang does not predict the smooth cosmic background radiation.

Yet inflation requires a density 20 times larger than the big bang's explanation of the origin of the light elements implies ! The MBR is going in different directions not one direction, I believe the stars are the source of the MBR.

Also if the big bang took place billions of years ago,by now all of the matter in space should be evenly distributed but it's not. Stars are found in tightly wound up galaies or balls. This is called the winding up dilemma. The universe is to tightly wound up to be old.


----------



## HUGGY

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyFSdj1J5Vw]Steers and Queers come from Texas - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.
> 
> You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.
> 
> 
> 
> me thinks the slapdick doth quote the bard out of context ...if any poster prostesth too much tis thou O URINAL ROT.
> Daw's profanity is is well met in this debating forum as it fairly shouts of the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
> as to the good Hollie HIS sex is vexing only to the envious dullards who's cod pieces are as small as the shrunked goo that sleeps in  their tiny minds.
> Hollie's campaigns are not of hate  but of true knowledge that seeketh to Pierce the bloated and rotting falsehoods and fakery of the addled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
Click to expand...

it's  a Elizabethan (aka) Shakespearian shot at Ur's out of context use of Shakespeare..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> me thinks the slapdick doth quote the bard out of context ...if any poster prostesth too much tis thou O URINAL ROT.
> Daw's profanity is is well met in this debating forum as it fairly shouts of the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
> as to the good Hollie HIS sex is vexing only to the envious dullards who's cod pieces are as small as the shrunked goo that sleeps in  their tiny minds.
> Hollie's campaigns are not of hate  but of true knowledge that seeketh to Pierce the bloated and rotting falsehoods and fakery of the addled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's  a Elizabethan (aka) Shakespearian shot at Ur's out of context use of Shakespeare..
Click to expand...


This was directed at you and huggy as well.

Oh boy  let me educate you on this as well.


1st law of thermo dynamics.
The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.

So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?

Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.

"in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"

This goes agains't the laws of physics,so they can't logically account for the energy.

So where did all the matter come from to form all we see ?

Let's go back to the textbook. " the tiny speck began to expand by 3 minutes atomic nuclei appeared" They can't tell us if the Big Bang took place 6 billion years ago or 13 billion years ago or 20 billion years ago so its constantly changing,yet they are gonna tell us what happened at the 3 minute mark  This doesn't make any sense what so ever. This is a religous belief it's not based on testable observable science.

I found this.

A letter signed by dozens of scientists that appeared in the New Scientist (Bucking the Big Bang,182(2448)20,May 22nd 2004) statements included.

"The Big Bang theory can't boast NO predictions that have been validated by observation. Claimed sucesses consist of retrospectively making observations fit by adding adjustable parameters."

Let's look at some of their adjustable parameters they added.

1. cosmic collisions are one of the magic wands which prop up the failed materialistic predictions.

Uranus is tilted over; Venus rotates the wrong direction; mars' atmosphere is too thin; Mercury is too dense; therefore,something collided with them to cause them not to fit the predictions !

The letter included statements such as :
The big bang relies on a groiwing number of never observed entities such as, inflation,dark matter,dark energy and can't survive without these fudge factors,in no other field of Physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted,its only accepted because it's a religous belief not observable testable science.

Another proof thrown out is red-shifted starlight.

Possible causes include :

1. Stellar motion. assumes stars are speeding outward from the big bang.

other examples of causes of red-shifted starlight.

1. Second order Doppler effect.
a light source moving at right angles to an observer always appears red-shifted,implying the universe is in a circular motion not expanding.

2. Gravitation. The star's gravity or the gravity of a galaxy may lengthen the wavelenglenth of the starlight. Light could be speeding toward or away from the earth.

3. Photon Interaction. That light waves lose energy while traveling across space,reddening its light.

4. other hypotheses include: the slowing of light or galaxies spiraling toward earth may cause the apparent red-shift.


So redshift is not evidence of the big bang.

Now getting to your comment.

They claim MBR is leftover energy from the supposed big bang. they leave out alot of problems with this, for instance, without hypothetical inflation the big bang does not predict the smooth cosmic background radiation.

Yet inflation requires a density 20 times larger than the big bang's explanation of the origin of the light elements implies ! The MBR is going in different directions not one direction, I believe the stars are the source of the MBR.

Also if the big bang took place billions of years ago,by now all of the matter in space should be evenly distributed but it's not. Stars are found in tightly wound up galaies or balls. This is called the winding up dilemma. The universe is to tightly wound up to be old.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo now prove the Big Bang happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can still pick up on the radiation caused by the big bang...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy  let me educate you on this as well.
> 
> 
> 1st law of thermo dynamics.
> The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?
> 
> Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.
> 
> "in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"
> 
> This goes agains't the laws of physics,so they can't logically account for the energy.
> 
> So where did all the matter come from to form all we see ?
> 
> Let's go back to the textbook. " the tiny speck began to expand by 3 minutes atomic nuclei appeared" They can't tell us if the Big Bang took place 6 billion years ago or 13 billion years ago or 20 billion years ago so its constantly changing,yet they are gonna tell us what happened at the 3 minute mark  This doesn't make any sense what so ever. This is a religous belief it's not based on testable observable science.
> 
> I found this.
> 
> A letter signed by dozens of scientists that appeared in the New Scientist (Bucking the Big Bang,182(2448)20,May 22nd 2004) statements included.
> 
> "The Big Bang theory can't boast NO predictions that have been validated by observation. Claimed sucesses consist of retrospectively making observations fit by adding adjustable parameters."
> 
> Let's look at some of their adjustable parameters they added.
> 
> 1. cosmic collisions are one of the magic wands which prop up the failed materialistic predictions.
> 
> Uranus is tilted over; Venus rotates the wrong direction; mars' atmosphere is too thin; Mercury is too dense; therefore,something collided with them to cause them not to fit the predictions !
> 
> The letter included statements such as :
> The big bang relies on a groiwing number of never observed entities such as, inflation,dark matter,dark energy and can't survive without these fudge factors,in no other field of Physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted,its only accepted because it's a religous belief not observable testable science.
> 
> Another proof thrown out is red-shifted starlight.
> 
> Possible causes include :
> 
> 1. Stellar motion. assumes stars are speeding outward from the big bang.
> 
> other examples of causes of red-shifted starlight.
> 
> 1. Second order Doppler effect.
> a light source moving at right angles to an observer always appears red-shifted,implying the universe is in a circular motion not expanding.
> 
> 2. Gravitation. The star's gravity or the gravity of a galaxy may lengthen the wavelenglenth of the starlight. Light could be speeding toward or away from the earth.
> 
> 3. Photon Interaction. That light waves lose energy while traveling across space,reddening its light.
> 
> 4. other hypotheses include: the slowing of light or galaxies spiraling toward earth may cause the apparent red-shift.
> 
> 
> *So redshift is not evidence of the big bang.*
> 
> Now getting to your comment.
> 
> They claim MBR is leftover energy from the supposed big bang. they leave out alot of problems with this, for instance, without hypothetical inflation the big bang does not predict the smooth cosmic background radiation.
> 
> Yet inflation requires a density 20 times larger than the big bang's explanation of the origin of the light elements implies ! The MBR is going in different directions not one direction, I believe the stars are the source of the MBR.
> 
> Also if the big bang took place billions of years ago,by now all of the matter in space should be evenly distributed but it's not. Stars are found in tightly wound up galaies or balls. This is called the winding up dilemma. The universe is to tightly wound up to be old.
Click to expand...


Well Hell's Bells!!  Why didn't you just say so?  

                                       

What a maroon!


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anyone on here claiming the earth was young. That's a strawman that your side created.
> 
> 
> 
> then your head must bee up your ass as it's ywc argument for creationism ....try to keep up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you need another drink.
Click to expand...

since I stopped drinking many years ago yours is a false assuption...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> lie. I called YWC out on that subject previously.
> 
> Now run along you creepy stalker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a link or get lost LIAR. You need to be able to back up you lying accusations or you have no credibility here.
> 
> I will be waiting for the link where I or YWC quoted Harun Yahya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my. Aren't you the angry fundie. The melodrama is so cute.
> 
> YWC is posting. Why don't you ask him?
Click to expand...


Provide the link or get lost liar.


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can still pick up on the radiation caused by the big bang...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy  let me educate you on this as well.
> 
> 
> 1st law of thermo dynamics.
> The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?
> 
> Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.
> 
> "in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"
> 
> This goes agains't the laws of physics,so they can't logically account for the energy.
> 
> So where did all the matter come from to form all we see ?
> 
> Let's go back to the textbook. " the tiny speck began to expand by 3 minutes atomic nuclei appeared" They can't tell us if the Big Bang took place 6 billion years ago or 13 billion years ago or 20 billion years ago so its constantly changing,yet they are gonna tell us what happened at the 3 minute mark  This doesn't make any sense what so ever. This is a religous belief it's not based on testable observable science.
> 
> I found this.
> 
> A letter signed by dozens of scientists that appeared in the New Scientist (Bucking the Big Bang,182(2448)20,May 22nd 2004) statements included.
> 
> "The Big Bang theory can't boast NO predictions that have been validated by observation. Claimed sucesses consist of retrospectively making observations fit by adding adjustable parameters."
> 
> Let's look at some of their adjustable parameters they added.
> 
> 1. cosmic collisions are one of the magic wands which prop up the failed materialistic predictions.
> 
> Uranus is tilted over; Venus rotates the wrong direction; mars' atmosphere is too thin; Mercury is too dense; therefore,something collided with them to cause them not to fit the predictions !
> 
> The letter included statements such as :
> The big bang relies on a groiwing number of never observed entities such as, inflation,dark matter,dark energy and can't survive without these fudge factors,in no other field of Physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted,its only accepted because it's a religous belief not observable testable science.
> 
> Another proof thrown out is red-shifted starlight.
> 
> Possible causes include :
> 
> 1. Stellar motion. assumes stars are speeding outward from the big bang.
> 
> other examples of causes of red-shifted starlight.
> 
> 1. Second order Doppler effect.
> a light source moving at right angles to an observer always appears red-shifted,implying the universe is in a circular motion not expanding.
> 
> 2. Gravitation. The star's gravity or the gravity of a galaxy may lengthen the wavelenglenth of the starlight. Light could be speeding toward or away from the earth.
> 
> 3. Photon Interaction. That light waves lose energy while traveling across space,reddening its light.
> 
> 4. other hypotheses include: the slowing of light or galaxies spiraling toward earth may cause the apparent red-shift.
> 
> 
> *So redshift is not evidence of the big bang.*
> 
> Now getting to your comment.
> 
> They claim MBR is leftover energy from the supposed big bang. they leave out alot of problems with this, for instance, without hypothetical inflation the big bang does not predict the smooth cosmic background radiation.
> 
> Yet inflation requires a density 20 times larger than the big bang's explanation of the origin of the light elements implies ! The MBR is going in different directions not one direction, I believe the stars are the source of the MBR.
> 
> Also if the big bang took place billions of years ago,by now all of the matter in space should be evenly distributed but it's not. Stars are found in tightly wound up galaies or balls. This is called the winding up dilemma. The universe is to tightly wound up to be old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Hell's Bells!!  Why didn't you just say so?
> 
> 
> 
> What a maroon!
Click to expand...

what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, this wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, so stop over-using this term. A personal attack is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack, unless that attack is used as a debate tactic, used to distract from the actual arguments.  I am not trying to distract from the debate, but commenting on your behavior which itself, was an ad hominem attack. You don't just get to throw around "ad hominem" attack everytime someone insults you.  That's such a cop out. Funny that you accuse me of an ad hominem when asking for education credentials would be the epitome of an ad hominem debate tactic. Their credentials have nothing to do with their arguments, and the same goes for them asking for your credentials. You didn't have to give it to them.
> 
> I see you insulting Daws and Hollie all the time, so don't cry "ad hominem." Also, I don't spend as much time here as some others, so I simply wasn't here when Daws or Hollie asked for your education credentials. I am not defending them, I am only commenting on what I see when I come here. Stop trying to make it seem like *I am only picking on you because I disagree with you.*
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the case. You are the only one I see doing it. Life is unfair sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> me thinks the slapdick doth quote the bard out of context ...if any poster prostesth too much tis thou O URINAL ROT.
> Daw's profanity is is well met in this debating forum as it fairly shouts of the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
> as to the good Hollie HIS sex is vexing only to the envious dullards who's cod pieces are as small as the shrunked goo that sleeps in  their tiny minds.
> Hollie's campaigns are not of hate  but of true knowledge that seeketh to Pierce the bloated and rotting falsehoods and fakery of the addled.
Click to expand...


Well there you have it, right there in black and white folks. Daws is just as stupid his manlove interest Hollie.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Light year is a measure of distance. not a measure of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong! are you really this ignorant...
> a light YEAR    is a measure of HOW FAR LIGHT TRAVELS IN A YEAR ..so by defintion it's a measure of time
Click to expand...


Stupid. Stupid. It is a* measure of distance* using time. Nice try though.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Light year is a measure of distance. not a measure of time.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! are you really this ignorant...
> a light YEAR    is a measure of HOW FAR LIGHT TRAVELS IN A YEAR ..so by defintion it's a measure of time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's both actually.  Since light is a constant the time it travels in one year can be a measurement in miles.  It is scientific shorthand as the distances it refers to are awkward numbers.  It is clearly also a reference to time.  That's why they call it a light *YEAR*.
Click to expand...


Double stupid. Wow, there is one thing the last 10 pages have revealed is that the atheist haters on here need to spend less time on the forums and more time with their noise in a science book. It's getting really pathetic.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Light year is a measure of distance. not a measure of time.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! are you really this ignorant...
> a light YEAR    is a measure of HOW FAR LIGHT TRAVELS IN A YEAR ..so by defintion it's a measure of time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's both actually.  Since light is a constant the time it travels in one year can be a measurement in miles.  It is scientific shorthand as the distances it refers to are awkward numbers.  It is clearly also a reference to time.  That's why they call it a light *YEAR*.
Click to expand...


So Daws and Huggy, how can I use a light year to measure how much time has passed since your last post???  You both should really stick to theatre and drug smuggling.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here again, we see the fundie has a stalkers' obsession with me. I'm afraid the fundie is hoping to compensate *for his own lack of education and inability to come to terms with his own failings. *
> 
> 
> 
> Baiting again??? I'm coming to terms with the fact this is your clever way to disguise your own ignorance.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on fundie, let's see more of your posting in gargantuan fonts, trying desperately to pry personal information to placate your lurid obsession.
> 
> And while you're lecturing people on "logic", please tell us how logic is used to delineate your supernatural world of gawds and demons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can start by reading the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas. His arguments for the existence of God are based on logic and reasoning, something which is very foreign to you and I would not expect you to recognize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, and and you are right but
> with all it's logic and reasoning it's false, as Aquinas's assumptions are unprovable he ,just like you have no tangible, testable, objective, quantifiable evidence to corroborate it.
Click to expand...


Thanks but no one asked for your irrelevant answers that weren't part of the original question. Hollie wanted to know how logic is used to delineate the supernatural world.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> lie. I called YWC out on that subject previously.
> 
> Now run along you creepy stalker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a link or get lost LIAR. You need to be able to back up you lying accusations or you have no credibility here.
> 
> I will be waiting for the link where I or YWC quoted Harun Yahya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHERE DO YOU GET THE IDEA THAT YOUR RAVINGS ARE CREDIBLE ?
> The only corroboration you can provide  is pseudoscience and the opinions  of people who suffer from the same delusional thinking you do.
> in short, you have no credibilty now ,will have none in the future.
Click to expand...


You always have trouble staying on topic. No need to come to your man love's defense here.


----------



## HUGGY

These yahoo's get much of their "information" from the people that run The Discovery Institute based in Seattle.  I had the fortune to meet these morons in person on a christian related project I was working on about a dozen years ago.  

Discovery Institute - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

They are totally whackadoodle. I don't think they really believe in their own bullshit themselves.. I think they are just taking adavantage of some really stupid people so they can make money.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> me thinks the slapdick doth quote the bard out of context ...if any poster prostesth too much tis thou O URINAL ROT.
> Daw's profanity is is well met in this debating forum as it fairly shouts of the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
> as to the good Hollie HIS sex is vexing only to the envious dullards who's cod pieces are as small as the shrunked goo that sleeps in  their tiny minds.
> Hollie's campaigns are not of hate  but of true knowledge that seeketh to Pierce the bloated and rotting falsehoods and fakery of the addled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's  a Elizabethan (aka) Shakespearian shot at Ur's out of context use of Shakespeare..
Click to expand...


Wow, all those years in theatre and you still don't grasp Shakespeare??? You really did ride the shortbus didn't you? I know exactly the context it was used in. NP was going overboard trying to say he wasn't attacking me because he disagrees with me when that is exactly what he was doing.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.
> 
> You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.
> 
> 
> 
> me thinks the slapdick doth quote the bard out of context ...if any poster prostesth too much tis thou O URINAL ROT.
> Daw's profanity is is well met in this debating forum as it fairly shouts of the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
> as to the good Hollie HIS sex is vexing only to the envious dullards who's cod pieces are as small as the shrunked goo that sleeps in  their tiny minds.
> Hollie's campaigns are not of hate  but of true knowledge that seeketh to Pierce the bloated and rotting falsehoods and fakery of the addled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well there you have it, right there in black and white folks. Daws is just is stupid his manlove interest Hollie.
Click to expand...

what you would you be blathering about?
"daws is just"- ur  I'll take that as a complement ,
your answer proves you have a comp problem and the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy  let me educate you on this as well.
> 
> 
> 1st law of thermo dynamics.
> The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?
> 
> Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.
> 
> "in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"
> 
> This goes agains't the laws of physics,so they can't logically account for the energy.
> 
> So where did all the matter come from to form all we see ?
> 
> Let's go back to the textbook. " the tiny speck began to expand by 3 minutes atomic nuclei appeared" They can't tell us if the Big Bang took place 6 billion years ago or 13 billion years ago or 20 billion years ago so its constantly changing,yet they are gonna tell us what happened at the 3 minute mark  This doesn't make any sense what so ever. This is a religous belief it's not based on testable observable science.
> 
> I found this.
> 
> A letter signed by dozens of scientists that appeared in the New Scientist (Bucking the Big Bang,182(2448)20,May 22nd 2004) statements included.
> 
> "The Big Bang theory can't boast NO predictions that have been validated by observation. Claimed sucesses consist of retrospectively making observations fit by adding adjustable parameters."
> 
> Let's look at some of their adjustable parameters they added.
> 
> 1. cosmic collisions are one of the magic wands which prop up the failed materialistic predictions.
> 
> Uranus is tilted over; Venus rotates the wrong direction; mars' atmosphere is too thin; Mercury is too dense; therefore,something collided with them to cause them not to fit the predictions !
> 
> The letter included statements such as :
> The big bang relies on a groiwing number of never observed entities such as, inflation,dark matter,dark energy and can't survive without these fudge factors,in no other field of Physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted,its only accepted because it's a religous belief not observable testable science.
> 
> Another proof thrown out is red-shifted starlight.
> 
> Possible causes include :
> 
> 1. Stellar motion. assumes stars are speeding outward from the big bang.
> 
> other examples of causes of red-shifted starlight.
> 
> 1. Second order Doppler effect.
> a light source moving at right angles to an observer always appears red-shifted,implying the universe is in a circular motion not expanding.
> 
> 2. Gravitation. The star's gravity or the gravity of a galaxy may lengthen the wavelenglenth of the starlight. Light could be speeding toward or away from the earth.
> 
> 3. Photon Interaction. That light waves lose energy while traveling across space,reddening its light.
> 
> 4. other hypotheses include: the slowing of light or galaxies spiraling toward earth may cause the apparent red-shift.
> 
> 
> *So redshift is not evidence of the big bang.*
> 
> Now getting to your comment.
> 
> They claim MBR is leftover energy from the supposed big bang. they leave out alot of problems with this, for instance, without hypothetical inflation the big bang does not predict the smooth cosmic background radiation.
> 
> Yet inflation requires a density 20 times larger than the big bang's explanation of the origin of the light elements implies ! The MBR is going in different directions not one direction, I believe the stars are the source of the MBR.
> 
> Also if the big bang took place billions of years ago,by now all of the matter in space should be evenly distributed but it's not. Stars are found in tightly wound up galaies or balls. This is called the winding up dilemma. The universe is to tightly wound up to be old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Hell's Bells!!  Why didn't you just say so?
> 
> 
> 
> What a maroon!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
> all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.
Click to expand...


Oh the old closed system stupid atheist argument. So where did all the massive chaos go to balance out all the order on earth. Did it leave on a spaceship?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baiting again??? I'm coming to terms with the fact this is your clever way to disguise your own ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can start by reading the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas. His arguments for the existence of God are based on logic and reasoning, something which is very foreign to you and I would not expect you to recognize.
> 
> 
> 
> I have, and and you are right but
> with all it's logic and reasoning it's false, as Aquinas's assumptions are unprovable he ,just like you had no tangible, testable, objective, quantifiable evidence to corroborate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks but no one asked for your irrelevant answers that weren't part of the original question. Hollie wanted to know how logic is used to delineate the supernatural world.
Click to expand...

and I just showed that it can't as the susernatural world is not logical.
so your protest is unwaranted,  irrelevant and bitchy


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> me thinks the slapdick doth quote the bard out of context ...if any poster prostesth too much tis thou O URINAL ROT.
> Daw's profanity is is well met in this debating forum as it fairly shouts of the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
> as to the good Hollie HIS sex is vexing only to the envious dullards who's cod pieces are as small as the shrunked goo that sleeps in  their tiny minds.
> Hollie's campaigns are not of hate  but of true knowledge that seeketh to Pierce the bloated and rotting falsehoods and fakery of the addled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well there you have it, right there in black and white folks. Daws is just is stupid his manlove interest Hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you would you be blathering about?
> "daws is just"- ur  I'll take that as a complement ,
> your answer proves you have a comp problem and the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
Click to expand...


No need to defend your man crush. Hollie can go either way you want. Need a little Rugged Touch do you?

Wow. Look where this thread has gone. No opposer can actually put up a logical rebuttal so as the old saying goes... if you can't join 'em beat 'em.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a link or get lost LIAR. You need to be able to back up you lying accusations or you have no credibility here.
> 
> I will be waiting for the link where I or YWC quoted Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> 
> WHERE DO YOU GET THE IDEA THAT YOUR RAVINGS ARE CREDIBLE ?
> The only corroboration you can provide  is pseudoscience and the opinions  of people who suffer from the same delusional thinking you do.
> in short, you have no credibilty now ,will have none in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You always have trouble staying on topic. No need to come to your man love's defense here.
Click to expand...

your delusion is acting up, the point of this post is your imagined authority to question another poster's credibility.. so it's spot on topic.
BTW you can end the I'm following the rules farce.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baiting again??? I'm coming to terms with the fact this is your clever way to disguise your own ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can start by reading the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas. His arguments for the existence of God are based on logic and reasoning, something which is very foreign to you and I would not expect you to recognize.
> 
> 
> 
> I have, and and you are right but
> with all it's logic and reasoning it's false, as Aquinas's assumptions are unprovable he ,just like you have no tangible, testable, objective, quantifiable evidence to corroborate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks but no one asked for your irrelevant answers that weren't part of the original question. Hollie wanted to know how logic is used to delineate the supernatural world.
Click to expand...


 Actually, Hollie was commenting that your silly suggestion toward using logic to delineate a supernatural world was as pointless as your other claims to supermagicalism.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHERE DO YOU GET THE IDEA THAT YOUR RAVINGS ARE CREDIBLE ?
> The only corroboration you can provide  is pseudoscience and the opinions  of people who suffer from the same delusional thinking you do.
> in short, you have no credibilty now ,will have none in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You always have trouble staying on topic. No need to come to your man love's defense here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your delusion is acting up, the point of this post is your imagined authority to question another poster's credibility.. so it's spot on topic.
> BTW you can end the I'm following the rules farce.
Click to expand...


If someone makes outright lies about me personally in a post, that calls their credibility into question. Why is this so hard for you to understand?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have, and and you are right but
> with all it's logic and reasoning it's false, as Aquinas's assumptions are unprovable he ,just like you have no tangible, testable, objective, quantifiable evidence to corroborate it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks but no one asked for your irrelevant answers that weren't part of the original question. Hollie wanted to know how logic is used to delineate the supernatural world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Hollie was commenting that your silly suggestion toward using logic to delineate a supernatural world was as pointless as your other claims to supermagicalism.
Click to expand...


Provide the link to mine and YWC Harun Yahya cut and pastes* liar* or beat it.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well there you have it, right there in black and white folks. Daws is just is stupid his manlove interest Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> what you would you be blathering about?
> "daws is just"- ur  I'll take that as a complement ,
> your answer proves you have a comp problem and the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to defend your man crush. Hollie can go either way you want. Need a little Rugged Touch do you?
> 
> Wow. Look where this thread has gone. No opposer can actually put up a logical rebuttal so as the old saying goes... if you can't join 'em beat 'em.
Click to expand...


My creepy stalkers behavior is typical for stalkers whose every advance has been refused. He's an emotional basketcase who has only to lash out in frustration and anger. When stalkers are refused and get angry is when their a danger to themselves and others.


----------



## HUGGY

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what you would you be blathering about?
> "daws is just"- ur  I'll take that as a complement ,
> your answer proves you have a comp problem and the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to defend your man crush. Hollie can go either way you want. Need a little Rugged Touch do you?
> 
> Wow. Look where this thread has gone. No opposer can actually put up a logical rebuttal so as the old saying goes... if you can't join 'em beat 'em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My creepy stalkers behavior is typical for stalkers whose every advance has been refused. He's an emotional basketcase who has only to lash out in frustration and anger. When stalkers are refused and get angry is when their a danger to themselves and others.
Click to expand...


Didn't you know that the female mind secretes a chemical that renders the stalkers advances impotent?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks but no one asked for your irrelevant answers that weren't part of the original question. Hollie wanted to know how logic is used to delineate the supernatural world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Hollie was commenting that your silly suggestion toward using logic to delineate a supernatural world was as pointless as your other claims to supermagicalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide the link to mine and YWC Harun Yahya cut and pastes* liar* or beat it.
Click to expand...


Can't find the link? It's readily accessible. I was curious to see if the other creationist would step up to the plate. 

Does hey-Zeus approve of your lies and deceit?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> it's  a Elizabethan (aka) Shakespearian shot at Ur's out of context use of Shakespeare..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, all those years in theatre and you still don't grasp Shakespeare??? You really did ride the shortbus didn't you? I know exactly the context it was used in. NP was going overboard trying to say he wasn't attacking me because he disagrees with me when that is exactly what he was doing.
Click to expand...

it's you who doesn't grasp Shakespeare and your "use" is /was so far out of context it ,like you is laugable,
Np like everyone else you claim (in your paranoid state)  is attacking you,is in reality giving you some much need payback for your hubris and dumbfuckery.
you seem to think it's OK for you to character  assassinate anyone and everyone but you cry like a bitch when you get some.
put your big boy pants on...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always have trouble staying on topic. No need to come to your man love's defense here.
> 
> 
> 
> your delusion is acting up, the point of this post is your imagined authority to question another poster's credibility.. so it's spot on topic.
> BTW you can end the I'm following the rules farce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone makes outright lies about me personally in a post, that calls their credibility into question. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...

since you lie all the time your faux issue with credibility is ironic.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!! Ignorant people shouting ignorance to others all over the place. I doubt you, Hollie or Huggy have any comprehension of the theory of relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What does relativity have to with this discussion?* Absolutely nothing. Stop pea-cocking for no reason. This isn't a dating website.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were discussing the speed of light in the universe, right? For those of you who missed it...
> 
> *"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." *Amos Bronson Alcott
Click to expand...


You're trying so hard to slam me, you are not even paying attention, and shoving your foot in your mouth. 

For the purposes of this discussion, relativity is not involved, since light is simply being used as a rate (C) as it applies to the light-year, or the distance light travels in a year. No relativistic effects are involved in this discussion, so there is no application of the theory of relativity here. This is very simple arithmetic.

Game. Set. Match. Stick to your own  debates. You only make a fool of yourself when you are obviously trying so hard just to "pwn" an atheist.


----------



## newpolitics

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, this wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, so stop over-using this term. A personal attack is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack, unless that attack is used as a debate tactic, used to distract from the actual arguments.  I am not trying to distract from the debate, but commenting on your behavior which itself, was an ad hominem attack. You don't just get to throw around "ad hominem" attack everytime someone insults you.  That's such a cop out. Funny that you accuse me of an ad hominem when asking for education credentials would be the epitome of an ad hominem debate tactic. Their credentials have nothing to do with their arguments, and the same goes for them asking for your credentials. You didn't have to give it to them.
> 
> I see you insulting Daws and Hollie all the time, so don't cry "ad hominem." Also, I don't spend as much time here as some others, so I simply wasn't here when Daws or Hollie asked for your education credentials. I am not defending them, I am only commenting on what I see when I come here. Stop trying to make it seem like *I am only picking on you because I disagree with you.*
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the case. You are the only one I see doing it. Life is unfair sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> me thinks the slapdick doth quote the bard out of context ...if any poster prostesth too much tis thou O URINAL ROT.
> Daw's profanity is is well met in this debating forum as it fairly shouts of the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
> as to the good Hollie HIS sex is vexing only to the envious dullards who's cod pieces are as small as the shrunked goo that sleeps in  their tiny minds.
> Hollie's campaigns are not of hate  but of true knowledge that seeketh to Pierce the bloated and rotting falsehoods and fakery of the addled.
Click to expand...


Haha. Well said, sir


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Hell's Bells!!  Why didn't you just say so?
> 
> 
> 
> What a maroon!
> 
> 
> 
> what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
> all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the old closed system stupid atheist argument. So where did all the massive chaos go to balance out all the order on earth. Did it leave on a spaceship?
Click to expand...


Oh my, not the profoundly stupid, ICR nonsense. Fundies really should understand that real science will castrate the really, really absurd creationist arguments that rely on profound stupidity to be believed.



A Visit to the ICR: Part 8

Miscellany and Conclusions 
A few concepts from the Institute for Creation Research's Museum of Creation and Earth History did not fit neatly into any previous category, but deserve some analysis. 

This is the ICR's treatment of the First Law of Thermodynamics: 
The law of conservation of energy (also known as the first law of thermodynamics) is the best-proved and most universal law of science. It states that energy (capacity to do work) can change forms, but can be neither created nor destroyed. Energy includes everything in the physical universe (even matter); therefore nothing is being created. This reflects the completion of God's work of creating and making all things (Gen 2:1-3) and refutes the evolutionary concept of ongoing 'creation'.

In another misguided appeal to authority (this time, interestingly, an appeal to scientific law), the ICR distorts the First Law to convince its largely scientifically illiterate patrons that even science precludes evolution. It is interesting to me that the ICR chooses to use science in this manner. Is it possible that even the ICR realizes that the public, though distrustful and even perhaps fearful of science, realizes that it has a credibility beyond that of the Bible? 

The concept of "ongoing creation" (or "continuous creation" or possibly even "steady-state-theory") may refer to the now-defunct hypothesis proposed in the 1950's by astronomer Fred Hoyle: the universe was expanding, and "as the space between the galaxies stretched, new galaxies were being continuously created, out of nothing at all, to fill in the gaps" (Gribbin 1993: x). This hypothesis was disproved not by Genesis 2, but by scientists of the 1960's who accrued evidence supporting an alternate cosmology commonly known as The Big Bang (which the ICR doesn't like any better than "continuous creation").

"Ongoing creation" was never a concept related to biological evolution. Possibly what the ICR is trying to get at here is the theory that species don't evolve; they assert that there is no ongoing creation of species. If so, why not just say it? The First Law only refers to heat flow. Energy being converted to other forms is in no way inconsistent with evolution (or even special creation, for that matter). It's not really germane at all.

Another topic that I found fascinating was the concept of apparent age, or "functional maturity" -- the old "Omphalos" argument. This was even more interesting because I had just sat through a lecture by ICR geologist Steve Austin which dealt with, in part, attempts to date rocks. (Why does the ICR bother to do it at all if they know that the rocks just "look old"?). 

Creation of a functionally mature creation (sometimes called "apparent age") necessarily implies that the objects and living systems exhibit the appearance of a prior history or process involved in their formation. Fruit trees were mature, fruit-bearing trees, not seeds; Adam was a full-grown man; the land had a fertile topsoil covering to it; the rocks would possess a variety of isotopes and elements, et cetera. If one denies the true revealed history of the world, and attempts to date the object or the world, this functional maturity could be mistaken for age. (Emphasis added) 

There is no logical reason why a god would impart "the appearance of age" into a creation, unless that god's purpose was to deceive the "created" (and that says a lot about the god). We would be completely comfortable emotionally if all dates did converge on 6-10,000 years, and if this were consistent with scientific data. There is no reason why 'rocks would possess a variety of isotopes and elements'; our particular isotope mix is simply whatever was there when the solar system began to coalesce. I invoke the Goldilocks principle here -- if it hadn't been "just right", or at least "OK", we wouldn't be here arguing about this on the internet. Note the emphasis on "true revealed history" as the only accurate dating method -- and make sure it is the revealed history as given to fundamentalist Christians and the ICR, not that of Hindus, Buddhists, or Australian Aborigines. This dependence upon revealed history spills over into the age of the earth debate: 

If the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are taken literally, the Creation must have been relatively recent, about 6000 to 10,000 years ago. There are no firmly documented historical accounts older than this. Older ages must be derived from some physical process (eg., radioactive decay), and based on at least three untestable and unreasonable assumptions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy  let me educate you on this as well.
> 
> 
> 1st law of thermo dynamics.
> The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?
> 
> Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.
> 
> "in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"
> 
> This goes agains't the laws of physics,so they can't logically account for the energy.
> 
> So where did all the matter come from to form all we see ?
> 
> Let's go back to the textbook. " the tiny speck began to expand by 3 minutes atomic nuclei appeared" They can't tell us if the Big Bang took place 6 billion years ago or 13 billion years ago or 20 billion years ago so its constantly changing,yet they are gonna tell us what happened at the 3 minute mark  This doesn't make any sense what so ever. This is a religous belief it's not based on testable observable science.
> 
> I found this.
> 
> A letter signed by dozens of scientists that appeared in the New Scientist (Bucking the Big Bang,182(2448)20,May 22nd 2004) statements included.
> 
> "The Big Bang theory can't boast NO predictions that have been validated by observation. Claimed sucesses consist of retrospectively making observations fit by adding adjustable parameters."
> 
> Let's look at some of their adjustable parameters they added.
> 
> 1. cosmic collisions are one of the magic wands which prop up the failed materialistic predictions.
> 
> Uranus is tilted over; Venus rotates the wrong direction; mars' atmosphere is too thin; Mercury is too dense; therefore,something collided with them to cause them not to fit the predictions !
> 
> The letter included statements such as :
> The big bang relies on a groiwing number of never observed entities such as, inflation,dark matter,dark energy and can't survive without these fudge factors,in no other field of Physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted,its only accepted because it's a religous belief not observable testable science.
> 
> Another proof thrown out is red-shifted starlight.
> 
> Possible causes include :
> 
> 1. Stellar motion. assumes stars are speeding outward from the big bang.
> 
> other examples of causes of red-shifted starlight.
> 
> 1. Second order Doppler effect.
> a light source moving at right angles to an observer always appears red-shifted,implying the universe is in a circular motion not expanding.
> 
> 2. Gravitation. The star's gravity or the gravity of a galaxy may lengthen the wavelenglenth of the starlight. Light could be speeding toward or away from the earth.
> 
> 3. Photon Interaction. That light waves lose energy while traveling across space,reddening its light.
> 
> 4. other hypotheses include: the slowing of light or galaxies spiraling toward earth may cause the apparent red-shift.
> 
> 
> *So redshift is not evidence of the big bang.*
> 
> Now getting to your comment.
> 
> They claim MBR is leftover energy from the supposed big bang. they leave out alot of problems with this, for instance, without hypothetical inflation the big bang does not predict the smooth cosmic background radiation.
> 
> Yet inflation requires a density 20 times larger than the big bang's explanation of the origin of the light elements implies ! The MBR is going in different directions not one direction, I believe the stars are the source of the MBR.
> 
> Also if the big bang took place billions of years ago,by now all of the matter in space should be evenly distributed but it's not. Stars are found in tightly wound up galaies or balls. This is called the winding up dilemma. The universe is to tightly wound up to be old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Hell's Bells!!  Why didn't you just say so?
> 
> 
> 
> What a maroon!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
> all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.
Click to expand...


Daws prove space is not a closed system  Daws have you been able to see beyond the stars to know it's infinite ? 

You guys are so ignorant of the facts you can't see when you contradict yourself.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Hell's Bells!!  Why didn't you just say so?
> 
> 
> 
> What a maroon!
> 
> 
> 
> what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
> all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws prove space is not a closed system  Daws have you been able to see beyond the stars to know it's infinite ?
> If time had a beginning which it is that means you live in a closed system.
> 
> You guys are so ignorant of the facts you can't see when you contradict yourself.
Click to expand...

 "Quote-mining" the nonsense belching out of the ICR only further dismantles your already refuted claims.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy  let me educate you on this as well.
> 
> 
> 1st law of thermo dynamics.
> The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?
> 
> Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.
> 
> "in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"
> 
> This goes agains't the laws of physics,so they can't logically account for the energy.
> 
> So where did all the matter come from to form all we see ?
> 
> Let's go back to the textbook. " the tiny speck began to expand by 3 minutes atomic nuclei appeared" They can't tell us if the Big Bang took place 6 billion years ago or 13 billion years ago or 20 billion years ago so its constantly changing,yet they are gonna tell us what happened at the 3 minute mark  This doesn't make any sense what so ever. This is a religous belief it's not based on testable observable science.
> 
> I found this.
> 
> A letter signed by dozens of scientists that appeared in the New Scientist (Bucking the Big Bang,182(2448)20,May 22nd 2004) statements included.
> 
> "The Big Bang theory can't boast NO predictions that have been validated by observation. Claimed sucesses consist of retrospectively making observations fit by adding adjustable parameters."
> 
> Let's look at some of their adjustable parameters they added.
> 
> 1. cosmic collisions are one of the magic wands which prop up the failed materialistic predictions.
> 
> Uranus is tilted over; Venus rotates the wrong direction; mars' atmosphere is too thin; Mercury is too dense; therefore,something collided with them to cause them not to fit the predictions !
> 
> The letter included statements such as :
> The big bang relies on a groiwing number of never observed entities such as, inflation,dark matter,dark energy and can't survive without these fudge factors,in no other field of Physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted,its only accepted because it's a religous belief not observable testable science.
> 
> Another proof thrown out is red-shifted starlight.
> 
> Possible causes include :
> 
> 1. Stellar motion. assumes stars are speeding outward from the big bang.
> 
> other examples of causes of red-shifted starlight.
> 
> 1. Second order Doppler effect.
> a light source moving at right angles to an observer always appears red-shifted,implying the universe is in a circular motion not expanding.
> 
> 2. Gravitation. The star's gravity or the gravity of a galaxy may lengthen the wavelenglenth of the starlight. Light could be speeding toward or away from the earth.
> 
> 3. Photon Interaction. That light waves lose energy while traveling across space,reddening its light.
> 
> 4. other hypotheses include: the slowing of light or galaxies spiraling toward earth may cause the apparent red-shift.
> 
> 
> *So redshift is not evidence of the big bang.*
> 
> Now getting to your comment.
> 
> They claim MBR is leftover energy from the supposed big bang. they leave out alot of problems with this, for instance, without hypothetical inflation the big bang does not predict the smooth cosmic background radiation.
> 
> Yet inflation requires a density 20 times larger than the big bang's explanation of the origin of the light elements implies ! The MBR is going in different directions not one direction, I believe the stars are the source of the MBR.
> 
> Also if the big bang took place billions of years ago,by now all of the matter in space should be evenly distributed but it's not. Stars are found in tightly wound up galaies or balls. This is called the winding up dilemma. The universe is to tightly wound up to be old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Hell's Bells!!  Why didn't you just say so?
> 
> 
> 
> What a maroon!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
> all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.
Click to expand...


Types of Systems


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> These yahoo's get much of their "information" from the people that run The Discovery Institute based in Seattle.  I had the fortune to meet these morons in person on a christian related project I was working on about a dozen years ago.
> 
> Discovery Institute - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> They are totally whackadoodle. I don't think they really believe in their own bullshit themselves.. I think they are just taking adavantage of some really stupid people so they can make money.



I notice you people when hit with questions you have no answer for you hide behind your rhetoric and pretend the one that calls you out are ignorant and stupid


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
> all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws prove space is not a closed system  Daws have you been able to see beyond the stars to know it's infinite ?
> If time had a beginning which it is that means you live in a closed system.
> 
> You guys are so ignorant of the facts you can't see when you contradict yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Quote-mining" the nonsense belching out of the ICR only further dismantles your already refuted claims.
Click to expand...


Like i said before,address my questions or I will ignore you like I will ignore the other fool that speaks out his butt.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

Youwerecreated said:


> Oh boy  let me educate you on this as well.
> 
> 
> 1st law of thermo dynamics.
> The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?


The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.



> Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.
> 
> "in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"



Kenneth *Feder* is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning.



> This goes agains't the laws of physics,so they can't logically account for the energy.



This is the silly conclusion one might come to when one gets their information about cosmology from an anthropology and archaeology text book.



> So where did all the matter come from to form all we see ?


Lawrence Krauss (a physicist) has some ideas on this matter, you could read  _A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing_... 

Or you could ask a history professor.




> I found this.
> 
> A letter signed by dozens of scientists that appeared in the New Scientist (Bucking the Big Bang,182(2448)20,May 22nd 2004) statements included.
> 
> "The Big Bang theory can't boast NO predictions that have been validated by observation. Claimed sucesses consist of retrospectively making observations fit by adding adjustable parameters."


Which scientists and why?



> Let's look at some of their adjustable parameters they added.
> 
> 1. cosmic collisions are one of the magic wands which prop up the failed materialistic predictions.
> 
> Uranus is tilted over; Venus rotates the wrong direction; mars' atmosphere is too thin; Mercury is too dense; therefore,something collided with them to cause them not to fit the predictions !



Firstly, what predictions.

Secondly, you are familiar with the nebular theory right? No shit! There were collisions?



> The letter included statements such as :
> The big bang relies on a groiwing number of never observed entities such as, inflation,dark matter,dark energy and can't survive without these fudge factors,in no other field of Physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted,its only accepted because it's a religous belief not observable testable science.


Dark energy has been observed with the expansion of the universe.. The nature of dark matter makes it a bit more difficult due to the nature of it.



> Another proof thrown out is red-shifted starlight.
> 
> Possible causes include :
> 
> 1. Stellar motion. assumes stars are speeding outward from the big bang.
> 
> other examples of causes of red-shifted starlight.
> 
> 1. Second order Doppler effect.
> a light source moving at right angles to an observer always appears red-shifted,implying the universe is in a circular motion not expanding.
> 
> 2. Gravitation. The star's gravity or the gravity of a galaxy may lengthen the wavelenglenth of the starlight. Light could be speeding toward or away from the earth.
> 
> 3. Photon Interaction. That light waves lose energy while traveling across space,reddening its light.
> 
> 4. other hypotheses include: the slowing of light or galaxies spiraling toward earth may cause the apparent red-shift.
> 
> 
> So redshift is not evidence of the big bang.


Doesn't follow YWC you provided other hypotheses you did disprove the big bang as a source. Did you get this argument from an anthropology text book as well



> Now getting to your comment.


Took you long enough.



> They claim MBR is leftover energy from the supposed big bang. they leave out alot of problems with this, for instance, without hypothetical inflation the big bang does not predict the smooth cosmic background radiation.



Im sorry Im going to have to ask you to elaborate on your highly technical and descriptive word "smooth". What do you mean by that? Im sorry to ask but I haven't read to many anthropology text yet so I'm kind of out of my depth here.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> These yahoo's get much of their "information" from the people that run The Discovery Institute based in Seattle.  I had the fortune to meet these morons in person on a christian related project I was working on about a dozen years ago.
> 
> Discovery Institute - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> They are totally whackadoodle. I don't think they really believe in their own bullshit themselves.. I think they are just taking adavantage of some really stupid people so they can make money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you people when hit with questions you have no answer for you hide behind your rhetoric and pretend the one that calls you out are ignorant and stupid
Click to expand...


What does that statement calling my post "rhetoric" have to do with me having visited and gotten to know the scam artists you morons follow blindly.  Your post is stupid has nothing  to do with anything I provided about The Discovery Institute.

You morons just lap up their propaganga like mothers milk with no question..wheras I have actually been at meetings with the brothers that run the Discovery Institute.  AKA I know what I am talking about and you duped creationist idiots not so much.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws prove space is not a closed system  Daws have you been able to see beyond the stars to know it's infinite ?
> If time had a beginning which it is that means you live in a closed system.
> 
> You guys are so ignorant of the facts you can't see when you contradict yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote-mining" the nonsense belching out of the ICR only further dismantles your already refuted claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said before,address my questions or I will ignore you like I will ignore the other fool that speaks out his butt.
Click to expand...


Your "question" derives from nonsensical creationist attempts to mold answers to fit a predefined conclusion. Your really silly posts in connection with thermodynamics are typical, boilerplate creationist silliness that has been refuted and discarded as junk science.

You've been spoken to repeatedly about the careless and assinine cut and pasting you dump in this thread and your latest disaster (the thermo nonsense), may be your most careless and assisnie yet.


----------



## Youwerecreated

PretentiousGuy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy  let me educate you on this as well.
> 
> 
> 1st law of thermo dynamics.
> The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.
> 
> "in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kenneth *Feder* is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the silly conclusion one might come to when one gets their information about cosmology from an anthropology and archaeology text book.
> 
> 
> Lawrence Krauss (a physicist) has some ideas on this matter, you could read  _A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing_...
> 
> Or you could ask a history professor.
> 
> 
> 
> Which scientists and why?
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, what predictions.
> 
> Secondly, you are familiar with the nebular theory right? No shit! There were collisions?
> 
> 
> Dark energy has been observed with the expansion of the universe.. The nature of dark matter makes it a bit more difficult due to the nature of it.
> 
> 
> Doesn't follow YWC you provided other hypotheses you did disprove the big bang as a source. Did you get this argument from an anthropology text book as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now getting to your comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Took you long enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They claim MBR is leftover energy from the supposed big bang. they leave out alot of problems with this, for instance, without hypothetical inflation the big bang does not predict the smooth cosmic background radiation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im sorry Im going to have to ask you to elaborate on your highly technical and descriptive word "smooth". What do you mean by that? Im sorry to ask but I haven't read to many anthropology text yet so I'm kind of out of my depth here.
Click to expand...


Ask the author that was quoted,if you didn't notice scietists were quoted 

By all means then you should have an answer to where energy came from and where the matter came from.

Quit avoiding the questions and provide some hard data. Don't be reduced to huggy,Daws,and the hallow master.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> These yahoo's get much of their "information" from the people that run The Discovery Institute based in Seattle.  I had the fortune to meet these morons in person on a christian related project I was working on about a dozen years ago.
> 
> Discovery Institute - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> They are totally whackadoodle. I don't think they really believe in their own bullshit themselves.. I think they are just taking adavantage of some really stupid people so they can make money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you people when hit with questions you have no answer for you hide behind your rhetoric and pretend the one that calls you out are ignorant and stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that statement calling my post "rhetoric" have to do with me having visited and gotten to know the scam artists you morons follow blindly.  Your post is stupid has nothing  to do with anything I provided about The Discovery Institute.
> 
> You morons just lap up their propaganga like mothers milk with no question..wheras I have actually been at meetings with the brothers that run the Discovery Institute.  AKA I know what I am talking about and you duped creationist idiots not so much.
Click to expand...


Sir, I was educated at the University of Arizona you are just to ignorant to believe scientists don't all agree on the theories that you slurp up as fact.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy  let me educate you on this as well.
> 
> 
> 1st law of thermo dynamics.
> The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.
> 
> 
> 
> Kenneth *Feder* is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the silly conclusion one might come to when one gets their information about cosmology from an anthropology and archaeology text book.
> 
> 
> Lawrence Krauss (a physicist) has some ideas on this matter, you could read  _A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing_...
> 
> Or you could ask a history professor.
> 
> 
> 
> Which scientists and why?
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, what predictions.
> 
> Secondly, you are familiar with the nebular theory right? No shit! There were collisions?
> 
> 
> Dark energy has been observed with the expansion of the universe.. The nature of dark matter makes it a bit more difficult due to the nature of it.
> 
> 
> Doesn't follow YWC you provided other hypotheses you did disprove the big bang as a source. Did you get this argument from an anthropology text book as well
> 
> 
> Took you long enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They claim MBR is leftover energy from the supposed big bang. they leave out alot of problems with this, for instance, without hypothetical inflation the big bang does not predict the smooth cosmic background radiation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im sorry Im going to have to ask you to elaborate on your highly technical and descriptive word "smooth". What do you mean by that? Im sorry to ask but I haven't read to many anthropology text yet so I'm kind of out of my depth here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask the author that was quoted,if you didn't notice scietists were quoted
> 
> By all means then you should have an answer to where energy came from and where the matter came from.
> 
> Quit avoiding the questions and provide some hard data. Don't be reduced to huggy,Daws,and the hallow master.
Click to expand...


As usual, you're backed into a corner and can't address a single point.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.
> 
> 
> 
> Kenneth *Feder* is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the silly conclusion one might come to when one gets their information about cosmology from an anthropology and archaeology text book.
> 
> 
> Lawrence Krauss (a physicist) has some ideas on this matter, you could read  _A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing_...
> 
> Or you could ask a history professor.
> 
> 
> 
> Which scientists and why?
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, what predictions.
> 
> Secondly, you are familiar with the nebular theory right? No shit! There were collisions?
> 
> 
> Dark energy has been observed with the expansion of the universe.. The nature of dark matter makes it a bit more difficult due to the nature of it.
> 
> 
> Doesn't follow YWC you provided other hypotheses you did disprove the big bang as a source. Did you get this argument from an anthropology text book as well
> 
> 
> Took you long enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Im sorry Im going to have to ask you to elaborate on your highly technical and descriptive word "smooth". What do you mean by that? Im sorry to ask but I haven't read to many anthropology text yet so I'm kind of out of my depth here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the author that was quoted,if you didn't notice scietists were quoted
> 
> By all means then you should have an answer to where energy came from and where the matter came from.
> 
> Quit avoiding the questions and provide some hard data. Don't be reduced to huggy,Daws,and the hallow master.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you're backed into a corner and can't address a single point.
Click to expand...


smooth (sm)
adj. smooth·er, smooth·est 
1. Having a surface free from irregularities, roughness, or projections; even. See Synonyms at level.
2. Having a fine texture: a smooth fabric.
3. 
a. Free from hair, whiskers, or stubble: felt his smooth cheek after the close shave.
b. Having a short dense flat coat. Used of dogs.
4. Having an even consistency: a smooth pudding.
5. Having an even or gentle motion or movement: a smooth ride.
6. Having no obstructions or difficulties: a smooth operation.
7. Serene: a smooth temperament.
8. Bland: a smooth wine.
9. Ingratiatingly polite and agreeable.
10. Having no grossness or coarseness in dress or manner.
v. smoothed, smooth·ing, smoothes 
v.tr.
1. To make (something) even, level, or unwrinkled.
2. To rid of obstructions, hindrances, or difficulties.
3. To soothe or tranquilize; make calm.
4. To make less harsh or crude; refine.

I think the word should have been an easy to understand term.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what you would you be blathering about?
> "daws is just"- ur  I'll take that as a complement ,
> your answer proves you have a comp problem and the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to defend your man crush. Hollie can go either way you want. Need a little Rugged Touch do you?
> 
> Wow. Look where this thread has gone. No opposer can actually put up a logical rebuttal so as the old saying goes... if you can't join 'em beat 'em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My creepy stalkers behavior is typical for stalkers whose every advance has been refused. He's an emotional basketcase who has only to lash out in frustration and anger. When stalkers are refused and get angry is when their a danger to themselves and others.
Click to expand...


I just threw up in my mouth again. Please quit verbalizing your fantasies about me pervert.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Hollie was commenting that your silly suggestion toward using logic to delineate a supernatural world was as pointless as your other claims to supermagicalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide the link to mine and YWC Harun Yahya cut and pastes* liar* or beat it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't find the link? It's readily accessible. I was curious to see if the other creationist would step up to the plate.
> 
> Does hey-Zeus approve of your lies and deceit?
Click to expand...


You can't use your lies and trickery to turn this one around. You accused *ME* of cutting and pasting from Haran Yahya. Now show me where I did that *liar* or get lost.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's  a Elizabethan (aka) Shakespearian shot at Ur's out of context use of Shakespeare..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, all those years in theatre and you still don't grasp Shakespeare??? You really did ride the shortbus didn't you? I know exactly the context it was used in. NP was going overboard trying to say he wasn't attacking me because he disagrees with me when that is exactly what he was doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's you who doesn't grasp Shakespeare and your "use" is /was so far out of context it ,like you is laugable,
> Np like everyone else you claim (in your paranoid state)  is attacking you,is in reality giving you some much need payback for your hubris and dumbfuckery.
> you seem to think it's OK for you to character  assassinate anyone and everyone but you cry like a bitch when you get some.
> put your big boy pants on...
Click to expand...


As usual you come back with the profanity and ad hominem attacks but no where in your wordy post above did you state exactly why my Shakespearean quote was not in context. Try again homeslice.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
> all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the old closed system stupid atheist argument. So where did all the massive chaos go to balance out all the order on earth. Did it leave on a spaceship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my, not the profoundly stupid, ICR nonsense. Fundies really should understand that real science will castrate the really, really absurd creationist arguments that rely on profound stupidity to be believed.
> 
> 
> 
> A Visit to the ICR: Part 8
> 
> Miscellany and Conclusions
> A few concepts from the Institute for Creation Research's Museum of Creation and Earth History did not fit neatly into any previous category, but deserve some analysis.
> 
> This is the ICR's treatment of the First Law of Thermodynamics:
> The law of conservation of energy (also known as the first law of thermodynamics) is the best-proved and most universal law of science. It states that energy (capacity to do work) can change forms, but can be neither created nor destroyed. Energy includes everything in the physical universe (even matter); therefore nothing is being created. This reflects the completion of God's work of creating and making all things (Gen 2:1-3) and refutes the evolutionary concept of ongoing 'creation'.
> 
> In another misguided appeal to authority (this time, interestingly, an appeal to scientific law), the ICR distorts the First Law to convince its largely scientifically illiterate patrons that even science precludes evolution. It is interesting to me that the ICR chooses to use science in this manner. Is it possible that even the ICR realizes that the public, though distrustful and even perhaps fearful of science, realizes that it has a credibility beyond that of the Bible?
> 
> The concept of "ongoing creation" (or "continuous creation" or possibly even "steady-state-theory") may refer to the now-defunct hypothesis proposed in the 1950's by astronomer Fred Hoyle: the universe was expanding, and "as the space between the galaxies stretched, new galaxies were being continuously created, out of nothing at all, to fill in the gaps" (Gribbin 1993: x). This hypothesis was disproved not by Genesis 2, but by scientists of the 1960's who accrued evidence supporting an alternate cosmology commonly known as The Big Bang (which the ICR doesn't like any better than "continuous creation").
> 
> "Ongoing creation" was never a concept related to biological evolution. Possibly what the ICR is trying to get at here is the theory that species don't evolve; they assert that there is no ongoing creation of species. If so, why not just say it? The First Law only refers to heat flow. Energy being converted to other forms is in no way inconsistent with evolution (or even special creation, for that matter). It's not really germane at all.
> 
> Another topic that I found fascinating was the concept of apparent age, or "functional maturity" -- the old "Omphalos" argument. This was even more interesting because I had just sat through a lecture by ICR geologist Steve Austin which dealt with, in part, attempts to date rocks. (Why does the ICR bother to do it at all if they know that the rocks just "look old"?).
> 
> Creation of a functionally mature creation (sometimes called "apparent age") necessarily implies that the objects and living systems exhibit the appearance of a prior history or process involved in their formation. Fruit trees were mature, fruit-bearing trees, not seeds; Adam was a full-grown man; the land had a fertile topsoil covering to it; the rocks would possess a variety of isotopes and elements, et cetera. If one denies the true revealed history of the world, and attempts to date the object or the world, this functional maturity could be mistaken for age. (Emphasis added)
> 
> There is no logical reason why a god would impart "the appearance of age" into a creation, unless that god's purpose was to deceive the "created" (and that says a lot about the god). We would be completely comfortable emotionally if all dates did converge on 6-10,000 years, and if this were consistent with scientific data. There is no reason why 'rocks would possess a variety of isotopes and elements'; our particular isotope mix is simply whatever was there when the solar system began to coalesce. I invoke the Goldilocks principle here -- if it hadn't been "just right", or at least "OK", we wouldn't be here arguing about this on the internet. Note the emphasis on "true revealed history" as the only accurate dating method -- and make sure it is the revealed history as given to fundamentalist Christians and the ICR, not that of Hindus, Buddhists, or Australian Aborigines. This dependence upon revealed history spills over into the age of the earth debate:
> 
> If the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are taken literally, the Creation must have been relatively recent, about 6000 to 10,000 years ago. There are no firmly documented historical accounts older than this. Older ages must be derived from some physical process (eg., radioactive decay), and based on at least three untestable and unreasonable assumptions.
Click to expand...


Nice cut and paste *LIAR* but I don't subscribe to the ICR's views.

Still waiting on the link to where I cut and pasted from Haran Yahya's website.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need to defend your man crush. Hollie can go either way you want. Need a little Rugged Touch do you?
> 
> Wow. Look where this thread has gone. No opposer can actually put up a logical rebuttal so as the old saying goes... if you can't join 'em beat 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My creepy stalkers behavior is typical for stalkers whose every advance has been refused. He's an emotional basketcase who has only to lash out in frustration and anger. When stalkers are refused and get angry is when their a danger to themselves and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just threw up in my mouth again. Please quit verbalizing your fantasies about me pervert.
Click to expand...


Your're an angry, frustrated stalker, I understand that. Your creepy advances being rejected causes you to real hurt and angst. 

Drink the Kool-Aid. You'll feel better about yourself.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the old closed system stupid atheist argument. So where did all the massive chaos go to balance out all the order on earth. Did it leave on a spaceship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, not the profoundly stupid, ICR nonsense. Fundies really should understand that real science will castrate the really, really absurd creationist arguments that rely on profound stupidity to be believed.
> 
> 
> 
> A Visit to the ICR: Part 8
> 
> Miscellany and Conclusions
> A few concepts from the Institute for Creation Research's Museum of Creation and Earth History did not fit neatly into any previous category, but deserve some analysis.
> 
> This is the ICR's treatment of the First Law of Thermodynamics:
> The law of conservation of energy (also known as the first law of thermodynamics) is the best-proved and most universal law of science. It states that energy (capacity to do work) can change forms, but can be neither created nor destroyed. Energy includes everything in the physical universe (even matter); therefore nothing is being created. This reflects the completion of God's work of creating and making all things (Gen 2:1-3) and refutes the evolutionary concept of ongoing 'creation'.
> 
> In another misguided appeal to authority (this time, interestingly, an appeal to scientific law), the ICR distorts the First Law to convince its largely scientifically illiterate patrons that even science precludes evolution. It is interesting to me that the ICR chooses to use science in this manner. Is it possible that even the ICR realizes that the public, though distrustful and even perhaps fearful of science, realizes that it has a credibility beyond that of the Bible?
> 
> The concept of "ongoing creation" (or "continuous creation" or possibly even "steady-state-theory") may refer to the now-defunct hypothesis proposed in the 1950's by astronomer Fred Hoyle: the universe was expanding, and "as the space between the galaxies stretched, new galaxies were being continuously created, out of nothing at all, to fill in the gaps" (Gribbin 1993: x). This hypothesis was disproved not by Genesis 2, but by scientists of the 1960's who accrued evidence supporting an alternate cosmology commonly known as The Big Bang (which the ICR doesn't like any better than "continuous creation").
> 
> "Ongoing creation" was never a concept related to biological evolution. Possibly what the ICR is trying to get at here is the theory that species don't evolve; they assert that there is no ongoing creation of species. If so, why not just say it? The First Law only refers to heat flow. Energy being converted to other forms is in no way inconsistent with evolution (or even special creation, for that matter). It's not really germane at all.
> 
> Another topic that I found fascinating was the concept of apparent age, or "functional maturity" -- the old "Omphalos" argument. This was even more interesting because I had just sat through a lecture by ICR geologist Steve Austin which dealt with, in part, attempts to date rocks. (Why does the ICR bother to do it at all if they know that the rocks just "look old"?).
> 
> Creation of a functionally mature creation (sometimes called "apparent age") necessarily implies that the objects and living systems exhibit the appearance of a prior history or process involved in their formation. Fruit trees were mature, fruit-bearing trees, not seeds; Adam was a full-grown man; the land had a fertile topsoil covering to it; the rocks would possess a variety of isotopes and elements, et cetera. If one denies the true revealed history of the world, and attempts to date the object or the world, this functional maturity could be mistaken for age. (Emphasis added)
> 
> There is no logical reason why a god would impart "the appearance of age" into a creation, unless that god's purpose was to deceive the "created" (and that says a lot about the god). We would be completely comfortable emotionally if all dates did converge on 6-10,000 years, and if this were consistent with scientific data. There is no reason why 'rocks would possess a variety of isotopes and elements'; our particular isotope mix is simply whatever was there when the solar system began to coalesce. I invoke the Goldilocks principle here -- if it hadn't been "just right", or at least "OK", we wouldn't be here arguing about this on the internet. Note the emphasis on "true revealed history" as the only accurate dating method -- and make sure it is the revealed history as given to fundamentalist Christians and the ICR, not that of Hindus, Buddhists, or Australian Aborigines. This dependence upon revealed history spills over into the age of the earth debate:
> 
> If the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are taken literally, the Creation must have been relatively recent, about 6000 to 10,000 years ago. There are no firmly documented historical accounts older than this. Older ages must be derived from some physical process (eg., radioactive decay), and based on at least three untestable and unreasonable assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice cut and paste *LIAR* but I don't subscribe to the ICR's views.
> 
> Still waiting on the link to where I cut and pasted from Haran Yahya's website.
Click to expand...


The ICR is standard fare for intellectual sloths such as yourself.

Gargantuan fonts - how cute for the intellectually absent.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What does relativity have to with this discussion?* Absolutely nothing. Stop pea-cocking for no reason. This isn't a dating website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were discussing the speed of light in the universe, right? For those of you who missed it...
> 
> *"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." *Amos Bronson Alcott
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying so hard to slam me, you are not even paying attention, and shoving your foot in your mouth.
> 
> For the purposes of this discussion, relativity is not involved, since light is simply being used as a rate (C) as it applies to the light-year, or the distance light travels in a year. No relativistic effects are involved in this discussion, so there is no application of the theory of relativity here. This is very simple arithmetic.
> 
> Game. Set. Match. Stick to your own  debates. You only make a fool of yourself when you are obviously trying so hard just to "pwn" an atheist.
Click to expand...


Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...

"There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."

Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZfx7iwq94&feature=player_embedded]Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein&#39;s Relativity - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote-mining" the nonsense belching out of the ICR only further dismantles your already refuted claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like i said before,address my questions or I will ignore you like I will ignore the other fool that speaks out his butt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "question" derives from nonsensical creationist attempts to mold answers to fit a predefined conclusion. Your really silly posts in connection with thermodynamics are typical, boilerplate creationist silliness that has been refuted and discarded as junk science.
> 
> You've been spoken to repeatedly about the careless and assinine cut and pasting you dump in this thread and your latest disaster (the thermo nonsense), may be your most careless and assisnie yet.
Click to expand...


Prove it *LIAR* or kindly exit. I'm sick of you trolling and making false statements willy nilly. Be prepared to back up your accusations of posters here.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were discussing the speed of light in the universe, right? For those of you who missed it...
> 
> *"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." *Amos Bronson Alcott
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying so hard to slam me, you are not even paying attention, and shoving your foot in your mouth.
> 
> For the purposes of this discussion, relativity is not involved, since light is simply being used as a rate (C) as it applies to the light-year, or the distance light travels in a year. No relativistic effects are involved in this discussion, so there is no application of the theory of relativity here. This is very simple arithmetic.
> 
> Game. Set. Match. Stick to your own  debates. You only make a fool of yourself when you are obviously trying so hard just to "pwn" an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...
> 
> "There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."
> 
> Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZfx7iwq94&feature=player_embedded]Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...



Cool video, thanks, but I'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.

None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so I am going to try to explain this very clearly.

I asked YWC how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then I got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by Lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... no shit. Now, here we are with you telling me I need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.

The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 Billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.

*TO LONESTAR:  Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, NECESSARILY, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like i said before,address my questions or I will ignore you like I will ignore the other fool that speaks out his butt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "question" derives from nonsensical creationist attempts to mold answers to fit a predefined conclusion. Your really silly posts in connection with thermodynamics are typical, boilerplate creationist silliness that has been refuted and discarded as junk science.
> 
> You've been spoken to repeatedly about the careless and assinine cut and pasting you dump in this thread and your latest disaster (the thermo nonsense), may be your most careless and assisnie yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it *LIAR* or kindly exit. I'm sick of you trolling and making false statements willy nilly. Be prepared to back up your accusations of posters here.
Click to expand...

I posted a link to the ICR website. 

Don't be so angry. Just go and get professional help for the pathology that haunts you and manifests itself as creepy stalking.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.
> 
> 
> 
> Kenneth *Feder* is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the silly conclusion one might come to when one gets their information about cosmology from an anthropology and archaeology text book.
> 
> 
> Lawrence Krauss (a physicist) has some ideas on this matter, you could read  _A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing_...
> 
> Or you could ask a history professor.
> 
> 
> 
> Which scientists and why?
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, what predictions.
> 
> Secondly, you are familiar with the nebular theory right? No shit! There were collisions?
> 
> 
> Dark energy has been observed with the expansion of the universe.. The nature of dark matter makes it a bit more difficult due to the nature of it.
> 
> 
> Doesn't follow YWC you provided other hypotheses you did disprove the big bang as a source. Did you get this argument from an anthropology text book as well
> 
> 
> Took you long enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Im sorry Im going to have to ask you to elaborate on your highly technical and descriptive word "smooth". What do you mean by that? Im sorry to ask but I haven't read to many anthropology text yet so I'm kind of out of my depth here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the author that was quoted,if you didn't notice scietists were quoted
> 
> By all means then you should have an answer to where energy came from and where the matter came from.
> 
> Quit avoiding the questions and provide some hard data. Don't be reduced to huggy,Daws,and the hallow master.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you're backed into a corner and can't address a single point.
Click to expand...


*LIAR.*

Waiting on that link.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were discussing the speed of light in the universe, right? For those of you who missed it...
> 
> *"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." *Amos Bronson Alcott
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying so hard to slam me, you are not even paying attention, and shoving your foot in your mouth.
> 
> For the purposes of this discussion, relativity is not involved, since light is simply being used as a rate (C) as it applies to the light-year, or the distance light travels in a year. No relativistic effects are involved in this discussion, so there is no application of the theory of relativity here. This is very simple arithmetic.
> 
> Game. Set. Match. Stick to your own  debates. You only make a fool of yourself when you are obviously trying so hard just to "pwn" an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...
> 
> "There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."
> 
> Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZfx7iwq94&feature=player_embedded]Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


That is interesting stalker-man. What experiments can be done to test for your gawds?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the author that was quoted,if you didn't notice scietists were quoted
> 
> By all means then you should have an answer to where energy came from and where the matter came from.
> 
> Quit avoiding the questions and provide some hard data. Don't be reduced to huggy,Daws,and the hallow master.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you're backed into a corner and can't address a single point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LIAR.*
> 
> Waiting on that link.
Click to expand...


Ah, yes. The gargantuan pink fonts. How cute.

Here's a hint for you, creepy stalker. Do a search for the term "darwinism-refuted" and see what you find. If you need additional help, raise your hand.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, not the profoundly stupid, ICR nonsense. Fundies really should understand that real science will castrate the really, really absurd creationist arguments that rely on profound stupidity to be believed.
> 
> 
> 
> A Visit to the ICR: Part 8
> 
> Miscellany and Conclusions
> A few concepts from the Institute for Creation Research's Museum of Creation and Earth History did not fit neatly into any previous category, but deserve some analysis.
> 
> This is the ICR's treatment of the First Law of Thermodynamics:
> The law of conservation of energy (also known as the first law of thermodynamics) is the best-proved and most universal law of science. It states that energy (capacity to do work) can change forms, but can be neither created nor destroyed. Energy includes everything in the physical universe (even matter); therefore nothing is being created. This reflects the completion of God's work of creating and making all things (Gen 2:1-3) and refutes the evolutionary concept of ongoing 'creation'.
> 
> In another misguided appeal to authority (this time, interestingly, an appeal to scientific law), the ICR distorts the First Law to convince its largely scientifically illiterate patrons that even science precludes evolution. It is interesting to me that the ICR chooses to use science in this manner. Is it possible that even the ICR realizes that the public, though distrustful and even perhaps fearful of science, realizes that it has a credibility beyond that of the Bible?
> 
> The concept of "ongoing creation" (or "continuous creation" or possibly even "steady-state-theory") may refer to the now-defunct hypothesis proposed in the 1950's by astronomer Fred Hoyle: the universe was expanding, and "as the space between the galaxies stretched, new galaxies were being continuously created, out of nothing at all, to fill in the gaps" (Gribbin 1993: x). This hypothesis was disproved not by Genesis 2, but by scientists of the 1960's who accrued evidence supporting an alternate cosmology commonly known as The Big Bang (which the ICR doesn't like any better than "continuous creation").
> 
> "Ongoing creation" was never a concept related to biological evolution. Possibly what the ICR is trying to get at here is the theory that species don't evolve; they assert that there is no ongoing creation of species. If so, why not just say it? The First Law only refers to heat flow. Energy being converted to other forms is in no way inconsistent with evolution (or even special creation, for that matter). It's not really germane at all.
> 
> Another topic that I found fascinating was the concept of apparent age, or "functional maturity" -- the old "Omphalos" argument. This was even more interesting because I had just sat through a lecture by ICR geologist Steve Austin which dealt with, in part, attempts to date rocks. (Why does the ICR bother to do it at all if they know that the rocks just "look old"?).
> 
> Creation of a functionally mature creation (sometimes called "apparent age") necessarily implies that the objects and living systems exhibit the appearance of a prior history or process involved in their formation. Fruit trees were mature, fruit-bearing trees, not seeds; Adam was a full-grown man; the land had a fertile topsoil covering to it; the rocks would possess a variety of isotopes and elements, et cetera. If one denies the true revealed history of the world, and attempts to date the object or the world, this functional maturity could be mistaken for age. (Emphasis added)
> 
> There is no logical reason why a god would impart "the appearance of age" into a creation, unless that god's purpose was to deceive the "created" (and that says a lot about the god). We would be completely comfortable emotionally if all dates did converge on 6-10,000 years, and if this were consistent with scientific data. There is no reason why 'rocks would possess a variety of isotopes and elements'; our particular isotope mix is simply whatever was there when the solar system began to coalesce. I invoke the Goldilocks principle here -- if it hadn't been "just right", or at least "OK", we wouldn't be here arguing about this on the internet. Note the emphasis on "true revealed history" as the only accurate dating method -- and make sure it is the revealed history as given to fundamentalist Christians and the ICR, not that of Hindus, Buddhists, or Australian Aborigines. This dependence upon revealed history spills over into the age of the earth debate:
> 
> If the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are taken literally, the Creation must have been relatively recent, about 6000 to 10,000 years ago. There are no firmly documented historical accounts older than this. Older ages must be derived from some physical process (eg., radioactive decay), and based on at least three untestable and unreasonable assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice cut and paste *LIAR* but I don't subscribe to the ICR's views.
> 
> Still waiting on the link to where I cut and pasted from Haran Yahya's website.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ICR is standard fare for intellectual sloths such as yourself.
> 
> Gargantuan fonts - how cute for the intellectually absent.
Click to expand...


As usual you accuse someone of something and then try to ignore their requests for validation of your accusations. 

You are a proven *liar.* The reason you can't provide a link is because I have NEVER cut and pasted or for that matter, even quoted anything from Harun Yahya. 

*Put up or shut up. Show me the link or just admit your that it doesn't exist and concede you are liar.*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying so hard to slam me, you are not even paying attention, and shoving your foot in your mouth.
> 
> For the purposes of this discussion, relativity is not involved, since light is simply being used as a rate (C) as it applies to the light-year, or the distance light travels in a year. No relativistic effects are involved in this discussion, so there is no application of the theory of relativity here. This is very simple arithmetic.
> 
> Game. Set. Match. Stick to your own  debates. You only make a fool of yourself when you are obviously trying so hard just to "pwn" an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...
> 
> "There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."
> 
> Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZfx7iwq94&feature=player_embedded]Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is interesting stalker-man. What experiments can be done to test for your gawds?
Click to expand...


No need to respond to a proven *LIAR.*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...
> 
> "There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."
> 
> Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience
> 
> Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is interesting stalker-man. What experiments can be done to test for your gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to respond to a proven *LIAR.*
Click to expand...


I thought you would look for a reason to slither away.

What experiments can be done to test for your gawds? It seems like a simple question that would appeal to one such limited abilities.


----------



## HUGGY

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is interesting stalker-man. What experiments can be done to test for your gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to respond to a proven *LIAR.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you would look for a reason to slither away.
> 
> What experiments can be done to test for your gawds? It seems like a simple question that would appeal to one such limited abilities.
Click to expand...


Gosh ..all ya haz ta du is opin yo big baby blues in da moanin an cee teh wundr ob itz all!!!

It's as plain as the quizz icle look on yur faaas.


----------



## UltimateReality

PretentiousGuy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy  let me educate you on this as well.
> 
> 
> 1st law of thermo dynamics.
> The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.
> 
> "in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kenneth *Feder* is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. *This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning.*...
Click to expand...


What? Is this a threat? I really love it when evolutionists point to authors and try to discredit them on the basis they are outside of the field. This must come from a complete and utter ignorance that their own high priest of their materialistic religion, Charles Darwin, had no formal training in biology. His bachelor's degree was in Theology of all things!!! And he studied Geology on his 5 year voyage. So you see, his whole theory is a sham because it was based on principles outside his field.  

This reminded me of another point from Meyer's book that NP just can't seem to logically grasp. And that is, the title of Lyell's book that Darwin read while on the HMS Beagle... _Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by *Reference to Causes Now in Operation*_

And what "cause" do we see now in operation for digital code? The cause is us, intelligent agents. We find no other cause NOW in operation that can produce functional, specifiable, digital code. We draw the distinction to complex and specifiable. This has a component of Shannon information with the added specificity of performing a function, i.e., building complex proteins with precise folding mechanisms. We also find that the very instructions to copy and reproduce the code are contained within the code itself. This enigma so far has been unexplained by naturalistic processes... they don't even come close. Ahhh, but former changes can be explained by the single cause now in operation. This is precisely the scientific method Darwin used being used by Meyer, and it is perfectly scientifically legit, whether or not NP's faith in his materialism will let him believe it or not.

To deny this you must deny DNA is digital (which it has already be proven it is, even to the point that some Harvard students are using it as an incredibly compact storange medium for data.)

You must deny the 4 nucleobases do not have any special affinity for their binding sites, i.e., there is equal chance for them to attach to the sugar and phosphate backbone. This fact eliminates the origin of the protein building information occurring by necessity. 

You must find another cause now in operation, exclusive of an intelligent agent, that produces *complex, specifiable *digital code.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is interesting stalker-man. What experiments can be done to test for your gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to respond to a proven *LIAR.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you would look for a reason to slither away.
> 
> What experiments can be done to test for your gawds? It seems like a simple question that would appeal to one such limited abilities.
Click to expand...


The same experiments that have proven natural selection acting on random mutations results in traits providing higher fitness. 

Game, set, match.

...*LIAR.* Why not just admit it and save everyone from the large fonts? *You lied* when you said I quoted *Harun Yahya *or cut and pasted from his website.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying so hard to slam me, you are not even paying attention, and shoving your foot in your mouth.
> 
> For the purposes of this discussion, relativity is not involved, since light is simply being used as a rate (C) as it applies to the light-year, or the distance light travels in a year. No relativistic effects are involved in this discussion, so there is no application of the theory of relativity here. This is very simple arithmetic.
> 
> Game. Set. Match. Stick to your own  debates. You only make a fool of yourself when you are obviously trying so hard just to "pwn" an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...
> 
> "There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."
> 
> Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZfx7iwq94&feature=player_embedded]Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cool video, thanks, but I'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.
> 
> None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so I am going to try to explain this very clearly.
> 
> I asked YWC how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then I got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by Lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... no shit. Now, here we are with you telling me I need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.
> 
> The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 Billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.
> 
> *TO LONESTAR:  Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, NECESSARILY, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.*
Click to expand...


Just one question, please explain in your own words how you know the light traveled 13 billion light years, and not, say 6 billion light years. (this should be good) 

Quick!!! Hurry!!! Do your frantic search for an answer! Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock...


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...
> 
> "There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."
> 
> Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience
> 
> Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool video, thanks, but I'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.
> 
> None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so I am going to try to explain this very clearly.
> 
> I asked YWC how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then I got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by Lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... no shit. Now, here we are with you telling me I need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.
> 
> The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 Billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.
> 
> *TO LONESTAR:  Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, NECESSARILY, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one question, please explain in your own words how you know the light traveled 13 billion light years, and not, say 6 billion light years. (this should be good)
> 
> Quick!!! Hurry!!! Do your frantic search for an answer! Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock...
Click to expand...


I shouldn't play your little ego games, but its too easy to make you look like a fool, and you deserve it for asking the question with such condescension. 

No search needed, as I already answered this the post you quoted. You're reading comprehension must not be what you think it is.  (I'll give you a hint: IT'S DEFINITIONAL). I don't even have to know C. It's right there in the definition for a light-year. A light-year is defined as the distance light will travel in a year, therefore if the distance between a star and an object is X light-years, it will, by definition, take X years for light leaving the star to reach that object. Therefore, the light from a star that is 13 billion light-years away, will take 13 Billion years to reach us. If it took 6 billion years, then it is six billion years away. Relativity is only important if you are talking about an observer either on the beam of light, in which case no passage of time is felt at all, or approaching the speed of light, in which case time asymptotically nears zero movement as your mass would become infinite. 

This is boring. At least ask something that is difficult, or stop trying to "stump" me for your own egotistical ends so we can try on move on with this discussion.


----------



## ima

UR, so what if science keeps changing their minds about things, at least they're looking for the truth, you're just sitting back on your simpleton couch repeating how your invisible god made everything because the universe is too complex for you to wrap your rigid mind around.
What IDers do is ASSUME, with no proof, that there's a god who made all of this. Do you also think that the earth is flat?


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy  let me educate you on this as well.
> 
> 
> 1st law of thermo dynamics.
> The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.
> 
> "in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kenneth *Feder* is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. *This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning.*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Is this a threat? I really love it when evolutionists point to authors and try to discredit them on the basis they are outside of the field. This must come from a complete and utter ignorance that their own high priest of their materialistic religion, Charles Darwin, had no formal training in biology. His bachelor's degree was in Theology of all things!!! And he studied Geology on his 5 year voyage. So you see, his whole theory is a sham because it was based on principles outside his field.
> 
> This reminded me of another point from Meyer's book that NP just can't seem to logically grasp. And that is, the title of Lyell's book that Darwin read while on the HMS Beagle... _Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by *Reference to Causes Now in Operation*_
> 
> And what "cause" do we see now in operation for digital code? The cause is us, intelligent agents. We find no other cause NOW in operation that can produce functional, specifiable, digital code. We draw the distinction to complex and specifiable. This has a component of Shannon information with the added specificity of performing a function, i.e., building complex proteins with precise folding mechanisms. We also find that the very instructions to copy and reproduce the code are contained within the code itself. This enigma so far has been unexplained by naturalistic processes... they don't even come close. Ahhh, but former changes can be explained by the single cause now in operation. This is precisely the scientific method Darwin used being used by Meyer, and it is perfectly scientifically legit, whether or not NP's faith in his materialism will let him believe it or not.
> 
> To deny this you must deny DNA is digital (which it has already be proven it is, even to the point that some Harvard students are using it as an incredibly compact storange medium for data.)
> 
> You must deny the 4 nucleobases do not have any special affinity for their binding sites, i.e., there is equal chance for them to attach to the sugar and phosphate backbone. This fact eliminates the origin of the protein building information occurring by necessity.
> 
> You must find another cause now in operation, exclusive of an intelligent agent, that produces *complex, specifiable *digital code.
Click to expand...


I would be willing to bet their credentials are superior to the ones that are critical of their background not only are they attacking their background they are attacking the other textbooks that say the same thing about the 3 minute mark of reaching nuclei.


----------



## ima

UR: "And what "cause" do we see now in operation for digital code? The cause is us, intelligent agents."

So because we figured something out, we are gods? Bra, you make no sense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying so hard to slam me, you are not even paying attention, and shoving your foot in your mouth.
> 
> For the purposes of this discussion, relativity is not involved, since light is simply being used as a rate (C) as it applies to the light-year, or the distance light travels in a year. No relativistic effects are involved in this discussion, so there is no application of the theory of relativity here. This is very simple arithmetic.
> 
> Game. Set. Match. Stick to your own  debates. You only make a fool of yourself when you are obviously trying so hard just to "pwn" an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...
> 
> "There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."
> 
> Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZfx7iwq94&feature=player_embedded]Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cool video, thanks, but I'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.
> 
> None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so I am going to try to explain this very clearly.
> 
> I asked YWC how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then I got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by Lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... no shit. Now, here we are with you telling me I need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.
> 
> The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 Billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.
> 
> *TO LONESTAR:  Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, NECESSARILY, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.*
Click to expand...


Yeah you can prove my beliefs wrong if you use circular reasoning and other theories that are not based in fact.

You were using a theory to prove a point a theory thats credibility can't stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...
> 
> "There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."
> 
> Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience
> 
> Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool video, thanks, but I'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.
> 
> None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so I am going to try to explain this very clearly.
> 
> I asked YWC how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then I got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by Lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... no shit. Now, here we are with you telling me I need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.
> 
> The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 Billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.
> 
> *TO LONESTAR:  Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, NECESSARILY, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah you can prove my beliefs wrong if you use circular reasoning and other theories that are not based in fact.
> 
> You were using a theory to prove a point a theory thats credibility can't stand up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...


Could you be a little more specific? How do you account for starlight at night? I am not trying to attack your beliefs. I am curious as to how you explain this.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

These idiots support evolutionary theory but cannot say at what point evolution began. 
If not at the beginning of life then when?

They want us to believe that "light year" is a measurement of time.
Sane people know it's a measurement of distance.

They claim that with all it's flaws dating methods are accurate.

The fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do. They assume the rate of decay has been constant thoughout its entire geological history. An impossible assumption because they were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy  let me educate you on this as well.
> 
> 
> 1st law of thermo dynamics.
> The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.
> 
> "in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kenneth *Feder* is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. *This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning.*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Is this a threat? I really love it when evolutionists point to authors and try to discredit them on the basis they are outside of the field. This must come from a complete and utter ignorance that their own high priest of their materialistic religion, Charles Darwin, had no formal training in biology. His bachelor's degree was in Theology of all things!!! And he studied Geology on his 5 year voyage. So you see, his whole theory is a sham because it was based on principles outside his field.
> 
> This reminded me of another point from Meyer's book that NP just can't seem to logically grasp. And that is, the title of Lyell's book that Darwin read while on the HMS Beagle... _Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by *Reference to Causes Now in Operation*_
> 
> And what "cause" do we see now in operation for digital code? The cause is us, intelligent agents. We find no other cause NOW in operation that can produce functional, specifiable, digital code. We draw the distinction to complex and specifiable. This has a component of Shannon information with the added specificity of performing a function, i.e., building complex proteins with precise folding mechanisms. We also find that the very instructions to copy and reproduce the code are contained within the code itself. This enigma so far has been unexplained by naturalistic processes... they don't even come close. Ahhh, but former changes can be explained by the single cause now in operation. This is precisely the scientific method Darwin used being used by Meyer, and it is perfectly scientifically legit, whether or not NP's faith in his materialism will let him believe it or not.
> 
> To deny this you must deny DNA is digital (which it has already be proven it is, even to the point that some Harvard students are using it as an incredibly compact storange medium for data.)
> 
> You must deny the 4 nucleobases do not have any special affinity for their binding sites, i.e., there is equal chance for them to attach to the sugar and phosphate backbone. This fact eliminates the origin of the protein building information occurring by necessity.
> 
> You must find another cause now in operation, exclusive of an intelligent agent, that produces *complex, specifiable *digital code.
Click to expand...


Priceless,thank you for bringing tis to our attention now this is funny and something I didn't know.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...
> 
> "There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."
> 
> Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience
> 
> Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool video, thanks, but I'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.
> 
> None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so I am going to try to explain this very clearly.
> 
> I asked YWC how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then I got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by Lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... no shit. Now, here we are with you telling me I need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.
> 
> The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 Billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.
> 
> *TO LONESTAR:  Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, NECESSARILY, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah you can prove my beliefs wrong if you use circular reasoning and other theories that are not based in fact.
> 
> You were using a theory to prove a point a theory thats credibility can't stand up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...

That's an odd claim coming from a religious zealot who can offer no better evidence for his gods than the Greeks could offer for theirs.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> These idiots support evolutionary theory but cannot say at what point evolution began.
> If not at the beginning of life then when?
> 
> They want us to believe that "light year" is a measurement of time.
> Sane people know it's a measurement of distance.
> 
> They claim that with all it's flaws dating methods are accurate.
> 
> The fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do. They assume the rate of decay has been constant thoughout its entire geological history. An impossible assumption because they were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.


Unfortunately, the creationist ministries make every effort to keep their adherents ignorant and uninformed. 

If you choose to educate yourself  with one knowledgeable about dating methods not corrupted by creationist misinformation, here's a good start:

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool video, thanks, but I'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.
> 
> None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so I am going to try to explain this very clearly.
> 
> I asked YWC how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then I got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by Lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... no shit. Now, here we are with you telling me I need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.
> 
> The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 Billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.
> 
> *TO LONESTAR:  Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, NECESSARILY, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah you can prove my beliefs wrong if you use circular reasoning and other theories that are not based in fact.
> 
> You were using a theory to prove a point a theory thats credibility can't stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you be a little more specific? How do you account for starlight at night? I am not trying to attack your beliefs. I am curious as to how you explain this.
Click to expand...

 your figures are based on the stars coming from the same position of where the supposed big bang took place and the speed of objects remained constant.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> These idiots support evolutionary theory but cannot say at what point evolution began.
> If not at the beginning of life then when?
> 
> They want us to believe that "light year" is a measurement of time.
> Sane people know it's a measurement of distance.
> 
> They claim that with all it's flaws dating methods are accurate.
> 
> The fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do. They assume the rate of decay has been constant thoughout its entire geological history. An impossible assumption because they were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the creationist ministries make every effort to keep their adherents ignorant and uninformed.
> 
> If you choose to educate yourself  with one knowledgeable about dating methods not corrupted by creationist misinformation, here's a good start:
> 
> Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
Click to expand...


You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is assumed. 

Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.

Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?


----------



## ima

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> These idiots support evolutionary theory but cannot say at what point evolution began.
> If not at the beginning of life then when?
> 
> They want us to believe that "light year" is a measurement of time.
> Sane people know it's a measurement of distance.
> 
> They claim that with all it's flaws dating methods are accurate.
> 
> The fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do. They assume the rate of decay has been constant thoughout its entire geological history. An impossible assumption because they were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the creationist ministries make every effort to keep their adherents ignorant and uninformed.
> 
> If you choose to educate yourself  with one knowledgeable about dating methods not corrupted by creationist misinformation, here's a good start:
> 
> Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is asumed.
> 
> Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.
> 
> Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?
Click to expand...


Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were. 

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

As for radioactive decay  Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you. 

Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.


----------



## Gadawg73

God, that looks like us, sits on a gold throne and creates everything.
If there was anything that ever qualified as "flawed" scientifically the above claim would be.
That one is #1 flawed argument.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> These idiots support evolutionary theory but cannot say at what point evolution began.
> If not at the beginning of life then when?
> 
> They want us to believe that "light year" is a measurement of time.
> Sane people know it's a measurement of distance.
> 
> They claim that with all it's flaws dating methods are accurate.
> 
> The fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do. They assume the rate of decay has been constant thoughout its entire geological history. An impossible assumption because they were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the creationist ministries make every effort to keep their adherents ignorant and uninformed.
> 
> If you choose to educate yourself  with one knowledgeable about dating methods not corrupted by creationist misinformation, here's a good start:
> 
> Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is assumed.
> 
> Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.
> 
> Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?
Click to expand...

I understand that you're in denial of demonstrable science and you can continue to deny in favor of supernaturalism but your argument is just more creationist babble.

Which of the gods came first in the hierarchy of gods, super-gods, etc. which were the designer gods of your gods?


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> These idiots support evolutionary theory but cannot say at what point evolution began.
> If not at the beginning of life then when?
> 
> They want us to believe that "light year" is a measurement of time.
> Sane people know it's a measurement of distance.
> 
> They claim that with all it's flaws dating methods are accurate.
> 
> The fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do. They assume the rate of decay has been constant thoughout its entire geological history. An impossible assumption because they were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.



Nobody wants you to believe a light-year is a measurement of time. A light-year is a distance measurement, but for anything travelling at light speed, we can easily deduce the amount of time it will take to travel that distance. Hence, you can get a time measurement. Get it? I doubt it, but it was worth a try. You'll probably come back with another inane response that completely ignores this. 

* By definition, light travelling between two points that are X light-years apart, will take X years to make that trip. Substitute any value you like for X. For example, (for the third time), if a star is 13 billion light-years away, we know, definitionally, that the light took 13 billion years to travel to us. This is EVIDENCE that the universe is AT LEAST 13 billion years old. Unless, you're willing to use the creationist claim (Kent Hovind) that light has "gotten" tired and slowed down since "creation" 6,000 years ago.*


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the creationist ministries make every effort to keep their adherents ignorant and uninformed.
> 
> If you choose to educate yourself  with one knowledgeable about dating methods not corrupted by creationist misinformation, here's a good start:
> 
> Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is asumed.
> 
> Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.
> 
> Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.
> 
> Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
> 
> As for radioactive decay  Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.
> 
> Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.
Click to expand...


Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus. 

Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.

Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is asumed.
> 
> Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.
> 
> Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.
> 
> Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
> 
> As for radioactive decay  Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.
> 
> Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.
> 
> Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.
> 
> Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.
Click to expand...


Nice dodge. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia has been shown to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica, so you can stop whining about how it lacks credibility.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News

And once again, you misrepresent the positions of people here. You are impossible to debate because you can't even pay attention. You just make things up as you go along. 
This is called being intellectually dishonest. Might want to work on that. Nowhere did he "contradict their sentiment." Abiogenesis would have produced the first self-replicating primitive cells, and these cells would still have existed within the "primordial soup" for an incredible amount of time- one billion years, before even becoming multi-cellular eukaryotes. Therefore, evolution would have begun directly after abiogenesis successfully produced the first self-replicating cell, while still in these tidal pools.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is asumed.
> 
> Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.
> 
> Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.
> 
> Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
> 
> As for radioactive decay  Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.
> 
> Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.
> 
> Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.
> 
> Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that your particular gawds or anyone else's gawds were involved. 

The fact is, a still young science is showing that gawds are simply not a requirement for existence. You fail to understand that your gawds are simply the more recent configuration of earlier supernatural entities that have been abandoned due to humanity shedding the fear and superstition you choose to embrace. Your gawds are little more than a consolidation of earlier Greek gawds. For conveniences' sake, many gawds have been relegated to inconsequential tasks or have been fired for being obsolete. We now have only a few gawds who themselves have been relegated to menial tasks as knowledge and enlightenment has reduced their workload and relevance.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah you can prove my beliefs wrong if you use circular reasoning and other theories that are not based in fact.
> 
> You were using a theory to prove a point a theory thats credibility can't stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you be a little more specific? How do you account for starlight at night? I am not trying to attack your beliefs. I am curious as to how you explain this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your figures are based on the stars coming from the same position of where the supposed big bang took place and the speed of objects remained constant.
Click to expand...


"The same position of where the big bang took place"? This is logically incoherent and has nothing to do with our discussion. Everywhere, is where the big bang took place. The universe has expanded from a single point. There is not a distinct point in our universe where the big bang happened, because at one point, it was the entire universe. Secondly, this has NOTHING to do with light traveling from distances greater than would be possible if the earth were only 6,000-10,000 years old. All you need is a start that is farther than 10,000 light years away to disprove young earth creationism and a literal translation of the bible. We could point to any star over 10,000 light years away, of which there are hundreds of billions in the galaxy. 

You make a vague assertion that the speed of "objects" has not remained constant, yet you provide no evidence for this. You are dishonestly simply trying to inject doubt without cause. First of all, light is not an "object." It displays a particle/wave duality, but this is irrelevant as far as its speed, since it sets the cosmic speed limit, and because photons have no mass.

Lastly, you are actually asserting that the relative and actual strengths of the four fundamental forces have changed over time. You assert that the speed of light has changed, therefore you are saying the strength of the electro-magnetic force has changed, yet you offer no explanation as to how this is possible, or why. You simply assert it.
You assert that decay in carbon atoms have changed over time, making radiometric dating impossible, which is to say, that the weak nuclear force has changed over time. Yet, again, you offer no explanation of this. You simply posit it as a possibility, and consider this a refutation. 

No creationists own up to their own burden of proof they put on themselves when they make these bald assertions. They simply posit and run.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> What? Is this a threat? I really love it when evolutionists point to authors and try to discredit them on the basis they are outside of the field. This must come from a complete and utter ignorance that their own high priest of their materialistic religion, Charles Darwin, had no formal training in biology. His bachelor's degree was in Theology of all things!!! And he studied Geology on his 5 year voyage. So you see, his whole theory is a sham because it was based on principles outside his field.



This is not the same thing, and you are committing a logical fallacy in drawing an analogy to Darwin. Darwin's theory, the Theory of Evolution is completely separate from who Darwin was and what he believed. The theory itself stands or falls on its own merits, not on what Darwin thought about X, Y, and Z, including the theory itself, or god (he was a devout christian, by the way, and got ridiculed for it while on the ship, and which is why he delayed publication of "Origin of Species" for 30 years). The theory has nothing to do with Darwin, in terms of its efficacy and ability to explain our universe. This goes for any person who makes a theory. As for these two other authors, they are not creating a new theory. They are offering educational material, in which case, credentials matter, because credibility matters. 




UltimateReality said:


> reminded me of another point from Meyer's book that NP just can't seem to logically grasp. And that is, the title of Lyell's book that Darwin read while on the HMS Beagle... _Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by *Reference to Causes Now in Operation*_



...okay. It's not that I can't seem to logically grasp Meyers. I've listened to the arguments from IDers including Meyer's and Behe, and none of them are logically valid and sound. No matter how much scientific understanding they have of the workings of the cell, their conclusions are based on arguments from ignorance and inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning.



UltimateReality said:


> what "cause" do we see now in operation for digital code? The cause is us, intelligent agents. We find no other cause NOW in operation that can produce functional, specifiable, digital code. We draw the distinction to complex and specifiable. This has a component of Shannon information with the added specificity of performing a function, i.e., building complex proteins with precise folding mechanisms. We also find that the very instructions to copy and reproduce the code are contained within the code itself. This enigma so far has been unexplained by naturalistic processes... they don't even come close. Ahhh, but former changes can be explained by the single cause now in operation. This is precisely the scientific method Darwin used being used by Meyer, and it is perfectly scientifically legit, whether or not NP's faith in his materialism will let him believe it or not.



You're assessment of what DNA is, being complex, specifiable, and "digital," is not evidence of a creator. You validated my assertion here, even after you denied it and told me I knew nothing about ID, that you are using pure inductive reasoning to reach your conclusions. You try to use all of these concepts, such as this information being "shannon information," as if this somehow vindicates this use of pure induction, and trying to re-package it as if it were deductive. What difference does it make that this information is specifiable, digital, complex, and shannon information? NONE!  IDers are leading the evidence to a creator, not following the evidence to where it leads. If this is where the evidence led, then all scientists would see this. I am sure you explain this away by saying scientists are operating under the presuppositions of metaphysical naturalism. 



UltimateReality said:


> deny this you must deny DNA is digital (which it has already be proven it is, even to the point that some Harvard students are using it as an incredibly compact storange medium for data.)



Who cares if DNA is digital? First of all, it isn't, because quite simply, digital code uses a sequence of zeros and ones, which each correspond respectively, to "no" and "yes" and are used to answer "questions" by the programs in the computer. This is not how DNA works, and the language is obviously not the same. Funny that those at harvard don't mention a creator:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv4XJHT2J7w]Is DNA the future of large scale digital storage Channel 4 News - YouTube[/ame]



UltimateReality said:


> You must deny the 4 nucleobases do not have any special affinity for their binding sites, i.e., there is equal chance for them to attach to the sugar and phosphate backbone. This fact eliminates the origin of the protein building information occurring by necessity.



This is a complete non-sequitur, and you are attacking straw-men. There isn't equal chance for them to attach to the bases. If there were, we wouldn't be here, because DNA wouldn't work. It relies on chemistry to work, where certain chemicals only "fit" with others, like a key in a lock. We see this fact of chemistry being taken advantage of all over cell anatomy. I don't see how this demonstrates god, at all. 




UltimateReality said:


> You must find another cause now in operation, exclusive of an intelligent agent, that produces *complex, specifiable *digital code.



No, we don't at all. This is where you are completely wrong. Who made this standard that you are producing, that we MUST find another cause now in operation, that can produce "complex, specifiable DIGITAL CODE" and to satisify who? Creationists? Yeah, those who aren't so consumed with denying evolution and metaphysical naturalism don't have to worry about complying with such standards. The only thing we have to find is the truth, here, in this universe.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool video, thanks, but I'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.
> 
> None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so I am going to try to explain this very clearly.
> 
> I asked YWC how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then I got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by Lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... no shit. Now, here we are with you telling me I need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.
> 
> The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 Billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.
> 
> *TO LONESTAR:  Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, NECESSARILY, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just one question, please explain in your own words how you know the light traveled 13 billion light years, and not, say 6 billion light years. (this should be good)
> 
> Quick!!! Hurry!!! Do your frantic search for an answer! Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I shouldn't play your little ego games, but its too easy to make you look like a fool, and you deserve it for asking the question with such condescension.
> 
> No search needed, as I already answered this the post you quoted. You're reading comprehension must not be what you think it is.  (I'll give you a hint: IT'S DEFINITIONAL). I don't even have to know C. It's right there in the definition for a light-year. A light-year is defined as the distance light will travel in a year, therefore if the distance between a star and an object is X light-years, it will, by definition, take X years for light leaving the star to reach that object. Therefore, the light from a star that is 13 billion light-years away, will take 13 Billion years to reach us. If it took 6 billion years, then it is six billion years away. Relativity is only important if you are talking about an observer either on the beam of light, in which case no passage of time is felt at all, or approaching the speed of light, in which case time asymptotically nears zero movement as your mass would become infinite.
> 
> This is boring. At least ask something that is difficult, or stop trying to "stump" me for your own egotistical ends so we can try on move on with this discussion.
Click to expand...


Nice try, but you didn't answer the question. How do you know that the light you are seeing from a specific star actually took 13 billion years to get here? How have you calculated the distance the star is from the earth?


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UR, so what if science keeps changing their minds about things, at least they're looking for the truth, you're just sitting back on your simpleton couch repeating how your invisible god made everything because the universe is too complex for you to wrap your rigid mind around.
> What IDers do is ASSUME, with no proof, that there's a god who made all of this. Do you also think that the *earth is flat*?



Sure Hollie. You guys really need to come up with your own material.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UR: "And what "cause" do we see now in operation for digital code? The cause is us, intelligent agents."
> 
> So because we figured something out, we are gods? Bra, you make no sense.



Your logic is severely lacking. You don't understand the definition of intelligence. SETI does though.


----------



## UltimateReality

hollie said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> cool video, thanks, but i'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.
> 
> None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so i am going to try to explain this very clearly.
> 
> I asked ywc how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then i got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... No shit. Now, here we are with you telling me i need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.
> 
> The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.
> 
> *to lonestar:  Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, necessarily, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah you can prove my beliefs wrong if you use circular reasoning and other theories that are not based in fact.
> 
> You were using a theory to prove a point a theory thats credibility can't stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's an odd claim coming from a religious zealot who can offer no better evidence for his gods than the greeks could offer for theirs.
Click to expand...


liar.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> These idiots support evolutionary theory but cannot say at what point evolution began.
> If not at the beginning of life then when?
> 
> They want us to believe that "light year" is a measurement of time.
> Sane people know it's a measurement of distance.
> 
> They claim that with all it's flaws dating methods are accurate.
> 
> The fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do. They assume the rate of decay has been constant thoughout its entire geological history. An impossible assumption because they were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the creationist ministries make every effort to keep their adherents ignorant and uninformed.
> 
> If you choose to educate yourself  with one knowledgeable about dating methods not corrupted by creationist misinformation, here's a good start:
> 
> Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
Click to expand...


Most likely another lie.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just one question, please explain in your own words how you know the light traveled 13 billion light years, and not, say 6 billion light years. (this should be good)
> 
> Quick!!! Hurry!!! Do your frantic search for an answer! Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I shouldn't play your little ego games, but its too easy to make you look like a fool, and you deserve it for asking the question with such condescension.
> 
> No search needed, as I already answered this the post you quoted. You're reading comprehension must not be what you think it is.  (I'll give you a hint: IT'S DEFINITIONAL). I don't even have to know C. It's right there in the definition for a light-year. A light-year is defined as the distance light will travel in a year, therefore if the distance between a star and an object is X light-years, it will, by definition, take X years for light leaving the star to reach that object. Therefore, the light from a star that is 13 billion light-years away, will take 13 Billion years to reach us. If it took 6 billion years, then it is six billion years away. Relativity is only important if you are talking about an observer either on the beam of light, in which case no passage of time is felt at all, or approaching the speed of light, in which case time asymptotically nears zero movement as your mass would become infinite.
> 
> This is boring. At least ask something that is difficult, or stop trying to "stump" me for your own egotistical ends so we can try on move on with this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, but you didn't answer the question. How do you know that the light you are seeing from a specific star actually took 13 billion years to get here? How have you calculated the distance the star is from the earth?
Click to expand...


Are you questioning the methodology of astronomers? If so, on what basis?


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the creationist ministries make every effort to keep their adherents ignorant and uninformed.
> 
> If you choose to educate yourself  with one knowledgeable about dating methods not corrupted by creationist misinformation, here's a good start:
> 
> Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is asumed.
> 
> Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.
> 
> Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.
> 
> Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
> 
> As for radioactive decay  Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.
> 
> Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.
Click to expand...


The old soup fairy tale. Newsflash: This has been totally discredited since the odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins are about 1 in 1 x 10 to the 146. There are only 1 x 10 to the 80 atomic particles in the entire visible universe.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah you can prove my beliefs wrong if you use circular reasoning and other theories that are not based in fact.
> 
> You were using a theory to prove a point a theory thats credibility can't stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> that's an odd claim coming from a religious zealot who can offer no better evidence for his gods than the greeks could offer for theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> liar.
Click to expand...


This is absolutely true. You have no more evidence for your god than the Greek's did for theirs, Muslims for theirs, Hindu's for theirs, etc...


----------



## UltimateReality

Gadawg73 said:


> God, that looks like us, sits on a gold throne and creates everything.
> If there was anything that ever qualified as "flawed" scientifically the above claim would be.
> That one is #1 flawed argument.



The Bible says God is Spirit. If he exists outside of matter, space, time and energy, what would ever make you think that he "looks" like anything you know or that he can "sit" anywhere. Have you been listening to Red Neck Theologians?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.
> 
> Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
> 
> As for radioactive decay  Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.
> 
> Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.
> 
> Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.
> 
> Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence that your particular gawds or anyone else's gawds were involved.
> 
> The fact is, a still young science is showing that gawds are simply not a requirement for existence. You fail to understand that your gawds are simply the more recent configuration of earlier supernatural entities that have been abandoned due to humanity shedding the fear and superstition you choose to embrace. Your gawds are little more than a consolidation of earlier Greek gawds. For conveniences' sake, many gawds have been relegated to inconsequential tasks or have been fired for being obsolete. We now have only a few gawds who themselves have been relegated to menial tasks as knowledge and enlightenment has reduced their workload and relevance.
Click to expand...


You have nothing but pseudo-science.

Which takes as much if not more faith to believe in.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is asumed.
> 
> Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.
> 
> Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.
> 
> Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
> 
> As for radioactive decay  Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.
> 
> Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The old soup fairy tale. Newsflash: This has been totally discredited since the odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins are about 1 in 1 x 10 to the 146. There are only 1 x 10 to the 80 atomic particles in the entire visible universe.
Click to expand...


Wow, that is really false. This is has been demonstrated in the Miller-Urey Experiments, which I am now mentioning for the fifth time, and I don't really care that you don't consider these experiments sound. The improvements to make them more like proto-earth actually produced more amino acids than the original experiment, further falsifying your claim.

Have you not heard that amino acids have been found on meteorites? This is evidence that amino acids are not rare at all, and are easily formable throughout our entire universe. Its only a matter of statistics that they find the right conditions to produce life, and we find ourselves in one of those places. Undoubtedly, there are countless other places with life in the universe.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the creationist ministries make every effort to keep their adherents ignorant and uninformed.
> 
> If you choose to educate yourself  with one knowledgeable about dating methods not corrupted by creationist misinformation, here's a good start:
> 
> Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is assumed.
> 
> Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.
> 
> Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that you're in denial of demonstrable science and you can continue to deny in favor of supernaturalism but your argument is just more creationist babble.
> 
> Which of the gods came first in the hierarchy of gods, super-gods, etc. which were the designer gods of your gods?
Click to expand...


How many times can you repeat this same question?? It has been answered for you numerous times in this thread and your flawed logic still can't grasp it. If you are going to reference Theology, then you have to accept the logic contained in theology which is perfectly sound for why God doesn't have a beginning. You have proven time and again you just can't refrain from regurgitating the same tired arguments. We were all here when you were owned on this the first time. Do you think any of us have forgotten about it? You just aren't too bright sometimes. And you are a


*LIAR.* Why can't you just admit you lied about my cut and pastes from Harun Yahya???


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.
> 
> Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
> 
> As for radioactive decay  Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.
> 
> Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.
> 
> Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.
> 
> Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia has been shown to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica,...
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I shouldn't play your little ego games, but its too easy to make you look like a fool, and you deserve it for asking the question with such condescension.
> 
> No search needed, as I already answered this the post you quoted. You're reading comprehension must not be what you think it is.  (I'll give you a hint: IT'S DEFINITIONAL). I don't even have to know C. It's right there in the definition for a light-year. A light-year is defined as the distance light will travel in a year, therefore if the distance between a star and an object is X light-years, it will, by definition, take X years for light leaving the star to reach that object. Therefore, the light from a star that is 13 billion light-years away, will take 13 Billion years to reach us. If it took 6 billion years, then it is six billion years away. Relativity is only important if you are talking about an observer either on the beam of light, in which case no passage of time is felt at all, or approaching the speed of light, in which case time asymptotically nears zero movement as your mass would become infinite.
> 
> This is boring. At least ask something that is difficult, or stop trying to "stump" me for your own egotistical ends so we can try on move on with this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but you didn't answer the question. How do you know that the light you are seeing from a specific star actually took 13 billion years to get here? How have you calculated the distance the star is from the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you questioning the methodology of astronomers? If so, on what basis?
Click to expand...


No, I am questioning your understanding of it. How do you know how far a star is from the earth?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is assumed.
> 
> Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.
> 
> Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you're in denial of demonstrable science and you can continue to deny in favor of supernaturalism but your argument is just more creationist babble.
> 
> Which of the gods came first in the hierarchy of gods, super-gods, etc. which were the designer gods of your gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times can you repeat this same question?? It has been answered for you numerous times in this thread and your flawed logic still can't grasp it. If you are going to reference Theology, then you have to accept the logic contained in theology which is perfectly sound for why God doesn't have a beginning. You have proven time and again you just can't refrain from regurgitating the same tired arguments. We were all here when you were owned on this the first time. Do you think any of us have forgotten about it? You just aren't too bright sometimes. And you are a
> 
> 
> *LIAR.* Why can't you just admit you lied about my cut and pastes from Harun Yahya???
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're simply reiterating Christian creationist dogma. I have no reason to accept your absurd claims that your gawds are excused from the very standard of existence you insist must be applied to the rational world. Your droning on about a special exception for your gawds is ridiculous. 

You need to go elsewhere and thump people with your bibles and fraudulent claims.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.
> 
> Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
> 
> As for radioactive decay  Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.
> 
> Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The old soup fairy tale. Newsflash: This has been totally discredited since the odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins are about 1 in 1 x 10 to the 146. There are only 1 x 10 to the 80 atomic particles in the entire visible universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that is really false. This is has been demonstrated in the Miller-Urey Experiments, which I am now mentioning for the fifth time, and I don't really care that you don't consider these experiments sound. The improvements to make them more like proto-earth actually produced more amino acids than the original experiment, further falsifying your claim.
> 
> Have you not heard that amino acids have been found on meteorites? This is evidence that amino acids are not rare at all, and are easily formable throughout our entire universe. Its only a matter of statistics that they find the right conditions to produce life, and we find ourselves in one of those places. Undoubtedly, there are countless other places with life in the universe.
Click to expand...


NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you're in denial of demonstrable science and you can continue to deny in favor of supernaturalism but your argument is just more creationist babble.
> 
> Which of the gods came first in the hierarchy of gods, super-gods, etc. which were the designer gods of your gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times can you repeat this same question?? It has been answered for you numerous times in this thread and your flawed logic still can't grasp it. If you are going to reference Theology, then you have to accept the logic contained in theology which is perfectly sound for why God doesn't have a beginning. You have proven time and again you just can't refrain from regurgitating the same tired arguments. We were all here when you were owned on this the first time. Do you think any of us have forgotten about it? You just aren't too bright sometimes. And you are a
> 
> 
> *LIAR.* Why can't you just admit you lied about my cut and pastes from Harun Yahya???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid you're simply reiterating Christian creationist dogma. I have no reason to accept your absurd claims that your gawds are excused from the very standard of existence you insist must be applied to the rational world. Your droning on about a special exception for your gawds is ridiculous.
> 
> You need to go elsewhere and thump people with your bibles and fraudulent claims.
Click to expand...


Why won't you just admit you lied about me cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya?

"And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

Believe me, you will feel better if you come clean.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's an odd claim coming from a religious zealot who can offer no better evidence for his gods than the greeks could offer for theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is absolutely true. You have no more evidence for your god than the Greek's did for theirs, Muslims for theirs, Hindu's for theirs, etc...
Click to expand...


Lie. I have digital code in DNA which was written billions of years ago and is very recent discovery. It irrefutably points to an Intelligent Designer. I also have the Big Bang, which supports the Bible and the fact the universe and time had a beginning. The Greeks didn't have this and it just so happens the Big Bang lines up perfectly with Christian Theology.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but you didn't answer the question. How do you know that the light you are seeing from a specific star actually took 13 billion years to get here? How have you calculated the distance the star is from the earth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you questioning the methodology of astronomers? If so, on what basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am questioning your understanding of it. How do you know how far a star is from the earth?
Click to expand...


I would have thought my asking question the I did, would have implicitly answered this.  I got my measurements from astronomers, who, over the last 500 years, have figured a few things out. So, I'll ask again, do you question their methodology? Because, if you aren't, then I don't understand the point in your asking me this question.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is absolutely true. You have no more evidence for your god than the Greek's did for theirs, Muslims for theirs, Hindu's for theirs, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lie. I have digital code in DNA which was written billions of years ago and is very recent discovery. It irrefutably points to an Intelligent Designer. I also have the Big Bang, which supports the Bible and the fact the universe and time had a beginning. The Greeks didn't have this and it just so happens the Big Bang lines up perfectly with Christian Theology.
Click to expand...


I understand that you have concluded illogically that because DNA is a BINARY code, that it must be created by a designer, but this is simply an erroneous conclusion based off of the data, and one which uses pure inductive reasoning without any deductive reasoning to reach said conclusion. That is not science.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.
> 
> Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.
> 
> Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia has been shown to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica,...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Does this not bode well for you?

Denial is unhealthy.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is absolutely true. You have no more evidence for your god than the Greek's did for theirs, Muslims for theirs, Hindu's for theirs, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lie. I have digital code in DNA which was written billions of years ago and is very recent discovery. It irrefutably points to an Intelligent Designer. I also have the Big Bang, which supports the Bible and the fact the universe and time had a beginning. The Greeks didn't have this and it just so happens the Big Bang lines up perfectly with Christian Theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that you have concluded illogically that because DNA is a BINARY code, that it must be created by a designer, but this is simply an erroneous conclusion based off of the data, and one which uses pure inductive reasoning without any deductive reasoning to reach said conclusion. That is not science.
Click to expand...


No! I have not concluded that and I have stated this before!! DNA is a QUATERNARY code. I have posted up numerous times the conclusion is just as sound as any Darwin made because it is based on his method and "References to Causes Now in Operation." Your rebuttal is a "because I say so" argument. You are going to have to come up with something better. Merely repeating the same thing again and again does not make it true. 

From your favorite "reliable" source:

*Genetics*

Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this *encoding*, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and *can be stored as data in DNA* sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The old soup fairy tale. Newsflash: This has been totally discredited since the odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins are about 1 in 1 x 10 to the 146. There are only 1 x 10 to the 80 atomic particles in the entire visible universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that is really false. This is has been demonstrated in the Miller-Urey Experiments, which I am now mentioning for the fifth time, and I don't really care that you don't consider these experiments sound. The improvements to make them more like proto-earth actually produced more amino acids than the original experiment, further falsifying your claim.
> 
> Have you not heard that amino acids have been found on meteorites? This is evidence that amino acids are not rare at all, and are easily formable throughout our entire universe. Its only a matter of statistics that they find the right conditions to produce life, and we find ourselves in one of those places. Undoubtedly, there are countless other places with life in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.
Click to expand...


It is tiring to constantly have your ass handed to you, so i can truly empathize! Your position is indefensible, and that is the problem. You rely on pure speculation about probabilities, which you can't actually establish, because we no other instances of abiogenesis to look at. To say there is no possibility that they "floated" together is simply ignorance, hence, part of the basis for your argument from ignorance. You do not know this at all, and have no empirical or logical basis from which to make such a claim.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia has been shown to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica,...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does this not bode well for you?
> 
> Denial is unhealthy.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't. I have PERSONALLY seen the data manipulated on Wiki as fast as the changes were made. Editable bytes will NEVER be as reliable as printed works. Sorry.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that is really false. This is has been demonstrated in the Miller-Urey Experiments, which I am now mentioning for the fifth time, and I don't really care that you don't consider these experiments sound. The improvements to make them more like proto-earth actually produced more amino acids than the original experiment, further falsifying your claim.
> 
> Have you not heard that amino acids have been found on meteorites? This is evidence that amino acids are not rare at all, and are easily formable throughout our entire universe. Its only a matter of statistics that they find the right conditions to produce life, and we find ourselves in one of those places. Undoubtedly, there are countless other places with life in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is tiring to constantly have your ass handed to you, so i can truly empathize! Your position is indefensible, and that is the problem. You rely on pure speculation about probabilities, which you can't actually establish, because we no other instances of abiogenesis to look at. To say there is no possibility that they "floated" together is simply ignorance, hence, part of the basis for your argument from ignorance. You do not know this at all, and have no empirical or logical basis from which to make such a claim.
Click to expand...


You mean like how I just owned you on the QUATERNARY code post??? You are so naive. I'm done arguing with you. You have no basis for your rebuttals. Class Dismissed!!


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lie. I have digital code in DNA which was written billions of years ago and is very recent discovery. It irrefutably points to an Intelligent Designer. I also have the Big Bang, which supports the Bible and the fact the universe and time had a beginning. The Greeks didn't have this and it just so happens the Big Bang lines up perfectly with Christian Theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you have concluded illogically that because DNA is a BINARY code, that it must be created by a designer, but this is simply an erroneous conclusion based off of the data, and one which uses pure inductive reasoning without any deductive reasoning to reach said conclusion. That is not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No! I have not concluded that and I have stated this before!! DNA is a QUATERNARY code. I have posted up numerous times the conclusion is just as sound as any Darwin made because it is based on his method and "References to Causes Now in Operation." Your rebuttal is a "because I say so" argument. You are going to have to come up with something better. Merely repeating the same thing again and again does not make it true.
> 
> From your favorite "reliable" source:
> 
> *Genetics*
> 
> Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this *encoding*, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and *can be stored as data in DNA* sequence.[2]
> 
> For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
Click to expand...


If DNA is a quaternary code, then how can DNA be digital, as you claim, if digital code is binary?

All of this is irrelevant, anyways. It truly does not matter how complex or specifiable DNA is. ID will always be an argument from ignorance. This is what you don't understand. You can talk about the improbabilities of amino acids coming together, or the shannon information in DNA. You can not get around this basic fact, which is why ID is not science. They are not drawing sound conclusions. It is any wonder to you that other scientists don't see ID as science? That should raise a red flag. I truly don't understand your efforts to try and convince us how amazing DNA is. This is your ONLY "evidence?" Wow. ID is really weak.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is tiring to constantly have your ass handed to you, so i can truly empathize! Your position is indefensible, and that is the problem. You rely on pure speculation about probabilities, which you can't actually establish, because we no other instances of abiogenesis to look at. To say there is no possibility that they "floated" together is simply ignorance, hence, part of the basis for your argument from ignorance. You do not know this at all, and have no empirical or logical basis from which to make such a claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like how I just owned you on the QUATERNARY code post??? You are so naive. I'm done arguing with you. You have no basis for your rebuttals. Class Dismissed!!
Click to expand...


Did you just say you "owned" me? Are we teenagers in a gaming forum? Holy cow.

Excuse me, but have you not been stating all along that DNA is digital???? 

Digital code is binary. You know that right? It's not quaternary. So, how are you equating a binary code and quaternary code and saying they are the same?

 I think you just got kicked out of the class you were teaching.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this not bode well for you?
> 
> Denial is unhealthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. I have PERSONALLY seen the data manipulated on Wiki as fast as the changes were made. Editable bytes will NEVER be as reliable as printed works. Sorry.
Click to expand...



Had you stuck around for twenty minutes, you would have found that any edits to a wiki entry will be corrected, because they are highly monitored, especially by the authors. There is a reputation system for the authors in order to develop incentives for good authorship. Any edits to a post will be rejected if they are not factually correct and within a short amount of time.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lack credibility due to your continued proven lies. Why do you continue to waste your time posting here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That itself would be a lie. *Link us to a proven lie*, you creepy stalker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you do lack education. When *you cut and paste from Harun Yahya*, you are actually screaming out that lack education.
> 
> Your incessant use of gargantuan, pink fonts in failed attempts to deflect from addressing *refutations of your cut and pasted Harun Yahya nonsense* only reinforces your inability to compose coherent sentences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Niether myself or YWC have ever cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, *LIAR.*
> 
> If you try to ignore this, it is not going away. Now run along you poor dear.
Click to expand...


Here's the link. It's just a shame that neither if you two could have owned up to your blatant lies. But that seems typical for fundies. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5882646-post7458.html

You can click the "about" button. Additionally, you can do your own search and find many other instances of links to Harun Yahya.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you have concluded illogically that because DNA is a BINARY code, that it must be created by a designer, but this is simply an erroneous conclusion based off of the data, and one which uses pure inductive reasoning without any deductive reasoning to reach said conclusion. That is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No! I have not concluded that and I have stated this before!! DNA is a QUATERNARY code. I have posted up numerous times the conclusion is just as sound as any Darwin made because it is based on his method and "References to Causes Now in Operation." Your rebuttal is a "because I say so" argument. You are going to have to come up with something better. Merely repeating the same thing again and again does not make it true.
> 
> From your favorite "reliable" source:
> 
> *Genetics*
> 
> Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this *encoding*, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and *can be stored as data in DNA* sequence.[2]
> 
> For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If DNA is a quaternary code, then how can DNA be digital, as you claim, if digital code is binary?
> 
> All of this is irrelevant, anyways. It truly does not matter how complex or specifiable DNA is. ID will always be an argument from ignorance. This is what you don't understand. You can talk about the improbabilities of amino acids coming together, or the shannon information in DNA. You can not get around this basic fact, which is why ID is not science. They are not drawing sound conclusions. It is any wonder to you that other scientists don't see ID as science? That should raise a red flag. I truly don't understand your efforts to try and convince us how amazing DNA is. This is your ONLY "evidence?" Wow. ID is really weak.
Click to expand...


You are lost in your ignorance even though you can't see it and continue to shout that I lack understanding. Watch this short 7 minute video and then maybe YOU will understand YOUR argument from ignorance. I welcome your rebuttal after you have watched this...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That itself would be a lie. *Link us to a proven lie*, you creepy stalker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you do lack education. When *you cut and paste from Harun Yahya*, you are actually screaming out that lack education.
> 
> Your incessant use of gargantuan, pink fonts in failed attempts to deflect from addressing *refutations of your cut and pasted Harun Yahya nonsense* only reinforces your inability to compose coherent sentences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Niether myself or YWC have ever cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, *LIAR.*
> 
> If you try to ignore this, it is not going away. Now run along you poor dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the link. It's just a shame that neither if you two could have owned up to your blatant lies. But that seems typical for fundies.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/5882646-post7458.html
> 
> You can click the "about" button. Additionally, you can do your own search and find many other instances of links to Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...


I am talking about ME!! I have never cut and pasted from Haran Yahya! Why do you keep trying to camoflauge your lie about me? Just admit it. You have no proof that I have cut and pasted from Harun Yahya or have ever quoted him.

Why can't you just admit you lied about ME?


----------



## newpolitics

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That itself would be a lie. *Link us to a proven lie*, you creepy stalker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you do lack education. When *you cut and paste from Harun Yahya*, you are actually screaming out that lack education.
> 
> Your incessant use of gargantuan, pink fonts in failed attempts to deflect from addressing *refutations of your cut and pasted Harun Yahya nonsense* only reinforces your inability to compose coherent sentences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Niether myself or YWC have ever cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, *LIAR.*
> 
> If you try to ignore this, it is not going away. Now run along you poor dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the link. It's just a shame that neither if you two could have owned up to your blatant lies. But that seems typical for fundies.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/5882646-post7458.html
> 
> You can click the "about" button. Additionally, you can do your own search and find many other instances of links to Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...


Oops...


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this not bode well for you?
> 
> Denial is unhealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. I have PERSONALLY seen the data manipulated on Wiki as fast as the changes were made. Editable bytes will NEVER be as reliable as printed works. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Had you stuck around for twenty minutes, you would have found that any edits to a wiki entry will be corrected, because they are highly monitored, especially by the authors. There is a reputation system for the authors in order to develop incentives for good authorship. Any edits to a post will be rejected if they are not factually correct and within a short amount of time.
Click to expand...


The false information was what was changed. The editors changed it back to the lie within seconds.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go...
> 
> 
> 
> Niether myself or YWC have ever cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, *LIAR.*
> 
> If you try to ignore this, it is not going away. Now run along you poor dear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the link. It's just a shame that neither if you two could have owned up to your blatant lies. But that seems typical for fundies.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/5882646-post7458.html
> 
> You can click the "about" button. Additionally, you can do your own search and find many other instances of links to Harun Yahya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oops...
Click to expand...


Stupid. Again you haven't followed the post. We are talking about her lies about me, not YWC. Keep up for Darwin's sake!!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is tiring to constantly have your ass handed to you, so i can truly empathize! Your position is indefensible, and that is the problem. You rely on pure speculation about probabilities, which you can't actually establish, because we no other instances of abiogenesis to look at. To say there is no possibility that they "floated" together is simply ignorance, hence, part of the basis for your argument from ignorance. You do not know this at all, and have no empirical or logical basis from which to make such a claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how I just owned you on the QUATERNARY code post??? You are so naive. I'm done arguing with you. You have no basis for your rebuttals. Class Dismissed!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you just say you "owned" me? *Are we teenagers*
Click to expand...

 No, but your writing style and failure to grasp basic concepts would indicate you are.


newpolitics said:


> in a gaming forum? Holy cow.
> 
> Excuse me, but have you not been stating all along that DNA is digital????
> 
> Digital code is binary. You know that right? It's not quaternary. So, how are you equating a binary code and quaternary code and saying they are the same?
> 
> I think you just got kicked out of the class you were teaching.



You should quit while you are ahead. Your lack of knowledge on basic concepts is embarrassing. 

DNA is digital. Binary code is a form of digital code but not all digital signals are binary. Again your logic is faulty!!!

Digital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The old soup fairy tale. Newsflash: This has been totally discredited since the odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins are about 1 in 1 x 10 to the 146. There are only 1 x 10 to the 80 atomic particles in the entire visible universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that is really false. This is has been demonstrated in the Miller-Urey Experiments, which I am now mentioning for the fifth time, and I don't really care that you don't consider these experiments sound. The improvements to make them more like proto-earth actually produced more amino acids than the original experiment, further falsifying your claim.
> 
> Have you not heard that amino acids have been found on meteorites? This is evidence that amino acids are not rare at all, and are easily formable throughout our entire universe. Its only a matter of statistics that they find the right conditions to produce life, and we find ourselves in one of those places. Undoubtedly, there are countless other places with life in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.
Click to expand...


You hit it out of the park the same people who run to the miller urey exercise as an answer turn to abiogenesis as ann answer while the science community dismisses them both.  There is a reason the science community claim ignorance on the origins question.


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you have concluded illogically that because DNA is a BINARY code, that it must be created by a designer, but this is simply an erroneous conclusion based off of the data, and one which uses pure inductive reasoning without any deductive reasoning to reach said conclusion. That is not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No! I have not concluded that and I have stated this before!! DNA is a QUATERNARY code. I have posted up numerous times the conclusion is just as sound as any Darwin made because it is based on his method and "References to Causes Now in Operation." Your rebuttal is a "because I say so" argument. You are going to have to come up with something better. Merely repeating the same thing again and again does not make it true.
> 
> From your favorite "reliable" source:
> 
> *Genetics*
> 
> Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this *encoding*, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and *can be stored as data in DNA* sequence.[2]
> 
> For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If DNA is a quaternary code, then how can DNA be digital, as you claim, if digital code is binary?
> 
> All of this is irrelevant, anyways. It truly does not matter how complex or specifiable DNA is. ID will always be an argument from ignorance. This is what you don't understand. You can talk about the improbabilities of amino acids coming together, or the shannon information in DNA. You can not get around this basic fact, which is why ID is not science. They are not drawing sound conclusions. It is any wonder to you that other scientists don't see ID as science? That should raise a red flag. I truly don't understand your efforts to try and convince us how amazing DNA is. This is your ONLY "evidence?" Wow. ID is really weak.
Click to expand...

What the IDiots don't understand is that none of their feverish attempts to equate DNA being the result of intervention by magical gawds is in any way evidence for gawds. There is nothing to indicate that DNA is the "machine" that fundies falsely label DNA as being. The fundie argument relies on false labels, bad analogies and inventive flights of fanciful spirit worlds to cobble together truly silly supernatural realms.

All of this is done with no more authority or evidence than the four word "the gawds did it".


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No! I have not concluded that and I have stated this before!! DNA is a QUATERNARY code. I have posted up numerous times the conclusion is just as sound as any Darwin made because it is based on his method and "References to Causes Now in Operation." Your rebuttal is a "because I say so" argument. You are going to have to come up with something better. Merely repeating the same thing again and again does not make it true.
> 
> From your favorite "reliable" source:
> 
> *Genetics*
> 
> Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this *encoding*, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and *can be stored as data in DNA* sequence.[2]
> 
> For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If DNA is a quaternary code, then how can DNA be digital, as you claim, if digital code is binary?
> 
> All of this is irrelevant, anyways. It truly does not matter how complex or specifiable DNA is. ID will always be an argument from ignorance. This is what you don't understand. You can talk about the improbabilities of amino acids coming together, or the shannon information in DNA. You can not get around this basic fact, which is why ID is not science. They are not drawing sound conclusions. It is any wonder to you that other scientists don't see ID as science? That should raise a red flag. I truly don't understand your efforts to try and convince us how amazing DNA is. This is your ONLY "evidence?" Wow. ID is really weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the IDiots don't understand is that none of their feverish attempts to equate DNA being the result of intervention by magical gawds is in any way evidence for gawds. There is nothing to indicate that DNA is the "machine" that fundies falsely label DNA as being. The fundie argument relies on false labels, bad analogies and inventive flights of fanciful spirit worlds to cobble together truly silly supernatural realms.
> 
> All of this is done with no more authority or evidence than the four word "the gawds did it".
Click to expand...


So you would deny researchers at Harvard used DNA as a *DIGITAL media storage device*???

How long will you continue to ignore my question to admit you lied about me? You can't get out of this unscathed. Either you continue to be too stupid to differentiate between myself and YWC or you blatantly and overtly misrepresented information about me to discredit me. Which is it?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That itself would be a lie. *Link us to a proven lie*, you creepy stalker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you do lack education. When *you cut and paste from Harun Yahya*, you are actually screaming out that lack education.
> 
> Your incessant use of gargantuan, pink fonts in failed attempts to deflect from addressing *refutations of your cut and pasted Harun Yahya nonsense* only reinforces your inability to compose coherent sentences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Niether myself or YWC have ever cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, *LIAR.*
> 
> If you try to ignore this, it is not going away. Now run along you poor dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the link. It's just a shame that neither if you two could have owned up to your blatant lies. But that seems typical for fundies.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/5882646-post7458.html
> 
> You can click the "about" button. Additionally, you can do your own search and find many other instances of links to Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...


Do you understand left and right handed amino acids and their importance ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that is really false. This is has been demonstrated in the Miller-Urey Experiments, which I am now mentioning for the fifth time, and I don't really care that you don't consider these experiments sound. The improvements to make them more like proto-earth actually produced more amino acids than the original experiment, further falsifying your claim.
> 
> Have you not heard that amino acids have been found on meteorites? This is evidence that amino acids are not rare at all, and are easily formable throughout our entire universe. Its only a matter of statistics that they find the right conditions to produce life, and we find ourselves in one of those places. Undoubtedly, there are countless other places with life in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hit it out of the park the same people who run to the miller urey exercise as an answer turn to abiogenesis as ann answer while the science community dismisses them both.  There is a reason the science community claim ignorance on the origins question.
Click to expand...

The science community does not possess the data regarding "origins" that would stand to peer review. 

Admittedly, the Christian creationist ministries are held to no such academic or professional standards. As we see with the Christian creationists in this thread, such standards as proof and ethical behavior is secondary to pounding the message of their religious dogma. 

There is a reason why Christian creationists demand an exception from the standards of proof, peer review and ethical behavior they demand of science. Simply, the religious/ creationist arguments are arguments from ignorance and by their nature, require an abandonment of ethical standards of proof that is maintained by science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go...
> 
> 
> 
> Niether myself or YWC have ever cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, *LIAR.*
> 
> If you try to ignore this, it is not going away. Now run along you poor dear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the link. It's just a shame that neither if you two could have owned up to your blatant lies. But that seems typical for fundies.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/5882646-post7458.html
> 
> You can click the "about" button. Additionally, you can do your own search and find many other instances of links to Harun Yahya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand left and right handed amino acids and their importance ?
Click to expand...


Yes. Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya requires you do not. 

You can work yourself into a lather with the boilerplate "gawds of the gaps" argument and you are free to cut and paste the same "Behe" arguments as you wish. 

Nothing about amino acids brings anyone any useful information about your gawds or any other gawds.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie let's put this to bed girl. You have ID proponents,creationists,and evolutionists all working side by side looking at the same evidence and their interpretations of the evidence find their way to the public  it is up to you decide whose explanations of the evidence make the most sense. These proponents all have an education above your pay grade. For you to call any of them ignorant is a joke.

It's just that the atheistic evolutionist are the ones controliing what goes in the the textbooks and in to the ears of our children. Secularists are gaining control of the govt as well so whose story are you getting ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the link. It's just a shame that neither if you two could have owned up to your blatant lies. But that seems typical for fundies.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/5882646-post7458.html
> 
> You can click the "about" button. Additionally, you can do your own search and find many other instances of links to Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand left and right handed amino acids and their importance ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya requires you do not.
> 
> You can work yourself into a lather with the boilerplate "gawds of the gaps" argument and you are free to cut and paste the same "Behe" arguments as you wish.
> 
> Nothing about amino acids brings anyone any useful information about your gawds or any other gawds.
Click to expand...


Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.

Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie let's put this to bed girl. You have ID proponents,creationists,and evolutionists all working side by side looking at the same evidence and their interpretations of the evidence find their way to the public  it is up to you decide whose explanations of the evidence make the most sense. These proponents all have an education above your pay grade. For you to call any of them ignorant is a joke.
> 
> It's just that the atheistic evolutionist are the ones controliing what goes in the the textbooks and in to the ears of our children. Secularists are gaining control of the govt as well so whose story are you getting ?



Of course, your comments are nonsensical, false and intended only to bolster your creationist ministries. The IDiots and Christian creationists do not perform research according to the scientific method. Their goals are specifically to further their religious agenda. This has been explained to you on more occasions than anyone can count but you continue to lie about the motives of the Christian creationist / IDiot community. 

The creationist / IDiot community has marginalized their own credibility by using the same dishonest tactics that you and the other fundies use as we have seen in this thread. The falsified "quotes", logical fallacies used to derive erroneous conclusions, falsified experiments and the refusal by the fundie element to publish their work for peer review. This is done because the Christian creationists/ IDiots cannot meet the standard of proof that science can.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the link. It's just a shame that neither if you two could have owned up to your blatant lies. But that seems typical for fundies.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/5882646-post7458.html
> 
> You can click the "about" button. Additionally, you can do your own search and find many other instances of links to Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand left and right handed amino acids and their importance ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya requires you do not.
> 
> You can work yourself into a lather with the boilerplate "gawds of the gaps" argument and you are free to cut and paste the same "Behe" arguments as you wish.
> 
> Nothing about amino acids brings anyone any useful information about your gawds or any other gawds.
Click to expand...


Here I will help you out hollie.

The importance of left handed amino acids are found binding to form proteins in almost all organisms. There are a few organisms that have right handed amino acids binding to form proteins as well. What would happen to the organisms that if they had a mixture of both amino acids ?

You choose is it a unintelligent random source that would make sure that the right amino acids bonded or an intelligent source knowing that both amino acids exist ? What was the source that put this natural process into action ? Don't forget Hollie there are 20 different amino acids that needed to be put in the right sequencing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie let's put this to bed girl. You have ID proponents,creationists,and evolutionists all working side by side looking at the same evidence and their interpretations of the evidence find their way to the public  it is up to you decide whose explanations of the evidence make the most sense. These proponents all have an education above your pay grade. For you to call any of them ignorant is a joke.
> 
> It's just that the atheistic evolutionist are the ones controliing what goes in the the textbooks and in to the ears of our children. Secularists are gaining control of the govt as well so whose story are you getting ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, your comments are nonsensical, false and intended only to bolster your creationist ministries. The IDiots and Christian creationists do not perform research according to the scientific method. Their goals are specifically to further their religious agenda. This has been explained to you on more occasions than anyone can count but you continue to lie about the motives of the Christian creationist / IDiot community.
> 
> The creationist / IDiot community has marginalized their own credibility by using the same dishonest tactics that you and the other fundies use as we have seen in this thread. The falsified "quotes", logical fallacies used to derive erroneous conclusions, falsified experiments and the refusal by the fundie element to publish their work for peer review. This is done because the Christian creationists/ IDiots cannot meet the standard of proof that science can.
Click to expand...


Oh hollie full of hate to blinded to be rational.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the link. It's just a shame that neither if you two could have owned up to your blatant lies. But that seems typical for fundies.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/5882646-post7458.html
> 
> You can click the "about" button. Additionally, you can do your own search and find many other instances of links to Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid. Again you haven't followed the post. We are talking about her lies about me, not YWC. Keep up for Darwin's sake!!!!
Click to expand...


You and Hollie are talking about how Hollie is lying? That's a lie right there!

I actually hate accusing people of lying, so that will be it for me, but you are being dishonest right now. Hollie is not talking to you about her own lies, but somebody elses.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand left and right handed amino acids and their importance ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya requires you do not.
> 
> You can work yourself into a lather with the boilerplate "gawds of the gaps" argument and you are free to cut and paste the same "Behe" arguments as you wish.
> 
> Nothing about amino acids brings anyone any useful information about your gawds or any other gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.
> 
> Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?
Click to expand...


No, they do not have an agenda. What agenda does wikipedia have???

Talkorigins I can understand, even though I wholeheartedly disagree that they have an agenda, aside from debunking creationist/ID claims and establishing science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid. Again you haven't followed the post. We are talking about her lies about me, not YWC. Keep up for Darwin's sake!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Hollie are talking about how Hollie is lying? That's a lie right there!
> 
> I actually hate accusing people of lying, so that will be it for me, but you are being dishonest right now. Hollie is not talking to you about her own lies, but somebody elses.
Click to expand...


What has Hollie presented that was a lie ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya requires you do not.
> 
> You can work yourself into a lather with the boilerplate "gawds of the gaps" argument and you are free to cut and paste the same "Behe" arguments as you wish.
> 
> Nothing about amino acids brings anyone any useful information about your gawds or any other gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.
> 
> Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they do not have an agenda. What agenda does wikipedia have???
> 
> Talkorigins I can understand, even though I wholeheartedly disagree that they have an agenda, aside from debunking creationist/ID claims and establishing science.
Click to expand...


Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid. Again you haven't followed the post. We are talking about her lies about me, not YWC. Keep up for Darwin's sake!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and Hollie are talking about how Hollie is lying? That's a lie right there!
> 
> I actually hate accusing people of lying, so that will be it for me, but you are being dishonest right now. Hollie is not talking to you about her own lies, but somebody elses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has Hollie presented that was a lie ?
Click to expand...




She posted a link to a thread where quoted from Harun yahya, and either you and/or UR have been claiming that you don't post from that author. So, she has falsified your claim.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand left and right handed amino acids and their importance ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya requires you do not.
> 
> You can work yourself into a lather with the boilerplate "gawds of the gaps" argument and you are free to cut and paste the same "Behe" arguments as you wish.
> 
> Nothing about amino acids brings anyone any useful information about your gawds or any other gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.
> 
> Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?
Click to expand...

If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue.

Secondly, why don't you entertain us with how the interaction of amino acids will lead us to not just any gawds but your particular conception of gawds. You should remember that your laboring through the "amino acids prove gawds" nonsense, cut and pasted from creationist ministry websites lacks the peer review that would allow an unbiased researcher to test and confirm. How convenient! Creation ministries have an announced agenda to promote christianity and invariably find, (manufacture, falsifying, invent), results that they prefer. 

None of the data from Christian creation ministries ever leads anyone to evidence for gawds. All of the phony data is presented with the intention of appealing to an audience that is not particularly schooled in science or to denigrate established science which leads away from conclusions of supernaturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Hollie are talking about how Hollie is lying? That's a lie right there!
> 
> I actually hate accusing people of lying, so that will be it for me, but you are being dishonest right now. Hollie is not talking to you about her own lies, but somebody elses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has Hollie presented that was a lie ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She posted a link to a thread where quoted from Harun yahya, and either you and/or UR have been claiming that you don't post from that author. So, she has falsified your claim.
Click to expand...


I have quoted from there and have not denied it. She made the claim UR quoted from there and he has not that I know of. It's just a smoke screen from hollie to dodge questions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya requires you do not.
> 
> You can work yourself into a lather with the boilerplate "gawds of the gaps" argument and you are free to cut and paste the same "Behe" arguments as you wish.
> 
> Nothing about amino acids brings anyone any useful information about your gawds or any other gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.
> 
> Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue.
> 
> Secondly, why don't you entertain us with how the interaction of amino acids will lead us to not just any gawds but your particular conception of gawds. You should remember that your laboring through the "amino acids prove gawds" nonsense, cut and pasted from creationist ministry websites lacks the peer review that would allow an unbiased researcher to test and confirm. How convenient! Creation ministries have an announced agenda to promote christianity and invariably find, (manufacture, falsifying, invent), results that they prefer.
> 
> None of the data from Christian creation ministries ever leads anyone to evidence for gawds. All of the phony data is presented with the intention of appealing to an audience that is not particularly schooled in science or to denigrate established science which leads away from conclusions of supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


Why don't you entertain us that AN intelligent being was not behind the formation of proteins with just the right amino acids.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.
> 
> Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they do not have an agenda. What agenda does wikipedia have???
> 
> Talkorigins I can understand, even though I wholeheartedly disagree that they have an agenda, aside from debunking creationist/ID claims and establishing science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.
Click to expand...


That was hardly a comprehensible sentence, but I get it. You didn't answer my question. What is their agenda, specifically? If you understand that wikipedia is made up of many, many different authors, then are you suggesting there is a managing authority telling all authors to slant their posts towards a certain viewpoint? This would require some serious evidence, and you've provided none. The same with talkorigins. You won't find a viewpoint on talk origins that isn't held by evolutionary biologists or any professionals in the pertinent fields. It is a vacuous assertion to say that talkorigins has an agenda. The truth is their only agenda, whilst for creationist/ID website, they DO have an agenda, and that is to promote god.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya requires you do not.
> 
> You can work yourself into a lather with the boilerplate "gawds of the gaps" argument and you are free to cut and paste the same "Behe" arguments as you wish.
> 
> Nothing about amino acids brings anyone any useful information about your gawds or any other gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.
> 
> Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue.
> 
> Secondly, why don't you entertain us with how the interaction of amino acids will lead us to not just any gawds but your particular conception of gawds. You should remember that your laboring through the "amino acids prove gawds" nonsense, cut and pasted from creationist ministry websites lacks the peer review that would allow an unbiased researcher to test and confirm. How convenient! Creation ministries have an announced agenda to promote christianity and invariably find, (manufacture, falsifying, invent), results that they prefer.
> 
> None of the data from Christian creation ministries ever leads anyone to evidence for gawds. All of the phony data is presented with the intention of appealing to an audience that is not particularly schooled in science or to denigrate established science which leads away from conclusions of supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


Is this where you once again run from the questions put to you ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.
> 
> Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they do not have an agenda. What agenda does wikipedia have???
> 
> Talkorigins I can understand, even though I wholeheartedly disagree that they have an agenda, aside from debunking creationist/ID claims and establishing science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.
Click to expand...

Careful there fundie man. Your comment would then apply to every claim of miracles in the bible. 

Thus would be an appropriate time to quickly whip up one special exception for your bible tales and fables.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they do not have an agenda. What agenda does wikipedia have???
> 
> Talkorigins I can understand, even though I wholeheartedly disagree that they have an agenda, aside from debunking creationist/ID claims and establishing science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was hardly a comprehensible sentence, but I get it. You didn't answer my question. What is their agenda, specifically? If you understand that wikipedia is made up of many, many different authors, then are you suggesting there is a managing authority telling all authors to slant their posts towards a certain viewpoint? This would require some serious evidence, and you've provided none. The same with talkorigins. You won't find a viewpoint on talk origins that isn't held by evolutionary biologists or any professionals in the pertinent fields. It is a vacuous assertion to say that talkorigins has an agenda. The truth is their only agenda, whilst for creationist/ID website, they DO have an agenda, and that is to promote god.
Click to expand...


Their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they do not have an agenda. What agenda does wikipedia have???
> 
> Talkorigins I can understand, even though I wholeheartedly disagree that they have an agenda, aside from debunking creationist/ID claims and establishing science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Careful there fundie man. Your comment would then apply to every claim of miracles in the bible.
> 
> Thus would be an appropriate time to quickly whip up one special exception for your bible tales and fables.
Click to expand...


I have told you many times many of my beliefs are based in faith some are not they are based on evidence.


----------



## U.S.S.R

The reason to believe it, is to believe what God's Holy Scriptures tell us.  The dates are from the Bible, the Word of Truth.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.
> 
> Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?
> 
> 
> 
> If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue.
> 
> Secondly, why don't you entertain us with how the interaction of amino acids will lead us to not just any gawds but your particular conception of gawds. You should remember that your laboring through the "amino acids prove gawds" nonsense, cut and pasted from creationist ministry websites lacks the peer review that would allow an unbiased researcher to test and confirm. How convenient! Creation ministries have an announced agenda to promote christianity and invariably find, (manufacture, falsifying, invent), results that they prefer.
> 
> None of the data from Christian creation ministries ever leads anyone to evidence for gawds. All of the phony data is presented with the intention of appealing to an audience that is not particularly schooled in science or to denigrate established science which leads away from conclusions of supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this where you once again run from the questions put to you ?
Click to expand...

I have no desire to endure your continued cutting and pasting from creationist websites that falsify data. 

Why are you running from my questions? Your conviction that data you cut and paste from Harun Yahya in connection with amino acids must be developed enough to link to a science publication that could have reviewed the data, right? If you're convinced that the data you have will lead to the gawds, why don't you present that data and then present a logical chain of evidence leading to a narrow and specific conclusion for not just any gawd but your particular gawd.

That would be the simplest way to confirm evidence for your gawds. Where is such a link?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there fundie man. Your comment would then apply to every claim of miracles in the bible.
> 
> Thus would be an appropriate time to quickly whip up one special exception for your bible tales and fables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have told you many times many of my beliefs are based in faith some are not they are based on evidence.
Click to expand...


Because you are confused as to the elements which separate faith from science, you are a poor candidate to make distinctions between your belief in supermagicalism and the rational world. It would then follow that your ability to make rational decisions is called into question.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was hardly a comprehensible sentence, but I get it. You didn't answer my question. What is their agenda, specifically? If you understand that wikipedia is made up of many, many different authors, then are you suggesting there is a managing authority telling all authors to slant their posts towards a certain viewpoint? This would require some serious evidence, and you've provided none. The same with talkorigins. You won't find a viewpoint on talk origins that isn't held by evolutionary biologists or any professionals in the pertinent fields. It is a vacuous assertion to say that talkorigins has an agenda. The truth is their only agenda, whilst for creationist/ID website, they DO have an agenda, and that is to promote god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.
Click to expand...


Here again, your only goal is to promote your religious views at the expense of truth. 

If you review the site, you will find each article includes extensive references to peer reviewed data. 

As opposed to everything in existence being the product of naturalism, what part of existence can you define that was the result of supernaturalism? How does anyone further define that supernaturalism is the result of your gawds and not someone else's gawds?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.
> 
> Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?
> 
> 
> 
> If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue.
> 
> Secondly, why don't you entertain us with how the interaction of amino acids will lead us to not just any gawds but your particular conception of gawds. You should remember that your laboring through the "amino acids prove gawds" nonsense, cut and pasted from creationist ministry websites lacks the peer review that would allow an unbiased researcher to test and confirm. How convenient! Creation ministries have an announced agenda to promote christianity and invariably find, (manufacture, falsifying, invent), results that they prefer.
> 
> None of the data from Christian creation ministries ever leads anyone to evidence for gawds. All of the phony data is presented with the intention of appealing to an audience that is not particularly schooled in science or to denigrate established science which leads away from conclusions of supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you entertain us that AN intelligent being was not behind the formation of proteins with just the right amino acids.
Click to expand...


I have done that. Why don't you entertain us by proving I haven't? 

Do you not understand just how moronic your "prove if isn't" statement is? 

It just reeks of amateur and you might as well admit you're hopelessly floundering. 

Drink the Kool-Aid.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Hell's Bells!!  Why didn't you just say so?
> 
> 
> 
> What a maroon!
> 
> 
> 
> what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
> all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the old closed system stupid atheist argument. So where did all the massive chaos go to balance out all the order on earth. Did it leave on a spaceship?
Click to expand...

hey slap dick the closed system is a creationist fantasy. 
btw chaos never left...... Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather.[5][6] Explanation of such behavior may be sought through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Hell's Bells!!  Why didn't you just say so?
> 
> 
> 
> What a maroon!
> 
> 
> 
> what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
> all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws prove space is not a closed system  Daws have you been able to see beyond the stars to know it's infinite ?
> 
> You guys are so ignorant of the facts you can't see when you contradict yourself.
Click to expand...

didn't you just say that you were not speaking to me?
no need to prove anything it's already been explained to you.
besides it up to you to to prove it is a closed system since you made the claim.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Hell's Bells!!  Why didn't you just say so?
> 
> 
> 
> What a maroon!
> 
> 
> 
> what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
> all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Types of Systems
Click to expand...

more reading comp trouble I see .. do italics mean anything to you?  " in your link  is this part of the first sentence: "as a whole" is printed in italics meaning that there are exceptions to that statement .
here's the full answer : Is earth an open or closed system?.:.Answer
both. For everything except energy, it's closed. 
For energy (i.e. the sun's input, radiation into space at night) it's open. 




which means  that you are as always misrepresenting fact   to bolster you lack of proof..


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hit it out of the park the same people who run to the miller urey exercise as an answer turn to abiogenesis as ann answer while the science community dismisses them both.  There is a reason the science community claim ignorance on the origins question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The science community does not possess the data regarding "origins" that would stand to peer review.
> 
> Admittedly, the Christian creationist ministries are held to no such academic or professional standards. As we see with the Christian creationists in this thread, such standards as proof and ethical behavior is secondary to pounding the message of their religious dogma.
> 
> There is a reason why Christian creationists demand an exception from the standards of proof, peer review and ethical behavior they demand of science. Simply, the religious/ creationist arguments are arguments from ignorance and by their nature, require an abandonment of ethical standards of proof that is maintained by science.
Click to expand...


Why do you continue to remain silent on you lies about me?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you people when hit with questions you have no answer for you hide behind your rhetoric and pretend the one that calls you out are ignorant and stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that statement calling my post "rhetoric" have to do with me having visited and gotten to know the scam artists you morons follow blindly.  Your post is stupid has nothing  to do with anything I provided about The Discovery Institute.
> 
> You morons just lap up their propaganga like mothers milk with no question..wheras I have actually been at meetings with the brothers that run the Discovery Institute.  AKA I know what I am talking about and you duped creationist idiots not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sir, I was educated at the University of Arizona you are just to ignorant to believe scientists don't all agree on the theories that you slurp up as fact.
Click to expand...

your history at U of A has fuckall to do with anything.
everybodys knows that scientists diagree...
again that fact does not make your "god did it" fantasy any more vaild.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid. Again you haven't followed the post. We are talking about her lies about me, not YWC. Keep up for Darwin's sake!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Hollie are talking about how Hollie is lying? That's a lie right there!
> 
> I actually hate accusing people of lying, so that will be it for me, but you are being dishonest right now. Hollie is not talking to you about her own lies, but somebody elses.
Click to expand...


You're embarrassing yourself. Hollie has lied about me on numerous occasions and I am sick of her repetitive posts of continually lying just as a put down. I am asking her to back up her accusations with proof or get lost. End of story.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya requires you do not.
> 
> You can work yourself into a lather with the boilerplate "gawds of the gaps" argument and you are free to cut and paste the same "Behe" arguments as you wish.
> 
> Nothing about amino acids brings anyone any useful information about your gawds or any other gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.
> 
> Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue...
Click to expand...


What? Like you've ever done when facts are presented to you?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue.
> 
> Secondly, why don't you entertain us with how the interaction of amino acids will lead us to not just any gawds but your particular conception of gawds. You should remember that your laboring through the "amino acids prove gawds" nonsense, cut and pasted from creationist ministry websites lacks the peer review that would allow an unbiased researcher to test and confirm. How convenient! Creation ministries have an announced agenda to promote christianity and invariably find, (manufacture, falsifying, invent), results that they prefer.
> 
> None of the data from Christian creation ministries ever leads anyone to evidence for gawds. All of the phony data is presented with the intention of appealing to an audience that is not particularly schooled in science or to denigrate established science which leads away from conclusions of supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this where you once again run from the questions put to you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no desire to endure your continued cutting and pasting from creationist websites that falsify data.
> 
> Why are you running from my questions? Your conviction that data you cut and paste from Harun Yahya in connection with amino acids must be developed enough to link to a science publication that could have reviewed the data, right? If you're convinced that the data you have will lead to the gawds, why don't you present that data and then present a logical chain of evidence leading to a narrow and specific conclusion for not just any gawd but your particular gawd.
> 
> That would be the simplest way to confirm evidence for your gawds. Where is such a link?
Click to expand...


You are running from my question. Have I posted from Harun Yahya? Where is such a link?? Or even ICR for that matter? Prove it or shut the Daws up.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was hardly a comprehensible sentence, but I get it. You didn't answer my question. What is their agenda, specifically? If you understand that wikipedia is made up of many, many different authors, then are you suggesting there is a managing authority telling all authors to slant their posts towards a certain viewpoint? This would require some serious evidence, and you've provided none. The same with talkorigins. You won't find a viewpoint on talk origins that isn't held by evolutionary biologists or any professionals in the pertinent fields. It is a vacuous assertion to say that talkorigins has an agenda. The truth is their only agenda, whilst for creationist/ID website, they DO have an agenda, and that is to promote god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here again, your only goal is to promote your religious views at the expense of truth.
> 
> If you review the site, you will find each article includes extensive references to peer reviewed data.
> 
> As opposed to everything in existence being the product of naturalism, what part of existence can you define that was the result of supernaturalism? How does anyone further define that supernaturalism is the result of your gawds and not someone else's gawds?
Click to expand...


You were presented with 50, count them, 50 peer reviewed articles from ID and you chose to ignore it. In fact, you just ignore anything that doesn't fit with your world view. You are the worst kind of revisionist, attempting to repeat the same thing over and over again knowing that impressionable youngsters like NP and special needs individuals like Daws will buy it hook, line and stinker.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.
> 
> Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?
> 
> 
> 
> If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Like you've ever done when facts are presented to you?
Click to expand...


You poor stalker. Desperate for attention. 

You're incensed that your creepy advances have all been rejected. Your behavior mirrors the behavior of stalkers we read about in the news.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
> all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the old closed system stupid atheist argument. So where did all the massive chaos go to balance out all the order on earth. Did it leave on a spaceship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey *slap dick *the closed system is a creationist fantasy.
> btw chaos never left...... Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
> 
> Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather.[5][6] Explanation of such behavior may be sought through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps.
Click to expand...


Hey SlapHollie, your post is totally irrelevant. If the TOTAL entropy can only stay the same or increase for a closed system, then there has to be a chaos yin to all the order we see yang. Where is the chaos on the earth that offsets the massive order?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? Like you've ever done when facts are presented to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You poor stalker. Desperate for attention.
> 
> You're incensed that your creepy advances have all been rejected. Your behavior mirrors the behavior of stalkers we read about in the news.
Click to expand...


Your silence is proof of your lies.


----------



## UltimateReality

NP, I am still awaiting your comments on the origin of life probability arguments presented by Meyer in the video.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here again, your only goal is to promote your religious views at the expense of truth.
> 
> If you review the site, you will find each article includes extensive references to peer reviewed data.
> 
> As opposed to everything in existence being the product of naturalism, what part of existence can you define that was the result of supernaturalism? How does anyone further define that supernaturalism is the result of your gawds and not someone else's gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were presented with 50, count them, 50 peer reviewed articles from ID and you chose to ignore it. In fact, you just ignore anything that doesn't fit with your world view. You are the worst kind of revisionist, attempting to repeat the same thing over and over again knowing that impressionable youngsters like NP and special needs individuals like Daws will buy it hook, line and stinker.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to 50, count them, 50 peer reviewed articles, peer reviewed by, count them, peer Christian creationist ministries?

Your sweaty, saliva-stinging tirade can be quenched with a refreshing jolt of Kool-Aid.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue.
> 
> Secondly, why don't you entertain us with how the interaction of amino acids will lead us to not just any gawds but your particular conception of gawds. You should remember that your laboring through the "amino acids prove gawds" nonsense, cut and pasted from creationist ministry websites lacks the peer review that would allow an unbiased researcher to test and confirm. How convenient! Creation ministries have an announced agenda to promote christianity and invariably find, (manufacture, falsifying, invent), results that they prefer.
> 
> None of the data from Christian creation ministries ever leads anyone to evidence for gawds. All of the phony data is presented with the intention of appealing to an audience that is not particularly schooled in science or to denigrate established science which leads away from conclusions of supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this where you once again run from the questions put to you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no desire to endure your continued cutting and pasting from creationist websites that falsify data.
> 
> Why are you running from my questions? Your conviction that data you cut and paste from Harun Yahya in connection with amino acids must be developed enough to link to a science publication that could have reviewed the data, right? If you're convinced that the data you have will lead to the gawds, why don't you present that data and then present a logical chain of evidence leading to a narrow and specific conclusion for not just any gawd but your particular gawd.
> 
> That would be the simplest way to confirm evidence for your gawds. Where is such a link?
Click to expand...


Dodge !


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? Like you've ever done when facts are presented to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You poor stalker. Desperate for attention.
> 
> You're incensed that your creepy advances have all been rejected. Your behavior mirrors the behavior of stalkers we read about in the news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your silence is proof of your lies.
Click to expand...


Your stalking is proof of your pathology.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there fundie man. Your comment would then apply to every claim of miracles in the bible.
> 
> Thus would be an appropriate time to quickly whip up one special exception for your bible tales and fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have told you many times many of my beliefs are based in faith some are not they are based on evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you are confused as to the elements which separate faith from science, you are a poor candidate to make distinctions between your belief in supermagicalism and the rational world. It would then follow that your ability to make rational decisions is called into question.
Click to expand...


Hollie let me know when you hold a Degree in science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this where you once again run from the questions put to you ?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no desire to endure your continued cutting and pasting from creationist websites that falsify data.
> 
> Why are you running from my questions? Your conviction that data you cut and paste from Harun Yahya in connection with amino acids must be developed enough to link to a science publication that could have reviewed the data, right? If you're convinced that the data you have will lead to the gawds, why don't you present that data and then present a logical chain of evidence leading to a narrow and specific conclusion for not just any gawd but your particular gawd.
> 
> That would be the simplest way to confirm evidence for your gawds. Where is such a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodge !
Click to expand...


I suppose that is one way for you to side step the issue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

hollie said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> that was hardly a comprehensible sentence, but i get it. You didn't answer my question. What is their agenda, specifically? If you understand that wikipedia is made up of many, many different authors, then are you suggesting there is a managing authority telling all authors to slant their posts towards a certain viewpoint? This would require some serious evidence, and you've provided none. The same with talkorigins. You won't find a viewpoint on talk origins that isn't held by evolutionary biologists or any professionals in the pertinent fields. It is a vacuous assertion to say that talkorigins has an agenda. The truth is their only agenda, whilst for creationist/id website, they do have an agenda, and that is to promote god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> here again, your only goal is to promote your religious views at the expense of truth.
> 
> If you review the site, you will find each article includes extensive references to peer reviewed data.
> 
> As opposed to everything in existence being the product of naturalism, what part of existence can you define that was the result of supernaturalism? How does anyone further define that supernaturalism is the result of your gawds and not someone else's gawds?
Click to expand...


lalalalalala


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue.
> 
> Secondly, why don't you entertain us with how the interaction of amino acids will lead us to not just any gawds but your particular conception of gawds. You should remember that your laboring through the "amino acids prove gawds" nonsense, cut and pasted from creationist ministry websites lacks the peer review that would allow an unbiased researcher to test and confirm. How convenient! Creation ministries have an announced agenda to promote christianity and invariably find, (manufacture, falsifying, invent), results that they prefer.
> 
> None of the data from Christian creation ministries ever leads anyone to evidence for gawds. All of the phony data is presented with the intention of appealing to an audience that is not particularly schooled in science or to denigrate established science which leads away from conclusions of supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you entertain us that AN intelligent being was not behind the formation of proteins with just the right amino acids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have done that. Why don't you entertain us by proving I haven't?
> 
> Do you not understand just how moronic your "prove if isn't" statement is?
> 
> It just reeks of amateur and you might as well admit you're hopelessly floundering.
> 
> Drink the Kool-Aid.
Click to expand...


Dodge !


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here again, your only goal is to promote your religious views at the expense of truth.
> 
> If you review the site, you will find each article includes extensive references to peer reviewed data.
> 
> As opposed to everything in existence being the product of naturalism, what part of existence can you define that was the result of supernaturalism? How does anyone further define that supernaturalism is the result of your gawds and not someone else's gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were presented with 50, count them, 50 peer reviewed articles from ID and you chose to ignore it. In fact, you just ignore anything that doesn't fit with your world view. You are the worst kind of revisionist, attempting to repeat the same thing over and over again knowing that impressionable youngsters like NP and special needs individuals like Daws will buy it hook, line and stinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you referring to 50, count them, 50 peer reviewed articles, peer reviewed by, count them, peer Christian creationist ministries?
> 
> Your sweaty, saliva-stinging tirade can be quenched with a refreshing jolt of Kool-Aid.
Click to expand...


You are in total denial. Many of the publications were respected science publications that have been around for over 50 years, with no association to ICR, Harun Yahya, or the Discovery Institute. Again, if you ignore it it will go away. You are hopelessly lost in your hate agenda to accept any real Truth if it doesn't fit your confirmation bias. You truly are a miserable soul.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have told you many times many of my beliefs are based in faith some are not they are based on evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are confused as to the elements which separate faith from science, you are a poor candidate to make distinctions between your belief in supermagicalism and the rational world. It would then follow that your ability to make rational decisions is called into question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie let me know when you hold a Degree in science.
Click to expand...


Let me know when you're able to support the vacuous claims you cut and paste.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no desire to endure your continued cutting and pasting from creationist websites that falsify data.
> 
> Why are you running from my questions? Your conviction that data you cut and paste from Harun Yahya in connection with amino acids must be developed enough to link to a science publication that could have reviewed the data, right? If you're convinced that the data you have will lead to the gawds, why don't you present that data and then present a logical chain of evidence leading to a narrow and specific conclusion for not just any gawd but your particular gawd.
> 
> That would be the simplest way to confirm evidence for your gawds. Where is such a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose that is one way for you to side step the issue.
Click to expand...


Him sidestep the issue? You should go to work for Michael Flatley!!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
> all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the old closed system stupid atheist argument. So where did all the massive chaos go to balance out all the order on earth. Did it leave on a spaceship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey slap dick the closed system is a creationist fantasy.
> btw chaos never left...... Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
> 
> Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather.[5][6] Explanation of such behavior may be sought through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps.
Click to expand...


You are stupid daws sorry but when I post why you are wrong and still you continue this tap dance then that is stupidity.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were presented with 50, count them, 50 peer reviewed articles from ID and you chose to ignore it. In fact, you just ignore anything that doesn't fit with your world view. You are the worst kind of revisionist, attempting to repeat the same thing over and over again knowing that impressionable youngsters like NP and special needs individuals like Daws will buy it hook, line and stinker.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to 50, count them, 50 peer reviewed articles, peer reviewed by, count them, peer Christian creationist ministries?
> 
> Your sweaty, saliva-stinging tirade can be quenched with a refreshing jolt of Kool-Aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are in total denial. Many of the publications were respected science publications that have been around for over 50 years, with no association to ICR, Harun Yahya, or the Discovery Institute. Again, if you ignore it it will go away. You are hopelessly lost in your hate agenda to accept any real Truth if it doesn't fit your confirmation bias. You truly are a miserable soul.
Click to expand...


You will be interested to learn that Christian crestionist ministries are not widely considered to be respected science publications.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You poor stalker. Desperate for attention.
> 
> You're incensed that your creepy advances have all been rejected. Your behavior mirrors the behavior of stalkers we read about in the news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your silence is proof of your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stalking is proof of your pathology.
Click to expand...


You mean like your pathological lying?

Have I posted from Harun Yahya? Where is such a link?? Or even ICR for that matter? Prove it or shut the Daws up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
> all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws prove space is not a closed system  Daws have you been able to see beyond the stars to know it's infinite ?
> 
> You guys are so ignorant of the facts you can't see when you contradict yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> didn't you just say that you were not speaking to me?
> no need to prove anything it's already been explained to you.
> besides it up to you to to prove it is a closed system since you made the claim.
Click to expand...


Correction, I said I would only reply to a post worthy of a response now you have comprehension problems daws ? maybe you should retire.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that is one way for you to side step the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Him sidestep the issue? You should go to work for Michael Flatley!!!
Click to expand...


You should take up shilling for Harun Yahya.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are confused as to the elements which separate faith from science, you are a poor candidate to make distinctions between your belief in supermagicalism and the rational world. It would then follow that your ability to make rational decisions is called into question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie let me know when you hold a Degree in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when you're able to support the vacuous claims you cut and paste.
Click to expand...


Dodge!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are confused as to the elements which separate faith from science, you are a poor candidate to make distinctions between your belief in supermagicalism and the rational world. It would then follow that your ability to make rational decisions is called into question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie let me know when you hold a Degree in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when you're able to support the vacuous claims you cut and paste.
Click to expand...


That would be you moron.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to 50, count them, 50 peer reviewed articles, peer reviewed by, count them, peer Christian creationist ministries?
> 
> Your sweaty, saliva-stinging tirade can be quenched with a refreshing jolt of Kool-Aid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are in total denial. Many of the publications were respected science publications that have been around for over 50 years, with no association to ICR, Harun Yahya, or the Discovery Institute. Again, if you ignore it it will go away. You are hopelessly lost in your hate agenda to accept any real Truth if it doesn't fit your confirmation bias. You truly are a miserable soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will be interested to learn that Christian crestionist ministries are not widely considered to be respected science publications.
Click to expand...


I have already presented evidence to the contrary, but if I did present it again, you would just ignore it and repeat the same thing over again 10 pages from now. You're pathetic.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your silence is proof of your lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your stalking is proof of your pathology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like your pathological lying?
> 
> Have I posted from Harun Yahya? Where is such a link?? Or even ICR for that matter? Prove it or shut the Daws up.
Click to expand...


I already responded to your earlier petulant whining. You have since gone on to revise your whining as the whining was not getting my attention you thought you deserved. 

Your advances being refused is making you incensed. Your posts are getting more frantic and more desperate.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

Youwerecreated said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here again, your only goal is to promote your religious views at the expense of truth.
> 
> If you review the site, you will find each article includes extensive references to peer reviewed data.
> 
> As opposed to everything in existence being the product of naturalism, what part of existence can you define that was the result of supernaturalism? How does anyone further define that supernaturalism is the result of your gawds and not someone else's gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lalalalalala
Click to expand...


YWC are you a poe?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your stalking is proof of your pathology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like your pathological lying?
> 
> Have I posted from Harun Yahya? Where is such a link?? Or even ICR for that matter? Prove it or shut the Daws up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already responded to your earlier petulant whining. You have since gone on to revise your whining as the whining was not getting my attention you thought you deserved.
> 
> Your advances being refused is making you incensed. Your posts are getting more frantic and more desperate.
Click to expand...


Dodge! And still you haven't come clean on your lies about me. You do know that know one here takes you seriously, right? You are more like an annoying gnat buzzing in people's ears.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in total denial. Many of the publications were respected science publications that have been around for over 50 years, with no association to ICR, Harun Yahya, or the Discovery Institute. Again, if you ignore it it will go away. You are hopelessly lost in your hate agenda to accept any real Truth if it doesn't fit your confirmation bias. You truly are a miserable soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will be interested to learn that Christian crestionist ministries are not widely considered to be respected science publications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have already presented evidence to the contrary, but if I did present it again, you would just ignore it and repeat the same thing over again 10 pages from now. You're pathetic.
Click to expand...


It seems you are the one screeching over and over about what amounts to your own inability to present a cogent, supportable argument not relying on supernaturalism.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like your pathological lying?
> 
> Have I posted from Harun Yahya? Where is such a link?? Or even ICR for that matter? Prove it or shut the Daws up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already responded to your earlier petulant whining. You have since gone on to revise your whining as the whining was not getting my attention you thought you deserved.
> 
> Your advances being refused is making you incensed. Your posts are getting more frantic and more desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodge! And still you haven't come clean on your lies about me. You do know that know one here takes you seriously, right? You are more like an annoying gnat buzzing in people's ears.
Click to expand...


More of your petulant whining.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will be interested to learn that Christian crestionist ministries are not widely considered to be respected science publications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already presented evidence to the contrary, but if I did present it again, you would just ignore it and repeat the same thing over again 10 pages from now. You're pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems you are the one screeching over and over about what amounts to your own inability to present a cogent, supportable argument not relying on supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


Stay on track A.D.D. freak. We were talking about Peer Reviewed Studies.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here again, your only goal is to promote your religious views at the expense of truth.
> 
> If you review the site, you will find each article includes extensive references to peer reviewed data.
> 
> As opposed to everything in existence being the product of naturalism, what part of existence can you define that was the result of supernaturalism? How does anyone further define that supernaturalism is the result of your gawds and not someone else's gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lalalalalala
Click to expand...

Masterful concision. Such argumentation seems to define the Christian creationist cabal who can barely manage to stutter and mumble when required to support their claims to supernaturalism.


----------



## UltimateReality

NP, since you couldn't answer the star distance question I will you provide you with a few links to your favorite source so you can speak intelligently on the topic. There are several different ways scientists determine the distance to stars and as you can see, they are all based on theories, some with many variables...

Cepheid variable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Extragalactic observations*

The most distant objects exhibit larger redshifts corresponding to the Hubble flow of the universe. The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang.[59]

Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spectroscopic parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> here again, your only goal is to promote your religious views at the expense of truth.
> 
> If you review the site, you will find each article includes extensive references to peer reviewed data.
> 
> As opposed to everything in existence being the product of naturalism, what part of existence can you define that was the result of supernaturalism? How does anyone further define that supernaturalism is the result of your gawds and not someone else's gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lalalalalala
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Masterful concision. Such argumentation seems to define the Christian creationist cabal who can barely manage to stutter and mumble when required to support their claims to supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


I be happy if you would just support your claims about my sources.   ... Liar.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already presented evidence to the contrary, but if I did present it again, you would just ignore it and repeat the same thing over again 10 pages from now. You're pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you are the one screeching over and over about what amounts to your own inability to present a cogent, supportable argument not relying on supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stay on track A.D.D. freak. We were talking about Peer Reviewed Studies.
Click to expand...


Why do you believe Christian creationist ministries reviewing the work of other fundie groups qualifies as legitimate peer review?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, all those years in theatre and you still don't grasp Shakespeare??? You really did ride the shortbus didn't you? I know exactly the context it was used in. NP was going overboard trying to say he wasn't attacking me because he disagrees with me when that is exactly what he was doing.
> 
> 
> 
> it's you who doesn't grasp Shakespeare and your "use" is /was so far out of context it ,like you is laugable,
> Np like everyone else you claim (in your paranoid state)  is attacking you,is in reality giving you some much need payback for your hubris and dumbfuckery.
> you seem to think it's OK for you to character  assassinate anyone and everyone but you cry like a bitch when you get some.
> put your big boy pants on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual you come back with the profanity and ad hominem attacks but no where in your wordy post above did you state exactly why my Shakespearean quote was not in context. Try again homeslice.
Click to expand...

as usual you're over dramatizing  and lying
nowhere in that post did I attack you.
I was just stating facts.
wordy ....fuck me! that's funny coming from you.
there is no need for me to state anything ,if you actually knew  Shakespeare you would not need to ask why this quote "the lady doth protest too much" is out of context.
you can't, without a web search name the play or the character the  line is directed at or what character said it or where the play is set.
the irony is, that line (if you really knew Shakespeare) is an accurate description of you.

BTW homeslice? this is not 1993 and you sure as hell are not falva flave.. 
also if you answer any of the bard statements, I'll have to assume you googled them..


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> lalalalalala
> 
> 
> 
> Masterful concision. Such argumentation seems to define the Christian creationist cabal who can barely manage to stutter and mumble when required to support their claims to supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I be happy if you would just support your claims about my sources.   ... Liar.
Click to expand...


You be happy -already done.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you are the one screeching over and over about what amounts to your own inability to present a cogent, supportable argument not relying on supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stay on track A.D.D. freak. We were talking about Peer Reviewed Studies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe Christian creationist ministries reviewing the work of other fundie groups qualifies as legitimate peer review?
Click to expand...


Why do you believe repeating something over and over makes it real?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Masterful concision. Such argumentation seems to define the Christian creationist cabal who can barely manage to stutter and mumble when required to support their claims to supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I be happy if you would just support your claims about my sources.   ... Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You be happy -already done.
Click to expand...


This too, is a lie. Nice Job.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stay on track A.D.D. freak. We were talking about Peer Reviewed Studies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe Christian creationist ministries reviewing the work of other fundie groups qualifies as legitimate peer review?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe repeating something over and over makes it real?
Click to expand...


Why do you fail so miserably?  'The gods did it" is not an answer to anything except to placate the fears and superstitions of fundies.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy  let me educate you on this as well.
> 
> 
> 1st law of thermo dynamics.
> The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.
> 
> "in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kenneth *Feder* is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. *This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning.*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Is this a threat? I really love it when evolutionists point to authors and try to discredit them on the basis they are outside of the field. This must come from a complete and utter ignorance that their own high priest of their materialistic religion, Charles Darwin, had no formal training in biology. His bachelor's degree was in Theology of all things!!! And he studied Geology on his 5 year voyage. So you see, his whole theory is a sham because it was based on principles outside his field.
> 
> This reminded me of another point from Meyer's book that NP just can't seem to logically grasp. And that is, the title of Lyell's book that Darwin read while on the HMS Beagle... _Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by *Reference to Causes Now in Operation*_
> 
> And what "cause" do we see now in operation for digital code? The cause is us, intelligent agents. We find no other cause NOW in operation that can produce functional, specifiable, digital code. We draw the distinction to complex and specifiable. This has a component of Shannon information with the added specificity of performing a function, i.e., building complex proteins with precise folding mechanisms. We also find that the very instructions to copy and reproduce the code are contained within the code itself. This enigma so far has been unexplained by naturalistic processes... they don't even come close. Ahhh, but former changes can be explained by the single cause now in operation. This is precisely the scientific method Darwin used being used by Meyer, and it is perfectly scientifically legit, whether or not NP's faith in his materialism will let him believe it or not.
> 
> To deny this you must deny DNA is digital (which it has already be proven it is, even to the point that some Harvard students are using it as an incredibly compact storange medium for data.)
> 
> You must deny the 4 nucleobases do not have any special affinity for their binding sites, i.e., there is equal chance for them to attach to the sugar and phosphate backbone. This fact eliminates the origin of the protein building information occurring by necessity.
> 
> You must find another cause now in operation, exclusive of an intelligent agent, that produces *complex, specifiable *digital code.
Click to expand...

are you really so self involved that you thank yourself for your own posts ?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's you who doesn't grasp Shakespeare and your "use" is /was so far out of context it ,like you is laugable,
> Np like everyone else you claim (in your paranoid state)  is attacking you,is in reality giving you some much need payback for your hubris and dumbfuckery.
> you seem to think it's OK for you to character  assassinate anyone and everyone but you cry like a bitch when you get some.
> put your big boy pants on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual you come back with the profanity and ad hominem attacks but no where in your wordy post above did you state exactly why my Shakespearean quote was not in context. Try again homeslice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as usual you're over dramatizing  and lying
> nowhere in that post did I attack you.
> I was just stating facts.
> wordy ....fuck me! that's funny coming from you.
> there is no need for me to state anything ,if you actually knew  Shakespeare you would not need to ask why this quote "the lady doth protest too much" is out of context.
> you can't, without a web search name the play or the character the  line is directed at or what character said it or where the play is set.
> the irony is, that line (if you really knew Shakespeare) is an accurate description of you.
> 
> BTW homeslice? this is not 1993 and you sure as hell are not falva flave..
> also if you answer any of the bard statements, I'll have to assume you googled them..
Click to expand...


This is really stupid. I do know the play and the character but if I stated that you would just claim I googled it. *And once again, you have failed to answer how my use was taken out of context.* I actually read this play senior year in high school in 1984.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I be happy if you would just support your claims about my sources.   ... Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You be happy -already done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This too, is a lie. Nice Job.
Click to expand...


Your pathology is a condition that is worsening. There is treatment for the conditions that cause your stalking.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe Christian creationist ministries reviewing the work of other fundie groups qualifies as legitimate peer review?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe repeating something over and over makes it real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you fail so miserably?  'The gods did it" is not an answer to anything except to placate the fears and superstitions of fundies.
Click to expand...


I have never once claimed the gods did it, SlapDaws. Add more lies to your repertoire.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You be happy -already done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This too, is a lie. Nice Job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your pathology is a condition that is worsening. There is treatment for the conditions that cause your stalking.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I prefer the soft feminine touch, not man hands Rugged. Please keep your fantasies to yourself.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual you come back with the profanity and ad hominem attacks but no where in your wordy post above did you state exactly why my Shakespearean quote was not in context. Try again homeslice.
> 
> 
> 
> as usual you're over dramatizing  and lying
> nowhere in that post did I attack you.
> I was just stating facts.
> wordy ....fuck me! that's funny coming from you.
> there is no need for me to state anything ,if you actually knew  Shakespeare you would not need to ask why this quote "the lady doth protest too much" is out of context.
> you can't, without a web search name the play or the character the  line is directed at or what character said it or where the play is set.
> the irony is, that line (if you really knew Shakespeare) is an accurate description of you.
> 
> BTW homeslice? this is not 1993 and you sure as hell are not falva flave..
> also if you answer any of the bard statements, I'll have to assume you googled them..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is really stupid. I do know the play and the character but if I stated that you would just claim I googled it. *And once again, you have failed to answer how my use was taken out of context.* I actually read this play senior of highschool in 1984.
> 
> The lady doth protest too much, methinks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

what's  really stupid is your epic failure to see  that I already did.. and you did look it up...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This too, is a lie. Nice Job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pathology is a condition that is worsening. There is treatment for the conditions that cause your stalking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I prefer the soft feminine touch, not man hands Rugged. Please keep your fantasies to yourself.
Click to expand...


So you're suggesting you're stalking someone else?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as usual you're over dramatizing  and lying
> nowhere in that post did I attack you.
> I was just stating facts.
> wordy ....fuck me! that's funny coming from you.
> there is no need for me to state anything ,if you actually knew  Shakespeare you would not need to ask why this quote "the lady doth protest too much" is out of context.
> you can't, without a web search name the play or the character the  line is directed at or what character said it or where the play is set.
> the irony is, that line (if you really knew Shakespeare) is an accurate description of you.
> 
> BTW homeslice? this is not 1993 and you sure as hell are not falva flave..
> also if you answer any of the bard statements, I'll have to assume you googled them..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is really stupid. I do know the play and the character but if I stated that you would just claim I googled it. *And once again, you have failed to answer how my use was taken out of context.* I actually read this play senior of highschool in 1984.
> 
> The lady doth protest too much, methinks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what's  really stupid is your epic failure to see  that I already did.. and you did look it up...
Click to expand...


According to this it was perfectly in conext. Nice try theatre boy. I bet Hawly would love to see you in your Shakespearean tights. 

_"*The phrase has come to mean that one can "insist so passionately about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what one is saying."*_

NP's phrase was "Stop trying to make it seem like I am only picking on you because I disagree with you." Picking on me because he disagreed with me is exactly what he was doing. The epic fail is yours SlapHawly.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The old soup fairy tale. Newsflash: This has been totally discredited since the odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins are about 1 in 1 x 10 to the 146. There are only 1 x 10 to the 80 atomic particles in the entire visible universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that is really false. This is has been demonstrated in the Miller-Urey Experiments, which I am now mentioning for the fifth time, and I don't really care that you don't consider these experiments sound. The improvements to make them more like proto-earth actually produced more amino acids than the original experiment, further falsifying your claim.
> 
> Have you not heard that amino acids have been found on meteorites? This is evidence that amino acids are not rare at all, and are easily formable throughout our entire universe. Its only a matter of statistics that they find the right conditions to produce life, and we find ourselves in one of those places. Undoubtedly, there are countless other places with life in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.
Click to expand...

 not the old I feel pity for you ploy! then the I know more  than you ploy .
then then you slapped together the wrong info ploy 
hope Np get a good laugh out of this disingenuous shit!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is really stupid. I do know the play and the character but if I stated that you would just claim I googled it. *And once again, you have failed to answer how my use was taken out of context.* I actually read this play senior of highschool in 1984.
> 
> The lady doth protest too much, methinks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> what's  really stupid is your epic failure to see  that I already did.. and you did look it up...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to this it was perfectly in conext. Nice try theatre boy. I bet Hawly would love to see you in your Shakespearean tights.
> 
> _"*The phrase has come to mean that one can "insist so passionately about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what one is saying."*_
> 
> NP's phrase was "Stop trying to make it seem like I am only picking on you because I disagree with you." Picking on me because he disagreed with me is exactly what he was doing. The epic fail is yours SlapHawly.
Click to expand...

pretty good ,for being totally wrong.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your pathology is a condition that is worsening. There is treatment for the conditions that cause your stalking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I prefer the soft feminine touch, not man hands Rugged. Please keep your fantasies to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're suggesting you're stalking someone else?
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that is really false. This is has been demonstrated in the Miller-Urey Experiments, which I am now mentioning for the fifth time, and I don't really care that you don't consider these experiments sound. The improvements to make them more like proto-earth actually produced more amino acids than the original experiment, further falsifying your claim.
> 
> Have you not heard that amino acids have been found on meteorites? This is evidence that amino acids are not rare at all, and are easily formable throughout our entire universe. Its only a matter of statistics that they find the right conditions to produce life, and we find ourselves in one of those places. Undoubtedly, there are countless other places with life in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not the old I feel pity for you ploy! then the I know more  than you ploy .
> then then you slapped together the wrong info ploy
> hope Np get a good laugh out of this disingenuous shit!
Click to expand...


Is there no end to your mental midgetry?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.
> 
> Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they do not have an agenda. What agenda does wikipedia have???
> 
> Talkorigins I can understand, even though I wholeheartedly disagree that they have an agenda, aside from debunking creationist/ID claims and establishing science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.
Click to expand...

so that must mean that every thing you post from creationist sites is a lie 
as they have no proof that anything mentioned in the bible was observed first hand by the writers of the scriptures.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I prefer the soft feminine touch, not man hands Rugged. Please keep your fantasies to yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're suggesting you're stalking someone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yep, my stalker is falling into the abyss.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was hardly a comprehensible sentence, but I get it. You didn't answer my question. What is their agenda, specifically? If you understand that wikipedia is made up of many, many different authors, then are you suggesting there is a managing authority telling all authors to slant their posts towards a certain viewpoint? This would require some serious evidence, and you've provided none. The same with talkorigins. You won't find a viewpoint on talk origins that isn't held by evolutionary biologists or any professionals in the pertinent fields. It is a vacuous assertion to say that talkorigins has an agenda. The truth is their only agenda, whilst for creationist/ID website, they DO have an agenda, and that is to promote god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.
Click to expand...

that's because everthing is...you have no proof otherwise ..no matter how hard you bitch...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this where you once again run from the questions put to you ?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no desire to endure your continued cutting and pasting from creationist websites that falsify data.
> 
> Why are you running from my questions? Your conviction that data you cut and paste from Harun Yahya in connection with amino acids must be developed enough to link to a science publication that could have reviewed the data, right? If you're convinced that the data you have will lead to the gawds, why don't you present that data and then present a logical chain of evidence leading to a narrow and specific conclusion for not just any gawd but your particular gawd.
> 
> That would be the simplest way to confirm evidence for your gawds. Where is such a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are running from my question. Have I posted from Harun Yahya? Where is such a link?? Or even ICR for that matter? Prove it or shut the Daws up.
Click to expand...

awwww some one's having a tantrum either address me directly or stfu.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there fundie man. Your comment would then apply to every claim of miracles in the bible.
> 
> Thus would be an appropriate time to quickly whip up one special exception for your bible tales and fables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have told you many times many of my beliefs are based in faith some are not they are based on evidence.
Click to expand...

that's  all of your beliefs are based on faith as you have no evidence if you claim you do you're lying.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the old closed system stupid atheist argument. So where did all the massive chaos go to balance out all the order on earth. Did it leave on a spaceship?
> 
> 
> 
> hey slap dick the closed system is a creationist fantasy.
> btw chaos never left...... Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
> 
> Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather.[5][6] Explanation of such behavior may be sought through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are stupid daws sorry but when I post why you are wrong and still you continue this tap dance then that is stupidity.
Click to expand...

 you've yet to prove me wrong. but you can always dream..


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.
> 
> 
> 
> not the old I feel pity for you ploy! then the I know more  than you ploy .
> then then you slapped together the wrong info ploy
> hope Np gets a good laugh out of this disingenuous shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there no end to your mental midgetry?
Click to expand...

is there no end to what you will say or do to get over ..tosspot.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is really stupid. I do know the play and the character but if I stated that you would just claim I googled it. *And once again, you have failed to answer how my use was taken out of context.* I actually read this play senior of highschool in 1984.
> 
> The lady doth protest too much, methinks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> what's  really stupid is your epic failure to see  that I already did.. and you did look it up...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to this it was perfectly in conext. Nice try theatre boy. I bet Hawly would love to see you in your Shakespearean tights.
> 
> _"*The phrase has come to mean that one can "insist so passionately about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what one is saying."*_
> 
> NP's phrase was "Stop trying to make it seem like I am only picking on you because I disagree with you." Picking on me because he disagreed with me is exactly what he was doing. The epic fail is yours SlapHawly.
Click to expand...

theatre boy? hmm.. that's an admission that you do know my educational background ,making all your faux protesting that I never posted it a lie.  
the slapdick doth protest too much to cover his dishonsty...


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no desire to endure your continued cutting and pasting from creationist websites that falsify data.
> 
> Why are you running from my questions? Your conviction that data you cut and paste from Harun Yahya in connection with amino acids must be developed enough to link to a science publication that could have reviewed the data, right? If you're convinced that the data you have will lead to the gawds, why don't you present that data and then present a logical chain of evidence leading to a narrow and specific conclusion for not just any gawd but your particular gawd.
> 
> That would be the simplest way to confirm evidence for your gawds. Where is such a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are running from my question. Have I posted from Harun Yahya? Where is such a link?? Or even ICR for that matter? Prove it or shut the Daws up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> awwww some one's having a tantrum either address me directly or stfu.
Click to expand...


I won't use profanity so Daws seemed like an appropriate substitution.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's  really stupid is your epic failure to see  that I already did.. and you did look it up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to this it was perfectly in conext. Nice try theatre boy. I bet Hawly would love to see you in your Shakespearean tights.
> 
> _"*The phrase has come to mean that one can "insist so passionately about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what one is saying."*_
> 
> NP's phrase was "Stop trying to make it seem like I am only picking on you because I disagree with you." Picking on me because he disagreed with me is exactly what he was doing. The epic fail is yours SlapHawly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> theatre boy? hmm.. that's an admission that you do know my educational background ,making all your faux protesting that I never posted it a lie.
> the slapdick doth protest too much to cover his dishonsty...
Click to expand...


Not really. I just read it in YWC's recent post. Sorry to burst your bubble.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> NP, since you couldn't answer the star distance question I will you provide you with a few links to your favorite source so you can speak intelligently on the topic. There are several different ways scientists determine the distance to stars and as you can see, they are all based on theories, some with many variables...
> 
> Cepheid variable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Extragalactic observations*
> 
> The most distant objects exhibit larger redshifts corresponding to the Hubble flow of the universe. The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang.[59]
> 
> Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Spectroscopic parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong.  I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them? 

If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here. 

At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid. Again you haven't followed the post. We are talking about her lies about me, not YWC. Keep up for Darwin's sake!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and Hollie are talking about how Hollie is lying? That's a lie right there!
> 
> I actually hate accusing people of lying, so that will be it for me, but you are being dishonest right now. Hollie is not talking to you about her own lies, but somebody elses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're embarrassing yourself. Hollie has lied about me on numerous occasions and I am sick of her repetitive posts of continually lying just as a put down. I am asking her to back up her accusations with proof or get lost. End of story.
Click to expand...



This is all well in good, but you implied that Hollie was indicting herself in her conversation with you when you said "were were are talking about her lies about me," which simply isn't true. You have not shown her to be a liar, so you shouldn't use that word. She maybe incorrect at best, but that doesn't make her a liar. She is indicting whoever posted from Harun Yahya. I don't care who is right here. I am just stating the facts, because you like to obfuscate.

Now, I am playing the arbiter.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP, since you couldn't answer the star distance question I will you provide you with a few links to your favorite source so you can speak intelligently on the topic. There are several different ways scientists determine the distance to stars and as you can see, they are all based on theories, some with many variables...
> 
> Cepheid variable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Extragalactic observations*
> 
> The most distant objects exhibit larger redshifts corresponding to the Hubble flow of the universe. The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang.[59]
> 
> Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Spectroscopic parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong.  I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them?
> 
> If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here.
> 
> At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?
Click to expand...


That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No! I have not concluded that and I have stated this before!! DNA is a QUATERNARY code. I have posted up numerous times the conclusion is just as sound as any Darwin made because it is based on his method and "References to Causes Now in Operation." Your rebuttal is a "because I say so" argument. You are going to have to come up with something better. Merely repeating the same thing again and again does not make it true.
> 
> From your favorite "reliable" source:
> 
> *Genetics*
> 
> Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this *encoding*, the complementary digit pairs 0&#8596;3, and 1&#8596;2 (binary 00&#8596;11 and 01&#8596;10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A&#8596;T and C&#8596;G and *can be stored as data in DNA* sequence.[2]
> 
> For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If DNA is a quaternary code, then how can DNA be digital, as you claim, if digital code is binary?
> 
> All of this is irrelevant, anyways. It truly does not matter how complex or specifiable DNA is. ID will always be an argument from ignorance. This is what you don't understand. You can talk about the improbabilities of amino acids coming together, or the shannon information in DNA. You can not get around this basic fact, which is why ID is not science. They are not drawing sound conclusions. It is any wonder to you that other scientists don't see ID as science? That should raise a red flag. I truly don't understand your efforts to try and convince us how amazing DNA is. This is your ONLY "evidence?" Wow. ID is really weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are lost in your ignorance even though you can't see it and continue to shout that I lack understanding. Watch this short 7 minute video and then maybe YOU will understand YOUR argument from ignorance. I welcome your rebuttal after you have watched this...
Click to expand...


Interesting, unconvincing, and a confirmation of what I have been saying about ID all along, that it rests on ignorance. Calculating the purely mathematical probability of abiogenesis does nothing to prove an intelligent designer, because this also rests on a false dichotomy fallacy: natural abiogenesis or intelligent designer. Even if someone were able to negate abiogenesis entirely,  this does absolutely nothing to prove an intelligent designer.  You need actual positive evidence for a designer, not the negation of a competing theory. This is logic 101.

Calculating the probabilities of these amino acid combinations in forming a useful protein is not terribly useful in describing what actually happened 4.5 billion years ago, and you run into the same problems scientists run into today when trying to figure out what happened: we simply don't know a lot because there is little evidence. I reject his purely mathematical conjecture that correct amino acid coupling was as improbable as he says it is. He is unable to factor in conditions that may have altered those probabilities, because we are in ignorance about this time period. Hence, drawing any conclusions from this ignorance, is an argument from ignorance. The most anyone can say is "I don't know." 

Amino acids have been found on meteorites, demonstrating that they form elsewhere the universe, making the event non-unique to Earth, which means you now how to account for the probabilities of of amino acid combinations happening anywhere in the universe where this is chemically permissible. We don't enough information to even calculate this probability, so Meyer's attempt at establishing probabilities is completely unsound.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Hollie are talking about how Hollie is lying? That's a lie right there!
> 
> I actually hate accusing people of lying, so that will be it for me, but you are being dishonest right now. Hollie is not talking to you about her own lies, but somebody elses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're embarrassing yourself. Hollie has lied about me on numerous occasions and I am sick of her repetitive posts of continually lying just as a put down. I am asking her to back up her accusations with proof or get lost. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is all well in good, but you implied that Hollie was indicting herself in her conversation with you when you said "were were are talking about her lies about me," which simply isn't true. You have not shown her to be a liar, so you shouldn't use that word. She maybe incorrect at best, but that doesn't make her a liar. She is indicting whoever posted from Harun Yahya. I don't care who is right here. I am just stating the facts, because you like to obfuscate.
> 
> Now, I am playing the arbiter.
Click to expand...


Did you mean arbitrator? If so, then you would make a really lousy one, because you are incredibly biased to one side.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> If DNA is a quaternary code, then how can DNA be digital, as you claim, if digital code is binary?
> 
> All of this is irrelevant, anyways. It truly does not matter how complex or specifiable DNA is. ID will always be an argument from ignorance. This is what you don't understand. You can talk about the improbabilities of amino acids coming together, or the shannon information in DNA. You can not get around this basic fact, which is why ID is not science. They are not drawing sound conclusions. It is any wonder to you that other scientists don't see ID as science? That should raise a red flag. I truly don't understand your efforts to try and convince us how amazing DNA is. This is your ONLY "evidence?" Wow. ID is really weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are lost in your ignorance even though you can't see it and continue to shout that I lack understanding. Watch this short 7 minute video and then maybe YOU will understand YOUR argument from ignorance. I welcome your rebuttal after you have watched this...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting, unconvincing, and a confirmation of what I have been saying about ID all along, that it rests on ignorance.
Click to expand...

 Wrong. Naturalistic explanation rest on ignorance that chance could actually produce a functional protein. 





newpolitics said:


> Calculating the purely mathematical probability of abiogenesis does nothing to prove an intelligent designer,


 Not in and of itself, but coupled with the processes currently in effect for creation of digital code, and the fact that dna contains specifiable information in digital code, Meyer makes a compelling argument for an intelligent agent being the source of the code.





newpolitics said:


> because this also rests on a false dichotomy fallacy: natural abiogenesis or intelligent designer. Even if someone were able to negate abiogenesis entirely,  this does absolutely nothing to prove an intelligent designer.


 Again, not if that was the only information you had, but we have more.  





newpolitics said:


> You need actual positive evidence for a designer,


 I have given you positive evidence. Intelligent agents are the only known source for complex, specifiable digital code. *You continue to ignore this fact and have yet to note another source. *


newpolitics said:


> not the negation of a competing theory. This is logic 101.
> 
> Calculating the probabilities of these amino acid combinations in forming a useful protein is not terribly useful in describing what actually happened 4.5 billion years ago,


 *But it is certainly useful in describing what DIDN'T happen, and included in that is any naturalistic chance explanation.*


newpolitics said:


> and you run into the same problems scientists run into today when trying to figure out what happened: we simply don't know a lot because there is little evidence. I reject his purely mathematical conjecture that correct amino acid coupling was as improbable as he says it is. He is unable to factor in conditions that may have altered those probabilities, because we are in ignorance about this time period.


 No such conditions exist in the modern world. So it turns out your religion takes just as much faith as mine. 


newpolitics said:


> Hence, drawing any conclusions from this ignorance, is an argument from ignorance. The most anyone can say is "I don't know."


 That is what most REAL scientist are saying about origins questions, but that is not what YOU were saying several pages back and that is not the trash propaganda being constantly pushed on the atheist agenda websites. Can you not see the tale wagging the dog relationship atheism has with modern science?



newpolitics said:


> Amino acids have been found on meteorites, demonstrating that they form elsewhere the universe, making the event non-unique to Earth,


 Irrelevant. We aren't talking about amino acids. We are talking about extremely complex proteins that only function due to their specific 3D structures which include complex folds. 





newpolitics said:


> which means you now how to account for the probabilities of of amino acid combinations happening anywhere in the universe where this is chemically permissible. We don't enough information to even calculate this probability, so Meyer's attempt at establishing probabilities is completely unsound.


 Wrong!!! Meyer isn't talking about Amino Acids!!! You do understand that proteins are made from long chains of amino acids, right?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP, since you couldn't answer the star distance question I will you provide you with a few links to your favorite source so you can speak intelligently on the topic. There are several different ways scientists determine the distance to stars and as you can see, they are all based on theories, some with many variables...
> 
> Cepheid variable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Extragalactic observations*
> 
> The most distant objects exhibit larger redshifts corresponding to the Hubble flow of the universe. The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang.[59]
> 
> Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Spectroscopic parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong.  I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them?
> 
> If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here.
> 
> At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.
Click to expand...


That may be true in the alternate reality of creationist ministries but oddly, the natural physical forces across the universe apply in this solar system as they do elsewhere. 

In defence of Christianity, it should be noted that the Vatican has accepted the undeniable evidence for evolution, just as it came to accept a heliocentric solar system and other demonstrable phenomena formerly condemned as heretical. Most main-stream Protestant sects concur, although there is a sizable lunatic christian fringe... who foul this board.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong.  I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them?
> 
> If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here.
> 
> At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be true in the alternate reality of creationist ministries but oddly, the natural physical forces across the universe apply in this solar system as they do elsewhere.
> 
> In defence of Christianity, it should be noted that the Vatican has accepted the undeniable evidence for evolution, just as it came to accept a heliocentric solar system and other demonstrable phenomena formerly condemned as heretical. Most main-stream Protestant sects concur, although there is a sizable lunatic christian fringe... who foul this board.
Click to expand...


Appeal to the masses.


----------



## UltimateReality

_"A curious aspect of Earth's life forms is that they contain (with few exceptions) only left-handed amino acids. In contrast, when scientists synthesize amino acids from nonchiral precursors, the result is always a "racemic" mixture - equal numbers of right- and left-handed forms. *Scientists have been unable to perform any experiment that, when starting with conditions believed to emulate those of early Earth, results in a near-total dominance of left-handed amino acids,* says George Cody, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institute of Washington."_

_"But chemical studies of these meteorites have often been challenged as unreliable by scientists claiming that contamination has occurred through exposure, storage, or handling. Over time, says Jeff Bada, of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, even carefully stored meteorites gradually become contaminated.

If organic compounds such as amino acids from Earth's biosphere have penetrated meteorite samples, they would no longer be representative of early solar system chemistry, nor could they provide evidence of an extraterrestrial source for the components of Earth's first life. *But figuring out whether or not a meteorite has been contaminated has proven to be a thorny problem.*"_

"The investigators found that the stable isotope ratios were identical for the left-handed and right-handed forms. This, says Engel, indicates, that they had to have come from the same source - that is, not from Earth. If, he argues, a portion of the left-handed forms were from terrestrial organics, these forms would have exhibited a different isotopic signature than the right-handed forms. They would have contained more light carbon and nitrogen.

*Kvenvolden and Bada aren't convinced. *The new stable-isotope evidence notwithstanding, says Kvenvolden, a left-handed excess like that found in previous research by Engel and Macko, "is inconsistent with the observations of Cronin, Pizzarello and myself for protein amino acids in the meteorite." K*venvolden firmly believes Engel and Macko were seeing contamination."*


Murchison's Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?


----------



## UltimateReality

From the same article, this is what YWC is always going on about, and its a HUGE problem for naturalistic explanations of origins...

"According to Bada, it doesn't much matter whether the amino acids that rained down on Earth in meteorites before life began had a slight left-handed excess. Once they arrived and mixed with the environment, *Bada says, commonplace chemical reactions would have erased the left-handed signature.*"


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true in the alternate reality of creationist ministries but oddly, the natural physical forces across the universe apply in this solar system as they do elsewhere.
> 
> In defence of Christianity, it should be noted that the Vatican has accepted the undeniable evidence for evolution, just as it came to accept a heliocentric solar system and other demonstrable phenomena formerly condemned as heretical. Most main-stream Protestant sects concur, although there is a sizable lunatic christian fringe... who foul this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appeal to the masses.
Click to expand...


But true, nonetheless. 

I can only suggest that you learn about the science of evolution from sources other than the creationist ministries. The information they supply is incorrect and your re-use of the information makes you an accomplice to fear and ignorance.

There is no required "belief" in evolution, science, biology, etc.,  required to accept those disciplines and to accept the inescapable conclusions which are drawn from the evidence. Science is not a "belief". Religious dogma (ie., creationism), as admitted by its adherents, is unchangeable - it is an inerrant guide. Science makes no such claims. It is certainly not unchanging (no scientific subject is excluded from change) and makes no claims to being absolute or inerrant (as our methods for testing and our technology improves, our theories more closely model reality). Evolution remains as the best analog of the available physical evidence, in spite of your violent rejection evolving from your religious affiliation. 

Obviously, science is in no danger of being superceded or "overturned" by fundie christian creationism.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true in the alternate reality of creationist ministries but oddly, the natural physical forces across the universe apply in this solar system as they do elsewhere.
> 
> In defence of Christianity, it should be noted that the Vatican has accepted the undeniable evidence for evolution, just as it came to accept a heliocentric solar system and other demonstrable phenomena formerly condemned as heretical. Most main-stream Protestant sects concur, although there is a sizable lunatic christian fringe... who foul this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appeal to the masses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But true, nonetheless.
> 
> I can only suggest that you learn about the science of evolution from sources other than the creationist ministries. The information they supply is incorrect and your re-use of the information makes you an accomplice to fear and ignorance.
> 
> There is no required "belief" in evolution, science, biology, etc.,  required to accept those disciplines and to accept the inescapable conclusions which are drawn from the evidence. Science is not a "belief". Religious dogma (ie., creationism), as admitted by its adherents, is unchangeable - it is an inerrant guide. Science makes no such claims. It is certainly not unchanging (no scientific subject is excluded from change) and makes no claims to being absolute or inerrant (as our methods for testing and our technology improves, our theories more closely model reality). Evolution remains as the best analog of the available physical evidence, in spite of your violent rejection evolving from your religious affiliation.
> 
> Obviously, science is in no danger of being superceded or "overturned" by fundie christian creationism.
Click to expand...


You mean like all the classes you took? 

Hawly, you wouldn't know real science if it hit you in the face. All your science "knowledge" comes from Panda's Thumb.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP, since you couldn't answer the star distance question I will you provide you with a few links to your favorite source so you can speak intelligently on the topic. There are several different ways scientists determine the distance to stars and as you can see, they are all based on theories, some with many variables...
> 
> Cepheid variable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Extragalactic observations*
> 
> The most distant objects exhibit larger redshifts corresponding to the Hubble flow of the universe. The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang.[59]
> 
> Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Spectroscopic parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong.  I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them?
> 
> If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here.
> 
> At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.
Click to expand...


I admitted openly when using these numbers that I "stood on the shoulders of giants" because I fully anticipated this very response from you. We all stand on the shoulders of those explorers who came before us. To understand everything humanity has uncovered to date it nearly impossible. In this sense, we must appeal to authority when using such measurements, because I am simply not an expert in a lot of these areas. i am okay with that, because I don't believe science is one big conspiracy theory as only creationists do.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> _"A curious aspect of Earth's life forms is that they contain (with few exceptions) only left-handed amino acids. In contrast, when scientists synthesize amino acids from nonchiral precursors, the result is always a "racemic" mixture - equal numbers of right- and left-handed forms. *Scientists have been unable to perform any experiment that, when starting with conditions believed to emulate those of early Earth, results in a near-total dominance of left-handed amino acids,* says George Cody, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institute of Washington."_
> 
> _"But chemical studies of these meteorites have often been challenged as unreliable by scientists claiming that contamination has occurred through exposure, storage, or handling. Over time, says Jeff Bada, of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, even carefully stored meteorites gradually become contaminated.
> 
> If organic compounds such as amino acids from Earth's biosphere have penetrated meteorite samples, they would no longer be representative of early solar system chemistry, nor could they provide evidence of an extraterrestrial source for the components of Earth's first life. *But figuring out whether or not a meteorite has been contaminated has proven to be a thorny problem.*"_
> 
> "The investigators found that the stable isotope ratios were identical for the left-handed and right-handed forms. This, says Engel, indicates, that they had to have come from the same source - that is, not from Earth. If, he argues, a portion of the left-handed forms were from terrestrial organics, these forms would have exhibited a different isotopic signature than the right-handed forms. They would have contained more light carbon and nitrogen.
> 
> *Kvenvolden and Bada aren't convinced. *The new stable-isotope evidence notwithstanding, says Kvenvolden, a left-handed excess like that found in previous research by Engel and Macko, "is inconsistent with the observations of Cronin, Pizzarello and myself for protein amino acids in the meteorite." K*venvolden firmly believes Engel and Macko were seeing contamination."*
> 
> 
> Murchison's Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?




All of this means NOTHING in proving a designer. I don't care about chirality and how much more improbable that makes anything. All you are doing is trying to discredit abiogenesis, with NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE for a designer. Your argument from induction in using humans and digital code, is not positive evidence. It is inductive reasoning, which would allow inferences, at best. You are left with nothing to show for your designer. This attempt at science is utterly pathetic.

I don't feel the need anymore to defend a single facet of abiogenesis or evolution, because if both of these were disproven tomorrow, you still would have zero proof for an intelligent designer.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong.  I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them?
> 
> If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here.
> 
> At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I admitted openly when using these numbers that I "stood on the shoulders of giants" because I fully anticipated this very response from you. We all stand on the shoulders of those explorers who came before us. To understand everything humanity has uncovered to date it nearly impossible. In this sense, we must appeal to authority when using such measurements, because I am simply not an expert in a lot of these areas. i am okay with that, because *I don't believe science is one big conspiracy theory as only creationists do*.
Click to expand...


Cheesy put down. What you and Hollie are in denial about is that most of the scientific knowledge we have came from scientists who believed in God. Not only that, but there are thousands or millions of Christians still doing research in very techie or science related fields. You like to talk about ignorance? This view is just downright ign'ant.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admitted openly when using these numbers that I "stood on the shoulders of giants" because I fully anticipated this very response from you. We all stand on the shoulders of those explorers who came before us. To understand everything humanity has uncovered to date it nearly impossible. In this sense, we must appeal to authority when using such measurements, because I am simply not an expert in a lot of these areas. i am okay with that, because *I don't believe science is one big conspiracy theory as only creationists do*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cheesy put down. What you and Hollie are in denial about is that most of the scientific knowledge we have came from scientists who believed in God. Not only that, but there are thousands or millions of Christians still doing research in very techie or science related fields. You like to talk about ignorance? This view is just downright ign'ant.
Click to expand...


Wow. That is one big genetic fallacy. Might want to look that one up. Where the knowledge we possess today came from has no bearing on the knowledge itself. Because a scientists was christian, doesn't mean the knowledge he/she uncovered is "Christian." Yet, this is what you are implying. If you are not, then there is no need for you to mention such an unimportant and widely understood point, and one which I have no reason to deny. Don't put words in my mouth. The modern scientific method was influenced heavily by Muslim thinkers almost a thousand years ago. I don't see how this has any bearing on the scientific method itself. We don't give credence to allah for this. Likewise, the fact that scientists of the past have been christian, doesn't vindicate the christian faith one iota. All it indicates is that the european populations until very recently, were heavily christian, because science had not yet uncovered so much. As science uncovers more and more, atheism becomes more viable, because god is no longer needed to explain anything.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"A curious aspect of Earth's life forms is that they contain (with few exceptions) only left-handed amino acids. In contrast, when scientists synthesize amino acids from nonchiral precursors, the result is always a "racemic" mixture - equal numbers of right- and left-handed forms. *Scientists have been unable to perform any experiment that, when starting with conditions believed to emulate those of early Earth, results in a near-total dominance of left-handed amino acids,* says George Cody, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institute of Washington."_
> 
> _"But chemical studies of these meteorites have often been challenged as unreliable by scientists claiming that contamination has occurred through exposure, storage, or handling. Over time, says Jeff Bada, of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, even carefully stored meteorites gradually become contaminated.
> 
> If organic compounds such as amino acids from Earth's biosphere have penetrated meteorite samples, they would no longer be representative of early solar system chemistry, nor could they provide evidence of an extraterrestrial source for the components of Earth's first life. *But figuring out whether or not a meteorite has been contaminated has proven to be a thorny problem.*"_
> 
> "The investigators found that the stable isotope ratios were identical for the left-handed and right-handed forms. This, says Engel, indicates, that they had to have come from the same source - that is, not from Earth. If, he argues, a portion of the left-handed forms were from terrestrial organics, these forms would have exhibited a different isotopic signature than the right-handed forms. They would have contained more light carbon and nitrogen.
> 
> *Kvenvolden and Bada aren't convinced. *The new stable-isotope evidence notwithstanding, says Kvenvolden, a left-handed excess like that found in previous research by Engel and Macko, "is inconsistent with the observations of Cronin, Pizzarello and myself for protein amino acids in the meteorite." K*venvolden firmly believes Engel and Macko were seeing contamination."*
> 
> 
> Murchison's Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of this means NOTHING in proving a designer. *I don't care about chirality and how much more improbable that makes anything.* All you are doing is trying to discredit abiogenesis, with NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE for a designer. Your argument from induction in using humans and digital code, is not positive evidence. It is inductive reasoning, which would allow inferences, at best. You are left with nothing to show for your designer. This attempt at science is utterly pathetic.
> 
> I don't feel the need anymore to defend a single facet of abiogenesis or evolution, because if both of these were disproven tomorrow, you still would have zero proof for an intelligent designer.
Click to expand...


Newsflash, it was disproven yesterday. Instead of clinging to fairytales, its time for scientists to find another explanation for the origin of life. 

It is hilarious to me that you keep bringing up arguments from induction multiple times. Have you been reading Wiki again? Without any understanding of what you are reading? I have another newsflash for you. Evolutionary Biology is a historical science in most regards. Most of the hypotheses originate from, yes, you guessed it... inductive reasoning. Like I said, to discredit Meyer's argument is to discredit Darwins. I'm not sure why you are unable to grasp this.

What I have read between the lines in your posts on several occasions is you saying you don't care what the evidence says, you just believe Darwinism to be true. The first step to getting help is realizing you have a problem. You are committed to materialism and atheism first, not science.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I admitted openly when using these numbers that I "stood on the shoulders of giants" because I fully anticipated this very response from you. We all stand on the shoulders of those explorers who came before us. To understand everything humanity has uncovered to date it nearly impossible. In this sense, we must appeal to authority when using such measurements, because I am simply not an expert in a lot of these areas. i am okay with that, because *I don't believe science is one big conspiracy theory as only creationists do*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheesy put down. What you and Hollie are in denial about is that most of the scientific knowledge we have came from scientists who believed in God. Not only that, but there are thousands or millions of Christians still doing research in very techie or science related fields. You like to talk about ignorance? This view is just downright ign'ant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. That is one big genetic fallacy. Might want to look that one up. Where the knowledge we possess today came from has no bearing on the knowledge itself. Because a scientists was christian, doesn't mean the knowledge he/she uncovered is "Christian." Yet, this is what you are implying. If you are not, then there is no need for you to mention such an unimportant and widely understood point, and one which I have no reason to deny. Don't put words in my mouth. The modern scientific method was influenced heavily by Muslim thinkers almost a thousand years ago. I don't see how this has any bearing on the scientific method itself. We don't give credence to allah for this. Likewise, the fact that scientists of the past have been christian, doesn't vindicate the christian faith one iota. All it indicates is that the european populations until very recently, were heavily christian, because science had not yet uncovered so much. As science uncovers more and more, atheism becomes more viable, because god is no longer needed to explain anything.
Click to expand...


Your inability to connect the dots in a debate shows your lack of maturity on such topics. You asserted that Creationists believe science is one big conspiracy theory. My post counters your extremely bigoted and small minded view. My point was that many Christians, and a few Muslims, are responsible for many advancements in science. Creationists embrace science. They just don't embrace your religious pseudoscience. And by the way, you are catching Hawly's disease. For the record for the upteenth time, I am NOT a Creationist.

Evolutionary Theory is a historical science. And most of it is based on un-provable and untestable claims. Your atheism has blinded you to the truth.


----------



## newpolitics

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are lost in your ignorance even though you can't see it and continue to shout that I lack understanding. Watch this short 7 minute video and then maybe YOU will understand YOUR argument from ignorance. I welcome your rebuttal after you have watched this...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE&feature=related
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, unconvincing, and a confirmation of what I have been saying about ID all along, that it rests on ignorance.
Click to expand...




UltimateReality said:


> Wrong. Naturalistic explanation rest on ignorance that chance could actually produce a functional protein.



This doesn't even make any sense. I don't know how to respond. You are just babbling at this point. A naturalistic explanation rests on what ignorance? You are simply mirroring what I say about ID because you have no other retort. However, in this case, it is simply a bald assertion, because scientists aren't making claims that aren't supported by evidence. Even in the case of abiogenesis, there aren't any strong contentions being made about what exactly happened. It is simply conjecture at this point until they gather more evidence.



UltimateReality said:


> Not in and of itself, but coupled with the processes currently in effect for creation of digital code, and the fact that dna contains specifiable information in digital code, Meyer makes a compelling argument for an intelligent agent being the source of the code.



He makes an argument alright, an argument from ignorance. He makes a claim about what actually happened, when he is in total ignorance as to what happened, yet because his claim is unfalsifiable, being that it involves a supernatural element, it can not dispoven. This is a textbook argument from ignorance. 



UltimateReality said:


> not if that was the only information you had, but we have more.   I have given you positive evidence. Intelligent agents are the only known source for complex, specifiable digital code. *You continue to ignore this fact and have yet to note another source. *



This fact doesn't demonstrate anything about how DNA was formed. This is the basis of your argument from induction, and this is fallacy when you try to make it seem as if this conclusion is based on deductive reasoning, which you have to do if you want to be scientific. I don't care how similar DNA is to the codes we make. I don't care if it is the exact same fucking code, with zeroes and ones and everything. This does nothing to show that DNA was also created by an intelligence. 

You are assuming that because humans created a complex, specifiable code, and DNA shares some similar attributes, that DNA must also have been created by an intelligence. Do you not see how this is conclusion is fallacious and why many doubt the validity of ID "science"? There are other possibilities for how DNA could have been created. AGAIN, until you show positive evidence for this creator, you don't have a theory.  



UltimateReality said:


> *But it is certainly useful in describing what DIDN'T happen, and included in that is any naturalistic chance explanation.*



Actually, it isn't useful in describing what didn't happen, at all. Crunching numbers is not a description of what could actually have occurred. This is also based on ignorance.



UltimateReality said:


> So it turns out your religion takes just as much faith as mine.



Nice try, but no, and I don't have a religion. I have a lack of reigion, and lack of faith in a supernatural being. I have trust, based on evidence, which informs my reliance on induction to an extent, but not when drawing scientific conclusions. I've already gone over this. This belief that tomorrow will be similar to today is not faith, because we have an entire history of the universe to show that things have not changed fundamentally. If they did, it would be an anomaly, and would require an entire revamping of our scientific models.  



UltimateReality said:


> This is what most REAL scientist are saying about origins questions, but that is not what YOU were saying several pages back and that is not the trash propaganda being constantly pushed on the atheist agenda websites. Can you not see the tale wagging the dog relationship atheism has with modern science?



I don't care what I was saying a few posts back. This is what I am saying now, so instead of dodging the point, try to actually respond to it. 



newpolitics said:


> Amino acids have been found on meteorites, demonstrating that they form elsewhere the universe, making the event non-unique to Earth,





UltimateReality said:


> Irrelevant. We aren't talking about amino acids. We are talking about extremely complex proteins that only function due to their specific 3D structures which include complex folds.



Fine.



newpolitics said:


> which means you now how to account for the probabilities of of amino acid combinations happening anywhere in the universe where this is chemically permissible. We don't enough information to even calculate this probability, so Meyer's attempt at establishing probabilities is completely unsound.





UltimateReality said:


> Wrong!!! Meyer isn't talking about Amino Acids!!! You do understand that proteins are made from long chains of amino acids, right?



Yes, I do. The point is that Meyer has not basis on which to form his probabilities, because we have never seen abiogenesis elsewhere. For him to say it is impossible is based on ignorance to this fact. This guy swims in ignorance. He loves it!


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"A curious aspect of Earth's life forms is that they contain (with few exceptions) only left-handed amino acids. In contrast, when scientists synthesize amino acids from nonchiral precursors, the result is always a "racemic" mixture - equal numbers of right- and left-handed forms. *Scientists have been unable to perform any experiment that, when starting with conditions believed to emulate those of early Earth, results in a near-total dominance of left-handed amino acids,* says George Cody, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institute of Washington."_
> 
> _"But chemical studies of these meteorites have often been challenged as unreliable by scientists claiming that contamination has occurred through exposure, storage, or handling. Over time, says Jeff Bada, of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, even carefully stored meteorites gradually become contaminated.
> 
> If organic compounds such as amino acids from Earth's biosphere have penetrated meteorite samples, they would no longer be representative of early solar system chemistry, nor could they provide evidence of an extraterrestrial source for the components of Earth's first life. *But figuring out whether or not a meteorite has been contaminated has proven to be a thorny problem.*"_
> 
> "The investigators found that the stable isotope ratios were identical for the left-handed and right-handed forms. This, says Engel, indicates, that they had to have come from the same source - that is, not from Earth. If, he argues, a portion of the left-handed forms were from terrestrial organics, these forms would have exhibited a different isotopic signature than the right-handed forms. They would have contained more light carbon and nitrogen.
> 
> *Kvenvolden and Bada aren't convinced. *The new stable-isotope evidence notwithstanding, says Kvenvolden, a left-handed excess like that found in previous research by Engel and Macko, "is inconsistent with the observations of Cronin, Pizzarello and myself for protein amino acids in the meteorite." K*venvolden firmly believes Engel and Macko were seeing contamination."*
> 
> 
> Murchison's Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of this means NOTHING in proving a designer. *I don't care about chirality and how much more improbable that makes anything.* All you are doing is trying to discredit abiogenesis, with NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE for a designer. Your argument from induction in using humans and digital code, is not positive evidence. It is inductive reasoning, which would allow inferences, at best. You are left with nothing to show for your designer. This attempt at science is utterly pathetic.
> 
> I don't feel the need anymore to defend a single facet of abiogenesis or evolution, because if both of these were disproven tomorrow, you still would have zero proof for an intelligent designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newsflash, it was disproven yesterday. Instead of clinging to fairytales, its time for scientists to find another explanation for the origin of life.
> 
> It is hilarious to me that you keep bringing up arguments from induction multiple times. Have you been reading Wiki again? Without any understanding of what you are reading? I have another newsflash for you. Evolutionary Biology is a historical science in most regards. Most of the hypotheses originate from, yes, you guessed it... inductive reasoning. Like I said, to discredit Meyer's argument is to discredit Darwins. I'm not sure why you are unable to grasp this.
> 
> What I have read between the lines in your posts on several occasions is you saying you don't care what the evidence says, you just believe Darwinism to be true. The first step to getting help is realizing you have a problem. You are committed to materialism and atheism first, not science.
Click to expand...


Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem of induction is well-known in the philosophy of science. You might want to check it out. 



> The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense,[1] since it focuses on the lack of justification for either:
> 
> 1.Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white", before the discovery of black swans) or
> 2. Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the Principle of Uniformity of Nature.[2]


wikipedia.org

Science relies on induction simply because without it, we couldn't make any measurements and have them be consistent day to day. We are forced to assume that tomorrow will be like today, simply because today was like yesterday, and the day before that, and so and so forth.  Otherwise, there would be no ability to conduct scientific experiments if the fundamental aspects of of nature we rely on for consistency were ever-changing. However, it is unscientific to make conclusions based on inductive reasoning. Induction is something we must live by, not conclude with.  Scientific conclusions are based on deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning, and this goes for evolutionary biology too and all historical sciences. However, we can not get around this problem of induction. This paradox is inherent to the scientific process. 

You are committing a category error in assuming that simply because the problem of induction involves the past conceptually, it is more involved in the "historical sciences" than in other sciences. This is false. Historical sciences also must use deductive reasoning to form their conclusions. It is clear you don't understand what induction really is, or else, you might actually recognize it. 

Don't get me wrong, induction is incredibly important for our day to day functioning, and we rely on it heavily as humans. In science, inductively-reached conclusions are simply invalid. Find me another conclusion in science based on induction, and I'll grant that I am wrong. All claims must be proved on their own merit. You are trying to sidestep this using inductive reasoning. It is cheap. In other words, you are trying to say that we can prove DNA was intelligently created because digital code was intelligently created. But, you haven't actually proven that DNA was intelligently created. You are inferring that using inductive reasoning, or rather, you are assuming it to be true. 

It is well established in logic that inductive arguments can only establish probabilities. Deductive arguments are therefore much stronger in reaching higher degrees of certainty. This is why they are used in science. Therefore, IDers can only produce a probabilistic determination for their conclusions, yet they pretend that their conclusions are reached deductively, like in all other sciences. This is a sham.  

Evolutionary biology being a historical science has nothing more to do with induction that does particle physics, so you're point is completely moot.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP, since you couldn't answer the star distance question I will you provide you with a few links to your favorite source so you can speak intelligently on the topic. There are several different ways scientists determine the distance to stars and as you can see, they are all based on theories, some with many variables...
> 
> Cepheid variable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Extragalactic observations*
> 
> The most distant objects exhibit larger redshifts corresponding to the Hubble flow of the universe. The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang.[59]
> 
> Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Spectroscopic parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong.  I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them?
> 
> If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here.
> 
> At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.
Click to expand...


Earthly laws? As if this region of space is fundamentally different than another region of space, excluding regions near black holes? What is it with creationists and trying to posit that the four fundamental forces of nature are ever-changing? You would need to back this is up with *something *. Anything, pointing to this possibility. 

You are, in fact, implying that astronomy is unreliable with regards to astronomical measurements of distance. Therefore, you need to prove this. Go ahead.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Appeal to the masses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But true, nonetheless.
> 
> I can only suggest that you learn about the science of evolution from sources other than the creationist ministries. The information they supply is incorrect and your re-use of the information makes you an accomplice to fear and ignorance.
> 
> There is no required "belief" in evolution, science, biology, etc.,  required to accept those disciplines and to accept the inescapable conclusions which are drawn from the evidence. Science is not a "belief". Religious dogma (ie., creationism), as admitted by its adherents, is unchangeable - it is an inerrant guide. Science makes no such claims. It is certainly not unchanging (no scientific subject is excluded from change) and makes no claims to being absolute or inerrant (as our methods for testing and our technology improves, our theories more closely model reality). Evolution remains as the best analog of the available physical evidence, in spite of your violent rejection evolving from your religious affiliation.
> 
> Obviously, science is in no danger of being superceded or "overturned" by fundie christian creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like all the classes you took?
> 
> Hawly, you wouldn't know real science if it hit you in the face. All your science "knowledge" comes from Panda's Thumb.
Click to expand...


I just gave you a lesson in science and I hope you will reflect and improve yourself. 

You're offering more than the silly cut and paste that the other fundie has fumed in the board.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is asumed.
> 
> Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.
> 
> Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.
> 
> Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
> 
> As for radioactive decay  Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.
> 
> Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The old soup fairy tale. Newsflash: This has been totally discredited since the odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins are about 1 in 1 x 10 to the 146. There are only 1 x 10 to the 80 atomic particles in the entire visible universe.
Click to expand...


You got a link? Or are you just blowing more gas out of your starfish? Did you get your odds in Vegas?


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, that looks like us, sits on a gold throne and creates everything.
> If there was anything that ever qualified as "flawed" scientifically the above claim would be.
> That one is #1 flawed argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says God is Spirit. If he exists outside of matter, space, time and energy, what would ever make you think that he "looks" like anything you know or that he can "sit" anywhere. Have you been listening to Red Neck Theologians?
Click to expand...


The bibble was written by men, not a god. So basically, your invisible dude is made up.


----------



## ima

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.
> 
> Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is asumed.
> 
> Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.
> 
> Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.
> 
> Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
> 
> As for radioactive decay  Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.
> 
> Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.
> 
> Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.
> 
> Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.
Click to expand...


The "soup thing" is from berkeley. So you're saying that you know better than researchers at berkeley? Where did you go to college, Redneck U?
And how's that slave flag thing working out for you southern pig fuckers?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.
> 
> Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
> 
> As for radioactive decay  Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.
> 
> Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.
> 
> Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.
> 
> Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "soup thing" is from berkeley. So you're saying that you know better than researchers at berkeley? Where did you go to college, Redneck U?
> And how's that slave flag thing working out for you southern pig fuckers?
Click to expand...


I"m saying that your insults show your limited intelligence and debating skills.

Class dismissed.


----------



## newpolitics

I just watched this, and this is not science. Meyer himself attempts to dodge this point by saying "it is a semantics issue," which means, he recognizes that there are differences between ID and the rest of the sciences, and is trying to reconcile this. I think this is where his PhD in philosophy of Science comes in, and relies on his degree to garner credibility for words that really don't mean much. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs]Centre for Intelligent Design Lecture 2011 by Stephen Meyer on 'Signature in the Cell'. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## ima

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.
> 
> Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.
> 
> Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "soup thing" is from berkeley. So you're saying that you know better than researchers at berkeley? Where did you go to college, Redneck U?
> And how's that slave flag thing working out for you southern pig fuckers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I"m saying that your insults show your limited intelligence and debating skills.
> 
> Class dismissed.
Click to expand...

But how is the slave flag thing working for you? Do you know your side lost the war and you can't have slaves anymore? 

At least you're not dense enough to say that the people at berkeley are full of shit. That's a start.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheesy put down. What you and Hollie are in denial about is that most of the scientific knowledge we have came from scientists who believed in God. Not only that, but there are thousands or millions of Christians still doing research in very techie or science related fields. You like to talk about ignorance? This view is just downright ign'ant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. That is one big genetic fallacy. Might want to look that one up. Where the knowledge we possess today came from has no bearing on the knowledge itself. Because a scientists was christian, doesn't mean the knowledge he/she uncovered is "Christian." Yet, this is what you are implying. If you are not, then there is no need for you to mention such an unimportant and widely understood point, and one which I have no reason to deny. Don't put words in my mouth. The modern scientific method was influenced heavily by Muslim thinkers almost a thousand years ago. I don't see how this has any bearing on the scientific method itself. We don't give credence to allah for this. Likewise, the fact that scientists of the past have been christian, doesn't vindicate the christian faith one iota. All it indicates is that the european populations until very recently, were heavily christian, because science had not yet uncovered so much. As science uncovers more and more, atheism becomes more viable, because god is no longer needed to explain anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to connect the dots in a debate shows your lack of maturity on such topics. You asserted that Creationists believe science is one big conspiracy theory. My post counters your extremely bigoted and small minded view. My point was that many Christians, and a few Muslims, are responsible for many advancements in science. Creationists embrace science. They just don't embrace your religious pseudoscience. And by the way, you are catching Hawly's disease. For the record for the upteenth time, I am NOT a Creationist.
> 
> Evolutionary Theory is a historical science. And most of it is based on un-provable and untestable claims. Your atheism has blinded you to the truth.
Click to expand...


You demonstrated this yourself when you objected to my use of light-year measurements, effectively claiming that science is not reliable in this field. You challenge science on a more fundamental level than you wish to let on, or, you simply challenge science whenever it is convenient for you in order to discredit an argument, in which case, this is dishonesty. Don't back down from your own assertions and tell me I simply think all creationists believe science is one big conspiracy theory. I said "only creationists do," which does not mean ALL creationists. I should have been more specific given your proclivity for drawing erroneous conclusions.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "soup thing" is from berkeley. So you're saying that you know better than researchers at berkeley? Where did you go to college, Redneck U?
> And how's that slave flag thing working out for you southern pig fuckers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I"m saying that your insults show your limited intelligence and debating skills.
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But how is the slave flag thing working for you? Do you know your side lost the war and you can't have slaves anymore?
> 
> At least you're not dense enough to say that the people at berkeley are full of shit. That's a start.
Click to expand...


You can pretend the Northern States didn't have slaves. But it doesn't make it so. 

And you can pretend that only white people were slave owners, but that doesn't make it so either.

You should read a history book and not rely on the revisionist history you were taught at school.


----------



## ima

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I"m saying that your insults show your limited intelligence and debating skills.
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> But how is the slave flag thing working for you? Do you know your side lost the war and you can't have slaves anymore?
> 
> At least you're not dense enough to say that the people at berkeley are full of shit. That's a start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend the Northern States didn't have slaves. But it doesn't make it so.
> 
> And you can pretend that only white people were slave owners, but that doesn't make it so either.
> 
> You should read a history book and not rely on the revisionist history you were taught at school.
Click to expand...


I never claimed what you say I "pretend". But I do know that your flag is a loser flag, and now you have to dig your own outhouse.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> But how is the slave flag thing working for you? Do you know your side lost the war and you can't have slaves anymore?
> 
> At least you're not dense enough to say that the people at berkeley are full of shit. That's a start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can pretend the Northern States didn't have slaves. But it doesn't make it so.
> 
> And you can pretend that only white people were slave owners, but that doesn't make it so either.
> 
> You should read a history book and not rely on the revisionist history you were taught at school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed what you say I "pretend". But I do know that your flag is a loser flag, and now you have to dig your own outhouse.
Click to expand...


Why does it bother you so much?


----------



## Youwerecreated

PretentiousGuy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> here again, your only goal is to promote your religious views at the expense of truth.
> 
> If you review the site, you will find each article includes extensive references to peer reviewed data.
> 
> As opposed to everything in existence being the product of naturalism, what part of existence can you define that was the result of supernaturalism? How does anyone further define that supernaturalism is the result of your gawds and not someone else's gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lalalalalala
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YWC are you a poe?
Click to expand...


Define what you meant.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they do not have an agenda. What agenda does wikipedia have???
> 
> Talkorigins I can understand, even though I wholeheartedly disagree that they have an agenda, aside from debunking creationist/ID claims and establishing science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so that must mean that every thing you post from creationist sites is a lie
> as they have no proof that anything mentioned in the bible was observed first hand by the writers of the scriptures.
Click to expand...


How bout my words that I post that you and a few others run from ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was hardly a comprehensible sentence, but I get it. You didn't answer my question. What is their agenda, specifically? If you understand that wikipedia is made up of many, many different authors, then are you suggesting there is a managing authority telling all authors to slant their posts towards a certain viewpoint? This would require some serious evidence, and you've provided none. The same with talkorigins. You won't find a viewpoint on talk origins that isn't held by evolutionary biologists or any professionals in the pertinent fields. It is a vacuous assertion to say that talkorigins has an agenda. The truth is their only agenda, whilst for creationist/ID website, they DO have an agenda, and that is to promote god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's because everthing is...you have no proof otherwise ..no matter how hard you bitch...
Click to expand...


Daws you have no proof to support your claims like the one the one where you said space is not a closed system when we don't have the ability to se far enough. I thought you would have gotten it the first time it was said.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there fundie man. Your comment would then apply to every claim of miracles in the bible.
> 
> Thus would be an appropriate time to quickly whip up one special exception for your bible tales and fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have told you many times many of my beliefs are based in faith some are not they are based on evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's  all of your beliefs are based on faith as you have no evidence if you claim you do you're lying.
Click to expand...


My observations of mutations and cells are not based on faith nor the bible daws. My views on amino acids forming proteins are not either. Do I need to go on ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey slap dick the closed system is a creationist fantasy.
> btw chaos never left...... Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
> 
> Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather.[5][6] Explanation of such behavior may be sought through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are stupid daws sorry but when I post why you are wrong and still you continue this tap dance then that is stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you've yet to prove me wrong. but you can always dream..
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.



You are willing to believe that Wikipedia, which  has tons of articles about the christian faith and every other conceivable supernatural-based religion, is trying to promote naturalism? 

This is demonstrably false by virtue of what I just said. 

The truth with you, is that anything that isn't actively promoting christianity, is deemed "materialistic." This is blind bias. 

Your perception of talkorigins originates from the same bias. In actuality, Talkorigins accurately describes the scientific theories that theists so often get wrong. This is not an agenda to promote naturalism, but to promote actual truth about the current state of our collective scientific inquiry on matters of evolution, abiogenesis, and other topics so often misquoted by theists. It is simply an educational tool. The fact that it does not align with your beliefs does not mean it is naturalistic, simply because your beliefs are mired in supernaturalism. Try to be a little less self-centered when assessing these things.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"A curious aspect of Earth's life forms is that they contain (with few exceptions) only left-handed amino acids. In contrast, when scientists synthesize amino acids from nonchiral precursors, the result is always a "racemic" mixture - equal numbers of right- and left-handed forms. *Scientists have been unable to perform any experiment that, when starting with conditions believed to emulate those of early Earth, results in a near-total dominance of left-handed amino acids,* says George Cody, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institute of Washington."_
> 
> _"But chemical studies of these meteorites have often been challenged as unreliable by scientists claiming that contamination has occurred through exposure, storage, or handling. Over time, says Jeff Bada, of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, even carefully stored meteorites gradually become contaminated.
> 
> If organic compounds such as amino acids from Earth's biosphere have penetrated meteorite samples, they would no longer be representative of early solar system chemistry, nor could they provide evidence of an extraterrestrial source for the components of Earth's first life. *But figuring out whether or not a meteorite has been contaminated has proven to be a thorny problem.*"_
> 
> "The investigators found that the stable isotope ratios were identical for the left-handed and right-handed forms. This, says Engel, indicates, that they had to have come from the same source - that is, not from Earth. If, he argues, a portion of the left-handed forms were from terrestrial organics, these forms would have exhibited a different isotopic signature than the right-handed forms. They would have contained more light carbon and nitrogen.
> 
> *Kvenvolden and Bada aren't convinced. *The new stable-isotope evidence notwithstanding, says Kvenvolden, a left-handed excess like that found in previous research by Engel and Macko, "is inconsistent with the observations of Cronin, Pizzarello and myself for protein amino acids in the meteorite." K*venvolden firmly believes Engel and Macko were seeing contamination."*
> 
> 
> Murchison's Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of this means NOTHING in proving a designer. I don't care about chirality and how much more improbable that makes anything. All you are doing is trying to discredit abiogenesis, with NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE for a designer. Your argument from induction in using humans and digital code, is not positive evidence. It is inductive reasoning, which would allow inferences, at best. You are left with nothing to show for your designer. This attempt at science is utterly pathetic.
> 
> I don't feel the need anymore to defend a single facet of abiogenesis or evolution, because if both of these were disproven tomorrow, you still would have zero proof for an intelligent designer.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should if you are concerned with the truth and whether a designer does exist or not.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have told you many times many of my beliefs are based in faith some are not they are based on evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> that's  all of your beliefs are based on faith as you have no evidence if you claim you do you're lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My observations of mutations and cells are not based on faith nor the bible daws. My views on amino acids forming proteins are not either. Do I need to go on ?
Click to expand...


Your views on amino acids are formed by really simple mathematical probability calculations. These is not an apt description of reality we know little about, so can not account for it in the math. You can not demonstrate that something is impossible by trying to show how unlikely it is with these simple calculations. There is not enough data to make those calculations descriptive of anything resembling what would have actually taken place. So, another argument from ignorance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, that looks like us, sits on a gold throne and creates everything.
> If there was anything that ever qualified as "flawed" scientifically the above claim would be.
> That one is #1 flawed argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says God is Spirit. If he exists outside of matter, space, time and energy, what would ever make you think that he "looks" like anything you know or that he can "sit" anywhere. Have you been listening to Red Neck Theologians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bibble was written by men, not a god. So basically, your invisible dude is made up.
Click to expand...


Your textbooks are to.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.
> 
> Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
> 
> As for radioactive decay  Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.
> 
> Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.
> 
> Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.
> 
> Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "soup thing" is from berkeley. So you're saying that you know better than researchers at berkeley? Where did you go to college, Redneck U?
> And how's that slave flag thing working out for you southern pig fuckers?
Click to expand...


Berkley now that is a fair and balanced source.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"A curious aspect of Earth's life forms is that they contain (with few exceptions) only left-handed amino acids. In contrast, when scientists synthesize amino acids from nonchiral precursors, the result is always a "racemic" mixture - equal numbers of right- and left-handed forms. *Scientists have been unable to perform any experiment that, when starting with conditions believed to emulate those of early Earth, results in a near-total dominance of left-handed amino acids,* says George Cody, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institute of Washington."_
> 
> _"But chemical studies of these meteorites have often been challenged as unreliable by scientists claiming that contamination has occurred through exposure, storage, or handling. Over time, says Jeff Bada, of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, even carefully stored meteorites gradually become contaminated.
> 
> If organic compounds such as amino acids from Earth's biosphere have penetrated meteorite samples, they would no longer be representative of early solar system chemistry, nor could they provide evidence of an extraterrestrial source for the components of Earth's first life. *But figuring out whether or not a meteorite has been contaminated has proven to be a thorny problem.*"_
> 
> "The investigators found that the stable isotope ratios were identical for the left-handed and right-handed forms. This, says Engel, indicates, that they had to have come from the same source - that is, not from Earth. If, he argues, a portion of the left-handed forms were from terrestrial organics, these forms would have exhibited a different isotopic signature than the right-handed forms. They would have contained more light carbon and nitrogen.
> 
> *Kvenvolden and Bada aren't convinced. *The new stable-isotope evidence notwithstanding, says Kvenvolden, a left-handed excess like that found in previous research by Engel and Macko, "is inconsistent with the observations of Cronin, Pizzarello and myself for protein amino acids in the meteorite." K*venvolden firmly believes Engel and Macko were seeing contamination."*
> 
> 
> Murchison's Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of this means NOTHING in proving a designer. I don't care about chirality and how much more improbable that makes anything. All you are doing is trying to discredit abiogenesis, with NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE for a designer. Your argument from induction in using humans and digital code, is not positive evidence. It is inductive reasoning, which would allow inferences, at best. You are left with nothing to show for your designer. This attempt at science is utterly pathetic.
> 
> I don't feel the need anymore to defend a single facet of abiogenesis or evolution, because if both of these were disproven tomorrow, you still would have zero proof for an intelligent designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should if you are concerned with the truth and whether a designer does exist or not.
Click to expand...


You must demonstrate that something is true.  You can not and have not. I know all about Stephen Meyer's probability calculations with respect to amino acid coupling combinations in forming viable proteins. This is not useful information in describing what happened. It is vastly simplistic and relies on ignorance to the actual conditions during abiogenesis. Nor is an inductive argument to try and show that DNA must have a designer simply because digital code has a designer. This is using the availability heuristic. Intelligent Design is so far from science that it is laughable. The more I learn about it, the more I realize that it is simply faith-based. Nobody actually searching for scientific truth could ever rely on this kind of flawed methodology. It is simply unscientific, and even Meyer admits this when he says this is a "semantics question" (paraphrased).


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are willing to believe that Wikipedia, which  has tons of articles about the christian faith and every other conceivable supernatural-based religion, is trying to promote naturalism?
> 
> This is demonstrably false by virtue of what I just said.
> 
> The truth with you, is that anything that isn't actively promoting christianity, is deemed "materialistic." This is blind bias.
> 
> Your perception of talkorigins originates from the same bias. In actuality, Talkorigins accurately describes the scientific theories that theists so often get wrong. This is not an agenda to promote naturalism, but to promote actual truth about the current state of our collective scientific inquiry on matters of evolution, abiogenesis, and other topics so often misquoted by theists. It is simply an educational tool. The fact that it does not align with your beliefs does not mean it is naturalistic, simply because your beliefs are mired in supernaturalism. Try to be a little less self-centered when assessing these things.
Click to expand...


I can now admit I am biased for the truth not vivid imaginations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's  all of your beliefs are based on faith as you have no evidence if you claim you do you're lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My observations of mutations and cells are not based on faith nor the bible daws. My views on amino acids forming proteins are not either. Do I need to go on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your views on amino acids are formed by really simple mathematical probability calculations. These is not an apt description of reality we know little about, so can not account for it in the math. You can not demonstrate that something is impossible by trying to show how unlikely it is with these simple calculations. There is not enough data to make those calculations descriptive of anything resembling what would have actually taken place. So, another argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...


I can reach my views through reasoning of the evidence.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are willing to believe that Wikipedia, which  has tons of articles about the christian faith and every other conceivable supernatural-based religion, is trying to promote naturalism?
> 
> This is demonstrably false by virtue of what I just said.
> 
> The truth with you, is that anything that isn't actively promoting christianity, is deemed "materialistic." This is blind bias.
> 
> Your perception of talkorigins originates from the same bias. In actuality, Talkorigins accurately describes the scientific theories that theists so often get wrong. This is not an agenda to promote naturalism, but to promote actual truth about the current state of our collective scientific inquiry on matters of evolution, abiogenesis, and other topics so often misquoted by theists. It is simply an educational tool. The fact that it does not align with your beliefs does not mean it is naturalistic, simply because your beliefs are mired in supernaturalism. Try to be a little less self-centered when assessing these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can now admit I am biased for the truth not vivid imaginations.
Click to expand...


This is a completely subjective statement, and therefore meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Until you can demonstrate something, you don't have truth.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My observations of mutations and cells are not based on faith nor the bible daws. My views on amino acids forming proteins are not either. Do I need to go on ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your views on amino acids are formed by really simple mathematical probability calculations. These is not an apt description of reality we know little about, so can not account for it in the math. You can not demonstrate that something is impossible by trying to show how unlikely it is with these simple calculations. There is not enough data to make those calculations descriptive of anything resembling what would have actually taken place. So, another argument from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can reach my views through reasoning of the evidence.
Click to expand...


No, you can't. You have reached your views by fallacious reasoning, namely attempting to probabilistically rule out the competing theory, and then fallaciously trying to build-up your own theory using a non-deductive method. There is no valid reasoning here that allows anyone to demonstrable these "truths."


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of this means NOTHING in proving a designer. I don't care about chirality and how much more improbable that makes anything. All you are doing is trying to discredit abiogenesis, with NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE for a designer. Your argument from induction in using humans and digital code, is not positive evidence. It is inductive reasoning, which would allow inferences, at best. You are left with nothing to show for your designer. This attempt at science is utterly pathetic.
> 
> I don't feel the need anymore to defend a single facet of abiogenesis or evolution, because if both of these were disproven tomorrow, you still would have zero proof for an intelligent designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should if you are concerned with the truth and whether a designer does exist or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must demonstrate that something is true.  You can not and have not. I know all about Stephen Meyer's probability calculations with respect to amino acid coupling combinations in forming viable proteins. This is not useful information in describing what happened. It is vastly simplistic and relies on ignorance to the actual conditions during abiogenesis. Nor is an inductive argument to try and show that DNA must have a designer simply because digital code has a designer. This is using the availability heuristic. Intelligent Design is so far from science that it is laughable. The more I learn about it, the more I realize that it is simply faith-based. Nobody actually searching for scientific truth could ever rely on this kind of flawed methodology. It is simply unscientific, and even Meyer admits this when he says this is a "semantics question" (paraphrased).
Click to expand...


I can't think of one thing in nature that chaos has produced through order. They are opposites.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are willing to believe that Wikipedia, which  has tons of articles about the christian faith and every other conceivable supernatural-based religion, is trying to promote naturalism?
> 
> This is demonstrably false by virtue of what I just said.
> 
> The truth with you, is that anything that isn't actively promoting christianity, is deemed "materialistic." This is blind bias.
> 
> Your perception of talkorigins originates from the same bias. In actuality, Talkorigins accurately describes the scientific theories that theists so often get wrong. This is not an agenda to promote naturalism, but to promote actual truth about the current state of our collective scientific inquiry on matters of evolution, abiogenesis, and other topics so often misquoted by theists. It is simply an educational tool. The fact that it does not align with your beliefs does not mean it is naturalistic, simply because your beliefs are mired in supernaturalism. Try to be a little less self-centered when assessing these things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can now admit I am biased for the truth not vivid imaginations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a completely subjective statement, and therefore meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Until you can demonstrate something, you don't have truth.
Click to expand...


I have many times and it gets ignored because of semantics.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your views on amino acids are formed by really simple mathematical probability calculations. These is not an apt description of reality we know little about, so can not account for it in the math. You can not demonstrate that something is impossible by trying to show how unlikely it is with these simple calculations. There is not enough data to make those calculations descriptive of anything resembling what would have actually taken place. So, another argument from ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can reach my views through reasoning of the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't. You have reached your views by fallacious reasoning, namely attempting to probabilistically rule out the competing theory, and then fallaciously trying to build-up your own theory using a non-deductive method. There is no valid reasoning here that allows anyone to demonstrable these "truths."
Click to expand...


The theory has ruled itself out by not being able to withstand scientific scrutiny.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should if you are concerned with the truth and whether a designer does exist or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must demonstrate that something is true.  You can not and have not. I know all about Stephen Meyer's probability calculations with respect to amino acid coupling combinations in forming viable proteins. This is not useful information in describing what happened. It is vastly simplistic and relies on ignorance to the actual conditions during abiogenesis. Nor is an inductive argument to try and show that DNA must have a designer simply because digital code has a designer. This is using the availability heuristic. Intelligent Design is so far from science that it is laughable. The more I learn about it, the more I realize that it is simply faith-based. Nobody actually searching for scientific truth could ever rely on this kind of flawed methodology. It is simply unscientific, and even Meyer admits this when he says this is a "semantics question" (paraphrased).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't think of one thing in nature that chaos has produced through order. They are opposites.
Click to expand...


I don't care. That is an incoherent expectation and an blatant mischaracterization of some fundamental concepts about the universe. What does "chaos producing something through order" even mean? When you actually understand reality, maybe we can have this discussion. All this is another attempt to discredit materialism because you think that necessarily makes supernaturalism viable without providing any actual evidence for it. This is the weakness in your position. Your only options is to try and discredit everything around you, because by definition, supernatural phenomena can not exist in the natural world. Hence, you will always require faith to believe supernatural claims, which in my opinion, is unjustifiable.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can reach my views through reasoning of the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you can't. You have reached your views by fallacious reasoning, namely attempting to probabilistically rule out the competing theory, and then fallaciously trying to build-up your own theory using a non-deductive method. There is no valid reasoning here that allows anyone to demonstrable these "truths."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The theory has ruled itself out by not being able to withstand scientific scrutiny.
Click to expand...


Are you talking about Intelligent Design?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can now admit I am biased for the truth not vivid imaginations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a completely subjective statement, and therefore meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Until you can demonstrate something, you don't have truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have many times and it gets ignored because of semantics.
Click to expand...


This is only your interpretation that the cause of this is a semantics issue. The actual reason your demonstrations get ignored is because they are not demonstrations that utilize valid reasoning, but rely on faith and logical fallacy.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are running from my question. Have I posted from Harun Yahya? Where is such a link?? Or even ICR for that matter? Prove it or shut the Daws up.
> 
> 
> 
> awwww some one's having a tantrum either address me directly or stfu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't use profanity so Daws seemed like an appropriate substitution.
Click to expand...

and always you'd be showcasing your immaturity.

 taking Gods name in vain means throwing around reckless promises, oaths, and pledges using the Christian God as your witness.

if that's why you don't use profanity then you're far more dense than I expected.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to this it was perfectly in conext. Nice try theatre boy. I bet Hawly would love to see you in your Shakespearean tights.
> 
> _"*The phrase has come to mean that one can "insist so passionately about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what one is saying."*_
> 
> NP's phrase was "Stop trying to make it seem like I am only picking on you because I disagree with you." Picking on me because he disagreed with me is exactly what he was doing. The epic fail is yours SlapHawly.
> 
> 
> 
> theatre boy? hmm.. that's an admission that you do know my educational background ,making all your faux protesting that I never posted it a lie.
> the slapdick doth protest too much to cover his dishonsty...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. I just read it in YWC's recent post. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Click to expand...

yes really. can you back peddle harder..
BTW they're called leggings not tights, and I look damn fine in them.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are lost in your ignorance even though you can't see it and continue to shout that I lack understanding. Watch this short 7 minute video and then maybe YOU will understand YOUR argument from ignorance. I welcome your rebuttal after you have watched this...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE&feature=related
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, unconvincing, and a confirmation of what I have been saying about ID all along, that it rests on ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't even make any sense. I don't know how to respond. You are just babbling at this point. A naturalistic explanation rests on what ignorance? You are simply mirroring what I say about ID because you have no other retort. However, in this case, it is simply a bald assertion, because scientists aren't making claims that aren't supported by evidence. Even in the case of abiogenesis, there aren't any strong contentions being made about what exactly happened. It is simply conjecture at this point until they gather more evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> He makes an argument alright, an argument from ignorance. He makes a claim about what actually happened, when he is in total ignorance as to what happened, yet because his claim is unfalsifiable, being that it involves a supernatural element, it can not dispoven. This is a textbook argument from ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> This fact doesn't demonstrate anything about how DNA was formed. This is the basis of your argument from induction, and this is fallacy when you try to make it seem as if this conclusion is based on deductive reasoning, which you have to do if you want to be scientific. I don't care how similar DNA is to the codes we make. I don't care if it is the exact same fucking code, with zeroes and ones and everything. This does nothing to show that DNA was also created by an intelligence.
> 
> You are assuming that because humans created a complex, specifiable code, and DNA shares some similar attributes, that DNA must also have been created by an intelligence. Do you not see how this is conclusion is fallacious and why many doubt the validity of ID "science"? There are other possibilities for how DNA could have been created. AGAIN, until you show positive evidence for this creator, you don't have a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it isn't useful in describing what didn't happen, at all. Crunching numbers is not a description of what could actually have occurred. This is also based on ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but no, and I don't have a religion. I have a lack of reigion, and lack of faith in a supernatural being. I have trust, based on evidence, which informs my reliance on induction to an extent, but not when drawing scientific conclusions. I've already gone over this. This belief that tomorrow will be similar to today is not faith, because we have an entire history of the universe to show that things have not changed fundamentally. If they did, it would be an anomaly, and would require an entire revamping of our scientific models.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what I was saying a few posts back. This is what I am saying now, so instead of dodging the point, try to actually respond to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> which means you now how to account for the probabilities of of amino acid combinations happening anywhere in the universe where this is chemically permissible. We don't enough information to even calculate this probability, so Meyer's attempt at establishing probabilities is completely unsound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! Meyer isn't talking about Amino Acids!!! You do understand that proteins are made from long chains of amino acids, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. The point is that Meyer has not basis on which to form his probabilities, because we have never seen abiogenesis elsewhere. For him to say it is impossible is based on ignorance to this fact. This guy swims in ignorance. He loves it!
Click to expand...


The probabilities are based on the "warm little pond" with amino acids in it. 

Other than that, I don't even know where to begin with everything that is wrong with your rebuttal so I will just let the information presented stand on its own merit.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of this means NOTHING in proving a designer. *I don't care about chirality and how much more improbable that makes anything.* All you are doing is trying to discredit abiogenesis, with NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE for a designer. Your argument from induction in using humans and digital code, is not positive evidence. It is inductive reasoning, which would allow inferences, at best. You are left with nothing to show for your designer. This attempt at science is utterly pathetic.
> 
> I don't feel the need anymore to defend a single facet of abiogenesis or evolution, because if both of these were disproven tomorrow, you still would have zero proof for an intelligent designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash, it was disproven yesterday. Instead of clinging to fairytales, its time for scientists to find another explanation for the origin of life.
> 
> It is hilarious to me that you keep bringing up arguments from induction multiple times. Have you been reading Wiki again? Without any understanding of what you are reading? I have another newsflash for you. Evolutionary Biology is a historical science in most regards. Most of the hypotheses originate from, yes, you guessed it... inductive reasoning. Like I said, to discredit Meyer's argument is to discredit Darwins. I'm not sure why you are unable to grasp this.
> 
> What I have read between the lines in your posts on several occasions is you saying you don't care what the evidence says, you just believe Darwinism to be true. The first step to getting help is realizing you have a problem. You are committed to materialism and atheism first, not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The problem of induction is well-known in the philosophy of science. You might want to check it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense,[1] since it focuses on the lack of justification for either:
> 
> 1.Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white", before the discovery of black swans) or
> 2. Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the Principle of Uniformity of Nature.[2]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wikipedia.org
> 
> Science relies on induction simply because without it, we couldn't make any measurements and have them be consistent day to day. We are forced to assume that tomorrow will be like today, simply because today was like yesterday, and the day before that, and so and so forth.  Otherwise, there would be no ability to conduct scientific experiments if the fundamental aspects of of nature we rely on for consistency were ever-changing. However, it is unscientific to make conclusions based on inductive reasoning. Induction is something we must live by, not conclude with.  Scientific conclusions are based on deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning, and this goes for evolutionary biology too and all historical sciences. However, we can not get around this problem of induction. This paradox is inherent to the scientific process.
> 
> You are committing a category error in assuming that simply because the problem of induction involves the past conceptually, it is more involved in the "historical sciences" than in other sciences. This is false. Historical sciences also must use deductive reasoning to form their conclusions. It is clear you don't understand what induction really is, or else, you might actually recognize it.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, induction is incredibly important for our day to day functioning, and we rely on it heavily as humans. In science, inductively-reached conclusions are simply invalid. Find me another conclusion in science based on induction, and I'll grant that I am wrong. All claims must be proved on their own merit. You are trying to sidestep this using inductive reasoning. It is cheap. In other words, you are trying to say that we can prove DNA was intelligently created because digital code was intelligently created. But, you haven't actually proven that DNA was intelligently created. You are inferring that using inductive reasoning, or rather, you are assuming it to be true.
> 
> It is well established in logic that inductive arguments can only establish probabilities. Deductive arguments are therefore much stronger in reaching higher degrees of certainty. This is why they are used in science. Therefore, IDers can only produce a probabilistic determination for their conclusions, yet they pretend that their conclusions are reached deductively, like in all other sciences. This is a sham.
> 
> Evolutionary biology being a historical science has nothing more to do with induction that does particle physics, so you're point is completely moot.
Click to expand...


Everything you just posted applies just as equally to evolutionary science. Nice try though. Maybe you should investigate your own blind faith more.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong.  I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them?
> 
> If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here.
> 
> At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earthly laws? As if this region of space is fundamentally different than another region of space, excluding regions near black holes? What is it with creationists and trying to posit that the four fundamental forces of nature are ever-changing? You would need to back this is up with *something *. Anything, pointing to this possibility.
> 
> You are, in fact, implying that astronomy is unreliable with regards to astronomical measurements of distance. Therefore, you need to prove this. Go ahead.
Click to expand...


This shows your total ignorance to current cosmological science. When was the last time you measured the effects of dark matter and dark energy here on earth? When?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP, since you couldn't answer the star distance question I will you provide you with a few links to your favorite source so you can speak intelligently on the topic. There are several different ways scientists determine the distance to stars and as you can see, they are all based on theories, some with many variables...
> 
> Cepheid variable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Extragalactic observations*
> 
> The most distant objects exhibit larger redshifts corresponding to the Hubble flow of the universe. The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang.[59]
> 
> Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Spectroscopic parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong.  I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them?
> 
> If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here.
> 
> At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.
Click to expand...

me smells an end run around taking responsibility for what you post..
now to burst  your bubble the laws you speak of are the same in space as they are on earth.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> But true, nonetheless.
> 
> I can only suggest that you learn about the science of evolution from sources other than the creationist ministries. The information they supply is incorrect and your re-use of the information makes you an accomplice to fear and ignorance.
> 
> There is no required "belief" in evolution, science, biology, etc.,  required to accept those disciplines and to accept the inescapable conclusions which are drawn from the evidence. Science is not a "belief". Religious dogma (ie., creationism), as admitted by its adherents, is unchangeable - it is an inerrant guide. Science makes no such claims. It is certainly not unchanging (no scientific subject is excluded from change) and makes no claims to being absolute or inerrant (as our methods for testing and our technology improves, our theories more closely model reality). Evolution remains as the best analog of the available physical evidence, in spite of your violent rejection evolving from your religious affiliation.
> 
> Obviously, science is in no danger of being superceded or "overturned" by fundie christian creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like all the classes you took?
> 
> Hawly, you wouldn't know real science if it hit you in the face. All your science "knowledge" comes from Panda's Thumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just gave you a lesson in science and I hope you will reflect and improve yourself.
> 
> You're offering more than the silly cut and paste that the other fundie has fumed in the board.
Click to expand...


You have become totally irrelevant to this thread.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're embarrassing yourself. Hollie has lied about me on numerous occasions and I am sick of her repetitive posts of continually lying just as a put down. I am asking her to back up her accusations with proof or get lost. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is all well in good, but you implied that Hollie was indicting herself in her conversation with you when you said "were were are talking about her lies about me," which simply isn't true. You have not shown her to be a liar, so you shouldn't use that word. She maybe incorrect at best, but that doesn't make her a liar. She is indicting whoever posted from Harun Yahya. I don't care who is right here. I am just stating the facts, because you like to obfuscate.
> 
> Now, I am playing the arbiter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you mean arbitrator? If so, then you would make a really lousy one, because you are incredibly biased to one side.
Click to expand...

UR 
this might have been a good time to to stfu.

Definition of ARBITER
1: a person with power to decide a dispute : judge 
2: a person or agency whose judgment or opinion is considered authoritative <arbiters of taste> 

Definition of ARBITRATOR
: one that arbitrates : arbiter 
      another failed attempt to get over on another poster.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's  all of your beliefs are based on faith as you have no evidence if you claim you do you're lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My observations of mutations and cells are not based on faith nor the bible daws. My views on amino acids forming proteins are not either. Do I need to go on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your views on amino acids are formed by really simple mathematical probability calculations. These is not an apt description of reality we know little about, so can not account for it in the math. You can not demonstrate that something is impossible by trying to show how unlikely it is with these simple calculations. There is not enough data to make those calculations descriptive of anything resembling what would have actually taken place. So, another argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...


You can't have your cake and eat it too. How is it that the distance past is a reality we know so little about yet evolutionary science makes up all kinds of fairy tales which you buy hook, line and stinker? Your atheism drives your interpretation of science. And you are so deep in it you can't see it. This type of close-mindedness runs deep with all you materialists.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.
> 
> Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.
> 
> Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "soup thing" is from berkeley. So you're saying that you know better than researchers at berkeley? Where did you go to college, Redneck U?
> And how's that slave flag thing working out for you southern pig fuckers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Berkley now that is a fair and balanced source.
Click to expand...


You didn't know that? Pot and evolutionary made up stories go hand and hand.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of this means NOTHING in proving a designer. I don't care about chirality and how much more improbable that makes anything. All you are doing is trying to discredit abiogenesis, with NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE for a designer. Your argument from induction in using humans and digital code, is not positive evidence. It is inductive reasoning, which would allow inferences, at best. You are left with nothing to show for your designer. This attempt at science is utterly pathetic.
> 
> I don't feel the need anymore to defend a single facet of abiogenesis or evolution, because if both of these were disproven tomorrow, you still would have zero proof for an intelligent designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should if you are concerned with the truth and whether a designer does exist or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must demonstrate that something is true.  You can not and have not. I know all about Stephen Meyer's probability calculations with respect to amino acid coupling combinations in forming viable proteins. This is not useful information in describing what happened. It is vastly simplistic and relies on ignorance to the actual conditions during abiogenesis. Nor is an inductive argument to try and show that DNA must have a designer simply because digital code has a designer. This is using the availability heuristic. Intelligent Design is so far from science that it is laughable. The more I learn about it, the more I realize that it is simply faith-based. Nobody actually searching for scientific truth could ever rely on this kind of flawed methodology. It is simply unscientific, and even Meyer admits this when he says this is a "semantics question" (paraphrased).
Click to expand...


What is amazing to me is that you still deny Meyer uses the exact SAME SCIENTIFIC METHOD Darwin and Lyell used. Apparently you are in denial of that.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are willing to believe that Wikipedia, which  has tons of articles about the christian faith and every other conceivable supernatural-based religion, is trying to promote naturalism?
> 
> This is demonstrably false by virtue of what I just said.
> 
> The truth with you, is that anything that isn't actively promoting christianity, is deemed "materialistic." This is blind bias.
> 
> Your perception of talkorigins originates from the same bias. In actuality, Talkorigins accurately describes the scientific theories that theists so often get wrong. This is not an agenda to promote naturalism, but to promote actual truth about the current state of our collective scientific inquiry on matters of evolution, abiogenesis, and other topics so often misquoted by theists. It is simply an educational tool. The fact that it does not align with your beliefs does not mean it is naturalistic, simply because your beliefs are mired in supernaturalism. Try to be a little less self-centered when assessing these things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can now admit I am biased for the truth not vivid imaginations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a completely subjective statement, and therefore meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Until you can demonstrate something, you don't have truth.
Click to expand...


Okay, please demonstrate a modern day example of Natural Selection acting on a random mutation and producing a trait that increases fitness.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your views on amino acids are formed by really simple mathematical probability calculations. These is not an apt description of reality we know little about, so can not account for it in the math. You can not demonstrate that something is impossible by trying to show how unlikely it is with these simple calculations. There is not enough data to make those calculations descriptive of anything resembling what would have actually taken place. So, another argument from ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can reach my views through reasoning of the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't. You have reached your views by fallacious reasoning, namely attempting to probabilistically rule out the competing theory, and then fallaciously trying to build-up your own theory using a non-deductive method. There is no valid reasoning here that allows anyone to demonstrable these "truths."
Click to expand...


You have not provided any evidence as to why the probability arguments are not valid. And in your ignorance, you are arguing against a majority of scientists in the field and your high priest, Dawkins. Most smart Darwinists don't want to touch origins questions with a 10 foot pole.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> awwww some one's having a tantrum either address me directly or stfu.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I won't use profanity so Daws seemed like an appropriate substitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and always you'd be showcasing your immaturity.
> 
> taking God&#8217;s name in vain means throwing around reckless promises, oaths, and pledges using the Christian God as your witness.
> 
> if that's why you don't use profanity then you're far more dense than I expected.
Click to expand...


So I can't take Daws name in vain??? I don't use profanity because it is trailer trashy.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is all well in good, but you implied that Hollie was indicting herself in her conversation with you when you said "were were are talking about her lies about me," which simply isn't true. You have not shown her to be a liar, so you shouldn't use that word. She maybe incorrect at best, but that doesn't make her a liar. She is indicting whoever posted from Harun Yahya. I don't care who is right here. I am just stating the facts, because you like to obfuscate.
> 
> Now, I am playing the arbiter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean arbitrator? If so, then you would make a really lousy one, because you are incredibly biased to one side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UR
> this might have been a good time to to stfu.
> 
> Definition of ARBITER
> 1: a person with power to decide a dispute : judge
> 2: a person or agency whose judgment or opinion is considered authoritative <arbiters of taste>
> 
> Definition of ARBITRATOR
> : one that arbitrates : arbiter
> another failed attempt to get over on another poster.
Click to expand...


Arbiter is a fictional ceremonial, religious, and political rank bestowed upon alien Covenant Elites in the Halo science fiction universe. 

NP must be a theatre boy too!!! Maybe you guys could compare tights.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean arbitrator? If so, then you would make a really lousy one, because you are incredibly biased to one side.
> 
> 
> 
> UR
> this might have been a good time to to stfu.
> 
> Definition of ARBITER
> 1: a person with power to decide a dispute : judge
> 2: a person or agency whose judgment or opinion is considered authoritative <arbiters of taste>
> 
> Definition of ARBITRATOR
> : one that arbitrates : arbiter
> another failed attempt to get over on another poster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arbiter is a fictional ceremonial, religious, and political rank bestowed upon alien Covenant Elites in the Halo science fiction universe.
Click to expand...


Is that where you got the idea for ID, from a video game?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My observations of mutations and cells are not based on faith nor the bible daws. My views on amino acids forming proteins are not either. Do I need to go on ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your views on amino acids are formed by really simple mathematical probability calculations. These is not an apt description of reality we know little about, so can not account for it in the math. You can not demonstrate that something is impossible by trying to show how unlikely it is with these simple calculations. There is not enough data to make those calculations descriptive of anything resembling what would have actually taken place. So, another argument from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't have your cake and eat it too. How is it that the distance past is a reality we know so little about yet evolutionary science makes up all kinds of fairy tales which you buy hook, line and stinker? Your atheism drives your interpretation of science. And you are so deep in it you can't see it. This type of close-mindedness runs deep with all you materialists.
Click to expand...


Stop making assumptions about me. I'm getting really tired of it.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash, it was disproven yesterday. Instead of clinging to fairytales, its time for scientists to find another explanation for the origin of life.
> 
> It is hilarious to me that you keep bringing up arguments from induction multiple times. Have you been reading Wiki again? Without any understanding of what you are reading? I have another newsflash for you. Evolutionary Biology is a historical science in most regards. Most of the hypotheses originate from, yes, you guessed it... inductive reasoning. Like I said, to discredit Meyer's argument is to discredit Darwins. I'm not sure why you are unable to grasp this.
> 
> What I have read between the lines in your posts on several occasions is you saying you don't care what the evidence says, you just believe Darwinism to be true. The first step to getting help is realizing you have a problem. You are committed to materialism and atheism first, not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The problem of induction is well-known in the philosophy of science. You might want to check it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense,[1] since it focuses on the lack of justification for either:
> 
> 1.Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white", before the discovery of black swans) or
> 2. Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the Principle of Uniformity of Nature.[2]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wikipedia.org
> 
> Science relies on induction simply because without it, we couldn't make any measurements and have them be consistent day to day. We are forced to assume that tomorrow will be like today, simply because today was like yesterday, and the day before that, and so and so forth.  Otherwise, there would be no ability to conduct scientific experiments if the fundamental aspects of of nature we rely on for consistency were ever-changing. However, it is unscientific to make conclusions based on inductive reasoning. Induction is something we must live by, not conclude with.  Scientific conclusions are based on deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning, and this goes for evolutionary biology too and all historical sciences. However, we can not get around this problem of induction. This paradox is inherent to the scientific process.
> 
> You are committing a category error in assuming that simply because the problem of induction involves the past conceptually, it is more involved in the "historical sciences" than in other sciences. This is false. Historical sciences also must use deductive reasoning to form their conclusions. It is clear you don't understand what induction really is, or else, you might actually recognize it.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, induction is incredibly important for our day to day functioning, and we rely on it heavily as humans. In science, inductively-reached conclusions are simply invalid. Find me another conclusion in science based on induction, and I'll grant that I am wrong. All claims must be proved on their own merit. You are trying to sidestep this using inductive reasoning. It is cheap. In other words, you are trying to say that we can prove DNA was intelligently created because digital code was intelligently created. But, you haven't actually proven that DNA was intelligently created. You are inferring that using inductive reasoning, or rather, you are assuming it to be true.
> 
> It is well established in logic that inductive arguments can only establish probabilities. Deductive arguments are therefore much stronger in reaching higher degrees of certainty. This is why they are used in science. Therefore, IDers can only produce a probabilistic determination for their conclusions, yet they pretend that their conclusions are reached deductively, like in all other sciences. This is a sham.
> 
> Evolutionary biology being a historical science has nothing more to do with induction that does particle physics, so you're point is completely moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything you just posted applies just as equally to evolutionary science. Nice try though. Maybe you should investigate your own blind faith more.
Click to expand...


I will take your lack of response to any of the points in this post or the others I posted, that you are unable to respond. You simply assert that the same goes for evolution. Wow. Can you do any better?

It is clear that you can  not even comprehend what I wrote, because if you did, you would understand that ID is not a science, for the reasons I have demonstrated in my recent posts.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, unconvincing, and a confirmation of what I have been saying about ID all along, that it rests on ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't even make any sense. I don't know how to respond. You are just babbling at this point. A naturalistic explanation rests on what ignorance? You are simply mirroring what I say about ID because you have no other retort. However, in this case, it is simply a bald assertion, because scientists aren't making claims that aren't supported by evidence. Even in the case of abiogenesis, there aren't any strong contentions being made about what exactly happened. It is simply conjecture at this point until they gather more evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> He makes an argument alright, an argument from ignorance. He makes a claim about what actually happened, when he is in total ignorance as to what happened, yet because his claim is unfalsifiable, being that it involves a supernatural element, it can not dispoven. This is a textbook argument from ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> This fact doesn't demonstrate anything about how DNA was formed. This is the basis of your argument from induction, and this is fallacy when you try to make it seem as if this conclusion is based on deductive reasoning, which you have to do if you want to be scientific. I don't care how similar DNA is to the codes we make. I don't care if it is the exact same fucking code, with zeroes and ones and everything. This does nothing to show that DNA was also created by an intelligence.
> 
> You are assuming that because humans created a complex, specifiable code, and DNA shares some similar attributes, that DNA must also have been created by an intelligence. Do you not see how this is conclusion is fallacious and why many doubt the validity of ID "science"? There are other possibilities for how DNA could have been created. AGAIN, until you show positive evidence for this creator, you don't have a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it isn't useful in describing what didn't happen, at all. Crunching numbers is not a description of what could actually have occurred. This is also based on ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but no, and I don't have a religion. I have a lack of reigion, and lack of faith in a supernatural being. I have trust, based on evidence, which informs my reliance on induction to an extent, but not when drawing scientific conclusions. I've already gone over this. This belief that tomorrow will be similar to today is not faith, because we have an entire history of the universe to show that things have not changed fundamentally. If they did, it would be an anomaly, and would require an entire revamping of our scientific models.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what I was saying a few posts back. This is what I am saying now, so instead of dodging the point, try to actually respond to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! Meyer isn't talking about Amino Acids!!! You do understand that proteins are made from long chains of amino acids, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. The point is that Meyer has not basis on which to form his probabilities, because we have never seen abiogenesis elsewhere. For him to say it is impossible is based on ignorance to this fact. This guy swims in ignorance. He loves it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The probabilities are based on the "warm little pond" with amino acids in it.
> 
> Other than that, I don't even know where to begin with everything that is wrong with your rebuttal so I will just let the information presented stand on its own merit.
Click to expand...


Translation: you have no rebuttal.


----------



## newpolitics

Arbiter:

1. (Law) a person empowered to judge in a dispute; referee; arbitrator
2. a person having complete control of something

thefreedictinary.com 



UR, every time you try to talk shit, you end up eating it.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't even make any sense. I don't know how to respond. You are just babbling at this point. A naturalistic explanation rests on what ignorance? You are simply mirroring what I say about ID because you have no other retort. However, in this case, it is simply a bald assertion, because scientists aren't making claims that aren't supported by evidence. Even in the case of abiogenesis, there aren't any strong contentions being made about what exactly happened. It is simply conjecture at this point until they gather more evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> He makes an argument alright, an argument from ignorance. He makes a claim about what actually happened, when he is in total ignorance as to what happened, yet because his claim is unfalsifiable, being that it involves a supernatural element, it can not dispoven. This is a textbook argument from ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> This fact doesn't demonstrate anything about how DNA was formed. This is the basis of your argument from induction, and this is fallacy when you try to make it seem as if this conclusion is based on deductive reasoning, which you have to do if you want to be scientific. I don't care how similar DNA is to the codes we make. I don't care if it is the exact same fucking code, with zeroes and ones and everything. This does nothing to show that DNA was also created by an intelligence.
> 
> You are assuming that because humans created a complex, specifiable code, and DNA shares some similar attributes, that DNA must also have been created by an intelligence. Do you not see how this is conclusion is fallacious and why many doubt the validity of ID "science"? There are other possibilities for how DNA could have been created. AGAIN, until you show positive evidence for this creator, you don't have a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it isn't useful in describing what didn't happen, at all. Crunching numbers is not a description of what could actually have occurred. This is also based on ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but no, and I don't have a religion. I have a lack of reigion, and lack of faith in a supernatural being. I have trust, based on evidence, which informs my reliance on induction to an extent, but not when drawing scientific conclusions. I've already gone over this. This belief that tomorrow will be similar to today is not faith, because we have an entire history of the universe to show that things have not changed fundamentally. If they did, it would be an anomaly, and would require an entire revamping of our scientific models.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what I was saying a few posts back. This is what I am saying now, so instead of dodging the point, try to actually respond to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. The point is that Meyer has not basis on which to form his probabilities, because we have never seen abiogenesis elsewhere. For him to say it is impossible is based on ignorance to this fact. This guy swims in ignorance. He loves it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The probabilities are based on the "warm little pond" with amino acids in it.
> 
> Other than that, I don't even know where to begin with everything that is wrong with your rebuttal so I will just let the information presented stand on its own merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: you have no rebuttal.
Click to expand...


I learned along time ago in law enforcement you can't argue with stupid. Just sayin'.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The probabilities are based on the "warm little pond" with amino acids in it.
> 
> Other than that, I don't even know where to begin with everything that is wrong with your rebuttal so I will just let the information presented stand on its own merit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: you have no rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I learned along time ago in law enforcement you can't argue with stupid. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


You're calling me stupid? I understand all of the vastly over simplistic concepts you IDers are putting forth, and just refuted all of them using simple logic and reasoning. You have no rebuttal, and you're excuse is that I'm too stupid?  You have some serious growing up to do. You are not worth debating whatsoever, because you have no respect for debate itself. You only care about proving your side. Debate is not just about winning, it is a dialectic that allows learning. You should try it sometime rather than being a stubborn charlatan who thinks he is way smarter than he actually is, because he takes an illogical position that is easy to defend. Whenever you are attacked, you rely on attempts at discrediting science, yet hypocritically call your theory scientific and rely on it when it suits you.  I was actually enjoying our little exchange, but you seem to be doing this soley for ego. How sad. No wonder Hollie and Daws are constantly calling you names. You're impossible to debate. You simply run away like a little bitch when you can't respond.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your views on amino acids are formed by really simple mathematical probability calculations. These is not an apt description of reality we know little about, so can not account for it in the math. You can not demonstrate that something is impossible by trying to show how unlikely it is with these simple calculations. There is not enough data to make those calculations descriptive of anything resembling what would have actually taken place. So, another argument from ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have your cake and eat it too. How is it that the distance past is a reality we know so little about yet evolutionary science makes up all kinds of fairy tales which you buy hook, line and stinker? Your atheism drives your interpretation of science. And you are so deep in it you can't see it. This type of close-mindedness runs deep with all you materialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop making assumptions about me. I'm getting really tired of it.
Click to expand...


Or what?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The problem of induction is well-known in the philosophy of science. You might want to check it out.
> 
> 
> wikipedia.org
> 
> Science relies on induction simply because without it, we couldn't make any measurements and have them be consistent day to day. We are forced to assume that tomorrow will be like today, simply because today was like yesterday, and the day before that, and so and so forth.  Otherwise, there would be no ability to conduct scientific experiments if the fundamental aspects of of nature we rely on for consistency were ever-changing. However, it is unscientific to make conclusions based on inductive reasoning. Induction is something we must live by, not conclude with.  Scientific conclusions are based on deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning, and this goes for evolutionary biology too and all historical sciences. However, we can not get around this problem of induction. This paradox is inherent to the scientific process.
> 
> You are committing a category error in assuming that simply because the problem of induction involves the past conceptually, it is more involved in the "historical sciences" than in other sciences. This is false. Historical sciences also must use deductive reasoning to form their conclusions. It is clear you don't understand what induction really is, or else, you might actually recognize it.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, induction is incredibly important for our day to day functioning, and we rely on it heavily as humans. In science, inductively-reached conclusions are simply invalid. Find me another conclusion in science based on induction, and I'll grant that I am wrong. All claims must be proved on their own merit. You are trying to sidestep this using inductive reasoning. It is cheap. In other words, you are trying to say that we can prove DNA was intelligently created because digital code was intelligently created. But, you haven't actually proven that DNA was intelligently created. You are inferring that using inductive reasoning, or rather, you are assuming it to be true.
> 
> It is well established in logic that inductive arguments can only establish probabilities. Deductive arguments are therefore much stronger in reaching higher degrees of certainty. This is why they are used in science. Therefore, IDers can only produce a probabilistic determination for their conclusions, yet they pretend that their conclusions are reached deductively, like in all other sciences. This is a sham.
> 
> Evolutionary biology being a historical science has nothing more to do with induction that does particle physics, so you're point is completely moot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you just posted applies just as equally to evolutionary science. Nice try though. Maybe you should investigate your own blind faith more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will take your lack of response to any of the points in this post or the others I posted, that you are unable to respond. You simply assert that the same goes for evolution. Wow. Can you do any better?
> 
> It is clear that you can  not even comprehend what I wrote, because if you did, you would understand that ID is not a science, for the reasons I have demonstrated in my recent posts.
Click to expand...


The lack of comprehensioin is yours. If ID isn't science, according to your flawed logic, then neither is evolution. End of story.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have your cake and eat it too. How is it that the distance past is a reality we know so little about yet evolutionary science makes up all kinds of fairy tales which you buy hook, line and stinker? Your atheism drives your interpretation of science. And you are so deep in it you can't see it. This type of close-mindedness runs deep with all you materialists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop making assumptions about me. I'm getting really tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or what?
Click to expand...


Or you might somehow show yourself to be even more immature and incapable at rational debate than you already are. Although, I'm not sure that's possible so I guess you have nothing to lose, so, go ahead. Assume away.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you just posted applies just as equally to evolutionary science. Nice try though. Maybe you should investigate your own blind faith more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will take your lack of response to any of the points in this post or the others I posted, that you are unable to respond. You simply assert that the same goes for evolution. Wow. Can you do any better?
> 
> It is clear that you can  not even comprehend what I wrote, because if you did, you would understand that ID is not a science, for the reasons I have demonstrated in my recent posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lack of comprehensioin is yours. If ID isn't science, according to your flawed logic, then neither is evolution. End of story.
Click to expand...



Yes, I've heard Stephen Meyer say this before. I'm impressed that you can recite his lines. 

However, this is untrue. Evolution is actual science, with actual evidence. ID has nothing but silly assumptions.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: you have no rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I learned along time ago in law enforcement you can't argue with stupid. Just sayin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're calling me stupid? I understand all of the vastly over simplistic concepts you IDers are putting forth, and just refuted all of them using simple logic and reasoning. You have no rebuttal, and you're excuse is that I'm too stupid?  You have some serious growing up to do. You are not worth debating whatsoever, because you have no respect for debate itself. You only care about proving your side. Debate is not just about winning, it is a dialectic that allows learning. You should try it sometime rather than being a stubborn charlatan who thinks he is way smarter than he actually is, because he takes an illogical position that is easy to defend. Whenever you are attacked, you rely on attempts at discrediting science, yet hypocritically call your theory scientific and rely on it when it suits you.  I was actually enjoying our little exchange, but you seem to be doing this soley for ego. How sad. No wonder Hollie and Daws are constantly calling you names. You're impossible to debate. You simply run away like a little bitch when you can't respond.
Click to expand...


No, I am not calling you stupid. That would be a personal attack. I am calling your baseless, "because I said so" rebuttal stupid. You have not disproven anything.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I learned along time ago in law enforcement you can't argue with stupid. Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're calling me stupid? I understand all of the vastly over simplistic concepts you IDers are putting forth, and just refuted all of them using simple logic and reasoning. You have no rebuttal, and you're excuse is that I'm too stupid?  You have some serious growing up to do. You are not worth debating whatsoever, because you have no respect for debate itself. You only care about proving your side. Debate is not just about winning, it is a dialectic that allows learning. You should try it sometime rather than being a stubborn charlatan who thinks he is way smarter than he actually is, because he takes an illogical position that is easy to defend. Whenever you are attacked, you rely on attempts at discrediting science, yet hypocritically call your theory scientific and rely on it when it suits you.  I was actually enjoying our little exchange, but you seem to be doing this soley for ego. How sad. No wonder Hollie and Daws are constantly calling you names. You're impossible to debate. You simply run away like a little bitch when you can't respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not calling you stupid. That would be a personal attack. I am calling you baseless, "because I said so" rebuttal stupid. You have not disproven anything.
Click to expand...


I have. I realize you'll never admit that though.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Arbiter:
> 
> 1. (Law) a person empowered to judge in a dispute; referee; arbitrator
> 2. a person having complete control of something
> 
> thefreedictinary.com



Hey Hawly, watch this!!! I will do something totally foreign to you...

NP, I was not familiar with that word. My bad.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arbiter:
> 
> 1. (Law) a person empowered to judge in a dispute; referee; arbitrator
> 2. a person having complete control of something
> 
> thefreedictinary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Hawly, watch this!!! I will do something totally foreign to you...
> 
> NP, I was not familiar with that word. My bad.
Click to expand...


Hey creepy stalker. Get a life that doesn't involve your obsession with me.

You make my skin crawl with your creepy advances.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arbiter:
> 
> 1. (Law) a person empowered to judge in a dispute; referee; arbitrator
> 2. a person having complete control of something
> 
> thefreedictinary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Hawly, watch this!!! I will do something totally foreign to you...
> 
> NP, I was not familiar with that word. My bad.
Click to expand...


Wow. That was impressive UR.  Thank you, and no worries. 

I must confess. I did get this word from Halo, and had no idea what it actually meant until five minutes ago when I looked it up.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true in the alternate reality of creationist ministries but oddly, the natural physical forces across the universe apply in this solar system as they do elsewhere.
> 
> In defence of Christianity, it should be noted that the Vatican has accepted the undeniable evidence for evolution, just as it came to accept a heliocentric solar system and other demonstrable phenomena formerly condemned as heretical. Most main-stream Protestant sects concur, although there is a sizable lunatic christian fringe... who foul this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appeal to the masses.
Click to expand...

 that would be a appealing to....but since the Catholic church out numbers all other Christan sects it already had the masses on it's side ,making your quip a non sequitur.
or like most fundies you suffer from the delusion of believing that you have been blessed with special knowledge or a higher intellect


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I"m saying that your insults show your limited intelligence and debating skills.
> 
> Class dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> But how is the slave flag thing working for you? Do you know your side lost the war and you can't have slaves anymore?
> 
> At least you're not dense enough to say that the people at berkeley are full of shit. That's a start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend the Northern States didn't have slaves. But it doesn't make it so.
> 
> And you can pretend that only white people were slave owners, but that doesn't make it so either.
> 
> You should read a history book and not rely on the revisionist history you were taught at school.
Click to expand...

none of your retorts are in any way rational reasons why you fly the stars and bars..


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> But how is the slave flag thing working for you? Do you know your side lost the war and you can't have slaves anymore?
> 
> At least you're not dense enough to say that the people at berkeley are full of shit. That's a start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can pretend the Northern States didn't have slaves. But it doesn't make it so.
> 
> And you can pretend that only white people were slave owners, but that doesn't make it so either.
> 
> You should read a history book and not rely on the revisionist history you were taught at school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> none of your retorts are in any way rational reasons why you fly the stars and bars..
Click to expand...


That's good to know because I was never asked why I choose to fly the stars and bars and I wasn't attempting to offer a reason.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.
> 
> 
> 
> so that must mean that every thing you post from creationist sites is a lie
> as they have no proof that anything mentioned in the bible was observed first hand by the writers of the scriptures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How bout my words that I post that you and a few others run from ?
Click to expand...

your words? nobody runs from your words!
besides you base your words on creationist sites and the bible thus making your words specious speculation based on a false premise.
do you buy that hubris by the bottle?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't use profanity so Daws seemed like an appropriate substitution.
> 
> 
> 
> and always you'd be showcasing your immaturity.
> 
> taking Gods name in vain means throwing around reckless promises, oaths, and pledges using the Christian God as your witness.
> 
> if that's why you don't use profanity then you're far more dense than I expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I can't take Daws name in vain??? I don't use profanity because it is trailer trashy.
Click to expand...

an even worse rationalization! based on a false perception of superiority ....
since you own a penis envy truck shoot guns and most likely drink a light Pilsner beer, wear a ball cap (backward) then I'd say you're already 98% trailer trash.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arbiter:
> 
> 1. (Law) a person empowered to judge in a dispute; referee; arbitrator
> 2. a person having complete control of something
> 
> thefreedictinary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Hawly, watch this!!! I will do something totally foreign to you...
> 
> NP, I was not familiar with that word. My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. That was impressive UR.  Thank you, and no worries.
> 
> I must confess. I did get this word from Halo, and had no idea what it actually meant until five minutes ago when I looked it up.
Click to expand...


Nice!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> that's because everthing is...you have no proof otherwise ..no matter how hard you bitch...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws you have no proof to support your claims like the one the one where you said space is not a closed system when we don't have the ability to se far enough. I thought you would have gotten it the first time it was said.
Click to expand...

and you do? not fucking likely.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true in the alternate reality of creationist ministries but oddly, the natural physical forces across the universe apply in this solar system as they do elsewhere.
> 
> In defence of Christianity, it should be noted that the Vatican has accepted the undeniable evidence for evolution, just as it came to accept a heliocentric solar system and other demonstrable phenomena formerly condemned as heretical. Most main-stream Protestant sects concur, although there is a sizable lunatic christian fringe... who foul this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appeal to the masses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would be a appealing to....but since the Catholic church out numbers all other Christan sects it already had the masses on it's side ,making your quip a non sequitur.
> or like most fundies you suffer from the delusion of believing that you have been blessed with special knowledge or a higher intellect
Click to expand...


It's not a delusion.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and always you'd be showcasing your immaturity.
> 
> taking Gods name in vain means throwing around reckless promises, oaths, and pledges using the Christian God as your witness.
> 
> if that's why you don't use profanity then you're far more dense than I expected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I can't take Daws name in vain??? I don't use profanity because it is trailer trashy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> an even worse rationalization! based on a false perception of superiority ....
> since you own a penis envy truck shoot guns and most likely drink a light Pilsner beer, wear a ball cap (backward) then I'd say you're already 98% trailer trash.
Click to expand...


Wow, how do you know so much about me?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have told you many times many of my beliefs are based in faith some are not they are based on evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> that's  all of your beliefs are based on faith as you have no evidence if you claim you do you're lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My observations of mutations and cells are not based on faith nor the bible daws. My views on amino acids forming proteins are not either. Do I need to go on ?
Click to expand...

really! what are they based on ? obviously not a working knowledge of biology.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says God is Spirit. If he exists outside of matter, space, time and energy, what would ever make you think that he "looks" like anything you know or that he can "sit" anywhere. Have you been listening to Red Neck Theologians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bibble was written by men, not a god. So basically, your invisible dude is made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your textbooks are to.
Click to expand...

you're right they are but unlike your bible and pseudo scientific text  ,when an error is found they are edited and reissued with corrections


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Appeal to the masses.
> 
> 
> 
> that would be a appealing to....but since the Catholic church out numbers all other Christan sects it already had the masses on it's side ,making your quip a non sequitur.
> or like most fundies you suffer from the delusion of believing that you have been blessed with special knowledge or a higher intellect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a delusion.
Click to expand...

 claiming it's not, is a major part of the delusion.
kinda like saying you not an alcoholic when you down a twelve pack with dinner everynight.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are willing to believe that Wikipedia, which  has tons of articles about the christian faith and every other conceivable supernatural-based religion, is trying to promote naturalism?
> 
> This is demonstrably false by virtue of what I just said.
> 
> The truth with you, is that anything that isn't actively promoting christianity, is deemed "materialistic." This is blind bias.
> 
> Your perception of talkorigins originates from the same bias. In actuality, Talkorigins accurately describes the scientific theories that theists so often get wrong. This is not an agenda to promote naturalism, but to promote actual truth about the current state of our collective scientific inquiry on matters of evolution, abiogenesis, and other topics so often misquoted by theists. It is simply an educational tool. The fact that it does not align with your beliefs does not mean it is naturalistic, simply because your beliefs are mired in supernaturalism. Try to be a little less self-centered when assessing these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can now admit I am biased for the truth not vivid imaginations.
Click to expand...

 you would also have to admit that what you just posted is a lie.


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are willing to believe that Wikipedia, which  has tons of articles about the christian faith and every other conceivable supernatural-based religion, is trying to promote naturalism?
> 
> This is demonstrably false by virtue of what I just said.
> 
> The truth with you, is that anything that isn't actively promoting christianity, is deemed "materialistic." This is blind bias.
> 
> Your perception of talkorigins originates from the same bias. In actuality, Talkorigins accurately describes the scientific theories that theists so often get wrong. This is not an agenda to promote naturalism, but to promote actual truth about the current state of our collective scientific inquiry on matters of evolution, abiogenesis, and other topics so often misquoted by theists. It is simply an educational tool. The fact that it does not align with your beliefs does not mean it is naturalistic, simply because your beliefs are mired in supernaturalism. Try to be a little less self-centered when assessing these things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can now admit I am biased for the truth not vivid imaginations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a completely subjective statement, and therefore meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Until you can demonstrate something, you don't have truth.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should if you are concerned with the truth and whether a designer does exist or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must demonstrate that something is true.  You can not and have not. I know all about Stephen Meyer's probability calculations with respect to amino acid coupling combinations in forming viable proteins. This is not useful information in describing what happened. It is vastly simplistic and relies on ignorance to the actual conditions during abiogenesis. Nor is an inductive argument to try and show that DNA must have a designer simply because digital code has a designer. This is using the availability heuristic. Intelligent Design is so far from science that it is laughable. The more I learn about it, the more I realize that it is simply faith-based. Nobody actually searching for scientific truth could ever rely on this kind of flawed methodology. It is simply unscientific, and even Meyer admits this when he says this is a "semantics question" (paraphrased).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't think of one thing in nature that chaos has produced through order. They are opposites.
Click to expand...

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (cue buzzer) that is incorrect they are parts of the same whole..
like god and de old debil you can't have one without the other.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "soup thing" is from berkeley. So you're saying that you know better than researchers at berkeley? Where did you go to college, Redneck U?
> And how's that slave flag thing working out for you southern pig fuckers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Berkley now that is a fair and balanced source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't know that? Pot and evolutionary made up stories go hand and hand.
Click to expand...

funny in my toking days being high was the only time bible stories almost made sense..almost.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean arbitrator? If so, then you would make a really lousy one, because you are incredibly biased to one side.
> 
> 
> 
> UR
> this might have been a good time to to stfu.
> 
> Definition of ARBITER
> 1: a person with power to decide a dispute : judge
> 2: a person or agency whose judgment or opinion is considered authoritative <arbiters of taste>
> 
> Definition of ARBITRATOR
> : one that arbitrates : arbiter
> another failed attempt to get over on another poster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arbiter is a fictional ceremonial, religious, and political rank bestowed upon alien Covenant Elites in the Halo science fiction universe.
> 
> NP must be a theatre boy too!!! Maybe you guys could compare tights.
Click to expand...

guess you had to look that up too...
you get your ass in a crack for faking intellectuality..... and the best you can do is make Jr high gay slurs....tosspot.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arbiter:
> 
> 1. (Law) a person empowered to judge in a dispute; referee; arbitrator
> 2. a person having complete control of something
> 
> thefreedictinary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Hawly, watch this!!! I will do something totally foreign to you...
> 
> NP, I was not familiar with that word. My bad.
Click to expand...

it's the i'm sorry ploy....


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earthly laws? As if this region of space is fundamentally different than another region of space, excluding regions near black holes? What is it with creationists and trying to posit that the four fundamental forces of nature are ever-changing? You would need to back this is up with *something *. Anything, pointing to this possibility.
> 
> You are, in fact, implying that astronomy is unreliable with regards to astronomical measurements of distance. Therefore, you need to prove this. Go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows your total ignorance to current cosmological science. When was the last time you measured the effects of dark matter and dark energy here on earth? When?
Click to expand...




That's a smelly red-herring you have there. Mind telling me why you are dragging that across the path of this discussion? 


If you can demonstrate how dark energy or dark matter would interfere with distance measurements, then maybe you can vindicate yourself. As it is, you are simply throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can now admit I am biased for the truth not vivid imaginations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a completely subjective statement, and therefore meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Until you can demonstrate something, you don't have truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, please demonstrate a modern day example of Natural Selection acting on a random mutation and producing a trait that increases fitness.
Click to expand...


The AIDS virus, which literally relies on constant mutation in order to evade our immune system, which is what makes it so deadly. In doing so, it is constantly increasing its fitness. Or, any virus that has ever existed that we have studied and witness mutate to become more powerful, such as a virus going airborne.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so that must mean that every thing you post from creationist sites is a lie
> as they have no proof that anything mentioned in the bible was observed first hand by the writers of the scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How bout my words that I post that you and a few others run from ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your words? nobody runs from your words!
> besides you base your words on creationist sites and the bible thus making your words specious speculation based on a false premise.
> do you buy that hubris by the bottle?
Click to expand...


You have yet to have a rebuttal to the earth being a closed system nor provide one for our universe (Space) as you called it being an open system. How do you know when we can't see far enough out in to space ?

You have not had any kind of rebuttal that was not based in conjecture for the origins of life or the left and right handed amino acids bonding to for proteins ?

Why don't you start by showing I am or could be wrong. The science community know these problems but yet you blame it on creationist  Paranoia will destroy you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's because everthing is...you have no proof otherwise ..no matter how hard you bitch...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws you have no proof to support your claims like the one the one where you said space is not a closed system when we don't have the ability to se far enough. I thought you would have gotten it the first time it was said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you do? not fucking likely.
Click to expand...


See the post before this one, now your turn.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How bout my words that I post that you and a few others run from ?
> 
> 
> 
> your words? nobody runs from your words!
> besides you base your words on creationist sites and the bible thus making your words specious speculation based on a false premise.
> do you buy that hubris by the bottle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to have a rebuttal to the earth being a closed system nor provide one for our universe (Space) as you called it being an open system. How do you know when we can't see far enough out in to space ?
> 
> You have not had any kind of rebuttal that was not based in conjecture for the origins of life or the left and right handed amino acids bonding to for proteins ?
> 
> Why don't you start by showing I am or could be wrong. The science community know these problems but yet you blame it on creationist  Paranoia will destroy you.
Click to expand...


We receive constant input (energy) from the sun. Therefore, the earth is not a closed system, and you should not expect entropy to be expressed here as if it were a closed system. Our entire ecosystem is based on energy from sunlight, hence the use of the term trophic levels to denote degrees of separation away from this energy source.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's  all of your beliefs are based on faith as you have no evidence if you claim you do you're lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My observations of mutations and cells are not based on faith nor the bible daws. My views on amino acids forming proteins are not either. Do I need to go on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really! what are they based on ? obviously not a working knowledge of biology.
Click to expand...


Mr. Theatre man I actually worked in the field for 11 years


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My observations of mutations and cells are not based on faith nor the bible daws. My views on amino acids forming proteins are not either. Do I need to go on ?
> 
> 
> 
> really! what are they based on ? obviously not a working knowledge of biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Theatre man I actually worked in the field for 11 years
Click to expand...


That's scary.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bibble was written by men, not a god. So basically, your invisible dude is made up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your textbooks are to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're right they are but unlike your bible and pseudo scientific text  ,when an error is found they are edited and reissued with corrections
Click to expand...


Daws  you are actually making the claim that science books have not been revised or had new editions ? are you claiming there were no mistakes in them ? Daws you are just looney but funny


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are willing to believe that Wikipedia, which  has tons of articles about the christian faith and every other conceivable supernatural-based religion, is trying to promote naturalism?
> 
> This is demonstrably false by virtue of what I just said.
> 
> The truth with you, is that anything that isn't actively promoting christianity, is deemed "materialistic." This is blind bias.
> 
> Your perception of talkorigins originates from the same bias. In actuality, Talkorigins accurately describes the scientific theories that theists so often get wrong. This is not an agenda to promote naturalism, but to promote actual truth about the current state of our collective scientific inquiry on matters of evolution, abiogenesis, and other topics so often misquoted by theists. It is simply an educational tool. The fact that it does not align with your beliefs does not mean it is naturalistic, simply because your beliefs are mired in supernaturalism. Try to be a little less self-centered when assessing these things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can now admit I am biased for the truth not vivid imaginations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would also have to admit that what you just posted is a lie.
Click to expand...


Nope no lie here.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must demonstrate that something is true.  You can not and have not. I know all about Stephen Meyer's probability calculations with respect to amino acid coupling combinations in forming viable proteins. This is not useful information in describing what happened. It is vastly simplistic and relies on ignorance to the actual conditions during abiogenesis. Nor is an inductive argument to try and show that DNA must have a designer simply because digital code has a designer. This is using the availability heuristic. Intelligent Design is so far from science that it is laughable. The more I learn about it, the more I realize that it is simply faith-based. Nobody actually searching for scientific truth could ever rely on this kind of flawed methodology. It is simply unscientific, and even Meyer admits this when he says this is a "semantics question" (paraphrased).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't think of one thing in nature that chaos has produced through order. They are opposites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (cue buzzer) that is incorrect they are parts of the same whole..
> like god and de old debil you can't have one without the other.
Click to expand...


If you are living in an imperfect world yes of course both will exist. Now demonstrate for us a system that was completely chaotic (early earth) that produced order that we see in this world.  I think you and np have been smoking something.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's because everthing is...you have no proof otherwise ..no matter how hard you bitch...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws you have no proof to support your claims like the one the one where you said space is not a closed system when we don't have the ability to se far enough. I thought you would have gotten it the first time it was said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you do? not fucking likely.
Click to expand...


What the Daws is your problem? Why are you so hostile?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that would be a appealing to....but since the Catholic church out numbers all other Christan sects it already had the masses on it's side ,making your quip a non sequitur.
> or like most fundies you suffer from the delusion of believing that you have been blessed with special knowledge or a higher intellect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> claiming it's not, is a major part of the delusion.
> kinda like saying you not an alcoholic when *you down a twelve pack with dinner everynight.*
Click to expand...


Methinks the Daws doth provide TMI. For you theatre freaks, thats "too mucheth informationeth".


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> UR
> this might have been a good time to to stfu.
> 
> Definition of ARBITER
> 1: a person with power to decide a dispute : judge
> 2: a person or agency whose judgment or opinion is considered authoritative <arbiters of taste>
> 
> Definition of ARBITRATOR
> : one that arbitrates : arbiter
> another failed attempt to get over on another poster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arbiter is a fictional ceremonial, religious, and political rank bestowed upon alien Covenant Elites in the Halo science fiction universe.
> 
> NP must be a theatre boy too!!! Maybe you guys could compare tights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> guess you had to look that up too...
> you get your ass in a crack for faking intellectuality..... and the best you can do is make Jr high gay slurs....tosspot.
Click to expand...


... Says the KING of FOOT IN MOUTH's Disease. Why would you make such a bigoted comment that tights are gay?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a completely subjective statement, and therefore meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Until you can demonstrate something, you don't have truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, please demonstrate a modern day example of Natural Selection acting on a random mutation and producing a trait that increases fitness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The AIDS virus, which literally relies on constant mutation in order to evade our immune system, which is what makes it so deadly. In doing so, it is constantly increasing its fitness. Or, any virus that has ever existed that we have studied and witness mutate to become more powerful, such as a virus going airborne.
Click to expand...


Wrong,it's not fitness, it is adapting but even adaptation have their limits. The black plague eventually reached it's limits and died out. All viruses run their course and die out and if we discover a treatment it will die out sooner or eventually weaken to where our immune system can fight it off.

Thank you though for pointing out mutations are harmful even to viruses. Unfortunately many die before that dying out happens.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arbiter:
> 
> 1. (Law) a person empowered to judge in a dispute; referee; arbitrator
> 2. a person having complete control of something
> 
> thefreedictinary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Hawly, watch this!!! I will do something totally foreign to you...
> 
> NP, I was not familiar with that word. My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the i'm sorry ploy....
Click to expand...


No, it's the intellectually honest admission that I was wrong. This must be very foreign to a Crotchety old coot like you.  The sad thing is everyone knows when you're faking it because you are so transparent.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earthly laws? As if this region of space is fundamentally different than another region of space, excluding regions near black holes? What is it with creationists and trying to posit that the four fundamental forces of nature are ever-changing? You would need to back this is up with *something *. Anything, pointing to this possibility.
> 
> You are, in fact, implying that astronomy is unreliable with regards to astronomical measurements of distance. Therefore, you need to prove this. Go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This shows your total ignorance to current cosmological science. When was the last time you measured the effects of dark matter and dark energy here on earth? When?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a smelly red-herring you have there. Mind telling me why you are dragging that across the path of this discussion?
> 
> 
> If you can demonstrate how dark energy or dark matter would interfere with distance measurements, then maybe you can vindicate yourself. As it is, you are simply throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks.
Click to expand...


That is not what I am saying. I am saying we have the law of gravity here on earth that is based on millions of measurements that have confirmed its validity. Then we observe the movement of Galaxies and they don't follow our earthly law of gravity. So we invent mysterious forces like dark matter and dark energy and then spend billions of dollars on a machine that makes us think we may have found a new particle but the level of certainty required makes us not so sure we have found it. That doesn't stop us from holding news conferences to say we've almost found it to keep us from looking like total asses for wasting billions of research dollars on something so supernatural that it is called the God particle. All that make sense?

Logic would at least have us use caution in taking all the laws we know about light here on earth and then applying them to astronomical distances. This is akin to YWC objections to carbon or radiometric dating. We are looking at an inch of data on a mile long timeline and doing some serious extrapolation!!!


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't think of one thing in nature that chaos has produced through order. They are opposites.
> 
> 
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (cue buzzer) that is incorrect they are parts of the same whole..
> like god and de old debil you can't have one without the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are living in an imperfect world yes of course both will exist. Now demonstrate for us a system that was completely chaotic (early earth) that produced order that we see in this world.  I think you and np have been smoking something.
Click to expand...


I was wrong. The earth is a closed system. However, the 2nd LOTD's has nothing to do with closed systems, but isolated systems. 


What the 2nd law of thermodynamics actually says:

"For an *isolated system*, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state."

Second Law of Thermodynamics


The _universe_ is an isolated system, and the 2nd LOTD's, reworded, states that the universe tends towards entropy.  The earth, however, is a closed system (approximately), which means matter is not exchanged, but energy is. An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy, and is what is required for entropy to increase over time. An open system can exchange both matter and energy.


Classification of systems:




> Thermodynamic systems
> 
> Energy transfer is studied in three types of systems:
> 
> *Open systems*	Open systems can exchange both matter and energy with an outside system. They are portions of larger systems and in intimate contact with the larger system. Your body is an open system.
> 
> *Closed systems* 	Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system. Though they are typically portions of larger systems, they are not in complete contact. The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero.
> 
> *Isolated systems*	Isolated systems can exchange neither energy nor matter with an outside system. While they may be portions of larger systems, they do not communicate with the outside in any way. The physical universe is an isolated system; a closed thermos bottle is essentially an isolated system (though its insulation is not perfect).
> 
> _Heat can be transferred between open systems and between closed systems, but not between isolated systems._



UR's and YWC's hypothesis that we should expect increased entropy and not increased order on earth, is wrong.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a completely subjective statement, and therefore meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Until you can demonstrate something, you don't have truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, please demonstrate a modern day example of Natural Selection acting on a random mutation and producing a trait that increases fitness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The AIDS virus, which literally relies on constant mutation in order to evade our immune system, which is what makes it so deadly. In doing so, it is constantly increasing its fitness. Or, any virus that has ever existed that we have studied and witness mutate to become more powerful, such as a virus going airborne.
Click to expand...


Is a virus really alive? Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. Does it qualify as an organism?


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How bout my words that I post that you and a few others run from ?
> 
> 
> 
> your words? nobody runs from your words!
> besides you base your words on creationist sites and the bible thus making your words specious speculation based on a false premise.
> do you buy that hubris by the bottle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to have a rebuttal to the earth being a closed system nor provide one for our universe (Space) as you called it being an open system. How do you know when we can't see far enough out in to space ?
> 
> You have not had any kind of rebuttal that was not based in conjecture for the origins of life or the left and right handed amino acids bonding to for proteins ?
> 
> Why don't you start by showing I am or could be wrong. The science community know these problems but yet you blame it on creationist  Paranoia will destroy you.
Click to expand...


...And theres a little green man in my head...


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your words? nobody runs from your words!
> besides you base your words on creationist sites and the bible thus making your words specious speculation based on a false premise.
> do you buy that hubris by the bottle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to have a rebuttal to the earth being a closed system nor provide one for our universe (Space) as you called it being an open system. How do you know when we can't see far enough out in to space ?
> 
> You have not had any kind of rebuttal that was not based in conjecture for the origins of life or the left and right handed amino acids bonding to for proteins ?
> 
> Why don't you start by showing I am or could be wrong. The science community know these problems but yet you blame it on creationist  Paranoia will destroy you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We receive constant input (energy) from the sun. Therefore, the earth is not a closed system, and you should not expect entropy to be expressed here as if it were a closed system. Our entire ecosystem is based on energy from sunlight, hence the use of the term trophic levels to denote degrees of separation away from this energy source.
Click to expand...


Wrong again.

"Earth itself is a system. It is a sphere of matter with distinct boundaries. Earth
has been an essentially closed system since the end of the heavy meteorite bombardment
some 4 billion years ago. Since then, no significant new material has entered
the system (except meteorites and space dust), and, just as important, significant
quantities have not left the system. Since the planet formed,"

http://earthds.info/pdfs/EDS_02.PDF


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to have a rebuttal to the earth being a closed system nor provide one for our universe (Space) as you called it being an open system. How do you know when we can't see far enough out in to space ?
> 
> You have not had any kind of rebuttal that was not based in conjecture for the origins of life or the left and right handed amino acids bonding to for proteins ?
> 
> Why don't you start by showing I am or could be wrong. The science community know these problems but yet you blame it on creationist  Paranoia will destroy you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We receive constant input (energy) from the sun. Therefore, the earth is not a closed system, and you should not expect entropy to be expressed here as if it were a closed system. Our entire ecosystem is based on energy from sunlight, hence the use of the term trophic levels to denote degrees of separation away from this energy source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> "Earth itself is a system. It is a sphere of matter with distinct boundaries. Earth
> has been an essentially closed system since the end of the heavy meteorite bombardment
> some 4 billion years ago. Since then, no significant new material has entered
> the system (except meteorites and space dust), and, just as important, significant
> quantities have not left the system. Since the planet formed,"
> 
> http://earthds.info/pdfs/EDS_02.PDF
Click to expand...


This definition conveniently leaves out the fact that a closed system allows energy transfer, such as heat. 

Read my above post. I was wrong, but so are you in your conclusion about entropy and the earth.

A closed system is defined as that which allows energy transfer, but not matter transfer. This type of system does not tends towards higher entropy. Only an isolated system would tend towards higher entropy (no matter or energy exchange), and this type of system is what is stated in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as tending towards higher entropy. Not a closed system.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> We receive constant input (energy) from the sun. Therefore, the earth is not a closed system, and you should not expect entropy to be expressed here as if it were a closed system. Our entire ecosystem is based on energy from sunlight, hence the use of the term trophic levels to denote degrees of separation away from this energy source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> "Earth itself is a system. It is a sphere of matter with distinct boundaries. Earth
> has been an essentially closed system since the end of the heavy meteorite bombardment
> some 4 billion years ago. Since then, no significant new material has entered
> the system (except meteorites and space dust), and, just as important, significant
> quantities have not left the system. Since the planet formed,"
> 
> http://earthds.info/pdfs/EDS_02.PDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This definition conveniently leaves out the fact that a closed system allows energy transfer, such as heat.
> 
> Read my above post. I was wrong, but so are you in your conclusion about entropy and the earth.
> 
> A closed system is defined as that which allows energy transfer, but not matter transfer. This type of system does not tends towards higher entropy. Only an isolated system would tend towards higher entropy (no matter or energy exchange), and this type of system is what is stated in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as tending towards higher entropy. Not a closed system.
Click to expand...


Why do we have so many natural disasters ? why do all things lead to disorder and eventually death ? What happens to structures over time ?

You can believe as you wish but I disagree.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> "Earth itself is a system. It is a sphere of matter with distinct boundaries. Earth
> has been an essentially closed system since the end of the heavy meteorite bombardment
> some 4 billion years ago. Since then, no significant new material has entered
> the system (except meteorites and space dust), and, just as important, significant
> quantities have not left the system. Since the planet formed,"
> 
> http://earthds.info/pdfs/EDS_02.PDF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This definition conveniently leaves out the fact that a closed system allows energy transfer, such as heat.
> 
> Read my above post. I was wrong, but so are you in your conclusion about entropy and the earth.
> 
> A closed system is defined as that which allows energy transfer, but not matter transfer. This type of system does not tends towards higher entropy. Only an isolated system would tend towards higher entropy (no matter or energy exchange), and this type of system is what is stated in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as tending towards higher entropy. Not a closed system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do we have so many natural disasters ? why do all things lead to disorder and eventually death ? What happens to structures over time ?
> 
> You can believe as you wish but I disagree.
Click to expand...


I think you are anthropomorphizing "entropy" and "chaos" a little too much. Entropy simply determines that thermal energy will transfer from areas of high heat to low heat. (wiki) That's all. More hurricanes is not an indication increased overall entropy or chaos for this earthly system, in scientific terms. Although, colloquially, we may say a hurricane is chaotic. It is not the same thing in science. 

As for your other questions. We have death... and birth. Structures tire out... and are rebuilt anew. If this were an isolated system, there would be no energy to renew anything, and things would tend towards entropy and total decay. This is what you are imagining, but the earth is not an isolated system, but a closed system, which allows energy to enter and leave. Therefore, things can be rebuilt.

If the Sun were to somehow die out without destroying the Earth during its supernova, then we would have no substantial incoming energy. The Earth would then approximate an isolated system, although this type of system is only theoretical, since there is always some type of energy transfer through radiation. The universe itself is the only possible isolated system, but we can't know for sure.


----------



## newpolitics

I want to address the notion put forth by UR that there exists a distinct line between historical sciences and experimental sciences, because this is not so. I am simply going to post a link to an article and few quotes. 

Granted, it is from a website dedicated to dismantling creationism, but no doubt UR's source is a from a creationist source. So, we're even. It's only fair to represent the other viewpoint, right?

"Historical science" vs. "experimental science" | NCSE

(FYI, _Explore Evolution_ is a biology textbook written by intelligent designer proponents.) 



> _Explore Evolution_ relies on an ill-defined distinction between "experimental science" and "historical sciences," and asserts that claims about the latter cannot be directly verified. While the terms _Explore Evolution_ uses are indeed applied by philosophers of science, those philosophers use the terms quite differently. Both approaches to scientific questions are valid, a given scientific field can draw on both approaches, and neither approach is less scientifically powerful. _Explore Evolution_ is wrong to state that these different approaches require "different methods," and even more wrong to state that "in the historical sciences, neither side can directly verify its claims about past events" (p. 3)





> Philosophers of science draw a distinction between research directed towards identifying laws and research which seeks to determine how particular historical events occurred. They do not claim, however, that the line between these sorts of science can be drawn neatly, and certainly *do not agree that historical claims are any less empirically verifiable than other sorts of claims*.





> Sober continues by observing that the sort of mathematical modeling undertaken by some evolutionary biologists is not historical in this sense, but seeks after the sort of general "if-then" statements which include scientific laws. Evolutionary biology thus is both a nomothetic science and an historical science.




Enough of this drivel about evolution being a historical science and therefore having a fundamentally different burden of proof, or a different methodology.



> Explore Evolution follows a long history of creationist misrepresentation on this point. Creationists have long attempted to undercut the validity of evolutionary theory by claiming that it is not genuine science and therefore need not be taken seriously. Evolution has been called "just a theory" as opposed to fact, "speculative" as opposed to demonstrated, and "historical" as opposed to "experimental."





> The problem with these attempts to divide science neatly into two piles is that, as Sober observes, a given science, and even a given scientist, can switch between approaches in the quest to address a single question. Geologists can plumb the oldest rocks on earth for evidence of the first life, but they can also go to the lab and recreate the conditions of early earth to test predictions of hypothesis about events billions of years ago. And those results from a modern laboratory will send researchers back to the field to test predictions about historical events generated in the laboratory.
> 
> Similarly, physicists at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland are testing theories about the origin of the universe:
> 
> "The LHC will recreate, on a microscale, conditions that existed during the first billionth of a second of the Big Bang.
> 
> At the earliest moments of the Big Bang, the Universe consisted of a searingly hot soup of fundamental particles - quarks, leptons and the force carriers. As the Universe cooled to 1000 billion degrees, the quarks and gluons (carriers of the strong force) combined into composite particles like protons and neutrons. The LHC will collide lead nuclei so that they release their constituent quarks in a fleeting 'Little Bang'. This will take us back to the time before these particles formed, re-creating the conditions early in the evolution of the universe, when quarks and gluons were free to mix without combining. The debris detected will provide important information about this very early state of matter."
> 
> Science and Technology Facilities Council (2008) "The Big Questions" page on "The Large Hadron Collider" website. Accessed September 18, 2008.
> 
> 
> Which category of science does this belong to? Clearly, it is both historical science and experimental science. Other such historical claims can be evaluated using modern experiments.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> *Enough of this drivel about evolution being a historical science and therefore having a fundamentally different burden of proof, or a different methodology.
> *



I hope this post will enlighten you to how even what appears on the surface as a sound article is really very agenda driven. It does not find its source in truth, but more so to silence the attacks of evolution as a legitimate science. I am not sure who opened it, but the debate was ushered in hard core when a fundie evolutionists attempted to compare evolution with the law of gravity. We may never know who the originator of this fallacious argument was but they unleashed a barrage of misinformation to cloud the issue on what category the study of evolution, or creation for that matter, really falls into and what we can expect when it comes to "proofs".

NP, you are allowing Hawly's constant propaganda barage to cloud your judgement of me. While I do subscribe to many of the Discovery Institute Articles, more than 3/4 of knowledge on science comes from unbiased sources and I have never visited the ICR website or Harun Yahya, unless it was by accidentally clicking on one of Hawly's links. (FYI, my spelling of Hawly's name is a dig against her spelling "gawd". Classic.)

I would appreciate it if you try and do the same when posting articles for reference to an argument you have presented if possible. Sometimes in the case of ID theory, it is not possible. Your Atheist websites, just like some Creationists websites, are many times clouded by their agenda, which gives them a slant. Your article above would have you believe Historical Science is on the same level as Emprical Science. It is not. Neither evolution nor ID theory will ever live up to the same burden of proof that the empirical sciences can and most Historical Scientists would protest if you held them to the same level of proof. I thought it fitting to quote this article from Berkley, since it is obviously as Lib as colleges come, and no one can say I am using biased sources. 

_"*B. Formal Sciences*
    1. Logic and mathematics 
    2. Both define their own universe. 
    3. Because they do, they can initially speak of absolute "true" versus "false."
    a. 2 + 2 = 4. Why? Because we all agree upon it. 
    4. This sounds like belief knowledge. However, it differs in one critical element &#8212; once you establish an initial premise (which must have rigor), you have to follow the research protocol to investigate its effect and validity. 
    5. *These disciplines are often seen as the epitome of science &#8212; an exact, fully logical, brick by brick process.*

*C. Empirical Sciences*
    1. Deal with objects and observations
    a. Takes the world as it is and tries to understand it.
    b. Here there can be NO truth, no right or wrong, only observations and hypotheses about the natural system. 
    2. Empirical Science may be roughly divided into two camps:
    a. *The Experimental Sciences: e.g., Chemistry, Physics and allied subjects.*
    (1) Here the subject allows the creation of controlled experiments in the laboratory.
    (2) The objects under observation (e.g., atoms, molecules) are assumed to all be the same and to lack individuality.
    b. *The Historical Sciences: e.g., most of Biology, Geology.*
    (1) Here the objects under observation increasingly possess individual characteristics, such as single historical events or the individuals in a species.* Optimal controls and laboratory experiments become increasingly difficult.*
    (2) Paleontology exhibits the "worst" of this in that it concerns organisms (which have individuality) in historical circumstances *(where the coincidence of factors at any one time may NEVER be repeated) and all of this occurring in the distant past.*
    3. This distinction between Experimental and Historical Sciences sets up a false debate in public. *Paleontologists are often compared with physicists and then faulted for not producing scientific data as measured by the standards of physics. We paleontologists simply cannot!*
    4. As we progress from experimental to historical sciences, we pass into a realm of the critical establishment of probability. *"Good Science" becomes a matter of eliminating as many variables &#8212; while entertaining as many alternate interpretations of the observations &#8212; as possible."* _ 

What Is Science?

I believe this explanation to be spot on. I'm sure you could cite many experiments you have done in a chemistry or physics class that could be repeated over and over and achieve the same result as long as rigorous controls were in place. This can never be the case with predictions or hypotheses about events that occurred in the distant past. We can never know with 100% certainty that what believe about events in the past are absolutely true. We can only eliminate as many variables as possible. This is what you miss in Meyer's argument and you would note if you read his book. He attempts to eliminate as many competing hypothesis about the origin of information in dna as possible by arguing against some of the more prominent hypotheses put forth on the subject. This too is what you may miss in evolutionary biology. Darwin's tree of life has been shredded by genetic evidence, so new hypotheses have been introduced, like lateral gene transfer, to deal with the new evidence. When these types of discoveries net different results than what Darwin originally predicted, the IDers and Creationists have a field day, and rightfully so. 

And that leads us to why I chose the screen name I did. The ultimate goal of science is to describe ultimate reality. Scientists are always trying to determine what is REALLY REAL. Even without my Theistic views, I would have a very hard time believing that evolution, not adaptation, is true based on the evidence. Once you learn to see many of the manipulations for what they are I liken it to the point in the matrix when Neo starts to see the code, instead of the simulation. I am not trying to put you down when I say you are not yet attune to it. There is SOOOOO much misinformation out there now with the proliferation of the internet. I wouldn't call it the information age. I would call it the misinformation age. Even when I did a google search for articles about the empirical sciences versus the historical sciences I was inundated with articles obviously written by evolution supporters to discredit the discrediting being done by the Theists. I can see the code now and I am not fooled by it.


----------



## UltimateReality

This is a great example of what I think your article is referring to but the truth is shrouded a bit. While we can predict almost flawlessly the orbit of the moon around the earth, this question below is 100% historical science, although at first glance it appears to be observational or empirical. It does not cross the line with empirical science because observational science is required as a prerequisite for the discussion on the historical science of the matter. It is from a BIASED source, but nevertheless, certain truths abide. It demonstrates perfectly, the competing hypotheses example in action as referred to in the Berkley article about an event in the distant past.

* Enter Two More Ideas For Earth-Moon Evolution*
_Evolutionary thought holds that the universe, the quasars, the galaxies, the solar systems, the planets and moons (oh and all of biology too) arose spontaneously by chance events and natural law. How that occurred is uncertain and under scientific investigation. That it occurred is not uncertain, it is a fact. These two different departments of evolutionary thought are disjoint. The fact of evolution does not derive from the particular theories of how it could have happened. It must be that way because there is substantial uncertainty of how it could have happened. Theories of the Solar system evolution, for instance, fall into two broad categories. In the *monistic theories,* the planets and Sun arise from the same process, such as in Laplace's Nebular Hypothesis. In *dualistic theories*, the planets and Sun arise from different processes, such as in Buffon's comet theory. These two rival classes of explanation have competed for centuries and as historian Stephen Brush has observed, the time scale for reversing between these two types of explanation has grown shorter and shorter as we approach the present. Hence the origin of the solar system, says Brush, is an unsolved problem. [1]

*This week&#8217;s Science magazine provides yet another example of this phenomenon of a multiplicity of explanations* in another one of professor Brush&#8217;s areas of interest: the evolution of the Earth-Moon system. It is another example of a problem that has required ever increasing complexity of explanation to account for the evidence. Science has two papers on the evolution of the Earth-Moon system, one calling for a larger impactor than usual and a subsequent resonance with the Sun, and the other calling for a faster spinning proto Earth and subsequent resonance between the Sun and Moon. As the perspective explains, the two papers &#8220;offer differing solutions to the problem.&#8221; Fortunately the fact of evolution does not depend of the science of evolution._

Although we could eventually default to the best explanation, none of these explanations could ever be called the "fact" of Earth/Moon origins.

Darwin's God: Enter Two More Ideas For Earth-Moon Evolution

Welcome.... to the real world.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Enough of this drivel about evolution being a historical science and therefore having a fundamentally different burden of proof, or a different methodology.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this post will enlighten you to how even what appears on the surface as a sound article is really very agenda driven. It does not find its source in truth, but more so to silence the attacks of evolution as a legitimate science. I am not sure who opened it, but the debate was ushered in hard core when a fundie evolutionists attempted to compare evolution with the law of gravity. We may never know who the originator of this fallacious argument was but they unleashed a barrage of misinformation to cloud the issue on what category the study of evolution, or creation for that matter, really falls into and what we can expect when it comes to "proofs".
> 
> NP, you are allowing Hawly's constant propaganda barage to cloud your judgement of me. While I do subscribe to many of the Discovery Institute Articles, more than 3/4 of knowledge on science comes from unbiased sources and I have never visited the ICR website or Harun Yahya, unless it was by accidentally clicking on one of Hawly's links. (FYI, my spelling of Hawly's name is a dig against her spelling "gawd". Classic.)
Click to expand...

And once again, the creepy stalker (even after being humiliated for his obsession with me), continues to stalk me through his posts. 

How really creepy theses religious zealots.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This shows your total ignorance to current cosmological science. When was the last time you measured the effects of dark matter and dark energy here on earth? When?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a smelly red-herring you have there. Mind telling me why you are dragging that across the path of this discussion?
> 
> 
> If you can demonstrate how dark energy or dark matter would interfere with distance measurements, then maybe you can vindicate yourself. As it is, you are simply throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what I am saying. I am saying we have the law of gravity here on earth that is based on millions of measurements that have confirmed its validity. Then we observe the movement of Galaxies and they don't follow our earthly law of gravity. So we invent mysterious forces like dark matter and dark energy and then spend billions of dollars on a machine that makes us think we may have found a new particle but the level of certainty required makes us not so sure we have found it. That doesn't stop us from holding news conferences to say we've almost found it to keep us from looking like total asses for wasting billions of research dollars on something so supernatural that it is called the God particle. All that make sense?
> 
> Logic would at least have us use caution in taking all the laws we know about light here on earth and then applying them to astronomical distances. This is akin to YWC objections to carbon or radiometric dating. We are looking at an inch of data on a mile long timeline and doing some serious extrapolation!!!
Click to expand...

You still side-step and waffle when pressed to explain your proposal that natural laws are somehow magically different near this planet vs. elsewhere in the universe. 

Have you been drinking the Christian creationist Kool-Aid?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> "Earth itself is a system. It is a sphere of matter with distinct boundaries. Earth
> has been an essentially closed system since the end of the heavy meteorite bombardment
> some 4 billion years ago. Since then, no significant new material has entered
> the system (except meteorites and space dust), and, just as important, significant
> quantities have not left the system. Since the planet formed,"
> 
> http://earthds.info/pdfs/EDS_02.PDF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This definition conveniently leaves out the fact that a closed system allows energy transfer, such as heat.
> 
> Read my above post. I was wrong, but so are you in your conclusion about entropy and the earth.
> 
> A closed system is defined as that which allows energy transfer, but not matter transfer. This type of system does not tends towards higher entropy. Only an isolated system would tend towards higher entropy (no matter or energy exchange), and this type of system is what is stated in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as tending towards higher entropy. Not a closed system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do we have so many natural disasters ? why do all things lead to disorder and eventually death ? What happens to structures over time ?
> 
> You can believe as you wish but I disagree.
Click to expand...

Natural disasters, disorder, etc., are all a product of the gawds. It's a convenient tactic of fundies to arbitrarily reassign circumstances and events that are attributed to their currently configured gawds. But to do so immediately puts you on yet another slippery slope because you are now making decisions about the motives and intent of your gawds that you have no ability to do.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, please demonstrate a modern day example of Natural Selection acting on a random mutation and producing a trait that increases fitness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The AIDS virus, which literally relies on constant mutation in order to evade our immune system, which is what makes it so deadly. In doing so, it is constantly increasing its fitness. Or, any virus that has ever existed that we have studied and witness mutate to become more powerful, such as a virus going airborne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is a virus really alive? Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. Does it qualify as an organism?
Click to expand...


If a virus is not really alive, then it must not really be alive only sorta' alive or maybe partly dead but not really dead. Sometimes it isn't but sometimes it really isnt, only sorta' isn't. 

It only qualifies as an organism if its not really an organism but sorta' an organism.

And the above, ladies and gentlemen is what is being churned out of the Christian madrassahs'. 

Dear gawds, what the hell have you done?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Enough of this drivel about evolution being a historical science and therefore having a fundamentally different burden of proof, or a different methodology.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this post will enlighten you to how even what appears on the surface as a sound article is really very agenda driven. It does not find its source in truth, but more so to silence the attacks of evolution as a legitimate science. I am not sure who opened it, but the debate was ushered in hard core when a fundie evolutionists attempted to compare evolution with the law of gravity. We may never know who the originator of this fallacious argument was but they unleashed a barrage of misinformation to cloud the issue on what category the study of evolution, or creation for that matter, really falls into and what we can expect when it comes to "proofs".
> 
> NP, you are allowing Hawly's constant propaganda barage to cloud your judgement of me. While I do subscribe to many of the Discovery Institute Articles, more than 3/4 of knowledge on science comes from unbiased sources and I have never visited the ICR website or Harun Yahya, unless it was by accidentally clicking on one of Hawly's links. (FYI, my spelling of Hawly's name is a dig against her spelling "gawd". Classic.)
> 
> I would appreciate it if you try and do the same when posting articles for reference to an argument you have presented if possible. Sometimes in the case of ID theory, it is not possible. Your Atheist websites, just like some Creationists websites, are many times clouded by their agenda, which gives them a slant. Your article above would have you believe Historical Science is on the same level as Emprical Science. It is not. Neither evolution nor ID theory will ever live up to the same burden of proof that the empirical sciences can and most Historical Scientists would protest if you held them to the same level of proof. I thought it fitting to quote this article from Berkley, since it is obviously as Lib as colleges come, and no one can say I am using biased sources.
> 
> _"*B. Formal Sciences*
> 1. Logic and mathematics
> 2. Both define their own universe.
> 3. Because they do, they can initially speak of absolute "true" versus "false."
> a. 2 + 2 = 4. Why? Because we all agree upon it.
> 4. This sounds like belief knowledge. However, it differs in one critical element  once you establish an initial premise (which must have rigor), you have to follow the research protocol to investigate its effect and validity.
> 5. *These disciplines are often seen as the epitome of science  an exact, fully logical, brick by brick process.*
> 
> *C. Empirical Sciences*
> 1. Deal with objects and observations
> a. Takes the world as it is and tries to understand it.
> b. Here there can be NO truth, no right or wrong, only observations and hypotheses about the natural system.
> 2. Empirical Science may be roughly divided into two camps:
> a. *The Experimental Sciences: e.g., Chemistry, Physics and allied subjects.*
> (1) Here the subject allows the creation of controlled experiments in the laboratory.
> (2) The objects under observation (e.g., atoms, molecules) are assumed to all be the same and to lack individuality.
> b. *The Historical Sciences: e.g., most of Biology, Geology.*
> (1) Here the objects under observation increasingly possess individual characteristics, such as single historical events or the individuals in a species.* Optimal controls and laboratory experiments become increasingly difficult.*
> (2) Paleontology exhibits the "worst" of this in that it concerns organisms (which have individuality) in historical circumstances *(where the coincidence of factors at any one time may NEVER be repeated) and all of this occurring in the distant past.*
> 3. This distinction between Experimental and Historical Sciences sets up a false debate in public. *Paleontologists are often compared with physicists and then faulted for not producing scientific data as measured by the standards of physics. We paleontologists simply cannot!*
> 4. As we progress from experimental to historical sciences, we pass into a realm of the critical establishment of probability. *"Good Science" becomes a matter of eliminating as many variables  while entertaining as many alternate interpretations of the observations  as possible."* _
> 
> What Is Science?
> 
> I believe this explanation to be spot on. I'm sure you could cite many experiments you have done in a chemistry or physics class that could be repeated over and over and achieve the same result as long as rigorous controls were in place. This can never be the case with predictions or hypotheses about events that occurred in the distant past. We can never know with 100% certainty that what believe about events in the past are absolutely true. We can only eliminate as many variables as possible. This is what you miss in Meyer's argument and you would note if you read his book. He attempts to eliminate as many competing hypothesis about the origin of information in dna as possible by arguing against some of the more prominent hypotheses put forth on the subject. This too is what you may miss in evolutionary biology. Darwin's tree of life has been shredded by genetic evidence, so new hypotheses have been introduced, like lateral gene transfer, to deal with the new evidence. When these types of discoveries net different results than what Darwin originally predicted, the IDers and Creationists have a field day, and rightfully so.
> 
> And that leads us to why I chose the screen name I did. The ultimate goal of science is to describe ultimate reality. Scientists are always trying to determine what is REALLY REAL. Even without my Theistic views, I would have a very hard time believing that evolution, not adaptation, is true based on the evidence. Once you learn to see many of the manipulations for what they are I liken it to the point in the matrix when Neo starts to see the code, instead of the simulation. I am not trying to put you down when I say you are not yeet attune to it. There is SOOOOO much misinformation out there now with the proliferation of the internet. I wouldn't call it the information age. I would call it the misinformation age. Even when I did a google search for articles about the empirical sciences versus the historical sciences I was inundated with articles obviously written by evolution supporters to discredit the discrediting being done by the Theists. I can see the code now and I am not fooled by it.
Click to expand...


Has anyone told the fundie that "Neo" and the Matrix were the product of a Hollywood movie and were...you know.... not real?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This definition conveniently leaves out the fact that a closed system allows energy transfer, such as heat.
> 
> Read my above post. I was wrong, but so are you in your conclusion about entropy and the earth.
> 
> A closed system is defined as that which allows energy transfer, but not matter transfer. This type of system does not tends towards higher entropy. Only an isolated system would tend towards higher entropy (no matter or energy exchange), and this type of system is what is stated in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as tending towards higher entropy. Not a closed system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have so many natural disasters ? why do all things lead to disorder and eventually death ? What happens to structures over time ?
> 
> You can believe as you wish but I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural disasters, disorder, etc., are all a product of the gawds. It's a convenient tactic of fundies to arbitrarily reassign circumstances and events that are attributed to their currently configured gawds. But to do so immediately puts you on yet another slippery slope because you are now making decisions about the motives and intent of your gawds that you have no ability to do.
Click to expand...


You are correct,once perfection was lost for mankind it was lost for all of nature. You are finally catching on.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> The AIDS virus, which literally relies on constant mutation in order to evade our immune system, which is what makes it so deadly. In doing so, it is constantly increasing its fitness. Or, any virus that has ever existed that we have studied and witness mutate to become more powerful, such as a virus going airborne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is a virus really alive? Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. Does it qualify as an organism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a virus is not really alive, then it must not really be alive only sorta' alive or maybe partly dead but not really dead. Sometimes it isn't but sometimes it really isnt, only sorta' isn't.
> 
> It only qualifies as an organism if its not really an organism but sorta' an organism.
> 
> And the above, ladies and gentlemen is what is being churned out of the Christian madrassahs'.
> 
> Dear gawds, what the hell have you done?
Click to expand...


Viruses are not living organisms.I guess i should give the reason why a virus is not a living organism.

A virus is not a living organism Because a virus cannot replicate on its own without another host organism, viruses do not meet the criteria to be considered living organisms.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Enough of this drivel about evolution being a historical science and therefore having a fundamentally different burden of proof, or a different methodology.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this post will enlighten you to how even what appears on the surface as a sound article is really very agenda driven. It does not find its source in truth, but more so to silence the attacks of evolution as a legitimate science. I am not sure who opened it, but the debate was ushered in hard core when a fundie evolutionists attempted to compare evolution with the law of gravity. We may never know who the originator of this fallacious argument was but they unleashed a barrage of misinformation to cloud the issue on what category the study of evolution, or creation for that matter, really falls into and what we can expect when it comes to "proofs".
> 
> NP, you are allowing Hawly's constant propaganda barage to cloud your judgement of me. While I do subscribe to many of the Discovery Institute Articles, more than 3/4 of knowledge on science comes from unbiased sources and I have never visited the ICR website or Harun Yahya, unless it was by accidentally clicking on one of Hawly's links. (FYI, my spelling of Hawly's name is a dig against her spelling "gawd". Classic.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again, the creepy stalker (even after being humiliated for his obsession with me), continues to stalk me through his posts.
> 
> How really creepy theses religious zealots.
Click to expand...


You really are at a loss to add anything of substance to this thread.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this post will enlighten you to how even what appears on the surface as a sound article is really very agenda driven. It does not find its source in truth, but more so to silence the attacks of evolution as a legitimate science. I am not sure who opened it, but the debate was ushered in hard core when a fundie evolutionists attempted to compare evolution with the law of gravity. We may never know who the originator of this fallacious argument was but they unleashed a barrage of misinformation to cloud the issue on what category the study of evolution, or creation for that matter, really falls into and what we can expect when it comes to "proofs".
> 
> NP, you are allowing Hawly's constant propaganda barage to cloud your judgement of me. While I do subscribe to many of the Discovery Institute Articles, more than 3/4 of knowledge on science comes from unbiased sources and I have never visited the ICR website or Harun Yahya, unless it was by accidentally clicking on one of Hawly's links. (FYI, my spelling of Hawly's name is a dig against her spelling "gawd". Classic.)
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, the creepy stalker (even after being humiliated for his obsession with me), continues to stalk me through his posts.
> 
> How really creepy theses religious zealots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are at a loss to add anything of substance to this thread.
Click to expand...


Actually, your rabid cutting and pasting is what contributes nothing to the thread.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this post will enlighten you to how even what appears on the surface as a sound article is really very agenda driven. It does not find its source in truth, but more so to silence the attacks of evolution as a legitimate science. I am not sure who opened it, but the debate was ushered in hard core when a fundie evolutionists attempted to compare evolution with the law of gravity. We may never know who the originator of this fallacious argument was but they unleashed a barrage of misinformation to cloud the issue on what category the study of evolution, or creation for that matter, really falls into and what we can expect when it comes to "proofs".
> 
> NP, you are allowing Hawly's constant propaganda barage to cloud your judgement of me. While I do subscribe to many of the Discovery Institute Articles, more than 3/4 of knowledge on science comes from unbiased sources and I have never visited the ICR website or Harun Yahya, unless it was by accidentally clicking on one of Hawly's links. (FYI, my spelling of Hawly's name is a dig against her spelling "gawd". Classic.)
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, the creepy stalker (even after being humiliated for his obsession with me), continues to stalk me through his posts.
> 
> How really creepy theses religious zealots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are at a loss to add anything of substance to this thread.
Click to expand...


This is the honest truth.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have so many natural disasters ? why do all things lead to disorder and eventually death ? What happens to structures over time ?
> 
> You can believe as you wish but I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Natural disasters, disorder, etc., are all a product of the gawds. It's a convenient tactic of fundies to arbitrarily reassign circumstances and events that are attributed to their currently configured gawds. But to do so immediately puts you on yet another slippery slope because you are now making decisions about the motives and intent of your gawds that you have no ability to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct,once perfection was lost for mankind it was lost for all of nature. You are finally catching on.
Click to expand...


That makes no sense for many reasons. "Perfection" is a human defined attribute attached to your gawds. It's meaningless in practical terms because it is entirely subjective. Similarly, defining a "perfect" nature is entirely subjective and assumes either an intent within nature or human defined gawds who are asserted to have "poofed" all of existence surrounding us by some magical snap of their eternal digits. Of course, your gawds are in direct competition with other competing tales and fables of gawds. You have made no case for your gawds that is any more compelling than conceptions of earlier gawds which your more recent gawds have replaced.


----------



## Hollie

Dbl. strike.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, the creepy stalker (even after being humiliated for his obsession with me), continues to stalk me through his posts.
> 
> How really creepy theses religious zealots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are at a loss to add anything of substance to this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the honest truth.
Click to expand...


As we have seen repeatedly, your truths are purposely skewed and falsified so as to support a predefined conclusion. 

I always watch in astonishment at the hate your religious convictions engender.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are at a loss to add anything of substance to this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the honest truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As we have seen repeatedly, your truths are purposely skewed and falsified so as to support a predefined conclusion.
> 
> I always watch in astonishment at the hate your religious convictions engender.
Click to expand...


Speak for your own theory hollie, It's clear you don't know mine nor your theory very well.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are at a loss to add anything of substance to this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the honest truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As we have seen repeatedly, your truths are purposely skewed and falsified so as to support a predefined conclusion.
> 
> I always watch in astonishment at the hate your religious convictions engender.
Click to expand...


Hate is your bigoted, Christian bashing agenda. I think you are confused.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How bout my words that I post that you and a few others run from ?
> 
> 
> 
> your words? nobody runs from your words!
> besides you base your words on creationist sites and the bible thus making your words specious speculation based on a false premise.
> do you buy that hubris by the bottle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to have a rebuttal to the earth being a closed system nor provide one for our universe (Space) as you called it being an open system. How do you know when we can't see far enough out in to space ?
> 
> You have not had any kind of rebuttal that was not based in conjecture for the origins of life or the left and right handed amino acids bonding to for proteins ?
> 
> Why don't you start by showing I am or could be wrong. The science community know these problems but yet you blame it on creationist  Paranoia will destroy you.
Click to expand...

that where you are wrong as always I've answerd these and many more of your non questions. 
you will not accept the answers .
Paranoia? that's your problem  not mine


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the honest truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we have seen repeatedly, your truths are purposely skewed and falsified so as to support a predefined conclusion.
> 
> I always watch in astonishment at the hate your religious convictions engender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate is your bigoted, Christian bashing agenda. I think you are confused.
Click to expand...


As noted, I can only watch in astonishment as the hateful Christian zealots spew their vitriol.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the honest truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we have seen repeatedly, your truths are purposely skewed and falsified so as to support a predefined conclusion.
> 
> I always watch in astonishment at the hate your religious convictions engender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speak for your own theory hollie, It's clear you don't know mine nor your theory very well.
Click to expand...


What's clear is that you remain utterly confused. I understand very well most of the natural processes that derive existence. Those processes are largely well defined, well supported by theory abd and are corroborated by repeatable tests. That stands in rather stark contrast to your spirit realms wherein the most absurd claims are dogmatically accepted with unthinking allegiance. It's really beyond absurd that you seek to define for your gawds their wants, desires and proscription for humanity while at the same time admitting that the gawds are ultimately unknowable in any human context. How strange then that you attach human qualities to these gawds. The other point is that the natural world operates within parameters that exhibit no connections to supernatural events.

What is known is that the classical laws of science seem to function to a split second before the Big Bang is proposed to have happened. Whatever laws of physics existed prior to that event is one of the most intriguing questions we as humans seek to resolve. However, we do have solid evidence for natural causes and natural events which are understandable and testable. For example, the speed of light can be measured. We can measure the distance to distant stars - immense distances - by using that speed as a constant. Simple, explainable, understandable.

As to the notion of a gawds? Ok, let's see the preponderance of evidence, and let's apply critical thinking to it and see if it withstands scrutiny. As a matter of course, everything that you delineate in your reply here we must also (in order to be fair and impartial) hold supernaturalism against by way of standard.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws you have no proof to support your claims like the one the one where you said space is not a closed system when we don't have the ability to se far enough. I thought you would have gotten it the first time it was said.
> 
> 
> 
> and you do? not fucking likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the post before this one, now your turn.
Click to expand...

why? it does not strengthen your case for a creator.
what you don't comprehend is I and other non creationist slap dicks like you, don't have to be  right all the time ,you on the other hand are required to be 100%  correct all the time, as you claim there are no errors in your source material, but as everyone with more than one live brain cell knows you source's contain more erroneous speculation then fact. 


BTW to be accurate the earth is a partially closed because energy passes in and out it.
also comets asteroids and meteors rain down on us at fairly regular intervals.
so your assumption is bias and wrong.
the universe is considered a closed system not for any god did it horse shit but for the simply undeniable fact that "the universe encompasses everything."
 there is no evidence at all of a supernatural cause for the state universe .

Stuart Clarke - What in all creation? | New Humanist

Life's beginnings
The origin of life itself is another obvious flash point. It is particularly vulnerable to attack because science has yet to show the sequence of events in great detail. In my opinion, that does not mean science is incapable of the task, it just means it is a difficult problem that requires more work to solve it. This does give the creationists a good starting point.

The origin of life they claim is impossible for science to understand because it contravenes the second law of thermodynamics. This is the one that culminates in the fact that in a closed system (more of which soon), order can only become disorder, never the other way around. So an uncorked bottle of perfume diffuses into a room but never regroups inside someone's wine glass.

By leaving out that challenging caveat about a closed system, the creationists simply quote that order cannot spring from disorder. Then they state that a bunch of disparate molecules coming together to form a living cell contravenes this law of nature, therefore a supernatural hand is required in the process.

To explore this to its logical conclusion, every time you pull your bath plug you see spontaneous order emerge in the way water spirals down the plughole, instead of simply plunging in an every-molecule-for-itself fashion. Does God stick his hand into our dirty bath water and set that vortex in motion? That is what the creationists' argument suggests you should believe.

Closed systems are simply things that cannot receive or transmit matter or energy. In the case of the spiral pattern in the bath, it is an open system because water is travelling through the structure. With living things, chemical energy in our food is passing through, allowing our bodies to maintain their orderly state of affairs. Only when we transform into closed systems upon death does the flow of matter and energy stop and we begin to decay.

This new, so-called scientific creationism is itself a non sequitur. They cannot possibly use science to prove creationism because the whole point about creationism is that it cannot be understood by science. That's why they need God's intervention.

By all means teach creationism in the context of religious education and, if an individual wants to believe, fine. But please do not wrap up a religious belief in scientific clothing to hoodwink people. If creationism is to be taught alongside evolution in science lessons, then it seems only right and fair that evolution is re-taught during religious education periods, along with the creation myths.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My observations of mutations and cells are not based on faith nor the bible daws. My views on amino acids forming proteins are not either. Do I need to go on ?
> 
> 
> 
> really! what are they based on ? obviously not a working knowledge of biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Theatre man I actually worked in the field for 11 years
Click to expand...

that a very long time to be a lab assistant !
so in 11 years how many dead rats and flys did you put in the dumpster?
did you publish any papers ?if so  can you post a link?


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your words? nobody runs from your words!
> besides you base your words on creationist sites and the bible thus making your words specious speculation based on a false premise.
> do you buy that hubris by the bottle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to have a rebuttal to the earth being a closed system nor provide one for our universe (Space) as you called it being an open system. How do you know when we can't see far enough out in to space ?
> 
> You have not had any kind of rebuttal that was not based in conjecture for the origins of life or the left and right handed amino acids bonding to for proteins ?
> 
> Why don't you start by showing I am or could be wrong. The science community know these problems but yet you blame it on creationist  Paranoia will destroy you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that where you are wrong as always I've answerd these and many more of your non questions.
> you will not accept the answers .
> Paranoia? that's your problem  not mine
Click to expand...

I suspect what confuses the fundies is that their anti-science agenda has no credibility as it is only intended to appeal to those with a predefined agenda toward supernaturalism. As we see with the entirety of the Christian creationist agenda, there is never any positive assertion or peer reviewed weight of evidence for the gawds. Instead, appeals to fear, ignorance and doubt are the methodology. 

The fawning that occurs over the silliness of Meyers is one more example. He has literally plumbed the depths of the foul smelling Christian creationist barrel to beg, borrow and steal every goofy Christian creationist argument intended to cast doubt on science while never making a positive case for the gawds. Meyer is the latest, perfect example of the hopelessness of the Christian creationist snake oil salesman.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your textbooks are to.
> 
> 
> 
> you're right they are but unlike your bible and pseudo scientific text  ,when an error is found they are edited and reissued with corrections
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws  you are actually making the claim that science books have not been revised or had new editions ? are you claiming there were no mistakes in them ? Daws you are just looney but funny
Click to expand...

obviously you can't read.
I'll write  it larger AND MORE CLEARLY  : UNLIKE YOUR BIBLE AND PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC TEXTS..(IN REAL TEXTBOOKS ) WHEN AN ERROR IS FOUND THEY ARE EDITED AND REISSUED WITH CORRECTIONS 
HEY FOLKS IS THIS ENOUGH PROOF THAT YWC IS AN ILLITERATE  FUCK OR WHAT!


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> i can now admit i am biased for the truth not vivid imaginations.
> 
> 
> 
> you would also have to admit that what you just posted is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope no lie here.
Click to expand...

another lie!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws you have no proof to support your claims like the one the one where you said space is not a closed system when we don't have the ability to se far enough. I thought you would have gotten it the first time it was said.
> 
> 
> 
> and you do? not fucking likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the Daws is your problem? Why are you so hostile?
Click to expand...

   says the passive aggressive ...... Another get over ploy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really! what are they based on ? obviously not a working knowledge of biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Theatre man I actually worked in the field for 11 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that a very long time to be a lab assistant !
> so in 11 years how many dead rats and flys did you put in the dumpster?
> did you publish any papers ?if so  can you post a link?
Click to expand...


I made a pretty good living that is why I am in the position I am in today.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're right they are but unlike your bible and pseudo scientific text  ,when an error is found they are edited and reissued with corrections
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws  you are actually making the claim that science books have not been revised or had new editions ? are you claiming there were no mistakes in them ? Daws you are just looney but funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously you can't read.
> I'll write  it larger AND MORE CLEARLY  : UNLIKE YOUR BIBLE AND PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC TEXTS..(IN REAL TEXTBOOKS ) WHEN AN ERROR IS FOUND THEY ARE EDITED AND REISSUED WITH CORRECTIONS
> HEY FOLKS IS THIS ENOUGH PROOF THAT YWC IS AN ILLITERATE  FUCK OR WHAT!
Click to expand...


Who are you talking to ? looking for approval of you getting your ass handed to you time after time ? The thing is mistakes are not made in the bible languages change over time so that is why they get revised not because of mistakes.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> claiming it's not, is a major part of the delusion.
> kinda like saying you not an alcoholic when *you down a twelve pack with dinner everynight.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Methinks the Daws doth provide TMI. For you theatre freaks, thats "too mucheth informationeth".
Click to expand...

another failed attempt a character assassination and lame ass cherry picking.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you would also have to admit that what you just posted is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope no lie here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another lie!
Click to expand...


Wrong again theatre boy,i bet your real job is at harkins filling up cups of peoples favorite beverage and buckets of popcorn.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> claiming it's not, is a major part of the delusion.
> kinda like saying you not an alcoholic when *you down a twelve pack with dinner everynight.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the Daws doth provide TMI. For you theatre freaks, thats "too mucheth informationeth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another failed attempt a character assassination and lame ass cherry picking.
Click to expand...


Hey boy,put some butter on my popcorn.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws  you are actually making the claim that science books have not been revised or had new editions ? are you claiming there were no mistakes in them ? Daws you are just looney but funny
> 
> 
> 
> obviously you can't read.
> I'll write  it larger AND MORE CLEARLY  : UNLIKE YOUR BIBLE AND PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC TEXTS..(IN REAL TEXTBOOKS ) WHEN AN ERROR IS FOUND THEY ARE EDITED AND REISSUED WITH CORRECTIONS
> HEY FOLKS IS THIS ENOUGH PROOF THAT YWC IS AN ILLITERATE  FUCK OR WHAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to ? looking for approval of you getting your ass handed to you time after time ?
Click to expand...

 you! you illiterate fuck ... you can't read your post proves it! 
I caught you by the nuts and like the total coward you are,you  try to bullshit your out of it.
you couldn't hand me my ass  even if I helped you, 
you'd fuck that up too just like your reading .


----------



## Youwerecreated

Daws are you still trying deny this planet is a closed system ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> obviously you can't read.
> I'll write  it larger AND MORE CLEARLY  : UNLIKE YOUR BIBLE AND PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC TEXTS..(IN REAL TEXTBOOKS ) WHEN AN ERROR IS FOUND THEY ARE EDITED AND REISSUED WITH CORRECTIONS
> HEY FOLKS IS THIS ENOUGH PROOF THAT YWC IS AN ILLITERATE  FUCK OR WHAT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to ? looking for approval of you getting your ass handed to you time after time ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you! you illiterate fuck ... you can't read your post proves it!
> I caught you by the nuts and like the total coward you are,you  try to bullshit your out of it.
> you couldn't hand me my ass  even if I helped you,
> you'd fuck that up too just like your reading .
Click to expand...


Ok I see what you are talking about but you were wrong there are no mistakes in the bible to be revised. The only revisions needed are over time how languages changed.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arbiter is a fictional ceremonial, religious, and political rank bestowed upon alien Covenant Elites in the Halo science fiction universe.
> 
> NP must be a theatre boy too!!! Maybe you guys could compare tights.
> 
> 
> 
> guess you had to look that up too...
> you get your ass in a crack for faking intellectuality..... and the best you can do is make Jr high gay slurs....tosspot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... Says the KING of FOOT IN MOUTH's Disease. Why would you make such a bigoted comment that tights are gay?
Click to expand...

now that is funny! please show me any place  in this thread that I did that. 
even more hilarious is the failed attempt to turn what i said against me !
if this is not a gay slur "Maybe you guys could compare tights -UR") by you ,THEN THERE ARE NONE.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> guess you had to look that up too...
> you get your ass in a crack for faking intellectuality..... and the best you can do is make Jr high gay slurs....tosspot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... Says the KING of FOOT IN MOUTH's Disease. Why would you make such a bigoted comment that tights are gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now that is funny! please show me any place  in this thread that I did that.
> even more hilarious is the failed attempt to turn what i said against me !
> if this is not a gay slur "Maybe you guys could compare tights -UR") by you ,THEN THERE ARE NONE.
Click to expand...


Hey theatre boy give me one argument you actually won. After this many pages surely you can come up with just one argument you won ? if you can't come up with that one argument why do you continue on ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hmm, Daws I am waiting.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, please demonstrate a modern day example of Natural Selection acting on a random mutation and producing a trait that increases fitness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The AIDS virus, which literally relies on constant mutation in order to evade our immune system, which is what makes it so deadly. In doing so, it is constantly increasing its fitness. Or, any virus that has ever existed that we have studied and witness mutate to become more powerful, such as a virus going airborne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong,it's not fitness, it is adapting but even adaptation have their limits. The black plague eventually reached it's limits and died out. All viruses run their course and die out and if we discover a treatment it will die out sooner or eventually weaken to where our immune system can fight it off.
> 
> Thank you though for pointing out mutations are harmful even to viruses. Unfortunately many die before that dying out happens.
Click to expand...

BULLSHIT ! the black plague ended because some of the victims developed immunity.
and it could not breach the atlantic ocean.

it's not dead even today ,if you botherd to read  or watch non creationist tv you'd know that .


Australia suffered 12 major plague outbreaks between 1900 and 1925 originating from shipping.[24] Research by Australian medical officers Thompson, Armstrong and Tidswell contributed to understanding the spread of Yersinia pestis to humans by fleas from infected rats.[25]

In 1994, a plague outbreak in five Indian states caused an estimated 700 infections (including 52 deaths) and triggered a large migration of Indians within India as they tried to avoid the plague.

In 1994 and 2010 cases were reported in Peru.[26] In 2010 a case was reported in Oregon, United States.[27] In 2012, cases were reported in Oregon and Colorado.[28][29]

In August 2012, a 7 year old girl was confirmed as a victim of Bubonic plague following a camping expedition in Colorado.[30]

In September 2012 a herdsman in China (Sichuan province, Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture) has been reported to have died of the disease after finding a dead marmot and eating it.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_plague


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> The AIDS virus, which literally relies on constant mutation in order to evade our immune system, which is what makes it so deadly. In doing so, it is constantly increasing its fitness. Or, any virus that has ever existed that we have studied and witness mutate to become more powerful, such as a virus going airborne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,it's not fitness, it is adapting but even adaptation have their limits. The black plague eventually reached it's limits and died out. All viruses run their course and die out and if we discover a treatment it will die out sooner or eventually weaken to where our immune system can fight it off.
> 
> Thank you though for pointing out mutations are harmful even to viruses. Unfortunately many die before that dying out happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BULLSHIT ! the black plague ended because some of the victims developed immunity.
> and it could not breach the atlantic ocean.
> 
> it's not dead even today ,if you botherd to read  or watch non creationist tv you'd know that .
> 
> 
> Australia suffered 12 major plague outbreaks between 1900 and 1925 originating from shipping.[24] Research by Australian medical officers Thompson, Armstrong and Tidswell contributed to understanding the spread of Yersinia pestis to humans by fleas from infected rats.[25]
> 
> In 1994, a plague outbreak in five Indian states caused an estimated 700 infections (including 52 deaths) and triggered a large migration of Indians within India as they tried to avoid the plague.
> 
> In 1994 and 2010 cases were reported in Peru.[26] In 2010 a case was reported in Oregon, United States.[27] In 2012, cases were reported in Oregon and Colorado.[28][29]
> 
> In August 2012, a 7 year old girl was confirmed as a victim of Bubonic plague following a camping expedition in Colorado.[30]
> 
> In September 2012 a herdsman in China (Sichuan province, Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture) has been reported to have died of the disease after finding a dead marmot and eating it.[31]
> 
> Bubonic plague - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


You are full of crap daws I wiil give you the real truth on the subject that NP brought up.

Mutated HIV Suggests New Approach to AIDS

Even your side admits I am right.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have so many natural disasters ? why do all things lead to disorder and eventually death ? What happens to structures over time ?
> 
> You can believe as you wish but I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Natural disasters, disorder, etc., are all a product of the gawds. It's a convenient tactic of fundies to arbitrarily reassign circumstances and events that are attributed to their currently configured gawds. But to do so immediately puts you on yet another slippery slope because you are now making decisions about the motives and intent of your gawds that you have no ability to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct,once perfection was lost for mankind it was lost for all of nature. You are finally catching on.
Click to expand...

ther is no proof that mankind was once perfect, nor is there any that nature was....you're still talking shit!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Now Daws why do these viruses weaken ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural disasters, disorder, etc., are all a product of the gawds. It's a convenient tactic of fundies to arbitrarily reassign circumstances and events that are attributed to their currently configured gawds. But to do so immediately puts you on yet another slippery slope because you are now making decisions about the motives and intent of your gawds that you have no ability to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct,once perfection was lost for mankind it was lost for all of nature. You are finally catching on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ther is no proof that mankind was once perfect, nor is there any that nature was....you're still talking shit!
Click to expand...


No that would be you I am waiting for that one argument you won still.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Theatre man I actually worked in the field for 11 years
> 
> 
> 
> that a very long time to be a lab assistant !
> so in 11 years how many dead rats and flys did you put in the dumpster?
> did you publish any papers ?if so  can you post a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made a pretty good living that is why I am in the position I am in today.
Click to expand...

 I didn't say that lab assistants didn't make good money!  
even so that does not make you a biologist
it's also a non answer.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws  you are actually making the claim that science books have not been revised or had new editions ? are you claiming there were no mistakes in them ? Daws you are just looney but funny
> 
> 
> 
> obviously you can't read.
> I'll write  it larger AND MORE CLEARLY  : UNLIKE YOUR BIBLE AND PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC TEXTS..(IN REAL TEXTBOOKS ) WHEN AN ERROR IS FOUND THEY ARE EDITED AND REISSUED WITH CORRECTIONS
> HEY FOLKS IS THIS ENOUGH PROOF THAT YWC IS AN ILLITERATE  FUCK OR WHAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to ? looking for approval of you getting your ass handed to you time after time ? The thing is mistakes are not made in the bible languages change over time so that is why they get revised not because of mistakes.
Click to expand...

 that's also bullshit  the bible is full of mistakes in language and everything else. it's a fact you will not accept.. but that does not make it any less true.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope no lie here.
> 
> 
> 
> another lie!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again theatre boy,i bet your real job is at harkins filling up cups of peoples favorite beverage and buckets of popcorn.
Click to expand...

still lying !
and making false accusations 
never did food service jobs .
never was a movie theater employee.
although I have on occation installed lighting systems in them and converted them to live theatre..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the Daws doth provide TMI. For you theatre freaks, thats "too mucheth informationeth".
> 
> 
> 
> another failed attempt a character assassination and lame ass cherry picking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey boy,put some butter on my popcorn.
Click to expand...

I got your boy shit hangin'


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Daws are you still trying deny this planet is a closed system ?


asked and answerd.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,it's not fitness, it is adapting but even adaptation have their limits. The black plague eventually reached it's limits and died out. All viruses run their course and die out and if we discover a treatment it will die out sooner or eventually weaken to where our immune system can fight it off.
> 
> Thank you though for pointing out mutations are harmful even to viruses. Unfortunately many die before that dying out happens.
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT ! the black plague ended because some of the victims developed immunity.
> and it could not breach the atlantic ocean.
> 
> it's not dead even today ,if you botherd to read  or watch non creationist tv you'd know that .
> 
> 
> Australia suffered 12 major plague outbreaks between 1900 and 1925 originating from shipping.[24] Research by Australian medical officers Thompson, Armstrong and Tidswell contributed to understanding the spread of Yersinia pestis to humans by fleas from infected rats.[25]
> 
> In 1994, a plague outbreak in five Indian states caused an estimated 700 infections (including 52 deaths) and triggered a large migration of Indians within India as they tried to avoid the plague.
> 
> In 1994 and 2010 cases were reported in Peru.[26] In 2010 a case was reported in Oregon, United States.[27] In 2012, cases were reported in Oregon and Colorado.[28][29]
> 
> In August 2012, a 7 year old girl was confirmed as a victim of Bubonic plague following a camping expedition in Colorado.[30]
> 
> In September 2012 a herdsman in China (Sichuan province, Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture) has been reported to have died of the disease after finding a dead marmot and eating it.[31]
> 
> Bubonic plague - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are full of crap daws I wiil give you the real truth on the subject that NP brought up.
> 
> Mutated HIV Suggests New Approach to AIDS
> 
> Even your side admits I am right.
Click to expand...

that article  said nothing about bubonic plague 
making this post invalid.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to ? looking for approval of you getting your ass handed to you time after time ?
> 
> 
> 
> you! you illiterate fuck ... you can't read your post proves it!
> I caught you by the nuts and like the total coward you are,you  try to bullshit your out of it.
> you couldn't hand me my ass  even if I helped you,
> you'd fuck that up too just like your reading .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok I see what you are talking about but you were wrong there are no mistakes in the bible to be revised. The only revisions needed are over time how languages changed.
Click to expand...

asked and answered


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Says the KING of FOOT IN MOUTH's Disease. Why would you make such a bigoted comment that tights are gay?
> 
> 
> 
> now that is funny! please show me any place  in this thread that I did that.
> even more hilarious is the failed attempt to turn what i said against me !
> if this is not a gay slur "Maybe you guys could compare tights -UR") by you ,THEN THERE ARE NONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey theatre boy give me one argument you actually won. After this many pages surely you can come up with just one argument you won ? if you can't come up with that one argument why do you continue on ?
Click to expand...

 no need to as I've won every argument since I CAME TO THIS THREAD.
how ? WITH ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE "there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
it's an unbeatable fact.
if and until you can provide actual evidence you've already lost...no matter how much bitch.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that a very long time to be a lab assistant !
> so in 11 years how many dead rats and flys did you put in the dumpster?
> did you publish any papers ?if so  can you post a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made a pretty good living that is why I am in the position I am in today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say that lab assistants didn't make good money!
> even so that does not make you a biologist
> it's also a non answer.
Click to expand...


Wrong daws I did study cells that would make me a biologist even though I had the title of lab tech.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> obviously you can't read.
> I'll write  it larger AND MORE CLEARLY  : UNLIKE YOUR BIBLE AND PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC TEXTS..(IN REAL TEXTBOOKS ) WHEN AN ERROR IS FOUND THEY ARE EDITED AND REISSUED WITH CORRECTIONS
> HEY FOLKS IS THIS ENOUGH PROOF THAT YWC IS AN ILLITERATE  FUCK OR WHAT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to ? looking for approval of you getting your ass handed to you time after time ? The thing is mistakes are not made in the bible languages change over time so that is why they get revised not because of mistakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's also bullshit  the bible is full of mistakes in language and everything else. it's a fact you will not accept.. but that does not make it any less true.
Click to expand...


No the bible was perfect it was the languages that caused problems trying to translate accurately.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another failed attempt a character assassination and lame ass cherry picking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey boy,put some butter on my popcorn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got your boy shit hangin'
Click to expand...


Probably so


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws are you still trying deny this planet is a closed system ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd.
Click to expand...


You were still wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT ! the black plague ended because some of the victims developed immunity.
> and it could not breach the atlantic ocean.
> 
> it's not dead even today ,if you botherd to read  or watch non creationist tv you'd know that .
> 
> 
> Australia suffered 12 major plague outbreaks between 1900 and 1925 originating from shipping.[24] Research by Australian medical officers Thompson, Armstrong and Tidswell contributed to understanding the spread of Yersinia pestis to humans by fleas from infected rats.[25]
> 
> In 1994, a plague outbreak in five Indian states caused an estimated 700 infections (including 52 deaths) and triggered a large migration of Indians within India as they tried to avoid the plague.
> 
> In 1994 and 2010 cases were reported in Peru.[26] In 2010 a case was reported in Oregon, United States.[27] In 2012, cases were reported in Oregon and Colorado.[28][29]
> 
> In August 2012, a 7 year old girl was confirmed as a victim of Bubonic plague following a camping expedition in Colorado.[30]
> 
> In September 2012 a herdsman in China (Sichuan province, Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture) has been reported to have died of the disease after finding a dead marmot and eating it.[31]
> 
> Bubonic plague - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of crap daws I wiil give you the real truth on the subject that NP brought up.
> 
> Mutated HIV Suggests New Approach to AIDS
> 
> Even your side admits I am right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that article  said nothing about bubonic plague
> making this post invalid.
Click to expand...


Did not have to you were the one that brought that to the discussion NP brought up HIV. Still a virus can die out or go dormant but either way it is because it got weaker to the point that the immune system could fight it off.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> now that is funny! please show me any place  in this thread that I did that.
> even more hilarious is the failed attempt to turn what i said against me !
> if this is not a gay slur "Maybe you guys could compare tights -UR") by you ,THEN THERE ARE NONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey theatre boy give me one argument you actually won. After this many pages surely you can come up with just one argument you won ? if you can't come up with that one argument why do you continue on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to as I've won every argument since I CAME TO THIS THREAD.
> how ? WITH ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE "there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
> it's an unbeatable fact.
> if and until you can provide actual evidence you've already lost...no matter how much bitch.
Click to expand...


You see you could not provide one argument why do you continue on ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made a pretty good living that is why I am in the position I am in today.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that lab assistants didn't make good money!
> even so that does not make you a biologist
> it's also a non answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong daws I did study cells that would make me a biologist even though I had the title of lab tech.
Click to expand...

you just keep on believing that..
you never completed the required classes or internship to receive a masters or a PhD in biology, without those you are not a biologist


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to ? looking for approval of you getting your ass handed to you time after time ? The thing is mistakes are not made in the bible languages change over time so that is why they get revised not because of mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> that's also bullshit  the bible is full of mistakes in language and everything else. it's a fact you will not accept.. but that does not make it any less true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the bible was perfect it was the languages that caused problems trying to translate accurately.
Click to expand...

more bullshit :Scientific, Historical Errors & Mistakes in the Bible
The Bible is filled with errors and mistakes. Other ancient texts also have errors and mistakes, but this isn't a problem because people don't expect the authors of those texts to be perfect. The Bible, in contrast, is claimed by many believers to be infallible, inerrant, perfect, etc. Many base their entire religious ideology around the presumption that the Bible is free from errors or mistakes, so demonstrating the presence of errors is key to rebutting their religious claims.
Are there Errors & Mistakes in the Bible?
Of course there are errors and mistakes in the Bible; the only people who deny the presence of errors and mistakes are those with a strong ideological commitment to a belief that the Bible is somehow infallible, inerrant, or perfect. We can find errors and mistakes everywhere we look in the Bible because it's a collection of texts written centuries and millennia ago. Not all of the writers agreed and they were all ignorant of things humans have learned since then.
Scientific errors &#8212; statements that conflict with facts about reality we have learned through scientific investigation &#8212; can be found throughout the Bible because the biblical texts were written at times when human knowledge about our world was quite limited. We can't blame ancient writers for knowing less than we do now, but we can blame people alive now for preferring the errors of ancient writers over the reliable knowledge developed today.
Historical Errors in the Bible
Historical errors are mistakes in the historical record: claims about events happening or which happened but which never did and claims about events that would happen in the future but which never transpired. One might expect an ancient text to have an accurate record of ancient events, but historians as we known them are a recent development. In the past, records were written with an ideological agenda behind them, not for the sake of pure actual accuracy. Historical mistakes and errors are only to be expected.
Do Bible Errors & Mistakes Matter?
Under other circumstance, the presence of scientific and historical errors wouldn't be a big deal in an ancient text. They exist in all ancient texts, including religious scriptures, and no one invests a lot of time trying to point them out. The Bible is different, though, because so many people base their lives around the proposition that it is actually free from errors, infallible, and perfect. If so many Christians and Jews weren't trying to force civil society and civil laws to conform to their Bible, pointing out its errors and mistakes wouldn't be necessary.
Lists of Bible Errors & Mistakes
Large numbers of Bible errors and mistakes are collected here. Organized according to the individual books in the Bible, each document explains what the error or mistake is and presents the relevant verses from the Bible so it can be examined. The King James Version of the Bible is used for copyright purposes. It's not the best translation available, but it is a popular Bible translation among those who think the Bible is perfect and error-free, so it is worth using for that reason alone.
Bible Errors & Mistakes Overview - Scientific, Historical Errors & Mistakes in the Bible

I could list lot's more but that would be overkill .
you're wrong so own it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that lab assistants didn't make good money!
> even so that does not make you a biologist
> it's also a non answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong daws I did study cells that would make me a biologist even though I had the title of lab tech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you just keep on believing that..
> you never completed the required classes or internship to receive a masters or a PhD in biology, without those you are not a biologist
Click to expand...


Daws did you misunderstand me when I said I was a molecular biologist ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws are you still trying deny this planet is a closed system ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were still wrong.
Click to expand...

false


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's also bullshit  the bible is full of mistakes in language and everything else. it's a fact you will not accept.. but that does not make it any less true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the bible was perfect it was the languages that caused problems trying to translate accurately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more bullshit :Scientific, Historical Errors & Mistakes in the Bible
> The Bible is filled with errors and mistakes. Other ancient texts also have errors and mistakes, but this isn't a problem because people don't expect the authors of those texts to be perfect. The Bible, in contrast, is claimed by many believers to be infallible, inerrant, perfect, etc. Many base their entire religious ideology around the presumption that the Bible is free from errors or mistakes, so demonstrating the presence of errors is key to rebutting their religious claims.
> Are there Errors & Mistakes in the Bible?
> Of course there are errors and mistakes in the Bible; the only people who deny the presence of errors and mistakes are those with a strong ideological commitment to a belief that the Bible is somehow infallible, inerrant, or perfect. We can find errors and mistakes everywhere we look in the Bible because it's a collection of texts written centuries and millennia ago. Not all of the writers agreed and they were all ignorant of things humans have learned since then.
> Scientific errors  statements that conflict with facts about reality we have learned through scientific investigation  can be found throughout the Bible because the biblical texts were written at times when human knowledge about our world was quite limited. We can't blame ancient writers for knowing less than we do now, but we can blame people alive now for preferring the errors of ancient writers over the reliable knowledge developed today.
> Historical Errors in the Bible
> Historical errors are mistakes in the historical record: claims about events happening or which happened but which never did and claims about events that would happen in the future but which never transpired. One might expect an ancient text to have an accurate record of ancient events, but historians as we known them are a recent development. In the past, records were written with an ideological agenda behind them, not for the sake of pure actual accuracy. Historical mistakes and errors are only to be expected.
> Do Bible Errors & Mistakes Matter?
> Under other circumstance, the presence of scientific and historical errors wouldn't be a big deal in an ancient text. They exist in all ancient texts, including religious scriptures, and no one invests a lot of time trying to point them out. The Bible is different, though, because so many people base their lives around the proposition that it is actually free from errors, infallible, and perfect. If so many Christians and Jews weren't trying to force civil society and civil laws to conform to their Bible, pointing out its errors and mistakes wouldn't be necessary.
> Lists of Bible Errors & Mistakes
> Large numbers of Bible errors and mistakes are collected here. Organized according to the individual books in the Bible, each document explains what the error or mistake is and presents the relevant verses from the Bible so it can be examined. The King James Version of the Bible is used for copyright purposes. It's not the best translation available, but it is a popular Bible translation among those who think the Bible is perfect and error-free, so it is worth using for that reason alone.
> Bible Errors & Mistakes Overview - Scientific, Historical Errors & Mistakes in the Bible
> 
> I could list lot's more but that would be overkill .
> you're wrong so own it.
Click to expand...


You can find all the misinformation you like daws you are not gonna prove there were errors in the bible.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of crap daws I wiil give you the real truth on the subject that NP brought up.
> 
> Mutated HIV Suggests New Approach to AIDS
> 
> Even your side admits I am right.
> 
> 
> 
> that article  said nothing about bubonic plague
> making this post invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did not have to you were the one that brought that to the discussion NP brought up HIV. Still a virus can die out or go dormant but either way it is because it got weaker to the point that the immune system could fight it off.
Click to expand...

dodge


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey theatre boy give me one argument you actually won. After this many pages surely you can come up with just one argument you won ? if you can't come up with that one argument why do you continue on ?
> 
> 
> 
> no need to as I've won every argument since I CAME TO THIS THREAD.
> how ? WITH ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE "there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
> it's an unbeatable fact.
> if and until you can provide actual evidence you've already lost...no matter how much bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see you could not provide one argument why do you continue on ?
Click to expand...

more proof you are an illiterate..""there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
it's an unbeatable fact." means I win each and every argument so all of my posts are proof that I've won..
but again, to me it's not a matter of wining or losing .
even if you believe it's a win lose contest the answer is still the same:..""there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
so any claim of victory is false and subjective .

BTW, you can knockoff the why do you continue scam.
it will never have the desired effect.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong daws I did study cells that would make me a biologist even though I had the title of lab tech.
> 
> 
> 
> you just keep on believing that..
> you never completed the required classes or internship to receive a masters or a PhD in biology, without those you are not a biologist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws did you misunderstand me when I said I was a molecular biologist ?
Click to expand...

no why? molecular or not, without those aforementioned  degrees you are not what you claim to be.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the bible was perfect it was the languages that caused problems trying to translate accurately.
> 
> 
> 
> more bullshit :Scientific, Historical Errors & Mistakes in the Bible
> The Bible is filled with errors and mistakes. Other ancient texts also have errors and mistakes, but this isn't a problem because people don't expect the authors of those texts to be perfect. The Bible, in contrast, is claimed by many believers to be infallible, inerrant, perfect, etc. Many base their entire religious ideology around the presumption that the Bible is free from errors or mistakes, so demonstrating the presence of errors is key to rebutting their religious claims.
> Are there Errors & Mistakes in the Bible?
> Of course there are errors and mistakes in the Bible; the only people who deny the presence of errors and mistakes are those with a strong ideological commitment to a belief that the Bible is somehow infallible, inerrant, or perfect. We can find errors and mistakes everywhere we look in the Bible because it's a collection of texts written centuries and millennia ago. Not all of the writers agreed and they were all ignorant of things humans have learned since then.
> Scientific errors  statements that conflict with facts about reality we have learned through scientific investigation  can be found throughout the Bible because the biblical texts were written at times when human knowledge about our world was quite limited. We can't blame ancient writers for knowing less than we do now, but we can blame people alive now for preferring the errors of ancient writers over the reliable knowledge developed today.
> Historical Errors in the Bible
> Historical errors are mistakes in the historical record: claims about events happening or which happened but which never did and claims about events that would happen in the future but which never transpired. One might expect an ancient text to have an accurate record of ancient events, but historians as we known them are a recent development. In the past, records were written with an ideological agenda behind them, not for the sake of pure actual accuracy. Historical mistakes and errors are only to be expected.
> Do Bible Errors & Mistakes Matter?
> Under other circumstance, the presence of scientific and historical errors wouldn't be a big deal in an ancient text. They exist in all ancient texts, including religious scriptures, and no one invests a lot of time trying to point them out. The Bible is different, though, because so many people base their lives around the proposition that it is actually free from errors, infallible, and perfect. If so many Christians and Jews weren't trying to force civil society and civil laws to conform to their Bible, pointing out its errors and mistakes wouldn't be necessary.
> Lists of Bible Errors & Mistakes
> Large numbers of Bible errors and mistakes are collected here. Organized according to the individual books in the Bible, each document explains what the error or mistake is and presents the relevant verses from the Bible so it can be examined. The King James Version of the Bible is used for copyright purposes. It's not the best translation available, but it is a popular Bible translation among those who think the Bible is perfect and error-free, so it is worth using for that reason alone.
> Bible Errors & Mistakes Overview - Scientific, Historical Errors & Mistakes in the Bible
> 
> I could list lot's more but that would be overkill .
> you're wrong so own it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can find all the misinformation you like daws you are not gonna prove there were errors in the bible.
Click to expand...

 ohhh denial in action! I've already proven it.
another argument won! 
your denial of fact is telling!


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Daws are you still trying deny this planet is a closed system ?



As I said, that this planet is a closed system does not matter.

By the way, a closed system isn't really a closed system. It is defined as one in which matter can not be exchanged, BUT ENERGY CAN. 

An ISOLATED system is one in which both matter and energy can not leave or come in, and it is only in this system that entropy will increase, no matter what. 

In a closed system, entropy has the ability to decrease. 

In other words YWC, you have been citing an isolated system, not a closed system. So stop pretending. You are mischaracterizing the 2nd LOTD's.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that article  said nothing about bubonic plague
> making this post invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did not have to you were the one that brought that to the discussion NP brought up HIV. Still a virus can die out or go dormant but either way it is because it got weaker to the point that the immune system could fight it off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dodge
Click to expand...


What I said goes with any virus daws are you really this dense ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no need to as I've won every argument since I CAME TO THIS THREAD.
> how ? WITH ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE "there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
> it's an unbeatable fact.
> if and until you can provide actual evidence you've already lost...no matter how much bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see you could not provide one argument why do you continue on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more proof you are an illiterate..""there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
> it's an unbeatable fact." means I win each and every argument so all of my posts are proof that I've won..
> but again, to me it's not a matter of wining or losing .
> even if you believe it's a win lose contest the answer is still the same:..""there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
> so any claim of victory is false and subjective .
> 
> BTW, you can knockoff the why do you continue scam.
> it will never have the desired effect.
Click to expand...


I am not speaking of God Daws I am speaking of your theory,science daws.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just keep on believing that..
> you never completed the required classes or internship to receive a masters or a PhD in biology, without those you are not a biologist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws did you misunderstand me when I said I was a molecular biologist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no why? molecular or not, without those aforementioned  degrees you are not what you claim to be.
Click to expand...


What do you think a molecular biologist is


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, please demonstrate a modern day example of Natural Selection acting on a random mutation and producing a trait that increases fitness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The AIDS virus, which literally relies on constant mutation in order to evade our immune system, which is what makes it so deadly. In doing so, it is constantly increasing its fitness. Or, any virus that has ever existed that we have studied and witness mutate to become more powerful, such as a virus going airborne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong,it's not fitness, it is adapting but even adaptation have their limits. The black plague eventually reached it's limits and died out. All viruses run their course and die out and if we discover a treatment it will die out sooner or eventually weaken to where our immune system can fight it off.
> 
> Thank you though for pointing out mutations are harmful even to viruses. Unfortunately many die before that dying out happens.
Click to expand...


What do you mean the black plague reached its limit and then died out? What limit? Viruses do not have a time limit on their viability. They will continue to spread and infect forever, if they can find hosts, and don't kill their hosts before they can be spread. This is why the ebola virus actually isn't a huge threat. It kills too quickly. AIDS is more effective, because it incubation period is very long, and shows no symptoms for a long time. 

Virus' are not considered life, but they are self-replicating in the right conditions (a host), and as such, are able to mutate. I am demonstrating that which you asked about, mutation and natural selection. The mutation of a virus is what allows virus to be passed from animal to humans, which is where plagues nearly always come from- animals. 

I could easily talk of a bacterial plagues, as opposed to virues, which are living things, and which mutated to be able to inhabit humans, from having inhabited animals. It is our proximity to animals in slaughterhouses and farms that have caused almost every plague known throughout history. These virus' or bacterial infections must mutate to be able to infect humans. This is an increase an fitness, by the way. 



I have a very hard time believing you were a molecular biologist with statements like the one quoted above, unless I simply misinterpreted what you were actually trying to say.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws are you still trying deny this planet is a closed system ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, that this planet is a closed system does not matter.
> 
> By the way, a closed system isn't really a closed system. It is defined as one in which matter can not be exchanged, BUT ENERGY CAN.
> 
> An ISOLATED system is one in which both matter and energy can not leave or come in, and it is only in this system that entropy will increase, no matter what.
> 
> In a closed system, entropy has the ability to decrease.
> 
> In other words YWC, you have been citing an isolated system, not a closed system. So stop pretending. You are mischaracterizing the 2nd LOTD's.
Click to expand...


The universe is an isolated system and the earth is a closed system neither are open systems which is what daws was claiming.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws are you still trying deny this planet is a closed system ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, that this planet is a closed system does not matter.
> 
> By the way, a closed system isn't really a closed system. It is defined as one in which matter can not be exchanged, BUT ENERGY CAN.
> 
> An ISOLATED system is one in which both matter and energy can not leave or come in, and it is only in this system that entropy will increase, no matter what.
> 
> In a closed system, entropy has the ability to decrease.
> 
> In other words YWC, you have been citing an isolated system, not a closed system. So stop pretending. You are mischaracterizing the 2nd LOTD's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe is an isolated system and the earth is a closed system neither are open systems which is what daws was claiming.
Click to expand...


The universe is the only potential isolated system, but we don't know that it is with any certainty. Given the possibility of the multi-verse and extra dimensions, the universe might not be an isolated system.

The term "closed system" is deceptive relative to its definition, in Daws defense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> The AIDS virus, which literally relies on constant mutation in order to evade our immune system, which is what makes it so deadly. In doing so, it is constantly increasing its fitness. Or, any virus that has ever existed that we have studied and witness mutate to become more powerful, such as a virus going airborne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,it's not fitness, it is adapting but even adaptation have their limits. The black plague eventually reached it's limits and died out. All viruses run their course and die out and if we discover a treatment it will die out sooner or eventually weaken to where our immune system can fight it off.
> 
> Thank you though for pointing out mutations are harmful even to viruses. Unfortunately many die before that dying out happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean the black plague reached its limit and then died out? What limit? Viruses do not have a time limit on their viability. They will continue to spread and infect forever, if they can find hosts, and don't kill their hosts before they can be spread. This is why the ebola virus actually isn't a huge threat. It kills too quickly. AIDS is more effective, because it incubation period is very long, and shows no symptoms for a long time.
> 
> Virus' are not considered life, but they are self-replicating in the right conditions (a host), and as such, are able to mutate. I am demonstrating that which you asked about, mutation and natural selection. The mutation of a virus is what allows virus to be passed from animal to humans, which is where plagues nearly always come from- animals.
> 
> I could easily talk of a bacterial plagues, as opposed to virues, which are living things, and which mutated to be able to inhabit humans, from having inhabited animals. It is our proximity to animals in slaughterhouses and farms that have caused almost every plague known throughout history. These virus' or bacterial infections must mutate to be able to infect humans. This is an increase an fitness, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a very hard time believing you were a molecular biologist with statements like the one quoted above, unless I simply misinterpreted what you were actually trying to say.
Click to expand...


Everything has a limit to adapting and everytime it mutates it can get stronger but eventually the mutations will make the virus weaker.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, that this planet is a closed system does not matter.
> 
> By the way, a closed system isn't really a closed system. It is defined as one in which matter can not be exchanged, BUT ENERGY CAN.
> 
> An ISOLATED system is one in which both matter and energy can not leave or come in, and it is only in this system that entropy will increase, no matter what.
> 
> In a closed system, entropy has the ability to decrease.
> 
> In other words YWC, you have been citing an isolated system, not a closed system. So stop pretending. You are mischaracterizing the 2nd LOTD's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is an isolated system and the earth is a closed system neither are open systems which is what daws was claiming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe is the only potential isolated system, but we don't know that it is with any certainty. Given the possibility of the multi-verse and extra dimensions, the universe might not be an isolated system.
> 
> The term "closed system" is deceptive relative to its definition, in Daws defense.
Click to expand...


Daws was wrong in both cases and so were you.

Thermodynamic systems


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> claiming it's not, is a major part of the delusion.
> kinda like saying you not an alcoholic when *you down a twelve pack with dinner everynight.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the Daws doth provide TMI. For you theatre freaks, thats "too mucheth informationeth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another failed attempt a character assassination and lame ass cherry picking.
Click to expand...


You are right. Your failed attempt to assassinate my character by insinuating I'm an alcoholic was pretty lame.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> now that is funny! please show me any place  in this thread that I did that.
> even more hilarious is the failed attempt to turn what i said against me !
> if this is not a gay slur "Maybe you guys could compare tights -UR") by you ,THEN THERE ARE NONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey theatre boy give me one argument you actually won. After this many pages surely you can come up with just one argument you won ? if you can't come up with that one argument why do you continue on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need to as I've won every argument since I CAME TO THIS THREAD.
> how ? WITH ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE "there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
> it's an unbeatable fact.
> if and until you can provide actual evidence you've already lost...no matter how much bitch.
Click to expand...


There is evidence all around you. You just choose blindness.

*Hebrews 11(NIV)*

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that *the universe was formed at God&#8217;s command*, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

*Romans 1(NIV)*

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world *God&#8217;s invisible qualities&#8212;his eternal power and divine nature&#8212;have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made*, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, that this planet is a closed system does not matter.
> 
> By the way, a closed system isn't really a closed system. It is defined as one in which matter can not be exchanged, BUT ENERGY CAN.
> 
> An ISOLATED system is one in which both matter and energy can not leave or come in, and it is only in this system that entropy will increase, no matter what.
> 
> In a closed system, entropy has the ability to decrease.
> 
> In other words YWC, you have been citing an isolated system, not a closed system. So stop pretending. You are mischaracterizing the 2nd LOTD's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is an isolated system and the earth is a closed system neither are open systems which is what daws was claiming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe is the only potential isolated system, but we don't know that it is with any certainty. Given the possibility of the multi-verse and extra dimensions, the universe might not be an isolated system.
> 
> The term "closed system" is deceptive relative to its definition, in Daws defense.
Click to expand...


You can't accept God but you can accept multi-verses and unseen dimensions?

Any comments on my post from Berkley about historical vs. empirical sciences?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,it's not fitness, it is adapting but even adaptation have their limits. The black plague eventually reached it's limits and died out. All viruses run their course and die out and if we discover a treatment it will die out sooner or eventually weaken to where our immune system can fight it off.
> 
> Thank you though for pointing out mutations are harmful even to viruses. Unfortunately many die before that dying out happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean the black plague reached its limit and then died out? What limit? Viruses do not have a time limit on their viability. They will continue to spread and infect forever, if they can find hosts, and don't kill their hosts before they can be spread. This is why the ebola virus actually isn't a huge threat. It kills too quickly. AIDS is more effective, because it incubation period is very long, and shows no symptoms for a long time.
> 
> Virus' are not considered life, but they are self-replicating in the right conditions (a host), and as such, are able to mutate. I am demonstrating that which you asked about, mutation and natural selection. The mutation of a virus is what allows virus to be passed from animal to humans, which is where plagues nearly always come from- animals.
> 
> I could easily talk of a bacterial plagues, as opposed to virues, which are living things, and which mutated to be able to inhabit humans, from having inhabited animals. It is our proximity to animals in slaughterhouses and farms that have caused almost every plague known throughout history. These virus' or bacterial infections must mutate to be able to infect humans. This is an increase an fitness, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a very hard time believing you were a molecular biologist with statements like the one quoted above, unless I simply misinterpreted what you were actually trying to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything has a limit to adapting and everytime it mutates it can get stronger but eventually the mutations will make the virus weaker.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. The mutation of a virus is often the result of stimulus from the host. The resulting strain is not necessarily stronger or weaker but has adapted to external conditions. 

Remarkably, you explicitly define one of the basic principles of evolution, yet you can't allow yourself the intellectual integrity to admit that. To do so would immediately thrust you into a contradiction with your alleged supernatural realms where everything is reduced to the slogan, "the gawds did it".


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just keep on believing that..
> you never completed the required classes or internship to receive a masters or a PhD in biology, without those you are not a biologist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws did you misunderstand me when I said I was a molecular biologist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no why? molecular or not, without those aforementioned  degrees you are not what you claim to be.
Click to expand...


Daws why do you pretend to know so much and you don't know my back ground.

How to Become a Molecular Biologist: Education and Career Roadmap


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean the black plague reached its limit and then died out? What limit? Viruses do not have a time limit on their viability. They will continue to spread and infect forever, if they can find hosts, and don't kill their hosts before they can be spread. This is why the ebola virus actually isn't a huge threat. It kills too quickly. AIDS is more effective, because it incubation period is very long, and shows no symptoms for a long time.
> 
> Virus' are not considered life, but they are self-replicating in the right conditions (a host), and as such, are able to mutate. I am demonstrating that which you asked about, mutation and natural selection. The mutation of a virus is what allows virus to be passed from animal to humans, which is where plagues nearly always come from- animals.
> 
> I could easily talk of a bacterial plagues, as opposed to virues, which are living things, and which mutated to be able to inhabit humans, from having inhabited animals. It is our proximity to animals in slaughterhouses and farms that have caused almost every plague known throughout history. These virus' or bacterial infections must mutate to be able to infect humans. This is an increase an fitness, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a very hard time believing you were a molecular biologist with statements like the one quoted above, unless I simply misinterpreted what you were actually trying to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything has a limit to adapting and everytime it mutates it can get stronger but eventually the mutations will make the virus weaker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense. The mutation of a virus is often the result of stimulus from the host. The resulting strain is not necessarily stronger or weaker but has adapted to external conditions.
> 
> Remarkably, you explicitly define one of the basic principles of evolution, yet you can't allow yourself the intellectual integrity to admit that. To do so would immediately thrust you into a contradiction with your alleged supernatural realms where everything is reduced to the slogan, "the gawds did it".
Click to expand...


Hollie as usual you are so wrong. The virus takes over the host organism and that is what leads to the virus mutating and it can become stronger or weaker but over time the mutations will have an adverse reaction on both the organism and virus.


----------



## ima

So why did some ID god make shit that would hurt us like viruses? Is he not too bright?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> So why did some ID god make shit that would hurt us like viruses? Is he not too bright?



I can't say for sure but it looks like he (God) has used several different methods to assure we can live but pay the ultimate price for sin and that is death. Mutating genes is not a good thing nor are viruses.

The simple thing is a couple on your side fail to reason out that eventually all viruses mutate to a point that our immune system can fight them off if not for that we would have been wiped out and many other organisms that have been invaded by viruses.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything has a limit to adapting and everytime it mutates it can get stronger but eventually the mutations will make the virus weaker.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. The mutation of a virus is often the result of stimulus from the host. The resulting strain is not necessarily stronger or weaker but has adapted to external conditions.
> 
> Remarkably, you explicitly define one of the basic principles of evolution, yet you can't allow yourself the intellectual integrity to admit that. To do so would immediately thrust you into a contradiction with your alleged supernatural realms where everything is reduced to the slogan, "the gawds did it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie as usual you are so wrong. The virus takes over the host organism and that is what leads to the virus mutating and it can become stronger or weaker but over time the mutations will have an adverse reaction on both the organism and virus.
Click to expand...

As usual, you define why you were never a molecular biologist. Try defining your terms a bit more succinctly. A virus does not 'take over' the host organism. A bit less Hollywood movie and a bit more biology would be helpful.


----------



## Glensather

FYI:

Conservative Christian Superhero Pat Robertson doesn't believe in Young Earth Creationism.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why did some ID god make shit that would hurt us like viruses? Is he not too bright?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say for sure but it looks like he (God) has used several different methods to assure we can live but pay the ultimate price for sin and that is death. Mutating genes is not a good thing nor are viruses.
> 
> The simple thing is a couple on your side fail to reason out that eventually all viruses mutate to a point that our immune system can fight them off if not for that we would have been wiped out and many other organisms that have been invaded by viruses.
Click to expand...


How utterly twisted. No wonder your behavior is so bizarre. You live your life in trembling fear of the most evil villain ever to be shaped by the mind of man.  You're suggesting that the gawds "poofed" viruses into existence as yet another punishment to be inflicted on humanity?

So, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, fire, bacterial infections, etc. weren't enough so the gawds chose yet another humanity wiping catastrophe?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why did some ID god make shit that would hurt us like viruses? Is he not too bright?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say for sure but it looks like he (God) has used several different methods to assure we can live but pay the ultimate price for sin and that is death. Mutating genes is not a good thing nor are viruses.
> 
> The simple thing is a couple on your side fail to reason out that eventually all viruses mutate to a point that our immune system can fight them off if not for that we would have been wiped out and many other organisms that have been invaded by viruses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How utterly twisted. No wonder your behavior is so bizarre. You live your life in trembling fear of the most evil villain ever to be shaped by the mind of man.  You're suggesting that the gawds "poofed" viruses into existence as yet another punishment to be inflicted on humanity?
> 
> So, f*loods, earthquakes, tornadoes, fire, bacterial infections,* etc. weren't enough so the gawds chose yet another humanity wiping catastrophe?
Click to expand...


Are you saying you have an innate sense of morality that would convict you that all these things are bad? Why is dying bad? It happens to everything on the planet eventually. Why do you seem so angry about this? Where does your sense that this is wrong come from if we are a product of evolution and the things you speak of are just part of this crazy, random accident we call life on earth?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws are you still trying deny this planet is a closed system ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, that this planet is a closed system does not matter.
> 
> By the way, a closed system isn't really a closed system. It is defined as one in which matter can not be exchanged, BUT ENERGY CAN.
> 
> An ISOLATED system is one in which both matter and energy can not leave or come in, and it is only in this system that entropy will increase, no matter what.
> 
> In a closed system, entropy has the ability to decrease.
> 
> In other words YWC, you have been citing an isolated system, not a closed system. So stop pretending. You are mischaracterizing the 2nd LOTD's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe is an isolated system and the earth is a closed system neither are open systems which is what daws was claiming.
Click to expand...



Who cares. I was mistaken too, but not conceptually. As I said, a closed system isn't really a closed system, as one might think upon hearing the word "closed." Energy is allowed in and out. It is only closed with respect to matter. 

The point is, you are wrong in your expectation that Earth should expect increased entropy. It is not an isolated system. You have misquoted the 2nd LOTD's.

The more you continue on this path of nitpicking, you more you reveal that you were wrong as well.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, that this planet is a closed system does not matter.
> 
> By the way, a closed system isn't really a closed system. It is defined as one in which matter can not be exchanged, BUT ENERGY CAN.
> 
> An ISOLATED system is one in which both matter and energy can not leave or come in, and it is only in this system that entropy will increase, no matter what.
> 
> In a closed system, entropy has the ability to decrease.
> 
> In other words YWC, you have been citing an isolated system, not a closed system. So stop pretending. You are mischaracterizing the 2nd LOTD's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is an isolated system and the earth is a closed system neither are open systems which is what daws was claiming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares. I was mistaken too, but not conceptually. As I said, a closed system isn't really a closed system, as one might think upon hearing the word "closed." Energy is allowed in and out. It is only closed with respect to matter.
> 
> The point is, you are wrong in your expectation that Earth should expect increased entropy. It is not an isolated system. You have misquoted the 2nd LOTD's.
> 
> The more you continue on this path of nitpicking, you more you reveal that you were wrong as well.
Click to expand...


Response to the Berkley article?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is an isolated system and the earth is a closed system neither are open systems which is what daws was claiming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares. I was mistaken too, but not conceptually. As I said, a closed system isn't really a closed system, as one might think upon hearing the word "closed." Energy is allowed in and out. It is only closed with respect to matter.
> 
> The point is, you are wrong in your expectation that Earth should expect increased entropy. It is not an isolated system. You have misquoted the 2nd LOTD's.
> 
> The more you continue on this path of nitpicking, you more you reveal that you were wrong as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Response to the Berkley article?
Click to expand...


Yeah, just wait. But basically, you didn't say much.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Enough of this drivel about evolution being a historical science and therefore having a fundamentally different burden of proof, or a different methodology.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this post will enlighten you to how even what appears on the surface as a sound article is really very agenda driven. It does not find its source in truth, but more so to silence the attacks of evolution as a legitimate science. I am not sure who opened it, but the debate was ushered in hard core when a fundie evolutionists attempted to compare evolution with the law of gravity. We may never know who the originator of this fallacious argument was but they unleashed a barrage of misinformation to cloud the issue on what category the study of evolution, or creation for that matter, really falls into and what we can expect when it comes to "proofs".
> 
> NP, you are allowing Hawly's constant propaganda barage to cloud your judgement of me. While I do subscribe to many of the Discovery Institute Articles, more than 3/4 of knowledge on science comes from unbiased sources and I have never visited the ICR website or Harun Yahya, unless it was by accidentally clicking on one of Hawly's links. (FYI, my spelling of Hawly's name is a dig against her spelling "gawd". Classic.)
> 
> I would appreciate it if you try and do the same when posting articles for reference to an argument you have presented if possible. Sometimes in the case of ID theory, it is not possible. Your Atheist websites, just like some Creationists websites, are many times clouded by their agenda, which gives them a slant. Your article above would have you believe Historical Science is on the same level as Emprical Science. It is not. Neither evolution nor ID theory will ever live up to the same burden of proof that the empirical sciences can and most Historical Scientists would protest if you held them to the same level of proof. I thought it fitting to quote this article from Berkley, since it is obviously as Lib as colleges come, and no one can say I am using biased sources.
> 
> _"*B. Formal Sciences*
> 1. Logic and mathematics
> 2. Both define their own universe.
> 3. Because they do, they can initially speak of absolute "true" versus "false."
> a. 2 + 2 = 4. Why? Because we all agree upon it.
> 4. This sounds like belief knowledge. However, it differs in one critical element &#8212; once you establish an initial premise (which must have rigor), you have to follow the research protocol to investigate its effect and validity.
> 5. *These disciplines are often seen as the epitome of science &#8212; an exact, fully logical, brick by brick process.*
> 
> *C. Empirical Sciences*
> 1. Deal with objects and observations
> a. Takes the world as it is and tries to understand it.
> b. Here there can be NO truth, no right or wrong, only observations and hypotheses about the natural system.
> 2. Empirical Science may be roughly divided into two camps:
> a. *The Experimental Sciences: e.g., Chemistry, Physics and allied subjects.*
> (1) Here the subject allows the creation of controlled experiments in the laboratory.
> (2) The objects under observation (e.g., atoms, molecules) are assumed to all be the same and to lack individuality.
> b. *The Historical Sciences: e.g., most of Biology, Geology.*
> (1) Here the objects under observation increasingly possess individual characteristics, such as single historical events or the individuals in a species.* Optimal controls and laboratory experiments become increasingly difficult.*
> (2) Paleontology exhibits the "worst" of this in that it concerns organisms (which have individuality) in historical circumstances *(where the coincidence of factors at any one time may NEVER be repeated) and all of this occurring in the distant past.*
> 3. This distinction between Experimental and Historical Sciences sets up a false debate in public. *Paleontologists are often compared with physicists and then faulted for not producing scientific data as measured by the standards of physics. We paleontologists simply cannot!*
> 4. As we progress from experimental to historical sciences, we pass into a realm of the critical establishment of probability. *"Good Science" becomes a matter of eliminating as many variables &#8212; while entertaining as many alternate interpretations of the observations &#8212; as possible."* _
> 
> What Is Science?
> 
> I believe this explanation to be spot on. I'm sure you could cite many experiments you have done in a chemistry or physics class that could be repeated over and over and achieve the same result as long as rigorous controls were in place. This can never be the case with predictions or hypotheses about events that occurred in the distant past. We can never know with 100% certainty that what believe about events in the past are absolutely true. We can only eliminate as many variables as possible. This is what you miss in Meyer's argument and you would note if you read his book. He attempts to eliminate as many competing hypothesis about the origin of information in dna as possible by arguing against some of the more prominent hypotheses put forth on the subject. This too is what you may miss in evolutionary biology. Darwin's tree of life has been shredded by genetic evidence, so new hypotheses have been introduced, like lateral gene transfer, to deal with the new evidence. When these types of discoveries net different results than what Darwin originally predicted, the IDers and Creationists have a field day, and rightfully so.
> 
> And that leads us to why I chose the screen name I did. The ultimate goal of science is to describe ultimate reality. Scientists are always trying to determine what is REALLY REAL. Even without my Theistic views, I would have a very hard time believing that evolution, not adaptation, is true based on the evidence. Once you learn to see many of the manipulations for what they are I liken it to the point in the matrix when Neo starts to see the code, instead of the simulation. I am not trying to put you down when I say you are not yet attune to it. There is SOOOOO much misinformation out there now with the proliferation of the internet. I wouldn't call it the information age. I would call it the misinformation age. Even when I did a google search for articles about the empirical sciences versus the historical sciences I was inundated with articles obviously written by evolution supporters to discredit the discrediting being done by the Theists. I can see the code now and I am not fooled by it.
Click to expand...



All I see here, again, is an attempt to discredit a competing theory so that your hypothesis will have more of the stage. You attempt this from every angle imaginable, including, attacking the fundamental validity of evolutionary biology, on the grounds that it is "only a historical science." If evolution were proved completely wrong tomorrow, that would not do a single thing in proving an intelligent designer, or god, is responsible for any of the universe.

You lost me with "fundie evolutionist," but I managed to finish out your lengthy, and non-substantive post.

 I don't consider your critique of my sources posted as valid, because you have not actually critiqued the content. You merely dismiss it off-hand. 

The idea that the sciences can be neatly split into two distinct and mutually exclusive categories in all cases, is untenable, as demonstrated in the article I posted, using a real world example.

To reiterate the most important point: Trying to split the sciences into neat dichotomies so that one can be shown to be unreliable, does not nothing to prove there is a god or intelligent designer. In fact, the ultimate irony is that you would need the historical sciences just as much as evolution in order to make your case. So, your attempts as laying heavier burdens of proof upon historical claims only makes your task more difficult. This includes claims about the impossibility of abiogenesis, using purely math. This also includes the entire claim about an intelligent designer being the cause for life. 

No doubt, your response will be, that ID is an experimental science and not a historical one, but here you fall into a fundamental paradox. You attempt to explain the past, without referring to the past. Presumably, you do this to avoid the pitfalls that you seen in the "historical sciences," but fail to realize this makes your investigation void of any real evidence. I believe this is the pitfall of ID. Therefore, you are constrained to evidence we have today, and the only thing you have is, the language of another mind: digital code. Therefore, you must make an inductive argument to reach your conclusions: DNA is a complex, specifiable code. Digital code is the same. Digital code is made by intelligent minds. Therefore, so is DNA. There is no evidence for this conclusion, other than looking at another code, and assuming it was formed in the same way. This is pure inductive reasoning.  There is no direct evidence for DNA being created by an intelligent designer, because that would require looking to the past, but you have blocked off that avenue for yourself. It seems that IDers have trapped themselves logically.

 If this is really the only argument or "evidence" you have for ID, then it is really hard for me to understand why you think this is convincing, at all. The only reason it is, is because you already believe that there was an intelligent force behind creation. The "science" of ID is not otherwise convincing to anyone else. ID is simply a contemporary version of the teleological argument. It is nothing new, and nothing special.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey theatre boy give me one argument you actually won. After this many pages surely you can come up with just one argument you won ? if you can't come up with that one argument why do you continue on ?
> 
> 
> 
> no need to as I've won every argument since I CAME TO THIS THREAD.
> how ? WITH ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE "there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
> it's an unbeatable fact.
> if and until you can provide actual evidence you've already lost...no matter how much bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is evidence all around you. You just choose blindness.
> 
> *Hebrews 11(NIV)*
> 
> 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
> 
> 3 By faith we understand that *the universe was formed at Gods command*, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
> 
> *Romans 1(NIV)*
> 
> 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world *Gods invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made*, so that people are without excuse.
> 
> 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Click to expand...


This is circular reasoning.

You can't use the bible to prove the bible's claims about god.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did not have to you were the one that brought that to the discussion NP brought up HIV. Still a virus can die out or go dormant but either way it is because it got weaker to the point that the immune system could fight it off.
> 
> 
> 
> dodge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said goes with any virus daws are you really this dense ?
Click to expand...

obviously not .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see you could not provide one argument why do you continue on ?
> 
> 
> 
> more proof you are an illiterate..""there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
> it's an unbeatable fact." means I win each and every argument so all of my posts are proof that I've won..
> but again, to me it's not a matter of wining or losing .
> even if you believe it's a win lose contest the answer is still the same:..""there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
> so any claim of victory is false and subjective .
> 
> BTW, you can knockoff the why do you continue scam.
> it will never have the desired effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not speaking of God Daws I am speaking of your theory,science daws.
Click to expand...

bullshit and backpedaling no matter how you try to spin it, you are always yammering about god 
your whole pov is based on the unprovable belief in god .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws did you misunderstand me when I said I was a molecular biologist ?
> 
> 
> 
> no why? molecular or not, without those aforementioned  degrees you are not what you claim to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think a molecular biologist is
Click to expand...

 a person who studies the  structure of of cells  observers their actions and their relationship  to the whole of biology.
also  do experiments and make judgments on the outcome of those experiments.
the only one of these you did was observe and report your obsevations.
my statements stand.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws are you still trying deny this planet is a closed system ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, that this planet is a closed system does not matter.
> 
> By the way, a closed system isn't really a closed system. It is defined as one in which matter can not be exchanged, BUT ENERGY CAN.
> 
> An ISOLATED system is one in which both matter and energy can not leave or come in, and it is only in this system that entropy will increase, no matter what.
> 
> In a closed system, entropy has the ability to decrease.
> 
> In other words YWC, you have been citing an isolated system, not a closed system. So stop pretending. You are mischaracterizing the 2nd LOTD's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe is an isolated system and the earth is a closed system neither are open systems which is what daws was claiming.
Click to expand...

false!  you're intentionally misrepresenting what I said or as already pointed out you can't read .
I said the earth is a partially closed system (fact)
the universe is considered a closed system  because as stated before "it" is "presumed" to 
encompasses everything... 
in actuality there is no way to know today but that will most likely change .


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks the Daws doth provide TMI. For you theatre freaks, thats "too mucheth informationeth".
> 
> 
> 
> another failed attempt a character assassination and lame ass cherry picking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right. Your failed attempt to assassinate my character by insinuating I'm an alcoholic was pretty lame.
Click to expand...

 your character need no help from me to be assassinated  as you commit character suicide in every post, for all to see.
wrong tosspot!  I Insinuated nothing if I wanted to call you an alcoholic ,I would have done so.
on the other hand your answer hints at the fact that you might have an alcohol problem.
the whole post is another failed attempt at spin.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey theatre boy give me one argument you actually won. After this many pages surely you can come up with just one argument you won ? if you can't come up with that one argument why do you continue on ?
> 
> 
> 
> no need to as I've won every argument since I CAME TO THIS THREAD.
> how ? WITH ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE "there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
> it's an unbeatable fact.
> if and until you can provide actual evidence you've already lost...no matter how much bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is evidence all around you. You just choose blindness.
> 
> *Hebrews 11(NIV)*
> 
> 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
> 
> 3 By faith we understand that *the universe was formed at Gods command*, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
> 
> *Romans 1(NIV)*
> 
> 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world *Gods invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made*, so that people are without excuse.
> 
> 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Click to expand...

more meaningless emboldened cherry picking ,from an erroneous source.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws did you misunderstand me when I said I was a molecular biologist ?
> 
> 
> 
> no why? molecular or not, without those aforementioned  degrees you are not what you claim to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws why do you pretend to know so much and you don't know my back ground.
> 
> How to Become a Molecular Biologist: Education and Career Roadmap
Click to expand...

this is another pointless reply as stated before YOU did not complete what was required to be a molecular biologist.
end of story!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why did some ID god make shit that would hurt us like viruses? Is he not too bright?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say for sure but it looks like he (God) has used several different methods to assure we can live but pay the ultimate price for sin and that is death. Mutating genes is not a good thing nor are viruses.
> 
> The simple thing is a couple on your side fail to reason out that eventually all viruses mutate to a point that our immune system can fight them off if not for that we would have been wiped out and many other organisms that have been invaded by viruses.
Click to expand...

total bullshit ...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. The mutation of a virus is often the result of stimulus from the host. The resulting strain is not necessarily stronger or weaker but has adapted to external conditions.
> 
> Remarkably, you explicitly define one of the basic principles of evolution, yet you can't allow yourself the intellectual integrity to admit that. To do so would immediately thrust you into a contradiction with your alleged supernatural realms where everything is reduced to the slogan, "the gawds did it".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie as usual you are so wrong. The virus takes over the host organism and that is what leads to the virus mutating and it can become stronger or weaker but over time the mutations will have an adverse reaction on both the organism and virus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you define why you were never a molecular biologist. Try defining your terms a bit more succinctly. A virus does not 'take over' the host organism. A bit less Hollywood movie and a bit more biology would be helpful.
Click to expand...


Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Glensather said:


> FYI:
> 
> Conservative Christian Superhero Pat Robertson doesn't believe in Young Earth Creationism.



Christianity is a philosophy not a religion and I am not of the same religion as robertson.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why did some ID god make shit that would hurt us like viruses? Is he not too bright?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say for sure but it looks like he (God) has used several different methods to assure we can live but pay the ultimate price for sin and that is death. Mutating genes is not a good thing nor are viruses.
> 
> The simple thing is a couple on your side fail to reason out that eventually all viruses mutate to a point that our immune system can fight them off if not for that we would have been wiped out and many other organisms that have been invaded by viruses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How utterly twisted. No wonder your behavior is so bizarre. You live your life in trembling fear of the most evil villain ever to be shaped by the mind of man.  You're suggesting that the gawds "poofed" viruses into existence as yet another punishment to be inflicted on humanity?
> 
> So, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, fire, bacterial infections, etc. weren't enough so the gawds chose yet another humanity wiping catastrophe?
Click to expand...


I don't live in fear hollie why would you say I live in fear ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, that this planet is a closed system does not matter.
> 
> By the way, a closed system isn't really a closed system. It is defined as one in which matter can not be exchanged, BUT ENERGY CAN.
> 
> An ISOLATED system is one in which both matter and energy can not leave or come in, and it is only in this system that entropy will increase, no matter what.
> 
> In a closed system, entropy has the ability to decrease.
> 
> In other words YWC, you have been citing an isolated system, not a closed system. So stop pretending. You are mischaracterizing the 2nd LOTD's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is an isolated system and the earth is a closed system neither are open systems which is what daws was claiming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares. I was mistaken too, but not conceptually. As I said, a closed system isn't really a closed system, as one might think upon hearing the word "closed." Energy is allowed in and out. It is only closed with respect to matter.
> 
> The point is, you are wrong in your expectation that Earth should expect increased entropy. It is not an isolated system. You have misquoted the 2nd LOTD's.
> 
> The more you continue on this path of nitpicking, you more you reveal that you were wrong as well.
Click to expand...


What ever makes your boat float.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no need to as I've won every argument since I CAME TO THIS THREAD.
> how ? WITH ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE "there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
> it's an unbeatable fact.
> if and until you can provide actual evidence you've already lost...no matter how much bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence all around you. You just choose blindness.
> 
> *Hebrews 11(NIV)*
> 
> 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
> 
> 3 By faith we understand that *the universe was formed at Gods command*, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
> 
> *Romans 1(NIV)*
> 
> 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world *Gods invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made*, so that people are without excuse.
> 
> 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is circular reasoning.
> 
> You can't use the bible to prove the bible's claims about god.
Click to expand...


Oh boy circular reasoning has been used by both sides.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> dodge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I said goes with any virus daws are you really this dense ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously not .
Click to expand...


A virus is a virus some are just more lethal.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more proof you are an illiterate..""there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
> it's an unbeatable fact." means I win each and every argument so all of my posts are proof that I've won..
> but again, to me it's not a matter of wining or losing .
> even if you believe it's a win lose contest the answer is still the same:..""there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
> so any claim of victory is false and subjective .
> 
> BTW, you can knockoff the why do you continue scam.
> it will never have the desired effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not speaking of God Daws I am speaking of your theory,science daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit and backpedaling no matter how you try to spin it, you are always yammering about god
> your whole pov is based on the unprovable belief in god .
Click to expand...


We are discussing science why do you want to leave this subject ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no why? molecular or not, without those aforementioned  degrees you are not what you claim to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think a molecular biologist is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a person who studies the  structure of of cells  observers their actions and their relationship  to the whole of biology.
> also  do experiments and make judgments on the outcome of those experiments.
> the only one of these you did was observe and report your obsevations.
> my statements stand.
Click to expand...


What do most molecular biologist possess to work in this field I posted it for you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, that this planet is a closed system does not matter.
> 
> By the way, a closed system isn't really a closed system. It is defined as one in which matter can not be exchanged, BUT ENERGY CAN.
> 
> An ISOLATED system is one in which both matter and energy can not leave or come in, and it is only in this system that entropy will increase, no matter what.
> 
> In a closed system, entropy has the ability to decrease.
> 
> In other words YWC, you have been citing an isolated system, not a closed system. So stop pretending. You are mischaracterizing the 2nd LOTD's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is an isolated system and the earth is a closed system neither are open systems which is what daws was claiming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false!  you're intentionally misrepresenting what I said or as already pointed out you can't read .
> I said the earth is a partially closed system (fact)
> the universe is considered a closed system  because as stated before "it" is "presumed" to
> encompasses everything...
> in actuality there is no way to know today but that will most likely change .
Click to expand...


No no that is not what you origionally said unless you went back and edited it.

Yes you are wrong on both accounts.



NSC111: Physics/Earth/Space
 Resource page: Thermodynamics 







II. Thermodynamic systems
 Energy transfer is studied in three types of systems: 




Open systems

Open systems can exchange both matter and energy with an outside system. They are portions of larger systems and in intimate contact with the larger system. Your body is an open system.



Closed systems

Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system. Though they are typically portions of larger systems, they are not in complete contact. The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero.



Isolated systems

Isolated systems can exchange neither energy nor matter with an outside system. While they may be portions of larger systems, they do not communicate with the outside in any way. The physical universe is an isolated system; a closed thermos bottle is essentially an isolated system (though its insulation is not perfect).


Heat can be transferred between open systems and between closed systems, but not between isolated systems. 

Thermodynamic systems


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie as usual you are so wrong. The virus takes over the host organism and that is what leads to the virus mutating and it can become stronger or weaker but over time the mutations will have an adverse reaction on both the organism and virus.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you define why you were never a molecular biologist. Try defining your terms a bit more succinctly. A virus does not 'take over' the host organism. A bit less Hollywood movie and a bit more biology would be helpful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?
Click to expand...


Not surprisingly,  you are now backpeddling.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no why? molecular or not, without those aforementioned  degrees you are not what you claim to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws why do you pretend to know so much and you don't know my back ground.
> 
> How to Become a Molecular Biologist: Education and Career Roadmap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is another pointless reply as stated before YOU did not complete what was required to be a molecular biologist.
> end of story!
Click to expand...


Do you wish to engage me on a molecular argument no copying and pasting, if not I will use one of your terms, stfu.

You are clearly ignorant on the subject anyone can see and most subjects you address.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why did some ID god make shit that would hurt us like viruses? Is he not too bright?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say for sure but it looks like he (God) has used several different methods to assure we can live but pay the ultimate price for sin and that is death. Mutating genes is not a good thing nor are viruses.
> 
> The simple thing is a couple on your side fail to reason out that eventually all viruses mutate to a point that our immune system can fight them off if not for that we would have been wiped out and many other organisms that have been invaded by viruses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> total bullshit ...
Click to expand...


In your head !


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you define why you were never a molecular biologist. Try defining your terms a bit more succinctly. A virus does not 'take over' the host organism. A bit less Hollywood movie and a bit more biology would be helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly,  you are now backpeddling.
Click to expand...


Nope I am just showing you and daws don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say for sure but it looks like he (God) has used several different methods to assure we can live but pay the ultimate price for sin and that is death. Mutating genes is not a good thing nor are viruses.
> 
> The simple thing is a couple on your side fail to reason out that eventually all viruses mutate to a point that our immune system can fight them off if not for that we would have been wiped out and many other organisms that have been invaded by viruses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How utterly twisted. No wonder your behavior is so bizarre. You live your life in trembling fear of the most evil villain ever to be shaped by the mind of man.  You're suggesting that the gawds "poofed" viruses into existence as yet another punishment to be inflicted on humanity?
> 
> So, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, fire, bacterial infections, etc. weren't enough so the gawds chose yet another humanity wiping catastrophe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't live in fear hollie why would you say I live in fear ?
Click to expand...

Of course you live in fear. You even use that fear in hopes of installing fear in others.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly,  you are now backpeddling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope I am just showing you and daws don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


That's laughable, really. The terminology, syntax and vocabulary you use when describing the subject matter of biology just screams of amateur.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How utterly twisted. No wonder your behavior is so bizarre. You live your life in trembling fear of the most evil villain ever to be shaped by the mind of man.  You're suggesting that the gawds "poofed" viruses into existence as yet another punishment to be inflicted on humanity?
> 
> So, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, fire, bacterial infections, etc. weren't enough so the gawds chose yet another humanity wiping catastrophe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't live in fear hollie why would you say I live in fear ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you live in fear. You even use that fear in hopes of installing fear in others.
Click to expand...


Hollie you are free to choose your road and I have nothing to fear. If you wish to think I am a threat to your way of life that is your problem not mine.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly,  you are now backpeddling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I am just showing you and daws don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's laughable, really. The terminology, syntax and vocabulary you use when describing the subject matter of biology just screams of amateur.
Click to expand...


Think what you like but neither of you wish to engage me on the subject why is that ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How utterly twisted. No wonder your behavior is so bizarre. You live your life in trembling fear of the most evil villain ever to be shaped by the mind of man.  You're suggesting that the gawds "poofed" viruses into existence as yet another punishment to be inflicted on humanity?
> 
> So, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, fire, bacterial infections, etc. weren't enough so the gawds chose yet another humanity wiping catastrophe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't live in fear hollie why would you say I live in fear ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you live in fear. You even use that fear in hopes of installing fear in others.
Click to expand...


Still waiting on an answer for this Hollie.

Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprisingly,  you are now backpeddling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I am just showing you and daws don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's laughable, really. The terminology, syntax and vocabulary you use when describing the subject matter of biology just screams of amateur.
Click to expand...


Oh Hollie, once you read and find out that I am right and you are wrong again,then tell me how the virus takes over the host cell, come back and tell me how it takes over the host cell ? and also tell me why it takes over the host cell ?


----------



## koshergrl

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How utterly twisted. No wonder your behavior is so bizarre. You live your life in trembling fear of the most evil villain ever to be shaped by the mind of man. You're suggesting that the gawds "poofed" viruses into existence as yet another punishment to be inflicted on humanity?
> 
> So, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, fire, bacterial infections, etc. weren't enough so the gawds chose yet another humanity wiping catastrophe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't live in fear hollie why would you say I live in fear ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you live in fear. You even use that fear in hopes of installing fear in others.
Click to expand...

 
The bible tells us that every time we are attacked for our love of God we reap a blessing.

I'll stand by for more slavering, incoherent hatred from the anti-Christian bigot. I like blessings.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Both Hollie and daws has disappeared why oh why ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't live in fear hollie why would you say I live in fear ?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you live in fear. You even use that fear in hopes of installing fear in others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting on an answer for this Hollie.
> 
> Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?
Click to expand...


You seem to forget that your "debating" amounts to nothing more than cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites. 

What I found early on is that you have a propensity for "quote-mining" and that you are not at all discriminating in what you cut and paste, nor do you care to verify your sources. Do I need to remind you of the many instances where your "quotes" were exposed as fraudulent? 

The most frustrating part of dealing with such dishonesty is that it requires not an insignificant amount of time to research every link you post and to search for every "quote" as invariably, the links are to Christian creationist websites and "quotes" are discovered to be fraudulently parsed, altered or taken out of context so as to change the author's intent. 

What you don't seem to comprehend is that none of your "amino acid" cutting and pasting delineates a path to any gawds. Yours is just the boilerplate creationist argument that is found on every Christian creationist website. None of the fundie creationists are performing actual science. None of them perform any research. Without exception, all of the Christian creationist websites have predefined conclusions leading to a partisan gawd. They're not seeking truth or knowledge, they're promoting dogma.

That's as bias a position as I can imagine.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Both Hollie and daws has disappeared why oh why ?



Not disappeared, just understanding your demonstrated dishonesty as it applies to your history of falsified "quotes".


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I am just showing you and daws don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's laughable, really. The terminology, syntax and vocabulary you use when describing the subject matter of biology just screams of amateur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Hollie, once you read and find out that I am right and you are wrong again,then tell me how the virus takes over the host cell, come back and tell me how it takes over the host cell ? and also tell me why it takes over the host cell ?
Click to expand...


Oh Mr. fundie, once you read and find out a bit of biology that is not tainted by what you cut and paste from creationist ministries, come back and tell us what you found.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Hollie and daws has disappeared why oh why ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not disappeared, just understanding your demonstrated dishonesty as it applies to your history of falsified "quotes".
Click to expand...


Dodge !

Oh Hollie, once you read and find out that I am right and you are wrong again,then tell me how the virus takes over the host cell, come back and tell me how it takes over the host cell ? and also tell me why it takes over the host cell ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's laughable, really. The terminology, syntax and vocabulary you use when describing the subject matter of biology just screams of amateur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Hollie, once you read and find out that I am right and you are wrong again,then tell me how the virus takes over the host cell, come back and tell me how it takes over the host cell ? and also tell me why it takes over the host cell ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Mr. fundie, once you read and find out a bit of biology that is not tainted by what you cut and paste from creationist ministries, come back and tell us what you found.
Click to expand...


Oh Hollie, once you read and find out that I am right and you are wrong again,then tell me how the virus takes over the host cell, come back and tell me how it takes over the host cell ? and also tell me why it takes over the host cell ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't live in fear hollie why would you say I live in fear ?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you live in fear. You even use that fear in hopes of installing fear in others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie you are free to choose your road and I have nothing to fear. If you wish to think I am a threat to your way of life that is your problem not mine.
Click to expand...


My impression is that you are a threat only to yourself.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Hollie, once you read and find out that I am right and you are wrong again,then tell me how the virus takes over the host cell, come back and tell me how it takes over the host cell ? and also tell me why it takes over the host cell ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Mr. fundie, once you read and find out a bit of biology that is not tainted by what you cut and paste from creationist ministries, come back and tell us what you found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Hollie, once you read and find out that I am right and you are wrong again,then tell me how the virus takes over the host cell, come back and tell me how it takes over the host cell ? and also tell me why it takes over the host cell ?
Click to expand...


Oh Mr. fundie, you're stuttering. 

Are you hoping to use your religious views to assault people?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Mr. fundie, once you read and find out a bit of biology that is not tainted by what you cut and paste from creationist ministries, come back and tell us what you found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Hollie, once you read and find out that I am right and you are wrong again,then tell me how the virus takes over the host cell, come back and tell me how it takes over the host cell ? and also tell me why it takes over the host cell ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Mr. fundie, you're stuttering.
> 
> Are you hoping to use your religious views to assault people?
Click to expand...


Do you want to read from a nonreligious source here you go.

 a virus can insert its genetic material into its host, literally taking over the host's functions. An infected cell produces more viral protein and genetic material instead of its usual products. Some viruses may remain dormant inside host cells for long periods, causing no obvious change in their host cells (a stage known as the lysogenic phase). But when a dormant virus is stimulated, it enters the lytic phase: new viruses are formed, self-assemble, and burst out of the host cell, killing the cell and going on to infect other cells. The diagram below at right shows a virus that attacks bacteria, known as the lambda bacteriophage, which measures roughly 200 nanometers. 

Introduction to the Viruses

Not far into this exchange and you have already lost ,not surprising you bigot.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Hollie, once you read and find out that I am right and you are wrong again,then tell me how the virus takes over the host cell, come back and tell me how it takes over the host cell ? and also tell me why it takes over the host cell ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Mr. fundie, you're stuttering.
> 
> Are you hoping to use your religious views to assault people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want to read from a nonreligious source here you go.
> 
> a virus can insert its genetic material into its host, literally taking over the host's functions. An infected cell produces more viral protein and genetic material instead of its usual products. Some viruses may remain dormant inside host cells for long periods, causing no obvious change in their host cells (a stage known as the lysogenic phase). But when a dormant virus is stimulated, it enters the lytic phase: new viruses are formed, self-assemble, and burst out of the host cell, killing the cell and going on to infect other cells. The diagram below at right shows a virus that attacks bacteria, known as the lambda bacteriophage, which measures roughly 200 nanometers.
> 
> Introduction to the Viruses
> 
> Not far into this exchange and you have already lost ,not surprising you bigot.
Click to expand...


What exactly have I lost?

And what "exchange" have you imagined is taking place?

Oh Mr. fundie. You "such silly boy".


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Mr. fundie, you're stuttering.
> 
> Are you hoping to use your religious views to assault people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to read from a nonreligious source here you go.
> 
> a virus can insert its genetic material into its host, literally taking over the host's functions. An infected cell produces more viral protein and genetic material instead of its usual products. Some viruses may remain dormant inside host cells for long periods, causing no obvious change in their host cells (a stage known as the lysogenic phase). But when a dormant virus is stimulated, it enters the lytic phase: new viruses are formed, self-assemble, and burst out of the host cell, killing the cell and going on to infect other cells. The diagram below at right shows a virus that attacks bacteria, known as the lambda bacteriophage, which measures roughly 200 nanometers.
> 
> Introduction to the Viruses
> 
> Not far into this exchange and you have already lost ,not surprising you bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly have I lost?
> 
> And what "exchange" have you imagined is taking place?
> 
> Oh Mr. fundie. You "such silly boy".
Click to expand...


You said the virus does not take control of the host cell remember ? Why does the virus need the host cell hollie ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to read from a nonreligious source here you go.
> 
> a virus can insert its genetic material into its host, literally taking over the host's functions. An infected cell produces more viral protein and genetic material instead of its usual products. Some viruses may remain dormant inside host cells for long periods, causing no obvious change in their host cells (a stage known as the lysogenic phase). But when a dormant virus is stimulated, it enters the lytic phase: new viruses are formed, self-assemble, and burst out of the host cell, killing the cell and going on to infect other cells. The diagram below at right shows a virus that attacks bacteria, known as the lambda bacteriophage, which measures roughly 200 nanometers.
> 
> Introduction to the Viruses
> 
> Not far into this exchange and you have already lost ,not surprising you bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly have I lost?
> 
> And what "exchange" have you imagined is taking place?
> 
> Oh Mr. fundie. You "such silly boy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said the virus does not take control of the host cell remember ? Why does the virus need the host cell hollie ?
Click to expand...

I don't recall that. Probably because I never wrote that. 

Do you recall I scolded you just a few posts prior to this one regarding your propensity for falsified "quotes"?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean the black plague reached its limit and then died out? What limit? Viruses do not have a time limit on their viability. They will continue to spread and infect forever, if they can find hosts, and don't kill their hosts before they can be spread. This is why the ebola virus actually isn't a huge threat. It kills too quickly. AIDS is more effective, because it incubation period is very long, and shows no symptoms for a long time.
> 
> Virus' are not considered life, but they are self-replicating in the right conditions (a host), and as such, are able to mutate. I am demonstrating that which you asked about, mutation and natural selection. The mutation of a virus is what allows virus to be passed from animal to humans, which is where plagues nearly always come from- animals.
> 
> I could easily talk of a bacterial plagues, as opposed to virues, which are living things, and which mutated to be able to inhabit humans, from having inhabited animals. It is our proximity to animals in slaughterhouses and farms that have caused almost every plague known throughout history. These virus' or bacterial infections must mutate to be able to infect humans. This is an increase an fitness, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a very hard time believing you were a molecular biologist with statements like the one quoted above, unless I simply misinterpreted what you were actually trying to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything has a limit to adapting and everytime it mutates it can get stronger but eventually the mutations will make the virus weaker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense. The mutation of a virus is often the result of stimulus from the host. The resulting strain is not necessarily stronger or weaker but has adapted to external conditions.
> 
> Remarkably, you explicitly define one of the basic principles of evolution, yet you can't allow yourself the intellectual integrity to admit that. To do so would immediately thrust you into a contradiction with your alleged supernatural realms where everything is reduced to the slogan, "the gawds did it".
Click to expand...


Here it is hollie, unless you don't understand what you wrote. The host is no longer in control of its chemical machines,the machines  are used by the virus to reproduce itself so who would be stimulating the mutation ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly have I lost?
> 
> And what "exchange" have you imagined is taking place?
> 
> Oh Mr. fundie. You "such silly boy".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said the virus does not take control of the host cell remember ? Why does the virus need the host cell hollie ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall that. Probably because I never wrote that.
> 
> Do you recall I scolded you just a few posts prior to this one regarding your propensity for falsified "quotes"?
Click to expand...


Trying to change the subject hollie ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Not only that hollie,a virus can insert its genetic material into its host, literally taking over the host's functions.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything has a limit to adapting and everytime it mutates it can get stronger but eventually the mutations will make the virus weaker.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. The mutation of a virus is often the result of stimulus from the host. The resulting strain is not necessarily stronger or weaker but has adapted to external conditions.
> 
> Remarkably, you explicitly define one of the basic principles of evolution, yet you can't allow yourself the intellectual integrity to admit that. To do so would immediately thrust you into a contradiction with your alleged supernatural realms where everything is reduced to the slogan, "the gawds did it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here it is hollie, unless you don't understand what you wrote. The host is no longer in control of its chemical machines,the machines  are used by the virus to reproduce itself so who would be stimulating the mutation ?
Click to expand...

Apparently, you don't understand what you write. What machines are you writing about?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. The mutation of a virus is often the result of stimulus from the host. The resulting strain is not necessarily stronger or weaker but has adapted to external conditions.
> 
> Remarkably, you explicitly define one of the basic principles of evolution, yet you can't allow yourself the intellectual integrity to admit that. To do so would immediately thrust you into a contradiction with your alleged supernatural realms where everything is reduced to the slogan, "the gawds did it".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is hollie, unless you don't understand what you wrote. The host is no longer in control of its chemical machines,the machines  are used by the virus to reproduce itself so who would be stimulating the mutation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you don't understand what you write. What machines are you writing about?
Click to expand...


If you knew anything about molecular biology you would understand what chemical machines I am speaking of.



In the lytic cycle, the virus reproduces itself using the host cell's chemical machinery. The red spiral lines in the drawing indicate the virus's genetic material. The orange portion is the outer shell that protects it.


HowStuffWorks "How Viruses Work"


----------



## Youwerecreated

School is out hollie.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is hollie, unless you don't understand what you wrote. The host is no longer in control of its chemical machines,the machines  are used by the virus to reproduce itself so who would be stimulating the mutation ?
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you don't understand what you write. What machines are you writing about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about molecular biology you would understand what chemical machines I am speaking of.
> 
> 
> 
> In the lytic cycle, the virus reproduces itself using the host cell's chemical machinery. The red spiral lines in the drawing indicate the virus's genetic material. The orange portion is the outer shell that protects it.
> 
> 
> HowStuffWorks "How Viruses Work"
Click to expand...


If you knew anything about biology, you would be uncomfortable about using the terms "machines" in connection wth biological mechanisms.

Are you thinking your motives aren't obvious and contrived?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything has a limit to adapting and everytime it mutates it can get stronger but eventually the mutations will make the virus weaker.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. The mutation of a virus is often the result of stimulus from the host. The resulting strain is not necessarily stronger or weaker but has adapted to external conditions.
> 
> Remarkably, you explicitly define one of the basic principles of evolution, yet you can't allow yourself the intellectual integrity to admit that. To do so would immediately thrust you into a contradiction with your alleged supernatural realms where everything is reduced to the slogan, "the gawds did it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here it is hollie, unless you don't understand what you wrote. The host is no longer in control of its chemical machines,the machines  are used by the virus to reproduce itself so who would be stimulating the mutation ?
Click to expand...

So tell us, "who" do you think would be stimulating the mutation. Does this "who" have  name?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you don't understand what you write. What machines are you writing about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about molecular biology you would understand what chemical machines I am speaking of.
> 
> 
> 
> In the lytic cycle, the virus reproduces itself using the host cell's chemical machinery. The red spiral lines in the drawing indicate the virus's genetic material. The orange portion is the outer shell that protects it.
> 
> 
> HowStuffWorks "How Viruses Work"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about biology, you would be uncomfortable about using the terms "machines" in connection wth biological mechanisms.
> 
> Are you thinking your motives aren't obvious and contrived?
Click to expand...


Hollie I said school is out but I will respond to this. The only reason why the term machines disturbs you is you know machines are a product of design. If you notice the source it was not a creationist. Let's not forget who schooled who today so don't you worry about my knowledge of biology if anyone should be worried I would say it is you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. The mutation of a virus is often the result of stimulus from the host. The resulting strain is not necessarily stronger or weaker but has adapted to external conditions.
> 
> Remarkably, you explicitly define one of the basic principles of evolution, yet you can't allow yourself the intellectual integrity to admit that. To do so would immediately thrust you into a contradiction with your alleged supernatural realms where everything is reduced to the slogan, "the gawds did it".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is hollie, unless you don't understand what you wrote. The host is no longer in control of its chemical machines,the machines  are used by the virus to reproduce itself so who would be stimulating the mutation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell us, "who" do you think would be stimulating the mutation. Does this "who" have  name?
Click to expand...


Ok one more response so I don't leave you hanging. Just because a virus takes over a cell does not mean it will mutate it is better if it mutates because if it mutates it will get weaker. The problem with a virus is when they invade a host cell they take over and reproduce and destroy the cell after reproduction releasing sometimes new viruses and stronger viruses to infect other host cells.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about molecular biology you would understand what chemical machines I am speaking of.
> 
> 
> 
> In the lytic cycle, the virus reproduces itself using the host cell's chemical machinery. The red spiral lines in the drawing indicate the virus's genetic material. The orange portion is the outer shell that protects it.
> 
> 
> HowStuffWorks "How Viruses Work"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about biology, you would be uncomfortable about using the terms "machines" in connection wth biological mechanisms.
> 
> Are you thinking your motives aren't obvious and contrived?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie I said school is out but I will respond to this. The only reason why the term machines disturbs you is you know machines are a product of design. If you notice the source it was not a creationist. Let's not forget who schooled who today so don't you worry about my knowledge of biology if anyone should be worried I would say it is you.
Click to expand...


It's a shame that school is out because you seem to have missed so much of the important subject matter. 

I think what disturbs you is that your agenda is so obvious it pre-announces itself. Your silly attempt at slight-of-hand with use of the term "machine" was as predictable as, well, as predictable as you making silly attempts at slight-of-hand with use of the term "machine". 

Did you notice your source was not creationist? Good gawd, man, there may be hope for you yet.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is hollie, unless you don't understand what you wrote. The host is no longer in control of its chemical machines,the machines  are used by the virus to reproduce itself so who would be stimulating the mutation ?
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us, "who" do you think would be stimulating the mutation. Does this "who" have  name?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok one more response so I don't leave you hanging. Just because a virus takes over a cell does not mean it will mutate it is better if it mutates because if it mutates it will get weaker. The problem with a virus is when they invade a host cell they take over and reproduce and destroy the cell after reproduction releasing sometimes new viruses and stronger viruses to infect other host cells.
Click to expand...


Why do you suggest a virus will necessarily get weaker as a function of mutation? That's not always the case so I have to wonder if you're been trolling creationist websites again.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Enough of this drivel about evolution being a historical science and therefore having a fundamentally different burden of proof, or a different methodology.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this post will enlighten you to how even what appears on the surface as a sound article is really very agenda driven. It does not find its source in truth, but more so to silence the attacks of evolution as a legitimate science. I am not sure who opened it, but the debate was ushered in hard core when a fundie evolutionists attempted to compare evolution with the law of gravity. We may never know who the originator of this fallacious argument was but they unleashed a barrage of misinformation to cloud the issue on what category the study of evolution, or creation for that matter, really falls into and what we can expect when it comes to "proofs".
> 
> NP, you are allowing Hawly's constant propaganda barage to cloud your judgement of me. While I do subscribe to many of the Discovery Institute Articles, more than 3/4 of knowledge on science comes from unbiased sources and I have never visited the ICR website or Harun Yahya, unless it was by accidentally clicking on one of Hawly's links. (FYI, my spelling of Hawly's name is a dig against her spelling "gawd". Classic.)
> 
> I would appreciate it if you try and do the same when posting articles for reference to an argument you have presented if possible. Sometimes in the case of ID theory, it is not possible. Your Atheist websites, just like some Creationists websites, are many times clouded by their agenda, which gives them a slant. Your article above would have you believe Historical Science is on the same level as Emprical Science. It is not. Neither evolution nor ID theory will ever live up to the same burden of proof that the empirical sciences can and most Historical Scientists would protest if you held them to the same level of proof. I thought it fitting to quote this article from Berkley, since it is obviously as Lib as colleges come, and no one can say I am using biased sources.
> 
> _"*B. Formal Sciences*
> 1. Logic and mathematics
> 2. Both define their own universe.
> 3. Because they do, they can initially speak of absolute "true" versus "false."
> a. 2 + 2 = 4. Why? Because we all agree upon it.
> 4. This sounds like belief knowledge. However, it differs in one critical element &#8212; once you establish an initial premise (which must have rigor), you have to follow the research protocol to investigate its effect and validity.
> 5. *These disciplines are often seen as the epitome of science &#8212; an exact, fully logical, brick by brick process.*
> 
> *C. Empirical Sciences*
> 1. Deal with objects and observations
> a. Takes the world as it is and tries to understand it.
> b. Here there can be NO truth, no right or wrong, only observations and hypotheses about the natural system.
> 2. Empirical Science may be roughly divided into two camps:
> a. *The Experimental Sciences: e.g., Chemistry, Physics and allied subjects.*
> (1) Here the subject allows the creation of controlled experiments in the laboratory.
> (2) The objects under observation (e.g., atoms, molecules) are assumed to all be the same and to lack individuality.
> b. *The Historical Sciences: e.g., most of Biology, Geology.*
> (1) Here the objects under observation increasingly possess individual characteristics, such as single historical events or the individuals in a species.* Optimal controls and laboratory experiments become increasingly difficult.*
> (2) Paleontology exhibits the "worst" of this in that it concerns organisms (which have individuality) in historical circumstances *(where the coincidence of factors at any one time may NEVER be repeated) and all of this occurring in the distant past.*
> 3. This distinction between Experimental and Historical Sciences sets up a false debate in public. *Paleontologists are often compared with physicists and then faulted for not producing scientific data as measured by the standards of physics. We paleontologists simply cannot!*
> 4. As we progress from experimental to historical sciences, we pass into a realm of the critical establishment of probability. *"Good Science" becomes a matter of eliminating as many variables &#8212; while entertaining as many alternate interpretations of the observations &#8212; as possible."* _
> 
> What Is Science?
> 
> I believe this explanation to be spot on. I'm sure you could cite many experiments you have done in a chemistry or physics class that could be repeated over and over and achieve the same result as long as rigorous controls were in place. This can never be the case with predictions or hypotheses about events that occurred in the distant past. We can never know with 100% certainty that what believe about events in the past are absolutely true. We can only eliminate as many variables as possible. This is what you miss in Meyer's argument and you would note if you read his book. He attempts to eliminate as many competing hypothesis about the origin of information in dna as possible by arguing against some of the more prominent hypotheses put forth on the subject. This too is what you may miss in evolutionary biology. Darwin's tree of life has been shredded by genetic evidence, so new hypotheses have been introduced, like lateral gene transfer, to deal with the new evidence. When these types of discoveries net different results than what Darwin originally predicted, the IDers and Creationists have a field day, and rightfully so.
> 
> And that leads us to why I chose the screen name I did. The ultimate goal of science is to describe ultimate reality. Scientists are always trying to determine what is REALLY REAL. Even without my Theistic views, I would have a very hard time believing that evolution, not adaptation, is true based on the evidence. Once you learn to see many of the manipulations for what they are I liken it to the point in the matrix when Neo starts to see the code, instead of the simulation. I am not trying to put you down when I say you are not yet attune to it. There is SOOOOO much misinformation out there now with the proliferation of the internet. I wouldn't call it the information age. I would call it the misinformation age. Even when I did a google search for articles about the empirical sciences versus the historical sciences I was inundated with articles obviously written by evolution supporters to discredit the discrediting being done by the Theists. I can see the code now and I am not fooled by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All I see here, again, is an attempt to discredit a competing theory so that your hypothesis will have more of the stage. You attempt this from every angle imaginable, including, attacking the fundamental validity of evolutionary biology, on the grounds that it is "only a historical science."
Click to expand...

 Wow, you obviously missed the entire point, which had nothing to do with ID, but shows that evolutionary science will never be on the same level as physics or chemistry, ever. And it uses induction for many of its competing hypothesis. 





newpolitics said:


> If evolution were proved completely wrong tomorrow, that would not do a single thing in proving an intelligent designer, or god, is responsible for any of the universe.


 Strawman. I have not claimed this. I have only claimed that evolution and ID are equally legitimate historical sciences based on Darwin's and Lyell's methodology. Well, I should say, equally legitimate with the exception of evolutionary theory that proposes made up narrative explanations which are not based on any past or presently observable phenomena.


newpolitics said:


> You lost me with "fundie evolutionist," but I managed to finish out your lengthy, and non-substantive post.
> 
> I don't consider your critique of my sources posted as valid, because you have not actually critiqued the content. You merely dismiss it off-hand.


 I dismissed it with what could be the most non-biased article I could find, written by a historical scientist studying evolution. 





newpolitics said:


> The idea that the sciences can be neatly split into two distinct and mutually exclusive categories in all cases, is untenable, as demonstrated in the article I posted, using a real world example.


 Wrong. Your real world example has atheist fundamentalism written all over it. 


newpolitics said:


> To reiterate the most important point: Trying to split the sciences into neat dichotomies so that one can be shown to be unreliable, does not nothing to prove there is a god or intelligent designer.


 Strawman. Your bias infers this claim.





newpolitics said:


> In fact, the ultimate irony is that you would need the historical sciences just as much as evolution in order to make your case.


 I wholeheartedly agree. Now we are getting somewhere!  





newpolitics said:


> So, your attempts as laying heavier burdens of proof upon historical claims only makes your task more difficult.


 Yes, and they apply equally to ID and Evolution, but not the empirical sciences.





newpolitics said:


> This includes claims about the impossibility of abiogenesis, using purely math. This also includes the entire claim about an intelligent designer being the cause for life.


 I totally agree!!


newpolitics said:


> No doubt, your response will be, that ID is an experimental science and not a historical one,


 Wrong again!! Any science that attempts to describe events that occurred in the distant past, whether they be the theories on the origin of male and female, cosmological arguments about the solar system, or postulates on the origin of the digital code in DNA, is a historical science. 





newpolitics said:


> but here you fall into a fundamental paradox. You attempt to explain the past, without referring to the past. Presumably, you do this to avoid the pitfalls that you seen in the "historical sciences," but fail to realize this makes your investigation void of any real evidence.


 Wrong again. What evidence from the past do you have for how abiogenesis occurred? 





newpolitics said:


> I believe this is the pitfall of ID. Therefore, you are constrained to evidence we have today, and the only thing you have is, the language of another mind: digital code. Therefore, you must make an inductive argument to reach your conclusions: DNA is a complex, specifiable code. Digital code is the same. Digital code is made by intelligent minds. Therefore, so is DNA. There is no evidence for this conclusion, other than looking at another code, and assuming it was formed in the same way. This is pure inductive reasoning.  There is no direct evidence for DNA being created by an intelligent designer, because that would require looking to the past, but you have blocked off that avenue for yourself. It seems that IDers have trapped themselves logically.


 Everything you just said in the last 10 or so sentences is totally fallacious. See my comments prior to all these incorrect assertions. What Meyer has done is no different that what Darwin did. Your claim that ID doesn't refer to past evidence is fallacious. We can rightfully assert that at some point in the distant past, based on fossil evidence, that the information in DNA originated long ago. Just like Darwin asserted that different species arose long ago. Darwin can't point back to evidence to actually show natural selection in action in the distant past. He attempted to use "causes now in operation", like finch beaks, to make predictions about what happened long ago. I'm not sure why you keep missing the similarities. Confirmation bias I guess. 



newpolitics said:


> If this is really the only argument or "evidence" you have for ID, then it is really hard for me to understand why you think this is convincing, at all. The only reason it is, is because you already believe that there was an intelligent force behind creation. The "science" of ID is not otherwise convincing to anyone else. ID is simply a contemporary version of the teleological argument. It is nothing new, and nothing special.


 Wrong again. What you keep strawmanning and what you think you know, is that ID claims the intelligent designer was the Judeo-Christian God. As far as ID goes, the intelligent agent that originated the digital dna code could have been an alien race. It is a religious belief by some ID Theorist, not a scientific one, that the intelligent agent is God. However, ID theory never identifies who the intelligent agent is, because that would be impossible to do in light of current evidence. It only draws the logical conclusion that intelligence is responsible, because of the cause now in operation producing digital code.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you don't understand what you write. What machines are you writing about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about molecular biology you would understand what chemical machines I am speaking of.
> 
> 
> 
> In the lytic cycle, the virus reproduces itself using the host cell's chemical machinery. The red spiral lines in the drawing indicate the virus's genetic material. The orange portion is the outer shell that protects it.
> 
> 
> HowStuffWorks "How Viruses Work"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about biology, you would be uncomfortable about using the terms "machines" in connection wth biological mechanisms.
> 
> Are you thinking your motives aren't obvious and contrived?
Click to expand...


Your high priest Dawkins refers to molecular machines. Get with the program will you LIAR?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about molecular biology you would understand what chemical machines I am speaking of.
> 
> 
> 
> In the lytic cycle, the virus reproduces itself using the host cell's chemical machinery. The red spiral lines in the drawing indicate the virus's genetic material. The orange portion is the outer shell that protects it.
> 
> 
> HowStuffWorks "How Viruses Work"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about biology, you would be uncomfortable about using the terms "machines" in connection wth biological mechanisms.
> 
> Are you thinking your motives aren't obvious and contrived?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your high priest Dawkins refers to molecular machines. Get with the program will you LIAR?
Click to expand...


I see. You're angry because I have refused your creepy advances. 

That's a common symptom of stalkers.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. The mutation of a virus is often the result of stimulus from the host. The resulting strain is not necessarily stronger or weaker but has adapted to external conditions.
> 
> Remarkably, you explicitly define one of the basic principles of evolution, yet you can't allow yourself the intellectual integrity to admit that. To do so would immediately thrust you into a contradiction with your alleged supernatural realms where everything is reduced to the slogan, "the gawds did it".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is hollie, unless you don't understand what you wrote. The host is no longer in control of its chemical machines,the machines  are used by the virus to reproduce itself so who would be stimulating the mutation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell us, *"who" do you think would be stimulating the mutation*. Does this "who" have  name?
Click to expand...


Wait, let me guess. Are you talking about your rugged man hands stimulating the mutant known as Daws?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about biology, you would be uncomfortable about using the terms "machines" in connection wth biological mechanisms.
> 
> Are you thinking your motives aren't obvious and contrived?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your high priest Dawkins refers to molecular machines. Get with the program will you LIAR?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. You're angry because I have refused your creepy advances.
> 
> That's a common symptom of stalkers.
Click to expand...


Only in your icky, twisted fantasies, she-man. This is the 80's, and UR is down with the ladys.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is hollie, unless you don't understand what you wrote. The host is no longer in control of its chemical machines,the machines  are used by the virus to reproduce itself so who would be stimulating the mutation ?
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us, "who" do you think would be stimulating the mutation. Does this "who" have  name?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, let me guess. Are you talking about your rugged man hands stimulating the mutant known as Daws?
Click to expand...


Good gawd what an angry creationist. I suppose that when you arguments have failed (as have your creepy advances), you have nothing left but schoolboy taunts.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws why do you pretend to know so much and you don't know my back ground.
> 
> How to Become a Molecular Biologist: Education and Career Roadmap
> 
> 
> 
> this is another pointless reply as stated before YOU did not complete what was required to be a molecular biologist.
> end of story!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you wish to engage me on a molecular argument no copying and pasting, if not I will use one of your terms, *stfu.*
> 
> You are clearly ignorant on the subject anyone can see and most subjects you address.
Click to expand...


I think you meant shut the Hawly up?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your high priest Dawkins refers to molecular machines. Get with the program will you LIAR?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see. You're angry because I have refused your creepy advances.
> 
> That's a common symptom of stalkers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only in your icky, twisted fantasies, she-man. This is the 80's, and UR is down with the ladys.
Click to expand...


My rejection of your creepy advances has left you quite damaged.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How utterly twisted. No wonder your behavior is so bizarre. You live your life in trembling fear of the most evil villain ever to be shaped by the mind of man.  You're suggesting that the gawds "poofed" viruses into existence as yet another punishment to be inflicted on humanity?
> 
> So, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, fire, bacterial infections, etc. weren't enough so the gawds chose yet another humanity wiping catastrophe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't live in fear hollie why would you say I live in fear ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you live in fear. You even use that fear in hopes of installing fear in others.
Click to expand...


Funny coming from the trembling little boy who won't reveal even the slightest hint about their sordid past, dysfunctional childhood, sexual orientation or educational background. You are scared to death of complete strangers on the internet!!!!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is another pointless reply as stated before YOU did not complete what was required to be a molecular biologist.
> end of story!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you wish to engage me on a molecular argument no copying and pasting, if not I will use one of your terms, *stfu.*
> 
> You are clearly ignorant on the subject anyone can see and most subjects you address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you meant shut the Hawly up?
Click to expand...


Your obsession with me has left you emotionally crippled. This would be a good time to drink the Kool-Aid.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you live in fear. You even use that fear in hopes of installing fear in others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting on an answer for this Hollie.
> 
> Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to forget that your "debating" amounts to nothing more than cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites.
> 
> What I found early on is that you have a propensity for "quote-mining" and that you are not at all discriminating in what you cut and paste, nor do you care to verify your sources. Do I need to remind you of the many instances where your "quotes" were exposed as fraudulent?
> 
> The most frustrating part of dealing with such dishonesty is that it requires not an insignificant amount of time to research every link you post and to search for every "quote" as invariably, the links are to Christian creationist websites and "quotes" are discovered to be fraudulently parsed, altered or taken out of context so as to change the author's intent.
> 
> What you don't seem to comprehend is that none of your "amino acid" cutting and pasting delineates a path to any gawds. Yours is just the boilerplate creationist argument that is found on every Christian creationist website. None of the fundie creationists are performing actual science. None of them perform any research. Without exception, all of the Christian creationist websites have predefined conclusions leading to a partisan gawd. They're not seeking truth or knowledge, they're promoting dogma.
> 
> That's as bias a position as I can imagine.
Click to expand...


Wow, a bunch of paragraphs to dodge the question. Typical. You're a fool.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't live in fear hollie why would you say I live in fear ?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you live in fear. You even use that fear in hopes of installing fear in others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny coming from the trembling little boy who won't reveal even the slightest hint about their sordid past, dysfunctional childhood, sexual orientation or educational background. You are scared to death of complete strangers on the internet!!!!
Click to expand...


These are all the same creepy advances you have tried and failed at.  Don't let those childhood  issues you described above ruin your life beyond what your religion has already done.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another failed attempt a character assassination and lame ass cherry picking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right. Your failed attempt to assassinate my character by insinuating I'm an alcoholic was pretty lame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your character need no help from me to be assassinated  as you commit character suicide in every post, for all to see.
> wrong tosspot!  I Insinuated nothing if I wanted to call you an alcoholic ,I would have done so.
> on the other hand *your answer hints at the fact that you might have an alcohol problem*.
> the whole post is another failed attempt at spin.
Click to expand...


Okay, parrot.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting on an answer for this Hollie.
> 
> Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to forget that your "debating" amounts to nothing more than cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites.
> 
> What I found early on is that you have a propensity for "quote-mining" and that you are not at all discriminating in what you cut and paste, nor do you care to verify your sources. Do I need to remind you of the many instances where your "quotes" were exposed as fraudulent?
> 
> The most frustrating part of dealing with such dishonesty is that it requires not an insignificant amount of time to research every link you post and to search for every "quote" as invariably, the links are to Christian creationist websites and "quotes" are discovered to be fraudulently parsed, altered or taken out of context so as to change the author's intent.
> 
> What you don't seem to comprehend is that none of your "amino acid" cutting and pasting delineates a path to any gawds. Yours is just the boilerplate creationist argument that is found on every Christian creationist website. None of the fundie creationists are performing actual science. None of them perform any research. Without exception, all of the Christian creationist websites have predefined conclusions leading to a partisan gawd. They're not seeking truth or knowledge, they're promoting dogma.
> 
> That's as bias a position as I can imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, a bunch of paragraphs to dodge the question. Typical. You're a fool.
Click to expand...


My, you're angry. Your creepy stalking has left you lonely and self-hating.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no need to as I've won every argument since I CAME TO THIS THREAD.
> how ? WITH ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE "there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
> it's an unbeatable fact.
> if and until you can provide actual evidence you've already lost...no matter how much bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence all around you. You just choose blindness.
> 
> *Hebrews 11(NIV)*
> 
> 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
> 
> 3 By faith we understand that *the universe was formed at Gods command*, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
> 
> *Romans 1(NIV)*
> 
> 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world *Gods invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made*, so that people are without excuse.
> 
> 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is circular reasoning.
> 
> You can't use the bible to prove the bible's claims about god.
Click to expand...

 I didn't, so wrong. The Bible says we can know God exists based on the things he has made. You can't see it because your thinking is futile and your heart is darkened.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right. Your failed attempt to assassinate my character by insinuating I'm an alcoholic was pretty lame.
> 
> 
> 
> your character need no help from me to be assassinated  as you commit character suicide in every post, for all to see.
> wrong tosspot!  I Insinuated nothing if I wanted to call you an alcoholic ,I would have done so.
> on the other hand *your answer hints at the fact that you might have an alcohol problem*.
> the whole post is another failed attempt at spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, parrot.
Click to expand...


Ah, a recovering (and failed) alcoholic? It often happens that drug addicts, alcoholics and those in prison turn to jeebus.

Maybe try Islam. Your angry, self-hate may be a boon.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us, "who" do you think would be stimulating the mutation. Does this "who" have  name?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, let me guess. Are you talking about your rugged man hands stimulating the mutant known as Daws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good gawd what an angry creationist. I suppose that when you arguments have failed (as have your creepy advances), you have nothing left but schoolboy taunts.
Click to expand...


That was a yes or no question.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence all around you. You just choose blindness.
> 
> *Hebrews 11(NIV)*
> 
> 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
> 
> 3 By faith we understand that *the universe was formed at Gods command*, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
> 
> *Romans 1(NIV)*
> 
> 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world *Gods invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made*, so that people are without excuse.
> 
> 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is circular reasoning.
> 
> You can't use the bible to prove the bible's claims about god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't, so wrong. The Bible says we can know God exists based on the things he has made. You can't see it because your thinking is futile and your heart is darkened.
Click to expand...


What if I was a recovering alcoholic like you. Would that help me find jeebus?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you live in fear. You even use that fear in hopes of installing fear in others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny coming from the trembling little boy who won't reveal even the slightest hint about their sordid past, dysfunctional childhood, sexual orientation or educational background. You are scared to death of complete strangers on the internet!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are all the same creepy advances you have tried and failed at.  Don't let those childhood  issues you described above ruin your life beyond what your religion has already done.
Click to expand...


Why are you so afraid? Why do you live your life in fear and trembling?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, let me guess. Are you talking about your rugged man hands stimulating the mutant known as Daws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good gawd what an angry creationist. I suppose that when you arguments have failed (as have your creepy advances), you have nothing left but schoolboy taunts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a yes or no question.
Click to expand...


Then yes, because your arguments have failed (as have your creepy advances), you have nothing left but schoolboy taunts.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to forget that your "debating" amounts to nothing more than cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites.
> 
> What I found early on is that you have a propensity for "quote-mining" and that you are not at all discriminating in what you cut and paste, nor do you care to verify your sources. Do I need to remind you of the many instances where your "quotes" were exposed as fraudulent?
> 
> The most frustrating part of dealing with such dishonesty is that it requires not an insignificant amount of time to research every link you post and to search for every "quote" as invariably, the links are to Christian creationist websites and "quotes" are discovered to be fraudulently parsed, altered or taken out of context so as to change the author's intent.
> 
> What you don't seem to comprehend is that none of your "amino acid" cutting and pasting delineates a path to any gawds. Yours is just the boilerplate creationist argument that is found on every Christian creationist website. None of the fundie creationists are performing actual science. None of them perform any research. Without exception, all of the Christian creationist websites have predefined conclusions leading to a partisan gawd. They're not seeking truth or knowledge, they're promoting dogma.
> 
> That's as bias a position as I can imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, a bunch of paragraphs to dodge the question. Typical. You're a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, you're angry. Your creepy stalking has left you lonely and self-hating.
Click to expand...


You posts typically leave you void of the ability to answer any questions, like they one you still haven't answered and are dodging with many tangents. Maybe if you post a few more responses, you can trick us into forgetting how inept you are at actually responding to questions posed of you.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny coming from the trembling little boy who won't reveal even the slightest hint about their sordid past, dysfunctional childhood, sexual orientation or educational background. You are scared to death of complete strangers on the internet!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are all the same creepy advances you have tried and failed at.  Don't let those childhood  issues you described above ruin your life beyond what your religion has already done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you so afraid? Why do you live your life in fear and trembling?
Click to expand...


I don't live in fear and trembling of creepy stalkers such as yourself because there's safety in keeping personal data from people like you.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good gawd what an angry creationist. I suppose that when you arguments have failed (as have your creepy advances), you have nothing left but schoolboy taunts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was a yes or no question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then yes, because your arguments have failed (as have your creepy advances), you have nothing left but schoolboy taunts.
Click to expand...


Now this is funny!!!  In your frantic ploy to cover up your frightening lack of knowledge, you haven't followed the responses carefully enough in the last several posts. You basically just answered *yes* to the question "*were talking about your rugged man hands stimulating the mutant Daws*"!!!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, a bunch of paragraphs to dodge the question. Typical. You're a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My, you're angry. Your creepy stalking has left you lonely and self-hating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You posts typically leave you void of the ability to answer any questions, like they one you still haven't answered and are dodging with many tangents. Maybe if you post a few more responses, you can trick us into forgetting how inept you are at actually responding to questions posed of you.
Click to expand...


Actually, no. Your ineptitude is enough to keep you floundering on your own. 

Like your cohort cut and paster, you really have no opinions of your own, just the mindless prattle you peddle under the guise of IDiosy.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a yes or no question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then yes, because your arguments have failed (as have your creepy advances), you have nothing left but schoolboy taunts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now this is funny!!!  In your frantic ploy to cover up your frightening lack of knowledge, you haven't followed the responses carefully enough in the last several posts. You basically just answered *yes* to the question "*were talking about your rugged man hands stimulating the mutant Daws*"!!!
Click to expand...


In your creepy attempt at stalking, you just refuted your own argument.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My, you're angry. Your creepy stalking has left you lonely and self-hating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posts typically leave you void of the ability to answer any questions, like they one you still haven't answered and are dodging with many tangents. Maybe if you post a few more responses, you can trick us into forgetting how inept you are at actually responding to questions posed of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no. Your ineptitude is enough to keep you floundering on your own.
> 
> Like your cohort cut and paster, you really have no opinions of your own, just the mindless prattle you peddle under the guise of IDiosy.
Click to expand...


Well, actually it is your ineptitude that attempts a cover-up barrage of nonsense when you don't know the answer. So here is the question you keep avoiding just in case you have made yourself forget with all your crazy tangents. And I quote YWC:

"Still waiting on an answer for this Hollie.

*Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?"*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You posts typically leave you void of the ability to answer any questions, like they one you still haven't answered and are dodging with many tangents. Maybe if you post a few more responses, you can trick us into forgetting how inept you are at actually responding to questions posed of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no. Your ineptitude is enough to keep you floundering on your own.
> 
> Like your cohort cut and paster, you really have no opinions of your own, just the mindless prattle you peddle under the guise of IDiosy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, actually it is your ineptitude that attempts a cover-up barrage of nonsense when you don't know the answer. So here is the question you keep avoiding just in case you have made yourself forget with all your crazy tangents. And I quote YWC:
> 
> "Still waiting on an answer for this Hollie.
> 
> *Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?"*
Click to expand...

Already addressed. You're having real issues paying attention. It's your obsession with me that causes you to make a fool of yourself with your desperate pleas for my attention. 

Do they have Kool-Aid at your Christian creationist madrassah?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Glensather said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI:
> 
> Conservative Christian Superhero Pat Robertson doesn't believe in Young Earth Creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is a philosophy not a religion and I am not of the same religion as robertson.
Click to expand...


Apparently words have no meaning anymore


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence all around you. You just choose blindness.
> 
> *Hebrews 11(NIV)*
> 
> 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
> 
> 3 By faith we understand that *the universe was formed at God&#8217;s command*, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
> 
> *Romans 1(NIV)*
> 
> 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world *God&#8217;s invisible qualities&#8212;his eternal power and divine nature&#8212;have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made*, so that people are without excuse.
> 
> 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is circular reasoning.
> 
> You can't use the bible to prove the bible's claims about god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't, so wrong. The Bible says we can know God exists based on the things he has made. You can't see it because your thinking is futile and your heart is darkened.
Click to expand...


How is this not circular? The bible lists the things god has made, and then tells you to look at them, to find evidence of him. That is circular.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this post will enlighten you to how even what appears on the surface as a sound article is really very agenda driven. It does not find its source in truth, but more so to silence the attacks of evolution as a legitimate science. I am not sure who opened it, but the debate was ushered in hard core when a fundie evolutionists attempted to compare evolution with the law of gravity. We may never know who the originator of this fallacious argument was but they unleashed a barrage of misinformation to cloud the issue on what category the study of evolution, or creation for that matter, really falls into and what we can expect when it comes to "proofs".
> 
> NP, you are allowing Hawly's constant propaganda barage to cloud your judgement of me. While I do subscribe to many of the Discovery Institute Articles, more than 3/4 of knowledge on science comes from unbiased sources and I have never visited the ICR website or Harun Yahya, unless it was by accidentally clicking on one of Hawly's links. (FYI, my spelling of Hawly's name is a dig against her spelling "gawd". Classic.)
> 
> I would appreciate it if you try and do the same when posting articles for reference to an argument you have presented if possible. Sometimes in the case of ID theory, it is not possible. Your Atheist websites, just like some Creationists websites, are many times clouded by their agenda, which gives them a slant. Your article above would have you believe Historical Science is on the same level as Emprical Science. It is not. Neither evolution nor ID theory will ever live up to the same burden of proof that the empirical sciences can and most Historical Scientists would protest if you held them to the same level of proof. I thought it fitting to quote this article from Berkley, since it is obviously as Lib as colleges come, and no one can say I am using biased sources.
> 
> _"*B. Formal Sciences*
> 1. Logic and mathematics
> 2. Both define their own universe.
> 3. Because they do, they can initially speak of absolute "true" versus "false."
> a. 2 + 2 = 4. Why? Because we all agree upon it.
> 4. This sounds like belief knowledge. However, it differs in one critical element &#8212; once you establish an initial premise (which must have rigor), you have to follow the research protocol to investigate its effect and validity.
> 5. *These disciplines are often seen as the epitome of science &#8212; an exact, fully logical, brick by brick process.*
> 
> *C. Empirical Sciences*
> 1. Deal with objects and observations
> a. Takes the world as it is and tries to understand it.
> b. Here there can be NO truth, no right or wrong, only observations and hypotheses about the natural system.
> 2. Empirical Science may be roughly divided into two camps:
> a. *The Experimental Sciences: e.g., Chemistry, Physics and allied subjects.*
> (1) Here the subject allows the creation of controlled experiments in the laboratory.
> (2) The objects under observation (e.g., atoms, molecules) are assumed to all be the same and to lack individuality.
> b. *The Historical Sciences: e.g., most of Biology, Geology.*
> (1) Here the objects under observation increasingly possess individual characteristics, such as single historical events or the individuals in a species.* Optimal controls and laboratory experiments become increasingly difficult.*
> (2) Paleontology exhibits the "worst" of this in that it concerns organisms (which have individuality) in historical circumstances *(where the coincidence of factors at any one time may NEVER be repeated) and all of this occurring in the distant past.*
> 3. This distinction between Experimental and Historical Sciences sets up a false debate in public. *Paleontologists are often compared with physicists and then faulted for not producing scientific data as measured by the standards of physics. We paleontologists simply cannot!*
> 4. As we progress from experimental to historical sciences, we pass into a realm of the critical establishment of probability. *"Good Science" becomes a matter of eliminating as many variables &#8212; while entertaining as many alternate interpretations of the observations &#8212; as possible."* _
> 
> What Is Science?
> 
> I believe this explanation to be spot on. I'm sure you could cite many experiments you have done in a chemistry or physics class that could be repeated over and over and achieve the same result as long as rigorous controls were in place. This can never be the case with predictions or hypotheses about events that occurred in the distant past. We can never know with 100% certainty that what believe about events in the past are absolutely true. We can only eliminate as many variables as possible. This is what you miss in Meyer's argument and you would note if you read his book. He attempts to eliminate as many competing hypothesis about the origin of information in dna as possible by arguing against some of the more prominent hypotheses put forth on the subject. This too is what you may miss in evolutionary biology. Darwin's tree of life has been shredded by genetic evidence, so new hypotheses have been introduced, like lateral gene transfer, to deal with the new evidence. When these types of discoveries net different results than what Darwin originally predicted, the IDers and Creationists have a field day, and rightfully so.
> 
> And that leads us to why I chose the screen name I did. The ultimate goal of science is to describe ultimate reality. Scientists are always trying to determine what is REALLY REAL. Even without my Theistic views, I would have a very hard time believing that evolution, not adaptation, is true based on the evidence. Once you learn to see many of the manipulations for what they are I liken it to the point in the matrix when Neo starts to see the code, instead of the simulation. I am not trying to put you down when I say you are not yet attune to it. There is SOOOOO much misinformation out there now with the proliferation of the internet. I wouldn't call it the information age. I would call it the misinformation age. Even when I did a google search for articles about the empirical sciences versus the historical sciences I was inundated with articles obviously written by evolution supporters to discredit the discrediting being done by the Theists. I can see the code now and I am not fooled by it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I see here, again, is an attempt to discredit a competing theory so that your hypothesis will have more of the stage. You attempt this from every angle imaginable, including, attacking the fundamental validity of evolutionary biology, on the grounds that it is "only a historical science."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you obviously missed the entire point, which had nothing to do with ID, but shows that evolutionary science will never be on the same level as physics or chemistry, ever. And it uses induction for many of its competing hypothesis.  Strawman. I have not claimed this. I have only claimed that evolution and ID are equally legitimate historical sciences based on Darwin's and Lyell's methodology. Well, I should say, equally legitimate with the exception of evolutionary theory that proposes made up narrative explanations which are not based on any past or presently observable phenomena.
> I dismissed it with what could be the most non-biased article I could find, written by a historical scientist studying evolution.  Wrong. Your real world example has atheist fundamentalism written all over it.
> Strawman. Your bias infers this claim. I wholeheartedly agree. Now we are getting somewhere!   Yes, and they apply equally to ID and Evolution, but not the empirical sciences. I totally agree!!
> Wrong again!! Any science that attempts to describe events that occurred in the distant past, whether they be the theories on the origin of male and female, cosmological arguments about the solar system, or postulates on the origin of the digital code in DNA, is a historical science.  Wrong again. What evidence from the past do you have for how abiogenesis occurred?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this is the pitfall of ID. Therefore, you are constrained to evidence we have today, and the only thing you have is, the language of another mind: digital code. Therefore, you must make an inductive argument to reach your conclusions: DNA is a complex, specifiable code. Digital code is the same. Digital code is made by intelligent minds. Therefore, so is DNA. There is no evidence for this conclusion, other than looking at another code, and assuming it was formed in the same way. This is pure inductive reasoning.  There is no direct evidence for DNA being created by an intelligent designer, because that would require looking to the past, but you have blocked off that avenue for yourself. It seems that IDers have trapped themselves logically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you just said in the last 10 or so sentences is totally fallacious. See my comments prior to all these incorrect assertions. What Meyer has done is no different that what Darwin did. Your claim that ID doesn't refer to past evidence is fallacious. We can rightfully assert that at some point in the distant past, based on fossil evidence, that the information in DNA originated long ago. Just like Darwin asserted that different species arose long ago. Darwin can't point back to evidence to actually show natural selection in action in the distant past. He attempted to use "causes now in operation", like finch beaks, to make predictions about what happened long ago. I'm not sure why you keep missing the similarities. Confirmation bias I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this is really the only argument or "evidence" you have for ID, then it is really hard for me to understand why you think this is convincing, at all. The only reason it is, is because you already believe that there was an intelligent force behind creation. The "science" of ID is not otherwise convincing to anyone else. ID is simply a contemporary version of the teleological argument. It is nothing new, and nothing special.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again. What you keep strawmanning and what you think you know, is that ID claims the intelligent designer was the Judeo-Christian God. As far as ID goes, the intelligent agent that originated the digital dna code could have been an alien race. It is a religious belief by some ID Theorist, not a scientific one, that the intelligent agent is God. However, ID theory never identifies who the intelligent agent is, because that would be impossible to do in light of current evidence. It only draws the logical conclusion that intelligence is responsible, because of the cause now in operation producing digital code.
Click to expand...


You are being either dishonest and imperceptive in so many of these responses. I am not straw-manning you half the time you say I am, if ever. You simply don't like the characterization I give ID because that is not how you are used to perceiving it. All I hear from Meyer is a two-step process:

1.) Try and falsify abiogenesis as much as possible with pure mathematical probabilities and zero evidence

2.) Try to build up the ID Hypothesis with an inductive argument, bereft of any deductively-reached conclusions.

This is ID in a nutshell. It is one big sales pitch to people of faith so thy can feel like their theories garnered from the bible have some scientific credibility. You try and distance yourself from god in the theory, but I don't believe this is genuine. 

You try to claim that evolutionary biology utilizes induction as well. This is laughable. It uses just as much as any other type of science, and it is NEVER used to reach conclusions. NEVER will you find in science a well-established fact that does not have actual evidence for it. Induction is inherent only in methodologies which are time-dependant, so nearly all of them, because they must rely on the assumption that tomorrow to be like today. Without this assumption, measurements and science, would be meaningless. This type of induction is not the same type of fallacious inductive argument IDers are committing as the very basis of their claim about the intelligent designer. That is the difference.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glensather said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI:
> 
> Conservative Christian Superhero Pat Robertson doesn't believe in Young Earth Creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is a philosophy not a religion and I am not of the same religion as robertson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently words have no meaning anymore
Click to expand...


What do you mean ? Robertson is from a different religion why would I care what he thinks,as a Christian I care what happens to him and all men but his views are his views. If he believe as you claim so be it. I have never claimed to know how long this earth has existed I gave my opinions and nothing more.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You posts typically leave you void of the ability to answer any questions, like they one you still haven't answered and are dodging with many tangents. Maybe if you post a few more responses, you can trick us into forgetting how inept you are at actually responding to questions posed of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no. Your ineptitude is enough to keep you floundering on your own.
> 
> Like your cohort cut and paster, you really have no opinions of your own, just the mindless prattle you peddle under the guise of IDiosy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, actually it is your ineptitude that attempts a cover-up barrage of nonsense when you don't know the answer. So here is the question you keep avoiding just in case you have made yourself forget with all your crazy tangents. And I quote YWC:
> 
> "Still waiting on an answer for this Hollie.
> 
> *Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?"*
Click to expand...


UR this is one dense person. I gave he-she the answer and he-she still can't answer it. This person claiming to know science is just rediculous.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is a philosophy not a religion and I am not of the same religion as robertson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently words have no meaning anymore
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean ? Robertson is from a different religion why would I care what he thinks,as a Christian I care what happens to him and all men but his views are his views. If he believe as you so be it. I have never claimed to know how long this earth has existed I gave my opinions and nothing more.
Click to expand...


Christianity, by any definition of religion, is a religion. That is what I mean. To call is a philosophy instead, is inaccurate! Robertson may come from a different religion, but no matter which denomination of christianity you belong you, it is still a religion.

If Christianity isn't a religion, then the word "religion" has lost its meaning, and has no purpose to exist.

I am not even trying to be polemical here. I have heard this claim before from Christians, and I find it to be simply inaccurate.


----------



## newpolitics

I'm just curious YWC, what evidence do you have that beneficial mutations are impossible? Logically, this makes no sense.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is circular reasoning.
> 
> You can't use the bible to prove the bible's claims about god.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't, so wrong. The Bible says we can know God exists based on the things he has made. You can't see it because your thinking is futile and your heart is darkened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this not circular? The bible lists the things god has made, and then tells you to look at them, to find evidence of him. That is circular.
Click to expand...


That doesn't even make sense. I think you have totally lost it now.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently words have no meaning anymore
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean ? Robertson is from a different religion why would I care what he thinks,as a Christian I care what happens to him and all men but his views are his views. If he believe as you so be it. I have never claimed to know how long this earth has existed I gave my opinions and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christianity, by any definition of religion, is a religion. That is what I mean. To call is a philosophy instead, is inaccurate! Robertson may come from a different religion, but no matter which denomination of christianity you belong you, it is still a religion.
> 
> If Christianity isn't a religion, then the word "religion" has lost its meaning, and has no purpose to exist.
> 
> I am not even trying to be polemical here. I have heard this claim before from Christians, and I find it to be simply inaccurate.
Click to expand...


A religion is based on one set of doctrines. Christianity contains over 41,000 different religions. Now can you see why it is a philosophy more then a religion ? God did not give approval to just one of these religions. We can all claim to be Christian but it is based on philosophy not religion. We all believe in Christ but have different beliefs. If we all followed one set of doctrines then it would be a religion.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't, so wrong. The Bible says we can know God exists based on the things he has made. You can't see it because your thinking is futile and your heart is darkened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this not circular? The bible lists the things god has made, and then tells you to look at them, to find evidence of him. That is circular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't even make sense. I think you have totally lost it now.
Click to expand...


You are trying to get around circularity by claiming that the bible asks you to look at the "evidence" of him in the universe, and not just in the bible itself. Yet, the bible is what indicates what in the  universe should be seen as evidence, and then ask you to attribute those things to god. Hence, circularity, just with a little detour.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no. Your ineptitude is enough to keep you floundering on your own.
> 
> Like your cohort cut and paster, you really have no opinions of your own, just the mindless prattle you peddle under the guise of IDiosy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually it is your ineptitude that attempts a cover-up barrage of nonsense when you don't know the answer. So here is the question you keep avoiding just in case you have made yourself forget with all your crazy tangents. And I quote YWC:
> 
> "Still waiting on an answer for this Hollie.
> 
> *Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UR this is one dense person. I gave he-she the answer and he-she still can't answer it. This person claiming to know science is just rediculous.
Click to expand...


It seems your failed ploy to link biology to the Christian creationist "molecular machine" nonsense has left you bereft an argument. Your false characterization has failed before which is why you shouldn't have expected it to yield different results this time. 

As is typical, you didn't answer anything. What you hoped to do was introduce Christian dogma into the realm of science and as we've seen before, that strategy fails.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean ? Robertson is from a different religion why would I care what he thinks,as a Christian I care what happens to him and all men but his views are his views. If he believe as you so be it. I have never claimed to know how long this earth has existed I gave my opinions and nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity, by any definition of religion, is a religion. That is what I mean. To call is a philosophy instead, is inaccurate! Robertson may come from a different religion, but no matter which denomination of christianity you belong you, it is still a religion.
> 
> If Christianity isn't a religion, then the word "religion" has lost its meaning, and has no purpose to exist.
> 
> I am not even trying to be polemical here. I have heard this claim before from Christians, and I find it to be simply inaccurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A religion is based on one set of doctrines. Christianity contains over 41,000 different religions. Now can you see why it is a philosophy more then a religion ? God did not give approval to just one of these religions. We can all claim to be Christian but it is based on philosophy not religion. We all believe in Christ but have different beliefs. If we all followed one set of doctrines then it would be a religion.
Click to expand...


No! You are making up your own semantical rules here! This is why we have the word "denomination" to delineate the different groups within the religion of christianity. You must presuppose the existence of god in order to make such a statement. In a world where the burden of proof exists, you do not get to simply call Christianity a philosophy, until you can prove that the Christian god exists. If you could, faith would no longer be necessary to believe, and you would then be justified in called Christianity a philosophy. Until then, it is a religion, no matter how spliced up.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I see here, again, is an attempt to discredit a competing theory so that your hypothesis will have more of the stage. You attempt this from every angle imaginable, including, attacking the fundamental validity of evolutionary biology, on the grounds that it is "only a historical science."
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you obviously missed the entire point, which had nothing to do with ID, but shows that evolutionary science will never be on the same level as physics or chemistry, ever. And it uses induction for many of its competing hypothesis.  Strawman. I have not claimed this. I have only claimed that evolution and ID are equally legitimate historical sciences based on Darwin's and Lyell's methodology. Well, I should say, equally legitimate with the exception of evolutionary theory that proposes made up narrative explanations which are not based on any past or presently observable phenomena.
> I dismissed it with what could be the most non-biased article I could find, written by a historical scientist studying evolution.  Wrong. Your real world example has atheist fundamentalism written all over it.
> Strawman. Your bias infers this claim. I wholeheartedly agree. Now we are getting somewhere!   Yes, and they apply equally to ID and Evolution, but not the empirical sciences. I totally agree!!
> Wrong again!! Any science that attempts to describe events that occurred in the distant past, whether they be the theories on the origin of male and female, cosmological arguments about the solar system, or postulates on the origin of the digital code in DNA, is a historical science.  Wrong again. What evidence from the past do you have for how abiogenesis occurred?  Everything you just said in the last 10 or so sentences is totally fallacious. See my comments prior to all these incorrect assertions. What Meyer has done is no different that what Darwin did. Your claim that ID doesn't refer to past evidence is fallacious. We can rightfully assert that at some point in the distant past, based on fossil evidence, that the information in DNA originated long ago. Just like Darwin asserted that different species arose long ago. Darwin can't point back to evidence to actually show natural selection in action in the distant past. He attempted to use "causes now in operation", like finch beaks, to make predictions about what happened long ago. I'm not sure why you keep missing the similarities. Confirmation bias I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this is really the only argument or "evidence" you have for ID, then it is really hard for me to understand why you think this is convincing, at all. The only reason it is, is because you already believe that there was an intelligent force behind creation. The "science" of ID is not otherwise convincing to anyone else. ID is simply a contemporary version of the teleological argument. It is nothing new, and nothing special.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again. What you keep strawmanning and what you think you know, is that ID claims the intelligent designer was the Judeo-Christian God. As far as ID goes, the intelligent agent that originated the digital dna code could have been an alien race. It is a religious belief by some ID Theorist, not a scientific one, that the intelligent agent is God. However, ID theory never identifies who the intelligent agent is, because that would be impossible to do in light of current evidence. It only draws the logical conclusion that intelligence is responsible, because of the cause now in operation producing digital code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are being either dishonest and imperceptive in so many of these responses. I am not straw-manning you half the time you say I am, if ever. You simply don't like the characterization I give ID because that is not how you are used to perceiving it. All I hear from Meyer is a two-step process:
> 
> 1.) Try and falsify abiogenesis as much as possible with pure mathematical probabilities and zero evidence
> 
> 2.) Try to build up the ID Hypothesis with an inductive argument, bereft of any deductively-reached conclusions.
> 
> This is ID in a nutshell. It is one big sales pitch to people of faith so thy can feel like their theories garnered from the bible have some scientific credibility. You try and distance yourself from god in the theory, but I don't believe this is genuine.
> 
> You try to claim that evolutionary biology utilizes induction as well. This is laughable. It uses just as much as any other type of science, and it is NEVER used to reach conclusions. NEVER will you find in science a well-established fact that does not have actual evidence for it. Induction is inherent only in methodologies which are time-dependant, so nearly all of them, because they must rely on the assumption that tomorrow to be like today. Without this assumption, measurements and science, would be meaningless. This type of induction is not the same type of fallacious inductive argument IDers are committing as the very basis of their claim about the intelligent designer. That is the difference.
Click to expand...


You continue to epically fail to see all your "pot calling kettle black" accusations. First, Evolution is not a fact, and it certainly isn't well established. Scientists make up the "just so" stories and fools embrace them, not because of science, but because of their denial of God. Evolution uses as much, and most likely more, induction based as ID theory. Your bias blinds you to this fact. From Wiki: 

*Bias*

Inductive reasoning is also known as hypothesis construction because any c*onclusions made are based on educated predictions*.[citation needed] As with deductive arguments, biases can distort the proper application of inductive argument, thereby preventing the reasoner from forming the most logical conclusion based on the clues. Examples of these biases include the availability heuristic, confirmation bias, and the predictable-world bias.

You are hopelessly wrong with all your sound and fury over inductive reasoning. Evolutionary theory is largely based on inductive reasoning:

_"Because deductive reasoning draws conclusions with complete certainty, it is tempting to sometimes believe that we are using deductive reasoning when in fact we are using inductive reasoning. The fictional Sherlock Holmes makes this mistake. *Rarely if ever, can our reasoning concerning nature be considered to be deductive reasoning*. The problem with doing so is that this implies that all of the possible hypothesis can be identified, when in fact we may never know all of nature&#8217;s secrets. This is why it is so important to conduct experiments and collect field data to verify our logic. Through these experiments we often learn of nature&#8217;s secrets that are then added to our base of knowledge.

Even though inductive reasoning does not draw conclusions with complete certainty, it is generally much more helpful than deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning allows us to reach conclusions on what has not been directly observed based on what has been observed. *It is inductive reasoning that allows geologists to use present observations to draw conclusions about events that happened million of years ago *in the Earth&#8217;s distant past. More often it is inductive reasoning that allows us to use observation of the past to anticipate probable events of the future. For example, if every day a bus stops by a bench at 4:00 pm, and we are sitting on that bench a few minutes before four, we would be expecting a bus to arrive within a few minutes. Notice that while our inductive reasoning may be correct the vast majority of times it is still not guaranteed to always be true. No matter how consistent the bus may be, we can not say with complete certainty that the bus will be there each day at the predicted time."_


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this not circular? The bible lists the things god has made, and then tells you to look at them, to find evidence of him. That is circular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't even make sense. I think you have totally lost it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to get around circularity by claiming that the bible asks you to look at the "evidence" of him in the universe, and not just in the bible itself. Yet, the bible is what indicates what in the  universe should be seen as evidence, and then ask you to attribute those things to god. Hence, circularity, just with a little detour.
Click to expand...


Now you have me seriously questioning your ability to grasp concepts like circular reasoning. Let me paint a different picture for you by making some substitutions in your quotes and you tell me if you are making any sense at all:

_You are trying to get around circularity by claiming that the book the origin of the species asks you to look at the "evidence" of evolution and natural selection on the earth, and not just in the origin of species book itself. Yet, the origin of species book is what indicates what in the world should be seen as evidence, and then ask you to attribute those things to evolution and natural selection. Hence, circularity, just with a little detour. _

_The origin of the species lists the things evolution has made, and then tells you to look at them, to find evidence of evolution. That is circular._


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you obviously missed the entire point, which had nothing to do with ID, but shows that evolutionary science will never be on the same level as physics or chemistry, ever. And it uses induction for many of its competing hypothesis.  Strawman. I have not claimed this. I have only claimed that evolution and ID are equally legitimate historical sciences based on Darwin's and Lyell's methodology. Well, I should say, equally legitimate with the exception of evolutionary theory that proposes made up narrative explanations which are not based on any past or presently observable phenomena.
> I dismissed it with what could be the most non-biased article I could find, written by a historical scientist studying evolution.  Wrong. Your real world example has atheist fundamentalism written all over it.
> Strawman. Your bias infers this claim. I wholeheartedly agree. Now we are getting somewhere!   Yes, and they apply equally to ID and Evolution, but not the empirical sciences. I totally agree!!
> Wrong again!! Any science that attempts to describe events that occurred in the distant past, whether they be the theories on the origin of male and female, cosmological arguments about the solar system, or postulates on the origin of the digital code in DNA, is a historical science.  Wrong again. What evidence from the past do you have for how abiogenesis occurred?  Everything you just said in the last 10 or so sentences is totally fallacious. See my comments prior to all these incorrect assertions. What Meyer has done is no different that what Darwin did. Your claim that ID doesn't refer to past evidence is fallacious. We can rightfully assert that at some point in the distant past, based on fossil evidence, that the information in DNA originated long ago. Just like Darwin asserted that different species arose long ago. Darwin can't point back to evidence to actually show natural selection in action in the distant past. He attempted to use "causes now in operation", like finch beaks, to make predictions about what happened long ago. I'm not sure why you keep missing the similarities. Confirmation bias I guess.
> 
> Wrong again. What you keep strawmanning and what you think you know, is that ID claims the intelligent designer was the Judeo-Christian God. As far as ID goes, the intelligent agent that originated the digital dna code could have been an alien race. It is a religious belief by some ID Theorist, not a scientific one, that the intelligent agent is God. However, ID theory never identifies who the intelligent agent is, because that would be impossible to do in light of current evidence. It only draws the logical conclusion that intelligence is responsible, because of the cause now in operation producing digital code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are being either dishonest and imperceptive in so many of these responses. I am not straw-manning you half the time you say I am, if ever. You simply don't like the characterization I give ID because that is not how you are used to perceiving it. All I hear from Meyer is a two-step process:
> 
> 1.) Try and falsify abiogenesis as much as possible with pure mathematical probabilities and zero evidence
> 
> 2.) Try to build up the ID Hypothesis with an inductive argument, bereft of any deductively-reached conclusions.
> 
> This is ID in a nutshell. It is one big sales pitch to people of faith so thy can feel like their theories garnered from the bible have some scientific credibility. You try and distance yourself from god in the theory, but I don't believe this is genuine.
> 
> You try to claim that evolutionary biology utilizes induction as well. This is laughable. It uses just as much as any other type of science, and it is NEVER used to reach conclusions. NEVER will you find in science a well-established fact that does not have actual evidence for it. Induction is inherent only in methodologies which are time-dependant, so nearly all of them, because they must rely on the assumption that tomorrow to be like today. Without this assumption, measurements and science, would be meaningless. This type of induction is not the same type of fallacious inductive argument IDers are committing as the very basis of their claim about the intelligent designer. That is the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to epically fail to see all your "pot calling kettle black" accusations. First, Evolution is not a fact, and it certainly isn't well established. Scientists make up the "just so" stories and fools embrace them, not because of science, but because of their denial of God. Evolution uses as much, and most likely more, induction based as ID theory. Your bias blinds you to this fact. From Wiki:
> 
> *Bias*
> 
> Inductive reasoning is also known as hypothesis construction because any c*onclusions made are based on educated predictions*.[citation needed] As with deductive arguments, biases can distort the proper application of inductive argument, thereby preventing the reasoner from forming the most logical conclusion based on the clues. Examples of these biases include the availability heuristic, confirmation bias, and the predictable-world bias.
> 
> You are hopelessly wrong with all your sound and fury over inductive reasoning. Evolutionary theory is largely based on inductive reasoning:
> 
> _"Because deductive reasoning draws conclusions with complete certainty, it is tempting to sometimes believe that we are using deductive reasoning when in fact we are using inductive reasoning. The fictional Sherlock Holmes makes this mistake. *Rarely if ever, can our reasoning concerning nature be considered to be deductive reasoning*. The problem with doing so is that this implies that all of the possible hypothesis can be identified, when in fact we may never know all of nature&#8217;s secrets. This is why it is so important to conduct experiments and collect field data to verify our logic. Through these experiments we often learn of nature&#8217;s secrets that are then added to our base of knowledge.
> 
> Even though inductive reasoning does not draw conclusions with complete certainty, it is generally much more helpful than deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning allows us to reach conclusions on what has not been directly observed based on what has been observed. *It is inductive reasoning that allows geologists to use present observations to draw conclusions about events that happened million of years ago *in the Earth&#8217;s distant past. More often it is inductive reasoning that allows us to use observation of the past to anticipate probable events of the future. For example, if every day a bus stops by a bench at 4:00 pm, and we are sitting on that bench a few minutes before four, we would be expecting a bus to arrive within a few minutes. Notice that while our inductive reasoning may be correct the vast majority of times it is still not guaranteed to always be true. No matter how consistent the bus may be, we can not say with complete certainty that the bus will be there each day at the predicted time."_
Click to expand...


Evolution actually is a fact. Truly you are inaccurate in this post in almost every sentence I was able to get through.

A defining feature of science is that its conclusions are drawn deductively.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> I'm just curious YWC, what evidence do you have that beneficial mutations are impossible? Logically, this makes no sense.



I did not say they were impossible but they are to rare to think enough happened to produce the diversity we see. Over time an accumulation of mutations is not good for any group of organisms. If we removed functions of our car and replaced those functions with other functions without intelligent thought would that car still function properly ?

Many mutations cause no change at all but many do and in most cases they prove to be harmful.  We saw the same results early scientists saw like pierre grasse.

Pierre Grasse,
 Editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie," for 30 years the Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University, and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences, "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.88
 "To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutation has the probability of zero."

Pierre-Paul Grassé stated the following: "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Grasse pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists and are organisms which produce the most mutants are considered to have "stabilized a billion years ago!".[4] Grassé regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."[5]

Pierre-Paul Grassé also wrote the following: 



&#8220; 

Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.6
 Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.8

It follows that any explanation of the mechanism in creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypotheses. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formation of pure conjectures as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.31[6]

&#8221; 


Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote regarding Pierre-Paul Grassé: 



&#8220; 

Now, one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore him, he is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of `Traite de Zoologie', author of numerous original investigations and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic ...." (Dobzhansky T.G., "Darwinian or `Oriented' Evolution?" Review of Grasse P.-P., "L'Evolution du Vivant," Editions Albin Michel: Paris, 1973, in "Evolution," Vol. 29, June 1975, pp.376-378, p.376).[


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually it is your ineptitude that attempts a cover-up barrage of nonsense when you don't know the answer. So here is the question you keep avoiding just in case you have made yourself forget with all your crazy tangents. And I quote YWC:
> 
> "Still waiting on an answer for this Hollie.
> 
> *Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UR this is one dense person. I gave he-she the answer and he-she still can't answer it. This person claiming to know science is just rediculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems your failed ploy to link biology to the Christian creationist "molecular machine" nonsense has left you bereft an argument. Your false characterization has failed before which is why you shouldn't have expected it to yield different results this time.
> 
> As is typical, you didn't answer anything. What you hoped to do was introduce Christian dogma into the realm of science and as we've seen before, that strategy fails.
Click to expand...


Wroing. The fundie is getting angry and lashing out. You are the one that hasn't answered anything.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are being either dishonest and imperceptive in so many of these responses. I am not straw-manning you half the time you say I am, if ever. You simply don't like the characterization I give ID because that is not how you are used to perceiving it. All I hear from Meyer is a two-step process:
> 
> 1.) Try and falsify abiogenesis as much as possible with pure mathematical probabilities and zero evidence
> 
> 2.) Try to build up the ID Hypothesis with an inductive argument, bereft of any deductively-reached conclusions.
> 
> This is ID in a nutshell. It is one big sales pitch to people of faith so thy can feel like their theories garnered from the bible have some scientific credibility. You try and distance yourself from god in the theory, but I don't believe this is genuine.
> 
> You try to claim that evolutionary biology utilizes induction as well. This is laughable. It uses just as much as any other type of science, and it is NEVER used to reach conclusions. NEVER will you find in science a well-established fact that does not have actual evidence for it. Induction is inherent only in methodologies which are time-dependant, so nearly all of them, because they must rely on the assumption that tomorrow to be like today. Without this assumption, measurements and science, would be meaningless. This type of induction is not the same type of fallacious inductive argument IDers are committing as the very basis of their claim about the intelligent designer. That is the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to epically fail to see all your "pot calling kettle black" accusations. First, Evolution is not a fact, and it certainly isn't well established. Scientists make up the "just so" stories and fools embrace them, not because of science, but because of their denial of God. Evolution uses as much, and most likely more, induction based as ID theory. Your bias blinds you to this fact. From Wiki:
> 
> *Bias*
> 
> Inductive reasoning is also known as hypothesis construction because any c*onclusions made are based on educated predictions*.[citation needed] As with deductive arguments, biases can distort the proper application of inductive argument, thereby preventing the reasoner from forming the most logical conclusion based on the clues. Examples of these biases include the availability heuristic, confirmation bias, and the predictable-world bias.
> 
> You are hopelessly wrong with all your sound and fury over inductive reasoning. Evolutionary theory is largely based on inductive reasoning:
> 
> _"Because deductive reasoning draws conclusions with complete certainty, it is tempting to sometimes believe that we are using deductive reasoning when in fact we are using inductive reasoning. The fictional Sherlock Holmes makes this mistake. *Rarely if ever, can our reasoning concerning nature be considered to be deductive reasoning*. The problem with doing so is that this implies that all of the possible hypothesis can be identified, when in fact we may never know all of nature&#8217;s secrets. This is why it is so important to conduct experiments and collect field data to verify our logic. Through these experiments we often learn of nature&#8217;s secrets that are then added to our base of knowledge.
> 
> Even though inductive reasoning does not draw conclusions with complete certainty, it is generally much more helpful than deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning allows us to reach conclusions on what has not been directly observed based on what has been observed. *It is inductive reasoning that allows geologists to use present observations to draw conclusions about events that happened million of years ago *in the Earth&#8217;s distant past. More often it is inductive reasoning that allows us to use observation of the past to anticipate probable events of the future. For example, if every day a bus stops by a bench at 4:00 pm, and we are sitting on that bench a few minutes before four, we would be expecting a bus to arrive within a few minutes. Notice that while our inductive reasoning may be correct the vast majority of times it is still not guaranteed to always be true. No matter how consistent the bus may be, we can not say with complete certainty that the bus will be there each day at the predicted time."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution actually is a fact...
Click to expand...


As is God. With the evidence for God being much more compelling.


----------



## UltimateReality

Simply amazing!!! The Bible says God makes himself plain to us, as in totally obvious.

Check this..

DNA directly photographed for first time - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience | NBC News


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to epically fail to see all your "pot calling kettle black" accusations. First, Evolution is not a fact, and it certainly isn't well established. Scientists make up the "just so" stories and fools embrace them, not because of science, but because of their denial of God. Evolution uses as much, and most likely more, induction based as ID theory. Your bias blinds you to this fact. From Wiki:
> 
> *Bias*
> 
> Inductive reasoning is also known as hypothesis construction because any c*onclusions made are based on educated predictions*.[citation needed] As with deductive arguments, biases can distort the proper application of inductive argument, thereby preventing the reasoner from forming the most logical conclusion based on the clues. Examples of these biases include the availability heuristic, confirmation bias, and the predictable-world bias.
> 
> You are hopelessly wrong with all your sound and fury over inductive reasoning. Evolutionary theory is largely based on inductive reasoning:
> 
> _"Because deductive reasoning draws conclusions with complete certainty, it is tempting to sometimes believe that we are using deductive reasoning when in fact we are using inductive reasoning. The fictional Sherlock Holmes makes this mistake. *Rarely if ever, can our reasoning concerning nature be considered to be deductive reasoning*. The problem with doing so is that this implies that all of the possible hypothesis can be identified, when in fact we may never know all of nature&#8217;s secrets. This is why it is so important to conduct experiments and collect field data to verify our logic. Through these experiments we often learn of nature&#8217;s secrets that are then added to our base of knowledge.
> 
> Even though inductive reasoning does not draw conclusions with complete certainty, it is generally much more helpful than deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning allows us to reach conclusions on what has not been directly observed based on what has been observed. *It is inductive reasoning that allows geologists to use present observations to draw conclusions about events that happened million of years ago *in the Earth&#8217;s distant past. More often it is inductive reasoning that allows us to use observation of the past to anticipate probable events of the future. For example, if every day a bus stops by a bench at 4:00 pm, and we are sitting on that bench a few minutes before four, we would be expecting a bus to arrive within a few minutes. Notice that while our inductive reasoning may be correct the vast majority of times it is still not guaranteed to always be true. No matter how consistent the bus may be, we can not say with complete certainty that the bus will be there each day at the predicted time."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution actually is a fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As is God. With the evidence for God being much more compelling.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence for god, which is why you require faith.

This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for evolution, when there is vast amounts. This dishonest is what is so bothersome about creationists. They create their own reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity, by any definition of religion, is a religion. That is what I mean. To call is a philosophy instead, is inaccurate! Robertson may come from a different religion, but no matter which denomination of christianity you belong you, it is still a religion.
> 
> If Christianity isn't a religion, then the word "religion" has lost its meaning, and has no purpose to exist.
> 
> I am not even trying to be polemical here. I have heard this claim before from Christians, and I find it to be simply inaccurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A religion is based on one set of doctrines. Christianity contains over 41,000 different religions. Now can you see why it is a philosophy more then a religion ? God did not give approval to just one of these religions. We can all claim to be Christian but it is based on philosophy not religion. We all believe in Christ but have different beliefs. If we all followed one set of doctrines then it would be a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No! You are making up your own semantical rules here! This is why we have the word "denomination" to delineate the different groups within the religion of christianity. You must presuppose the existence of god in order to make such a statement. In a world where the burden of proof exists, you do not get to simply call Christianity a philosophy, until you can prove that the Christian god exists. If you could, faith would no longer be necessary to believe, and you would then be justified in called Christianity a philosophy. Until then, it is a religion, no matter how spliced up.
Click to expand...


I am sorry I don't follow your definitions but they are inaccurate. They also give a definition of hell but I don't see such a place existing in the scriptures. Now can you see what I am saying ?

The only thing that unites Christians is the belief in the son of God we are not united in our doctrines. So do 41,000 religions make up one religion ? hardly.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Simply amazing!!! The Bible says God makes himself plain to us, as in totally obvious.
> 
> Check this..
> 
> DNA directly photographed for first time - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience | NBC News



Notice the wording in the first paragraph:

"Fifty-nine years after James Watson and Francis Crick *deduced* the double-helix structure of DNA, a scientist has captured the first direct photograph of the twisted ladder that props up life."


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution actually is a fact...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As is God. With the evidence for God being much more compelling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence for god, which is why you require faith.
> 
> This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for evolution, when there is vast amounts. You're dishonesty is what bothers me most.
Click to expand...


Some beliefs are based in faith and some are not.


----------



## UltimateReality

NP, here is a great example of Evolutionists pretending inductive reasoning is deductive. 

_The new paper constructs several hypotheses for the early phases of evolution history and shows how universal common descent, in one variant or another, is the clear winner. And in the now well-established Bernoullian tradition, the results are grossly misinterpreted in favor of evolution. After showing that a comparison of 23 proteins&#8212;similar versions of which are found in many species&#8212;fit the universal common descent hypothesis far better than the hypothesized alternatives, the paper erroneously states that the results are &#8220;very strong empirical evidence&#8221; for universal common descent.

Not surprisingly the paper is an instant hit with evolutionists, celebrated everywhere from journals and popular science magazines to the blogosphere. One science newsletter proclaims:

    First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin&#8217;s Theory of Universal Common Ancestry


Scientific American has informed its readers that &#8220;The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life,&#8221; and National Geographic adds that:

    All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds
    Creationism called "absolutely horrible hypothesis"&#8212;statistically speaking.


In his blog PZ Myers, who with his Lutheran background believes god would never have created this world, applauds the big numbers that &#8220;support evolutionary theory.&#8221; And Nick Matzke, who also believes in the evolutionary metaphysics that god would never have designed what we observe in the biological world, is delighted that the new work debunks creationism.

Of course all of this is false. It is junk science at its worst. In a public discussion I asked the paper&#8217;s author about these problems. I reminded him that one hypothesis comparing well against others does not translate into very strong empirical evidence for the hypothesis. But he disagreed. He assured me that his analysis is fundamentally based on modern, cutting edge statistical methods, and that he firmly stands by his conclusions. Indeed, no scientist or statistician would find them to be controversial, he added.

I explained to him that the problem lies not with the statistical methods. Daniel Bernoulli also used cutting edge methods of the day (he was the first that I know of to use a null hypothesis based on random distributions). But when comparing such scores a scientist or a statistician would merely claim that the hypothesis with the significantly higher score is the winner of the group. That is entirely different than his high claim that the results constitute very strong empirical evidence for the hypothesis. That conclusion is simply false. The hypothesis may be true, it may not be true, but the study does not provide such powerful empirical evidence for it. Unfortunately, such misinformation fuels the kind of reporting we saw above.

But again the evolutionist continued to disagree. You are simply incorrect, he replied. From a model selection perspective, from a likelihood perspective, and from a Bayesian perspective, empirical evidence can only be evaluated relative to other hypotheses. That&#8217;s all we have. No hypothesis can be evaluated in isolation&#8212;such an idea is impossible and incoherent. This view is not from evolutionary biology&#8212;this is the standard non-frequentist statistical view (and even most frequentists have the same view). He suggested I read some introductory books on likelihood and Bayesian statistics.

Evolutionary thought, including its history, metaphysics and abuse of science, is a fascinating study. I replied that I was amazed. The lengths to which evolutionists must go is incredible. It is always striking to see the certainty with which evolutionists promote their philosophies and metaphysics. You can see it in the history of evolutionary thought, and today it just keeps on coming. They impose their philosophies, as though they were facts, on the world. Their faulty logic is exceeded only by their boldness.

I again explained that when one hypothesis beats out others you cannot make the claims you are making. What you have is very strong evidence that the hypothesis beats out the other hypotheses, period. You do not have very strong evidence for the hypothesis, as you are claiming.

And your appeal to the limitations in your confirmation methods doesn&#8217;t change the fact that you are making false claims, and celebrating them as valid findings. The fact that &#8220;That's all we have&#8221; hardly justifies the publishing and promotion of misinformation. The fact that &#8220;That&#8217;s all we have&#8221; ought to serve to temper the claims, not exalt them.

But contrastive thinking has been at the heart of evolutionary thought for centuries. From Kant to Darwin, and on up, what has always been rather revealing is how evolutionists have presented their proofs as though they were objective, undeniable findings. It is always a bit shocking to see such bold claims made on such faulty logic.

At this point the evolutionist turned the blame on me. We have, he explained, overwhelming evidence that universal common ancestry beats out competing multiple independent ancestry hypotheses. If you don&#8217;t consider that as evidence for universal common ancestry, then you are certainly entitled to that opinion. But the rest of us are not required to believe that your opinion makes any sense. Yours is a strange philosophy, to my mind, and I&#8217;m sure to most people who will read your words.

Repeatedly *I have found that evolutionists are unable to see the problems and fallacies with their theory. *And so when you point out those problems, the evolutionist ultimately can only conclude that the problem lies with you. You are an obstructionist, or biased, or anti science, or something.

This evolutionist was not being judgmental in any personal way. He threw up his hands and concluded that I am the problem, but his response was genuine, not contrived. It was not mean spirited. Just as Bernoulli proclaimed that anyone who would deny the obvious evolutionary conclusions &#8220;must reject all the truths, which we know by induction&#8221; so too evolutionists ever since can only understand skepticism as, itself, problematic.

Evolution is a metaphysically-driven tradition and like most such traditions has built-in protections against objective critique. The result, unfortunately, is junk science. This new paper will be erroneously celebrated far and wide as yet a new level of certainty for evolution. Let the worship begin. _

Darwin's God: Let the Worship Begin


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply amazing!!! The Bible says God makes himself plain to us, as in totally obvious.
> 
> Check this..
> 
> DNA directly photographed for first time - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience | NBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the wording in the first paragraph:
> 
> "Fifty-nine years after James Watson and Francis Crick *deduced* the double-helix structure of DNA, a scientist has captured the first direct photograph of the twisted ladder that props up life."
Click to expand...


Yeah, notice your total utter inability to again distinguish between the historical and empirical sciences. The dna structure exists presently, and prior to it actually being able to be observed by the electron microscope, its structure could be deduced by knowledge about its chemical structure and X-ray data. You are confusing the dna molecule, which very much falls into the realm of chemistry, with the historical pseudoscience of evolutinary biology. Thanks for playing but the dna structure is not a prediction about something that occurred in the distant past, for which we have no evidence.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution actually is a fact...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As is God. With the evidence for God being much more compelling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence for god, which is why you require faith.
> 
> This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for evolution, when there is vast amounts. This dishonest is what is so bothersome about creationists. They create their own reality.
Click to expand...


There is evidence for our Creator all around us. You just choose to ignore it because of your materialistic religious beliefs.


----------



## UltimateReality

_"Its another rags-to-riches evolutionary story, this time with epigenetics going from dog house to white house. First evolutionists denied epigenetics, then they said epigenetics are inconsequential and now they say epigenetics may be instrumental in, err, the origin of the human brain. Thats quite a turn around. When (i) leading evolutionists such as Jerry Coyne are saying epigenetic characters are not usually inherited past one or two generations and so are not going to change our concept of evolution, while (ii) research papers are concluding that epigenetic changes, coordinated with genetic changes, could play a role in the evolution of the primate brain, then you know something is wrong. Evolutionists are having to rewrite their story at an ever increasing rate to try to adjust to the data, and it isnt making sense.

Of course evolutionists did not deny epigenetics for nothing. Excuse the double negative but evolutionists dont reject evidence for no reason. They reject evidence because they dont expect itbecause it doesnt fit their theory. The problem with epigenetics is that it makes evolution even more unlikely, if that were possible.

Most people have an intuitive sense that random chance events, such as genetic mutations, are not likely to create the entire biological world from a once lifeless planet. But if that was a non starter, how about those random mutations first creating profoundly complex molecular machines which then proceed to orchestrate the evolutionary process?

This just makes no sense. From incredible horizontal gene transfer mechanisms to the incredible epigenetic network of machines and chemical barcodes, the chance evolution of these wonders is itself astronomically unlikely, but then for these miracles of evolution to perform so much more evolutionary miracle work is simply ridiculous. Are we to believe that evolution created evolution which then created the biological world?

The sheer serendipity required by evolutionary thought is amazing. Someone has to say this because evolutionists wont. *They are so deeply embedded in the front lines they are oblivious to the state of evolutionary thought. They cannot step back and realistically assess their theory.*

It doesnt matter to me whether evolution is true or false, but it does matter that science is being abused. *Religion drives science and it matters*."_

Darwin's God: Now Evolutionists Say Evolution Created Evolution (Again)


----------



## UltimateReality

_The theory of evolution states that the species arose spontaneously, one from another via a pattern of common descent. This means the species should form an evolutionary tree, where species that share a recent common ancestor, such as two frog species, are highly similar, and species that share a distant common ancestor, such as humans and squids, are very different. But the species do not form such an evolutionary tree pattern. In fact this expectation has been violated so many times it is difficult to keep track. These violations are not rare or occasional anomalies, they are the rule. Entire volumes have been written on them. Many examples are the repeated designs found in what, according to evolution, must be very distant species. Such evolutionary convergence is biologys version of lightning striking twice. To explain this evolutionists must say that random mutations just happened to hit upon the same detailed, intricate design at different times, in different parts of the world, in different ecological niches, and so forth. The idea that the most complex designs we know of would spontaneously arise by themselves is, itself, not scientifically motivated and a real stretch of the imagination. But for the same intricate designs to arise independently by chance is even more of a stretch. That is why evolutionists claim this week that they have found evidence for convergent evolution was so intriguing.

*[A REAL EXAMPLE OF CIRCULAR REASONING]*

It makes for a startling headline and once again gives journalists license to proclaim another confirmation of evolution. But down in the details, *Hoys evidence is nothing more than circular reasoning. In a classic example of evolutionary blowback, Hoy reasons that (i) mammals and katydids evolved, (ii) their hearing designs are remarkably similar, so (iii) therefore it is proof of convergent evolution.*

*Or simply put, evolution is true, so therefore evolution is true.*

This is a confirmation not of convergent evolution but of how *evolution has corrupted scientific thinking*. *Fallacious reasoning such as this is, unfortunately, is the rule rather than the exception.*


_

Darwin's God: Evolutionists Find Evidence For Convergence


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution actually is a fact...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As is God. With the evidence for God being much more compelling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence for god, which is why you require faith.
> 
> This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for evolution, when there is vast amounts. This dishonest is what is so bothersome about creationists. They create their own reality.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence for evolution, which is why you require faith.

This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for God, when there is vast amounts. This dishonesty is what is so bothersome about darwinists. They create their own reality.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> NP, here is a great example of Evolutionists pretending inductive reasoning is deductive.
> 
> _The new paper constructs several hypotheses for the early phases of evolution history and shows how universal common descent, in one variant or another, is the clear winner. And in the now well-established Bernoullian tradition, the results are grossly misinterpreted in favor of evolution. After showing that a comparison of 23 proteins&#8212;similar versions of which are found in many species&#8212;fit the universal common descent hypothesis far better than the hypothesized alternatives, the paper erroneously states that the results are &#8220;very strong empirical evidence&#8221; for universal common descent.
> 
> ...
> 
> Evolution is a metaphysically-driven tradition and like most such traditions has built-in protections against objective critique. The result, unfortunately, is junk science. This new paper will be erroneously celebrated far and wide as yet a new level of certainty for evolution. Let the worship begin. _
> 
> Darwin's God: Let the Worship Begin



... okay. This was a blog.

You seem to be making some categorical errors with regards to inductive reasoning and science. I never claimed that science doesn't use induction, and acknowledged that it has to, when I talked about the problem of induction. What is important, is that science doesn't use induction as the basis for making conclusions about a hypothesis. It uses deduction, because induction is so unreliable. 

For instance, you have no direct evidence that DNA is made by an intelligent designer, which isn't problematic, necessarily. Yet, neither do you possess indirect evidence, and indirect evidence is not the same thing as inductive reasoning. The only evidence you have is that the digital code is made by an intelligent mind (humans), which is obvious information. Your tactic is to draw enough similarities between DNA and Digital code, to be able to say the same for DNA. This is pure inductive reasoning. No matter how many similarities you draw between DNA and Digital code, you still have provided no evidence to support your premise that DNA was created by intelligence. 

Inductive reasoning is not evidence, yet, you present it as if it is.  This, I think, is my main contention with your argument- you have no actual hard evidence. You're "evidence" is the inductive argument itself. 



> While inductive reasoning is commonly used in science, it is not always logically valid because it is not always accurate to assume that a general principle is correct... It is illogical to assume an entire premise just because one specific data set seems to suggest it.
> 
> ...
> 
> By nature, inductive reasoning is more open-ended and exploratory, especially during the early stages. Deductive reasoning is more narrow and is generally used to test or confirm hypotheses. Most social research, however, involves both inductive and deductive reasoning throughout the research process. The scientific norm of logical reasoning provides a two-way bridge between theory and research. In practice, this typically involves alternating between deduction and induction.
> 
> Deductive Reasoning Versus Inductive Reasoning



Notice the placement of deductive and inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is more useful towards the beginning of analysis, while deductive reasoning is more useful towards the end, when conclusions are being drawn. This is my whole point. 

You are drawing conclusions using inductive reasoning, which is simply impossible.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> As is God. With the evidence for God being much more compelling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence for god, which is why you require faith.
> 
> This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for evolution, when there is vast amounts. This dishonest is what is so bothersome about creationists. They create their own reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence for evolution, which is why you require faith.
> 
> This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for God, when there is vast amounts. This dishonesty is what is so bothersome about darwinists. They create their own reality.
Click to expand...


No way... you copied my words, but flipped it around on me! Doh!!!


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> _The theory of evolution states that the species arose spontaneously, one from another via a pattern of common descent. This means the species should form an evolutionary tree, where species that share a recent common ancestor, such as two frog species, are highly similar, and species that share a distant common ancestor, such as humans and squids, are very different. But the species do not form such an evolutionary tree pattern. In fact this expectation has been violated so many times it is difficult to keep track. These violations are not rare or occasional anomalies, they are the rule. Entire volumes have been written on them. Many examples are the repeated designs found in what, according to evolution, must be very distant species. Such evolutionary convergence is biology&#8217;s version of lightning striking twice. To explain this evolutionists must say that random mutations just happened to hit upon the same detailed, intricate design at different times, in different parts of the world, in different ecological niches, and so forth. The idea that the most complex designs we know of would spontaneously arise by themselves is, itself, not scientifically motivated and a real stretch of the imagination. But for the same intricate designs to arise independently by chance is even more of a stretch. That is why evolutionist&#8217;s claim this week that they have found evidence for convergent evolution was so intriguing.
> 
> *[A REAL EXAMPLE OF CIRCULAR REASONING]*
> 
> It makes for a startling headline and once again gives journalists license to proclaim another confirmation of evolution. But down in the details, *Hoy&#8217;s &#8220;evidence&#8221; is nothing more than circular reasoning. In a classic example of evolutionary blowback, Hoy reasons that (i) mammals and katydids evolved, (ii) their hearing designs are remarkably similar, so (iii) therefore it is proof of convergent evolution.*
> 
> *Or simply put, evolution is true, so therefore evolution is true.*
> 
> This is a confirmation not of convergent evolution but of how *evolution has corrupted scientific thinking*. *Fallacious reasoning such as this is, unfortunately, is the rule rather than the exception.*
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Darwin's God: Evolutionists Find Evidence For Convergence



It's the same logical fallacies. No wonder you are full of them. You are consuming all of them from sources like this. Much of this is simply an argument from personal incredulity.

Evolution is true, because it is able to be demonstrated through evidence and predictive power. Hence, it is not circular. Whoever wrote this is being dishonest about reality.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP, here is a great example of Evolutionists pretending inductive reasoning is deductive.
> 
> _The new paper constructs several hypotheses for the early phases of evolution history and shows how universal common descent, in one variant or another, is the clear winner. And in the now well-established Bernoullian tradition, the results are grossly misinterpreted in favor of evolution. After showing that a comparison of 23 proteins&#8212;similar versions of which are found in many species&#8212;fit the universal common descent hypothesis far better than the hypothesized alternatives, the paper erroneously states that the results are &#8220;very strong empirical evidence&#8221; for universal common descent.
> 
> ...
> 
> Evolution is a metaphysically-driven tradition and like most such traditions has built-in protections against objective critique. The result, unfortunately, is junk science. This new paper will be erroneously celebrated far and wide as yet a new level of certainty for evolution. Let the worship begin. _
> 
> Darwin's God: Let the Worship Begin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... okay. This was a blog.
> 
> You seem to be making some categorical errors with regards to inductive reasoning and science.
Click to expand...

   Actually, it is you who keeps making the errors. 





newpolitics said:


> I never claimed that science doesn't use induction, and acknowledged that it has to, when I talked about the problem of induction. What is important, is that science doesn't use induction as the basis for making conclusions about a hypothesis.


 Oh yes it most certainly does. If you read on I have provided an example where darwinists use induction to focus on one hypothesis which they then will call fact. 





newpolitics said:


> It uses deduction, because induction is so unreliable.


 This is not a true statement.



newpolitics said:


> For instance, you have no direct evidence that DNA is made by an intelligent designer, which isn't problematic, necessarily.


 Of course it isn't captain obvious. It wouldn't be historical science if we had direct evidence. 





newpolitics said:


> Yet, neither do you possess indirect evidence, and indirect evidence is not the same thing as inductive reasoning. The only evidence you have is that the digital code is made by an intelligent mind (humans), which is obvious information. Your tactic is to draw enough similarities between DNA and Digital code, to be able to say the same for DNA.


 This isn't a tactic. DNA is digital, *SPECIFIABLE AND COMPLEX* code. 





newpolitics said:


> This is pure inductive reasoning.


 No it it isn't. You are wrong. Inductive reasoning occurs when you arrive at a hypothesis based on a cause currently in operation and the fact that we know that information carrying DNA originated in the distant past. 





newpolitics said:


> No matter how many similarities you draw between DNA and Digital code, you still have provided no evidence to support your premise that DNA was created by intelligence.


 Yes I have and you keep choosing to ignore it!!! Geez! Do I need to state this 10 times for it to sink in??? Show me complex, specifiable digital code that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. The premise is "All complex, functional and specifiable digital codes have an intelligent agent as its source." This is a true statement until you falsify it with some different evidence!!! So instead of repeating over and over again I have supplied no evidence to support my premise, quit ignoring the evidence and give me the example above I have requested to disprove me. 





newpolitics said:


> Inductive reasoning is not evidence, yet, you present it as if it is.


 No, I do not. Quit being intellectually dishonest. I have present the evidence and it is not inductive reasoning. 





newpolitics said:


> This, I think, is my main contention with your argument- you have no actual hard evidence. You're "evidence" is the inductive argument itself.


 Wrong again!!! You have previously shown you have not grasp for circular argument identification and you are fallaciously trying to use the same, WRONG logic here. You have even stated the argument wrongly in previous posts, so either you still don't understand the argument or you are willfully being dishonest. Last time I am going to lay it out for you I swear:

-DNA with digitally coded, complex, specifiable information originated in the distant past approx. 3.5 billion years ago.

-All presently observable digitally coded, complex, specifiable information has an intelligent agent (a human in this instance) as it source. So our modern empirical evidence is that only intelligence produces complex, specifiable, digital code. 

-Any other competing hypotheses for the origin of DNA do not stand up to scrutiny. Most competing origins hypotheses come from a basis of chance or necessity or a combination of both. A majority of the models start with ponds or ocean water containing the 20 necessary amino acids for protein building. Any hypotheses that assumes the complex data strings required to build very specific, functional proteins required for the most simple forms of life randomly came together in the pond or the ocean have such small odds that we can say it is impossible. All necessity arguments have been disproven because we know that the sugar backbone has no affinity for any one of the four nucleotides. 

So by inductive reasoning, the best explanation we currently have, in light of all currently available evidence, is that the complex, specifiable information contained in dna came from some type of intelligence. Historical sciences, including Evolutionary biology, are limited to the best possible hyptheses, and that is not to say some new information might be revealed that would change or update the hypothesis. That is why we can't used deductive reasoning to say without 100% certainty no other valid hypothesis exist. Although that doesn't stop the foolish darwinists from doing it, which reduces their so called "fact" of evolution to pseudo science. 



newpolitics said:


> While inductive reasoning is commonly used in science, it is not always logically valid because it is not always accurate to assume that a general principle is correct... It is illogical to assume an entire premise just because one specific data set seems to suggest it.


 You have not read the book so you continue to ASSume there is only one data set. Plus, see the article I posted about darwinists actually making deductive claims about their inductive hypothesis, which you fall for right away because it is your religion driving your science, to borrow from Cornelius. 

...


newpolitics said:


> By nature, inductive reasoning is more open-ended and exploratory, especially during the early stages. Deductive reasoning is more narrow and is generally used to test or confirm hypotheses. Most social research, however, involves both inductive and deductive reasoning throughout the research process. The scientific norm of logical reasoning provides a two-way bridge between theory and research. In practice, this typically involves alternating between deduction and induction.
> 
> Deductive Reasoning Versus Inductive Reasoning
> 
> Notice the placement of deductive and inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is more useful towards the beginning of analysis, while deductive reasoning is more useful towards the end, when conclusions are being drawn. This is my whole point.
> 
> You are drawing conclusions using inductive reasoning, which is simply impossible.


 Wrong again. You still don't grasp it because you need more guidance than just reading stuff on the internet. Drawing conclusions from inductive reasoning is perfectly fine. You just can't assume or declare that there are no other possibilities that might not yet have come to light. But again, these rules don't stop darwinists from using inductive reasoning to make deductive statements, which you pathetically buy without question.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The theory of evolution states that the species arose spontaneously, one from another via a pattern of common descent. This means the species should form an evolutionary tree, where species that share a recent common ancestor, such as two frog species, are highly similar, and species that share a distant common ancestor, such as humans and squids, are very different. But the species do not form such an evolutionary tree pattern. In fact this expectation has been violated so many times it is difficult to keep track. These violations are not rare or occasional anomalies, they are the rule. Entire volumes have been written on them. Many examples are the repeated designs found in what, according to evolution, must be very distant species. Such evolutionary convergence is biologys version of lightning striking twice. To explain this evolutionists must say that random mutations just happened to hit upon the same detailed, intricate design at different times, in different parts of the world, in different ecological niches, and so forth. The idea that the most complex designs we know of would spontaneously arise by themselves is, itself, not scientifically motivated and a real stretch of the imagination. But for the same intricate designs to arise independently by chance is even more of a stretch. That is why evolutionists claim this week that they have found evidence for convergent evolution was so intriguing.
> 
> *[A REAL EXAMPLE OF CIRCULAR REASONING]*
> 
> It makes for a startling headline and once again gives journalists license to proclaim another confirmation of evolution. But down in the details, *Hoys evidence is nothing more than circular reasoning. In a classic example of evolutionary blowback, Hoy reasons that (i) mammals and katydids evolved, (ii) their hearing designs are remarkably similar, so (iii) therefore it is proof of convergent evolution.*
> 
> *Or simply put, evolution is true, so therefore evolution is true.*
> 
> This is a confirmation not of convergent evolution but of how *evolution has corrupted scientific thinking*. *Fallacious reasoning such as this is, unfortunately, is the rule rather than the exception.*
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Darwin's God: Evolutionists Find Evidence For Convergence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same logical fallacies. No wonder you are full of them. You are consuming all of them from sources like this. Much of this is simply an argument from personal incredulity.
> 
> Evolution is true, because it is able to be demonstrated through evidence and predictive power. Hence, it is not circular. Whoever wrote this is being dishonest about reality.
Click to expand...


You can't have your cake and eat it to!!! You have said nothing to address the points in the article, but only state he employs logical fallacies. That ain't going to cut it here.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Simply amazing!!! The Bible says God makes himself plain to us, as in totally obvious.
> 
> Check this..
> 
> DNA directly photographed for first time - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience | NBC News



What nonsense. This above characterization may be the worst example of religious fundamentalism gone wrong.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> As is God. With the evidence for God being much more compelling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence for god, which is why you require faith.
> 
> This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for evolution, when there is vast amounts. This dishonest is what is so bothersome about creationists. They create their own reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence for evolution, which is why you require faith.
> 
> This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for God, when there is vast amounts. This dishonesty is what is so bothersome about darwinists. They create their own reality.
Click to expand...


Just more of the conspiracy theory rattling of the religiously dumbed-down.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence for god, which is why you require faith.
> 
> This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for evolution, when there is vast amounts. This dishonest is what is so bothersome about creationists. They create their own reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence for evolution, which is why you require faith.
> 
> This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for God, when there is vast amounts. This dishonesty is what is so bothersome about darwinists. They create their own reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just more of the conspiracy theory rattling of the religiously dumbed-down.
Click to expand...


Just another in the mountain of irrelevant posts you have added to this thread.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence for evolution, which is why you require faith.
> 
> This is fine, by the way, but stop pretending there is evidence when there isn't. And stop pretending there isn't evidence for God, when there is vast amounts. This dishonesty is what is so bothersome about darwinists. They create their own reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just more of the conspiracy theory rattling of the religiously dumbed-down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just another in the mountain of irrelevant posts you have added to this thread.
Click to expand...


Im afraid that the issue youre unable to confront is that cutting and pasting from creationist bloggers such as Cornelius Hunter makes you an accomplice to creationist lies and falsifications. Such as:
_The theory of evolution states that the species arose spontaneously, one from another via a pattern of common descent._

Just another cut and paste floating in the polluted backwater of Christian creationist nonsense.

The Theory of Evolution is silent on the spontaneous emergence of life. This falsification is another of the devices used by creationists to create the illusion that creationism is a viable mechanism to explain the diversity of life on the planet. Christian creationism is simply the misrepresentation of authoritative scientific research; The lack of actual research undertaken by the christian creationist ministries and the refusal to submit research and results for peer review. The occasional bit of jingoistic flatulence allows creationist hacks to appear authoritative to people with a prior commitment to religious dogma. However, since there is nothing in the literature of the Christian creationist ministries to support their arguments, their charade of authority can be maintained only by pressing a distorted caricature of how the Scientific Method is actually maintaiined.

What is truly laughable in the allegations of the typical IDiot argument from incredulity (and an especially poor one given the substantial lack of rhetorical skill of DiscoTute hacks such as Hunter) is the fact that he can offer no mechanism or theory as to what alternative mechanism (other than the implied gawds did it) could better explain the convergence than evolution. This is especially laughable because the DiscoTutes own Michael Behe proposed a laughably creationist inspired theory about decade ago. The first cell 3.5 - 4 billion years ago might have had all of the required genetic material for reproduction in place but was simply turned off until needed. Its a laughable joke but that is what defines the Christian creationist agenda.

Just think, for all these decades, the Christian creationist ministries could have been testing the data and publishing peer reviewed papers proving their Christian gawds. Instead, theyve been recycling the same tired nonsense that has been shown over and over again to do nothing but a misrepresentation of evolution.


----------



## Hollie

*Cornelius Hunter Says Evolution Is Not a Fact*

Sandwalk: Cornelius Hunter Says Evolution Is Not a Fact

Cornelius Hunter blogs at Darwin's God. He has a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology and currently teaches at Biola University. He is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute and the author of several books that I have not read.

Hunter has devoted most of his blogging efforts to attacks on science. This seems to be the most popular strategy of the Intelligent Design Creationists in spite of their claims to the contrary. 

His latest posting is Why Evolutionists Say Evolution is a Fact. 



> Evolutionists say evolution is a fact, every bit as much as gravity is a fact. That is remarkable. We see and even feel gravity everyday. Evolution, on the other hand, entails rather dramatic, one-time, events that were supposed to have occurred long ago, when no one was around to witness them. How could we be sure of such a theory? There must be some extremely powerful and compelling scientific evidence for evolution to make it a fact as gravity is a fact. That is what one would think. But, surprisingly, there is no such evidence. When evolutionists try to explain why evolution is a fact, it is a tremendous anticlimax.


 
Hunter has not been paying attention. Many of us have written on the subject of evolution as a fact [Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory]. Evidence for the "factness" of evolution is overwhelming. It ranges from evidence that chimps and humans descend from a common ancestor to evidence that the frequencies of alleles are changing in populations as we speak.

That last point is important. Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time and as long as we can demonstrate that change, the fact of evolution can't be disputed. I wonder how Cornelius Hunter explains the differences between the Japanese and the Masai of Kenya and Tanzania? I wonder how he explains the fact that native North Americans are practically homogeneous for O blood type? I wonder how he explains the many studies that have directly tracked heritable change over many generations?

Why are the IDiots so stubborn and so ignorant? Why couldn't Cornelius Hunter demonstrate that he understands why evolution is a fact while disputing some forms of macroevolution? That would be a sensible position. Instead, he comes off looking like an IDiot


----------



## Hollie

Does anyone need to become familiar with Biola University? It is apparently a warehouse for Christian creationists such as Cornelius Hunter.

Biola University
Home « Science & Religion « Biola University

&#8220;_Biblically Centered Education_&#8221;



> Biola's new science and religion program is unique because it presents this material from a theologically conservative, evangelical perspective. It also builds on Biola University's existing strengths in evangelical theology, philosophy, and apologetics and continues Biola's mission of integrating core academic disciplines within historical context and among the deep of resources in Christian thought as well as responding to the toughest challenges from secular worldviews and today's cultural and scientifically relevant strongholds.



Can you spell, (smell), a-g-e-n-d-a?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Does anyone need to become familiar with Biola University? It is apparently a warehouse for Christian creationists such as Cornelius Hunter.
> 
> Biola University
> Home « Science & Religion « Biola University
> 
> _Biblically Centered Education_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biola's new science and religion program is unique because it presents this material from a theologically conservative, evangelical perspective. It also builds on Biola University's existing strengths in evangelical theology, philosophy, and apologetics and continues Biola's mission of integrating core academic disciplines within historical context and among the deep of resources in Christian thought as well as responding to the toughest challenges from secular worldviews and today's cultural and scientifically relevant strongholds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell, (smell), a-g-e-n-d-a?
Click to expand...


This is typical of your ad hominem nonsense. You never go after the argument, only the arguer. 

Additionally, you fail to identify the atheists strongholds where you have all your rhetoric spoon fed to you and then you deny your own, bigoted, Christian-hating, self-loathing agenda.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> *Cornelius Hunter Says Evolution Is Not a Fact*
> 
> Sandwalk: Cornelius Hunter Says Evolution Is Not a Fact
> 
> Cornelius Hunter blogs at Darwin's God. He has a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology and currently teaches at Biola University. He is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute and the author of several books that I have not read.
> 
> Hunter has devoted most of his blogging efforts to attacks on science. This seems to be the most popular strategy of the Intelligent Design Creationists in spite of their claims to the contrary.
> 
> His latest posting is Why Evolutionists Say Evolution is a Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionists say evolution is a fact, every bit as much as gravity is a fact. That is remarkable. We see and even feel gravity everyday. Evolution, on the other hand, entails rather dramatic, one-time, events that were supposed to have occurred long ago, when no one was around to witness them. How could we be sure of such a theory? There must be some extremely powerful and compelling scientific evidence for evolution to make it a fact as gravity is a fact. That is what one would think. But, surprisingly, there is no such evidence. When evolutionists try to explain why evolution is a fact, it is a tremendous anticlimax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hunter has not been paying attention. *Many of us* have written on the subject of evolution
Click to expand...

 Many of us???  You haven't written an original thought in 750 pages. I guess if you count cut and pasting as writing. 


Hollie said:


> as a fact [Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory]. Evidence for the "factness" of evolution is overwhelming. It ranges from evidence that chimps and humans descend from a common ancestor to evidence that the frequencies of alleles are changing in populations as we speak.
> 
> That last point is important. Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time and as long as we can demonstrate that change, the fact of evolution can't be disputed. I wonder how Cornelius Hunter explains the differences between the Japanese and the Masai of Kenya and Tanzania? I wonder how he explains the fact that native North Americans are practically homogeneous for O blood type? I wonder how he explains the many studies that have directly tracked heritable change over many generations?
> 
> Why are the IDiots so stubborn and so ignorant? Why couldn't Cornelius Hunter demonstrate that he understands why evolution is a fact while disputing some forms of macroevolution? That would be a sensible position. Instead, he comes off looking like an IDiot


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone need to become familiar with Biola University? It is apparently a warehouse for Christian creationists such as Cornelius Hunter.
> 
> Biola University
> Home « Science & Religion « Biola University
> 
> _Biblically Centered Education_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biola's new science and religion program is unique because it presents this material from a theologically conservative, evangelical perspective. It also builds on Biola University's existing strengths in evangelical theology, philosophy, and apologetics and continues Biola's mission of integrating core academic disciplines within historical context and among the deep of resources in Christian thought as well as responding to the toughest challenges from secular worldviews and today's cultural and scientifically relevant strongholds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell, (smell), a-g-e-n-d-a?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is typical of your ad hominem nonsense. You never go after the argument, only the arguer.
> 
> Additionally, you fail to identify the atheists strongholds where you have all your rhetoric spoon fed to you and then you deny your own, bigoted, Christian-hating, self-loathing agenda.
Click to expand...


Well gee, my little stalker, speaking of _ad hominem's_ as is expected of a frustrated stalker, you're a poor candidate for judging my posts. 

Your hero charlatans at the christian christian ministries have no special excemption from critique of their positions or strategies for furthering their lies and misinformation. That you buy into their nonsense for partisan religious reasons is your issue to deal with, not mine. 

Your primary contention is that I actually do "go after" the argument. It's when the arguments from ignorance (that define the christian creationist agenda), are shown to be false and/or manufactured is when you tend to get the most argumentative and nasty.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Cornelius Hunter Says Evolution Is Not a Fact*
> 
> Sandwalk: Cornelius Hunter Says Evolution Is Not a Fact
> 
> Cornelius Hunter blogs at Darwin's God. He has a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology and currently teaches at Biola University. He is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute and the author of several books that I have not read.
> 
> Hunter has devoted most of his blogging efforts to attacks on science. This seems to be the most popular strategy of the Intelligent Design Creationists in spite of their claims to the contrary.
> 
> His latest posting is Why Evolutionists Say Evolution is a Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionists say evolution is a fact, every bit as much as gravity is a fact. That is remarkable. We see and even feel gravity everyday. Evolution, on the other hand, entails rather dramatic, one-time, events that were supposed to have occurred long ago, when no one was around to witness them. How could we be sure of such a theory? There must be some extremely powerful and compelling scientific evidence for evolution to make it a fact as gravity is a fact. That is what one would think. But, surprisingly, there is no such evidence. When evolutionists try to explain why evolution is a fact, it is a tremendous anticlimax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hunter has not been paying attention. *Many of us* have written on the subject of evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of us???  You haven't written an original thought in 750 pages. I guess if you count cut and pasting as writing.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> as a fact [Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory]. Evidence for the "factness" of evolution is overwhelming. It ranges from evidence that chimps and humans descend from a common ancestor to evidence that the frequencies of alleles are changing in populations as we speak.
> 
> That last point is important. Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time and as long as we can demonstrate that change, the fact of evolution can't be disputed. I wonder how Cornelius Hunter explains the differences between the Japanese and the Masai of Kenya and Tanzania? I wonder how he explains the fact that native North Americans are practically homogeneous for O blood type? I wonder how he explains the many studies that have directly tracked heritable change over many generations?
> 
> Why are the IDiots so stubborn and so ignorant? Why couldn't Cornelius Hunter demonstrate that he understands why evolution is a fact while disputing some forms of macroevolution? That would be a sensible position. Instead, he comes off looking like an IDiot
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Why yes, my little stalker. Amidst your frantic cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites, you found it uncomfortable to actually address the issues that confound your silly &#8220;The gawds did it&#8221;, argument in favor of cutting and pasting from fundie websites.

I understand that you are in denial of the science supporting evolution. Even though myself and others have been gentle in our tolerance for your personal attacks, endless cutting and pasting of material you don&#8217;t understand and the creepy stalking you have been engaged in, the many science disciplines supporting evolution are not in question except in the fantastical world of Christian creationist devotees. Even if evolution was to be completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any of your gawds.

Claims of Big Foot, Loch Ness monsters, gawd(s), angels, &#8220;miracles&#8221; etc., etc., etc., are fine for stirring the imagination but useful for little else. Can you provide evidence to support those claims? No, you can&#8217;t.  Extending further, Christian creationist &#8220;principles&#8221; (and I use that term with much reservation) are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant. By the way, why the various franchises and subdivisions of Christian creationism?  One cannot even make an intelligent and verifiable choice as to the varieties of Christian creationism, let alone use the theism of christianity to be the foundation of principles to determine knowledge. Religious beliefs are faith-based and as such detour around a need for proof, and thus cannot serve as the guidelines for knowledge (outside of their own assertions).


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The theory of evolution states that the species arose spontaneously, one from another via a pattern of common descent. This means the species should form an evolutionary tree, where species that share a recent common ancestor, such as two frog species, are highly similar, and species that share a distant common ancestor, such as humans and squids, are very different. But the species do not form such an evolutionary tree pattern. In fact this expectation has been violated so many times it is difficult to keep track. These violations are not rare or occasional anomalies, they are the rule. Entire volumes have been written on them. Many examples are the repeated designs found in what, according to evolution, must be very distant species. Such evolutionary convergence is biology&#8217;s version of lightning striking twice. To explain this evolutionists must say that random mutations just happened to hit upon the same detailed, intricate design at different times, in different parts of the world, in different ecological niches, and so forth. The idea that the most complex designs we know of would spontaneously arise by themselves is, itself, not scientifically motivated and a real stretch of the imagination. But for the same intricate designs to arise independently by chance is even more of a stretch. That is why evolutionist&#8217;s claim this week that they have found evidence for convergent evolution was so intriguing.
> 
> *[A REAL EXAMPLE OF CIRCULAR REASONING]*
> 
> It makes for a startling headline and once again gives journalists license to proclaim another confirmation of evolution. But down in the details, *Hoy&#8217;s &#8220;evidence&#8221; is nothing more than circular reasoning. In a classic example of evolutionary blowback, Hoy reasons that (i) mammals and katydids evolved, (ii) their hearing designs are remarkably similar, so (iii) therefore it is proof of convergent evolution.*
> 
> *Or simply put, evolution is true, so therefore evolution is true.*
> 
> This is a confirmation not of convergent evolution but of how *evolution has corrupted scientific thinking*. *Fallacious reasoning such as this is, unfortunately, is the rule rather than the exception.*
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Darwin's God: Evolutionists Find Evidence For Convergence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same logical fallacies. No wonder you are full of them. You are consuming all of them from sources like this. Much of this is simply an argument from personal incredulity.
> 
> Evolution is true, because it is able to be demonstrated through evidence and predictive power. Hence, it is not circular. Whoever wrote this is being dishonest about reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't have your cake and eat it to!!! You have said nothing to address the points in the article, but only state he employs logical fallacies. That ain't going to cut it here.
Click to expand...


Yes... it is. I am not going to dissect every article you throw at me. I am not doubting your source, like you did me, so don't even try and turn this around on me. 

Suffice it to say, this was entirely unconvincing because it employs the same ID logical fallacies and faulty arguments. The IDers simply are jumping to a conclusion, without warrant.


----------



## newpolitics

UR, you never answered my question about DNA.

You claim that DNA is digital, yet the DNA code is quaternary, and digital code is binary. How are you therefore able to call DNA "digital"?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Cornelius Hunter Says Evolution Is Not a Fact*
> 
> Sandwalk: Cornelius Hunter Says Evolution Is Not a Fact
> 
> Cornelius Hunter blogs at Darwin's God. He has a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology and currently teaches at Biola University. He is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute and the author of several books that I have not read.
> 
> Hunter has devoted most of his blogging efforts to attacks on science. This seems to be the most popular strategy of the Intelligent Design Creationists in spite of their claims to the contrary.
> 
> His latest posting is Why Evolutionists Say Evolution is a Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Hunter has not been paying attention. *Many of us* have written on the subject of evolution
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us???  You haven't written an original thought in 750 pages. I guess if you count cut and pasting as writing.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> as a fact [Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory]. Evidence for the "factness" of evolution is overwhelming. It ranges from evidence that chimps and humans descend from a common ancestor to evidence that the frequencies of alleles are changing in populations as we speak.
> 
> That last point is important. Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time and as long as we can demonstrate that change, the fact of evolution can't be disputed. I wonder how Cornelius Hunter explains the differences between the Japanese and the Masai of Kenya and Tanzania? I wonder how he explains the fact that native North Americans are practically homogeneous for O blood type? I wonder how he explains the many studies that have directly tracked heritable change over many generations?
> 
> Why are the IDiots so stubborn and so ignorant? Why couldn't Cornelius Hunter demonstrate that he understands why evolution is a fact while disputing some forms of macroevolution? That would be a sensible position. Instead, he comes off looking like an IDiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why yes, my little stalker. Amidst your frantic cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites, you found it uncomfortable to actually address the issues that confound your silly The gawds did it, argument in favor of cutting and pasting from fundie websites.
> 
> I understand that you are in denial of the science supporting evolution. Even though myself and others have been gentle in our tolerance for *your personal attacks*, *endless cutting and pasting of material you dont understand* and the *creepy stalking you have been engaged in*,
Click to expand...

 nice parroting. But you need to get your own material.





Hollie said:


> the many science disciplines supporting evolution are not in question except in the fantastical world of Christian creationist devotees. Even if evolution was to be completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any of your gawds.


 Strawman-hands.  You and NP keep using this strawman over and over. 


Hollie said:


> Claims of Big Foot, Loch Ness monsters, gawd(s), angels, miracles etc., etc., etc., are fine for stirring the imagination but useful for little else. Can you provide evidence to support those claims? No, you cant.  Extending further, Christian creationist principles (and I use that term with much reservation) are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant. By the way, why the various franchises and subdivisions of Christian creationism?  One cannot even make an intelligent and verifiable choice as to the varieties of Christian creationism, let alone use the theism of christianity to be the foundation of principles to determine knowledge. Religious beliefs are faith-based and as such detour around a need for proof, and thus cannot serve as the guidelines for knowledge (outside of their own assertions).


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UR, you never answered my question about DNA.
> 
> You claim that DNA is digital, yet the DNA code is quaternary, and digital code is binary. How are you therefore able to call DNA "digital"?



I did answer your question. You missed it. And your post shows a lack of understanding of what digital is. Do you know what analog is? Do you know the difference between music stored on an LP record and music stored on a CD? Your fallacy comes from your belief that Binary code is the only type of digital code. It isn't.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-640.html#post6256797

Just google it for goodness sake!!! You will be hard pressed to find one your atheist websites to dispute the fact dna is digital code. 

_"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering *a new view of biology as an information science.* Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: *its digital nature* and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. *DNA has two types of digital information* &#8212; the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."_

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html

_"When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. *Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram.* A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare. All of this has been mostly theoretical&#8212;until now. In a new study, researchers stored an entire genetics textbook in less than a picogram of DNA&#8212;one trillionth of a gram&#8212;an advance that could revolutionize our ability to save data."_

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/08/written-in-dna-code.html

_"DNA code is a sequence of chemicals that form information that control how humans are made and how they work. *It is a digital code but it is not binary, but quaternary with 4 distinct items*. The encoding information in an ordered sequence of 4 different symbols called "bases", typically denoted A, C, G, and T.

    A: adenosine
    C: cytosine
    G: guanine
    T: thymine 

These 4 substances are the fundamental "bits" of information in the genetic code, and are called "base pairs" because there is actually 2 substances per "bit", as discussed later. Everything else is *built on top of this basis of 4 DNA digits*." _

http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/genetics/dna.htm

_The longest term correlations in living systems are the information stored in DNA which reflects the evolutionary history of an organism. The 4 bases (A,T,G,C) encode sequences of amino acids as well as locations of binding sites for proteins that regulate DNA. The fidelity of this important information is maintained by ANALOG error check mechanisms. When a single strand of DNA is replicated the complementary base is inserted in the new strand. Sometimes the wrong base is inserted that sticks out disrupting the phosphate backbone. The new base is not yet methylated, so repair enzymes, that slide along the DNA, can tear out the wrong base and replace it with the right one. The bases in DNA form a sequence of 4 different symbols and so the information is encoded in a DIGITAL form. All the digital codes in our society (ISBN book numbers, UPC product codes, bank account numbers, airline ticket numbers) use error checking code, where some digits are functions of other digits to maintain the fidelity of transmitted information. Does DNA also utilize a DIGITAL error checking code to maintain the fidelity of its information and increase the accuracy of replication? That is, are some bases in DNA functions of other bases upstream or downstream? This raises the interesting mathematical problem: How does one determine whether some symbols in a sequence of symbols are a function of other symbols. It also bears on the issue of determining algorithmic complexity: What is the function that generates the shortest algorithm for reproducing the symbol sequence. The error checking codes most used in our technology are linear block codes. We developed an efficient method to test for the presence of such codes in DNA. We coded the 4 bases as (0,1,2,3) and used Gaussian elimination, modified for modulus 4, to test if some bases are linear combinations of other bases. We used this method to analyze the base sequence in the genes from the lac operon and cytochrome C. We did not find evidence for such error correcting codes in these genes. However, we analyzed only a small amount of DNA and *if digital error correcting schemes are present in DNA*, they may be more subtle than such simple linear block codes. *The basic issue we raise here, is how information is stored in DNA and an appreciation that digital symbol sequences, such as DNA, admit of interesting schemes to store and protect the fidelity of their information content.* Liebovitch, Tao, Todorov, Levine. 1996. Biophys. J. 71:1539-1544. Supported by NIH grant EY6234._ 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998APS..MAR.G1202L


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us???  You haven't written an original thought in 750 pages. I guess if you count cut and pasting as writing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why yes, my little stalker. Amidst your frantic cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites, you found it uncomfortable to actually address the issues that confound your silly The gawds did it, argument in favor of cutting and pasting from fundie websites.
> 
> I understand that you are in denial of the science supporting evolution. Even though myself and others have been gentle in our tolerance for *your personal attacks*, *endless cutting and pasting of material you dont understand* and the *creepy stalking you have been engaged in*,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice parroting. But you need to get your own material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> the many science disciplines supporting evolution are not in question except in the fantastical world of Christian creationist devotees. Even if evolution was to be completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any of your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman-hands.  You and NP keep using this strawman over and over.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Claims of Big Foot, Loch Ness monsters, gawd(s), angels, miracles etc., etc., etc., are fine for stirring the imagination but useful for little else. Can you provide evidence to support those claims? No, you cant.  Extending further, Christian creationist principles (and I use that term with much reservation) are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant. By the way, why the various franchises and subdivisions of Christian creationism?  One cannot even make an intelligent and verifiable choice as to the varieties of Christian creationism, let alone use the theism of christianity to be the foundation of principles to determine knowledge. Religious beliefs are faith-based and as such detour around a need for proof, and thus cannot serve as the guidelines for knowledge (outside of their own assertions).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


As we see, the best way to deal with religious bullies, fundie blowhards and contentious crackpots is simply to confront them with demands that they support their claims to supermagical entites. As we will see, the christian creationist will no doubt be unable to address the following issues just as he was unable to address the preceeding.

In the meantime,

1) What, precisely is this designer? How can we test your answer?
2) What, precisely, did your alleged designer, design? How can we test your answer?
3) How, precisely did your alleged designer, design all of existence? How can we test your answer? 
4) When, precisely did your alleged designer design all of existence? How can we test your answer?
5) What is an example of something that is _not_ designed by your alleged designer? How can we test your answer?

6) The Bible (allegedly the pathway to your version of supernatural gawds), includes passages which, among many other false and contradictory passages, suggests that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. If we are to accept the fundie premise that (_takes deep breath_) the Bible is authoritatively true because the Bible is the word of the gawds and since the gawds are perfect the Bible is therefore true, are these passages literally true? If theyre not true, how do you resolve these inconsistencies? If the Bible is sometimes defining metaphors (and sometimes not), how do you define those passages which are non-literal as opposed to those which are absolute and therefore either too literal (but not too literal) to maybe coincide with the theory of evolution and other established science or maybe not?


----------



## mikegriffith1

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?  Meh. It baffles me.



Many creationists--if not most--believe in an old earth.

Anyway, believing the earth is 6,000 years old is not as untenable as believing that life sprang from non-life, that sophisticated organisms were formed by random processes by a tautology (natural selection), and that the eye came from light-sensitive spots that somehow, someway developed lens, the ability to focus, and all the neural pathways to the brain via natural selection and mutations when natural selection would have had no reason to "select" the necessary components because they would have provided no advanatage and when the very concept of sight did not even exist.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> UR, you never answered my question about DNA.
> 
> You claim that DNA is digital, yet the DNA code is quaternary, and digital code is binary. How are you therefore able to call DNA "digital"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer your question. You missed it. And your post shows a lack of understanding of what digital is. Do you know what analog is? Do you know the difference between music stored on an LP record and music stored on a CD? Your fallacy comes from your belief that Binary code is the only type of digital code. It isn't.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-640.html#post6256797
> 
> Just google it for goodness sake!!! You will be hard pressed to find one your atheist websites to dispute the fact dna is digital code.
> 
> _"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering *a new view of biology as an information science.* Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: *its digital nature* and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. *DNA has two types of digital information*  the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."_
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html
> 
> _"When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. *Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram.* A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare. All of this has been mostly theoreticaluntil now. In a new study, researchers stored an entire genetics textbook in less than a picogram of DNAone trillionth of a graman advance that could revolutionize our ability to save data."_
> 
> DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive - ScienceNOW
> 
> _"DNA code is a sequence of chemicals that form information that control how humans are made and how they work. *It is a digital code but it is not binary, but quaternary with 4 distinct items*. The encoding information in an ordered sequence of 4 different symbols called "bases", typically denoted A, C, G, and T.
> 
> A: adenosine
> C: cytosine
> G: guanine
> T: thymine
> 
> These 4 substances are the fundamental "bits" of information in the genetic code, and are called "base pairs" because there is actually 2 substances per "bit", as discussed later. Everything else is *built on top of this basis of 4 DNA digits*." _
> 
> Introduction to Genes and DNA - RightDiagnosis.com
> 
> _The longest term correlations in living systems are the information stored in DNA which reflects the evolutionary history of an organism. The 4 bases (A,T,G,C) encode sequences of amino acids as well as locations of binding sites for proteins that regulate DNA. The fidelity of this important information is maintained by ANALOG error check mechanisms. When a single strand of DNA is replicated the complementary base is inserted in the new strand. Sometimes the wrong base is inserted that sticks out disrupting the phosphate backbone. The new base is not yet methylated, so repair enzymes, that slide along the DNA, can tear out the wrong base and replace it with the right one. The bases in DNA form a sequence of 4 different symbols and so the information is encoded in a DIGITAL form. All the digital codes in our society (ISBN book numbers, UPC product codes, bank account numbers, airline ticket numbers) use error checking code, where some digits are functions of other digits to maintain the fidelity of transmitted information. Does DNA also utilize a DIGITAL error checking code to maintain the fidelity of its information and increase the accuracy of replication? That is, are some bases in DNA functions of other bases upstream or downstream? This raises the interesting mathematical problem: How does one determine whether some symbols in a sequence of symbols are a function of other symbols. It also bears on the issue of determining algorithmic complexity: What is the function that generates the shortest algorithm for reproducing the symbol sequence. The error checking codes most used in our technology are linear block codes. We developed an efficient method to test for the presence of such codes in DNA. We coded the 4 bases as (0,1,2,3) and used Gaussian elimination, modified for modulus 4, to test if some bases are linear combinations of other bases. We used this method to analyze the base sequence in the genes from the lac operon and cytochrome C. We did not find evidence for such error correcting codes in these genes. However, we analyzed only a small amount of DNA and *if digital error correcting schemes are present in DNA*, they may be more subtle than such simple linear block codes. *The basic issue we raise here, is how information is stored in DNA and an appreciation that digital symbol sequences, such as DNA, admit of interesting schemes to store and protect the fidelity of their information content.* Liebovitch, Tao, Todorov, Levine. 1996. Biophys. J. 71:1539-1544. Supported by NIH grant EY6234._
> 
> What Information is Stored in DNA: Does it Contain Digital Error Correcting Code
Click to expand...


Did you realize that cutting and pasting from a non-christian creationist website actually contradicts your earlier statements?

You fundies should stay away from that vile science stuff.

"DNA code is a sequence of chemicals that form information that control how humans are made and how they work. *It is a digital code but it is not binary, but quaternary with 4 distinct items*. The encoding information in an ordered sequence of 4 different symbols called "bases", typically denoted A, C, G, and T.

So... apparently DNA is not the "digital machine" that fundies love to describe it as, so as to make goofy allegations such as "DNA is a digital machine. Since all machines require a designer, DNA is therfore the product of a designer.... and not just any designer, but a particular, identifiable designer alluded to in a book I read: the Bible. Since the Bible is true... kinda, sorta, and since I was told as a child that the Bible is true, the Bible is therefore true. And you read all this on the internet, it is absolutely true.


----------



## Hollie

mikegriffith1 said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?  Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many creationists--if not most--believe in an old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that is a broad generalization not actually true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, believing the earth is 6,000 years old is not as untenable as believing that life sprang from non-life, that sophisticated organisms were formed by random processes by a tautology (natural selection), and that the eye came from light-sensitive spots that somehow, someway developed lens, the ability to focus, and all the neural pathways to the brain via natural selection and mutations when natural selection would have had no reason to "select" the necessary components because they would have provided no advanatage and when the very concept of sight did not even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _The miracle of the eye_&#8482; is a favorite of the Christian creationist community. The eye is suggested to be too complex to have developed except by bring &#8220;poofed&#8221; into form and function by a supermagical designer.
> 
> Think of the slogan &#8220;irreducibly complex&#8221;, (a favorite of the Christian creationists).
> Anyway, here&#8217;s some reading material you may find interesting:
> 
> CB301: Eye complexity
> 
> More creationist misconceptions about the eye - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> One in the eye for intelligent design - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> Cretinism or Evilution?: An Old, Out of Context Quotation
> 
> 
> As to what is "untenable", regarding the development of life on the planet, that seems to be a matter of whether you accept the natural explanations for life or the supernatural explanations. What is undeniable is that science and knowledge have peeled back the layers of superstition regarding the natural world that have kept mankind chained to fear and superstition.
> 
> There aren't too many people being burned at the stake these days for predicting an eclipse.
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> UR, you never answered my question about DNA.
> 
> You claim that DNA is digital, yet the DNA code is quaternary, and digital code is binary. How are you therefore able to call DNA "digital"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer your question. You missed it. And your post shows a lack of understanding of what digital is. Do you know what analog is? Do you know the difference between music stored on an LP record and music stored on a CD? Your fallacy comes from your belief that Binary code is the only type of digital code. It isn't.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-640.html#post6256797
> 
> Just google it for goodness sake!!! You will be hard pressed to find one your atheist websites to dispute the fact dna is digital code.
> 
> _"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering *a new view of biology as an information science.* Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: *its digital nature* and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. *DNA has two types of digital information* &#8212; the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."_
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html
> 
> _"When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. *Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram.* A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare. All of this has been mostly theoretical&#8212;until now. In a new study, researchers stored an entire genetics textbook in less than a picogram of DNA&#8212;one trillionth of a gram&#8212;an advance that could revolutionize our ability to save data."_
> 
> DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive - ScienceNOW
> 
> _"DNA code is a sequence of chemicals that form information that control how humans are made and how they work. *It is a digital code but it is not binary, but quaternary with 4 distinct items*. The encoding information in an ordered sequence of 4 different symbols called "bases", typically denoted A, C, G, and T.
> 
> A: adenosine
> C: cytosine
> G: guanine
> T: thymine
> 
> These 4 substances are the fundamental "bits" of information in the genetic code, and are called "base pairs" because there is actually 2 substances per "bit", as discussed later. Everything else is *built on top of this basis of 4 DNA digits*." _
> 
> Introduction to Genes and DNA - RightDiagnosis.com
> 
> _The longest term correlations in living systems are the information stored in DNA which reflects the evolutionary history of an organism. The 4 bases (A,T,G,C) encode sequences of amino acids as well as locations of binding sites for proteins that regulate DNA. The fidelity of this important information is maintained by ANALOG error check mechanisms. When a single strand of DNA is replicated the complementary base is inserted in the new strand. Sometimes the wrong base is inserted that sticks out disrupting the phosphate backbone. The new base is not yet methylated, so repair enzymes, that slide along the DNA, can tear out the wrong base and replace it with the right one. The bases in DNA form a sequence of 4 different symbols and so the information is encoded in a DIGITAL form. All the digital codes in our society (ISBN book numbers, UPC product codes, bank account numbers, airline ticket numbers) use error checking code, where some digits are functions of other digits to maintain the fidelity of transmitted information. Does DNA also utilize a DIGITAL error checking code to maintain the fidelity of its information and increase the accuracy of replication? That is, are some bases in DNA functions of other bases upstream or downstream? This raises the interesting mathematical problem: How does one determine whether some symbols in a sequence of symbols are a function of other symbols. It also bears on the issue of determining algorithmic complexity: What is the function that generates the shortest algorithm for reproducing the symbol sequence. The error checking codes most used in our technology are linear block codes. We developed an efficient method to test for the presence of such codes in DNA. We coded the 4 bases as (0,1,2,3) and used Gaussian elimination, modified for modulus 4, to test if some bases are linear combinations of other bases. We used this method to analyze the base sequence in the genes from the lac operon and cytochrome C. We did not find evidence for such error correcting codes in these genes. However, we analyzed only a small amount of DNA and *if digital error correcting schemes are present in DNA*, they may be more subtle than such simple linear block codes. *The basic issue we raise here, is how information is stored in DNA and an appreciation that digital symbol sequences, such as DNA, admit of interesting schemes to store and protect the fidelity of their information content.* Liebovitch, Tao, Todorov, Levine. 1996. Biophys. J. 71:1539-1544. Supported by NIH grant EY6234._
> 
> What Information is Stored in DNA: Does it Contain Digital Error Correcting Code
Click to expand...


I stand corrected on the meaning of digital, although this is somewhat unimportant, because to say something is digital is not terribly descriptive. All it means is the information comes in discrete, non-continuous bites, as opposed to analog information which comes in a continuous form, like sound. Smoke signals from a campfire used to communicate something is also digital information.  So, describing DNA as digital isn't very helpful. In fact, I couldn't imagine it any other way. If the information was analog, that would be far more amazing, and greater "evidence" of an intelligence. I can't even imagine how that would work. The fact that DNA is digital is not, by itself, amazing or good. Therefore, comparing to our own digital codes and simply concluding that there must be an intelligence is even more meaningless. Of course, you add on the descriptors "specifiable and complex." Whoopee. First of all, complexity is not a sign of intelligence. Simplicity usually is, when we are talking about making something actually work. And, how else would DNA work were it not specifiable??? You would expect these attributes of DNA to exist. If they weren't specifiable or Complex, then that would be truly amazing, and would be greater evidence for an intelligence, because that would beg the question: how is this possible??


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> UR, you never answered my question about DNA.
> 
> You claim that DNA is digital, yet the DNA code is quaternary, and digital code is binary. How are you therefore able to call DNA "digital"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer your question. You missed it. And your post shows a lack of understanding of what digital is. Do you know what analog is? Do you know the difference between music stored on an LP record and music stored on a CD? Your fallacy comes from your belief that Binary code is the only type of digital code. It isn't.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-640.html#post6256797
> 
> Just google it for goodness sake!!! You will be hard pressed to find one your atheist websites to dispute the fact dna is digital code.
> 
> _"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering *a new view of biology as an information science.* Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: *its digital nature* and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. *DNA has two types of digital information* &#8212; the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."_
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html
> 
> _"When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. *Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram.* A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare. All of this has been mostly theoretical&#8212;until now. In a new study, researchers stored an entire genetics textbook in less than a picogram of DNA&#8212;one trillionth of a gram&#8212;an advance that could revolutionize our ability to save data."_
> 
> DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive - ScienceNOW
> 
> _"DNA code is a sequence of chemicals that form information that control how humans are made and how they work. *It is a digital code but it is not binary, but quaternary with 4 distinct items*. The encoding information in an ordered sequence of 4 different symbols called "bases", typically denoted A, C, G, and T.
> 
> A: adenosine
> C: cytosine
> G: guanine
> T: thymine
> 
> These 4 substances are the fundamental "bits" of information in the genetic code, and are called "base pairs" because there is actually 2 substances per "bit", as discussed later. Everything else is *built on top of this basis of 4 DNA digits*." _
> 
> Introduction to Genes and DNA - RightDiagnosis.com
> 
> _The longest term correlations in living systems are the information stored in DNA which reflects the evolutionary history of an organism. The 4 bases (A,T,G,C) encode sequences of amino acids as well as locations of binding sites for proteins that regulate DNA. The fidelity of this important information is maintained by ANALOG error check mechanisms. When a single strand of DNA is replicated the complementary base is inserted in the new strand. Sometimes the wrong base is inserted that sticks out disrupting the phosphate backbone. The new base is not yet methylated, so repair enzymes, that slide along the DNA, can tear out the wrong base and replace it with the right one. The bases in DNA form a sequence of 4 different symbols and so the information is encoded in a DIGITAL form. All the digital codes in our society (ISBN book numbers, UPC product codes, bank account numbers, airline ticket numbers) use error checking code, where some digits are functions of other digits to maintain the fidelity of transmitted information. Does DNA also utilize a DIGITAL error checking code to maintain the fidelity of its information and increase the accuracy of replication? That is, are some bases in DNA functions of other bases upstream or downstream? This raises the interesting mathematical problem: How does one determine whether some symbols in a sequence of symbols are a function of other symbols. It also bears on the issue of determining algorithmic complexity: What is the function that generates the shortest algorithm for reproducing the symbol sequence. The error checking codes most used in our technology are linear block codes. We developed an efficient method to test for the presence of such codes in DNA. We coded the 4 bases as (0,1,2,3) and used Gaussian elimination, modified for modulus 4, to test if some bases are linear combinations of other bases. We used this method to analyze the base sequence in the genes from the lac operon and cytochrome C. We did not find evidence for such error correcting codes in these genes. However, we analyzed only a small amount of DNA and *if digital error correcting schemes are present in DNA*, they may be more subtle than such simple linear block codes. *The basic issue we raise here, is how information is stored in DNA and an appreciation that digital symbol sequences, such as DNA, admit of interesting schemes to store and protect the fidelity of their information content.* Liebovitch, Tao, Todorov, Levine. 1996. Biophys. J. 71:1539-1544. Supported by NIH grant EY6234._
> 
> What Information is Stored in DNA: Does it Contain Digital Error Correcting Code
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you realize that cutting and pasting from a non-christian creationist website actually contradicts your earlier statements?
> 
> You fundies should stay away from that vile science stuff.
> 
> "DNA code is a sequence of chemicals that form information that control how humans are made and how they work. *It is a digital code but it is not binary, but quaternary with 4 distinct items*. The encoding information in an ordered sequence of 4 different symbols called "bases", typically denoted A, C, G, and T.
> 
> So... apparently DNA is not the "digital machine" that fundies love to describe it as, so as to make goofy allegations such as "DNA is a digital machine. Since all machines require a designer, DNA is therfore the product of a designer.... and not just any designer, but a particular, identifiable designer alluded to in a book I read: the Bible. Since the Bible is true... kinda, sorta, and since I was told as a child that the Bible is true, the Bible is therefore true. And you read all this on the internet, it is absolutely true.
Click to expand...


I guess I really don't understand your point. That is, unless you are mistakenly assuming that binary code is the only digital code like NP is assuming. Or you are building a strawman that there was ever a claim that DNA is binary? Please clarify your nonsense.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> UR, you never answered my question about DNA.
> 
> You claim that DNA is digital, yet the DNA code is quaternary, and digital code is binary. How are you therefore able to call DNA "digital"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer your question. You missed it. And your post shows a lack of understanding of what digital is. Do you know what analog is? Do you know the difference between music stored on an LP record and music stored on a CD? Your fallacy comes from your belief that Binary code is the only type of digital code. It isn't.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-640.html#post6256797
> 
> Just google it for goodness sake!!! You will be hard pressed to find one your atheist websites to dispute the fact dna is digital code.
> 
> _"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering *a new view of biology as an information science.* Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: *its digital nature* and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. *DNA has two types of digital information* &#8212; the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."_
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html
> 
> _"When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. *Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram.* A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare. All of this has been mostly theoretical&#8212;until now. In a new study, researchers stored an entire genetics textbook in less than a picogram of DNA&#8212;one trillionth of a gram&#8212;an advance that could revolutionize our ability to save data."_
> 
> DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive - ScienceNOW
> 
> _"DNA code is a sequence of chemicals that form information that control how humans are made and how they work. *It is a digital code but it is not binary, but quaternary with 4 distinct items*. The encoding information in an ordered sequence of 4 different symbols called "bases", typically denoted A, C, G, and T.
> 
> A: adenosine
> C: cytosine
> G: guanine
> T: thymine
> 
> These 4 substances are the fundamental "bits" of information in the genetic code, and are called "base pairs" because there is actually 2 substances per "bit", as discussed later. Everything else is *built on top of this basis of 4 DNA digits*." _
> 
> Introduction to Genes and DNA - RightDiagnosis.com
> 
> _The longest term correlations in living systems are the information stored in DNA which reflects the evolutionary history of an organism. The 4 bases (A,T,G,C) encode sequences of amino acids as well as locations of binding sites for proteins that regulate DNA. The fidelity of this important information is maintained by ANALOG error check mechanisms. When a single strand of DNA is replicated the complementary base is inserted in the new strand. Sometimes the wrong base is inserted that sticks out disrupting the phosphate backbone. The new base is not yet methylated, so repair enzymes, that slide along the DNA, can tear out the wrong base and replace it with the right one. The bases in DNA form a sequence of 4 different symbols and so the information is encoded in a DIGITAL form. All the digital codes in our society (ISBN book numbers, UPC product codes, bank account numbers, airline ticket numbers) use error checking code, where some digits are functions of other digits to maintain the fidelity of transmitted information. Does DNA also utilize a DIGITAL error checking code to maintain the fidelity of its information and increase the accuracy of replication? That is, are some bases in DNA functions of other bases upstream or downstream? This raises the interesting mathematical problem: How does one determine whether some symbols in a sequence of symbols are a function of other symbols. It also bears on the issue of determining algorithmic complexity: What is the function that generates the shortest algorithm for reproducing the symbol sequence. The error checking codes most used in our technology are linear block codes. We developed an efficient method to test for the presence of such codes in DNA. We coded the 4 bases as (0,1,2,3) and used Gaussian elimination, modified for modulus 4, to test if some bases are linear combinations of other bases. We used this method to analyze the base sequence in the genes from the lac operon and cytochrome C. We did not find evidence for such error correcting codes in these genes. However, we analyzed only a small amount of DNA and *if digital error correcting schemes are present in DNA*, they may be more subtle than such simple linear block codes. *The basic issue we raise here, is how information is stored in DNA and an appreciation that digital symbol sequences, such as DNA, admit of interesting schemes to store and protect the fidelity of their information content.* Liebovitch, Tao, Todorov, Levine. 1996. Biophys. J. 71:1539-1544. Supported by NIH grant EY6234._
> 
> What Information is Stored in DNA: Does it Contain Digital Error Correcting Code
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stand corrected on the meaning of digital, although this is somewhat unimportant, because to say something is digital is not terribly descriptive. All it means is the information comes in discrete, non-continuous bites, as opposed to analog information which comes in a continuous form, like sound. Smoke signals from a campfire used to communicate something is also digital information.  So, describing DNA as digital isn't very helpful. In fact, I couldn't imagine it any other way. If the information was analog, that would be far more amazing, and greater "evidence" of an intelligence. I can't even imagine how that would work. The fact that DNA is digital is not, by itself, amazing or good. Therefore, comparing to our own digital codes and simply concluding that there must be an intelligence is even more meaningless. Of course, *you add on the descriptors "specifiable and complex."* Whoopee. First of all, *complexity is not a sign of intelligence.*
Click to expand...

 If you add functionality and specificity, then it is a sign of intelligence. I have asked you before but you remain silent on producing a functional, specifiable information in digital form that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. 





newpolitics said:


> Simplicity usually is, when we are talking about making something actually work. And, how else would DNA work were it not specifiable???


 It wouldn't. That is the enigma. 





newpolitics said:


> You would expect these attributes of DNA to exist. *If they weren't specifiable or Complex, then that would be truly amazing,* and would be greater evidence for an intelligence, because that would beg the question: how is this possible??



Then you should look around and find lots of amazing random things. Check this: "44"-Simply amazing!!! This last bolded comment makes on sense at all. If you know about Shannon information, then you know the number 3428594837498538375493930385674639340 is more complex than 46. It really isn't a feat to generate a random, complex number that doesn't do anything. However, when we add function and specificity, we find that this type of information does not occur randomly. This number, for example, is complex and specific, because if you enter it into a phone, it performs a specific function: 8085636553.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer your question. You missed it. And your post shows a lack of understanding of what digital is. Do you know what analog is? Do you know the difference between music stored on an LP record and music stored on a CD? Your fallacy comes from your belief that Binary code is the only type of digital code. It isn't.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-640.html#post6256797
> 
> Just google it for goodness sake!!! You will be hard pressed to find one your atheist websites to dispute the fact dna is digital code.
> 
> _"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering *a new view of biology as an information science.* Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: *its digital nature* and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. *DNA has two types of digital information*  the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."_
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html
> 
> _"When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. *Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram.* A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare. All of this has been mostly theoreticaluntil now. In a new study, researchers stored an entire genetics textbook in less than a picogram of DNAone trillionth of a graman advance that could revolutionize our ability to save data."_
> 
> DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive - ScienceNOW
> 
> _"DNA code is a sequence of chemicals that form information that control how humans are made and how they work. *It is a digital code but it is not binary, but quaternary with 4 distinct items*. The encoding information in an ordered sequence of 4 different symbols called "bases", typically denoted A, C, G, and T.
> 
> A: adenosine
> C: cytosine
> G: guanine
> T: thymine
> 
> These 4 substances are the fundamental "bits" of information in the genetic code, and are called "base pairs" because there is actually 2 substances per "bit", as discussed later. Everything else is *built on top of this basis of 4 DNA digits*." _
> 
> Introduction to Genes and DNA - RightDiagnosis.com
> 
> _The longest term correlations in living systems are the information stored in DNA which reflects the evolutionary history of an organism. The 4 bases (A,T,G,C) encode sequences of amino acids as well as locations of binding sites for proteins that regulate DNA. The fidelity of this important information is maintained by ANALOG error check mechanisms. When a single strand of DNA is replicated the complementary base is inserted in the new strand. Sometimes the wrong base is inserted that sticks out disrupting the phosphate backbone. The new base is not yet methylated, so repair enzymes, that slide along the DNA, can tear out the wrong base and replace it with the right one. The bases in DNA form a sequence of 4 different symbols and so the information is encoded in a DIGITAL form. All the digital codes in our society (ISBN book numbers, UPC product codes, bank account numbers, airline ticket numbers) use error checking code, where some digits are functions of other digits to maintain the fidelity of transmitted information. Does DNA also utilize a DIGITAL error checking code to maintain the fidelity of its information and increase the accuracy of replication? That is, are some bases in DNA functions of other bases upstream or downstream? This raises the interesting mathematical problem: How does one determine whether some symbols in a sequence of symbols are a function of other symbols. It also bears on the issue of determining algorithmic complexity: What is the function that generates the shortest algorithm for reproducing the symbol sequence. The error checking codes most used in our technology are linear block codes. We developed an efficient method to test for the presence of such codes in DNA. We coded the 4 bases as (0,1,2,3) and used Gaussian elimination, modified for modulus 4, to test if some bases are linear combinations of other bases. We used this method to analyze the base sequence in the genes from the lac operon and cytochrome C. We did not find evidence for such error correcting codes in these genes. However, we analyzed only a small amount of DNA and *if digital error correcting schemes are present in DNA*, they may be more subtle than such simple linear block codes. *The basic issue we raise here, is how information is stored in DNA and an appreciation that digital symbol sequences, such as DNA, admit of interesting schemes to store and protect the fidelity of their information content.* Liebovitch, Tao, Todorov, Levine. 1996. Biophys. J. 71:1539-1544. Supported by NIH grant EY6234._
> 
> What Information is Stored in DNA: Does it Contain Digital Error Correcting Code
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you realize that cutting and pasting from a non-christian creationist website actually contradicts your earlier statements?
> 
> You fundies should stay away from that vile science stuff.
> 
> "DNA code is a sequence of chemicals that form information that control how humans are made and how they work. *It is a digital code but it is not binary, but quaternary with 4 distinct items*. The encoding information in an ordered sequence of 4 different symbols called "bases", typically denoted A, C, G, and T.
> 
> So... apparently DNA is not the "digital machine" that fundies love to describe it as, so as to make goofy allegations such as "DNA is a digital machine. Since all machines require a designer, DNA is therfore the product of a designer.... and not just any designer, but a particular, identifiable designer alluded to in a book I read: the Bible. Since the Bible is true... kinda, sorta, and since I was told as a child that the Bible is true, the Bible is therefore true. And you read all this on the internet, it is absolutely true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I really don't understand your point. That is, unless you are mistakenly assuming that binary code is the only digital code like NP is assuming. Or you are building a strawman that there was ever a claim that DNA is binary? Please clarify your nonsense.
Click to expand...


You're having difficulty defining your own argument. Your desperate efforts to bludgeon others with the circular reference about your gawds, "digital code" and an imagined designer are no less vague, discontinuous and contrived now than they were before. 

Ironically, the very science you despise has actually expanded our knowledge about another of the intricate building blocks of life. Through ingenuity and the formidable power of science, what was once only a hypothesis is now understandable. The mumbo jumbo of "the gawds did it" falls further and further into the dustbin of fear and superstition.


----------



## Hollie

There are many articles to be found that dispel the Christian creationist claim that follows in the pattern of Stephen Meyers and his groupies.  


DNA : When Is A Code Not A Code ?

DNA : When Is A Code Not A Code ? 

Stephen C. Meyer is an intelligent design advocate and a co-founder of the Discovery Institute.

The core argument of Stephen Meyer&#8217;s book, Signature in a Cell, written in advocacy of intelligent design, is this: DNA is a code and a computer instruction is a code. Since computer code requires an intelligent designer, and DNA is a code, it follows that DNA is a product of, or is controlled by, an intelligent designer.

This argument has no foundation if one does not accept its basic premises: that DNA is a code that a computer instruction is a code, and that the term 'code' is applicable in exactly the same way to both uses.

"Men take the words they find in use amongst their neighbours; and that they may not seem ignorant what they stand for, use them confidently, without much troubling their heads about a certain fixedmeaning; whereby, besides the ease of it, they obtain this advantage, That, as in such discourses they seldom are in the right, so they are as seldom to be convinced that theyare in the wrong;"

John Locke. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book III, Chapter X. Browse By Author: L - Project Gutenberg


Before leaping to any conclusions based on our use of the word 'code', we must, if we are to be scientific, first define 'code'.

A code is a member of the class 'symbols'. A first level symbol is a label which is used in place of the thing which it identifies. For example, suppose a building with a sign over the window which bears the word 'pharmacy'. We can use the symbol 'pharmacy' in language as a symbolic substitute for any real pharmacy. Suppose now that we invent a slang term 'pill-farm' to mean 'pharmacy'. We now have a secondary label 'pill-farm' which is a second-level symbol for 'pharmacy'. 'Pharmacy' in its turn is a first level symbol for a real building of a specific type.

By convention, a primary symbol is a name, but any secondary symbol is a code: a symbol which stands in place of another symbol. For purposes of clarification, I will give another example. 'And so forth' is a primary label or symbol for an idea. By converting it into Latin, a language spoken by few speakers of English, we encode it as 'et cetera'. We now abbreviate it to 'etc.', a second level coding.

A code is not a symbol. A symbol is not a code. A symbol stands in place of an object or idea. A code stands in place of a symbol: it is a symbol for a symbol.

In computer instructions, we start with the simplest possible representations of what is going on inside a computer chip. We observe that a location in a computer chip can be at one of two voltages. Taking these voltages as our idea we invent symbols for the two voltages: '1' and '0'. These are our primary symbols and they can only be written as binary expressions.

As a convenience, we can use a form of abbreviation which is easier for humans to handle than binary. The most common such abbreviation is hexadecimal code, or hex. As an example, the binary 1010 0101 can be written as A5 in hex. Note that hex, being a secondary symbol level is a code.

When dealing with binary as computer instructions rather than as numbers it is convenient to use mnemonic codes. It may be that the binary string 1111 0000 1100 0100, or F0C4 in hex, is an instruction to the computer core, expressed as F0, to jump to memory location C4, but only IF a previously computed result was non-zero. We can write that as a mnemonic code: JNZ C4.

Such mnemonics are called assembly language. The 'assembly' part of the name comes from the fact that this mnemonic code needs to be assembled into a package of binary numbers in order for the computer to be able to use it as a program.

DNA is a string of molecules. There are four main components: guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine. Those names, the words 'guanine', 'adenine', 'thymine' and 'cytosine' are primary symbols invented by humans to identify the physical molecules which are found in DNA.

For convenience, we often abbreviate these symbols to CAGT, so that we can more readily handle the huge volume of data which we have accumulated about DNA. Please observe: there exists a long molecule of a type which we label DNA. It has four major components to which we assign symbols as names. We next assign symbols to the name symbols as an abbreviating code. We humans have agreed to assign the four letters CAGT as a code for the symbols which in turn stand for the molecular components of DNA.

A code is a symbol which stands in place of a symbol. The four letters CAGT most definitely form a code, being symbols for the names of the four major components of DNA. The names guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes: they are primary symbols. Primary symbols stand for real things and not for symbols. The real physical entities guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes. If anyone wants to call them codes, let them point to the symbols which might be replaced by these 'codes'.

A computer code is a set of numerical values sufficient and necessary to the production of an end state from an initial state.

DNA is necessary but not sufficient to the production of an end statefrom an initial state.

To claim that computer code and DNA are both codes is an abuse of the power of words. It is decidedly not scientific.

Concluding remarks:

Anyone who already believes in intelligent design will derive no new knowledge from Stephen Meyer's book. Anyone who believes in a rigorous approach to science will derive no new knowledge from Stephen Meyer's book.

I conclude that no value is to be obtained from Stephen Meyer's book by any thinking person.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Glensather said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI:
> 
> Conservative Christian Superhero Pat Robertson doesn't believe in Young Earth Creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is a philosophy not a religion and I am not of the same religion as robertson.
Click to expand...

lie! Christianity is a religion  and a philosophy.
if you believe in THE CHRISTIAN GOD, JESUS ETC... you are the same religion as pat Robertson or Jim Jones and David koresh..
any difference you profess is cosmetic and false.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say for sure but it looks like he (God) has used several different methods to assure we can live but pay the ultimate price for sin and that is death. Mutating genes is not a good thing nor are viruses.
> 
> The simple thing is a couple on your side fail to reason out that eventually all viruses mutate to a point that our immune system can fight them off if not for that we would have been wiped out and many other organisms that have been invaded by viruses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How utterly twisted. No wonder your behavior is so bizarre. You live your life in trembling fear of the most evil villain ever to be shaped by the mind of man.  You're suggesting that the gawds "poofed" viruses into existence as yet another punishment to be inflicted on humanity?
> 
> So, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, fire, bacterial infections, etc. weren't enough so the gawds chose yet another humanity wiping catastrophe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't live in fear hollie why would you say I live in fear ?
Click to expand...

 because it's obvious !


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not speaking of God Daws I am speaking of your theory,science daws.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit and backpedaling no matter how you try to spin it, you are always yammering about god
> your whole pov is based on the unprovable belief in god .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are discussing science why do you want to leave this subject ?
Click to expand...

no you're not stop dodging


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think a molecular biologist is
> 
> 
> 
> a person who studies the  structure of of cells  observers their actions and their relationship  to the whole of biology.
> also  do experiments and make judgments on the outcome of those experiments.
> the only one of these you did was observe and report your obsevations.
> my statements stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do most molecular biologist possess to work in this field I posted it for you ?
Click to expand...

you mean these thing you lack?: Common Requirements 
Degree Level  Ph.D.* 
Degree Field  Molecular biology or a related field* 
Key Skills  Analytical skills, communication skills, problem solving skills, critical thinking skills* 
Technical Skills  Operation of cloning vectors, temperature cycling chambers, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometers, volumetric pipettes** 
Computer Skills  Use of analytical and scientific software, graphical imaging software** 

Sources: *U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, **O Net OnLine. 

Step 1 - Earn a Bachelor's Degree
A molecular biologist can earn an undergraduate degree in molecular biology. In some cases, the degree may be in cell and molecular biology or exist as a concentration within a biology program. Students take science courses that include biology, chemistry, physics and genetics. Students also take lab courses, learning about proper use of equipment and experimental procedure. 

Success Tip:
Participate in research opportunities. Undergraduates can find research opportunities either through a program designated for undergraduates or by making a special request to faculty. Research at the undergraduate level can help students improve critical thinking skills and build professional skills as well as learn to implement and perform credible research. 
Step 2 - Earn a Graduate Degree
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, most molecular biologists require a Ph.D. Some molecular biologists may choose to earn a master's degree prior to pursuing a Ph.D. program, but many doctoral programs accept students without a master's degree. The Ph.D. program generally lasts 4-6 years and includes advanced coursework and required research. Ph.D. candidates will likely have to pass a qualifying exam, during which they are assessed on their knowledge of molecular biology. They also have to introduce a research thesis. Ph.D. candidates have to write a dissertation based on their ongoing research and defend their theses to graduate from the program. Ph.D. programs may also include a teaching requirement. 

Success Tip:
Publish research in a peer-reviewed journal. Research that has been peer-reviewed by other scientists serves as a proof that the research method and results are credible. Graduate students can have research results published as a co-author or as a lead author on a research study.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Both Hollie and daws has disappeared why oh why ?


that's "have". asshat


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't live in fear hollie why would you say I live in fear ?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you live in fear. You even use that fear in hopes of installing fear in others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible tells us that every time we are attacked for our love of God we reap a blessing.
> 
> I'll stand by for more slavering, incoherent hatred from the anti-Christian bigot. I like blessings.
Click to expand...

look toto it's the witch!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is hollie, unless you don't understand what you wrote. The host is no longer in control of its chemical machines,the machines  are used by the virus to reproduce itself so who would be stimulating the mutation ?
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us, *"who" do you think would be stimulating the mutation*. Does this "who" have  name?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, let me guess. Are you talking about your rugged man hands stimulating the mutant known as Daws?
Click to expand...

another false and childish gay slur! and so very desperate.
why don't you just come out Ur?
your obsession with homosexuality just screams suppressed desire !


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glensather said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI:
> 
> Conservative Christian Superhero Pat Robertson doesn't believe in Young Earth Creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is a philosophy not a religion and I am not of the same religion as robertson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lie! Christianity is a religion  and a philosophy.
> if you believe in THE CHRISTIAN GOD, JESUS ETC... you are the same religion as pat Robertson or Jim Jones and David koresh..
> any difference you profess is cosmetic and false.
Click to expand...


Nope, you are wrong 241,000 religions makes Christanity a philosophy. Every religion has their own set of doctrines and everyone of them claim to have the truth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How utterly twisted. No wonder your behavior is so bizarre. You live your life in trembling fear of the most evil villain ever to be shaped by the mind of man.  You're suggesting that the gawds "poofed" viruses into existence as yet another punishment to be inflicted on humanity?
> 
> So, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, fire, bacterial infections, etc. weren't enough so the gawds chose yet another humanity wiping catastrophe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't live in fear hollie why would you say I live in fear ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because it's obvious !
Click to expand...


I have a pretty good life I have nothing to fear.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit and backpedaling no matter how you try to spin it, you are always yammering about god
> your whole pov is based on the unprovable belief in god .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are discussing science why do you want to leave this subject ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you're not stop dodging
Click to expand...


Open systems and closed systems plus viruses are not science Daws ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a person who studies the  structure of of cells  observers their actions and their relationship  to the whole of biology.
> also  do experiments and make judgments on the outcome of those experiments.
> the only one of these you did was observe and report your obsevations.
> my statements stand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do most molecular biologist possess to work in this field I posted it for you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean these thing you lack?: Common Requirements
> Degree Level  Ph.D.*
> Degree Field  Molecular biology or a related field*
> Key Skills  Analytical skills, communication skills, problem solving skills, critical thinking skills*
> Technical Skills  Operation of cloning vectors, temperature cycling chambers, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometers, volumetric pipettes**
> Computer Skills  Use of analytical and scientific software, graphical imaging software**
> 
> Sources: *U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, **O Net OnLine.
> 
> Step 1 - Earn a Bachelor's Degree
> A molecular biologist can earn an undergraduate degree in molecular biology. In some cases, the degree may be in cell and molecular biology or exist as a concentration within a biology program. Students take science courses that include biology, chemistry, physics and genetics. Students also take lab courses, learning about proper use of equipment and experimental procedure.
> 
> Success Tip:
> Participate in research opportunities. Undergraduates can find research opportunities either through a program designated for undergraduates or by making a special request to faculty. Research at the undergraduate level can help students improve critical thinking skills and build professional skills as well as learn to implement and perform credible research.
> Step 2 - Earn a Graduate Degree
> According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, most molecular biologists require a Ph.D. Some molecular biologists may choose to earn a master's degree prior to pursuing a Ph.D. program, but many doctoral programs accept students without a master's degree. The Ph.D. program generally lasts 4-6 years and includes advanced coursework and required research. Ph.D. candidates will likely have to pass a qualifying exam, during which they are assessed on their knowledge of molecular biology. They also have to introduce a research thesis. Ph.D. candidates have to write a dissertation based on their ongoing research and defend their theses to graduate from the program. Ph.D. programs may also include a teaching requirement.
> 
> Success Tip:
> Publish research in a peer-reviewed journal. Research that has been peer-reviewed by other scientists serves as a proof that the research method and results are credible. Graduate students can have research results published as a co-author or as a lead author on a research study.
Click to expand...


Why do I hold a molecular biologist degree daws if you are correct ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you live in fear. You even use that fear in hopes of installing fear in others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible tells us that every time we are attacked for our love of God we reap a blessing.
> 
> I'll stand by for more slavering, incoherent hatred from the anti-Christian bigot. I like blessings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look toto it's the witch!
Click to expand...


Still nothing to add to the thread.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you realize that cutting and pasting from a non-christian creationist website actually contradicts your earlier statements?
> 
> You fundies should stay away from that vile science stuff.
> 
> "DNA code is a sequence of chemicals that form information that control how humans are made and how they work. *It is a digital code but it is not binary, but quaternary with 4 distinct items*. The encoding information in an ordered sequence of 4 different symbols called "bases", typically denoted A, C, G, and T.
> 
> So... apparently DNA is not the "digital machine" that fundies love to describe it as, so as to make goofy allegations such as "DNA is a digital machine. Since all machines require a designer, DNA is therfore the product of a designer.... and not just any designer, but a particular, identifiable designer alluded to in a book I read: the Bible. Since the Bible is true... kinda, sorta, and since I was told as a child that the Bible is true, the Bible is therefore true. And you read all this on the internet, it is absolutely true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I really don't understand your point. That is, unless you are mistakenly assuming that binary code is the only digital code like NP is assuming. Or you are building a strawman that there was ever a claim that DNA is binary? Please clarify your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're having difficulty defining your own argument. Your desperate efforts to bludgeon others with the circular reference about your gawds, "digital code" and an imagined designer are no less vague, discontinuous and contrived now than they were before.
> 
> Ironically, the very science you despise has actually expanded our knowledge about another of the intricate building blocks of life. Through ingenuity and the formidable power of science, what was once only a hypothesis is now understandable. The mumbo jumbo of "the gawds did it" falls further and further into the dustbin of fear and superstition.
Click to expand...


Nothing in your response clarifies your comments about binary code. As usual, your response is totally irrelevant to the post you are addressing.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> There are many articles to be found that dispel the Christian creationist claim that follows in the pattern of Stephen Meyers and his groupies.
> 
> 
> DNA : When Is A Code Not A Code ?
> 
> DNA : When Is A Code Not A Code ?
> 
> Stephen C. Meyer is an intelligent design advocate and a co-founder of the Discovery Institute.
> 
> The core argument of Stephen Meyer&#8217;s book, Signature in a Cell, written in advocacy of intelligent design, is this: DNA is a code and a computer instruction is a code. Since computer code requires an intelligent designer, and DNA is a code, it follows that DNA is a product of, or is controlled by, an intelligent designer.
> 
> This argument has no foundation if one does not accept its basic premises: that DNA is a code that a computer instruction is a code, and that the term 'code' is applicable in exactly the same way to both uses.
> 
> "Men take the words they find in use amongst their neighbours; and that they may not seem ignorant what they stand for, use them confidently, without much troubling their heads about a certain fixedmeaning; whereby, besides the ease of it, they obtain this advantage, That, as in such discourses they seldom are in the right, so they are as seldom to be convinced that theyare in the wrong;"
> 
> John Locke. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book III, Chapter X. Browse By Author: L - Project Gutenberg
> 
> 
> Before leaping to any conclusions based on our use of the word 'code', we must, if we are to be scientific, first define 'code'.
> 
> A code is a member of the class 'symbols'. A first level symbol is a label which is used in place of the thing which it identifies. For example, suppose a building with a sign over the window which bears the word 'pharmacy'. We can use the symbol 'pharmacy' in language as a symbolic substitute for any real pharmacy. Suppose now that we invent a slang term 'pill-farm' to mean 'pharmacy'. We now have a secondary label 'pill-farm' which is a second-level symbol for 'pharmacy'. 'Pharmacy' in its turn is a first level symbol for a real building of a specific type.
> 
> By convention, a primary symbol is a name, but any secondary symbol is a code: a symbol which stands in place of another symbol. For purposes of clarification, I will give another example. 'And so forth' is a primary label or symbol for an idea. By converting it into Latin, a language spoken by few speakers of English, we encode it as 'et cetera'. We now abbreviate it to 'etc.', a second level coding.
> 
> A code is not a symbol. A symbol is not a code. A symbol stands in place of an object or idea. A code stands in place of a symbol: it is a symbol for a symbol.
> 
> In computer instructions, we start with the simplest possible representations of what is going on inside a computer chip. We observe that a location in a computer chip can be at one of two voltages. Taking these voltages as our idea we invent symbols for the two voltages: '1' and '0'. These are our primary symbols and they can only be written as binary expressions.
> 
> As a convenience, we can use a form of abbreviation which is easier for humans to handle than binary. The most common such abbreviation is hexadecimal code, or hex. As an example, the binary 1010 0101 can be written as A5 in hex. Note that hex, being a secondary symbol level is a code.
> 
> When dealing with binary as computer instructions rather than as numbers it is convenient to use mnemonic codes. It may be that the binary string 1111 0000 1100 0100, or F0C4 in hex, is an instruction to the computer core, expressed as F0, to jump to memory location C4, but only IF a previously computed result was non-zero. We can write that as a mnemonic code: JNZ C4.
> 
> Such mnemonics are called assembly language. The 'assembly' part of the name comes from the fact that this mnemonic code needs to be assembled into a package of binary numbers in order for the computer to be able to use it as a program.
> 
> DNA is a string of molecules. There are four main components: guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine. Those names, the words 'guanine', 'adenine', 'thymine' and 'cytosine' are primary symbols invented by humans to identify the physical molecules which are found in DNA.
> 
> For convenience, we often abbreviate these symbols to CAGT, so that we can more readily handle the huge volume of data which we have accumulated about DNA. Please observe: there exists a long molecule of a type which we label DNA. It has four major components to which we assign symbols as names. We next assign symbols to the name symbols as an abbreviating code. We humans have agreed to assign the four letters CAGT as a code for the symbols which in turn stand for the molecular components of DNA.
> 
> A code is a symbol which stands in place of a symbol. The four letters CAGT most definitely form a code, being symbols for the names of the four major components of DNA. The names guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes: they are primary symbols. Primary symbols stand for real things and not for symbols. The real physical entities guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes. If anyone wants to call them codes, let them point to the symbols which might be replaced by these 'codes'.
> 
> A computer code is a set of numerical values sufficient and necessary to the production of an end state from an initial state.
> 
> DNA is necessary but not sufficient to the production of an end statefrom an initial state.
> 
> To claim that computer code and DNA are both codes is an abuse of the power of words. It is decidedly not scientific.
> 
> Concluding remarks:
> 
> Anyone who already believes in intelligent design will derive no new knowledge from Stephen Meyer's book. Anyone who believes in a rigorous approach to science will derive no new knowledge from Stephen Meyer's book.
> 
> I conclude that no value is to be obtained from Stephen Meyer's book by any thinking person.



Wow, just wow. Now you can't even remember what you have cut and pasted before!!! Now try to find a rebuttal from an actual scientist, not an atheist agenda website. Your reposting of this fallacious argument Loki used does not make it any more valid. The author contradicts himself even in his own article!!! He states that we assign the symbols 0 and 1 to stand for spaces where the voltages differ. "We observe that a location in a computer chip can be at one of two voltages. Taking these voltages as our idea we invent symbols for the two voltages: '1' and '0'."  How is that so much different than us assigning T, A, G, and C to the chemical bases at different locations on the DNA molecule.  While we use sequences of 0's and 1's to code for letters that transmit information we can read, the designer used T's, A's, G's, and C's to *digitally transmit instructions* for assembling proteins. The information in the DNA molecule is not the protein. It is translated by molecular machines to assemble proteins in the every same way the 0's and 1's are translated by the computer to build words or sentences. Even a 1st grader could see the similarity here!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us, *"who" do you think would be stimulating the mutation*. Does this "who" have  name?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, let me guess. Are you talking about your rugged man hands stimulating the mutant known as Daws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false and childish gay slur!
Click to expand...


Seriously??? How is this gay if Hollie is a woman? Do you know of any guys named Hollie? Plus, when she was pressed on the other forum about her sex, she responded not "I am man". She responded, "I am of the male persuasion." So let me get this straight. If Hollie is woman who thinks she's a man and she gives you a back rub, is that gay?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many articles to be found that dispel the Christian creationist claim that follows in the pattern of Stephen Meyers and his groupies.
> 
> 
> DNA : When Is A Code Not A Code ?
> 
> DNA : When Is A Code Not A Code ?
> 
> Stephen C. Meyer is an intelligent design advocate and a co-founder of the Discovery Institute.
> 
> The core argument of Stephen Meyers book, Signature in a Cell, written in advocacy of intelligent design, is this: DNA is a code and a computer instruction is a code. Since computer code requires an intelligent designer, and DNA is a code, it follows that DNA is a product of, or is controlled by, an intelligent designer.
> 
> This argument has no foundation if one does not accept its basic premises: that DNA is a code that a computer instruction is a code, and that the term 'code' is applicable in exactly the same way to both uses.
> 
> "Men take the words they find in use amongst their neighbours; and that they may not seem ignorant what they stand for, use them confidently, without much troubling their heads about a certain fixedmeaning; whereby, besides the ease of it, they obtain this advantage, That, as in such discourses they seldom are in the right, so they are as seldom to be convinced that theyare in the wrong;"
> 
> John Locke. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book III, Chapter X. Browse By Author: L - Project Gutenberg
> 
> 
> Before leaping to any conclusions based on our use of the word 'code', we must, if we are to be scientific, first define 'code'.
> 
> A code is a member of the class 'symbols'. A first level symbol is a label which is used in place of the thing which it identifies. For example, suppose a building with a sign over the window which bears the word 'pharmacy'. We can use the symbol 'pharmacy' in language as a symbolic substitute for any real pharmacy. Suppose now that we invent a slang term 'pill-farm' to mean 'pharmacy'. We now have a secondary label 'pill-farm' which is a second-level symbol for 'pharmacy'. 'Pharmacy' in its turn is a first level symbol for a real building of a specific type.
> 
> By convention, a primary symbol is a name, but any secondary symbol is a code: a symbol which stands in place of another symbol. For purposes of clarification, I will give another example. 'And so forth' is a primary label or symbol for an idea. By converting it into Latin, a language spoken by few speakers of English, we encode it as 'et cetera'. We now abbreviate it to 'etc.', a second level coding.
> 
> A code is not a symbol. A symbol is not a code. A symbol stands in place of an object or idea. A code stands in place of a symbol: it is a symbol for a symbol.
> 
> In computer instructions, we start with the simplest possible representations of what is going on inside a computer chip. We observe that a location in a computer chip can be at one of two voltages. Taking these voltages as our idea we invent symbols for the two voltages: '1' and '0'. These are our primary symbols and they can only be written as binary expressions.
> 
> As a convenience, we can use a form of abbreviation which is easier for humans to handle than binary. The most common such abbreviation is hexadecimal code, or hex. As an example, the binary 1010 0101 can be written as A5 in hex. Note that hex, being a secondary symbol level is a code.
> 
> When dealing with binary as computer instructions rather than as numbers it is convenient to use mnemonic codes. It may be that the binary string 1111 0000 1100 0100, or F0C4 in hex, is an instruction to the computer core, expressed as F0, to jump to memory location C4, but only IF a previously computed result was non-zero. We can write that as a mnemonic code: JNZ C4.
> 
> Such mnemonics are called assembly language. The 'assembly' part of the name comes from the fact that this mnemonic code needs to be assembled into a package of binary numbers in order for the computer to be able to use it as a program.
> 
> DNA is a string of molecules. There are four main components: guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine. Those names, the words 'guanine', 'adenine', 'thymine' and 'cytosine' are primary symbols invented by humans to identify the physical molecules which are found in DNA.
> 
> For convenience, we often abbreviate these symbols to CAGT, so that we can more readily handle the huge volume of data which we have accumulated about DNA. Please observe: there exists a long molecule of a type which we label DNA. It has four major components to which we assign symbols as names. We next assign symbols to the name symbols as an abbreviating code. We humans have agreed to assign the four letters CAGT as a code for the symbols which in turn stand for the molecular components of DNA.
> 
> A code is a symbol which stands in place of a symbol. The four letters CAGT most definitely form a code, being symbols for the names of the four major components of DNA. The names guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes: they are primary symbols. Primary symbols stand for real things and not for symbols. The real physical entities guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes. If anyone wants to call them codes, let them point to the symbols which might be replaced by these 'codes'.
> 
> A computer code is a set of numerical values sufficient and necessary to the production of an end state from an initial state.
> 
> DNA is necessary but not sufficient to the production of an end statefrom an initial state.
> 
> To claim that computer code and DNA are both codes is an abuse of the power of words. It is decidedly not scientific.
> 
> Concluding remarks:
> 
> Anyone who already believes in intelligent design will derive no new knowledge from Stephen Meyer's book. Anyone who believes in a rigorous approach to science will derive no new knowledge from Stephen Meyer's book.
> 
> I conclude that no value is to be obtained from Stephen Meyer's book by any thinking person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, just wow. Now you can't even remember what you have cut and pasted before!!! Now try to find a rebuttal from an actual scientist, not an atheist agenda website. Your reposting of this fallacious argument Loki used does not make it any more valid. The author contradicts himself even in his own article!!! He states that we assign the symbols 0 and 1 to stand for spaces where the voltages differ. "We observe that a location in a computer chip can be at one of two voltages. Taking these voltages as our idea we invent symbols for the two voltages: '1' and '0'."  How is that so much different than us assigning T, A, G, and C to the chemical bases at different locations on the DNA molecule.  While we use sequences of 0's and 1's to code for letters that transmit information we can read, the designer used T's, A's, G's, and C's to *digitally transmit instructions* for assembling proteins. The information in the DNA molecule is not the protein. It is translated by molecular machines to assemble proteins in the every same way the 0's and 1's are translated by the computer to build words or sentences. Even a 1st grader could see the similarity here!!!
Click to expand...

Sheesh. What a confused and nonsensical response. You have decided on behalf of some imagined "designer" that 0's and 1's are analogous to T's, A's, G's, and C's. This is the confusion that Meyer groupies suffer from. You second level of confusion is the contrived "molecular machine" nonsense.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I really don't understand your point. That is, unless you are mistakenly assuming that binary code is the only digital code like NP is assuming. Or you are building a strawman that there was ever a claim that DNA is binary? Please clarify your nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're having difficulty defining your own argument. Your desperate efforts to bludgeon others with the circular reference about your gawds, "digital code" and an imagined designer are no less vague, discontinuous and contrived now than they were before.
> 
> Ironically, the very science you despise has actually expanded our knowledge about another of the intricate building blocks of life. Through ingenuity and the formidable power of science, what was once only a hypothesis is now understandable. The mumbo jumbo of "the gawds did it" falls further and further into the dustbin of fear and superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in your response clarifies your comments about binary code. As usual, your response is totally irrelevant to the post you are addressing.
Click to expand...

Your inability to confront the failure of religious dogma to offer compelling answers to existence is your issue resolve. The fact is, science provides mechanisms that lead to an understanding of the natural world. Your frantic attempts to bastardize the science of biology with silly slogans and Christian creationist dogma underlies your desperation.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many articles to be found that dispel the Christian creationist claim that follows in the pattern of Stephen Meyers and his groupies.
> 
> 
> DNA : When Is A Code Not A Code ?
> 
> DNA : When Is A Code Not A Code ?
> 
> Stephen C. Meyer is an intelligent design advocate and a co-founder of the Discovery Institute.
> 
> The core argument of Stephen Meyers book, Signature in a Cell, written in advocacy of intelligent design, is this: DNA is a code and a computer instruction is a code. Since computer code requires an intelligent designer, and DNA is a code, it follows that DNA is a product of, or is controlled by, an intelligent designer.
> 
> This argument has no foundation if one does not accept its basic premises: that DNA is a code that a computer instruction is a code, and that the term 'code' is applicable in exactly the same way to both uses.
> 
> "Men take the words they find in use amongst their neighbours; and that they may not seem ignorant what they stand for, use them confidently, without much troubling their heads about a certain fixedmeaning; whereby, besides the ease of it, they obtain this advantage, That, as in such discourses they seldom are in the right, so they are as seldom to be convinced that theyare in the wrong;"
> 
> John Locke. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book III, Chapter X. Browse By Author: L - Project Gutenberg
> 
> 
> Before leaping to any conclusions based on our use of the word 'code', we must, if we are to be scientific, first define 'code'.
> 
> A code is a member of the class 'symbols'. A first level symbol is a label which is used in place of the thing which it identifies. For example, suppose a building with a sign over the window which bears the word 'pharmacy'. We can use the symbol 'pharmacy' in language as a symbolic substitute for any real pharmacy. Suppose now that we invent a slang term 'pill-farm' to mean 'pharmacy'. We now have a secondary label 'pill-farm' which is a second-level symbol for 'pharmacy'. 'Pharmacy' in its turn is a first level symbol for a real building of a specific type.
> 
> By convention, a primary symbol is a name, but any secondary symbol is a code: a symbol which stands in place of another symbol. For purposes of clarification, I will give another example. 'And so forth' is a primary label or symbol for an idea. By converting it into Latin, a language spoken by few speakers of English, we encode it as 'et cetera'. We now abbreviate it to 'etc.', a second level coding.
> 
> A code is not a symbol. A symbol is not a code. A symbol stands in place of an object or idea. A code stands in place of a symbol: it is a symbol for a symbol.
> 
> In computer instructions, we start with the simplest possible representations of what is going on inside a computer chip. We observe that a location in a computer chip can be at one of two voltages. Taking these voltages as our idea we invent symbols for the two voltages: '1' and '0'. These are our primary symbols and they can only be written as binary expressions.
> 
> As a convenience, we can use a form of abbreviation which is easier for humans to handle than binary. The most common such abbreviation is hexadecimal code, or hex. As an example, the binary 1010 0101 can be written as A5 in hex. Note that hex, being a secondary symbol level is a code.
> 
> When dealing with binary as computer instructions rather than as numbers it is convenient to use mnemonic codes. It may be that the binary string 1111 0000 1100 0100, or F0C4 in hex, is an instruction to the computer core, expressed as F0, to jump to memory location C4, but only IF a previously computed result was non-zero. We can write that as a mnemonic code: JNZ C4.
> 
> Such mnemonics are called assembly language. The 'assembly' part of the name comes from the fact that this mnemonic code needs to be assembled into a package of binary numbers in order for the computer to be able to use it as a program.
> 
> DNA is a string of molecules. There are four main components: guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine. Those names, the words 'guanine', 'adenine', 'thymine' and 'cytosine' are primary symbols invented by humans to identify the physical molecules which are found in DNA.
> 
> For convenience, we often abbreviate these symbols to CAGT, so that we can more readily handle the huge volume of data which we have accumulated about DNA. Please observe: there exists a long molecule of a type which we label DNA. It has four major components to which we assign symbols as names. We next assign symbols to the name symbols as an abbreviating code. We humans have agreed to assign the four letters CAGT as a code for the symbols which in turn stand for the molecular components of DNA.
> 
> A code is a symbol which stands in place of a symbol. The four letters CAGT most definitely form a code, being symbols for the names of the four major components of DNA. The names guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes: they are primary symbols. Primary symbols stand for real things and not for symbols. The real physical entities guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes. If anyone wants to call them codes, let them point to the symbols which might be replaced by these 'codes'.
> 
> A computer code is a set of numerical values sufficient and necessary to the production of an end state from an initial state.
> 
> DNA is necessary but not sufficient to the production of an end statefrom an initial state.
> 
> To claim that computer code and DNA are both codes is an abuse of the power of words. It is decidedly not scientific.
> 
> Concluding remarks:
> 
> Anyone who already believes in intelligent design will derive no new knowledge from Stephen Meyer's book. Anyone who believes in a rigorous approach to science will derive no new knowledge from Stephen Meyer's book.
> 
> I conclude that no value is to be obtained from Stephen Meyer's book by any thinking person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, just wow. Now you can't even remember what you have cut and pasted before!!! Now try to find a rebuttal from an actual scientist, not an atheist agenda website. Your reposting of this fallacious argument Loki used does not make it any more valid. The author contradicts himself even in his own article!!! He states that we assign the symbols 0 and 1 to stand for spaces where the voltages differ. "We observe that a location in a computer chip can be at one of two voltages. Taking these voltages as our idea we invent symbols for the two voltages: '1' and '0'."  How is that so much different than us assigning T, A, G, and C to the chemical bases at different locations on the DNA molecule.  While we use sequences of 0's and 1's to code for letters that transmit information we can read, the designer used T's, A's, G's, and C's to *digitally transmit instructions* for assembling proteins. The information in the DNA molecule is not the protein. It is translated by molecular machines to assemble proteins in the every same way the 0's and 1's are translated by the computer to build words or sentences. Even a 1st grader could see the similarity here!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sheesh. What a confused and nonsensical response. You have decided on behalf of some imagined "designer" that 0's and 1's are analogous to T's, A's, G's, and C's. This is the confusion that Meyer groupies suffer from. You second level of confusion is the contrived "molecular machine" nonsense.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's such a stupid comparison that Harvard figured out a way to use DNA for digital data storage. But of course you and the author of your cut and paste are so much smarter than they are.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're having difficulty defining your own argument. Your desperate efforts to bludgeon others with the circular reference about your gawds, "digital code" and an imagined designer are no less vague, discontinuous and contrived now than they were before.
> 
> Ironically, the very science you despise has actually expanded our knowledge about another of the intricate building blocks of life. Through ingenuity and the formidable power of science, what was once only a hypothesis is now understandable. The mumbo jumbo of "the gawds did it" falls further and further into the dustbin of fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your response clarifies your comments about binary code. As usual, your response is totally irrelevant to the post you are addressing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inability to confront the failure of religious dogma to offer compelling answers to existence is your issue resolve. The fact is, science provides mechanisms that lead to an understanding of the natural world. Your frantic attempts to bastardize the science of biology with silly slogans and Christian creationist dogma underlies your desperation.
Click to expand...


Your inability to actually respond intelligently to a post is astonishing. Did you already forget my request to clarify your comments on binary code? Or did NP's response make you see how your parroting of his comments were in error and like always, now you are just choosing to ignore the question?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer your question. You missed it. And your post shows a lack of understanding of what digital is. Do you know what analog is? Do you know the difference between music stored on an LP record and music stored on a CD? Your fallacy comes from your belief that Binary code is the only type of digital code. It isn't.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-640.html#post6256797
> 
> Just google it for goodness sake!!! You will be hard pressed to find one your atheist websites to dispute the fact dna is digital code.
> 
> _"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering *a new view of biology as an information science.* Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: *its digital nature* and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. *DNA has two types of digital information* &#8212; the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."_
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html
> 
> _"When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. *Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram.* A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare. All of this has been mostly theoretical&#8212;until now. In a new study, researchers stored an entire genetics textbook in less than a picogram of DNA&#8212;one trillionth of a gram&#8212;an advance that could revolutionize our ability to save data."_
> 
> DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive - ScienceNOW
> 
> _"DNA code is a sequence of chemicals that form information that control how humans are made and how they work. *It is a digital code but it is not binary, but quaternary with 4 distinct items*. The encoding information in an ordered sequence of 4 different symbols called "bases", typically denoted A, C, G, and T.
> 
> A: adenosine
> C: cytosine
> G: guanine
> T: thymine
> 
> These 4 substances are the fundamental "bits" of information in the genetic code, and are called "base pairs" because there is actually 2 substances per "bit", as discussed later. Everything else is *built on top of this basis of 4 DNA digits*." _
> 
> Introduction to Genes and DNA - RightDiagnosis.com
> 
> _The longest term correlations in living systems are the information stored in DNA which reflects the evolutionary history of an organism. The 4 bases (A,T,G,C) encode sequences of amino acids as well as locations of binding sites for proteins that regulate DNA. The fidelity of this important information is maintained by ANALOG error check mechanisms. When a single strand of DNA is replicated the complementary base is inserted in the new strand. Sometimes the wrong base is inserted that sticks out disrupting the phosphate backbone. The new base is not yet methylated, so repair enzymes, that slide along the DNA, can tear out the wrong base and replace it with the right one. The bases in DNA form a sequence of 4 different symbols and so the information is encoded in a DIGITAL form. All the digital codes in our society (ISBN book numbers, UPC product codes, bank account numbers, airline ticket numbers) use error checking code, where some digits are functions of other digits to maintain the fidelity of transmitted information. Does DNA also utilize a DIGITAL error checking code to maintain the fidelity of its information and increase the accuracy of replication? That is, are some bases in DNA functions of other bases upstream or downstream? This raises the interesting mathematical problem: How does one determine whether some symbols in a sequence of symbols are a function of other symbols. It also bears on the issue of determining algorithmic complexity: What is the function that generates the shortest algorithm for reproducing the symbol sequence. The error checking codes most used in our technology are linear block codes. We developed an efficient method to test for the presence of such codes in DNA. We coded the 4 bases as (0,1,2,3) and used Gaussian elimination, modified for modulus 4, to test if some bases are linear combinations of other bases. We used this method to analyze the base sequence in the genes from the lac operon and cytochrome C. We did not find evidence for such error correcting codes in these genes. However, we analyzed only a small amount of DNA and *if digital error correcting schemes are present in DNA*, they may be more subtle than such simple linear block codes. *The basic issue we raise here, is how information is stored in DNA and an appreciation that digital symbol sequences, such as DNA, admit of interesting schemes to store and protect the fidelity of their information content.* Liebovitch, Tao, Todorov, Levine. 1996. Biophys. J. 71:1539-1544. Supported by NIH grant EY6234._
> 
> What Information is Stored in DNA: Does it Contain Digital Error Correcting Code
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected on the meaning of digital, although this is somewhat unimportant, because to say something is digital is not terribly descriptive. All it means is the information comes in discrete, non-continuous bites, as opposed to analog information which comes in a continuous form, like sound. Smoke signals from a campfire used to communicate something is also digital information.  So, describing DNA as digital isn't very helpful. In fact, I couldn't imagine it any other way. If the information was analog, that would be far more amazing, and greater "evidence" of an intelligence. I can't even imagine how that would work. The fact that DNA is digital is not, by itself, amazing or good. Therefore, comparing to our own digital codes and simply concluding that there must be an intelligence is even more meaningless. Of course, *you add on the descriptors "specifiable and complex."* Whoopee. First of all, *complexity is not a sign of intelligence.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you add functionality and specificity, then it is a sign of intelligence. I have asked you before but you remain silent on producing a functional, specifiable information in digital form that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simplicity usually is, when we are talking about making something actually work. And, how else would DNA work were it not specifiable???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wouldn't. That is the enigma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would expect these attributes of DNA to exist. *If they weren't specifiable or Complex, then that would be truly amazing,* and would be greater evidence for an intelligence, because that would beg the question: how is this possible??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should look around and find lots of amazing random things. Check this: "44"-Simply amazing!!! This last bolded comment makes on sense at all. If you know about Shannon information, then you know the number 3428594837498538375493930385674639340 is more complex than 46. It really isn't a feat to generate a random, complex number that doesn't do anything. However, when we add function and specificity, we find that this type of information does not occur randomly. This number, for example, is complex and specific, because if you enter it into a phone, it performs a specific function: 8085636553.
Click to expand...


We are not talking about looking around at random things. We are talking about DNA. The fact that it is complex and specifiable is exactly what one might expect when its duty is to allow the production a very complex being: humans, rats, amoeba. Therefore, if somehow DNA wasn't complex or specifiable, that would be a stronger case for an intelligence. Likewise, if the information was analog, that would also be a stronger case. You seem to think these mere attributes of DNA being digital, complex and specifiable is evidence of anything else. That is logically fallacious. No conclusions can be drawn about DNA's origin merely from its attributes, especially something that is unfalsifiable.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, just wow. Now you can't even remember what you have cut and pasted before!!! Now try to find a rebuttal from an actual scientist, not an atheist agenda website. Your reposting of this fallacious argument Loki used does not make it any more valid. The author contradicts himself even in his own article!!! He states that we assign the symbols 0 and 1 to stand for spaces where the voltages differ. "We observe that a location in a computer chip can be at one of two voltages. Taking these voltages as our idea we invent symbols for the two voltages: '1' and '0'."  How is that so much different than us assigning T, A, G, and C to the chemical bases at different locations on the DNA molecule.  While we use sequences of 0's and 1's to code for letters that transmit information we can read, the designer used T's, A's, G's, and C's to *digitally transmit instructions* for assembling proteins. The information in the DNA molecule is not the protein. It is translated by molecular machines to assemble proteins in the every same way the 0's and 1's are translated by the computer to build words or sentences. Even a 1st grader could see the similarity here!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh. What a confused and nonsensical response. You have decided on behalf of some imagined "designer" that 0's and 1's are analogous to T's, A's, G's, and C's. This is the confusion that Meyer groupies suffer from. You second level of confusion is the contrived "molecular machine" nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's such a stupid comparison that Harvard figured out a way to use DNA for digital data storage. But of course you and the author of your cut and paste are so much smarter than they are.
Click to expand...


Surprisingly, nothing in the above does a single thing to support your arguments for gawds.

It's as though I can only shrug my shoulders and despair at the hopelessness of the christian creationist mindset.

Interestingly, Harvard also teaches their in-coming students processes of science. Why, I'll even propose that with their concentration on studies such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Archaeology, students likely are exposed to that _evilution_ field that christian creationists insist is all one huge conspiracy.

Harvard College Freshman Dean's Office § Course Selection



> While every undergraduate meets the same requirements (Expository Writing, Core/Gen Ed., and Foreign Language) during his or her years at Harvard, the curriculum during the first year can vary greatly from student to student. Some students will build a program of foundation courses in languages, math, or science. Others will explore a wide range of fields, leading to a field of concentration, or pursue further work in areas of long-standing interest. Still others will experiment with fields not available in their high school programs, such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Archaeology, or Linguistics.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your response clarifies your comments about binary code. As usual, your response is totally irrelevant to the post you are addressing.
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to confront the failure of religious dogma to offer compelling answers to existence is your issue resolve. The fact is, science provides mechanisms that lead to an understanding of the natural world. Your frantic attempts to bastardize the science of biology with silly slogans and Christian creationist dogma underlies your desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to actually respond intelligently to a post is astonishing. Did you already forget my request to clarify your comments on binary code? Or did NP's response make you see how your parroting of his comments were in error and like always, now you are just choosing to ignore the question?
Click to expand...


Your refusal to address your need to make some connection between your alleged "designer" gawds and your fallacious connection between DNA _requiring_ your "designer" gawds is glaring but not unexpected. Simply copying and pasting christian creationist slogans used by Meyer and the Disco'tute is a poor substitute for a comprehensive description of "the gawds did it". As is typical of the christian zealot, you're forced to defend your claims with angry denials, with lashing out and with bad analogies that only parrot the creationist ministry politburo party line.


----------



## newpolitics

A few thoughts for UR, YWC, Lonestar, others:


The reason the ID argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in an intelligent designer.  Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that an intelligent being exists before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that others haven't already accepted the conclusions of the argument.

 I supsect ID theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have faith), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to faith. I can understand this: it simply seems intuitive. The problem is that intuition is not truth. This, if anything, is what science teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality is usually wrong. Just look at quantum mechanics. It is fundamentally unintuitive, even for todays particle physicists.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected on the meaning of digital, although this is somewhat unimportant, because to say something is digital is not terribly descriptive. All it means is the information comes in discrete, non-continuous bites, as opposed to analog information which comes in a continuous form, like sound. Smoke signals from a campfire used to communicate something is also digital information.  So, describing DNA as digital isn't very helpful. In fact, I couldn't imagine it any other way. If the information was analog, that would be far more amazing, and greater "evidence" of an intelligence. I can't even imagine how that would work. The fact that DNA is digital is not, by itself, amazing or good. Therefore, comparing to our own digital codes and simply concluding that there must be an intelligence is even more meaningless. Of course, *you add on the descriptors "specifiable and complex."* Whoopee. First of all, *complexity is not a sign of intelligence.*
> 
> 
> 
> If you add functionality and specificity, then it is a sign of intelligence. I have asked you before but you remain silent on producing a functional, specifiable information in digital form that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.  It wouldn't. That is the enigma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would expect these attributes of DNA to exist. *If they weren't specifiable or Complex, then that would be truly amazing,* and would be greater evidence for an intelligence, because that would beg the question: how is this possible??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should look around and find lots of amazing random things. Check this: "44"-Simply amazing!!! This last bolded comment makes on sense at all. If you know about Shannon information, then you know the number 3428594837498538375493930385674639340 is more complex than 46. It really isn't a feat to generate a random, complex number that doesn't do anything. However, when we add function and specificity, we find that this type of information does not occur randomly. This number, for example, is complex and specific, because if you enter it into a phone, it performs a specific function: 8085636553.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not talking about looking around at random things. We are talking about DNA. The fact that it is complex and specifiable is exactly what one might expect when its duty is to allow the production a very complex being: humans, rats, amoeba. Therefore, if somehow DNA wasn't complex or specifiable, that would be a stronger case for an intelligence. Likewise, if the information was analog, that would also be a stronger case. You seem to think these mere attributes of DNA being digital, complex and specifiable is evidence of anything else. That is logically fallacious. No conclusions can be drawn about DNA's origin merely from its attributes, especially something that is unfalsifiable.
Click to expand...


Restating the same argument does not keep it from being fallacious. You obviously don't have a grasp on what analog and digital are. Not surprising since you weren't born in the analog age but I remember records, tapes, AM Radio, and analog television. I doubt you know what a D/A converter is without googling it. *All of nature is analog!!!* What is shocking that we would find* digital code in dna*, which follows the same basic technology for information transfer we thought we invented!!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh. What a confused and nonsensical response. You have decided on behalf of some imagined "designer" that 0's and 1's are analogous to T's, A's, G's, and C's. This is the confusion that Meyer groupies suffer from. You second level of confusion is the contrived "molecular machine" nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's such a stupid comparison that Harvard figured out a way to use DNA for digital data storage. But of course you and the author of your cut and paste are so much smarter than they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surprisingly, nothing in the above does a single thing to support your arguments for gawds.
Click to expand...

 *This my friends is a prime example of "moving the goal posts.* Hawly just got owned by claiming that digital code in dna is not like binary computer code so when confronted with the evidence that it is so crazily similar it can be used for digital data storage, she defaults to her repetitive arguments about the gawds, hoping no one will notice that *she was WRONG*, and *HAS NO REBUTTAL* or support for her claim DNA cannot be compared to computer code. Here it is again for those who missed it...

_"A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard&#8217;s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data &#8212; around 700 terabytes &#8212; in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times."_

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> A few thoughts for UR, YWC, Lonestar, others:
> 
> The reason the ID argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in an intelligent designer.  Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that an intelligent being exists before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that others haven't already accepted the conclusions of the argument.
> 
> I supsect ID theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have faith), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to faith. I can understand this: it simply seems intuitive. The problem is that intuition is not truth. This, if anything, is what science teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality is usually wrong. Just look at quantum mechanics. It is fundamentally unintuitive, even for todays particle physicists.



Let's compare and contrast, shall we? 

A few thoughts for Daws, Hawly, NP, others:

The reason the evolution argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in materialism.  Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory of evolution, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that evolution is true before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that thousands of scientists have not accepted the theory of evolution. (twist on NP's appeal to the mob)

 I suspect evolutionary theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have a need to believe it is the only explanation), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to materialism, in addition to the need to justify their atheism, which many times is brought on by traumatic childhood experiences, including sexual abuse that results in same sex attraction (I just added that for NP and Hawly). I can understand this: they simply cannot come to grips that a loving God would let this happen to them. The problem is that intuition is not based on real science. This, if anything, is what the pseudo science of evolution teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality isn't right. So instead, we keep repeating to ourselves, even though this looks designed it isn't. And professors brainwash their students by pre programming their reaction to design by telling them when they make their observation, just keep remembering it wasn't designed. The theory of evolution has also dumbed down the other sciences, with its just so stories and inductively arrived at conclusions that they pretend are deducted "facts".  Just look at quantum mechanics. One must accept that our reality isn't the only reality since it requires multiple universes, invisible forces like dark matter and dark energy, other dimensions, and particles that disappear and reappear.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you realize that cutting and pasting from a non-christian creationist website actually contradicts your earlier statements?
> 
> You fundies should stay away from that vile science stuff.
> 
> "DNA code is a sequence of chemicals that form information that control how humans are made and how they work. *It is a digital code but it is not binary, but quaternary with 4 distinct items*. The encoding information in an ordered sequence of 4 different symbols called "bases", typically denoted A, C, G, and T.
> 
> So... apparently DNA is not the "digital machine" that fundies love to describe it as, so as to make goofy allegations such as "DNA is a digital machine. Since all machines require a designer, DNA is therfore the product of a designer.... and not just any designer, but a particular, identifiable designer alluded to in a book I read: the Bible. Since the Bible is true... kinda, sorta, and since I was told as a child that the Bible is true, the Bible is therefore true. And you read all this on the internet, it is absolutely true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I guess I really don't understand your point. That is, unless you are mistakenly assuming that binary code is the only digital code like NP is assuming. Or you are building a strawman that there was ever a claim that DNA is binary? Please clarify your nonsense.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're having difficulty defining your own argument. Your desperate efforts to bludgeon others with the circular reference about your gawds, "digital code" and an imagined designer are no less vague, discontinuous and contrived now than they were before.
> 
> Ironically, the very science you despise has actually expanded our knowledge about another of the intricate building blocks of life. Through ingenuity and the formidable power of science, what was once only a hypothesis is now understandable. The mumbo jumbo of "the gawds did it" falls further and further into the dustbin of fear and superstition.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to confront the failure of religious dogma to offer compelling answers to existence is your issue resolve. The fact is, science provides mechanisms that lead to an understanding of the natural world. Your frantic attempts to bastardize the science of biology with silly slogans and Christian creationist dogma underlies your desperation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to actually respond intelligently to a post is astonishing. *Did you already forget my request to clarify your comments on binary code?* Or did NP's response make you see how your parroting of his comments were in error and like always, now you are just choosing to ignore the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your refusal to address your need to make some connection between your alleged "designer" gawds and your fallacious connection between DNA _requiring_ your "designer" gawds is glaring but not unexpected. Simply copying and pasting christian creationist slogans used by Meyer and the Disco'tute is a poor substitute for a comprehensive description of "the gawds did it". As is typical of the christian zealot, you're forced to defend your claims with angry denials, with lashing out and with bad analogies that only parrot the creationist ministry politburo party line.
Click to expand...


That's all well and good but you never clarified *YOUR* specific reasons you believe binary computer code can't be compared to the digital code in dna. Still waiting.


----------



## UltimateReality

Information Storage in DNA on Vimeo


----------



## UltimateReality

_The dual role of LysRS is not viewed as a challenge to evolutionary theory by evolutionists. *This is not because evolutionary theory predicts or easily accommodates this finding, but rather because evolutionists assume evolution to be true to begin with****, so there can be no real challenges, only unsolved research problems.

In fact, evolutionists have accepted so many contradictions and false predictions that new contradictions have little impact. Evolutionists simply make vague speculations and move on.

But the dual role of LysRS is not easily accommodated by evolutionary theory. In fact, it is a major challenge. This is because evolution calls for a gradual buildup of functionality. New designs do not simply appear out of nowhere. Instead, rudimentary capability is supposed to have slowly been refined by chance events such as DNA mutations.

This makes the evolution of molecular machinery and processes&#8212;such as proteins and protein synthesis&#8212;not likely without a multiverse to provide a near infinite number of tries.

But ignoring such problems and assuming that proteins and processes could somehow evolve, *evolutionists must now believe that random mutations and natural selection simultaneously evolved LysRS for two completely different functions.*_

Darwin's God: Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the Same Protein

***Funny that this is what NP was accusing ID Theorists of.


----------



## UltimateReality

_Now I would be delighted to learn that I&#8217;ve stupidly overlooked some straightforward and compelling evolutionary explanation for all of this. I don&#8217;t have a dog in this fight. Perhaps evolution is true, perhaps it is false, or perhaps it is somewhere in between. I don&#8217;t care and if there is a scientific explanation of how this world of biology could have spontaneously arisen then I would gladly shout it out.

But instead of explanations all I get is pushback. *It&#8217;s all my fault for attacking science, we all know evolution is true, and besides god would never make viruses anyway.*

It illustrates the enormous gap between evolutionists and the evidence. For evolutionists there are no problems behind the assertion that evolution is a fact. There are only research problems of how evolution occurred. Objective, scientific evaluations of how the evidence actually bears on the theory are elusive. Religion drives science, and it matters. _

Hawly, have you been bugging Cornelius again?? 

Darwin's God: tRNA Synthetase Gene Sharing: Like the Movie Transformers


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's such a stupid comparison that Harvard figured out a way to use DNA for digital data storage. But of course you and the author of your cut and paste are so much smarter than they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surprisingly, nothing in the above does a single thing to support your arguments for gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *This my friends is a prime example of "moving the goal posts.* Hawly just got owned by claiming that digital code in dna is not like binary xcomputer code so when confronted with the evidence that it is so crazily similar it can be used for digital data storage, she defaults to her repetitive arguments about the gawds, hoping no one will notice that *she was WRONG*, and *HAS NO REBUTTAL* or support for her claim DNA cannot be compared to computer code. Here it is again for those who missed it...
> 
> _"A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvards Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data  around 700 terabytes  in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times."_
> 
> Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech
Click to expand...

What desperation on the part of the Christian creationist. Having had his argument pulled out from underneath him, he continues to post and re-post the same article. 

Here is the relevant question that the fundie is desperately trying to avoid answering: how does any of his cutting and pasting represent his gawds?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> A few thoughts for UR, YWC, Lonestar, others:
> 
> The reason the ID argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in an intelligent designer.  Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that an intelligent being exists before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that others haven't already accepted the conclusions of the argument.
> 
> I supsect ID theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have faith), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to faith. I can understand this: it simply seems intuitive. The problem is that intuition is not truth. This, if anything, is what science teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality is usually wrong. Just look at quantum mechanics. It is fundamentally unintuitive, even for todays particle physicists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's compare and contrast, shall we?
> 
> A few thoughts for Daws, Hawly, NP, others:
> 
> The reason the evolution argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in materialism.  Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory of evolution, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that evolution is true before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that thousands of scientists have not accepted the theory of evolution. (twist on NP's appeal to the mob)
> 
> I suspect evolutionary theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have a need to believe it is the only explanation), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to materialism, in addition to the need to justify their atheism, which many times is brought on by traumatic childhood experiences, including sexual abuse that results in same sex attraction (I just added that for NP and Hawly). I can understand this: they simply cannot come to grips that a loving God would let this happen to them. The problem is that intuition is not based on real science. This, if anything, is what the pseudo science of evolution teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality isn't right. So instead, we keep repeating to ourselves, even though this looks designed it isn't. And professors brainwash their students by pre programming their reaction to design by telling them when they make their observation, just keep remembering it wasn't designed. The theory of evolution has also dumbed down the other sciences, with its just so stories and inductively arrived at conclusions that they pretend are deducted "facts".  Just look at quantum mechanics. One must accept that our reality isn't the only reality since it requires multiple universes, invisible forces like dark matter and dark energy, other dimensions, and particles that disappear and reappear.
Click to expand...


There you go again, copying and pasting my post. 

There are no teleological or cosmological arguments for materialism.  A teleological argument for materialism doesn't make coherent sense. It is obvious you know nothing about this term. The teleological argument is the argument for a final cause, or a design, which necessarily precludes materialism. Nothing in materialism ever posits that there is a final cause. Therefore, again, you are making a categorical error. So, your lame tactic of copying and pasting my posts has backfired on you.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I guess I really don't understand your point. That is, unless you are mistakenly assuming that binary code is the only digital code like NP is assuming. Or you are building a strawman that there was ever a claim that DNA is binary? Please clarify your nonsense.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're having difficulty defining your own argument. Your desperate efforts to bludgeon others with the circular reference about your gawds, "digital code" and an imagined designer are no less vague, discontinuous and contrived now than they were before.
> 
> Ironically, the very science you despise has actually expanded our knowledge about another of the intricate building blocks of life. Through ingenuity and the formidable power of science, what was once only a hypothesis is now understandable. The mumbo jumbo of "the gawds did it" falls further and further into the dustbin of fear and superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to actually respond intelligently to a post is astonishing. *Did you already forget my request to clarify your comments on binary code?* Or did NP's response make you see how your parroting of his comments were in error and like always, now you are just choosing to ignore the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your refusal to address your need to make some connection between your alleged "designer" gawds and your fallacious connection between DNA _requiring_ your "designer" gawds is glaring but not unexpected. Simply copying and pasting christian creationist slogans used by Meyer and the Disco'tute is a poor substitute for a comprehensive description of "the gawds did it". As is typical of the christian zealot, you're forced to defend your claims with angry denials, with lashing out and with bad analogies that only parrot the creationist ministry politburo party line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all well and good but you never clarified *YOUR* specific reasons you believe binary computer code can't be compared to the digital code in dna. Still waiting.
Click to expand...

And here again we see the desperation that haunts the Christian fundie. He has no answer to some rather basic questions defining the poverty of his argument and is left to stagger and reel instead of responding with a relevant post.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprisingly, nothing in the above does a single thing to support your arguments for gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> *This my friends is a prime example of "moving the goal posts.* Hawly just got owned by claiming that digital code in dna is not like binary xcomputer code so when confronted with the evidence that it is so crazily similar it can be used for digital data storage, she defaults to her repetitive arguments about the gawds, hoping no one will notice that *she was WRONG*, and *HAS NO REBUTTAL* or support for her claim DNA cannot be compared to computer code. Here it is again for those who missed it...
> 
> _"A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvards Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data  around 700 terabytes  in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times."_
> 
> Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What desperation on the part of the Christian creationist. Having had his argument pulled out from underneath him, he continues to post and re-post the same article.
> 
> Here is the relevant question that the fundie is desperately trying to avoid answering: how does any of his cutting and pasting represent his gawds?
Click to expand...


The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.

If that is not enough for you go here.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> A few thoughts for UR, YWC, Lonestar, others:
> 
> The reason the ID argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in an intelligent designer.  Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that an intelligent being exists before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that others haven't already accepted the conclusions of the argument.
> 
> I supsect ID theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have faith), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to faith. I can understand this: it simply seems intuitive. The problem is that intuition is not truth. This, if anything, is what science teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality is usually wrong. Just look at quantum mechanics. It is fundamentally unintuitive, even for todays particle physicists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's compare and contrast, shall we?
> 
> A few thoughts for Daws, Hawly, NP, others:
> 
> The reason the evolution argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in materialism.  Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory of evolution, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that evolution is true before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that thousands of scientists have not accepted the theory of evolution. (twist on NP's appeal to the mob)
> 
> I suspect evolutionary theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have a need to believe it is the only explanation), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to materialism, in addition to the need to justify their atheism, which many times is brought on by traumatic childhood experiences, including sexual abuse that results in same sex attraction (I just added that for NP and Hawly). I can understand this: they simply cannot come to grips that a loving God would let this happen to them. The problem is that intuition is not based on real science. This, if anything, is what the pseudo science of evolution teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality isn't right. So instead, we keep repeating to ourselves, even though this looks designed it isn't. And professors brainwash their students by pre programming their reaction to design by telling them when they make their observation, just keep remembering it wasn't designed. The theory of evolution has also dumbed down the other sciences, with its just so stories and inductively arrived at conclusions that they pretend are deducted "facts".  Just look at quantum mechanics. One must accept that our reality isn't the only reality since it requires multiple universes, invisible forces like dark matter and dark energy, other dimensions, and particles that disappear and reappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, copying and pasting my post.
> 
> There are no teleological or cosmological arguments for materialism.  A teleological argument for materialism doesn't make coherent sense. It is obvious you know nothing about this term. The teleological argument is the argument for a final cause, or a design, which necessarily precludes materialism. Nothing in materialism ever posits that there is a final cause. Therefore, again, you are making a categorical error. So, your lame tactic of copying and pasting my posts has backfired on you.
Click to expand...


If a person can't examine something and see it is a product of design it's because they don't want to.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're having difficulty defining your own argument. Your desperate efforts to bludgeon others with the circular reference about your gawds, "digital code" and an imagined designer are no less vague, discontinuous and contrived now than they were before.
> 
> Ironically, the very science you despise has actually expanded our knowledge about another of the intricate building blocks of life. Through ingenuity and the formidable power of science, what was once only a hypothesis is now understandable. The mumbo jumbo of "the gawds did it" falls further and further into the dustbin of fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your refusal to address your need to make some connection between your alleged "designer" gawds and your fallacious connection between DNA _requiring_ your "designer" gawds is glaring but not unexpected. Simply copying and pasting christian creationist slogans used by Meyer and the Disco'tute is a poor substitute for a comprehensive description of "the gawds did it". As is typical of the christian zealot, you're forced to defend your claims with angry denials, with lashing out and with bad analogies that only parrot the creationist ministry politburo party line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all well and good but you never clarified *YOUR* specific reasons you believe binary computer code can't be compared to the digital code in dna. Still waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And here again we see the desperation that haunts the Christian fundie. He has no answer to some rather basic questions defining the poverty of his argument and is left to stagger and reel instead of responding with a relevant post.
Click to expand...


You avoid questions by accusations that miss their mark.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all well and good but you never clarified *YOUR* specific reasons you believe binary computer code can't be compared to the digital code in dna. Still waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> And here again we see the desperation that haunts the Christian fundie. He has no answer to some rather basic questions defining the poverty of his argument and is left to stagger and reel instead of responding with a relevant post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You avoid questions by accusations that miss their mark.
Click to expand...


Yet another pointless comment.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This my friends is a prime example of "moving the goal posts.* Hawly just got owned by claiming that digital code in dna is not like binary xcomputer code so when confronted with the evidence that it is so crazily similar it can be used for digital data storage, she defaults to her repetitive arguments about the gawds, hoping no one will notice that *she was WRONG*, and *HAS NO REBUTTAL* or support for her claim DNA cannot be compared to computer code. Here it is again for those who missed it...
> 
> _"A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvards Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data  around 700 terabytes  in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times."_
> 
> Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech
> 
> 
> 
> What desperation on the part of the Christian creationist. Having had his argument pulled out from underneath him, he continues to post and re-post the same article.
> 
> Here is the relevant question that the fundie is desperately trying to avoid answering: how does any of his cutting and pasting represent his gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.
> 
> If that is not enough for you go here.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.
Click to expand...

Buddy, just the first 3: 1. the earth doesn't "free-float in space" 

2. Hebrew 11.3 doesn't talk about particles, it's too vague to have any real meaning.

and 3. boats were being made as long as 7000 years ago, so whomever wrote the bible 5000 years later... well, you get the idea.

and even 4. Gee, wash in running water instead of standing water. Gee, were these folks GENIUSES or what?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's compare and contrast, shall we?
> 
> A few thoughts for Daws, Hawly, NP, others:
> 
> The reason the evolution argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in materialism.  Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory of evolution, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that evolution is true before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that thousands of scientists have not accepted the theory of evolution. (twist on NP's appeal to the mob)
> 
> I suspect evolutionary theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have a need to believe it is the only explanation), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to materialism, in addition to the need to justify their atheism, which many times is brought on by traumatic childhood experiences, including sexual abuse that results in same sex attraction (I just added that for NP and Hawly). I can understand this: they simply cannot come to grips that a loving God would let this happen to them. The problem is that intuition is not based on real science. This, if anything, is what the pseudo science of evolution teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality isn't right. So instead, we keep repeating to ourselves, even though this looks designed it isn't. And professors brainwash their students by pre programming their reaction to design by telling them when they make their observation, just keep remembering it wasn't designed. The theory of evolution has also dumbed down the other sciences, with its just so stories and inductively arrived at conclusions that they pretend are deducted "facts".  Just look at quantum mechanics. One must accept that our reality isn't the only reality since it requires multiple universes, invisible forces like dark matter and dark energy, other dimensions, and particles that disappear and reappear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, copying and pasting my post.
> 
> There are no teleological or cosmological arguments for materialism.  A teleological argument for materialism doesn't make coherent sense. It is obvious you know nothing about this term. The teleological argument is the argument for a final cause, or a design, which necessarily precludes materialism. Nothing in materialism ever posits that there is a final cause. Therefore, again, you are making a categorical error. So, your lame tactic of copying and pasting my posts has backfired on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a person can't examine something and see it is a product of design it's because they don't want to.
Click to expand...

Pointless.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This my friends is a prime example of "moving the goal posts.* Hawly just got owned by claiming that digital code in dna is not like binary xcomputer code so when confronted with the evidence that it is so crazily similar it can be used for digital data storage, she defaults to her repetitive arguments about the gawds, hoping no one will notice that *she was WRONG*, and *HAS NO REBUTTAL* or support for her claim DNA cannot be compared to computer code. Here it is again for those who missed it...
> 
> _"A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvards Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data  around 700 terabytes  in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times."_
> 
> Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech
> 
> 
> 
> What desperation on the part of the Christian creationist. Having had his argument pulled out from underneath him, he continues to post and re-post the same article.
> 
> Here is the relevant question that the fundie is desperately trying to avoid answering: how does any of his cutting and pasting represent his gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.
> 
> If that is not enough for you go here.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.
Click to expand...

That was enough for me. We can therefore agree that you don't need to cut and paste from "infernal productions", ever, ever again.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> A few thoughts for UR, YWC, Lonestar, others:
> 
> The reason the ID argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in an intelligent designer.  Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that an intelligent being exists before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that others haven't already accepted the conclusions of the argument.
> 
> I supsect ID theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have faith), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to faith. I can understand this: it simply seems intuitive. The problem is that intuition is not truth. This, if anything, is what science teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality is usually wrong. Just look at quantum mechanics. It is fundamentally unintuitive, even for todays particle physicists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's compare and contrast, shall we?
> 
> A few thoughts for Daws, Hawly, NP, others:
> 
> The reason the evolution argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in materialism.  Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory of evolution, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that evolution is true before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that thousands of scientists have not accepted the theory of evolution. (twist on NP's appeal to the mob)
> 
> I suspect evolutionary theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have a need to believe it is the only explanation), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to materialism, in addition to the need to justify their atheism, which many times is brought on by traumatic childhood experiences, including sexual abuse that results in same sex attraction (I just added that for NP and Hawly). I can understand this: they simply cannot come to grips that a loving God would let this happen to them. The problem is that intuition is not based on real science. This, if anything, is what the pseudo science of evolution teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality isn't right. So instead, we keep repeating to ourselves, even though this looks designed it isn't. And professors brainwash their students by pre programming their reaction to design by telling them when they make their observation, just keep remembering it wasn't designed. The theory of evolution has also dumbed down the other sciences, with its just so stories and inductively arrived at conclusions that they pretend are deducted "facts".  Just look at quantum mechanics. One must accept that our reality isn't the only reality since it requires multiple universes, invisible forces like dark matter and dark energy, other dimensions, and particles that disappear and reappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, copying and pasting my post.
> 
> There are no teleological or cosmological arguments for materialism.  A teleological argument for materialism doesn't make coherent sense. It is obvious you know nothing about this term. The teleological argument is the argument for a final cause, or a design, which necessarily precludes materialism. Nothing in materialism ever posits that there is a final cause. Therefore, again, you are making a categorical error. So, your lame tactic of copying and pasting my posts has backfired on you.
Click to expand...


I absolutely know the term. Materialists continue to borrow "design" terminology while denying design. Their descriptions are teleological. Once again you think you know, only to find out you are wrong.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're having difficulty defining your own argument. Your desperate efforts to bludgeon others with the circular reference about your gawds, "digital code" and an imagined designer are no less vague, discontinuous and contrived now than they were before.
> 
> Ironically, the very science you despise has actually expanded our knowledge about another of the intricate building blocks of life. Through ingenuity and the formidable power of science, what was once only a hypothesis is now understandable. The mumbo jumbo of "the gawds did it" falls further and further into the dustbin of fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your refusal to address your need to make some connection between your alleged "designer" gawds and your fallacious connection between DNA _requiring_ your "designer" gawds is glaring but not unexpected. Simply copying and pasting christian creationist slogans used by Meyer and the Disco'tute is a poor substitute for a comprehensive description of "the gawds did it". As is typical of the christian zealot, you're forced to defend your claims with angry denials, with lashing out and with bad analogies that only parrot the creationist ministry politburo party line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all well and good but you never clarified *YOUR* specific reasons you believe binary computer code can't be compared to the digital code in dna. Still waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And here again we see the desperation that haunts the Christian fundie. He has no answer to some rather basic questions defining the poverty of his argument and is left to stagger and reel instead of responding with a relevant post.
Click to expand...


You can never just answer the question. You're are obviously mentally retarded.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What desperation on the part of the Christian creationist. Having had his argument pulled out from underneath him, he continues to post and re-post the same article.
> 
> Here is the relevant question that the fundie is desperately trying to avoid answering: how does any of his cutting and pasting represent his gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.
> 
> If that is not enough for you go here.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was enough for me. We can therefore agree that you don't need to cut and paste from "infernal productions", ever, ever again.
Click to expand...


As long as you stop the rabid cutting and pasting from Panda's Thumb.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's compare and contrast, shall we?
> 
> A few thoughts for Daws, Hawly, NP, others:
> 
> The reason the evolution argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in materialism.  Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory of evolution, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that evolution is true before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that thousands of scientists have not accepted the theory of evolution. (twist on NP's appeal to the mob)
> 
> I suspect evolutionary theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have a need to believe it is the only explanation), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to materialism, in addition to the need to justify their atheism, which many times is brought on by traumatic childhood experiences, including sexual abuse that results in same sex attraction (I just added that for NP and Hawly). I can understand this: they simply cannot come to grips that a loving God would let this happen to them. The problem is that intuition is not based on real science. This, if anything, is what the pseudo science of evolution teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality isn't right. So instead, we keep repeating to ourselves, even though this looks designed it isn't. And professors brainwash their students by pre programming their reaction to design by telling them when they make their observation, just keep remembering it wasn't designed. The theory of evolution has also dumbed down the other sciences, with its just so stories and inductively arrived at conclusions that they pretend are deducted "facts".  Just look at quantum mechanics. One must accept that our reality isn't the only reality since it requires multiple universes, invisible forces like dark matter and dark energy, other dimensions, and particles that disappear and reappear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, copying and pasting my post.
> 
> There are no teleological or cosmological arguments for materialism.  A teleological argument for materialism doesn't make coherent sense. It is obvious you know nothing about this term. The teleological argument is the argument for a final cause, or a design, which necessarily precludes materialism. Nothing in materialism ever posits that there is a final cause. Therefore, again, you are making a categorical error. So, your lame tactic of copying and pasting my posts has backfired on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely know the term. Materialists continue to borrow "design" terminology while denying design. Their descriptions are teleological. Once again you think you know, only to find out you are wrong.
Click to expand...

You're completely befuddled. Terms associated with Christian creationism are appeals to your supernatural gawds, magic and miracles. If you had studied any of the relevant physical or biological sciences, you would have learned that a science curriculum is devote to practical theory, evidence, repeatable results, etc.

You would do yourself the biggest favor by exploring the scientific method and discovering how science reaches a concensus on facts.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.
> 
> If that is not enough for you go here.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.
> 
> 
> 
> That was enough for me. We can therefore agree that you don't need to cut and paste from "infernal productions", ever, ever again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as you stop the rabid cutting and pasting from Panda's Thumb.
Click to expand...

I understand your objection as your Christian creationist fallacies are so thoroughly dismantled. Your objection to knowledge derives from your indoctrination in Christian apologetics. You need to learn that science and knowledge will invariably supplant fear and superstition. You shouldn't let mere indoctrination in a religious / supernatural worldview necessarily be an obstacle to shedding the ignorance you embrace.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all well and good but you never clarified *YOUR* specific reasons you believe binary computer code can't be compared to the digital code in dna. Still waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> And here again we see the desperation that haunts the Christian fundie. He has no answer to some rather basic questions defining the poverty of his argument and is left to stagger and reel instead of responding with a relevant post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can never just answer the question. You're are obviously mentally retarded.
Click to expand...


My, but you are the prototypical angry Christian creationist. You're angry that your attempts to associate DNA coding with your alleged gawds has gone horribly wrong. That really shouldn't surprise you. Christian fundies have been unable to offer a coherent argument for their gawds that doesn't rely on attacks aimed at science. While Christian fundies will pick and choose science data just as they pick and choose religious dogma, the body of science supporting the natural elements for existence leaves little room for supermagicalism and fear of an angry, paternal supernatural entity.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Evolutionist assume life arose spontaneously which requires more faith than believing in God.

No organism has been found that didn't have some sort of parent. 

Do evolutionist believe in souls?

If so, then why isn't that ever explored?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is a philosophy not a religion and I am not of the same religion as robertson.
> 
> 
> 
> lie! Christianity is a religion  and a philosophy.
> if you believe in THE CHRISTIAN GOD, JESUS ETC... you are the same religion as pat Robertson or Jim Jones and David koresh..
> any difference you profess is cosmetic and false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, you are wrong 241,000 religions makes Christanity a philosophy. Every religion has their own set of doctrines and everyone of them claim to have the truth.
Click to expand...

that's not an answer! what part of "Christianity is a religion  and a philosophy." do you not understand? 
must be the same willful ignorance that you use when denying  other facts. 


 American Atheists Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:

Im a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert. Trust me; Christianity is a religion by any modern definition. According to my theology professors, Christianity has been and always will be a religion. Every priest, every pastor, every Sunday School teacher, choir member, deacon, usher, and pew sitter will tell you that Christianity is a religion. So where did Mr. OReilly come up with this idea? Oh! I know! The tides told him.

Bill O&#8217;Reilly: &#8216;Christianity is Not a Religion; It&#8217;s a Philosophy&#8217;


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lie! Christianity is a religion  and a philosophy.
> if you believe in THE CHRISTIAN GOD, JESUS ETC... you are the same religion as pat Robertson or Jim Jones and David koresh..
> any difference you profess is cosmetic and false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you are wrong 241,000 religions makes Christanity a philosophy. Every religion has their own set of doctrines and everyone of them claim to have the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's not an answer! what part of "Christianity is a religion  and a philosophy." do you not understand?
> must be the same willful ignorance that you use when denying  other facts.
> 
> 
> American Atheists Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:
> 
> Im a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert. Trust me; Christianity is a religion by any modern definition. According to my theology professors, Christianity has been and always will be a religion. Every priest, every pastor, every Sunday School teacher, choir member, deacon, usher, and pew sitter will tell you that Christianity is a religion. So where did Mr. OReilly come up with this idea? Oh! I know! The tides told him.
> 
> Bill OReilly: Christianity is Not a Religion; Its a Philosophy
Click to expand...


An atheist is going to tell us what is or isn't a religion?


No bias there.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Lonestar_logic said:


> Evolutionist assume life arose spontaneously which requires more faith than believing in God.
> 
> No organism has been found that didn't have some sort of parent.
> 
> Do evolutionist believe in souls?
> 
> If so, then why isn't that ever explored?



Because they lack souls....  take away the soul, we're all so much water and minerals... and that cannot be explained with scientific equations.  Therein  they run into the brick wall that is their belief system.


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are right. Your failed attempt to assassinate my character by insinuating i'm an alcoholic was pretty lame.
> 
> 
> 
> your character need no help from me to be assassinated  as you commit character suicide in every post, for all to see.
> Wrong tosspot!  I insinuated nothing if i wanted to call you an alcoholic ,i would have done so.
> On the other hand *your answer hints at the fact that you might have an alcohol problem*.
> The whole post is another failed attempt at spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> okay, parrot.
Click to expand...

 ok what? Tosspot !


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence all around you. You just choose blindness.
> 
> *Hebrews 11(NIV)*
> 
> 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
> 
> 3 By faith we understand that *the universe was formed at Gods command*, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
> 
> *Romans 1(NIV)*
> 
> 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world *Gods invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made*, so that people are without excuse.
> 
> 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is circular reasoning.
> 
> You can't use the bible to prove the bible's claims about god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't, so wrong. The Bible says we can know God exists based on the things he has made. You can't see it because your thinking is futile and your heart is darkened.
Click to expand...

 Still using the bible to make your argument is not proof.
there is no quantifiable proof that god made anything.
you're wrong as always !


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you are wrong 241,000 religions makes Christanity a philosophy. Every religion has their own set of doctrines and everyone of them claim to have the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> that's not an answer! what part of "Christianity is a religion  and a philosophy." do you not understand?
> must be the same willful ignorance that you use when denying  other facts.
> 
> 
> American Atheists&#8217; Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:
> 
> I&#8217;m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert. Trust me; Christianity is a religion by any modern definition. According to my theology professors, Christianity has been and always will be a religion. Every priest, every pastor, every Sunday School teacher, choir member, deacon, usher, and pew sitter will tell you that Christianity is a religion. So where did Mr. O&#8217;Reilly come up with this idea? Oh! I know! The tides told him.
> 
> Bill O&#8217;Reilly: &#8216;Christianity is Not a Religion; It&#8217;s a Philosophy&#8217;
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An atheist is going to tell us what is or isn't a religion?
> 
> 
> No bias there.
Click to expand...

who the fuck is "us"
GUESS YOU'RE ILLITERATE TOO "American Atheists&#8217; Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:

I&#8217;m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert."

please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid  just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
who's bias again?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, let me guess. Are you talking about your rugged man hands stimulating the mutant known as Daws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good gawd what an angry creationist. I suppose that when you arguments have failed (as have your creepy advances), you have nothing left but schoolboy taunts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a yes or no question.
Click to expand...

another epic fail  at spin..


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's not an answer! what part of "Christianity is a religion  and a philosophy." do you not understand?
> must be the same willful ignorance that you use when denying  other facts.
> 
> 
> American Atheists Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:
> 
> Im a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert. Trust me; Christianity is a religion by any modern definition. According to my theology professors, Christianity has been and always will be a religion. Every priest, every pastor, every Sunday School teacher, choir member, deacon, usher, and pew sitter will tell you that Christianity is a religion. So where did Mr. OReilly come up with this idea? Oh! I know! The tides told him.
> 
> Bill OReilly: Christianity is Not a Religion; Its a Philosophy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist is going to tell us what is or isn't a religion?
> 
> 
> No bias there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who the fuck is "us"
> GUESS YOU'RE ILLITERATE TOO "American Atheists Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:
> 
> Im a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert."
> 
> please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid  just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
> that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
> who's bias again?
Click to expand...


Your analogy is as weak as your brain.

Her opinion isn't invalid, it's simply wrong.


And "us" doesn't mean you so get off your self righteous horse.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't, so wrong. The Bible says we can know God exists based on the things he has made. You can't see it because your thinking is futile and your heart is darkened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this not circular? The bible lists the things god has made, and then tells you to look at them, to find evidence of him. That is circular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't even make sense. I think you have totally lost it now.
Click to expand...


false ! another fine example of character suicide ! 
 claim your opponent has comprehension problems ploy, 
when your ass is in a crack.
it's a classic from the I know you are but what am I school of losers.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist is going to tell us what is or isn't a religion?
> 
> 
> No bias there.
> 
> 
> 
> who the fuck is "us"
> GUESS YOU'RE ILLITERATE TOO "American Atheists Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:
> 
> Im a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert."
> 
> please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid  just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
> that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
> who's bias again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your analogy is as weak as your brain.
> 
> Her opinion isn't invalid, it's simply wrong.
> 
> 
> And "us" doesn't mean you so get off your self righteous horse.
Click to expand...

 this is no answer.
but sadly it's the best you could do since you have no evidence to prove she is wrong .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are discussing science why do you want to leave this subject ?
> 
> 
> 
> no you're not stop dodging
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Open systems and closed systems plus viruses are not science Daws ?
Click to expand...

coming from believers like yourself in  pseudoscience and deniers of fact (the bible has mistakes and errors in it) 
is not science... your use of the terms: " Open systems and closed systems plus viruses" is false evidence of of your agenda ,and not science.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do most molecular biologist possess to work in this field I posted it for you ?
> 
> 
> 
> you mean these thing you lack?: Common Requirements
> Degree Level  Ph.D.*
> Degree Field  Molecular biology or a related field*
> Key Skills  Analytical skills, communication skills, problem solving skills, critical thinking skills*
> Technical Skills  Operation of cloning vectors, temperature cycling chambers, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometers, volumetric pipettes**
> Computer Skills  Use of analytical and scientific software, graphical imaging software**
> 
> Sources: *U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, **O Net OnLine.
> 
> Step 1 - Earn a Bachelor's Degree
> A molecular biologist can earn an undergraduate degree in molecular biology. In some cases, the degree may be in cell and molecular biology or exist as a concentration within a biology program. Students take science courses that include biology, chemistry, physics and genetics. Students also take lab courses, learning about proper use of equipment and experimental procedure.
> 
> Success Tip:
> Participate in research opportunities. Undergraduates can find research opportunities either through a program designated for undergraduates or by making a special request to faculty. Research at the undergraduate level can help students improve critical thinking skills and build professional skills as well as learn to implement and perform credible research.
> Step 2 - Earn a Graduate Degree
> According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, most molecular biologists require a Ph.D. Some molecular biologists may choose to earn a master's degree prior to pursuing a Ph.D. program, but many doctoral programs accept students without a master's degree. The Ph.D. program generally lasts 4-6 years and includes advanced coursework and required research. Ph.D. candidates will likely have to pass a qualifying exam, during which they are assessed on their knowledge of molecular biology. They also have to introduce a research thesis. Ph.D. candidates have to write a dissertation based on their ongoing research and defend their theses to graduate from the program. Ph.D. programs may also include a teaching requirement.
> 
> Success Tip:
> Publish research in a peer-reviewed journal. Research that has been peer-reviewed by other scientists serves as a proof that the research method and results are credible. Graduate students can have research results published as a co-author or as a lead author on a research study.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I hold a molecular biologist degree daws if you are correct ?
Click to expand...

if it's not a PhD Common Requirements 
Degree Level  Ph.D.* 
then you are not a molecular biologist 

also you have not: Published research in a peer-reviewed journal (if Im' wrong post a link to the paper)
 it's clear you are not a PhD


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, let me guess. Are you talking about your rugged man hands stimulating the mutant known as Daws?
> 
> 
> 
> another false and childish gay slur!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously??? How is this gay if Hollie is a woman? Do you know of any guys named Hollie? Plus, when she was pressed on the other forum about her sex, she responded not "I am man". She responded, "I am of the male persuasion." So let me get this straight. If Hollie is woman who thinks she's a man and she gives you a back rub, is that gay?
Click to expand...

another false and childish gay slur!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This my friends is a prime example of "moving the goal posts.* Hawly just got owned by claiming that digital code in dna is not like binary xcomputer code so when confronted with the evidence that it is so crazily similar it can be used for digital data storage, she defaults to her repetitive arguments about the gawds, hoping no one will notice that *she was WRONG*, and *HAS NO REBUTTAL* or support for her claim DNA cannot be compared to computer code. Here it is again for those who missed it...
> 
> _"A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvards Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data  around 700 terabytes  in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times."_
> 
> Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech
> 
> 
> 
> What desperation on the part of the Christian creationist. Having had his argument pulled out from underneath him, he continues to post and re-post the same article.
> 
> Here is the relevant question that the fundie is desperately trying to avoid answering: how does any of his cutting and pasting represent his gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.
> 
> If that is not enough for you go here.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.
Click to expand...



Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge is neither!
there is no corroborating evidence for those claims.
all of them have been proven to be either fictitious or intentionally misrepresented.
again it's an attempt to prove the bible by using the bible


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lie! Christianity is a religion  and a philosophy.
> if you believe in THE CHRISTIAN GOD, JESUS ETC... you are the same religion as pat Robertson or Jim Jones and David koresh..
> any difference you profess is cosmetic and false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you are wrong 241,000 religions makes Christanity a philosophy. Every religion has their own set of doctrines and everyone of them claim to have the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's not an answer! what part of "Christianity is a religion  and a philosophy." do you not understand?
> must be the same willful ignorance that you use when denying  other facts.
> 
> 
> American Atheists Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:
> 
> Im a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert. Trust me; Christianity is a religion by any modern definition. According to my theology professors, Christianity has been and always will be a religion. Every priest, every pastor, every Sunday School teacher, choir member, deacon, usher, and pew sitter will tell you that Christianity is a religion. So where did Mr. OReilly come up with this idea? Oh! I know! The tides told him.
> 
> Bill OReilly: Christianity is Not a Religion; Its a Philosophy
Click to expand...


Earlier someone brought up pat robertson but like i said before pat robertson represents his religion not all of Christanity.

You stereo type daws. You try to wrap all Christians in one group and we are not one group.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is circular reasoning.
> 
> You can't use the bible to prove the bible's claims about god.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't, so wrong. The Bible says we can know God exists based on the things he has made. You can't see it because your thinking is futile and your heart is darkened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still using the bible to make your argument is not proof.
> there is no quantifiable proof that god made anything.
> you're wrong as always !
Click to expand...


Still using your textbooks and online sites to make your arguments daws ?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> who the fuck is "us"
> GUESS YOU'RE ILLITERATE TOO "American Atheists Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:
> 
> Im a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert."
> 
> please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid  just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
> that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
> who's bias again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy is as weak as your brain.
> 
> Her opinion isn't invalid, it's simply wrong.
> 
> 
> And "us" doesn't mean you so get off your self righteous horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is no answer.
> but sadly it's the best you could do since you have no evidence to prove she is wrong .
Click to expand...


Before I can offer an answer there needs to be a valid question.

If you think that Teresa holds no bias then you are dumber than you look.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no you're not stop dodging
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open systems and closed systems plus viruses are not science Daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> coming from believers like yourself in  pseudoscience and deniers of fact (the bible has mistakes and errors in it)
> is not science... your use of the terms: " Open systems and closed systems plus viruses" is false evidence of of your agenda ,and not science.
Click to expand...


I used sources on your side of the argument. Prove what you say is accurate ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean these thing you lack?: Common Requirements
> Degree Level  Ph.D.*
> Degree Field  Molecular biology or a related field*
> Key Skills  Analytical skills, communication skills, problem solving skills, critical thinking skills*
> Technical Skills  Operation of cloning vectors, temperature cycling chambers, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometers, volumetric pipettes**
> Computer Skills  Use of analytical and scientific software, graphical imaging software**
> 
> Sources: *U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, **O Net OnLine.
> 
> Step 1 - Earn a Bachelor's Degree
> A molecular biologist can earn an undergraduate degree in molecular biology. In some cases, the degree may be in cell and molecular biology or exist as a concentration within a biology program. Students take science courses that include biology, chemistry, physics and genetics. Students also take lab courses, learning about proper use of equipment and experimental procedure.
> 
> Success Tip:
> &#8226;Participate in research opportunities. Undergraduates can find research opportunities either through a program designated for undergraduates or by making a special request to faculty. Research at the undergraduate level can help students improve critical thinking skills and build professional skills as well as learn to implement and perform credible research.
> Step 2 - Earn a Graduate Degree
> According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, most molecular biologists require a Ph.D. Some molecular biologists may choose to earn a master's degree prior to pursuing a Ph.D. program, but many doctoral programs accept students without a master's degree. The Ph.D. program generally lasts 4-6 years and includes advanced coursework and required research. Ph.D. candidates will likely have to pass a qualifying exam, during which they are assessed on their knowledge of molecular biology. They also have to introduce a research thesis. Ph.D. candidates have to write a dissertation based on their ongoing research and defend their theses to graduate from the program. Ph.D. programs may also include a teaching requirement.
> 
> Success Tip:
> &#8226;Publish research in a peer-reviewed journal. Research that has been peer-reviewed by other scientists serves as a proof that the research method and results are credible. Graduate students can have research results published as a co-author or as a lead author on a research study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I hold a molecular biologist degree daws if you are correct ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if it's not a PhD Common Requirements
> Degree Level  Ph.D.*
> then you are not a molecular biologist
> 
> also you have not: Published research in a peer-reviewed journal (if Im' wrong post a link to the paper)
> it's clear you are not a PhD
Click to expand...


You are so wrong and you do not know what I hold. Once again you do not have to hold a Phd to do the work of a molecular biologist. You are simply talking out your rear again.

http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2009/11/27/should-you-get-a-phd/


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What desperation on the part of the Christian creationist. Having had his argument pulled out from underneath him, he continues to post and re-post the same article.
> 
> Here is the relevant question that the fundie is desperately trying to avoid answering: how does any of his cutting and pasting represent his gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.
> 
> If that is not enough for you go here.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge is neither!
> there is no corroborating evidence for those claims.
> all of them have been proven to be either fictitious or intentionally misrepresented.
> again it's an attempt to prove the bible by using the bible
Click to expand...


Do you acknowledge the Bible was written thousands of years ago?

If so, then explain how the authors would know about certain things they wrote about... such as hydrothermal vents (of which geologist didn't discover unti the 1970's),that the ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains and that the entire universe is in a state of increasing decay or entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics).


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What desperation on the part of the Christian creationist. Having had his argument pulled out from underneath him, he continues to post and re-post the same article.
> 
> Here is the relevant question that the fundie is desperately trying to avoid answering: how does any of his cutting and pasting represent his gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.
> 
> If that is not enough for you go here.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge is neither!
> there is no corroborating evidence for those claims.
> all of them have been proven to be either fictitious or intentionally misrepresented.
> again it's an attempt to prove the bible by using the bible
Click to expand...


You lie or show me someting to support your accusation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy is as weak as your brain.
> 
> Her opinion isn't invalid, it's simply wrong.
> 
> 
> And "us" doesn't mean you so get off your self righteous horse.
> 
> 
> 
> this is no answer.
> but sadly it's the best you could do since you have no evidence to prove she is wrong .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before I can offer an answer there needs to be a valid question.
> 
> If you think that Teresa holds no bias then you are dumber than you look.
Click to expand...


Oh he is dumber then he looks.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.
> 
> If that is not enough for you go here.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge is neither!
> there is no corroborating evidence for those claims.
> all of them have been proven to be either fictitious or intentionally misrepresented.
> again it's an attempt to prove the bible by using the bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you acknowledge the Bible was written thousands of years ago?
> 
> If so, then explain how the authors would know about certain things they wrote about... such as hydrothermal vents (of which geologist didn't discover unti the 1970's),that the ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains and that the entire universe is in a state of increasing decay or entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics).
Click to expand...

Debunked previously.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge is neither!
> there is no corroborating evidence for those claims.
> all of them have been proven to be either fictitious or intentionally misrepresented.
> again it's an attempt to prove the bible by using the bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you acknowledge the Bible was written thousands of years ago?
> 
> If so, then explain how the authors would know about certain things they wrote about... such as hydrothermal vents (of which geologist didn't discover unti the 1970's),that the ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains and that the entire universe is in a state of increasing decay or entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Debunked previously.
Click to expand...


No it was never debunked.

Facts are a stubborn thing.

The Bible mentions hydrothermal vents, mountains and valleys on the ocean floor and many other things that are scientifically consistent with what we know today. And having been written thousands of years ago, you nor anyone else has explained how these men could have possibly known these things.


Don't bother responding. 

I already know you will not give an intelligent explanation. 

Your intellect is limited to asinine comments and insults.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you are wrong 241,000 religions makes Christanity a philosophy. Every religion has their own set of doctrines and everyone of them claim to have the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> that's not an answer! what part of "Christianity is a religion  and a philosophy." do you not understand?
> must be the same willful ignorance that you use when denying  other facts.
> 
> 
> American Atheists Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:
> 
> Im a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert. Trust me; Christianity is a religion by any modern definition. According to my theology professors, Christianity has been and always will be a religion. Every priest, every pastor, every Sunday School teacher, choir member, deacon, usher, and pew sitter will tell you that Christianity is a religion. So where did Mr. OReilly come up with this idea? Oh! I know! The tides told him.
> 
> Bill OReilly: Christianity is Not a Religion; Its a Philosophy
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earlier someone brought up pat robertson but like i said before pat robertson represents his religion not all of Christanity.
> 
> You stereo type daws. You try to wrap all Christians in one group and we are not one group.
Click to expand...

wrong as always.  pat Robertson  represents a sect (a part of Christianity) not another religion, He ,like yourself he also represents Christianity  as a whole. 
when you say another religion, by definition you're saying  "not Christianity".
so you're either lying or too ignorant to know the difference.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't, so wrong. The Bible says we can know God exists based on the things he has made. You can't see it because your thinking is futile and your heart is darkened.
> 
> 
> 
> Still using the bible to make your argument is not proof.
> there is no quantifiable proof that god made anything.
> you're wrong as always !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still using your textbooks and online sites to make your arguments daws ?
Click to expand...

you mean just like you or that I actually know how to use them?


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy is as weak as your brain.
> 
> Her opinion isn't invalid, it's simply wrong.
> 
> 
> And "us" doesn't mean you so get off your self righteous horse.
> 
> 
> 
> this is no answer.
> but sadly it's the best you could do since you have no evidence to prove she is wrong .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before I can offer an answer there needs to be a valid question.
> 
> If you think that Teresa holds no bias then you are dumber than you look.
Click to expand...

here we go ...
it depends on what you mean by bias ?
it appears that she got rid off a several Christian biases to replace them with a more objective and rational  pov.
the only people claiming that the change is bias are practioners of their own biases.
it still not an answer to my question  
which still remains: please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
who's bias again?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open systems and closed systems plus viruses are not science Daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> coming from believers like yourself in  pseudoscience and deniers of fact (the bible has mistakes and errors in it)
> is not science... your use of the terms: " Open systems and closed systems plus viruses" is false evidence of of your agenda ,and not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used sources on your side of the argument. Prove what you say is accurate ?
Click to expand...

already have


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I hold a molecular biologist degree daws if you are correct ?
> 
> 
> 
> if it's not a PhD Common Requirements
> Degree Level  Ph.D.*
> then you are not a molecular biologist
> 
> also you have not: Published research in a peer-reviewed journal (if Im' wrong post a link to the paper)
> it's clear you are not a PhD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so wrong and you do not know what I hold. Once again you do not have to hold a Phd to do the work of a molecular biologist. You are simply talking out your rear again.
> 
> Should You Get a Ph.D.? &#8211; Mike the Mad Biologist
Click to expand...

yes I do know what degree you hold it's a A.A. unless that's a lie too.
doing the "work"  of a molecular biologist"is not the same as being one.
still waiting on that paper .


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you acknowledge the Bible was written thousands of years ago?
> 
> If so, then explain how the authors would know about certain things they wrote about... such as hydrothermal vents (of which geologist didn't discover unti the 1970's),that the ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains and that the entire universe is in a state of increasing decay or entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics).
> 
> 
> 
> Debunked previously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it was never debunked.
> 
> Facts are a stubborn thing.
> 
> The Bible mentions hydrothermal vents, mountains and valleys on the ocean floor and many other things that are scientifically consistent with what we know today. And having been written thousands of years ago, you nor anyone else has explained how these men could have possibly known these things.
> 
> 
> Don't bother responding.
> 
> I already know you will not give an intelligent explanation.
> 
> Your intellect is limited to asinine comments and insults.
Click to expand...

As I wrote out, it was already debunked. One of the other fundies posted the same nonsense previously. What you will provide are vague references and bad metaphors that you will convince yourself are accurate descriptions of science. Do you fundies all copy and paste from the same creation ministries?

For a real scientific miracle of the Bible, that flat earth and an earth-centered solar system are wonders to behold. 

Are there any other assinine comments you wish to make?


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.
> 
> If that is not enough for you go here.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge is neither!
> there is no corroborating evidence for those claims.
> all of them have been proven to be either fictitious or intentionally misrepresented.
> again it's an attempt to prove the bible by using the bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you acknowledge the Bible was written thousands of years ago?
> 
> If so, then explain how the authors would know about certain things they wrote about... such as hydrothermal vents (of which geologist didn't discover unti the 1970's),that the ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains and that the entire universe is in a state of increasing decay or entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics).
Click to expand...

 the bible never mentions specifics....like where the vents actually are, the authors makes guesses 
and completely ambiguous statements that can and are falsely interpreted to mean any thing the publishers of these " facts" wish them too.  

science in the bible debunked :The final eleven facts from the 101 given here. The aim of the exercise that Eternal Productions (who compiled the list) set themselves was to take a modern scientific claim or explanation, and to show us the Biblical verse which foretells or prefigures said claim/explanation. Thus far, after 90 such claims have been examined, none have withstood scrutiny; in fact, 51  over half  have been revealed not to be any sort of scientific claim.

91.Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in Gods image.

No scientific claim is being tested here.

92.Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science). True science agrees with the Creators Word.

On the basis of the evidence of these facts, Id beg to differ. No scientific claim is being tested here.

93. Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews  which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science. 

No scientific claim is being tested here.

94. Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.

The etymology lesson is next to useless, because the earliest Biblical manuscripts were not written in neither English nor Latin (where the roots of the word conscience lie). No scientific claim is being tested here.

95. Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, Gods Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.

No scientific claim is being tested here.

96. The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donors character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).

No scientific claim is being tested here.

97. The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted  introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.

No scientific claim is being tested here.

98. Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die  The soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of Gods Law. To see if you will die, please review Gods Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then youre an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creators name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy  and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die. 

No scientific claim is being tested here. Its more of a sermon

99. Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death  which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown.

More theological claims. No scientific claim is being tested here.

100. Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person  free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.

Science is not trying to cure aging and death as such  theyre certainly not searching in vain. A lot of theology, but no scientific claim is being tested here.

101. The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away (Revelation 21:4).

We end on preaching, rather than demonstrable scientific truth: No scientific claim is being tested here.

Astonishingly, not one of the eleven so-called scientific facts are scientific facts at all, and can therefore be dismissed. This means that only 39 of the 101 facts are genuine attempts to put an understanding of a scientific claim to the Bible. 62 are simply not any sort of scientific claim at all.

However, none  not a single one  of the 39 stand up: they either misread the Bible, or show an inadequate understanding of science.

Im genuinely surprised at that over well over half of the 101 facts are not even attempts at scientific claims, but rather just comment or anti-evoltution rhetoric.

The final part in this series will attempt to derive some sort of conclusion from this exercies, and wrap up my own particular efforts at tackling the absurd claims of Creationism.
Exposed: 101 Scientific Facts in the Bible « Science and the Bible Archive


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.
> 
> If that is not enough for you go here.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge is neither!
> there is no corroborating evidence for those claims.
> all of them have been proven to be either fictitious or intentionally misrepresented.
> again it's an attempt to prove the bible by using the bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lie or show me someting to support your accusation.
Click to expand...

see post# 11463


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another false and childish gay slur!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously??? How is this gay if Hollie is a woman? Do you know of any guys named Hollie? Plus, when she was pressed on the other forum about her sex, she responded not "I am man". She responded, "I am of the male persuasion." So let me get this straight. If Hollie is woman who thinks she's a man and she gives you a back rub, is that gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false and childish gay slur!
Click to expand...


And yet another dodge and failed answered question from the angry fundie.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here again we see the desperation that haunts the Christian fundie. He has no answer to some rather basic questions defining the poverty of his argument and is left to stagger and reel instead of responding with a relevant post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can never just answer the question. You're are obviously mentally retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, but you are the prototypical angry Christian creationist. You're angry that your attempts to associate DNA coding with your alleged gawds has gone horribly wrong. That really shouldn't surprise you. Christian fundies have been unable to offer a coherent argument for their gawds that doesn't rely on attacks aimed at science. While Christian fundies will pick and choose science data just as they pick and choose religious dogma, the body of science supporting the natural elements for existence leaves little room for supermagicalism and fear of an angry, paternal supernatural entity.
Click to expand...


And yet more hate from the seething angry evofundie.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is no answer.
> but sadly it's the best you could do since you have no evidence to prove she is wrong .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before I can offer an answer there needs to be a valid question.
> 
> If you think that Teresa holds no bias then you are dumber than you look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh he is dumber then he looks.
Click to expand...


Really? No one could be that dumb!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is no answer.
> but sadly it's the best you could do since you have no evidence to prove she is wrong .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before I can offer an answer there needs to be a valid question.
> 
> If you think that Teresa holds no bias then you are dumber than you look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> here we go ...
> it depends on what you mean by bias ?
Click to expand...


I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss your urinary incontinence old man.


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.
> 
> If that is not enough for you go here.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge is neither!
> there is no corroborating evidence for those claims.
> all of them have been proven to be either fictitious or intentionally misrepresented.
> again it's an attempt to prove the bible by using the bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you acknowledge the Bible was written thousands of years ago?
> 
> If so, then explain how the authors would know about certain things they wrote about... such as hydrothermal vents (of which geologist didn't discover unti the 1970's),that the ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains and that the entire universe is in a state of increasing decay or entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics).
Click to expand...



They didn't know about hydrothermal vents or entropy. That's simply what you are reading into the passages.  Please quote the specific passages, and I will debunk this little claim.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's compare and contrast, shall we?
> 
> A few thoughts for Daws, Hawly, NP, others:
> 
> The reason the evolution argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in materialism.  Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory of evolution, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that evolution is true before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that thousands of scientists have not accepted the theory of evolution. (twist on NP's appeal to the mob)
> 
> I suspect evolutionary theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have a need to believe it is the only explanation), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to materialism, in addition to the need to justify their atheism, which many times is brought on by traumatic childhood experiences, including sexual abuse that results in same sex attraction (I just added that for NP and Hawly). I can understand this: they simply cannot come to grips that a loving God would let this happen to them. The problem is that intuition is not based on real science. This, if anything, is what the pseudo science of evolution teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality isn't right. So instead, we keep repeating to ourselves, even though this looks designed it isn't. And professors brainwash their students by pre programming their reaction to design by telling them when they make their observation, just keep remembering it wasn't designed. The theory of evolution has also dumbed down the other sciences, with its just so stories and inductively arrived at conclusions that they pretend are deducted "facts".  Just look at quantum mechanics. One must accept that our reality isn't the only reality since it requires multiple universes, invisible forces like dark matter and dark energy, other dimensions, and particles that disappear and reappear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, copying and pasting my post.
> 
> There are no teleological or cosmological arguments for materialism.  A teleological argument for materialism doesn't make coherent sense. It is obvious you know nothing about this term. The teleological argument is the argument for a final cause, or a design, which necessarily precludes materialism. Nothing in materialism ever posits that there is a final cause. Therefore, again, you are making a categorical error. So, your lame tactic of copying and pasting my posts has backfired on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a person can't examine something and see it is a product of design it's because they don't want to.
Click to expand...


Intuition is not evidence for something. That fact that something looks designed is not evidence that it actually is, just like the fact that lightning sounds like the gods are bowling doesn't mean good 'ol Zeus is up there throwing strikes. Science has proven in almost every case, that human intuition is wrong when it comes to scientific realities, so, this is not  even close to an argument.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can never just answer the question. You're are obviously mentally retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My, but you are the prototypical angry Christian creationist. You're angry that your attempts to associate DNA coding with your alleged gawds has gone horribly wrong. That really shouldn't surprise you. Christian fundies have been unable to offer a coherent argument for their gawds that doesn't rely on attacks aimed at science. While Christian fundies will pick and choose science data just as they pick and choose religious dogma, the body of science supporting the natural elements for existence leaves little room for supermagicalism and fear of an angry, paternal supernatural entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet more hate from the seething angry evofundie.
Click to expand...


I suppose it was time to abandon the siilly "DNA = proof of the gawds", claim. So you dropped it like a boat anchor and exited with a last gasp of flaming rhetoric. 

"Oh the pain...."


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you are wrong 241,000 religions makes Christanity a philosophy. Every religion has their own set of doctrines and everyone of them claim to have the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> that's not an answer! what part of "Christianity is a religion  and a philosophy." do you not understand?
> must be the same willful ignorance that you use when denying  other facts.
> 
> 
> American Atheists&#8217; Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:
> 
> I&#8217;m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert. Trust me; Christianity is a religion by any modern definition. According to my theology professors, Christianity has been and always will be a religion. Every priest, every pastor, every Sunday School teacher, choir member, deacon, usher, and pew sitter will tell you that Christianity is a religion. So where did Mr. O&#8217;Reilly come up with this idea? Oh! I know! The tides told him.
> 
> Bill O&#8217;Reilly: &#8216;Christianity is Not a Religion; It&#8217;s a Philosophy&#8217;
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An atheist is going to tell us what is or isn't a religion?
> 
> 
> No bias there.
Click to expand...


No, the actual definitions of words and applied concepts is going to tell us what makes a religion a religion. The fact that christianity has multiple denominations does not grant it "philosophy" status. This presupposes that the christian god exists. Considering there is zero proof for god, you don't get to call christianity a philosophy. If the christian god were known to exist by every person on earth because this god demonstrated his existence to us , then you might get to call christianity a philosophy. No, god didn't already show himself to us, because the bible is not reliable as evidence for supernatural claims. If textual evidence is sufficient for believing supernatural claims, then you must also believe the Koran, the Baghavad-Gita, and so on.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> If you add functionality and specificity, then it is a sign of intelligence. I have asked you before but you remain silent on producing a functional, specifiable information in digital form that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.





 Even if we have 100 examples, or even 1,000 examples of other functional, specifiable digital codes that were created by intelligence, we still wouldn't be able to conclude that DNA must also therefore be created by an intelligence. We have only two examples, as you claim, of such type of information: DNA and digital computer code. We know that one of these codes is produced by intelligence, because we have evidence: we created the code. (This is where the availability heuristic comes into play for IDers like Meyer) The fact that we know where one of these codes comes from, does not give us the freedom to say the other one also comes from an intelligence.  You must make a logical leap to reach this conclusion, and this is a fallacy. Your inductive reasoning can never get you to the conclusion that DNA was created intelligently created because another code with similar attributes was. I realize this may seem intuitive to you, but as I have mentioned, intuition has nothing to do with science, and can not be counted as evidence, because it is completely subjective. As I mentioned before, you already possess the conclusion that an intelligent being exists, so you seem to think this inductive reasoning is valid, when it isn't. This is your bias.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if it's not a PhD Common Requirements
> Degree Level  Ph.D.*
> then you are not a molecular biologist
> 
> also you have not: Published research in a peer-reviewed journal (if Im' wrong post a link to the paper)
> it's clear you are not a PhD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so wrong and you do not know what I hold. Once again you do not have to hold a Phd to do the work of a molecular biologist. You are simply talking out your rear again.
> 
> Should You Get a Ph.D.?  Mike the Mad Biologist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes I do know what degree you hold it's a A.A. unless that's a lie too.
> doing the "work"  of a molecular biologist"is not the same as being one.
> still waiting on that paper .
Click to expand...


How do you not understand this ?



I have a Masters in Biology (from a 5 year BS/MS program) and for the past 4 years Ive been working as a lab manager/technician. I have my own research project(s) in addition to keeping track of ordering/equipment maintenance/mouse breeding/etc. All-in-all its a sweet gig and I could see myself doing this or something similar for most of my career. The problem is that there seems to be this culture in biology that one has to get a PhD, and my competitive side kind of feels the need to get one mostly just to show that I can. My practical side cant figure out why it would be worth taking a pay cut for 5+ years of extra stress just to continue doing what Im already doing. I have no desire to run my own lab, and have little desire to teach. 

My very short answer: no.

If you are considering keeping your professional options open, then perhaps consider getting another masters degree, either in a technical speciality, such as computational biology or statistics, or an MBA, which has some credentialing value*.

The Ph.D. is not for that. As the reader correctly notes, a Ph.D. will be at least five years of more work and stress for less pay than a qualified lab tech. Actually, it will be more closer to ten years, and you might need to relocate a couple of times. It doesnt sound like thats what the reader wants to do.

To get a Ph.D. (in biology anyway), I think it requires four things:


1) A passion for biology. It has to go beyond somewhat interesting.

2) A willingness to spend a lot of time wanting to solve a particular problem.

3) A desire to live the life of the mindyou have to be really intellectually curious, and that curiosity has to be your lodestar.

4) This is the most important: you have to be willing to prioritize #1-3 above many other things, such as where you live, job stability, setting aside retirement income, and so on**. Worse, to capitalize on the Ph.D., at least in academia, you will have to keep prioritizing those things until you get tenure (business and non-profits can be a different matter).

I would also add that Ive seen too many Ph.D.s who, upon graduating, are little more than glorified lab technicians. They havent been rigorously trained in any intellectual sense (they are supposed to be doctors of philosophy). Since the reader is already doing that (and enjoying it), why suffer through the Ph.D.? It definitely should not be the new B.Sc. or M.S.

*When it comes to the worth of an MBA (besides the networking, learning some basic lingo, and gaining a credential), Im inclined to agree with Matthew Shaws argument in The Management Myth: an MBA is really just a poor philosophy degree (both the education and the philosophy are poor). If the world were organized according to the Mad Biologist, I would hire mathematically and statistically knowledgeable philosophy PhDs and MAs, not MBAs.

**To a considerable extent, a Ph.D. and post-doc retard ones ability to become a normal adult. Many parts of your life revolve around moving to the next stage, as opposed to actually living ones life. There is little job stability, the pay sucks, you dont know when you might move up, and you have to geographically relocate often. You really better love what you do, or find something else to do.


Noun
 S: (n) molecular biologist (a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life) 

Definition for molecular biologist:
Web definitions:
a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life.

So what am I daws ? You are just spewing nonsense now daws as usual.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's not an answer! what part of "Christianity is a religion  and a philosophy." do you not understand?
> must be the same willful ignorance that you use when denying  other facts.
> 
> 
> American Atheists Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:
> 
> Im a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert. Trust me; Christianity is a religion by any modern definition. According to my theology professors, Christianity has been and always will be a religion. Every priest, every pastor, every Sunday School teacher, choir member, deacon, usher, and pew sitter will tell you that Christianity is a religion. So where did Mr. OReilly come up with this idea? Oh! I know! The tides told him.
> 
> Bill OReilly: Christianity is Not a Religion; Its a Philosophy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist is going to tell us what is or isn't a religion?
> 
> 
> No bias there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who the fuck is "us"
> GUESS YOU'RE ILLITERATE TOO "American Atheists Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:
> 
> Im a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert."
> 
> please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid  just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
> that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
> who's bias again?
Click to expand...


What degree do you hold daws to be a pastor ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no you're not stop dodging
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open systems and closed systems plus viruses are not science Daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> coming from believers like yourself in  pseudoscience and deniers of fact (the bible has mistakes and errors in it)
> is not science... your use of the terms: " Open systems and closed systems plus viruses" is false evidence of of your agenda ,and not science.
Click to expand...


Wrong Daws, I even provided sources from your side that agree with me.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean these thing you lack?: Common Requirements
> Degree Level  Ph.D.*
> Degree Field  Molecular biology or a related field*
> Key Skills  Analytical skills, communication skills, problem solving skills, critical thinking skills*
> Technical Skills  Operation of cloning vectors, temperature cycling chambers, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometers, volumetric pipettes**
> Computer Skills  Use of analytical and scientific software, graphical imaging software**
> 
> Sources: *U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, **O Net OnLine.
> 
> Step 1 - Earn a Bachelor's Degree
> A molecular biologist can earn an undergraduate degree in molecular biology. In some cases, the degree may be in cell and molecular biology or exist as a concentration within a biology program. Students take science courses that include biology, chemistry, physics and genetics. Students also take lab courses, learning about proper use of equipment and experimental procedure.
> 
> Success Tip:
> Participate in research opportunities. Undergraduates can find research opportunities either through a program designated for undergraduates or by making a special request to faculty. Research at the undergraduate level can help students improve critical thinking skills and build professional skills as well as learn to implement and perform credible research.
> Step 2 - Earn a Graduate Degree
> According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, most molecular biologists require a Ph.D. Some molecular biologists may choose to earn a master's degree prior to pursuing a Ph.D. program, but many doctoral programs accept students without a master's degree. The Ph.D. program generally lasts 4-6 years and includes advanced coursework and required research. Ph.D. candidates will likely have to pass a qualifying exam, during which they are assessed on their knowledge of molecular biology. They also have to introduce a research thesis. Ph.D. candidates have to write a dissertation based on their ongoing research and defend their theses to graduate from the program. Ph.D. programs may also include a teaching requirement.
> 
> Success Tip:
> Publish research in a peer-reviewed journal. Research that has been peer-reviewed by other scientists serves as a proof that the research method and results are credible. Graduate students can have research results published as a co-author or as a lead author on a research study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I hold a molecular biologist degree daws if you are correct ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if it's not a PhD Common Requirements
> Degree Level  Ph.D.*
> then you are not a molecular biologist
> 
> also you have not: Published research in a peer-reviewed journal (if Im' wrong post a link to the paper)
> it's clear you are not a PhD
Click to expand...


You really don't know what you are talking about,phd's are useless unless you want to teach.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still using the bible to make your argument is not proof.
> there is no quantifiable proof that god made anything.
> you're wrong as always !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still using your textbooks and online sites to make your arguments daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean just like you or that I actually know how to use them?
Click to expand...


My words don't seem to mean much to you so when I can I use sources on your side, as well as mine not to mention my own words.

With you,you only use words of rhetoric when not copying and pasting nothing of substance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> coming from believers like yourself in  pseudoscience and deniers of fact (the bible has mistakes and errors in it)
> is not science... your use of the terms: " Open systems and closed systems plus viruses" is false evidence of of your agenda ,and not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used sources on your side of the argument. Prove what you say is accurate ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> already have
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge is neither!
> there is no corroborating evidence for those claims.
> all of them have been proven to be either fictitious or intentionally misrepresented.
> again it's an attempt to prove the bible by using the bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lie or show me someting to support your accusation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> see post# 11463
Click to expand...


Your ignorance of the scriptures does not make the bible inaccurate numb nuts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, copying and pasting my post.
> 
> There are no teleological or cosmological arguments for materialism.  A teleological argument for materialism doesn't make coherent sense. It is obvious you know nothing about this term. The teleological argument is the argument for a final cause, or a design, which necessarily precludes materialism. Nothing in materialism ever posits that there is a final cause. Therefore, again, you are making a categorical error. So, your lame tactic of copying and pasting my posts has backfired on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a person can't examine something and see it is a product of design it's because they don't want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intuition is not evidence for something. That fact that something looks designed is not evidence that it actually is, just like the fact that lightning sounds like the gods are bowling doesn't mean good 'ol Zeus is up there throwing strikes. Science has proven in almost every case, that human intuition is wrong when it comes to scientific realities, so, this is not  even close to an argument.
Click to expand...


If you are walking down a beach and find a watch is it rational to pick that watch up and assume over billions of years, it formed itself ?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, copying and pasting my post.
> 
> There are no teleological or cosmological arguments for materialism.  A teleological argument for materialism doesn't make coherent sense. It is obvious you know nothing about this term. The teleological argument is the argument for a final cause, or a design, which necessarily precludes materialism. Nothing in materialism ever posits that there is a final cause. Therefore, again, you are making a categorical error. So, your lame tactic of copying and pasting my posts has backfired on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a person can't examine something and see it is a product of design it's because they don't want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...Science has proven in almost every case, that human intuition is wrong when it comes to scientific realities, ...
Click to expand...


This is the lie of evolutionists and it has no basis in the truth. It might be for a small percentage of phenomena but not as a general rule.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you add functionality and specificity, then it is a sign of intelligence. I have asked you before but you remain silent on producing a functional, specifiable information in digital form that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if we have 100 examples, or even 1,000 examples of other functional, specifiable digital codes that were created by intelligence, we still wouldn't be able to conclude that DNA must also therefore be created by an intelligence. We have only two examples, as you claim, of such type of information: DNA and digital computer code. We know that one of these codes is produced by intelligence, because we have evidence: we created the code. (This is where the availability heuristic comes into play for IDers like Meyer) The fact that we know where one of these codes comes from, does not give us the freedom to say the other one also comes from an intelligence.  You must make a logical leap to reach this conclusion, and this is a fallacy. Your inductive reasoning can never get you to the conclusion that DNA was created intelligently created because another code with similar attributes was. I realize this may seem intuitive to you, but as I have mentioned, intuition has nothing to do with science, and can not be counted as evidence, because it is completely subjective. As I mentioned before, you already possess the conclusion that an intelligent being exists, so you seem to think this inductive reasoning is valid, when it isn't. This is your bias.
Click to expand...


Wrong!!! You still deny (or miss) the point that intelligence is the ONLY KNOWN SOURCE for complex, specifiable DIGITAL code or as Lyell put it, "causes presently in operation"!!! Meyers argument, just like the pseudoscience of evolution, has to be an inductive argument because it refers to an event that happened in the distant past. So no one is arguing that it is 100% absolute, like the foolish darwinists try to do, but unless new evidence comes to light, it is currently the best explanation for the source of digital code in dna.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you add functionality and specificity, then it is a sign of intelligence. I have asked you before but you remain silent on producing a functional, specifiable information in digital form that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if we have 100 examples, or even 1,000 examples of other functional, specifiable digital codes that were created by intelligence, we still wouldn't be able to conclude that DNA must also therefore be created by an intelligence. We have only two examples, as you claim, of such type of information: DNA and digital computer code. We know that one of these codes is produced by intelligence, because we have evidence: we created the code. (This is where the availability heuristic comes into play for IDers like Meyer) The fact that we know where one of these codes comes from, does not give us the freedom to say the other one also comes from an intelligence.  You must make a logical leap to reach this conclusion, and this is a fallacy. Your inductive reasoning can never get you to the conclusion that DNA was created intelligently created because another code with similar attributes was. I realize this may seem intuitive to you, but as I have mentioned, intuition has nothing to do with science, and can not be counted as evidence, because it is completely subjective. As I mentioned before, you already possess the conclusion that an intelligent being exists, so you seem to think this inductive reasoning is valid, when it isn't. This is your bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! You still deny (or miss) the point that intelligence is the ONLY KNOWN SOURCE for complex, specifiable DIGITAL code or as Lyell put it, "causes presently in operation"!!! Meyers argument, just like the pseudoscience of evolution, has to be an inductive argument because it refers to an event that happened in the distant past. So no one is arguing that it is 100% absolute, like the foolish darwinists try to do, but unless new evidence comes to light, it is currently the best explanation for the source of digital code in dna.
Click to expand...


As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell. 

You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning.   The fact that something happened in the past doesn't mean you must only employ induction to make conclusions about it. In fact, the past has nothing to do with inductive reasoning. You can deductively  ascertain conclusions about the past just as easily as you can about the present, or even the future. When forensics experts figure out who a killer was by using the evidence, they are not using inductive, but deductive reasoning. This obvious and common example falsifies your point that the past=induction. Evolution DOES NOT USE INDUCTION TO REACH ITS CONCLUSIONS, as ID does. This is the vital difference. You keep on maintaining this erroneously. Evolution has actual evidence, which shows this model or theory to be correct, and which has PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY, and these predictions have been shown again and again, to be true. Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.

As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science), you hold it to be true. What is it about being a creationist and using so many logical fallacies?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a person can't examine something and see it is a product of design it's because they don't want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intuition is not evidence for something. That fact that something looks designed is not evidence that it actually is, just like the fact that lightning sounds like the gods are bowling doesn't mean good 'ol Zeus is up there throwing strikes. Science has proven in almost every case, that human intuition is wrong when it comes to scientific realities, so, this is not  even close to an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are walking down a beach and find a watch is it rational to pick that watch up and assume over billions of years, it formed itself ?
Click to expand...


The watchmaker analogy? Old school.


We recognize what a watch is, and know who makes it (we do). This is false inductive reasoning again. Because we know that watches are designed, doesn't mean we can conclude that anything else that isn't man-made, is designed, such as the beach, the ocean, trees, etc... That's an unsound assumption.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a person can't examine something and see it is a product of design it's because they don't want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Science has proven in almost every case, that human intuition is wrong when it comes to scientific realities, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the lie of evolutionists and it has no basis in the truth. It might be for a small percentage of phenomena but not as a general rule.
Click to expand...



So, now you are going to make an argument to vindicate human intuition to try and claim that it has scientific validity?

This isn't a lie. The universe that we can't see doesn't "make sense," in either the quantum realm, or the very large, astronomical realm. The Theory of relativity is a perfect example of this, with which you are so fond of. Our intuition was wrong about literally everything about everything until science came along, and this isn't an "evolutionist claim." This is simply true. We attributed supernatural causation for every phenomena we witnessed until only 500 years ago. Now, because of science, we can attribute nothing to supernatural causation. In fact, metaphysical naturalism, for me, is using inductive reasoning to say that because we see naturalism in every facet of the universe for the last 13.7 Billion years, without ANY supernatural causes, it is likely naturalism can explain everything in the universe. I don't know this, for a fact, but given the amount of events since the beginning that have happened naturally, this seems highly probable. I would never state this as a fact, though, simply because it is an inductively reached conclusion.

On the other hand, all you have is ONE other instance of a code, aside from DNA. Not hundreds or thousdands, from which to make an argument that it is likely that DNA also came from a desinger. Inductive reasoning can only give you probabilities. It doesn't allow you to say that "DNA must also have a designer." Only deduction would allow that. You don't have induction, so you don't have science. 

I know you are going to screw this up, btw. You will probably try to attack me for having "admitted" that metaphysical naturalism can only be concluded probabilistically, as if this were a weakness that is at all relevant to this discussion. It isn't.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if we have 100 examples, or even 1,000 examples of other functional, specifiable digital codes that were created by intelligence, we still wouldn't be able to conclude that DNA must also therefore be created by an intelligence. We have only two examples, as you claim, of such type of information: DNA and digital computer code. We know that one of these codes is produced by intelligence, because we have evidence: we created the code. (This is where the availability heuristic comes into play for IDers like Meyer) The fact that we know where one of these codes comes from, does not give us the freedom to say the other one also comes from an intelligence.  You must make a logical leap to reach this conclusion, and this is a fallacy. Your inductive reasoning can never get you to the conclusion that DNA was created intelligently created because another code with similar attributes was. I realize this may seem intuitive to you, but as I have mentioned, intuition has nothing to do with science, and can not be counted as evidence, because it is completely subjective. As I mentioned before, you already possess the conclusion that an intelligent being exists, so you seem to think this inductive reasoning is valid, when it isn't. This is your bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! You still deny (or miss) the point that intelligence is the ONLY KNOWN SOURCE for complex, specifiable DIGITAL code or as Lyell put it, "causes presently in operation"!!! Meyers argument, just like the pseudoscience of evolution, has to be an inductive argument because it refers to an event that happened in the distant past. So no one is arguing that it is 100% absolute, like the foolish darwinists try to do, but unless new evidence comes to light, it is currently the best explanation for the source of digital code in dna.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell.
> 
> You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning.   The fact that something happened in the past doesn't mean you must only employ induction to make conclusions about it. In fact, the past has nothing to do with inductive reasoning. You can deductively  ascertain conclusions about the past just as easily as you can about the present, or even the future. When forensics experts figure out who a killer was by using the evidence, they are not using inductive, but deductive reasoning. This obvious and common example falsifies your point that the past=induction. Evolution DOES NOT USE INDUCTION TO REACH ITS CONCLUSIONS, as ID does. This is the vital difference. You keep on maintaining this erroneously. Evolution has actual evidence, which shows this model or theory to be correct, and which has PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY, and these predictions have been shown again and again, to be true. Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.
> 
> As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science), you hold it to be true. What is it about being a creationist and using so many logical fallacies?
Click to expand...


Look it is this simple, there is no evidence of any kind of communication system that was designed abent of an intelligent agent.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intuition is not evidence for something. That fact that something looks designed is not evidence that it actually is, just like the fact that lightning sounds like the gods are bowling doesn't mean good 'ol Zeus is up there throwing strikes. Science has proven in almost every case, that human intuition is wrong when it comes to scientific realities, so, this is not  even close to an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are walking down a beach and find a watch is it rational to pick that watch up and assume over billions of years, it formed itself ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The watchmaker analogy? Old school.
> 
> 
> We recognize what a watch is, and know who makes it (we do). This is false inductive reasoning again. Because we know that watches are designed, doesn't mean we can conclude that anything else that isn't man-made, is designed, such as the beach, the ocean, trees, etc... That's an unsound assumption.
Click to expand...


It still holds true according to the evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Science has proven in almost every case, that human intuition is wrong when it comes to scientific realities, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the lie of evolutionists and it has no basis in the truth. It might be for a small percentage of phenomena but not as a general rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, now you are going to make an argument to vindicate human intuition to try and claim that it has scientific validity?
> 
> This isn't a lie. The universe that we can't see doesn't "make sense," in either the quantum realm, or the very large, astronomical realm. The Theory of relativity is a perfect example of this, with which you are so fond of. Our intuition was wrong about literally everything about everything until science came along, and this isn't an "evolutionist claim." This is simply true. We attributed supernatural causation for every phenomena we witnessed until only 500 years ago. Now, because of science, we can attribute nothing to supernatural causation. In fact, metaphysical naturalism, for me, is using inductive reasoning to say that because we see naturalism in every facet of the universe for the last 13.7 Billion years, without ANY supernatural causes, it is likely naturalism can explain everything in the universe. I don't know this, for a fact, but given the amount of events since the beginning that have happened naturally, this seems highly probable. I would never state this as a fact, though, simply because it is an inductively reached conclusion.
> 
> On the other hand, all you have is ONE other instance of a code, aside from DNA. Not hundreds or thousdands, from which to make an argument that it is likely that DNA also came from a desinger. Inductive reasoning can only give you probabilities. It doesn't allow you to say that "DNA must also have a designer." Only deduction would allow that. You don't have induction, so you don't have science.
> 
> I know you are going to screw this up, btw. You will probably try to attack me for having "admitted" that metaphysical naturalism can only be concluded probabilistically, as if this were a weakness that is at all relevant to this discussion. It isn't.
Click to expand...


Anykind of language or communication is the result of an intelligent agent unless you can show otherwise this argument is dead.


----------



## ima

Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are walking down a beach and find a watch is it rational to pick that watch up and assume over billions of years, it formed itself ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The watchmaker analogy? Old school.
> 
> 
> We recognize what a watch is, and know who makes it (we do). This is false inductive reasoning again. Because we know that watches are designed, doesn't mean we can conclude that anything else that isn't man-made, is designed, such as the beach, the ocean, trees, etc... That's an unsound assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It still holds true according to the evidence.
Click to expand...


You just ignore what you can't address. I just refuted the watchmaker analogy. It has nothing to do with evidence, but faulty reasoning and faulty conclusions. In other words, bad interpretations of the evidence.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the lie of evolutionists and it has no basis in the truth. It might be for a small percentage of phenomena but not as a general rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, now you are going to make an argument to vindicate human intuition to try and claim that it has scientific validity?
> 
> This isn't a lie. The universe that we can't see doesn't "make sense," in either the quantum realm, or the very large, astronomical realm. The Theory of relativity is a perfect example of this, with which you are so fond of. Our intuition was wrong about literally everything about everything until science came along, and this isn't an "evolutionist claim." This is simply true. We attributed supernatural causation for every phenomena we witnessed until only 500 years ago. Now, because of science, we can attribute nothing to supernatural causation. In fact, metaphysical naturalism, for me, is using inductive reasoning to say that because we see naturalism in every facet of the universe for the last 13.7 Billion years, without ANY supernatural causes, it is likely naturalism can explain everything in the universe. I don't know this, for a fact, but given the amount of events since the beginning that have happened naturally, this seems highly probable. I would never state this as a fact, though, simply because it is an inductively reached conclusion.
> 
> On the other hand, all you have is ONE other instance of a code, aside from DNA. Not hundreds or thousdands, from which to make an argument that it is likely that DNA also came from a desinger. Inductive reasoning can only give you probabilities. It doesn't allow you to say that "DNA must also have a designer." Only deduction would allow that. You don't have induction, so you don't have science.
> 
> I know you are going to screw this up, btw. You will probably try to attack me for having "admitted" that metaphysical naturalism can only be concluded probabilistically, as if this were a weakness that is at all relevant to this discussion. It isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anykind of language or communication is the result of an intelligent agent unless you can show otherwise this argument is dead.
Click to expand...


Now you are trying to switch the burden of proof to those not making the claim. You do this because you can not prove your own, unfalsifiable claim, because your agument relies on inductive reasoning, which is invalid in science when making definitive conclusions. You have one... ONE example of a code made by an intelligence (and that intelligence is US), and you think this allows you to generalize to all other codes???? That's just lazy, and strangely narcissistic.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.



Complexity is evidence of a designer. Foreknowledge from the bible is also evidence of this designer.


----------



## ima

ima said:


> Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.



Anyone? Anything?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> The watchmaker analogy? Old school.
> 
> 
> We recognize what a watch is, and know who makes it (we do). This is false inductive reasoning again. Because we know that watches are designed, doesn't mean we can conclude that anything else that isn't man-made, is designed, such as the beach, the ocean, trees, etc... That's an unsound assumption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still holds true according to the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just ignore what you can't address. I just refuted the watchmaker analogy. It has nothing to do with evidence, but faulty reasoning and faulty conclusions. In other words, bad interpretations of the evidence.
Click to expand...


The one using faulty reasoning is your side because you are doing exactly as the blind watch maker analogy suggests. You are saying chaos produced a lesser form of life then that lesser form of life produced even more complex life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, now you are going to make an argument to vindicate human intuition to try and claim that it has scientific validity?
> 
> This isn't a lie. The universe that we can't see doesn't "make sense," in either the quantum realm, or the very large, astronomical realm. The Theory of relativity is a perfect example of this, with which you are so fond of. Our intuition was wrong about literally everything about everything until science came along, and this isn't an "evolutionist claim." This is simply true. We attributed supernatural causation for every phenomena we witnessed until only 500 years ago. Now, because of science, we can attribute nothing to supernatural causation. In fact, metaphysical naturalism, for me, is using inductive reasoning to say that because we see naturalism in every facet of the universe for the last 13.7 Billion years, without ANY supernatural causes, it is likely naturalism can explain everything in the universe. I don't know this, for a fact, but given the amount of events since the beginning that have happened naturally, this seems highly probable. I would never state this as a fact, though, simply because it is an inductively reached conclusion.
> 
> On the other hand, all you have is ONE other instance of a code, aside from DNA. Not hundreds or thousdands, from which to make an argument that it is likely that DNA also came from a desinger. Inductive reasoning can only give you probabilities. It doesn't allow you to say that "DNA must also have a designer." Only deduction would allow that. You don't have induction, so you don't have science.
> 
> I know you are going to screw this up, btw. You will probably try to attack me for having "admitted" that metaphysical naturalism can only be concluded probabilistically, as if this were a weakness that is at all relevant to this discussion. It isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anykind of language or communication is the result of an intelligent agent unless you can show otherwise this argument is dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are trying to switch the burden of proof to those not making the claim. You do this because you can not prove your own, unfalsifiable claim, because your agument relies on inductive reasoning, which is invalid in science when making definitive conclusions. You have one... ONE example of a code made by an intelligence (and that intelligence is US), and you think this allows you to generalize to all other codes???? That's just lazy, and strangely narcissistic.
Click to expand...


Really, I just gave you the chance to show us wrong and the argument continues but you are dead in the water if you can't show otherwise. Your argument is based on a vivid imagination if you can't show otherwise. This is not even an argument at this point.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! You still deny (or miss) the point that intelligence is the ONLY KNOWN SOURCE for complex, specifiable DIGITAL code or as Lyell put it, "causes presently in operation"!!! Meyers argument, just like the pseudoscience of evolution, has to be an inductive argument because it refers to an event that happened in the distant past. So no one is arguing that it is 100% absolute, like the foolish darwinists try to do, but unless new evidence comes to light, it is currently the best explanation for the source of digital code in dna.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell.
> 
> You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning.   The fact that something happened in the past doesn't mean you must only employ induction to make conclusions about it. In fact, the past has nothing to do with inductive reasoning. You can deductively  ascertain conclusions about the past just as easily as you can about the present, or even the future. When forensics experts figure out who a killer was by using the evidence, they are not using inductive, but deductive reasoning. This obvious and common example falsifies your point that the past=induction. Evolution DOES NOT USE INDUCTION TO REACH ITS CONCLUSIONS, as ID does. This is the vital difference. You keep on maintaining this erroneously. Evolution has actual evidence, which shows this model or theory to be correct, and which has PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY, and these predictions have been shown again and again, to be true. Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.
> 
> As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science), you hold it to be true. What is it about being a creationist and using so many logical fallacies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look it is this simple, there is no evidence of any kind of communication system that was designed abent of an intelligent agent.
Click to expand...

Your statement is malforned as is so much of Christian creationist chatter. Communication can take many forms. Your insistence (unfounded and completely unsupported) is that your alleged gawds are somehow involved, yet you offer nothing more than the expected "because I say so".


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone? Anything?
Click to expand...


If you have not been showed evidence then explain how complexity arised from chaos with evidence please ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell.
> 
> You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning.   The fact that something happened in the past doesn't mean you must only employ induction to make conclusions about it. In fact, the past has nothing to do with inductive reasoning. You can deductively  ascertain conclusions about the past just as easily as you can about the present, or even the future. When forensics experts figure out who a killer was by using the evidence, they are not using inductive, but deductive reasoning. This obvious and common example falsifies your point that the past=induction. Evolution DOES NOT USE INDUCTION TO REACH ITS CONCLUSIONS, as ID does. This is the vital difference. You keep on maintaining this erroneously. Evolution has actual evidence, which shows this model or theory to be correct, and which has PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY, and these predictions have been shown again and again, to be true. Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.
> 
> As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science), you hold it to be true. What is it about being a creationist and using so many logical fallacies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look it is this simple, there is no evidence of any kind of communication system that was designed abent of an intelligent agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your statement is malforned as is so much of Christian creationist chatter. Communication can take many forms. Your insistence (unfounded and completely unsupported) is that your alleged gawds are somehow involved, yet you offer nothing more than the expected "because I say so".
Click to expand...


Sorry dear,it is a legitimate challenge.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone? Anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have not been showed evidence then explain how complexity arised from chaos with evidence please ?
Click to expand...


That's not what I asked. I asked for proof of your guy, not some philosophical bs. So what if I can't show you that? It still doesn't prove anything that I can't explain your irrelevant question, because you have nothing to prove your guy anyways.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anykind of language or communication is the result of an intelligent agent unless you can show otherwise this argument is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are trying to switch the burden of proof to those not making the claim. You do this because you can not prove your own, unfalsifiable claim, because your agument relies on inductive reasoning, which is invalid in science when making definitive conclusions. You have one... ONE example of a code made by an intelligence (and that intelligence is US), and you think this allows you to generalize to all other codes???? That's just lazy, and strangely narcissistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, I just gave you the chance to show us wrong and the argument continues but you are dead in the water if you can't show otherwise. Your argument is based on a vivid imagination if you can't show otherwise. This is not even an argument at this point.
Click to expand...


I just refuted the basis for your argument. You don't have the ability to say "any kind of language is from an intelligent mind." This is a faulty premise. I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on you, since you are making the claim. I have falsified your premise, so your claim fails to stand on its own.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complexity is evidence of a designer. Foreknowledge from the bible is also evidence of this designer.
Click to expand...


really? says who? how do you know this? This is unsubstantiated. In reality, simplicity is evidence of a designer.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone? Anything?
Click to expand...


Have you been following the thread for the DNA argument?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone? Anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have not been showed evidence then explain how complexity arised from chaos with evidence please ?
Click to expand...


This question is incoherent. Complexity doesn't arise from chaos. It arose from a number of things, none of them of which, are directly "chaos." It may have arisen in a universe, which itself tends towards entropy, but that says very little of the specific conditions in which life arose. In fact, it says almost nothing about it. 

 You are taking the term "chaos" out of context to make life seem more implausible. This is a dishonest creationist tactic.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It still holds true according to the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just ignore what you can't address. I just refuted the watchmaker analogy. It has nothing to do with evidence, but faulty reasoning and faulty conclusions. In other words, bad interpretations of the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one using faulty reasoning is your side because you are doing exactly as the blind watch maker analogy suggests. You are saying chaos produced a lesser form of life then that lesser form of life produced even more complex life.
Click to expand...


What? You make little sense.

The blind watchmaker analogy is an old, stale argument from analogy that has been refuted over and over and over again. 

WE KNOW the watch was designed because we have evidence it was designed, because we built the fucking thing. We don't have evidence that anything else was designed. It's really simple, yet creationists continually reach for conclusions they can't get to with sound logic.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are walking down a beach and find a watch is it rational to pick that watch up and assume over billions of years, it formed itself ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The watchmaker analogy? Old school.
> 
> 
> We recognize what a watch is, and know who makes it (we do). This is false inductive reasoning again. Because we know that watches are designed, doesn't mean we can conclude that anything else that isn't man-made, is designed, such as the beach, the ocean, trees, etc... That's an unsound assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It still holds true according to the evidence.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that Christian creationists even bother with your silly argument as it has been refuted more times than I can count.


The Analogical Argument follows the paradigm first asserted by William Paley in the 1600's. He asserted the following scenario: While walking through the woods, one sees a watch lying on the ground. Picking it up, one is struck by its intricacy and quickly concludes that this object is too complicated to have evolvedout of nothing; since reality is vastly more complicated than a simple watch,it therefore follows that nature itself has a vastly more complicated Designer. The first rebuttal to this argument is a repeat of the one above: Even if nature does display design, doesn't it follow that the Designer, vastly more complicated than that which it designs, should also have a Designer, and so on? After all, one is implying:  I find a watch which impliesa designer.

 I meet the watchmaker who is more complicated than the watch, hence the watchmaker must have a designer as well.

 Why do I stop assuming designers when I reach the watchmaker's designer?

Also, how does the watch imply its designer is still an existing entity? Suppose the same watch is found 300 years later. Even though the watch implies a designer,it would be foolish to assert that watchmaker was stillalive. Wecouldbefairly certain he was long dead.

It is true the watch impliesa designer,yet naturedoesnot imply thesameand herein lies the single most devastating element to the theist's analogical argument from design.

How do we know the watch is an artifice,and not simply yet anothernaturally occuring item lying in the woods? Why is it that we don't stop by every tree, flower, rock, blade of grass and pine cone, considering who might have created each, yet we stop at the watch and think, "Hmmm. Someone left a watch here..."?

Simply put, it is because the watch specifically displays attributes APART from that of nature that we know it is a designed item!

Said another way, man attributes design or artifice to an item because it displays properties that by definition set it apart from nature, which does not display any artificial attributes of any kind. We know the difference because the two are inherently different.

To say that nature and the watch are equally designed is to empty the word "design" of all meaning. It is to say we cannot distinguish between something created with a goal in sight (an artifice) from a tree (a naturally occuring object). No one sees a tree toppled from a storm or burned in a fire and claims,"That tree is broken". No one sees a broken watch and states, "That watch is dead" (they might use that phrasing in slang, but they do not mean it was once alive and now has no biological functions).

As it can easily be seen, the Christian creationist is forced into eradicating the context in which we can separate artifice from nature, and then turns around and compares the two having already destroyed it. On this one point alone the analogical argument from design topples into irrationality


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if we have 100 examples, or even 1,000 examples of other functional, specifiable digital codes that were created by intelligence, we still wouldn't be able to conclude that DNA must also therefore be created by an intelligence. We have only two examples, as you claim, of such type of information: DNA and digital computer code. We know that one of these codes is produced by intelligence, because we have evidence: we created the code. (This is where the availability heuristic comes into play for IDers like Meyer) The fact that we know where one of these codes comes from, does not give us the freedom to say the other one also comes from an intelligence.  You must make a logical leap to reach this conclusion, and this is a fallacy. Your inductive reasoning can never get you to the conclusion that DNA was created intelligently created because another code with similar attributes was. I realize this may seem intuitive to you, but as I have mentioned, intuition has nothing to do with science, and can not be counted as evidence, because it is completely subjective. As I mentioned before, you already possess the conclusion that an intelligent being exists, so you seem to think this inductive reasoning is valid, when it isn't. This is your bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! You still deny (or miss) the point that intelligence is the ONLY KNOWN SOURCE for complex, specifiable DIGITAL code or as Lyell put it, "causes presently in operation"!!! Meyers argument, just like the pseudoscience of evolution, has to be an inductive argument because it refers to an event that happened in the distant past. So no one is arguing that it is 100% absolute, like the foolish darwinists try to do, but unless new evidence comes to light, it is currently the best explanation for the source of digital code in dna.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell.
> 
> You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning.
Click to expand...

 Ummmm, no. That would be you. And you are also hopelessly lost in seeing the exact same shortcomings in your own materialistic religion driven beliefs about the TOE. 





newpolitics said:


> The fact that something happened in the past doesn't mean you must only employ induction to make conclusions about it. In fact, the past has nothing to do with inductive reasoning. You can deductively  ascertain conclusions about the past just as easily as you can about the present, or even the future. When forensics experts figure out who a killer was by using the evidence, they are not using inductive, but deductive reasoning.


 While this is true, now you are really showing your huge ignorance as to how to apply the correct reasoning to events in the DISTANT past. Please go back and read the article I posted from the Paleontologist at Berkley. 





newpolitics said:


> This obvious and common example falsifies your point that the past=induction. Evolution DOES NOT USE INDUCTION TO REACH ITS CONCLUSIONS, as ID does. This is the vital difference. You keep on maintaining this erroneously. Evolution has actual evidence, which shows this model or theory to be correct, and which has PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY, and these predictions have been shown again and again, to be true.


 Wrong!! They just keep moving the goalposts so they can make it appear it has predictive power. Go back and read the two posts I linked to Cornelius' blog. 





newpolitics said:


> Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.


 Omigosh!! You really are completely confused. Seriously, go take a class or something. You are obviously not able to discern everything you read on the internet.

As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science),[/QUOTE] Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are *intellectually dishonest. **Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.* Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complexity is evidence of a designer. Foreknowledge from the bible is also evidence of this designer.
Click to expand...


Both statements are false and unsupportable.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just ignore what you can't address. I just refuted the watchmaker analogy. It has nothing to do with evidence, but faulty reasoning and faulty conclusions. In other words, bad interpretations of the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one using faulty reasoning is your side because you are doing exactly as the blind watch maker analogy suggests. You are saying chaos produced a lesser form of life then that lesser form of life produced even more complex life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? You make little sense.
> 
> The blind watchmaker analogy is an old, stale argument from analogy that has been refuted over and over and over again.
> 
> WE KNOW the watch was designed because we have evidence it was designed, because we built the fucking thing. We don't have evidence that anything else was designed. It's really simple, yet creationists continually reach for conclusions they can't get to with sound logic.
Click to expand...


First, I need to clarify the BLIND watchmaker was your high priest Dawkin's book, and I agree, it is a stale argument. Your last paragraph shows you have no understanding of the analogy. In the analogy, it is assumed that the person who finds the watch does not know the origin of the watch.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! You still deny (or miss) the point that intelligence is the ONLY KNOWN SOURCE for complex, specifiable DIGITAL code or as Lyell put it, "causes presently in operation"!!! Meyers argument, just like the pseudoscience of evolution, has to be an inductive argument because it refers to an event that happened in the distant past. So no one is arguing that it is 100% absolute, like the foolish darwinists try to do, but unless new evidence comes to light, it is currently the best explanation for the source of digital code in dna.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell.
> 
> You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummmm, no. That would be you. And you are also hopelessly lost in seeing the exact same shortcomings in your own materialistic religion driven beliefs about the TOE.  While this is true, now you are really showing your huge ignorance as to how to apply the correct reasoning to events in the DISTANT past. Please go back and read the article I posted from the Paleontologist at Berkley.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This obvious and common example falsifies your point that the past=induction. Evolution DOES NOT USE INDUCTION TO REACH ITS CONCLUSIONS, as ID does. This is the vital difference. You keep on maintaining this erroneously. Evolution has actual evidence, which shows this model or theory to be correct, and which has PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY, and these predictions have been shown again and again, to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong!! They just keep moving the goalposts so they can make it appear it has predictive power. Go back and read the two posts I linked to Cornelius' blog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Omigosh!! You really are completely confused. Seriously, go take a class or something. You are obviously not able to discern everything you read on the internet.
> 
> As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science),
Click to expand...

 Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are *intellectually dishonest. **Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.* Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.[/QUOTE]
Oh my. The screaming Christian creationist is back with gargantuan pink fonts. Don't the fundies understand that Meyer's hack arguments self-refute?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! You still deny (or miss) the point that intelligence is the ONLY KNOWN SOURCE for complex, specifiable DIGITAL code or as Lyell put it, "causes presently in operation"!!! Meyers argument, just like the pseudoscience of evolution, has to be an inductive argument because it refers to an event that happened in the distant past. So no one is arguing that it is 100% absolute, like the foolish darwinists try to do, but unless new evidence comes to light, it is currently the best explanation for the source of digital code in dna.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell.
> 
> You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummmm, no. That would be you. And you are also hopelessly lost in seeing the exact same shortcomings in your own materialistic religion driven beliefs about the TOE.  While this is true, now you are really showing your huge ignorance as to how to apply the correct reasoning to events in the DISTANT past. Please go back and read the article I posted from the Paleontologist at Berkley.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This obvious and common example falsifies your point that the past=induction. Evolution DOES NOT USE INDUCTION TO REACH ITS CONCLUSIONS, as ID does. This is the vital difference. You keep on maintaining this erroneously. Evolution has actual evidence, which shows this model or theory to be correct, and which has PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY, and these predictions have been shown again and again, to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong!! They just keep moving the goalposts so they can make it appear it has predictive power. Go back and read the two posts I linked to Cornelius' blog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Omigosh!! You really are completely confused. Seriously, go take a class or something. You are obviously not able to discern everything you read on the internet.
> 
> As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science),
Click to expand...

 Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are *intellectually dishonest. **Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.* Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.[/QUOTE]

You can huff and puff, and write in huge pink lettering, all you want. You haven't said much in the way of proving your position or refuting my points. 

I have not made any assertions about how DNA was created, so I can't be using an argument from ignorance. Abiogenesis doesn't have strong enough evidence at this point to make a conclusion one way or the other as to exactly how it happened. The difference is, we don't claim to. You do. 

I don't need to provide you with an example of a complex, specifiable digital code that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source, as this wouldn't do anything to falsify your unfalsifiable claim. Here, you attempt to shift the burden of proof, again. You need to show how DNA has an intelligent designer, and you can't do that.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.



Please show me proof of Homer, not the book he created, but the actual dude.


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell.
> 
> You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, no. That would be you. And you are also hopelessly lost in seeing the exact same shortcomings in your own materialistic religion driven beliefs about the TOE.  While this is true, now you are really showing your huge ignorance as to how to apply the correct reasoning to events in the DISTANT past. Please go back and read the article I posted from the Paleontologist at Berkley.  Wrong!! They just keep moving the goalposts so they can make it appear it has predictive power. Go back and read the two posts I linked to Cornelius' blog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Omigosh!! You really are completely confused. Seriously, go take a class or something. You are obviously not able to discern everything you read on the internet.
> 
> As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science),
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are *intellectually dishonest. **Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.* Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.
Click to expand...


You can huff and puff, and write in huge pink lettering, all you want. You haven't said much in the way of proving your position or refuting my points. 

I have not made any assertions about how DNA was created, so I can't be using an argument from ignorance. Abiogenesis doesn't have strong enough evidence at this point to make a conclusion one way or the other as to exactly how it happened. The difference is, we don't claim to. You do. 

I don't need to provide you with an example of a complex, specifiable digital code that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source, as this wouldn't do anything to falsify your unfalsifiable claim. Here, you attempt to shift the burden of proof, again. You need to show how DNA has an intelligent designer, and you can't do that.[/QUOTE]
What we're seeing is that the Christian creationists are forced to retreat into multiple variations of the "prove it isn't", argument. It's a failed tactic as the individual making a positive assertion of a position bears the burdenof proof. 

In the realm of the Christian creationist, proof or evidence of gawds is nonexistent, thus their retreat into the "you can't disprove it", weasel.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell.
> 
> You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, no. That would be you. And you are also hopelessly lost in seeing the exact same shortcomings in your own materialistic religion driven beliefs about the TOE.  While this is true, now you are really showing your huge ignorance as to how to apply the correct reasoning to events in the DISTANT past. Please go back and read the article I posted from the Paleontologist at Berkley.  Wrong!! They just keep moving the goalposts so they can make it appear it has predictive power. Go back and read the two posts I linked to Cornelius' blog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Omigosh!! You really are completely confused. Seriously, go take a class or something. You are obviously not able to discern everything you read on the internet.
> 
> As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science),
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are *intellectually dishonest. **Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.* Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can huff and puff, and write in huge pink lettering, all you want. You haven't said much in the way of proving your position or refuting my points.
> 
> I have not made any assertions about how DNA was created, so I can't be using an argument from ignorance. Abiogenesis doesn't have strong enough evidence at this point to make a conclusion one way or the other as to exactly how it happened. The difference is, we don't claim to. You do.
> 
> I don't need to provide you with an example of a complex, specifiable digital code that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source, *as this wouldn't do anything to falsify your unfalsifiable claim.* Here, you attempt to shift the burden of proof, again. You need to show how DNA has an intelligent designer, and you can't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, now you are just *out right lying*, which means my conversation with you is *OVER.* You have been* PROVEN WRONG* that the theory *IS FALSIFIABLE*, and instead of being honest, you choose to just lie to defend your position. Good luck.
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one using faulty reasoning is your side because you are doing exactly as the blind watch maker analogy suggests. You are saying chaos produced a lesser form of life then that lesser form of life produced even more complex life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? You make little sense.
> 
> The blind watchmaker analogy is an old, stale argument from analogy that has been refuted over and over and over again.
> 
> WE KNOW the watch was designed because we have evidence it was designed, because we built the fucking thing. We don't have evidence that anything else was designed. It's really simple, yet creationists continually reach for conclusions they can't get to with sound logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I need to clarify the BLIND watchmaker was your high priest Dawkin's book, and I agree, it is a stale argument. Your last paragraph shows you have no understanding of the analogy. In the analogy, it is assumed that the person who finds the watch does not know the origin of the watch.
Click to expand...


This analogy was not created by Darwin, if that is what you are asserting, and is what it sounded like. It was not included in Darwin's book as an original idea of his. It was an analogy put forth by  William Paley's as a form of the teleological argument in 1802. Darwin provided a counter-argument in this in his book in 1859 with his theory of natural selection.

The fact that the person who finds the watch does not know the origin, is inconsequential. What is important is that the people reading the analogy do know this, which supposedly gives it its power, for those who find it re-affirming. The analogy breaks down because watches don't have the ability to procreate, as biological organisms do.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, no. That would be you. And you are also hopelessly lost in seeing the exact same shortcomings in your own materialistic religion driven beliefs about the TOE.  While this is true, now you are really showing your huge ignorance as to how to apply the correct reasoning to events in the DISTANT past. Please go back and read the article I posted from the Paleontologist at Berkley.  Wrong!! They just keep moving the goalposts so they can make it appear it has predictive power. Go back and read the two posts I linked to Cornelius' blog.  Omigosh!! You really are completely confused. Seriously, go take a class or something. You are obviously not able to discern everything you read on the internet.
> 
> As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science),
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are *intellectually dishonest. **Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.* Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can huff and puff, and write in huge pink lettering, all you want. You haven't said much in the way of proving your position or refuting my points.
> 
> I have not made any assertions about how DNA was created, so I can't be using an argument from ignorance. Abiogenesis doesn't have strong enough evidence at this point to make a conclusion one way or the other as to exactly how it happened. The difference is, we don't claim to. You do.
> 
> I don't need to provide you with an example of a complex, specifiable digital code that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source, *as this wouldn't do anything to falsify your unfalsifiable claim.* Here, you attempt to shift the burden of proof, again. You need to show how DNA has an intelligent designer, and you can't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, now you are just *out right lying*, which means my conversation with you is *OVER.* You have been* PROVEN WRONG* that the theory *IS FALSIFIABLE*, and instead of being honest, you choose to just lie to defend your position. Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm actually not lying, and if you accuse me again of lying, then you will have shown yourself to be a dishonest prick.  Neither have you proven the unfalsifiable nature of ID to be incorrect.
> 
> Show me how ID is falsifiable. How would this happen?  You just don't like the fact that i won't allow you to switch the burden of proof onto me. Again, even if we have thousands of examples of code that were non-intelligently created, that wouldn't falsify meyer's argument, and conversely, neither would thousands of examples of code that were intelligently created, prove his argument. That's because, the proposition is unfalsifiable, so providing examples of this is a total non-sequitur to the argument. You are demonstrating that fact that you are relying purely on inductive reasoning.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, no. That would be you. And you are also hopelessly lost in seeing the exact same shortcomings in your own materialistic religion driven beliefs about the TOE.  While this is true, now you are really showing your huge ignorance as to how to apply the correct reasoning to events in the DISTANT past. Please go back and read the article I posted from the Paleontologist at Berkley.  Wrong!! They just keep moving the goalposts so they can make it appear it has predictive power. Go back and read the two posts I linked to Cornelius' blog.  Omigosh!! You really are completely confused. Seriously, go take a class or something. You are obviously not able to discern everything you read on the internet.
> 
> As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science),
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are *intellectually dishonest. **Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.* Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can huff and puff, and write in huge pink lettering, all you want. You haven't said much in the way of proving your position or refuting my points.
> 
> I have not made any assertions about how DNA was created, so I can't be using an argument from ignorance. Abiogenesis doesn't have strong enough evidence at this point to make a conclusion one way or the other as to exactly how it happened. The difference is, we don't claim to. You do.
> 
> I don't need to provide you with an example of a complex, specifiable digital code that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source, *as this wouldn't do anything to falsify your unfalsifiable claim.* Here, you attempt to shift the burden of proof, again. You need to show how DNA has an intelligent designer, and you can't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, now you are just *out right lying*, which means my conversation with you is *OVER.* You have been* PROVEN WRONG* that the theory *IS FALSIFIABLE*, and instead of being honest, you choose to just lie to defend your position. Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good gawd, what a whiner. Still the Christian creationist cannot provide a single instance of a specifiable, designer gawd that doesn't have an intelligent agent as it's source.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

NP, I looked for an article to really lay out the differences in layman's terms between deductive and inductive reasoning, Good luck:

The Crime Scene: How Forensic Science Works - W. Mark Dale, Wendy S Becker - Google Books


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are *intellectually dishonest. **Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.* Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, now you are just *out right lying*, which means my conversation with you is *OVER.* You have been* PROVEN WRONG* that the theory *IS FALSIFIABLE*, and instead of being honest, you choose to just lie to defend your position. Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm actually not lying, and if you accuse me again of lying, then you will have shown yourself to be a dishonest prick.  Neither have you proven the unfalsifiable nature of ID to be incorrect.
> 
> Show me how ID is falsifiable. How would this happen?  You just don't like the fact that i won't allow you to switch the burden of proof onto me. Again, even if we have thousands of examples of code that were non-intelligently created, that wouldn't falsify meyer's argument, and conversely, neither would thousands of examples of code that were intelligently created, prove his argument. That's because, the proposition is unfalsifiable, so providing examples of this is a total non-sequitur to the argument. You are demonstrating that fact that you are relying purely on inductive reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a liar and you don't understand the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning. End of story.
> 
> For the rest of you that want to remain in an honest discussion, the bolded, pink sentence is the key to falsifying the theory.
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm actually not lying, and if you accuse me again of lying, then you will have shown yourself to be a dishonest prick.  Neither have you proven the unfalsifiable nature of ID to be incorrect.
> 
> Show me how ID is falsifiable. How would this happen?  You just don't like the fact that i won't allow you to switch the burden of proof onto me. Again, even if we have thousands of examples of code that were non-intelligently created, that wouldn't falsify meyer's argument, and conversely, neither would thousands of examples of code that were intelligently created, prove his argument. That's because, the proposition is unfalsifiable, so providing examples of this is a total non-sequitur to the argument. You are demonstrating that fact that you are relying purely on inductive reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar and you don't understand the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning. End of story.
> 
> For the rest of you that want to remain in an honest discussion, the bolded, pink sentence is the key to falsifying the theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't call me a liar you fucking asshole.  Where do you get off just calling people a "liar" because you disagree with them. If I'm a liar, then so are you. You don't actually refute my points, you just call me a liar. That is being intellectually lazy and categorically immature.
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> NP, I looked for an article to really lay out the differences in layman's terms between deductive and inductive reasoning, Good luck:
> 
> The Crime Scene: How Forensic Science Works - W. Mark Dale, Wendy S Becker - Google Books




You've demonstrated that: 

1.) You can use google
2.) You can read
3.) You can copy and paste links

That's about it. 

I've studied syllogistic logic on my own, and have a firm grasp of what inductive and deductive reasoning are. It is evidently clear that you have zero idea what these are. You are basically using an ad hominem attack now to try and attack my credibility on this matter. Which would actually be okay, if you had demonstrated any understanding of what inductive and deductive reasoning is. The article you posted only confirmed what I already knew, and nothing contradicted what I have been saying.


----------



## newpolitics

Trying to say that all code must be made by an intelligence, because we have one example of a code made by an intelligence, is using inductive reasoning. You are taking a specific example, and generalizing it to all possible examples, and then applying this generalization back down to a specific code for which the origin is unknown. This is completely fallacious, because you have not established that all code must be created by a designer. All you have is intuition, which isn't good enough for science when reasoning deductively to form a conclusion. Because you can not validate your inductive step going from digital code to all codes, you can not validate ID.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm actually not lying, and if you accuse me again of lying, then you will have shown yourself to be a dishonest prick.  Neither have you proven the unfalsifiable nature of ID to be incorrect.
> 
> Show me how ID is falsifiable. How would this happen?  You just don't like the fact that i won't allow you to switch the burden of proof onto me. Again, even if we have thousands of examples of code that were non-intelligently created, that wouldn't falsify meyer's argument, and conversely, neither would thousands of examples of code that were intelligently created, prove his argument. That's because, the proposition is unfalsifiable, so providing examples of this is a total non-sequitur to the argument. You are demonstrating that fact that you are relying purely on inductive reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar and you don't understand the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning. End of story.
> 
> For the rest of you that want to remain in an honest discussion, the bolded, pink sentence is the key to falsifying the theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's clearly presumptive and dishonest for you to decide what an honest conversation is. It is also presumptive and dishonest to demand that your gawds are necessarily "proven" by Meyer's specious claims. Meyer presents no theory in connection with the scientific method and no theory that a scientist would accept as valid.
> 
> All the gargantuan pink fonts you care to post will not rescue a Christian creationist claim that begs its conclusion
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm actually not lying, and if you accuse me again of lying, then you will have shown yourself to be a dishonest prick.  Neither have you proven the unfalsifiable nature of ID to be incorrect.
> 
> Show me how ID is falsifiable. How would this happen?  You just don't like the fact that i won't allow you to switch the burden of proof onto me. Again, even if we have thousands of examples of code that were non-intelligently created, that wouldn't falsify meyer's argument, and conversely, neither would thousands of examples of code that were intelligently created, prove his argument. That's because, the proposition is unfalsifiable, so providing examples of this is a total non-sequitur to the argument. You are demonstrating that fact that you are relying purely on inductive reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar and you don't understand the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning. End of story.
> 
> For the rest of you that want to remain in an honest discussion, the bolded, pink sentence is the key to falsifying the theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mere assertions which are demonstrably false. I have demonstrated you to be a complete buffoon when it comes to these ideas. All you do and kick and scream and call people "liars" because you're reasoning is invalid, and you have consigned yourself to being a dishonest prick with this little move.
> 
> I'll state it again: you have no basis for saying all codes are made by an intelligence. This kind of inductive reasoning has not been proven to be reliable.
Click to expand...


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone? Anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you been following the thread for the DNA argument?
Click to expand...


I'm asking for actual proof of the guy whom you think made DNA, until then, random process cannot be excluded, you weren't there to see that it didn't happen that way.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP, I looked for an article to really lay out the differences in layman's terms between deductive and inductive reasoning, Good luck:
> 
> The Crime Scene: How Forensic Science Works - W. Mark Dale, Wendy S Becker - Google Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've demonstrated that:
> 
> 1.) You can use google
> 2.) You can read
> 3.) You can copy and paste links
> 
> That's about it.
> 
> I've studied syllogistic logic on my own, and have a firm grasp of what inductive and deductive reasoning are. It is evidently clear that you have zero idea what these are. You are basically using an ad hominem attack now to try and attack my credibility on this matter. Which would actually be okay, if you had demonstrated any understanding of what inductive and deductive reasoning is.
Click to expand...

 I just said this to you a few posts back so nice parroting. However, you arguments against Meyers theory and comparisons to crime scenes do show a lack of understanding of inductive reasoning on your part, whether you choose to admit it or not.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone? Anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you been following the thread for the DNA argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm asking for actual proof of the guy whom you think made DNA, until then, random process cannot be excluded, you weren't there to see that it didn't happen that way.
Click to expand...


Random processes have been excluded by probabilistic arguments until someone comes up with something different than it "just happened" in the ocean or a warm little pond or next to an ocean vent.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar and you don't understand the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning. End of story.
> 
> For the rest of you that want to remain in an honest discussion, the bolded, pink sentence is the key to falsifying the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mere assertions which are demonstrably false. I have demonstrated you to be a complete buffoon when it comes to these ideas. All you do and kick and scream and call people "liars" because you're reasoning is invalid, and you have consigned yourself to being a dishonest prick with this little move.
> 
> I'll state it again: you have no basis for saying all codes are made by an intelligence. This kind of inductive reasoning has not been proven to be reliable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even when presented with evidence to the contrary by what is assuredly a biased source to your side, i.e., the Berkley article, you still kick and scream and deny. What makes you more qualified to speak on the topic than a Paleontologist from Berkley, surfing the internet?
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone? Anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have not been showed evidence then explain how complexity arised from chaos with evidence please ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I asked. I asked for proof of your guy, not some philosophical bs. So what if I can't show you that? It still doesn't prove anything that I can't explain your irrelevant question, because you have nothing to prove your guy anyways.
Click to expand...


You have two choices naturalism or intelligence which is better supported by the evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone? Anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have not been showed evidence then explain how complexity arised from chaos with evidence please ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This question is incoherent. Complexity doesn't arise from chaos. It arose from a number of things, none of them of which, are directly "chaos." It may have arisen in a universe, which itself tends towards entropy, but that says very little of the specific conditions in which life arose. In fact, it says almost nothing about it.
> 
> You are taking the term "chaos" out of context to make life seem more implausible. This is a dishonest creationist tactic.
Click to expand...


What do you think the enviornment was like after the big bang ?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Trying to say that all code must be made by an intelligence, because we have one example of a code made by an intelligence, is using inductive reasoning. You are taking a specific example, and generalizing it to all possible examples, and then applying this generalization back down to a specific code for which the origin is unknown. This is completely fallacious, because you have not established that all code must be created by a designer. All you have is intuition, which isn't good enough for science when reasoning deductively to form a conclusion. Because you can not validate your inductive step going from digital code to all codes, you can not validate ID.



You keep saying the same thing over and over again and continue to reveal your lack of understanding of inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning defaults to the best explanation based on causes presently in operation in the case of the historical sciences. So the hypothesis stands for now because we HAVE ESTABLISHED there are no other modern sources for complex, specifiable, digital code. Until you find another source, intelligence stands as the best explanation. This reasoning is no different than that applied to the TOE. This is what you can't seem to understand either. Yet you put your faith in the TOE, and scream fallacy for Meyer's argument. Checkmate.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just ignore what you can't address. I just refuted the watchmaker analogy. It has nothing to do with evidence, but faulty reasoning and faulty conclusions. In other words, bad interpretations of the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one using faulty reasoning is your side because you are doing exactly as the blind watch maker analogy suggests. You are saying chaos produced a lesser form of life then that lesser form of life produced even more complex life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? You make little sense.
> 
> The blind watchmaker analogy is an old, stale argument from analogy that has been refuted over and over and over again.
> 
> WE KNOW the watch was designed because we have evidence it was designed, because we built the fucking thing. We don't have evidence that anything else was designed. It's really simple, yet creationists continually reach for conclusions they can't get to with sound logic.
Click to expand...


Then why do you rule out the designer of biological organisms that are much more complex then the watch ?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP, I looked for an article to really lay out the differences in layman's terms between deductive and inductive reasoning, Good luck:
> 
> The Crime Scene: How Forensic Science Works - W. Mark Dale, Wendy S Becker - Google Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've demonstrated that:
> 
> 1.) You can use google
> 2.) You can read
> 3.) You can copy and paste links
> 
> That's about it.
> 
> I've studied syllogistic logic on my own, and have a firm grasp of what inductive and deductive reasoning are. It is evidently clear that you have zero idea what these are. You are basically using an ad hominem attack now to try and attack my credibility on this matter. Which would actually be okay, if you had demonstrated any understanding of what inductive and deductive reasoning is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just said this to you a few posts back so nice parroting. However, you arguments against Meyers theory and comparisons to crime scenes do show a lack of understanding of inductive reasoning on your part, whether you choose to admit it or not.
Click to expand...


You said, what? Try to be a little more specific. 

You keep on making these assertions without showing how. It's completely pointless and annoying. Obviously this is your opinion that I don't understand inductive reasoning, but this is simply a baseless reversal on your part. Quoting an article doesn't demonstrate that I don't understand inductive reasoning when the article you cited confirms what I've been saying, and further condemns your position. 

Why don't you explain how the article you cited shows how I don't understand inductive reasoning? If you can do that, then maybe you'd have something. Until then, keep it to yourself.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar and you don't understand the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning. End of story.
> 
> For the rest of you that want to remain in an honest discussion, the bolded, pink sentence is the key to falsifying the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mere assertions which are demonstrably false. I have demonstrated you to be a complete buffoon when it comes to these ideas. All you do and kick and scream and call people "liars" because you're reasoning is invalid, and you have consigned yourself to being a dishonest prick with this little move.
> 
> I'll state it again: you have no basis for saying all codes are made by an intelligence. This kind of inductive reasoning has not been proven to be reliable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew I could get you to throw a temper tantrum if I called you a liar. Don't be so easily manipulated by strangers on the internet. It isn't healthy.
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that you are not being truthful and playing games when you back yourself into a corner you can't escape from without denying the truth or changing the argument.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've demonstrated that:
> 
> 1.) You can use google
> 2.) You can read
> 3.) You can copy and paste links
> 
> That's about it.
> 
> I've studied syllogistic logic on my own, and have a firm grasp of what inductive and deductive reasoning are. *It is evidently clear that you have zero idea what these are. *You are basically using an ad hominem attack now to try and attack my credibility on this matter. Which would actually be okay, if you had demonstrated any understanding of what inductive and deductive reasoning is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just said this to you a few posts back so nice parroting. However, you arguments against Meyers theory and comparisons to crime scenes do show a lack of understanding of inductive reasoning on your part, whether you choose to admit it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said, what? Try to be a little more specific.
> 
> You keep on making these assertions without showing how. It's completely pointless and annoying. Obviously this is your opinion that I don't understand inductive reasoning, but this is simply a baseless reversal on your part. Quoting an article doesn't demonstrate that I don't understand inductive reasoning when the article you cited confirms what I've been saying.
Click to expand...


Told you you had no understanding of induction and deduction. The reversal was all you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, no. That would be you. And you are also hopelessly lost in seeing the exact same shortcomings in your own materialistic religion driven beliefs about the TOE.  While this is true, now you are really showing your huge ignorance as to how to apply the correct reasoning to events in the DISTANT past. Please go back and read the article I posted from the Paleontologist at Berkley.  Wrong!! They just keep moving the goalposts so they can make it appear it has predictive power. Go back and read the two posts I linked to Cornelius' blog.  Omigosh!! You really are completely confused. Seriously, go take a class or something. You are obviously not able to discern everything you read on the internet.
> 
> As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science),
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are *intellectually dishonest. **Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.* Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can huff and puff, and write in huge pink lettering, all you want. You haven't said much in the way of proving your position or refuting my points.
> 
> I have not made any assertions about how DNA was created, so I can't be using an argument from ignorance. Abiogenesis doesn't have strong enough evidence at this point to make a conclusion one way or the other as to exactly how it happened. The difference is, we don't claim to. You do.
> 
> I don't need to provide you with an example of a complex, specifiable digital code that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source, *as this wouldn't do anything to falsify your unfalsifiable claim.* Here, you attempt to shift the burden of proof, again. You need to show how DNA has an intelligent designer, and you can't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, now you are just *out right lying*, which means my conversation with you is *OVER.* You have been* PROVEN WRONG* that the theory *IS FALSIFIABLE*, and instead of being honest, you choose to just lie to defend your position. Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you ok UR ? I have never seen you thank hollie before.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one using faulty reasoning is your side because you are doing exactly as the blind watch maker analogy suggests. You are saying chaos produced a lesser form of life then that lesser form of life produced even more complex life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? You make little sense.
> 
> The blind watchmaker analogy is an old, stale argument from analogy that has been refuted over and over and over again.
> 
> WE KNOW the watch was designed because we have evidence it was designed, because we built the fucking thing. We don't have evidence that anything else was designed. It's really simple, yet creationists continually reach for conclusions they can't get to with sound logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why do you rule out the designer of biological organisms that are much more complex then the watch ?
Click to expand...


You pre-suppose a magical designer is required for biological organisms yet there is no reason to assume such a requirement. There is even less reason to presume your gawds did it.


----------



## newpolitics

f





Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one using faulty reasoning is your side because you are doing exactly as the blind watch maker analogy suggests. You are saying chaos produced a lesser form of life then that lesser form of life produced even more complex life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? You make little sense.
> 
> The blind watchmaker analogy is an old, stale argument from analogy that has been refuted over and over and over again.
> 
> WE KNOW the watch was designed because we have evidence it was designed, because we built the fucking thing. We don't have evidence that anything else was designed. It's really simple, yet creationists continually reach for conclusions they can't get to with sound logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you rule out the designer of biological organisms that are much more complex then the watch ?
Click to expand...


I don't rule anything out. If there was somehow evidence of an intelligent designer, I would consider it. However, considering you have no evidence of this unseen designer, and it possesses no ontology, it is a useless concept which is merely used to disguise your creationism, and as of yet, there has not been a single supernatural cause witnessed in this universe that there is evidence of. So, I am justified in maintaining metaphysical naturalism, even though, admittedly, this is inductively derived. Unlike UR, I have no problem admitting this. 

It is your confirmation bias that leads you and UR to interpret these attributes of DNA as necessarily having been created by an intelligence, since, ou already contain the premise that an intelligent creator created everything when you beleive in the christian god. This is why, I can only guess, you think ID is even remotely convincing: it would confirm a view you already hold. How wonderful.

Complexity does not have anything to do with a designer, until you prove it does. Citing a specific example does not prove this, generally, only specifically, which  leaves you where you started.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are *intellectually dishonest. **Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.* Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, now you are just *out right lying*, which means my conversation with you is *OVER.* You have been* PROVEN WRONG* that the theory *IS FALSIFIABLE*, and instead of being honest, you choose to just lie to defend your position. Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you ok UR ? I have never seen you thank hollie before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a new tactic to his creepy stalking.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? You make little sense.
> 
> The blind watchmaker analogy is an old, stale argument from analogy that has been refuted over and over and over again.
> 
> WE KNOW the watch was designed because we have evidence it was designed, because we built the fucking thing. We don't have evidence that anything else was designed. It's really simple, yet creationists continually reach for conclusions they can't get to with sound logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you rule out the designer of biological organisms that are much more complex then the watch ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pre-suppose a magical designer is required for biological organisms yet there is no reason to assume such a requirement. There is even less reason to presume your gawds did it.
Click to expand...


By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that they did not come in to existence by an undirected source.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you rule out the designer of biological organisms that are much more complex then the watch ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pre-suppose a magical designer is required for biological organisms yet there is no reason to assume such a requirement. There is even less reason to presume your gawds did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
Click to expand...


So, you admit you are gullible to your own intuitive inferences without actually looking for evidence to confirm them?? You simply leave it at that?? 

Intuition is useful in the beginning of research, but not in make finalized conclusions about the nature of reality. It has never been an accepted methodology in science in this specific regard, and until you show this, then you are guilty of special pleading.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pre-suppose a magical designer is required for biological organisms yet there is no reason to assume such a requirement. There is even less reason to presume your gawds did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you admit you are gullible to your own intuitive inferences without actually looking for evidence??
> 
> Intuition is useful in the beginning of research, but not in make finalized conclusions about the nature of reality. It has never been an accepted methodology in science in this specific regard, and until you show this, then you are guilty of special pleading.
Click to expand...


I have seen no evidence of cells being formed by anything other then another living organism, Have you ?what are you talking avout ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you rule out the designer of biological organisms that are much more complex then the watch ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pre-suppose a magical designer is required for biological organisms yet there is no reason to assume such a requirement. There is even less reason to presume your gawds did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that they did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
Click to expand...


The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold. 

Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth. 

Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit you are gullible to your own intuitive inferences without actually looking for evidence??
> 
> Intuition is useful in the beginning of research, but not in make finalized conclusions about the nature of reality. It has never been an accepted methodology in science in this specific regard, and until you show this, then you are guilty of special pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence of cells being formed by anything other then another living organism, Have you ?what are you talking avout ?
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with what I said? Are these concepts I am discussing entirely over your head? You keep on bringing the discussion back to something that has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Of course I haven't seen this. I don't see the relevance of this obvious fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pre-suppose a magical designer is required for biological organisms yet there is no reason to assume such a requirement. There is even less reason to presume your gawds did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that they did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
> 
> Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
> 
> Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
Click to expand...


Hollie cancer cells are abnormal cells that break off and spread and do not die off when they are suppose to like normal cells. They cling to each other forming tumors. The point is Hollie living organisms come from other living organisms can you show otherwise ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit you are gullible to your own intuitive inferences without actually looking for evidence??
> 
> Intuition is useful in the beginning of research, but not in make finalized conclusions about the nature of reality. It has never been an accepted methodology in science in this specific regard, and until you show this, then you are guilty of special pleading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence of cells being formed by anything other then another living organism, Have you ?what are you talking avout ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with what I said? Are these concepts I am discussing entirely over your head? You keep on bringing the discussion back to something that has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Of course I haven't seen this. I don't see the relevance of this obvious fact.
Click to expand...


You have not said anything over my head I just get through all the B.S. and get straight to the point,is that a problem for you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit you are gullible to your own intuitive inferences without actually looking for evidence??
> 
> Intuition is useful in the beginning of research, but not in make finalized conclusions about the nature of reality. It has never been an accepted methodology in science in this specific regard, and until you show this, then you are guilty of special pleading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence of cells being formed by anything other then another living organism, Have you ?what are you talking avout ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with what I said? Are these concepts I am discussing entirely over your head? You keep on bringing the discussion back to something that has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Of course I haven't seen this. I don't see the relevance of this obvious fact.
Click to expand...


Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence of cells being formed by anything other then another living organism, Have you ?what are you talking avout ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with what I said? Are these concepts I am discussing entirely over your head? You keep on bringing the discussion back to something that has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Of course I haven't seen this. I don't see the relevance of this obvious fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not said anything over my head I just get through all the B.S. and get straight to the point,is that a problem for you ?
Click to expand...


Actually, you miss the point every time, and throw in a red-herring. That's my problem.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that they did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
> 
> Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
> 
> Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie cancer cells are abnormal cells that break off and spread and do not die off when they are suppose to like normal cells. They cling to each other forming tumors. The point is Hollie living organisms come from other living organisms can you show otherwise ?
Click to expand...

It's only reasonable to question the veracity of your claim to have had some association with biology when you describe the cancer cell as "abnormal". 

And yes, we can state the obvious that living organisms come from other living organisms at least as we have experience so far. Nothing in the preceding comment would negate the potential for abiogenesis some 3.5 billion years ago. Similarly, as humanities only experience with life is confined to biology existing on this planet, your worldview is constrained by a partisan religious view that was only recently dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages. Let's face it, the likely (eventual) discovery of life outside or possibly inside this solar system would be utterly devastating to the christian religious articles. You do realize that space exploration began only about 60 years ago, right?

How many lives were destroyed by the Christian church as recently as 400 years ago when scientists began to challenge church doctrine in regards to the physical solar system.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence of cells being formed by anything other then another living organism, Have you ?what are you talking avout ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with what I said? Are these concepts I am discussing entirely over your head? You keep on bringing the discussion back to something that has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Of course I haven't seen this. I don't see the relevance of this obvious fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?
Click to expand...


What you sweepingly miss is that the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life is entirely possible. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos. 

As is routine, we're left with the christian fundies insisting their consolidation of all the gawds that preceded their gawds are somehow, by magical means they cannot discern or fathom, are now "the" designer gawds of choice for reasons which are not even particularly intuitive.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen no evidence of cells being formed by anything other then another living organism, Have you ?what are you talking avout ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with what I said? Are these concepts I am discussing entirely over your head? You keep on bringing the discussion back to something that has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Of course I haven't seen this. I don't see the relevance of this obvious fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?
Click to expand...


If there being a lack of evidence is your standard for determining what is plausible, then you have to ditch intelligent design right now since you have even less evidence. 

There is evidence that suggests abiogenesis is plausible, such as the existence of organic compounds in abundance all over the universe, their ability to form on the proto-earth confirmed by the Miller-Urey experiments and subsequent others, and their existence on meteorites, proving they are abundant elsewhere. Why does this seem so impossible to you? Oh, that's right, because you think it shoves your god out of the way. In sense, all this is, is one big squabble for intellectual real estate for you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with what I said? Are these concepts I am discussing entirely over your head? You keep on bringing the discussion back to something that has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Of course I haven't seen this. I don't see the relevance of this obvious fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you sweepingly miss is that the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life is entirely possible. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.
> 
> As is routine, we're left with the christian fundies insisting their consolidation of all the gawds that preceded their gawds are somehow, by magical means they cannot discern or fathom, are now "the" designer gawds of choice for reasons which are not even particularly intuitive.
Click to expand...


What a vivid imagination.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you sweepingly miss is that the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life is entirely possible. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.
> 
> As is routine, we're left with the christian fundies insisting their consolidation of all the gawds that preceded their gawds are somehow, by magical means they cannot discern or fathom, are now "the" designer gawds of choice for reasons which are not even particularly intuitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a vivid imagination.
Click to expand...


Oh, the irony.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are *intellectually dishonest. **Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.* Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, now you are just *out right lying*, which means my conversation with you is *OVER.* You have been* PROVEN WRONG* that the theory *IS FALSIFIABLE*, and instead of being honest, you choose to just lie to defend your position. Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you ok UR ? I have never seen you thank hollie before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just my way of indicating how irrelevant she has become.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you sweepingly miss is that the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life is entirely possible. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.
> 
> As is routine, we're left with the christian fundies insisting their consolidation of all the gawds that preceded their gawds are somehow, by magical means they cannot discern or fathom, are now "the" designer gawds of choice for reasons which are not even particularly intuitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a vivid imagination.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, it's your lack of imagination which keeps a yolk of fear and superstition around your neck. Your attitudes seem precisely in concert with those of the Christian church of only a few centuries ago when science and knowledge were deemed by christianity to be an insidious threat.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with what I said? Are these concepts I am discussing entirely over your head? You keep on bringing the discussion back to something that has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Of course I haven't seen this. I don't see the relevance of this obvious fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there being a lack of evidence is your standard for determining what is plausible, then you have to ditch intelligent design right now since you have even less evidence.
> 
> Because there is evidence that suggests abiogenesis is very plausible, such as the existence of organic compounds in abundance all over the universe, their ability to form on the proto-earth confirmed by the Miller-Urey experiments and subsequent others, and their existence on meteorites, proving they are abundant elsewhere. Why does this seem so impossible to you? Oh, that's right, because you think it shoves your god out of the way. In sense, all this is, is one big squabble for intellectual real estate for you.
Click to expand...


Oh boy not the miller urey experiment again  Now if we can only explain how only left handed and right handed amino acids bonded in the right sequence to form the right proteins.

Under all the right conditions they could not produce a cell that could reproduce itself. Nobody knew the conditions of the enviornment when this supposedly happened.

If this experiment acheived what you think it did there would be no argument.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you sweepingly miss is that the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life is entirely possible. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.
> 
> As is routine, we're left with the christian fundies insisting their consolidation of all the gawds that preceded their gawds are somehow, by magical means they cannot discern or fathom, are now "the" designer gawds of choice for reasons which are not even particularly intuitive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a vivid imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, the irony.
Click to expand...


Yes I guess you can say that for both sides if you are an honest person but which side is best supported by the evidence ?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you ok UR ? I have never seen you thank hollie before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just my way of indicating how irrelevant she has become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's your desperate attempt to inflate a bogus and derailed argument.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you sweepingly miss is that the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life is entirely possible. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.
> 
> As is routine, we're left with the christian fundies insisting their consolidation of all the gawds that preceded their gawds are somehow, by magical means they cannot discern or fathom, are now "the" designer gawds of choice for reasons which are not even particularly intuitive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a vivid imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary, it's your lack of imagination which keeps a yolk of fear and superstition around your neck. Your attitudes seem precisely in concert with those of the Christian church of only a few centuries ago when science and knowledge were deemed by christianity to be an insidious threat.
Click to expand...


Well atleast you admit what you believe is because of a vivid imagination.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there being a lack of evidence is your standard for determining what is plausible, then you have to ditch intelligent design right now since you have even less evidence.
> 
> Because there is evidence that suggests abiogenesis is very plausible, such as the existence of organic compounds in abundance all over the universe, their ability to form on the proto-earth confirmed by the Miller-Urey experiments and subsequent others, and their existence on meteorites, proving they are abundant elsewhere. Why does this seem so impossible to you? Oh, that's right, because you think it shoves your god out of the way. In sense, all this is, is one big squabble for intellectual real estate for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy not the miller urey experiment again  Now if we can only explain how only left handed and right handed amino acids bonded in the right sequence to form the right proteins.
> 
> Under all the right conditions they could not produce a cell that could reproduce itself. Nobody knew the conditions of the enviornment when this supposedly happened.
> 
> If this experiment acheived what you think it did there would be no argument.
Click to expand...

Oh no, not your silly pretensions that you had any training in biology!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just my way of indicating how irrelevant she has become.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's your desperate attempt to inflate a bogus and derailed argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong , you already admitted living organisms come from other living organisms now where did life come from ?
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> f
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? You make little sense.
> 
> The blind watchmaker analogy is an old, stale argument from analogy that has been refuted over and over and over again.
> 
> WE KNOW the watch was designed because we have evidence it was designed, because we built the fucking thing. We don't have evidence that anything else was designed. It's really simple, yet creationists continually reach for conclusions they can't get to with sound logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you rule out the designer of biological organisms that are much more complex then the watch ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't rule anything out. If there was somehow evidence of an intelligent designer, I would consider it. However, considering you have no evidence of this unseen designer, and it possesses no ontology, it is a useless concept which is merely used to disguise your creationism, and as of yet, there has not been a single supernatural cause witnessed in this universe that there is evidence of. So, I am justified in maintaining metaphysical naturalism, even though, *admittedly, this is inductively derived.* Unlike UR, I have no problem admitting this.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...

 Omigosh!!! Are you serious right now?? I have been admitting this all along and stating it is the same predicament naturalism and darwinism are in!! Which now you decide to admit?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there being a lack of evidence is your standard for determining what is plausible, then you have to ditch intelligent design right now since you have even less evidence.
> 
> Because there is evidence that suggests abiogenesis is very plausible, such as the existence of organic compounds in abundance all over the universe, their ability to form on the proto-earth confirmed by the Miller-Urey experiments and subsequent others, and their existence on meteorites, proving they are abundant elsewhere. Why does this seem so impossible to you? Oh, that's right, because you think it shoves your god out of the way. In sense, all this is, is one big squabble for intellectual real estate for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy not the miller urey experiment again  Now if we can only explain how only left handed and right handed amino acids bonded in the right sequence to form the right proteins.
> 
> Under all the right conditions they could not produce a cell that could reproduce itself. Nobody knew the conditions of the enviornment when this supposedly happened.
> 
> If this experiment acheived what you think it did there would be no argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh no, not your silly pretensions that you had any training in biology!
Click to expand...


Hollie this post was in response to the miller urey experiment. What did the miller urey experiment prove ?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously??? How is this gay if Hollie is a woman? Do you know of any guys named Hollie? Plus, when she was pressed on the other forum about her sex, she responded not "I am man". She responded, "I am of the male persuasion." So let me get this straight. If Hollie is woman who thinks she's a man and she gives you a back rub, is that gay?
> 
> 
> 
> another false and childish gay slur!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet another dodge and failed answered question from the angry fundie.
Click to expand...

the best you could do is call lie and name call!?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Oh no don't look now but here comes tool number two.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pre-suppose a magical designer is required for biological organisms yet there is no reason to assume such a requirement. There is even less reason to presume your gawds did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that they did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
> 
> Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
> 
> Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
Click to expand...


Do you realize what you are saying? Cancer cells are the result of copying errors or...wait for it... mutations!! Darwin is evil because he caused cancer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another false and childish gay slur!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet another dodge and failed answered question from the angry fundie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the best you could do is call lie and name call!?
Click to expand...


That is your specialty daws.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a vivid imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, it's your lack of imagination which keeps a yolk of fear and superstition around your neck. Your attitudes seem precisely in concert with those of the Christian church of only a few centuries ago when science and knowledge were deemed by christianity to be an insidious threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well atleast you admit what you believe is because of a vivid imagination.
Click to expand...


Not at all. I'm just able to understand that policies put in place by christianity many centuries ago are now irrelevant and superceded by knowledge. That you choose to cower in fear before some human conception of an angry deity is your issue to come to terms with.


----------



## jack113

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that they did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
> 
> Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
> 
> Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize what you are saying? Cancer cells are the result of copying errors or...wait for it... mutations!! Darwin is evil because he caused cancer.
Click to expand...


People need to stop wit the religious & anti religious crap and start supporting their constitution.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
> 
> Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
> 
> Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie cancer cells are abnormal cells that break off and spread and do not die off when they are suppose to like normal cells. They cling to each other forming tumors. The point is Hollie living organisms come from other living organisms can you show otherwise ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's only reasonable to question the veracity of your claim to have had some association with biology when you describe the cancer cell as "abnormal".
> 
> And yes, we can state the obvious that living organisms come from other living organisms at least as we have experience so far. Nothing in the preceding comment would negate the potential for abiogenesis some 3.5 billion years ago. Similarly, as humanities only experience with life is confined to biology existing on this planet, your worldview is constrained by a partisan religious view that was only recently dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages. Let's face it, the likely (eventual) discovery of life outside or possibly inside this solar system would be utterly devastating to the christian religious articles. You do realize that space exploration began only about 60 years ago, right?
> 
> How many lives were destroyed by the Christian church as recently as 400 years ago when scientists began to challenge church doctrine in regards to the physical solar system.
Click to expand...


Would you be referring to the specific religion of Catholicism? I protest those guys. I'm a protest ant.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, it's your lack of imagination which keeps a yolk of fear and superstition around your neck. Your attitudes seem precisely in concert with those of the Christian church of only a few centuries ago when science and knowledge were deemed by christianity to be an insidious threat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well atleast you admit what you believe is because of a vivid imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all. I'm just able to understand that policies put in place by christianity many centuries ago are now irrelevant and superceded by knowledge. That you choose to cower in fear before some human conception of an angry deity is your issue to come to terms with.
Click to expand...


No that is what you admitted to, am I not to take you at your word ?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with what I said? Are these concepts I am discussing entirely over your head? You keep on bringing the discussion back to something that has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Of course I haven't seen this. I don't see the relevance of this obvious fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you sweepingly miss is that the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life is entirely possible. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.
> 
> As is routine, we're left with the christian fundies insisting their consolidation of all the gawds that preceded their gawds are somehow, by magical means they cannot discern or fathom, are now "the" designer gawds of choice for reasons which are not even particularly intuitive.
Click to expand...


All the components for super computers exist too but they don't spontaneously erupt. Neither do watches!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I can offer an answer there needs to be a valid question.
> 
> If you think that Teresa holds no bias then you are dumber than you look.
> 
> 
> 
> here we go ...
> it depends on what you mean by bias ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss your urinary incontinence old man.
Click to expand...

what the fuck would you know about proper?
 you cherry picked the post.
then made not funny been done joke..
the folks at rehab must love you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> here we go ...
> it depends on what you mean by bias ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss your urinary incontinence old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what the fuck would you know about proper?
> you cherry picked the post.
> then made not funny been done joke..
> the folks at rehab must love you.
Click to expand...


Next time in english if you don't mind.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that they did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
> 
> Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
> 
> Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize what you are saying? Cancer cells are the result of copying errors or...wait for it... mutations!! Darwin is evil because he caused cancer.
Click to expand...

You do crack yourself up. You just make no sense. 

As you insist that reality is the product of your gawds, your gawds would then be responsible for their shoddy workmanship. 

How do you resolve worshipping incompetent gawds simply because they were the only gawds your parents exposed you to.


----------



## UltimateReality

jack113 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
> 
> Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
> 
> Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize what you are saying? Cancer cells are the result of copying errors or...wait for it... mutations!! Darwin is evil because he caused cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People need to stop wit the religious & anti religious crap and start supporting their constitution.
Click to expand...


Acceptance of the Constitution starts with the believe your rights are endowed by a Higher Power. Under the atheist model, Nazi's like Hawly would decide what rights you have. Christians would more than likely wind up in the gas chambers in Hawly's world. She can't hide her seething hate.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> here we go ...
> it depends on what you mean by bias ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss your urinary incontinence old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what the fuck would you know about proper?
> you cherry picked the post.
> then made not funny been done joke..
> the folks at rehab must love you.
Click to expand...


You got my joke.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so wrong and you do not know what I hold. Once again you do not have to hold a Phd to do the work of a molecular biologist. You are simply talking out your rear again.
> 
> Should You Get a Ph.D.?  Mike the Mad Biologist
> 
> 
> 
> yes I do know what degree you hold it's a A.A. unless that's a lie too.
> doing the "work"  of a molecular biologist"is not the same as being one.
> still waiting on that paper .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you not understand this ?
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Masters in Biology (from a 5 year BS/MS program) and for the past 4 years Ive been working as a lab manager/technician. I have my own research project(s) in addition to keeping track of ordering/equipment maintenance/mouse breeding/etc. All-in-all its a sweet gig and I could see myself doing this or something similar for most of my career. The problem is that there seems to be this culture in biology that one has to get a PhD, and my competitive side kind of feels the need to get one mostly just to show that I can. My practical side cant figure out why it would be worth taking a pay cut for 5+ years of extra stress just to continue doing what Im already doing. I have no desire to run my own lab, and have little desire to teach.
> 
> My very short answer: no.
> 
> If you are considering keeping your professional options open, then perhaps consider getting another masters degree, either in a technical speciality, such as computational biology or statistics, or an MBA, which has some credentialing value*.
> 
> The Ph.D. is not for that. As the reader correctly notes, a Ph.D. will be at least five years of more work and stress for less pay than a qualified lab tech. Actually, it will be more closer to ten years, and you might need to relocate a couple of times. It doesnt sound like thats what the reader wants to do.
> 
> To get a Ph.D. (in biology anyway), I think it requires four things:
> 
> 
> 1) A passion for biology. It has to go beyond somewhat interesting.
> 
> 2) A willingness to spend a lot of time wanting to solve a particular problem.
> 
> 3) A desire to live the life of the mindyou have to be really intellectually curious, and that curiosity has to be your lodestar.
> 
> 4) This is the most important: you have to be willing to prioritize #1-3 above many other things, such as where you live, job stability, setting aside retirement income, and so on**. Worse, to capitalize on the Ph.D., at least in academia, you will have to keep prioritizing those things until you get tenure (business and non-profits can be a different matter).
> 
> I would also add that Ive seen too many Ph.D.s who, upon graduating, are little more than glorified lab technicians. They havent been rigorously trained in any intellectual sense (they are supposed to be doctors of philosophy). Since the reader is already doing that (and enjoying it), why suffer through the Ph.D.? It definitely should not be the new B.Sc. or M.S.
> 
> *When it comes to the worth of an MBA (besides the networking, learning some basic lingo, and gaining a credential), Im inclined to agree with Matthew Shaws argument in The Management Myth: an MBA is really just a poor philosophy degree (both the education and the philosophy are poor). If the world were organized according to the Mad Biologist, I would hire mathematically and statistically knowledgeable philosophy PhDs and MAs, not MBAs.
> 
> **To a considerable extent, a Ph.D. and post-doc retard ones ability to become a normal adult. Many parts of your life revolve around moving to the next stage, as opposed to actually living ones life. There is little job stability, the pay sucks, you dont know when you might move up, and you have to geographically relocate often. You really better love what you do, or find something else to do.
> 
> 
> Noun
> S: (n) molecular biologist (a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life)
> 
> Definition for molecular biologist:
> Web definitions:
> a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life.
> 
> So what am I daws ? You are just spewing nonsense now daws as usual.
Click to expand...

you forgot  the link ...these are not your words 
but to answer your question you're a poser playing at being a biologist. and failing.


----------



## newpolitics

jack113 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
> 
> Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
> 
> Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize what you are saying? Cancer cells are the result of copying errors or...wait for it... mutations!! Darwin is evil because he caused cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People need to stop wit the religious & anti religious crap and start supporting their constitution.
Click to expand...


Whoa.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes I do know what degree you hold it's a A.A. unless that's a lie too.
> doing the "work"  of a molecular biologist"is not the same as being one.
> still waiting on that paper .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you not understand this ?
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Masters in Biology (from a 5 year BS/MS program) and for the past 4 years Ive been working as a lab manager/technician. I have my own research project(s) in addition to keeping track of ordering/equipment maintenance/mouse breeding/etc. All-in-all its a sweet gig and I could see myself doing this or something similar for most of my career. The problem is that there seems to be this culture in biology that one has to get a PhD, and my competitive side kind of feels the need to get one mostly just to show that I can. My practical side cant figure out why it would be worth taking a pay cut for 5+ years of extra stress just to continue doing what Im already doing. I have no desire to run my own lab, and have little desire to teach.
> 
> My very short answer: no.
> 
> If you are considering keeping your professional options open, then perhaps consider getting another masters degree, either in a technical speciality, such as computational biology or statistics, or an MBA, which has some credentialing value*.
> 
> The Ph.D. is not for that. As the reader correctly notes, a Ph.D. will be at least five years of more work and stress for less pay than a qualified lab tech. Actually, it will be more closer to ten years, and you might need to relocate a couple of times. It doesnt sound like thats what the reader wants to do.
> 
> To get a Ph.D. (in biology anyway), I think it requires four things:
> 
> 
> 1) A passion for biology. It has to go beyond somewhat interesting.
> 
> 2) A willingness to spend a lot of time wanting to solve a particular problem.
> 
> 3) A desire to live the life of the mindyou have to be really intellectually curious, and that curiosity has to be your lodestar.
> 
> 4) This is the most important: you have to be willing to prioritize #1-3 above many other things, such as where you live, job stability, setting aside retirement income, and so on**. Worse, to capitalize on the Ph.D., at least in academia, you will have to keep prioritizing those things until you get tenure (business and non-profits can be a different matter).
> 
> I would also add that Ive seen too many Ph.D.s who, upon graduating, are little more than glorified lab technicians. They havent been rigorously trained in any intellectual sense (they are supposed to be doctors of philosophy). Since the reader is already doing that (and enjoying it), why suffer through the Ph.D.? It definitely should not be the new B.Sc. or M.S.
> 
> *When it comes to the worth of an MBA (besides the networking, learning some basic lingo, and gaining a credential), Im inclined to agree with Matthew Shaws argument in The Management Myth: an MBA is really just a poor philosophy degree (both the education and the philosophy are poor). If the world were organized according to the Mad Biologist, I would hire mathematically and statistically knowledgeable philosophy PhDs and MAs, not MBAs.
> 
> **To a considerable extent, a Ph.D. and post-doc retard ones ability to become a normal adult. Many parts of your life revolve around moving to the next stage, as opposed to actually living ones life. There is little job stability, the pay sucks, you dont know when you might move up, and you have to geographically relocate often. You really better love what you do, or find something else to do.
> 
> 
> Noun
> S: (n) molecular biologist (a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life)
> 
> Definition for molecular biologist:
> Web definitions:
> a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life.
> 
> So what am I daws ? You are just spewing nonsense now daws as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you forgot  the link ...these are not your words
> but to answer your question you're a poser playing at being a biologist. and failing.
Click to expand...


How was work?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you sweepingly miss is that the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life is entirely possible. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.
> 
> As is routine, we're left with the christian fundies insisting their consolidation of all the gawds that preceded their gawds are somehow, by magical means they cannot discern or fathom, are now "the" designer gawds of choice for reasons which are not even particularly intuitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the components for super computers exist too but they don't spontaneously erupt. Neither do watches!
Click to expand...


You would need a basic understanding of biological organisms vs. non-biological for the preceding to help you understand. 

Now would be a good time to toss in the stupendously stupid Christian creationist analogy that questions why mechanical parts don't leap off a shelf and assemble into a car.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes I do know what degree you hold it's a A.A. unless that's a lie too.
> doing the "work"  of a molecular biologist"is not the same as being one.
> still waiting on that paper .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you not understand this ?
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Masters in Biology (from a 5 year BS/MS program) and for the past 4 years Ive been working as a lab manager/technician. I have my own research project(s) in addition to keeping track of ordering/equipment maintenance/mouse breeding/etc. All-in-all its a sweet gig and I could see myself doing this or something similar for most of my career. The problem is that there seems to be this culture in biology that one has to get a PhD, and my competitive side kind of feels the need to get one mostly just to show that I can. My practical side cant figure out why it would be worth taking a pay cut for 5+ years of extra stress just to continue doing what Im already doing. I have no desire to run my own lab, and have little desire to teach.
> 
> My very short answer: no.
> 
> If you are considering keeping your professional options open, then perhaps consider getting another masters degree, either in a technical speciality, such as computational biology or statistics, or an MBA, which has some credentialing value*.
> 
> The Ph.D. is not for that. As the reader correctly notes, a Ph.D. will be at least five years of more work and stress for less pay than a qualified lab tech. Actually, it will be more closer to ten years, and you might need to relocate a couple of times. It doesnt sound like thats what the reader wants to do.
> 
> To get a Ph.D. (in biology anyway), I think it requires four things:
> 
> 
> 1) A passion for biology. It has to go beyond somewhat interesting.
> 
> 2) A willingness to spend a lot of time wanting to solve a particular problem.
> 
> 3) A desire to live the life of the mindyou have to be really intellectually curious, and that curiosity has to be your lodestar.
> 
> 4) This is the most important: you have to be willing to prioritize #1-3 above many other things, such as where you live, job stability, setting aside retirement income, and so on**. Worse, to capitalize on the Ph.D., at least in academia, you will have to keep prioritizing those things until you get tenure (business and non-profits can be a different matter).
> 
> I would also add that Ive seen too many Ph.D.s who, upon graduating, are little more than glorified lab technicians. They havent been rigorously trained in any intellectual sense (they are supposed to be doctors of philosophy). Since the reader is already doing that (and enjoying it), why suffer through the Ph.D.? It definitely should not be the new B.Sc. or M.S.
> 
> *When it comes to the worth of an MBA (besides the networking, learning some basic lingo, and gaining a credential), Im inclined to agree with Matthew Shaws argument in The Management Myth: an MBA is really just a poor philosophy degree (both the education and the philosophy are poor). If the world were organized according to the Mad Biologist, I would hire mathematically and statistically knowledgeable philosophy PhDs and MAs, not MBAs.
> 
> **To a considerable extent, a Ph.D. and post-doc retard ones ability to become a normal adult. Many parts of your life revolve around moving to the next stage, as opposed to actually living ones life. There is little job stability, the pay sucks, you dont know when you might move up, and you have to geographically relocate often. You really better love what you do, or find something else to do.
> 
> 
> Noun
> S: (n) molecular biologist (a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life)
> 
> Definition for molecular biologist:
> Web definitions:
> a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life.
> 
> So what am I daws ? You are just spewing nonsense now daws as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you forgot  the link ...these are not your words
> but to answer your question you're a poser playing at being a biologist. and failing.
Click to expand...


I have seen that you wish not to debate me on the subject in your own words. Hell you can't even do it with your copying and pasting.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss your urinary incontinence old man.
> 
> 
> 
> what the fuck would you know about proper?
> you cherry picked the post.
> then made not funny been done joke..
> the folks at rehab must love you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Next time in english if you don't mind.
Click to expand...

now that's funny.. you who have proven you cannot read or spell would ask that.
BTW it's perfect english, syntax, and punctuation. if you weren't illiterate  you'd know that.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that they did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
> 
> Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
> 
> Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize what you are saying? Cancer cells are the result of copying errors or...wait for it... mutations!! Darwin is evil because he caused cancer.
Click to expand...


So you are agreeing that mutations do occur? Why then, and on what grounds, can you preclude a beneficial mutation for a species if a mutation is only a copying error, if this copying error were to take place during meiosis? Explain the mechanism that might prevent this. If you can't, then you have no basis on which to doubt mutations being beneficial.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you sweepingly miss is that the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life is entirely possible. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.
> 
> As is routine, we're left with the christian fundies insisting their consolidation of all the gawds that preceded their gawds are somehow, by magical means they cannot discern or fathom, are now "the" designer gawds of choice for reasons which are not even particularly intuitive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the components for super computers exist too but they don't spontaneously erupt. Neither do watches!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been a basic understanding of biological organisms vs. non-biological for the preceding to help you understand.
> 
> Now would be a good time to toss in the stupendously stupid Christian creationist analogy that questions why mechanical parts don't leap off a shelf and assemble into a car.
Click to expand...


Well is that not what you think happened with biological organisms,things just arranged themselves in the proper sequencing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what the fuck would you know about proper?
> you cherry picked the post.
> then made not funny been done joke..
> the folks at rehab must love you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next time in english if you don't mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lnow that's funny.. you who have proven you cannot read or spell would ask that.
> BTW it's perfect english, syntax, and punctuation. if you weren't illiterate  you'd know that.
Click to expand...


Ditto


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you not understand this ?
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Masters in Biology (from a 5 year BS/MS program) and for the past 4 years Ive been working as a lab manager/technician. I have my own research project(s) in addition to keeping track of ordering/equipment maintenance/mouse breeding/etc. All-in-all its a sweet gig and I could see myself doing this or something similar for most of my career. The problem is that there seems to be this culture in biology that one has to get a PhD, and my competitive side kind of feels the need to get one mostly just to show that I can. My practical side cant figure out why it would be worth taking a pay cut for 5+ years of extra stress just to continue doing what Im already doing. I have no desire to run my own lab, and have little desire to teach.
> 
> My very short answer: no.
> 
> If you are considering keeping your professional options open, then perhaps consider getting another masters degree, either in a technical speciality, such as computational biology or statistics, or an MBA, which has some credentialing value*.
> 
> The Ph.D. is not for that. As the reader correctly notes, a Ph.D. will be at least five years of more work and stress for less pay than a qualified lab tech. Actually, it will be more closer to ten years, and you might need to relocate a couple of times. It doesnt sound like thats what the reader wants to do.
> 
> To get a Ph.D. (in biology anyway), I think it requires four things:
> 
> 
> 1) A passion for biology. It has to go beyond somewhat interesting.
> 
> 2) A willingness to spend a lot of time wanting to solve a particular problem.
> 
> 3) A desire to live the life of the mindyou have to be really intellectually curious, and that curiosity has to be your lodestar.
> 
> 4) This is the most important: you have to be willing to prioritize #1-3 above many other things, such as where you live, job stability, setting aside retirement income, and so on**. Worse, to capitalize on the Ph.D., at least in academia, you will have to keep prioritizing those things until you get tenure (business and non-profits can be a different matter).
> 
> I would also add that Ive seen too many Ph.D.s who, upon graduating, are little more than glorified lab technicians. They havent been rigorously trained in any intellectual sense (they are supposed to be doctors of philosophy). Since the reader is already doing that (and enjoying it), why suffer through the Ph.D.? It definitely should not be the new B.Sc. or M.S.
> 
> *When it comes to the worth of an MBA (besides the networking, learning some basic lingo, and gaining a credential), Im inclined to agree with Matthew Shaws argument in The Management Myth: an MBA is really just a poor philosophy degree (both the education and the philosophy are poor). If the world were organized according to the Mad Biologist, I would hire mathematically and statistically knowledgeable philosophy PhDs and MAs, not MBAs.
> 
> **To a considerable extent, a Ph.D. and post-doc retard ones ability to become a normal adult. Many parts of your life revolve around moving to the next stage, as opposed to actually living ones life. There is little job stability, the pay sucks, you dont know when you might move up, and you have to geographically relocate often. You really better love what you do, or find something else to do.
> 
> 
> Noun
> S: (n) molecular biologist (a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life)
> 
> Definition for molecular biologist:
> Web definitions:
> a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life.
> 
> So what am I daws ? You are just spewing nonsense now daws as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> you forgot  the link ...these are not your words
> but to answer your question you're a poser playing at being a biologist. and failing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen that you wish not to debate me on the subject in your own words. Hell you can't even do it with your copying and pasting.
Click to expand...

wrong as always what I see is you dodging the question. you forgot the link or intentionally left it out, thinking someone would believe it was you.
if you really could wright like that...it would be miracle!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next time in english if you don't mind.
> 
> 
> 
> lnow that's funny.. you who have proven you cannot read or spell would ask that.
> BTW it's perfect english, syntax, and punctuation. if you weren't illiterate  you'd know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto
Click to expand...

you do realize that the word "ditto" means you agree?
more rock solid proof you're a dumbfuck. 

Definition of DITTO
1: a thing mentioned previously or above &#8212;used to avoid repeating a word &#8212;often symbolized by inverted commas or apostrophes 
might wanna use only words you know.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the components for super computers exist too but they don't spontaneously erupt. Neither do watches!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You been a basic understanding of biological organisms vs. non-biological for the preceding to help you understand.
> 
> Now would be a good time to toss in the stupendously stupid Christian creationist analogy that questions why mechanical parts don't leap off a shelf and assemble into a car.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well is that not what you think happened with biological organisms,things just arranged themselves in the proper sequencing.
Click to expand...


If you had any understanding of evolutionary theory, your simpleton comment would have been better structured. 

Asserting "the gawds did if" places you in the position of having to explain their incompetence at designers.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
> 
> Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
> 
> Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize what you are saying? Cancer cells are the result of copying errors or...wait for it... mutations!! Darwin is evil because he caused cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are agreeing that mutations do occur? Why then, and on what grounds, can you preclude a positive mutation for a species if it is only a copying error if this copying error were to take place during meiosis? Explain the mechanism that might prevent this. If you can't, then you have no basis on which to doubt mutations being positive.
Click to expand...


No one denies mutations happen what we deny is what vivid imaginations say they did.

What is your point on meiosis ? what are you suggesting parents cross bred with another species ?

You don't understand that most errors during DNA replication there are repair enzymes working to correct these errors ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you forgot  the link ...these are not your words
> but to answer your question you're a poser playing at being a biologist. and failing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen that you wish not to debate me on the subject in your own words. Hell you can't even do it with your copying and pasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong as always what I see is you dodging the question. you forgot the link or intentionally left it out, thinking someone would believe it was you.
> if you really could wright like that...it would be miracle!
Click to expand...


Hey dummy, I never claimed those words were mine now if you go back and check the link you will find I did post that link earlier I guess you could have saved yourself some embarrassment if you would have read it the first time i posted it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lnow that's funny.. you who have proven you cannot read or spell would ask that.
> BTW it's perfect english, syntax, and punctuation. if you weren't illiterate  you'd know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you do realize that the word "ditto" means you agree?
> more rock solid proof your a dumbfuck.
> 
> Definition of DITTO
> 1: a thing mentioned previously or above used to avoid repeating a word often symbolized by inverted commas or apostrophes
> might wanna use only words you know.
Click to expand...


Yeah he was being critical of me while he posted that you don't find that funny ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen that you wish not to debate me on the subject in your own words. Hell you can't even do it with your copying and pasting.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong as always what I see is you dodging the question. you forgot the link or intentionally left it out, thinking someone would believe it was you.
> if you really could wright like that...it would be miracle!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dummy, I never claimed those words were mine now if you go back and check the link you will find I did post that link earlier I guess you could have saved yourself some embarrassment if you would have read it the first time i posted it.
Click to expand...

I did read it and posted the pertinent parts.
you've not proven anything except that you're a poser.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize what you are saying? Cancer cells are the result of copying errors or...wait for it... mutations!! Darwin is evil because he caused cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are agreeing that mutations do occur? Why then, and on what grounds, can you preclude a positive mutation for a species if it is only a copying error if this copying error were to take place during meiosis? Explain the mechanism that might prevent this. If you can't, then you have no basis on which to doubt mutations being positive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one denies mutations happen what we deny is what vivid imaginations say they did.
> 
> What is your point on meiosis ? what are you suggesting parents cross bred with another species ?
> 
> You don't understand that most errors DNA replications there are repair enzymes working to correct these errors ?
Click to expand...


No, I didn't know this, but I don't see how this matters, either. You have made the claim that beneficial mutations are impossible. However it is, that mutations occur, we know they occur. What I am asking if why you seem to think that only harmful mutations occur? This is a very convenient position to have for a creationist, and it is very suspect. There is no mechanism to discriminate against positive mutations. This much I know, because that would imply there was an evolved system that was designed to produce harmful mutations only. No life form with an interest in continuing life, would evolve this kind of system. Then again, you believe that virus' have a built-in self-destruct sequence.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize that the word "ditto" means you agree?
> more rock solid proof your a dumbfuck.
> 
> Definition of DITTO
> 1: a thing mentioned previously or above used to avoid repeating a word often symbolized by inverted commas or apostrophes
> might wanna use only words you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah he was being critical of me while he posted that you don't find that funny ?
Click to expand...

who is he? if you're not addressing me, who are you addressing?
must be that invisible friend you're always yammering about!


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize what you are saying? Cancer cells are the result of copying errors or...wait for it... mutations!! Darwin is evil because he caused cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are agreeing that mutations do occur? Why then, and on what grounds, can you preclude a positive mutation for a species if it is only a copying error if this copying error were to take place during meiosis? Explain the mechanism that might prevent this. If you can't, then you have no basis on which to doubt mutations being positive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one denies mutations happen what we deny is what vivid imaginations say they did.
> 
> What is your point on meiosis ? what are you suggesting parents cross bred with another species ?
> 
> You don't understand that most errors DNA replications there are repair enzymes working to correct these errors ?
Click to expand...


Shall the inclusive "we" in your first sentence define you as writing on behalf of the Christian creationist community?

Otherwise, what a remarkable admission that mutations occur. Did you clandestinely open a biology textbook? "We" wouldn't like that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

NP now is that something,enzymes being programmed to spot and repair errors,just one question remains. Who programmed those enzymes ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong as always what I see is you dodging the question. you forgot the link or intentionally left it out, thinking someone would believe it was you.
> if you really could wright like that...it would be miracle!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dummy, I never claimed those words were mine now if you go back and check the link you will find I did post that link earlier I guess you could have saved yourself some embarrassment if you would have read it the first time i posted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did read it and posted the pertinent parts.
> you've not proven anything except that you're a poser.
Click to expand...


Think what you like but we know the truth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are agreeing that mutations do occur? Why then, and on what grounds, can you preclude a positive mutation for a species if it is only a copying error if this copying error were to take place during meiosis? Explain the mechanism that might prevent this. If you can't, then you have no basis on which to doubt mutations being positive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one denies mutations happen what we deny is what vivid imaginations say they did.
> 
> What is your point on meiosis ? what are you suggesting parents cross bred with another species ?
> 
> You don't understand that most errors DNA replications there are repair enzymes working to correct these errors ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't know this, but I don't see how this matters, either. You have made the claim that beneficial mutations are impossible. However it is, that mutations occur, we know they occur. What I am asking if why you seem to think that only harmful mutations occur? This is a very convenient position to have for a creationist, and it is very suspect. There is no mechanism to discriminate against positive mutations. This much I know, because that would imply there was an evolved system that was designed to produce harmful mutations only. No life form with an interest in continuing life, would evolve this kind of system. Then again, you believe that virus' have a built-in self-destruct sequence.
Click to expand...


Whoa ,whoa, whoa, I said earlier when you asked me, I said they were to rare to be the engine to produce the diversity seen in nature.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist is going to tell us what is or isn't a religion?
> 
> 
> No bias there.
> 
> 
> 
> who the fuck is "us"
> GUESS YOU'RE ILLITERATE TOO "American Atheists&#8217; Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:
> 
> I&#8217;m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert."
> 
> please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid  just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
> that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
> who's bias again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What degree do you hold daws to be a pastor ?
Click to expand...

 I know where you're going with this, so I'll spare you the embarrassment of making an even larger anal aperture of yourself

 Although degrees are very nice to have, God does not require an individual to have degrees to lead his church. However, God does have requirements. To lead God's church, one must first have accepted Christ as their personal saviour. One must be honourable and trustworthy, respected, not easily given to sin, have the ability to lead, be receptive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, be a good manager or Stewart of God's business, have goals and the additional requirements as emphasized in the Bible. 

Now, some denominations may have degree requirements for their pastors. Some may require you to get formal theological training leading to the M.Div (Master of Divinity) or the M.Min (Master of Ministry) degree. There are also academic degrees leading to the Master of Systematic Theology or the Master of Sacred Theology. Some may require a Bachelor of Theology. If you belong to a denomination that holds such requirements, you may not be able to be a Pastor unless you have fulfilled this requirement. In any case, degree or no degree, the above requirements that meet the standards of holiness must be met.
What degree is required to be a Pastor of a church

I'd have answerd in my own words but you guys have a built in bias when it come to theological matters when us evil atheists provide them.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> NP now is that something,enzymes being programmed to spot and repair errors,just one question remains. Who programmed those enzymes ?



Who programmed the errors?

Are the gawds looking for job security?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dummy, I never claimed those words were mine now if you go back and check the link you will find I did post that link earlier I guess you could have saved yourself some embarrassment if you would have read it the first time i posted it.
> 
> 
> 
> I did read it and posted the pertinent parts.
> you've not proven anything except that you're a poser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think what you like but we know the truth.
Click to expand...

yes "I" know the truth. too bad "WE" is lying.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> who the fuck is "us"
> GUESS YOU'RE ILLITERATE TOO "American Atheists Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:
> 
> Im a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert."
> 
> please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid  just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
> that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
> who's bias again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What degree do you hold daws to be a pastor ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know where you're going with this, so I'll spare you the embarrassment of making an even larger anal aperture..
> 
> Although degrees are very nice to have, God does not require an individual to have degrees to lead his church. However, God does have requirements. To lead God's church, one must first have accepted Christ as their personal saviour. One must be honourable and trustworthy, respected, not easily given to sin, have the ability to lead, be receptive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, be a good manager or Stewart of God's business, have goals and the additional requirements as emphasized in the Bible.
> 
> Now, some denominations may have degree requirements for their pastors. Some may require you to get formal theological training leading to the M.Div (Master of Divinity) or the M.Min (Master of Ministry) degree. There are also academic degrees leading to the Master of Systematic Theology or the Master of Sacred Theology. Some may require a Bachelor of Theology. If you belong to a denomination that holds such requirements, you may not be able to be a Pastor unless you have fulfilled this requirement. In any case, degree or no degree, the above requirements that meet the standards of holiness must be met.
> What degree is required to be a Pastor of a church
> 
> I'd have answerd in my own words but you guys have a built in bias when it come to theological matters when us evil atheists provide them.
Click to expand...


What did you do start a church out in the woods  no major denomination would touch you without a degree poser.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP now is that something,enzymes being programmed to spot and repair errors,just one question remains. Who programmed those enzymes ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who programmed the errors?
> 
> Are the gawds looking for job security?
Click to expand...


The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did read it and posted the pertinent parts.
> you've not proven anything except that you're a poser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you like but we know the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes "I" know the truth. too bad "WE" is lying.
Click to expand...


Who is we Daws,do you have a mouse in your pocket ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lie or show me someting to support your accusation.
> 
> 
> 
> see post# 11463
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of the scriptures does not make the bible inaccurate numb nuts.
Click to expand...

 as always wrong! the ignorance is yours so is the denial. 
post # 11463 proves you wrong and are in denial.
btw shit head again you're making false claims .
1. I did not and do not lie.
2. it's not or was an accusation  Definition of ACCUSATION
1: the act of accusing : the state or fact of being accused 
2: a charge of wrongdoing 
IT is a statement of fact that you deny.
the wrongdoing  is your's.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hey UR, this is kinda fun thanking them for their totally useless posts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

That is why they should try avoiding debating an issue they don't know well enough to debate. They eventually make my argument for me.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> NP now is that something,enzymes being programmed to spot and repair errors,just one question remains. Who programmed those enzymes ?



Why do you think there needs to be a programmer??? The question is loaded.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> NP now is that something,enzymes being programmed to spot and repair errors,just one question remains. Who programmed those enzymes ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who programmed the errors?
> 
> Are the gawds looking for job security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin.
Click to expand...


Good answer. Those pre-teens with cancer, well screw'em. They're sinners who deserve to die. It's a good thing Manson's still alive. He would have been a good example for any 7 year old sinner with a terminal disease. Good thing that the gawds stepped in and snuffed out little johnny and Jane...die sinners.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What degree do you hold daws to be a pastor ?
> 
> 
> 
> I know where you're going with this, so I'll spare you the embarrassment of making an even larger anal aperture..
> 
> Although degrees are very nice to have, God does not require an individual to have degrees to lead his church. However, God does have requirements. To lead God's church, one must first have accepted Christ as their personal saviour. One must be honourable and trustworthy, respected, not easily given to sin, have the ability to lead, be receptive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, be a good manager or Stewart of God's business, have goals and the additional requirements as emphasized in the Bible.
> 
> Now, some denominations may have degree requirements for their pastors. Some may require you to get formal theological training leading to the M.Div (Master of Divinity) or the M.Min (Master of Ministry) degree. There are also academic degrees leading to the Master of Systematic Theology or the Master of Sacred Theology. Some may require a Bachelor of Theology. If you belong to a denomination that holds such requirements, you may not be able to be a Pastor unless you have fulfilled this requirement. In any case, degree or no degree, the above requirements that meet the standards of holiness must be met.
> What degree is required to be a Pastor of a church
> 
> I'd have answerd in my own words but you guys have a built in bias when it come to theological matters when us evil atheists provide them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did you do start a church out in the woods  no major denomination would touch you without a degree poser.
Click to expand...

I did nothing. who is this you you're talking about?
"no major denomination?" the post proves you wrong.
why the fuck would I start a church anywhere?
you do know WHAT a atheist is ..right?
making statements that showcase your stupidty are not funny..so keep your day job whatever that might be.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one denies mutations happen what we deny is what vivid imaginations say they did.
> 
> What is your point on meiosis ? what are you suggesting parents cross bred with another species ?
> 
> You don't understand that most errors DNA replications there are repair enzymes working to correct these errors ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't know this, but I don't see how this matters, either. You have made the claim that beneficial mutations are impossible. However it is, that mutations occur, we know they occur. What I am asking if why you seem to think that only harmful mutations occur? This is a very convenient position to have for a creationist, and it is very suspect. There is no mechanism to discriminate against positive mutations. This much I know, because that would imply there was an evolved system that was designed to produce harmful mutations only. No life form with an interest in continuing life, would evolve this kind of system. Then again, you believe that virus' have a built-in self-destruct sequence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa ,whoa, whoa, I said earlier when you asked me, I said they were to rare to be the engine to produce the diversity seen in nature.
Click to expand...


How are you defining "too rare" and how have you determined this, apart from your amazing "intuition"?


----------



## jack113

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist is going to tell us what is or isn't a religion?
> 
> 
> No bias there.
> 
> 
> 
> who the fuck is "us"
> GUESS YOU'RE ILLITERATE TOO "American Atheists&#8217; Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:
> 
> I&#8217;m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert."
> 
> please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid  just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
> that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
> who's bias again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your analogy is as weak as your brain.
> 
> Her opinion isn't invalid, it's simply wrong.
> 
> 
> And "us" doesn't mean you so get off your self righteous horse.
Click to expand...


Who is the us anyway? Usually it's the mouse squeaking in someones pocket. All sides need to stop the religious hatred and start supporting the constitution that makes our republic work.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a person can't examine something and see it is a product of design it's because they don't want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intuition is not evidence for something. That fact that something looks designed is not evidence that it actually is, just like the fact that lightning sounds like the gods are bowling doesn't mean good 'ol Zeus is up there throwing strikes. Science has proven in almost every case, that human intuition is wrong when it comes to scientific realities, so, this is not  even close to an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are walking down a beach and find a watch is it rational to pick that watch up and assume over billions of years, it formed itself ?
Click to expand...

another totally stupid analogy...
no futher details needed


----------



## daws101

jack113 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> who the fuck is "us"
> GUESS YOU'RE ILLITERATE TOO "American Atheists Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:
> 
> Im a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert."
> 
> please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid  just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
> that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
> who's bias again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy is as weak as your brain.
> 
> Her opinion isn't invalid, it's simply wrong.
> 
> 
> And "us" doesn't mean you so get off your self righteous horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is the us anyway? Usually it's the mouse squeaking in someones pocket. All sides need to stop the religious hatred and start supporting the constitution that makes our republic work.
Click to expand...

since god is not mentioned in the Constitution I think you're on the wrong thread.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complexity is evidence of a designer. Foreknowledge from the bible is also evidence of this designer.
Click to expand...

previously debunked


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have not been showed evidence then explain how complexity arised from chaos with evidence please ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I asked. I asked for proof of your guy, not some philosophical bs. So what if I can't show you that? It still doesn't prove anything that I can't explain your irrelevant question, because you have nothing to prove your guy anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have two choices naturalism or intelligence which is better supported by the evidence.
Click to expand...

wrong again!  you have no evidence for creationism or Id. saying it's supported by evidence is false.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you ok UR ? I have never seen you thank hollie before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a new tactic to his creepy stalking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> even creepier he thanks himself for his own posts.
> it's a kind of masturbation.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet another dodge and failed answered question from the angry fundie.
> 
> 
> 
> the best you could do is call lie and name call!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your specialty daws.
Click to expand...

that is also a lie.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss your urinary incontinence old man.
> 
> 
> 
> what the fuck would you know about proper?
> you cherry picked the post.
> then made not funny been done joke..
> the folks at rehab must love you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got my joke.
Click to expand...

I wrote your joke...before you could shave.


----------



## newpolitics

jack113 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> who the fuck is "us"
> GUESS YOU'RE ILLITERATE TOO "American Atheists&#8217; Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:
> 
> I&#8217;m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert."
> 
> please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid  just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
> that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
> who's bias again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy is as weak as your brain.
> 
> Her opinion isn't invalid, it's simply wrong.
> 
> 
> And "us" doesn't mean you so get off your self righteous horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is the us anyway? Usually it's the mouse squeaking in someones pocket. All sides need to stop the religious hatred and start supporting the constitution that makes our republic work.
Click to expand...


This isn't a debate about the constitution. This is a debate about the merits of creationism/Intelligent Design and those of Evolution. There are plenty of threads about the constitution on this website.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't know this, but I don't see how this matters, either. You have made the claim that beneficial mutations are impossible. However it is, that mutations occur, we know they occur. What I am asking if why you seem to think that only harmful mutations occur? This is a very convenient position to have for a creationist, and it is very suspect. There is no mechanism to discriminate against positive mutations. This much I know, because that would imply there was an evolved system that was designed to produce harmful mutations only. No life form with an interest in continuing life, would evolve this kind of system. Then again, you believe that virus' have a built-in self-destruct sequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa ,whoa, whoa, I said earlier when you asked me, I said they were to rare to be the engine to produce the diversity seen in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are you defining "too rare" and how have you determined this, apart from your amazing "intuition"?
Click to expand...


How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know where you're going with this, so I'll spare you the embarrassment of making an even larger anal aperture..
> 
> Although degrees are very nice to have, God does not require an individual to have degrees to lead his church. However, God does have requirements. To lead God's church, one must first have accepted Christ as their personal saviour. One must be honourable and trustworthy, respected, not easily given to sin, have the ability to lead, be receptive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, be a good manager or Stewart of God's business, have goals and the additional requirements as emphasized in the Bible.
> 
> Now, some denominations may have degree requirements for their pastors. Some may require you to get formal theological training leading to the M.Div (Master of Divinity) or the M.Min (Master of Ministry) degree. There are also academic degrees leading to the Master of Systematic Theology or the Master of Sacred Theology. Some may require a Bachelor of Theology. If you belong to a denomination that holds such requirements, you may not be able to be a Pastor unless you have fulfilled this requirement. In any case, degree or no degree, the above requirements that meet the standards of holiness must be met.
> What degree is required to be a Pastor of a church
> 
> I'd have answerd in my own words but you guys have a built in bias when it come to theological matters when us evil atheists provide them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did you do start a church out in the woods  no major denomination would touch you without a degree poser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did nothing. who is this you you're talking about?
> "no major denomination?" the post proves you wrong.
> why the fuck would I start a church anywhere?
> you do know WHAT a atheist is ..right?
> making statements that showcase your stupidty are not funny..so keep your day job whatever that might be.
Click to expand...


Unless you were quoting someone else you claimed to be a pastor. If you were quoting someone else then I am sorry for the mistake, If not my accusation stands.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complexity is evidence of a designer. Foreknowledge from the bible is also evidence of this designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> previously debunked
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I asked. I asked for proof of your guy, not some philosophical bs. So what if I can't show you that? It still doesn't prove anything that I can't explain your irrelevant question, because you have nothing to prove your guy anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have two choices naturalism or intelligence which is better supported by the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong again!  you have no evidence for creationism or Id. saying it's supported by evidence is false.
Click to expand...


Care to explain who programmed the enzymes to identify copying errors during DNA replication and then repair them ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the best you could do is call lie and name call!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is your specialty daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is also a lie.
Click to expand...


All one has to do is look at your last 100 posts in this thread and they would see who the liar is.


----------



## mjollnir

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have two choices naturalism or intelligence which is better supported by the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again!  you have no evidence for creationism or Id. saying it's supported by evidence is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to explain who programmed the enzymes to identify copying errors during DNA replication and then repair them ?
Click to expand...


Yawn.  That presumes a programmer, and that the term 'programming' even applies to that.

Assigning that to an invisible super being does nothing to support the contention there is a 'creator'.

Try again.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa ,whoa, whoa, I said earlier when you asked me, I said they were to rare to be the engine to produce the diversity seen in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "too rare" and how have you determined this, apart from your amazing "intuition"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool.
Click to expand...


Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence. It may be unlikely, but given how much time has passed since the earths beginning, and how many times animals have mated or divided, it becomes more and more likely.

The answer to your question is quite simple.  it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is more statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable, than something undesirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing. Of course we are going to notice the harmful mutations, while any beneficial mutations might not be noteworthy. They may simply be a very successful person who don't even realize they have a beneficial mutation. So, you have no way of tracking how many beneficial mutations there are, because of confirmation bias with respect to the evidence.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> who the fuck is "us"
> GUESS YOU'RE ILLITERATE TOO "American Atheists&#8217; Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:
> 
> I&#8217;m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert."
> 
> please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid  just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
> that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
> who's bias again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What degree do you hold daws to be a pastor ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know where you're going with this, so I'll spare you the embarrassment of making an even larger anal aperture of yourself
> 
> Although degrees are very nice to have, God does not require an individual to have degrees to lead his church. However, God does have requirements. To lead God's church, one *must first have accepted Christ as their personal saviour*.
Click to expand...

 Wrong. This is what some of the religions of Christianity teach but this is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. 





daws101 said:


> One must be honourable and trustworthy, respected, not easily given to sin, have the ability to lead, be receptive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, be a good manager or Stewart of God's business, have goals and the additional requirements as emphasized in the Bible.
> 
> Now, some denominations may have degree requirements for their pastors. Some may require you to get formal theological training leading to the M.Div (Master of Divinity) or the M.Min (Master of Ministry) degree. There are also academic degrees leading to the Master of Systematic Theology or the Master of Sacred Theology. Some may require a Bachelor of Theology. If you belong to a denomination that holds such requirements, you may not be able to be a Pastor unless you have fulfilled this requirement. In any case, degree or no degree, the above requirements that meet the standards of holiness must be met.
> What degree is required to be a Pastor of a church
> 
> I'd have answerd in my own words but you guys have a built in bias when it come to theological matters when us *evil atheists* provide them.


 You said it. Not me.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hey UR, this is kinda fun thanking them for their totally useless posts.



It is!!! They started it like it was some kind of club thing, like it added legitimacy to their atheist buddy's post so for awhile I wrongly thanked you and Lonestar so we were sure the sides were picked. Now it is more like, "Thanks for your useless post". Even NP has joined in!!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "too rare" and how have you determined this, apart from your amazing "intuition"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence.
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is quite simple.  it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing.
Click to expand...


I did a post on mutation fixation a while back and the conditions that need to be met for a mutation to become fixated in the population and the problems for this to happen. You have enzymes also working against fixation . I am not gonna search for that post but here read this article and you will see one of your own explaining the conditions that have to be met for fixation to take place plus the enzymes working to correct these copying errors and the chances are impossible no matter how many years you give it.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution 

by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A. 

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.

NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION 

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1

1. Natural Environment

Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population. 2

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

2. No Structural Change

Byles's second condition is: "There must be no pleiotropic effect involved with the locus or loci, or, if such effect exists, all the phenotypic structures involved must be selectively neutral." This means that there either must be no changes in physical structure involved, or they must be selectively neutral. If none are involved, then of course evolution does not occur. But if only those occur that are selectively neutral, then they are of no advantage to the mutant and survival of the fittest does not affect it or its non-mutant relatives; again, no evolution.

Not only would mutations that met this condition appear to contribute little or nothing to evolution, but also they would appear never to happen--or nearly never, anyway. G. Ledyard Stebbins tells us that within the gene there is no such thing as an inactive site at which a mutation will not affect the adaptive properties of the gene. 4 "Every character of an organism is affected by all genes," writes Ernst Mayr, "and every gene affects all characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole." 5

In other words, there may well be no such thing as a mutation having no structural change in the organism. Yet Byles says that a requirement for the fixation of a mutation is that it have none, or that the effect it has must be selectively neutral. Neither case appears ever to happen, and even if the latter did, it would not lead to macro-evolution since it would leave the mutant no more "fit" than any of its relatives. Indeed it would probably be less "fit" because of the tendency of natural selection to weed out rather than preserve mutations in a gene pool.

3. Net Effect Must be Unidirectional

Byles's third condition is: ". . . the mutational event must be recurrent and, furthermore, the rate of back mutation must be so small as to be irrelevant." Byles himself admits, though, that even recurrent mutations are almost never retained in the population: ". . . non-recurrent mutations have a very low probability of remaining in the genepool at all . . . the odds against a recurrent mutation being retained in the gene pool for any significant number of generations are very high." And even "most recurrent mutations have been observed to retain the potential for back mutation." It seems that neither part of his third condition will be fulfilled; yet Byles makes it clear in his article that all the conditions must be fulfilled in order for mutations to be fixed in a population.

4. High Mutation Rate

Byles's fourth condition is: "The mutation rate at the relevant locus or loci must be very large." Yet Francisco Ayala says, "It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation." 6

Byles himself comments on Lerner's estimate of one hundred mutations per one million gametes (one in ten thousand). "Obviously, a mutation rate this small, even given a complete absence of back mutation (which appears never to occur), would result in a very small change in a given gene pool, even given large numbers of generations. This has long been considered one of the major stumbling blocks to the [Probably Mutation Effect] . . . In order for the P.M.E. to be effective, very high mutation rates are clearly necessary."

So it appears that this condition, too, is likely never met in nature.

5. Large Population

Byles's fifth condition is that the population involved must be large. He stipulates this because small populations can easily be destroyed by a mutation. And, as population size decreases, the probability that a mutation will be eliminated increases.

Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steers, however, postulate that a small population with much inbreeding is important: ". . . the ideal conditions for rapid evolution . . . are provided by a species which is divided into a number of small local sub-populations that are nearly but not completely isolated and small enough so that a moderate degree of inbreeding takes place. . . . The division of a species into two or more subspecies is of course dependent on complete isolation being achieved in some way." 7

It seems that evolutionists themselves have realized a great problem but are unable to deal with it. In a small population, a mutation will almost certainly be eliminated. Yet a small population is needed for evolution to occur. Here indeed is an impasse. But the problem gets worse.

Byles adds (in contradiction of Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere), "If the investigator is dealing with a population which is undergoing contact with genetically dissimilar neighbors, the effect of the mutation is inevitably so minor as to be undetectable. Therefore, to argue that mutation is the cause of change in the population's genetic structure, one must also of necessity argue that this population is not undergoing a process of hybridization." In other words, if the population is large, the effect of the mutation is almost nil. Even when Byles's condition is met, then, the effects of the mutations are almost zero on the entire population. And, furthermore, while Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere say some interbreeding between dissimilar populations is necessary, Byles says it is death to evolutionary change.

6. Selective Neutrality of Polygenes

Byles's sixth condition is: "Polygenes are not relevant to this argument, unless the entire anatomical complex is itself selectively neutral." This means that for organisms of many genes, the mutation cannot be fixed unless the whole anatomical structure of the organism is selectively neutral relative to the gene which mutates. That this does not occur was shown in our discussion of the second condition.

7. Little Hybridization

Byles's seventh condition is: "There must be little or no hybridizing admixture." This of course is to avoid making the mutation itself insignificant. But if the effect is actually significant, then this contradicts his second condition, which was that the mutation must cause no significant structural change (see under point 2 above). Furthermore, the only way in which to have no hybridizing admixture is to have a small population that is isolated from others of the same kind. This contradicts his fifth condition. If the population is small, the probability of a mutant gene's being eliminated rises steeply.

This seventh condition, if fulfilled, makes evolution impossible because the mutation would not be retained due to the necessarily small population. But if unfulfilled, it leaves evolution impossible due to the insignificance of the effect of the mutation.

8. Necessity of High Penetrance

Byles's eighth condition is: "The genetic structures involved must have high 'penetrance.'" Put simply, this means that the genes must be highly susceptible to mutation. It thus means almost the same as Condition Four.

Yet it occasions another problem. As soon as the structure becomes highly susceptible to mutation, it must also become highly susceptible to back mutation. But his third condition states that the rate of back mutation must be irrelevant. Again there is contradiction: fulfill Condition Eight and you can't fulfill Condition Three. Fulfill Condition Three and you can't fulfill Condition Eight. Yet Byles says that all of the conditions must be fulfilled for mutation fixation to occur; and without mutation fixation there is no macro-evolution.

9. High Heritability

Byles's ninth condition is: "The phenotype must have high heritability." This condition is almost never met for mutational phenotypes. Byles himself told us that the probability of retaining even a recurring mutation is "very low."

TALLYING THE SCORE 

It appears that the probability of meeting any one of these conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent. Recall now that the fifth and seventh conditions effectively cancel each other out, as do the third and eighth, and we are forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to meet all the conditions. Mutation cannot be the mechanism for macro-evolution.
Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who programmed the errors?
> 
> Are the gawds looking for job security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good answer. Those pre-teens with cancer, well screw'em. They're sinners who deserve to die. It's a good thing Manson's still alive. He would have been a good example for any 7 year old sinner with a terminal disease. Good thing that the gawds stepped in and snuffed out little johnny and Jane...die sinners.
Click to expand...


Christianity teaches we are born into sin. And no where in the Bible does God guarantee you any minimum number of years on the planet. In fact, genocidal atheist feminazi's like Hawly have seen to it that we can kill as many unborn lives as possible. That is the thing about free will, you have the choice to destroy life. Abortion is EVIL.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know where you're going with this, so I'll spare you the embarrassment of making an even larger anal aperture..
> 
> Although degrees are very nice to have, God does not require an individual to have degrees to lead his church. However, God does have requirements. To lead God's church, one must first have accepted Christ as their personal saviour. One must be honourable and trustworthy, respected, not easily given to sin, have the ability to lead, be receptive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, be a good manager or Stewart of God's business, have goals and the additional requirements as emphasized in the Bible.
> 
> Now, some denominations may have degree requirements for their pastors. Some may require you to get formal theological training leading to the M.Div (Master of Divinity) or the M.Min (Master of Ministry) degree. There are also academic degrees leading to the Master of Systematic Theology or the Master of Sacred Theology. Some may require a Bachelor of Theology. If you belong to a denomination that holds such requirements, you may not be able to be a Pastor unless you have fulfilled this requirement. In any case, degree or no degree, the above requirements that meet the standards of holiness must be met.
> What degree is required to be a Pastor of a church
> 
> I'd have answerd in my own words but you guys have a built in bias when it come to theological matters when us evil atheists provide them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did you do start a church out in the woods  no major denomination would touch you without a degree poser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did nothing. who is this you you're talking about?
> "no major denomination?" the post proves you wrong.
> why the fuck would I start a church anywhere?
> you do know WHAT a atheist is ..right?
> making statements that showcase your stupidty are not funny..so keep your day job whatever that might be.
Click to expand...


Yes, atheists worship creation and not the Creator. They worship nature. Their faith is in materialism. They also happen to believe that everyone should be as miserable as they are, and thus their continued assault on Christmas. You know, because giving people gifts, helping those in need, and spending time with family should never be encouraged by the gov'ment.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't know this, but I don't see how this matters, either. You have made the claim that beneficial mutations are impossible. However it is, that mutations occur, we know they occur. What I am asking if why you seem to think that only harmful mutations occur? This is a very convenient position to have for a creationist, and it is very suspect. There is no mechanism to discriminate against positive mutations. This much I know, because that would imply there was an evolved system that was designed to produce harmful mutations only. No life form with an interest in continuing life, would evolve this kind of system. Then again, you believe that virus' have a built-in self-destruct sequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa ,whoa, whoa, I said earlier when you asked me, I said they were to rare to be the engine to produce the diversity seen in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are you defining "too rare" and how have you determined this, apart from your amazing "intuition"?
Click to expand...


Scientific evidence easily studied with a google search.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I can see the useless posts now after posting something from a creationist.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> jack113 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy is as weak as your brain.
> 
> Her opinion isn't invalid, it's simply wrong.
> 
> 
> And "us" doesn't mean you so get off your self righteous horse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the us anyway? Usually it's the mouse squeaking in someones pocket. All sides need to stop the religious hatred and start supporting the constitution that makes our republic work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since god is not mentioned in the Constitution I think you're on the wrong thread.
Click to expand...


Hollowhead tried arguing this and got totally owned. God is absolutely mentioned in the Constitution. Now maybe not in the context to which you are referring, but he is definitely mentioned.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a new tactic to his creepy stalking.
> 
> 
> 
> even creepier he thanks himself for his own posts.
> it's a kind of masturbation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And thats different than you laughing at your own jokes how?
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

mjollnir said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again!  you have no evidence for creationism or Id. saying it's supported by evidence is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain who programmed the enzymes to identify copying errors during DNA replication and then repair them ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn.  That presumes a programmer, and that the term 'programming' even applies to that.
> 
> Assigning that to an invisible super being does nothing to support the contention there is a 'creator'.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


Why would you automatically assume it is an invisible super being and not an advanced alien race?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa ,whoa, whoa, I said earlier when you asked me, I said they were to rare to be the engine to produce the diversity seen in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "too rare" and how have you determined this, apart from your amazing "intuition"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientific evidence easily studied with a google search.
Click to expand...


You are missing the point. This is not something you can even study through google, because the assertion is completely subjective until some definitions are laid out, which YWC has failed to do. He simply relies on intuition as his guide for objective truths.


----------



## mjollnir

UltimateReality said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain who programmed the enzymes to identify copying errors during DNA replication and then repair them ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.  That presumes a programmer, and that the term 'programming' even applies to that.
> 
> Assigning that to an invisible super being does nothing to support the contention there is a 'creator'.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you automatically assume it is an invisible super being and not an advanced alien race?
Click to expand...


I assume neither.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have two choices naturalism or intelligence which is better supported by the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again!  you have no evidence for creationism or Id. saying it's supported by evidence is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to explain who programmed the enzymes to identify copying errors during DNA replication and then repair them ?
Click to expand...


Care to explain who programmed the errors in DNA that needed correcting?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "too rare" and how have you determined this, apart from your amazing "intuition"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence. It may be unlikely, but given how much time has passed since the earths beginning, and how many times animals have mated or divided, it becomes more and more likely.
> 
> The answer to your question is quite simple.  it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is more statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable, than something undesirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing. Of course we are going to notice the harmful mutations, while any beneficial mutations might not be noteworthy. They may simply be a very successful person who don't even realize they have a beneficial mutation. So, you have no way of tracking how many beneficial mutations there are, because of confirmation bias with respect to the evidence.
Click to expand...


By the way who is we do you have a mouse in your pocket ? Do you hold a degree in science ? and have you done research work ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "too rare" and how have you determined this, apart from your amazing "intuition"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific evidence easily studied with a google search.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are missing the point. This is not something you can even study through google, because the assertion is completely subjective until some definitions are laid out, which YWC has failed to do. He simply relies on intuition as his guide for objective truths.
Click to expand...


I made my definitions very clear and if you don't understand a term look it up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

mjollnir said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.  That presumes a programmer, and that the term 'programming' even applies to that.
> 
> Assigning that to an invisible super being does nothing to support the contention there is a 'creator'.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you automatically assume it is an invisible super being and not an advanced alien race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume neither.
Click to expand...


So you are in the category of naturalism,it just happened by chance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again!  you have no evidence for creationism or Id. saying it's supported by evidence is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain who programmed the enzymes to identify copying errors during DNA replication and then repair them ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to explain who programmed the errors in DNA that needed correcting?
Click to expand...


Already answered.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain who programmed the enzymes to identify copying errors during DNA replication and then repair them ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain who programmed the errors in DNA that needed correcting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already answered.
Click to expand...


Care to explain who programmed the programmer?


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you been following the thread for the DNA argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm asking for actual proof of the guy whom you think made DNA, until then, random process cannot be excluded, you weren't there to see that it didn't happen that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Random processes have been excluded by probabilistic arguments until someone comes up with something different than it "just happened" in the ocean or a warm little pond or next to an ocean vent.
Click to expand...


You still never showed me any evidence of the guy who you think made everything. And you don't accept science but you accept probability? Probability doesn't excluded random process, it just says that it might be highly unlikely, which is also bs because the person who made this argument wasn't there either at the beginning.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain who programmed the errors in DNA that needed correcting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to explain who programmed the programmer?
Click to expand...


No one,who programmed you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm asking for actual proof of the guy whom you think made DNA, until then, random process cannot be excluded, you weren't there to see that it didn't happen that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Random processes have been excluded by probabilistic arguments until someone comes up with something different than it "just happened" in the ocean or a warm little pond or next to an ocean vent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still never showed me any evidence of the guy who you think made everything. And you don't accept science but you accept probability? Probability doesn't excluded random process, it just says that it might be highly unlikely, which is also bs because the person who made this argument wasn't there either at the beginning.
Click to expand...


It's really because you don't like the answer.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Random processes have been excluded by probabilistic arguments until someone comes up with something different than it "just happened" in the ocean or a warm little pond or next to an ocean vent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still never showed me any evidence of the guy who you think made everything. And you don't accept science but you accept probability? Probability doesn't excluded random process, it just says that it might be highly unlikely, which is also bs because the person who made this argument wasn't there either at the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's really because you don't like the answer.
Click to expand...


So where is your guy? You never said.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence.
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is quite simple.  it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did a post on mutation fixation a while back and the conditions that need to be met for a mutation to become fixated in the population and the problems for this to happen. You have enzymes also working against fixation . I am not gonna search for that post but here read this article and you will see one of your own explaining the conditions that have to be met for fixation to take place plus the enzymes working to correct these copying errors and the chances are impossible no matter how many years you give it.
> 
> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
> 
> by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
Click to expand...


Oh no. Not this same silly Beisner cut and paste again. 

Yet more silliness from the ICR. 

E. Calvin Beisner 

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is also an author and speaker on the application of the Biblical world view to economics, government, and environmental policy. He has published over ten books and hundreds of articles, contributed to, or edited, many other books, and been a guest on television and radio programs. A ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, he has spoken to churches, seminars, and other groups around the country for nearly twenty years.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain who programmed the programmer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one,who programmed you ?
Click to expand...


So you believe your gawds program faulty work and also program corrective actions 
 for the purpose of killing sinners?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain who programmed the programmer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one,who programmed you ?
Click to expand...


Where did the program come from?


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence.
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is quite simple.  it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did a post on mutation fixation a while back and the conditions that need to be met for a mutation to become fixated in the population and the problems for this to happen. You have enzymes also working against fixation . I am not gonna search for that post but here read this article and you will see one of your own explaining the conditions that have to be met for fixation to take place plus the enzymes working to correct these copying errors and the chances are impossible no matter how many years you give it.
> 
> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
> 
> by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no. Not this same silly Beisner cut and paste again.
> 
> Yet more silliness from the ICR.
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is also an author and speaker on the application of the Biblical world view to economics, government, and environmental policy. He has published over ten books and hundreds of articles, contributed to, or edited, many other books, and been a guest on television and radio programs. A ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, he has spoken to churches, seminars, and other groups around the country for nearly twenty years.
Click to expand...


FYI, E. Calvin is also running a special promotion this week on his own branded pint bottles of E. Cal's magic elixir and stain removed. Guaranteed to fix what ails you.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you automatically assume it is an invisible super being and not an advanced alien race?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are in the category of naturalism,it just happened by chance.
Click to expand...


Can you cite a single event, structure or mechanism that is "unnatural"? 

I am not aware of a single, verifiable event, structure or mechanism that exists currently or has existed in the past (other than thunder and lightning being the result of the gawds bowling). 

Can you cite for us something we can test ad being supernatural?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific evidence easily studied with a google search.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing the point. This is not something you can even study through google, because the assertion is completely subjective until some definitions are laid out, which YWC has failed to do. He simply relies on intuition as his guide for objective truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made my definitions very clear and if you don't understand a term look it up.
Click to expand...


No, you didn't. You said "decide for yourself" when I asked what does "too rare" mean. You have demonstrated yourself that your methodology for determining such objective things is your incredibly subjective intuition, which is inadequate as far as making scientific claims, in  as much as no one would accept this, and neither do I. You can not objectively show that beneficial mutations are too rare, therefore, you have nothing on this claims, so stop saying it until you have evidence.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence. It may be unlikely, but given how much time has passed since the earths beginning, and how many times animals have mated or divided, it becomes more and more likely.
> 
> The answer to your question is quite simple.  it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is more statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable, than something undesirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing. Of course we are going to notice the harmful mutations, while any beneficial mutations might not be noteworthy. They may simply be a very successful person who don't even realize they have a beneficial mutation. So, you have no way of tracking how many beneficial mutations there are, because of confirmation bias with respect to the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way who is we do you have a mouse in your pocket ? Do you hold a degree in science ? and have you done research work ?
Click to expand...


I don't understand the question. No, and no. 

Are going to discredit my response because I am not a PhD in biology? How about you just respond to what I said as opposed to worry about my background. I sense an ad  hominem debate fallacy in the making, real soon.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did you do start a church out in the woods  no major denomination would touch you without a degree poser.
> 
> 
> 
> I did nothing. who is this you you're talking about?
> "no major denomination?" the post proves you wrong.
> why the fuck would I start a church anywhere?
> you do know WHAT a atheist is ..right?
> making statements that showcase your stupidty are not funny..so keep your day job whatever that might be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, atheists worship creation and not the Creator. They worship nature. Their faith is in materialism. They also happen to believe that everyone should be as miserable as they are, and thus their continued assault on Christmas. You know, because giving people gifts, helping those in need, and spending time with family should never be encouraged by the gov'ment.
Click to expand...


You are a nutjob. Plan and simple. Your claims are logically fallacious. Mind explaining how atheists worship creation? Where is out altar? Our ceremonies? Our prayers? Which behavior are you referring to that would suggest any hint of worship? 

UR, this is a petty attempt to return the "faith thing" and put it onto atheism. The problem is that this assertion doesn't hold up logically, and so makes you look like a buffoon. Hooray. If atheisim takes faith, then so does a-bigfootism, and a-fairyism, and a-infinite-number-of-beings-that-could-possibly-exist-but-have-never-been-proven. You are forgetting about the burden of proof. Logic 101. It doesn't take evidence to not believe in something for which there is no proof, nor does it take faith to believe in something for which there is proof: the fucking universe. There has never been a demonstrated supernatural occurrence in the history of the universe. Therefore, we are justified in inductively concluding, for ourselves, that no supernatural realities exist. I can not claim deductively that no supernatural realities exist, but until I see evidence of this, I am justified in my materialism.  Until we witness something supernatural, we have no reason to believe otherwise. Again, I admit my use of inductive reasoning, as well as its limitation. I can not rule out the supernatural, but see no reason to believe in it without evidence. Nor have I ever concluded or claimed that the material universe is all that exists, as a matter of fact, because I don't see the point and could never prove this. It simply seems highly probably, at this point, that this is the case.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing the point. This is not something you can even study through google, because the assertion is completely subjective until some definitions are laid out, which YWC has failed to do. He simply relies on intuition as his guide for objective truths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made my definitions very clear and if you don't understand a term look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you didn't. You said "decide for yourself" when I asked what does "too rare" mean. You have demonstrated yourself that your methodology for determining such objective things is your incredibly subjective intuition, which is inadequate as far as making scientific claims, in  as much as no one would accept this, and neither do I. You can not objectively show that beneficial mutations are too rare, therefore, you have nothing on this claims, so stop saying it until you have evidence.
Click to expand...


I gave you an example of how rare they are and how hard it is for mutations to become fixated in the population. Come on if you are gonna have this discussion you have to use a little reasoning.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence.
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is quite simple.  it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did a post on mutation fixation a while back and the conditions that need to be met for a mutation to become fixated in the population and the problems for this to happen. You have enzymes also working against fixation . I am not gonna search for that post but here read this article and you will see one of your own explaining the conditions that have to be met for fixation to take place plus the enzymes working to correct these copying errors and the chances are impossible no matter how many years you give it.
> 
> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
> 
> by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
> 
> Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.
> 
> Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
> 
> NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION
> 
> Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1
> 
> 1. Natural Environment
> 
> Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population. 2
> 
> The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.
> 
> 2. No Structural Change
> 
> Byles's second condition is: "There must be no pleiotropic effect involved with the locus or loci, or, if such effect exists, all the phenotypic structures involved must be selectively neutral." This means that there either must be no changes in physical structure involved, or they must be selectively neutral. If none are involved, then of course evolution does not occur. But if only those occur that are selectively neutral, then they are of no advantage to the mutant and survival of the fittest does not affect it or its non-mutant relatives; again, no evolution.
> 
> Not only would mutations that met this condition appear to contribute little or nothing to evolution, but also they would appear never to happen--or nearly never, anyway. G. Ledyard Stebbins tells us that within the gene there is no such thing as an inactive site at which a mutation will not affect the adaptive properties of the gene. 4 "Every character of an organism is affected by all genes," writes Ernst Mayr, "and every gene affects all characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole." 5
> 
> In other words, there may well be no such thing as a mutation having no structural change in the organism. Yet Byles says that a requirement for the fixation of a mutation is that it have none, or that the effect it has must be selectively neutral. Neither case appears ever to happen, and even if the latter did, it would not lead to macro-evolution since it would leave the mutant no more "fit" than any of its relatives. Indeed it would probably be less "fit" because of the tendency of natural selection to weed out rather than preserve mutations in a gene pool.
> 
> 3. Net Effect Must be Unidirectional
> 
> Byles's third condition is: ". . . the mutational event must be recurrent and, furthermore, the rate of back mutation must be so small as to be irrelevant." Byles himself admits, though, that even recurrent mutations are almost never retained in the population: ". . . non-recurrent mutations have a very low probability of remaining in the genepool at all . . . the odds against a recurrent mutation being retained in the gene pool for any significant number of generations are very high." And even "most recurrent mutations have been observed to retain the potential for back mutation." It seems that neither part of his third condition will be fulfilled; yet Byles makes it clear in his article that all the conditions must be fulfilled in order for mutations to be fixed in a population.
> 
> 4. High Mutation Rate
> 
> Byles's fourth condition is: "The mutation rate at the relevant locus or loci must be very large." Yet Francisco Ayala says, "It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation." 6
> 
> Byles himself comments on Lerner's estimate of one hundred mutations per one million gametes (one in ten thousand). "Obviously, a mutation rate this small, even given a complete absence of back mutation (which appears never to occur), would result in a very small change in a given gene pool, even given large numbers of generations. This has long been considered one of the major stumbling blocks to the [Probably Mutation Effect] . . . In order for the P.M.E. to be effective, very high mutation rates are clearly necessary."
> 
> So it appears that this condition, too, is likely never met in nature.
> 
> 5. Large Population
> 
> Byles's fifth condition is that the population involved must be large. He stipulates this because small populations can easily be destroyed by a mutation. And, as population size decreases, the probability that a mutation will be eliminated increases.
> 
> Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steers, however, postulate that a small population with much inbreeding is important: ". . . the ideal conditions for rapid evolution . . . are provided by a species which is divided into a number of small local sub-populations that are nearly but not completely isolated and small enough so that a moderate degree of inbreeding takes place. . . . The division of a species into two or more subspecies is of course dependent on complete isolation being achieved in some way." 7
> 
> It seems that evolutionists themselves have realized a great problem but are unable to deal with it. In a small population, a mutation will almost certainly be eliminated. Yet a small population is needed for evolution to occur. Here indeed is an impasse. But the problem gets worse.
> 
> Byles adds (in contradiction of Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere), "If the investigator is dealing with a population which is undergoing contact with genetically dissimilar neighbors, the effect of the mutation is inevitably so minor as to be undetectable. Therefore, to argue that mutation is the cause of change in the population's genetic structure, one must also of necessity argue that this population is not undergoing a process of hybridization." In other words, if the population is large, the effect of the mutation is almost nil. Even when Byles's condition is met, then, the effects of the mutations are almost zero on the entire population. And, furthermore, while Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere say some interbreeding between dissimilar populations is necessary, Byles says it is death to evolutionary change.
> 
> 6. Selective Neutrality of Polygenes
> 
> Byles's sixth condition is: "Polygenes are not relevant to this argument, unless the entire anatomical complex is itself selectively neutral." This means that for organisms of many genes, the mutation cannot be fixed unless the whole anatomical structure of the organism is selectively neutral relative to the gene which mutates. That this does not occur was shown in our discussion of the second condition.
> 
> 7. Little Hybridization
> 
> Byles's seventh condition is: "There must be little or no hybridizing admixture." This of course is to avoid making the mutation itself insignificant. But if the effect is actually significant, then this contradicts his second condition, which was that the mutation must cause no significant structural change (see under point 2 above). Furthermore, the only way in which to have no hybridizing admixture is to have a small population that is isolated from others of the same kind. This contradicts his fifth condition. If the population is small, the probability of a mutant gene's being eliminated rises steeply.
> 
> This seventh condition, if fulfilled, makes evolution impossible because the mutation would not be retained due to the necessarily small population. But if unfulfilled, it leaves evolution impossible due to the insignificance of the effect of the mutation.
> 
> 8. Necessity of High Penetrance
> 
> Byles's eighth condition is: "The genetic structures involved must have high 'penetrance.'" Put simply, this means that the genes must be highly susceptible to mutation. It thus means almost the same as Condition Four.
> 
> Yet it occasions another problem. As soon as the structure becomes highly susceptible to mutation, it must also become highly susceptible to back mutation. But his third condition states that the rate of back mutation must be irrelevant. Again there is contradiction: fulfill Condition Eight and you can't fulfill Condition Three. Fulfill Condition Three and you can't fulfill Condition Eight. Yet Byles says that all of the conditions must be fulfilled for mutation fixation to occur; and without mutation fixation there is no macro-evolution.
> 
> 9. High Heritability
> 
> Byles's ninth condition is: "The phenotype must have high heritability." This condition is almost never met for mutational phenotypes. Byles himself told us that the probability of retaining even a recurring mutation is "very low."
> 
> TALLYING THE SCORE
> 
> It appears that the probability of meeting any one of these conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent. Recall now that the fifth and seventh conditions effectively cancel each other out, as do the third and eighth, and we are forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to meet all the conditions. Mutation cannot be the mechanism for macro-evolution.
> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
Click to expand...


This is a commentary, not objective facts about mutation. Thanks, but no thanks. If you are trying to educate me, send me some links to a more objective source. Thanks.

But I will say that this is one of the dumbest premises I have ever read:

"Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation."

This is where you are getting your info? The misuse of the 2nd LOTD's is egregious here, and its representation and application are completely inaccurate.
If this is how one chooses to represent the 2nd LOTD's, then one should have issue with the universe not being one big amorphous cloud of nothingness. It presumes that there are no attractive forces whatsoever, and in doing so, completely ignoring the four fundamental forces of the universe
1.) Gravity
2.) Electromagnetism
3.) Weak Nuclear-Force
4.) Strong Nuclear-Force

With these cohesive forces in place, why would you expect things to be disorderly? You shouldn't, because the 2nd LOTD does simply say that things should become chaotic. All it really says is that heat energy will even itself out over time. In no way, would this preclude a beneficial mutation, especially within a closed system, whether energy is allowed to be exchanged. I don't know how someone who puts so much time into someothing, could make such a basic mistake and pretend that this is science. It's just so dishonest, which is ultimately ironic given the ten commandments.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still never showed me any evidence of the guy who you think made everything. And you don't accept science but you accept probability? Probability doesn't excluded random process, it just says that it might be highly unlikely, which is also bs because the person who made this argument wasn't there either at the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really because you don't like the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is your guy? You never said.
Click to expand...


Where ever he chooses to be.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence.
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is quite simple.  it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did a post on mutation fixation a while back and the conditions that need to be met for a mutation to become fixated in the population and the problems for this to happen. You have enzymes also working against fixation . I am not gonna search for that post but here read this article and you will see one of your own explaining the conditions that have to be met for fixation to take place plus the enzymes working to correct these copying errors and the chances are impossible no matter how many years you give it.
> 
> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
> 
> by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no. Not this same silly Beisner cut and paste again.
> 
> Yet more silliness from the ICR.
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is also an author and speaker on the application of the Biblical world view to economics, government, and environmental policy. He has published over ten books and hundreds of articles, contributed to, or edited, many other books, and been a guest on television and radio programs. A ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, he has spoken to churches, seminars, and other groups around the country for nearly twenty years.
Click to expand...


Like Isaid it would not be long for another useless post attacking the messenger not the message. Care to point out where he is wrong. He used one of your guys conditions for fixation to take place then you cry foul.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain who programmed the programmer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one,who programmed you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe your gawds program faulty work and also program corrective actions
> for the purpose of killing sinners?
Click to expand...


Yes he did the programming but if he didn't have protective measures we would go extinct.


----------



## mjollnir

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did a post on mutation fixation a while back and the conditions that need to be met for a mutation to become fixated in the population and the problems for this to happen. You have enzymes also working against fixation . I am not gonna search for that post but here read this article and you will see one of your own explaining the conditions that have to be met for fixation to take place plus the enzymes working to correct these copying errors and the chances are impossible no matter how many years you give it.
> 
> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
> 
> by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no. Not this same silly Beisner cut and paste again.
> 
> Yet more silliness from the ICR.
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is also an author and speaker on the application of the Biblical world view to economics, government, and environmental policy. He has published over ten books and hundreds of articles, contributed to, or edited, many other books, and been a guest on television and radio programs. A ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, he has spoken to churches, seminars, and other groups around the country for nearly twenty years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like Isaid it would not be long for another useless post attacking the messenger not the message. Care to point out where he is wrong. He used one your guys conditions for fixation to take place then you cry foul.
Click to expand...


LOL!  The ironic thing is you don't understand what you're posting and, like a good little trained monkey, simply throw it out there and expect it to be accepted like Holy Writ.

Your scientific illiteracy duly noted, trained monkey.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did a post on mutation fixation a while back and the conditions that need to be met for a mutation to become fixated in the population and the problems for this to happen. You have enzymes also working against fixation . I am not gonna search for that post but here read this article and you will see one of your own explaining the conditions that have to be met for fixation to take place plus the enzymes working to correct these copying errors and the chances are impossible no matter how many years you give it.
> 
> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
> 
> by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no. Not this same silly Beisner cut and paste again.
> 
> Yet more silliness from the ICR.
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is also an author and speaker on the application of the Biblical world view to economics, government, and environmental policy. He has published over ten books and hundreds of articles, contributed to, or edited, many other books, and been a guest on television and radio programs. A ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, he has spoken to churches, seminars, and other groups around the country for nearly twenty years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI, E. Calvin is also running a special promotion this week on his own branded pint bottles of E. Cal's magic elixir and stain removed. Guaranteed to fix what ails you.
Click to expand...


Hollie focus on the message. Byles is correct about the conditions that have to be met that is one of your guys. The problem is Byles did not understand the problem for these conditions to be met.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain who programmed the programmer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one,who programmed you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did the program come from?
Click to expand...


These natural systems were put into to motion by someone they did not just happen.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume neither.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in the category of naturalism,it just happened by chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you cite a single event, structure or mechanism that is "unnatural"?
> 
> I am not aware of a single, verifiable event, structure or mechanism that exists currently or has existed in the past (other than thunder and lightning being the result of the gawds bowling).
> 
> Can you cite for us something we can test ad being supernatural?
Click to expand...


Already have,you really don't understand how these enzymes are programmed to spot errors and fix them can you give a rational rebuttal to this.

Its like parts of your computer they are programmed to perform duties but they were programmed that is what you are not grasping.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence. It may be unlikely, but given how much time has passed since the earths beginning, and how many times animals have mated or divided, it becomes more and more likely.
> 
> The answer to your question is quite simple.  it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is more statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable, than something undesirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing. Of course we are going to notice the harmful mutations, while any beneficial mutations might not be noteworthy. They may simply be a very successful person who don't even realize they have a beneficial mutation. So, you have no way of tracking how many beneficial mutations there are, because of confirmation bias with respect to the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way who is we do you have a mouse in your pocket ? Do you hold a degree in science ? and have you done research work ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand the question. No, and no.
> 
> Are going to discredit my response because I am not a PhD in biology? How about you just respond to what I said as opposed to worry about my background. I sense an ad  hominem debate fallacy in the making, real soon.
Click to expand...


Phd's while may be impressive to some but it is merely an honorary title. The guys with the masters or several masters are the ones doing all the work the Phd is for teaching and writing books off of someone elses work.

Yes how many times must I state it ?11 years of mutation and cell research.


----------



## Youwerecreated

mjollnir said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no. Not this same silly Beisner cut and paste again.
> 
> Yet more silliness from the ICR.
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is also an author and speaker on the application of the Biblical world view to economics, government, and environmental policy. He has published over ten books and hundreds of articles, contributed to, or edited, many other books, and been a guest on television and radio programs. A ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, he has spoken to churches, seminars, and other groups around the country for nearly twenty years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like Isaid it would not be long for another useless post attacking the messenger not the message. Care to point out where he is wrong. He used one your guys conditions for fixation to take place then you cry foul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  The ironic thing is you don't understand what you're posting and, like a good little trained monkey, simply throw it out there and expect it to be accepted like Holy Writ.
> 
> Your scientific illiteracy duly noted, trained monkey.
Click to expand...


Do you care to debate it then and see ? I like how dummies rush in before they know how deep the water is.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made my definitions very clear and if you don't understand a term look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didn't. You said "decide for yourself" when I asked what does "too rare" mean. You have demonstrated yourself that your methodology for determining such objective things is your incredibly subjective intuition, which is inadequate as far as making scientific claims, in  as much as no one would accept this, and neither do I. You can not objectively show that beneficial mutations are too rare, therefore, you have nothing on this claims, so stop saying it until you have evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you an example of how rare they are and how hard it is for mutations to become fixated in the population. Come on if you are gonna have this discussion you have to use a little reasoning.
Click to expand...


What example? That farce of an article you posted? That person that wrote that wouldn't know science if it smacked him in the face.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in the category of naturalism,it just happened by chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you cite a single event, structure or mechanism that is "unnatural"?
> 
> I am not aware of a single, verifiable event, structure or mechanism that exists currently or has existed in the past (other than thunder and lightning being the result of the gawds bowling).
> 
> Can you cite for us something we can test ad being supernatural?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already have,you really don't understand how these enzymes are programmed to spot ers and fix them can you give a rational rebuttal to this.
> 
> Its like parts of your computer they are programmed to perform duties but they were programmed that is what you are not grasping.
Click to expand...

That's more of your assignment of attributes to enzymes. Can you detail for us how you know enzymes are " programmed".


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way who is we do you have a mouse in your pocket ? Do you hold a degree in science ? and have you done research work ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the question. No, and no.
> 
> Are going to discredit my response because I am not a PhD in biology? How about you just respond to what I said as opposed to worry about my background. I sense an ad  hominem debate fallacy in the making, real soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phd's while may be impressive to some but it is merely an honorary title. The guys with the masters or several masters are the ones doing all the work the Phd is for teaching and writing books off of someone elses work.
> 
> Yes how many times must I state it ?11 years of mutation and cell research.
Click to expand...


Why should this be important to me? I disagree with your conclusions, not your having become qualified (although I might).


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in the category of naturalism,it just happened by chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you cite a single event, structure or mechanism that is "unnatural"?
> 
> I am not aware of a single, verifiable event, structure or mechanism that exists currently or has existed in the past (other than thunder and lightning being the result of the gawds bowling).
> 
> Can you cite for us something we can test ad being supernatural?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already have,you really don't understand how these enzymes are programmed to spot errors and fix them can you give a rational rebuttal to this.
> 
> Its like parts of your computer they are programmed to perform duties but they were programmed that is what you are not grasping.
Click to expand...


this is an argument from ignorance, again. You can't imagine how something like this system would arise, so... god or aliens did it. Breathtaking... really, it is.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didn't. You said "decide for yourself" when I asked what does "too rare" mean. You have demonstrated yourself that your methodology for determining such objective things is your incredibly subjective intuition, which is inadequate as far as making scientific claims, in  as much as no one would accept this, and neither do I. You can not objectively show that beneficial mutations are too rare, therefore, you have nothing on this claims, so stop saying it until you have evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you an example of how rare they are and how hard it is for mutations to become fixated in the population. Come on if you are gonna have this discussion you have to use a little reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What example? That farce of an article you posted? That person that wrote that wouldn't know science if it smacked him in the face.
Click to expand...


No I gave you how many genetic disorders exist in the population vs how many beneficial mutations you can point out.


----------



## mjollnir

Youwerecreated said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like Isaid it would not be long for another useless post attacking the messenger not the message. Care to point out where he is wrong. He used one your guys conditions for fixation to take place then you cry foul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  The ironic thing is you don't understand what you're posting and, like a good little trained monkey, simply throw it out there and expect it to be accepted like Holy Writ.
> 
> Your scientific illiteracy duly noted, trained monkey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you care to debate it then and see ? I like how dummies rush in before they know how deep the water is.
Click to expand...


So I'm to debate something with a proven scientific illiterate who is devoid of logic?

Really?  No, really?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you an example of how rare they are and how hard it is for mutations to become fixated in the population. Come on if you are gonna have this discussion you have to use a little reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What example? That farce of an article you posted? That person that wrote that wouldn't know science if it smacked him in the face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I gave you how many genetic disorders exist in the population vs how many beneficial mutations you can point out.
Click to expand...


I already responded to this.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you cite a single event, structure or mechanism that is "unnatural"?
> 
> I am not aware of a single, verifiable event, structure or mechanism that exists currently or has existed in the past (other than thunder and lightning being the result of the gawds bowling).
> 
> Can you cite for us something we can test ad being supernatural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already have,you really don't understand how these enzymes are programmed to spot ers and fix them can you give a rational rebuttal to this.
> 
> Its like parts of your computer they are programmed to perform duties but they were programmed that is what you are not grasping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's more of your assignment of attributes to enzymes. Can you detail for us how you know enzymes are " programmed".
Click to expand...


Hollie,can you explain how these enzymes can spot and correct errors during DNA replication if they were not programmed ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did a post on mutation fixation a while back and the conditions that need to be met for a mutation to become fixated in the population and the problems for this to happen. You have enzymes also working against fixation . I am not gonna search for that post but here read this article and you will see one of your own explaining the conditions that have to be met for fixation to take place plus the enzymes working to correct these copying errors and the chances are impossible no matter how many years you give it.
> 
> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
> 
> by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no. Not this same silly Beisner cut and paste again.
> 
> Yet more silliness from the ICR.
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is also an author and speaker on the application of the Biblical world view to economics, government, and environmental policy. He has published over ten books and hundreds of articles, contributed to, or edited, many other books, and been a guest on television and radio programs. A ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, he has spoken to churches, seminars, and other groups around the country for nearly twenty years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like Isaid it would not be long for another useless post attacking the messenger not the message. Care to point out where he is wrong. He used one of your guys conditions for fixation to take place then you cry foul.
Click to expand...

You are confused about the lack of credentials held by Beisner. What is useless is your cutting and pasting of the same articles when they have been refuted / discredited previously. 

Don't start whining about useless posts when Beisner's agenda as an apologist and shill for the ICR exposes him as a fraud.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you cite a single event, structure or mechanism that is "unnatural"?
> 
> I am not aware of a single, verifiable event, structure or mechanism that exists currently or has existed in the past (other than thunder and lightning being the result of the gawds bowling).
> 
> Can you cite for us something we can test ad being supernatural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already have,you really don't understand how these enzymes are programmed to spot errors and fix them can you give a rational rebuttal to this.
> 
> Its like parts of your computer they are programmed to perform duties but they were programmed that is what you are not grasping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this is an argument from ignorance, again. You can't imagine how something like this system would arise, so... god or aliens did it. Breathtaking... really, it is.
Click to expand...


No,there is no explanation for this phenomenon,any rational person can conclude your computer did not program itself nor did our brains.


----------



## Youwerecreated

mjollnir said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  The ironic thing is you don't understand what you're posting and, like a good little trained monkey, simply throw it out there and expect it to be accepted like Holy Writ.
> 
> Your scientific illiteracy duly noted, trained monkey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you care to debate it then and see ? I like how dummies rush in before they know how deep the water is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I'm to debate something with a proven scientific illiterate who is devoid of logic?
> 
> Really?  No, really?
Click to expand...


Then I take my challenge as a no ,you just sit back and learn.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already have,you really don't understand how these enzymes are programmed to spot ers and fix them can you give a rational rebuttal to this.
> 
> Its like parts of your computer they are programmed to perform duties but they were programmed that is what you are not grasping.
> 
> 
> 
> That's more of your assignment of attributes to enzymes. Can you detail for us how you know enzymes are " programmed".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie,can you explain how these enzymes can spot and correct errors during DNA replication if they were not programmed ?
Click to expand...


You are presupposing that there had to be a programmer without establishing this, just in the way you asked the question. You are jumping the gun. In science, You have to start from a place of total ignorance, void of presuppositions,  and follow the evidence wherever it leads, instead of leading it to your own conclusions that you already have established, because this is dishonest (this is exactly what IDers are doing). Even in the way you posed this question, it is obvious you are doing this. This question carries an argument from ignorance, once again!


----------



## mjollnir

Youwerecreated said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you care to debate it then and see ? I like how dummies rush in before they know how deep the water is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm to debate something with a proven scientific illiterate who is devoid of logic?
> 
> Really?  No, really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I take my challenge as a no ,you just sit back and learn.
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already have,you really don't understand how these enzymes are programmed to spot errors and fix them can you give a rational rebuttal to this.
> 
> Its like parts of your computer they are programmed to perform duties but they were programmed that is what you are not grasping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is an argument from ignorance, again. You can't imagine how something like this system would arise, so... god or aliens did it. Breathtaking... really, it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,there is no explanation for this phenomenon,any rational person can conclude your computer did not program itself nor did our brains.
Click to expand...


Then, there is no reason to conclude that there had to be a designer. you have just foiled yourself, and admitted that any conclusion drawn from ignorance is unfounded.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What example? That farce of an article you posted? That person that wrote that wouldn't know science if it smacked him in the face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I gave you how many genetic disorders exist in the population vs how many beneficial mutations you can point out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already responded to this.
Click to expand...


Then tell me how many beneficial mutations you can point to that was fixated in our population ? Right now the harmful mutations have resulted into over 6,000 genetic disorders.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already have,you really don't understand how these enzymes are programmed to spot ers and fix them can you give a rational rebuttal to this.
> 
> Its like parts of your computer they are programmed to perform duties but they were programmed that is what you are not grasping.
> 
> 
> 
> That's more of your assignment of attributes to enzymes. Can you detail for us how you know enzymes are " programmed".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie,can you explain how these enzymes can spot and correct errors during DNA replication if they were not programmed ?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's not unlike the functioning of bodies immune response system. 

Can you explain why your magical designer was so inept that his "design" required corrective actions? 

With all the failures of your gawds to design workable organisms, your defense of such incompetence is startling.


----------



## Youwerecreated

mjollnir said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm to debate something with a proven scientific illiterate who is devoid of logic?
> 
> Really?  No, really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I take my challenge as a no ,you just sit back and learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...


You made no point, just an ignorant attack that you could not back-up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is an argument from ignorance, again. You can't imagine how something like this system would arise, so... god or aliens did it. Breathtaking... really, it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,there is no explanation for this phenomenon,any rational person can conclude your computer did not program itself nor did our brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then, there is no reason to conclude that there had to be a designer. you have just foiled yourself, and admitted that any conclusion drawn from ignorance is unfounded.
Click to expand...


If you wish to believe that be my guest.


----------



## mjollnir

Youwerecreated said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I take my challenge as a no ,you just sit back and learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made no point, just an ignorant attack that you could not back-up.
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving my point, yet again, and this time doing so with a delicious spoonful of unintentional irony.

Yum!


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I gave you how many genetic disorders exist in the population vs how many beneficial mutations you can point out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already responded to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then tell me how many beneficial mutations you can point to that was fixated in our population ? Right now the harmful mutations have resulted into over 6,000 genetic disorders.
Click to expand...


Already responded to this. 

Are you suggesting again, that beneficial mutations do not occur?

Why did your gawds get their design so horribly wrong? Your earlier answer was to suggest that this is your gawds' plan to punish sinners. Who are you to question the will of the gawds.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's more of your assignment of attributes to enzymes. Can you detail for us how you know enzymes are " programmed".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie,can you explain how these enzymes can spot and correct errors during DNA replication if they were not programmed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. It's not unlike the functioning of bodies immune response system.
> 
> Can you explain why your magical designer was so inept that his "design" required corrective actions?
> 
> With all the failures of your gawds to design workable organisms, your defense of such incompetence is startling.
Click to expand...


Magical to you and I yes but not to the one that possesses the ability.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already responded to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then tell me how many beneficial mutations you can point to that was fixated in our population ? Right now the harmful mutations have resulted into over 6,000 genetic disorders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already responded to this.
> 
> Are you suggesting again, that beneficial mutations do not occur?
> 
> Why did your gawds get their design so horribly wrong? Your earlier answer was to suggest that this is your gawds' plan to punish sinners. Who are you to question the will of the gawds.
Click to expand...


Never said anything of the sort,try again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I have grown bored of this give and take when one of you are willing to step up with a real rebuttal then I will resume with this give and take. I have grown tired of the faulty assumptions presented Which supposedly is a solid rebuttal or so you think.


----------



## mjollnir

Youwerecreated said:


> I have grown bored of this give and take when one of you are willing to step up with a real rebuttal then I will resume with this give and take. I have grown tired of the faulty assumptions presented Which supposedly is a solid rebuttal or so you think.



Faulty assumptions?!??!

Must.... not... collapse...... in...... laughter....


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then tell me how many beneficial mutations you can point to that was fixated in our population ? Right now the harmful mutations have resulted into over 6,000 genetic disorders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already responded to this.
> 
> Are you suggesting again, that beneficial mutations do not occur?
> 
> Why did your gawds get their design so horribly wrong? Your earlier answer was to suggest that this is your gawds' plan to punish sinners. Who are you to question the will of the gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said anything of the sort,try again.
Click to expand...


Did you forget you wrote this:

"The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin."


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie,can you explain how these enzymes can spot and correct errors during DNA replication if they were not programmed ?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It's not unlike the functioning of bodies immune response system.
> 
> Can you explain why your magical designer was so inept that his "design" required corrective actions?
> 
> With all the failures of your gawds to design workable organisms, your defense of such incompetence is startling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Magical to you and I yes but not to the one that possesses the ability.
Click to expand...


What ability would that be when gross incompetence is typical of your gawds "designs".


----------



## mjollnir

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already responded to this.
> 
> Are you suggesting again, that beneficial mutations do not occur?
> 
> Why did your gawds get their design so horribly wrong? Your earlier answer was to suggest that this is your gawds' plan to punish sinners. Who are you to question the will of the gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said anything of the sort,try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you forget you wrote this:
> 
> "The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin."
Click to expand...


Annnnnnd the Merciless Curtain of "DOH" descends upon the stage.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good answer. Those pre-teens with cancer, well screw'em. They're sinners who deserve to die. It's a good thing Manson's still alive. He would have been a good example for any 7 year old sinner with a terminal disease. Good thing that the gawds stepped in and snuffed out little johnny and Jane...die sinners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches we are born into sin. And no where in the Bible does God guarantee you any minimum number of years on the planet. In fact, genocidal atheist feminazi's like Hawly have seen to it that we can kill as many unborn lives as possible. That is the thing about free will, you have the choice to destroy life. Abortion is EVIL.
Click to expand...

Wrong soapbox, creepy stalker.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume neither.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are in the category of naturalism,it just happened by chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you cite a single event, structure or mechanism that is "unnatural"?
> 
> I am not aware of a single, verifiable event, structure or mechanism that exists currently or has existed in the past (other than thunder and lightning being the result of the gawds bowling).
> 
> Can you cite for us something we can test ad being supernatural?
Click to expand...


Other dimensions in Quantum Theory.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did nothing. who is this you you're talking about?
> "no major denomination?" the post proves you wrong.
> why the fuck would I start a church anywhere?
> you do know WHAT a atheist is ..right?
> making statements that showcase your stupidty are not funny..so keep your day job whatever that might be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, atheists worship creation and not the Creator. They worship nature. Their faith is in materialism. They also happen to believe that everyone should be as miserable as they are, and thus their continued assault on Christmas. You know, because giving people gifts, helping those in need, and spending time with family should never be encouraged by the gov'ment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a nutjob. Plan and simple. Your claims are logically fallacious. Mind explaining how atheists worship creation? Where is out altar? Our ceremonies? Our prayers? Which behavior are you referring to that would suggest any hint of worship?
> 
> UR, this is a petty attempt to return the "faith thing" and put it onto atheism. The problem is that this assertion doesn't hold up logically, and so makes you look like a buffoon. Hooray. If atheisim takes faith, then so does a-bigfootism, and a-fairyism, and a-infinite-number-of-beings-that-could-possibly-exist-but-have-never-been-proven. You are forgetting about the burden of proof. Logic 101. It doesn't take evidence to not believe in something for which there is no proof, nor does it take faith to believe in something for which there is proof: the fucking universe. *There has never been a demonstrated supernatural occurrence in the history of the universe.* Therefore, we are justified in inductively concluding, for ourselves, that no supernatural realities exist. I can not claim deductively that no supernatural realities exist, but until I see evidence of this, I am justified in my materialism.  Until we witness something supernatural, we have no reason to believe otherwise. Again, I admit my use of inductive reasoning, as well as its limitation. I can not rule out the supernatural, but see no reason to believe in it without evidence. Nor have I ever concluded or claimed that the material universe is all that exists, as a matter of fact, because I don't see the point and could never prove this. It simply seems highly probably, at this point, that this is the case.
Click to expand...


Nothing supernatural in the history of the universe???  What caused the Big Bang?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you cite a single event, structure or mechanism that is "unnatural"?
> 
> I am not aware of a single, verifiable event, structure or mechanism that exists currently or has existed in the past (other than thunder and lightning being the result of the gawds bowling).
> 
> Can you cite for us something we can test ad being supernatural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already have,you really don't understand how these enzymes are programmed to spot ers and fix them can you give a rational rebuttal to this.
> 
> Its like parts of your computer they are programmed to perform duties but they were programmed that is what you are not grasping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's more of your assignment of attributes to enzymes. Can you detail for us how you know enzymes are " programmed".
Click to expand...


Darwin's God: Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the Same Protein


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you cite a single event, structure or mechanism that is "unnatural"?
> 
> I am not aware of a single, verifiable event, structure or mechanism that exists currently or has existed in the past (other than thunder and lightning being the result of the gawds bowling).
> 
> Can you cite for us something we can test ad being supernatural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already have,you really don't understand how these enzymes are programmed to spot errors and fix them can you give a rational rebuttal to this.
> 
> Its like parts of your computer they are programmed to perform duties but they were programmed that is what you are not grasping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this is an argument from ignorance, again. You can't imagine how something like this system would arise, so... god or aliens did it. Breathtaking... really, it is.
Click to expand...


That is all YOU can do is imagine. Because their is no modern occurrence of this happening anywhere in nature and no evidence of it randomly occurring in the past.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's more of your assignment of attributes to enzymes. Can you detail for us how you know enzymes are " programmed".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie,can you explain how these enzymes can spot and correct errors during DNA replication if they were not programmed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are presupposing that there had to be a programmer without establishing this, just in the way you asked the question. You are jumping the gun. In science, You have to start from a place of total ignorance, void of presuppositions,  and follow the evidence wherever it leads, instead of leading it to your own conclusions that you already have established, because this is dishonest (this is exactly what IDers are doing). Even in the way you posed this question, it is obvious you are doing this. This question carries an argument from ignorance, once again!
Click to expand...


How many times can you scream "argument from ignorance" fallaciously? You aren't fooling anyone.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already responded to this.
> 
> Are you suggesting again, that beneficial mutations do not occur?
> 
> Why did your gawds get their design so horribly wrong? Your earlier answer was to suggest that this is your gawds' plan to punish sinners. Who are you to question the will of the gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said anything of the sort,try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you forget you wrote this:
> 
> "The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin."
Click to expand...


You are under the false assumption that it is all about you. God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin.


----------



## mjollnir

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said anything of the sort,try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you forget you wrote this:
> 
> "The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are under the false assumption that it is all about you. God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin.
Click to expand...


Nah, can't be.

I just spoke to God, and he said what you're claiming is bullshit.


----------



## UltimateReality

mjollnir said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you forget you wrote this:
> 
> "The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are under the false assumption that it is all about you. God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, can't be.
> 
> I just spoke to God, and he said what you're claiming is bullshit.
Click to expand...


You should learn to tell the difference between the voices in your head and God.


----------



## mjollnir

UltimateReality said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are under the false assumption that it is all about you. God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, can't be.
> 
> I just spoke to God, and he said what you're claiming is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn to tell the difference between the voices in your head and God.
Click to expand...


You should learn why the fantasy nonsense you're try to pass off as somehow legitimate and rational makes your comment about voices in one's head particularly ironic.

Nah.  On second thought, you shouldn't.  Thinking clearly makes you uncomfy.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,there is no explanation for this phenomenon,any rational person can conclude your computer did not program itself nor did our brains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, there is no reason to conclude that there had to be a designer. you have just foiled yourself, and admitted that any conclusion drawn from ignorance is unfounded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you wish to believe that be my guest.
Click to expand...


This isn't a belief. It is the only rational conclusion available given the evidence.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie,can you explain how these enzymes can spot and correct errors during DNA replication if they were not programmed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are presupposing that there had to be a programmer without establishing this, just in the way you asked the question. You are jumping the gun. In science, You have to start from a place of total ignorance, void of presuppositions,  and follow the evidence wherever it leads, instead of leading it to your own conclusions that you already have established, because this is dishonest (this is exactly what IDers are doing). Even in the way you posed this question, it is obvious you are doing this. This question carries an argument from ignorance, once again!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times can you scream "argument from ignorance" fallaciously? You aren't fooling anyone.
Click to expand...


I'm not trying to fool anyone... just calling out the fallacies as I see 'em. 

YWC is positing that there must be a programmer because of what appears to him, something that must have been programmed. He don't actually have any evidence of this claim, but rests on the facts that there is no evidence either way. We are in ignorance to this.  Therefore, any postulations about this are an argument from ignorance, necessarily, until there is evidence. 

As I am sure are you just dying to point out the hypocrisy in this, let me stop you from thinking too hard. Scientists haven't made any specific claims about abiogenesis other than it is plausible, given actual evidence of what we know about the abundance of amino acids on the proto-earth, the environmental and atmospheric conditions, and demonstrations such as the Miller-Urey Experiment and subsequent improvement experiments that yielded even better results. Scientists have not claimed they know exactly how it happened, because there simply is not enough evidence. This puts us in a state of ignorance. However, IDers are claiming, despite this ignorance, that they know what happened. Hence, an argument from ignorance.

Any other "fallacious" arguments from ignorance you think I have accused you of? Let me know, and I'll gladly demonstrate.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I gave you how many genetic disorders exist in the population vs how many beneficial mutations you can point out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already responded to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then tell me how many beneficial mutations you can point to that was fixated in our population ? Right now the harmful mutations have resulted into over 6,000 genetic disorders.
Click to expand...


I can think of two. Sicklemia for those in certain environments where it is beneficial (african americans in environments containing malaria). Although this one is a double edged sword, as it poses the potential for sickle cell anemia, it does confer an advantage in fending off the disease in that environment. Don't try and tell me this isn't at all adaptive. It may not be the best example, but it does demonstrate that which you asked about. Within that environment, this would be an advantage and lead to greater survivability. Out of that environment, it is simply a burden. 

A better example is the mutation that europeans underwent at around 5,000 B.C. which allowed to them digest lactase past infancy and into adulthood, and which many of us possess today. This was a result of having had domesticated animals the last 6,000 years before that (since 11,000 BC), which is the only reason we were drinking mammalian baby food from another species. As hunter-gathers, before animal domestication and the advent of agriculture (the two things which allowed us to settle down in one place and start civilization), this simply would not have happened. It is not natural for us or any species to drink what is essentially baby-food past the time when we are babies. Being "lactose intolerant" is actually the normal state for most mammals as adults. It is this mutation that allows those of european decent to metabolize lactase without issue. Therefore, it could be argued, that they could glean a larger amount of nutrients from their diet throughout their lifespan, and added another food source for them, which they could control through domestication. This would have conferred a great survival advantage, allowed them to lead longer, healthier lives, and to feed more people, creating more chance for procreation, thus passing on the mutation, which we now experience as the ability to digest lactose. 

(Being a vegan, I am vehemently opposed to dairy consumption, because of the unethical nature inherent in the production process of factory farming (check out www.earthlings.com for the inside scoop). I ask anyone open to learning about where there food comes from to go to that website and watch the movie. Please!)


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said anything of the sort,try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you forget you wrote this:
> 
> "The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are under the false assumption that it is all about you. God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin.
Click to expand...


How generous of you to speak on behalf of the gawds.


----------



## jack113

UltimateReality said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are under the false assumption that it is all about you. God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, can't be.
> 
> I just spoke to God, and he said what you're claiming is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn to tell the difference between the voices in your head and God.
Click to expand...


lol, before you are allowed to join the republican party you have to sign a pledge that says I know Obama traveled the world berrying dinosaur bones to create the atheist view.


----------



## UltimateReality

mjollnir said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, can't be.
> 
> I just spoke to God, and he said what you're claiming is bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn to tell the difference between the voices in your head and God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn why the fantasy nonsense you're try to pass off as somehow legitimate and rational makes your comment about voices in one's head particularly ironic.
> 
> Nah.  On second thought, you shouldn't.  Thinking clearly makes you uncomfy.
Click to expand...


Great. Another bigot with something to prove. I think Hawly might have something to say about you honing in on her hate campaign against Christians.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already responded to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then tell me how many beneficial mutations you can point to that was fixated in our population ? Right now the harmful mutations have resulted into over 6,000 genetic disorders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can think of two. Sicklemia for those in certain environments where it is beneficial (african americans in environments containing malaria). Although this one is a double edged sword, as it poses the potential for sickle cell anemia, it does confer an advantage in fending off the disease in that environment. Don't try and tell me this isn't at all adaptive. It may not be the best example, but it does demonstrate that which you asked about. Within that environment, this would be an advantage and lead to greater survivability. Out of that environment, it is simply a burden.
> 
> A better example is the mutation that europeans underwent at around 5,000 B.C. which allowed to them digest lactase past infancy and into adulthood, and which many of us possess today. This was a result of having had domesticated animals the last 6,000 years before that (since 11,000 BC), which is the only reason we were drinking mammalian baby food from another species. As hunter-gathers, before animal domestication and the advent of agriculture (the two things which allowed us to settle down in one place and start civilization), this simply would not have happened. It is not natural for us or any species to drink what is essentially baby-food past the time when we are babies. Being "lactose intolerant" is actually the normal state for most mammals as adults. It is this mutation that allows those of european decent to metabolize lactase without issue. Therefore, it could be argued, that they could glean a larger amount of nutrients from their diet throughout their lifespan, and added another food source for them, which they could control through domestication. This would have conferred a great survival advantage, allowed them to lead longer, healthier lives, and to feed more people, creating more chance for procreation, thus passing on the mutation, which we now experience as the ability to digest lactose.
> 
> (Being a vegan, I am vehemently opposed to dairy consumption, because of the unethical nature inherent in the production process of factory farming (check out Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth for the inside scoop). I ask anyone open to learning about where there food comes from to go to that website and watch the movie. Please!)
Click to expand...


So you would deny evolution?? You body is made for meat consumption.


----------



## mjollnir

UltimateReality said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn to tell the difference between the voices in your head and God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn why the fantasy nonsense you're try to pass off as somehow legitimate and rational makes your comment about voices in one's head particularly ironic.
> 
> Nah.  On second thought, you shouldn't.  Thinking clearly makes you uncomfy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great. Another bigot with something to prove. I think Hawly might have something to say about you honing in on her hate campaign against Christians.
Click to expand...


Bigot?  Hardly.

You've made nonsensical, irrational statements not supported by any data and then, when that's turned around and used on you, you immediately squeal "Bigot!"

And there's nothing here for me to prove that you haven't already done is spades.

Sorry to have made you so uncomfy.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn to tell the difference between the voices in your head and God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn why the fantasy nonsense you're try to pass off as somehow legitimate and rational makes your comment about voices in one's head particularly ironic.
> 
> Nah.  On second thought, you shouldn't.  Thinking clearly makes you uncomfy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great. Another bigot with something to prove. I think Hawly might have something to say about you honing in on her hate campaign against Christians.
Click to expand...


Oh my. You poor persecuted fundie. It's a common tactic of zealots to insist that challenges to their specious opinions is an "attack".


----------



## UltimateReality

mjollnir said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn why the fantasy nonsense you're try to pass off as somehow legitimate and rational makes your comment about voices in one's head particularly ironic.
> 
> Nah.  On second thought, you shouldn't.  Thinking clearly makes you uncomfy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Another bigot with something to prove. I think Hawly might have something to say about you honing in on her hate campaign against Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigot?  Hardly.
> 
> You've made nonsensical, irrational statements not supported by any data and then, when that's turned around and used on you, you immediately squeal "Bigot!"
> 
> And there's nothing here for me to prove that you haven't already done is spades.
> 
> Sorry to have made you so uncomfy.
Click to expand...


What nonsensical statements? Are you referring to my discussions on ID Theory? It not, then the only other statements I've made since you showed up are religious in nature, in which case if your comments were directed at those makes you a bigot.


----------



## mjollnir

UltimateReality said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Another bigot with something to prove. I think Hawly might have something to say about you honing in on her hate campaign against Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bigot?  Hardly.
> 
> You've made nonsensical, irrational statements not supported by any data and then, when that's turned around and used on you, you immediately squeal "Bigot!"
> 
> And there's nothing here for me to prove that you haven't already done is spades.
> 
> Sorry to have made you so uncomfy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What nonsensical statements? Are you referring to my discussions on ID Theory? It not, then the only other statements I've made since you showed up are religious in nature, in which case if your comments were directed at those makes you a bigot.
Click to expand...


"God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin." 

That's an irrational statement.  

Pointing out that that is, indeed, an irrational statement, isn't being a 'bigot'.  That, and there is no "ID theory".

Please try and refrain from attempting to reference or use words you clearly don't know.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are presupposing that there had to be a programmer without establishing this, just in the way you asked the question. You are jumping the gun. In science, You have to start from a place of total ignorance, void of presuppositions,  and follow the evidence wherever it leads, instead of leading it to your own conclusions that you already have established, because this is dishonest (this is exactly what IDers are doing). Even in the way you posed this question, it is obvious you are doing this. This question carries an argument from ignorance, once again!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times can you scream "argument from ignorance" fallaciously? You aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to fool anyone... just calling out the fallacies as I see 'em.
> 
> YWC is positing that there must be a programmer because of what appears to him, something that must have been programmed. He don't actually have any evidence of this claim, but rests on the facts that there is no evidence either way. We are in ignorance to this.  Therefore, any postulations about this are an argument from ignorance, necessarily, until there is evidence.
> 
> As I am sure are you just dying to point out the hypocrisy in this, let me stop you from thinking too hard. Scientists haven't made any specific claims about abiogenesis other than it is plausible, given actual evidence of what we know about the abundance of amino acids on the proto-earth, the environmental and atmospheric conditions, and demonstrations such as the Miller-Urey Experiment and subsequent improvement experiments that yielded even better results. Scientists have not claimed they know exactly how it happened, because there simply is not enough evidence. This puts us in a state of ignorance. However, IDers are claiming, despite this ignorance, that they know what happened. Hence, an argument from ignorance.
> 
> Any other "fallacious" arguments from ignorance you think I have accused you of? Let me know, and I'll gladly demonstrate.
Click to expand...


Open mouth insert foot time to close the trap. Did you not know that we can alter the functions of Enzymes to carry out tasks ? in other words program them.  Speaking of ignorance thank you for walking through the door of ignorance along with all your buddies I think I took you all down at once.


----------



## Youwerecreated

mjollnir said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said anything of the sort,try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you forget you wrote this:
> 
> "The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Annnnnnd the Merciless Curtain of "DOH" descends upon the stage.
Click to expand...


The DOH is on you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

mjollnir said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you forget you wrote this:
> 
> "The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are under the false assumption that it is all about you. God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, can't be.
> 
> I just spoke to God, and he said what you're claiming is bullshit.
Click to expand...


You may have spoken to a god but not the God.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Not one of you have taken any classes in molecular biology nor in genetics if you did you would have known what I was discussing. Move a long losers to a subject you can handle.


----------



## mjollnir

Youwerecreated said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are under the false assumption that it is all about you. God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, can't be.
> 
> I just spoke to God, and he said what you're claiming is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may have spoken to a god but not the God.
Click to expand...


Newp.  It was THE God.  Showed me ID and everything.

Said he doesn't know you.  Something about spitting out the lukewarm.

Oh, and he says he sees what you do with those cucumbers late at night at night when you're alone.  You're not fooling anyone but yourself.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did you do start a church out in the woods  no major denomination would touch you without a degree poser.
> 
> 
> 
> I did nothing. who is this you you're talking about?
> "no major denomination?" the post proves you wrong.
> why the fuck would I start a church anywhere?
> you do know WHAT a atheist is ..right?
> making statements that showcase your stupidty are not funny..so keep your day job whatever that might be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you were quoting someone else you claimed to be a pastor. If you were quoting someone else then I am sorry for the mistake, If not my accusation stands.
Click to expand...

your ignorance shines ..there's a link at the bottom of the text. for anyone else that would be enough to clue them in.
also when have I ever claimed to be anything but what I am..   

apology not accepted...learn to read !


----------



## Youwerecreated

mjollnir said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, can't be.
> 
> I just spoke to God, and he said what you're claiming is bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may have spoken to a god but not the God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newp.  It was THE God.  Showed me ID and everything.
> 
> Said he doesn't know you.  Something about spitting out the lukewarm.
> 
> Oh, and he says he sees what you do with those cucumbers late at night at night when you're alone.  You're not fooling anyone but yourself.
Click to expand...


So now the phoney one turns to perversion as his defense,Daws is that you ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have two choices naturalism or intelligence which is better supported by the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again!  you have no evidence for creationism or Id. saying it's supported by evidence is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to explain who programmed the enzymes to identify copying errors during DNA replication and then repair them ?
Click to expand...

no need to as there is no "who" involved..
it's another one of your famous ,"I have no evidence but I'll toss this at the wall and see if sticks  declarative statements.


----------



## mjollnir

Youwerecreated said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may have spoken to a god but not the God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newp.  It was THE God.  Showed me ID and everything.
> 
> Said he doesn't know you.  Something about spitting out the lukewarm.
> 
> Oh, and he says he sees what you do with those cucumbers late at night at night when you're alone.  You're not fooling anyone but yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now the phoney one turns to perversion as his defense,Daws is that you ?
Click to expand...


^^^


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may have spoken to a god but not the God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newp.  It was THE God.  Showed me ID and everything.
> 
> Said he doesn't know you.  Something about spitting out the lukewarm.
> 
> Oh, and he says he sees what you do with those cucumbers late at night at night when you're alone.  You're not fooling anyone but yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now the phoney one turns to perversion as his defense,Daws is that you ?
Click to expand...

another mature statement by YWC, besides everybody know you're a KY AND BUTT PLUG KINDA GUY...
remember you asked for it.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your specialty daws.
> 
> 
> 
> that is also a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All one has to do is look at your last 100 posts in this thread and they would see who the liar is.
Click to expand...

that would be you as you've very neatly demostrated your denial of fact.
that is the worst lie there is.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What degree do you hold daws to be a pastor ?
> 
> 
> 
> I know where you're going with this, so I'll spare you the embarrassment of making an even larger anal aperture of yourself
> 
> Although degrees are very nice to have, God does not require an individual to have degrees to lead his church. However, God does have requirements. To lead God's church, one *must first have accepted Christ as their personal saviour*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. This is what some of the religions of Christianity teach but this is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One must be honourable and trustworthy, respected, not easily given to sin, have the ability to lead, be receptive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, be a good manager or Stewart of God's business, have goals and the additional requirements as emphasized in the Bible.
> 
> Now, some denominations may have degree requirements for their pastors. Some may require you to get formal theological training leading to the M.Div (Master of Divinity) or the M.Min (Master of Ministry) degree. There are also academic degrees leading to the Master of Systematic Theology or the Master of Sacred Theology. Some may require a Bachelor of Theology. If you belong to a denomination that holds such requirements, you may not be able to be a Pastor unless you have fulfilled this requirement. In any case, degree or no degree, the above requirements that meet the standards of holiness must be met.
> What degree is required to be a Pastor of a church
> 
> I'd have answerd in my own words but you guys have a built in bias when it come to theological matters when us *evil atheists* provide them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said it. Not me.
Click to expand...

 I love it! your obsession is so powerful that you answer rhetorical posts 
and needlessly embolden them.
then you say something truly asinine: " Wrong. This is what some of the religions of Christianity teach but this is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible." UR.
of course it's  not in the bible, tosspot,  higher education as we understand it did not exist. 
so it not being in the bible is meaningless 
btw there are no  "religions of Christianity" but  there are   different sects or denominations .
 it's all the same religion!
you truly are a hubris laden....tosspot.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times can you scream "argument from ignorance" fallaciously? You aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to fool anyone... just calling out the fallacies as I see 'em.
> 
> YWC is positing that there must be a programmer because of what appears to him, something that must have been programmed. He don't actually have any evidence of this claim, but rests on the facts that there is no evidence either way. We are in ignorance to this.  Therefore, any postulations about this are an argument from ignorance, necessarily, until there is evidence.
> 
> As I am sure are you just dying to point out the hypocrisy in this, let me stop you from thinking too hard. Scientists haven't made any specific claims about abiogenesis other than it is plausible, given actual evidence of what we know about the abundance of amino acids on the proto-earth, the environmental and atmospheric conditions, and demonstrations such as the Miller-Urey Experiment and subsequent improvement experiments that yielded even better results. Scientists have not claimed they know exactly how it happened, because there simply is not enough evidence. This puts us in a state of ignorance. However, IDers are claiming, despite this ignorance, that they know what happened. Hence, an argument from ignorance.
> 
> Any other "fallacious" arguments from ignorance you think I have accused you of? Let me know, and I'll gladly demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Open mouth insert foot time to close the trap. Did you not know that we can alter the functions of Enzymes to carry out tasks ? in other words program them.  Speaking of ignorance thank you for walking through the door of ignorance along with all your buddies I think I took you all down at once.
Click to expand...

Oh my. Why would we want to alter the function of enzymes? If, as you believe, they are programmed by the gawds, that would be a contravention of their will.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then tell me how many beneficial mutations you can point to that was fixated in our population ? Right now the harmful mutations have resulted into over 6,000 genetic disorders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can think of two. Sicklemia for those in certain environments where it is beneficial (african americans in environments containing malaria). Although this one is a double edged sword, as it poses the potential for sickle cell anemia, it does confer an advantage in fending off the disease in that environment. Don't try and tell me this isn't at all adaptive. It may not be the best example, but it does demonstrate that which you asked about. Within that environment, this would be an advantage and lead to greater survivability. Out of that environment, it is simply a burden.
> 
> A better example is the mutation that europeans underwent at around 5,000 B.C. which allowed to them digest lactase past infancy and into adulthood, and which many of us possess today. This was a result of having had domesticated animals the last 6,000 years before that (since 11,000 BC), which is the only reason we were drinking mammalian baby food from another species. As hunter-gathers, before animal domestication and the advent of agriculture (the two things which allowed us to settle down in one place and start civilization), this simply would not have happened. It is not natural for us or any species to drink what is essentially baby-food past the time when we are babies. Being "lactose intolerant" is actually the normal state for most mammals as adults. It is this mutation that allows those of european decent to metabolize lactase without issue. Therefore, it could be argued, that they could glean a larger amount of nutrients from their diet throughout their lifespan, and added another food source for them, which they could control through domestication. This would have conferred a great survival advantage, allowed them to lead longer, healthier lives, and to feed more people, creating more chance for procreation, thus passing on the mutation, which we now experience as the ability to digest lactose.
> 
> (Being a vegan, I am vehemently opposed to dairy consumption, because of the unethical nature inherent in the production process of factory farming (check out Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth for the inside scoop). I ask anyone open to learning about where there food comes from to go to that website and watch the movie. Please!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would deny evolution?? You body is made for meat consumption.
Click to expand...


Yes, I would deny evolution.  Evolution isn't a mind. I am not offending evolution. My reasons are purely ethical, and the claim that "my body is made for meat consumption" is not entirely accurate. We are omnivores, only after being herbivores long before. Earlier species of hominid were herbivorous, such as Lucy (Australopithecus). We came into meat at some point, and evolved to be able to eat it. Therefore, primarily, we are herbivorous. However, marketing would have you believe you need to be eating meat at every meal, which is probably the biggest cause of cancer in the modern world, especially with the amount of growth hormones and antibiotics present in animal flesh, as well as fecal matter. Try watching the movie Earthlings, if you are interested in learning the awful truth about how we treat other sentient, living beings. I realize your bible instructs you to not care about them, but you could have a little humanity. The only thing I would be dependent on meat for is B12, which I supplement. Problem solved. Go vegan.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence.
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is quite simple.  it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did a post on mutation fixation a while back and the conditions that need to be met for a mutation to become fixated in the population and the problems for this to happen. You have enzymes also working against fixation . I am not gonna search for that post but here read this article and you will see one of your own explaining the conditions that have to be met for fixation to take place plus the enzymes working to correct these copying errors and the chances are impossible no matter how many years you give it.
> 
> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
> 
> by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
> 
> EDITED FOR WALL OF TEXT VIOLATION............AND PSEUDOSCIENCE CONTENT!
> 
> 
> The Institute for Creation Research
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times can you scream "argument from ignorance" fallaciously? You aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to fool anyone... just calling out the fallacies as I see 'em.
> 
> YWC is positing that there must be a programmer because of what appears to him, something that must have been programmed. He don't actually have any evidence of this claim, but rests on the facts that there is no evidence either way. We are in ignorance to this.  Therefore, any postulations about this are an argument from ignorance, necessarily, until there is evidence.
> 
> As I am sure are you just dying to point out the hypocrisy in this, let me stop you from thinking too hard. Scientists haven't made any specific claims about abiogenesis other than it is plausible, given actual evidence of what we know about the abundance of amino acids on the proto-earth, the environmental and atmospheric conditions, and demonstrations such as the Miller-Urey Experiment and subsequent improvement experiments that yielded even better results. Scientists have not claimed they know exactly how it happened, because there simply is not enough evidence. This puts us in a state of ignorance. However, IDers are claiming, despite this ignorance, that they know what happened. Hence, an argument from ignorance.
> 
> Any other "fallacious" arguments from ignorance you think I have accused you of? Let me know, and I'll gladly demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Open mouth insert foot time to close the trap. Did you not know that we can alter the functions of Enzymes to carry out tasks ? in other words program them.  Speaking of ignorance thank you for walking through the door of ignorance along with all your buddies I think I took you all down at once.
Click to expand...


Did you try and convey an idea here? Try typing a little slower, maybe?


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jack113 said:
> 
> 
> 
> who is the us anyway? Usually it's the mouse squeaking in someones pocket. All sides need to stop the religious hatred and start supporting the constitution that makes our republic work.
> 
> 
> 
> since god is not mentioned in the constitution i think you're on the wrong thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hollowhead tried arguing this and got totally owned. God is absolutely mentioned in the constitution. Now maybe not in the context to which you are referring, but he is definitely mentioned.
Click to expand...

sorry shit head   god is not....the word "creator"  is in pre amble and it's intentionally ambiguous.
So your insistence that god is, is subjective.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> even creepier he thanks himself for his own posts.
> it's a kind of masturbation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And thats different than you laughing at your own jokes how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never laugh at my own jokes..when I post this   or this  I'm laugh at a you.
> if you can't tell the difference between masturbation and laughter then you are stupid.
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already have,you really don't understand how these enzymes are programmed to spot errors and fix them can you give a rational rebuttal to this.
> 
> Its like parts of your computer they are programmed to perform duties but they were programmed that is what you are not grasping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is an argument from ignorance, again. You can't imagine how something like this system would arise, so... god or aliens did it. Breathtaking... really, it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is all YOU can do is imagine. Because their is no modern occurrence of this happening anywhere in nature and no evidence of it randomly occurring in the past.
Click to expand...


Why would there be another modern occurrence of abiogenesis? Mind, explaining this to me? You seem to think, fallaciously, that because we don't witness this, it means it never happened. Well, excuse, but that is simply stupid. The fact that there are microbes on every habitable inch of this earth, utilizing whatever organic material is around them- including amino acids and proteins, precludes the very possibility that another abiogenetic event would occur, simply because the materials needed to produce such an even would be sought after, competitively, by existing microbes. Not only are organic elements competitively sought after, but any new entrants into an ecosystem, whether foreign or abiogenetically spawned, would be seen as outsiders, and if unable to defend themselves, would be "used" by the already existing life.  Most certainly, an abiogenetically spawned organism would have no ability to defend itself. Further, if such a modern event did happen, how would we be able to distinguish this from the existing life there. Perhaps it would appear to us only to be a "new species"? Life doesn't come with a timestamp on it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to fool anyone... just calling out the fallacies as I see 'em.
> 
> YWC is positing that there must be a programmer because of what appears to him, something that must have been programmed. He don't actually have any evidence of this claim, but rests on the facts that there is no evidence either way. We are in ignorance to this.  Therefore, any postulations about this are an argument from ignorance, necessarily, until there is evidence.
> 
> As I am sure are you just dying to point out the hypocrisy in this, let me stop you from thinking too hard. Scientists haven't made any specific claims about abiogenesis other than it is plausible, given actual evidence of what we know about the abundance of amino acids on the proto-earth, the environmental and atmospheric conditions, and demonstrations such as the Miller-Urey Experiment and subsequent improvement experiments that yielded even better results. Scientists have not claimed they know exactly how it happened, because there simply is not enough evidence. This puts us in a state of ignorance. However, IDers are claiming, despite this ignorance, that they know what happened. Hence, an argument from ignorance.
> 
> Any other "fallacious" arguments from ignorance you think I have accused you of? Let me know, and I'll gladly demonstrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open mouth insert foot time to close the trap. Did you not know that we can alter the functions of Enzymes to carry out tasks ? in other words program them.  Speaking of ignorance thank you for walking through the door of ignorance along with all your buddies I think I took you all down at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you try and convey an idea here? Try typing a little slower, maybe?
Click to expand...


I really need to explain this to you,really ? I just gave you that evidence that Enzymes can and were programmed to perform functions.

Now who programmed them in the beginning ? 

 You have zero evidence that they evolved these abilities and we have evidence they can and were programmed so who is the programmer ?

You wanted evidence of the programmer you have it.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open mouth insert foot time to close the trap. Did you not know that we can alter the functions of Enzymes to carry out tasks ? in other words program them.  Speaking of ignorance thank you for walking through the door of ignorance along with all your buddies I think I took you all down at once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you try and convey an idea here? Try typing a little slower, maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really need to explain this to you,really ? I just gave you that evidence that Enzymes can and were programmed to perform functions.
> 
> Now who programmed them in the beginning ?
> 
> You have zero evidence that they evolved these abilities and we have evidence they can and were programmed so who is the programmer ?
> 
> You wanted evidence of the programmer you have it.
Click to expand...


What is your evidence? Oh yeah... That it seems too amazing to you that they could be "programmed" by purely natural means. Blow me down and call me willy! That is some evidence!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence. It may be unlikely, but given how much time has passed since the earths beginning, and how many times animals have mated or divided, it becomes more and more likely.
> 
> The answer to your question is quite simple.  it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is more statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable, than something undesirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing. Of course we are going to notice the harmful mutations, while any beneficial mutations might not be noteworthy. They may simply be a very successful person who don't even realize they have a beneficial mutation. So, you have no way of tracking how many beneficial mutations there are, because of confirmation bias with respect to the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way who is we do you have a mouse in your pocket ? Do you hold a degree in science ? and have you done research work ?
Click to expand...

really? you use the word "WE" ALL THE TIME  when speaking without permission for all Christianity.
btw np's use of WE is the correct one.
it's a descriptor for all of us including you... asshat.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open mouth insert foot time to close the trap. Did you not know that we can alter the functions of Enzymes to carry out tasks ? in other words program them.  Speaking of ignorance thank you for walking through the door of ignorance along with all your buddies I think I took you all down at once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you try and convey an idea here? Try typing a little slower, maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really need to explain this to you,really ? I just gave you that evidence that Enzymes can and were programmed to perform functions.
> 
> Now who programmed them in the beginning ?
> 
> You have zero evidence that they evolved these abilities and we have evidence they can and were programmed so who is the programmer ?
> 
> You wanted evidence of the programmer you have it.
Click to expand...


What evidence do you have of a "designer programmer". What evidence do you have that your "designer programmer" programmed anything?


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since god is not mentioned in the constitution i think you're on the wrong thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollowhead tried arguing this and got totally owned. God is absolutely mentioned in the constitution. Now maybe not in the context to which you are referring, but he is definitely mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry shit head   god is not....the word "creator"  is in pre amble and it's intentionally ambiguous.
> So your insistence that god is, is subjective.
Click to expand...


Hey daws, I'll interpret and clarify what the fundie christian creationist has managed to lie and misrepresent.

My earlier statement was that "god" was not mentioned in the wording of the constitution. My fundie stalker missed the phrase "wording of the constitution", Further, my post delineated the clear intent of the Founding Fathers that no single religion be acknowledged in the wording of the constitution.

The slathering fundie, insisting on forcing his gawds into the constitution (obviously not what was intended by the Founding Fathers), claimed that a closing salutation "... in the year of our lord" (note, "god" is nowhere mentioned), contradicted my comment.

The frantic fundie still doesn't want to acknowledge his lie and further, is forced into juvenile name-calling in failed attempts to resurrect his still failed credibility.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you try and convey an idea here? Try typing a little slower, maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really need to explain this to you,really ? I just gave you that evidence that Enzymes can and were programmed to perform functions.
> 
> Now who programmed them in the beginning ?
> 
> You have zero evidence that they evolved these abilities and we have evidence they can and were programmed so who is the programmer ?
> 
> You wanted evidence of the programmer you have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your evidence? That it seems too amazing to you that they could be "programmed" by purely natural means? Oh yeah. That's some evidence.
Click to expand...


You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?


Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacteria&#8217;s enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacteria&#8217;s ability to survive and reproduce. 

What are Enzymes?

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jan01/308brief011701.htm

So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?

Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty by denying the obvious ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence. It may be unlikely, but given how much time has passed since the earths beginning, and how many times animals have mated or divided, it becomes more and more likely.
> 
> The answer to your question is quite simple.  it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is more statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable, than something undesirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing. Of course we are going to notice the harmful mutations, while any beneficial mutations might not be noteworthy. They may simply be a very successful person who don't even realize they have a beneficial mutation. So, you have no way of tracking how many beneficial mutations there are, because of confirmation bias with respect to the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way who is we do you have a mouse in your pocket ? Do you hold a degree in science ? and have you done research work ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? you use the word "WE" ALL THE TIME  when speaking without permission for all Christianity.
> btw np's use of WE is the correct one.
> it's a descriptor for all of us including you... asshat.
Click to expand...


I actually worked in the field


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open mouth insert foot time to close the trap. Did you not know that we can alter the functions of Enzymes to carry out tasks ? in other words program them.  Speaking of ignorance thank you for walking through the door of ignorance along with all your buddies I think I took you all down at once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you try and convey an idea here? Try typing a little slower, maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really need to explain this to you,really ? I just gave you that evidence that Enzymes can and were programmed to perform functions.
> 
> Now who programmed them in the beginning ?
> 
> You have zero evidence that they evolved these abilities and we have evidence they can and were programmed so who is the programmer ?
> 
> You wanted evidence of the programmer you have it.
Click to expand...

 (cue buzzer) no you didn't you made an erroneous statement based on an assumption that because enzymes have a function or functions ,that some sort of "who" had to have programmed them.
making the statement itself  false 
to make it valid, you first have to prove that a "programmer" exists,
you have no evidence for that.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way who is we do you have a mouse in your pocket ? Do you hold a degree in science ? and have you done research work ?
> 
> 
> 
> really? you use the word "WE" ALL THE TIME  when speaking without permission for all Christianity.
> btw np's use of WE is the correct one.
> it's a descriptor for all of us including you... asshat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually worked in the field
Click to expand...

 not an answer
and not an argument.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> hollowhead tried arguing this and got totally owned. God is absolutely mentioned in the constitution. Now maybe not in the context to which you are referring, but he is definitely mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry shit head   god is not....the word "creator"  is in pre amble and it's intentionally ambiguous.
> So your insistence that god is, is subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey daws, I'll interpret and clarify what the fundie christian creationist has managed to lie and misrepresent.
> 
> My earlier statement was that "god" was not mentioned in the wording of the constitution. My fundie stalker missed the phrase "wording of the constitution", Further, my post delineated the clear intent of the Founding Fathers that no single religion be acknowledged in the wording of the constitution.
> 
> The slathering fundie, insisting on forcing his gawds into the constitution (obviously not what was intended by the Founding Fathers), claimed that a closing salutation "... in the year of our lord" (note, "god" is nowhere mentioned), contradicted my comment.
> 
> The frantic fundie still doesn't want to acknowledge his lie and further, is forced into juvenile name-calling in failed attempts to resurrect his still failed credibility.
Click to expand...

thanks.
the old year of our lord ploy !


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already have,you really don't understand how these enzymes are programmed to spot errors and fix them can you give a rational rebuttal to this.
> 
> Its like parts of your computer they are programmed to perform duties but they were programmed that is what you are not grasping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is an argument from ignorance, again. You can't imagine how something like this system would arise, so... god or aliens did it. Breathtaking... really, it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is all YOU can do is imagine. Because their is no modern occurrence of this happening anywhere in nature and no evidence of it randomly occurring in the past.
Click to expand...


Actually, the very fact that enzymes respond as they do (and do so wthout any interference from your alleged designer / programmer gawds), is an example of a modern occurrence. Further, we have every reason to consder that enzymes function today as they did previously. 

Your counter, obviously, would be to prove your supermagical, designer, enzyme programming gawds by means of their supermagical, programming abilities actually programmed anything. And of course you can't.


----------



## mjollnir

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really need to explain this to you,really ? I just gave you that evidence that Enzymes can and were programmed to perform functions.
> 
> Now who programmed them in the beginning ?
> 
> You have zero evidence that they evolved these abilities and we have evidence they can and were programmed so who is the programmer ?
> 
> You wanted evidence of the programmer you have it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence? That it seems too amazing to you that they could be "programmed" by purely natural means? Oh yeah. That's some evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare childrens illness
> 
> So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty and denying the obvious ?
Click to expand...


LOL!  Your utter dishonesty and scientific illiteracy is bracing, to say the least.

What penicillin does doesn't involve 'programming', in inactivates transpeptidase and hence the cell wall is destroyed.

What you're doing here is simply playing semantic games, and rather obviously trying to distract from the fact that you know nothing about the subject, or you wouldn't be attempting to falsely characterize what, in this case, penicillin does by labeling it 'programming'.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is an argument from ignorance, again. You can't imagine how something like this system would arise, so... god or aliens did it. Breathtaking... really, it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is all YOU can do is imagine. Because their is no modern occurrence of this happening anywhere in nature and no evidence of it randomly occurring in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the very fact that enzymes respond as they do (and do so wthout any interference from your alleged designer / programmer gawds), is an example of a modern occurrence. Further, we have every reason to consder that enzymes function today as they did previously.
> 
> Your counter, obviously, would be to prove your supermagical, designer, enzyme programming gawds by means of their supermagical, programming abilities actually programmed anything. And of course you can't.
Click to expand...


This is funny


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did nothing. who is this you you're talking about?
> "no major denomination?" the post proves you wrong.
> why the fuck would I start a church anywhere?
> you do know WHAT a atheist is ..right?
> making statements that showcase your stupidty are not funny..so keep your day job whatever that might be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, atheists worship creation and not the Creator. They worship nature. Their faith is in materialism. They also happen to believe that everyone should be as miserable as they are, and thus their continued assault on Christmas. You know, because giving people gifts, helping those in need, and spending time with family should never be encouraged by the gov'ment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a nutjob. Plan and simple. Your claims are logically fallacious. Mind explaining how atheists worship creation? Where is out altar? Our ceremonies? Our prayers? Which behavior are you referring to that would suggest any hint of worship?
> 
> UR, this is a petty attempt to return the "faith thing" and put it onto atheism. The problem is that this assertion doesn't hold up logically, and so makes you look like a buffoon. Hooray. If atheisim takes faith, then so does a-bigfootism, and a-fairyism, and a-infinite-number-of-beings-that-could-possibly-exist-but-have-never-been-proven. You are forgetting about the burden of proof. Logic 101. It doesn't take evidence to not believe in something for which there is no proof, nor does it take faith to believe in something for which there is proof: the fucking universe. There has never been a demonstrated supernatural occurrence in the history of the universe. Therefore, we are justified in inductively concluding, for ourselves, that no supernatural realities exist. I can not claim deductively that no supernatural realities exist, but until I see evidence of this, I am justified in my materialism.  Until we witness something supernatural, we have no reason to believe otherwise. Again, I admit my use of inductive reasoning, as well as its limitation. I can not rule out the supernatural, but see no reason to believe in it without evidence. Nor have I ever concluded or claimed that the material universe is all that exists, as a matter of fact, because I don't see the point and could never prove this. It simply seems highly probably, at this point, that this is the case.
Click to expand...

saying atheistism is a religion is the same as saying not collecting stamps is a hobbie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

mjollnir said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence? That it seems too amazing to you that they could be "programmed" by purely natural means? Oh yeah. That's some evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare childrens illness
> 
> So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty and denying the obvious ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Your utter dishonesty and scientific illiteracy is bracing, to say the least.
> 
> What penicillin does doesn't involve 'programming', in inactivates transpeptidase and hence the cell wall is destroyed.
> 
> What you're doing here is simply playing semantic games, and rather obviously trying to distract from the fact that you know nothing about the subject, or you wouldn't be attempting to falsely characterize what, in this case, penicillin does by labeling it 'programming'.
Click to expand...


Once again.

Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is all YOU can do is imagine. Because their is no modern occurrence of this happening anywhere in nature and no evidence of it randomly occurring in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the very fact that enzymes respond as they do (and do so wthout any interference from your alleged designer / programmer gawds), is an example of a modern occurrence. Further, we have every reason to consder that enzymes function today as they did previously.
> 
> Your counter, obviously, would be to prove your supermagical, designer, enzyme programming gawds by means of their supermagical, programming abilities actually programmed anything. And of course you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is funny
Click to expand...

how cute! YWC has discoverd emotocons !


----------



## Youwerecreated

mjollnir said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence? That it seems too amazing to you that they could be "programmed" by purely natural means? Oh yeah. That's some evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare childrens illness
> 
> So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty and denying the obvious ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Your utter dishonesty and scientific illiteracy is bracing, to say the least.
> 
> What penicillin does doesn't involve 'programming', in inactivates transpeptidase and hence the cell wall is destroyed.
> 
> What you're doing here is simply playing semantic games, and rather obviously trying to distract from the fact that you know nothing about the subject, or you wouldn't be attempting to falsely characterize what, in this case, penicillin does by labeling it 'programming'.
Click to expand...


New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare childrens illness

Who engineered Enzymes in the beginning to locate and correct errors during DNA replication ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the very fact that enzymes respond as they do (and do so wthout any interference from your alleged designer / programmer gawds), is an example of a modern occurrence. Further, we have every reason to consder that enzymes function today as they did previously.
> 
> Your counter, obviously, would be to prove your supermagical, designer, enzyme programming gawds by means of their supermagical, programming abilities actually programmed anything. And of course you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how cute! YWC has discoverd emotocons !
Click to expand...


You learned today evidence of the programmer, the one we call creator.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did a post on mutation fixation a while back and the conditions that need to be met for a mutation to become fixated in the population and the problems for this to happen. You have enzymes also working against fixation . I am not gonna search for that post but here read this article and you will see one of your own explaining the conditions that have to be met for fixation to take place plus the enzymes working to correct these copying errors and the chances are impossible no matter how many years you give it.
> 
> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
> 
> by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no. Not this same silly Beisner cut and paste again.
> 
> Yet more silliness from the ICR.
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is also an author and speaker on the application of the Biblical world view to economics, government, and environmental policy. He has published over ten books and hundreds of articles, contributed to, or edited, many other books, and been a guest on television and radio programs. A ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, he has spoken to churches, seminars, and other groups around the country for nearly twenty years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like Isaid it would not be long for another useless post attacking the messenger not the message. Care to point out where he is wrong. He used one of your guys conditions for fixation to take place then you cry foul.
Click to expand...

everything he say is wrong.
btw the man and the message are on in the same.
are you saying the man has no responsible for what he writes ?or is that just you?


----------



## mjollnir

Youwerecreated said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare childrens illness
> 
> So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty and denying the obvious ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Your utter dishonesty and scientific illiteracy is bracing, to say the least.
> 
> What penicillin does doesn't involve 'programming', in inactivates transpeptidase and hence the cell wall is destroyed.
> 
> What you're doing here is simply playing semantic games, and rather obviously trying to distract from the fact that you know nothing about the subject, or you wouldn't be attempting to falsely characterize what, in this case, penicillin does by labeling it 'programming'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again.
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
Click to expand...


Once again, since you're trapped in a web of your own distortions:  there is no 'programming' there.

You're only interested in playing cutsie-poo semantic games, and have no real command of even rudimentary science, of you wouldn't be copying and pasting what others have written, and you'd understand why it doesn't apply to the bullshit you're trying to sell.

You actually have zero idea how penicillin works, and wallpapering others statement over that fact simply can't hide that you have zero idea about this.

I'm through with you, you scientifically illiterate tool factory.  You cut & paste like a good little trained monkey, but that's about it.

Up your meds.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> I have grown bored of this give and take when one of you are willing to step up with a real rebuttal then I will resume with this give and take. I have grown tired of the faulty assumptions presented Which supposedly is a solid rebuttal or so you think.


another empty promise! you've already returned ..after pulling your skirts down!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is funny
> 
> 
> 
> how cute! YWC has discoverd emotocons !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You learned today evidence of the programmer, the one we call creator.
Click to expand...

what I learned is you are even more delusional and you have a very vivid imagination.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare childrens illness
> 
> So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty and denying the obvious ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Your utter dishonesty and scientific illiteracy is bracing, to say the least.
> 
> What penicillin does doesn't involve 'programming', in inactivates transpeptidase and hence the cell wall is destroyed.
> 
> What you're doing here is simply playing semantic games, and rather obviously trying to distract from the fact that you know nothing about the subject, or you wouldn't be attempting to falsely characterize what, in this case, penicillin does by labeling it 'programming'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare childrens illness
> 
> Who engineered Enzymes in the beginning to locate and correct errors during DNA replication ?
Click to expand...


 Nobody. You are looking at this through the eyes of a theist. You need to be looking at this through the eyes of a scientist.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacteria&#8217;s enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacteria&#8217;s ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare children&#8217;s illness
> 
> So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty and denying the obvious ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Your utter dishonesty and scientific illiteracy is bracing, to say the least.
> 
> What penicillin does doesn't involve 'programming', in inactivates transpeptidase and hence the cell wall is destroyed.
> 
> What you're doing here is simply playing semantic games, and rather obviously trying to distract from the fact that you know nothing about the subject, or you wouldn't be attempting to falsely characterize what, in this case, penicillin does by labeling it 'programming'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again.
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacteria&#8217;s enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacteria&#8217;s ability to survive and reproduce.
Click to expand...


I don't see how this demonstrates a designer at all. All you are doing is describing something. A description is not evidence.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really need to explain this to you,really ? I just gave you that evidence that Enzymes can and were programmed to perform functions.
> 
> Now who programmed them in the beginning ?
> 
> You have zero evidence that they evolved these abilities and we have evidence they can and were programmed so who is the programmer ?
> 
> You wanted evidence of the programmer you have it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence? That it seems too amazing to you that they could be "programmed" by purely natural means? Oh yeah. That's some evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare childrens illness
> 
> So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty by denying the obvious ?
Click to expand...

Your two questions presuppose your answer. Yet, as we see with regularity, your assumptive presuppositions are absent verification. You assume your designer, programmer gawds have an active hand in designing / programming enzymes but your only supporting evidence is your standard " because I say so", claim. 

So yes, I deny your obvious appeal to "because I say so" arguments.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is funny
> 
> 
> 
> how cute! YWC has discoverd emotocons !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You learned today evidence of the programmer, the one we call creator.
Click to expand...


What you learned is that specious claims to your imagined gawds have been rejected as unsupported and unsupportable. Your bellicose claims are laughable in their lack of validity and your steadfast refusal to deal honestly with your lack of credibility.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really need to explain this to you,really ? I just gave you that evidence that Enzymes can and were programmed to perform functions.
> 
> Now who programmed them in the beginning ?
> 
> You have zero evidence that they evolved these abilities and we have evidence they can and were programmed so who is the programmer ?
> 
> You wanted evidence of the programmer you have it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence? That it seems too amazing to you that they could be "programmed" by purely natural means? Oh yeah. That's some evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacteria&#8217;s enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacteria&#8217;s ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare children&#8217;s illness
> 
> So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty by denying the obvious ?
Click to expand...


The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence? That it seems too amazing to you that they could be "programmed" by purely natural means? Oh yeah. That's some evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacteria&#8217;s enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacteria&#8217;s ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare children&#8217;s illness
> 
> So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty by denying the obvious ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.
Click to expand...

 he's been told that countless times but like the  true willfully ignorant, zealot, nut job ,slapdick he is ,denying it is all he can do.


----------



## newpolitics

daws101 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare childrens illness
> 
> So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty by denying the obvious ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he's been told that countless times but like the  true willfully ignorant, zealot, nut job ,slapdick he is ,denying it is all he can do.
Click to expand...


"Forgive them, for they know not what they do"

-anonymous


----------



## UltimateReality

mjollnir said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigot?  Hardly.
> 
> You've made nonsensical, irrational statements not supported by any data and then, when that's turned around and used on you, you immediately squeal "Bigot!"
> 
> And there's nothing here for me to prove that you haven't already done is spades.
> 
> Sorry to have made you so uncomfy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What nonsensical statements? Are you referring to my discussions on ID Theory? It not, then the only other statements I've made since you showed up are religious in nature, in which case if your comments were directed at those makes you a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin."
> 
> That's an irrational statement.
> 
> Pointing out that that is, indeed, an irrational statement, isn't being a 'bigot'.  That, and there is no "ID theory".
> 
> Please try and refrain from attempting to reference or use words you clearly don't know.
Click to expand...


Why don't you come back when you can actually add a logical thought to the discussion. Thanks for playing.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can think of two. Sicklemia for those in certain environments where it is beneficial (african americans in environments containing malaria). Although this one is a double edged sword, as it poses the potential for sickle cell anemia, it does confer an advantage in fending off the disease in that environment. Don't try and tell me this isn't at all adaptive. It may not be the best example, but it does demonstrate that which you asked about. Within that environment, this would be an advantage and lead to greater survivability. Out of that environment, it is simply a burden.
> 
> A better example is the mutation that europeans underwent at around 5,000 B.C. which allowed to them digest lactase past infancy and into adulthood, and which many of us possess today. This was a result of having had domesticated animals the last 6,000 years before that (since 11,000 BC), which is the only reason we were drinking mammalian baby food from another species. As hunter-gathers, before animal domestication and the advent of agriculture (the two things which allowed us to settle down in one place and start civilization), this simply would not have happened. It is not natural for us or any species to drink what is essentially baby-food past the time when we are babies. Being "lactose intolerant" is actually the normal state for most mammals as adults. It is this mutation that allows those of european decent to metabolize lactase without issue. Therefore, it could be argued, that they could glean a larger amount of nutrients from their diet throughout their lifespan, and added another food source for them, which they could control through domestication. This would have conferred a great survival advantage, allowed them to lead longer, healthier lives, and to feed more people, creating more chance for procreation, thus passing on the mutation, which we now experience as the ability to digest lactose.
> 
> (Being a vegan, I am vehemently opposed to dairy consumption, because of the unethical nature inherent in the production process of factory farming (check out Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth for the inside scoop). I ask anyone open to learning about where there food comes from to go to that website and watch the movie. Please!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would deny evolution?? You body is made for meat consumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I would deny evolution.  Evolution isn't a mind. I am not offending evolution. My reasons are purely ethical, and the claim that "my body is made for meat consumption" is not entirely accurate. We are omnivores, only after being herbivores long before. Earlier species of hominid were herbivorous, such as Lucy (Australopithecus). We came into meat at some point, and evolved to be able to eat it. Therefore, primarily, we are herbivorous. However, marketing would have you believe you need to be eating meat at every meal, which is probably the biggest cause of cancer in the modern world, especially with the amount of growth hormones and antibiotics present in animal flesh, as well as fecal matter. Try watching the movie Earthlings, if you are interested in learning the awful truth about how we treat other sentient, living beings. I realize your bible instructs you to not care about them, but you could have a little humanity. The only thing I would be dependent on meat for is B12, which I supplement. Problem solved. Go vegan.
Click to expand...


You really do have a twisted view of the truth. It is also obvious you subscribe to liberal logic 101. I'm guessing you are pro killing of the unborn but anti fur?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since god is not mentioned in the constitution i think you're on the wrong thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollowhead tried arguing this and got totally owned. God is absolutely mentioned in the constitution. Now maybe not in the context to which you are referring, but he is definitely mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry shit head   god is not....the word "creator"  is in pre amble and it's intentionally ambiguous.
> So your insistence that god is, is subjective.
Click to expand...


Wrong stupid. If I prove you wrong will you shut up and go away? *Jesus is absolutely referenced in the Constitution.* I minored in history dork. I know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence but apparently you don't.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is an argument from ignorance, again. You can't imagine how something like this system would arise, so... god or aliens did it. Breathtaking... really, it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is all YOU can do is imagine. Because their is no modern occurrence of this happening anywhere in nature and no evidence of it randomly occurring in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would there be another modern occurrence of abiogenesis? Mind, explaining this to me? You seem to think, fallaciously, that because we don't witness this, it means it never happened. Well, excuse, but that is simply stupid. The fact that there are microbes on every habitable inch of this earth, utilizing whatever organic material is around them- including amino acids and proteins, precludes the very possibility that another abiogenetic event would occur, simply because the materials needed to produce such an even would be sought after, competitively, by existing microbes. Not only are organic elements competitively sought after, but any new entrants into an ecosystem, whether foreign or abiogenetically spawned, would be seen as outsiders, and if unable to defend themselves, would be "used" by the already existing life.  Most certainly, an abiogenetically spawned organism would have no ability to defend itself. Further, if such a modern event did happen, how would we be able to distinguish this from the existing life there. Perhaps it would appear to us only to be a "new species"? Life doesn't come with a timestamp on it.
Click to expand...


Blah, blah, blah. Enough cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb. So if read your post right, you are saying that abiogenesis was a miracle.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> hollowhead tried arguing this and got totally owned. God is absolutely mentioned in the constitution. Now maybe not in the context to which you are referring, but he is definitely mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry shit head   god is not....the word "creator"  is in pre amble and it's intentionally ambiguous.
> So your insistence that god is, is subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey daws, I'll interpret and clarify what the fundie christian creationist has managed to lie and misrepresent.
> 
> My earlier statement was that "god" was not mentioned in the wording of the constitution. My fundie stalker missed the phrase "wording of the constitution", Further, my post delineated the clear intent of the Founding Fathers that no single religion be acknowledged in the wording of the constitution.
> 
> The slathering fundie, insisting on forcing his gawds into the constitution (obviously not what was intended by the Founding Fathers), claimed that a closing salutation "... in the year of our lord" (note, "god" is nowhere mentioned), contradicted my comment.
> 
> The frantic fundie still doesn't want to acknowledge his lie and further, is forced into juvenile name-calling in failed attempts to resurrect his still failed credibility.
Click to expand...


The lie is yours. You got so owned its pathetic. You claimed God wasn't mentioned. The other poster that schooled you made no claims about the context of the mention, only that Jesus was mentioned in the Constitution. So nice try weaseling out once again LIAR.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry shit head   god is not....the word "creator"  is in pre amble and it's intentionally ambiguous.
> So your insistence that god is, is subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey daws, I'll interpret and clarify what the fundie christian creationist has managed to lie and misrepresent.
> 
> My earlier statement was that "god" was not mentioned in the wording of the constitution. My fundie stalker missed the phrase "wording of the constitution", Further, my post delineated the clear intent of the Founding Fathers that no single religion be acknowledged in the wording of the constitution.
> 
> The slathering fundie, insisting on forcing his gawds into the constitution (obviously not what was intended by the Founding Fathers), claimed that a closing salutation "... in the year of our lord" (note, "god" is nowhere mentioned), contradicted my comment.
> 
> The frantic fundie still doesn't want to acknowledge his lie and further, is forced into juvenile name-calling in failed attempts to resurrect his still failed credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks.
> the old year of our lord ploy !
Click to expand...


And just who is this Lord they are referring to? Well I'll be! Slap your grandma. It is sometimes referred to as AD or Addo Domini:

Wiki says: _Anno Domini (AD or A.D.) and Before Christ (BC or B.C.) are designations used to label or number years used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars. *This calendar era is based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus of Nazareth*, with AD counting years after the start of this epoch, and BC denoting years before the start of the epoch._

On no though, did the Founders stop there? No they did not. They took the time to write it out instead of using the Latin term just so there was no mistake. It ends with.. " In the year of *OUR* Lord"

Daws, consider yourself owned stupid. Jesus is mentioned in the US Constitution.


----------



## UltimateReality

mjollnir said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Your utter dishonesty and scientific illiteracy is bracing, to say the least.
> 
> What penicillin does doesn't involve 'programming', in inactivates transpeptidase and hence the cell wall is destroyed.
> 
> What you're doing here is simply playing semantic games, and rather obviously trying to distract from the fact that you know nothing about the subject, or you wouldn't be attempting to falsely characterize what, in this case, penicillin does by labeling it 'programming'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again.
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, since you're trapped in a web of your own distortions:  there is no 'programming' there.
> 
> You're only interested in playing cutsie-poo semantic games, and have no real command of even rudimentary science, of you wouldn't be copying and pasting what others have written, and you'd understand why it doesn't apply to the bullshit you're trying to sell.
> 
> You actually have zero idea how penicillin works, and wallpapering others statement over that fact simply can't hide that you have zero idea about this.
> 
> I'm through with you, you scientifically illiterate tool factory.  You cut & paste like a good little trained monkey, but that's about it.
> 
> Up your meds.
Click to expand...


Hawly, have you been making up new screen names again so you can stalk me and YWC incognito? Did you go off your meds?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Your utter dishonesty and scientific illiteracy is bracing, to say the least.
> 
> What penicillin does doesn't involve 'programming', in inactivates transpeptidase and hence the cell wall is destroyed.
> 
> What you're doing here is simply playing semantic games, and rather obviously trying to distract from the fact that you know nothing about the subject, or you wouldn't be attempting to falsely characterize what, in this case, penicillin does by labeling it 'programming'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare childrens illness
> 
> Who engineered Enzymes in the beginning to locate and correct errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody. You are looking at this through the eyes of a theist. You need to be looking at this through the eyes of a scientist.
Click to expand...


Scientist??? I think you mean Atheist. Or perhaps Materialist. No? Naturalist then. Your twisted worldview skews your ability to recognize real science from the pseudoscience of darwinism.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Your utter dishonesty and scientific illiteracy is bracing, to say the least.
> 
> What penicillin does doesn't involve 'programming', in inactivates transpeptidase and hence the cell wall is destroyed.
> 
> What you're doing here is simply playing semantic games, and rather obviously trying to distract from the fact that you know nothing about the subject, or you wouldn't be attempting to falsely characterize what, in this case, penicillin does by labeling it 'programming'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again.
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how this demonstrates a designer at all. All you are doing is describing something. *A description is not evidence.*
Click to expand...


With this little gem you just crushed all of the pseudoscience of darwinism.


----------



## UltimateReality

_in Chapter 3 of his book, Coyne turns his attention to the argument from suboptimal design. Whereas the "god-of-the-gaps" fallacy states that "evolution can't explain this; therefore god must have done it," Coyne's argument in this chapter commits a converse "evolution-of-the-gaps" fallacy: "God wouldn't have done it that way; therefore evolution must have done it." It is curious that this dichotomous mode of thinking is precisely what Darwinists like Coyne so often like to accuse ID proponents of. Much like "god-of-the-gaps" arguments, the "evolution-of-the-gaps" argument has to retreat with advances in scientific knowledge, as biologists uncover important reasons for the way these features have been designed. Furthermore, a common critique of ID is that it is unscientific because it isn't falsifiable. But, in this chapter, Coyne purports to have falsified the design hypothesis. One cannot have it both ways -- either ID is falsifiable or it isn't. By offering a critique of design as a hypothesis, Coyne implies that ID is falsifiable, and therefore that it is scientific by that criterion._

From Jerry Coyne, "Evolution-of-the-Gaps" and Other Fallacies - Evolution News & Views


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your evidence? That it seems too amazing to you that they could be "programmed" by purely natural means? Oh yeah. That's some evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacteria&#8217;s enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacteria&#8217;s ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare children&#8217;s illness
> 
> So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty by denying the obvious ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.
Click to expand...


You can ask what engineered enzymes in the beginning, like most other questions evolutionist ask, but once again no answer will come by evidence only by a vivid imagination.

My question still stands since we know that Enzymes can and were programmed with functions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how cute! YWC has discoverd emotocons !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You learned today evidence of the programmer, the one we call creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you learned is that specious claims to your imagined gawds have been rejected as unsupported and unsupportable. Your bellicose claims are laughable in their lack of validity and your steadfast refusal to deal honestly with your lack of credibility.
Click to expand...


Sorry but between UR and I you people are getting schooled you are just to ignorant to see it or you and your buddies are delibrately dishonest,I will say the latter.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare childrens illness
> 
> So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty by denying the obvious ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he's been told that countless times but like the  true willfully ignorant, zealot, nut job ,slapdick he is ,denying it is all he can do.
Click to expand...


Why would a rational person conclude knowing that Enzymes can and are engineered conclude a naturalistic process must have done it ? How bout a little logic and reality daws.


----------



## pjnlsn

Youwerecreated said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the first cell didn't evolve  they have no answer for it their copout is origins had nothing to do with evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.
> 
> If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having _nothing_ to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.
> 
> To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.
Click to expand...


It is easy to accept, sure (If I know what you mean, and if I do, that something is easy to accept doesn't mean it's rational, or even likely. For example: Starting from nothing, i.e. if you think of a group of people who have no existing societal/familial influences, it's very easy to believe that the spirits of the dead live on in nature. But this is not rational or likely). But you can call it rational or not, and while as I'm sure everyone who's participated in this threat for very long is aware, and as you appear to reference indirectly, there are some milestone experiments done on the subject, but I daresay that what you would like is something along the lines of complete certainty, and according to that standard, it isn't known, this change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.

But this certainly doesn't lead to any (unspecified) designer-being.

Secondly, there's nothing about the group of solutions, so to speak, which do not involve god-like beings, which would require them to be only imagined, if that's what you mean.

Thirdly, you would appear to be one who wouldn't think much of an idea if it isn't already (completely) known. But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What nonsensical statements? Are you referring to my discussions on ID Theory? It not, then the only other statements I've made since you showed up are religious in nature, in which case if your comments were directed at those makes you a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin."
> 
> That's an irrational statement.
> 
> Pointing out that that is, indeed, an irrational statement, isn't being a 'bigot'.  That, and there is no "ID theory".
> 
> Please try and refrain from attempting to reference or use words you clearly don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you come back when you can actually add a logical thought to the discussion. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


I want you to know when I thank you for a post it is because it is a very good post. You would think by now the way these kids are getting schooled they would stay off the computer and focus on their high school teacher.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is all YOU can do is imagine. Because their is no modern occurrence of this happening anywhere in nature and no evidence of it randomly occurring in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would there be another modern occurrence of abiogenesis? Mind, explaining this to me? You seem to think, fallaciously, that because we don't witness this, it means it never happened. Well, excuse, but that is simply stupid. The fact that there are microbes on every habitable inch of this earth, utilizing whatever organic material is around them- including amino acids and proteins, precludes the very possibility that another abiogenetic event would occur, simply because the materials needed to produce such an even would be sought after, competitively, by existing microbes. Not only are organic elements competitively sought after, but any new entrants into an ecosystem, whether foreign or abiogenetically spawned, would be seen as outsiders, and if unable to defend themselves, would be "used" by the already existing life.  Most certainly, an abiogenetically spawned organism would have no ability to defend itself. Further, if such a modern event did happen, how would we be able to distinguish this from the existing life there. Perhaps it would appear to us only to be a "new species"? Life doesn't come with a timestamp on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah. Enough cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb. So if read your post right, you are saying that abiogenesis was a miracle.
Click to expand...


Absolutely what he is inferring


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again.
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how this demonstrates a designer at all. All you are doing is describing something. *A description is not evidence.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With this little gem you just crushed all of the pseudoscience of darwinism.
Click to expand...


Absolutely 

They just don't know when to be silent.


----------



## pjnlsn

UltimateReality said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The book absolutely makes a case for an intelligent agent being responsible for the digital code in dna.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should get out of the house more often:
> 
> _"Scientists have been eyeing up DNA as a potential storage medium for a long time, for three very good reasons: It&#8217;s incredibly dense (you can store one bit per base, and a base is only a few atoms large); it&#8217;s volumetric (beaker) rather than planar (hard disk); and it&#8217;s incredibly stable &#8212; *where other bleeding-edge storage mediums need to be kept in sub-zero vacuums, DNA can survive for hundreds of thousands of years in a box in your garage.*
> 
> It is only with recent advances in microfluidics and labs-on-a-chip that synthesizing and sequencing DNA has become an everyday task, though. While it took years for the original Human Genome Project to analyze a single human genome (some 3 billion DNA base pairs), modern lab equipment with microfluidic chips can do it in hours. Now this isn&#8217;t to say that Church and Kosuri&#8217;s DNA storage is fast &#8212; but it&#8217;s fast enough for very-long-term archival.
> 
> Just think about it for a moment: *One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. *That&#8217;s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs&#8230; in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives &#8212; the densest storage medium in use today &#8212; you&#8217;d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuri&#8217;s case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA &#8212; Church&#8217;s latest book, in fact &#8212; and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored."_
> 
> Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the this contradicts the above. Regardless of it's potential uses, it bears no significant similarity to (e.g.) networks of copper/iron alloyed pathways etched in silicon, be they part of, say, a flash memory device, or any particular example of digital circuitry.
> 
> But again, you appeared to be using the word merely for embellishment, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try. But you just got owned.
Click to expand...


Again:



pjnlsn said:


> [None of it contradicted what it was posted as a response to]. Regardless of it's potential uses, it bears no significant similarity to (e.g.) networks of copper/iron alloyed pathways etched in silicon, be they part of, say, a flash memory device, or any particular example of digital circuitry.



It's not surprising in any sense that storing information on the molecular level is much more efficient than common examples of digital information storage.

But the fact that you can take the amount of information that, say, DNA can represent, and convert it into units of digital information (8-bit numbers in sequence) does not mean that it has any similarity to digital storage.

You could also convert those numbers into the amount of college ruled sheets of lined paper that it would take to represent the same data, and it wouldn't mean that DNA had some resemblance to paper.

And to think so is utterly absurd. It's beyond hopeful.


----------



## Youwerecreated

pjnlsn said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.
> 
> If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having _nothing_ to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.
> 
> To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is easy to accept, sure (If I know what you mean, and if I do, that something is easy to accept doesn't mean it's rational, or even likely. For example: Starting from nothing, i.e. if you think of a group of people who have no existing societal/familial influences, it's very easy to believe that the spirits of the dead live on in nature. But this is not rational or likely). But you can call it rational or not, and while as I'm sure everyone who's participated in this threat for very long is aware, and as you appear to reference indirectly, there are some milestone experiments done on the subject, but I daresay that what you would like is something along the lines of complete certainty, and according to that standard, it isn't known, this change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.
> 
> But this certainly doesn't lead to any (unspecified) designer-being.
> 
> Secondly, there's nothing about the group of solutions, so to speak, which do not involve god-like beings, which would require them to be only imagined, if that's what you mean.
> 
> Thirdly, you would appear to be one who wouldn't think much of an idea if it isn't already (completely) known. But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.
> 
> Your attitude doesn't reflect the reality.
Click to expand...



The miller urey experiment showed nothing of the sort. A designer is not considered rational because you have not seen him but you have seen evidence of him and just deny.

You have not seen evidence of the many theories you defend so by your reasoning you are irrational.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare childrens illness
> 
> So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty by denying the obvious ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can ask what engineered enzymes in the beginning, like most other questions evolutionist ask, but once again no answer will come by evidence only by a vivid imagination.
> 
> My question still stands since we know that Enzymes can and were programmed with functions.
Click to expand...

You're free to maintain that delusion but nowhere have you offered even a hint of evidence that enzymes were programmed.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> "God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin."
> 
> That's an irrational statement.
> 
> Pointing out that that is, indeed, an irrational statement, isn't being a 'bigot'.  That, and there is no "ID theory".
> 
> Please try and refrain from attempting to reference or use words you clearly don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you come back when you can actually add a logical thought to the discussion. Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want you to know when I thank you for a post it is because it is a very good post. You would think by now the way these kids are getting schooled they would stay off the computer and focus on their high school teacher.
Click to expand...

At this point, your frantic and hysterical claims to have schooled anyone are really quite pathetic. You're reduced to insisting you offered evidence for your designer gawds when you have done no such thing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can ask what engineered enzymes in the beginning, like most other questions evolutionist ask, but once again no answer will come by evidence only by a vivid imagination.
> 
> My question still stands since we know that Enzymes can and were programmed with functions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're free to maintain that delusion but nowhere have you offered even a hint of evidence that enzymes were programmed.
Click to expand...


You're free to remain ignorant.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you come back when you can actually add a logical thought to the discussion. Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want you to know when I thank you for a post it is because it is a very good post. You would think by now the way these kids are getting schooled they would stay off the computer and focus on their high school teacher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At this point, your frantic and hysterical claims to have schooled anyone are really quite pathetic. You're reduced to insisting you offered evidence for your designer gawds when you have done no such thing.
Click to expand...


Only a person in complete denial would believe as you do.


----------



## pjnlsn

UltimateReality said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the first cell didn't evolve  they have no answer for it their copout is origins had nothing to do with evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.
> 
> If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having _nothing_ to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can pretend this, but Darwinists avoidance of Origins discussions goes deeper to the core of their religious beliefs. The origin of life cannot be explained by a purely naturalistic process and this calls into question the central dogma of the Darwinistic materialist religion. So instead, Darwinists just ignore it, thinking if they don't look at it it will go away.
Click to expand...


What I wrote above is true.

And if, by calls into question, you mean to reference some kind of dependancy that one has on the other, not in terms of the passage of time, but of what can and cannot be known, that is false, and also is exactly what I wrote above, which you've quoted.

It is not known that the origin cannot be explained by any possible explanation which does not involve some kind of intelligent being.

You appear to be projecting, what with all the accusations of dogma and religious furor which you've interspersed with false statements, which if you had some emotional or habitual reason for clinging to them would not surprise me.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.
> 
> To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy to accept, sure (If I know what you mean, and if I do, that something is easy to accept doesn't mean it's rational, or even likely. For example: Starting from nothing, i.e. if you think of a group of people who have no existing societal/familial influences, it's very easy to believe that the spirits of the dead live on in nature. But this is not rational or likely). But you can call it rational or not, and while as I'm sure everyone who's participated in this threat for very long is aware, and as you appear to reference indirectly, there are some milestone experiments done on the subject, but I daresay that what you would like is something along the lines of complete certainty, and according to that standard, it isn't known, this change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.
> 
> But this certainly doesn't lead to any (unspecified) designer-being.
> 
> Secondly, there's nothing about the group of solutions, so to speak, which do not involve god-like beings, which would require them to be only imagined, if that's what you mean.
> 
> Thirdly, you would appear to be one who wouldn't think much of an idea if it isn't already (completely) known. But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.
> 
> Your attitude doesn't reflect the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The miller urey experiment showed nothing of the sort. A designer is not considered rational because you have not seen him but you have seen evidence of him and just deny.
> 
> You have not seen evidence of the many theories you defend so by your reasoning you are irrational.
Click to expand...

A boilerplate creationist analogy that ignore many relevant differences that separate science from religious dogma.


----------



## pjnlsn

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.
> 
> If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having _nothing_ to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can pretend this, but Darwinists avoidance of Origins discussions goes deeper to the core of their religious beliefs. The origin of life cannot be explained by a purely naturalistic process and this calls into question the central dogma of the Darwinistic materialist religion. So instead, Darwinists just ignore it, thinking if they don't look at it it will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, its because abiogenesis and evolution are categorically distinct. It's that simple. One has nothing to do with the other ontologically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can say and believe this if you wish but you are just wrong. Ever heard of chemical evolution ?
Click to expand...


You knew when you read it that such was not what he meant, i'm sure, but for the sake of record keeping, and again (you've even quoted it):



pjnlsn said:


> If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.
> 
> If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having _nothing_ to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can ask what engineered enzymes in the beginning, like most other questions evolutionist ask, but once again no answer will come by evidence only by a vivid imagination.
> 
> My question still stands since we know that Enzymes can and were programmed with functions.
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to maintain that delusion but nowhere have you offered even a hint of evidence that enzymes were programmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to remain ignorant.
Click to expand...

I'm free to point out that your specious claims remain completely unsupported and exist only in the realm of Christian creationism.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want you to know when I thank you for a post it is because it is a very good post. You would think by now the way these kids are getting schooled they would stay off the computer and focus on their high school teacher.
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, your frantic and hysterical claims to have schooled anyone are really quite pathetic. You're reduced to insisting you offered evidence for your designer gawds when you have done no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a person in complete denial would believe as you do.
Click to expand...


Not at all, which is why your posts are framed in terms of questions and statements that presume the answer you prefer. It's a common tactic of the Christian creationist ministries


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, your frantic and hysterical claims to have schooled anyone are really quite pathetic. You're reduced to insisting you offered evidence for your designer gawds when you have done no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a person in complete denial would believe as you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all, which is why your posts are framed in terms of questions and statements that presume the answer you prefer. It's a common tactic of the Christian creationist ministries
Click to expand...


Are you knocking the scientific community hollie for having a hypothesis and putting it to the test. In this situation the programmer Hypothesis has credibility added because it has been confirmed that Enzymes are important in their functions and they can have their functions altered by intelligent beings. Enzymes are engineered with particular functions in mind. This shows two things they can be engineered,designed for a purpose by intelligence. It gives credibility to the theory of design.

You have offered no explanation to how life began except through theories filled with conjecture because there is no evidence to support the theories.,conjecture is all you have on your side.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to maintain that delusion but nowhere have you offered even a hint of evidence that enzymes were programmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to remain ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm free to point out that your specious claims remain completely unsupported and exist only in the realm of Christian creationism.
Click to expand...


Wrong this evidence was provided by the science community. You and your side are just suffering from faulty assumptions.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a person in complete denial would believe as you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, which is why your posts are framed in terms of questions and statements that presume the answer you prefer. It's a common tactic of the Christian creationist ministries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you knocking the scientific community hollie for having a hypothesis and putting it to the test. In this situation the programmer Hypothesis has credibility added because it has been confirmed that Enzymes are important in their functions and they can have their functions altered by intelligent beings. Enzymes are engineered with particular functions in mind. This shows two things they can be engineered,designed for a purpose by intelligence. It gives credibility to the theory of design.
> 
> You have offered no explanation to how life began except through theories filled with conjecture because there is no evidence to support the theories.,conjecture is all you have on your side.
Click to expand...


Your sweaty, panting diatribe is an embarrassment. 

And still, you offer nothing to support your frantic claim of biological "programming" by some imagined "designer programmer".


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to remain ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm free to point out that your specious claims remain completely unsupported and exist only in the realm of Christian creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong this evidence was provided by the science community. You and your side are just suffering from faulty assumptions.
Click to expand...


That's simply false. Science has never provided evidence of supermagical designer gawds who "programmed " anything. Further, science has never confirmed any biological programming. 

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you make this specious claim completely absent suppport.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm free to point out that your specious claims remain completely unsupported and exist only in the realm of Christian creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong this evidence was provided by the science community. You and your side are just suffering from faulty assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's simply false. Science has never provided evidence of supermagical designer gawds who "programmed " anything. Further, science has never confirmed any biological programming.
> 
> It hasn't gone unnoticed that you make this specious claim completely absent suppport.
Click to expand...


Don't have to provide evidence for God to infer design. You're truly clueless and anyone else that makes a similar claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm free to point out that your specious claims remain completely unsupported and exist only in the realm of Christian creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong this evidence was provided by the science community. You and your side are just suffering from faulty assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's simply false. Science has never provided evidence of supermagical designer gawds who "programmed " anything. Further, science has never confirmed any biological programming.
> 
> It hasn't gone unnoticed that you make this specious claim completely absent suppport.
Click to expand...


Hollie how is that explanation going for the formation of reproducing cell that just popped in to existence one day and produced all we see through a natural process ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong this evidence was provided by the science community. You and your side are just suffering from faulty assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply false. Science has never provided evidence of supermagical designer gawds who "programmed " anything. Further, science has never confirmed any biological programming.
> 
> It hasn't gone unnoticed that you make this specious claim completely absent suppport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie how is that explanation going for the formation of reproducing cell that just popped in to existence one day and produced all we see through a natural process ?
Click to expand...


It's going quite well, thank you. The natural world serves quite nicely as an example of rationalism and naturalism. We have no examples or evidence of how your alleged supermagical gawds have had any connection with the natural world. 

Why is it that you cannot demonstrate a single example of supermagicalism?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong this evidence was provided by the science community. You and your side are just suffering from faulty assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply false. Science has never provided evidence of supermagical designer gawds who "programmed " anything. Further, science has never confirmed any biological programming.
> 
> It hasn't gone unnoticed that you make this specious claim completely absent suppport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to provide evidence for God to infer design. You're truly clueless and anyone else that makes a similar claim.
Click to expand...

Actually, you do. You are the one insisting that a particular consolidation of gawds is responsible for all of existence yet you demand an exception from offering any proof beyond your typical " because I say so" claim.

That makes you appear to be quite the irrational and dogmatic zealot.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to remain ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm free to point out that your specious claims remain completely unsupported and exist only in the realm of Christian creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong this evidence was provided by the science community. You and your side are just suffering from faulty assumptions.
Click to expand...


The science community has provided evidence of your gawds? Have you advised the science community of this?


----------



## UltimateReality

pjnlsn said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.
> 
> If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having _nothing_ to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.
> 
> To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is easy to accept, sure (If I know what you mean, and if I do, that something is easy to accept doesn't mean it's rational, or even likely. For example: Starting from nothing, i.e. if you think of a group of people who have no existing societal/familial influences, it's very easy to believe that the spirits of the dead live on in nature. But this is not rational or likely). But you can call it rational or not, and while as I'm sure everyone who's participated in this threat for very long is aware, and as you appear to reference indirectly, there are some milestone experiments done on the subject, but I daresay that what you would like is something along the lines of complete certainty, and according to that standard, it isn't known, this change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.
> 
> But this certainly doesn't lead to any (unspecified) designer-being.
> 
> Secondly, there's nothing about the group of solutions, so to speak, which do not involve god-like beings, which would require them to be only imagined, if that's what you mean.
> 
> Thirdly, you would appear to be one who wouldn't think much of an idea if it isn't already (completely) known. But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.
Click to expand...


Your last paragraph is far from the truth. Please provide a supporting cut and paste and link. The elemental substance argument is fallacious, as many designed things are made from elemental substances including rocket ships and computers.


----------



## UltimateReality

pjnlsn said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the this contradicts the above. Regardless of it's potential uses, it bears no significant similarity to (e.g.) networks of copper/iron alloyed pathways etched in silicon, be they part of, say, a flash memory device, or any particular example of digital circuitry.
> 
> But again, you appeared to be using the word merely for embellishment, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try. But you just got owned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again:
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> [None of it contradicted what it was posted as a response to]. Regardless of it's potential uses, it bears no significant similarity to (e.g.) networks of copper/iron alloyed pathways etched in silicon, be they part of, say, a flash memory device, or any particular example of digital circuitry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not surprising in any sense that storing information on the molecular level is much more efficient than common examples of digital information storage.
> 
> But the fact that you can take the amount of information that, say, DNA can represent, and convert it into units of digital information (8-bit numbers in sequence) does not mean that it has any similarity to digital storage.
> 
> You could also convert those numbers into the amount of college ruled sheets of lined paper that it would take to represent the same data, and it wouldn't mean that DNA had some resemblance to paper.
> 
> And to think so is utterly absurd. It's beyond hopeful.
Click to expand...


Nice try but your comparison is fallacious. Lined college ruled paper is not digital.

*Digital:* of, relating to, or being data in the form of digits, especially binary digits <digital images> <a digital readout>; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals.

Can your paper do this?

_DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, C*altech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands,* which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10]_ Source: Wiki

*Finally, please provide me with an example of another molecule, exclusive of any in the cell, that exists in nature that can be used for digital information storage. *


----------



## musingsofacac

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



Is very simple - we believe by faith that the Bible is the Word of God.  When the Bible says God created the earth in 6 days(and yes the hebrew is literal word for day) and then we take the very detailed geneolgies of the Bible from Adam to Abraham and then from Abraham to Christ you come up with about 6000 years.

So then we have the question raised by even some Christians who choose not to take the Bible so literally(like the Catholic Church) - but why does the Universe and the earth appear to be older? The reason is that God is perfectly capable of creating something fully matured - he did it with Adam and Eve - they were not created as children, but as full adults.

So yes some of us choose to believe the Bible at face value - if you want to impune that or make fun of it - go right ahead.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, your frantic and hysterical claims to have schooled anyone are really quite pathetic. You're reduced to insisting you offered evidence for your designer gawds when you have done no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a person in complete denial would believe as you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all, which is why your posts are framed in terms of questions and statements that presume the answer you prefer. It's a common tactic of the Christian creationist ministries
Click to expand...


Yours are the common tactics of hate-spewing, bigoted, atheist, militant homosexuals.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply false. Science has never provided evidence of supermagical designer gawds who "programmed " anything. Further, science has never confirmed any biological programming.
> 
> It hasn't gone unnoticed that you make this specious claim completely absent suppport.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how is that explanation going for the formation of reproducing cell that just popped in to existence one day and produced all we see through a natural process ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's going quite well, thank you. The natural world serves quite nicely as an example of rationalism and naturalism. We have no examples or evidence of how your alleged supermagical gawds have had any connection with the natural world.
> 
> Why is it that you cannot demonstrate a single example of supermagicalism?
Click to expand...


Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.


----------



## UltimateReality

musingsofacac said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is very simple - we believe by faith that the Bible is the Word of God.  When the Bible says God created the earth in 6 days(and yes the hebrew is literal word for day) and then we take the very detailed geneolgies of the Bible from Adam to Abraham and then from Abraham to Christ you come up with about 6000 years.
> 
> So then we have the question raised by even some Christians who choose not to take the Bible so literally(like the Catholic Church) - but why does the Universe and the earth appear to be older? The reason is that God is perfectly capable of creating something fully matured - he did it with Adam and Eve - they were not created as children, but as full adults.
> 
> So yes some of us choose to believe the Bible at face value - if you want to impune that or make fun of it - go right ahead.
Click to expand...


Not making fun at all since I am a Christian ID Theorists. I just believe that many stories in the Bible are not to be taken literally, and the Jewish people knew this at the time they were written. Do your *really believe* that you take the whole Bible at face value? Jesus commanded you to gouge your eye out if it caused you to stumble so grab a fork.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a person in complete denial would believe as you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, which is why your posts are framed in terms of questions and statements that presume the answer you prefer. It's a common tactic of the Christian creationist ministries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours are the common tactics of hate-spewing, bigoted, atheist, militant homosexuals.
Click to expand...


Your insensate anger is to be expected from a rejected stalker.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how is that explanation going for the formation of reproducing cell that just popped in to existence one day and produced all we see through a natural process ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's going quite well, thank you. The natural world serves quite nicely as an example of rationalism and naturalism. We have no examples or evidence of how your alleged supermagical gawds have had any connection with the natural world.
> 
> Why is it that you cannot demonstrate a single example of supermagicalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.
Click to expand...

Christian creationism is not science. That is what you are unable to come to terms with. Your claims to miracles, supermagical designer gawds, etc. are, by definition, irrational. 

After all the pages in this thread wherein you insist in cutting and pasting from Christian creationist ministries, you have failed at every effort to present a single, testable example  of "the gawds did it". Instead, you have made every effort vilify science, even floating outrageously silly conspiracies in favor of your creationist fantasies.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how is that explanation going for the formation of reproducing cell that just popped in to existence one day and produced all we see through a natural process ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's going quite well, thank you. The natural world serves quite nicely as an example of rationalism and naturalism. We have no examples or evidence of how your alleged supermagical gawds have had any connection with the natural world.
> 
> Why is it that you cannot demonstrate a single example of supermagicalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.
Click to expand...


Ah yes, the Christian creationist need to use "Darwinism" in feverish attempts to denigrate science in favor of supermagical designer gawds.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a person in complete denial would believe as you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, which is why your posts are framed in terms of questions and statements that presume the answer you prefer. It's a common tactic of the Christian creationist ministries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours are the common tactics of hate-spewing, bigoted, atheist, militant homosexuals.
Click to expand...


Oh my, you angry, frustrated stalker. Yours is textbook behavior for a stalker who has been rejected and slips into a pathology of hate / self-hate.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> musingsofacac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is very simple - we believe by faith that the Bible is the Word of God.  When the Bible says God created the earth in 6 days(and yes the hebrew is literal word for day) and then we take the very detailed geneolgies of the Bible from Adam to Abraham and then from Abraham to Christ you come up with about 6000 years.
> 
> So then we have the question raised by even some Christians who choose not to take the Bible so literally(like the Catholic Church) - but why does the Universe and the earth appear to be older? The reason is that God is perfectly capable of creating something fully matured - he did it with Adam and Eve - they were not created as children, but as full adults.
> 
> So yes some of us choose to believe the Bible at face value - if you want to impune that or make fun of it - go right ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not making fun at all since I am a Christian ID Theorists. I just believe that many stories in the Bible are not to be taken literally, and the Jewish people knew this at the time they were written. Do your *really believe* that you take the whole Bible at face value? Jesus commanded you to gouge your eye out if it caused you to stumble so grab a fork.
Click to expand...

If you were capable of being honest, you would acknowledge your Christian fundamentalist beliefs and begin the process of resolving the hate and self-hate that causes you such anger issues.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> What nonsensical statements? Are you referring to my discussions on ID Theory? It not, then the only other statements I've made since you showed up are religious in nature, in which case if your comments were directed at those makes you a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin."
> 
> That's an irrational statement.
> 
> Pointing out that that is, indeed, an irrational statement, isn't being a 'bigot'.  That, and there is no "ID theory".
> 
> Please try and refrain from attempting to reference or use words you clearly don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you come back when you can actually add a logical thought to the discussion. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

logical from Ur = irony.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's going quite well, thank you. The natural world serves quite nicely as an example of rationalism and naturalism. We have no examples or evidence of how your alleged supermagical gawds have had any connection with the natural world.
> 
> Why is it that you cannot demonstrate a single example of supermagicalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christian creationism is not science. That is what you are unable to come to terms with. Your claims to miracles, supermagical designer gawds, etc. are, by definition, irrational.
> 
> After all the pages in this thread wherein you insist in cutting and pasting from Christian creationist ministries, you have failed at every effort to present a single, testable example  of "the gawds did it". Instead, you have made every effort vilify science, even floating outrageously silly conspiracies in favor of your creationist fantasies.
Click to expand...


You darwinists fantasies force you to vilify real science in order to dumb it down to be on par with your darwin fairy tales and "just so" stories. Your rabid cutting and pasting from Panda Thumb ministries is not a viable substitute for knowledge of the un-darwin-bastardized scientific method. You are left with the evolution of the gaps miracles and blind faith in materialistic processes.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's going quite well, thank you. The natural world serves quite nicely as an example of rationalism and naturalism. We have no examples or evidence of how your alleged supermagical gawds have had any connection with the natural world.
> 
> Why is it that you cannot demonstrate a single example of supermagicalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the Christian creationist need to use "Darwinism" in feverish attempts to denigrate science in favor of supermagical designer gawds.
Click to expand...


Your rhetoric cannot conceal your viscous anger and self hatred. Is it your own self-loathing that contributes to hatred of science as well?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> hollowhead tried arguing this and got totally owned. God is absolutely mentioned in the constitution. Now maybe not in the context to which you are referring, but he is definitely mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry shit head   god is not....the word "creator"  is in pre amble and it's intentionally ambiguous.
> So your insistence that god is, is subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong stupid. If I prove you wrong will you shut up and go away? *Jesus is absolutely referenced in the Constitution.* I minored in history dork. I know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence but apparently you don't.
Click to expand...

then you must have failed! 

Myth:
The Constitution refers to Christianity and Jesus. 



Response:
Accommodationists and others opposed to the separation of church and state sometimes argue that government support and defense of Christianity is justified because the American Constitution refers to Christianity: in Article VII, the Constitution is dated with the words "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." What relevance does this point have for the debate over religious liberty? Absolutely none. This was simply the dating convention, not an ideological statement. 

Yes, the authors and signers of the Constitution relied upon a dating system which marks as its beginning the birth of the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ. Yes, it was custom at the time of the Constitution to set forth dates by writing them out in long hand and to use the phrase "the Year of our Lord." It would have been odd for the document to be dated any other way. 

None of this would allow us to conclude that any or all of the authors and signers were Christian (though they were), much less that they considered Jesus Christ their "Lord" or that they regarded him as somehow the sovereign over the government. Quite the opposite, in fact: the Constitution is designed to ensure the sovereignty of the people, not of any religious figure. 

Moreover, if the use of this phrase was designed to communicate a favored status for Christianity, why use such an obscure method coming at the very end of the document? Had the authors wished to establish Christianity as a partner with the American government, or even to send the message that Christianity occupied some foundation or inspirational role for the government, they could have done so much more explicitly and in dozens of more substantive ways. However, they did not &#8212; and that silence speaks very loudly. 



Days, Months, Years
In addition, if a Christian really wants to argue that the use of Christian dating implies a Christian basis to the government, they're in a lot of trouble because the names of the months and days have pagan rather than Christian origins. Although even conservative Christians today don't give this a second thought, it was evidently a source of some consternation of Quakers who refused to use the pagan-based names. 



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


I was wrong, the creator line is in the DOI  

ON THE OTHER HAND IF YOU READ THE ARTICLE ABOVE YOU'D SEE THAT YOUR ASSUMPTION IS A STEAMING PILE.
 BTW MY MISTAKE IN NO WAY EQUALS A VICTORY OF ANY KIND FOR YOU.
UNLIKE YOURSELF WHEN I'M WRONG I take responsibility for it.


if you were going to argue rationally for for god why did you not use the article where god is mentioned prominently:  

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 
2.1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


in Article VII, the Constitution is dated with the words "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." What relevance does this point have for the debate over religious liberty? Absolutely none. This was simply the dating convention, not an ideological statement.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would deny evolution?? You body is made for meat consumption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would deny evolution.  Evolution isn't a mind. I am not offending evolution. My reasons are purely ethical, and the claim that "my body is made for meat consumption" is not entirely accurate. We are omnivores, only after being herbivores long before. Earlier species of hominid were herbivorous, such as Lucy (Australopithecus). We came into meat at some point, and evolved to be able to eat it. Therefore, primarily, we are herbivorous. However, marketing would have you believe you need to be eating meat at every meal, which is probably the biggest cause of cancer in the modern world, especially with the amount of growth hormones and antibiotics present in animal flesh, as well as fecal matter. Try watching the movie Earthlings, if you are interested in learning the awful truth about how we treat other sentient, living beings. I realize your bible instructs you to not care about them, but you could have a little humanity. The only thing I would be dependent on meat for is B12, which I supplement. Problem solved. Go vegan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really do have a twisted view of the truth. It is also obvious you subscribe to liberal logic 101. I'm guessing you are pro killing of the unborn but anti fur?
Click to expand...

neither of which have any relevance to this discussion, it's just another failed attempt character assassination.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey daws, I'll interpret and clarify what the fundie christian creationist has managed to lie and misrepresent.
> 
> My earlier statement was that "god" was not mentioned in the wording of the constitution. My fundie stalker missed the phrase "wording of the constitution", Further, my post delineated the clear intent of the Founding Fathers that no single religion be acknowledged in the wording of the constitution.
> 
> The slathering fundie, insisting on forcing his gawds into the constitution (obviously not what was intended by the Founding Fathers), claimed that a closing salutation "... in the year of our lord" (note, "god" is nowhere mentioned), contradicted my comment.
> 
> The frantic fundie still doesn't want to acknowledge his lie and further, is forced into juvenile name-calling in failed attempts to resurrect his still failed credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> thanks.
> the old year of our lord ploy !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just who is this Lord they are referring to? Well I'll be! Slap your grandma. It is sometimes referred to as AD or Addo Domini:
> 
> Wiki says: _Anno Domini (AD or A.D.) and Before Christ (BC or B.C.) are designations used to label or number years used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars. *This calendar era is based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus of Nazareth*, with AD counting years after the start of this epoch, and BC denoting years before the start of the epoch._
> 
> On no though, did the Founders stop there? No they did not. They took the time to write it out instead of using the Latin term just so there was no mistake. It ends with.. " In the year of *OUR* Lord"
> 
> Daws, consider yourself owned stupid. Jesus is mentioned in the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

asked answerd.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare childrens illness
> 
> So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty by denying the obvious ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can ask what engineered enzymes in the beginning, like most other questions evolutionist ask, but once again no answer will come by evidence only by a vivid imagination.
> 
> My question still stands since we know that Enzymes can and were programmed with functions.
Click to expand...

no it's does not but you keep dreamin'!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.
> 
> 
> 
> he's been told that countless times but like the  true willfully ignorant, zealot, nut job ,slapdick he is ,denying it is all he can do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would a rational person conclude knowing that Enzymes can and are engineered conclude a naturalistic process must have done it ? How bout a little logic and reality daws.
Click to expand...

since you've proven you are not rational and have no clue what reality is. any so called "logic" you spew is by a truly rational and logical person known to be a product of your delusional state.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the Christian creationist need to use "Darwinism" in feverish attempts to denigrate science in favor of supermagical designer gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your rhetoric cannot conceal your viscous anger and self hatred. Is it your own self-loathing that contributes to hatred of science as well?
Click to expand...


That's so silly as I fully support the methodology of science and the expansion of knowledge of the natural world that science provides.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would there be another modern occurrence of abiogenesis? Mind, explaining this to me? You seem to think, fallaciously, that because we don't witness this, it means it never happened. Well, excuse, but that is simply stupid. The fact that there are microbes on every habitable inch of this earth, utilizing whatever organic material is around them- including amino acids and proteins, precludes the very possibility that another abiogenetic event would occur, simply because the materials needed to produce such an even would be sought after, competitively, by existing microbes. Not only are organic elements competitively sought after, but any new entrants into an ecosystem, whether foreign or abiogenetically spawned, would be seen as outsiders, and if unable to defend themselves, would be "used" by the already existing life.  Most certainly, an abiogenetically spawned organism would have no ability to defend itself. Further, if such a modern event did happen, how would we be able to distinguish this from the existing life there. Perhaps it would appear to us only to be a "new species"? Life doesn't come with a timestamp on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah. Enough cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb. So if read your post right, you are saying that abiogenesis was a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely what he is inferring
Click to expand...

ur inferred nothing.. what were you saying about going back to high school.?


----------



## HUGGY

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the Christian creationist need to use "Darwinism" in feverish attempts to denigrate science in favor of supermagical designer gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your rhetoric cannot conceal your viscous anger and self hatred. Is it your own self-loathing that contributes to hatred of science as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's so silly as I fully support the methodology of science and the expansion of knowledge of the natural world that science provides.
Click to expand...


How is that possible when you are so full of the self hatred?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong this evidence was provided by the science community. You and your side are just suffering from faulty assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply false. Science has never provided evidence of supermagical designer gawds who "programmed " anything. Further, science has never confirmed any biological programming.
> 
> It hasn't gone unnoticed that you make this specious claim completely absent suppport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to provide evidence for God to infer design. You're truly clueless and anyone else that makes a similar claim.
Click to expand...

wrong fuck stick  god's existence is the basis of your entire arugument.
you've not proven god exists by an scientific or evidence based proofs.
the only argument you have is hearsay and it's not proof so any inference made on it is false. 
is it just my or is infer or inference  YWC'S lastest attempt at faking intellectual prowess?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.
> 
> To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy to accept, sure (If I know what you mean, and if I do, that something is easy to accept doesn't mean it's rational, or even likely. For example: Starting from nothing, i.e. if you think of a group of people who have no existing societal/familial influences, it's very easy to believe that the spirits of the dead live on in nature. But this is not rational or likely). But you can call it rational or not, and while as I'm sure everyone who's participated in this threat for very long is aware, and as you appear to reference indirectly, there are some milestone experiments done on the subject, but I daresay that what you would like is something along the lines of complete certainty, and according to that standard, it isn't known, this change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.
> 
> But this certainly doesn't lead to any (unspecified) designer-being.
> 
> Secondly, there's nothing about the group of solutions, so to speak, which do not involve god-like beings, which would require them to be only imagined, if that's what you mean.
> 
> Thirdly, you would appear to be one who wouldn't think much of an idea if it isn't already (completely) known. But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your last paragraph is far from the truth. Please provide a supporting cut and paste and link. The elemental substance argument is fallacious, as many designed things are made from elemental substances including rocket ships and computers.
Click to expand...

(snicker) just not by god.
using you spun logic, why didn't god  just shazaam all the necessary parts for those things in to existence.
your self assembly bullshit fails every time.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a person in complete denial would believe as you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, which is why your posts are framed in terms of questions and statements that presume the answer you prefer. It's a common tactic of the Christian creationist ministries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours are the common tactics of hate-spewing, bigoted, atheist, militant homosexuals.
Click to expand...

no gay slurs there ....no sirree BOB!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's going quite well, thank you. The natural world serves quite nicely as an example of rationalism and naturalism. We have no examples or evidence of how your alleged supermagical gawds have had any connection with the natural world.
> 
> Why is it that you cannot demonstrate a single example of supermagicalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christian creationism is not science. That is what you are unable to come to terms with. Your claims to miracles, supermagical designer gawds, etc. are, by definition, irrational.
> 
> After all the pages in this thread wherein you insist in cutting and pasting from Christian creationist ministries, you have failed at every effort to present a single, testable example  of "the gawds did it". Instead, you have made every effort vilify science, even floating outrageously silly conspiracies in favor of your creationist fantasies.
Click to expand...


Hollie, you wouldn't know real science if it came up behind you and bit you in the butt,you have demonstrated this on many occasions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's going quite well, thank you. The natural world serves quite nicely as an example of rationalism and naturalism. We have no examples or evidence of how your alleged supermagical gawds have had any connection with the natural world.
> 
> Why is it that you cannot demonstrate a single example of supermagicalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the Christian creationist need to use "Darwinism" in feverish attempts to denigrate science in favor of supermagical designer gawds.
Click to expand...


Hollie would not naturalism be a form of a supermagical process ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, which is why your posts are framed in terms of questions and statements that presume the answer you prefer. It's a common tactic of the Christian creationist ministries
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yours are the common tactics of hate-spewing, bigoted, atheist, militant homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my, you angry, frustrated stalker. Yours is textbook behavior for a stalker who has been rejected and slips into a pathology of hate / self-hate.
Click to expand...


Don't flatter yourself twinkle toes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> musingsofacac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is very simple - we believe by faith that the Bible is the Word of God.  When the Bible says God created the earth in 6 days(and yes the hebrew is literal word for day) and then we take the very detailed geneolgies of the Bible from Adam to Abraham and then from Abraham to Christ you come up with about 6000 years.
> 
> So then we have the question raised by even some Christians who choose not to take the Bible so literally(like the Catholic Church) - but why does the Universe and the earth appear to be older? The reason is that God is perfectly capable of creating something fully matured - he did it with Adam and Eve - they were not created as children, but as full adults.
> 
> So yes some of us choose to believe the Bible at face value - if you want to impune that or make fun of it - go right ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not making fun at all since I am a Christian ID Theorists. I just believe that many stories in the Bible are not to be taken literally, and the Jewish people knew this at the time they were written. Do your *really believe* that you take the whole Bible at face value? Jesus commanded you to gouge your eye out if it caused you to stumble so grab a fork.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you were capable of being honest, you would acknowledge your Christian fundamentalist beliefs and begin the process of resolving the hate and self-hate that causes you such anger issues.
Click to expand...


If you were honest you would acknowledge you were presented with evidence of design yesterday.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> "God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin."
> 
> That's an irrational statement.
> 
> Pointing out that that is, indeed, an irrational statement, isn't being a 'bigot'.  That, and there is no "ID theory".
> 
> Please try and refrain from attempting to reference or use words you clearly don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you come back when you can actually add a logical thought to the discussion. Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> logical from Ur = irony.
Click to expand...


You are a fine one to speak


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would deny evolution.  Evolution isn't a mind. I am not offending evolution. My reasons are purely ethical, and the claim that "my body is made for meat consumption" is not entirely accurate. We are omnivores, only after being herbivores long before. Earlier species of hominid were herbivorous, such as Lucy (Australopithecus). We came into meat at some point, and evolved to be able to eat it. Therefore, primarily, we are herbivorous. However, marketing would have you believe you need to be eating meat at every meal, which is probably the biggest cause of cancer in the modern world, especially with the amount of growth hormones and antibiotics present in animal flesh, as well as fecal matter. Try watching the movie Earthlings, if you are interested in learning the awful truth about how we treat other sentient, living beings. I realize your bible instructs you to not care about them, but you could have a little humanity. The only thing I would be dependent on meat for is B12, which I supplement. Problem solved. Go vegan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really do have a twisted view of the truth. It is also obvious you subscribe to liberal logic 101. I'm guessing you are pro killing of the unborn but anti fur?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> neither of which have any relevance to this discussion, it's just another failed attempt character assassination.
Click to expand...


Hmm, UR was right again.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.
> 
> 
> 
> Christian creationism is not science. That is what you are unable to come to terms with. Your claims to miracles, supermagical designer gawds, etc. are, by definition, irrational.
> 
> After all the pages in this thread wherein you insist in cutting and pasting from Christian creationist ministries, you have failed at every effort to present a single, testable example  of "the gawds did it". Instead, you have made every effort vilify science, even floating outrageously silly conspiracies in favor of your creationist fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, you wouldn't know real science if it came up behind you and bit you in the butt,you have demonstrated this on many occasions.
Click to expand...

really? if you think (and I use the word loosely) that unprovable ravings you use as examples of real science are science then why don't you make a trip to the national science foundation and present your "theory" to them ?
if you're extremely lucky ,you might get to 1 or two of your foreknowledge  bits before they escort  you to the waiting police car....that is of course is after they stop laughing hysterically..
just a thought.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you come back when you can actually add a logical thought to the discussion. Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> logical from Ur = irony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fine one to speak
Click to expand...

yes I am.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can ask what engineered enzymes in the beginning, like most other questions evolutionist ask, but once again no answer will come by evidence only by a vivid imagination.
> 
> My question still stands since we know that Enzymes can and were programmed with functions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it's does not but you keep dreamin'!
Click to expand...


Dreamin what ? it's a fact.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really do have a twisted view of the truth. It is also obvious you subscribe to liberal logic 101. I'm guessing you are pro killing of the unborn but anti fur?
> 
> 
> 
> neither of which have any relevance to this discussion, it's just another failed attempt character assassination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, UR was right again.
Click to expand...

about what? it reads like all slack jawed ranting.
it says far more about the poster then the addresse.
your willful ignorance keeps you from seeing that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> he's been told that countless times but like the  true willfully ignorant, zealot, nut job ,slapdick he is ,denying it is all he can do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a rational person conclude knowing that Enzymes can and are engineered conclude a naturalistic process must have done it ? How bout a little logic and reality daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since you've proven you are not rational and have no clue what reality is. any so called "logic" you spew is by a truly rational and logical person known to be a product of your delusional state.
Click to expand...


Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah. Enough cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb. So if read your post right, you are saying that abiogenesis was a miracle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely what he is inferring
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ur inferred nothing.. what were you saying about going back to high school.?
Click to expand...


If you can't keep up take notes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply false. Science has never provided evidence of supermagical designer gawds who "programmed " anything. Further, science has never confirmed any biological programming.
> 
> It hasn't gone unnoticed that you make this specious claim completely absent suppport.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to provide evidence for God to infer design. You're truly clueless and anyone else that makes a similar claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong fuck stick  god's existence is the basis of your entire arugument.
> you've not proven god exists by an scientific or evidence based proofs.
> the only argument you have is hearsay and it's not proof so any inference made on it is false.
> is it just my or is infer or inference  YWC'S lastest attempt at faking intellectual prowess?
Click to expand...


Wrong again brown hole, what I was doing was showing evidence of design, by showing design it is rational to infer a designer.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can ask what engineered enzymes in the beginning, like most other questions evolutionist ask, but once again no answer will come by evidence only by a vivid imagination.
> 
> My question still stands since we know that Enzymes can and were programmed with functions.
> 
> 
> 
> no it's does not but you keep dreamin'!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dreamin what ? it's a fact.
Click to expand...

no it's not, enzymes "have functions" there is no proof that they were programmed by a designer.
ALSO Just because we can and have programmed them is no proof at all that another sentient life form could or would do it..
that's fact unlike yours...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it's does not but you keep dreamin'!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dreamin what ? it's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it's not, enzymes "have functions" there is no proof that they were programmed by a designer.
> ALSO Just because we can and have programmed them is no proof at all that another sentient life form could or would do it..
> that's fact unlike yours...
Click to expand...


I showed you man has the ability to engineer Enzymes dipshit.

I showed that Enzymes can in fact have their functions altered by intelligence, scoreboard troll.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a rational person conclude knowing that Enzymes can and are engineered conclude a naturalistic process must have done it ? How bout a little logic and reality daws.
> 
> 
> 
> since you've proven you are not rational and have no clue what reality is. any so called "logic" you spew is by a truly rational and logical person known to be a product of your delusional state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
Click to expand...

they exist.....that's all the answer that's needed,
you have no proof they did not evolve....


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not making fun at all since I am a Christian ID Theorists. I just believe that many stories in the Bible are not to be taken literally, and the Jewish people knew this at the time they were written. Do your *really believe* that you take the whole Bible at face value? Jesus commanded you to gouge your eye out if it caused you to stumble so grab a fork.
> 
> 
> 
> If you were capable of being honest, you would acknowledge your Christian fundamentalist beliefs and begin the process of resolving the hate and self-hate that causes you such anger issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were honest you would acknowledge you were presented with evidence of design yesterday.
Click to expand...


I am being honest and advising that it's dishonest of you to make a statement such as the above when you knowingly have falsified such statement. 

You never provided such evidence and you know such evidence doesn't exist.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to provide evidence for God to infer design. You're truly clueless and anyone else that makes a similar claim.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong fuck stick  god's existence is the basis of your entire arugument.
> you've not proven god exists by an scientific or evidence based proofs.
> the only argument you have is hearsay and it's not proof so any inference made on it is false.
> is it just my or is infer or inference  YWC'S lastest attempt at faking intellectual prowess?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again brown hole, what I was doing was showing evidence of design, by showing design it is rational to infer a designer.
Click to expand...

in english please.
brown hole? what are you 10? 
you have no evidence of a designer so any inference made about a design is false and not rational.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dreamin what ? it's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not, enzymes "have functions" there is no proof that they were programmed by a designer.
> ALSO Just because we can and have programmed them is no proof at all that another sentient life form could or would do it..
> that's fact unlike yours...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed you man has the ability to engineer Enzymes dipshit.
> 
> I showed that Enzymes can in fact have their functions altered by intelligence, scoreboard troll.
Click to expand...


Have you somehow missed that you are simply stating the obvious that man has the ability to manipulate enzyme function?

Go lay down and finish your coma.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dreamin what ? it's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not, enzymes "have functions" there is no proof that they were programmed by a designer.
> ALSO Just because we can and have programmed them is no proof at all that another sentient life form could or would do it..
> that's fact unlike yours...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed you man has the ability to engineer Enzymes dipshit.
> 
> I showed that Enzymes can in fact have their functions altered by intelligence, scoreboard troll.
Click to expand...

so what? thats no arugment for a programmer but I already said that...
you really can't read.
what the hell is scoreboard troll?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since you've proven you are not rational and have no clue what reality is. any so called "logic" you spew is by a truly rational and logical person known to be a product of your delusional state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they exist.....that's all the answer that's needed,
> you have no proof they did not evolve....
Click to expand...


I proved my point Daws but of course you still have no evidence to believe as you do. Are you suffering from fairytale syndrome or better yet delusions ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong fuck stick  god's existence is the basis of your entire arugument.
> you've not proven god exists by an scientific or evidence based proofs.
> the only argument you have is hearsay and it's not proof so any inference made on it is false.
> is it just my or is infer or inference  YWC'S lastest attempt at faking intellectual prowess?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again brown hole, what I was doing was showing evidence of design, by showing design it is rational to infer a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in english please.
> brown hole? what are you 10?
> you have no evidence of a designer so any inference made about a design is false and not rational.
Click to expand...


We both know I am not 10 you are not good at sarcasm either.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not, enzymes "have functions" there is no proof that they were programmed by a designer.
> ALSO Just because we can and have programmed them is no proof at all that another sentient life form could or would do it..
> that's fact unlike yours...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you man has the ability to engineer Enzymes dipshit.
> 
> I showed that Enzymes can in fact have their functions altered by intelligence, scoreboard troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you somehow missed that you are simply stating the obvious that man has the ability to manipulate enzyme function?
> 
> Go lay down and finish your coma.
Click to expand...

bump!
he seems to think that because we can do it  it must be a sign of the almighty. too funny.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> 
> 
> they exist.....that's all the answer that's needed,
> you have no proof they did not evolve....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I proved my point Daws but of course you still have no evidence to believe as you do. Are you suffering from fairytale syndrome or better yet delusions ?
Click to expand...

wake up Dorthy !


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not, enzymes "have functions" there is no proof that they were programmed by a designer.
> ALSO Just because we can and have programmed them is no proof at all that another sentient life form could or would do it..
> that's fact unlike yours...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you man has the ability to engineer Enzymes dipshit.
> 
> I showed that Enzymes can in fact have their functions altered by intelligence, scoreboard troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you somehow missed that you are simply stating the obvious that man has the ability to manipulate enzyme function?
> 
> Go lay down and finish your coma.
Click to expand...


It took intelligence to engineer them who engineered them in the beginning ? you lose again


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not, enzymes "have functions" there is no proof that they were programmed by a designer.
> ALSO Just because we can and have programmed them is no proof at all that another sentient life form could or would do it..
> that's fact unlike yours...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you man has the ability to engineer Enzymes dipshit.
> 
> I showed that Enzymes can in fact have their functions altered by intelligence, scoreboard troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what? thats no arugment for a programmer but I already said that...
> you really can't read.
> what the hell is scoreboard troll?
Click to expand...


Only stupid people reason like you.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again brown hole, what I was doing was showing evidence of design, by showing design it is rational to infer a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> in english please.
> brown hole? what are you 10?
> you have no evidence of a designer so any inference made about a design is false and not rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We both know I am not 10 you are not good at sarcasm either.
Click to expand...

really? since that was not sarcasm, the problem must be yours....now that's sarcasm, and no I'm not good at it I'm spectacular at it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they exist.....that's all the answer that's needed,
> you have no proof they did not evolve....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I proved my point Daws but of course you still have no evidence to believe as you do. Are you suffering from fairytale syndrome or better yet delusions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wake up Dorthy !
Click to expand...


Still avoiding my question Daws.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> in english please.
> brown hole? what are you 10?
> you have no evidence of a designer so any inference made about a design is false and not rational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both know I am not 10 you are not good at sarcasm either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? since that was not sarcasm, the problem must be yours....now that's sarcasm, and no I'm not good at it I'm spectacular at it.
Click to expand...


Still avoiding my question daws


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> 
> 
> they exist.....that's all the answer that's needed,
> you have no proof they did not evolve....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I proved my point Daws but of course you still have no evidence to believe as you do. Are you suffering from fairytale syndrome or better yet delusions ?
Click to expand...

 I don't believe in the sense you're trying to say I do and that is proof of your delusion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they exist.....that's all the answer that's needed,
> you have no proof they did not evolve....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I proved my point Daws but of course you still have no evidence to believe as you do. Are you suffering from fairytale syndrome or better yet delusions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe in the sense you're trying to say I do and that is proof of your delusion.
Click to expand...


Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you man has the ability to engineer Enzymes dipshit.
> 
> I showed that Enzymes can in fact have their functions altered by intelligence, scoreboard troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you somehow missed that you are simply stating the obvious that man has the ability to manipulate enzyme function?
> 
> Go lay down and finish your coma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It took intelligence to engineer them who engineered in the beginning ? you lose again
Click to expand...

no you lose, you have no proof that a "who" engineered anything...so the assumption of intelligence is meaningless.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you man has the ability to engineer Enzymes dipshit.
> 
> I showed that Enzymes can in fact have their functions altered by intelligence, scoreboard troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you somehow missed that you are simply stating the obvious that man has the ability to manipulate enzyme function?
> 
> Go lay down and finish your coma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It took intelligence to engineer them who engineered them in the beginning ? you lose again
Click to expand...

False presumptions about supermagical designer gawds have lead you to false conclusions. 

That actually defines the Christian creationist ministries.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you somehow missed that you are simply stating the obvious that man has the ability to manipulate enzyme function?
> 
> Go lay down and finish your coma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It took intelligence to engineer them who engineered in the beginning ? you lose again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you lose, you have no proof that a "who" engineered anything...so the assumption of intelligence is meaningless.
Click to expand...


Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I proved my point Daws but of course you still have no evidence to believe as you do. Are you suffering from fairytale syndrome or better yet delusions ?
> 
> 
> 
> wake up Dorthy !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still avoiding my question Daws.
Click to expand...

no.... all your "questions" have been answerd.
you can stop the childish repetition...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you somehow missed that you are simply stating the obvious that man has the ability to manipulate enzyme function?
> 
> Go lay down and finish your coma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It took intelligence to engineer them who engineered them in the beginning ? you lose again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False presumptions about supermagical designer gawds have lead you to false conclusions.
> 
> That actually defines the Christian creationist ministries.
Click to expand...


Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wake up Dorthy !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still avoiding my question Daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no.... all your "questions" have been answerd.
> you can stop the childish repetition...
Click to expand...


Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I proved my point Daws but of course you still have no evidence to believe as you do. Are you suffering from fairytale syndrome or better yet delusions ?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in the sense you're trying to say I do and that is proof of your delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
Click to expand...

asked and answerd....memory problems?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It took intelligence to engineer them who engineered in the beginning ? you lose again
> 
> 
> 
> no you lose, you have no proof that a "who" engineered anything...so the assumption of intelligence is meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
Click to expand...

asked and answerd.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in the sense you're trying to say I do and that is proof of your delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answerd....memory problems?
Click to expand...


Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no you lose, you have no proof that a "who" engineered anything...so the assumption of intelligence is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answerd.
Click to expand...


I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
Click to expand...

all work and no play make jack a dull boy....[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cb3ik6zP2I]The Shining Trailer - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all work and no play make jack a dull boy....[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cb3ik6zP2I]The Shining Trailer - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
Click to expand...

now it's an engineer! changing the name is still no proof....


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now it's an engineer! changing the name is still no proof....
Click to expand...


Dodge !!

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now it's an engineer! changing the name is still no proof....
Click to expand...


You didn't know engineers design daws


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It took intelligence to engineer them who engineered in the beginning ? you lose again
> 
> 
> 
> no you lose, you have no proof that a "who" engineered anything...so the assumption of intelligence is meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
Click to expand...


 Try this for a search: evolution of enzyme superfamilies


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> 
> 
> now it's an engineer! changing the name is still no proof....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't know engineers design daws
Click to expand...


Imaginary engineers do not design anything.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> musingsofacac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is very simple - we believe by faith that the Bible is the Word of God.  When the Bible says God created the earth in 6 days(and yes the hebrew is literal word for day) and then we take the very detailed geneolgies of the Bible from Adam to Abraham and then from Abraham to Christ you come up with about 6000 years.
> 
> So then we have the question raised by even some Christians who choose not to take the Bible so literally(like the Catholic Church) - but why does the Universe and the earth appear to be older? The reason is that God is perfectly capable of creating something fully matured - he did it with Adam and Eve - they were not created as children, but as full adults.
> 
> So yes some of us choose to believe the Bible at face value - if you want to impune that or make fun of it - go right ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not making fun at all since I am a Christian ID Theorists. I just believe that many stories in the Bible are not to be taken literally, and the Jewish people knew this at the time they were written. Do your *really believe* that you take the whole Bible at face value? Jesus commanded you to gouge your eye out if it caused you to stumble so grab a fork.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you were capable of being honest, you would acknowledge your Christian fundamentalist beliefs and begin the process of resolving the hate and self-hate that causes you such anger issues.
Click to expand...


If you could be honest with yourself, you would forgive those who have wronged you in life, including the man that abused you and is responsible for your unwanted same sex attraction, which is the real reason for your hatred of God and your atheism.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy to accept, sure (If I know what you mean, and if I do, that something is easy to accept doesn't mean it's rational, or even likely. For example: Starting from nothing, i.e. if you think of a group of people who have no existing societal/familial influences, it's very easy to believe that the spirits of the dead live on in nature. But this is not rational or likely). But you can call it rational or not, and while as I'm sure everyone who's participated in this threat for very long is aware, and as you appear to reference indirectly, there are some milestone experiments done on the subject, but I daresay that what you would like is something along the lines of complete certainty, and according to that standard, it isn't known, this change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.
> 
> But this certainly doesn't lead to any (unspecified) designer-being.
> 
> Secondly, there's nothing about the group of solutions, so to speak, which do not involve god-like beings, which would require them to be only imagined, if that's what you mean.
> 
> Thirdly, you would appear to be one who wouldn't think much of an idea if it isn't already (completely) known. But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your last paragraph is far from the truth. Please provide a supporting cut and paste and link. The elemental substance argument is fallacious, as many designed things are made from elemental substances including rocket ships and computers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (snicker) just not by god.
> using you spun logic, why didn't god  just shazaam all the necessary parts for those things in to existence.
> your self assembly bullshit fails every time.
Click to expand...


MY self assembly BS????????????? Now that's funny!!!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not making fun at all since I am a Christian ID Theorists. I just believe that many stories in the Bible are not to be taken literally, and the Jewish people knew this at the time they were written. Do your *really believe* that you take the whole Bible at face value? Jesus commanded you to gouge your eye out if it caused you to stumble so grab a fork.
> 
> 
> 
> If you were capable of being honest, you would acknowledge your Christian fundamentalist beliefs and begin the process of resolving the hate and self-hate that causes you such anger issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you could be honest with yourself, you would forgive those who have wronged you in life, including the man that abused you and is responsible for your unwanted same sex attraction, which is the real reason for your hatred of God and your atheism.
Click to expand...


The above is more textbook behavior of the jilted stalker and the angry Christian fundie.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
Click to expand...


Evolution of DNA


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, which is why your posts are framed in terms of questions and statements that presume the answer you prefer. It's a common tactic of the Christian creationist ministries
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yours are the common tactics of hate-spewing, bigoted, atheist, militant homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no gay slurs there ....no sirree BOB!
Click to expand...


Oh, I see. Only Christian slurs allowed here? That is not a gay slur anyway


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christian creationism is not science. That is what you are unable to come to terms with. Your claims to miracles, supermagical designer gawds, etc. are, by definition, irrational.
> 
> After all the pages in this thread wherein you insist in cutting and pasting from Christian creationist ministries, you have failed at every effort to present a single, testable example  of "the gawds did it". Instead, you have made every effort vilify science, even floating outrageously silly conspiracies in favor of your creationist fantasies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you wouldn't know real science if it came up behind you and bit you in the butt,you have demonstrated this on many occasions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? if you think (and I use the word loosely) that unprovable ravings you use as examples of real science are science then why don't you make a trip to the national science foundation and present your "theory" to them ?
> if you're extremely lucky ,you might get to 1 or two of your foreknowledge  bits before they escort  you to the waiting police car....that is of course is after they stop laughing hysterically..
> just a thought.
Click to expand...


National Science Foundation?? Those loons???


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your last paragraph is far from the truth. Please provide a supporting cut and paste and link. The elemental substance argument is fallacious, as many designed things are made from elemental substances including rocket ships and computers.
> 
> 
> 
> (snicker) just not by god.
> using you spun logic, why didn't god  just shazaam all the necessary parts for those things in to existence.
> your self assembly bullshit fails every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY self assembly BS????????????? Now that's funny!!!
Click to expand...


Your delusions are not funny all. They're a contributing factor to your pathology that is manifested in unhealthy obsessions with anonymous posters on a message board and an equally unhealthy descent into the twisted world of fundamentalist Christian creationism.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were capable of being honest, you would acknowledge your Christian fundamentalist beliefs and begin the process of resolving the hate and self-hate that causes you such anger issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were honest you would acknowledge you were presented with evidence of design yesterday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am being honest and advising that it's dishonest of you to make a statement such as the above when you knowingly have falsified such statement.
> 
> You never provided such evidence and you know such evidence doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


Coming from a proven LIAR this doesn't carry much weight. Unlike your office chair.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you wouldn't know real science if it came up behind you and bit you in the butt,you have demonstrated this on many occasions.
> 
> 
> 
> really? if you think (and I use the word loosely) that unprovable ravings you use as examples of real science are science then why don't you make a trip to the national science foundation and present your "theory" to them ?
> if you're extremely lucky ,you might get to 1 or two of your foreknowledge  bits before they escort  you to the waiting police car....that is of course is after they stop laughing hysterically..
> just a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> National Science Foundation?? Those loons???
Click to expand...


Yeah, real scientists as opposed to Christian creationist charlatans.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you somehow missed that you are simply stating the obvious that man has the ability to manipulate enzyme function?
> 
> Go lay down and finish your coma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It took intelligence to engineer them who engineered in the beginning ? you lose again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you lose, you have no proof that a "who" engineered anything...so the assumption of intelligence is meaningless.
Click to expand...


Oh so we need proof now? Guess darwinism is going away now finally.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not, enzymes "have functions" there is no proof that they were programmed by a designer.
> ALSO Just because we can and have programmed them is no proof at all that another sentient life form could or would do it..
> that's fact unlike yours...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you man has the ability to engineer Enzymes dipshit.
> 
> I showed that Enzymes can in fact have their functions altered by intelligence, scoreboard troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you somehow missed that you are simply stating the obvious that man has the ability to manipulate enzyme function?
> 
> Go lay down and finish your coma.
Click to expand...


If you are talking to Daws, its comb-over, not coma.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were honest you would acknowledge you were presented with evidence of design yesterday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am being honest and advising that it's dishonest of you to make a statement such as the above when you knowingly have falsified such statement.
> 
> You never provided such evidence and you know such evidence doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from a proven LIAR this doesn't carry much weight. Unlike you office chair.
Click to expand...


Oh my, the dangers of Christian fundamentalists.


----------



## UltimateReality

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answerd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution of DNA
Click to expand...




I thought evolutionists didn't trouble themselves with origins questions. Right Daws? Right Hawly?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It took intelligence to engineer them who engineered in the beginning ? you lose again
> 
> 
> 
> no you lose, you have no proof that a "who" engineered anything...so the assumption of intelligence is meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so we need proof now? Guess darwinism is going away now finally.
Click to expand...


Science was not a field of study at your Jimmy Swaggert bible school.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (snicker) just not by god.
> using you spun logic, why didn't god  just shazaam all the necessary parts for those things in to existence.
> your self assembly bullshit fails every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MY self assembly BS????????????? Now that's funny!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your delusions are not funny all. They're a contributing factor to your pathology that is manifested in unhealthy obsessions with anonymous posters on a message board and an equally unhealthy descent into the twisted world of fundamentalist Christian creationism.
Click to expand...


You're projecting again.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution of DNA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought evolutionists didn't trouble themselves with origins questions. Right Daws? Right Hawly?
Click to expand...


Wrong.


----------



## UltimateReality

Undisputable proof of Loons at the NSF:

Meet Kai *Loon* Chen.

Global Water Program


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Undisputable proof of Loons at the NSF:
> 
> Meet Kai *Loon* Chen.
> 
> Global Water Program



Someone else who refused your creepy advances?


----------



## UltimateReality

Here is another science hater who doesn't believe in evolution:


_The testimony of Sir John Carew Eccles (1903-1997), a *neurophysiologist* who won the *1963 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine*

Who was he and what was he famous for?

Sir John Carew Eccles, AC FRS FRACP FRSNZ FAAS (27 January 1903  2 May 1997) was an Australian neurophysiologist who *won the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on the synapse, sharing the prize with Andrew Fielding Huxley and Alan Lloyd Hodgkin.
*
How did his beliefs about the human mind contradict Darwinian evolution?

*Although Sir John Eccles believed that the Darwinism could account for the various life-forms we observe today, he did not believe that it could possibly explain human consciousness. *He believed on scientific grounds that each and every human being has an immaterial soul which is supernaturally created by God.

Wheres the evidence?

In his book, Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self (Routledge, 1989), Eccles was forthright about his belief, which was based on scientific grounds, in the existence of an immaterial soul_

Twenty-one more famous Nobel Prize winners who rejected Darwinism as an account of consciousness | Uncommon Descent


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> 
> 
> now it's an engineer! changing the name is still no proof....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodge !!
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
Click to expand...

already have .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> 
> 
> now it's an engineer! changing the name is still no proof....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't know engineers design daws
Click to expand...

ah yes I do.....your attempt at finding fault fails, as always.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Here is another science hater who doesn't believe in evolution:
> 
> 
> _The testimony of Sir John Carew Eccles (1903-1997), a *neurophysiologist* who won the *1963 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine*
> 
> Who was he and what was he famous for?
> 
> Sir John Carew Eccles, AC FRS FRACP FRSNZ FAAS (27 January 1903  2 May 1997) was an Australian neurophysiologist who *won the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on the synapse, sharing the prize with Andrew Fielding Huxley and Alan Lloyd Hodgkin.
> *
> How did his beliefs about the human mind contradict Darwinian evolution?
> 
> *Although Sir John Eccles believed that the Darwinism could account for the various life-forms we observe today, he did not believe that it could possibly explain human consciousness. *He believed on scientific grounds that each and every human being has an immaterial soul which is supernaturally created by God.
> 
> Wheres the evidence?
> 
> In his book, Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self (Routledge, 1989), Eccles was forthright about his belief, which was based on scientific grounds, in the existence of an immaterial soul_
> 
> Twenty-one more famous Nobel Prize winners who rejected Darwinism as an account of consciousness | Uncommon Descent


Cutting and pasting from the usual christian creationist ministries. 

That's in bad form, laddie.


----------



## UltimateReality

The delusional creep Hawly, who cannot separate here fantasies about me from reality, would have you believe that no science has been done by believers in God. She is the worst kind of revisionist, because she is relentless in her repetitive brainwashing techniques, posting the same thing over and over and over. So much so that those who lack discernment and are easily manipulated like Daws and NP, actually fall for its revisionism. Here is yet another science loathing Christian:

*Joseph Murray (b. 1919), winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 1990.
*
Who is he and what is he famous for?

Joseph E. Murray (born 1919) was granted the 1990 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology (which he shared with E. Donnall Thomas) for work that &#8220;*proved to a doubting world that it was possible to transplant organs to save the lives of dying patients*.&#8221; Murray was the first to perform kidney transplants.* He is one of the founders of modern transplantology.*

How do his beliefs about the human mind contradict Darwinian evolution?

He is a devout Catholic, who believes that each and every human being has a soul which is directly created by God.

Where&#8217;s the evidence?

In his article &#8220;Murray: Surgeon with soul&#8221; (Harvard University Gazette, 4 October 2001), John Lenger described Murray&#8217;s views on the spiritual aspects of surgery. Surprisingly, Murray believes that each of us has a spiritual soul:

    &#8220;To Murray, a doctor&#8217;s responsibility is to treat each patient as not just a set of symptoms, but as someone with a spirit that can be helped through medical procedures. The title of his autobiography, Surgery of the Soul (Boston Medical Library, 2001), stems from Murray&#8217;s spiritually based approach to medicine. Though he has in the past hesitated to talk publicly about his faith, for fear of being lumped in with the televangelist crowd, Murray is deeply religious. &#8216;Work is a prayer,&#8217; he said, &#8216;and I start off every morning dedicating it to our Creator. Every day is a prayer &#8211; I feel that, and I feel that very strongly.&#8217;&#8221; (Murray, as cited in Lenger, John. 2001. &#8220;Murray: Surgeon with soul: Nobelist&#8217;s memoir mixes science and humanity,&#8221; in Harvard University Gazette, October 4. Cambridge, MA.)


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not making fun at all since I am a Christian ID Theorists. I just believe that many stories in the Bible are not to be taken literally, and the Jewish people knew this at the time they were written. Do your *really believe* that you take the whole Bible at face value? Jesus commanded you to gouge your eye out if it caused you to stumble so grab a fork.
> 
> 
> 
> If you were capable of being honest, you would acknowledge your Christian fundamentalist beliefs and begin the process of resolving the hate and self-hate that causes you such anger issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you could be honest with yourself, you would forgive those who have wronged you in life, including the man that abused you and is responsible for your unwanted same sex attraction, which is the real reason for your hatred of God and your atheism.
Click to expand...

no false assuptions or accusations there ..nope not one...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your last paragraph is far from the truth. Please provide a supporting cut and paste and link. The elemental substance argument is fallacious, as many designed things are made from elemental substances including rocket ships and computers.
> 
> 
> 
> (snicker) just not by god.
> using you spun logic, why didn't god  just shazaam all the necessary parts for those things in to existence.
> your self assembly bullshit fails every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY self assembly BS????????????? Now that's funny!!!
Click to expand...

it' is


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> now it's an engineer! changing the name is still no proof....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't know engineers design daws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ah yes I do.....your attempt at finding fault fails, as always.
Click to expand...


Daws, YWC is not like that big sore on your lip you got from Hawly. Even if you ignore him he is not going away.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another science hater who doesn't believe in evolution:
> 
> 
> _The testimony of Sir John Carew Eccles (1903-1997), a *neurophysiologist* who won the *1963 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine*
> 
> Who was he and what was he famous for?
> 
> Sir John Carew Eccles, AC FRS FRACP FRSNZ FAAS (27 January 1903  2 May 1997) was an Australian neurophysiologist who *won the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on the synapse, sharing the prize with Andrew Fielding Huxley and Alan Lloyd Hodgkin.
> *
> How did his beliefs about the human mind contradict Darwinian evolution?
> 
> *Although Sir John Eccles believed that the Darwinism could account for the various life-forms we observe today, he did not believe that it could possibly explain human consciousness. *He believed on scientific grounds that each and every human being has an immaterial soul which is supernaturally created by God.
> 
> Wheres the evidence?
> 
> In his book, Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self (Routledge, 1989), Eccles was forthright about his belief, which was based on scientific grounds, in the existence of an immaterial soul_
> 
> Twenty-one more famous Nobel Prize winners who rejected Darwinism as an account of consciousness | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting and pasting from the usual christian creationist ministries.
> 
> That's in bad form, laddie.
Click to expand...


Better than from the science-loathing Panda Thumb ministries.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours are the common tactics of hate-spewing, bigoted, atheist, militant homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> no gay slurs there ....no sirree BOB!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. Only Christian slurs allowed here? That is not a gay slur anyway
Click to expand...

more denial ...it's the context that makes it so...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you wouldn't know real science if it came up behind you and bit you in the butt,you have demonstrated this on many occasions.
> 
> 
> 
> really? if you think (and I use the word loosely) that unprovable ravings you use as examples of real science are science then why don't you make a trip to the national science foundation and present your "theory" to them ?
> if you're extremely lucky ,you might get to 1 or two of your foreknowledge  bits before they escort  you to the waiting police car....that is of course is after they stop laughing hysterically..
> just a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> National Science Foundation?? Those loons???
Click to expand...

denial of fact in action! thanks!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> The delusional creep Hawly, who cannot separate here fantasies about me from reality, would have you believe that no science has been done by believers in God. She is the worst kind of revisionist, because she is relentless in her repetitive brainwashing techniques, posting the same thing over and over and over. So much so that those who lack discernment and are easily manipulated like Daws and NP, actually fall for its revisionism. Here is yet another science loathing Christian:
> 
> *Joseph Murray (b. 1919), winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 1990.
> *
> Who is he and what is he famous for?
> 
> Joseph E. Murray (born 1919) was granted the 1990 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology (which he shared with E. Donnall Thomas) for work that *proved to a doubting world that it was possible to transplant organs to save the lives of dying patients*. Murray was the first to perform kidney transplants.* He is one of the founders of modern transplantology.*
> 
> How do his beliefs about the human mind contradict Darwinian evolution?
> 
> He is a devout Catholic, who believes that each and every human being has a soul which is directly created by God.
> 
> Wheres the evidence?
> 
> In his article Murray: Surgeon with soul (Harvard University Gazette, 4 October 2001), John Lenger described Murrays views on the spiritual aspects of surgery. Surprisingly, Murray believes that each of us has a spiritual soul:
> 
> To Murray, a doctors responsibility is to treat each patient as not just a set of symptoms, but as someone with a spirit that can be helped through medical procedures. The title of his autobiography, Surgery of the Soul (Boston Medical Library, 2001), stems from Murrays spiritually based approach to medicine. Though he has in the past hesitated to talk publicly about his faith, for fear of being lumped in with the televangelist crowd, Murray is deeply religious. Work is a prayer, he said, and I start off every morning dedicating it to our Creator. Every day is a prayer  I feel that, and I feel that very strongly. (Murray, as cited in Lenger, John. 2001. Murray: Surgeon with soul: Nobelists memoir mixes science and humanity, in Harvard University Gazette, October 4. Cambridge, MA.)


I actually find it creepy that you're dedicating so much tine and effort with cut and paste articles seeking my attention and approval. 

You're only indulging your stalking proclivities.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you man has the ability to engineer Enzymes dipshit.
> 
> I showed that Enzymes can in fact have their functions altered by intelligence, scoreboard troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you somehow missed that you are simply stating the obvious that man has the ability to manipulate enzyme function?
> 
> Go lay down and finish your coma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are talking to Daws, its comb-over, not coma.
Click to expand...

another false assuption..
baldness does not run in my family.
unlike yours.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Here is another science hater who doesn't believe in evolution:
> 
> 
> _The testimony of Sir John Carew Eccles (1903-1997), a *neurophysiologist* who won the *1963 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine*
> 
> Who was he and what was he famous for?
> 
> Sir John Carew Eccles, AC FRS FRACP FRSNZ FAAS (27 January 1903  2 May 1997) was an Australian neurophysiologist who *won the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on the synapse, sharing the prize with Andrew Fielding Huxley and Alan Lloyd Hodgkin.
> *
> How did his beliefs about the human mind contradict Darwinian evolution?
> 
> *Although Sir John Eccles believed that the Darwinism could account for the various life-forms we observe today, he did not believe that it could possibly explain human consciousness. *He believed on scientific grounds that each and every human being has an immaterial soul which is supernaturally created by God.
> 
> Wheres the evidence?
> 
> In his book, Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self (Routledge, 1989), Eccles was forthright about his belief, which was based on scientific grounds, in the existence of an immaterial soul_
> 
> Twenty-one more famous Nobel Prize winners who rejected Darwinism as an account of consciousness | Uncommon Descent


got anything even resembling science?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another science hater who doesn't believe in evolution:
> 
> 
> _The testimony of Sir John Carew Eccles (1903-1997), a *neurophysiologist* who won the *1963 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine*
> 
> Who was he and what was he famous for?
> 
> Sir John Carew Eccles, AC FRS FRACP FRSNZ FAAS (27 January 1903  2 May 1997) was an Australian neurophysiologist who *won the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on the synapse, sharing the prize with Andrew Fielding Huxley and Alan Lloyd Hodgkin.
> *
> How did his beliefs about the human mind contradict Darwinian evolution?
> 
> *Although Sir John Eccles believed that the Darwinism could account for the various life-forms we observe today, he did not believe that it could possibly explain human consciousness. *He believed on scientific grounds that each and every human being has an immaterial soul which is supernaturally created by God.
> 
> Wheres the evidence?
> 
> In his book, Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self (Routledge, 1989), Eccles was forthright about his belief, which was based on scientific grounds, in the existence of an immaterial soul_
> 
> Twenty-one more famous Nobel Prize winners who rejected Darwinism as an account of consciousness | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting and pasting from the usual christian creationist ministries.
> 
> That's in bad form, laddie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better than from the science-loathing Panda Thumb ministries.
Click to expand...

The site is actually proactive toward furthering science knowledge and technology. 

Your comment was disasterously stupid.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't know engineers design daws
> 
> 
> 
> ah yes I do.....your attempt at finding fault fails, as always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, YWC is not like that big sore on your lip you got from Hawly. Even if you ignore him he is not going away.
Click to expand...

not another gay slur...wow you seem to be an expert at what causes mouth sores .....


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would deny evolution?? You body is made for meat consumption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would deny evolution.  Evolution isn't a mind. I am not offending evolution. My reasons are purely ethical, and the claim that "my body is made for meat consumption" is not entirely accurate. We are omnivores, only after being herbivores long before. Earlier species of hominid were herbivorous, such as Lucy (Australopithecus). We came into meat at some point, and evolved to be able to eat it. Therefore, primarily, we are herbivorous. However, marketing would have you believe you need to be eating meat at every meal, which is probably the biggest cause of cancer in the modern world, especially with the amount of growth hormones and antibiotics present in animal flesh, as well as fecal matter. Try watching the movie Earthlings, if you are interested in learning the awful truth about how we treat other sentient, living beings. I realize your bible instructs you to not care about them, but you could have a little humanity. The only thing I would be dependent on meat for is B12, which I supplement. Problem solved. Go vegan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really do have a twisted view of the truth. It is also obvious you subscribe to liberal logic 101. I'm guessing you are pro killing of the unborn but anti fur?
Click to expand...


You're damn right, you piece of shit. I'm anti-fur over caring about unborn fetus' that don't even know they are alive. Animals skinned for fur, sometimes have their fur ripped off of them, while they are fully conscious. Yet, somehow, just because a fetus is human, we should care more? No, thanks. This is where religious morals are skewed and completely fucking retarded. Try watching the truth, instead of being ignorant and a dick...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLcgxIGTFRs]Animals are Skinned Alive on Chinese Fur Farms - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## mjollnir

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would deny evolution.  Evolution isn't a mind. I am not offending evolution. My reasons are purely ethical, and the claim that "my body is made for meat consumption" is not entirely accurate. We are omnivores, only after being herbivores long before. Earlier species of hominid were herbivorous, such as Lucy (Australopithecus). We came into meat at some point, and evolved to be able to eat it. Therefore, primarily, we are herbivorous. However, marketing would have you believe you need to be eating meat at every meal, which is probably the biggest cause of cancer in the modern world, especially with the amount of growth hormones and antibiotics present in animal flesh, as well as fecal matter. Try watching the movie Earthlings, if you are interested in learning the awful truth about how we treat other sentient, living beings. I realize your bible instructs you to not care about them, but you could have a little humanity. The only thing I would be dependent on meat for is B12, which I supplement. Problem solved. Go vegan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really do have a twisted view of the truth. It is also obvious you subscribe to liberal logic 101. I'm guessing you are pro killing of the unborn but anti fur?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're damn right, you piece of shit. I'm anti-fur over caring about unborn fetus' that don't even know they are alive. Animals skinned for fur get skinned alive. Try watching the truth, instead of being ignorant and a dick...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLcgxIGTFRs]Animals are Skinned Alive on Chinese Fur Farms - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Wow.  I knew it was bad, and I've seen a LOT in my time, but that is simply some of the most fucked up shit I've ever forced myself to watch.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> 
> 
> now it's an engineer! changing the name is still no proof....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodge !!
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
Click to expand...



He's not the one saying there is a designer. You are. So, why are you asking him to provide evidence for your premise?? This makes no sense.


----------



## newpolitics

mjollnir said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really do have a twisted view of the truth. It is also obvious you subscribe to liberal logic 101. I'm guessing you are pro killing of the unborn but anti fur?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're damn right, you piece of shit. I'm anti-fur over caring about unborn fetus' that don't even know they are alive. Animals skinned for fur get skinned alive. Try watching the truth, instead of being ignorant and a dick...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLcgxIGTFRs]Animals are Skinned Alive on Chinese Fur Farms - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  I knew it was bad, and I've seen a LOT in my time, but that is simply some of the most fucked up shit I've ever forced myself to watch.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I haven't watched that clip in a while, and I'm a little shaken up right now about it. Thanks for having the guts to watch it. Chinese fur farms have to go. Although, a similar occurrence happens periodically to cows in our american factory farms at slaughter. It has been reported by workers that some are still alive while being skinned and de-boweled.

Check this out (nothing is as bad as the chinese fur farm clip):

To anyone interested in actual truth, rather than the bullshit in the bible.


----------



## mjollnir

newpolitics said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're damn right, you piece of shit. I'm anti-fur over caring about unborn fetus' that don't even know they are alive. Animals skinned for fur get skinned alive. Try watching the truth, instead of being ignorant and a dick...
> 
> Animals are Skinned Alive on Chinese Fur Farms - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  I knew it was bad, and I've seen a LOT in my time, but that is simply some of the most fucked up shit I've ever forced myself to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I haven't watched that clip in a while, and I'm a little shaken up right now about it. Thanks for having the guts to watch it. Chinese fur farms have to go. Although, this same thing happens to cows in our american factory farms at slaughter. It has been reported by workers that they are still alive while being skinned.
Click to expand...


My first week on duty, back in the early 2000s, I was second on scene to a family of 5 who'd been shotgunned in a gang related incident in their SUV, close range, when they pulled up into their driveway.  Parents and eldest kid didn't make it.  Two younger ones in the back did.  The whole nine yards of opened up heads, body bits all over, the kids in the back crying in car seats, etc...  

I just recalled some of the same feeling watching this as I felt then.

All that useless, callous cruelty for absolutely no justifiable reason.


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're damn right, you piece of shit. I'm anti-fur over caring about unborn fetus' that don't even know they are alive. Animals skinned for fur get skinned alive. Try watching the truth, instead of being ignorant and a dick...
> 
> Animals are Skinned Alive on Chinese Fur Farms - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  I knew it was bad, and I've seen a LOT in my time, but that is simply some of the most fucked up shit I've ever forced myself to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I haven't watched that clip in a while, and I'm a little shaken up right now about it. Thanks for having the guts to watch it. Chinese fur farms have to go. Although, a similar occurrence happens periodically to cows in our american factory farms at slaughter. It has been reported by workers that some are still alive while being skinned and de-boweled.
> 
> Check this out (nothing is as bad as the chinese fur farm clip):
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THIODWTqx5E]Farm to Fridge - The Truth Behind Meat Production - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> To anyone interested in actual truth, rather than the bullshit in the bible.
Click to expand...

How incredibly cruel those vile fur farms, NP. I only got through a portion of the video and couldn't watch any more.


----------



## newpolitics

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  I knew it was bad, and I've seen a LOT in my time, but that is simply some of the most fucked up shit I've ever forced myself to watch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I haven't watched that clip in a while, and I'm a little shaken up right now about it. Thanks for having the guts to watch it. Chinese fur farms have to go. Although, a similar occurrence happens periodically to cows in our american factory farms at slaughter. It has been reported by workers that some are still alive while being skinned and de-boweled.
> 
> Check this out (nothing is as bad as the chinese fur farm clip):
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THIODWTqx5E]Farm to Fridge - The Truth Behind Meat Production - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> To anyone interested in actual truth, rather than the bullshit in the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How incredibly cruel those vile fur farms, NP. I only got through a portion of the video and couldn't watch any more.
Click to expand...


Thank you for watching what you could. It is horrific.


----------



## newpolitics

mjollnir said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  I knew it was bad, and I've seen a LOT in my time, but that is simply some of the most fucked up shit I've ever forced myself to watch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I haven't watched that clip in a while, and I'm a little shaken up right now about it. Thanks for having the guts to watch it. Chinese fur farms have to go. Although, this same thing happens to cows in our american factory farms at slaughter. It has been reported by workers that they are still alive while being skinned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My first week on duty, back in the early 2000s, I was second on scene to a family of 5 who'd been shotgunned in a gang related incident in their SUV, close range, when they pulled up into their driveway.  Parents and eldest kid didn't make it.  Two younger ones in the back did.  The whole nine yards of opened up heads, body bits all over, the kids in the back crying in car seats, etc...
> 
> I just recalled some of the same feeling watching this as I felt then.
> 
> All that useless, callous cruelty for absolutely no justifiable reason.
Click to expand...


Wow... that's terrible. That must have left an indelible imprint on your memory. I can't even imagine what it was like to see that. I'm sorry to hear it.


----------



## mjollnir

newpolitics said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I haven't watched that clip in a while, and I'm a little shaken up right now about it. Thanks for having the guts to watch it. Chinese fur farms have to go. Although, this same thing happens to cows in our american factory farms at slaughter. It has been reported by workers that they are still alive while being skinned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first week on duty, back in the early 2000s, I was second on scene to a family of 5 who'd been shotgunned in a gang related incident in their SUV, close range, when they pulled up into their driveway.  Parents and eldest kid didn't make it.  Two younger ones in the back did.  The whole nine yards of opened up heads, body bits all over, the kids in the back crying in car seats, etc...
> 
> I just recalled some of the same feeling watching this as I felt then.
> 
> All that useless, callous cruelty for absolutely no justifiable reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow... that's terrible. That must have left an indelible imprint on your memory. I can't even imagine what it was like to see that. I'm sorry to hear it.
Click to expand...


It made me realize what I'd signed up for, that's for sure.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were capable of being honest, you would acknowledge your Christian fundamentalist beliefs and begin the process of resolving the hate and self-hate that causes you such anger issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you could be honest with yourself, you would forgive those who have wronged you in life, including the man that abused you and is responsible for your unwanted same sex attraction, which is the real reason for your hatred of God and your atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no false assuptions or accusations there ..nope not one...
Click to expand...


It's assumptions and you're wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> now it's an engineer! changing the name is still no proof....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't know engineers design daws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ah yes I do.....your attempt at finding fault fails, as always.
Click to expand...


I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another science hater who doesn't believe in evolution:
> 
> 
> _The testimony of Sir John Carew Eccles (1903-1997), a *neurophysiologist* who won the *1963 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine*
> 
> Who was he and what was he famous for?
> 
> Sir John Carew Eccles, AC FRS FRACP FRSNZ FAAS (27 January 1903  2 May 1997) was an Australian neurophysiologist who *won the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on the synapse, sharing the prize with Andrew Fielding Huxley and Alan Lloyd Hodgkin.
> *
> How did his beliefs about the human mind contradict Darwinian evolution?
> 
> *Although Sir John Eccles believed that the Darwinism could account for the various life-forms we observe today, he did not believe that it could possibly explain human consciousness. *He believed on scientific grounds that each and every human being has an immaterial soul which is supernaturally created by God.
> 
> Wheres the evidence?
> 
> In his book, Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self (Routledge, 1989), Eccles was forthright about his belief, which was based on scientific grounds, in the existence of an immaterial soul_
> 
> Twenty-one more famous Nobel Prize winners who rejected Darwinism as an account of consciousness | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting and pasting from the usual christian creationist ministries.
> 
> That's in bad form, laddie.
Click to expand...


I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were capable of being honest, you would acknowledge your Christian fundamentalist beliefs and begin the process of resolving the hate and self-hate that causes you such anger issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you could be honest with yourself, you would forgive those who have wronged you in life, including the man that abused you and is responsible for your unwanted same sex attraction, which is the real reason for your hatred of God and your atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no false assuptions or accusations there ..nope not one...
Click to expand...


I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? if you think (and I use the word loosely) that unprovable ravings you use as examples of real science are science then why don't you make a trip to the national science foundation and present your "theory" to them ?
> if you're extremely lucky ,you might get to 1 or two of your foreknowledge  bits before they escort  you to the waiting police car....that is of course is after they stop laughing hysterically..
> just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> National Science Foundation?? Those loons???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> denial of fact in action! thanks!
Click to expand...


I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you somehow missed that you are simply stating the obvious that man has the ability to manipulate enzyme function?
> 
> Go lay down and finish your coma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking to Daws, its comb-over, not coma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false assuption..
> baldness does not run in my family.
> unlike yours.
Click to expand...


I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another science hater who doesn't believe in evolution:
> 
> 
> _The testimony of Sir John Carew Eccles (1903-1997), a *neurophysiologist* who won the *1963 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine*
> 
> Who was he and what was he famous for?
> 
> Sir John Carew Eccles, AC FRS FRACP FRSNZ FAAS (27 January 1903  2 May 1997) was an Australian neurophysiologist who *won the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on the synapse, sharing the prize with Andrew Fielding Huxley and Alan Lloyd Hodgkin.
> *
> How did his beliefs about the human mind contradict Darwinian evolution?
> 
> *Although Sir John Eccles believed that the Darwinism could account for the various life-forms we observe today, he did not believe that it could possibly explain human consciousness. *He believed on scientific grounds that each and every human being has an immaterial soul which is supernaturally created by God.
> 
> Wheres the evidence?
> 
> In his book, Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self (Routledge, 1989), Eccles was forthright about his belief, which was based on scientific grounds, in the existence of an immaterial soul_
> 
> Twenty-one more famous Nobel Prize winners who rejected Darwinism as an account of consciousness | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> got anything even resembling science?
Click to expand...


How bout you numb nuts..

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> now it's an engineer! changing the name is still no proof....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge !!
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He's not the one saying there is a designer. You are. So, why are you asking him to provide evidence for your premise?? This makes no sense.
Click to expand...


Your designer is naturalism.

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge !!
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not the one saying there is a designer. You are. So, why are you asking him to provide evidence for your premise?? This makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your designer is naturalism.
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
Click to expand...


 Try this for a search: evolution of enzyme superfamilies


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge !!
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not the one saying there is a designer. You are. So, why are you asking him to provide evidence for your premise?? This makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your designer is naturalism.
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
Click to expand...


We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...


----------



## newpolitics

mjollnir said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first week on duty, back in the early 2000s, I was second on scene to a family of 5 who'd been shotgunned in a gang related incident in their SUV, close range, when they pulled up into their driveway.  Parents and eldest kid didn't make it.  Two younger ones in the back did.  The whole nine yards of opened up heads, body bits all over, the kids in the back crying in car seats, etc...
> 
> I just recalled some of the same feeling watching this as I felt then.
> 
> All that useless, callous cruelty for absolutely no justifiable reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... that's terrible. That must have left an indelible imprint on your memory. I can't even imagine what it was like to see that. I'm sorry to hear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It made me realize what I'd signed up for, that's for sure.
Click to expand...


 That's an insane first week.


----------



## mjollnir

newpolitics said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... that's terrible. That must have left an indelible imprint on your memory. I can't even imagine what it was like to see that. I'm sorry to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It made me realize what I'd signed up for, that's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an insane first week.
Click to expand...


That's Salinas, CA, for you.  Glad I no longer work there.  Love the guys I went through the academy with who are still there.

Southern California, ironically, is far less guns-up and violent that Salinas ever was.

Thankful for the dues I paid, though.


----------



## pjnlsn

Youwerecreated said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.
> 
> To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy to accept, sure (If I know what you mean, and if I do, that something is easy to accept doesn't mean it's rational, or even likely. For example: Starting from nothing, i.e. if you think of a group of people who have no existing societal/familial influences, it's very easy to believe that the spirits of the dead live on in nature. But this is not rational or likely). But you can call it rational or not, and while as I'm sure everyone who's participated in this threat for very long is aware, and as you appear to reference indirectly, there are some milestone experiments done on the subject, but I daresay that what you would like is something along the lines of complete certainty, and according to that standard, it isn't known, this change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.
> 
> But this certainly doesn't lead to any (unspecified) designer-being.
> 
> Secondly, there's nothing about the group of solutions, so to speak, which do not involve god-like beings, which would require them to be only imagined, if that's what you mean.
> 
> Thirdly, you would appear to be one who wouldn't think much of an idea if it isn't already (completely) known. But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.
> 
> Your attitude doesn't reflect the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The miller urey experiment showed nothing of the sort. A designer is not considered rational because you have not seen him but you have seen evidence of him and just deny.
> 
> You have not seen evidence of the many theories you defend so by your reasoning you are irrational.
Click to expand...


Again:



pjnlsn said:


> But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.



Or: it showed that it is likely that the materials required for life were produced by mere electrical charges, the most obvious source being lightning. And again, this was known (or was produced, as a result) several decades ago.

Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. In particular, the definition of rationality, especially in this context, varies a lot.

Offhand, If I know how you would think of and define the term evidence, then there is evidence for an infinite amount of claims. 

But that there is some amount of evidence for it does not mean it is likely, or most likely, either of all possible explanations for a given thing, condition, or likely past event, or even of all explanations being considered, which is similar to what my 'point' was.

Also, you appear to be using a different definition of evidence in each sentence. Defined like it might be in the first sentence, the statement about evidence in the second is false, and will be false for most possible explanations.

And similar for the term rational.

In any case, again, calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and using neutral terms, and just as it was _before_ you responded, my 'point' is embodied in the above quote.


----------



## pjnlsn

UltimateReality said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.
> 
> To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy to accept, sure (If I know what you mean, and if I do, that something is easy to accept doesn't mean it's rational, or even likely. For example: Starting from nothing, i.e. if you think of a group of people who have no existing societal/familial influences, it's very easy to believe that the spirits of the dead live on in nature. But this is not rational or likely). But you can call it rational or not, and while as I'm sure everyone who's participated in this threat for very long is aware, and as you appear to reference indirectly, there are some milestone experiments done on the subject, but I daresay that what you would like is something along the lines of complete certainty, and according to that standard, it isn't known, this change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.
> 
> But this certainly doesn't lead to any (unspecified) designer-being.
> 
> Secondly, there's nothing about the group of solutions, so to speak, which do not involve god-like beings, which would require them to be only imagined, if that's what you mean.
> 
> Thirdly, you would appear to be one who wouldn't think much of an idea if it isn't already (completely) known. But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your last paragraph is far from the truth. Please provide a supporting cut and paste and link. The elemental substance argument is fallacious, as many designed things are made from elemental substances including rocket ships and computers.
Click to expand...


I meant that all of the amino acids which are required for life were produced, and a few other things. In addition, another experiment run at the same time, with the idea of volcanic formation in mind, or with the cycle of the experiment having high air humidity in addition to the energy source, produced a more diverse collection of organic molecules.

You may be partially interpreting what was written in comparison to something that wasn't, but what was written was that these experiments were done and that therefore there are certain likelihoods.

Your last sentence doesn't strictly follow, but if you mean that it is still possible that there could have been some kind of designer, this is not surprising.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The delusional creep Hawly, who cannot separate here fantasies about me from reality, would have you believe that no science has been done by believers in God. She is the worst kind of revisionist, because she is relentless in her repetitive brainwashing techniques, posting the same thing over and over and over. So much so that those who lack discernment and are easily manipulated like Daws and NP, actually fall for its revisionism. Here is yet another science loathing Christian:
> 
> *Joseph Murray (b. 1919), winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 1990.
> *
> Who is he and what is he famous for?
> 
> Joseph E. Murray (born 1919) was granted the 1990 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology (which he shared with E. Donnall Thomas) for work that *proved to a doubting world that it was possible to transplant organs to save the lives of dying patients*. Murray was the first to perform kidney transplants.* He is one of the founders of modern transplantology.*
> 
> How do his beliefs about the human mind contradict Darwinian evolution?
> 
> He is a devout Catholic, who believes that each and every human being has a soul which is directly created by God.
> 
> Wheres the evidence?
> 
> In his article Murray: Surgeon with soul (Harvard University Gazette, 4 October 2001), John Lenger described Murrays views on the spiritual aspects of surgery. Surprisingly, Murray believes that each of us has a spiritual soul:
> 
> To Murray, a doctors responsibility is to treat each patient as not just a set of symptoms, but as someone with a spirit that can be helped through medical procedures. The title of his autobiography, Surgery of the Soul (Boston Medical Library, 2001), stems from Murrays spiritually based approach to medicine. Though he has in the past hesitated to talk publicly about his faith, for fear of being lumped in with the televangelist crowd, Murray is deeply religious. Work is a prayer, he said, and I start off every morning dedicating it to our Creator. Every day is a prayer  I feel that, and I feel that very strongly. (Murray, as cited in Lenger, John. 2001. Murray: Surgeon with soul: Nobelists memoir mixes science and humanity, in Harvard University Gazette, October 4. Cambridge, MA.)
> 
> 
> 
> I actually find it creepy that you're dedicating so much tine and effort with cut and paste articles seeking my attention and approval.
> 
> You're only indulging your stalking proclivities.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because calling you a delusional creep is a sure way to your heart.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you somehow missed that you are simply stating the obvious that man has the ability to manipulate enzyme function?
> 
> Go lay down and finish your coma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking to Daws, its comb-over, not coma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false assuption..
> baldness does not run in my family.
> unlike yours.
Click to expand...


I was talking about the haircut YWC just gave you.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would deny evolution.  Evolution isn't a mind. I am not offending evolution. My reasons are purely ethical, and the claim that "my body is made for meat consumption" is not entirely accurate. We are omnivores, only after being herbivores long before. Earlier species of hominid were herbivorous, such as Lucy (Australopithecus). We came into meat at some point, and evolved to be able to eat it. Therefore, primarily, we are herbivorous. However, marketing would have you believe you need to be eating meat at every meal, which is probably the biggest cause of cancer in the modern world, especially with the amount of growth hormones and antibiotics present in animal flesh, as well as fecal matter. Try watching the movie Earthlings, if you are interested in learning the awful truth about how we treat other sentient, living beings. I realize your bible instructs you to not care about them, but you could have a little humanity. The only thing I would be dependent on meat for is B12, which I supplement. Problem solved. Go vegan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really do have a twisted view of the truth. It is also obvious you subscribe to liberal logic 101. I'm guessing you are pro killing of the unborn but anti fur?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're damn right, you piece of shit. I'm anti-fur over caring about unborn fetus' that don't even know they are alive. Animals skinned for fur, sometimes have their fur ripped off of them, while they are fully conscious. Yet, somehow, just because a fetus is human, we should care more? No, thanks. This is where religious morals are skewed and completely fucking retarded. Try watching the truth, instead of being ignorant and a dick...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLcgxIGTFRs]Animals are Skinned Alive on Chinese Fur Farms - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God like atheistic China?? Horrible atrocities are a sure thing with the brutality that accompanies the loss of compassion which comes from God. Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ah yes I do.....your attempt at finding fault fails, as always.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, YWC is not like that big sore on your lip you got from Hawly. Even if you ignore him he is not going away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not another gay slur...wow you seem to an expert at what causes mouth sores .....
Click to expand...


So Daws apparently you are convinced that Hawly is packing?


----------



## UltimateReality

pjnlsn said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy to accept, sure (If I know what you mean, and if I do, that something is easy to accept doesn't mean it's rational, or even likely. For example: Starting from nothing, i.e. if you think of a group of people who have no existing societal/familial influences, it's very easy to believe that the spirits of the dead live on in nature. But this is not rational or likely). But you can call it rational or not, and while as I'm sure everyone who's participated in this threat for very long is aware, and as you appear to reference indirectly, there are some milestone experiments done on the subject, but I daresay that what you would like is something along the lines of complete certainty, and according to that standard, it isn't known, this change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.
> 
> But this certainly doesn't lead to any (unspecified) designer-being.
> 
> Secondly, there's nothing about the group of solutions, so to speak, which do not involve god-like beings, which would require them to be only imagined, if that's what you mean.
> 
> Thirdly, you would appear to be one who wouldn't think much of an idea if it isn't already (completely) known. But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.
> 
> Your attitude doesn't reflect the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The miller urey experiment showed nothing of the sort. A designer is not considered rational because you have not seen him but you have seen evidence of him and just deny.
> 
> You have not seen evidence of the many theories you defend so by your reasoning you are irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again:
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or: it showed that it is likely that the materials required for life were produced by mere electrical charges, the most obvious source being lightning. And again, this was known (or was produced, as a result) several decades ago.
> 
> Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. In particular, the definition of rationality, especially in this context, varies a lot.
> 
> Offhand, If I know how you would think of and define the term evidence, then there is evidence for an infinite amount of claims.
> 
> But that there is some amount of evidence for it does not mean it is likely, or most likely, either of all possible explanations for a given thing, condition, or likely past event, or even of all explanations being considered, which is similar to what my 'point' was.
> 
> Also, you appear to be using a different definition of evidence in each sentence. Defined like it might be in the first sentence, the statement about evidence in the second is false, and will be false for most possible explanations.
> 
> And similar for the term rational.
> 
> In any case, again, calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and using neutral terms, and just as it was _before_ you responded, my 'point' is embodied in the above quote.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, you have contracted Hawly's disease and apparently believe if you keep repeating the same post over and over it will add some legitimacy to it. There is no truth to your claims. The experiment you refer to is ONE experiment and now there is evidence the ancient atmosphere was not even close to the one proposed in the experiment. Why not default to Lyell's and Darwins methodology? They did not look for some supermagical explanation, none of which has ever been observed occurring naturally. No, they looked for causes now in operation to explain the distant past. And still the best explanation for the digital code in dna is intelligence. Now whether that was an alien or some other Being that pre-existed our universe, we just can't say 100% since this is historical science. But we can look around and make solid observations that complex, functional information systems don't spontaneously pop into existence by some supermagical naturalistic darwinian process.


----------



## UltimateReality

pjnlsn said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy to accept, sure (If I know what you mean, and if I do, that something is easy to accept doesn't mean it's rational, or even likely. For example: Starting from nothing, i.e. if you think of a group of people who have no existing societal/familial influences, it's very easy to believe that the spirits of the dead live on in nature. But this is not rational or likely). But you can call it rational or not, and while as I'm sure everyone who's participated in this threat for very long is aware, and as you appear to reference indirectly, there are some milestone experiments done on the subject, but I daresay that what you would like is something along the lines of complete certainty, and according to that standard, it isn't known, this change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.
> 
> But this certainly doesn't lead to any (unspecified) designer-being.
> 
> Secondly, there's nothing about the group of solutions, so to speak, which do not involve god-like beings, which would require them to be only imagined, if that's what you mean.
> 
> Thirdly, you would appear to be one who wouldn't think much of an idea if it isn't already (completely) known. But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your last paragraph is far from the truth. Please provide a supporting cut and paste and link. The elemental substance argument is fallacious, as many designed things are made from elemental substances including rocket ships and computers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant that all of the* amino acids which are required for life were produced*, and a few other things. In addition, *another experiment run at the same time, with the idea of volcanic formation in mind, or with the cycle of the experiment having high air humidity in addition to the energy source, produced a more diverse collection of organic molecules.*
> 
> You may be partially interpreting what was written in comparison to something that wasn't, but what was written was that these experiments were done and that therefore there are certain likelihoods.
> 
> Your last sentence doesn't strictly follow, but if you mean that it is still possible that there could have been some kind of designer, this is not surprising.
Click to expand...


Link please? So we can all have a good laugh.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really do have a twisted view of the truth. It is also obvious you subscribe to liberal logic 101. I'm guessing you are pro killing of the unborn but anti fur?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're damn right, you piece of shit. I'm anti-fur over caring about unborn fetus' that don't even know they are alive. Animals skinned for fur, sometimes have their fur ripped off of them, while they are fully conscious. Yet, somehow, just because a fetus is human, we should care more? No, thanks. This is where religious morals are skewed and completely fucking retarded. Try watching the truth, instead of being ignorant and a dick...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLcgxIGTFRs]Animals are Skinned Alive on Chinese Fur Farms - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God?? Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.
Click to expand...


I find it hilarious that you think our lack of compassion for animals is caused by our "distance from god" when the holy shitbook says this:

"Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Gen. 1:26

If anything, it is because of religious adherence that people exhibit speciesist mentalities. Atheism frees one from this doctrine, and allows you to see that animal pain is the same as human pain. They possess a central nervous system, just as we do. The ability to add 2+2 has nothing to do with pain detection.


----------



## newpolitics

mjollnir said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> It made me realize what I'd signed up for, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an insane first week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's Salinas, CA, for you.  Glad I no longer work there.  Love the guys I went through the academy with who are still there.
> 
> Southern California, ironically, is far less guns-up and violent that Salinas ever was.
> 
> Thankful for the dues I paid, though.
Click to expand...


Were you a Police Officer or an investigator?


----------



## pjnlsn

UltimateReality said:


> Nice try but your comparison is fallacious. Lined college ruled paper is not digital.
> 
> *Digital:* of, relating to, or being data in the form of digits, especially binary digits <digital images> <a digital readout>; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals.
> 
> Can your paper do this?





pjnlsn said:


> To think so is utterly absurd. It's beyond hopeful.



The sequence:



UltimateReality said:


> The book absolutely makes a case for an intelligent agent being responsible for the digital code in dna.



Perhaps if there was a certain similarity. However:



pjnlsn said:


> Regardless of it's potential uses, it bears no significant similarity to (e.g.) networks of copper/iron alloyed pathways etched in silicon, be they part of, say, a flash memory device, or any particular example of digital circuitry.





UltimateReality said:


> Maybe you should get out of the house more often:
> 
> _"Scientists have been eyeing up DNA as a potential storage medium for a long time, for three very good reasons: It&#8217;s incredibly dense (you can store one bit per base, and a base is only a few atoms large); it&#8217;s volumetric (beaker) rather than planar (hard disk); and it&#8217;s incredibly stable &#8212; *where other bleeding-edge storage mediums need to be kept in sub-zero vacuums, DNA can survive for hundreds of thousands of years in a box in your garage.*
> 
> It is only with recent advances in microfluidics and labs-on-a-chip that synthesizing and sequencing DNA has become an everyday task, though. While it took years for the original Human Genome Project to analyze a single human genome (some 3 billion DNA base pairs), modern lab equipment with microfluidic chips can do it in hours. Now this isn&#8217;t to say that Church and Kosuri&#8217;s DNA storage is fast &#8212; but it&#8217;s fast enough for very-long-term archival.
> 
> Just think about it for a moment: *One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. *That&#8217;s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs&#8230; in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives &#8212; the densest storage medium in use today &#8212; you&#8217;d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuri&#8217;s case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA &#8212; Church&#8217;s latest book, in fact &#8212; and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored."_
> 
> Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech



And, so, again:



pjnlsn said:


> It's not surprising in any sense that storing information on the molecular level is much more efficient than common examples of digital information storage.
> 
> But the fact that you can take the amount of information that, say, DNA can represent, and convert it into units of digital information (8-bit numbers in sequence) does not mean that it has any similarity to digital storage.
> 
> You could also convert those numbers into the amount of college ruled sheets of lined paper that it would take to represent the same data, and it wouldn't mean that DNA had some resemblance to paper.
> 
> And to think so is utterly absurd. It's beyond hopeful.





UltimateReality said:


> _DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, C*altech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands,* which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10]_ Source: Wiki
> 
> *Finally, please provide me with an example of another molecule, exclusive of any in the cell, that exists in nature that can be used for digital information storage. *



This doesn't follow from the last, which is a response to a collection of statistics on the information capacity of DNA. The second to last quote is still true, and is relevant if that was what the preceding post was to mean that the fact that it (DNA) has some information storage capacity, and that this amount can be converted into other units possibly in a differing number base, like terabytes, or number of blu-ray discs, does not mean it is similar, or has similar origins, in the context of the above sequence.

The information capacity of DNA can be represented as an amount of terabytes. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any example of digital circuitry for encoding information, e.g. a flash drive, or HDD, or SSD, or (as below) optical disc.

The information capacity of DNA can be represented as an amount of blu-ray discs. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any kind of optical disc, i.e. (simply) layers of plastic and metal with pits and bumps burned into one or more layers by a kind of laser.

The information capacity of DNA can be represented as the amount of college-ruled sheets of lined paper in a given size font which would be required to encode the relevant information into base-2 numbers (or base-4 as is more applicable to DNA) written in some consistent fashion, with arabic numerals. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any kind of mixture of wood, pulped, desaturated, cooked, colored, and on which lines of ink are placed as to draw symbols.

Finally, that it can be used to create what is known as a curcuit does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to, a curcuit made of some other material(s). That two things can be called by the same name in the same sentence or otherwise does not mean they are similar or have similar origins.

In the context of the preceding sequence.

And to think so is both hopeful and absurd.


----------



## pjnlsn

UltimateReality said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The miller urey experiment showed nothing of the sort. A designer is not considered rational because you have not seen him but you have seen evidence of him and just deny.
> 
> You have not seen evidence of the many theories you defend so by your reasoning you are irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again:
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or: it showed that it is likely that the materials required for life were produced by mere electrical charges, the most obvious source being lightning. And again, this was known (or was produced, as a result) several decades ago.
> 
> Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. In particular, the definition of rationality, especially in this context, varies a lot.
> 
> Offhand, If I know how you would think of and define the term evidence, then there is evidence for an infinite amount of claims.
> 
> But that there is some amount of evidence for it does not mean it is likely, or most likely, either of all possible explanations for a given thing, condition, or likely past event, or even of all explanations being considered, which is similar to what my 'point' was.
> 
> Also, you appear to be using a different definition of evidence in each sentence. Defined like it might be in the first sentence, the statement about evidence in the second is false, and will be false for most possible explanations.
> 
> And similar for the term rational.
> 
> In any case, again, calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and using neutral terms, and just as it was _before_ you responded, my 'point' is embodied in the above quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you have contracted Hawly's disease and apparently believe if you keep repeating the same post over and over it will add some legitimacy to it. There is no truth to your claims. The experiment you refer to is ONE experiment and now there is evidence the ancient atmosphere was not even close to the one proposed in the experiment. Why not default to Lyell's and Darwins methodology? They did not look for some supermagical explanation, none of which has ever been observed occurring naturally. No, they looked for causes now in operation to explain the distant past. And still the best explanation for the digital code in dna is intelligence. Now whether that was an alien or some other Being that pre-existed our universe, we just can't say 100% since this is historical science. But we can look around and make solid observations that complex, functional information systems don't spontaneously pop into existence by some supermagical naturalistic darwinian process.
Click to expand...


Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. You can say it was so dissimilar as to be 'not even close,' but this difference in what you reference is not such that it would make what was before likely unlikely, given both the common definitions of those words and your apparent attitude for what you meant. If the probability before was greater than 3/4, the changes you reference would not render the probability 1/4 or lower, for example.

And, similarly to before, with or without minor contextual omissions, and if I know what significance you place on the associated statements:



pjnlsn said:


> DNA does not bear any markings of having been designed or made by humans, who are of course, the only known example of an intelligent agent as you speak of it, "anywhere on earth right now," or in the past. And certainly not of any significant similarity to digital curcuitry, of storage devices or otherwise. [One hopes] you were using the word as a form of embellishment, but as it's written....
> 
> Also, as a general comment, what is required for DNA to exist at all is merely a process of sufficient orderliness and predictability, one of the possible forms of which is, of course, by definition (and by the definition I think you would give it), an intelligent agent. But this is only one possibility.



As for the rest: Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and all relevant corollarys, if the issue(s) is/are actually of that nature, as before.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're damn right, you piece of shit. I'm anti-fur over caring about unborn fetus' that don't even know they are alive. Animals skinned for fur, sometimes have their fur ripped off of them, while they are fully conscious. Yet, somehow, just because a fetus is human, we should care more? No, thanks. This is where religious morals are skewed and completely fucking retarded. Try watching the truth, instead of being ignorant and a dick...
> 
> Animals are Skinned Alive on Chinese Fur Farms - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God?? Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it hilarious that you think our lack of compassion for animals is caused by our "distance from god" when the holy shitbook says this:
> 
> "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Gen. 1:26
> 
> If anything, it is because of religious adherence that people exhibit speciesist mentalities. Atheism frees one from this doctrine, and allows you to see that animal pain is the same as human pain. They possess a central nervous system, just as we do. The ability to add 2+2 has nothing to do with pain detection.
Click to expand...


Wrong!! Except for some primates, most animals are not self aware and do not experience the psychological aspect of pain like humans do. They don't have the "I feel" experience. So how did you translate "rule over" in the Bible as being on par with skinning a live animal? God says even a sparrow doesn't fall but that he is there to care. But the Bible also teaches animals are for food as well. And it definitely teaches human life is sacred, and that includes unborn humans.

Psalm 139 (NIV)

13 For you created my inmost being;
*you knit me together in my mother&#8217;s womb.*
14 I praise you because *I am fearfully and wonderfully made;*
    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 *Your eyes saw my unformed body;*
    all the days ordained for me were written in your book
    before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts,[a] God!
    How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
    they would outnumber the grains of sand&#8212;
    when I awake, I am still with you.


----------



## UltimateReality

pjnlsn said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try but your comparison is fallacious. Lined college ruled paper is not digital.
> 
> *Digital:* of, relating to, or being data in the form of digits, especially binary digits <digital images> <a digital readout>; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals.
> 
> Can your paper do this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> To think so is utterly absurd. It's beyond hopeful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sequence:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if there was a certain similarity. However:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, so, again:
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not surprising in any sense that storing information on the molecular level is much more efficient than common examples of digital information storage.
> 
> But the fact that you can take the amount of information that, say, DNA can represent, and convert it into units of digital information (8-bit numbers in sequence) does not mean that it has any similarity to digital storage.
> 
> You could also convert those numbers into the amount of college ruled sheets of lined paper that it would take to represent the same data, and it wouldn't mean that DNA had some resemblance to paper.
> 
> And to think so is utterly absurd. It's beyond hopeful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, C*altech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands,* which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10]_ Source: Wiki
> 
> *Finally, please provide me with an example of another molecule, exclusive of any in the cell, that exists in nature that can be used for digital information storage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't follow from the last, which is a response to a collection of statistics on the information capacity of DNA. The second to last quote is still true, and is relevant if that was what the preceding post was to mean that the fact that it (DNA) has some information storage capacity, and that this amount can be converted into other units possibly in a differing number base, like terabytes, or number of blu-ray discs, does not mean it is similar, or has similar origins, in the context of the above sequence.
> 
> The information capacity of DNA can be represented as an amount of terabytes. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any example of digital circuitry for encoding information, e.g. a flash drive, or HDD, or SSD, or (as below) optical disc.
> 
> The information capacity of DNA can be represented as an amount of blu-ray discs. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any kind of optical disc, i.e. (simply) layers of plastic and metal with pits and bumps burned into one or more layers by a kind of laser.
> 
> The information capacity of DNA can be represented as the amount of college-ruled sheets of lined paper in a given size font which would be required to encode the relevant information into base-2 numbers (or base-4 as is more applicable to DNA) written in some consistent fashion, with arabic numerals. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any kind of mixture of wood, pulped, desaturated, cooked, colored, and on which lines of ink are placed as to draw symbols.
> 
> Finally, that it can be used to create what is known as a curcuit does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to, a curcuit made of some other material(s). That two things can be called by the same name in the same sentence or otherwise does not mean they are similar or have similar origins.
> 
> In the context of the preceding sequence.
> 
> And to think so is both hopeful and absurd.
Click to expand...


*Finally, please provide me with an example of another molecule, exclusive of any in the cell, that exists in nature that can be used for digital information storage. *


----------



## UltimateReality

pjnlsn said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again:
> 
> 
> 
> Or: it showed that it is likely that the materials required for life were produced by mere electrical charges, the most obvious source being lightning. And again, this was known (or was produced, as a result) several decades ago.
> 
> *Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is.* In particular, the definition of rationality, especially in this context, varies a lot.
> 
> Offhand, If I know how you would think of and define the term evidence, then there is evidence for an infinite amount of claims.
> 
> But that there is some amount of evidence for it does not mean it is likely, or most likely, either of all possible explanations for a given thing, condition, or likely past event, or even of all explanations being considered, which is similar to what my 'point' was.
> 
> Also, you appear to be using a different definition of evidence in each sentence. Defined like it might be in the first sentence, the statement about evidence in the second is false, and will be false for most possible explanations.
> 
> And similar for the term rational.
> 
> In any case, again, *calling something by a name doesn't change what it is*, and using neutral terms, and just as it was _before_ you responded, my 'point' is embodied in the above quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you have contracted Hawly's disease and apparently believe if *you keep repeating the same post over and over* it will add some legitimacy to it. There is no truth to your claims. The experiment you refer to is ONE experiment and now there is evidence the ancient atmosphere was not even close to the one proposed in the experiment. Why not default to Lyell's and Darwins methodology? They did not look for some supermagical explanation, none of which has ever been observed occurring naturally. No, they looked for causes now in operation to explain the distant past. And still the best explanation for the digital code in dna is intelligence. Now whether that was an alien or some other Being that pre-existed our universe, we just can't say 100% since this is historical science. But we can look around and make solid observations that complex, functional information systems don't spontaneously pop into existence by some supermagical naturalistic darwinian process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. *You can say it was so dissimilar as to be 'not even close,' but this difference in what you reference is not such that it would make what was before likely unlikely, given both the common definitions of those words and your apparent attitude for what you meant. *If the probability before was greater than 3/4, the changes you reference would not render the probability 1/4 or lower, for example.*
Click to expand...

 WTH are you even talking about?





pjnlsn said:


> And, similarly to before, with or without minor contextual omissions, and if I know what significance you place on the associated statements:
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA does not bear any markings of having been designed or made by humans, who are of course, the only known example of an intelligent agent as you speak of it, "anywhere on earth right now," or in the past. And certainly not of any significant similarity to digital curcuitry, of storage devices or otherwise. [One hopes] you were using the word as a form of embellishment, but as it's written....
> 
> Also, as a general comment, what is required for DNA to exist at all is merely a process of sufficient orderliness and predictability, one of the possible forms of which is, of course, by definition (and by the definition I think you would give it), an intelligent agent. But this is only one possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the rest: *Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is,* and all relevant corollarys, if the issue(s) is/are actually of that nature, as before.
Click to expand...


Either you need to go to sleep or you need to lay off the crack pipe. What are you even saying? Calling cocaine another name doesn't change what it is. 

*Link please?*


----------



## UltimateReality

pjnlsn said:


> The information capacity of DNA can be represented as the amount of college-ruled sheets of lined paper in a given size font which would be required to encode the relevant information into base-2 numbers (or base-4 as is more applicable to DNA) written in some consistent fashion, with arabic numerals. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any kind of mixture of wood, pulped, desaturated, cooked, colored, and on which lines of ink are placed as to draw symbols.



What are you even talking about? This makes absolutely no sense!! A component of intelligence is being able to communicate your thoughts in a manner that someone not familiar with the idea can easily grasp. So WTH?? What are you even saying. 

-Please explain in detail how your college-ruled sheets would represent the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. 

-Please explain how this is digital.

-Please explain how binary code is different than quaternary code? Please explain how they are similar.

So far you have only made my argument stronger with your unintelligible babble and repetitive gobbledygook. 

-Can you please provide some third party article to clarify the point you are trying to make?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not the one saying there is a designer. You are. So, why are you asking him to provide evidence for your premise?? This makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your designer is naturalism.
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try this for a search: evolution of enzyme superfamilies
Click to expand...


For what ? to see more evidence that is only conjecture. It's not evolution,they are adaptations. Once again there are limits to adaptation. If any organism goes beyond the limits of adaptation what happens ?

Do you know what evidence is ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not the one saying there is a designer. You are. So, why are you asking him to provide evidence for your premise?? This makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your designer is naturalism.
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...
Click to expand...


That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it 

We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

pjnlsn said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy to accept, sure (If I know what you mean, and if I do, that something is easy to accept doesn't mean it's rational, or even likely. For example: Starting from nothing, i.e. if you think of a group of people who have no existing societal/familial influences, it's very easy to believe that the spirits of the dead live on in nature. But this is not rational or likely). But you can call it rational or not, and while as I'm sure everyone who's participated in this threat for very long is aware, and as you appear to reference indirectly, there are some milestone experiments done on the subject, but I daresay that what you would like is something along the lines of complete certainty, and according to that standard, it isn't known, this change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.
> 
> But this certainly doesn't lead to any (unspecified) designer-being.
> 
> Secondly, there's nothing about the group of solutions, so to speak, which do not involve god-like beings, which would require them to be only imagined, if that's what you mean.
> 
> Thirdly, you would appear to be one who wouldn't think much of an idea if it isn't already (completely) known. But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.
> 
> Your attitude doesn't reflect the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The miller urey experiment showed nothing of the sort. A designer is not considered rational because you have not seen him but you have seen evidence of him and just deny.
> 
> You have not seen evidence of the many theories you defend so by your reasoning you are irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again:
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or: it showed that it is likely that the materials required for life were produced by mere electrical charges, the most obvious source being lightning. And again, this was known (or was produced, as a result) several decades ago.
> 
> Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. In particular, the definition of rationality, especially in this context, varies a lot.
> 
> Offhand, If I know how you would think of and define the term evidence, then there is evidence for an infinite amount of claims.
> 
> But that there is some amount of evidence for it does not mean it is likely, or most likely, either of all possible explanations for a given thing, condition, or likely past event, or even of all explanations being considered, which is similar to what my 'point' was.
> 
> Also, you appear to be using a different definition of evidence in each sentence. Defined like it might be in the first sentence, the statement about evidence in the second is false, and will be false for most possible explanations.
> 
> And similar for the term rational.
> 
> In any case, again, calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and using neutral terms, and just as it was _before_ you responded, my 'point' is embodied in the above quote.
Click to expand...


We have discussed this earlier in the thread. I will go over a few problems with your explanation.

1. They didn't know what the enviornment was like when they say this could of happened.
2. This was done in a lab by intelligent beings not through naturalism.
3. We get electrical charges all the time on this planet and we do not see these things unless they exist in a living organism.
4. They could not exist outside a living organism they definitely could not exist in a body of water because they are very soluble.
5. They could not exist on dry ground either because of oxygen they would decompose.
6. The sun would have the same effect.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really do have a twisted view of the truth. It is also obvious you subscribe to liberal logic 101. I'm guessing you are pro killing of the unborn but anti fur?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're damn right, you piece of shit. I'm anti-fur over caring about unborn fetus' that don't even know they are alive. Animals skinned for fur, sometimes have their fur ripped off of them, while they are fully conscious. Yet, somehow, just because a fetus is human, we should care more? No, thanks. This is where religious morals are skewed and completely fucking retarded. Try watching the truth, instead of being ignorant and a dick...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLcgxIGTFRs]Animals are Skinned Alive on Chinese Fur Farms - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God like atheistic China?? Horrible atrocities are a sure thing with the brutality that accompanies the loss of compassion which comes from God. Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.
Click to expand...

Gee whiz. It's a Jim Jones / David Koresh wannabe.

We should explain to the cult member that Nazi'ism was deeply rooted in christianity but that might push him over the edge.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your designer is naturalism.
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it
> 
> We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.
Click to expand...


I found it interesting that you selectively excuse your alleged gawds from meeting any standard of proof that you insist science must meet.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your designer is naturalism.
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try this for a search: evolution of enzyme superfamilies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For what ? to see more evidence that is only conjecture. It's not evolution,they are adaptations. Once again there are limits to adaptation. If any organism goes beyond the limits of adaptation what happens ?
> 
> Do you know what evidence is ?
Click to expand...

I fully expected that you would reel into defensive posturing at yet another of your specious claims being refuted.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're damn right, you piece of shit. I'm anti-fur over caring about unborn fetus' that don't even know they are alive. Animals skinned for fur, sometimes have their fur ripped off of them, while they are fully conscious. Yet, somehow, just because a fetus is human, we should care more? No, thanks. This is where religious morals are skewed and completely fucking retarded. Try watching the truth, instead of being ignorant and a dick...
> 
> Animals are Skinned Alive on Chinese Fur Farms - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God like atheistic China?? Horrible atrocities are a sure thing with the brutality that accompanies the loss of compassion which comes from God. Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee whiz. It's a Jim Jones / David Koresh wannabe.
> 
> We should explain to the cult member that Nazi'ism was deeply rooted in christianity but that might push him over the edge.
Click to expand...


Whether they were or not Jesus warned many that would profess to be a Christian but they are actually ravenous wolves looking to devour.

He also will claim to him they did works in his name and he said to them get away from for I know you not.

So what was your point ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it
> 
> We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I found it interesting that you selectively excuse your alleged gawds from meeting any standard of proof that you insist science must meet.
Click to expand...


Why do we need to prove God exists if we can prove design ? someone gets credit for design. You can't hide behind the copout, well because we don't know now does not mean we will not know in the future.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try this for a search: evolution of enzyme superfamilies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For what ? to see more evidence that is only conjecture. It's not evolution,they are adaptations. Once again there are limits to adaptation. If any organism goes beyond the limits of adaptation what happens ?
> 
> Do you know what evidence is ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I fully expected that you would reel into defensive posturing at yet another of your specious claims being refuted.
Click to expand...


Then present what you find on google and I will explain it to you


----------



## ima

So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?



Same can be said for your designer


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God like atheistic China?? Horrible atrocities are a sure thing with the brutality that accompanies the loss of compassion which comes from God. Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. It's a Jim Jones / David Koresh wannabe.
> 
> We should explain to the cult member that Nazi'ism was deeply rooted in christianity but that might push him over the edge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether they were or not Jesus warned many that would profess to be a Christian but they are actually ravenous wolves looking to devour.
> 
> He also will claim to him they did works in his name and he said to them get away from for I know you not.
> 
> So what was your point ?
Click to expand...

What is your point in being so presumptuous as to use an historical character to hurl veiled threats?


----------



## mjollnir

newpolitics said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an insane first week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Salinas, CA, for you.  Glad I no longer work there.  Love the guys I went through the academy with who are still there.
> 
> Southern California, ironically, is far less guns-up and violent that Salinas ever was.
> 
> Thankful for the dues I paid, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you a Police Officer or an investigator?
Click to expand...


Police officer.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same can be said for your designer
Click to expand...


Nature and rationality neither presume nor require supernaturalism or magic in contrast to the Christian creationist worldview replete with gawds, demons and tactics formulated to instill fear and ignorance.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God?? Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hilarious that you think our lack of compassion for animals is caused by our "distance from god" when the holy shitbook says this:
> 
> "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Gen. 1:26
> 
> If anything, it is because of religious adherence that people exhibit speciesist mentalities. Atheism frees one from this doctrine, and allows you to see that animal pain is the same as human pain. They possess a central nervous system, just as we do. The ability to add 2+2 has nothing to do with pain detection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong!! Except for some primates, most animals are not self aware and do not experience the psychological aspect of pain like humans do. They don't have the "I feel" experience. So how did you translate "rule over" in the Bible as being on par with skinning a live animal? God says even a sparrow doesn't fall but that he is there to care. But the Bible also teaches animals are for food as well. And it definitely teaches human life is sacred, and that includes unborn humans.
> 
> Psalm 139 (NIV)
> 
> 13 For you created my inmost being;
> *you knit me together in my mother&#8217;s womb.*
> 14 I praise you because *I am fearfully and wonderfully made;*
> your works are wonderful,
> I know that full well.
> 15 My frame was not hidden from you
> when I was made in the secret place,
> when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
> 16 *Your eyes saw my unformed body;*
> all the days ordained for me were written in your book
> before one of them came to be.
> 17 How precious to me are your thoughts,[a] God!
> How vast is the sum of them!
> 18 Were I to count them,
> they would outnumber the grains of sand&#8212;
> when I awake, I am still with you.
Click to expand...


You just demonstrated my point for me,entirely. You are unable to take into account, the pain of animals, because of some bullshit excuse you give yourself about self-awareness, and the justification you receive from the bible. Here's the bullshit: First of all, you can't positively know the phenomenological experience of animals, despite self-awareness tests we may have done. Most farm animals are very social creatures, with rights to life just as much as the dogs or cats we bring into our home (in the Western World- I realize China eats dogs). Pigs are smarter than dogs, yet we love dogs and subject pigs to institutional torture and death? Cows are also very social animals too, that want to live.  

Really though, intelligence has nothing to do with pain detection. It is an entirely different system in the brain. You are using Descartes argument or William Lane Craig's argument, where he says the animal isn't able to feel pain because it isn't self-aware. This is impossible to establish as a fact, because despite any tests we do, we will never know their subjective experience of the world and of themselves. The only thing that is important, is whether they can feel pain. This is demonstrably, yes. Also, animals have interests of their own, and we completely ignore them for our own. This is selfish, and narcissistic, and what's worse are the bullshit justifications such the ones you just provided. 

Unborn babies certainly are not self-aware, so any argument that supports your justification for eating animals could also be applied to babies before they are around 2 years old, when they become self-aware. Your position is based on speciesism, plain and simple. It is special pleading that babies be taken into our moral account, even though most farm animals are smarter than babies and more self-aware. Obviously, I am not advocating we start eating babies, but any argument you try to provide that shows preference for the interests of human babies over adult animals is special pleading. You have no justification to do so, other than the "might makes right" fallacy (appeal to Ad Baculum: appeal to force).


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same can be said for your designer
Click to expand...


----------



## ima

mjollnir said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's Salinas, CA, for you.  Glad I no longer work there.  Love the guys I went through the academy with who are still there.
> 
> Southern California, ironically, is far less guns-up and violent that Salinas ever was.
> 
> Thankful for the dues I paid, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you a Police Officer or an investigator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Police officer.
Click to expand...


Not smart enough to be an investigator?


----------



## mjollnir

ima said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you a Police Officer or an investigator?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police officer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not smart enough to be an investigator?
Click to expand...


LOL!  Go back and read the original post.  It was my first week of duty.

Not smart enough to follow simple posts?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same can be said for your designer
Click to expand...


A truly futile attempt to project the empty and unsupported conclusions you make about there being a designer onto those on the other side of the debate. Naturalism is not our designer, because it has no ontology, which precludes this very possibility of it being a "designer". Naturalism is an idea that potentially describes the universe. Stop projecting your silliness onto the other side because it makes you feel better to shrug off the burden of your own irrationality.


----------



## newpolitics

ima said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you a Police Officer or an investigator?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police officer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not smart enough to be an investigator?
Click to expand...


That's a little rude.


----------



## mjollnir

newpolitics said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Police officer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not smart enough to be an investigator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a little rude.
Click to expand...


Trust me, I deal with rudeness at work all the time.

It's the stupidity that gets to me over time.


----------



## newpolitics

mjollnir said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smart enough to be an investigator?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a little rude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust me, I deal with rudeness at work all the time.
> 
> It's the stupidity that gets to me over time.
Click to expand...


I can only imagine. People are idiots, especially when being selfish (not referring to anyone here).


----------



## newpolitics

Intuitive Thinking May Influence Belief in God

Perfect timing for this study to come out:

As I was saying..

"Intuition may lead people toward a belief in the divine and help explain why some people have more faith in God than others, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.       
In a series of studies, researchers at Harvard University found that people with a more intuitive thinking style tend to have stronger beliefs in God than those with a more reflective style. Intuitive thinking means going with one&#8217;s first instinct and reaching decisions quickly based on automatic cognitive processes. Reflective thinking involves the questioning of first instinct and consideration of other possibilities, thus allowing for counterintuitive decisions."

"The test had three math problems with incorrect answers that seemed intuitive. For example, one question stated: &#8220;A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?&#8221; The automatic or intuitive answer is 10 cents, but the correct answer is 5 cents. Participants who had more incorrect answers showed a greater reliance on intuition than reflection in their thinking style.

"Participants who gave intuitive answers to all three problems were 1 ½ times as likely to report they were convinced of God&#8217;s existence as those who answered all of the questions correctly. That pattern was found regardless of other demographic factors, such as the participants&#8217; political beliefs, education or income. &#8220;*How people think -- or fail to think -- about the prices of bats and balls is reflected in their thinking, and ultimately their convictions, about the metaphysical order of the universe*,&#8221; the journal article stated."


In other words, those who relied on an intuitive style, got the problem wrong, because they didn't want to think it through. Sounds familiar, and this is EXACTLY what YWC and UR are doing when looking at the universe. Jumping to the first conclusion that seems intuitive, without questioning it, or probing deeper.

"In another study, with 373 participants, the researchers found they could temporarily influence levels of faith by instructing participants to write a paragraph describing a personal experience where either intuitive or reflective thinking led to a good result. One group was told to describe a time in their lives when intuition or first instinct led to a good outcome, while a second group was instructed to write about an experience where a good outcome resulted from reflecting and carefully reasoning through a problem. When they were surveyed about their beliefs after the writing exercise, participants who wrote about a successful intuitive experience were more likely to report they were convinced of God&#8217;s existence than those who wrote about a successful reflective experience.

"These studies suggest a causal link between intuitive thinking and a belief in God, but the researchers acknowledged the opposite may also be true, that a belief in God may lead to intuitive thinking. Future research will help explore how cognitive styles are influenced by genes and environmental factors, such as upbringing and education, Rand said."

....


In other words, intuition is demonstrably faulty. Yet, this is the basis for your conclusions, YWC and UR. The rest of your process is trying to justify this initial intuitive process. Perhaps try a little reflective thinking for a change.


----------



## newpolitics

part 1
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o5h0DdcyTA&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_295083]"Reasons for accepting atheism" - The Atheist Experience #668 - YouTube[/ame]


Watch and weep you evil creationists.


                                                                                                                                   part 2


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your designer is naturalism.
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it
> 
> We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.
Click to expand...


I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it
> 
> We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.
Click to expand...


This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. Our ability or inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're damn right, you piece of shit. I'm anti-fur over caring about unborn fetus' that don't even know they are alive. Animals skinned for fur, sometimes have their fur ripped off of them, while they are fully conscious. Yet, somehow, just because a fetus is human, we should care more? No, thanks. This is where religious morals are skewed and completely fucking retarded. Try watching the truth, instead of being ignorant and a dick...
> 
> Animals are Skinned Alive on Chinese Fur Farms - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God like atheistic China?? Horrible atrocities are a sure thing with the brutality that accompanies the loss of compassion which comes from God. Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee whiz. It's a Jim Jones / David Koresh wannabe.
> 
> We should explain to the cult member that Nazi'ism was deeply rooted in christianity but that might push him over the edge.
Click to expand...


No one is falling for your revisionist propaganda regarding the Nazi's, Nazi. This comes from your ignorant view that just because someone is labeled Christian by their families church affiliation, that makes them a Christian. It does not. To be a Christian you must follow the teachings of Christ.

Mark 12(NIV):

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, &#8220;Of all the commandments, which is the most important?&#8221;

29 &#8220;The most important one,&#8221; answered Jesus, &#8220;is this: &#8216;Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.&#8217;* 31 The second is this: &#8216;Love your neighbor as yourself.&#8217;[c] There is no commandment greater than these.&#8221;

32 &#8220;Well said, teacher,&#8221; the man replied. &#8220;You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.


Of course you are self-loathing enough to want to destroy your own life so I can see you escorting Christians into the gas chamber.*


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?



to us. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. This Being predates the Big Bang so how do you think you would be able to see him??


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your designer is naturalism.
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it
> 
> We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.
Click to expand...



You just put your foot in  your mouth. You did not provide any evidence for you claims about there being a designer. I realize that what you see if evidence of your own claims, but this is not evidence to anyone else. It is mere interpretation by your part, and confirmation bias. For the last time, scientists don't claim to know how life came about. So, i'm not sure what you are babbling about. On the other hand, YOU DO CLAIM to know how life came about, even though we are all ignorant to how it happened. Hence, a fucking ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. 

Stop trying to fend off this accusation with your silly appeals to ridicule. Your position is ripe with logical fallacy because you HAVE NO EVIDENCE. Therefore, it is your only option to employ logical fallacy after logical fallacy to try and convince yourself that your position is objectively valid when it isn't. What's laughable is how you haven't met your burden of proof with respect to any scientific claims about there being a designer.  This is the arrogance of your side.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to us. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. This Being predates the Big Bang so how do you think you would be able to see him??
Click to expand...



In other words, by definition, he doesn't exist. Nothing predates the big bang. Time was created at its inception. Therefore, there was no time before it. How does something exist without time, space, matter, or energy? Care to explain? Do you know ANYTHING about the being you are proposing somehow "exists"?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hilarious that you think our lack of compassion for animals is caused by our "distance from god" when the holy shitbook says this:
> 
> "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Gen. 1:26
> 
> If anything, it is because of religious adherence that people exhibit speciesist mentalities. Atheism frees one from this doctrine, and allows you to see that animal pain is the same as human pain. They possess a central nervous system, just as we do. The ability to add 2+2 has nothing to do with pain detection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!! Except for some primates, most animals are not self aware and do not experience the psychological aspect of pain like humans do. They don't have the "I feel" experience. So how did you translate "rule over" in the Bible as being on par with skinning a live animal? God says even a sparrow doesn't fall but that he is there to care. But the Bible also teaches animals are for food as well. And it definitely teaches human life is sacred, and that includes unborn humans.
> 
> Psalm 139 (NIV)
> 
> 13 For you created my inmost being;
> *you knit me together in my mother&#8217;s womb.*
> 14 I praise you because *I am fearfully and wonderfully made;*
> your works are wonderful,
> I know that full well.
> 15 My frame was not hidden from you
> when I was made in the secret place,
> when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
> 16 *Your eyes saw my unformed body;*
> all the days ordained for me were written in your book
> before one of them came to be.
> 17 How precious to me are your thoughts,[a] God!
> How vast is the sum of them!
> 18 Were I to count them,
> they would outnumber the grains of sand&#8212;
> when I awake, I am still with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just demonstrated my point for me,entirely. You are unable to take into account, the pain of animals, because of some bullshit excuse you give yourself about self-awareness, and the justification you receive from the bible. Here's the bullshit: First of all, you can't positively know the phenomenological experience of animals, despite self-awareness tests we may have done. Most farm animals are very social creatures, with rights to life just as much as the dogs or cats we bring into our home (in the Western World- I realize China eats dogs). Pigs are smarter than dogs, yet we love dogs and subject pigs to institutional torture and death? Cows are also very social animals too, that want to live.
> 
> Really though, intelligence has nothing to do with pain detection. It is an entirely different system in the brain. You are using Descartes argument or William Lane Craig's argument, where he says the animal isn't able to feel pain because it isn't self-aware. This is impossible to establish as a fact, because despite any tests we do, we will never know their subjective experience of the world and of themselves. The only thing that is important, is whether they can feel pain. This is demonstrably, yes. Also, animals have interests of their own, and we completely ignore them for our own. This is selfish, and narcissistic, and what's worse are the bullshit justifications such the ones you just provided.
> 
> Unborn babies certainly are not self-aware, so any argument that supports your justification for eating animals could also be applied to babies before they are around 2 years old, when they become self-aware. Your position is based on speciesism, plain and simple. It is special pleading that babies be taken into our moral account, even though most farm animals are smarter than babies and more self-aware. Obviously, I am not advocating we start eating babies, but any argument you try to provide that shows preference for the interests of human babies over adult animals is special pleading. You have no justification to do so, other than the "might makes right" fallacy (appeal to Ad Baculum: appeal to force).
Click to expand...


Leave it to you to Strawman this. I did not say animals did not feel pain or discomfort. I said they don't experience it the same way someone who is self aware does. 

Maybe you should outlaw lions on the African plain. Those sickos kill and start to eat other animals while they are still alive!!! And your designer made it this way!!!

Also, I am not arguing unborn babies should be protected because they are self aware. I am arguing they should be protected because they are humans!!!


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God like atheistic China?? Horrible atrocities are a sure thing with the brutality that accompanies the loss of compassion which comes from God. Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. It's a Jim Jones / David Koresh wannabe.
> 
> We should explain to the cult member that Nazi'ism was deeply rooted in christianity but that might push him over the edge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is falling for your revisionist propaganda regarding the Nazi's, Nazi. This comes from your ignorant view that just because someone is labeled Christian by their families church affiliation, that makes them a Christian. It does not. To be a Christian you must follow the teachings of Christ.
> 
> Mark 12(NIV):
> 
> 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, Of all the commandments, which is the most important?
> 
> 29 The most important one, answered Jesus, is this: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.* 31 The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself.[c] There is no commandment greater than these.
> 
> 32 Well said, teacher, the man replied. You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.
> 
> 
> Of course you are self-loathing enough to want to destroy your own life so I can see you escorting Christians into the gas chamber.*
Click to expand...

*

No True Scotsman fallacy.  You are not one to determine who is a "true" christian or not, because you do not exemplify a standard, because the standards change from interpretation to interpretation, and you can not possibly claim to have the right interpretation. The bible contradicts itself constantly, so a "correct" interpretation is logically impossible, on matters as basic as salvation.*


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Police officer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not smart enough to be an investigator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a little rude.
Click to expand...


Ha!! Now this is funny!! Ima mistakenly thought your new buddy was a Creationist. Since he isn't, you quickly came to his defense.

No, you're not bias!!!!


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!! Except for some primates, most animals are not self aware and do not experience the psychological aspect of pain like humans do. They don't have the "I feel" experience. So how did you translate "rule over" in the Bible as being on par with skinning a live animal? God says even a sparrow doesn't fall but that he is there to care. But the Bible also teaches animals are for food as well. And it definitely teaches human life is sacred, and that includes unborn humans.
> 
> Psalm 139 (NIV)
> 
> 13 For you created my inmost being;
> *you knit me together in my mothers womb.*
> 14 I praise you because *I am fearfully and wonderfully made;*
> your works are wonderful,
> I know that full well.
> 15 My frame was not hidden from you
> when I was made in the secret place,
> when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
> 16 *Your eyes saw my unformed body;*
> all the days ordained for me were written in your book
> before one of them came to be.
> 17 How precious to me are your thoughts,[a] God!
> How vast is the sum of them!
> 18 Were I to count them,
> they would outnumber the grains of sand
> when I awake, I am still with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just demonstrated my point for me,entirely. You are unable to take into account, the pain of animals, because of some bullshit excuse you give yourself about self-awareness, and the justification you receive from the bible. Here's the bullshit: First of all, you can't positively know the phenomenological experience of animals, despite self-awareness tests we may have done. Most farm animals are very social creatures, with rights to life just as much as the dogs or cats we bring into our home (in the Western World- I realize China eats dogs). Pigs are smarter than dogs, yet we love dogs and subject pigs to institutional torture and death? Cows are also very social animals too, that want to live.
> 
> Really though, intelligence has nothing to do with pain detection. It is an entirely different system in the brain. You are using Descartes argument or William Lane Craig's argument, where he says the animal isn't able to feel pain because it isn't self-aware. This is impossible to establish as a fact, because despite any tests we do, we will never know their subjective experience of the world and of themselves. The only thing that is important, is whether they can feel pain. This is demonstrably, yes. Also, animals have interests of their own, and we completely ignore them for our own. This is selfish, and narcissistic, and what's worse are the bullshit justifications such the ones you just provided.
> 
> Unborn babies certainly are not self-aware, so any argument that supports your justification for eating animals could also be applied to babies before they are around 2 years old, when they become self-aware. Your position is based on speciesism, plain and simple. It is special pleading that babies be taken into our moral account, even though most farm animals are smarter than babies and more self-aware. Obviously, I am not advocating we start eating babies, but any argument you try to provide that shows preference for the interests of human babies over adult animals is special pleading. You have no justification to do so, other than the "might makes right" fallacy (appeal to Ad Baculum: appeal to force).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to you to Strawman this. I did not say animals did not feel pain or discomfort. I said they don't experience it the same way someone who is self aware does.
> 
> Maybe you should outlaw lions on the African plain. Those sickos kill and start to eat other animals while they are still alive!!! And your designer made it this way!!!
Click to expand...


Leave it to you to falsely accuse me of a strawman. I never said that you said that animals don't feel pain. What you said is that, because they are not as self-aware (according to you), they don't possess awareness enough to know they are feeling pain. In other words, they effectively, aren't able to feel pain. There is no distinction, because it would lead to the same conclusion: to disregard their pain. So, where did I straw man you? Don't back away from your own untenable position. Just own up to the fact that it is bullshit.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smart enough to be an investigator?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a little rude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha!! Now this is funny!! Ima mistakenly thought your new buddy was a Creationist. Since he isn't, you quickly came to his defense.
> 
> No, you're not bias!!!!
Click to expand...


You are hilariously predictable. I never claimed to  be non-bias. You seem to have some mis-placed expectation that I should, when you clearly are not. Hmmm... special pleading?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. It's a Jim Jones / David Koresh wannabe.
> 
> We should explain to the cult member that Nazi'ism was deeply rooted in christianity but that might push him over the edge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is falling for your revisionist propaganda regarding the Nazi's, Nazi. This comes from your ignorant view that just because someone is labeled Christian by their families church affiliation, that makes them a Christian. It does not. To be a Christian you must follow the teachings of Christ.
> 
> Mark 12(NIV):
> 
> 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, Of all the commandments, which is the most important?
> 
> 29 The most important one, answered Jesus, is this: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.* 31 The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself.[c] There is no commandment greater than these.
> 
> 32 Well said, teacher, the man replied. You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.
> 
> 
> Of course you are self-loathing enough to want to destroy your own life so I can see you escorting Christians into the gas chamber.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> No True Scotsman fallacy.  You are not one to determine who is a "true" christian or not, because you do not exemplify a standard, because the standards change from interpretation to interpretation, and you can not possibly claim to have the right interpretation. The bible contradicts itself constantly, so a "correct" interpretation is logically impossible, on matters as basic as salvation.*
Click to expand...

*

Wrong! The Bible says if someone loves Christ, they will keep his commands.

John 14:15(NIV)

15 If you love me, keep my commands. [Christ Speaking]*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God like atheistic China?? Horrible atrocities are a sure thing with the brutality that accompanies the loss of compassion which comes from God. Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. It's a Jim Jones / David Koresh wannabe.
> 
> We should explain to the cult member that Nazi'ism was deeply rooted in christianity but that might push him over the edge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is falling for your revisionist propaganda regarding the Nazi's, Nazi. This comes from your ignorant view that just because someone is labeled Christian by their families church affiliation, that makes them a Christian. It does not. To be a Christian you must follow the teachings of Christ.
> 
> Mark 12(NIV):
> 
> 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, Of all the commandments, which is the most important?
> 
> 29 The most important one, answered Jesus, is this: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.* 31 The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself.[c] There is no commandment greater than these.
> 
> 32 Well said, teacher, the man replied. You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.
> 
> 
> Of course you are self-loathing enough to want to destroy your own life so I can see you escorting Christians into the gas chamber.*
Click to expand...

*

The revisionist is you. It's just dishonest at its core to try and separate christianity from Nazi ideology. Additionally, it seems to be a common tactic of Christians, particularly, to make personal decisions as to who is a "real Christian" and who isn't. It really is a way for some to excuse the actions of those who have used their religious belief as a means of justifying whatever atrocity they chose to commit. 

That Christian fundamentalists choose to use their religion as a means to maintain themselves chained to fear and ignorance is pitiable but those flaws cannot be allowed to be inflicted on others.*


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a little rude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha!! Now this is funny!! Ima mistakenly thought your new buddy was a Creationist. Since he isn't, you quickly came to his defense.
> 
> No, you're not bias!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are hilariously predictable. I never claimed to  be non-bias.
Click to expand...


Really?? So now you admit it. And your bias extends to all your opinions on so called science as well then.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. It's a Jim Jones / David Koresh wannabe.
> 
> We should explain to the cult member that Nazi'ism was deeply rooted in christianity but that might push him over the edge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is falling for your revisionist propaganda regarding the Nazi's, Nazi. This comes from your ignorant view that just because someone is labeled Christian by their families church affiliation, that makes them a Christian. It does not. To be a Christian you must follow the teachings of Christ.
> 
> Mark 12(NIV):
> 
> 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, Of all the commandments, which is the most important?
> 
> 29 The most important one, answered Jesus, is this: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.* 31 The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself.[c] There is no commandment greater than these.
> 
> 32 Well said, teacher, the man replied. You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.
> 
> 
> Of course you are self-loathing enough to want to destroy your own life so I can see you escorting Christians into the gas chamber.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> The revisionist is you. It's just dishonest at its core to try and separate christianity from Nazi ideology. Additionally, it seems to be a common tactic of Christians, particularly, to make personal decisions as to who is a "real Christian" and who isn't. It really is a way for some to excuse the actions of those who have used their religious belief as a means of justifying whatever atrocity they chose to commit.
> 
> That Christian fundamentalists choose to use their religion as a means to maintain themselves chained to fear and ignorance is pitiable but those flaws cannot be allowed to be inflicted on others.*
Click to expand...

*

In your twisted worldview and bigoted hate campaign, it is no surprise that you fantasize that your favorite evil atheist regime was made up of Christians.*


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to us. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. This Being predates the Big Bang so how do you think you would be able to see him??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, by definition, he doesn't exist. Nothing predates the big bang.
Click to expand...

Then what caused the Big Bang Einstein?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is falling for your revisionist propaganda regarding the Nazi's, Nazi. This comes from your ignorant view that just because someone is labeled Christian by their families church affiliation, that makes them a Christian. It does not. To be a Christian you must follow the teachings of Christ.
> 
> Mark 12(NIV):
> 
> 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, Of all the commandments, which is the most important?
> 
> 29 The most important one, answered Jesus, is this: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.* 31 The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself.[c] There is no commandment greater than these.
> 
> 32 Well said, teacher, the man replied. You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.
> 
> 
> Of course you are self-loathing enough to want to destroy your own life so I can see you escorting Christians into the gas chamber.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> No True Scotsman fallacy.  You are not one to determine who is a "true" christian or not, because you do not exemplify a standard, because the standards change from interpretation to interpretation, and you can not possibly claim to have the right interpretation. The bible contradicts itself constantly, so a "correct" interpretation is logically impossible, on matters as basic as salvation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Wrong! The Bible says if someone loves Christ, they will keep his commands.
> 
> John 14:15(NIV)
> 
> 15 If you love me, keep my commands. [Christ Speaking]*
Click to expand...

*
Nonsense. Christianity has splintered into so many sects and subdivisions, there are too many to count. That is because the "message" is convoluted and subject to widely varying interpretation.*


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it
> 
> We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. Our ability or inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those c*ells were created in the first place*.
Click to expand...


Was that a Freudian slip???  

No, you never use teleological terms. No never.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it
> 
> We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just put your foot in  your mouth. You did not provide any evidence for you claims about there being a designer. I realize that what you see if evidence of your own claims, but this is not evidence to anyone else. It is mere interpretation by your part, and confirmation bias. For the last time, scientists don't claim to know how life came about. So, i'm not sure what you are babbling about. On the other hand, YOU DO CLAIM to know how life came about, even though we are all ignorant to how it happened. Hence, a fucking ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.
> 
> Stop trying to fend off this accusation with your silly appeals to ridicule. Your position is ripe with logical fallacy because you HAVE NO EVIDENCE. Therefore, it is your only option to employ logical fallacy after logical fallacy to try and convince yourself that your position is objectively valid when it isn't. What's laughable is how you haven't met your burden of proof with respect to any scientific claims about there being a designer.  This is the arrogance of your side.
Click to expand...


You still don't get it. ID Theory seeks to prove the scientific theory that intelligence is responsible for the origin of life. It is a RELIGIOUS belief that the identity of this intelligence is God.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to us. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. This Being predates the Big Bang so how do you think you would be able to see him??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, by definition, he doesn't exist. Nothing predates the big bang. Time was created at its inception. Therefore, there was no time before it. How does something exist without time, space, matter, or energy? Care to explain? Do you know ANYTHING about the being you are proposing somehow "exists"?
Click to expand...


Yes, God says in the Bible that he is Spirit. He is not constrained by Matter, Time or Space. When the Bible was written, the Big Bang Theory had not been proposed, nor the new belief that even time began at the Big Bang.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just demonstrated my point for me,entirely. You are unable to take into account, the pain of animals, because of some bullshit excuse you give yourself about self-awareness, and the justification you receive from the bible. Here's the bullshit: First of all, you can't positively know the phenomenological experience of animals, despite self-awareness tests we may have done. Most farm animals are very social creatures, with rights to life just as much as the dogs or cats we bring into our home (in the Western World- I realize China eats dogs). Pigs are smarter than dogs, yet we love dogs and subject pigs to institutional torture and death? Cows are also very social animals too, that want to live.
> 
> Really though, intelligence has nothing to do with pain detection. It is an entirely different system in the brain. You are using Descartes argument or William Lane Craig's argument, where he says the animal isn't able to feel pain because it isn't self-aware. This is impossible to establish as a fact, because despite any tests we do, we will never know their subjective experience of the world and of themselves. The only thing that is important, is whether they can feel pain. This is demonstrably, yes. Also, animals have interests of their own, and we completely ignore them for our own. This is selfish, and narcissistic, and what's worse are the bullshit justifications such the ones you just provided.
> 
> Unborn babies certainly are not self-aware, so any argument that supports your justification for eating animals could also be applied to babies before they are around 2 years old, when they become self-aware. Your position is based on speciesism, plain and simple. It is special pleading that babies be taken into our moral account, even though most farm animals are smarter than babies and more self-aware. Obviously, I am not advocating we start eating babies, but any argument you try to provide that shows preference for the interests of human babies over adult animals is special pleading. You have no justification to do so, other than the "might makes right" fallacy (appeal to Ad Baculum: appeal to force).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to you to Strawman this. I did not say animals did not feel pain or discomfort. I said they don't experience it the same way someone who is self aware does.
> 
> Maybe you should outlaw lions on the African plain. Those sickos kill and start to eat other animals while they are still alive!!! And your designer made it this way!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to you to falsely accuse me of a strawman. I never said that you said that animals don't feel pain. What you said is that, because they are not as self-aware (according to you), they don't possess awareness enough to know they are feeling pain. In other words, they effectively, aren't able to feel pain. There is no distinction, because it would lead to the same conclusion: to disregard their pain. So, where did I straw man you? Don't back away from your own untenable position. Just own up to the fact that it is bullshit.
Click to expand...


Wrong again smarty pants!!! I said there is no component of I in their pain experience.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to us. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. This Being predates the Big Bang so how do you think you would be able to see him??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, by definition, he doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


Your logic is all twisted up. No, not by definition!! Where do you come up with this crap? Because you can't see it, taste it, smell it, hear it, touch it, it isn't real? Yet, your atheist brethren in their zeal to disprove the fine tuning argument for God have come up with the Multiple Universe theory. No one seems to be bugged that the other universes exist outside our universe. You're pathetic and not even worth arguing with.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> to us. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. This Being predates the Big Bang so how do you think you would be able to see him??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, by definition, he doesn't exist. Nothing predates the big bang. Time was created at its inception. Therefore, there was no time before it. How does something exist without time, space, matter, or energy? Care to explain? Do you know ANYTHING about the being you are proposing somehow "exists"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, God says in the Bible that he is Spirit. He is not constrained by Matter, Time or Space. When the Bible was written, the Big Bang Theory had not been proposed, nor the new belief that even time began at the Big Bang.
Click to expand...

Your gawds "say" nothing in the various bibles. The bibles, as we know, were written by men. 

You're having real difficulty in a reality based world.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha!! Now this is funny!! Ima mistakenly thought your new buddy was a Creationist. Since he isn't, you quickly came to his defense.
> 
> No, you're not bias!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are hilariously predictable. I never claimed to  be non-bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?? So now you admit it. And your bias extends to all your opinions on so called science as well then.
Click to expand...


Are you claiming to be non-bias? Is anyone non-bias??? That is some serious arrogance right there.

What is this double-standard you are putting up, you asshole? For some reason, I am expected to be totally objective, yet you are not held to the same standard? This is SPECIAL PLEADING. You are claiming I am an exemption from known human cognitive biases which we can not consciously control, but you, nor anyone else is. There is something wrong with you. 

Can you claim to be non-bias? I hope not, because you are failing miserably.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> to us. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. This Being predates the Big Bang so how do you think you would be able to see him??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, by definition, he doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your logic is all twisted up. No, not by definition!! Where do you come up with this crap? Because you can't see it, taste it, smell it, hear it, touch it, it isn't real? Yet, your atheist brethren in their zeal to disprove the fine tuning argument for God have come up with the Multiple Universe theory. No one seems to be bugged that the other universes exist outside our universe. You're pathetic and not even worth arguing with.
Click to expand...

 
Nice appeal to hypocrisy, or the Tu Quoque Fallacy. The multiverse theory has nothing to do with this claim, so lets stick with the topic at hand. I never said it was because you can't see it, taste it... etc. I used logic, and said there was no space, no time, no energy, no matter... by all accounts, existence is defined as something which exists in space and time. How does something exists outside of space and time? Can you answer this question without an appeal to hypocrisy? No, you can not. You must resort to dodging the question.

Btw, it is well conceded that no verifiable evidence exists for the multiverse. It is mathematical, at this point. Yet, so were all of the predictions in the theory of relativity, including back holes, and they turned out to exist in the universe, after being predicted purely by mathematics.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you could be honest with yourself, you would forgive those who have wronged you in life, including the man that abused you and is responsible for your unwanted same sex attraction, which is the real reason for your hatred of God and your atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> no false assuptions or accusations there ..nope not one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's assumptions and you're wrong.
Click to expand...

it's a typo. the rest is correct  and true.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't know engineers design daws
> 
> 
> 
> ah yes I do.....your attempt at finding fault fails, as always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
Click to expand...

asked and answered
which is it a designer or an engineer?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge !!
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not the one saying there is a designer. You are. So, why are you asking him to provide evidence for your premise?? This makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your designer is naturalism.
> 
> I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.
> 
> Let's talk about your designer.
> 
> Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?
Click to expand...

Definition of NATURALISM
1: action, inclination, or thought based only on natural desires and instincts 
2: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena 
3: realism in art or literature; specifically : a theory or practice in literature emphasizing scientific observation of life without idealization and often including elements of determinism 

as always you're  wrong as posted above there is no "who" in naturalism.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking to Daws, its comb-over, not coma.
> 
> 
> 
> another false assuption..
> baldness does not run in my family.
> unlike yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about the haircut YWC just gave you.
Click to expand...

dodge! no you weren't 
two delusions in one post!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, YWC is not like that big sore on your lip you got from Hawly. Even if you ignore him he is not going away.
> 
> 
> 
> not another gay slur...wow you seem to an expert at what causes mouth sores .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Daws apparently you are convinced that Hawly is packing?
Click to expand...

another false assuption. i can see why you never made detective... it's either extreme  paranoia as exhibited in the prior post or sucking cock in the locker room.
there is no other logical reason why Ur would be so knowledgeable about mouth sores or so perversely interested in homosexuality.      






9


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God?? Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hilarious that you think our lack of compassion for animals is caused by our "distance from god" when the holy shitbook says this:
> 
> "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Gen. 1:26
> 
> If anything, it is because of religious adherence that people exhibit speciesist mentalities. Atheism frees one from this doctrine, and allows you to see that animal pain is the same as human pain. They possess a central nervous system, just as we do. The ability to add 2+2 has nothing to do with pain detection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong!! Except for some primates, most animals are not self aware and do not experience the psychological aspect of pain like humans do. They don't have the "I feel" experience. So how did you translate "rule over" in the Bible as being on par with skinning a live animal? God says even a sparrow doesn't fall but that he is there to care. But the Bible also teaches animals are for food as well. And it definitely teaches human life is sacred, and that includes unborn humans.
> 
> Psalm 139 (NIV)
> 
> 13 For you created my inmost being;
> *you knit me together in my mothers womb.*
> 14 I praise you because *I am fearfully and wonderfully made;*
> your works are wonderful,
> I know that full well.
> 15 My frame was not hidden from you
> when I was made in the secret place,
> when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
> 16 *Your eyes saw my unformed body;*
> all the days ordained for me were written in your book
> before one of them came to be.
> 17 How precious to me are your thoughts,[a] God!
> How vast is the sum of them!
> 18 Were I to count them,
> they would outnumber the grains of sand
> when I awake, I am still with you.
Click to expand...

another non answer completely ambiguous 
evidence of nothing .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God like atheistic China?? Horrible atrocities are a sure thing with the brutality that accompanies the loss of compassion which comes from God. Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. It's a Jim Jones / David Koresh wannabe.
> 
> We should explain to the cult member that Nazi'ism was deeply rooted in christianity but that might push him over the edge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether they were or not Jesus warned many that would profess to be a Christian but they are actually ravenous wolves looking to devour.
> 
> He also will claim to him they did works in his name and he said to them get away from for I know you not.
> 
> So what was your point ?
Click to expand...

what's yours?


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to us. *He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. This Being predates the Big Bang *so how do you think you would be able to see him??
Click to expand...


How can you say that with zero proof? It's more like a wish, isn't it?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it
> 
> We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found it interesting that you selectively excuse your alleged gawds from meeting any standard of proof that you insist science must meet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do we need to prove God exists if we can prove design ? someone gets credit for design. You can't hide behind the copout, well because we don't know now does not mean we will not know in the future.
Click to expand...

since you proven neither.....and there is no evidence for a someone...yours is the copout.
you've been hedging your bet on the all will be reveled nonsense for the last 2000 years.
you'll be be spouting the same nonsense till the religion dies ,with no proof of your claims...
BTW when I use the word "you" I mean  all Christianity not just you.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what ? to see more evidence that is only conjecture. It's not evolution,they are adaptations. Once again there are limits to adaptation. If any organism goes beyond the limits of adaptation what happens ?
> 
> Do you know what evidence is ?
> 
> 
> 
> I fully expected that you would reel into defensive posturing at yet another of your specious claims being refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then present what you find on google and I will explain it to you
Click to expand...

explain what?judging  from your answer it appearers  you have no idea what hollie said.
another failed attempt at faking it..


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God like atheistic China?? Horrible atrocities are a sure thing with the brutality that accompanies the loss of compassion which comes from God. Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. It's a Jim Jones / David Koresh wannabe.
> 
> We should explain to the cult member that Nazi'ism was deeply rooted in christianity but that might push him over the edge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is falling for your revisionist propaganda regarding the Nazi's, Nazi. This comes from your ignorant view that just because someone is labeled Christian by their families church affiliation, that makes them a Christian. It does not. To be a Christian you must follow the teachings of Christ.
> 
> edited for irrelevance....
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to us. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. This Being predates the Big Bang so how do you think you would be able to see him??
Click to expand...


major masturbation fantasy...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!! Except for some primates, most animals are not self aware and do not experience the psychological aspect of pain like humans do. They don't have the "I feel" experience. So how did you translate "rule over" in the Bible as being on par with skinning a live animal? God says even a sparrow doesn't fall but that he is there to care. But the Bible also teaches animals are for food as well. And it definitely teaches human life is sacred, and that includes unborn humans.
> 
> Psalm 139 (NIV)
> 
> 13 For you created my inmost being;
> *you knit me together in my mothers womb.*
> 14 I praise you because *I am fearfully and wonderfully made;*
> your works are wonderful,
> I know that full well.
> 15 My frame was not hidden from you
> when I was made in the secret place,
> when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
> 16 *Your eyes saw my unformed body;*
> all the days ordained for me were written in your book
> before one of them came to be.
> 17 How precious to me are your thoughts,[a] God!
> How vast is the sum of them!
> 18 Were I to count them,
> they would outnumber the grains of sand
> when I awake, I am still with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just demonstrated my point for me,entirely. You are unable to take into account, the pain of animals, because of some bullshit excuse you give yourself about self-awareness, and the justification you receive from the bible. Here's the bullshit: First of all, you can't positively know the phenomenological experience of animals, despite self-awareness tests we may have done. Most farm animals are very social creatures, with rights to life just as much as the dogs or cats we bring into our home (in the Western World- I realize China eats dogs). Pigs are smarter than dogs, yet we love dogs and subject pigs to institutional torture and death? Cows are also very social animals too, that want to live.
> 
> Really though, intelligence has nothing to do with pain detection. It is an entirely different system in the brain. You are using Descartes argument or William Lane Craig's argument, where he says the animal isn't able to feel pain because it isn't self-aware. This is impossible to establish as a fact, because despite any tests we do, we will never know their subjective experience of the world and of themselves. The only thing that is important, is whether they can feel pain. This is demonstrably, yes. Also, animals have interests of their own, and we completely ignore them for our own. This is selfish, and narcissistic, and what's worse are the bullshit justifications such the ones you just provided.
> 
> Unborn babies certainly are not self-aware, so any argument that supports your justification for eating animals could also be applied to babies before they are around 2 years old, when they become self-aware. Your position is based on speciesism, plain and simple. It is special pleading that babies be taken into our moral account, even though most farm animals are smarter than babies and more self-aware. Obviously, I am not advocating we start eating babies, but any argument you try to provide that shows preference for the interests of human babies over adult animals is special pleading. You have no justification to do so, other than the "might makes right" fallacy (appeal to Ad Baculum: appeal to force).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to you to Strawman this. I did not say animals did not feel pain or discomfort. I said they don't experience it the same way someone who is self aware does.
> 
> Maybe you should outlaw lions on the African plain. Those sickos kill and start to eat other animals while they are still alive!!! And your designer made it this way!!!
> 
> Also, I am not arguing unborn babies should be protected because they are self aware. I am arguing they should be protected because they are humans!!!
Click to expand...

there is no proof that human babies are any more or less sentient then other mammals .

Dr James Kirkwood, chief executive and scientific director of the Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare (Ufaw), gives qualified approval to CIWF's approach. 

He told BBC News Online: "Animal sentience has been a matter of debate down the centuries. 

"We can't prove absolutely even that another human being is sentient, though it would obviously be unreasonable to assume they are not. 

"But the weight of scientific opinion is that it's certainly right to give the benefit of the doubt to all vertebrates." 

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animals 'are moral beings'



tosspot


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smart enough to be an investigator?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a little rude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha!! Now this is funny!! Ima mistakenly thought your new buddy was a Creationist. Since he isn't, you quickly came to his defense.
> 
> No, you're not bias!!!!
Click to expand...

the queen of bias speaks!!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha!! Now this is funny!! Ima mistakenly thought your new buddy was a Creationist. Since he isn't, you quickly came to his defense.
> 
> No, you're not bias!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are hilariously predictable. I never claimed to  be non-bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?? So now you admit it. And your bias extends to all your opinions on so called science as well then.
Click to expand...

false assumption based on bias and hubris.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is falling for your revisionist propaganda regarding the Nazi's, Nazi. This comes from your ignorant view that just because someone is labeled Christian by their families church affiliation, that makes them a Christian. It does not. To be a Christian you must follow the teachings of Christ.
> 
> Mark 12(NIV):
> 
> 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, Of all the commandments, which is the most important?
> 
> 29 The most important one, answered Jesus, is this: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.* 31 The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself.[c] There is no commandment greater than these.
> 
> 32 Well said, teacher, the man replied. You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.
> 
> 
> Of course you are self-loathing enough to want to destroy your own life so I can see you escorting Christians into the gas chamber.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The revisionist is you. It's just dishonest at its core to try and separate christianity from Nazi ideology. Additionally, it seems to be a common tactic of Christians, particularly, to make personal decisions as to who is a "real Christian" and who isn't. It really is a way for some to excuse the actions of those who have used their religious belief as a means of justifying whatever atrocity they chose to commit.
> 
> That Christian fundamentalists choose to use their religion as a means to maintain themselves chained to fear and ignorance is pitiable but those flaws cannot be allowed to be inflicted on others.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> In your twisted worldview and bigoted hate campaign, it is no surprise that you fantasize that your favorite evil atheist regime was made up of Christians.*
Click to expand...

* another bigoted false assumption, Christianity was doing genocide a thousand years before before the Nazis*


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> to us. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. This Being predates the Big Bang so how do you think you would be able to see him??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, by definition, he doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your logic is all twisted up. No, not by definition!! Where do you come up with this crap? Because you can't see it, taste it, smell it, hear it, touch it, it isn't real? Yet, your atheist brethren in their zeal to disprove the fine tuning argument for God have come up with the Multiple Universe theory. No one seems to be bugged that the other universes exist outside our universe. You're pathetic and not even worth arguing with.
Click to expand...

smells like a tantrum to me!
"Because you can't see it, taste it, smell it, hear it, touch it, it isn't real?"-ur     that's the truest thing you ever said....talk about Freudian slips 
in short, god   cannot be experienced  in natural ways or it seems or by technological methods  highly fucked up logic since in your belief system god gave us 5 senses and the ability to build machines that could sense what we could not.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same can be said for your designer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature and rationality neither presume nor require supernaturalism or magic in contrast to the Christian creationist worldview replete with gawds, demons and tactics formulated to instill fear and ignorance.
Click to expand...


Just empty words hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same can be said for your designer
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


It's a miracle life exists and your designer is naturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same can be said for your designer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A truly futile attempt to project the empty and unsupported conclusions you make about there being a designer onto those on the other side of the debate. Naturalism is not our designer, because it has no ontology, which precludes this very possibility of it being a "designer". Naturalism is an idea that potentially describes the universe. Stop projecting your silliness onto the other side because it makes you feel better to shrug off the burden of your own irrationality.
Click to expand...


So you believe in miracles to.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it
> 
> We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. Our ability or inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place.
Click to expand...


Do you notice a trend ?you keep coming up with excuses why you believe as you do.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same can be said for your designer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nature and rationality neither presume nor require supernaturalism or magic in contrast to the Christian creationist worldview replete with gawds, demons and tactics formulated to instill fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just empty words hollie.
Click to expand...


A toothless rebuttal. 

Why not examine the basic premise of your religion. It was put into place systems as a belief structures to either explain things that occur naturally but are not understood and designed to scare you into believing the way you do (e.g. the threat of eternal damnation and burning in hellfire for not believing) and the promise of rewards after you die if you do believe. You must acknowledge that other religions are wrong and so by doing a little simple arithmetic, everyone is more likely to be born into a religion that is false. And let's face it, religionists are almost exclusively of a particular religious belief for no other reason than that is the majority religion or their religion is the one they were born into. There's rarely any real thought put into it. It's a given that cultural biases, family associations and the truly oppressive scare tactics used by many of the larger religions is the one draw they have to keep their adherents.

Faith, (the science-hating, literalist view embracing, "gawds did it" screaming), kind of faith is, at least to me, nothing more or less than an excuse to assert belief in something without having to go through the tiresome effort of supporting what you claim to believe. There's absolutely no need for faith. It doesn't offer you any knowledge -- we already have a word for what offers you knowledge, and that's reason. Faith doesn't "explain" anything -- it doesn't describe any details about anything that gives you more information before you employed faith than you did after you employed it, and in fact, faith by definition stops you from pursuing evidence of reality since you have already concluded to believe in something without there being any standards of support necessary.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it
> 
> We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just put your foot in  your mouth. You did not provide any evidence for you claims about there being a designer. I realize that what you see if evidence of your own claims, but this is not evidence to anyone else. It is mere interpretation by your part, and confirmation bias. For the last time, scientists don't claim to know how life came about. So, i'm not sure what you are babbling about. On the other hand, YOU DO CLAIM to know how life came about, even though we are all ignorant to how it happened. Hence, a fucking ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.
> 
> Stop trying to fend off this accusation with your silly appeals to ridicule. Your position is ripe with logical fallacy because you HAVE NO EVIDENCE. Therefore, it is your only option to employ logical fallacy after logical fallacy to try and convince yourself that your position is objectively valid when it isn't. What's laughable is how you haven't met your burden of proof with respect to any scientific claims about there being a designer.  This is the arrogance of your side.
Click to expand...


Really ? I presented design to you and you snub your nose at it. ok


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a little rude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha!! Now this is funny!! Ima mistakenly thought your new buddy was a Creationist. Since he isn't, you quickly came to his defense.
> 
> No, you're not bias!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are hilariously predictable. I never claimed to  be non-bias. You seem to have some mis-placed expectation that I should, when you clearly are not. Hmmm... special pleading?
Click to expand...


Then why do you make the claim you have not ruled out anything,meaning design when cornered ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are hilariously predictable. I never claimed to  be non-bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?? So now you admit it. And your bias extends to all your opinions on so called science as well then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming to be non-bias? Is anyone non-bias??? That is some serious arrogance right there.
> 
> What is this double-standard you are putting up, you asshole? For some reason, I am expected to be totally objective, yet you are not held to the same standard? This is SPECIAL PLEADING. You are claiming I am an exemption from known human cognitive biases which we can not consciously control, but you, nor anyone else is. There is something wrong with you.
> 
> Can you claim to be non-bias? I hope not, because you are failing miserably.
Click to expand...


I once was, that is why I now believe in creation but I am bias now.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found it interesting that you selectively excuse your alleged gawds from meeting any standard of proof that you insist science must meet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we need to prove God exists if we can prove design ? someone gets credit for design. You can't hide behind the copout, well because we don't know now does not mean we will not know in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since you proven neither.....and there is no evidence for a someone...yours is the copout.
> you've been hedging your bet on the all will be reveled nonsense for the last 2000 years.
> you'll be be spouting the same nonsense till the religion dies ,with no proof of your claims...
> BTW when I use the word "you" I mean  all Christianity not just you.
Click to expand...


Let's see if this to goes over your head. When you look at a building do you have to know the designer to know it was designed ? engineered Enzymes do you have to know the designer= engineer to know they were designed ?

You have the density of

 6.4 X 10^23 kg

 4/3 pi (r^3) where r = 3.395 X 10^6 m

 V = 1.639 X 10^20 m^3


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully expected that you would reel into defensive posturing at yet another of your specious claims being refuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then present what you find on google and I will explain it to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> explain what?judging  from your answer it appearers  you have no idea what hollie said.
> another failed attempt at faking it..
Click to expand...


You need to go back and follow along with the conversation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to us. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. This Being predates the Big Bang so how do you think you would be able to see him??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> major masturbation fantasy...
Click to expand...


Pervert.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same can be said for your designer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nature and rationality neither presume nor require supernaturalism or magic in contrast to the Christian creationist worldview replete with gawds, demons and tactics formulated to instill fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just empty words hollie.
Click to expand...

yes your faith is...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same can be said for your designer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a miracle life exists and your designer is naturalism.
Click to expand...

Definition of NATURALISM
1: action, inclination, or thought based only on natural desires and instincts 
2: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena 

there is no "who" in naturalism, it's not a physical thing so it cannot be an engineer or a designer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a miracle life exists and your designer is naturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Definition of NATURALISM
> 1: action, inclination, or thought based only on natural desires and instincts
> 2: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena
> 
> there is no "who" in naturalism, it's not a physical thing so it cannot be an engineer or a designer.
Click to expand...


You deny a lot of miracles in nature had to happen for life to exist ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same can be said for your designer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A truly futile attempt to project the empty and unsupported conclusions you make about there being a designer onto those on the other side of the debate. Naturalism is not our designer, because it has no ontology, which precludes this very possibility of it being a "designer". Naturalism is an idea that potentially describes the universe. Stop projecting your silliness onto the other side because it makes you feel better to shrug off the burden of your own irrationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe in miracles to.
Click to expand...

another wrong and ignorant assuption.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. Our ability or inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you notice a trend ?you keep coming up with excuses why you believe as you do.
Click to expand...

you really can't read can you? there's nothing in that post that even hints at an excuse.
the only trend  to see is you constantly  failing at proving god did it and attempting to cover that failure with spin..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it
> 
> We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just put your foot in  your mouth. You did not provide any evidence for you claims about there being a designer. I realize that what you see if evidence of your own claims, but this is not evidence to anyone else. It is mere interpretation by your part, and confirmation bias. For the last time, scientists don't claim to know how life came about. So, i'm not sure what you are babbling about. On the other hand, YOU DO CLAIM to know how life came about, even though we are all ignorant to how it happened. Hence, a fucking ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.
> 
> Stop trying to fend off this accusation with your silly appeals to ridicule. Your position is ripe with logical fallacy because you HAVE NO EVIDENCE. Therefore, it is your only option to employ logical fallacy after logical fallacy to try and convince yourself that your position is objectively valid when it isn't. What's laughable is how you haven't met your burden of proof with respect to any scientific claims about there being a designer.  This is the arrogance of your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really ? I presented design to you and you snub your nose at it. ok
Click to expand...

no you did not....you presented your subjective pov no real evidence.
or a delusion of design...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we need to prove God exists if we can prove design ? someone gets credit for design. You can't hide behind the copout, well because we don't know now does not mean we will not know in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> since you proven neither.....and there is no evidence for a someone...yours is the copout.
> you've been hedging your bet on the all will be reveled nonsense for the last 2000 years.
> you'll be be spouting the same nonsense till the religion dies ,with no proof of your claims...
> BTW when I use the word "you" I mean  all Christianity not just you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see if this to goes over your head. When you look at a building do you have to know the designer to know it was designed ? engineered Enzymes do you have to know the designer= engineer to know they were designed ?
> 
> You have the density of
> 
> 6.4 X 10^23 kg
> 
> 4/3 pi (r^3) where r = 3.395 X 10^6 m
> 
> V = 1.639 X 10^20 m^3
Click to expand...

no, you don't but "you"  do know that it was designed by another human not an invisible god .
and if need be you can prove it.
something you cannot do with you meaningless analogy  
the same goes for enzymes, there is no proof that a "who" (engineer) engineered them.

you've already lost this argument.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then present what you find on google and I will explain it to you
> 
> 
> 
> explain what?judging  from your answer it appearers  you have no idea what hollie said.
> another failed attempt at faking it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to go back and follow along with the conversation.
Click to expand...

not really, your inability to read has no bearing on my ability to follow and comprehend the conversation.
the you're to dumb ploy failed.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> to us. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. This Being predates the Big Bang so how do you think you would be able to see him??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> major masturbation fantasy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pervert.
Click to expand...

false assumption !


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a miracle life exists and your designer is naturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of NATURALISM
> 1: action, inclination, or thought based only on natural desires and instincts
> 2: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena
> 
> there is no "who" in naturalism, it's not a physical thing so it cannot be an engineer or a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You deny a lot of miracles in nature had to happen for life to exist ?
Click to expand...

false 
Definition of MIRACLE
1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs.
by definition there are no miracles in nature....
the denial is yours always has been always will be.

HOW can I deny "something" there is no evidence for?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we need to prove God exists if we can prove design ? someone gets credit for design. You can't hide behind the copout, well because we don't know now does not mean we will not know in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> since you proven neither.....and there is no evidence for a someone...yours is the copout.
> you've been hedging your bet on the all will be reveled nonsense for the last 2000 years.
> you'll be be spouting the same nonsense till the religion dies ,with no proof of your claims...
> BTW when I use the word "you" I mean  all Christianity not just you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see if this to goes over your head. When you look at a building do you have to know the designer to know it was designed ? engineered Enzymes do you have to know the designer= engineer to know they were designed ?
> 
> You have the density of
> 
> 6.4 X 10^23 kg
> 
> 4/3 pi (r^3) where r = 3.395 X 10^6 m
> 
> V = 1.639 X 10^20 m^3
Click to expand...

Has it occurred to you that buildings are qualitatively different from biological organisms?

Your silly analogy is standard cut and paste from creationist ministries and is meaningless. We know that buildings are designed because mechanical components do not assemble themselves into complex objects, nor do they reproduce. 

Were you somehow deluded into believing you made a rational argument?


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since you proven neither.....and there is no evidence for a someone...yours is the copout.
> you've been hedging your bet on the all will be reveled nonsense for the last 2000 years.
> you'll be be spouting the same nonsense till the religion dies ,with no proof of your claims...
> BTW when I use the word "you" I mean  all Christianity not just you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see if this to goes over your head. When you look at a building do you have to know the designer to know it was designed ? engineered Enzymes do you have to know the designer= engineer to know they were designed ?
> 
> You have the density of
> 
> 6.4 X 10^23 kg
> 
> 4/3 pi (r^3) where r = 3.395 X 10^6 m
> 
> V = 1.639 X 10^20 m^3
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has it occurred to you that buildings are qualitatively different from biological organisms?
> 
> Your silly analogy is standard cut and paste from creationist ministries and is meaningless. We know that buildings are designed because mechanical components do not assemble themselves into complex objects, nor do they reproduce.
> 
> Were you somehow deluded into believing you made a rational argument?
Click to expand...

"such is the power of the dark side..luke! "


----------



## newpolitics

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just demonstrated my point for me,entirely. You are unable to take into account, the pain of animals, because of some bullshit excuse you give yourself about self-awareness, and the justification you receive from the bible. Here's the bullshit: First of all, you can't positively know the phenomenological experience of animals, despite self-awareness tests we may have done. Most farm animals are very social creatures, with rights to life just as much as the dogs or cats we bring into our home (in the Western World- I realize China eats dogs). Pigs are smarter than dogs, yet we love dogs and subject pigs to institutional torture and death? Cows are also very social animals too, that want to live.
> 
> Really though, intelligence has nothing to do with pain detection. It is an entirely different system in the brain. You are using Descartes argument or William Lane Craig's argument, where he says the animal isn't able to feel pain because it isn't self-aware. This is impossible to establish as a fact, because despite any tests we do, we will never know their subjective experience of the world and of themselves. The only thing that is important, is whether they can feel pain. This is demonstrably, yes. Also, animals have interests of their own, and we completely ignore them for our own. This is selfish, and narcissistic, and what's worse are the bullshit justifications such the ones you just provided.
> 
> Unborn babies certainly are not self-aware, so any argument that supports your justification for eating animals could also be applied to babies before they are around 2 years old, when they become self-aware. Your position is based on speciesism, plain and simple. It is special pleading that babies be taken into our moral account, even though most farm animals are smarter than babies and more self-aware. Obviously, I am not advocating we start eating babies, but any argument you try to provide that shows preference for the interests of human babies over adult animals is special pleading. You have no justification to do so, other than the "might makes right" fallacy (appeal to Ad Baculum: appeal to force).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to you to Strawman this. I did not say animals did not feel pain or discomfort. I said they don't experience it the same way someone who is self aware does.
> 
> Maybe you should outlaw lions on the African plain. Those sickos kill and start to eat other animals while they are still alive!!! And your designer made it this way!!!
> 
> Also, I am not arguing unborn babies should be protected because they are self aware. I am arguing they should be protected because they are humans!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no proof that human babies are any more or less sentient then other mammals .
> 
> Dr James Kirkwood, chief executive and scientific director of the Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare (Ufaw), gives qualified approval to CIWF's approach.
> 
> He told BBC News Online: "Animal sentience has been a matter of debate down the centuries.
> 
> "We can't prove absolutely even that another human being is sentient, though it would obviously be unreasonable to assume they are not.
> 
> "But the weight of scientific opinion is that it's certainly right to give the benefit of the doubt to all vertebrates."
> 
> BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animals 'are moral beings'
> 
> 
> 
> tosspot
Click to expand...


Thank you, Daws. Much Appreciated.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. Our ability or inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you notice a trend ?you keep coming up with excuses why you believe as you do.
Click to expand...


Where are you even getting this from? It's like you read every other word, and then try and piece together what I might have said, and then respond to that. You are not even worth responding to sometimes. 

I could have sworn Jesus said something about being humble, yet you act like a know-it-all, which is the ultimate irony, considering you have nothing to back any of your claims up!! It's truly fantastic.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> to us. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. This Being predates the Big Bang so how do you think you would be able to see him??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, by definition, he doesn't exist. Nothing predates the big bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what caused the Big Bang Einstein?
Click to expand...



I don't have to know the answer to that, and you don't get any points by my admitting this. So, as much as you think you just "cornered me," the simple and only feasible answer is: "I don't know." 

But, apparently, you do!! Because you read a book about it... ha! Your epistemology is laughable. It's called gullibility. You might know it as "faith." Same thing.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smart enough to be an investigator?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a little rude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha!! Now this is funny!! Ima mistakenly thought your new buddy was a Creationist. Since he isn't, you quickly came to his defense.
> 
> No, you're not bias!!!!
Click to expand...


How about, I  just found it rude, and thought I would mention it, because I was having a nice discussion with this person, learning about some real shit. Again,  you  use your faulty intuition to fill your own head with what you want to believe. You might as well be a solipsist. You'd be a good one!


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it
> 
> We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.
Click to expand...



Btw, who said anything about accident. Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." This is all it takes for matter to be attracted to other matter, and eventually form what we call and know and experience as "life." The same attractive forces cause amino acids to form together, and for amino acids to couple together. I know Meyer has given you some probabilities to try and preclude this event from your imagination, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because you think it is mathematically unlikely. As I said before, we don't have enough information to include in those mathematical descriptions about probabilities for those probabilities to actually mean anything. They are just guesses. Given enough time, abiogenesis is inevitable, and likely has happened and is happening in countless places around the universe. Your incredulity on this matter is your issue.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha!! Now this is funny!! Ima mistakenly thought your new buddy was a Creationist. Since he isn't, you quickly came to his defense.
> 
> No, you're not bias!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are hilariously predictable. I never claimed to  be non-bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?? So now you admit it. And your bias extends to all your opinions on so called science as well then.
Click to expand...


You reply does not follow from what was said. I don't know what to call this, other than stupidity. Therefore, I can not respond. Perhaps, if you reformulate your response, we can continue from here.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Nothing worth replying to,carry on.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are hilariously predictable. I never claimed to  be non-bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?? So now you admit it. And your bias extends to all your opinions on so called science as well then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming to be non-bias? Is anyone non-bias??? That is some serious arrogance right there.
> 
> What is this double-standard you are putting up, you asshole? For some reason, I am expected to be totally objective, yet you are not held to the same standard? This is SPECIAL PLEADING. You are claiming I am an exemption from known human cognitive biases which we can not consciously control, but you, nor anyone else is. There is something wrong with you.
> 
> Can you claim to be non-bias? I hope not, because you are failing miserably.
Click to expand...


Is this Loki??? Seriously? You can stop trying to impress all of us with your new found accusations from your copy of "Fallacies for Dummies".


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, by definition, he doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your logic is all twisted up. No, not by definition!! Where do you come up with this crap? Because you can't see it, taste it, smell it, hear it, touch it, it isn't real? Yet, your atheist brethren in their zeal to disprove the fine tuning argument for God have come up with the Multiple Universe theory. No one seems to be bugged that the other universes exist outside our universe. You're pathetic and not even worth arguing with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice appeal to hypocrisy, or the Tu Quoque Fallacy. The multiverse theory has nothing to do with this claim, so lets stick with the topic at hand. I never said it was because you can't see it, taste it... etc. I used logic, and said there was no space, no time, no energy, no matter... by all accounts, existence is defined as something which exists in space and time. How does something exists outside of space and time? Can you answer this question without an appeal to hypocrisy? No, you can not. You must resort to dodging the question.
> 
> Btw, it is well conceded that no verifiable evidence exists for the multiverse. It is mathematical, at this point. Yet, so were all of the predictions in the theory of relativity, including back holes, and they turned out to exist in the universe, after being predicted purely by mathematics.
Click to expand...


You can order your copy too. "Fallacies for Dummies" is on sale right now for the low, low price of only $19.95. Impress your friends. Impress strangers on the internet. No one will ever know what a tool you really are when you start to accuse them of various fallacies. And maybe they won't be smart enough to know you have no clue what you are talking about. Act now while supplies last.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not another gay slur...wow you seem to an expert at what causes mouth sores .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Daws apparently you are convinced that Hawly is packing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false assuption. i can see why you never made detective... it's either extreme  paranoia as exhibited in the prior post or sucking cock in the locker room.
> there is no other logical reason why Ur would be so knowledgeable about mouth sores or so perversely interested in homosexuality.
> 9
Click to expand...


there is no other logical reason why Daws would be so knowledgeable about sucking cock in the locker room or so perverse to even come up with something so disgusting unless it was based on his personal experience. Apparently he does secretly wish Hawly was a man and really did have man hands so she could touch him so Ruggedly. 

And by the way, I was a detective Douche bag so there goes that theory.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just demonstrated my point for me,entirely. You are unable to take into account, the pain of animals, because of some bullshit excuse you give yourself about self-awareness, and the justification you receive from the bible. Here's the bullshit: First of all, you can't positively know the phenomenological experience of animals, despite self-awareness tests we may have done. Most farm animals are very social creatures, with rights to life just as much as the dogs or cats we bring into our home (in the Western World- I realize China eats dogs). Pigs are smarter than dogs, yet we love dogs and subject pigs to institutional torture and death? Cows are also very social animals too, that want to live.
> 
> Really though, intelligence has nothing to do with pain detection. It is an entirely different system in the brain. You are using Descartes argument or William Lane Craig's argument, where he says the animal isn't able to feel pain because it isn't self-aware. This is impossible to establish as a fact, because despite any tests we do, we will never know their subjective experience of the world and of themselves. The only thing that is important, is whether they can feel pain. This is demonstrably, yes. Also, animals have interests of their own, and we completely ignore them for our own. This is selfish, and narcissistic, and what's worse are the bullshit justifications such the ones you just provided.
> 
> Unborn babies certainly are not self-aware, so any argument that supports your justification for eating animals could also be applied to babies before they are around 2 years old, when they become self-aware. Your position is based on speciesism, plain and simple. It is special pleading that babies be taken into our moral account, even though most farm animals are smarter than babies and more self-aware. Obviously, I am not advocating we start eating babies, but any argument you try to provide that shows preference for the interests of human babies over adult animals is special pleading. You have no justification to do so, other than the "might makes right" fallacy (appeal to Ad Baculum: appeal to force).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to you to Strawman this. I did not say animals did not feel pain or discomfort. I said they don't experience it the same way someone who is self aware does.
> 
> Maybe you should outlaw lions on the African plain. Those sickos kill and start to eat other animals while they are still alive!!! And your designer made it this way!!!
> 
> Also, *I am not arguing unborn babies should be protected because they are self aware. I am arguing they should be protected because they are humans!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *there is no proof that human babies are any more or less sentient then other mammals *.
> 
> Dr James Kirkwood, chief executive and scientific director of the Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare (Ufaw), gives qualified approval to CIWF's approach.
> 
> He told BBC News Online: "Animal sentience has been a matter of debate down the centuries.
> 
> "We can't prove absolutely even that another human being is sentient, though it would obviously be unreasonable to assume they are not.
> 
> "But the weight of scientific opinion is that it's certainly right to give the benefit of the doubt to all vertebrates."
> 
> BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animals 'are moral beings'
> 
> tosspot
Click to expand...


Apparently, Daws has a little reading comprehension problem. But thanks for the irrelevant post arguing against a point I wasn't making.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it
> 
> We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, who said anything about accident. Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." This is all it takes for matter to be attracted to other matter, and eventually form what we call and know and experience as "life." The same attractive forces cause amino acids to form together, and for amino acids to couple together. I know Meyer has given you some probabilities to try and preclude this event from your imagination, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because you think it is mathematically unlikely. As I said before, we don't have enough information to include in those mathematical descriptions about probabilities for those probabilities to actually mean anything. They are just guesses. Given enough time, abiogenesis is inevitable, and likely has happened and is happening in countless places around the universe. Your incredulity on this matter is your issue.
Click to expand...


Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!

And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.


----------



## UltimateReality

_For one thing, the point that Meyer makes about the bonding in DNA is that *"there are no chemical bonds between the bases along the longitudinal axis in the center of the helix. Yet it is precisely along this axis of the DNA molecule that the genetic information is stored"* (SITC, p. 242). It is this fundamental property of DNA that allows DNA to carry the information it does. *The bases of DNA do not align in the sequential arrangement they do because of physical necessity or chemical affinity. The arrangement, on the contrary, is arbitrary -- any arrangement is possible, but only some arrangements convey functional specificity.*

Meyer's argument also does not say that "x is complex; therefore, x is designed," nor does Meyer commit the "god-of-the-gaps" fallacy. On the contrary, Meyer argues -- based on the standard historical (abductive) scientific method -- that there is only one known cause, one category of explanation, that is known by virtue of our uniform and repeated experience to be able to produce large volumes of highly complex (improbable) and functionally specific information. Thus, in the absence of viable competing explanations, it follows that the most likely explanation for this phenomenon is that it too arose by virtue of an intelligent cause.

_

From the Darwinist Blogosphere, Stephen Meyer's Trip to London Elicits a Typical Reaction - Evolution News & Views


----------



## UltimateReality

Hawly took exception to the word "machine". Her hatred of science and blind allegiance to materialism prevents her from embracing the truth, regardless of the effect it might have on her psychosis.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GZXRMG5i_w&feature=player_embedded#]BBC Secret Universe: The Hidden Life of the Cell - YouTube[/ame]!


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your logic is all twisted up. No, not by definition!! Where do you come up with this crap? Because you can't see it, taste it, smell it, hear it, touch it, it isn't real? Yet, your atheist brethren in their zeal to disprove the fine tuning argument for God have come up with the Multiple Universe theory. No one seems to be bugged that the other universes exist outside our universe. You're pathetic and not even worth arguing with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice appeal to hypocrisy, or the Tu Quoque Fallacy. The multiverse theory has nothing to do with this claim, so lets stick with the topic at hand. I never said it was because you can't see it, taste it... etc. I used logic, and said there was no space, no time, no energy, no matter... by all accounts, existence is defined as something which exists in space and time. How does something exists outside of space and time? Can you answer this question without an appeal to hypocrisy? No, you can not. You must resort to dodging the question.
> 
> Btw, it is well conceded that no verifiable evidence exists for the multiverse. It is mathematical, at this point. Yet, so were all of the predictions in the theory of relativity, including back holes, and they turned out to exist in the universe, after being predicted purely by mathematics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can order your copy too. "Fallacies for Dummies" is on sale right now for the low, low price of only $19.95. Impress your friends. Impress strangers on the internet. No one will ever know what a tool you really are when you start to accuse them of various fallacies. And maybe they won't be smart enough to know you have no clue what you are talking about. Act now while supplies last.
Click to expand...


You have just committed the fallacy of being a total jackass, and trying to justify your lack of logic by appealing to ridicule. Way to go! You are really a great debater, UR.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, who said anything about accident. Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." This is all it takes for matter to be attracted to other matter, and eventually form what we call and know and experience as "life." The same attractive forces cause amino acids to form together, and for amino acids to couple together. I know Meyer has given you some probabilities to try and preclude this event from your imagination, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because you think it is mathematically unlikely. As I said before, we don't have enough information to include in those mathematical descriptions about probabilities for those probabilities to actually mean anything. They are just guesses. Given enough time, abiogenesis is inevitable, and likely has happened and is happening in countless places around the universe. Your incredulity on this matter is your issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!
> 
> And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.
Click to expand...


Except that he hasn't, because he can't demonstrate that something didn't happen. Wow, he multiplied a few probabilities together, and voila! He knows that abiogenesis is impossible! What a dumbass.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to you to Strawman this. I did not say animals did not feel pain or discomfort. I said they don't experience it the same way someone who is self aware does.
> 
> Maybe you should outlaw lions on the African plain. Those sickos kill and start to eat other animals while they are still alive!!! And your designer made it this way!!!
> 
> Also, *I am not arguing unborn babies should be protected because they are self aware. I am arguing they should be protected because they are humans!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> *there is no proof that human babies are any more or less sentient then other mammals *.
> 
> Dr James Kirkwood, chief executive and scientific director of the Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare (Ufaw), gives qualified approval to CIWF's approach.
> 
> He told BBC News Online: "Animal sentience has been a matter of debate down the centuries.
> 
> "We can't prove absolutely even that another human being is sentient, though it would obviously be unreasonable to assume they are not.
> 
> "But the weight of scientific opinion is that it's certainly right to give the benefit of the doubt to all vertebrates."
> 
> BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animals 'are moral beings'
> 
> tosspot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, Daws has a little reading comprehension problem. But thanks for the irrelevant post arguing against a point I wasn't making.
Click to expand...


As if you don't do this, constantly.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hawly took exception to the word "machine". Her hatred of science and blind allegiance to materialism prevents her from embracing the truth, regardless of the effect it might have on her psychosis.



The Christian creationist industry has effectively preyed upon gullibility and ignorance by adding anthropomorphism to their catalog of bad science and faulty characterizations of biological mechanisms. Both of the Christian creationist fundies in this thread are exploited by this. We see so often the horribly ignorant attempt at analogy whereby they question how it is that cars, buildings, etc., dont self assemble and replicate as analogous to biological mechanisms. Its these childish and naïve notions that are furthered by the Christian ministries and accepted as valid by the science illiterate. Christian ministries promote their revulsion of science by recruiting ignorant minions to further their cause. 

Accepting the reason and rationality of science, observation, testing, etc., as the criteria for perception is not stripping away anything. Human emotions have their source in natural instincts we see every day in the common animal kingdom. We simply have added sentience and a vast array of texture to emotions and perception that simpler animals do not. Human passion and emotions are a part of the wonder of humanity. That we pay for our emotions with fears and acts of questionable ethics as a price for those passions and emotions.  It is helpful to know the foundation of human behavior, but blindly accepting ancient superstitious tales that instill irrational fear and ignorance is particularly furthering of humanity. Accepting and embracing rationality doesnt strip humanity of anything-- in fact, it enhances it. And it is only in these types of discussions that abstractions of angry gawds are meted out by christian creationists who seek to impose their fears, superstitions and prejudices on others.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. Our ability or inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you notice a trend ?you keep coming up with excuses why you believe as you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are you even getting this from? It's like you read every other word, and then try and piece together what I might have said, and then respond to that. You are not even worth responding to sometimes.
> 
> I could have sworn Jesus said something about being humble, yet you act like a know-it-all, which is the ultimate irony, considering you have nothing to back any of your claims up!! It's truly fantastic.
Click to expand...


" inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."

Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.

Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, by definition, he doesn't exist. Nothing predates the big bang.
> 
> 
> 
> Then what caused the Big Bang Einstein?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to know the answer to that, and you don't get any points by my admitting this. So, as much as you think you just "cornered me," the simple and only feasible answer is: "I don't know."
> 
> But, apparently, you do!! Because you read a book about it... ha! Your epistemology is laughable. It's called gullibility. You might know it as "faith." Same thing.
Click to expand...


Just say it,once again you have no answer for a good question.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, who said anything about accident. Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." This is all it takes for matter to be attracted to other matter, and eventually form what we call and know and experience as "life." The same attractive forces cause amino acids to form together, and for amino acids to couple together. I know Meyer has given you some probabilities to try and preclude this event from your imagination, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because you think it is mathematically unlikely. As I said before, we don't have enough information to include in those mathematical descriptions about probabilities for those probabilities to actually mean anything. They are just guesses. Given enough time, abiogenesis is inevitable, and likely has happened and is happening in countless places around the universe. Your incredulity on this matter is your issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!
> 
> And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.
Click to expand...


In the rational world, (not one haunted by childish fears and superstitions of angry gawds and demons), we are forced to make conclusions regarding your nonsensical, supermagical design argument because irrational claims and irrational actions to similarly configured fears and superstitions can be disastrous. Your feelings, as a _concept_, are basically no different from the feelings which motivated Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and a host of other religious loons.  How do we know what _you_ feel (in spite of your suggestion that the gawds apparently communicate with you), is in fact truth? We are talking about the christian conception of designer gawds who:

a. Created an evil Satan before man was around to be evil
b. Drowned a world
c. Destroyed numerous peoples and cities throughout the Pentateuch
d. Demanded the death of his own kid
e. Will destroy the world again in an apocalypse.

I cant help but note that your argument for designer gawds must necessarily include credit for design of disease, horrendous suffering by floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, fire and other acts of gawds. We are also to learn from the other Christian fundie that your gawds actually manipulate cell biology as a means to snuff out sinners. How cool, little Johnny and Jane struggling with childhood cancer in a  childrens hospital are being snuffed out by your gawds because theyre evil sinners.

No wonder your christian creationist beliefs cause you such intellectual trauma!


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you notice a trend ?you keep coming up with excuses why you believe as you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you even getting this from? It's like you read every other word, and then try and piece together what I might have said, and then respond to that. You are not even worth responding to sometimes.
> 
> I could have sworn Jesus said something about being humble, yet you act like a know-it-all, which is the ultimate irony, considering you have nothing to back any of your claims up!! It's truly fantastic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."
> 
> Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.
> 
> Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.
Click to expand...


What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.

Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you even getting this from? It's like you read every other word, and then try and piece together what I might have said, and then respond to that. You are not even worth responding to sometimes.
> 
> I could have sworn Jesus said something about being humble, yet you act like a know-it-all, which is the ultimate irony, considering you have nothing to back any of your claims up!! It's truly fantastic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."
> 
> Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.
> 
> Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.
> 
> Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?
Click to expand...


To answer your question Enzymes being designed by altering their functions. The first Enzymes how or who designed them with functions to perform ?

Your denial of the evidence for design is predictable. What is the point of bringing up lying if you believe God is a fairytale and based on lies ?

You also have been challenged to present evidence for your naturalism you seem to have a problem doing so.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, who said anything about accident. Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." This is all it takes for matter to be attracted to other matter, and eventually form what we call and know and experience as "life." The same attractive forces cause amino acids to form together, and for amino acids to couple together. I know Meyer has given you some probabilities to try and preclude this event from your imagination, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because you think it is mathematically unlikely. As I said before, we don't have enough information to include in those mathematical descriptions about probabilities for those probabilities to actually mean anything. They are just guesses. Given enough time, abiogenesis is inevitable, and likely has happened and is happening in countless places around the universe. Your incredulity on this matter is your issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!
> 
> And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the rational world, (not one haunted by childish fears and superstitions of angry gawds and demons), we are forced to make conclusions regarding your nonsensical, supermagical design argument because irrational claims and irrational actions to similarly configured fears and superstitions can be disastrous. Your feelings, as a _concept_, are basically no different from the feelings which motivated Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and a host of other religious loons.  How do we know what _you_ feel (in spite of your suggestion that the gawds apparently communicate with you), is in fact truth? We are talking about the christian conception of designer gawds who:
> 
> a. Created an evil Satan before man was around to be evil
> b. Drowned a world
> c. Destroyed numerous peoples and cities throughout the Pentateuch
> d. Demanded the death of his own kid
> e. Will destroy the world again in an apocalypse.
> 
> I cant help but note that your argument for designer gawds must necessarily include credit for design of disease, horrendous suffering by floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, fire and other acts of gawds. We are also to learn from the other Christian fundie that your gawds actually manipulate cell biology as a means to snuff out sinners. How cool, little Johnny and Jane struggling with childhood cancer in a  childrens hospital are being snuffed out by your gawds because theyre evil sinners.
> 
> No wonder your christian creationist beliefs cause you such intellectual trauma!
Click to expand...


His so called kid was himself in the flesh.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you even getting this from? It's like you read every other word, and then try and piece together what I might have said, and then respond to that. You are not even worth responding to sometimes.
> 
> I could have sworn Jesus said something about being humble, yet you act like a know-it-all, which is the ultimate irony, considering you have nothing to back any of your claims up!! It's truly fantastic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."
> 
> Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.
> 
> Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.
> 
> Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?
Click to expand...


Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> " inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."
> 
> Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.
> 
> Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.
> 
> Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To answer your question Enzymes being designed by altering their functions. The first Enzymes how or who designed them with functions to perform ?
> 
> Your denial of the evidence for design is predictable. What is the point of bringing up lying if you believe God is a fairytale and based on lies ?
> 
> You also have been challenged to present evidence for your naturalism you seem to have a problem doing so.
Click to expand...

To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim. 

Science has not determined the precise biological mechanism that blossomed the first enzyme. Your default position is that one or more of your designer gawds did so, without providing a shred of evidence. 

Your refusal to provide evidence of your claimed designer gawds is predictable. It has been the history of your posting: claims absent any evidence.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!
> 
> And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the rational world, (not one haunted by childish fears and superstitions of angry gawds and demons), we are forced to make conclusions regarding your nonsensical, supermagical &#8220;design&#8221; argument because irrational claims and irrational actions to similarly configured fears and superstitions can be disastrous. Your &#8220;feelings&#8221;, as a _concept_, are basically no different from the &#8220;feelings&#8221; which motivated Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and a host of other religious loons.  How do we know what _you_ &#8220;feel&#8221; (in spite of your suggestion that the gawds apparently communicate with you), is in fact truth? We are talking about the christian conception of designer gawds who:
> 
> a. Created an evil Satan before man was around to be evil
> b. Drowned a world
> c. Destroyed numerous peoples and cities throughout the Pentateuch
> d. Demanded the death of his own kid
> e. Will destroy the world again in an apocalypse.
> 
> I can&#8217;t help but note that your argument for designer gawds must necessarily include credit for &#8220;design&#8221; of disease, horrendous suffering by floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, fire and other &#8220;acts of gawds&#8221;. We are also to learn from the other Christian fundie that your gawds actually manipulate cell biology as a means to snuff out sinners. How cool, little Johnny and Jane struggling with childhood cancer in a  children&#8217;s hospital are being snuffed out by your gawds because they&#8217;re evil sinners.
> 
> No wonder your christian creationist beliefs cause you such intellectual trauma!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His so called kid was himself in the flesh.
Click to expand...


A superstitious tale. Have you ever considered the implication of worshipping the greatest mass murderer, most prolific killer ever to be invented by the imagination of man?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.
> 
> Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To answer your question Enzymes being designed by altering their functions. The first Enzymes how or who designed them with functions to perform ?
> 
> Your denial of the evidence for design is predictable. What is the point of bringing up lying if you believe God is a fairytale and based on lies ?
> 
> You also have been challenged to present evidence for your naturalism you seem to have a problem doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim.
> 
> Science has not determined the precise biological mechanism that blossomed the first enzyme. Your default position is that one or more of your designer gawds did so, without providing a shred of evidence.
> 
> Your refusal to provide evidence of your claimed designer gawds is predictable. It has been the history of your posting: claims absent any evidence.
Click to expand...


How did they happen to have beneficial functions hollie ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the rational world, (not one haunted by childish fears and superstitions of angry gawds and demons), we are forced to make conclusions regarding your nonsensical, supermagical design argument because irrational claims and irrational actions to similarly configured fears and superstitions can be disastrous. Your feelings, as a _concept_, are basically no different from the feelings which motivated Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and a host of other religious loons.  How do we know what _you_ feel (in spite of your suggestion that the gawds apparently communicate with you), is in fact truth? We are talking about the christian conception of designer gawds who:
> 
> a. Created an evil Satan before man was around to be evil
> b. Drowned a world
> c. Destroyed numerous peoples and cities throughout the Pentateuch
> d. Demanded the death of his own kid
> e. Will destroy the world again in an apocalypse.
> 
> I cant help but note that your argument for designer gawds must necessarily include credit for design of disease, horrendous suffering by floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, fire and other acts of gawds. We are also to learn from the other Christian fundie that your gawds actually manipulate cell biology as a means to snuff out sinners. How cool, little Johnny and Jane struggling with childhood cancer in a  childrens hospital are being snuffed out by your gawds because theyre evil sinners.
> 
> No wonder your christian creationist beliefs cause you such intellectual trauma!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His so called kid was himself in the flesh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A superstitious tale.
Click to expand...


How do you know ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

How come these enzymes functions are to guard agains't mutations ? I would say in the long run too many mutations would destroy the population they were ocurring in.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> His so called kid was himself in the flesh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A superstitious tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know ?
Click to expand...


No evidence to support the tales.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To answer your question Enzymes being designed by altering their functions. The first Enzymes how or who designed them with functions to perform ?
> 
> Your denial of the evidence for design is predictable. What is the point of bringing up lying if you believe God is a fairytale and based on lies ?
> 
> You also have been challenged to present evidence for your naturalism you seem to have a problem doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim.
> 
> Science has not determined the precise biological mechanism that blossomed the first enzyme. Your default position is that one or more of your designer gawds did so, without providing a shred of evidence.
> 
> Your refusal to provide evidence of your claimed designer gawds is predictable. It has been the history of your posting: claims absent any evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did they happen to have beneficial functions hollie ?
Click to expand...

How did they happen to not have?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> How come these enzymes functions are to guard agains't mutations ? I would say in the long run too many mutations would destroy the population they were ocurring in.



But mutations happen. Why are your gawds such incompetent designers?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim.
> 
> Science has not determined the precise biological mechanism that blossomed the first enzyme. Your default position is that one or more of your designer gawds did so, without providing a shred of evidence.
> 
> Your refusal to provide evidence of your claimed designer gawds is predictable. It has been the history of your posting: claims absent any evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did they happen to have beneficial functions hollie ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did they happen to not have?
Click to expand...


Dodge !


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come these enzymes functions are to guard agains't mutations ? I would say in the long run too many mutations would destroy the population they were ocurring in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But mutations happen. Why are your gawds such incompetent designers?
Click to expand...


Asked and answered


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come these enzymes functions are to guard agains't mutations ? I would say in the long run too many mutations would destroy the population they were ocurring in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But mutations happen. Why are your gawds such incompetent designers?
Click to expand...


I will answer it again,sin. Not incompetence purposeful punishment.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come these enzymes functions are to guard agains't mutations ? I would say in the long run too many mutations would destroy the population they were ocurring in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But mutations happen. Why are your gawds such incompetent designers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asked and answered
Click to expand...


Not true. Why not be honest and try.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did they happen to have beneficial functions hollie ?
> 
> 
> 
> How did they happen to not have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodge !
Click to expand...


You're unable to answer.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come these enzymes functions are to guard agains't mutations ? I would say in the long run too many mutations would destroy the population they were ocurring in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But mutations happen. Why are your gawds such incompetent designers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will answer it again,sin. Not incompetence purposeful punishment.
Click to expand...


No wonder your worldview is so sick and twisted.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?



So basically you're saying that because scientist haven't yet discovered everything there is to discover in the universe that it must be made by your invisible alien that you can't say where it is? A tad naïve, no?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, who said anything about accident. Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." This is all it takes for matter to be attracted to other matter, and eventually form what we call and know and experience as "life." The same attractive forces cause amino acids to form together, and for amino acids to couple together. I know Meyer has given you some probabilities to try and preclude this event from your imagination, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because you think it is mathematically unlikely. As I said before, we don't have enough information to include in those mathematical descriptions about probabilities for those probabilities to actually mean anything. They are just guesses. Given enough time, abiogenesis is inevitable, and likely has happened and is happening in countless places around the universe. Your incredulity on this matter is your issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!
> 
> And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that he hasn't, because he can't demonstrate that something didn't happen. Wow, he multiplied a few probabilities together, and voila! He knows that abiogenesis is impossible! What a dumbass.
Click to expand...


Your response still shows a total and complete lack of understanding of the probabilistic problems facing abiogenesis. Your response basically amounts to Meyer is wrong because Meyer is wrong.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly took exception to the word "machine". Her hatred of science and blind allegiance to materialism prevents her from embracing the truth, regardless of the effect it might have on her psychosis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christian creationist industry has effectively preyed upon gullibility and ignorance by adding anthropomorphism to their catalog of bad science and faulty characterizations of biological mechanisms. Both of the Christian creationist fundies in this thread are exploited by this. We see so often the horribly ignorant attempt at analogy whereby they question how it is that cars, buildings, etc., dont self assemble and replicate as analogous to biological mechanisms. Its these childish and naïve notions that are furthered by the Christian ministries and accepted as valid by the science illiterate. Christian ministries promote their revulsion of science by recruiting ignorant minions to further their cause.
> 
> Accepting the reason and rationality of science, observation, testing, etc., as the criteria for perception is not stripping away anything. Human emotions have their source in natural instincts we see every day in the common animal kingdom. We simply have added sentience and a vast array of texture to emotions and perception that simpler animals do not. Human passion and emotions are a part of the wonder of humanity. That we pay for our emotions with fears and acts of questionable ethics as a price for those passions and emotions.  It is helpful to know the foundation of human behavior, but blindly accepting ancient superstitious tales that instill irrational fear and ignorance is particularly furthering of humanity. Accepting and embracing rationality doesnt strip humanity of anything-- in fact, it enhances it. And it is only in these types of discussions that abstractions of angry gawds are meted out by christian creationists who seek to impose their fears, superstitions and prejudices on others.
Click to expand...


Yeah, except this video is from the BBC!! And they say machine about 100 times during it. You're in denial. So try again Spanky.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, who said anything about accident. Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." This is all it takes for matter to be attracted to other matter, and eventually form what we call and know and experience as "life." The same attractive forces cause amino acids to form together, and for amino acids to couple together. I know Meyer has given you some probabilities to try and preclude this event from your imagination, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because you think it is mathematically unlikely. As I said before, we don't have enough information to include in those mathematical descriptions about probabilities for those probabilities to actually mean anything. They are just guesses. Given enough time, abiogenesis is inevitable, and likely has happened and is happening in countless places around the universe. Your incredulity on this matter is your issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!
> 
> And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the rational world, (not one haunted by childish fears and superstitions of angry gawds and demons), we are forced to make conclusions regarding your nonsensical, supermagical design argument because irrational claims and irrational actions to similarly configured fears and superstitions can be disastrous. Your feelings, as a _concept_, are basically no different from the feelings which motivated Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and a host of other religious loons.  How do we know what _you_ feel (in spite of your suggestion that the gawds apparently communicate with you), is in fact truth? We are talking about the christian conception of designer gawds who:
> 
> a. Created an evil Satan before man was around to be evil
> b. Drowned a world
> c. Destroyed numerous peoples and cities throughout the Pentateuch
> d. Demanded the death of his own kid
> e. Will destroy the world again in an apocalypse.
> 
> I cant help but note that your argument for designer gawds must necessarily include credit for design of disease, horrendous suffering by floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, fire and other acts of gawds. We are also to learn from the other Christian fundie that your gawds actually manipulate cell biology as a means to snuff out sinners. How cool, little Johnny and Jane struggling with childhood cancer in a  childrens hospital are being snuffed out by your gawds because theyre evil sinners.
> 
> No wonder your christian creationist beliefs cause you such intellectual trauma!
Click to expand...


Typical irrelevant post. The topic was "Fine Tuning of the Universe". Your inability to stay on topic shows evidence of a learning disability.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you even getting this from? It's like you read every other word, and then try and piece together what I might have said, and then respond to that. You are not even worth responding to sometimes.
> 
> I could have sworn Jesus said something about being humble, yet you act like a know-it-all, which is the ultimate irony, considering you have nothing to back any of your claims up!! It's truly fantastic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."
> 
> Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.
> 
> Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.
> 
> Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?
Click to expand...


Why are you concerned with principles that flow from a worldview you believe is a lie? Stick to the stuff you know.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> " inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."
> 
> Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.
> 
> Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.
> 
> Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?
Click to expand...


Why do breeders reach dead ends???


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.
> 
> Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To answer your question Enzymes being designed by altering their functions. The first Enzymes how or who designed them with functions to perform ?
> 
> Your denial of the evidence for design is predictable. What is the point of bringing up lying if you believe God is a fairytale and based on lies ?
> 
> You also have been challenged to present evidence for your naturalism you seem to have a problem doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim.
> 
> Science has not determined the precise biological mechanism that blossomed the first enzyme. Your default position is that one or more of your designer gawds did so, without providing a shred of evidence.
> 
> Your refusal to provide evidence of your claimed designer gawds is predictable. It has been the history of your posting: claims absent any evidence.
Click to expand...


Hawly, when you have no evidence, it is perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know".


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> But mutations happen. Why are your gawds such incompetent designers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asked and answered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. Why not be honest and try.
Click to expand...


True, about a hundred times over. Might want to get that learning disability checked out.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you're saying that because scientist haven't yet discovered everything there is to discover in the universe that it must be made by your invisible alien that you can't say where it is? A tad naïve, no?
Click to expand...


No. He is saying the discoveries they have made disprove macroevolution so if the Naturalists want to stick to naturalism as an explanation, its time for them to look for another theory that science actually supports, not a 160 year old fairy tale based on bird beaks.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly took exception to the word "machine". Her hatred of science and blind allegiance to materialism prevents her from embracing the truth, regardless of the effect it might have on her psychosis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christian creationist industry has effectively preyed upon gullibility and ignorance by adding anthropomorphism to their catalog of bad science and faulty characterizations of biological mechanisms. Both of the Christian creationist fundies in this thread are exploited by this. We see so often the horribly ignorant attempt at analogy whereby they question how it is that cars, buildings, etc., dont self assemble and replicate as analogous to biological mechanisms. Its these childish and naïve notions that are furthered by the Christian ministries and accepted as valid by the science illiterate. Christian ministries promote their revulsion of science by recruiting ignorant minions to further their cause.
> 
> Accepting the reason and rationality of science, observation, testing, etc., as the criteria for perception is not stripping away anything. Human emotions have their source in natural instincts we see every day in the common animal kingdom. We simply have added sentience and a vast array of texture to emotions and perception that simpler animals do not. Human passion and emotions are a part of the wonder of humanity. That we pay for our emotions with fears and acts of questionable ethics as a price for those passions and emotions.  It is helpful to know the foundation of human behavior, but blindly accepting ancient superstitious tales that instill irrational fear and ignorance is particularly furthering of humanity. Accepting and embracing rationality doesnt strip humanity of anything-- in fact, it enhances it. And it is only in these types of discussions that abstractions of angry gawds are meted out by christian creationists who seek to impose their fears, superstitions and prejudices on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, except this video is from the BBC!! And they say machine about 100 times during it. You're in denial. So try again Spanky.
Click to expand...

And except that the term "machine' as applied to biological mechanisms is meaningless. 

Although. perhaps your attitude is that if the BBC uses the term about 100 times, it magically becomes true. It seems that belief in magic is a required component of Christian creationism


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you're saying that because scientist haven't yet discovered everything there is to discover in the universe that it must be made by your invisible alien that you can't say where it is? A tad naïve, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. He is saying the discoveries they have made disprove macroevolution so if the Naturalists want to stick to naturalism as an explanation, its time for them to look for another theory that science actually supports, not a 160 year old fairy tale based on bird beaks.
Click to expand...


No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved. 

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.

We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asked and answered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Why not be honest and try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, about a hundred times over. Might want to get that learning disability checked out.
Click to expand...


This seems to be the tactic (obfuscation, denial and ignorance), that defines the christian creationist movement.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To answer your question Enzymes being designed by altering their functions. The first Enzymes how or who designed them with functions to perform ?
> 
> Your denial of the evidence for design is predictable. What is the point of bringing up lying if you believe God is a fairytale and based on lies ?
> 
> You also have been challenged to present evidence for your naturalism you seem to have a problem doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim.
> 
> Science has not determined the precise biological mechanism that blossomed the first enzyme. Your default position is that one or more of your designer gawds did so, without providing a shred of evidence.
> 
> Your refusal to provide evidence of your claimed designer gawds is predictable. It has been the history of your posting: claims absent any evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hawly, when you have no evidence, it is perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know".
Click to expand...


When you having to contribute, it's apprppriate to be silent.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.
> 
> Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do breeders reach dead ends???
Click to expand...


What breeders have reached a dead end? Why do you make nonsensical claims that are without substance?

Once again for those not paying attention:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you notice a trend ?you keep coming up with excuses why you believe as you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you even getting this from? It's like you read every other word, and then try and piece together what I might have said, and then respond to that. You are not even worth responding to sometimes.
> 
> I could have sworn Jesus said something about being humble, yet you act like a know-it-all, which is the ultimate irony, considering you have nothing to back any of your claims up!! It's truly fantastic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."
> 
> Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.
> 
> Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.
Click to expand...


Again, I don't see how this is evidence that abiogenesis didn't happen. All it means is we don't have the capability to reproduce abiogenesis. Why would we? It is inconsequential, completely. Don't be such a moron in thinking this disproves the possibility of abiogenesis. The fact that we are ignorant to how life started precludes the possibility that we could reproduce it in a lab, don't you think? So, your argument is circular. If we knew how it happened, we would know how it happened...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> " inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."
> 
> Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.
> 
> Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.
> 
> Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you concerned with principles that flow from a worldview you believe is a lie? Stick to the stuff you know.
Click to expand...


You are unable to offer principles that folow any rational nexus of evidence leading to a viable conclusion. 

"The Gawds did it" is not an explanation for anyone but a christian fundie.  Faith comes from emotional biases, misperceptions and logical errors. If they didn't, then faith would be logically sound and rational and it would no longer be faith. Reason and rationality as concepts and applications are both individual and collective. When reason and rationality are collective, they becomes knowledge.  In the world of reason and rationality (to exclude the world of fear and superstition), collective knowledge will be held to a standard of evidence and proofs such that elements that are untrue will eventually be discarded and those that meet repeatable tests and confirmation will be retained. This can only come about by progressing forward in the  pursuit of knowledge, and the only way to do that is to demand accountability from science and religious dogma alike. Blindly following the precepts of ancient books of unknown authors, suspect lineage, false superstition or inflexible dogma or the  "because I say so", command is foolish and time wasting.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!
> 
> And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the rational world, (not one haunted by childish fears and superstitions of angry gawds and demons), we are forced to make conclusions regarding your nonsensical, supermagical design argument because irrational claims and irrational actions to similarly configured fears and superstitions can be disastrous. Your feelings, as a _concept_, are basically no different from the feelings which motivated Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and a host of other religious loons.  How do we know what _you_ feel (in spite of your suggestion that the gawds apparently communicate with you), is in fact truth? We are talking about the christian conception of designer gawds who:
> 
> a. Created an evil Satan before man was around to be evil
> b. Drowned a world
> c. Destroyed numerous peoples and cities throughout the Pentateuch
> d. Demanded the death of his own kid
> e. Will destroy the world again in an apocalypse.
> 
> I cant help but note that your argument for designer gawds must necessarily include credit for design of disease, horrendous suffering by floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, fire and other acts of gawds. We are also to learn from the other Christian fundie that your gawds actually manipulate cell biology as a means to snuff out sinners. How cool, little Johnny and Jane struggling with childhood cancer in a  childrens hospital are being snuffed out by your gawds because theyre evil sinners.
> 
> No wonder your christian creationist beliefs cause you such intellectual trauma!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical irrelevant post. The topic was "Fine Tuning of the Universe". Your inability to stay on topic shows evidence of a learning disability.
Click to expand...


Facts are always a difficult subject for cultists to come to terms with.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!
> 
> And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that he hasn't, because he can't demonstrate that something didn't happen. Wow, he multiplied a few probabilities together, and voila! He knows that abiogenesis is impossible! What a dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response still shows a total and complete lack of understanding of the probabilistic problems facing abiogenesis. Your response basically amounts to Meyer is wrong because Meyer is wrong.
Click to expand...


There is nothing to understand, shit-for-brains. Stop trying to make this seem like this is some deep enigmatic enquiry into something esoteric. I saw Meyer demonstrate his thinking in about 20 seconds. He multiplies a bunch of fractions representing the different possible combination of possible amino acids, and got a number. Wow! That is something else. Truly, a demonstration for the ages.


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you even getting this from? It's like you read every other word, and then try and piece together what I might have said, and then respond to that. You are not even worth responding to sometimes.
> 
> I could have sworn Jesus said something about being humble, yet you act like a know-it-all, which is the ultimate irony, considering you have nothing to back any of your claims up!! It's truly fantastic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."
> 
> Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.
> 
> Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I don't see how this is evidence that abiogenesis didn't happen. All it means is we don't have the capability to reproduce abiogenesis. Why would we? It is inconsequential, completely. Don't be such a moron in thinking this disproves the possibility of abiogenesis. The fact that we are ignorant to how life started precludes the possibility that we could reproduce it in a lab, don't you think? So, your argument is circular. If we knew how it happened, we would know how it happened...
Click to expand...


It's a tactic of christian creationist to seize upon any gap in scientific knowledge as somehow being proof of the gawds.

One would think that the creationist ministries would be doing their own research in the fields of science and medicine as a way to prove that enzymes, for example, have evolved not by natural processes but by magical, supernatural means.  The results of their studies could be posted in various scientific journals and be open to testing by others.... others without a predefined bias toward supermagicalism.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, who said anything about accident. Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." This is all it takes for matter to be attracted to other matter, and eventually form what we call and know and experience as "life." The same attractive forces cause amino acids to form together, and for amino acids to couple together. I know Meyer has given you some probabilities to try and preclude this event from your imagination, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because you think it is mathematically unlikely. As I said before, we don't have enough information to include in those mathematical descriptions about probabilities for those probabilities to actually mean anything. They are just guesses. Given enough time, abiogenesis is inevitable, and likely has happened and is happening in countless places around the universe. Your incredulity on this matter is your issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!
> 
> And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.
Click to expand...


Oh, and how the fuck did I just make the fine tuning argument? All I stated was the obvious: that there exists natural forces in the universe. You just... make things up out of thin air, kind of like your imaginary intelligent designer. I see a connection here...


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.
> 
> Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do breeders reach dead ends???
Click to expand...


Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you're saying that because scientist haven't yet discovered everything there is to discover in the universe that it must be made by your invisible alien that you can't say where it is? A tad naïve, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. He is saying the discoveries they have made disprove macroevolution so if the Naturalists want to stick to naturalism as an explanation, its time for them to look for another theory that science actually supports, not a 160 year old fairy tale based on bird beaks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
> 
> The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.
> 
> We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.
Click to expand...


Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the  loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.


A Critique of Douglas Theobald&#8217;s
&#8220;29 Evidences for Macroevolution&#8221;
    by Ashby Camp
Introduction Part 1    

© 2001 Ashby L. Camp.  All Rights Reserved.  


. . . Earth&#8217;s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God:
But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
And daub their natural faces unaware
More and more, from the first similitude.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22


NOTE:  The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this article&#8212;and changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded.  Neither this article, nor Mr. Camp&#8217;s response to Theobald&#8217;s criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobold&#8217;s on-going adjustments and modifications. 

 am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin.  More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God.  Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.

In &#8220;29 Evidences for Macroevolution,&#8221; Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor.  In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.

Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the rational world, (not one haunted by childish fears and superstitions of angry gawds and demons), we are forced to make conclusions regarding your nonsensical, supermagical design argument because irrational claims and irrational actions to similarly configured fears and superstitions can be disastrous. Your feelings, as a _concept_, are basically no different from the feelings which motivated Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and a host of other religious loons.  How do we know what _you_ feel (in spite of your suggestion that the gawds apparently communicate with you), is in fact truth? We are talking about the christian conception of designer gawds who:
> 
> a. Created an evil Satan before man was around to be evil
> b. Drowned a world
> c. Destroyed numerous peoples and cities throughout the Pentateuch
> d. Demanded the death of his own kid
> e. Will destroy the world again in an apocalypse.
> 
> I cant help but note that your argument for designer gawds must necessarily include credit for design of disease, horrendous suffering by floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, fire and other acts of gawds. We are also to learn from the other Christian fundie that your gawds actually manipulate cell biology as a means to snuff out sinners. How cool, little Johnny and Jane struggling with childhood cancer in a  childrens hospital are being snuffed out by your gawds because theyre evil sinners.
> 
> No wonder your christian creationist beliefs cause you such intellectual trauma!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical irrelevant post. The topic was "Fine Tuning of the Universe". Your inability to stay on topic shows evidence of a learning disability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts are always a difficult subject for cultists to come to terms with.
Click to expand...


You hit the nail on the head for once hollie to bad it is you that is the cultist.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do breeders reach dead ends???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.
Click to expand...


What breeders have reached a dead end?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical irrelevant post. The topic was "Fine Tuning of the Universe". Your inability to stay on topic shows evidence of a learning disability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are always a difficult subject for cultists to come to terms with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hit the nail on the head for once hollie to bad it is you that is the cultist.
Click to expand...


I had every expectation you and the other fundie would slither away.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. He is saying the discoveries they have made disprove macroevolution so if the Naturalists want to stick to naturalism as an explanation, its time for them to look for another theory that science actually supports, not a 160 year old fairy tale based on bird beaks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
> 
> The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.
> 
> We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the  loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.
> 
> 
> A Critique of Douglas Theobalds
> 29 Evidences for Macroevolution
> by Ashby Camp
> Introduction Part 1
> 
> © 2001 Ashby L. Camp.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> 
> . . . Earths crammed with heaven,
> And every common bush afire with God:
> But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
> The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
> And daub their natural faces unaware
> More and more, from the first similitude.
> 
> Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22
> 
> 
> NOTE:  The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this articleand changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded.  Neither this article, nor Mr. Camps response to Theobalds criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobolds on-going adjustments and modifications.
> 
> am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin.  More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God.  Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.
> 
> In 29 Evidences for Macroevolution, Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor.  In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.
> 
> Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -
Click to expand...

I thought the science link would send the Christian fundies scrambling.

As it turns out, their only option is to link to another Christian fundie. From the fundie link:

"I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God." 

Well sure, "the gawds did it"


 Anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp has penned a critique of these "29 Evidences of Macroevolution," which can be found posted at TrueOrigin. Camp's critique is well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article). Although I intend to address Camp's concerns in totality, currently I can only devote a limited amount of time to this effort. In the meantime, this partial response will suffice. I would like to thank Camp for his congenial criticism. It has given me the impetus to rework and expand the "29 Evidences," and the result is a more comprehensive, clearer, and stronger article.

My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there. In the following response, Camp's words are indented in grey boxes, set apart from mine. Material that Camp has quoted in his criticism is also in the grey boxes, surrounded by quotes, and followed by the pertinent external reference.

Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:

1. Straw man arguments 2. Red herrings 3. Self-contradictions 4. Equivocation 5. Two wrongs make a right 6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident 7. Ignoratio elenchi 8. Naive theological assumptions 9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics 10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method 11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses" 12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 13. Misleading mis-quotes 14. Fallacies of accent 15. Distortion of scientific controversies 16. Arguments from authority 17. False analogies

The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.

Note: Since the time I wrote this reply, Mr. Camp has responded to this in a shorter article entitled "Camp answers Theobald." The elements which I felt deserve some mention are included here enclosed in green boxes.


----------



## jack113

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do breeders reach dead ends???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.
Click to expand...


gawds? First you need to go back and try passing grade school before making a public fool out of yourself.


----------



## Hollie

jack113 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do breeders reach dead ends???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gawds? First you need to go back and try passing grade school before making a public fool out of yourself.
Click to expand...


Say goodnight, johnny.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you're saying that because scientist haven't yet discovered everything there is to discover in the universe that it must be made by your invisible alien that you can't say where it is? A tad naïve, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. He is saying the discoveries they have made disprove macroevolution so if the Naturalists want to stick to naturalism as an explanation, its time for them to look for another theory that science actually supports, not a 160 year old fairy tale based on bird beaks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
> 
> The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.
> 
> We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.
Click to expand...


Another irrelevant post. Of course you can't just address the topic at hand... ever.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that he hasn't, because he can't demonstrate that something didn't happen. Wow, he multiplied a few probabilities together, and voila! He knows that abiogenesis is impossible! What a dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your response still shows a total and complete lack of understanding of the probabilistic problems facing abiogenesis. Your response basically amounts to Meyer is wrong because Meyer is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to understand, shit-for-brains. Stop trying to make this seem like this is some deep enigmatic enquiry into something esoteric. I saw Meyer demonstrate his thinking in about 20 seconds. He multiplies a bunch of fractions representing the different possible combination of possible amino acids, and got a number. Wow! That is something else. Truly, a demonstration for the ages.
Click to expand...


A demonstration that demonstrates the impossibility of abiogenesis in an amino acid pond. Only an ignoramus would not see the problem this presents to naturalistic origins explanations. Like I said, your argument consists of "Meyer is wrong because I said so." That ain't gonna fly around here.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
> 
> The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.
> 
> We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the  loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.
> 
> 
> A Critique of Douglas Theobalds
> 29 Evidences for Macroevolution
> by Ashby Camp
> Introduction Part 1
> 
> © 2001 Ashby L. Camp.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> 
> . . . Earths crammed with heaven,
> And every common bush afire with God:
> But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
> The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
> And daub their natural faces unaware
> More and more, from the first similitude.
> 
> Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22
> 
> 
> NOTE:  The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this articleand changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded.  Neither this article, nor Mr. Camps response to Theobalds criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobolds on-going adjustments and modifications.
> 
> am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin.  More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God.  Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.
> 
> In 29 Evidences for Macroevolution, Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor.  In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.
> 
> Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought the science link would send the Christian fundies scrambling.
> 
> As it turns out, their only option is to link to another Christian fundie. From the fundie link:
> 
> "I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God."
> 
> Well sure, "the gawds did it"
> 
> 
> Anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp has penned a critique of these "29 Evidences of Macroevolution," which can be found posted at TrueOrigin. Camp's critique is well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article). Although I intend to address Camp's concerns in totality, currently I can only devote a limited amount of time to this effort. In the meantime, this partial response will suffice. I would like to thank Camp for his congenial criticism. It has given me the impetus to rework and expand the "29 Evidences," and the result is a more comprehensive, clearer, and stronger article.
> 
> My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there. In the following response, Camp's words are indented in grey boxes, set apart from mine. Material that Camp has quoted in his criticism is also in the grey boxes, surrounded by quotes, and followed by the pertinent external reference.
> 
> Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:
> 
> 1. Straw man arguments 2. Red herrings 3. Self-contradictions 4. Equivocation 5. Two wrongs make a right 6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident 7. Ignoratio elenchi 8. Naive theological assumptions 9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics 10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method 11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses" 12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 13. Misleading mis-quotes 14. Fallacies of accent 15. Distortion of scientific controversies 16. Arguments from authority 17. False analogies
> 
> The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.
> 
> Note: Since the time I wrote this reply, Mr. Camp has responded to this in a shorter article entitled "Camp answers Theobald." The elements which I felt deserve some mention are included here enclosed in green boxes.
Click to expand...


The most hilarious part of your response is that you believe your link showed REAL science. Your brain is so dumb down from the pseudoscience thinking of evolution it is obvious you can no longer tell the difference.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, who said anything about accident. Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." This is all it takes for matter to be attracted to other matter, and eventually form what we call and know and experience as "life." The same attractive forces cause amino acids to form together, and for amino acids to couple together. I know Meyer has given you some probabilities to try and preclude this event from your imagination, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because you think it is mathematically unlikely. As I said before, we don't have enough information to include in those mathematical descriptions about probabilities for those probabilities to actually mean anything. They are just guesses. Given enough time, abiogenesis is inevitable, and likely has happened and is happening in countless places around the universe. Your incredulity on this matter is your issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!
> 
> And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and how the fuck did I just make the fine tuning argument? All I stated was the obvious: that there exists natural forces in the universe. You just... make things up out of thin air, kind of like your imaginary intelligent designer. I see a connection here...
Click to expand...


Let's take a look at the stupidity of your lack of understanding on how you were making the fine tuning argument. I quote, "Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are *built-in attractive forces in this universe *that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." 

This is the fine tuning argument, excrement for neurons, that the forces that make life possible were built into the universe from the beginning.

How the coitus do you think these VERY specific forces got built in?


*Atheistic responses to the fine-tuning argument
*
_There are two common responses among atheists to this argument.

The first is to speculate that there are actually an infinite number of other universes that are not fine-tuned, (i.e.  the gamblers fallacy). All these other universes dont support life. We just happen to be in the one universe is fine-tuned for life. The problem is that there is no way of directly observing these other universes and no independent evidence that they exist.

Here is an excerpt from an article in Discover magazine, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).

    Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.

    The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesnt even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non*religious explanation for what is often called the fine-tuning problemthe baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.

The second response by atheists is that the human observers that exist today, 14 billion years after the universe was created out of nothing, actually caused the fine-tuning. This solution would mean that although humans did not exist at the time the of the big bang, they are going to be able to reach back in time at some point in the future and manually fine-tune the universe.

Here is an excerpt from and article in the New Scientist, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).

    maybe we should approach cosmic fine-tuning not as a problem but as a clue. Perhaps it is evidence that we somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now. If we in some sense create the universe, it is not surprising that the universe is well suited to us.

So, there are two choices for atheists. Either an infinite number of unobservable universes that are not fine-tuned, or humans go back in time at some future point and fine-tune the beginning of the universe, billions of years in the past._


----------



## UltimateReality

Poor NP, there's those darn "fractions" again. We are back to the probability arguments again and once again, you lose! For some of the values below, there are an infinite number of other possibilities that wouldn't have even resulted in a universe with stars and planets, much less life. So what is the fraction 1/infinity? 

_For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and these are listed below. In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine "fine tuning" seems incontrovertible.
_
    Strong nuclear force constant
    Weak nuclear force constant
    Gravitational force constant
    Electromagnetic force constant
    Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
    Ratio of proton to electron mass
    Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
    Ratio of proton to electron charge
    Expansion rate of the universe
    Mass density of the universe
    Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
    Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
    Ratio of space energy density to mass density
    Entropy level of the universe
    Velocity of light
    Age of the universe
    Uniformity of radiation
    Homogeneity of the universe
    Average distance between galaxies
    Average distance between galaxy clusters
    Average distance between stars
    Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
    Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
    Electromagnetic fine structure constant
    Gravitational fine-structure constant
    Decay rate of protons
    Ground state energy level for helium-4
    Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
    Decay rate for beryllium-8
    Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
    Polarity of the water molecule
    Epoch for hypernova eruptions
    Number and type of hypernova eruptions
    Epoch for supernova eruptions
    Number and types of supernova eruptions
    Epoch for white dwarf binaries
    Density of white dwarf binaries
    Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
    Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    Mass values for the active neutrinos
    Number of different species of active neutrinos
    Number of active neutrinos in the universe
    Mass value for the sterile neutrino
    Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
    Decay rates of exotic mass particles
    Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
    Size of the relativistic dilation factor
    Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
    Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first   
          supernovae
    Positive nature of cosmic pressures
    Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
    Density of quasars
    Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
    Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
    Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
    Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
    Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
    Number density of metal-free pop III stars
    Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
    Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
    Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
    Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
    Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
    Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
    Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
    Flatness of universe's geometry
    Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
    Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
    Constancy of dark energy factors
    Epoch for star formation peak
    Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
    Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
    Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
    Level of charge-parity violation
    Number of galaxies in the observable universe
    Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
    Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
    Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
    Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
    Water's temperature of maximum density
    Water's heat of fusion
    Water's heat of vaporization
    Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in 
         the universe
    Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
    Location of clumpuscules in the universe
    Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
    Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
    Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the 
         middle-aged universe
    Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
    Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate 
          mass stars
    Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field

Reasons To Believe : Fine-Tuning For Life In The Universe


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. He is saying the discoveries they have made disprove macroevolution so if the Naturalists want to stick to naturalism as an explanation, its time for them to look for another theory that science actually supports, not a 160 year old fairy tale based on bird beaks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
> 
> The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.
> 
> We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another irrelevant post. Of course you can't just address the topic at hand... ever.
Click to expand...


Your primary objection is that yet another christian creationist crackpot has been exposed as a fraud.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!
> 
> And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and how the fuck did I just make the fine tuning argument? All I stated was the obvious: that there exists natural forces in the universe. You just... make things up out of thin air, kind of like your imaginary intelligent designer. I see a connection here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the stupidity of your lack of understanding on how you were making the fine tuning argument. I quote, "Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are *built-in attractive forces in this universe *that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will."
> 
> This is the fine tuning argument, excrement for neurons, that the forces that make life possible were built into the universe from the beginning.
> 
> How the coitus do you think these VERY specific forces got built in?
> 
> 
> *Atheistic responses to the fine-tuning argument
> *
> _There are two common responses among atheists to this argument.
> 
> The first is to speculate that there are actually an infinite number of other universes that are not fine-tuned, (i.e.  the gamblers fallacy). All these other universes dont support life. We just happen to be in the one universe is fine-tuned for life. The problem is that there is no way of directly observing these other universes and no independent evidence that they exist.
> 
> Here is an excerpt from an article in Discover magazine, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).
> 
> Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.
> 
> The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesnt even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non*religious explanation for what is often called the fine-tuning problemthe baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.
> 
> The second response by atheists is that the human observers that exist today, 14 billion years after the universe was created out of nothing, actually caused the fine-tuning. This solution would mean that although humans did not exist at the time the of the big bang, they are going to be able to reach back in time at some point in the future and manually fine-tune the universe.
> 
> Here is an excerpt from and article in the New Scientist, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).
> 
> maybe we should approach cosmic fine-tuning not as a problem but as a clue. Perhaps it is evidence that we somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now. If we in some sense create the universe, it is not surprising that the universe is well suited to us.
> 
> So, there are two choices for atheists. Either an infinite number of unobservable universes that are not fine-tuned, or humans go back in time at some future point and fine-tune the beginning of the universe, billions of years in the past._
Click to expand...


Simple answer: "The gawds did it"

Shouldn't you be somewhere making ritual animal sacrifice to your designer gawds?


----------



## Hollie

One can only marvel at the _Simpleton Syndrome_ that afflicts christian creationists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define &#8220;_The gawds did it&#8221;_ arguments. Fundies insist they know that their gawds designed and created our universe. They doesn't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because it&#8217;s in the bible and because the bible is true, the bible is therefore true.

The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the christian creationist because there are none. When ID&#8217;iocy is self-refuting and self-contradictory, it&#8217;s because the gawds intended it. When ID&#8217;iocy is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, it's because the gawds intended that instead. When ID&#8217;iocy fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, &#8220;the gawds did it&#8221; is the explanation. 

We see with regularity how christian creationists will invert their positions, and thus their &#8220;reasoning&#8221; to account for their confused, befuddled gawds, but in the worldview where a hierarchy of designer gawds are responsible for all, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the christian creationists&#8217; arguments are pre-configured to prove gawds, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details of construction.

It would certainly be more honest of christian creationists to simply say "I Believe, therefore _reason_ and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any different merits than that they have a _need_ to believe it. But christian creationists are gob-smacked with belief, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards.


----------



## Hollie

Poor christian creationists. Once again, their "probaility" arguments are shot down in flames.


*Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions*

Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions



> Often on talk.origins we have seen assertions to the effect that there exists a law that is well known to physicists and/or mathematicians (possibly implying that it is a mathematical theorem) that there is a particular order of probability below which any event is considered to be "essentially impossible". This statement usually preceeds a calculation based on some unrealistic model of the formation of complicated organic molecules via the random assembly of atoms as "proof" that abiogenesis is impossible. At the end of this article, references are given to several creationist sources that refer to this probability assertion as "Borel's Law".
> 
> The "law" in question does not exist as a mathematical theorem, nor is there a universally decided upon "minimum probability" among the physical sciences community. Rather, Borel's Law originated in a discussion in a book written by Emil Borel for non-scientists. Borel shows examples of the kind of logic that any scientist might use to generate estimates of the minimum probability below which events of a particular type are considered negligible. It is important to stress that each of these estimates are created for specific physical problems, not as a universal law.
> 
> *&#8230;*
> 
> In _Probability and Life_, Borel states a "single law of chance" as the principle that "Phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur". At the beginning of Chapter Three of this book, he states:
> When we stated the single law of chance, "events whose probability is sufficiently small never occur," we did not conceal the lack of precision of the statement. There are cases where no doubt is possible; such is that of the complete works of Goethe being reproduced by a typist who does not know German and is typing at random. Between this somewhat extreme case and ones in which the probabilities are very small but nevertheless such that the occurrence of the corresponding event is not incredible, there are many intermediate cases. We shall attempt to determine as precisely as possible which values of probability must be regarded as negligible under certain circumstances.
> 
> It is evident that the requirements with respect to the degree of certainty imposed on the single law of chance will vary depending on whether we deal with scientific certainty or with the certainty which suffices in a given circumstance of everyday life.
> 
> The point being, that Borel's Law is a "rule of thumb" that exists on a sliding scale, depending on the phenomenon in question. It is not a mathematical theorem, nor is there any hard number that draws a line in the statistical sand saying that all events of a given probability and smaller are impossible for all types of events.
> 
> Borel continues by giving examples of how to choose such cutoff probabilities. For example, by reasoning from the traffic death rate of 1 per million in Paris (pre-World War II statistics) that an event of probability of 10-6(one in a million) is negligible on a "human scale". Multiplying this by 10-9 (1 over the population of the world in the 1940s), he obtains 10-15 as an estimate of negligible probabilities on a "terrestrial scale".
> 
> To evaluate the chance that physical laws such as Newtonian mechanics or laws related to the propagation of light could be wrong, Borel discusses probabilities that are negligible on a "cosmic scale", Borel asserts that 10-50 represents a negligible event on the cosmic scale as it is well below one over the product of the number of observable stars (109) times the number of observations that humans could make on those stars (1020).
> 
> To compute the odds against a container containing a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen spontaneously segregating into pure nitrogen on the top half and pure oxygen on the bottom half, Borel states that for equal volumes of oxygen and nitrogen the odds would be 2-n where n is the number of atoms, which Borel states as being smaller than the negligible probability of 10-(10(-10)), which he assigns as the negligible probability on a "supercosmic" scale. Borel creates this supercosmos by nesting our universe U1inside successive supercosmoses, each with the same number of elements identical to the preceding cosmos as that cosmos has its own elements, so that U2 would be composed of the same number of U1's as U1 has atoms, and U3 would be composed of the same number of U2's as U2 has U1's, and so forth on up to UN where N=1 million. He then creates a similar nested time scale with the base time of our universe being a billion years (T2 would contain a billion, billion years) on up to TN, N=1 million. Under such conditions of the number of atoms and the amount of time, the probability of separating the nitrogen and oxygen by a random process is still so small as to be negligible.
> 
> Ultimately, the point is that the user must design his or her "negligible probability" estimate based on a given set of assumed conditions.
> 
> Curiously, in spite of the suggestive title of the book Probability and Life, Borel has no discussion of evolution or abiogenesis-related issues. However, in Probability and Certainty, the last section of the main text is devoted to this question.
> 
> 
> From Probability and Certainty, p. 124-126:
> 
> The Problem of Life.
> 
> In conclusion, I feel it is necessary to say a few words regarding a question that does not really come within the scope of this book, but that certain readers might nevertheless reproach me for having entirely neglected. I mean the problem of the appearance of life on our planet (and eventually on other planets in the universe) and the probability that this appearance may have been due to chance. If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is too complex for us to be able to calculate its order of magnitude. It is on this point that I wish to make several explanatory comments.
> 
> When we calculated the probability of reproducing by mere chance a work of literature, in one or more volumes, we certainly observed that, if this work was printed, it must have emanated from a human brain. Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer than the particular work to which it gave birth. Is it not possible to infer that the probability that this brain may have been produced by the blind forces of chance is even slighter than the probability of the typewriting miracle?
> 
> It is obviously the same as if we asked ourselves whether we could know if it was possible actually to create a human being by combining at random a certain number of simple bodies. But this is not the way that the problem of the origin of life presents itself: it is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance.
> 
> Moreover, certain of these properties of living matter also belong to inanimate matter, when it takes certain forms, such as that of crystals. It does not seem possible to apply the laws of probability calculus to the phenomenon of the formation of a crystal in a more or less supersaturated solution. At least, it would not be possible to treat this as a problem of probability without taking account of certain properties of matter, properties that facilitate the formation of crystals and that we are certainly obliged to verify. We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit.
> Similar observations could be made regarding possible attempts to apply the probability calculus to cosmogonical problems. In this field, too, it does not seem that the conclusions we have could really be of great assistance.
> 
> In short, Borel says what many a talk.origins poster has said time and time again when confronted with such creationist arguments: namely, that probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do breeders reach dead ends???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What breeders have reached a dead end?
Click to expand...


So you want an example,european greyhound breeders started crossing their greyhounds with american greyhounds bloodlines because over breeding became a problem in europe. What happens from over breeding is the gene pool starts decreasing in size because as i have said earlier when breeding takes place you are breeding out genetic information not breeding in genetic information and that is how you get a new breed is by breeding out genetic information. When the gene pool decreases then more genetic disorders are passed on to the offspring and as the gene pool gets smaller and smaller the chances of the offspring having a genetic disorder increase.

The term you might want to learn is "genetic bottlenecking"It comes from over breeding or when a population gets smaller.

The mutts of the world are much healthier because they are genes from a much larger gene pool.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are always a difficult subject for cultists to come to terms with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hit the nail on the head for once hollie to bad it is you that is the cultist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had every expectation you and the other fundie would slither away.
Click to expand...


Some people have lives Hollie. What is there to slither away from ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
> 
> The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.
> 
> We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the  loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.
> 
> 
> A Critique of Douglas Theobald&#8217;s
> &#8220;29 Evidences for Macroevolution&#8221;
> by Ashby Camp
> Introduction Part 1
> 
> © 2001 Ashby L. Camp.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> 
> . . . Earth&#8217;s crammed with heaven,
> And every common bush afire with God:
> But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
> The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
> And daub their natural faces unaware
> More and more, from the first similitude.
> 
> Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22
> 
> 
> NOTE:  The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this article&#8212;and changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded.  Neither this article, nor Mr. Camp&#8217;s response to Theobald&#8217;s criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobold&#8217;s on-going adjustments and modifications.
> 
> am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin.  More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God.  Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.
> 
> In &#8220;29 Evidences for Macroevolution,&#8221; Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor.  In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.
> 
> Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought the science link would send the Christian fundies scrambling.
> 
> As it turns out, their only option is to link to another Christian fundie. From the fundie link:
> 
> "I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God."
> 
> Well sure, "the gawds did it"
> 
> 
> Anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp has penned a critique of these "29 Evidences of Macroevolution," which can be found posted at TrueOrigin. Camp's critique is well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article). Although I intend to address Camp's concerns in totality, currently I can only devote a limited amount of time to this effort. In the meantime, this partial response will suffice. I would like to thank Camp for his congenial criticism. It has given me the impetus to rework and expand the "29 Evidences," and the result is a more comprehensive, clearer, and stronger article.
> 
> My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there. In the following response, Camp's words are indented in grey boxes, set apart from mine. Material that Camp has quoted in his criticism is also in the grey boxes, surrounded by quotes, and followed by the pertinent external reference.
> 
> Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:
> 
> 1. Straw man arguments 2. Red herrings 3. Self-contradictions 4. Equivocation 5. Two wrongs make a right 6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident 7. Ignoratio elenchi 8. Naive theological assumptions 9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics 10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method 11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses" 12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 13. Misleading mis-quotes 14. Fallacies of accent 15. Distortion of scientific controversies 16. Arguments from authority 17. False analogies
> 
> The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.
> 
> Note: Since the time I wrote this reply, Mr. Camp has responded to this in a shorter article entitled "Camp answers Theobald." The elements which I felt deserve some mention are included here enclosed in green boxes.
Click to expand...


How many times are you gonna post this article filled with conjecture ? how many times has dawkins been hit with this question where is this evidence for macroevolution and his answer has been macroevolution takes to long to be observed in nature. If your article presented real evidence don't you think dawkins would have cited it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

jack113 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do breeders reach dead ends???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gawds? First you need to go back and try passing grade school before making a public fool out of yourself.
Click to expand...


Another empty accusation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and how the fuck did I just make the fine tuning argument? All I stated was the obvious: that there exists natural forces in the universe. You just... make things up out of thin air, kind of like your imaginary intelligent designer. I see a connection here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the stupidity of your lack of understanding on how you were making the fine tuning argument. I quote, "Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are *built-in attractive forces in this universe *that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will."
> 
> This is the fine tuning argument, excrement for neurons, that the forces that make life possible were built into the universe from the beginning.
> 
> How the coitus do you think these VERY specific forces got built in?
> 
> 
> *Atheistic responses to the fine-tuning argument
> *
> _There are two common responses among atheists to this argument.
> 
> The first is to speculate that there are actually an infinite number of other universes that are not fine-tuned, (i.e.  the gamblers fallacy). All these other universes dont support life. We just happen to be in the one universe is fine-tuned for life. The problem is that there is no way of directly observing these other universes and no independent evidence that they exist.
> 
> Here is an excerpt from an article in Discover magazine, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).
> 
> Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.
> 
> The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesnt even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non*religious explanation for what is often called the fine-tuning problemthe baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.
> 
> The second response by atheists is that the human observers that exist today, 14 billion years after the universe was created out of nothing, actually caused the fine-tuning. This solution would mean that although humans did not exist at the time the of the big bang, they are going to be able to reach back in time at some point in the future and manually fine-tune the universe.
> 
> Here is an excerpt from and article in the New Scientist, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).
> 
> maybe we should approach cosmic fine-tuning not as a problem but as a clue. Perhaps it is evidence that we somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now. If we in some sense create the universe, it is not surprising that the universe is well suited to us.
> 
> So, there are two choices for atheists. Either an infinite number of unobservable universes that are not fine-tuned, or humans go back in time at some future point and fine-tune the beginning of the universe, billions of years in the past._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple answer: "The gawds did it"
> 
> Shouldn't you be somewhere making ritual animal sacrifice to your designer gawds?
Click to expand...


Your hatred for Christians a person would think you would have understood the sacrifice of Christ.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Your hatred for Christians a person would think you would have understood the sacrifice of Christ.



Except that there's no actual proof that Jesus even existed.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What breeders have reached a dead end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want an example,european greyhound breeders started crossing their greyhounds with american greyhounds bloodlines because over breeding became a problem in europe. What happens from over breeding is the gene pool starts decreasing in size because as i have said earlier when breeding takes place you are breeding out genetic information not breeding in genetic information and that is how you get a new breed is by breeding out genetic information. When the gene pool decreases then more genetic disorders are passed on to the offspring and as the gene pool gets smaller and smaller the chances of the offspring having a genetic disorder increase.
> 
> The term you might want to learn is "genetic bottlenecking"It comes from over breeding or when a population gets smaller.
> 
> The mutts of the world are much healthier because they are genes from a much larger gene pool.
Click to expand...


You dont have a grasp of the terms youre hoping to describe. The term that describes what the European breeders are doing is called line-breeding, which is a term used to soften the unscrupulous practice of in-breeding.

Your description has nothing to do with reaching a dead end. Thats ridiculous. Similarly, you use over-breeding incorrectly. That term has no relevance to breeders who use in-breeding as a way to capture specific physical traits of a dog breed.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the stupidity of your lack of understanding on how you were making the fine tuning argument. I quote, "Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are *built-in attractive forces in this universe *that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will."
> 
> This is the fine tuning argument, excrement for neurons, that the forces that make life possible were built into the universe from the beginning.
> 
> How the coitus do you think these VERY specific forces got built in?
> 
> 
> *Atheistic responses to the fine-tuning argument
> *
> _There are two common responses among atheists to this argument.
> 
> The first is to speculate that there are actually an infinite number of other universes that are not fine-tuned, (i.e.  the gamblers fallacy). All these other universes dont support life. We just happen to be in the one universe is fine-tuned for life. The problem is that there is no way of directly observing these other universes and no independent evidence that they exist.
> 
> Here is an excerpt from an article in Discover magazine, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).
> 
> Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.
> 
> The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesnt even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non*religious explanation for what is often called the fine-tuning problemthe baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.
> 
> The second response by atheists is that the human observers that exist today, 14 billion years after the universe was created out of nothing, actually caused the fine-tuning. This solution would mean that although humans did not exist at the time the of the big bang, they are going to be able to reach back in time at some point in the future and manually fine-tune the universe.
> 
> Here is an excerpt from and article in the New Scientist, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).
> 
> maybe we should approach cosmic fine-tuning not as a problem but as a clue. Perhaps it is evidence that we somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now. If we in some sense create the universe, it is not surprising that the universe is well suited to us.
> 
> So, there are two choices for atheists. Either an infinite number of unobservable universes that are not fine-tuned, or humans go back in time at some future point and fine-tune the beginning of the universe, billions of years in the past._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple answer: "The gawds did it"
> 
> Shouldn't you be somewhere making ritual animal sacrifice to your designer gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your hatred for Christians a person would think you would have understood the sacrifice of Christ.
Click to expand...


Christ died for our sins. Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them?
_-Jules Feiffer_

All seriousness aside, your anguished appeals to a fable which is absent any verification or substantiation is not something that you should feel a need to hurl at me. 

I have much more empathy for the man who spent 3 days in the belly of a fish. That story we know is true. Call me Ishmael..


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the  loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.
> 
> 
> A Critique of Douglas Theobalds
> 29 Evidences for Macroevolution
> by Ashby Camp
> Introduction Part 1
> 
> © 2001 Ashby L. Camp.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> 
> . . . Earths crammed with heaven,
> And every common bush afire with God:
> But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
> The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
> And daub their natural faces unaware
> More and more, from the first similitude.
> 
> Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22
> 
> 
> NOTE:  The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this articleand changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded.  Neither this article, nor Mr. Camps response to Theobalds criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobolds on-going adjustments and modifications.
> 
> am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin.  More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God.  Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.
> 
> In 29 Evidences for Macroevolution, Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor.  In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.
> 
> Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the science link would send the Christian fundies scrambling.
> 
> As it turns out, their only option is to link to another Christian fundie. From the fundie link:
> 
> "I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God."
> 
> Well sure, "the gawds did it"
> 
> 
> Anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp has penned a critique of these "29 Evidences of Macroevolution," which can be found posted at TrueOrigin. Camp's critique is well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article). Although I intend to address Camp's concerns in totality, currently I can only devote a limited amount of time to this effort. In the meantime, this partial response will suffice. I would like to thank Camp for his congenial criticism. It has given me the impetus to rework and expand the "29 Evidences," and the result is a more comprehensive, clearer, and stronger article.
> 
> My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there. In the following response, Camp's words are indented in grey boxes, set apart from mine. Material that Camp has quoted in his criticism is also in the grey boxes, surrounded by quotes, and followed by the pertinent external reference.
> 
> Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:
> 
> 1. Straw man arguments 2. Red herrings 3. Self-contradictions 4. Equivocation 5. Two wrongs make a right 6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident 7. Ignoratio elenchi 8. Naive theological assumptions 9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics 10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method 11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses" 12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 13. Misleading mis-quotes 14. Fallacies of accent 15. Distortion of scientific controversies 16. Arguments from authority 17. False analogies
> 
> The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.
> 
> Note: Since the time I wrote this reply, Mr. Camp has responded to this in a shorter article entitled "Camp answers Theobald." The elements which I felt deserve some mention are included here enclosed in green boxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times are you gonna post this article filled with conjecture ? how many times has dawkins been hit with this question where is this evidence for macroevolution and his answer has been macroevolution takes to long to be observed in nature. If your article presented real evidence don't you think dawkins would have cited it ?
Click to expand...


As I noted previously, christian creationist tend to run for the exits when their sacred cows are sent to the barn.

So yes,  I know there are those who will close their eyes, cover their virtual ears and screech in a haunting falsetto to avoid the modest retrospective but...


...allow me the occasion to _whack-a fundie_.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your hatred for Christians a person would think you would have understood the sacrifice of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that there's no actual proof that Jesus even existed.
Click to expand...


You would like to think so.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What breeders have reached a dead end?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want an example,european greyhound breeders started crossing their greyhounds with american greyhounds bloodlines because over breeding became a problem in europe. What happens from over breeding is the gene pool starts decreasing in size because as i have said earlier when breeding takes place you are breeding out genetic information not breeding in genetic information and that is how you get a new breed is by breeding out genetic information. When the gene pool decreases then more genetic disorders are passed on to the offspring and as the gene pool gets smaller and smaller the chances of the offspring having a genetic disorder increase.
> 
> The term you might want to learn is "genetic bottlenecking"It comes from over breeding or when a population gets smaller.
> 
> The mutts of the world are much healthier because they are genes from a much larger gene pool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don&#8217;t have a grasp of the terms you&#8217;re hoping to describe. The term that describes what the European breeders are doing is called &#8220;line-breeding&#8221;, which is a term used to soften the unscrupulous practice of in-breeding.
> 
> Your description has nothing to do with &#8220;reaching a dead end&#8221;. That&#8217;s ridiculous. Similarly, you use &#8220;over-breeding&#8221; incorrectly. That term has no relevance to breeders who use in-breeding as a way to capture specific physical traits of a dog breed.
Click to expand...


Every breeder is a line breeder,you don't make money raising mutts. You're completely clueless. I described the problems for linebreeding.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the science link would send the Christian fundies scrambling.
> 
> As it turns out, their only option is to link to another Christian fundie. From the fundie link:
> 
> "I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God."
> 
> Well sure, "the gawds did it"
> 
> 
> Anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp has penned a critique of these "29 Evidences of Macroevolution," which can be found posted at TrueOrigin. Camp's critique is well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article). Although I intend to address Camp's concerns in totality, currently I can only devote a limited amount of time to this effort. In the meantime, this partial response will suffice. I would like to thank Camp for his congenial criticism. It has given me the impetus to rework and expand the "29 Evidences," and the result is a more comprehensive, clearer, and stronger article.
> 
> My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there. In the following response, Camp's words are indented in grey boxes, set apart from mine. Material that Camp has quoted in his criticism is also in the grey boxes, surrounded by quotes, and followed by the pertinent external reference.
> 
> Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:
> 
> 1. Straw man arguments 2. Red herrings 3. Self-contradictions 4. Equivocation 5. Two wrongs make a right 6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident 7. Ignoratio elenchi 8. Naive theological assumptions 9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics 10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method 11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses" 12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 13. Misleading mis-quotes 14. Fallacies of accent 15. Distortion of scientific controversies 16. Arguments from authority 17. False analogies
> 
> The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.
> 
> Note: Since the time I wrote this reply, Mr. Camp has responded to this in a shorter article entitled "Camp answers Theobald." The elements which I felt deserve some mention are included here enclosed in green boxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times are you gonna post this article filled with conjecture ? how many times has dawkins been hit with this question where is this evidence for macroevolution and his answer has been macroevolution takes to long to be observed in nature. If your article presented real evidence don't you think dawkins would have cited it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I noted previously, christian creationist tend to run for the exits when their sacred cows are sent to the barn.
> 
> So yes,  I know there are those who will close their eyes, cover their virtual ears and screech in a haunting falsetto to avoid the modest retrospective but...
> 
> 
> ...allow me the occasion to _whack-a fundie_.
Click to expand...


I am asking you why dawkins and many well known evolutionist do not cite Theobalds work ? whack yourself.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want an example,european greyhound breeders started crossing their greyhounds with american greyhounds bloodlines because over breeding became a problem in europe. What happens from over breeding is the gene pool starts decreasing in size because as i have said earlier when breeding takes place you are breeding out genetic information not breeding in genetic information and that is how you get a new breed is by breeding out genetic information. When the gene pool decreases then more genetic disorders are passed on to the offspring and as the gene pool gets smaller and smaller the chances of the offspring having a genetic disorder increase.
> 
> The term you might want to learn is "genetic bottlenecking"It comes from over breeding or when a population gets smaller.
> 
> The mutts of the world are much healthier because they are genes from a much larger gene pool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dont have a grasp of the terms youre hoping to describe. The term that describes what the European breeders are doing is called line-breeding, which is a term used to soften the unscrupulous practice of in-breeding.
> 
> Your description has nothing to do with reaching a dead end. Thats ridiculous. Similarly, you use over-breeding incorrectly. That term has no relevance to breeders who use in-breeding as a way to capture specific physical traits of a dog breed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every breeder is a line breeder,you don't make money raising mutts. You're completely clueless. I described the problems for linebreeding.
Click to expand...

You were floundering around with descriptions of terms you know nothing of. Line-breeding is specifically mating littermates or mating a dog / bitch to one of its own offspring. As we see, you are the clueless one. Try and understand the definition of terms you use before posting such nonsense as "over breeding".


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times are you gonna post this article filled with conjecture ? how many times has dawkins been hit with this question where is this evidence for macroevolution and his answer has been macroevolution takes to long to be observed in nature. If your article presented real evidence don't you think dawkins would have cited it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted previously, christian creationist tend to run for the exits when their sacred cows are sent to the barn.
> 
> So yes,  I know there are those who will close their eyes, cover their virtual ears and screech in a haunting falsetto to avoid the modest retrospective but...
> 
> 
> ...allow me the occasion to _whack-a fundie_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you why dawkins and many well known evolutionist do not cite Theobalds work ? whack yourself.
Click to expand...

What requirement are you assigning to Richard Dawkins as speaking on behalf of "evolutionist". Are you aware that "evolutionist" in the context you describe is plural?

I understand Dawkins causes creationist real angst, but the science of evolutionist is not tied exclusively to Dawkins. You will be surprised to learn that evolutionist comprises many, varied sciences such as biology, chemistry, paleontology, geology and others. The science stands on its own merits. Although, I do acknowledge that on the part of Christian creationist, all the science and infidel hatred can be neatly encapsulated in one word: "evilution".

What "well known" evolutionist have not cited the work of Theobald?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do breeders reach dead ends???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.
Click to expand...


The answer to YWC's question is simple. There isn't a discernible, consistent selective pressure to push one species towards any particular traits for a long enough period of time, in the context of  labratory trials or on the timescales we are used to. Evolution is not deterministic. There is no pre-determined set of reproductive events that will eventually produce a "macroevolutionary" event. The fact that we have witnessed speciation both in the lab and in nature should be evidence enough.

Funny that you ask such probing questions of evolution, and yet, no such questions can even be asked of your intelligent designer, because it has no ontology, other than its "intelligence." This is a cover up for "god." Plain and simple. The sooner you admit this, the sooner we can end this thread.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted previously, christian creationist tend to run for the exits when their sacred cows are sent to the barn.
> 
> So yes,  I know there are those who will close their eyes, cover their virtual ears and screech in a haunting falsetto to avoid the modest retrospective but...
> 
> 
> ...allow me the occasion to _whack-a fundie_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you why dawkins and many well known evolutionist do not cite Theobalds work ? whack yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What requirement are you assigning to Richard Dawkins as speaking on behalf of "evolutionist". Are you aware that "evolutionist" in the context you describe is plural?
> 
> I understand Dawkins causes creationist real angst, but the science of evolutionist is not tied exclusively to Dawkins. You will be surprised to learn that evolutionist comprises many, varied sciences such as biology, chemistry, paleontology, geology and others. The science stands on its own merits. Although, I do acknowledge that on the part of Christian creationist, all the science and infidel hatred can be neatly encapsulated in one word: "evilution".
> 
> What "well known" evolutionist have not cited the work of Theobald?
Click to expand...


Are you saying dawkins is not well respected in the evolutionist community ? Also I didn't just point out dawkins did I. I have seen no well known evolutionist cite Theobalds work.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont have a grasp of the terms youre hoping to describe. The term that describes what the European breeders are doing is called line-breeding, which is a term used to soften the unscrupulous practice of in-breeding.
> 
> Your description has nothing to do with reaching a dead end. Thats ridiculous. Similarly, you use over-breeding incorrectly. That term has no relevance to breeders who use in-breeding as a way to capture specific physical traits of a dog breed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every breeder is a line breeder,you don't make money raising mutts. You're completely clueless. I described the problems for linebreeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were floundering around with descriptions of terms you know nothing of. Line-breeding is specifically mating littermates or mating a dog / bitch to one of its own offspring. As we see, you are the clueless one. Try and understand the definition of terms you use before posting such nonsense as "over breeding".
Click to expand...


line breed·ing  
Noun
The selective breeding of animals for a desired feature by mating them within a closely related line.

Now let's look at the results of linebreeding and over breeding a particular breed. We will use an article from a site you support.

Top 10 Most Over-Bred Dogs | PETA.org


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont have a grasp of the terms youre hoping to describe. The term that describes what the European breeders are doing is called line-breeding, which is a term used to soften the unscrupulous practice of in-breeding.
> 
> Your description has nothing to do with reaching a dead end. Thats ridiculous. Similarly, you use over-breeding incorrectly. That term has no relevance to breeders who use in-breeding as a way to capture specific physical traits of a dog breed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every breeder is a line breeder,you don't make money raising mutts. You're completely clueless. I described the problems for linebreeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were floundering around with descriptions of terms you know nothing of. Line-breeding is specifically mating littermates or mating a dog / bitch to one of its own offspring. As we see, you are the clueless one. Try and understand the definition of terms you use before posting such nonsense as "over breeding".
Click to expand...


You gave a poor explanation of linebreeding.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you why dawkins and many well known evolutionist do not cite Theobalds work ? whack yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> What requirement are you assigning to Richard Dawkins as speaking on behalf of "evolutionist". Are you aware that "evolutionist" in the context you describe is plural?
> 
> I understand Dawkins causes creationist real angst, but the science of evolutionist is not tied exclusively to Dawkins. You will be surprised to learn that evolutionist comprises many, varied sciences such as biology, chemistry, paleontology, geology and others. The science stands on its own merits. Although, I do acknowledge that on the part of Christian creationist, all the science and infidel hatred can be neatly encapsulated in one word: "evilution".
> 
> What "well known" evolutionist have not cited the work of Theobald?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying dawkins is not well respected in the evolutionist community ? Also I didn't just point out dawkins did I. I have seen no well known evolutionist cite Theobalds work.
Click to expand...


Dawkins being "well respected" has no discernible affect on the veracity of evolutionary sciemce.

Who cares whether you have or have not seen any well known evolutionist cite Theobalds work. 

I will simply identify that neither you or other christian creationist have a meaningful rebuttal to the disassembly of the creationist argument for gawds that typify creationist rhetoric.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every breeder is a line breeder,you don't make money raising mutts. You're completely clueless. I described the problems for linebreeding.
> 
> 
> 
> You were floundering around with descriptions of terms you know nothing of. Line-breeding is specifically mating littermates or mating a dog / bitch to one of its own offspring. As we see, you are the clueless one. Try and understand the definition of terms you use before posting such nonsense as "over breeding".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You gave a poor explanation of linebreeding.
Click to expand...


Your feelings were hurt at being derided for your uneducated, silly and ineffectual description of "over breeding" and not at all understanding the terms and definition s you were writing out.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every breeder is a line breeder,you don't make money raising mutts. You're completely clueless. I described the problems for linebreeding.
> 
> 
> 
> You were floundering around with descriptions of terms you know nothing of. Line-breeding is specifically mating littermates or mating a dog / bitch to one of its own offspring. As we see, you are the clueless one. Try and understand the definition of terms you use before posting such nonsense as "over breeding".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> line breed·ing
> Noun
> The selective breeding of animals for a desired feature by mating them within a closely related line.
> 
> Now let's look at the results of linebreeding and over breeding a particular breed. We will use an article from a site you support.
> 
> Top 10 Most Over-Bred Dogs | PETA.org
Click to expand...


Your post largely described what I corrected you about.


----------



## newpolitics

Wait, how is ID falsifiable?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What requirement are you assigning to Richard Dawkins as speaking on behalf of "evolutionist". Are you aware that "evolutionist" in the context you describe is plural?
> 
> I understand Dawkins causes creationist real angst, but the science of evolutionist is not tied exclusively to Dawkins. You will be surprised to learn that evolutionist comprises many, varied sciences such as biology, chemistry, paleontology, geology and others. The science stands on its own merits. Although, I do acknowledge that on the part of Christian creationist, all the science and infidel hatred can be neatly encapsulated in one word: "evilution".
> 
> What "well known" evolutionist have not cited the work of Theobald?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying dawkins is not well respected in the evolutionist community ? Also I didn't just point out dawkins did I. I have seen no well known evolutionist cite Theobalds work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dawkins being "well respected" has no discernible affect on the veracity of evolutionary sciemce.
> 
> Who cares whether you have or have not seen any well known evolutionist cite Theobalds work.
> 
> I will simply identify that neither you or other christian creationist have a meaningful rebuttal to the disassembly of the creationist argument for gawds that typify creationist rhetoric.
Click to expand...


Hollie wake up now,if your article was credible and Theobald did prove a case of macroevolution he would be the most famous guy in science. Yes even more famous then Darwin. Do you actually reason from what you learn ?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do breeders reach dead ends???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What breeders have reached a dead end?
Click to expand...


Google it. This happens all the time with genetically modified crops.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were floundering around with descriptions of terms you know nothing of. Line-breeding is specifically mating littermates or mating a dog / bitch to one of its own offspring. As we see, you are the clueless one. Try and understand the definition of terms you use before posting such nonsense as "over breeding".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You gave a poor explanation of linebreeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your feelings were hurt at being derided for your uneducated, silly and ineffectual description of "over breeding" and not at all understanding the terms and definition s you were writing out.
Click to expand...


Both line breeding and overbreeding are not good for the breed  for the reasons I stated.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were floundering around with descriptions of terms you know nothing of. Line-breeding is specifically mating littermates or mating a dog / bitch to one of its own offspring. As we see, you are the clueless one. Try and understand the definition of terms you use before posting such nonsense as "over breeding".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> line breed·ing
> Noun
> The selective breeding of animals for a desired feature by mating them within a closely related line.
> 
> Now let's look at the results of linebreeding and over breeding a particular breed. We will use an article from a site you support.
> 
> Top 10 Most Over-Bred Dogs | PETA.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post largely described what I corrected you about.
Click to expand...


You didn't correct me on anything you have just failed to understand that article supported what I said.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do breeders reach dead ends???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What breeders have reached a dead end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google it. This happens all the time with genetically modified crops.
Click to expand...


I read an article on both sugar beets and corn they ran in to this problem.


----------



## UltimateReality

One can only marvel at the _Simpleton Syndrome_ that afflicts evolutionists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define _Darwin did it_ arguments. Fundies insist they know that randomness designed and created our universe. They don't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because evolution can't be wrong and therefore, because evolution is true, everything else has to fit.

The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the evolutionist because there are none. When darwinism is self-refuting and self-contradictory, its because natural selection intended it. When darwinism is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, that never stops them from declaring it is scientifically proven. When darwinism fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, darwinists protest that origins isn't part of evolution. 

We see with regularity how evolutionists will invert their positions, and thus their reasoning to account for their confused, befuddled theories, but in the worldview where matter is the only reality, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the evolutionists arguments are pre-configured to prove materialism, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details.

It would certainly be more honest of evolutionists to simply say "I Believe, therefore _reason_ and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any empirical evidence. But evolutionists are darwin-smacked with hate for the Creator, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards. And why would they, since their materialistic worldview lacks any basis for ethics, lying is no more wrong than abortion. If honesty is a detriment to "fitness", it must be thrown out along with anything that does not support the party line.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do breeders reach dead ends???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What breeders have reached a dead end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google it. This happens all the time with genetically modified crops.
Click to expand...


So, you're clueless. You can't even define the terms you use.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> One can only marvel at the _Simpleton Syndrome_ that afflicts evolutionists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define _Darwin did it_ arguments. Fundies insist they know that randomness designed and created our universe. They don't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because evolution can't be wrong and therefore, because evolution is true, everything else has to fit.
> 
> The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the evolutionist because there are none. When darwinism is self-refuting and self-contradictory, its because natural selection intended it. When darwinism is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, that never stops them from declaring it is scientifically proven. When darwinism fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, darwinists protest that origins isn't part of evolution.
> 
> We see with regularity how evolutionists will invert their positions, and thus their reasoning to account for their confused, befuddled theories, but in the worldview where matter is the only reality, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the evolutionists arguments are pre-configured to prove materialism, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details.
> 
> It would certainly be more honest of evolutionists to simply say "I Believe, therefore _reason_ and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any empirical evidence. But evolutionists are darwin-smacked with hate for the Creator, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards. And why would they, since their materialistic worldview lacks any basis for ethics, lying is no more wrong than abortion. If honesty is a detriment to "fitness", it must be thrown out along with anything that does not support the party line.


How sad for you. Unable to actually compose a coherent post of your own, you had to plagiarize my earlier comments.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What breeders have reached a dead end?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google it. This happens all the time with genetically modified crops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you're clueless. You can't even define the terms you use.
Click to expand...


Give it up, you're getting desperate now.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> line breed·ing
> Noun
> The selective breeding of animals for a desired feature by mating them within a closely related line.
> 
> Now let's look at the results of linebreeding and over breeding a particular breed. We will use an article from a site you support.
> 
> Top 10 Most Over-Bred Dogs | PETA.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post largely described what I corrected you about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't correct me on anything you have just failed to understand that article supported what I said.
Click to expand...


The article supported nothing you said. You're unable to define what you wrote.

"Over-breeding" is a meaningless term. Over-breeding might mean an over-supply but it means nothing in the context of line-breeding. As it has been explained to you, line-breeding is the process of breeding dogs (and other animals) with "family" members.

It's similar to what happened when your gawds wiped most of humanity from the planet, leaving Noah and his immediate family members to re-populate the planet. How strange that your designer gawds would promote incest.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google it. This happens all the time with genetically modified crops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're clueless. You can't even define the terms you use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it up, you're getting desperate now.
Click to expand...


And still, you waffle and evade.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You gave a poor explanation of linebreeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your feelings were hurt at being derided for your uneducated, silly and ineffectual description of "over breeding" and not at all understanding the terms and definition s you were writing out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both line breeding and overbreeding are not good for the breed  for the reasons I stated.
Click to expand...


What is "overbreeding"?

Heyzeus H. Chrust, but you are such a clown.


----------



## UltimateReality

*Further proof that Hawly has no clue what she is even posting...*



Hollie said:


> Poor christian creationists. Once again, their "probaility" arguments are shot down in flames.
> 
> 
> *Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions*
> 
> Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Often on talk.origins we have seen assertions to the effect that there exists a law that is well known to physicists and/or mathematicians (possibly implying that it is a mathematical theorem) that there is a particular order of probability below which any event is considered to be "essentially impossible". This statement usually preceeds a calculation based on some unrealistic model of the formation of complicated organic molecules via the random *assembly of atoms as "proof" that abiogenesis is impossible.* At the end of this article, references are given to several creationist sources that refer to this probability assertion as "Borel's Law".
> 
> The "law" in question does not exist as a mathematical theorem, nor is there a universally decided upon "minimum probability" among the physical sciences community. Rather, Borel's Law originated in a discussion in a book written by Emil Borel for non-scientists. Borel shows examples of the kind of logic that any scientist might use to generate estimates of the minimum probability below which events of a particular type are considered negligible. It is important to stress that each of these estimates are created for specific physical problems, not as a universal law.
> 
> **
> 
> In _Probability and Life_, Borel states a "single law of chance" as the principle that "Phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur". At the beginning of Chapter Three of this book, he states:
> When we stated the single law of chance, "events whose probability is sufficiently small never occur," we did not conceal the lack of precision of the statement. There are cases where no doubt is possible; such is that of the complete works of Goethe being reproduced by a typist who does not know German and is typing at random. Between this somewhat extreme case and ones in which the probabilities are very small but nevertheless such that the occurrence of the corresponding event is not incredible, there are many intermediate cases. We shall attempt to determine as precisely as possible which values of probability must be regarded as negligible under certain circumstances.
> 
> It is evident that the requirements with respect to the degree of certainty imposed on the single law of chance will vary depending on whether we deal with scientific certainty or with the certainty which suffices in a given circumstance of everyday life.
> 
> The point being, that Borel's Law is a "rule of thumb" that exists on a sliding scale, depending on the phenomenon in question. It is not a mathematical theorem, nor is there any hard number that draws a line in the statistical sand saying that all events of a given probability and smaller are impossible for all types of events.
> 
> Borel continues by giving examples of how to choose such cutoff probabilities. For example, by reasoning from the traffic death rate of 1 per million in Paris (pre-World War II statistics) that an event of probability of 10-6(one in a million) is negligible on a "human scale". Multiplying this by 10-9 (1 over the population of the world in the 1940s), he obtains 10-15 as an estimate of negligible probabilities on a "terrestrial scale".
> 
> To evaluate the chance that physical laws such as Newtonian mechanics or laws related to the propagation of light could be wrong, Borel discusses probabilities that are negligible on a "cosmic scale", Borel asserts that 10-50 represents a negligible event on the cosmic scale as it is well below one over the product of the number of observable stars (109) times the number of observations that humans could make on those stars (1020).
> 
> To compute the odds against a container containing a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen spontaneously segregating into pure nitrogen on the top half and pure oxygen on the bottom half, Borel states that for equal volumes of oxygen and nitrogen the odds would be 2-n where n is the number of atoms, which Borel states as being smaller than the negligible probability of 10-(10(-10)), which he assigns as the negligible probability on a "supercosmic" scale.* Borel creates this supercosmos by nesting our universe U1inside successive supercosmoses, each with the same number of elements identical to the preceding cosmos as that cosmos has its own elements, so that U2 would be composed of the same number of U1's as U1 has atoms, and U3 would be composed of the same number of U2's as U2 has U1's, and so forth on up to UN where N=1 million. *He then creates a similar nested time scale with the base time of our universe being a billion years (T2 would contain a billion, billion years) on up to TN, N=1 million. Under such conditions of the number of atoms and the amount of time, the probability of separating the nitrogen and oxygen by a random process is still so small as to be negligible.
> 
> Ultimately, the point is that the user must design his or her "negligible probability" estimate based on a given set of assumed conditions.
> 
> Curiously, in spite of the suggestive title of the book Probability and Life, *Borel has no discussion of evolution or abiogenesis-related issues.* However, in Probability and Certainty, the last section of the main text is devoted to this question.
> 
> 
> From Probability and Certainty, p. 124-126:
> 
> The Problem of Life.
> 
> In conclusion, I feel it is necessary to say a few words regarding a question that does not really come within the scope of this book, but that certain readers might nevertheless reproach me for having entirely neglected. I mean the problem of the appearance of life on our planet (and eventually on other planets in the universe) and the probability that this appearance may have been due to chance. If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is too complex for us to be able to calculate its order of magnitude. It is on this point that I wish to make several explanatory comments.
> 
> When we calculated the probability of reproducing by mere chance a work of literature, in one or more volumes, we certainly observed that, if this work was printed, it must have emanated from a human brain. Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer than the particular work to which it gave birth. Is it not possible to infer that the probability that this brain may have been produced by the blind forces of chance is even slighter than the probability of the typewriting miracle?
> 
> It is obviously the same as if we asked ourselves whether we could know if it was possible actually to create a human being by combining at random a certain number of simple bodies. *But this is not the way that the problem of the origin of life presents itself: it is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms,* and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance.
> 
> Moreover, certain of these properties of living matter also belong to inanimate matter, when it takes certain forms, *such as that of crystals.* It does not seem possible to apply the laws of probability calculus to the phenomenon of the formation of a crystal in a more or less supersaturated solution. At least, it would not be possible to treat this as a problem of probability without taking account of certain properties of matter, properties that facilitate the formation of crystals and that we are certainly obliged to verify. We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit.
> Similar observations could be made regarding possible attempts to apply the probability calculus to cosmogonical problems. In this field, too, it does not seem that the conclusions we have could really be of great assistance.
> 
> In short, Borel says what many a talk.origins poster has said time and time again when confronted with such creationist arguments: namely, that probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless.
Click to expand...


First, the stupid talk origins commentator misrepresents Meyers argument as having something to do with atoms. It doesn't. 

Then the quote author alludes to a multiple universe theory to reduce probabilities, and admits he doesn't even address origins questions. He talks about irrelevant crystals, and makes an appeal to evolution. Finally, he alludes to necessity, with an irrelevant comment about forces of matter we don't understand, but doesn't tell us what those are. 

It is no surprise that Hawly would consider this as Creationists being shot down in flames since her threshold for what actually constitutes evidence or proof, has been skewed by following the pseudoscience of evolution for years.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> One can only marvel at the _Simpleton Syndrome_ that afflicts evolutionists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define _Darwin did it_ arguments. Fundies insist they know that randomness designed and created our universe. They don't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because evolution can't be wrong and therefore, because evolution is true, everything else has to fit.
> 
> The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the evolutionist because there are none. When darwinism is self-refuting and self-contradictory, its because natural selection intended it. When darwinism is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, that never stops them from declaring it is scientifically proven. When darwinism fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, darwinists protest that origins isn't part of evolution.
> 
> We see with regularity how evolutionists will invert their positions, and thus their reasoning to account for their confused, befuddled theories, but in the worldview where matter is the only reality, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the evolutionists arguments are pre-configured to prove materialism, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details.
> 
> It would certainly be more honest of evolutionists to simply say "I Believe, therefore _reason_ and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any empirical evidence. But evolutionists are darwin-smacked with hate for the Creator, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards. And why would they, since their materialistic worldview lacks any basis for ethics, lying is no more wrong than abortion. If honesty is a detriment to "fitness", it must be thrown out along with anything that does not support the party line.



You have issues


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your feelings were hurt at being derided for your uneducated, silly and ineffectual description of "over breeding" and not at all understanding the terms and definition s you were writing out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both line breeding and overbreeding are not good for the breed  for the reasons I stated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is "overbreeding"?
> 
> Heyzeus H. Chrust, but you are such a clown.
Click to expand...


Guess you're the clown, liar.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/overbreeding

Pedigree Dogs Exposed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What breeders have reached a dead end?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google it. This happens all the time with genetically modified crops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read an article on both sugar beets and corn they ran in to this problem.
Click to expand...


Did you take away from the article that vegetables were being over-bred? That sounds like a supply vs. demand thing.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both line breeding and overbreeding are not good for the breed  for the reasons I stated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is "overbreeding"?
> 
> Heyzeus H. Chrust, but you are such a clown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess you're the clown, liar.
> 
> Pedigree Dogs Exposed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


You still can't understand the terms and definitions after they were explained to you?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is "overbreeding"?
> 
> Heyzeus H. Chrust, but you are such a clown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you're the clown, liar.
> 
> Pedigree Dogs Exposed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still can't understand the terms and definitions after they were explained to you?
Click to expand...


overbreeding - definition of overbreeding by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> One can only marvel at the _Simpleton Syndrome_ that afflicts evolutionists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define _Darwin did it_ arguments. Fundies insist they know that randomness designed and created our universe. They don't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because evolution can't be wrong and therefore, because evolution is true, everything else has to fit.
> 
> The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the evolutionist because there are none. When darwinism is self-refuting and self-contradictory, its because natural selection intended it. When darwinism is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, that never stops them from declaring it is scientifically proven. When darwinism fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, darwinists protest that origins isn't part of evolution.
> 
> We see with regularity how evolutionists will invert their positions, and thus their reasoning to account for their confused, befuddled theories, but in the worldview where matter is the only reality, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the evolutionists arguments are pre-configured to prove materialism, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details.
> 
> It would certainly be more honest of evolutionists to simply say "I Believe, therefore _reason_ and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any empirical evidence. But evolutionists are darwin-smacked with hate for the Creator, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards. And why would they, since their materialistic worldview lacks any basis for ethics, lying is no more wrong than abortion. If honesty is a detriment to "fitness", it must be thrown out along with anything that does not support the party line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have issues
Click to expand...

You can't compose a coherent thought without hacking my earlier post. Absent cutting and pasting from my posts, your vacant mind is unable to compose a coherent sentence.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> One can only marvel at the _Simpleton Syndrome_ that afflicts evolutionists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define _Darwin did it_ arguments. Fundies insist they know that randomness designed and created our universe. They don't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because evolution can't be wrong and therefore, because evolution is true, everything else has to fit.
> 
> The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the evolutionist because there are none. When darwinism is self-refuting and self-contradictory, its because natural selection intended it. When darwinism is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, that never stops them from declaring it is scientifically proven. When darwinism fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, darwinists protest that origins isn't part of evolution.
> 
> We see with regularity how evolutionists will invert their positions, and thus their reasoning to account for their confused, befuddled theories, but in the worldview where matter is the only reality, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the evolutionists arguments are pre-configured to prove materialism, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details.
> 
> It would certainly be more honest of evolutionists to simply say "I Believe, therefore _reason_ and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any empirical evidence. But evolutionists are darwin-smacked with hate for the Creator, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards. And why would they, since their materialistic worldview lacks any basis for ethics, lying is no more wrong than abortion. If honesty is a detriment to "fitness", it must be thrown out along with anything that does not support the party line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have issues
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't compose a coherent thought without hacking my earlier post. Absent cutting and pasting from my posts, your vacant mind is unable to compose a coherent sentence.
Click to expand...


Proof positive that you have no clue what you are even cutting and pasting. You really are clueless on how to respond to the most basic arguments presented here without your atheists sources and even when you cite them, you don't even know what you are citing as proven here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-810.html#post6468902


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you're the clown, liar.
> 
> Pedigree Dogs Exposed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still can't understand the terms and definitions after they were explained to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> overbreeding - definition of overbreeding by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Click to expand...


And yet you still can't manage to cobbled together a meaningful description of over-breeding as it relates to line-breeding. Your frantic cutting and pasting has again befuddled the argument you needed others to make for you.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your hatred for Christians a person would think you would have understood the sacrifice of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that there's no actual proof that Jesus even existed.
Click to expand...


There is no proof you exist.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted previously, christian creationist tend to run for the exits when their sacred cows are sent to the barn.
> 
> So yes,  I know there are those who will close their eyes, cover their virtual ears and screech in a haunting falsetto to avoid the modest retrospective but...
> 
> 
> ...allow me the occasion to _whack-a fundie_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you why dawkins and many well known evolutionist do not cite Theobalds work ? whack yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What requirement are you assigning to Richard Dawkins as speaking on behalf of "evolutionist". Are you aware that "evolutionist" in the context you describe is plural?
> 
> I understand Dawkins causes creationist real angst
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have issues
> 
> 
> 
> You can't compose a coherent thought without hacking my earlier post. Absent cutting and pasting from my posts, your vacant mind is unable to compose a coherent sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof positive that you have no clue what you are even cutting and pasting. You really are clueless on how to respond to the most basic arguments presented here without your atheists sources and even when you cite them, you don't even know what you are citing as proven here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-810.html#post6468902
Click to expand...


What a shame that your Christian creationist mindset allows you the privilege of dishonesty and deceit. You careless plagiarized my earlier past and you have no issue with that. 

What a shame that lies and cheating are a part your 'religion".


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you why dawkins and many well known evolutionist do not cite Theobalds work ? whack yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> What requirement are you assigning to Richard Dawkins as speaking on behalf of "evolutionist". Are you aware that "evolutionist" in the context you describe is plural?
> 
> I understand Dawkins causes creationist real angst
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do breeders reach dead ends???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer to YWC's question is simple. There isn't a discernible, consistent selective pressure to push one species towards any particular traits for a long enough period of time, in the context of  labratory trials or on the timescales we are used to. Evolution is not deterministic. There is no pre-determined set of reproductive events that will eventually produce a "macroevolutionary" event. The fact that we have witnessed speciation both in the lab and in nature should be evidence enough.
> 
> Funny that you ask such probing questions of evolution, and yet, no such questions can even be asked of your intelligent designer, because it has no ontology, other than its "intelligence." This is a cover up for "god." Plain and simple. The sooner you admit this, the sooner we can end this thread.
Click to expand...


Here is what you are missing excrement for neurons, breeding is an intelligently directed process which on the evolutionary timescale, would equate to accelerating the process 100 or even 1000 fold. Yet, how long do you think the breeder would have to wait around before he could pick out the cat traits and breed a dog into a cat??? Forever is the correct response. Genes make this impossible.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Wait, how is ID falsifiable?



Dude, you are sloooooowwwww. I have explained this to you at least 10 times.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> "Over-breeding" is a meaningless term. Over-breeding might mean an over-supply but it means nothing in the context of line-breeding.



Google is your friend. Before you make an ass out of yourself, you might want to try it. 

Health Defects Due to Over Breeding of Pets | eHow.com


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't compose a coherent thought without hacking my earlier post. Absent cutting and pasting from my posts, your vacant mind is unable to compose a coherent sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof positive that you have no clue what you are even cutting and pasting. You really are clueless on how to respond to the most basic arguments presented here without your atheists sources and even when you cite them, you don't even know what you are citing as proven here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-810.html#post6468902
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a shame that your Christian creationist mindset allows you the privilege of dishonesty and deceit. You careless plagiarized my earlier past and you have no issue with that.
> 
> What a shame that lies and cheating are a part your 'religion".
Click to expand...


When confronted with the truth, the angry evo-fundie always lashes out in anger.

The deceit is all yours, trying to change the subject about how you just got totally OWNED with your stupid cut and paste.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to YWC's question is simple. There isn't a discernible, consistent selective pressure to push one species towards any particular traits for a long enough period of time, in the context of  labratory trials or on the timescales we are used to. Evolution is not deterministic. There is no pre-determined set of reproductive events that will eventually produce a "macroevolutionary" event. The fact that we have witnessed speciation both in the lab and in nature should be evidence enough.
> 
> Funny that you ask such probing questions of evolution, and yet, no such questions can even be asked of your intelligent designer, because it has no ontology, other than its "intelligence." This is a cover up for "god." Plain and simple. The sooner you admit this, the sooner we can end this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what you are missing excrement for neurons, breeding is an intelligently directed process which on the evolutionary timescale, would equate to accelerating the process 100 or even 1000 fold. Yet, how long do you think the breeder would have to wait around before he could pick out the cat traits and breed a dog into a cat??? Forever is the correct response. Genes make this impossible.
Click to expand...


My goodness, the angry Christian plagiarist doesn't understand that breeding for animals in nature is clearly not directed by the gawds. Maybe you're suggesting that aside from the gawds administrative duties of selectively manipulating enzymes to snuff out sinners, your gawds select breeding pairs in the wild?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof positive that you have no clue what you are even cutting and pasting. You really are clueless on how to respond to the most basic arguments presented here without your atheists sources and even when you cite them, you don't even know what you are citing as proven here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-810.html#post6468902
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a shame that your Christian creationist mindset allows you the privilege of dishonesty and deceit. You careless plagiarized my earlier past and you have no issue with that.
> 
> What a shame that lies and cheating are a part your 'religion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When confronted with the truth, the angry evo-fundie always lashes out in anger.
> 
> The deceit is all yours, trying to change the subject about how you just got totally OWNED with your stupid cut and paste.
Click to expand...


You're embarrassed about needing to plagiarize my past in order for you to attempt arranging sentences into coherent thoughts. 

Post your credit card number and for a fee, I can help you arrange words into meaningful thoughts.

It's the Christian thing to do.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Over-breeding" is a meaningless term. Over-breeding might mean an over-supply but it means nothing in the context of line-breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google is your friend. Before you make an ass out of yourself, you might want to try it.
> 
> Health Defects Due to Over Breeding of Pets | eHow.com
Click to expand...


Relying on cutting and pasting what you don't understand is what gets people like you so befuddled.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, how is ID falsifiable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are sloooooowwwww. I have explained this to you at least 10 times.
Click to expand...


Actually, what you have done is side-step any accounting of how anyone could falsify any one of the various supernatural entities called "gods".


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> One can only marvel at the _Simpleton Syndrome_ that afflicts evolutionists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define _Darwin did it_ arguments. Fundies insist they know that randomness designed and created our universe. They don't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because evolution can't be wrong and therefore, because evolution is true, everything else has to fit.
> 
> The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the evolutionist because there are none. When darwinism is self-refuting and self-contradictory, its because natural selection intended it. When darwinism is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, that never stops them from declaring it is scientifically proven. When darwinism fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, darwinists protest that origins isn't part of evolution.
> 
> We see with regularity how evolutionists will invert their positions, and thus their reasoning to account for their confused, befuddled theories, but in the worldview where matter is the only reality, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the evolutionists arguments are pre-configured to prove materialism, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details.
> 
> It would certainly be more honest of evolutionists to simply say "I Believe, therefore _reason_ and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any empirical evidence. But evolutionists are darwin-smacked with hate for the Creator, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards. And why would they, since their materialistic worldview lacks any basis for ethics, lying is no more wrong than abortion. If honesty is a detriment to "fitness", it must be thrown out along with anything that does not support the party line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have issues
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't compose a coherent thought without hacking my earlier post. Absent cutting and pasting from my posts, your vacant mind is unable to compose a coherent sentence.
Click to expand...


Dear Hollie is so rattled she is attacking NP


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have issues
> 
> 
> 
> You can't compose a coherent thought without hacking my earlier post. Absent cutting and pasting from my posts, your vacant mind is unable to compose a coherent sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Hollie is so rattled she is attacking NP
Click to expand...


Did you happen to miss that I was addressing your Christian creationist cult member?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't compose a coherent thought without hacking my earlier post. Absent cutting and pasting from my posts, your vacant mind is unable to compose a coherent sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Hollie is so rattled she is attacking NP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you happen to miss that I was addressing your Christian creationist cult member?
Click to expand...


The post I am referring to you quoted NP.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Hollie is so rattled she is attacking NP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you happen to miss that I was addressing your Christian creationist cult member?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The post I am referring to you quoted NP.
Click to expand...


You're still confused as to my addressing your fundie cartoon character accomplice?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have issues
> 
> 
> 
> You can't compose a coherent thought without hacking my earlier post. Absent cutting and pasting from my posts, your vacant mind is unable to compose a coherent sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Hollie is so rattled she is attacking NP
Click to expand...



I interpreted this as Hollie attacking UR for his post, not for mine. Fyi.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Over-breeding" is a meaningless term. Over-breeding might mean an over-supply but it means nothing in the context of line-breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google is your friend. Before you make an ass out of yourself, you might want to try it.
> 
> Health Defects Due to Over Breeding of Pets | eHow.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Relying on cutting and pasting what you don't understand is what gets people like you so befuddled.
Click to expand...


Parrot.

Hawly want a cracker?


----------



## UltimateReality

Guess NP and Hawly slithered away.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google is your friend. Before you make an ass out of yourself, you might want to try it.
> 
> Health Defects Due to Over Breeding of Pets | eHow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Relying on cutting and pasting what you don't understand is what gets people like you so befuddled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parrot.
> 
> Hawly want a cracker?
Click to expand...

The eternally befuddled cut and paster still can't make basic distinctions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you happen to miss that I was addressing your Christian creationist cult member?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The post I am referring to you quoted NP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still confused as to my addressing your fundie cartoon character accomplice?
Click to expand...


That's ok you have gotten worked over yesterday calm down and relax.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't compose a coherent thought without hacking my earlier post. Absent cutting and pasting from my posts, your vacant mind is unable to compose a coherent sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Hollie is so rattled she is attacking NP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I interpreted this as Hollie attacking UR for his post, not for mine. Fyi.
Click to expand...


Sarcasm Alert


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your hatred for Christians a person would think you would have understood the sacrifice of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that there's no actual proof that Jesus even existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would like to think so.
Click to expand...


Ok, whatcha got?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that there's no actual proof that Jesus even existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would like to think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, whatcha got?
Click to expand...


I can't change your mind  no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.

Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would like to think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, whatcha got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't change your mind  no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.
> 
> Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.
Click to expand...


Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.

You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares? 

Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot?  Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, whatcha got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't change your mind  no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.
> 
> Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.
> 
> You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?
> 
> Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot?  Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.
Click to expand...


You have yet to offer evidence to back your claims for the questions that was asked of you. Did you think we forgot ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't change your mind  no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.
> 
> Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.
> 
> You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?
> 
> Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot?  Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to offer evidence to back your claims for the questions that was asked of you. Did you think we forgot ?
Click to expand...

Sidestepping and obfuscation on your part reinforces the hopelessness and confusion that defines blind faith in ancient superstitions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.
> 
> You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?
> 
> Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot?  Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to offer evidence to back your claims for the questions that was asked of you. Did you think we forgot ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sidestepping and obfuscation on your part reinforces the hopelessness and confusion that defines blind faith in ancient superstitions.
Click to expand...


Once again, Dodge!


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would like to think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, whatcha got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't change your mind  no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.
> 
> Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.
Click to expand...


MASSIVE COP OUT ALERT!!!!!

cmon, help me out here, you must have at least SOME proof.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to offer evidence to back your claims for the questions that was asked of you. Did you think we forgot ?
> 
> 
> 
> Sidestepping and obfuscation on your part reinforces the hopelessness and confusion that defines blind faith in ancient superstitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, Dodge!
Click to expand...


You've run out of cut and paste material?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sidestepping and obfuscation on your part reinforces the hopelessness and confusion that defines blind faith in ancient superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Dodge!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've run out of cut and paste material?
Click to expand...


I have presented evidence for intelligent design. Can you now present evidence for naturalism,mainly on the topic we were discussing. How did a natural process cause Enzymes to evolve the ability to spot and correct errors during DNA replication ?

What is the purpose of this function ?

Either way say I have no evidence or provide the evidence, then we can move on to something else I would like to address.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, whatcha got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't change your mind  no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.
> 
> Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MASSIVE COP OUT ALERT!!!!!
> 
> cmon, help me out here, you must have at least SOME proof.
Click to expand...


Pay attention Ima, I will once again expose the ignorance.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't change your mind  no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.
> 
> Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MASSIVE COP OUT ALERT!!!!!
> 
> cmon, help me out here, you must have at least SOME proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay attention Ima, I will once again expose the ignorance.
Click to expand...


Wtf does that mean? You have nothing and you're exposing your own ignorance?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> MASSIVE COP OUT ALERT!!!!!
> 
> cmon, help me out here, you must have at least SOME proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention Ima, I will once again expose the ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wtf does that mean? You have nothing and you're exposing your own ignorance?
Click to expand...


Hide and watch.


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's a little rude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ha!! Now this is funny!! Ima mistakenly thought your new buddy was a creationist. Since he isn't, you quickly came to his defense.
> 
> No, you're not bias!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how about, i  just found it rude, and thought i would mention it, because i was having a nice discussion with this person, learning about some real shit. Again,  you  use your faulty intuition to fill your own head with what you want to believe. You might as well be a solipsist. You'd be a good one!
Click to expand...

 ur is a solipsist! How could he be any thing else?:d


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Nothing worth replying to,carry on.


 if that's so WHY did you reply?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Daws apparently you are convinced that Hawly is packing?
> 
> 
> 
> another false assuption. i can see why you never made detective... it's either extreme  paranoia as exhibited in the prior post or sucking cock in the locker room.
> there is no other logical reason why Ur would be so knowledgeable about mouth sores or so perversely interested in homosexuality.
> 9
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is no other logical reason why Daws would be so knowledgeable about sucking cock in the locker room or so perverse to even come up with something so disgusting unless it was based on his personal experience. Apparently he does secretly wish Hawly was a man and really did have man hands so she could touch him so Ruggedly.
> 
> And by the way, I was a detective Douche bag so there goes that theory.
Click to expand...

another not even original failed attempt at character assassination.
BTW it was you, who inferred cock sucking by using the mouth sore reference and your never ending gay innuendo,the only way to gain that much knowledge is by the  "hands on" method. 
my "theory" stands.
if there were a perversion scale you'd pin the needle.
Definition of PERVERSION
 "an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual"
the sheer number of your posts with slurs and innuendo proves my "theory" correct.
Thanks for giving me your new name fron now on I'll call you: detective Douche bag!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to you to Strawman this. I did not say animals did not feel pain or discomfort. I said they don't experience it the same way someone who is self aware does.
> 
> Maybe you should outlaw lions on the African plain. Those sickos kill and start to eat other animals while they are still alive!!! And your designer made it this way!!!
> 
> Also, *I am not arguing unborn babies should be protected because they are self aware. I am arguing they should be protected because they are humans!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> *there is no proof that human babies are any more or less sentient then other mammals *.
> 
> Dr James Kirkwood, chief executive and scientific director of the Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare (Ufaw), gives qualified approval to CIWF's approach.
> 
> He told BBC News Online: "Animal sentience has been a matter of debate down the centuries.
> 
> "We can't prove absolutely even that another human being is sentient, though it would obviously be unreasonable to assume they are not.
> 
> "But the weight of scientific opinion is that it's certainly right to give the benefit of the doubt to all vertebrates."
> 
> BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animals 'are moral beings'
> 
> tosspot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, Daws has a little reading comprehension problem. But thanks for the irrelevant post arguing against a point I wasn't making.
Click to expand...

as always detective douche bag intentionally misinterprets.. being human is not a rational reason why.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Dodge!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've run out of cut and paste material?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have presented evidence for intelligent design. Can you now present evidence for naturalism,mainly on the topic we were discussing. How did a natural process cause Enzymes to evolve the ability to spot and correct errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> What is the purpose of this function ?
> 
> Either way say I have no evidence or provide the evidence, then we can move on to something else I would like to address.
Click to expand...


You have never provided evidence of your gawds. As you are the one claiming your Christian gawds are the "designers" in your ID fantasy, it falls to you to offer some testable support for your gawds. Where is that testable evidence?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To answer your question Enzymes being designed by altering their functions. The first Enzymes how or who designed them with functions to perform ?
> 
> Your denial of the evidence for design is predictable. What is the point of bringing up lying if you believe God is a fairytale and based on lies ?
> 
> You also have been challenged to present evidence for your naturalism you seem to have a problem doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim.
> 
> Science has not determined the precise biological mechanism that blossomed the first enzyme. Your default position is that one or more of your designer gawds did so, without providing a shred of evidence.
> 
> Your refusal to provide evidence of your claimed designer gawds is predictable. It has been the history of your posting: claims absent any evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did they happen to have beneficial functions hollie ?
Click to expand...

 by products-
here's an anology that is also a fact (let's see how fast you deny it!)   

Three billion years ago single-celled underwater bacteria used sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into tiny oxygen bubbles. Soon plants were turning an atmosphere full of volcanic carbon dioxide into oxygen. As we learn in this video segment from Interactive NOVA: "Earth," photosynthesis created a good home for animals and humans, though not for some primitive organisms. They had to retreat to where oxygen couldn't reach them. Join researchers as they search for these organisms, now considered tiny time capsules from a time before there was oxygen on Earth. 
Teachers' Domain: Life Before Oxygen
no super natural help needed.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> His so called kid was himself in the flesh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A superstitious tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know ?
Click to expand...

simple! there is no direct or corroborating evidence to  prove it. that's how.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come these enzymes functions are to guard agains't mutations ? I would say in the long run too many mutations would destroy the population they were ocurring in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But mutations happen. Why are your gawds such incompetent designers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will answer it again,sin. Not incompetence purposeful punishment.
Click to expand...

(cue buzzer)
a declarative statement with no basis in fact....


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. He is saying the discoveries they have made disprove macroevolution so if the Naturalists want to stick to naturalism as an explanation, its time for them to look for another theory that science actually supports, not a 160 year old fairy tale based on bird beaks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
> 
> The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.
> 
> We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the  loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.
> 
> 
> A Critique of Douglas Theobalds
> 29 Evidences for Macroevolution
> by Ashby Camp
> Introduction Part 1
> 
> © 2001 Ashby L. Camp.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> 
> . . . Earths crammed with heaven,
> And every common bush afire with God:
> But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
> The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
> And daub their natural faces unaware
> More and more, from the first similitude.
> 
> Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22
> 
> 
> NOTE:  The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this articleand changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded.  Neither this article, nor Mr. Camps response to Theobalds criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobolds on-going adjustments and modifications.
> 
> am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin.  More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God.  Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.
> 
> In 29 Evidences for Macroevolution, Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor.  In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.
> 
> Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -
Click to expand...

 invald source.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the  loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.
> 
> 
> A Critique of Douglas Theobald&#8217;s
> &#8220;29 Evidences for Macroevolution&#8221;
> by Ashby Camp
> Introduction Part 1
> 
> © 2001 Ashby L. Camp.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> 
> . . . Earth&#8217;s crammed with heaven,
> And every common bush afire with God:
> But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
> The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
> And daub their natural faces unaware
> More and more, from the first similitude.
> 
> Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22
> 
> 
> NOTE:  The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this article&#8212;and changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded.  Neither this article, nor Mr. Camp&#8217;s response to Theobald&#8217;s criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobold&#8217;s on-going adjustments and modifications.
> 
> am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin.  More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God.  Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.
> 
> In &#8220;29 Evidences for Macroevolution,&#8221; Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor.  In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.
> 
> Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the science link would send the Christian fundies scrambling.
> 
> As it turns out, their only option is to link to another Christian fundie. From the fundie link:
> 
> "I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God."
> 
> Well sure, "the gawds did it"
> 
> 
> Anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp has penned a critique of these "29 Evidences of Macroevolution," which can be found posted at TrueOrigin. Camp's critique is well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article). Although I intend to address Camp's concerns in totality, currently I can only devote a limited amount of time to this effort. In the meantime, this partial response will suffice. I would like to thank Camp for his congenial criticism. It has given me the impetus to rework and expand the "29 Evidences," and the result is a more comprehensive, clearer, and stronger article.
> 
> My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there. In the following response, Camp's words are indented in grey boxes, set apart from mine. Material that Camp has quoted in his criticism is also in the grey boxes, surrounded by quotes, and followed by the pertinent external reference.
> 
> Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:
> 
> 1. Straw man arguments 2. Red herrings 3. Self-contradictions 4. Equivocation 5. Two wrongs make a right 6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident 7. Ignoratio elenchi 8. Naive theological assumptions 9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics 10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method 11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses" 12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 13. Misleading mis-quotes 14. Fallacies of accent 15. Distortion of scientific controversies 16. Arguments from authority 17. False analogies
> 
> The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.
> 
> Note: Since the time I wrote this reply, Mr. Camp has responded to this in a shorter article entitled "Camp answers Theobald." The elements which I felt deserve some mention are included here enclosed in green boxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most hilarious part of your response is that you believe your link showed REAL science. Your brain is so dumb down from the pseudoscience thinking of evolution it is obvious you can no longer tell the difference.
Click to expand...

 you just keep believing that detective douche bag.....
your denial of fact is no proof.


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> poor np, there's those darn "fractions" again. We are back to the probability arguments again and once again, you lose! For some of the values below, there are an infinite number of other possibilities that wouldn't have even resulted in a universe with stars and planets, much less life. So what is the fraction 1/infinity?
> 
> [reasons to believe : Fine-tuning for life in the universe



wall of text .......invalid source..........false premise.....


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> jack113 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gawds? First you need to go back and try passing grade school before making a public fool out of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another empty accusation.
Click to expand...

HARDLY.... you might have passed but any real learning was lost when you started filling  the void with superstion and non sense.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the science link would send the Christian fundies scrambling.
> 
> As it turns out, their only option is to link to another Christian fundie. From the fundie link:
> 
> "I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God."
> 
> Well sure, "the gawds did it"
> 
> 
> Anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp has penned a critique of these "29 Evidences of Macroevolution," which can be found posted at TrueOrigin. Camp's critique is well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article). Although I intend to address Camp's concerns in totality, currently I can only devote a limited amount of time to this effort. In the meantime, this partial response will suffice. I would like to thank Camp for his congenial criticism. It has given me the impetus to rework and expand the "29 Evidences," and the result is a more comprehensive, clearer, and stronger article.
> 
> My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there. In the following response, Camp's words are indented in grey boxes, set apart from mine. Material that Camp has quoted in his criticism is also in the grey boxes, surrounded by quotes, and followed by the pertinent external reference.
> 
> Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:
> 
> 1. Straw man arguments 2. Red herrings 3. Self-contradictions 4. Equivocation 5. Two wrongs make a right 6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident 7. Ignoratio elenchi 8. Naive theological assumptions 9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics 10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method 11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses" 12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 13. Misleading mis-quotes 14. Fallacies of accent 15. Distortion of scientific controversies 16. Arguments from authority 17. False analogies
> 
> The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.
> 
> Note: Since the time I wrote this reply, Mr. Camp has responded to this in a shorter article entitled "Camp answers Theobald." The elements which I felt deserve some mention are included here enclosed in green boxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most hilarious part of your response is that you believe your link showed REAL science. Your brain is so dumb down from the pseudoscience thinking of evolution it is obvious you can no longer tell the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you just keep believing that detective douche bag.....
> your denial of fact is no proof.
Click to expand...


It seems that for Christian cultists, the only science that matters is the "real" science that is barfed out by Christian creationist ministries:

 "I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically,I believethefounding membersof these groups were created miraculously and separately by God."

Boilerplate, Christian YEC babbling.  The fundies mouth the bait and the charlatans at the ICR and Harun Yahya reel them in.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your hatred for Christians a person would think you would have understood the sacrifice of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that there's no actual proof that Jesus even existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would like to think so.
Click to expand...

more denial!  ywc,  define actual evidence please.
hearsay ,belife and faith are not actual evidence....


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> One can only marvel at the _Simpleton Syndrome_ that afflicts evolutionists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define _Darwin did it_ arguments. Fundies insist they know that randomness designed and created our universe. They don't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because evolution can't be wrong and therefore, because evolution is true, everything else has to fit.
> 
> The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the evolutionist because there are none. When darwinism is self-refuting and self-contradictory, its because natural selection intended it. When darwinism is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, that never stops them from declaring it is scientifically proven. When darwinism fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, darwinists protest that origins isn't part of evolution.
> 
> We see with regularity how evolutionists will invert their positions, and thus their reasoning to account for their confused, befuddled theories, but in the worldview where matter is the only reality, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the evolutionists arguments are pre-configured to prove materialism, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details.
> 
> It would certainly be more honest of evolutionists to simply say "I Believe, therefore _reason_ and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any empirical evidence. But evolutionists are darwin-smacked with hate for the Creator, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards. And why would they, since their materialistic worldview lacks any basis for ethics, lying is no more wrong than abortion. If honesty is a detriment to "fitness", it must be thrown out along with anything that does not support the party line.


WHAT no gay innuendo?
that's "evidences"  or "the evidence is"
if you insist  on plagiarizing, use the correct grammar.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Hollie is so rattled she is attacking NP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I interpreted this as Hollie attacking UR for his post, not for mine. Fyi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sarcasm Alert
Click to expand...

that should read failed attempt at sarcasm alert...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't change your mind  no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.
> 
> Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.
> 
> You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?
> 
> Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot?  Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to offer evidence to back your claims for the questions that was asked of you. Did you think we forgot ?
Click to expand...

who the fuck is "we" btw it's "we'd"


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, whatcha got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't change your mind  no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.
> 
> Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.
> 
> You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?
> 
> Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot?  Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.
Click to expand...


Stupid post. After all your nonsense, the last thing I would do is depend upon your opinion of what is rational.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.
> 
> You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?
> 
> Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot?  Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to offer evidence to back your claims for the questions that was asked of you. Did you think we forgot ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sidestepping and obfuscation on your part reinforces the hopelessness and confusion that defines blind faith in ancient superstitions.
Click to expand...


Hawly want a cracker?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ha!! Now this is funny!! Ima mistakenly thought your new buddy was a creationist. Since he isn't, you quickly came to his defense.
> 
> No, you're not bias!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about, i  just found it rude, and thought i would mention it, because i was having a nice discussion with this person, learning about some real shit. Again,  you  use your faulty intuition to fill your own head with what you want to believe. You might as well be a solipsist. You'd be a good one!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ur is a solipsist! How could he be any thing else?:d
Click to expand...


Daws is a solopissed. He likes to be angry by himself.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another false assuption. i can see why you never made detective... it's either extreme  paranoia as exhibited in the prior post or sucking cock in the locker room.
> there is no other logical reason why Ur would be so knowledgeable about mouth sores or so perversely interested in homosexuality.
> 9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no other logical reason why Daws would be so knowledgeable about sucking cock in the locker room or so perverse to even come up with something so disgusting unless it was based on his personal experience. Apparently he does secretly wish Hawly was a man and really did have man hands so she could touch him so Ruggedly.
> 
> And by the way, I was a detective Douche bag so there goes that theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another not even original failed attempt at character assassination.
> BTW it was you, who inferred cock sucking by using the mouth sore reference and your never ending gay innuendo,the only way to gain that much knowledge is by the  "hands on" method.
> my "theory" stands.
> if there were a perversion scale you'd pin the needle.
> Definition of PERVERSION
> "an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual"
> the sheer number of your posts with slurs and innuendo proves my "theory" correct.
> Thanks for giving me your new name fron now on I'll call you: detective Douche bag!
Click to expand...


Daws, this is really sad and screams out of your deviant man desires. How did you infer my comment about mouth sores was from performing the sex act you reference? Talk about your own sick, twisted perversions and bias skewing your interpretations!!! By the way, the Herpes virus that causes mouth sores is transferred by kissing and is not the same as the Herpes virus that causes genital lesions, so *YOU are the sick, twisted pervert.  *


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *there is no proof that human babies are any more or less sentient then other mammals *.
> 
> Dr James Kirkwood, chief executive and scientific director of the Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare (Ufaw), gives qualified approval to CIWF's approach.
> 
> He told BBC News Online: "Animal sentience has been a matter of debate down the centuries.
> 
> "We can't prove absolutely even that another human being is sentient, though it would obviously be unreasonable to assume they are not.
> 
> "But the weight of scientific opinion is that it's certainly right to give the benefit of the doubt to all vertebrates."
> 
> BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animals 'are moral beings'
> 
> tosspot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, Daws has a little reading comprehension problem. But thanks for the irrelevant post arguing against a point I wasn't making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as always detective douche bag intentionally misinterprets.. being human is not a rational reason why.
Click to expand...


It is if you follow God's law, the law of nature. God's law is written on the hearts of men but sin tends to drown it out. God's law is the bell that goes off right before a pregnant woman contemplates using a coat hanger to end her pregnancy and says in her heart, "This is wrong. I shouldn't do this."

Think I am being flippant? Just ask the women that have had abortions about the years of guilt, shame and suffering they endure for their dead baby. It is only through God's forgiveness that they can heal.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim.
> 
> Science has not determined the precise biological mechanism that blossomed the first enzyme. Your default position is that one or more of your designer gawds did so, without providing a shred of evidence.
> 
> Your refusal to provide evidence of your claimed designer gawds is predictable. It has been the history of your posting: claims absent any evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did they happen to have beneficial functions hollie ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> by products-
> here's an anology that is also a fact (let's see how fast you deny it!)
> 
> Three billion years ago single-celled underwater bacteria used sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into tiny oxygen bubbles. Soon plants were turning an atmosphere full of volcanic carbon dioxide into oxygen. As we learn in this video segment from Interactive NOVA: "Earth," photosynthesis created a good home for animals and humans, though not for some primitive organisms. They had to retreat to where oxygen couldn't reach them. Join researchers as they search for these organisms, now considered tiny time capsules from a time before there was oxygen on Earth.
> Teachers' Domain: Life Before Oxygen
> no super natural help needed.
Click to expand...


Nice "just so" story, but do you have some real, testable evidence for your fairy tale above? How about some causes presently in operation that would support your story?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor np, there's those darn "fractions" again. We are back to the probability arguments again and once again, you lose! For some of the values below, there are an infinite number of other possibilities that wouldn't have even resulted in a universe with stars and planets, much less life. So what is the fraction 1/infinity?
> 
> [reasons to believe : Fine-tuning for life in the universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wall of text .......invalid source..........false premise.....
Click to expand...


You are going to have to do better than that Loki.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that there's no actual proof that Jesus even existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would like to think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more denial!  ywc,  define actual evidence please.
> hearsay ,belife and faith are not actual evidence....
Click to expand...


That's the evidence you just gave for your rebuttal to my fine tuning post POT.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> One can only marvel at the _Simpleton Syndrome_ that afflicts evolutionists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define _Darwin did it_ arguments. Fundies insist they know that randomness designed and created our universe. They don't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because evolution can't be wrong and therefore, because evolution is true, everything else has to fit.
> 
> The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the evolutionist because there are none. When darwinism is self-refuting and self-contradictory, its because natural selection intended it. When darwinism is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, that never stops them from declaring it is scientifically proven. When darwinism fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, darwinists protest that origins isn't part of evolution.
> 
> We see with regularity how evolutionists will invert their positions, and thus their reasoning to account for their confused, befuddled theories, but in the worldview where matter is the only reality, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the evolutionists arguments are pre-configured to prove materialism, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details.
> 
> It would certainly be more honest of evolutionists to simply say "I Believe, therefore _reason_ and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any empirical evidence. But evolutionists are darwin-smacked with hate for the Creator, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards. And why would they, since their materialistic worldview lacks any basis for ethics, lying is no more wrong than abortion. If honesty is a detriment to "fitness", it must be thrown out along with anything that does not support the party line.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT no gay innuendo?
> that's "evidences"  or "the evidence is"
> if you insist  on plagiarizing, use the correct grammar.
Click to expand...


Just copied Hawly's incorrect grammar, so quit putting your internet friend down like that.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Guess NP and Hawly slithered away.



I have destroyed your ID arguments over and over, on every single point, so, I kind of feel like I am done here. You can't bring up anything new, and your position doesn't stand on its own. Without faith informing a presupposition that an intelligence already exists, the ID hypothesis is simply not tenable as a scientific idea, which I have pointed out, again and again, and so is completely unconvincing. Unless you have anything new, I'm not sure what the point is in hanging around. I enjoyed the debate, but the more I learn about ID, the weaker I realize it is, and the more I realize it is completely dependent on faith in god. As proven during the dover trial, it is creationism in a lab coat. The ID movement just wants to get it into textbooks so they can vindicate their pre-existing faith in an intelligent creator, using our public school system and our children to achieve this. Thank goodness the Dover trial ended the way it did.


----------



## newpolitics

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, how is ID falsifiable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are sloooooowwwww. I have explained this to you at least 10 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, what you have done is side-step any accounting of how anyone could falsify any one of the various supernatural entities called "gods".
Click to expand...



Thank you, Hollie. UR, you have not shown how anything to do with ID is falsifiable, from irreducible complexity (which has been debunked umpteen times) to the conclusion itself. I remember that you claimed that you did, and obviously tried, but it was not a valid example, or I would have remembered. Mind re-iterating briefly?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to offer evidence to back your claims for the questions that was asked of you. Did you think we forgot ?
> 
> 
> 
> Sidestepping and obfuscation on your part reinforces the hopelessness and confusion that defines blind faith in ancient superstitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hawly want a cracker?
Click to expand...


Juvenile and pointless truly typifies the Christian creationist attempts at defending their gawds.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't change your mind  no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.
> 
> Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.
> 
> You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?
> 
> Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot?  Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid post. After all your nonsense, the last thing I would do is depend upon your opinion of what is rational.
Click to expand...

You're just uncomfortable that Christian creationism has only achieved the cult status of Bigfoot groupies.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, Daws has a little reading comprehension problem. But thanks for the irrelevant post arguing against a point I wasn't making.
> 
> 
> 
> as always detective douche bag intentionally misinterprets.. being human is not a rational reason why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is if you follow God's law, the law of nature. God's law is written on the hearts of men but sin tends to drown it out. God's law is the bell that goes off right before a pregnant woman contemplates using a coat hanger to end her pregnancy and says in her heart, "This is wrong. I shouldn't do this."
> 
> Think I am being flippant? Just ask the women that have had abortions about the years of guilt, shame and suffering they endure for their dead baby. It is only through God's forgiveness that they can heal.
Click to expand...

The Jimmy Swaggert wannabe is again bible thumping.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess NP and Hawly slithered away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have destroyed your ID arguments over and over, on every single point, so, I kind of feel like I am done here. You can't bring up anything new, and your position doesn't stand on its own. Without faith informing a presupposition that an intelligence already exists, the ID hypothesis is simply not tenable as a scientific idea, which I have pointed out, again and again, and so is completely unconvincing. Unless you have anything new, I'm not sure what the point is in hanging around. I enjoyed the debate, but the more I learn about ID, the weaker I realize it is, and the more I realize it is completely dependent on faith in god. As proven during the dover trial, it is creationism in a lab coat. The ID movement just wants to get it into textbooks so they can vindicate their pre-existing faith in an intelligent creator, using our public school system and our children to achieve this. Thank goodness the Dover trial ended the way it did.
Click to expand...


No you have not and we do not have to provide proof for the source to prove design. You have yet to provide evidence that the design evidence that has been presented evolved naturally. You're living in a dream world.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sidestepping and obfuscation on your part reinforces the hopelessness and confusion that defines blind faith in ancient superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly want a cracker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Juvenile and pointless truly typifies the Christian creationist attempts at defending their gawds.
Click to expand...


What an idiot still don't understand the difference between a creationist and ID'er.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.
> 
> You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?
> 
> Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot?  Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid post. After all your nonsense, the last thing I would do is depend upon your opinion of what is rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just uncomfortable that Christian creationism has only achieved the cult status of Bigfoot groupies.
Click to expand...


What a vivid imagination no wonder you believe as you do.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as always detective douche bag intentionally misinterprets.. being human is not a rational reason why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is if you follow God's law, the law of nature. God's law is written on the hearts of men but sin tends to drown it out. God's law is the bell that goes off right before a pregnant woman contemplates using a coat hanger to end her pregnancy and says in her heart, "This is wrong. I shouldn't do this."
> 
> Think I am being flippant? Just ask the women that have had abortions about the years of guilt, shame and suffering they endure for their dead baby. It is only through God's forgiveness that they can heal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jimmy Swaggert wannabe is again bible thumping.
Click to expand...


I really do wish you would answer my questions and let's discuss the issues instead of making this personal.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've run out of cut and paste material?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have presented evidence for intelligent design. Can you now present evidence for naturalism,mainly on the topic we were discussing. How did a natural process cause Enzymes to evolve the ability to spot and correct errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> What is the purpose of this function ?
> 
> Either way say I have no evidence or provide the evidence, then we can move on to something else I would like to address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have never provided evidence of your gawds. As you are the one claiming your Christian gawds are the "designers" in your ID fantasy, it falls to you to offer some testable support for your gawds. Where is that testable evidence?
Click to expand...


Still dodging my questions ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim.
> 
> Science has not determined the precise biological mechanism that blossomed the first enzyme. Your default position is that one or more of your designer gawds did so, without providing a shred of evidence.
> 
> Your refusal to provide evidence of your claimed designer gawds is predictable. It has been the history of your posting: claims absent any evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did they happen to have beneficial functions hollie ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> by products-
> here's an anology that is also a fact (let's see how fast you deny it!)
> 
> Three billion years ago single-celled underwater bacteria used sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into tiny oxygen bubbles. Soon plants were turning an atmosphere full of volcanic carbon dioxide into oxygen. As we learn in this video segment from Interactive NOVA: "Earth," photosynthesis created a good home for animals and humans, though not for some primitive organisms. They had to retreat to where oxygen couldn't reach them. Join researchers as they search for these organisms, now considered tiny time capsules from a time before there was oxygen on Earth.
> Teachers' Domain: Life Before Oxygen
> no super natural help needed.
Click to expand...


Now support this with evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A superstitious tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simple! there is no direct or corroborating evidence to  prove it. that's how.
Click to expand...


There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
> 
> The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.
> 
> We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the  loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.
> 
> 
> A Critique of Douglas Theobalds
> 29 Evidences for Macroevolution
> by Ashby Camp
> Introduction Part 1
> 
> © 2001 Ashby L. Camp.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> 
> . . . Earths crammed with heaven,
> And every common bush afire with God:
> But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
> The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
> And daub their natural faces unaware
> More and more, from the first similitude.
> 
> Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22
> 
> 
> NOTE:  The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this articleand changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded.  Neither this article, nor Mr. Camps response to Theobalds criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobolds on-going adjustments and modifications.
> 
> am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin.  More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God.  Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.
> 
> In 29 Evidences for Macroevolution, Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor.  In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.
> 
> Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> invald source.
Click to expand...


If you are speaking of Theobald you're correct. Nobody cites his work as being real evidence of macroevolution except the site you copy and paste.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the science link would send the Christian fundies scrambling.
> 
> As it turns out, their only option is to link to another Christian fundie. From the fundie link:
> 
> "I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God."
> 
> Well sure, "the gawds did it"
> 
> 
> Anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp has penned a critique of these "29 Evidences of Macroevolution," which can be found posted at TrueOrigin. Camp's critique is well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article). Although I intend to address Camp's concerns in totality, currently I can only devote a limited amount of time to this effort. In the meantime, this partial response will suffice. I would like to thank Camp for his congenial criticism. It has given me the impetus to rework and expand the "29 Evidences," and the result is a more comprehensive, clearer, and stronger article.
> 
> My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there. In the following response, Camp's words are indented in grey boxes, set apart from mine. Material that Camp has quoted in his criticism is also in the grey boxes, surrounded by quotes, and followed by the pertinent external reference.
> 
> Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:
> 
> 1. Straw man arguments 2. Red herrings 3. Self-contradictions 4. Equivocation 5. Two wrongs make a right 6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident 7. Ignoratio elenchi 8. Naive theological assumptions 9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics 10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method 11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses" 12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 13. Misleading mis-quotes 14. Fallacies of accent 15. Distortion of scientific controversies 16. Arguments from authority 17. False analogies
> 
> The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.
> 
> Note: Since the time I wrote this reply, Mr. Camp has responded to this in a shorter article entitled "Camp answers Theobald." The elements which I felt deserve some mention are included here enclosed in green boxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most hilarious part of your response is that you believe your link showed REAL science. Your brain is so dumb down from the pseudoscience thinking of evolution it is obvious you can no longer tell the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you just keep believing that detective douche bag.....
> your denial of fact is no proof.
Click to expand...


 your ignorance is entertaining.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jack113 said:
> 
> 
> 
> gawds? First you need to go back and try passing grade school before making a public fool out of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another empty accusation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HARDLY.... you might have passed but any real learning was lost when you started filling  the void with superstion and non sense.
Click to expand...


No Daws, I was exposed to reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.
> 
> You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?
> 
> Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot?  Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to offer evidence to back your claims for the questions that was asked of you. Did you think we forgot ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who the fuck is "we" btw it's "we'd"
Click to expand...


Still waiting


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess NP and Hawly slithered away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have destroyed your ID arguments over and over, on every single point, so, I kind of feel like I am done here. You can't bring up anything new, and your position doesn't stand on its own. Without faith informing a presupposition that an intelligence already exists, the ID hypothesis is simply not tenable as a scientific idea, which I have pointed out, again and again, and so is completely unconvincing. Unless you have anything new, I'm not sure what the point is in hanging around. I enjoyed the debate, but the more I learn about ID, the weaker I realize it is, and the more I realize it is completely dependent on faith in god. As proven during the dover trial, it is creationism in a lab coat. The ID movement just wants to get it into textbooks so they can vindicate their pre-existing faith in an intelligent creator, using our public school system and our children to achieve this. Thank goodness the Dover trial ended the way it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you have not and we do not have to provide proof for the source to prove design. You have yet to provide evidence that the design evidence that has been presented evolved naturally. You're living in a dream world.
Click to expand...


Well, yes I have, and you can't prove design. You haven't even gotten close, unless you use logical fallacies. There is a plethora of evidence for evolution, so stop lying!


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know ?
> 
> 
> 
> simple! there is no direct or corroborating evidence to  prove it. that's how.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.
Click to expand...


Not really. There's a few extra-biblical references to someone named "christus" but absolutely no detail beyond that, and this only decades after jesus' supposed death.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have destroyed your ID arguments over and over, on every single point, so, I kind of feel like I am done here. You can't bring up anything new, and your position doesn't stand on its own. Without faith informing a presupposition that an intelligence already exists, the ID hypothesis is simply not tenable as a scientific idea, which I have pointed out, again and again, and so is completely unconvincing. Unless you have anything new, I'm not sure what the point is in hanging around. I enjoyed the debate, but the more I learn about ID, the weaker I realize it is, and the more I realize it is completely dependent on faith in god. As proven during the dover trial, it is creationism in a lab coat. The ID movement just wants to get it into textbooks so they can vindicate their pre-existing faith in an intelligent creator, using our public school system and our children to achieve this. Thank goodness the Dover trial ended the way it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you have not and we do not have to provide proof for the source to prove design. You have yet to provide evidence that the design evidence that has been presented evolved naturally. You're living in a dream world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes I have, and you can't prove design. You haven't even gotten close, unless you use logical fallacies. There is a plethora of evidence for evolution, so stop lying!
Click to expand...


I have shown that Enzymes can be egineered By having their functions altered through intelligence and you can't provide evidence that they can get a new function through evolution. Not a fallacy it is a fact.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the  loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.
> 
> 
> A Critique of Douglas Theobalds
> 29 Evidences for Macroevolution
> by Ashby Camp
> Introduction Part 1
> 
> © 2001 Ashby L. Camp.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> 
> . . . Earths crammed with heaven,
> And every common bush afire with God:
> But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
> The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
> And daub their natural faces unaware
> More and more, from the first similitude.
> 
> Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22
> 
> 
> NOTE:  The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this articleand changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded.  Neither this article, nor Mr. Camps response to Theobalds criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobolds on-going adjustments and modifications.
> 
> am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin.  More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God.  Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.
> 
> In 29 Evidences for Macroevolution, Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor.  In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.
> 
> Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -
> 
> 
> 
> invald source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are speaking of Theobald you're correct. Nobody cites his work as being real evidence of macroevolution except the site you copy and paste.
Click to expand...

As is the case so often with Christian creationist sputtering, facts contradict their lies.

Do a search, as I did, using the phrase:
"theobald as reference for macroevolution" 

You will find many references to his work. Your cult indoctrination doesn't allow you to use the resources of open investigation that is a priority for anyone seeking truth as opposed to serving their masters of fear and superstition.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know ?
> 
> 
> 
> simple! there is no direct or corroborating evidence to  prove it. that's how.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.
Click to expand...


What evidence?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> simple! there is no direct or corroborating evidence to  prove it. that's how.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. There's a few extra-biblical references to someone named "christus" but absolutely no detail beyond that, and this only decades after jesus' supposed death.
Click to expand...


Wrong, Historian Josephus wrote of Jesus,now he was hardly someone that would try to support the idea of Jesus's existence. If you honestly look into it further you will find other evidence to make your claim invalid.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you have not and we do not have to provide proof for the source to prove design. You have yet to provide evidence that the design evidence that has been presented evolved naturally. You're living in a dream world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes I have, and you can't prove design. You haven't even gotten close, unless you use logical fallacies. There is a plethora of evidence for evolution, so stop lying!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have shown that Enzymes can be egineered By having their functions altered through intellingence and you can't provide evidence that they can get a new function through evolution. Not a fallacy it is a fact.
Click to expand...


Lying to protect your Christian creationist fantasies leaves you vulnerable to being exposed as just another cult mouthpiece. You were given documentation of how enzymes adapt and evolve.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. There's a few extra-biblical references to someone named "christus" but absolutely no detail beyond that, and this only decades after jesus' supposed death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, Historian Josephus wrote of Jesus,now he was hardly someone that would try to support the idea of Jesus's existence. If you honestly look into it further you will find other evidence to make your claim invalid.
Click to expand...


What evidence?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> invald source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are speaking of Theobald you're correct. Nobody cites his work as being real evidence of macroevolution except the site you copy and paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As is the case so often with Christian creationist sputtering, facts contradict their lies.
> 
> Do a search, as I did, using the phrase:
> "theobald as reference for macroevolution"
> 
> You will find many references to his work. Your cult indoctrination doesn't allow you to use the resources of open investigation that is a priority for anyone seeking truth as opposed to serving their masters of fear and superstition.
Click to expand...


I have never seen a well known evolutionist cite his work in a debate as evidence. I also looked at his writings and explained to you he extrapolates from evidence of adaptations to draw his conclusions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> simple! there is no direct or corroborating evidence to  prove it. that's how.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence?
Click to expand...


Follow the thread so I do not have to keep repeating myself.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes I have, and you can't prove design. You haven't even gotten close, unless you use logical fallacies. There is a plethora of evidence for evolution, so stop lying!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown that Enzymes can be egineered By having their functions altered through intellingence and you can't provide evidence that they can get a new function through evolution. Not a fallacy it is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying to protect your Christian creationist fantasies leaves you vulnerable to being exposed as just another cult mouthpiece. You were given documentation of how enzymes adapt and evolve.
Click to expand...


Wrong I was given no evidence but conjecture.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> One can only marvel at the _Simpleton Syndrome_ that afflicts evolutionists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define _Darwin did it_ arguments. Fundies insist they know that randomness designed and created our universe. They don't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because evolution can't be wrong and therefore, because evolution is true, everything else has to fit.
> 
> The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the evolutionist because there are none. When darwinism is self-refuting and self-contradictory, its because natural selection intended it. When darwinism is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, that never stops them from declaring it is scientifically proven. When darwinism fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, darwinists protest that origins isn't part of evolution.
> 
> We see with regularity how evolutionists will invert their positions, and thus their reasoning to account for their confused, befuddled theories, but in the worldview where matter is the only reality, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the evolutionists arguments are pre-configured to prove materialism, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details.
> 
> It would certainly be more honest of evolutionists to simply say "I Believe, therefore _reason_ and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any empirical evidence. But evolutionists are darwin-smacked with hate for the Creator, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards. And why would they, since their materialistic worldview lacks any basis for ethics, lying is no more wrong than abortion. If honesty is a detriment to "fitness", it must be thrown out along with anything that does not support the party line.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT no gay innuendo?
> that's "evidences"  or "the evidence is"
> if you insist  on plagiarizing, use the correct grammar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just copied Hawly's incorrect grammar, so quit putting your internet friend down like that.
Click to expand...

Actually, you again embarrassed yourself by plagiarizing one of posts. You're limited skills with with grammar and critical thinking left you wallowing in fetid cesspools of Christian creationist rhetoric.

I suspect what happened is that you intended to plagiarize my post and use that on a Christian fundie website. You simply got confused as to where you were copying and pasting.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown that Enzymes can be egineered By having their functions altered through intellingence and you can't provide evidence that they can get a new function through evolution. Not a fallacy it is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying to protect your Christian creationist fantasies leaves you vulnerable to being exposed as just another cult mouthpiece. You were given documentation of how enzymes adapt and evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong I was given no evidence but conjecture.
Click to expand...


False. You're just unable and unwilling to consider any facts that conflict with your cult indoctrination. That's not unusual for those who have limited education outside of christian fundamentalist dogma that is used to instill fear and unquestioning allegiance to the authority figures who have left you with traumatic emotional scars.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Follow the thread so I do not have to keep repeating myself.
Click to expand...


I still don't see any evidence. Watcha got?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying to protect your Christian creationist fantasies leaves you vulnerable to being exposed as just another cult mouthpiece. You were given documentation of how enzymes adapt and evolve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I was given no evidence but conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. You're just unable and unwilling to consider any facts that conflict with your cult indoctrination. That's not unusual for those who have limited education outside of christian fundamentalist dogma that is used to instill fear and unquestioning allegiance to the authority figures who have left you with traumatic emotional scars.
Click to expand...


Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce. 

What are Enzymes?

Now look at the question asked and the conjecture filled answer he got with no evidence that the enzyme evolved a new function. The only way an enzyme and get a new function is through having their functions altered by an outside source not by naturalism.

Resolved QuestionShow me another » 
How do new enzymes evolve?
A few background facts that are true:
1) Enzymes catalyze reactions
2) Enzymes do not necessarily cause a reaction to happen, just make it happen way way faster.
3) So, basically, several processes in a cell would not happen without the appropriate enzyme.

Knowing this, how can an enzyme possibly evolve? Several reactions inside a cell (many that are 100% necessary for the life of the cell to continue) do not occur at a fast enough rate to be of any benefit to the cell, meaning the the enzyme is absolutely required for the reaction.

Current evolutionary theory states that "good" evolutionary changes are the result of very small changes to the genetic code which, over time, eventually add up to a benefit to the cell. The problem with this in respect to enzymes are that enzymes are incredibly expensive (energy-wise) for a cell to make. An ineffective enzyme would drain resources from the cell (this is particularly true for secondary metabolites) without any possible benefit to the cell, leading to negative selection, leading to species extinction. 

Please be aware that this question is not about one enzyme evolving into another. This is about de novo enzyme evolution.

How do new enzymes evolve? - Yahoo! Answers


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying to protect your Christian creationist fantasies leaves you vulnerable to being exposed as just another cult mouthpiece. You were given documentation of how enzymes adapt and evolve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I was given no evidence but conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. You're just unable and unwilling to consider any facts that conflict with your cult indoctrination. That's not unusual for those who have limited education outside of christian fundamentalist dogma that is used to instill fear and unquestioning allegiance to the authority figures who have left you with traumatic emotional scars.
Click to expand...


I provided an answer for you to my question. Notice the person say's that the Enzyme evolved a new function from an earlier ancestor but have no evidence to support this statement . He is using the theory itself has his explanation no evidence of this happening whatsoever.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I was given no evidence but conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. You're just unable and unwilling to consider any facts that conflict with your cult indoctrination. That's not unusual for those who have limited education outside of christian fundamentalist dogma that is used to instill fear and unquestioning allegiance to the authority figures who have left you with traumatic emotional scars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> Now look at the question asked and the conjecture filled answer he got with no evidence that the enzyme evolved a new function. The only way an enzyme and get a new function is through having their functions altered by an outside source not by naturalism.
> 
> Resolved QuestionShow me another »
> How do new enzymes evolve?
> A few background facts that are true:
> 1) Enzymes catalyze reactions
> 2) Enzymes do not necessarily cause a reaction to happen, just make it happen way way faster.
> 3) So, basically, several processes in a cell would not happen without the appropriate enzyme.
> 
> Knowing this, how can an enzyme possibly evolve? Several reactions inside a cell (many that are 100% necessary for the life of the cell to continue) do not occur at a fast enough rate to be of any benefit to the cell, meaning the the enzyme is absolutely required for the reaction.
> 
> Current evolutionary theory states that "good" evolutionary changes are the result of very small changes to the genetic code which, over time, eventually add up to a benefit to the cell. The problem with this in respect to enzymes are that enzymes are incredibly expensive (energy-wise) for a cell to make. An ineffective enzyme would drain resources from the cell (this is particularly true for secondary metabolites) without any possible benefit to the cell, leading to negative selection, leading to species extinction.
> 
> Please be aware that this question is not about one enzyme evolving into another. This is about de novo enzyme evolution.
> 
> How do new enzymes evolve? - Yahoo! Answers
Click to expand...

I saw nothing that identified enzymes as being supermagucally "poofed" into existence by one or more of your gawds. I saw nothing at all that suggested the evolution of enzymes was in any way connected with one or more of your gawds or even required supermagical intervention. 

It's curious that you're cutting and pasting from "yahoo answers" as opposed to a reliable science journal. Curious, that.


----------



## ima

I watched a program on the Nat Geo channel about Jesus and they searched for credible evidence of Jesus' existence and they couldn't find anything for real.

Btw, can you prove that Noah was 600 years old?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying to protect your Christian creationist fantasies leaves you vulnerable to being exposed as just another cult mouthpiece. You were given documentation of how enzymes adapt and evolve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I was given no evidence but conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. You're just unable and unwilling to consider any facts that conflict with your cult indoctrination. That's not unusual for those who have limited education outside of christian fundamentalist dogma that is used to instill fear and unquestioning allegiance to the authority figures who have left you with traumatic emotional scars.
Click to expand...


Once again Hollie De novo Enzymes don't evolve they are designed.

Definition of de_novo_design - Chemistry Dictionary

Here is science using that ugly word designed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. You're just unable and unwilling to consider any facts that conflict with your cult indoctrination. That's not unusual for those who have limited education outside of christian fundamentalist dogma that is used to instill fear and unquestioning allegiance to the authority figures who have left you with traumatic emotional scars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> Now look at the question asked and the conjecture filled answer he got with no evidence that the enzyme evolved a new function. The only way an enzyme and get a new function is through having their functions altered by an outside source not by naturalism.
> 
> Resolved QuestionShow me another »
> How do new enzymes evolve?
> A few background facts that are true:
> 1) Enzymes catalyze reactions
> 2) Enzymes do not necessarily cause a reaction to happen, just make it happen way way faster.
> 3) So, basically, several processes in a cell would not happen without the appropriate enzyme.
> 
> Knowing this, how can an enzyme possibly evolve? Several reactions inside a cell (many that are 100% necessary for the life of the cell to continue) do not occur at a fast enough rate to be of any benefit to the cell, meaning the the enzyme is absolutely required for the reaction.
> 
> Current evolutionary theory states that "good" evolutionary changes are the result of very small changes to the genetic code which, over time, eventually add up to a benefit to the cell. The problem with this in respect to enzymes are that enzymes are incredibly expensive (energy-wise) for a cell to make. An ineffective enzyme would drain resources from the cell (this is particularly true for secondary metabolites) without any possible benefit to the cell, leading to negative selection, leading to species extinction.
> 
> Please be aware that this question is not about one enzyme evolving into another. This is about de novo enzyme evolution.
> 
> How do new enzymes evolve? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I saw nothing that identified enzymes as being supermagucally "poofed" into existence by one or more of your gawds. I saw nothing at all that suggested the evolution of enzymes was in any way connected with one or more of your gawds or even required supermagical intervention.
> 
> It's curious that you're cutting and pasting from "yahoo answers" as opposed to a reliable science journal. Curious, that.
Click to expand...


Dodging again Hollie ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I was given no evidence but conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. You're just unable and unwilling to consider any facts that conflict with your cult indoctrination. That's not unusual for those who have limited education outside of christian fundamentalist dogma that is used to instill fear and unquestioning allegiance to the authority figures who have left you with traumatic emotional scars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again Hollie De novo Enzymes don't evolve they are designed.
> 
> Definition of de_novo_design - Chemistry Dictionary
Click to expand...


Buddy, so where is this intelligent designer again?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> I watched a program on the Nat Geo channel about Jesus and they searched for credible evidence of Jesus' existence and they couldn't find anything for real.
> 
> Btw, can you prove that Noah was 600 years old?



Stay on topic.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. You're just unable and unwilling to consider any facts that conflict with your cult indoctrination. That's not unusual for those who have limited education outside of christian fundamentalist dogma that is used to instill fear and unquestioning allegiance to the authority figures who have left you with traumatic emotional scars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again Hollie De novo Enzymes don't evolve they are designed.
> 
> Definition of de_novo_design - Chemistry Dictionary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buddy, so where is this intelligent designer again?
Click to expand...


Science using that ugly term, design.

Once again stay on topic or you will be ignored.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I was given no evidence but conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. You're just unable and unwilling to consider any facts that conflict with your cult indoctrination. That's not unusual for those who have limited education outside of christian fundamentalist dogma that is used to instill fear and unquestioning allegiance to the authority figures who have left you with traumatic emotional scars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I provided an answer for you to my question. Notice the person say's that the Enzyme evolved a new function from an earlier ancestor but have no evidence to support this statement . He is using the theory itself has his explanation no evidence of this happening whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Well, yes. You provided an answer to your own question. 

What you didn't provide was an honest answer that was not already pre-configured to appeal to your Christian fundamentalist beliefs. 

Notice that the sites you selectively cut and paste from are populated with persons unknown. In no stretch of a vivid imagination do we have any reason to believe that your desperate appeals to fundamentalist Christian dogma are in any way validated. 

In fact, you tacitly admit that evolution does occur.

Praise hey-zeus.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again Hollie De novo Enzymes don't evolve they are designed.
> 
> Definition of de_novo_design - Chemistry Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buddy, so where is this intelligent designer again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science using that ugly term, design.
> 
> Once again stay on topic or you will be ignored.
Click to expand...


Science does not use the Christian fundie term "design". In the realm of the Christian fundie, "design" is an anthropomorphism. It's the fundies way of assigning human attributes to their gawds.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched a program on the Nat Geo channel about Jesus and they searched for credible evidence of Jesus' existence and they couldn't find anything for real.
> 
> Btw, can you prove that Noah was 600 years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stay on topic.
Click to expand...


The answer is a resounding NO to both questions. The fundie is responding with terse answers because his dogmatic and unsupportable claims are exposed as fraudulent.

I suppose we can't rule out Noah being 600 years old. It would have taken time for Noah and his immediate family to consumate the many incestuous relations needed to repopulate the planet.


----------



## hazlnut

Baron said:


> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube



I've heard about morons like you, but I've never seen one in real life.

Fascinating.

You're an email scam artist's wet dream


----------



## ima

Here's an easy one for you to answer: why did it take your god 6 days to create the world, seems a little slow to me.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buddy, so where is this intelligent designer again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science using that ugly term, design.
> 
> Once again stay on topic or you will be ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science does not use the Christian fundie term "design". In the realm of the Christian fundie, "design" is an anthropomorphism. It's the fundies way of assigning human attributes to their gawds.
Click to expand...


Look a little closer.

Definition of de_novo_design - Chemistry Dictionary


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess NP and Hawly slithered away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have destroyed your ID arguments over and over...
Click to expand...

  You're a legend in your own mind. Why are you wasting your time on the internet since you are obviously intellectually superior to all the REAL scientists out there that have no rebuttal for Meyers argument?

So your psychosis is to pretend like you have disproven it so you can be comfortable with your worldview and slither away?


----------



## ima

So where is your god now?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Here's an easy one for you to answer: why did it take your god 6 days to create the world, seems a little slow to me.



Hollie it is according to interpretation of the scriptures but i do not know how long creation took nor know the age of the universe.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are sloooooowwwww. I have explained this to you at least 10 times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what you have done is side-step any accounting of how anyone could falsify any one of the various supernatural entities called "gods".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Hollie. UR, you have not shown how anything to do with ID is falsifiable, from irreducible complexity (which has been debunked umpteen times) to the conclusion itself. I remember that you claimed that you did, and obviously tried, but it was not a valid example, or I would have remembered. Mind re-iterating briefly?
Click to expand...


I have asked you at least ten times for this. Find a modern example of complex, specifiable, digital code that has a source other than an intelligent agent and Meyers theory is falsified. I'll be waiting.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> So where is your god now?



He lives inside of my spirit.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> So where is your god now?



Probably out there somewhere laughing at his critics or maybe that should his cynics.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an easy one for you to answer: why did it take your god 6 days to create the world, seems a little slow to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie it is according to interpretation of the scriptures but i do not know how long creation took nor know the age of the universe.
Click to expand...


It says it in your bible: 6 days. Or is the bible wrong?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> simple! there is no direct or corroborating evidence to  prove it. that's how.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. There's a few extra-biblical references to someone named "christus" but absolutely no detail beyond that, and this only decades after jesus' supposed death.
Click to expand...


You make the typical dumb mistake of thinking the Bible is one book. It is a collection of letters and the Gospel accounts. They were assembled together 100's of years after they were written so to treat them as one book is just ignorant of the history.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is your god now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably out there somewhere laughing at his critics or maybe that should his cynics.
Click to expand...


But where can I find it/him/her?


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. There's a few extra-biblical references to someone named "christus" but absolutely no detail beyond that, and this only decades after jesus' supposed death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make the typical dumb mistake of thinking the Bible is one book. It is a collection of letters and the Gospel accounts. They were assembled together 100's of years after they were written so to treat them as one book is just ignorant of the history.
Click to expand...


The earliest fragment of the bible was dated to around 130 years after the facts. Other parts are dated much later.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. There's a few extra-biblical references to someone named "christus" but absolutely no detail beyond that, and this only decades after jesus' supposed death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, Historian Josephus wrote of Jesus,now he was hardly someone that would try to support the idea of Jesus's existence. If you honestly look into it further you will find other evidence to make your claim invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence?
Click to expand...


Please provide evidence that Alexander the Great existed.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, Historian Josephus wrote of Jesus,now he was hardly someone that would try to support the idea of Jesus's existence. If you honestly look into it further you will find other evidence to make your claim invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please provide evidence that Alexander the Great existed.
Click to expand...


I can't say that I have any for Al or Jesus. Please try again.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT no gay innuendo?
> that's "evidences"  or "the evidence is"
> if you insist  on plagiarizing, use the correct grammar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just copied Hawly's incorrect grammar, so quit putting your internet friend down like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you again embarrassed yourself by plagiarizing one of posts. You're limited skills with with grammar and critical thinking left you wallowing in fetid cesspools of Christian creationist rhetoric.
> 
> I suspect what happened is that you intended to plagiarize my post and use that on a Christian fundie website. You simply got confused as to where you were copying and pasting.
Click to expand...


Lashing out like an angry evofundie again? You're stupid. And you obviously missed the point that everything you were saying about ID is just as easily applied to your Darwinist religion. I knew exactly what I was doing. Too bad your learning disability keeps your from comprehending.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science using that ugly term, design.
> 
> Once again stay on topic or you will be ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science does not use the Christian fundie term "design". In the realm of the Christian fundie, "design" is an anthropomorphism. It's the fundies way of assigning human attributes to their gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look a little closer.
> 
> Definition of de_novo_design - Chemistry Dictionary
Click to expand...


Try thinking for yourself without the influence of creationist charlatans.  Do you see any reference to your particular designer gawds in science articles as a viable answer to existence?


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Follow the thread so I do not have to keep repeating myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still don't see any evidence. Watcha got?
Click to expand...


You question shows blatant ignorance of commonly accepted support for historical claims. You can't apply your twisted logic to any other historical reference and now you just look foolish.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. You're just unable and unwilling to consider any facts that conflict with your cult indoctrination. That's not unusual for those who have limited education outside of christian fundamentalist dogma that is used to instill fear and unquestioning allegiance to the authority figures who have left you with traumatic emotional scars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> Now look at the question asked and the conjecture filled answer he got with no evidence that the enzyme evolved a new function. The only way an enzyme and get a new function is through having their functions altered by an outside source not by naturalism.
> 
> Resolved QuestionShow me another »
> How do new enzymes evolve?
> A few background facts that are true:
> 1) Enzymes catalyze reactions
> 2) Enzymes do not necessarily cause a reaction to happen, just make it happen way way faster.
> 3) So, basically, several processes in a cell would not happen without the appropriate enzyme.
> 
> Knowing this, how can an enzyme possibly evolve? Several reactions inside a cell (many that are 100% necessary for the life of the cell to continue) do not occur at a fast enough rate to be of any benefit to the cell, meaning the the enzyme is absolutely required for the reaction.
> 
> Current evolutionary theory states that "good" evolutionary changes are the result of very small changes to the genetic code which, over time, eventually add up to a benefit to the cell. The problem with this in respect to enzymes are that enzymes are incredibly expensive (energy-wise) for a cell to make. An ineffective enzyme would drain resources from the cell (this is particularly true for secondary metabolites) without any possible benefit to the cell, leading to negative selection, leading to species extinction.
> 
> Please be aware that this question is not about one enzyme evolving into another. This is about de novo enzyme evolution.
> 
> How do new enzymes evolve? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I saw nothing that identified enzymes as being supermagucally "poofed" into existence by one or more of your gawds....
Click to expand...


No, it just happened by supermacigal darwinism.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just copied Hawly's incorrect grammar, so quit putting your internet friend down like that.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you again embarrassed yourself by plagiarizing one of posts. You're limited skills with with grammar and critical thinking left you wallowing in fetid cesspools of Christian creationist rhetoric.
> 
> I suspect what happened is that you intended to plagiarize my post and use that on a Christian fundie website. You simply got confused as to where you were copying and pasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lashing out like an angry evofundie again? You're stupid. And you obviously missed the point that everything you were saying about ID is just as easily applied to your Darwinist religion. I knew exactly what I was doing. Too bad your learning disability keeps your from comprehending.
Click to expand...

I understand you're embarrassed at being taken to task for your dishonesty and plagiarism, but you have only yourself to be held accountable.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buddy, so where is this intelligent designer again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science using that ugly term, design.
> 
> Once again stay on topic or you will be ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science does not use the Christian fundie term "design". In the realm of the Christian fundie, "design" is an anthropomorphism. It's the fundies way of assigning human attributes to their gawds.
Click to expand...


Kind of like the evo's way of assigning human attributes to animals?


----------



## UltimateReality

hazlnut said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard about morons like you, but I've never seen one in real life.
> 
> Fascinating.
> 
> You're an email scam artist's wet dream
Click to expand...


You're a little late to the party and fabulously un-informed, which makes you look pretty foolish at this point. A prudent person would actually read a few of the last pages before making a stupid comment like this.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Here's an easy one for you to answer: why did it take your god 6 days to create the world, seems a little slow to me.



In case you were wondering, we are all noticing that you have nothing even remotely logical, pertinent or intelligent to add to this thread. Your comments show a lack of maturity and an ability to engage in a scientific discussion. You are going permanently on ignore. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> Now look at the question asked and the conjecture filled answer he got with no evidence that the enzyme evolved a new function. The only way an enzyme and get a new function is through having their functions altered by an outside source not by naturalism.
> 
> Resolved QuestionShow me another »
> How do new enzymes evolve?
> A few background facts that are true:
> 1) Enzymes catalyze reactions
> 2) Enzymes do not necessarily cause a reaction to happen, just make it happen way way faster.
> 3) So, basically, several processes in a cell would not happen without the appropriate enzyme.
> 
> Knowing this, how can an enzyme possibly evolve? Several reactions inside a cell (many that are 100% necessary for the life of the cell to continue) do not occur at a fast enough rate to be of any benefit to the cell, meaning the the enzyme is absolutely required for the reaction.
> 
> Current evolutionary theory states that "good" evolutionary changes are the result of very small changes to the genetic code which, over time, eventually add up to a benefit to the cell. The problem with this in respect to enzymes are that enzymes are incredibly expensive (energy-wise) for a cell to make. An ineffective enzyme would drain resources from the cell (this is particularly true for secondary metabolites) without any possible benefit to the cell, leading to negative selection, leading to species extinction.
> 
> Please be aware that this question is not about one enzyme evolving into another. This is about de novo enzyme evolution.
> 
> How do new enzymes evolve? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> 
> 
> I saw nothing that identified enzymes as being supermagucally "poofed" into existence by one or more of your gawds....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it just happened by supermacigal darwinism.
Click to expand...

You flaunt your ignorance as though it was a religious view... which it is.

Darwin's theory is not in question within the science community. Christian fundies reel at the science disciplines supporting evolution because science fact supplants Christian dogma.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you again embarrassed yourself by plagiarizing one of posts. You're limited skills with with grammar and critical thinking left you wallowing in fetid cesspools of Christian creationist rhetoric.
> 
> I suspect what happened is that you intended to plagiarize my post and use that on a Christian fundie website. You simply got confused as to where you were copying and pasting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lashing out like an angry evofundie again? You're stupid. And you obviously missed the point that everything you were saying about ID is just as easily applied to your Darwinist religion. I knew exactly what I was doing. Too bad your learning disability keeps your from comprehending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you're embarrassed at being taken to task for your dishonesty and plagiarism, but you have only yourself to be held accountable.
Click to expand...


I understand you're embarrassed because you totally missed the point due to your learning disability, but you can get help with that. There are lots of free, federal programs for people like you. I would think since you are already on disability, it wouldn't be too hard to qualify.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an easy one for you to answer: why did it take your god 6 days to create the world, seems a little slow to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case you were wondering, we are all noticing that you have nothing even remotely logical, pertinent or intelligent to add to this thread. Your comments show a lack of maturity and an ability to engage in a scientific discussion. You are going permanently on ignore. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


On ignore? Not a chance. You made similar, laughable statements about putting me on ignore and you continue to stalk me. 

Is Ima now subject to your creepy proclivities?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw nothing that identified enzymes as being supermagucally "poofed" into existence by one or more of your gawds....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it just happened by supermacigal darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You flaunt your ignorance as though it was a religious view... which it is.
> 
> Darwin's theory is not in question within the science community. Christian fundies reel at the science disciplines supporting evolution because science fact supplants Christian dogma.
Click to expand...


You flaunt your ignorance as though it was a religious view... which it is.

Darwin's theory is not in question within the psuedoscience community, but REAL scientists without your materialistic religious views see real problems with it. Evolutionist fundies reel at the science disciplines supporting emprical evidence because science fact supplants darwinist dogma.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an easy one for you to answer: why did it take your god 6 days to create the world, seems a little slow to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case you were wondering, we are all noticing that you have nothing even remotely logical, pertinent or intelligent to add to this thread. Your comments show a lack of maturity and an ability to engage in a scientific discussion. You are going permanently on ignore. Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On ignore? Not a chance. You made similar, laughable statements about putting me on ignore and you continue to stalk me.
> 
> Is Ima now subject to your creepy proclivities?
Click to expand...


I admit it. It is just too entertaining to watch you repeatedly embarrass yourself with your lack of knowledge and blind allegiance to Darwin.

See ya. Gotta get back to work. Something you likely know nothing about.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lashing out like an angry evofundie again? You're stupid. And you obviously missed the point that everything you were saying about ID is just as easily applied to your Darwinist religion. I knew exactly what I was doing. Too bad your learning disability keeps your from comprehending.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're embarrassed at being taken to task for your dishonesty and plagiarism, but you have only yourself to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you're embarrassed because you totally missed the point due to your learning disability, but you can get help with that. There are lots of free, federal programs for people like you. I would think since you are already on disability, it wouldn't be too hard to qualify.
Click to expand...

You're embarrassed about being embarrassed. That's understandable. Your limited abilities to articulate your science loathing, Christian agenda required you plagiarize my comments you hoped to use elsewhere but you were confused as to where you were copying and pasting. 

Your gawds will be disappointed that you are unable to be honest.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you were wondering, we are all noticing that you have nothing even remotely logical, pertinent or intelligent to add to this thread. Your comments show a lack of maturity and an ability to engage in a scientific discussion. You are going permanently on ignore. Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On ignore? Not a chance. You made similar, laughable statements about putting me on ignore and you continue to stalk me.
> 
> Is Ima now subject to your creepy proclivities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I admit it. It is just too entertaining to watch you repeatedly embarrass yourself with your lack of knowledge and blind allegiance to Darwin.
> 
> See ya. Gotta get back to work. Something you likely know nothing about.
Click to expand...

We see the results of you running out of posts to plagiarize. Left to your own devices, you're helpless.

 So yes. Get back to work. I'll have fries and a soda with that Mcburger.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it just happened by supermacigal darwinism.
> 
> 
> 
> You flaunt your ignorance as though it was a religious view... which it is.
> 
> Darwin's theory is not in question within the science community. Christian fundies reel at the science disciplines supporting evolution because science fact supplants Christian dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You flaunt your ignorance as though it was a religious view... which it is.
> 
> Darwin's theory is not in question within the psuedoscience community, but REAL scientists without your materialistic religious views see real problems with it. Evolutionist fundies reel at the science disciplines supporting emprical evidence because science fact supplants darwinist dogma.
Click to expand...

Yet another post you plagiarized. It's a shame that christian creationist ministries are forced to abandon all credibility in regard to actually supporting their claims to supermagical gawds and are left only to spew their agenda of hate and derision.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you have not and we do not have to provide proof for the source to prove design. You have yet to provide evidence that the design evidence that has been presented evolved naturally. You're living in a dream world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes I have, and you can't prove design. You haven't even gotten close, unless you use logical fallacies. There is a plethora of evidence for evolution, so stop lying!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have shown that Enzymes can be egineered By having their functions altered through intelligence and you can't provide evidence that they can get a new function through evolution. Not a fallacy it is a fact.
Click to expand...


So, we have technology be able to manipulate our own biology. That simply speaks to our technical prowess, not anything intrinsic to our biology that can be determined, such as there being an intelligence. You are not making logical sense here if you think that because we can tinker with our enzymes, this proves a designer. The fallacy is in making this logical leap. I understand that it is a fact that we can do this. Your conclusion is unreachable from your premises.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess NP and Hawly slithered away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have destroyed your ID arguments over and over...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a legend in your own mind. Why are you wasting your time on the internet since you are obviously intellectually superior to all the REAL scientists out there that have no rebuttal for Meyers argument?
> 
> So your psychosis is to pretend like you have disproven it so you can be comfortable with your worldview and slither away?
Click to expand...


My comfort is in knowing that the methods employed with the ID hypothesis are not scientific or logically valid. It's pretty simple. If the logic and methadology were valid, I would consider ID, and so would REAL scientists.  It is your fallacy in supposing that I could not entertain a new idea, because you fallaciously assume that "naturalism" is my religion. It is not. I am only searching for truth. If ID presented a valid way to get to truth, it would be entertained by me and others, but is isn't. It relies on induction, for one, and contains unfalsifiable premises and conclusions. This automatically disqualifies it from being scientific, and scientists can see right through to this. 

 As far as there being no rebuttal for Meyers argument, ever hear of the dover trial? Every single one of his arguments has been shown to be unscientific, which is why his theory not accepted by science. Don't try and tell me that Meyer's argument is that much different from Behe's. It is not. Behe got embarrassed at the Dover trial, and by extension, so did Meyers, who used the same invalid logic and flawed methodology. ID is not allowed in our biology classrooms and hopefully never will. This hypothesis belongs in a theology class.


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have destroyed your ID arguments over and over...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a legend in your own mind. Why are you wasting your time on the internet since you are obviously intellectually superior to all the REAL scientists out there that have no rebuttal for Meyers argument?
> 
> So your psychosis is to pretend like you have disproven it so you can be comfortable with your worldview and slither away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My comfort is in knowing that the methods employed with the ID hypothesis are not scientific or logically valid. It's pretty simple. If the logic and methadology were valid, I would consider ID, and so would REAL scientists.  It is your fallacy in supposing that I could not entertain a new idea, because you fallaciously assume that "naturalism" is my religion. It is not. I am only searching for truth. If ID presented a valid way to get to truth, it would be entertained by me and others, but is isn't. It relies on induction, for one, and contains unfalsifiable premises and conclusions. This automatically disqualifies it from being scientific, and scientists can see right through to this.
> 
> As far as there being no rebuttal for Meyers argument, ever hear of the dover trial? Every single one of his arguments has been shown to be unscientific, which is why his theory not accepted by science. Don't try and tell me that Meyer's argument is that much different from Behe's. It is not. Behe got embarrassed at the Dover trial, and by extension, so did Meyers, who used the same invalid logic and flawed methodology. ID is not allowed in our biology classrooms and hopefully never will. This hypothesis belongs in a theology class.
Click to expand...

Good points, NP. 

I think that there is, fortunately, an awareness among public school officials that Christian creationism under the guise of ID, has no place in the public schools. 

For example: why teach creationism in a biology class when creationism is concerned with miraculous intervention? There is nothing to be learned about biology when humankind was "poofed" into existence 6,000 years ago. As we're to understand it, our biology was "designed' by a supernatural agent who uses that biology to snuff out the lives of sinners. Humankind's intervention in our biology might only anger the gawds. 

We should replace biology with bible study. Similarly, our earth history only extends as far back as 6,000 years. Paleontology-geology seem pointless. We should replace these fields of study with bible lessons.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Follow the thread so I do not have to keep repeating myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't see any evidence. Watcha got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You question shows blatant ignorance of commonly accepted support for historical claims. You can't apply your twisted logic to any other historical reference and now you just look foolish.
Click to expand...


Ok, so does this mean you have no proof? I guess it does, doesn't it?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't change your mind  no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.
> 
> Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.
> 
> You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?
> 
> Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot?  Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid post. After all your nonsense, the last thing I would do is depend upon your opinion of what is rational.
Click to expand...

(place irony here)


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about, i  just found it rude, and thought i would mention it, because i was having a nice discussion with this person, learning about some real shit. Again,  you  use your faulty intuition to fill your own head with what you want to believe. You might as well be a solipsist. You'd be a good one!
> 
> 
> 
> ur is a solipsist! How could he be any thing else?:d
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws is a solopissed. He likes to be angry by himself.
Click to expand...

another false assumption by by detective douchebag of double wide county.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no other logical reason why Daws would be so knowledgeable about sucking cock in the locker room or so perverse to even come up with something so disgusting unless it was based on his personal experience. Apparently he does secretly wish Hawly was a man and really did have man hands so she could touch him so Ruggedly.
> 
> And by the way, I was a detective Douche bag so there goes that theory.
> 
> 
> 
> another not even original failed attempt at character assassination.
> BTW it was you, who inferred cock sucking by using the mouth sore reference and your never ending gay innuendo,the only way to gain that much knowledge is by the  "hands on" method.
> my "theory" stands.
> if there were a perversion scale you'd pin the needle.
> Definition of PERVERSION
> "an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual"
> the sheer number of your posts with slurs and innuendo proves my "theory" correct.
> Thanks for giving me your new name fron now on I'll call you: detective Douche bag!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, this is really sad and screams out of your deviant man desires. How did you infer my comment about mouth sores was from performing the sex act you reference? Talk about your own sick, twisted perversions and bias skewing your interpretations!!! By the way, the Herpes virus that causes mouth sores is transferred by kissing and is not the same as the Herpes virus that causes genital lesions, so *YOU are the sick, twisted pervert.  *
Click to expand...

yep, that's rock solid proof that you suck cock 


detective Douche bag doth protest too much!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, Daws has a little reading comprehension problem. But thanks for the irrelevant post arguing against a point I wasn't making.
> 
> 
> 
> as always detective douche bag intentionally misinterprets.. being human is not a rational reason why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "a pregnant woman contemplates using a coat hanger" to- UR AKA DETECTIVE DOUCHE BAG
> BEEN READING TOO MANY 1940'S ANTI ABORTION PAMPLETS...?
> THE REMAINDER WAS EDITED FOR PROSELYTIZING.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did they happen to have beneficial functions hollie ?
> 
> 
> 
> by products-
> here's an anology that is also a fact (let's see how fast you deny it!)
> 
> Three billion years ago single-celled underwater bacteria used sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into tiny oxygen bubbles. Soon plants were turning an atmosphere full of volcanic carbon dioxide into oxygen. As we learn in this video segment from Interactive NOVA: "Earth," photosynthesis created a good home for animals and humans, though not for some primitive organisms. They had to retreat to where oxygen couldn't reach them. Join researchers as they search for these organisms, now considered tiny time capsules from a time before there was oxygen on Earth.
> Teachers' Domain: Life Before Oxygen
> no super natural help needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice "just so" story, but do you have some real, testable evidence for your fairy tale above? How about some causes presently in operation that would support your story?
Click to expand...

 no need, it stands on it's own merits .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess NP and Hawly slithered away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have destroyed your ID arguments over and over, on every single point, so, I kind of feel like I am done here. You can't bring up anything new, and your position doesn't stand on its own. Without faith informing a presupposition that an intelligence already exists, the ID hypothesis is simply not tenable as a scientific idea, which I have pointed out, again and again, and so is completely unconvincing. Unless you have anything new, I'm not sure what the point is in hanging around. I enjoyed the debate, but the more I learn about ID, the weaker I realize it is, and the more I realize it is completely dependent on faith in god. As proven during the dover trial, it is creationism in a lab coat. The ID movement just wants to get it into textbooks so they can vindicate their pre-existing faith in an intelligent creator, using our public school system and our children to achieve this. Thank goodness the Dover trial ended the way it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you have not and we do not have to provide proof for the source to prove design. You have yet to provide evidence that the design evidence that has been presented evolved naturally. You're living in a dream world.
Click to expand...

yes you, do since you've proven NEITHER.
 YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT LIVES OR DIES ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT AN "IINTELLIGENCE MUST HAVE DONE IT".
AGAIN wyc "WE" ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO AND HAVE NOT PRESENTED EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN!
DESIGN BY DEFINTION HAS TO HAVE A DESIGNER.
NATURE IS NOT BOUND BY THAT RULE ..SINCE THERE IS NO "WHO" IN NATURE.
PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another not even original failed attempt at character assassination.
> BTW it was you, who inferred cock sucking by using the mouth sore reference and your never ending gay innuendo,the only way to gain that much knowledge is by the  "hands on" method.
> my "theory" stands.
> if there were a perversion scale you'd pin the needle.
> Definition of PERVERSION
> "an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual"
> the sheer number of your posts with slurs and innuendo proves my "theory" correct.
> Thanks for giving me your new name fron now on I'll call you: detective Douche bag!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, this is really sad and screams out of your deviant man desires. How did you infer my comment about mouth sores was from performing the sex act you reference? Talk about your own sick, twisted perversions and bias skewing your interpretations!!! By the way, the Herpes virus that causes mouth sores is transferred by kissing and is not the same as the Herpes virus that causes genital lesions, so *YOU are the sick, twisted pervert.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep, that's rock solid proof that you suck cock
> 
> 
> detective Douche bag doth protest too much!
Click to expand...


You don't even know what that Shakespeare quote means. You aren't using it in the right context. And you are trying to distract from the fact you just got outed.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did they happen to have beneficial functions hollie ?
> 
> 
> 
> by products-
> here's an anology that is also a fact (let's see how fast you deny it!)
> 
> Three billion years ago single-celled underwater bacteria used sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into tiny oxygen bubbles. Soon plants were turning an atmosphere full of volcanic carbon dioxide into oxygen. As we learn in this video segment from Interactive NOVA: "Earth," photosynthesis created a good home for animals and humans, though not for some primitive organisms. They had to retreat to where oxygen couldn't reach them. Join researchers as they search for these organisms, now considered tiny time capsules from a time before there was oxygen on Earth.
> Teachers' Domain: Life Before Oxygen
> no super natural help needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now support this with evidence.
Click to expand...

NO ITSUPPORTS IT'SELF!
any questions? try using the link.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, this is really sad and screams out of your deviant man desires. How did you infer my comment about mouth sores was from performing the sex act you reference? Talk about your own sick, twisted perversions and bias skewing your interpretations!!! By the way, the Herpes virus that causes mouth sores is transferred by kissing and is not the same as the Herpes virus that causes genital lesions, so *YOU are the sick, twisted pervert.  *
> 
> 
> 
> yep, that's rock solid proof that you suck cock
> 
> 
> detective Douche bag doth protest too much!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't even know what that Shakespeare quote means. You aren't using it in the right context. And you are trying to distract from the fact you just got outed.
Click to expand...

 I must be right ! 
two more false assumptions by detective Douche bag!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know ?
> 
> 
> 
> simple! there is no direct or corroborating evidence to  prove it. that's how.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.
Click to expand...

 second hand accounts of Jesus are not evidence unless they can be linked to physical evidence...to this day there have been none found.. looks like your shit outa luck on that!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you have not and we do not have to provide proof for the source to prove design. You have yet to provide evidence that the design evidence that has been presented evolved naturally. You're living in a dream world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes I have, and you can't prove design. You haven't even gotten close, unless you use logical fallacies. There is a plethora of evidence for evolution, so stop lying!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have shown that Enzymes can be egineered By having their functions altered through intelligence and you can't provide evidence that they can get a new function through evolution. Not a fallacy it is a fact.
Click to expand...

it's also not evidence of design..
there functions were not altered by intelligence .....intelligence by itself has no power.
so knock off the bullshit.
you've proven shit ...


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. You're just unable and unwilling to consider any facts that conflict with your cult indoctrination. That's not unusual for those who have limited education outside of christian fundamentalist dogma that is used to instill fear and unquestioning allegiance to the authority figures who have left you with traumatic emotional scars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
> 
> What are Enzymes?
> 
> Now look at the question asked and the conjecture filled answer he got with no evidence that the enzyme evolved a new function. The only way an enzyme and get a new function is through having their functions altered by an outside source not by naturalism.
> 
> Resolved QuestionShow me another »
> How do new enzymes evolve?
> A few background facts that are true:
> 1) Enzymes catalyze reactions
> 2) Enzymes do not necessarily cause a reaction to happen, just make it happen way way faster.
> 3) So, basically, several processes in a cell would not happen without the appropriate enzyme.
> 
> Knowing this, how can an enzyme possibly evolve? Several reactions inside a cell (many that are 100% necessary for the life of the cell to continue) do not occur at a fast enough rate to be of any benefit to the cell, meaning the the enzyme is absolutely required for the reaction.
> 
> Current evolutionary theory states that "good" evolutionary changes are the result of very small changes to the genetic code which, over time, eventually add up to a benefit to the cell. The problem with this in respect to enzymes are that enzymes are incredibly expensive (energy-wise) for a cell to make. An ineffective enzyme would drain resources from the cell (this is particularly true for secondary metabolites) without any possible benefit to the cell, leading to negative selection, leading to species extinction.
> 
> Please be aware that this question is not about one enzyme evolving into another. This is about de novo enzyme evolution.
> 
> How do new enzymes evolve? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I saw nothing that identified enzymes as being supermagucally "poofed" into existence by one or more of your gawds. I saw nothing at all that suggested the evolution of enzymes was in any way connected with one or more of your gawds or even required supermagical intervention.
> 
> It's curious that you're cutting and pasting from "yahoo answers" as opposed to a reliable science journal. Curious, that.
Click to expand...


bump!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. There's a few extra-biblical references to someone named "christus" but absolutely no detail beyond that, and this only decades after jesus' supposed death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make the typical dumb mistake of thinking the Bible is one book. It is a collection of letters and the Gospel accounts. They were assembled together 100's of years after they were written so to treat them as one book is just ignorant of the history.
Click to expand...

really detective douche bag..?..NP has made that statement many times.
this is the first time you have ...
 the bible is a compendium and not complete,  none of the accounts are first hand  so all the material contained in  it is hearsay not fact...


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On ignore? Not a chance. You made similar, laughable statements about putting me on ignore and you continue to stalk me.
> 
> Is Ima now subject to your creepy proclivities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit it. It is just too entertaining to watch you repeatedly embarrass yourself with your lack of knowledge and blind allegiance to Darwin.
> 
> See ya. Gotta get back to work. Something you likely know nothing about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see the results of you running out of posts to plagiarize. Left to your own devices, you're helpless.
> 
> So yes. Get back to work. I'll have fries and a soda with that Mcburger.
Click to expand...

funny how "ur" detective douche bag will bring up "Work" when his ass is in a crack...


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep, that's rock solid proof that you suck cock
> 
> 
> detective Douche bag doth protest too much!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even know what that Shakespeare quote means. You aren't using it in the right context. And you are trying to distract from the fact you just got outed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must be right !
> two more false assumptions by detective Douche bag!
Click to expand...


You would think a theater major would know how to quote Shakespeare in the right context.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> simple! there is no direct or corroborating evidence to  prove it. that's how.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> second hand accounts of Jesus are not evidence unless they can be linked to physical evidence...to this day there have been none found.. looks like your shit outa luck on that!
Click to expand...


Prove you exist.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I admit it. It is just too entertaining to watch you repeatedly embarrass yourself with your lack of knowledge and blind allegiance to Darwin.
> 
> See ya. Gotta get back to work. Something you likely know nothing about.
> 
> 
> 
> We see the results of you running out of posts to plagiarize. Left to your own devices, you're helpless.
> 
> So yes. Get back to work. I'll have fries and a soda with that Mcburger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> funny how "ur" detective douche bag will bring up "Work" when his ass is in a crack...
Click to expand...


Kind of like you are running and ducking for cover now. I'll be lucky if I hear from you in 8 or 10 hours until the shame wears off of you.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see the results of you running out of posts to plagiarize. Left to your own devices, you're helpless.
> 
> So yes. Get back to work. I'll have fries and a soda with that Mcburger.
> 
> 
> 
> funny how "ur" detective douche bag will bring up "Work" when his ass is in a crack...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind of like you are running and ducking for cover now. I'll be lucky if I hear from you in 8 or 10 hours until the shame wears off of you.
Click to expand...



You are turning into bigger and bigger of a douchebag. I've been reading your "discourse" with Daws. You are a most unpleasant person, UR. I would have thought that the power of christ would have "cured" that. This god of yours must not be all powerful. I can't imagine how he could be intelligent enough to design species.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You flaunt your ignorance as though it was a religious view... which it is.
> 
> Darwin's theory is not in question within the science community. Christian fundies reel at the science disciplines supporting evolution because science fact supplants Christian dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You flaunt your ignorance as though it was a religious view... which it is.
> 
> Darwin's theory is not in question within the psuedoscience community, but REAL scientists without your materialistic religious views see real problems with it. Evolutionist fundies reel at the science disciplines supporting emprical evidence because science fact supplants darwinist dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another post you plagiarized. It's a shame that christian creationist ministries are forced to abandon all credibility in regard to actually supporting their claims to supermagical gawds and are left only to spew their agenda of hate and derision.
Click to expand...


Why don't you address the issues ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes I have, and you can't prove design. You haven't even gotten close, unless you use logical fallacies. There is a plethora of evidence for evolution, so stop lying!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown that Enzymes can be egineered By having their functions altered through intelligence and you can't provide evidence that they can get a new function through evolution. Not a fallacy it is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, we have technology be able to manipulate our own biology. That simply speaks to our technical prowess, not anything intrinsic to our biology that can be determined, such as there being an intelligence. You are not making logical sense here if you think that because we can tinker with our enzymes, this proves a designer. The fallacy is in making this logical leap. I understand that it is a fact that we can do this. Your conclusion is unreachable from your premises.
Click to expand...


Yes Enzymes can be programmed that is evidence that suggests in the beginning they were programmed were not a product of naturalism. I don't buy things grow the ability over time to be a benefit to the organism through errors.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You flaunt your ignorance as though it was a religious view... which it is.
> 
> Darwin's theory is not in question within the psuedoscience community, but REAL scientists without your materialistic religious views see real problems with it. Evolutionist fundies reel at the science disciplines supporting emprical evidence because science fact supplants darwinist dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another post you plagiarized. It's a shame that christian creationist ministries are forced to abandon all credibility in regard to actually supporting their claims to supermagical gawds and are left only to spew their agenda of hate and derision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you address the issues ?
Click to expand...

I did address the issues in my post that was plagiarized by your Christian creationist cult member accomplice. 

Why don't you address those issues?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have destroyed your ID arguments over and over...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a legend in your own mind. Why are you wasting your time on the internet since you are obviously intellectually superior to all the REAL scientists out there that have no rebuttal for Meyers argument?
> 
> So your psychosis is to pretend like you have disproven it so you can be comfortable with your worldview and slither away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My comfort is in knowing that the methods employed with the ID hypothesis are not scientific or logically valid. It's pretty simple. If the logic and methadology were valid, I would consider ID, and so would REAL scientists.  It is your fallacy in supposing that I could not entertain a new idea, because you fallaciously assume that "naturalism" is my religion. It is not. I am only searching for truth. If ID presented a valid way to get to truth, it would be entertained by me and others, but is isn't. It relies on induction, for one, and contains unfalsifiable premises and conclusions. This automatically disqualifies it from being scientific, and scientists can see right through to this.
> 
> As far as there being no rebuttal for Meyers argument, ever hear of the dover trial? Every single one of his arguments has been shown to be unscientific, which is why his theory not accepted by science. Don't try and tell me that Meyer's argument is that much different from Behe's. It is not. Behe got embarrassed at the Dover trial, and by extension, so did Meyers, who used the same invalid logic and flawed methodology. ID is not allowed in our biology classrooms and hopefully never will. This hypothesis belongs in a theology class.
Click to expand...


Last night Bill O'rielly and John Stossel went at it a little bit. Bill has interviewed just about every well known scientist the ones that believe in a higher power are with the intelligent design movement or creationist. The ones that are athiest go with evolution and they believe evolution explains most things. The Bill said he hits them with two questions that they admit they have no answer for. The questions are where did the Universe come from and how did life start. John said that he would like to be a believer he realluy would but his biggest problem with the thought of al the bad in the world. Bill replied it comes down to God granting free will. John said that those two questions cause  him to hold out hope for him to become a believer.

John I believe this weekend is gonna have people from both sides of the argument on and have them help convince him one way or the either.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another not even original failed attempt at character assassination.
> BTW it was you, who inferred cock sucking by using the mouth sore reference and your never ending gay innuendo,the only way to gain that much knowledge is by the  "hands on" method.
> my "theory" stands.
> if there were a perversion scale you'd pin the needle.
> Definition of PERVERSION
> "an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual"
> the sheer number of your posts with slurs and innuendo proves my "theory" correct.
> Thanks for giving me your new name fron now on I'll call you: detective Douche bag!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, this is really sad and screams out of your deviant man desires. How did you infer my comment about mouth sores was from performing the sex act you reference? Talk about your own sick, twisted perversions and bias skewing your interpretations!!! By the way, the Herpes virus that causes mouth sores is transferred by kissing and is not the same as the Herpes virus that causes genital lesions, so *YOU are the sick, twisted pervert.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep, that's rock solid proof that you suck cock
> 
> 
> detective Douche bag doth protest too much!
Click to expand...


Can we move on from this pointless give and take.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> by products-
> here's an anology that is also a fact (let's see how fast you deny it!)
> 
> Three billion years ago single-celled underwater bacteria used sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into tiny oxygen bubbles. Soon plants were turning an atmosphere full of volcanic carbon dioxide into oxygen. As we learn in this video segment from Interactive NOVA: "Earth," photosynthesis created a good home for animals and humans, though not for some primitive organisms. They had to retreat to where oxygen couldn't reach them. Join researchers as they search for these organisms, now considered tiny time capsules from a time before there was oxygen on Earth.
> Teachers' Domain: Life Before Oxygen
> no super natural help needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice "just so" story, but do you have some real, testable evidence for your fairy tale above? How about some causes presently in operation that would support your story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need, it stands on it's own merits .
Click to expand...


Pure fantasy here daws it does not stand on merits but one's imagination.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown that Enzymes can be egineered By having their functions altered through intelligence and you can't provide evidence that they can get a new function through evolution. Not a fallacy it is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, we have technology be able to manipulate our own biology. That simply speaks to our technical prowess, not anything intrinsic to our biology that can be determined, such as there being an intelligence. You are not making logical sense here if you think that because we can tinker with our enzymes, this proves a designer. The fallacy is in making this logical leap. I understand that it is a fact that we can do this. Your conclusion is unreachable from your premises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Enzymes can be programmed that is evidence that suggests in the beginning they were programmed were not a product of naturalism. I don't buy things grow the ability over time to be a benefit to the organism through errors.
Click to expand...

Your "suggestion" begs special pleading for supermagical intervention. As always, you presume your conclusion of gawds and then invent convenient scenarios whereby you can insert those gawds. 

Why are your hapless gawds so inept that their magical abilities require the mal-formed explanations and angry rhetoric of zealots to explain their magic?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have destroyed your ID arguments over and over, on every single point, so, I kind of feel like I am done here. You can't bring up anything new, and your position doesn't stand on its own. Without faith informing a presupposition that an intelligence already exists, the ID hypothesis is simply not tenable as a scientific idea, which I have pointed out, again and again, and so is completely unconvincing. Unless you have anything new, I'm not sure what the point is in hanging around. I enjoyed the debate, but the more I learn about ID, the weaker I realize it is, and the more I realize it is completely dependent on faith in god. As proven during the dover trial, it is creationism in a lab coat. The ID movement just wants to get it into textbooks so they can vindicate their pre-existing faith in an intelligent creator, using our public school system and our children to achieve this. Thank goodness the Dover trial ended the way it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you have not and we do not have to provide proof for the source to prove design. You have yet to provide evidence that the design evidence that has been presented evolved naturally. You're living in a dream world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes you, do since you've proven NEITHER.
> YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT LIVES OR DIES ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT AN "IINTELLIGENCE MUST HAVE DONE IT".
> AGAIN wyc "WE" ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO AND HAVE NOT PRESENTED EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN!
> DESIGN BY DEFINTION HAS TO HAVE A DESIGNER.
> NATURE IS NOT BOUND BY THAT RULE ..SINCE THERE IS NO "WHO" IN NATURE.
> PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!
Click to expand...


Nature is the product of the designer. What put everything in to motion daws ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> by products-
> here's an anology that is also a fact (let's see how fast you deny it!)
> 
> Three billion years ago single-celled underwater bacteria used sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into tiny oxygen bubbles. Soon plants were turning an atmosphere full of volcanic carbon dioxide into oxygen. As we learn in this video segment from Interactive NOVA: "Earth," photosynthesis created a good home for animals and humans, though not for some primitive organisms. They had to retreat to where oxygen couldn't reach them. Join researchers as they search for these organisms, now considered tiny time capsules from a time before there was oxygen on Earth.
> Teachers' Domain: Life Before Oxygen
> no super natural help needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now support this with evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO ITSUPPORTS IT'SELF!
> any questions? try using the link.
Click to expand...


Once again daws you turn to conjecture as an explanation. You are doing what you accuse believers doing.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Nature is the product of the designer. What put everything in to motion daws ?



This question is unknown. You can think that it's LIKELY done by a god, but it's arrogant to say it for a fact. We simply do not know.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep, that's rock solid proof that you suck cock
> 
> 
> detective Douche bag doth protest too much!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even know what that Shakespeare quote means. You aren't using it in the right context. And you are trying to distract from the fact you just got outed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must be right !
> two more false assumptions by detective Douche bag!
Click to expand...


Let's move on from these pointless posts.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you have not and we do not have to provide proof for the source to prove design. You have yet to provide evidence that the design evidence that has been presented evolved naturally. You're living in a dream world.
> 
> 
> 
> yes you, do since you've proven NEITHER.
> YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT LIVES OR DIES ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT AN "IINTELLIGENCE MUST HAVE DONE IT".
> AGAIN wyc "WE" ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO AND HAVE NOT PRESENTED EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN!
> DESIGN BY DEFINTION HAS TO HAVE A DESIGNER.
> NATURE IS NOT BOUND BY THAT RULE ..SINCE THERE IS NO "WHO" IN NATURE.
> PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature is the product of the designer. What put everything in to motion daws ?
Click to expand...


There is no valid reason to accept any designer is required for nature. Quite clearly, if nature was designed by your gawds, that would only serve to describe your designer gawds as amateur and worse: incompetent. 

It's just absurd that you make these bellicose claims with not a single supporting fact to buttress your argument. Such actions could be described as: pompous, irrelevant and meaningless. 

Fanaticism, whether religious or otherwise is a disease of the mind.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> simple! there is no direct or corroborating evidence to  prove it. that's how.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> second hand accounts of Jesus are not evidence unless they can be linked to physical evidence...to this day there have been none found.. looks like your shit outa luck on that!
Click to expand...


By your reasoning how do we know many men of history existed with the lack of physical evidence ?

Once again it comes down to faith. 

Joh 20:29  Jesus said to him, Because you have seen me you have belief: a blessing will be on those who have belief though they have not seen me! 

I have had things happen in my life to know he exists.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes I have, and you can't prove design. You haven't even gotten close, unless you use logical fallacies. There is a plethora of evidence for evolution, so stop lying!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown that Enzymes can be egineered By having their functions altered through intelligence and you can't provide evidence that they can get a new function through evolution. Not a fallacy it is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's also not evidence of design..
> there functions were not altered by intelligence .....intelligence by itself has no power.
> so knock off the bullshit.
> you've proven shit ...
Click to expand...


Daws the scientists that have altered the functions of Enzymes you don't consider intelligent ?

How bout the ones that have developed forms of communication ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.
> 
> 
> 
> second hand accounts of Jesus are not evidence unless they can be linked to physical evidence...to this day there have been none found.. looks like your shit outa luck on that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your reasoning how do we know many men of history existed with the lack of physical evidence ?
> 
> Once again it comes down to faith.
> 
> Joh 20:29  Jesus said to him, Because you have seen me you have belief: a blessing will be on those who have belief though they have not seen me!
> 
> I have had things happen in my life to know he exists.
Click to expand...

Like what?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny how "ur" detective douche bag will bring up "Work" when his ass is in a crack...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like you are running and ducking for cover now. I'll be lucky if I hear from you in 8 or 10 hours until the shame wears off of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are turning into bigger and bigger of a douchebag. I've been reading your "discourse" with Daws. You are a most unpleasant person, UR. I would have thought that the power of christ would have "cured" that. This god of yours must not be all powerful. I can't imagine how he could be intelligent enough to design species.
Click to expand...


Don't blame God for the actions of others,I wonder if you hold this same view with muslims ? or just a hypocrite.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, we have technology be able to manipulate our own biology. That simply speaks to our technical prowess, not anything intrinsic to our biology that can be determined, such as there being an intelligence. You are not making logical sense here if you think that because we can tinker with our enzymes, this proves a designer. The fallacy is in making this logical leap. I understand that it is a fact that we can do this. Your conclusion is unreachable from your premises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Enzymes can be programmed that is evidence that suggests in the beginning they were programmed were not a product of naturalism. I don't buy things grow the ability over time to be a benefit to the organism through errors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "suggestion" begs special pleading for supermagical intervention. As always, you presume your conclusion of gawds and then invent convenient scenarios whereby you can insert those gawds.
> 
> Why are your hapless gawds so inept that their magical abilities require the mal-formed explanations and angry rhetoric of zealots to explain their magic?
Click to expand...


Nope it is based on reason.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Enzymes can be programmed that is evidence that suggests in the beginning they were programmed were not a product of naturalism. I don't buy things grow the ability over time to be a benefit to the organism through errors.
> 
> 
> 
> Your "suggestion" begs special pleading for supermagical intervention. As always, you presume your conclusion of gawds and then invent convenient scenarios whereby you can insert those gawds.
> 
> Why are your hapless gawds so inept that their magical abilities require the mal-formed explanations and angry rhetoric of zealots to explain their magic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope it is based on reason.
Click to expand...


So what's the reason your god makes malformed babies and babies that die soon after birth? He fuck something up on purpose? Or just fell asleep?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature is the product of the designer. What put everything in to motion daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This question is unknown. You can think that it's LIKELY done by a god, but it's arrogant to say it for a fact. We simply do not know.
Click to expand...


That is correct but couple the thought of biological chemicals performing necessary funtions and then it is resonable to assume we are purposeful life but that is not what naturalism would teach correct ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes you, do since you've proven NEITHER.
> YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT LIVES OR DIES ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT AN "IINTELLIGENCE MUST HAVE DONE IT".
> AGAIN wyc "WE" ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO AND HAVE NOT PRESENTED EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN!
> DESIGN BY DEFINTION HAS TO HAVE A DESIGNER.
> NATURE IS NOT BOUND BY THAT RULE ..SINCE THERE IS NO "WHO" IN NATURE.
> PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nature is the product of the designer. What put everything in to motion daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid reason to accept any designer is required for nature. Quite clearly, if nature was designed by your gawds, that would only serve to describe your designer gawds as amateur and worse: incompetent.
> 
> It's just absurd that you make these bellicose claims with not a single supporting fact to buttress your argument. Such actions could be described as: pompous, irrelevant and meaningless.
> 
> Fanaticism, whether religious or otherwise is a disease of the mind.
Click to expand...


There are plemty reasons you just dismiss it because you have not personally met your creator.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> second hand accounts of Jesus are not evidence unless they can be linked to physical evidence...to this day there have been none found.. looks like your shit outa luck on that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your reasoning how do we know many men of history existed with the lack of physical evidence ?
> 
> Once again it comes down to faith.
> 
> Joh 20:29  Jesus said to him, Because you have seen me you have belief: a blessing will be on those who have belief though they have not seen me!
> 
> I have had things happen in my life to know he exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like what?
Click to expand...


Timely things that were asked for in prayer. I have seen the evil that lurks this world and that makes victims of people going down the wrong road. Unseen forces in homes with voices and things violently thrown across the room.

The true enemy of God is working behind the scenes and go unnoticed by the masses.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "suggestion" begs special pleading for supermagical intervention. As always, you presume your conclusion of gawds and then invent convenient scenarios whereby you can insert those gawds.
> 
> Why are your hapless gawds so inept that their magical abilities require the mal-formed explanations and angry rhetoric of zealots to explain their magic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope it is based on reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's the reason your god makes malformed babies and babies that die soon after birth? He fuck something up on purpose? Or just fell asleep?
Click to expand...


The life we see is what man produced through free will. Did God hand down punishment yes he did. God some day will right the wrong.


----------



## newpolitics

youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> i have shown that enzymes can be egineered by having their functions altered through intelligence and you can't provide evidence that they can get a new function through evolution. Not a fallacy it is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so, we have technology be able to manipulate our own biology. That simply speaks to our technical prowess, not anything intrinsic to our biology that can be determined, such as there being an intelligence. You are not making logical sense here if you think that because we can tinker with our enzymes, this proves a designer. The fallacy is in making this logical leap. I understand that it is a fact that we can do this. Your conclusion is unreachable from your premises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes enzymes can be programmed that is evidence that suggests in the beginning they were programmed were not a product of naturalism. I don't buy things grow the ability over time to be a benefit to the organism through errors.
Click to expand...


no, that is not evidence they were programmed in the beginning. It is evidence that we are extremely good at manipulating the world around us. No other conclusions can be drawn from this, without tremendous logical fallacies.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature is the product of the designer. What put everything in to motion daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no valid reason to accept any designer is required for nature. Quite clearly, if nature was designed by your gawds, that would only serve to describe your designer gawds as amateur and worse: incompetent.
> 
> It's just absurd that you make these bellicose claims with not a single supporting fact to buttress your argument. Such actions could be described as: pompous, irrelevant and meaningless.
> 
> Fanaticism, whether religious or otherwise is a disease of the mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plemty reasons you just dismiss it because you have not personally met your creator.
Click to expand...


As with all of your baseless claims to the gawds, you lead your argument with presumptions and presuppositions. 

As with all of your statements, you claim 'plenty of reasons" for the existence of your gawds but you never manage to provide anything more than "because I say so.". 

These designer gawds of yours are always absent any validation except in your wants and desires. 

Refutation of your claim that I have not personally met my creator/ designer gawds is a simple matter. I had them over for dinner last night. They had two servings of meatloaf. 

They asked that I pass on to you that you are to stop presuming that you are the gawds spokesman on earth...or else.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, we have technology be able to manipulate our own biology. That simply speaks to our technical prowess, not anything intrinsic to our biology that can be determined, such as there being an intelligence. You are not making logical sense here if you think that because we can tinker with our enzymes, this proves a designer. The fallacy is in making this logical leap. I understand that it is a fact that we can do this. Your conclusion is unreachable from your premises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes enzymes can be programmed that is evidence that suggests in the beginning they were programmed were not a product of naturalism. I don't buy things grow the ability over time to be a benefit to the organism through errors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, that is not evidence they were programmed in the beginning. It is evidence that we are extremely good at manipulating the world around us. No other conclusions can be drawn from this, without tremendous logical fallacies.
Click to expand...


You have no evidence these chemicals evolved purposeful functions, zero evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no valid reason to accept any designer is required for nature. Quite clearly, if nature was designed by your gawds, that would only serve to describe your designer gawds as amateur and worse: incompetent.
> 
> It's just absurd that you make these bellicose claims with not a single supporting fact to buttress your argument. Such actions could be described as: pompous, irrelevant and meaningless.
> 
> Fanaticism, whether religious or otherwise is a disease of the mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are plemty reasons you just dismiss it because you have not personally met your creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As with all of your baseless claims to the gawds, you lead your argument with presumptions and presuppositions.
> 
> As with all of your statements, you claim 'plenty of reasons" for the existence of your gawds but you never manage to provide anything more than "because I say so.".
> 
> These designer gawds of yours are always absent any validation except in your wants and desires.
> 
> Refutation of your claim that I have not personally met my creator/ designer gawds is a simple matter. I had them over for dinner last night. They had two servings of meatloaf.
> 
> They asked that I pass on to you that you are to stop presuming that you are the gawds spokesman on earth...or else.
Click to expand...


My presuppositions changed over time. You are where I once was. I don't speak for God I do however offer my opinions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

It really comes down to this,do you believe everything we see is the result of an undirected process or a process that has been guided with purpose in mind.

I can't force someone to agree with me, nor can you force me to agree that everything just happened through errors and mistakes and that it was undirected.

Somewhere in our thought process we should be able to answer the question through common sense.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plemty reasons you just dismiss it because you have not personally met your creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As with all of your baseless claims to the gawds, you lead your argument with presumptions and presuppositions.
> 
> As with all of your statements, you claim 'plenty of reasons" for the existence of your gawds but you never manage to provide anything more than "because I say so.".
> 
> These designer gawds of yours are always absent any validation except in your wants and desires.
> 
> Refutation of your claim that I have not personally met my creator/ designer gawds is a simple matter. I had them over for dinner last night. They had two servings of meatloaf.
> 
> They asked that I pass on to you that you are to stop presuming that you are the gawds spokesman on earth...or else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My presuppositions changed over time. You are where I once was. I don't speak for God I do however offer my opinions.
Click to expand...


You state your opinions as absolute fact. You claim to know things with certainty that you don't know and couldn't possibly know. 

And yes, you do presume to speak on behalf of the gawds which makes you appear as quite the irrational, hair-on-fire, bible thumping caricature of the silly TV power preacher.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> It really comes down to this,do you believe everything we see is the result of an undirected process or a process that has been guided with purpose in mind.
> 
> I can't force someone to agree with me, nor can you force me to agree that everything just happened through errors and mistakes and that it was undirected.
> 
> Somewhere in our thought process we should be able to answer the question through common sense.



As is expected, your revulsion for science makes you a poor candidate to critique the science environment. 

Your phony and contrived characterization that "everything just happened through errors and mistakes and that it was undirected", is just more of your refusal / inability to understand the science behind nature. Your comments simply reflect the dishonesty and real appeals to ignorance that define the Christian creationist agenda.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As with all of your baseless claims to the gawds, you lead your argument with presumptions and presuppositions.
> 
> As with all of your statements, you claim 'plenty of reasons" for the existence of your gawds but you never manage to provide anything more than "because I say so.".
> 
> These designer gawds of yours are always absent any validation except in your wants and desires.
> 
> Refutation of your claim that I have not personally met my creator/ designer gawds is a simple matter. I had them over for dinner last night. They had two servings of meatloaf.
> 
> They asked that I pass on to you that you are to stop presuming that you are the gawds spokesman on earth...or else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My presuppositions changed over time. You are where I once was. I don't speak for God I do however offer my opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You state your opinions as absolute fact. You claim to know things with certainty that you don't know and couldn't possibly know.
> 
> And yes, you do presume to speak on behalf of the gawds which makes you appear as quite the irrational, hair-on-fire, bible thumping caricature of the silly TV power preacher.
Click to expand...


You see I have beliefs that are based in faith and some that are based on observed facts.

You see you do the same thing. Many of your views here are based in faith but you're not willing to admit it,but some of them are not based on scientific fact. You believe there is no God but what do you base that view on ? you are probably gonna say because there is no evidence but what is your evidence for naturalism that everything arrived here naturally ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really comes down to this,do you believe everything we see is the result of an undirected process or a process that has been guided with purpose in mind.
> 
> I can't force someone to agree with me, nor can you force me to agree that everything just happened through errors and mistakes and that it was undirected.
> 
> Somewhere in our thought process we should be able to answer the question through common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As is expected, your revulsion for science makes you a poor candidate to critique the science environment.
> 
> Your phony and contrived characterization that "everything just happened through errors and mistakes and that it was undirected", is just more of your refusal / inability to understand the science behind nature. Your comments simply reflect the dishonesty and real appeals to ignorance that define the Christian creationist agenda.
Click to expand...



Here you go again down that road of rejection and insults with nothing to back your claims over mine.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My presuppositions changed over time. You are where I once was. I don't speak for God I do however offer my opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You state your opinions as absolute fact. You claim to know things with certainty that you don't know and couldn't possibly know.
> 
> And yes, you do presume to speak on behalf of the gawds which makes you appear as quite the irrational, hair-on-fire, bible thumping caricature of the silly TV power preacher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see I have beliefs that are based in faith and some that are based on observed facts.
> 
> You see you do the same thing. Many of your views here are based in faith but you're not willing to admit it,but some of them are not based on scientific fact. You believe there is no God but what do you base that view on ? you are probably gonna say because there is no evidence but what is your evidence for naturalism that everything arrived here naturally ?
Click to expand...

Your comments are typically presumptuous as I have no faith in any human construct of gawds. 

The evidence for naturalism is that there is nothing supernatural about existence. Your need to add a supernatural component to existence (you call this thing gawds), is unnecessary. You still, after pages upon pages of text have yet to define a single instance of something in existence that can be described as supernatural. 

You only see "design" from a particular, partisan gawd because it appeals to the particular religious dogma that was a part of American culture. Let's he honest, if you had been Bern in the Middle East, you would be the "allahu akbar" screaming Loon we see on TV.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny how "ur" detective douche bag will bring up "Work" when his ass is in a crack...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like you are running and ducking for cover now. I'll be lucky if I hear from you in 8 or 10 hours until the shame wears off of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are turning into bigger and bigger of a douchebag. I've been reading your "discourse" with Daws. You are a most unpleasant person, UR. I would have thought that the power of christ would have "cured" that.
Click to expand...


So you do believe Christ exists!

But that behavior is not from Christ. Its from years in law enforcement. You meet people where they are at. I'm just a mirror.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really comes down to this,do you believe everything we see is the result of an undirected process or a process that has been guided with purpose in mind.
> 
> I can't force someone to agree with me, nor can you force me to agree that everything just happened through errors and mistakes and that it was undirected.
> 
> Somewhere in our thought process we should be able to answer the question through common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As is expected, your revulsion for science makes you a poor candidate to critique the science environment.
> 
> Your phony and contrived characterization that "everything just happened through errors and mistakes and that it was undirected", is just more of your refusal / inability to understand the science behind nature. Your comments simply reflect the dishonesty and real appeals to ignorance that define the Christian creationist agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go again down that road of rejection and insults with nothing to back your claims over mine.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. The science supporting evolution, an immensely old universe and immense distances that separate the stars, galaxies, etc. is not in question among the relevant science community. It is Christian fundamentalists who float conspiracy theories about a 6000 year old earth and Arks, global floods, etc that have been refuted and relegated to absurdities. 

What is truly a shame is that you continue to spew creationist lies and falsehoods even after repeatedly being exposed for maliciously furthering those lies and falsehoods. 

It really is quite an indictment of Christian fundies that they continue to ignore their dishonesty and to continue their program of lies and deceit.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You state your opinions as absolute fact. You claim to know things with certainty that you don't know and couldn't possibly know.
> 
> And yes, you do presume to speak on behalf of the gawds which makes you appear as quite the irrational, hair-on-fire, bible thumping caricature of the silly TV power preacher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see I have beliefs that are based in faith and some that are based on observed facts.
> 
> You see you do the same thing. Many of your views here are based in faith but you're not willing to admit it,but some of them are not based on scientific fact. You believe there is no God but what do you base that view on ? you are probably gonna say because there is no evidence but what is your evidence for naturalism that everything arrived here naturally ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comments are typically presumptuous as I have no faith in any human construct of gawds.
> 
> The evidence for naturalism is that there is nothing supernatural about existence. Your need to add a supernatural component to existence (you call this thing gawds), is unnecessary. You still, after pages upon pages of text have yet to define a single instance of something in existence that can be described as supernatural.
> 
> You only see "design" from a particular, partisan gawd because it appeals to the particular religious dogma that was a part of American culture. Let's he honest, if you had been Bern in the Middle East, you would be the "allahu akbar" screaming Loon we see on TV.
Click to expand...


Ok try this on for size. I was watching a show the other day where many scientists from SETI believe when we discover life out there in space that this life ,our cosmic relatives,would be made of silica and steel. Is that a view based in faith and a vivid imagination or scientific fact ? Let's be honest hollie they are doing the same thing with many of the theories you have pasted here on this thread. They have this view because life as we know it can't exist out there because of the conditions. Is that not circular reasoning ? and avd imagination at work ? they even said they would be machines,would these machines be a product of design or a natural process in which they formed ?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like you are running and ducking for cover now. I'll be lucky if I hear from you in 8 or 10 hours until the shame wears off of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are turning into bigger and bigger of a douchebag. I've been reading your "discourse" with Daws. You are a most unpleasant person, UR. I would have thought that the power of christ would have "cured" that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you do believe Christ exists!
> 
> But that behavior is not from Christ. Its from years in law enforcement. You meet people where they are at. I'm just a mirror.
Click to expand...


So you acknowledge being a... (what he said).

It's just not your fault. It's everyone else's fault. They made you do it. You're not responsible for your... oh hell... douche'baggery.

"The gawds did it".


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As with all of your baseless claims to the gawds, you lead your argument with presumptions and presuppositions.
> 
> As with all of your statements, you claim 'plenty of reasons" for the existence of your gawds but you never manage to provide anything more than "because I say so.".
> 
> These designer gawds of yours are always absent any validation except in your wants and desires.
> 
> Refutation of your claim that I have not personally met my creator/ designer gawds is a simple matter. I had them over for dinner last night. They had two servings of meatloaf.
> 
> They asked that I pass on to you that you are to stop presuming that you are the gawds spokesman on earth...or else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My presuppositions changed over time. You are where I once was. I don't speak for God I do however offer my opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You state your opinions as absolute fact. You claim to know things with certainty that you don't know and couldn't possibly know.
> 
> And yes, you do presume to speak on behalf of the gawds which makes you appear as quite the irrational, hair-on-fire, bible thumping caricature of the silly TV power preacher.
Click to expand...


You believe evolution as absolute fact. You claim to know things with certainty that you don't know and couldn't possibly know. 

And yes, you do presume to speak on behalf of the other darwinists which makes you appear as quite the irrational, hair-on-fire, Christian-hating Bigots of the left wingnut media.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see I have beliefs that are based in faith and some that are based on observed facts.
> 
> You see you do the same thing. Many of your views here are based in faith but you're not willing to admit it,but some of them are not based on scientific fact. You believe there is no God but what do you base that view on ? you are probably gonna say because there is no evidence but what is your evidence for naturalism that everything arrived here naturally ?
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments are typically presumptuous as I have no faith in any human construct of gawds.
> 
> The evidence for naturalism is that there is nothing supernatural about existence. Your need to add a supernatural component to existence (you call this thing gawds), is unnecessary. You still, after pages upon pages of text have yet to define a single instance of something in existence that can be described as supernatural.
> 
> You only see "design" from a particular, partisan gawd because it appeals to the particular religious dogma that was a part of American culture. Let's he honest, if you had been Bern in the Middle East, you would be the "allahu akbar" screaming Loon we see on TV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok try this on for size. I was watching a show the other day where many scientists from SETI believe when we discover life out there in space that this life ,our cosmic relatives,would be made of silica and steel. Is that a view based in faith and a vivid imagination or scientific fact ? Let's be honest hollie they are doing the same thing with many of the theories you have pasted here on this thread. They have this view because life as we know it can't exist out there because of the conditions. Is that not circular reasoning ? and avd imagination at work ? they even said they would be machines,would these machines be a product of design or a natural process in which they formed ?
Click to expand...

"Let's be honest"? Coming from you, I can only chuckle. 

Your "story" above and your relating of what you claim the participants said is suspect. Let's remember that there is so often a great variance between what you claim people have said and what they actually said.

I can recall offhand perhaps a half-dozen examples of your falsified, manufactured or altered "quotes". Your lack of ability to deal honestly with people (and your history of same) results in the presumption that if your fingers are typing, you're lying.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My presuppositions changed over time. You are where I once was. I don't speak for God I do however offer my opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You state your opinions as absolute fact. You claim to know things with certainty that you don't know and couldn't possibly know.
> 
> And yes, you do presume to speak on behalf of the gawds which makes you appear as quite the irrational, hair-on-fire, bible thumping caricature of the silly TV power preacher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe evolution as absolute fact. You claim to know things with certainty that you don't know and couldn't possibly know.
> 
> And yes, you do presume to speak on behalf of the other darwinists which makes you appear as quite the irrational, hair-on-fire, Christian-hating Bigots of the left wingnut media.
Click to expand...


Yet another plagiarized post by the Christian fundie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments are typically presumptuous as I have no faith in any human construct of gawds.
> 
> The evidence for naturalism is that there is nothing supernatural about existence. Your need to add a supernatural component to existence (you call this thing gawds), is unnecessary. You still, after pages upon pages of text have yet to define a single instance of something in existence that can be described as supernatural.
> 
> You only see "design" from a particular, partisan gawd because it appeals to the particular religious dogma that was a part of American culture. Let's he honest, if you had been Bern in the Middle East, you would be the "allahu akbar" screaming Loon we see on TV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok try this on for size. I was watching a show the other day where many scientists from SETI believe when we discover life out there in space that this life ,our cosmic relatives,would be made of silica and steel. Is that a view based in faith and a vivid imagination or scientific fact ? Let's be honest hollie they are doing the same thing with many of the theories you have pasted here on this thread. They have this view because life as we know it can't exist out there because of the conditions. Is that not circular reasoning ? and avd imagination at work ? they even said they would be machines,would these machines be a product of design or a natural process in which they formed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Let's be honest"? Coming from you, I can only chuckle.
> 
> Your "story" above and your relating of what you claim the participants said is suspect. Let's remember that there is so often a great variance between what you claim people have said and what they actually said.
> 
> I can recall offhand perhaps a half-dozen examples of your falsified, manufactured or altered "quotes". Your lack of ability to deal honestly with people (and your history of same) results in the presumption that if your fingers are typing, you're lying.
Click to expand...


Hate to disappoint you but it was on the H2 channel one of the universe shows.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are turning into bigger and bigger of a douchebag. I've been reading your "discourse" with Daws. You are a most unpleasant person, UR. I would have thought that the power of christ would have "cured" that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you do believe Christ exists!
> 
> But that behavior is not from Christ. Its from years in law enforcement. You meet people where they are at. I'm just a mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you acknowledge being a... (what he said).
> 
> It's just not your fault. It's everyone else's fault. They made you do it. You're not responsible for your... oh hell... douche'baggery.
> 
> "The gawds did it".
Click to expand...


Hawly, here is the problem with internet forums. There is no relationship here amongst the posters. People feel free to say things they would never dream of saying to a co-worker, friend or family member, because they are not in relationship with that person. Out of human relationships, flows a God given sense of moral responsibility to behave in a certain way. I guarantee you Daws would never say the kinds of things he says here if he were facing me in person. And certainly not if we were friends or coworkers. I will also guarantee the picture you have of me from my posts here is nothing like the man I am in person. Here I am constantly being attacked, and not just me, but a belief I hold very dear to my heart is being attacked. *And its anonymous, so there is no accountability*.  The discourse is adversarial and you intentionally attempt to frustrate posters with your repetitive nonsense hate speech so like a vampire you can feed on the negativity. Once you drive someone to responding unbecomingly, it just helps justify and re-inforce your hatred, even though you hold know personal responsibility for intentionally frustrated them to that point with your irrelevant nonsense. 

When you really think about it, this forum is a huge waste of time. Everyone has proven they are right in their own mind and no one has changed even the smallest bit of their beliefs. Its a pride driven scoring system. I have schooled you so many times here I stopped keeping track, but what has that proven??? Nothing. Any poster could already see you are hopelessly out matched in this argument. So I walk away from here feeling better about myself because I could prove someone with learning disabilities wrong?? It is funny to me because pride is the main reason anyone wants to be shown to be right. But how empty that I can prove I'm right to strangers. Which brings me to my next point...

*I think the smart  people should realize this is for entertainment and nothing more. *You, NP and Daws are prime examples that one is changing their mind, no matter how many times they are proven wrong. So I have no delusions that my posts here will change anyone's worldview.


----------



## UltimateReality

And now to reveal what has really been transpiring the last few pages of my posts: I was the first person to use the term "*douche bag*" here and with a somewhat devious intent which with your post has just now come to fruition. Just like clockwork, first Daws, then NP picked it up like a football and ran like crazy, using it back on me. I had to wait a bit for you Hawly, and I almost thought you were in the clear when you wouldn't spell it out, but even you fell in lockstep and copied the term. So what is my point? My point is you all are easily manipulated. If you can be that easily manipulated on an internet forum, maybe you should question what else you have been manipulated by, mainly, the materialist darwinist agenda. 

Secondly, I also decided to mirror Hawlys, Daws and NP's behavior. NP called me shit for brains and I countered with excrement for neurons. Daws played the gay slur game and I came back with my own insinuations. Hawly gets mad and calls me turning her posts back on her plagurism. YWC is embarrassed that a fellow Christian is behaving in such a manner and trys to get Daws to stop responding. Finally, NP calls it out and basically says I have been a big jerk. But what has really happened here. I will tell you. NP is holding me to a higher standard than he holds himself because of my claimed belief. Neither he nor Hawly have ever called Daws out for his profanity and overall rancidness. Which brings me to the point number 2 I just proved, and that is, materialism fosters less moral behavior. Without some source of ethics, materialists hold themselves to a lower standard. It was perfectly acceptable for Daws and NP to use profanity and Hawly bigotry, but it is not for me and YWC. NP calls me out for behaving in the same manner he and Daws do. 

If you really want to act like adults and have a mature discussion about science and religion, then profanity and bigoted attacks have no place here.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you do believe Christ exists!
> 
> But that behavior is not from Christ. Its from years in law enforcement. You meet people where they are at. I'm just a mirror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you acknowledge being a... (what he said).
> 
> It's just not your fault. It's everyone else's fault. They made you do it. You're not responsible for your... oh hell... douche'baggery.
> 
> "The gawds did it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hawly, here is the problem with internet forums. There is no relationship here amongst the posters. People feel free to say things they would never dream of saying to a co-worker, friend or family member, because they are not in relationship with that person. Out of human relationships, flows a God given sense of moral responsibility to behave in a certain way. I guarantee you Daws would never say the kinds of things he says here if he were facing me in person. And certainly not if we were friends or coworkers. I will also guarantee the picture you have of me from my posts here is nothing like the man I am in person. Here I am constantly being attacked, and not just me, but a belief I hold very dear to my heart is being attacked. *And its anonymous, so there is no accountability*.  The discourse is adversarial and you intentionally attempt to frustrate posters with your repetitive nonsense hate speech so like a vampire you can feed on the negativity. Once you drive someone to responding unbecomingly, it just helps justify and re-inforce your hatred, even though you hold know personal responsibility for intentionally frustrated them to that point with your irrelevant nonsense.
> 
> When you really think about it, this forum is a huge waste of time. Everyone has proven they are right in their own mind and no one has changed even the smallest bit of their beliefs. Its a pride driven scoring system. I have schooled you so many times here I stopped keeping track, but what has that proven??? Nothing. Any poster could already see you are hopelessly out matched in this argument. So I walk away from here feeling better about myself because I could prove someone with learning disabilities wrong?? It is funny to me because pride is the main reason anyone wants to be shown to be right. But how empty that I can prove I'm right to strangers. Which brings me to my next point...
> 
> *I think the smart  people should realize this is for entertainment and nothing more. *You, NP and Daws are prime examples that one is changing their mind, no matter how many times they are proven wrong. So I have no delusions that my posts here will change anyone's worldview.
Click to expand...

Piffle. 

Why would you think your nonsensical appeals to religious dogma, utterly absent verification would be taken seriously? 

You are obviously clueless as to just how thoroughly and completely you and the other fundie dismantle your own arguments and destroy your own credibility. I can hardly imagine any two worse examples of vacant minded religious zealots than you and your clone accomplice. 

Really, dude, you two hateful whack jobs thinking you have proven anyone wrong makes you the poster child for culling humans from the herd.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> And now to reveal what has really been transpiring the last few pages of my posts: I was the first person to use the term "*douche bag*" here and with a somewhat devious intent which with your post has just now come to fruition. Just like clockwork, first Daws, then NP picked it up like a football and ran like crazy, using it back on me. I had to wait a bit for you Hawly, and I almost thought you were in the clear when you wouldn't spell it out, but even you fell in lockstep and copied the term. So what is my point? My point is you all are easily manipulated. If you can be that easily manipulated on an internet forum, maybe you should question what else you have been manipulated by, mainly, the materialist darwinist agenda.
> 
> Secondly, I also decided to mirror Hawlys, Daws and NP's behavior. NP called me shit for brains and I countered with excrement for neurons. Daws played the gay slur game and I came back with my own insinuations. Hawly gets mad and calls me turning her posts back on her plagurism. YWC is embarrassed that a fellow Christian is behaving in such a manner and trys to get Daws to stop responding. Finally, NP calls it out and basically says I have been a big jerk. But what has really happened here. I will tell you. NP is holding me to a higher standard than he holds himself because of my claimed belief. Neither he nor Hawly have ever called Daws out for his profanity and overall rancidness. Which brings me to the point number 2 I just proved, and that is, materialism fosters less moral behavior. Without some source of ethics, materialists hold themselves to a lower standard. It was perfectly acceptable for Daws and NP to use profanity and Hawly bigotry, but it is not for me and YWC. NP calls me out for behaving in the same manner he and Daws do.
> 
> If you really want to act like adults and have a mature discussion about science and religion, then profanity and bigoted attacks have no place here.



How about gargantuan, pink fonts as a means of venting your emotional and sexual frustration over your creeping stalking having been outed. I guess fundie xtians promote a double standard for their pathologies.


----------



## Hollie

Hey, gather 'round everyone. The fundie xtian is going to lecture us about Christians having superior morals.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even know what that Shakespeare quote means. You aren't using it in the right context. And you are trying to distract from the fact you just got outed.
> 
> 
> 
> I must be right !
> two more false assumptions by detective Douche bag!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would think a theater major would know how to quote Shakespeare in the right context.
Click to expand...

another failed attempt a character assassination

 "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." It can be used for when anti-homosexual priests get caught having sex with male escorts or, more generally, when somebody fights against a proclivity that they, themselves, engage in.
golly! who would that be?

question: what poster constantly uses gay slurs, innuendo while insisting every one else has a twisted pov...


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes enzymes can be programmed that is evidence that suggests in the beginning they were programmed were not a product of naturalism. I don't buy things grow the ability over time to be a benefit to the organism through errors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, that is not evidence they were programmed in the beginning. It is evidence that we are extremely good at manipulating the world around us. No other conclusions can be drawn from this, without tremendous logical fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no evidence these chemicals evolved purposeful functions, zero evidence.
Click to expand...


I don't need evidence for this, because I never claimed they evolved "purposeful" functions. You did.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok try this on for size. I was watching a show the other day where many scientists from SETI believe when we discover life out there in space that this life ,our cosmic relatives,would be made of silica and steel. Is that a view based in faith and a vivid imagination or scientific fact ? Let's be honest hollie they are doing the same thing with many of the theories you have pasted here on this thread. They have this view because life as we know it can't exist out there because of the conditions. Is that not circular reasoning ? and avd imagination at work ? they even said they would be machines,would these machines be a product of design or a natural process in which they formed ?
> 
> 
> 
> "Let's be honest"? Coming from you, I can only chuckle.
> 
> Your "story" above and your relating of what you claim the participants said is suspect. Let's remember that there is so often a great variance between what you claim people have said and what they actually said.
> 
> I can recall offhand perhaps a half-dozen examples of your falsified, manufactured or altered "quotes". Your lack of ability to deal honestly with people (and your history of same) results in the presumption that if your fingers are typing, you're lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate to disappoint you but it was on the H2 channel one of the universe shows.
Click to expand...


You're always a disappointment so don't feel bad. 

The point is, we're still left with you making claims as to what others have said (or written), knowing that you have a demonstrated and consistent record of fabrication and falsification.

Very strange as we're to understand that Christian morals are superior to the immorality and questionable ethics of those dirty infidel materialists.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> And now to reveal what has really been transpiring the last few pages of my posts: I was the first person to use the term "*douche bag*" here and with a somewhat devious intent which with your post has just now come to fruition. Just like clockwork, first Daws, then NP picked it up like a football and ran like crazy, using it back on me. I had to wait a bit for you Hawly, and I almost thought you were in the clear when you wouldn't spell it out, but even you fell in lockstep and copied the term. So what is my point? My point is you all are easily manipulated. If you can be that easily manipulated on an internet forum, maybe you should question what else you have been manipulated by, mainly, the materialist darwinist agenda.
> 
> Secondly, I also decided to mirror Hawlys, Daws and NP's behavior. NP called me shit for brains and I countered with excrement for neurons. Daws played the gay slur game and I came back with my own insinuations. Hawly gets mad and calls me turning her posts back on her plagurism. YWC is embarrassed that a fellow Christian is behaving in such a manner and trys to get Daws to stop responding. Finally, NP calls it out and basically says I have been a big jerk. But what has really happened here. I will tell you. NP is holding me to a higher standard than he holds himself because of my claimed belief. Neither he nor Hawly have ever called Daws out for his profanity and overall rancidness. Which brings me to the point number 2 I just proved, and that is, materialism fosters less moral behavior. Without some source of ethics, materialists hold themselves to a lower standard. It was perfectly acceptable for Daws and NP to use profanity and Hawly bigotry, but it is not for me and YWC. NP calls me out for behaving in the same manner he and Daws do.
> 
> If you really want to act like adults and have a mature discussion about science and religion, then profanity and bigoted attacks have no place here.



Who said "it is not okay"? Do whatever you want, but you will reap the consequences. Likewise, for us, or anybody. In case you haven't noticed, we are split into two teams. Usually the way it works when you are on teams, is you stick up for your teammates, while trying to beat the other team. I haven't seen you reprimand your teammates YWC and Lonestar for their behavior, which at times is sub-par. You try to make this a lovefest, where we all just "love" each other, but then you try to argue with us. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to end this discussion and make up and be friends, cool. Let's do it. But you can't want both. We are in a debate, a fight, so stop expecting niceties like a little child, and then attributing foul play to a lower moral constitution. It's such a fucking copout and excuse for you to feel superior to atheists. It is, in other words, a display of pure ego. This is the problem with christianity, it leads to the most unenlightened individuals. 

You attacked Daws for his sexuality? Did I see that right?That's disgusting behavior on your part, UR, so don't sit here and try and talk about how 'materialists" are morally inferior. It is so vapid. I find it funny that you mimic our behavior, and then judge us for our behavior, but not your own. That's called being a hypocrite.


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is evidence that jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.
> 
> 
> 
> second hand accounts of jesus are not evidence unless they can be linked to physical evidence...to this day there have been none found.. Looks like your shit outa luck on that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> prove you exist.
Click to expand...

 ooooooh.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, that is not evidence they were programmed in the beginning. It is evidence that we are extremely good at manipulating the world around us. No other conclusions can be drawn from this, without tremendous logical fallacies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no evidence these chemicals evolved purposeful functions, zero evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need evidence for this, because I never claimed they evolved "purposeful" functions. You did.
Click to expand...


Then you are not following your theory close enough because everything had to evolve. Unless you believe in miracles which is what evolution would be anyways.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no evidence these chemicals evolved purposeful functions, zero evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need evidence for this, because I never claimed they evolved "purposeful" functions. You did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are not following your theory close enough because everything had to evolve. Unless you believe in miracles which is what evolution would be anyways.
Click to expand...


I don't think you understand evolution well enough to determine what it predicts, no offense. You've shown this time and time again. Here, you employ an argument from ignorance, once again!!! yay!!!

You are essentially talking about abiogenesis, which there is no evidence for, yet you think because of this lack of evidence, god must have done it. This is a fallacy. You can not get away from the argument from ignorance. It is central to your position.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope it is based on reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the reason your god makes malformed babies and babies that die soon after birth? He fuck something up on purpose? Or just fell asleep?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The life we see is what man produced through free will. Did God hand down punishment yes he did. God some day will right the wrong.
Click to expand...


So man produces malformed babies on purpose? That doesn't even make any sense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Let's be honest"? Coming from you, I can only chuckle.
> 
> Your "story" above and your relating of what you claim the participants said is suspect. Let's remember that there is so often a great variance between what you claim people have said and what they actually said.
> 
> I can recall offhand perhaps a half-dozen examples of your falsified, manufactured or altered "quotes". Your lack of ability to deal honestly with people (and your history of same) results in the presumption that if your fingers are typing, you're lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to disappoint you but it was on the H2 channel one of the universe shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're always a disappointment so don't feel bad.
> 
> The point is, we're still left with you making claims as to what others have said (or written), knowing that you have a demonstrated and consistent record of fabrication and falsification.
> 
> Very strange as we're to understand that Christian morals are superior to the immorality and questionable ethics of those dirty infidel materialists.
Click to expand...


Hollie you show your ignorance once again it appears my word is more trustworthy than yours.

If we ever find aliens, there's a good chance they'll be intelligent machines, not biological systems as we know them. So says a senior SETI astronomer.

Search For Aliens Should Include Intelligent Machines, Says SETI Astronomer | Popular Science


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, that is not evidence they were programmed in the beginning. It is evidence that we are extremely good at manipulating the world around us. No other conclusions can be drawn from this, without tremendous logical fallacies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no evidence these chemicals evolved purposeful functions, zero evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need evidence for this, because I never claimed they evolved "purposeful" functions. You did.
Click to expand...


You would need to explain how they got purposeful functions naturally.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need evidence for this, because I never claimed they evolved "purposeful" functions. You did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are not following your theory close enough because everything had to evolve. Unless you believe in miracles which is what evolution would be anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand evolution well enough to determine what it predicts, no offense. You've shown this time and time again. Here, you employ an argument from ignorance, once again!!! yay!!!
> 
> You are essentially talking about abiogenesis, which there is no evidence for, yet you think because of this lack of evidence, god must have done it. This is a fallacy. You can not get away from the argument from ignorance. It is central to your position.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the reason your god makes malformed babies and babies that die soon after birth? He fuck something up on purpose? Or just fell asleep?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The life we see is what man produced through free will. Did God hand down punishment yes he did. God some day will right the wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So man produces malformed babies on purpose? That doesn't even make any sense.
Click to expand...


Mans sin earned punishment and this imperfect world.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need evidence for this, because I never claimed they evolved "purposeful" functions. You did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are not following your theory close enough because everything had to evolve. Unless you believe in miracles which is what evolution would be anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand evolution well enough to determine what it predicts, no offense. You've shown this time and time again. Here, you employ an argument from ignorance, once again!!! yay!!!
> 
> You are essentially talking about abiogenesis, which there is no evidence for, yet you think because of this lack of evidence, god must have done it. This is a fallacy. You can not get away from the argument from ignorance. It is central to your position.
Click to expand...


chemical evolution  
Web definitions
The change and transformation of chemical elements, molecules and compounds..
library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to disappoint you but it was on the H2 channel one of the universe shows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're always a disappointment so don't feel bad.
> 
> The point is, we're still left with you making claims as to what others have said (or written), knowing that you have a demonstrated and consistent record of fabrication and falsification.
> 
> Very strange as we're to understand that Christian morals are superior to the immorality and questionable ethics of those dirty infidel materialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie you show your ignorance once again it appears my word is more trustworthy than yours.
> 
> If we ever find aliens, there's a good chance they'll be intelligent machines, not biological systems as we know them. So says a senior SETI astronomer.
> 
> Search For Aliens Should Include Intelligent Machines, Says SETI Astronomer | Popular Science
Click to expand...


There's no reason to think that your word is more trustworthy. We have many instances in this thread that show your comment is false. 

That's all very nice about the possibility of alien Intelligent machines. So what?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see the results of you running out of posts to plagiarize. Left to your own devices, you're helpless.
> 
> So yes. Get back to work. I'll have fries and a soda with that Mcburger.
> 
> 
> 
> funny how "ur" detective douche bag will bring up "Work" when his ass is in a crack...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind of like you are running and ducking for cover now. I'll be lucky if I hear from you in 8 or 10 hours until the shame wears off of you.
Click to expand...

running and ducking from what?
I post when i want to, your dumbfuckery has zero to do with it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're always a disappointment so don't feel bad.
> 
> The point is, we're still left with you making claims as to what others have said (or written), knowing that you have a demonstrated and consistent record of fabrication and falsification.
> 
> Very strange as we're to understand that Christian morals are superior to the immorality and questionable ethics of those dirty infidel materialists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you show your ignorance once again it appears my word is more trustworthy than yours.
> 
> If we ever find aliens, there's a good chance they'll be intelligent machines, not biological systems as we know them. So says a senior SETI astronomer.
> 
> Search For Aliens Should Include Intelligent Machines, Says SETI Astronomer | Popular Science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no reason to think that your word is more trustworthy. We have many instances in this thread that show your comment is false.
> 
> That's all very nice about the possibility of alien Intelligent machines. So what?
Click to expand...


You said I made it up,wow, you either have a short memory or are disengenuous. I would say the latter.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown that Enzymes can be egineered By having their functions altered through intelligence and you can't provide evidence that they can get a new function through evolution. Not a fallacy it is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, we have technology be able to manipulate our own biology. That simply speaks to our technical prowess, not anything intrinsic to our biology that can be determined, such as there being an intelligence. You are not making logical sense here if you think that because we can tinker with our enzymes, this proves a designer. The fallacy is in making this logical leap. I understand that it is a fact that we can do this. Your conclusion is unreachable from your premises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Enzymes can be programmed that is evidence that suggests in the beginning they were programmed were not a product of naturalism. I don't buy things grow the ability over time to be a benefit to the organism through errors.
Click to expand...

it suggests nothing of the kind....
your denial of fact proves what "you don't buy" is a product of religious indoctrination that you were programmed with and has no basis in reality.
 benefits do not arise by errors ,they do however arise as functions or by products of funtions.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice "just so" story, but do you have some real, testable evidence for your fairy tale above? How about some causes presently in operation that would support your story?
> 
> 
> 
> no need, it stands on it's own merits .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure fantasy here daws it does not stand on merits but one's imagination.
Click to expand...

how'd I know you'd say that.....false as it is...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you have not and we do not have to provide proof for the source to prove design. You have yet to provide evidence that the design evidence that has been presented evolved naturally. You're living in a dream world.
> 
> 
> 
> yes you, do since you've proven NEITHER.
> YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT LIVES OR DIES ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT AN "IINTELLIGENCE MUST HAVE DONE IT".
> AGAIN wyc "WE" ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO AND HAVE NOT PRESENTED EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN!
> DESIGN BY DEFINTION HAS TO HAVE A DESIGNER.
> NATURE IS NOT BOUND BY THAT RULE ..SINCE THERE IS NO "WHO" IN NATURE.
> PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature is the product of the designer. What put everything in to motion daws ?
Click to expand...

in your mind that may be true but in reality there is no "who" in nature.
so once again pull yourhead out of your ass.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now to reveal what has really been transpiring the last few pages of my posts: I was the first person to use the term "*douche bag*" here and with a somewhat devious intent which with your post has just now come to fruition. Just like clockwork, first Daws, then NP picked it up like a football and ran like crazy, using it back on me. I had to wait a bit for you Hawly, and I almost thought you were in the clear when you wouldn't spell it out, but even you fell in lockstep and copied the term. So what is my point? My point is you all are easily manipulated. If you can be that easily manipulated on an internet forum, maybe you should question what else you have been manipulated by, mainly, the materialist darwinist agenda.
> 
> Secondly, I also decided to mirror Hawlys, Daws and NP's behavior. NP called me shit for brains and I countered with excrement for neurons. Daws played the gay slur game and I came back with my own insinuations. Hawly gets mad and calls me turning her posts back on her plagurism. YWC is embarrassed that a fellow Christian is behaving in such a manner and trys to get Daws to stop responding. Finally, NP calls it out and basically says I have been a big jerk. But what has really happened here. I will tell you. NP is holding me to a higher standard than he holds himself because of my claimed belief. Neither he nor Hawly have ever called Daws out for his profanity and overall rancidness. Which brings me to the point number 2 I just proved, and that is, materialism fosters less moral behavior. Without some source of ethics, materialists hold themselves to a lower standard. It was perfectly acceptable for Daws and NP to use profanity and Hawly bigotry, but it is not for me and YWC. NP calls me out for behaving in the same manner he and Daws do.
> 
> If you really want to act like adults and have a mature discussion about science and religion, then profanity and bigoted attacks have no place here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said "it is not okay"? Do whatever you want, but you will reap the consequences. Likewise, for us, or anybody. In case you haven't noticed, we are split into two teams. Usually the way it works when you are on teams, is you stick up for your teammates, while trying to beat the other team. I haven't seen you reprimand your teammates YWC and Lonestar for their behavior, which at times is sub-par. You try to make this a lovefest, where we all just "love" each other, but then you try to argue with us. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to end this discussion and make up and be friends, cool. Let's do it. But you can't want both. We are in a debate, a fight, so stop expecting niceties like a little child, and then attributing foul play to a lower moral constitution. It's such a fucking copout and excuse for you to feel superior to atheists. It is, in other words, a display of pure ego. This is the problem with christianity, it leads to the most unenlightened individuals.
> 
> You attacked Daws for his sexuality? Did I see that right?That's disgusting behavior on your part, UR, so don't sit here and try and talk about how 'materialists" are morally inferior. It is so vapid. I find it funny that you mimic our behavior, and then judge us for our behavior, but not your own. That's called being a hypocrite.
Click to expand...


My point is you can argue civilly and leave out the profanity, name calling, and bigoted attacks. 

And I didn't judge you. You proved the point. I just pointed out that you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself. And why should anyone be shocked that folks without a moral compass would have a lower standard of behavior? Where do your ethics come from? What code do you live by?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are not following your theory close enough because everything had to evolve. Unless you believe in miracles which is what evolution would be anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand evolution well enough to determine what it predicts, no offense. You've shown this time and time again. Here, you employ an argument from ignorance, once again!!! yay!!!
> 
> You are essentially talking about abiogenesis, which there is no evidence for, yet you think because of this lack of evidence, god must have done it. This is a fallacy. You can not get away from the argument from ignorance. It is central to your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You need new dancing shoes. 

Evolution does not provide for purposeful "design". Evolution is not directional or steered toward a result.

As noted, your atrocious lack of understanding regarding evolutionary theory causes you to make comments remarkable only for their ignorance.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny how "ur" detective douche bag will bring up "Work" when his ass is in a crack...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like you are running and ducking for cover now. I'll be lucky if I hear from you in 8 or 10 hours until the shame wears off of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> running and ducking from what?
> I post when i want to, your dumbfuckery has zero to do with it.
Click to expand...


Well it took you 13 hours to respond. I was actually being sarcastic to make a point about the silliness of you inferring I was using a work as an excuse to not engage in an argument with you. Obviously you were asleep so you couldn't respond, but I used your silly trick back on you to make it look like you were avoiding responding because you didn't have an answer. Basically, you aren't fooling anyone.

I post when i want to, your Tom Foolery has zero to do with it.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Let's be honest"? Coming from you, I can only chuckle.
> 
> Your "story" above and your relating of what you claim the participants said is suspect. Let's remember that there is so often a great variance between what you claim people have said and what they actually said.
> 
> I can recall offhand perhaps a half-dozen examples of your falsified, manufactured or altered "quotes". Your lack of ability to deal honestly with people (and your history of same) results in the presumption that if your fingers are typing, you're lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to disappoint you but it was on the H2 channel one of the universe shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're always a disappointment so don't feel bad.
> ...
Click to expand...


You always resort to put downs instead of addressing the topic. Why?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.
> 
> 
> 
> second hand accounts of Jesus are not evidence unless they can be linked to physical evidence...to this day there have been none found.. looks like your shit outa luck on that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your reasoning how do we know many men of history existed with the lack of physical evidence ?
> 
> Once again it comes down to faith.
> 
> Joh 20:29  Jesus said to him, Because you have seen me you have belief: a blessing will be on those who have belief though they have not seen me!
> 
> I have had things happen in my life to know he exists.
Click to expand...

other than biblical characters there's more than enough physical evidence to prove many if not all of them did. 
as to the rest of your rant faith proves nothing but faith.

this quote is: "Joh 20:29  Jesus said to him, Because you have seen me you have belief: a blessing will be on those who have belief though they have not seen me!" HEARSAY NOT PROOF.  

AND THIS:"I have had things happen in my life to know he exists."-YWC   LITTE GEM IS TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE AND PROOF OF NOTHING.
IT IS HOWEVER, A GOOD INDICATOR THAY YOU'VE CONVINCED  YOUR SELF WITH ZERO PROOF THAT HE DOES....


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to disappoint you but it was on the H2 channel one of the universe shows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're always a disappointment so don't feel bad.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You always resort to put downs instead of addressing the topic. Why?
Click to expand...


You never fail to be confused about the issues you rattle on about. Has it ever crossed your mind to make an effort to understand the issues that confuse you?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like you are running and ducking for cover now. I'll be lucky if I hear from you in 8 or 10 hours until the shame wears off of you.
> 
> 
> 
> running and ducking from what?
> I post when i want to, your dumbfuckery has zero to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it took you 13 hours to respond. I was actually being sarcastic to make a point about the silliness of you inferring I was using a work as an excuse to not engage in an argument with you. Obviously you were asleep so you couldn't respond, but I used your silly trick back on you to make it look like you were avoiding responding because you didn't have an answer. Basically, you aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> I post when i want to, your Tom Foolery has zero to do with it.
Click to expand...

HAD NO ANSWER TO WHAT?
The rest is typical detective douche bag nonsense!


especialy this: "Basically, you aren't fooling anyone."- ur aka detective douche bag .
brilliant statement of the obvious...I have never attempted to fool anyone, so whatever you're trying and failing to insinuate is you committing character  suicide


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown that Enzymes can be egineered By having their functions altered through intelligence and you can't provide evidence that they can get a new function through evolution. Not a fallacy it is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> it's also not evidence of design..
> there functions were not altered by intelligence .....intelligence by itself has no power.
> so knock off the bullshit.
> you've proven shit ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws the scientists that have altered the functions of Enzymes you don't consider intelligent ?
> 
> How bout the ones that have developed forms of communication ?
Click to expand...

more proof you're an illiterate! what the scientists did is no proof that an other intelligence did any thing.
the scientists intelligence is HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. YOU IGNORANT FUCK.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your reasoning how do we know many men of history existed with the lack of physical evidence ?
> 
> Once again it comes down to faith.
> 
> Joh 20:29  Jesus said to him, Because you have seen me you have belief: a blessing will be on those who have belief though they have not seen me!
> 
> I have had things happen in my life to know he exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Timely things that were asked for in prayer. I have seen the evil that lurks this world and that makes victims of people going down the wrong road. Unseen forces in homes with voices and things violently thrown across the room.
> 
> The true enemy of God is working behind the scenes and go unnoticed by the masses.
Click to expand...


NEXT WEEK ON GHOST ADVENTURES !


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> And now to reveal what has really been transpiring the last few pages of my posts: I was the first person to use the term "*douche bag*" here and with a somewhat devious intent which with your post has just now come to fruition. Just like clockwork, first Daws, then NP picked it up like a football and ran like crazy, using it back on me. I had to wait a bit for you Hawly, and I almost thought you were in the clear when you wouldn't spell it out, but even you fell in lockstep and copied the term. So what is my point? My point is you all are easily manipulated. If you can be that easily manipulated on an internet forum, maybe you should question what else you have been manipulated by, mainly, the materialist darwinist agenda.
> 
> Secondly, I also decided to mirror Hawlys, Daws and NP's behavior. NP called me shit for brains and I countered with excrement for neurons. Daws played the gay slur game and I came back with my own insinuations. Hawly gets mad and calls me turning her posts back on her plagurism. YWC is embarrassed that a fellow Christian is behaving in such a manner and trys to get Daws to stop responding. Finally, NP calls it out and basically says I have been a big jerk. But what has really happened here. I will tell you. NP is holding me to a higher standard than he holds himself because of my claimed belief. Neither he nor Hawly have ever called Daws out for his profanity and overall rancidness. Which brings me to the point number 2 I just proved, and that is, materialism fosters less moral behavior. Without some source of ethics, materialists hold themselves to a lower standard. It was perfectly acceptable for Daws and NP to use profanity and Hawly bigotry, but it is not for me and YWC. NP calls me out for behaving in the same manner he and Daws do.
> 
> If you really want to act like adults and have a mature discussion about science and religion, then profanity and bigoted attacks have no place here.


ANOTHER FALSE MIA CULPA BY UR.....THE SHIT IN IT IS SO DEEP i'LL HAVE TO STRAP ON MY WINGS TO GET ABOVE IT ...


----------



## ima

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Timely things that were asked for in prayer.* I have seen the evil that lurks this world and that makes victims of people going down the wrong road. Unseen forces in homes with voices and things violently thrown across the room.
> 
> The true enemy of God is working behind the scenes and go unnoticed by the masses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NEXT WEEK ON GHOST ADVENTURES !
Click to expand...


In other words: total random coincidence, because I bet that you've prayed for a ton of shit that never came true.

But unseen forces that throw shit around the room, isn't that the devil? Maybe he's COMING AFTER YOU!!!!!!! 


.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timely things that were asked for in prayer. I have seen the evil that lurks this world and that makes victims of people going down the wrong road. Unseen forces in homes with voices and things violently thrown across the room.
> 
> The true enemy of God is working behind the scenes and go unnoticed by the masses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NEXT WEEK ON GHOST ADVENTURES !
Click to expand...


Some of the most dangerous people are those who claim to have had communications with the gawds and are envisioning true enemies of the gawds. 

We may read about ywc in the paper... when he goes hunting for those enemies of gawds.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Do any of you evolutionist idiots believe that humans have a soul?

Do all crceatures have souls?

Where did the soul originate?

What happenes to it when you die?


Four easy simple questions. But I bet I don't get any intelligent responses. I wonder how many cut and paste jobs will respond.  Hmmmm......


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> And now to reveal what has really been transpiring the last few pages of my posts: I was the first person to use the term "*douche bag*" here and with a somewhat devious intent which with your post has just now come to fruition. Just like clockwork, first Daws, then NP picked it up like a football and ran like crazy, using it back on me. I had to wait a bit for you Hawly, and I almost thought you were in the clear when you wouldn't spell it out, but even you fell in lockstep and copied the term. So what is my point? My point is you all are easily manipulated. If you can be that easily manipulated on an internet forum, maybe you should question what else you have been manipulated by, mainly, the materialist darwinist agenda.
> 
> Secondly, I also decided to mirror Hawlys, Daws and NP's behavior. NP called me shit for brains and I countered with excrement for neurons. Daws played the gay slur game and I came back with my own insinuations. Hawly gets mad and calls me turning her posts back on her plagurism. YWC is embarrassed that a fellow Christian is behaving in such a manner and trys to get Daws to stop responding. Finally, NP calls it out and basically says I have been a big jerk. But what has really happened here. I will tell you. NP is holding me to a higher standard than he holds himself because of my claimed belief. Neither he nor Hawly have ever called Daws out for his profanity and overall rancidness. Which brings me to the point number 2 I just proved, and that is, materialism fosters less moral behavior. Without some source of ethics, materialists hold themselves to a lower standard. It was perfectly acceptable for Daws and NP to use profanity and Hawly bigotry, but it is not for me and YWC. NP calls me out for behaving in the same manner he and Daws do.
> 
> If you really want to act like adults and have a mature discussion about science and religion, then profanity and bigoted attacks have no place here.


is it just me or is this post an all about how much more moral UR falsely claims to be...
or is it he just can't get enough of himself?


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now to reveal what has really been transpiring the last few pages of my posts: I was the first person to use the term "*douche bag*" here and with a somewhat devious intent which with your post has just now come to fruition. Just like clockwork, first Daws, then NP picked it up like a football and ran like crazy, using it back on me. I had to wait a bit for you Hawly, and I almost thought you were in the clear when you wouldn't spell it out, but even you fell in lockstep and copied the term. So what is my point? My point is you all are easily manipulated. If you can be that easily manipulated on an internet forum, maybe you should question what else you have been manipulated by, mainly, the materialist darwinist agenda.
> 
> Secondly, I also decided to mirror Hawlys, Daws and NP's behavior. NP called me shit for brains and I countered with excrement for neurons. Daws played the gay slur game and I came back with my own insinuations. Hawly gets mad and calls me turning her posts back on her plagurism. YWC is embarrassed that a fellow Christian is behaving in such a manner and trys to get Daws to stop responding. Finally, NP calls it out and basically says I have been a big jerk. But what has really happened here. I will tell you. NP is holding me to a higher standard than he holds himself because of my claimed belief. Neither he nor Hawly have ever called Daws out for his profanity and overall rancidness. Which brings me to the point number 2 I just proved, and that is, materialism fosters less moral behavior. Without some source of ethics, materialists hold themselves to a lower standard. It was perfectly acceptable for Daws and NP to use profanity and Hawly bigotry, but it is not for me and YWC. NP calls me out for behaving in the same manner he and Daws do.
> 
> If you really want to act like adults and have a mature discussion about science and religion, then profanity and bigoted attacks have no place here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said "it is not okay"? Do whatever you want, but you will reap the consequences. Likewise, for us, or anybody. In case you haven't noticed, we are split into two teams. Usually the way it works when you are on teams, is you stick up for your teammates, while trying to beat the other team. I haven't seen you reprimand your teammates YWC and Lonestar for their behavior, which at times is sub-par. You try to make this a lovefest, where we all just "love" each other, but then you try to argue with us. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to end this discussion and make up and be friends, cool. Let's do it. But you can't want both. We are in a debate, a fight, so stop expecting niceties like a little child, and then attributing foul play to a lower moral constitution. It's such a fucking copout and excuse for you to feel superior to atheists. It is, in other words, a display of pure ego. This is the problem with christianity, it leads to the most unenlightened individuals.
> 
> You attacked Daws for his sexuality? Did I see that right?That's disgusting behavior on your part, UR, so don't sit here and try and talk about how 'materialists" are morally inferior. It is so vapid. I find it funny that you mimic our behavior, and then judge us for our behavior, but not your own. That's called being a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

not to worry NP detective douche bag couldn't be more wrong about my sexuality or any other assuption he's made about me.
here are just some  of the lies  ur is currently using :1. "I was the first person to use the term "douche bag" 
lie! that term was being used on this thread to discribe you by loki and others when I first joined it. 
2."Daws played the gay slur game and I came back with my own insinuations."ur
extreme lie.
as everyone knows Ur has been using gay slurs and innuendo as a tactic to discredit almost everone who has posted here.


BTW UR your false assumption regarding " people don't behave the same way on line as the do in real life " is laughable .
I can only speak for me , I'm just the same on line as in real life. to say anything else would be disingenuous.
people like yourself who feel the need to use affectation in any situation are in my experience  devious,  manipulating, cowardly and passive aggressive.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Do any of you evolutionist idiots believe that humans have a soul?
> 
> Do all crceatures have souls?
> 
> Where did the soul originate?
> 
> What happenes to it when you die?
> 
> 
> Four easy simple questions. But I bet I don't get any intelligent responses. I wonder how many cut and paste jobs will respond.  Hmmmm......



Gee whiz. Another angry fundie rattling on about metaphysics absent any understanding of what he's rattling in about. 

 Your explanation of the concept of a "soul" is insufficient. It's only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be a "soul". You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of continuation of the consciousness after death.

I have no explanation for "spirits" or the "soul" because the soul remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist. I do have a comment about personality, and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gawds have made monkeys and men with a soul each, and that means humans are the 'e'special creation of the gawds. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gawds needed.

Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your eternal soul is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the soul cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. The soul must be fairly weak.

This is a perfectly valid explanation for emotions, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. End all thought by killing that brain 

2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain 

3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gods.

Now you demonstrate the spiritual source, which you assert is the actual reason emotions exist and disassemble my case, please.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> Do any of you evolutionist idiots believe that humans have a soul?
> 
> Do all crceatures have souls?
> 
> Where did the soul originate?
> 
> What happenes to it when you die?
> 
> 
> Four easy simple questions. But I bet I don't get any intelligent responses. I wonder how many cut and paste jobs will respond.  Hmmmm......


 1.first you must describe what a soul is .

2. no one knows where or if a "soul" originated anywhere.
your belife that a god made and gave them to "Us" is no proof .
 3. no one knows that either .
if by soul you mean sentience, then most all life has one.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no evidence these chemicals evolved purposeful functions, zero evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need evidence for this, because I never claimed they evolved "purposeful" functions. You did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would need to explain how they got purposeful functions naturally.
Click to expand...



No, I wouldn't. Argument from ignorance, again. I already went over this. Just because we don't have an explanation for how abiogenesis went down, doesn't make your explanation correct, by default. You actually have to prove your assertions, which you can't do.


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> Do any of you evolutionist idiots believe that humans have a soul?
> 
> Do all crceatures have souls?
> 
> Where did the soul originate?
> 
> What happenes to it when you die?
> 
> 
> Four easy simple questions. But I bet I don't get any intelligent responses. I wonder how many cut and paste jobs will respond.  Hmmmm......




Do you have any evidence of a soul? No. Therefore, it is most likely, does not exist.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now to reveal what has really been transpiring the last few pages of my posts: I was the first person to use the term "*douche bag*" here and with a somewhat devious intent which with your post has just now come to fruition. Just like clockwork, first Daws, then NP picked it up like a football and ran like crazy, using it back on me. I had to wait a bit for you Hawly, and I almost thought you were in the clear when you wouldn't spell it out, but even you fell in lockstep and copied the term. So what is my point? My point is you all are easily manipulated. If you can be that easily manipulated on an internet forum, maybe you should question what else you have been manipulated by, mainly, the materialist darwinist agenda.
> 
> Secondly, I also decided to mirror Hawlys, Daws and NP's behavior. NP called me shit for brains and I countered with excrement for neurons. Daws played the gay slur game and I came back with my own insinuations. Hawly gets mad and calls me turning her posts back on her plagurism. YWC is embarrassed that a fellow Christian is behaving in such a manner and trys to get Daws to stop responding. Finally, NP calls it out and basically says I have been a big jerk. But what has really happened here. I will tell you. NP is holding me to a higher standard than he holds himself because of my claimed belief. Neither he nor Hawly have ever called Daws out for his profanity and overall rancidness. Which brings me to the point number 2 I just proved, and that is, materialism fosters less moral behavior. Without some source of ethics, materialists hold themselves to a lower standard. It was perfectly acceptable for Daws and NP to use profanity and Hawly bigotry, but it is not for me and YWC. NP calls me out for behaving in the same manner he and Daws do.
> 
> If you really want to act like adults and have a mature discussion about science and religion, then profanity and bigoted attacks have no place here.
> 
> 
> 
> is it just me or is this post an all about how much more moral UR falsely claims to be...
> or is it he just can't get enough of himself?
Click to expand...

It's not just you, daws. In my experience, 'alternate" reality is typical of fundie Christians. There is the unmistakable self-righteous and self-promoting attitude that grips fundies. Their claim to holding some moral and ethical high ground is so often contradicted by their behavior that depicts a groundswell of hate, self-doubt and insecurity. 

My expectation is that if religion is so beneficial that it must be forced on all (as is the belief of many fundies), then it might follow that adherents to it should be better people. If religious beliefs make you less tolerant, more hateful then of what good is it?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, we have technology be able to manipulate our own biology. That simply speaks to our technical prowess, not anything intrinsic to our biology that can be determined, such as there being an intelligence. You are not making logical sense here if you think that because we can tinker with our enzymes, this proves a designer. The fallacy is in making this logical leap. I understand that it is a fact that we can do this. Your conclusion is unreachable from your premises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Enzymes can be programmed that is evidence that suggests in the beginning they were programmed were not a product of naturalism. I don't buy things grow the ability over time to be a benefit to the organism through errors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it suggests nothing of the kind....
> your denial of fact proves what "you don't buy" is a product of religious indoctrination that you were programmed with and has no basis in reality.
> benefits do not arise by errors ,they do however arise as functions or by products of funtions.
Click to expand...


What fact am I denying daws ? daws according to you theory macroevolution  happens through beneficial mutations,daws mutations are errors. What you said last was just jibberish. Daws do you understand what you're saying because all it shows you are ignorant of the theory you defend.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no need, it stands on it's own merits .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pure fantasy here daws it does not stand on merits but one's imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how'd I know you'd say that.....false as it is...
Click to expand...


Do you understand what conjecture is daws ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes you, do since you've proven NEITHER.
> YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT LIVES OR DIES ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT AN "IINTELLIGENCE MUST HAVE DONE IT".
> AGAIN wyc "WE" ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO AND HAVE NOT PRESENTED EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN!
> DESIGN BY DEFINTION HAS TO HAVE A DESIGNER.
> NATURE IS NOT BOUND BY THAT RULE ..SINCE THERE IS NO "WHO" IN NATURE.
> PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nature is the product of the designer. What put everything in to motion daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in your mind that may be true but in reality there is no "who" in nature.
> so once again pull yourhead out of your ass.
Click to expand...


Daws did you read what was wrote ? The question was daws,what put everything in to motion ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand evolution well enough to determine what it predicts, no offense. You've shown this time and time again. Here, you employ an argument from ignorance, once again!!! yay!!!
> 
> You are essentially talking about abiogenesis, which there is no evidence for, yet you think because of this lack of evidence, god must have done it. This is a fallacy. You can not get away from the argument from ignorance. It is central to your position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need new dancing shoes.
> 
> Evolution does not provide for purposeful "design". Evolution is not directional or steered toward a result.
> 
> As noted, your atrocious lack of understanding regarding evolutionary theory causes you to make comments remarkable only for their ignorance.
Click to expand...


Sorry I don't dance when my opponents are clearly inferior.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's also not evidence of design..
> there functions were not altered by intelligence .....intelligence by itself has no power.
> so knock off the bullshit.
> you've proven shit ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws the scientists that have altered the functions of Enzymes you don't consider intelligent ?
> 
> How bout the ones that have developed forms of communication ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more proof you're an illiterate! what the scientists did is no proof that an other intelligence did any thing.
> the scientists intelligence is HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. YOU IGNORANT FUCK.
Click to expand...


That is a good description of yourself.

So are you suggesting that these Enzymes just entered into a cell with the purpose of identifying errors during DNA replication and fixing most of these errors by chance ? Daws what would happen to all living organisms that lacked these enzymes to repair errors during DNA replication ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need evidence for this, because I never claimed they evolved "purposeful" functions. You did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would need to explain how they got purposeful functions naturally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I wouldn't. Argument from ignorance, again. I already went over this. Just because we don't have an explanation for how abiogenesis went down, doesn't make your explanation correct, by default. You actually have to prove your assertions, which you can't do.
Click to expand...


This has nothing to do with abiogenesis oops! This has to do with these Enzymes conveniently finding their way in a cell with the purpose of preventing what ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do any of you evolutionist idiots believe that humans have a soul?
> 
> Do all crceatures have souls?
> 
> Where did the soul originate?
> 
> What happenes to it when you die?
> 
> 
> Four easy simple questions. But I bet I don't get any intelligent responses. I wonder how many cut and paste jobs will respond.  Hmmmm......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence of a soul? No. Therefore, it is most likely, does not exist.
Click to expand...


Do you have any evidence that life arose from naturalism ?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're always a disappointment so don't feel bad.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You always resort to put downs instead of addressing the topic. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never fail to be confused about the issues you rattle on about. Has it ever crossed your mind to make an effort to understand the issues that confuse you?
Click to expand...


I'm not confused. I am just curious as to why you always resort to putdowns??


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> running and ducking from what?
> I post when i want to, your dumbfuckery has zero to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it took you 13 hours to respond. I was actually being sarcastic to make a point about the silliness of you inferring I was using a work as an excuse to not engage in an argument with you. Obviously you were asleep so you couldn't respond, but I used your silly trick back on you to make it look like you were avoiding responding because you didn't have an answer. Basically, you aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> I post when i want to, your Tom Foolery has zero to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HAD NO ANSWER TO WHAT?
> The rest is typical detective douche bag nonsense!
> 
> 
> especialy this: "Basically, you aren't fooling anyone."- ur aka detective douche bag .
> brilliant statement of the obvious...I have never attempted to fool anyone, so whatever you're trying and failing to insinuate is you committing character  suicide
Click to expand...


I think you missed the post about how you were manipulated to prove a point. The power of suggestion obviously works on you because I used the word "douche bag" one time and you have repeated it since then over and over. Why not try to dispense with the nonsense and have an adult conversation about science and religion?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now to reveal what has really been transpiring the last few pages of my posts: I was the first person to use the term "*douche bag*" here and with a somewhat devious intent which with your post has just now come to fruition. Just like clockwork, first Daws, then NP picked it up like a football and ran like crazy, using it back on me. I had to wait a bit for you Hawly, and I almost thought you were in the clear when you wouldn't spell it out, but even you fell in lockstep and copied the term. So what is my point? My point is you all are easily manipulated. If you can be that easily manipulated on an internet forum, maybe you should question what else you have been manipulated by, mainly, the materialist darwinist agenda.
> 
> Secondly, I also decided to mirror Hawlys, Daws and NP's behavior. NP called me shit for brains and I countered with excrement for neurons. Daws played the gay slur game and I came back with my own insinuations. Hawly gets mad and calls me turning her posts back on her plagurism. YWC is embarrassed that a fellow Christian is behaving in such a manner and trys to get Daws to stop responding. Finally, NP calls it out and basically says I have been a big jerk. But what has really happened here. I will tell you. NP is holding me to a higher standard than he holds himself because of my claimed belief. Neither he nor Hawly have ever called Daws out for his profanity and overall rancidness. Which brings me to the point number 2 I just proved, and that is, materialism fosters less moral behavior. Without some source of ethics, materialists hold themselves to a lower standard. It was perfectly acceptable for Daws and NP to use profanity and Hawly bigotry, but it is not for me and YWC. NP calls me out for behaving in the same manner he and Daws do.
> 
> If you really want to act like adults and have a mature discussion about science and religion, then profanity and bigoted attacks have no place here.
> 
> 
> 
> ANOTHER FALSE MIA CULPA BY UR.....THE SHIT IN IT IS SO DEEP i'LL HAVE TO STRAP ON MY WINGS TO GET ABOVE IT ...
Click to expand...


Well you aren't above it. You fell for it hook, line and sinker, proving you can be easily manipulated. Time to re-evaluate how you have been manipulated by materialism and naturalism posing as science.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now to reveal what has really been transpiring the last few pages of my posts: I was the first person to use the term "*douche bag*" here and with a somewhat devious intent which with your post has just now come to fruition. Just like clockwork, first Daws, then NP picked it up like a football and ran like crazy, using it back on me. I had to wait a bit for you Hawly, and I almost thought you were in the clear when you wouldn't spell it out, but even you fell in lockstep and copied the term. So what is my point? My point is you all are easily manipulated. If you can be that easily manipulated on an internet forum, maybe you should question what else you have been manipulated by, mainly, the materialist darwinist agenda.
> 
> Secondly, I also decided to mirror Hawlys, Daws and NP's behavior. NP called me shit for brains and I countered with excrement for neurons. Daws played the gay slur game and I came back with my own insinuations. Hawly gets mad and calls me turning her posts back on her plagurism. YWC is embarrassed that a fellow Christian is behaving in such a manner and trys to get Daws to stop responding. Finally, NP calls it out and basically says I have been a big jerk. But what has really happened here. I will tell you. NP is holding me to a higher standard than he holds himself because of my claimed belief. Neither he nor Hawly have ever called Daws out for his profanity and overall rancidness. Which brings me to the point number 2 I just proved, and that is, materialism fosters less moral behavior. Without some source of ethics, materialists hold themselves to a lower standard. It was perfectly acceptable for Daws and NP to use profanity and Hawly bigotry, but it is not for me and YWC. NP calls me out for behaving in the same manner he and Daws do.
> 
> If you really want to act like adults and have a mature discussion about science and religion, then profanity and bigoted attacks have no place here.
> 
> 
> 
> is it just me or is this post an all about how much more moral UR falsely claims to be...
> or is it he just can't get enough of himself?
Click to expand...


It's just you.

Your filter is skewed and it is throwing off your interpretation. No where in my post did I say I am more moral than anyone here. What I did say is that NP holds me to a higher standard than he does you or himself, even though he would deny any naturalistic source for ethics.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now to reveal what has really been transpiring the last few pages of my posts: I was the first person to use the term "*douche bag*" here and with a somewhat devious intent which with your post has just now come to fruition. Just like clockwork, first Daws, then NP picked it up like a football and ran like crazy, using it back on me. I had to wait a bit for you Hawly, and I almost thought you were in the clear when you wouldn't spell it out, but even you fell in lockstep and copied the term. So what is my point? My point is you all are easily manipulated. If you can be that easily manipulated on an internet forum, maybe you should question what else you have been manipulated by, mainly, the materialist darwinist agenda.
> 
> Secondly, I also decided to mirror Hawlys, Daws and NP's behavior. NP called me shit for brains and I countered with excrement for neurons. Daws played the gay slur game and I came back with my own insinuations. Hawly gets mad and calls me turning her posts back on her plagurism. YWC is embarrassed that a fellow Christian is behaving in such a manner and trys to get Daws to stop responding. Finally, NP calls it out and basically says I have been a big jerk. But what has really happened here. I will tell you. NP is holding me to a higher standard than he holds himself because of my claimed belief. Neither he nor Hawly have ever called Daws out for his profanity and overall rancidness. Which brings me to the point number 2 I just proved, and that is, materialism fosters less moral behavior. Without some source of ethics, materialists hold themselves to a lower standard. It was perfectly acceptable for Daws and NP to use profanity and Hawly bigotry, but it is not for me and YWC. NP calls me out for behaving in the same manner he and Daws do.
> 
> If you really want to act like adults and have a mature discussion about science and religion, then profanity and bigoted attacks have no place here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said "it is not okay"? Do whatever you want, but you will reap the consequences. Likewise, for us, or anybody. In case you haven't noticed, we are split into two teams. Usually the way it works when you are on teams, is you stick up for your teammates, while trying to beat the other team. I haven't seen you reprimand your teammates YWC and Lonestar for their behavior, which at times is sub-par. You try to make this a lovefest, where we all just "love" each other, but then you try to argue with us. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to end this discussion and make up and be friends, cool. Let's do it. But you can't want both. We are in a debate, a fight, so stop expecting niceties like a little child, and then attributing foul play to a lower moral constitution. It's such a fucking copout and excuse for you to feel superior to atheists. It is, in other words, a display of pure ego. This is the problem with christianity, it leads to the most unenlightened individuals.
> 
> You attacked Daws for his sexuality? Did I see that right?That's disgusting behavior on your part, UR, so don't sit here and try and talk about how 'materialists" are morally inferior. It is so vapid. I find it funny that you mimic our behavior, and then judge us for our behavior, but not your own. That's called being a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...I'm just the same on line as in real life. to say anything else would be disingenuous...
Click to expand...


You have proven yourself to be disingenuous repeatedly. All you have is internet bravado. I seriously doubt you've ever been in a real confrontation that didn't involve hiding behind a keyboard.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do any of you evolutionist idiots believe that humans have a soul?
> 
> Do all crceatures have souls?
> 
> Where did the soul originate?
> 
> What happenes to it when you die?
> 
> 
> Four easy simple questions. But I bet I don't get any intelligent responses. I wonder how many cut and paste jobs will respond.  Hmmmm......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. Another angry fundie rattling on about metaphysics absent any understanding of what he's rattling in about.
> 
> Your explanation of the concept of a "soul" is insufficient. It's only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be a "soul". You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of continuation of the consciousness after death.
> 
> I have no explanation for "spirits" or the "soul" because the soul remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist. I do have a comment about personality, and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gawds have made monkeys and men with a soul each, and that means humans are the 'e'special creation of the gawds. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gawds needed.
> 
> Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your eternal soul is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the soul cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. The soul must be fairly weak.
> 
> This is a perfectly valid explanation for emotions, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.
> 
> Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.
> 
> By way of example, I can
> 
> 1. End all thought by killing that brain
> 
> 2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
> 
> 3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.
> 
> All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gods.
> 
> Now you demonstrate the spiritual source, which you assert is the actual reason emotions exist and disassemble my case, please.
Click to expand...


Please produce some cut and pastes showing a naturalistic source for conscious thought.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now to reveal what has really been transpiring the last few pages of my posts: I was the first person to use the term "*douche bag*" here and with a somewhat devious intent which with your post has just now come to fruition. Just like clockwork, first Daws, then NP picked it up like a football and ran like crazy, using it back on me. I had to wait a bit for you Hawly, and I almost thought you were in the clear when you wouldn't spell it out, but even you fell in lockstep and copied the term. So what is my point? My point is you all are easily manipulated. If you can be that easily manipulated on an internet forum, maybe you should question what else you have been manipulated by, mainly, the materialist darwinist agenda.
> 
> Secondly, I also decided to mirror Hawlys, Daws and NP's behavior. NP called me shit for brains and I countered with excrement for neurons. Daws played the gay slur game and I came back with my own insinuations. Hawly gets mad and calls me turning her posts back on her plagurism. YWC is embarrassed that a fellow Christian is behaving in such a manner and trys to get Daws to stop responding. Finally, NP calls it out and basically says I have been a big jerk. But what has really happened here. I will tell you. NP is holding me to a higher standard than he holds himself because of my claimed belief. Neither he nor Hawly have ever called Daws out for his profanity and overall rancidness. Which brings me to the point number 2 I just proved, and that is, materialism fosters less moral behavior. Without some source of ethics, materialists hold themselves to a lower standard. It was perfectly acceptable for Daws and NP to use profanity and Hawly bigotry, but it is not for me and YWC. NP calls me out for behaving in the same manner he and Daws do.
> 
> If you really want to act like adults and have a mature discussion about science and religion, then profanity and bigoted attacks have no place here.
> 
> 
> 
> is it just me or is this post an all about how much more moral UR falsely claims to be...
> or is it he just can't get enough of himself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not just you, daws. In my experience, 'alternate" reality is typical of fundie Christians. There is the unmistakable self-righteous and self-promoting attitude that grips fundies. Their claim to holding some moral and ethical high ground is so often contradicted by their behavior that depicts a groundswell of hate, self-doubt and insecurity.
> 
> My expectation is that if religion is so beneficial that it must be forced on all (as is the belief of many fundies), then it might follow that adherents to it should be better people. If religious beliefs make you less tolerant, more hateful then of what good is it?
Click to expand...


Funny how you, Daws, and NP all allowed your prejudicial worldview to read things into my post that weren't there. By all means, please quote where I judged anyone or said I was better than anyone here. I'm waiting.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do any of you evolutionist idiots believe that humans have a soul?
> 
> Do all crceatures have souls?
> 
> Where did the soul originate?
> 
> What happenes to it when you die?
> 
> 
> Four easy simple questions. But I bet I don't get any intelligent responses. I wonder how many cut and paste jobs will respond.  Hmmmm......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. Another angry fundie rattling on about metaphysics absent any understanding of what he's rattling in about.
> 
> Your explanation of the concept of a "soul" is insufficient. It's only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be a "soul". You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of continuation of the consciousness after death.
> 
> I have no explanation for "spirits" or the "soul" because the soul remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist. I do have a comment about personality, and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gawds have made monkeys and men with a soul each, and that means humans are the 'e'special creation of the gawds. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gawds needed.
> 
> Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your eternal soul is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the soul cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. The soul must be fairly weak.
> 
> This is a perfectly valid explanation for emotions, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.
> 
> Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.
> 
> By way of example, I can
> 
> 1. End all thought by killing that brain
> 
> 2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
> 
> 3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.
> 
> All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gods.
> 
> Now you demonstrate the spiritual source, which you assert is the actual reason emotions exist and disassemble my case, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please produce some cut and pastes showing a naturalistic source for conscious thought.
Click to expand...

I just did. 

Please provide another excuse for your incompetence and ignorance.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> is it just me or is this post an all about how much more moral UR falsely claims to be...
> or is it he just can't get enough of himself?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just you, daws. In my experience, 'alternate" reality is typical of fundie Christians. There is the unmistakable self-righteous and self-promoting attitude that grips fundies. Their claim to holding some moral and ethical high ground is so often contradicted by their behavior that depicts a groundswell of hate, self-doubt and insecurity.
> 
> My expectation is that if religion is so beneficial that it must be forced on all (as is the belief of many fundies), then it might follow that adherents to it should be better people. If religious beliefs make you less tolerant, more hateful then of what good is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you, Daws, and NP all allowed your prejudicial worldview to read things into my post that weren't there. By all means, please quote where I judged anyone or said I was better than anyone here. I'm waiting.
Click to expand...


Funny how you are now side- stepping and backtracking on your cut and paste.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always resort to put downs instead of addressing the topic. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never fail to be confused about the issues you rattle on about. Has it ever crossed your mind to make an effort to understand the issues that confuse you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not confused. I am just curious as to why you always resort to putdowns??
Click to expand...

You're confused about being confused. 

I'm not at all surprised that it is a result of Christian fundie indoctrination.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need new dancing shoes.
> 
> Evolution does not provide for purposeful "design". Evolution is not directional or steered toward a result.
> 
> As noted, your atrocious lack of understanding regarding evolutionary theory causes you to make comments remarkable only for their ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't dance when my opponents are clearly inferior.
Click to expand...

Your self assessed superiority is contradicted by your inability to further any meaningful dialogue. I see nothing in the Christian creationist argument that is not rife with fallacious analogies, bad examples and appeals to ignorance, fear and superstition. It's remarkable how you consider cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya as making you superior but I suppose that delusions of supermagical, angry gawds is just one more symptom of the pathology of Christian creationism. 

Therein lies the danger. The point being, Christian creationism does not allow for the growth of knowledge.  The fundies in this thread have made it clear that from a fundamentalist Christian point of view, humans are inherently evil, base, greedy, etc. That is a self-fulfilling speculation, and given the fact that we continue to survive, to show compassion and to further the benefits of cooperation, the fundie Christian  worldview is not empirically true. And because it's not true -- what purpose does the fundie Christian promotion of  hate and derision serve? Is it retrograde and superfluous? Yes, of course it is. 

Assuming that evil acts are bourne out of the corruption of religion, (or more likely, the influence of religion), is religion worth the price is extracts on human development?


----------



## ima

So why can't evolution be part of god's plan?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need new dancing shoes.
> 
> Evolution does not provide for purposeful "design". Evolution is not directional or steered toward a result.
> 
> As noted, your atrocious lack of understanding regarding evolutionary theory causes you to make comments remarkable only for their ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't dance when my opponents are clearly inferior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your self assessed superiority is contradicted by your inability to further any meaningful dialogue. I see nothing in the Christian creationist argument that is not rife with fallacious analogies, bad examples and appeals to ignorance, fear and superstition. It's remarkable how you consider cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya as making you superior but I suppose that delusions of supermagical, angry gawds is just one more symptom of the pathology of Christian creationism.
> 
> Therein lies the danger. The point being, Christian creationism does not allow for the growth of knowledge.  The fundies in this thread have made it clear that from a fundamentalist Christian point of view, humans are inherently evil, base, greedy, etc. That is a self-fulfilling speculation, and given the fact that we continue to survive, to show compassion and to further the benefits of cooperation, the fundie Christian  worldview is not empirically true. And because it's not true -- what purpose does the fundie Christian promotion of  hate and derision serve? Is it retrograde and superfluous? Yes, of course it is.
> 
> Assuming that evil acts are bourne out of the corruption of religion, (or more likely, the influence of religion), is religion worth the price is extracts on human development?
Click to expand...


My scientific arguments are not faith based they are fact based.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> So why can't evolution be part of god's plan?



It is true we have seen variations within a family that is it and there is simple answer for this to which I have answered. Many creatures have gone extinct does not mean they were organisms that evolved it just shows they once existed. By your own theory these so call tranitional fossils why did they go extinct if by your theory they were better adapted ?

This question has gone  with no explanation from your side.

Because the theory goes against what the bible teaches. If this process of evolution was used by God I think he would provided some type of  explanation of the process in the bible. Why do you guys throw this question out there when you're totally against the thought of design ? That has been what has been demonstrated throughout this thread.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't dance when my opponents are clearly inferior.
> 
> 
> 
> Your self assessed superiority is contradicted by your inability to further any meaningful dialogue. I see nothing in the Christian creationist argument that is not rife with fallacious analogies, bad examples and appeals to ignorance, fear and superstition. It's remarkable how you consider cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya as making you superior but I suppose that delusions of supermagical, angry gawds is just one more symptom of the pathology of Christian creationism.
> 
> Therein lies the danger. The point being, Christian creationism does not allow for the growth of knowledge.  The fundies in this thread have made it clear that from a fundamentalist Christian point of view, humans are inherently evil, base, greedy, etc. That is a self-fulfilling speculation, and given the fact that we continue to survive, to show compassion and to further the benefits of cooperation, the fundie Christian  worldview is not empirically true. And because it's not true -- what purpose does the fundie Christian promotion of  hate and derision serve? Is it retrograde and superfluous? Yes, of course it is.
> 
> Assuming that evil acts are bourne out of the corruption of religion, (or more likely, the influence of religion), is religion worth the price is extracts on human development?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My scientific arguments are not faith based they are fact based.
Click to expand...

Lordy man, but you are confused. Metaphysics, magic and superstition are not science. Have you noticed that these terms are even spelled differently? That's because they're different... which is why they're spelled differently. Do you been additional tutoring on this?

You're spending too much time at Harun Yahya.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need new dancing shoes.
> 
> Evolution does not provide for purposeful "design". Evolution is not directional or steered toward a result.
> 
> As noted, your atrocious lack of understanding regarding evolutionary theory causes you to make comments remarkable only for their ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't dance when my opponents are clearly inferior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your self assessed superiority is contradicted by your inability to further any meaningful dialogue. I see nothing in the Christian creationist argument that is not rife with fallacious analogies, bad examples and appeals to ignorance, fear and superstition. It's remarkable how you consider cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya as making you superior but I suppose that delusions of supermagical, angry gawds is just one more symptom of the pathology of Christian creationism.
> 
> Therein lies the danger. The point being, Christian creationism does not allow for the growth of knowledge.  The fundies in this thread have made it clear that from a fundamentalist Christian point of view, humans are inherently evil, base, greedy, etc. That is a self-fulfilling speculation, and given the fact that we continue to survive, to show compassion and to further the benefits of cooperation, the fundie Christian  worldview is not empirically true. And because it's not true -- what purpose does the fundie Christian promotion of  hate and derision serve? Is it retrograde and superfluous? Yes, of course it is.
> 
> Assuming that evil acts are bourne out of the corruption of religion, (or more likely, the influence of religion), is religion worth the price is extracts on human development?
Click to expand...


It is clearly seen by my ability to take your questions on and you guys ducking my questions. It don't make me a better person  my education makes me more qualified to provide an answer to your questions and ask you questions.  NP keeps saying my questions are out of ignorance then I have to show him they are not that screams ignorance on this subject. I asked a question that any person trained in biology would have known why I asked the question and he thought I was speaking of Abiogenesis that exposed his ignorance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your self assessed superiority is contradicted by your inability to further any meaningful dialogue. I see nothing in the Christian creationist argument that is not rife with fallacious analogies, bad examples and appeals to ignorance, fear and superstition. It's remarkable how you consider cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya as making you superior but I suppose that delusions of supermagical, angry gawds is just one more symptom of the pathology of Christian creationism.
> 
> Therein lies the danger. The point being, Christian creationism does not allow for the growth of knowledge.  The fundies in this thread have made it clear that from a fundamentalist Christian point of view, humans are inherently evil, base, greedy, etc. That is a self-fulfilling speculation, and given the fact that we continue to survive, to show compassion and to further the benefits of cooperation, the fundie Christian  worldview is not empirically true. And because it's not true -- what purpose does the fundie Christian promotion of  hate and derision serve? Is it retrograde and superfluous? Yes, of course it is.
> 
> Assuming that evil acts are bourne out of the corruption of religion, (or more likely, the influence of religion), is religion worth the price is extracts on human development?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My scientific arguments are not faith based they are fact based.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lordy man, but you are confused. Metaphysics, magic and superstition are not science. Have you noticed that these terms are even spelled differently? That's because they're different... which is why they're spelled differently. Do you been additional tutoring on this?
> 
> You're spending too much time at Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...


I am no Lord. You're completely ignorant on the subject of science please stop pretending you're not. You keep throwing this term around Metaphysics,please show where I am doing this ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why can't evolution be part of god's plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true we have seen variations within a family that is it and there is simple asnwer for this to which I have answered. Many creatures have gone extinct does not mean they were organisms that evolved it just shows they once existed. By your own theory these so call tranitional fossils why did they go extinct if by your theory they were better adapted ?
> 
> This question has gone  with no explanation from your side.
> 
> Because the theory goes against what the bible teaches. If this process of evolution was used by God I think he would provided some type of  explanation of the process in the bible. Why do you guys throw this question out there when you're totally against the thought of design ? That has been what has been demonstrated throughout this thread.
Click to expand...


Your comments depict a typical lack of knowledge regarding the science of evolution or more likely, a willful misrepresentation of what you choose to misrepresent. 

Your comments are in concert with what is barfed out of creationist ministries. Such allegiance to lies and falsehoods calls into question your personal credibility.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie it is time for your side to put up or shut up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why can't evolution be part of god's plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true we have seen variations within a family that is it and there is simple asnwer for this to which I have answered. Many creatures have gone extinct does not mean they were organisms that evolved it just shows they once existed. By your own theory these so call tranitional fossils why did they go extinct if by your theory they were better adapted ?
> 
> This question has gone  with no explanation from your side.
> 
> Because the theory goes against what the bible teaches. If this process of evolution was used by God I think he would provided some type of  explanation of the process in the bible. Why do you guys throw this question out there when you're totally against the thought of design ? That has been what has been demonstrated throughout this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comments depict a typical lack of knowledge regarding the science of evolution or more likely, a willful misrepresentation of what you choose to misrepresent.
> 
> Your comments are in concert with what is barfed out of creationist ministries. Such allegiance to lies and falsehoods calls into question your personal credibility.
Click to expand...


Wrong again, if you understood survival of the fittest or in other words natural selection this would need no explanation.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why can't evolution be part of god's plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true we have seen variations within a family that is it and there is simple asnwer for this to which I have answered. Many creatures have gone extinct does not mean they were organisms that evolved it just shows they once existed. By your own theory these so call tranitional fossils why did they go extinct if by your theory they were better adapted ?
> 
> This question has gone  with no explanation from your side.
> 
> Because the theory goes against what the bible teaches. If this process of evolution was used by God I think he would provided some type of  explanation of the process in the bible. Why do you guys throw this question out there when you're totally against the thought of design ? That has been what has been demonstrated throughout this thread.
Click to expand...

So basically, because the bible doesn't say so. But the earth is round, and the bible doesn't say it is? 
A lot of creatures went extinct because of nature changing or something like an asteroid... The most well adapted are still alive. Look, a baby starts out small and unable to talk and it evolves into a talking, thinking adult. Or, I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved to a healthier lifestyle and I'll probably live longer than my siblings.

Btw, the bible isn't the word of god, it's the words of men.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why can't evolution be part of god's plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true we have seen variations within a family that is it and there is simple asnwer for this to which I have answered. Many creatures have gone extinct does not mean they were organisms that evolved it just shows they once existed. By your own theory these so call tranitional fossils why did they go extinct if by your theory they were better adapted ?
> 
> This question has gone  with no explanation from your side.
> 
> Because the theory goes against what the bible teaches. If this process of evolution was used by God I think he would provided some type of  explanation of the process in the bible. Why do you guys throw this question out there when you're totally against the thought of design ? That has been what has been demonstrated throughout this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comments depict a typical lack of knowledge regarding the science of evolution or more likely, a willful misrepresentation of what you choose to misrepresent.
> 
> Your comments are in concert with what is barfed out of creationist ministries. Such allegiance to lies and falsehoods calls into question your personal credibility.
Click to expand...


I asked you for an example of your accusation.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My scientific arguments are not faith based they are fact based.
> 
> 
> 
> Lordy man, but you are confused. Metaphysics, magic and superstition are not science. Have you noticed that these terms are even spelled differently? That's because they're different... which is why they're spelled differently. Do you been additional tutoring on this?
> 
> You're spending too much time at Harun Yahya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am no Lord. You're completely ignorant on the subject of science please stop pretending you're not. You keep throwing this term around Metaphysics,please show where I am doing this ?
Click to expand...


Are you not a lord of Harun Yahya? Maybe just a "_minister of misinformation_". With practice, you may soon be promoted to "Cardinal of Crackpots".

I can appreciate that you recoil when your sacred cows of creationist dogma are refuted by science fact but supermagicalism is hardly something that will cause you to be taken seriously.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true we have seen variations within a family that is it and there is simple asnwer for this to which I have answered. Many creatures have gone extinct does not mean they were organisms that evolved it just shows they once existed. By your own theory these so call tranitional fossils why did they go extinct if by your theory they were better adapted ?
> 
> This question has gone  with no explanation from your side.
> 
> Because the theory goes against what the bible teaches. If this process of evolution was used by God I think he would provided some type of  explanation of the process in the bible. Why do you guys throw this question out there when you're totally against the thought of design ? That has been what has been demonstrated throughout this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments depict a typical lack of knowledge regarding the science of evolution or more likely, a willful misrepresentation of what you choose to misrepresent.
> 
> Your comments are in concert with what is barfed out of creationist ministries. Such allegiance to lies and falsehoods calls into question your personal credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you for an example of your accusation.
Click to expand...


Previously supplied.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why can't evolution be part of god's plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true we have seen variations within a family that is it and there is simple asnwer for this to which I have answered. Many creatures have gone extinct does not mean they were organisms that evolved it just shows they once existed. By your own theory these so call tranitional fossils why did they go extinct if by your theory they were better adapted ?
> 
> This question has gone  with no explanation from your side.
> 
> Because the theory goes against what the bible teaches. If this process of evolution was used by God I think he would provided some type of  explanation of the process in the bible. Why do you guys throw this question out there when you're totally against the thought of design ? That has been what has been demonstrated throughout this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So basically, because the bible doesn't say so. But the earth is round, and the bible doesn't say it is?
> A lot of creatures went extinct because of nature changing or something like an asteroid... The most well adapted are still alive. Look, a baby starts out small and unable to talk and it evolves into a talking, thinking adult. Or, I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved to a healthier lifestyle and I'll probably live longer than my siblings.
> 
> Btw, the bible isn't the word of god, it's the words of men.
Click to expand...


You are wrong the earth was described as a circle in the bible. That is only theory that dinosaurs went extinct from a giant meteor. That is not evolution a child forming in the womb and becoming an intelligent thinking adult. That is a natural process that was put into motion and that person runs it's course. If anything it would be devolution because the person reaches a certain point then they eventually wear out and die.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lordy man, but you are confused. Metaphysics, magic and superstition are not science. Have you noticed that these terms are even spelled differently? That's because they're different... which is why they're spelled differently. Do you been additional tutoring on this?
> 
> You're spending too much time at Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am no Lord. You're completely ignorant on the subject of science please stop pretending you're not. You keep throwing this term around Metaphysics,please show where I am doing this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you not a lord of Harun Yahya? Maybe just a "_minister of misinformation_". With practice, you may soon be promoted to "Cardinal of Crackpots".
> 
> I can appreciate that you recoil when your sacred cows of creationist dogma are refuted by science fact but supermagicalism is hardly something that will cause you to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...


Until you're adult enough to have an adult  discussion I will ignore your rhetorical posts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments depict a typical lack of knowledge regarding the science of evolution or more likely, a willful misrepresentation of what you choose to misrepresent.
> 
> Your comments are in concert with what is barfed out of creationist ministries. Such allegiance to lies and falsehoods calls into question your personal credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you for an example of your accusation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Previously supplied.
Click to expand...


You making a claim is not giving an example to back your claim.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true we have seen variations within a family that is it and there is simple asnwer for this to which I have answered. Many creatures have gone extinct does not mean they were organisms that evolved it just shows they once existed. By your own theory these so call tranitional fossils why did they go extinct if by your theory they were better adapted ?
> 
> This question has gone  with no explanation from your side.
> 
> Because the theory goes against what the bible teaches. If this process of evolution was used by God I think he would provided some type of  explanation of the process in the bible. Why do you guys throw this question out there when you're totally against the thought of design ? That has been what has been demonstrated throughout this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, because the bible doesn't say so. But the earth is round, and the bible doesn't say it is?
> A lot of creatures went extinct because of nature changing or something like an asteroid... The most well adapted are still alive. Look, a baby starts out small and unable to talk and it evolves into a talking, thinking adult. Or, I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved to a healthier lifestyle and I'll probably live longer than my siblings.
> 
> Btw, the bible isn't the word of god, it's the words of men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong the earth was described as a circle in the bible. That is only theory that dinosaurs went extinct from a giant meteor. That is not evolution a child forming in the womb and becoming an intelligent thinking adult. That is a natural process that was put into motion and that person runs it's course. If anything it would be devolution because the person reaches a certain point then they eventually wear out and die.
Click to expand...

Dinosaurs could not have faced extinction in the distant past. Ken Ham's creation museum depicts children in buckskin outfits frollicking with those dinosaurs. It really calls into question all of science.  Thank the gawds for Ken Ham. 

And what about all those dinosaurs on the Ark?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, because the bible doesn't say so. But the earth is round, and the bible doesn't say it is?
> A lot of creatures went extinct because of nature changing or something like an asteroid... The most well adapted are still alive. Look, a baby starts out small and unable to talk and it evolves into a talking, thinking adult. Or, I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved to a healthier lifestyle and I'll probably live longer than my siblings.
> 
> Btw, the bible isn't the word of god, it's the words of men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong the earth was described as a circle in the bible. That is only theory that dinosaurs went extinct from a giant meteor. That is not evolution a child forming in the womb and becoming an intelligent thinking adult. That is a natural process that was put into motion and that person runs it's course. If anything it would be devolution because the person reaches a certain point then they eventually wear out and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinosaurs could not have faced extinction in the distant past. Ken Ham's creation museum depicts children in buckskin outfits frollicking with those dinosaurs. It really calls into question all of science.  Thank the gawds for Ken Ham.
> 
> And what about all those dinosaurs on the Ark?
Click to expand...


Does ken ham represent and speak for all who believe in a creator ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you for an example of your accusation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Previously supplied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You making a claim is not giving an example to back your claim.
Click to expand...

That would apply to the entirety of the Christian creationist agenda.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong the earth was described as a circle in the bible. That is only theory that dinosaurs went extinct from a giant meteor. That is not evolution a child forming in the womb and becoming an intelligent thinking adult. That is a natural process that was put into motion and that person runs it's course. If anything it would be devolution because the person reaches a certain point then they eventually wear out and die.
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs could not have faced extinction in the distant past. Ken Ham's creation museum depicts children in buckskin outfits frollicking with those dinosaurs. It really calls into question all of science.  Thank the gawds for Ken Ham.
> 
> And what about all those dinosaurs on the Ark?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does ken ham represent and speak for all who believe in a creator ?
Click to expand...


Of course not. Similarly, your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya would not suggest you represent all who believe in the Allah gawd. 

There are many differing and competing versions of creators / gawds/ supreme beings, etc.. Most of them being reconstructions and refinements of earlier creators. Consider the Romans, for example.  They actually assumed that the gawds of other cultures were true. Certainly, they found the earlier Egyptian gods to be a bit um strange, but they still considered them powerful and extant. In a truly spectacular acknowledgement of their own lack of knowledge regarding the gawds, the Romans also worshiped "the unknown god." Think of this as essentially praying to, "to whom it may concern" with the explicit understanding that nobody had exclusive or full knowledge of the real nature of THE gawd or gawds... sort of the "gawds to be announced at a later date", or   "gawds to suit any occasion", so to speak. This idea was borrowed from the earlier Greeks. The Greeks even built a temple in Athens to this: _Agnostos Theos_.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs could not have faced extinction in the distant past. Ken Ham's creation museum depicts children in buckskin outfits frollicking with those dinosaurs. It really calls into question all of science.  Thank the gawds for Ken Ham.
> 
> And what about all those dinosaurs on the Ark?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does ken ham represent and speak for all who believe in a creator ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not. Similarly, your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya would not suggest you represent all who believe in the Allah gawd.
> 
> There are many differing and competing versions of creators / gawds/ supreme beings, etc.. Most of them being reconstructions and refinements of earlier creators. Consider the Romans, for example.  They actually assumed that the gawds of other cultures were true. Certainly, they found the earlier Egyptian gods to be a bit um strange, but they still considered them powerful and extant. In a truly spectacular acknowledgement of their own lack of knowledge regarding the gawds, the Romans also worshiped "the unknown god." Think of this as essentially praying to, "to whom it may concern" with the explicit understanding that nobody had exclusive or full knowledge of the real nature of THE gawd or gawds... sort of the "gawds to be announced at a later date", or   "gawds to suit any occasion", so to speak. This idea was borrowed from the earlier Greeks. The Greeks even built a temple in Athens to this: _Agnostos Theos_.
Click to expand...


Your problem is that creationist and ID'ers raise legitimate questions to the explanations and assumptions of evolutionist where you dismiss them because they are believers and ignore the legitimate questions they raise. You believe it is just agenda by them and not real science is why the questions are raised.

The two questions that truly separate both sides are,where did the universe come from ? how did life begin ?

Your side claims there is no evidence of God but I say the evidence can be seen in nature but you ignore the fact that your side have no evidence supporting your beliefs.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am no Lord. You're completely ignorant on the subject of science please stop pretending you're not. You keep throwing this term around Metaphysics,please show where I am doing this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you not a lord of Harun Yahya? Maybe just a "_minister of misinformation_". With practice, you may soon be promoted to "Cardinal of Crackpots".
> 
> I can appreciate that you recoil when your sacred cows of creationist dogma are refuted by science fact but supermagicalism is hardly something that will cause you to be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until you're adult enough to have an adult  discussion I will ignore your rhetorical posts.
Click to expand...

Yep. Hit'em with the truth and fundies run for the exits.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true we have seen variations within a family that is it and there is simple asnwer for this to which I have answered. Many creatures have gone extinct does not mean they were organisms that evolved it just shows they once existed. By your own theory these so call tranitional fossils why did they go extinct if by your theory they were better adapted ?
> 
> This question has gone  with no explanation from your side.
> 
> Because the theory goes against what the bible teaches. If this process of evolution was used by God I think he would provided some type of  explanation of the process in the bible. Why do you guys throw this question out there when you're totally against the thought of design ? That has been what has been demonstrated throughout this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, because the bible doesn't say so. But the earth is round, and the bible doesn't say it is?
> A lot of creatures went extinct because of nature changing or something like an asteroid... The most well adapted are still alive. Look, a baby starts out small and unable to talk and it evolves into a talking, thinking adult. Or, I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved to a healthier lifestyle and I'll probably live longer than my siblings.
> 
> Btw, the bible isn't the word of god, it's the words of men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are wrong the earth was described as a circle in the bible.* That is only theory that dinosaurs went extinct from a giant meteor. That is not evolution a child forming in the womb and becoming an intelligent thinking adult. That is a natural process that was put into motion and that person runs it's course. If anything it would be devolution because the person reaches a certain point then they eventually wear out and die.
Click to expand...

Then why did the church torture people who claimed it was round and not the center of the universe?
So my thinking evolved to a healthier lifestyle by learning about and becoming a vegetarian?
C'mon, then how did the dinosaurs all die off around the same time? God? Anyways, lots of animals die from changing weather over time.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do any of you evolutionist idiots believe that humans have a soul?
> 
> Do all crceatures have souls?
> 
> Where did the soul originate?
> 
> What happenes to it when you die?
> 
> 
> Four easy simple questions. But I bet I don't get any intelligent responses. I wonder how many cut and paste jobs will respond.  Hmmmm......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. Another angry fundie rattling on about metaphysics absent any understanding of what he's rattling in about.
> 
> Your explanation of the concept of a "soul" is insufficient. It's only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be a "soul". You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of continuation of the consciousness after death.
> 
> I have no explanation for "spirits" or the "soul" because the soul remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist. I do have a comment about personality, and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gawds have made monkeys and men with a soul each, and that means humans are the 'e'special creation of the gawds. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gawds needed.
> 
> Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your eternal soul is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the soul cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. The soul must be fairly weak.
> 
> This is a perfectly valid explanation for emotions, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.
> 
> Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.
> 
> By way of example, I can
> 
> 1. End all thought by killing that brain
> 
> 2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
> 
> 3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.
> 
> All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gods.
> 
> Now you demonstrate the spiritual source, which you assert is the actual reason emotions exist and disassemble my case, please.
Click to expand...


The only angry person I see is you . I asked some simple questions.

I didn't offer any explanations.

So in short. You don't think humans have souls.

No one ask you about personalities. 

But since you brought it up. 

You should get one.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do any of you evolutionist idiots believe that humans have a soul?
> 
> Do all crceatures have souls?
> 
> Where did the soul originate?
> 
> What happenes to it when you die?
> 
> 
> Four easy simple questions. But I bet I don't get any intelligent responses. I wonder how many cut and paste jobs will respond.  Hmmmm......
> 
> 
> 
> 1.first you must describe what a soul is .
> 
> 2. no one knows where or if a "soul" originated anywhere.
> your belife that a god made and gave them to "Us" is no proof .
> 3. no one knows that either .
> if by soul you mean sentience, then most all life has one.
Click to expand...


I didn't ask for proof of a soul. I asked what you believed.

Damn you people sure have a hard time comprehending simple questions.

Here's Webster's definitions.

1   : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life 
2  a: the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe 
b capitalized Christian Science : god 1b 
3: a person's total self 
4a : an active or essential part b : a moving spirit : leader 
5a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c : spiritual or moral force : fervor 

Bold Scientists Say: PROOF Soul Exists 

The Lancet is one of the world's most respected medical journals. So when it published an article in its current edition in which scientists claim to have PROOF that humans have a *life after death that exists independently of the body* that it inhabits, folks are sitting up and taking notice.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do any of you evolutionist idiots believe that humans have a soul?
> 
> Do all crceatures have souls?
> 
> Where did the soul originate?
> 
> What happenes to it when you die?
> 
> 
> Four easy simple questions. But I bet I don't get any intelligent responses. I wonder how many cut and paste jobs will respond.  Hmmmm......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence of a soul? No. Therefore, it is most likely, does not exist.
Click to expand...


Yes


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do any of you evolutionist idiots believe that humans have a soul?
> 
> Do all crceatures have souls?
> 
> Where did the soul originate?
> 
> What happenes to it when you die?
> 
> 
> Four easy simple questions. But I bet I don't get any intelligent responses. I wonder how many cut and paste jobs will respond.  Hmmmm......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. Another angry fundie rattling on about metaphysics absent any understanding of what he's rattling in about.
> 
> Your explanation of the concept of a "soul" is insufficient. It's only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be a "soul". You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of continuation of the consciousness after death.
> 
> I have no explanation for "spirits" or the "soul" because the soul remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist. I do have a comment about personality, and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gawds have made monkeys and men with a soul each, and that means humans are the 'e'special creation of the gawds. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gawds needed.
> 
> Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your eternal soul is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the soul cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. The soul must be fairly weak.
> 
> This is a perfectly valid explanation for emotions, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.
> 
> Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.
> 
> By way of example, I can
> 
> 1. End all thought by killing that brain
> 
> 2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
> 
> 3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.
> 
> All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gods.
> 
> Now you demonstrate the spiritual source, which you assert is the actual reason emotions exist and disassemble my case, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only angry person I see is you . I asked some simple questions.
> 
> I didn't offer any explanations.
> 
> So in short. You don't think humans have souls.
> 
> No one ask you about personalities.
> 
> But since you brought it up.
> 
> You should get one.
Click to expand...

There's no reason to flame with the "angry fundie", persona. I gave you a reasonable explanation ( personality derived from chemical processes in the brain) to what you want to attach metaphysics, mysticism and the mumbo- jumbo of gawds and spirit worlds. 

It seems fundies instantly get angry when their sacred cows are yanked by the nose ring.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. Another angry fundie rattling on about metaphysics absent any understanding of what he's rattling in about.
> 
> Your explanation of the concept of a "soul" is insufficient. It's only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be a "soul". You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of continuation of the consciousness after death.
> 
> I have no explanation for "spirits" or the "soul" because the soul remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist. I do have a comment about personality, and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gawds have made monkeys and men with a soul each, and that means humans are the 'e'special creation of the gawds. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gawds needed.
> 
> Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your eternal soul is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the soul cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. The soul must be fairly weak.
> 
> This is a perfectly valid explanation for emotions, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.
> 
> Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.
> 
> By way of example, I can
> 
> 1. End all thought by killing that brain
> 
> 2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
> 
> 3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.
> 
> All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gods.
> 
> Now you demonstrate the spiritual source, which you assert is the actual reason emotions exist and disassemble my case, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only angry person I see is you . I asked some simple questions.
> 
> I didn't offer any explanations.
> 
> So in short. You don't think humans have souls.
> 
> No one ask you about personalities.
> 
> But since you brought it up.
> 
> You should get one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no reason to flame with the "angry fundie", persona. I gave you a reasonable explanation ( personality derived from chemical processes in the brain) to what you want to attach metaphysics, mysticism and the mumbo- jumbo of gawds and spirit worlds.
> 
> It seems fundies instantly get angry when their sacred cows are yanked by the nose ring.
Click to expand...


The only person flaming is you. With every post you write.

Without your snide remarks and asinine insults, you wouldn't have much to say.

I understood your ramblings perfectly. You do not believe that humans have a soul.

Again, I'm not nor have I been angry. Fact is I find your childish ways quite entertaining. I just hope you don't miss milk and cookie time or nap time.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only angry person I see is you . I asked some simple questions.
> 
> I didn't offer any explanations.
> 
> So in short. You don't think humans have souls.
> 
> No one ask you about personalities.
> 
> But since you brought it up.
> 
> You should get one.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to flame with the "angry fundie", persona. I gave you a reasonable explanation ( personality derived from chemical processes in the brain) to what you want to attach metaphysics, mysticism and the mumbo- jumbo of gawds and spirit worlds.
> 
> It seems fundies instantly get angry when their sacred cows are yanked by the nose ring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only person flaming is you. With every post you write.
> 
> Without your snide remarks and asinine insults, you wouldn't have much to say.
> 
> I understood your ramblings perfectly. You do not believe that humans have a soul.
> 
> Again, I'm not nor have I been angry. Fact is I find your childish ways quite entertaining. I just hope you don't miss milk and cookie time or nap time.
Click to expand...


I just find it curious that fundies get so angry when challenged. Sacred cows are fine for supporting religious belief but under the glaring light of education, those cows tend to shrink. 

You might be interested to find that cows milk is not all its cracked up to be. This "soul" thing you allege is not what you "believe" it to be. Did you realize that NDE's can be reproduced by the introduction of chemicals in the brain? How curious. 

near-death experience (NDE) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to flame with the "angry fundie", persona. I gave you a reasonable explanation ( personality derived from chemical processes in the brain) to what you want to attach metaphysics, mysticism and the mumbo- jumbo of gawds and spirit worlds.
> 
> It seems fundies instantly get angry when their sacred cows are yanked by the nose ring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only person flaming is you. With every post you write.
> 
> Without your snide remarks and asinine insults, you wouldn't have much to say.
> 
> I understood your ramblings perfectly. You do not believe that humans have a soul.
> 
> Again, I'm not nor have I been angry. Fact is I find your childish ways quite entertaining. I just hope you don't miss milk and cookie time or nap time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just find it curious that fundies get so angry when challenged. Sacred cows are fine for supporting religious belief but under the glaring light of education, those cows tend to shrink.
> 
> You might be interested to find that cows milk is not all its cracked up to be. This "soul" thing you allege is not what you "believe" it to be. Did you realize that NDE's can be reproduced by the introduction of chemicals in the brain? How curious.
> 
> near-death experience (NDE) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
Click to expand...


Again, for the third time. I am not angry.

Why do you want me to be angry? Would it make you feel better if I was?

I have no idea what cow's milk has to do with this discussion. I guess it's your way of pettifogging the issue. Or maybe it makes you feel like your smart or something. Fact is it makes you look desperate and weak.

Even the link you provided recognizes the human soul. So if it was meant to support your idea that humans do not possess a soul. It didn't work.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just you, daws. In my experience, 'alternate" reality is typical of fundie Christians. There is the unmistakable self-righteous and self-promoting attitude that grips fundies. Their claim to holding some moral and ethical high ground is so often contradicted by their behavior that depicts a groundswell of hate, self-doubt and insecurity.
> 
> My expectation is that if religion is so beneficial that it must be forced on all (as is the belief of many fundies), then it might follow that adherents to it should be better people. If religious beliefs make you less tolerant, more hateful then of what good is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you, Daws, and NP all allowed your prejudicial worldview to read things into my post that weren't there. By all means, please quote where I judged anyone or said I was better than anyone here. I'm waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you are now side- stepping and backtracking on your cut and paste.
Click to expand...


Funny how you didn't back up your accusation with an actual quote from me.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments depict a typical lack of knowledge regarding the science of evolution or more likely, a willful misrepresentation of what you choose to misrepresent.
> 
> Your comments are in concert with what is barfed out of creationist ministries. Such allegiance to lies and falsehoods calls into question your personal credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you for an example of your accusation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Previously supplied.
Click to expand...


Typical untruthful dodge.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only person flaming is you. With every post you write.
> 
> Without your snide remarks and asinine insults, you wouldn't have much to say.
> 
> I understood your ramblings perfectly. You do not believe that humans have a soul.
> 
> Again, I'm not nor have I been angry. Fact is I find your childish ways quite entertaining. I just hope you don't miss milk and cookie time or nap time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it curious that fundies get so angry when challenged. Sacred cows are fine for supporting religious belief but under the glaring light of education, those cows tend to shrink.
> 
> You might be interested to find that cows milk is not all its cracked up to be. This "soul" thing you allege is not what you "believe" it to be. Did you realize that NDE's can be reproduced by the introduction of chemicals in the brain? How curious.
> 
> near-death experience (NDE) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, for the third time. I am not angry.
> 
> Why do you want me to be angry? Would it make you feel better if I was?
> 
> I have no idea what cow's milk has to do with this discussion. I guess it's your way of pettifogging the issue. Or maybe it makes you feel like your smart or something. Fact is it makes you look desperate and weak.
> 
> Even the link you provided recognizes the human soul. So if it was meant to support your idea that humans do not possess a soul. It didn't work.
Click to expand...


You claim not to be angry but you do "read" angry. Also, you may need to review the link regarding a recognition of the "soul."  Any claim to souls being extant would require corroboration and I see none. 

You seem to be angry that anyone would disagree with your religious belief which includes appeals to such mystical and supernatural concepts as "souls". Yet, this soul thing seems entirely a function of chemical reactions in the brain. It wasn't all that long ago when Christians would burn people at the stake for being possessed by demons or the devil. With the advent of psychiatry and drugs, we learned that the messy practice of burning at the stake was unnecessary. Treatment for possession by demons and devils has gotten more sophisticated and more effective. That's not intended dissuade you from believing in demons and devils, btw. 

Strange, though, with all the claims to gawds, demons, possession by devils and claims to souls, we're still left with not a single bit of evidence for any of the preceding. That is, of course, unless you can enlighten us as to thus "soul" thing you claim exists.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you for an example of your accusation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Previously supplied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical untruthful dodge.
Click to expand...


Typical catatonic stupor.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you not a lord of Harun Yahya? Maybe just a "_minister of misinformation_". With practice, you may soon be promoted to "Cardinal of Crackpots".
> 
> I can appreciate that you recoil when your sacred cows of creationist dogma are refuted by science fact but supermagicalism is hardly something that will cause you to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you're adult enough to have an adult  discussion I will ignore your rhetorical posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. Hit'em with the truth and fundies run for the exits.
Click to expand...


You truly are delusional!!!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you, Daws, and NP all allowed your prejudicial worldview to read things into my post that weren't there. By all means, please quote where I judged anyone or said I was better than anyone here. I'm waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you are now side- stepping and backtracking on your cut and paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you didn't back up your accusation with an actual quote from me.
Click to expand...


Funnier still is your unsupported claim. But then again, as a Christian, you have self-proclaimed "higher" morals.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to flame with the "angry fundie", persona. I gave you a reasonable explanation ( personality derived from chemical processes in the brain) to what you want to attach metaphysics, mysticism and the mumbo- jumbo of gawds and spirit worlds.
> 
> It seems fundies instantly get angry when their sacred cows are yanked by the nose ring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only person flaming is you. With every post you write.
> 
> Without your snide remarks and asinine insults, you wouldn't have much to say.
> 
> I understood your ramblings perfectly. You do not believe that humans have a soul.
> 
> Again, I'm not nor have I been angry. Fact is I find your childish ways quite entertaining. I just hope you don't miss milk and cookie time or nap time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just find it curious that fundies get so angry when challenged. Sacred cows are fine for supporting religious belief but under the glaring light of education, those cows tend to shrink.
> 
> You might be interested to find that cows milk is not all its cracked up to be. This "soul" thing you allege is not what you "believe" it to be. Did you realize that NDE's can be reproduced by the introduction of chemicals in the brain? How curious.
> 
> near-death experience (NDE) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
Click to expand...


Curious that the angriest person on this thread is always accusing everyone else of being angry. You know what they say, "You can't smell your own stink."


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until you're adult enough to have an adult  discussion I will ignore your rhetorical posts.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Hit'em with the truth and fundies run for the exits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You truly are delusional!!!
Click to expand...


Your comments truly are a waste of time.


----------



## UltimateReality

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only person flaming is you. With every post you write.
> 
> Without your snide remarks and asinine insults, you wouldn't have much to say.
> 
> I understood your ramblings perfectly. You do not believe that humans have a soul.
> 
> Again, I'm not nor have I been angry. Fact is I find your childish ways quite entertaining. I just hope you don't miss milk and cookie time or nap time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it curious that fundies get so angry when challenged. Sacred cows are fine for supporting religious belief but under the glaring light of education, those cows tend to shrink.
> 
> You might be interested to find that cows milk is not all its cracked up to be. This "soul" thing you allege is not what you "believe" it to be. Did you realize that NDE's can be reproduced by the introduction of chemicals in the brain? How curious.
> 
> near-death experience (NDE) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, for the third time. I am not angry.
> 
> Why do you want me to be angry? Would it make you feel better if I was?
> 
> I have no idea what cow's milk has to do with this discussion. I guess it's your way of pettifogging the issue. Or maybe it makes you feel like your smart or something. Fact is it makes you look desperate and weak.
> 
> Even the link you provided recognizes the human soul. So if it was meant to support your idea that humans do not possess a soul. It didn't work.
Click to expand...


What? You expect Hawly to actual read here cut and pastes???


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only person flaming is you. With every post you write.
> 
> Without your snide remarks and asinine insults, you wouldn't have much to say.
> 
> I understood your ramblings perfectly. You do not believe that humans have a soul.
> 
> Again, I'm not nor have I been angry. Fact is I find your childish ways quite entertaining. I just hope you don't miss milk and cookie time or nap time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it curious that fundies get so angry when challenged. Sacred cows are fine for supporting religious belief but under the glaring light of education, those cows tend to shrink.
> 
> You might be interested to find that cows milk is not all its cracked up to be. This "soul" thing you allege is not what you "believe" it to be. Did you realize that NDE's can be reproduced by the introduction of chemicals in the brain? How curious.
> 
> near-death experience (NDE) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Curious that the angriest person on this thread is always accusing everyone else of being angry. You know what they say, "You can't smell your own stink."
Click to expand...


You would know more about that than others would.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it curious that fundies get so angry when challenged. Sacred cows are fine for supporting religious belief but under the glaring light of education, those cows tend to shrink.
> 
> You might be interested to find that cows milk is not all its cracked up to be. This "soul" thing you allege is not what you "believe" it to be. Did you realize that NDE's can be reproduced by the introduction of chemicals in the brain? How curious.
> 
> near-death experience (NDE) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the third time. I am not angry.
> 
> Why do you want me to be angry? Would it make you feel better if I was?
> 
> I have no idea what cow's milk has to do with this discussion. I guess it's your way of pettifogging the issue. Or maybe it makes you feel like your smart or something. Fact is it makes you look desperate and weak.
> 
> Even the link you provided recognizes the human soul. So if it was meant to support your idea that humans do not possess a soul. It didn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim not to be angry but you do "read" angry....
Click to expand...


Your personal bias and prejudice is clouding your judgement. You are projecting your own deep-seated anger onto others posts.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it curious that fundies get so angry when challenged. Sacred cows are fine for supporting religious belief but under the glaring light of education, those cows tend to shrink.
> 
> You might be interested to find that cows milk is not all its cracked up to be. This "soul" thing you allege is not what you "believe" it to be. Did you realize that NDE's can be reproduced by the introduction of chemicals in the brain? How curious.
> 
> near-death experience (NDE) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curious that the angriest person on this thread is always accusing everyone else of being angry. You know what they say, "You can't smell your own stink."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would know more about that than others would.
Click to expand...


I know you are but what am I? I think Lonestar was right about the milk and cookies.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you are now side- stepping and backtracking on your cut and paste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you didn't back up your accusation with an actual quote from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funnier still is your unsupported claim. But then again, as a Christian, you have self-proclaimed "higher" morals.
Click to expand...


An assertion which you still cannot provide any basis for. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the third time. I am not angry.
> 
> Why do you want me to be angry? Would it make you feel better if I was?
> 
> I have no idea what cow's milk has to do with this discussion. I guess it's your way of pettifogging the issue. Or maybe it makes you feel like your smart or something. Fact is it makes you look desperate and weak.
> 
> Even the link you provided recognizes the human soul. So if it was meant to support your idea that humans do not possess a soul. It didn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim not to be angry but you do "read" angry....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your personal bias and prejudice is clouding your judgement. You are projecting your own deep-seated anger onto others posts.
Click to expand...


Actually, no. What we're seeing is the seething anger that grips Christian fundies when their religious biases are exposed and challenged.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you didn't back up your accusation with an actual quote from me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funnier still is your unsupported claim. But then again, as a Christian, you have self-proclaimed "higher" morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An assertion which you still cannot provide any basis for. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


And your specious claim which is baseless.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curious that the angriest person on this thread is always accusing everyone else of being angry. You know what they say, "You can't smell your own stink."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would know more about that than others would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you are but what am I? I think Lonestar was right about the milk and cookies.
Click to expand...


Your juvenile response essentially encapsulates the Christian creationist ability to defend an argument.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it curious that fundies get so angry when challenged. Sacred cows are fine for supporting religious belief but under the glaring light of education, those cows tend to shrink.
> 
> You might be interested to find that cows milk is not all its cracked up to be. This "soul" thing you allege is not what you "believe" it to be. Did you realize that NDE's can be reproduced by the introduction of chemicals in the brain? How curious.
> 
> near-death experience (NDE) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the third time. I am not angry.
> 
> Why do you want me to be angry? Would it make you feel better if I was?
> 
> I have no idea what cow's milk has to do with this discussion. I guess it's your way of pettifogging the issue. Or maybe it makes you feel like your smart or something. Fact is it makes you look desperate and weak.
> 
> Even the link you provided recognizes the human soul. So if it was meant to support your idea that humans do not possess a soul. It didn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim not to be angry but you do "read" angry. Also, you may need to review the link regarding a recognition of the "soul."  Any claim to souls being extant would require corroboration and I see none.
> 
> You seem to be angry that anyone would disagree with your religious belief which includes appeals to such mystical and supernatural concepts as "souls". Yet, this soul thing seems entirely a function of chemical reactions in the brain. It wasn't all that long ago when Christians would burn people at the stake for being possessed by demons or the devil. With the advent of psychiatry and drugs, we learned that the messy practice of burning at the stake was unnecessary. Treatment for possession by demons and devils has gotten more sophisticated and more effective. That's not intended dissuade you from believing in demons and devils, btw.
> 
> Strange, though, with all the claims to gawds, demons, possession by devils and claims to souls, we're still left with not a single bit of evidence for any of the preceding. That is, of course, unless you can enlighten us as to thus "soul" thing you claim exists.
Click to expand...


I read angry? What does that even mean?

You need to read the link you provided. It's there plain as day it acknowldeged a human soul.

You haven't disagreed with any of the questions. You answered it in your own strange way. The question about the human soul you said you didn't believe humans had a soul. It's your opinion that it's all in the mind.

I don't know about all that burning at the stake, possessions and the like. I asked a question, you answered it. Enough said.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the third time. I am not angry.
> 
> Why do you want me to be angry? Would it make you feel better if I was?
> 
> I have no idea what cow's milk has to do with this discussion. I guess it's your way of pettifogging the issue. Or maybe it makes you feel like your smart or something. Fact is it makes you look desperate and weak.
> 
> Even the link you provided recognizes the human soul. So if it was meant to support your idea that humans do not possess a soul. It didn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim not to be angry but you do "read" angry. Also, you may need to review the link regarding a recognition of the "soul."  Any claim to souls being extant would require corroboration and I see none.
> 
> You seem to be angry that anyone would disagree with your religious belief which includes appeals to such mystical and supernatural concepts as "souls". Yet, this soul thing seems entirely a function of chemical reactions in the brain. It wasn't all that long ago when Christians would burn people at the stake for being possessed by demons or the devil. With the advent of psychiatry and drugs, we learned that the messy practice of burning at the stake was unnecessary. Treatment for possession by demons and devils has gotten more sophisticated and more effective. That's not intended dissuade you from believing in demons and devils, btw.
> 
> Strange, though, with all the claims to gawds, demons, possession by devils and claims to souls, we're still left with not a single bit of evidence for any of the preceding. That is, of course, unless you can enlighten us as to thus "soul" thing you claim exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read angry? What does that even mean?
> 
> You need to read the link you provided. It's there plain as day it acknowldeged a human soul.
> 
> You haven't disagreed with any of the questions. You answered it in your own strange way. The question about the human soul you said you didn't believe humans had a soul. It's your opinion that it's all in the mind.
> 
> I don't know about all that burning at the stake, possessions and the like. I asked a question, you answered it. Enough said.
Click to expand...

You seem have lost track of your own argument. When you ask questions of " evolutionist idiots", it tends to suggest a certain anger and resentment. 

If you read the article, you will notice that you're referring to an acknowledgement not made by the author regarding thus "soul", thing. Did you happen to notice that the drug ketamine can reproduce the NDE experience that is connected with this 'soul", thing?

Lastly, I think you should have noticed that I actually do disagree with your questions alluding to this "soul' you believe exists but cannot demonstrate in any meaningful way. 

It would be helpful if you could link to any major teaching university hospital or research institute that could provide some data on the 'soul".


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim not to be angry but you do "read" angry. Also, you may need to review the link regarding a recognition of the "soul."  Any claim to souls being extant would require corroboration and I see none.
> 
> You seem to be angry that anyone would disagree with your religious belief which includes appeals to such mystical and supernatural concepts as "souls". Yet, this soul thing seems entirely a function of chemical reactions in the brain. It wasn't all that long ago when Christians would burn people at the stake for being possessed by demons or the devil. With the advent of psychiatry and drugs, we learned that the messy practice of burning at the stake was unnecessary. Treatment for possession by demons and devils has gotten more sophisticated and more effective. That's not intended dissuade you from believing in demons and devils, btw.
> 
> Strange, though, with all the claims to gawds, demons, possession by devils and claims to souls, we're still left with not a single bit of evidence for any of the preceding. That is, of course, unless you can enlighten us as to thus "soul" thing you claim exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read angry? What does that even mean?
> 
> You need to read the link you provided. It's there plain as day it acknowldeged a human soul.
> 
> You haven't disagreed with any of the questions. You answered it in your own strange way. The question about the human soul you said you didn't believe humans had a soul. It's your opinion that it's all in the mind.
> 
> I don't know about all that burning at the stake, possessions and the like. I asked a question, you answered it. Enough said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem have lost track of your own argument. When you ask questions of " evolutionist idiots", it tends to suggest a certain anger and resentment.
> 
> If you read the article, you will notice that you're referring to an acknowledgement not made by the author regarding thus "soul", thing. Did you happen to notice that the drug ketamine can reproduce the NDE experience that is connected with this 'soul", thing?
> 
> Lastly, I think you should have noticed that I actually do disagree with your questions alluding to this "soul' you believe exists but cannot demonstrate in any meaningful way.
> 
> It would be helpful if you could link to any major teaching university hospital or research institute that could provide some data on the 'soul".
Click to expand...


Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.

I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO

I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers. 

I've always been skeptical of skeptics.

Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today

Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says &#8216;Yes&#8217;...New scientific theory recognizes life&#8217;s spiritual dimension 

Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Enzymes can be programmed that is evidence that suggests in the beginning they were programmed were not a product of naturalism. I don't buy things grow the ability over time to be a benefit to the organism through errors.
> 
> 
> 
> it suggests nothing of the kind....
> your denial of fact proves what "you don't buy" is a product of religious indoctrination that you were programmed with and has no basis in reality.
> benefits do not arise by errors ,they do however arise as functions or by products of funtions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fact am I denying daws ? daws according to you theory macroevolution  happens through beneficial mutations,daws mutations are errors. What you said last was just jibberish. Daws do you understand what you're saying because all it shows you are ignorant of the theory you defend.
Click to expand...

 all of them! or do I need to make a list?
there is no macro evolution.
  There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read angry? What does that even mean?
> 
> You need to read the link you provided. It's there plain as day it acknowldeged a human soul.
> 
> You haven't disagreed with any of the questions. You answered it in your own strange way. The question about the human soul you said you didn't believe humans had a soul. It's your opinion that it's all in the mind.
> 
> I don't know about all that burning at the stake, possessions and the like. I asked a question, you answered it. Enough said.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem have lost track of your own argument. When you ask questions of " evolutionist idiots", it tends to suggest a certain anger and resentment.
> 
> If you read the article, you will notice that you're referring to an acknowledgement not made by the author regarding thus "soul", thing. Did you happen to notice that the drug ketamine can reproduce the NDE experience that is connected with this 'soul", thing?
> 
> Lastly, I think you should have noticed that I actually do disagree with your questions alluding to this "soul' you believe exists but cannot demonstrate in any meaningful way.
> 
> It would be helpful if you could link to any major teaching university hospital or research institute that could provide some data on the 'soul".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.
> 
> I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO
> 
> I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.
> 
> I've always been skeptical of skeptics.
> 
> Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today
> 
> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says Yes...New scientific theory recognizes lifes spiritual dimension
> 
> Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.
Click to expand...


I have noticed that Christians, as a result of their self-assigned higher moral status will relegate infidels to idiot status. Unfortunately, the Christian anger and resentment is largely the result of an inability to defend their claims to gawds. 

As I was aware, there are no studies performed by any of the leading university hospitals leading to a conclusion of the "soul". Once again, we're left with Christians making claims to the existence of metaphysical, mystical 'souls", gawds, demons, spirits, etc. 

As far as admitting to the existence of some higher power, I can only advise that the assignment of whatever higher power you're alluding to is, with virtual exclusivity, a function of ones geographic place of birth. 

We, (those not addled by the compulsive effects of the majority religion or family religion of our upbringing), are free to make comparative judgements about religion. Quite clearly, they all suffer from the same fatal flaw: it's all hearsay evidence. The alleged "relative strength" of various claimants as to what any of the human inventions of gawds really want is merely a matter of choosing to accept the stories (tales and fables) of some claimants in deference to others. It's remarkable that you will bicker about - and even defend - such hearsay claims of alleged communications from a supernatural entity when we know that the book which recites these claims suffers from so many obvious flaws of unknown authorship and dubious heritage. 

Quite clearly, It's all legend building. But here is where you need to think it through - we can see clearly defined patterns of playing upon fears and emotions within the text of the bibles. When you spend just a bit of energy to connect the dots surrounding the writings of the men who authored the various bibles, connecting those dots will show patterns that suddenly break to form oblique angles.

Kings, rulers, pharaohs and "scholars" etc made use of the idea of instilling fear by claiming for themselves a special ability to receive messages or to translate the true meaning from a divine supernatural ruler, even though the best evidence for their existence was simply the fact that there were some things we didn't understand. Societies grew, codified rituals, passed on these ideas from parent to child with severe warnings for not believing - such as eternal burning and torment and unrealistic 'carrots' for believing e.g an eternity of sensual gratification and so giant structures and substructures grew which evolved (yes, evolved) into the religions we see today.

Monotheism is currently in vogue for religions. Multi-god religions have been replaced by one-stop-shopping gswds of convenience.

Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, and it will eventually go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.

You can always depend on religion that way. Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pure fantasy here daws it does not stand on merits but one's imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> how'd I know you'd say that.....false as it is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand what conjecture is daws ?
Click to expand...

yes I do ...you on the other hand believe that  noah's ark is fact....do I need to say more.?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature is the product of the designer. What put everything in to motion daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> in your mind that may be true but in reality there is no "who" in nature.
> so once again pull yourhead out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws did you read what was wrote ? The question was daws,what put everything in to motion ?
Click to expand...

that's funny coming from a proven illterate!
ther are two parts to your statement.
the first is an unprovable erroneous declarative...
the second part is not an honest question .
it's invalid because of the first statement,which infers there must be a designer  
my answer stands.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read angry? What does that even mean?
> 
> You need to read the link you provided. It's there plain as day it acknowldeged a human soul.
> 
> You haven't disagreed with any of the questions. You answered it in your own strange way. The question about the human soul you said you didn't believe humans had a soul. It's your opinion that it's all in the mind.
> 
> I don't know about all that burning at the stake, possessions and the like. I asked a question, you answered it. Enough said.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem have lost track of your own argument. When you ask questions of " evolutionist idiots", it tends to suggest a certain anger and resentment.
> 
> If you read the article, you will notice that you're referring to an acknowledgement not made by the author regarding thus "soul", thing. Did you happen to notice that the drug ketamine can reproduce the NDE experience that is connected with this 'soul", thing?
> 
> Lastly, I think you should have noticed that I actually do disagree with your questions alluding to this "soul' you believe exists but cannot demonstrate in any meaningful way.
> 
> It would be helpful if you could link to any major teaching university hospital or research institute that could provide some data on the 'soul".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.
> 
> I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO
> 
> I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.
> 
> I've always been skeptical of skeptics.
> 
> Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today
> 
> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says Yes...New scientific theory recognizes lifes spiritual dimension
> 
> Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.
Click to expand...

really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws the scientists that have altered the functions of Enzymes you don't consider intelligent ?
> 
> How bout the ones that have developed forms of communication ?
> 
> 
> 
> more proof you're an illiterate! what the scientists did is no proof that an other intelligence did any thing.
> the scientists intelligence is HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. YOU IGNORANT FUCK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a good description of yourself.
> 
> So are you suggesting that these Enzymes just entered into a cell with the purpose of identifying errors during DNA replication and fixing most of these errors by chance ? Daws what would happen to all living organisms that lacked these enzymes to repair errors during DNA replication ?
Click to expand...


dodge


1


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem have lost track of your own argument. When you ask questions of " evolutionist idiots", it tends to suggest a certain anger and resentment.
> 
> If you read the article, you will notice that you're referring to an acknowledgement not made by the author regarding thus "soul", thing. Did you happen to notice that the drug ketamine can reproduce the NDE experience that is connected with this 'soul", thing?
> 
> Lastly, I think you should have noticed that I actually do disagree with your questions alluding to this "soul' you believe exists but cannot demonstrate in any meaningful way.
> 
> It would be helpful if you could link to any major teaching university hospital or research institute that could provide some data on the 'soul".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.
> 
> I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO
> 
> I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.
> 
> I've always been skeptical of skeptics.
> 
> Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today
> 
> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says Yes...New scientific theory recognizes lifes spiritual dimension
> 
> Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have noticed that Christians, as a result of their self-assigned higher moral status will relegate infidels to idiot status. Unfortunately, the Christian anger and resentment is largely the result of an inability to defend their claims to gawds.
> 
> As I was aware, there are no studies performed by any of the leading university hospitals leading to a conclusion of the "soul". Once again, we're left with Christians making claims to the existence of metaphysical, mystical 'souls", gawds, demons, spirits, etc.
> 
> As far as admitting to the existence of some higher power, I can only advise that the assignment of whatever higher power you're alluding to is, with virtual exclusivity, a function of ones geographic place of birth.
> 
> We, (those not addled by the compulsive effects of the majority religion or family religion of our upbringing), are free to make comparative judgements about religion. Quite clearly, they all suffer from the same fatal flaw: it's all hearsay evidence. The alleged "relative strength" of various claimants as to what any of the human inventions of gawds really want is merely a matter of choosing to accept the stories (tales and fables) of some claimants in deference to others. It's remarkable that you will bicker about - and even defend - such hearsay claims of alleged communications from a supernatural entity when we know that the book which recites these claims suffers from so many obvious flaws of unknown authorship and dubious heritage.
> 
> Quite clearly, It's all legend building. But here is where you need to think it through - we can see clearly defined patterns of playing upon fears and emotions within the text of the bibles. When you spend just a bit of energy to connect the dots surrounding the writings of the men who authored the various bibles, connecting those dots will show patterns that suddenly break to form oblique angles.
> 
> Kings, rulers, pharaohs and "scholars" etc made use of the idea of instilling fear by claiming for themselves a special ability to receive messages or to translate the true meaning from a divine supernatural ruler, even though the best evidence for their existence was simply the fact that there were some things we didn't understand. Societies grew, codified rituals, passed on these ideas from parent to child with severe warnings for not believing - such as eternal burning and torment and unrealistic 'carrots' for believing e.g an eternity of sensual gratification and so giant structures and substructures grew which evolved (yes, evolved) into the religions we see today.
> 
> Monotheism is currently in vogue for religions. Multi-god religions have been replaced by one-stop-shopping gswds of convenience.
> 
> Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, and it will eventually go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.
> 
> You can always depend on religion that way. Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics.
Click to expand...


Your free to find whatever reasoning you want as to why I believe you're an idiot. Although it's not as complicated as you make it sound. And anger nor resentment has anything to do with it. Sorry.

There are scientific theories regarding the soul but you choose to ignore them. Which is quite odd since you except the theory of evolution. But que sera.

I've come to realize one thing while scanning your rant. You're really not as intelligent as you pretend. Of course that's just my opinion. Not subject to debate.

I pity people like. In a sadistic way I wish I could be there the moment you pass from this world. Just to see the look on your face the moment you realize that there is indeed a God and He is sending you to eternal damnation.  I know it's not very Christian of me to wish that. But... oh well.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem have lost track of your own argument. When you ask questions of " evolutionist idiots", it tends to suggest a certain anger and resentment.
> 
> If you read the article, you will notice that you're referring to an acknowledgement not made by the author regarding thus "soul", thing. Did you happen to notice that the drug ketamine can reproduce the NDE experience that is connected with this 'soul", thing?
> 
> Lastly, I think you should have noticed that I actually do disagree with your questions alluding to this "soul' you believe exists but cannot demonstrate in any meaningful way.
> 
> It would be helpful if you could link to any major teaching university hospital or research institute that could provide some data on the 'soul".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.
> 
> I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO
> 
> I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.
> 
> I've always been skeptical of skeptics.
> 
> Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today
> 
> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says Yes...New scientific theory recognizes lifes spiritual dimension
> 
> Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist
Click to expand...


Shhhh  Hollie doesn't know that.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.
> 
> I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO
> 
> I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.
> 
> I've always been skeptical of skeptics.
> 
> Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today
> 
> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says Yes...New scientific theory recognizes lifes spiritual dimension
> 
> Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have noticed that Christians, as a result of their self-assigned higher moral status will relegate infidels to idiot status. Unfortunately, the Christian anger and resentment is largely the result of an inability to defend their claims to gawds.
> 
> As I was aware, there are no studies performed by any of the leading university hospitals leading to a conclusion of the "soul". Once again, we're left with Christians making claims to the existence of metaphysical, mystical 'souls", gawds, demons, spirits, etc.
> 
> As far as admitting to the existence of some higher power, I can only advise that the assignment of whatever higher power you're alluding to is, with virtual exclusivity, a function of ones geographic place of birth.
> 
> We, (those not addled by the compulsive effects of the majority religion or family religion of our upbringing), are free to make comparative judgements about religion. Quite clearly, they all suffer from the same fatal flaw: it's all hearsay evidence. The alleged "relative strength" of various claimants as to what any of the human inventions of gawds really want is merely a matter of choosing to accept the stories (tales and fables) of some claimants in deference to others. It's remarkable that you will bicker about - and even defend - such hearsay claims of alleged communications from a supernatural entity when we know that the book which recites these claims suffers from so many obvious flaws of unknown authorship and dubious heritage.
> 
> Quite clearly, It's all legend building. But here is where you need to think it through - we can see clearly defined patterns of playing upon fears and emotions within the text of the bibles. When you spend just a bit of energy to connect the dots surrounding the writings of the men who authored the various bibles, connecting those dots will show patterns that suddenly break to form oblique angles.
> 
> Kings, rulers, pharaohs and "scholars" etc made use of the idea of instilling fear by claiming for themselves a special ability to receive messages or to translate the true meaning from a divine supernatural ruler, even though the best evidence for their existence was simply the fact that there were some things we didn't understand. Societies grew, codified rituals, passed on these ideas from parent to child with severe warnings for not believing - such as eternal burning and torment and unrealistic 'carrots' for believing e.g an eternity of sensual gratification and so giant structures and substructures grew which evolved (yes, evolved) into the religions we see today.
> 
> Monotheism is currently in vogue for religions. Multi-god religions have been replaced by one-stop-shopping gswds of convenience.
> 
> Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, and it will eventually go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.
> 
> You can always depend on religion that way. Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your free to find whatever reasoning you want as to why I believe you're an idiot. Although it's not as complicated as you make it sound. And anger nor resentment has anything to do with it. Sorry.
> 
> There are scientific theories regarding the soul but you choose to ignore them. Which is quite odd since you except the theory of evolution. But que sera.
> 
> I've come to realize one thing while scanning your rant. You're really not as intelligent as you pretend. Of course that's just my opinion. Not subject to debate.
> 
> I pity people like. In a sadistic way I wish I could be there the moment you pass from this world. Just to see the look on your face the moment you realize that there is indeed a God and He is sending you to eternal damnation.  I know it's not very Christian of me to wish that. But... oh well.
Click to expand...

There's no reason to pity me. 

I do, however, feel sorry for you. Your need to use your gawds to threaten people relegates you to being just another angry Christian who is consumed by hate. It's pretty clear that your wish for "him" to send me to eternal damnation is more a reflection of your own self-hate, insecurity and inability to resolve your seething hatred for those who reject your appeals to fear and ignorance. You seem to approach your gawds as they are some type of cosmic arcade fortune telling machine. Do you think that your gawds will hear and oblige your calls to condemn the non-believers? Are you the gawds mafioso enforcers?

Surprisingly, I find it to be very Christian of you to wish eternal damnation on me. Your attitudes are largely in concert with historical christianity and its history of violence and intolerance toward non-Christians.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it took you 13 hours to respond. I was actually being sarcastic to make a point about the silliness of you inferring I was using a work as an excuse to not engage in an argument with you. Obviously you were asleep so you couldn't respond, but I used your silly trick back on you to make it look like you were avoiding responding because you didn't have an answer. Basically, you aren't fooling anyone.
> 
> I post when i want to, your Tom Foolery has zero to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> HAD NO ANSWER TO WHAT?
> The rest is typical detective douche bag nonsense!
> 
> 
> especialy this: "Basically, you aren't fooling anyone."- ur aka detective douche bag .
> brilliant statement of the obvious...I have never attempted to fool anyone, so whatever you're trying and failing to insinuate is you committing character  suicide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you missed the post about how you were manipulated to prove a point. The power of suggestion obviously works on you because I used the word "douche bag" one time and you have repeated it since then over and over. Why not try to dispense with the nonsense and have an adult conversation about science and religion?
Click to expand...

another false statement, laughable too, you've manipulated nobody.
as always you've falsely assumed  that you are somehow brighter than all other posters.
your failed attempts at manipulation are obvious to everyone but you.
as to your usage of the phrase "douche bag"  It was I, who manipulated you.
all it took was a few remarks about your questionable police service and you went bat shit.
just as I knew you would .

I say bat shit because for someone(you) who adamantly denies using profanity or pejoratives ,that's a fairly nasty one.
I did not start using the phrase because of you imaginary mastery of the power of suggestion, it did inspire me to give you a new name , let's face it  "Ultimate Reality" is extremely pompous and melodramatic name.
detective douche bag is far closer to your INTERNET personality then UR.
it's  perfect from a comedic POV. 
to finish all of your resent post concerning your observations and moral compass bullshit are in fact failed attempts to simultaneously  take credit and absolve yourself of taking responsibly for your own actions.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.
> 
> I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO
> 
> I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.
> 
> I've always been skeptical of skeptics.
> 
> Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today
> 
> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says Yes...New scientific theory recognizes lifes spiritual dimension
> 
> Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.
> 
> 
> 
> really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shhhh  Hollie doesn't know that.
Click to expand...

so you lied? ...how christian of you!


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.
> 
> I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO
> 
> I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.
> 
> I've always been skeptical of skeptics.
> 
> Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today
> 
> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says Yes...New scientific theory recognizes lifes spiritual dimension
> 
> Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.
> 
> 
> 
> really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shhhh  Hollie doesn't know that.
Click to expand...


So show me where anyone has identified this "soul".


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said "it is not okay"? Do whatever you want, but you will reap the consequences. Likewise, for us, or anybody. In case you haven't noticed, we are split into two teams. Usually the way it works when you are on teams, is you stick up for your teammates, while trying to beat the other team. I haven't seen you reprimand your teammates YWC and Lonestar for their behavior, which at times is sub-par. You try to make this a lovefest, where we all just "love" each other, but then you try to argue with us. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to end this discussion and make up and be friends, cool. Let's do it. But you can't want both. We are in a debate, a fight, so stop expecting niceties like a little child, and then attributing foul play to a lower moral constitution. It's such a fucking copout and excuse for you to feel superior to atheists. It is, in other words, a display of pure ego. This is the problem with christianity, it leads to the most unenlightened individuals.
> 
> You attacked Daws for his sexuality? Did I see that right?That's disgusting behavior on your part, UR, so don't sit here and try and talk about how 'materialists" are morally inferior. It is so vapid. I find it funny that you mimic our behavior, and then judge us for our behavior, but not your own. That's called being a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> ...I'm just the same on line as in real life. to say anything else would be disingenuous...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have proven yourself to be disingenuous repeatedly. All you have is internet bravado. I seriously doubt you've ever been in a real confrontation that didn't involve hiding behind a keyboard.
Click to expand...

and as usual you'd be totally wrong.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't dance when my opponents are clearly inferior.
> 
> 
> 
> Your self assessed superiority is contradicted by your inability to further any meaningful dialogue. I see nothing in the Christian creationist argument that is not rife with fallacious analogies, bad examples and appeals to ignorance, fear and superstition. It's remarkable how you consider cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya as making you superior but I suppose that delusions of supermagical, angry gawds is just one more symptom of the pathology of Christian creationism.
> 
> Therein lies the danger. The point being, Christian creationism does not allow for the growth of knowledge.  The fundies in this thread have made it clear that from a fundamentalist Christian point of view, humans are inherently evil, base, greedy, etc. That is a self-fulfilling speculation, and given the fact that we continue to survive, to show compassion and to further the benefits of cooperation, the fundie Christian  worldview is not empirically true. And because it's not true -- what purpose does the fundie Christian promotion of  hate and derision serve? Is it retrograde and superfluous? Yes, of course it is.
> 
> Assuming that evil acts are bourne out of the corruption of religion, (or more likely, the influence of religion), is religion worth the price is extracts on human development?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My scientific arguments are not faith based they are fact based.
Click to expand...

you just keep telling yourself that


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true we have seen variations within a family that is it and there is simple asnwer for this to which I have answered. Many creatures have gone extinct does not mean they were organisms that evolved it just shows they once existed. By your own theory these so call tranitional fossils why did they go extinct if by your theory they were better adapted ?
> 
> This question has gone  with no explanation from your side.
> 
> Because the theory goes against what the bible teaches. If this process of evolution was used by God I think he would provided some type of  explanation of the process in the bible. Why do you guys throw this question out there when you're totally against the thought of design ? That has been what has been demonstrated throughout this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments depict a typical lack of knowledge regarding the science of evolution or more likely, a willful misrepresentation of what you choose to misrepresent.
> 
> Your comments are in concert with what is barfed out of creationist ministries. Such allegiance to lies and falsehoods calls into question your personal credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you for an example of your accusation.
Click to expand...

 then you asked for the wrong thing.
what hollie said is a statement of fact not an accusation.
an educated non paranoid person would know the difference.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true we have seen variations within a family that is it and there is simple asnwer for this to which I have answered. Many creatures have gone extinct does not mean they were organisms that evolved it just shows they once existed. By your own theory these so call tranitional fossils why did they go extinct if by your theory they were better adapted ?
> 
> This question has gone  with no explanation from your side.
> 
> Because the theory goes against what the bible teaches. If this process of evolution was used by God I think he would provided some type of  explanation of the process in the bible. Why do you guys throw this question out there when you're totally against the thought of design ? That has been what has been demonstrated throughout this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, because the bible doesn't say so. But the earth is round, and the bible doesn't say it is?
> A lot of creatures went extinct because of nature changing or something like an asteroid... The most well adapted are still alive. Look, a baby starts out small and unable to talk and it evolves into a talking, thinking adult. Or, I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved to a healthier lifestyle and I'll probably live longer than my siblings.
> 
> Btw, the bible isn't the word of god, it's the words of men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong the earth was described as a circle in the bible. That is only theory that dinosaurs went extinct from a giant meteor. That is not evolution a child forming in the womb and becoming an intelligent thinking adult. That is a natural process that was put into motion and that person runs it's course. If anything it would be devolution because the person reaches a certain point then they eventually wear out and die.
Click to expand...

that's true but a circle is not a sphere so the biblical description is inaccurate.
the rest of your post is creationist bullshit .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong the earth was described as a circle in the bible. That is only theory that dinosaurs went extinct from a giant meteor. That is not evolution a child forming in the womb and becoming an intelligent thinking adult. That is a natural process that was put into motion and that person runs it's course. If anything it would be devolution because the person reaches a certain point then they eventually wear out and die.
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs could not have faced extinction in the distant past. Ken Ham's creation museum depicts children in buckskin outfits frollicking with those dinosaurs. It really calls into question all of science.  Thank the gawds for Ken Ham.
> 
> And what about all those dinosaurs on the Ark?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does ken ham represent and speak for all who believe in a creator ?
Click to expand...

only if the believers are ignorant suckers.
KEN ham like you has no right to speak for any one but himself.
I know a lot of christians who know he's full of shit.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie it is time for your side to put up or shut up.



We have put up, for the last 150 years. Your side, however, has nothing but "faith." How cute.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have noticed that Christians, as a result of their self-assigned higher moral status will relegate infidels to idiot status. Unfortunately, the Christian anger and resentment is largely the result of an inability to defend their claims to gawds.
> 
> As I was aware, there are no studies performed by any of the leading university hospitals leading to a conclusion of the "soul". Once again, we're left with Christians making claims to the existence of metaphysical, mystical 'souls", gawds, demons, spirits, etc.
> 
> As far as admitting to the existence of some higher power, I can only advise that the assignment of whatever higher power you're alluding to is, with virtual exclusivity, a function of ones geographic place of birth.
> 
> We, (those not addled by the compulsive effects of the majority religion or family religion of our upbringing), are free to make comparative judgements about religion. Quite clearly, they all suffer from the same fatal flaw: it's all hearsay evidence. The alleged "relative strength" of various claimants as to what any of the human inventions of gawds really want is merely a matter of choosing to accept the stories (tales and fables) of some claimants in deference to others. It's remarkable that you will bicker about - and even defend - such hearsay claims of alleged communications from a supernatural entity when we know that the book which recites these claims suffers from so many obvious flaws of unknown authorship and dubious heritage.
> 
> Quite clearly, It's all legend building. But here is where you need to think it through - we can see clearly defined patterns of playing upon fears and emotions within the text of the bibles. When you spend just a bit of energy to connect the dots surrounding the writings of the men who authored the various bibles, connecting those dots will show patterns that suddenly break to form oblique angles.
> 
> Kings, rulers, pharaohs and "scholars" etc made use of the idea of instilling fear by claiming for themselves a special ability to receive messages or to translate the true meaning from a divine supernatural ruler, even though the best evidence for their existence was simply the fact that there were some things we didn't understand. Societies grew, codified rituals, passed on these ideas from parent to child with severe warnings for not believing - such as eternal burning and torment and unrealistic 'carrots' for believing e.g an eternity of sensual gratification and so giant structures and substructures grew which evolved (yes, evolved) into the religions we see today.
> 
> Monotheism is currently in vogue for religions. Multi-god religions have been replaced by one-stop-shopping gswds of convenience.
> 
> Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, and it will eventually go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.
> 
> You can always depend on religion that way. Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your free to find whatever reasoning you want as to why I believe you're an idiot. Although it's not as complicated as you make it sound. And anger nor resentment has anything to do with it. Sorry.
> 
> There are scientific theories regarding the soul but you choose to ignore them. Which is quite odd since you except the theory of evolution. But que sera.
> 
> I've come to realize one thing while scanning your rant. You're really not as intelligent as you pretend. Of course that's just my opinion. Not subject to debate.
> 
> I pity people like. In a sadistic way I wish I could be there the moment you pass from this world. Just to see the look on your face the moment you realize that there is indeed a God and He is sending you to eternal damnation.  I know it's not very Christian of me to wish that. But... oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no reason to pity me.
> 
> I do, however, feel sorry for you. Your need to use your gawds to threaten people relegates you to being just another angry Christian who is consumed by hate. It's pretty clear that your wish for "him" to send me to eternal damnation is more a reflection of your own self-hate, insecurity and inability to resolve your seething hatred for those who reject your appeals to fear and ignorance. You seem to approach your gawds as they are some type of cosmic arcade fortune telling machine. Do you think that your gawds will hear and oblige your calls to condemn the non-believers? Are you the gawds mafioso enforcers?
> 
> Surprisingly, I find it to be very Christian of you to wish eternal damnation on me. Your attitudes are largely in concert with historical christianity and its history of violence and intolerance toward non-Christians.
Click to expand...


Yes I believe there is. And I do.

I haven't threatened anyone. If you feel threatened by anything I've written .... well...that's your cross to bear.

My wish isn't for Him to send you anywhere. My wish is to be present when he does. Reading comprehension seems difficult for you.

Furthermore it isn't my call to condemn non-believers to hell, God made that call. 

And again, I didn't wish eternal damnation on you and whether you believe it or not... I am not angry.

Historical intolerance? You have Christians confused with muslims. I'll concede that during the crusades Christians did kick some butt. But it was caused in the 1st crusade by 3000 Christians being massacred. And the crusades ended around 750 years ago.

Can you cite any recent events that shows Christian intolerance, let's say on the scale of muslim intolerance?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it suggests nothing of the kind....
> your denial of fact proves what "you don't buy" is a product of religious indoctrination that you were programmed with and has no basis in reality.
> benefits do not arise by errors ,they do however arise as functions or by products of funtions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What fact am I denying daws ? daws according to you theory macroevolution  happens through beneficial mutations,daws mutations are errors. What you said last was just jibberish. Daws do you understand what you're saying because all it shows you are ignorant of the theory you defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of them! or do I need to make a list?
> there is no macro evolution.
> There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.
Click to expand...



  

Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how'd I know you'd say that.....false as it is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand what conjecture is daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes I do ...you on the other hand believe that  noah's ark is fact....do I need to say more.?
Click to expand...


No noah's ark would not be considered conjecture daws,it would be a belief from faith.

So you don't undersatnd what conjecture is.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> in your mind that may be true but in reality there is no "who" in nature.
> so once again pull yourhead out of your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws did you read what was wrote ? The question was daws,what put everything in to motion ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's funny coming from a proven illterate!
> ther are two parts to your statement.
> the first is an unprovable erroneous declarative...
> the second part is not an honest question .
> it's invalid because of the first statement,which infers there must be a designer
> my answer stands.
Click to expand...


Still avoided the question ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem have lost track of your own argument. When you ask questions of " evolutionist idiots", it tends to suggest a certain anger and resentment.
> 
> If you read the article, you will notice that you're referring to an acknowledgement not made by the author regarding thus "soul", thing. Did you happen to notice that the drug ketamine can reproduce the NDE experience that is connected with this 'soul", thing?
> 
> Lastly, I think you should have noticed that I actually do disagree with your questions alluding to this "soul' you believe exists but cannot demonstrate in any meaningful way.
> 
> It would be helpful if you could link to any major teaching university hospital or research institute that could provide some data on the 'soul".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.
> 
> I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO
> 
> I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.
> 
> I've always been skeptical of skeptics.
> 
> Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today
> 
> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says Yes...New scientific theory recognizes lifes spiritual dimension
> 
> Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist
Click to expand...


Daws if a soul exists your side have some explaining to do


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more proof you're an illiterate! what the scientists did is no proof that an other intelligence did any thing.
> the scientists intelligence is HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. YOU IGNORANT FUCK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good description of yourself.
> 
> So are you suggesting that these Enzymes just entered into a cell with the purpose of identifying errors during DNA replication and fixing most of these errors by chance ? Daws what would happen to all living organisms that lacked these enzymes to repair errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dodge
> 
> 
> 1
Click to expand...


My response was honest and straight to the point.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.
> 
> I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO
> 
> I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.
> 
> I've always been skeptical of skeptics.
> 
> Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today
> 
> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says Yes...New scientific theory recognizes lifes spiritual dimension
> 
> Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.
> 
> 
> 
> really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shhhh  Hollie doesn't know that.
Click to expand...


They would still have even more explaining to do.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shhhh  Hollie doesn't know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you lied? ...how christian of you!
Click to expand...


Oh boy


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your self assessed superiority is contradicted by your inability to further any meaningful dialogue. I see nothing in the Christian creationist argument that is not rife with fallacious analogies, bad examples and appeals to ignorance, fear and superstition. It's remarkable how you consider cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya as making you superior but I suppose that delusions of supermagical, angry gawds is just one more symptom of the pathology of Christian creationism.
> 
> Therein lies the danger. The point being, Christian creationism does not allow for the growth of knowledge.  The fundies in this thread have made it clear that from a fundamentalist Christian point of view, humans are inherently evil, base, greedy, etc. That is a self-fulfilling speculation, and given the fact that we continue to survive, to show compassion and to further the benefits of cooperation, the fundie Christian  worldview is not empirically true. And because it's not true -- what purpose does the fundie Christian promotion of  hate and derision serve? Is it retrograde and superfluous? Yes, of course it is.
> 
> Assuming that evil acts are bourne out of the corruption of religion, (or more likely, the influence of religion), is religion worth the price is extracts on human development?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My scientific arguments are not faith based they are fact based.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you just keep telling yourself that
Click to expand...


Don't need to or you would have shown me otherwise with all your knowledge of science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments depict a typical lack of knowledge regarding the science of evolution or more likely, a willful misrepresentation of what you choose to misrepresent.
> 
> Your comments are in concert with what is barfed out of creationist ministries. Such allegiance to lies and falsehoods calls into question your personal credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you for an example of your accusation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then you asked for the wrong thing.
> what hollie said is a statement of fact not an accusation.
> an educated non paranoid person would know the difference.
Click to expand...


Here goes the rhetoric again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, because the bible doesn't say so. But the earth is round, and the bible doesn't say it is?
> A lot of creatures went extinct because of nature changing or something like an asteroid... The most well adapted are still alive. Look, a baby starts out small and unable to talk and it evolves into a talking, thinking adult. Or, I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved to a healthier lifestyle and I'll probably live longer than my siblings.
> 
> Btw, the bible isn't the word of god, it's the words of men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong the earth was described as a circle in the bible. That is only theory that dinosaurs went extinct from a giant meteor. That is not evolution a child forming in the womb and becoming an intelligent thinking adult. That is a natural process that was put into motion and that person runs it's course. If anything it would be devolution because the person reaches a certain point then they eventually wear out and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's true but a circle is not a sphere so the biblical description is inaccurate.
> the rest of your post is creationist bullshit .
Click to expand...


How do you know what was meant with all the language barriers going from the Hebrew language of 3,500 years ago to modern day english ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs could not have faced extinction in the distant past. Ken Ham's creation museum depicts children in buckskin outfits frollicking with those dinosaurs. It really calls into question all of science.  Thank the gawds for Ken Ham.
> 
> And what about all those dinosaurs on the Ark?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does ken ham represent and speak for all who believe in a creator ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only if the believers are ignorant suckers.
> KEN ham like you has no right to speak for any one but himself.
> I know a lot of christians who know he's full of shit.
Click to expand...


I don't agree with everything ken ham has said nor do I agree with everything UR say's. I can agree to disagree with people daws I am not a robot.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie it is time for your side to put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have put up, for the last 150 years. Your side, however, has nothing but "faith." How cute.
Click to expand...


That is why there are a lot of evolutionist walking around using conjecture as evidence for their magical theories.


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie it is time for your side to put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have put up, for the last 150 years. Your side, however, has nothing but "faith." How cute.
Click to expand...


another empty challenge from Ywc!
Ywc, what will you do if Hollie doesn't ?
claim a false win?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What fact am I denying daws ? daws according to you theory macroevolution  happens through beneficial mutations,daws mutations are errors. What you said last was just jibberish. Daws do you understand what you're saying because all it shows you are ignorant of the theory you defend.
> 
> 
> 
> all of them! or do I need to make a list?
> there is no macro evolution.
> There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.
Click to expand...


It is unimportant that we haven't observed it directly because we have evidence that it happened, with many, many transitional fossils that were found, and a few that were predicted as a result of evolutionary theory, and found after they were predicted to exist. For example, tiktaalik perfectly demonstrates how evolutionary theory can make a prediction about what we should expect to find in the fossil record, including where exactly in the strata, and it was actually found where it was predicted. 

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your free to find whatever reasoning you want as to why I believe you're an idiot. Although it's not as complicated as you make it sound. And anger nor resentment has anything to do with it. Sorry.
> 
> There are scientific theories regarding the soul but you choose to ignore them. Which is quite odd since you except the theory of evolution. But que sera.
> 
> I've come to realize one thing while scanning your rant. You're really not as intelligent as you pretend. Of course that's just my opinion. Not subject to debate.
> 
> I pity people like. In a sadistic way I wish I could be there the moment you pass from this world. Just to see the look on your face the moment you realize that there is indeed a God and He is sending you to eternal damnation.  I know it's not very Christian of me to wish that. But... oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to pity me.
> 
> I do, however, feel sorry for you. Your need to use your gawds to threaten people relegates you to being just another angry Christian who is consumed by hate. It's pretty clear that your wish for "him" to send me to eternal damnation is more a reflection of your own self-hate, insecurity and inability to resolve your seething hatred for those who reject your appeals to fear and ignorance. You seem to approach your gawds as they are some type of cosmic arcade fortune telling machine. Do you think that your gawds will hear and oblige your calls to condemn the non-believers? Are you the gawds mafioso enforcers?
> 
> Surprisingly, I find it to be very Christian of you to wish eternal damnation on me. Your attitudes are largely in concert with historical christianity and its history of violence and intolerance toward non-Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I believe there is. And I do.
> 
> I haven't threatened anyone. If you feel threatened by anything I've written .... well...that's your cross to bear.
> 
> My wish isn't for Him to send you anywhere. My wish is to be present when he does. Reading comprehension seems difficult for you.
> 
> Furthermore it isn't my call to condemn non-believers to hell, God made that call.
> 
> And again, I didn't wish eternal damnation on you and whether you believe it or not... I am not angry.
> 
> Historical intolerance? You have Christians confused with muslims. I'll concede that during the crusades Christians did kick some butt. But it was caused in the 1st crusade by 3000 Christians being massacred. And the crusades ended around 750 years ago.
> 
> Can you cite any recent events that shows Christian intolerance, let's say on the scale of muslim intolerance?
Click to expand...

 how bout the concentration camps in ww2.
if your answer is: the nazis were atheists you'll be wrong 

.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What fact am I denying daws ? daws according to you theory macroevolution  happens through beneficial mutations,daws mutations are errors. What you said last was just jibberish. Daws do you understand what you're saying because all it shows you are ignorant of the theory you defend.
> 
> 
> 
> all of them! or do I need to make a list?
> there is no macro evolution.
> There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.
Click to expand...

that's no answer just creationist propaganda. as always you're spewing bullshit!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand what conjecture is daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> yes I do ...you on the other hand believe that  noah's ark is fact....do I need to say more.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No noah's ark would not be considered conjecture daws,it would be a belief from faith.
> 
> So you don't undersatnd what conjecture is.
Click to expand...

you wish I did not. there is not one thing you have presented that is not conjecture : a : interpretation of omens b : supposition 
2a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork .


please present your version of conjecture.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.
> 
> I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO
> 
> I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.
> 
> I've always been skeptical of skeptics.
> 
> Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today
> 
> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says Yes...New scientific theory recognizes lifes spiritual dimension
> 
> Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.
> 
> 
> 
> really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws if a soul exists your side have some explaining to do
Click to expand...

only an ignorant asshole would say that.
A soul is just another name for sentience.
as much as you wish a soul means proof of god there is no quanitative or observed action or evidence linking the two..
belife is not evidence.
your so wrong It's funny


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie it is time for your side to put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have put up, for the last 150 years. Your side, however, has nothing but "faith." How cute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why there are a lot of evolutionist walking around using conjecture as evidence for their magical theories.
Click to expand...


Where are there evolutionary biologists walking around using conjecture as evidence? What are you even talking about?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good description of yourself.
> 
> So are you suggesting that these Enzymes just entered into a cell with the purpose of identifying errors during DNA replication and fixing most of these errors by chance ? Daws what would happen to all living organisms that lacked these enzymes to repair errors during DNA replication ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dodge
> 
> 
> 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My response was honest and straight to the point.
Click to expand...

you have no point.
you are trying and failing to endow chemical  reaction with a quality it does no process.
enzymes do not have the kind of purpose you wish they did.
by that I mean,  you believe but cannot prove that a designer programmed them for that purpose.  
you've not shown any credible evidence that that process did not happen naturally.
all you shown is  totally subjective denial.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My scientific arguments are not faith based they are fact based.
> 
> 
> 
> you just keep telling yourself that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't need to or you would have shown me otherwise with all your knowledge of science.
Click to expand...

not at all, you've already proven that all your arguments are based on faith.
 any references to science you've made are not science but an erroneous imitation of it .
ken hamm and his buddies are a fine example.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong the earth was described as a circle in the bible. That is only theory that dinosaurs went extinct from a giant meteor. That is not evolution a child forming in the womb and becoming an intelligent thinking adult. That is a natural process that was put into motion and that person runs it's course. If anything it would be devolution because the person reaches a certain point then they eventually wear out and die.
> 
> 
> 
> that's true but a circle is not a sphere so the biblical description is inaccurate.
> the rest of your post is creationist bullshit .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know what was meant with all the language barriers going from the Hebrew language of 3,500 years ago to modern day english ?
Click to expand...

 that's not an answer.
in any language modern or ancient  a circle is not a sphere.
funny that you came up with such a bullshit answer ,when you're always yammering about how intelligent biblical people were supposed to have been..
if the bible is as accurate as you wish it was, then why, if, as you claim they knew the world was a sphere  they did not say it?
dodge in 5....4....3....2.....1


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does ken ham represent and speak for all who believe in a creator ?
> 
> 
> 
> only if the believers are ignorant suckers.
> KEN ham like you has no right to speak for any one but himself.
> I know a lot of christians who know he's full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with everything ken ham has said nor do I agree with everything UR say's. I can agree to disagree with people daws I am not a robot.
Click to expand...

you're right you're not near that sophisticated.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it suggests nothing of the kind....
> your denial of fact proves what "you don't buy" is a product of religious indoctrination that you were programmed with and has no basis in reality.
> benefits do not arise by errors ,they do however arise as functions or by products of funtions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What fact am I denying daws ? daws according to you theory macroevolution  happens through beneficial mutations,daws mutations are errors. What you said last was just jibberish. Daws do you understand what you're saying because all it shows you are ignorant of the theory you defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of them! or do I need to make a list?
> there is no macro evolution.
> There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.
Click to expand...


Hmm let me kill two birds with one stone it is fun exposing your ignorance daws and hallow hollie that thanked you for your ignorant post.

From the site that you people seem to quote alot.

Claim CB901:
 No case of macroevolution has ever been documented. 
Source:

Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a. 
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.

Response:
 1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.


2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).


3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.


4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).


5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

CB901: No Macroevolution

Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions.

Daws I thought you said their was no difference between macro and micro evolution ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie it is time for your side to put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have put up, for the last 150 years. Your side, however, has nothing but "faith." How cute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> another empty challenge from Ywc!
> Ywc, what will you do if Hollie doesn't ?
> claim a false win?
Click to expand...


Ok so I will kill three birds with one post.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> all of them! or do I need to make a list?
> there is no macro evolution.
> There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is unimportant that we haven't observed it directly because we have evidence that it happened, with many, many transitional fossils that were found, and a few that were predicted as a result of evolutionary theory, and found after they were predicted to exist. For example, tiktaalik perfectly demonstrates how evolutionary theory can make a prediction about what we should expect to find in the fossil record, including where exactly in the strata, and it was actually found where it was predicted.
> 
> Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Kinda how they predicted something went extinct several hundred million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> all of them! or do I need to make a list?
> there is no macro evolution.
> There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's no answer just creationist propaganda. as always you're spewing bullshit!
Click to expand...


I love it when you keep digging yourself a hole.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes I do ...you on the other hand believe that  noah's ark is fact....do I need to say more.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No noah's ark would not be considered conjecture daws,it would be a belief from faith.
> 
> So you don't undersatnd what conjecture is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you wish I did not. there is not one thing you have presented that is not conjecture : a : interpretation of omens b : supposition
> 2a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork .
> 
> 
> please present your version of conjecture.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence of the ark so that would be a belief of faith. There is however evidence of design in nature and that is evidence based on conjecture but evidence of a creator.


----------



## lovemymutts

HUGGY said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Babies toys from China with lead paint on them.
Click to expand...


Huggy, That was FANFUCKINGTASTIC .BRAVO


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws if a soul exists your side have some explaining to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only an ignorant asshole would say that.
> A soul is just another name for sentience.
> as much as you wish a soul means proof of god there is no quanitative or observed action or evidence linking the two..
> belife is not evidence.
> your so wrong It's funny
Click to expand...


Be careful who you call ignorant you babbling fool.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have put up, for the last 150 years. Your side, however, has nothing but "faith." How cute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why there are a lot of evolutionist walking around using conjecture as evidence for their magical theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are there evolutionary biologists walking around using conjecture as evidence? What are you even talking about?
Click to expand...


They use it for evolution,they use it for the age of the universe,they use it for the origins question,they use it to explain away evidence of design in nature.,need I go on ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> dodge
> 
> 
> 1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My response was honest and straight to the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no point.
> you are trying and failing to endow chemical  reaction with a quality it does no process.
> enzymes do not have the kind of purpose you wish they did.
> by that I mean,  you believe but cannot prove that a designer programmed them for that purpose.
> you've not shown any credible evidence that that process did not happen naturally.
> all you shown is  totally subjective denial.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> dodge
> 
> 
> 1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My response was honest and straight to the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no point.
> you are trying and failing to endow chemical  reaction with a quality it does no process.
> enzymes do not have the kind of purpose you wish they did.
> by that I mean,  you believe but cannot prove that a designer programmed them for that purpose.
> you've not shown any credible evidence that that process did not happen naturally.
> all you shown is  totally subjective denial.
Click to expand...


The Enzymes I was mostly referring to help to prevent mutations. The Enzymes just conveniently found their way into the cell and our bodies. 

Why are enzymes important?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What fact am I denying daws ? daws according to you theory macroevolution  happens through beneficial mutations,daws mutations are errors. What you said last was just jibberish. Daws do you understand what you're saying because all it shows you are ignorant of the theory you defend.
> 
> 
> 
> all of them! or do I need to make a list?
> there is no macro evolution.
> There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm let me kill two birds with one stone it is fun exposing your ignorance daws and hallow hollie that thanked you for your ignorant post.
> 
> From the site that you people seem to quote alot.
> 
> Claim CB901:
> No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
> Source:
> 
> Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
> Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.
> 
> Response:
> 1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.
> 
> 
> 2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).
> 
> 
> 3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.
> 
> 
> 4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).
> 
> 
> 5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.
> 
> CB901: No Macroevolution
> 
> Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions.
> 
> Daws I thought you said their was no difference between macro and micro evolution ?
Click to expand...

 I did and I'm right.

you as always are wrong: "Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions."YWC

 YOUR ANSWER IS ALL THE PROOF I NEED .
EVERY THING YOU  SAY IN THE LAST SENTENCE IS CONJECTURE AND TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE, BIAS AND BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE.
SO WHO'S THE IGNORANT ONE
YOU REEK OF DESPERATION...

the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one  the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution.[7] However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor  macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants.[8]

Changes in the genes regulating development have also been proposed as being important in producing speciation through large and relatively sudden changes in animals' morphology.[9][10]

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have put up, for the last 150 years. Your side, however, has nothing but "faith." How cute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another empty challenge from Ywc!
> Ywc, what will you do if Hollie doesn't ?
> claim a false win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok so I will kill three birds with one post.
Click to expand...

JUST AS EXPECTED false bravado and a false claim..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> all of them! or do I need to make a list?
> there is no macro evolution.
> There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm let me kill two birds with one stone it is fun exposing your ignorance daws and hallow hollie that thanked you for your ignorant post.
> 
> From the site that you people seem to quote alot.
> 
> Claim CB901:
> No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
> Source:
> 
> Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
> Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.
> 
> Response:
> 1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.
> 
> 
> 2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).
> 
> 
> 3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.
> 
> 
> 4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).
> 
> 
> 5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.
> 
> CB901: No Macroevolution
> 
> Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions.
> 
> Daws I thought you said their was no difference between macro and micro evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did and I'm right.
> 
> you as always are wrong: "Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions."YWC
> 
> YOUR ANSWER IS ALL THE PROOF I NEED .
> EVERY THING YOU  SAY IN THE LAST SENTENCE IS CONJECTURE AND TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE, BIAS AND BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE.
> SO WHO'S THE IGNORANT ONE
> YOU REEK OF DESPERATION...
> 
> the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one &#8211; the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution&#8221;.[7] However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor &#8211; macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants.[8]
> 
> Changes in the genes regulating development have also been proposed as being important in producing speciation through large and relatively sudden changes in animals' morphology.[9][10]
> 
> Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Daws the desperation is not mine  wrong,macroevolution are large changes above the species level and micro is change within a family or group below the species level got it ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is unimportant that we haven't observed it directly because we have evidence that it happened, with many, many transitional fossils that were found, and a few that were predicted as a result of evolutionary theory, and found after they were predicted to exist. For example, tiktaalik perfectly demonstrates how evolutionary theory can make a prediction about what we should expect to find in the fossil record, including where exactly in the strata, and it was actually found where it was predicted.
> 
> Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda how they predicted something went extinct several hundred million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?
Click to expand...

 false comparison by master of faulty reasoning !
the Tiktaalik was a fresh water speices  the cealocanth is obviously not !
once again Ywc is comparing  apples and screwdrivers and failing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another empty challenge from Ywc!
> Ywc, what will you do if Hollie doesn't ?
> claim a false win?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so I will kill three birds with one post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JUST AS EXPECTED false bravado and a false claim..
Click to expand...


Daws this is not a fair debate because I know both sides of the argument better then you. You are wasting your time.

You do make it entertaining though.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> that's no answer just creationist propaganda. as always you're spewing bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when you keep digging yourself a hole.
Click to expand...

another one of your favorite delusions...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is unimportant that we haven't observed it directly because we have evidence that it happened, with many, many transitional fossils that were found, and a few that were predicted as a result of evolutionary theory, and found after they were predicted to exist. For example, tiktaalik perfectly demonstrates how evolutionary theory can make a prediction about what we should expect to find in the fossil record, including where exactly in the strata, and it was actually found where it was predicted.
> 
> Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda how they predicted something went extinct several hundred million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false comparison by master of faulty reasoning !
> the Tiktaalik was a fresh water speices  the cealocanth is obviously not !
> once again Ywc is comparing  apples and screwdrivers and failing.
Click to expand...


Uh oh.

<i>Tiktaalik</i> Blown "Out of the Water" by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints - Evolution News & Views


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's no answer just creationist propaganda. as always you're spewing bullshit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when you keep digging yourself a hole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another one of your favorite delusions...
Click to expand...


You are just to ignorant to admit you were wrong.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No noah's ark would not be considered conjecture daws,it would be a belief from faith.
> 
> So you don't undersatnd what conjecture is.
> 
> 
> 
> you wish I did not. there is not one thing you have presented that is not conjecture : a : interpretation of omens b : supposition
> 2a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork .
> 
> 
> please present your version of conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of the ark so that would be a belief of faith. There is however evidence of design in nature and that is evidence based on conjecture but evidence of a creator.
Click to expand...

it good thing I can read gibberish.
another false claim, there is no evidence of a designer in nature ,just as there is no evidence of design
they are both conjecture.
so once again you're replacing facts with delusions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you wish I did not. there is not one thing you have presented that is not conjecture : a : interpretation of omens b : supposition
> 2a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork .
> 
> 
> please present your version of conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of the ark so that would be a belief of faith. There is however evidence of design in nature and that is evidence based on conjecture but evidence of a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it good thing I can read gibberish.
> another false claim, there is no evidence of a designer in nature ,just as there is no evidence of design
> they are both conjecture.
> so once again you're replacing facts with delusions.
Click to expand...


Your word means a lot to me, if you say so


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws if a soul exists your side have some explaining to do
> 
> 
> 
> only an ignorant asshole would say that.
> A soul is just another name for sentience.
> as much as you wish a soul means proof of god there is no quanitative or observed action or evidence linking the two..
> belife is not evidence.
> your so wrong It's funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be careful who you call ignorant you babbling fool.
Click to expand...

why , what are you going to have a tantrum?
your answer proves me right!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response was honest and straight to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> you have no point.
> you are trying and failing to endow chemical  reaction with a quality it does no process.
> enzymes do not have the kind of purpose you wish they did.
> by that I mean,  you believe but cannot prove that a designer programmed them for that purpose.
> you've not shown any credible evidence that that process did not happen naturally.
> all you shown is  totally subjective denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Enzymes I was mostly referring to help to prevent mutations. The Enzymes just conveniently found their way into the cell and our bodies.
> 
> Why are enzymes important?
Click to expand...

again not an answer  what they do or how they got there is no proof of a designer no matter how many was you attempt to spin it.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funnier still is your unsupported claim. But then again, as a Christian, you have self-proclaimed "higher" morals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An assertion which you still cannot provide any basis for. Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your specious claim which is baseless.
Click to expand...


?????? What does that even mean in context? You're drunk!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm let me kill two birds with one stone it is fun exposing your ignorance daws and hallow hollie that thanked you for your ignorant post.
> 
> From the site that you people seem to quote alot.
> 
> Claim CB901:
> No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
> Source:
> 
> Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
> Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.
> 
> Response:
> 1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.
> 
> 
> 2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).
> 
> 
> 3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.
> 
> 
> 4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).
> 
> 
> 5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.
> 
> CB901: No Macroevolution
> 
> Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions.
> 
> Daws I thought you said their was no difference between macro and micro evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> I did and I'm right.
> 
> you as always are wrong: "Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions."YWC
> 
> YOUR ANSWER IS ALL THE PROOF I NEED .
> EVERY THING YOU  SAY IN THE LAST SENTENCE IS CONJECTURE AND TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE, BIAS AND BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE.
> SO WHO'S THE IGNORANT ONE
> YOU REEK OF DESPERATION...
> 
> the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one  the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution.[7] However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor  macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants.[8]
> 
> Changes in the genes regulating development have also been proposed as being important in producing speciation through large and relatively sudden changes in animals' morphology.[9][10]
> 
> Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws the desperation is not mine  wrong,macroevolution are large changes above the species level and micro is change within a family or group below the species level got it ?
Click to expand...

put your man pants on and admit you're wrong---got it!


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok so i will kill three birds with one post.
> 
> 
> 
> just as expected false bravado and a false claim..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> daws this is not a fair debate because i know both sides of the argument better then you. You are wasting your time.
> 
> You do make it entertaining though.
Click to expand...

suuuuure you do!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda how they predicted something went extinct several hundred million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?
> 
> 
> 
> false comparison by master of faulty reasoning !
> the Tiktaalik was a fresh water speices  the cealocanth is obviously not !
> once again Ywc is comparing  apples and screwdrivers and failing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh.
> 
> <i>Tiktaalik</i> Blown "Out of the Water" by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints - Evolution News & Views
Click to expand...

INVALID SOURCES.....CREATIONIST DELUSION NOT SCIENCE 

IT HAS THE ADDED BONUS OF NOT ANSWERING THE FRESH WATER QUESTION.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your free to find whatever reasoning you want as to why I believe you're an idiot. Although it's not as complicated as you make it sound. And anger nor resentment has anything to do with it. Sorry.
> 
> There are scientific theories regarding the soul but you choose to ignore them. Which is quite odd since you except the theory of evolution. But que sera.
> 
> I've come to realize one thing while scanning your rant. You're really not as intelligent as you pretend. Of course that's just my opinion. Not subject to debate.
> 
> I pity people like. In a sadistic way I wish I could be there the moment you pass from this world. Just to see the look on your face the moment you realize that there is indeed a God and He is sending you to eternal damnation.  I know it's not very Christian of me to wish that. But... oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to pity me.
> 
> I do, however, feel sorry for you. Your need to use your gawds to threaten people relegates you to being just another angry Christian who is consumed by hate. It's pretty clear that your wish for "him" to send me to eternal damnation is more a reflection of your own self-hate, insecurity and inability to resolve your seething hatred for those who reject your appeals to fear and ignorance. You seem to approach your gawds as they are some type of cosmic arcade fortune telling machine. Do you think that your gawds will hear and oblige your calls to condemn the non-believers? Are you the gawds mafioso enforcers?
> 
> Surprisingly, I find it to be very Christian of you to wish eternal damnation on me. Your attitudes are largely in concert with historical christianity and its history of violence and intolerance toward non-Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I believe there is. And I do.
> 
> I haven't threatened anyone. If you feel threatened by anything I've written .... well...that's your cross to bear.
> 
> My wish isn't for Him to send you anywhere. My wish is to be present when he does. Reading comprehension seems difficult for you.
> 
> Furthermore it isn't my call to condemn non-believers to hell, God made that call.
> 
> And again, I didn't wish eternal damnation on you and whether you believe it or not... I am not angry.
Click to expand...

Oh lovely, the angry Christian fundie is in denial.

I find it curious that when dealing with fundie Christians, theres always an undercurrent of hate and anger, so much of it self-inflicted / directed and it turns outward.
Thats why its not surprising when fundies hope to direct the wrath of their angry gawds onto those who the fundies feel are deserving of their hate.

As to your wish for your angry gawd to condemn me to hell, The only "condemning aspect" of my life is the _Christian_ based idea that as an imperfect being I deserve Hell by default. I'm fairly honest, I work hard, I love my friends and family, etc.-- in short, I'm your average person who lives a quiet life dealing with life's challenges. I cannot imagine rating eternal torment because I don't acquiesce to the Christian defined salvation program. I ask myself:

"Which is more likely: That there's really this angry god out there who would actually behave that way, or it's really in the religions interest to establish a social dynamic where the threat of eternal torment is the outcome for not joining in that religion and btw supporting it financially. What's more likely, man needs a savior for being human, or the Church, an entity of sweeping power for more than a thousand years, needs to convince me I need them and only them?"

I think the answer is really obvious and simple. If such a thing is the reality (and of course there's no evidence for such) then I'll have to "account for my actions". But my worst "crime" in this realm is being imperfect and not believing that which I find is not supported. I can do nothing about such an angry, capricious gawd who would condemn me for such a trivial issue.

What a depressing, hopeless, and bleak existence faced by religious zealots. No wonder you folks are so angry and hateful. And there's only a marginal difference between condemning most people who ever existed to an eternity of despair versus _everyone_ being condemned to an eternity of nothingness. It's hopeless because if such a god exists, there is no sense in morality, no true justice, and basically we are nothing but minions created to worship an infinite Ego or be consigned to everlasting torment. 

If one takes the time to briefly read their christian history, one will quickly realize that the gawds are a convenience, usually for politically motivated reasons. In ancient times to the present, it is quite simple to whip up a populace into agreeing with a specific idea if you can convince that populace that there is an unseen being that is resolutely on their side. This is an extension of our tribal instincts, wherein we place the mantle of superiority upon a person or persons, providing they can deliver the things we have convinced ourselves we want. No mere mortal can come close to instilling a sense of loyalty and duty that a gawd can, especially as over the millenia the gawd's powers have been enhanced and expanded. 





> Historical intolerance? You have Christians confused with muslims. I'll concede that during the crusades Christians did kick some butt. But it was caused in the 1st crusade by 3000 Christians being massacred. And the crusades ended around 750 years ago.
> 
> Can you cite any recent events that shows Christian intolerance, let's say on the scale of muslim intolerance?



Why limit your review of historical christian intolerance to recent events only?  Christianity's history is far more intolerant and violent than "militant" Islam today.

Forced conversion and murder of non-Christians was all too common for millenia.
Christian Europe came up with the concept of their "racial" superiority.

There are anti-Jewish elements present in Christianity, which have been promoted by various Christian theologians, even major Church and Reformationist leaders, to their Christian parishioners for millenia. This provided both the framework and acceptance of Christian antisemitism which reached its culmination in the Holocaust.

Have you hoped to avoid addressing christian intolerance and hatreds that have progressed from the crusades through the Inquisition to WW2? I view as inappropriate and even dangerous, the  shirking of the need for Christian self-assessment of their traditional, and potential theological-based, anti-Jewish beliefs that permitted the horrendous acts, or apathy to, the Holocaust.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when you keep digging yourself a hole.
> 
> 
> 
> another one of your favorite delusions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just to ignorant to admit you were wrong.
Click to expand...

ANOTHER FALSE  ASSUMPTION!
I unlike yourself, if I were wrong due to ignorance or being proved wrong by actually evidence not religious dogma or pseudoscience, I would gladly admit it. 
you on the other hand never could or would.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of the ark so that would be a belief of faith. There is however evidence of design in nature and that is evidence based on conjecture but evidence of a creator.
> 
> 
> 
> it good thing I can read gibberish.
> another false claim, there is no evidence of a designer in nature ,just as there is no evidence of design
> they are both conjecture.
> so once again you're replacing facts with delusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your word means a lot to me, if you say so
Click to expand...

another failed attempt at sarcasm..


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> An assertion which you still cannot provide any basis for. Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your specious claim which is baseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?????? What does that even mean in context? You're drunk!
Click to expand...

no you must be ,or do you always have this much trouble with multisyllabic words?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My scientific arguments are not faith based they are fact based.
> 
> 
> 
> you just keep telling yourself that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't need to or you would have shown me otherwise with all your knowledge of science.
Click to expand...


The posters in this thread have shown your specious claims to supermagical gawds to be a hoax. 

The issue you have yet to confront is that your "science" is cut and pasted from Harun Yahya and similar charlatans and snake oil salesmen. There's a reason why christian creationists have been humiliated in the courts and rebuked by the relevant science community: religion is not science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand what conjecture is daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> yes I do ...you on the other hand believe that  noah's ark is fact....do I need to say more.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No noah's ark would not be considered conjecture daws,it would be a belief from faith.
> 
> So you don't undersatnd what conjecture is.
Click to expand...


Actually, the Ark nonsense is both conjecture _and_ nonsense. Like so many biblical tales and fables, legend building has allowed stories told, re-told and re-told again and again to be built and modified as the tellers passed on the tale.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong the earth was described as a circle in the bible. That is only theory that dinosaurs went extinct from a giant meteor. That is not evolution a child forming in the womb and becoming an intelligent thinking adult. That is a natural process that was put into motion and that person runs it's course. If anything it would be devolution because the person reaches a certain point then they eventually wear out and die.
> 
> 
> 
> that's true but a circle is not a sphere so the biblical description is inaccurate.
> the rest of your post is creationist bullshit .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know what was meant with all the language barriers going from the Hebrew language of 3,500 years ago to modern day english ?
Click to expand...


Did you realize that you just condemned every one of your arguments for biblical inerrancy (and basically everything else in the bible), to the trash can?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response was honest and straight to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> you have no point.
> you are trying and failing to endow chemical  reaction with a quality it does no process.
> enzymes do not have the kind of purpose you wish they did.
> by that I mean,  you believe but cannot prove that a designer programmed them for that purpose.
> you've not shown any credible evidence that that process did not happen naturally.
> all you shown is  totally subjective denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Enzymes I was mostly referring to help to prevent mutations. The Enzymes just conveniently found their way into the cell and our bodies.
> 
> Why are enzymes important?
Click to expand...

Sheesh, what a simpleton.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda how they predicted something went extinct several hundred million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?
> 
> 
> 
> false comparison by master of faulty reasoning !
> the Tiktaalik was a fresh water speices  the cealocanth is obviously not !
> once again Ywc is comparing  apples and screwdrivers and failing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh.
> 
> <i>Tiktaalik</i> Blown "Out of the Water" by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints - Evolution News & Views
Click to expand...


Uh oh is right. As usual, the fundies are cutting and pasting from fundie websites where the authors are social misfits, non-scientists and just plain christian creationist hacks.

What I find laughable is that the article in the Christian creationist tabloid you cut and pasted from was authored by Casey Luskin.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for luskin

Casey Luskin, a.k.a. the Baghdad Bob of creationism

Casey Luskin is a lawyer (and not a scientist, although he seems to be a little confused about what such credentials do or don't mean) and one of the primary spokespeople for the Discovery Institute. Mr. Luskin obtained a Bachelor of Science and a Masters Degree in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, and has as a lawyer published Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover, and Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools (published in the Journal of Church and State). His work illustrates well the actual goal of the Discovery Institute  to get religion, in the form of intelligent design creationism, into public school curricula (not to do any actual scientific research).

Luskin is by far most notorious for his ability to distort scientific evidence to suggest conclusions completely opposite to what the evidence suggests (and curiously always to fit his preconceived notions of what it ought to show), such as here. An even better example of the distortions and quote mining (to put it mildly) he usually reverts to is perhaps this one (or this one). And if you are feeling particularly sadistic, you can watch Luskin getting completely eviscerated here.

The problem with Luskin and his ilk is that they're ignorant of a topic about which they believe they're experts (see The Dunning-Kruger Effect). Luskin appears to believe hes an expert with absolute confidence and pride, but to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the fields in question his failings are miserably obvious (see also this). In fact, his misunderstandings of science  and his lack of awareness of his own lack of understanding  often reach epic proportions.

Luskin is also interestingly paranoid, going so far as to claim that published articles on evolution contain veiled threats against the creationists and that Nature, for instance, has launched a propaganda war on creationism. Of course, science itself is a threat to creationism; what Luskin fails to grasp is the fact that science is concerned with evidence, not argument and polemics. By failing to see the difference (and furthermore failing to distinguish criticism from personal attacks) he comes to equate scientific evidence against his dogmatic beliefs with personal attacks from the scientists who have discovered the evidence (for more on Luskins lack of understanding of how science works, see this).

A good assignment in an introductory critical thinking class is to identify some of the mistakes Luskin makes here (I have used it myself).

Diagnosis: Staggeringly cranky illustration of where Dunning-Kruger, confirmation bias and complete lack of understanding of science can lead you. He is very productive and vociferous, and must be considered rather dangerous to a rationality-based, modern civilization.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What fact am I denying daws ? daws according to you theory macroevolution  happens through beneficial mutations,daws mutations are errors. What you said last was just jibberish. Daws do you understand what you're saying because all it shows you are ignorant of the theory you defend.
> 
> 
> 
> all of them! or do I need to make a list?
> there is no macro evolution.
> There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm let me kill two birds with one stone it is fun exposing your ignorance daws and hallow hollie that thanked you for your ignorant post.
> 
> From the site that you people seem to quote alot.
> 
> Claim CB901:
> No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
> Source:
> 
> Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
> Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.
> 
> Response:
> 1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.
> 
> 
> 2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).
> 
> 
> 3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.
> 
> 
> 4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).
> 
> 
> 5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.
> 
> CB901: No Macroevolution
> 
> Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions.
> 
> Daws I thought you said their was no difference between macro and micro evolution ?
Click to expand...


I think its hilarious when the fundies get so flustered at the arguments failing before them that they're reduced to name-calling.

Maybe funnier still is the quote-mining from Henry Morris. 

Henry M. Morris - RationalWiki

Morris founded such pseudoscientific organizations as the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research. These institutions suffered major infighting as their various founders duked it out over disputes in theology, rather than just agree to disagree as most proper scientists would have done.

He was also one of the first to attempt modifications to the philosophy of science so as to characterize science as a complete world-view, or religion, which is of course a colossal straw man (see our article on secular religions).

Racism

Morris was a believer in the old racist myth of the Curse of Ham, holding that those people who were not Semitic or "Japhetic" (white European) were Hamitic, and "possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites."[3]


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did and I'm right.
> 
> you as always are wrong: "Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions."YWC
> 
> YOUR ANSWER IS ALL THE PROOF I NEED .
> EVERY THING YOU  SAY IN THE LAST SENTENCE IS CONJECTURE AND TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE, BIAS AND BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE.
> SO WHO'S THE IGNORANT ONE
> YOU REEK OF DESPERATION...
> 
> the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one  the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution.[7] However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor  macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants.[8]
> 
> Changes in the genes regulating development have also been proposed as being important in producing speciation through large and relatively sudden changes in animals' morphology.[9][10]
> 
> Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws the desperation is not mine  wrong,macroevolution are large changes above the species level and micro is change within a family or group below the species level got it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> put your man pants on and admit you're wrong---got it!
Click to expand...


For the fundie christians who aren't keeping up to speed with the charlatans at the christian creationist ministries:

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is unimportant that we haven't observed it directly because we have evidence that it happened, with many, many transitional fossils that were found, and a few that were predicted as a result of evolutionary theory, and found after they were predicted to exist. For example, tiktaalik perfectly demonstrates how evolutionary theory can make a prediction about what we should expect to find in the fossil record, including where exactly in the strata, and it was actually found where it was predicted.
> 
> Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda how they predicted something went extinct several hundred million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?
Click to expand...


sorry? was this supposed to be a point of somekind?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim not to be angry but you do "read" angry. Also, you may need to review the link regarding a recognition of the "soul."  Any claim to souls being extant would require corroboration and I see none.
> 
> You seem to be angry that anyone would disagree with your religious belief which includes appeals to such mystical and supernatural concepts as "souls". Yet, this soul thing seems entirely a function of chemical reactions in the brain. It wasn't all that long ago when Christians would burn people at the stake for being possessed by demons or the devil. With the advent of psychiatry and drugs, we learned that the messy practice of burning at the stake was unnecessary. Treatment for possession by demons and devils has gotten more sophisticated and more effective. That's not intended dissuade you from believing in demons and devils, btw.
> 
> Strange, though, with all the claims to gawds, demons, possession by devils and claims to souls, we're still left with not a single bit of evidence for any of the preceding. That is, of course, unless you can enlighten us as to thus "soul" thing you claim exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read angry? What does that even mean?
> 
> You need to read the link you provided. It's there plain as day it acknowldeged a human soul.
> 
> You haven't disagreed with any of the questions. You answered it in your own strange way. The question about the human soul you said you didn't believe humans had a soul. It's your opinion that it's all in the mind.
> 
> I don't know about all that burning at the stake, possessions and the like. I asked a question, you answered it. Enough said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you happen to notice that the drug ketamine can reproduce the NDE experience that is connected with this 'soul", thing?
Click to expand...


This follows logically, because how would a soul even work if it was disconnected from the brain. Maybe that's what they mean by "lost souls".


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem have lost track of your own argument. When you ask questions of " evolutionist idiots", it tends to suggest a certain anger and resentment.
> 
> If you read the article, you will notice that you're referring to an acknowledgement not made by the author regarding thus "soul", thing. Did you happen to notice that the drug ketamine can reproduce the NDE experience that is connected with this 'soul", thing?
> 
> Lastly, I think you should have noticed that I actually do disagree with your questions alluding to this "soul' you believe exists but cannot demonstrate in any meaningful way.
> 
> It would be helpful if you could link to any major teaching university hospital or research institute that could provide some data on the 'soul".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.
> 
> I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO
> 
> I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.
> 
> I've always been skeptical of skeptics.
> 
> Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today
> 
> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says Yes...New scientific theory recognizes lifes spiritual dimension
> 
> Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have noticed that Christians, as a result of their self-assigned higher moral status will relegate infidels to idiot status. Unfortunately, the Christian anger and resentment is largely the result of an inability to defend their claims to gawds.
> 
> As I was aware, there are no studies performed by any of the leading university hospitals leading to a conclusion of the "soul". Once again, we're left with Christians making claims to the existence of metaphysical, mystical 'souls", gawds, demons, spirits, etc.
> 
> As far as admitting to the existence of some higher power, I can only advise that the assignment of whatever higher power you're alluding to is, with virtual exclusivity, a function of ones geographic place of birth.
> 
> We, (those not addled by the compulsive effects of the majority religion or family religion of our upbringing), are free to make comparative judgements about religion. Quite clearly, they all suffer from the same fatal flaw: it's all hearsay evidence. The alleged "relative strength" of various claimants as to what any of the human inventions of gawds really want is merely a matter of choosing to accept the stories (tales and fables) of some claimants in deference to others. It's remarkable that you will bicker about - and even defend - such hearsay claims of alleged communications from a supernatural entity when we know that the book which recites these claims suffers from so many obvious flaws of unknown authorship and dubious heritage.
> 
> Quite clearly, It's all legend building. But here is where you need to think it through - we can see clearly defined patterns of playing upon fears and emotions within the text of the bibles. When you spend just a bit of energy to connect the dots surrounding the writings of the men who authored the various bibles, connecting those dots will show patterns that suddenly break to form oblique angles.
> 
> Kings, rulers, pharaohs and "scholars" etc made use of the idea of instilling fear by claiming for themselves a special ability to receive messages or to translate the true meaning from a divine supernatural ruler, even though the best evidence for their existence was simply the fact that there were some things we didn't understand. Societies grew, codified rituals, passed on these ideas from parent to child with severe warnings for not believing - such as eternal burning and torment and unrealistic 'carrots' for believing e.g an eternity of sensual gratification and so giant structures and substructures grew which evolved (yes, evolved) into the religions we see today.
> 
> Monotheism is currently in vogue for religions. Multi-god religions have been replaced by one-stop-shopping gswds of convenience.
> 
> Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, and it will eventually go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.
> 
> You can always depend on religion that way. Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics.
Click to expand...


Hawly, I always get through about the first few sentences of your responses and then I can't make heads or tales where a real thought starts or ends, if there is even a real thought present. Here is your post, with all the repetitive nonsense you say over and over in every post, your bigotry, atheist proselytizing, and putdowns removed: 

As I was aware, there are no studies performed by any of the leading university hospitals leading to a conclusion of the "soul". [Need Citation] Once again, we're left with Christians making claims to the existence of ...'souls"... 

We are free to make comparative judgements about religion.  

[Text removed because it has nothing to do with the topic: souls]

No wonder this thread is over 800 pages!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have noticed that Christians, as a result of their self-assigned higher moral status will relegate infidels to idiot status. Unfortunately, the Christian anger and resentment is largely the result of an inability to defend their claims to gawds.
> 
> As I was aware, there are no studies performed by any of the leading university hospitals leading to a conclusion of the "soul". Once again, we're left with Christians making claims to the existence of metaphysical, mystical 'souls", gawds, demons, spirits, etc.
> 
> As far as admitting to the existence of some higher power, I can only advise that the assignment of whatever higher power you're alluding to is, with virtual exclusivity, a function of ones geographic place of birth.
> 
> We, (those not addled by the compulsive effects of the majority religion or family religion of our upbringing), are free to make comparative judgements about religion. Quite clearly, they all suffer from the same fatal flaw: it's all hearsay evidence. The alleged "relative strength" of various claimants as to what any of the human inventions of gawds really want is merely a matter of choosing to accept the stories (tales and fables) of some claimants in deference to others. It's remarkable that you will bicker about - and even defend - such hearsay claims of alleged communications from a supernatural entity when we know that the book which recites these claims suffers from so many obvious flaws of unknown authorship and dubious heritage.
> 
> Quite clearly, It's all legend building. But here is where you need to think it through - we can see clearly defined patterns of playing upon fears and emotions within the text of the bibles. When you spend just a bit of energy to connect the dots surrounding the writings of the men who authored the various bibles, connecting those dots will show patterns that suddenly break to form oblique angles.
> 
> Kings, rulers, pharaohs and "scholars" etc made use of the idea of instilling fear by claiming for themselves a special ability to receive messages or to translate the true meaning from a divine supernatural ruler, even though the best evidence for their existence was simply the fact that there were some things we didn't understand. Societies grew, codified rituals, passed on these ideas from parent to child with severe warnings for not believing - such as eternal burning and torment and unrealistic 'carrots' for believing e.g an eternity of sensual gratification and so giant structures and substructures grew which evolved (yes, evolved) into the religions we see today.
> 
> Monotheism is currently in vogue for religions. Multi-god religions have been replaced by one-stop-shopping gswds of convenience.
> 
> Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, and it will eventually go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.
> 
> You can always depend on religion that way. Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your free to find whatever reasoning you want as to why I believe you're an idiot. Although it's not as complicated as you make it sound. And anger nor resentment has anything to do with it. Sorry.
> 
> There are scientific theories regarding the soul but you choose to ignore them. Which is quite odd since you except the theory of evolution. But que sera.
> 
> I've come to realize one thing while scanning your rant. You're really not as intelligent as you pretend. Of course that's just my opinion. Not subject to debate.
> 
> *I pity people like.* In a sadistic way I wish I could be there the moment you pass from this world. Just to see the look on your face the moment you realize that there is indeed a God and He is sending you to eternal damnation.  I know it's not very Christian of me to wish that. But... oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no reason to pity me.
> 
> *I* do, however,* feel sorry for you.* ...
Click to expand...

 Typical parroting. Hawly want a cracker?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> HAD NO ANSWER TO WHAT?
> The rest is typical detective douche bag nonsense!
> 
> 
> especialy this: "Basically, you aren't fooling anyone."- ur aka detective douche bag .
> brilliant statement of the obvious...I have never attempted to fool anyone, so whatever you're trying and failing to insinuate is you committing character  suicide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed the post about how you were manipulated to prove a point. The power of suggestion obviously works on you because I used the word "douche bag" one time and you have repeated it since then over and over. Why not try to dispense with the nonsense and have an adult conversation about science and religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false statement, laughable too, you've manipulated nobody.
> as always you've falsely assumed  that you are somehow brighter than all other posters.
> your failed attempts at manipulation are obvious to everyone but you.
> as to your usage of the phrase "douche bag"  It was I, who manipulated you.
> all it took was a few remarks about your questionable police service and you went bat shit.
> just as I knew you would .
> 
> I say bat shit because for someone(you) who adamantly denies using profanity or pejoratives ,that's a fairly nasty one.
> I did not start using the phrase because of you imaginary mastery of the power of suggestion, it did inspire me to give you a new name , let's face it  "Ultimate Reality" is extremely pompous and melodramatic name.
> detective douche bag is far closer to your INTERNET personality then UR.
> it's  perfect from a comedic POV.
> to finish all of your resent post concerning your observations and moral compass bullshit are in fact failed attempts to simultaneously  take credit and absolve yourself of taking responsibly for your own actions.
Click to expand...


From Wiki:

*Douchebag may refer to:

    A device used to administer a douche
    A pejorative term for an arrogant or obnoxious person*

This is profanity? I don't think so. 

You, Hawly and NP took the bait and ran like bad. There is no sense in denying it for your faux pas is evident to all.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> HAD NO ANSWER TO WHAT?
> The rest is typical detective douche bag nonsense!
> 
> 
> especialy this: "Basically, you aren't fooling anyone."- ur aka detective douche bag .
> brilliant statement of the obvious...I have never attempted to fool anyone, so whatever you're trying and failing to insinuate is you committing character  suicide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed the post about how you were manipulated to prove a point. The power of suggestion obviously works on you because I used the word "douche bag" one time and you have repeated it since then over and over. Why not try to dispense with the nonsense and have an adult conversation about science and religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false statement, laughable too, you've manipulated nobody.
> as always you've falsely assumed  that you are somehow brighter than all other posters.
> your failed attempts at manipulation are obvious to everyone but you.
> as to your usage of the phrase "douche bag"  It was I, who manipulated you.
> all it took was a few remarks about your questionable police service and you went bat shit.
> just as I knew you would .
> 
> I say bat shit because for someone(you) who adamantly denies using profanity or pejoratives ,that's a fairly nasty one.
> I did not start using the phrase because of you imaginary mastery of the power of suggestion, it did inspire me to give you a new name , let's face it  "Ultimate Reality" is extremely pompous and melodramatic name.
> detective douche bag is far closer to your INTERNET personality then UR.
> it's  perfect from a comedic POV.
> to finish all of your resent post concerning your observations and moral compass bullshit are in fact failed attempts to simultaneously  take credit and absolve yourself of taking responsibly for your own actions.
Click to expand...


By the way, Daws, what is truth?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shhhh  Hollie doesn't know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you lied? ...how christian of you!
Click to expand...


You are not qualified to determine what is Christian and what isn't.


----------



## UltimateReality

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your free to find whatever reasoning you want as to why I believe you're an idiot. Although it's not as complicated as you make it sound. And anger nor resentment has anything to do with it. Sorry.
> 
> There are scientific theories regarding the soul but you choose to ignore them. Which is quite odd since you except the theory of evolution. But que sera.
> 
> I've come to realize one thing while scanning your rant. You're really not as intelligent as you pretend. Of course that's just my opinion. Not subject to debate.
> 
> I pity people like. In a sadistic way I wish I could be there the moment you pass from this world. Just to see the look on your face the moment you realize that there is indeed a God and He is sending you to eternal damnation.  I know it's not very Christian of me to wish that. But... oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to pity me.
> 
> I do, however, feel sorry for you. Your need to use your gawds to threaten people relegates you to being just another angry Christian who is consumed by hate. It's pretty clear that your wish for "him" to send me to eternal damnation is more a reflection of your own self-hate, insecurity and inability to resolve your seething hatred for those who reject your appeals to fear and ignorance. You seem to approach your gawds as they are some type of cosmic arcade fortune telling machine. Do you think that your gawds will hear and oblige your calls to condemn the non-believers? Are you the gawds mafioso enforcers?
> 
> Surprisingly, I find it to be very Christian of you to wish eternal damnation on me. Your attitudes are largely in concert with historical christianity and its history of violence and intolerance toward non-Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I believe there is. And I do.
> 
> I haven't threatened anyone. If you feel threatened by anything I've written .... well...that's your cross to bear.
> 
> My wish isn't for Him to send you anywhere. My wish is to be present when he does. Reading comprehension seems difficult for you.
> 
> Furthermore it isn't my call to condemn non-believers to hell, God made that call.
> 
> And again, I didn't wish eternal damnation on you and whether you believe it or not... I am not angry.
> 
> Historical intolerance? You have Christians confused with muslims. I'll concede that during the crusades Christians did kick some butt. But it was caused in the 1st crusade by 3000 Christians being massacred. And the crusades ended around 750 years ago.
> 
> Can you cite any recent events that shows Christian intolerance, let's say on the scale of muslim intolerance?
Click to expand...


Maybe Hawly could start with the millions of people who were slaughtered by atheist regimes in the 20th century.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie it is time for your side to put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have put up, for the last 150 years. Your side, however, has nothing but "faith." How cute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> another empty challenge from Ywc!
> Ywc, what will you do if Hollie doesn't ?
> claim a false win?
Click to expand...


He/She hasn't in over 800 pages so I don't know why there would be a different expectation now.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> all of them! or do I need to make a list?
> there is no macro evolution.
> There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is unimportant that we haven't observed it directly because we have *evidence that it happened*, ...
Click to expand...


This is very ignorant statement. We have evidence the earth exists. How it happened, not that it happened, is the question.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to pity me.
> 
> I do, however, feel sorry for you. Your need to use your gawds to threaten people relegates you to being just another angry Christian who is consumed by hate. It's pretty clear that your wish for "him" to send me to eternal damnation is more a reflection of your own self-hate, insecurity and inability to resolve your seething hatred for those who reject your appeals to fear and ignorance. You seem to approach your gawds as they are some type of cosmic arcade fortune telling machine. Do you think that your gawds will hear and oblige your calls to condemn the non-believers? Are you the gawds mafioso enforcers?
> 
> Surprisingly, I find it to be very Christian of you to wish eternal damnation on me. Your attitudes are largely in concert with historical christianity and its history of violence and intolerance toward non-Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I believe there is. And I do.
> 
> I haven't threatened anyone. If you feel threatened by anything I've written .... well...that's your cross to bear.
> 
> My wish isn't for Him to send you anywhere. My wish is to be present when he does. Reading comprehension seems difficult for you.
> 
> Furthermore it isn't my call to condemn non-believers to hell, God made that call.
> 
> And again, I didn't wish eternal damnation on you and whether you believe it or not... I am not angry.
> 
> Historical intolerance? You have Christians confused with muslims. I'll concede that during the crusades Christians did kick some butt. But it was caused in the 1st crusade by 3000 Christians being massacred. And the crusades ended around 750 years ago.
> 
> Can you cite any recent events that shows Christian intolerance, let's say on the scale of muslim intolerance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how bout the concentration camps in ww2.
> if your answer is: the nazis were atheists you'll be wrong
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yes, the Nazi's were atheist. Please don't start with Hawly's revisionist BS. Go find a real, tangible hard cover history book and take a read. Revisionist atheist websites are not a valid source.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just keep telling yourself that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need to or you would have shown me otherwise with all your knowledge of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not at all, you've already proven that *all *your arguments are based on faith.
> any references to science you've made are not science but an erroneous imitation of it .
> *ken hamm *and his buddies are a fine example.
Click to expand...


Copying Hawly's tactics won't conceal your inability to respond with a valid argument. Nice try though.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is unimportant that we haven't observed it directly because we have *evidence that it happened*, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is very ignorant statement. We have evidence the earth exists. How it happened, not that it happened, is the question.
Click to expand...


I think you just admitted that macro-evolution occurred. Was this intentional or do you wish to recant?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to pity me.
> 
> I do, however, feel sorry for you. Your need to use your gawds to threaten people relegates you to being just another angry Christian who is consumed by hate. It's pretty clear that your wish for "him" to send me to eternal damnation is more a reflection of your own self-hate, insecurity and inability to resolve your seething hatred for those who reject your appeals to fear and ignorance. You seem to approach your gawds as they are some type of cosmic arcade fortune telling machine. Do you think that your gawds will hear and oblige your calls to condemn the non-believers? Are you the gawds mafioso enforcers?
> 
> Surprisingly, I find it to be very Christian of you to wish eternal damnation on me. Your attitudes are largely in concert with historical christianity and its history of violence and intolerance toward non-Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I believe there is. And I do.
> 
> I haven't threatened anyone. If you feel threatened by anything I've written .... well...that's your cross to bear.
> 
> My wish isn't for Him to send you anywhere. My wish is to be present when he does. Reading comprehension seems difficult for you.
> 
> Furthermore it isn't my call to condemn non-believers to hell, God made that call.
> 
> And again, I didn't wish eternal damnation on you and whether you believe it or not... I am not angry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....*I'm fairly honest,*
Click to expand...





Hollie said:


> *I work hard*....


    Yeah, because it's hard work faking a disability to get some gov'ment assistance.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Have you hoped to avoid addressing christian intolerance and hatreds that have progressed from the crusades through the Inquisition to WW2? I view as inappropriate and even dangerous, the  shirking of the need for Christian self-assessment of their traditional, and potential theological-based, anti-Jewish beliefs that permitted the horrendous acts, or apathy to, the Holocaust.



Hmm, it was our Christian nation that liberated the concentration camps. We also had Christian men like this standing up to the Nazi's. Your Revisionists lies will not be tolerated here.

_Dietrich Bonhoeffer (German: [&#712;di&#720;t&#641;&#618;ç &#712;bo&#720;nhf&#592;]; 4 February 1906  9 April 1945) was a German Lutheran pastor, theologian, dissident anti-Nazi, and founding member of the Confessing Church. His writings on Christianity's role in the secular world, in which he called for a "religionless Christianity", have become widely influential, and many have labelled his book The Cost of Discipleship a modern classic.[1] Apart from his theological writings, Bonhoeffer became known for his staunch resistance to the Nazi dictatorship. He strongly opposed Hitler's euthanasia program and genocidal persecution of the Jews.[2] He was also involved in plans by members of the Abwehr (the German Military Intelligence Office) to assassinate Adolf Hitler. He was arrested in April 1943 by the Gestapo and executed by hanging in April 1945 while imprisoned at a Nazi concentration camp, just 23 days before the German surrender.

_

Dietrich Bonhoeffer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## UltimateReality

Surprising truth from the revisionist Wikipedia!!

_*Nazi attitudes towards Christianity*

Many Nazis promoted positive Christianity, a militant, non-denominational form of Christianity which viewed Christ as an active fighter and anti-semite who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day.[38] Even in the later years of the Third Reich, many Protestant and Catholic clergy within Germany persisted in believing that Nazism was in its essence in accordance with Christian precepts.[39]

The Nazi leadership made use of both Christian symbolism, i*ndigenous Germanic pagan imagery*, and *ancient Roman symbolism in their propaganda*. However, the use of pagan symbolism worried some Protestants.[40] Many Nazi leaders, including *Adolf Hitler,[41] subscribed either to a mixture of pseudoscientific theories, particularly Social Darwinism,*[42] or to mysticism and occultism, which was especially strong in the SS.[citation needed] Central to both groupings was the belief in Germanic (white Northern-European) racial superiority. The existence of a Ministry of Church Affairs, instituted in 1935 and headed by Hanns Kerrl, was hardly recognized by ideologists such as Alfred Rosenberg or by other political decision-makers.[citation needed]

In a confidential message to the Gauleiter on June 9, 1941, Martin Bormann, had declared that "*National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.*"[43] He also* declared that the Churches influence in the leadership of the people "must absolutely and finally be broken."* Bormann believed Nazism was based on a "scientific" world-view, and was completely incompatible with Christianity.[43] Bormann stated: [UR: Hawly would have been a good little Nazi, especially if she could gas Christians and Jews together]

    When we National Socialists speak of belief in God, we do not mean, *like the naive Christians and their spiritual exploiters, a man-like being sitting around somewhere in the universe.* The force governed by natural law by which all these countless planets move in the universe, we call omnipotence or God. The assertion that this universal force can trouble itself about the destiny of each individual being, every smallest earthly bacillus, can be influenced by so-called prayers or other surprising things, depends upon a requisite dose of naivety or else upon shameless professional self-interest.[44]_ 

*Hmm, sounds alarmingly like Hawly!!!*


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is unimportant that we haven't observed it directly because we have *evidence that it happened*, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is very ignorant statement. We have evidence the earth exists. How it happened, not that it happened, is the question.
Click to expand...


It's funny how you isolated this statement, when the next few lines were a demonstration of this very fact. Either you are too stubborn to accept the evidence, or you are straight up dishonest.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Surprising truth from the revisionist Wikipedia!!
> 
> _*Nazi attitudes towards Christianity*
> 
> Many Nazis promoted positive Christianity, a militant, non-denominational form of Christianity which viewed Christ as an active fighter and anti-semite who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day.[38] Even in the later years of the Third Reich, many Protestant and Catholic clergy within Germany persisted in believing that Nazism was in its essence in accordance with Christian precepts.[39]
> 
> The Nazi leadership made use of both Christian symbolism, i*ndigenous Germanic pagan imagery*, and *ancient Roman symbolism in their propaganda*. However, the use of pagan symbolism worried some Protestants.[40] Many Nazi leaders, including *Adolf Hitler,[41] subscribed either to a mixture of pseudoscientific theories, particularly Social Darwinism,*[42] or to mysticism and occultism, which was especially strong in the SS.[citation needed] Central to both groupings was the belief in Germanic (white Northern-European) racial superiority. The existence of a Ministry of Church Affairs, instituted in 1935 and headed by Hanns Kerrl, was hardly recognized by ideologists such as Alfred Rosenberg or by other political decision-makers.[citation needed]
> 
> In a confidential message to the Gauleiter on June 9, 1941, Martin Bormann, had declared that "*National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.*"[43] He also* declared that the Churches influence in the leadership of the people "must absolutely and finally be broken."* Bormann believed Nazism was based on a "scientific" world-view, and was completely incompatible with Christianity.[43] Bormann stated: [UR: Hawly would have been a good little Nazi, especially if she could gas Christians and Jews together]
> 
> When we National Socialists speak of belief in God, we do not mean, *like the naive Christians and their spiritual exploiters, a man-like being sitting around somewhere in the universe.* The force governed by natural law by which all these countless planets move in the universe, we call omnipotence or God. The assertion that this universal force can trouble itself about the destiny of each individual being, every smallest earthly bacillus, can be influenced by so-called prayers or other surprising things, depends upon a requisite dose of naivety or else upon shameless professional self-interest.[44]_
> 
> *Hmm, sounds alarmingly like Hawly!!!*


Sounds like every one of your posts is a desperate plea for my attention.. It seems your every post is spent stalking me, you sad, desperate, Christian black hole of need and want. 

Odd how the fundie Christian is trying to divorce christianity from Nazi ideology when that ideology was deeply rooted in christianity. 

Typical revisionist nonsense from my creepy stalker.


----------



## Hollie

It seems the revisionist Christian is hoping to undermine the role of historical christianity as promoted by the Nazi party. 

Hitler's Christianity

 Hitler's Christianity

To deny the influence of Christianity on Hitler and its role in World War II, means that you must ignore history and forever bar yourself from understanding the source of German anti-Semitism and how the WWII atrocities occurred.

By using historical evidence of Hitler's and his henchmen's own words, this section aims to show how mixing religion with politics can cause conflicts, not only against religion but against government and its people. This site, in no way, condones Nazism, Neo-Nazism, fascist governments, or anti-Semitism, but instead, warns against them.


Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism (quotes from Mein Kampf) Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country. This text presents selected quotes from the infamous anti-Semite himself.

Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism




 The Christianity of Hitler revealed in his speeches and proclamations

Compiled by Jim Walker Originated: 27 Feb. 1997 Additions: 03 Jun. 2006

Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today's Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and have attempted to mark him an atheist, a pagan cult worshipper, or a false Christian. However, from the earliest formation of the Nazi party and throughout the period of conquest and growth, Hitler expressed his Christian support to the German citizenry and soldiers. In the 1920s, Hitler's German Workers' Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a "Programme" with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a "positive" Christianity:

24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity,but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest.

Hitler's speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of faith. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveals the strength of his Christian feelings: 

Hitler's Christianity


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> It is unimportant that we haven't observed it directly because we have *evidence that it happened*, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is very ignorant statement. We have evidence the earth exists. How it happened, not that it happened, is the question.
Click to expand...


Says the guy who thinks we were made by his god without any proof whatsoever of said god. Geez, what a dooffus you are.


----------



## Hollie

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is unimportant that we haven't observed it directly because we have *evidence that it happened*, ...
> 
> 
> 
> This is very ignorant statement. We have evidence the earth exists. How it happened, not that it happened, is the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy who thinks we were made by his god without any proof whatsoever of said god. Geez, what a dooffus you are.
Click to expand...


The mechanisms for how planets form doesn't require the mysticism, mumbo jumbo and supermagical "poofing" into existence that Christian creationists rattle on about.

HubbleSite - Discovering Planets Beyond - How Do Planets Form?


Does anyone have some paper shuffling that the gawds can do? Their job description is being down-sized.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising truth from the revisionist Wikipedia!!
> 
> _*Nazi attitudes towards Christianity*
> 
> Many Nazis promoted positive Christianity, a militant, non-denominational form of Christianity which viewed Christ as an active fighter and anti-semite who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day.[38] Even in the later years of the Third Reich, many Protestant and Catholic clergy within Germany persisted in believing that Nazism was in its essence in accordance with Christian precepts.[39]
> 
> The Nazi leadership made use of both Christian symbolism, i*ndigenous Germanic pagan imagery*, and *ancient Roman symbolism in their propaganda*. However, the use of pagan symbolism worried some Protestants.[40] Many Nazi leaders, including *Adolf Hitler,[41] subscribed either to a mixture of pseudoscientific theories, particularly Social Darwinism,*[42] or to mysticism and occultism, which was especially strong in the SS.[citation needed] Central to both groupings was the belief in Germanic (white Northern-European) racial superiority. The existence of a Ministry of Church Affairs, instituted in 1935 and headed by Hanns Kerrl, was hardly recognized by ideologists such as Alfred Rosenberg or by other political decision-makers.[citation needed]
> 
> In a confidential message to the Gauleiter on June 9, 1941, Martin Bormann, had declared that "*National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.*"[43] He also* declared that the Churches influence in the leadership of the people "must absolutely and finally be broken."* Bormann believed Nazism was based on a "scientific" world-view, and was completely incompatible with Christianity.[43] Bormann stated: [UR: Hawly would have been a good little Nazi, especially if she could gas Christians and Jews together]
> 
> When we National Socialists speak of belief in God, we do not mean, *like the naive Christians and their spiritual exploiters, a man-like being sitting around somewhere in the universe.* The force governed by natural law by which all these countless planets move in the universe, we call omnipotence or God. The assertion that this universal force can trouble itself about the destiny of each individual being, every smallest earthly bacillus, can be influenced by so-called prayers or other surprising things, depends upon a requisite dose of naivety or else upon shameless professional self-interest.[44]_
> 
> *Hmm, sounds alarmingly like Hawly!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like every one of your posts is a desperate plea for my attention.. It seems your every post is spent stalking me, you sad, desperate, Christian black hole of need and want.
> 
> Odd how the fundie Christian is trying to divorce christianity from Nazi ideology when that ideology was deeply rooted in christianity.
> 
> *Typical revisionist nonsense* from my creepy stalker.
Click to expand...


More parrotting. Hawly want a cracker?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> It seems the revisionist Christian is hoping to undermine the role of historical christianity as promoted by the Nazi party.
> 
> Hitler's Christianity
> 
> Hitler's Christianity
> 
> To deny the influence of Christianity on Hitler and its role in World War II, means that you must ignore history and forever bar yourself from understanding the source of German anti-Semitism and how the WWII atrocities occurred.
> 
> By using historical evidence of Hitler's and his henchmen's own words, this section aims to show how mixing religion with politics can cause conflicts, not only against religion but against government and its people. This site, in no way, condones Nazism, Neo-Nazism, fascist governments, or anti-Semitism, but instead, warns against them.
> 
> 
> Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism (quotes from Mein Kampf) Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country. This text presents selected quotes from the infamous anti-Semite himself.
> 
> Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christianity of Hitler revealed in his speeches and proclamations
> 
> Compiled by Jim Walker Originated: 27 Feb. 1997 Additions: 03 Jun. 2006
> 
> Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today's Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and have attempted to mark him an atheist, a pagan cult worshipper, or a false Christian. However, from the earliest formation of the Nazi party and throughout the period of conquest and growth, Hitler expressed his Christian support to the German citizenry and soldiers. In the 1920s, Hitler's German Workers' Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a "Programme" with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a "positive" Christianity:
> 
> 24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity,but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest.
> 
> Hitler's speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of faith. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveals the strength of his Christian feelings:
> 
> Hitler's Christianity



 Figures you would cut and paste from an Atheist website. You believe this revisionist propaganda because it supports your worldview, a worldview that leads to murder, intolerance, and eugenics. Some other articles from "nobeliefs.com":

Letting go of God

The War on Christmas

Be pro Choice

Problems with Creationism

_And my personal favorite revisionist bull do do:_

The United States in not *in any sense* founded on the Christian Religion


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is very ignorant statement. We have evidence the earth exists. How it happened, not that it happened, is the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who thinks we were made by his god without any proof whatsoever of said god. Geez, what a dooffus you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mechanisms for how planets form doesn't require the mysticism, mumbo jumbo and supermagical "poofing" into existence that Christian creationists rattle on about.
> 
> HubbleSite - Discovering Planets Beyond - How Do Planets Form?
> 
> 
> Does anyone have some paper shuffling that the gawds can do? Their job description is being down-sized.
Click to expand...


Oh great another theory that lacks observation.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> More parrotting. Hawly want a cracker?


Well really, who is parrotting when your only ability at responding is to cut and paste the same mindless drivel. 

Quite a paradox for fundie christians. Their revisionist history hoping to uncouple christianity from Nazi ideology is a bust.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who thinks we were made by his god without any proof whatsoever of said god. Geez, what a dooffus you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mechanisms for how planets form doesn't require the mysticism, mumbo jumbo and supermagical "poofing" into existence that Christian creationists rattle on about.
> 
> HubbleSite - Discovering Planets Beyond - How Do Planets Form?
> 
> 
> Does anyone have some paper shuffling that the gawds can do? Their job description is being down-sized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh great another theory that lacks observation.
Click to expand...

Yet again the Christian fundies simply have no clue.

Astronomers Spot Birth Of Alien Planet for First Time | Exoplanets & Alien Solar Systems | Planet Formation & Keck Observatory | Space.com


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems the revisionist Christian is hoping to undermine the role of historical christianity as promoted by the Nazi party.
> 
> Hitler's Christianity
> 
> Hitler's Christianity
> 
> To deny the influence of Christianity on Hitler and its role in World War II, means that you must ignore history and forever bar yourself from understanding the source of German anti-Semitism and how the WWII atrocities occurred.
> 
> By using historical evidence of Hitler's and his henchmen's own words, this section aims to show how mixing religion with politics can cause conflicts, not only against religion but against government and its people. This site, in no way, condones Nazism, Neo-Nazism, fascist governments, or anti-Semitism, but instead, warns against them.
> 
> 
> Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism (quotes from Mein Kampf) Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country. This text presents selected quotes from the infamous anti-Semite himself.
> 
> Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christianity of Hitler revealed in his speeches and proclamations
> 
> Compiled by Jim Walker Originated: 27 Feb. 1997 Additions: 03 Jun. 2006
> 
> Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today's Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and have attempted to mark him an atheist, a pagan cult worshipper, or a false Christian. However, from the earliest formation of the Nazi party and throughout the period of conquest and growth, Hitler expressed his Christian support to the German citizenry and soldiers. In the 1920s, Hitler's German Workers' Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a "Programme" with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a "positive" Christianity:
> 
> 24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity,but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest.
> 
> Hitler's speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of faith. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveals the strength of his Christian feelings:
> 
> Hitler's Christianity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figures you would cut and paste from an Atheist website. You believe this revisionist propaganda because it supports your worldview, a worldview that leads to murder, intolerance, and eugenics. Some other articles from "nobeliefs.com":
> 
> Letting go of God
> 
> The War on Christmas
> 
> Be pro Choice
> 
> Problems with Creationism
> 
> _And my personal favorite revisionist bull do do:_
> 
> The United States in not *in any sense* founded on the Christian Religion
Click to expand...


As usual, when your attempts at revising historical christianity are shown to be a hoax, you're forced to spam as an effort to defend your lies. 

So we're to believe that you're retreating into CDS?

This is not the place for your bible thumping. You need to find a circus tent for that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mechanisms for how planets form doesn't require the mysticism, mumbo jumbo and supermagical "poofing" into existence that Christian creationists rattle on about.
> 
> HubbleSite - Discovering Planets Beyond - How Do Planets Form?
> 
> 
> Does anyone have some paper shuffling that the gawds can do? Their job description is being down-sized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh great another theory that lacks observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet again the Christian fundies simply have no clue.
> 
> Astronomers Spot Birth Of Alien Planet for First Time | Exoplanets & Alien Solar Systems | Planet Formation & Keck Observatory | Space.com
Click to expand...


Go back and read your copy and paste job and point out where it say's this was observed forming ?

The theory says that dust clouds collapse to become a star, but the process has not been observed.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who thinks we were made by his god without any proof whatsoever of said god. Geez, what a dooffus you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mechanisms for how planets form doesn't require the mysticism, mumbo jumbo and supermagical "poofing" into existence that Christian creationists rattle on about.
> 
> HubbleSite - Discovering Planets Beyond - How Do Planets Form?
> 
> 
> Does anyone have some paper shuffling that the gawds can do? Their job description is being down-sized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh great another theory that lacks observation.
Click to expand...


So does this mean that you've observed your god making the earth? or does your theory lack observation as well?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh great another theory that lacks observation.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet again the Christian fundies simply have no clue.
> 
> Astronomers Spot Birth Of Alien Planet for First Time | Exoplanets & Alien Solar Systems | Planet Formation & Keck Observatory | Space.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back and read your copy and paste job and point out where it say's this was observed forming ?
> 
> The theory says that dust clouds collapse to become a star, but the process has not been observed.
Click to expand...


I read the article prior to posting the link. You need to read the text and try to move past your religiously inspired biases, hatred of science and retrograde ideology.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems the revisionist Christian is hoping to undermine the role of historical christianity as promoted by the Nazi party.
> 
> Hitler's Christianity
> 
> Hitler's Christianity
> 
> To deny the influence of Christianity on Hitler and its role in World War II, means that you must ignore history and forever bar yourself from understanding the source of German anti-Semitism and how the WWII atrocities occurred.
> 
> By using historical evidence of Hitler's and his henchmen's own words, this section aims to show how mixing religion with politics can cause conflicts, not only against religion but against government and its people. This site, in no way, condones Nazism, Neo-Nazism, fascist governments, or anti-Semitism, but instead, warns against them.
> 
> 
> Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism (quotes from Mein Kampf) Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country. This text presents selected quotes from the infamous anti-Semite himself.
> 
> Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Christianity of Hitler revealed in his speeches and proclamations
> 
> Compiled by Jim Walker Originated: 27 Feb. 1997 Additions: 03 Jun. 2006
> 
> Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today's Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and have attempted to mark him an atheist, a pagan cult worshipper, or a false Christian. However, from the earliest formation of the Nazi party and throughout the period of conquest and growth, Hitler expressed his Christian support to the German citizenry and soldiers. In the 1920s, Hitler's German Workers' Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a "Programme" with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a "positive" Christianity:
> 
> 24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity,but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest.
> 
> Hitler's speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of faith. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveals the strength of his Christian feelings:
> 
> Hitler's Christianity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figures you would cut and paste from an Atheist website. You believe this revisionist propaganda because it supports your worldview, a worldview that leads to murder, intolerance, and eugenics. Some other articles from "nobeliefs.com":
> 
> Letting go of God
> 
> The War on Christmas
> 
> Be pro Choice
> 
> Problems with Creationism
> 
> _And my personal favorite revisionist bull do do:_
> 
> The United States in not *in any sense* founded on the Christian Religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, when your attempts at revising historical christianity are shown to be a hoax, you're forced to spam as an effort to defend your lies.
> 
> So we're to believe that you're retreating into CDS?
> 
> This is not the place for your bible thumping. You need to find a circus tent for that.
Click to expand...


You are so silly. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously with all the nonsense you constantly throw out?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Figures you would cut and paste from an Atheist website. You believe this revisionist propaganda because it supports your worldview, a worldview that leads to murder, intolerance, and eugenics. Some other articles from "nobeliefs.com":
> 
> Letting go of God
> 
> The War on Christmas
> 
> Be pro Choice
> 
> Problems with Creationism
> 
> _And my personal favorite revisionist bull do do:_
> 
> The United States in not *in any sense* founded on the Christian Religion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, when your attempts at revising historical christianity are shown to be a hoax, you're forced to spam as an effort to defend your lies.
> 
> So we're to believe that you're retreating into CDS?
> 
> This is not the place for your bible thumping. You need to find a circus tent for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so silly. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously with all the nonsense you constantly throw out?
Click to expand...

I've certainly learned to expect obfuscation, CDS syndrome, side-stepping and outright lies from Christian creationists.

Denial on your part should not be an expectation that others, not addled by Christian fundamentalist pathology, will accept your revisionist history of Christian hate and intolerance.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, when your attempts at revising historical christianity are shown to be a hoax, you're forced to spam as an effort to defend your lies.
> 
> So we're to believe that you're retreating into CDS?
> 
> This is not the place for your bible thumping. You need to find a circus tent for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so silly. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously with all the nonsense you constantly throw out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've certainly learned to expect obfuscation, CDS syndrome, side-stepping and outright lies from Christian creationists.
> 
> Denial on your part should not be an expectation that others, not addled by Christian fundamentalist pathology, will accept your revisionist history of Christian hate and intolerance.
Click to expand...


You're a funny Nazi.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so silly. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously with all the nonsense you constantly throw out?
> 
> 
> 
> I've certainly learned to expect obfuscation, CDS syndrome, side-stepping and outright lies from Christian creationists.
> 
> Denial on your part should not be an expectation that others, not addled by Christian fundamentalist pathology, will accept your revisionist history of Christian hate and intolerance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a funny Nazi.
Click to expand...


You're a dishonest Christian revisionist.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes I do ...you on the other hand believe that  noah's ark is fact....do I need to say more.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No noah's ark would not be considered conjecture daws,it would be a belief from faith.
> 
> So you don't undersatnd what conjecture is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Ark nonsense is both conjecture _and_ nonsense. Like so many biblical tales and fables, legend building has allowed stories told, re-told and re-told again and again to be built and modified as the tellers passed on the tale.
Click to expand...

 You'd have thought that even YWC would have made that connection..
the power of denial is strong with this one....


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed the post about how you were manipulated to prove a point. The power of suggestion obviously works on you because I used the word "douche bag" one time and you have repeated it since then over and over. Why not try to dispense with the nonsense and have an adult conversation about science and religion?
> 
> 
> 
> another false statement, laughable too, you've manipulated nobody.
> as always you've falsely assumed  that you are somehow brighter than all other posters.
> your failed attempts at manipulation are obvious to everyone but you.
> as to your usage of the phrase "douche bag"  It was I, who manipulated you.
> all it took was a few remarks about your questionable police service and you went bat shit.
> just as I knew you would .
> 
> I say bat shit because for someone(you) who adamantly denies using profanity or pejoratives ,that's a fairly nasty one.
> I did not start using the phrase because of you imaginary mastery of the power of suggestion, it did inspire me to give you a new name , let's face it  "Ultimate Reality" is extremely pompous and melodramatic name.
> detective douche bag is far closer to your INTERNET personality then UR.
> it's  perfect from a comedic POV.
> to finish all of your resent post concerning your observations and moral compass bullshit are in fact failed attempts to simultaneously  take credit and absolve yourself of taking responsibly for your own actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> *Douchebag may refer to:
> 
> A device used to administer a douche
> A pejorative term for an arrogant or obnoxious person*
> 
> This is profanity? I don't think so.
> 
> You, Hawly and NP took the bait and ran like bad. There is no sense in denying it for your faux pas is evident to all.
Click to expand...

only in your mind. no basis in reality as already explained!

then to compound your dumbfuckery :"I say bat shit because for someone(you) who adamantly denies using profanity or pejoratives ,that's a fairly nasty one."---ME
you had to wiki the definition of douche bag when you should have looked up "pejorative"  
you douche bag ....!  (A pejorative term for an arrogant or obnoxious person)


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed the post about how you were manipulated to prove a point. The power of suggestion obviously works on you because I used the word "douche bag" one time and you have repeated it since then over and over. Why not try to dispense with the nonsense and have an adult conversation about science and religion?
> 
> 
> 
> another false statement, laughable too, you've manipulated nobody.
> as always you've falsely assumed  that you are somehow brighter than all other posters.
> your failed attempts at manipulation are obvious to everyone but you.
> as to your usage of the phrase "douche bag"  It was I, who manipulated you.
> all it took was a few remarks about your questionable police service and you went bat shit.
> just as I knew you would .
> 
> I say bat shit because for someone(you) who adamantly denies using profanity or pejoratives ,that's a fairly nasty one.
> I did not start using the phrase because of you imaginary mastery of the power of suggestion, it did inspire me to give you a new name , let's face it  "Ultimate Reality" is extremely pompous and melodramatic name.
> detective douche bag is far closer to your INTERNET personality then UR.
> it's  perfect from a comedic POV.
> to finish all of your resent post concerning your observations and moral compass bullshit are in fact failed attempts to simultaneously  take credit and absolve yourself of taking responsibly for your own actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way, Daws, what is truth?
Click to expand...

 an idea that's far past your mental capacity to  comprehend.
BTW you can knock off the faux existentialism anytime...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shhhh  Hollie doesn't know that.
> 
> 
> 
> so you lied? ...how christian of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not qualified to determine what is Christian and what isn't.
Click to expand...

false and stupid! 
I, like most  have had more then adequate exposure to determine what Christianity is and what it is not.
NOT BUYING THE BULLSHIT IN NO WAY PREVENTS ME OR ANY ONE ELSE FROM UNDERSTANDING IT. 

more specious reasoning by detective douche bag!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another false statement, laughable too, you've manipulated nobody.
> as always you've falsely assumed  that you are somehow brighter than all other posters.
> your failed attempts at manipulation are obvious to everyone but you.
> as to your usage of the phrase "douche bag"  It was I, who manipulated you.
> all it took was a few remarks about your questionable police service and you went bat shit.
> just as I knew you would .
> 
> I say bat shit because for someone(you) who adamantly denies using profanity or pejoratives ,that's a fairly nasty one.
> I did not start using the phrase because of you imaginary mastery of the power of suggestion, it did inspire me to give you a new name , let's face it  "Ultimate Reality" is extremely pompous and melodramatic name.
> detective douche bag is far closer to your INTERNET personality then UR.
> it's  perfect from a comedic POV.
> to finish all of your resent post concerning your observations and moral compass bullshit are in fact failed attempts to simultaneously  take credit and absolve yourself of taking responsibly for your own actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> *Douchebag may refer to:
> 
> A device used to administer a douche
> A pejorative term for an arrogant or obnoxious person*
> 
> This is profanity? I don't think so.
> 
> You, Hawly and NP took the bait and ran like bad. There is no sense in denying it for your faux pas is evident to all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in your mind. no basis in reality as already explained!
> 
> then to compound your dumbfuckery :"I say bat shit because for someone(you) who adamantly denies using profanity or pejoratives ,that's a fairly nasty one."---ME
> you had to wiki the definition of douche bag when you should have looked up "pejorative"
> you douche bag ....!  (A pejorative term for an arrogant or obnoxious person)
Click to expand...


I didn't need to look it up. I knew what it meant. Derogatory does not mean profanity. So you are wrong as usual.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you lied? ...how christian of you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not qualified to determine what is Christian and what isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false and stupid!
> I, like most  have had more then adequate exposure to determine what Christianity is and what it is not.
> NOT BUYING THE BULLSHIT IN NO WAY PREVENTS ME OR ANY ONE ELSE FROM UNDERSTANDING IT.
> 
> more specious reasoning by detective douche bag!
Click to expand...


You really don't have a clue, do you?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I believe there is. And I do.
> 
> I haven't threatened anyone. If you feel threatened by anything I've written .... well...that's your cross to bear.
> 
> My wish isn't for Him to send you anywhere. My wish is to be present when he does. Reading comprehension seems difficult for you.
> 
> Furthermore it isn't my call to condemn non-believers to hell, God made that call.
> 
> And again, I didn't wish eternal damnation on you and whether you believe it or not... I am not angry.
> 
> Historical intolerance? You have Christians confused with muslims. I'll concede that during the crusades Christians did kick some butt. But it was caused in the 1st crusade by 3000 Christians being massacred. And the crusades ended around 750 years ago.
> 
> Can you cite any recent events that shows Christian intolerance, let's say on the scale of muslim intolerance?
> 
> 
> 
> how bout the concentration camps in ww2.
> if your answer is: the nazis were atheists you'll be wrong
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Nazi's were atheist. Please don't start with Hawly's revisionist BS. Go find a real, tangible hard cover history book and take a read. Revisionist atheist websites are not a valid source.
Click to expand...

quotes from Mein Kampf) 
  Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country. This text presents selected quotes from the infamous anti-Semite himself. 

Helmut Bruckner


We struggle for a union of the small Protestant state churches into a strong Protestant Reich Church.... We are acting not as a party, but as Protestant Christians who only follow a call to faith from God, which we here in our Volk movement. As true members of our church we have a legitimate claim to have appropriate consideration given to the greatness and inner strength of National Socialism in church life and the church administration. 


-Helmut Brucker, "Richtlinien fur Kirchenfragen," Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf (10 Nov. 1932: Breslau), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]  



Public need before private greed.... So important and meaningful is this phrase that Jesus Christ placed it in the center of his religious teaching. However, since Christ was not a politician, since his Reich was not of this world, he put the calling into other words. He taught: love your neighbors as yourself! National Socialism is therefore nothing new, nothing that a person after much consideration would not come upon as the solution to the economic plight of the Germans. 


-Walter Buch Der Aufmasch, Blatter der deutschen Jugend 2 (January 1931), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich] 

Hitler's Henchmen and Nazi Sympathizers


AS ALWAYS YOU'RE TALKING OUT YOUR ASS.


----------



## UltimateReality

UltimateReality said:


> You, Hawly and NP took the bait and ran like bad. There is no sense in denying it for your *faux* pas is evident to all.






daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> my words deleted for brevity
> 
> By the way, Daws, what is truth?
> 
> 
> 
> an idea that's far past your mental capacity to  comprehend.
> BTW you can knock off the *faux* existentialism anytime...
Click to expand...




The power of suggestion is strong with this one. These aren't the droids you're looking for.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how bout the concentration camps in ww2.
> if your answer is: the nazis were atheists you'll be wrong
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Nazi's were atheist. Please don't start with Hawly's revisionist BS. Go find a real, tangible hard cover history book and take a read. Revisionist atheist websites are not a valid source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> quotes from Mein Kampf)
> Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country. This text presents selected quotes from the infamous anti-Semite himself.
> 
> Helmut Bruckner
> 
> 
> We struggle for a union of the small Protestant state churches into a strong Protestant Reich Church.... We are acting not as a party, but as Protestant Christians who only follow a call to faith from God, which we here in our Volk movement. As true members of our church we have a legitimate claim to have appropriate consideration given to the greatness and inner strength of National Socialism in church life and the church administration.
> 
> 
> -Helmut Brucker, "Richtlinien fur Kirchenfragen," Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf (10 Nov. 1932: Breslau), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
> 
> 
> 
> Public need before private greed.... So important and meaningful is this phrase that Jesus Christ placed it in the center of his religious teaching. However, since Christ was not a politician, since his Reich was not of this world, he put the calling into other words. He taught: love your neighbors as yourself! National Socialism is therefore nothing new, nothing that a person after much consideration would not come upon as the solution to the economic plight of the Germans.
> 
> 
> -Walter Buch Der Aufmasch, Blatter der deutschen Jugend 2 (January 1931), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
> 
> Hitler's Henchmen and Nazi Sympathizers
> 
> 
> AS ALWAYS YOU'RE TALKING OUT YOUR ASS.
Click to expand...


That totally figures. An ignorant follower like yourself would not recognize propaganda when you see it. That is why you continue to fall for the pseudoscience of evolution.

These aren't the droids your looking for.


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes i believe there is. And i do.
> 
> I haven't threatened anyone. If you feel threatened by anything i've written .... Well...that's your cross to bear.
> 
> My wish isn't for him to send you anywhere. My wish is to be present when he does. Reading comprehension seems difficult for you.
> 
> Furthermore it isn't my call to condemn non-believers to hell, god made that call.
> 
> And again, i didn't wish eternal damnation on you and whether you believe it or not... I am not angry.
> 
> 
> 
> ....*i'm fairly honest,*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *i work hard*....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, because it's hard work faking a disability to get some gov'ment assistance.
Click to expand...

 another fine example of the detective douche bag's  obsessional dishonesty and passive aggressiveness!


----------



## ima

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mechanisms for how planets form doesn't require the mysticism, mumbo jumbo and supermagical "poofing" into existence that Christian creationists rattle on about.
> 
> HubbleSite - Discovering Planets Beyond - How Do Planets Form?
> 
> 
> Does anyone have some paper shuffling that the gawds can do? Their job description is being down-sized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh great another theory that lacks observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So does this mean that you've observed your god making the earth? or does your theory lack observation as well?
Click to expand...

I didn't know that your theory about god making the earth was observed? Got a link to that?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Figures you would cut and paste from an Atheist website. You believe this revisionist propaganda because it supports your worldview, a worldview that leads to murder, intolerance, and eugenics. Some other articles from "nobeliefs.com":
> 
> Letting go of God
> 
> The War on Christmas
> 
> Be pro Choice
> 
> Problems with Creationism
> 
> _And my personal favorite revisionist bull do do:_
> 
> The United States in not *in any sense* founded on the Christian Religion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, when your attempts at revising historical christianity are shown to be a hoax, you're forced to spam as an effort to defend your lies.
> 
> So we're to believe that you're retreating into CDS?
> 
> This is not the place for your bible thumping. You need to find a circus tent for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so silly. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously with all the nonsense you constantly throw out?
Click to expand...

You (ur ) must take it very seriously ,or why would spend an inordinate amount of time stalking hollie?
unfulfilled desire mayhap?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> *Douchebag may refer to:
> 
> A device used to administer a douche
> A pejorative term for an arrogant or obnoxious person*
> 
> This is profanity? I don't think so.
> 
> You, Hawly and NP took the bait and ran like bad. There is no sense in denying it for your faux pas is evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> only in your mind. no basis in reality as already explained!
> 
> then to compound your dumbfuckery :"I say bat shit because for someone(you) who adamantly denies using profanity or pejoratives ,that's a fairly nasty one."---ME
> you had to wiki the definition of douche bag when you should have looked up "pejorative"
> you douche bag ....!  (A pejorative term for an arrogant or obnoxious person)
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't need to look it up. I knew what it meant. Derogatory does not mean profanity. So you are wrong as usual.
Click to expand...

dodge! the intent is what matters .so your affected non use of profanity is bogus.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, Hawly and NP took the bait and ran like bad. There is no sense in denying it for your *faux* pas is evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> my words deleted for brevity
> 
> By the way, Daws, what is truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> an idea that's far past your mental capacity to  comprehend.
> BTW you can knock off the *faux* existentialism anytime...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The power of suggestion is strong with this one. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Click to expand...

more proof you're an illiterate "fauxpas" mean a mistake ! "faux" means false or fake.
once again you imagined mastery of the power of suggestion tanks!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Nazi's were atheist. Please don't start with Hawly's revisionist BS. Go find a real, tangible hard cover history book and take a read. Revisionist atheist websites are not a valid source.
> 
> 
> 
> quotes from Mein Kampf)
> Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country. This text presents selected quotes from the infamous anti-Semite himself.
> 
> Helmut Bruckner
> 
> 
> We struggle for a union of the small Protestant state churches into a strong Protestant Reich Church.... We are acting not as a party, but as Protestant Christians who only follow a call to faith from God, which we here in our Volk movement. As true members of our church we have a legitimate claim to have appropriate consideration given to the greatness and inner strength of National Socialism in church life and the church administration.
> 
> 
> -Helmut Brucker, "Richtlinien fur Kirchenfragen," Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf (10 Nov. 1932: Breslau), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
> 
> 
> 
> Public need before private greed.... So important and meaningful is this phrase that Jesus Christ placed it in the center of his religious teaching. However, since Christ was not a politician, since his Reich was not of this world, he put the calling into other words. He taught: love your neighbors as yourself! National Socialism is therefore nothing new, nothing that a person after much consideration would not come upon as the solution to the economic plight of the Germans.
> 
> 
> -Walter Buch Der Aufmasch, Blatter der deutschen Jugend 2 (January 1931), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
> 
> Hitler's Henchmen and Nazi Sympathizers
> 
> 
> AS ALWAYS YOU'RE TALKING OUT YOUR ASS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That totally figures. An ignorant follower like yourself would not recognize propaganda when you see it. That is why you continue to fall for the pseudoscience of evolution.
> 
> These aren't the droids your looking for.
Click to expand...

detective douche bag retreats in to dogma!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> quotes from Mein Kampf)
> Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country. This text presents selected quotes from the infamous anti-Semite himself.
> 
> Helmut Bruckner
> 
> 
> We struggle for a union of the small Protestant state churches into a strong Protestant Reich Church.... We are acting not as a party, but as Protestant Christians who only follow a call to faith from God, which we here in our Volk movement. As true members of our church we have a legitimate claim to have appropriate consideration given to the greatness and inner strength of National Socialism in church life and the church administration.
> 
> 
> -Helmut Brucker, "Richtlinien fur Kirchenfragen," Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf (10 Nov. 1932: Breslau), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
> 
> 
> 
> Public need before private greed.... So important and meaningful is this phrase that Jesus Christ placed it in the center of his religious teaching. However, since Christ was not a politician, since his Reich was not of this world, he put the calling into other words. He taught: love your neighbors as yourself! National Socialism is therefore nothing new, nothing that a person after much consideration would not come upon as the solution to the economic plight of the Germans.
> 
> 
> -Walter Buch Der Aufmasch, Blatter der deutschen Jugend 2 (January 1931), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
> 
> Hitler's Henchmen and Nazi Sympathizers
> 
> 
> AS ALWAYS YOU'RE TALKING OUT YOUR ASS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That totally figures. An ignorant follower like yourself would not recognize propaganda when you see it. That is why you continue to fall for the pseudoscience of evolution.
> 
> These aren't the droids your looking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> detective douche bag retreats in to dogma!
Click to expand...


These aren't the droids your looking for.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh great another theory that lacks observation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does this mean that you've observed your god making the earth? or does your theory lack observation as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't know that your theory about god making the earth was observed? Got a link to that?
Click to expand...


I think I have made myself clear on this one but since it went over your head. The design seen in nature which can be observed is evidence of the designer.


----------



## UltimateReality

Comments on "just so" stories of evolution made by an evolutionary biologist who recognizes real science is lacking. 

_"These invocations of evolution also highlight another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness. Unfortunately biologists as well as philosophers have all too often been guilty of this sort of invalid inference. Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling rather than to hypothesis-testing in the scientific sense. For a complete evolutionary account of a phenomenon, it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order, especially when we are dealing with human mental or behavioral traits, the genetic basis of which we are far from understanding."_

Evolutionary Biologist Austin Hughes Praises Fine-tuning Arguments, Critiques Scientism - Evolution News & Views


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, Hawly and NP took the bait and ran like bad. There is no sense in denying it for your *faux* pas is evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> an idea that's far past your mental capacity to  comprehend.
> BTW you can knock off the *faux* existentialism anytime...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The power of suggestion is strong with this one. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more proof you're an illiterate "fauxpas" mean a mistake ! "faux" means false or fake.
> once again you imagined mastery of the power of suggestion tanks!
Click to expand...


UR illiterate ? you're a funny guy


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> quotes from Mein Kampf)
> Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country. This text presents selected quotes from the infamous anti-Semite himself.
> 
> Helmut Bruckner
> 
> 
> We struggle for a union of the small Protestant state churches into a strong Protestant Reich Church.... We are acting not as a party, but as Protestant Christians who only follow a call to faith from God, which we here in our Volk movement. As true members of our church we have a legitimate claim to have appropriate consideration given to the greatness and inner strength of National Socialism in church life and the church administration.
> 
> 
> -Helmut Brucker, "Richtlinien fur Kirchenfragen," Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf (10 Nov. 1932: Breslau), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
> 
> 
> 
> Public need before private greed.... So important and meaningful is this phrase that Jesus Christ placed it in the center of his religious teaching. However, since Christ was not a politician, since his Reich was not of this world, he put the calling into other words. He taught: love your neighbors as yourself! National Socialism is therefore nothing new, nothing that a person after much consideration would not come upon as the solution to the economic plight of the Germans.
> 
> 
> -Walter Buch Der Aufmasch, Blatter der deutschen Jugend 2 (January 1931), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
> 
> Hitler's Henchmen and Nazi Sympathizers
> 
> 
> AS ALWAYS YOU'RE TALKING OUT YOUR ASS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That totally figures. An ignorant follower like yourself would not recognize propaganda when you see it. That is why you continue to fall for the pseudoscience of evolution.
> 
> These aren't the droids your looking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> detective douche bag retreats in to dogma!
Click to expand...


It was to be expected. Denial is the mechanism whereby fundies can simply ignore those facts that they find uncomfortable or they presume that a conspiracy is underway. I recognize why _all_ digressions are so attractive to fundie Christians as they flail about in their endless conspiratorial musings but that hardly serves honest discussion.  Although, admittedly, the difficulty shared by fundies in coming to grips with reality is certainly a cogent parallel of the phenomenon of CDS, (Christian Denial Syndrome). Still, self deceit? well, that works too.

Hitler used religion as a central tenet to further his political goals. _Mein Kampf_makes that perfectly clear. Hitler made public expressions about his belief in the (judeo-Christian) gods; there were apologetics designed to explain how Jesus wasn't really a Jew; Hitler quoted Martin Luther, even the belt buckle of the Wermacht read, _"Gott mit uns"_ (God is With us). Theistic revisionism about Nazism is easily dismantled, thin, and once again merely a desire for apologists to distance themselves from the political implementation of christian belief.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, Hawly and NP took the bait and ran like bad. There is no sense in denying it for your *faux* pas is evident to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> an idea that's far past your mental capacity to  comprehend.
> BTW you can knock off the *faux* existentialism anytime...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The power of suggestion is strong with this one. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more proof you're an illiterate "fauxpas" mean a mistake ! "faux" means false or fake.
> once again you imagined mastery of the power of suggestion tanks!
Click to expand...


I don't know how many times I had to show you the difference between micro and macro evolution. Someone half way literate would have known there was a difference between micro and macro.

Mac-ro
Adjective
Large-scale; overall: "the analysis of social events at the macro level".

Mic-ro
Adjective
1.Extremely small.
2.Small-scale.

Where a new family is considered macro and where a new breed within a family would be considered micro. Actually microadaptations would be a better term because that's all it is.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That totally figures. An ignorant follower like yourself would not recognize propaganda when you see it. That is why you continue to fall for the pseudoscience of evolution.
> 
> These aren't the droids your looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> detective douche bag retreats in to dogma!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was to be expected. Denial is the mechanism whereby fundies can simply ignore those facts that they find uncomfortable or they presume that a conspiracy is underway. I recognize why _all_ digressions are so attractive to fundie Christians as they flail about in their endless conspiratorial musings but that hardly serves honest discussion.  Although, admittedly, the difficulty shared by fundies in coming to grips with reality is certainly a cogent parallel of the phenomenon of CDS, (Christian Denial Syndrome). Still, self deceit? well, that works too.
> 
> Hitler used religion as a central tenet to further his political goals. _Mein Kampf_makes that perfectly clear. Hitler made public expressions about his belief in the (judeo-Christian) gods; there were apologetics designed to explain how Jesus wasn't really a Jew; Hitler quoted Martin Luther, even the belt buckle of the Wermacht read, _"Gott mit uns"_ (God is With us). Theistic revisionism about Nazism is easily dismantled, thin, and once again merely a desire for apologists to distance themselves from the political implementation of christian belief.
Click to expand...


Now you're extremely funny


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Comments on "just so" stories of evolution made by an evolutionary biologist who recognizes real science is lacking.


Ah yes, the stench of moldy cheese emenating from Casey Luskin and the silly fundie christian cabal of knuckleheads.

Casey Thinks Deep Thoughts | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

Christian creationists really need to go back to sunday school where they belong and stop trying to promote their gawds as science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> detective douche bag retreats in to dogma!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was to be expected. Denial is the mechanism whereby fundies can simply ignore those facts that they find uncomfortable or they presume that a conspiracy is underway. I recognize why _all_ digressions are so attractive to fundie Christians as they flail about in their endless conspiratorial musings but that hardly serves honest discussion.  Although, admittedly, the difficulty shared by fundies in coming to grips with reality is certainly a cogent parallel of the phenomenon of CDS, (Christian Denial Syndrome). Still, self deceit? well, that works too.
> 
> Hitler used religion as a central tenet to further his political goals. _Mein Kampf_makes that perfectly clear. Hitler made public expressions about his belief in the (judeo-Christian) gods; there were apologetics designed to explain how Jesus wasn't really a Jew; Hitler quoted Martin Luther, even the belt buckle of the Wermacht read, _"Gott mit uns"_ (God is With us). Theistic revisionism about Nazism is easily dismantled, thin, and once again merely a desire for apologists to distance themselves from the political implementation of christian belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're extremely funny
Click to expand...


You're just pathetic. 

You can't refute the facts. It would have been for the best if you just slithered away.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The power of suggestion is strong with this one. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> more proof you're an illiterate "fauxpas" mean a mistake ! "faux" means false or fake.
> once again you imagined mastery of the power of suggestion tanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times I had to show you the difference between micro and macro evolution. Someone half way literate would have known there was a difference between micro and macro.
> 
> Mac-ro
> Adjective
> Large-scale; overall: "the analysis of social events at the macro level".
> 
> Mic-ro
> Adjective
> 1.Extremely small.
> 2.Small-scale.
> 
> Where a knew family is considered macro and where a knew breed within a family would be considered micro. Actually microadaptations which would be a better term because that's all it is.
Click to expand...


You have no clue as to the subject matter so why are you prattling?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more proof you're an illiterate "fauxpas" mean a mistake ! "faux" means false or fake.
> once again you imagined mastery of the power of suggestion tanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times I had to show you the difference between micro and macro evolution. Someone half way literate would have known there was a difference between micro and macro.
> 
> Mac-ro
> Adjective
> Large-scale; overall: "the analysis of social events at the macro level".
> 
> Mic-ro
> Adjective
> 1.Extremely small.
> 2.Small-scale.
> 
> Where a knew family is considered macro and where a knew breed within a family would be considered micro. Actually microadaptations which would be a better term because that's all it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no clue as to the subject matter so why are you prattling?
Click to expand...


You have something in common with daws.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comments on "just so" stories of evolution made by an evolutionary biologist who recognizes real science is lacking.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the stench of moldy cheese emenating from Casey Luskin and the silly fundie christian cabal of knuckleheads.
> 
> Casey Thinks Deep Thoughts | The Sensuous Curmudgeon
> 
> Christian creationists really need to go back to sunday school where they belong and stop trying to promote their gawds as science.
Click to expand...


It's time for you to get some new material. Or move to another forum where you can try all your old stuff on new people.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was to be expected. Denial is the mechanism whereby fundies can simply ignore those facts that they find uncomfortable or they presume that a conspiracy is underway. I recognize why _all_ digressions are so attractive to fundie Christians as they flail about in their endless conspiratorial musings but that hardly serves honest discussion.  Although, admittedly, the difficulty shared by fundies in coming to grips with reality is certainly a cogent parallel of the phenomenon of CDS, (Christian Denial Syndrome). Still, self deceit? well, that works too.
> 
> Hitler used religion as a central tenet to further his political goals. _Mein Kampf_makes that perfectly clear. Hitler made public expressions about his belief in the (judeo-Christian) gods; there were apologetics designed to explain how Jesus wasn't really a Jew; Hitler quoted Martin Luther, even the belt buckle of the Wermacht read, _"Gott mit uns"_ (God is With us). Theistic revisionism about Nazism is easily dismantled, thin, and once again merely a desire for apologists to distance themselves from the political implementation of christian belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're extremely funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just pathetic.
> 
> You can't refute the facts. It would have been for the best if you just slithered away.
Click to expand...


Another projection of your own science-hating, self-loathing, Nazi-loving beliefs.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more proof you're an illiterate "fauxpas" mean a mistake ! "faux" means false or fake.
> once again you imagined mastery of the power of suggestion tanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times I had to show you the difference between micro and macro evolution. Someone half way literate would have known there was a difference between micro and macro.
> 
> Mac-ro
> Adjective
> Large-scale; overall: "the analysis of social events at the macro level".
> 
> Mic-ro
> Adjective
> 1.Extremely small.
> 2.Small-scale.
> 
> Where a knew family is considered macro and where a knew breed within a family would be considered micro. Actually microadaptations which would be a better term because that's all it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no clue as to the subject matter so why are you prattling?
Click to expand...


These aren't the droids you're looking for.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're extremely funny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just pathetic.
> 
> You can't refute the facts. It would have been for the best if you just slithered away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another projection of your own science-hating, self-loathing, Nazi-loving beliefs.
Click to expand...


This must be more of the ID'iosy that grips you. I've been teaching you the folly of christian creationism by seeking to enlighten you with with science fact as opposed to religious fear and superstition. Similarly, I've tried to educate you regarding the association that Nazism has had with christianity. 

Your attempts to retreat from the knowledge that you have been extended seems to coincide with your self-loathing attitudes.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times I had to show you the difference between micro and macro evolution. Someone half way literate would have known there was a difference between micro and macro.
> 
> Mac-ro
> Adjective
> Large-scale; overall: "the analysis of social events at the macro level".
> 
> Mic-ro
> Adjective
> 1.Extremely small.
> 2.Small-scale.
> 
> Where a knew family is considered macro and where a knew breed within a family would be considered micro. Actually microadaptations which would be a better term because that's all it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no clue as to the subject matter so why are you prattling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Click to expand...


These copy and paste posts you spam on the forum through page after page is not a very christian thing to do.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just pathetic.
> 
> You can't refute the facts. It would have been for the best if you just slithered away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another projection of your own science-hating, *self-loathing*, Nazi-loving beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This must be more of the ID'iosy that grips you. I've been teaching you the folly of christian creationism by seeking to enlighten you with with science fact as opposed to religious fear and superstition. Similarly, I've tried to educate you regarding the association that Nazism has had with christianity.
> 
> Your attempts to retreat from the knowledge that you have been extended seems to coincide with your *self-loathing* attitudes.
Click to expand...


Hawly want a cracker?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no clue as to the subject matter so why are you prattling?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These aren't the droids you're looking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These copy and paste posts you spam on the forum through page after page is not a very christian thing to do.
Click to expand...


Copy and paste?? You obviously need to leave the house more often. In 1977, I saw the movie 7 times. No need to copy and paste this line.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another projection of your own science-hating, *self-loathing*, Nazi-loving beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This must be more of the ID'iosy that grips you. I've been teaching you the folly of christian creationism by seeking to enlighten you with with science fact as opposed to religious fear and superstition. Similarly, I've tried to educate you regarding the association that Nazism has had with christianity.
> 
> Your attempts to retreat from the knowledge that you have been extended seems to coincide with your *self-loathing* attitudes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hawly want a cracker?
Click to expand...


My goodness but self-loathing christian fundies are difficult to deal with. Have you considered letting go of the fear and superstition that grips you? Doing so will allow you to let go of the self-loathing that haunts you.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> These aren't the droids you're looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These copy and paste posts you spam on the forum through page after page is not a very christian thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Copy and paste?? You obviously need to leave the house more often. In 1977, I saw the movie 7 times. No need to copy and paste this line.
Click to expand...


Did you know that repetition is a form of behavioral mind control used by christian ministries?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This must be more of the ID'iosy that grips you. I've been teaching you the folly of christian creationism by seeking to enlighten you with with science fact as opposed to religious fear and superstition. Similarly, I've tried to educate you regarding the association that Nazism has had with christianity.
> 
> Your attempts to retreat from the knowledge that you have been extended seems to coincide with your *self-loathing* attitudes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly want a cracker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My goodness but* self-loathing* christian fundies are difficult to deal with. Have you considered letting go of the fear and superstition that grips you? Doing so will allow you to let go of the *self-loathing* that haunts you.
Click to expand...


Is this the same repetitive mind control technique that evofundies like yourself continue to employ? You self-loathing behavior shows a total self-loathingness that comes from the self-loathing principles of your self-loathing worldview.

Your constant stalking and begging for my attention is getting embarrassing.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly want a cracker?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness but* self-loathing* christian fundies are difficult to deal with. Have you considered letting go of the fear and superstition that grips you? Doing so will allow you to let go of the *self-loathing* that haunts you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this the same repetitive mind control technique that evofundies like yourself continue to employ? You self-loathing behavior shows a total self-loathingness that comes from the self-loathing principles of your self-loathing worldview.
> 
> Your constant stalking and begging for my attention is getting embarrassing.
Click to expand...


Oh my. Here you are, still plagiarizing my comments.


----------



## Hollie

*The Sterility of Intelligent Design*

The Sterility of Intelligent Design - The Panda's Thumb

One thing that separates pseudoscience from science is fecundity: real science takes place in a social context, with an active community of scholars meeting and exchanging ideas. The ideas in one paper lead to another and another; good papers get dozens or hundreds of citations and suggest new active areas of study.

By contrast, pseudoscience is sterile: the ideas, such as they are, lead to no new insights, suggest no experiments, and are espoused by single crackpots or a small community of like-minded ideologues. The work gets few or no citations in the scientific literature, and the citations they do get are predominantly self-citations.

Here is a perfect example of this sterility: Bio-Complexity, the flagship journal of the intelligent design movement. As 2012 draws to a close, the 2012 volume contains exactly two research articles, one &#8220;critical review&#8221; and one &#8220;critical focus&#8221;, for a grand total of four items. The editorial board has 30 members; they must be kept very busy handling all those papers.

(Another intelligent design journal, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, hasn&#8217;t had a new issue since 2005.) 

By contrast, the journal Evolution has ten times more research articles in a single issue (one of 12 so far in 2012). And this is just a single journal where evolutionary biology research is published; there are many others.

But that&#8217;s not the most hopeless part. Of the four contributions to Bio-Complexity in 2012, three have authors that are either the Editor in Chief (sic), the Managing Editor, or members of the editorial board of the journal. Only one article, the one by Fernando Castro-Chavez, has no author in the subset of people running the journal. And that one is utter bilge, written by someone who believes that &#8220;the 64 codons [of DNA are] represented since at least 4,000 years ago and preserved by China in the I Ching or Book of Changes or Mutations&#8221;.

Intelligent design advocates have been telling us for years that intelligent design would transform science and generate new research paradigms. They lied.




Heyzeus H. Christ, the ID'iots lied. Wow. Never saw that one comin'.


----------



## Hollie

*Pat Robertson: Dinos Lived BEFORE Humans!*

Pat Robertson: Dinos Lived BEFORE Humans! - The Panda's Thumb


Pat Robertson made a stunning revelation on the 700 Club show, on Tuesday, November 27th.
Here&#8217;s the clip:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4sKIymtsOAc]Even Pat Robertson Denies the Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube[/ame]


The &#8220;comments&#8221; section is a good read.

From Ham&#8217;s Facebook page:


> Not only do we have to work hard to not let our kids be led astray by the anti-God teaching of the secularists, we have to work hard to not let them be led astray by compromising church leaders like Pat Robertson. This excerpt was posted o&#8230;n Youtube by a group that is a project of People For the American Way. Pat Robertson gives more fodder to the secularists. We don&#8217;t need enemies from without the church when we have such destructive teaching within the church.



Heh. I think Ken Ham and his followers need to stock up on weapons and ammo and do a bit of christian creationist "we're right, you're wrong and let the games begin.


----------



## ima

hollie, you have an unhealthy obsession with UR and this thread. Take a break, go back to bed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no clue as to the subject matter so why are you prattling?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These aren't the droids you're looking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These copy and paste posts you spam on the forum through page after page is not a very christian thing to do.
Click to expand...


Hmm have you looked at your posts when you attempt an answer to a question which is pretty rare ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> *The Sterility of Intelligent Design*
> 
> The Sterility of Intelligent Design - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> One thing that separates pseudoscience from science is fecundity: real science takes place in a social context, with an active community of scholars meeting and exchanging ideas. The ideas in one paper lead to another and another; good papers get dozens or hundreds of citations and suggest new active areas of study.
> 
> By contrast, pseudoscience is sterile: the ideas, such as they are, lead to no new insights, suggest no experiments, and are espoused by single crackpots or a small community of like-minded ideologues. The work gets few or no citations in the scientific literature, and the citations they do get are predominantly self-citations.
> 
> Here is a perfect example of this sterility: Bio-Complexity, the flagship journal of the intelligent design movement. As 2012 draws to a close, the 2012 volume contains exactly two research articles, one critical review and one critical focus, for a grand total of four items. The editorial board has 30 members; they must be kept very busy handling all those papers.
> 
> (Another intelligent design journal, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, hasnt had a new issue since 2005.)
> 
> By contrast, the journal Evolution has ten times more research articles in a single issue (one of 12 so far in 2012). And this is just a single journal where evolutionary biology research is published; there are many others.
> 
> But thats not the most hopeless part. Of the four contributions to Bio-Complexity in 2012, three have authors that are either the Editor in Chief (sic), the Managing Editor, or members of the editorial board of the journal. Only one article, the one by Fernando Castro-Chavez, has no author in the subset of people running the journal. And that one is utter bilge, written by someone who believes that the 64 codons [of DNA are] represented since at least 4,000 years ago and preserved by China in the I Ching or Book of Changes or Mutations.
> 
> Intelligent design advocates have been telling us for years that intelligent design would transform science and generate new research paradigms. They lied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heyzeus H. Christ, the ID'iots lied. Wow. Never saw that one comin'.



Again you hypocrite.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> *Pat Robertson: Dinos Lived BEFORE Humans!*
> 
> Pat Robertson: Dinos Lived BEFORE Humans! - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> Pat Robertson made a stunning revelation on the 700 Club show, on Tuesday, November 27th.
> Heres the clip:
> 
> Even Pat Robertson Denies the Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> 
> The comments section is a good read.
> 
> From Hams Facebook page:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only do we have to work hard to not let our kids be led astray by the anti-God teaching of the secularists, we have to work hard to not let them be led astray by compromising church leaders like Pat Robertson. This excerpt was posted on Youtube by a group that is a project of People For the American Way. Pat Robertson gives more fodder to the secularists. We dont need enemies from without the church when we have such destructive teaching within the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. I think Ken Ham and his followers need to stock up on weapons and ammo and do a bit of christian creationist "we're right, you're wrong and let the games begin.
Click to expand...


You attack messengers not the message because you're an atheist tool.


----------



## Iridescence

Creationists challenge the potential ease some seem to develop by the idea of a long time span. Without the continual reminders that many things are not as they appear would we be provoked to continue arguments toward perpetual production? Perhaps not. *dunno* 

I am reminded that we are not necessarily rushing ourselves toward a hellish fire... but yet the burn is not lessened by that potential conclusion. If we stop arguing and stop divisions amongst ourselves we could be putting limitations upon living life that would bring about an unmanageable force of insanity that could be detrimental to our united existance... that would likely be in no one's best interests.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pat Robertson: Dinos Lived BEFORE Humans!*
> 
> Pat Robertson: Dinos Lived BEFORE Humans! - The Panda's Thumb
> O
> 
> Pat Robertson made a stunning revelation on the 700 Club show, on Tuesday, November 27th.
> Heres the clip:
> 
> Even Pat Robertson Denies the Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> 
> The comments section is a good read.
> 
> From Hams Facebook page:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only do we have to work hard to not let our kids be led astray by the anti-God teaching of the secularists, we have to work hard to not let them be led astray by compromising church leaders like Pat Robertson. This excerpt was posted on Youtube by a group that is a project of People For the American Way. Pat Robertson gives more fodder to the secularists. We dont need enemies from without the church when we have such destructive teaching within the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. I think Ken Ham and his followers need to stock up on weapons and ammo and do a bit of christian creationist "we're right, you're wrong and let the games begin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You attack messengers not the message because you're an atheist tool.
Click to expand...

That's all very melodramatic but your religiously inspired hatreds prevent you from being impartial or possessing any ability to pass judgement.


----------



## Harper

Why can't creationism and evolution coexist? Evolution is obviously real since there is scientific proof of it but who's to say that God isn't behind it? I believe that if God created the universe then he can certainly set life to evolve, and believing that doesn't make me any less Christian. 

Now for the people that think that animals like dinosaurs are made up or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old they are just blind to reality and are just believing their own lies.


----------



## UltimateReality

Harper said:


> Why can't creationism and evolution coexist? Evolution is obviously real since there is scientific proof of it but who's to say that God isn't behind it? I believe that if God created the universe then he can certainly set life to evolve, and believing that doesn't make me any less Christian.
> 
> Now for the people that think that animals like dinosaurs are made up or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old they are just blind to reality and are just believing their own lies.



There would be no problem with creationism and evolution co-existing, if there was a shred of scientific evidence it was a valid theory. I have no issue with the fact that God used millions of processes to create the universe, the earth and everything in it. There just isn't science to support evolution was one of them.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Harper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't creationism and evolution coexist? Evolution is obviously real since there is scientific proof of it but who's to say that God isn't behind it? I believe that if God created the universe then he can certainly set life to evolve, and believing that doesn't make me any less Christian.
> 
> Now for the people that think that animals like dinosaurs are made up or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old they are just blind to reality and are just believing their own lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There would be no problem with creationism and evolution co-existing, if there was a shred of scientific evidence it was a valid theory. I have no issue with the fact that God used millions of processes to create the universe, the earth and everything in it. There just isn't science to support evolution was one of them.
Click to expand...

As ID'iots would present it, all the disparate sciences supporting evolution, all the hard data and all the relevant teaching universities and relevant scientists have all configured a worldwide conspiracy to fool religious zealots.

Such are the wages of ID'iocy.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Harper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't creationism and evolution coexist? Evolution is obviously real since there is scientific proof of it but who's to say that God isn't behind it? I believe that if God created the universe then he can certainly set life to evolve, and believing that doesn't make me any less Christian.
> 
> Now for the people that think that animals like dinosaurs are made up or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old they are just blind to reality and are just believing their own lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There would be no problem with creationism and evolution co-existing, if there was a shred of scientific evidence it was a valid theory. I have no issue with the fact that God used millions of processes to create the universe, the earth and everything in it. There just isn't science to support evolution was one of them.
Click to expand...


This is an example of extreme confirmation bias having gone completely unchecked.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pat Robertson: Dinos Lived BEFORE Humans!*
> 
> Pat Robertson: Dinos Lived BEFORE Humans! - The Panda's Thumb
> O
> 
> Pat Robertson made a stunning revelation on the 700 Club show, on Tuesday, November 27th.
> Heres the clip:
> 
> Even Pat Robertson Denies the Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> 
> The comments section is a good read.
> 
> From Hams Facebook page:
> 
> 
> Heh. I think Ken Ham and his followers need to stock up on weapons and ammo and do a bit of christian creationist "we're right, you're wrong and let the games begin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attack messengers not the message because you're an atheist tool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all very melodramatic but your religiously inspired hatreds prevent you from being impartial or possessing any ability to pass judgement.
Click to expand...


Atleast Ima was accurate about you.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Harper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't creationism and evolution coexist? Evolution is obviously real since there is scientific proof of it but who's to say that God isn't behind it? I believe that if God created the universe then he can certainly set life to evolve, and believing that doesn't make me any less Christian.
> 
> Now for the people that think that animals like dinosaurs are made up or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old they are just blind to reality and are just believing their own lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There would be no problem with creationism and evolution co-existing, if there was a shred of scientific evidence it was a valid theory. I have no issue with the fact that God used millions of processes to create the universe, the earth and everything in it. There just isn't science to support evolution was one of them.
Click to expand...


Evolution is a fact.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attack messengers not the message because you're an atheist tool.
> 
> 
> 
> That's all very melodramatic but your religiously inspired hatreds prevent you from being impartial or possessing any ability to pass judgement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atleast Ima was accurate about you.
Click to expand...


So you agree that your religiously inspired hatreds prevent you from being impartial or possessing any ability to pass judgement.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> Harper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't creationism and evolution coexist? Evolution is obviously real since there is scientific proof of it but who's to say that God isn't behind it? I believe that if God created the universe then he can certainly set life to evolve, and believing that doesn't make me any less Christian.
> 
> Now for the people that think that animals like dinosaurs are made up or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old they are just blind to reality and are just believing their own lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There would be no problem with creationism and evolution co-existing, *if there was a shred of scientific evidence it was a valid theory.* I have no issue with the fact that God used millions of processes to create the universe, the earth and everything in it. There just isn't science to support evolution was one of them.
Click to expand...


DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT!!!! Or does this mean that you have a shred of scientific evidence that your god exists?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't creationism and evolution coexist? Evolution is obviously real since there is scientific proof of it but who's to say that God isn't behind it? I believe that if God created the universe then he can certainly set life to evolve, and believing that doesn't make me any less Christian.
> 
> Now for the people that think that animals like dinosaurs are made up or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old they are just blind to reality and are just believing their own lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There would be no problem with creationism and evolution co-existing, if there was a shred of scientific evidence it was a valid theory. I have no issue with the fact that God used millions of processes to create the universe, the earth and everything in it. There just isn't science to support evolution was one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is a fact.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

This thread has been very quiet this weekend and I'm sure it has to do with the horrible events that occurred in Connecticut. I would love some thoughts from NP, Hawly, and Daws on how this is reconciled with evolution.

I for one, am convinced, that those little children, while maybe experiencing fear for a brief moment, were snatched up into the arms of Christ to spend eternity with him and their loved ones. 

How does a materialist reconcile the events on Friday? Just some bad genes? Just the way nature is, cold and cruel? And do you really believe that 5 years is all the consciousness those children got? Why did they only get 5 years and me 46? I think if you dig deep in your heart you will realize that you insides tell you that those children's existence didn't stop there.

I've heard the word "evil" mentioned numerous times over the last few days, but this is a theological term. What do materialists call Lanz's actions? Since you are not allowed to borrow theological terms, what was it that drove him to do such things?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There would be no problem with creationism and evolution co-existing, if there was a shred of scientific evidence it was a valid theory. I have no issue with the fact that God used millions of processes to create the universe, the earth and everything in it. There just isn't science to support evolution was one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Why is that funny? It is true. It is a demonstrable, observed fact.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> This thread has been very quiet this weekend and I'm sure it has to do with the horrible events that occurred in Connecticut. I would love some thoughts from NP, Hawly, and Daws on how this is reconciled with evolution.
> 
> I for one, am convinced, that those little children, while maybe experiencing fear for a brief moment, were snatched up into the arms of Christ to spend eternity with him and their loved ones.
> 
> How does a materialist reconcile the events on Friday? Just some bad genes? Just the way nature is, cold and cruel? And do you really believe that 5 years is all the consciousness those children got? Why did they only get 5 years and me 46? I think if you dig deep in your heart you will realize that you insides tell you that those children's existence didn't stop there.
> 
> I've heard the word "evil" mentioned numerous times over the last few days, but this is a theological term. What do materialists call Lanz's actions? Since you are not allowed to borrow theological terms, what was it that drove him to do such things?



A mix of genes and environment, just like any other phenotypical expression. This is not that hard or complex.  I find it a little disgusting that you use a recent incident like this as part of an argument against atheists, and obviously, as evidence of your own premises. Again, implied here is an argument from ignorance, because you presume that "materialists" don't have an explanation, therefore god is the only answer.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> This thread has been very quiet this weekend and I'm sure it has to do with the horrible events that occurred in Connecticut. I would love some thoughts from NP, Hawly, and Daws on how this is reconciled with evolution.
> 
> I for one, am convinced, that those little children, while maybe experiencing fear for a brief moment, were snatched up into the arms of Christ to spend eternity with him and their loved ones.
> 
> How does a materialist reconcile the events on Friday? Just some bad genes? Just the way nature is, cold and cruel? And do you really believe that 5 years is all the consciousness those children got? Why did they only get 5 years and me 46? I think if you dig deep in your heart you will realize that you insides tell you that those children's existence didn't stop there.
> 
> I've heard the word "evil" mentioned numerous times over the last few days, but this is a theological term. What do materialists call Lanz's actions? Since you are not allowed to borrow theological terms, what was it that drove him to do such things?


It's really sleazy that you would use the killing of children and adults as an opportunity for  proselytizing.


----------



## CandySlice

Still???? Really?????


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There would be no problem with creationism and evolution co-existing, if there was a shred of scientific evidence it was a valid theory. I have no issue with the fact that God used millions of processes to create the universe, the earth and everything in it. There just isn't science to support evolution was one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The above response speaks volumes about what constitutes the Christian creationist arguments for supermagical creation. What the creationists cannot reconcile is that in the ensuing 150 or so years since Charles Darwin first formulated his Theory of Evolution, (TOE), it has become among the best corroborated theories in all of science. Conversely, christian creationism, in all of its various labels and disguises, (including the most recent label: intelligent design) has consistently failed every legal and scientific test which it has been presented with.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | NCSE


Skeptic » eSkeptic » Tuesday, December 20th, 2005
_Kitzmiller et al
versus
Dover Area School District_

As the efforts of Christian creationists to re-package their biblical tales and fables as real science have suffered humiliating defeats, fundies have even undertaken the dishonest tactic of claiming that creationism and the TOE share faith-based precepts. One of the most notorious and dishonest of the Christian creationist front groups pressing this agenda is AIG:
Chapter 2: Evolution Is Religion - Answers in Genesis

It should be noted that this tactic is one of dishonesty and desperation. It is apparently a departure of the creationist strategy used earlier of arguing that creationism was validated scientifically, thus demanding that Christianity (re-labeled as IDiosy), should, therefore, be given time in public school science classes. Repeated legal defeats and legal opinions ruthlessly deriding the Christian creationist agenda have left their strategies not dead, but certainly on life support.

The frantic and dishonest tactics of Christian creationists to force their religious beliefs into the public school syllabus is detrimental to science. The religious articles require no falsifiable / objective / demonstrable evidence whatsoever. They only entail belief and/or wishful thinking. On the other hand, valid scientific theories must pass through the filter of the Scientific Method. The efforts of Christian creationists to equate religious dogma with established scientific theory is simply an effort to blur the salient differences between scientific epistemology and religious dogma.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't creationism and evolution coexist? Evolution is obviously real since there is scientific proof of it but who's to say that God isn't behind it? I believe that if God created the universe then he can certainly set life to evolve, and believing that doesn't make me any less Christian.
> 
> Now for the people that think that animals like dinosaurs are made up or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old they are just blind to reality and are just believing their own lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There would be no problem with creationism and evolution co-existing, if there was a shred of scientific evidence it was a valid theory. I have no issue with the fact that God used millions of processes to create the universe, the earth and everything in it. There just isn't science to support evolution was one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is a fact.
Click to expand...


Microevolution or in another term microadaptations yes is a fact, Macroevolution however is pure fantasy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't creationism and evolution coexist? Evolution is obviously real since there is scientific proof of it but who's to say that God isn't behind it? I believe that if God created the universe then he can certainly set life to evolve, and believing that doesn't make me any less Christian.
> 
> Now for the people that think that animals like dinosaurs are made up or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old they are just blind to reality and are just believing their own lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There would be no problem with creationism and evolution co-existing, if there was a shred of scientific evidence it was a valid theory. I have no issue with the fact that God used millions of processes to create the universe, the earth and everything in it. There just isn't science to support evolution was one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is a fact.
Click to expand...


Cross breeding is the best method of stimulating change. Most microadaptations are not due to mutations it is due to genetic data that already existed in the genepool. If you accounted for most living organisms that went extinct it was due to over hunting or organisms that wound up in an enviornment they could not adapt to.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There would be no problem with creationism and evolution co-existing, if there was a shred of scientific evidence it was a valid theory. I have no issue with the fact that God used millions of processes to create the universe, the earth and everything in it. There just isn't science to support evolution was one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Microevolution or in another term microadaptations yes is a fact, Macroevolution however is pure fantasy.
Click to expand...


Is that what they teach you at Harun Yahya?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> There would be no problem with creationism and evolution co-existing, if there was a shred of scientific evidence it was a valid theory. I have no issue with the fact that God used millions of processes to create the universe, the earth and everything in it. There just isn't science to support evolution was one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cross breeding is the best method of stimulating change. Most microadaptations are not due to mutations it is due to genetic data that already existed in the genepool. If you accounted for most living organisms that went extinct it was due to over hunting or organisms that wound up in an enviornment they could not adapt to.
Click to expand...

You neglected to append "because I say so" to the end of your comment.


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has been very quiet this weekend and I'm sure it has to do with the horrible events that occurred in Connecticut. I would love some thoughts from NP, Hawly, and Daws on how this is reconciled with evolution.
> 
> I for one, am convinced, that those little children, while maybe experiencing fear for a brief moment, were snatched up into the arms of Christ to spend eternity with him and their loved ones.
> 
> How does a materialist reconcile the events on Friday? Just some bad genes? Just the way nature is, cold and cruel? And do you really believe that 5 years is all the consciousness those children got? Why did they only get 5 years and me 46? I think if you dig deep in your heart you will realize that you insides tell you that those children's existence didn't stop there.
> 
> I've heard the word "evil" mentioned numerous times over the last few days, but this is a theological term. What do materialists call Lanz's actions? Since you are not allowed to borrow theological terms, what was it that drove him to do such things?
> 
> 
> 
> It's really sleazy that you would use the killing of children and adults as an opportunity for  proselytizing.
Click to expand...


That has to be one of the most tasteless, disgusting things Ive ever seen, using the death of those kids to promote an argument like that. These people are utter SCUM  and the most diseased, revolting 'human beings' on the planet. No boundaries. No shame. No scruples.
YWC, you do NOT pass the smell test. Shame on you, not that you have the presence of mind or the integrity to feel such an emotion.
Bleh. I gotta go wash my hands . . .or something. Ew.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has been very quiet this weekend and I'm sure it has to do with the horrible events that occurred in Connecticut. I would love some thoughts from NP, Hawly, and Daws on how this is reconciled with evolution.
> 
> I for one, am convinced, that those little children, while maybe experiencing fear for a brief moment, were snatched up into the arms of Christ to spend eternity with him and their loved ones.
> 
> How does a materialist reconcile the events on Friday? Just some bad genes? Just the way nature is, cold and cruel? And do you really believe that 5 years is all the consciousness those children got? Why did they only get 5 years and me 46? I think if you dig deep in your heart you will realize that you insides tell you that those children's existence didn't stop there.
> 
> I've heard the word "evil" mentioned numerous times over the last few days, but this is a theological term. What do materialists call Lanz's actions? Since you are not allowed to borrow theological terms, what was it that drove him to do such things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mix of genes and environment, just like any other phenotypical expression. This is not that hard or complex.  I find it a little disgusting that you use a recent incident like this as part of an argument against atheists, and obviously, as evidence of your own premises. Again, implied here is an argument from ignorance, because you presume that "materialists" don't have an explanation, therefore god is the only answer.
Click to expand...


I merely asked questions in an attempt to understand how you can justify such an incident from a materialist worldview. Leave it to you to read something into it. I find it shocking that you find it so shocking and distasteful when your very worldview claims that everything is natural, including Lanz's twisted brain. It is you who is a morally bankrupt disgusting purveyor of evil, by belonging to a religion that claims there is no evil. You should be ashamed.


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has been very quiet this weekend and I'm sure it has to do with the horrible events that occurred in Connecticut. I would love some thoughts from NP, Hawly, and Daws on how this is reconciled with evolution.
> 
> I for one, am convinced, that those little children, while maybe experiencing fear for a brief moment, were snatched up into the arms of Christ to spend eternity with him and their loved ones.
> 
> How does a materialist reconcile the events on Friday? Just some bad genes? Just the way nature is, cold and cruel? And do you really believe that 5 years is all the consciousness those children got? Why did they only get 5 years and me 46? I think if you dig deep in your heart you will realize that you insides tell you that those children's existence didn't stop there.
> 
> I've heard the word "evil" mentioned numerous times over the last few days, but this is a theological term. What do materialists call Lanz's actions? Since you are not allowed to borrow theological terms, what was it that drove him to do such things?
> 
> 
> 
> It's really sleazy that you would use the killing of children and adults as an opportunity for  proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the most tasteless, disgusting things Ive ever seen, using the death of those kids to promote an argument like that. These people are utter SCUM  and the most diseased, revolting 'human beings' on the planet. No boundaries. No shame. No scruples.
> *YWC*, you do NOT pass the smell test.
Click to expand...

 Hawly, nice try with the other screen name. You just proved this is you again by your stupidity of being unable to tell myself and YWC apart. 





CandySlice said:


> Shame on you, not that you have the presence of mind or the integrity to feel such an emotion.
> Bleh. I gotta go wash my hands . . .or something. Ew.



Please help me understand how you find something that nature produced so distasteful and disgusting. How is it that your sick, twisted worldview can claim these killings don't have EVIL at its very source? For you to claim my questions are offensive is the conundrum of the Darwinist religion. It is the same materialist religion that allowed Hitler to kill 6 million men, women and children.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has been very quiet this weekend and I'm sure it has to do with the horrible events that occurred in Connecticut. I would love some thoughts from NP, Hawly, and Daws on how this is reconciled with evolution.
> 
> I for one, am convinced, that those little children, while maybe experiencing fear for a brief moment, were snatched up into the arms of Christ to spend eternity with him and their loved ones.
> 
> How does a materialist reconcile the events on Friday? Just some bad genes? Just the way nature is, cold and cruel? And do you really believe that 5 years is all the consciousness those children got? Why did they only get 5 years and me 46? I think if you dig deep in your heart you will realize that you insides tell you that those children's existence didn't stop there.
> 
> I've heard the word "evil" mentioned numerous times over the last few days, but this is a theological term. What do materialists call Lanz's actions? Since you are not allowed to borrow theological terms, what was it that drove him to do such things?
> 
> 
> 
> It's really sleazy that you would use the killing of children and adults as an opportunity for  proselytizing.
Click to expand...


Says the Nazi that wants to see every Christian gassed. Get off your high horse. I'm sure you are not offended by the libs that didn't even wait until the victims are buried to start talking about gun control. You're the worst kind of hypocrite. I've, in one post, exposed the most sick, perverted and twisted notion of all of your darwinist religion.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cross breeding is the best method of stimulating change. Most microadaptations are not due to mutations it is due to genetic data that already existed in the genepool. If you accounted for most living organisms that went extinct it was due to over hunting or organisms that wound up in an enviornment they could not adapt to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You neglected to append "because I say so" to the end of your comment.
Click to expand...


You forgot to mention Harun Yaya for the 500th time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really sleazy that you would use the killing of children and adults as an opportunity for  proselytizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the most tasteless, disgusting things Ive ever seen, using the death of those kids to promote an argument like that. These people are utter SCUM  and the most diseased, revolting 'human beings' on the planet. No boundaries. No shame. No scruples.
> *YWC*, you do NOT pass the smell test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hawly, nice try with the other screen name. You just proved this is you again by your stupidity of being unable to tell myself and YWC apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shame on you, not that you have the presence of mind or the integrity to feel such an emotion.
> Bleh. I gotta go wash my hands . . .or something. Ew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please help me understand how you find something that nature produced so distasteful and disgusting. How is it that your sick, twisted worldview can claim these killings don't have EVIL at its very source? For you to claim my questions are offensive is the conundrum of the Darwinist religion. It is the same materialist religion that allowed Hitler to kill 6 million men, women and children.
Click to expand...


Yeah I would agree candyslice is another screen name for hollie. She must have passed gas in her room.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cross breeding is the best method of stimulating change. Most microadaptations are not due to mutations it is due to genetic data that already existed in the genepool. If you accounted for most living organisms that went extinct it was due to over hunting or organisms that wound up in an enviornment they could not adapt to.
> 
> 
> 
> You neglected to append "because I say so" to the end of your comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention Harun Yaya for the 500th time.
Click to expand...


She must have gotten her butt handed to her on there or anywhere she has attempted debating something she knows nothing about.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You neglected to append "because I say so" to the end of your comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention Harun Yaya for the 500th time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She must have gotten her butt handed to her on there or anywhere she has attempted debating something she knows nothing about.
Click to expand...


Such is the retrograde ideology of fundamentalist christianity.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has been very quiet this weekend and I'm sure it has to do with the horrible events that occurred in Connecticut. I would love some thoughts from NP, Hawly, and Daws on how this is reconciled with evolution.
> 
> I for one, am convinced, that those little children, while maybe experiencing fear for a brief moment, were snatched up into the arms of Christ to spend eternity with him and their loved ones.
> 
> How does a materialist reconcile the events on Friday? Just some bad genes? Just the way nature is, cold and cruel? And do you really believe that 5 years is all the consciousness those children got? Why did they only get 5 years and me 46? I think if you dig deep in your heart you will realize that you insides tell you that those children's existence didn't stop there.
> 
> I've heard the word "evil" mentioned numerous times over the last few days, but this is a theological term. What do materialists call Lanz's actions? Since you are not allowed to borrow theological terms, what was it that drove him to do such things?
> 
> 
> 
> It's really sleazy that you would use the killing of children and adults as an opportunity for  proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the Nazi that wants to see every Christian gassed. Get off your high horse. I'm sure you are not offended by the libs that didn't even wait until the victims are buried to start talking about gun control. You're the worst kind of hypocrite. I've, in one post, exposed the most sick, perverted and twisted notion of all of your darwinist religion.
Click to expand...

You did all that in one post?  What you actually did was represent yourself as just another self-hating Christian fundamentalist clone. 

Snicker...


----------



## ima

UR, so what was the scientifically verifiable proof again of your god existing? I must have missed it?


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention Harun Yaya for the 500th time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She must have gotten her butt handed to her on there or anywhere she has attempted debating something she knows nothing about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such is the retrograde ideology of fundamentalist christianity.
Click to expand...


I spent the first ten years of my life trying to get away from people like these. These people will do ANYTHING up to and including molesting children, in the NAME OF GOD. That makes everything alright, see?
I smell the holier-than-thou on these people like a skunk smells it's own behind. And like a skunk these freaks like to spread that smell around. It contaminates and makes ugly everything it touches. Go back and read some of YWC's comments. Nothing holy there, folks. That is the ranting, puking and mewling of a monster that would PUNISH you if he could get his slimey mitts on you.
Be afraid. Be VERY afraid. These people are capable of anything, no matter how filthy, no matter how vile and disgusting. They've got a direct line to GOD, dontcha understand, that allows them to do any filthy, lowdown, hideous thing imaginable under the bogus cloak of their 'LORD.'
If God knew who they were He'd kill 'em.


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the most tasteless, disgusting things Ive ever seen, using the death of those kids to promote an argument like that. These people are utter SCUM  and the most diseased, revolting 'human beings' on the planet. No boundaries. No shame. No scruples.
> *YWC*, you do NOT pass the smell test.
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly, nice try with the other screen name. You just proved this is you again by your stupidity of being unable to tell myself and YWC apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shame on you, not that you have the presence of mind or the integrity to feel such an emotion.
> Bleh. I gotta go wash my hands . . .or something. Ew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please help me understand how you find something that nature produced so distasteful and disgusting. How is it that your sick, twisted worldview can claim these killings don't have EVIL at its very source? For you to claim my questions are offensive is the conundrum of the Darwinist religion. It is the same materialist religion that allowed Hitler to kill 6 million men, women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah I would agree candyslice is another screen name for hollie. She must have passed gas in her room.
Click to expand...


Really? That's  your come-back?? Overlooking everything I said that's the best you've got?? How weak of you.
The kid was SICK. His mother was a prepper. She kept loaded guns in the house. LOTS of them. Who couldn't see something like that coming?


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> She must have gotten her butt handed to her on there or anywhere she has attempted debating something she knows nothing about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the retrograde ideology of fundamentalist christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I spent the first ten years of my life trying to get away from people like these. These people will do ANYTHING up to and including molesting children, in the NAME OF GOD. That makes everything alright, see?
> I smell the holier-than-thou on these people like a skunk smells it's own behind. And like a skunk these freaks like to spread that smell around. It contaminates and makes ugly everything it touches. Go back and read some of YWC's comments. Nothing holy there, folks. That is the ranting, puking and mewling of a monster that would PUNISH you if he could get his slimey mitts on you.
> Be afraid. Be VERY afraid. These people are capable of anything, no matter how filthy, no matter how vile and disgusting. They've got a direct line to GOD, dontcha understand, that allows them to do any filthy, lowdown, hideous thing imaginable under the bogus cloak of their 'LORD.'
> If God knew who they were He'd kill 'em.
Click to expand...


Now you suffer from multiple personalities.

Hollie, you're one sick individual.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly, nice try with the other screen name. You just proved this is you again by your stupidity of being unable to tell myself and YWC apart.
> 
> Please help me understand how you find something that nature produced so distasteful and disgusting. How is it that your sick, twisted worldview can claim these killings don't have EVIL at its very source? For you to claim my questions are offensive is the conundrum of the Darwinist religion. It is the same materialist religion that allowed Hitler to kill 6 million men, women and children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I would agree candyslice is another screen name for hollie. She must have passed gas in her room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? That's  your come-back?? Overlooking everything I said that's the best you've got?? How weak of you.
> The kid was SICK. His mother was a prepper. She kept loaded guns in the house. LOTS of them. Who couldn't see something like that coming?
Click to expand...


You surely don't want to discuss science as soon as you're hit with a question,you disappear. Really was nothing worth replying to should have just ignored the silly little game hollie is playing talking to herself.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I would agree candyslice is another screen name for hollie. She must have passed gas in her room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That's  your come-back?? Overlooking everything I said that's the best you've got?? How weak of you.
> The kid was SICK. His mother was a prepper. She kept loaded guns in the house. LOTS of them. Who couldn't see something like that coming?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You surely don't want to discuss science as soon as you're hit with a question,you disappear. Really was nothing worth replying to should have just ignored the silly little game hollie is playing talking to herself.
Click to expand...


Fundies will often retreat into conspiracy theory ramblings when they're unable to address salient points.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That's  your come-back?? Overlooking everything I said that's the best you've got?? How weak of you.
> The kid was SICK. His mother was a prepper. She kept loaded guns in the house. LOTS of them. Who couldn't see something like that coming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You surely don't want to discuss science as soon as you're hit with a question,you disappear. Really was nothing worth replying to should have just ignored the silly little game hollie is playing talking to herself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fundies will often retreat into conspiracy theory ramblings when their unable to address salient points.
Click to expand...


You have given me nothing to retreat from 

Honesty, it really bothers you doesn't it ? you both come across as bitter anti God and science loathing people. It appears you both speak like a troll not adults discussing an issue. Every now and than I don't mind wallowing in the mud with you atheist fundies.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You surely don't want to discuss science as soon as you're hit with a question,you disappear. Really was nothing worth replying to should have just ignored the silly little game hollie is playing talking to herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fundies will often retreat into conspiracy theory ramblings when their unable to address salient points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have given me nothing to retreat from
> 
> Honesty, it really bothers you doesn't it ? you both come across as bitter anti God and science loathing people. It appears you both speak like a troll not adults discussing an issue. Every now and than I don't mind wallowing in the mud with you atheist fundies.
Click to expand...

The angry Christian fundie persona gives people a chuckle but little else. Myself and others have tried to educate you regarding science so that you could separate biblical takes and fables from a reality based worldview. Your Christian inspired, science loathing agenda will, I'm afraid, keep a yolk of fear and superstition around your neck. 

Your hateful ideology is your greatest detriment.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the retrograde ideology of fundamentalist christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent the first ten years of my life trying to get away from people like these. These people will do ANYTHING up to and including molesting children, in the NAME OF GOD. That makes everything alright, see?
> I smell the holier-than-thou on these people like a skunk smells it's own behind. And like a skunk these freaks like to spread that smell around. It contaminates and makes ugly everything it touches. Go back and read some of YWC's comments. Nothing holy there, folks. That is the ranting, puking and mewling of a monster that would PUNISH you if he could get his slimey mitts on you.
> Be afraid. Be VERY afraid. These people are capable of anything, no matter how filthy, no matter how vile and disgusting. They've got a direct line to GOD, dontcha understand, that allows them to do any filthy, lowdown, hideous thing imaginable under the bogus cloak of their 'LORD.'
> If God knew who they were He'd kill 'em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you suffer from multiple personalities.
> 
> Hollie, you're one sick individual.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid your lack of ability to respond with anything but conspiracy theories is holding you back from embracing a reality based worldview. 

Your imagined gawds have left you as damaged goods.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> I spent the first ten years of my life trying to get away from people like these. These people will do ANYTHING up to and including molesting children, in the NAME OF GOD. That makes everything alright, see?
> I smell the holier-than-thou on these people like a skunk smells it's own behind. And like a skunk these freaks like to spread that smell around. It contaminates and makes ugly everything it touches. Go back and read some of YWC's comments. Nothing holy there, folks. That is the ranting, puking and mewling of a monster that would PUNISH you if he could get his slimey mitts on you.
> Be afraid. Be VERY afraid. These people are capable of anything, no matter how filthy, no matter how vile and disgusting. They've got a direct line to GOD, dontcha understand, that allows them to do any filthy, lowdown, hideous thing imaginable under the bogus cloak of their 'LORD.'
> If God knew who they were He'd kill 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you suffer from multiple personalities.
> 
> Hollie, you're one sick individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid your lack of ability to respond with anything but conspiracy theories is holding you back from embracing a reality based worldview.
> 
> Your imagined gawds have left you as damaged goods.
Click to expand...


If I am damaged goods hollie I surely don't mind it. I have a really good life,make a good living a bunch of children and grandchildren. It's a pretty good life and a day is gonna come and it will be spectacular according to God's  promise.

The sad part is many will learn the hard way like they did on Noah's day.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundies will often retreat into conspiracy theory ramblings when their unable to address salient points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have given me nothing to retreat from
> 
> Honesty, it really bothers you doesn't it ? you both come across as bitter anti God and science loathing people. It appears you both speak like a troll not adults discussing an issue. Every now and than I don't mind wallowing in the mud with you atheist fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The angry Christian fundie persona gives people a chuckle but little else. Myself and others have tried to educate you regarding science so that you could separate biblical takes and fables from a reality based worldview. Your Christian inspired, science loathing agenda will, I'm afraid, keep a yolk of fear and superstition around your neck.
> 
> Your hateful ideology is your greatest detriment.
Click to expand...


Educate me hollie ? if you say so.


----------



## zombiehunter696

Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a bird. They knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and fly back to their flock and claim victory. 

Anyway, I'd love for a creationist to actually post evidence of their inane beliefs. Oh, and attempting to discredit evolution isn't evidence that a magic man did it.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you suffer from multiple personalities.
> 
> Hollie, you're one sick individual.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your lack of ability to respond with anything but conspiracy theories is holding you back from embracing a reality based worldview.
> 
> Your imagined gawds have left you as damaged goods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I am damaged goods hollie I surely don't mind it. I have a really good life,make a good living a bunch of children and grandchildren. It's a pretty good life and a day is gonna come and it will be spectacular according to God's  promise.
> 
> The sad part is many will learn the hard way like they did on Noah's day.
Click to expand...

Yes, dear. More thinly veiled threats of your gawds desire to mass murder more of humanity. How nice. As the tales and fables go, your megalomaniac gawds wiped most of humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment. The next mass murder your gawds are planning will be by fire. No wonder fundamentalist Christians can be such hateful, angry, maladjusted individuals. Just look at your role model. The gawds you have created are the most evil, destructive entities ever to have poisoned the human spirit. 

From the Crusades, to Medieval Europe, to the Inquisition, to Salem witch trials to modern days - angry, hateful Christians have been their own greatest enemy.


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That's  your come-back?? Overlooking everything I said that's the best you've got?? How weak of you.
> The kid was SICK. His mother was a prepper. She kept loaded guns in the house. LOTS of them. Who couldn't see something like that coming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You surely don't want to discuss science as soon as you're hit with a question,you disappear. Really was nothing worth replying to should have just ignored the silly little game hollie is playing talking to herself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fundies will often retreat into conspiracy theory ramblings when they're unable to address salient points.
Click to expand...


BOY ISN'T THAT THE TRUTH? The only fall back position seems to be some form of internet paranoia and bad manners. Do they accuse everybody who agrees with you of this or am I getting the treatment because I hit a nerve??


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the retrograde ideology of fundamentalist christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent the first ten years of my life trying to get away from people like these. These people will do ANYTHING up to and including molesting children, in the NAME OF GOD. That makes everything alright, see?
> I smell the holier-than-thou on these people like a skunk smells it's own behind. And like a skunk these freaks like to spread that smell around. It contaminates and makes ugly everything it touches. Go back and read some of YWC's comments. Nothing holy there, folks. That is the ranting, puking and mewling of a monster that would PUNISH you if he could get his slimey mitts on you.
> Be afraid. Be VERY afraid. These people are capable of anything, no matter how filthy, no matter how vile and disgusting. They've got a direct line to GOD, dontcha understand, that allows them to do any filthy, lowdown, hideous thing imaginable under the bogus cloak of their 'LORD.'
> If God knew who they were He'd kill 'em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you suffer from multiple personalities.
> 
> Hollie, you're one sick individual.
Click to expand...


So weak, so very very weak. Accusing people of your bad habits is no way to go thru life sweetie. Who needs another personality on a message board? Someone weak and lost such as yourself? I don't let ANYBODY else get credit for my words. What are you? 5?


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You surely don't want to discuss science as soon as you're hit with a question,you disappear. Really was nothing worth replying to should have just ignored the silly little game hollie is playing talking to herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fundies will often retreat into conspiracy theory ramblings when they're unable to address salient points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BOY ISN'T THAT THE TRUTH? The only fall back position seems to be some form of internet paranoia and bad manners. Do they accuse everybody who agrees with you of this or am I getting the treatment because I hit a nerve??
Click to expand...


I try my best to deal with people suffering from ignorance through paranoia.


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I would agree candyslice is another screen name for hollie. She must have passed gas in her room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That's  your come-back?? Overlooking everything I said that's the best you've got?? How weak of you.
> The kid was SICK. His mother was a prepper. She kept loaded guns in the house. LOTS of them. Who couldn't see something like that coming?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You surely don't want to discuss science as soon as you're hit with a question,you disappear. Really was nothing worth replying to should have just ignored the silly little game hollie is playing talking to herself.
Click to expand...

What 'science' would that be?? All I've seen from you is a slightly repulsive play for self aggrandizement and a woefully painful lack of knowledge. Sweetie, YOU can't even face me. You have to play it off like I'm some kind of alter ego. It's got to be the saddest display of being caught in the act of being who you really are that I've ever seen.
I called you correctly and you prove it without so much as a try at provng me wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> I spent the first ten years of my life trying to get away from people like these. These people will do ANYTHING up to and including molesting children, in the NAME OF GOD. That makes everything alright, see?
> I smell the holier-than-thou on these people like a skunk smells it's own behind. And like a skunk these freaks like to spread that smell around. It contaminates and makes ugly everything it touches. Go back and read some of YWC's comments. Nothing holy there, folks. That is the ranting, puking and mewling of a monster that would PUNISH you if he could get his slimey mitts on you.
> Be afraid. Be VERY afraid. These people are capable of anything, no matter how filthy, no matter how vile and disgusting. They've got a direct line to GOD, dontcha understand, that allows them to do any filthy, lowdown, hideous thing imaginable under the bogus cloak of their 'LORD.'
> If God knew who they were He'd kill 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you suffer from multiple personalities.
> 
> Hollie, you're one sick individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So weak, so very very weak. Accusing people of your bad habits is no way to go thru life sweetie. Who needs another personality on a message board? Someone weak and lost such as yourself? I don't let ANYBODY else get credit for my words. What are you? 5?
Click to expand...


It's been pointed out by UR,hollie does.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That's  your come-back?? Overlooking everything I said that's the best you've got?? How weak of you.
> The kid was SICK. His mother was a prepper. She kept loaded guns in the house. LOTS of them. Who couldn't see something like that coming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You surely don't want to discuss science as soon as you're hit with a question,you disappear. Really was nothing worth replying to should have just ignored the silly little game hollie is playing talking to herself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What 'science' would that be?? All I've seen from you is a slightly repulsive play for self aggrandizement and a woefully painful lack of knowledge. Sweetie, YOU can't even face me. You have to play it off like I'm some kind of alter ego. It's got to be the saddest display of being caught in the act of being who you really are that I've ever seen.
> I called you correctly and you prove it without so much as a try at provng me wrong.
Click to expand...


You can review the previous 25 pages or so and you will see the ignorance from your side on display.


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundies will often retreat into conspiracy theory ramblings when they're unable to address salient points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BOY ISN'T THAT THE TRUTH? The only fall back position seems to be some form of internet paranoia and bad manners. Do they accuse everybody who agrees with you of this or am I getting the treatment because I hit a nerve??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I try my best to deal with people suffering from ignorance through paranoia.
Click to expand...


Really? All I've seen you do is show your butt to people here. I've read you posts, dear. I know what I'm dealing with.


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You surely don't want to discuss science as soon as you're hit with a question,you disappear. Really was nothing worth replying to should have just ignored the silly little game hollie is playing talking to herself.
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' would that be?? All I've seen from you is a slightly repulsive play for self aggrandizement and a woefully painful lack of knowledge. Sweetie, YOU can't even face me. You have to play it off like I'm some kind of alter ego. It's got to be the saddest display of being caught in the act of being who you really are that I've ever seen.
> I called you correctly and you prove it without so much as a try at provng me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can review the previous 25 pages or so and you will see the ignorance from your side on display.
Click to expand...


MY side? Pray tell how do you know what MY side is? Did your imaginary friend give you the power of precience??


----------



## CandySlice

PS, Hollie. If I must be somebody else I could do a lot worse than you. God forbid I woke up someday in the hands of a creep like YWC. Because believe me I know where THAT'S at and it ain't nothin' nice, trust me.


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundies will often retreat into conspiracy theory ramblings when they're unable to address salient points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BOY ISN'T THAT THE TRUTH? The only fall back position seems to be some form of internet paranoia and bad manners. Do they accuse everybody who agrees with you of this or am I getting the treatment because I hit a nerve??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I try my best to deal with people suffering from ignorance through paranoia.
Click to expand...


And there you have it folks. Your average, see-how-holy-I-am 'christian' in one of his more receptive modes. What a guy!!!


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you suffer from multiple personalities.
> 
> Hollie, you're one sick individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So weak, so very very weak. Accusing people of your bad habits is no way to go thru life sweetie. Who needs another personality on a message board? Someone weak and lost such as yourself? I don't let ANYBODY else get credit for my words. What are you? 5?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been pointed out by UR,hollie does.
Click to expand...


Oh boy! Now THERE'S an unimpeachable source!


----------



## CandySlice

These are people that will scream at you about Armegeddon while trying to run their hand up your skirt.


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> These are people that will scream at you about Armegeddon while trying to run their hand up your skirt.



Slice, several of your recent posts telegraph all too loudly that you suffered sexual abuse at the hand of a clergy member. Was turning to atheism a way for you to cope with the abuse? If so, I don't understand what you went through but I can't blame you for turning to atheism and hatred for all Christians. I would just hope one day you would realize true forgiveness for your abuser is the only way out of your chains.


----------



## ima

ima said:


> UR, so what was the scientifically verifiable proof again of your god existing? I must have missed it?



Still waiting...


----------



## UltimateReality

zombiehunter696 said:


> Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a bird. They knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and fly back to their flock and claim victory.
> 
> Anyway, I'd love for a creationist to actually post evidence of their inane beliefs. Oh, and attempting to discredit evolution isn't evidence that a magic man did it.



Typical. Show up late to the party and pretend like it just started. There are at least 30 pages discussing scientific evidence for a designer.


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> She must have gotten her butt handed to her on there or anywhere she has attempted debating something she knows nothing about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the retrograde ideology of fundamentalist christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I spent the first ten years of my life trying to get away from people like these. These people will do ANYTHING up to and including molesting children, in the NAME OF GOD. That makes everything alright, see?
> I smell the holier-than-thou on these people like a skunk smells it's own behind. And like a skunk these freaks like to spread that smell around. It contaminates and makes ugly everything it touches. Go back and read some of YWC's comments. Nothing holy there, folks. That is the ranting, puking and mewling of a monster that would PUNISH you if he could get his slimey mitts on you.
> Be afraid. Be VERY afraid. These people are capable of anything, no matter how filthy, no matter how vile and disgusting. They've got a direct line to GOD, dontcha understand, that allows them to do any filthy, lowdown, hideous thing imaginable under the bogus cloak of their 'LORD.'
> If God knew who they were He'd kill 'em.
Click to expand...


These people? Sweetie, I've heard that term used about African Americans. Don't look now but your bigotry is showing. Blacks, Jews, Christians, poor people: you can just lump them all into one group and base the behavior of the whole group on a few bad ones. Yeah, I've dealt with people like you before Dear. Be afraid, be very afraid of Nazi's like HawlySlice.


----------



## zombiehunter696

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a bird. They knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and fly back to their flock and claim victory.
> 
> Anyway, I'd love for a creationist to actually post evidence of their inane beliefs. Oh, and attempting to discredit evolution isn't evidence that a magic man did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical. Show up late to the party and pretend like it just started. There are at least 30 pages discussing scientific evidence for a designer.
Click to expand...


Too bad there isn't any. I read quite a bit of the previous pages, and it's nothing but arguments from ignorance, and other debunked creationist garbage.


----------



## UltimateReality

zombiehunter696 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a bird. They knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and fly back to their flock and claim victory.
> 
> Anyway, I'd love for a creationist to actually post evidence of their inane beliefs. Oh, and attempting to discredit evolution isn't evidence that a magic man did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical. Show up late to the party and pretend like it just started. There are at least 30 pages discussing scientific evidence for a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad there isn't any. I read quite a bit of the previous pages, and it's nothing but arguments from ignorance, and other debunked creationist garbage.
Click to expand...


Great. So now you are parroting NP.


----------



## zombiehunter696

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical. Show up late to the party and pretend like it just started. There are at least 30 pages discussing scientific evidence for a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad there isn't any. I read quite a bit of the previous pages, and it's nothing but arguments from ignorance, and other debunked creationist garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great. So now you are parroting NP.
Click to expand...


So you acknowledge what I said is true? If not, why don't you post what you think is the best evidence for a designer?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a bird. They knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and fly back to their flock and claim victory.
> 
> Anyway, I'd love for a creationist to actually post evidence of their inane beliefs. Oh, and attempting to discredit evolution isn't evidence that a magic man did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical. Show up late to the party and pretend like it just started. There are at least 30 pages discussing scientific evidence for a designer.
Click to expand...


You confuse Christian creationism with real science. Religion is not science. Appeals to supermagical gawds have consistently been treated by the courts as religious invocations when Christian creation ministries have falsely and comically presented supermagicalism as science.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So does this mean that you've observed your god making the earth? or does your theory lack observation as well?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know that your theory about god making the earth was observed? Got a link to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have made myself clear on this one but since it went over your head. The design seen in nature which can be observed is evidence of the designer.
Click to expand...

yes ,you made your false statement very clear.
there is no design in nature....nature is what it is .
there is no proof of a sentient designer.
so logically and factually there can be no designer 
what is observed in nature is nature doing what it does...
any other interpretation is  without corroboration false.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The power of suggestion is strong with this one. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> more proof you're an illiterate "fauxpas" mean a mistake ! "faux" means false or fake.
> once again you imagined mastery of the power of suggestion tanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UR illiterate ? you're a funny guy
Click to expand...

  what's funny is YOU answering for UR " O" king of fautly reading!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The power of suggestion is strong with this one. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> more proof you're an illiterate "fauxpas" mean a mistake ! "faux" means false or fake.
> once again you imagined mastery of the power of suggestion tanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times I had to show you the difference between micro and macro evolution. Someone half way literate would have known there was a difference between micro and macro.
> 
> Mac-ro
> Adjective
> Large-scale; overall: "the analysis of social events at the macro level".
> 
> Mic-ro
> Adjective
> 1.Extremely small.
> 2.Small-scale.
> 
> Where a new family is considered macro and where a new breed within a family would be considered micro. Actually microadaptations would be a better term because that's all it is.
Click to expand...

asked and answer !
the only thing you've shown is denial of fact.
how many times have I presented ACTUAL  evidence THAT PROVES there is no appreciable difference between them.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times I had to show you the difference between micro and macro evolution. Someone half way literate would have known there was a difference between micro and macro.
> 
> Mac-ro
> Adjective
> Large-scale; overall: "the analysis of social events at the macro level".
> 
> Mic-ro
> Adjective
> 1.Extremely small.
> 2.Small-scale.
> 
> Where a knew family is considered macro and where a knew breed within a family would be considered micro. Actually microadaptations which would be a better term because that's all it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no clue as to the subject matter so why are you prattling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have something in common with daws.
Click to expand...

that's true! "WE" know When to answer and when to not.
you on the other hand are compelled by delusion to yammer on.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> These aren't the droids you're looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These copy and paste posts you spam on the forum through page after page is not a very christian thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Copy and paste?? You obviously need to leave the house more often. In 1977, I saw the movie 7 times. No need to copy and paste this line.
Click to expand...

 really? most people memorized that line after one showing...
either way it's a meaningless dodge.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pat Robertson: Dinos Lived BEFORE Humans!*
> 
> Pat Robertson: Dinos Lived BEFORE Humans! - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> Pat Robertson made a stunning revelation on the 700 Club show, on Tuesday, November 27th.
> Heres the clip:
> 
> Even Pat Robertson Denies the Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> 
> The comments section is a good read.
> 
> From Hams Facebook page:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only do we have to work hard to not let our kids be led astray by the anti-God teaching of the secularists, we have to work hard to not let them be led astray by compromising church leaders like Pat Robertson. This excerpt was posted on Youtube by a group that is a project of People For the American Way. Pat Robertson gives more fodder to the secularists. We dont need enemies from without the church when we have such destructive teaching within the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh. I think Ken Ham and his followers need to stock up on weapons and ammo and do a bit of christian creationist "we're right, you're wrong and let the games begin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You attack messengers not the message because you're an atheist tool.
Click to expand...

the messengers are the message and it and them are wrong...


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOY ISN'T THAT THE TRUTH? The only fall back position seems to be some form of internet paranoia and bad manners. Do they accuse everybody who agrees with you of this or am I getting the treatment because I hit a nerve??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try my best to deal with people suffering from ignorance through paranoia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? All I've seen you do is show your butt to people here. I've read you posts, dear. I know what I'm dealing with.
Click to expand...


Really ? I don't think you do.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'science' would that be?? All I've seen from you is a slightly repulsive play for self aggrandizement and a woefully painful lack of knowledge. Sweetie, YOU can't even face me. You have to play it off like I'm some kind of alter ego. It's got to be the saddest display of being caught in the act of being who you really are that I've ever seen.
> I called you correctly and you prove it without so much as a try at provng me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can review the previous 25 pages or so and you will see the ignorance from your side on display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY side? Pray tell how do you know what MY side is? Did your imaginary friend give you the power of precience??
Click to expand...


It's pretty clear you're of the atheistic evolutionist persuation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOY ISN'T THAT THE TRUTH? The only fall back position seems to be some form of internet paranoia and bad manners. Do they accuse everybody who agrees with you of this or am I getting the treatment because I hit a nerve??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try my best to deal with people suffering from ignorance through paranoia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you have it folks. Your average, see-how-holy-I-am 'christian' in one of his more receptive modes. What a guy!!!
Click to expand...


I was not speaking from my Godly view.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> So weak, so very very weak. Accusing people of your bad habits is no way to go thru life sweetie. Who needs another personality on a message board? Someone weak and lost such as yourself? I don't let ANYBODY else get credit for my words. What are you? 5?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been pointed out by UR,hollie does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy! Now THERE'S an unimpeachable source!
Click to expand...


It was brought to our attention by UR ,she=hollie either practiced plagiarism or she had another name on another site where she just copied and pasted this persons responses to creationist and IDer's.

So go ahead and look up to hollie or are you hollie,hmm.


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I try my best to deal with people suffering from ignorance through paranoia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it folks. Your average, see-how-holy-I-am 'christian' in one of his more receptive modes. What a guy!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was not speaking from my Godly view.
Click to expand...



Now THAT'S funny. Where would a loser like you stumble over a 'Godly' view??


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> These are people that will scream at you about Armegeddon while trying to run their hand up your skirt.



That is true there are people calling themselves Christians when clearly they are not.


----------



## Youwerecreated

zombiehunter696 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad there isn't any. I read quite a bit of the previous pages, and it's nothing but arguments from ignorance, and other debunked creationist garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. So now you are parroting NP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you acknowledge what I said is true? If not, why don't you post what you think is the best evidence for a designer?
Click to expand...


Evidently you did not read enough of this thread because we have presented plenty of evidence some in the last 25 pages goodluck on a rebuttal.

I am not gonna keep repeating myself.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more proof you're an illiterate "fauxpas" mean a mistake ! "faux" means false or fake.
> once again you imagined mastery of the power of suggestion tanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UR illiterate ? you're a funny guy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what's funny is YOU answering for UR " O" king of fautly reading!
Click to expand...


Sorry my intelligence allows me the ability to head you off because I already knew where you were headed.not my fault you couldn't keep up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more proof you're an illiterate "fauxpas" mean a mistake ! "faux" means false or fake.
> once again you imagined mastery of the power of suggestion tanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times I had to show you the difference between micro and macro evolution. Someone half way literate would have known there was a difference between micro and macro.
> 
> Mac-ro
> Adjective
> Large-scale; overall: "the analysis of social events at the macro level".
> 
> Mic-ro
> Adjective
> 1.Extremely small.
> 2.Small-scale.
> 
> Where a new family is considered macro and where a new breed within a family would be considered micro. Actually microadaptations would be a better term because that's all it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answer !
> the only thing you've shown is denial of fact.
> how many times have I presented ACTUAL  evidence THAT PROVES there is no appreciable difference between them.
Click to expand...


Just admit you were wrong it will hurt less.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pat Robertson: Dinos Lived BEFORE Humans!*
> 
> Pat Robertson: Dinos Lived BEFORE Humans! - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> Pat Robertson made a stunning revelation on the 700 Club show, on Tuesday, November 27th.
> Heres the clip:
> 
> Even Pat Robertson Denies the Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> 
> The comments section is a good read.
> 
> From Hams Facebook page:
> 
> 
> Heh. I think Ken Ham and his followers need to stock up on weapons and ammo and do a bit of christian creationist "we're right, you're wrong and let the games begin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You attack messengers not the message because you're an atheist tool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the messengers are the message and it and them are wrong...
Click to expand...


Wrong ? not I.


----------



## CandySlice

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are people that will scream at you about Armegeddon while trying to run their hand up your skirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slice, several of your recent posts telegraph all too loudly that you suffered sexual abuse at the hand of a clergy member. Was turning to atheism a way for you to cope with the abuse? If so, I don't understand what you went through but I can't blame you for turning to atheism and hatred for all Christians. I would just hope one day you would realize true forgiveness for your abuser is the only way out of your chains.
Click to expand...



You deduced that, did you, from a few lines on a message board?? I was never abused but I did a lot of observing. I can't imagine being young enough or dumb enough to fall for something that pathetic. As for my beliefs I'd say you have less knowledge on that subject than you do of science. And THAT'S  an inestimable amount of knowing nothing.
You 'holy' types always start off with the assumption you know things and it always turns out you know a lot less than zero. Hatred?? Only for 24 carat phonys. God and I sorted this stuff out a long time ago and I don't remember Him consulting with you ONCE.
PS He thinks you are full of shit too.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it folks. Your average, see-how-holy-I-am 'christian' in one of his more receptive modes. What a guy!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was not speaking from my Godly view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now THAT'S funny. Where would a loser like you stumble over a 'Godly' view??
Click to expand...


40 years of studying the scriptures it just has not been on display with the foolishness I deal with here in this thread.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are people that will scream at you about Armegeddon while trying to run their hand up your skirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slice, several of your recent posts telegraph all too loudly that you suffered sexual abuse at the hand of a clergy member. Was turning to atheism a way for you to cope with the abuse? If so, I don't understand what you went through but I can't blame you for turning to atheism and hatred for all Christians. I would just hope one day you would realize true forgiveness for your abuser is the only way out of your chains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You deduced that, did you, from a few lines on a message board?? I was never abused but I did a lot of observing. I can't imagine being young enough or dumb enough to fall for something that pathetic. As for my beliefs I'd say you have less knowledge on that subject than you do of science. And THAT'S  an inestimable amount of knowing nothing.
> You 'holy' types always start off with the assumption you know things and it always turns out you know a lot less than zero. Hatred?? Only for 24 carat phonys. God and I sorted this stuff out a long time ago and I don't remember Him consulting with you ONCE.
> PS He thinks you are full of shit too.
Click to expand...


I don't believe you are intelligent enough to see what's all around you.


----------



## CandySlice

And did you really just use the word 'telegraphed'?? My My. We are up on our old tired messageboard stock phrases, huh? What's next? I'm projecting??


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was not speaking from my Godly view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now THAT'S funny. Where would a loser like you stumble over a 'Godly' view??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40 years of studying the scriptures it just has not been on display with the foolishness I deal with here in this thread.
Click to expand...


And in those 40 years did you read anything about humility or patience? No? You really think this thread is your mission, don't you? And all the ugly things I've seen you say to people over and over again are okay because you have a 'devine right to say them? Isn't that so? Lord you people never change your schtick.
Do people still fall for that crap??


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> And did you really just use the word 'telegraphed'?? My My. We are up on our old tired messageboard stock phrases, huh? What's next? I'm projecting??



We can start here since you want to play. How do you think life came in to existence ? where did the universe come from ? I want to see if you're on the same page as a few of the others here.


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slice, several of your recent posts telegraph all too loudly that you suffered sexual abuse at the hand of a clergy member. Was turning to atheism a way for you to cope with the abuse? If so, I don't understand what you went through but I can't blame you for turning to atheism and hatred for all Christians. I would just hope one day you would realize true forgiveness for your abuser is the only way out of your chains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You deduced that, did you, from a few lines on a message board?? I was never abused but I did a lot of observing. I can't imagine being young enough or dumb enough to fall for something that pathetic. As for my beliefs I'd say you have less knowledge on that subject than you do of science. And THAT'S  an inestimable amount of knowing nothing.
> You 'holy' types always start off with the assumption you know things and it always turns out you know a lot less than zero. Hatred?? Only for 24 carat phonys. God and I sorted this stuff out a long time ago and I don't remember Him consulting with you ONCE.
> PS He thinks you are full of shit too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe you are intelligent enough to see what's all around you.
Click to expand...


Of course you don't sweetie. NOBODY is more intelligent than you, right?


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now THAT'S funny. Where would a loser like you stumble over a 'Godly' view??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40 years of studying the scriptures it just has not been on display with the foolishness I deal with here in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in those 40 years did you read anything about humility or patience? No? You really think this thread is your mission, don't you? And all the ugly things I've seen you say to people over and over again are okay because you have a 'devine right to say them? Isn't that so? Lord you people never change your schtick.
> Do people still fall for that crap??
Click to expand...


Like I said those attributes left a while ago after dealing with the atheist on here. Those attributes did not work with this crowd.


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> And did you really just use the word 'telegraphed'?? My My. We are up on our old tired messageboard stock phrases, huh? What's next? I'm projecting??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can start here since you want to play. How do you think life came in to existence ? where did the universe come from ? I want to see if you're on the same page as a few of the others here.
Click to expand...


Answer to all of the above: 'I don't know. I wasn't there'. AND NEITHER WERE YOU.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> You deduced that, did you, from a few lines on a message board?? I was never abused but I did a lot of observing. I can't imagine being young enough or dumb enough to fall for something that pathetic. As for my beliefs I'd say you have less knowledge on that subject than you do of science. And THAT'S  an inestimable amount of knowing nothing.
> You 'holy' types always start off with the assumption you know things and it always turns out you know a lot less than zero. Hatred?? Only for 24 carat phonys. God and I sorted this stuff out a long time ago and I don't remember Him consulting with you ONCE.
> PS He thinks you are full of shit too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you are intelligent enough to see what's all around you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't sweetie. NOBODY is more intelligent than you, right?
Click to expand...


Never said that.


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 40 years of studying the scriptures it just has not been on display with the foolishness I deal with here in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in those 40 years did you read anything about humility or patience? No? You really think this thread is your mission, don't you? And all the ugly things I've seen you say to people over and over again are okay because you have a 'devine right to say them? Isn't that so? Lord you people never change your schtick.
> Do people still fall for that crap??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said those attributes left a while ago after dealing with the atheist on here. Those attributes did not work with this crowd.
Click to expand...


Did it ever occur to you to just leave it alone? That maybe you were not fore-ordained to speak the only truth according to YWC??


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> And did you really just use the word 'telegraphed'?? My My. We are up on our old tired messageboard stock phrases, huh? What's next? I'm projecting??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can start here since you want to play. How do you think life came in to existence ? where did the universe come from ? I want to see if you're on the same page as a few of the others here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer to all of the above: 'I don't know. I wasn't there'. AND NEITHER WERE YOU.
Click to expand...


Hmm neither were the evolutionist but you don't object to their explanations filled with conjecture and vivid imaginations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in those 40 years did you read anything about humility or patience? No? You really think this thread is your mission, don't you? And all the ugly things I've seen you say to people over and over again are okay because you have a 'devine right to say them? Isn't that so? Lord you people never change your schtick.
> Do people still fall for that crap??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said those attributes left a while ago after dealing with the atheist on here. Those attributes did not work with this crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you to just leave it alone? That maybe you were not fore-ordained to speak the only truth according to YWC??
Click to expand...


Yep.


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you are intelligent enough to see what's all around you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't sweetie. NOBODY is more intelligent than you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said that.
Click to expand...


But by inference you are just so much more informed than the rest of us, isn't that so? (remember, I've been reading your posts)


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can start here since you want to play. How do you think life came in to existence ? where did the universe come from ? I want to see if you're on the same page as a few of the others here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer to all of the above: 'I don't know. I wasn't there'. AND NEITHER WERE YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm neither were the evolutionist but you don't object to their explanations filled with conjecture and vivid imaginations.
Click to expand...


How do you know what I object to? How do you know what I believe?


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said those attributes left a while ago after dealing with the atheist on here. Those attributes did not work with this crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it ever occur to you to just leave it alone? That maybe you were not fore-ordained to speak the only truth according to YWC??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.
Click to expand...


But you can't, can you?


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are people that will scream at you about Armegeddon while trying to run their hand up your skirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true there are people calling themselves Christians when clearly they are not.
Click to expand...


You betcha. I've been reading the garbled dogma of one right now.


----------



## CandySlice

It's my thinking God can probably do with one less cranky little shit heel telling everybody else what's what.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> This thread has been very quiet this weekend and I'm sure it has to do with the horrible events that occurred in Connecticut. I would love some thoughts from NP, Hawly, and Daws on how this is reconciled with evolution.
> 
> I for one, am convinced, that those little children, while maybe experiencing fear for a brief moment, were snatched up into the arms of Christ to spend eternity with him and their loved ones.
> 
> How does a materialist reconcile the events on Friday? Just some bad genes? Just the way nature is, cold and cruel? And do you really believe that 5 years is all the consciousness those children got? Why did they only get 5 years and me 46? I think if you dig deep in your heart you will realize that you insides tell you that those children's existence didn't stop there.
> 
> I've heard the word "evil" mentioned numerous times over the last few days, but this is a theological term. What do materialists call Lanz's actions? Since you are not allowed to borrow theological terms, what was it that drove him to do such things?


only a total asshole would use this forum to spew his twisted pov..and attempt to make it appear that it's not completely disingenuous.
why am I not surprised.
if I dig deep, what I realize is detective douche bag will say or do anything to further his  megalomania : Definition of MEGALOMANIA
1: a mania for great or grandiose performance 
2: a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur 

the question should be HOW does it reconcile with Christianity ?
It's one of those times that proves that either god doesn't not exists or doesn't give a fuck about who kills who and how many.
if god existed why has he never interfered in the countless times children have been slaughterd? aren't they supposed to be god's favorites? 
or was it part of god's plan?
in other words shut the fuck up....


----------



## UltimateReality

zombiehunter696 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad there isn't any. I read quite a bit of the previous pages, and it's nothing but arguments from ignorance, and other debunked creationist garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. So now you are parroting NP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you acknowledge what I said is true? If not, why don't you post what you think is the best evidence for a designer?
Click to expand...


I've already done it many times. It's an appeal to ignorance alright, you and NP being the ignorance.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been pointed out by UR,hollie does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy! Now THERE'S an unimpeachable source!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was brought to our attention by UR ,she=hollie either practiced plagiarism or she had another name on another site where she just copied and pasted this persons responses to creationist and IDer's.
> 
> So go ahead and look up to hollie or are you hollie,hmm.
Click to expand...


Just another caveat... out of all the posters here, who condescendingly calls people "dear". Umm, that would be Hawly and CandySleez.


----------



## daws101

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has been very quiet this weekend and I'm sure it has to do with the horrible events that occurred in Connecticut. I would love some thoughts from NP, Hawly, and Daws on how this is reconciled with evolution.
> 
> I for one, am convinced, that those little children, while maybe experiencing fear for a brief moment, were snatched up into the arms of Christ to spend eternity with him and their loved ones.
> 
> How does a materialist reconcile the events on Friday? Just some bad genes? Just the way nature is, cold and cruel? And do you really believe that 5 years is all the consciousness those children got? Why did they only get 5 years and me 46? I think if you dig deep in your heart you will realize that you insides tell you that those children's existence didn't stop there.
> 
> I've heard the word "evil" mentioned numerous times over the last few days, but this is a theological term. What do materialists call Lanz's actions? Since you are not allowed to borrow theological terms, what was it that drove him to do such things?
> 
> 
> 
> It's really sleazy that you would use the killing of children and adults as an opportunity for  proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the most tasteless, disgusting things Ive ever seen, using the death of those kids to promote an argument like that. These people are utter SCUM  and the most diseased, revolting 'human beings' on the planet. No boundaries. No shame. No scruples.
> YWC, you do NOT pass the smell test. Shame on you, not that you have the presence of mind or the integrity to feel such an emotion.
> Bleh. I gotta go wash my hands . . .or something. Ew.
Click to expand...

bump....


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are people that will scream at you about Armegeddon while trying to run their hand up your skirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slice, several of your recent posts telegraph all too loudly that you suffered sexual abuse at the hand of a clergy member. Was turning to atheism a way for you to cope with the abuse? If so, I don't understand what you went through but I can't blame you for turning to atheism and hatred for all Christians. I would just hope one day you would realize true forgiveness for your abuser is the only way out of your chains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You deduced that, did you, from a few lines on a message board?? I was never abused but I did a lot of observing. I can't imagine being young enough or dumb enough to fall for something that pathetic. As for my beliefs I'd say you have less knowledge on that subject than you do of science. And THAT'S  an inestimable amount of knowing nothing.
> You 'holy' types always start off with the assumption you know things and it always turns out you know a lot less than zero. Hatred?? Only for 24 carat phonys. God and I sorted this stuff out a long time ago and I don't remember Him consulting with you ONCE.
> PS He thinks you are full of shit too.
Click to expand...


Those voices in your head are not God. That's schizophrenia!!! You should know better than to go off your meds. If you aren't Hawly's alter ego, then I'm guessing you guys are in the same group home.


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> And did you really just use the word 'telegraphed'?? My My. We are up on our old tired messageboard stock phrases, huh? What's next? I'm projecting??



Not projecting. Just being a bigot and a prejudice, mental midget. You're still fuming that blacks get to use the same drinking fountain as you.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has been very quiet this weekend and I'm sure it has to do with the horrible events that occurred in Connecticut. I would love some thoughts from NP, Hawly, and Daws on how this is reconciled with evolution.
> 
> I for one, am convinced, that those little children, while maybe experiencing fear for a brief moment, were snatched up into the arms of Christ to spend eternity with him and their loved ones.
> 
> How does a materialist reconcile the events on Friday? Just some bad genes? Just the way nature is, cold and cruel? And do you really believe that 5 years is all the consciousness those children got? Why did they only get 5 years and me 46? I think if you dig deep in your heart you will realize that you insides tell you that those children's existence didn't stop there.
> 
> I've heard the word "evil" mentioned numerous times over the last few days, but this is a theological term. What do materialists call Lanz's actions? Since you are not allowed to borrow theological terms, what was it that drove him to do such things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mix of genes and environment, just like any other phenotypical expression. This is not that hard or complex.  I find it a little disgusting that you use a recent incident like this as part of an argument against atheists, and obviously, as evidence of your own premises. Again, implied here is an argument from ignorance, because you presume that "materialists" don't have an explanation, therefore god is the only answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I merely asked questions in an attempt to understand how you can justify such an incident from a materialist worldview. Leave it to you to read something into it. I find it shocking that you find it so shocking and distasteful when your very worldview claims that everything is natural, including Lanz's twisted brain. It is you who is a morally bankrupt disgusting purveyor of evil, by belonging to a religion that claims there is no evil. You should be ashamed.
Click to expand...

failed attempt at absolving himself of responsibility for his actions alert!


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer to all of the above: 'I don't know. I wasn't there'. AND NEITHER WERE YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm neither were the evolutionist but you don't object to their explanations filled with conjecture and vivid imaginations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know what I object to? How do you know what I believe?
Click to expand...


How do you know what I object to Sweetie? How do you know what I believe you poor dear?


----------



## CandySlice

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slice, several of your recent posts telegraph all too loudly that you suffered sexual abuse at the hand of a clergy member. Was turning to atheism a way for you to cope with the abuse? If so, I don't understand what you went through but I can't blame you for turning to atheism and hatred for all Christians. I would just hope one day you would realize true forgiveness for your abuser is the only way out of your chains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You deduced that, did you, from a few lines on a message board?? I was never abused but I did a lot of observing. I can't imagine being young enough or dumb enough to fall for something that pathetic. As for my beliefs I'd say you have less knowledge on that subject than you do of science. And THAT'S  an inestimable amount of knowing nothing.
> You 'holy' types always start off with the assumption you know things and it always turns out you know a lot less than zero. Hatred?? Only for 24 carat phonys. God and I sorted this stuff out a long time ago and I don't remember Him consulting with you ONCE.
> PS He thinks you are full of shit too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those voices in your head are not God. That's schizophrenia!!! You should know better than to go off your meds. If you aren't Hawly's alter ego, then I'm guessing you guys are in the same group home.
Click to expand...


Wow. You really got me that time! Sweetie, you need some new material. The insults you're using are from the 90's. The world of the internet has moved on and you didn't get the memo, huh??


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> It's my thinking God can probably do with one less cranky little shit heel telling everybody else what's what.



Please, don't do anything stupid. This is just a forum. Had I known you were DTS I wouldn't have been joking around with you so much.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You surely don't want to discuss science as soon as you're hit with a question,you disappear. Really was nothing worth replying to should have just ignored the silly little game hollie is playing talking to herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fundies will often retreat into conspiracy theory ramblings when their unable to address salient points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have given me nothing to retreat from
> 
> Honesty, it really bothers you doesn't it ? you both come across as bitter anti God and science loathing people. It appears you both speak like a troll not adults discussing an issue. Every now and than I don't mind wallowing in the mud with you atheist fundies.
Click to expand...

meaning t ywc will suck your dick but refuse to get fucked in the ass.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has been very quiet this weekend and I'm sure it has to do with the horrible events that occurred in Connecticut. I would love some thoughts from NP, Hawly, and Daws on how this is reconciled with evolution.
> 
> I for one, am convinced, that those little children, while maybe experiencing fear for a brief moment, were snatched up into the arms of Christ to spend eternity with him and their loved ones.
> 
> How does a materialist reconcile the events on Friday? Just some bad genes? Just the way nature is, cold and cruel? And do you really believe that 5 years is all the consciousness those children got? Why did they only get 5 years and me 46? I think if you dig deep in your heart you will realize that you insides tell you that those children's existence didn't stop there.
> 
> I've heard the word "evil" mentioned numerous times over the last few days, but this is a theological term. What do materialists call Lanz's actions? Since you are not allowed to borrow theological terms, what was it that drove him to do such things?
> 
> 
> 
> only a total asshole would use this forum to spew his twisted pov..and attempt to make it appear that it's not completely disingenuous.
> why am I not surprised.
> if I dig deep, what I realize is detective douche bag will say or do anything to further his  megalomania : Definition of MEGALOMANIA
> 1: a mania for great or grandiose performance
> 2: a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur
> 
> the question should be HOW does it reconcile with Christianity ?
> It's one of those times that proves that either god doesn't not exists or doesn't give a fuck about who kills who and how many.
> if god existed why has he never interfered in the countless times children have been slaughterd? aren't that supposed to be god's favorites?
> or was it part of god's plan?
> in other words shut the fuck up....
Click to expand...


As usual you didn't answer the questions posed to you. You have become completely irrelevant. You can go back to sleep now.


----------



## CandySlice

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm neither were the evolutionist but you don't object to their explanations filled with conjecture and vivid imaginations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what I object to? How do you know what I believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know what I object to Sweetie? How do you know what I believe you poor dear?
Click to expand...


Because for the last 800 plus pages you've been blurting out your fractured ideas and I finally couldn't take it anymore. I had to either say something or laugh so hard I peed my pants.


----------



## CandySlice

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundies will often retreat into conspiracy theory ramblings when their unable to address salient points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have given me nothing to retreat from
> 
> Honesty, it really bothers you doesn't it ? you both come across as bitter anti God and science loathing people. It appears you both speak like a troll not adults discussing an issue. Every now and than I don't mind wallowing in the mud with you atheist fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> meaning t ywc will suck your dick but refuse to get fucked in the ass.
Click to expand...


Naw. That one's a top AND a bottom, trust me. Whatever the traffic  will bear.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really sleazy that you would use the killing of children and adults as an opportunity for  proselytizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the most tasteless, disgusting things Ive ever seen, *using the death of those kids to promote an argument like that.* These people are utter SCUM  and the most diseased, revolting 'human beings' on the planet. No boundaries. *No shame. No scruples.*
> YWC, you do NOT pass the smell test. Shame on you, not that you have the presence of mind or the integrity to feel such an emotion.
> Bleh. I gotta go wash my hands . . .or something. Ew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bump....
Click to expand...


Oh, you were referring to your boy Bloomberg I see? That shameless, opportunist, gun-grabbing, soda-shrinking, treasonous a-hole?

Shooting victims join NYC mayor, call for tougher gun laws


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> now you suffer from multiple personalities.
> 
> Hollie, you're one sick individual.
> 
> 
> 
> i'm afraid your lack of ability to respond with anything but conspiracy theories is holding you back from embracing a reality based worldview.
> 
> Your imagined gawds have left you as damaged goods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if i am damaged goods hollie i surely don't mind it. I have a really good life,make a good living a bunch of children and grandchildren. It's a pretty good life and a day is gonna come and it will be spectacular according to god's  promise.
> 
> The sad part is many will learn the hard way like they did on noah's day.
Click to expand...

 more empty threats and emptier promises....


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what I object to? How do you know what I believe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what I object to Sweetie? How do you know what I believe you poor dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because for the last 800 plus pages you've been blurting out your fractured ideas and I finally couldn't take it anymore. I had to either say something or laugh so hard *I peed my pants*.
Click to expand...


Some would say that Depends. 

You can admit it. You didn't respond in 800 pages because your group home buddie was busy with the bigoted comments and putdowns, and you with all your massive knowledge couldn't come up with a rebuttal.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has been very quiet this weekend and I'm sure it has to do with the horrible events that occurred in Connecticut. I would love some thoughts from NP, Hawly, and Daws on how this is reconciled with evolution.
> 
> I for one, am convinced, that those little children, while maybe experiencing fear for a brief moment, were snatched up into the arms of Christ to spend eternity with him and their loved ones.
> 
> How does a materialist reconcile the events on Friday? Just some bad genes? Just the way nature is, cold and cruel? And do you really believe that 5 years is all the consciousness those children got? Why did they only get 5 years and me 46? I think if you dig deep in your heart you will realize that you insides tell you that those children's existence didn't stop there.
> 
> I've heard the word "evil" mentioned numerous times over the last few days, but this is a theological term. What do materialists call Lanz's actions? Since you are not allowed to borrow theological terms, what was it that drove him to do such things?
> 
> 
> 
> only a total asshole would use this forum to spew his twisted pov..and attempt to make it appear that it's not completely disingenuous.
> why am I not surprised.
> if I dig deep, what I realize is detective douche bag will say or do anything to further his  megalomania : Definition of MEGALOMANIA
> 1: a mania for great or grandiose performance
> 2: a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur
> 
> the question should be HOW does it reconcile with Christianity ?
> It's one of those times that proves that either god doesn't not exists or doesn't give a fuck about who kills who and how many.
> if god existed why has he never interfered in the countless times children have been slaughterd? aren't that supposed to be god's favorites?
> or was it part of god's plan?
> in other words shut the fuck up....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual you didn't answer the questions posed to you. You have become completely irrelevant. You can go back to sleep now.
Click to expand...

As usual I hit center mass!


----------



## UltimateReality

So is no one going to address the moral bankruptcy of the darwinist religion?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> only a total asshole would use this forum to spew his twisted pov..and attempt to make it appear that it's not completely disingenuous.
> why am I not surprised.
> if I dig deep, what I realize is detective douche bag will say or do anything to further his  megalomania : Definition of MEGALOMANIA
> 1: a mania for great or grandiose performance
> 2: a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur
> 
> the question should be HOW does it reconcile with Christianity ?
> It's one of those times that proves that either god doesn't not exists or doesn't give a fuck about who kills who and how many.
> if god existed why has he never interfered in the countless times children have been slaughterd? aren't that supposed to be god's favorites?
> or was it part of god's plan?
> in other words shut the fuck up....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual you didn't answer the questions posed to you. You have become completely irrelevant. You can go back to sleep now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual I hit center mass!
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you hit but you definitely didn't address the questions posed to you.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundies will often retreat into conspiracy theory ramblings when they're unable to address salient points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BOY ISN'T THAT THE TRUTH? The only fall back position seems to be some form of internet paranoia and bad manners. Do they accuse everybody who agrees with you of this or am I getting the treatment because I hit a nerve??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I try my best to deal with people suffering from ignorance through paranoia.
Click to expand...

YWC'S ILLITERACY  SHINES THROUGH


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundies will often retreat into conspiracy theory ramblings when their unable to address salient points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have given me nothing to retreat from
> 
> Honesty, it really bothers you doesn't it ? you both come across as bitter anti God and science loathing people. It appears you both speak like a troll not adults discussing an issue. Every now and than I don't mind wallowing in the mud with you atheist fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> meaning t ywc will suck your dick but refuse to get fucked in the ass.
Click to expand...


 Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you.


----------



## CandySlice

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's my thinking God can probably do with one less cranky little shit heel telling everybody else what's what.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, don't do anything stupid. This is just a forum. Had I known you were DTS I wouldn't have been joking around with you so much.
Click to expand...


Wassamatter? You can dish it out but you can't take it?

Listen, I don't wonder people are turning from the church if YOU are what they are met with upon arrival. Your drivel could turn me atheist overnight.


----------



## zombiehunter696

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. So now you are parroting NP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you acknowledge what I said is true? If not, why don't you post what you think is the best evidence for a designer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already done it many times. It's an appeal to ignorance alright, you and NP being the ignorance.
Click to expand...


So point me to it. I'm not going back 850 pages to find the precise moment when you've done it. If you presented your best evidence once, it should be too much to ask you to do it once more.

And about the "moral bankruptcy of the darwinist religion": The Theory of Evolution only tells about how life on Earth got to the way it is today. It says nothing about morality.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual you didn't answer the questions posed to you. You have become completely irrelevant. You can go back to sleep now.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual I hit center mass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you hit but you definitely didn't address the questions posed to you.
Click to expand...

SINCE YOU ASKED NO REAL OR  HONEST QUESTIONS  MY ANSWER STANDS.
The other answer to that and this  post is you're an attention seeking slap dick...!


----------



## CandySlice

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm afraid your lack of ability to respond with anything but conspiracy theories is holding you back from embracing a reality based worldview.
> 
> Your imagined gawds have left you as damaged goods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if i am damaged goods hollie i surely don't mind it. I have a really good life,make a good living a bunch of children and grandchildren. It's a pretty good life and a day is gonna come and it will be spectacular according to god's  promise.
> 
> The sad part is many will learn the hard way like they did on noah's day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more empty threats and emptier promises....
Click to expand...


I got $50 says ole YWC is going to be in for a BIG surprise come judgement day.


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's my thinking God can probably do with one less cranky little shit heel telling everybody else what's what.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, don't do anything stupid. This is just a forum. Had I known you were DTS I wouldn't have been joking around with you so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wassamatter? You can dish it out but you can't take it?
> 
> Listen, I don't wonder people are turning from the church if YOU are what they are met with upon arrival. Your drivel could turn me atheist overnight.
Click to expand...


Wow, that went right over your head. You said God can do with one less cranky.... and I assumed you were talking about yourself by insinuating you were going to harm yourself. I figured living at the group home you would know what DTS means.

You think this is my "in person" persona? I have no relationship with anyone here. Do you seriously think anyone is going to change their worldview because of this thread? This forum is for entertainment, nothing more. My sarcasm is much more funny in person among friends. Your viscous, angry, Christian-hating, Nazi lens won't let you see it for what it is... Just humor.


----------



## CandySlice

zombiehunter696 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you acknowledge what I said is true? If not, why don't you post what you think is the best evidence for a designer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already done it many times. It's an appeal to ignorance alright, you and NP being the ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So point me to it. I'm not going back 850 pages to find the precise moment when you've done it. If you presented your best evidence once, it should be too much to ask you to do it once more.
> 
> And about the "moral bankruptcy of the darwinist religion": The Theory of Evolution only tells about how life on Earth got to the way it is today. It says nothing about morality.
Click to expand...


Now here's where our two erstwhile religious scholars throw in the towel and start stuttering.
Wait for it. . . . .


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already done it many times. It's an appeal to ignorance alright, you and NP being the ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So point me to it. I'm not going back 850 pages to find the precise moment when you've done it. If you presented your best evidence once, it should be too much to ask you to do it once more.
> 
> And about the "moral bankruptcy of the darwinist religion": The Theory of Evolution only tells about how life on Earth got to the way it is today. It says nothing about morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now here's where our two erstwhile religious scholars throw in the towel and start stuttering.
> Wait for it. . . . .
Click to expand...


If Darwinism says nothing about morality, then where does EVIL come from?

And by the way, the only stuttering was you not answering the moral questions I presented because you were too "astonished". Although I'm sure you jumped on Mayor Bloombergs soapbox with him.


----------



## CandySlice

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOY ISN'T THAT THE TRUTH? The only fall back position seems to be some form of internet paranoia and bad manners. Do they accuse everybody who agrees with you of this or am I getting the treatment because I hit a nerve??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try my best to deal with people suffering from ignorance through paranoia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YWC'S ILLITERACY  SHINES THROUGH
Click to expand...


Bingo!!!


----------



## CandySlice

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So point me to it. I'm not going back 850 pages to find the precise moment when you've done it. If you presented your best evidence once, it should be too much to ask you to do it once more.
> 
> And about the "moral bankruptcy of the darwinist religion": The Theory of Evolution only tells about how life on Earth got to the way it is today. It says nothing about morality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now here's where our two erstwhile religious scholars throw in the towel and start stuttering.
> Wait for it. . . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Darwinism says nothing about morality, then where does EVIL come from?
> 
> And by the way, the only stuttering was you not answering the moral questions I presented because you were too "astonished". Although I'm sure you jumped on Mayor Bloombergs soapbox with him.
Click to expand...


Evil comes from people like you dearie. YOU are the surprize in the punchbowl, the skunk to the garden party. You make EVERYTHING ugly and there is no cure for that.
Who's Bloomberg??


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are people that will scream at you about Armegeddon while trying to run their hand up your skirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slice, several of your recent posts telegraph all too loudly that you suffered sexual abuse at the hand of a clergy member. Was turning to atheism a way for you to cope with the abuse? If so, I don't understand what you went through but I can't blame you for turning to atheism and hatred for all Christians. I would just hope one day you would realize true forgiveness for your abuser is the only way out of your chains.
Click to expand...

 the previous is a paragraph edited from the left behind series ..for  ingenuousness (b : lacking craft or subtlety)


----------



## daws101

CandySlice said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> if i am damaged goods hollie i surely don't mind it. I have a really good life,make a good living a bunch of children and grandchildren. It's a pretty good life and a day is gonna come and it will be spectacular according to god's  promise.
> 
> The sad part is many will learn the hard way like they did on noah's day.
> 
> 
> 
> more empty threats and emptier promises....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got $50 says ole YWC is going to be in for a BIG surprise come judgement day.
Click to expand...

not much of a bet since he'll be long dead when the sun implodes !


----------



## zombiehunter696

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So point me to it. I'm not going back 850 pages to find the precise moment when you've done it. If you presented your best evidence once, it should be too much to ask you to do it once more.
> 
> And about the "moral bankruptcy of the darwinist religion": The Theory of Evolution only tells about how life on Earth got to the way it is today. It says nothing about morality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now here's where our two erstwhile religious scholars throw in the towel and start stuttering.
> Wait for it. . . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Darwinism says nothing about morality, then where does EVIL come from?
Click to expand...


In what universe does that make sense? If gravity says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? If kinematics says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? Scientific theories are morally neutral. Even if what you say(evolution is true = no morality), is true, it doesn't make the ToE false. That's a fallacy called a non sequitur. 

Science doesn't answer moral problems. That falls into the realm of philosophy. If you wanted to discuss where evil comes from, start a new thread.

If you believe there is a designer, show me what you believe to be the best piece of evidence for its existence. No Gish Galloping.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a bird. They knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and fly back to their flock and claim victory.
> 
> Anyway, I'd love for a creationist to actually post evidence of their inane beliefs. Oh, and attempting to discredit evolution isn't evidence that a magic man did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical. Show up late to the party and pretend like it just started. There are at least 30 pages discussing scientific evidence for a designer.
Click to expand...

that should read 30 pages of specious pseudoscience  conjecture on the subject of a non existent designer
the rest is Ur attempting and failing to initiate a pissing contest...typical beta male response


----------



## UltimateReality

zombiehunter696 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now here's where our two erstwhile religious scholars throw in the towel and start stuttering.
> Wait for it. . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Darwinism says nothing about morality, then where does EVIL come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what universe does that make sense? If gravity says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? If kinematics says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? Scientific theories are morally neutral. Even if what you say(evolution is true = no morality), is true, it doesn't make the ToE false. That's a fallacy called a non sequitur.
> 
> Science doesn't answer moral problems. That falls into the realm of philosophy. If you wanted to discuss where evil comes from, start a new thread.
> 
> If you believe there is a designer, show me what you believe to be the best piece of evidence for its existence. No Gish Galloping.
Click to expand...


I've explained it numerous times. Go back and read. If not, PM me your work address and I will buy you a copy of "Signature in the Cell" and have Amazon deliver it to you.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a bird. They knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and fly back to their flock and claim victory.
> 
> Anyway, I'd love for a creationist to actually post evidence of their inane beliefs. Oh, and attempting to discredit evolution isn't evidence that a magic man did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical. Show up late to the party and pretend like it just started. There are at least 30 pages discussing scientific evidence for a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that should read 30 pages of specious pseudoscience  conjecture on the subject of a non existent designer
> the rest is Ur attempting and failing to initiate a pissing contest...typical beta male response
Click to expand...


Still no answers. Typical dodge.


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now here's where our two erstwhile religious scholars throw in the towel and start stuttering.
> Wait for it. . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Darwinism says nothing about morality, then where does EVIL come from?
> 
> And by the way, the only stuttering was you not answering the moral questions I presented because you were too "astonished". Although I'm sure you jumped on Mayor Bloombergs soapbox with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evil comes from people like you dearie. YOU are the surprize in the punchbowl, the skunk to the garden party. You make EVERYTHING ugly and there is no cure for that.
> Who's Bloomberg??
Click to expand...


Nice dodge you poor dear.


----------



## CandySlice

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are people that will scream at you about Armegeddon while trying to run their hand up your skirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slice, several of your recent posts telegraph all too loudly that you suffered sexual abuse at the hand of a clergy member. Was turning to atheism a way for you to cope with the abuse? If so, I don't understand what you went through but I can't blame you for turning to atheism and hatred for all Christians. I would just hope one day you would realize true forgiveness for your abuser is the only way out of your chains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the previous is a paragraph edited from the left behind series ..for  ingenuousness (b : lacking craft or subtlety)
Click to expand...


I love these drop case, limp wristed psuedo-pop-psychologists, don't you??


----------



## UltimateReality

zombiehunter696 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you acknowledge what I said is true? If not, why don't you post what you think is the best evidence for a designer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already done it many times. It's an appeal to ignorance alright, you and NP being the ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So point me to it. I'm not going back 850 pages to find the precise moment when you've done it. If you presented your best evidence once, it should be too much to ask you to do it once more.
> 
> And about the "moral bankruptcy of the darwinist religion": The Theory of Evolution only tells about how life on Earth got to the way it is today. *It says nothing about morality*.
Click to expand...


Wow! You should really bone up on your own religious beliefs.

Evolution of morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## zombiehunter696

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Darwinism says nothing about morality, then where does EVIL come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what universe does that make sense? If gravity says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? If kinematics says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? Scientific theories are morally neutral. Even if what you say(evolution is true = no morality), is true, it doesn't make the ToE false. That's a fallacy called a non sequitur.
> 
> Science doesn't answer moral problems. That falls into the realm of philosophy. If you wanted to discuss where evil comes from, start a new thread.
> 
> If you believe there is a designer, show me what you believe to be the best piece of evidence for its existence. No Gish Galloping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've explained it numerous times. Go back and read. If not, PM me your work address and I will buy you a copy of "Signature in the Cell" and have Amazon deliver it to you.
Click to expand...


So you're too lazy to even tell me what page it's on? All I ask is what you believe to be the best evidence for this designer.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Darwinism says nothing about morality, then where does EVIL come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what universe does that make sense? If gravity says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? If kinematics says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? Scientific theories are morally neutral. Even if what you say(evolution is true = no morality), is true, it doesn't make the ToE false. That's a fallacy called a non sequitur.
> 
> Science doesn't answer moral problems. That falls into the realm of philosophy. If you wanted to discuss where evil comes from, start a new thread.
> 
> If you believe there is a designer, show me what you believe to be the best piece of evidence for its existence. No Gish Galloping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've explained it numerous times. Go back and read. If not, PM me your work address and I will buy you a copy of "Signature in the Cell" and have Amazon deliver it to you.
Click to expand...


Just be careful. "Alternate" reality has a pattern of pressing people for personal data (stalking). You might think he's simply proselytizing for one of the Christian creationist ministries but I suspect there is something more insidious and possibly dangerous.


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> She must have gotten her butt handed to her on there or anywhere she has attempted debating something she knows nothing about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the retrograde ideology of fundamentalist christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I spent the first ten years of my life trying to get away from people like these. These people will do ANYTHING up to and including molesting children, in the NAME OF GOD.
Click to expand...

 Read: I spent the first ten years of my life trying to get away from churchy people who wanted to molest me 





CandySlice said:


> That makes everything alright, see?
> I smell the holier-than-thou on these people like a skunk smells it's own behind. And like a skunk these freaks like to spread that smell around. It contaminates and makes ugly everything it touches.


 Alludes to being touched and her feelings of being contaminated 





CandySlice said:


> Go back and read some of YWC's comments. Nothing holy there, folks. That is the ranting, puking and mewling of a monster that would PUNISH you if he could get his slimey mitts on you.


 Alludes to Clergyman putting his mitts on her and punishing her





CandySlice said:


> Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.


 She lived in fear of this man as a child





CandySlice said:


> These people are capable of anything, no matter how filthy, no matter how vile and disgusting.


   Her opinion of her abuser 





CandySlice said:


> They've got a direct line to GOD,


 Obvious reference to a higher up in the church, although most likely not Catholic, since they have a preference for little boys 





CandySlice said:


> dontcha understand, that allows them to do any filthy, lowdown, hideous thing imaginable under the bogus cloak of their 'LORD.'


  Reference to their vile acts against her being done in secret.





CandySlice said:


> If God knew who they were He'd kill 'em.


 Believe me Honey, God knows. Here is what the Bible says about your abuser...

Matthew 18:6 (NIV)
&#8220;If anyone causes one of these little ones&#8212;those who believe in me&#8212;to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> So is no one going to address the moral bankruptcy of the darwinist religion?



No one really is interestred in entertaining your mindless prattle.


----------



## zombiehunter696

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already done it many times. It's an appeal to ignorance alright, you and NP being the ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So point me to it. I'm not going back 850 pages to find the precise moment when you've done it. If you presented your best evidence once, it should be too much to ask you to do it once more.
> 
> And about the "moral bankruptcy of the darwinist religion": The Theory of Evolution only tells about how life on Earth got to the way it is today. *It says nothing about morality*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! You should really bone up on your own religious beliefs.
> 
> Evolution of morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


The Theory of Evolution and the evolution of morality are two separate things. The idea that all animals share a common ancestor days nothing about morality. Biological evolution plays no part in the evolution of morality. Just because the word evolution is there, doesn't mean they are one in the same. Of course, being the dishonest creationist you are, you don't care about that. As long as you can shine any kind of negative light on your opponents, you're happy.

Your dishonest attempt to paint evolution as a religion is noted. Typical dishonesty coming from a creationist.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what universe does that make sense? If gravity says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? If kinematics says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? Scientific theories are morally neutral. Even if what you say(evolution is true = no morality), is true, it doesn't make the ToE false. That's a fallacy called a non sequitur.
> 
> Science doesn't answer moral problems. That falls into the realm of philosophy. If you wanted to discuss where evil comes from, start a new thread.
> 
> If you believe there is a designer, show me what you believe to be the best piece of evidence for its existence. No Gish Galloping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained it numerous times. Go back and read. If not, PM me your work address and I will buy you a copy of "Signature in the Cell" and have Amazon deliver it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just be careful. "Alternate" reality has a pattern of pressing people for personal data (stalking). You might think he's simply proselytizing for one of the Christian creationist ministries but I suspect there is something more insidious and possibly dangerous.
Click to expand...


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what universe does that make sense? If gravity says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? If kinematics says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? Scientific theories are morally neutral. Even if what you say(evolution is true = no morality), is true, it doesn't make the ToE false. That's a fallacy called a non sequitur.
> 
> Science doesn't answer moral problems. That falls into the realm of philosophy. If you wanted to discuss where evil comes from, start a new thread.
> 
> If you believe there is a designer, show me what you believe to be the best piece of evidence for its existence. No Gish Galloping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained it numerous times. Go back and read. If not, PM me your work address and I will buy you a copy of "Signature in the Cell" and have Amazon deliver it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just be careful. "Alternate" reality has a pattern of pressing people for personal data (stalking). You might think he's simply proselytizing for one of the Christian creationist ministries but I suspect there is something more insidious and possibly dangerous.
Click to expand...


OR, just another mindless nitwit  trying to pass off out of date, road weary old slogan-age as the latest in internet chit chat. Never suspecting the train left HOURS ago


----------



## UltimateReality

zombiehunter696 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what universe does that make sense? If gravity says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? If kinematics says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? Scientific theories are morally neutral. Even if what you say(evolution is true = no morality), is true, it doesn't make the ToE false. That's a fallacy called a non sequitur.
> 
> Science doesn't answer moral problems. That falls into the realm of philosophy. If you wanted to discuss where evil comes from, start a new thread.
> 
> If you believe there is a designer, show me what you believe to be the best piece of evidence for its existence. No Gish Galloping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained it numerous times. Go back and read. If not, PM me your work address and I will buy you a copy of "Signature in the Cell" and have Amazon deliver it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're too lazy to even tell me what page it's on? All I ask is what you believe to be the best evidence for this designer.
Click to expand...


You're too lazy to go back and read? You're too lazy to get a free book?


----------



## UltimateReality

zombiehunter696 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So point me to it. I'm not going back 850 pages to find the precise moment when you've done it. If you presented your best evidence once, it should be too much to ask you to do it once more.
> 
> And about the "moral bankruptcy of the darwinist religion": The Theory of Evolution only tells about how life on Earth got to the way it is today. *It says nothing about morality*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! You should really bone up on your own religious beliefs.
> 
> Evolution of morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Theory of Evolution and the evolution of morality are two separate things. The idea that all animals share a common ancestor days nothing about morality. Biological evolution plays no part in the evolution of morality. Just because the word evolution is there, doesn't mean they are one in the same. Of course, being the dishonest creationist you are, you don't care about that. As long as you can shine any kind of negative light on your opponents, you're happy.
> 
> Your dishonest attempt to paint evolution as a religion is noted. Typical dishonesty coming from a creationist.
Click to expand...


If matter is the only reality, and humans came from the process of evolution, where did human behavior come from Einstein?


----------



## CandySlice

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already done it many times. It's an appeal to ignorance alright, you and NP being the ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So point me to it. I'm not going back 850 pages to find the precise moment when you've done it. If you presented your best evidence once, it should be too much to ask you to do it once more.
> 
> And about the "moral bankruptcy of the darwinist religion": The Theory of Evolution only tells about how life on Earth got to the way it is today. *It says nothing about morality*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! You should really bone up on your own religious beliefs.
> 
> Evolution of morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


It would probably help if you'd actually READ Darwin.


----------



## zombiehunter696

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained it numerous times. Go back and read. If not, PM me your work address and I will buy you a copy of "Signature in the Cell" and have Amazon deliver it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're too lazy to even tell me what page it's on? All I ask is what you believe to be the best evidence for this designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your too lazy to go back and read? Your too lazy to get a free book?
Click to expand...


First of all, I'm not giving you or anyone else here a way you can reach me personally. 

Second, I'm not going back to read 850 pages of stuff to find out what you think the best evidence of a designer is. I have better things to do with my time.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can start here since you want to play. How do you think life came in to existence ? where did the universe come from ? I want to see if you're on the same page as a few of the others here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer to all of the above: 'I don't know. I wasn't there'. AND NEITHER WERE YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm neither were the evolutionist but you don't object to their explanations filled with conjecture and vivid imaginations.
Click to expand...


What conjecture and vivid imaginations? The Theory of Evolution is among the best supported theories in science.

Your conspiracy theories involving a worldwide assembly of co-conspirators of scientists, scientific organizations, public and private universities and science museums, etc., all conspiring to fake the archeological  record is pitiable. Its just more of the sad, diseased meanderings that Christian creationists hope to further.


----------



## zombiehunter696

CandySlice said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So point me to it. I'm not going back 850 pages to find the precise moment when you've done it. If you presented your best evidence once, it should be too much to ask you to do it once more.
> 
> And about the "moral bankruptcy of the darwinist religion": The Theory of Evolution only tells about how life on Earth got to the way it is today. *It says nothing about morality*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! You should really bone up on your own religious beliefs.
> 
> Evolution of morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would probably help if you'd actually READ Darwin.
Click to expand...


Creationists? Read about the Theory of Evolution? Keep dreaming. They thrive on not knowing about it and passing that ignorance to there just as ignorant flocks. If they knew about it, it might be harder for them to misrepresent it.


----------



## CandySlice

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a bird. They knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and fly back to their flock and claim victory.
> 
> Anyway, I'd love for a creationist to actually post evidence of their inane beliefs. Oh, and attempting to discredit evolution isn't evidence that a magic man did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical. Show up late to the party and pretend like it just started. There are at least 30 pages discussing scientific evidence for a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that should read 30 pages of specious pseudoscience  conjecture on the subject of a non existent designer
> the rest is Ur attempting and failing to initiate a pissing contest...typical beta male response
Click to expand...


I had UR as a really disgruntled BETA-BUCKING-FOR SHE-MALE.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> UR illiterate ? you're a funny guy
> 
> 
> 
> what's funny is YOU answering for UR " O" king of fautly reading!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry my intelligence allows me the ability to head you off because I already knew where you were headed.not my fault you couldn't keep up.
Click to expand...

it's impossible for you to be sorry about something you do not possess...
since I had already made my point just what were you heading off?


----------



## CandySlice

zombiehunter696 said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! You should really bone up on your own religious beliefs.
> 
> Evolution of morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would probably help if you'd actually READ Darwin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationists? Read about the Theory of Evolution? Keep dreaming. They thrive on not knowing about it and passing that ignorance to there just as ignorant flocks. If they knew about it, it might be harder for them to misrepresent it.
Click to expand...


Is it any wonder people are turning from the church? Look what you have to put up with if you stumble into the wrong place.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attack messengers not the message because you're an atheist tool.
> 
> 
> 
> the messengers are the message and it and them are wrong...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong ? not I.
Click to expand...

edit: that should read: "always"


----------



## Hollie

CandySlice said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So point me to it. I'm not going back 850 pages to find the precise moment when you've done it. If you presented your best evidence once, it should be too much to ask you to do it once more.
> 
> And about the "moral bankruptcy of the darwinist religion": The Theory of Evolution only tells about how life on Earth got to the way it is today. *It says nothing about morality*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! You should really bone up on your own religious beliefs.
> 
> Evolution of morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would probably help if you'd actually READ Darwin.
Click to expand...

SCORE!

Within this thread, what has become abundantly clear is that the fundies have never had any exposure to a science curriculum. When their cutting and pasting is from Harun Yahya, it suggests a stunted and really twisted example of human development.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was not speaking from my Godly view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now THAT'S funny. Where would a loser like you stumble over a 'Godly' view??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40 years of studying the scriptures it just has not been on display with the foolishness I deal with here in this thread.
Click to expand...

edit: that should read" "40 years of misinterpreting the Scriptures puts my willful ignorance on display in this thread."


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what universe does that make sense? If gravity says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? If kinematics says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? Scientific theories are morally neutral. Even if what you say(evolution is true = no morality), is true, it doesn't make the ToE false. That's a fallacy called a non sequitur.
> 
> Science doesn't answer moral problems. That falls into the realm of philosophy. If you wanted to discuss where evil comes from, start a new thread.
> 
> If you believe there is a designer, show me what you believe to be the best piece of evidence for its existence. No Gish Galloping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained it numerous times. Go back and read. If not, PM me your work address and I will buy you a copy of "Signature in the Cell" and have Amazon deliver it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just be careful. "Alternate" reality has a pattern of pressing people for personal data (stalking). You might think he's simply proselytizing for one of the Christian creationist ministries but I suspect there is something more insidious and possibly dangerous.
Click to expand...


Hollie I'm pretty sure Ur is FAR too lame to fool anybody. 10 years ago. . .maybe. . .but not these days.


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> candyslice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't believe you are intelligent enough to see what's all around you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course you don't sweetie. Nobody is more intelligent than you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> never said that.
Click to expand...

bullshit!!! Alert!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> And did you really just use the word 'telegraphed'?? My My. We are up on our old tired messageboard stock phrases, huh? What's next? I'm projecting??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not projecting. Just being a bigot and a prejudice, mental midget. You're still fuming that blacks get to use the same drinking fountain as you.
Click to expand...

the  false accusation ploy in action.


----------



## UltimateReality

zombiehunter696 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're too lazy to even tell me what page it's on? All I ask is what you believe to be the best evidence for this designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your too lazy to go back and read? Your too lazy to get a free book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I'm not giving you or anyone else here a way you can reach me personally.
> 
> Second, I'm not going back to read 850 pages of stuff to find out what you think the best evidence of a designer is. *I have better things to do with my time*.
Click to expand...


Exactly. So why waste mine?


----------



## UltimateReality

zombiehunter696 said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! You should really bone up on your own religious beliefs.
> 
> Evolution of morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would probably help if you'd actually READ Darwin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationists? Read about the Theory of Evolution? Keep dreaming. They thrive on not knowing about it and passing that ignorance to there just as ignorant flocks. If they knew about it, it might be harder for them to misrepresent it.
Click to expand...


Just keep repeating that to yourself and maybe it will come true.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! You should really bone up on your own religious beliefs.
> 
> Evolution of morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would probably help if you'd actually READ Darwin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SCORE!
> 
> Within this thread, what has become abundantly clear is that the fundies have never had any exposure to a science curriculum. When their cutting and pasting is from Harun Yahya, it suggests a stunted and really twisted example of human development.
Click to expand...


Another lie of Hollie. Unlike her unwillingness to read any opposing viewpoints, I have actually read The Origin of the Species.

Do yourself a favor, you might want to read it Hawly so you can actually sound like you know what you are talking about.

Literature.org - The Online Literature Library


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, don't do anything stupid. This is just a forum. Had I known you were DTS I wouldn't have been joking around with you so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wassamatter? You can dish it out but you can't take it?
> 
> Listen, I don't wonder people are turning from the church if YOU are what they are met with upon arrival. Your drivel could turn me atheist overnight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that went right over your head. You said God can do with one less cranky.... and I assumed you were talking about yourself by insinuating you were going to harm yourself. I figured living at the group home you would know what DTS means.
> 
> You think this is my "in person" persona? I have no relationship with anyone here. Do you seriously think anyone is going to change their worldview because of this thread? This forum is for entertainment, nothing more. My sarcasm is much more funny in person among friends. Your viscous, angry, Christian-hating, Nazi lens won't let you see it for what it is... Just humor.
Click to expand...

2 humongous steaming piles of shit in one paragraph..
Ur. YOU ARE NOT FUNNY AND NEVER WILL BE ....


----------



## zombiehunter696

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your too lazy to go back and read? Your too lazy to get a free book?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I'm not giving you or anyone else here a way you can reach me personally.
> 
> Second, I'm not going back to read 850 pages of stuff to find out what you think the best evidence of a designer is. *I have better things to do with my time*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. So why waste mine?
Click to expand...


Why not just tell me what you think is the best evidence of a designer?


----------



## zombiehunter696

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! You should really bone up on your own religious beliefs.
> 
> Evolution of morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Theory of Evolution and the evolution of morality are two separate things. The idea that all animals share a common ancestor days nothing about morality. Biological evolution plays no part in the evolution of morality. Just because the word evolution is there, doesn't mean they are one in the same. Of course, being the dishonest creationist you are, you don't care about that. As long as you can shine any kind of negative light on your opponents, you're happy.
> 
> Your dishonest attempt to paint evolution as a religion is noted. Typical dishonesty coming from a creationist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If matter is the only reality, and humans came from the process of evolution, where did human behavior come from Einstein?
Click to expand...


Human behavior evolved alongside evolution. Not by the same process as evolution. The two are separate. Social science explain human behavior and it's origins more than biological science.


----------



## zombiehunter696

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would probably help if you'd actually READ Darwin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists? Read about the Theory of Evolution? Keep dreaming. They thrive on not knowing about it and passing that ignorance to there just as ignorant flocks. If they knew about it, it might be harder for them to misrepresent it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just keep repeating that to yourself and maybe it will come true.
Click to expand...


Just keep repeating that there's evidence of a designer to yourself and the ignorant idiots that listen to you, and maybe it'll come true.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy! Now THERE'S an unimpeachable source!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was brought to our attention by UR ,she=hollie either practiced plagiarism or she had another name on another site where she just copied and pasted this persons responses to creationist and IDer's.
> 
> So go ahead and look up to hollie or are you hollie,hmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just another caveat... out of all the posters here, who condescendingly calls people "dear". Umm, that would be Hawly and CandySleez.
Click to expand...

It's a standard tactic of the Christian Flat-Earthers' to resort to juvenile name-calling as their arguments are pointless.


----------



## UltimateReality

zombiehunter696 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I'm not giving you or anyone else here a way you can reach me personally.
> 
> Second, I'm not going back to read 850 pages of stuff to find out what you think the best evidence of a designer is. *I have better things to do with my time*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. So why waste mine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not just tell me what you think is the best evidence of a designer?
Click to expand...



Why not seek the truth for yourself? If truth is what you actually seek, it can be found for the low, low price of $13.59.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355798107&sr=8-1&keywords=signature+in+the+cell]Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design: Stephen C. Meyer: 9780061472794: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


It's a common tactic of materialist fundies to play silly control games by trying to force one to link to a previous post when a simple google search would net all the information one needed regarding the scientific evidence for a designer espoused in this thread, that is, if they were really interested in what was said and not in playing foolish games. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=ult...b747fe93862d6b&bpcl=40096503&biw=1403&bih=900


----------



## UltimateReality

zombiehunter696 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Theory of Evolution and the evolution of morality are two separate things. The idea that all animals share a common ancestor days nothing about morality. Biological evolution plays no part in the evolution of morality. Just because the word evolution is there, doesn't mean they are one in the same. Of course, being the dishonest creationist you are, you don't care about that. As long as you can shine any kind of negative light on your opponents, you're happy.
> 
> Your dishonest attempt to paint evolution as a religion is noted. Typical dishonesty coming from a creationist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If matter is the only reality, and humans came from the process of evolution, where did human behavior come from Einstein?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human behavior evolved alongside evolution. Not by the same process as evolution. The two are separate. Social science explain human behavior and it's origins more than biological science.
Click to expand...


You miss the point entirely.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was brought to our attention by UR ,she=hollie either practiced plagiarism or she had another name on another site where she just copied and pasted this persons responses to creationist and IDer's.
> 
> So go ahead and look up to hollie or are you hollie,hmm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another caveat... out of all the posters here, who condescendingly calls people "dear". Umm, that would be Hawly and CandySleez.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a standard tactic of the Christian Flat-Earthers' to resort to juvenile name-calling as their arguments are pointless.
Click to expand...


Yes, the fundamentalist materialist tend to resort to condescending terms since they have no logical rebuttal to the arguments presented.


----------



## UltimateReality

_"Life cannot sustain DNA damage going unrepaired. What this new research shows is that not only is the elaborate DNA repair machinery necessary, but that it is equipped with an incredible high speed search capability, which also is necessary.

This means that in addition to all the other complexities that early evolution must have created, it also must have bequeathed RecA its rapid search capability." _

Darwin's God: Here is That New DNA Repair Paper That Has Evolution Crashing Again


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another caveat... out of all the posters here, who condescendingly calls people "dear". Umm, that would be Hawly and CandySleez.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a standard tactic of the Christian Flat-Earthers' to resort to juvenile name-calling as their arguments are pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the fundamentalist materialist tend to resort to condescending terms since they have no logical rebuttal to the arguments presented.
Click to expand...


You suffer from self-imposed ignorance. There is no logical rebuttal to your appeals to supermagical gawds. Supernatural realms are by definiton; illogical. Your angry, paranoid delusions that cause you to lash out in childish tantrums because your claims to gawds are not taken seriously is the result of your intellectual and emotional failings. Blaming others for the failures of your religious beliefs to make a rational argument is pointless.


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was brought to our attention by UR ,she=hollie either practiced plagiarism or she had another name on another site where she just copied and pasted this persons responses to creationist and IDer's.
> 
> So go ahead and look up to hollie or are you hollie,hmm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another caveat... out of all the posters here, who condescendingly calls people "dear". Umm, that would be Hawly and CandySleez.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a standard tactic of the Christian Flat-Earthers' to resort to juvenile name-calling as their arguments are pointless.
Click to expand...


But could ANYTHING be more predictable??? You can set your watch by it. First the condesencion, then the sad but game attempts at trying to pawn off their pitious remarks as humor, then comes the 'I couldn't be bothered' stage and finally here comes the ever popular name calling.  After this there is usually a crescendo of awps and non sequiters and finally they realize, far too late to redeem themselves, that they've backed themselves into a corner and must therefore exit in shame, only to begin the whole process over again the next day, secure in the knowledge that nobody will remember what was said the night before.
How do you live in that kind of bubble??


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> _"Life cannot sustain DNA damage going unrepaired. What this new research shows is that not only is the elaborate DNA repair machinery necessary, but that it is equipped with an incredible high speed search capability, which also is necessary.
> 
> This means that in addition to all the other complexities that early evolution must have created, it also must have bequeathed RecA its rapid search capability." _
> 
> Darwin's God: Here is That New DNA Repair Paper That Has Evolution Crashing Again



Here Is yet another reminder of just how pointless and irrelevant Christian ministries have become. Another cut and paste from the Flat Earth'ers.


----------



## UltimateReality

*Top Ten Problems for Evolution:*

1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages. 

2.The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. (For details, see "Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record" or "Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology");

3.The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand "tree of life." (For details, see: "A Primer on the Tree of Life");

4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;

5. The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant -- at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely. (For details, see "Convergent Genetic Evolution: 'Surprising' Under Unguided Evolution, Expected Under Intelligent Design" and "Dolphins and Porpoises and...Bats? Oh My! Evolution's Convergence Problem");

6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. (For details, see "The origin of life remains a mystery" or "Problems with the Natural Chemical 'Origin of Life'");

7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. (For details, see: "Evolving views of embryology," "A Reply to Carl Zimmer on Embryology and Developmental Biology," "Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution");

8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. (For details, see "Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE's Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution" or "Sea Monkeys Are the Tip of the Iceberg: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism");

9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called "junk" DNA. (For details, ] see: "Intelligent Design and the Death of the 'Junk-DNA' Neo-Darwinian Paradigm," "The Latest Proof of Evolution: The Appendix Has No Important Function," or "Does Darrel Falk's Junk DNA Argument for Common Descent Commit 'One of the Biggest Mistakes in the History of Molecular Biology'?);

10. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).

Links provided in original article:

What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution? - Evolution News & Views


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Life cannot sustain DNA damage going unrepaired. What this new research shows is that not only is the elaborate DNA repair machinery necessary, but that it is equipped with an incredible high speed search capability, which also is necessary.
> 
> This means that in addition to all the other complexities that early evolution must have created, it also must have bequeathed RecA its rapid search capability." _
> 
> Darwin's God: Here is That New DNA Repair Paper That Has Evolution Crashing Again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here Is yet another reminder of just how pointless and irrelevant Christian ministries have become. Another cut and paste from the Flat Earth'ers.
Click to expand...


Yet another ad hominem attack for the 500th time. Just once surprise us all and actually address the point that is made. In your own words would be nice but even a *RELEVANT* cut and paste that you've actually read would be better than your worthless attacks.


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another caveat... out of all the posters here, who condescendingly calls people "dear". Umm, that would be Hawly and CandySleez.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a standard tactic of the Christian Flat-Earthers' to resort to juvenile name-calling as their arguments are pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But could ANYTHING be more predictable??? You can set your watch by it. *First the condesencion, *...
Click to expand...


We can all assume you are referring to yourself, right dear. Seriously, Sweetie? oh and spell check is your friend.


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a standard tactic of the Christian Flat-Earthers' to resort to juvenile name-calling as their arguments are pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the fundamentalist materialist tend to resort to condescending terms since they have no logical rebuttal to the arguments presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suffer from self-imposed ignorance. There is no logical rebuttal to your appeals to supermagical gawds. Supernatural realms are by definiton; illogical. Your angry, paranoid delusions that cause you to lash out in childish tantrums because your claims to gawds are not taken seriously is the result of your intellectual and emotional failings. Blaming others for the failures of your religious beliefs to make a rational argument is pointless.
Click to expand...


If his 'God' is so attentive why didn't he make UR smart enough to hold up his end of the conversation??


----------



## CandySlice

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a standard tactic of the Christian Flat-Earthers' to resort to juvenile name-calling as their arguments are pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But could ANYTHING be more predictable??? You can set your watch by it. *First the condesencion, *...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can all assume you are referring to yourself, right dear. Seriously, Sweetie? oh and spell check is your friend.
Click to expand...


Right! I forgot to include the spelling police phase. How lax of me.


----------



## CandySlice

Also absent in the first draft was the ever popular 'I know you are but what am I'. Very importrant in establishing the intellectual age of the poster in question.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a standard tactic of the Christian Flat-Earthers' to resort to juvenile name-calling as their arguments are pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the fundamentalist materialist tend to resort to condescending terms since they have no logical rebuttal to the arguments presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suffer from self-imposed ignorance. There is no logical rebuttal to your appeals to supermagical gawds. Supernatural realms are by definiton; illogical. Your angry, paranoid delusions that cause you to lash out in childish tantrums because your claims to gawds are not taken seriously is the result of your intellectual and emotional failings. Blaming others for the failures of your religious beliefs to make a rational argument is pointless.
Click to expand...


Your self-loathing is evident to all by your self-loathingy posts and your self-loathing expressions. Why do you loath yourself so much? Where does your faith in your supermagical darwinism and supermagical pseudoscience come from and does your supermagical cut and pastes from Panda's thumb make you feel supermagical inside, Hawlys. Your claims for Hawlys and your childish rants are supermagical. And the Hawlys realms, including the Hawlys Rugged Touch Gawd and the CAndySleeze supermagical impersonation is rationally pointless to your supermagicallisms and your fundie materialists fairy tale paranoid delusional LSD tag line trips. You can't possibly front a logical rebuttal until you cleanse your self-loathing and renounce the Dawkins and his supermagicallsts ways.  If you could clense yourself of the dark ride tabby twins, you could achieve supercalifragilisticness on a different supermagical plain.

Do you hear how stupid you sound saying the same things over and over? Seriously!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Life cannot sustain DNA damage going unrepaired. What this new research shows is that not only is the elaborate DNA repair machinery necessary, but that it is equipped with an incredible high speed search capability, which also is necessary.
> 
> This means that in addition to all the other complexities that early evolution must have created, it also must have bequeathed RecA its rapid search capability." _
> 
> Darwin's God: Here is That New DNA Repair Paper That Has Evolution Crashing Again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here Is yet another reminder of just how pointless and irrelevant Christian ministries have become. Another cut and paste from the Flat Earth'ers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another ad hominem attack for the 500th time. Just once surprise us all and actually address the point that is made. In your own words would be nice but even a *RELEVANT* cut and paste that you've actually read would be better than your worthless attacks.
Click to expand...

Your siily cutting and pasting from creationist websites hardly deserve to be taken seriously. You spam the thread relentlessly with Christian religious dogma that is cloaked in a burqa of false science claims and manufactured data. 

You're little more than a bad joke.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hawly and CandySleeze, I'm surprised your caregiver lets you play on the computer this late, especially after your DTS ramblings about God dispensing with you.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here Is yet another reminder of just how pointless and irrelevant Christian ministries have become. Another cut and paste from the Flat Earth'ers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another ad hominem attack for the 500th time. Just once surprise us all and actually address the point that is made. In your own words would be nice but even a *RELEVANT* cut and paste that you've actually read would be better than your worthless attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your siily cutting and pasting from creationist websites hardly deserve to be taken seriously. You spam the thread relentlessly with Christian religious dogma *that is cloaked in a burqa* of false science claims and manufactured data.
> 
> You're little more than a bad joke.
Click to expand...


Hawly is an equal opportunity Bigot. She hates Muslims too.

Why do you loath yourself so bad?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the fundamentalist materialist tend to resort to condescending terms since they have no logical rebuttal to the arguments presented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You suffer from self-imposed ignorance. There is no logical rebuttal to your appeals to supermagical gawds. Supernatural realms are by definiton; illogical. Your angry, paranoid delusions that cause you to lash out in childish tantrums because your claims to gawds are not taken seriously is the result of your intellectual and emotional failings. Blaming others for the failures of your religious beliefs to make a rational argument is pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your self-loathing is evident to all by your self-loathingy posts and your self-loathing expressions. Why do you loath yourself so much? Where does your faith in your supermagical darwinism and supermagical pseudoscience come from and does your supermagical cut and pastes from Panda's thumb make you feel supermagical inside, Hawlys. Your claims for Hawlys and your childish rants are supermagical. And the Hawlys realms, including the Hawlys Rugged Touch Gawd and the CAndySleeze supermagical impersonation is rationally pointless to your supermagicallisms and your fundie materialists fairy tale paranoid delusional LSD tag line trips. You can't possibly front a logical rebuttal until you cleanse your self-loathing and renounce the Dawkins and his supermagicallsts ways.  If you could clense yourself of the dark ride tabby twins, you could achieve supercalifragilisticness on a different supermagical plain.
> 
> Do you hear how stupid you sound saying the same things over and over? Seriously!
Click to expand...

Yet another incoherent diatribe from the Christian zealot. 

And these Loons wonder why they're a laughing stock?


----------



## CandySlice

I just put URinary on ignore. That may well be the dumbest person I've ever seen in my life.


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You suffer from self-imposed ignorance. There is no logical rebuttal to your appeals to supermagical gawds. Supernatural realms are by definiton; illogical. Your angry, paranoid delusions that cause you to lash out in childish tantrums because your claims to gawds are not taken seriously is the result of your intellectual and emotional failings. Blaming others for the failures of your religious beliefs to make a rational argument is pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your self-loathing is evident to all by your self-loathingy posts and your self-loathing expressions. Why do you loath yourself so much? Where does your faith in your supermagical darwinism and supermagical pseudoscience come from and does your supermagical cut and pastes from Panda's thumb make you feel supermagical inside, Hawlys. Your claims for Hawlys and your childish rants are supermagical. And the Hawlys realms, including the Hawlys Rugged Touch Gawd and the CAndySleeze supermagical impersonation is rationally pointless to your supermagicallisms and your fundie materialists fairy tale paranoid delusional LSD tag line trips. You can't possibly front a logical rebuttal until you cleanse your self-loathing and renounce the Dawkins and his supermagicallsts ways.  If you could clense yourself of the dark ride tabby twins, you could achieve supercalifragilisticness on a different supermagical plain.
> 
> Do you hear how stupid you sound saying the same things over and over? Seriously!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another incoherent diatribe from the Christian zealot.
> 
> And these Loons wonder why they're a laughing stock?
Click to expand...


Must have learned the wortd 'loathing' earlier today. Or is that an old standby??


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundies will often retreat into conspiracy theory ramblings when their unable to address salient points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have given me nothing to retreat from
> 
> Honesty, it really bothers you doesn't it ? you both come across as bitter anti God and science loathing people. It appears you both speak like a troll not adults discussing an issue. Every now and than I don't mind wallowing in the mud with you atheist fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> meaning t ywc will suck your dick but refuse to get fucked in the ass.
Click to expand...


The pervert is back.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have given me nothing to retreat from
> 
> Honesty, it really bothers you doesn't it ? you both come across as bitter anti God and science loathing people. It appears you both speak like a troll not adults discussing an issue. Every now and than I don't mind wallowing in the mud with you atheist fundies.
> 
> 
> 
> meaning t ywc will suck your dick but refuse to get fucked in the ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw. That one's a top AND a bottom, trust me. Whatever the traffic  will bear.
Click to expand...


Is it me or are there a lot of rope suckers in this forum ?


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your self-loathing is evident to all by your self-loathingy posts and your self-loathing expressions. Why do you loath yourself so much? Where does your faith in your supermagical darwinism and supermagical pseudoscience come from and does your supermagical cut and pastes from Panda's thumb make you feel supermagical inside, Hawlys. Your claims for Hawlys and your childish rants are supermagical. And the Hawlys realms, including the Hawlys Rugged Touch Gawd and the CAndySleeze supermagical impersonation is rationally pointless to your supermagicallisms and your fundie materialists fairy tale paranoid delusional LSD tag line trips. You can't possibly front a logical rebuttal until you cleanse your self-loathing and renounce the Dawkins and his supermagicallsts ways.  If you could clense yourself of the dark ride tabby twins, you could achieve supercalifragilisticness on a different supermagical plain.
> 
> Do you hear how stupid you sound saying the same things over and over? Seriously!
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another incoherent diatribe from the Christian zealot.
> 
> And these Loons wonder why they're a laughing stock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must have learned the wortd 'loathing' earlier today. Or is that an old standby??
Click to expand...


Come on, Slice. Keep up. It's Hawly's fave putdown. In 854 pages, she has used the term "self-loathing" 342 times. You should know this Hawly, er, Slice....wink, wink.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what I object to Sweetie? How do you know what I believe you poor dear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because for the last 800 plus pages you've been blurting out your fractured ideas and I finally couldn't take it anymore. I had to either say something or laugh so hard *I peed my pants*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some would say that Depends.
> 
> You can admit it. You didn't respond in 800 pages because your group home buddie was busy with the bigoted comments and putdowns, and you with all your massive knowledge couldn't come up with a rebuttal.
Click to expand...


I think they are all kinda funny and daws is the female in the relationship.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You suffer from self-imposed ignorance. There is no logical rebuttal to your appeals to supermagical gawds. Supernatural realms are by definiton; illogical. Your angry, paranoid delusions that cause you to lash out in childish tantrums because your claims to gawds are not taken seriously is the result of your intellectual and emotional failings. Blaming others for the failures of your religious beliefs to make a rational argument is pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your self-loathing is evident to all by your self-loathingy posts and your self-loathing expressions. Why do you loath yourself so much? Where does your faith in your supermagical darwinism and supermagical pseudoscience come from and does your supermagical cut and pastes from Panda's thumb make you feel supermagical inside, Hawlys. Your claims for Hawlys and your childish rants are supermagical. And the Hawlys realms, including the Hawlys Rugged Touch Gawd and the CAndySleeze supermagical impersonation is rationally pointless to your supermagicallisms and your fundie materialists fairy tale paranoid delusional LSD tag line trips. You can't possibly front a logical rebuttal until you cleanse your self-loathing and renounce the Dawkins and his supermagicallsts ways.  If you could clense yourself of the dark ride tabby twins, you could achieve supercalifragilisticness on a different supermagical plain.
> 
> Do you hear how stupid you sound saying the same things over and over? Seriously!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another incoherent diatribe from the Christian zealot.
> 
> And these Loons wonder why they're a laughing stock?
Click to expand...


Really, No one is wondering about you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOY ISN'T THAT THE TRUTH? The only fall back position seems to be some form of internet paranoia and bad manners. Do they accuse everybody who agrees with you of this or am I getting the treatment because I hit a nerve??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try my best to deal with people suffering from ignorance through paranoia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YWC'S ILLITERACY  SHINES THROUGH
Click to expand...


Oh that went over your head to.


----------



## UltimateReality

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your self-loathing is evident to all by your self-loathingy posts and your self-loathing expressions. Why do you loath yourself so much? Where does your faith in your supermagical darwinism and supermagical pseudoscience come from and does your supermagical cut and pastes from Panda's thumb make you feel supermagical inside, Hawlys. Your claims for Hawlys and your childish rants are supermagical. And the Hawlys realms, including the Hawlys Rugged Touch Gawd and the CAndySleeze supermagical impersonation is rationally pointless to your supermagicallisms and your fundie materialists fairy tale paranoid delusional LSD tag line trips. You can't possibly front a logical rebuttal until you cleanse your self-loathing and renounce the Dawkins and his supermagicallsts ways.  If you could clense yourself of the dark ride tabby twins, you could achieve supercalifragilisticness on a different supermagical plain.
> 
> Do you hear how stupid you sound saying the same things over and over? Seriously!
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another incoherent diatribe from the Christian zealot.
> 
> And these Loons wonder why they're a laughing stock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must have learned the wortd 'loathing' earlier today. Or is that an old standby??
Click to expand...


Thought you were putting me on ignore?  I have Ima on ignore right now and it has really cleaned up the thread for me.


----------



## UltimateReality

So Hawly, no intelligent response to the top ten problems with evolution, huh?


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> if i am damaged goods hollie i surely don't mind it. I have a really good life,make a good living a bunch of children and grandchildren. It's a pretty good life and a day is gonna come and it will be spectacular according to god's  promise.
> 
> The sad part is many will learn the hard way like they did on noah's day.
> 
> 
> 
> more empty threats and emptier promises....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got $50 says ole YWC is going to be in for a BIG surprise come judgement day.
Click to expand...


I don't think your currency will be worth much in the new world.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Darwinism says nothing about morality, then where does EVIL come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what universe does that make sense? If gravity says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? If kinematics says nothing about morality, where does evil come from? Scientific theories are morally neutral. Even if what you say(evolution is true = no morality), is true, it doesn't make the ToE false. That's a fallacy called a non sequitur.
> 
> Science doesn't answer moral problems. That falls into the realm of philosophy. If you wanted to discuss where evil comes from, start a new thread.
> 
> If you believe there is a designer, show me what you believe to be the best piece of evidence for its existence. No Gish Galloping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've explained it numerous times. Go back and read. If not, PM me your work address and I will buy you a copy of "Signature in the Cell" and have Amazon deliver it to you.
Click to expand...


Nah they like miracles when the designer is not attached


----------



## Youwerecreated

zombiehunter696 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I'm not giving you or anyone else here a way you can reach me personally.
> 
> Second, I'm not going back to read 850 pages of stuff to find out what you think the best evidence of a designer is. *I have better things to do with my time*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. So why waste mine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not just tell me what you think is the best evidence of a designer?
Click to expand...


He already did.


----------



## Youwerecreated

zombiehunter696 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Theory of Evolution and the evolution of morality are two separate things. The idea that all animals share a common ancestor days nothing about morality. Biological evolution plays no part in the evolution of morality. Just because the word evolution is there, doesn't mean they are one in the same. Of course, being the dishonest creationist you are, you don't care about that. As long as you can shine any kind of negative light on your opponents, you're happy.
> 
> Your dishonest attempt to paint evolution as a religion is noted. Typical dishonesty coming from a creationist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If matter is the only reality, and humans came from the process of evolution, where did human behavior come from Einstein?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human behavior evolved alongside evolution. Not by the same process as evolution. The two are separate. Social science explain human behavior and it's origins more than biological science.
Click to expand...


Prove it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> I just put URinary on ignore. That may well be the dumbest person I've ever seen in my life.



I don't think you ever laid eyes on UR. When is your alterego gonna do it ?


----------



## zombiehunter696

Youwerecreated said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. So why waste mine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not just tell me what you think is the best evidence of a designer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He already did.
Click to expand...


Appealing to ignorance is not evidence. "I can't explain it, thus, God" is not evidence.


----------



## UltimateReality

zombiehunter696 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not just tell me what you think is the best evidence of a designer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He already did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appealing to ignorance is not evidence. "I can't explain it, thus, God" is not evidence.
Click to expand...


You obliviously aren't interested in the truth. Don't look now, but your agenda is showing. How embarrassing.


----------



## UltimateReality

*"Obama might cry for Americans in Newtown, but where are his tears for the Pakistani and Yemeni children he has slaughtered? And what about for the many victims who died as a result of thousands guns shipped by the US government to the Mexican drug cartels via Fast and Furious?"*

Guest Post: Gun Control? No, Drone Control. | ZeroHedge


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> So Hawly, no intelligent response to the top ten problems with evolution, huh?



Your cut and paste never presented an intelligent challenge to evolution as the best explanation to life on the planet. 

The ignorance that is furthered by your religious perspectives is not a challenge to science and reason. Ancient tales promoting fear and superstition serve what purpose?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He already did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appealing to ignorance is not evidence. "I can't explain it, thus, God" is not evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obliviously aren't interested in the truth. Don't look now, but your agenda is showing. How embarrassing.
Click to expand...


You confuse cutting and pasting from Christian cultists as "truth". Your religion has a long and lurid history of promoting falsehoods and keeping humanity mired in fear and superstition.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If matter is the only reality, and humans came from the process of evolution, where did human behavior come from Einstein?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human behavior evolved alongside evolution. Not by the same process as evolution. The two are separate. Social science explain human behavior and it's origins more than biological science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it ?
Click to expand...


There is a science called "sociology'. Your Christian madrassah would not have placed much emphasis on that program but in the relevant world, it goes a long way toward explaining human social interactions.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He already did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appealing to ignorance is not evidence. "I can't explain it, thus, God" is not evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obliviously aren't interested in the truth. Don't look now, but your agenda is showing. How embarrassing.
Click to expand...


Neither are you, if you are arguing from ignorance.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> So Hawly, no intelligent response to the top ten problems with evolution, huh?




The problems of evolution??? How about you try and respond to the problems of ID design, like the fact that it uses pure inductive reasoning. NO... you can't do that. So you just attack evolution!! How illogical and completely ineffective.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> So Hawly, no intelligent response to the top ten problems with evolution, huh?



The problem lies with YEC'ers such as yourself and the various christian creationist ministries which seek out the gulible and the uneducated. Your cut and paste was yet another example of the dangers of cults such as the Disco'tute and Casey Luskin.  

Discoveroids Top Ten Problems with Evolution


Discoveroids&#8217; Top Ten Problems with Evolution | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

Theyre exhibiting either misguided confidence or absolute desperation. Who? You know who  the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institutes creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).

You can decide which it is. Theyve just posted What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution? Its by Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist. Hes a Curmudgeon fellow and a follower of the Knights of Uranus. Casey says, with bold font added by us and his links omitted:


----------



## ima

Here's proof that we weren't made by ID: this thread is one of the dumbest ever and I don't think that an intelligent designer was needed to make this thread. Random idiocy for sure.


----------



## Hollie

The science of antediluvian plushies 

The science of antediluvian plushies - The Panda's Thumb 

One creationist claim that's commonly laughed at is this idea that 8 people could build a great big boat, big enough to hold all the 'kinds' of animals, and that those same 8 people were an adequate work force to maintain all those beasts for a year in a confined space on a storm-tossed ark. So the creationists have created a whole pseudoscientific field called baraminology which tries to survey all of taxonomy and throw 99% of it out, so they can reduce the necessary number of animals packed into the boat. Literally, that's all it's really about: inventing new taxonomies with the specific goal of lumping as many as possible, in order to minimize the load on their fantasy boat.

In the past, I've seen them argue that a biblical 'kind' is equivalent to a genus; others have claimed it's the Linnaean family. Now, Dr Jean K. Lightner, Independent Scholar (i.e. retired veterinarian), has taken the next step: a kind is equivalent to an order, roughly. Well, she does kind of chicken out at the Rodentia, the largest and most diverse group of mammals, and decides that those ought to be sorted into families, because otherwise she's reducing the number of animals on the ark too much.


----------



## Youwerecreated

zombiehunter696 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not just tell me what you think is the best evidence of a designer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He already did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appealing to ignorance is not evidence. "I can't explain it, thus, God" is not evidence.
Click to expand...


We can't explain the cell 

What we can't explain is how the cell and all of it's complexity could arise through a natural process.Anyone that believes the cell formed itself are just fooling themselves. The book UR was referring to points out the intricate parts and functions of the cell you either needed miracles or a very intelligent designer. Your natural process would have needed miracles a designer does not need miracles.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Appealing to ignorance is not evidence. "I can't explain it, thus, God" is not evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obliviously aren't interested in the truth. Don't look now, but your agenda is showing. How embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You confuse cutting and pasting from Christian cultists as "truth". Your religion has a long and lurid history of promoting falsehoods and keeping humanity mired in fear and superstition.
Click to expand...


Then share with us your view on the cell.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human behavior evolved alongside evolution. Not by the same process as evolution. The two are separate. Social science explain human behavior and it's origins more than biological science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a science called "sociology'. Your Christian madrassah would not have placed much emphasis on that program but in the relevant world, it goes a long way toward explaining human social interactions.
Click to expand...


You didn't understand prove it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Appealing to ignorance is not evidence. "I can't explain it, thus, God" is not evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obliviously aren't interested in the truth. Don't look now, but your agenda is showing. How embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither are you, if you are arguing from ignorance.
Click to expand...


Wait you have no answers for his questions but you call him ignorant


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Hawly, no intelligent response to the top ten problems with evolution, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problems of evolution??? How about you try and respond to the problems of ID design, like the fact that it uses pure inductive reasoning. NO... you can't do that. So you just attack evolution!! How illogical and completely ineffective.
Click to expand...


Pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obliviously aren't interested in the truth. Don't look now, but your agenda is showing. How embarrassing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse cutting and pasting from Christian cultists as "truth". Your religion has a long and lurid history of promoting falsehoods and keeping humanity mired in fear and superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then share with us your view on cell.
Click to expand...


I use Verizon.

In the mean time, I've read through the article (Antidiluvian Plushies), and I can only shrug my shoulders and whince with embarrassment at the Christian creationist mindset that accepts such nonsense as literal events.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a science called "sociology'. Your Christian madrassah would not have placed much emphasis on that program but in the relevant world, it goes a long way toward explaining human social interactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't understand prove it ?
Click to expand...


Your limited attention span is the culprit. 

You know nothing of sociological sciences, right?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Hawly, no intelligent response to the top ten problems with evolution, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problems of evolution??? How about you try and respond to the problems of ID design, like the fact that it uses pure inductive reasoning. NO... you can't do that. So you just attack evolution!! How illogical and completely ineffective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot calling the kettle black.
Click to expand...


Fundie unable to support his claims to supernaturalism.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He already did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appealing to ignorance is not evidence. "I can't explain it, thus, God" is not evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can't explain the cell
> 
> What we can't explain is how the cell and all of it's complexity could arise through a natural process.Anyone that believes the cell formed itself are just fooling themselves. The book UR was referring to points out the intricate parts and functions of the cell you either needed miracles or a very intelligent designer. Your natural process would have needed miracles a designer does not need miracles.
Click to expand...


The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Listen I will mention this one more time for the ones that missed it or for the ones that it went over their heads. We don't have cells forming outside a living organism namely other cells and this is a fact in science. Without cells we have no life period so where did life come from  ? That is right from a cell. If cells can't form from nonliving organisms how could life arise if the first cell was not formed by an intelligent being ? If it happened naturally once why is there no evidence of it in the observed nature ? Heck we can't even produce a functioning cell in the labs under all the right conditions and many very intelligent people working on it.

It is a moot point to bring up miller and urey's work,they produced only amino acids the problem with this out side of a living organism you have both right and left handed amino acids being  formed anyone that understands what I am saying will understand the problem just brought up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse cutting and pasting from Christian cultists as "truth". Your religion has a long and lurid history of promoting falsehoods and keeping humanity mired in fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then share with us your view on cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I use Verizon.
> 
> In the mean time, I've read through the article (Antidiluvian Plushies), and I can only shrug my shoulders and whince with embarrassment at the Christian creationist mindset that accepts such nonsense as literal events.
Click to expand...


Well ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a science called "sociology'. Your Christian madrassah would not have placed much emphasis on that program but in the relevant world, it goes a long way toward explaining human social interactions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't understand prove it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your limited attention span is the culprit.
> 
> You know nothing of sociological sciences, right?
Click to expand...


I asked him or her to prove his or her claim you jumped in ,now I am asking you to do it for him or her ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problems of evolution??? How about you try and respond to the problems of ID design, like the fact that it uses pure inductive reasoning. NO... you can't do that. So you just attack evolution!! How illogical and completely ineffective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot calling the kettle black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fundie unable to support his claims to supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


Your side has asked for it now let's get to it we are talking about the cell.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Appealing to ignorance is not evidence. "I can't explain it, thus, God" is not evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can't explain the cell
> 
> What we can't explain is how the cell and all of it's complexity could arise through a natural process.Anyone that believes the cell formed itself are just fooling themselves. The book UR was referring to points out the intricate parts and functions of the cell you either needed miracles or a very intelligent designer. Your natural process would have needed miracles a designer does not need miracles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.
Click to expand...


Hollie you are full of claims you can't back. I am giving you and your buddies that chance we are now discussing my major plus the work I performed for several years.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then share with us your view on cell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use Verizon.
> 
> In the mean time, I've read through the article (Antidiluvian Plushies), and I can only shrug my shoulders and whince with embarrassment at the Christian creationist mindset that accepts such nonsense as literal events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well ?
Click to expand...


I am well, thank you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I use Verizon.
> 
> In the mean time, I've read through the article (Antidiluvian Plushies), and I can only shrug my shoulders and whince with embarrassment at the Christian creationist mindset that accepts such nonsense as literal events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am well, thank you.
Click to expand...


What are you afraid of hollie ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can't explain the cell
> 
> What we can't explain is how the cell and all of it's complexity could arise through a natural process.Anyone that believes the cell formed itself are just fooling themselves. The book UR was referring to points out the intricate parts and functions of the cell you either needed miracles or a very intelligent designer. Your natural process would have needed miracles a designer does not need miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie you are full of claims you can't back. I am giving you and your buddies that chance we are now discussing my major plus the work I performed for several years.
Click to expand...


You're giving yourself credit for subject matter you are hopelessly ignorant of. Meyer did little more than plagiarize what Behe has rattled about. Secondly, your silly claims to gawds, miracles and supermagicalism are absurd, vacant and totally unsupported. 

There is no magic about the functioning of cells. I do find it interesting that as more scientific analysis is performed in the discipline of biology, your gawds, miracles and supermagical claims are pushed further and further into obsolescence. 

It's no wonder that your Christian creationist ministries don't do research. You know why that is. The phonies and charlatans at  creationist ministries have an agenda of preying upon the naive, the gullible and the superstitious.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am well, thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you afraid of hollie ?
Click to expand...


The fear is yours. Your child-like fear and trembling before an imaginary father figure is obvious and disturbing. You choose fear and ignorance as opposed to knowledge and enlightenment. 

Trying as you do to promote fear and ignorance is equally obvious and disturbing. There seems to be a propensity for some to share a need for remaining forever child-like and ignorant. Some are taken advantage of at an early age and terrified with stories of burning in hell for not believing in the gawds of their parents and / or social circumstances. That is what makes your chest-heaving, sweaty pronouncements to your gawds so ironic. Had you been raised in the islamist middle east, you would be "Islamic rage boy" - the bearded loon, fist pumping and screaming in favor of different gawds.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you are full of claims you can't back. I am giving you and your buddies that chance we are now discussing my major plus the work I performed for several years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're giving yourself credit for subject matter you are hopelessly ignorant of. Meyer did little more than plagiarize what Behe has rattled about. Secondly, your silly claims to gawds, miracles and supermagicalism are absurd, vacant and totally unsupported.
> 
> There is no magic about the functioning of cells. I do find it interesting that as more scientific analysis is performed in the discipline of biology, your gawds, miracles and supermagical claims are pushed further and further into obsolescence.
> 
> It's no wonder that your Christian creationist ministries don't do research. You know why that is. The phonies and charlatans at  creationist ministries have an agenda of preying upon the naive, the gullible and the superstitious.
Click to expand...


Focus hollie,address his argument and while you're at it explain to us your argument that supports the cell being a product of a natural process. Why do you copy and paste others work by your judgment of meyer? They agree about the evidence of the cell so you lay an empty accusation agains't meyer.

Why do you avoid my questions hollie ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am well, thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you afraid of hollie ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fear is yours. Your child-like fear and trembling before an imaginary father figure is obvious and disturbing. You choose fear and ignorance as opposed to knowledge and enlightenment.
> 
> Trying as you do to promote fear and ignorance is equally obvious and disturbing. There seems to be a propensity for some to share a need for remaining forever child-like and ignorant. Some are taken advantage of at an early age and terrified with stories of burning in hell for not believing in the gawds of their parents and / or social circumstances. That is what makes your chest-heaving, sweaty pronouncements to your gawds so ironic. Had you been raised in the islamist middle east, you would be "Islamic rage boy" - the bearded loon, fist pumping and screaming in favor of different gawds.
Click to expand...


Fear what hollie  here is your chance to show why your argument is superior.


----------



## ima

If God existed, it would hold a press conference on the White House lawn and then everyone could know it exists. Pretty simple, no?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have given me nothing to retreat from
> 
> Honesty, it really bothers you doesn't it ? you both come across as bitter anti God and science loathing people. It appears you both speak like a troll not adults discussing an issue. Every now and than I don't mind wallowing in the mud with you atheist fundies.
> 
> 
> 
> meaning t ywc will suck your dick but refuse to get fucked in the ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pervert is back.
Click to expand...

wrong as always !it's just another way of saying that your holyer then thou persona is as dishonest as it is ignorant.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you are full of claims you can't back. I am giving you and your buddies that chance we are now discussing my major plus the work I performed for several years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're giving yourself credit for subject matter you are hopelessly ignorant of. Meyer did little more than plagiarize what Behe has rattled about. Secondly, your silly claims to gawds, miracles and supermagicalism are absurd, vacant and totally unsupported.
> 
> There is no magic about the functioning of cells. I do find it interesting that as more scientific analysis is performed in the discipline of biology, your gawds, miracles and supermagical claims are pushed further and further into obsolescence.
> 
> It's no wonder that your Christian creationist ministries don't do research. You know why that is. The phonies and charlatans at  creationist ministries have an agenda of preying upon the naive, the gullible and the superstitious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Focus hollie,address his argument and while you're at it explain to us your argument that supports the cell being a product of a natural process. Why do you copy and paste others work by your judgment of meyer? They agree about the evidence of the cell so you lay an empty accusation agains't meyer.
> 
> Why do you avoid my questions hollie ?
Click to expand...

Focus, fundie. I can call for support fields of testable science in favor of the cell being purely a byproduct of natural processes. 

Focus, fundie. What is supernatural about the cell? 

You continually avoid addressing your claim that the cell is somehow supermagical. 

Why do you avoid these questions?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> meaning t ywc will suck your dick but refuse to get fucked in the ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw. That one's a top AND a bottom, trust me. Whatever the traffic  will bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it me or are there a lot of rope suckers in this forum ?
Click to expand...

 it's you, as nobody but you know what a rope sucker is?


----------



## ima

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw. That one's a top AND a bottom, trust me. Whatever the traffic  will bear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it me or are there a lot of rope suckers in this forum ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's you, as nobody but you know what a rope sucker is?
Click to expand...


A rope sucker is someone who sucks the cum out of a priest's balls.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you afraid of hollie ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fear is yours. Your child-like fear and trembling before an imaginary father figure is obvious and disturbing. You choose fear and ignorance as opposed to knowledge and enlightenment.
> 
> Trying as you do to promote fear and ignorance is equally obvious and disturbing. There seems to be a propensity for some to share a need for remaining forever child-like and ignorant. Some are taken advantage of at an early age and terrified with stories of burning in hell for not believing in the gawds of their parents and / or social circumstances. That is what makes your chest-heaving, sweaty pronouncements to your gawds so ironic. Had you been raised in the islamist middle east, you would be "Islamic rage boy" - the bearded loon, fist pumping and screaming in favor of different gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fear what hollie  here is your chance to show why your argument is superior.
Click to expand...

I just did.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because for the last 800 plus pages you've been blurting out your fractured ideas and I finally couldn't take it anymore. I had to either say something or laugh so hard *I peed my pants*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some would say that Depends.
> 
> You can admit it. You didn't respond in 800 pages because your group home buddie was busy with the bigoted comments and putdowns, and you with all your massive knowledge couldn't come up with a rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think they are all kinda funny and daws is the female in the relationship.
Click to expand...

really ? another one of your delusional episodes. 
made even more strange as it is not relevant to the conversation or true!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I try my best to deal with people suffering from ignorance through paranoia.
> 
> 
> 
> YWC'S ILLITERACY  SHINES THROUGH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh that went over your head to.
Click to expand...

ahhh....no.
it's a: you don't even know what you don't know moment!
if you could actually read you'd understand it.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more empty threats and emptier promises....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got $50 says ole YWC is going to be in for a BIG surprise come judgement day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think your currency will be worth much in the new world.
Click to expand...

 what new world? the one you made up in your vivid imagination? 
were you struck on the head one too many times as a child?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> *[SIZE="4Guest Post: Gun Control? No, Drone Control. | ZeroHedge*


*

edited for pontification ......and dumbfuckery...*


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Listen I will mention this one more time for the ones that missed it or for the ones that it went over their heads. .


----------



## daws101

ima said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it me or are there a lot of rope suckers in this forum ?
> 
> 
> 
> it's you, as nobody but you know what a rope sucker is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rope sucker is someone who sucks the cum out of a priest's balls.
Click to expand...

thanks! YWC wrote with the great gusto and authority that only first hand experience can convey.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obliviously aren't interested in the truth. Don't look now, but your agenda is showing. How embarrassing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are you, if you are arguing from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait you have no answers for his questions but you call him ignorant
Click to expand...


Do you actually read what you pretend to respond to? I didn't call him ignorant. I said he was arguing from ignorance. Where in this did you get that  I was calling him ignorant, as a person? 

 I don't need answers for his questions when there is no evidence from which to draw proper conclusions. Again, you are suggesting an argument from ignorance.


----------



## daws101

REAL SCIENCE ALERT..... 


Origin of Cells
The appearance of the first cells marked the origin of life on earth. However, before cells could form, the organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers. Examples of polymers are polysaccharides and proteins. 

In the 1950s, Sidney Fox placed amino acids in primitive earth conditions and showed that amino acids would unite to form polymers called proteinoids. The proteinoids were apparently able to act as enzymes and catalyze organic reactions. 

More recent evidence indicates that RNA molecules have the ability to direct the synthesis of new RNA molecules as well as DNA molecules. Because DNA provides the genetic code for protein synthesis, it is conceivable that DNA may have formed in the primitive earth environment as a consequence of RNA activity. Then DNA activity could have led to protein synthesis.

For a cell to come into being, some sort of enclosing membrane is required to hold together the organic materials of the cytoplasm. A generation ago, scientists believed that membranous droplets formed spontaneously. These membranous droplets called protocells were presumed to be the first cell. Modem scientists believe, however, that protocells do not carry any genetic information and lack the internal organization of cells. Thus the protocell theory is not widely accepted. Several groups of scientists are currently investigating the synthesis of polypeptides and short nucleic acids on the surface of clay. The first cells remain a mystery. 

ANY OTHER "THEORIES" THAT SPECULATE THAT CELL FORMATION WAS AN INTENTIONAL ACT BY AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER ARE SPECIOUS CONJECTURE.
THE ACT OF CELL "DESIGN" HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN NATURE ...


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Hawly, no intelligent response to the top ten problems with evolution, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problems of evolution??? How about you try and respond to the problems of ID design, like the fact that it uses pure inductive reasoning. NO... you can't do that. So you just attack evolution!! How illogical and completely ineffective.
Click to expand...


You have already been proven wrong on the induction argument so why do you dishonestly keep bringing it up??

And you didn't address any of the points as usual.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're giving yourself credit for subject matter you are hopelessly ignorant of. Meyer did little more than plagiarize what Behe has rattled about. Secondly, your silly claims to gawds, miracles and supermagicalism are absurd, vacant and totally unsupported.
> 
> There is no magic about the functioning of cells. I do find it interesting that as more scientific analysis is performed in the discipline of biology, your gawds, miracles and supermagical claims are pushed further and further into obsolescence.
> 
> It's no wonder that your Christian creationist ministries don't do research. You know why that is. The phonies and charlatans at  creationist ministries have an agenda of preying upon the naive, the gullible and the superstitious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Focus hollie,address his argument and while you're at it explain to us your argument that supports the cell being a product of a natural process. Why do you copy and paste others work by your judgment of meyer? They agree about the evidence of the cell so you lay an empty accusation agains't meyer.
> 
> Why do you avoid my questions hollie ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Focus, fundie. I can call for support fields of testable science in favor of the cell being purely a byproduct of natural processes.
> 
> Focus, fundie. What is supernatural about the cell?
> 
> You continually avoid addressing your claim that the cell is somehow supermagical.
> 
> Why do you avoid these questions?
Click to expand...


Talk is cheap pal.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw. That one's a top AND a bottom, trust me. Whatever the traffic  will bear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it me or are there a lot of rope suckers in this forum ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's you, as nobody but you know what a rope sucker is?
Click to expand...


That is what we call a queer in the real west.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it me or are there a lot of rope suckers in this forum ?
> 
> 
> 
> it's you, as nobody but you know what a rope sucker is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rope sucker is someone who sucks the cum out of a priest's balls.
Click to expand...


Or the group that was here yesterday.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Hawly, no intelligent response to the top ten problems with evolution, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem lies with YEC'ers such as yourself and the various christian creationist ministries which seek out the gulible and the uneducated. Your cut and paste was yet another example of the dangers of cults such as the Disco'tute and Casey Luskin.
> 
> Discoveroids&#8217; Top Ten Problems with Evolution
> 
> 
> Discoveroids&#8217; Top Ten Problems with Evolution | The Sensuous Curmudgeon
> 
> They&#8217;re exhibiting either misguided confidence or absolute desperation. Who? You know who &#8212; the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute&#8216;s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).
> 
> You can decide which it is. They&#8217;ve just posted What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution? It&#8217;s by Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist. He&#8217;s a Curmudgeon fellow and a follower of the Knights of Uranus. Casey says, with bold font added by us and his links omitted:
Click to expand...


No wonder Hawly can't argue anything to save her life. This is a quote from her cut and paste that is supposed to be a thoughtful response? BWAHAHAHAHAH. The guys says NOTHING!

_ "Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Evolution has no mechanism? A couple of paragraphs ago we gave you a link to Casey&#8217;s mechanism for intelligent design. Take your pick, dear reader. Okay, here&#8217;s number two:"_


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC'S ILLITERACY  SHINES THROUGH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that went over your head to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ahhh....no.
> it's a: you don't even know what you don't know moment!
> if you could actually read you'd understand it.
Click to expand...


You're are paranoid Christians are gonna take your rights away so through that paranoia you subscribe to scientific ignorance.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse cutting and pasting from Christian cultists as "truth". Your religion has a long and lurid history of promoting falsehoods and keeping humanity mired in fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then share with us your view on cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I use Verizon.
> 
> In the mean time, I've read through the article (Antidiluvian Plushies), and I can only shrug my shoulders and whince with embarrassment at the Christian creationist mindset that accepts such nonsense as literal events.
Click to expand...


Your embarrassment comes from self-loathing and shrugging your shoulders is an outward sign of your self-loathing supermagicalistic califragic.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got $50 says ole YWC is going to be in for a BIG surprise come judgement day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think your currency will be worth much in the new world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what new world? the one you made up in your vivid imagination?
> were you struck on the head one too many times as a child?
Click to expand...


Nope even your side believe in a new world coming ever heard of the  new world order ? mine is just the new world spoken of in the scriptures. Need I remind you I am a man of faith as well.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen I will mention this one more time for the ones that missed it or for the ones that it went over their heads. .
Click to expand...


Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Appealing to ignorance is not evidence. "I can't explain it, thus, God" is not evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can't explain the cell
> 
> What we can't explain is how the cell and all of it's complexity could arise through a natural process.Anyone that believes the cell formed itself are just fooling themselves. The book UR was referring to points out the intricate parts and functions of the cell you either needed miracles or a very intelligent designer. Your natural process would have needed miracles a designer does not need miracles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.
Click to expand...


You've never read it so how would know? This is common among blind followers of the Darwinistic religion. They do not search and prove anything for themselves but merely blindly follow the high priests, not questioning any of the dogma that is spoon fed to them as the eagerly lap up the lies.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's you, as nobody but you know what a rope sucker is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A rope sucker is someone who sucks the cum out of a priest's balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks! YWC wrote with the great gusto and authority that only first hand experience can convey.
Click to expand...


No you once again demonstrated you could not follow the conversation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither are you, if you are arguing from ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait you have no answers for his questions but you call him ignorant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually read what you pretend to respond to? I didn't call him ignorant. I said he was arguing from ignorance. Where in this did you get that  I was calling him ignorant, as a person?
> 
> I don't need answers for his questions when there is no evidence from which to draw proper conclusions. Again, you are suggesting an argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...


You might as well be doing that since you said his arguments are derived from ignorance.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you are full of claims you can't back. I am giving you and your buddies that chance we are now discussing my major plus the work I performed for several years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're giving yourself credit for subject matter you are hopelessly ignorant of. Meyer did little more than plagiarize what Behe has rattled about.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is completely astounding!!! This is not one shred of truth in this statement and you just re-quoted this from Panda's Thumb propaganda, probably from some imbecile, who, like yourself, has never even read the book. Unbelievable!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fear is yours. Your child-like fear and trembling before an imaginary father figure is obvious and disturbing. You choose fear and ignorance as opposed to knowledge and enlightenment.
> 
> Trying as you do to promote fear and ignorance is equally obvious and disturbing. There seems to be a propensity for some to share a need for remaining forever child-like and ignorant. Some are taken advantage of at an early age and terrified with stories of burning in hell for not believing in the gawds of their parents and / or social circumstances. That is what makes your chest-heaving, sweaty pronouncements to your gawds so ironic. Had you been raised in the islamist middle east, you would be "Islamic rage boy" - the bearded loon, fist pumping and screaming in favor of different gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fear what hollie  here is your chance to show why your argument is superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did.
Click to expand...


You do you loatheth yourselfeth so mucheth?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> REAL SCIENCE ALERT.....
> 
> 
> Origin of Cells
> The appearance of the first cells marked the origin of life on earth. However, before cells could form, the organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers. Examples of polymers are polysaccharides and proteins.
> 
> In the 1950s, Sidney Fox placed amino acids in primitive earth conditions and showed that amino acids would unite to form polymers called proteinoids. The proteinoids were apparently able to act as enzymes and catalyze organic reactions.
> 
> More recent evidence indicates that RNA molecules have the ability to direct the synthesis of new RNA molecules as well as DNA molecules. Because DNA provides the genetic code for protein synthesis, it is conceivable that DNA may have formed in the primitive earth environment as a consequence of RNA activity. Then DNA activity could have led to protein synthesis.
> 
> For a cell to come into being, some sort of enclosing membrane is required to hold together the organic materials of the cytoplasm. A generation ago, scientists believed that membranous droplets formed spontaneously. These membranous droplets called protocells were presumed to be the first cell. Modem scientists believe, however, that protocells do not carry any genetic information and lack the internal organization of cells. Thus the protocell theory is not widely accepted. Several groups of scientists are currently investigating the synthesis of polypeptides and short nucleic acids on the surface of clay. The first cells remain a mystery.
> 
> ANY OTHER "THEORIES" THAT SPECULATE THAT CELL FORMATION WAS AN INTENTIONAL ACT BY AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER ARE SPECIOUS CONJECTURE.
> THE ACT OF CELL "DESIGN" HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN NATURE ...



Conjecture alert,now you paste something that suggest many cells formed at once and you can't prove one did 

"organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers." 

You ignored the other problems like left hand right handed amino acids bonding to form these proteins and they had to be in the right sequence fairtytale boy. Daws what happens to the organism if both left handed and right handed amino acids bonded to for these proteins ?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> REAL SCIENCE ALERT.....
> 
> 
> Origin of Cells
> The appearance of the first cells marked the origin of life on earth. However, before cells could form, the organic molecules *must have *united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers. Examples of polymers are polysaccharides and proteins.
> 
> In the 1950s, Sidney Fox placed amino acids in* primitive earth conditions*


 *Prove this!!! ^*


daws101 said:


> and showed that amino acids would unite to form polymers called proteinoids. The proteinoids were *apparently able* to act as enzymes and catalyze organic reactions.
> 
> More recent evidence indicates that RNA molecules have the ability to direct the synthesis of new RNA molecules as well as DNA molecules. Because DNA provides the genetic code for protein synthesis, *it is conceivable* that DNA* may have *formed in the primitive earth environment as a consequence of RNA activity. Then DNA activity *could have led* to protein synthesis.
> 
> For a cell to come into being, some sort of enclosing membrane is required to hold together the organic materials of the cytoplasm. A generation ago, scientists *believed *that membranous droplets formed spontaneously. These membranous droplets called protocells were presumed to be the first cell. Modem scientists believe, however, that protocells do not carry any genetic information and lack the internal organization of cells. Thus the protocell theory is not widely accepted. Several groups of scientists are currently investigating the synthesis of polypeptides and short nucleic acids on the surface of clay. The first cells remain a mystery.
> 
> ANY OTHER "THEORIES" THAT SPECULATE THAT CELL FORMATION WAS AN INTENTIONAL ACT BY AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER ARE SPECIOUS CONJECTURE.
> THE ACT OF CELL "DESIGN" HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN NATURE ...



Once the scales fall from your eyes and you see the fairy tales for what they are, it is like seeing the source code in the matrix.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can't explain the cell
> 
> What we can't explain is how the cell and all of it's complexity could arise through a natural process.Anyone that believes the cell formed itself are just fooling themselves. The book UR was referring to points out the intricate parts and functions of the cell you either needed miracles or a very intelligent designer. Your natural process would have needed miracles a designer does not need miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never read it so how would know? This is common among blind followers of the Darwinistic religion. They do not search and prove anything for themselves but merely blindly follow the high priests, not questioning any of the dogma that is spoon fed to them as the eagerly lap up the lies.
Click to expand...

Oh my. It's back to the angry fundie persona. 

Meyer is a hack. Like so many Christian creationist charlatans, he has no degree or advanced study in the field he writes about. That's why he essentially stole the material for his book from Behe. 

You are free to sit, slack-jawed and drooling over his nonsense but don't expect the science community to consider his nonsense as anything but what it is: Christian dogma.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fear what hollie  here is your chance to show why your argument is superior.
> 
> 
> 
> I just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do you loatheth yourselfeth so mucheth?
Click to expand...


As incoherent as so much of your nonsense. Unless you're plagiarizing my posts, you can't compose an understandable sentence.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's you, as nobody but you know what a rope sucker is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A rope sucker is someone who sucks the cum out of a priest's balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks! YWC wrote with the great gusto and authority that only first hand experience can convey.
Click to expand...


And I'm the one supposedly with the gay slurs?? Look in the mirror twinkle toes.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> REAL SCIENCE ALERT.....
> 
> 
> Origin of Cells
> The appearance of the first cells marked the origin of life on earth. However, before cells could form, the organic molecules *must have *united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers. Examples of polymers are polysaccharides and proteins.
> 
> In the 1950s, Sidney Fox placed amino acids in* primitive earth conditions*
> 
> 
> 
> *Prove this!!!*
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and showed that amino acids would unite to form polymers called proteinoids. The proteinoids were *apparently able* to act as enzymes and catalyze organic reactions.
> 
> More recent evidence indicates that RNA molecules have the ability to direct the synthesis of new RNA molecules as well as DNA molecules. Because DNA provides the genetic code for protein synthesis, *it is conceivable* that DNA* may have *formed in the primitive earth environment as a consequence of RNA activity. Then DNA activity *could have led* to protein synthesis.
> 
> For a cell to come into being, some sort of enclosing membrane is required to hold together the organic materials of the cytoplasm. A generation ago, scientists *believed *that membranous droplets formed spontaneously. These membranous droplets called protocells were presumed to be the first cell. Modem scientists believe, however, that protocells do not carry any genetic information and lack the internal organization of cells. Thus the protocell theory is not widely accepted. Several groups of scientists are currently investigating the synthesis of polypeptides and short nucleic acids on the surface of clay. The first cells remain a mystery.
> 
> ANY OTHER "THEORIES" THAT SPECULATE THAT CELL FORMATION WAS AN INTENTIONAL ACT BY AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER ARE SPECIOUS CONJECTURE.
> THE ACT OF CELL "DESIGN" HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN NATURE ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once the scales fall from your eyes and you see the fairy tales for what they are, it is like see source code in the matrix.
Click to expand...


As the fundie demonstrated with gargantuan fonts, there is nothing to suggest that the xtians gawds are needed in the functioning of nature. Natural processes can account for the diversity in nature. 

The fundies will kick and scream like petulant children as their dogma assumes a supermagical causation, one which they are utterly unable to present a case for.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never read it so how would know? This is common among blind followers of the Darwinistic religion. They do not search and prove anything for themselves but merely blindly follow the high priests, not questioning any of the dogma that is spoon fed to them as the eagerly lap up the lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my. It's back to the angry fundie persona.
> 
> Meyer is a hack. Like so many Christian creationist charlatans, he has no degree or advanced study in the field he writes about. That's why he essentially stole the material for his book from Behe.
> 
> You are free to sit, slack-jawed and drooling over his nonsense but don't expect the science community to consider his nonsense as anything but what it is: Christian dogma.
Click to expand...


Have you read the book? Then STF(reak)U!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do you loatheth yourselfeth so mucheth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As incoherent as so much of your nonsense. Unless you're plagiarizing my posts, you can't compose an understandable sentence.
Click to expand...


You supermagical self loathingism doesn't let you compose an understandable thought.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> REAL SCIENCE ALERT.....
> 
> 
> Origin of Cells
> The appearance of the first cells marked the origin of life on earth. However, before cells could form, the organic molecules *must have *united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers. Examples of polymers are polysaccharides and proteins.
> 
> In the 1950s, Sidney Fox placed amino acids in* primitive earth conditions*
> 
> 
> 
> *Prove this!!!*
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and showed that amino acids would unite to form polymers called proteinoids. The proteinoids were *apparently able* to act as enzymes and catalyze organic reactions.
> 
> More recent evidence indicates that RNA molecules have the ability to direct the synthesis of new RNA molecules as well as DNA molecules. Because DNA provides the genetic code for protein synthesis, *it is conceivable* that DNA* may have *formed in the primitive earth environment as a consequence of RNA activity. Then DNA activity *could have led* to protein synthesis.
> 
> For a cell to come into being, some sort of enclosing membrane is required to hold together the organic materials of the cytoplasm. A generation ago, scientists *believed *that membranous droplets formed spontaneously. These membranous droplets called protocells were presumed to be the first cell. Modem scientists believe, however, that protocells do not carry any genetic information and lack the internal organization of cells. Thus the protocell theory is not widely accepted. Several groups of scientists are currently investigating the synthesis of polypeptides and short nucleic acids on the surface of clay. The first cells remain a mystery.
> 
> ANY OTHER "THEORIES" THAT SPECULATE THAT CELL FORMATION WAS AN INTENTIONAL ACT BY AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER ARE SPECIOUS CONJECTURE.
> THE ACT OF CELL "DESIGN" HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN NATURE ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once the scales fall from your eyes and you see the fairy tales for what they are, it is like see source code in the matrix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the fundie demonstrated with gargantuan fonts, there is nothing to suggest that the xtians gawds are needed in the functioning of nature. Natural processes can account for the diversity in nature.
Click to expand...


If you believe in fairy tales and the supermagical darwinism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> REAL SCIENCE ALERT.....
> 
> 
> Origin of Cells
> The appearance of the first cells marked the origin of life on earth. However, before cells could form, the organic molecules *must have *united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers. Examples of polymers are polysaccharides and proteins.
> 
> In the 1950s, Sidney Fox placed amino acids in* primitive earth conditions*
> 
> 
> 
> *Prove this!!!*
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and showed that amino acids would unite to form polymers called proteinoids. The proteinoids were *apparently able* to act as enzymes and catalyze organic reactions.
> 
> More recent evidence indicates that RNA molecules have the ability to direct the synthesis of new RNA molecules as well as DNA molecules. Because DNA provides the genetic code for protein synthesis, *it is conceivable* that DNA* may have *formed in the primitive earth environment as a consequence of RNA activity. Then DNA activity *could have led* to protein synthesis.
> 
> For a cell to come into being, some sort of enclosing membrane is required to hold together the organic materials of the cytoplasm. A generation ago, scientists *believed *that membranous droplets formed spontaneously. These membranous droplets called protocells were presumed to be the first cell. Modem scientists believe, however, that protocells do not carry any genetic information and lack the internal organization of cells. Thus the protocell theory is not widely accepted. Several groups of scientists are currently investigating the synthesis of polypeptides and short nucleic acids on the surface of clay. The first cells remain a mystery.
> 
> ANY OTHER "THEORIES" THAT SPECULATE THAT CELL FORMATION WAS AN INTENTIONAL ACT BY AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER ARE SPECIOUS CONJECTURE.
> THE ACT OF CELL "DESIGN" HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN NATURE ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once the scales fall from your eyes and you see the fairy tales for what they are, it is like see source code in the matrix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the fundie demonstrated with gargantuan fonts, there is nothing to suggest that the xtians gawds are needed in the functioning of nature. Natural processes can account for the diversity in nature.
> 
> The fundies will kick and scream like petulant children as their dogma assumes a supermagical causation, one which they are utterly unable to present a case for.
Click to expand...


Thank you for highlighting the conjecture UR and hollie so daws can understand what fairytales are with a little conjecture mixed in for good measures.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Focus hollie,address his argument and while you're at it explain to us your argument that supports the cell being a product of a natural process. Why do you copy and paste others work by your judgment of meyer? They agree about the evidence of the cell so you lay an empty accusation agains't meyer.
> 
> Why do you avoid my questions hollie ?
> 
> 
> 
> Focus, fundie. I can call for support fields of testable science in favor of the cell being purely a byproduct of natural processes.
> 
> Focus, fundie. What is supernatural about the cell?
> 
> You continually avoid addressing your claim that the cell is somehow supermagical.
> 
> Why do you avoid these questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk is cheap pal.
Click to expand...

if that's so then you're the cheapest talker ever.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it me or are there a lot of rope suckers in this forum ?
> 
> 
> 
> it's you, as nobody but you know what a rope sucker is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what we call a queer in the real west.
Click to expand...

 queer? how Christian of you!    real west? I live in California,  can't get much further west and still be on the continent .


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can't explain the cell
> 
> What we can't explain is how the cell and all of it's complexity could arise through a natural process.Anyone that believes the cell formed itself are just fooling themselves. The book UR was referring to points out the intricate parts and functions of the cell you either needed miracles or a very intelligent designer. Your natural process would have needed miracles a designer does not need miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never read it so how would know? This is common among blind followers of the Darwinistic religion. They do not search and prove anything for themselves but merely blindly follow the high priests, not questioning any of the dogma that is spoon fed to them as the eagerly lap up the lies.
Click to expand...


There is no  need to read it. It is an argument from induction at its base. I've watched him give hour long speeches on youtube. I can't imagine there is some amazing part of his theory that will be the dealbreaker, which I haven't yet heard. He can't escape from the fact the fundamental basis for his argument is a logical fallacy.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait you have no answers for his questions but you call him ignorant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually read what you pretend to respond to? I didn't call him ignorant. I said he was arguing from ignorance. Where in this did you get that  I was calling him ignorant, as a person?
> 
> I don't need answers for his questions when there is no evidence from which to draw proper conclusions. Again, you are suggesting an argument from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might as well be doing that since you said his arguments are derived from ignorance.
Click to expand...


I am addressing his arguments, not him as a person. Logic 101.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that went over your head to.
> 
> 
> 
> ahhh....no.
> it's a: you don't even know what you don't know moment!
> if you could actually read you'd understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're are paranoid Christians are gonna take your rights away so through that paranoia you subscribe to scientific ignorance.
Click to expand...

not an answer .

Definition of PARANOIA
1: a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations 
2: a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others 

the only posters that display that definition are you  and detective douche bag.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually read what you pretend to respond to? I didn't call him ignorant. I said he was arguing from ignorance. Where in this did you get that  I was calling him ignorant, as a person?
> 
> I don't need answers for his questions when there is no evidence from which to draw proper conclusions. Again, you are suggesting an argument from ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might as well be doing that since you said his arguments are derived from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am addressing his arguments, not him as a person. Logic 101.
Click to expand...


Is that not what I just said. Is a person ignorant if they argue from the origins of ignorance ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahhh....no.
> it's a: you don't even know what you don't know moment!
> if you could actually read you'd understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're are paranoid Christians are gonna take your rights away so through that paranoia you subscribe to scientific ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not an answer .
> 
> Definition of PARANOIA
> 1: a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
> 2: a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others
> 
> the only posters that display that definition are you  and detective douche bag.
Click to expand...


Yep fits you perfectly.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think your currency will be worth much in the new world.
> 
> 
> 
> what new world? the one you made up in your vivid imagination?
> were you struck on the head one too many times as a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope even your side believe in a new world coming ever heard of the  new world order ? mine is just the new world spoken of in the scriptures. Need I remind you I am a man of faith as well.
Click to expand...

really? "my side" whatever you imagine it to be, is a false assumption,
as to new world order it's an ancient false promise, just like the new world in your inaccurate bible..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're are paranoid Christians are gonna take your rights away so through that paranoia you subscribe to scientific ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> not an answer .
> 
> Definition of PARANOIA
> 1: a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
> 2: a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others
> 
> the only posters that display that definition are you  and detective douche bag.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep fits you perfectly.
Click to expand...

your answer is "a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations "


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen I will mention this one more time for the ones that missed it or for the ones that it went over their heads. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.
Click to expand...

 wrong! LIFE is living organisms that's  a scientific fact.
not the other way around.
life as we know it  is a process...living things reproduce ..that's what they do.
it is not however an answer to how life got started.
that's also a scientific fact.
as usual all you did was attempt and fail to put a supernatural spin on the obvious.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might as well be doing that since you said his arguments are derived from ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am addressing his arguments, not him as a person. Logic 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that not what I just said. Is a person ignorant if they argue from the origins of ignorance ?
Click to expand...


No. Study some logic, please. The validity and soundness of a persons arguments have nothing to do with the person. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits. This is elucidated in the "ad hominem logical fallacy," which is when someone attacks the person, instead of the arguments, in an attempt to discredit the argument. This is fallacious, because there is no logical connectivity between the person making the argument, and whether the argument is a good one. 

If I make an argument, it doesn't matter whether I am an asshole, ignorant, stupid, or whatever.... the validity of the argument is decided on its own merit.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> A rope sucker is someone who sucks the cum out of a priest's balls.
> 
> 
> 
> thanks! YWC wrote with the great gusto and authority that only first hand experience can convey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you once again demonstrated you could not follow the conversation.
Click to expand...

more proof you can't read...
"the conversation" translated: YWC makes a what he deems to be a clever gay slur.
daws101 calls him on it ..since the slur is highly localized and not in general usage daws asks all posters what the slur is supposed to mean.
he is answerd by ima.
then responds..."thanks! YWC wrote with the great gusto and authority that only first hand experience can convey."
ywc does not answer till several posts later.
 (most likely puzzling over the meaning of the word gusto) 

when he does answer, it's with another gay slur and extremely delusional description of the "real west".
not realizing he has answered the question ywc replies with a irrelevant non sequitur.


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> real science alert.....
> 
> 
> Origin of cells
> the appearance of the first cells marked the origin of life on earth. However, before cells could form, the organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers. Examples of polymers are polysaccharides and proteins.
> 
> In the 1950s, sidney fox placed amino acids in primitive earth conditions and showed that amino acids would unite to form polymers called proteinoids. The proteinoids were apparently able to act as enzymes and catalyze organic reactions.
> 
> More recent evidence indicates that rna molecules have the ability to direct the synthesis of new rna molecules as well as dna molecules. Because dna provides the genetic code for protein synthesis, it is conceivable that dna may have formed in the primitive earth environment as a consequence of rna activity. Then dna activity could have led to protein synthesis.
> 
> For a cell to come into being, some sort of enclosing membrane is required to hold together the organic materials of the cytoplasm. A generation ago, scientists believed that membranous droplets formed spontaneously. These membranous droplets called protocells were presumed to be the first cell. Modem scientists believe, however, that protocells do not carry any genetic information and lack the internal organization of cells. Thus the protocell theory is not widely accepted. Several groups of scientists are currently investigating the synthesis of polypeptides and short nucleic acids on the surface of clay. The first cells remain a mystery.
> 
> Any other "theories" that speculate that cell formation was an intentional act by an intelligent designer are specious conjecture.
> The act of cell "design" has never been observed in nature ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> conjecture alert,now you paste something that suggest many cells formed at once and you can't prove one did
> 
> "organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers."
> 
> You ignored the other problems like left hand right handed amino acids bonding to form these proteins and they had to be in the right sequence fairtytale boy. Daws what happens to the organism if both left handed and right handed amino acids bonded to for these proteins ?
Click to expand...

any other "theories" that speculate that cell formation was an intentional act by an intelligent designer are specious conjecture.
The act of cell "design" has never been observed in nature.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never read it so how would know? This is common among blind followers of the Darwinistic religion. They do not search and prove anything for themselves but merely blindly follow the high priests, not questioning any of the dogma that is spoon fed to them as the eagerly lap up the lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no  need to read it. It is an argument from induction at its base. I've watched him give hour long speeches on youtube. I can't imagine there is some amazing part of his theory that will be the dealbreaker, which I haven't yet heard. He can't escape from the fact the fundamental basis for his argument is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...


You have provided no basis for your fallacy accusation. And again with the induction lie.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you are full of claims you can't back. I am giving you and your buddies that chance we are now discussing my major plus the work I performed for several years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're giving yourself credit for subject matter you are hopelessly ignorant of. Meyer did little more than plagiarize what Behe has rattled about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is completely astounding!!! This is not one shred of truth in this statement and you just re-quoted this from Panda's Thumb propaganda, probably from some imbecile, who, like yourself, has never even read the book. Unbelievable!!
Click to expand...


My statement was completely true. Behe takes the position "irreducible complexity", which is really nothing more than intellectual bankruptcy. The entire position relies on the premise: _its too complex to have occurred naturally, therefore the gawds did it_. Thats precisely the thrust of Meyers book. It works for simpletons such as Christian creationists because they have an overriding need to believe it.

The Christian creationist industry refuses to recognize the scientific validity of biological evolution and contemporary evolutionary theory because science clashes with Christian dogma. And it is specifically, Christian dogma. There is no other religion that clings as tightly to the pro-ignorance, pro-fear, pro-superstition and anti-science mantra as Christian creationists.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> A rope sucker is someone who sucks the cum out of a priest's balls.
> 
> 
> 
> thanks! YWC wrote with the great gusto and authority that only first hand experience can convey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm the one supposedly with the gay slurs?? Look in the mirror twinkle toes.
Click to expand...

I have never denied using any means necessary to make my point.
you on the other hand are completely dishonest and deceptive about your usage of derogatory language...making your comment a contradiction.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can't explain the cell
> 
> What we can't explain is how the cell and all of it's complexity could arise through a natural process.Anyone that believes the cell formed itself are just fooling themselves. The book UR was referring to points out the intricate parts and functions of the cell you either needed miracles or a very intelligent designer. Your natural process would have needed miracles a designer does not need miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never read it so how would know? This is common among blind followers of the Darwinistic religion. They do not search and prove anything for themselves but merely blindly follow the high priests, not questioning any of the dogma that is spoon fed to them as the eagerly lap up the lies.
Click to expand...

I think the fundie creationists are hoping that the infidels are missing the point that the IDiot movement is a religious/political movement at heart, with any allusions to science being window dressing. These IDiots want Christian prayer and the Christian gawds in school. Portraying their gawds as supported by science is merely the current means to that end. IDiosy is clearly not some science gone wrong due to unfortunate religious entanglement. Religious entanglement was always, and is now, what IDiosy is about. 

Thats the whole point of the movement.


----------



## Hollie

*The disappearing Disco &#8216;Tute*

The disappearing Disco 'Tute - The Panda's Thumb

An interesting pattern of Discovery Institute behavior has become evident in several events over the last 8 years. It&#8217;s a hit and run tactic, with emphasis on the &#8220;run.&#8221; In at least four significant instances of attempts to jam intelligent design creationism or one of its semantic equivalents into an educational context, the Disco &#8216;Tute was involved early in the process, providing aid and comfort to the local ID Creationism pushers. But later when push came to shove, the Disco &#8216;Tute backed out, abandoning their local proxies to the courts and the voters. I&#8217;ll briefly describe the four instances (Ohio State BOE; Mt. Vernon, OH, Dover, PA; and Darby, MO) I have in mind below the fold, highlighting the Disco &#8216;Tute&#8217;s style of participation.


----------



## Hollie

*Does the intelligent design movement need to be demolished and rebuilt?*

Does the intelligent design movement need to be demolished and rebuilt? - The Panda's Thumb

The intelligent design (ID) movement has been around for over 20 years, and few (if any) of its stated and implied goals and plans: The Wedge Strategy - Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
have thus far come to fruition. While contributing factors to this lack of success are certainly the hard work of the scientific community and its friends, as well as the fact that ID has never been adequately formulated as a scientific idea, a significant proportion of the responsibility for the outcome should be laid upon the ID movement itself. It has, in arguably many respects, acted in the exact opposite way that it should have acted if it wanted to be taken seriously - only one example of which is bringing up religion whilst simultaneously claiming that they weren&#8217;t and then chastising critics who pointed out what they were doing.

It&#8217;s hard to find an ID proponent who will admit this. Like many movements, the one constructed around ID is insular, mistrusting and lacks introspection, and it spends most of its time on attacking &#8220;the Darwinist enemy&#8221; in academia instead of really thinking about what it&#8217;s doing. This is understandable, considering it&#8217;s been relentlessly criticised by the scientific community ever since it poked its head up out of the carcass of creation science, rendering it in a somewhat-perpetual state of defensiveness. Those few proponents who can somehow forget the fact that nearly every biologist in the world would laugh about their ideas to their face given the chance still attack evolutionary biology with unparalleled confidence, which bolsters the morale of those in the Internet trenches: and thus the movement continues. Even with its &#8220;Darwinist conspiracy&#8221; mindset, it still thinks it&#8217;s winning. But it&#8217;s not. Not by a long shot.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong! LIFE is living organisms that's  a scientific fact.
> not the other way around.
> life as we know it  is a process...living things reproduce ..that's what they do.
> it is not however an answer to how life got started.
> that's also a scientific fact.
> as usual all you did was attempt and fail to put a supernatural spin on the obvious.
Click to expand...


If there are no living organisms you have no reproduction,are you such a tool to deny the obvious ? The only one putting a spin on what was said was you.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

Youwerecreated said:


> Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.



No it isn't... Abiogenesis?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never read it so how would know? This is common among blind followers of the Darwinistic religion. They do not search and prove anything for themselves but merely blindly follow the high priests, not questioning any of the dogma that is spoon fed to them as the eagerly lap up the lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no  need to read it...
Click to expand...

 You must be psycho, er, I mean psychic.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not an answer .
> 
> Definition of PARANOIA
> 1: a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
> 2: a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others
> 
> the only posters that display that definition are you  and detective douche bag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep fits you perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your answer is "a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations "
Click to expand...


Dawsy loath thyself.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am addressing his arguments, not him as a person. Logic 101.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that not what I just said. Is a person ignorant if they argue from the origins of ignorance ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Study some logic, please. The validity and soundness of a persons arguments have nothing to do with the person. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits....
Click to expand...

Really?!?!?! You should take your own advice


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're giving yourself credit for subject matter you are hopelessly ignorant of. Meyer did little more than plagiarize what Behe has rattled about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is completely astounding!!! This is not one shred of truth in this statement and you just re-quoted this from Panda's Thumb propaganda, probably from some imbecile, who, like yourself, has never even read the book. Unbelievable!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My statement was completely true. Behe takes the position "irreducible complexity", which is really nothing more than intellectual bankruptcy. The entire position relies on the premise: &#8220;_it&#8217;s too complex to have occurred naturally, therefore the gawds did it&#8221;_.
Click to expand...

 Wrong! IC claims that intricate structures couldn't evolved according to Darwinism by developing gradually because they can only function as a whole, complex structure. It doesn't say anything about God. As usual you don't know what the fudge you are talking about. An unborn baby is even irreducibly complex because it has to be assembled and developed completely inside the mother before being viable and able to survive.





Hollie said:


> That&#8217;s precisely the thrust of Meyer&#8217;s book.


 No it isn't you imbecile!! Meyers book has nothing to do with irreducible complexity. This post is so stupid and aggregious it shows how completely uninformed your atheist agenda hate websites are because try to tear down ID theories from a complete point of ignorance. And of course you fall in lock step with them without finding out for yourself. Your ignorance and unwillingness to seek out the truth on your own speaks volumes and I just really over it. I don't think I can take your utter stupidity for one more second. 





Hollie said:


> It works for simpletons such as Christian creationists because they have an overriding need to believe it.
> 
> The Christian creationist industry refuses to recognize the scientific validity of biological evolution and contemporary evolutionary theory because science clashes with Christian dogma. And it is specifically, Christian dogma. *There is no other religion that clings as tightly to the pro-ignorance, pro-fear, pro-superstition and anti-science mantra as Christian creationists.*



Yes there is. You supermagical self loathing darwin faith.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> *Does the intelligent design movement need to be demolished and rebuilt?*
> 
> Does the intelligent design movement need to be demolished and rebuilt? - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> The intelligent design (ID) movement has been around for over 20 years, and few (if any) of its stated and implied goals and plans: The Wedge Strategy - Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
> have thus far come to fruition. While contributing factors to this lack of success are certainly the hard work of the scientific community and its friends, as well as the fact that ID has never been adequately formulated as a scientific idea, a significant proportion of the responsibility for the outcome should be laid upon the ID movement itself. It has, in arguably many respects, acted in the exact opposite way that it should have acted if it wanted to be taken seriously - only one example of which is bringing up religion whilst simultaneously claiming that they werent and then chastising critics who pointed out what they were doing.
> 
> Its hard to find an ID proponent who will admit this. Like many movements, the one constructed around ID is insular, mistrusting and lacks introspection, and it spends most of its time on attacking the Darwinist enemy in academia instead of really thinking about what its doing. This is understandable, considering its been relentlessly criticised by the scientific community ever since it poked its head up out of the carcass of creation science, rendering it in a somewhat-perpetual state of defensiveness. Those few proponents who can somehow forget the fact that nearly every biologist in the world would laugh about their ideas to their face given the chance still attack evolutionary biology with unparalleled confidence, which bolsters the morale of those in the Internet trenches: and thus the movement continues. Even with its Darwinist conspiracy mindset, it still thinks its winning. But its not. Not by a long shot.



How about a non-biased website that promotes real science blind disciple?


----------



## UltimateReality

*YWC and Lonestar,

It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview. 

And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like. 

I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.

Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out. *


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> *YWC and Lonestar,
> 
> It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.
> 
> And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like.
> 
> I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.
> 
> Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out. *


Why did you need gargantuan fonts to post that weepy-eyed homage to your fruitless  attempt at stalking me? You're as creepy as ever offering such melodrama and then slithering away. But then again, you've made these melodramatic pronouncements before, you silly, teenage drama queen.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is completely astounding!!! This is not one shred of truth in this statement and you just re-quoted this from Panda's Thumb propaganda, probably from some imbecile, who, like yourself, has never even read the book. Unbelievable!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My statement was completely true. Behe takes the position "irreducible complexity", which is really nothing more than intellectual bankruptcy. The entire position relies on the premise: _its too complex to have occurred naturally, therefore the gawds did it_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong! IC claims that intricate structures couldn't evolved according to Darwinism by developing gradually because they can only function as a whole, complex structure. It doesn't say anything about God. As usual you don't know what the fudge you are talking about. An unborn baby is even irreducibly complex because it has to be assembled and developed completely inside the mother before being viable and able to survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats precisely the thrust of Meyers book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't you imbecile!! Meyers book has nothing to do with irreducible complexity. This post is so stupid and aggregious it shows how completely uninformed your atheist agenda hate websites are because try to tear down ID theories from a complete point of ignorance. And of course you fall in lock step with them without finding out for yourself. Your ignorance and unwillingness to seek out the truth on your own speaks volumes and I just really over it. I don't think I can take your utter stupidity for one more second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It works for simpletons such as Christian creationists because they have an overriding need to believe it.
> 
> The Christian creationist industry refuses to recognize the scientific validity of biological evolution and contemporary evolutionary theory because science clashes with Christian dogma. And it is specifically, Christian dogma. *There is no other religion that clings as tightly to the pro-ignorance, pro-fear, pro-superstition and anti-science mantra as Christian creationists.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is. You supermagical self loathing darwin faith.
Click to expand...

I see the issue you face in being confused as to what the pseudoscience of Christian creationism actually proposes. 

From wiki:

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations. [1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large, [2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience. [3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity. [4]

Clearly, one of the issues facing the Flatl Earth worldview is that the fundies at the helm of the good ship "stupid" can't even further a consistent definition of the fear and ignorance they promote.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> *YWC and Lonestar,
> 
> It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.
> *



What "scientific discussion" are you whining about? There was never any factual, peer reviewed data offered in support of Christian claims to supermagical intervention by the gawds. The entirety of the Christian creationist agenda is to cast doubt on the science data. Your silly conspiracy theories of a worldwide conglomeration of scientists and academics who were conspiring to manufacture data supporting evolutionary science is laughable. 

For all your sweaty, chest- heaving attempts to denigrate science, you were never able to provide even a shred of evidence in support of your imagined gawds.


----------



## Hollie

*The Disco &#8216;Tute&#8217;s fake laboratory*

The Disco 'Tute's fake laboratory - The Panda's Thumb


This deserves its own post. Yesterday I pointed to a post at Larry Moran&#8217;s Sandwalk about a Discovery Institute video showing Ann Gauger, a &#8220;researcher&#8221; at the Disco &#8216;Tute&#8217;s BioLogic Institute, in which she mangles phylogenetics and population genetics. Commenters on Youtube and both Sandwalk and here have identified the laboratory in which Gauger was supposedly speaking. It is a stock photograph from a commercial photo site. It&#8217;s a green screen job, which is a peculiarly appropriate method by which to present the DI&#8217;s pseudoscience. 

Fake lab, fake science.

Can we say &#8220;pathetic&#8221;?


----------



## Hollie

*Still more fun: Douglas Axe&#8217;s Crocoduck*

Still more fun: Douglas Axe's Crocoduck - The Panda's Thumb 

By Richard B. Hoppe

In addition to being the bananaman, Ray Comfort is the co-popularizer of the crocoduck. Comfort believes that because modern biology shows that birds are descended from theropod ancestors, there must be a transitional form between extant birds and extant reptiles; hence a half-crocodile, half-duck. Here&#8217;s the video in which Comfort&#8217;s ex-child actor sidekick Kirk Cameron made that claim.

That general false claim&#8211;the claim that evolution predicts that there must be an evolutionary pathway directly linking two extant organisms or extant biological structures&#8211;is not unique to creationist loons, though. Doug Axe has posted a response to Paul McBride&#8217;s review of &#8220;Science and Human Origins&#8221; on ENV, and has disabled comments on his post. I won&#8217;t elaborate, but will note that an amusing part of Axe&#8217;s response is this:

Ann [Gauger] and I conducted experiments to find out how many changes would have to occur in a particular enzyme X in order for it to begin performing the function of another enzyme, Y. We found that they are too numerous for unguided evolution to have accomplished this transformation, even with the benefits of a massive bacterial population and billions of years. Having carefully made the case that our chosen X and Y are appropriate for the aims of our study, we think this result has catastrophic implications for Darwinism.

 As has been shown, though, the research that Axe cites, The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway, does not test an evolutionary hypothesis. By studying whether one extant enzyme in a family of enzymes could have evolved from another extant enzyme in the same family, when the evolutionary account is actually that both evolved from a common ancestor, Gauger and Axe are making precisely the same error that Comfort and Cameron made: the notion that &#8220;common descent&#8221; means that related extant populations evolved from each other, rather than from a common ancestral population. That about equivalent to claiming that common descent means that I am descended from my cousin Keith.

Even young-earth creationist biochemist Todd Wood rebutted that particular claim more than a year ago.


----------



## Youwerecreated

PretentiousGuy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't... Abiogenesis?
Click to expand...


Abiogenesis theory is a theory filled with conjecture lacks any real evidence that would support the theory. Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't... Abiogenesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abiogenesis theory is a theory filled with conjecture lacks any real evidence that would support the theory*. Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated.
Click to expand...


Says the guy who can't show me with some real evidence where his invisible superbeing is. Man, you're such an idiot.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Yeah I think I am gonna join UR they can't even be honest with themselves they will never be honest with us.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't... Abiogenesis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Abiogenesis theory is a theory filled with conjecture lacks any real evidence that would support the theory*. Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy who can't show me with some real evidence where his invisible superbeing is. Man, you're such an idiot.
Click to expand...


The Idiots have been exposed,see ya on judgement day girls.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't... Abiogenesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis theory is a theory filled with conjecture lacks any real evidence that would support the theory. Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated.
Click to expand...


Abiogenesis is a theory not unlike the theory of gravity but abio has not met the standards that would apply such that the theory becomes accepted as "fact". 

You should avoid such slogans as "Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated", There is no indication of who these "many famous evolutionist" are and further, we know from experience in this thread that creationist and truth have a habit of being separated by fact.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Abiogenesis theory is a theory filled with conjecture lacks any real evidence that would support the theory*. Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who can't show me with some real evidence where his invisible superbeing is. Man, you're such an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Idiots have been exposed,see ya on judgement day girls.
Click to expand...


Cheap threats from the Christian fundie using his religion to promote fear and superstition.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Yeah I think I am gonna join UR they can't even be honest with themselves they will never be honest with us.



You poor dear. We understand that christianity is a proselytizing religion and your attempts at that have failed. What you fail to realize is that your lies, falsification of "quotes", deceit and eventual thinly veiled threats of eternal damnation have only reinforced the hopelessness and retrogression that defines the Christian creationist agenda. 

It's ironic that you would accuse anyone of dishonesty when you have been scolded, repeatedly, for cutting and pasting falsified "quotes". 

No one has ever said you are not free to believe in supernaturalism and magical agents. But when you bring those notions into a public forum and insist -  absent any evidence - that scientific consensus is a conspiracy and then threaten people for not "believing", its best you just buggar off.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Abiogenesis theory is a theory filled with conjecture lacks any real evidence that would support the theory*. Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who can't show me with some real evidence where his invisible superbeing is. Man, you're such an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Idiots have been exposed,see ya on judgement day girls.
Click to expand...


You deny someone's claim because of lack of scientific proof. What scientific proof do you have that your invisible superbeing exists?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! LIFE is living organisms that's  a scientific fact.
> not the other way around.
> life as we know it  is a process...living things reproduce ..that's what they do.
> it is not however an answer to how life got started.
> that's also a scientific fact.
> as usual all you did was attempt and fail to put a supernatural spin on the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there are no living organisms you have no reproduction,are you such a tool to deny the obvious ? The only one putting a spin on what was said was you.
Click to expand...

once again stating the obvious, it is not however an answer to how life got started...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep fits you perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> your answer is "a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dawsy loath thyself.
Click to expand...

as always  NOT funny  NOT factual  NOT original !


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> *YWC and Lonestar,
> 
> It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.
> 
> And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like.
> 
> I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.
> 
> Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out. *


will this piece of self indulgent, awful soap opera scribbling be the last from UR. ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't... Abiogenesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis theory is a theory filled with conjecture lacks any real evidence that would support the theory. Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated.
Click to expand...

is it just me or is  that description true for everything in the creationist playbook and the bible?


----------



## pjnlsn

UltimateReality said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try but your comparison is fallacious. Lined college ruled paper is not digital.
> 
> *Digital:* of, relating to, or being data in the form of digits, especially binary digits <digital images> <a digital readout>; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals.
> 
> Can your paper do this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sequence:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if there was a certain similarity. However:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, so, again:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, C*altech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands,* which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10]_ Source: Wiki
> 
> *Finally, please provide me with an example of another molecule, exclusive of any in the cell, that exists in nature that can be used for digital information storage. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't follow from the last, which is a response to a collection of statistics on the information capacity of DNA. The second to last quote is still true, and is relevant if that was what the preceding post was to mean that the fact that it (DNA) has some information storage capacity, and that this amount can be converted into other units possibly in a differing number base, like terabytes, or number of blu-ray discs, does not mean it is similar, or has similar origins, in the context of the above sequence.
> 
> The information capacity of DNA can be represented as an amount of terabytes. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any example of digital circuitry for encoding information, e.g. a flash drive, or HDD, or SSD, or (as below) optical disc.
> 
> The information capacity of DNA can be represented as an amount of blu-ray discs. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any kind of optical disc, i.e. (simply) layers of plastic and metal with pits and bumps burned into one or more layers by a kind of laser.
> 
> The information capacity of DNA can be represented as the amount of college-ruled sheets of lined paper in a given size font which would be required to encode the relevant information into base-2 numbers (or base-4 as is more applicable to DNA) written in some consistent fashion, with arabic numerals. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any kind of mixture of wood, pulped, desaturated, cooked, colored, and on which lines of ink are placed as to draw symbols.
> 
> Finally, that it can be used to create what is known as a curcuit does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to, a curcuit made of some other material(s). That two things can be called by the same name in the same sentence or otherwise does not mean they are similar or have similar origins.
> 
> In the context of the preceding sequence.
> 
> And to think so is both hopeful and absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally, please provide me with an example of another molecule, exclusive of any in the cell, that exists in nature that can be used for digital information storage.
Click to expand...


Literally, this changes nothing. As a note, we both know the answer is. Or in any case, whether either of us have heard of something that qualifies which fits the criteria.

Actually, I think I know what you mean, but as for molecules in nature, and ability to be used for digital information storage, graphene comes to mind, not that I've heard about it specifically for storage...something about flexible transistors, iirc.

But, while this is vaguely interesting, your expected response to your statement (negative) doesn't contradict what I wrote

Overall, that (what you appear to be responding to/implying the opposite of), is just not what I meant. Perhaps I phrased some of the above in such a way that it could be confusing (read alone, that is), but in context, it's obvious what I meant.


----------



## pjnlsn

UltimateReality said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you have contracted Hawly's disease and apparently believe if *you keep repeating the same post over and over* it will add some legitimacy to it. There is no truth to your claims. The experiment you refer to is ONE experiment and now there is evidence the ancient atmosphere was not even close to the one proposed in the experiment. Why not default to Lyell's and Darwins methodology? They did not look for some supermagical explanation, none of which has ever been observed occurring naturally. No, they looked for causes now in operation to explain the distant past. And still the best explanation for the digital code in dna is intelligence. Now whether that was an alien or some other Being that pre-existed our universe, we just can't say 100% since this is historical science. But we can look around and make solid observations that complex, functional information systems don't spontaneously pop into existence by some supermagical naturalistic darwinian process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. *You can say it was so dissimilar as to be 'not even close,' but this difference in what you reference is not such that it would make what was before likely unlikely, given both the common definitions of those words and your apparent attitude for what you meant. *If the probability before was greater than 3/4, the changes you reference would not render the probability 1/4 or lower, for example.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTH are you even talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, similarly to before, with or without minor contextual omissions, and if I know what significance you place on the associated statements:
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA does not bear any markings of having been designed or made by humans, who are of course, the only known example of an intelligent agent as you speak of it, "anywhere on earth right now," or in the past. And certainly not of any significant similarity to digital curcuitry, of storage devices or otherwise. [One hopes] you were using the word as a form of embellishment, but as it's written....
> 
> Also, as a general comment, what is required for DNA to exist at all is merely a process of sufficient orderliness and predictability, one of the possible forms of which is, of course, by definition (and by the definition I think you would give it), an intelligent agent. But this is only one possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for the rest: *Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is,* and all relevant corollarys, if the issue(s) is/are actually of that nature, as before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you need to go to sleep or you need to lay off the crack pipe. What are you even saying? Calling cocaine another name doesn't change what it is.
> 
> *Link please?*
Click to expand...


Link to what?

If you weren't in the state of mind that you probably are when you think about this topic, I'm sure you would've understood it perfectly, but when I say that labelling something doesn't change what it is, I obviously just mean that one's attitude conception of/towards a thing doesn't neccesarily reflect reality. A hardcore christian might call Cocaine "a tool of the devil to corrupt youth," or something like that, but..... and you can figure out the rest.

P.S. Oh and even more obviously (blindingly so), the "calling..." bit is as to say that you can call it a digital code, but this doesn't mean it is anything more than it is, and it is not a given that it is the remnant of a super-being's science project. (  )...if you know what I mean.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> *YWC and Lonestar,
> 
> It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.
> 
> And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like.
> 
> I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.
> 
> Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out. *



He can dish it out, but he can't take it. Go cry you pathetic creationist.  Your use of fallacies and misunderstanding of induction will not be missed.


----------



## pjnlsn

Youwerecreated said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The miller urey experiment showed nothing of the sort. A designer is not considered rational because you have not seen him but you have seen evidence of him and just deny.
> 
> You have not seen evidence of the many theories you defend so by your reasoning you are irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again:
> 
> 
> 
> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or: it showed that it is likely that the materials required for life were produced by mere electrical charges, the most obvious source being lightning. And again, this was known (or was produced, as a result) several decades ago.
> 
> Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. In particular, the definition of rationality, especially in this context, varies a lot.
> 
> Offhand, If I know how you would think of and define the term evidence, then there is evidence for an infinite amount of claims.
> 
> But that there is some amount of evidence for it does not mean it is likely, or most likely, either of all possible explanations for a given thing, condition, or likely past event, or even of all explanations being considered, which is similar to what my 'point' was.
> 
> Also, you appear to be using a different definition of evidence in each sentence. Defined like it might be in the first sentence, the statement about evidence in the second is false, and will be false for most possible explanations.
> 
> And similar for the term rational.
> 
> In any case, again, calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and using neutral terms, and just as it was _before_ you responded, my 'point' is embodied in the above quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have discussed this earlier in the thread. I will go over a few problems with your explanation.
> 
> 1. They didn't know what the enviornment was like when they say this could of happened.
> 2. This was done in a lab by intelligent beings not through naturalism.
> 3. We get electrical charges all the time on this planet and we do not see these things unless they exist in a living organism.
> 4. They could not exist outside a living organism they definitely could not exist in a body of water because they are very soluble.
> 5. They could not exist on dry ground either because of oxygen they would decompose.
> 6. The sun would have the same effect.
Click to expand...


It wasn't to say that this is the way that it is, and there's no possible objection, but just that, and in response to someone else talking about undefinable intelligences in regards to the 'origin,' that the more likely explanations, which aren't just a handoff, if you know what I mean, involve high temperature reactions.

This might sound like an excuse, but w/e. I haven't thought about the idea in several years, though I recently felt the need to peruse more the more recent material, and there was a progression, starting from the work I described into more modern versions. I can't recall exactly, but from the idea that electrical charges transferred energy (indirectly perhaps) in the 50's there came the idea that perhaps, given the lack of Methane content in the early earth's atmosphere, as someone pointed out, that the environment around an active volcano might, instead of the general ocean/atmosphere, provide the neccesary ingredients.

Like this is the once accepted idea that the atomic units everything is made of are beneath miniscule but completely solid, a few decades ago. From that idea came the one that an atom is actually a collection of smaller particles, concentrated in the nucleus, with some orbiting around it like tiny planets, and which have nearly no mass compared to the center, and that it is mostly empty space, it's boundaries being defined by it's electric field. From that came quantum mechanics, and the idea that the subatomic particles which were thought to orbit the nucleus are so small they have no discrete state at any given time, unless being subject to conditions which would force their position or velocity into a specific set of states.

I hope you can see the progression and understand what my point was in bringing up Miller's work.


----------



## CandySlice

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *YWC and Lonestar,
> 
> It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.
> 
> And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like.
> 
> I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.
> 
> Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He can dish it out, but he can't take it. Go cry you pathetic creationist.  Your use of fallacies and misunderstanding of induction will not be missed.
Click to expand...


Poor Urinary. (I decided I'd call him that since he called me Candysleaze~~is that pathetic or what??)

So to you, Urinary I say:
Don't the door hit you. . .well,  you know the rest.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

UltimateReality said:


> *YWC and Lonestar,
> 
> It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.
> 
> And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like.
> 
> I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.
> 
> Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out. *



Your concession is duly noted.


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *YWC and Lonestar,
> 
> It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.
> 
> And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like.
> 
> I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.
> 
> Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He can dish it out, but he can't take it. Go cry you pathetic creationist.  Your use of fallacies and misunderstanding of induction will not be missed.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *YWC and Lonestar,
> 
> It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.
> 
> And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like.
> 
> I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.
> 
> Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted.
Click to expand...

can I get some soda and chips at that concession?


----------



## ima

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *YWC and Lonestar,
> 
> It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.
> 
> And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like.
> 
> I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.
> 
> Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> can I get some soda and chips at that concession?
Click to expand...


He knew he was beat, he probably started to doubt his own thoughts, got scared and left.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted.
> 
> 
> 
> can I get some soda and chips at that concession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He knew he was beat, he probably started to doubt his own thoughts, got scared and left.
Click to expand...


Do you people actually read the posts ? the questions go ignored or worse yet some weak argument is offered as an explanation when there is no evidence supporting the explanation.

I have purposely stayed away wondering what would be said,you guy's are very predictable.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> can I get some soda and chips at that concession?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He knew he was beat, he probably started to doubt his own thoughts, got scared and left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you people actually read the posts ? the questions go ignored or worse yet some weak argument is offered as an explanation when there is no evidence supporting the explanation.
> 
> I have purposely stayed away wondering what would be said,you guy's are very predictable.
Click to expand...


What questions were ignored? Secondly, neither of you offered anything in terms of "explanations" to, for example, the diversity of life on the planret , except silly and pointless claims that "The gawds did it". 

That's not an explanation. 

Further, neither of you were here to learn or to debate. Your goal was to proselytize, or worse, in the case of your creepy co-religionist, stalking.

We saw in clear and unmistakable terms the attitude of both the YECists and just how retograde your ideology really is: anyone who disagrees with you is sick, stupid, perverted, an imbecile, etc. etc.


----------



## Hollie

*Klinghoffer clangs*

Klinghoffer clangs - The Panda's Thumb

David Klinghoffer, Disco &#8216;Tute apologist, has responded to the recent kerfuffle involving Ann Gauger&#8217;s mangling of population genetics and phylogenetics (see Joe Felsenstein&#8217;s comment on Sandwalk) whilst green-screened over a stock laboratory photograph (see here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/6520435-post12916.html). 

Klinghoffer doesn&#8217;t bother to address the scientific nonsense Gauger promoted, of course&#8211;how could he?&#8211;but claims that the green-screened lab was convenient because Typically, filming in a genuine location like this would be troublesome for us and bothersome for others who work there &#8211; a distraction for all involved, including viewers, when the intent is to focus on the argument. Many other times, in other contexts, we have similarly used backdrops where, to get to an actual locale, it would require travel not to mention complicated, time-consuming setup and many other headaches. Going with a green screen makes sense for an organization that operates under a constrained budget.

So in Klinghoffer&#8217;s head there are just two alternatives: use a stock photo and green-screen Gauger into it, or tape Gauger speaking in her own lab. Here&#8217;s a third alternative for Klinghoffer and the DI&#8217;s film producers: Take a still photo of Gauger&#8217;s lab, which might be 10 minutes or so of interruption of the horde of minions working in it, and then green-screen her into that photo. That would have saved $19.00 (the reported cost of the stock photo) for the constrained budget of the DI. But it would also mean escaping from a false dichotomy, and ID proponents seem to be cognitively unable to entertain more than two alternatives at once; witness their decades-long efforts to equate (mostly specious) critiques of evolution with evidence for ID.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> He knew he was beat, he probably started to doubt his own thoughts, got scared and left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you people actually read the posts ? the questions go ignored or worse yet some weak argument is offered as an explanation when there is no evidence supporting the explanation.
> 
> I have purposely stayed away wondering what would be said,you guy's are very predictable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What questions were ignored? Secondly, neither of you offered anything in terms of "explanations" to, for example, the diversity of life on the planret , except silly and pointless claims that "The gawds did it".
> 
> That's not an explanation.
> 
> Further, neither of you were here to learn or to debate. Your goal was to proselytize, or worse, in the case of your creepy co-religionist, stalking.
> 
> We saw in clear and unmistakable terms the attitude of both the YECists and just how retograde your ideology really is: anyone who disagrees with you is sick, stupid, perverted, an imbecile, etc. etc.
Click to expand...


Chirality was an explanation. The cell it's so complex that it could have not formed in any natural form this has been explained. Under perfect conditions the miller and urey experiment was an argument for design not spontaneous generation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> *Klinghoffer clangs*
> 
> Klinghoffer clangs - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> David Klinghoffer, Disco Tute apologist, has responded to the recent kerfuffle involving Ann Gaugers mangling of population genetics and phylogenetics (see Joe Felsensteins comment on Sandwalk) whilst green-screened over a stock laboratory photograph (see here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/6520435-post12916.html).
> 
> Klinghoffer doesnt bother to address the scientific nonsense Gauger promoted, of coursehow could he?but claims that the green-screened lab was convenient because Typically, filming in a genuine location like this would be troublesome for us and bothersome for others who work there  a distraction for all involved, including viewers, when the intent is to focus on the argument. Many other times, in other contexts, we have similarly used backdrops where, to get to an actual locale, it would require travel not to mention complicated, time-consuming setup and many other headaches. Going with a green screen makes sense for an organization that operates under a constrained budget.
> 
> So in Klinghoffers head there are just two alternatives: use a stock photo and green-screen Gauger into it, or tape Gauger speaking in her own lab. Heres a third alternative for Klinghoffer and the DIs film producers: Take a still photo of Gaugers lab, which might be 10 minutes or so of interruption of the horde of minions working in it, and then green-screen her into that photo. That would have saved $19.00 (the reported cost of the stock photo) for the constrained budget of the DI. But it would also mean escaping from a false dichotomy, and ID proponents seem to be cognitively unable to entertain more than two alternatives at once; witness their decades-long efforts to equate (mostly specious) critiques of evolution with evidence for ID.



Look you can find as many baseless attacks on creationist you like. Creationist hold the same degrees and have seen the same evidence. What it comes down to is which belief is better supported by the evidence.

Unless your side can prove spontaneous generation your theory of evolution is dead on arrival. Because a cell had to spontaneously generate itself then reproduce itself many times over,then had to be responsible for the formation of every living organism.

Not only do they need one example of a cell spontaneously generating itself but with the diversity seen on this planet they have to prove many of these cells spontaneously generated themselves.

It is absurd to believe that every living organism are related to each other.


----------



## Youwerecreated

It's this simple if scientists were to come out and say there is zero evidence for spontaneous generation or for any field of science they know that funding would get cut and many would be out of work. Real science has been a huge benefit to man as well as been destructive to mans survival.

They offer the best explanation whether it is accurate or not.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Here is something that can help educate you people on a cell it's parts and functions.


Parts of a cell | Human biology | Khan Academy


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Klinghoffer clangs*
> 
> Klinghoffer clangs - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> David Klinghoffer, Disco Tute apologist, has responded to the recent kerfuffle involving Ann Gaugers mangling of population genetics and phylogenetics (see Joe Felsensteins comment on Sandwalk) whilst green-screened over a stock laboratory photograph (see here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/6520435-post12916.html).
> 
> Klinghoffer doesnt bother to address the scientific nonsense Gauger promoted, of coursehow could he?but claims that the green-screened lab was convenient because Typically, filming in a genuine location like this would be troublesome for us and bothersome for others who work there  a distraction for all involved, including viewers, when the intent is to focus on the argument. Many other times, in other contexts, we have similarly used backdrops where, to get to an actual locale, it would require travel not to mention complicated, time-consuming setup and many other headaches. Going with a green screen makes sense for an organization that operates under a constrained budget.
> 
> So in Klinghoffers head there are just two alternatives: use a stock photo and green-screen Gauger into it, or tape Gauger speaking in her own lab. Heres a third alternative for Klinghoffer and the DIs film producers: Take a still photo of Gaugers lab, which might be 10 minutes or so of interruption of the horde of minions working in it, and then green-screen her into that photo. That would have saved $19.00 (the reported cost of the stock photo) for the constrained budget of the DI. But it would also mean escaping from a false dichotomy, and ID proponents seem to be cognitively unable to entertain more than two alternatives at once; witness their decades-long efforts to equate (mostly specious) critiques of evolution with evidence for ID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look you can find as many baseless attacks on creationist you like. Creationist hold the same degrees and have seen the same evidence. What it comes down to is which belief is better supported by the evidence.
> 
> Unless your side can prove spontaneous generation your theory of evolution is dead on arrival. Because a cell had to spontaneously generate itself then reproduce itself many times over,then had to be responsible for the formation of every living organism.
> 
> Not only do they need one example of a cell spontaneously generating itself but with the diversity seen on this planet they have to prove many of these cells spontaneously generated themselves.
> 
> It is absurd to believe that every living organism are related to each other.
Click to expand...


As you have demonstrated throughout the thread, you are unable to offer even the most rudimentary of evidences for your asserted gawds. 

Secondly, let's not pretend that christian creationist proponents typically hold the same degrees as scientists. One look at the loons at the Disco 'tute will make that clear. 

As usual, you are utterly devoid of positive evidence for your gawds and thus are left to vilify science as your only recourse.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Klinghoffer clangs*
> 
> Klinghoffer clangs - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> David Klinghoffer, Disco &#8216;Tute apologist, has responded to the recent kerfuffle involving Ann Gauger&#8217;s mangling of population genetics and phylogenetics (see Joe Felsenstein&#8217;s comment on Sandwalk) whilst green-screened over a stock laboratory photograph (see here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/6520435-post12916.html).
> 
> Klinghoffer doesn&#8217;t bother to address the scientific nonsense Gauger promoted, of course&#8211;how could he?&#8211;but claims that the green-screened lab was convenient because Typically, filming in a genuine location like this would be troublesome for us and bothersome for others who work there &#8211; a distraction for all involved, including viewers, when the intent is to focus on the argument. Many other times, in other contexts, we have similarly used backdrops where, to get to an actual locale, it would require travel not to mention complicated, time-consuming setup and many other headaches. Going with a green screen makes sense for an organization that operates under a constrained budget.
> 
> So in Klinghoffer&#8217;s head there are just two alternatives: use a stock photo and green-screen Gauger into it, or tape Gauger speaking in her own lab. Here&#8217;s a third alternative for Klinghoffer and the DI&#8217;s film producers: Take a still photo of Gauger&#8217;s lab, which might be 10 minutes or so of interruption of the horde of minions working in it, and then green-screen her into that photo. That would have saved $19.00 (the reported cost of the stock photo) for the constrained budget of the DI. But it would also mean escaping from a false dichotomy, and ID proponents seem to be cognitively unable to entertain more than two alternatives at once; witness their decades-long efforts to equate (mostly specious) critiques of evolution with evidence for ID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look you can find as many baseless attacks on creationist you like. Creationist hold the same degrees and have seen the same evidence. What it comes down to is which belief is better supported by the evidence.
> 
> Unless your side can prove spontaneous generation your theory of evolution is dead on arrival. Because a cell had to spontaneously generate itself then reproduce itself many times over,then had to be responsible for the formation of every living organism.
> 
> Not only do they need one example of a cell spontaneously generating itself but with the diversity seen on this planet they have to prove many of these cells spontaneously generated themselves.
> 
> It is absurd to believe that every living organism are related to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have demonstrated throughout the thread, you are unable to offer even the most rudimentary of evidences for your asserted gawds.
> 
> Secondly, let's not pretend that christian creationist proponents typically hold the same degrees as scientists. One look at the loons at the Disco 'tute will make that clear.
> 
> As usual, you are utterly devoid of positive evidence for your gawds and thus are left to vilify science as your only recourse.
Click to expand...


Hollie many scientist that believe in design and the creator were educated in the same secular schools as evolutionist and took the same classes so what are you talking about ?

My education came from the University of Arizona. This is a well respected college for the fields of science. To say these people holding the same degrees but have a different interpretation of the evidence do not hold the same degrees shows ignorance on your part.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> It's this simple if scientists were to come out and say there is zero evidence for spontaneous generation or for any field of science they know that funding would get cut and many would be out of work. Real science has been a huge benefit to man as well as been destructive to mans survival.
> 
> They offer the best explanation whether it is accurate or not.



Wow. A christian creationist sprouting conspiracy theories.

Never saw that one comin'.


----------



## Hollie

Happy anniversary (two days late), to science, open inquiry and the rejection of christian creationist fear and superstition being imposed upon the public schools.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Intelligent Design case

*Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District*


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Klinghoffer clangs*
> 
> Klinghoffer clangs - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> David Klinghoffer, Disco Tute apologist, has responded to the recent kerfuffle involving Ann Gaugers mangling of population genetics and phylogenetics (see Joe Felsensteins comment on Sandwalk) whilst green-screened over a stock laboratory photograph (see here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/6520435-post12916.html).
> 
> Klinghoffer doesnt bother to address the scientific nonsense Gauger promoted, of coursehow could he?but claims that the green-screened lab was convenient because Typically, filming in a genuine location like this would be troublesome for us and bothersome for others who work there  a distraction for all involved, including viewers, when the intent is to focus on the argument. Many other times, in other contexts, we have similarly used backdrops where, to get to an actual locale, it would require travel not to mention complicated, time-consuming setup and many other headaches. Going with a green screen makes sense for an organization that operates under a constrained budget.
> 
> So in Klinghoffers head there are just two alternatives: use a stock photo and green-screen Gauger into it, or tape Gauger speaking in her own lab. Heres a third alternative for Klinghoffer and the DIs film producers: Take a still photo of Gaugers lab, which might be 10 minutes or so of interruption of the horde of minions working in it, and then green-screen her into that photo. That would have saved $19.00 (the reported cost of the stock photo) for the constrained budget of the DI. But it would also mean escaping from a false dichotomy, and ID proponents seem to be cognitively unable to entertain more than two alternatives at once; witness their decades-long efforts to equate (mostly specious) critiques of evolution with evidence for ID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look you can find as many baseless attacks on creationist you like. Creationist hold the same degrees and have seen the same evidence. What it comes down to is which belief is better supported by the evidence.
> 
> Unless your side can prove spontaneous generation your theory of evolution is dead on arrival. Because a cell had to spontaneously generate itself then reproduce itself many times over,then had to be responsible for the formation of every living organism.
> 
> Not only do they need one example of a cell spontaneously generating itself but with the diversity seen on this planet they have to prove many of these cells spontaneously generated themselves.
> 
> It is absurd to believe that every living organism are related to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have demonstrated throughout the thread, you are unable to offer even the most rudimentary of evidences for your asserted gawds.
> 
> Secondly, let's not pretend that christian creationist proponents typically hold the same degrees as scientists. One look at the loons at the Disco 'tute will make that clear.
> 
> As usual, you are utterly devoid of positive evidence for your gawds and thus are left to vilify science as your only recourse.
Click to expand...


You didn't even attempt to ask why I said the miller and urey experiment was a better argument for design then spontaneous generation.

This is my frustration when talking to your side you don't even care about the truth,you rather hold on to a view that is void of evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's this simple if scientists were to come out and say there is zero evidence for spontaneous generation or for any field of science they know that funding would get cut and many would be out of work. Real science has been a huge benefit to man as well as been destructive to mans survival.
> 
> They offer the best explanation whether it is accurate or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A christian creationist sprouting conspiracy theories.
> 
> Never saw that one comin'.
Click to expand...


Hollie it is a fact most research is funded by groups with agendas.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Happy anniversary (two days late), to science, open inquiry and the rejection of christian creationist fear and superstition being imposed upon the public schools.
> 
> Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Intelligent Design case
> 
> *Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District*



Hollie, no doubt secular views are represented in the schools the question should be why ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look you can find as many baseless attacks on creationist you like. Creationist hold the same degrees and have seen the same evidence. What it comes down to is which belief is better supported by the evidence.
> 
> Unless your side can prove spontaneous generation your theory of evolution is dead on arrival. Because a cell had to spontaneously generate itself then reproduce itself many times over,then had to be responsible for the formation of every living organism.
> 
> Not only do they need one example of a cell spontaneously generating itself but with the diversity seen on this planet they have to prove many of these cells spontaneously generated themselves.
> 
> It is absurd to believe that every living organism are related to each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you have demonstrated throughout the thread, you are unable to offer even the most rudimentary of evidences for your asserted gawds.
> 
> Secondly, let's not pretend that christian creationist proponents typically hold the same degrees as scientists. One look at the loons at the Disco 'tute will make that clear.
> 
> As usual, you are utterly devoid of positive evidence for your gawds and thus are left to vilify science as your only recourse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie many scientist that believe in design and the creator were educated in the same secular schools as evolutionist and took the same classes so what are you talking about ?
> 
> My education came from the University of Arizona. This is a well respected college for the fields of science. To say these people holding the same degrees but have a different interpretation of the evidence do not hold the same degrees shows ignorance on your part.
Click to expand...


Many scientist may believe in Bigfoot. Who cares? 

Christian creationist have never offered even a plausible explanation for supernaturalism as the mechanism describing diversity of life on the planet.

Your claims to gawds are no better supported than claims to Bigfoot or theLoch Ness monster.

I have no reason to believe you ever attended further education beyond christian home schooling. Quite clearly, your abilities to articulate christian creationism is limited to cutting and pasting from some of the more notorious and sleazy of the christian creationist ministries.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Happy anniversary (two days late), to science, open inquiry and the rejection of christian creationist fear and superstition being imposed upon the public schools.
> 
> Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Intelligent Design case
> 
> *Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, no doubt secular views are represented in the schools the question should be why ?
Click to expand...


As usual, you&#8217;re unable to separate your christian fundamentalist views from the mechanisms of exploration and discovery.

The methods of science are not &#8220;secular&#8221;. I understand your goal is to denigrate the methods of science, but using fear and superstition that is derived from your belief in the supernatural doesn&#8217;t further that goal


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> *Klinghoffer clangs*
> 
> Klinghoffer clangs - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> David Klinghoffer, Disco Tute apologist, has responded to the recent kerfuffle involving Ann Gaugers mangling of population genetics and phylogenetics (see Joe Felsensteins comment on Sandwalk) whilst green-screened over a stock laboratory photograph (see here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/6520435-post12916.html).
> 
> Klinghoffer doesnt bother to address the scientific nonsense Gauger promoted, of coursehow could he?but claims that the green-screened lab was convenient because Typically, filming in a genuine location like this would be troublesome for us and bothersome for others who work there  a distraction for all involved, including viewers, when the intent is to focus on the argument. Many other times, in other contexts, we have similarly used backdrops where, to get to an actual locale, it would require travel not to mention complicated, time-consuming setup and many other headaches. Going with a green screen makes sense for an organization that operates under a constrained budget.
> 
> So in Klinghoffers head there are just two alternatives: use a stock photo and green-screen Gauger into it, or tape Gauger speaking in her own lab. Heres a third alternative for Klinghoffer and the DIs film producers: Take a still photo of Gaugers lab, which might be 10 minutes or so of interruption of the horde of minions working in it, and then green-screen her into that photo. That would have saved $19.00 (the reported cost of the stock photo) for the constrained budget of the DI. But it would also mean escaping from a false dichotomy, and ID proponents seem to be cognitively unable to entertain more than two alternatives at once; witness their decades-long efforts to equate (mostly specious) critiques of evolution with evidence for ID.





Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> meaning t ywc will suck your dick but refuse to get fucked in the ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw. That one's a top AND a bottom, trust me. Whatever the traffic  will bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it me or are there a lot of rope suckers in this forum ?
Click to expand...


And there's your typical 'christian'. Not satisfied to be a laughing stock he also needs to hit the lowest common denominator at some point in the conversation.
No wonder people are leaving the church. People like this are sending them away in droves.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you have demonstrated throughout the thread, you are unable to offer even the most rudimentary of evidences for your asserted gawds.
> 
> Secondly, let's not pretend that christian creationist proponents typically hold the same degrees as scientists. One look at the loons at the Disco 'tute will make that clear.
> 
> As usual, you are utterly devoid of positive evidence for your gawds and thus are left to vilify science as your only recourse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie many scientist that believe in design and the creator were educated in the same secular schools as evolutionist and took the same classes so what are you talking about ?
> 
> My education came from the University of Arizona. This is a well respected college for the fields of science. To say these people holding the same degrees but have a different interpretation of the evidence do not hold the same degrees shows ignorance on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many scientist may believe in Bigfoot. Who cares?
> 
> Christian creationist have never offered even a plausible explanation for supernaturalism as the mechanism describing diversity of life on the planet.
> 
> Your claims to gawds are no better supported than claims to Bigfoot or theLoch Ness monster.
> 
> I have no reason to believe you ever attended further education beyond christian home schooling. Quite clearly, your abilities to articulate christian creationism is limited to cutting and pasting from some of the more notorious and sleazy of the christian creationist ministries.
Click to expand...


They have,they presented evidence of the cell showing the cell is to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Products of the cell perform functions, functions that are a product of purposeful design. The truth is hollie there is no explanation absent of purposeful design. You have DNA that gets interpreted and converted into mRNA which is converted in to proteins.

Sorry if you can't see the purposeful functions you can't see purposeful design. You would never get life without these purposeful funtions of the cell. The amazing thing is to think this all happened by chance and we are not even considering chirality yet.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Klinghoffer clangs*
> 
> Klinghoffer clangs - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> David Klinghoffer, Disco Tute apologist, has responded to the recent kerfuffle involving Ann Gaugers mangling of population genetics and phylogenetics (see Joe Felsensteins comment on Sandwalk) whilst green-screened over a stock laboratory photograph (see here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/6520435-post12916.html).
> 
> Klinghoffer doesnt bother to address the scientific nonsense Gauger promoted, of coursehow could he?but claims that the green-screened lab was convenient because Typically, filming in a genuine location like this would be troublesome for us and bothersome for others who work there  a distraction for all involved, including viewers, when the intent is to focus on the argument. Many other times, in other contexts, we have similarly used backdrops where, to get to an actual locale, it would require travel not to mention complicated, time-consuming setup and many other headaches. Going with a green screen makes sense for an organization that operates under a constrained budget.
> 
> So in Klinghoffers head there are just two alternatives: use a stock photo and green-screen Gauger into it, or tape Gauger speaking in her own lab. Heres a third alternative for Klinghoffer and the DIs film producers: Take a still photo of Gaugers lab, which might be 10 minutes or so of interruption of the horde of minions working in it, and then green-screen her into that photo. That would have saved $19.00 (the reported cost of the stock photo) for the constrained budget of the DI. But it would also mean escaping from a false dichotomy, and ID proponents seem to be cognitively unable to entertain more than two alternatives at once; witness their decades-long efforts to equate (mostly specious) critiques of evolution with evidence for ID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw. That one's a top AND a bottom, trust me. Whatever the traffic  will bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it me or are there a lot of rope suckers in this forum ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there's your typical 'christian'. Not satisfied to be a laughing stock he also needs to hit the lowest common denominator at some point in the conversation.
> No wonder people are leaving the church. People like this are sending them away in droves.
Click to expand...


Is this your attempt at changing the subject  ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie many scientist that believe in design and the creator were educated in the same secular schools as evolutionist and took the same classes so what are you talking about ?
> 
> My education came from the University of Arizona. This is a well respected college for the fields of science. To say these people holding the same degrees but have a different interpretation of the evidence do not hold the same degrees shows ignorance on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many scientist may believe in Bigfoot. Who cares?
> 
> Christian creationist have never offered even a plausible explanation for supernaturalism as the mechanism describing diversity of life on the planet.
> 
> Your claims to gawds are no better supported than claims to Bigfoot or theLoch Ness monster.
> 
> I have no reason to believe you ever attended further education beyond christian home schooling. Quite clearly, your abilities to articulate christian creationism is limited to cutting and pasting from some of the more notorious and sleazy of the christian creationist ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have,they presented evidence of the cell showing the cell is to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Products of the cell perform functions, functions that are a product of purposeful design. The truth is hollie there is no explanation absent of purposeful design. You have DNA that gets interpreted and converted into mRNA which is converted in to proteins.
> 
> Sorry if you can't see the purposeful functions you can't see purposeful design. You would never get life without these purposeful funtions of the cell. The amazing is to think this all happened by chance and we are not even considering chirality yet.
Click to expand...


"They" have presented no such thing as the cell being to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Your comment is ridiculous. You may find that repeating slogans of "purposeful design" is a function of indoctrination (such repetition is a characteristic of cults), but repeating slogans causes you to appear as just another mind-numbing automaton.

There is no evidence that any process in nature is "purposeful". That's like claiming a tornado purposefully destroys one home while "purposefully" avoiding another across the street. That's ridiculous.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Klinghoffer clangs*
> 
> Klinghoffer clangs - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> David Klinghoffer, Disco Tute apologist, has responded to the recent kerfuffle involving Ann Gaugers mangling of population genetics and phylogenetics (see Joe Felsensteins comment on Sandwalk) whilst green-screened over a stock laboratory photograph (see here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/6520435-post12916.html).
> 
> Klinghoffer doesnt bother to address the scientific nonsense Gauger promoted, of coursehow could he?but claims that the green-screened lab was convenient because Typically, filming in a genuine location like this would be troublesome for us and bothersome for others who work there  a distraction for all involved, including viewers, when the intent is to focus on the argument. Many other times, in other contexts, we have similarly used backdrops where, to get to an actual locale, it would require travel not to mention complicated, time-consuming setup and many other headaches. Going with a green screen makes sense for an organization that operates under a constrained budget.
> 
> So in Klinghoffers head there are just two alternatives: use a stock photo and green-screen Gauger into it, or tape Gauger speaking in her own lab. Heres a third alternative for Klinghoffer and the DIs film producers: Take a still photo of Gaugers lab, which might be 10 minutes or so of interruption of the horde of minions working in it, and then green-screen her into that photo. That would have saved $19.00 (the reported cost of the stock photo) for the constrained budget of the DI. But it would also mean escaping from a false dichotomy, and ID proponents seem to be cognitively unable to entertain more than two alternatives at once; witness their decades-long efforts to equate (mostly specious) critiques of evolution with evidence for ID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it me or are there a lot of rope suckers in this forum ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there's your typical 'christian'. Not satisfied to be a laughing stock he also needs to hit the lowest common denominator at some point in the conversation.
> No wonder people are leaving the church. People like this are sending them away in droves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this your attempt at changing the subject  ?
Click to expand...


Speaking of changing the subject, you seem hesitant to address the issue of your Christian creationist scientists attempting to phony-up a research lab.

What is obviously lacking on the part of the Christian creationist syndicates is that _there is no research being undertaken_. How humiliating for the Christian fundies: they dont even have an appropriately equipped or staffed lab. They were forced to dishonestly phony-up and purposefully misrepresent themselves. But honestly, how does anyone perform research into baseless claims of supermagical entities?

How humiliating for the Christian fundies to be embarrassed into admitting that no research lab exists in the entirety of the Christian creationist syndicate.

So why do you think it is that the Christian fundies are not acquiring funding grants? With the goal of the Christian syndicates to promote Christianity, why isnt there a vigorous research program to prove this design that you rattle on about?


----------



## Hollie

*Westboro Baptist Creationist Loses School Board Bid*

Westboro Baptist Creationist Loses School Board Bid - The Panda's Thumb

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) &#8211; Carolyn Campbell lamented that she didn&#8217;t court enough voters in northeast Kansas in seeking her second term on the State Board of Education.

Her opponent, Jack Wu, was outspoken on teaching evolution and has ties to an anti-gay Topeka church notorious for picketing military members&#8217; funerals. Campbell, a Democrat, worried GOP voters would simply follow Wu&#8217;s Republican party affiliation.

In the end, Campbell, a Topeka Democrat, received more than enough votes in Tuesday&#8217;s election, easily defeating Wu, according to unofficial results.

&#8220;I&#8217;m happy I have four more years to work for our children. That&#8217;s all I wanted to do,&#8221; Campbell said.

*&#8230;*

Wu, a Topeka computer programmer, *made opposition to teaching evolution the centerpiece of his campaign*. He described *evolution as &#8220;Satanic lies&#8221;* and said on a website that *public schools were preparing students to be &#8220;liars, crooks, thieves, murderers, and perverts.&#8221;*

Wu also raised eyebrows by saying that he was lured to Kansas from California in 2008 by Westboro Baptist. The Topeka church, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps Sr., is known internationally for picketing with anti-gay slogans and proclaiming that American soldiers&#8217; deaths are God&#8217;s punishment for the nation&#8217;s tolerance of homosexuality. Wu is not formally a member, but he&#8217;s attended services regularly.


Here&#8217;s a bit more from Jack Wu&#8217;s own website: Mission - A WebsiteBuilder Website



> My mission, in running for the Kansas State Board of Education, is to throw out the crap that teachers are feeding their students and replace it with healthy good for the soul knowledge from the holy scriptures.
> 
> Let&#8217;s be specific. Evolution should never be taught in public schools as science. Evolution is false science! God made the heaven and the earth and created humans from the dust of the earth! The very bad teachers that teach that men descended from apes via evolution need to have their teaching licenses revoked. Yes, students should be taught that God created everything.




Gee whiz. This whack-job would find a willing audience in this thread.

Well, praise hey-zoos that one of his whacky minions won't be able to spread his message of christian hate and intolerance to school kids.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> can I get some soda and chips at that concession?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He knew he was beat, he probably started to doubt his own thoughts, got scared and left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you people actually read the posts ? the questions go ignored or worse yet some weak argument is offered as an explanation when there is no evidence supporting the explanation.
> 
> I have purposely stayed away wondering what would be said,you guy's are very predictable.
Click to expand...

lol! stayed away! it's been all of 4 days.
you're like an addict, in your mind  that must have seemed like an eternity(pun intended)
NONE OF YOUR SO CALLED QUESTIONS EVER WENT IGNORED THEY WERE ASKED AND  ANSWERED COUNTLESS TIMES . 
Weak arguments?  coming from you that's hilarious!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you people actually read the posts ? the questions go ignored or worse yet some weak argument is offered as an explanation when there is no evidence supporting the explanation.
> 
> I have purposely stayed away wondering what would be said,you guy's are very predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What questions were ignored? Secondly, neither of you offered anything in terms of "explanations" to, for example, the diversity of life on the planret , except silly and pointless claims that "The gawds did it".
> 
> That's not an explanation.
> 
> Further, neither of you were here to learn or to debate. Your goal was to proselytize, or worse, in the case of your creepy co-religionist, stalking.
> 
> We saw in clear and unmistakable terms the attitude of both the YECists and just how retograde your ideology really is: anyone who disagrees with you is sick, stupid, perverted, an imbecile, etc. etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chirality was an explanation. The cell it's so complex that it could have not formed in any natural form this has been explained. Under perfect conditions the miller and urey experiment was an argument for design not spontaneous generation.
Click to expand...

wrong as always.
you have no evidence of a non natural formation.Chirality and irreducible complexity are not proof  or argument for design or a designer.
it's already been shown to you that NO ONE knows how the first cell formed.
to say you do is a LIE.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many scientist may believe in Bigfoot. Who cares?
> 
> Christian creationist have never offered even a plausible explanation for supernaturalism as the mechanism describing diversity of life on the planet.
> 
> Your claims to gawds are no better supported than claims to Bigfoot or theLoch Ness monster.
> 
> I have no reason to believe you ever attended further education beyond christian home schooling. Quite clearly, your abilities to articulate christian creationism is limited to cutting and pasting from some of the more notorious and sleazy of the christian creationist ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have,they presented evidence of the cell showing the cell is to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Products of the cell perform functions, functions that are a product of purposeful design. The truth is hollie there is no explanation absent of purposeful design. You have DNA that gets interpreted and converted into mRNA which is converted in to proteins.
> 
> Sorry if you can't see the purposeful functions you can't see purposeful design. You would never get life without these purposeful funtions of the cell. The amazing is to think this all happened by chance and we are not even considering chirality yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "They" have presented no such thing as the cell being to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Your comment is ridiculous. You may find that repeating slogans of "purposeful design" is a function of indoctrination (such repetition is a characteristic of cults), but repeating slogans causes you to appear as just another mind-numbing automaton.
> 
> There is no evidence that any process in nature is "purposeful". That's like claiming a tornado purposefully destroys one home while "purposefully" avoiding another across the street. That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

did anybody notice that Ywc is tossing around a new word: chirality!


----------



## CandySlice

Youwerecreated said:


> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Klinghoffer clangs*
> 
> Klinghoffer clangs - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> David Klinghoffer, Disco Tute apologist, has responded to the recent kerfuffle involving Ann Gaugers mangling of population genetics and phylogenetics (see Joe Felsensteins comment on Sandwalk) whilst green-screened over a stock laboratory photograph (see here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/6520435-post12916.html).
> 
> Klinghoffer doesnt bother to address the scientific nonsense Gauger promoted, of coursehow could he?but claims that the green-screened lab was convenient because Typically, filming in a genuine location like this would be troublesome for us and bothersome for others who work there  a distraction for all involved, including viewers, when the intent is to focus on the argument. Many other times, in other contexts, we have similarly used backdrops where, to get to an actual locale, it would require travel not to mention complicated, time-consuming setup and many other headaches. Going with a green screen makes sense for an organization that operates under a constrained budget.
> 
> So in Klinghoffers head there are just two alternatives: use a stock photo and green-screen Gauger into it, or tape Gauger speaking in her own lab. Heres a third alternative for Klinghoffer and the DIs film producers: Take a still photo of Gaugers lab, which might be 10 minutes or so of interruption of the horde of minions working in it, and then green-screen her into that photo. That would have saved $19.00 (the reported cost of the stock photo) for the constrained budget of the DI. But it would also mean escaping from a false dichotomy, and ID proponents seem to be cognitively unable to entertain more than two alternatives at once; witness their decades-long efforts to equate (mostly specious) critiques of evolution with evidence for ID.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it me or are there a lot of rope suckers in this forum ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there's your typical 'christian'. Not satisfied to be a laughing stock he also needs to hit the lowest common denominator at some point in the conversation.
> No wonder people are leaving the church. People like this are sending them away in droves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this your attempt at changing the subject  ?
Click to expand...


Nope. Just drawing attention to what you really are under all that 'I'm so God-like'.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have,they presented evidence of the cell showing the cell is to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Products of the cell perform functions, functions that are a product of purposeful design. The truth is hollie there is no explanation absent of purposeful design. You have DNA that gets interpreted and converted into mRNA which is converted in to proteins.
> 
> Sorry if you can't see the purposeful functions you can't see purposeful design. You would never get life without these purposeful funtions of the cell. The amazing is to think this all happened by chance and we are not even considering chirality yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They" have presented no such thing as the cell being to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Your comment is ridiculous. You may find that repeating slogans of "purposeful design" is a function of indoctrination (such repetition is a characteristic of cults), but repeating slogans causes you to appear as just another mind-numbing automaton.
> 
> There is no evidence that any process in nature is "purposeful". That's like claiming a tornado purposefully destroys one home while "purposefully" avoiding another across the street. That's ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did anybody notice that Ywc is tossing around a new word: chirality!
Click to expand...


chirality! No, I didnt notice that until I read your post.

Is chirality the act of neutering a Christian? (snark).


----------



## CandySlice

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have,they presented evidence of the cell showing the cell is to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Products of the cell perform functions, functions that are a product of purposeful design. The truth is hollie there is no explanation absent of purposeful design. You have DNA that gets interpreted and converted into mRNA which is converted in to proteins.
> 
> Sorry if you can't see the purposeful functions you can't see purposeful design. You would never get life without these purposeful funtions of the cell. The amazing is to think this all happened by chance and we are not even considering chirality yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They" have presented no such thing as the cell being to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Your comment is ridiculous. You may find that repeating slogans of "purposeful design" is a function of indoctrination (such repetition is a characteristic of cults), but repeating slogans causes you to appear as just another mind-numbing automaton.
> 
> There is no evidence that any process in nature is "purposeful". That's like claiming a tornado purposefully destroys one home while "purposefully" avoiding another across the street. That's ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did anybody notice that Ywc is tossing around a new word: chirality!
Click to expand...


I know. They learn it and then try to use it in a sentence--pretending to an erudition they really don't have.
I think it was either YWC or that other dummy that got hung up in the word 'loathing' the other day. Used it three times in one sentence and even conjugated it at one point.


----------



## CandySlice

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "They" have presented no such thing as the cell being to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Your comment is ridiculous. You may find that repeating slogans of "purposeful design" is a function of indoctrination (such repetition is a characteristic of cults), but repeating slogans causes you to appear as just another mind-numbing automaton.
> 
> There is no evidence that any process in nature is "purposeful". That's like claiming a tornado purposefully destroys one home while "purposefully" avoiding another across the street. That's ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> did anybody notice that Ywc is tossing around a new word: chirality!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> chirality! No, I didnt notice that until I read your post.
> 
> Is chirality the act of neutering a Christian? (snark).
Click to expand...


It goes along with the whole mind-set of these people. They're mimics in most cases. Uneducated for the most part they have a few standard blurbs they've been able to memorize to blurt out at the proper (and sometimes NOT so proper) times, a few select copy and paste pieces they like to trot out, probably unable to understand half of what they've posted themselves, and always a  sprinkling of new words they've picked up along the way. Words they then proceed to batter to death unsure of what most of them really mean. In short, they think everybody is as dumb as they are and since these tactics have worked on other weak-minded souls they try to run their painfully lame  half-baked con jobs here.
Of course here there are some very learned people who don't let them get away with that cheap shit. And you can see them disintergrate right in front of your eyes once a light is shined on them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> He knew he was beat, he probably started to doubt his own thoughts, got scared and left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you people actually read the posts ? the questions go ignored or worse yet some weak argument is offered as an explanation when there is no evidence supporting the explanation.
> 
> I have purposely stayed away wondering what would be said,you guy's are very predictable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol! stayed away! it's been all of 4 days.
> you're like an addict, in your mind  that must have seemed like an eternity(pun intended)
> NONE OF YOUR SO CALLED QUESTIONS EVER WENT IGNORED THEY WERE ASKED AND  ANSWERED COUNTLESS TIMES .
> Weak arguments?  coming from you that's hilarious!
Click to expand...


Not addicted and I saw the same meaningless posts not responding to the facts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What questions were ignored? Secondly, neither of you offered anything in terms of "explanations" to, for example, the diversity of life on the planret , except silly and pointless claims that "The gawds did it".
> 
> That's not an explanation.
> 
> Further, neither of you were here to learn or to debate. Your goal was to proselytize, or worse, in the case of your creepy co-religionist, stalking.
> 
> We saw in clear and unmistakable terms the attitude of both the YECists and just how retograde your ideology really is: anyone who disagrees with you is sick, stupid, perverted, an imbecile, etc. etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chirality was an explanation. The cell it's so complex that it could have not formed in any natural form this has been explained. Under perfect conditions the miller and urey experiment was an argument for design not spontaneous generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong as always.
> you have no evidence of a non natural formation.Chirality and irreducible complexity are not proof  or argument for design or a designer.
> it's already been shown to you that NO ONE knows how the first cell formed.
> to say you do is a LIE.
Click to expand...


It's funny you would make light of only left handed amino acids found their way into the first cell or any cell for that matter when both left and right handed amino acids exist not only that but they bonded in the right sequence.

I don't need to see the designer to know the cell was designed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have,they presented evidence of the cell showing the cell is to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Products of the cell perform functions, functions that are a product of purposeful design. The truth is hollie there is no explanation absent of purposeful design. You have DNA that gets interpreted and converted into mRNA which is converted in to proteins.
> 
> Sorry if you can't see the purposeful functions you can't see purposeful design. You would never get life without these purposeful funtions of the cell. The amazing is to think this all happened by chance and we are not even considering chirality yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They" have presented no such thing as the cell being to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Your comment is ridiculous. You may find that repeating slogans of "purposeful design" is a function of indoctrination (such repetition is a characteristic of cults), but repeating slogans causes you to appear as just another mind-numbing automaton.
> 
> There is no evidence that any process in nature is "purposeful". That's like claiming a tornado purposefully destroys one home while "purposefully" avoiding another across the street. That's ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did anybody notice that Ywc is tossing around a new word: chirality!
Click to expand...


Hey did you notice that I spoke about chirality earlier in the thread ? Did you notice all my talk of left handed and right handed amino acids are about chirality most of it went over your head until I used the term in the latest example.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CandySlice said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there's your typical 'christian'. Not satisfied to be a laughing stock he also needs to hit the lowest common denominator at some point in the conversation.
> No wonder people are leaving the church. People like this are sending them away in droves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this your attempt at changing the subject  ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Just drawing attention to what you really are under all that 'I'm so God-like'.
Click to expand...


Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "They" have presented no such thing as the cell being to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Your comment is ridiculous. You may find that repeating slogans of "purposeful design" is a function of indoctrination (such repetition is a characteristic of cults), but repeating slogans causes you to appear as just another mind-numbing automaton.
> 
> There is no evidence that any process in nature is "purposeful". That's like claiming a tornado purposefully destroys one home while "purposefully" avoiding another across the street. That's ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> did anybody notice that Ywc is tossing around a new word: chirality!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> chirality! No, I didnt notice that until I read your post.
> 
> Is chirality the act of neutering a Christian? (snark).
Click to expand...


So you don't understand the meaning of left and right handed amino acids,figures.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "They" have presented no such thing as the cell being to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Your comment is ridiculous. You may find that repeating slogans of "purposeful design" is a function of indoctrination (such repetition is a characteristic of cults), but repeating slogans causes you to appear as just another mind-numbing automaton.
> 
> There is no evidence that any process in nature is "purposeful". That's like claiming a tornado purposefully destroys one home while "purposefully" avoiding another across the street. That's ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> did anybody notice that Ywc is tossing around a new word: chirality!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. They learn it and then try to use it in a sentence--pretending to an erudition they really don't have.
> I think it was either YWC or that other dummy that got hung up in the word 'loathing' the other day. Used it three times in one sentence and even conjugated it at one point.
Click to expand...


Explain chirality of the cell,this should be good.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CandySlice said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> did anybody notice that Ywc is tossing around a new word: chirality!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chirality! No, I didn&#8217;t notice that until I read your post.
> 
> Is chirality the act of neutering a Christian? (snark).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It goes along with the whole mind-set of these people. They're mimics in most cases. Uneducated for the most part they have a few standard blurbs they've been able to memorize to blurt out at the proper (and sometimes NOT so proper) times, a few select copy and paste pieces they like to trot out, probably unable to understand half of what they've posted themselves, and always a  sprinkling of new words they've picked up along the way. Words they then proceed to batter to death unsure of what most of them really mean. In short, they think everybody is as dumb as they are and since these tactics have worked on other weak-minded souls they try to run their painfully lame  half-baked con jobs here.
> Of course here there are some very learned people who don't let them get away with that cheap shit. And you can see them disintergrate right in front of your eyes once a light is shined on them.
Click to expand...


So since I know I am more educated in the field of science I will let you choose a subject to debate in the field of science.

Talk is cheap, poop or get off the pot.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Why is it when I offer a challenge to you cowards you run and hide,eh candyslice?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> did anybody notice that Ywc is tossing around a new word: chirality!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chirality! No, I didnt notice that until I read your post.
> 
> Is chirality the act of neutering a Christian? (snark).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't understand the meaning of left and right handed amino acids,figures.
Click to expand...


You don't understand that unquestioning belief in what is spewed from creationist ministries is laughable.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't... Abiogenesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis theory is a theory filled with conjecture lacks any real evidence that would support the theory. Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated.
Click to expand...


You tout something as scientific fact when it is not, the IX commandment doesn't have an escape clause for apologetics. Certainly we do not have all the answers but the scientists are actually working on it. You begrudge them for that? You begrudge them for not being satisfied with the easy answer when there is something far more interesting than any creation myth, far more interesting than any man could fathom.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "They" have presented no such thing as the cell being to complex to be a product of a random natural process. Your comment is ridiculous. You may find that repeating slogans of "purposeful design" is a function of indoctrination (such repetition is a characteristic of cults), but repeating slogans causes you to appear as just another mind-numbing automaton.
> 
> There is no evidence that any process in nature is "purposeful". That's like claiming a tornado purposefully destroys one home while "purposefully" avoiding another across the street. That's ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> did anybody notice that Ywc is tossing around a new word: chirality!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey did you notice that I spoke about chirality earlier in the thread ? Did you notice all my talk of left handed and right handed amino acids are about chirality most of it went over your head until I used the term in the latest example.
Click to expand...


I think everyone noticed how pompous you appear thinking your new found buzz-word anything but another creationist scam.


----------



## zombiehunter696

Youwerecreated said:


> Why is it when I offer a challenge to you cowards you run and hide,eh candyslice?



Why don't you offer you challenge to a scientist. You know, those people that spend their lives studying this stuff? Why go to a massage board and ask random strangers who may have had their last course in biology was in high school?


----------



## Youwerecreated

PretentiousGuy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't... Abiogenesis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis theory is a theory filled with conjecture lacks any real evidence that would support the theory. Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You tout something as scientific fact when it is not, the IX commandment doesn't have an escape clause for apologetics. Certainly we do not have all the answers but the scientists are actually working on it. You begrudge them for that? You begrudge them for not being satisfied with the easy answer when there is something far more interesting than any creation myth, far more interesting than any man could fathom.
Click to expand...


No, my problem is they see obvious evidence of design and dismiss it. Hell you even have well known evolutionist admitting to things looking designed but then go on to say they arose through a natural process to which they have zero evidence for.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> did anybody notice that Ywc is tossing around a new word: chirality!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey did you notice that I spoke about chirality earlier in the thread ? Did you notice all my talk of left handed and right handed amino acids are about chirality most of it went over your head until I used the term in the latest example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think everyone noticed how pompous you appear thinking your new found buzz-word anything but another creationist scam.
Click to expand...


Baseless accusation again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

zombiehunter696 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it when I offer a challenge to you cowards you run and hide,eh candyslice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer you challenge to a scientist. You know, those people that spend their lives studying this stuff? Why go to a massage board and ask random strangers who may have had their last course in biology was in high school?
Click to expand...


I did when I worked in the lab and it didn't go over well. I put up with the nonsense as long as I could stand.

I come here for entertainment but when the uneducated lower accusations at me I take them on,if they can't deal with it then they should remain silent and learn.


----------



## zombiehunter696

Youwerecreated said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it when I offer a challenge to you cowards you run and hide,eh candyslice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer you challenge to a scientist. You know, those people that spend their lives studying this stuff? Why go to a massage board and ask random strangers who may have had their last course in biology was in high school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did when I worked in the lab and it didn't go over well. I put up with the nonsense as long as I could stand.
> 
> I come here for entertainment but when the uneducated lower accusations at me I take them on,if they can't deal with it then they should remain silent and learn.
Click to expand...


By "didn't go over well", I assume that means, "they told me why I was wrong". 

Actually, I highly doubt you worked in a lab.


----------



## Youwerecreated

zombiehunter696 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer you challenge to a scientist. You know, those people that spend their lives studying this stuff? Why go to a massage board and ask random strangers who may have had their last course in biology was in high school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did when I worked in the lab and it didn't go over well. I put up with the nonsense as long as I could stand.
> 
> I come here for entertainment but when the uneducated lower accusations at me I take them on,if they can't deal with it then they should remain silent and learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "didn't go over well", I assume that means, "they told me why I was wrong".
> 
> Actually, I highly doubt you worked in a lab.
Click to expand...


Many men and women I worked with felt as I did but if you go against the leaders that have an agenda it ends in dismissal So I made my money and invested it and walked away. I am now in business for myself today and I have a clear conscience while Many are still living the lie.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey did you notice that I spoke about chirality earlier in the thread ? Did you notice all my talk of left handed and right handed amino acids are about chirality most of it went over your head until I used the term in the latest example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone noticed how pompous you appear thinking your new found buzz-word anything but another creationist scam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baseless accusation again.
Click to expand...


Not at all. Yours is yet another desperate ploy, launched by the christian creationist ministries, to add a level of "mystery" and supermagicalism to science.

Chirality of life: Another false positive? - The Panda's Thumb

Creationists have considered the mystery of the chirality of life a problem inaccessible to scientific explanation. Of course, science as usual takes little notice of claims to ignorance and has provided yet another explanation for the chirality of life.

Point in case, a recent paper in _Nature_ shows that:

Chirality, the molecular version of right- and left-handedness, has intrigued chemists ever since Pasteur found mirror-image tartaric acid crystals. The synthesis of molecules in a single chiral form is usually achieved by using a chiral entity from the outset. But in some reactions the formation of a chiral product seems to be further amplified. Most current explanations implicate autocatalysis as the source of this asymmetry. An alternative mechanism is demonstrated this week. This new approach generates a strong bias towards one chiral form from a small initial imbalance, based on the equilibrium solidliquid phase behaviour of amino acids. As this takes place in aqueous solution, the process might explain how a prebiotic world, with left- and right-handed molecules present in equal numbers, could turn into a living world where biomolecules favour one chiral form.



I guess there's no point in waiting for Ann Gauger and the cast of christian creationist "scientists" to actually do any research in this area. 

Not unless they can fake another lab and fake the research.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did when I worked in the lab and it didn't go over well. I put up with the nonsense as long as I could stand.
> 
> I come here for entertainment but when the uneducated lower accusations at me I take them on,if they can't deal with it then they should remain silent and learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By "didn't go over well", I assume that means, "they told me why I was wrong".
> 
> Actually, I highly doubt you worked in a lab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many men and women I worked with felt as I did but if you go against the leaders that have an agenda it ends in dismissal So I made my money and invested it and walked away. I am now in business for myself today and I have a clear conscience while Many are still living the lie.
Click to expand...

How generous of you to speak on behalf of those "many" people. And how convenient that an anonymous poster on an internet message board can make any claim they wish. Did you forget that there are examples in this thread of your dishonesty and deceit?


----------



## ima

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By "didn't go over well", I assume that means, "they told me why I was wrong".
> 
> Actually, I highly doubt you worked in a lab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many men and women I worked with felt as I did but if you go against the leaders that have an agenda it ends in dismissal So I made my money and invested it and walked away. I am now in business for myself today and I have a clear conscience while Many are still living the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How generous of you to speak on behalf of those "many" people. And how convenient that an anonymous poster on an internet message board can make any claim they wish. Did you forget that there are examples in this thread of your dishonesty and deceit?
Click to expand...


WoW! This douchesack actually quit a job because the others wouldn't pretend to see an invisible superbeing like he does.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis theory is a theory filled with conjecture lacks any real evidence that would support the theory. Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tout something as scientific fact when it is not, the IX commandment doesn't have an escape clause for apologetics. Certainly we do not have all the answers but the scientists are actually working on it. You begrudge them for that? You begrudge them for not being satisfied with the easy answer when there is something far more interesting than any creation myth, far more interesting than any man could fathom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my problem is they see obvious evidence of design and dismiss it. Hell you even have *well known evolutionist admitting to things looking designed but then go on to say they arose through a natural process* to which they have zero evidence for.
Click to expand...


Who do you speak of? What is the context? What was said?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone noticed how pompous you appear thinking your new found buzz-word anything but another creationist scam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baseless accusation again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all. Yours is yet another desperate ploy, launched by the christian creationist ministries, to add a level of "mystery" and supermagicalism to science.
> 
> Chirality of life: Another false positive? - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> Creationists have considered the &#8216;mystery&#8217; of the chirality of life a problem inaccessible to scientific explanation. Of course, science as usual takes little notice of claims to ignorance and has provided yet another explanation for the chirality of life.
> 
> Point in case, a recent paper in _Nature_ shows that:
> 
> Chirality, the molecular version of right- and left-handedness, has intrigued chemists ever since Pasteur found mirror-image tartaric acid crystals. The synthesis of molecules in a single chiral form is usually achieved by using a chiral entity from the outset. But in some reactions the formation of a chiral product seems to be further amplified. Most current explanations implicate autocatalysis as the source of this asymmetry. An alternative mechanism is demonstrated this week. This new approach generates a strong bias towards one chiral form from a small initial imbalance, based on the equilibrium solid&#8211;liquid phase behaviour of amino acids. As this takes place in aqueous solution, the process might explain how a prebiotic world, with left- and right-handed molecules present in equal numbers, could turn into a living world where biomolecules favour one chiral form.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess there's no point in waiting for Ann Gauger and the cast of christian creationist "scientists" to actually do any research in this area.
> 
> Not unless they can fake another lab and fake the research.
Click to expand...


Your accusation was the term chirality was my new buzz word you were wrong. The purpose of the miller urey experiment was to see if simple molecules can combine spontaneously. In other words produce a cell,they failed. They spun it because a few amino acids formed which happened to be about 50% right handed and 50% left handed. Life could not come form what was formed because a mixture of the two amino acids would prove to be destructive to the cell.


chi·ral
 adjective \&#712;k&#299;-r&#601;l\   (Medical Dictionary)

Medical Definition of CHIRAL 


: of or relating to a molecule that is nonsuperimposable on its mirror image 

&#8212;chi·ral·i·ty noun, pluralchi·ral·i·ties


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By "didn't go over well", I assume that means, "they told me why I was wrong".
> 
> Actually, I highly doubt you worked in a lab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many men and women I worked with felt as I did but if you go against the leaders that have an agenda it ends in dismissal So I made my money and invested it and walked away. I am now in business for myself today and I have a clear conscience while Many are still living the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How generous of you to speak on behalf of those "many" people. And how convenient that an anonymous poster on an internet message board can make any claim they wish. Did you forget that there are examples in this thread of your dishonesty and deceit?
Click to expand...


You're the liar and spinner hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many men and women I worked with felt as I did but if you go against the leaders that have an agenda it ends in dismissal So I made my money and invested it and walked away. I am now in business for myself today and I have a clear conscience while Many are still living the lie.
> 
> 
> 
> How generous of you to speak on behalf of those "many" people. And how convenient that an anonymous poster on an internet message board can make any claim they wish. Did you forget that there are examples in this thread of your dishonesty and deceit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WoW! This douchesack actually quit a job because the others wouldn't pretend to see an invisible superbeing like he does.
Click to expand...


I new they were wrong and I made my money and moved on I didn't move on and sponge off the government.


----------



## Youwerecreated

PretentiousGuy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tout something as scientific fact when it is not, the IX commandment doesn't have an escape clause for apologetics. Certainly we do not have all the answers but the scientists are actually working on it. You begrudge them for that? You begrudge them for not being satisfied with the easy answer when there is something far more interesting than any creation myth, far more interesting than any man could fathom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my problem is they see obvious evidence of design and dismiss it. Hell you even have *well known evolutionist admitting to things looking designed but then go on to say they arose through a natural process* to which they have zero evidence for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you speak of? What is the context? What was said?
Click to expand...


Dawkins and crick and a few others google it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

PretentiousGuy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tout something as scientific fact when it is not, the IX commandment doesn't have an escape clause for apologetics. Certainly we do not have all the answers but the scientists are actually working on it. You begrudge them for that? You begrudge them for not being satisfied with the easy answer when there is something far more interesting than any creation myth, far more interesting than any man could fathom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my problem is they see obvious evidence of design and dismiss it. Hell you even have *well known evolutionist admitting to things looking designed but then go on to say they arose through a natural process* to which they have zero evidence for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you speak of? What is the context? What was said?
Click to expand...


What is the teleological argument for the existence of God?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many men and women I worked with felt as I did but if you go against the leaders that have an agenda it ends in dismissal So I made my money and invested it and walked away. I am now in business for myself today and I have a clear conscience while Many are still living the lie.
> 
> 
> 
> How generous of you to speak on behalf of those "many" people. And how convenient that an anonymous poster on an internet message board can make any claim they wish. Did you forget that there are examples in this thread of your dishonesty and deceit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the liar and spinner hollie.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. 

I understand you're angry at being scolded for your multiple and willful accounts of posting fraudulent "quotes", by why lash out at me for actions you chose to perform? 

It's quite a statement that Christian fundies are forced to lie and deceive in furtherance of their religious ideology.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How generous of you to speak on behalf of those "many" people. And how convenient that an anonymous poster on an internet message board can make any claim they wish. Did you forget that there are examples in this thread of your dishonesty and deceit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the liar and spinner hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no.
> 
> I understand you're angry at being scolded for your multiple and willful accounts of posting fraudulent "quotes", by why lash out at me for actions you chose to perform?
> 
> It's quite a statement that Christian fundies are forced to lie and deceive in furtherance of their religious ideology.
Click to expand...


Corrected again about your claim buzz word.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4442323-post1486.html


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, my problem is they see obvious evidence of design and dismiss it. Hell you even have *well known evolutionist admitting to things looking designed but then go on to say they arose through a natural process* to which they have zero evidence for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you speak of? What is the context? What was said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dawkins and crick and a few others google it.
Click to expand...


This is more of your tactic of "quote-mining" where you cut and paste edited portions and out of context snippets of "quotes" that are selectively parsed from wider context.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the liar and spinner hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no.
> 
> I understand you're angry at being scolded for your multiple and willful accounts of posting fraudulent "quotes", by why lash out at me for actions you chose to perform?
> 
> It's quite a statement that Christian fundies are forced to lie and deceive in furtherance of their religious ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corrected again about your claim buzz word.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/4442323-post1486.html
Click to expand...


That's so silly. With your earlier claims lying in shambles, you're looking for new buzz words to bolster your faltering claims to gawds. 

I suppose this means we still won't find any "research lab" work by creationist ministries. 

You may wish to email the Disco 'tute and see if Ann Gauger can phony-up some more falsified Christian creationist "labs".


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the liar and spinner hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no.
> 
> I understand you're angry at being scolded for your multiple and willful accounts of posting fraudulent "quotes", by why lash out at me for actions you chose to perform?
> 
> It's quite a statement that Christian fundies are forced to lie and deceive in furtherance of their religious ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corrected again about your claim buzz word.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/4442323-post1486.html
Click to expand...


[Richard Dawkins] 


> One of the main reasons why people are religious is because they are persuaded by the apparent design of living things and thats completely destroyed by Darwin. If you actually read any book by a biologist about evolution, its hard to see how you could fail to be persuaded of it  the evidence is just absolutely pact. There is no doubt about it. Its not a controversial issue. History is completely certain. Its as certain as the fact that the earth and the other planets, orbit, the sun.



I would have to disagree with Dawkins regarding his doubtless claim that the earth and other planets orbit the sun. The bible and thus many fundamentalist Christians would tell us otherwise.


----------



## UltimateReality

UltimateReality said:


> YWC, more info on left-handed amino acids. *Presented in honor of Daws, who never responded to your questions to him on this topic. *
> 
> CEH: Left-Handed Amino Acid Puzzle Remains



It is actually more fun to sit back and watch the liars at work. YWC was questioning Daws on Chirality back in August but he accuses YWC of using a *NEW* *buzz word* and Hawly like the sheeple that she is just falls in lock step and runs with it. See several post above were she reports Daws term about a new buzz word over and over. These people can't even remember what was said a few months ago, so how to you expect them to remember anything else related to this topic??? Their knowldege base is only as relevant as their last cut and paste, many of which they have proven they haven't even read because they are not related to the topic.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How generous of you to speak on behalf of those "many" people. And how convenient that an anonymous poster on an internet message board can make any claim they wish. Did you forget that there are examples in this thread of your dishonesty and deceit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WoW! This douchesack actually quit a job because the others wouldn't pretend to see an invisible superbeing like he does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I new they were wrong and I made my money and moved on I didn't move on and sponge off the government.
Click to expand...


You probably didn't like working with coons either.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, more info on left-handed amino acids. *Presented in honor of Daws, who never responded to your questions to him on this topic. *
> 
> CEH: Left-Handed Amino Acid Puzzle Remains
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is actually more fun to sit back and watch the liars at work. YWC was questioning Daws on Chirality back in August but he accuses YWC of using a *NEW* *buzz word* and Hawly like the sheeple that she is just falls in lock step and runs with it. See several post above were she reports Daws term about a new buzz word over and over. These people can't even remember what was said a few months ago, so how to you expect them to remember anything else related to this topic??? Their knowldege base is only as relevant as their last cut and paste, many of which they have proven they haven't even read because they are not related to the topic.
Click to expand...

It's actually fun to read the whining of the petulant fundies, forever "threatening" to leave, only to have them thrash their way back with cut and paste nonsense.


----------



## Hollie

It appears that the Christian YEC'ists are "quote-mining" from the Watchtower cult. 


From talkorigins"

Claim CB040:

The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.

Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 43

Response:

1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you speak of? What is the context? What was said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins and crick and a few others google it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is more of your tactic of "quote-mining" where you cut and paste edited portions and out of context snippets of "quotes" that are selectively parsed from wider context.
Click to expand...


Just for you hollie.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKP3tMlg0II]Has Science Buried God (John Lennox vs Richard Dawkins) FULL DEBATE - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> WoW! This douchesack actually quit a job because the others wouldn't pretend to see an invisible superbeing like he does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I new they were wrong and I made my money and moved on I didn't move on and sponge off the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You probably didn't like working with coons either.
Click to expand...


Why do you force your bigotry on me ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins and crick and a few others google it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is more of your tactic of "quote-mining" where you cut and paste edited portions and out of context snippets of "quotes" that are selectively parsed from wider context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for you hollie.
Click to expand...

Sorry dear, but while YouTube videos may suffice for Christian creationists to believe in gawds, they're hardly convincing of anything. 

Do you find it strange that Christian creationist ministries are doing nothing in terms of actual research to connect amino acids with supermagical intervention? Is that because the creation ministries have already conceded there is nothing supermagical about amino acids?


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, more info on left-handed amino acids. *Presented in honor of Daws, who never responded to your questions to him on this topic. *
> 
> CEH: Left-Handed Amino Acid Puzzle Remains
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is actually more fun to sit back and watch the liars at work. YWC was questioning Daws on Chirality back in August but he accuses YWC of using a *NEW* *buzz word* and Hawly like the sheeple that she is just falls in lock step and runs with it. See several post above were she reports Daws term about a new buzz word over and over. These people can't even remember what was said a few months ago, so how to you expect them to remember anything else related to this topic??? Their knowldege base is only as relevant as their last cut and paste, many of which they have proven they haven't even read because they are not related to the topic.
Click to expand...


So actually daws did not know what we were talking about or he is a delibrate liar knowing we spoke of chirality


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is more of your tactic of "quote-mining" where you cut and paste edited portions and out of context snippets of "quotes" that are selectively parsed from wider context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for you hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry dear, but while YouTube videos may suffice for Christian creationists to believe in gawds, they're hardly convincing of anything.
> 
> Do you find it strange that Christian creationist ministries are doing nothing in terms of actual research to connect amino acids with supermagical intervention? Is that because the creation ministries have already conceded there is nothing supermagical about amino acids?
Click to expand...


Quote mining you claimed, now you can see it in dawkins own words.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for you hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dear, but while YouTube videos may suffice for Christian creationists to believe in gawds, they're hardly convincing of anything.
> 
> Do you find it strange that Christian creationist ministries are doing nothing in terms of actual research to connect amino acids with supermagical intervention? Is that because the creation ministries have already conceded there is nothing supermagical about amino acids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quote mining you claimed, now you can see it in dawkins own words.
Click to expand...


I didn&#8217;t watch the video but it certainly seems strange (hypocritical is a better term), that you, of all people, would be whining about &#8220;quote-mining&#8221;. You are easily the worst offender of copying and pasting falsified, altered and out of context &#8220;quotes&#8221;.

What is your obsession with Dawkins? Obviously, he&#8217;s outspoken about creationist propaganda and as a visible opponent to Christian fundamentalists, he&#8217;s an obvious target for fundies to hate. But clearly, creationism has failed on its own lack of credibility, merit and accountability.

Apparently, you are unconcerned (or more likely, see any argument in support of Christian creationist ministry &#8220;research&#8221; as a dead end.) 

US churches fleece their congregations for something like 90 *billion* dollars a year. Conversely, the budget for the NIH is something like 31 billion per year.

How much of that 90 billion is spent on creationist &#8220;research&#8221;? It&#8217;s about 0 (zero) dollars. Creationism is a science boat-anchor not a science enabler. What is pretty clear is that there is an implied or explicit acknowledgement that &#8220;creationist research&#8221; is an oxymoron.  What we do see with hapless Christian creationist &#8220;science&#8221; claims are embarrassing and dishonest gaffs such as the Disco &#8216;Tute having to phony-up pictures of a creationist &#8220;lab&#8221; and a &#8220;research&#8221; program that simply doesn&#8217;t exist.

Quite clearly, research is expensive. Research also implies that results of testing will be put before peer review. The Christian creationist ministries know full well that there are no tests available for their absurd and fantastical claims to supermagicalism and designer gawds. What the Christian creationist charlatans understand is that It is easier and less costly to make unsupported claims challenging science while alluding to language and bluster that hopes to convey an impression of authority.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, my problem is they see obvious evidence of design and dismiss it. Hell you even have *well known evolutionist admitting to things looking designed but then go on to say they arose through a natural process* to which they have zero evidence for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you speak of? What is the context? What was said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the teleological argument for the existence of God?
Click to expand...


The quotes are heavily edited with several ellipses, context is not given. But I put no stock in either man beyond Crick's contribution to genetics, so on to the actual point I suppose.

This is clearly a spring board to get into the teleological argument that Im sure has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread by you and everyone else who has been on the internet in the past fucking decade.

If you declare something so complex that it requires a creator it begs the question "Who created the ever more complex creator?"


----------



## YoungRepublican

Youwerecreated said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some reasons.
> 
> Evidence for a Young World - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/
> 
> 
> Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> Young Earth Creationism - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> This video destroy's evolutionist timeline and makes a very strong argument for the global flood,and a young earth.
> 
> 101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV
> 
> 
> 
> Literally the most retarded, intellectually dishonest arguments ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.
Click to expand...

A high school diploma is enough substance to discredit any notion of creationism ever put forth.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, my problem is they see obvious evidence of design and dismiss it. Hell you even have *well known evolutionist admitting to things looking designed but then go on to say they arose through a natural process* to which they have zero evidence for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you speak of? What is the context? What was said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the teleological argument for the existence of God?
Click to expand...


ALERT!!! For simpletons only!

There's no proof here, just the same old, same old.


----------



## Youwerecreated

PretentiousGuy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you speak of? What is the context? What was said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the teleological argument for the existence of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The quotes are heavily edited with several ellipses, context is not given. But I put no stock in either man beyond Crick's contribution to genetics, so on to the actual point I suppose.
> 
> This is clearly a spring board to get into the teleological argument that Im sure has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread by you and everyone else who has been on the internet in the past fucking decade.
> 
> If you declare something so complex that it requires a creator it begs the question "Who created the ever more complex creator?"
Click to expand...


Yes it has been discussed to nauseam in this thread but so has your question. God the creator is not limited ,he created all things and exists outside time matter and space. The scriptures declare he has always existed.

Now I will ask you,what created the universe the thing that created you ? what created the big bang the thing that created the universe ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

YoungRepublican said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Literally the most retarded, intellectually dishonest arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A high school diploma is enough substance to discredit any notion of creationism ever put forth.
Click to expand...


Only if you subscribe to myth, fantasy and conjecture.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you speak of? What is the context? What was said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the teleological argument for the existence of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALERT!!! For simpletons only!
> 
> There's no proof here, just the same old, same old.
Click to expand...


Both sides admit to design but one side withdraws in to myth and fantasy to explain the evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

If any of you watched the video Professor Lennox exposed dawkins to what his argument was hung on the same thing PretentiousGuy is hung up on, knowing something was designed you must be able to explain the designer. When you look at your watch you know it was designed,do you have to explain the designer to know the watch was designed ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the teleological argument for the existence of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The quotes are heavily edited with several ellipses, context is not given. But I put no stock in either man beyond Crick's contribution to genetics, so on to the actual point I suppose.
> 
> This is clearly a spring board to get into the teleological argument that Im sure has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread by you and everyone else who has been on the internet in the past fucking decade.
> 
> If you declare something so complex that it requires a creator it begs the question "Who created the ever more complex creator?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it has been discussed to nauseam in this thread but so has your question. God the creator is not limited ,he created all things and exists outside time matter and space. The scriptures declare he has always existed.
> 
> Now I will ask you,what created the universe the thing that created you ? what created the big bang the thing that created the universe ?
Click to expand...

What is the hierarchy of gawds that created your gawds?

Your claims to the gawds being except from creation are insufficient.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> If any of you watched the video Professor Lennox exposed dawkins to what his argument was hung on the same thing PretentiousGuy is hung up on, knowing something was designed you must be able to explain the designer. When you look at your watch you know it was designed,do you have to explain the designer to know the watch was designed ?



Those silly videos are amateurish and contrived.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the teleological argument for the existence of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALERT!!! For simpletons only!
> 
> There's no proof here, just the same old, same old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both sides admit to design but one side withdraws in to myth and fantasy to explain the evidence.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Science does not recognize the Christian gawds (or any supermagical entity) as a "designer".


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The quotes are heavily edited with several ellipses, context is not given. But I put no stock in either man beyond Crick's contribution to genetics, so on to the actual point I suppose.
> 
> This is clearly a spring board to get into the teleological argument that Im sure has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread by you and everyone else who has been on the internet in the past fucking decade.
> 
> If you declare something so complex that it requires a creator it begs the question "Who created the ever more complex creator?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it has been discussed to nauseam in this thread but so has your question. God the creator is not limited ,he created all things and exists outside time matter and space. The scriptures declare he has always existed.
> 
> Now I will ask you,what created the universe the thing that created you ? what created the big bang the thing that created the universe ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the hierarchy of gawds that created your gawds?
> 
> Your claims to the gawds being except from creation are insufficient.
Click to expand...


There is only one supreme creator that has always existed absent of beginning or end. Now you answer my questions. Did you also notice that dawkins admitted according to the real historians that Jesus did exist and was crucified ? and no one knows what happened to his body.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.
> 
> 
> 
> A high school diploma is enough substance to discredit any notion of creationism ever put forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you subscribe to myth, fantasy and conjecture.
Click to expand...


Only cult fundies would define the entirety of science as a conspiracy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If any of you watched the video Professor Lennox exposed dawkins to what his argument was hung on the same thing PretentiousGuy is hung up on, knowing something was designed you must be able to explain the designer. When you look at your watch you know it was designed,do you have to explain the designer to know the watch was designed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those silly videos are amateurish and contrived.
Click to expand...


Your denial of reality is noted. Don't you get tired of getting your empty accusations exposed ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALERT!!! For simpletons only!
> 
> There's no proof here, just the same old, same old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides admit to design but one side withdraws in to myth and fantasy to explain the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Science does not recognize the Christian gawds (or any supermagical entity) as a "designer".
Click to expand...


No they admit to design but reject the thought that the design they admit to was the work of a creat even though they have no evidence to come to that conclusion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> A high school diploma is enough substance to discredit any notion of creationism ever put forth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you subscribe to myth, fantasy and conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only cult fundies would define the entirety of science as a conspiracy.
Click to expand...


Myth, fantasy and conjecture are on display,it's not a conspiracy.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the teleological argument for the existence of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALERT!!! For simpletons only!
> 
> There's no proof here, just the same old, same old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both sides admit to design but one side withdraws in to myth and fantasy to explain the evidence.
Click to expand...


All it shows is the possibility it was designed, but no proof of anything, as usual, has been demonstrated to show a designer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALERT!!! For simpletons only!
> 
> There's no proof here, just the same old, same old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides admit to design but one side withdraws in to myth and fantasy to explain the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All it shows is the possibility it was designed, but no proof of anything, as usual, has been demonstrated to show a designer.
Click to expand...


This is a start Ima,"the possibility". Now answer why there is a possibility ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides admit to design but one side withdraws in to myth and fantasy to explain the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All it shows is the possibility it was designed, but no proof of anything, as usual, has been demonstrated to show a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a start Ima,"the possibility". Now answer why there is a possibility ?
Click to expand...


I'm an agnostic defined for myself as someone who sees no proof of a creator but doesn't close the door to changing my mind if I actually see some proof. And not some vague and douche: look! It's a tree! It was created!


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If any of you watched the video Professor Lennox exposed dawkins to what his argument was hung on the same thing PretentiousGuy is hung up on, knowing something was designed you must be able to explain the designer. When you look at your watch you know it was designed,do you have to explain the designer to know the watch was designed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those silly videos are amateurish and contrived.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your denial of reality is noted. Don't you get tired of getting your empty accusations exposed ?
Click to expand...


What accusation was exposed? I'm merely suggesting that your empty claims to a version of partisan gawds are no better defined than any others' claims to supermagical gawds. 

Your lack of ability to offer any demonstration of your gawds is what has been exposed -


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> All it shows is the possibility it was designed, but no proof of anything, as usual, has been demonstrated to show a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a start Ima,"the possibility". Now answer why there is a possibility ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic defined for myself as someone who sees no proof of a creator but doesn't close the door to changing my mind if I actually see some proof. And not some vague and douche: look! It's a tree! It was created!
Click to expand...


You see all the proof around you,you're just not open yet to the idea of a creator.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you subscribe to myth, fantasy and conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only cult fundies would define the entirety of science as a conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Myth, fantasy and conjecture are on display,it's not a conspiracy.
Click to expand...


Do you realize that you define reality in terms of supermagical entities who inhabit spirit worlds created by a hierarchy of other supernatural gawds?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those silly videos are amateurish and contrived.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of reality is noted. Don't you get tired of getting your empty accusations exposed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What accusation was exposed? I'm merely suggesting that your empty claims to a version of partisan gawds are no better defined than any others' claims to supermagical gawds.
> 
> Your lack of ability to offer any demonstration of your gawds is what has been exposed -
Click to expand...


Just go back and look at the accusations that you and daws directed at me and you and he were either delibrately trying to make me look like a creationist nut while knowing the truth. Why would you resort to those tactics ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only cult fundies would define the entirety of science as a conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Myth, fantasy and conjecture are on display,it's not a conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize that you define reality in terms of supermagical entities who inhabit spirit worlds created by a hierarchy of other supernatural gawds?
Click to expand...


That is called faith hollie in what I read in the scriptures,however seeing design in nature is faith through evidence.The question remains who is the designer ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a start Ima,"the possibility". Now answer why there is a possibility ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic defined for myself as someone who sees no proof of a creator but doesn't close the door to changing my mind if I actually see some proof. And not some vague and douche: look! It's a tree! It was created!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see all the proof around you,you're just not open yet to the idea of a creator.
Click to expand...


No, you're the one who imagines a creator, when in fact, you have no proof of such a creator. Speculation isn't proof. You can only pretend to know why and how the universe came to be. At this point in time, we don't have the answers yet.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Myth, fantasy and conjecture are on display,it's not a conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that you define reality in terms of supermagical entities who inhabit spirit worlds created by a hierarchy of other supernatural gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is called faith hollie in what I read in the scriptures,however seeing design in nature is faith through evidence.The question remains who is the designer ?
Click to expand...


This is called delusion. 

The question remains, define the hierarchy of designer gawds who designed your particular gawds.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic defined for myself as someone who sees no proof of a creator but doesn't close the door to changing my mind if I actually see some proof. And not some vague and douche: look! It's a tree! It was created!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see all the proof around you,you're just not open yet to the idea of a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're the one who imagines a creator, when in fact, you have no proof of such a creator. Speculation isn't proof. You can only pretend to know why and how the universe came to be. At this point in time, we don't have the answers yet.
Click to expand...


Evidence of design is not imaginary.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that you define reality in terms of supermagical entities who inhabit spirit worlds created by a hierarchy of other supernatural gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is called faith hollie in what I read in the scriptures,however seeing design in nature is faith through evidence.The question remains who is the designer ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is called delusion.
> 
> The question remains, define the hierarchy of designer gawds who designed your particular gawds.
Click to expand...


Once again you avoid my questions have a good day.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see all the proof around you,you're just not open yet to the idea of a creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're the one who imagines a creator, when in fact, you have no proof of such a creator. Speculation isn't proof. You can only pretend to know why and how the universe came to be. At this point in time, we don't have the answers yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence of design is not imaginary.
Click to expand...


Evidence of a designer is.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is called faith hollie in what I read in the scriptures,however seeing design in nature is faith through evidence.The question remains who is the designer ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is called delusion.
> 
> The question remains, define the hierarchy of designer gawds who designed your particular gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you avoid my questions have a good day.
Click to expand...


What question was avoided? You presume designer gawds are inhabiting some spirit world which you cannot define, cannot access and have no means of demonstrating. I can't be held responsible for your hurt feelings when you insist that others are under some imagined requirement of yours to believe outlandish and totally unsupported claims.


----------



## Hollie

*Why Gauger&#8217;s green-screened &#8216;lab&#8217; is an appropriate target of ridicule*

Why Gauger's green-screened 'lab' is an appropriate target of ridicule - The Panda's Thumb

Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger, both of the BioLogic Institute, have put out a series of videos summarizing some of the content of &#8220;Science and Human Origins.&#8221; They attempt to undermine the case for common descent, and in particular the descent of humans from non-human ancestors. 

John Harshman, in comments on my posts on the use of a commercial stock photo of a lab as a background for Ann Gauger&#8217;s blather about &#8220;&#8230; a hidden secret in population genetics and in evolution,&#8221; argued that the focus on the green-screening diverts attention from the real issue, which is her mangling of the science. While John is right that setting the record straight on the science is important, it&#8217;s also the case that the green-screening is but one aspect of a larger effort on the part of the Disco &#8216;Tute to erode public confidence in &#8216;mainstream&#8217; science. And that effort is what underpins the newest strategy of the Disco &#8216;Tute and its fellow travelers, which is to promote legislation embodying so-called &#8220;academic freedom&#8221; for public school teachers who want to teach creationism and intelligent design see here: (Academic Freedom bills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for an overview and here: The Fraud of Academic Freedom | NCSE for a Barbara Forrest video on it).

The &#8220;science&#8221; in the Axe/Gauger/Luskin book &#8220;Science and Human Origins&#8221; was eviscerated by Paul McBride (see here: Paul McBride's review of the Disco 'Tute's "Science and Human Origins" - The Panda's Thumb for pointers to the six posts of McBride&#8217;s evisceration). Commenters on several blogs have critiqued the representation of the science in a couple of the videos. But is the green-screen issue irrelevant? Nope.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Myth, fantasy and conjecture are on display,it's not a conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that you define reality in terms of supermagical entities who inhabit spirit worlds created by a hierarchy of other supernatural gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is called faith hollie in what I read in the scriptures,however seeing design in nature is faith through evidence.The question remains who is the designer ?
Click to expand...


Why do you keep avoiding the questions regarding what in the natural world requires designer gawds?

You claim to see "design" yet you are unable to identify a single thing in nature that requires design. Design would imply one or more supernatural / supermagical "designers" yet you are unable and unwilling to demonstrate these "designers" or what they have "designed".


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of reality is noted. Don't you get tired of getting your empty accusations exposed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What accusation was exposed? I'm merely suggesting that your empty claims to a version of partisan gawds are no better defined than any others' claims to supermagical gawds.
> 
> Your lack of ability to offer any demonstration of your gawds is what has been exposed -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just go back and look at the accusations that you and daws directed at me and you and he were either delibrately trying to make me look like a creationist nut while knowing the truth. Why would you resort to those tactics ?
Click to expand...


Well, you are a creationist nut. 

I have a history of your nutty claims with which to make that assessment.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of reality is noted. Don't you get tired of getting your empty accusations exposed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What accusation was exposed? I'm merely suggesting that your empty claims to a version of partisan gawds are no better defined than any others' claims to supermagical gawds.
> 
> Your lack of ability to offer any demonstration of your gawds is what has been exposed -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just go back and look at the accusations that you and daws directed at me and you and he were either delibrately *trying to make me look like a creationist* nut while knowing the truth. Why would you resort to those tactics ?
Click to expand...


Why do you cringe at the accusation when your own moniker speaks to its truth?


----------



## PretentiousGuy

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the teleological argument for the existence of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The quotes are heavily edited with several ellipses, context is not given. But I put no stock in either man beyond Crick's contribution to genetics, so on to the actual point I suppose.
> 
> This is clearly a spring board to get into the teleological argument that Im sure has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread by you and everyone else who has been on the internet in the past fucking decade.
> 
> If you declare something so complex that it requires a creator it begs the question "Who created the ever more complex creator?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)Yes it has been discussed to nauseam in this thread but so has your question. God the creator is not limited ,he created all things and exists outside time matter and space. The scriptures declare he has always existed.
> 
> 2)Now I will ask you,what created the universe the thing that created you ? what created the big bang the thing that created the universe ?
Click to expand...


1)Maybe the question has been asked frequently because it has yet to be given a proper answer beyond the trite special pleading and declarative statements without base.

2) I do not pretend to provide an answer for absolute origins. Those who claim such knowledge are fools.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, more info on left-handed amino acids. *Presented in honor of Daws, who never responded to your questions to him on this topic. *
> 
> CEH: Left-Handed Amino Acid Puzzle Remains
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is actually more fun to sit back and watch the liars at work. YWC was questioning Daws on Chirality back in August but he accuses YWC of using a *NEW* *buzz word* and Hawly like the sheeple that she is just falls in lock step and runs with it. See several post above were she reports Daws term about a new buzz word over and over. These people can't even remember what was said a few months ago, so how to you expect them to remember anything else related to this topic??? Their knowldege base is only as relevant as their last cut and paste, many of which they have proven they haven't even read because they are not related to the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So actually daws did not know what we were talking about or he is a delibrate liar knowing we spoke of chirality
Click to expand...

FALSE ON BOTH ASSUMPTIONS 
HOW DOES THE LACK OF CELL superimposabilty prove a designer or design?
DETECTIVE DOUCH BAG !


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of reality is noted. Don't you get tired of getting your empty accusations exposed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What accusation was exposed? I'm merely suggesting that your empty claims to a version of partisan gawds are no better defined than any others' claims to supermagical gawds.
> 
> Your lack of ability to offer any demonstration of your gawds is what has been exposed -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just go back and look at the accusations that you and daws directed at me and you and he were either delibrately trying to make me look like a creationist nut while knowing the truth. Why would you resort to those tactics ?
Click to expand...

"WE" WEREN'T TRYING... THERE IS NO NEED TO MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE A CREATIONIST NUT YOU DO a fine job of that all by yourself!


----------



## Youwerecreated

To all my atheist friends

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwKI82CTp2o]Brad Paisley - Kung Pao Buckaroo Holiday - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're the one who imagines a creator, when in fact, you have no proof of such a creator. Speculation isn't proof. You can only pretend to know why and how the universe came to be. At this point in time, we don't have the answers yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence of design is not imaginary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence of a designer is.
Click to expand...


They go hand and hand


----------



## Youwerecreated

PretentiousGuy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What accusation was exposed? I'm merely suggesting that your empty claims to a version of partisan gawds are no better defined than any others' claims to supermagical gawds.
> 
> Your lack of ability to offer any demonstration of your gawds is what has been exposed -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just go back and look at the accusations that you and daws directed at me and you and he were either delibrately *trying to make me look like a creationist* nut while knowing the truth. Why would you resort to those tactics ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you cringe at the accusation when your own moniker speaks to its truth?
Click to expand...


I don't cringe,heck I don't take hollie or daws serious ,I just expose them as being dishonest turds which they are.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is actually more fun to sit back and watch the liars at work. YWC was questioning Daws on Chirality back in August but he accuses YWC of using a *NEW* *buzz word* and Hawly like the sheeple that she is just falls in lock step and runs with it. See several post above were she reports Daws term about a new buzz word over and over. These people can't even remember what was said a few months ago, so how to you expect them to remember anything else related to this topic??? Their knowldege base is only as relevant as their last cut and paste, many of which they have proven they haven't even read because they are not related to the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So actually daws did not know what we were talking about or he is a delibrate liar knowing we spoke of chirality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE ON BOTH ASSUMPTIONS
> HOW DOES THE LACK OF CELL superimposabilty prove a designer or design?
> DETECTIVE DOUCH BAG !
Click to expand...


Now I am the detective.once again you fail at following the conversation,probably delibrately with good reason.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What accusation was exposed? I'm merely suggesting that your empty claims to a version of partisan gawds are no better defined than any others' claims to supermagical gawds.
> 
> Your lack of ability to offer any demonstration of your gawds is what has been exposed -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just go back and look at the accusations that you and daws directed at me and you and he were either delibrately trying to make me look like a creationist nut while knowing the truth. Why would you resort to those tactics ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "WE" WEREN'T TRYING... THERE IS NO NEED TO MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE A CREATIONIST NUT YOU DO a fine job of that all by yourself!
Click to expand...


Tisk,tisk. 

Somebody is looking like an atheist nut.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just go back and look at the accusations that you and daws directed at me and you and he were either delibrately *trying to make me look like a creationist* nut while knowing the truth. Why would you resort to those tactics ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you cringe at the accusation when your own moniker speaks to its truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't cringe,heck I don't take hollie or daws serious ,I just expose them as being dishonest turds which they are.
Click to expand...


Dishonest about what?

Lashing out because you're angry at your weak arguments being unconvincing and self-defeating is no reason to be angry at others. 

Creationist arguments rely on preconceived notions of supernatural entities and magic.

That's your issue to resolve.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you cringe at the accusation when your own moniker speaks to its truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't cringe,heck I don't take hollie or daws serious ,I just expose them as being dishonest turds which they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dishonest about what?
> 
> Lashing out because you're angry at your weak arguments being unconvincing and self-defeating is no reason to be angry at others.
> 
> Creationist arguments rely on preconceived notions of supernatural entities and magic.
> 
> That's your issue to resolve.
Click to expand...

Merry Christmas hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you cringe at the accusation when your own moniker speaks to its truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't cringe,heck I don't take hollie or daws serious ,I just expose them as being dishonest turds which they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dishonest about what?
> 
> Lashing out because you're angry at your weak arguments being unconvincing and self-defeating is no reason to be angry at others.
> 
> Creationist arguments rely on preconceived notions of supernatural entities and magic.
> 
> That's your issue to resolve.
Click to expand...


Your issue to resolve are the miracles of life.


Merry Christmas hollie.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't cringe,heck I don't take hollie or daws serious ,I just expose them as being dishonest turds which they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dishonest about what?
> 
> Lashing out because you're angry at your weak arguments being unconvincing and self-defeating is no reason to be angry at others.
> 
> Creationist arguments rely on preconceived notions of supernatural entities and magic.
> 
> That's your issue to resolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your issue to resolve are the miracles of life.
> 
> 
> Merry Christmas hollie.
Click to expand...

There are no miracles needed for life.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence of design is not imaginary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence of a designer is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They go hand and hand
Click to expand...


You still have no solid proof of a designer, admit it. You look around you and say: Hey! I can't explain all this, there must be an invisible superbeing designer. You make no sense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dishonest about what?
> 
> Lashing out because you're angry at your weak arguments being unconvincing and self-defeating is no reason to be angry at others.
> 
> Creationist arguments rely on preconceived notions of supernatural entities and magic.
> 
> That's your issue to resolve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your issue to resolve are the miracles of life.
> 
> 
> Merry Christmas hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no miracles needed for life.
Click to expand...


You never heard that scientist refer to the origins of life as a miracle or planets and their ailgnments ? Most certainly without a designer you needed miracles.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence of a designer is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They go hand and hand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have no solid proof of a designer, admit it. You look around you and say: Hey! I can't explain all this, there must be an invisible superbeing designer. You make no sense.
Click to expand...


Even dawkins admits there is a good case for design. Didn't you watch that debate I posted of him and Professor Lennox ?

Crick also made similar comments when it came to the genetic code. There is evidence if you want physical evidence or historical evidence then you must look whats out there. Definitely when you get the chance watch the H2 channel. If it's going to take God himself to come to you personally then you might be waiting a while.


----------



## Youwerecreated

You would not believe the amount of scientists that are searching for evidence of the creator, why ? Because many are seeing the problems with current theories,because just to many gaps they have no chance of filling.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> You would not believe the amount of scientists that are searching for evidence of the creator, why ? Because many are seeing the problems with current theories,because just to many gaps they have no chance of filling.



So what have they found?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They go hand and hand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have no solid proof of a designer, admit it. You look around you and say: Hey! I can't explain all this, there must be an invisible superbeing designer. You make no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even dawkins admits there is a good case for design. Didn't you watch that debate I posted of him and Professor Lennox ?
> 
> Crick also made similar comments when it came to the genetic code. There is evidence if you want physical evidence or historical evidence then you must look whats out there. Definitely when you get the chance watch the H2 channel. If it's going to take God himself to come to you personally then you might be waiting a while.
Click to expand...


I admit that there's a case to be made for a designer. It's a possibility in my book. You just haven't proved anything. Neither has anyone else, so don't feel bad.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your issue to resolve are the miracles of life.
> 
> 
> Merry Christmas hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> There are no miracles needed for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never heard that scientist refer to the origins of life as a miracle or planets and their ailgnments ? Most certainly without a designer you needed miracles.
Click to expand...


What I have seen is your propensity to modify, edit and recreate what others have written. 

What scientists, (other than christian creationist pseudo-scientists), refer to the origins of life as a "miracle" or planets and their ailgnments as "miracles"?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> You would not believe the amount of scientists that are searching for evidence of the creator, why ? Because many are seeing the problems with current theories,because just to many gaps they have no chance of filling.



You're right, I would not believe it. What amount of scientists (other than the expected christian creationist pseudo-scientists), are looking for evidence of a "creator".

What "many scientists" (other than the expected christian creationist pseudo-scientists), are seeing the problems with current theories?

What "many gaps they have no chance of filling" are there?

I think you make the mistake of spewing rather broad generalities without knowing what you're talking about.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They go hand and hand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have no solid proof of a designer, admit it. You look around you and say: Hey! I can't explain all this, there must be an invisible superbeing designer. You make no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even dawkins admits there is a good case for design. Didn't you watch that debate I posted of him and Professor Lennox ?
> 
> Crick also made similar comments when it came to the genetic code. There is evidence if you want physical evidence or historical evidence then you must look whats out there. Definitely when you get the chance watch the H2 channel. If it's going to take God himself to come to you personally then you might be waiting a while.
Click to expand...


Where does Dawkins admit there is a good case for "design"?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would not believe the amount of scientists that are searching for evidence of the creator, why ? Because many are seeing the problems with current theories,because just to many gaps they have no chance of filling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what have they found?
Click to expand...


The God gene,and they are searching for the God particle. The hardened evolutionist will spin it though.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no miracles needed for life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never heard that scientist refer to the origins of life as a miracle or planets and their ailgnments ? Most certainly without a designer you needed miracles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I have seen is your propensity to modify, edit and recreate what others have written.
> 
> What scientists, (other than christian creationist pseudo-scientists), refer to the origins of life as a "miracle" or planets and their ailgnments as "miracles"?
Click to expand...


What you have found is from your atheist sites that alter quotes made by famous scientists.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still have no solid proof of a designer, admit it. You look around you and say: Hey! I can't explain all this, there must be an invisible superbeing designer. You make no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even dawkins admits there is a good case for design. Didn't you watch that debate I posted of him and Professor Lennox ?
> 
> Crick also made similar comments when it came to the genetic code. There is evidence if you want physical evidence or historical evidence then you must look whats out there. Definitely when you get the chance watch the H2 channel. If it's going to take God himself to come to you personally then you might be waiting a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does Dawkins admit there is a good case for "design"?
Click to expand...


In the video you refused to watch but what he rejects is a personal God,go figure.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even dawkins admits there is a good case for design. Didn't you watch that debate I posted of him and Professor Lennox ?
> 
> Crick also made similar comments when it came to the genetic code. There is evidence if you want physical evidence or historical evidence then you must look whats out there. Definitely when you get the chance watch the H2 channel. If it's going to take God himself to come to you personally then you might be waiting a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does Dawkins admit there is a good case for "design"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the video you refused to watch but what he rejects is a personal God,go figure.
Click to expand...

You have an odd fascination with Dawkins. 

Your worldview seems to hinge on his singular opinion.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even dawkins admits there is a good case for design. Didn't you watch that debate I posted of him and Professor Lennox ?
> 
> Crick also made similar comments when it came to the genetic code. There is evidence if you want physical evidence or historical evidence then you must look whats out there. Definitely when you get the chance watch the H2 channel. If it's going to take God himself to come to you personally then you might be waiting a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does Dawkins admit there is a good case for "design"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the video you refused to watch but what he rejects is a personal God,go figure.
Click to expand...

So, if Dawkins was to consider a personal gawd, would that validate your belief in gawds?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never heard that scientist refer to the origins of life as a miracle or planets and their ailgnments ? Most certainly without a designer you needed miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I have seen is your propensity to modify, edit and recreate what others have written.
> 
> What scientists, (other than christian creationist pseudo-scientists), refer to the origins of life as a "miracle" or planets and their ailgnments as "miracles"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you have found is from your atheist sites that alter quotes made by famous scientists.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. 

As usual, you're befuddled.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would not believe the amount of scientists that are searching for evidence of the creator, why ? Because many are seeing the problems with current theories,because just to many gaps they have no chance of filling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what have they found?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The God gene,and they are searching for the God particle. The hardened evolutionist will spin it though.
Click to expand...


What gawd gene?

Who is "they"? 

You just make up this nonsense as you go along.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does Dawkins admit there is a good case for "design"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the video you refused to watch but what he rejects is a personal God,go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have an odd fascination with Dawkins.
> 
> Your worldview seems to hinge on his singular opinion.
Click to expand...


He is not the only one hollie but he is one of the most famous atheistic evolutionists that is actually educated.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does Dawkins admit there is a good case for "design"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the video you refused to watch but what he rejects is a personal God,go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, if Dawkins was to consider a personal gawd, would that validate your belief in gawds?
Click to expand...


Nope but he does admit to biological things looking designed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what have they found?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The God gene,and they are searching for the God particle. The hardened evolutionist will spin it though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What gawd gene?
> 
> Who is "they"?
> 
> You just make up this nonsense as you go along.
Click to expand...


 You are to lazy to look before claiming I make stuff up ? once again you have egg on your face.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=0


----------



## Youwerecreated

Uh oh hollie it's confirmed by God.

Rom. 2:15, "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." 

The existence of God is written in the human conscience.

Acts 17:23, "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God."

 Conscience told them that there was a God though they did not know Him personally.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the video you refused to watch but what he rejects is a personal God,go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> So, if Dawkins was to consider a personal gawd, would that validate your belief in gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope but he does admit to biological things looking designed.
Click to expand...


It seems that you believe Dawkins is becoming your peersonal gawd.

The comment is so silly. What does "looks designed" mean?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Uh oh hollie it's confirmed by God.
> 
> Rom. 2:15, "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."
> 
> The existence of God is written in the human conscience.
> 
> Acts 17:23, "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God."
> 
> Conscience told them that there was a God though they did not know Him personally.



Acts 17:23a, "For thee thouest be a moroon".


Which gawds are written in the human conscience?

I guess Jim Jones and Jimmy Swaggert saw the writing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh hollie it's confirmed by God.
> 
> Rom. 2:15, "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."
> 
> The existence of God is written in the human conscience.
> 
> Acts 17:23, "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God."
> 
> Conscience told them that there was a God though they did not know Him personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 17:23a, "For thee thouest be a moroon".
> 
> 
> 
> Which gawds are written in the human conscience?
> 
> I guess Jim Jones and Jimmy Swaggert saw the writing.
Click to expand...


Hollie Gods laws are written in all hearts and minds. All people at some point in their life question themselves on the existence of God.

Some allow their conscience to be warped.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the video you refused to watch but what he rejects is a personal God,go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> You have an odd fascination with Dawkins.
> 
> Your worldview seems to hinge on his singular opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is not the only one hollie but he is one of the most famous atheistic evolutionists that is actually educated.
Click to expand...


Well then. He being one of the most famous atheistic evolutionists means you had better pray at the altar of Dawkins. 

Being one of the most famous atheistic evolutionists does carry quite a responsibility.

So tell us, who would you bestow the title of being the famous religious evolutionist? Or is there such an entity? Would that term be an oxymoron or would you consider such an entity to be just a mere pedsetrian moron?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The God gene,and they are searching for the God particle. The hardened evolutionist will spin it though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What gawd gene?
> 
> Who is "they"?
> 
> You just make up this nonsense as you go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are to lazy to look before claiming I make stuff up ? once again you have egg on your face.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=0
Click to expand...


That's so silly. What does that have to do with genes? I think you misread - jeans.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh hollie it's confirmed by God.
> 
> Rom. 2:15, "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."
> 
> The existence of God is written in the human conscience.
> 
> Acts 17:23, "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God."
> 
> Conscience told them that there was a God though they did not know Him personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 17:23a, "For thee thouest be a moroon".
> 
> 
> 
> Which gawds are written in the human conscience?
> 
> I guess Jim Jones and Jimmy Swaggert saw the writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie Gods laws are written in all hearts and minds. All people at some point in their life question themselves on the existence of God.
> 
> Some allow their conscience to be warped.
Click to expand...


I see your dilemma. Your mind has been warped by christian creationist ministries.


----------



## Hollie

*Casey&#8217;s Creationist Christmas*

Casey's Creationist Christmas - The Panda's Thumb

This guest post is written by Paul Braterman and Mark Edon, and appears courtesy of the British Centre for Science Education. BCSE : Home Page

BCSE has long maintained that the Seattle-based Discovery Institute (DI), of which Glasgow&#8217;s own Centre for Intelligent Design (C4ID) seems to be a satellite, is a religiously motivated Creationist organisation. Casey Luskin has now demonstrated this with great clarity in his response, (British Center for Science Education Admits Alliance with Religious Believers Is Strictly to Gain "Tactical Advantage" - Evolution News & Views) in the misleadingly titled Evolution News and Views (&#8220;Serving the Intelligent Design Community&#8221, to the recent opinion piece &#8220;Anti-Creationists need to think about tactics&#8221;, which we recently posted on our site. Thanks Casey.

As our title and opening words make clear, our piece is addressed by us, as individual nonbelievers, to other nonbelievers, giving our reasons for cooperating with believers in defending science against Creationism. It does not even mention DI, or C4ID, or Intelligent Design. Nonetheless, Casey seems to find our piece relevant to his mission. Perhaps his concern with religion is not surprising, since the foundation document (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf) of DI&#8217;s Centre for Science and Culture gives the restoration of a &#8220;theistic understanding&#8221; as a core objective. As for Intelligent Design, few people can still believe the pretence that it is anything more than a cover for Creationism (in the strict sense of the term as applied to biological diversity), but it is good to see our thoughts on these matters so authoritatively confirmed.

There are many more reasons why being attacked by Casey has been compared to being savaged by a dead sheep. Here are a few of them (remember here that Casey is a trained lawyer, and has published on law in an internationally recognised journal, so presumably he has read what he refers to and means what he says about it):

*...*


For those of you unfamiliar with the background, here are a few pointers. The Discovery Institute is a religiously driven Crypto-Creationist group pushing a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This approach was hastily adopted for legal reasons in the US, where schools in the public sector are not allowed to promote religion, when Creationism and later Creation Science were ruled in the courts to be religious, not scientific, doctrines.

Creationist tactics rest upon three pillars. The first of these is that Evolution is in fact Atheism and that this whole political fight is one of Christians versus Atheists. No wonder Casey refers to BCSE as secular and humanist.

We talk about this fact in the very piece that Casey is attacking. We mention that there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First of all the conflict narrative is effective for the recruitment and retention of Creationists to their cause, as to any cause that involves a conspiracy theory. Secondly the conflict narrative is used to move the public debate away from &#8220;Creationism is daft&#8221; to genuine Atheist versus Christian issues. Creationists know that by framing the debate in such terms, they have a far greater chance of obtaining mainstream support.


----------



## Hollie

*If they both begin with &#8220;P&#8221; and end with &#8220;genetics,&#8221; they must be the same thing, right?*

If they both begin with "P" and end with "genetics," they must be the same thing, right? - The Panda's Thumb

Phylogenetics and population genetics, that is. Larry Moran calls attention to the confusion of Ann Gauger, ID-pushing BioLogic Institute &#8220;researcher.&#8221; My favorite comment in the thread is from (PT crew member) Joe Felsenstein:



> I must be totally confused. I wrote a book on reconstructing evolutionary trees &#8211; and it&#8217;s the standard textbook in that area. But it does not mention many basic population genetics concepts. I have another book (a free downloadable e-book) that is a textbook of theoretical population genetics. And it does not mention homoplasy at all.
> 
> So I must misunderstand what &#8220;population genetics&#8221; is. And here I&#8217;ve been giving courses on it for the last 44 years. At the university where Ann Gauger got her Ph.D. degree, for that matter.
> 
> Silly me.




My second favorite is from Piotr Gasiorowski:

Cargo cult science



> Precisely. The cult members gather in mock laboratories full of imitation equipment, where they mimic the way scientists speak and behave.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would not believe the amount of scientists that are searching for evidence of the creator, why ? Because many are seeing the problems with current theories,because just to many gaps they have no chance of filling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what have they found?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The God gene,and they are searching for the God particle. The hardened evolutionist will spin it though.
Click to expand...


The God gene? Wtf is that? Proof of your god? Or just some cute name given at random?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have an odd fascination with Dawkins.
> 
> Your worldview seems to hinge on his singular opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is not the only one hollie but he is one of the most famous atheistic evolutionists that is actually educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then. He being one of the most famous atheistic evolutionists means you had better pray at the altar of Dawkins.
> 
> Being one of the most famous atheistic evolutionists does carry quite a responsibility.
> 
> So tell us, who would you bestow the title of being the famous religious evolutionist? Or is there such an entity? Would that term be an oxymoron or would you consider such an entity to be just a mere pedsetrian moron?
Click to expand...


I don't really care,it is something for someone like dawkins to show enough honesty to admit to the chance of design.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What gawd gene?
> 
> Who is "they"?
> 
> You just make up this nonsense as you go along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are to lazy to look before claiming I make stuff up ? once again you have egg on your face.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's so silly. What does that have to do with genes? I think you misread - jeans.
Click to expand...


Genes are traits hollie that are in most humans. Funny this gene is only found in humans and it affects our brain. Where else but the brain would the conscience come from ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 17:23a, "For thee thouest be a moroon".
> 
> 
> 
> Which gawds are written in the human conscience?
> 
> I guess Jim Jones and Jimmy Swaggert saw the writing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie Gods laws are written in all hearts and minds. All people at some point in their life question themselves on the existence of God.
> 
> Some allow their conscience to be warped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see your dilemma. Your mind has been warped by christian creationist ministries.
Click to expand...



Someone who is not a believer are the ones with the malfunction we were designed to worship our creator exactly what the scriptures say now science research is confirming this.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> *Caseys Creationist Christmas*
> 
> Casey's Creationist Christmas - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> This guest post is written by Paul Braterman and Mark Edon, and appears courtesy of the British Centre for Science Education. BCSE : Home Page
> 
> BCSE has long maintained that the Seattle-based Discovery Institute (DI), of which Glasgows own Centre for Intelligent Design (C4ID) seems to be a satellite, is a religiously motivated Creationist organisation. Casey Luskin has now demonstrated this with great clarity in his response, (British Center for Science Education Admits Alliance with Religious Believers Is Strictly to Gain "Tactical Advantage" - Evolution News & Views) in the misleadingly titled Evolution News and Views (Serving the Intelligent Design Community), to the recent opinion piece Anti-Creationists need to think about tactics, which we recently posted on our site. Thanks Casey.
> 
> As our title and opening words make clear, our piece is addressed by us, as individual nonbelievers, to other nonbelievers, giving our reasons for cooperating with believers in defending science against Creationism. It does not even mention DI, or C4ID, or Intelligent Design. Nonetheless, Casey seems to find our piece relevant to his mission. Perhaps his concern with religion is not surprising, since the foundation document (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf) of DIs Centre for Science and Culture gives the restoration of a theistic understanding as a core objective. As for Intelligent Design, few people can still believe the pretence that it is anything more than a cover for Creationism (in the strict sense of the term as applied to biological diversity), but it is good to see our thoughts on these matters so authoritatively confirmed.
> 
> There are many more reasons why being attacked by Casey has been compared to being savaged by a dead sheep. Here are a few of them (remember here that Casey is a trained lawyer, and has published on law in an internationally recognised journal, so presumably he has read what he refers to and means what he says about it):
> 
> *...*
> 
> 
> For those of you unfamiliar with the background, here are a few pointers. The Discovery Institute is a religiously driven Crypto-Creationist group pushing a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This approach was hastily adopted for legal reasons in the US, where schools in the public sector are not allowed to promote religion, when Creationism and later Creation Science were ruled in the courts to be religious, not scientific, doctrines.
> 
> Creationist tactics rest upon three pillars. The first of these is that Evolution is in fact Atheism and that this whole political fight is one of Christians versus Atheists. No wonder Casey refers to BCSE as secular and humanist.
> 
> We talk about this fact in the very piece that Casey is attacking. We mention that there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First of all the conflict narrative is effective for the recruitment and retention of Creationists to their cause, as to any cause that involves a conspiracy theory. Secondly the conflict narrative is used to move the public debate away from Creationism is daft to genuine Atheist versus Christian issues. Creationists know that by framing the debate in such terms, they have a far greater chance of obtaining mainstream support.



More pandas thumb and trying to change the subject. Sorry your views are not supported by the facts and mine are.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> *If they both begin with P and end with genetics, they must be the same thing, right?*
> 
> If they both begin with "P" and end with "genetics," they must be the same thing, right? - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> Phylogenetics and population genetics, that is. Larry Moran calls attention to the confusion of Ann Gauger, ID-pushing BioLogic Institute researcher. My favorite comment in the thread is from (PT crew member) Joe Felsenstein:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must be totally confused. I wrote a book on reconstructing evolutionary trees  and its the standard textbook in that area. But it does not mention many basic population genetics concepts. I have another book (a free downloadable e-book) that is a textbook of theoretical population genetics. And it does not mention homoplasy at all.
> 
> So I must misunderstand what population genetics is. And here Ive been giving courses on it for the last 44 years. At the university where Ann Gauger got her Ph.D. degree, for that matter.
> 
> Silly me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My second favorite is from Piotr Gasiorowski:
> 
> Cargo cult science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely. The cult members gather in mock laboratories full of imitation equipment, where they mimic the way scientists speak and behave.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Wow scraping the bottom of the barrel now with your pandas thump copy and pastes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what have they found?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The God gene,and they are searching for the God particle. The hardened evolutionist will spin it though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The God gene? Wtf is that? Proof of your god? Or just some cute name given at random?
Click to expand...


It actually was a name given the vmat2 gene once they found out what this gene does. It's also found in all humans.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are to lazy to look before claiming I make stuff up ? once again you have egg on your face.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly. What does that have to do with genes? I think you misread - jeans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genes are traits hollie that are in most humans. Funny this gene is only found in humans and it affects our brain. Where else but the brain would the conscience come from ? Why do we say have a heart ?
Click to expand...


You're confusing mysticism and the mumbo jumbo of poetic references to gawds with sentience as a result of higher brain functions. You're confusing personality (as a function of chemical / neurological processes in the brain) with mystical notions of supernatural gawds.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If they both begin with P and end with genetics, they must be the same thing, right?*
> 
> If they both begin with "P" and end with "genetics," they must be the same thing, right? - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> Phylogenetics and population genetics, that is. Larry Moran calls attention to the confusion of Ann Gauger, ID-pushing BioLogic Institute researcher. My favorite comment in the thread is from (PT crew member) Joe Felsenstein:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must be totally confused. I wrote a book on reconstructing evolutionary trees  and its the standard textbook in that area. But it does not mention many basic population genetics concepts. I have another book (a free downloadable e-book) that is a textbook of theoretical population genetics. And it does not mention homoplasy at all.
> 
> So I must misunderstand what population genetics is. And here Ive been giving courses on it for the last 44 years. At the university where Ann Gauger got her Ph.D. degree, for that matter.
> 
> Silly me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My second favorite is from Piotr Gasiorowski:
> 
> Cargo cult science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely. The cult members gather in mock laboratories full of imitation equipment, where they mimic the way scientists speak and behave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow scraping the bottom of the barrel now with your pandas thump copy and pastes.
Click to expand...

Actually, what it shows is just how dishonest and desperate the Christian creationist ministries have become. 

These charlatans are forced to phony-up what is non-existent research by faking the existence of a non-existent lab.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly. What does that have to do with genes? I think you misread - jeans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genes are traits hollie that are in most humans. Funny this gene is only found in humans and it affects our brain. Where else but the brain would the conscience come from ? Why do we say have a heart ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confusing mysticism and the mumbo jumbo of poetic references to gawds with sentience as a result of higher brain functions. You're confusing personality (as a function of chemical / neurological processes in the brain) with mystical notions of supernatural gawds.
Click to expand...


Hollie your little world is shrinking.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The God gene,and they are searching for the God particle. The hardened evolutionist will spin it though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The God gene? Wtf is that? Proof of your god? Or just some cute name given at random?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It actually was a name given the  gene once they found out what this gene does. It's also found in all humans.
Click to expand...


A gawd gene?

Who is "they"?  You have a habit of referencing some anonymous "they" who appear to be an invention of an over-active imagination.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If they both begin with P and end with genetics, they must be the same thing, right?*
> 
> If they both begin with "P" and end with "genetics," they must be the same thing, right? - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> Phylogenetics and population genetics, that is. Larry Moran calls attention to the confusion of Ann Gauger, ID-pushing BioLogic Institute researcher. My favorite comment in the thread is from (PT crew member) Joe Felsenstein:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My second favorite is from Piotr Gasiorowski:
> 
> Cargo cult science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow scraping the bottom of the barrel now with your pandas thump copy and pastes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, what it shows is just how dishonest and desperate the Christian creationist ministries have become.
> 
> These charlatans are forced to phony-up what is non-existent research by faking the existence of a non-existent lab.
Click to expand...


Sorry to bust your bubble but there are many scienctists working to find evidence of the creator and it just forces you and your side to go on the attack since you can't attack the message.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If they both begin with P and end with genetics, they must be the same thing, right?*
> 
> If they both begin with "P" and end with "genetics," they must be the same thing, right? - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> Phylogenetics and population genetics, that is. Larry Moran calls attention to the confusion of Ann Gauger, ID-pushing BioLogic Institute researcher. My favorite comment in the thread is from (PT crew member) Joe Felsenstein:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My second favorite is from Piotr Gasiorowski:
> 
> Cargo cult science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow scraping the bottom of the barrel now with your pandas thump copy and pastes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, what it shows is just how dishonest and desperate the Christian creationist ministries have become.
> 
> These charlatans are forced to phony-up what is non-existent research by faking the existence of a non-existent lab.
Click to expand...


Actually God spoke of you hollie and the people like you.

Psa 14:1  To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The God gene,and they are searching for the God particle. The hardened evolutionist will spin it though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The God gene? Wtf is that? Proof of your god? Or just some cute name given at random?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It actually was a name given the vmat2 gene once they found out what this gene does. It's also found in all humans.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> The God gene? Wtf is that? Proof of your god? Or just some cute name given at random?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It actually was a name given the vmat2 gene once they found out what this gene does. It's also found in all humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=0

See how they are spinning the evidence.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It actually was a name given the vmat2 gene once they found out what this gene does. It's also found in all humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [uSeerl]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=0[/url]
> 
> See how they are spinning the evidence.
Click to expand...


First of all, it talks about the evolution of the god gene, and you refute evolution, don't you? And nowhere in the article does it talk about the gene. So I dunno man, got anything else?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [uSeerl]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=0[/url]
> 
> See how they are spinning the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, it talks about the evolution of the god gene, and you refute evolution, don't you? And nowhere in the article does it talk about the gene. So I dunno man, got anything else?
Click to expand...


Evolution they speak of is merely conjecture the gene itself causes belief of a higher power the scriptures said that God put that into our conscience. Some see this as evidence of God confirming his word mind you what was written in the bible was written long before the discovery of the gene.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [uSeerl]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=0[/url]
> 
> See how they are spinning the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, it talks about the evolution of the god gene, and you refute evolution, don't you? And nowhere in the article does it talk about the gene. So I dunno man, got anything else?
Click to expand...


Design in nature is all the evidence you need unless you believe chaos will promote order and precision in nature.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow scraping the bottom of the barrel now with your pandas thump copy and pastes.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what it shows is just how dishonest and desperate the Christian creationist ministries have become.
> 
> These charlatans are forced to phony-up what is non-existent research by faking the existence of a non-existent lab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually God spoke of you hollie and the people like you.
> 
> Psa 14:1  To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.
Click to expand...


Do you think your gawds approve of you using their names as a means to promote your hatreds, securities and bigotries?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> [uSeerl]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=0[/url]
> 
> See how they are spinning the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, it talks about the evolution of the god gene, and you refute evolution, don't you? And nowhere in the article does it talk about the gene. So I dunno man, got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Design in nature is all the evidence you need unless you believe chaos will promote order and precision in nature.
Click to expand...


What in nature is the product of supermagical "design"? 

You continue to make these absurd claims to magic being an extant part of the natural world yet you always put on your Christian creationist dancing shoes when required to demonstrate this supermagicalism.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> [uSeerl]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=0[/url]
> 
> See how they are spinning the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, it talks about the evolution of the god gene, and you refute evolution, don't you? And nowhere in the article does it talk about the gene. So I dunno man, got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Design in nature is all the evidence you need unless you believe chaos will promote order and precision in nature.
Click to expand...


What precision is there in nature?

Thus is another absurd claim of yours which has been repeatedly shown to be nonsensical.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what it shows is just how dishonest and desperate the Christian creationist ministries have become.
> 
> These charlatans are forced to phony-up what is non-existent research by faking the existence of a non-existent lab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually God spoke of you hollie and the people like you.
> 
> Psa 14:1  To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think your gawds approve of you using their names as a means to promote your hatreds, securities and bigotries?
Click to expand...


If YAHWEH didn't intend for us to use his words for correction it would not be found in his words.

2Ti 3:16  Everything in the Scriptures is God's Word. All of it is useful for teaching and helping people and for correcting them and showing them how to live.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, it talks about the evolution of the god gene, and you refute evolution, don't you? And nowhere in the article does it talk about the gene. So I dunno man, got anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Design in nature is all the evidence you need unless you believe chaos will promote order and precision in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in nature is the product of supermagical "design"?
> 
> You continue to make these absurd claims to magic being an extant part of the natural world yet you always put on your Christian creationist dancing shoes when required to demonstrate this supermagicalism.
Click to expand...


All of nature was created by God so all of it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, it talks about the evolution of the god gene, and you refute evolution, don't you? And nowhere in the article does it talk about the gene. So I dunno man, got anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Design in nature is all the evidence you need unless you believe chaos will promote order and precision in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What precision is there in nature?
> 
> Thus is another absurd claim of yours which has been repeatedly shown to be nonsensical.
Click to expand...


The cosmos,life,this planet.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Design in nature is all the evidence you need unless you believe chaos will promote order and precision in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in nature is the product of supermagical "design"?
> 
> You continue to make these absurd claims to magic being an extant part of the natural world yet you always put on your Christian creationist dancing shoes when required to demonstrate this supermagicalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of nature was created by God so all of it.
Click to expand...


Your silly "because I say so", claim is the same claim made by proponents of other gawds. 

To the back of the line you go with your also-ran gawds.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Design in nature is all the evidence you need unless you believe chaos will promote order and precision in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What precision is there in nature?
> 
> Thus is another absurd claim of yours which has been repeatedly shown to be nonsensical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cosmos,life,this planet.
Click to expand...


False, as usual.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually God spoke of you hollie and the people like you.
> 
> Psa 14:1  To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think your gawds approve of you using their names as a means to promote your hatreds, securities and bigotries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If YAHWEH didn't intend for us to use his words for correction it would not be found in his words.
> 
> 2Ti 3:16  Everything in the Scriptures is God's Word. All of it is useful for teaching and helping people and for correcting them and showing them how to live.
Click to expand...

You appear to be quite the bible thumping zealot. 

Does your cult envision a spectacular end of days and is making preparations?  I'm asking because if there are minor children in your cult, we should probably inform law enforcement.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What precision is there in nature?
> 
> Thus is another absurd claim of yours which has been repeatedly shown to be nonsensical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cosmos,life,this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False, as usual.
Click to expand...


Ignorance is bliss for some.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think your gawds approve of you using their names as a means to promote your hatreds, securities and bigotries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If YAHWEH didn't intend for us to use his words for correction it would not be found in his words.
> 
> 2Ti 3:16  Everything in the Scriptures is God's Word. All of it is useful for teaching and helping people and for correcting them and showing them how to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You appear to be quite the bible thumping zealot.
> 
> Does your cult envision a spectacular end of days and is making preparations?  I'm asking because if there are minor children in your cult, we should probably inform law enforcement.
Click to expand...


No one,not even the son knows the day or hour so it's pretty much pointless predicting the end.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Those scriptures must be putting a dent in to your preconceived beliefs or you would not feel the importance to slander them,that would go for my thoughts as well.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cosmos,life,this planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False, as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance is bliss for some.
Click to expand...


That's true for fundie Christians. All the various, unknown authors of the bibles, re-telling of tales and fables that were passed down over and over, as much as two hundred years after the alleged events, it rivals Homers' _illiad_, in its fantastical content. 

When you look at the very deepest foundation of the entire doctrine, when you go to the theological reason the various books were written, you are left with this conclusion the texts tell us over and over:

Ignorance is bliss

Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no solid evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Those scriptures must be putting a dent in to your preconceived beliefs or you would not feel the importance to slander them,that would go for my thoughts as well.



On the contrary, if your hateful, bigoted and intolerant attitudes derive from your religion, pointing that out is being honest. 

The preconceived ideas are clearly yours. The entirety of your worldview is shaped by rigid adherence to ancient tales and fables which we know have been supplanted by modern evidences and knowledge that continues to grow. 

You may choose live in fear and superstition, but hating those who choose to embrace the brightness of education and knowledge is your personality fracture, not education's weakness.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> [uSeerl]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=0[/url]
> 
> See how they are spinning the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, it talks about the evolution of the god gene, and you refute evolution, don't you? And nowhere in the article does it talk about the gene. So I dunno man, got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution they speak of is merely conjecture the gene itself causes belief of a higher power the scriptures said that God put that into our conscience. Some see this as evidence of God confirming his word mind you what was written in the bible was written long before the discovery of the gene.
Click to expand...

So you believe in evolution.... sometimes. Gotcha.

So if god put this gene (that they never talked about, btw) in us, why do some people not believe in god? And then I assume they could do gene therapy to make us all believe in god? Are you fucking serious? Or just pulling my leg?
The bible wasn't written by god, so it's not his words, so that's not even relevant to what we're talking about.


"Design in nature is all the evidence you need unless you believe chaos will promote order and precision in nature."

I don't presume to know why there is precision in nature and neither should you. Or can you show me actual proof of your designer? No? Then stfu about that. Okay?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence of design is not imaginary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence of a designer is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They go hand and hand
Click to expand...

yes they do, imaginary design by an imaginary designer! 
posting on christmas eve , what a fucking zealot !


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just go back and look at the accusations that you and daws directed at me and you and he were either delibrately *trying to make me look like a creationist* nut while knowing the truth. Why would you resort to those tactics ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you cringe at the accusation when your own moniker speaks to its truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't cringe,heck I don't take hollie or daws serious ,I just expose them as being dishonest turds which they are.
Click to expand...

hold on a sec! weren't  you the slap dick who not too long ago challenged me to a fight? I'd call that a cringe!
aren't you the guy who who has lied about leaving the thread countless times?
aren't you the guy posts invalid conjecture endlessly and calls it proof?
aren't you the asshole that left a good paying job because nobody there bought your bullshit ?
 I've never done any of those things ...so who's dishonest again?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So actually daws did not know what we were talking about or he is a delibrate liar knowing we spoke of chirality
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE ON BOTH ASSUMPTIONS
> HOW DOES THE LACK OF CELL superimposabilty prove a designer or design?
> DETECTIVE DOUCH BAG !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I am the detective.once again you fail at following the conversation,probably delibrately with good reason.
Click to expand...

another  spectacularly ignorant comment by YWC! 
I purposefully ignored YWC's false accusation ! 

then as always he did not answer this supposedly simply question:"HOW DOES THE LACK OF CELL superimposabilty prove a designer or design?"
supposedly simple for a micro bilogist? 


 Chirality (pron.: /ka&#618;&#712;ræl&#618;ti&#720;/) is a property of asymmetry important in several branches of science. The word chirality is derived from the Greek, &#967;&#949;&#953;&#961; (kheir), "hand", a familiar chiral object.

An object or a system is chiral if it is not identical to its mirror image, that is, it cannot be superposed onto it. A chiral object and its mirror image are called enantiomorphs (Greek opposite forms) or, when referring to molecules, enantiomers. A non-chiral object is called achiral (sometimes also amphichiral) and can be superposed on its mirror image.

The term was first used by Lord Kelvin in an address in 1904. In a lecture given in Johns Hopkins University on "Molecular Dynamics and the Wave Theory of Light" he stated:

I call any geometrical figure, or group of points, 'chiral', and say that it has chirality if its image in a plane mirror, ideally realized, cannot be brought to coincide with itself.[1]


Chirality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
you'll  notice "that god did it"  is nowhere  to be found. 


byw this is not a sceintific  site:
ABOUT US 

We believe the pursuit of truth is the highest calling of humanity. We are a collection of people who have wandered many paths, but all discovered that same truth. We are passionate about sparking authentic life journeys and sharing compelling content with skeptics, seekers, believers, and a hurting world. 

We seek to be non-threatening, practical, and informative, using the technology of the Internet to pose tough questions and seek candid answers about God, Creation, Life, Humanity, Thought, History, and Truth. 

Many people refer to us as Christians, but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus. Like Jesus, we reject many of the issues found in organized religion (man-made attempts to reach God through rules and rituals). Actually, we believe religion has kept more people from the truth than anything in history. Although we reject man-made religion, we consider the personal pursuit of God as paramount in each of our personal life journeys. 

Contact Information:

Contact us here. 

AllAboutGOD.com
PO Box 49625
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80949
719-884-2246


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Uh oh hollie it's confirmed by God.
> 
> Rom. 2:15, "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."
> 
> The existence of God is written in the human conscience.
> 
> Acts 17:23, "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God."
> 
> Conscience told them that there was a God though they did not know Him personally.


uh oh slapdick  ..........! none of that is evidence ...it is however evidence for myth!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The God gene,and they are searching for the God particle. The hardened evolutionist will spin it though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The God gene? Wtf is that? Proof of your god? Or just some cute name given at random?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It actually was a name given the vmat2 gene once they found out what this gene does. It's also found in all humans.
Click to expand...

here's another beneficial gene mutation found in all humans . but you constantly say it's harmful or doesn't exsist :[ame=http://youtu.be/9Tpqc6SVUWk]What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA) Part 7/8 HD - YouTube[/ame]



let's see how fast ywc attempts to bullshit his way around it!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow scraping the bottom of the barrel now with your pandas thump copy and pastes.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what it shows is just how dishonest and desperate the Christian creationist ministries have become.
> 
> These charlatans are forced to phony-up what is non-existent research by faking the existence of a non-existent lab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually God spoke of you hollie and the people like you.
> 
> Psa 14:1  To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.
Click to expand...

wrong ! there is no reference in the bible or elsewhere to prove god said that.


----------



## daws101

Through history, as natural selection played its part in the development of modern man, many of the useful functions and parts of the human body become unnecessary. What is most fascinating is that many of these parts of the body still remain in some form so we can see the progress of evolution. This list covers the ten most significant evolutionary changes that have taken place  leaving signs behind them.

10 
Goose Bumps
Cutis Anserina



Humans get goose bumps when they are cold, frightened, angry, or in awe. Many other creatures get goose bumps for the same reason, for example this is why a cat or dogs hair stands on end and the cause behind a porcupines quills raising. In cold situations, the rising hair traps air between the hairs and skin, creating insulation and warmth. In response to fear, goose bumps make an animal appear larger  hopefully scaring away the enemy. Humans no longer benefit from goose bumps and they are simply left over from our past when we were not clothed and needed to scare our own natural enemies. Natural selection removed the thick hair but left behind the mechanism for controlling it.


9 
Jacobsons Organ
Vomeronasal organ



Jacobsons organ is a fascinating part of animal anatomy and it tells us a lot about our own sexual history. The organ is in the nose and it is a special smell organ which detects pheromones (the chemical that triggers sexual desire, alarm, or information about food trails). It is this organ that allows some animals to track others for sex and to know of potential dangers. Humans are born with the Jacobsons organ, but in early development its abilities dwindle to a point that it is useless. Once upon a time, humans would have used this organ to locate mates when communication was not possible. Singles evenings, chat rooms, and bars have now taken its place in the process of human mate-seeking.

8 
Junk DNA
L-gulonolactone oxidase



While many of the hangovers from our devolved past are visible or physical, this is not true for all. Humans have structures in their genetic make-up that were once used to produces enzymes to process vitamin C (it is called L-gulonolactone oxidase). Most other animals have this functioning DNA but at some point in our history, a mutation disbled the gene  whilst leaving behind its remnants as junk DNA. This particular junk DNA indicates a common ancestry with other species on earth, so it is particularly interesting.

7 
Extra Ear Muscles
Auriculares muscles



Also known as the extrinsic ear muscles, the auriculares muscles are used by animals to swivel and manipulate their ears (independently of their head) in order to focus their hearing on particular sounds. Humans still have the muscles that we would once have used for the very same reason  but our muscles are now so feeble that all they can do is give our ears a little wiggle. The use of these muscles in cats is very visible (as they can nearly turn their ears completely backwards)  particularly when they are stalking a bird and need to make the smallest movements possible so as to not frighten its future meal.

6 
Plantaris Muscle



The plantaris muscle is used by animals in gripping and manipulating objects with their feet  something you see with apes who seem to be able to use their feet as well as their hands. Humans have this muscle as well, but it is now so underdeveloped that it is often taken out by doctors when they need tissue for reconstruction in other parts of the body. The muscle is so unimportant to the human body that 9% of humans are now born without it.





5 
Wisdom Teeth



Early humans ate a lot of plants  and they needed to eat them quickly enough that they could eat a sufficient amount in one day to get all of the nutrients they needed. For this reason, we had an extra set of molars to make the larger mouth more productive. This was particularly essential as the body lacked the ability to sufficiently digest cellulose. As evolution made its selections, our diets changed, our jaws grew appropriately smaller, and our third molars became unnecessary. Some human populations have now all but completely stopped growing wisdom teeth, while others have almost 100% likelihood of developing them.

4 
Third Eyelid



If you watch a cat blink, you will see a white membrane cross its eye  that is called its third eyelid. It is quite a rare thing in mammals, but common in birds, reptiles, and fish. Humans have a remnant (but non-working) third eyelid (you can see it in the picture above). It has become quite small in humans, but some populations have more visible portions than others. There is only one known species of primate that still has a functioning third eyelid, and that is the Calabar angwantibo (closely related to lorises) which lives in West Africa.

3 
Darwins Point
plica semilunaris



Darwins point is found in the majority of mammals, and humans are no exception. It is most likely used to help focus sounds in animals, but it no longer has a function in humans. Only 10.4% of the human population still has this visible left-over mark of our past, but it is possible that a much larger number of people carry the gene that produces it as it does not always cause the ear tubercle to appear. The point (shown in the picture above) is a small thick nodule at the junction of the upper and middle sections of the ear.

2 
Coccyx



The coccyx is the remnant of what was once a human tail. Over time we lost the need for a tail (as tree swinging was replaced by hanging out at the local water hole grunting neanderthal gossip), but we did not lose the need for the coccyx: it now functions as a support structure for various muscles and a support for a person when he sits down and leans back. The coccyx also supports the position of the anus.

1 
Appendix



The appendix has no known use in modern humans and is often removed when it becomes infected. While its original use is still speculated on, most scientists agree with Darwins suggestion that it once helped to process the cellulose found in the leaf-rich diet that we once had. Over the course of evolution, as our diet has changed, the appendix became less useful. What is particularly interesting is that many evolutionary theorists believe that natural selection (while removing all of the abilities of the appendix) selects larger appendices because they are less likely to become inflamed and diseased. So unlike the little toe, which may eventually vanish and is equally useless, the appendix is likely to stay with us for a long time  just hanging around doing nothing.

Contributor: JFrater



Top 10 Signs Of Evolution In Modern Man - Listverse


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, it talks about the evolution of the god gene, and you refute evolution, don't you? And nowhere in the article does it talk about the gene. So I dunno man, got anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution they speak of is merely conjecture the gene itself causes belief of a higher power the scriptures said that God put that into our conscience. Some see this as evidence of God confirming his word mind you what was written in the bible was written long before the discovery of the gene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe in evolution.... sometimes. Gotcha.
> 
> So if god put this gene (that they never talked about, btw) in us, why do some people not believe in god? And then I assume they could do gene therapy to make us all believe in god? Are you fucking serious? Or just pulling my leg?
> The bible wasn't written by god, so it's not his words, so that's not even relevant to what we're talking about.
> 
> 
> "Design in nature is all the evidence you need unless you believe chaos will promote order and precision in nature."
> 
> I don't presume to know why there is precision in nature and neither should you. Or can you show me actual proof of your designer? No? Then stfu about that. Okay?
Click to expand...


No the proper term would be microadaptations which the organism already possessed the ablilty to adapt,sorry.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh hollie it's confirmed by God.
> 
> Rom. 2:15, "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."
> 
> The existence of God is written in the human conscience.
> 
> Acts 17:23, "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God."
> 
> Conscience told them that there was a God though they did not know Him personally.
> 
> 
> 
> uh oh slapdick  ..........! none of that is evidence ...it is however evidence for myth!
Click to expand...


Is that your only true friend daws because you talk about him so much. You know that little guy between your legs that has more grey matter then you will ever possess.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> The God gene? Wtf is that? Proof of your god? Or just some cute name given at random?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It actually was a name given the vmat2 gene once they found out what this gene does. It's also found in all humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> here's another beneficial gene mutation found in all humans . but you constantly say it's harmful or doesn't exsist :[ame=http://youtu.be/9Tpqc6SVUWk]What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA) Part 7/8 HD - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> let's see how fast ywc attempts to bullshit his way around it!
Click to expand...


If you're gonna say something about me make sure it is accurate. I said they are rare vs over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations. When I have time I will tackle what you claim to be a bene ficial mutation. I see once again you wish to change the subject.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Through history, as natural selection played its part in the development of modern man, many of the useful functions and parts of the human body become unnecessary. What is most fascinating is that many of these parts of the body still remain in some form so we can see the progress of evolution. This list covers the ten most significant evolutionary changes that have taken place &#8211; leaving signs behind them.
> 
> 10
> Goose Bumps
> Cutis Anserina
> 
> 
> 
> Humans get goose bumps when they are cold, frightened, angry, or in awe. Many other creatures get goose bumps for the same reason, for example this is why a cat or dog&#8217;s hair stands on end and the cause behind a porcupine&#8217;s quills raising. In cold situations, the rising hair traps air between the hairs and skin, creating insulation and warmth. In response to fear, goose bumps make an animal appear larger &#8211; hopefully scaring away the enemy. Humans no longer benefit from goose bumps and they are simply left over from our past when we were not clothed and needed to scare our own natural enemies. Natural selection removed the thick hair but left behind the mechanism for controlling it.
> 
> 
> 9
> Jacobson&#8217;s Organ
> Vomeronasal organ
> 
> 
> 
> Jacobson&#8217;s organ is a fascinating part of animal anatomy and it tells us a lot about our own sexual history. The organ is in the nose and it is a special &#8220;smell&#8221; organ which detects pheromones (the chemical that triggers sexual desire, alarm, or information about food trails). It is this organ that allows some animals to track others for sex and to know of potential dangers. Humans are born with the Jacobson&#8217;s organ, but in early development its abilities dwindle to a point that it is useless. Once upon a time, humans would have used this organ to locate mates when communication was not possible. Single&#8217;s evenings, chat rooms, and bars have now taken its place in the process of human mate-seeking.
> 
> 8
> Junk DNA
> L-gulonolactone oxidase
> 
> 
> 
> While many of the hangovers from our &#8220;devolved&#8221; past are visible or physical, this is not true for all. Humans have structures in their genetic make-up that were once used to produces enzymes to process vitamin C (it is called L-gulonolactone oxidase). Most other animals have this functioning DNA but at some point in our history, a mutation disbled the gene &#8211; whilst leaving behind its remnants as junk DNA. This particular junk DNA indicates a common ancestry with other species on earth, so it is particularly interesting.
> 
> 7
> Extra Ear Muscles
> Auriculares muscles
> 
> 
> 
> Also known as the extrinsic ear muscles, the auriculares muscles are used by animals to swivel and manipulate their ears (independently of their head) in order to focus their hearing on particular sounds. Humans still have the muscles that we would once have used for the very same reason &#8211; but our muscles are now so feeble that all they can do is give our ears a little wiggle. The use of these muscles in cats is very visible (as they can nearly turn their ears completely backwards) &#8211; particularly when they are stalking a bird and need to make the smallest movements possible so as to not frighten its future meal.
> 
> 6
> Plantaris Muscle
> 
> 
> 
> The plantaris muscle is used by animals in gripping and manipulating objects with their feet &#8211; something you see with apes who seem to be able to use their feet as well as their hands. Humans have this muscle as well, but it is now so underdeveloped that it is often taken out by doctors when they need tissue for reconstruction in other parts of the body. The muscle is so unimportant to the human body that 9% of humans are now born without it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5
> Wisdom Teeth
> 
> 
> 
> Early humans ate a lot of plants &#8211; and they needed to eat them quickly enough that they could eat a sufficient amount in one day to get all of the nutrients they needed. For this reason, we had an extra set of molars to make the larger mouth more productive. This was particularly essential as the body lacked the ability to sufficiently digest cellulose. As evolution made its selections, our diets changed, our jaws grew appropriately smaller, and our third molars became unnecessary. Some human populations have now all but completely stopped growing wisdom teeth, while others have almost 100% likelihood of developing them.
> 
> 4
> Third Eyelid
> 
> 
> 
> If you watch a cat blink, you will see a white membrane cross its eye &#8211; that is called its third eyelid. It is quite a rare thing in mammals, but common in birds, reptiles, and fish. Humans have a remnant (but non-working) third eyelid (you can see it in the picture above). It has become quite small in humans, but some populations have more visible portions than others. There is only one known species of primate that still has a functioning third eyelid, and that is the Calabar angwantibo (closely related to lorises) which lives in West Africa.
> 
> 3
> Darwin&#8217;s Point
> plica semilunaris
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin&#8217;s point is found in the majority of mammals, and humans are no exception. It is most likely used to help focus sounds in animals, but it no longer has a function in humans. Only 10.4% of the human population still has this visible left-over mark of our past, but it is possible that a much larger number of people carry the gene that produces it as it does not always cause the ear tubercle to appear. The point (shown in the picture above) is a small thick nodule at the junction of the upper and middle sections of the ear.
> 
> 2
> Coccyx
> 
> 
> 
> The coccyx is the remnant of what was once a human tail. Over time we lost the need for a tail (as tree swinging was replaced by hanging out at the local water hole grunting neanderthal gossip), but we did not lose the need for the coccyx: it now functions as a support structure for various muscles and a support for a person when he sits down and leans back. The coccyx also supports the position of the anus.
> 
> 1
> Appendix
> 
> 
> 
> The appendix has no known use in modern humans and is often removed when it becomes infected. While its original use is still speculated on, most scientists agree with Darwin&#8217;s suggestion that it once helped to process the cellulose found in the leaf-rich diet that we once had. Over the course of evolution, as our diet has changed, the appendix became less useful. What is particularly interesting is that many evolutionary theorists believe that natural selection (while removing all of the abilities of the appendix) selects larger appendices because they are less likely to become inflamed and diseased. So unlike the little toe, which may eventually vanish and is equally useless, the appendix is likely to stay with us for a long time &#8211; just hanging around doing nothing.
> 
> Contributor: JFrater
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10 Signs Of Evolution In Modern Man - Listverse



You need some updated material, the genome project said that what they once thought was junk DNA they discovered has a purpose no point responding to the rest of your outdated material.


http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...ewan-birney-european-bioinformatics-institute


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> You need some updated material, the genome project said that what they once thought was junk DNA they discovered has a purpose no point responding to the rest of your outdated material.
> 
> 
> ?Junk DNA? concept debunked by new analysis of human genome - Washington Post


You are the one in need of new material. 

Quite obviously, it was ethical scientists submitting their work for peer review who forged the human genome project. It wasn't the Christian creationist hacks who phony-up credentials and do no research at all.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It actually was a name given the vmat2 gene once they found out what this gene does. It's also found in all humans.
> 
> 
> 
> here's another beneficial gene mutation found in all humans . but you constantly say it's harmful or doesn't exsist :[ame=http://youtu.be/9Tpqc6SVUWk]What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA) Part 7/8 HD - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> let's see how fast ywc attempts to bullshit his way around it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're gonna say something about me make sure it is accurate. I said they are rare vs over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations. When I have time I will tackle what you claim to be a bene ficial mutation. I see once again you wish to change the subject.
Click to expand...

How absolutely fraudulent that you would seek to lecture anyone on accuracy. This, from the fundie who fraudulently and knowingky cuts and pastes phony "quotes" from Christian creationist websites.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> The God gene? Wtf is that? Proof of your god? Or just some cute name given at random?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It actually was a name given the vmat2 gene once they found out what this gene does. It's also found in all humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> here's another beneficial gene mutation found in all humans . but you constantly say it's harmful or doesn't exsist :[ame=http://youtu.be/9Tpqc6SVUWk]What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA) Part 7/8 HD - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> let's see how fast ywc attempts to bullshit his way around it!
Click to expand...


Conjecture daws ? It's nonsense because he is saying this mutation has allowed a space for our brains to grow larger and thus make us more intelligent. Hmm the neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans are we devolving ? why are neanderthals extinct  ? were neanderthals more intelligent ? You tried slipping this through before. Clearly that gene is different in humans because the creator wanted it that way. 

I still believe the creator used our genes to make sure his punishment for sin is met.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need some updated material, the genome project said that what they once thought was junk DNA they discovered has a purpose no point responding to the rest of your outdated material.
> 
> 
> ?Junk DNA? concept debunked by new analysis of human genome - Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one in need of new material.
> 
> Quite obviously, it was ethical scientists submitting their work for peer review who forged the human genome project. It wasn't the Christian creationist hacks who phony-up credentials and do no research at all.
Click to expand...


Are you disagreeing with the findings of the human genome project ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> here's another beneficial gene mutation found in all humans . but you constantly say it's harmful or doesn't exsist :What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA) Part 7/8 HD - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> let's see how fast ywc attempts to bullshit his way around it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're gonna say something about me make sure it is accurate. I said they are rare vs over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations. When I have time I will tackle what you claim to be a bene ficial mutation. I see once again you wish to change the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How absolutely fraudulent that you would seek to lecture anyone on accuracy. This, from the fundie who fraudulently and knowingky cuts and pastes phony "quotes" from Christian creationist websites.
Click to expand...


You have been exposed as a liar bye bye.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need some updated material, the genome project said that what they once thought was junk DNA they discovered has a purpose no point responding to the rest of your outdated material.
> 
> 
> ?Junk DNA? concept debunked by new analysis of human genome - Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one in need of new material.
> 
> Quite obviously, it was ethical scientists submitting their work for peer review who forged the human genome project. It wasn't the Christian creationist hacks who phony-up credentials and do no research at all.
Click to expand...


What we have here is a failure in comprehension.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need some updated material, the genome project said that what they once thought was junk DNA they discovered has a purpose no point responding to the rest of your outdated material.
> 
> 
> ?Junk DNA? concept debunked by new analysis of human genome - Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one in need of new material.
> 
> Quite obviously, it was ethical scientists submitting their work for peer review who forged the human genome project. It wasn't the Christian creationist hacks who phony-up credentials and do no research at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you disagreeing with the findings of the human genome project ?
Click to expand...


Yes, because anything discovered outside of research performed by Christian creationist ministries is a conspiracy.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're gonna say something about me make sure it is accurate. I said they are rare vs over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations. When I have time I will tackle what you claim to be a bene ficial mutation. I see once again you wish to change the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> How absolutely fraudulent that you would seek to lecture anyone on accuracy. This, from the fundie who fraudulently and knowingky cuts and pastes phony "quotes" from Christian creationist websites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been exposed as a liar bye bye.
Click to expand...


How, exactly?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need some updated material, the genome project said that what they once thought was junk DNA they discovered has a purpose no point responding to the rest of your outdated material.
> 
> 
> ?Junk DNA? concept debunked by new analysis of human genome - Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one in need of new material.
> 
> Quite obviously, it was ethical scientists submitting their work for peer review who forged the human genome project. It wasn't the Christian creationist hacks who phony-up credentials and do no research at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we have here is a failure in comprehension.
Click to expand...

Raise your hand and ask for help when you're befuddled.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution they speak of is merely conjecture the gene itself causes belief of a higher power the scriptures said that God put that into our conscience. Some see this as evidence of God confirming his word mind you what was written in the bible was written long before the discovery of the gene.
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe in evolution.... sometimes. Gotcha.
> 
> So if god put this gene (that they never talked about, btw) in us, why do some people not believe in god? And then I assume they could do gene therapy to make us all believe in god? Are you fucking serious? Or just pulling my leg?
> The bible wasn't written by god, so it's not his words, so that's not even relevant to what we're talking about.
> 
> 
> "Design in nature is all the evidence you need unless you believe chaos will promote order and precision in nature."
> 
> I don't presume to know why there is precision in nature and neither should you. Or can you show me actual proof of your designer? No? Then stfu about that. Okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the proper term would be microadaptations which the organism already possessed the ablilty to adapt,sorry.
Click to expand...

wrong as always, adaptation is a feature of evolution not separate from it .
either way it's more proof of evolution not creation.
creation infers that the thing created is perfectly fitted to it's environment ,adaption of any kind disproves that. 
but you can keep wishing


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one in need of new material.
> 
> Quite obviously, it was ethical scientists submitting their work for peer review who forged the human genome project. It wasn't the Christian creationist hacks who phony-up credentials and do no research at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you disagreeing with the findings of the human genome project ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because anything discovered outside of research performed by Christian creationist ministries is a conspiracy.
Click to expand...


This is the washington post dummy.

?Junk DNA? concept debunked by new analysis of human genome - Washington Post


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe in evolution.... sometimes. Gotcha.
> 
> So if god put this gene (that they never talked about, btw) in us, why do some people not believe in god? And then I assume they could do gene therapy to make us all believe in god? Are you fucking serious? Or just pulling my leg?
> The bible wasn't written by god, so it's not his words, so that's not even relevant to what we're talking about.
> 
> 
> "Design in nature is all the evidence you need unless you believe chaos will promote order and precision in nature."
> 
> I don't presume to know why there is precision in nature and neither should you. Or can you show me actual proof of your designer? No? Then stfu about that. Okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the proper term would be microadaptations which the organism already possessed the ablilty to adapt,sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong as always, adaptation is a feature of evolution not separate from it .
> either way it's more proof of evolution not creation.
> creation infers that the thing created is perfectly fitted to it's environment ,adaption of any kind disproves that.
> but you can keep wishing
Click to expand...


No changes are coming from what was once thought of as junk DNA.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh hollie it's confirmed by God.
> 
> Rom. 2:15, "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."
> 
> The existence of God is written in the human conscience.
> 
> Acts 17:23, "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God."
> 
> Conscience told them that there was a God though they did not know Him personally.
> 
> 
> 
> uh oh slapdick  ..........! none of that is evidence ...it is however evidence for myth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that your only true friend daws because you talk about him so much. You know that little guy between your legs that has more grey matter then you will ever possess.
Click to expand...

another failed attempt at sarcasm...and a dodge and proof of some mental or physiological  defect that prevents ywc from answering posts directly.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It actually was a name given the vmat2 gene once they found out what this gene does. It's also found in all humans.
> 
> 
> 
> here's another beneficial gene mutation found in all humans . but you constantly say it's harmful or doesn't exsist :[ame=http://youtu.be/9Tpqc6SVUWk]What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA) Part 7/8 HD - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> let's see how fast ywc attempts to bullshit his way around it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're gonna say something about me make sure it is accurate. I said they are rare vs over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations. When I have time I will tackle what you claim to be a bene ficial mutation. I see once again you wish to change the subject.
Click to expand...

like I said....bullshit around . 
what subject? 
the one where you try to sell your creationist bullshit or reality?
 since those are the only two choices, which one is it? 
anything else you post would be a subcategory not a different subject.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Through history, as natural selection played its part in the development of modern man, many of the useful functions and parts of the human body become unnecessary. What is most fascinating is that many of these parts of the body still remain in some form so we can see the progress of evolution. This list covers the ten most significant evolutionary changes that have taken place  leaving signs behind them.
> 
> 10
> Goose Bumps
> Cutis Anserina
> 
> 
> 
> Humans get goose bumps when they are cold, frightened, angry, or in awe. Many other creatures get goose bumps for the same reason, for example this is why a cat or dogs hair stands on end and the cause behind a porcupines quills raising. In cold situations, the rising hair traps air between the hairs and skin, creating insulation and warmth. In response to fear, goose bumps make an animal appear larger  hopefully scaring away the enemy. Humans no longer benefit from goose bumps and they are simply left over from our past when we were not clothed and needed to scare our own natural enemies. Natural selection removed the thick hair but left behind the mechanism for controlling it.
> 
> 
> 9
> Jacobsons Organ
> Vomeronasal organ
> 
> 
> 
> Jacobsons organ is a fascinating part of animal anatomy and it tells us a lot about our own sexual history. The organ is in the nose and it is a special smell organ which detects pheromones (the chemical that triggers sexual desire, alarm, or information about food trails). It is this organ that allows some animals to track others for sex and to know of potential dangers. Humans are born with the Jacobsons organ, but in early development its abilities dwindle to a point that it is useless. Once upon a time, humans would have used this organ to locate mates when communication was not possible. Singles evenings, chat rooms, and bars have now taken its place in the process of human mate-seeking.
> 
> 8
> Junk DNA
> L-gulonolactone oxidase
> 
> 
> 
> While many of the hangovers from our devolved past are visible or physical, this is not true for all. Humans have structures in their genetic make-up that were once used to produces enzymes to process vitamin C (it is called L-gulonolactone oxidase). Most other animals have this functioning DNA but at some point in our history, a mutation disbled the gene  whilst leaving behind its remnants as junk DNA. This particular junk DNA indicates a common ancestry with other species on earth, so it is particularly interesting.
> 
> 7
> Extra Ear Muscles
> Auriculares muscles
> 
> 
> 
> Also known as the extrinsic ear muscles, the auriculares muscles are used by animals to swivel and manipulate their ears (independently of their head) in order to focus their hearing on particular sounds. Humans still have the muscles that we would once have used for the very same reason  but our muscles are now so feeble that all they can do is give our ears a little wiggle. The use of these muscles in cats is very visible (as they can nearly turn their ears completely backwards)  particularly when they are stalking a bird and need to make the smallest movements possible so as to not frighten its future meal.
> 
> 6
> Plantaris Muscle
> 
> 
> 
> The plantaris muscle is used by animals in gripping and manipulating objects with their feet  something you see with apes who seem to be able to use their feet as well as their hands. Humans have this muscle as well, but it is now so underdeveloped that it is often taken out by doctors when they need tissue for reconstruction in other parts of the body. The muscle is so unimportant to the human body that 9% of humans are now born without it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5
> Wisdom Teeth
> 
> 
> 
> Early humans ate a lot of plants  and they needed to eat them quickly enough that they could eat a sufficient amount in one day to get all of the nutrients they needed. For this reason, we had an extra set of molars to make the larger mouth more productive. This was particularly essential as the body lacked the ability to sufficiently digest cellulose. As evolution made its selections, our diets changed, our jaws grew appropriately smaller, and our third molars became unnecessary. Some human populations have now all but completely stopped growing wisdom teeth, while others have almost 100% likelihood of developing them.
> 
> 4
> Third Eyelid
> 
> 
> 
> If you watch a cat blink, you will see a white membrane cross its eye  that is called its third eyelid. It is quite a rare thing in mammals, but common in birds, reptiles, and fish. Humans have a remnant (but non-working) third eyelid (you can see it in the picture above). It has become quite small in humans, but some populations have more visible portions than others. There is only one known species of primate that still has a functioning third eyelid, and that is the Calabar angwantibo (closely related to lorises) which lives in West Africa.
> 
> 3
> Darwins Point
> plica semilunaris
> 
> 
> 
> Darwins point is found in the majority of mammals, and humans are no exception. It is most likely used to help focus sounds in animals, but it no longer has a function in humans. Only 10.4% of the human population still has this visible left-over mark of our past, but it is possible that a much larger number of people carry the gene that produces it as it does not always cause the ear tubercle to appear. The point (shown in the picture above) is a small thick nodule at the junction of the upper and middle sections of the ear.
> 
> 2
> Coccyx
> 
> 
> 
> The coccyx is the remnant of what was once a human tail. Over time we lost the need for a tail (as tree swinging was replaced by hanging out at the local water hole grunting neanderthal gossip), but we did not lose the need for the coccyx: it now functions as a support structure for various muscles and a support for a person when he sits down and leans back. The coccyx also supports the position of the anus.
> 
> 1
> Appendix
> 
> 
> 
> The appendix has no known use in modern humans and is often removed when it becomes infected. While its original use is still speculated on, most scientists agree with Darwins suggestion that it once helped to process the cellulose found in the leaf-rich diet that we once had. Over the course of evolution, as our diet has changed, the appendix became less useful. What is particularly interesting is that many evolutionary theorists believe that natural selection (while removing all of the abilities of the appendix) selects larger appendices because they are less likely to become inflamed and diseased. So unlike the little toe, which may eventually vanish and is equally useless, the appendix is likely to stay with us for a long time  just hanging around doing nothing.
> 
> Contributor: JFrater
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10 Signs Of Evolution In Modern Man - Listverse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need some updated material, the genome project said that what they once thought was junk DNA they discovered has a purpose no point responding to the rest of your outdated material.
> 
> 
> ?Junk DNA? concept debunked by new analysis of human genome - Washington Post
Click to expand...

what I posted was written in 2012 so you're rebutall such as it is is meaningless.
It's a good thing  I speak gibberish


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you disagreeing with the findings of the human genome project ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because anything discovered outside of research performed by Christian creationist ministries is a conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the washington post dummy.
> 
> ?Junk DNA? concept debunked by new analysis of human genome - Washington Post
Click to expand...


Yes it is the washingtonpost, dummy. You're so consumed by the "angry fundie" syndrome, you can't understand what is written.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It actually was a name given the vmat2 gene once they found out what this gene does. It's also found in all humans.
> 
> 
> 
> here's another beneficial gene mutation found in all humans . but you constantly say it's harmful or doesn't exsist :[ame=http://youtu.be/9Tpqc6SVUWk]What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA) Part 7/8 HD - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> let's see how fast ywc attempts to bullshit his way around it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conjecture daws ? It's nonsense because he is saying this mutation has allowed a space for our brains to grow larger and thus make us more intelligent. Hmm the neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans are we devolving ? why are neanderthals extinct  ? were neanderthals more intelligent ? You tried slipping this through before. Clearly that gene is different in humans because the creator wanted it that way.
> 
> I still believe the creator used our genes to make sure his punishment for sin is met.
Click to expand...

really slapdick: "You tried slipping this through before"YWC  is a false statement attempting to infer some sort of wrong doing.
the reality is I presented evidence that refuted your gene paranoia. 


your belife besides being silly and ignorant has no basis in fact!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you disagreeing with the findings of the human genome project ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because anything discovered outside of research performed by Christian creationist ministries is a conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the washington post dummy.
> 
> ?Junk DNA? concept debunked by new analysis of human genome - Washington Post
Click to expand...

yeah and....it's no proof that god did it!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the proper term would be microadaptations which the organism already possessed the ablilty to adapt,sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong as always, adaptation is a feature of evolution not separate from it .
> either way it's more proof of evolution not creation.
> creation infers that the thing created is perfectly fitted to it's environment ,adaption of any kind disproves that.
> but you can keep wishing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No changes are coming from what was once thought of as junk DNA.
Click to expand...

wow you're just full of dodges today! 

"No changes are coming from what was once thought of as junk DNA"---ywc  
 is this a question or a statement ?
without the proper punctuation and context it's meaningless.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because anything discovered outside of research performed by Christian creationist ministries is a conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the washington post dummy.
> 
> ?Junk DNA? concept debunked by new analysis of human genome - Washington Post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is the washingtonpost, dummy. You're so consumed by the "angry fundie" syndrome, you can't understand what is written.
Click to expand...

 read it twice, still no mention of god....


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because anything discovered outside of research performed by Christian creationist ministries is a conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the washington post dummy.
> 
> ?Junk DNA? concept debunked by new analysis of human genome - Washington Post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is the washingtonpost, dummy. You're so consumed by the "angry fundie" syndrome, you can't understand what is written.
Click to expand...


You are so blinded you could not see who the source was goofy until I pointed it out to you so tell me what you think was being said ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> here's another beneficial gene mutation found in all humans . but you constantly say it's harmful or doesn't exsist :What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA) Part 7/8 HD - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> let's see how fast ywc attempts to bullshit his way around it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture daws ? It's nonsense because he is saying this mutation has allowed a space for our brains to grow larger and thus make us more intelligent. Hmm the neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans are we devolving ? why are neanderthals extinct  ? were neanderthals more intelligent ? You tried slipping this through before. Clearly that gene is different in humans because the creator wanted it that way.
> 
> I still believe the creator used our genes to make sure his punishment for sin is met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really slapdick: "You tried slipping this through before"YWC  is a false statement attempting to infer some sort of wrong doing.
> the reality is I presented evidence that refuted your gene paranoia.
> 
> 
> your belife besides being silly and ignorant has no basis in fact!
Click to expand...


You could not spot conjecture if it swam up and bite you on your twinkie, dick breath.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because anything discovered outside of research performed by Christian creationist ministries is a conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the washington post dummy.
> 
> ?Junk DNA? concept debunked by new analysis of human genome - Washington Post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah and....it's no proof that god did it!
Click to expand...


The moral of this story is do not use outdated material unless you like looking like a fool that you're,


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong as always, adaptation is a feature of evolution not separate from it .
> either way it's more proof of evolution not creation.
> creation infers that the thing created is perfectly fitted to it's environment ,adaption of any kind disproves that.
> but you can keep wishing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No changes are coming from what was once thought of as junk DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow you're just full of dodges today!
> 
> "No changes are coming from what was once thought of as junk DNA"---ywc
> is this a question or a statement ?
> without the proper punctuation and context it's meaningless.
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/eYDmEaN48E8]What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA) Part 6/8 HD - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Junk DNA is has a function of keeping the organism healthy. It is also genetic information from previous generations. Also can provide answers why organisms have the ability to adapt but there are still limits to adaptations.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the washington post dummy.
> 
> ?Junk DNA? concept debunked by new analysis of human genome - Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is the washingtonpost, dummy. You're so consumed by the "angry fundie" syndrome, you can't understand what is written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so blinded you could not see who the source was goofy until I pointed it out to you so tell me what you think was being said ?
Click to expand...

Who is blinded, goofy. I pointed out to you that Christian creation pseudo-scientists were not the ones performing the research. 

Did you even read the article?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the washington post dummy.
> 
> ?Junk DNA? concept debunked by new analysis of human genome - Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is the washingtonpost, dummy. You're so consumed by the "angry fundie" syndrome, you can't understand what is written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> read it twice, still no mention of god....
Click to expand...



Are you confusing conversations again ?The whole point was to show you were using outdated material now if you wish to discuss the vmat2 gene let's do it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is the washingtonpost, dummy. You're so consumed by the "angry fundie" syndrome, you can't understand what is written.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so blinded you could not see who the source was goofy until I pointed it out to you so tell me what you think was being said ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is blinded, goofy. I pointed out to you that Christian creation pseudo-scientists were not the ones performing the research.
> 
> Did you even read the article?
Click to expand...


Hollie you dumbshit of course I did now would you like to explain what you read ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No changes are coming from what was once thought of as junk DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> wow you're just full of dodges today!
> 
> "No changes are coming from what was once thought of as junk DNA"---ywc
> is this a question or a statement ?
> without the proper punctuation and context it's meaningless.
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/eYDmEaN48E8]What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA) Part 6/8 HD - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junk DNA is has a function of keeping the organism healthy. It is also genetic information from previous generations. Also can provide answers why organisms have the ability to adapt but there are still limits to adaptations.
Click to expand...

You really should avoid responding to these types of articles. Your simpleton observations make it clear you're better at cutting and pasting than thinking on your own.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is the washingtonpost, dummy. You're so consumed by the "angry fundie" syndrome, you can't understand what is written.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so blinded you could not see who the source was goofy until I pointed it out to you so tell me what you think was being said ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is blinded, goofy. I pointed out to you that Christian creation pseudo-scientists were not the ones performing the research.
> 
> Did you even read the article?
Click to expand...


You disagreed with the findings of the human genome project and they were not creationists


----------



## PretentiousGuy

Youwerecreated said:


> Conjecture daws ? It's nonsense because he is saying this mutation has allowed a space for our brains to grow larger and thus make us more intelligent. Hmm the neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans are we devolving ? why are neanderthals extinct  ? were neanderthals more intelligent ? You tried slipping this through before. Clearly that gene is different in humans because the creator wanted it that way.
> 
> I still believe the creator used our genes to make sure his punishment for sin is met.



The neanderthals likely did not go extinct it is likely that they interbred with modern humans. Neanderthals were highly intelligent they lived in complex social groups, used tools, created structures, and used language. The primary advantage that homo sapiens had were the much larger social groups and the communication between them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow you're just full of dodges today!
> 
> "No changes are coming from what was once thought of as junk DNA"---ywc
> is this a question or a statement ?
> without the proper punctuation and context it's meaningless.
> 
> What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA) Part 6/8 HD - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Junk DNA is has a function of keeping the organism healthy. It is also genetic information from previous generations. Also can provide answers why organisms have the ability to adapt but there are still limits to adaptations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really should avoid responding to these types of articles. Your simpleton observations make it clear you're better at cutting and pasting than thinking on your own.
Click to expand...


You have comprehension issues.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so blinded you could not see who the source was goofy until I pointed it out to you so tell me what you think was being said ?
> 
> 
> 
> Who is blinded, goofy. I pointed out to you that Christian creation pseudo-scientists were not the ones performing the research.
> 
> Did you even read the article?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie you dumbshit of course I did now would you like to explain what you read ?
Click to expand...


Come on, now. You really didn't understand a single concept in the article, right?

I guess we can take away you're not at all surprised that Christian creationist pseudo-scientists had no part in the actual research.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Junk DNA is has a function of keeping the organism healthy. It is also genetic information from previous generations. Also can provide answers why organisms have the ability to adapt but there are still limits to adaptations.
> 
> 
> 
> You really should avoid responding to these types of articles. Your simpleton observations make it clear you're better at cutting and pasting than thinking on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have comprehension issues.
Click to expand...


You're just embarrassed at being unable to understand the context of the article you cut and pasted.


----------



## Youwerecreated

PretentiousGuy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture daws ? It's nonsense because he is saying this mutation has allowed a space for our brains to grow larger and thus make us more intelligent. Hmm the neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans are we devolving ? why are neanderthals extinct  ? were neanderthals more intelligent ? You tried slipping this through before. Clearly that gene is different in humans because the creator wanted it that way.
> 
> I still believe the creator used our genes to make sure his punishment for sin is met.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The neanderthals likely did not go extinct it is likely that they interbred with modern humans. Neanderthals were highly intelligent they lived in complex social groups, used tools, created structures, and used language. The primary advantage that homo sapiens had were the much larger social groups and the communication between them.
Click to expand...


It's possible they did not go extinct I believe they did in the global flood. I really find it hard to believe that DNA could survive 70,000 years as evolutionist claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should avoid responding to these types of articles. Your simpleton observations make it clear you're better at cutting and pasting than thinking on your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have comprehension issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just embarrassed at being unable to understand the context of the article you cut and pasted.
Click to expand...


Please provide proof of your accusation and we will discuss it.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture daws ? It's nonsense because he is saying this mutation has allowed a space for our brains to grow larger and thus make us more intelligent. Hmm the neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans are we devolving ? why are neanderthals extinct  ? were neanderthals more intelligent ? You tried slipping this through before. Clearly that gene is different in humans because the creator wanted it that way.
> 
> I still believe the creator used our genes to make sure his punishment for sin is met.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The neanderthals likely did not go extinct it is likely that they interbred with modern humans. Neanderthals were highly intelligent they lived in complex social groups, used tools, created structures, and used language. The primary advantage that homo sapiens had were the much larger social groups and the communication between them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's possible they did not go extinct I believe they did in the global flood. I really find it hard to believe that DNA could survive 70,000 years as evolutionist claim.
Click to expand...


The global flood is a Christian creationist claim thoroughly debunked.

 Neanderthals have also been identified as having existed much more than 6,000 years ego. 
So there you have it, yet another biblical myth debunked.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The neanderthals likely did not go extinct it is likely that they interbred with modern humans. Neanderthals were highly intelligent they lived in complex social groups, used tools, created structures, and used language. The primary advantage that homo sapiens had were the much larger social groups and the communication between them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible they did not go extinct I believe they did in the global flood. I really find it hard to believe that DNA could survive 70,000 years as evolutionist claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The global flood is a Christian creationist claim thoroughly debunked.
> 
> Neanderthals have also been identified as having existed much more than 6,000 years ego.
> So there you have it, yet another biblical myth debunked.
Click to expand...


Once again showing your ignorance.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have comprehension issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just embarrassed at being unable to understand the context of the article you cut and pasted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please provide proof of your accusation and we will discuss it.
Click to expand...


Your lack of ability to bring forth any relevant commentary regarding the article is proof enough.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible they did not go extinct I believe they did in the global flood. I really find it hard to believe that DNA could survive 70,000 years as evolutionist claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The global flood is a Christian creationist claim thoroughly debunked.
> 
> Neanderthals have also been identified as having existed much more than 6,000 years ego.
> So there you have it, yet another biblical myth debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again showing your ignorance.
Click to expand...


Once again showing your biblical tales and fables are easily dismantled and lacking validation when confronted with fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The global flood is a Christian creationist claim thoroughly debunked.
> 
> Neanderthals have also been identified as having existed much more than 6,000 years ego.
> So there you have it, yet another biblical myth debunked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again showing your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again showing your biblical tales and fables are easily dismantled and lacking validation when confronted with fact.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXH5lwMBNiE]Global Flood: Evidence for Rocks and Fossils - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just embarrassed at being unable to understand the context of the article you cut and pasted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide proof of your accusation and we will discuss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of ability to bring forth any relevant commentary regarding the article is proof enough.
Click to expand...


You made the accusation


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again showing your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again showing your biblical tales and fables are easily dismantled and lacking validation when confronted with fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXH5lwMBNiE]Global Flood: Evidence for Rocks and Fossils - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


As noted, the tale of your gawds mass murdering the bulk of humanity via a global flood is a myth.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide proof of your accusation and we will discuss it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of ability to bring forth any relevant commentary regarding the article is proof enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made the accusation
Click to expand...


And you can't defend your position.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of ability to bring forth any relevant commentary regarding the article is proof enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made the accusation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you can't defend your position.
Click to expand...


I already did, JUNK DNA is not JUNK DNA !


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made the accusation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you can't defend your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already did, JUNK DNA is not JUNK DNA !
Click to expand...


Wow. Insightful, compelling and lucid. 

Are you at all curious as to why real scientists are doing research and christian creationist charlatans are faking their credentials and and faking creationist "labs"?


----------



## UltimateReality

*Scandal! Gauger Filmed in Front of Green Screen*
David Klinghoffer December 19, 2012 12:23 AM | Permalink

_Here's the most ludicrous criticism of intelligent design that I've come across so far this week. Richard B. Hoppe at Panda's Thumb is echoed by Casey Johnston at Ars Technica in jeering that a video I highlighted -- Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger speaking about population genetics -- was filmed in front of a green screen. In a post-production effect Ann was given a more relevant backdrop, a stock photo of a lab.

Shock! Horror! Yes, it's true. I confess.

Gauger, a PhD in developmental biology who was a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard, has the science on her side. It's a typical Darwinist feint: *When you don't have the arguments and you don't have the science, change the subject and pile on the red herrings. *Casey Johnson, who dismisses our little video as a "nonsensical rant," can't reply to Dr. Gauger on the merits. If she could, she would._

Scandal! Gauger Filmed in Front of Green Screen - Evolution News & Views


----------



## UltimateReality

_His remarkable paper is important for two reasons: (1) It undermines 50 years of dogma on the origin of life by pointing out the general failure to account for the top-down, holistic information flow in living systems. (2) It emphasizes abstractions like algorithms, information flow and information control that defy materialistic capabilities. If all Davies and Walker can say in conclusion is that somehow, in some way they cannot describe realistically or in detail, causation flipped from bottom-up to top-down, leading to the most elegant and sophisticated systems known to man, you know evolutionists are in big trouble.

A third way this paper is important is in the way it re-emphasizes how well-designed -- stunningly so -- life is. The authors are profuse on this point, saying that life appears to the beholder to work as if by magic. Their observation poses a problem for materialism but not for intelligent design, which comes equipped with a toolkit to explain top-down systems._

_A useful summary of life's superb informational design can be found in the only chart in the paper, "Table 1: Hallmarks of Life," which offers some points to ponder. We end with that:
_
*Hallmarks of Life*
_-Global organization
-Information as a causal agency
-Top-down causation
-Analog and digital information processing
-Laws and states co-evolve
-Logical structure of a universal constructor
-Dual hardware and software roles of genetic material
-Non-trivial replication
*-Physical separation of instructions (algorithms)
from the mechanism that implements them*_

Assessing the "Algorithmic Origin of Life" - Evolution News & Views


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> *Scandal! Gauger Filmed in Front of Green Screen*
> David Klinghoffer December 19, 2012 12:23 AM | Permalink
> 
> _Here's the most ludicrous criticism of intelligent design that I've come across so far this week. Richard B. Hoppe at Panda's Thumb is echoed by Casey Johnston at Ars Technica in jeering that a video I highlighted -- Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger speaking about population genetics -- was filmed in front of a green screen. In a post-production effect Ann was given a more relevant backdrop, a stock photo of a lab.
> 
> Shock! Horror! Yes, it's true. I confess.
> 
> Gauger, a PhD in developmental biology who was a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard, has the science on her side. It's a typical Darwinist feint: *When you don't have the arguments and you don't have the science, change the subject and pile on the red herrings. *Casey Johnson, who dismisses our little video as a "nonsensical rant," can't reply to Dr. Gauger on the merits. If she could, she would._
> 
> Scandal! Gauger Filmed in Front of Green Screen - Evolution News & Views


It's really the state of the art for Christian creationist "science". Fake science, phony claims, fake "research" and phony imposters posing in phony labs.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> _His remarkable paper is important for two reasons: (1) It undermines 50 years of dogma on the origin of life by pointing out the general failure to account for the top-down, holistic information flow in living systems. (2) It emphasizes abstractions like algorithms, information flow and information control that defy materialistic capabilities. If all Davies and Walker can say in conclusion is that somehow, in some way they cannot describe realistically or in detail, causation flipped from bottom-up to top-down, leading to the most elegant and sophisticated systems known to man, you know evolutionists are in big trouble.
> 
> A third way this paper is important is in the way it re-emphasizes how well-designed -- stunningly so -- life is. The authors are profuse on this point, saying that life appears to the beholder to work as if by magic. Their observation poses a problem for materialism but not for intelligent design, which comes equipped with a toolkit to explain top-down systems._
> 
> _A useful summary of life's superb informational design can be found in the only chart in the paper, "Table 1: Hallmarks of Life," which offers some points to ponder. We end with that:
> _
> *Hallmarks of Life*
> _-Global organization
> -Information as a causal agency
> -Top-down causation
> -Analog and digital information processing
> -Laws and states co-evolve
> -Logical structure of a universal constructor
> -Dual hardware and software roles of genetic material
> -Non-trivial replication
> *-Physical separation of instructions (algorithms)
> from the mechanism that implements them*_
> 
> Assessing the "Algorithmic Origin of Life" - Evolution News & Views


Christian creationist charlatans are paper shuffling. How cute.


----------



## Hollie

*She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen*

She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen

This is Dr. Ann Gauger, a &#8220;Senior Research Scientist at Biologic Institute&#8221; (which is funded by the Intelligent Design-promoting Discovery Institute), talking about what she thinks is population genetics:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tuZIxDxkxI&feature=player_embedded]Science & Human Origins: How accurate are current models used in population genetics? - YouTube[/ame]

The commenters at Sandwalk have already dismantled everything she said&#8230; (Sandwalk: Ann Gauger Describes the Intelligent Design Creationist Version of Population Genetics) but a lot of viewers noticed something else even more interesting:

She&#8217;s not really in a lab. 

_She&#8217;s in front of a green screen. _

*The lab is a lie.*

Did you expect anything else? She&#8217;s an ID proponent. It&#8217;s not like they do any actual science &#8212; they just make things up and spread their lies to people gullible enough to believe them because they look professional, sound authoritative, and pretend to be scientists.


----------



## Hollie

Not surprisingly, real scientists are taking issue with the charlatans at the christian creationist Discovery Institute for their fake "lab" and their fake "research". 

This is one of the many reasons why creationist charlatans don't submit for peer review. Fake science, phony labs and christian creationist charlatans caught yet again in an embarassing lie.



*Behold! The Legendary Intelligent Design Creationism Research Laboratory!*

Behold! The Legendary Intelligent Design Creationism Research Laboratory! » Pharyngula

The Discovery Institute released a video of one of their stars, Ann Gauger, explaining the flaws in &#8220;population genetics&#8221; (I put it in quotes because it wasn&#8217;t a description of the field of population genetics that any competent biologist would recognize). Larry Moran points out the errors. (Sandwalk: Ann Gauger Describes the Intelligent Design Creationist Version of Population Genetics)

But then, someone noticed something else: the video was fake. It was Ann Gauger, all right, talking in a &#8220;lab&#8221;. Again, the quotes are because she was actually talking in front of a green screen, and a stock photo of a lab was spliced in behind her. Oops. It adds comic absurdity on top of the egregious errors in her babbling.

But of course that&#8217;s exactly what the DI wants. They can&#8217;t answer for the stupidity of her comments, but they can wave their hands and shout, &#8220;We do too have a lab! A real lab! And it&#8217;s sciencey and everything!&#8221; Because, after all, when you&#8217;re doing cargo cult science, (Cargo cult science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)  the props are all important, and the substance doesn&#8217;t matter.


----------



## UltimateReality

The fact that the folks at Panda's Thumb are too stupid to figure out that many figures are photographed or interviewed in front of Green Screens just adds to the proof of their stupidity. I'm guessing they believe that Richard Dawkins is really floating in space with a view of London in this video. Can you imagine Panda Thumb's horror when they find out Dawkins is a "fake" to?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wF-yUYRo5AY#]Richard Dawkins on Bill Maher - YouTube[/ame]!

*This is so typical of their attack techniques which attempt to camouflage their inability to respond to a scientific argument. Pathetic.*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> The fact that the folks at Panda's Thumb are too stupid to figure out that many figures are photographed or interviewed in front of Green Screens just adds to the proof of their stupidity. I'm guessing they believe that Richard Dawkins is really floating in space with a view of London in this video. Can you imagine Panda Thumb's horror when they find out Dawkins is a "fake" to?
> 
> Richard Dawkins on Bill Maher - YouTube!
> 
> *This is so typical of their attack techniques which attempt to camouflage their inability to respond to a scientific argument. Pathetic.*



That was just pitiful. Yours is so typical of the apologetics for lies and deceit that christian creationists will further.

This was not just embarrassing; it shows a severe lack of understanding of this field of study. No true researcher in the field of phylogenetics would have made such a mistake. It's a rather glaring demonstration of Gauger&#8217;s incompetence.

What&#8217;s even more embarrassing for the hacks at the DI is that Gauger apparently doesn&#8217;t understand the difference between phylogenetics and population genetics. She was babbling on about population genetics when she should have said phylogenetics. What is worse is the fact that this wasn't noticed and addressed by the hacks at the various Christian creationist ministries.

It's difficult to respond to "scientific" argument made by a christian creationist hack when the creationist is clueless as to the science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the folks at Panda's Thumb are too stupid to figure out that many figures are photographed or interviewed in front of Green Screens just adds to the proof of their stupidity. I'm guessing they believe that Richard Dawkins is really floating in space with a view of London in this video. Can you imagine Panda Thumb's horror when they find out Dawkins is a "fake" to?
> 
> Richard Dawkins on Bill Maher - YouTube!
> 
> *This is so typical of their attack techniques which attempt to camouflage their inability to respond to a scientific argument. Pathetic.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was just pitiful. Yours is so typical of the apologetics for lies and deceit that christian creationists will further.
> 
> This was not just embarrassing; it shows a severe lack of understanding of this field of study. No true researcher in the field of phylogenetics would have made such a mistake. It's a rather glaring demonstration of Gaugers incompetence.
> 
> Whats even more embarrassing for the hacks at the DI is that Gauger apparently doesnt understand the difference between phylogenetics and population genetics. She was babbling on about population genetics when she should have said phylogenetics. What is worse is the fact that this wasn't noticed and addressed by the hacks at the various Christian creationist ministries.
> 
> It's difficult to respond to "scientific" argument made by a christian creationist hack when the creationist is clueless as to the science.
Click to expand...


People that are on the fence look at your posts I am positive you scare many of them away from your side. It was really funny when Ima called you out. You annoy people and you never provide arguments or respond to questions or even provide proof of your own accusations.

 I hope when you are before the lamb's throne you do not act like you do in this thread.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the folks at Panda's Thumb are too stupid to figure out that many figures are photographed or interviewed in front of Green Screens just adds to the proof of their stupidity. I'm guessing they believe that Richard Dawkins is really floating in space with a view of London in this video. Can you imagine Panda Thumb's horror when they find out Dawkins is a "fake" to?
> 
> Richard Dawkins on Bill Maher - YouTube!
> 
> *This is so typical of their attack techniques which attempt to camouflage their inability to respond to a scientific argument. Pathetic.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was just pitiful. Yours is so typical of the apologetics for lies and deceit that christian creationists will further.
> 
> This was not just embarrassing; it shows a severe lack of understanding of this field of study. No true researcher in the field of phylogenetics would have made such a mistake. It's a rather glaring demonstration of Gaugers incompetence.
> 
> Whats even more embarrassing for the hacks at the DI is that Gauger apparently doesnt understand the difference between phylogenetics and population genetics. She was babbling on about population genetics when she should have said phylogenetics. What is worse is the fact that this wasn't noticed and addressed by the hacks at the various Christian creationist ministries.
> 
> It's difficult to respond to "scientific" argument made by a christian creationist hack when the creationist is clueless as to the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People that are on the fence look at your posts I am positive you scare many of them away from your side. It was really funny when Ima called you out. You annoy people and you never provide arguments or respond to questions or even provide proof of your own accusations.
> 
> I hope when you are before the lamb's throne you do not act like you do in this thread.
Click to expand...

Funny stuff, dude. Using your gawds to issue cheap threats. 

Did you somehow miss that on this very page, I used sources articles, references and commentary of my own to show the sleazy tactics of lies and deceit used by Christian creationist ministries? How ironic that you attack me for exposing liars and cheats but you have nothing whatsoever to say regarding the Christian creationist industry using lies to further their agenda. I suppose that should not be terribly surprising as you have used the same methods as your ministries.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution they speak of is merely conjecture the gene itself causes belief of a higher power the scriptures said that God put that into our conscience. Some see this as evidence of God confirming his word mind you what was written in the bible was written long before the discovery of the gene.
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe in evolution.... sometimes. Gotcha.
> 
> So if god put this gene (that they never talked about, btw) in us, why do some people not believe in god? And then I assume they could do gene therapy to make us all believe in god? Are you fucking serious? Or just pulling my leg?
> The bible wasn't written by god, so it's not his words, so that's not even relevant to what we're talking about.
> 
> 
> "Design in nature is all the evidence you need unless you believe chaos will promote order and precision in nature."
> 
> I don't presume to know why there is precision in nature and neither should you. Or can you show me actual proof of your designer? No? Then stfu about that. Okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the proper term would be *microadaptations* which the organism already possessed the ablilty to adapt,sorry.
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> *Scandal! Gauger Filmed in Front of Green Screen*
> David Klinghoffer December 19, 2012 12:23 AM | Permalink
> 
> _Here's the most ludicrous criticism of intelligent design that I've come across so far this week. Richard B. Hoppe at Panda's Thumb is echoed by Casey Johnston at Ars Technica in jeering that a video I highlighted -- Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger speaking about population genetics -- was filmed in front of a green screen. In a post-production effect Ann was given a more relevant backdrop, a stock photo of a lab.
> 
> Shock! Horror! Yes, it's true. I confess.
> 
> Gauger, a PhD in developmental biology who was a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard, has the science on her side. It's a typical Darwinist feint: *When you don't have the arguments and you don't have the science, change the subject and pile on the red herrings. *Casey Johnson, who dismisses our little video as a "nonsensical rant," can't reply to Dr. Gauger on the merits. If she could, she would._
> 
> Scandal! Gauger Filmed in Front of Green Screen - Evolution News & Views



I thought you were leaving. Ready to hear more about how ID is just an argument from induction? Cool. Let's go.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe in evolution.... sometimes. Gotcha.
> 
> So if god put this gene (that they never talked about, btw) in us, why do some people not believe in god? And then I assume they could do gene therapy to make us all believe in god? Are you fucking serious? Or just pulling my leg?
> The bible wasn't written by god, so it's not his words, so that's not even relevant to what we're talking about.
> 
> 
> "Design in nature is all the evidence you need unless you believe chaos will promote order and precision in nature."
> 
> I don't presume to know why there is precision in nature and neither should you. Or can you show me actual proof of your designer? No? Then stfu about that. Okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the proper term would be *microadaptations* which the organism already possessed the ablilty to adapt,sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting organisms must mutate to adapt to their environment ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Scandal! Gauger Filmed in Front of Green Screen*
> David Klinghoffer December 19, 2012 12:23 AM | Permalink
> 
> _Here's the most ludicrous criticism of intelligent design that I've come across so far this week. Richard B. Hoppe at Panda's Thumb is echoed by Casey Johnston at Ars Technica in jeering that a video I highlighted -- Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger speaking about population genetics -- was filmed in front of a green screen. In a post-production effect Ann was given a more relevant backdrop, a stock photo of a lab.
> 
> Shock! Horror! Yes, it's true. I confess.
> 
> Gauger, a PhD in developmental biology who was a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard, has the science on her side. It's a typical Darwinist feint: *When you don't have the arguments and you don't have the science, change the subject and pile on the red herrings. *Casey Johnson, who dismisses our little video as a "nonsensical rant," can't reply to Dr. Gauger on the merits. If she could, she would._
> 
> Scandal! Gauger Filmed in Front of Green Screen - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were leaving. Ready to hear more about how ID is just an argument from induction? Cool. Let's go.
Click to expand...


What is your point here ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the proper term would be *microadaptations* which the organism already possessed the ablilty to adapt,sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting organisms must mutate to adapt to their environment ?
Click to expand...


There's a name for what you're talking about: evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting organisms must mutate to adapt to their environment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a name for what you're talking about: evolution.
Click to expand...


Not evolution,to adapt is a natural ability that doesn't require mutations. Evolution on the other hand has to happen through a gain of new genetic information through mutations.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the proper term would be *microadaptations* which the organism already possessed the ablilty to adapt,sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting organisms must mutate to adapt to their environment ?
Click to expand...


Are you aware that organisms actually do adapt to their environments? 

Creationist may choose to deny this but it is demonstrated phenomenon in nature... creationist conspiracy theories aside.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting organisms must mutate to adapt to their environment ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a name for what you're talking about: evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not evolution,to adapt is a natural ability that doesn't require mutations. Evolution on the other hand has to happen through a gain of new genetic information through mutations.
Click to expand...


So, you're suggesting that the flu virus, for one example, has "natural abilities". Where did such abilities come from?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting organisms must mutate to adapt to their environment ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that organisms actually do adapt to their environments?
> 
> Creationist may choose to deny this but it is demonstrated phenomenon in nature... creationist conspiracy theories aside.
Click to expand...


Yes which is an ability that all organisms possess, has nothing to do with an organism evolving in to a new kind.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a name for what you're talking about: evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not evolution,to adapt is a natural ability that doesn't require mutations. Evolution on the other hand has to happen through a gain of new genetic information through mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you're suggesting that the flu virus, for one example, has "natural abilities". Where did such abilities come from?
Click to expand...


A virus consists of a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat.An infection or disease can be caused by such an agent.

A virus is not a living organism and does not possess the ability to adapt as you suggest the host cell is what has the ability to adapt.

Only living organisms have the ability to adapt so your question makes no sense.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting organisms must mutate to adapt to their environment ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you aware that organisms actually do adapt to their environments?
> 
> Creationist may choose to deny this but it is demonstrated phenomenon in nature... creationist conspiracy theories aside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes which is an ability that all organisms possess, has nothing to do with an organism evolving in to a new kind.
Click to expand...

Where do you think vestigial bones come from? Are they spare parts left over from tinkering by the gawds?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you aware that organisms actually do adapt to their environments?
> 
> Creationist may choose to deny this but it is demonstrated phenomenon in nature... creationist conspiracy theories aside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes which is an ability that all organisms possess, has nothing to do with an organism evolving in to a new kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you think vestigial bones come from? Are they spare parts left over from tinkering by the gawds?
Click to expand...


No they are not spare parts left over they are parts that have lost function over time showing that the curse on man for sin is alive and well. The list of such items are decreasing because they are finding many of these things still perform a function.

You are speaking of both bones and organs.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not evolution,to adapt is a natural ability that doesn't require mutations. Evolution on the other hand has to happen through a gain of new genetic information through mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're suggesting that the flu virus, for one example, has "natural abilities". Where did such abilities come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A virus consists of a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat.An infection or disease can be caused by such an agent.
> 
> A virus is not a living organism and does not possess the ability to adapt as you suggest the host cell is what has the ability to adapt.
> 
> Only living organisms have the ability to adapt so your question makes no sense.
Click to expand...


I used to be a meat eater but my thinking EVOLVED to a more compassionate and healthy lifestyle. And I'm passing these traits down to my 2 daughters who are both vegetarians and against cruelty to animals. See how that works?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes which is an ability that all organisms possess, has nothing to do with an organism evolving in to a new kind.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think vestigial bones come from? Are they spare parts left over from tinkering by the gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are not spare parts left over they are parts that have lost function over time showing that the curse on man for sin is alive and well. The list of such items are decreasing because they are finding many of these things still perform a function.
> 
> You are speaking of both bones and organs.
Click to expand...


So... are whales, for example, (having vestigial "finger-like" bones) also worthy of curses from the gawds?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're suggesting that the flu virus, for one example, has "natural abilities". Where did such abilities come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A virus consists of a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat.An infection or disease can be caused by such an agent.
> 
> A virus is not a living organism and does not possess the ability to adapt as you suggest the host cell is what has the ability to adapt.
> 
> Only living organisms have the ability to adapt so your question makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used to be a meat eater but my thinking EVOLVED to a more compassionate and healthy lifestyle. And I'm passing these traits down to my 2 daughters who are both vegetarians and against cruelty to animals. See how that works?
Click to expand...


That is called making a choice not evolving.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think vestigial bones come from? Are they spare parts left over from tinkering by the gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not spare parts left over they are parts that have lost function over time showing that the curse on man for sin is alive and well. The list of such items are decreasing because they are finding many of these things still perform a function.
> 
> You are speaking of both bones and organs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... are whales, for example, (having vestigial "finger-like" bones) also worthy of curses from the gawds?
Click to expand...


That is only an assumption that those bones served no purpose.This teaching is based on an assumption that is then is taught as science, the assumption that the ancestry and function of the structure is known. using observational science, it is impossible to identify exact ancestors or even the exact function of structures because observational science deals with things that are observable in the here and now.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not spare parts left over they are parts that have lost function over time showing that the curse on man for sin is alive and well. The list of such items are decreasing because they are finding many of these things still perform a function.
> 
> You are speaking of both bones and organs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... are whales, for example, (having vestigial "finger-like" bones) also worthy of curses from the gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is only an assumption that those bones served no purpose.This teaching is based on an assumption that is then is taught as science, the assumption that the ancestry and function of the structure is known. using observational science, it is impossible to identify exact ancestors or even the exact function of structures because observational science deals with things that are observable in the here and now.
Click to expand...

You don't understand what you're writing. Vestigial bones suggest remnants of anatomy that were once used and now serve no purpose. Whales, for example, 

Why would the gawds add useless parts to humans and animals alike?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... are whales, for example, (having vestigial "finger-like" bones) also worthy of curses from the gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is only an assumption that those bones served no purpose.This teaching is based on an assumption that is then is taught as science, the assumption that the ancestry and function of the structure is known. using observational science, it is impossible to identify exact ancestors or even the exact function of structures because observational science deals with things that are observable in the here and now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand what you're writing. Vestigial bones suggest remnants of anatomy that were once used and now serve no purpose. Whales, for example,
> 
> Why would the gawds add useless parts to humans and animals alike?
Click to expand...


No you don't understand these bones assuming they were left over parts and performed no function is nothing but an assumption and no evidence to back the assumption.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... are whales, for example, (having vestigial "finger-like" bones) also worthy of curses from the gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is only an assumption that those bones served no purpose.This teaching is based on an assumption that is then is taught as science, the assumption that the ancestry and function of the structure is known. using observational science, it is impossible to identify exact ancestors or even the exact function of structures because observational science deals with things that are observable in the here and now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand what you're writing. Vestigial bones suggest remnants of anatomy that were once used and now serve no purpose. Whales, for example,
> 
> Why would the gawds add useless parts to humans and animals alike?
Click to expand...


In humans they use to make the same claim concerning the appendix because we could live without the organ. They have found that the organ stores bacteria and Enzymes that aid in the digestive system.

The science community sometimes rush to an explanation only to be proven wrong later.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is only an assumption that those bones served no purpose.This teaching is based on an assumption that is then is taught as science, the assumption that the ancestry and function of the structure is known. using observational science, it is impossible to identify exact ancestors or even the exact function of structures because observational science deals with things that are observable in the here and now.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand what you're writing. Vestigial bones suggest remnants of anatomy that were once used and now serve no purpose. Whales, for example,
> 
> Why would the gawds add useless parts to humans and animals alike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't understand these bones assuming they worth left over parts and performed no function is nothing but an assumption and no evidence to back the assumption.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of dancing but you're running out of excuses to avoid addressing the issue that the usefulness of vestigial organs / anatomy is assumption. 

CB360: Function of vestigial organs.

 Practically all "vestigial" organs in man have been shown to have definite uses and not to be vestigial at all.

Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 75-76.

Response:

1. "Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."

Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.

2. Some vestigial organs can be determined to be useless if experiments show that organisms with them survive no better than organisms without them.

Links:

Theobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2

References:

1. G. & C. Merriam. 1974. The Merriam-WebsterDictionary. New York: Simon & Schuster. 2. Morris, H., 1974. (see above). 3. Yamamoto, Y. and W. R. Jeffery., 2000. Central role for the lens in cave fish eyedegeneration. Science 289: 631-633.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture daws ? It's nonsense because he is saying this mutation has allowed a space for our brains to grow larger and thus make us more intelligent. Hmm the neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans are we devolving ? why are neanderthals extinct  ? were neanderthals more intelligent ? You tried slipping this through before. Clearly that gene is different in humans because the creator wanted it that way.
> 
> I still believe the creator used our genes to make sure his punishment for sin is met.
> 
> 
> 
> really slapdick: "You tried slipping this through before"YWC  is a false statement attempting to infer some sort of wrong doing.
> the reality is I presented evidence that refuted your gene paranoia.
> 
> 
> your belife besides being silly and ignorant has no basis in fact!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could not spot conjecture if it swam up and bite you on your twinkie, dick breath.
Click to expand...

all of your posts are conjecture efinition of CONJECTURE
1obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : supposition 
2a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the washington post dummy.
> 
> ?Junk DNA? concept debunked by new analysis of human genome - Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> yeah and....it's no proof that god did it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The moral of this story is do not use outdated material unless you like looking like a fool that you're,
Click to expand...

l there no moral to your story...it's a dodge around the other nine proofs of evolution in modern humans.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A virus consists of a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat.An infection or disease can be caused by such an agent.
> 
> A virus is not a living organism and does not possess the ability to adapt as you suggest the host cell is what has the ability to adapt.
> 
> Only living organisms have the ability to adapt so your question makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used to be a meat eater but my thinking EVOLVED to a more compassionate and healthy lifestyle. And I'm passing these traits down to my 2 daughters who are both vegetarians and against cruelty to animals. See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is called making a choice not evolving.
Click to expand...


My thinking evolved from a neanderthal to a person who doesn't mistreat sentient beings. vegetarians are healthier and have more chance of survival and longevity. 

Anyways, here's another one. I was in a house that was built in the late 18th century and when we went upstairs, had to duck to get through the doors. That's because back then, humans were shorter, and we're getting taller as the centuries pass. So we're evolving to a taller and taller species all the time, with our brains getting bigger as well as we grow. Is THAT evolution of the human species?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No changes are coming from what was once thought of as junk DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> wow you're just full of dodges today!
> 
> "No changes are coming from what was once thought of as junk DNA"---ywc
> is this a question or a statement ?
> without the proper punctuation and context it's meaningless.
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/eYDmEaN48E8]What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA) Part 6/8 HD - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junk DNA is has a function of keeping the organism healthy. It is also genetic information from previous generations. Also can provide answers why organisms have the ability to adapt but there are still limits to adaptations.
Click to expand...

you do realise that the previous statement contradicts this one:"No changes are coming from what was once thought of as junk DNA"---ywc  
now who has problems following the gist of this thread?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is the washingtonpost, dummy. You're so consumed by the "angry fundie" syndrome, you can't understand what is written.
> 
> 
> 
> read it twice, still no mention of god....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you confusing conversations again ?The whole point was to show you were using outdated material now if you wish to discuss the vmat2 gene let's do it.
Click to expand...

no but you are ..you started yammering about the god gene that's the main point of this conversation, any thing else is you trying and failing to get over..
so who's confused again?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand what you're writing. Vestigial bones suggest remnants of anatomy that were once used and now serve no purpose. Whales, for example,
> 
> Why would the gawds add useless parts to humans and animals alike?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't understand these bones assuming they worth left over parts and performed no function is nothing but an assumption and no evidence to back the assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lot of dancing but you're running out of excuses to avoid addressing the issue that the usefulness of vestigial organs / anatomy is assumption.
> 
> CB360: Function of vestigial organs.
> 
> Practically all "vestigial" organs in man have been shown to have definite uses and not to be vestigial at all.
> 
> Source:
> 
> Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 75-76.
> 
> Response:
> 
> 1. "Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."
> 
> Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.
> 
> 2. Some vestigial organs can be determined to be useless if experiments show that organisms with them survive no better than organisms without them.
> 
> Links:
> 
> Theobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> 
> References:
> 
> 1. G. & C. Merriam. 1974. The Merriam-WebsterDictionary. New York: Simon & Schuster. 2. Morris, H., 1974. (see above). 3. Yamamoto, Y. and W. R. Jeffery., 2000. Central role for the lens in cave fish eyedegeneration. Science 289: 631-633.
Click to expand...


Great you posted something I said.


----------



## daws101

PretentiousGuy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture daws ? It's nonsense because he is saying this mutation has allowed a space for our brains to grow larger and thus make us more intelligent. Hmm the neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans are we devolving ? why are neanderthals extinct  ? were neanderthals more intelligent ? You tried slipping this through before. Clearly that gene is different in humans because the creator wanted it that way.
> 
> I still believe the creator used our genes to make sure his punishment for sin is met.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The neanderthals likely did not go extinct it is likely that they interbred with modern humans. Neanderthals were highly intelligent they lived in complex social groups, used tools, created structures, and used language. The primary advantage that homo sapiens had were the much larger social groups and the communication between them.
Click to expand...

We do have bigger brains than Neanderthals did 
Study through CT scans suggests we are distinguished by different mental capacities 
Below:


Modern humans possess brain structures larger than their Neanderthal counterparts, suggesting we are distinguished from them by different mental capacities, scientists find. 

We are currently the only extant human lineage, but Neanderthals, our closest-known evolutionary relatives, still walked the Earth as recently as maybe 24,000 years ago. Neanderthals were close enough to the modern human lineage to interbreed, calling into question how different they really were from us and whether they comprise a different species. 

To find out more, researchers used CT scanners to map the interiors of five Neanderthal skulls as well as four fossil and 75 contemporary human skulls to determine the  shapes of their brains in 3-D. Like modern humans, Neanderthals had larger brains than both our living ape relatives and other extinct human lineages. 

The investigators discovered modern humans possess larger olfactory bulbs at the base of their brains. This area is linked primarily with smell, but also with other key mental functions such as memory and learning &#8212; central olfactory brain circuitry is physically very close to structures related to memory.

.."We all know from our personal experience about the intense links between smell and memory &#8212; for example, when, after years and as adults, we enter our old school building and by breathing and smelling the air of the stairways or of our old classroom, suddenly we are vividly and undecidedly transported back in our memory into our school days and associated experiences that we learned long ago," said researcher Markus Bastir, a paleoanthropologist at Spain's National Museum of Natural Sciences, in Madrid. 

Intriguingly, smell may also play a social role, such as for recognizing family and friends and reinforcing group cohesion. 

"In the German language &#8212; I am Austrian-born &#8212; we have a saying, 'Ich kann dich gut riechen,' which translates into English as, 'I can smell you well,' but means, 'I like you,'" Bastir told LiveScience. "That would reflect a linguistic example how smell relates to social behavior." 

Compared with Neanderthals, modern humans also possess larger temporal lobes, an area near the base of the brain. "Neuroscientists relate temporal lobes with language functions, long-term memory, theory of mind (the ability to consider the perspective of others), and also emotions," Bastir said. 

We also have a relatively wider orbitofrontal cortex than Neanderthals, a part of the brain immediately above the eyes. "The effects of the wider orbitofrontal cortex are difficult to evaluate," Bastir said. The area is linked with decision-making. 

All in all, it remains unclear exactly how these brain differences might have set us apart from Neanderthals, Bastir cautioned. We only know how these skulls molded themselves around these brains, and not the precise structures of the brains in question. 

In the future, Bastir and his colleagues would like to scan the interiors of more fossil skulls to refine their ideas about them. An implicit problem of the project is the fragility of the structures they would like to examine, he said. 

The scientists detailed their findings online Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications. 

Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook.

© 2012 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved. 

http://searchresults.verizon.com/se...+brains+than+modern+humans&context=Brwsr-v6IE


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to be a meat eater but my thinking EVOLVED to a more compassionate and healthy lifestyle. And I'm passing these traits down to my 2 daughters who are both vegetarians and against cruelty to animals. See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is called making a choice not evolving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My thinking evolved from a neanderthal to a person who doesn't mistreat sentient beings. vegetarians are healthier and have more chance of survival and longevity.
> 
> Anyways, here's another one. I was in a house that was built in the late 18th century and when we went upstairs, had to duck to get through the doors. That's because back then, humans were shorter, and we're getting taller as the centuries pass. So we're evolving to a taller and taller species all the time, with our brains getting bigger as well as we grow. Is THAT evolution of the human species?
Click to expand...


So you're suggesting that neanderthals were less intelligent even though they had bigger brains underminding daws video yesterday.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow you're just full of dodges today!
> 
> "No changes are coming from what was once thought of as junk DNA"---ywc
> is this a question or a statement ?
> without the proper punctuation and context it's meaningless.
> 
> What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA) Part 6/8 HD - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Junk DNA is has a function of keeping the organism healthy. It is also genetic information from previous generations. Also can provide answers why organisms have the ability to adapt but there are still limits to adaptations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you do realise that the previous statement contradicts this one:"No changes are coming from what was once thought of as junk DNA"---ywc
> now who has problems following the gist of this thread?
Click to expand...


Unlike you I don't suffer from tunnel vision and am thourough in most responses.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture daws ? It's nonsense because he is saying this mutation has allowed a space for our brains to grow larger and thus make us more intelligent. Hmm the neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans are we devolving ? why are neanderthals extinct  ? were neanderthals more intelligent ? You tried slipping this through before. Clearly that gene is different in humans because the creator wanted it that way.
> 
> I still believe the creator used our genes to make sure his punishment for sin is met.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The neanderthals likely did not go extinct it is likely that they interbred with modern humans. Neanderthals were highly intelligent they lived in complex social groups, used tools, created structures, and used language. The primary advantage that homo sapiens had were the much larger social groups and the communication between them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> also the Neanderthals were not good at developing new skills they used the same weapons tech for all of their existence
Click to expand...


Neanderthals, do you know how long they actually existed whether they had time to develop new technology ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture daws ? It's nonsense because he is saying this mutation has allowed a space for our brains to grow larger and thus make us more intelligent. Hmm the neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans are we devolving ? why are neanderthals extinct  ? were neanderthals more intelligent ? You tried slipping this through before. Clearly that gene is different in humans because the creator wanted it that way.
> 
> I still believe the creator used our genes to make sure his punishment for sin is met.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The neanderthals likely did not go extinct it is likely that they interbred with modern humans. Neanderthals were highly intelligent they lived in complex social groups, used tools, created structures, and used language. The primary advantage that homo sapiens had were the much larger social groups and the communication between them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's possible they did not go extinct I believe they did in the global flood. I really find it hard to believe that DNA could survive 70,000 years as evolutionist claim.
Click to expand...

you know just for a split second  YWC almost seemed rational!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is called making a choice not evolving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My thinking evolved from a neanderthal to a person who doesn't mistreat sentient beings. vegetarians are healthier and have more chance of survival and longevity.
> 
> Anyways, here's another one. I was in a house that was built in the late 18th century and when we went upstairs, had to duck to get through the doors. That's because back then, humans were shorter, and we're getting taller as the centuries pass. So we're evolving to a taller and taller species all the time, with our brains getting bigger as well as we grow. Is THAT evolution of the human species?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're suggesting that neanderthals were less intelligent even though they had bigger brains underminding daws video yesterday.
Click to expand...

hey slapdick niether of the clips I posted said or presented any thing about neanderthals....you are either confused or making shit up.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Junk DNA is has a function of keeping the organism healthy. It is also genetic information from previous generations. Also can provide answers why organisms have the ability to adapt but there are still limits to adaptations.
> 
> 
> 
> you do realise that the previous statement contradicts this one:"No changes are coming from what was once thought of as junk DNA"---ywc
> now who has problems following the gist of this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you I don't suffer from tunnel vision and am thourough in most responses.
Click to expand...

your own posts prove you wrong!


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't understand these bones assuming they worth left over parts and performed no function is nothing but an assumption and no evidence to back the assumption.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lot of dancing but you're running out of excuses to avoid addressing the issue that the usefulness of vestigial organs / anatomy is assumption.
> 
> CB360: Function of vestigial organs.
> 
> Practically all "vestigial" organs in man have been shown to have definite uses and not to be vestigial at all.
> 
> Source:
> 
> Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 75-76.
> 
> Response:
> 
> 1. "Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."
> 
> Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.
> 
> 2. Some vestigial organs can be determined to be useless if experiments show that organisms with them survive no better than organisms without them.
> 
> Links:
> 
> Theobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
> 
> References:
> 
> 1. G. & C. Merriam. 1974. The Merriam-WebsterDictionary. New York: Simon & Schuster. 2. Morris, H., 1974. (see above). 3. Yamamoto, Y. and W. R. Jeffery., 2000. Central role for the lens in cave fish eyedegeneration. Science 289: 631-633.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great you posted something I said.
Click to expand...

You're confused. What you said was obviously nothing more than a reiteration of what you read at the fundie Christian site, the ICR. 

Item 1 above does provide evidence of vestigial appendages. I seem to recall you claiming there was no such evidence. 

Why do you think your gawds would design parts that are useless?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again showing your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again showing your biblical tales and fables are easily dismantled and lacking validation when confronted with fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXH5lwMBNiE]Global Flood: Evidence for Rocks and Fossils - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

you gotta be fuckin'kidding.....


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> *She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen*
> 
> She Must Be a Scientist; She Works in Front of a Green Screen
> 
> This is Dr. Ann Gauger, a Senior Research Scientist at Biologic Institute (which is funded by the Intelligent Design-promoting Discovery Institute), talking about what she thinks is population genetics:
> 
> Science & Human Origins: How accurate are current models used in population genetics? - YouTube
> 
> The commenters at Sandwalk have already dismantled everything she said (Sandwalk: Ann Gauger Describes the Intelligent Design Creationist Version of Population Genetics) but a lot of viewers noticed something else even more interesting:
> 
> Shes not really in a lab.
> 
> _Shes in front of a green screen. _
> 
> *The lab is a lie.*
> 
> Did you expect anything else? Shes an ID proponent. Its not like they do any actual science  they just make things up and spread their lies to people gullible enough to believe them because they look professional, sound authoritative, and pretend to be scientists.


THAT'S not even a good green match !if you look at her head and shoulders you can see the line...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture daws ? It's nonsense because he is saying this mutation has allowed a space for our brains to grow larger and thus make us more intelligent. Hmm the neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans are we devolving ? why are neanderthals extinct  ? were neanderthals more intelligent ? You tried slipping this through before. Clearly that gene is different in humans because the creator wanted it that way.
> 
> I still believe the creator used our genes to make sure his punishment for sin is met.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The neanderthals likely did not go extinct it is likely that they interbred with modern humans. Neanderthals were highly intelligent they lived in complex social groups, used tools, created structures, and used language. The primary advantage that homo sapiens had were the much larger social groups and the communication between them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We do have bigger brains than Neanderthals did
> Study through CT scans suggests we are distinguished by different mental capacities
> Below:
> 
> 
> Modern humans possess brain structures larger than their Neanderthal counterparts, suggesting we are distinguished from them by different mental capacities, scientists find.
> 
> We are currently the only extant human lineage, but Neanderthals, our closest-known evolutionary relatives, still walked the Earth as recently as maybe 24,000 years ago. Neanderthals were close enough to the modern human lineage to interbreed, calling into question how different they really were from us and whether they comprise a different species.
> 
> To find out more, researchers used CT scanners to map the interiors of five Neanderthal skulls as well as four fossil and 75 contemporary human skulls to determine the  shapes of their brains in 3-D. Like modern humans, Neanderthals had larger brains than both our living ape relatives and other extinct human lineages.
> 
> The investigators discovered modern humans possess larger olfactory bulbs at the base of their brains. This area is linked primarily with smell, but also with other key mental functions such as memory and learning  central olfactory brain circuitry is physically very close to structures related to memory.
> 
> .."We all know from our personal experience about the intense links between smell and memory  for example, when, after years and as adults, we enter our old school building and by breathing and smelling the air of the stairways or of our old classroom, suddenly we are vividly and undecidedly transported back in our memory into our school days and associated experiences that we learned long ago," said researcher Markus Bastir, a paleoanthropologist at Spain's National Museum of Natural Sciences, in Madrid.
> 
> Intriguingly, smell may also play a social role, such as for recognizing family and friends and reinforcing group cohesion.
> 
> "In the German language  I am Austrian-born  we have a saying, 'Ich kann dich gut riechen,' which translates into English as, 'I can smell you well,' but means, 'I like you,'" Bastir told LiveScience. "That would reflect a linguistic example how smell relates to social behavior."
> 
> Compared with Neanderthals, modern humans also possess larger temporal lobes, an area near the base of the brain. "Neuroscientists relate temporal lobes with language functions, long-term memory, theory of mind (the ability to consider the perspective of others), and also emotions," Bastir said.
> 
> We also have a relatively wider orbitofrontal cortex than Neanderthals, a part of the brain immediately above the eyes. "The effects of the wider orbitofrontal cortex are difficult to evaluate," Bastir said. The area is linked with decision-making.
> 
> All in all, it remains unclear exactly how these brain differences might have set us apart from Neanderthals, Bastir cautioned. We only know how these skulls molded themselves around these brains, and not the precise structures of the brains in question.
> 
> In the future, Bastir and his colleagues would like to scan the interiors of more fossil skulls to refine their ideas about them. An implicit problem of the project is the fragility of the structures they would like to examine, he said.
> 
> The scientists detailed their findings online Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications.
> 
> Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook.
> 
> © 2012 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved.
> 
> Search - MyVerizon.com
Click to expand...


Neanderthals Were Too Smart to Survive - Softpedia

Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon

NeuroLogica Blog » Neanderthal Intelligence


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> My thinking evolved from a neanderthal to a person who doesn't mistreat sentient beings. vegetarians are healthier and have more chance of survival and longevity.
> 
> Anyways, here's another one. I was in a house that was built in the late 18th century and when we went upstairs, had to duck to get through the doors. That's because back then, humans were shorter, and we're getting taller as the centuries pass. So we're evolving to a taller and taller species all the time, with our brains getting bigger as well as we grow. Is THAT evolution of the human species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're suggesting that neanderthals were less intelligent even though they had bigger brains underminding daws video yesterday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey slapdick niether of the clips I posted said or presented any thing about neanderthals....you are either confused or making shit up.
Click to expand...


No I was blowing up your theory of evolution.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes which is an ability that all organisms possess, has nothing to do with an organism evolving in to a new kind.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think vestigial bones come from? Are they spare parts left over from tinkering by the gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are not spare parts left over they are parts that have lost function over time showing that the curse on man for sin is alive and well. The list of such items are decreasing because they are finding many of these things still perform a function.
> 
> You are speaking of both bones and organs.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you do realise that the previous statement contradicts this one:"No changes are coming from what was once thought of as junk DNA"---ywc
> now who has problems following the gist of this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I don't suffer from tunnel vision and am thourough in most responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your own posts prove you wrong!
Click to expand...


Sorry you have a problem grasping my posts


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again showing your biblical tales and fables are easily dismantled and lacking validation when confronted with fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXH5lwMBNiE]Global Flood: Evidence for Rocks and Fossils - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you gotta be fuckin'kidding.....
Click to expand...


Offer a rebuttal, I am open to hear what you have to say.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think vestigial bones come from? Are they spare parts left over from tinkering by the gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not spare parts left over they are parts that have lost function over time showing that the curse on man for sin is alive and well. The list of such items are decreasing because they are finding many of these things still perform a function.
> 
> You are speaking of both bones and organs.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This is the level of your ability to debate science I get it.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're suggesting that neanderthals were less intelligent even though they had bigger brains underminding daws video yesterday.
> 
> 
> 
> hey slapdick niether of the clips I posted said or presented any thing about neanderthals....you are either confused or making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I was blowing up your theory of evolution.
Click to expand...

asshole you're attempting to bullshit your way out of what you just said.
who's dishonest again..?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I don't suffer from tunnel vision and am thourough in most responses.
> 
> 
> 
> your own posts prove you wrong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry you have a problem grasping my posts
Click to expand...

you lie and spout nonsense not hard to grasp at all!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Global Flood: Evidence for Rocks and Fossils - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> you gotta be fuckin'kidding.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Offer a rebuttal, I am open to hear what you have to say.
Click to expand...

 it rebuts it's self !


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey slapdick niether of the clips I posted said or presented any thing about neanderthals....you are either confused or making shit up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I was blowing up your theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asshole you're attempting to bullshit your way out of what you just said.
> who's dishonest again..?
Click to expand...


Daws no one has ever observed the brain of the neanderthal to give an opinion on intelligence don't you get it ? They could have been more intelligent they might not have been but nobody knows but we do know that they had the cranial capacity to have bigger brains.

An elephant has a bigger brain but they didn't build a ship and go to the moon. Clearly humans are more intelligent then any organism on this planet,why ? do you understand that many evolutionist made the claim that they were part beast and human and once said they they were dumb brutes.

Asshole ? if this is getting to be more then you can handle take a break and allow yourself to be taught.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your own posts prove you wrong!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you have a problem grasping my posts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you lie and spout nonsense not hard to grasp at all!
Click to expand...


Was it you that started the accusation of chirality being a new buzz word ? you claimed I just recently used it knowing you and I discussed it earlier in the thread. Did you forget ? or not understand what Chirality was ? or maybe you were just lying to try and score cheap points hoping no one exposed your lie ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you gotta be fuckin'kidding.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Offer a rebuttal, I am open to hear what you have to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it rebuts it's self !
Click to expand...


Typical response,you not wishing to engage me on the evidence provided unless you can run off and copy and paste some nonsense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Daws I have family in for the holiday's Merry Christmas ! talk to you soon.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Global Flood: Evidence for Rocks and Fossils - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> you gotta be fuckin'kidding.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Offer a rebuttal, I am open to hear what you have to say.
Click to expand...


Rebuttal to claims of a 6000 year old earth and a biblical flood exist in science literature, academia and geology journals. It is, unfortunately, Christian creationist who attempt to promote falsehoods and ludicrous tales and fables that crumble under even casual scrutiny.

The Christian creationist ministries could certainly present their studies for peer review but of course, they won't. It's the pattern of behavior typical for creationist. They will instead, promote conspiracy theories that all the relevant science in all the universities and labs and all the relevant geology is purposely configured to denote an old earth. According to the fundies, it's a worldwide conspiracy.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is only an assumption that those bones served no purpose.This teaching is based on an assumption that is then is taught as science, the assumption that the ancestry and function of the structure is known. using observational science, it is impossible to identify exact ancestors or even the exact function of structures because observational science deals with things that are observable in the here and now.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand what you're writing. Vestigial bones suggest remnants of anatomy that were once used and now serve no purpose. Whales, for example,
> 
> Why would the gawds add useless parts to humans and animals alike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In humans they use to make the same claim concerning the appendix because we could live without the organ. They have found that the organ stores bacteria and Enzymes that aid in the digestive system.
> 
> The science community sometimes rush to an explanation only to be proven wrong later.
Click to expand...

yet another fine example of ywc spining the facts!

Does the appendix have a function?
The appendix -- an organ barely 4 inches long -- causes much debate among medical professionals. In fact, doctors have trouble deciding if the appendix has any use to the body at all. While everyone agrees that the appendix can be removed without causing any adverse health consequences to the patient, some physicians and researchers believe that the appendix does serve a function as part of the immune system. Others feel that the appendix is a vestigial organ, a remainder from the time when humans regularly dined on tree bark and needed an additional organ to break down the roughage. Along with the disagreement over the true function of the appendix, there is no consensus if humans will always have this organ. Some doctors feel that the evolution of the human body will lead to the demise of the appendix, while others believe that the appendix will remain in the body, continuing to do whatever it does.


HowStuffWorks "Does the appendix have a function?"

the they ywc conveniently  left out is : "some physicians and researchers believe that the appendix does serve a function as part of the immune system"
the operative words are SOME AND BELIEVE!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The neanderthals likely did not go extinct it is likely that they interbred with modern humans. Neanderthals were highly intelligent they lived in complex social groups, used tools, created structures, and used language. The primary advantage that homo sapiens had were the much larger social groups and the communication between them.
> 
> 
> 
> We do have bigger brains than Neanderthals did
> Study through CT scans suggests we are distinguished by different mental capacities
> Below:
> 
> 
> Modern humans possess brain structures larger than their Neanderthal counterparts, suggesting we are distinguished from them by different mental capacities, scientists find.
> 
> We are currently the only extant human lineage, but Neanderthals, our closest-known evolutionary relatives, still walked the Earth as recently as maybe 24,000 years ago. Neanderthals were close enough to the modern human lineage to interbreed, calling into question how different they really were from us and whether they comprise a different species.
> 
> To find out more, researchers used CT scanners to map the interiors of five Neanderthal skulls as well as four fossil and 75 contemporary human skulls to determine the  shapes of their brains in 3-D. Like modern humans, Neanderthals had larger brains than both our living ape relatives and other extinct human lineages.
> 
> The investigators discovered modern humans possess larger olfactory bulbs at the base of their brains. This area is linked primarily with smell, but also with other key mental functions such as memory and learning  central olfactory brain circuitry is physically very close to structures related to memory.
> 
> .."We all know from our personal experience about the intense links between smell and memory  for example, when, after years and as adults, we enter our old school building and by breathing and smelling the air of the stairways or of our old classroom, suddenly we are vividly and undecidedly transported back in our memory into our school days and associated experiences that we learned long ago," said researcher Markus Bastir, a paleoanthropologist at Spain's National Museum of Natural Sciences, in Madrid.
> 
> Intriguingly, smell may also play a social role, such as for recognizing family and friends and reinforcing group cohesion.
> 
> "In the German language  I am Austrian-born  we have a saying, 'Ich kann dich gut riechen,' which translates into English as, 'I can smell you well,' but means, 'I like you,'" Bastir told LiveScience. "That would reflect a linguistic example how smell relates to social behavior."
> 
> Compared with Neanderthals, modern humans also possess larger temporal lobes, an area near the base of the brain. "Neuroscientists relate temporal lobes with language functions, long-term memory, theory of mind (the ability to consider the perspective of others), and also emotions," Bastir said.
> 
> We also have a relatively wider orbitofrontal cortex than Neanderthals, a part of the brain immediately above the eyes. "The effects of the wider orbitofrontal cortex are difficult to evaluate," Bastir said. The area is linked with decision-making.
> 
> All in all, it remains unclear exactly how these brain differences might have set us apart from Neanderthals, Bastir cautioned. We only know how these skulls molded themselves around these brains, and not the precise structures of the brains in question.
> 
> In the future, Bastir and his colleagues would like to scan the interiors of more fossil skulls to refine their ideas about them. An implicit problem of the project is the fragility of the structures they would like to examine, he said.
> 
> The scientists detailed their findings online Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications.
> 
> Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook.
> 
> © 2012 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved.
> 
> Search - MyVerizon.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neanderthals Were Too Smart to Survive - Softpedia
> 
> Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon
> 
> NeuroLogica Blog » Neanderthal Intelligence
Click to expand...

Neanderthals Were Too Smart to Survive: December 21st, 2005, 09:41 = 12 years old 

BBC - Science & Nature - September 2005= 12years old 

NeuroLogica Blog » Neanderthal Intelligence Aug 
26 
2008 = 4years old 
weren't you the guy who just got done making an ass of himself whining about using dated material ?

besides, arguing for Neanderthals is arguing for evolution not creation.
if we were so perfect why would god need to make another speices.
they ( Neanderthals ) are never mentioned in the bible.
how do you reconcile that with the creation myth?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not spare parts left over they are parts that have lost function over time showing that the curse on man for sin is alive and well. The list of such items are decreasing because they are finding many of these things still perform a function.
> 
> You are speaking of both bones and organs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the level of your ability to debate science I get it.
Click to expand...

obviously you don't "get it" as it's a spot on  depiction of your reaction when you get called on your bullshit.
besides you can't debate science as you don't not possess the basic skills to make a rational argument. 
1. you have no objectivity 
2. you have no analytical skills.
3. more problems then I care to list.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I was blowing up your theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> asshole you're attempting to bullshit your way out of what you just said.
> who's dishonest again..?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws no one has ever observed the brain of the neanderthal to give an opinion on intelligence don't you get it ? They could have been more intelligent they might not have been but nobody knows but we do know that they had the cranial capacity to have bigger brains.
> 
> An elephant has a bigger brain but they didn't build a ship and go to the moon. Clearly humans are more intelligent then any organism on this planet,why ? do you understand that many evolutionist made the claim that they were part beast and human and once said they they were dumb brutes.
> 
> Asshole ? if this is getting to be more then you can handle take a break and allow yourself to be taught.
Click to expand...

yes asshole! another dodge or have you lost the gist of the tread again?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do have bigger brains than Neanderthals did
> Study through CT scans suggests we are distinguished by different mental capacities
> Below:
> 
> 
> Modern humans possess brain structures larger than their Neanderthal counterparts, suggesting we are distinguished from them by different mental capacities, scientists find.
> 
> We are currently the only extant human lineage, but Neanderthals, our closest-known evolutionary relatives, still walked the Earth as recently as maybe 24,000 years ago. Neanderthals were close enough to the modern human lineage to interbreed, calling into question how different they really were from us and whether they comprise a different species.
> 
> To find out more, researchers used CT scanners to map the interiors of five Neanderthal skulls as well as four fossil and 75 contemporary human skulls to determine the  shapes of their brains in 3-D. Like modern humans, Neanderthals had larger brains than both our living ape relatives and other extinct human lineages.
> 
> The investigators discovered modern humans possess larger olfactory bulbs at the base of their brains. This area is linked primarily with smell, but also with other key mental functions such as memory and learning  central olfactory brain circuitry is physically very close to structures related to memory.
> 
> .."We all know from our personal experience about the intense links between smell and memory  for example, when, after years and as adults, we enter our old school building and by breathing and smelling the air of the stairways or of our old classroom, suddenly we are vividly and undecidedly transported back in our memory into our school days and associated experiences that we learned long ago," said researcher Markus Bastir, a paleoanthropologist at Spain's National Museum of Natural Sciences, in Madrid.
> 
> Intriguingly, smell may also play a social role, such as for recognizing family and friends and reinforcing group cohesion.
> 
> "In the German language  I am Austrian-born  we have a saying, 'Ich kann dich gut riechen,' which translates into English as, 'I can smell you well,' but means, 'I like you,'" Bastir told LiveScience. "That would reflect a linguistic example how smell relates to social behavior."
> 
> Compared with Neanderthals, modern humans also possess larger temporal lobes, an area near the base of the brain. "Neuroscientists relate temporal lobes with language functions, long-term memory, theory of mind (the ability to consider the perspective of others), and also emotions," Bastir said.
> 
> We also have a relatively wider orbitofrontal cortex than Neanderthals, a part of the brain immediately above the eyes. "The effects of the wider orbitofrontal cortex are difficult to evaluate," Bastir said. The area is linked with decision-making.
> 
> All in all, it remains unclear exactly how these brain differences might have set us apart from Neanderthals, Bastir cautioned. We only know how these skulls molded themselves around these brains, and not the precise structures of the brains in question.
> 
> In the future, Bastir and his colleagues would like to scan the interiors of more fossil skulls to refine their ideas about them. An implicit problem of the project is the fragility of the structures they would like to examine, he said.
> 
> The scientists detailed their findings online Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications.
> 
> Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook.
> 
> © 2012 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved.
> 
> Search - MyVerizon.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neanderthals Were Too Smart to Survive - Softpedia
> 
> Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon
> 
> NeuroLogica Blog » Neanderthal Intelligence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neanderthals Were Too Smart to Survive: December 21st, 2005, 09:41 = 12 years old
> 
> BBC - Science & Nature - September 2005= 12years old
> 
> NeuroLogica Blog » Neanderthal Intelligence Aug
> 26
> 2008 = 4years old
> weren't you the guy who just got done making an ass of himself whining about using dated material ?
> 
> besides, arguing for Neanderthals is arguing for evolution not creation.
> if we were so perfect why would god need to make another speices.
> they ( Neanderthals ) are never mentioned in the bible.
> how do you reconcile that with the creation myth?
Click to expand...


Neanderthals are human not another species of humans.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand what you're writing. Vestigial bones suggest remnants of anatomy that were once used and now serve no purpose. Whales, for example,
> 
> Why would the gawds add useless parts to humans and animals alike?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In humans they use to make the same claim concerning the appendix because we could live without the organ. They have found that the organ stores bacteria and Enzymes that aid in the digestive system.
> 
> The science community sometimes rush to an explanation only to be proven wrong later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet another fine example of ywc spining the facts!
> 
> Does the appendix have a function?
> The appendix -- an organ barely 4 inches long -- causes much debate among medical professionals. In fact, doctors have trouble deciding if the appendix has any use to the body at all. While everyone agrees that the appendix can be removed without causing any adverse health consequences to the patient, some physicians and researchers believe that the appendix does serve a function as part of the immune system. Others feel that the appendix is a vestigial organ, a remainder from the time when humans regularly dined on tree bark and needed an additional organ to break down the roughage. Along with the disagreement over the true function of the appendix, there is no consensus if humans will always have this organ. Some doctors feel that the evolution of the human body will lead to the demise of the appendix, while others believe that the appendix will remain in the body, continuing to do whatever it does.
> 
> 
> HowStuffWorks "Does the appendix have a function?"
> 
> the they ywc conveniently  left out is : "some physicians and researchers believe that the appendix does serve a function as part of the immune system"
> the operative words are SOME AND BELIEVE!
Click to expand...


Does the appendix have a function daws ? that was my point.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> asshole you're attempting to bullshit your way out of what you just said.
> who's dishonest again..?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws no one has ever observed the brain of the neanderthal to give an opinion on intelligence don't you get it ? They could have been more intelligent they might not have been but nobody knows but we do know that they had the cranial capacity to have bigger brains.
> 
> An elephant has a bigger brain but they didn't build a ship and go to the moon. Clearly humans are more intelligent then any organism on this planet,why ? do you understand that many evolutionist made the claim that they were part beast and human and once said they they were dumb brutes.
> 
> Asshole ? if this is getting to be more then you can handle take a break and allow yourself to be taught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes asshole! another dodge or have you lost the gist of the tread again?
Click to expand...


I believe you're spinning in circles,showing you're in over your head.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neanderthals Were Too Smart to Survive - Softpedia
> 
> Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon
> 
> NeuroLogica Blog » Neanderthal Intelligence
> 
> 
> 
> Neanderthals Were Too Smart to Survive: December 21st, 2005, 09:41 = 12 years old
> 
> BBC - Science & Nature - September 2005= 12years old
> 
> NeuroLogica Blog » Neanderthal Intelligence Aug
> 26
> 2008 = 4years old
> weren't you the guy who just got done making an ass of himself whining about using dated material ?
> 
> besides, arguing for Neanderthals is arguing for evolution not creation.
> if we were so perfect why would god need to make another speices.
> they ( Neanderthals ) are never mentioned in the bible.
> how do you reconcile that with the creation myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neanderthals are human not another species of humans.
Click to expand...

There is not a firm consensus among scientists about Neanderthals being human. 

Another.problem for the creationist is that Neanderthals have been dated to existing as much as 50,000 years ago. 

Yet another creationist myth debunked- the 6000 year old earth.


----------



## UltimateReality

UltimateReality said:


> *...
> I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up...*



YWC, we all know reading comprehension was never Daws, NP's or Hawly's strong suite. And it is horribly evident that all the same evo-fundies are up to the same old tricks. Not one logical opposing argument to be found, but just the usual Ad Hominem attacks and Red Herrings. My wait continues...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *...
> I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, we all know reading comprehension was never Daws, NP's or Hawly's strong suite. And it is horribly evident that all the same evo-fundies are up to the same old tricks. Not one logical opposing argument to be found, but just the usual Ad Hominem attacks and Red Herrings. My wait continues...
Click to expand...


You're actually describing your own behavior. You entered the thread for no other reason than to offer:


> Not one logical opposing argument... but just the usual Ad Hominem attacks and Red Herrings



Another pompous, Discovery Institute ID'iot groupie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neanderthals Were Too Smart to Survive: December 21st, 2005, 09:41 = 12 years old
> 
> BBC - Science & Nature - September 2005= 12years old
> 
> NeuroLogica Blog » Neanderthal Intelligence Aug
> 26
> 2008 = 4years old
> weren't you the guy who just got done making an ass of himself whining about using dated material ?
> 
> besides, arguing for Neanderthals is arguing for evolution not creation.
> if we were so perfect why would god need to make another speices.
> they ( Neanderthals ) are never mentioned in the bible.
> how do you reconcile that with the creation myth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neanderthals are human not another species of humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is not a firm consensus among scientists about Neanderthals being human.
> 
> Another.problem for the creationist is that Neanderthals have been dated to existing as much as 50,000 years ago.
> 
> Yet another creationist myth debunked- the 6000 year old earth.
Click to expand...


You are full of it hollie,neanderthals are human.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neanderthals are human not another species of humans.
> 
> 
> 
> There is not a firm consensus among scientists about Neanderthals being human.
> 
> Another.problem for the creationist is that Neanderthals have been dated to existing as much as 50,000 years ago.
> 
> Yet another creationist myth debunked- the 6000 year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are full of it hollie,neanderthals are human.
Click to expand...


Your lack of knowledge causes you to stumble over your ignorant comments. Spend some time and actually do your homework. 

Are your going to demand that the timeframe I noted for the existence if Neanderthals is also a conspiracy?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not a firm consensus among scientists about Neanderthals being human.
> 
> Another.problem for the creationist is that Neanderthals have been dated to existing as much as 50,000 years ago.
> 
> Yet another creationist myth debunked- the 6000 year old earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of it hollie,neanderthals are human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of knowledge causes you to stumble over your ignorant comments. Spend some time and actually do your homework.
> 
> Are your going to demand that the timeframe I noted for the existence if Neanderthals is also a conspiracy?
Click to expand...


Only people that want evidence for evolution would hold on to the view that neanderthals were not completely human.

Neanderthals ... They&#39;re Just Like Us?

Neanderthals and human lived side by side in Middle eastern caves and even interbred, research finds | Mail Online

Neanderthals Are Still Human!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie and Daws are a boxer and a doberman a canine both from the same group ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of it hollie,neanderthals are human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of knowledge causes you to stumble over your ignorant comments. Spend some time and actually do your homework.
> 
> Are your going to demand that the timeframe I noted for the existence if Neanderthals is also a conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only people that want evidence for evolution would hold on to the view that neanderthals were not completely human.
> 
> Neanderthals ... They're Just Like Us?
> 
> Neanderthals and human lived side by side in Middle eastern caves and even interbred, research finds | Mail Online
> 
> Neanderthals Are Still Human!
Click to expand...

I will admit to playing the game of "bait the fundie" in anticipation of your frantic cutting and pasting. 

For your edification, Neanderthals are typically classified as _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_, a subspecies of humans, ie: Hono Sapiens. 

This obviously presents yet another insurmountable contradiction for the creationist. Why would the gawds "design" a virtually identical, functioning human-like competitor to Hono Sapiens?

Further, the two articles you linked to, (ignoring the ridiculous ICR babble), make reference to timeframes for Neanderthals that are directly in contradiction to your insistence for a 6000 year old earth. Did you realize that you destroyed the very foundation of the tales and fables you insist delineate a young earth, magical creation of humanity, the global flood, etc.?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie and daws why would neanderthals live among humans if they were not human ?

List of Neanderthal sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie and Daws are a boxer and a doberman a canine both from the same group ?



Such is the syndrome shared by angry, self-hating Christian fundies.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie and daws why would neanderthals live among humans if they were not human ?
> 
> List of Neanderthal sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



They were a sub-species, as noted earlier. How did Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens exist together 50,000 years ago?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of knowledge causes you to stumble over your ignorant comments. Spend some time and actually do your homework.
> 
> Are your going to demand that the timeframe I noted for the existence if Neanderthals is also a conspiracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only people that want evidence for evolution would hold on to the view that neanderthals were not completely human.
> 
> Neanderthals ... They're Just Like Us?
> 
> Neanderthals and human lived side by side in Middle eastern caves and even interbred, research finds | Mail Online
> 
> Neanderthals Are Still Human!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will admit to playing the game of "bait the fundie" in anticipation of your frantic cutting and pasting.
> 
> For your edification, Neanderthals are typically classified as _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_, a subspecies of humans, ie: Hono Sapiens.
> 
> This obviously presents yet another insurmountable contradiction for the creationist. Why would the gawds "design" a virtually identical, functioning human-like competitor to Hono Sapiens?
> 
> Further, the two articles you linked to, (ignoring the ridiculous ICR babble), make reference to timeframes for Neanderthals that are directly in contradiction to your insistence for a 6000 year old earth. Did you realize that you destroyed the very foundation of the tales and fables you insist delineate a young earth, magical creation of humanity, the global flood, etc.?
Click to expand...


I don't care that they were once classified not  human through ignorance as a different species What I care about is were they human or not ? it is clear they were. Evolutionist use to make the same claim about the african people claimed they were less evolved because they had different features.

Evolutionist are bigots because of their theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie and Daws are a boxer and a doberman a canine both from the same group ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the syndrome shared by angry, self-hating Christian fundies.
Click to expand...


Dodge !


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie and daws why would neanderthals live among humans if they were not human ?
> 
> List of Neanderthal sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were a sub-species, as noted earlier. How did Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens exist together 50,000 years ago?
Click to expand...


They didn't it's more like 5,000 years ago.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only people that want evidence for evolution would hold on to the view that neanderthals were not completely human.
> 
> Neanderthals ... They're Just Like Us?
> 
> Neanderthals and human lived side by side in Middle eastern caves and even interbred, research finds | Mail Online
> 
> Neanderthals Are Still Human!
> 
> 
> 
> I will admit to playing the game of "bait the fundie" in anticipation of your frantic cutting and pasting.
> 
> For your edification, Neanderthals are typically classified as _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_, a subspecies of humans, ie: Hono Sapiens.
> 
> This obviously presents yet another insurmountable contradiction for the creationist. Why would the gawds "design" a virtually identical, functioning human-like competitor to Hono Sapiens?
> 
> Further, the two articles you linked to, (ignoring the ridiculous ICR babble), make reference to timeframes for Neanderthals that are directly in contradiction to your insistence for a 6000 year old earth. Did you realize that you destroyed the very foundation of the tales and fables you insist delineate a young earth, magical creation of humanity, the global flood, etc.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care that they were once classified not  human through ignorance as a different species What I care about is were they human or not ? it is clear they were. Evolutionist use to make the same claim about the african people claimed they were less evolved because they had different features.
> 
> Evolutionist are bigots because of their theory.
Click to expand...


Evolutionist are bigots because of their theory?

You're making less sense than usual. It's obvious you're angry and embarrassed because you have inadvertently destroyed your young earth creationist argument - and done so in rather dramatic fashion. 

Why would you suddenly lash out at evolutionist when you have linked to sites that present information based on evolutionary data. It seems creationist have a habit of bluster and contradiction which is laughable in that it is self-refuting.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie and daws why would neanderthals live among humans if they were not human ?
> 
> List of Neanderthal sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were a sub-species, as noted earlier. How did Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens exist together 50,000 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't it's more like 5,000 years ago.
Click to expand...


As noted, your links contradict your, now, back peddling, stuttering and mumbling. You really should to back and heavily edit your posts before too many people read them. Your self-contradictions and self-refuting arguments are total embarrassment.

What now, yet another conspiracy theory?

It is just laughable that you will pick and choose science as you pick and choose religious belief.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie and Daws are a boxer and a doberman a canine both from the same group ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the syndrome shared by angry, self-hating Christian fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodge !
Click to expand...


Your goofy comment was an angry, juvenile pejorative. You're angry because you have contradicted your own arguments. Lashing out in such a fashion only serves to demonstrate your own failure at maintaining a consistent argument.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie and daws why would neanderthals live among humans if they were not human ?
> 
> List of Neanderthal sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were a sub-species, as noted earlier. How did Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens exist together 50,000 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't it's more like 5,000 years ago.
Click to expand...


Not 50,000 years ago as your links define?

It seems your gawds are math challenged, "designed" multiple versions of human-life ancestors or... maybe the gawds have played a cruel joke on you?


----------



## ima

So did anyone ever show any proof of a designer?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie and daws why would neanderthals live among humans if they were not human ?
> 
> List of Neanderthal sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



neanderthals are not humans, if you are defining humans as homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals are Homo Neanderthalensis. See that? Different name. It is that simple. Just understand that. please. you are trying to change reality to fit your viewpoint. it is pathetic. they are a hominid species, closely related to modern humans, and in fact, could be considered a sub-species, but they are not human, by definition. You wouldn't call a poodle a doberman, would you? same thing.  I emplore you to find one scientist that believes they are.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie and daws why would neanderthals live among humans if they were not human ?
> 
> List of Neanderthal sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neanderthals are not humans, if you are defining humans as homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals are Homo Neanderthalensis. See that? Different name. It is that simple. Just understand that. please. you are trying to change reality to fit your viewpoint. it is pathetic. they are a hominid species, closely related to modern humans, and in fact, could be considered a sub-species, but they are not human, by definition. You wouldn't call a poodle a doberman, would you? same thing.  I emplore you to find one scientist that believes they are.
Click to expand...


No that is exactly what evolutionists do is put organisms in to classifications if they put the neanderthal in to a different group they can use that as evidence of evolution. Neanderthals are human and the more research that is done on this group they grow closer and closer to humans it's because they are human. Please point out something that is not found in humans that is found in neanderthals ?

So are you suggesting there are different breeds of humans ? A canine is a canine even though they look different. A human is a human even though they look a little different.

Neanderthals are humans that were discovered in neander valley Germany. What is so different about them that they are not human ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were a sub-species, as noted earlier. How did Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens exist together 50,000 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't it's more like 5,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not 50,000 years ago as your links define?
> 
> It seems your gawds are math challenged, "designed" multiple versions of human-life ancestors or... maybe the gawds have played a cruel joke on you?
Click to expand...


The links I provide is not an admission I agree with all the opinions of my source. I do agree with them that neanderthals are human.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the syndrome shared by angry, self-hating Christian fundies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your goofy comment was an angry, juvenile pejorative. You're angry because you have contradicted your own arguments. Lashing out in such a fashion only serves to demonstrate your own failure at maintaining a consistent argument.
Click to expand...


You once again dodged my question.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were a sub-species, as noted earlier. How did Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens exist together 50,000 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't it's more like 5,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As noted, your links contradict your, now, back peddling, stuttering and mumbling. You really should to back and heavily edit your posts before too many people read them. Your self-contradictions and self-refuting arguments are total embarrassment.
> 
> What now, yet another conspiracy theory?
> 
> It is just laughable that you will pick and choose science as you pick and choose religious belief.
Click to expand...


Yes I believe neanderthals went extinct during the global flood why do you say they went extinct ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie and daws why would neanderthals live among humans if they were not human ?
> 
> List of Neanderthal sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were a sub-species, as noted earlier. How did Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens exist together 50,000 years ago?
Click to expand...


According to who ? and why are they considered a sub species ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't it's more like 5,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As noted, your links contradict your, now, back peddling, stuttering and mumbling. You really should to back and heavily edit your posts before too many people read them. Your self-contradictions and self-refuting arguments are total embarrassment.
> 
> What now, yet another conspiracy theory?
> 
> It is just laughable that you will pick and choose science as you pick and choose religious belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I believe neanderthals went extinct during the global flood why do you say they went extinct ?
Click to expand...


Its convenient, of course, to pick and choose those elements of science, religion, reality, etc., that you choose to believe and discard the rest but that is a prescription for a mal-formed personality.

How do you reconcile cutting and pasting articles you believe support your argument when those same articles dismantle your argument?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your goofy comment was an angry, juvenile pejorative. You're angry because you have contradicted your own arguments. Lashing out in such a fashion only serves to demonstrate your own failure at maintaining a consistent argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You once again dodged my question.
Click to expand...


Ypu didn't pose a question. You posted "dodge" to a comment of mine you hoped to avoid addressing.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie and daws why would neanderthals live among humans if they were not human ?
> 
> List of Neanderthal sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were a sub-species, as noted earlier. How did Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens exist together 50,000 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to who ? and why are they considered a sub species ?
Click to expand...


_Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_

Do a search. That's your homework assignment.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will admit to playing the game of "bait the fundie" in anticipation of your frantic cutting and pasting.
> 
> For your edification, Neanderthals are typically classified as _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_, a subspecies of humans, ie: Hono Sapiens.
> 
> This obviously presents yet another insurmountable contradiction for the creationist. Why would the gawds "design" a virtually identical, functioning human-like competitor to Hono Sapiens?
> 
> Further, the two articles you linked to, (ignoring the ridiculous ICR babble), make reference to timeframes for Neanderthals that are directly in contradiction to your insistence for a 6000 year old earth. Did you realize that you destroyed the very foundation of the tales and fables you insist delineate a young earth, magical creation of humanity, the global flood, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care that they were once classified not  human through ignorance as a different species What I care about is were they human or not ? it is clear they were. Evolutionist use to make the same claim about the african people claimed they were less evolved because they had different features.
> 
> Evolutionist are bigots because of their theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolutionist are bigots because of their theory?
> 
> You're making less sense than usual. It's obvious you're angry and embarrassed because you have inadvertently destroyed your young earth creationist argument - and done so in rather dramatic fashion.
> 
> Why would you suddenly lash out at evolutionist when you have linked to sites that present information based on evolutionary data. It seems creationist have a habit of bluster and contradiction which is laughable in that it is self-refuting.
Click to expand...


Evolutionist were and are bigots. Claiming black Africans and Aborigines of Australia were less evolved when in reality they are human. Funny the Aborigines skull is really close to a neanderthal skull except the neanderthal had a larger cranial capacity.

So are Aborigines human ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your goofy comment was an angry, juvenile pejorative. You're angry because you have contradicted your own arguments. Lashing out in such a fashion only serves to demonstrate your own failure at maintaining a consistent argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You once again dodged my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ypu didn't pose a question. You posted "dodge" to a comment of mine you hoped to avoid addressing.
Click to expand...


I put dodge because you ignored the question get it ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care that they were once classified not  human through ignorance as a different species What I care about is were they human or not ? it is clear they were. Evolutionist use to make the same claim about the african people claimed they were less evolved because they had different features.
> 
> Evolutionist are bigots because of their theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist are bigots because of their theory?
> 
> You're making less sense than usual. It's obvious you're angry and embarrassed because you have inadvertently destroyed your young earth creationist argument - and done so in rather dramatic fashion.
> 
> Why would you suddenly lash out at evolutionist when you have linked to sites that present information based on evolutionary data. It seems creationist have a habit of bluster and contradiction which is laughable in that it is self-refuting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolutionist were and are bigots. Claiming black Africans and Aborigines of Australia were less evolved when in reality they are human. Funny the Aborigines skull is really close to a neanderthal skull except the neanderthal had a larger cranial capacity.
> 
> So are Aborigines human ?
Click to expand...


That makes no sense. 

You're simply playing a cheap and long ago dismissed angle that has been a staple of christian creationist which attempts to align evolution (Darwinism), with racism. Is christianity so morally bankrupt that you have to seize on that tired and worn out history?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You once again dodged my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ypu didn't pose a question. You posted "dodge" to a comment of mine you hoped to avoid addressing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I put dodge because you ignored the question get it ?
Click to expand...


You still don't get it.

You have repeatedly attempted to dodge the issue of your linking Neanderthals and Humans as co-existing some 50,000 years ago. It is referenced in the article you posted.

How does that timeframe reconciled with a 5000 year old earth? Or, is this more of your subjective pick and choose methodology wherein you reject facts that conflict with your biblical tales and fables.


----------



## Hollie

I thought it was worth educating you on some history regarding your hero, Henry Morris of the ICR, himself, something of a rascist and to educate you on some recent history of christianity and ties to rascism.


CA005: Evolution and racism

Claim CA005:

Evolution promotes racism.

Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.


Response:

1.  When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.

2.  Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.

3.  Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.

4.  Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries.

5.  *Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism.*

6.  Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples:

&#8226;  George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote, The poor little fellow who went to the south Got lost in the forests dank; His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat And scorched his hair with its tropic heat, And his mind became a blank.

In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85).

&#8226;  During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught . 

The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things, that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles' (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).


The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).

&#8226;  The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery.

&#8226;  Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:
Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).


7.  None of this matters to the science of evolution.

Links:

Trott, Richard and Jim Lippard, 2003. Creationism implies racism? Creationism Implies Racism?
References:
1.  Esterhuysen, Amanda and Jeannette Smith, 1998. Evolution: 'the forbidden word'? South African Archaeological Bulletin 53: 135-137. Quoted from Stear, J., 2004. It's official! Racism is an integral part of creationist dogma. It's Official! Racism is an Integral Part of Creationist Dogma
2.  Moore, R., 2004. (see below)
3.  Morris, Henry M., 1976. The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.
4.  Numbers, Ronald L., 1992, The Creationists, New York: Knopf.


Further Reading:
Mayr, Ernst, 2000. Darwin's influence on modern thought. Scientific American 283(1) (Jul.): 78-83.

Moore, Randy, 2004. The dark side of creationism. The American Biology Teacher 66(2): 85-87.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist are bigots because of their theory?
> 
> You're making less sense than usual. It's obvious you're angry and embarrassed because you have inadvertently destroyed your young earth creationist argument - and done so in rather dramatic fashion.
> 
> Why would you suddenly lash out at evolutionist when you have linked to sites that present information based on evolutionary data. It seems creationist have a habit of bluster and contradiction which is laughable in that it is self-refuting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist were and are bigots. Claiming black Africans and Aborigines of Australia were less evolved when in reality they are human. Funny the Aborigines skull is really close to a neanderthal skull except the neanderthal had a larger cranial capacity.
> 
> So are Aborigines human ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> You're simply playing a cheap and long ago dismissed angle that has been a staple of christian creationist which attempts to align evolution (Darwinism), with racism. Is christianity so morally bankrupt that you have to seize on that tired and worn out history?
Click to expand...


It's a fact, that is what they and it created racism towards blacks. Still dodging questions hollie ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ypu didn't pose a question. You posted "dodge" to a comment of mine you hoped to avoid addressing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I put dodge because you ignored the question get it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't get it.
> 
> You have repeatedly attempted to dodge the issue of your linking Neanderthals and Humans as co-existing some 50,000 years ago. It is referenced in the article you posted.
> 
> How does that timeframe reconciled with a 5000 year old earth? Or, is this more of your subjective pick and choose methodology wherein you reject facts that conflict with your biblical tales and fables.
Click to expand...


Nope, I don't and never did buy in to the dating methods used by man and don't believe humans existed 50,000 years ago,but you knew that didn't you ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist were and are bigots. Claiming black Africans and Aborigines of Australia were less evolved when in reality they are human. Funny the Aborigines skull is really close to a neanderthal skull except the neanderthal had a larger cranial capacity.
> 
> So are Aborigines human ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> You're simply playing a cheap and long ago dismissed angle that has been a staple of christian creationist which attempts to align evolution (Darwinism), with racism. Is christianity so morally bankrupt that you have to seize on that tired and worn out history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fact, that is what they and it created racism towards blacks. Still dodging questions hollie ?
Click to expand...

It's not a fact. You presented only your own bigoted and racist view. 

Still dodging questions, aren't you.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put dodge because you ignored the question get it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it.
> 
> You have repeatedly attempted to dodge the issue of your linking Neanderthals and Humans as co-existing some 50,000 years ago. It is referenced in the article you posted.
> 
> How does that timeframe reconciled with a 5000 year old earth? Or, is this more of your subjective pick and choose methodology wherein you reject facts that conflict with your biblical tales and fables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, I don't and never did buy in to the dating methods used by man and don't believe humans existed 50,000 years ago,but you knew that didn't you ?
Click to expand...

You can pick and choose as you wish. It is, however, comical that you post links to articles which dismantle the very argument you're hoping to further.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> I thought it was worth educating you on some history regarding your hero, Henry Morris of the ICR, himself, something of a rascist and to educate you on some recent history of christianity and ties to rascism.
> 
> 
> CA005: Evolution and racism
> 
> Claim CA005:
> 
> Evolution promotes racism.
> 
> Source:
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> 1.  When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.
> 
> 2.  Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.
> 
> 3.  Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.
> 
> 4.  Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries.
> 
> 5.  *Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism.*
> 
> 6.  Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples:
> 
>   George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote, The poor little fellow who went to the south Got lost in the forests dank; His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat And scorched his hair with its tropic heat, And his mind became a blank.
> 
> In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85).
> 
>   During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught .
> 
> The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things, that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles' (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).
> 
> 
> The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).
> 
>   The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery.
> 
>   Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:
> Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).
> 
> 
> 7.  None of this matters to the science of evolution.
> 
> Links:
> 
> Trott, Richard and Jim Lippard, 2003. Creationism implies racism? Creationism Implies Racism?
> References:
> 1.  Esterhuysen, Amanda and Jeannette Smith, 1998. Evolution: 'the forbidden word'? South African Archaeological Bulletin 53: 135-137. Quoted from Stear, J., 2004. It's official! Racism is an integral part of creationist dogma. It's Official! Racism is an Integral Part of Creationist Dogma
> 2.  Moore, R., 2004. (see below)
> 3.  Morris, Henry M., 1976. The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.
> 4.  Numbers, Ronald L., 1992, The Creationists, New York: Knopf.
> 
> 
> Further Reading:
> Mayr, Ernst, 2000. Darwin's influence on modern thought. Scientific American 283(1) (Jul.): 78-83.
> 
> Moore, Randy, 2004. The dark side of creationism. The American Biology Teacher 66(2): 85-87.



Let's educate you.

Harvard Student Says Blacks Genetically Inferior | Grow The Heck Up

Evolutionary racism











Adolf Hitler was an evolutionary racist.[1] 
Evolutionary racism refers to a racist philosophy based on Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory. It assumes that men have continually evolved, and thus some races are more evolved than others. It replaces Christian morality with the atheistic "survival of the fittest." An example of evolutionary racism is when an evolutionary racist put Ota Benga on display at the Bronx Zoo in the monkey house.[2]





Contents
 [hide] 1 Origin
 2 Racist influence
 3 Hitler and evolutionary racist genocide
 4 Josef Mengele
 5 Present impact 5.1 Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's comments about black women and African history

6 Further Reading
 7 See also
 8 References


Origin 

Evolution establishes a "scientific" rationale for racism by extending the "great chain of being" to humanity. Just as animal species are ordered into a hierarchy according development, so too the "races of men" are described as being more or less developed than others.

Evolutionists then extend the doctrine of survival of the fittest to humanity. Removing religious morality and replacing it with the laws of nature, they claim that just as the varieties of animals struggle to survive, so shall the varieties of man, with the strong dominating and destroying the weak.

Darwin himself was a racist and white supremacist. He predicted mass genocide from his theory, claiming:



 

At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.[3]

 


Likewise he compared native populations to animals: 



 

The difference between a Tierra del Fuegian and a European is greater than between a Tierra del Fuegian and a beast[4]

 


Racist influence 

Darwin's writings, which became very influential in the late 19th century, provided an argument for racism. Harvard University's staunch evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould stated, "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."[5] Stephen Gould also admitted the following about the atheist Ernst Haeckel:



 

Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany.... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78). [6]

 


Social Darwinism and evolutionary racism allowed "human zoos" to proliferate in the late 1800s, wherein a supposed evolutionary progression of humans - from apes, to Africans, to West Europeans - were placed in a line. African and other tribal populations were routinely described as more akin to savage primates than Europeans.

Hitler and evolutionary racist genocide 

For more information please see: Social effects of the theory of evolution 

Darwin's evolutionary racism would have enormous impact in early 20th century, eventually leading to eugenics programs (first devised by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton) in American and Europe, and also influencing Adolf Hitler.






The staunch evolutionist Stephen Gould admitted the following: 



 

[Ernst] Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany.... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).[7]

 


Robert E.D. Clark in his work Darwin: Before and After wrote concerning Hitler's evolutionary racism:



 

The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all natures efforts 'to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile' (Mein Kampf). [8]

 


Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: 



 

The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.[9]

 


Dr. Robert E.D. Clark wrote in his work Darwin, Before and After the following regarding Hitler and the theory of evolution: Adolf Hitlers mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching  probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas  quite undisguised  lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf  and in his public speeches.[10]





Richard Dawkins is a prominent atheist and evolutionist. Richard Dawkins stated in an interview: Whats to prevent us from saying Hitler wasnt right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."[11]
 Richard Hickman in his work Biocreation concurs and wrote the following: 



 

It is perhaps no coincidence that Adolf Hitler was a firm believer in and preacher of evolutionism. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important for]. . . his book, Mein Kampf clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and extermination of the weak to produce a better society. [12]

 


Noted evolutionary anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith conceded the following in regards to Hitler: The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.[10]

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of Harpers magazine:



 

While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale  Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent.
 [Richard] Dawkins deals with all this in one sentence. Hitler did his evil "in the name of ... an insane and unscientific eugenics theory." But eugenics is science as surely as totemism is religion. That either is in error is beside the point. Science quite appropriately acknowledges that error should be assumed, and at best it proceeds by a continuous process of criticism meant to isolate and identify error. So bad science is still science in more or less the same sense that bad religion is still religion. That both of them can do damage on a huge scale is clear. The prestige of both is a great part of the problem, and in the modern period the credibility of anything called science is enormous. As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it.

There is indeed historical precedent in the Spanish Inquisition for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science.[13][14]

 


Evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins stated in an interview: Whats to prevent us from saying Hitler wasnt right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."[15] The interviewer wrote, regarding the Hitler comment, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."[16]

Josef Mengele 





Josef Mengele 
For more information see: Josef Mengele

Josef Mengele (1911 - 1979) was a German physician and researcher who perpetrated the Holocaust in the Auschwitz death camp. Mengele had obtained a Ph.D. based on the study of racial differences in the anatomy of the jaw. He was one of the greatest supporters of Nazi theories of racial superiority with questionable research claims. Dr. Josef Mengele's evolutionary thinking was in accordance with social Darwinist theories that Adolph Hitler and a number of German academics found appealing.[17] Mengele studied under the leading proponents the "unworthy life" branch of evolutionary thought.[18] Mengele strongly supported the murder of the physically and mentally disabled. Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with Nazi death camps and the Holocaust.[19] Dr. Mengele obtained a infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at Auschwitz-Birkenau.[20] He was known as the "Angel of Death."

He performed experiments on humans in the concentration camps attempting to prove that disease was the product of racial inferiority and in order to genetically engineer a new species, which was the aim of his organization, the Frankfurt based Institute of Hereditary Biology and Racial Hygiene. He amputated healthy limbs and performed other unusual operations on prisoners.

Present impact 

While the concept of "race" has since been proven by biology to be nonsense, Evolutionary Racism remains very strong amongst bigoted white supremacist groups, who continue to see race in evolutionary terms and believe in the superior advancement of western "races".

Racism remains common among evolutionists, despite attempts to hide it: 



 

Many of the early settlers of Australia considered the Australian Aborigines to be less intelligent than the white man, because aborigines had not evolved as far as whites on the evolutionary scale. In fact, the Hobart Museum in Tasmania in 1984 listed this as one of the reasons why early white settlers killed as many aborigines as they could in that state.

 




Ken Ham, Evolution: The Lie (1987), p. 86.


In addition, evolutionary racism was directed at Michelle Obama.[21] 

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's comments about black women and African history 

Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics. Dr. Kanazawa publishes a blog on the Psychology Today website called The Scientific Fundamentalist.

In 2011, Dr. Kanazawa published the following inappropriate comment which was later pulled by the Psychology Today website:



 

It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others.[22]

 


Kanazawa has a "Savanna principle" hypothesis which speculates that societal problems are due to the human brain supposedly evolving in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago in a very different environment from modern society.[23]

Further Reading 
Richard Weikart, Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress ISBN 978-0-230-61807-7
 Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany ISBN 9781403972019

See also 
Social effects of the theory of evolution 
Atheism and Mass Murder 
Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality 
Atheism and Uncharitableness 
Causes of Atheism 
Theory of evolution and liberalism 

Evolutionary racism - Conservapedia



http://www.geocentricity.com/creationism/racism_in_evolution.pdf


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was worth educating you on some history regarding your hero, Henry Morris of the ICR, himself, something of a rascist and to educate you on some recent history of christianity and ties to rascism.
> 
> 
> CA005: Evolution and racism
> 
> Claim CA005:
> 
> Evolution promotes racism.
> 
> Source:
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> 1.  When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.
> 
> 2.  Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.
> 
> 3.  Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.
> 
> 4.  Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries.
> 
> 5.  *Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism.*
> 
> 6.  Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples:
> 
> &#8226;  George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote, The poor little fellow who went to the south Got lost in the forests dank; His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat And scorched his hair with its tropic heat, And his mind became a blank.
> 
> In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85).
> 
> &#8226;  During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught .
> 
> The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things, that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles' (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).
> 
> 
> The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).
> 
> &#8226;  The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery.
> 
> &#8226;  Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:
> Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).
> 
> 
> 7.  None of this matters to the science of evolution.
> 
> Links:
> 
> Trott, Richard and Jim Lippard, 2003. Creationism implies racism? Creationism Implies Racism?
> References:
> 1.  Esterhuysen, Amanda and Jeannette Smith, 1998. Evolution: 'the forbidden word'? South African Archaeological Bulletin 53: 135-137. Quoted from Stear, J., 2004. It's official! Racism is an integral part of creationist dogma. It's Official! Racism is an Integral Part of Creationist Dogma
> 2.  Moore, R., 2004. (see below)
> 3.  Morris, Henry M., 1976. The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.
> 4.  Numbers, Ronald L., 1992, The Creationists, New York: Knopf.
> 
> 
> Further Reading:
> Mayr, Ernst, 2000. Darwin's influence on modern thought. Scientific American 283(1) (Jul.): 78-83.
> 
> Moore, Randy, 2004. The dark side of creationism. The American Biology Teacher 66(2): 85-87.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that you would include Hitler as a racist. Hitler and Nazi ideology were closely linked with christianity.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

More of the wonderful christians leading the charge into the Dark Ages.




Creationism Gets a Dash of Anti-Semitism

Creationism Gets a Dash of Anti-Semitism | Southern Poverty Law Center

Do you think the theory of evolution is a Satanic plot to bring about the New World Order? Are you worried that Darwin's idea produced "Communism, Socialism, Naziism, abortion, liberalism and the New Age Movement?" Then Dr. Kent Hovind is for you.

Hovind, who runs the Creation Science Evangelism ministry from Pensacola, Fla., says the whole Bible is literally true and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. While that may seem par for the creationist course, Hovind also sells anti-Semitic books like Fourth Reich of the Rich and has recommended The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a book blaming the world's problems on a Jewish conspiracy.

Environmentalism and income taxes, Hovind says, are designed to destroy the United States and "bring it under Communism." "Democracy," he says, "is evil and contrary to God's law."

Every religion has fundamentalists bordering on extremism; Hovind is notable for his wide reception and for his promulgating of conspiracy theories favored by the antigovernment "Patriot" movement.


----------



## Hollie

Creationism and Racism

Creationism Implies Racism?

Tom McIver, an anthropologist who has written several articles forCreation/Evolution, NCSE Reports, and the Skeptical Inquirer, as well as the book Anti-Evolution: An Annotated Bibliography, has a book on creationism that will be published by the Univ. of California Press. Chapter 15 of the book is titled "Creationism and Racism," and the history of connections between creationism and racism. A shorter version of the chapter will be published in a future issue of Skeptic magazine (probably the issue after next, i.e., vol. 2, no. 4).

Anyway, I wanted to share some of it here. McIver begins with a bunch of quotes from creationists who maintain that racism comes from belief in evolution--Henry Morris, Ken Ham, Bert Thompson, Malcolm Bowden, etc.--it's a pretty long list. This part really caught my eye, though:
"Evolution and racism are the same thing," declares Jerry Bergman (McIver 1990:21; see Bergman's "Evolution and the Development of Nazi Race Policy" in Bible-Science Newsletter [1988] and articles in Creation Research Society Quarterly [1980], CSSHQ [1986], and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal [1991, 1992]).[2]

[2] Bergman has been featured in many creationist publications for his complaint that he was denied tenure and dismissed from Bowling Green State University "solely because of my beliefs and publications in the area of creationism"; a cover story, for instance, in the Creation Science Legal Defense Fund's magazine Creation ("The Jerry Bergman Story," 1984). In Bergman's The Criterion (preface by Wendell Bird, foreword by John Eidsmoe), Luther Sunderland said Bergman was fired "solely" because of his religious beliefs--his creationism (1984:64). But in a signed letter published in David Duke's National Association of White People newsletter, Bergman stated that "reverse [racial] discrimination was clearly part of the decision"--i.e., that it was not solely religious discrimination (Bergman 1985:2).

McIver goes on to look at the racism that arises from a particular interpretation of Noah's three sons and the curse on Ham, from polygenism (inferior pre-Adamite people), connections with the Ku Klux Klan, Anglo-Israelism, and the Christian Identity movement, etc. Some interesting points of connection:

&#8226;  Prominent fundamentalists connected with the KKK: Bob Shuler, Billy Sunday, and Bob Jones, Sr. (McIver says that "Perhaps 40,000 fundamentalist ministers joined the Klan.") 

&#8226;  Prominent creationists affiliated with Bob Jones University: Emmett Williams, former editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly and George Mulfinger, CRS board member.

&#8226;  Gerald Winrod, founder of Defenders of the Christian Faith, published the "openly racist" magazine Defender, which published creationist articles by George McCready Price, W.B. Riley, and A.I. Brown. For a time, it also published Harry Rimmer's newsletter in its pages. (Riley was the leader of the World's Christian Fundamentals Association, a prominent fundamentalist group in the 1920's. He openly advocated white supremacy.) 

&#8226;  Charles Totten, the Yale military science instructor who came up with alleged calculations proving "Joshua's Missing Day" (later turned into an urban legend about NASA by Harold Hill), was also an advocate of British-Israelism (promoted in his journal Our Race) and a pyramidologist.

&#8226;  James Gray, editor of the Moody Monthly and head of the Moody Bible Institute, was a firm believer in the genuineness of the anti-Semitic fraud Protocols of the Elders of Zion. When Henry Ford publicly apologized for a series of articles by A.J. Cameron (another British-Israelite) about the Protocols in Ford's Dearborn, Mich. newspaper, Gray claimed that Ford's apology was itself evidence of Jewish conspiracy. 

&#8226;  Jarah Crawford, a Vermont Assembly of God minister, claims that scientific creationism isn't creationist enough because it allows for evolution of races. 

&#8226;  Herman Otten, editor of Christian News, is now an advocate of Holocaust revisionism.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie and daws why would neanderthals live among humans if they were not human ?
> 
> List of Neanderthal sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neanderthals are not humans, if you are defining humans as homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals are Homo Neanderthalensis. See that? Different name. It is that simple. Just understand that. please. you are trying to change reality to fit your viewpoint. it is pathetic. they are a hominid species, closely related to modern humans, and in fact, could be considered a sub-species, but they are not human, by definition. You wouldn't call a poodle a doberman, would you? same thing.  I emplore you to find one scientist that believes they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No that is exactly what evolutionists do is put organisms in to classifications if they put the neanderthal in to a different group they can use that as evidence of evolution. Neanderthals are human and the more research that is done on this group they grow closer and closer to humans it's because they are human. Please point out something that is not found in humans that is found in neanderthals ?
> 
> So are you suggesting there are different breeds of humans ? A canine is a canine even though they look different. A human is a human even though they look a little different.
> 
> Neanderthals are humans that were discovered in neander valley Germany. What is so different about them that they are not human ?
Click to expand...


So, you are claiming the classification system is conspiratorial? You are a constant source of facepalm. I don't even know why I bother with such astounding ignorance. Willful ignorance, actually. 

Neanderthals are classified differently because they were separate from humans for a long time, and development distinct morphological traits. They left africa far before we did and lived in Europe until we met up with them again when we came out of africa many years later. 

Btw, using the "breeds" analogy was exactly that. An A-N-A-L-O-G-Y, to help your dumbass understand. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_565174&feature=iv&src_vid=2kLSiE-eNjw&v=wj0qx56cwOw]The Sex Lives of Early Humans - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> neanderthals are not humans, if you are defining humans as homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals are Homo Neanderthalensis. See that? Different name. It is that simple. Just understand that. please. you are trying to change reality to fit your viewpoint. it is pathetic. they are a hominid species, closely related to modern humans, and in fact, could be considered a sub-species, but they are not human, by definition. You wouldn't call a poodle a doberman, would you? same thing.  I emplore you to find one scientist that believes they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that is exactly what evolutionists do is put organisms in to classifications if they put the neanderthal in to a different group they can use that as evidence of evolution. Neanderthals are human and the more research that is done on this group they grow closer and closer to humans it's because they are human. Please point out something that is not found in humans that is found in neanderthals ?
> 
> So are you suggesting there are different breeds of humans ? A canine is a canine even though they look different. A human is a human even though they look a little different.
> 
> Neanderthals are humans that were discovered in neander valley Germany. What is so different about them that they are not human ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are claiming the classification system is conspiratorial? You are a constant source of facepalm. I don't even know why I bother with such astounding ignorance. Willful ignorance, actually.
> 
> Neanderthals are classified differently because they were separate from humans for a long time, and development distinct morphological traits. They left africa far before we did and lived in Europe until we met up with them again when we came out of africa many years later.
> 
> Btw, using the "breeds" analogy was exactly that. An A-N-A-L-O-G-Y, to help your dumbass understand.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_565174&feature=iv&src_vid=2kLSiE-eNjw&v=wj0qx56cwOw]The Sex Lives of Early Humans - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


The question is were they human or not ? A child that suffers from downs syndrome is that child considered a human, what classification would you put on that child ? are they another sub species of human ?

Your theory and the measuring stick for what constitutes a different species is just a little warped.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was worth educating you on some history regarding your hero, Henry Morris of the ICR, himself, something of a rascist and to educate you on some recent history of christianity and ties to rascism.
> 
> 
> CA005: Evolution and racism
> 
> Claim CA005:
> 
> Evolution promotes racism.
> 
> Source:
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> 1.  When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.
> 
> 2.  Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.
> 
> 3.  Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.
> 
> 4.  Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries.
> 
> 5.  *Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism.*
> 
> 6.  Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples:
> 
>   George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote, The poor little fellow who went to the south Got lost in the forests dank; His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat And scorched his hair with its tropic heat, And his mind became a blank.
> 
> In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85).
> 
>   During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught .
> 
> The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things, that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles' (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).
> 
> 
> The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).
> 
>   The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery.
> 
>   Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:
> Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).
> 
> 
> 7.  None of this matters to the science of evolution.
> 
> Links:
> 
> Trott, Richard and Jim Lippard, 2003. Creationism implies racism? Creationism Implies Racism?
> References:
> 1.  Esterhuysen, Amanda and Jeannette Smith, 1998. Evolution: 'the forbidden word'? South African Archaeological Bulletin 53: 135-137. Quoted from Stear, J., 2004. It's official! Racism is an integral part of creationist dogma. It's Official! Racism is an Integral Part of Creationist Dogma
> 2.  Moore, R., 2004. (see below)
> 3.  Morris, Henry M., 1976. The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.
> 4.  Numbers, Ronald L., 1992, The Creationists, New York: Knopf.
> 
> 
> Further Reading:
> Mayr, Ernst, 2000. Darwin's influence on modern thought. Scientific American 283(1) (Jul.): 78-83.
> 
> Moore, Randy, 2004. The dark side of creationism. The American Biology Teacher 66(2): 85-87.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that you would include Hitler as a racist. Hitler and Nazi ideology were closely linked with christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try this again,guilt by association. I am a christian that believe all men are equal and I have not crossed paths with this true Christian that is considered a racist. Do you understand how many Christians put themselves in harms way to help aficans and muslims ? you're just simply barking up the wrong tree. Are there bad people in Christianity you bet and God warned us there were.
> 
> The theory of evolution teaches what I claimed. They may have finally accepted that aficans and everyone that has been descriminated against are truly humans but they did and do teach they are less evolved. If whites evolved from aficans as has been claimed who are further evolved ?
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> More of the wonderful christians leading the charge into the Dark Ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism Gets a Dash of Anti-Semitism
> 
> Creationism Gets a Dash of Anti-Semitism | Southern Poverty Law Center
> 
> Do you think the theory of evolution is a Satanic plot to bring about the New World Order? Are you worried that Darwin's idea produced "Communism, Socialism, Naziism, abortion, liberalism and the New Age Movement?" Then Dr. Kent Hovind is for you.
> 
> Hovind, who runs the Creation Science Evangelism ministry from Pensacola, Fla., says the whole Bible is literally true and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. While that may seem par for the creationist course, Hovind also sells anti-Semitic books like Fourth Reich of the Rich and has recommended The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a book blaming the world's problems on a Jewish conspiracy.
> 
> Environmentalism and income taxes, Hovind says, are designed to destroy the United States and "bring it under Communism." "Democracy," he says, "is evil and contrary to God's law."
> 
> Every religion has fundamentalists bordering on extremism; Hovind is notable for his wide reception and for his promulgating of conspiracy theories favored by the antigovernment "Patriot" movement.



I believe atheism has done everything in it's power to warp peoples minds against God yes. They don't know whose influence they are under . It is the true evil one spoken of long ago.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> neanderthals are not humans, if you are defining humans as homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals are Homo Neanderthalensis. See that? Different name. It is that simple. Just understand that. please. you are trying to change reality to fit your viewpoint. it is pathetic. they are a hominid species, closely related to modern humans, and in fact, could be considered a sub-species, but they are not human, by definition. You wouldn't call a poodle a doberman, would you? same thing.  I emplore you to find one scientist that believes they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that is exactly what evolutionists do is put organisms in to classifications if they put the neanderthal in to a different group they can use that as evidence of evolution. Neanderthals are human and the more research that is done on this group they grow closer and closer to humans it's because they are human. Please point out something that is not found in humans that is found in neanderthals ?
> 
> So are you suggesting there are different breeds of humans ? A canine is a canine even though they look different. A human is a human even though they look a little different.
> 
> Neanderthals are humans that were discovered in neander valley Germany. What is so different about them that they are not human ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are claiming the classification system is conspiratorial? You are a constant source of facepalm. I don't even know why I bother with such astounding ignorance. Willful ignorance, actually.
> 
> Neanderthals are classified differently because they were separate from humans for a long time, and development distinct morphological traits. They left africa far before we did and lived in Europe until we met up with them again when we came out of africa many years later.
> 
> Btw, using the "breeds" analogy was exactly that. An A-N-A-L-O-G-Y, to help your dumbass understand.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_565174&feature=iv&src_vid=2kLSiE-eNjw&v=wj0qx56cwOw]The Sex Lives of Early Humans - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


You are blinded by ignorance and I don't need your warped education. I have already been there and have seen my way through the ignorance being taught to you kids these days.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> *Yes I believe neanderthals went extinct during the global flood why do you say they went extinct ?*



If you're talking about them going extinct during the Noah flood, then Hollie, you're arguing with a retard. Give it up already. This person can't think logically or critically. Kinda like a.... retard.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Creationism and Racism
> 
> Creationism Implies Racism?
> 
> Tom McIver, an anthropologist who has written several articles forCreation/Evolution, NCSE Reports, and the Skeptical Inquirer, as well as the book Anti-Evolution: An Annotated Bibliography, has a book on creationism that will be published by the Univ. of California Press. Chapter 15 of the book is titled "Creationism and Racism," and the history of connections between creationism and racism. A shorter version of the chapter will be published in a future issue of Skeptic magazine (probably the issue after next, i.e., vol. 2, no. 4).
> 
> Anyway, I wanted to share some of it here. McIver begins with a bunch of quotes from creationists who maintain that racism comes from belief in evolution--Henry Morris, Ken Ham, Bert Thompson, Malcolm Bowden, etc.--it's a pretty long list. This part really caught my eye, though:
> "Evolution and racism are the same thing," declares Jerry Bergman (McIver 1990:21; see Bergman's "Evolution and the Development of Nazi Race Policy" in Bible-Science Newsletter [1988] and articles in Creation Research Society Quarterly [1980], CSSHQ [1986], and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal [1991, 1992]).[2]
> 
> [2] Bergman has been featured in many creationist publications for his complaint that he was denied tenure and dismissed from Bowling Green State University "solely because of my beliefs and publications in the area of creationism"; a cover story, for instance, in the Creation Science Legal Defense Fund's magazine Creation ("The Jerry Bergman Story," 1984). In Bergman's The Criterion (preface by Wendell Bird, foreword by John Eidsmoe), Luther Sunderland said Bergman was fired "solely" because of his religious beliefs--his creationism (1984:64). But in a signed letter published in David Duke's National Association of White People newsletter, Bergman stated that "reverse [racial] discrimination was clearly part of the decision"--i.e., that it was not solely religious discrimination (Bergman 1985:2).
> 
> McIver goes on to look at the racism that arises from a particular interpretation of Noah's three sons and the curse on Ham, from polygenism (inferior pre-Adamite people), connections with the Ku Klux Klan, Anglo-Israelism, and the Christian Identity movement, etc. Some interesting points of connection:
> 
>   Prominent fundamentalists connected with the KKK: Bob Shuler, Billy Sunday, and Bob Jones, Sr. (McIver says that "Perhaps 40,000 fundamentalist ministers joined the Klan.")
> 
>   Prominent creationists affiliated with Bob Jones University: Emmett Williams, former editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly and George Mulfinger, CRS board member.
> 
>   Gerald Winrod, founder of Defenders of the Christian Faith, published the "openly racist" magazine Defender, which published creationist articles by George McCready Price, W.B. Riley, and A.I. Brown. For a time, it also published Harry Rimmer's newsletter in its pages. (Riley was the leader of the World's Christian Fundamentals Association, a prominent fundamentalist group in the 1920's. He openly advocated white supremacy.)
> 
>   Charles Totten, the Yale military science instructor who came up with alleged calculations proving "Joshua's Missing Day" (later turned into an urban legend about NASA by Harold Hill), was also an advocate of British-Israelism (promoted in his journal Our Race) and a pyramidologist.
> 
>   James Gray, editor of the Moody Monthly and head of the Moody Bible Institute, was a firm believer in the genuineness of the anti-Semitic fraud Protocols of the Elders of Zion. When Henry Ford publicly apologized for a series of articles by A.J. Cameron (another British-Israelite) about the Protocols in Ford's Dearborn, Mich. newspaper, Gray claimed that Ford's apology was itself evidence of Jewish conspiracy.
> 
>   Jarah Crawford, a Vermont Assembly of God minister, claims that scientific creationism isn't creationist enough because it allows for evolution of races.
> 
>   Herman Otten, editor of Christian News, is now an advocate of Holocaust revisionism.



Today the dogma being taught by evolutionist.

Black People are Less Intelligent, Says Dr. James Watson, Nobel Prize Winner and DNA Pioneer. « T&#8217;ings &#8216;n Times

Low IQs are Africa's curse, says lecturer | UK news | The Observer

Harvard Student Says Blacks Genetically Inferior | Grow The Heck Up

Jean-Philippe Rushton | Southern Poverty Law Center


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes I believe neanderthals went extinct during the global flood why do you say they went extinct ?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're talking about them going extinct during the Noah flood, then Hollie, you're arguing with a retard. Give it up already. This person can't think logically or critically. Kinda like a.... retard.
Click to expand...


What a mature response then you answer the question when and why did neanderthals go extinct ?


----------



## ima

New research may show that Neanderthals did not go extinct.
DNA derived from the Neanderthals has been found in many human populations around the globe.
http://wsws.org/en/articles/2011/12/nean-d27.html


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> New research may show that Neanderthals did not go extinct.
> DNA derived from the Neanderthals has been found in many human populations around the globe.
> http://wsws.org/en/articles/2011/12/nean-d27.html



That is my point so why would they say they were a sub species of humans. We all originated from the same human parents so why wouldn't we all have neanderthal genetic data in us ? That being said they went extinct during the flood but the genes of neanderthals was in the children of Noah like it was in all humans. Races of mankind was the result of that one set of parents. There is only one human race with some variations that is all it is. No race of man is inferior to another some just have had more opportunity for living a healthy life and had the better chance for education.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism and Racism
> 
> Creationism Implies Racism?
> 
> Tom McIver, an anthropologist who has written several articles forCreation/Evolution, NCSE Reports, and the Skeptical Inquirer, as well as the book Anti-Evolution: An Annotated Bibliography, has a book on creationism that will be published by the Univ. of California Press. Chapter 15 of the book is titled "Creationism and Racism," and the history of connections between creationism and racism. A shorter version of the chapter will be published in a future issue of Skeptic magazine (probably the issue after next, i.e., vol. 2, no. 4).
> 
> Anyway, I wanted to share some of it here. McIver begins with a bunch of quotes from creationists who maintain that racism comes from belief in evolution--Henry Morris, Ken Ham, Bert Thompson, Malcolm Bowden, etc.--it's a pretty long list. This part really caught my eye, though:
> "Evolution and racism are the same thing," declares Jerry Bergman (McIver 1990:21; see Bergman's "Evolution and the Development of Nazi Race Policy" in Bible-Science Newsletter [1988] and articles in Creation Research Society Quarterly [1980], CSSHQ [1986], and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal [1991, 1992]).[2]
> 
> [2] Bergman has been featured in many creationist publications for his complaint that he was denied tenure and dismissed from Bowling Green State University "solely because of my beliefs and publications in the area of creationism"; a cover story, for instance, in the Creation Science Legal Defense Fund's magazine Creation ("The Jerry Bergman Story," 1984). In Bergman's The Criterion (preface by Wendell Bird, foreword by John Eidsmoe), Luther Sunderland said Bergman was fired "solely" because of his religious beliefs--his creationism (1984:64). But in a signed letter published in David Duke's National Association of White People newsletter, Bergman stated that "reverse [racial] discrimination was clearly part of the decision"--i.e., that it was not solely religious discrimination (Bergman 1985:2).
> 
> McIver goes on to look at the racism that arises from a particular interpretation of Noah's three sons and the curse on Ham, from polygenism (inferior pre-Adamite people), connections with the Ku Klux Klan, Anglo-Israelism, and the Christian Identity movement, etc. Some interesting points of connection:
> 
>   Prominent fundamentalists connected with the KKK: Bob Shuler, Billy Sunday, and Bob Jones, Sr. (McIver says that "Perhaps 40,000 fundamentalist ministers joined the Klan.")
> 
>   Prominent creationists affiliated with Bob Jones University: Emmett Williams, former editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly and George Mulfinger, CRS board member.
> 
>   Gerald Winrod, founder of Defenders of the Christian Faith, published the "openly racist" magazine Defender, which published creationist articles by George McCready Price, W.B. Riley, and A.I. Brown. For a time, it also published Harry Rimmer's newsletter in its pages. (Riley was the leader of the World's Christian Fundamentals Association, a prominent fundamentalist group in the 1920's. He openly advocated white supremacy.)
> 
>   Charles Totten, the Yale military science instructor who came up with alleged calculations proving "Joshua's Missing Day" (later turned into an urban legend about NASA by Harold Hill), was also an advocate of British-Israelism (promoted in his journal Our Race) and a pyramidologist.
> 
>   James Gray, editor of the Moody Monthly and head of the Moody Bible Institute, was a firm believer in the genuineness of the anti-Semitic fraud Protocols of the Elders of Zion. When Henry Ford publicly apologized for a series of articles by A.J. Cameron (another British-Israelite) about the Protocols in Ford's Dearborn, Mich. newspaper, Gray claimed that Ford's apology was itself evidence of Jewish conspiracy.
> 
>   Jarah Crawford, a Vermont Assembly of God minister, claims that scientific creationism isn't creationist enough because it allows for evolution of races.
> 
>   Herman Otten, editor of Christian News, is now an advocate of Holocaust revisionism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today the dogma being taught by evolutionist.
> 
> Black People are Less Intelligent, Says Dr. James Watson, Nobel Prize Winner and DNA Pioneer. « Tings n Times
> 
> Low IQs are Africa's curse, says lecturer | UK news | The Observer
> 
> Harvard Student Says Blacks Genetically Inferior | Grow The Heck Up
> 
> Jean-Philippe Rushton | Southern Poverty Law Center
Click to expand...


Today, the ignorance and denial being taught by creationist.

No, obviously you dont need any education. Everything you need to know is in the bible.

What is clear is that you must reject anything that contradicts your literal account of biblical tales and fables. Facts and evidence are meaningless to the fundie Christian and willful rejection of those facts and evidences to be expected. 

Its a shame that you live within a worldview that is haunted by alleged conspiracy theories, fear and self-loathing. That said, to the substance of your post, it is not possible to reconcile the literal Biblical accounts of Adam & Eve with the evidence of human evolution. In spite of your frantic denials, reconciliation of biblical tales and fables can only be possible by interpreting Adam and Eve as allegorical rather than historical persons.

Because  evolution is true, we have a host of transitional human stages. 

And in fact there were so many that, even though the chance of any living animal becoming a fossil is vanishingly small, and even though the chance of any fossil being found by a modern human are smaller still, we have thousands of fossils of hundreds of individuals of these many transitional human stages. 

In fact, the fossil record of human evolution is so powerful that it is as close to proof as you ever find in science. 

Here is a partial list of the transitional forms of which we know: 

_Australopithecus afarensis 

Australopithecus africanus 

Homo habilis 

Homo erectus / ergaster 

Homo hiedelbergensis (archaic Homo sapiens) _

This list does not include the many side branches, such as _Homo neanderthalensis, Autralopithecus robustus, or Australopithecus boisei . _


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> New research may show that Neanderthals did not go extinct.
> DNA derived from the Neanderthals has been found in many human populations around the globe.
> http://wsws.org/en/articles/2011/12/nean-d27.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point so why would they say they were a sub species of humans. We all originated from the same human parents so why wouldn't we all have neanderthal genetic data in us ? That being said they went extinct during the flood but the genes of neanderthals was in the children of Noah like it was in all humans. Races of mankind was the result of that one set of parents. There is only one human race with some variations that is all it is. No race of man is inferior to another some just have had more opportunity for living a healthy life and had the better chance for education.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, your question confirms the willful ignorance embraced by fundie christians. Their anti-intellectualism, anti-education agenda is bolstered by their rabid conspiracy theories.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that you would include Hitler as a racist. Hitler and Nazi ideology were closely linked with christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try this again,guilt by association. I am a christian that believe all men are equal and I have not crossed paths with this true Christian that is considered a racist. Do you understand how many Christians put themselves in harms way to help aficans and muslims ? you're just simply barking up the wrong tree. Are there bad people in Christianity you bet and God warned us there were.
> 
> The theory of evolution teaches what I claimed. They may have finally accepted that aficans and everyone that has been descriminated against are truly humans but they did and do teach they are less evolved. If whites evolved from aficans as has been claimed who are further evolved ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can only judge you on your creationist views which have been shown to be racist, discriminatory and bigoted.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution teaches nothing of what you describe because you are utterly ignorant of the various science disciplines supporting evolution. As we have seen, your views on science are both twisted and jaundiced by your fundamentalist christian views.
> 
> The reason why most people have a hard time believing creationist is that there is no shred of evidence to support it, and above that, it is an irrational concept dealing completely in speculation. And, as noted, there is a long history of racism associated with christian creationist ministries.
> 
> What we are seeing is the fundie christian refusal and inability to accept the idea that humans could have evolved from primitive hominids, because the idea is repugnant to you, not because the science is bad... and you prefer instead to abstain from all critical thinking in order to reject this idea. I'm sure you are capable of employing rational thought in your daily chores but you refuse to allow this skill to force its way into the areas of intellect that have been corrupted by your chriatian faith. You should step back and look at the evidence objectively.
> 
> In support of creationist, a rational person would require you to present a case against evolution, perhaps in the peer reviewed scientific literature. For years now, the science community has been pleading to the creationist community for even a firm model of creationist, let alone evidence in its favor. It would be swell if creationist could supply, so we can do some proper scientific investigation. But simply asserting its existence is not enough, and the refutations to creationist will be found already on this forum.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neanderthals Were Too Smart to Survive - Softpedia
> 
> Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon
> 
> NeuroLogica Blog » Neanderthal Intelligence
> 
> 
> 
> Neanderthals Were Too Smart to Survive: December 21st, 2005, 09:41 = 7 years old
> 
> BBC - Science & Nature - September 2005=  7years old
> 
> NeuroLogica Blog » Neanderthal Intelligence Aug
> 26
> 2008 = 4years old
> weren't you the guy who just got done making an ass of himself whining about using dated material ?
> 
> besides, arguing for Neanderthals is arguing for evolution not creation.
> if we were so perfect why would god need to make another speices.
> they ( Neanderthals ) are never mentioned in the bible.
> how do you reconcile that with the creation myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neanderthals are human not another species of humans.
Click to expand...

not an answer! 

they ( Neanderthals ) are never mentioned in the bible.
how do you reconcile that with the creation myth?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neanderthals Were Too Smart to Survive: December 21st, 2005, 09:41 = 7 years old
> 
> BBC - Science & Nature - September 2005=  7years old
> 
> NeuroLogica Blog » Neanderthal Intelligence Aug
> 26
> 2008 = 4years old
> weren't you the guy who just got done making an ass of himself whining about using dated material ?
> 
> besides, arguing for Neanderthals is arguing for evolution not creation.
> if we were so perfect why would god need to make another speices.
> they ( Neanderthals ) are never mentioned in the bible.
> how do you reconcile that with the creation myth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neanderthals are human not another species of humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not an answer!
> 
> they ( Neanderthals ) are never mentioned in the bible.
> how do you reconcile that with the creation myth?
Click to expand...


Once again you're showing your ignorance. Why would neanderthals have to be mentioned in the bible ? Daws do you understand how neanderthals got their name and when 

Their fossils were discovered in the neander valley and it  was long after the writings of the bible ,that is why they were named neanderthals. They were not just discovered in neander valley though. In God's eyes all men are created equal and they are. how do you reconcile that with the evolution myth ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try this again,guilt by association. I am a christian that believe all men are equal and I have not crossed paths with this true Christian that is considered a racist. Do you understand how many Christians put themselves in harms way to help aficans and muslims ? you're just simply barking up the wrong tree. Are there bad people in Christianity you bet and God warned us there were.
> 
> The theory of evolution teaches what I claimed. They may have finally accepted that aficans and everyone that has been descriminated against are truly humans but they did and do teach they are less evolved. If whites evolved from aficans as has been claimed who are further evolved ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can only judge you on your creationist views which have been shown to be racist, discriminatory and bigoted.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution teaches nothing of what you describe because you are utterly ignorant of the various science disciplines supporting evolution. As we have seen, your views on science are both twisted and jaundiced by your fundamentalist christian views.
> 
> The reason why most people have a hard time believing creationist is that there is no shred of evidence to support it, and above that, it is an irrational concept dealing completely in speculation. And, as noted, there is a long history of racism associated with christian creationist ministries.
> 
> What we are seeing is the fundie christian refusal and inability to accept the idea that humans could have evolved from primitive hominids, because the idea is repugnant to you, not because the science is bad... and you prefer instead to abstain from all critical thinking in order to reject this idea. I'm sure you are capable of employing rational thought in your daily chores but you refuse to allow this skill to force its way into the areas of intellect that have been corrupted by your chriatian faith. You should step back and look at the evidence objectively.
> 
> In support of creationist, a rational person would require you to present a case against evolution, perhaps in the peer reviewed scientific literature. For years now, the science community has been pleading to the creationist community for even a firm model of creationist, let alone evidence in its favor. It would be swell if creationist could supply, so we can do some proper scientific investigation. But simply asserting its existence is not enough, and the refutations to creationist will be found already on this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care what you think hollie,you're probably the biggest tool I have ever encountered and it was my pleasure exposing what you are.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> In humans they use to make the same claim concerning the appendix because we could live without the organ. They have found that the organ stores bacteria and Enzymes that aid in the digestive system.
> 
> The science community sometimes rush to an explanation only to be proven wrong later.
> 
> 
> 
> yet another fine example of ywc spining the facts!
> 
> Does the appendix have a function?
> The appendix -- an organ barely 4 inches long -- causes much debate among medical professionals. In fact, doctors have trouble deciding if the appendix has any use to the body at all. While everyone agrees that the appendix can be removed without causing any adverse health consequences to the patient, some physicians and researchers believe that the appendix does serve a function as part of the immune system. Others feel that the appendix is a vestigial organ, a remainder from the time when humans regularly dined on tree bark and needed an additional organ to break down the roughage. Along with the disagreement over the true function of the appendix, there is no consensus if humans will always have this organ. Some doctors feel that the evolution of the human body will lead to the demise of the appendix, while others believe that the appendix will remain in the body, continuing to do whatever it does.
> 
> 
> HowStuffWorks "Does the appendix have a function?"
> 
> the they ywc conveniently  left out is : "some physicians and researchers believe that the appendix does serve a function as part of the immune system"
> the operative words are SOME AND BELIEVE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the appendix have a function daws ? that was my point.
Click to expand...

wrong ,you said:  "They have found that the organ stores bacteria and Enzymes that aid in the digestive system."-YWC
THAT IS A STATEMENT NOT A QUESTION!  
AS ALWAYS YOU'RE BACKPEDALING .


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> daws no one has ever observed the brain of the neanderthal to give an opinion on intelligence don't you get it ? They could have been more intelligent they might not have been but nobody knows but we do know that they had the cranial capacity to have bigger brains.
> 
> An elephant has a bigger brain but they didn't build a ship and go to the moon. Clearly humans are more intelligent then any organism on this planet,why ? Do you understand that many evolutionist made the claim that they were part beast and human and once said they they were dumb brutes.
> 
> Asshole ? If this is getting to be more then you can handle take a break and allow yourself to be taught.
> 
> 
> 
> yes asshole! Another dodge or have you lost the gist of the tread again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i believe you're spinning in circles,showing you're in over your head.
Click to expand...

as always your belief fails epically


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> neanderthals are human not another species of humans.
> 
> 
> 
> there is not a firm consensus among scientists about neanderthals being human.
> 
> Another.problem for the creationist is that neanderthals have been dated to existing as much as 50,000 years ago.
> 
> Yet another creationist myth debunked- the 6000 year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are full of it hollie,neanderthals are human.
Click to expand...

another well thought out  science based retort from the esteemed deep thinker ywc..


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> New research may show that Neanderthals did not go extinct.
> DNA derived from the Neanderthals has been found in many human populations around the globe.
> http://wsws.org/en/articles/2011/12/nean-d27.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point so why would they say they were a sub species of humans. We all originated from the same human parents so why wouldn't we all have neanderthal genetic data in us ? That being said they went extinct during the flood but the genes of neanderthals was in the children of Noah like it was in all humans. Races of mankind was the result of that one set of parents. There is only one human race with some variations that is all it is. No race of man is inferior to another some just have had more opportunity for living a healthy life and had the better chance for education.
Click to expand...


Do you have proof that they went extinct during the "flood"? No? I didn't think so. Do you have any proof of the "flood" itself? No? I didn't think so either. 
So if some humans have neanderthal genes, did some of Noah's kids mate with them? How did that come about?
So did god make negros, asians and white folks as different species of humans or did early humans evolve into the different kinds? And how come there are negros and asians if Noah and his wife were white?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist were and are bigots. Claiming black Africans and Aborigines of Australia were less evolved when in reality they are human. Funny the Aborigines skull is really close to a neanderthal skull except the neanderthal had a larger cranial capacity.
> 
> So are Aborigines human ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> You're simply playing a cheap and long ago dismissed angle that has been a staple of christian creationist which attempts to align evolution (Darwinism), with racism. Is christianity so morally bankrupt that you have to seize on that tired and worn out history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fact, that is what they and it created racism towards blacks. Still dodging questions hollie ?
Click to expand...

 Now you're really piling it high and deep, racism is far older the the TOE. to say it's not is denial of the highest order.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was worth educating you on some history regarding your hero, Henry Morris of the ICR, himself, something of a rascist and to educate you on some recent history of christianity and ties to rascism.
> 
> 
> CA005: Evolution and racism
> 
> Claim CA005:
> 
> Evolution promotes racism.
> 
> Source:
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> 1.  When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.
> 
> 2.  Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.
> 
> 3.  Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.
> 
> 4.  Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries.
> 
> 5.  *Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism.*
> 
> 6.  Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples:
> 
>   George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote, The poor little fellow who went to the south Got lost in the forests dank; His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat And scorched his hair with its tropic heat, And his mind became a blank.
> 
> In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85).
> 
>   During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught .
> 
> The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things, that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles' (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).
> 
> 
> The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).
> 
>   The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery.
> 
>   Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:
> Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).
> 
> 
> 7.  None of this matters to the science of evolution.
> 
> Links:
> 
> Trott, Richard and Jim Lippard, 2003. Creationism implies racism? Creationism Implies Racism?
> References:
> 1.  Esterhuysen, Amanda and Jeannette Smith, 1998. Evolution: 'the forbidden word'? South African Archaeological Bulletin 53: 135-137. Quoted from Stear, J., 2004. It's official! Racism is an integral part of creationist dogma. It's Official! Racism is an Integral Part of Creationist Dogma
> 2.  Moore, R., 2004. (see below)
> 3.  Morris, Henry M., 1976. The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.
> 4.  Numbers, Ronald L., 1992, The Creationists, New York: Knopf.
> 
> 
> Further Reading:
> Mayr, Ernst, 2000. Darwin's influence on modern thought. Scientific American 283(1) (Jul.): 78-83.
> 
> Moore, Randy, 2004. The dark side of creationism. The American Biology Teacher 66(2): 85-87.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's educate you.
> 
> Harvard Student Says Blacks Genetically Inferior | Grow The Heck Up
> 
> EDITED FOR FICTIONAL CONTENT ------
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can only judge you on your creationist views which have been shown to be racist, discriminatory and bigoted.
> 
> The Theory of Evolution teaches nothing of what you describe because you are utterly ignorant of the various science disciplines supporting evolution. As we have seen, your views on science are both twisted and jaundiced by your fundamentalist christian views.
> 
> The reason why most people have a hard time believing creationist is that there is no shred of evidence to support it, and above that, it is an irrational concept dealing completely in speculation. And, as noted, there is a long history of racism associated with christian creationist ministries.
> 
> What we are seeing is the fundie christian refusal and inability to accept the idea that humans could have evolved from primitive hominids, because the idea is repugnant to you, not because the science is bad... and you prefer instead to abstain from all critical thinking in order to reject this idea. I'm sure you are capable of employing rational thought in your daily chores but you refuse to allow this skill to force its way into the areas of intellect that have been corrupted by your chriatian faith. You should step back and look at the evidence objectively.
> 
> In support of creationist, a rational person would require you to present a case against evolution, perhaps in the peer reviewed scientific literature. For years now, the science community has been pleading to the creationist community for even a firm model of creationist, let alone evidence in its favor. It would be swell if creationist could supply, so we can do some proper scientific investigation. But simply asserting its existence is not enough, and the refutations to creationist will be found already on this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you think hollie,you're probably the biggest tool I have ever encountered and it was my pleasure exposing what you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You exposed nothing. I'll take this latest cut and run of yours as another in a long line of personal attacks you use when you have been exposed as an intolerant, dogmatic stooge.
> 
> I can only chuckle at your attempted re-writing of the science that delineates a clear pattern of evolutionary processes transforming earlier hominids to modern man. Your frantic denial of Neanderthal as a sub-species of Homo sapien was fully expected. Your creation myth is yet again thrown into chaos with clear evidence of evolutionary adaptation that supplants the Adam and Eve tale. The physical evidence of evolutionary adaptation causes irreconcilable problems for the fundie creationist who insists on a 6000 year old earth. You can't argue against the science so you're left to lash out with hateful, bigoted rhetoric.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you think hollie,you're probably the biggest tool I have ever encountered and it was my pleasure exposing what you are.
> 
> 
> 
> You exposed nothing. I'll take this latest cut and run of yours as another in a long line of personal attacks you use when you have been exposed as an intolerant, dogmatic stooge.
> 
> I can only chuckle at your attempted re-writing of the science that delineates a clear pattern of evolutionary processes transforming earlier hominids to modern man. Your frantic denial of Neanderthal as a sub-species of Homo sapien was fully expected. Your creation myth is yet again thrown into chaos with clear evidence of evolutionary adaptation that supplants the Adam and Eve tale. The physical evidence of evolutionary adaptation causes irreconcilable problems for the fundie creationist who insists on a 6000 year old earth. You can't argue against the science so you're left to lash out with hateful, bigoted rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HEY!   I LIKE THE STOOGES! NUCK..NUCK..... NUCK ...WOOOB ....WOOOB  WOOB.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yet another fine example of ywc spining the facts!
> 
> Does the appendix have a function?
> The appendix -- an organ barely 4 inches long -- causes much debate among medical professionals. In fact, doctors have trouble deciding if the appendix has any use to the body at all. While everyone agrees that the appendix can be removed without causing any adverse health consequences to the patient, some physicians and researchers believe that the appendix does serve a function as part of the immune system. Others feel that the appendix is a vestigial organ, a remainder from the time when humans regularly dined on tree bark and needed an additional organ to break down the roughage. Along with the disagreement over the true function of the appendix, there is no consensus if humans will always have this organ. Some doctors feel that the evolution of the human body will lead to the demise of the appendix, while others believe that the appendix will remain in the body, continuing to do whatever it does.
> 
> 
> HowStuffWorks "Does the appendix have a function?"
> 
> the they ywc conveniently  left out is : "some physicians and researchers believe that the appendix does serve a function as part of the immune system"
> the operative words are SOME AND BELIEVE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the appendix have a function daws ? that was my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong ,you said:  "They have found that the organ stores bacteria and Enzymes that aid in the digestive system."-YWC
> THAT IS A STATEMENT NOT A QUESTION!
> AS ALWAYS YOU'RE BACKPEDALING .
Click to expand...


It does both dummy.


----------



## Hollie

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> New research may show that Neanderthals did not go extinct.
> DNA derived from the Neanderthals has been found in many human populations around the globe.
> http://wsws.org/en/articles/2011/12/nean-d27.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point so why would they say they were a sub species of humans. We all originated from the same human parents so why wouldn't we all have neanderthal genetic data in us ? That being said they went extinct during the flood but the genes of neanderthals was in the children of Noah like it was in all humans. Races of mankind was the result of that one set of parents. There is only one human race with some variations that is all it is. No race of man is inferior to another some just have had more opportunity for living a healthy life and had the better chance for education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have proof that they went extinct during the "flood"? No? I didn't think so. Do you have any proof of the "flood" itself? No? I didn't think so either.
> So if some humans have neanderthal genes, did some of Noah's kids mate with them? How did that come about?
> So did god make negros, asians and white folks as different species of humans or did early humans evolve into the different kinds? And how come there are negros and asians if Noah and his wife were white?
Click to expand...


In principle, your argument is correct. I would disagree that the fictional Noah character was white, ie: caucasion. 

I think that MAN creating gawds in his image is perfectly exampled by Western images of hey-zoos as a tall, fair skinned, light-haired (even blye-eyed), individual. It's really so silly. 

The fact is, hey-zoos would have been an individual who was "shorter", dark skinned, dark hair, dark eyed north african / middle eastern in appearance. The fictional Noah would have been similar in appearance. 

So conversely, how come there are fair skinned caucasions if Noah and his wife were dark skinned middle easterners?


----------



## Youwerecreated

COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !!
 Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript:
 "Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. 

Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs, 
Your words are empty air. 
You've stripped away our heritage, 
You've outlawed simple prayer. 
Now gunshots fill our classrooms, 
And precious children die. 
You seek for answers everywhere, 
And ask the question "Why?" 
You regulate restrictive laws, 
Through legislative creed. 
And yet you fail to understand, 
That God is what we need!

"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! 

My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"

- Darrell Scott
 Do what the media did not - - let the nation hear this man's speech. Please send this out to everyone you can. 
God Bless


----------



## Hollie

How sleazy that you would once again, use the pain and suffering of others for cheap proselytizing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yet another fine example of ywc spining the facts!
> 
> Does the appendix have a function?
> The appendix -- an organ barely 4 inches long -- causes much debate among medical professionals. In fact, doctors have trouble deciding if the appendix has any use to the body at all. While everyone agrees that the appendix can be removed without causing any adverse health consequences to the patient, some physicians and researchers believe that the appendix does serve a function as part of the immune system. Others feel that the appendix is a vestigial organ, a remainder from the time when humans regularly dined on tree bark and needed an additional organ to break down the roughage. Along with the disagreement over the true function of the appendix, there is no consensus if humans will always have this organ. Some doctors feel that the evolution of the human body will lead to the demise of the appendix, while others believe that the appendix will remain in the body, continuing to do whatever it does.
> 
> 
> HowStuffWorks "Does the appendix have a function?"
> 
> the they ywc conveniently  left out is : "some physicians and researchers believe that the appendix does serve a function as part of the immune system"
> the operative words are SOME AND BELIEVE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the appendix have a function daws ? that was my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong ,you said:  "They have found that the organ stores bacteria and Enzymes that aid in the digestive system."-YWC
> THAT IS A STATEMENT NOT A QUESTION!
> AS ALWAYS YOU'RE BACKPEDALING .
Click to expand...


Here dummy.

Researchers at Duke University Medical Center say that the function of the frequently discarded appendix, an organ often credited with little importance and often dismissed as having no significant function, does it seems have a role to play after all.

Researchers in the United States say the appendix produces and protects good germs for the gut by "rebooting" the digestive system. 


What does the appendix do? finally an answer!

When are you gonna quit thinking you know more then me you imbecile.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> New research may show that Neanderthals did not go extinct.
> DNA derived from the Neanderthals has been found in many human populations around the globe.
> http://wsws.org/en/articles/2011/12/nean-d27.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point so why would they say they were a sub species of humans. We all originated from the same human parents so why wouldn't we all have neanderthal genetic data in us ? That being said they went extinct during the flood but the genes of neanderthals was in the children of Noah like it was in all humans. Races of mankind was the result of that one set of parents. There is only one human race with some variations that is all it is. No race of man is inferior to another some just have had more opportunity for living a healthy life and had the better chance for education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have proof that they went extinct during the "flood"? No? I didn't think so. Do you have any proof of the "flood" itself? No? I didn't think so either.
> So if some humans have neanderthal genes, did some of Noah's kids mate with them? How did that come about?
> So did god make negros, asians and white folks as different species of humans or did early humans evolve into the different kinds? And how come there are negros and asians if Noah and his wife were white?
Click to expand...


Do you have any proof they didn't ? Do you have proof what happened to the neanderthals no I didn't think so. Your opinion is no more valid then mine.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you think hollie,you're probably the biggest tool I have ever encountered and it was my pleasure exposing what you are.
> 
> 
> 
> You exposed nothing. I'll take this latest cut and run of yours as another in a long line of personal attacks you use when you have been exposed as an intolerant, dogmatic stooge.
> 
> I can only chuckle at your attempted re-writing of the science that delineates a clear pattern of evolutionary processes transforming earlier hominids to modern man. Your frantic denial of Neanderthal as a sub-species of Homo sapien was fully expected. Your creation myth is yet again thrown into chaos with clear evidence of evolutionary adaptation that supplants the Adam and Eve tale. The physical evidence of evolutionary adaptation causes irreconcilable problems for the fundie creationist who insists on a 6000 year old earth. You can't argue against the science so you're left to lash out with hateful, bigoted rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have exposed you as a tool and a liar.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> How sleazy that you would once again, use the pain and suffering of others for cheap proselytizing.



I didn't write it hollie.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How sleazy that you would once again, use the pain and suffering of others for cheap proselytizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't write it hollie.
Click to expand...


Of course you didn't. You're just a copy and paster.

Why do you feel the need to step on the necks of those who have suffered and lost with cheap proselytizing?

Do a search with the term "Newtown shooting". Appeals to your gawds are pointless. Just stop using the suffering of others as an opportunity to spread your message of hate.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You exposed nothing. I'll take this latest cut and run of yours as another in a long line of personal attacks you use when you have been exposed as an intolerant, dogmatic stooge.
> 
> I can only chuckle at your attempted re-writing of the science that delineates a clear pattern of evolutionary processes transforming earlier hominids to modern man. Your frantic denial of Neanderthal as a sub-species of Homo sapien was fully expected. Your creation myth is yet again thrown into chaos with clear evidence of evolutionary adaptation that supplants the Adam and Eve tale. The physical evidence of evolutionary adaptation causes irreconcilable problems for the fundie creationist who insists on a 6000 year old earth. You can't argue against the science so you're left to lash out with hateful, bigoted rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have exposed you as a tool and a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have done nothing of the kind. You have only exposed youself as an angry, frustrated, self-hating religious loon.
> 
> It's not at all surprising that instead of addressing the topic in my post, you chose to react with pith and vinegar.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point so why would they say they were a sub species of humans. We all originated from the same human parents so why wouldn't we all have neanderthal genetic data in us ? That being said they went extinct during the flood but the genes of neanderthals was in the children of Noah like it was in all humans. Races of mankind was the result of that one set of parents. There is only one human race with some variations that is all it is. No race of man is inferior to another some just have had more opportunity for living a healthy life and had the better chance for education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have proof that they went extinct during the "flood"? No? I didn't think so. Do you have any proof of the "flood" itself? No? I didn't think so either.
> So if some humans have neanderthal genes, did some of Noah's kids mate with them? How did that come about?
> So did god make negros, asians and white folks as different species of humans or did early humans evolve into the different kinds? And how come there are negros and asians if Noah and his wife were white?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof they didn't ? Do you have proof what happened to the neanderthals no I didn't think so. Your opinion is no more valid then mine.
Click to expand...


The typical nonsense response you post when your claims are dismantled and shown to be fraudulent: "Do you have any proof they didn't ?"

There is ample proof they didn't. _Can you disprove it? _


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How sleazy that you would once again, use the pain and suffering of others for cheap proselytizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't write it hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you didn't. You're just a copy and paster.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to step on the necks of those who have suffered and lost with cheap proselytizing?
> 
> Do a search with the term "Newtown shooting". Appeals to your gawds are pointless. Just stop using the suffering of others as an opportunity to spread your message of hate.
Click to expand...


Because idelogues like yourself in the press tried to keep it quite to the public.


----------



## Youwerecreated

When Hollie starts responding to my questions absent of rhetoric I may start reading your posts again. She is a broken record and produces nothing of substance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !!
Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript:
"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. 

Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs, 
Your words are empty air. 
You've stripped away our heritage, 
You've outlawed simple prayer. 
Now gunshots fill our classrooms, 
And precious children die. 
You seek for answers everywhere, 
And ask the question "Why?" 
You regulate restrictive laws, 
Through legislative creed. 
And yet you fail to understand, 
That God is what we need!

"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! 

My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"

- Darrell Scott
Do what the media did not - - let the nation hear this man's speech. Please send this out to everyone you can. 
God Bless


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't write it hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you didn't. You're just a copy and paster.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to step on the necks of those who have suffered and lost with cheap proselytizing?
> 
> Do a search with the term "Newtown shooting". Appeals to your gawds are pointless. Just stop using the suffering of others as an opportunity to spread your message of hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because idelogues like yourself in the press tried to keep it quite to the public.
Click to expand...


Yet another of your loopy conspiracy theories. 

Who in the press tried to keep it "quite to the public"? What is a national conspiracy?

There's no conspiracy about the fact that your gawds are not going to do anything one way or another. 

You're behavior is getting more and more deranged as your claims are getting more and more ludicrous.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> When Hollie starts responding to my questions absent of rhetoric I may start reading your posts again. She is a broken record and produces nothing of substance.



The problem is that you're getting more desperate as your arguments are becoming more detached from reality.

It seems that you're now reduced to spamming the same post across multiple pages in this thread.

What a desperate and pointless tactic.

Christian fundies are just loopyfull-blown, over the rainbow, ain't comin' back loopy. 

These people are in a strange and dark place that I cannot relate to and they're getting stranger and darker by the minute.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point so why would they say they were a sub species of humans. We all originated from the same human parents so why wouldn't we all have neanderthal genetic data in us ? That being said they went extinct during the flood but the genes of neanderthals was in the children of Noah like it was in all humans. Races of mankind was the result of that one set of parents. There is only one human race with some variations that is all it is. No race of man is inferior to another some just have had more opportunity for living a healthy life and had the better chance for education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have proof that they went extinct during the "flood"? No? I didn't think so. Do you have any proof of the "flood" itself? No? I didn't think so either.
> So if some humans have neanderthal genes, did some of Noah's kids mate with them? How did that come about?
> So did god make negros, asians and white folks as different species of humans or did early humans evolve into the different kinds? And how come there are negros and asians if Noah and his wife were white?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof they didn't ? Do you have proof what happened to the neanderthals no I didn't think so. Your opinion is no more valid then mine.
Click to expand...

I never claimed that the neanderthals had anything happen to them. That's you who makes shit up. I said that recent studies of their DNA show that some of us have some of their DNA. That's backed up with science, by scientists. Your story that was made up and for which their is zero proof isn't anywhere near on the same level as scientific studies. Or are you just trying to make me laugh?  You did it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have proof that they went extinct during the "flood"? No? I didn't think so. Do you have any proof of the "flood" itself? No? I didn't think so either.
> So if some humans have neanderthal genes, did some of Noah's kids mate with them? How did that come about?
> So did god make negros, asians and white folks as different species of humans or did early humans evolve into the different kinds? And how come there are negros and asians if Noah and his wife were white?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof they didn't ? Do you have proof what happened to the neanderthals no I didn't think so. Your opinion is no more valid then mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed that the neanderthals had anything happen to them. That's you who makes shit up. I said that recent studies of their DNA show that some of us have some of their DNA. That's backed up with science, by scientists. Your story that was made up and for which their is zero proof isn't anywhere near on the same level as scientific studies. Or are you just trying to make me laugh?  You did it.
Click to expand...


I don't make stuff up something happened to the neanderthals.  I said neanderthals DNA is found in modern day humans so they must have been humans that lived among other humans like I claimed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Ima so what do you think happened to neanderthals since they lived among other humans ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof they didn't ? Do you have proof what happened to the neanderthals no I didn't think so. Your opinion is no more valid then mine.
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that the neanderthals had anything happen to them. That's you who makes shit up. I said that recent studies of their DNA show that some of us have some of their DNA. That's backed up with science, by scientists. Your story that was made up and for which their is zero proof isn't anywhere near on the same level as scientific studies. Or are you just trying to make me laugh?  You did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't make stuff up something happened to the neanderthals.  I said neanderthals DNA is found in modern day humans so they must have been humans that lived among other humans like I claimed.
Click to expand...


Are you learning disabled? It's been pointed out repeatedly to you that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are separate species. Neanderthals were not humans that lived among other humans because... once more more for the slow learners, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are separate species. 

How many more times will you repeat your nonsensical claim?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have proof that they went extinct during the "flood"? No? I didn't think so. Do you have any proof of the "flood" itself? No? I didn't think so either.
> So if some humans have neanderthal genes, did some of Noah's kids mate with them? How did that come about?
> So did god make negros, asians and white folks as different species of humans or did early humans evolve into the different kinds? And how come there are negros and asians if Noah and his wife were white?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof they didn't ? Do you have proof what happened to the neanderthals no I didn't think so. Your opinion is no more valid then mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed that the neanderthals had anything happen to them. That's you who makes shit up. I said that recent studies of their DNA show that some of us have some of their DNA. That's backed up with science, by scientists. Your story that was made up and for which their is zero proof isn't anywhere near on the same level as scientific studies. Or are you just trying to make me laugh?  You did it.
Click to expand...



20-Global Flood, Global Warming

21-Global Flood Erodes Old Earth Beliefs

22-Global Flood & Continental Drift

23-Global Flood Strata at Grand Canyon


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof they didn't ? Do you have proof what happened to the neanderthals no I didn't think so. Your opinion is no more valid then mine.
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that the neanderthals had anything happen to them. That's you who makes shit up. I said that recent studies of their DNA show that some of us have some of their DNA. That's backed up with science, by scientists. Your story that was made up and for which their is zero proof isn't anywhere near on the same level as scientific studies. Or are you just trying to make me laugh?  You did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 20-Global Flood, Global Warming
> 
> 21-Global Flood Erodes Old Earth Beliefs
> 
> 22-Global Flood & Continental Drift
> 
> 23-Global Flood Strata at Grand Canyon
Click to expand...


"Creationministries.org"?  

Are you a comedian... or perhaps possess the IQ of 10W-30 motor oil?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that the neanderthals had anything happen to them. That's you who makes shit up. I said that recent studies of their DNA show that some of us have some of their DNA. That's backed up with science, by scientists. Your story that was made up and for which their is zero proof isn't anywhere near on the same level as scientific studies. Or are you just trying to make me laugh?  You did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make stuff up something happened to the neanderthals.  I said neanderthals DNA is found in modern day humans so they must have been humans that lived among other humans like I claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you learning disabled? It's been pointed out repeatedly to you that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are separate species. Neanderthals were not humans that lived among other humans because... once more more for the slow learners, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are separate species.
> 
> How many more times will you repeat your nonsensical claim?
Click to expand...


Why should neanderthals be considered a different species if they are human and can interbreed with other humans ?

Evolution 101: Speciation


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that the neanderthals had anything happen to them. That's you who makes shit up. I said that recent studies of their DNA show that some of us have some of their DNA. That's backed up with science, by scientists. Your story that was made up and for which their is zero proof isn't anywhere near on the same level as scientific studies. Or are you just trying to make me laugh?  You did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 20-Global Flood, Global Warming
> 
> 21-Global Flood Erodes Old Earth Beliefs
> 
> 22-Global Flood & Continental Drift
> 
> 23-Global Flood Strata at Grand Canyon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Creationministries.org"?
> 
> Are you a comedian... or perhaps possess the IQ of 10W-30 motor oil?
Click to expand...


Why don't you take on what the gentleman states,take on his theories. Because he is a man of faith he is automatically considered a loon by you even though he knows more science then you,why ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Hollie starts responding to my questions absent of rhetoric I may start reading your posts again. She is a broken record and produces nothing of substance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you're getting more desperate as your arguments are becoming more detached from reality.
> 
> It seems that you're now reduced to spamming the same post across multiple pages in this thread.
> 
> What a desperate and pointless tactic.
> 
> Christian fundies are just loopyfull-blown, over the rainbow, ain't comin' back loopy.
> 
> These people are in a strange and dark place that I cannot relate to and they're getting stranger and darker by the minute.
Click to expand...


What a vivid imagination


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie now is it making sense to you that organisms that can interbreed are of the same species like dogs,horses or humans ? if they can interbreed they are the same species got it ? first you need to understand the important parts to debate an issue. A canine is a canine a human is a human. Because you read somewhere that neanderthals are a sub species or considered a different species not understanding the research today is proving they are human.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make stuff up something happened to the neanderthals.  I said neanderthals DNA is found in modern day humans so they must have been humans that lived among other humans like I claimed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you learning disabled? It's been pointed out repeatedly to you that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are separate species. Neanderthals were not humans that lived among other humans because... once more more for the slow learners, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are separate species.
> 
> How many more times will you repeat your nonsensical claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should neanderthals be considered a different species if they are human and can interbreed with other humans ?
> 
> Evolution 101: Speciation
Click to expand...


You are obviously learning disabled. It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that Neanderthals are not human in the context of how we define Homo Sapiens. Neanderthals are a sub-species.

How many more times will this need to be pointed out to you?

What is actually comical is that your referenced link implicitly defines evolution of species. 

Did you somehow miss the irony in your use of an evilutionist argument?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you learning disabled? It's been pointed out repeatedly to you that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are separate species. Neanderthals were not humans that lived among other humans because... once more more for the slow learners, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are separate species.
> 
> How many more times will you repeat your nonsensical claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should neanderthals be considered a different species if they are human and can interbreed with other humans ?
> 
> Evolution 101: Speciation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are obviously learning disabled. It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that Neanderthals are not human in the context of how we define Homo Sapiens. Neanderthals are a sub-species.
> 
> How many more times will this need to be pointed out to you?
> 
> What is actually comical is that your referenced link implicitly defines evolution of species.
> 
> Did you somehow miss the irony in your use of an evilutionist argument?
Click to expand...


Trying to cover up your ignorance hollie ? how is it that DNA of neanderthals are found in some humans ? let me say this slow and maybe it will sink in they are the same species if they can interbreed with humans now can you give an explanation why they would be a sub species ?

The link is saying what I have been saying and it's a link from your side because you don't like links from the opposing side you have made that abundantly clear.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie now is it making sense to you that organisms that can interbreed are of the same species like dogs,horses or humans ? if they can interbreed they are the same species got it ? first you need to understand the important parts to debate an issue. A canine is a canine a human is a human. Because you read somewhere that neanderthals are a sub species or considered a different species not understanding the research today is proving they are human.



I understand the dilemma you face. A literal rendering of the bible cannot account for sub-species of human-like ancestors such as Neanderthals.  As noted earlier, A literal rendering of the bible cannot account for any of the transitional forms of which we know: 

_Australopithecus afarensis 

Australopithecus africanus 

Homo habilis 

Homo erectus / ergaster 

Homo hiedelbergensis (archaic Homo sapiens) _

This list does not include the many side branches, such as _Homo neanderthalensis_, Autralopithecus robustus, or Australopithecus boisei [/i]. 

Again, your odd inability to make distinctions between simple concepts is concerning.

 You are certainly free to invent these redefinitions of established science so as to force-fit reality to somehow skew to your spirit world, the exercise is a profound waste of time.

As all of your stunted learning has been twisted by creationist ministries, you really dont have the slightest clue as to the actual science involved. Evolution is not strictly about Individual organisms evolving. It is _Populations_ that evolve. And at any given point in time (along a continuum of evolution), a population of any species may show significant variation (along that continuum) for any specific physical trait we choose to consider. That is why _Homo neanderthalensis_, as a population, is different than the species Homo erectus / ergaster, which is different than the species _Homo Sapien_


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should neanderthals be considered a different species if they are human and can interbreed with other humans ?
> 
> Evolution 101: Speciation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are obviously learning disabled. It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that Neanderthals are not human in the context of how we define Homo Sapiens. Neanderthals are a sub-species.
> 
> How many more times will this need to be pointed out to you?
> 
> What is actually comical is that your referenced link implicitly defines evolution of species.
> 
> Did you somehow miss the irony in your use of an evilutionist argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to cover up your ignorance hollie ? how is it that DNA of neanderthals are found in some humans ? let me say this slow and maybe it will sink in they are the same species if they can interbreed with humans now can you give an explanation why they would be a sub species ?
> 
> The link is saying what I have been saying and it's a link from your side because you don't like links from the opposing side you have made that abundantly clear.
Click to expand...


Youre actually screaming out your ignorance. Let's not pretend that sharing of some genetic biology automatiically makes _Homo neanderthalensis_ as identical to _Homo Sapien_ because as it has been explained to you over and over again, they are different. 

You have an inability to look beyond your religious fundamentalism. 

You are insisting that your biblical tales and fables must supplant science, learning, discovery and knowledge.

You should not expect that others who dont share your preconceptions and religious biases will suddenly abandon reason and rationality and retreat to illogical mysticism. 
Creationism, and the retreat from reason and rationality it brings is absolutely among the most bizarre worldviews. The scientific research into gene structure and the resulting field of population genetics was a triumph of modern biology. Darwins theory of natural selection didnt really have a mechanism to drive the process of inherited advantage until genes were discovered and explained. So even though biologists accepted Darwins demonstration of the fact of evolution, they withheld agreement over his proposed mechanism (natural selection) for almost a century.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20-Global Flood, Global Warming
> 
> 21-Global Flood Erodes Old Earth Beliefs
> 
> 22-Global Flood & Continental Drift
> 
> 23-Global Flood Strata at Grand Canyon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Creationministries.org"?
> 
> Are you a comedian... or perhaps possess the IQ of 10W-30 motor oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you take on what the gentleman states,take on his theories. Because he is a man of faith he is automatically considered a loon by you even though he knows more science then you,why ?
Click to expand...


The "gentleman" is a religious loon. 

Host a Group or Private Canyon Tour



> And there are the mile deep layers of strata which have been removed from above the rim of Grand Canyon...oh, those with a Secular worldview do not like to tell you about this, do they?! Proof is seen in the photo above as Russ delivers his On-The-Rim-Talk.
> 
> At the Canyon you will be shown original CREATION rock, Pre-flood strata and Judgment layers which were laid down during the flood. As Russ explains the geology he will also point out the relevance of the Grand Canyon to the authority of God's Word.



As is so typical with creationist loons, his first paragraph reeks of conspiracy theory babble. 

Are there really "mile deep layers of strata which have been removed from above the rim of Grand Canyon"? Gee whiz, it must have been those "evilutionists" out under the cover of darkness with rakes and shovels removing those alleged "_mile deep layers of strata_"

What a sorry, pathetic joke.

The next paragaph is more conspiracy, loonish behavior. So is there really a "CREATION", gawd rock? 

Where do they find these loons?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie now is it making sense to you that organisms that can interbreed are of the same species like dogs,horses or humans ? if they can interbreed they are the same species got it ? first you need to understand the important parts to debate an issue. A canine is a canine a human is a human. Because you read somewhere that neanderthals are a sub species or considered a different species not understanding the research today is proving they are human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the dilemma you face. A literal rendering of the bible cannot account for sub-species of human-like ancestors such as Neanderthals.  As noted earlier, A literal rendering of the bible cannot account for any of the transitional forms of which we know:
> 
> _Australopithecus afarensis
> 
> Australopithecus africanus
> 
> Homo habilis
> 
> Homo erectus / ergaster
> 
> Homo hiedelbergensis (archaic Homo sapiens) _
> 
> This list does not include the many side branches, such as _Homo neanderthalensis_, Autralopithecus robustus, or Australopithecus boisei [/i].
> 
> Again, your odd inability to make distinctions between simple concepts is concerning.
> 
> You are certainly free to invent these redefinitions of established science so as to force-fit reality to somehow skew to your spirit world, the exercise is a profound waste of time.
> 
> As all of your stunted learning has been twisted by creationist ministries, you really dont have the slightest clue as to the actual science involved. Evolution is not strictly about Individual organisms evolving. It is _Populations_ that evolve. And at any given point in time (along a continuum of evolution), a population of any species may show significant variation (along that continuum) for any specific physical trait we choose to consider. That is why _Homo neanderthalensis_, as a population, is different than the species Homo erectus / ergaster, which is different than the species _Homo Sapien_
Click to expand...


I have already shown that neanerthals did not live in a isolated area and they existed the same time humans did so Iask you again why would they be considered a subspecies ?

Do you understand sometimes when they discover a new organism they auitomatically assign them as a subspecies until more is known about the organism ? I have stated the more they research neanderthals the more human they appear to be ? They lived among humans, they interbred with humans, and they acted like humans.

They are not a subspecies of humans they are human.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Creationministries.org"?
> 
> Are you a comedian... or perhaps possess the IQ of 10W-30 motor oil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you take on what the gentleman states,take on his theories. Because he is a man of faith he is automatically considered a loon by you even though he knows more science then you,why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "gentleman" is a religious loon.
> 
> Host a Group or Private Canyon Tour
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there are the mile deep layers of strata which have been removed from above the rim of Grand Canyon...oh, those with a Secular worldview do not like to tell you about this, do they?! Proof is seen in the photo above as Russ delivers his On-The-Rim-Talk.
> 
> At the Canyon you will be shown original CREATION rock, Pre-flood strata and Judgment layers which were laid down during the flood. As Russ explains the geology he will also point out the relevance of the Grand Canyon to the authority of God's Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As is so typical with creationist loons, his first paragraph reeks of conspiracy theory babble.
> 
> Are there really "mile deep layers of strata which have been removed from above the rim of Grand Canyon"? Gee whiz, it must have been those "evilutionists" out under the cover of darkness with rakes and shovels removing those alleged "_mile deep layers of strata_"
> 
> What a sorry, pathetic joke.
> 
> The next paragaph is more conspiracy, loonish behavior. So is there really a "CREATION", gawd rock?
> 
> Where do they find these loons?
Click to expand...


I love it when your hatred gets revealed.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you take on what the gentleman states,take on his theories. Because he is a man of faith he is automatically considered a loon by you even though he knows more science then you,why ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "gentleman" is a religious loon.
> 
> Host a Group or Private Canyon Tour
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there are the mile deep layers of strata which have been removed from above the rim of Grand Canyon...oh, those with a Secular worldview do not like to tell you about this, do they?! Proof is seen in the photo above as Russ delivers his On-The-Rim-Talk.
> 
> At the Canyon you will be shown original CREATION rock, Pre-flood strata and Judgment layers which were laid down during the flood. As Russ explains the geology he will also point out the relevance of the Grand Canyon to the authority of God's Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As is so typical with creationist loons, his first paragraph reeks of conspiracy theory babble.
> 
> Are there really "mile deep layers of strata which have been removed from above the rim of Grand Canyon"? Gee whiz, it must have been those "evilutionists" out under the cover of darkness with rakes and shovels removing those alleged "_mile deep layers of strata_"
> 
> What a sorry, pathetic joke.
> 
> The next paragaph is more conspiracy, loonish behavior. So is there really a "CREATION", gawd rock?
> 
> Where do they find these loons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when your hatred gets revealed.
Click to expand...


I love it when you have have nothing to offer as a rebuttal and are thus forced to offer only juvenile personal attacks.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Ima so what do you think happened to neanderthals since they lived among other humans ?



What do you think happens to your arguments for gawds when neanderthals lived among a different species 50,000 years ago. Another pathetic attempt to write your own skewed version of science by assigning neanderthal as "other humans" which they were not.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "gentleman" is a religious loon.
> 
> Host a Group or Private Canyon Tour
> 
> 
> 
> As is so typical with creationist loons, his first paragraph reeks of conspiracy theory babble.
> 
> Are there really "mile deep layers of strata which have been removed from above the rim of Grand Canyon"? Gee whiz, it must have been those "evilutionists" out under the cover of darkness with rakes and shovels removing those alleged "_mile deep layers of strata_"
> 
> What a sorry, pathetic joke.
> 
> The next paragaph is more conspiracy, loonish behavior. So is there really a "CREATION", gawd rock?
> 
> Where do they find these loons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when your hatred gets revealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when you have have nothing to offer as a rebuttal and are thus forced to offer only juvenile personal attacks.
Click to expand...


You are a joke hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ima so what do you think happened to neanderthals since they lived among other humans ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think happens to your arguments for gawds when neanderthals lived among a different species 50,000 years ago. Another pathetic attempt to write your own skewed version of science by assigning neanderthal as "other humans" which they were not.
Click to expand...


I have offered you the chance to show that neanderthals are a different species but you remain silent or post some outdated material.

Put up or shut up liar.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof they didn't ? Do you have proof what happened to the neanderthals no I didn't think so. Your opinion is no more valid then mine.
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that the neanderthals had anything happen to them. That's you who makes shit up. I said that recent studies of their DNA show that some of us have some of their DNA. That's backed up with science, by scientists. Your story that was made up and for which their is zero proof isn't anywhere near on the same level as scientific studies. Or are you just trying to make me laugh?  You did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't make stuff up something happened to the neanderthals.  I said neanderthals DNA is found in modern day humans so they must have been humans that lived among other humans like I claimed.
Click to expand...


You said that neanderthals went extinct in the Noah's flood? You either made that up or have some proof to back it up. Which is it?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Ima so what do you think happened to neanderthals since they lived among other humans ?



I don't know and I don't care. Seems like they were absorbed by homo sapiens, but I'm just going on what scientists advance in their studies of the subject. I don't actually study it myself.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when your hatred gets revealed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when you have have nothing to offer as a rebuttal and are thus forced to offer only juvenile personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a joke hollie.
Click to expand...


My, but you are befuddled. 

You destroyed your own argument and now you're angry and frustrated. 

How's that working out for ya'?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ima so what do you think happened to neanderthals since they lived among other humans ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think happens to your arguments for gawds when neanderthals lived among a different species 50,000 years ago. Another pathetic attempt to write your own skewed version of science by assigning neanderthal as "other humans" which they were not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have offered you the chance to show that neanderthals are a different species but you remain silent or post some outdated material.
> 
> Put up or shut up liar.
Click to expand...


Already addressed.

You've spent considerable time avoiding the obvious contradiction of Neanderthals co-existing with Homo sapiens 50 000 years ago. How do you reconcile that with a 6000 year old earth? 

Dodge again?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make stuff up something happened to the neanderthals.  I said neanderthals DNA is found in modern day humans so they must have been humans that lived among other humans like I claimed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you learning disabled? It's been pointed out repeatedly to you that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are separate species. Neanderthals were not humans that lived among other humans because... once more more for the slow learners, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are separate species.
> 
> How many more times will you repeat your nonsensical claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should neanderthals be considered a different species if they are human and can interbreed with other humans ?
> 
> Evolution 101: Speciation
Click to expand...


Sub-species!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mentioned this, hence my analogy about the dog breeds, since dog-breeds are basically sub-species as well. They are no clearly drawn lines between different species sometimes which determines who can mate and who can't. If the population haven't drifted genetically far enough apart yet, they can still mate. Look at ring species.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that the neanderthals had anything happen to them. That's you who makes shit up. I said that recent studies of their DNA show that some of us have some of their DNA. That's backed up with science, by scientists. Your story that was made up and for which their is zero proof isn't anywhere near on the same level as scientific studies. Or are you just trying to make me laugh?  You did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make stuff up something happened to the neanderthals.  I said neanderthals DNA is found in modern day humans so they must have been humans that lived among other humans like I claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that neanderthals went extinct in the Noah's flood? You either made that up or have some proof to back it up. Which is it?
Click to expand...


They may have went extinct in the flood yes,they may have been absorbed by other humans. They did find mutations in their genome and they may have been the result of incest. No one knows but they surely were human.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think happens to your arguments for gawds when neanderthals lived among a different species 50,000 years ago. Another pathetic attempt to write your own skewed version of science by assigning neanderthal as "other humans" which they were not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have offered you the chance to show that neanderthals are a different species but you remain silent or post some outdated material.
> 
> Put up or shut up liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already addressed.
> 
> You've spent considerable time avoiding the obvious contradiction of Neanderthals co-existing with Homo sapiens 50 000 years ago. How do you reconcile that with a 6000 year old earth?
> 
> Dodge again?
Click to expand...


I didn't dodge I'm not like you that buy any story offered as an explanation. I don't believe any human existed 50,000 years ago. I do however believe they existed right along side of other humans 5,000 years or so.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you learning disabled? It's been pointed out repeatedly to you that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are separate species. Neanderthals were not humans that lived among other humans because... once more more for the slow learners, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are separate species.
> 
> How many more times will you repeat your nonsensical claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should neanderthals be considered a different species if they are human and can interbreed with other humans ?
> 
> Evolution 101: Speciation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sub-species!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mentioned this, hence my analogy about the dog breeds, since dog-breeds are basically sub-species as well. They are no clearly drawn lines between different species sometimes which determines who can mate and who can't. If the population haven't drifted genetically far enough apart yet, they can still mate. Look at ring species.
Click to expand...


Could be a sub species by the definition but I don't care for this term and it's description. That is pretty much what a purebreed would be in the canine family but that is not what they imply with this term.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have offered you the chance to show that neanderthals are a different species but you remain silent or post some outdated material.
> 
> Put up or shut up liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed.
> 
> You've spent considerable time avoiding the obvious contradiction of Neanderthals co-existing with Homo sapiens 50 000 years ago. How do you reconcile that with a 6000 year old earth?
> 
> Dodge again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't dodge I'm not like you that buy any story offered as an explanation. I don't believe any human existed 50,000 years ago. I do however believe they existed right along side of other humans 5,000 years or so.
Click to expand...

I just find it remarkable how you pick and choose what data you will accept. Everything you pick and choose is configured to bolster your dogma, not reinforce truth. 

It was laughable that you copied and pasted links referencing Neanderthal (a sub-species of Homo sapiens) that identified both species existing more than 50,000 years ago. Yet, you arbitrarily rejected the timeframe because that directly contradicts biblical tales. You were utterly inconsistent and completely contradicted within the few short paragraphs of the article you cut and pasted.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should neanderthals be considered a different species if they are human and can interbreed with other humans ?
> 
> Evolution 101: Speciation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sub-species!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mentioned this, hence my analogy about the dog breeds, since dog-breeds are basically sub-species as well. They are no clearly drawn lines between different species sometimes which determines who can mate and who can't. If the population haven't drifted genetically far enough apart yet, they can still mate. Look at ring species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could be a sub species by the definition but I don't care for this term and it's description. That is pretty much what a purebreed would be in the canine family but that is not what they imply with this term.
Click to expand...


Well gee whiz. If it's a matter of you not liking the term, let's just re-write the science so it comports with biblical tales and fables.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make stuff up something happened to the neanderthals.  I said neanderthals DNA is found in modern day humans so they must have been humans that lived among other humans like I claimed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said that neanderthals went extinct in the Noah's flood? You either made that up or have some proof to back it up. Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They *may* have went extinct in the flood yes,they may have been absorbed by other humans. They did find mutations in their genome and they may have been the result of incest. No one knows but they surely were human.
Click to expand...


They MAY have been extinct in the flood? So now you're saying that you made it up before when you said that they went extinct during the flood. Btw, do you even have ANY proof that the flood happened?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed.
> 
> You've spent considerable time avoiding the obvious contradiction of Neanderthals co-existing with Homo sapiens 50 000 years ago. How do you reconcile that with a 6000 year old earth?
> 
> Dodge again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't dodge I'm not like you that buy any story offered as an explanation. I don't believe any human existed 50,000 years ago. I do however believe they existed right along side of other humans 5,000 years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it remarkable how you pick and choose what data you will accept. Everything you pick and choose is configured to bolster your dogma, not reinforce truth.
> 
> It was laughable that you copied and pasted links referencing Neanderthal (a sub-species of Homo sapiens) that identified both species existing more than 50,000 years ago. Yet, you arbitrarily rejected the timeframe because that directly contradicts biblical tales. You were utterly inconsistent and completely contradicted within the few short paragraphs of the article you cut and pasted.
Click to expand...


Most articles contain factual evidence but they also contain conjecture you do not understand this ? it's an opinion get it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sub-species!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mentioned this, hence my analogy about the dog breeds, since dog-breeds are basically sub-species as well. They are no clearly drawn lines between different species sometimes which determines who can mate and who can't. If the population haven't drifted genetically far enough apart yet, they can still mate. Look at ring species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could be a sub species by the definition but I don't care for this term and it's description. That is pretty much what a purebreed would be in the canine family but that is not what they imply with this term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well gee whiz. If it's a matter of you not liking the term, let's just re-write the science so it comports with biblical tales and fables.
Click to expand...


I don't like it because it can be manipulated and is by many.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said that neanderthals went extinct in the Noah's flood? You either made that up or have some proof to back it up. Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They *may* have went extinct in the flood yes,they may have been absorbed by other humans. They did find mutations in their genome and they may have been the result of incest. No one knows but they surely were human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They MAY have been extinct in the flood? So now you're saying that you made it up before when you said that they went extinct during the flood. Btw, do you even have ANY proof that the flood happened?
Click to expand...


Yes there is plenty of evidence supporting the global flood. I am not sure if the neanderthals came after the flood or before the flood.

Cain was bannished for the murder of his brother and he took a wife from the land of Nod. Maybe the people of the land of NOD were the neanderthals it's only an opinion.

God did not go in to detail on these people so we are forced to speculate just like we are forced to speculate on much of the past.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They *may* have went extinct in the flood yes,they may have been absorbed by other humans. They did find mutations in their genome and they may have been the result of incest. No one knows but they surely were human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They MAY have been extinct in the flood? So now you're saying that you made it up before when you said that they went extinct during the flood. Btw, do you even have ANY proof that the flood happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is plenty of evidence supporting the global flood. I am not sure if the neanderthals came after the flood or before the flood.
> 
> Cain was bannished for the murder of his brother and he took a wife from the land of Nod. Maybe the people of the land of NOD were the neanderthals it's only an opinion.
> 
> God did not go in to detail on these people so we are forced to speculate just like we are forced to speculate on much of the past.
Click to expand...


So then Adam and Eve weren't the first or only people god made?

So what evidence of the flood is there? Got any links? And wasn't the flood less than 6000 years ago? So neanderthals are pretty recent beings?
And so where not descended from Adam and Eve? But from them and some other species that Cain mated with? Or was it incest straight away as Cain mated with a sister?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> They MAY have been extinct in the flood? So now you're saying that you made it up before when you said that they went extinct during the flood. Btw, do you even have ANY proof that the flood happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is plenty of evidence supporting the global flood. I am not sure if the neanderthals came after the flood or before the flood.
> 
> Cain was bannished for the murder of his brother and he took a wife from the land of Nod. Maybe the people of the land of NOD were the neanderthals it's only an opinion.
> 
> God did not go in to detail on these people so we are forced to speculate just like we are forced to speculate on much of the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then Adam and Eve weren't the first or only people god made?
> 
> So what evidence of the flood is there? Got any links? And wasn't the flood less than 6000 years ago? So neanderthals are pretty recent beings?
> And so where not descended from Adam and Eve? But from them and some other species that Cain mated with? Or was it incest straight away as Cain mated with a sister?
Click to expand...


did you watch the videos I posted for the evidence ? Yes I would say they were recent according to evolutions time frames. The flood was between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago. Don't know if they were descendants of adam and eve don't think so. The genesis story only focuses on adam and eve it does not go in to detail about the people of Nod. I won't speculate any further because I have no clue about the people of Nod.

There are many things in the bible that would raise questions that we simply do not have an answer for and this is one of them.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is plenty of evidence supporting the global flood. I am not sure if the neanderthals came after the flood or before the flood.
> 
> Cain was bannished for the murder of his brother and he took a wife from the land of Nod. Maybe the people of the land of NOD were the neanderthals it's only an opinion.
> 
> God did not go in to detail on these people so we are forced to speculate just like we are forced to speculate on much of the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then Adam and Eve weren't the first or only people god made?
> 
> So what evidence of the flood is there? Got any links? And wasn't the flood less than 6000 years ago? So neanderthals are pretty recent beings?
> And so where not descended from Adam and Eve? But from them and some other species that Cain mated with? Or was it incest straight away as Cain mated with a sister?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did you watch the videos I posted for the evidence ? Yes I would say they were recent according to *evolutions time frames*. The flood was between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago. Don't know if they were descendants of adam and eve don't think so. The genesis story only focuses on adam and eve it does not go in to detail about the people of Nod. I won't speculate any further because I have no clue about the people of Nod.
> 
> There are many things in the bible that would raise questions that we simply do not have an answer for and this is one of them.
Click to expand...


I don't usually watch videos. Way too many here. But post yours again, I'll watch it.

So now you believe in evolution?

So God must have made the Nodders at the same time as Adam and Eve, otherwise their offspring mated.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> They MAY have been extinct in the flood? So now you're saying that you made it up before when you said that they went extinct during the flood. Btw, do you even have ANY proof that the flood happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is plenty of evidence supporting the global flood. I am not sure if the neanderthals came after the flood or before the flood.
> 
> Cain was bannished for the murder of his brother and he took a wife from the land of Nod. Maybe the people of the land of NOD were the neanderthals it's only an opinion.
> 
> God did not go in to detail on these people so we are forced to speculate just like we are forced to speculate on much of the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then Adam and Eve weren't the first or only people god made?
> 
> So what evidence of the flood is there? Got any links? And wasn't the flood less than 6000 years ago? So neanderthals are pretty recent beings?
> And so where not descended from Adam and Eve? But from them and some other species that Cain mated with? Or was it incest straight away as Cain mated with a sister?
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGeULHljDn8]Startling Evidence That Noah&#39;s Flood Really Happened - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is plenty of evidence supporting the global flood. I am not sure if the neanderthals came after the flood or before the flood.
> 
> Cain was bannished for the murder of his brother and he took a wife from the land of Nod. Maybe the people of the land of NOD were the neanderthals it's only an opinion.
> 
> God did not go in to detail on these people so we are forced to speculate just like we are forced to speculate on much of the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then Adam and Eve weren't the first or only people god made?
> 
> So what evidence of the flood is there? Got any links? And wasn't the flood less than 6000 years ago? So neanderthals are pretty recent beings?
> And so where not descended from Adam and Eve? But from them and some other species that Cain mated with? Or was it incest straight away as Cain mated with a sister?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did you watch the videos I posted for the evidence ? Yes I would say they were recent according to *evolutions time frames*. The flood was between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago. Don't know if they were descendants of adam and eve don't think so. The genesis story only focuses on adam and eve it does not go in to detail about the people of Nod. I won't speculate any further because I have no clue about the people of Nod.
> 
> There are many things in the bible that would raise questions that we simply do not have an answer for and this is one of them.
Click to expand...


Sorry buddy, but that guy has NO clue about anything, he's just making shit up, no scientific proof, nothing. 

So you believe in evolution now?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then Adam and Eve weren't the first or only people god made?
> 
> So what evidence of the flood is there? Got any links? And wasn't the flood less than 6000 years ago? So neanderthals are pretty recent beings?
> And so where not descended from Adam and Eve? But from them and some other species that Cain mated with? Or was it incest straight away as Cain mated with a sister?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you watch the videos I posted for the evidence ? Yes I would say they were recent according to *evolutions time frames*. The flood was between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago. Don't know if they were descendants of adam and eve don't think so. The genesis story only focuses on adam and eve it does not go in to detail about the people of Nod. I won't speculate any further because I have no clue about the people of Nod.
> 
> There are many things in the bible that would raise questions that we simply do not have an answer for and this is one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't usually watch videos. Way too many here. But post yours again, I'll watch it.
> 
> So now you believe in evolution?
> 
> So God must have made the Nodders at the same time as Adam and Eve, otherwise their offspring mated.
Click to expand...


I do believe in change within a family or group I don't believe in macroevolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then Adam and Eve weren't the first or only people god made?
> 
> So what evidence of the flood is there? Got any links? And wasn't the flood less than 6000 years ago? So neanderthals are pretty recent beings?
> And so where not descended from Adam and Eve? But from them and some other species that Cain mated with? Or was it incest straight away as Cain mated with a sister?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you watch the videos I posted for the evidence ? Yes I would say they were recent according to *evolutions time frames*. The flood was between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago. Don't know if they were descendants of adam and eve don't think so. The genesis story only focuses on adam and eve it does not go in to detail about the people of Nod. I won't speculate any further because I have no clue about the people of Nod.
> 
> There are many things in the bible that would raise questions that we simply do not have an answer for and this is one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry buddy, but that guy has NO clue about anything, he's just making shit up, no scientific proof, nothing.
> 
> So you believe in evolution now?
Click to expand...


Nope, not as you would.

You see that is only part of the evidence you also have fossils found in the wrong strata. You have graveyards of fossils.

The evidence of whales to far inland plus some that were found inverted.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Fossils are preserved through rapid burial not slowly over time.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you watch the videos I posted for the evidence ? Yes I would say they were recent according to *evolutions time frames*. The flood was between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago. Don't know if they were descendants of adam and eve don't think so. The genesis story only focuses on adam and eve it does not go in to detail about the people of Nod. I won't speculate any further because I have no clue about the people of Nod.
> 
> There are many things in the bible that would raise questions that we simply do not have an answer for and this is one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry buddy, but that guy has NO clue about anything, he's just making shit up, no scientific proof, nothing.
> 
> So you believe in evolution now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, not as you would.
> 
> You see that is only part of the evidence you also have fossils found in the wrong strata. You have graveyards of fossils.
> 
> The evidence of whales to far inland plus some that were found inverted.
Click to expand...


"Fossils found in the wrong strata" is nonsense furthered by creationist to appeal to ignorance regarding geologic processes.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is plenty of evidence supporting the global flood. I am not sure if the neanderthals came after the flood or before the flood.
> 
> Cain was bannished for the murder of his brother and he took a wife from the land of Nod. Maybe the people of the land of NOD were the neanderthals it's only an opinion.
> 
> God did not go in to detail on these people so we are forced to speculate just like we are forced to speculate on much of the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then Adam and Eve weren't the first or only people god made?
> 
> So what evidence of the flood is there? Got any links? And wasn't the flood less than 6000 years ago? So neanderthals are pretty recent beings?
> And so where not descended from Adam and Eve? But from them and some other species that Cain mated with? Or was it incest straight away as Cain mated with a sister?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGeULHljDn8]Startling Evidence That Noah's Flood Really Happened - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

Those silly videos are what creationist peddle to the gullible and the ignorant.


----------



## newpolitics

YWC, this is for you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn_EPW17Fdc]Why I am no longer a Creationist - Part 1: Genus Homo - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you watch the videos I posted for the evidence ? Yes I would say they were recent according to *evolutions time frames*. The flood was between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago. Don't know if they were descendants of adam and eve don't think so. The genesis story only focuses on adam and eve it does not go in to detail about the people of Nod. I won't speculate any further because I have no clue about the people of Nod.
> 
> There are many things in the bible that would raise questions that we simply do not have an answer for and this is one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry buddy, but that guy has NO clue about anything, he's just making shit up, no scientific proof, nothing.
> 
> So you believe in evolution now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, not as you would.
> 
> You see that is only part of the evidence you also have fossils found in the wrong strata. You have graveyards of fossils.
> 
> The evidence of whales to far inland plus some that were found inverted.
Click to expand...


So you believe in a kind of evolution, thanks for the hair splitting. 

The guy was talking about the flood, and like you say, bias A or bias B, putting scientific knowledge on the same equal footing as stuff that was just made up. Sorry, but that doesn't work in the real world. His contention that the waters receded by parts of the earth coming to poke through the water is pure stupidity, and based on nothing more than his fantasies, and I find it totally fucking amazing that people fall for that dumbness. But I guess, the general population just isn't that bright, what else can I say?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry buddy, but that guy has NO clue about anything, he's just making shit up, no scientific proof, nothing.
> 
> So you believe in evolution now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not as you would.
> 
> You see that is only part of the evidence you also have fossils found in the wrong strata. You have graveyards of fossils.
> 
> The evidence of whales to far inland plus some that were found inverted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Fossils found in the wrong strata" is nonsense furthered by creationist to appeal to ignorance regarding geologic processes.
Click to expand...



Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 2 

FOSSILS AND STRATA Part 5




ONGOING STRATA CONTROVERSIESThe strata charts in the textbooks and popular magazines look so very complete and organized. Yet, in truth, it is not so. The problems are so serious that running controversies were carried on for years between feuding strata experts. Because the evidence was so confused, no one knew who was right. Finally, they arbitrarily settled on patterns which are on the charts as we see them today.


For example, here is the Sedgwick-Murchison-la Beche controversy, fought over the Cambrian, Silurian and Devonian strata systems:

"Sedgwick was the first to describe the fossils of the lower Graywacke Strata, which he named the Cambrian system, after an ancient name for Wales. Eventually their studies led them to different levels of the Graywacke, where the mercurial and territorial Murchison claimed much of Sedgwick's domain for his newly founded Silurian system.

"Inevitably, almost all of the members of the Geological Society were drawn into the fray, and, when another geologist of the time, Sir Henry Thomas de la Beche, claimed part of the Graywacke for his Devonian period, the battle lines were drawn. For nearly a decade the Great Devonian Controversy, as it was called, raged on in the scientific journals. The political maneuvering behind the scenes was almost as convoluted as the Graywacke itself." *R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 401.

Elsewhere, *Milner explains how *Murchison solved the controversy.

"The men were completely unable to agree on where the natural boundaries occurred. Murchison, however, found a way to resolve the dispute. He got himself appointed director of the National Geological Survey and simply ordered that the name "Cambrian" be deleted from all government books and geological maps." *R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 89.

Later, after both men were dead, part of Murchison's Silurian was renamed "Cambrian."

MIXED-UP FOSSILS Have you ever noticed that, on the standard strata time charts, certain fossils will always be in certain strata? That is another generalization in the evolutionary theory that does not prove to be correct. Fossils are frequently found in the wrong places, especially far below the strata where they are first supposed to have "evolved" into existence.

There are three ways that the experts deal with to this problem: (1) Ignore the evidence. (2) When small numbers of fossils are found in solid rock below their proper strata, they are said to have been "downwashed" through the solid rock into lower strata. That is, they slipped, slid, or fell through solid rock into lower levels. (3) When only a few are located below their theoretical strata, they are said to have "reworked" themselves into the higher strata. 

More detail on this will be found near the end of this chapter (appendix 14). 


"Fossils frequently occur where they are not 'supposed' to. It is then claimed that either the fauna [animals] or flora [plants] have lived longer than previously known (simple extension of stratigraphic range) or that the fossil has been reworked. In 'reworking,' it is claimed that the fossil has been eroded away from a much older host rock and has thus been incorporated into a rock of more recent age. The reciprocal situation is `downwash,' where it is claimed that an organism has been washed down into rock much older than the time it lived and has become fossilized." John Woodmorappe, "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology: Report 2," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, p. 209.

 "Reworking" and "downwash" are used to explain a few fossils not in agreement with the theory; "overthrusts," to be discussed shortly, are used to explain much larger numbers of such fossils.


 A related problem concerns the fact that pollen from flowering plants has been found in Cambrian and even Precambrian strata! This, of course, is in total disagreement with evolutionary theory, which maintains that flowering plants did not exist until many millions of years later. This would mean that the "Cambrian explosion" included flowering plants!

Additional quotations dealing with this problem will be found in the chapter appendix referred to below, or the "Cambrian and Precambrian" chapter appendix. For a listing of over 200 out-of-place fossils, see John Woodmorappe, "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology: Report 2," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, pp. 210-214.

 For additional information see the appendix topic, "14 - Problems with Fossils" and "15 - Problems with Pollen and Spores."

Still another problem is skipping in the fossil record. A species will be in a strata, and totally disappear from the next strata or two above that, and then reappear. In some cases a species disappears, never again to be seen until our own time when--there it is--alive and well on planet earth!

 For additional information see the appendix topic, "16 - The Problem of Skipping."

 MIXED-UP STRATA The problems with the "geologic column" of strata and fossils keep getting worse! We have been discussing problems with the fossils, but now we will turn our attention to the strata itself, and we will learn that the situation becomes unmanageable! Evolutionary theory falls helpless in the process of trying to reconcile these insoluble hurdles to its success.

For additional information see quotation supplements, "18 -Rocks Not Now Being Made," and "19 - Mixed Up Strata and Overthrusts. "


 MISSING STRATA Surprising as it may seem, the only evidence for the geologic succession of life is found in the strata charts of the geologists and in their imagination. Nowhere in geological formations can we find (1) all the strata in order, (2) all the strata--even out of order, (3) most of the strata, in order or out of it. Instead we only find little bits here and there, and frequently they are mixed up (out of their theoretical sequence).

Never--anywhere in the world--are all the strata in the theoretical "geologic column" to be found in one complete sandwich. Most of the time only two to eight of the 21 theoretical strata can be found. Even that classic example of rock strata, Grand Canyon, only has about half of them. But the missing strata should be there! How can strata be missing? Yet this is the way it is everywhere on earth. In the Southwest United States, in order to find Precambrian or Paleozoic strata, we would need to go to the Grand Canyon. To find Mesozoic requires a trip to eastern Arizona. To find Tertiary, off we would have to go to New Mexico. Nowhere--anywhere--is the entire geologic column of the evolutionists to be found, for it is an imaginary column. 


"Practically nowhere on the earth can one find the so-called 'geologic column.' In fact, at most places on the continents, over half the 'geologic periods' are missing! Only 15-20 percent of the earth's land surface has even one-third of these periods in the correct consecutive order. Even within the Grand Canyon, over 150 million years of this imaginary column are missing. Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious." *Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 15.

The next few quotations contain startling admissions. We do well to carefully consider what they say: 


"If a pile were to be made by using the greatest thickness of sedimentary beds of each geological age, it would be at least 100 miles [161 km] high . . It is of course, impossible to have even a considerable fraction of this at any one place." *O. Von Engein and *IG Caster, Geology (1952), pp. 417-418.

"Whatever his method of approach, the geologist must take cognizance of the following facts . . There is no place on the earth where a complete record of the rocks is present . . to reconstruct the history of the earth, scattered bits of information from thousands of locations all over the world must be pieced together. The results will be at best only a very incomplete record. If the complete story of the earth is compared to an encyclopedia of thirty volumes, then we can seldom hope to find even one complete volume in a given area. Sometimes only a few chapters, perhaps only a paragraph or two, will be the total geological contribution of a region; indeed, we are often reduced to studying scattered bits of information more nearly comparable to a few words or letters." *H. Brown, *V. Monnett, and *J. Stovall, Introduction to Geology (1958), p. 11.

"We are only kidding ourselves if we think that we have anything like a complete succession for any part of the stratigraphical column in any one place." *Derek V. Alter, Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (1981), p. 32.

 The proper word for them are "unconformities;" it would not do for scientists to use the phrase "missing strata, "for if they are missing, then where did they go? Did billions of years of life on earth suddenly vanish? 


"Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on." *William R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (1980), p. 219.

How can it be that the geologic column is so incomplete, when evolutionary theory teaches that it was quietly, slowly laid down uniformly over millions of years? The truth is that the rock strata point us back to a terrible worldwide catastrophe--a Flood,--not to millions of years of gradual soil deposits from dead plants and windblown soil.

Chapter 17 FOSSILS AND STRATA Part 5


----------



## Hollie

Did anyone notice that the fundies' "quotes" are frequently 1950's vintage material from a Christian creationist website?

Chuckle.


----------



## Big_D2

Can someone on the creationist side advise why nearly all if not every radiometric dating method is wrong?


----------



## Big_D2

Can someone also advise how many species survived the global flood?


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie and daws why would neanderthals live among humans if they were not human ?
> 
> List of Neanderthal sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neanderthals are not humans, if you are defining humans as homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals are Homo Neanderthalensis. See that? Different name. It is that simple. Just understand that. please. you are trying to change reality to fit your viewpoint. it is pathetic. they are a hominid species, closely related to modern humans, and in fact, could be considered a sub-species, but they are not human, by definition. You wouldn't call a poodle a doberman, would you? same thing.  I emplore you to find one scientist that believes they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No that is exactly what evolutionists do is put organisms in to classifications if they put the neanderthal in to a different group they can use that as evidence of evolution. Neanderthals are human and the more research that is done on this group they grow closer and closer to humans it's because they are human. Please point out something that is not found in humans that is found in neanderthals ?
> 
> So are you suggesting there are different breeds of humans ? A canine is a canine even though they look different. A human is a human even though they look a little different.
> 
> Neanderthals are humans that were discovered in neander valley Germany. What is so different about them that they are not human ?
Click to expand...


The proof is in Neanderthal's ability to interbreed and leave their DNA in modern man. And NP proves the evolutionary bigotry. Both dobermans and poodles are part of the species dog and can interbreed. NP's point is the same one used to describe blacks as subhuman due to their different features from Anglos.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> New research may show that Neanderthals did not go extinct.
> DNA derived from the Neanderthals has been found in many human populations around the globe.
> http://wsws.org/en/articles/2011/12/nean-d27.html



Proof they were human.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> Can someone on the creationist side advise why nearly all if not every radiometric dating method is wrong?



Assumptions and presuppositions are used.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> Can someone also advise how many species survived the global flood?



No way to answer this question.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Did anyone notice that the fundies' "quotes" are frequently 1950's vintage material from a Christian creationist website?
> 
> Chuckle.



 You have demonstrated you lack any kind of schooling in science and you're gonna chuckle at those who do


----------



## Youwerecreated

Happy New Year UR,a little early.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Did anyone notice that the fundies' "quotes" are frequently 1950's vintage material from a Christian creationist website?
> 
> Chuckle.



Funny, coming from the tool who repeatedly borrows Dawkins question from _The God Delusion_ of who designed the designer and then claims she doesn't know who Dawkins is.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Happy New Year UR,a little early.



Same to you!!!


----------



## Big_D2

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone also advise how many species survived the global flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way to answer this question.
Click to expand...


Well, can you advise how salt water fish survived as I assume the rain water was fresh.  Also, how could fish that can only live in the rivers and not the oceans survive.


----------



## Big_D2

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone on the creationist side advise why nearly all if not every radiometric dating method is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assumptions and presuppositions are used.
Click to expand...


Well, it seems illogical for these assumption and presuppositions are never correct in every attempt they use these methods.

Also, if the world is 6000 years old then how could gasoline, coal, and diamonds that take millions of years to form be around?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone notice that the fundies' "quotes" are frequently 1950's vintage material from a Christian creationist website?
> 
> Chuckle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have demonstrated you lack any kind of schooling in science and you're gonna chuckle at those who do
Click to expand...


You have demonstrated the poverty of Christian creationist arguments.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "gentleman" is a religious loon.
> 
> Host a Group or Private Canyon Tour
> 
> 
> 
> As is so typical with creationist loons, his first paragraph reeks of conspiracy theory babble.
> 
> Are there really "mile deep layers of strata which have been removed from above the rim of Grand Canyon"? Gee whiz, it must have been those "evilutionists" out under the cover of darkness with rakes and shovels removing those alleged "_mile deep layers of strata_"
> 
> What a sorry, pathetic joke.
> 
> The next paragaph is more conspiracy, loonish behavior. So is there really a "CREATION", gawd rock?
> 
> Where do they find these loons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when your hatred gets revealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when you have have nothing to offer as a rebuttal and are thus forced to offer only juvenile personal attacks.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone notice that the fundies' "quotes" are frequently 1950's vintage material from a Christian creationist website?
> 
> Chuckle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, coming from the tool who repeatedly borrows Dawkins question from _The God Delusion_ of who designed the designer and then claims she doesn't know who Dawkins is.
Click to expand...


My creepy stalker feels ignored.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when your hatred gets revealed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when you have have nothing to offer as a rebuttal and are thus forced to offer only juvenile personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Desperate, creepy stalker.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone on the creationist side advise why nearly all if not every radiometric dating method is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assumptions and presuppositions are used.
Click to expand...


Creationist will denigrate those methods of science which refute biblical tales and fables.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> New research may show that Neanderthals did not go extinct.
> DNA derived from the Neanderthals has been found in many human populations around the globe.
> http://wsws.org/en/articles/2011/12/nean-d27.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof they were human.
Click to expand...


Proof only that Christian fundamentalism is a serious illness.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone also advise how many species survived the global flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way to answer this question.
Click to expand...


Of course there is. Only Noah and his immediate family survived the flood tale. 

The gawds provided incestuous relationships as the way to re-populate the earth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone also advise how many species survived the global flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way to answer this question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, can you advise how salt water fish survived as I assume the rain water was fresh.  Also, how could fish that can only live in the rivers and not the oceans survive.
Click to expand...


If you are looking for technical explanation here is one.



 How Could Fish Survive the Genesis Flood? 

by Kenneth B. Cumming, Ph.D. 

Introduction

Much attention has been given to how the animals would be brought to, fit in, and survive on Noah's Ark.[1] But little or no concern has been voiced as to how aquatic animals could have lived outside in the Flood. Obviously, terrestrial air-breathing animals could not live through the land-covering deluge, but one would think aquatic animals would be right at home in all that water. Not so!

Water life has specific physiological and ecological requirements just like terrestrial life.[2] A catastrophe the size of the Flood would certainly bring with it gigantic problems affecting the very survival of many species. Indeed, the fossil record indicates that many taxonomic groups became extinct during the deposition of the geologic sedimentary layers.[3] Some organisms would have simply succumbed to the trauma of the turbulence. Others would have found suitable living space destroyed, and hence died for lack of appropriate habitat. For example, too much fresh water for obligate (bound to) marine species or vice versa would have led to death of those unable to adapt. Not only are there salt-concentration problems, but also temperature, light, oxygen, contaminants, and nutritional considerations. These must all be evaluated in discussing survival of water-dwelling creatures.

To simplify the exercise, five examples have been selected of fishes that are bound to fresh or salt water and those that can go between these major habitats. The chosen fishes (sunfish, catfish, trout, eel, and codfish) will be used to represent clear fresh water, muddy fresh water, anadromous (running up to fresh water from sea water to spawn), catadromous (the reverse) and obligate marine habitats or behavior, respectively. These categories will be discussed with reference to three main factors affecting their survival: salinity, temperature, and turbidity.

PHYSIOLOGICAL RANGES 
Salinity 

Fish have a problem in balancing the fluids outside their bodies with those inside. In general, freshwater fishes are constantly getting too much fresh water in their bodies from food, drinking water, and tissue transfer. On the opposite side, marine fishes get too little fresh water to maintain fluid balance due to the large input of salt in the drinking water and constant osmotic pressure to draw fresh water out of these tissues into the surrounding sea.[4]

The kidneys and gills are the two organs used to manage this balance. If a freshwater fish gets too much water, then the kidney is called upon to dump as much water as possible while retaining the circulating salts. Marine bony fish have to get rid of the excess salts largely through the gills and conserve the internal water through resorption.

Sea-run trout move from sea water to fresh water to spawn, while eels do just the opposite. Both have to be able to reverse their removal of water and salt according to the amount of salt in their environment. Sun fishes and cod remain in fresh water and sea water, respectively, for their whole life cycle. Salt content might range from nearly zero in freshwater to 35 parts per thousand (x103 ppm or 35,000 mg/l) in sea water. Obligate freshwater fish typically have an upper lethal level of seven parts per thousand (7,000 mg/l). Obligate marine species have a very narrow limit of salt tolerance.[5]  Dromous (running/migrating) species are able to adapt to the new environments by osmotic regulation.

Temperature 

The range of temperatures tolerated by fishes varies from species to species and the assorted habitats. Some fish have a very narrow range of tolerance at the cold, warm, or hot temperature parts of the heat scale. Others show a wide range of heat tolerance from freezing to hot waters (0-32° C). Developmental stages are frequently limited by narrow temperature requirements within the overall range of the adult.

Most species, including cold-water types, can tolerate at least brief exposures to 24°C and low temperatures approaching 2°C, as long as there are prolonged acclimation periods (several days to weeks). Preferred temperatures for the representative adult fish are as follows: Trout, 16-21°C; sunfish, 16-28°C; catfish, 21-29°C; eel, probably 16-28°C; codfish 12-16° C. [6,7]

Turbidity 

Particulate matter that is in suspension in natural waters is measured photoelectrically as turbidity. It consists of erosional silt, organic particles, bacteria, and plankton. Such materials adversely affect fish by covering the substrate with a smothering layer that kills food organisms and spawning sites. In addition, the molar action of the silt damages gills and invertebrate respiratory structures. Fish combat such materials by secreting mucus that carries the particles away. Indirectly, turbidity screens out light and decreases the photic zone for photosynthesis. The range of turbidity might be described as: clear < 10 ppm (mg/l), turbid 10 to 250 ppm, and very turbid > 250 ppm. Wallen[8] found that many fish species survive turbidities of 100,000 ppm for one week or more.

SURVIVAL STRATEGY 
Runoff to the Ocean 

Heavy rainfall over the land would quickly fill the river basins with torrential flows. These in turn would empty out onto the encroaching coastline as a freshwater blanket. Odum[5] refers to situations similar to this as a "highly stratified or `salt-wedge' estuary." Such a massive freshwater outflow from the continents would join with the oceanic rainfall to form a halocline or strong density gradient, in which fish flushed out from the land aquatic systems could continue to survive in a freshwater environment. Stratification like this might even survive strong winds, if the freshwater depth was great enough to prevent internal current mixing. Thus, a situation might be envisioned where freshwater and marine fishes could survive the deluge in spite of being temporarily displaced.

Turbidity Flows 

On the other hand, large turbid particles and enormous bedloads could move into the ocean as settleable particulate rain and ground-hugging slurries. Heavier particles would fall out in the slower-moving coastal waters, and the mudflows would sediment out over the ocean floor. Although there would be turbulence at the freshwater/saltwater interface, the particle insertion would probably occur without appreciable mixing. With the range of tolerance given above, many fishes might be able to survive extended exposure to high turbidity .

Serendipity at Mount St. Helens 

The biotic recovery at Mount St. Helens after the May 18, 1980 eruption demonstrates rapid and widely ranging restoration. Obviously, the Flood would have been one or more orders of magnitude greater a catastrophe than that eruption. But such an event does help us to see ways of recovery.





SPIRIT LAKE





April 4, 1980

June 30, 1980



Alkalinity (mg/l)

0.01

150.5



Temperature (°C)

4.0

22.4



Turbidity (mg/l)

0.75

24.61



With regard to the three factors of interest (salinity&#8212;approximately alkalinity, in the sense of dissolved solutes&#8212;, temperature, and turbidity), significant changes were seen in the affected areas (data transformed to units used previously).[9,10]

Still, a little more than a month after the eruption, the lake most exposed to the catastrophic event, Spirit Lake, had tolerable alkalinity, ambient temperature, and low turbidity. This is not to deny that all the endemic fish were killed in the event and probably could not have survived if replanted in these waters on June 30, 1980, due to large organic oxygen demands from decaying tree debris and seeps of methane and sulfur dioxide. But within ten years, the lake appears to be able to support fish, as many other aquatic species are back and well established. If the lake were connected directly to the Toutle River, then salmonids probably would have made their reentry by this time.

Perhaps the most significant observation, though, in examining the post-eruption history, is that a variety of habitats within and adjacent to the blast zone survived the event with minimal impact on the continuity of the ecosystem. Meta Lake, within the blast zone for example, had an ice cover at the time of the searing blast, which protected the dormant ecosystem from experiencing much disruption from the heat, anoxia, and air-fall tephra. Fish and support systems picked up where they left off before the onset of the winter season.

Similar experiences were observed in Swift Reservoir, in spite of massive mud and debris flows into the lake by way of Muddy Creek (personal conversation with aquatic biologist on duty at that time). Fish were displaced into the adjacent unaffected watersheds or downstream into lower reservoirs. However, within two years, massive plankton blooms had occurred and ecosystem recovery was well underway with migrant recruits.

Such a confined catastrophe (500 square miles) enables one to project expectations from a major catastrophe, such as the Flood. First, in spite of the enormous magnitude of such events, there appear to be refuges for survival even in close proximity to the most damaging action. Second, recovery can be incredibly fast&#8212;from one month to ten years. Third, recruitment from minimally affected zones can occur with normal migratory behavior of organisms. Although some animal and plant populations or even species might be annihilated in such events, remnant individuals can reestablish new populations.

How Could Fish Survive the Genesis Flood?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone on the creationist side advise why nearly all if not every radiometric dating method is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assumptions and presuppositions are used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it seems illogical for these assumption and presuppositions are never correct in every attempt they use these methods.
> 
> Also, if the world is 6000 years old then how could gasoline, coal, and diamonds that take millions of years to form be around?
Click to expand...


How can assumptions and presuppositions always be accurate ? besides there have been many examples produced to show the dating methods are unreliable.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone notice that the fundies' "quotes" are frequently 1950's vintage material from a Christian creationist website?
> 
> Chuckle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, coming from the tool who repeatedly borrows Dawkins question from _The God Delusion_ of who designed the designer and then claims she doesn't know who Dawkins is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My creepy stalker feels ignored.
Click to expand...


I just think you are wishful thinking again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone on the creationist side advise why nearly all if not every radiometric dating method is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assumptions and presuppositions are used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationist will denigrate those methods of science which refute biblical tales and fables.
Click to expand...


Hollie I am an honest person and have no reason to do as you claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> New research may show that Neanderthals did not go extinct.
> DNA derived from the Neanderthals has been found in many human populations around the globe.
> http://wsws.org/en/articles/2011/12/nean-d27.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof they were human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof only that Christian fundamentalism is a serious illness.
Click to expand...


You still don't get it,figures.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone also advise how many species survived the global flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way to answer this question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there is. Only Noah and his immediate family survived the flood tale.
> 
> The gawds provided incestuous relationships as the way to re-populate the earth.
Click to expand...


Hollie in the bible it was the sons of noah who had wives that re-populated the earth.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assumptions and presuppositions are used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it seems illogical for these assumption and presuppositions are never correct in every attempt they use these methods.
> 
> Also, if the world is 6000 years old then how could gasoline, coal, and diamonds that take millions of years to form be around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can assumptions and presuppositions always be accurate ? besides there have been many examples produced to show the dating methods are unreliable.
Click to expand...


Assumptions and presuppositions are not always accurate. However, as you are ignorant of the mechanisms used by reliable dating methods and have a preconceived bias negatively affecting your ability to offer relevant commentary, you're not at all reliable when it comes to separating fact from religious dogma.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No way to answer this question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is. Only Noah and his immediate family survived the flood tale.
> 
> The gawds provided incestuous relationships as the way to re-populate the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie in the bible it was the sons of noah who had wives that re-populated the earth.
Click to expand...


In _Moby Dick_, Ahab was eaten by the whale. This was the same whale that swallowed Jonah, BTW.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof they were human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof only that Christian fundamentalism is a serious illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't get it,figures.
Click to expand...


You're still befuddled.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, coming from the tool who repeatedly borrows Dawkins question from _The God Delusion_ of who designed the designer and then claims she doesn't know who Dawkins is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My creepy stalker feels ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just think you are wishful thinking again.
Click to expand...


It's curious that both you and my stalker have repeatedly threatened to leave but remain, only to spread your message of religious hate.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Chapter 17 FOSSILS AND STRATA Part 5



Evolution Handbook 3

_evolution-facts.org_ is another Christian creationist hate site. This particular site is maintained by Vance Ferrell.  

Our pal Vance has some rather emphatic views on all non-christian cultists.

Vance Ferrell, evolution-facts.org



> It becomes extremely dangerous when materialistic men are set in positions of power to dictate that which the masses will believe in regard to human morality. Hardened evolutionists are determined not to merely let men choose for themselves the type of morality they will follow. Evolution is foisted upon people, from kindergarten to the grave. Evolutionist zealots are dedicated to wiping out every religion but their own. Atheism and only atheism is their creed and their objective. Darwinism inherently teaches the most vicious set of moral principles. Declaring that man is but an animal, instruction is then given that the most successful animals are those that are the first to attack and destroy. The collected views men are taught determine their system of morals and their way of life.



These kinds of comments are valuable for a glimpse into the gaping maw of the true, twisted ideology of totalitarian christian cult values. Employing _evolution-facts.org_ leaves us only to see exampled the net effect of a cult, promoting fear and hate. 

_evolution-facts.org_ is but one christian cult and its hate-filled diatribes demonstrate the most fear-promoting, intellect-killing ideology ever to part ways with man's formidable imagination.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assumptions and presuppositions are used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist will denigrate those methods of science which refute biblical tales and fables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie I am an honest person and have no reason to do as you claim.
Click to expand...


You are not an honest person and have been exposed repeatedly as a liar.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> *Flood Stories from Around the World*
> 
> Flood Stories from Around the World
> 
> Anyone contemplating an alleged global flood would be wise to consider sources such as the ICR. They are a fundamentalist Christian cult which, contrary to their moniker, doesnt do any actual research.
> 
> Its also notable that biblical accounts to a global flood are really just variations on similar tales and fables that have been circulating for thousands of years.
> 
> The claim to fish surviving a global flood is obviously rhetorical. Like so many biblical tales and fables, the global flood (for which there is no evidence), requires that a miracle had to take place. Many miracles had to occur for the flood myth to have occurred. The context of the Genesis Flood is Genesis 1:1 and very many other Divine works (miracles), none of which survive actual investigation. So again, whats the point?


----------



## Big_D2

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assumptions and presuppositions are used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it seems illogical for these assumption and presuppositions are never correct in every attempt they use these methods.
> 
> Also, if the world is 6000 years old then how could gasoline, coal, and diamonds that take millions of years to form be around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can assumptions and presuppositions always be accurate ? besides there have been many examples produced to show the dating methods are unreliable.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you're referring to: sciencedaily .com/releases/2010/09/100915171534.htm]Radiometric dating still reliable (again), research shows[/url]

There's a reason this satisfies scientists.  It went through the rigorous tests needed to win their approval.

Also, if the world is 6000 years old then how could gasoline, coal, and diamonds that take millions of years to form be around?

You should switch from a young earth to an old earth creationist like myself.


----------



## Big_D2

YWC,

That article really didn't asnwer the question.  Perhaps some could survive, like your article states but not all.

Also, the plant life would not have been able to survive the global flood as the sun would not be able to reach them.

I'm a Christian and I don't believe that story is supposed to be taken literally.  Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too?


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> New research may show that Neanderthals did not go extinct.
> DNA derived from the Neanderthals has been found in many human populations around the globe.
> http://wsws.org/en/articles/2011/12/nean-d27.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof they were human.
Click to expand...


How is that proof that they were human? They are scientifically/genetically determined to be a different species then we are. You just blowing more smoke or you got a link or something?


----------



## ima

Big_D2 said:


> YWC,
> 
> That article really didn't asnwer the question.  Perhaps some could survive, like your article states but not all.
> 
> Also, the plant life would not have been able to survive the global flood as the sun would not be able to reach them.
> 
> I'm a Christian and I don't believe that story is supposed to be taken literally.  Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too?


In other words, Jesus was full of shit, why shouldn't god be also?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is. Only Noah and his immediate family survived the flood tale.
> 
> The gawds provided incestuous relationships as the way to re-populate the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie in the bible it was the sons of noah who had wives that re-populated the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In _Moby Dick_, Ahab was eaten by the whale. This was the same whale that swallowed Jonah, BTW.
Click to expand...


I wa just correcting you again.


----------



## Big_D2

ima said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC,
> 
> That article really didn't asnwer the question.  Perhaps some could survive, like your article states but not all.
> 
> Also, the plant life would not have been able to survive the global flood as the sun would not be able to reach them.
> 
> I'm a Christian and I don't believe that story is supposed to be taken literally.  Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too?
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, Jesus was full of shit, why shouldn't god be also?
Click to expand...


How can a parable be full of doo-doo?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My creepy stalker feels ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just think you are wishful thinking again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's curious that both you and my stalker have repeatedly threatened to leave but remain, only to spread your message of religious hate.
Click to expand...


You have that backwards. Yes you would like to see us go wouldn't,finally tired of getting embarrassed hollie ?


----------



## ima

Big_D2 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC,
> 
> That article really didn't asnwer the question.  Perhaps some could survive, like your article states but not all.
> 
> Also, the plant life would not have been able to survive the global flood as the sun would not be able to reach them.
> 
> I'm a Christian and I don't believe that story is supposed to be taken literally.  Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too?
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, Jesus was full of shit, why shouldn't god be also?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can a parable be full of doo-doo?
Click to expand...


All the stuff that Jesus is supposed to have said was hearsay and was written at least 100 years after the fact. Making everything attributed to Jesus bullshit.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist will denigrate those methods of science which refute biblical tales and fables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie I am an honest person and have no reason to do as you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not an honest person and have been exposed repeatedly as a liar.
Click to expand...


We know who the real liar is hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it seems illogical for these assumption and presuppositions are never correct in every attempt they use these methods.
> 
> Also, if the world is 6000 years old then how could gasoline, coal, and diamonds that take millions of years to form be around?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can assumptions and presuppositions always be accurate ? besides there have been many examples produced to show the dating methods are unreliable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're referring to: sciencedaily .com/releases/2010/09/100915171534.htm]Radiometric dating still reliable (again), research shows[/url]
> 
> There's a reason this satisfies scientists.  It went through the rigorous tests needed to win their approval.
> 
> Also, if the world is 6000 years old then how could gasoline, coal, and diamonds that take millions of years to form be around?
> 
> You should switch from a young earth to an old earth creationist like myself.
Click to expand...


I will ask you a return question why are these diamonds dated back so far in time but were found to contain carbon,do you know how long carbon last's ?

Mostly no one was there to witness it millions of years to form so how do we know it took  millions of years to form ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> YWC,
> 
> That article really didn't asnwer the question.  Perhaps some could survive, like your article states but not all.
> 
> Also, the plant life would not have been able to survive the global flood as the sun would not be able to reach them.
> 
> I'm a Christian and I don't believe that story is supposed to be taken literally.  Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too?



Not all organisms survived the flood and we know for a fact many groups went extinct that is why we have a fossil record.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> New research may show that Neanderthals did not go extinct.
> DNA derived from the Neanderthals has been found in many human populations around the globe.
> http://wsws.org/en/articles/2011/12/nean-d27.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof they were human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that proof that they were human? They are scientifically/genetically determined to be a different species then we are. You just blowing more smoke or you got a link or something?
Click to expand...


Are you telling me two different breeds of dogs are not dogs ? If they were not genetically close enough to breed and reproduce offspring that carry on and continue reproducing then they would be a different species.

If neanderthals were not human they could not have been absorbed by other humans. Don't you know really how tough it is to define a new species ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, Jesus was full of shit, why shouldn't god be also?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can a parable be full of doo-doo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the stuff that Jesus is supposed to have said was hearsay and was written at least 100 years after the fact. Making everything attributed to Jesus bullshit.
Click to expand...


That claim has been refuted by scholars.


----------



## Big_D2

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC,
> 
> That article really didn't asnwer the question.  Perhaps some could survive, like your article states but not all.
> 
> Also, the plant life would not have been able to survive the global flood as the sun would not be able to reach them.
> 
> I'm a Christian and I don't believe that story is supposed to be taken literally.  Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all organisms survived the flood and we know for a fact many groups went extinct that is why we have a fossil record.
Click to expand...


But, how could all those salt water fish be alive today if they went exitinct at the time of the global flood, which according to creationists, was just 4000 years ago.


----------



## Big_D2

ima said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, Jesus was full of shit, why shouldn't god be also?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can a parable be full of doo-doo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the stuff that Jesus is supposed to have said was hearsay and was written at least 100 years after the fact. Making everything attributed to Jesus bullshit.
Click to expand...


How do you know this?


----------



## Big_D2

Youwerecreated said:


> I will ask you a return question why are these diamonds dated back so far in time but were found to contain carbon,do you know how long carbon last's ?
> 
> Mostly no one was there to witness it millions of years to form so how do we know it took  millions of years to form ?



The diamonds take millions of years to form.  Therefore, the earth is not thousands of years old.

This should answer the question on about carbon 14: howstuffworks.com /environmental/earth/geology/carbon-141.htm

Here is how diamonds form:
 geology .com/articles/diamonds-from-coal/


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie I am an honest person and have no reason to do as you claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not an honest person and have been exposed repeatedly as a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know who the real liar is hollie.
Click to expand...


Who is we?

I posted many examples of your lies in this thread. Why don't you research those as s reminder of your dishonesty.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie in the bible it was the sons of noah who had wives that re-populated the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In _Moby Dick_, Ahab was eaten by the whale. This was the same whale that swallowed Jonah, BTW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wa just correcting you again.
Click to expand...


I was educating you on the dogma you pretend to know but are clueless with.

Why would your gawds promote incestuous relationships?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof they were human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that proof that they were human? They are scientifically/genetically determined to be a different species then we are. You just blowing more smoke or you got a link or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you telling me two different breeds of dogs are not dogs ? If they were not genetically close enough to breed and reproduce offspring that carry on and continue reproducing then they would be a different species.
> 
> If neanderthals were not human they could not have been absorbed by other humans. Don't you know really how tough it is to define a new species ?
Click to expand...


If species were created by the gawds, how tough could it be?

What has you befuddled is the contradiction whereby separate sub-species of human-life ancestors have existed in the distant past. This was documented in links you posted and later tried to dismiss as a conspiracy theory. 

Your dilemma, thus befuddlement, is obvious as developmental stages of human ancestors, evolving into Homo sapiens is an irreconcilable contradiction to biblical tales and fables. You have been forced to invent among the most bizarre and ludicrous conspiracy theories in very comical attempts to resolve your befuddlement.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC,
> 
> That article really didn't asnwer the question.  Perhaps some could survive, like your article states but not all.
> 
> Also, the plant life would not have been able to survive the global flood as the sun would not be able to reach them.
> 
> I'm a Christian and I don't believe that story is supposed to be taken literally.  Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all organisms survived the flood and we know for a fact many groups went extinct that is why we have a fossil record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, how could all those salt water fish be alive today if they went exitinct at the time of the global flood, which according to creationists, was just 4000 years ago.
Click to expand...


Not every sea creature or fish went extinct. We have some fish that can survive both fresh and salt water.

God did not go in to dtail on how he did everything and it left us speculating as we gain knowledge.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can a parable be full of doo-doo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the stuff that Jesus is supposed to have said was hearsay and was written at least 100 years after the fact. Making everything attributed to Jesus bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That claim has been refuted by scholars.
Click to expand...


Actually, it hasn't. It is a fact biblical tales and fables post date hey-zoos by at least a century.

Tales of hey-zoos actually recount tales of an Essene priest who pre-dated hey-zoos.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all organisms survived the flood and we know for a fact many groups went extinct that is why we have a fossil record.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, how could all those salt water fish be alive today if they went exitinct at the time of the global flood, which according to creationists, was just 4000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not every sea creature or fish went extinct. We have some fish that can survive both fresh and salt water.
> 
> God did not go in to dtail on how he did everything and it left us speculating as we gain knowledge.
Click to expand...


That is obvious conjecture on your part. You place yourself in irresolvable contradictions when you make up nonsense as you go along.


----------



## Hollie

From talkorigins:


Claim CH541:

Present-day fish and other aquatic organisms could have survived the Flood. Many freshwater fish can survive in salt water, and many saltwater fish can tolerate fresh water. The floodwaters may have been layered by salinity, allowing others to find their preferred habitat.

Source:

Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study. Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, pp. 140-152.

Response:

1. Layering of the floodwaters contradicts the Flood model, which proposes that the Flood was turbulent enough to stir up sediments on an incredible scale. The model proposes that the floodwaters became the present oceans, so all the water flowing into the oceans would have ensured that they were well mixed. The freshwater fish would have had no place to find fresh water.

2. The fact that many fish can tolerate wide ranges in salinity does not mean that all can. Furthermore, the problem applies to more than fish. Freshwater invertebrates are commonly used as indicators of the health of streams. Even a tiny amount of pollution can cause many species to disappear from the stream.

3. Aquatic organisms would have more than salinity to worry about, such as the following: Heat. All mechanisms proposed to cause the Flood would have released enough heat to boil the oceans. The deposition of limestone would release enough heat to boil them again. Meteors and volcanoes that occurred during the Flood, as implied by their presence in layers attributed to the Flood by flood geologists, would probably have boiled them again (Isaak 1998). Woodmorappe (1996, 140) dismissed the problem of volcanoes but ignored all the other sources of heat. Acid. The volcanoes that erupted during the Flood would also have produced sulfuric acid, enough to lower the pH of the ocean to 2.2, which would be fatal to almost all marine life (Morton 1998b). Substrate. Many freshwater and marine invertebrates rely on a substrate. They anchor themselves on the substrate and rely on currents to carry their food to them. During the Flood, substrates would have been uninhabitable at least part of the time, especially on land. Woodmorappe (1996, 141) suggested floating pumice as a substrate, but it would float with the currents, so currents would not bring nutrients to animals on them. Pressure. The Flood would have caused great fluctuation in sea pressures. Many deep-sea creatures invariably die from the decompression when brought to the surface. Other surface animals would die from too much pressure if forced deep underwater.

4. Woodmorappe predicted a sudden extinction of fish caused by the Flood. "[P]resent-day marine life is but an impoverished remnant of that which had originally been created and had existed before the Flood" (1996, 142). However, the actual pattern of extinction we see shows convincing disproof of the Flood. Living genera become decreasingly represented in fossils as one goes deeper in the geological column, until there are no recent genera in the Triassic, and only about 12 percent of recent genera have any fossil record. Extinct genera continue back to the Cambrian (Morton 1998a). This pattern exactly matches what one would expect from evolution. It contradicts a global flood, which should include modern fish more-or-less uniformly throughout the flood-deposited sediments.

References:

1. Isaak, Mark, 1998. Problems with a global flood, 2nd ed. Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition 

2. Morton, Glenn R., 1998a. Fish cause problems for the global flood. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fish.htm 

3. Morton, Glenn R., 1998b. The global flood produces acidic flood waters. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/acid.htm


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you a return question why are these diamonds dated back so far in time but were found to contain carbon,do you know how long carbon last's ?
> 
> Mostly no one was there to witness it millions of years to form so how do we know it took  millions of years to form ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The diamonds take millions of years to form.  Therefore, the earth is not thousands of years old.
> 
> This should answer the question on about carbon 14: howstuffworks.com /environmental/earth/geology/carbon-141.htm
> 
> Here is how diamonds form:
> geology .com/articles/diamonds-from-coal/
Click to expand...


Sorry for all the links.

Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed - Answers in Genesis

Diamonds: a creationist's best friend

Carbon-14 Dating

Microscopic Diamonds Confound Geologists - Answers in Genesis

Strata - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Young Earth Evidence:: RAPID FORMATION OF LAYERS AND STRATA


----------



## ima

Big_D2 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can a parable be full of doo-doo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the stuff that Jesus is supposed to have said was hearsay and was written at least 100 years after the fact. Making everything attributed to Jesus bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know this?
Click to expand...


Scientists have carbon dated the earliest fragment of the bible to around 135AD (there was a program on the NatGeo channel that was very interesting on that subject). Most of the other documents are older and some are dated something like 350 years after the fact. I know, creationists discount carbon dating, because otherwise you're screwed, but thems the facts.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you a return question why are these diamonds dated back so far in time but were found to contain carbon,do you know how long carbon last's ?
> 
> Mostly no one was there to witness it millions of years to form so how do we know it took  millions of years to form ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The diamonds take millions of years to form.  Therefore, the earth is not thousands of years old.
> 
> This should answer the question on about carbon 14: howstuffworks.com /environmental/earth/geology/carbon-141.htm
> 
> Here is how diamonds form:
> geology .com/articles/diamonds-from-coal/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry for all the links.
Click to expand...

You should be sorry. 

I can't help but notice that you're forced to link to some of the most notoriously dishonest Christian creationist websites on the net.


----------



## Big_D2

Youwerecreated said:


> Not every sea creature or fish went extinct. We have some fish that can survive both fresh and salt water.
> 
> God did not go in to dtail on how he did everything and it left us speculating as we gain knowledge.



But how could a creature that can survive in only salt water be alive if the water at the time of the flood was fresh?


----------



## Big_D2

Youwerecreated said:


> Sorry for all the links.




May I ask why you would take their word over scientists?


----------



## PretentiousGuy

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof they were human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that proof that they were human? They are scientifically/genetically determined to be a different species then we are. You just blowing more smoke or you got a link or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you telling me two different breeds of dogs are not dogs ? If they were not genetically close enough to breed and reproduce offspring that carry on and continue reproducing then they would be a different species.
> 
> If neanderthals were not human they could not have been absorbed by other humans. Don't you know really how tough it is to define a new species ?
Click to expand...


The ability for species, sub-species, etc.. Is far more complex than you let on. Generally speaking creatures of the same genus can produce an offspring. I am not going to go into great depths with this because I know you don't really care about the science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the stuff that Jesus is supposed to have said was hearsay and was written at least 100 years after the fact. Making everything attributed to Jesus bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists have carbon dated the earliest fragment of the bible to around 135AD (there was a program on the NatGeo channel that was very interesting on that subject). Most of the other documents are older and some are dated something like 350 years after the fact. I know, creationists discount carbon dating, because otherwise you're screwed, but thems the facts.
Click to expand...


Do you understand we have no origional writings they are just manuscripts of the origional writings.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The diamonds take millions of years to form.  Therefore, the earth is not thousands of years old.
> 
> This should answer the question on about carbon 14: howstuffworks.com /environmental/earth/geology/carbon-141.htm
> 
> Here is how diamonds form:
> geology .com/articles/diamonds-from-coal/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for all the links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be sorry.
> 
> I can't help but notice that you're forced to link to some of the most notoriously dishonest Christian creationist websites on the net.
Click to expand...


I notice you offer no rebuttal just rhetoric.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for all the links.
> 
> 
> 
> You should be sorry.
> 
> I can't help but notice that you're forced to link to some of the most notoriously dishonest Christian creationist websites on the net.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice you offer no rebuttal just rhetoric.
Click to expand...


Christian creationist have a predefined agenda. Truth, facts and evidence are if little importance to creationist. 

If you had a legitimate argument to present, you would have done so. You cut and paste  from creationist websites because science does not support claims to supernaturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not every sea creature or fish went extinct. We have some fish that can survive both fresh and salt water.
> 
> God did not go in to dtail on how he did everything and it left us speculating as we gain knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how could a creature that can survive in only salt water be alive if the water at the time of the flood was fresh?
Click to expand...


I would say the water was a 50 50 mixture. To be honest I don't know the answer nor do I know the complexity of a cell to just happen by chance nor how the planets were alligned conveniently for life to exist and flourish here on this planet.

Surely though the one that created all we see can deal with the issue concerning fish during the flood.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have carbon dated the earliest fragment of the bible to around 135AD (there was a program on the NatGeo channel that was very interesting on that subject). Most of the other documents are older and some are dated something like 350 years after the fact. I know, creationists discount carbon dating, because otherwise you're screwed, but thems the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand we have no origional writings they are just manuscripts of the origional writings.
Click to expand...


It is all hearsay, conjecture and empty claims to magical intervention. Yes, we understand that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for all the links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask why you would take their word over scientists?
Click to expand...


I am a man of science myself and worked in the field for eleven years. Secularist scientist seem to come up with only theories that could come from a vivid mind while ruling out the possibility of design when it can be seen in nature.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not every sea creature or fish went extinct. We have some fish that can survive both fresh and salt water.
> 
> God did not go in to dtail on how he did everything and it left us speculating as we gain knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how could a creature that can survive in only salt water be alive if the water at the time of the flood was fresh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say the water was a 50 50 mixture. To be honest I don't know the answer nor do I know the complexity of a cell to just happen by chance nor how the planets were alligned conveniently for life to exist and flourish here on this planet.
> 
> Surely though the one that created all we see can deal with the issue concerning fish during the flood.
Click to expand...

It's obvious you don't know. That's why you so frequently self-contradict as you make up excuses for why miracles are hopelessly inadequate as a rational explanation for anything.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for all the links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask why you would take their word over scientists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a man of science myself and worked in the field for eleven years. Secularist scientist seem to come up with only theories that could come from a vivid mind while ruling out the possibility of design when it can be seen in nature.
Click to expand...


You are a man of science? How silly. And yes, science pales in comparison to magic.


----------



## Youwerecreated

PretentiousGuy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that proof that they were human? They are scientifically/genetically determined to be a different species then we are. You just blowing more smoke or you got a link or something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me two different breeds of dogs are not dogs ? If they were not genetically close enough to breed and reproduce offspring that carry on and continue reproducing then they would be a different species.
> 
> If neanderthals were not human they could not have been absorbed by other humans. Don't you know really how tough it is to define a new species ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ability for species, sub-species, etc.. Is far more complex than you let on. Generally speaking creatures of the same genus can produce an offspring. I am not going to go into great depths with this because I know you don't really care about the science.
Click to expand...


You know how I feel about science ?  I don't think you can teach me anything I don't already know on this issue. If you have read this thread since it's start you would have seen where I gave a thourough post on this subject.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be sorry.
> 
> I can't help but notice that you're forced to link to some of the most notoriously dishonest Christian creationist websites on the net.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you offer no rebuttal just rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christian creationist have a predefined agenda. Truth, facts and evidence are if little importance to creationist.
> 
> If you had a legitimate argument to present, you would have done so. You cut and paste  from creationist websites because science does not support claims to supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


The secular atheist does not ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask why you would take their word over scientists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a man of science myself and worked in the field for eleven years. Secularist scientist seem to come up with only theories that could come from a vivid mind while ruling out the possibility of design when it can be seen in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a man of science? How silly. And yes, science pales in comparison to magic.
Click to expand...


I have been honest about my job and the degree I hold you have never once told us your resume.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you offer no rebuttal just rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christian creationist have a predefined agenda. Truth, facts and evidence are if little importance to creationist.
> 
> If you had a legitimate argument to present, you would have done so. You cut and paste  from creationist websites because science does not support claims to supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The secular atheist does not ?
Click to expand...


Quite a pathetic side-step. Creationist have a singular agenda to promote their magical gawds. Science is concerned with facts and demonstration. 

That's why your pompous, self-important claim to be a man of science was so laughable.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christian creationist have a predefined agenda. Truth, facts and evidence are if little importance to creationist.
> 
> If you had a legitimate argument to present, you would have done so. You cut and paste  from creationist websites because science does not support claims to supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The secular atheist does not ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite a pathetic side-step. Creationist have a singular agenda to promote their magical gawds. Science is concerned with facts and demonstration.
> 
> That's why your pompous, self-important claim to be a man of science was so laughable.
Click to expand...


Hollie you should know your side has an agenda they are constantly attacking anything to do with God.

Hollie why does this go ignored that all living organisms group with other organisms of their own kind ? Why do they look to constantly reproduce with creatures of their own kind ? What was the chance through mutations a new species would be formed and enough of them to continue reproducing the same species ? Why is it that the new species do not reproduce offspring with the features of the species they evolved from ? This is why they had to come up with a mechanism for evolution to happen but they know that mutations are a dead end. The mutations argument is a joke and in my work I could see the truth on my own of that ever being a mechnism for evolution. Mutations destroy genetic information not create new information. What they are saying life evolved through genetic errors how rediculous is that ?

They ignore the obvious evidence and turn to miracles as an explanation. I don't expect you to take on and answer my questions other then a meaning rhetorical response with nothing of substance so this post is for all those that would argue for evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christian creationist have a predefined agenda. Truth, facts and evidence are if little importance to creationist.
> 
> If you had a legitimate argument to present, you would have done so. You cut and paste  from creationist websites because science does not support claims to supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The secular atheist does not ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite a pathetic side-step. Creationist have a singular agenda to promote their magical gawds. Science is concerned with facts and demonstration.
> 
> That's why your pompous, self-important claim to be a man of science was so laughable.
Click to expand...


No my claim was spot on and you are left with a pointless response and lower an accusation agains't me. That is ok I am use to it.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The secular atheist does not ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a pathetic side-step. Creationist have a singular agenda to promote their magical gawds. Science is concerned with facts and demonstration.
> 
> That's why your pompous, self-important claim to be a man of science was so laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie you should know your side has an agenda they are constantly attacking anything to do with God.
> 
> Hollie why does this go ignored that all living organisms group with other organisms of their own kind ? Why do they look to constantly reproduce with creatures of their own kind ? What was the chance through mutations a new species would be formed and enough of them to continue reproducing the same species ? Why is it that the new species do not reproduce offspring with the features of the species they evolved from ? This is why they had to come up with a mechanism for evolution to happen but they know that mutations are a dead end. The mutations argument is a joke and in my work I could see the truth on my own of that ever being a mechnism for evolution. Mutations destroy genetic information not create new information. What they are saying life evolved through genetic errors how rediculous is that ?
> 
> They ignore the obvious evidence and turn to miracles as an explanation. I don't expect you to take on and answer my questions other then a meaning rhetorical response with nothing of substance so this post is for all those that would argue for evolution.
Click to expand...

Your comments only serve to reinforce what is for you, a worldwide conspiracy of scientists, teaching universities and skilled technicians who are all conspiring to ignore your wish that magic gawds really do exist. 

You should try and re-read your post from the point of view of one not suffering from your religious paranoia. You do appear quite delusional.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The secular atheist does not ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a pathetic side-step. Creationist have a singular agenda to promote their magical gawds. Science is concerned with facts and demonstration.
> 
> That's why your pompous, self-important claim to be a man of science was so laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No my claim was spot on and you are left with a pointless response and lower an accusation agains't me. That is ok I am use to it.
Click to expand...


Many of the hyper-religious suffer from a martyr complex.


----------



## UltimateReality

The predictive power of the Intelligent Design Hypothesis scores another win:

Darwin's God: Cellular Machinery Redesigns Genes For Cold Temperature Operation


----------



## UltimateReality

_Sedgwick began his review by explaining that he had read the younger Darwin&#8217;s manuscript &#8220;with more pain than pleasure.&#8221; For while parts were admirable and other parts humorous, there nonetheless were so many passages that Sedgwick read &#8220;with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous.&#8221;

For *Darwin*, it seemed to Sedgwick, *had abandoned the tried and true method of empirically-based scientific induction and substituted for it his own baseless assumptions*:

    "Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be 
     proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements 
     of philosophical induction?"_

Darwin's God: An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation


----------



## UltimateReality

_This new research demonstrates yet again how evolutionary predictions about the species patterns dont really matter. In particular, the evolutionary tree and common descent are not predictions that, when found to be false, falsify evolution. Instead, when found to be false those predictions, as with the many others, are simply forfeited. Therefore practically any pattern can be explained by evolutionary theory. And those that cannot are simply classified as research problems.
_

Darwin's God: Horizontal Transfer Finally Reaches the Eukaryotes

Once again predictions from Darwinian theory are proven wrong while ID predictions are continually proven.


----------



## UltimateReality

_All these things being consider'd, it seems probable to me, that God in the Beginning form'd Matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable Particles, of such Sizes and Figures, and with such other Properties, and in such Proportion to Space, as most conduced to the End for which he form'd them; and that these primitive Particles being Solids, are incomparably harder than any porous Bodies compounded of them; even so very hard, as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary Power being able to divide what God himself made one in the first Creation. While the Particles continue entire, they may compose Bodies of one and the same Nature and Texture in all Ages: But should they wear away, or break in pieces, the Nature of Things depending on them, would be changed. Water and Earth, composed of old worn Particles and Fragments of Particles, would not be of the same Nature and Texture now, with Water and Earth composed of entire Particles in the Beginning. And therefore, that Nature may be lasting, the Changes of corporeal Things are to be placed only in the various Separations and new Associations and Motions of these permanent Particles; compound Bodies being apt to break, not in the midst of solid Particles, but where those Particles are laid together, and only touch in a few Points._

_As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing *general Conclusions from them by Induction*, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the *Induction* is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations._

Newton


----------



## Big_D2

Youwerecreated said:


> I would say the water was a 50 50 mixture. To be honest I don't know the answer nor do I know the complexity of a cell to just happen by chance nor how the planets were alligned conveniently for life to exist and flourish here on this planet.
> 
> Surely though the one that created all we see can deal with the issue concerning fish during the flood.



If the water was a 50/50 mixtures then a great number of species would have died and not be around today.


----------



## Big_D2

Youwerecreated said:


> I am a man of science myself and worked in the field for eleven years. Secularist scientist seem to come up with only theories that could come from a vivid mind while ruling out the possibility of design when it can be seen in nature.



What field of science do you work in?


----------



## Big_D2

> "Now...I'm not a Hebrew exegete.  But I will tell you that two of the best-known exegetes of the Old Testament in the American evangelical community are Gleason Archer at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Walter Kaiser at Gordon Conwell. Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer are respected in the entire United States as being faithful expositors of the Old Testament. Both of them know eight to ten Old Testament languages, and they both have spent their entire lives in Hebrew exegesis.  Both of them believe the days of Genesis are...vast, unspecified periods of time, and are in no way required to be literal twenty-four hour days."



Reasons To Believe : "The Age of Earth"


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a man of science myself and worked in the field for eleven years. Secularist scientist seem to come up with only theories that could come from a vivid mind while ruling out the possibility of design when it can be seen in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What field of science do you work in?
Click to expand...


I worked in the field of molecular biology we did cell and mutation research.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say the water was a 50 50 mixture. To be honest I don't know the answer nor do I know the complexity of a cell to just happen by chance nor how the planets were alligned conveniently for life to exist and flourish here on this planet.
> 
> Surely though the one that created all we see can deal with the issue concerning fish during the flood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the water was a 50/50 mixtures then a great number of species would have died and not be around today.
Click to expand...


I don't have an answer for this.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Once again predictions from Darwinian theory are proven wrong while ID predictions are continually proven.



This is so silly. ID'iot creationism makes no predictions. 

Do you find it at all strange that these gawdly miracles only appear on creationist websites?

You should advise Cornelius Hunter to post his nonsense in supermarket tabloids alongside miracle cures for baldness and new weight loss pills. 




Sandwalk: Intelligent Design Creationists and Lateral Gene Transfer

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT, also known as Lateral Gene Transfer) has been studied for six decades. We have an excellent understanding of the mechanisms; namely, transformation, transduction, conjugation, fusion, and endosymbiosis. There's nothing new there.

 "Darwinism" and "Darwinian evolution" are products of the nineteenth century. The only people who are stuck in that century are the creationists. Modern evolutionary biologists have been at the forefront of "holistic" approaches since the recognition that populations evolve, not individuals. For most biologists, this happened in the 1940s. To put this into perspective, that's at least sixty years ago, or 1% of the entire history of Earth!

I'm actually quite happy to promote the "unseating [of] Darwinian evolution" as anyone who reads Sandwalk will attest. David Taylor and Denyse O'Leary are completely incapable of recognizing that legitimate challenges to the old-fashioned way of thinking about evolution are now part of mainstream biology. In fairness, what can we expect from people who think that a 2500 year old book written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek still contains relevant information about science?

"Design" fails to provide a coherent context for anything. I've yet to see anyone explain how and when God intervened to create modern life.


----------



## UltimateReality

People that claim ID can't have predictive power are totally ignorant of the theory and the science behind it. 

_"Intelligent Design is relatively new in its present form. Proponents often argue that there are features of biology that look like engineering, and in particular, that the programming of life, the DNA software that goes along with the cellular hardware, is analogous to the programming of computers. However, we havent yet been able to fully unpack the implications of that, partly because both computer science and genomics are developing disciplines. The following is merely  a speculative suggestion in the hopes of inspiring further investigation:

Could it be that the designer(s) of the genomes of living organisms made use of code libraries in order to do so, as is done in computer software engineering?

A code library is a suite of functions which logically go together, e.g. math functions or input/output functions. They accelerate the design process by hiving functions off into a separable module, which needs to be very carefully designed and debugged, but only once, and then they can be used in many programs. This saves rewriting the functions each time, and means that large programs can be specified with much less source code. When a particular program is compiled from source code, it often gets several such libraries linked to it, that get added to the final executable. Not all the functions in the library need necessarily be used, meaning that the final executable could contain functions that are not used. Furthermore, in real life, programmers often leave quite a bit of non-functional information in the executable file. This includes, for example, information that aids debugging.

By analogy, the same might be true of the genomes we actually observe: if genomes are examples of executable code, then what if each genome has been compiled from a much simpler source code which would be simpler and easier to read if we had access to it directly. Thus ID infers from the observable genome to a simpler (intermediate) cause; some kind of source code. What if the compiled genome contains whole code-libraries that have been linked in, but not all functions are used, and some were deactivated? Wouldnt that be a natural explanation for true pseudogenes, that is pseudogenes that really are totally non-functional? In fact wouldnt that be evidence for a particular design model: source-code + code-libraries + compilation."_

Are pseudogenes evidence of code libraries? (a speculative suggestion) | Uncommon Descent


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> "Now...I'm not a Hebrew exegete.  But I will tell you that two of the best-known exegetes of the Old Testament in the American evangelical community are Gleason Archer at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Walter Kaiser at Gordon Conwell. Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer are respected in the entire United States as being faithful expositors of the Old Testament. Both of them know eight to ten Old Testament languages, and they both have spent their entire lives in Hebrew exegesis.  Both of them believe the days of Genesis are...vast, unspecified periods of time, and are in no way required to be literal twenty-four hour days."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasons To Believe : "The Age of Earth"
Click to expand...


Reasons to dismiss the old earth views.

Counterexamples to an Old Earth - Conservapedia


----------



## UltimateReality

*Don't buy the Atheist lies, ID is falsifiable. *

_"Functionally specific, complex information and associated information [FSCO/I]  &#8212; especially, digitally coded FSCI [dFSCI] &#8212; are seen as two of the strongest signs of design as cause.

For instance, when you see this post, you do not wonder or debate the odds of different letters being strung by chance [e.g. e in English is typically about 1/8 of the text], you intuitively immediately know that this is best explained as the work of an intelligent, purposeful agent acting towards a goal and based on his knowledge of the language, codes and topic in question. And, analytically, we can substantiate that intuition."_

_"6 &#8211;> And, once we see that for biological life we have to account for 100,000 to 1 mn bits or so of functionally specific digital information, then we will see that for major body plans, we need to account for 10 &#8211; 100 mn bits, dozens of times over. (E.g. I was just looking at a description of how plants make wood fibres and bind them together &#8212; an amazing nanofactory!)

7 &#8211;> The dFSCI search space challenge applies to not only origin of life, but its elaboration into major body plans. And, again, the only empirically warranted source for dFSCI is design; which is backed up by the needle in haystack and monkeys at keyboards type analyses and simulations that objectors are so desperate to deflect.

8 &#8211;> *All you would have to do to irretrievably break design theory, would be to credibly empirically demonstrate how by chance and mechanical necessity, without intelligent intervention, dFSCI can originate on a reasonable scope of resources."*_

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...nalytically-reliable-sign-of-design-as-cause/


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> People that claim ID can't have predictive power are totally ignorant of the theory and the science behind it.



Hyper-religious ID'iots don't understand that ID'iot "science" is religion, not science. This is why charlatans such as Ann Gauger, fronting for the Disco'tute, use lies and deceit about creationist "science" labs.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Don't by the Atheist lies, ID is falsifiable



Yes, how predictable.

The ID'iot arguments that Meyer stole from Behe.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Now...I'm not a Hebrew exegete.  But I will tell you that two of the best-known exegetes of the Old Testament in the American evangelical community are Gleason Archer at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Walter Kaiser at Gordon Conwell. Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer are respected in the entire United States as being faithful expositors of the Old Testament. Both of them know eight to ten Old Testament languages, and they both have spent their entire lives in Hebrew exegesis.  Both of them believe the days of Genesis are...vast, unspecified periods of time, and are in no way required to be literal twenty-four hour days."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasons To Believe : "The Age of Earth"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reasons to dismiss the old earth views.
> 
> Counterexamples to an Old Earth - Conservapedia
Click to expand...

Reason 8043 and counting as to why people point and laugh at creationists.


----------



## UltimateReality

Predictive power of ID. ID would predict the following: 

From poster Pav...

_(1) As already mentioned, junk-DNA would completely undermine ID if it turned out to really be junk. But, of course it isnt.

(2) A fair-level of front-loading would be expected. When they find genes for the expression of digits in sea anemones (sea squirts?), this throws Darwinism for a loop, but is almost an expectation for ID.

(3) A complicated level/levels of regulation. If junk-DNA is not junkas ID fully expectedthen, concomitantly, it should have a function. The most likely function is that of regulation. When you consider that the ratio of non-coding to coding DNA is 48 to 1, then you must also expect an incredible level of regulation.

(4) Since were dealing with information, ID would expect error-correction for DNA (lets remember that the Darwinists would be hoping for the oppositegotta have lots of variation, you know).

(5) Again, because were dealing with information systems, one would expect high levels of redundancy built into the genome.

(6) Lots of environmental triggers: if youre designing life that must deal with huge temperature and climatic changes, then there must be a way for the genome and the environment to interact._

ID&#8217;s &#8220;predictive prowess&#8221; | Uncommon Descent


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reasons To Believe : "The Age of Earth"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasons to dismiss the old earth views.
> 
> Counterexamples to an Old Earth - Conservapedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reason 8043 and counting as to why people point and laugh at creationists.
Click to expand...


Yes arguments you have no rebuttal for,who really is doing the laughing


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Predictive power of ID. ID would predict the following:
> 
> From poster Pav...
> 
> _(1) As already mentioned, junk-DNA would completely undermine ID if it turned out to really be junk. But, of course it isnt.
> 
> (2) A fair-level of front-loading would be expected. When they find genes for the expression of digits in sea anemones (sea squirts?), this throws Darwinism for a loop, but is almost an expectation for ID.
> 
> (3) A complicated level/levels of regulation. If junk-DNA is not junkas ID fully expectedthen, concomitantly, it should have a function. The most likely function is that of regulation. When you consider that the ratio of non-coding to coding DNA is 48 to 1, then you must also expect an incredible level of regulation.
> 
> (4) Since were dealing with information, ID would expect error-correction for DNA (lets remember that the Darwinists would be hoping for the oppositegotta have lots of variation, you know).
> 
> (5) Again, because were dealing with information systems, one would expect high levels of redundancy built into the genome.
> 
> (6) Lots of environmental triggers: if youre designing life that must deal with huge temperature and climatic changes, then there must be a way for the genome and the environment to interact._
> 
> IDs predictive prowess | Uncommon Descent



Great post UR.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reasons to dismiss the old earth views.
> 
> Counterexamples to an Old Earth - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> 
> Reason 8043 and counting as to why people point and laugh at creationists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes arguments you have no rebuttal for,who really is doing the laughing
Click to expand...


Those silly claims have been thoroughly trashed as ridiculous.


----------



## Bill Angel

Here is a paper from a Creation Ministries website that is of interest because it appears to be a scientific critique of research in evolutionary biology.
Human chimp dna similarity re-evaluated
The authors' conclusion is that _"The human&#8211;chimp common ancestor paradigm is clearly based more on myth and propaganda than fact."_



Not so closely related after all.​


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Predictive power of ID. ID would predict the following:
> 
> From poster Pav...


Your pal  Pav commits the same fallacy common to ID'iots / Christian creationists in that he has a preconceived notion that " the gawds did it", and then seeks out bad analogies and false comparisons to "prove" his bias. 

ID'iosy makes no predictions that are not understood by the processes of biological evolution.  What is truly comical from "Pav" is that he/she uses biological processes explored by science in failed attempts to retroactively support ID.

It's so silly.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reason 8043 and counting as to why people point and laugh at creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes arguments you have no rebuttal for,who really is doing the laughing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those silly claims have been thoroughly trashed as ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Hollie you're a dreamer.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Counterexamples to an Old Earth - Conservapedia



From your link: "The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C."

If they don't accept carbon dating, how do they calculate the 3000 years? Because some civilizations are older then 3000 years.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Bill Angel said:


> Here is a paper from a Creation Ministries website that is of interest because it appears to be a scientific critique of research in evolutionary biology.
> Human chimp dna similarity re-evaluated
> The authors' conclusion is that _"The humanchimp common ancestor paradigm is clearly based more on myth and propaganda than fact."_



The mapping of the Genome shows there is still alot of genetic data that has not been compared between human and chimp DNA as well.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Predictive power of ID. ID would predict the following:
> 
> From poster Pav...
> 
> 
> 
> Your pal  Pav commits the same fallacy common to ID'iots / Christian creationists in that he has a preconceived notion that " the gawds did it", and then seeks out bad analogies and false comparisons to "prove" his bias.
> 
> ID'iosy makes no predictions that are not understood by the processes of biological evolution.  What is truly comical from "Pav" is that he/she uses biological processes explored by science in failed attempts to retroactively support ID.
> 
> It's so silly.
Click to expand...


What precitions do evolutionist make that we can keep our eyes open for ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Counterexamples to an Old Earth - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your link: "The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C."
> 
> If they don't accept carbon dating, how do they calculate the 3000 years? Because some civilizations are older then 3000 years.
Click to expand...


If they use carbon dating they're wrong. I don't trust any dating method other then historical dating where someone was there to record it or the object was from a particular era.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Counterexamples to an Old Earth - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your link: "The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C."
> 
> If they don't accept carbon dating, how do they calculate the 3000 years? Because some civilizations are older then 3000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they use carbon dating they're wrong. I don't trust any dating method other then historical dating where someone was there to record it or the object was from a particular era.
Click to expand...


So how old are the dinosaurs? They dig up skeletons to put in museums that were embedded in rock. Surely they must be really old or else how did they get there since no humans witnessed their demise?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link: "The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C."
> 
> If they don't accept carbon dating, how do they calculate the 3000 years? Because some civilizations are older then 3000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they use carbon dating they're wrong. I don't trust any dating method other then historical dating where someone was there to record it or the object was from a particular era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how old are the dinosaurs? They dig up skeletons to put in museums that were embedded in rock. Surely they must be really old or else how did they get there since no humans witnessed their demise?
Click to expand...


They use the assumption that rock srtata takes millions of year to form it is simply not true. You need rapid burial to preserve the fossils then you need water for the strata to form.

Most fossils would be the age of when the flood happened don't know for sure when that happened.

According to chronological order of the bible could be between 4,500 to 6,000 maybe a little longer.  I think most fossils found come from the flood not after the flood.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they use carbon dating they're wrong. I don't trust any dating method other then historical dating where someone was there to record it or the object was from a particular era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how old are the dinosaurs? They dig up skeletons to put in museums that were embedded in rock. Surely they must be really old or else how did they get there since no humans witnessed their demise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They use the assumption that rock srtata takes millions of year to form it is simply not true. You need rapid burial to preserve the fossils then you need water for the strata to form.
> 
> Most fossils would be the age of when the flood happened don't know for sure when that happened.
> 
> According to chronological order of the bible could be between 4,500 to 6,000 maybe a little longer.  I think most fossils found come from the flood not after the flood.
Click to expand...


Have any proof to back up this nonsense? You had just said that unless someone is there to witness it, the theory isn't provable. So who was there to see this?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how old are the dinosaurs? They dig up skeletons to put in museums that were embedded in rock. Surely they must be really old or else how did they get there since no humans witnessed their demise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They use the assumption that rock srtata takes millions of year to form it is simply not true. You need rapid burial to preserve the fossils then you need water for the strata to form.
> 
> Most fossils would be the age of when the flood happened don't know for sure when that happened.
> 
> According to chronological order of the bible could be between 4,500 to 6,000 maybe a little longer.  I think most fossils found come from the flood not after the flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have any proof to back up this nonsense? You had just said that unless someone is there to witness it, the theory isn't provable. So who was there to see this?
Click to expand...


Be more specific.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how old are the dinosaurs? They dig up skeletons to put in museums that were embedded in rock. Surely they must be really old or else how did they get there since no humans witnessed their demise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They use the assumption that rock srtata takes millions of year to form it is simply not true. You need rapid burial to preserve the fossils then you need water for the strata to form.
> 
> Most fossils would be the age of when the flood happened don't know for sure when that happened.
> 
> According to chronological order of the bible could be between 4,500 to 6,000 maybe a little longer.  I think most fossils found come from the flood not after the flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have any proof to back up this nonsense? You had just said that unless someone is there to witness it, the theory isn't provable. So who was there to see this?
Click to expand...



Why do diverse cultures share a strikingly similar story concerning the global flood that was recorded in the book of genesis ? there are more then 270 of these flood legends.

God was a witness and the survivors of the flood were witnesses of the flood. How did it get passed to so m,any diffferent cultures if no one witnessed it ?

Geologic Evidences For Very Rapid Strata Formation In The Grand Canyon - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They use the assumption that rock srtata takes millions of year to form it is simply not true. You need rapid burial to preserve the fossils then you need water for the strata to form.
> 
> Most fossils would be the age of when the flood happened don't know for sure when that happened.
> 
> According to chronological order of the bible could be between 4,500 to 6,000 maybe a little longer.  I think most fossils found come from the flood not after the flood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have any proof to back up this nonsense? You had just said that unless someone is there to witness it, the theory isn't provable. So who was there to see this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do diverse cultures share a strikingly similar story concerning the global flood that was recorded in the book of genesis ? there are more then 270 of these flood legends.
> 
> God was a witness and the survivors of the flood were witnesses of the flood. How did it get passed to so m,any diffferent cultures if no one witnessed it ?
> 
> Geologic Evidences For Very Rapid Strata Formation In The Grand Canyon - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Click to expand...


There's no proof in your link that the grand canyon was carved by the flood. What's the point of that link?

How could there be different cultures if Noah and his gang were the only survivors of the flood? Did he also have 2 humans from every culture on his boat? Where there other boats? Do you just make shit up as you go along?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They use the assumption that rock srtata takes millions of year to form it is simply not true. You need rapid burial to preserve the fossils then you need water for the strata to form.
> 
> Most fossils would be the age of when the flood happened don't know for sure when that happened.
> 
> According to chronological order of the bible could be between 4,500 to 6,000 maybe a little longer.  I think most fossils found come from the flood not after the flood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have any proof to back up this nonsense? You had just said that unless someone is there to witness it, the theory isn't provable. So who was there to see this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do diverse cultures share a strikingly similar story concerning the global flood that was recorded in the book of genesis ? there are more then 270 of these flood legends.
> 
> God was a witness and the survivors of the flood were witnesses of the flood. How did it get passed to so m,any diffferent cultures if no one witnessed it ?
> 
> Geologic Evidences For Very Rapid Strata Formation In The Grand Canyon - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Click to expand...


Diverse cultures absolutely do not share "a strikingly similar story concerning the global flood". This is just nonsense and more demonstration of your inability to reconcile reality with the fantasy world you dwell in. 


 Flood Stories from Around the World

Flood Stories from Around the World


----------



## Big_D2

Big_D2 said:


> Reasons To Believe : "The Age of Earth"



The Age of the Earth

Potassium Argon dating, uranium lead dating, and Helioseismic verification gives us around 4.5 Billion years old.  That is quite the coincidence if this figure is incorrect.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have any proof to back up this nonsense? You had just said that unless someone is there to witness it, the theory isn't provable. So who was there to see this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do diverse cultures share a strikingly similar story concerning the global flood that was recorded in the book of genesis ? there are more then 270 of these flood legends.
> 
> God was a witness and the survivors of the flood were witnesses of the flood. How did it get passed to so m,any diffferent cultures if no one witnessed it ?
> 
> Geologic Evidences For Very Rapid Strata Formation In The Grand Canyon - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no proof in your link that the grand canyon was carved by the flood. What's the point of that link?
> 
> How could there be different cultures if Noah and his gang were the only survivors of the flood? Did he also have 2 humans from every culture on his boat? Where there other boats? Do you just make shit up as you go along?
Click to expand...


Do you suffer from selective reading ? No they repopoulated the earth. New communities were always being developed just like we see today. How do you think this country went from a few people to many on this land ? how did we get so many different cultures here in this country all in a few hundred years ?

Can you people think for yourselves ?  when you're hit with something you don't understand you just lob insults ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reasons To Believe : "The Age of Earth"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Age of the Earth
> 
> Potassium Argon dating, uranium lead dating, and Helioseismic verification gives us around 4.5 Billion years old.  That is quite the coincidence if this figure is incorrect.
Click to expand...


I don't believe in an old earth but I don't know nor does any man know accurate ages. It could be possible that planets were created and existed for a period of time before God created life I suppose but there are solid arguments against it.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reasons To Believe : "The Age of Earth"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Age of the Earth
> 
> Potassium Argon dating, uranium lead dating, and Helioseismic verification gives us around 4.5 Billion years old.  That is quite the coincidence if this figure is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in an old earth but I don't know nor does any man know accurate ages. It could be possible that planets were created and existed for a period of time before God created life I suppose but there are solid arguments against it.
Click to expand...


There's no need for ignorance in the age of information.

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do diverse cultures share a strikingly similar story concerning the global flood that was recorded in the book of genesis ? there are more then 270 of these flood legends.
> 
> God was a witness and the survivors of the flood were witnesses of the flood. How did it get passed to so m,any diffferent cultures if no one witnessed it ?
> 
> Geologic Evidences For Very Rapid Strata Formation In The Grand Canyon - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no proof in your link that the grand canyon was carved by the flood. What's the point of that link?
> 
> How could there be different cultures if Noah and his gang were the only survivors of the flood? Did he also have 2 humans from every culture on his boat? Where there other boats? Do you just make shit up as you go along?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you suffer from selective reading ? No they repopoulated the earth. New communities were always being developed just like we see today. *How do you think this country went from a few people to many on this land ? how did we get so many different cultures here in this country all in a few hundred years ?*
> 
> Can you people think for yourselves ?  when you're hit with something you don't understand you just lob insults ?
Click to expand...


It's called immigration. Ellis island mean anything to you?

So where's the proof that the flood carved the Grand Canyon, your link didn't provide any.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Age of the Earth
> 
> Potassium Argon dating, uranium lead dating, and Helioseismic verification gives us around 4.5 Billion years old.  That is quite the coincidence if this figure is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in an old earth but I don't know nor does any man know accurate ages. It could be possible that planets were created and existed for a period of time before God created life I suppose but there are solid arguments against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no need for ignorance in the age of information.
> 
> Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


If you wish to believe this so be it,i have very little faith in man being able to tell you the age of the universe when they can't even tell you the exact time of death of someone unless it was witnessed.

Ignorance ? There is nothing you can post that I have not read in the past concerning dating methods.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no proof in your link that the grand canyon was carved by the flood. What's the point of that link?
> 
> How could there be different cultures if Noah and his gang were the only survivors of the flood? Did he also have 2 humans from every culture on his boat? Where there other boats? Do you just make shit up as you go along?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you suffer from selective reading ? No they repopoulated the earth. New communities were always being developed just like we see today. *How do you think this country went from a few people to many on this land ? how did we get so many different cultures here in this country all in a few hundred years ?*
> 
> Can you people think for yourselves ?  when you're hit with something you don't understand you just lob insults ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called immigration. Ellis island mean anything to you?
> 
> So where's the proof that the flood carved the Grand Canyon, your link didn't provide any.
Click to expand...


Sure it did. Here I will provide more if you need it.

23-Global Flood Strata at Grand Canyon


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in an old earth but I don't know nor does any man know accurate ages. It could be possible that planets were created and existed for a period of time before God created life I suppose but there are solid arguments against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need for ignorance in the age of information.
> 
> Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you wish to believe this so be it,i have very little faith in man being able to tell you the age of the universe when they can't even tell you the exact time of death of someone unless it was witnessed.
> 
> Ignorance ? There is nothing you can post that I have not read in the past concerning dating methods.
Click to expand...

How really pointless. 

What becomes apparent when dealing with fundie Christians is that they insist on defending the slogan, "I don't care what facts you got, I ain't believein' em'"


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no proof in your link that the grand canyon was carved by the flood. What's the point of that link?
> 
> How could there be different cultures if Noah and his gang were the only survivors of the flood? Did he also have 2 humans from every culture on his boat? Where there other boats? Do you just make shit up as you go along?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you suffer from selective reading ? No they repopoulated the earth. New communities were always being developed just like we see today. *How do you think this country went from a few people to many on this land ? how did we get so many different cultures here in this country all in a few hundred years ?*
> 
> Can you people think for yourselves ?  when you're hit with something you don't understand you just lob insults ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called immigration. Ellis island mean anything to you?
> 
> So where's the proof that the flood carved the Grand Canyon, your link didn't provide any.
Click to expand...


People all over the planet move so how did we get so many different cultures you gave the answer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need for ignorance in the age of information.
> 
> Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you wish to believe this so be it,i have very little faith in man being able to tell you the age of the universe when they can't even tell you the exact time of death of someone unless it was witnessed.
> 
> Ignorance ? There is nothing you can post that I have not read in the past concerning dating methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How really pointless.
> 
> What becomes apparent when dealing with fundie Christians is that they insist on defending the slogan, "I don't care what facts you got, I ain't believein' em'"
Click to expand...


What becomes apparent when dealing with atheistic evolutionist is if you do not accept their religion you're are an uneducated ignorant fool.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you suffer from selective reading ? No they repopoulated the earth. New communities were always being developed just like we see today. *How do you think this country went from a few people to many on this land ? how did we get so many different cultures here in this country all in a few hundred years ?*
> 
> Can you people think for yourselves ?  when you're hit with something you don't understand you just lob insults ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called immigration. Ellis island mean anything to you?
> 
> So where's the proof that the flood carved the Grand Canyon, your link didn't provide any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People all over the planet move so how did we get so many different cultures you gave the answer.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that we're talking about the same thing. Oh well. So where's the proof that the flood carved the Grand Canyon, your link didn't provide any?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in an old earth but I don't know nor does any man know accurate ages. It could be possible that planets were created and existed for a period of time before God created life I suppose but there are solid arguments against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need for ignorance in the age of information.
> 
> Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you wish to believe this so be it,i have very little faith in man being able to tell you the age of the universe when they can't even tell you the exact time of death of someone unless it was witnessed.
> 
> Ignorance ? There is nothing you can post that I have not read in the past concerning dating methods.
Click to expand...


So you dismiss science. Can you actually prove that what's said on my links is wrong? C'mon, give it a try.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you suffer from selective reading ? No they repopoulated the earth. New communities were always being developed just like we see today. *How do you think this country went from a few people to many on this land ? how did we get so many different cultures here in this country all in a few hundred years ?*
> 
> Can you people think for yourselves ?  when you're hit with something you don't understand you just lob insults ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called immigration. Ellis island mean anything to you?
> 
> So where's the proof that the flood carved the Grand Canyon, your link didn't provide any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it did. Here I will provide more if you need it.
> 
> 23-Global Flood Strata at Grand Canyon
Click to expand...


The guy in the video has absolutely no fucking clue about what he's talking about. He likes to dismiss what scientists say, and then says: so it was done in the flood. With nothing to back his claims up with. I heard zero actual proof of anything at all. Boy, you sure believe flimsy stuff, man.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need for ignorance in the age of information.
> 
> Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you wish to believe this so be it,i have very little faith in man being able to tell you the age of the universe when they can't even tell you the exact time of death of someone unless it was witnessed.
> 
> Ignorance ? There is nothing you can post that I have not read in the past concerning dating methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you dismiss science. Can you actually prove that what's said on my links is wrong? C'mon, give it a try.
Click to expand...


By your reasoning if someone rejects any theory in science they reject science. Do you not know the science community is divided on many subjects and theories ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called immigration. Ellis island mean anything to you?
> 
> So where's the proof that the flood carved the Grand Canyon, your link didn't provide any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. Here I will provide more if you need it.
> 
> 23-Global Flood Strata at Grand Canyon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy in the video has absolutely no fucking clue about what he's talking about. He likes to dismiss what scientists say, and then says: so it was done in the flood. With nothing to back his claims up with. I heard zero actual proof of anything at all. Boy, you sure believe flimsy stuff, man.
Click to expand...


Tell me where he is wrong and why ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called immigration. Ellis island mean anything to you?
> 
> So where's the proof that the flood carved the Grand Canyon, your link didn't provide any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People all over the planet move so how did we get so many different cultures you gave the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that we're talking about the same thing. Oh well. So where's the proof that the flood carved the Grand Canyon, your link didn't provide any?
Click to expand...


How did the grand canyon get carved out if not by a flood ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you wish to believe this so be it,i have very little faith in man being able to tell you the age of the universe when they can't even tell you the exact time of death of someone unless it was witnessed.
> 
> Ignorance ? There is nothing you can post that I have not read in the past concerning dating methods.
> 
> 
> 
> How really pointless.
> 
> What becomes apparent when dealing with fundie Christians is that they insist on defending the slogan, "I don't care what facts you got, I ain't believein' em'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What becomes apparent when dealing with atheistic evolutionist is if you do not accept their religion you're are an uneducated ignorant fool.
Click to expand...


As usual, you're ignorant of that which you write. "Atheistic evolutionist" is not a religion, firstly. Secondly, promoting your religion as science has always made you look foolish as your religious worldview so often clashes with the reality of the natural, discoverable world. 

Lastly, I understand you're angry because your silly arguments at promoting fear and superstition have been refuted and your frantic attempts at prosletyzing have fallen flat. While we can, in part, attribute both those failures to your resounding and profoundly inept carrying of the arguments, we must also recognize the profoundly silly sources of your confusion, lies and blunders: the christian creationist ministries you copy and paste from.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> People all over the planet move so how did we get so many different cultures you gave the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that we're talking about the same thing. Oh well. So where's the proof that the flood carved the Grand Canyon, your link didn't provide any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did the grand canyon get carved out if not by a flood ?
Click to expand...


Erosion over millions of years. Gawd but you're a rube.  

CH581: Carving the Grand Canyon


I suppose your obfuscation in not providing a link and refusing to do so is because the charlatans at your creationist ministries have been embarassed by they're nonsensical claims to the global flood?

How do you get through day after day being so intellectually vacant?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How really pointless.
> 
> What becomes apparent when dealing with fundie Christians is that they insist on defending the slogan, "I don't care what facts you got, I ain't believein' em'"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What becomes apparent when dealing with atheistic evolutionist is if you do not accept their religion you're are an uneducated ignorant fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you're ignorant of that which you write. "Atheistic evolutionist" is not a religion, firstly. Secondly, promoting your religion as science has always made you look foolish as your religious worldview so often clashes with the reality of the natural, discoverable world.
> 
> Lastly, I understand you're angry because your silly arguments at promoting fear and superstition have been refuted and your frantic attempts at prosletyzing have fallen flat. While we can, in part, attribute both those failures to your resounding and profoundly inept carrying of the arguments, we must also recognize the profoundly silly sources of your confusion, lies and blunders: the christian creationist ministries you copy and paste from.
Click to expand...


Your religion is naturalism everything is the product of natural processes which there is no evidence for. With your views reduced to faith your God is naturalism.

Hollie I'm not angry the only thing that makes me angry is when you resort to dishonesty to try and make a point it might work with some but many have seen through your nonsense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that we're talking about the same thing. Oh well. So where's the proof that the flood carved the Grand Canyon, your link didn't provide any?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did the grand canyon get carved out if not by a flood ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erosion over millions of years. Gawd but you're a rube.
> 
> CH581: Carving the Grand Canyon
> 
> 
> I suppose your obfuscation in not providing a link and refusing to do so is because the charlatans at your creationist ministries have been embarassed by they're nonsensical claims to the global flood?
> 
> How do you get through day after day being so intellectually vacant?
Click to expand...


Wishful thinking on your part.

Evidence of a global flood I would like your thoughts on each portion of evidence.

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm


This page covers just about everything related to the global flood.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/worldwide-flood-evidence


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie look at this picture of evidence found in utah well above sea level explain this from your explanation earlier that erosion caused it.

Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie why do all rivers lead down to the sea's the bible gives this explanation as the hydrologic system ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie look at this picture of evidence found in utah well above sea level explain this from your explanation earlier that erosion caused it.
> 
> Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life



One thing I don't get is why are only the walls covered in flood sediment? Those are layers that extend in the ground beside the canyon. The fossils of marine animals that they've found on the walls are actually in layers that can be found anywhere you dig next to the canyon. What's your explanation for this discrepancy? 

And the number of species on earth is estimated right now to number 8.7 million. So Noah got 2 of every one of these species with food to last 40 days?Do you know how big of a crew he'd need just to shovel all the shit overboard so they don't sink?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie look at this picture of evidence found in utah well above sea level explain this from your explanation earlier that erosion caused it.
> 
> Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I don't get is why are only the walls covered in flood sediment? Those are layers that extend in the ground beside the canyon. The fossils of marine animals that they've found on the walls are actually in layers that can be found anywhere you dig next to the canyon. What's your explanation for this discrepancy?
> 
> And the number of species on earth is estimated right now to number 8.7 million. So Noah got 2 of every one of these species with food to last 40 days?Do you know how big of a crew he'd need just to shovel all the shit overboard so they don't sink?
Click to expand...


I can't answer how many species actually made it on the ark but we know that many different races of man and breeds of animals came from the ones on the ark. The gene pool was so big for each species that went on the ark that explains how we wound up with so many different breeds of a species and or races of man. The diversity came from a large genepool.

The fossils are found outside the canyon I agree. The problem for your side is why are younger species found with supposedly older species. Those sediments were from the currents of the water continuing to slosh back and forth creating new layers of strata. When the water finally receded in to the oceans it took much sediments from what was now the canyon to the ocean and it is found on the ocean floor. So why are fossils found in the wrong strata with the wrong species according to the explanations of evolutionists ? Why are marine fossils found so high above sea level ? what was left behind was soft sediments that hardened after it dried in the sun after the water receded.


----------



## Youwerecreated

One more thing Ima,schools and some in science they ruled out answers before they asked the question. They said there is no God and creator with no evidence to rule it out. So now let's ask the question,what is the origins of life ? that is why they can't find the answers to the origins of life they ruled out the answer.

It is un-scientific to rule out answers before they ask the question.

They taught us in grade school that the frog turned into a prince and said it was a fairytale. Then in high school and college they call this science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What becomes apparent when dealing with atheistic evolutionist is if you do not accept their religion you're are an uneducated ignorant fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you're ignorant of that which you write. "Atheistic evolutionist" is not a religion, firstly. Secondly, promoting your religion as science has always made you look foolish as your religious worldview so often clashes with the reality of the natural, discoverable world.
> 
> Lastly, I understand you're angry because your silly arguments at promoting fear and superstition have been refuted and your frantic attempts at prosletyzing have fallen flat. While we can, in part, attribute both those failures to your resounding and profoundly inept carrying of the arguments, we must also recognize the profoundly silly sources of your confusion, lies and blunders: the christian creationist ministries you copy and paste from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your religion is naturalism everything is the product of natural processes which there is no evidence for. With your views reduced to faith your God is naturalism.
> 
> Hollie I'm not angry the only thing that makes me angry is when you resort to dishonesty to try and make a point it might work with some but many have seen through your nonsense.
Click to expand...


On the contrary, you are the prototypical angry religionist. 

What I find hilarious is the you insist there is no evidence for natural processes. I have found no evidence for un-natural processes so why don't you explain to us how we can derive an un-natural existence through un-natural processes.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie why do all rivers lead down to the sea's the bible gives this explanation as the hydrologic system ?



It's a simple observation that rivers lead to to sea. We don't need you mumbo jumbo of magical gawds to know this. Any seagoing culture would note this-- in fact, in their trips to the new world, the Spaniards rejoiced at reaching the Amazon delta, because the fresh water extended miles and miles out to sea. It was an indication that land was near. For your edification, seawter is differentiated from fresh as distinguished by varying degrees of salinity, temperature and density.

While ancient Middle Easterners were not great naval powers  traders and merchantmen would have known this phenomenon of mighty rivers and could relay their experiences as well. 

Further, you're writing your own version of the bible to suggest that the other bible describes a hydologic system.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie look at this picture of evidence found in utah well above sea level explain this from your explanation earlier that erosion caused it.
> 
> Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life



The answer is in the link I supplied earlier.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you're ignorant of that which you write. "Atheistic evolutionist" is not a religion, firstly. Secondly, promoting your religion as science has always made you look foolish as your religious worldview so often clashes with the reality of the natural, discoverable world.
> 
> Lastly, I understand you're angry because your silly arguments at promoting fear and superstition have been refuted and your frantic attempts at prosletyzing have fallen flat. While we can, in part, attribute both those failures to your resounding and profoundly inept carrying of the arguments, we must also recognize the profoundly silly sources of your confusion, lies and blunders: the christian creationist ministries you copy and paste from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your religion is naturalism everything is the product of natural processes which there is no evidence for. With your views reduced to faith your God is naturalism.
> 
> Hollie I'm not angry the only thing that makes me angry is when you resort to dishonesty to try and make a point it might work with some but many have seen through your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, you are the prototypical angry religionist.
> 
> What I find hilarious is the you insist there is no evidence for natural processes. I have found no evidence for un-natural processes so why don't you explain to us how we can derive an un-natural existence through un-natural processes.
Click to expand...


It's obvious there are natural processes but what put these natural processes in to motion ? There are natural processes in anything designed. The natural processes are merely functions assigned to them by the designer. Like amino acids converting to proteins and or an egg needing a sperm to fertilize the egg. The amino acids are useless unless they are converted to proteins so on and so on. The egg is useless unless it is fertilized by the sperm. These are natural processes put in to motion by chance or by design. It's obvious to me it was by purposeful design.

Each and everything designed serves a purpose and function remember that and it will set you free.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie why do all rivers lead down to the sea's the bible gives this explanation as the hydrologic system ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a simple observation that rivers lead to to sea. We don't need you mumbo jumbo of magical gawds to know this. Any seagoing culture would note this-- in fact, in their trips to the new world, the Spaniards rejoiced at reaching the Amazon delta, because the fresh water extended miles and miles out to sea. It was an indication that land was near. For your edification, seawter is differentiated from fresh as distinguished by varying degrees of salinity, temperature and density.
> 
> While ancient Middle Easterners were not great naval powers  traders and merchantmen would have known this phenomenon of mighty rivers and could relay their experiences as well.
> 
> Further, you're writing your own version of the bible to suggest that the other bible describes a hydologic system.
Click to expand...


So 3,500 years ago man knew and understood the hydrologic system just by observation  ?The writings of the bible was inspired by the designer it makes sense that the writings were inspired by the designer since man did not fully understand the hydrologic system but the hydrologic system was written about 3,500 years ago. I don't think man understood the hydrologic system at the time of the writings and it took modern technology that helped us understand the hydrologic system. Just more evidence that supports that the creator inspired the bible writings.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie look at this picture of evidence found in utah well above sea level explain this from your explanation earlier that erosion caused it.
> 
> Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is in the link I supplied earlier.
Click to expand...


No it does not explain evidence in that picture Nor does it explain why marine organisms are found so high above sea level.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> One more thing Ima,schools and some in science they ruled out answers before they asked the question. They said there is no God and creator with no evidence to rule it out. So now let's ask the question,what is the origins of life ? that is why they can't find the answers to the origins of life they ruled out the answer.
> 
> It is un-scientific to rule out answers before they ask the question.
> 
> They taught us in grade school that the frog turned into a prince and said it was a fairytale. Then in high school and college they call this science.



Scientists are working on the origins of life by trying to recreate it in a lab. They seem pretty close to cracking the mystery. Interesting stuff.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie look at this picture of evidence found in utah well above sea level explain this from your explanation earlier that erosion caused it.
> 
> Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I don't get is why are only the walls covered in flood sediment? Those are layers that extend in the ground beside the canyon. The fossils of marine animals that they've found on the walls are actually in layers that can be found anywhere you dig next to the canyon. What's your explanation for this discrepancy?
> 
> And the number of species on earth is estimated right now to number 8.7 million. So Noah got 2 of every one of these species with food to last 40 days?Do you know how big of a crew he'd need just to shovel all the shit overboard so they don't sink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't answer how many species actually made it on the ark but we know that many different races of man and breeds of animals came from the ones on the ark. The gene pool was so big for each species that went on the ark that explains how we wound up with so many different breeds of a species and or races of man. The diversity came from a large genepool.
> 
> The fossils are found outside the canyon I agree. The problem for your side is why are younger species found with supposedly older species. Those sediments were from the currents of the water continuing to slosh back and forth creating new layers of strata. When the water finally receded in to the oceans it took much sediments from what was now the canyon to the ocean and it is found on the ocean floor. So why are fossils found in the wrong strata with the wrong species according to the explanations of evolutionists ? Why are marine fossils found so high above sea level ? what was left behind was soft sediments that hardened after it dried in the sun after the water receded.
Click to expand...

The bible says 2 of EVERY animal. And the gene pool would be small since there's only 2 of each. So the different races of humans came from Noah's peeps? So some of them evolved into asians and blacks? Because I don't remember reading about any rice gobblers in the bible.
I don't understand what you're talking about "younger species found with supposedly older species". The sediments were laid down in layers, so the time frame varies from layer to layer as you go up or down the canyon wall. You're saying that the fossils were splashed all over the walls of the canyon by the flood? Man, you suspend the reality of geology, archeology and a bunch of other sciences like radiometric dating and carbon dating, just so you can believe in some fairy tales that Noah was 600 years old? Buddy, please get a grip.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more thing Ima,schools and some in science they ruled out answers before they asked the question. They said there is no God and creator with no evidence to rule it out. So now let's ask the question,what is the origins of life ? that is why they can't find the answers to the origins of life they ruled out the answer.
> 
> It is un-scientific to rule out answers before they ask the question.
> 
> They taught us in grade school that the frog turned into a prince and said it was a fairytale. Then in high school and college they call this science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists are working on the origins of life by trying to recreate it in a lab. They seem pretty close to cracking the mystery. Interesting stuff.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I don't get is why are only the walls covered in flood sediment? Those are layers that extend in the ground beside the canyon. The fossils of marine animals that they've found on the walls are actually in layers that can be found anywhere you dig next to the canyon. What's your explanation for this discrepancy?
> 
> And the number of species on earth is estimated right now to number 8.7 million. So Noah got 2 of every one of these species with food to last 40 days?Do you know how big of a crew he'd need just to shovel all the shit overboard so they don't sink?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't answer how many species actually made it on the ark but we know that many different races of man and breeds of animals came from the ones on the ark. The gene pool was so big for each species that went on the ark that explains how we wound up with so many different breeds of a species and or races of man. The diversity came from a large genepool.
> 
> The fossils are found outside the canyon I agree. The problem for your side is why are younger species found with supposedly older species. Those sediments were from the currents of the water continuing to slosh back and forth creating new layers of strata. When the water finally receded in to the oceans it took much sediments from what was now the canyon to the ocean and it is found on the ocean floor. So why are fossils found in the wrong strata with the wrong species according to the explanations of evolutionists ? Why are marine fossils found so high above sea level ? what was left behind was soft sediments that hardened after it dried in the sun after the water receded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bible says 2 of EVERY animal. And the gene pool would be small since there's only 2 of each. So the different races of humans came from Noah's peeps? So some of them evolved into asians and blacks? Because I don't remember reading about any rice gobblers in the bible.
> I don't understand what you're talking about "younger species found with supposedly older species". The sediments were laid down in layers, so the time frame varies from layer to layer as you go up or down the canyon wall. You're saying that the fossils were splashed all over the walls of the canyon by the flood? Man, you suspend the reality of geology, archeology and a bunch of other sciences like radiometric dating and carbon dating, just so you can believe in some fairy tales that Noah was 600 years old? Buddy, please get a grip.
Click to expand...


Wrong it say's two of every kind not two of every organism.

Gen 6:19  And you shall bring into the ark two of every kind, of every living thing of all flesh, to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 
Gen 6:20  Two of every kind shall come to you to keep them alive; of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind. 

The kind here implies two of each family group not each breed. I am saying each layer of strata was put down by water from the flood not each layer over eons of time.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't answer how many species actually made it on the ark but we know that many different races of man and breeds of animals came from the ones on the ark. The gene pool was so big for each species that went on the ark that explains how we wound up with so many different breeds of a species and or races of man. The diversity came from a large genepool.
> 
> The fossils are found outside the canyon I agree. The problem for your side is why are younger species found with supposedly older species. Those sediments were from the currents of the water continuing to slosh back and forth creating new layers of strata. When the water finally receded in to the oceans it took much sediments from what was now the canyon to the ocean and it is found on the ocean floor. So why are fossils found in the wrong strata with the wrong species according to the explanations of evolutionists ? Why are marine fossils found so high above sea level ? what was left behind was soft sediments that hardened after it dried in the sun after the water receded.
> 
> 
> 
> The bible says 2 of EVERY animal. And the gene pool would be small since there's only 2 of each. So the different races of humans came from Noah's peeps? So some of them evolved into asians and blacks? Because I don't remember reading about any rice gobblers in the bible.
> I don't understand what you're talking about "younger species found with supposedly older species". The sediments were laid down in layers, so the time frame varies from layer to layer as you go up or down the canyon wall. You're saying that the fossils were splashed all over the walls of the canyon by the flood? Man, you suspend the reality of geology, archeology and a bunch of other sciences like radiometric dating and carbon dating, just so you can believe in some fairy tales that Noah was 600 years old? Buddy, please get a grip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong it say's two of every kind not two of every organism.
> 
> Gen 6:19  And you shall bring into the ark two of every kind, of every living thing of all flesh, to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female.
> Gen 6:20  Two of every kind shall come to you to keep them alive; of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind.
> 
> The kind here implies two of each family group not each breed. I am saying each layer of strata was put down by water from the flood not each layer over eons of time.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that you have decided to rewrite the bible as you go. I suppose that the various writers of the various bibles could have been specific as to their wording. But they weren't. 

So, I suppose you are free to revise the bible as it suits your needs.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie look at this picture of evidence found in utah well above sea level explain this from your explanation earlier that erosion caused it.
> 
> Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is in the link I supplied earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not explain evidence in that picture Nor does it explain why marine organisms are found so high above sea level.
Click to expand...


Of course it does. 

You choose not to accept geologic fact because those facts conflict with your need to believe in biblical events that have been proven to be false.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie why do all rivers lead down to the sea's the bible gives this explanation as the hydrologic system ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a simple observation that rivers lead to to sea. We don't need you mumbo jumbo of magical gawds to know this. Any seagoing culture would note this-- in fact, in their trips to the new world, the Spaniards rejoiced at reaching the Amazon delta, because the fresh water extended miles and miles out to sea. It was an indication that land was near. For your edification, seawter is differentiated from fresh as distinguished by varying degrees of salinity, temperature and density.
> 
> While ancient Middle Easterners were not great naval powers  traders and merchantmen would have known this phenomenon of mighty rivers and could relay their experiences as well.
> 
> Further, you're writing your own version of the bible to suggest that the other bible describes a hydologic system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 3,500 years ago man knew and understood the hydrologic system just by observation  ?The writings of the bible was inspired by the designer it makes sense that the writings were inspired by the designer since man did not fully understand the hydrologic system but the hydrologic system was written about 3,500 years ago. I don't think man understood the hydrologic system at the time of the writings and it took modern technology that helped us understand the hydrologic system. Just more evidence that supports that the creator inspired the bible writings.
Click to expand...


There is no hydrologic system described in any of the bibles. I explained this to you but its obvious that you have difficulty understanding and comprehending what you read. 

No supermagical gawds inspired any bibles as we know, they were written by various men .


----------



## CrackedSkull

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie why do all rivers lead down to the sea's the bible gives this explanation as the hydrologic system ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a simple observation that rivers lead to to sea. We don't need you mumbo jumbo of magical gawds to know this. Any seagoing culture would note this-- in fact, in their trips to the new world, the Spaniards rejoiced at reaching the Amazon delta, because the fresh water extended miles and miles out to sea. It was an indication that land was near. For your edification, seawter is differentiated from fresh as distinguished by varying degrees of salinity, temperature and density.
> 
> While ancient Middle Easterners were not great naval powers  traders and merchantmen would have known this phenomenon of mighty rivers and could relay their experiences as well.
> 
> Further, you're writing your own version of the bible to suggest that the other bible describes a hydologic system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 3,500 years ago man knew and understood the hydrologic system just by observation  ?The writings of the bible was inspired by the designer it makes sense that the writings were inspired by the designer since man did not fully understand the hydrologic system but the hydrologic system was written about 3,500 years ago. I don't think man understood the hydrologic system at the time of the writings and it took modern technology that helped us understand the hydrologic system. Just more evidence that supports that the creator inspired the bible writings.
Click to expand...




> Just more evidence that supports that the creator inspired the bible writings.



Some one can be inspired by a toilet seat to write but that does not mean what was written is true. What's the saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."


----------



## MaryL

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



It baffles you? Bullshit, kid. You don't understand human beings or read much history. What do ya want to know? Here is a little hint for you:  the ancients DIDN&#8217;T believe any of it any more than you do. It was that weak plain old mortal human hopes and trust. They didn&#8217;t have much else to go by, kiddo.  That is all we really ever have.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a simple observation that rivers lead to to sea. We don't need you mumbo jumbo of magical gawds to know this. Any seagoing culture would note this-- in fact, in their trips to the new world, the Spaniards rejoiced at reaching the Amazon delta, because the fresh water extended miles and miles out to sea. It was an indication that land was near. For your edification, seawter is differentiated from fresh as distinguished by varying degrees of salinity, temperature and density.
> 
> While ancient Middle Easterners were not great naval powers  traders and merchantmen would have known this phenomenon of mighty rivers and could relay their experiences as well.
> 
> Further, you're writing your own version of the bible to suggest that the other bible describes a hydologic system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So 3,500 years ago man knew and understood the hydrologic system just by observation  ?The writings of the bible was inspired by the designer it makes sense that the writings were inspired by the designer since man did not fully understand the hydrologic system but the hydrologic system was written about 3,500 years ago. I don't think man understood the hydrologic system at the time of the writings and it took modern technology that helped us understand the hydrologic system. Just more evidence that supports that the creator inspired the bible writings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hydrologic system described in any of the bibles. I explained this to you but its obvious that you have difficulty understanding and comprehending what you read.
> 
> No supermagical gawds inspired any bibles as we know, they were written by various men .
Click to expand...


I will show you when I return from Texas.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CrackedSkull said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a simple observation that rivers lead to to sea. We don't need you mumbo jumbo of magical gawds to know this. Any seagoing culture would note this-- in fact, in their trips to the new world, the Spaniards rejoiced at reaching the Amazon delta, because the fresh water extended miles and miles out to sea. It was an indication that land was near. For your edification, seawter is differentiated from fresh as distinguished by varying degrees of salinity, temperature and density.
> 
> While ancient Middle Easterners were not great naval powers &#8212; traders and merchantmen would have known this phenomenon of mighty rivers and could relay their experiences as well.
> 
> Further, you're writing your own version of the bible to suggest that the other bible describes a hydologic system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So 3,500 years ago man knew and understood the hydrologic system just by observation  ?The writings of the bible was inspired by the designer it makes sense that the writings were inspired by the designer since man did not fully understand the hydrologic system but the hydrologic system was written about 3,500 years ago. I don't think man understood the hydrologic system at the time of the writings and it took modern technology that helped us understand the hydrologic system. Just more evidence that supports that the creator inspired the bible writings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just more evidence that supports that the creator inspired the bible writings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some one can be inspired by a toilet seat to write but that does not mean what was written is true. What's the saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Click to expand...


Here are a few things to think on.

http://www.letusreason.org/Apolo6.htm


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a simple observation that rivers lead to to sea. We don't need you mumbo jumbo of magical gawds to know this. Any seagoing culture would note this-- in fact, in their trips to the new world, the Spaniards rejoiced at reaching the Amazon delta, because the fresh water extended miles and miles out to sea. It was an indication that land was near. For your edification, seawter is differentiated from fresh as distinguished by varying degrees of salinity, temperature and density.
> 
> While ancient Middle Easterners were not great naval powers  traders and merchantmen would have known this phenomenon of mighty rivers and could relay their experiences as well.
> 
> Further, you're writing your own version of the bible to suggest that the other bible describes a hydologic system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So 3,500 years ago man knew and understood the hydrologic system just by observation  ?The writings of the bible was inspired by the designer it makes sense that the writings were inspired by the designer since man did not fully understand the hydrologic system but the hydrologic system was written about 3,500 years ago. I don't think man understood the hydrologic system at the time of the writings and it took modern technology that helped us understand the hydrologic system. Just more evidence that supports that the creator inspired the bible writings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hydrologic system described in any of the bibles. I explained this to you but its obvious that you have difficulty understanding and comprehending what you read.
> 
> No supermagical gawds inspired any bibles as we know, they were written by various men .
Click to expand...


A few other things thrown in for good measure here.

Biblical evidences for Science


----------



## CrackedSkull

Proving the Bible with itself is futile. Proving Winnie the Pooh with the book can be done as well. Frigging board won't let me post url's.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3,500 years ago man knew and understood the hydrologic system just by observation  ?The writings of the bible was inspired by the designer it makes sense that the writings were inspired by the designer since man did not fully understand the hydrologic system but the hydrologic system was written about 3,500 years ago. I don't think man understood the hydrologic system at the time of the writings and it took modern technology that helped us understand the hydrologic system. Just more evidence that supports that the creator inspired the bible writings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hydrologic system described in any of the bibles. I explained this to you but its obvious that you have difficulty understanding and comprehending what you read.
> 
> No supermagical gawds inspired any bibles as we know, they were written by various men .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A few other things thrown in for good measure here.
> 
> Biblical evidences for Science
Click to expand...


You should throw them out as being nonsensical for good measure.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3,500 years ago man knew and understood the hydrologic system just by observation  ?The writings of the bible was inspired by the designer it makes sense that the writings were inspired by the designer since man did not fully understand the hydrologic system but the hydrologic system was written about 3,500 years ago. I don't think man understood the hydrologic system at the time of the writings and it took modern technology that helped us understand the hydrologic system. Just more evidence that supports that the creator inspired the bible writings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hydrologic system described in any of the bibles. I explained this to you but its obvious that you have difficulty understanding and comprehending what you read.
> 
> No supermagical gawds inspired any bibles as we know, they were written by various men .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will show you when I return from Texas.
Click to expand...


Actually, no, you won't. Cutting and pasting nonsense from bible ministries only serves to make you look like a cult follower.


----------



## ima

So how did whomever wrote Genesis know that the world was made in 6 days, since he wasn't there and was only "inspired" by god to write Genesis, and not told directly by god what happened?

Please, no douche links.


----------



## CrackedSkull

It's called Enuma Elish it's a Babylonian creation epic....written in the 12th Century...Moses supposedly wrote Genesis in the 13th Century. Sorry unable to post links not enough frigging posts yet.


----------



## UltimateReality

Cracked Skull, we already have our resident clown Hawly for comedy in this thread. I'm not sure we can do with another person posting up irrational silliness.


----------



## CrackedSkull

UltimateReality said:


> Cracked Skull, we already have our resident clown Hawly for comedy in this thread. I'm not sure we can do with another person posting up irrational silliness.



Now if you prefer name calling over debate I will oblige you there as well.....do your research and stop buying everything your fed by Fundamentalist. Have a nice day.



> This version was written sometime in the 12th century BC in cuneiform on seven clay tablets. They were found in the middle 19th century in the ruins of the palace of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh. George Smith first published these texts in 1876 as The Chaldean Genesis. Because of many parallels with the Genesis account, some historians concluded that the Genesis account was simply a rewriting of the Babylonian story. As a reaction, many who wanted to maintain the uniqueness of the Bible argued either that there were no real parallels between the accounts or that the Genesis narratives were written first and the Babylonian myth borrowed from the biblical account.


http://www.cresourcei.org/enumaelish.html

Chaldean Account of Genesis.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/caog/index.htm

You think christianity is the only sect that had a creation story?

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab83

So it purports nothing new just a rehash of the myths before it.


----------



## UltimateReality

CrackedSkull said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cracked Skull, we already have our resident clown Hawly for comedy in this thread. I'm not sure we can do with another person posting up irrational silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you prefer name calling over debate I will oblige you there as well.....
Click to expand...


Sad that no one who has frequented here can actually engage in a debate. This thread has been riddled with intellectual dishonesty and ad hominem attacks from atheists with an agenda.

Have you taken a look at your Avatar lately Captain Obvious? Wouldn't necessarily say that calling you a clown was name calling. 



CrackedSkull said:


> This version was written sometime in the 12th century BC in cuneiform on seven clay tablets. They were found in the middle 19th century in the ruins of the palace of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh. George Smith first published these texts in 1876 as The Chaldean Genesis. Because of many parallels with the Genesis account, some historians concluded that the Genesis account was simply a rewriting of the Babylonian story. As a reaction, many who wanted to maintain the uniqueness of the Bible argued either that there were no real parallels between the accounts or that the Genesis narratives were written first and the Babylonian myth borrowed from the biblical account.
> 
> 
> 
> The Enuma Elish: The Babylonian Creation Myth
> 
> Chaldean Account of Genesis.
> The Chaldean Account of Genesis Index
> 
> You think christianity is the only sect that had a creation story?
> 
> CREATION STORIES
> 
> So it purports nothing new just a rehash of the myths before it.
Click to expand...


You make the fallacy of assuming that both accounts are myths. Since the Creation story is true, why would the Judeo-Christiani religion be the only religion that would have it as part of their history? Truth, no matter what religion it shows up in, always comes from God.

While the dating of the clay tablets may be accurate, this misses one very important fact. The Genesis story, while "written" down by Moses, had been a part of the Israelite's oral tradition for at least 1000 years, if not several thousand years by the time Moses took a chisel to rock. 

By the way, while I believe in Creationism, I am not a "young earth" Creationist. I believe in a 4.5 Billion year old earth.


----------



## CrackedSkull

UltimateReality said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cracked Skull, we already have our resident clown Hawly for comedy in this thread. I'm not sure we can do with another person posting up irrational silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you prefer name calling over debate I will oblige you there as well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This version was written sometime in the 12th century BC in cuneiform on seven clay tablets. They were found in the middle 19th century in the ruins of the palace of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh. George Smith first published these texts in 1876 as The Chaldean Genesis. Because of many parallels with the Genesis account, some historians concluded that the Genesis account was simply a rewriting of the Babylonian story. As a reaction, many who wanted to maintain the uniqueness of the Bible argued either that there were no real parallels between the accounts or that the Genesis narratives were written first and the Babylonian myth borrowed from the biblical account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Enuma Elish: The Babylonian Creation Myth
> 
> Chaldean Account of Genesis.
> The Chaldean Account of Genesis Index
> 
> You think christianity is the only sect that had a creation story?
> 
> CREATION STORIES
> 
> So it purports nothing new just a rehash of the myths before it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make the fallacy of assuming that both accounts are myths. Since the Creation story is true, why would the Judeo-Christiani religion be the only religion that would have it as part of their history? Truth, no matter what religion it shows up in, always comes from God.
> 
> While the dating of the clay tablets may be accurate, this misses one very important fact. The Genesis story, while "written" down by Moses, had been apart of the Israelite's oral tradition for at least 1000 years, if not several thousand years by the time Moses took a chisel to rock.
> 
> By the way, while I believe in Creationism, I am not a "young earth" Creationist. I believe in a 4.5 Billion year old earth.
Click to expand...




> You make the fallacy of assuming that both accounts are myths.



No, no, not a fallacy they are myths.



> Since the Creation story is true, why would the Judeo-Christiani religion be the only religion that would have it as part of their history?



Your kidding right? You actually believe it's true?


----------



## UltimateReality

CrackedSkull said:


> Your kidding right? You actually believe it's true?



Yeah, because this just happened by random chance. I have some beach front property in Arizona for sale too.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I9ArIJWYZHI]Mechanism of DNA Replication (Advanced) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Sorry, I left out the (48) "might haves" and "could haves" that explain DNA replication by chance.


----------



## UltimateReality

CrackedSkull said:


> No, no, not a fallacy they are myths.



So you believe the Darwinian Myth is responsible for Computers and Rocket ships?


----------



## CrackedSkull

Still myth..........sorry.


----------



## CrackedSkull

UltimateReality said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, no, not a fallacy they are myths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the Darwinian Myth is responsible for Computers and Rocket ships?
Click to expand...


Nope...man is.....2000 year old creation myths account for just that myths....


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, no, not a fallacy they are myths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the Darwinian Myth is responsible for Computers and Rocket ships?
Click to expand...


Darwinian theory deals with natural, biological processes. 

Computers and Rocket ships don't procreate or evolve by natural processes. 

Your profoundly stupid comparisons only serve to suggest that you need to drink the Kool-aid and prove a component of Darwins' theory.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your kidding right? You actually believe it's true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because this just happened by random chance. I have some beach front property in Arizona for sale too.
Click to expand...


Let me guess - Ann Gauger sold you beachfront property in Arizona. 

It must have been the photos' of the property she phonied-up by standing in front of a green screen.

Yeah - those creationist phonies find lemmings like you for the slaughter.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cracked Skull, we already have our resident clown Hawly for comedy in this thread. I'm not sure we can do with another person posting up irrational silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you prefer name calling over debate I will oblige you there as well.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sad that no one who has frequented here can actually engage in a debate. This thread has been riddled with intellectual dishonesty and ad hominem attacks from atheists with an agenda.
> 
> Have you taken a look at your Avatar lately Captain Obvious? Wouldn't necessarily say that calling you a clown was name calling.
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This version was written sometime in the 12th century BC in cuneiform on seven clay tablets. They were found in the middle 19th century in the ruins of the palace of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh. George Smith first published these texts in 1876 as The Chaldean Genesis. Because of many parallels with the Genesis account, some historians concluded that the Genesis account was simply a rewriting of the Babylonian story. As a reaction, many who wanted to maintain the uniqueness of the Bible argued either that there were no real parallels between the accounts or that the Genesis narratives were written first and the Babylonian myth borrowed from the biblical account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Enuma Elish: The Babylonian Creation Myth
> 
> Chaldean Account of Genesis.
> The Chaldean Account of Genesis Index
> 
> You think christianity is the only sect that had a creation story?
> 
> CREATION STORIES
> 
> So it purports nothing new just a rehash of the myths before it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make the fallacy of assuming that both accounts are myths. Since the Creation story is true, why would the Judeo-Christiani religion be the only religion that would have it as part of their history? Truth, no matter what religion it shows up in, always comes from God.
> 
> While the dating of the clay tablets may be accurate, this misses one very important fact. The Genesis story, while "written" down by Moses, had been a part of the Israelite's oral tradition for at least 1000 years, if not several thousand years by the time Moses took a chisel to rock.
> 
> By the way, while I believe in Creationism, I am not a "young earth" Creationist. I believe in a 4.5 Billion year old earth.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence the creation tale is true. Science has disproved the tales you dreamy-eyed YEC'ers like to peddle as real. 

Creationist clowns have a habit of making false claims and then running for the exits when pressed to support those claims. When your best effort amounts to cutting and pasting falsified, edited and phony "quotes" from christian creationist ministries, its time to peddle your snake oil elsewhere.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you prefer name calling over debate I will oblige you there as well.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sad that no one who has frequented here can actually engage in a debate. This thread has been riddled with intellectual dishonesty and ad hominem attacks from atheists with an agenda.
> 
> Have you taken a look at your Avatar lately Captain Obvious? Wouldn't necessarily say that calling you a clown was name calling.
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Enuma Elish: The Babylonian Creation Myth
> 
> Chaldean Account of Genesis.
> The Chaldean Account of Genesis Index
> 
> You think christianity is the only sect that had a creation story?
> 
> CREATION STORIES
> 
> So it purports nothing new just a rehash of the myths before it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make the fallacy of assuming that both accounts are myths. Since the Creation story is true, why would the Judeo-Christiani religion be the only religion that would have it as part of their history? Truth, no matter what religion it shows up in, always comes from God.
> 
> While the dating of the clay tablets may be accurate, this misses one very important fact. The Genesis story, while "written" down by Moses, had been a part of the Israelite's oral tradition for at least 1000 years, if not several thousand years by the time Moses took a chisel to rock.
> 
> By the way, while I believe in Creationism, I am not a "young earth" Creationist. I believe in a 4.5 Billion year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence the creation tale is true. Science has disproved the tales you dreamy-eyed YEC'ers like to peddle as real.
> 
> Creationist clowns have a habit of making false claims and then running for the exits when pressed to support those claims. When your best effort amounts to cutting and pasting falsified, edited and phony "quotes" from christian creationist ministries, its time to peddle your snake oil elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I notice you totally ignored responding with any kind of rebuttal to the DNA replication video from UR, typical from you. Still waiting on a viable explanation on the origins of life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you prefer name calling over debate I will oblige you there as well.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sad that no one who has frequented here can actually engage in a debate. This thread has been riddled with intellectual dishonesty and ad hominem attacks from atheists with an agenda.
> 
> Have you taken a look at your Avatar lately Captain Obvious? Wouldn't necessarily say that calling you a clown was name calling.
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Enuma Elish: The Babylonian Creation Myth
> 
> Chaldean Account of Genesis.
> The Chaldean Account of Genesis Index
> 
> You think christianity is the only sect that had a creation story?
> 
> CREATION STORIES
> 
> So it purports nothing new just a rehash of the myths before it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make the fallacy of assuming that both accounts are myths. Since the Creation story is true, why would the Judeo-Christiani religion be the only religion that would have it as part of their history? Truth, no matter what religion it shows up in, always comes from God.
> 
> While the dating of the clay tablets may be accurate, this misses one very important fact. The Genesis story, while "written" down by Moses, had been a part of the Israelite's oral tradition for at least 1000 years, if not several thousand years by the time Moses took a chisel to rock.
> 
> By the way, while I believe in Creationism, I am not a "young earth" Creationist. I believe in a 4.5 Billion year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence the creation tale is true. Science has disproved the tales you dreamy-eyed YEC'ers like to peddle as real.
> 
> Creationist clowns have a habit of making false claims and then running for the exits when pressed to support those claims. When your best effort amounts to cutting and pasting falsified, edited and phony "quotes" from christian creationist ministries, its time to peddle your snake oil elsewhere.
Click to expand...

While you are at It how did they disprove creation ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, no, not a fallacy they are myths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the Darwinian Myth is responsible for Computers and Rocket ships?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwinian theory deals with natural, biological processes.
> 
> Computers and Rocket ships don't procreate or evolve by natural processes.
> 
> Your profoundly stupid comparisons only serve to suggest that you need to drink the Kool-aid and prove a component of Darwins' theory.
Click to expand...


Listen you dunce if you are gonna try and defend a theory for Gods sake have a clue about the theory. Darwinian's had no clue of the biological processes we do today. Most of darwins views were based on a few observations with a lot of conjecture. The current theory of evolution is neo darwinism. Do I need to explain that to you as well you fraud.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> ...
> Creationist clowns...



Gone for awhile and nothing has changed. Hawly is still parroting because she doesn't have an original thought in that nazi head of hers. Either that or she is too busy daydreaming about beheading Christians.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the Darwinian Myth is responsible for Computers and Rocket ships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinian theory deals with natural, biological processes.
> 
> Computers and Rocket ships don't procreate or evolve by natural processes.
> 
> Your profoundly stupid comparisons only serve to suggest that you need to drink the Kool-aid and prove a component of Darwins' theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen you dunce if you are gonna try and defend a theory for Gods sake have a clue about the theory. Darwinian's had no clue of the biological processes we do today. Most of darwins views were based on a few observations with a lot of conjecture. The current theory of evolution is neo darwinism. Do I need to explain that to you as well you fraud.
Click to expand...


You might also want to let Einstein know that it is a completely logical train of thought to deduce that if Humans come from evolution and Computers and Rocket ships come from Humans, then we can conclude that evolution indirectly produces computers and rocket ships. This takes about a 3rd grade understanding of basic reasoning so it is not surprising he-she doesn't get it.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinian theory deals with natural, biological processes.
> 
> Computers and Rocket ships don't procreate or evolve by natural processes.
> 
> Your profoundly stupid comparisons only serve to suggest that you need to drink the Kool-aid and prove a component of Darwins' theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you dunce if you are gonna try and defend a theory for Gods sake have a clue about the theory. Darwinian's had no clue of the biological processes we do today. Most of darwins views were based on a few observations with a lot of conjecture. The current theory of evolution is neo darwinism. Do I need to explain that to you as well you fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might also want to let Einstein know that it is a completely logical train of thought to deduce that if Humans come from evolution and Computers and Rocket ships come from Humans, then we can conclude that evolution indirectly produces computers and rocket ships. This takes about a 3rd grade understanding of basic reasoning so it is not surprising he-she doesn't get it.
Click to expand...


 The inventions of rocket ships are purely incidental, and in no way guaranteed indirectly by an evolutionary process, so you can't say that evolution "indirectly produces computers and rocket ships." We only have one example of evolution to draw from: our own. Here again, you are using an argument from induction, combined with the fallacy of hasty generalization. You attempt to make a general statement about any evolutionary processes by observing our own, yet based on no other examples of evolutionary lineages. Therefore, you are attempting to make a general statement about evolution from a particular example of evolution (inductive reasoning) and using a very small sample size (one sample of evolution) to make a generalization about all evolutionary processes. This implies that there are extra-terrestrials out there under going evolution, and you are claiming that they too, have "computers and rocket ships." Yet, I thought as a theist, you don't believe in extra-terrestrials, because god made the universe for us? We have no idea what other evolutionary processes produce, because we have never directly observed them. Until we do, your statement is highly unsubstantiated. In all likelihood, evolution would mostly produce bacteria and algae and things of this nature and likely constitute most of the life in the universe. There may be a few instances of evolution producing life which produces computers in the cosmos, but at best, this sort of induction could only grant probabilities to your conclusion.

All you are left with, is the ability to say "this particular evolutionary process produced a species which produced computers and rocket ships." We already know this to be true, so you haven't gotten anywhere, logically.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe the Darwinian Myth is responsible for Computers and Rocket ships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinian theory deals with natural, biological processes.
> 
> Computers and Rocket ships don't procreate or evolve by natural processes.
> 
> Your profoundly stupid comparisons only serve to suggest that you need to drink the Kool-aid and prove a component of Darwins' theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen you dunce if you are gonna try and defend a theory for Gods sake have a clue about the theory. Darwinian's had no clue of the biological processes we do today. Most of darwins views were based on a few observations with a lot of conjecture. The current theory of evolution is neo darwinism. Do I need to explain that to you as well you fraud.
Click to expand...

How typical that a Christian creationist clown who understands nothing of evolutionary processes would be uttering further stupidity.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinian theory deals with natural, biological processes.
> 
> Computers and Rocket ships don't procreate or evolve by natural processes.
> 
> Your profoundly stupid comparisons only serve to suggest that you need to drink the Kool-aid and prove a component of Darwins' theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you dunce if you are gonna try and defend a theory for Gods sake have a clue about the theory. Darwinian's had no clue of the biological processes we do today. Most of darwins views were based on a few observations with a lot of conjecture. The current theory of evolution is neo darwinism. Do I need to explain that to you as well you fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might also want to let Einstein know that it is a completely logical train of thought to deduce that if Humans come from evolution and Computers and Rocket ships come from Humans, then we can conclude that evolution indirectly produces computers and rocket ships. This takes about a 3rd grade understanding of basic reasoning so it is not surprising he-she doesn't get it.
Click to expand...


You might want to let your Christian creationist ministries know that their profoundly stupid adherents are pressing the notion that mechanical components evolve. 

Are all creationists as stupid as you are?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinian theory deals with natural, biological processes.
> 
> Computers and Rocket ships don't procreate or evolve by natural processes.
> 
> Your profoundly stupid comparisons only serve to suggest that you need to drink the Kool-aid and prove a component of Darwins' theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you dunce if you are gonna try and defend a theory for Gods sake have a clue about the theory. Darwinian's had no clue of the biological processes we do today. Most of darwins views were based on a few observations with a lot of conjecture. The current theory of evolution is neo darwinism. Do I need to explain that to you as well you fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How typical that a Christian creationist clown who understands nothing of evolutionary processes would be uttering further stupidity.
Click to expand...

 You choose the evolutionary process and let's see who actually knows the process and I will take it a step further by offering a rebuttal to it.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad that no one who has frequented here can actually engage in a debate. This thread has been riddled with intellectual dishonesty and ad hominem attacks from atheists with an agenda.
> 
> Have you taken a look at your Avatar lately Captain Obvious? Wouldn't necessarily say that calling you a clown was name calling.
> 
> 
> 
> You make the fallacy of assuming that both accounts are myths. Since the Creation story is true, why would the Judeo-Christiani religion be the only religion that would have it as part of their history? Truth, no matter what religion it shows up in, always comes from God.
> 
> While the dating of the clay tablets may be accurate, this misses one very important fact. The Genesis story, while "written" down by Moses, had been a part of the Israelite's oral tradition for at least 1000 years, if not several thousand years by the time Moses took a chisel to rock.
> 
> By the way, while I believe in Creationism, I am not a "young earth" Creationist. I believe in a 4.5 Billion year old earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence the creation tale is true. Science has disproved the tales you dreamy-eyed YEC'ers like to peddle as real.
> 
> Creationist clowns have a habit of making false claims and then running for the exits when pressed to support those claims. When your best effort amounts to cutting and pasting falsified, edited and phony "quotes" from christian creationist ministries, its time to peddle your snake oil elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice you totally ignored responding with any kind of rebuttal to the DNA replication video from UR, typical from you. Still waiting on a viable explanation on the origins of life.
Click to expand...


I noticed you also ignored the goofy video. Why dont you provide a detailed account of the false comparisons and bad analogies. 

You can also reference the profoundly stupid comparisons that Christian creationists are forced to make. Here's a hint: what false principle did Meyer steal from Behe?


----------



## CrackedSkull

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your kidding right? You actually believe it's true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because this just happened by random chance. I have some beach front property in Arizona for sale too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess - Ann Gauger sold you beachfront property in Arizona.
> 
> It must have been the photos' of the property she phonied-up by standing in front of a green screen.
> 
> Yeah - those creationist phonies find lemmings like you for the slaughter.
Click to expand...




> Let me guess - Ann Gauger sold you beachfront property in Arizona.



Did she get it from Ken Hovind?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence the creation tale is true. Science has disproved the tales you dreamy-eyed YEC'ers like to peddle as real.
> 
> Creationist clowns have a habit of making false claims and then running for the exits when pressed to support those claims. When your best effort amounts to cutting and pasting falsified, edited and phony "quotes" from christian creationist ministries, its time to peddle your snake oil elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you totally ignored responding with any kind of rebuttal to the DNA replication video from UR, typical from you. Still waiting on a viable explanation on the origins of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed you also ignored the goofy video. Why dont you provide a detailed account of the false comparisons and bad analogies.
> 
> You can also reference the profoundly stupid comparisons that Christian creationists are forced to make. Here's a hint: what false principle did Meyer steal from Behe?
Click to expand...

why don't you make that your rebuttal and we will go from there. 
You are suggesting meyer stole irreducible complexity. Does that mean that evolutionist stole darwins work ? Or since darwin was not the first to suggest evolution that he stole someone elses work ? I cannot believe the ignorance you exhibit.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you totally ignored responding with any kind of rebuttal to the DNA replication video from UR, typical from you. Still waiting on a viable explanation on the origins of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you also ignored the goofy video. Why dont you provide a detailed account of the false comparisons and bad analogies.
> 
> You can also reference the profoundly stupid comparisons that Christian creationists are forced to make. Here's a hint: what false principle did Meyer steal from Behe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why don't you make that your rebuttal and we will go from there.
> You are suggesting meyer stole irreducible complexity. Does that mean that evolutionist stole darwins work ? Or since darwin was not the first to suggest evolution that he stole someone elses work ? I cannot believe the ignorance you exhibit.
Click to expand...


Gee whiz, what an angry fundie. 

What you still can't understand is that evolutionary processes have passed through the filter of the scientific method where creationist tales and fables have been refuted as merely the imaginative musings of superstitious men. 

Presenting your ignorance in such a public fashion seems to be a collective enterprise of hyper-religious loons.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you dunce if you are gonna try and defend a theory for Gods sake have a clue about the theory. Darwinian's had no clue of the biological processes we do today. Most of darwins views were based on a few observations with a lot of conjecture. The current theory of evolution is neo darwinism. Do I need to explain that to you as well you fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> How typical that a Christian creationist clown who understands nothing of evolutionary processes would be uttering further stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You choose the evolutionary process and let's see who actually knows the process and I will take it a step further by offering a rebuttal to it.
Click to expand...


Already done. You are choosing to ignore the fact that I exposed your cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites as fraudulent. The "quotes" you took from creationist websites were edited, parsed or manufactured. Their lies became your lies when you posted them multiple times after the lies were exposed. You dishonest cretin.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you also ignored the goofy video. Why dont you provide a detailed account of the false comparisons and bad analogies.
> 
> You can also reference the profoundly stupid comparisons that Christian creationists are forced to make. Here's a hint: what false principle did Meyer steal from Behe?
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you make that your rebuttal and we will go from there.
> You are suggesting meyer stole irreducible complexity. Does that mean that evolutionist stole darwins work ? Or since darwin was not the first to suggest evolution that he stole someone elses work ? I cannot believe the ignorance you exhibit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee whiz, what an angry fundie.
> 
> What you still can't understand is that evolutionary processes have passed through the filter of the scientific method where creationist tales and fables have been refuted as merely the imaginative musings of superstitious men.
> 
> Presenting your ignorance in such a public fashion seems to be a collective enterprise of hyper-religious loons.
Click to expand...

 still running hollie ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you make that your rebuttal and we will go from there.
> You are suggesting meyer stole irreducible complexity. Does that mean that evolutionist stole darwins work ? Or since darwin was not the first to suggest evolution that he stole someone elses work ? I cannot believe the ignorance you exhibit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz, what an angry fundie.
> 
> What you still can't understand is that evolutionary processes have passed through the filter of the scientific method where creationist tales and fables have been refuted as merely the imaginative musings of superstitious men.
> 
> Presenting your ignorance in such a public fashion seems to be a collective enterprise of hyper-religious loons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still running hollie ?
Click to expand...

Still promoting lies?


----------



## Hollie

Another list of creationist lies.

Another creationist list of lies &#8211; Pharyngula 

It&#8217;s always amusing to see creationists try to explain why Charles Darwin was wrong, especially when they make up lists of reasons &#8220;Darwin&#8217;s theory of evolution does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.&#8221; These are always people who wouldn&#8217;t know what scientific scrutiny was if it knocked them immobile with a carefully measured dose of Conus snail toxin, strapped them to an operating table, and pumped high-intensity Science directly into their brains with a laser. As I often wish I could do.

Anyway, some ignorant jebus-lover hacked together a list of 10 &#8220;mistakes&#8221; that Darwin made. Strangely, they completely miss his actual errors (probably because they&#8217;ve never read anything by Darwin and don&#8217;t have enough knowledge of biology to recognize where he has been superceded) and babble on about what are actually creationist errors.


----------



## Hollie

Creationist Whoppers

 This is a small sampler of creationist whoppers, gleaned from talk.origins in recent months. When I wrote that I had sent an unnamed creationist a small sampler of ICR whoppers, many people wrote and asked for a copy. I have much more distributed throughout my file system, and in books and on paper at home, but have not yet had a chance to gather them together. [plus my @#$! mailer seems to be broken. Sorry to those who wrote me and got no reply...]

So many liars, so little time! Until then, here is what I had sent to the creationist in question..

If you would like to enter your favorite creationist lie, mendacious misquotation or attack of amnesia, please mail them to me here, and much honor and glory will accrue to your name. Well, maybe a little.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz, what an angry fundie.
> 
> What you still can't understand is that evolutionary processes have passed through the filter of the scientific method where creationist tales and fables have been refuted as merely the imaginative musings of superstitious men.
> 
> Presenting your ignorance in such a public fashion seems to be a collective enterprise of hyper-religious loons.
> 
> 
> 
> still running hollie ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still promoting lies?
Click to expand...


Point out the lies and tell me why you consider them lies or are you just trying to change the subject ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Creationist Whoppers
> 
> This is a small sampler of creationist whoppers, gleaned from talk.origins in recent months. When I wrote that I had sent an unnamed creationist a small sampler of ICR whoppers, many people wrote and asked for a copy. I have much more distributed throughout my file system, and in books and on paper at home, but have not yet had a chance to gather them together. [plus my @#$! mailer seems to be broken. Sorry to those who wrote me and got no reply...]
> 
> So many liars, so little time! Until then, here is what I had sent to the creationist in question..
> 
> If you would like to enter your favorite creationist lie, mendacious misquotation or attack of amnesia, please mail them to me here, and much honor and glory will accrue to your name. Well, maybe a little.



may I suggest avoiding the nonsense on talk origins,it will cause your brain to waste away. I have read that site many times talk about a site full of fairytales. That is where most of you who can't think for yourselves go. Pretty much the same as atheist sites. I will take your spin as a refusal to talk about the issues. Well it's understandable when you don't know enough to have that discussion.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist Whoppers
> 
> This is a small sampler of creationist whoppers, gleaned from talk.origins in recent months. When I wrote that I had sent an unnamed creationist a small sampler of ICR whoppers, many people wrote and asked for a copy. I have much more distributed throughout my file system, and in books and on paper at home, but have not yet had a chance to gather them together. [plus my @#$! mailer seems to be broken. Sorry to those who wrote me and got no reply...]
> 
> So many liars, so little time! Until then, here is what I had sent to the creationist in question..
> 
> If you would like to enter your favorite creationist lie, mendacious misquotation or attack of amnesia, please mail them to me here, and much honor and glory will accrue to your name. Well, maybe a little.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> may I suggest avoiding the nonsense on talk origins,it will cause your brain to waste away. I have read that site many times talk about site full of fairytales. That is where most of you that think for yourselves go. Pretty much the same as atheist sites. I will take your spin as a reluctance to talk about the issues.
Click to expand...


I understand your frustration. Talkorigins is one site among many that exposes Christian creationist lies. 

Your deep animosity to science based websites causes you to lash out because your promoting of falsehoods is easily debunked.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist Whoppers
> 
> This is a small sampler of creationist whoppers, gleaned from talk.origins in recent months. When I wrote that I had sent an unnamed creationist a small sampler of ICR whoppers, many people wrote and asked for a copy. I have much more distributed throughout my file system, and in books and on paper at home, but have not yet had a chance to gather them together. [plus my @#$! mailer seems to be broken. Sorry to those who wrote me and got no reply...]
> 
> So many liars, so little time! Until then, here is what I had sent to the creationist in question..
> 
> If you would like to enter your favorite creationist lie, mendacious misquotation or attack of amnesia, please mail them to me here, and much honor and glory will accrue to your name. Well, maybe a little.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> may I suggest avoiding the nonsense on talk origins,it will cause your brain to waste away. I have read that site many times talk about site full of fairytales. That is where most of you that think for yourselves go. Pretty much the same as atheist sites. I will take your spin as a reluctance to talk about the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your frustration. Talkorigins is one site among many that exposes Christian creationist lies.
> 
> Your deep animosity to science based websites causes you to lash out because your promoting of falsehoods is easily debunked.
Click to expand...


No on the contrary,that site produces mindless robots that can't think for themselves. That site promotes fairytales and lies about the truth. You are nothing more then a deciple copying and pasting their religous lies.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> may I suggest avoiding the nonsense on talk origins,it will cause your brain to waste away. I have read that site many times talk about site full of fairytales. That is where most of you that think for yourselves go. Pretty much the same as atheist sites. I will take your spin as a reluctance to talk about the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your frustration. Talkorigins is one site among many that exposes Christian creationist lies.
> 
> Your deep animosity to science based websites causes you to lash out because your promoting of falsehoods is easily debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No on the contrary,that site produces mindless robots that can't think for themselves. That site promotes fairytales and lies about the truth. You are nothing more then a deciple copying and pasting their religous lies.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid you're getting quite frantic. It's a shame that religious Loons are so violently anti-science and anti-knowledge. Talkorigins and similar science based websites could be a valuable source of education and enlightenment for Christian fundies such as yourself and the other YEC'ist. 

I would be willing to direct you to such sites and even offer to research some sources that have had success with freeing people like you from the control of religious cults. 

I'm here to help.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more thing Ima,schools and some in science they ruled out answers before they asked the question. They said there is no God and creator with no evidence to rule it out. So now let's ask the question,what is the origins of life ? that is why they can't find the answers to the origins of life they ruled out the answer.
> 
> It is un-scientific to rule out answers before they ask the question.
> 
> They taught us in grade school that the frog turned into a prince and said it was a fairytale. Then in high school and college they call this science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists are working on the origins of life by trying to recreate it in a lab. They seem pretty close to cracking the mystery. Interesting stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Put another way, scientists are trying to jump start life using the same elements that were on earth at the time. Why do you have a problem with that?

And what happens if we find life on another planet? How does that impact creationism?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your frustration. Talkorigins is one site among many that exposes Christian creationist lies.
> 
> Your deep animosity to science based websites causes you to lash out because your promoting of falsehoods is easily debunked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No on the contrary,that site produces mindless robots that can't think for themselves. That site promotes fairytales and lies about the truth. You are nothing more then a deciple copying and pasting their religous lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid you're getting quite frantic. It's a shame that religious Loons are so violently anti-science and anti-knowledge. Talkorigins and similar science based websites could be a valuable source of education and enlightenment for Christian fundies such as yourself and the other YEC'ist.
> 
> I would be willing to direct you to such sites and even offer to research some sources that have had success with freeing people like you from the control of religious cults.
> 
> I'm here to help.
Click to expand...

I'm fine,I am here sitting in my ground blind getting ready to bag another deer. I love texas hunting.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists are working on the origins of life by trying to recreate it in a lab. They seem pretty close to cracking the mystery. Interesting stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put another way, scientists are trying to jump start life using the same elements that were on earth at the time. Why do you have a problem with that?
> 
> And what happens if we find life on another planet? How does that impact creationism?
Click to expand...


Not a bit considering God the creator created all we know exists.


----------



## Koios

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



Simple: most folks like to assign meaning to themselves and wish for death to not be the end of them.  It's a comfortable delusion that a plurality of humans seem to gravitate toward.

None too complicated.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you dunce if you are gonna try and defend a theory for Gods sake have a clue about the theory. Darwinian's had no clue of the biological processes we do today. Most of darwins views were based on a few observations with a lot of conjecture. The current theory of evolution is neo darwinism. Do I need to explain that to you as well you fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might also want to let Einstein know that it is a completely logical train of thought to deduce that if Humans come from evolution and Computers and Rocket ships come from Humans, then we can conclude that evolution indirectly produces computers and rocket ships. This takes about a 3rd grade understanding of basic reasoning so it is not surprising he-she doesn't get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The inventions of rocket ships are purely incidental, and in no way guaranteed indirectly by an evolutionary process, so you can't say that evolution "indirectly produces computers and rocket ships." We only have one example of evolution to draw from: our own. Here again, you are using an argument from induction, combined with the fallacy of hasty generalization. You attempt to make a general statement about any evolutionary processes by observing our own, yet based on no other examples of evolutionary lineages. Therefore, you are attempting to make a general statement about evolution from a particular example of evolution (inductive reasoning) and using a very small sample size (one sample of evolution) to make a generalization about all evolutionary processes. This implies that there are extra-terrestrials out there under going evolution, and you are claiming that they too, have "computers and rocket ships." Yet, I thought as a theist, you don't believe in extra-terrestrials, because god made the universe for us? We have no idea what other evolutionary processes produce, because we have never directly observed them. Until we do, your statement is highly unsubstantiated. In all likelihood, evolution would mostly produce bacteria and algae and things of this nature and likely constitute most of the life in the universe. There may be a few instances of evolution producing life which produces computers in the cosmos, but at best, this sort of induction could only grant probabilities to your conclusion.
> 
> All you are left with, is the ability to say "this particular evolutionary process produced a species which produced computers and rocket ships." We already know this to be true, so you haven't gotten anywhere, logically.
Click to expand...


You're attempt to sound smart with all you WRONG flowery speech has EPICALLY FAILED again. The fact of the matter is that my argument is not an argument from induction, because if evolution is true, then evolution produced computers and rocket ships via the human race. We are not talking about some random evolutionary process. We are talking about evolution of humans. Your arguments about other instances of evolution than our own are irrelevant and ludicrous. If evolution is true, then you cannot deny it has produced computers and rocket ships. Of course we know evolution is pseudoscience, and such a claim is totally ridiculous.

Oh and while we are on the topic of your fallacious arguments, you wrongly claim that ID is an appeal to ignorance. That would be the case if we exhausted other origin of life possibilities and were saying we don't know how it happened so an intelligence must have done it. But that is not the argument of ID. The thing you continually ignore, and to your own detriment, is that we have evidence of "causes now in operation" [Lyell, Darwin]. We aren't arguing from ignorance because we have evidence that complex, functional information ONLY comes from an intelligent agent. So please knock it off with your fallacious claims of argument from ignorance.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you also ignored the goofy video. Why dont you provide a detailed account of the false comparisons and bad analogies.
> 
> You can also reference the profoundly stupid comparisons that Christian creationists are forced to make. Here's a hint: what false principle did Meyer steal from Behe?
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you make that your rebuttal and we will go from there.
> You are suggesting meyer stole irreducible complexity. Does that mean that evolutionist stole darwins work ? Or since darwin was not the first to suggest evolution that he stole someone elses work ? I cannot believe the ignorance you exhibit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...evolutionary processes have passed through the filter of the scientific method ...
Click to expand...


 What a clown.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put another way, scientists are trying to jump start life using the same elements that were on earth at the time. Why do you have a problem with that?
> 
> And what happens if we find life on another planet? How does that impact creationism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a bit considering God the creator created all we know exists.
Click to expand...

An absurd claim that is utterly unsupported. As with all of creationist blathering, your claims require a prior committment to a particular religious sect.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists are working on the origins of life by trying to recreate it in a lab. They seem pretty close to cracking the mystery. Interesting stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put another way, scientists are trying to jump start life using the same elements that were on earth at the time. Why do you have a problem with that?
> 
> And what happens if we find life on another planet? How does that impact creationism?
Click to expand...


Might want to read CS Lewis about our planet in rebellion.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple: most folks like to assign meaning to themselves and wish for death to not be the end of them.  It's a comfortable delusion that *a plurality of humans seem to gravitate toward.
> *
> None too complicated.
Click to expand...


This need is a product of evolution then??? Now there's a circular argument for you. So Evolution created God?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you make that your rebuttal and we will go from there.
> You are suggesting meyer stole irreducible complexity. Does that mean that evolutionist stole darwins work ? Or since darwin was not the first to suggest evolution that he stole someone elses work ? I cannot believe the ignorance you exhibit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...evolutionary processes have passed through the filter of the scientific method ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a clown.
Click to expand...


My statement is true. Goofy fundies are left only to offer nonsensical one-liners and goofy smiley faces.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple: most folks like to assign meaning to themselves and wish for death to not be the end of them.  It's a comfortable delusion that *a plurality of humans seem to gravitate toward.
> *
> None too complicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This need is a product of evolution then??? Now there's a circular argument for you. So Evolution created God?
Click to expand...

You should stick with cutting and pasting nonsense from Christian creationist websites. Left to hapless attempts at actually forming meaningful sentences, you do a disservice even to goofy creationists.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might also want to let Einstein know that it is a completely logical train of thought to deduce that if Humans come from evolution and Computers and Rocket ships come from Humans, then we can conclude that evolution indirectly produces computers and rocket ships. This takes about a 3rd grade understanding of basic reasoning so it is not surprising he-she doesn't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The inventions of rocket ships are purely incidental, and in no way guaranteed indirectly by an evolutionary process, so you can't say that evolution "indirectly produces computers and rocket ships." We only have one example of evolution to draw from: our own. Here again, you are using an argument from induction, combined with the fallacy of hasty generalization. You attempt to make a general statement about any evolutionary processes by observing our own, yet based on no other examples of evolutionary lineages. Therefore, you are attempting to make a general statement about evolution from a particular example of evolution (inductive reasoning) and using a very small sample size (one sample of evolution) to make a generalization about all evolutionary processes. This implies that there are extra-terrestrials out there under going evolution, and you are claiming that they too, have "computers and rocket ships." Yet, I thought as a theist, you don't believe in extra-terrestrials, because god made the universe for us? We have no idea what other evolutionary processes produce, because we have never directly observed them. Until we do, your statement is highly unsubstantiated. In all likelihood, evolution would mostly produce bacteria and algae and things of this nature and likely constitute most of the life in the universe. There may be a few instances of evolution producing life which produces computers in the cosmos, but at best, this sort of induction could only grant probabilities to your conclusion.
> 
> All you are left with, is the ability to say "this particular evolutionary process produced a species which produced computers and rocket ships." We already know this to be true, so you haven't gotten anywhere, logically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're attempt to sound smart with all you WRONG flowery speech has EPICALLY FAILED again. The fact of the matter is that my argument is not an argument from induction, because if evolution is true, then evolution produced computers and rocket ships via the human race. We are not talking about some random evolutionary process. We are talking about evolution of humans. Your arguments about other instances of evolution than our own are irrelevant and ludicrous. If evolution is true, then you cannot deny it has produced computers and rocket ships. Of course we know evolution is pseudoscience, and such a claim is totally ridiculous.
> 
> Oh and while we are on the topic of your fallacious arguments, you wrongly claim that ID is an appeal to ignorance. That would be the case if we exhausted other origin of life possibilities and were saying we don't know how it happened so an intelligence must have done it. But that is not the argument of ID. The thing you continually ignore, and to your own detriment, is that we have evidence of "causes now in operation" [Lyell, Darwin]. We aren't arguing from ignorance because we have evidence that complex, functional information ONLY comes from an intelligent agent. So please knock it off with your fallacious claims of argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...

So, the goofy Christian creationist still can't manage to understand that computers and rocket ships (mechanical components), don't evolve as biological organisms do. 

I suppose that's what separates the Kool-aid drinkers from the enlightened portion of humanity.


----------



## MikeHoncho

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put another way, scientists are trying to jump start life using the same elements that were on earth at the time. Why do you have a problem with that?
> 
> And what happens if we find life on another planet? How does that impact creationism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a bit considering God the creator created all we know exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An absurd claim that is utterly unsupported. As with all of creationist blathering, your claims require a prior committment to a particular religious sect.
Click to expand...



the scientific community agrees that the universe had a beginning and must have an end. if all things are temporal then something must have always existed, Christians believe that its God, anti-theists think its something else depending on what day you ask them. 

to say its absurd is in fact absurd. especially if you dont have something to bring to the table as to why the universe began. which I'm not saying you dont, but generally speaking.


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple: most folks like to assign meaning to themselves and wish for death to not be the end of them.  It's a comfortable delusion that *a plurality of humans seem to gravitate toward.
> *
> None too complicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *This need is a product of evolution then???* Now there's a circular argument for you. So Evolution created God?
Click to expand...


Yes; indeed it is, since a form of life evolved on this planet to an extent that it developed rational thinking.  In fact, the planet itself is the result of evolutionary processes, since it has evolved from other defunct stars, and thus as more complex compounds in its makeup.

And yes, the notion (belief) in a creator is part of human evolution.  It's generally believed that the control of fire was the kicker.  It kept animals that would eat us away at night, warmed us and offered light when the sun had dipped below the horizon.  All good stuff, which lent to us becoming more social, sitting around the fire chatting it up, and as a result, evolving our language ability and brain size.

Then, which is logical, we looked up and saw lights at night, and perhaps wondered if they were others like us, sitting around their fires, with one exception: they were not tethered to the earth, as we were.  Thus they must have had some special powers, we lacked.  And we began speculating ... and then went hog fucking wild making up all kinds of shit.

None too complicated.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inventions of rocket ships are purely incidental, and in no way guaranteed indirectly by an evolutionary process, so you can't say that evolution "indirectly produces computers and rocket ships." We only have one example of evolution to draw from: our own. Here again, you are using an argument from induction, combined with the fallacy of hasty generalization. You attempt to make a general statement about any evolutionary processes by observing our own, yet based on no other examples of evolutionary lineages. Therefore, you are attempting to make a general statement about evolution from a particular example of evolution (inductive reasoning) and using a very small sample size (one sample of evolution) to make a generalization about all evolutionary processes. This implies that there are extra-terrestrials out there under going evolution, and you are claiming that they too, have "computers and rocket ships." Yet, I thought as a theist, you don't believe in extra-terrestrials, because god made the universe for us? We have no idea what other evolutionary processes produce, because we have never directly observed them. Until we do, your statement is highly unsubstantiated. In all likelihood, evolution would mostly produce bacteria and algae and things of this nature and likely constitute most of the life in the universe. There may be a few instances of evolution producing life which produces computers in the cosmos, but at best, this sort of induction could only grant probabilities to your conclusion.
> 
> All you are left with, is the ability to say "this particular evolutionary process produced a species which produced computers and rocket ships." We already know this to be true, so you haven't gotten anywhere, logically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're attempt to sound smart with all you WRONG flowery speech has EPICALLY FAILED again. The fact of the matter is that my argument is not an argument from induction, because if evolution is true, then evolution produced computers and rocket ships via the human race. We are not talking about some random evolutionary process. We are talking about evolution of humans. Your arguments about other instances of evolution than our own are irrelevant and ludicrous. If evolution is true, then you cannot deny it has produced computers and rocket ships. Of course we know evolution is pseudoscience, and such a claim is totally ridiculous.
> 
> Oh and while we are on the topic of your fallacious arguments, you wrongly claim that ID is an appeal to ignorance. That would be the case if we exhausted other origin of life possibilities and were saying we don't know how it happened so an intelligence must have done it. But that is not the argument of ID. The thing you continually ignore, and to your own detriment, is that we have evidence of "causes now in operation" [Lyell, Darwin]. We aren't arguing from ignorance because we have evidence that complex, functional information ONLY comes from an intelligent agent. So please knock it off with your fallacious claims of argument from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...*mechanical components), don't evolve as biological organisms do*.
Click to expand...

 That is not the claim. Your reading comprehension fails you again. I see nothing has changed. You are just noise... A gnat buzzing in the ear.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple: most folks like to assign meaning to themselves and wish for death to not be the end of them.  It's a comfortable delusion that *a plurality of humans seem to gravitate toward.
> *
> None too complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This need is a product of evolution then???* Now there's a circular argument for you. So Evolution created God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes; indeed it is, since a form of life evolved on this planet to an extent that it developed rational thinking.  In fact, the planet itself is the result of evolutionary processes, since it has evolved from other defunct stars, and thus as more complex compounds in its makeup.
> 
> And yes, the notion (belief) in a creator is part of human evolution.  It's generally believed that the control of fire was the kicker.  It kept animals that would eat us away at night, warmed us and offered light when the sun had dipped below the horizon.  All good stuff, which lent to us becoming more social, sitting around the fire chatting it up, and as a result, evolving our language ability and brain size.
> 
> Then, which is logical, we looked up and saw lights at night, and perhaps wondered if they were others like us, sitting around their fires, with one exception: they were not tethered to the earth, as we were.  Thus they must have had some special powers, we lacked.  And we began speculating ... and then went hog fucking wild making up all kinds of shit.
> 
> None too complicated.
Click to expand...


Psalm 14 (NIV)

1 The fool says in his heart,
    There is no God.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're attempt to sound smart with all you WRONG flowery speech has EPICALLY FAILED again. The fact of the matter is that my argument is not an argument from induction, because if evolution is true, then evolution produced computers and rocket ships via the human race. We are not talking about some random evolutionary process. We are talking about evolution of humans. Your arguments about other instances of evolution than our own are irrelevant and ludicrous. If evolution is true, then you cannot deny it has produced computers and rocket ships. Of course we know evolution is pseudoscience, and such a claim is totally ridiculous.
> 
> Oh and while we are on the topic of your fallacious arguments, you wrongly claim that ID is an appeal to ignorance. That would be the case if we exhausted other origin of life possibilities and were saying we don't know how it happened so an intelligence must have done it. But that is not the argument of ID. The thing you continually ignore, and to your own detriment, is that we have evidence of "causes now in operation" [Lyell, Darwin]. We aren't arguing from ignorance because we have evidence that complex, functional information ONLY comes from an intelligent agent. So please knock it off with your fallacious claims of argument from ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...*mechanical components), don't evolve as biological organisms do*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the claim. Your reading comprehension fails you again. I see nothing has changed. You are just noise... A gnat buzzing in the ear.
Click to expand...


You're having continued difficulty expressing a coherent claim. Once again for the befuddled fundie, biological organisms evolve, mechanical components do not. 

These should ordinarily be simple concepts even for the fundie to understand, except in your case....


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This need is a product of evolution then???* Now there's a circular argument for you. So Evolution created God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes; indeed it is, since a form of life evolved on this planet to an extent that it developed rational thinking.  In fact, the planet itself is the result of evolutionary processes, since it has evolved from other defunct stars, and thus as more complex compounds in its makeup.
> 
> And yes, the notion (belief) in a creator is part of human evolution.  It's generally believed that the control of fire was the kicker.  It kept animals that would eat us away at night, warmed us and offered light when the sun had dipped below the horizon.  All good stuff, which lent to us becoming more social, sitting around the fire chatting it up, and as a result, evolving our language ability and brain size.
> 
> Then, which is logical, we looked up and saw lights at night, and perhaps wondered if they were others like us, sitting around their fires, with one exception: they were not tethered to the earth, as we were.  Thus they must have had some special powers, we lacked.  And we began speculating ... and then went hog fucking wild making up all kinds of shit.
> 
> None too complicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Psalm 14 (NIV)
> 
> 1 The fool says in his heart,
> There is no God.
Click to expand...


Seems that's wrong.  Thomas Edison was no fool, I assure you.

The Bible gets other shit wrong, too:


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This need is a product of evolution then???* Now there's a circular argument for you. So Evolution created God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes; indeed it is, since a form of life evolved on this planet to an extent that it developed rational thinking.  In fact, the planet itself is the result of evolutionary processes, since it has evolved from other defunct stars, and thus as more complex compounds in its makeup.
> 
> And yes, the notion (belief) in a creator is part of human evolution.  It's generally believed that the control of fire was the kicker.  It kept animals that would eat us away at night, warmed us and offered light when the sun had dipped below the horizon.  All good stuff, which lent to us becoming more social, sitting around the fire chatting it up, and as a result, evolving our language ability and brain size.
> 
> Then, which is logical, we looked up and saw lights at night, and perhaps wondered if they were others like us, sitting around their fires, with one exception: they were not tethered to the earth, as we were.  Thus they must have had some special powers, we lacked.  And we began speculating ... and then went hog fucking wild making up all kinds of shit.
> 
> None too complicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Psalm 14 (NIV)
> 
> 1 The fool says in his heart,
> There is no God.
Click to expand...


Psalm 14a (newer NIV)

1. "The fundie hears in his head only the rattling of, well nothing, it's a vacant space."


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the appendix have a function daws ? that was my point.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong ,you said:  "They have found that the organ stores bacteria and Enzymes that aid in the digestive system."-YWC
> THAT IS A STATEMENT NOT A QUESTION!
> AS ALWAYS YOU'RE BACKPEDALING .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here dummy.
> 
> Researchers at Duke University Medical Center say that the function of the frequently discarded appendix, an organ often credited with little importance and often dismissed as having no significant function, does it seems have a role to play after all.
> 
> Researchers in the United States say the appendix produces and protects good germs for the gut by "rebooting" the digestive system.
> 
> 
> What does the appendix do? finally an answer!
> 
> When are you gonna quit thinking you know more then me you imbecile.
Click to expand...

I don't have to "think" I do! when in fact I do!

 doctors have trouble deciding if the appendix has any use to the body at all. While everyone agrees that the appendix can be removed without causing any adverse health consequences to the patient, some physicians and researchers believe that the appendix does serve a function as part of the immune system.

again some and believe are the operative words.   ass hat!


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Creationministries.org"?
> 
> Are you a comedian... or perhaps possess the IQ of 10W-30 motor oil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you take on what the gentleman states,take on his theories. Because he is a man of faith he is automatically considered a loon by you even though he knows more science then you,why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "gentleman" is a religious loon.
> 
> Host a Group or Private Canyon Tour
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there are the mile deep layers of strata which have been removed from above the rim of Grand Canyon...oh, those with a Secular worldview do not like to tell you about this, do they?! Proof is seen in the photo above as Russ delivers his On-The-Rim-Talk.
> 
> At the Canyon you will be shown original CREATION rock, Pre-flood strata and Judgment layers which were laid down during the flood. As Russ explains the geology he will also point out the relevance of the Grand Canyon to the authority of God's Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As is so typical with creationist loons, his first paragraph reeks of conspiracy theory babble.
> 
> Are there really "mile deep layers of strata which have been removed from above the rim of Grand Canyon"? Gee whiz, it must have been those "evilutionists" out under the cover of darkness with rakes and shovels removing those alleged "_mile deep layers of strata_"
> 
> What a sorry, pathetic joke.
> 
> The next paragaph is more conspiracy, loonish behavior. So is there really a "CREATION", gawd rock?
> 
> Where do they find these loons?
Click to expand...


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put another way, scientists are trying to jump start life using the same elements that were on earth at the time. Why do you have a problem with that?
> 
> And what happens if we find life on another planet? How does that impact creationism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a bit considering God the creator created all we know exists.
Click to expand...


So why do you have a problem with the way scientists describe the beginning of life on earth? Is it just because a man written bible would be wrong? So you'd rather go against what the creator actually did so that your book won't be exposed as having gotten some things wrong? Seems pretty juvenile to me.


----------



## daws101

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put another way, scientists are trying to jump start life using the same elements that were on earth at the time. Why do you have a problem with that?
> 
> And what happens if we find life on another planet? How does that impact creationism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a bit considering God the creator created all we know exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why do you have a problem with the way scientists describe the beginning of life on earth? Is it just because a man written bible would be wrong? So you'd rather go against what the creator actually did so that your book won't be exposed as having gotten some things wrong? Seems pretty juvenile to me.
Click to expand...

 the bible is the only evidence they have (and it's not evidence) of a creator god...everything they claim to be fact, is in fact based on faith and  willful ignorance.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a bit considering God the creator created all we know exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you have a problem with the way scientists describe the beginning of life on earth? Is it just because a man written bible would be wrong? So you'd rather go against what the creator actually did so that your book won't be exposed as having gotten some things wrong? Seems pretty juvenile to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the bible is the only evidence they have (and it's not evidence) of a creator god...everything they claim to be fact, is in fact based on faith and  willful ignorance.
Click to expand...


In your rabid denial dreams.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong ,you said:  "They have found that the organ stores bacteria and Enzymes that aid in the digestive system."-YWC
> THAT IS A STATEMENT NOT A QUESTION!
> AS ALWAYS YOU'RE BACKPEDALING .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here dummy.
> 
> Researchers at Duke University Medical Center say that the function of the frequently discarded appendix, an organ often credited with little importance and often dismissed as having no significant function, does it seems have a role to play after all.
> 
> Researchers in the United States say the appendix produces and protects good germs for the gut by "rebooting" the digestive system.
> 
> 
> What does the appendix do? finally an answer!
> 
> When are you gonna quit thinking you know more then me you imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to "think" I do! when in fact I do!
> 
> doctors have trouble deciding if the appendix has any use to the body at all. While everyone agrees that the appendix can be removed without causing any adverse health consequences to the patient, some physicians and researchers believe that the appendix does serve a function as part of the immune system.
> 
> again some and believe are the operative words.   ass hat!
Click to expand...

Funny how you ignore those operative words when they are used for an explanation of your theory. There is no doubt the organ can be removed but it still serves a purpose while in the body. Stay away from them atheiat sitws th we y we kill what little brain you have lwft after doing all those drugs.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a bit considering God the creator created all we know exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you have a problem with the way scientists describe the beginning of life on earth? Is it just because a man written bible would be wrong? So you'd rather go against what the creator actually did so that your book won't be exposed as having gotten some things wrong? Seems pretty juvenile to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the bible is the only evidence they have (and it's not evidence) of a creator god...everything they claim to be fact, is in fact based on faith and  willful ignorance.
Click to expand...


Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you have a problem with the way scientists describe the beginning of life on earth? Is it just because a man written bible would be wrong? So you'd rather go against what the creator actually did so that your book won't be exposed as having gotten some things wrong? Seems pretty juvenile to me.
> 
> 
> 
> the bible is the only evidence they have (and it's not evidence) of a creator god...everything they claim to be fact, is in fact based on faith and  willful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Dinsaurs are in there!!!  Was it John, who said unto Jesus, "Oh Lord; for that art one big mutherfucking lizard!!"?  Or was that one of the other apostles?  I keep forgetting.

And boy oh boy, that Noah dude damn near got zapped with lightning, when he queried unto God, "Hey big guy; you do know that a single breeding pair is the fucking definition of extinction; yeah God?"


----------



## CrackedSkull

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you have a problem with the way scientists describe the beginning of life on earth? Is it just because a man written bible would be wrong? So you'd rather go against what the creator actually did so that your book won't be exposed as having gotten some things wrong? Seems pretty juvenile to me.
> 
> 
> 
> the bible is the only evidence they have (and it's not evidence) of a creator god...everything they claim to be fact, is in fact based on faith and  willful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
Click to expand...


And these are? Bible was not written by any god it was written by men claiming a god told them to write it.....it actually amounts to no more than hearsay. The problem with this god theory is that no one can prove a god exists and no one can prove a god don't exist. Belief does not equal historical fact.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you have a problem with the way scientists describe the beginning of life on earth? Is it just because a man written bible would be wrong? So you'd rather go against what the creator actually did so that your book won't be exposed as having gotten some things wrong? Seems pretty juvenile to me.
> 
> 
> 
> the bible is the only evidence they have (and it's not evidence) of a creator god...everything they claim to be fact, is in fact based on faith and  willful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your rabid denial dreams.
Click to expand...

wrong as always, can't deny what's not there, it's all hearsay.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here dummy.
> 
> Researchers at Duke University Medical Center say that the function of the frequently discarded appendix, an organ often credited with little importance and often dismissed as having no significant function, does it seems have a role to play after all.
> 
> Researchers in the United States say the appendix produces and protects good germs for the gut by "rebooting" the digestive system.
> 
> 
> What does the appendix do? finally an answer!
> 
> When are you gonna quit thinking you know more then me you imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to "think" I do! when in fact I do!
> 
> doctors have trouble deciding if the appendix has any use to the body at all. While everyone agrees that the appendix can be removed without causing any adverse health consequences to the patient, some physicians and researchers believe that the appendix does serve a function as part of the immune system.
> 
> again some and believe are the operative words.   ass hat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how you ignore those operative words when they are used for an explanation of your theory. There is no doubt the organ can be removed but it still serves a purpose while in the body. Stay away from them atheiat sitws th we y we kill what little brain you have lwft after doing all those drugs.
Click to expand...

actually they're  not the operative words in science are evidence and test .slapdick!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you have a problem with the way scientists describe the beginning of life on earth? Is it just because a man written bible would be wrong? So you'd rather go against what the creator actually did so that your book won't be exposed as having gotten some things wrong? Seems pretty juvenile to me.
> 
> 
> 
> the bible is the only evidence they have (and it's not evidence) of a creator god...everything they claim to be fact, is in fact based on faith and  willful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
Click to expand...

 daydream believer and a home coming queen!


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the bible is the only evidence they have (and it's not evidence) of a creator god...everything they claim to be fact, is in fact based on faith and  willful ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Dinsaurs are in there!!!  Was it John, who said unto Jesus, "Oh Lord; for that art one big mutherfucking lizard!!"?  Or was that one of the other apostles?  I keep forgetting.
> 
> And boy oh boy, that Noah dude damn near got zapped with lightning, when he queried unto God, "Hey big guy; you do know that a single breeding pair is the fucking definition of extinction; yeah God?"
Click to expand...


Yeah and Jews in the Old Testament actually used Honda's to plow and to escape prison.

Jeremiah 5: (NIV)

5 ...But with one accord they too had broken off the yoke
    and torn off the bonds.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you have a problem with the way scientists describe the beginning of life on earth? Is it just because a man written bible would be wrong? So you'd rather go against what the creator actually did so that your book won't be exposed as having gotten some things wrong? Seems pretty juvenile to me.
> 
> 
> 
> the bible is the only evidence they have (and it's not evidence) of a creator god...everything they claim to be fact, is in fact based on faith and  willful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
Click to expand...


So the world being made in 6 days is scientific fact? Noah being 600 years old is scientific fact?...


----------



## Koios

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the bible is the only evidence they have (and it's not evidence) of a creator god...everything they claim to be fact, is in fact based on faith and  willful ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the world being made in 6 days is scientific fact? Noah being 600 years old is scientific fact?...
Click to expand...


Heaven and earth, in 6 days, not merely the world.  He rested on the 7th day, which is a fact because someone wrote it down.  That should be obvious, praise babyjesus.

What's uncertain is what He did on the 8th day, 9th day, 10th day, etc. etc.  Very confusing.  Pray He did not simply work six days and then retire.  But it seems He peaked early, to say the least.


----------



## LittleNipper

CrackedSkull said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the bible is the only evidence they have (and it's not evidence) of a creator god...everything they claim to be fact, is in fact based on faith and  willful ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And these are? Bible was not written by any god it was written by men claiming a god told them to write it.....it actually amounts to no more than hearsay. The problem with this god theory is that no one can prove a god exists and no one can prove a god don't exist. Belief does not equal historical fact.
Click to expand...


So why does Bible prophecy come true? Why are the Jews sill around? If there is no God, what is the point of life? How come those who pray to God for help seem to find it, while those who do not believe in God have no problems?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the bible is the only evidence they have (and it's not evidence) of a creator god...everything they claim to be fact, is in fact based on faith and  willful ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Dinsaurs are in there!!!  Was it John, who said unto Jesus, "Oh Lord; for that art one big mutherfucking lizard!!"?  Or was that one of the other apostles?  I keep forgetting.
> 
> And boy oh boy, that Noah dude damn near got zapped with lightning, when he queried unto God, "Hey big guy; you do know that a single breeding pair is the fucking definition of extinction; yeah God?"
Click to expand...


You are correct dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. It was called a behemoth who lives in the marshland with a tail like a cedar. That is not describling a hippo or an elephant or any other creature alive today. So tell what was if not a dinosaur and remember the only dinosaur fossil was found long after the writing about this creature.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CrackedSkull said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the bible is the only evidence they have (and it's not evidence) of a creator god...everything they claim to be fact, is in fact based on faith and  willful ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And these are? Bible was not written by any god it was written by men claiming a god told them to write it.....it actually amounts to no more than hearsay. The problem with this god theory is that no one can prove a god exists and no one can prove a god don't exist. Belief does not equal historical fact.
Click to expand...


Do you not understand what foreknowledge is ? Those are writings before they were known to science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to "think" I do! when in fact I do!
> 
> doctors have trouble deciding if the appendix has any use to the body at all. While everyone agrees that the appendix can be removed without causing any adverse health consequences to the patient, some physicians and researchers believe that the appendix does serve a function as part of the immune system.
> 
> again some and believe are the operative words.   ass hat!
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you ignore those operative words when they are used for an explanation of your theory. There is no doubt the organ can be removed but it still serves a purpose while in the body. Stay away from them atheiat sitws th we y we kill what little brain you have lwft after doing all those drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually they're  not the operative words in science are evidence and test .slapdick!
Click to expand...


Wrong again dipshit.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the bible is the only evidence they have (and it's not evidence) of a creator god...everything they claim to be fact, is in fact based on faith and  willful ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> daydream believer and a home coming queen!
Click to expand...


More denial.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the bible is the only evidence they have (and it's not evidence) of a creator god...everything they claim to be fact, is in fact based on faith and  willful ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the world being made in 6 days is scientific fact? Noah being 600 years old is scientific fact?...
Click to expand...


I am not sure if creation was mans days or Gods days, Some suggest both.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Dinsaurs are in there!!!  Was it John, who said unto Jesus, "Oh Lord; for that art one big mutherfucking lizard!!"?  Or was that one of the other apostles?  I keep forgetting.
> 
> And boy oh boy, that Noah dude damn near got zapped with lightning, when he queried unto God, "Hey big guy; you do know that a single breeding pair is the fucking definition of extinction; yeah God?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. It was called a behemoth who lives in the marshland with a tail like a cedar. That is not describling a hippo or an elephant or any other creature alive today. So tell what was if not a dinosaur and remember the only dinosaur fossil was found long after the writing about this creature.
Click to expand...


Thank you, and godbless you for clearing that up.  So it's not an apostle that saw giant lizards?  It was earlier biblical humans who walked the earth with dinosaurs?

Makes perfect sense!  Thanks again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Dinsaurs are in there!!!  Was it John, who said unto Jesus, "Oh Lord; for that art one big mutherfucking lizard!!"?  Or was that one of the other apostles?  I keep forgetting.
> 
> And boy oh boy, that Noah dude damn near got zapped with lightning, when he queried unto God, "Hey big guy; you do know that a single breeding pair is the fucking definition of extinction; yeah God?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. It was called a behemoth who lives in the marshland with a tail like a cedar. That is not describling a hippo or an elephant or any other creature alive today. So tell what was if not a dinosaur and remember the only dinosaur fossil was found long after the writing about this creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you, and godbless you for clearing that up.  So it's not an apostle that saw giant lizards?  It was earlier biblical humans who walked the earth with dinosaurs?
> 
> Makes perfect sense!  Thanks again.
Click to expand...

so these men that wrote the bible saw the creature or they did not see the creature but were inspired to write about the creature.. Either way your sarcasm fails.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. It was called a behemoth who lives in the marshland with a tail like a cedar. That is not describling a hippo or an elephant or any other creature alive today. So tell what was if not a dinosaur and remember the only dinosaur fossil was found long after the writing about this creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, and godbless you for clearing that up.  So it's not an apostle that saw giant lizards?  It was earlier biblical humans who walked the earth with dinosaurs?
> 
> Makes perfect sense!  Thanks again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so these men that wrote the bible saw the creature or they did not see the creature but were inspired to write about the creature.. Either way your sarcasm fails.
Click to expand...


The mythical beast mentioned in Job was indeed, a myth.  Little debate on that.

Sorry.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And these are? Bible was not written by any god it was written by men claiming a god told them to write it.....it actually amounts to no more than hearsay. The problem with this god theory is that no one can prove a god exists and no one can prove a god don't exist. Belief does not equal historical fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not understand what foreknowledge is ? Those are writings before they were known to science.
Click to expand...


The logical errors, mis-statements of facts and gross scientific errors in the bibles hardly qualifies as foreknowledge.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Dinsaurs are in there!!!  Was it John, who said unto Jesus, "Oh Lord; for that art one big mutherfucking lizard!!"?  Or was that one of the other apostles?  I keep forgetting.
> 
> And boy oh boy, that Noah dude damn near got zapped with lightning, when he queried unto God, "Hey big guy; you do know that a single breeding pair is the fucking definition of extinction; yeah God?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. It was called a behemoth who lives in the marshland with a tail like a cedar. That is not describling a hippo or an elephant or any other creature alive today. So tell what was if not a dinosaur and remember the only dinosaur fossil was found long after the writing about this creature.
Click to expand...

This is another of your additions / re-writing of the bibles. Dinosaurs is plural. You have nothing to support your claim that a "behemoth" was not a hippo or an elephant. For that matter, the tall tale of a behemoth is likely just more of the tales and fables that make up the bibles.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the world being made in 6 days is scientific fact? Noah being 600 years old is scientific fact?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure if creation was mans days or Gods days, Some suggest both.
Click to expand...


So is a god day like a dog year? 

But what facts do you have that in happened in 6 days? Anything at all? And Noah being 600, anything?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Dinsaurs are in there!!!  Was it John, who said unto Jesus, "Oh Lord; for that art one big mutherfucking lizard!!"?  Or was that one of the other apostles?  I keep forgetting.
> 
> And boy oh boy, that Noah dude damn near got zapped with lightning, when he queried unto God, "Hey big guy; you do know that a single breeding pair is the fucking definition of extinction; yeah God?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah and Jews in the Old Testament actually used Honda's to plow and to escape prison.
> 
> Jeremiah 5: (NIV)
> 
> 5 ...But with one accord they too had broken off the yoke
> and torn off the bonds.
Click to expand...

another irrelevant quote!
once again proving that you slapdicks can't read!
translation: one accord = together.
also it's not a literal statement it's figurative :  of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, especially a metaphor; metaphorical and not literal: The word head has several figurative senses, as in She's the head of the company.  Synonyms: metaphorical, not literal, symbolic.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And these are? Bible was not written by any god it was written by men claiming a god told them to write it.....it actually amounts to no more than hearsay. The problem with this god theory is that no one can prove a god exists and no one can prove a god don't exist. Belief does not equal historical fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why does Bible prophecy come true? Why are the Jews sill around? If there is no God, what is the point of life? How come those who pray to God for help seem to find it, while those who do not believe in God have no problems?
Click to expand...

there is no evidence that any biblical prophecies have ever come true.
there is no proof that god has ever helped anyone, only the belief that god helped.
your post is a jumble of ignorance and magical thinking.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you ignore those operative words when they are used for an explanation of your theory. There is no doubt the organ can be removed but it still serves a purpose while in the body. Stay away from them atheiat sitws th we y we kill what little brain you have lwft after doing all those drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> actually they're  not the operative words in science are evidence and test .slapdick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again dipshit.
Click to expand...

ok, show me any test results from creation science experiments that have been peer reviewed by independent (non creationist )labs that prove god alleged word is actual scientific fact.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gods word contains scientific facts before it was a scientific fact confirmed by men of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Dinsaurs are in there!!!  Was it John, who said unto Jesus, "Oh Lord; for that art one big mutherfucking lizard!!"?  Or was that one of the other apostles?  I keep forgetting.
> 
> And boy oh boy, that Noah dude damn near got zapped with lightning, when he queried unto God, "Hey big guy; you do know that a single breeding pair is the fucking definition of extinction; yeah God?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. It was called a behemoth who lives in the marshland with a tail like a cedar. That is not describling a hippo or an elephant or any other creature alive today. So tell what was if not a dinosaur and remember the only dinosaur fossil was found long after the writing about this creature.
Click to expand...

bullshit !
dinosaur fossils were being found in biblical times! AND MISINTERPERTED . 

The term dinosaur was first coined by Sir Richard Owen back in 1841/1842. The name, literally translated, means "Terrible Lizard." This probably seems like redundant information right now, but it does get better. 
Due to the name "terrible lizards" and the fact that they were looked at as huge reptiles, dinosaurs were seen as these huge, lumbering, slow and sluggish beasts. The fact that they no longer existed stood as proof that their "cold-blooded" and inferior bodies couldn't adapt and therefore were evolutionary throwbacks. Loose ends that made good examples of what not to be. 
 Well actually there is more to this. Owen, Huxley and other early dinosaur workers originally saw them as being highly active animals, equivalent to today's birds and mammals, yet they didn't consider them to be warm-blooded. More on this intriguing view of dinosaurs later; for now though, back to the story. 
It got lost in the translation.
 When Sir Richard orginally named them, he was already convinced from the scant remains that these were no ordinary lizards. Work done by Thomas Henry Huxley and others seemed to confirm that dinosaurs were very different from the typical lizard. Yet lizard was the poster child for reptiles, so since he was convinced that they were reptilian he went ahead and used a Greek name for reptile which was sauros; meaning lizard (the real Greek name is herpeton, but I guess he didn't like the ring of deinoherps and so didn't use it.). So what Sir Richard meant was not "terrible lizards" but "terrible reptiles." 
The Reptipage: Dinosaurs










LEVIATHAN AND BEHEMOTH:

Names of gigantic beasts or monsters described in Job xl. The former is from a root denoting "coil," "twist"; the latter is the plural form of "behemah"="beast."
Biblical Data:
Ever since Bochart ("Hierozoicon," iii. 705), "behemoth" has been taken to denote the hippopotamus; and Jablonski, to make it correspond exactly with that animal, compared an Egyptian form, "p-ehe-mu" (= "water-ox"), which, however, does not exist. The Biblical description contains mythical elements, and the conclusion is justified that these monsters were not real, though the hippopotamus may have furnished in the main the data for the description. Only of a unique being, and not of a common hippopotamus, could the words of Job xl. 19 have been used: "He is the first [A. V. "chief"] of the ways of God [comp. Prov. viii. 22]; he that made him maketh sport with him" (as the Septuagint reads, &#960;&#949;&#960;&#959;&#953;&#951;&#956;&#941;&#957;&#959;&#957; &#7952;&#947;&#954;&#945;&#964;&#945;&#960;&#945;&#953;&#950;&#941;&#963;&#920;&#945;&#953;; A. V. "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him"; comp. Ps. civ. 26); or "The mountains bring him forth food; where all the beasts of the field do play" (Job xl. 20). Obviously behemoth is represented as the primeval beast, the king of all the animals of the dry land, while leviathan is the king of all those of the water, both alike unconquerable by man (ib. xl. 14, xli. 17-26). Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos," p. 62) suggests that behemoth and leviathan were the two primeval monsters corresponding to Tiamat (= "the abyss"; comp. Hebr. "tehom") and Kingu (= Aramaic "'akna" = serpent") of Babylonian mythology. Some commentators find also in Isa. xxx. 6 ("bahamot negeb" = "beasts of the south") a reference to the hippopotamus; others again, in Ps. lxxiii. 22 ("I am as behemoth [="beasts"; A. V. "a beast"] before thee"); but neither interpretation has a substantial foundation. It is likely that the leviathan and the behemoth were originally referred to in Hab. ii. 15: "the destruction of the behemoth [A. V. "beasts"] shall make them afraid" (comp

 AS ALWAYS YWC LIKE ALL WILFULLY IGNORANT SLAPDICKS INTENTIONALLY OR BY SHEER STUPIDTY MISINTERPRET SCRIPTURES.


----------



## LittleNipper

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, and godbless you for clearing that up.  So it's not an apostle that saw giant lizards?  It was earlier biblical humans who walked the earth with dinosaurs?
> 
> Makes perfect sense!  Thanks again.
> 
> 
> 
> so these men that wrote the bible saw the creature or they did not see the creature but were inspired to write about the creature.. Either way your sarcasm fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mythical beast mentioned in Job was indeed, a myth.  Little debate on that.
> 
> Sorry.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but the discription doesn't sound like a myth. Have you read the book of Job?


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why does Bible prophecy come true? Why are the Jews sill around? If there is no God, what is the point of life? How come those who pray to God for help seem to find it, while those who do not believe in God have no problems?
> 
> 
> 
> there is no evidence that any biblical prophecies have ever come true.
> there is no proof that god has ever helped anyone, only the belief that god helped.
> your post is a jumble of ignorance and magical thinking.
Click to expand...


10 prophecies predicted in the Bible & fulfilled in history
God throughout the Bible spoke through his prophets to prove He was the only god.  He always foretold the future through them to verify who He was, to prove to the people that those who spoke were true prophets, and to draw mankind to worship Him only.  The 100% accuracy of the hundreds (possibly thousands) of prophecies in the Bible that came true are proof Yahweh is the God of truth.  Not even Nostradamus can match this record!   Here are ten of those prophecies and the years they were fulfilled:

1.Predicted ca. 855 BC: The prophet Elijah predicts Jezebel would be eaten by dogs upon her death in Jezreel. (1 Kings 21:23)&#8211; Fulfilled ca. 841 BC: Jezebel is killed in Jezreel and dogs eat her body (2 Kings 9:36).
2.Predicted ca. 760 BC: Amos predicts Israel would be restored as a nation and would never be uprooted again (Amos 9:15)&#8211;Fulfilled in 1948.
3.Predicted ca 732 BC: Isaiah predicts the Medo-Persian empire will conquer Babylon [Isaiah 13:17-18] and Babylon would become a wasteland.&#8211;Fulfilled in 538 BC when the Medes took over Babylon  and 275 BC when the Seleucids forced all of the inhabitants to leave.
4.Predicted ca. 732 BC: Isaiah says Egypt and Ethiopia would be conquered by Assyria (Isaiah 20:3-5).&#8211;Fulfilled ca. 673-670 BC when Assyria conquers the northeast African nations.
5.Predicted ca. 701 BC:  Isaiah claims Israel will be taken captive by the Babylonian empire (Isaiah 39).&#8211;Fulfilled ca. 597 & 586 BC: Babylon takes captives and sacks Jerusalem the first time then totally destroys Jerusalem about 10 years later.
6.Predicted ca. 589 BC:  Ezekiel tells about the fall of the great city Tyre, claiming that the Lord &#8220;will cause many nations to come up against thee,&#8221; (Ezekiel 26, 27).&#8211;Fulfilled in 586-573 BC: Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon lays siege against the city. Fulfilled in 370s BC: a king of Cyprus conquers the city.  Fulfilled in 332 BC: Alexander the Great conquers the city.  Fulfilled in 315-316 BC: Antigonus, who served under Alexander, attacks and conquers the city.  Fulfilled in 1124: The city falls to the Crusaders. Fulfilled in 1291: The city falls to the Muslim armies of the Mameluks.
7.Predicted ca. 543 BC: Daniel tells of a great Grecian king who would conquer the Persian empire but would have his kingdom divided four ways after his death (Daniel 8).&#8211;Fulfilled in 330 BC when Alexander the Great defeats Persia and 281 BC after the Greek generals who succeed Alexander reach an agreement after years of war to split the kingdom four ways.
8.Predicted ca. 536 BC:  Daniel prophesies that the Greek empire would not go to Alexander the Great&#8217;s heirs (Daniel 11).&#8211;Fulfilled ca. 323-281 BC after Alexander&#8217;s death when his generals fight over the kingdom while shutting out (and killing) his heirs.
9.Predicted ca. 430 BC: Malachi prophesies that Yahweh&#8217;s name would be honored by the Gentiles (pagans) (Malachi 1:11).&#8211;Fulfilled 1st century AD to the present:  Pagans worldwide have forsaken their paganism and have confessed that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
10.Predicted ca. 30 AD:  Jesus tells his disciples that they will be persecuted and hated by the majority of the people on the earth because they follow him (Matthew 24:9).&#8211;Fulfilled 1st century AD to the present:  Ever since the gospel of Jesus Christ has been preached, millions of true Christians worldwide have been mistreated or killed for the faith.

Please see: http://www.reasons.org/articles/art...ecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible


----------



## ima

Can you prove that the world was made in 6 days?


----------



## Koios

LittleNipper said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> so these men that wrote the bible saw the creature or they did not see the creature but were inspired to write about the creature.. Either way your sarcasm fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mythical beast mentioned in Job was indeed, a myth.  Little debate on that.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the discription doesn't sound like a myth. Have you read the book of Job?
Click to expand...


Take it up with biblical scholars, since it's widely agreed that the beast is indeed mythical, since many actions are attributed to it that would go far beyond coming across some bones, not to mention, nothing in the fosil record is anything like the MYTHICAL beast imagined, in old testiment scripture.

So I'd ask you the same thing: you ever read it?


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why does Bible prophecy come true? Why are the Jews sill around? If there is no God, what is the point of life? How come those who pray to God for help seem to find it, while those who do not believe in God have no problems?
> 
> 
> 
> there is no evidence that any biblical prophecies have ever come true.
> there is no proof that god has ever helped anyone, only the belief that god helped.
> your post is a jumble of ignorance and magical thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 10 prophecies predicted in the Bible & fulfilled in history
> God throughout the Bible spoke through his prophets to prove He was the only god.  He always foretold the future through them to verify who He was, to prove to the people that those who spoke were true prophets, and to draw mankind to worship Him only.  The 100% accuracy of the hundreds (possibly thousands) of prophecies in the Bible that came true are proof Yahweh is the God of truth.  Not even Nostradamus can match this record!   Here are ten of those prophecies and the years they were fulfilled:
> 
> 1.Predicted ca. 855 BC: The prophet Elijah predicts Jezebel would be eaten by dogs upon her death in Jezreel. (1 Kings 21:23) Fulfilled ca. 841 BC: Jezebel is killed in Jezreel and dogs eat her body (2 Kings 9:36).
> 2.Predicted ca. 760 BC: Amos predicts Israel would be restored as a nation and would never be uprooted again (Amos 9:15)Fulfilled in 1948.
> 3.Predicted ca 732 BC: Isaiah predicts the Medo-Persian empire will conquer Babylon [Isaiah 13:17-18] and Babylon would become a wasteland.Fulfilled in 538 BC when the Medes took over Babylon  and 275 BC when the Seleucids forced all of the inhabitants to leave.
> 4.Predicted ca. 732 BC: Isaiah says Egypt and Ethiopia would be conquered by Assyria (Isaiah 20:3-5).Fulfilled ca. 673-670 BC when Assyria conquers the northeast African nations.
> 5.Predicted ca. 701 BC:  Isaiah claims Israel will be taken captive by the Babylonian empire (Isaiah 39).Fulfilled ca. 597 & 586 BC: Babylon takes captives and sacks Jerusalem the first time then totally destroys Jerusalem about 10 years later.
> 6.Predicted ca. 589 BC:  Ezekiel tells about the fall of the great city Tyre, claiming that the Lord will cause many nations to come up against thee, (Ezekiel 26, 27).Fulfilled in 586-573 BC: Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon lays siege against the city. Fulfilled in 370s BC: a king of Cyprus conquers the city.  Fulfilled in 332 BC: Alexander the Great conquers the city.  Fulfilled in 315-316 BC: Antigonus, who served under Alexander, attacks and conquers the city.  Fulfilled in 1124: The city falls to the Crusaders. Fulfilled in 1291: The city falls to the Muslim armies of the Mameluks.
> 7.Predicted ca. 543 BC: Daniel tells of a great Grecian king who would conquer the Persian empire but would have his kingdom divided four ways after his death (Daniel 8).Fulfilled in 330 BC when Alexander the Great defeats Persia and 281 BC after the Greek generals who succeed Alexander reach an agreement after years of war to split the kingdom four ways.
> 8.Predicted ca. 536 BC:  Daniel prophesies that the Greek empire would not go to Alexander the Greats heirs (Daniel 11).Fulfilled ca. 323-281 BC after Alexanders death when his generals fight over the kingdom while shutting out (and killing) his heirs.
> 9.Predicted ca. 430 BC: Malachi prophesies that Yahwehs name would be honored by the Gentiles (pagans) (Malachi 1:11).Fulfilled 1st century AD to the present:  Pagans worldwide have forsaken their paganism and have confessed that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
> 10.Predicted ca. 30 AD:  Jesus tells his disciples that they will be persecuted and hated by the majority of the people on the earth because they follow him (Matthew 24:9).Fulfilled 1st century AD to the present:  Ever since the gospel of Jesus Christ has been preached, millions of true Christians worldwide have been mistreated or killed for the faith.
> 
> Please see: Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Click to expand...

 you've just proven my point!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Dinsaurs are in there!!!  Was it John, who said unto Jesus, "Oh Lord; for that art one big mutherfucking lizard!!"?  Or was that one of the other apostles?  I keep forgetting.
> 
> And boy oh boy, that Noah dude damn near got zapped with lightning, when he queried unto God, "Hey big guy; you do know that a single breeding pair is the fucking definition of extinction; yeah God?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and Jews in the Old Testament actually used Honda's to plow and to escape prison.
> 
> Jeremiah 5: (NIV)
> 
> 5 ...But with one accord they too had broken off the yoke
> and torn off the bonds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another irrelevant quote!
> once again proving that you slapdicks can't read!
> translation: one accord = together.
> also it's not a literal statement it's figurative :  of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, especially a metaphor; metaphorical and not literal: The word head has several figurative senses, as in She's the head of the company.  Synonyms: metaphorical, not literal, symbolic.
Click to expand...


This is a prime example of your limited understanding. I will infer from you Captain Obvious attempt to splain to me what accord means that the joke went right over your cantankerous crotchety head.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Dinsaurs are in there!!!  Was it John, who said unto Jesus, "Oh Lord; for that art one big mutherfucking lizard!!"?  Or was that one of the other apostles?  I keep forgetting.
> 
> And boy oh boy, that Noah dude damn near got zapped with lightning, when he queried unto God, "Hey big guy; you do know that a single breeding pair is the fucking definition of extinction; yeah God?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. It was called a behemoth who lives in the marshland with a tail like a cedar. That is not describling a hippo or an elephant or any other creature alive today. So tell what was if not a dinosaur and remember the only dinosaur fossil was found long after the writing about this creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is another of your additions / re-writing of the bibles. Dinosaurs is plural. You have nothing to support your claim that a "behemoth" was not a hippo or an elephant. For that matter, the tall tale of a behemoth is likely just more of the tales and fables that make up the bibles.
Click to expand...

the key you missed was this creature had a tail like a cedar now go look at the tail of an elephant and or hippo then come and give me some ideas on this beast written about in the scriptures.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the world being made in 6 days is scientific fact? Noah being 600 years old is scientific fact?...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure if creation was mans days or Gods days, Some suggest both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is a god day like a dog year?
> 
> But what facts do you have that in happened in 6 days? Anything at all? And Noah being 600, anything?
Click to expand...


The scriptures say a 1,000 years is a day to God.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually they're  not the operative words in science are evidence and test .slapdick!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again dipshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok, show me any test results from creation science experiments that have been peer reviewed by independent (non creationist )labs that prove god alleged word is actual scientific fact.
Click to expand...


Do you need to see the references from the bible that science has confirmed again ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Dinsaurs are in there!!!  Was it John, who said unto Jesus, "Oh Lord; for that art one big mutherfucking lizard!!"?  Or was that one of the other apostles?  I keep forgetting.
> 
> And boy oh boy, that Noah dude damn near got zapped with lightning, when he queried unto God, "Hey big guy; you do know that a single breeding pair is the fucking definition of extinction; yeah God?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. It was called a behemoth who lives in the marshland with a tail like a cedar. That is not describling a hippo or an elephant or any other creature alive today. So tell what was if not a dinosaur and remember the only dinosaur fossil was found long after the writing about this creature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit !
> dinosaur fossils were being found in biblical times! AND MISINTERPERTED .
> 
> The term dinosaur was first coined by Sir Richard Owen back in 1841/1842. The name, literally translated, means "Terrible Lizard." This probably seems like redundant information right now, but it does get better.
> Due to the name "terrible lizards" and the fact that they were looked at as huge reptiles, dinosaurs were seen as these huge, lumbering, slow and sluggish beasts. The fact that they no longer existed stood as proof that their "cold-blooded" and inferior bodies couldn't adapt and therefore were evolutionary throwbacks. Loose ends that made good examples of what not to be.
> Well actually there is more to this. Owen, Huxley and other early dinosaur workers originally saw them as being highly active animals, equivalent to today's birds and mammals, yet they didn't consider them to be warm-blooded. More on this intriguing view of dinosaurs later; for now though, back to the story.
> It got lost in the translation.
> When Sir Richard orginally named them, he was already convinced from the scant remains that these were no ordinary lizards. Work done by Thomas Henry Huxley and others seemed to confirm that dinosaurs were very different from the typical lizard. Yet lizard was the poster child for reptiles, so since he was convinced that they were reptilian he went ahead and used a Greek name for reptile which was sauros; meaning lizard (the real Greek name is herpeton, but I guess he didn't like the ring of deinoherps and so didn't use it.). So what Sir Richard meant was not "terrible lizards" but "terrible reptiles."
> The Reptipage: Dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LEVIATHAN AND BEHEMOTH:
> 
> Names of gigantic beasts or monsters described in Job xl. The former is from a root denoting "coil," "twist"; the latter is the plural form of "behemah"="beast."
> Biblical Data:
> Ever since Bochart ("Hierozoicon," iii. 705), "behemoth" has been taken to denote the hippopotamus; and Jablonski, to make it correspond exactly with that animal, compared an Egyptian form, "p-ehe-mu" (= "water-ox"), which, however, does not exist. The Biblical description contains mythical elements, and the conclusion is justified that these monsters were not real, though the hippopotamus may have furnished in the main the data for the description. Only of a unique being, and not of a common hippopotamus, could the words of Job xl. 19 have been used: "He is the first [A. V. "chief"] of the ways of God [comp. Prov. viii. 22]; he that made him maketh sport with him" (as the Septuagint reads, &#960;&#949;&#960;&#959;&#953;&#951;&#956;&#941;&#957;&#959;&#957; &#7952;&#947;&#954;&#945;&#964;&#945;&#960;&#945;&#953;&#950;&#941;&#963;&#920;&#945;&#953;; A. V. "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him"; comp. Ps. civ. 26); or "The mountains bring him forth food; where all the beasts of the field do play" (Job xl. 20). Obviously behemoth is represented as the primeval beast, the king of all the animals of the dry land, while leviathan is the king of all those of the water, both alike unconquerable by man (ib. xl. 14, xli. 17-26). Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos," p. 62) suggests that behemoth and leviathan were the two primeval monsters corresponding to Tiamat (= "the abyss"; comp. Hebr. "tehom") and Kingu (= Aramaic "'akna" = serpent") of Babylonian mythology. Some commentators find also in Isa. xxx. 6 ("bahamot negeb" = "beasts of the south") a reference to the hippopotamus; others again, in Ps. lxxiii. 22 ("I am as behemoth [="beasts"; A. V. "a beast"] before thee"); but neither interpretation has a substantial foundation. It is likely that the leviathan and the behemoth were originally referred to in Hab. ii. 15: "the destruction of the behemoth [A. V. "beasts"] shall make them afraid" (comp
> 
> AS ALWAYS YWC LIKE ALL WILFULLY IGNORANT SLAPDICKS INTENTIONALLY OR BY SHEER STUPIDTY MISINTERPRET SCRIPTURES.
Click to expand...

 when was the first dinosaur fossil first found ?  Long after the creature behemoth was written about in the bible.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again dipshit.
> 
> 
> 
> ok, show me any test results from creation science experiments that have been peer reviewed by independent (non creationist )labs that prove god alleged word is actual scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you need to see the references from the bible that science has confirmed again ?
Click to expand...


Do you mean the same silly list you have cut and pasted multiple times before... the silly list which had been refuted times? That list?


----------



## UltimateReality

_"the following is an argument I think will help us to focus on a fundamental issue that lies behind ever so many of the debates here at Uncommon Descent, and elsewhere.  That is, is the sort of implicit or even explicit atheism that is so often built in on the ground floor of a &#8220;scientific&#8221; mindset truly rationally justifiable? Such cannot be assumed, it needs to be shown.

I&#8217;ll begin by defining some terms for the sake of this argument:

Definition of God (for the purpose of this thread): First cause, prime mover, root of being, objective source of human purpose (final cause) and resulting morality, source of free will, mind, consciousness; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent inasmuch as principles of logic allow; an interventionist as necessary to facilitate movement towards final cause and also inasmuch as logical principles are not violated; source of logic &#8212; &#8220;reason itself.&#8221; (I am not talking in particular about any specifically defined religious interpretation of god, such as the Chrstian or Islamic God.)

Definition: Weak, or negative atheism is the lack of any belief that a god exists, and the position that a god probably doesn&#8217;t exist, and is not the positive belief that gods do not exist (strong atheism), and is not agnosticism (the lack of belief that god either does or does not exist and the further view that there is a lack of sufficient probability either way).  Strong atheism is the belief that no god or gods exist at all.

Definition: A worldview or mindset is rationally justified when it answers adequately to the facts of the real world as we experience or observe it, makes good sense and fits together logically, is simple but not simplistic, and honestly faces the issues and difficulties that all worldviews face.

Definition: Intellectual dishonesty occurs when (1) one deliberately mischaracterizes their position or view in order to avoid having to logically defend their actual views; and/or (2) when someone is arguing, or making statements against a position while remaining willfully ignorant about that position, and/or (3) when someone categorically and/or pejoratively dismisses all existent and/or potential evidence in favor of a conclusion they claim to be neutral about, whether they are familiar with that evidence or not.

These will be important as we consider:

Evidence in favor of God:  The following is a brief summary of the evidence that typically leads many people to make a general finding that a god (as described above) exists, even if variantly interpreted or culturally contextualized:

(1) Anecdotal evidence for the apparently intelligently ordered anomalous, miraculous (defying expected natural processes and probabilities) events attributed to god, such as signs, supernatural events (e.g. Fatima, Guadeloupe, Paul&#8217;s Damascus Road Experience), or answers to prayers to god;

(2) Testimonial evidence (first-hand accounts) of experience of such phenomena, including interactions with a god-like being or accounts of god-like interventions;  Also, the testimony of religious adherents of various specific gods can be counted as evidence of the god premised in this argument in the manner that various cultures can vary widely in their description of certain phenomena or experiences, and come up with widely variant &#8220;explanations&#8221;; what is interesting as evidence here, though, is the widespread crediting of similar kinds of phenomena and experience to a &#8220;god&#8221; of some sort (which might be the case of blind or ignorant people touching different parts of an elephant and thus describing &#8220;what the elephant is&#8221; in various ways). Such testimonial evidence can be counted in favor of the premise here, but cannot be held against it where it varies, because it is not testimony that such a god doesn&#8217;t exist.

(3) The various Cosmological and Ontological Arguments for the existence of god;

(4)  The Strong Anthropic (or Fine Tuning) argument and other evidences for design of our world and of life in it;

(5) The empirical, scientific evidence assembled in support of the design arguments in #4 (such as recently persuaded Antony Flew &#8212; formerly the world&#8217;s leading philosophical atheist &#8212; that there is a god);

(6) The Moral arguments for the existence of god.

(7) Empirical and testimonial evidence of phenomena closely correlated to the existence of a god as described above, such as the survival of consciousness after death, and the existence of an afterlife realm; the evidence for interactions with correlated entities such as angels and demons (which seem to act to influence our free will towards or away from our human purpose), etc., gathered by various serious and scientific investigations into what is often referred to as the &#8220;paranormal&#8221;, including mediumship studies dating back to William Crooke and ongoing through the work at Pear Labs and the Scole Experiment, including consciousness-survival research published in the Lancet. While indirect, this evidence tends to support the proposition that god exists.

While the various arguments listed above have been subjected to counter-arguments and rebuttals of varying strengths and weaknesses across the ages, one must not lose sight that while there is much evidence of all sorts (as listed above) in favor of the existence of god; there is zero empirical evidence (to my knowledge) or and little in the way of rational argument that no such god exists.  In other words, decreasing the value of the arguments and evidence for god does not increase the value of the position that there is no god; it can only increase the reasonableness of the &#8220;weak atheist&#8221; (there isn&#8217;t enough evidence) or an agnostic position.

The commonly seen rebuttals to these argument are simply attempting to show weaknesses in or alternatives to the arguments themselves so that such arguments cannot be taken as demonstratively convincing (that god exists); such counter-arguments as a rule do not actually make the case that god (as described above) in fact does not exist._

[See full article for additional content removed for brevity]

_*Conclusion*: atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person. The belief that god (as described above, which is supported by the listed evidence) does not exist, or that it isn&#8217;t more likely that god exists than not, can only be a position based on ignorance of the available evidence and argument for god, or a hyper-skeptical, intellectually dishonest, ideologically biased, a priori dismissal of all of the evidence for the existence of god."_

http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/is-atheism-rationally-justifiable/


----------



## Hollie

Curious that the hyper-religious cut and paste tedious nonsense from fundie Christian websites denigrating non-belief in myth and legend.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. It was called a behemoth who lives in the marshland with a tail like a cedar. That is not describling a hippo or an elephant or any other creature alive today. So tell what was if not a dinosaur and remember the only dinosaur fossil was found long after the writing about this creature.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit !
> dinosaur fossils were being found in biblical times! AND MISINTERPERTED .
> 
> The term dinosaur was first coined by Sir Richard Owen back in 1841/1842. The name, literally translated, means "Terrible Lizard." This probably seems like redundant information right now, but it does get better.
> Due to the name "terrible lizards" and the fact that they were looked at as huge reptiles, dinosaurs were seen as these huge, lumbering, slow and sluggish beasts. The fact that they no longer existed stood as proof that their "cold-blooded" and inferior bodies couldn't adapt and therefore were evolutionary throwbacks. Loose ends that made good examples of what not to be.
> Well actually there is more to this. Owen, Huxley and other early dinosaur workers originally saw them as being highly active animals, equivalent to today's birds and mammals, yet they didn't consider them to be warm-blooded. More on this intriguing view of dinosaurs later; for now though, back to the story.
> It got lost in the translation.
> When Sir Richard orginally named them, he was already convinced from the scant remains that these were no ordinary lizards. Work done by Thomas Henry Huxley and others seemed to confirm that dinosaurs were very different from the typical lizard. Yet lizard was the poster child for reptiles, so since he was convinced that they were reptilian he went ahead and used a Greek name for reptile which was sauros; meaning lizard (the real Greek name is herpeton, but I guess he didn't like the ring of deinoherps and so didn't use it.). So what Sir Richard meant was not "terrible lizards" but "terrible reptiles."
> The Reptipage: Dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LEVIATHAN AND BEHEMOTH:
> 
> Names of gigantic beasts or monsters described in Job xl. The former is from a root denoting "coil," "twist"; the latter is the plural form of "behemah"="beast."
> Biblical Data:
> Ever since Bochart ("Hierozoicon," iii. 705), "behemoth" has been taken to denote the hippopotamus; and Jablonski, to make it correspond exactly with that animal, compared an Egyptian form, "p-ehe-mu" (= "water-ox"), which, however, does not exist. The Biblical description contains mythical elements, and the conclusion is justified that these monsters were not real, though the hippopotamus may have furnished in the main the data for the description. Only of a unique being, and not of a common hippopotamus, could the words of Job xl. 19 have been used: "He is the first [A. V. "chief"] of the ways of God [comp. Prov. viii. 22]; he that made him maketh sport with him" (as the Septuagint reads, &#960;&#949;&#960;&#959;&#953;&#951;&#956;&#941;&#957;&#959;&#957; &#7952;&#947;&#954;&#945;&#964;&#945;&#960;&#945;&#953;&#950;&#941;&#963;&#920;&#945;&#953;; A. V. "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him"; comp. Ps. civ. 26); or "The mountains bring him forth food; where all the beasts of the field do play" (Job xl. 20). Obviously behemoth is represented as the primeval beast, the king of all the animals of the dry land, while leviathan is the king of all those of the water, both alike unconquerable by man (ib. xl. 14, xli. 17-26). Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos," p. 62) suggests that behemoth and leviathan were the two primeval monsters corresponding to Tiamat (= "the abyss"; comp. Hebr. "tehom") and Kingu (= Aramaic "'akna" = serpent") of Babylonian mythology. Some commentators find also in Isa. xxx. 6 ("bahamot negeb" = "beasts of the south") a reference to the hippopotamus; others again, in Ps. lxxiii. 22 ("I am as behemoth [="beasts"; A. V. "a beast"] before thee"); but neither interpretation has a substantial foundation. It is likely that the leviathan and the behemoth were originally referred to in Hab. ii. 15: "the destruction of the behemoth [A. V. "beasts"] shall make them afraid" (comp
> 
> AS ALWAYS YWC LIKE ALL WILFULLY IGNORANT SLAPDICKS INTENTIONALLY OR BY SHEER STUPIDTY MISINTERPRET SCRIPTURES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when was the first dinosaur fossil first found ?  Long after the creature behemoth was written about in the bible.
Click to expand...


Fossil bones have been discovered long before biblical tales and fables.


----------



## CrackedSkull

UltimateReality said:


> _"the following is an argument I think will help us to focus on a fundamental issue that lies behind ever so many of the debates here at Uncommon Descent, and elsewhere.  That is, is the sort of implicit or even explicit atheism that is so often built in on the ground floor of a scientific mindset truly rationally justifiable? Such cannot be assumed, it needs to be shown.
> 
> Ill begin by defining some terms for the sake of this argument:
> 
> Definition of God (for the purpose of this thread): First cause, prime mover, root of being, objective source of human purpose (final cause) and resulting morality, source of free will, mind, consciousness; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent inasmuch as principles of logic allow; an interventionist as necessary to facilitate movement towards final cause and also inasmuch as logical principles are not violated; source of logic  reason itself. (I am not talking in particular about any specifically defined religious interpretation of god, such as the Chrstian or Islamic God.)
> 
> Definition: Weak, or negative atheism is the lack of any belief that a god exists, and the position that a god probably doesnt exist, and is not the positive belief that gods do not exist (strong atheism), and is not agnosticism (the lack of belief that god either does or does not exist and the further view that there is a lack of sufficient probability either way).  Strong atheism is the belief that no god or gods exist at all.
> 
> Definition: A worldview or mindset is rationally justified when it answers adequately to the facts of the real world as we experience or observe it, makes good sense and fits together logically, is simple but not simplistic, and honestly faces the issues and difficulties that all worldviews face.
> 
> Definition: Intellectual dishonesty occurs when (1) one deliberately mischaracterizes their position or view in order to avoid having to logically defend their actual views; and/or (2) when someone is arguing, or making statements against a position while remaining willfully ignorant about that position, and/or (3) when someone categorically and/or pejoratively dismisses all existent and/or potential evidence in favor of a conclusion they claim to be neutral about, whether they are familiar with that evidence or not.
> 
> These will be important as we consider:
> 
> Evidence in favor of God:  The following is a brief summary of the evidence that typically leads many people to make a general finding that a god (as described above) exists, even if variantly interpreted or culturally contextualized:
> 
> (1) Anecdotal evidence for the apparently intelligently ordered anomalous, miraculous (defying expected natural processes and probabilities) events attributed to god, such as signs, supernatural events (e.g. Fatima, Guadeloupe, Pauls Damascus Road Experience), or answers to prayers to god;
> 
> (2) Testimonial evidence (first-hand accounts) of experience of such phenomena, including interactions with a god-like being or accounts of god-like interventions;  Also, the testimony of religious adherents of various specific gods can be counted as evidence of the god premised in this argument in the manner that various cultures can vary widely in their description of certain phenomena or experiences, and come up with widely variant explanations; what is interesting as evidence here, though, is the widespread crediting of similar kinds of phenomena and experience to a god of some sort (which might be the case of blind or ignorant people touching different parts of an elephant and thus describing what the elephant is in various ways). Such testimonial evidence can be counted in favor of the premise here, but cannot be held against it where it varies, because it is not testimony that such a god doesnt exist.
> 
> (3) The various Cosmological and Ontological Arguments for the existence of god;
> 
> (4)  The Strong Anthropic (or Fine Tuning) argument and other evidences for design of our world and of life in it;
> 
> (5) The empirical, scientific evidence assembled in support of the design arguments in #4 (such as recently persuaded Antony Flew  formerly the worlds leading philosophical atheist  that there is a god);
> 
> (6) The Moral arguments for the existence of god.
> 
> (7) Empirical and testimonial evidence of phenomena closely correlated to the existence of a god as described above, such as the survival of consciousness after death, and the existence of an afterlife realm; the evidence for interactions with correlated entities such as angels and demons (which seem to act to influence our free will towards or away from our human purpose), etc., gathered by various serious and scientific investigations into what is often referred to as the paranormal, including mediumship studies dating back to William Crooke and ongoing through the work at Pear Labs and the Scole Experiment, including consciousness-survival research published in the Lancet. While indirect, this evidence tends to support the proposition that god exists.
> 
> While the various arguments listed above have been subjected to counter-arguments and rebuttals of varying strengths and weaknesses across the ages, one must not lose sight that while there is much evidence of all sorts (as listed above) in favor of the existence of god; there is zero empirical evidence (to my knowledge) or and little in the way of rational argument that no such god exists.  In other words, decreasing the value of the arguments and evidence for god does not increase the value of the position that there is no god; it can only increase the reasonableness of the weak atheist (there isnt enough evidence) or an agnostic position.
> 
> The commonly seen rebuttals to these argument are simply attempting to show weaknesses in or alternatives to the arguments themselves so that such arguments cannot be taken as demonstratively convincing (that god exists); such counter-arguments as a rule do not actually make the case that god (as described above) in fact does not exist._
> 
> [See full article for additional content removed for brevity]
> 
> _*Conclusion*: atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person. The belief that god (as described above, which is supported by the listed evidence) does not exist, or that it isnt more likely that god exists than not, can only be a position based on ignorance of the available evidence and argument for god, or a hyper-skeptical, intellectually dishonest, ideologically biased, a priori dismissal of all of the evidence for the existence of god."_
> 
> Is Atheism Rationally Justifiable? | Uncommon Descent



So your unable to define a god without the Bible. The Bible is not evidence of anything. Its fables and myth written by men who were  out in the sun to long.

And what first hand accounts do you have? What testimonial evidence do you have that can be proven by an eyewitness? Premises are not eyewitness accounts they are assumptions.



> _*Conclusion*: atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person. The belief that god (as described above, which is supported by the listed evidence) does not exist, or that it isnt more likely that god exists than not, can only be a position based on ignorance of the available evidence and argument for god, or a hyper-skeptical, intellectually dishonest, ideologically biased, a priori dismissal of all of the evidence for the existence of god."_





> atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person.



 If some one tells you that Unicorns are Pink sooner or later your going to believe it. God is belief + faith. Belief is fine, faith is one of the most dangerous things known to man...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Curious that the hyper-religious cut and paste tedious nonsense from fundie Christian websites denigrating non-belief in myth and legend.



Rhetoric,you are reduced to the mad ramblings of a lunatic.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure if creation was mans days or Gods days, Some suggest both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is a god day like a dog year?
> 
> But what facts do you have that in happened in 6 days? Anything at all? And Noah being 600, anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The scriptures say a 1,000 years is a day to God.
Click to expand...


So do you have any proof that the world and everything in it were made in 6000 years? Anything? What about Noah, got any proof he was 600? Anything at all?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curious that the hyper-religious cut and paste tedious nonsense from fundie Christian websites denigrating non-belief in myth and legend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rhetoric,you are reduced to the mad ramblings of a lunatic.
Click to expand...


Yours is the paranoia of the hyper-religious. My comment should have been simple enough even for you to understand. That tedious cut and paste was nothing more than promotion of blind, unquestioning faith in a collection of tales and fables derived from hearsay accounts of superstitious men. 

You can choose to promote hate, fear and superstition in furtherance of your religious belief but don't expect others to accept your paranoia as reasonable or rational.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit !
> dinosaur fossils were being found in biblical times! AND MISINTERPERTED .
> 
> The term dinosaur was first coined by Sir Richard Owen back in 1841/1842. The name, literally translated, means "Terrible Lizard." This probably seems like redundant information right now, but it does get better.
> Due to the name "terrible lizards" and the fact that they were looked at as huge reptiles, dinosaurs were seen as these huge, lumbering, slow and sluggish beasts. The fact that they no longer existed stood as proof that their "cold-blooded" and inferior bodies couldn't adapt and therefore were evolutionary throwbacks. Loose ends that made good examples of what not to be.
> Well actually there is more to this. Owen, Huxley and other early dinosaur workers originally saw them as being highly active animals, equivalent to today's birds and mammals, yet they didn't consider them to be warm-blooded. More on this intriguing vijew of dinosaurs later; for now though, back to the story.
> It got lost in the translation.
> When Sir Richard orginally named them, he was already convinced from the scant remains that these were no ordinary lizards. Work done by Thomas Henry Huxley and others seemed to confirm that dinosaurs were very different from the typical lizard. Yet lizard was the poster child for reptiles, so since he was convinced that they were reptilian he went ahead and used a Greek name for reptile which was sauros; meaning lizard (the real Greek name is herpeton, but I guess he didn't like the ring of deinoherps and so didn't use it.). So what Sir Richard meant was not "terrible lizards" but "terrible reptiles."
> The Reptipage: Dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LEVIATHAN AND BEHEMOTH:
> 
> Names of gigantic beasts or monsters described in Job xl. The former is from a root denoting "coil," "twist"; the latter is the plural form of "behemah"="beast."
> Biblical Data:
> Ever since Bochart ("Hierozoicon," iii. 705), "behemoth" has been taken to denote the hippopotamus; and Jablonski, to make it correspond exactly with that animal, compared an Egyptian form, "p-ehe-mu" (= "water-ox"), which, however, does not exist. The Biblical description contains mythical elements, and the conclusion is justified that these monsters were not real, though the hippopotamus may have furnished in the main the data for the description. Only of a unique being, and not of a common hippopotamus, could the words of Job xl. 19 have been used: "He is the first [A. V. "chief"] of the ways of God [comp. Prov. viii. 22]; he that made him maketh sport with him" (as the Septuagint reads, &#960;&#949;&#960;&#959;&#953;&#951;&#956;&#941;&#957;&#959;&#957; &#7952;&#947;&#954;&#945;&#964;&#945;&#960;&#945;&#953;&#950;&#941;&#963;&#920;&#945;&#953;; A. V. "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him"; comp. Ps. civ. 26); or "The mountains bring him forth food; where all the beasts of the field do play" (Job xl. 20). Obviously behemoth is represented as the primeval beast, the king of all the animals of the dry land, while leviathan is the king of all those of the water, both alike unconquerable by man (ib. xl. 14, xli. 17-26). Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos," p. 62) suggests that behemoth and leviathan were the two primeval monsters corresponding to Tiamat (= "the abyss"; comp. Hebr. "tehom") and Kingu (= Aramaic "'akna" = serpent") of Babylonian mythology. Some commentators find also in Isa. xxx. 6 ("bahamot negeb" = "beasts of the south") a reference to the hippopotamus; others again, in Ps. lxxiii. 22 ("I am as behemoth [="beasts"; A. V. "a beast"] before thee"); but neither interpretation has a substantial foundation. It is likely that the leviathan and the behemoth were originally referred to in Hab. ii. 15: "the destruction of the behemoth [A. V. "beasts"] shall make them afraid" (comp
> E
> AS ALWAYS YWC LIKE ALL WILFULLY IGNORANT SLAPDICKS INTENTIONALLY OR BY SHEER STUPIDTY MISINTERPRET SCRIPTURES.
> 
> 
> 
> when was the first dinosaur fossil first found ?  Long after the creature behemoth was written about in the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fossil bones have been discovered long before biblical tales and fables.
Click to expand...

 Now that is funny,I have been debating atheistic evolutionist and evutionist for many years now. The argument your side use to use was dragons were mythical creatures and the earliest known dinosaur fossil was discovered in the 1,600's. So they finally realized the historical evidence was overwhelming about the drawings of these creatures and what historians and famous people wrote about these creatures. Sp since your side could not explain away all the petroglyphs and historians you evolved your argument. Where you say fossils were found as early as Greek times. 

well of course they were found bell these creatures were seen of I've there is plenty of evidence of this. Your side evolved the argument to try and discredit what creationist say. Your side can no longer ignore the overwhelming evidence that they existed so your side moves the goalposts and accepts the views by saying dinosaur fossils were discovered hundreds of years ago maybe thousands of years ago they use the historical evidence by the Greeks. Funny but they continue to dodge the evidence of these creatures being seen alive by many different cultures. They use to say the term in the bible dragon and serpent was probably just a term for giant snakes or reptiles . You people are funny when cornered with the facts and have no choice you adjust your argument but only so you can try and discredit what creationists have been saying for many years.  So now how do you explain the drawing of creatures that man never saw but are confirmed by the fossil record ?  The atheists arguments keep getting reduced to nonsense. May I suggest you people read all the historical records and and drawings of these creatures that roamed the earth with man. Don't be a fool like the the atheist that has hardened his heart against God and allow it to block you from the truth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CrackedSkull said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"the following is an argument I think will help us to focus on a fundamental issue that lies behind ever so many of the debates here at Uncommon Descent, and elsewhere.  That is, is the sort of implicit or even explicit atheism that is so often built in on the ground floor of a scientific mindset truly rationally justifiable? Such cannot be assumed, it needs to be shown.
> 
> Ill begin by defining some terms for the sake of this argument:
> 
> Definition of God (for the purpose of this thread): First cause, prime mover, root of being, objective source of human purpose (final cause) and resulting morality, source of free will, mind, consciousness; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent inasmuch as principles of logic allow; an interventionist as necessary to facilitate movement towards final cause and also inasmuch as logical principles are not violated; source of logic  reason itself. (I am not talking in particular about any specifically defined religious interpretation of god, such as the Chrstian or Islamic God.)
> 
> Definition: Weak, or negative atheism is the lack of any belief that a god exists, and the position that a god probably doesnt exist, and is not the positive belief that gods do not exist (strong atheism), and is not agnosticism (the lack of belief that god either does or does not exist and the further view that there is a lack of sufficient probability either way).  Strong atheism is the belief that no god or gods exist at all.
> 
> Definition: A worldview or mindset is rationally justified when it answers adequately to the facts of the real world as we experience or observe it, makes good sense and fits together logically, is simple but not simplistic, and honestly faces the issues and difficulties that all worldviews face.
> 
> Definition: Intellectual dishonesty occurs when (1) one deliberately mischaracterizes their position or view in order to avoid having to logically defend their actual views; and/or (2) when someone is arguing, or making statements against a position while remaining willfully ignorant about that position, and/or (3) when someone categorically and/or pejoratively dismisses all existent and/or potential evidence in favor of a conclusion they claim to be neutral about, whether they are familiar with that evidence or not.
> 
> These will be important as we consider:
> 
> Evidence in favor of God:  The following is a brief summary of the evidence that typically leads many people to make a general finding that a god (as described above) exists, even if variantly interpreted or culturally contextualized:
> 
> (1) Anecdotal evidence for the apparently intelligently ordered anomalous, miraculous (defying expected natural processes and probabilities) events attributed to god, such as signs, supernatural events (e.g. Fatima, Guadeloupe, Pauls Damascus Road Experience), or answers to prayers to god;
> 
> (2) Testimonial evidence (first-hand accounts) of experience of such phenomena, including interactions with a god-like being or accounts of god-like interventions;  Also, the testimony of religious adherents of various specific gods can be counted as evidence of the god premised in this argument in the manner that various cultures can vary widely in their description of certain phenomena or experiences, and come up with widely variant explanations; what is interesting as evidence here, though, is the widespread crediting of similar kinds of phenomena and experience to a god of some sort (which might be the case of blind or ignorant people touching different parts of an elephant and thus describing what the elephant is in various ways). Such testimonial evidence can be counted in favor of the premise here, but cannot be held against it where it varies, because it is not testimony that such a god doesnt exist.
> 
> (3) The various Cosmological and Ontological Arguments for the existence of god;
> 
> (4)  The Strong Anthropic (or Fine Tuning) argument and other evidences for design of our world and of life in it;
> 
> (5) The empirical, scientific evidence assembled in support of the design arguments in #4 (such as recently persuaded Antony Flew  formerly the worlds leading philosophical atheist  that there is a god);
> 
> (6) The Moral arguments for the existence of god.
> 
> (7) Empirical and testimonial evidence of phenomena closely correlated to the existence of a god as described above, such as the survival of consciousness after death, and the existence of an afterlife realm; the evidence for interactions with correlated entities such as angels and demons (which seem to act to influence our free will towards or away from our human purpose), etc., gathered by various serious and scientific investigations into what is often referred to as the paranormal, including mediumship studies dating back to William Crooke and ongoing through the work at Pear Labs and the Scole Experiment, including consciousness-survival research published in the Lancet. While indirect, this evidence tends to support the proposition that god exists.
> 
> While the various arguments listed above have been subjected to counter-arguments and rebuttals of varying strengths and weaknesses across the ages, one must not lose sight that while there is much evidence of all sorts (as listed above) in favor of the existence of god; there is zero empirical evidence (to my knowledge) or and little in the way of rational argument that no such god exists.  In other words, decreasing the value of the arguments and evidence for god does not increase the value of the position that there is no god; it can only increase the reasonableness of the weak atheist (there isnt enough evidence) or an agnostic position.
> 
> The commonly seen rebuttals to these argument are simply attempting to show weaknesses in or alternatives to the arguments themselves so that such arguments cannot be taken as demonstratively convincing (that god exists); such counter-arguments as a rule do not actually make the case that god (as described above) in fact does not exist._
> 
> [See full article for additional content removed for brevity]
> 
> _*Conclusion*: atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person. The belief that god (as described above, which is supported by the listed evidence) does not exist, or that it isnt more likely that god exists than not, can only be a position based on ignorance of the available evidence and argument for god, or a hyper-skeptical, intellectually dishonest, ideologically biased, a priori dismissal of all of the evidence for the existence of god."_
> 
> Is Atheism Rationally Justifiable? | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your unable to define a god without the Bible. The Bible is not evidence of anything. Its fables and myth written by men who were  out in the sun to long.
> 
> And what first hand accounts do you have? What testimonial evidence do you have that can be proven by an eyewitness? Premises are not eyewitness accounts they are assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Conclusion*: atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person. The belief that god (as described above, which is supported by the listed evidence) does not exist, or that it isnt more likely that god exists than not, can only be a position based on ignorance of the available evidence and argument for god, or a hyper-skeptical, intellectually dishonest, ideologically biased, a priori dismissal of all of the evidence for the existence of god."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If some one tells you that Unicorns are Pink sooner or later your going to believe it. God is belief + faith. Belief is fine, faith is one of the most dangerous things known to man...
Click to expand...

 May I suggest you do historical research before resorting to the typical uneducated analogies that are typically used by the uneducated on your side.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> when was the first dinosaur fossil first found ?  Long after the creature behemoth was written about in the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil bones have been discovered long before biblical tales and fables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that is funny,I have been debating atheistic evolutionist and evutionist for many years now. The argument your side use to use was dragons were mythical creatures and the earliest known dinosaur fossil was discovered in the 1,600's. So they finally realized the historical evidence was overwhelming about the drawings of these creatures and what historians and famous people wrote about these creatures. Sp since your side could not explain away all the petroglyphs and historians you evolved your argument. Where you say fossils were found as early as Greek times.
> 
> well of course they were found bell these creatures were seen of I've there is plenty of evidence of this. Your side evolved the argument to try and discredit what creationist say. Your side can no longer ignore the overwhelming evidence that they existed so your side moves the goalposts and accepts the views by saying dinosaur fossils were discovered hundreds of years ago maybe thousands of years ago they use the historical evidence by the Greeks. Funny but they continue to dodge the evidence of these creatures being seen alive by many different cultures. They use to say the term in the bible dragon and serpent was probably just a term for giant snakes or reptiles . You people are funny when cornered with the facts and have no choice you adjust your argument but only so you can try and discredit what creationists have been saying for many years.  So now how do you explain the drawing of creatures that man never saw but are confirmed by the fossil record ?  The atheists arguments keep getting reduced to nonsense. May I suggest you people read all the historical records and and drawings of these creatures that roamed the earth with man. Don't be a fool like the the atheist that has hardened his heart against God and allow it to block you from the truth.
Click to expand...


You appear to be suffering from the Ken Ham syndrome wherein you believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. This kind of foolishness is typical for the hyper-religious and those in denial of a reality based worldview.


----------



## Hollie

Ken Ham's Creation "museum

 The revelation that Ken Ham's anti science museum is built on the very evidence that YECs deny (watch the videos below) is not only a further blow to the museum's and Ham's credibility but a blow to the scientific integrity of the scientists who have prostituted their learning to work for Ham and AiG. It's perhaps not surprising that those "scientists" lacked the inquisitiveness one would see from scientists active in the field. Ham's "scientists" weren't the least bit curious about the very rocks upon which the "museum" was constructed. The fact is these rocks abound with marine fossils from the Ordovician period (which began approximately 510 million years ago with the end of the Cambrian and ended around 445 million years ago with the beginning of the Silurian).


----------



## Hollie

Dbl. Post


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Ken Ham's Creation "museum
> 
> The revelation that Ken Ham's anti science museum is built on the very evidence that YECs deny (watch the videos below) is not only a further blow to the museum's and Ham's credibility but a blow to the scientific integrity of the scientists who have prostituted their learning to work for Ham and AiG. It's perhaps not surprising that those "scientists" lacked the inquisitiveness one would see from scientists active in the field. Ham's "scientists" weren't the least bit curious about the very rocks upon which the "museum" was constructed. The fact is these rocks abound with marine fossils from the Ordovician period (which began approximately 510 million years ago with the end of the Cambrian and ended around 445 million years ago with the beginning of the Silurian).



Before you dismiss the idea dinosaurs were seen by man check the evidence is drawings and the records of historians. Funny some petroglyphs showed dinosaurs with stripes like a zebra ,what do they find several years but a dinosaur with the skin preserved yes and it had stripes like a zebra. There is plenty evidence supporting what creationists have said not the evolutionist fairytale.


----------



## Bill Angel

Dinosaur at the Maryland Science Center 
 If man and dinosaurs had coexisted, he most likely would have bitten my head off.


----------



## LittleNipper

Bill Angel said:


> Dinosaur at the Maryland Science Center
> If man and dinosaurs had coexisted, he most likely would have bitten my head off.



He wouldn't have lived in your "neck" of the woods.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Ken Ham's Creation "museum
> 
> The revelation that Ken Ham's anti science museum is built on the very evidence that YECs deny (watch the videos below) is not only a further blow to the museum's and Ham's credibility but a blow to the scientific integrity of the scientists who have prostituted their learning to work for Ham and AiG. It's perhaps not surprising that those "scientists" lacked the inquisitiveness one would see from scientists active in the field. Ham's "scientists" weren't the least bit curious about the very rocks upon which the "museum" was constructed. The fact is these rocks abound with marine fossils from the Ordovician period (which began approximately 510 million years ago with the end of the Cambrian and ended around 445 million years ago with the beginning of the Silurian).



How does one really know how old the rocks are, unless one assumes that if God does exist, He fabricated everything like we see things happening today. This is a big assumption. I believe God spoke the Universe into being --- according to the Bible. He would have created a perfectly finished ecological system for animals and man to thrive in.


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> Can you prove that the world was made in 6 days?


Can you prove that there is no God?


----------



## LittleNipper

Koios said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mythical beast mentioned in Job was indeed, a myth.  Little debate on that.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the discription doesn't sound like a myth. Have you read the book of Job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take it up with biblical scholars, since it's widely agreed that the beast is indeed mythical, since many actions are attributed to it that would go far beyond coming across some bones, not to mention, nothing in the fosil record is anything like the MYTHICAL beast imagined, in old testiment scripture.
> 
> So I'd ask you the same thing: you ever read it?
Click to expand...


Biblical scholars who evidently do not think much of an almight God. Their problem, not mine!


----------



## Bill Angel

LittleNipper said:


> Bill Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaur at the Maryland Science Center
> If man and dinosaurs had coexisted, he most likely would have bitten my head off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wouldn't have lived in your "neck" of the woods.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. But

 The CretaceousPaleogene extinction event occurred approximately 65.5 million years ago. It was an intense, global mass extinction of animal and plants The devastation caused by the extinction also provided evolutionary opportunities. In the wake of the extinction, many groups underwent remarkable adaptive radiations. Mammals in particular diversified, producing new forms such as horses, whales, bats, and *primates.*.
Put another way, the extinction of  dinosaurs eliminated predators who would have hunted man's distant ancestors. It also gave man's distant  ancestors the opportunity to evolve to fill the ecological niches previously filled by dinosaurs, including the  carnivores.


----------



## LittleNipper

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure if creation was mans days or Gods days, Some suggest both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is a god day like a dog year?
> 
> But what facts do you have that in happened in 6 days? Anything at all? And Noah being 600, anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The scriptures say a 1,000 years is a day to God.
Click to expand...

THe Bible also say that the evening and the morning were a day. I believe God established the earth of today to last 7000 years. The last 1000 years will be ruled by Christ and the return of the raptured Church. We presently are at about the 6000 year mark. There is yet the 7 year Tribulation Period followed by the Millenium Kingdom. Do we know the exact time or day? NO! Heaven forbid. But I feel we are very close. Israel will not be destroyed --- that is for sure...


----------



## Koios

LittleNipper said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the discription doesn't sound like a myth. Have you read the book of Job?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with biblical scholars, since it's widely agreed that the beast is indeed mythical, since many actions are attributed to it that would go far beyond coming across some bones, not to mention, nothing in the fosil record is anything like the MYTHICAL beast imagined, in old testiment scripture.
> 
> So I'd ask you the same thing: you ever read it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biblical scholars who evidently do not think much of an almight God. Their problem, not mine!
Click to expand...


Some don't and are merely curious, however most are indeed quite pious, and have intellectual lock-down on their faiths.  No shit.


----------



## Koios

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that the world was made in 6 days?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that there is no God?
Click to expand...


No; nor can I prove fairies, sasquach or unicorns do not exist.  But here's the rub: we prove shit exists, since it's definitive.  I.E, theorize there's a top quark, then send atoms flying around particle separators at near the speed of light until you find it and PROVE ITS EXISTENCE!!!

Good luck doing that with God.  But have a ball anyway.  Who knows, maybe you'll run across Him on Oprah or whatever.


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that the world was made in 6 days?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that there is no God?
Click to expand...


You'd have to try to prove with tangible facts that your god exists. You're asking me to prove that something that has not yet proven to exist, doesn't exist. Just the fact that no one has put forward any tangible proof should do it. I'm agnostic: I don't see proof either way for a god's existence or not, but if someone comes up with any, I'm open to changing my mind.


----------



## Bill Angel

Koios said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that the world was made in 6 days?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that there is no God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No; nor can I prove fairies, sasquach or unicorns do not exist.  But here's the rub: we prove shit exists, since it's definitive.  I.E, theorize there's a top quark, then send atoms flying around particle separators at near the speed of light until you find it and PROVE ITS EXISTENCE!!!
> 
> Good luck doing that with God.  But have a ball anyway.  Who knows, maybe you'll run across Him on Oprah or whatever.
Click to expand...


As a point of clarification, the existence of quarks was verified by bombarding protons with high energy electrons.
 See: What is deep inelastic scattering


----------



## Koios

Bill Angel said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that there is no God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No; nor can I prove fairies, sasquach or unicorns do not exist.  But here's the rub: we prove shit exists, since it's definitive.  I.E, theorize there's a top quark, then send atoms flying around particle separators at near the speed of light until you find it and PROVE ITS EXISTENCE!!!
> 
> Good luck doing that with God.  But have a ball anyway.  Who knows, maybe you'll run across Him on Oprah or whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a point of clarification, the existence of quarks qas verified by bombarding protons with high energy electrons. See: What is deep inelastic scattering
Click to expand...


The top quark was a smidge elusive and I believe the separator at CERN was where it was first identified.  But indeed I may be wrong.  So thanks.  Time to brush up on my recent history. (red cheeks)


----------



## zombiehunter696

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken Ham's Creation "museum
> 
> The revelation that Ken Ham's anti science museum is built on the very evidence that YECs deny (watch the videos below) is not only a further blow to the museum's and Ham's credibility but a blow to the scientific integrity of the scientists who have prostituted their learning to work for Ham and AiG. It's perhaps not surprising that those "scientists" lacked the inquisitiveness one would see from scientists active in the field. Ham's "scientists" weren't the least bit curious about the very rocks upon which the "museum" was constructed. The fact is these rocks abound with marine fossils from the Ordovician period (which began approximately 510 million years ago with the end of the Cambrian and ended around 445 million years ago with the beginning of the Silurian).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you dismiss the idea dinosaurs were seen by man check the evidence is drawings and the records of historians. Funny some petroglyphs showed dinosaurs with stripes like a zebra ,what do they find several years but a dinosaur with the skin preserved yes and it had stripes like a zebra. There is plenty evidence supporting what creationists have said not the evolutionist fairytale.
Click to expand...


I heard if you keep repeating something it might become true. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why do we not find human fossils in the same layers as dinosaur fossils.


----------



## Koios

zombiehunter696 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken Ham's Creation "museum
> 
> The revelation that Ken Ham's anti science museum is built on the very evidence that YECs deny (watch the videos below) is not only a further blow to the museum's and Ham's credibility but a blow to the scientific integrity of the scientists who have prostituted their learning to work for Ham and AiG. It's perhaps not surprising that those "scientists" lacked the inquisitiveness one would see from scientists active in the field. Ham's "scientists" weren't the least bit curious about the very rocks upon which the "museum" was constructed. The fact is these rocks abound with marine fossils from the Ordovician period (which began approximately 510 million years ago with the end of the Cambrian and ended around 445 million years ago with the beginning of the Silurian).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Before you dismiss the idea dinosaurs were seen by man* check the evidence is drawings and the records of historians. Funny some petroglyphs showed dinosaurs with stripes like a zebra ,what do they find several years but a dinosaur with the skin preserved yes and it had stripes like a zebra. There is plenty evidence supporting what creationists have said not the evolutionist fairytale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I heard if you keep repeating something it might become true. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why do we not find human fossils in the same layers as dinosaur fossils.
Click to expand...


I've seen them; and worse: they shit on my car everytime I've just waxed it.  Never fails.


----------



## zombiehunter696

It's funny that creationists think repeating the same refuted garbage over and over will make them right. There's a reason scientists don't take them seriously.

I'd love for a creationist here to show me some peer reviewed papers outlining the evidence for their beliefs.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and Jews in the Old Testament actually used Honda's to plow and to escape prison.
> 
> Jeremiah 5: (NIV)
> 
> 5 ...But with one accord they too had broken off the yoke
> and torn off the bonds.
> 
> 
> 
> another irrelevant quote!
> once again proving that you slapdicks can't read!
> translation: one accord = together.
> also it's not a literal statement it's figurative :  of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, especially a metaphor; metaphorical and not literal: The word head has several figurative senses, as in She's the head of the company.  Synonyms: metaphorical, not literal, symbolic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a prime example of your limited understanding. I will infer from you Captain Obvious attempt to splain to me what accord means that the joke went right over your cantankerous crotchety head.
Click to expand...

as always attempting and failing to be funny.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is a god day like a dog year?
> 
> But what facts do you have that in happened in 6 days? Anything at all? And Noah being 600, anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scriptures say a 1,000 years is a day to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THe Bible also say that the evening and the morning were a day. I believe God established the earth of today to last 7000 years. The last 1000 years will be ruled by Christ and the return of the raptured Church. We presently are at about the 6000 year mark. There is yet the 7 year Tribulation Period followed by the Millenium Kingdom. Do we know the exact time or day? NO! Heaven forbid. But I feel we are very close. Israel will not be destroyed --- that is for sure...
Click to expand...


So effectively, the genesis tale can be anything you want it to be.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that the world was made in 6 days?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that there is no God?
Click to expand...


Of course I can prove there are no gawds. Can you prove I can't?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again dipshit.
> 
> 
> 
> ok, show me any test results from creation science experiments that have been peer reviewed by independent (non creationist )labs that prove god alleged word is actual scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you need to see the references from the bible that science has confirmed again ?
Click to expand...

since you have none that meet the standard I set down, then you have none at all ! get it!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. It was called a behemoth who lives in the marshland with a tail like a cedar. That is not describling a hippo or an elephant or any other creature alive today. So tell what was if not a dinosaur and remember the only dinosaur fossil was found long after the writing about this creature.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit !
> dinosaur fossils were being found in biblical times! AND MISINTERPERTED .
> 
> The term dinosaur was first coined by Sir Richard Owen back in 1841/1842. The name, literally translated, means "Terrible Lizard." This probably seems like redundant information right now, but it does get better.
> Due to the name "terrible lizards" and the fact that they were looked at as huge reptiles, dinosaurs were seen as these huge, lumbering, slow and sluggish beasts. The fact that they no longer existed stood as proof that their "cold-blooded" and inferior bodies couldn't adapt and therefore were evolutionary throwbacks. Loose ends that made good examples of what not to be.
> Well actually there is more to this. Owen, Huxley and other early dinosaur workers originally saw them as being highly active animals, equivalent to today's birds and mammals, yet they didn't consider them to be warm-blooded. More on this intriguing view of dinosaurs later; for now though, back to the story.
> It got lost in the translation.
> When Sir Richard orginally named them, he was already convinced from the scant remains that these were no ordinary lizards. Work done by Thomas Henry Huxley and others seemed to confirm that dinosaurs were very different from the typical lizard. Yet lizard was the poster child for reptiles, so since he was convinced that they were reptilian he went ahead and used a Greek name for reptile which was sauros; meaning lizard (the real Greek name is herpeton, but I guess he didn't like the ring of deinoherps and so didn't use it.). So what Sir Richard meant was not "terrible lizards" but "terrible reptiles."
> The Reptipage: Dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LEVIATHAN AND BEHEMOTH:
> 
> Names of gigantic beasts or monsters described in Job xl. The former is from a root denoting "coil," "twist"; the latter is the plural form of "behemah"="beast."
> Biblical Data:
> Ever since Bochart ("Hierozoicon," iii. 705), "behemoth" has been taken to denote the hippopotamus; and Jablonski, to make it correspond exactly with that animal, compared an Egyptian form, "p-ehe-mu" (= "water-ox"), which, however, does not exist. The Biblical description contains mythical elements, and the conclusion is justified that these monsters were not real, though the hippopotamus may have furnished in the main the data for the description. Only of a unique being, and not of a common hippopotamus, could the words of Job xl. 19 have been used: "He is the first [A. V. "chief"] of the ways of God [comp. Prov. viii. 22]; he that made him maketh sport with him" (as the Septuagint reads, &#960;&#949;&#960;&#959;&#953;&#951;&#956;&#941;&#957;&#959;&#957; &#7952;&#947;&#954;&#945;&#964;&#945;&#960;&#945;&#953;&#950;&#941;&#963;&#920;&#945;&#953;; A. V. "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him"; comp. Ps. civ. 26); or "The mountains bring him forth food; where all the beasts of the field do play" (Job xl. 20). Obviously behemoth is represented as the primeval beast, the king of all the animals of the dry land, while leviathan is the king of all those of the water, both alike unconquerable by man (ib. xl. 14, xli. 17-26). Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos," p. 62) suggests that behemoth and leviathan were the two primeval monsters corresponding to Tiamat (= "the abyss"; comp. Hebr. "tehom") and Kingu (= Aramaic "'akna" = serpent") of Babylonian mythology. Some commentators find also in Isa. xxx. 6 ("bahamot negeb" = "beasts of the south") a reference to the hippopotamus; others again, in Ps. lxxiii. 22 ("I am as behemoth [="beasts"; A. V. "a beast"] before thee"); but neither interpretation has a substantial foundation. It is likely that the leviathan and the behemoth were originally referred to in Hab. ii. 15: "the destruction of the behemoth [A. V. "beasts"] shall make them afraid" (comp
> 
> AS ALWAYS YWC LIKE ALL WILFULLY IGNORANT SLAPDICKS INTENTIONALLY OR BY SHEER STUPIDTY MISINTERPRET SCRIPTURES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when was the first dinosaur fossil first found ?  Long after the creature behemoth was written about in the bible.
Click to expand...

Cyclops Myth Spurred by "One-Eyed" Fossils?


Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News


February 5, 2003

Ever wonder where our worst nightmares come from? 

For the ancient Greeks, it may have been the fossils of giant prehistoric animals.  



RELATED 
Climate Change Caused Extinction of Big Ice Age Mammals, Scientist Says 
Ancient Greek Wreck Found in Black Seawith photo gallery 
Floods Swept Ancient Nile Cities Away, Expert Says 
Tiny Fossil From Early Jurassic Fills New Niche in Mammal Evolution 
Lord of the Rings Inspired by an Ancient Epic 

The tusk, several teeth, and some bones of a Deinotherium giganteum, which, loosely translated means really huge terrible beast, have been found on the Greek island Crete. A distant relative to today's elephants, the giant mammal stood 15 feet (4.6 meters) tall at the shoulder, and had tusks that were 4.5 feet (1.3 meters) long. It was one of the largest mammals ever to walk the face of the Earth. 

"This is the first finding in Crete and the south Aegean in general," said Charalampos Fassoulas, a geologist with the University of Crete's Natural History Museum. "It is also the first time that we found a whole tusk of the animal in Greece. We haven't dated the fossils yet, but the sediment where we found them is of 8 to 9 million years in age." 



Skulls of Deinotherium giganteum found at other sites show it to be more primitive, and the bulk a lot more vast, than today's elephant, with an extremely large nasal opening in the center of the skull. 

To paleontologists today, the large hole in the center of the skull suggests a pronounced trunk. To the ancient Greeks, Deinotherium skulls could well be the foundation for their tales of the fearsome one-eyed Cyclops. 


Cyclops Myth Spurred by "One-Eyed" Fossils?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scriptures say a 1,000 years is a day to God.
> 
> 
> 
> THe Bible also say that the evening and the morning were a day. I believe God established the earth of today to last 7000 years. The last 1000 years will be ruled by Christ and the return of the raptured Church. We presently are at about the 6000 year mark. There is yet the 7 year Tribulation Period followed by the Millenium Kingdom. Do we know the exact time or day? NO! Heaven forbid. But I feel we are very close. Israel will not be destroyed --- that is for sure...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So effectively, the genesis tale can be anything you want it to be.
Click to expand...

Not really. One must not go outside the parameter of the Bible contradicting it in any way.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that the world was made in 6 days?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that there is no God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I can prove there are no gawds. Can you prove I can't?
Click to expand...


----------



## LittleNipper

Koios said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it up with biblical scholars, since it's widely agreed that the beast is indeed mythical, since many actions are attributed to it that would go far beyond coming across some bones, not to mention, nothing in the fosil record is anything like the MYTHICAL beast imagined, in old testiment scripture.
> 
> So I'd ask you the same thing: you ever read it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biblical scholars who evidently do not think much of an almight God. Their problem, not mine!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some don't and are merely curious, however most are indeed quite pious, and have intellectual lock-down on their faiths.  No shit.
Click to expand...


Such people did *NOT* think Jesus was the Messiah, while Christ walked, preached, prayed and cured in Judea


----------



## jesus_nihilist

Creationism is a tool that has been used to erase Afrikan history by denying evolution and therefore erasing the Afrikan origins of all people. What is so brilliant about christianity for a racist eurocentric society is that by denying evolution and claiming adam and eve as ancestors, they can completely remove themselves from afrikan history and afrikan origins. They can feel no guilt over afrikan erasure and oppression because they claim to be european, not afrikan. This illusion is why any religion that denies evolution is potent, racist and oppressive. All races must learn to acknowledge that afrika is everyones mother land. Afrika is where reading, writing and mathematics were invented. Afrika is where the first libraries were formed. Afrika is the continent that the human race spoke the first phonetic vowel on. It is the commonality we all have, it encompasses the entire human race. That is why it is such a crime to teach history and reading and all of education from a european perspective. For when it boils down to it, our common origin is not european. We did not come from europe. We came from afrika, and that is what creationists wish to avoid via their ideology.


----------



## LittleNipper

Well, if one mixes up some concrete (which is made of materials claimed to be millions of years old ) and has a dog walk across the newly laid sidewalk ----- those resulting footprints do not become the age of the materials the "fossil" now appear in.


----------



## Youwerecreated

jesus_nihilist said:


> Creationism is a tool that has been used to erase Afrikan history by denying evolution and therefore erasing the Afrikan origins of all people. What is so brilliant about christianity for a racist eurocentric society is that by denying evolution and claiming adam and eve as ancestors, they can completely remove themselves from afrikan history and afrikan origins. They can feel no guilt over afrikan erasure and oppression because they claim to be european, not afrikan. This illusion is why any religion that denies evolution is potent, racist and oppressive. All races must learn to acknowledge that afrika is everyones mother land. Afrika is where reading, writing and mathematics were invented. Afrika is where the first libraries were formed. Afrika is the continent that the human race spoke the first phonetic vowel on. It is the commonality we all have, it encompasses the entire human race. That is why it is such a crime to teach history and reading and all of education from a european perspective. For when it boils down to it, our common origin is not european. We did not come from europe. We came from afrika, and that is what creationists wish to avoid via their ideology.



What a bunch of nonsense,may I point your attention to Acts 17: 26-28 does it matter which race was first maybe to s racist it matters. God said all man are created equal I dare you to show one has superior genes over another. Are you suggesting races that came after the blacks are further evolved ?  That is what evolutionist are saying but don't want to admit to it. So who really have a racial agenda ?


----------



## jesus_nihilist

Youwerecreated said:


> What a bunch of nonsense,may I point your attention to Acts 17: 26-28 does it matter which race was first maybe to s racist it matters. God said all man are created equal I dare you to show one has superior genes over another. Are you suggesting races that came after the blacks are further evolved ?  That is what evolutionist are saying but don't want to admit to it. So who really have a racial agenda ?



What does it matter?

Afrikan's culture was stolen from them and told that the greeks and romans and a myriad of other people did the things that they actually did. Afrikan's RELIGION was stolen, yes, Christianity is a result of Europeans re-writing Egyptian religion, the book of the dead, etc. But instead of leaving everything in tact, the europeans changed things up to deny the Afrikan historical impact of the religion. Essentially our history that we are taught in schools and Christianity is Greek vomit that we are dealing with. Being, that Europeans did not understand the message that the Egyptians were teaching them and thus they changed the meaning of things to be a downgraded version of what they really are.


RACISM, especially systematic racism, is putting Afrika on the bottom of the map. Do you know that the historical picture of earth, this one was originally taken at an angle of which Afrika was on top? Then why do we remember this icon as Amerika being on top instead of Afrika? Because prior to release the image was FLIPPED, even though since the world is round and a globe there is no definite 'up' or 'down' to the continents. All of our maps indicate Afrika on the bottom, south instead of north, and there have been numerous psychological studies done that prove that we perceive 'south' as inferior. 

Is it Racist to steal someone's history and culture, and then when they complain, spit back out at them, "oh well who cares who did what isn't it racist insisting people get the proper credit, herp a derp?" 

Afrikans deserve credit for their achievements but they have been effectively written out of history and this whole 'creationism' thing is just another way. The original creationism theory, invented by Kemet, the Egyptians, who lived in Afrika, featured AFRIKAN people who lived in AFRIKA, and if you think about it, it makes a whole lot more historical sense that the garden of eden was in Afrika and that humankind evolved from Afrika, because even Science backs up the claim that this is what happened and the the decrease of melanin, which is what makes Afrikans the deep color that they are, occurred because of a historical ice age that effected certain areas of the world that caused human beings to retreat indoors and that over time made their skin white rather than black. 


Don't you insist that telling history the way it actually happened in racist.

Denying actually history in order to support white superiority and white nationalism, that's racism.


----------



## UltimateReality

CrackedSkull said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"the following is an argument I think will help us to focus on a fundamental issue that lies behind ever so many of the debates here at Uncommon Descent, and elsewhere.  That is, is the sort of implicit or even explicit atheism that is so often built in on the ground floor of a scientific mindset truly rationally justifiable? Such cannot be assumed, it needs to be shown.
> 
> Ill begin by defining some terms for the sake of this argument:
> 
> Definition of God (for the purpose of this thread): First cause, prime mover, root of being, objective source of human purpose (final cause) and resulting morality, source of free will, mind, consciousness; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent inasmuch as principles of logic allow; an interventionist as necessary to facilitate movement towards final cause and also inasmuch as logical principles are not violated; source of logic  reason itself. (I am not talking in particular about any specifically defined religious interpretation of god, such as the Chrstian or Islamic God.)
> 
> Definition: Weak, or negative atheism is the lack of any belief that a god exists, and the position that a god probably doesnt exist, and is not the positive belief that gods do not exist (strong atheism), and is not agnosticism (the lack of belief that god either does or does not exist and the further view that there is a lack of sufficient probability either way).  Strong atheism is the belief that no god or gods exist at all.
> 
> Definition: A worldview or mindset is rationally justified when it answers adequately to the facts of the real world as we experience or observe it, makes good sense and fits together logically, is simple but not simplistic, and honestly faces the issues and difficulties that all worldviews face.
> 
> Definition: Intellectual dishonesty occurs when (1) one deliberately mischaracterizes their position or view in order to avoid having to logically defend their actual views; and/or (2) when someone is arguing, or making statements against a position while remaining willfully ignorant about that position, and/or (3) when someone categorically and/or pejoratively dismisses all existent and/or potential evidence in favor of a conclusion they claim to be neutral about, whether they are familiar with that evidence or not.
> 
> These will be important as we consider:
> 
> Evidence in favor of God:  The following is a brief summary of the evidence that typically leads many people to make a general finding that a god (as described above) exists, even if variantly interpreted or culturally contextualized:
> 
> (1) Anecdotal evidence for the apparently intelligently ordered anomalous, miraculous (defying expected natural processes and probabilities) events attributed to god, such as signs, supernatural events (e.g. Fatima, Guadeloupe, Pauls Damascus Road Experience), or answers to prayers to god;
> 
> (2) Testimonial evidence (first-hand accounts) of experience of such phenomena, including interactions with a god-like being or accounts of god-like interventions;  Also, the testimony of religious adherents of various specific gods can be counted as evidence of the god premised in this argument in the manner that various cultures can vary widely in their description of certain phenomena or experiences, and come up with widely variant explanations; what is interesting as evidence here, though, is the widespread crediting of similar kinds of phenomena and experience to a god of some sort (which might be the case of blind or ignorant people touching different parts of an elephant and thus describing what the elephant is in various ways). Such testimonial evidence can be counted in favor of the premise here, but cannot be held against it where it varies, because it is not testimony that such a god doesnt exist.
> 
> (3) The various Cosmological and Ontological Arguments for the existence of god;
> 
> (4)  The Strong Anthropic (or Fine Tuning) argument and other evidences for design of our world and of life in it;
> 
> (5) The empirical, scientific evidence assembled in support of the design arguments in #4 (such as recently persuaded Antony Flew  formerly the worlds leading philosophical atheist  that there is a god);
> 
> (6) The Moral arguments for the existence of god.
> 
> (7) Empirical and testimonial evidence of phenomena closely correlated to the existence of a god as described above, such as the survival of consciousness after death, and the existence of an afterlife realm; the evidence for interactions with correlated entities such as angels and demons (which seem to act to influence our free will towards or away from our human purpose), etc., gathered by various serious and scientific investigations into what is often referred to as the paranormal, including mediumship studies dating back to William Crooke and ongoing through the work at Pear Labs and the Scole Experiment, including consciousness-survival research published in the Lancet. While indirect, this evidence tends to support the proposition that god exists.
> 
> While the various arguments listed above have been subjected to counter-arguments and rebuttals of varying strengths and weaknesses across the ages, one must not lose sight that while there is much evidence of all sorts (as listed above) in favor of the existence of god; there is zero empirical evidence (to my knowledge) or and little in the way of rational argument that no such god exists.  In other words, decreasing the value of the arguments and evidence for god does not increase the value of the position that there is no god; it can only increase the reasonableness of the weak atheist (there isnt enough evidence) or an agnostic position.
> 
> The commonly seen rebuttals to these argument are simply attempting to show weaknesses in or alternatives to the arguments themselves so that such arguments cannot be taken as demonstratively convincing (that god exists); such counter-arguments as a rule do not actually make the case that god (as described above) in fact does not exist._
> 
> [See full article for additional content removed for brevity]
> 
> _*Conclusion*: atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person. The belief that god (as described above, which is supported by the listed evidence) does not exist, or that it isnt more likely that god exists than not, can only be a position based on ignorance of the available evidence and argument for god, or a hyper-skeptical, intellectually dishonest, ideologically biased, a priori dismissal of all of the evidence for the existence of god."_
> 
> Is Atheism Rationally Justifiable? | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your unable to define a god without the Bible. The Bible is not evidence of anything. Its fables and myth written by men who were  out in the sun to long.
> 
> And what first hand accounts do you have? What testimonial evidence do you have that can be proven by an eyewitness? Premises are not eyewitness accounts they are assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Conclusion*: atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person. The belief that god (as described above, which is supported by the listed evidence) does not exist, or that it isnt more likely that god exists than not, can only be a position based on ignorance of the available evidence and argument for god, or a hyper-skeptical, intellectually dishonest, ideologically biased, a priori dismissal of all of the evidence for the existence of god."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If some one tells you that Unicorns are Pink sooner or later your going to believe it. God is belief + faith. Belief is fine, faith is one of the most dangerous things known to man...
Click to expand...


Atheism is the MOST dangerous thing known to man.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that the world was made in 6 days?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that there is no God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No; nor can I prove fairies, sasquach or unicorns do not exist.  But here's the rub: we prove shit exists, since it's definitive.  I.E, theorize there's a top quark, then send atoms flying around particle separators at near the speed of light until you find it and PROVE ITS EXISTENCE!!!
> 
> Good luck doing that with God.  But have a ball anyway.  Who knows, maybe you'll run across Him on Oprah or whatever.
Click to expand...


This coming from someone who believes in the fairy tale of evolution. 

The Higgs boson may not have been found after all, warn particle physicists | Technology News Blog - Yahoo! News

Look how the pseudoscience of evolution has spilled over into the legitimate sciences. Can you spot the evo-creep?

From Wiki:

_The Higgs boson or Higgs particle is an elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. A particle has been detected in July 2012 which *might be* a Higgs boson, almost 50 years after being predicted; *however this is not yet certain.*_


----------



## UltimateReality

zombiehunter696 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken Ham's Creation "museum
> 
> The revelation that Ken Ham's anti science museum is built on the very evidence that YECs deny (watch the videos below) is not only a further blow to the museum's and Ham's credibility but a blow to the scientific integrity of the scientists who have prostituted their learning to work for Ham and AiG. It's perhaps not surprising that those "scientists" lacked the inquisitiveness one would see from scientists active in the field. Ham's "scientists" weren't the least bit curious about the very rocks upon which the "museum" was constructed. The fact is these rocks abound with marine fossils from the Ordovician period (which began approximately 510 million years ago with the end of the Cambrian and ended around 445 million years ago with the beginning of the Silurian).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you dismiss the idea dinosaurs were seen by man check the evidence is drawings and the records of historians. Funny some petroglyphs showed dinosaurs with stripes like a zebra ,what do they find several years but a dinosaur with the skin preserved yes and it had stripes like a zebra. There is plenty evidence supporting what creationists have said not the evolutionist fairytale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I heard if you keep repeating something it might become true. *...
Click to expand...


The Revisionist Hawly swears by this.


----------



## UltimateReality

zombiehunter696 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken Ham's Creation "museum
> 
> The revelation that Ken Ham's anti science museum is built on the very evidence that YECs deny (watch the videos below) is not only a further blow to the museum's and Ham's credibility but a blow to the scientific integrity of the scientists who have prostituted their learning to work for Ham and AiG. It's perhaps not surprising that those "scientists" lacked the inquisitiveness one would see from scientists active in the field. Ham's "scientists" weren't the least bit curious about the very rocks upon which the "museum" was constructed. The fact is these rocks abound with marine fossils from the Ordovician period (which began approximately 510 million years ago with the end of the Cambrian and ended around 445 million years ago with the beginning of the Silurian).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you dismiss the idea dinosaurs were seen by man check the evidence is drawings and the records of historians. Funny some petroglyphs showed dinosaurs with stripes like a zebra ,what do they find several years but a dinosaur with the skin preserved yes and it had stripes like a zebra. There is plenty evidence supporting what creationists have said not the evolutionist fairytale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I heard if you keep repeating something it might become true. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why do we not find human fossils in the same layers as dinosaur fossils.
Click to expand...


Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another irrelevant quote!
> once again proving that you slapdicks can't read!
> translation: one accord = together.
> also it's not a literal statement it's figurative :  of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, especially a metaphor; metaphorical and not literal: The word head has several figurative senses, as in She's the head of the company.  Synonyms: metaphorical, not literal, symbolic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a prime example of your limited understanding. I will infer from you Captain Obvious attempt to splain to me what accord means that the joke went right over your cantankerous crotchety head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as always attempting and failing to be funny.
Click to expand...


Yes you are.


----------



## UltimateReality

jesus_nihilist said:


> Creationism is a tool that has been used to erase Afrikan history by denying evolution and therefore erasing the Afrikan origins of all people. What is so brilliant about christianity for a racist eurocentric society is that by denying evolution and claiming adam and eve as ancestors, they can completely remove themselves from afrikan history and afrikan origins. They can feel no guilt over afrikan erasure and oppression because they claim to be european, not afrikan. This illusion is why any religion that denies evolution is potent, racist and oppressive. All races must learn to acknowledge that afrika is everyones mother land. Afrika is where reading, writing and mathematics were invented. Afrika is where the first libraries were formed. Afrika is the continent that the human race spoke the first phonetic vowel on. It is the commonality we all have, it encompasses the entire human race. That is why it is such a crime to teach history and reading and all of education from a european perspective. For when it boils down to it, our common origin is not european. We did not come from europe. We came from afrika, and that is what creationists wish to avoid via their ideology.



Except that it wasn't Afica.

This rates up there with one of the most ignorant posts to date. When Moses wrote down the Genesis story, he knew Africa as Egypt, a country of which he was adopted royalty. You are aware that Egypt is in Africa, right?

Genesis 2 (NIV):

10 A river watering the garden flowed from *Eden*; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

http://web.bryant.edu/~langlois/ecology/history.htm


----------



## jesus_nihilist

UltimateReality said:


> Except that it wasn't Afica.
> 
> This rates up there with one of the most ignorant posts to date. When Moses wrote down the Genesis story, he knew Africa as Egypt, a country of which he was adopted royalty. You are aware that Egypt is in Africa, right?
> 
> Genesis 2 (NIV):
> 
> 10 A river watering the garden flowed from *Eden*; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
> 
> Euphrates River - History



Typical eurocentric brainwashing


----------



## UltimateReality

jesus_nihilist said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it wasn't Afica.
> 
> This rates up there with one of the most ignorant posts to date. When Moses wrote down the Genesis story, he knew Africa as Egypt, a country of which he was adopted royalty. You are aware that Egypt is in Africa, right?
> 
> Genesis 2 (NIV):
> 
> 10 A river watering the garden flowed from *Eden*; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
> 
> Euphrates River - History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical eurocentric brainwashing
Click to expand...


Yet more stupidity. *Moses wasn't "white" and he wasn't from Europe Dork*. Go take you stupid political agenda to another thread reverse nazi.

Your worldview is incredibly tiny. 

You obviously are ignorant to recent discoveries and genetic mapping.

Will the original African please stand up? In your rabid ignorance are you inferring that the group of Homo Sapiens that have the same skin color adaptation, and who are mistakenly referred to as African Americans, are the original humans? Bahahahaha!!! You are horribly mistaken that the Nubian adaptation occurred before migration out of Africa or that it didn't happen in the population that remained AFTER the Eurasians migrated. Again, bahahahahaha!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seti1a.jpg

Libyan,      Nubian,     Syrian,    Egyptian


----------



## UltimateReality

I fell compelled to weigh in on all this talk about Noah. Since I am not a young earth Creationists, I also don't believe the flood was 4,000 or 6,000 or however many years ago YECers are locked into because of their misinterpretation of the genealogy in the Bible. The accounts of the flood were obviously handed down by the oral tradition for thousands of years and are from the viewpoint of Noah. From Noah's perspective, the whole earth was covered by water. The flood even covered all the tallest mountains where Noah lived and was most likely the result of a HUGE tsunami that resulted from the Lake Toba Supervolcano near Malaysia. Genetic evidence does point to a genetic bottleneck at the time but curiously, there is not evidence of large amounts of animal species being wiped out. While I don't believe the entire earth was covered, I do believe most of the African content and India were covered by the tsunami and since human migration had not occurred widely at that time, most humans were also wiped out. 

From Wiki:

_Evidence from studies of mitochondrial DNA suggests that humans may have passed through a genetic bottleneck around this time that reduced genetic diversity below what would be expected given the age of the species. According to the Toba catastrophe theory, proposed by Stanley H. Ambrose of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1998, *the effects of the Toba eruption may have decreased the size of human populations to only a few tens of thousands of individuals*.[16] However, this hypothesis is not widely accepted because *similar effects on other animal species have not been observed.*[6] _

Lake Toba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because many of the animals were in the large boat when the resulting flood came.

The Bible must be interpreted using hermeneutics. Any history Moses wrote down had been passed to him via the oral tradition. These stories, while some claim are the inspired Word of God, must be differentiated from the actual accounts that Moses gave of his generation and his firsthand personal experience with God. Moses historical accounts of any events preceding him were technically "hearsay" from his forefathers, and not necessarily inspired. 

From Wiki:
_In the interpretation of a text, hermeneutics considers the original medium[4] as well as what language says, supposes, doesn't say, and implies. The process consists of several steps for best attaining the Scriptural author's intended meaning(s). One such process is taught by Henry A Virkler, in Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (1981):

*Lexical-syntactical analysis:* This step looks at the words used and the way the words are used. Different order of the sentence, the punctuation, the tense of the verse are all aspects that are looked at in the lexical syntactical method. Here, lexicons and grammar aids can help in extracting meaning from the text.
*Historical/cultural analysis:* The history and culture surrounding the authors is important to understand to aid in interpretation. For instance, understanding the Jewish sects of the Palestine and the government that ruled Palestine in New Testament times increases understanding of Scripture. And, understanding the connotations of positions such as the High Priest and that of the tax collector helps us know what others thought of the people holding these positions.
*Contextual analysis: *A verse out of context can often be taken to mean something completely different from the intention. This method focuses on the importance of looking at the context of a verse in its chapter, book and even biblical context.
*Theological analysis*: It is often said that a single verse usually doesn't make a theology. This is because Scripture often touches on issues in several books. For instance, gifts of the Spirit are spoken about in Romans, Ephesians and 1 Corinthians. To take a verse from Corinthians without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic can cause a poor interpretation.
* Special literary analysis:* There are several special literary aspects to look at, but the overarching theme is that each genre of Scripture has a different set of rules that applies to it. Of the genres found in Scripture, there are: narratives, histories, prophecies, apocalyptic writings, poetry, psalms and letters. In these, there are differing levels of allegory, figurative language, metaphors, similes and literal language. For instance, the apocalyptic writings and poetry have more figurative and allegorical language than does the narrative or historical writing. These must be addressed, and the genre recognized to gain a full understanding of the intended meaning.

Howard Hendricks, longtime professor of hermeneutics at Dallas Theological Seminary, set out the method of observing the text, interpreting the text, applying the text in his book, Living By the Book. Other major Christian teachers, such as Chuck Swindoll, who wrote the foreword, Kay Arthur and David Jeremiah have based their hermeneutics on the principles Howard teaches._

Biblical hermeneutics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## UltimateReality

How many times have you heard the Nazi Hawly say something like this?

*"Basically, it seems to me that [intelligent design] is a God of the gaps type argument. This is when we look at something in the world that science cannot currently explain and attribute it to some kind of supernatural force. So, for example, at some point somewhere in history someone probably said that the god Thor was responsible for thunder and lightning in the sky. At that time there was no naturalistic explanation for thunder and lightning. This is a God of the gaps argument."*

_This comparison fails on so many levels one barely knows where to begin. It is very difficult to envision how someone could offer an inferential design argument based on the occurrence of thunder and lightning. On the other hand, it is not at all difficult to imagine how one could offer such an argument based upon the digital information encoded in the DNA molecule and the intricate nanotechnology that is so abundant in living systems. Indeed, a key selling point of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was that it served as a designer substitute. It could produce the appearance of design without the need for intelligent activity. Even Richard Dawkins, at the beginning of The Blind Watchmaker, asserts that "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." No natural explanation for thunder and lightning has ever claimed to offer a designer substitute.

The analogy offered by my friend also confuses observational and historical science. Thunder and lightening are a phenomenon that we can readily observe, repeatedly in real time. As such, the phenomenon is accessible to experiment and measurement (although, admittedly, the causes of lightning are still not fully understood). The origin and evolution of life, on the other hand, are historical events and therefore (since they cannot be directly observed) require a different sort of reasoning process, an inference-based methodology.

Historical scientific inquiry often employs a method of reasoning known as the abductive method of inference to the best explanation from multiple competing hypotheses. This methodology asks, "Given what we know about the explanatory efficacy of the various competing hypotheses, which cause best explains the evidence we observe?" In all of our experience of cause and effect, we know that complex and sequence-specific information, when it is traced back to its source, uniformly originates with an intelligent cause. Therefore, when we find complex and sequence-specific digital information encoded in the hereditary molecules of DNA and RNA, the most plausible candidate explanation -- given what we do know about the nature of information -- is that it also originated with a source of intelligent agency.

Another important problem with my friend's comparison is that ID does NOT invoke a supernatural force to explain biological phenomena. This is because the scientific evidence, at least on its own, does not justify an inference to a supernatural cause. The scientific evidence in living systems points to the activity of some intelligence. *Whether a natural or a supernatural intelligence is a question that is logically downstream, and is not part of the design hypothesis.* Jamie's misconception is apparent throughout his blog post. Contrary to his assertion, ID is not "a particular attempt to synthesize modern science and Christian faith." _

Once Again, Why Intelligent Design Is Not a "God-of-the-Gaps" Argument - Evolution News & Views


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you dismiss the idea dinosaurs were seen by man check the evidence is drawings and the records of historians. Funny some petroglyphs showed dinosaurs with stripes like a zebra ,what do they find several years but a dinosaur with the skin preserved yes and it had stripes like a zebra. There is plenty evidence supporting what creationists have said not the evolutionist fairytale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I heard if you keep repeating something it might become true. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why do we not find human fossils in the same layers as dinosaur fossils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".
Click to expand...

"We' (at least those of us in the relevant first world), have many examples of transitional fossils. 

That you're a hyper-.religious Loon wh embraces stupidity as relevant worldview is no reason why rational people should accept stupidity.


----------



## CrackedSkull

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you dismiss the idea dinosaurs were seen by man check the evidence is drawings and the records of historians. Funny some petroglyphs showed dinosaurs with stripes like a zebra ,what do they find several years but a dinosaur with the skin preserved yes and it had stripes like a zebra. There is plenty evidence supporting what creationists have said not the evolutionist fairytale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I heard if you keep repeating something it might become true. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why do we not find human fossils in the same layers as dinosaur fossils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".
Click to expand...


You will find them you just have to go beyond the myths in the Bible:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A

More here:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ



> There are many transitional fossils. *The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional"* as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
> 
> Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.



CC200: Transitional fossils

http://www.oldearth.org/transitional_fossils.htm



> Devonian tetrapods (limbed vertebrates), known from an increasingly large number of localities, have been shown to be mainly aquatic with many primitive features. In contrast, the post-Devonian record is marked by an Early Mississippian temporal gap ranging from the earliest Carboniferous (Tournaisian and early Viséan) to the mid-Viséan. *By the mid-Viséan, tetrapods had become effectively terrestrial as attested by the presence of stem amniotes, *developed an essentially modern aspect, and given rise to the crown group. Up to now, only two localities have yielded tetrapod specimens from the Tournaisian stage: one in Scotland with a single articulated skeleton and one in Nova Scotia with isolated bones, many of uncertain identity. We announce a series of discoveries of Tournaisian-age localities in Scotland that have yielded a wealth of new tetrapod and arthropod fossils. These include both terrestrial and aquatic forms and new taxa. We conclude that the gap in the fossil record has been an artifact of collection failure.



http://www.pnas.org/content/109/12/4532.full?sid=bf5700fe-031f-4289-baa4-b8f3de8982d7

So what was that about no transitional fossils? You are wrongly assuming that because there are gaps in the fossil record that there were no transitional fossils which is an illogical conclusion.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> Atheism is the MOST dangerous thing known to man.



Atheism AND theism are equally dangerous. They both suppose a conclusion that cannot be proven, which makes the only thinking person's position to be agnosticism, which I define for myself as : No proof either way has ever been put forward that either a god exists or doesn't exist, but if anyone ever comes up with any either way, I'm open to changing my mind.

Everyone else is delusional.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> How many times have you heard the Nazi Hawly say something like this



Oh my, it has gotten so bad for the angry Christian fundie that he is forced to once again scouring the bowels of fundie IDiot websites to cut and paste the comments if others. 

One of the problems with the web is that while it can be a valuable source of information, it can also be a playground for crackpot religious zealots to promote rather ludicrous ideas. 

What the angry Christian zealot fails to realize is that ID'iosy has long ago been exposed as a cover for Christian fundamentalist thumpers. I would have thought that Dover vs. kitzmiller, among other trashing of the silly ID creationist industry would have caused the fundies to slither away into the dark recesses of the spirit worlds they wish to dwell in. 

The gawds of the gaps description perfectly delineates the entirety of the fallacious fundie argument. False comparisons, bad analogies and appeals to fear and superstition has become the last resort of the Christian creationist industry. The ridicule they bring upon themselves is well deserved.


----------



## Hollie

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/casey-luskin-and-the-god-of-the-gaps/ 

Casey Luskin and the God of the Gaps The god of the gaps is one of the principal intellectual pillars of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute&#8216;s creationist public relations and lobbyingoperation, the Center forScience andCulture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).

The Discoveroids&#8217; magical designer &#8212; blessed be he! &#8212; is always lurking in the gaps,because according to their &#8220;theory&#8221; of intelligent design, anything not yet fully understood is best explained by a supernatural agency. As Wikipedia describes it:

God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God&#8217;s existence.

And as Einstein once said:

To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress.

&#8211; Albert Einstein, Science and Religion

The Discoveroids also rely heavily on William Paley&#8217;s famous watchmaker analogy. You know how that one goes &#8212; if something looks designed,thenbygolly it is designed.

Those two oldie-goldies are at the core of almost all of the Discoveroids&#8217; so-called scientific arguments. They occasionally use other fallacies, such as equivocation &#8212; the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning. We see that primitive tactic when they declare that he laws of nature require a lawmaker. But mostly they rely on Paley&#8217;s watchmaker and the god of the gaps.

Apparently all the criticism that their shoddy arguments attract is driving the Discoveroids to desperation. To refute the criticism, they&#8217;ve deployed one of their deepest thinkers &#8212; Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist. He&#8217;s a Curmudgeon fellow and a follower of the Knights of Uranus.

Casey&#8217;s latest post at the Discoveroids&#8217; blog is The Self-Refuting &#8220;God of theGaps&#8221;Critique. Casey says, with bold font added by us and his links omitted:

Regarding the claim that intelligent design is a &#8220;god of the gaps&#8221; argument, I&#8217;ve always found this criticism not only false, but also fallacious and self-refuting.

You gotta love Casey! He claims that pointing out a fallacy is fallacious. That, by the way, is a Tu quoque argument &#8212; that&#8217;s Latin for &#8220;you too.&#8221; Such arguments are commonly used on school playgrounds, as in: &#8220;I&#8217;m not a poop-head; you&#8217;re a poop-head!&#8221; Casey continues:

Critics of intelligent design often accuse ID proponents of using a &#8220;god of the gaps&#8221; argument, but they refuse to acknowledge that (1) ID isn&#8217;t a &#8220;gaps-based&#8221; argument at all since it in fact offers a positive argument for design in nature, and (2), in any event, ID requires no inference to &#8220;god.&#8221;

Regarding Casey&#8217;s first point, his &#8220;positive argument&#8221; for design, he links to one of his articles from a few months ago, which we wrote about here: DiscoveryInstitute: Are They Thinking AtAll? The bottom line is that they don&#8217;t have a positive argument for ID. His secondpoint is astonishingly silly. Yes, the Discoveroids are careful never to specify that their magic designer is Yahweh. But self-censorship isn&#8217;t an argument; it&#8217;s a litigationtactic &#8212; a forlorn hope that they&#8217;ll somehow be perceived as secular, and thus they won&#8217;t get ensnared by the First Amendment&#8217;s prohibition of establishing a state religion. Let&#8217;s read on:

But there&#8217;s an even deeper problem with the [god of the gaps] argument.

Oh goodie &#8212; maybe Casey has something new for us. He continues:

Ironically, when critics make this accusation, they are usually committing a &#8220;gaps&#8221; fallacy themselves. How so? These very same materialists (1) admit that gaps in the evidence for Darwinian evolution exist, and (2) assume that those gaps can and will be filled by materialist explanations. Otherwise, they wouldn&#8217;t be attacking ID for purportedly filling those gaps with &#8220;god.&#8221;

Lordy, lordy. Hey, Casey: A gap in the fossil record is just that &#8212; a gap! Until a fossilisfoundtofill it, it&#8217;s filled with nothing. But, like a blank spot in one&#8217;s genealogicalchart,there isindeed an assumption that something once did exist in that space, and maybe, by diligent searching, the missing information will be found. If not, okay, there&#8217;s a gap. But there&#8217;s no reason for the assumption made by Discoveroids that a miracle occurred there.

Then Casey pounds home his brilliant point,andas he does so,we imagine his Discoveroid comrades are cheering his brilliance:

They can&#8217;t make a &#8220;god of the gaps&#8221; accusation without making a &#8220;materialism of the gaps&#8221; argument &#8212;one that assumes the truth of their own materialistic outlook.

Satisfied that he&#8217;s silenced his critics, Casey now comes to his conclusion:

Most &#8220;gaps-based&#8221; criticisms are flawed in these ways, which is why I try to avoid them. People are entitled to make whatever arguments they want, provided they use positive evidence to back up their position. ID does exactly that.

Casey ends with a link to one of his articles from a year ago, in which he presented ID&#8217;s positive case. As you probably guessed, we posted about it &#8212; see DiscoveryInstitute: IntelligentDesigner or Zeus?

So there you are, dear reader. Nothing has changed. The Discoveroids are still relying on their ancient fallacies. Well, why not? They don&#8217;t have anything else.


----------



## LittleNipper

What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like. They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like. They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...


So if god exists, why can't evolution be part of its plan?


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like. They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...
> 
> 
> 
> So if god exists, why can't evolution be part of its plan?
Click to expand...


Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage." In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.


----------



## Koios

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like. They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...
> 
> 
> 
> So if god exists, why can't evolution be part of its plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage." In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.
Click to expand...


But abortion is a wonderful thing, what with them little miracles being dumped into bio hazard waste bins, praise babyjesus.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CrackedSkull said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard if you keep repeating something it might become true. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why do we not find human fossils in the same layers as dinosaur fossils.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will find them you just have to go beyond the myths in the Bible:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A
> 
> More here:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many transitional fossils. *The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional"* as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
> 
> Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CC200: Transitional fossils
> 
> Creation Science Rebuttal, Transitional Fossils
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devonian tetrapods (limbed vertebrates), known from an increasingly large number of localities, have been shown to be mainly aquatic with many primitive features. In contrast, the post-Devonian record is marked by an Early Mississippian temporal gap ranging from the earliest Carboniferous (Tournaisian and early Viséan) to the mid-Viséan. *By the mid-Viséan, tetrapods had become effectively terrestrial as attested by the presence of stem amniotes, *developed an essentially modern aspect, and given rise to the crown group. Up to now, only two localities have yielded tetrapod specimens from the Tournaisian stage: one in Scotland with a single articulated skeleton and one in Nova Scotia with isolated bones, many of uncertain identity. We announce a series of discoveries of Tournaisian-age localities in Scotland that have yielded a wealth of new tetrapod and arthropod fossils. These include both terrestrial and aquatic forms and new taxa. We conclude that the gap in the fossil record has been an artifact of collection failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.pnas.org/content/109/12/4532.full?sid=bf5700fe-031f-4289-baa4-b8f3de8982d7
> 
> So what was that about no transitional fossils? You are wrongly assuming that because there are gaps in the fossil record that there were no transitional fossils which is an illogical conclusion.
Click to expand...


Common mistake made by idelogical websites suggesting that the fossil record shows gradualism. The fossil record shows darwin was wrong that layers of strata would show gradualism and produce millions of transitional fossils. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was developed because stasis was found in the fossil record not gradual evolution over eons of time. The evolutionists quickly moved to discredit the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the words of paleontologists that spoke of stasis in the fossil recoed because it blows of the theory of evolution over billions of years.

Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:

Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.41

Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record:

When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly42 

Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states: 

If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.43


There is no gradual development in the fossil record such as Darwin had predicted. Different species emerged all at once, with their own peculiar bodily structures. 


The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s:

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.44 

Further research only strengthened the facts of stasis and sudden appearance. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge write in 1993 that "most species, during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction."45 Robert Carroll is forced to agree in 1997 that "Most major groups appear to originate and diversify over geologically very short durations, and to persist for much longer periods without major morphological or trophic change."46

At this point, it is necessary to clarify just what the concept of "transitional form" means. The intermediate forms predicted by the theory of evolution are living things falling between two species, but which possess deficient or semi-developed organs. But sometimes the concept of intermediate form is misunderstood, and living structures which do not possess the features of transitional forms are seen as actually doing so. For instance, if one group of living things possesses features which belong to another, this is not an intermediate form feature. The platypus, a mammal living in Australia, reproduces by laying eggs just like reptiles. In addition, it has a bill similar to that of a duck. Scientists describe such creatures as the platypus as "mosaic creatures." That mosaic creatures do not count as intermediate forms is also accepted by such foremost paleontologists as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.47

Darwinism Refuted.com

Now let's take a look at stasis in the fossil record with living fossils.

This site provides many organisms that show stasis in the fossil record.Search through this site there is plenty of evidence blowing up gradualism.

Living-Fossils.com

How do you explain stasis in the fossil record ? then try and show extinct organisms fully formed and no gradualism in your examples of tranitional fossils ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if god exists, why can't evolution be part of its plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage." In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But abortion is a wonderful thing, what with them little miracles being dumped into bio hazard waste bins, praise babyjesus.
Click to expand...


You need help !


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will find them you just have to go beyond the myths in the Bible:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A
> 
> More here:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> CC200: Transitional fossils
> 
> Creation Science Rebuttal, Transitional Fossils
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devonian tetrapods (limbed vertebrates), known from an increasingly large number of localities, have been shown to be mainly aquatic with many primitive features. In contrast, the post-Devonian record is marked by an Early Mississippian temporal gap ranging from the earliest Carboniferous (Tournaisian and early Viséan) to the mid-Viséan. *By the mid-Viséan, tetrapods had become effectively terrestrial as attested by the presence of stem amniotes, *developed an essentially modern aspect, and given rise to the crown group. Up to now, only two localities have yielded tetrapod specimens from the Tournaisian stage: one in Scotland with a single articulated skeleton and one in Nova Scotia with isolated bones, many of uncertain identity. We announce a series of discoveries of Tournaisian-age localities in Scotland that have yielded a wealth of new tetrapod and arthropod fossils. These include both terrestrial and aquatic forms and new taxa. We conclude that the gap in the fossil record has been an artifact of collection failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earliest Carboniferous tetrapod and arthropod faunas from Scotland populate Romer's Gap
> 
> So what was that about no transitional fossils? You are wrongly assuming that because there are gaps in the fossil record that there were no transitional fossils which is an illogical conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common mistake made by idelogical websites suggesting that the fossil record shows gradualism. The fossil record shows darwin was wrong that layers of strata would show gradualism and produce millions of transitional fossils. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was developed because stasis was found in the fossil record not gradual evolution over eons of time. The evolutionists quickly moved to discredit the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the words of paleontologists that spoke of stasis in the fossil recoed because it blows of the theory of evolution over billions of years.
> 
> Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:
> 
> Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.41
> 
> Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record:
> 
> When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly&#8230;42
> 
> Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states:
> 
> If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.43
> 
> 
> There is no gradual development in the fossil record such as Darwin had predicted. Different species emerged all at once, with their own peculiar bodily structures.
> 
> 
> The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s:
> 
> The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.44
> 
> Further research only strengthened the facts of stasis and sudden appearance. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge write in 1993 that "most species, during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction."45 Robert Carroll is forced to agree in 1997 that "Most major groups appear to originate and diversify over geologically very short durations, and to persist for much longer periods without major morphological or trophic change."46
> 
> At this point, it is necessary to clarify just what the concept of "transitional form" means. The intermediate forms predicted by the theory of evolution are living things falling between two species, but which possess deficient or semi-developed organs. But sometimes the concept of intermediate form is misunderstood, and living structures which do not possess the features of transitional forms are seen as actually doing so. For instance, if one group of living things possesses features which belong to another, this is not an intermediate form feature. The platypus, a mammal living in Australia, reproduces by laying eggs just like reptiles. In addition, it has a bill similar to that of a duck. Scientists describe such creatures as the platypus as "mosaic creatures." That mosaic creatures do not count as intermediate forms is also accepted by such foremost paleontologists as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.47
> 
> Darwinism Refuted.com
> 
> Now let's take a look at stasis in the fossil record with living fossils.
> 
> This site provides many organisms that show stasis in the fossil record.Search through this site there is plenty of evidence blowing up gradualism.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> How do you explain stasis in the fossil record ? then try and show extinct organisms fully formed and no gradualism in your examples of tranitional fossils ?
Click to expand...


How does the fundie do it? The above is the same link to Harun Yahya posted multiple times. The fundie has also pasted the same falsified "quotes" which have been shown to be frauds, twice previously. 

Why do fundies believe that posting lies over and over again will somehow lessen the lie?

It seems that lies and deceit are an integral part of the fundie agenda.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage." In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But abortion is a wonderful thing, what with them little miracles being dumped into bio hazard waste bins, praise babyjesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need help !
Click to expand...


Nah; hear me out: sure; we're killing God's little miracles, but they're only children.  Whiny, expense, non-productive (PAY NO TAX!) babies.

Put 'em in the blender!!!


----------



## CrackedSkull

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will find them you just have to go beyond the myths in the Bible:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A
> 
> More here:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> CC200: Transitional fossils
> 
> Creation Science Rebuttal, Transitional Fossils
> 
> 
> 
> Earliest Carboniferous tetrapod and arthropod faunas from Scotland populate Romer's Gap
> 
> So what was that about no transitional fossils? You are wrongly assuming that because there are gaps in the fossil record that there were no transitional fossils which is an illogical conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Common mistake made by idelogical websites suggesting that the fossil record shows gradualism. The fossil record shows darwin was wrong that layers of strata would show gradualism and produce millions of transitional fossils. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was developed because stasis was found in the fossil record not gradual evolution over eons of time. The evolutionists quickly moved to discredit the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the words of paleontologists that spoke of stasis in the fossil recoed because it blows of the theory of evolution over billions of years.
> 
> Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:
> 
> Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.41
> 
> Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record:
> 
> When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly42
> 
> Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states:
> 
> If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.43
> 
> 
> There is no gradual development in the fossil record such as Darwin had predicted. Different species emerged all at once, with their own peculiar bodily structures.
> 
> 
> The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s:
> 
> The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.44
> 
> Further research only strengthened the facts of stasis and sudden appearance. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge write in 1993 that "most species, during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction."45 Robert Carroll is forced to agree in 1997 that "Most major groups appear to originate and diversify over geologically very short durations, and to persist for much longer periods without major morphological or trophic change."46
> 
> At this point, it is necessary to clarify just what the concept of "transitional form" means. The intermediate forms predicted by the theory of evolution are living things falling between two species, but which possess deficient or semi-developed organs. But sometimes the concept of intermediate form is misunderstood, and living structures which do not possess the features of transitional forms are seen as actually doing so. For instance, if one group of living things possesses features which belong to another, this is not an intermediate form feature. The platypus, a mammal living in Australia, reproduces by laying eggs just like reptiles. In addition, it has a bill similar to that of a duck. Scientists describe such creatures as the platypus as "mosaic creatures." That mosaic creatures do not count as intermediate forms is also accepted by such foremost paleontologists as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.47
> 
> Darwinism Refuted.com
> 
> Now let's take a look at stasis in the fossil record with living fossils.
> 
> This site provides many organisms that show stasis in the fossil record.Search through this site there is plenty of evidence blowing up gradualism.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> How do you explain stasis in the fossil record ? then try and show extinct organisms fully formed and no gradualism in your examples of tranitional fossils ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does the fundie do it? The above is the same link to Harun Yahya posted multiple times. The fundie has also pasted the same falsified "quotes" which have been shown to be frauds, twice previously.
> 
> Why do fundies believe that posting lies over and over again will somehow lessen the lie?
> 
> It seems that lies and deceit are an integral part of the fundie agenda.
Click to expand...




> It seems that lies and deceit are an integral part of the fundie agenda.



Its been a LIE for 2000 years no need for them to change tactics now.


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if god exists, why can't evolution be part of its plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage.*" In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.
Click to expand...


Wtf does that have to do with evolution? 

Anyways, if Jesus actually existed, a lot of people think that he might have been gay himself. All the paintings of him portray him as very effeminate, he only hung around with guys, only had sex once with a woman to see if he'd like it (he obviously didn't or he would have done it again and again...), he always wore a dress-like garment, and he rode that gay pride symbol of ancient times, the donkey.


----------



## Koios

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if god exists, why can't evolution be part of its plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage.*" In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wtf does that have to do with evolution? *
> 
> Anyways, if Jesus actually existed, a lot of people think that he might have been gay himself. All the paintings of him portray him as very effeminate, he only hung around with guys, only had sex once with a woman to see if he'd like it (he obviously didn't or he would have done it again and again...), he always wore a dress-like garment, and he rode that gay pride symbol of ancient times, the donkey.
Click to expand...


There's a tie-in.  When species evolve, they wind up with pretty complex reproductive systems, as indeed humans do, since sex is pretty damn ambiguous until certain events in the womb assign gender, albeit, not always exactly.  Some of us are  thus born straight or gay or bi, or are women with male genetalia, or males with female parts, or maybe both sex organs.  It's all over the map, since nature neither moralizes, nor gets everything right everytime.

So evolution leads to gay humans, many of whom will marry.


----------



## ima

Koios said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage.*" In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wtf does that have to do with evolution? *
> 
> Anyways, if Jesus actually existed, a lot of people think that he might have been gay himself. All the paintings of him portray him as very effeminate, he only hung around with guys, only had sex once with a woman to see if he'd like it (he obviously didn't or he would have done it again and again...), he always wore a dress-like garment, and he rode that gay pride symbol of ancient times, the donkey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a tie-in.  When species evolve, they wind up with pretty complex reproductive systems, as indeed humans do, since sex is pretty damn ambiguous until certain events in the womb assign gender, albeit, not always exactly.  Some of us are  thus born straight or gay or bi, or are women with male genetalia, or males with female parts, or maybe both sex organs.  It's all over the map, since nature neither moralizes, nor gets everything right everytime.
> 
> So evolution leads to gay humans, many of whom will marry.
Click to expand...

So how do you know that gays aren't part of the plan? Who said so?


----------



## Koios

ima said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wtf does that have to do with evolution? *
> 
> Anyways, if Jesus actually existed, a lot of people think that he might have been gay himself. All the paintings of him portray him as very effeminate, he only hung around with guys, only had sex once with a woman to see if he'd like it (he obviously didn't or he would have done it again and again...), he always wore a dress-like garment, and he rode that gay pride symbol of ancient times, the donkey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a tie-in.  When species evolve, they wind up with pretty complex reproductive systems, as indeed humans do, since sex is pretty damn ambiguous until certain events in the womb assign gender, albeit, not always exactly.  Some of us are  thus born straight or gay or bi, or are women with male genetalia, or males with female parts, or maybe both sex organs.  It's all over the map, since nature neither moralizes, nor gets everything right everytime.
> 
> So evolution leads to gay humans, many of whom will marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. So how do you know that gays aren't part of the plan? 2. Who said so?
Click to expand...


1. Because there is no plan; it's random.  2. Lots of folks, with emphasis on our most intelligent / well-schooled, beginning with Chuck Darwin.


----------



## Bill Angel

> "The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s:"


How does the migration of animals and man figure into this? If sometime in the far distant future paleontologists unearth the fossil record of human beings in North America they will find no fossil record of man's presence earlier than 50,000 years ago, when fossils of man suddenly appear. The reason of course is because of man's migration into North America, and not because man suddenly evolved from older species present in the fossil record of North America, or was suddenly created by God in North America, which should be taken as the location of the Garden of Eden.


----------



## UltimateReality

CrackedSkull said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard if you keep repeating something it might become true. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why do we not find human fossils in the same layers as dinosaur fossils.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will find them you just have to go beyond the myths in the Bible:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A
> 
> More here:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many transitional fossils. *The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional"* as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
> 
> Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CC200: Transitional fossils
> 
> Creation Science Rebuttal, Transitional Fossils
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devonian tetrapods (limbed vertebrates), known from an increasingly large number of localities, have been shown to be mainly aquatic with many primitive features. In contrast, the post-Devonian record is marked by an Early Mississippian temporal gap ranging from the earliest Carboniferous (Tournaisian and early Viséan) to the mid-Viséan. *By the mid-Viséan, tetrapods had become effectively terrestrial as attested by the presence of stem amniotes, *developed an essentially modern aspect, and given rise to the crown group. Up to now, only two localities have yielded tetrapod specimens from the Tournaisian stage: one in Scotland with a single articulated skeleton and one in Nova Scotia with isolated bones, many of uncertain identity. We announce a series of discoveries of Tournaisian-age localities in Scotland that have yielded a wealth of new tetrapod and arthropod fossils. These include both terrestrial and aquatic forms and new taxa. We conclude that the gap in the fossil record has been an artifact of collection failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.pnas.org/content/109/12/4532.full?sid=bf5700fe-031f-4289-baa4-b8f3de8982d7
> 
> So what was that about no transitional fossils? You are wrongly assuming that because there are gaps in the fossil record that there were no transitional fossils which is an illogical conclusion.
Click to expand...


Like I said, "might haves" and "could haves" with NO REAL EVIDENCE.


----------



## jack113

LittleNipper said:


> What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like. They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...



To bad you don't have something more constructive to do with your life than waste it like this.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if god exists, why can't evolution be part of its plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage." In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But abortion is a wonderful thing, what with them little miracles being dumped into bio hazard waste bins, praise babyjesus.
Click to expand...


Like I said, Atheism is the most dangerous worldview.


----------



## UltimateReality

CrackedSkull said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Common mistake made by idelogical websites suggesting that the fossil record shows gradualism. The fossil record shows darwin was wrong that layers of strata would show gradualism and produce millions of transitional fossils. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was developed because stasis was found in the fossil record not gradual evolution over eons of time. The evolutionists quickly moved to discredit the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the words of paleontologists that spoke of stasis in the fossil recoed because it blows of the theory of evolution over billions of years.
> 
> Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:
> 
> Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.41
> 
> Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record:
> 
> When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly42
> 
> Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states:
> 
> If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.43
> 
> 
> There is no gradual development in the fossil record such as Darwin had predicted. Different species emerged all at once, with their own peculiar bodily structures.
> 
> 
> The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s:
> 
> The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.44
> 
> Further research only strengthened the facts of stasis and sudden appearance. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge write in 1993 that "most species, during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction."45 Robert Carroll is forced to agree in 1997 that "Most major groups appear to originate and diversify over geologically very short durations, and to persist for much longer periods without major morphological or trophic change."46
> 
> At this point, it is necessary to clarify just what the concept of "transitional form" means. The intermediate forms predicted by the theory of evolution are living things falling between two species, but which possess deficient or semi-developed organs. But sometimes the concept of intermediate form is misunderstood, and living structures which do not possess the features of transitional forms are seen as actually doing so. For instance, if one group of living things possesses features which belong to another, this is not an intermediate form feature. The platypus, a mammal living in Australia, reproduces by laying eggs just like reptiles. In addition, it has a bill similar to that of a duck. Scientists describe such creatures as the platypus as "mosaic creatures." That mosaic creatures do not count as intermediate forms is also accepted by such foremost paleontologists as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.47
> 
> Darwinism Refuted.com
> 
> Now let's take a look at stasis in the fossil record with living fossils.
> 
> This site provides many organisms that show stasis in the fossil record.Search through this site there is plenty of evidence blowing up gradualism.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> How do you explain stasis in the fossil record ? then try and show extinct organisms fully formed and no gradualism in your examples of tranitional fossils ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does the fundie do it? The above is the same link to Harun Yahya posted multiple times. The fundie has also pasted the same falsified "quotes" which have been shown to be frauds, twice previously.
> 
> Why do fundies believe that posting lies over and over again will somehow lessen the lie?
> 
> It seems that lies and deceit are an integral part of the fundie agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that lies and deceit are an integral part of the fundie agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its been a LIE for 2000 years no need for them to change tactics now.
Click to expand...


Dur, which way did he go George. The Judeo-Christian tradition is much older than 2000 years Einstein. If your going to resort to attacks, at least be accurate.


----------



## UltimateReality

jack113 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like. They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To bad you don't have something more constructive to do with your life than waste it like this.
Click to expand...


If you are attempting a rebuttal to gain some scientific credibility, you might want to start with your grammar.


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage." In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But abortion is a wonderful thing, what with them little miracles being dumped into bio hazard waste bins, praise babyjesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, Atheism is the most dangerous worldview.
Click to expand...


Not shit!  Them atheists going at it in the middle east not to mention flying planes into buildings and shit, are a real menace we need to protect our homeland security with a big guvmint agency. 

Amen


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will find them you just have to go beyond the myths in the Bible:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A
> 
> More here:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> CC200: Transitional fossils
> 
> Creation Science Rebuttal, Transitional Fossils
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devonian tetrapods (limbed vertebrates), known from an increasingly large number of localities, have been shown to be mainly aquatic with many primitive features. In contrast, the post-Devonian record is marked by an Early Mississippian temporal gap ranging from the earliest Carboniferous (Tournaisian and early Viséan) to the mid-Viséan. *By the mid-Viséan, tetrapods had become effectively terrestrial as attested by the presence of stem amniotes, *developed an essentially modern aspect, and given rise to the crown group. Up to now, only two localities have yielded tetrapod specimens from the Tournaisian stage: one in Scotland with a single articulated skeleton and one in Nova Scotia with isolated bones, many of uncertain identity. We announce a series of discoveries of Tournaisian-age localities in Scotland that have yielded a wealth of new tetrapod and arthropod fossils. These include both terrestrial and aquatic forms and new taxa. We conclude that the gap in the fossil record has been an artifact of collection failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earliest Carboniferous tetrapod and arthropod faunas from Scotland populate Romer's Gap
> 
> So what was that about no transitional fossils? You are wrongly assuming that because there are gaps in the fossil record that there were no transitional fossils which is an illogical conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, "might haves" and "could haves" with NO REAL EVIDENCE.
Click to expand...

Fundie zealots being science illiterate makes them poor candidates to critique established scientific principles.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a prime example of your limited understanding. I will infer from you Captain Obvious attempt to splain to me what accord means that the joke went right over your cantankerous crotchety head.
> 
> 
> 
> as always attempting and failing to be funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are.
Click to expand...

yes I 'am all the things you epically fail at!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you dismiss the idea dinosaurs were seen by man check the evidence is drawings and the records of historians. Funny some petroglyphs showed dinosaurs with stripes like a zebra ,what do they find several years but a dinosaur with the skin preserved yes and it had stripes like a zebra. There is plenty evidence supporting what creationists have said not the evolutionist fairytale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I heard if you keep repeating something it might become true. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why do we not find human fossils in the same layers as dinosaur fossils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".
Click to expand...

more creationist diarrhea!


fact:Transitional fossil 


A transitional fossil is a fossil of an organism that has traits from multiple evolutionary stages. Proponents of creationism claim that "evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found", despite the discovery of Archaeopteryx (a transitional form between maniraptoran dinosaurs and basal (primitive) birds, and among the best examples of evolution) only two years after Darwin published The Origin of Species. Creationists say that we never saw evolution happen, but transitional fossils are the next best thing. 

Since then, many other transitional forms, such as Ambulocetus and Pakicetus[1][2] (land mammals to marine cetaceans), and Tiktaalik[3] and Acanthostega[4] (fish to tetrapods) have been found. 

The National Academy of Sciences has commented on the abundance of transitional forms: "So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species."[5] 

 Creationist denial

What was that about half a wing not being useful?
Finding transitional forms never impresses creationists. If a transitional form B, between known species A and C is found, they demand "transitional forms" between A & B and B & C, a demand that is essentially unfulfillable at the individual level, such as at a parent-child case where no "transitional form" occurs. Apparently, the only thing that would satisfy them is a complete set of generation-by-generation fossils of every life-form in a direct line of descent from the first bacteria to Charles Darwin's grand-father[6] However, due to the rarity of the fossilisation process, this is unlikely to occur, although new finds are being made which add to the information provided by the fossil record. 



By Rima Chaddha
Posted 11.01.07
NOVA

In 2004, scientists digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed fossils of a half-fish, half-amphibian that all but confirmed paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods&#8211;four-limbed animals, including us&#8211;evolved from fish. It is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges a so-called evolutionary gap between different types of animal. In this slide show, examine five important cases.
NOVA | Fossil Evidence


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will find them you just have to go beyond the myths in the Bible:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A
> 
> More here:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> CC200: Transitional fossils
> 
> Creation Science Rebuttal, Transitional Fossils
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devonian tetrapods (limbed vertebrates), known from an increasingly large number of localities, have been shown to be mainly aquatic with many primitive features. In contrast, the post-Devonian record is marked by an Early Mississippian temporal gap ranging from the earliest Carboniferous (Tournaisian and early Viséan) to the mid-Viséan. *By the mid-Viséan, tetrapods had become effectively terrestrial as attested by the presence of stem amniotes, *developed an essentially modern aspect, and given rise to the crown group. Up to now, only two localities have yielded tetrapod specimens from the Tournaisian stage: one in Scotland with a single articulated skeleton and one in Nova Scotia with isolated bones, many of uncertain identity. We announce a series of discoveries of Tournaisian-age localities in Scotland that have yielded a wealth of new tetrapod and arthropod fossils. These include both terrestrial and aquatic forms and new taxa. We conclude that the gap in the fossil record has been an artifact of collection failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.pnas.org/content/109/12/4532.full?sid=bf5700fe-031f-4289-baa4-b8f3de8982d7
> 
> So what was that about no transitional fossils? You are wrongly assuming that because there are gaps in the fossil record that there were no transitional fossils which is an illogical conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, "might haves" and "could haves" with NO REAL EVIDENCE.
Click to expand...


It is odd that in spite of your OCD-like inspired (religiously inspired) denial of the science literature, transitional fossils are well documented. Your insistence that even the existence of fossil evidence is the result of a global conspiracy is just more of the sad, diseased musings of the YEC'ist mindset.

The Panda's Thumb: Search Results 


As we all know, Tiktaalik roseae (Tiktaalik roseae: Home) is a magnificent example of a transitional fossil connecting aquatic crittersfishwith tetrapods, 4-limbed critters. Nevertheless, there are still gaps in that transitional sequence. A recent PNAS paper (link to abstract; full paper is behind a paywall) describes fossils of early amphibians that are later than Tiktaalik and are within Romers Gap. Romers Gap is a period around 15 million years long, from roughly 360mya to 345mya, where (up to now) there was a distinct lack of fossils of proto-tetrapods or related critters. The new PNAS papers senior author is Jenny Clack, one of the most prominent paleontologists studying that era, (along with people like Neal Shubin and Per Ahlberg. Per was an active commenter on the late lamented Internet Infidels Discussion Board way back when I was an administrator of IIDB.

With these new fossils, the transition from water to land animals is becoming nearly as well documented as the synapsid to mammal transition. Nobel Intent (New fossil finds filling in history of tetrapods | Ars Technica) has more on the new paper.


----------



## ima

So again, why can't gays be part of the creator's plan? Who said so?


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like. They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...
> 
> 
> 
> So if god exists, why can't evolution be part of its plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage." In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.
Click to expand...

and the willfully ignorant and bias award go's to .....tiny halfwit ....


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard if you keep repeating something it might become true. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why do we not find human fossils in the same layers as dinosaur fossils.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more creationist diarrhea!
> 
> 
> fact:Transitional fossil
> 
> 
> A transitional fossil is a fossil of an organism that has traits from multiple evolutionary stages. Proponents of creationism claim that "evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found", despite the discovery of Archaeopteryx (a transitional form between maniraptoran dinosaurs and basal (primitive) birds, and among the best examples of evolution) only two years after Darwin published The Origin of Species. Creationists say that we never saw evolution happen, but transitional fossils are the next best thing.
> 
> Since then, many other transitional forms, such as Ambulocetus and Pakicetus[1][2] (land mammals to marine cetaceans), and Tiktaalik[3] and Acanthostega[4] (fish to tetrapods) have been found.
> 
> *The National Academy of Sciences*...
Click to expand...


 You mean the national academy of atheists posing as scientists?


----------



## jack113

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage." In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But abortion is a wonderful thing, what with them little miracles being dumped into bio hazard waste bins, praise babyjesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, Atheism is the most dangerous worldview.
Click to expand...


Ima your making god over in your own image by what you just posted. How can you say what god thinks or wants. Christians do not condemn and try to make over religion in their own image. Science does not try in any way to disprove god it merely shows how the universe works. If their is a god you have no way of knowing why he made the universe the way he did or the reasons he made it.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".
> 
> 
> 
> more creationist diarrhea!
> 
> 
> fact:Transitional fossil
> 
> 
> A transitional fossil is a fossil of an organism that has traits from multiple evolutionary stages. Proponents of creationism claim that "evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found", despite the discovery of Archaeopteryx (a transitional form between maniraptoran dinosaurs and basal (primitive) birds, and among the best examples of evolution) only two years after Darwin published The Origin of Species. Creationists say that we never saw evolution happen, but transitional fossils are the next best thing.
> 
> Since then, many other transitional forms, such as Ambulocetus and Pakicetus[1][2] (land mammals to marine cetaceans), and Tiktaalik[3] and Acanthostega[4] (fish to tetrapods) have been found.
> 
> *The National Academy of Sciences*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the national academy of atheists posing as scientists?
Click to expand...


They're not just scientists, they're evilutionist atheists who are all part of a global conspiracy to further education, rational thinking and enlightenment.

They are to be shunned and all are to worship at the altar of Harun Yahya, ... at least according to fundie whackjobs.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".
> 
> 
> 
> more creationist diarrhea!
> 
> 
> fact:Transitional fossil
> 
> 
> A transitional fossil is a fossil of an organism that has traits from multiple evolutionary stages. Proponents of creationism claim that "evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found", despite the discovery of Archaeopteryx (a transitional form between maniraptoran dinosaurs and basal (primitive) birds, and among the best examples of evolution) only two years after Darwin published The Origin of Species. Creationists say that we never saw evolution happen, but transitional fossils are the next best thing.
> 
> Since then, many other transitional forms, such as Ambulocetus and Pakicetus[1][2] (land mammals to marine cetaceans), and Tiktaalik[3] and Acanthostega[4] (fish to tetrapods) have been found.
> 
> *The National Academy of Sciences*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the national academy of atheists posing as scientists?
Click to expand...

no, that would be your infantile rationalizing and denial of fact.


----------



## daws101

jack113 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> But abortion is a wonderful thing, what with them little miracles being dumped into bio hazard waste bins, praise babyjesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, Atheism is the most dangerous worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ima your making god over in your own image by what you just posted. How can you say what god thinks or wants. Christians do not condemn and try to make over religion in their own image. Science does not try in any way to disprove god it merely shows how the universe works. If their is a god you have no way of knowing why he made the universe the way he did or the reasons he made it.
Click to expand...

me smells a contradiction!


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more creationist diarrhea!
> 
> 
> fact:Transitional fossil
> 
> 
> A transitional fossil is a fossil of an organism that has traits from multiple evolutionary stages. Proponents of creationism claim that "evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found", despite the discovery of Archaeopteryx (a transitional form between maniraptoran dinosaurs and basal (primitive) birds, and among the best examples of evolution) only two years after Darwin published The Origin of Species. Creationists say that we never saw evolution happen, but transitional fossils are the next best thing.
> 
> Since then, many other transitional forms, such as Ambulocetus and Pakicetus[1][2] (land mammals to marine cetaceans), and Tiktaalik[3] and Acanthostega[4] (fish to tetrapods) have been found.
> 
> *The National Academy of Sciences*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the national academy of atheists posing as scientists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not just scientists, they're evilutionist atheists who are all part of a global conspiracy to further education, rational thinking and enlightenment.
> 
> They are to be shunned and all are to worship at the altar of Harun Yahya, ... at least according to fundie whackjobs.
Click to expand...


hey detective douche bag, the previous is a fine example of what is funny.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage.*" In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wtf does that have to do with evolution? *
> 
> Anyways, if Jesus actually existed, a lot of people think that he might have been gay himself. All the paintings of him portray him as very effeminate, he only hung around with guys, only had sex once with a woman to see if he'd like it (he obviously didn't or he would have done it again and again...), he always wore a dress-like garment, and he rode that gay pride symbol of ancient times, the donkey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a tie-in.  When species evolve, they wind up with pretty complex reproductive systems, as indeed humans do, since sex is pretty damn ambiguous until certain events in the womb assign gender, albeit, not always exactly.  Some of us are  thus born straight or gay or bi, or are women with male genetalia, or males with female parts, or maybe both sex organs.  It's all over the map, since nature neither moralizes, nor gets everything right everytime.
> 
> So evolution leads to gay humans, many of whom will marry.
Click to expand...

There is no scientific evidence that genetic defects lead to gay people. I would say gay people are merely people who choose go against the norm and live a perverted life.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wtf does that have to do with evolution? *
> 
> Anyways, if Jesus actually existed, a lot of people think that he might have been gay himself. All the paintings of him portray him as very effeminate, he only hung around with guys, only had sex once with a woman to see if he'd like it (he obviously didn't or he would have done it again and again...), he always wore a dress-like garment, and he rode that gay pride symbol of ancient times, the donkey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a tie-in.  When species evolve, they wind up with pretty complex reproductive systems, as indeed humans do, since sex is pretty damn ambiguous until certain events in the womb assign gender, albeit, not always exactly.  Some of us are  thus born straight or gay or bi, or are women with male genetalia, or males with female parts, or maybe both sex organs.  It's all over the map, since nature neither moralizes, nor gets everything right everytime.
> 
> So evolution leads to gay humans, many of whom will marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no scientific evidence that genetic defects lead to gay people. I would say gay people are merely people who choose go against the norm and live a perverted life.
Click to expand...


Yes; there's tons of it.  But being it's so very, very common, it's not what thinking people, nor humans with average degrees of humanity, call a defect.  We say, there's a genetic component, which must be at play due to other imperical evidence, most notably, birth-order and identical twin studies, which suggest something much deeper than mere genetics, since environment (mother's womb) comes into play, and quite possibly there's an epigenetic component as well, since patterns are so apparent in birth order studies as to complete eliminate random choice by individuals as being anything near possible.

Note that Darwin identified, very accurately, evolution and species origins, long before the mechanism (genes) was discovered by a couple of Nobel laureates, who I am proud to say are as I am, Atheist.


----------



## CrackedSkull

UltimateReality said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will find them you just have to go beyond the myths in the Bible:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A
> 
> More here:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> CC200: Transitional fossils
> 
> Creation Science Rebuttal, Transitional Fossils
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devonian tetrapods (limbed vertebrates), known from an increasingly large number of localities, have been shown to be mainly aquatic with many primitive features. In contrast, the post-Devonian record is marked by an Early Mississippian temporal gap ranging from the earliest Carboniferous (Tournaisian and early Viséan) to the mid-Viséan. *By the mid-Viséan, tetrapods had become effectively terrestrial as attested by the presence of stem amniotes, *developed an essentially modern aspect, and given rise to the crown group. Up to now, only two localities have yielded tetrapod specimens from the Tournaisian stage: one in Scotland with a single articulated skeleton and one in Nova Scotia with isolated bones, many of uncertain identity. We announce a series of discoveries of Tournaisian-age localities in Scotland that have yielded a wealth of new tetrapod and arthropod fossils. These include both terrestrial and aquatic forms and new taxa. We conclude that the gap in the fossil record has been an artifact of collection failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.pnas.org/content/109/12/4532.full?sid=bf5700fe-031f-4289-baa4-b8f3de8982d7
> 
> So what was that about no transitional fossils? You are wrongly assuming that because there are gaps in the fossil record that there were no transitional fossils which is an illogical conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, "might haves" and "could haves" with NO REAL EVIDENCE.
Click to expand...


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.God might have created the universe, God might have created the seas, God could have changed shit long a go. God should have taken a science course at the local university in heaven and he would not be looking like a total jerk now. These work both ways. Denial changes nothing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a tie-in.  When species evolve, they wind up with pretty complex reproductive systems, as indeed humans do, since sex is pretty damn ambiguous until certain events in the womb assign gender, albeit, not always exactly.  Some of us are  thus born straight or gay or bi, or are women with male genetalia, or males with female parts, or maybe both sex organs.  It's all over the map, since nature neither moralizes, nor gets everything right everytime.
> 
> So evolution leads to gay humans, many of whom will marry.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no scientific evidence that genetic defects lead to gay people. I would say gay people are merely people who choose go against the norm and live a perverted life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes; there's tons of it.  But being it's so very, very common, it's not what thinking people, nor humans with average degrees of humanity, call a defect.  We say, there's a genetic component, which must be at play due to other imperical evidence, most notably, birth-order and identical twin studies, which suggest something much deeper than mere genetics, since environment (mother's womb) comes into play, and quite possibly there's an epigenetic component as well, since patterns are so apparent in birth order studies as to complete eliminate random choice by individuals as being anything near possible.
> 
> Note that Darwin identified, very accurately, evolution and species origins, long before the mechanism (genes) was discovered by a couple of Nobel laureates, who I am proud to say are as I am, Atheist.
Click to expand...

 what is the mechanism for evolution ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

CrackedSkull said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will find them you just have to go beyond the myths in the Bible:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A
> 
> More here:
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> CC200: Transitional fossils
> 
> Creation Science Rebuttal, Transitional Fossils
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.pnas.org/content/109/12/4532.full?sid=bf5700fe-031f-4289-baa4-b8f3de8982d7
> 
> So what was that about no transitional fossils? You are wrongly assuming that because there are gaps in the fossil record that there were no transitional fossils which is an illogical conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, "might haves" and "could haves" with NO REAL EVIDENCE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.God might have created the universe, God might have created the seas, God could have changed shit long a go. God should have taken a science course at the local university in heaven and he would not be looImperf
> 
> 
> king like a total jerk now. These work both ways. Denial changes nothing.
Click to expand...

 Imperfections in nature are not Gods fault they are the direct result of freewill by man. Man made the choice we are now living with the choice man made. God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no scientific evidence that genetic defects lead to gay people. I would say gay people are merely people who choose go against the norm and live a perverted life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes; there's tons of it.  But being it's so very, very common, it's not what thinking people, nor humans with average degrees of humanity, call a defect.  We say, there's a genetic component, which must be at play due to other imperical evidence, most notably, birth-order and identical twin studies, which suggest something much deeper than mere genetics, since environment (mother's womb) comes into play, and quite possibly there's an epigenetic component as well, since patterns are so apparent in birth order studies as to complete eliminate random choice by individuals as being anything near possible.
> 
> Note that Darwin identified, very accurately, evolution and species origins, long before the mechanism (genes) was discovered by a couple of Nobel laureates, who I am proud to say are as I am, Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what is the mechanism for evolution ?
Click to expand...


What????    Genes, which replicate, just not always perfectly (mutation, a vital component in life evolving)

I would think that's known by 99% of adults, hopefully.

Life = organism which can replicate and mutate.  Meaning of life = whatever value you place on it (subjective)

Astonishing.


----------



## CrackedSkull

Youwerecreated said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, "might haves" and "could haves" with NO REAL EVIDENCE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.God might have created the universe, God might have created the seas, God could have changed shit long a go. God should have taken a science course at the local university in heaven and he would not be looImperf
> 
> 
> king like a total jerk now. These work both ways. Denial changes nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imperfections in nature are not Gods fault they are the direct result of freewill by man. Man made the choice we are now living with the choice man made. God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it.
Click to expand...




> God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it



Yeah and the pink unicorn is still figuring out how he got here.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes; there's tons of it.  But being it's so very, very common, it's not what thinking people, nor humans with average degrees of humanity, call a defect.  We say, there's a genetic component, which must be at play due to other imperical evidence, most notably, birth-order and identical twin studies, which suggest something much deeper than mere genetics, since environment (mother's womb) comes into play, and quite possibly there's an epigenetic component as well, since patterns are so apparent in birth order studies as to complete eliminate random choice by individuals as being anything near possible.
> 
> Note that Darwin identified, very accurately, evolution and species origins, long before the mechanism (genes) was discovered by a couple of Nobel laureates, who I am proud to say are as I am, Atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> what is the mechanism for evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What????    Genes, which replicate, just not always perfectly (mutation, a vital component in life evolving)
> 
> I would think that's known by 99% of adults, hopefully.
> 
> Life = organism which can replicate and mutate.  Meaning of life = whatever value you place on it (subjective)
> 
> Astonishing.
Click to expand...


Why don't you just say it, you're saying mutations are the mechanism but that is not the complete answer So complete the question before you try using arrogance on me. I want to get you nailed down on your complete answer before we go any further. I am not gonna allow you any wiggle room once we get at it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CrackedSkull said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.God might have created the universe, God might have created the seas, God could have changed shit long a go. God should have taken a science course at the local university in heaven and he would not be looImperf
> 
> 
> king like a total jerk now. These work both ways. Denial changes nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Imperfections in nature are not Gods fault they are the direct result of freewill by man. Man made the choice we are now living with the choice man made. God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah and the pink unicorn is still figuring out how he got here.
Click to expand...


Like I said God does not need men to teach him, hell man still has no answer how we got here except through conjecture filled theories.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, "might haves" and "could haves" with NO REAL EVIDENCE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.God might have created the universe, God might have created the seas, God could have changed shit long a go. God should have taken a science course at the local university in heaven and he would not be looImperf
> 
> 
> king like a total jerk now. These work both ways. Denial changes nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imperfections in nature are not Gods fault they are the direct result of freewill by man. Man made the choice we are now living with the choice man made. God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it.
Click to expand...


What exactly is an "imperfection in nature"? Imperfect relative to what? You use terms and conditions that are entirely meaningless and inappropriate.

Additionally, as a "designer', your gawds are hopelessly inept. Massive waste, inefficiency, ineptitude, blunders etc. 

Your gawds don't even rank as amateurs.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.God might have created the universe, God might have created the seas, God could have changed shit long a go. God should have taken a science course at the local university in heaven and he would not be looImperf
> 
> 
> king like a total jerk now. These work both ways. Denial changes nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Imperfections in nature are not Gods fault they are the direct result of freewill by man. Man made the choice we are now living with the choice man made. God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly is an "imperfection in nature"? Imperfect relative to what? You use terms and conditions that are entirely meaningless and inappropriate.
> 
> Additionally, as a "designer', your gawds are hopelessly inept. Massive waste, inefficiency, ineptitude, blunders etc.
> 
> Your gawds don't even rank as amateurs.
Click to expand...


Go away child we are about to have a discussion on evolution,just sit back and learn. We will discuss things you have shown your ignorance on I just hope this person is up to the challenge and does not run off to talk origins and paste alot of nonsense that does not address my questions.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imperfections in nature are not Gods fault they are the direct result of freewill by man. Man made the choice we are now living with the choice man made. God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah and the pink unicorn is still figuring out how he got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said God does not need men to teach him, hell man still has no answer how we got here except through conjecture filled theories.
Click to expand...


Your gawds do, however, need men to invent them. You are having a difficult time confronting a reality based worldview. Your gawds are merely also-rans in the chronology of invented gawds. If you were capable of being honest, you could acknowledge that mankind has invented many gawds as explanations for the mechanisms of nature he didn't understand. All of those earlier gawds have been replaced as the fears and superstitions that spawned them have been supplanted by knowledge and reason. 

So will it eventually be for your gawds.


----------



## CrackedSkull

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imperfections in nature are not Gods fault they are the direct result of freewill by man. Man made the choice we are now living with the choice man made. God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is an "imperfection in nature"? Imperfect relative to what? You use terms and conditions that are entirely meaningless and inappropriate.
> 
> Additionally, as a "designer', your gawds are hopelessly inept. Massive waste, inefficiency, ineptitude, blunders etc.
> 
> Your gawds don't even rank as amateurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go away child we are about to have a discussion on evolution,just sit back and learn. We will discuss things you have shown your ignorance on I just hope this person is up to the challenge and does not run off to talk origins and paste alot of nonsense that does not address my questions.
Click to expand...




> I just hope this person is up to the challenge and does not run off to talk origins and paste alot of nonsense that does not address my questions










[/IMG]


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imperfections in nature are not Gods fault they are the direct result of freewill by man. Man made the choice we are now living with the choice man made. God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is an "imperfection in nature"? Imperfect relative to what? You use terms and conditions that are entirely meaningless and inappropriate.
> 
> Additionally, as a "designer', your gawds are hopelessly inept. Massive waste, inefficiency, ineptitude, blunders etc.
> 
> Your gawds don't even rank as amateurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go away child we are about to have a discussion on evolution,just sit back and learn. We will discuss things you have shown your ignorance on I just hope this person is up to the challenge and does not run off to talk origins and paste alot of nonsense that does not address my questions.
Click to expand...


How strange that you suggest you're having a discussing on evolution when your contribution has amounted to cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya and repeatedly  posting falsified "quotes" that I have shown to be fraudulent. 

You behavior amounts to serial lying.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is the mechanism for evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What????    Genes, which replicate, just not always perfectly (mutation, a vital component in life evolving)
> 
> I would think that's known by 99% of adults, hopefully.
> 
> Life = organism which can replicate and mutate.  Meaning of life = whatever value you place on it (subjective)
> 
> Astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you just say it, you're saying mutations are the mechanism but that is not the complete answer So complete the question before you try using arrogance on me. I want to get you nailed down on your complete answer before we go any further. I am not gonna allow you any wiggle room once we get at it.
Click to expand...


Yes ladies and gentlemen, it is appropriate to point and laugh.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CrackedSkull said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is an "imperfection in nature"? Imperfect relative to what? You use terms and conditions that are entirely meaningless and inappropriate.
> 
> Additionally, as a "designer', your gawds are hopelessly inept. Massive waste, inefficiency, ineptitude, blunders etc.
> 
> Your gawds don't even rank as amateurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go away child we are about to have a discussion on evolution,just sit back and learn. We will discuss things you have shown your ignorance on I just hope this person is up to the challenge and does not run off to talk origins and paste alot of nonsense that does not address my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just hope this person is up to the challenge and does not run off to talk origins and paste alot of nonsense that does not address my questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/IMG]
Click to expand...

Nope scientific questions,I thought the theory of evolution was based in real science ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is an "imperfection in nature"? Imperfect relative to what? You use terms and conditions that are entirely meaningless and inappropriate.
> 
> Additionally, as a "designer', your gawds are hopelessly inept. Massive waste, inefficiency, ineptitude, blunders etc.
> 
> Your gawds don't even rank as amateurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go away child we are about to have a discussion on evolution,just sit back and learn. We will discuss things you have shown your ignorance on I just hope this person is up to the challenge and does not run off to talk origins and paste alot of nonsense that does not address my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How strange that you suggest you're having a discussing on evolution when your contribution has amounted to cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya and repeatedly  posting falsified "quotes" that I have shown to be fraudulent.
> 
> You behavior amounts to serial lying.
Click to expand...

 I will ignore all posts off topic ,got it child ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> What????    Genes, which replicate, just not always perfectly (mutation, a vital component in life evolving)
> 
> I would think that's known by 99% of adults, hopefully.
> 
> Life = organism which can replicate and mutate.  Meaning of life = whatever value you place on it (subjective)
> 
> Astonishing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just say it, you're saying mutations are the mechanism but that is not the complete answer So complete the question before you try using arrogance on me. I want to get you nailed down on your complete answer before we go any further. I am not gonna allow you any wiggle room once we get at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes ladies and gentlemen, it is appropriate to point and laugh.
Click to expand...


So you do not know the mechanism for evolution ? If you're gonna point and laugh do it to a mirror now that is appropriate.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wtf does that have to do with evolution? *
> 
> Anyways, if Jesus actually existed, a lot of people think that he might have been gay himself. All the paintings of him portray him as very effeminate, he only hung around with guys, only had sex once with a woman to see if he'd like it (he obviously didn't or he would have done it again and again...), he always wore a dress-like garment, and he rode that gay pride symbol of ancient times, the donkey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a tie-in.  When species evolve, they wind up with pretty complex reproductive systems, as indeed humans do, since sex is pretty damn ambiguous until certain events in the womb assign gender, albeit, not always exactly.  Some of us are  thus born straight or gay or bi, or are women with male genetalia, or males with female parts, or maybe both sex organs.  It's all over the map, since nature neither moralizes, nor gets everything right everytime.
> 
> So evolution leads to gay humans, many of whom will marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no scientific evidence that genetic defects lead to gay people. I would say gay people are merely people who choose go against the norm and live a perverted life.
Click to expand...

your bigotry and ignorance really shines in this post.


----------



## CrackedSkull

[ame=http://youtu.be/SSxgnu3Hww8]Top Ten Creationist Arguments - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no scientific evidence that genetic defects lead to gay people. I would say gay people are merely people who choose go against the norm and live a perverted life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes; there's tons of it.  But being it's so very, very common, it's not what thinking people, nor humans with average degrees of humanity, call a defect.  We say, there's a genetic component, which must be at play due to other imperical evidence, most notably, birth-order and identical twin studies, which suggest something much deeper than mere genetics, since environment (mother's womb) comes into play, and quite possibly there's an epigenetic component as well, since patterns are so apparent in birth order studies as to complete eliminate random choice by individuals as being anything near possible.
> 
> Note that Darwin identified, very accurately, evolution and species origins, long before the mechanism (genes) was discovered by a couple of Nobel laureates, who I am proud to say are as I am, Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what is the mechanism for evolution ?
Click to expand...

asked and answered !


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, "might haves" and "could haves" with NO REAL EVIDENCE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.God might have created the universe, God might have created the seas, God could have changed shit long a go. God should have taken a science course at the local university in heaven and he would not be looImperf
> 
> 
> king like a total jerk now. These work both ways. Denial changes nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imperfections in nature are not Gods fault they are the direct result of freewill by man. Man made the choice we are now living with the choice man made. God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it.
Click to expand...

hey new guys! FYI when YWC starts preachafyin'  it means he's run out of pseudoscience BULLSHIT TO COVER HIS ASS!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imperfections in nature are not Gods fault they are the direct result of freewill by man. Man made the choice we are now living with the choice man made. God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is an "imperfection in nature"? Imperfect relative to what? You use terms and conditions that are entirely meaningless and inappropriate.
> 
> Additionally, as a "designer', your gawds are hopelessly inept. Massive waste, inefficiency, ineptitude, blunders etc.
> 
> Your gawds don't even rank as amateurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go away child we are about to have a discussion on evolution,just sit back and learn. We will discuss things you have shown your ignorance on I just hope this person is up to the challenge and does not run off to talk origins and paste alot of nonsense that does not address my questions.
Click to expand...

DISCUSSION MY ASS! you YWC, were GOING TO DO WHAT YOU ALWAYS DO.
THAT IS TO yammer unprovable nonsense and scream god did it!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go away child we are about to have a discussion on evolution,just sit back and learn. We will discuss things you have shown your ignorance on I just hope this person is up to the challenge and does not run off to talk origins and paste alot of nonsense that does not address my questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that you suggest you're having a discussing on evolution when your contribution has amounted to cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya and repeatedly  posting falsified "quotes" that I have shown to be fraudulent.
> 
> You behavior amounts to serial lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will ignore all posts off topic ,got it child ?
Click to expand...

then you won't be posting much... now will you?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is the mechanism for evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What????    Genes, which replicate, just not always perfectly (mutation, a vital component in life evolving)
> 
> I would think that's known by 99% of adults, hopefully.
> 
> Life = organism which can replicate and mutate.  Meaning of life = whatever value you place on it (subjective)
> 
> Astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you just say it, you're saying mutations are the mechanism but that is not the complete answer So complete the question before you try using arrogance on me. I want to get you nailed down on your complete answer before we go any further. I am not gonna allow you any wiggle room once we get at it.
Click to expand...


Fine.  What did I overlook?

And to clarify.  Genes are mechanism.  Mutation is what genes do, in organisms that replicate themselves. (Life, as we know it.)


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go away child we are about to have a discussion on evolution,just sit back and learn. We will discuss things you have shown your ignorance on I just hope this person is up to the challenge and does not run off to talk origins and paste alot of nonsense that does not address my questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that you suggest you're having a discussing on evolution when your contribution has amounted to cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya and repeatedly  posting falsified "quotes" that I have shown to be fraudulent.
> 
> You behavior amounts to serial lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will ignore all posts off topic ,got it child ?
Click to expand...


How do you propose to participate in a discussion of evolutionary science when your participation involves cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a tie-in.  When species evolve, they wind up with pretty complex reproductive systems, as indeed humans do, since sex is pretty damn ambiguous until certain events in the womb assign gender, albeit, not always exactly.  Some of us are  thus born straight or gay or bi, or are women with male genetalia, or males with female parts, or maybe both sex organs.  It's all over the map, since nature neither moralizes, nor gets everything right everytime.
> 
> So evolution leads to gay humans, many of whom will marry.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no scientific evidence that genetic defects lead to gay people. I would say gay people are merely people who choose go against the norm and live a perverted life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your bigotry and ignorance really shines in this post.
Click to expand...


No not at all, just speaking from the facts if you can't handle the truth that is your problem. From now on the discussion has moved on if you wish to continue this give and take stay on topic.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just say it, you're saying mutations are the mechanism but that is not the complete answer So complete the question before you try using arrogance on me. I want to get you nailed down on your complete answer before we go any further. I am not gonna allow you any wiggle room once we get at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes ladies and gentlemen, it is appropriate to point and laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you do not know the mechanism for evolution ? If you're gonna point and laugh do it to a mirror now that is appropriate.
Click to expand...


I certainly do know the mechanisms (plural), for evolution. I've pointed them out to you repeatedly in this thread. 

You and the other YEC'ist reject all of it, even suggesting that all the world's leading universities and scientists are involved in a conspiracy to undermine your religious belief.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> What????    Genes, which replicate, just not always perfectly (mutation, a vital component in life evolving)
> 
> I would think that's known by 99% of adults, hopefully.
> 
> Life = organism which can replicate and mutate.  Meaning of life = whatever value you place on it (subjective)
> 
> Astonishing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just say it, you're saying mutations are the mechanism but that is not the complete answer So complete the question before you try using arrogance on me. I want to get you nailed down on your complete answer before we go any further. I am not gonna allow you any wiggle room once we get at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.  What did I overlook?
> 
> And to clarify.  Genes are mechanism.  Mutation is what genes do, in organisms that replicate themselves. (Life, as we know it.)
Click to expand...


Well you forgot inheriting new traits and through natural selection these new traits are passed on and preserved in the genepool by natural selection and this takes place over many many years.

 We are made up of cells which contain chromosomes one set from the father and one from the mother. these chromosomes contain the genes where the genetic data is interpreted to determine what the offspring will be and look like. All organisms have mutations but most mutations have no impact on the offspring.

Cells do reproduce themselves but a human or many organisms require either sexual reproduction or Asexual reproduction. What you were trying to say is DNA replication. During DNA replication there is a mechanism that works to correct these copying errors (mutations) and most errors are repaired by this mechanism. Why do you suppose by chance we would have this mechanism preserving the origional genetic data ?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just say it, you're saying mutations are the mechanism but that is not the complete answer So complete the question before you try using arrogance on me. I want to get you nailed down on your complete answer before we go any further. I am not gonna allow you any wiggle room once we get at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  What did I overlook?
> 
> And to clarify.  Genes are mechanism.  Mutation is what genes do, in organisms that replicate themselves. (Life, as we know it.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you forgot inheriting new traits and through natural selection these new traits are passed on and preserved in the genepool by natural selection and this takes place over many many years.
> 
> We are made up of cells which contain chromosomes one set from the father and one from the mother. these chromosomes contain the genes where the genetic data is interpreted to determine what the offspring will be and look like. All organisms have mutations but most mutations have no impact on the offspring.
> 
> Cells do reproduce themselves but a human or many organisms require either sexual reproduction or Asexual reproduction. What you were trying to say is DNA replication. During DNA replication there is a mechanism that works to correct these copying errors (mutations) and most errors are repaired by this mechanism. Why do you suppose by chance we would have this mechanism preserving the origional genetic data ?
Click to expand...


Asonishing.  That's like saying water is more than a just 2 hydrogen atoms around one Oxygen atom, since I overlooked the fact that kids can swim in it.

Yes; those other things are at play, but the thing that makes it possible is *genes*. (chomosomes are made of the stuff)  That's what mutates and create changes, some of which proves advantageous. (a small percentage) IT IS THE MECHANISM OF LIFE EVOLVING!!!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> What????    Genes, which replicate, just not always perfectly (mutation, a vital component in life evolving)
> 
> I would think that's known by 99% of adults, hopefully.
> 
> Life = organism which can replicate and mutate.  Meaning of life = whatever value you place on it (subjective)
> 
> Astonishing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just say it, you're saying mutations are the mechanism but that is not the complete answer So complete the question before you try using arrogance on me. I want to get you nailed down on your complete answer before we go any further. I am not gonna allow you any wiggle room once we get at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.  What did I overlook?
> 
> And to clarify.  Genes are mechanism.  Mutation is what genes do, in organisms that replicate themselves. (Life, as we know it.)
Click to expand...


I must add All cells must replicate their DNA prior to cell division. This assures that each new cell produced receives all of the genetic material necessary to survive and reproduce.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just say it, you're saying mutations are the mechanism but that is not the complete answer So complete the question before you try using arrogance on me. I want to get you nailed down on your complete answer before we go any further. I am not gonna allow you any wiggle room once we get at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  What did I overlook?
> 
> And to clarify.  Genes are mechanism.  Mutation is what genes do, in organisms that replicate themselves. (Life, as we know it.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must add All cells must replicate their DNA prior to cell division. This assures that each new cell produced receives all of the genetic material necessary to survive and reproduce.
Click to expand...


Okay.  You cut your finger and it heals thanks the cell reproduction.  Did you evolve?  Nope.  No mutation, albeit, with some radiation we can play God with your offspring. Should be entertaining.  Care to give it shot?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  What did I overlook?
> 
> And to clarify.  Genes are mechanism.  Mutation is what genes do, in organisms that replicate themselves. (Life, as we know it.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you forgot inheriting new traits and through natural selection these new traits are passed on and preserved in the genepool by natural selection and this takes place over many many years.
> 
> We are made up of cells which contain chromosomes one set from the father and one from the mother. these chromosomes contain the genes where the genetic data is interpreted to determine what the offspring will be and look like. All organisms have mutations but most mutations have no impact on the offspring.
> 
> Cells do reproduce themselves but a human or many organisms require either sexual reproduction or Asexual reproduction. What you were trying to say is DNA replication. During DNA replication there is a mechanism that works to correct these copying errors (mutations) and most errors are repaired by this mechanism. Why do you suppose by chance we would have this mechanism preserving the origional genetic data ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asonishing.  That's like saying water is more than a just 2 hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom, since I overlooked the fact that kids can swim in it.
> 
> Yes; those other things are at play, but the thing that makes it possible is *genes*. (chomosomes are made of the stuff)  That's what mutates and create changes, some of which proves advantageous. (a small percentage) IT IS THE MECHANISM OF LIFE EVOLVING!!!!
Click to expand...


YOU AVOIDED MY QUESTION.

What stuff ?  let me ask and let's see if you can be honest,why are there so few beneficial mutations finding their way to the genepool and so many harmful mutations finding their way to the genepool and staying ?

Evolution requires beneficial mutations not harmful or neutral mutations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  What did I overlook?
> 
> And to clarify.  Genes are mechanism.  Mutation is what genes do, in organisms that replicate themselves. (Life, as we know it.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must add All cells must replicate their DNA prior to cell division. This assures that each new cell produced receives all of the genetic material necessary to survive and reproduce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.  You cut your finger and it heals thanks the cell reproduction.  Did you evolve?  Nope.  No mutation, albeit, with some radiation we can play God with your offspring. Should be entertaining.  Care to give it shot?
Click to expand...


Listen buddy I have done cell and mutation research for 11 years you can't bs your way through this. Now either answer the questions or move on. If I am gonna teach anyone here they must first be honest with themselves.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I will continue this debate when I return to Arizona I am in Texas with family talk to you soon.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you forgot inheriting new traits and through natural selection these new traits are passed on and preserved in the genepool by natural selection and this takes place over many many years.
> 
> We are made up of cells which contain chromosomes one set from the father and one from the mother. these chromosomes contain the genes where the genetic data is interpreted to determine what the offspring will be and look like. All organisms have mutations but most mutations have no impact on the offspring.
> 
> Cells do reproduce themselves but a human or many organisms require either sexual reproduction or Asexual reproduction. What you were trying to say is DNA replication. During DNA replication there is a mechanism that works to correct these copying errors (mutations) and most errors are repaired by this mechanism. Why do you suppose by chance we would have this mechanism preserving the origional genetic data ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asonishing.  That's like saying water is more than a just 2 hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom, since I overlooked the fact that kids can swim in it.
> 
> Yes; those other things are at play, but the thing that makes it possible is *genes*. (chomosomes are made of the stuff)  That's what mutates and create changes, some of which proves advantageous. (a small percentage) IT IS THE MECHANISM OF LIFE EVOLVING!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU AVOIDED MY QUESTION.
> 
> What stuff ?  let me ask and let's see if you can be honest,why are there so few beneficial mutations finding their way to the genepool and so many harmful mutations finding their way to the genepool and staying ?
> 
> Evolution requires beneficial mutations not harmful or neutral mutations.
Click to expand...


You have already admitted that beneficial mutations occur. So what are you whining about?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you forgot inheriting new traits and through natural selection these new traits are passed on and preserved in the genepool by natural selection and this takes place over many many years.
> 
> We are made up of cells which contain chromosomes one set from the father and one from the mother. these chromosomes contain the genes where the genetic data is interpreted to determine what the offspring will be and look like. All organisms have mutations but most mutations have no impact on the offspring.
> 
> Cells do reproduce themselves but a human or many organisms require either sexual reproduction or Asexual reproduction. What you were trying to say is DNA replication. During DNA replication there is a mechanism that works to correct these copying errors (mutations) and most errors are repaired by this mechanism. Why do you suppose by chance we would have this mechanism preserving the origional genetic data ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asonishing.  That's like saying water is more than a just 2 hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom, since I overlooked the fact that kids can swim in it.
> 
> Yes; those other things are at play, but the thing that makes it possible is *genes*. (chomosomes are made of the stuff)  That's what mutates and create changes, some of which proves advantageous. (a small percentage) IT IS THE MECHANISM OF LIFE EVOLVING!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *YOU AVOIDED MY QUESTION*.
> 
> What stuff ?  let me ask and let's see if you can be honest,why are there so few beneficial mutations finding their way to the genepool and so many harmful mutations finding their way to the genepool and staying ?
> 
> Evolution requires beneficial mutations not harmful or neutral mutations.
Click to expand...


Welcome to the party.  Shall I enumerate the questions you've dodged?

Now then, this?

"Why do you suppose by chance we would have this mechanism preserving the origional genetic data ?"

Not why; what.  It replicates, where a copy is the assumption.  But it doesn't always preserve; it fucks up (mutates).  Ergo evolution.

Why?  Third generation star and solar system.  Lot's of complex molecules.  Also right size and distance from star, not to mention larger outter planets that protect earth from most impacts.  Add liquid water, organic molecules and fucking bingo.  Shit happens, and here it did.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must add All cells must replicate their DNA prior to cell division. This assures that each new cell produced receives all of the genetic material necessary to survive and reproduce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  You cut your finger and it heals thanks the cell reproduction.  Did you evolve?  Nope.  No mutation, albeit, with some radiation we can play God with your offspring. Should be entertaining.  Care to give it shot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen buddy I have done cell and mutation research for 11 years you can't bs your way through this. Now either answer the questions or move on. If I am gonna teach anyone here they must first be honest with themselves.
Click to expand...


In addition to his claim to have done cell research, the fundie also commands the French forces at Waterloo.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must add All cells must replicate their DNA prior to cell division. This assures that each new cell produced receives all of the genetic material necessary to survive and reproduce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  You cut your finger and it heals thanks the cell reproduction.  Did you evolve?  Nope.  No mutation, albeit, with some radiation we can play God with your offspring. Should be entertaining.  Care to give it shot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen buddy I have done cell and mutation research for 11 years you can't bs your way through this. Now either answer the questions or move on. If I am gonna teach anyone here they must first be honest with themselves.
Click to expand...


Pay closer attention. I'm a marketing executive, and am astonished by your lack of understanding of evolution.


----------



## UltimateReality

CrackedSkull said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.God might have created the universe, God might have created the seas, God could have changed shit long a go. God should have taken a science course at the local university in heaven and he would not be looImperf
> 
> 
> king like a total jerk now. These work both ways. Denial changes nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Imperfections in nature are not Gods fault they are the direct result of freewill by man. Man made the choice we are now living with the choice man made. God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah and the pink unicorn is still figuring out how he got here.
Click to expand...


Pink Unicorns and bigfoot? Can all you do is rehash the same, tired atheist cut and paste comments that have been used in this thread ad nauseum. Please, please, please come up with your own material at least you fat spaghetti monster.


----------



## UltimateReality

CrackedSkull said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is an "imperfection in nature"? Imperfect relative to what? You use terms and conditions that are entirely meaningless and inappropriate.
> 
> Additionally, as a "designer', your gawds are hopelessly inept. Massive waste, inefficiency, ineptitude, blunders etc.
> 
> Your gawds don't even rank as amateurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go away child we are about to have a discussion on evolution,just sit back and learn. We will discuss things you have shown your ignorance on I just hope this person is up to the challenge and does not run off to talk origins and paste alot of nonsense that does not address my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just hope this person is up to the challenge and does not run off to talk origins and paste alot of nonsense that does not address my questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/IMG]
Click to expand...


Evolution claim: The types of organisms that survive and reproduce are the types of organisms that survive and reproduce because if they didn't survive and reproduce then they wouldn't be here. So we have definitive truth that evolution is true.


----------



## zombiehunter696

UltimateReality said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imperfections in nature are not Gods fault they are the direct result of freewill by man. Man made the choice we are now living with the choice man made. God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah and the pink unicorn is still figuring out how he got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pink Unicorns and bigfoot? Can all you do is rehash the same, tired atheist cut and paste comments that have been used in this thread ad nauseum. Please, please, please come up with your own material at least you fat spaghetti monster.
Click to expand...


Can creationists actually stop posting debunked nonsense cut and pasted from creationist sites?


----------



## zombiehunter696

UltimateReality said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go away child we are about to have a discussion on evolution,just sit back and learn. We will discuss things you have shown your ignorance on I just hope this person is up to the challenge and does not run off to talk origins and paste alot of nonsense that does not address my questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just hope this person is up to the challenge and does not run off to talk origins and paste alot of nonsense that does not address my questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/IMG]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution claim: The types of organisms that survive and reproduce are the types of organisms that survive and reproduce because if they didn't survive and reproduce then they wouldn't be here. So we have definitive truth that evolution is true.
Click to expand...


Evolution and Philosophy: Tautology


----------



## LittleNipper

zombiehunter696 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/IMG]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution claim: The types of organisms that survive and reproduce are the types of organisms that survive and reproduce because if they didn't survive and reproduce then they wouldn't be here. So we have definitive truth that evolution is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution and Philosophy: Tautology
Click to expand...

Prophecy does not come true in a book of lies. The Bible is true because its teachings work and its prophecies have come true.


----------



## CrackedSkull

LittleNipper said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution claim: The types of organisms that survive and reproduce are the types of organisms that survive and reproduce because if they didn't survive and reproduce then they wouldn't be here. So we have definitive truth that evolution is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution and Philosophy: Tautology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prophecy does not come true in a book of lies. The Bible is true because its teachings work and its prophecies have come true.
Click to expand...


Prophecy that is self fulfilled and in no way relates to a future 2000 years later..The Bible has no truth in that it was written 2000 years ago and agian if there is truth it only relates to what the authors were supposedly going through then.

Failed Bible Prophecy:
Failed biblical prophecies - RationalWiki

PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED
Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled



> Prophecy does not come true in a book of lies. The Bible is true because its teachings work and its prophecies have come true.



This is what you have been conditioned to believe.


----------



## CrackedSkull

UltimateReality said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imperfections in nature are not Gods fault they are the direct result of freewill by man. Man made the choice we are now living with the choice man made. God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't need a science class ,hell science is trying to figure out how God did it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah and the pink unicorn is still figuring out how he got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pink Unicorns and bigfoot? Can all you do is rehash the same, tired atheist cut and paste comments that have been used in this thread ad nauseum. Please, please, please come up with your own material at least you fat spaghetti monster.
Click to expand...


Then I would suggest you do the same. Have you written any books on the subject? Were you born with this in your head? So where do you come up with it? Creationists websites I bet. You just reword it to make it sound as if you said it. The Pink Unicorn reference is just that. You cannot a bit more prove Pink Unicorns than you can prove this garbage your spouting now. So if the material is that damning to your day dreams and falsehoods don't read it.....last I checked I am not breaking any rules. 

If Bibliotards are going to get all pissed because some have the nerve to question their myths, OH WELL.


----------



## CrackedSkull

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must add All cells must replicate their DNA prior to cell division. This assures that each new cell produced receives all of the genetic material necessary to survive and reproduce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  You cut your finger and it heals thanks the cell reproduction.  Did you evolve?  Nope.  No mutation, albeit, with some radiation we can play God with your offspring. Should be entertaining.  Care to give it shot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen buddy I have done cell and mutation research for 11 years you can't bs your way through this. Now either answer the questions or move on. If I am gonna teach anyone here they must first be honest with themselves.
Click to expand...




> Listen buddy I have done cell and mutation research for 11 years



Then I am sure you have some peer reviewed articles or papers that can verify this research. Produce them or that statement is bunk.


----------



## LittleNipper

CrackedSkull said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution and Philosophy: Tautology
> 
> 
> 
> Prophecy does not come true in a book of lies. The Bible is true because its teachings work and its prophecies have come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prophecy that is self fulfilled and in no way relates to a future 2000 years later..The Bible has no truth in that it was written 2000 years ago and agian if there is truth it only relates to what the authors were supposedly going through then.
> 
> Failed Bible Prophecy:
> Failed biblical prophecies - RationalWiki
> 
> PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED
> Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prophecy does not come true in a book of lies. The Bible is true because its teachings work and its prophecies have come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what you have been conditioned to believe.
Click to expand...


The Nation of Israel now exists and will continue just as stated in the Bible.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wtf does that have to do with evolution? *
> 
> Anyways, if Jesus actually existed, a lot of people think that he might have been gay himself. All the paintings of him portray him as very effeminate, he only hung around with guys, only had sex once with a woman to see if he'd like it (he obviously didn't or he would have done it again and again...), he always wore a dress-like garment, and he rode that gay pride symbol of ancient times, the donkey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a tie-in.  When species evolve, they wind up with pretty complex reproductive systems, as indeed humans do, since sex is pretty damn ambiguous until certain events in the womb assign gender, albeit, not always exactly.  Some of us are  thus born straight or gay or bi, or are women with male genetalia, or males with female parts, or maybe both sex organs.  It's all over the map, since nature neither moralizes, nor gets everything right everytime.
> 
> So evolution leads to gay humans, many of whom will marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no scientific evidence that genetic defects lead to gay people. I would say gay people are merely people who choose go against the norm and live a perverted life.
Click to expand...


You mean like priests? 
But who decided that gays aren't part of god's plan?


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prophecy does not come true in a book of lies. The Bible is true because its teachings work and its prophecies have come true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prophecy that is self fulfilled and in no way relates to a future 2000 years later..The Bible has no truth in that it was written 2000 years ago and agian if there is truth it only relates to what the authors were supposedly going through then.
> 
> Failed Bible Prophecy:
> Failed biblical prophecies - RationalWiki
> 
> PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED
> Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prophecy does not come true in a book of lies. The Bible is true because its teachings work and its prophecies have come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what you have been conditioned to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Nation of Israel now exists and will continue just as stated in the Bible.
Click to expand...

But won't that lead to armageddon in the Middle East and the return of Geezuss? Who then comes and saves your ass?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asonishing.  That's like saying water is more than a just 2 hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom, since I overlooked the fact that kids can swim in it.
> 
> Yes; those other things are at play, but the thing that makes it possible is *genes*. (chomosomes are made of the stuff)  That's what mutates and create changes, some of which proves advantageous. (a small percentage) IT IS THE MECHANISM OF LIFE EVOLVING!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU AVOIDED MY QUESTION.
> 
> What stuff ?  let me ask and let's see if you can be honest,why are there so few beneficial mutations finding their way to the genepool and so many harmful mutations finding their way to the genepool and staying ?
> 
> Evolution requires beneficial mutations not harmful or neutral mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have already admitted that beneficial mutations occur. So what are you whining about?
Click to expand...

Yes but they are rare. Why are they so rare ? They are to rare to produce all we see. You also need beneficial mutation on top of beneficial mutation without interruption by harmful mutations. Very few mutations make it through without being repaired by the repair mechanism.


----------



## Bill Angel

*Oh, ye of little faith.*​


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asonishing.  That's like saying water is more than a just 2 hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom, since I overlooked the fact that kids can swim in it.
> 
> Yes; those other things are at play, but the thing that makes it possible is *genes*. (chomosomes are made of the stuff)  That's what mutates and create changes, some of which proves advantageous. (a small percentage) IT IS THE MECHANISM OF LIFE EVOLVING!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU AVOIDED MY QUESTION*.
> 
> What stuff ?  let me ask and let's see if you can be honest,why are there so few beneficial mutations finding their way to the genepool and so many harmful mutations finding their way to the genepool and staying ?
> 
> Evolution requires beneficial mutations not harmful or neutral mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to the party.  Shall I enumerate the questions you've dodged?
> 
> Now then, this?
> 
> "Why do you suppose by chance we would have this mechanism preserving the origional genetic data ?"
> 
> Not why; what.  It replicates, where a copy is the assumption.  But it doesn't always preserve; it fucks up (mutates).  Ergo evolution.
> 
> Why?  Third generation star and solar system.  Lot's of complex molecules.  Also right size and distance from star, not to mention larger outter planets that protect earth from most impacts.  Add liquid water, organic molecules and fucking bingo.  Shit happens, and here it did.
Click to expand...


Stay on topic we are discussing mutations. I don't think you understand mutation fixation and the conditions that have to be met for mutation fixation to take place to where it becomes the norm in the genepool. So in a nutshell you believe errors make things better and give the organism more of an ability to adapt. That is pure nonsense thinking chaos promotes order.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  You cut your finger and it heals thanks the cell reproduction.  Did you evolve?  Nope.  No mutation, albeit, with some radiation we can play God with your offspring. Should be entertaining.  Care to give it shot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen buddy I have done cell and mutation research for 11 years you can't bs your way through this. Now either answer the questions or move on. If I am gonna teach anyone here they must first be honest with themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pay closer attention. I'm a marketing executive, and am astonished by your lack of understanding of evolution.
Click to expand...


You don't get a degree in molecular biology from the University of Arizona not understanding evolution. Why don't you give an honest answer to my questions ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU AVOIDED MY QUESTION.
> 
> What stuff ?  let me ask and let's see if you can be honest,why are there so few beneficial mutations finding their way to the genepool and so many harmful mutations finding their way to the genepool and staying ?
> 
> Evolution requires beneficial mutations not harmful or neutral mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have already admitted that beneficial mutations occur. So what are you whining about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes but they are rare. Why are they so rare ? They are to rare to produce all we see. You also need beneficial mutation on top of beneficial mutation without interruption by harmful mutations. Very few mutations make it through without being repaired by the repair mechanism.
Click to expand...

Quite obviously,beneficial mutations are not too rare to produce a diverse natural world of biological organisms. 

As we see with regularity, you make emphatic claims that are completely unsupported and only serve to further what you hope will promote your religious beliefs.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CrackedSkull said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and the pink unicorn is still figuring out how he got here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pink Unicorns and bigfoot? Can all you do is rehash the same, tired atheist cut and paste comments that have been used in this thread ad nauseum. Please, please, please come up with your own material at least you fat spaghetti monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I would suggest you do the same. Have you written any books on the subject? Were you born with this in your head? So where do you come up with it? Creationists websites I bet. You just reword it to make it sound as if you said it. The Pink Unicorn reference is just that. You cannot a bit more prove Pink Unicorns than you can prove this garbage your spouting now. So if the material is that damning to your day dreams and falsehoods don't read it.....last I checked I am not breaking any rules.
> 
> If Bibliotards are going to get all pissed because some have the nerve to question their myths, OH WELL.
Click to expand...

So far I don't see any reason to believe any of you defending evolution have ever taken a college course in science if you did it didn't stick.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CrackedSkull said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  You cut your finger and it heals thanks the cell reproduction.  Did you evolve?  Nope.  No mutation, albeit, with some radiation we can play God with your offspring. Should be entertaining.  Care to give it shot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen buddy I have done cell and mutation research for 11 years you can't bs your way through this. Now either answer the questions or move on. If I am gonna teach anyone here they must first be honest with themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen buddy I have done cell and mutation research for 11 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I am sure you have some peer reviewed articles or papers that can verify this research. Produce them or that statement is bunk.
Click to expand...


Oh boy,I was s lab tech and had creationists views need I say more. What I am teaching can be confirmed with a little work on your part the questions however are thought provoking for the others hate the questions because they know if they answer them honestly it hurts their argument for evolution.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pink Unicorns and bigfoot? Can all you do is rehash the same, tired atheist cut and paste comments that have been used in this thread ad nauseum. Please, please, please come up with your own material at least you fat spaghetti monster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I would suggest you do the same. Have you written any books on the subject? Were you born with this in your head? So where do you come up with it? Creationists websites I bet. You just reword it to make it sound as if you said it. The Pink Unicorn reference is just that. You cannot a bit more prove Pink Unicorns than you can prove this garbage your spouting now. So if the material is that damning to your day dreams and falsehoods don't read it.....last I checked I am not breaking any rules.
> 
> If Bibliotards are going to get all pissed because some have the nerve to question their myths, OH WELL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So far I don't see any reason to believe any of you defending evolution have ever taken a college course in science if you did it didn't stick.
Click to expand...

Those types of nonsensical claims may be your only recourse as your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya suggests you are illiterate regarding the details of evolutionary science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have already admitted that beneficial mutations occur. So what are you whining about?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but they are rare. Why are they so rare ? They are to rare to produce all we see. You also need beneficial mutation on top of beneficial mutation without interruption by harmful mutations. Very few mutations make it through without being repaired by the repair mechanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite obviously,beneficial mutations are not too rare to produce a diverse natural world of biological organisms.
> 
> As we see with regularity, you make emphatic claims that are completely unsupported and only serve to further what you hope will promote your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations now give s count on beneficial mutations ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I would suggest you do the same. Have you written any books on the subject? Were you born with this in your head? So where do you come up with it? Creationists websites I bet. You just reword it to make it sound as if you said it. The Pink Unicorn reference is just that. You cannot a bit more prove Pink Unicorns than you can prove this garbage your spouting now. So if the material is that damning to your day dreams and falsehoods don't read it.....last I checked I am not breaking any rules.
> 
> If Bibliotards are going to get all pissed because some have the nerve to question their myths, OH WELL.
> 
> 
> 
> So far I don't see any reason to believe any of you defending evolution have ever taken a college course in science if you did it didn't stick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those types of nonsensical claims may be your only recourse as your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya suggests you are illiterate regarding the details of evolutionary science.
Click to expand...

See


----------



## Bill Angel

UltimateReality said:


> Evolution claim: The types of organisms that survive and reproduce are the types of organisms that survive and reproduce because if they didn't survive and reproduce then they wouldn't be here. So we have definitive truth that evolution is true.


The understanding of the conceptual basis of evolution has moved beyond simply stating that evolution is true because evolution occurs. 
The concept of the "Selfish Gene" has proven to be of value. 
The concept is that the organism that can successfully pass on the most copies of its genes is the organism that survives and reproduces. Its actually a battle for survival and reproduction among genes rather than among organisms. A gene that contributes something to the success of an organism surviving and reproducing fares better in this competition than the gene that contributes nothing. The concept of the selfish gene explains cooperative behavior among genes and also among organisms such as ants and bees. 
Also, for a long time biologists thought that the human genome contained a lot of "junk" DNA, perhaps as much as 80% of the genome was "junk". That view has changed. 
See Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From Junk, Play Crucial Role
I for one thought that it was strange that these "selfish genes" were as it were competing to produce as many copies of themselves as possible (that survived to produce more copies), and that up to 80% of this genome was nonfunctional "junk". Recent work described in that article changes the picture substantially.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen buddy I have done cell and mutation research for 11 years you can't bs your way through this. Now either answer the questions or move on. If I am gonna teach anyone here they must first be honest with themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen buddy I have done cell and mutation research for 11 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I am sure you have some peer reviewed articles or papers that can verify this research. Produce them or that statement is bunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy,I was s lab tech and had creationists views need I say more. What I am teaching can be confirmed with a little work on your part the questions however are thought provoking for the others hate the questions because they know if they answer them honestly it hurts their argument for evolution.
Click to expand...

So obviously, the answer is no. There are good reasons why the creationist ministries don't submit to peer review:

1. They do no actual research, and, 

2.,religious claims to miracles, supernaturalism and magic are untestable by the methods of science.

That is why we see the charlatans from the Disco 'tute standing in front of green screens as they phony-up pictures of Ann Gauger in a "lab". 

What an embarrassment!


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far I don't see any reason to believe any of you defending evolution have ever taken a college course in science if you did it didn't stick.
> 
> 
> 
> Those types of nonsensical claims may be your only recourse as your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya suggests you are illiterate regarding the details of evolutionary science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See
Click to expand...


Yes, we see. It's apparent that the posters in this thread not defending your religious claims have a working knowledge of evolutionary science. It is also apparent that the dogmatic fundies, copying and pasting from Harun Yahya and fundie Christian websites have a rather biased and naive understanding of the related science. Much of what you copy and paste from the ICR and Harun Yahya is subject to ridicule for valid reasons.


----------



## ima

But who decided that gays aren't part of god's plan?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen buddy I have done cell and mutation research for 11 years you can't bs your way through this. Now either answer the questions or move on. If I am gonna teach anyone here they must first be honest with themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pay closer attention. I'm a marketing executive, and am astonished by your lack of understanding of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get a degree in molecular biology from the University of Arizona not understanding evolution. Why don't you give an honest answer to my questions ?
Click to expand...


Indeed; I would have thought that would be the case.  However, you seem to be the exception that proves the rule.  Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the creation myth, which itself derived of dogmatic and ignorant thinking by primitive humans.

Possible?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU AVOIDED MY QUESTION*.
> 
> What stuff ?  let me ask and let's see if you can be honest,why are there so few beneficial mutations finding their way to the genepool and so many harmful mutations finding their way to the genepool and staying ?
> 
> Evolution requires beneficial mutations not harmful or neutral mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the party.  Shall I enumerate the questions you've dodged?
> 
> Now then, this?
> 
> "Why do you suppose by chance we would have this mechanism preserving the origional genetic data ?"
> 
> Not why; what.  It replicates, where a copy is the assumption.  But it doesn't always preserve; it fucks up (mutates).  Ergo evolution.
> 
> Why?  Third generation star and solar system.  Lot's of complex molecules.  Also right size and distance from star, not to mention larger outter planets that protect earth from most impacts.  Add liquid water, organic molecules and fucking bingo.  Shit happens, and here it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Stay on topic we are discussing mutations.* I don't think you understand mutation fixation and the conditions that have to be met for mutation fixation to take place to where it becomes the norm in the genepool. So in a nutshell you believe errors make things better and give the organism more of an ability to adapt. That is pure nonsense thinking chaos promotes order.
Click to expand...


Note that I responded directly to a question *posed by you*.  If that's off-topic and not what you wish to discuss, my little Wildcat Retard, here's a tip: don't ask the fucking question.

Astonishing.  Who knew UofA was an institution of lower learning (tip: it's not, so best not tarnish its image by telling folks you went there, even if you did.)


----------



## Koios

ima said:


> But who decided that gays aren't part of god's plan?



Some folks inspired by the works of Charles Darwin, would be my guess. (tip: none of us are the plan of a mythical entity, gay or otherwise.)


----------



## UltimateReality

zombiehunter696 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/IMG]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution claim: The types of organisms that survive and reproduce are the types of organisms that survive and reproduce because if they didn't survive and reproduce then they wouldn't be here. So we have definitive truth that evolution is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution and Philosophy: Tautology
Click to expand...


Nice article, but there isn't one example of an actual physical trait with an explanation of how that trait helped that organism survive. So after all that wasted verbiage, we are still left with.... the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce. The evo fundies got slapped down too many times with their just so stories about giraffe necks and finch beaks so they don't try to explain fitness anymore. Instead, they just resort to the circular argument above. Your cut and paste nonsense did nothing to dispel this. Nice try though.


----------



## UltimateReality

CrackedSkull said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and the pink unicorn is still figuring out how he got here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pink Unicorns and bigfoot? Can all you do is rehash the same, tired atheist cut and paste comments that have been used in this thread ad nauseum. Please, please, please come up with your own material at least you fat spaghetti monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I would suggest you do the same. Have you written any books on the subject? Were you born with this in your head? So where do you come up with it? Creationists websites I bet. You just reword it to make it sound as if you said it. The Pink Unicorn reference is just that. You cannot a bit more prove Pink Unicorns than you can prove this garbage your spouting now. So if the material is that damning to your day dreams and falsehoods don't read it.....last I checked I am not breaking any rules.
> 
> If Bibliotards are going to get all pissed because some have the nerve to question their myths, OH WELL.
Click to expand...


You might try and be a little more original instead of adding the same old tired nonsense to the debate. We've heard this silliness at least 50 times in the last 900 pages so by you repeating it, you're just a gnat buzzing in my ear.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a tie-in.  When species evolve, they wind up with pretty complex reproductive systems, as indeed humans do, since sex is pretty damn ambiguous until certain events in the womb assign gender, albeit, not always exactly.  Some of us are  thus born straight or gay or bi, or are women with male genetalia, or males with female parts, or maybe both sex organs.  It's all over the map, since nature neither moralizes, nor gets everything right everytime.
> 
> So evolution leads to gay humans, many of whom will marry.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no scientific evidence that genetic defects lead to gay people. I would say gay people are merely people who choose go against the norm and live a perverted life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like priests?
> But who decided that gays aren't part of god's plan?
Click to expand...


The penis and the vagina. Two great things that go great together.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prophecy that is self fulfilled and in no way relates to a future 2000 years later..The Bible has no truth in that it was written 2000 years ago and agian if there is truth it only relates to what the authors were supposedly going through then.
> 
> Failed Bible Prophecy:
> Failed biblical prophecies - RationalWiki
> 
> PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED
> Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled
> 
> 
> This is what you have been conditioned to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nation of Israel now exists and will continue just as stated in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But won't that lead to armageddon in the Middle East and the return of Geezuss? Who then comes and saves your ass?
Click to expand...


Watched the news lately?


----------



## UltimateReality

Bill Angel said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution claim: The types of organisms that survive and reproduce are the types of organisms that survive and reproduce because if they didn't survive and reproduce then they wouldn't be here. So we have definitive truth that evolution is true.
> 
> 
> 
> The understanding of the conceptual basis of evolution has moved beyond simply stating that evolution is true because evolution occurs.
> The concept of the "Selfish Gene" has proven to be of value.
> The concept is that the organism that can successfully pass on the most copies of its genes is the organism that survives and reproduces. Its actually a battle for survival and reproduction among genes rather than among organisms. A gene that contributes something to the success of an organism surviving and reproducing fares better in this competition than the gene that contributes nothing. The concept of the selfish gene explains cooperative behavior among genes and also among organisms such as ants and bees.
> Also, for a long time biologists thought that the human genome contained a lot of "junk" DNA, perhaps as much as 80% of the genome was "junk". That view has changed.
> See Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From Junk, Play Crucial Role
> I for one thought that it was strange that these "selfish genes" were as it were competing to produce as many copies of themselves as possible (that survived to produce more copies), and that up to 80% of this genome was nonfunctional "junk". Recent work described in that article changes the picture substantially.
Click to expand...


Evolution predicts junk DNA. ID predicts the "junk" DNA would have a purpose. The selfish gene is a nice story, but it operates under the false assumption that evolution is working towards some predetermined outcome, which we know it isn't. It is the blind watchmaker.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the party.  Shall I enumerate the questions you've dodged?
> 
> Now then, this?
> 
> "Why do you suppose by chance we would have this mechanism preserving the origional genetic data ?"
> 
> Not why; what.  It replicates, where a copy is the assumption.  But it doesn't always preserve; it fucks up (mutates).  Ergo evolution.
> 
> Why?  Third generation star and solar system.  Lot's of complex molecules.  Also right size and distance from star, not to mention larger outter planets that protect earth from most impacts.  Add liquid water, organic molecules and fucking bingo.  Shit happens, and here it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Stay on topic we are discussing mutations.* I don't think you understand mutation fixation and the conditions that have to be met for mutation fixation to take place to where it becomes the norm in the genepool. So in a nutshell you believe errors make things better and give the organism more of an ability to adapt. That is pure nonsense thinking chaos promotes order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note that I responded directly to a question *posed by you*.  If that's off-topic and not what you wish to discuss, my little Wildcat Retard, here's a tip: don't ask the fucking question.
> 
> Astonishing.  Who knew UofA was an institution of lower learning (tip: it's not, so best not tarnish its image by telling folks you went there, even if you did.)
Click to expand...


I went there too. I think if you get out of the house every once in awhile you will find there are a great many intelligent folks who didn't get brainwashed by the materialism bullshit so prevalent in institutions of "higher learning" that hold many respected positions in the scientific community. I know several people at my church that are researchers at the translational genomics lab in Phoenix. Since you fell for it, that is, if you even went to college, you obviously can't see it.

http://tgen.org/


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Stay on topic we are discussing mutations.* I don't think you understand mutation fixation and the conditions that have to be met for mutation fixation to take place to where it becomes the norm in the genepool. So in a nutshell you believe errors make things better and give the organism more of an ability to adapt. That is pure nonsense thinking chaos promotes order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that I responded directly to a question *posed by you*.  If that's off-topic and not what you wish to discuss, my little Wildcat Retard, here's a tip: don't ask the fucking question.
> 
> Astonishing.  Who knew UofA was an institution of lower learning (tip: it's not, so best not tarnish its image by telling folks you went there, even if you did.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went there too. I think if you get out of the house every once in awhile you will find there are a great many intelligent folks who didn't get brainwashed by the materialism bullshit so prevalent in institutions of "higher learning" that hold many respected positions in the scientific community. I know several people at my church that are researchers at the translational genomics lab in Phoenix. Since you fell for it, that is, if you even went to college, you obviously can't see it.
> 
> TGen Home Page
Click to expand...


Fuckin-a.  I used to have some respect for Wildcats.  Sigh.

Plus the anti-Mexican foolishness.  That clusterfuck Joe Arpaio (sp?).  What in the fuck is in the water they're pumping into AZ?

Astonishing.


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Bill Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution claim: The types of organisms that survive and reproduce are the types of organisms that survive and reproduce because if they didn't survive and reproduce then they wouldn't be here. So we have definitive truth that evolution is true.
> 
> 
> 
> The understanding of the conceptual basis of evolution has moved beyond simply stating that evolution is true because evolution occurs.
> The concept of the "Selfish Gene" has proven to be of value.
> The concept is that the organism that can successfully pass on the most copies of its genes is the organism that survives and reproduces. Its actually a battle for survival and reproduction among genes rather than among organisms. A gene that contributes something to the success of an organism surviving and reproducing fares better in this competition than the gene that contributes nothing. The concept of the selfish gene explains cooperative behavior among genes and also among organisms such as ants and bees.
> Also, for a long time biologists thought that the human genome contained a lot of "junk" DNA, perhaps as much as 80% of the genome was "junk". That view has changed.
> See Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From Junk, Play Crucial Role
> I for one thought that it was strange that these "selfish genes" were as it were competing to produce as many copies of themselves as possible (that survived to produce more copies), and that up to 80% of this genome was nonfunctional "junk". Recent work described in that article changes the picture substantially.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Evolution predicts junk DNA*. ID predicts the "junk" DNA would have a purpose. The selfish gene is a nice story, but it operates under the false assumption that evolution is working towards some predetermined outcome, which we know it isn't. It is the blind watchmaker.
Click to expand...


It does more than predict, it identifies.  We're loaded with superfluous DNA, just not as much of it as plants, which have been around longer.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no scientific evidence that genetic defects lead to gay people. I would say gay people are merely people who choose go against the norm and live a perverted life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like priests?
> But who decided that gays aren't part of god's plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The penis and the vagina. Two great things that go great together.
Click to expand...


So you have nothing. Check.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Bill Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution claim: The types of organisms that survive and reproduce are the types of organisms that survive and reproduce because if they didn't survive and reproduce then they wouldn't be here. So we have definitive truth that evolution is true.
> 
> 
> 
> The understanding of the conceptual basis of evolution has moved beyond simply stating that evolution is true because evolution occurs.
> The concept of the "Selfish Gene" has proven to be of value.
> The concept is that the organism that can successfully pass on the most copies of its genes is the organism that survives and reproduces. Its actually a battle for survival and reproduction among genes rather than among organisms. A gene that contributes something to the success of an organism surviving and reproducing fares better in this competition than the gene that contributes nothing. The concept of the selfish gene explains cooperative behavior among genes and also among organisms such as ants and bees.
> Also, for a long time biologists thought that the human genome contained a lot of "junk" DNA, perhaps as much as 80% of the genome was "junk". That view has changed.
> See Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From Junk, Play Crucial Role
> I for one thought that it was strange that these "selfish genes" were as it were competing to produce as many copies of themselves as possible (that survived to produce more copies), and that up to 80% of this genome was nonfunctional "junk". Recent work described in that article changes the picture substantially.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution predicts junk DNA. ID predicts the "junk" DNA would have a purpose. The selfish gene is a nice story, but it operates under the false assumption that evolution is working towards some predetermined outcome, which we know it isn't. It is the blind watchmaker.
Click to expand...

Uh, sorry. ID'iosy predicts nothing. It was the relevant science community that made recent discoveries of 'junk" DNA, while the fundie charlatans were posing in front of green screens.


----------



## CrackedSkull

LittleNipper said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prophecy does not come true in a book of lies. The Bible is true because its teachings work and its prophecies have come true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prophecy that is self fulfilled and in no way relates to a future 2000 years later..The Bible has no truth in that it was written 2000 years ago and agian if there is truth it only relates to what the authors were supposedly going through then.
> 
> Failed Bible Prophecy:
> Failed biblical prophecies - RationalWiki
> 
> PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED
> Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prophecy does not come true in a book of lies. The Bible is true because its teachings work and its prophecies have come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what you have been conditioned to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Nation of Israel now exists and will continue just as stated in the Bible.
Click to expand...


Self fulfilling. Israel was going to become a nation irregardless of what some bible verse said.


----------



## CrackedSkull

Youwerecreated said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen buddy I have done cell and mutation research for 11 years you can't bs your way through this. Now either answer the questions or move on. If I am gonna teach anyone here they must first be honest with themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen buddy I have done cell and mutation research for 11 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I am sure you have some peer reviewed articles or papers that can verify this research. Produce them or that statement is bunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy,I was s lab tech and had creationists views need I say more. What I am teaching can be confirmed with a little work on your part the questions however are thought provoking for the others hate the questions because they know if they answer them honestly it hurts their argument for evolution.
Click to expand...


None huh? Then all you have is a degree that means bunk most here....oh I am sorry I failed to be impressed.....all you people with degrees are the same you think because you had your head buried in a book for 4 years you know more than everyone else. What, you think those that do not have fancy $100,000 degrees cannot read and understand? I have more respect for those that don't have one at least they can find their way out of a wet paper bag.


----------



## amrchaos

I have a question

How do we know that present day Israel is THE Israel of the bible prophecies??


----------



## Koios

amrchaos said:


> I have a question
> 
> How do we know that present day Israel is THE Israel of the bible prophecies??



Temple Mount excavations, among many other archaeological finds.  Also, bible references, and not prophecies, per se.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no scientific evidence that genetic defects lead to gay people. I would say gay people are merely people who choose go against the norm and live a perverted life.
> 
> 
> 
> your bigotry and ignorance really shines in this post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No not at all, just speaking from the facts if you can't handle the truth that is your problem. From now on the discussion has moved on if you wish to continue this give and take stay on topic.
Click to expand...

hey slapdick since when do you give orders?
I'll answer how when and where I please.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must add All cells must replicate their DNA prior to cell division. This assures that each new cell produced receives all of the genetic material necessary to survive and reproduce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  You cut your finger and it heals thanks the cell reproduction.  Did you evolve?  Nope.  No mutation, albeit, with some radiation we can play God with your offspring. Should be entertaining.  Care to give it shot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen buddy I have done cell and mutation research for 11 years you can't bs your way through this. Now either answer the questions or move on. If I am gonna teach anyone here they must first be honest with themselves.
Click to expand...

 wait just a sec.. where did you get the idea that you were here to teach anybody anything?
why don't you be honest and tell every body why you quit cell and mutation research? 
you smug asshole!


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  You cut your finger and it heals thanks the cell reproduction.  Did you evolve?  Nope.  No mutation, albeit, with some radiation we can play God with your offspring. Should be entertaining.  Care to give it shot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen buddy I have done cell and mutation research for 11 years you can't bs your way through this. Now either answer the questions or move on. If I am gonna teach anyone here they must first be honest with themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In addition to his claim to have done cell research, the fundie also commands the French forces at Waterloo.
Click to expand...

 he also" beat off" the invading mogul hoards with the jaw bone of an ass!


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution claim: The types of organisms that survive and reproduce are the types of organisms that survive and reproduce because if they didn't survive and reproduce then they wouldn't be here. So we have definitive truth that evolution is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution and Philosophy: Tautology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prophecy does not come true in a book of lies. The Bible is true because its teachings work and its prophecies have come true.
Click to expand...

no they haven't see next post.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prophecy does not come true in a book of lies. The Bible is true because its teachings work and its prophecies have come true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prophecy that is self fulfilled and in no way relates to a future 2000 years later..The Bible has no truth in that it was written 2000 years ago and agian if there is truth it only relates to what the authors were supposedly going through then.
> 
> Failed Bible Prophecy:
> Failed biblical prophecies - RationalWiki
> 
> PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED
> Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prophecy does not come true in a book of lies. The Bible is true because its teachings work and its prophecies have come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what you have been conditioned to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Nation of Israel now exists and will continue just as stated in the Bible.
Click to expand...

non seqitur with no corroborating evidence to prove it's validity.


----------



## Koios

LittleNipper said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prophecy does not come true in a book of lies. The Bible is true because its teachings work and its prophecies have come true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prophecy that is self fulfilled and in no way relates to a future 2000 years later..The Bible has no truth in that it was written 2000 years ago and agian if there is truth it only relates to what the authors were supposedly going through then.
> 
> Failed Bible Prophecy:
> Failed biblical prophecies - RationalWiki
> 
> PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED
> Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prophecy does not come true in a book of lies. The Bible is true because its teachings work and its prophecies have come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what you have been conditioned to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Nation of Israel now exists and will continue just as stated in the Bible.
Click to expand...


If the Bible got it right, the nation of Isreal would not have gone away as it did, prior to us, the UN, many European nations and Zionists recreating it in the wake WWII attrocities at the hands of the Nazi regime.


----------



## CrackedSkull

No where in that book does it give any date for Israel becoming nation.



> Any church or preacher that claims that 1948 AD fulfilled Bible prophecy when modern Israel gained statehood, is a false teacher and ignorant of the bible. These false teachers are called "premillennialists, dispensationalists" and believe in the Rapture.



Rapture Refuted! Israel's 1948 nationhood does not fulfill Bible prophecy!


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note that I responded directly to a question *posed by you*.  If that's off-topic and not what you wish to discuss, my little Wildcat Retard, here's a tip: don't ask the fucking question.
> 
> Astonishing.  Who knew UofA was an institution of lower learning (tip: it's not, so best not tarnish its image by telling folks you went there, even if you did.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went there too. I think if you get out of the house every once in awhile you will find there are a great many intelligent folks who didn't get brainwashed by the materialism bullshit so prevalent in institutions of "higher learning" that hold many respected positions in the scientific community. I know several people at my church that are researchers at the translational genomics lab in Phoenix. Since you fell for it, that is, if you even went to college, you obviously can't see it.
> 
> TGen Home Page
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuckin-a.  I used to have some respect for Wildcats.  Sigh.
> 
> Plus the anti-Mexican foolishness.  That clusterfuck Joe Arpaio (sp?).  What in the fuck is in the water they're pumping into AZ?
> 
> Astonishing.
Click to expand...


Not anti-Mexican. Just anti-criminal infiltration. I worked in law enforcement in Arizona for 10 years and you obviously have no clue about the issues here. Typical libtard logic that goes along with atheism. Bonus Libtard Logic gem: Abolish the death penalty for mass murderers but make sure it is legal to kill innocent unborn babies.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The understanding of the conceptual basis of evolution has moved beyond simply stating that evolution is true because evolution occurs.
> The concept of the "Selfish Gene" has proven to be of value.
> The concept is that the organism that can successfully pass on the most copies of its genes is the organism that survives and reproduces. Its actually a battle for survival and reproduction among genes rather than among organisms. A gene that contributes something to the success of an organism surviving and reproducing fares better in this competition than the gene that contributes nothing. The concept of the selfish gene explains cooperative behavior among genes and also among organisms such as ants and bees.
> Also, for a long time biologists thought that the human genome contained a lot of "junk" DNA, perhaps as much as 80% of the genome was "junk". That view has changed.
> See Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From Junk, Play Crucial Role
> I for one thought that it was strange that these "selfish genes" were as it were competing to produce as many copies of themselves as possible (that survived to produce more copies), and that up to 80% of this genome was nonfunctional "junk". Recent work described in that article changes the picture substantially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Evolution predicts junk DNA*. ID predicts the "junk" DNA would have a purpose. The selfish gene is a nice story, but it operates under the false assumption that evolution is working towards some predetermined outcome, which we know it isn't. It is the blind watchmaker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does more than predict, it identifies.  We're loaded with superfluous DNA, just not as much of it as plants, which have been around longer.
Click to expand...


This false prediction of evolution continues to erode with each new discovery in the genome. But that won't stop the rabid darwinists. They're just making crap up as they go along anyway.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like priests?
> But who decided that gays aren't part of god's plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The penis and the vagina. Two great things that go great together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have nothing. Check.
Click to expand...


They are designed to work together you foolish, blind man. That is the indication it is not part of God's plan. Also, answer me this, why do gay men go for men that act like women? Why do lesbians choose women that look like dudes? Again, more libtard logic. If you are biologically gay, then shouldn't you be attracted to members of the same sex that embody the behavioral characteristics of that sex? Also, the over the top flamboyant behavior isn't genetic. It is purposefully put on. The emphasis on their esses is purposeful as well. Their speech isn't genetic.


----------



## UltimateReality

CrackedSkull said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I am sure you have some peer reviewed articles or papers that can verify this research. Produce them or that statement is bunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy,I was s lab tech and had creationists views need I say more. What I am teaching can be confirmed with a little work on your part the questions however are thought provoking for the others hate the questions because they know if they answer them honestly it hurts their argument for evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None huh? Then all you have is a degree that means bunk most here....oh I am sorry I failed to be impressed.....all you people with degrees are the same you think because you had your head buried in a book for 4 years you know more than everyone else. What, you think those that do not have fancy $100,000 degrees cannot read and understand? I have more respect for those that don't have one at least they can find their way out of a wet paper bag.
Click to expand...


Typical. "I was learned by the internet ma."


----------



## UltimateReality

amrchaos said:


> I have a question
> 
> How do we know that present day Israel is THE Israel of the bible prophecies??



I have another one

How do we know that the supposedly naturally selected adaptations we see in the human race now were actually the ones that were the most fit?


----------



## CrackedSkull

UltimateReality said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy,I was s lab tech and had creationists views need I say more. What I am teaching can be confirmed with a little work on your part the questions however are thought provoking for the others hate the questions because they know if they answer them honestly it hurts their argument for evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None huh? Then all you have is a degree that means bunk most here....oh I am sorry I failed to be impressed.....all you people with degrees are the same you think because you had your head buried in a book for 4 years you know more than everyone else. What, you think those that do not have fancy $100,000 degrees cannot read and understand? I have more respect for those that don't have one at least they can find their way out of a wet paper bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. "I was learned by the internet ma."
Click to expand...


As most of us are these days. I think everyone has a degree in Google....


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question
> 
> How do we know that present day Israel is THE Israel of the bible prophecies??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have another one
> 
> How do we know that the supposedly naturally selected adaptations we see in the human race now were actually the ones that were the most fit?
Click to expand...


Not sure that we do know the answer to that, but even so, ignorance doesn't automatically point to a supernatural being?


 ...Or does it?


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The penis and the vagina. Two great things that go great together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have nothing. Check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are designed to work together you foolish, blind man. That is the indication it is not part of God's plan. Also, answer me this, why do gay men go for men that act like women? Why do lesbians choose women that look like dudes? Again, more libtard logic. If you are biologically gay, then shouldn't you be attracted to members of the same sex that embody the behavioral characteristics of that sex? Also, the over the top flamboyant behavior isn't genetic. It is purposefully put on. The emphasis on their esses is purposeful as well. Their speech isn't genetic.
Click to expand...

If gays aren't part of god's plan, why do animals throughout the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual tendencies? Out of choice? Everyone? Do you personally know a gay person who's being gay by choice? Because I'm a lesbian, and I don't know any. I tried being hetero and even have 2 kids, but I couldn't keep the charade going. As for guys looking like women and vice versa, the same thing goes on in hetero couples, ex: some guys marry really ugly man-looking women.
So who decided that gays aren't in god's plan? You never answered.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Evolution predicts junk DNA*. ID predicts the "junk" DNA would have a purpose. The selfish gene is a nice story, but it operates under the false assumption that evolution is working towards some predetermined outcome, which we know it isn't. It is the blind watchmaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does more than predict, it identifies.  We're loaded with superfluous DNA, just not as much of it as plants, which have been around longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This false prediction of evolution continues to erode with each new discovery in the genome. But that won't stop the rabid darwinists. They're just making crap up as they go along anyway.
Click to expand...


Rabid cultists like to point to the self-correcting nature of science as a weakness. On the contrary, its a virtue. It allows for the growth of knowledge as opposed to the unchanging and error-filled proscriptions of biblical tales and fables.

This is why pressing Christian creationists for a description of how they account for the diversity of life on the planet is such a chore. They find themselves to be wholly inadequate except to blather on about the gawds did it. Just because fundies don't understand evolution does not mean that it did not happen. Its also a common theme among fundies that their denial of the fact of evolution has nothing to do with the science involved, but everything to do with upsetting their literal interpretation of the bible.

Its laughable to realize that there are no hypotheses as part of creation science. Thats because hypotheses (with reference to the relevant science community), cannot further the advancement of "creationism". Its also laughable to realize that creation science has no theories. How strange, because a _theory_ (in the accepted science framework), is a plausible explanation for a  physical event or a phenomenon. A valid scientific _theory_, such as an explanation that makes specific predictions, is substantiated by repeatable experiments testable physical evidence. The results of those tests and experiments must then be available for duplication by others, and must be potentially falsifiable. 

As usual, posing these challenges to the rabid Christian creationist cultists leaves us only with the sound of crickets chirping in the distance.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question
> 
> How do we know that present day Israel is THE Israel of the bible prophecies??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have another one
> 
> How do we know that the supposedly naturally selected adaptations we see in the human race now were actually the ones that were the most fit?
Click to expand...


You would have to have a _first one_ in order to reasonably make the comment that you now have "another one".

We now return you to your stupor:

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture.  There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible." 
_-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_​


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Evolution predicts junk DNA*. ID predicts the "junk" DNA would have a purpose. The selfish gene is a nice story, but it operates under the false assumption that evolution is working towards some predetermined outcome, which we know it isn't. It is the blind watchmaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does more than predict, it identifies.  We're loaded with superfluous DNA, just not as much of it as plants, which have been around longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This false prediction of evolution continues to erode with each new discovery in the genome. But that won't stop the rabid darwinists. They're just making crap up as they go along anyway.
Click to expand...


While indeed we are still in the discovery phase of individual genes' roles, we know for a fact that over the course of millions of years, many genes become superfluous, since other forces are at play which turn them on and off, and many are no longer turned on ... such as the gene for our tails.

We know that conclusively since a simple plant, while far less complex than a human, has much longer gene strands, since plants have been around longer than we have, despite the 6-day, rest on the 7th day, myth, which has proven to be utter bunk.

And any book that starts off wrong, is likely to be wrong throughout.  The Bible is thus highly unreliable.


----------



## newpolitics

When it comes to meiosis, there is no repair mechanism, because there is no time. The cell had already been made with the copying mistake included, so what are you referring to? If outside radiation causing a mutation to a cell in an already existing organism, attempts will be made to repair it, of course. This is not possible within the four cells created during meiosis. Are you suggesting these repair proteins open up all of the gametes ever made, search through all if the DNA, do a comparison to the existing DNA in one if the parent genes... This doesn't even make plausible sense. A mutation during meiosis would be left as is, and ale to express itself in an offspring unfettered.


----------



## newpolitics

That last post was a response to one of ywc's posts about repair mechanisms.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay closer attention. I'm a marketing executive, and am astonished by your lack of understanding of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get a degree in molecular biology from the University of Arizona not understanding evolution. Why don't you give an honest answer to my questions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed; I would have thought that would be the case.  However, you seem to be the exception that proves the rule.  Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the creation myth, which itself derived of dogmatic and ignorant thinking by primitive humans.
> 
> Possible?
Click to expand...


Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the evolution myth, which itself was derived from dogmatic and ignorant thinking along with a very vivid imagination  from primitive humans.

Possible ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the party.  Shall I enumerate the questions you've dodged?
> 
> Now then, this?
> 
> "Why do you suppose by chance we would have this mechanism preserving the origional genetic data ?"
> 
> Not why; what.  It replicates, where a copy is the assumption.  But it doesn't always preserve; it fucks up (mutates).  Ergo evolution.
> 
> Why?  Third generation star and solar system.  Lot's of complex molecules.  Also right size and distance from star, not to mention larger outter planets that protect earth from most impacts.  Add liquid water, organic molecules and fucking bingo.  Shit happens, and here it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Stay on topic we are discussing mutations.* I don't think you understand mutation fixation and the conditions that have to be met for mutation fixation to take place to where it becomes the norm in the genepool. So in a nutshell you believe errors make things better and give the organism more of an ability to adapt. That is pure nonsense thinking chaos promotes order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note that I responded directly to a question *posed by you*.  If that's off-topic and not what you wish to discuss, my little Wildcat Retard, here's a tip: don't ask the fucking question.
> 
> Astonishing.  Who knew UofA was an institution of lower learning (tip: it's not, so best not tarnish its image by telling folks you went there, even if you did.)
Click to expand...


You go off on your bad analogies along with using the wrong terms. Everyone knows the University of Arizona is a fine institution for the sciences.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Bill Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution claim: The types of organisms that survive and reproduce are the types of organisms that survive and reproduce because if they didn't survive and reproduce then they wouldn't be here. So we have definitive truth that evolution is true.
> 
> 
> 
> The understanding of the conceptual basis of evolution has moved beyond simply stating that evolution is true because evolution occurs.
> The concept of the "Selfish Gene" has proven to be of value.
> The concept is that the organism that can successfully pass on the most copies of its genes is the organism that survives and reproduces. Its actually a battle for survival and reproduction among genes rather than among organisms. A gene that contributes something to the success of an organism surviving and reproducing fares better in this competition than the gene that contributes nothing. The concept of the selfish gene explains cooperative behavior among genes and also among organisms such as ants and bees.
> Also, for a long time biologists thought that the human genome contained a lot of "junk" DNA, perhaps as much as 80% of the genome was "junk". That view has changed.
> See Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From Junk, Play Crucial Role
> I for one thought that it was strange that these "selfish genes" were as it were competing to produce as many copies of themselves as possible (that survived to produce more copies), and that up to 80% of this genome was nonfunctional "junk". Recent work described in that article changes the picture substantially.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution predicts junk DNA. ID predicts the "junk" DNA would have a purpose. The selfish gene is a nice story, but it operates under the false assumption that evolution is working towards some predetermined outcome, which we know it isn't. It is the blind watchmaker.
Click to expand...


This is very true.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note that I responded directly to a question *posed by you*.  If that's off-topic and not what you wish to discuss, my little Wildcat Retard, here's a tip: don't ask the fucking question.
> 
> Astonishing.  Who knew UofA was an institution of lower learning (tip: it's not, so best not tarnish its image by telling folks you went there, even if you did.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went there too. I think if you get out of the house every once in awhile you will find there are a great many intelligent folks who didn't get brainwashed by the materialism bullshit so prevalent in institutions of "higher learning" that hold many respected positions in the scientific community. I know several people at my church that are researchers at the translational genomics lab in Phoenix. Since you fell for it, that is, if you even went to college, you obviously can't see it.
> 
> TGen Home Page
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuckin-a.  I used to have some respect for Wildcats.  Sigh.
> 
> Plus the anti-Mexican foolishness.  That clusterfuck Joe Arpaio (sp?).  What in the fuck is in the water they're pumping into AZ?
> 
> Astonishing.
Click to expand...


You mean the most famous sheriff in america. Funny you're nothing more then an atheistic,liberal,Ideologue.

Maybe you're from berkley or or did I over estimate your resume.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your bigotry and ignorance really shines in this post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No not at all, just speaking from the facts if you can't handle the truth that is your problem. From now on the discussion has moved on if you wish to continue this give and take stay on topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey slapdick since when do you give orders?
> I'll answer how when and where I please.
Click to expand...


I have owned you since the beginning of this thread,you who is infatuated with the penis.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went there too. I think if you get out of the house every once in awhile you will find there are a great many intelligent folks who didn't get brainwashed by the materialism bullshit so prevalent in institutions of "higher learning" that hold many respected positions in the scientific community. I know several people at my church that are researchers at the translational genomics lab in Phoenix. Since you fell for it, that is, if you even went to college, you obviously can't see it.
> 
> TGen Home Page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuckin-a.  I used to have some respect for Wildcats.  Sigh.
> 
> Plus the anti-Mexican foolishness.  That clusterfuck Joe Arpaio (sp?).  What in the fuck is in the water they're pumping into AZ?
> 
> Astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the most famous sheriff in america. Funny you're nothing more then an atheistic,liberal,Ideologue.
> 
> Maybe you're from berkley or or did I over estimate your resume.
Click to expand...


No. The most infamous. 

No. Not a Berkeley grad. But it might help in the future to: 1) estimate, and; 2) reject.  That'll save you time, and still get you to the right conclusion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Evolution predicts junk DNA*. ID predicts the "junk" DNA would have a purpose. The selfish gene is a nice story, but it operates under the false assumption that evolution is working towards some predetermined outcome, which we know it isn't. It is the blind watchmaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does more than predict, it identifies.  We're loaded with superfluous DNA, just not as much of it as plants, which have been around longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This false prediction of evolution continues to erode with each new discovery in the genome. But that won't stop the rabid darwinists. They're just making crap up as they go along anyway.
Click to expand...


I guess this one has ignored the Genome project


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Stay on topic we are discussing mutations.* I don't think you understand mutation fixation and the conditions that have to be met for mutation fixation to take place to where it becomes the norm in the genepool. So in a nutshell you believe errors make things better and give the organism more of an ability to adapt. That is pure nonsense thinking chaos promotes order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that I responded directly to a question *posed by you*.  If that's off-topic and not what you wish to discuss, my little Wildcat Retard, here's a tip: don't ask the fucking question.
> 
> Astonishing.  Who knew UofA was an institution of lower learning (tip: it's not, so best not tarnish its image by telling folks you went there, even if you did.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go off on your bad analogies along with using the wrong terms. Everyone knows the University of Arizona is a fine institution for the sciences.
Click to expand...


Okay; school me.  What within my comment, to which you responded, was an analogy?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get a degree in molecular biology from the University of Arizona not understanding evolution. Why don't you give an honest answer to my questions ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed; I would have thought that would be the case.  However, you seem to be the exception that proves the rule.  Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the creation myth, which itself derived of dogmatic and ignorant thinking by primitive humans.
> 
> Possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the evolution myth, which itself was derived from dogmatic and ignorant thinking along with a very vivid imagination  from primitive humans.
> 
> Possible ?
Click to expand...


No. Charles Darwin was by no means a primitive human.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get a degree in molecular biology from the University of Arizona not understanding evolution. Why don't you give an honest answer to my questions ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed; I would have thought that would be the case.  However, you seem to be the exception that proves the rule.  Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the creation myth, which itself derived of dogmatic and ignorant thinking by primitive humans.
> 
> Possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the evolution myth, which itself was derived from dogmatic and ignorant thinking along with a very vivid imagination  from primitive humans.
> 
> Possible ?
Click to expand...


Only possible in the twisted worldview of the creationist.

"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model." 
_- Henry Morris 
President, Institute for Creation Research_​


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does more than predict, it identifies.  We're loaded with superfluous DNA, just not as much of it as plants, which have been around longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This false prediction of evolution continues to erode with each new discovery in the genome. But that won't stop the rabid darwinists. They're just making crap up as they go along anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rabid cultists like to point to the self-correcting nature of science as a weakness. On the contrary, its a virtue. It allows for the growth of knowledge as opposed to the unchanging and error-filled proscriptions of biblical tales and fables.
> 
> This is why pressing Christian creationists for a description of how they account for the diversity of life on the planet is such a chore. They find themselves to be wholly inadequate except to blather on about the gawds did it. Just because fundies don't understand evolution does not mean that it did not happen. Its also a common theme among fundies that their denial of the fact of evolution has nothing to do with the science involved, but everything to do with upsetting their literal interpretation of the bible.
> 
> Its laughable to realize that there are no hypotheses as part of creation science. Thats because hypotheses (with reference to the relevant science community), cannot further the advancement of "creationism". Its also laughable to realize that creation science has no theories. How strange, because a _theory_ (in the accepted science framework), is a plausible explanation for a  physical event or a phenomenon. A valid scientific _theory_, such as an explanation that makes specific predictions, is substantiated by repeatable experiments testable physical evidence. The results of those tests and experiments must then be available for duplication by others, and must be potentially falsifiable.
> 
> As usual, posing these challenges to the rabid Christian creationist cultists leaves us only with the sound of crickets chirping in the distance.
Click to expand...


You mean when they jump the gun before the facts are in


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does more than predict, it identifies.  We're loaded with superfluous DNA, just not as much of it as plants, which have been around longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This false prediction of evolution continues to erode with each new discovery in the genome. But that won't stop the rabid darwinists. They're just making crap up as they go along anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While indeed we are still in the discovery phase of individual genes' roles, we know for a fact that over the course of millions of years, many genes become superfluous, since other forces are at play which turn them on and off, and many are no longer turned on ... such as the gene for our tails.
> 
> We know that conclusively since a simple plant, while far less complex than a human, has much longer gene strands, since plants have been around longer than we have, despite the 6-day, rest on the 7th day, myth, which has proven to be utter bunk.
> 
> And any book that starts off wrong, is likely to be wrong throughout.  The Bible is thus highly unreliable.
Click to expand...


Prime example of a vivid imagination at play. Just because you were taught this nonsense it must be a fact, correct ? Please let's get back on topic how mutations provide beneficial change to an organism and mutation fixation.


----------



## newpolitics

Explain how harmful mutations would be allowed, but for some reason beneficial ones are selected against? Your bias against beneficial is so obviously self-serving, because it would destroy your assertion that Evo is bunk. In reality? You have no basis for claiming beneficial mutations wouldn't happen.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> When it comes to meiosis, there is no repair mechanism, because there is no time. The cell had already been made with the copying mistake included, so what are you referring to? If outside radiation causing a mutation to a cell in an already existing organism, attempts will be made to repair it, of course. This is not possible within the four cells created during meiosis. Are you suggesting these repair proteins open up all of the gametes ever made, search through all if the DNA, do a comparison to the existing DNA in one if the parent genes... This doesn't even make plausible sense. A mutation during meiosis would be left as is, and ale to express itself in an offspring unfettered.



We observed and studied both natural occurring and induced mutations. Sure some get through the repair mechanisms but most were neutral causing no change and that would be because of the repairing enzymes. The ones that did cause change were harmful to the offspring with either shorter life spans and or was deformed. No benefit was ever observed in flies due to mutations. The reason fliues were used is the short life span to begin with and the many generations of flies that could be observed along with mutation fixation.

Very few traits were changed and very few were passed on to future generations. The repair mechnisms had eliminated the changes and the flies returned to being normal is that not against what evolutionist claim ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note that I responded directly to a question *posed by you*.  If that's off-topic and not what you wish to discuss, my little Wildcat Retard, here's a tip: don't ask the fucking question.
> 
> Astonishing.  Who knew UofA was an institution of lower learning (tip: it's not, so best not tarnish its image by telling folks you went there, even if you did.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go off on your bad analogies along with using the wrong terms. Everyone knows the University of Arizona is a fine institution for the sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay; school me.  What within my comment, to which you responded, was an analogy?
Click to expand...


Cutting your finger for one.

This was not an analogy but you seem to only lock in on gene mutation as the mechanism for evolution. We know that not enough new information can be produced through mutations they have been working on other areas to where this new genetic data could come from, Also you really won't see fitness passed on to future generations from copying errors. Things get better from mistakes,really ?


----------



## newpolitics

You didn't really answer my question. You would have to have a repair gene repairing gamete cells in order for your assertion to be true. This isn't possible because there is no reference for the information in the gametes: it is new information, being a mixture of the parents genes. Therefore, there is no way to know what is mutated information or not. Given that there is no possibility for there to be regulation of mutations during meiosis, any and all mutations are able to be passed onto the young if those gametes are the ones that are fertilized during sex. 

You are committing the fallacy of hasty generalization when you concluded, based on your limited sample size, that because you did not see any beneficial mutations, they do not happen.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This false prediction of evolution continues to erode with each new discovery in the genome. But that won't stop the rabid darwinists. They're just making crap up as they go along anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rabid cultists like to point to the self-correcting nature of science as a weakness. On the contrary, its a virtue. It allows for the growth of knowledge as opposed to the unchanging and error-filled proscriptions of biblical tales and fables.
> 
> This is why pressing Christian creationists for a description of how they account for the diversity of life on the planet is such a chore. They find themselves to be wholly inadequate except to blather on about the gawds did it. Just because fundies don't understand evolution does not mean that it did not happen. Its also a common theme among fundies that their denial of the fact of evolution has nothing to do with the science involved, but everything to do with upsetting their literal interpretation of the bible.
> 
> Its laughable to realize that there are no hypotheses as part of creation science. Thats because hypotheses (with reference to the relevant science community), cannot further the advancement of "creationism". Its also laughable to realize that creation science has no theories. How strange, because a _theory_ (in the accepted science framework), is a plausible explanation for a  physical event or a phenomenon. A valid scientific _theory_, such as an explanation that makes specific predictions, is substantiated by repeatable experiments testable physical evidence. The results of those tests and experiments must then be available for duplication by others, and must be potentially falsifiable.
> 
> As usual, posing these challenges to the rabid Christian creationist cultists leaves us only with the sound of crickets chirping in the distance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean when they jump the gun before the facts are in
Click to expand...


As usual, you make no sense. Unless you're cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, your posts amount to silly one-liners.

Science is more than an accumulated body of knowledge. It is a process of discovery. Unlike Christian creationism which assumes a position of infallible truth, science, as a process of investigation, does not make any such claim to infallibility. It is a process that is built upon error correction, and will remedy its own mistakes. Creationists, by their own admission, hold an infallible truth of the various bibles which are incapable of being in error.


"But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."

_Dr. Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33_


What is truly laughable about creationist is the lack of any affirmative description of what creationist doctrine really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their creation. There is no doctrinal literature such as _"The Creation Scenario is described as..." _  Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: _"The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..." _ And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: _"We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet."_  Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

Creationist can offer no explanations of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gawds. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.


----------



## newpolitics

As I already explained previously, it is much harder to create a beneficial mutation by virtue of what is defined as fitness. Relative to the possible combinations of codons in the DNA, only a small amount represent code viable for life. Therefore, it is much easier to mess up the code, than to add something constructive to it. By analogy, it is much easier to close your eyes and carelessly run around your living room and create a bigger mess, but every so often, were one so inclined, would you find an actual improvement to the room. Perhaps you moved a piece of furniture into a better position that improves the room as a hole.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed; I would have thought that would be the case.  However, you seem to be the exception that proves the rule.  Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the creation myth, which itself derived of dogmatic and ignorant thinking by primitive humans.
> 
> Possible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the evolution myth, which itself was derived from dogmatic and ignorant thinking along with a very vivid imagination  from primitive humans.
> 
> Possible ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Charles Darwin was by no means a primitive human.
Click to expand...


Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.


----------



## newpolitics

Ywc, you are claiming that beneficial mutations can't happen. I want to know, how are you rationally deducing this? As far as I can tell, you are simply using induction from what you've seen. This is flawed in making a conclusion such as you have.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to meiosis, there is no repair mechanism, because there is no time. The cell had already been made with the copying mistake included, so what are you referring to? If outside radiation causing a mutation to a cell in an already existing organism, attempts will be made to repair it, of course. This is not possible within the four cells created during meiosis. Are you suggesting these repair proteins open up all of the gametes ever made, search through all if the DNA, do a comparison to the existing DNA in one if the parent genes... This doesn't even make plausible sense. A mutation during meiosis would be left as is, and ale to express itself in an offspring unfettered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We observed and studied both natural occurring and induced mutations. Sure some get through the repair mechanisms but most were neutral causing no change and that would be because of the repairing enzymes. The ones that did cause change were harmful to the offspring with either shorter life spans and or was deformed. No benefit was ever observed in flies due to mutations. The reason fliues were used is the short life span to begin with and the many generations of flies that could be observed along with mutation fixation.
> 
> Very few traits were changed and very few were passed on to future generations. The repair mechnisms had eliminated the changes and the flies returned to being normal is that not against what evolutionist claim ?
Click to expand...


I think its important to understand the creationist proclivity for falsified quotes, misrepresentation and bad analogies.

Beneficial mutations can only be determined relative to environment and fitness for survival in that environment.

This is more chapter and verse in creationist propaganda.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Explain how harmful mutations would be allowed, but for some reason beneficial ones are selected against? Your bias against beneficial is so obviously self-serving, because it would destroy your assertion that Evo is bunk. In reality? You have no basis for claiming beneficial mutations wouldn't happen.



Pretty simple really,compare the number of mutations that really provided a benefit to an organism that has been observed vs the harmful mutations that result in genetic disorders. 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and counting.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Ywc, you are claiming that beneficial mutations can't happen. I want to know, how are you rationally deducing this? As far as I can tell, you are simply using induction from what you've seen. This is flawed in making a conclusion such as you have.



I have answered this question many times.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have nothing. Check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are designed to work together you foolish, blind man. That is the indication it is not part of God's plan. Also, answer me this, why do gay men go for men that act like women? Why do lesbians choose women that look like dudes? Again, more libtard logic. If you are biologically gay, then shouldn't you be attracted to members of the same sex that embody the behavioral characteristics of that sex? Also, the over the top flamboyant behavior isn't genetic. It is purposefully put on. The emphasis on their esses is purposeful as well. Their speech isn't genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If gays aren't part of god's plan, why do animals throughout the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual tendencies? Out of choice? Everyone? D*o you personally know a gay person who's being gay by choice?*
Click to expand...


Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the evolution myth, which itself was derived from dogmatic and ignorant thinking along with a very vivid imagination  from primitive humans.
> 
> Possible ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Charles Darwin was by no means a primitive human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.
Click to expand...


Primitive human would thus apply to the modern day creationist. With the availability of knowledge and machinery we are equipped with and not used by the creationist, theyre looking quite primitive. 

Why do you think Ann Gauger from the Disco 'tute would need to produce false and misleading photos of herself in a "lab" that she never entered? 

It seems like a lie. Isn't the creationist rather primitive according to your description? Afterall, they're caling themselves "creation scientists" yet they do no research, publish no peer reviewed material and perform no field investigations.

I think "Charlatan" is the term I'm looking for.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are designed to work together you foolish, blind man. That is the indication it is not part of God's plan. Also, answer me this, why do gay men go for men that act like women? Why do lesbians choose women that look like dudes? Again, more libtard logic. If you are biologically gay, then shouldn't you be attracted to members of the same sex that embody the behavioral characteristics of that sex? Also, the over the top flamboyant behavior isn't genetic. It is purposefully put on. The emphasis on their esses is purposeful as well. Their speech isn't genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> If gays aren't part of god's plan, why do animals throughout the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual tendencies? Out of choice? Everyone? D*o you personally know a gay person who's being gay by choice?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.
Click to expand...


Not a single person gay person I know has been abused as a child.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If gays aren't part of god's plan, why do animals throughout the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual tendencies? Out of choice? Everyone? D*o you personally know a gay person who's being gay by choice?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a single person gay person I know has been abused as a child.
Click to expand...


I wasn't talking to you. You are just noise. You continue with the same baiting techniques like claiming there are no peer reviewed studies and that ID doesn't have a hypothesis when this has been proven to you over 10 times, but yet you still pathetically attempt the same stupid statements to get my attention. Are you really that desperate? Don't you see how no one is responding to you anymore? You're post are totally irrelevant to the conversation.

Of course, like a child, you just want attention, even if it is negative attention, from me, so now you can get all excited again.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single person gay person I know has been abused as a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you. You are just noise. You continue with the same baiting techniques like claiming there are no peer reviewed studies and that ID doesn't have a hypothesis when this has been proven to you over 10 times, but yet you still pathetically attempt the same stupid statements to get my attention. Are you really that desperate? Don't you see how no one is responding to you anymore? You're post are totally irrelevant to the conversation.
> 
> Of course, like a child, you just want attention, even if it is negative attention, from me, so now you can get all excited again.
Click to expand...

That was a rather poor attempt at sidestepping. What gays you know, if any, are hardly defining of the entire population of gays.

Secondly, your claim about Christian creationists publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals is nonsensical. Why not show us the peer reviewed papers that the ICR or Biologos submitted as the result of their &#8220;research&#8221;?

Can&#8217;t you see that your desperate bids for attention cause you to appear like the desperate fundie? I just have no issue correcting your errors.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This false prediction of evolution continues to erode with each new discovery in the genome. But that won't stop the rabid darwinists. They're just making crap up as they go along anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While indeed we are still in the discovery phase of individual genes' roles, we know for a fact that over the course of millions of years, many genes become superfluous, since other forces are at play which turn them on and off, and many are no longer turned on ... such as the gene for our tails.
> 
> We know that conclusively since a simple plant, while far less complex than a human, has much longer gene strands, since plants have been around longer than we have, despite the 6-day, rest on the 7th day, myth, which has proven to be utter bunk.
> 
> And any book that starts off wrong, is likely to be wrong throughout.  The Bible is thus highly unreliable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prime example of a vivid imagination at play. Just because you were taught this nonsense it must be a fact, correct ? Please let's get back on topic how mutations provide beneficial change to an organism and mutation fixation.
Click to expand...


No. The many facts (all known) lead to theories so valid as to be widely recognized truths.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ywc, you are claiming that beneficial mutations can't happen. I want to know, how are you rationally deducing this? As far as I can tell, you are simply using induction from what you've seen. This is flawed in making a conclusion such as you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered this question many times.
Click to expand...


You haven't answered it once. You just keep on assertion this to be the case, without evidence or demonstration. I have already pointed out that your attempt at concluding this includes a fallacy of hasty generalization. Without this fallacy, you can't reach your conclusion. Therefore, your conclusion is invalid and you should stop positing it as an assertion.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are designed to work together you foolish, blind man. That is the indication it is not part of God's plan. Also, answer me this, why do gay men go for men that act like women? Why do lesbians choose women that look like dudes? Again, more libtard logic. If you are biologically gay, then shouldn't you be attracted to members of the same sex that embody the behavioral characteristics of that sex? Also, the over the top flamboyant behavior isn't genetic. It is purposefully put on. The emphasis on their esses is purposeful as well. Their speech isn't genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> If gays aren't part of god's plan, why do animals throughout the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual tendencies? Out of choice? Everyone? D*o you personally know a gay person who's being gay by choice?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.
Click to expand...


Some Animals are gay. Were they sexually abused when thy were little? Nope. Correlation does not imply causation, even if I were to accept your anecdotal evidence, which I don't for a second.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single person gay person I know has been abused as a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you. You are just noise. You continue with the same baiting techniques like claiming there are no peer reviewed studies and that ID doesn't have a hypothesis when this has been proven to you over 10 times, but yet you still pathetically attempt the same stupid statements to get my attention. Are you really that desperate? Don't you see how no one is responding to you anymore? You're post are totally irrelevant to the conversation.
> 
> Of course, like a child, you just want attention, even if it is negative attention, from me, so now you can get all excited again.
Click to expand...


I'm gay and I don't know anyone who's been abused as a child. Well, actually I do, but she's not gay. 

So are you ever going to say who decided that gays aren't in god's plan? Was it god? No? Then wtf?


----------



## CrackedSkull

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single person gay person I know has been abused as a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you. You are just noise. You continue with the same baiting techniques like claiming there are no peer reviewed studies and that ID doesn't have a hypothesis when this has been proven to you over 10 times, but yet you still pathetically attempt the same stupid statements to get my attention. Are you really that desperate? Don't you see how no one is responding to you anymore? You're post are totally irrelevant to the conversation.
> 
> Of course, like a child, you just want attention, even if it is negative attention, from me, so now you can get all excited again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm gay and I don't know anyone who's been abused as a child. Well, actually I do, but she's not gay.
> 
> So are you ever going to say who decided that gays aren't in god's plan? Was it god? No? Then wtf?
Click to expand...




> So are you ever going to say who decided that gays aren't in god's plan?



He can't because it is a SIN in the BuyBull:

*Leviticus*

Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22

If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13

*Luke*

17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

17:35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

A lot more examples here:
Homosexuality in the Bible


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Charles Darwin was by no means a primitive human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Primitive human would thus apply to the modern day creationist. With the availability of knowledge and machinery we are equipped with and not used by the creationist, theyre looking quite primitive.
> 
> Why do you think Ann Gauger from the Disco 'tute would need to produce false and misleading photos of herself in a "lab" that she never entered?
> 
> It seems like a lie. Isn't the creationist rather primitive according to your description? Afterall, they're caling themselves "creation scientists" yet they do no research, publish no peer reviewed material and perform no field investigations.
> 
> I think "Charlatan" is the term I'm looking for.
Click to expand...


Yep that applies to all early science they were limited by their knowledge which begs the question,how did the bible get so many scientific questions right with limited knowledge,hmm.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> While indeed we are still in the discovery phase of individual genes' roles, we know for a fact that over the course of millions of years, many genes become superfluous, since other forces are at play which turn them on and off, and many are no longer turned on ... such as the gene for our tails.
> 
> We know that conclusively since a simple plant, while far less complex than a human, has much longer gene strands, since plants have been around longer than we have, despite the 6-day, rest on the 7th day, myth, which has proven to be utter bunk.
> 
> And any book that starts off wrong, is likely to be wrong throughout.  The Bible is thus highly unreliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prime example of a vivid imagination at play. Just because you were taught this nonsense it must be a fact, correct ? Please let's get back on topic how mutations provide beneficial change to an organism and mutation fixation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. The many facts (all known) lead to theories so valid as to be widely recognized truths.
Click to expand...


So you do accept design as a viable theory because of the evidence seen in nature ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ywc, you are claiming that beneficial mutations can't happen. I want to know, how are you rationally deducing this? As far as I can tell, you are simply using induction from what you've seen. This is flawed in making a conclusion such as you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered this question many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't answered it once. You just keep on assertion this to be the case, without evidence or demonstration. I have already pointed out that your attempt at concluding this includes a fallacy of hasty generalization. Without this fallacy, you can't reach your conclusion. Therefore, your conclusion is invalid and you should stop positing it as an assertion.
Click to expand...


I have given you the overwhelming evidence that mutations harm fitness not promote fitness. The numbers do not lie. Unless you can show otherwise you're wasting my time and yours. I want examples of mutations promoting fitness as I have stated before there is overwhelming evidence of mutations causing genetic disorders that would be termed as harmful mutations.


----------



## CrackedSkull

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered this question many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't answered it once. You just keep on assertion this to be the case, without evidence or demonstration. I have already pointed out that your attempt at concluding this includes a fallacy of hasty generalization. Without this fallacy, you can't reach your conclusion. Therefore, your conclusion is invalid and you should stop positing it as an assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have given you the overwhelming evidence that mutations harm fitness not promote fitness. The numbers do not lie. Unless you can show otherwise you're wasting my time and yours. I want examples of mutations promoting fitness as I have stated before there is overwhelming evidence of mutations causing genetic disorders that would be termed as harmful mutations.
Click to expand...




> 1.)  Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli.
> 
> 
> A single clone of E. coli was cultured at 37 C  (that is 37 degrees Celsius) for 2000 generations. A single clone was then extracted from this population and divided into replicates that were then cultured at either 32 C , 37 C, or 42 C for a total of another 2000 generations.  Adaptation of the new lines was periodically measured by competing these selection lines against the ancestor population. *By the end of the experiment, the lines cultured at 32 C were shown to be 10% fitter that the ancestor population (at 32 C), and the line cultured at 42 C was shown to be 20% more fit than the ancestor population.* The replicate line that was cultured at 37 C showed little improvement over the ancestral line.
> 
> Bennett, A.F., Lenski, R.E., & Mittler, J.E. (1992). Evolutionary adaptation to temperature I. Fitness responses of Escherichia coli to changes in its thermal environment. Evolution, 46:16-30.



Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection

10.) * 12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment.
*


> Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli
> Susanna K. Remold* and Richard E. Lenski
> 
> Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
> 
> Edited by M. T. Clegg, University of California, Riverside, CA, and approved July 30, 2001 (received for review March 22, 2001)
> 
> Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to G×E interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37°C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28°C; maltose, 28°C; glucose, 37°C; and maltose, 37°C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.



http://www.biotechnologyforums.com/thread-1670.html

This from a Creation Website no doubt!

CCR5-delta32: a very beneficial mutation
http://creation.com/ccr5delta32-a-very-beneficial-mutation

Yet another Creation Website:
http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113&Itemid=81


Now you were saying? About their being no beneficial mutations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CrackedSkull said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't answered it once. You just keep on assertion this to be the case, without evidence or demonstration. I have already pointed out that your attempt at concluding this includes a fallacy of hasty generalization. Without this fallacy, you can't reach your conclusion. Therefore, your conclusion is invalid and you should stop positing it as an assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have given you the overwhelming evidence that mutations harm fitness not promote fitness. The numbers do not lie. Unless you can show otherwise you're wasting my time and yours. I want examples of mutations promoting fitness as I have stated before there is overwhelming evidence of mutations causing genetic disorders that would be termed as harmful mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.)  Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli.
> 
> 
> A single clone of E. coli was cultured at 37 C  (that is 37 degrees Celsius) for 2000 generations. A single clone was then extracted from this population and divided into replicates that were then cultured at either 32 C , 37 C, or 42 C for a total of another 2000 generations.  Adaptation of the new lines was periodically measured by competing these selection lines against the ancestor population. *By the end of the experiment, the lines cultured at 32 C were shown to be 10% fitter that the ancestor population (at 32 C), and the line cultured at 42 C was shown to be 20% more fit than the ancestor population.* The replicate line that was cultured at 37 C showed little improvement over the ancestral line.
> 
> Bennett, A.F., Lenski, R.E., & Mittler, J.E. (1992). Evolutionary adaptation to temperature I. Fitness responses of Escherichia coli to changes in its thermal environment. Evolution, 46:16-30.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
> 
> 10.) * 12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli
> Susanna K. Remold* and Richard E. Lenski
> 
> Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
> 
> Edited by M. T. Clegg, University of California, Riverside, CA, and approved July 30, 2001 (received for review March 22, 2001)
> 
> Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to G×E interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37°C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28°C; maltose, 28°C; glucose, 37°C; and maltose, 37°C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adaptation With Beneficial Genetic Mutation
> 
> This from a Creation Website no doubt!
> 
> CCR5-delta32: a very beneficial mutation
> CCR5
> 
> Yet another Creation Website:
> Sickle-Cell Anemia: Example of a "Beneficial Mutation"?
> 
> 
> Now you were saying? About their being no beneficial mutations.
Click to expand...


Don't misquote me,I have said they are rare. There are only a few that evolutionist can point to.Evolutionist need many beneficial mutations for evolution to happen in more complex organisms,many more then we observe.

More complex organisms such as eukaryotes do have introns. Because a bacterial chromosome does not have introns which are essentially filler DNA that does not code for anything, mutations on the chromosome itself will always lead to a genetic mutation in the in the less complex organisms such as bacterial genes. 

Less complex organisms have less cells and less complex processes that is why mutations would have a larger effect on bacterial or viruses. This what is evolutionist extrapolate from, the observations of mutating bacteria except they know that mutations in eukaryotes would need much more time for mutations to have an effect on these organisms.

Evolutionist also extrapolate from small biological adaptations as evidence for big scale evolution, macro. They have no way to prove or put this assumption to the test that is not science.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prime example of a vivid imagination at play. Just because you were taught this nonsense it must be a fact, correct ? Please let's get back on topic how mutations provide beneficial change to an organism and mutation fixation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The many facts (all known) lead to theories so valid as to be widely recognized truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you do accept design as a viable theory because of the evidence seen in nature ?
Click to expand...


No.  I see the obvious: random changes, leading to what we have today.  In fact, random is merely different; and whether it proves advantageous is merely by chance, and can prove non-advantageous when changes in environment occur.

Proof of this is that speciaes alive today, represent about 1% of the species that evolved, by chance, on this planet.  The other 99% proved failures, by chance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The many facts (all known) lead to theories so valid as to be widely recognized truths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you do accept design as a viable theory because of the evidence seen in nature ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I see the obvious: random changes, leading to what we have today.  In fact, random is merely different; and whether it proves advantageous is merely by chance, and can prove non-advantageous when changes in environment occur.
> 
> Proof of this is that speciaes alive today, represent about 1% of the species that evolved, by chance, on this planet.  The other 99% proved failures, by chance.
Click to expand...


As in with random chance I might win the lottery ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The many facts (all known) lead to theories so valid as to be widely recognized truths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you do accept design as a viable theory because of the evidence seen in nature ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I see the obvious: random changes, leading to what we have today.  In fact, random is merely different; and whether it proves advantageous is merely by chance, and can prove non-advantageous when changes in environment occur.
> 
> Proof of this is that speciaes alive today, represent about 1% of the species that evolved, by chance, on this planet.  The other 99% proved failures, by chance.
Click to expand...


I will address the last part of your post soon.


----------



## CrackedSkull

Youwerecreated said:


> Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?



There are 2 million plus christians do any promote common sense?


----------



## Youwerecreated

CrackedSkull said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 million plus christians do any promote common sense?
Click to expand...


There are far more than 2 million Christians and of course they do, you're talking to one. I just asked you a common sense question and you failed miserably with your response.

Not trying to be rude,just being honest with you. I once was branwashed as many are today by the school system.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered this question many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't answered it once. You just keep on assertion this to be the case, without evidence or demonstration. I have already pointed out that your attempt at concluding this includes a fallacy of hasty generalization. Without this fallacy, you can't reach your conclusion. Therefore, your conclusion is invalid and you should stop positing it as an assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have given you the overwhelming evidence that mutations harm fitness not promote fitness. The numbers do not lie. Unless you can show otherwise you're wasting my time and yours. I want examples of mutations promoting fitness as I have stated before there is overwhelming evidence of mutations causing genetic disorders that would be termed as harmful mutations.
Click to expand...


You utterly contradict your own comments from one post to the next. 

It's truly laughable as you scramble in failed attempts to suggest, in one post, that all mutations are harmful while you grudgingly admit in the next post that all mutations are _not_ harmful.


----------



## CrackedSkull

Youwerecreated said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 million plus christians do any promote common sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are far more than 2 million Christians and of course they do, you're talking to one. I just asked you a common sense question and you failed miserably with your response.
> 
> Not trying to be rude,just being honest with you. I once was branwashed as many are today by the school system.
Click to expand...


No not really. You retorted with 6000 harmful mutations. I showed you two plus links to more.




> There are far more than 2 million Christians and of course they do, you're talking to one. I just asked you a common sense question and you failed miserably with your response.



Am I? Thus far I do not see it. I only see arrogance.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Primitive human would thus apply to the modern day creationist. With the availability of knowledge and machinery we are equipped with and not used by the creationist, theyre looking quite primitive.
> 
> Why do you think Ann Gauger from the Disco 'tute would need to produce false and misleading photos of herself in a "lab" that she never entered?
> 
> It seems like a lie. Isn't the creationist rather primitive according to your description? Afterall, they're caling themselves "creation scientists" yet they do no research, publish no peer reviewed material and perform no field investigations.
> 
> I think "Charlatan" is the term I'm looking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep that applies to all early science they were limited by their knowledge which begs the question,how did the bible get so many scientific questions right with limited knowledge,hmm.
Click to expand...


From the top them - 

Shall I take your sidestepping, denial and outright tactics of avoidance that you agree that creationist ministries are frauds, do no research and publish no peer reviewed work?

Secondly, you obviously know little of history to denigrate the genius of earlier civilizations. 

I wouldnt be so quick to categorize humanity as so scientifically bereft simply because a long time ago they weren't as sophisticated as we are. We're talking about pyramid building, ocean-faring/navigating, holistic medicine inventing, atom-describing globe-deducing people here, some of whom did have an old-earth belief system within their cultures. The Greeks in fact were the first to measure the circumference of the Earth (and they knew it was a globe as well). the ancient Egyptians art of architecture, pyramid building and mummification is extraordinary -- and the list goes on and on. I would never denigrate the intellect of our predecessors because they were pre-scientific. I know that without them we wouldn't be where we are today.

Thirdly,  with such a history of knowledge to draw from, one wnders how the writers of the various bibles managed to get so much, so outrageously incorrect. While I wouldn't expect you to be capable of being honest, the writers of the bibles actually managed to get so much wrong. Your claims to the bibles getting so many scientific questions right is as fraudulent as the doctored "quotes" you copy and paste from Harun Yahya. 

Lastly, great Hindu philosophers have done even more with mathematics, great Greek pantheistic philosophers more with medicine, great Buddhist philosophers more with chemistry ... (none of them being christian or having any belief in your partisan gawds), and every last one of them has been superseded by entirely secular scholars as the boundaries of knowledge have been pushed back by specialized researchers. The inertia of knowledge has only gained momentum as dogmatic religious myth and superstitions have given way to human ingenuity and quest for truths.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?



We know they do. 

How sad for the fundies that there is no affirmative evidence available to support belief in gawds. The fundies are left to hopeless and failed attacks on science in vain hopes of placating their amazing, shrinking gawds.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know they do.
> 
> How sad for the fundies that there is no affirmative evidence available to support belief in gawds. The fundies are left to hopeless and failed attacks on science in vain hopes of placating their amazing, shrinking gawds.
Click to expand...

And that is why there are more Christian scientists today than there were?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you do accept design as a viable theory because of the evidence seen in nature ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I see the obvious: random changes, leading to what we have today.  In fact, random is merely different; and whether it proves advantageous is merely by chance, and can prove non-advantageous when changes in environment occur.
> 
> Proof of this is that speciaes alive today, represent about 1% of the species that evolved, by chance, on this planet.  The other 99% proved failures, by chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As in with random chance I might win the lottery ?
Click to expand...


No. There's a selection bias in the case of opt-in chance-taking.  So a lottery is not random, but merely improbable for all who enter. 

Or as I say, a tax on the math illiterate.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know they do.
> 
> How sad for the fundies that there is no affirmative evidence available to support belief in gawds. The fundies are left to hopeless and failed attacks on science in vain hopes of placating their amazing, shrinking gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that is why there are more Christian scientists today than there were?
Click to expand...


There's no reason to believe that is true.

I would counter the results of the data you posted (well, to be honest, you posted no data, no reference, "no nothing"), with a 1991 study prepared to counter the allegations of Henry Morris, one of the apologist superstars&#8230; I mean charlatans, of the fundie Christian creationists. 

CA111: Scientists reject evolution?



> _&#8220;Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.&#8221;_


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the evolution myth, which itself was derived from dogmatic and ignorant thinking along with a very vivid imagination  from primitive humans.
> 
> Possible ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Charles Darwin was by no means a primitive human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.
Click to expand...


Absurd.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> There's no reason to believe that is true.
> 
> I would counter the results of the data you posted (well, to be honest, you posted no data, no reference, "no nothing"), with a 1991 study prepared to counter the allegations of Henry Morris, one of the apologist superstars&#8230; I mean charlatans, of the fundie Christian creationists.
> 
> CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _&#8220;Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.&#8221;_
Click to expand...


Why not read the following: Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution


----------



## Koios

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to believe that is true.
> 
> I would counter the results of the data you posted (well, to be honest, you posted no data, no reference, "no nothing"), with a 1991 study prepared to counter the allegations of Henry Morris, one of the apologist superstars I mean charlatans, of the fundie Christian creationists.
> 
> CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not read the following: Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution
Click to expand...


Don't confuse real scientists buying into pseudoscience with Real Science, which has proven evolution exists, and now merely seeks to better understand it.


----------



## LittleNipper

Koios said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to believe that is true.
> 
> I would counter the results of the data you posted (well, to be honest, you posted no data, no reference, "no nothing"), with a 1991 study prepared to counter the allegations of Henry Morris, one of the apologist superstars I mean charlatans, of the fundie Christian creationists.
> 
> CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
> 
> [/i]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not read the following: Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't confuse real scientists buying into pseudoscience with Real Science, which has proven evolution exists, and now merely seeks to better understand it.
Click to expand...


Don't confuse real scientists buying into pretend science with not pretend science which has been proven by real scientists (the ones who believe evolution as opposed to pretend scientist who believe no such thing) to be totally true but unproven. Are you on drugs?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to believe that is true.
> 
> I would counter the results of the data you posted (well, to be honest, you posted no data, no reference, "no nothing"), with a 1991 study prepared to counter the allegations of Henry Morris, one of the apologist superstars I mean charlatans, of the fundie Christian creationists.
> 
> CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not read the following: Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution
Click to expand...

I can agree that some scientists do not believe the facts supporting evolution. That was confirmed in the link I supplied. I can also agree that the number of scientists, (especially those in the life sciences fields), rejecting evolutionary fact is exceedingly small. That is confirmed in the link I pasted and in your link. 

You don't seem to be clear on what you're hoping to depict.

Additionally, I will also note that except for Christian (specifically Christian), fundamentalists, there really doesn't exist an anti-evolution / anti-science movement. If you care to do a search, you can confirm this for yourself. Review the "about" page on any of the creationist websites you choose. You will find that virtually all of them promote a fundamentalist christian agenda as opposed to promoting facts and truth.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If gays aren't part of god's plan, why do animals throughout the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual tendencies? Out of choice? Everyone? D*o you personally know a gay person who's being gay by choice?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some Animals are gay. Were they sexually abused when thy were little? Nope. Correlation does not imply causation, even if I were to accept your anecdotal evidence, which I don't for a second.
Click to expand...


No time for the whole video? Move to 7:30...


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single person gay person I know has been abused as a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you. You are just noise. You continue with the same baiting techniques like claiming there are no peer reviewed studies and that ID doesn't have a hypothesis when this has been proven to you over 10 times, but yet you still pathetically attempt the same stupid statements to get my attention. Are you really that desperate? Don't you see how no one is responding to you anymore? You're post are totally irrelevant to the conversation.
> 
> Of course, like a child, you just want attention, even if it is negative attention, from me, so now you can get all excited again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm gay and I don't know anyone who's been abused as a child. Well, actually I do, but she's not gay.
> 
> So are you ever going to say who decided that gays aren't in god's plan? Was it god? No? Then wtf?
Click to expand...


Does anyone find it curious there is a disproportionate amount of gays in the atheist, Christian bashing movement? I think most people, including many Christians, misunderstand the Bible on homosexuality. Even in part 1 of the Lisa Ling video, one of the people says he has been told all his life that being gay is a sin. Being gay is not a sin. Lusting for members of the same sex or opposite sex, and engaging in homosexual sex, or heterosexual sex outside of marriage, is a sin according to the Bible.


----------



## UltimateReality

CrackedSkull said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 million plus christians do any promote common sense?
Click to expand...


It is obvious to me that this thread is much more about deeper issues than science. Gays latch on to evolution as defense against their perceived hatred of themselves by Christians, when it is really an incredibly small group of misguided fundamentalists that preach hate for homosexuals. My church believes in love for those engaging in homosexual behavior while at the same time, speaking the truth that God has so much more in store for them than a life of pain, shame, self-hate and unacceptance. Most homosexuals can't accept themselves and that is why the clamor so hard to force others to accept their behavior, when all the really need is to know that they, not their behavior, are accepted and loved by God and his followers.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I see the obvious: random changes, leading to what we have today.  In fact, random is merely different; and whether it proves advantageous is merely by chance, and can prove non-advantageous when changes in environment occur.
> 
> Proof of this is that speciaes alive today, represent about 1% of the species that evolved, by chance, on this planet.  The other 99% proved failures, by chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in with random chance I might win the lottery ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. There's a selection bias in the case of opt-in chance-taking.  So a lottery is not random, but merely improbable for all who enter.
> 
> Or as I say, a tax on the math illiterate.
Click to expand...


Ah the old evolution supporters lack of understanding of probability arguments. This is a common cut and paste among followers of atheist propaganda websites that don't understand probability arguments. They always, and I mean always, point to the lottery as way of "proving" that improbable events happen. I mean, someone always wins the lottery even though the odds are extremely small that person would win, right? The error the original poster made, and every one that has cut and pasted the argument since has made due to the lack of understanding, is the probabilistic resources involved. Yes, it is highly improbable that I would win the Powerball, something like 1 in 175 million. And if only 5 tickets were sold, this truly would be amazing. However, that is not the case. About $0.20 of every $1 of Powerball tickets sold goes to the cash prices. This fact alone is evidence that if the jackpot is $50 million on a given week then approx. $250 million tickets are being sold. So you see the probabilistic resource is quite huge!! A 1 in 175 million chance doesn't seem unlikely when you consider that 250 million tickets are being sold. So this same, tired atheist argument falls apart when you actually understand the science of probabilities. While their argument falsely tries to make you think it is unlikely that any one person will win the lottery, it is a lie. It focuses on the one person, when, if they were to be honest, they should focus on the number of tickets sold vs. the chance of one of those tickets having the specific matching combination. When this is done, you can see that it is not improbable at all. If there are 100 million different number combinations available on each ticket and 100 million tickets are issued, the odds of one of those tickets matching a random set of numbers conforming to the number combinations becomes effectively a 1 in 1 chance. Pretty darn good odds don't you think???? This in no way compares to the probability issue of DNA left to chance and this a huge fallacy that has repeated ad nauseum by the lying evo fundies.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Charles Darwin was by no means a primitive human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absurd.
Click to expand...


Really??? Darwin had no clue about the information contained in DNA or the magnificent molecular machines that populate the inner workings of the cell.


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> As in with random chance I might win the lottery ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. There's a selection bias in the case of opt-in chance-taking.  So a lottery is not random, but merely improbable for all who enter.
> 
> Or as I say, a tax on the math illiterate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah the old evolution supporters lack of understanding of probability arguments. This is a common cut and paste among followers of atheist propaganda websites that don't understand probability arguments. They always, and I mean always, point to the lottery as way of "proving" that improbable events happen. I mean, someone always wins the lottery even though the odds are extremely small that person would win, right? The error the original poster made, and every one that has cut and pasted the argument since has made due to the lack of understanding, is the probabilistic resources involved. Yes, it is highly improbable that I would win the Powerball, something like 1 in 175 million. And if only 5 tickets were sold, this truly would be amazing. However, that is not the case. About $0.20 of every $1 of Powerball tickets sold goes to the cash prices. This fact alone is evidence that if the jackpot is $50 million on a given week then approx. $250 million tickets are being sold. So you see the probabilistic resource is quite huge!! A 1 in 175 million chance doesn't seem unlikely when you consider that 250 million tickets are being sold. So this same, tired atheist argument falls apart when you actually understand the science of probabilities. While their argument falsely tries to make you think it is unlikely that any one person will win the lottery, it is a lie. It focuses on the one person, when, if they were to be honest, they should focus on the number of tickets sold vs. the chance of one of those tickets having the specific matching combination. When this is done, you can see that it is not improbable at all. If there are 100 million different number combinations available on each ticket and 100 million tickets are issued, the odds of one of those tickets matching a random set of numbers conforming to the number combinations becomes effectively a 1 in 1 chance. Pretty darn good odds don't you think???? This in no way compares to the probability issue of DNA left to chance and this a huge fallacy that has repeated ad nauseum by the lying evo fundies.
Click to expand...


No. Wins are rare. Only after a few losing lotteries in a row gets the pot up high enough, that sales skyrocket, does the probability of a single winner, typically, become likely. 

Moreover, each ticket has a 1 in 100 million chance.  So even with 100 million tickets sold, probability is not 1 to 1.

Meanwhile, evolution is a fact. Simple as that. The only thing that changes in the theory over time is that we gain a greater understanding of the mechanisms and many minutia. 

Creationism is pseudoscience, which endeavors to prove a postulate in support of the Judeao /Christian myth of species creation, and unlike true science does not endeavor to seek new understanding of the world and universe.


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really??? Darwin had no clue about the information contained in DNA or the magnificent molecular machines that populate the inner workings of the cell.
Click to expand...


Yes; Really. 

While the science had yet to advance to what it is today, Darwin was as advanced as any researcher working today. 

To suggest him a primitive human as QW did is beyond absurd. It's idiotic.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. There's a selection bias in the case of opt-in chance-taking.  So a lottery is not random, but merely improbable for all who enter.
> 
> Or as I say, a tax on the math illiterate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah the old evolution supporters lack of understanding of probability arguments. This is a common cut and paste among followers of atheist propaganda websites that don't understand probability arguments. They always, and I mean always, point to the lottery as way of "proving" that improbable events happen. I mean, someone always wins the lottery even though the odds are extremely small that person would win, right? The error the original poster made, and every one that has cut and pasted the argument since has made due to the lack of understanding, is the probabilistic resources involved. Yes, it is highly improbable that I would win the Powerball, something like 1 in 175 million. And if only 5 tickets were sold, this truly would be amazing. However, that is not the case. About $0.20 of every $1 of Powerball tickets sold goes to the cash prices. This fact alone is evidence that if the jackpot is $50 million on a given week then approx. $250 million tickets are being sold. So you see the probabilistic resource is quite huge!! A 1 in 175 million chance doesn't seem unlikely when you consider that 250 million tickets are being sold. So this same, tired atheist argument falls apart when you actually understand the science of probabilities. While their argument falsely tries to make you think it is unlikely that any one person will win the lottery, it is a lie. It focuses on the one person, when, if they were to be honest, they should focus on the number of tickets sold vs. the chance of one of those tickets having the specific matching combination. When this is done, you can see that it is not improbable at all. If there are 100 million different number combinations available on each ticket and 100 million tickets are issued, the odds of one of those tickets matching a random set of numbers conforming to the number combinations becomes effectively a 1 in 1 chance. Pretty darn good odds don't you think???? This in no way compares to the probability issue of DNA left to chance and this a huge fallacy that has repeated ad nauseum by the lying evo fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Wins are rare. Only after a few losing lotteries in a row gets the pot up high enough, that sales skyrocket, does the probability of a single winner, typically, become likely.
> 
> Moreover, each ticket has a 1 in 100 million chance.  So even with 100 million tickets sold, *probability is not 1 to 1.*..
Click to expand...


The brainwashing is strong with this one. Not 1 in 1 chance for a single person buying a ticket but it is absolutely 1 in 1 chance that a winning ticket will be selected in the scenario above. This is not the case with DNA. There are not enough probabilistic resources since the big bang to account for chance being the source of DNA. You obviously still don't get it and this evidence of your susceptibility to accept false science is also obviously what makes you buy evolution as fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CrackedSkull said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 million plus christians do any promote common sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are far more than 2 million Christians and of course they do, you're talking to one. I just asked you a common sense question and you failed miserably with your response.
> 
> Not trying to be rude,just being honest with you. I once was branwashed as many are today by the school system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No not really. You retorted with 6000 harmful mutations. I showed you two plus links to more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are far more than 2 million Christians and of course they do, you're talking to one. I just asked you a common sense question and you failed miserably with your response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I? Thus far I do not see it. I only see arrogance.
Click to expand...


This is a little funny,I said observed mutations that was beneficial to an organism. The 6,000 observed mutations I spoke of have been observed and documented producing genetic disorders. You can't pick out a trait or something that is a benefit to an organism and say that was the result of a mutation and evolution if it has never been observed. That is not science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Charles Darwin was by no means a primitive human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absurd.
Click to expand...


Absurd really ? ok we will test your honesty. Was isaac newton primitive in your view ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to believe that is true.
> 
> I would counter the results of the data you posted (well, to be honest, you posted no data, no reference, "no nothing"), with a 1991 study prepared to counter the allegations of Henry Morris, one of the apologist superstars I mean charlatans, of the fundie Christian creationists.
> 
> CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
> 
> [/i]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not read the following: Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't confuse real scientists buying into pseudoscience with Real Science, which has proven evolution exists, and now merely seeks to better understand it.
Click to expand...


pseudoscience  after what I have pointed out to some of you that is the pot calling the kettle black. That is nothing more then a childish attack that your side resorts to when they have nothing of substance to respond with.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. There's a selection bias in the case of opt-in chance-taking.  So a lottery is not random, but merely improbable for all who enter.
> 
> Or as I say, a tax on the math illiterate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah the old evolution supporters lack of understanding of probability arguments. This is a common cut and paste among followers of atheist propaganda websites that don't understand probability arguments. They always, and I mean always, point to the lottery as way of "proving" that improbable events happen. I mean, someone always wins the lottery even though the odds are extremely small that person would win, right? The error the original poster made, and every one that has cut and pasted the argument since has made due to the lack of understanding, is the probabilistic resources involved. Yes, it is highly improbable that I would win the Powerball, something like 1 in 175 million. And if only 5 tickets were sold, this truly would be amazing. However, that is not the case. About $0.20 of every $1 of Powerball tickets sold goes to the cash prices. This fact alone is evidence that if the jackpot is $50 million on a given week then approx. $250 million tickets are being sold. So you see the probabilistic resource is quite huge!! A 1 in 175 million chance doesn't seem unlikely when you consider that 250 million tickets are being sold. So this same, tired atheist argument falls apart when you actually understand the science of probabilities. While their argument falsely tries to make you think it is unlikely that any one person will win the lottery, it is a lie. It focuses on the one person, when, if they were to be honest, they should focus on the number of tickets sold vs. the chance of one of those tickets having the specific matching combination. When this is done, you can see that it is not improbable at all. If there are 100 million different number combinations available on each ticket and 100 million tickets are issued, the odds of one of those tickets matching a random set of numbers conforming to the number combinations becomes effectively a 1 in 1 chance. Pretty darn good odds don't you think???? This in no way compares to the probability issue of DNA left to chance and this a huge fallacy that has repeated ad nauseum by the lying evo fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Wins are rare. Only after a few losing lotteries in a row gets the pot up high enough, that sales skyrocket, does the probability of a single winner, typically, become likely.
> 
> Moreover, each ticket has a 1 in 100 million chance.  So even with 100 million tickets sold, probability is not 1 to 1.
> 
> Meanwhile, evolution is a fact. Simple as that. The only thing that changes in the theory over time is that we gain a greater understanding of the mechanisms and many minutia.
> 
> Creationism is pseudoscience, which endeavors to prove a postulate in support of the Judeao /Christian myth of species creation, and unlike true science does not endeavor to seek new understanding of the world and universe.
Click to expand...


You're are correct I was certainly wrong in comparing the chances of winning the lottery by random chance vs the odds of random chance producing the precision in the cell which the odds would make it impossible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really??? Darwin had no clue about the information contained in DNA or the magnificent molecular machines that populate the inner workings of the cell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes; Really.
> 
> While the science had yet to advance to what it is today, Darwin was as advanced as any researcher working today.
> 
> To suggest him a primitive human as QW did is beyond absurd. It's idiotic.
Click to expand...


I would like your view on Isaac Newton since he was a creationist ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah the old evolution supporters lack of understanding of probability arguments. This is a common cut and paste among followers of atheist propaganda websites that don't understand probability arguments. They always, and I mean always, point to the lottery as way of "proving" that improbable events happen. I mean, someone always wins the lottery even though the odds are extremely small that person would win, right? The error the original poster made, and every one that has cut and pasted the argument since has made due to the lack of understanding, is the probabilistic resources involved. Yes, it is highly improbable that I would win the Powerball, something like 1 in 175 million. And if only 5 tickets were sold, this truly would be amazing. However, that is not the case. About $0.20 of every $1 of Powerball tickets sold goes to the cash prices. This fact alone is evidence that if the jackpot is $50 million on a given week then approx. $250 million tickets are being sold. So you see the probabilistic resource is quite huge!! A 1 in 175 million chance doesn't seem unlikely when you consider that 250 million tickets are being sold. So this same, tired atheist argument falls apart when you actually understand the science of probabilities. While their argument falsely tries to make you think it is unlikely that any one person will win the lottery, it is a lie. It focuses on the one person, when, if they were to be honest, they should focus on the number of tickets sold vs. the chance of one of those tickets having the specific matching combination. When this is done, you can see that it is not improbable at all. If there are 100 million different number combinations available on each ticket and 100 million tickets are issued, the odds of one of those tickets matching a random set of numbers conforming to the number combinations becomes effectively a 1 in 1 chance. Pretty darn good odds don't you think???? This in no way compares to the probability issue of DNA left to chance and this a huge fallacy that has repeated ad nauseum by the lying evo fundies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Wins are rare. Only after a few losing lotteries in a row gets the pot up high enough, that sales skyrocket, does the probability of a single winner, typically, become likely.
> 
> Moreover, each ticket has a 1 in 100 million chance.  So even with 100 million tickets sold, probability is not 1 to 1.
> 
> Meanwhile, evolution is a fact. Simple as that. The only thing that changes in the theory over time is that we gain a greater understanding of the mechanisms and many minutia.
> 
> Creationism is pseudoscience, which endeavors to prove a postulate in support of the Judeao /Christian myth of species creation, and unlike true science does not endeavor to seek new understanding of the world and universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're are correct I was certainly wrong in comparing the chances of winning the lottery by random chance vs the odds of random chance producing the precision in the cell which the odds would make it impossible.
Click to expand...


This is, as expected, boilerplate creationist nonsense.  This is precisely the argument that Meyer stole from Behe. In all discussions of "chance", one must remember that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant _if it can be shown_ that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.

It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is_ not_ required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to an unseen designer. If you or any I.D.er's have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. You are trying to shift the burden of proof.


Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

"*The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance*." 

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.


----------



## CrackedSkull

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Wins are rare. Only after a few losing lotteries in a row gets the pot up high enough, that sales skyrocket, does the probability of a single winner, typically, become likely.
> 
> Moreover, each ticket has a 1 in 100 million chance.  So even with 100 million tickets sold, probability is not 1 to 1.
> 
> Meanwhile, evolution is a fact. Simple as that. The only thing that changes in the theory over time is that we gain a greater understanding of the mechanisms and many minutia.
> 
> Creationism is pseudoscience, which endeavors to prove a postulate in support of the Judeao /Christian myth of species creation, and unlike true science does not endeavor to seek new understanding of the world and universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're are correct I was certainly wrong in comparing the chances of winning the lottery by random chance vs the odds of random chance producing the precision in the cell which the odds would make it impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is, as expected, boilerplate creationist nonsense.  This is precisely the argument that Meyer stole from Behe. In all discussions of "chance", one must remember that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant _if it can be shown_ that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.
> 
> It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is_ not_ required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to an unseen designer. If you or any I.D.er's have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. You are trying to shift the burden of proof.
> 
> 
> Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
> 
> "*The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance*."
> 
> There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
Click to expand...




> It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is_ not_ required for the complexity we see in nature.



Proof  of design is only required in religious circles where their science is a 1600 year old book of sheep herder tales.


----------



## ima

So I never got an answer: Since god never actually told anyone that gays weren't part of his plan, who decided this, and why?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not read the following: Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't confuse real scientists buying into pseudoscience with Real Science, which has proven evolution exists, and now merely seeks to better understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pseudoscience  after what I have pointed out to some of you that is the pot calling the kettle black. That is nothing more then a childish attack that your side resorts to when they have nothing of substance to respond with.
Click to expand...


The only thing you have pointed out is the hopelessness shared by fundie creationists. You seem not to be concerned that your arguments are so vacant, youre forced to copy and paste from Harun Yahya.

Your arguments have been shown to be self-refuting and nothing more than appeals to ignorance and impossible mechanisms. The fundie arguments resolve to those which Meyer stole from Behe and focus on the theme _this could never have happened by chance_and is therefore Irreducibly complex.  That is an argument from ignorance. Nowhere in the relevant science community do researchers say, "this is so complex that it can never be explained by evolution, so I give up." Instead, researchers and scientist continue to formulate hypotheses to explain it and then test the hypotheses. We need to be honest here (not that Im accusing you of being honest), and understand that the only research being performed is that undertaken by the relevant science community. Promoting religion as science is what causes the creationist loons to be viewed as well loons.

The fundie charlatans suffer from the willful failure of creativity,  curiosity, and intellectual integrity. Not only do creationist charlatans  promote willful ignorance and pseudoscience, they encourage people to repress their intellectual curiosity. That is a professional, intellectual, ethical and moral lapse for a scientist!


----------



## CrackedSkull

ima said:


> So I never got an answer: Since god never actually told anyone that gays weren't part of his plan, who decided this, and why?



The sheeples that follow this religion decided it they seem to know more about what's best for a god than he does......I personally would not worry about it. Those that are gay you made the choice and if your happy with that choice stick with it. Sheeples do their best to influence people through threats of hell and eternal damnation but the thing is they cannot prove that a hell exist! It's a scare tactic! *Turn or Burn!  *

Do not judge lest you be judged. They do not follow their own holy scripture. They are quick to tell you your wrong but tell them they are wrong and they whip out 9 million bible verses. I think they call it "conformation biased."


----------



## LittleNipper

CrackedSkull said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I never got an answer: Since god never actually told anyone that gays weren't part of his plan, who decided this, and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheeples that follow this religion decided it they seem to know more about what's best for a god than he does......I personally would not worry about it. Those that are gay you made the choice and if your happy with that choice stick with it. Sheeples do their best to influence people through threats of hell and eternal damnation but the thing is they cannot prove that a hell exist! It's a scare tactic! *Turn or Burn!  *
> 
> Do not judge lest you be judged. They do not follow their own holy scripture. They are quick to tell you your wrong but tell them they are wrong and they whip out 9 million bible verses. I think they call it "conformation biased."
Click to expand...

A believer uses the Word of God as the judge and code for conduct and not his "_FEELINGS_." Read what the Bible has to say and not what you think! And as for "Gay" marriage: Children are a gift and a blessing from God according to the Bible, and yet not one "homosexual" couple has ever begotten children through a homosexual relationship. They must revert to a heterosexual union to produce children.  So what Biblical purpose is there for "gay" marriage. Unless churches can find it, I feel the Word of God TOTALLY condemns such.  And the churches that promote it will reap what they have made up through their own judgment....


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> So I never got an answer: Since god never actually told anyone that gays weren't part of his plan, who decided this, and why?



I would say gays are not part of his plan because he  is very graphic about the act. I believe gays are merely parts of this world where perfection was lost. Can gays be forgiven you bet. His sacrifice was for sinners period not just certain sinners. We all sin that is a fact according to the scriptures.


----------



## CrackedSkull

LittleNipper said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I never got an answer: Since god never actually told anyone that gays weren't part of his plan, who decided this, and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheeples that follow this religion decided it they seem to know more about what's best for a god than he does......I personally would not worry about it. Those that are gay you made the choice and if your happy with that choice stick with it. Sheeples do their best to influence people through threats of hell and eternal damnation but the thing is they cannot prove that a hell exist! It's a scare tactic! *Turn or Burn!  *
> 
> Do not judge lest you be judged. They do not follow their own holy scripture. They are quick to tell you your wrong but tell them they are wrong and they whip out 9 million bible verses. I think they call it "conformation biased."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A believer uses the Word of God as the judge and code for conduct and not his "_FEELINGS_." Read what the Bible has to say and not what you think! And as for "Gay" marriage: Children are a gift and a blessing from God according to the Bible, and yet not one "homosexual" couple has ever begotten children through a homosexual relationship. They must revert to a heterosexual union to produce children.  So what Biblical purpose is there for "gay" marriage. Unless churches can find it, I feel the Word of God TOTALLY condemns such.  And the churches that promote it will reap what they have made up through their own judgment....
Click to expand...




> So what Biblical purpose is there for "gay" marriage.



What purpose is there for TURN or BURN?



> Children are a gift and a blessing from God according to the Bible, and yet not one "homosexual" couple has ever begotten children through a homosexual relationship.



Thats reason they have adoption.



> AS OVERALL PERCENTAGE OF SAME-SEX COUPLES RAISING CHILDREN DECLINES, THOSE ADOPTING ALMOST DOUBLES



As Overall Percentage Of Same-Sex Couples Raising Children Declines, Those Adopting Almost Doubles &#8211; Significant Diversity Among Lesbian and Gay Families | Williams Institute

Is judging some one based on their sexual preference a sin? If this so called god was all loving it would not matter to him about sexual preference. On the other hand his obvious prejudice is clearly shown in the bible.



> Read what the Bible has to say and not what you think!



So now your saying that we are not to think for ourselves but let a book do it for us? One of the most dangerous things "fundamentalism" it corrupts our society, our kids, our way of life and then tells us to trust in a book and a sight unseen deity.


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah the old evolution supporters lack of understanding of probability arguments. This is a common cut and paste among followers of atheist propaganda websites that don't understand probability arguments. They always, and I mean always, point to the lottery as way of "proving" that improbable events happen. I mean, someone always wins the lottery even though the odds are extremely small that person would win, right? The error the original poster made, and every one that has cut and pasted the argument since has made due to the lack of understanding, is the probabilistic resources involved. Yes, it is highly improbable that I would win the Powerball, something like 1 in 175 million. And if only 5 tickets were sold, this truly would be amazing. However, that is not the case. About $0.20 of every $1 of Powerball tickets sold goes to the cash prices. This fact alone is evidence that if the jackpot is $50 million on a given week then approx. $250 million tickets are being sold. So you see the probabilistic resource is quite huge!! A 1 in 175 million chance doesn't seem unlikely when you consider that 250 million tickets are being sold. So this same, tired atheist argument falls apart when you actually understand the science of probabilities. While their argument falsely tries to make you think it is unlikely that any one person will win the lottery, it is a lie. It focuses on the one person, when, if they were to be honest, they should focus on the number of tickets sold vs. the chance of one of those tickets having the specific matching combination. When this is done, you can see that it is not improbable at all. If there are 100 million different number combinations available on each ticket and 100 million tickets are issued, the odds of one of those tickets matching a random set of numbers conforming to the number combinations becomes effectively a 1 in 1 chance. Pretty darn good odds don't you think???? This in no way compares to the probability issue of DNA left to chance and this a huge fallacy that has repeated ad nauseum by the lying evo fundies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Wins are rare. Only after a few losing lotteries in a row gets the pot up high enough, that sales skyrocket, does the probability of a single winner, typically, become likely.
> 
> Moreover, each ticket has a 1 in 100 million chance.  So even with 100 million tickets sold, *probability is not 1 to 1.*..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The brainwashing is strong with this one. Not 1 in 1 chance for a single person buying a ticket but it is absolutely 1 in 1 chance that a winning ticket will be selected in the scenario above. This is not the case with DNA. There are not enough probabilistic resources since the big bang to account for chance being the source of DNA. You obviously still don't get it and this evidence of your susceptibility to accept false science is also obviously what makes you buy evolution as fact.
Click to expand...


You're obviously ignorant of the laws of probabilities. The likelihood that all buyers of tickets would choose unique numbers covering all possible number combinations is beyond astronomical. 

So I'm seeing a parallel. What are the odds that a creator will appear to us this month? Any of us? Beyond astronomical.


----------



## Koios

Meanwhile, UR, since the analogy has been raised ...

*Why Lotteries = Tax on Math Illiterate*
I'm thinking of a number between 0 and 175 million (powerball, roughly); what is it?  Then we can play again, with me thinking of a new number, with each of your guesses.  We could play that game 10 times a day, every day of your life, and if you live 100 years, your chance of getting it right are still highly unlikely.

*Evolution*
Now we're making guesses how often?  Maybe hundreds or thousands of times per day at the beginning, up to many 100s of millions of reproductions everyday, today, on this planet.  And it's been happening every day for 3 or 4 biliion years?  No wonder we have the biodiversity we have, even with only 1% or so of all species that have EVOLVED still around today.

So really, to compare something as simply and highly probable as the Powerball Lottery to the complexity of species EVOLUTION on this planet, is absurd.


----------



## Hollie

The stupendously stupid &#8220;winning the lottery&#8221;&#8482; argument as an analogy to biological evolution shares equal time with the other stupendously stupid creationist &#8220;analogy&#8221; of  mechanical parts never self-assembling into a jetliner.

Fundies are never able to make the obvious distinction that mechanical parts are not biological organisms which do evolve and reproduce.

Being forced to recycle these nonsensical claims is a hallmark of the failure that grips the fundie worldview. The relevant science community continues to explore and learn while the creationist ministries are forced into ever, less relevant and recycled dogma that has long ago been discarded as fraudulent.

That&#8217;s why Ann Gauger from the Disco &#8216;tute is posing for phony and deceptive photo&#8217;s in front of a green screen while actual scientists are exploring the genome of plants and humans alike.


----------



## UltimateReality

CrackedSkull said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I never got an answer: Since god never actually told anyone that gays weren't part of his plan, who decided this, and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Those that are gay you *made the choice* and if your happy with that choice stick with it...
Click to expand...


Exactly! Do both you and ima know what the natural law that the founders of this nation referred to was? God has written his law in our dna. If you are struggling with same sex attraction temptation, the guilt, shame, and despair you feel is your dna telling you it is not what God wants for your life. Sometimes this despair, coupled with ridicule but not from the ridicule alone, can lead to exactly what Satan wants for you, i.e., self-destruction in the form of suicide. 

What is funny to me is that the libtard media blames bullying for these victim's choices to end their life. From my own personal experience, I was bullied daily for my whole elementary school and junior high life. You see, I was one of two overweight children in my school (this was the 70's when no one was fat) and suffered teasing and ridicule daily to include always being picked last for team sports. I can tell you that never once did I contemplate committing suicide although there were many days I tried to get my mom to let me stay home. The reason I didn't? I wasn't struggling with the guilt and shame of know I was doing something wrong or the shame from being sexually abused. The libtard media never digs deeper into these cases because it doesn't fit their agenda.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I never got an answer: Since god never actually told anyone that gays weren't part of his plan, who decided this, and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sheeples that follow this religion decided it they seem to know more about what's best for a god than he does......I personally would not worry about it. Those that are gay you made the choice and if your happy with that choice stick with it. Sheeples do their best to influence people through threats of hell and eternal damnation but the thing is they cannot prove that a hell exist! It's a scare tactic! *Turn or Burn!  *
> 
> Do not judge lest you be judged. They do not follow their own holy scripture. They are quick to tell you your wrong but tell them they are wrong and they whip out 9 million bible verses. I think they call it "conformation biased."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A believer uses the Word of God as the judge and code for conduct and not his "_FEELINGS_." Read what the Bible has to say and not what you think! And as for "Gay" marriage: Children are a gift and a blessing from God according to the Bible, and yet not one "homosexual" couple has ever begotten children through a homosexual relationship. They must revert to a heterosexual union to produce children.  So what Biblical purpose is there for "gay" marriage. Unless churches can find it, I feel the Word of God TOTALLY condemns such.  And the churches that promote it will reap what they have made up through their own judgment....
Click to expand...


Youre a believer in one of many asserted gawds, none of which have ever made themselves known in a way understandable to humans. And, lets be honest, you are, vastly more likely than not, a believer in your partisan gawds for no other reason than familial connections and geographic location. How arbitrary is that?

People chose what their theistic beliefs are for many reasons, but rarely do they apply very hard standards to those reasons. They tend to be cultural (i.e., you grew up in a social environment that preferred one belief over another or you accept the beliefs of your parents. If you truly dig deep into what allows you to believe, you will find there is no clear reason to believe as you do-- the differing paradigms out there do not make a single case that rises above the others. In other words, there is no reason to believe Christianity over Islam over Buddhism over Judaism over Hinduism.

So, contrary to your claim, your beliefs really are nothing more than "FEELINGS".


----------



## UltimateReality

CrackedSkull said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sheeples that follow this religion decided it they seem to know more about what's best for a god than he does......I personally would not worry about it. Those that are gay you made the choice and if your happy with that choice stick with it. Sheeples do their best to influence people through threats of hell and eternal damnation but the thing is they cannot prove that a hell exist! It's a scare tactic! *Turn or Burn!  *
> 
> Do not judge lest you be judged. They do not follow their own holy scripture. They are quick to tell you your wrong but tell them they are wrong and they whip out 9 million bible verses. I think they call it "conformation biased."
> 
> 
> 
> A believer uses the Word of God as the judge and code for conduct and not his "_FEELINGS_." Read what the Bible has to say and not what you think! And as for "Gay" marriage: Children are a gift and a blessing from God according to the Bible, and yet not one "homosexual" couple has ever begotten children through a homosexual relationship. They must revert to a heterosexual union to produce children.  So what Biblical purpose is there for "gay" marriage. Unless churches can find it, I feel the Word of God TOTALLY condemns such.  And the churches that promote it will reap what they have made up through their own judgment....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What purpose is there for TURN or BURN?
> 
> 
> 
> Thats reason they have adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS OVERALL PERCENTAGE OF SAME-SEX COUPLES RAISING CHILDREN DECLINES, THOSE ADOPTING ALMOST DOUBLES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As Overall Percentage Of Same-Sex Couples Raising Children Declines, Those Adopting Almost Doubles &#8211; Significant Diversity Among Lesbian and Gay Families | Williams Institute
> 
> Is judging some one based on their sexual preference a sin? If this so called god was all loving it would not matter to him about sexual preference. On the other hand his obvious prejudice is clearly shown in the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read what the Bible has to say and not what you think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now your saying that we are not to think for ourselves but let a book do it for us? One of the most dangerous things "fundamentalism" it corrupts our society, our kids, our way of life and then tells us to trust in a book and a sight unseen deity.
Click to expand...


Look around you at the demise of our nation and society. This is due to corruption of the family unit. Divorce, Gay marriage, both parents working, all contribute to the demise of the most fundamental and necessary unit for the human population to thrive, the family unit. 

Gays love to act like all they are interested in is a loving, monogamous relationship, but statistically this is FAR, FAR, from the case. It tends to be a very promiscuous lifestyle and most times, same sex attraction has all the components of an addiction. Gays act like they are the only ones that struggle with an overpowering addiction and their answer, their only answer ever, is to just give in to it. Do you think drug abusers and alcoholics are born that way to? Should they just give in? Go back and watch Lisa Ling and you will get some insight, if that hasn't been your personal experience already. I find with the Gay lifestyle also comes denial.

The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality and the behavior of some so called Christians towards gays is the reason many of you "attack dogs" are here in this very thread. You know who you are.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Wins are rare. Only after a few losing lotteries in a row gets the pot up high enough, that sales skyrocket, does the probability of a single winner, typically, become likely.
> 
> Moreover, each ticket has a 1 in 100 million chance.  So even with 100 million tickets sold, *probability is not 1 to 1.*..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The brainwashing is strong with this one. Not 1 in 1 chance for a single person buying a ticket but it is absolutely 1 in 1 chance that a winning ticket will be selected in the scenario above. This is not the case with DNA. There are not enough probabilistic resources since the big bang to account for chance being the source of DNA. You obviously still don't get it and this evidence of your susceptibility to accept false science is also obviously what makes you buy evolution as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're obviously ignorant of the laws of probabilities. The likelihood that all buyers of tickets would choose unique numbers covering all possible number combinations is beyond astronomical.
> 
> So I'm seeing a parallel. What are the odds that a creator will appear to us this month? Any of us? Beyond astronomical.
Click to expand...


Do you think if you claim the wrong answer over and over again it will somehow be right? You should quit while you are ahead. You are just continuing to look more and more foolish by exposing your total lack of understanding of probability with these posts.


----------



## UltimateReality

janigustafsson said:


> I don't understand how people in U.S can be so stupid that they seriously believe in anything else than evolution. Here in Europe everyone agrees that evolution is the way things went. And then comes religion.
> 
> Ice Cold Blog



Yeah, cause you guys are so smart over there.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> A believer uses the Word of God as the judge and code for conduct and not his "_FEELINGS_." Read what the Bible has to say and not what you think! And as for "Gay" marriage: Children are a gift and a blessing from God according to the Bible, and yet not one "homosexual" couple has ever begotten children through a homosexual relationship. They must revert to a heterosexual union to produce children.  So what Biblical purpose is there for "gay" marriage. Unless churches can find it, I feel the Word of God TOTALLY condemns such.  And the churches that promote it will reap what they have made up through their own judgment....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What purpose is there for TURN or BURN?
> 
> 
> 
> Thats reason they have adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> As Overall Percentage Of Same-Sex Couples Raising Children Declines, Those Adopting Almost Doubles  Significant Diversity Among Lesbian and Gay Families | Williams Institute
> 
> Is judging some one based on their sexual preference a sin? If this so called god was all loving it would not matter to him about sexual preference. On the other hand his obvious prejudice is clearly shown in the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read what the Bible has to say and not what you think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now your saying that we are not to think for ourselves but let a book do it for us? One of the most dangerous things "fundamentalism" it corrupts our society, our kids, our way of life and then tells us to trust in a book and a sight unseen deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look around you at the demise of our nation and society. This is due to corruption of the family unit. Divorce, Gay marriage, both parents working, all contribute to the demise of the most fundamental and necessary units for the human population to thrive, the family unit.
> 
> Gays love to act like all they are interested in is a loving, monogamous relationship, but statistically this is FAR, FAR, from the case. It tends to be a very promiscuous lifestyle and most times, same sex attraction has all the components of an addiction. Gays act like they are the only ones that struggle with an overpowering addiction and their answer, their only answer ever, is to just give in to it. Do you think drug abusers and alcoholics are born that way to? Should they just give in? Go back and watch Lisa Ling and you will get some insight, if that hasn't been your personal experience already. I find with the Gay lifestyle also comes denial.
> 
> The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality and the behavior of some so called Christians towards gays is the reason many of you "attack dogs" are here in this very thread. You know who you are.
Click to expand...


It is a well known phenonenon in psychology that the most outwardly hateful and vocal opponents of same sex attraction are often covering up feelings of latent homosexuality.

You closet gays know who you are.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sheeples that follow this religion decided it they seem to know more about what's best for a god than he does......I personally would not worry about it. Those that are gay you made the choice and if your happy with that choice stick with it. Sheeples do their best to influence people through threats of hell and eternal damnation but the thing is they cannot prove that a hell exist! It's a scare tactic! *Turn or Burn!  *
> 
> Do not judge lest you be judged. They do not follow their own holy scripture. They are quick to tell you your wrong but tell them they are wrong and they whip out 9 million bible verses. I think they call it "conformation biased."
> 
> 
> 
> A believer uses the Word of God as the judge and code for conduct and not his "_FEELINGS_." Read what the Bible has to say and not what you think! And as for "Gay" marriage: Children are a gift and a blessing from God according to the Bible, and yet not one "homosexual" couple has ever begotten children through a homosexual relationship. They must revert to a heterosexual union to produce children.  So what Biblical purpose is there for "gay" marriage. Unless churches can find it, I feel the Word of God TOTALLY condemns such.  And the churches that promote it will reap what they have made up through their own judgment....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youre a believer in one of many asserted gawds, none of which have ever made themselves known in a way understandable to humans. And, lets be honest, you are, vastly more likely than not, a believer in your partisan gawds for no other reason than familial connections and geographic location. How arbitrary is that?
> 
> People chose what their theistic beliefs are for many reasons, but rarely do they apply very hard standards to those reasons. They tend to be cultural (i.e., you grew up in a social environment that preferred one belief over another or you accept the beliefs of your parents. If you truly dig deep into what allows you to believe, you will find there is no clear reason to believe as you do-- the differing paradigms out there do not make a single case that rises above the others. In other words, there is no reason to believe Christianity over Islam over Buddhism over Judaism over Hinduism.
> 
> So, contrary to your claim, your beliefs really are nothing more than "FEELINGS".
Click to expand...


The bible clearly separates the Christian philosophy from the others all one has to do is research the bible before making blanket statements lacking any evidence to support the blanket statements.

The same can be said for the ideological view of naturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

janigustafsson said:


> I don't understand how people in U.S can be so stupid that they seriously believe in anything else than evolution. Here in Europe everyone agrees that evolution is the way things went. And then comes religion.
> 
> Ice Cold Blog



Have you noticed how messed up Europe is ?


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> Meanwhile, UR, since the analogy has been raised ...
> 
> *Why Lotteries = Tax on Math Illiterate*
> I'm thinking of a number between 0 and 175 million (powerball, roughly); what is it?  Then we can play again, with me thinking of a new number, with each of your guesses.  We could play that game 10 times a day, every day of your life, and if you live 100 years, your chance of getting it right are still highly unlikely.
> 
> *Evolution*
> Now we're making guesses how often?  Maybe hundreds or thousands of times per day at the beginning, up to many 100s of millions of reproductions everyday, today, on this planet.  And it's been happening every day for 3 or 4 biliion years?  No wonder we have the biodiversity we have, even with only 1% or so of all species that have EVOLVED still around today.
> 
> So really, to compare something as simply and highly probable as the Powerball Lottery to the complexity of species EVOLUTION on this planet, is absurd.



Quit while your ahead. Your cut and paste ignorance with the lack of understanding of the science behind it is showing. You continue to make a false analogy, a false comparison. And you missed the comparison completely. I was not comparing actual numbers silly, only the concept... duh. If you knew anything about the probability of dna you wouldn't be acting so foolish. Your high priests like Dawkins even understand that your silly time analogy is not true. There are not enough probabilistic resources in the entire observable universe since the big bang to give spontaneous generation of dna a chance in hell, no pun intended. 

The only *absurd *thing is how silly you look having not done your homework.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> The stupendously stupid &#8220;winning the lottery&#8221;&#8482; argument as an analogy to biological evolution shares equal time with the other stupendously stupid creationist &#8220;analogy&#8221; ...



Since you are so desparate for even my negative attention, here you go...

The lottery analogy is an evolutionist analogy stupid.   Get a clue.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> A believer uses the Word of God as the judge and code for conduct and not his "_FEELINGS_." Read what the Bible has to say and not what you think! And as for "Gay" marriage: Children are a gift and a blessing from God according to the Bible, and yet not one "homosexual" couple has ever begotten children through a homosexual relationship. They must revert to a heterosexual union to produce children.  So what Biblical purpose is there for "gay" marriage. Unless churches can find it, I feel the Word of God TOTALLY condemns such.  And the churches that promote it will reap what they have made up through their own judgment....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You&#8217;re a &#8220;believer&#8221; in one of many asserted gawds, none of which have ever made themselves known in a way understandable to humans. And, let&#8217;s be honest, you are, vastly more likely than not, a believer in your partisan gawds for no other reason than familial connections and geographic location. How arbitrary is that?
> 
> People chose what their theistic beliefs are for many reasons, but rarely do they apply very hard standards to those reasons. They tend to be cultural (i.e., you grew up in a social environment that preferred one belief over another or you accept the beliefs of your parents. If you truly dig deep into what allows you to believe, you will find there is no clear reason to believe as you do-- the differing paradigms out there do not make a single case that rises above the others. In other words, there is no reason to believe Christianity over Islam over Buddhism over Judaism over Hinduism.
> 
> So, contrary to your claim, your beliefs really are nothing more than "FEELINGS".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible clearly separates the Christian philosophy from the others all one has to do is research the bible before making blanket statements lacking any evidence to support the blanket statements.
> 
> The same can be said for the ideological view of naturalism.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. Christianity is simply a distillation of earlier religions, pagan beliefs and rituals that preceded it.

From an entirely demonstrable perspective, the majority of people have simply accepted the religion that is dominant within their culture. They go about their daily lives and the majority religion they have accepted has minimal to no real impact. Billions go through their rituals and really their religious beliefs are more or less like a second nature they really give no second thought to. It simply is the way it is for them. Honestly, how many theists do you know who could even assess the problem of Pascal's Wager, let alone have even heard of it?

Interestingly, if one tries to live according to strict Biblical law (and if one believes that the Judeo-Christian gawds are in fact &#8220;_the_&#8221; gawds, then one **must** obey these laws), modern society would imprison you for life, if not out and out sentence you to death (interesting irony: the Bible is used to support the death penalty, but if one follows to the letter what the Bible says you must as the gawd's law, you would incur the very penalty the Bible is used to support!).

So we can see that people select those ethics that they are comfortable with, and merely ignore the rest. This is tremendously arbitrary, and outright foolish. It also is evidence that the Bible is the **last** book one should use to support any ethical foundations. 

As to naturalism, your comments are nonsensical. Naturalism has the obvious advantage of being testable and demonstrable. 

You have yet to explain to us how anyone can test the supermagical / supernatural environment of your particular, partisan gawds.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stupendously stupid winning the lottery argument as an analogy to biological evolution shares equal time with the other stupendously stupid creationist analogy ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so desparate for even my negative attention, here you go...
> 
> The lottery analogy is an evolutionist analogy stupid.   Get a clue.
Click to expand...


I'm only here to educate you cultists. Since all your previous advances at stalking have all been rejected, you're now an even angrier fundie. 

And, did you know that christianity meets every description of a cult? I will be happy to provide the details.


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brainwashing is strong with this one. Not 1 in 1 chance for a single person buying a ticket but it is absolutely 1 in 1 chance that a winning ticket will be selected in the scenario above. This is not the case with DNA. There are not enough probabilistic resources since the big bang to account for chance being the source of DNA. You obviously still don't get it and this evidence of your susceptibility to accept false science is also obviously what makes you buy evolution as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously ignorant of the laws of probabilities. The likelihood that all buyers of tickets would choose unique numbers covering all possible number combinations is beyond astronomical.
> 
> So I'm seeing a parallel. What are the odds that a creator will appear to us this month? Any of us? Beyond astronomical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think if you claim the wrong answer over and over again it will somehow be right? You should quit while you are ahead. You are just continuing to look more and more foolish by exposing your total lack of understanding of probability with these posts.
Click to expand...


No. Obviously it's failed in your many continued attempts. 

That's why I opted instead to stick to well-founded truths about the Cosmos and life on this planet, as opposed to absurd attempts at resolving the myriad conflicts between millenia old religious myths and contemporary scientific fact.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stupendously stupid winning the lottery argument as an analogy to biological evolution shares equal time with the other stupendously stupid creationist analogy ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so desparate for even my negative attention, here you go...
> 
> The lottery analogy is an evolutionist analogy stupid.   Get a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only here to educate you cultists. Since all your previous advances at stalking have all been rejected, you're now an even angrier fundie.
> 
> And, did you know that christianity meets every description of a cult? I will be happy to provide the details.
Click to expand...


Nothing ever changes with you. As usual, your response has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You still come off as a real dimwit.

The lottery analogy is proposed by evolutionists when IDers talk about how improbable the spontaneous generation of dna is. Evolutionists respond by saying winning the lottery is improbable, but it happens every week. Every week someone beats the odds. This is a fallacy as proven by me above regarding probabilistic resources. So you were *WRONG *and you tuck your tail and *change the subject as usual. *


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> janigustafsson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how people in U.S can be so stupid that they seriously believe in anything else than evolution. Here in Europe everyone agrees that evolution is the way things went. And then comes religion.
> 
> Ice Cold Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed how messed up Europe is ?
Click to expand...


Because here in the US we only have random mass shootings every other week?


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously ignorant of the laws of probabilities. The likelihood that all buyers of tickets would choose unique numbers covering all possible number combinations is beyond astronomical.
> 
> So I'm seeing a parallel. What are the odds that a creator will appear to us this month? Any of us? Beyond astronomical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think if you claim the wrong answer over and over again it will somehow be right? You should quit while you are ahead. You are just continuing to look more and more foolish by exposing your total lack of understanding of probability with these posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Obviously it's failed in your many continued attempts.
> 
> That's why I opted instead to stick to well-founded truths about the Cosmos and life on this planet, as opposed to absurd attempts at resolving the myriad conflicts between millenia old religious myths and contemporary scientific fact.
Click to expand...


You really have no clue about probability arguments do you?


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so desparate for even my negative attention, here you go...
> 
> The lottery analogy is an evolutionist analogy stupid.   Get a clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only here to educate you cultists. Since all your previous advances at stalking have all been rejected, you're now an even angrier fundie.
> 
> And, did you know that christianity meets every description of a cult? I will be happy to provide the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * Nothing ever changes with you.* As usual, your response has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You still come off as a real dimwit.
> 
> The lottery analogy is proposed by evolutionists when IDers talk about how improbable the spontaneous generation of dna is. Evolutionists respond by saying winning the lottery is improbable, but it happens every week. Every week someone beats the odds. This is a fallacy as proven by me above regarding probabilistic resources. So you were *WRONG *and you tuck your tail and *change the subject as usual. *
Click to expand...


Says the dipshit who clings to ancient myth. 

Such irony.


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think if you claim the wrong answer over and over again it will somehow be right? You should quit while you are ahead. You are just continuing to look more and more foolish by exposing your total lack of understanding of probability with these posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Obviously it's failed in your many continued attempts.
> 
> That's why I opted instead to stick to well-founded truths about the Cosmos and life on this planet, as opposed to absurd attempts at resolving the myriad conflicts between millenia old religious myths and contemporary scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really have no clue about probability arguments do you?
Click to expand...


Pray I do, since I'm schooling your retarded bitch ass.


----------



## zombiehunter696

Youwerecreated said:


> janigustafsson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how people in U.S can be so stupid that they seriously believe in anything else than evolution. Here in Europe everyone agrees that evolution is the way things went. And then comes religion.
> 
> Ice Cold Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed how messed up Europe is ?
Click to expand...


And the US is just a shining beacon of goodness. Oh wait, we have more crime, more corruption, worse medical care, and dumber students.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so desparate for even my negative attention, here you go...
> 
> The lottery analogy is an evolutionist analogy stupid.   Get a clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only here to educate you cultists. Since all your previous advances at stalking have all been rejected, you're now an even angrier fundie.
> 
> And, did you know that christianity meets every description of a cult? I will be happy to provide the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing ever changes with you. As usual, your response has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You still come off as a real dimwit.
> 
> The lottery analogy is proposed by evolutionists when IDers talk about how improbable the spontaneous generation of dna is. Evolutionists respond by saying winning the lottery is improbable, but it happens every week. Every week someone beats the odds. This is a fallacy as proven by me above regarding probabilistic resources. So you were *WRONG *and you tuck your tail and *change the subject as usual. *
Click to expand...


What's interesting is that when ID'iots talk about how improbable the spontaneous generation of dna is, they do so by standing in front of green screens in failed attempts to represent themselves as doing actual research. 

Such a shame that ID'iots are actually such phony charlatans. The only fallacy you're promoting is one which involves the ID'iot industry as being ethical. Clearly they are not.


----------



## ima

So who decided that Noah was 600 years old?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only here to educate you cultists. Since all your previous advances at stalking have all been rejected, you're now an even angrier fundie.
> 
> And, did you know that christianity meets every description of a cult? I will be happy to provide the details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Nothing ever changes with you.* As usual, your response has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You still come off as a real dimwit.
> 
> The lottery analogy is proposed by evolutionists when IDers talk about how improbable the spontaneous generation of dna is. Evolutionists respond by saying winning the lottery is improbable, but it happens every week. Every week someone beats the odds. This is a fallacy as proven by me above regarding probabilistic resources. So you were *WRONG *and you tuck your tail and *change the subject as usual. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the dipshit who clings to ancient myth.
> 
> Such irony.
Click to expand...

 How do you know is views are from a myth ?  Clinging ,don't think he made a choice the same as anyone who subscribes to a philosophical view.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Obviously it's failed in your many continued attempts.
> 
> That's why I opted instead to stick to well-founded truths about the Cosmos and life on this planet, as opposed to absurd attempts at resolving the myriad conflicts between millenia old religious myths and contemporary scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really have no clue about probability arguments do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pray I do, since I'm schooling your retarded bitch ass.
Click to expand...


What a mature response.


----------



## Youwerecreated

zombiehunter696 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> janigustafsson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how people in U.S can be so stupid that they seriously believe in anything else than evolution. Here in Europe everyone agrees that evolution is the way things went. And then comes religion.
> 
> Ice Cold Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed how messed up Europe is ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the US is just a shining beacon of goodness. Oh wait, we have more crime, more corruption, worse medical care, and dumber students.
Click to expand...


Have you noticed we are adopting European philosophical views and enforcing these views on this country ?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really have no clue about probability arguments do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pray I do, since I'm schooling your retarded bitch ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a mature response.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. Indeed my bad for suggesting anything as foolish as "pray." 

Yeah; pray to what? One would have to be an imbicle to thing some made up character is actually listening.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Nothing ever changes with you.* As usual, your response has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You still come off as a real dimwit.
> 
> The lottery analogy is proposed by evolutionists when IDers talk about how improbable the spontaneous generation of dna is. Evolutionists respond by saying winning the lottery is improbable, but it happens every week. Every week someone beats the odds. This is a fallacy as proven by me above regarding probabilistic resources. So you were *WRONG *and you tuck your tail and *change the subject as usual. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the dipshit who clings to ancient myth.
> 
> Such irony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know is views are from a myth ?  Clinging ,don't think he made a choice the same as anyone who subscribes to a philosophical view.
Click to expand...


I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.


----------



## CrackedSkull

ima said:


> So who decided that Noah was 600 years old?



They don't know how old he was or if he even existed.....given the fact that there was most likely never a world wide flood.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pray I do, since I'm schooling your retarded bitch ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a mature response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Indeed my bad for suggesting anything as foolish as "pray."
> 
> Yeah; pray to what? One would have to be an imbicle to thing some made up character is actually listening.
Click to expand...


Can you back this statement with any proof ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the dipshit who clings to ancient myth.
> 
> Such irony.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know is views are from a myth ?  Clinging ,don't think he made a choice the same as anyone who subscribes to a philosophical view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.
Click to expand...


What would cause so many to subscribe to the belief in a higher power ?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know is views are from a myth ?  Clinging ,don't think he made a choice the same as anyone who subscribes to a philosophical view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would cause so many to subscribe to the belief in a higher power ?
Click to expand...


Desire to assign significance. Wish to dodge the penalty for being born: death. To make what is hard to comprehend seem ordered, simple and easier to grasp. 

All of the above, often.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a mature response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Indeed my bad for suggesting anything as foolish as "pray."
> 
> Yeah; pray to what? One would have to be an imbicle to thing some made up character is actually listening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you back this statement with any proof ?
Click to expand...


No. But then it is not I imagining the diety. Thus the burden of proof is not on me, nor did I allude to anything requiring proof.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would cause so many to subscribe to the belief in a higher power ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Desire to assign significance. Wish to dodge the penalty for being born: death. To make what is hard to comprehend seem ordered, simple and easier to grasp.
> 
> All of the above, often.
Click to expand...


All men know life leads to death and the grave.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Indeed my bad for suggesting anything as foolish as "pray."
> 
> Yeah; pray to what? One would have to be an imbicle to thing some made up character is actually listening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you back this statement with any proof ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. But then it is not I imagining the diety. Thus the burden of proof is not on me, nor did I allude to anything requiring proof.
Click to expand...


I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature. The thing is you made a statement out of admitted ignorance. There is not just biological evidence of a designer. Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible. I am a witness to these entities and people will claim I am nuts and that is a copout response to someone that is well aware of his sanity.


----------



## CrackedSkull

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you back this statement with any proof ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. But then it is not I imagining the diety. Thus the burden of proof is not on me, nor did I allude to anything requiring proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature. The thing is you made a statement out of admitted ignorance. There is not just biological evidence of a designer. Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible. I am a witness to these entities and people will claim I am nuts and that is a copout response to someone that is well aware of his sanity.
Click to expand...




> I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature.



Assumption (Premise) not proved.



> Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible.



Proving the bible with itself? Man I should not have sold my copy of Little Red Riding Hood.



> I am a witness to these entities



PLEASE....witness to what? What were the bible writers witness to? All you have is their word 2000 years ago.



> There is not just biological evidence of a designer.



There is no evidence of a supernatural designer either. So what are we left with? Zilch! All creationists have is a 2000 year old book that is not science. Hell for that matter its just badly written mythology. Besides who would trust a god that puts plants and trees in before creating the sun? Not me.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you back this statement with any proof ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. But then it is not I imagining the diety. Thus the burden of proof is not on me, nor did I allude to anything requiring proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature. The thing is you made a statement out of admitted ignorance. There is not just biological evidence of a designer. Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible. I am a witness to these entities and people will claim I am nuts and that is a copout response to someone that is well aware of his sanity.
Click to expand...


Oh, lordy, man. Not the silly _precision in nature_, canard again.
I can't help but find it ironic that you never seem to address how this "precision" actually exists in view of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, planetary bombardment by meteors, etc., etc.

As part of that "precision", the laws of plate tectonics describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth's crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.

The gawds established the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the author of that "precision", the gawds could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.

And so the question remains firmly unanswered: Why did the gawds need to create existence in such a way as to create these humanity destroying "acts of the gawds" in the first place?   


BTW, I am also witness to these "entities" you claim to have seen. They were over for dinner the other night. They had two servings of meatloaf. They also told me they have never met you. So.... we seem to be on the horns of a dilemma here.


----------



## Koios

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. But then it is not I imagining the diety. Thus the burden of proof is not on me, nor did I allude to anything requiring proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature. The thing is you made a statement out of admitted ignorance. There is not just biological evidence of a designer. Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible. I am a witness to these entities and people will claim I am nuts and that is a copout response to someone that is well aware of his sanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, lordy, man. Not the silly _precision in nature_, canard again.
> I can't help but find it ironic that you never seem to address how this "precision" actually exists in view of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, planetary bombardment by meteors, etc., etc.
> 
> As part of that "precision", the laws of plate tectonics describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth's crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.
> 
> The gawds established the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the author of that "precision", the gawds could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.
> 
> And so the question remains firmly unanswered: Why did the gawds need to create existence in such a way as to create these humanity destroying "acts of the gawds" in the first place?
> 
> 
> BTW, I am also witness to these "entities" you claim to have seen. They were over for dinner the other night. They had two servings of meatloaf. They also told me they have never met you. So.... we seem to be on the horns of a dilemma here.
Click to expand...


Outta thanks. So +1.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you back this statement with any proof ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. But then it is not I imagining the diety. Thus the burden of proof is not on me, nor did I allude to anything requiring proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature. The thing is you made a statement out of admitted ignorance. There is not just biological evidence of a designer. Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible. I am a witness to these entities and people will claim I am nuts and that is a copout response to someone that is well aware of his sanity.
Click to expand...


Indeed you do not, since dogma is like that. 

Meanwhile, evolution does require evidence / proof, since it's a postulate derived of scientific study. 

And to all not blinded by dogma, the proof of evolution is overwhelming.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Obviously it's failed in your many continued attempts.
> 
> That's why I opted instead to stick to well-founded truths about the Cosmos and life on this planet, as opposed to absurd attempts at resolving the myriad conflicts between millenia old religious myths and contemporary scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really have no clue about probability arguments do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pray I do, since I'm schooling your retarded bitch ass.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the dipshit who clings to ancient myth.
> 
> Such irony.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know is views are from a myth ?  Clinging ,don't think he made a choice the same as anyone who subscribes to a philosophical view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.
Click to expand...


People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would cause so many to subscribe to the belief in a higher power ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Desire to assign significance. Wish to dodge the penalty for being born: death. To make what is hard to comprehend seem ordered, simple and easier to grasp.
> 
> All of the above, often.
Click to expand...


When multiple cultures separated my miles of isolation come up with the same idea, don't you wonder if there is more to it?


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would cause so many to subscribe to the belief in a higher power ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desire to assign significance. Wish to dodge the penalty for being born: death. To make what is hard to comprehend seem ordered, simple and easier to grasp.
> 
> All of the above, often.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When multiple cultures separated my miles of isolation come up with the same idea, don't you wonder if there is more to it?
Click to expand...


Sure, but then, Asians have Buddha, Native Americans have the Great Spirit, Europeans came up with Paganism and then Christianity, Mayans... and so on and so on, ad infinitum. 

And each came up with entirety different creation myths.


----------



## CrackedSkull

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know is views are from a myth ?  Clinging ,don't think he made a choice the same as anyone who subscribes to a philosophical view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.
Click to expand...


You can shop here to find a god that suits your needs:

Godchecker.com - Your Guide To The Gods


----------



## CrackedSkull

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Desire to assign significance. Wish to dodge the penalty for being born: death. To make what is hard to comprehend seem ordered, simple and easier to grasp.
> 
> All of the above, often.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When multiple cultures separated my miles of isolation come up with the same idea, don't you wonder if there is more to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, but then, Asians have Buddha, Native Americans have the Great Spirit, Europeans came up with Paganism and then Christianity, Mayans... and so on and so on, ad infinitum.
> 
> And each came up with entirety different creation myths.
Click to expand...


Yep. Here are a few:

Creation Myths - A Large and Diverse Collection of Links to Creation Myths from Around the World - creation myth,creation myths,creation mythology,creation myths from around the world,creation myths from different cultures,creation story,creation sto


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know is views are from a myth ?  Clinging ,don't think he made a choice the same as anyone who subscribes to a philosophical view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.
Click to expand...


No. Not to counter god myths, but in search of a unified relatively theory, and to posit what dark matter might be the result of. But those are merely unproven theories and not shit they say is true because they merely believe or wish it to be true.


----------



## BOBO

...who cares??????????  If the planet is 6000 years old,  30 zillion years old or a million years old... whats the diff?  All that matters to folks is not having to work for their dough,  food/water,  shelter,  parties/sex & enough status to get others to worship them.  Everything else is unimportant to folks of today.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might also want to let Einstein know that it is a completely logical train of thought to deduce that if Humans come from evolution and Computers and Rocket ships come from Humans, then we can conclude that evolution indirectly produces computers and rocket ships. This takes about a 3rd grade understanding of basic reasoning so it is not surprising he-she doesn't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The inventions of rocket ships are purely incidental, and in no way guaranteed indirectly by an evolutionary process, so you can't say that evolution "indirectly produces computers and rocket ships." We only have one example of evolution to draw from: our own. Here again, you are using an argument from induction, combined with the fallacy of hasty generalization. You attempt to make a general statement about any evolutionary processes by observing our own, yet based on no other examples of evolutionary lineages. Therefore, you are attempting to make a general statement about evolution from a particular example of evolution (inductive reasoning) and using a very small sample size (one sample of evolution) to make a generalization about all evolutionary processes. This implies that there are extra-terrestrials out there under going evolution, and you are claiming that they too, have "computers and rocket ships." Yet, I thought as a theist, you don't believe in extra-terrestrials, because god made the universe for us? We have no idea what other evolutionary processes produce, because we have never directly observed them. Until we do, your statement is highly unsubstantiated. In all likelihood, evolution would mostly produce bacteria and algae and things of this nature and likely constitute most of the life in the universe. There may be a few instances of evolution producing life which produces computers in the cosmos, but at best, this sort of induction could only grant probabilities to your conclusion.
> 
> All you are left with, is the ability to say "this particular evolutionary process produced a species which produced computers and rocket ships." We already know this to be true, so you haven't gotten anywhere, logically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're attempt to sound smart with all you WRONG flowery speech has EPICALLY FAILED again. The fact of the matter is that my argument is not an argument from induction, because if evolution is true, then evolution produced computers and rocket ships via the human race. We are not talking about some random evolutionary process. We are talking about evolution of humans. Your arguments about other instances of evolution than our own are irrelevant and ludicrous. If evolution is true, then you cannot deny it has produced computers and rocket ships. Of course we know evolution is pseudoscience, and such a claim is totally ridiculous.
> 
> Oh and while we are on the topic of your fallacious arguments, you wrongly claim that ID is an appeal to ignorance. That would be the case if we exhausted other origin of life possibilities and were saying we don't know how it happened so an intelligence must have done it. But that is not the argument of ID. The thing you continually ignore, and to your own detriment, is that we have evidence of "causes now in operation" [Lyell, Darwin]. We aren't arguing from ignorance because we have evidence that complex, functional information ONLY comes from an intelligent agent. So please knock it off with your fallacious claims of argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...


So your refutation of my counter-argument is to talk about evolution? The flaw that I claimed exists, is contained in your argument, which isn't about evolution since you don't believe in it, so why are you talking about evolution? You are evading the topic, and you haven't refuted my point that you are using an argument from induction in this evolution example. By the way, why are you bringing up this point? It is plainly obvious that evolution produced humans, and humans produced rocket ships. Are you simply trying to mock evolution because it has the ability to create a species that creates rocket ships? The entire attempt is just childish, if this is the case. 

My arguments about other evolutions are not irrelevant when you are claiming, based on one evolutionary timeline, that "all evolutionary timelines will indirectly produce rocket ships." You are actually the one who brought up other evolutionary timelines, because it is implicit when you say "evolution creates rocket ships." We only have witnessed one evolution, so all you can say is, "this evolutionary timeline created a species which was able to create rocket ships." Wow... big deal. This is plainly observable. You are trying to extract something profound out of something very menial, as far as information goes. Again, this is basic inductive reasoning, and is completely flawed, because the conclusion does not follow at all from the premises. 

I don't think I ever said that ID is an argument from ignorance. Certain parts of it certainly are, but not the entire thing. Namely, I said that Meyer's attempt at discrediting abiogenesis with pure probability calculations constitutes an argument from ignorance, because he is ignorant to the precise conditions that would have caused it. Therefore, he can't have the numbers to adequately describe what went on, even probabilistically. I wish you would admit this. He basically has a cult with this ID thing. His numbers are non-descriptive of anything that actually happened. They serve only to make his followers feel better. What I claimed was that ID was built on inductive reasoning, and as such, can not make the conclusions it tries to, and still call itself science. So, you are either mistaken or being dishonest.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know is views are from a myth ?  Clinging ,don't think he made a choice the same as anyone who subscribes to a philosophical view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.
Click to expand...



Haha. You actually think that the multi-verse theory was created in order to deal with fine tuning? It wasn't. Multi-verse theory is a natural byproduct of the math in string theory, which itself is an attempt at a unified field theory.  It has nothing to do with your silly argument. It just so happens to make sense of it of these cosmological values. The values themselves do not demonstrate a god.


----------



## Bill Angel

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know is views are from a myth ?  Clinging ,don't think he made a choice the same as anyone who subscribes to a philosophical view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.
Click to expand...

 I think  that there is a criterion to distinguish science from myth. Individuals who hold competing scientific views in physics attempt to resolve the conflict via experimental observations using telescopes, particle accelerators, and other apparatus.  I realize that theoretical physicists are considered the glamour boys of science, but their speculations are considered to be of little value to experimentalists  if they don't yield  testable hypothesis.


----------



## Youwerecreated

CrackedSkull said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. But then it is not I imagining the diety. Thus the burden of proof is not on me, nor did I allude to anything requiring proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature. The thing is you made a statement out of admitted ignorance. There is not just biological evidence of a designer. Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible. I am a witness to these entities and people will claim I am nuts and that is a copout response to someone that is well aware of his sanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assumption (Premise) not proved.
> 
> 
> 
> Proving the bible with itself? Man I should not have sold my copy of Little Red Riding Hood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a witness to these entities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PLEASE....witness to what? What were the bible writers witness to? All you have is their word 2000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is not just biological evidence of a designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of a supernatural designer either. So what are we left with? Zilch! All creationists have is a 2000 year old book that is not science. Hell for that matter its just badly written mythology. Besides who would trust a god that puts plants and trees in before creating the sun? Not me.
Click to expand...


When you see possessed people or walk  in to a house and witnesses objects being throm across the room when appears to be empty or you here voices and no one is there.

The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence over believing random chance produced the precision observed in nature.

The bible giving foreknowledge of things not known by man at the time is strong evidence it was inspired by this creator.

What makes you believe the origins of the universe and life was the product of random chance ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. But then it is not I imagining the diety. Thus the burden of proof is not on me, nor did I allude to anything requiring proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature. The thing is you made a statement out of admitted ignorance. There is not just biological evidence of a designer. Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible. I am a witness to these entities and people will claim I am nuts and that is a copout response to someone that is well aware of his sanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed you do not, since dogma is like that.
> 
> Meanwhile, evolution does require evidence / proof, since it's a postulate derived of scientific study.
> 
> And to all not blinded by dogma, the proof of evolution is overwhelming.
Click to expand...


Which it lacks and can be considered dogma as well. Design is clearly seen in the cell,with God we don't need to believe in miracles but a naturalist believing in naturalism by chance you do need to believe in miracles.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> When you see possessed people or walk  in to a house and witnesses objects being throm across the room when appears to be empty or *you here voices and no one is there*.
> 
> The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence over believing random chance produced the precision observed in nature.
> 
> The bible giving foreknowledge of things not known by man at the time is strong evidence it was inspired by this creator.
> 
> What makes you believe the origins of the universe and life was the product of random chance ?



You should see a doctor. 

The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence of the precision in nature. You PRESUME that it was done by a god, with no actual proof of said god. Somewhat delusional, I'd say.

So the bible is an attempt at fortune telling? 
Anyways, you still haven't proven that the world was made in 6 days. I'm still waiting...

The  purpose of life and the why of the big bang are unknown. Get over it. You can philosophize all you want about why there could be a creator, but you still have no proof, only a theory. Sorry, please try again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you see possessed people or walk  in to a house and witnesses objects being throm across the room when appears to be empty or *you here voices and no one is there*.
> 
> The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence over believing random chance produced the precision observed in nature.
> 
> The bible giving foreknowledge of things not known by man at the time is strong evidence it was inspired by this creator.
> 
> What makes you believe the origins of the universe and life was the product of random chance ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should see a doctor.
> 
> The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence of the precision in nature. You PRESUME that it was done by a god, with no actual proof of said god. Somewhat delusional, I'd say.
> 
> So the bible is an attempt at fortune telling?
> Anyways, you still haven't proven that the world was made in 6 days. I'm still waiting...
> 
> The  purpose of life and the why of the big bang are unknown. Get over it. You can philosophize all you want about why there could be a creator, but you still have no proof, only a theory. Sorry, please try again.
Click to expand...


I have been seeing several doctors since the stroke and I am fine thank you though.

One can look at an object and determine by it's function whether it was designed or not.

Precision in nature question. Can you give one example and prove that chaos can produce order or precision seen in nature ?

Nor can anyone prove it was created billions of years ago.

Maybe to you it's not proof.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Bill Angel said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think  that there is a criterion to distinguish science from myth. Individuals who hold competing scientific views in physics attempt to resolve the conflict via experimental observations using telescopes, particle accelerators, and other apparatus.  I realize that theoretical physicists are considered the glamour boys of science, but their speculations are considered to be of little value to experimentalists  if they don't yield  testable hypothesis.
Click to expand...


We know with certainty that parents reproduce after there own kind. We know organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you see possessed people or walk  in to a house and witnesses objects being throm across the room when appears to be empty or *you here voices and no one is there*.
> 
> The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence over believing random chance produced the precision observed in nature.
> 
> The bible giving foreknowledge of things not known by man at the time is strong evidence it was inspired by this creator.
> 
> What makes you believe the origins of the universe and life was the product of random chance ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should see a doctor.
> 
> The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence of the precision in nature. You PRESUME that it was done by a god, with no actual proof of said god. Somewhat delusional, I'd say.
> 
> So the bible is an attempt at fortune telling?
> Anyways, you still haven't proven that the world was made in 6 days. I'm still waiting...
> 
> The  purpose of life and the why of the big bang are unknown. Get over it. You can philosophize all you want about why there could be a creator, but you still have no proof, only a theory. Sorry, please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been seeing several doctors since the stroke and I am fine thank you though.
> 
> One can look at an object and determine by it's function whether it was designed or not.
> 
> Precision in nature question. Can you give one example and prove that chaos can produce order or precision seen in nature ?
> 
> Nor can anyone prove it was created billions of years ago.
> 
> Maybe to you it's not proof.
Click to expand...


...since the stroke. That explains a lot! 

"One can look at an object and determine by it's function whether it was designed or not."

- Thing is that a man made object can actually be traced back to its creator and he's an actual person that you can touch. I'm still waiting for you to show me the creator of nature...

And I never mentioned chaos ever, so I don't even know what you're talking about.

"Nor can anyone prove it was created billions of years ago."

- So you're admitting that you really have no idea how long it took the earth to form, so you don't believe the opening passage of the bible. Ok. So how about Noah, who said he was 600 years old?


----------



## Bill Angel

Youwerecreated said:


> When you see possessed people or walk  in to a house and witnesses objects being throm across the room when appears to be empty or *you here voices and no one is there*.
> 
> The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence over believing random chance produced the precision observed in nature.
> 
> The bible giving foreknowledge of things not known by man at the time is strong evidence it was inspired by this creator.
> 
> What makes you believe the origins of the universe and life was the product of random chance ?


 Here is a section from a video, devoted to explaining the importance of the discovery of the Higgs boson, in which a physicist discusses why there is no life after death and also no validity to such assertions as biblical prophecy
TubeChop - Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality - Sean Carroll - Skepticon 5 (01:51)


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should see a doctor.
> 
> The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence of the precision in nature. You PRESUME that it was done by a god, with no actual proof of said god. Somewhat delusional, I'd say.
> 
> So the bible is an attempt at fortune telling?
> Anyways, you still haven't proven that the world was made in 6 days. I'm still waiting...
> 
> The  purpose of life and the why of the big bang are unknown. Get over it. You can philosophize all you want about why there could be a creator, but you still have no proof, only a theory. Sorry, please try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been seeing several doctors since the stroke and I am fine thank you though.
> 
> One can look at an object and determine by it's function whether it was designed or not.
> 
> Precision in nature question. Can you give one example and prove that chaos can produce order or precision seen in nature ?
> 
> Nor can anyone prove it was created billions of years ago.
> 
> Maybe to you it's not proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...since the stroke. That explains a lot!
> 
> "One can look at an object and determine by it's function whether it was designed or not."
> 
> - Thing is that a man made object can actually be traced back to its creator and he's an actual person that you can touch. I'm still waiting for you to show me the creator of nature...
> 
> And I never mentioned chaos ever, so I don't even know what you're talking about.
> 
> "Nor can anyone prove it was created billions of years ago."
> 
> - So you're admitting that you really have no idea how long it took the earth to form, so you don't believe the opening passage of the bible. Ok. So how about Noah, who said he was 600 years old?
Click to expand...


Not really,the stroke only affected balance and eyes. Biologoical design can be traced back to it's designer as well.

What do you think the enviornment was like if the big bang put everything in to motion ? that's right chaos.

I have given my reason for not being sure if things were created by 24 hour periods or what a day is to God.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Bill Angel said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you see possessed people or walk  in to a house and witnesses objects being throm across the room when appears to be empty or *you here voices and no one is there*.
> 
> The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence over believing random chance produced the precision observed in nature.
> 
> The bible giving foreknowledge of things not known by man at the time is strong evidence it was inspired by this creator.
> 
> What makes you believe the origins of the universe and life was the product of random chance ?
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a section from a video, devoted to explaining the importance of the discovery of the Higgs boson, in which a physicist discusses why there is no life after death and also no validity to such assertions as biblical prophecy
> TubeChop - Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality - Sean Carroll - Skepticon 5 (01:51)
Click to expand...


I don't believe in life after death unless through resurrection and that takes place in the future.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove God exists,he provide that proof in the precision in nature. The thing is you made a statement out of admitted ignorance. There is not just biological evidence of a designer. Supernatural forces are also evidence of beings that are described by the bible. I am a witness to these entities and people will claim I am nuts and that is a copout response to someone that is well aware of his sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed you do not, since dogma is like that.
> 
> Meanwhile, evolution does require evidence / proof, since it's a postulate derived of scientific study.
> 
> And to all not blinded by dogma, the proof of evolution is overwhelming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which it lacks and can be considered dogma as well. Design is clearly seen in the cell,with God we don't need to believe in miracles but a naturalist believing in naturalism by chance you do need to believe in miracles.
Click to expand...


You see "design" as the result of supermagical gawds in the same way you see spirits, spooks, etc. haunting a fantasy world you want to exist.

The creationist canard of "design" (as defined by complex code) in cells is a term coined by William Dembski, another of the frauds representing the Disco 'tute. 

The "design" canard repeated by creationists has been refuted thoroughly and frequently. 

Here, for example:

A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity"

 A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity"

by Wesley R. Elsberry

Dembski's analysis fails to be even-handed. Dembski explores how evolutionary computation approaches a solution, but does not show that an intelligent agent can approach any particular problem in a supposedly different manner and escape the problems that Dembski asserts for EC. Specifically, if the probability of producing a solution becomes the relevant CSI metric, the probability of an intelligent agent achieving a solution looks to be just as much a "probability amplifier" as an algorithm.



> What this means is that even though with respect to the uniform probability on the phase space the target has exceedingly small probability, the probability for the evolutionary algorithm E to get into the target in m steps is no longer small. And since complexity and improbability are for the purposes of specified complexity parallel notions, this means that even though the target is complex and specified with respect to the uniform probability on the phase space, it remains specified but is no longer complex with respect to the probability induced by evolutionary algorithm E.
> 
> [End Quote - WA Dembski, "Specified Complexity", MetaViews 152]
> 
> The above shows the kind of bait-and-switch tactic necessary to maintain the illusion that the products of algorithms or natural processes can in principle be distinguished from the products of intelligent agency. When one examines Dembski's technical discussion of "specification", one finds that the complexity is determined from the likelihood of a solution occurring due to the *chance* hypothesis. Here, Dembski swaps that out for the likelihood that the non-chance hypothesis finds the solution. Were this a pinball game, the machine would lock up and flash "TILT!".
> 
> The relative probability for assessing the complexity of some solution is given by Dembski on page 145 of TDI as P(E|H), where H is a *chance* hypothesis.
> 
> Essentially, what Dembski proves with his analysis of evolutionary computation is not that it cannot produce actual specified complexity, but rather that the bounded complexity measure discussed on page 144 of TDI will show that a problem is solvable by evolutionary computation given a certain limited m steps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the problem is even worse. It follows by a combinatorial argument that for any partition of the phase space into pieces none of which has probability more than the probability of the target (which by assumption is less than 1 in 10^150), for the vast majority of these partition elements the probability of the evolutionary algorithm E entering them is going to be no better than pure random sampling. It follows that the vast majority of fitness functions on the phase space that coincide with our original fitness function on the target but reshuffle the function on the partition elements outside the target will not land the evolutionary algorithm in the target (this result is essentially a corollary of the No Free Lunch theorems by Wolpert and Macready). Simply put, the vast majority of fitness functions will not guide E into the target even if they coincide with our original fitness function on the target (see Appendix 8).
> 
> [End Quote - WA Dembski, "Specified Complexity", MetaViews 152]
Click to expand...


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been seeing several doctors since the stroke and I am fine thank you though.
> 
> One can look at an object and determine by it's function whether it was designed or not.
> 
> Precision in nature question. Can you give one example and prove that chaos can produce order or precision seen in nature ?
> 
> Nor can anyone prove it was created billions of years ago.
> 
> Maybe to you it's not proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...since the stroke. That explains a lot!
> 
> "One can look at an object and determine by it's function whether it was designed or not."
> 
> - Thing is that a man made object can actually be traced back to its creator and he's an actual person that you can touch. I'm still waiting for you to show me the creator of nature...
> 
> And I never mentioned chaos ever, so I don't even know what you're talking about.
> 
> "Nor can anyone prove it was created billions of years ago."
> 
> - So you're admitting that you really have no idea how long it took the earth to form, so you don't believe the opening passage of the bible. Ok. So how about Noah, who said he was 600 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really,the stroke only affected balance and eyes. *Biologoical design can be traced back to it's designer as well.*
> 
> What do you think the enviornment was like if the big bang put everything in to motion ? that's right chaos.
> 
> I have given my reason for not being sure if things were created by 24 hour periods or what a day is to God.
Click to expand...


So you should be able to prove to me who and where nature's creator is.
As for the BB, it's possible that the previous universe ended up contracting to a point that re-exploded, or it could any number of other theories why it happened, maybe the nature of elements make it clump up into what we see today? Was that a purposeful design? Maybe, maybe not. No one's proved it either way yet (I'm agnostic, not atheist).
And you don't believe the word "day" at the bible's start. Ok.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.



That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?


----------



## Bill Angel

Youwerecreated said:


> Bill Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> I think  that there is a criterion to distinguish science from myth. Individuals who hold competing scientific views in physics attempt to resolve the conflict via experimental observations using telescopes, particle accelerators, and other apparatus.  I realize that theoretical physicists are considered the glamour boys of science, but their speculations are considered to be of little value to experimentalists  if they don't yield  testable hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know with certainty that parents reproduce after there own kind. We know organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are.
Click to expand...

That would create a problem in terms of the fossil record. For example, the species of plants and animals that existed 65 million years ago (when the dinosaurs went extinct) are just so much different than what exists today.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed you do not, since dogma is like that.
> 
> Meanwhile, evolution does require evidence / proof, since it's a postulate derived of scientific study.
> 
> And to all not blinded by dogma, the proof of evolution is overwhelming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which it lacks and can be considered dogma as well. Design is clearly seen in the cell,with God we don't need to believe in miracles but a naturalist believing in naturalism by chance you do need to believe in miracles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see "design" as the result of supermagical gawds in the same way you see spirits, spooks, etc. haunting a fantasy world you want to exist.
> 
> The creationist canard of "design" (as defined by complex code) in cells is a term coined by William Dembski, another of the frauds representing the Disco 'tute.
> 
> The "design" canard repeated by creationists has been refuted thoroughly and frequently.
> 
> Here, for example:
> 
> A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity"
> 
> A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity"
> 
> by Wesley R. Elsberry
> 
> Dembski's analysis fails to be even-handed. Dembski explores how evolutionary computation approaches a solution, but does not show that an intelligent agent can approach any particular problem in a supposedly different manner and escape the problems that Dembski asserts for EC. Specifically, if the probability of producing a solution becomes the relevant CSI metric, the probability of an intelligent agent achieving a solution looks to be just as much a "probability amplifier" as an algorithm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this means is that even though with respect to the uniform probability on the phase space the target has exceedingly small probability, the probability for the evolutionary algorithm E to get into the target in m steps is no longer small. And since complexity and improbability are for the purposes of specified complexity parallel notions, this means that even though the target is complex and specified with respect to the uniform probability on the phase space, it remains specified but is no longer complex with respect to the probability induced by evolutionary algorithm E.
> 
> [End Quote - WA Dembski, "Specified Complexity", MetaViews 152]
> 
> The above shows the kind of bait-and-switch tactic necessary to maintain the illusion that the products of algorithms or natural processes can in principle be distinguished from the products of intelligent agency. When one examines Dembski's technical discussion of "specification", one finds that the complexity is determined from the likelihood of a solution occurring due to the *chance* hypothesis. Here, Dembski swaps that out for the likelihood that the non-chance hypothesis finds the solution. Were this a pinball game, the machine would lock up and flash "TILT!".
> 
> The relative probability for assessing the complexity of some solution is given by Dembski on page 145 of TDI as P(E|H), where H is a *chance* hypothesis.
> 
> Essentially, what Dembski proves with his analysis of evolutionary computation is not that it cannot produce actual specified complexity, but rather that the bounded complexity measure discussed on page 144 of TDI will show that a problem is solvable by evolutionary computation given a certain limited m steps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the problem is even worse. It follows by a combinatorial argument that for any partition of the phase space into pieces none of which has probability more than the probability of the target (which by assumption is less than 1 in 10^150), for the vast majority of these partition elements the probability of the evolutionary algorithm E entering them is going to be no better than pure random sampling. It follows that the vast majority of fitness functions on the phase space that coincide with our original fitness function on the target but reshuffle the function on the partition elements outside the target will not land the evolutionary algorithm in the target (this result is essentially a corollary of the No Free Lunch theorems by Wolpert and Macready). Simply put, the vast majority of fitness functions will not guide E into the target even if they coincide with our original fitness function on the target (see Appendix 8).
> 
> [End Quote - WA Dembski, "Specified Complexity", MetaViews 152]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A dose of reality. I'm sure you will not watch these videos but many will that want to see the real arguments.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S55Vn4rVPfY]1 of 10 - Intelligent Design of the Universe - Billy Crone - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YinrToIKJtg]Mathematics Disprove Evolution? The probability of spontaneous generation (creation vs. evolution) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEnJYdakou4]Atheists Humbled by Order in Universe - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuB7KMfVems]Hitchens vs Craig The existence of God part 1 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lIEhLwONgw]Putting The Fear of God Into Atheists - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAXKttcbhM4]Hitchens vs Craig The existence of God part 2 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM9-F57i6aQ]Hitchens vs Craig The existence of God part 3 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTzOJNHGqNg]Hitchens vs Craig The existence of God part 4 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81SRgFvCi7M]Hitchens vs Craig The existence of God part 5 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?
Click to expand...


Ok you now want to discuss precision in nature and the intelligence which is the mechanism for design ?


----------



## Koios

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?
Click to expand...


Okay, allow me, insofar as it's in keeping with the OP.

We had the age of enlightment in the 17 century, and into the 18th century.  Thus we began to understand that natural and not divine forces, per se, may account for much of the world around us, which more primitive peoples conveniently imagined was merely an intelligence with powers vastly greater than our own who created it all by power of sheer will.  So obviously they guessed wrong, and during the enlightment, flaws in religious dogma, driven largely by astrology, became more apparent / likely; and thus was born astronomy, displacing astrology, because the truth of the sun and planets around it began discrediting astrology's many wrong guesses.

So in light of that, in the 18th century, believers in God began attempting to resolve the conflicts with what was being discovered, with the avent of Creacionismo. (English: Creationism).  So it's not a science.  It's dogma trying to preserve beliefs despite science, which proves, more so by the year, that creation scenarios / ancient myths simply got it wrong.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok you now want to discuss precision in nature and the intelligence which is the mechanism for design ?
Click to expand...


Nature is the opposite of precise.  In fact, only about 1% of species still exist today.  The other 99% were failures.


----------



## Koios

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok you now want to discuss precision in nature and the intelligence which is the mechanism for design ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature is the opposite of precise.  In fact, only about 1% of species still exist today.  The other 99% were failures.
Click to expand...


In fact, consider the inpresicion in modern humans: we're very delicate creatures who live only within a very unique set of environmental circumstances.  Even slight changes due to sever volcanic activity or a larger impact could wipe us out.  And our offsping, while pretty reliable, are far from precise.  Many are miscarried or still-born.  Others have defects.  Many have gender ambiguity, or even both sex organs.  Others die young of childhood diseases.  It's entirely random, and all over the map.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inventions of rocket ships are purely incidental, and in no way guaranteed indirectly by an evolutionary process, so you can't say that evolution "indirectly produces computers and rocket ships." We only have one example of evolution to draw from: our own. Here again, you are using an argument from induction, combined with the fallacy of hasty generalization. You attempt to make a general statement about any evolutionary processes by observing our own, yet based on no other examples of evolutionary lineages. Therefore, you are attempting to make a general statement about evolution from a particular example of evolution (inductive reasoning) and using a very small sample size (one sample of evolution) to make a generalization about all evolutionary processes. This implies that there are extra-terrestrials out there under going evolution, and you are claiming that they too, have "computers and rocket ships." Yet, I thought as a theist, you don't believe in extra-terrestrials, because god made the universe for us? We have no idea what other evolutionary processes produce, because we have never directly observed them. Until we do, your statement is highly unsubstantiated. In all likelihood, evolution would mostly produce bacteria and algae and things of this nature and likely constitute most of the life in the universe. There may be a few instances of evolution producing life which produces computers in the cosmos, but at best, this sort of induction could only grant probabilities to your conclusion.
> 
> All you are left with, is the ability to say "this particular evolutionary process produced a species which produced computers and rocket ships." We already know this to be true, so you haven't gotten anywhere, logically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're attempt to sound smart with all you WRONG flowery speech has EPICALLY FAILED again. The fact of the matter is that my argument is not an argument from induction, because if evolution is true, then evolution produced computers and rocket ships via the human race. We are not talking about some random evolutionary process. We are talking about evolution of humans. Your arguments about other instances of evolution than our own are irrelevant and ludicrous. If evolution is true, then you cannot deny it has produced computers and rocket ships. Of course we know evolution is pseudoscience, and such a claim is totally ridiculous.
> 
> Oh and while we are on the topic of your fallacious arguments, you wrongly claim that ID is an appeal to ignorance. That would be the case if we exhausted other origin of life possibilities and were saying we don't know how it happened so an intelligence must have done it. But that is not the argument of ID. The thing you continually ignore, and to your own detriment, is that we have evidence of "causes now in operation" [Lyell, Darwin]. We aren't arguing from ignorance because we have evidence that complex, functional information ONLY comes from an intelligent agent. So please knock it off with your fallacious claims of argument from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your refutation of my counter-argument is to talk about evolution? The flaw that I claimed exists, is contained in your argument, which isn't about evolution since you don't believe in it, so why are you talking about evolution? You are evading the topic, and you haven't refuted my point that you are using an argument from induction in this evolution example. By the way, why are you bringing up this point? It is plainly obvious that evolution produced humans, and humans produced rocket ships. Are you simply trying to mock evolution because it has the ability to create a species that creates rocket ships? The entire attempt is just childish, if this is the case.
> 
> My arguments about other evolutions are not irrelevant when you are claiming, based on one evolutionary timeline, that "all evolutionary timelines will indirectly produce rocket ships." You are actually the one who brought up other evolutionary timelines, because it is implicit when you say "evolution creates rocket ships." We only have witnessed one evolution, so all you can say is, "this evolutionary timeline created a species which was able to create rocket ships." Wow... big deal. This is plainly observable. You are trying to extract something profound out of something very menial, as far as information goes. Again, this is basic inductive reasoning, and is completely flawed, because the conclusion does not follow at all from the premises.
> 
> I don't think I ever said that ID is an argument from ignorance. Certain parts of it certainly are, but not the entire thing. Namely, I said that Meyer's attempt at discrediting abiogenesis with pure probability calculations constitutes an argument from ignorance, because he is ignorant to the precise conditions that would have caused it. Therefore, he can't have the numbers to adequately describe what went on, even probabilistically. I wish you would admit this. He basically has a cult with this ID thing. His numbers are non-descriptive of anything that actually happened. They serve only to make his followers feel better. What I claimed was that ID was built on inductive reasoning, and as such, can not make the conclusions it tries to, and still call itself science. So, you are either mistaken or being dishonest.
Click to expand...


Meyer's theory is not built on inductive reasoning. Sorry. If you had actually read the book, you would have seen he has anticipated and refuted all the cut and paste Panda's Thumb arguments.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok you now want to discuss precision in nature and the intelligence which is the mechanism for design ?
Click to expand...


Your fascination with harmful cell mutations contradicts the notion of "precision in nature", which obviously doesn't exist. 

I know you have insisted previously that harmful cell mutations are the gawds way of punishing sinners (culling the herd, so to speak), but you never addressed such culling as it applies to children and others who have not committed such an egregious affront to your gawds.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha. You actually think that the multi-verse theory was created in order to deal with fine tuning? It wasn't. Multi-verse theory is a natural byproduct of the math in string theory, which itself is an attempt at a unified field theory.  It has nothing to do with your silly argument. It just so happens to make sense of it of these cosmological values. *The values themselves do not demonstrate a god.*
Click to expand...


Ah, yeah they do. Or whatever you are calling the cause of the universe. Whatever or whoever caused the universe fine tuned it for life.


----------



## UltimateReality

Bill Angel said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think  that there is a criterion to distinguish science from myth. Individuals who hold competing scientific views in physics attempt to resolve the conflict via experimental observations using telescopes, particle accelerators, and other apparatus.  I realize that theoretical physicists are considered the glamour boys of science, but their speculations are considered to be of little value to experimentalists  if they don't yield  testable hypothesis.
Click to expand...


This doesn't stop the materialists sheeple from jumping on the multiverse bandwagon, which is as supernatural as God is.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Bill Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> I think  that there is a criterion to distinguish science from myth. Individuals who hold competing scientific views in physics attempt to resolve the conflict via experimental observations using telescopes, particle accelerators, and other apparatus.  I realize that theoretical physicists are considered the glamour boys of science, but their speculations are considered to be of little value to experimentalists  if they don't yield  testable hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know with certainty that parents reproduce after there own kind. We know organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are.
Click to expand...


And we know intelligent agent directed breeding reaches dead ends. Fundie Evo Materialists think if they ignore this scientific fact it might go away since it shreds proof of natural selections ability to produce people from microbes.


----------



## UltimateReality

Bill Angel said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you see possessed people or walk  in to a house and witnesses objects being throm across the room when appears to be empty or *you here voices and no one is there*.
> 
> The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence over believing random chance produced the precision observed in nature.
> 
> The bible giving foreknowledge of things not known by man at the time is strong evidence it was inspired by this creator.
> 
> What makes you believe the origins of the universe and life was the product of random chance ?
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a section from a video, devoted to explaining the importance of the discovery of the Higgs boson, in which a physicist discusses why there is no life after death and also no validity to such assertions as biblical prophecy
> TubeChop - Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality - Sean Carroll - Skepticon 5 (01:51)
Click to expand...


They discovered the Higgs Boson??? Or a "Higgs Boson-like" particle to appease all the nitwits that wasted HUGE money on the Large Hardon Collider??


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha. You actually think that the multi-verse theory was created in order to deal with fine tuning? It wasn't. Multi-verse theory is a natural byproduct of the math in string theory, which itself is an attempt at a unified field theory.  It has nothing to do with your silly argument. It just so happens to make sense of it of these cosmological values. *The values themselves do not demonstrate a god.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah they do. Or whatever you are calling the cause of the universe. Whatever or whoever caused the universe fine tuned it for life.
Click to expand...


Two schools of thought exist: one right; the other merely a convenience, on all questions about the origins of the Universe:

1. We know some stuff, and other stuff we do not know. (right)

2. We know some stuff, and other stuff God does (convenience)

Problem with item 2: God is a diminishing entity with every new scientific discovery, when He is the answer for all shit we do not know.  Ergo, He'll diminish to the zero point, eventually, when all or most is known.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...since the stroke. That explains a lot!
> 
> "One can look at an object and determine by it's function whether it was designed or not."
> 
> - Thing is that a man made object can actually be traced back to its creator and he's an actual person that you can touch. I'm still waiting for you to show me the creator of nature...
> 
> And I never mentioned chaos ever, so I don't even know what you're talking about.
> 
> "Nor can anyone prove it was created billions of years ago."
> 
> - So you're admitting that you really have no idea how long it took the earth to form, so you don't believe the opening passage of the bible. Ok. So how about Noah, who said he was 600 years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really,the stroke only affected balance and eyes. *Biologoical design can be traced back to it's designer as well.*
> 
> What do you think the enviornment was like if the big bang put everything in to motion ? that's right chaos.
> 
> I have given my reason for not being sure if things were created by 24 hour periods or what a day is to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you should be able to prove to me who and where nature's creator is.
> As for the BB, *it's possible that the previous universe ended up contracting to a point that re-exploded,* or it could any number of other theories why it happened, maybe the nature of elements make it clump up into what we see today? Was that a purposeful design? Maybe, maybe not. No one's proved it either way yet (I'm agnostic, not atheist).
> And you don't believe the word "day" at the bible's start. Ok.
Click to expand...


Disproven by SCIENCE years ago. The universe is expanding and *speeding up*, not slowing down like a ball thrown vertically that falls back to earth.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which it lacks and can be considered dogma as well. Design is clearly seen in the cell,with God we don't need to believe in miracles but a naturalist believing in naturalism by chance you do need to believe in miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see "design" as the result of supermagical gawds in the same way you see spirits, spooks, etc. haunting a fantasy world you want to exist.
> 
> The creationist canard of "design" (as defined by complex code) in cells is a term coined by William Dembski, another of the frauds representing the Disco 'tute.
> 
> The "design" canard repeated by creationists has been refuted thoroughly and frequently.
> 
> Here, for example:
> 
> A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity"
> 
> A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity"
> 
> by Wesley R. Elsberry
> 
> Dembski's analysis fails to be even-handed. Dembski explores how evolutionary computation approaches a solution, but does not show that an intelligent agent can approach any particular problem in a supposedly different manner and escape the problems that Dembski asserts for EC. Specifically, if the probability of producing a solution becomes the relevant CSI metric, the probability of an intelligent agent achieving a solution looks to be just as much a "probability amplifier" as an algorithm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this means is that even though with respect to the uniform probability on the phase space the target has exceedingly small probability, the probability for the evolutionary algorithm E to get into the target in m steps is no longer small. And since complexity and improbability are for the purposes of specified complexity parallel notions, this means that even though the target is complex and specified with respect to the uniform probability on the phase space, it remains specified but is no longer complex with respect to the probability induced by evolutionary algorithm E.
> 
> [End Quote - WA Dembski, "Specified Complexity", MetaViews 152]
> 
> The above shows the kind of bait-and-switch tactic necessary to maintain the illusion that the products of algorithms or natural processes can in principle be distinguished from the products of intelligent agency. When one examines Dembski's technical discussion of "specification", one finds that the complexity is determined from the likelihood of a solution occurring due to the *chance* hypothesis. Here, Dembski swaps that out for the likelihood that the non-chance hypothesis finds the solution. Were this a pinball game, the machine would lock up and flash "TILT!".
> 
> The relative probability for assessing the complexity of some solution is given by Dembski on page 145 of TDI as P(E|H), where H is a *chance* hypothesis.
> 
> Essentially, what Dembski proves with his analysis of evolutionary computation is not that it cannot produce actual specified complexity, but rather that the bounded complexity measure discussed on page 144 of TDI will show that a problem is solvable by evolutionary computation given a certain limited m steps.
> 
> 
> 
> A dose of reality. I'm sure you will not watch these videos but many will that want to see the real arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are hardly real arguments.
> 
> As expected, you made no attempt to address the refutation to the creationist fallacies furthered by Dembski and the Disco'tute.
> 
> Posting silly creationist videos, most of them apparently 1970's vintage, is really a waste of time. They are predictable in their bad analogies, presumptive conclusions and lack of scientific credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?
Click to expand...


Same as your computer. If you are truly interested, you might want to read "Signature in the Cell". So far all of the posters here don't take the time to educate themselves on any opposing viewpoints so that they can speak intelligently about the opposition. They prefer their materialistic religion and they wouldn't change if Christ appeared to them personally. They rather cut and paste from Atheist agenda "science" websites of which they have no true knowledge of what they are even repeating.

The proove everyday in this thread, their goal isn't to seek knowledge, but to attack Christians. Hawly dreams of living in Roman times where she could attend the coliseum and watch Christians get fed to the lions. She is the worst kind of dangerous, bigoted, militant, atheist Lesbian.


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really,the stroke only affected balance and eyes. *Biologoical design can be traced back to it's designer as well.*
> 
> What do you think the enviornment was like if the big bang put everything in to motion ? that's right chaos.
> 
> I have given my reason for not being sure if things were created by 24 hour periods or what a day is to God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you should be able to prove to me who and where nature's creator is.
> As for the BB, *it's possible that the previous universe ended up contracting to a point that re-exploded,* or it could any number of other theories why it happened, maybe the nature of elements make it clump up into what we see today? Was that a purposeful design? Maybe, maybe not. No one's proved it either way yet (I'm agnostic, not atheist).
> And you don't believe the word "day" at the bible's start. Ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disproven by SCIENCE years ago. The universe is expanding and *speeding up*, not slowing down like a ball thrown vertically that falls back to earth.
Click to expand...


Still expanding at an accelerated rate.  Came as a surprise, so now we have "dark matter." (unknown force at play)

But that in no way disproves that it might expand to a point and then fall back into itself, as scientists will say is merely one possibility, and Hindu religion posits is God's way.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same as your computer. If you are truly interested, you might want to read "Signature in the Cell". So far all of the posters here don't take the time to educate themselves on any opposing viewpoints so that they can speak intelligently about the opposition. They prefer their materialistic religion and they wouldn't change if Christ appeared to them personally. The rather cut and paste from Atheist agenda "science" websites of which they have no true knowledge of what they are even repeating.
Click to expand...


It's unfortunate for the angry fundies but Meyer has been roundly refuted as just another Loon from the Disco 'tute, preying upon the gullible and those ignorant of science.


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same as your computer. If you are truly interested, you might want to read "Signature in the Cell". So far all of the posters here don't take the time to educate themselves on any opposing viewpoints so that they can speak intelligently about the opposition. *They prefer their materialistic religion and they wouldn't change if Christ appeared to them personally.* The rather cut and paste from Atheist agenda "science" websites of which they have no true knowledge of what they are even repeating.
> 
> The proove everyday in this thread, their goal isn't to seek knowledge, but to attack Christians. Hawly dreams of living in Roman times where she could attend the coliseum and watch Christians get fed to the lions. She is the worst kind of dangerous, bigoted, militant, atheist Lesbian.
Click to expand...


Perhaps.  I merely prefer to know stuff, especially what I do not know. (helps with knowing more.)

And indeed, if Christ appeared to me I would want to know if he's there or merely in my imagination (if the latter, some anti-psychotics might be a good idea.)  So I'd ask around, and perhaps query, "Hey guys; you seeing what I am?"

So indeed, someone saying they saw Christ, appearing only to them, is something I  might worry about (for that individual; mental illness is a terrible thing.)  But should JC do Oprah, I'd lead the fucking parade in His honor, and repent my many blasphamies.

In short: thinking is not knowing.


----------



## Hollie

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #276: Stephen Meyer

As we see so often with those shilling for Christian creationist ministries, they so frequently have no formal training in the area of science they presume to lecture others' about.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same as your computer. If you are truly interested, you might want to read "Signature in the Cell". So far all of the posters here don't take the time to educate themselves on any opposing viewpoints so that they can speak intelligently about the opposition. They prefer their materialistic religion and they wouldn't change if Christ appeared to them personally. The rather cut and paste from Atheist agenda "science" websites of which they have no true knowledge of what they are even repeating.
> 
> The proove everyday in this thread, their goal isn't to seek knowledge, but to attack Christians. Hawly dreams of living in Roman times where she could attend the coliseum and watch Christians get fed to the lions. She is the worst kind of dangerous, bigoted, militant, atheist Lesbian.
Click to expand...

Oh my. It seems any disagreement with fundies and refutations of their presumed gawds causes them to lash out like petulant children.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha. You actually think that the multi-verse theory was created in order to deal with fine tuning? It wasn't. Multi-verse theory is a natural byproduct of the math in string theory, which itself is an attempt at a unified field theory.  It has nothing to do with your silly argument. It just so happens to make sense of it of these cosmological values. *The values themselves do not demonstrate a god.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah they do. Or whatever you are calling the cause of the universe. Whatever or whoever caused the universe fine tuned it for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two schools of thought exist: one right; the other merely a convenience, on all questions about the origins of the Universe:
> 
> 1. We know some stuff, and other stuff we do not know. (right)
> 
> 2. We know some stuff, and other stuff God does (convenience)
> 
> Problem with item 2: God is a diminishing entity with every new scientific discovery, when He is the answer for all shit we do not know.  Ergo, *He'll diminish to the zero point*, eventually, when all or most is known.
Click to expand...


Yeah, kind of like the universe that He caused. Your ignorance is astounding and devoid of actual scientific and theological implications. With each new scientific discovery we find MORE evidence for God. The big bang really rocked the science community, because at the time, even Einstein believed the universe was eternal. All the while Theists had been saying it had a beginning even though this was opposed to the current scientific thought at the time. Turns out the Bible was right all along and science was wrong. And this wasn't the only instance where the Atheist religion stifled science. 

Atheism and the suppression of science - Conservapedia


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you should be able to prove to me who and where nature's creator is.
> As for the BB, *it's possible that the previous universe ended up contracting to a point that re-exploded,* or it could any number of other theories why it happened, maybe the nature of elements make it clump up into what we see today? Was that a purposeful design? Maybe, maybe not. No one's proved it either way yet (I'm agnostic, not atheist).
> And you don't believe the word "day" at the bible's start. Ok.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disproven by SCIENCE years ago. The universe is expanding and *speeding up*, not slowing down like a ball thrown vertically that falls back to earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...Came as a surprise, so now we have "dark matter." (unknown force at play)
Click to expand...


Wait a second! Are you saying that scientist believe in an unknown force which they can't prove but they can see the effect of? This just proves it is the religion of Materialism driving the bus. Guess you are in it so you are too blind to see it.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #276: Stephen Meyer
> 
> As we see so often with those shilling for Christian creationist ministries, they so frequently have no formal training in the area of science they presume to lecture others' about.



We've already discussed the qualifications of the author of this blog yet you still desperately continue to link to it like it has some credibility. You really are pathetic.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same as your computer. If you are truly interested, you might want to read "Signature in the Cell". So far all of the posters here don't take the time to educate themselves on any opposing viewpoints so that they can speak intelligently about the opposition. *They prefer their materialistic religion and they wouldn't change if Christ appeared to them personally.* The rather cut and paste from Atheist agenda "science" websites of which they have no true knowledge of what they are even repeating.
> 
> The proove everyday in this thread, their goal isn't to seek knowledge, but to attack Christians. Hawly dreams of living in Roman times where she could attend the coliseum and watch Christians get fed to the lions. She is the worst kind of dangerous, bigoted, militant, atheist Lesbian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps.  I merely prefer to know stuff, especially what I do not know. (helps with knowing more.)
> 
> And indeed, if Christ appeared to me I would want to know if he's there or merely in my imagination (if the latter, some anti-psychotics might be a good idea.)  So I'd ask around, and perhaps query, "Hey guys; you seeing what I am?"
> 
> So indeed, someone saying they saw Christ, appearing only to them, is something I  might worry about (for that individual; mental illness is a terrible thing.)  But should JC do Oprah, I'd lead the fucking parade in His honor, and repent my many blasphamies.
> 
> In short: thinking is not knowing.
Click to expand...


So then what is truth? What is really real? You are admitting you can't even tell the difference. Truth, by the way, is ultimate reality. Reality un-tarnished by human prejudice and perception. It's the unpolluted reality of God.


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah they do. Or whatever you are calling the cause of the universe. Whatever or whoever caused the universe fine tuned it for life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two schools of thought exist: one right; the other merely a convenience, on all questions about the origins of the Universe:
> 
> 1. We know some stuff, and other stuff we do not know. (right)
> 
> 2. We know some stuff, and other stuff God does (convenience)
> 
> Problem with item 2: God is a diminishing entity with every new scientific discovery, when He is the answer for all shit we do not know.  Ergo, *He'll diminish to the zero point*, eventually, when all or most is known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, kind of like the universe that He caused. Your ignorance is astounding and devoid of actual scientific and theological implications. With each new scientific discovery we find MORE evidence for God. The big bang really rocked the science community, because at the time, even Einstein believed the universe was eternal. All the while Theists had been saying it had a beginning even though this was opposed to the current scientific thought at the time. Turns out the Bible was right all along and science was wrong. And this wasn't the only instance where the Atheist religion stifled science.
> 
> Atheism and the suppression of science - Conservapedia
Click to expand...


I'm sure you're right.  Good thinking.

Meanwhile, and merely a suggestion: Creationism isn't for us, since it tends to not hold up well to actual science.  It's for ya'll, to help you resolve God in face of technology and scientific understanding that challenges many of the earlier myths, you now are moving away from.  So I'm cool with it.  Hell; it's an evolution in religious thinking, since I'm happy that ya'll are not ignoring entirely sicence and technology, as was hoped by Church leaders during the Age of Enlightenment. (Popes.)

So now, the folks who believe everything is destiny, and that all is God's will (don't go to docs when the kids are dying; fly planes into trade center towers, etc.) are comparitively rare, since once was a time that nearly all believed everything was His will: eclipses, earth quakes, floods, famines. etc.  And worse, things like epilepsy were devil-possession, and a fast track to being stoned or burned to death.

Ya'll are coming along nicely.  So I'm proud of you.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yeah they do. Or whatever you are calling the cause of the universe. Whatever or whoever caused the universe fine tuned it for life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two schools of thought exist: one right; the other merely a convenience, on all questions about the origins of the Universe:
> 
> 1. We know some stuff, and other stuff we do not know. (right)
> 
> 2. We know some stuff, and other stuff God does (convenience)
> 
> Problem with item 2: God is a diminishing entity with every new scientific discovery, when He is the answer for all shit we do not know.  Ergo, *He'll diminish to the zero point*, eventually, when all or most is known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, kind of like the universe that He caused. Your ignorance is astounding and devoid of actual scientific and theological implications. With each new scientific discovery we find MORE evidence for God. The big bang really rocked the science community, because at the time, even Einstein believed the universe was eternal. All the while Theists had been saying it had a beginning even though this was opposed to the current scientific thought at the time. Turns out the Bible was right all along and science was wrong. And this wasn't the only instance where the Atheist religion stifled science.
> 
> Atheism and the suppression of science - Conservapedia
Click to expand...

These kinds of bellicose statements wherein you state with 100% assurance and 0% facts that one or more alleged gawds supermagically "poofed" all of existence into place makes you appear to be quite the irrational zealot.


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same as your computer. If you are truly interested, you might want to read "Signature in the Cell". So far all of the posters here don't take the time to educate themselves on any opposing viewpoints so that they can speak intelligently about the opposition. *They prefer their materialistic religion and they wouldn't change if Christ appeared to them personally.* The rather cut and paste from Atheist agenda "science" websites of which they have no true knowledge of what they are even repeating.
> 
> The proove everyday in this thread, their goal isn't to seek knowledge, but to attack Christians. Hawly dreams of living in Roman times where she could attend the coliseum and watch Christians get fed to the lions. She is the worst kind of dangerous, bigoted, militant, atheist Lesbian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps.  I merely prefer to know stuff, especially what I do not know. (helps with knowing more.)
> 
> And indeed, if Christ appeared to me I would want to know if he's there or merely in my imagination (if the latter, some anti-psychotics might be a good idea.)  So I'd ask around, and perhaps query, "Hey guys; you seeing what I am?"
> 
> So indeed, someone saying they saw Christ, appearing only to them, is something I  might worry about (for that individual; mental illness is a terrible thing.)  But should JC do Oprah, I'd lead the fucking parade in His honor, and repent my many blasphamies.
> 
> In short: thinking is not knowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So then what is truth? What is really real? *You are admitting you can't even tell the difference. Truth, by the way, is ultimate reality. Reality un-tarnished by human prejudice and perception. It's the unpolluted reality of God.
Click to expand...


Surely you jest.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same as your computer. If you are truly interested, you might want to read "Signature in the Cell". So far all of the posters here don't take the time to educate themselves on any opposing viewpoints so that they can speak intelligently about the opposition. They prefer their materialistic religion and they wouldn't change if Christ appeared to them personally. The rather cut and paste from Atheist agenda "science" websites of which they have no true knowledge of what they are even repeating.
> 
> The proove everyday in this thread, their goal isn't to seek knowledge, but to attack Christians. Hawly dreams of living in Roman times where she could attend the coliseum and watch Christians get fed to the lions. She is the worst kind of dangerous, bigoted, militant, atheist Lesbian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my. It seems any disagreement with fundies and refutations of their presumed gawds *causes them to lash out like petulant children.*
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> The fundies will kick and scream like *petulant children* as their dogma assumes a *supermagical* causation, one which they are utterly unable to present a case for.





Hollie said:


> That is why you lash out like a *petulant child* ...





Hollie said:


> No need to whine like a *petulant child*. ...





Hollie said:


> And you are still unable to accept the historical record so you lash out like a *petulant child*.





Hollie said:


> In spite of your behavior that rivals a *petulant child*, I'll be pleased to critique your claims to supernaturalism.



Time for you to get some new buzz words don't you think? I am not a robot. I am not a robot. I am not a robot.


----------



## Bill Angel

UltimateReality said:


> Bill Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you see possessed people or walk  in to a house and witnesses objects being throm across the room when appears to be empty or *you here voices and no one is there*.
> 
> The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence over believing random chance produced the precision observed in nature.
> 
> The bible giving foreknowledge of things not known by man at the time is strong evidence it was inspired by this creator.
> 
> What makes you believe the origins of the universe and life was the product of random chance ?
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a section from a video, devoted to explaining the importance of the discovery of the Higgs boson, in which a physicist discusses why there is no life after death and also no validity to such assertions as biblical prophecy
> TubeChop - Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality - Sean Carroll - Skepticon 5 (01:51)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They discovered the Higgs Boson??? Or a "Higgs Boson-like" particle to appease all the nitwits that wasted HUGE money on the Large Hardon Collider??
Click to expand...


A recent report indicates that as more data is accumulated the discovered particle's behavior is falling into line with the Standard Model. 
See: Higgs boson is too saintly and supersymmetry too shy - physics-math - 23 November 2012 - New Scientist


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #276: Stephen Meyer
> 
> As we see so often with those shilling for Christian creationist ministries, they so frequently have no formal training in the area of science they presume to lecture others' about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've already discussed the qualifications of the author of this blog yet you still desperately continue to link to it like it has some credibility. You really are pathetic.
Click to expand...


Actually, what you have repeatedly sidestepped is the issue of Christian creationists frequently having no formal training (such as Meyer), in the area of science they hope to denigrate. 

Isn't it pathetic that you refuse to address facts that contradict your preconceptions?


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two schools of thought exist: one right; the other merely a convenience, on all questions about the origins of the Universe:
> 
> 1. We know some stuff, and other stuff we do not know. (right)
> 
> 2. We know some stuff, and other stuff God does (convenience)
> 
> Problem with item 2: God is a diminishing entity with every new scientific discovery, when He is the answer for all shit we do not know.  Ergo, *He'll diminish to the zero point*, eventually, when all or most is known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, kind of like the universe that He caused. Your ignorance is astounding and devoid of actual scientific and theological implications. With each new scientific discovery we find MORE evidence for God. The big bang really rocked the science community, because at the time, even Einstein believed the universe was eternal. All the while Theists had been saying it had a beginning even though this was opposed to the current scientific thought at the time. Turns out the Bible was right all along and science was wrong. And this wasn't the only instance where the Atheist religion stifled science.
> 
> Atheism and the suppression of science - Conservapedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you're right.  Good thinking.
> 
> Meanwhile, and merely a suggestion: Creationism isn't for us, since it tends to not hold up well to actual science.  It's for ya'll, to help you resolve God in face of technology and scientific understanding that challenges many of the earlier myths, you now are moving away from.  So I'm cool with it.  Hell; it's an evolution in religious thinking, since I'm happy that ya'll are not ignoring entirely sicence and technology, as was hoped by Church leaders during the Age of Enlightenment. (Popes.)
> 
> So now, the folks who believe everything is destiny, and that all is God's will (don't go to docs when the kids are dying; fly planes into trade center towers, etc.) are comparitively rare, since once was a time that nearly all believed everything was His will: eclipses, earth quakes, floods, famines. etc.  And worse, things like epilepsy were devil-possession, and a fast track to being stoned or burned to death.
> 
> Ya'll are coming along nicely.  So I'm proud of you.
Click to expand...


You're not coming along at all. You have no knowledge of my religious beliefs and by your statements above you have exposed you lack understanding of even the most basic concepts of theism, i.e., dualism, free will, etc. If you believe your reference to God's will above is a dig at my religion, you need to educated yourself quite a bit further. You see, Christianity teaches that God does not want anyone to perish without knowing him. It is his desire that all come to him. But he wanted humans to have the choice, because what good would it be if we chose him, but this was programmed into us like a robot. It is our free will, not God's will, that causes school shootings and planes flying into buildings. At it was our original choice to choose sin, that has resulted in nature groaning. Nature is disturbed and outside of God's will for now according to the Bible. This results in earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. So if you are going to argue a man's religion to him, you might want to find out what the tenets of that religion are.


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, kind of like the universe that He caused. Your ignorance is astounding and devoid of actual scientific and theological implications. With each new scientific discovery we find MORE evidence for God. The big bang really rocked the science community, because at the time, even Einstein believed the universe was eternal. All the while Theists had been saying it had a beginning even though this was opposed to the current scientific thought at the time. Turns out the Bible was right all along and science was wrong. And this wasn't the only instance where the Atheist religion stifled science.
> 
> Atheism and the suppression of science - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you're right.  Good thinking.
> 
> Meanwhile, and merely a suggestion: Creationism isn't for us, since it tends to not hold up well to actual science.  It's for ya'll, to help you resolve God in face of technology and scientific understanding that challenges many of the earlier myths, you now are moving away from.  So I'm cool with it.  Hell; it's an evolution in religious thinking, since I'm happy that ya'll are not ignoring entirely sicence and technology, as was hoped by Church leaders during the Age of Enlightenment. (Popes.)
> 
> So now, the folks who believe everything is destiny, and that all is God's will (don't go to docs when the kids are dying; fly planes into trade center towers, etc.) are comparitively rare, since once was a time that nearly all believed everything was His will: eclipses, earth quakes, floods, famines. etc.  And worse, things like epilepsy were devil-possession, and a fast track to being stoned or burned to death.
> 
> Ya'll are coming along nicely.  So I'm proud of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not coming along at all. *You have no knowledge of my religious beliefs and by your statements above you have exposed you lack understanding of even the most basic concepts of theism, i.e., dualism, free will, etc. *If you believe your reference to God's will above is a dig at my religion, you need to educated yourself quite a bit further. You see, Christianity teaches that God does not want anyone to perish without knowing him. It is his desire that all come to him. But he wanted humans to have the choice, because what good would it be if we chose him, but this was programmed into us like a robot. It is our free will, not God's will, that causes school shootings and planes flying into buildings. At it was our original choice to choose sin, that has resulted in nature groaning. Nature is disturbed and outside of God's will for now according to the Bible. This results in earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. So if you are going to argue a man's religion to him, you might want to find out what the tenets of that religion are.
Click to expand...


Yes; very basic concepts, albeit today.  But that's a fairly recent evolution in religious thinking.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #276: Stephen Meyer
> 
> As we see so often with those shilling for Christian creationist ministries, they so frequently have no formal training in the area of science they presume to lecture others' about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've already discussed the qualifications of the author of this blog yet you still desperately continue to link to it like it has some credibility. You really are pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, what you have repeatedly sidestepped is the issue of Christian creationists frequently having no formal training (such as Meyer), in the area of science they hope to denigrate.
> 
> Isn't it pathetic that you refuse to address facts that contradict your preconceptions?
Click to expand...


You're stupid. Darwin had no formal education in the field he wrote the book that you base your whole religion on. Your canned responses are getting tired. 

Not to mention the fact that your statement above is a *complete lie. * Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge. His doctoral dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies." His book, "Signature In The Cell", is about the origin of life you nitwit. 

Are you happy now? There is your does of negative attention for the day you petulant child.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you're right.  Good thinking.
> 
> Meanwhile, and merely a suggestion: Creationism isn't for us, since it tends to not hold up well to actual science.  It's for ya'll, to help you resolve God in face of technology and scientific understanding that challenges many of the earlier myths, you now are moving away from.  So I'm cool with it.  Hell; it's an evolution in religious thinking, since I'm happy that ya'll are not ignoring entirely sicence and technology, as was hoped by Church leaders during the Age of Enlightenment. (Popes.)
> 
> So now, the folks who believe everything is destiny, and that all is God's will (don't go to docs when the kids are dying; fly planes into trade center towers, etc.) are comparitively rare, since once was a time that nearly all believed everything was His will: eclipses, earth quakes, floods, famines. etc.  And worse, things like epilepsy were devil-possession, and a fast track to being stoned or burned to death.
> 
> Ya'll are coming along nicely.  So I'm proud of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not coming along at all. *You have no knowledge of my religious beliefs and by your statements above you have exposed you lack understanding of even the most basic concepts of theism, i.e., dualism, free will, etc. *If you believe your reference to God's will above is a dig at my religion, you need to educated yourself quite a bit further. You see, Christianity teaches that God does not want anyone to perish without knowing him. It is his desire that all come to him. But he wanted humans to have the choice, because what good would it be if we chose him, but this was programmed into us like a robot. It is our free will, not God's will, that causes school shootings and planes flying into buildings. At it was our original choice to choose sin, that has resulted in nature groaning. Nature is disturbed and outside of God's will for now according to the Bible. This results in earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. So if you are going to argue a man's religion to him, you might want to find out what the tenets of that religion are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes; very basic concepts, albeit today.  But that's a fairly *recent evolution* in religious thinking.
Click to expand...


Really? (I'm not Jewish by the way, just using as a reference)

*Dualism in Jewish History*

Whether or not Isaiah 45:7 is a polemical reference to Persian dualism (see above), it is evident that dualistic tendencies asserted themselves in the Second Temple period and in the first centuries of the common era. These were of a neo-platonic, later also of a gnostic, character. In a general way it can be said that apart from the "heretical" dualistic doctrines of some gnostic sectarians (see *Minim), Judaism could accommodate a "mitigated dualism," i.e., doctrines and attitudes which express metaphysical or moral contrasts in a dualistic manner, but without attributing to them an ultimate character or calling in question the sovereignty of the one omnipotent and good Creator God. This mitigated dualism can be found in some of the biblical *Apocrypha (e.g., *Jubilees or the Testaments of the *Patriarchs) and especially in the writings of the Dead Sea sect, whose doctrines of the spirit and the flesh, of the spirits (or angels), of purity and impurity, i.e., of light and darkness, come as near to a dualistic system as Judaism could tolerate. Yet even these beliefs can be characterized as a "dualism under God," since the spirits of light and darkness were held to exist through God's inscrutable will and to be subject to him. The Platonic dualistic spirit-matter (i.e., the realm of ideas as against the material world) penetrated rabbinic Judaism in the form of the soul-body dualism (cf. Plato's Phaedo, 67), and the belief in the preexistence of the soul. The doctrine of the immortality of the (spiritual) soul reflects, in this respect, a more dualistic anthropology than the doctrine of the resurrection of the body (see *Eschatology, Immortality of *Soul, *Resurrection). Rabbinic theology in general tended to reject or at least to mitigate dualistic tendencies. Thus the doctrine of the good and evil ye&#7827;er (see Good and Evil *Inclination) is a transposition onto a more psychological (and hence theologically more harmless) level of what, for the Qumran covenanters and others, were metaphysical opposites. Talmudic literature has many polemical references to those who believe in shetei reshuyyot ("two powers"). Other polemical references are directed at the gnostic distinction between the supreme God on the one hand, and the Creator-Lawgiver on the other. Thus the kofer ba-ikkar (one who denies the essence of the faith) is said to be one who denies his creator and the giver of the Law (cf. Tosef. Shav. 3:7).

Dualism


----------



## UltimateReality

NP, I noticed you have no comment on the Pray the Gay Away video by Lisa Ling? No abuse huh?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've already discussed the qualifications of the author of this blog yet you still desperately continue to link to it like it has some credibility. You really are pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what you have repeatedly sidestepped is the issue of Christian creationists frequently having no formal training (such as Meyer), in the area of science they hope to denigrate.
> 
> Isn't it pathetic that you refuse to address facts that contradict your preconceptions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're stupid. Darwin had no formal education in the field he wrote the book that you base your whole religion on. Your canned responses are getting tired.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that your statement above is a *complete lie. * Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge. His doctoral dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies." His book, "Signature In The Cell", is about the origin of life you nitwit.
> 
> Are you happy now? There is your does of negative attention for the day you petulant child.
Click to expand...

The angry fundie thing is so cute. 

As usual, you're unable to reconcile the Christian creationist shills are so often ill prepared to address the academic fields of study they profess to understand. That is demonstrated by Meyer who seeks to address technical issues of cell development with a degree in history and philosophy. Thats why we also have Casey Luskin, a lawyer, co-authoring books on biology. It's just so silly. 

Suspicious Creationist Credentials

 Some Questionable Creationist Credentials




Texas Judge Rips Creationism Group in Science Degree Suit

 Texas Judge Rips Creationism Group in Science Degree Suit Wall Street Journal ^ | June 23, 2010 | Clifford M. Marks

Posted on Thu Jun 24 2010 12:15:19 GMT-0400 (EDT) by tlb

Austin federal judge Sam Sparks dismissed a suit by the Dallas-based Institute of Creation Research, which seeks the right to grant a masters degree in science from a biblical perspective. And by dismissed, we mean the judge tore it apart.

But first, a summary of the suit, as reported today by the San Antonio Express-News. The Institute seeks to offer a masters degree that critiques evolution and champions a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation. Texass higher education board nixed the groups application, because of the proposed programs creationist slant. This, the Institute contended, was a violation of its First Amendment Rights.

That claim was dismissed by Sparks in an opinion that criticized the Institutes arguments as incoherent. At one point he writes that he will address the groups concerns to the extent [he] is able to understand them. At another, he describes the groups filings as overly verbose,disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information. Click here for the judges opinion.

Religious belief is not science, Texas Commissioner of Higher Education Raymund Paredes said. Science and religious belief are surely reconcilable, but they are not the same thing.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, kind of like the universe that He caused. Your ignorance is astounding and devoid of actual scientific and theological implications. With each new scientific discovery we find MORE evidence for God. The big bang really rocked the science community, because at the time, even Einstein believed the universe was eternal. All the while Theists had been saying it had a beginning even though this was opposed to the current scientific thought at the time. Turns out the Bible was right all along and science was wrong. And this wasn't the only instance where the Atheist religion stifled science.
> 
> Atheism and the suppression of science - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you're right.  Good thinking.
> 
> Meanwhile, and merely a suggestion: Creationism isn't for us, since it tends to not hold up well to actual science.  It's for ya'll, to help you resolve God in face of technology and scientific understanding that challenges many of the earlier myths, you now are moving away from.  So I'm cool with it.  Hell; it's an evolution in religious thinking, since I'm happy that ya'll are not ignoring entirely sicence and technology, as was hoped by Church leaders during the Age of Enlightenment. (Popes.)
> 
> So now, the folks who believe everything is destiny, and that all is God's will (don't go to docs when the kids are dying; fly planes into trade center towers, etc.) are comparitively rare, since once was a time that nearly all believed everything was His will: eclipses, earth quakes, floods, famines. etc.  And worse, things like epilepsy were devil-possession, and a fast track to being stoned or burned to death.
> 
> Ya'll are coming along nicely.  So I'm proud of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not coming along at all. You have no knowledge of my religious beliefs and by your statements above you have exposed you lack understanding of even the most basic concepts of theism, i.e., dualism, free will, etc. If you believe your reference to God's will above is a dig at my religion, you need to educated yourself quite a bit further. You see, Christianity teaches that God does not want anyone to perish without knowing him. It is his desire that all come to him. But he wanted humans to have the choice, because what good would it be if we chose him, but this was programmed into us like a robot. It is our free will, not God's will, that causes school shootings and planes flying into buildings. At it was our original choice to choose sin, that has resulted in nature groaning. Nature is disturbed and outside of God's will for now according to the Bible. This results in earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. So if you are going to argue a man's religion to him, you might want to find out what the tenets of that religion are.
Click to expand...

Gee whiz. I hadn't realized it was sin that caused earthquakes and tornadoes. Could someone email the USGS and National Weather Service? 

In the meantime, Marshall Applewhite called last night. He's going to forward travel plans for anyone who is interested in a "cruise to nowhere". Jim Jones will be serving refreshments.


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not coming along at all. *You have no knowledge of my religious beliefs and by your statements above you have exposed you lack understanding of even the most basic concepts of theism, i.e., dualism, free will, etc. *If you believe your reference to God's will above is a dig at my religion, you need to educated yourself quite a bit further. You see, Christianity teaches that God does not want anyone to perish without knowing him. It is his desire that all come to him. But he wanted humans to have the choice, because what good would it be if we chose him, but this was programmed into us like a robot. It is our free will, not God's will, that causes school shootings and planes flying into buildings. At it was our original choice to choose sin, that has resulted in nature groaning. Nature is disturbed and outside of God's will for now according to the Bible. This results in earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. So if you are going to argue a man's religion to him, you might want to find out what the tenets of that religion are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes; very basic concepts, albeit today.  But that's a fairly *recent evolution* in religious thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? (I'm not Jewish by the way, just using as a reference)
> 
> *Dualism in Jewish History*
> 
> Whether or not Isaiah 45:7 is a polemical reference to Persian dualism (see above), it is evident that dualistic tendencies asserted themselves in the Second Temple period and in the first centuries of the common era. These were of a neo-platonic, later also of a gnostic, character. In a general way it can be said that apart from the "heretical" dualistic doctrines of some gnostic sectarians (see *Minim), Judaism could accommodate a "mitigated dualism," i.e., doctrines and attitudes which express metaphysical or moral contrasts in a dualistic manner, but without attributing to them an ultimate character or calling in question the sovereignty of the one omnipotent and good Creator God. This mitigated dualism can be found in some of the biblical *Apocrypha (e.g., *Jubilees or the Testaments of the *Patriarchs) and especially in the writings of the Dead Sea sect, whose doctrines of the spirit and the flesh, of the spirits (or angels), of purity and impurity, i.e., of light and darkness, come as near to a dualistic system as Judaism could tolerate. Yet even these beliefs can be characterized as a "dualism under God," since the spirits of light and darkness were held to exist through God's inscrutable will and to be subject to him. The Platonic dualistic spirit-matter (i.e., the realm of ideas as against the material world) penetrated rabbinic Judaism in the form of the soul-body dualism (cf. Plato's Phaedo, 67), and the belief in the preexistence of the soul. The doctrine of the immortality of the (spiritual) soul reflects, in this respect, a more dualistic anthropology than the doctrine of the resurrection of the body (see *Eschatology, Immortality of *Soul, *Resurrection). Rabbinic theology in general tended to reject or at least to mitigate dualistic tendencies. Thus the doctrine of the good and evil ye&#7827;er (see Good and Evil *Inclination) is a transposition onto a more psychological (and hence theologically more harmless) level of what, for the Qumran covenanters and others, were metaphysical opposites. Talmudic literature has many polemical references to those who believe in shetei reshuyyot ("two powers"). Other polemical references are directed at the gnostic distinction between the supreme God on the one hand, and the Creator-Lawgiver on the other. Thus the kofer ba-ikkar (one who denies the essence of the faith) is said to be one who denies his creator and the giver of the Law (cf. Tosef. Shav. 3:7).
> 
> Dualism
Click to expand...


Jewish religion is a relative new-comer, and highly evolved religious thinking. (monotheism) Religion goes back much further.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok you now want to discuss precision in nature and the intelligence which is the mechanism for design ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature is the opposite of precise.  In fact, only about 1% of species still exist today.  The other 99% were failures.
Click to expand...


We don't know how many species are extinct. They said organisms went extinct hundreds of millions of years ago and they have been discovered.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok you now want to discuss precision in nature and the intelligence which is the mechanism for design ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature is the opposite of precise.  In fact, only about 1% of species still exist today.  The other 99% were failures.
Click to expand...


One more thing you don't believe there is precision in biological organisms ? How bout the cell ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok you now want to discuss precision in nature and the intelligence which is the mechanism for design ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nature is the opposite of precise.  In fact, only about 1% of species still exist today.  The other 99% were failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In fact, consider the inpresicion in modern humans: we're very delicate creatures who live only within a very unique set of environmental circumstances.  Even slight changes due to sever volcanic activity or a larger impact could wipe us out.  And our offsping, while pretty reliable, are far from precise.  Many are miscarried or still-born.  Others have defects.  Many have gender ambiguity, or even both sex organs.  Others die young of childhood diseases.  It's entirely random, and all over the map.
Click to expand...


I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature. The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature is the opposite of precise.  In fact, only about 1% of species still exist today.  The other 99% were failures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, consider the inpresicion in modern humans: we're very delicate creatures who live only within a very unique set of environmental circumstances.  Even slight changes due to sever volcanic activity or a larger impact could wipe us out.  And our offsping, while pretty reliable, are far from precise.  Many are miscarried or still-born.  Others have defects.  Many have gender ambiguity, or even both sex organs.  Others die young of childhood diseases.  It's entirely random, and all over the map.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature.* The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?
Click to expand...


Can you find evidence of children being born blonde and female?  They have that, too.

But what you willingly ignore is that nature is rife with, nay nearly always is, wrong.  Most of the random shit in nature, fails.  No kidding.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, consider the inpresicion in modern humans: we're very delicate creatures who live only within a very unique set of environmental circumstances.  Even slight changes due to sever volcanic activity or a larger impact could wipe us out.  And our offsping, while pretty reliable, are far from precise.  Many are miscarried or still-born.  Others have defects.  Many have gender ambiguity, or even both sex organs.  Others die young of childhood diseases.  It's entirely random, and all over the map.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature.* The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you find evidence of children being born blonde and female?  They have that, too.
> 
> But what you willingly ignore is that nature is rife with, nay nearly always is, wrong.  Most of the random shit in nature, fails.  No kidding.
Click to expand...


Creationist also have an explanation for the imperfection that we see it is punishment for the origional sin. We are not living in a perfect world any longer but we can still see work of the creator.


----------



## Koios

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, consider the inpresicion in modern humans: we're very delicate creatures who live only within a very unique set of environmental circumstances.  Even slight changes due to sever volcanic activity or a larger impact could wipe us out.  And our offsping, while pretty reliable, are far from precise.  Many are miscarried or still-born.  Others have defects.  Many have gender ambiguity, or even both sex organs.  Others die young of childhood diseases.  It's entirely random, and all over the map.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature.* The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you find evidence of children being born blonde and female?  They have that, too.
> 
> But what you willingly ignore is that nature is rife with, nay nearly always is, wrong.  Most of the random shit in nature, fails.  No kidding.
Click to expand...


Case in point: 2 planets fit what we think ideal for supporting life, in terms of size, distance from the star and large outter planets protecting them from most impacts.  The're venus and mars.  Venus is about as close to hell as it gets.  Caustic atmosphere, and burning hot.  Meanwhile, Mars is an arid wasteland, with cooler temps, circa -200 F.  Colder than any place on earth.

Where's the precision in that?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature.* The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find evidence of children being born blonde and female?  They have that, too.
> 
> But what you willingly ignore is that nature is rife with, nay nearly always is, wrong.  Most of the random shit in nature, fails.  No kidding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Case in point: 2 planets fit what we think ideal for supporting life, in terms of size, distance from the star and large outter planets protecting them from most impacts.  The're venus and mars.  Venus is about as close to hell as it gets.  Caustic atmosphere, and burning hot.  Meanwhile, Mars is an arid wasteland, with cooler temps, circa -200 F.  Colder than any place on earth.
> 
> Where's the precision in that?
Click to expand...


Maybe because the creator only intended for life to be on this planet ? You're making a very poor argument to move away from the precision in nature that is observed.

I think by now you would have asked yourself why only this planet is set up for life to exist and to sustain life.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature.* The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find evidence of children being born blonde and female?  They have that, too.
> 
> But what you willingly ignore is that nature is rife with, nay nearly always is, wrong.  Most of the random shit in nature, fails.  No kidding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationist also have an explanation for the imperfection that we see it is punishment for the origional sin. We are not living in a perfect world any longer but we can still see work of the creator.
Click to expand...


They used to be able to easily explain shit away.  Poor crop? Must be god's not happy.  Sacrifice a virgin, or 12, and it'll be okie doke.

Today they have a harder time, since new knowledge comes along and then proves obvious to all ... i.e that foolish Chuck Darwin fella.  From apes??? How stupid is that???

Oops.  Seems there are similarities, not to mention that Lucy bitch they dug up in East Africa.  Mutherfucker.

But don't tell me the creepy crawly things became us!!!  That's just fucking lunacy!!!  Oops.  Septapods do have a common ancestor, and DNA shows when we branched off.  So yeah; that tree thing might be right.

But no big bang!!!  That's just made up shit by retards who don't know God did it by power of just wanting it, and us!!!  Oops. Background radiation?  Fuck.  Okay; big bang happened.

But no way we could have anything as perfect as the human eye without some really, really smart god making us!!!  And those retards drinking the science koolaid cannot show where eyes, PROOF OF GOD'S PERFECTION!!!, evolved.  Well goddamnit!  Fuck me with a King James Version, they have that too.

Well, and this is final, and so fucking obvious even kids in Sunday School can tell ya: Nature is perfect.  Never makes a mistake, and follows a divine order that only a REALLY, REALLY,REALLY,REALLY,REALLY, smart God could do.  Get a clue you suckers of Satan's cock science assholes!!!

WHAT????  Quantum Mechanics??????  Now the "order" is maybe just one tiny part of it all??????

Well YES!!!  Of course.  We've been telling you it all along.  This shit is fucking complicated.  So only God knows, and by the way, he loves us, unless we're black, a child and in Darfur; and then some horseback-riding asshold lops off the kid's arms.  Pray until the yacks come home, but God will not grow that arm back!!!  For one thing, it's black, which has to be some kind of evil.

But bygod, Uncle Bob, being a good Methodist, survived cancer because we prayed, praise babyjesus!!!


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find evidence of children being born blonde and female?  They have that, too.
> 
> But what you willingly ignore is that nature is rife with, nay nearly always is, wrong.  Most of the random shit in nature, fails.  No kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Case in point: 2 planets fit what we think ideal for supporting life, in terms of size, distance from the star and large outter planets protecting them from most impacts.  The're venus and mars.  Venus is about as close to hell as it gets.  Caustic atmosphere, and burning hot.  Meanwhile, Mars is an arid wasteland, with cooler temps, circa -200 F.  Colder than any place on earth.
> 
> Where's the precision in that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Maybe because the creator only intended for life to be on this planet ?* You're making a very poor argument to move away from the precision in nature that is observed.
> 
> I think by now you would have asked yourself why only this planet is set up for life to exist and to sustain life.
Click to expand...


Okay.  Stick around around to find out if you're right ... since we're real close in finding the life that once lived on Mars.  I'd say we're at most 2 to 5 years away.  But it was a failure, obviously, as was about 99% of the species on this planet.  Whoops.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature is the opposite of precise.  In fact, only about 1% of species still exist today.  The other 99% were failures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, consider the inpresicion in modern humans: we're very delicate creatures who live only within a very unique set of environmental circumstances.  Even slight changes due to sever volcanic activity or a larger impact could wipe us out.  And our offsping, while pretty reliable, are far from precise.  Many are miscarried or still-born.  Others have defects.  Many have gender ambiguity, or even both sex organs.  Others die young of childhood diseases.  It's entirely random, and all over the map.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature. The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?
Click to expand...

Did you ever hear of Shoemaker-Levy? I didn't see that in any of your videos falsely claiming this 'precision" that emanates from the fundie cabal.

What about that little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago? Was that the gawds just keeping in practice? A practice run at planet-wiping to punish sinners, no doubt.

Cultists live in a dark and dangerous place I'm happy not to be in.


----------



## LittleNipper

jack113 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like. They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To bad you don't have something more constructive to do with your life than waste it like this.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the club!


----------



## Koios

LittleNipper said:


> *What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like.* They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...



Google "prokaryotes."  That's where it started, which by the way, required billions of years to come about.  No quick deal, to get to anything quite as highly-evolved as a single-cell living organism.  Quite a big deal, long in the making.  Then the easy part: Cambrian period, where shit gets more complex (more cells) then so on and so on for some billions more years, until REALLY highly-evolved forragers or maybe hunter-gathers looked up, saw shiny stuff in the sky, and thought: Gods?  Why hell yes.  It's shiny, and in the sky.  PROOF!!!  Gods a plenty exist.  What's that?  Only one god?  Okay; if you say so.


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> no not at all, just speaking from the facts if you can't handle the truth that is your problem. From now on the discussion has moved on if you wish to continue this give and take stay on topic.
> 
> 
> 
> hey slapdick since when do you give orders?
> I'll answer how when and where i please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i have owned you since the beginning of this thread,you who is infatuated with the penis.
Click to expand...

in your wet dreams maybe, in reality your just a slap dick with a god complex...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it's your mental lock-down on the evolution myth, which itself was derived from dogmatic and ignorant thinking along with a very vivid imagination  from primitive humans.
> 
> Possible ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Charles Darwin was by no means a primitive human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.
Click to expand...

AS always wrong, Darwin was as modern and tech savvy for his time as any scientist is today.
it's another one of your ignorant false comparisons.
by your lack of reasoning Einstein is primitive  when compared to  Stephan hawking!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are designed to work together you foolish, blind man. That is the indication it is not part of God's plan. Also, answer me this, why do gay men go for men that act like women? Why do lesbians choose women that look like dudes? Again, more libtard logic. If you are biologically gay, then shouldn't you be attracted to members of the same sex that embody the behavioral characteristics of that sex? Also, the over the top flamboyant behavior isn't genetic. It is purposefully put on. The emphasis on their esses is purposeful as well. Their speech isn't genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> If gays aren't part of god's plan, why do animals throughout the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual tendencies? Out of choice? Everyone? D*o you personally know a gay person who's being gay by choice?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.
Click to expand...

and how many gay people would that be one ..two ..five..
the admission of child sexual abuse is no indicator of sexual preference.
you interpreted it that way to fit you agenda.

The American Psychiatric Association stated in its May 2000 website fact sheet "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues":


"[N]o specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.

Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual."

 May 2000 - American Psychiatric Association 



Kali Munro, M.Ed., an online psychotherapist, wrote the following statements in her 2002 article titled "Am I Gay Because of the Abuse?," and posted on her website KaliMunro.com (accessed Mar. 5, 2009):


"Sexual abuse can interfere with sexual enjoyment; contribute to a survivor engaging in sexual behaviours that arise from the abuse; and interfere with survivors' ability to know what they want. But, sexual abuse can't create a survivor's deepest passion and desires... 

We are all socially conditioned through culture, education, family, media, etc. Sexual abuse is another form of conditioning. As a result, sexual abuse survivors can be drawn to or be repulsed by things that have nothing to do with their authentic selves, and have more to do with their abuse... Homophobia plays a big role in creating the link between gay sexuality and sexual abuse. The myth that lesbians and gay men are sexual predators is still very much alive. In a society that links lesbian and gay sexuality with sexual predators, and where there is little or no information for youth about lesbian and gay sexuality, many lesbian and gay survivors assume that sexual abuse by someone of the same sex is what being gay is... 

The truth is that sexual abuse and sexuality are a million miles apart; they truly have nothing in common. Something as wonderful and beautiful as our sexuality could never have arisen out of something as ugly and painful as sexual abuse."

http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000029


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, consider the inpresicion in modern humans: we're very delicate creatures who live only within a very unique set of environmental circumstances.  Even slight changes due to sever volcanic activity or a larger impact could wipe us out.  And our offsping, while pretty reliable, are far from precise.  Many are miscarried or still-born.  Others have defects.  Many have gender ambiguity, or even both sex organs.  Others die young of childhood diseases.  It's entirely random, and all over the map.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature. The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you ever hear of Shoemaker-Levy? I didn't see that in any of your videos falsely claiming this 'precision" that emanates from the fundie cabal.
> 
> What about that little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago? Was that the gawds just keeping in practice? A practice run at planet-wiping to punish sinners, no doubt.
> 
> Cultists live in a dark and dangerous place I'm happy not to be in.
Click to expand...


You nor anyone alive knows what happened 65 million years ago.

Some may think they know, but they don't.


----------



## Koios

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature. The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever hear of Shoemaker-Levy? I didn't see that in any of your videos falsely claiming this 'precision" that emanates from the fundie cabal.
> 
> What about that little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago? Was that the gawds just keeping in practice? A practice run at planet-wiping to punish sinners, no doubt.
> 
> Cultists live in a dark and dangerous place I'm happy not to be in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You nor anyone alive knows what happened 65 million years ago.
> 
> Some may think they know, but they don't.
Click to expand...


Precisely!!!  And when we do not know exactly what happened this day in history 65 million years ago, and can only know that things definitely happened within ranges of time we call "periods," the real answer is: GOD!!!!  That's the ticket!!!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 million plus christians do any promote common sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are far more than 2 million Christians and of course they do, you're talking to one. I just asked you a common sense question and you failed miserably with your response.
> 
> Not trying to be rude,just being honest with you. I once was branwashed as many are today by the school system.
Click to expand...

 when you were "branwashed" did your mental constipation heal?


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature. The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever hear of Shoemaker-Levy? I didn't see that in any of your videos falsely claiming this 'precision" that emanates from the fundie cabal.
> 
> What about that little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago? Was that the gawds just keeping in practice? A practice run at planet-wiping to punish sinners, no doubt.
> 
> Cultists live in a dark and dangerous place I'm happy not to be in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You nor anyone alive knows what happened 65 million years ago.
> 
> Some may think they know, but they don't.
Click to expand...

yes they do....in fact they know more about that time than so called biblical scholars  claim to know about the events of the bible due to a little thing called evidence...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?


so what! there are several billion humans ..statistically those 6000 disorders are many zeros to the right of the decimal point. meaning that they have an almost negligible effect on population growth..
also those disorders are a far better argument for evolution then an imagined  punishment from god...and no proof of god either.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know they do.
> 
> How sad for the fundies that there is no affirmative evidence available to support belief in gawds. The fundies are left to hopeless and failed attacks on science in vain hopes of placating their amazing, shrinking gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that is why there are more Christian scientists today than there were?
Click to expand...

so what.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find evidence of children being born blonde and female?  They have that, too.
> 
> But what you willingly ignore is that nature is rife with, nay nearly always is, wrong.  Most of the random shit in nature, fails.  No kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist also have an explanation for the imperfection that we see it is punishment for the origional sin. We are not living in a perfect world any longer but we can still see work of the creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They used to be able to easily explain shit away.  Poor crop? Must be god's not happy.  Sacrifice a virgin, or 12, and it'll be okie doke.
> 
> Today they have a harder time, since new knowledge comes along and then proves obvious to all ... i.e that foolish Chuck Darwin fella.  From apes??? How stupid is that???
> 
> Oops.  Seems there are similarities, not to mention that Lucy bitch they dug up in East Africa.  Mutherfucker.
> 
> But don't tell me the creepy crawly things became us!!!  That's just fucking lunacy!!!  Oops.  Septapods do have a common ancestor, and DNA shows when we branched off.  So yeah; that tree thing might be right.
> 
> But no big bang!!!  That's just made up shit by retards who don't know God did it by power of just wanting it, and us!!!  Oops. Background radiation?  Fuck.  Okay; big bang happened.
> 
> But no way we could have anything as perfect as the human eye without some really, really smart god making us!!!  And those retards drinking the science koolaid cannot show where eyes, PROOF OF GOD'S PERFECTION!!!, evolved.  Well goddamnit!  Fuck me with a King James Version, they have that too.
> 
> Well, and this is final, and so fucking obvious even kids in Sunday School can tell ya: Nature is perfect.  Never makes a mistake, and follows a divine order that only a REALLY, REALLY,REALLY,REALLY,REALLY, smart God could do.  Get a clue you suckers of Satan's cock science assholes!!!
> 
> WHAT????  Quantum Mechanics??????  Now the "order" is maybe just one tiny part of it all??????
> 
> Well YES!!!  Of course.  We've been telling you it all along.  This shit is fucking complicated.  So only God knows, and by the way, he loves us, unless we're black, a child and in Darfur; and then some horseback-riding asshold lops off the kid's arms.  Pray until the yacks come home, but God will not grow that arm back!!!  For one thing, it's black, which has to be some kind of evil.
> 
> But bygod, Uncle Bob, being a good Methodist, survived cancer because we prayed, praise babyjesus!!!
Click to expand...

 Funny,you are now doing what is a normal response when you start to lose a debate. My you are now sounding like hollow and daws,for gods sake get a grip.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really??? Darwin had no clue about the information contained in DNA or the magnificent molecular machines that populate the inner workings of the cell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes; Really.
> 
> While the science had yet to advance to what it is today, Darwin was as advanced as any researcher working today.
> 
> To suggest him a primitive human as QW did is beyond absurd. It's idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would like your view on Isaac Newton since he was a creationist ?
Click to expand...

he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.
here's a  better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists.  was he still a real creationist?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?
Click to expand...


Beat a dead horse,now that is funny we only scratched the surface on mutations. I was still waiting for your explanation as to where this new genetic data comes from that benefits the organism for fitness.

I would like you to list every known beneficial mutation that has been observed you can come up with absent of a conjecture filled explanation.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist also have an explanation for the imperfection that we see it is punishment for the origional sin. We are not living in a perfect world any longer but we can still see work of the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They used to be able to easily explain shit away.  Poor crop? Must be god's not happy.  Sacrifice a virgin, or 12, and it'll be okie doke.
> 
> Today they have a harder time, since new knowledge comes along and then proves obvious to all ... i.e that foolish Chuck Darwin fella.  From apes??? How stupid is that???
> 
> Oops.  Seems there are similarities, not to mention that Lucy bitch they dug up in East Africa.  Mutherfucker.
> 
> But don't tell me the creepy crawly things became us!!!  That's just fucking lunacy!!!  Oops.  Septapods do have a common ancestor, and DNA shows when we branched off.  So yeah; that tree thing might be right.
> 
> But no big bang!!!  That's just made up shit by retards who don't know God did it by power of just wanting it, and us!!!  Oops. Background radiation?  Fuck.  Okay; big bang happened.
> 
> But no way we could have anything as perfect as the human eye without some really, really smart god making us!!!  And those retards drinking the science koolaid cannot show where eyes, PROOF OF GOD'S PERFECTION!!!, evolved.  Well goddamnit!  Fuck me with a King James Version, they have that too.
> 
> Well, and this is final, and so fucking obvious even kids in Sunday School can tell ya: Nature is perfect.  Never makes a mistake, and follows a divine order that only a REALLY, REALLY,REALLY,REALLY,REALLY, smart God could do.  Get a clue you suckers of Satan's cock science assholes!!!
> 
> WHAT????  Quantum Mechanics??????  Now the "order" is maybe just one tiny part of it all??????
> 
> Well YES!!!  Of course.  We've been telling you it all along.  This shit is fucking complicated.  So only God knows, and by the way, he loves us, unless we're black, a child and in Darfur; and then some horseback-riding asshold lops off the kid's arms.  Pray until the yacks come home, but God will not grow that arm back!!!  For one thing, it's black, which has to be some kind of evil.
> 
> But bygod, Uncle Bob, being a good Methodist, survived cancer because we prayed, praise babyjesus!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny,you are now doing what is a normal response when you start to lose a debate. My you are now sounding like hollow and daws,for gods sake get a grip.
Click to expand...

actually he's doing a spot on impression of you losing a debate which as a matter of fact is all the time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Case in point: 2 planets fit what we think ideal for supporting life, in terms of size, distance from the star and large outter planets protecting them from most impacts.  The're venus and mars.  Venus is about as close to hell as it gets.  Caustic atmosphere, and burning hot.  Meanwhile, Mars is an arid wasteland, with cooler temps, circa -200 F.  Colder than any place on earth.
> 
> Where's the precision in that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Maybe because the creator only intended for life to be on this planet ?* You're making a very poor argument to move away from the precision in nature that is observed.
> 
> I think by now you would have asked yourself why only this planet is set up for life to exist and to sustain life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.  Stick around around to find out if you're right ... since we're real close in finding the life that once lived on Mars.  I'd say we're at most 2 to 5 years away.  But it was a failure, obviously, as was about 99% of the species on this planet.  Whoops.
Click to expand...


Grand standing without proof,I see.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beat a dead horse,now that is funny we only scratched the surface on mutations. I was still waiting for your explanation as to where this new genetic data comes from that benefits the organism for fitness.
> 
> I would like you to list every known beneficial mutation that has been observed you can come up with absent of a conjecture filled explanation.
Click to expand...

he will when you can prove without conjecture that the bible is not hearsay and contradictive.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Maybe because the creator only intended for life to be on this planet ?* You're making a very poor argument to move away from the precision in nature that is observed.
> 
> I think by now you would have asked yourself why only this planet is set up for life to exist and to sustain life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Stick around around to find out if you're right ... since we're real close in finding the life that once lived on Mars.  I'd say we're at most 2 to 5 years away.  But it was a failure, obviously, as was about 99% of the species on this planet.  Whoops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grand standing without proof,I see.
Click to expand...


Correct. Just possible evidence of it (life on Mars) in combination with a new lander of remarkable ability. 

We know frozen water is on Mars, and that at one time liquid water once flowed. So I think we're near to finding conclusive proof that life once existed there.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like.* They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google "prokaryotes."  That's where it started, which by the way, required billions of years to come about.  No quick deal, to get to anything quite as highly-evolved as a single-cell living organism.  Quite a big deal, long in the making.  Then the easy part: Cambrian period, where shit gets more complex (more cells) then so on and so on for some billions more years, until REALLY highly-evolved forragers or maybe hunter-gathers looked up, saw shiny stuff in the sky, and thought: Gods?  Why hell yes.  It's shiny, and in the sky.  PROOF!!!  Gods a plenty exist.  What's that?  Only one god?  Okay; if you say so.
Click to expand...


Explain to us how Prokaryotes evolved to Eukaryotes which are vastly more complex ?

It's a problem for evolutionist to explain this evolution so much that the supposed evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes has been extended into the past a further one billion years within the evolutionary uniformitarian timescale. Such a dramatic extension back in time for the eukaryotic cell raises even more questions for evolutionists regarding the evolution of life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever hear of Shoemaker-Levy? I didn't see that in any of your videos falsely claiming this 'precision" that emanates from the fundie cabal.
> 
> What about that little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago? Was that the gawds just keeping in practice? A practice run at planet-wiping to punish sinners, no doubt.
> 
> Cultists live in a dark and dangerous place I'm happy not to be in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You nor anyone alive knows what happened 65 million years ago.
> 
> Some may think they know, but they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Precisely!!!  And when we do not know exactly what happened this day in history 65 million years ago, and can only know that things definitely happened within ranges of time we call "periods," the real answer is: GOD!!!!  That's the ticket!!!
Click to expand...



That is what science is doing even einstein wanted to know how God did it.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beat a dead horse,now that is funny we only scratched the surface on mutations. I was still waiting for your explanation as to where this new genetic data comes from that benefits the organism for fitness.
> 
> I would like you to list every known beneficial mutation that has been observed you can come up with absent of a conjecture filled explanation.
Click to expand...


Plant world: flowering

Animal world: social insects


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist also have an explanation for the imperfection that we see it is punishment for the origional sin. We are not living in a perfect world any longer but we can still see work of the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They used to be able to easily explain shit away.  Poor crop? Must be god's not happy.  Sacrifice a virgin, or 12, and it'll be okie doke.
> 
> Today they have a harder time, since new knowledge comes along and then proves obvious to all ... i.e that foolish Chuck Darwin fella.  From apes??? How stupid is that???
> 
> Oops.  Seems there are similarities, not to mention that Lucy bitch they dug up in East Africa.  Mutherfucker.
> 
> But don't tell me the creepy crawly things became us!!!  That's just fucking lunacy!!!  Oops.  Septapods do have a common ancestor, and DNA shows when we branched off.  So yeah; that tree thing might be right.
> 
> But no big bang!!!  That's just made up shit by retards who don't know God did it by power of just wanting it, and us!!!  Oops. Background radiation?  Fuck.  Okay; big bang happened.
> 
> But no way we could have anything as perfect as the human eye without some really, really smart god making us!!!  And those retards drinking the science koolaid cannot show where eyes, PROOF OF GOD'S PERFECTION!!!, evolved.  Well goddamnit!  Fuck me with a King James Version, they have that too.
> 
> Well, and this is final, and so fucking obvious even kids in Sunday School can tell ya: Nature is perfect.  Never makes a mistake, and follows a divine order that only a REALLY, REALLY,REALLY,REALLY,REALLY, smart God could do.  Get a clue you suckers of Satan's cock science assholes!!!
> 
> WHAT????  Quantum Mechanics??????  Now the "order" is maybe just one tiny part of it all??????
> 
> Well YES!!!  Of course.  We've been telling you it all along.  This shit is fucking complicated.  So only God knows, and by the way, he loves us, unless we're black, a child and in Darfur; and then some horseback-riding asshold lops off the kid's arms.  Pray until the yacks come home, but God will not grow that arm back!!!  For one thing, it's black, which has to be some kind of evil.
> 
> But bygod, Uncle Bob, being a good Methodist, survived cancer because we prayed, praise babyjesus!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny,you are now doing what is a normal response when you start to lose a debate. My you are now sounding like hollow and daws,for gods sake get a grip.
Click to expand...


No.  Just ridiculing the many assertions by Creationists that were slapped down.  But certainly not all of them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes; Really.
> 
> While the science had yet to advance to what it is today, Darwin was as advanced as any researcher working today.
> 
> To suggest him a primitive human as QW did is beyond absurd. It's idiotic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like your view on Isaac Newton since he was a creationist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.
> here's a  better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists.  was he still a real creationist?
Click to expand...


Wrong again daws.


Isaac Newton


Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived

Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beat a dead horse,now that is funny we only scratched the surface on mutations. I was still waiting for your explanation as to where this new genetic data comes from that benefits the organism for fitness.
> 
> I would like you to list every known beneficial mutation that has been observed you can come up with absent of a conjecture filled explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plant world: flowering
> 
> Animal world: social insects
Click to expand...


Do you have any details that I can offer a rebuttal to ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> They used to be able to easily explain shit away.  Poor crop? Must be god's not happy.  Sacrifice a virgin, or 12, and it'll be okie doke.
> 
> Today they have a harder time, since new knowledge comes along and then proves obvious to all ... i.e that foolish Chuck Darwin fella.  From apes??? How stupid is that???
> 
> Oops.  Seems there are similarities, not to mention that Lucy bitch they dug up in East Africa.  Mutherfucker.
> 
> But don't tell me the creepy crawly things became us!!!  That's just fucking lunacy!!!  Oops.  Septapods do have a common ancestor, and DNA shows when we branched off.  So yeah; that tree thing might be right.
> 
> But no big bang!!!  That's just made up shit by retards who don't know God did it by power of just wanting it, and us!!!  Oops. Background radiation?  Fuck.  Okay; big bang happened.
> 
> But no way we could have anything as perfect as the human eye without some really, really smart god making us!!!  And those retards drinking the science koolaid cannot show where eyes, PROOF OF GOD'S PERFECTION!!!, evolved.  Well goddamnit!  Fuck me with a King James Version, they have that too.
> 
> Well, and this is final, and so fucking obvious even kids in Sunday School can tell ya: Nature is perfect.  Never makes a mistake, and follows a divine order that only a REALLY, REALLY,REALLY,REALLY,REALLY, smart God could do.  Get a clue you suckers of Satan's cock science assholes!!!
> 
> WHAT????  Quantum Mechanics??????  Now the "order" is maybe just one tiny part of it all??????
> 
> Well YES!!!  Of course.  We've been telling you it all along.  This shit is fucking complicated.  So only God knows, and by the way, he loves us, unless we're black, a child and in Darfur; and then some horseback-riding asshold lops off the kid's arms.  Pray until the yacks come home, but God will not grow that arm back!!!  For one thing, it's black, which has to be some kind of evil.
> 
> But bygod, Uncle Bob, being a good Methodist, survived cancer because we prayed, praise babyjesus!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Funny,you are now doing what is a normal response when you start to lose a debate. My you are now sounding like hollow and daws,for gods sake get a grip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Just ridiculing the many assertions by Creationists that were slapped down.  But certainly not all of them.
Click to expand...


Now that is funny, ridiculing something you have a problem grasping.


----------



## Koios

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes; Really.
> 
> While the science had yet to advance to what it is today, Darwin was as advanced as any researcher working today.
> 
> To suggest him a primitive human as QW did is beyond absurd. It's idiotic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like your view on Isaac Newton since he was a creationist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.
> here's a  better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists.  was he still a real creationist?
Click to expand...


Sir Issac?  No.  Not a Creationist, but a true scientist, in addition to being clergy at Cambridge, and a devout believer ... as was common in his day.

Easily, in my opinion, the most intelligent human yet born.  And his motivation in greatly furthering science, math, and heck even getting some useful knowledge from his foolish foray into the cultish psuedoscience, Alchemy, was to understand God's order in making things.  But that intellectual lock-down on creation myths not withstanding, Newton contributed greatly to a better understanding of the natural forces in the universe which debunk the myriad creation myths.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny,you are now doing what is a normal response when you start to lose a debate. My you are now sounding like hollow and daws,for gods sake get a grip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Just ridiculing the many assertions by Creationists that were slapped down.  But certainly not all of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that is funny, ridiculing something you have a problem grasping.
Click to expand...


What's hard to grasp?  Saying that man from apes was ridiculous, only later to accept it and posit that maybe evolution was God's method?

Or that the human eye is so perfect (tip: not the most perfect in the animal world), that only a divine intellegence could have been its creation due to no evidence in the fossil record, when in fact, tons of it existed, so they moved on to other nonsense, etc?

Any child should be able to grasp its foolishing, I'd think.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beat a dead horse,now that is funny we only scratched the surface on mutations. I was still waiting for your explanation as to where this new genetic data comes from that benefits the organism for fitness.
> 
> I would like you to list every known beneficial mutation that has been observed you can come up with absent of a conjecture filled explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plant world: flowering
> 
> Animal world: social insects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any details that I can offer a rebuttal to ?
Click to expand...


No; I do not. (tip: you offered no details to rebut)

Meanwhile, if you're indeed curious, here's a starting point in getting a sense of evolution: Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Koios

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plant world: flowering
> 
> Animal world: social insects
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any details that I can offer a rebuttal to ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No; I do not. (tip: you offered no details to rebut)
> 
> Meanwhile, if you're indeed curious, here's a starting point in getting a sense of evolution: Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Sorry; misread.  Sure;

We have the gene for tails still within the human genome, albeit, nothing in our proteome triggers the gene to grow us a tail, except in rare cases.  Thus over the course of our evolution, and branching off from ancestors with tails, the gene became moot. 

So what we know is that we once had tails, prior to evolving into humans.  Fact.

Now rebut ...


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature. The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever hear of Shoemaker-Levy? I didn't see that in any of your videos falsely claiming this 'precision" that emanates from the fundie cabal.
> 
> What about that little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago? Was that the gawds just keeping in practice? A practice run at planet-wiping to punish sinners, no doubt.
> 
> Cultists live in a dark and dangerous place I'm happy not to be in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You nor anyone alive knows what happened 65 million years ago.
> 
> Some may think they know, but they don't.
Click to expand...


I can understand your discomfort with geologic timelines, archeology, earth sciences and the fossil record. All of it creates an irreconcilable contradiction to the fundie insistence of a 6,000 year old earth. Similarly, the evidence for a cataclysmic event such as a large meteor or asteroid impacting the planet has left evidences across the globe. The only real dispute to that is from fundamentalist Christians. An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and attack the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs. We see that distorted mindset with the fundies.

As put in such sharp focus by Henry Morris  this in connection with the tale of Noahs flood:
"But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture." 

_Dr. Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33_


As you see, creationism has a goal of stunting, of rejecting any facts, evidence or data that conflicts with biblical tales.

Science has the goal of seeking out the truth, regardless of where that truth may lead, even if the conclusion points away from their original theory. Science are open to the possibility that theories might be wrong. But in creationism, there is absolute opposition to the notion that biblical tales could be, even in the slightest degree, contradicted by available new data. Creationists even agree to sign a "Statement of Beliefs" (The Creation Research Society's Creed) when joining the Creation Research Society, wherein they declare their believe in the literal truth of the bible, and nothing, no data, no evidence, no matter how well supported, could ever make them doubt that their _pre- conceived_ conclusion is the correct one.

That really is as ignorant and as biased an approach as I can imagine.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist also have an explanation for the imperfection that we see it is punishment for the origional sin. We are not living in a perfect world any longer but we can still see work of the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They used to be able to easily explain shit away.  Poor crop? Must be god's not happy.  Sacrifice a virgin, or 12, and it'll be okie doke.
> 
> Today they have a harder time, since new knowledge comes along and then proves obvious to all ... i.e that foolish Chuck Darwin fella.  From apes??? How stupid is that???
> 
> Oops.  Seems there are similarities, not to mention that Lucy bitch they dug up in East Africa.  Mutherfucker.
> 
> But don't tell me the creepy crawly things became us!!!  That's just fucking lunacy!!!  Oops.  Septapods do have a common ancestor, and DNA shows when we branched off.  So yeah; that tree thing might be right.
> 
> But no big bang!!!  That's just made up shit by retards who don't know God did it by power of just wanting it, and us!!!  Oops. Background radiation?  Fuck.  Okay; big bang happened.
> 
> But no way we could have anything as perfect as the human eye without some really, really smart god making us!!!  And those retards drinking the science koolaid cannot show where eyes, PROOF OF GOD'S PERFECTION!!!, evolved.  Well goddamnit!  Fuck me with a King James Version, they have that too.
> 
> Well, and this is final, and so fucking obvious even kids in Sunday School can tell ya: Nature is perfect.  Never makes a mistake, and follows a divine order that only a REALLY, REALLY,REALLY,REALLY,REALLY, smart God could do.  Get a clue you suckers of Satan's cock science assholes!!!
> 
> WHAT????  Quantum Mechanics??????  Now the "order" is maybe just one tiny part of it all??????
> 
> Well YES!!!  Of course.  We've been telling you it all along.  This shit is fucking complicated.  So only God knows, and by the way, he loves us, unless we're black, a child and in Darfur; and then some horseback-riding asshold lops off the kid's arms.  Pray until the yacks come home, but God will not grow that arm back!!!  For one thing, it's black, which has to be some kind of evil.
> 
> But bygod, Uncle Bob, being a good Methodist, survived cancer because we prayed, praise babyjesus!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny,you are now doing what is a normal response when you start to lose a debate. My you are now sounding like hollow and daws,for gods sake get a grip.
Click to expand...


I&#8217;ve noticed a pattern of behavior with the fundies: when their arguments are refuted and their attempts at proselytizing have failed, their only option is juvenile name-calling.

The most glaring example of the failure and hopelessness of the fundie argument can be found on every single page of this thread. On not a single page will you find the fundies offering positive evidence for their partisan gawds. What you will find are frantic, sweaty, hysterical attempts to denigrate science and the most ludicrous conspiracy theories to explain-away the valid scientific explanations for existence.

To creationists, a model demonstrating biological origins and diversity of life cannot have areas that are incomplete or show uncertainty. An explanation for diversity of life that includes an incomplete model, for example, one that says "all the data does not yet lend weight to the theory becoming accepted science", is, in their opinion, all the &#8220;proof&#8221; needed to support biblical tales even after those tales have long ago been refuted and discredited. Creationism concerns itself exclusively with efforts to refute evolution.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like your view on Isaac Newton since he was a creationist ?
> 
> 
> 
> he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.
> here's a  better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists.  was he still a real creationist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again daws.
> 
> 
> Isaac Newton
> 
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived
> 
> Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

 REALLY ?FROM WHAT YOU JUST POSTED: Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP (25 December 1642  20 March 1726) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist"
and :Although an unorthodox Christian, Newton was deeply religious and his occult studies took up a substantial part of his life. He secretly rejected Trinitarianism and refused holy orders.Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

once again proving you're a slapdicky illiterate  braggart  who is baffled  by the mechanics of a child safety cap..


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You nor anyone alive knows what happened 65 million years ago.
> 
> Some may think they know, but they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely!!!  And when we do not know exactly what happened this day in history 65 million years ago, and can only know that things definitely happened within ranges of time we call "periods," the real answer is: GOD!!!!  That's the ticket!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is what science is doing even einstein wanted to know how God did it.
Click to expand...


Yet another fundie attempt to manufacture a lie.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature.* The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find evidence of children being born blonde and female?  They have that, too.
> 
> But what you willingly ignore is that nature is rife with, nay nearly always is, wrong.  Most of the random shit in nature, fails.  No kidding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationist also have an explanation for the imperfection that we see it is punishment for the origional sin. We are not living in a perfect world any longer but we can still see work of the creator.
Click to expand...

quite the vivid imagination there YWC....how do you test for that?
it reeks of specious conjecture!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any details that I can offer a rebuttal to ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No; I do not. (tip: you offered no details to rebut)
> 
> Meanwhile, if you're indeed curious, here's a starting point in getting a sense of evolution: Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry; misread.  Sure;
> 
> We have the gene for tails still within the human genome, albeit, nothing in our proteome triggers the gene to grow us a tail, except in rare cases.  Thus over the course of our evolution, and branching off from ancestors with tails, the gene became moot.
> 
> So what we know is that we once had tails, prior to evolving into humans.  Fact.
> 
> Now rebut ...
Click to expand...


What is the difference of profound morphological differences between man and the apes and all other creatures?  the differences do not reside in the genes that code for proteins, but must reside in other genetic characteristics. 

Some females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.
> here's a  better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists.  was he still a real creationist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again daws.
> 
> 
> Isaac Newton
> 
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived
> 
> Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> REALLY ?FROM WHAT YOU JUST POSTED: Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP (25 December 1642  20 March 1726) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist"
> and :Although an unorthodox Christian, Newton was deeply religious and his occult studies took up a substantial part of his life. He secretly rejected Trinitarianism and refused holy orders.Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> once again proving you're a slapdicky illiterate  braggart  who is baffled  by the mechanics of a child safety cap..
Click to expand...


Are you really this stupid ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like your view on Isaac Newton since he was a creationist ?
> 
> 
> 
> he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.
> here's a  better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists.  was he still a real creationist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again daws.
> 
> 
> Isaac Newton
> 
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived
> 
> Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...



It seems strange that a christian "creationist" would reject the trinity.

Isaac Newton

During his time away from the scientific community, Newton conducted never-published work on alchemy and studied the history of the Bible, *concluding that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a falsehood introduced some four centuries after the time of Christ.* In 1675 he published the paper Of Nature's Obvious Laws, which was also challenged by Hooke. By 1680, however, Hooke and Newton were corresponding cordially and at length over such concepts as inertia and centripetal attraction.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No; I do not. (tip: you offered no details to rebut)
> 
> Meanwhile, if you're indeed curious, here's a starting point in getting a sense of evolution: Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry; misread.  Sure;
> 
> We have the gene for tails still within the human genome, albeit, nothing in our proteome triggers the gene to grow us a tail, except in rare cases.  Thus over the course of our evolution, and branching off from ancestors with tails, the gene became moot.
> 
> So what we know is that we once had tails, prior to evolving into humans.  Fact.
> 
> Now rebut ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the difference of profound morphological differences between man and the apes and all other creatures?  the differences do not reside in the genes that code for proteins, but must reside in other genetic characteristics.
> 
> Some females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?
Click to expand...


Why would the gawds "design" with such incompetence?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered this question many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't answered it once. You just keep on assertion this to be the case, without evidence or demonstration. I have already pointed out that your attempt at concluding this includes a fallacy of hasty generalization. Without this fallacy, you can't reach your conclusion. Therefore, your conclusion is invalid and you should stop positing it as an assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have given you the overwhelming evidence that mutations harm fitness not promote fitness. The numbers do not lie. Unless you can show otherwise you're wasting my time and yours. I want examples of mutations promoting fitness as I have stated before there is overwhelming evidence of mutations causing genetic disorders that would be termed as harmful mutations.
Click to expand...


I don't disputed the fact that harmful mutations are plentiful. That doesn't mean that beneficial ones don't happen. This is the fallacy of hasty generalization, but you don't seem to want to address this at all. In fact, I previously provided evidence of a beneficial mutation with the example of the gene mutation about 5000 years ago which enables adult
Humans the ability to digest lactase. This could be seen as massively beneficial because it allows more nutrition over a lifetime, especially in the context of humans who had domesticated animals and settled down out of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. As a vegan, I hate to present this evidence, but historically, at least, it could be argued that this mutation was beneficial. Today, with factory farming and the sheer overconsumption of animal products, it can be shown scientifically that it is likely detrimental to human health when consumed as we do today, producing much of the heart disease, cancer and diabetes we see in America, especially with antibiotics and growth hormones pumped into these animals, which we then ingest. This is as an aside. The main point here is a mutation happened that at one point benefitted us.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No; I do not. (tip: you offered no details to rebut)
> 
> Meanwhile, if you're indeed curious, here's a starting point in getting a sense of evolution: Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry; misread.  Sure;
> 
> We have the gene for tails still within the human genome, albeit, nothing in our proteome triggers the gene to grow us a tail, except in rare cases.  Thus over the course of our evolution, and branching off from ancestors with tails, the gene became moot.
> 
> So what we know is that we once had tails, prior to evolving into humans.  Fact.
> 
> Now rebut ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the difference of profound morphological differences between man and the apes and all other creatures?  the differences do not reside in the genes that code for proteins, but must reside in other genetic characteristics.
> 
> Some females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?
Click to expand...


Explain the gene for tails, in the human genome, then we can move onto the next item. 

That's how it works in the refutation game.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.
> here's a  better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists.  was he still a real creationist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again daws.
> 
> 
> Isaac Newton
> 
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived
> 
> Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It seems strange that a christian "creationist" would reject the trinity.
> 
> Isaac Newton
> 
> During his time away from the scientific community, Newton conducted never-published work on alchemy and studied the history of the Bible, *concluding that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a falsehood introduced some four centuries after the time of Christ.* In 1675 he published the paper Of Nature's Obvious Laws, which was also challenged by Hooke. By 1680, however, Hooke and Newton were corresponding cordially and at length over such concepts as inertia and centripetal attraction.
Click to expand...


He just did not believe in the trinity but he was still a Christian. Anyone who believes in a God do they not believe in creation ?

Jehovah witnesses do not believe in the trinity nor do Jews but believe in YAHWEH. We all believe in the same creator.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry; misread.  Sure;
> 
> We have the gene for tails still within the human genome, albeit, nothing in our proteome triggers the gene to grow us a tail, except in rare cases.  Thus over the course of our evolution, and branching off from ancestors with tails, the gene became moot.
> 
> So what we know is that we once had tails, prior to evolving into humans.  Fact.
> 
> Now rebut ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference of profound morphological differences between man and the apes and all other creatures?  the differences do not reside in the genes that code for proteins, but must reside in other genetic characteristics.
> 
> Some females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain the gene for tails, in the human genome, then we can move onto the next item.
> 
> That's how it works in the refutation game.
Click to expand...


It is a gene that mutated and not all humans contain this mutated gene for Gods sake. 

My first response was a refutation.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again daws.
> 
> 
> Isaac Newton
> 
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived
> 
> Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems strange that a christian "creationist" would reject the trinity.
> 
> Isaac Newton
> 
> During his time away from the scientific community, Newton conducted never-published work on alchemy and studied the history of the Bible, *concluding that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a falsehood introduced some four centuries after the time of Christ.* In 1675 he published the paper Of Nature's Obvious Laws, which was also challenged by Hooke. By 1680, however, Hooke and Newton were corresponding cordially and at length over such concepts as inertia and centripetal attraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He just did not believe in the trinity but he was still a Christian. Anyone who believes in a God do they not believe in creation ?
> 
> Jehovah witnesses do not believe in the trinity nor do Jews but believe in YAHWEH. We all believe in the same creator.
Click to expand...


What nonsense! The trinity is a foundational element of Christianity. 

Although, I do find it a bit presumptuous that you have decided on Newton&#8217;s behalf what his personal religious beliefs were.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference of profound morphological differences between man and the apes and all other creatures?  the differences do not reside in the genes that code for proteins, but must reside in other genetic characteristics.
> 
> Some females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain the gene for tails, in the human genome, then we can move onto the next item.
> 
> That's how it works in the refutation game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a gene that mutated and not all humans contain this mutated gene for Gods sake.
> 
> My first response was a refutation.
Click to expand...


The thumper is stumped.


----------



## Bill Angel

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like your view on Isaac Newton since he was a creationist ?
> 
> 
> 
> he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.
> here's a  better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists.  was he still a real creationist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again daws.
> 
> 
> Isaac Newton
> 
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived
> 
> Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...




> A century later, the French astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace confronted Newton's dilemma of unstable orbits head-on. Rather than view the mysterious stability of the solar system as the unknowable work of God, Laplace declared it a scientific challenge. In his multipart masterpiece, Mécanique Céleste, the first volume of which appeared in 1798, Laplace demonstrates that the solar system is stable over periods of time longer than Newton could predict. To do so, Laplace pioneered a new kind of mathematics called perturbation theory, which enabled him to examine the cumulative effects of many small forces. According to an oft-repeated but probably embellished account, when Laplace gave a copy of Mécanique Céleste to his physics-literate friend Napoleon Bonaparte,*Napoleon asked him what role God played in the construction and regulation of the heavens. "Sire," Laplace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis."* Laplace notwithstanding, plenty of scientists besides Newton have called on God&#8212;or the gods&#8212;wherever their comprehension fades to ignorance
> The Perimeter of Ignorance | Natural History Magazine


xx


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference of profound morphological differences between man and the apes and all other creatures?  the differences do not reside in the genes that code for proteins, but must reside in other genetic characteristics.
> 
> Some females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain the gene for tails, in the human genome, then we can move onto the next item.
> 
> That's how it works in the refutation game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a gene that mutated and not all humans contain this mutated gene for Gods sake.
> 
> My first response was a refutation.
Click to expand...


Guessed wrong. Try again.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find evidence of children being born blonde and female?  They have that, too.
> 
> But what you willingly ignore is that nature is rife with, nay nearly always is, wrong.  Most of the random shit in nature, fails.  No kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist also have an explanation for the imperfection that we see it is punishment for the origional sin. We are not living in a perfect world any longer but we can still see work of the creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They used to be able to easily explain shit away.  Poor crop? Must be god's not happy.  Sacrifice a virgin, or 12, and it'll be okie doke.
> 
> Today they have a harder time, since new knowledge comes along and then proves obvious to all ... i.e that foolish Chuck Darwin fella.  From apes??? How stupid is that???
> 
> Oops.  Seems there are similarities, not to mention that Lucy bitch they dug up in East Africa.  Mutherfucker.
> 
> But don't tell me the creepy crawly things became us!!!  That's just fucking lunacy!!!  Oops.  Septapods do have a common ancestor, and DNA shows when we branched off.  So yeah; that tree thing might be right.
> 
> But no big bang!!!  That's just made up shit by retards who don't know God did it by power of just wanting it, and us!!!  Oops. Background radiation?  Fuck.  Okay; big bang happened.
> 
> But no way we could have anything as perfect as the human eye without some really, really smart god making us!!!  And those retards drinking the science koolaid cannot show where eyes, PROOF OF GOD'S PERFECTION!!!, evolved.  Well goddamnit!  Fuck me with a King James Version, they have that too.
> 
> Well, and this is final, and so fucking obvious even kids in Sunday School can tell ya: Nature is perfect.  Never makes a mistake, and follows a divine order that only a REALLY, REALLY,REALLY,REALLY,REALLY, smart God could do.  Get a clue you suckers of Satan's cock science assholes!!!
> 
> WHAT????  Quantum Mechanics??????  Now the "order" is maybe just one tiny part of it all??????
> 
> Well YES!!!  Of course.  We've been telling you it all along.  This shit is fucking complicated.  So only God knows, and by the way, he loves us, unless we're black, a child and in Darfur; and then some horseback-riding asshold lops off the kid's arms.  Pray until the yacks come home, but God will not grow that arm back!!!  For one thing, it's black, which has to be some kind of evil.
> 
> But bygod, Uncle Bob, being a good Methodist, survived cancer because we prayed, praise babyjesus!!!
Click to expand...


What you said ^

What we hear:

Hate, blah, blah, blah, bigotry, blah, blah, blah, false accusations, blah, blah, blah, fallacy, blah, blah, blah, more hate, blah, bigotry, blah, blah, blah, irony. 

You do know that religion is protected right there with race, right? You calling bigots bigots is bigotry! Ha!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, consider the inpresicion in modern humans: we're very delicate creatures who live only within a very unique set of environmental circumstances.  Even slight changes due to sever volcanic activity or a larger impact could wipe us out.  And our offsping, while pretty reliable, are far from precise.  Many are miscarried or still-born.  Others have defects.  Many have gender ambiguity, or even both sex organs.  Others die young of childhood diseases.  It's entirely random, and all over the map.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature. The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you ever hear of Shoemaker-Levy? I didn't see that in any of your videos falsely claiming this 'precision" that emanates from the fundie cabal.
> 
> What about that little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago? Was that the gawds just keeping in practice? A practice run at planet-wiping to punish sinners, no doubt.
> 
> *Cultists live in a dark and dangerous place I'm happy not to be in*.
Click to expand...


I think your actions say otherwise!


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like.* They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google "prokaryotes."  That's where it started, which by the way, required billions of years to come about.  No quick deal, to get to anything quite as highly-evolved as a single-cell living organism.  Quite a big deal, long in the making.  Then the easy part: Cambrian period, where shit gets more complex (more cells) then so on and so on for some billions more years, until REALLY highly-evolved forragers or maybe hunter-gathers looked up, saw shiny stuff in the sky, and thought: Gods?  Why hell yes.  It's shiny, and in the sky.  PROOF!!!  Gods a plenty exist.  What's that?  Only one god?  Okay; if you say so.
Click to expand...


I think your billions are a bit off. Don't forget starting over at the extinction event that killed the dinosaurs.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Charles Darwin was by no means a primitive human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AS always wrong, Darwin was as modern and tech savvy for his time as any scientist is today.
> it's another one of your ignorant false comparisons.
> by your lack of reasoning *Einstein is primitive  when compared to  Stephan hawking!*
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If gays aren't part of god's plan, why do animals throughout the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual tendencies? Out of choice? Everyone? D*o you personally know a gay person who's being gay by choice?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and how many gay people would that be one ..two ..five..
> the admission of child sexual abuse is no indicator of sexual preference.
> you interpreted it that way to fit you agenda.
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association stated in its May 2000 website fact sheet "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues":
> 
> 
> "[N]o specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.
> 
> Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual."
> 
> May 2000 - American Psychiatric Association
> 
> 
> 
> Kali Munro, M.Ed., an online psychotherapist, wrote the following statements in her 2002 article titled "Am I Gay Because of the Abuse?," and posted on her website KaliMunro.com (accessed Mar. 5, 2009):
> 
> 
> "Sexual abuse can interfere with sexual enjoyment; contribute to a survivor engaging in sexual behaviours that arise from the abuse; and interfere with survivors' ability to know what they want. But, sexual abuse can't create a survivor's deepest passion and desires...
> 
> We are all socially conditioned through culture, education, family, media, etc. Sexual abuse is another form of conditioning. As a result, sexual abuse survivors can be drawn to or be repulsed by things that have nothing to do with their authentic selves, and have more to do with their abuse... Homophobia plays a big role in creating the link between gay sexuality and sexual abuse. The myth that lesbians and gay men are sexual predators is still very much alive. In a society that links lesbian and gay sexuality with sexual predators, and where there is little or no information for youth about lesbian and gay sexuality, many lesbian and gay survivors assume that sexual abuse by someone of the same sex is what being gay is...
> 
> The truth is that sexual abuse and sexuality are a million miles apart; they truly have nothing in common. Something as wonderful and beautiful as our sexuality could never have arisen out of something as ugly and painful as sexual abuse."
> 
> Can childhood sexual abuse by a person of the same sex cause homosexuality? - Born Gay - ProCon.org
Click to expand...


Manipulated data. Just like the militant gay lobby silenced the AIDs epidemic and all reporting. Nice try monkey effer.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes; Really.
> 
> While the science had yet to advance to what it is today, Darwin was as advanced as any researcher working today.
> 
> To suggest him a primitive human as QW did is beyond absurd. It's idiotic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like your view on Isaac Newton since he was a creationist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.
> here's a  better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists.  was he still a real creationist?
Click to expand...


AGain, with the revisionists lies. Whatever Hawly.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Maybe because the creator only intended for life to be on this planet ?* You're making a very poor argument to move away from the precision in nature that is observed.
> 
> I think by now you would have asked yourself why only this planet is set up for life to exist and to sustain life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Stick around around to find out if you're right ... since we're real close in finding the life that once lived on Mars.  I'd say we're at most 2 to 5 years away.  But it was a failure, obviously, as was about 99% of the species on this planet.  Whoops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grand standing without proof,I see.
Click to expand...


He just saw the Arnold Total Recall in a drunkin stupor and can't differentiate it from reality.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Stick around around to find out if you're right ... since we're real close in finding the life that once lived on Mars.  I'd say we're at most 2 to 5 years away.  But it was a failure, obviously, as was about 99% of the species on this planet.  Whoops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grand standing without proof,I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. Just possible evidence of it (life on Mars) in combination with a new lander of remarkable ability.
> 
> We know frozen water is on Mars, and that at one time liquid water once flowed. So I think we're near to finding conclusive proof that life once existed there.
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely!!!  And when we do not know exactly what happened this day in history 65 million years ago, and can only know that things definitely happened within ranges of time we call "periods," the real answer is: GOD!!!!  That's the ticket!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what science is doing even einstein wanted to know how God did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another fundie attempt to manufacture a lie.
Click to expand...


No need to lash out like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry; misread.  Sure;
> 
> We have the gene for tails still within the human genome, albeit, nothing in our proteome triggers the gene to grow us a tail, except in rare cases.  Thus over the course of our evolution, and branching off from ancestors with tails, the gene became moot.
> 
> So what we know is that we once had tails, prior to evolving into humans.  Fact.
> 
> Now rebut ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference of profound morphological differences between man and the apes and all other creatures?  the differences do not reside in the genes that code for proteins, but must reside in other genetic characteristics.
> 
> Some females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the gawds "design" with such incompetence?
Click to expand...


Asked and answered so many times you get the golden imbecile award for asking it again. Might want to get help for your learning disability.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't answered it once. You just keep on assertion this to be the case, without evidence or demonstration. I have already pointed out that your attempt at concluding this includes a fallacy of hasty generalization. Without this fallacy, you can't reach your conclusion. Therefore, your conclusion is invalid and you should stop positing it as an assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have given you the overwhelming evidence that mutations harm fitness not promote fitness. The numbers do not lie. Unless you can show otherwise you're wasting my time and yours. I want examples of mutations promoting fitness as I have stated before there is overwhelming evidence of mutations causing genetic disorders that would be termed as harmful mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disputed the fact that harmful mutations are plentiful. That doesn't mean that beneficial ones don't happen. This is the fallacy of hasty generalization, but you don't seem to want to address this at all. In fact, I previously provided evidence of a beneficial mutation with the example of the gene mutation about 5000 years ago which enables adult
> Humans the ability to digest lactase. This could be seen as massively beneficial because it allows more nutrition over a lifetime, especially in the context of humans who had domesticated animals and settled down out of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. As a vegan, I hate to present this evidence, but historically, at least, it could be argued that this mutation was beneficial. Today, with factory farming and the sheer overconsumption of animal products, it can be shown scientifically that it is likely detrimental to human health when consumed as we do today, producing much of the heart disease, cancer and diabetes we see in America, especially with antibiotics and growth hormones pumped into these animals, which we then ingest. This is as an aside. The main point here is a mutation happened that at one point benefitted us.
Click to expand...


Still ignoring the Lisa Ling expose' video??


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems strange that a christian "creationist" would reject the trinity.
> 
> Isaac Newton
> 
> During his time away from the scientific community, Newton conducted never-published work on alchemy and studied the history of the Bible, *concluding that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a falsehood introduced some four centuries after the time of Christ.* In 1675 he published the paper Of Nature's Obvious Laws, which was also challenged by Hooke. By 1680, however, Hooke and Newton were corresponding cordially and at length over such concepts as inertia and centripetal attraction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He just did not believe in the trinity but he was still a Christian. Anyone who believes in a God do they not believe in creation ?
> 
> Jehovah witnesses do not believe in the trinity nor do Jews but believe in YAHWEH. We all believe in the same creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What nonsense! *The trinity is a foundational element of Christianity*.
> 
> Although, I do find it a bit presumptuous that you have decided on Newtons behalf what his personal religious beliefs were.
Click to expand...


The Trinity is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Nice try.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have given you the overwhelming evidence that mutations harm fitness not promote fitness. The numbers do not lie. Unless you can show otherwise you're wasting my time and yours. I want examples of mutations promoting fitness as I have stated before there is overwhelming evidence of mutations causing genetic disorders that would be termed as harmful mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disputed the fact that harmful mutations are plentiful. That doesn't mean that beneficial ones don't happen. This is the fallacy of hasty generalization, but you don't seem to want to address this at all. In fact, I previously provided evidence of a beneficial mutation with the example of the gene mutation about 5000 years ago which enables adult
> Humans the ability to digest lactase. This could be seen as massively beneficial because it allows more nutrition over a lifetime, especially in the context of humans who had domesticated animals and settled down out of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. As a vegan, I hate to present this evidence, but historically, at least, it could be argued that this mutation was beneficial. Today, with factory farming and the sheer overconsumption of animal products, it can be shown scientifically that it is likely detrimental to human health when consumed as we do today, producing much of the heart disease, cancer and diabetes we see in America, especially with antibiotics and growth hormones pumped into these animals, which we then ingest. This is as an aside. The main point here is a mutation happened that at one point benefitted us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still ignoring the Lisa Ling expose' video??
Click to expand...


Is this a response?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference of profound morphological differences between man and the apes and all other creatures?  the differences do not reside in the genes that code for proteins, but must reside in other genetic characteristics.
> 
> Some females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the gawds "design" with such incompetence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asked and answered so many times you get the golden imbecile award for asking it again. Might want to get help for your learning disability.
Click to expand...

The issue really is that you're unable to offer an explanation for the incompetence of your alleged designer gawds. That is why your only response is childish name-calling.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He just did not believe in the trinity but he was still a Christian. Anyone who believes in a God do they not believe in creation ?
> 
> Jehovah witnesses do not believe in the trinity nor do Jews but believe in YAHWEH. We all believe in the same creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What nonsense! *The trinity is a foundational element of Christianity*.
> 
> Although, I do find it a bit presumptuous that you have decided on Newtons behalf what his personal religious beliefs were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Trinity is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible Nice try.
Click to expand...

In addition to being wholly ignorant of the science disciplines supporting evolution, you're wholly ignorant of the mythologies surrounding christianity.


----------



## CrackedSkull

> Fast Facts on the Trinity
> 
> The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible
> The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)
> The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: "One God, three Persons"
> The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."
> Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:
> Arianism (4th century)
> Some Radical Reformers (16th century), such as Michael Servetus
> Jehovah's Witnesses
> Mormonism
> Unitarianism
> Reasons given for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity include:
> It is not mentioned in the Bible
> It does not make philosophical sense
> It is not compatible with monotheism
> It is not necessary in order to explain the "specialness" of Jesus
> Reasons given for believing in the Trinity include:
> It is taught indirectly in various statements in the Bible
> It explains the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit while affirming monotheism
> It would not be expected that the nature of God would make sense to human minds
> The early ecumenical councils (primarily Nicea) are authoritative



Doctrine of the Trinity - ReligionFacts


----------



## Bill Angel

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Stick around around to find out if you're right ... since we're real close in finding the life that once lived on Mars.  I'd say we're at most 2 to 5 years away.  But it was a failure, obviously, as was about 99% of the species on this planet.  Whoops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grand standing without proof,I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. Just possible evidence of it (life on Mars) in combination with a new lander of remarkable ability.
> 
> We know frozen water is on Mars, and that at one time liquid water once flowed. So I think we're near to finding conclusive proof that life once existed there.
Click to expand...





Curiosity Rover Makes Startling Discovery on Mars 
*Wishful Thinking On My Part*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what science is doing even einstein wanted to know how God did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another fundie attempt to manufacture a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to lash out like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child.
Click to expand...

Maintaining those low standards of pointless, incoherent creationist screeds.


----------



## CrackedSkull

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what science is doing even einstein wanted to know how God did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another fundie attempt to manufacture a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to lash out like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child.
Click to expand...




> No need to lash out like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child.



Damn if that ain't the POT calling the KETTLE black.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems strange that a christian "creationist" would reject the trinity.
> 
> Isaac Newton
> 
> During his time away from the scientific community, Newton conducted never-published work on alchemy and studied the history of the Bible, *concluding that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a falsehood introduced some four centuries after the time of Christ.* In 1675 he published the paper Of Nature's Obvious Laws, which was also challenged by Hooke. By 1680, however, Hooke and Newton were corresponding cordially and at length over such concepts as inertia and centripetal attraction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He just did not believe in the trinity but he was still a Christian. Anyone who believes in a God do they not believe in creation ?
> 
> Jehovah witnesses do not believe in the trinity nor do Jews but believe in YAHWEH. We all believe in the same creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What nonsense! The trinity is a foundational element of Christianity.
> 
> Although, I do find it a bit presumptuous that you have decided on Newtons behalf what his personal religious beliefs were.
Click to expand...


You have to be a Christian to be a creationist ?  Yes the majority of Christians believe in the trinity but that has nothing to do with being a creationist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain the gene for tails, in the human genome, then we can move onto the next item.
> 
> That's how it works in the refutation game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a gene that mutated and not all humans contain this mutated gene for Gods sake.
> 
> My first response was a refutation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thumper is stumped.
Click to expand...


Nope not at all, I just gave you two rebuttals and they both went over your head.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain the gene for tails, in the human genome, then we can move onto the next item.
> 
> That's how it works in the refutation game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a gene that mutated and not all humans contain this mutated gene for Gods sake.
> 
> My first response was a refutation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guessed wrong. Try again.
Click to expand...


Ledley made it clear it was only a growth and not a tail.

"As a matter of fact, even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region."

Evolution and the Human Tail


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> He just did not believe in the trinity but he was still a Christian. Anyone who believes in a God do they not believe in creation ?
> 
> Jehovah witnesses do not believe in the trinity nor do Jews but believe in YAHWEH. We all believe in the same creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What nonsense! The trinity is a foundational element of Christianity.
> 
> Although, I do find it a bit presumptuous that you have decided on Newtons behalf what his personal religious beliefs were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to be a Christian to be a creationist ?  Yes the majority of Christians believe in the trinity but that has nothing to do with being a creationist.
Click to expand...


Of course, you're wrong. As I have shown you several times previously, it is with virtual exclusivity that creationism (defined by the organized anti-science, anti-evolution agenda), is a Christian fundamentalist endeavor.

As I've already identified for you, anyone can review the "about" section on any of the creationist websites to learn of their goals and attributes. How about a bit of honesty on your part. Identify for us the religious bias held by AIG, the ICR, CRS, etc.  Do you want more?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a gene that mutated and not all humans contain this mutated gene for Gods sake.
> 
> My first response was a refutation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guessed wrong. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ledley made it clear it was only a growth and not a tail.
> 
> "As a matter of fact, even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region."
> 
> Evolution and the Human Tail
Click to expand...


The ICR.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What nonsense! The trinity is a foundational element of Christianity.
> 
> Although, I do find it a bit presumptuous that you have decided on Newtons behalf what his personal religious beliefs were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be a Christian to be a creationist ?  Yes the majority of Christians believe in the trinity but that has nothing to do with being a creationist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, you're wrong. As I have shown you several times previously, it is with virtual exclusivity that creationism (defined by the organized anti-science, anti-evolution agenda), is a Christian fundamentalist endeavor.
> 
> As I've already identified for you, anyone can review the "about" section on any of the creationist websites to learn of their goals and attributes. How about a bit of honesty on your part. Identify for us the religious bias held by AIG, the ICR, CRS, etc.  Do you want more?
Click to expand...


Of course most of the creationist movement are Christians,but Isaac Newton is still a Christian even though he rejected the trinity. You are arguing a moot point. Isaac Newton believed in a creator and creation,enough said.

Daws was wrong and so are you Isaac Newton was an Unorthodox Christian.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guessed wrong. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ledley made it clear it was only a growth and not a tail.
> 
> "As a matter of fact, even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region."
> 
> Evolution and the Human Tail
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ICR.
Click to expand...


Have you read the origional article by Ledley that lead to evolutionist jumping on this belief that humans have genes that produce tails? do you know who Ledley is ? Do your research before you jump in or you come off looking like a fool.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ledley made it clear it was only a growth and not a tail.
> 
> "As a matter of fact, even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region."
> 
> Evolution and the Human Tail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ICR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read the origional article by Ledley that lead to evolutionist jumping on this belief that humans have genes that produce tails? do you know who Ledley is ? Do your research before you jump in or you come off looking like a fool.
Click to expand...

It seems you're speaking to the fundie choir. You simply cut and pasted what you don't understand, right?

From your link:

Later, Ledley goeson to say that "The modern understanding of teratology [the study of anomalous malformations] and tail formation finds nothing unhuman or reversionaryabout the tail-like structure.

The child with a tail is strikingnot because the tail is a 'reversion' but because it is not a reversionbecause it is entirely consistent with our understanding of ontogeny and phylogeny, which placesusinthe midstof primate evolution. The occurrence of the caudal appendage, as well as the presence of a well-formed embryonic tail in a child, are testimony to the preservationof the structural elementsnecessaryfortail formation in the human genome."


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be a Christian to be a creationist ?  Yes the majority of Christians believe in the trinity but that has nothing to do with being a creationist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you're wrong. As I have shown you several times previously, it is with virtual exclusivity that creationism (defined by the organized anti-science, anti-evolution agenda), is a Christian fundamentalist endeavor.
> 
> As I've already identified for you, anyone can review the "about" section on any of the creationist websites to learn of their goals and attributes. How about a bit of honesty on your part. Identify for us the religious bias held by AIG, the ICR, CRS, etc.  Do you want more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course most of the creationist movement are Christians,but Isaac Newton is still a Christian even though he rejected the trinity. You are arguing a moot point. Isaac Newton believed in a creator and creation,enough said.
> 
> Daws was wrong and so are you Isaac Newton was an Unorthodox Christian.
Click to expand...


You neglected to add "because I say so" to your assignment of religion to Newton. What a weighty burden you bear being self-assigned to decide for others what their religious beliefs (if any) actually are.


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like.* They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google "prokaryotes."  That's where it started, which by the way, required billions of years to come about.  No quick deal, to get to anything quite as highly-evolved as a single-cell living organism.  Quite a big deal, long in the making.  Then the easy part: Cambrian period, where shit gets more complex (more cells) then so on and so on for some billions more years, until REALLY highly-evolved forragers or maybe hunter-gathers looked up, saw shiny stuff in the sky, and thought: Gods?  Why hell yes.  It's shiny, and in the sky.  PROOF!!!  Gods a plenty exist.  What's that?  Only one god?  Okay; if you say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think your billions are a bit off. Don't forget starting over at the extinction event that killed the dinosaurs.
Click to expand...


No sweat. Good to see you wanting accurate estimates on the age of the planets and universe. It's a start. 
And suffice it to say, religious estimates in the mere thousands are way the fuck off. Yeah?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a gene that mutated and not all humans contain this mutated gene for Gods sake.
> 
> My first response was a refutation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guessed wrong. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ledley made it clear it was only a growth and not a tail.
> 
> "As a matter of fact, even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region."
> 
> Evolution and the Human Tail
Click to expand...


Hardly.  Ledley, a geneticist, with both success in resesearch and bio-tech start-ups, indeed concludes -- *as nearly all geneticists do *-- that the rare case of children born with the beginnings of a tail does indeed show a connection between humans and our more primative ancestors.

But that's then parsed (read: distorted) by ICR, a junk "science" (Creationist) misinformation enterprise, which is not where thinking people go for better insights into the natural world. It's for you folks, who due to your yearning for legitimacy of your faith in the face of so much scientific fact contradicting your religious dogma, who will gobble it up, no matter how convoluted or absurd in its conclusions.

So the real question (rhetorical) is: why all the doubt about creation, from "Believers."  Why do you need the pseudo-science horseshit to validate your faith.  Why not simply believe and leave it at that. (tip: you have doubts; it's not people who accept the truth of evolution who have doubts.)


----------



## Koios

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guessed wrong. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ledley made it clear it was only a growth and not a tail.
> 
> "As a matter of fact, even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region."
> 
> Evolution and the Human Tail
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly.  Ledley, a geneticist, with both success in resesearch and bio-tech start-ups, indeed concludes -- *as nearly all geneticists do *-- that the rare case of children born with the beginnings of a tail does indeed show a connection between humans and our more primative ancestors.
> 
> But that's then parsed (read: distorted) by ICR, a junk "science" (Creationist) misinformation enterprise, which is not where thinking people go for better insights into the natural world. It's for you folks, who due to your yearning for legitimacy of your faith in the face of so much scientific fact contradicting your religious dogma, who will gobble it up, no matter how convoluted or absurd in its conclusions.
> 
> So the real question (rhetorical) is: why all the doubt about creation, from "Believers."  Why do you need the pseudo-science horseshit to validate your faith.  Why not simply believe and leave it at that. (tip: you have doubts; it's not people who accept the truth of evolution who have doubts.)
Click to expand...


*And if it'll help, perhaps I can explain in ways that are easier to grasp:*

Let's say I have a hangnail, bite it off, and then spit it out.  It's rife with my DNA, within the myriad cells.  So why does it not grow into a copy of me?  Bear in mind, it has my entire genome.  Answer: no mechanisms controlling the genes.  They're turned off, and are not being instructed to turn on, in sequence, and for a precise amount of time.

So when traits are weeded out, like a tail, and the genes for the tail lie dormant, for millions of years, then by *rare* chance, one is turned on due to a highly unusual anomoly in the protenome of certain individuals, it's not in proper sequence nor for the precise amount of time that is required for a complete tail as would have been the norm, millions of years ago.  It's like a faulty lightbulb, flickering on before going out, permanently.

So you see, genes, and the immense Human Genome Project, merely scratches the surface.  It's like a tool box, without the carpenter, which in the case of living organisims, are proteins ... far more complex than genes, in how they work, and when they work, so that you grow an arm, but only to a point, after which it stops, permanently. (If not, by age 50, your arm would be many times its length.) Thus should it be severed, it will not grow back, unfortunately, and especially no matter how hard you pray to God that it grow back.

But you can pray for a family member or friend with cancer, and have greater success, provided they're also seeking medical treatments and surgery. (as my very, very devout younger brother is, at this very second.)  And I believe he will pull through, and that his and his wife's prayers will be answered. (which they will believe, no matter what.)

But they'll be answered by doctors, and not God.  Because the world as we've learned is driven by forces in nature, and not divine forces.

But the upside is, we've begun understanding and studying those natural forces, and doctors can intervene in nature, and actually deliver the miracles, which once could only dreamed of, while praying, to something that does not exist.

So thankgod for science, which indeed is improving the lives of humans, and creating the life-saving / -improving miracles we once prayed would become possible.


----------



## ima

If we were created, then why is humankind so dumb? There's only a handful of Nobel Prize winner out of 7 billion, and some of them, like Obama or Al Gore, didn't even merit one.


----------



## Koios

ima said:


> If we were created, then why is humankind so dumb? There's only a handful of Nobel Prize winner out of 7 billion, and some of them, like Obama or Al Gore, didn't even merit one.



The Nobel is not an intellectual dick-measuring award.  It's for contributions to certain worthwhile objectives, such as peace, economics, and of course bio-sciences.

Nobel became wealthy doing things that were not necessarily good for the world, and its people.  So he tried to leave a legacy that made up for that, by encouraging folks to do good things, which perhaps he did not do.  And thus even people with mere above average intelligence, i.e. Obama and Gore, can be forces for great good in the world, which the Nobel prize rewards.


----------



## UltimateReality

CrackedSkull said:


> Fast Facts on the Trinity
> 
> The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible
> The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)
> The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: "One God, three Persons"
> The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."
> Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:
> Arianism (4th century)
> Some Radical Reformers (16th century), such as Michael Servetus
> Jehovah's Witnesses
> Mormonism
> Unitarianism
> Reasons given for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity include:
> It is not mentioned in the Bible
> It does not make philosophical sense
> It is not compatible with monotheism
> It is not necessary in order to explain the "specialness" of Jesus
> Reasons given for believing in the Trinity include:
> It is taught indirectly in various statements in the Bible
> It explains the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit while affirming monotheism
> It would not be expected that the nature of God would make sense to human minds
> The early ecumenical councils (primarily Nicea) are authoritative
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doctrine of the Trinity - ReligionFacts
Click to expand...


I didn't say I didn't believe in it. I said it is not mentioned in the Bible. This is a typical Hawly distraction technique to change the subject.


----------



## UltimateReality

CrackedSkull said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another fundie attempt to manufacture a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to lash out like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to lash out like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn if that ain't the POT calling the KETTLE black.
Click to expand...


Apparently sarcasm is not something you are familiar with. And I guess broken records were before your time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guessed wrong. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ledley made it clear it was only a growth and not a tail.
> 
> "As a matter of fact, even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region."
> 
> Evolution and the Human Tail
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly.  Ledley, a geneticist, with both success in resesearch and bio-tech start-ups, indeed concludes -- *as nearly all geneticists do *-- that the rare case of children born with the beginnings of a tail does indeed show a connection between humans and our more primative ancestors.
> 
> But that's then parsed (read: distorted) by ICR, a junk "science" (Creationist) misinformation enterprise, which is not where thinking people go for better insights into the natural world. It's for you folks, who due to your yearning for legitimacy of your faith in the face of so much scientific fact contradicting your religious dogma, who will gobble it up, no matter how convoluted or absurd in its conclusions.
> 
> So the real question (rhetorical) is: why all the doubt about creation, from "Believers."  Why do you need the pseudo-science horseshit to validate your faith.  Why not simply believe and leave it at that. (tip: you have doubts; it's not people who accept the truth of evolution who have doubts.)
Click to expand...


Please show me where they were able to access this gene in the genome and prove this gene is in all humans and codes for forming a tail ?

This is simply a fairytale that some have bought in to. The tail was ex-rayed and it did not have the structures of a tail it was just a growth from a mutation.

We had flies with four wings due to mutations. We had damaged antennas on flies because of mutations. We had limbs and antennas and wings located in the wrong area of the body due to mutations. We also had extra legs due to mutations.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ledley made it clear it was only a growth and not a tail.
> 
> "As a matter of fact, even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region."
> 
> Evolution and the Human Tail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.  Ledley, a geneticist, with both success in resesearch and bio-tech start-ups, indeed concludes -- *as nearly all geneticists do *-- that the rare case of children born with the beginnings of a tail does indeed show a connection between humans and our more primative ancestors.
> 
> But that's then parsed (read: distorted) by ICR, a junk "science" (Creationist) misinformation enterprise, which is not where thinking people go for better insights into the natural world. It's for you folks, who due to your yearning for legitimacy of your faith in the face of so much scientific fact contradicting your religious dogma, who will gobble it up, no matter how convoluted or absurd in its conclusions.
> 
> So the real question (rhetorical) is: why all the doubt about creation, from "Believers."  Why do you need the pseudo-science horseshit to validate your faith.  Why not simply believe and leave it at that. (tip: you have doubts; it's not people who accept the truth of evolution who have doubts.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please show me where they were able to access this gene in the genome and prove this gene is in all humans and codes for forming a tail ?
> 
> This is simply a fairytale that some have bought in to. The tail was ex-rayed and it did not have the structures of a tail it was just a growth from a mutation.
> 
> We had flies with four wings due to mutations. We had damaged antennas on flies because of mutations. We had limbs and antennas and wings located in the wrong area of the body due to mutations. We also had extra legs due to mutations.
Click to expand...


So genetic mutation creates, and not God?  Damnit, Ywc, we agree!!!  Fuck me, I'm getting misty here just thinking about you and me agreeing, praise babyjesus.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fast Facts on the Trinity
> 
> The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible
> The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)
> The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: "One God, three Persons"
> The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."
> Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:
> Arianism (4th century)
> Some Radical Reformers (16th century), such as Michael Servetus
> Jehovah's Witnesses
> Mormonism
> Unitarianism
> Reasons given for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity include:
> It is not mentioned in the Bible
> It does not make philosophical sense
> It is not compatible with monotheism
> It is not necessary in order to explain the "specialness" of Jesus
> Reasons given for believing in the Trinity include:
> It is taught indirectly in various statements in the Bible
> It explains the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit while affirming monotheism
> It would not be expected that the nature of God would make sense to human minds
> The early ecumenical councils (primarily Nicea) are authoritative
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doctrine of the Trinity - ReligionFacts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say I didn't believe in it. I said it is not mentioned in the Bible. This is a typical Hawly distraction technique to change the subject.
Click to expand...

Typical fundie cluelessness. There was never any claim to the trinity appearing in any of the bibles. The comment was that the trinity is a foundational component of christianity. 

Try paying attention.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doctrine of the Trinity - ReligionFacts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I didn't believe in it. I said it is not mentioned in the Bible. This is a typical Hawly distraction technique to change the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical fundie cluelessness. There was never any claim to the trinity appearing in any of the bibles. The comment was that the trinity is a foundational component of christianity.
> 
> Try paying attention.
Click to expand...


Fundamental according to who? The only true requirement to be a Christian is to be a Christ follower. That entails believing he is God's son, that he died on a cross for your sins, and out of your appreciation for that, you desire to please him and live a Holy life. Everything else is just doctrine to argue over.  

You are notorious for just making up definitions when it supports your lame revisionists claims. You are the most dangerous type of revisionist, because your endgame at attempting to manipulate the past is to destroy people of certain belief systems. Hitler was a revisionist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.  Ledley, a geneticist, with both success in resesearch and bio-tech start-ups, indeed concludes -- *as nearly all geneticists do *-- that the rare case of children born with the beginnings of a tail does indeed show a connection between humans and our more primative ancestors.
> 
> But that's then parsed (read: distorted) by ICR, a junk "science" (Creationist) misinformation enterprise, which is not where thinking people go for better insights into the natural world. It's for you folks, who due to your yearning for legitimacy of your faith in the face of so much scientific fact contradicting your religious dogma, who will gobble it up, no matter how convoluted or absurd in its conclusions.
> 
> So the real question (rhetorical) is: why all the doubt about creation, from "Believers."  Why do you need the pseudo-science horseshit to validate your faith.  Why not simply believe and leave it at that. (tip: you have doubts; it's not people who accept the truth of evolution who have doubts.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me where they were able to access this gene in the genome and prove this gene is in all humans and codes for forming a tail ?
> 
> This is simply a fairytale that some have bought in to. The tail was ex-rayed and it did not have the structures of a tail it was just a growth from a mutation.
> 
> We had flies with four wings due to mutations. We had damaged antennas on flies because of mutations. We had limbs and antennas and wings located in the wrong area of the body due to mutations. We also had extra legs due to mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So genetic mutation creates, and not God?  Damnit, Ywc, we agree!!!  Fuck me, I'm getting misty here just thinking about you and me agreeing, praise babyjesus.
Click to expand...


No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.

atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past. 

Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.

Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. why ?


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I didn't believe in it. I said it is not mentioned in the Bible. This is a typical Hawly distraction technique to change the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical fundie cluelessness. There was never any claim to the trinity appearing in any of the bibles. The comment was that the trinity is a foundational component of christianity.
> 
> Try paying attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fundamental according to who? The only true requirement to be a Christian is to be a *Christ follower. That entails believing he is God's son*, that he died on a cross for your sins, and out of your appreciation for that, you desire to please him and live a Holy life. Everything else is just doctrine to argue over.
> 
> You are notorious for just making up definitions when it supports your lame revisionists claims. You are the most dangerous type of revisionist, because your endgame at attempting to manipulate the past is to destroy people of certain belief systems. Hitler was a revisionist.
Click to expand...


Violates first commandment.  Ergo many of the FF being Unitarians and not Christians, who cannot even read a list of fucking commandments, FROM GOD.  Hell; not even the first one!!!!

Damn you, sinner.  Burn ye in Hell!!!!

(Nothing personal, just following GOD'S top 10 list.)


----------



## Youwerecreated

With the quote above do you see they contradict themselves ? I am waiting for your response so I can tell you why that theory of atavism is refuted by population genetics.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me where they were able to access this gene in the genome and prove this gene is in all humans and codes for forming a tail ?
> 
> This is simply a fairytale that some have bought in to. The tail was ex-rayed and it did not have the structures of a tail it was just a growth from a mutation.
> 
> We had flies with four wings due to mutations. We had damaged antennas on flies because of mutations. We had limbs and antennas and wings located in the wrong area of the body due to mutations. We also had extra legs due to mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So genetic mutation creates, and not God?  Damnit, Ywc, we agree!!!  Fuck me, I'm getting misty here just thinking about you and me agreeing, praise babyjesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1. No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.*
> 
> atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.
> 
> Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.
> 
> Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. *2. why ?*
Click to expand...


1. So you're really missing that tail, which is now merely a tail bone????  (tip: vestigiality)  Oh wait; most are fuck-ups, but not all.  My bad. No tail good.  But jesus-fucking-christ, God's a major fuck-up! (mostly)

2. Any value you want to place on it.  Nature doesn't give a fuck (what, not why, which we've covered more than once, already.)


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I didn't believe in it. I said it is not mentioned in the Bible. This is a typical Hawly distraction technique to change the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical fundie cluelessness. There was never any claim to the trinity appearing in any of the bibles. The comment was that the trinity is a foundational component of christianity.
> 
> Try paying attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fundamental according to who? The only true requirement to be a Christian is to be a Christ follower. That entails believing he is God's son, that he died on a cross for your sins, and out of your appreciation for that, you desire to please him and live a Holy life. Everything else is just doctrine to argue over.
> 
> You are notorious for just making up definitions when it supports your lame revisionists claims. You are the most dangerous type of revisionist, because your endgame at attempting to manipulate the past is to destroy people of certain belief systems. Hitler was a revisionist.
Click to expand...

It seems your version of christianity is skewed. But then again, fundies have a habit of re-writing their bibles to accommodate their hateful, twisted views. 

Speaking of Hitler and his Christian beliefs, you seem to espouse many of his intolerant, hateful attitudes. The Nazi party seemed to have defined so much of Christian history. Consider getting a belt buckle inscribed with _Gott mit uns_. 

The gawds command you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> So genetic mutation creates, and not God?  Damnit, Ywc, we agree!!!  Fuck me, I'm getting misty here just thinking about you and me agreeing, praise babyjesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.*
> 
> atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.
> 
> Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.
> 
> Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. *2. why ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. So you're really missing that tail, which is now merely a tail bone????  (tip: vestigiality)  Oh wait; most are fuck-ups, but not all.  My bad. No tail good.  But jesus-fucking-christ, God's a major fuck-up! (mostly)
> 
> 2. Any value you want to place on it.  Nature doesn't give a fuck (what, not why, which we've covered more than once, already.)
Click to expand...


In that quote they say it was not result of newly mutated genes what ? newly mutated genes are what they need for evolution  So in their haste and race to an explanation trying to show evidence for ancestry they contradict their theory of evolution. 

Also the reason why genes do not I repeat do not get turned off is because when we reproduce we are breeding out genetic information. How do you think we get purebred animals ? how do we get different races and traits of men ? because they group up and breed out all other genetic information. Boxers only have the genes to produce boxers and so on and so on.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again daws.
> 
> 
> Isaac Newton
> 
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived
> 
> Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY ?FROM WHAT YOU JUST POSTED: Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP (25 December 1642  20 March 1726) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist"
> and :Although an unorthodox Christian, Newton was deeply religious and his occult studies took up a substantial part of his life. He secretly rejected Trinitarianism and refused holy orders.Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> once again proving you're a slapdicky illiterate  braggart  who is baffled  by the mechanics of a child safety cap..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really this stupid ?
Click to expand...

it's obvious you are


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.
> here's a  better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists.  was he still a real creationist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again daws.
> 
> 
> Isaac Newton
> 
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived
> 
> Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It seems strange that a christian "creationist" would reject the trinity.
> 
> Isaac Newton
> 
> During his time away from the scientific community, Newton conducted never-published work on alchemy and studied the history of the Bible, *concluding that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a falsehood introduced some four centuries after the time of Christ.* In 1675 he published the paper Of Nature's Obvious Laws, which was also challenged by Hooke. By 1680, however, Hooke and Newton were corresponding cordially and at length over such concepts as inertia and centripetal attraction.
Click to expand...

We all know what ywc is rejecting and failing at!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.
> 
> 
> 
> and how many gay people would that be one ..two ..five..
> the admission of child sexual abuse is no indicator of sexual preference.
> you interpreted it that way to fit you agenda.
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association stated in its May 2000 website fact sheet "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues":
> 
> 
> "[N]o specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.
> 
> Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual."
> 
> May 2000 - American Psychiatric Association
> 
> 
> 
> Kali Munro, M.Ed., an online psychotherapist, wrote the following statements in her 2002 article titled "Am I Gay Because of the Abuse?," and posted on her website KaliMunro.com (accessed Mar. 5, 2009):
> 
> 
> "Sexual abuse can interfere with sexual enjoyment; contribute to a survivor engaging in sexual behaviours that arise from the abuse; and interfere with survivors' ability to know what they want. But, sexual abuse can't create a survivor's deepest passion and desires...
> 
> We are all socially conditioned through culture, education, family, media, etc. Sexual abuse is another form of conditioning. As a result, sexual abuse survivors can be drawn to or be repulsed by things that have nothing to do with their authentic selves, and have more to do with their abuse... Homophobia plays a big role in creating the link between gay sexuality and sexual abuse. The myth that lesbians and gay men are sexual predators is still very much alive. In a society that links lesbian and gay sexuality with sexual predators, and where there is little or no information for youth about lesbian and gay sexuality, many lesbian and gay survivors assume that sexual abuse by someone of the same sex is what being gay is...
> 
> The truth is that sexual abuse and sexuality are a million miles apart; they truly have nothing in common. Something as wonderful and beautiful as our sexuality could never have arisen out of something as ugly and painful as sexual abuse."
> 
> Can childhood sexual abuse by a person of the same sex cause homosexuality? - Born Gay - ProCon.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Manipulated data. Just like the militant gay lobby silenced the AIDs epidemic and all reporting. Nice try monkey effer.
Click to expand...

just as expected, cry conspiracy when you have no evidence.
for someone who claims to have no homosexual urges you're inordinately interested in it.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.*
> 
> atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.
> 
> Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.
> 
> Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. *2. why ?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So you're really missing that tail, which is now merely a tail bone????  (tip: vestigiality)  Oh wait; most are fuck-ups, but not all.  My bad. No tail good.  But jesus-fucking-christ, God's a major fuck-up! (mostly)
> 
> 2. Any value you want to place on it.  Nature doesn't give a fuck (what, not why, which we've covered more than once, already.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that quote they say it was not result of newly mutated genes what ? newly mutated genes are what they need for evolution  So in their haste and race to an explanation trying to show evidence for ancestry they contradict their theory of evolution.
> 
> Also the reason why genes do not I repeat do not get turned off is because when we reproduce we are breeding out genetic information. How do you think we get purebred animals ? how do we get different races and traits of men ? because they group up and breed out all other genetic information. Boxers only have the genes to produce boxers and so on and so on.
Click to expand...


So science and not the Bible are what's teaching about God's creation, yer thinkin'?  Fucking absurd.  How far will you nincumpoops go to justify the rank foolishness.  Astonishing.

But maybe you're right and some shit got lost in translation.  "Abomination," maybe, is not actually something contrary to Jewish Custom, but God telling us about His genetic creation, which by the way, fucks up and causes all manner of deformities and such, but on rare occasion, something divine results, by chance.  Shit!  And I woulda sworn the dude was perfect and shit.

Apparently not.

Hahahahahahahahaha!  You got me rollin' Ywc.  No shit.

Pure

Fucking

Comedy


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be a Christian to be a creationist ?  Yes the majority of Christians believe in the trinity but that has nothing to do with being a creationist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you're wrong. As I have shown you several times previously, it is with virtual exclusivity that creationism (defined by the organized anti-science, anti-evolution agenda), is a Christian fundamentalist endeavor.
> 
> As I've already identified for you, anyone can review the "about" section on any of the creationist websites to learn of their goals and attributes. How about a bit of honesty on your part. Identify for us the religious bias held by AIG, the ICR, CRS, etc.  Do you want more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course most of the creationist movement are Christians,but Isaac Newton is still a Christian even though he rejected the trinity. You are arguing a moot point. Isaac Newton believed in a creator and creation,enough said.
> 
> Daws was wrong and so are you Isaac Newton was an Unorthodox Christian.
Click to expand...

how could I be wrong I posted that as evidence that you can't read.
so now your attempting to spin newton's unorthodoxy to appear the same as your creationist shit.
it won't fly.
newton's understanding of creation is not the same as your readers digest version for the mentally impaired, that you inanely yammer on about!


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me where they were able to access this gene in the genome and prove this gene is in all humans and codes for forming a tail ?
> 
> This is simply a fairytale that some have bought in to. The tail was ex-rayed and it did not have the structures of a tail it was just a growth from a mutation.
> 
> We had flies with four wings due to mutations. We had damaged antennas on flies because of mutations. We had limbs and antennas and wings located in the wrong area of the body due to mutations. We also had extra legs due to mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So genetic mutation creates, and not God?  Damnit, Ywc, we agree!!!  Fuck me, I'm getting misty here just thinking about you and me agreeing, praise babyjesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.
> 
> atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.
> 
> Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.
> 
> Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. why ?
Click to expand...


Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?

"Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.


----------



## Koios

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> So genetic mutation creates, and not God?  Damnit, Ywc, we agree!!!  Fuck me, I'm getting misty here just thinking about you and me agreeing, praise babyjesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.
> 
> atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.
> 
> Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.
> 
> Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?
> 
> "Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.
Click to expand...


You will burn in a special kind of Hell that God saved for Abominations like you who mutated and thus have too-active brains.

Amen


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need to lash out like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to lash out like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn if that ain't the POT calling the KETTLE black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently sarcasm is not something you are familiar with. And I guess broken records were before your time.
Click to expand...

his time ? what about you your cd and tape collection is far larger than you lps.
you get a fail on the relevant sarcasm scale.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical fundie cluelessness. There was never any claim to the trinity appearing in any of the bibles. The comment was that the trinity is a foundational component of christianity.
> 
> Try paying attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fundamental according to who? The only true requirement to be a Christian is to be a Christ follower. That entails believing he is God's son, that he died on a cross for your sins, and out of your appreciation for that, you desire to please him and live a Holy life. Everything else is just doctrine to argue over.
> 
> You are notorious for just making up definitions when it supports your lame revisionists claims. You are the most dangerous type of revisionist, because your endgame at attempting to manipulate the past is to destroy people of certain belief systems. Hitler was a revisionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems your version of christianity is skewed. But then again, fundies have a habit of re-writing their bibles to accommodate their hateful, twisted views.
> 
> Speaking of Hitler and his Christian beliefs, you seem to espouse many of his intolerant, hateful attitudes. The Nazi party seemed to have defined so much of Christian history. Consider getting a belt buckle inscribed with _Gott mit uns_.
> 
> The gawds command you.
Click to expand...

detective douche bag having nothing to say uses the old stand bys Hitler and revisionist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> So genetic mutation creates, and not God?  Damnit, Ywc, we agree!!!  Fuck me, I'm getting misty here just thinking about you and me agreeing, praise babyjesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.
> 
> atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.
> 
> Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.
> 
> Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?
> 
> "Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.
Click to expand...


The genes don't get lost that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.

I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.

If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.
> 
> atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.
> 
> Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.
> 
> Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. why ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?
> 
> "Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will burn in a special kind of Hell that God saved for Abominations like you who mutated and thus have too-active brains.
> 
> Amen
Click to expand...


Mutations I believe are how God carried out his punishment for sin and of course several other mechanisms.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> So genetic mutation creates, and not God?  Damnit, Ywc, we agree!!!  Fuck me, I'm getting misty here just thinking about you and me agreeing, praise babyjesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.
> 
> atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.
> 
> Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.
> 
> Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?
> 
> "Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.
Click to expand...

stop calling me Shirley! ....give me ham on five and hold the mayo!


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.
> 
> atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.
> 
> Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.
> 
> Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. why ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?
> 
> "Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The genes don't get lost that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.
> 
> I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.
> 
> If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.
Click to expand...


Ah. I see. So because your arguments self-refute, you're forced to launch yet another conspiracy involving "my side". 

Have you tried to objectively read your comments? You're simply making up nonsense as you go along and you're now "sounding" like an even bigger buffoon.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?
> 
> "Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will burn in a special kind of Hell that God saved for Abominations like you who mutated and thus have too-active brains.
> 
> Amen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations I believe are how God carried out his punishment for sin and of course several other mechanisms.
Click to expand...

 your belief is not proof .. how would you test for god's punishment ? 
might be a good time for you to back off the hour of power broadcasts?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.
> 
> atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.
> 
> Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.
> 
> Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. why ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?
> 
> "Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The genes don't get lost* that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.
> 
> I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.
> 
> If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.
Click to expand...


Correct.  They do not.  And it's a fucking fact, supported unambiguously by the complexity of the genes within species, which tracks not to how complex the species themselves are but how long they've been in existence. Thus plants, even simple ones, have MUCH longer gene strands than you or I do.

So, and for the Nth fucking time, PROTEINS turn the fuckers on and off, at specified stages in development, and for, mostly, a specified amount of time.  So having the genes for a tail (PAX9 gene, and others) is moot, in us, BECAUSE THEY'RE VESTIGIAL!!!!!


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?
> 
> "Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will burn in a special kind of Hell that God saved for Abominations like you who mutated and thus have too-active brains.
> 
> Amen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations I believe are how God carried out his punishment for sin and of course several other mechanisms.
Click to expand...

Somebody call security.....


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?
> 
> "Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The genes don't get lost that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.
> 
> I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.
> 
> If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah. I see. So because your arguments self-refute, you're forced to launch yet another conspiracy involving "my side".
> 
> Have you tried to objectively read your comments? You're simply making up nonsense as you go along and you're now "sounding" like an even bigger buffoon.
Click to expand...


I am sorry but you can't teach a chimp to type a sentence, it went over your head. This is my last attempt to explain this I will try to put it in simple to understand explanation. All genes get expressed and with more and more generations all the genetic information from the other breeds that it took to create the new breed their information is bred out of the line over generations proving you breed out information not breed in new information unless of course you cross breed where new information is introduced.

Parents genes determine what the offspring will be and sometimes one parents gene is expressed over the other parents gene but both parents genes are passed on to the genome of the offspring.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?
> 
> "Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The genes don't get lost* that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.
> 
> I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.
> 
> If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.  They do not.  And it's a fucking fact, supported unambiguously by the complexity of the genes within species, which tracks not to how complex the species themselves are but how long they've been in existence. Thus plants, even simple ones, have MUCH longer gene strands than you or I do.
> 
> So, and for the Nth fucking time, PROTEINS turn the fuckers on and off, at specified stages in development, and for, mostly, a specified amount of time.  So having the genes for a tail (PAX9 gene, and others) is moot, in us, BECAUSE THEY'RE VESTIGIAL!!!!!
Click to expand...


We all possess that gene but not in a mutated state.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The genes don't get lost that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.
> 
> I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.
> 
> If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. I see. So because your arguments self-refute, you're forced to launch yet another conspiracy involving "my side".
> 
> Have you tried to objectively read your comments? You're simply making up nonsense as you go along and you're now "sounding" like an even bigger buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry but you can't teach a chimp to type a sentence, it went over your head. This is my last attempt to explain this I will try to put it in simple to understand explanation. All genes get expressed and with more and more generations all the genetic information from the other breeds that it took to create the new breed their information is bred out of the line over generations proving you breed out information not breed in new information unless of course you cross breed where new information is introduced.
> 
> Parents genes determine what the offspring will be and sometimes one parents gene is expressed over the other parents gene but both parents genes are passed on to the genome of the offspring.
Click to expand...


I understand your conception of "gene expression" is your view of how you want it to be, but your contradictory claims, self-refuting arguments and amateurish understanding of the subject matter is clownish, at best.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The genes don't get lost that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.
> 
> I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.
> 
> If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. I see. So because your arguments self-refute, you're forced to launch yet another conspiracy involving "my side".
> 
> Have you tried to objectively read your comments? You're simply making up nonsense as you go along and you're now "sounding" like an even bigger buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry but you can't teach a chimp to type a sentence, it went over your head. This is my last attempt to explain this I will try to put it in simple to understand explanation. All genes get expressed and with more and more generations all the genetic information from the other breeds that it took to create the new breed their information is bred out of the line over generations proving you breed out information not breed in new information unless of course you cross breed where new information is introduced.
> 
> *Parents genes determine what the offspring will be and sometimes one parents gene is expressed over the other parents gene but both parents genes are passed on to the genome of the offspring*.
Click to expand...


Nope; only half of each.  Plus only certain traits are dominant, such as hair and eye color.  And genetic defects only come into play when both parents, chosen to be together by God, have the same defective gene, praise babyjesus.

And nothing proves God's existence quite like a cursory understanding of genetics, rife with wild assumptions, which to folks who actually know shit, is fucking laughable.

Amen


----------



## Koios

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. I see. So because your arguments self-refute, you're forced to launch yet another conspiracy involving "my side".
> 
> Have you tried to objectively read your comments? You're simply making up nonsense as you go along and you're now "sounding" like an even bigger buffoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry but you can't teach a chimp to type a sentence, it went over your head. This is my last attempt to explain this I will try to put it in simple to understand explanation. All genes get expressed and with more and more generations all the genetic information from the other breeds that it took to create the new breed their information is bred out of the line over generations proving you breed out information not breed in new information unless of course you cross breed where new information is introduced.
> 
> Parents genes determine what the offspring will be and sometimes one parents gene is expressed over the other parents gene but both parents genes are passed on to the genome of the offspring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your conception of "gene expression" is your view of how you want it to be, but your contradictory claims, self-refuting arguments and amateurish understanding of the subject matter is clownish, at best.
Click to expand...


Hollie, you ignorant slut!  We know that evolution is a myth, because it can be disproven by anyone who has studied genetics by seeing one or two TV shows that talk about it with cool video that helps them think they understand shit, and are thus able to make wild assumptions in keeping with HIS! word.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. I see. So because your arguments self-refute, you're forced to launch yet another conspiracy involving "my side".
> 
> Have you tried to objectively read your comments? You're simply making up nonsense as you go along and you're now "sounding" like an even bigger buffoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry but you can't teach a chimp to type a sentence, it went over your head. This is my last attempt to explain this I will try to put it in simple to understand explanation. All genes get expressed and with more and more generations all the genetic information from the other breeds that it took to create the new breed their information is bred out of the line over generations proving you breed out information not breed in new information unless of course you cross breed where new information is introduced.
> 
> *Parents genes determine what the offspring will be and sometimes one parents gene is expressed over the other parents gene but both parents genes are passed on to the genome of the offspring*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope; only half of each.  Plus only certain traits are dominant, such as hair and eye color.  And genetic defects only come into play when both parents, chosen to be together by God, have the same defective gene, praise babyjesus.
> 
> And nothing proves God's existence quite like a cursory understanding of genetics, rife with wild assumptions, which to folks who actually know shit, is fucking laughable.
> 
> Amen
Click to expand...


Yes I agree, genetic defects only come into play when both parents possess the same defective gene. Did I say otherwise ?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The genes don't get lost* that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.
> 
> I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.
> 
> If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  They do not.  And it's a fucking fact, supported unambiguously by the complexity of the genes within species, which tracks not to how complex the species themselves are but how long they've been in existence. Thus plants, even simple ones, have MUCH longer gene strands than you or I do.
> 
> So, and for the Nth fucking time, PROTEINS turn the fuckers on and off, at specified stages in development, and for, mostly, a specified amount of time.  So having the genes for a tail (PAX9 gene, and others) is moot, in us, BECAUSE THEY'RE VESTIGIAL!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all possess that gene but not in a mutated state.
Click to expand...


Astonishing.  Yes; you're right, albeit by accident, seemingly, and only sort of.  Every fucking gene we have is the result of mutation.  Every one.  Ditto on PAX9, for example. (and all others).  So, and because learning is supposed to benefit from repetition, I should add, pick a fucking gene, and rest assured, it's mutated.  Or looking at it another way, all your genes are mutations; plus mine; Hollie's; Hell; all of them, in plants and animals ... are mutated.

Next, they turn on an off.  Imagine being in a big room, but through poor planning of a divine origin, the fucking door is on the opposite side of the room from the light switch.  And it's a really big room, that takes you 3 million years to cross.  So off goes the light switch, and the nice 200 watt bulb it controls.  Great.  Save money and the planet from global warming.  All good.  But now you're crossing the very, very big room, and it's all dark and shit, despite having the same lightbulb, and a whopper, what with it being 200 Watts and all, but no fucking help in your 3 million year room crossing, since the mutherfucker was turned off.

That help?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry but you can't teach a chimp to type a sentence, it went over your head. This is my last attempt to explain this I will try to put it in simple to understand explanation. All genes get expressed and with more and more generations all the genetic information from the other breeds that it took to create the new breed their information is bred out of the line over generations proving you breed out information not breed in new information unless of course you cross breed where new information is introduced.
> 
> Parents genes determine what the offspring will be and sometimes one parents gene is expressed over the other parents gene but both parents genes are passed on to the genome of the offspring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your conception of "gene expression" is your view of how you want it to be, but your contradictory claims, self-refuting arguments and amateurish understanding of the subject matter is clownish, at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, you ignorant slut!  We know that evolution is a myth, because it can be disproven by anyone who has studied genetics by seeing one or two TV shows that talk about it with cool video that helps them think they understand shit, and are thus able to make wild assumptions in keeping with HIS! word.
Click to expand...


Micro-adaptations are what evolutionist extrapolate from to say macro-evolution happens. Let's get more in depth of mutations with a guy from your side and one from my side that debates the issue of mutations. My guy believes in evolution but not mutations as being a mechanism.

Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E.  Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999).  His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists.  Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance.  He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments.  I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.

The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source.  I call this the grand sweep of evolution.  The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection.  The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.

That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance.  There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here.  That is for another place and another time.  What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution.  The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.

Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story.  No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work.  Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so.  (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is.  John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)

For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of beneficial mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism.  The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today.  There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population.  Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.

The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context.  That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an adaptive hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum.  No one has ever shown this to be possible.

Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak.  Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable.  They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable.  No one has shown this to be possible either.

Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance.  Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we cant think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them.  Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all.  They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.

Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval.  Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes.  But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist. 

Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations.  And I agree with your further comment that we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.  But you go on to say that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.  An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur. 

Spetner: Now Ed, thats ridiculous!  Those two statements are not symmetrical.  I dont have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT.  You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist.  You are obliged to show an existence.  I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS:  IN MAXS POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE.  I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  They do not.  And it's a fucking fact, supported unambiguously by the complexity of the genes within species, which tracks not to how complex the species themselves are but how long they've been in existence. Thus plants, even simple ones, have MUCH longer gene strands than you or I do.
> 
> So, and for the Nth fucking time, PROTEINS turn the fuckers on and off, at specified stages in development, and for, mostly, a specified amount of time.  So having the genes for a tail (PAX9 gene, and others) is moot, in us, BECAUSE THEY'RE VESTIGIAL!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all possess that gene but not in a mutated state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Astonishing.  Yes; you're right, albeit by accident, seemingly, and only sort of.  Every fucking gene we have is the result of mutation.  Every one.  Ditto on PAX9, for example. (and all others).  So, and because learning is supposed to benefit from repetition, I should add, pick a fucking gene, and rest assured, it's mutated.  Or looking at it another way, all your genes are mutations; plus mine; Hollie's; Hell; all of them, in plants and animals ... are mutated.
> 
> Next, they turn on an off.  Imagine being in a big room, but through poor planning of a divine origin, the fucking door is on the opposite side of the room from the light switch.  And it's a really big room, that takes you 3 million years to cross.  So off goes the light switch, and the nice 200 watt bulb it controls.  Great.  Save money and the planet from global warming.  All good.  But now you're crossing the very, very big room, and it's all dark and shit, despite having the same lightbulb, and a whopper, what with it being 200 Watts and all, but no fucking help in your 3 million year room crossing, since the mutherfucker was turned off.
> 
> That help?
Click to expand...


I don't need your help to understand gene expression


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your conception of "gene expression" is your view of how you want it to be, but your contradictory claims, self-refuting arguments and amateurish understanding of the subject matter is clownish, at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you ignorant slut!  We know that evolution is a myth, because it can be disproven by anyone who has studied genetics by seeing one or two TV shows that talk about it with cool video that helps them think they understand shit, and are thus able to make wild assumptions in keeping with HIS! word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Micro-adaptations are what evolutionist extrapolate from to say macro-evolution happens. Let's get more in depth of mutations with a guy from your side and one from my side that debates the issue of mutations. My guy believes in evolution but not mutations as being a mechanism.
> 
> Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E.  Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999).  His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists.  Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance.  He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments.  I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.
> 
> The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source.  I call this the grand sweep of evolution.  The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection.  The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.
> 
> That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance.  There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here.  That is for another place and another time.  What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution.  The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.
> 
> Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story.  No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work.  Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so.  (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is.  John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)
> 
> For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of beneficial mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism.  The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today.  There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population.  Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.
> 
> The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context.  That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an adaptive hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum.  No one has ever shown this to be possible.
> 
> Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak.  Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable.  They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable.  No one has shown this to be possible either.
> 
> Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance.  Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we cant think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them.  Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all.  They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.
> 
> Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval.  Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes.  But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.
> 
> Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations.  And I agree with your further comment that we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.  But you go on to say that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.  An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.
> 
> Spetner: Now Ed, thats ridiculous!  Those two statements are not symmetrical.  I dont have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT.  You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist.  You are obliged to show an existence.  I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
> [LMS:  IN MAXS POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE.  I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
Click to expand...


Good girl, Ywc.  Quote some Creationist junk science loons.  That way they seem stupid, and not you seeming stupid, by saying your own stuff.  Bravo, madame.


----------



## Youwerecreated

My guy believes in micro-adaptations or micro-evolution but I prefer the other term,it's more accurate.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all possess that gene but not in a mutated state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astonishing.  Yes; you're right, albeit by accident, seemingly, and only sort of.  Every fucking gene we have is the result of mutation.  Every one.  Ditto on PAX9, for example. (and all others).  So, and because learning is supposed to benefit from repetition, I should add, pick a fucking gene, and rest assured, it's mutated.  Or looking at it another way, all your genes are mutations; plus mine; Hollie's; Hell; all of them, in plants and animals ... are mutated.
> 
> Next, they turn on an off.  Imagine being in a big room, but through poor planning of a divine origin, the fucking door is on the opposite side of the room from the light switch.  And it's a really big room, that takes you 3 million years to cross.  So off goes the light switch, and the nice 200 watt bulb it controls.  Great.  Save money and the planet from global warming.  All good.  But now you're crossing the very, very big room, and it's all dark and shit, despite having the same lightbulb, and a whopper, what with it being 200 Watts and all, but no fucking help in your 3 million year room crossing, since the mutherfucker was turned off.
> 
> That help?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need your help to understand gene expression
Click to expand...


Cool.  But I need your help.  Where in theology (not junk Creationist pseudosciense; real live religion(s)) might God's gene expression design (intelligent, we assume) be mentioned?

Pray you can point me to it, since I'm fucking pins and needles, praise God.

Amen.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you ignorant slut!  We know that evolution is a myth, because it can be disproven by anyone who has studied genetics by seeing one or two TV shows that talk about it with cool video that helps them think they understand shit, and are thus able to make wild assumptions in keeping with HIS! word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Micro-adaptations are what evolutionist extrapolate from to say macro-evolution happens. Let's get more in depth of mutations with a guy from your side and one from my side that debates the issue of mutations. My guy believes in evolution but not mutations as being a mechanism.
> 
> Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E.  Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999).  His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists.  Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance.  He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments.  I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.
> 
> The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source.  I call this the grand sweep of evolution.  The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection.  The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.
> 
> That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance.  There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here.  That is for another place and another time.  What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution.  The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.
> 
> Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story.  No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work.  Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so.  (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is.  John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)
> 
> For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of beneficial mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism.  The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today.  There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population.  Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.
> 
> The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context.  That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an adaptive hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum.  No one has ever shown this to be possible.
> 
> Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak.  Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable.  They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable.  No one has shown this to be possible either.
> 
> Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance.  Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we cant think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them.  Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all.  They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.
> 
> Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval.  Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes.  But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.
> 
> Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations.  And I agree with your further comment that we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.  But you go on to say that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.  An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.
> 
> Spetner: Now Ed, thats ridiculous!  Those two statements are not symmetrical.  I dont have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT.  You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist.  You are obliged to show an existence.  I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
> [LMS:  IN MAXS POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE.  I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good girl, Ywc.  Quote some Creationist junk science loons.  That way they seem stupid, and not you seeming stupid, by saying your own stuff.  Bravo, madame.
Click to expand...


Really you don't know who Dr. Spetner and Dr. Max is and you supposedly understand muations and population genetics 

Watch who you call girl pal. What are you afraid of they discuss the muations and genes we are discussing but they go in to a little more detail. You atheistic evolutionist are afraid of Dr.Spetner.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Micro-adaptations are what evolutionist extrapolate from to say macro-evolution happens. Let's get more in depth of mutations with a guy from your side and one from my side that debates the issue of mutations. My guy believes in evolution but not mutations as being a mechanism.
> 
> Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E.  Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999).  His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists.  Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance.  He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments.  I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.
> 
> The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source.  I call this the grand sweep of evolution.  The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection.  The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.
> 
> That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance.  There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here.  That is for another place and another time.  What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution.  The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.
> 
> Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story.  No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work.  Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so.  (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is.  John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)
> 
> For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of beneficial mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism.  The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today.  There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population.  Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.
> 
> The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context.  That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an adaptive hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum.  No one has ever shown this to be possible.
> 
> Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak.  Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable.  They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable.  No one has shown this to be possible either.
> 
> Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance.  Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we cant think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them.  Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all.  They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.
> 
> Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval.  Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes.  But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.
> 
> Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations.  And I agree with your further comment that we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.  But you go on to say that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.  An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.
> 
> Spetner: Now Ed, thats ridiculous!  Those two statements are not symmetrical.  I dont have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT.  You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist.  You are obliged to show an existence.  I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
> [LMS:  IN MAXS POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE.  I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good girl, Ywc.  Quote some Creationist junk science loons.  That way they seem stupid, and not you seeming stupid, by saying your own stuff.  Bravo, madame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Really you don't know who Dr. Spetner and Dr. Max is and you supposedly understand muations and population genetics *
> 
> Watch who you call girl pal. What are you afraid of they discuss the muations and genes we are discussing but they go in to a little more detail. You atheistic evolutionist are afraid of Dr.Spetner.
Click to expand...


Nope.  Just question their objectivity in saying what it means and how it came about.  Noodle on that; you might have an epiphany bordering on biblical.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Astonishing.  Yes; you're right, albeit by accident, seemingly, and only sort of.  Every fucking gene we have is the result of mutation.  Every one.  Ditto on PAX9, for example. (and all others).  So, and because learning is supposed to benefit from repetition, I should add, pick a fucking gene, and rest assured, it's mutated.  Or looking at it another way, all your genes are mutations; plus mine; Hollie's; Hell; all of them, in plants and animals ... are mutated.
> 
> Next, they turn on an off.  Imagine being in a big room, but through poor planning of a divine origin, the fucking door is on the opposite side of the room from the light switch.  And it's a really big room, that takes you 3 million years to cross.  So off goes the light switch, and the nice 200 watt bulb it controls.  Great.  Save money and the planet from global warming.  All good.  But now you're crossing the very, very big room, and it's all dark and shit, despite having the same lightbulb, and a whopper, what with it being 200 Watts and all, but no fucking help in your 3 million year room crossing, since the mutherfucker was turned off.
> 
> That help?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need your help to understand gene expression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool.  But I need your help.  Where in theology (not junk Creationist pseudosciense; real live religion(s)) might God's gene expression design (intelligent, we assume) be mentioned?
> 
> Pray you can point me to it, since I'm fucking pins and needles, praise God.
> 
> Amen.
Click to expand...


It say's 10 times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kinds. Notice what it say's concerning the seed.

Gen 1:11  And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so. 
Gen 1:12  And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good. 


Gen 1:24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so. 
Gen 1:25  And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good girl, Ywc.  Quote some Creationist junk science loons.  That way they seem stupid, and not you seeming stupid, by saying your own stuff.  Bravo, madame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Really you don't know who Dr. Spetner and Dr. Max is and you supposedly understand muations and population genetics *
> 
> Watch who you call girl pal. What are you afraid of they discuss the muations and genes we are discussing but they go in to a little more detail. You atheistic evolutionist are afraid of Dr.Spetner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Just question their objectivity in saying what it means and how it came about.  Noodle on that; you might have an epiphany bordering on biblical.
Click to expand...


Then maybe you should know them before you pass judgement.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need your help to understand gene expression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.  But I need your help.  Where in theology (not junk Creationist pseudosciense; real live religion(s)) might God's gene expression design (intelligent, we assume) be mentioned?
> 
> Pray you can point me to it, since I'm fucking pins and needles, praise God.
> 
> Amen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It say's 10 times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kinds. Notice what it say's concerning the seed.
> 
> Gen 1:11  And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so.
> Gen 1:12  And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> Gen 1:24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.
> Gen 1:25  And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.
Click to expand...


Nope.  That's just talking about how to plant shit, and how the "birds and bees" story works.  It has ZIPPOLA to do with genetic variations over time.  Hell; consider its authors: living in the eastern med / north africa region, and planting shit.  Plus they raised goats and other beasts.  And all was seemingly ordered, and predicatable.  So their imagined maker (God) made everthing the same way and never did it occur to them (Bible authors) that shit will change with time due to MUTATIONS which no reigious belief, to my knowledge, ever fucking imagined, much less even alluded to. "_Each after their own kind_" says APES make FUCKING APES, ONLY, AND ALWAYS WILL.  (but we know better, now, don't we?)


----------



## Koios

Plus, since we're having to dispute the goddamn Bible, what other practical problems might they have had, maybe planting shit?  Incompatible plants, root entanglement?  Hell yes; they didn;t know plant biology.  So what's the problem?  God doesn't like it when you plant your field with mingled seed.  IT'S AN ABOMINATION UNTO HIM, right along with guys butt-fucking other guys.

But we know better, now, and have for centuries.  Just plant in rows with even spacing and all will grow nicely.  Plus some species of plants grow well together, and can even be crossed to make hybrid species. It's all good, and not a sin really.  Just a misunderstanding back in biblical times.  No sweat.  Have a vegetable garden, just keeping stuff nicely spaced.  Forget the whole mingled seed nonsense, since we can put that into an historical context.  But not guys buggering each other, bygod!!!!

Ergo my earlier comment / characterization: foolishness.  Get with the times, for christsake.  Made up nonsense from 1000s of years ago is not real.  Real is evolution.  Fact.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Really you don't know who Dr. Spetner and Dr. Max is and you supposedly understand muations and population genetics *
> 
> Watch who you call girl pal. What are you afraid of they discuss the muations and genes we are discussing but they go in to a little more detail. You atheistic evolutionist are afraid of Dr.Spetner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Just question their objectivity in saying what it means and how it came about.  Noodle on that; you might have an epiphany bordering on biblical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then maybe you should know them before you pass judgement.
Click to expand...


What's not to know?  They're Creationists, making it their mission to advance the nonsense!!!!  

If Jews are writing all manner of things about how eating pork is bad, might it be okay to assume they won't eat bacon?


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will burn in a special kind of Hell that God saved for Abominations like you who mutated and thus have too-active brains.
> 
> Amen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations I believe are how God carried out his punishment for sin and of course several other mechanisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somebody call security.....
Click to expand...

 why does this always happen at lunch?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The genes don't get lost that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.
> 
> I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.
> 
> If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. I see. So because your arguments self-refute, you're forced to launch yet another conspiracy involving "my side".
> 
> Have you tried to objectively read your comments? You're simply making up nonsense as you go along and you're now "sounding" like an even bigger buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry but you can't teach a chimp to type a sentence, it went over your head. This is my last attempt to explain this I will try to put it in simple to understand explanation. All genes get expressed and with more and more generations all the genetic information from the other breeds that it took to create the new breed their information is bred out of the line over generations proving you breed out information not breed in new information unless of course you cross breed where new information is introduced.
> 
> Parents genes determine what the offspring will be and sometimes one parents gene is expressed over the other parents gene but both parents genes are passed on to the genome of the offspring.
Click to expand...


trying to make a little extra cash with your sig line ..cheap.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need your help to understand gene expression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.  But I need your help.  Where in theology (not junk Creationist pseudosciense; real live religion(s)) might God's gene expression design (intelligent, we assume) be mentioned?
> 
> Pray you can point me to it, since I'm fucking pins and needles, praise God.
> 
> Amen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It say's 10 times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kinds. Notice what it say's concerning the seed.
> 
> Gen 1:11  And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so.
> Gen 1:12  And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> Gen 1:24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.
> Gen 1:25  And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.
Click to expand...

again it's no proof 
observation by who?


----------



## daws101

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.  But I need your help.  Where in theology (not junk Creationist pseudosciense; real live religion(s)) might God's gene expression design (intelligent, we assume) be mentioned?
> 
> Pray you can point me to it, since I'm fucking pins and needles, praise God.
> 
> Amen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It say's 10 times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kinds. Notice what it say's concerning the seed.
> 
> Gen 1:11  And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so.
> Gen 1:12  And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> Gen 1:24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.
> Gen 1:25  And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  That's just talking about how to plant shit, and how the "birds and bees" story works.  It has ZIPPOLA to do with genetic variations over time.  Hell; consider its authors: living in the eastern med / north africa region, and planting shit.  Plus they raised goats and other beasts.  And all was seemingly ordered, and predicatable.  So their imagined maker (God) made everthing the same way and never did it occur to them (Bible authors) that shit will change with time due to MUTATIONS which no reigious belief, to my knowledge, ever fucking imagined, much less even alluded to. "_Each after their own kind_" says APES make FUCKING APES, ONLY, AND ALWAYS WILL.  (but we know better, now, don't we?)
Click to expand...

 ywc "thinks" that observation some how disproves evolution, the idea there is evidence proving it eludes him.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need your help to understand gene expression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.  But I need your help.  Where in theology (not junk Creationist pseudosciense; real live religion(s)) might God's gene expression design (intelligent, we assume) be mentioned?
> 
> Pray you can point me to it, since I'm fucking pins and needles, praise God.
> 
> Amen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It say's 10 times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kinds. Notice what it say's concerning the seed.
> 
> Gen 1:11  And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so.
> Gen 1:12  And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> Gen 1:24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.
> Gen 1:25  And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.
Click to expand...


Your hopeless attempt to link a few lines from the bible with a description of gene mapping is ludicrous. You attempted a similar fraud with linking the bibles description of _rivers flowing to the sea_ with a comprehensive description of the hydrologic cycle. 

Its patently ridiculous.

Your paragraphs from Genesis are nothing more than similar, simple observations of rivers to the sea. Fruit tree producing fruit is precisely the simple observation one would expect from a farmer or herdsman of the time.  There is nothing at all profound or meaningful in those verses.

In a time when the ebb and flow of life and of ones fortune was dictated solely through forces and events they had little knowledge or control over, life was a function of very elemental demands for survival.

As we see with regularity, your posts imply that the existence of the universe pre-supposes a creation of the universe which must then be considered a logical argument for the existence of a creator who must then be considered a particular, partisan gawd. 


Did the universe come into existence?

If so, does the appearance of the universe imply a creator?

If so, must this creator be your partisan gawds?

I would answer all of these questions negatively.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max



What you left out in its entirety was the closing summary by Edward E. Max wherein he asks some rather obvious questions of Spetner and makes some similarly obvious observations

The Evolution of Improved Fitness: Correspondence with Lee Spetner



> Spetner has avoided specifying precisely what he means by his preferred model of "creation," so he avoids having to defend his model against scrutiny similar to what he has applied to evolutionary theory. Even a supernatural "creation" should leave traces that might be different from those expected from evolutionary theory. If his "creation" alternative does not make specific predictions that might distinguish it from evolution, it is not a useful scientific model. This may not bother Spetner, who has said that science is not the only source of knowledge; but as discussed below, it suggests that Spetner's views do not deserve consideration in science classrooms or textbooks.



It really is obvious that the creationist cabal is hoping to avoid some rather glaring inconsistencies. We see for example that Spetner is critical of what he describes as &#8220;macroevolution never being seen&#8221; but does he similarly question one or more forms of &#8220;creation&#8221; never being seen? 

We know that the universe came into existence. As we are naturally occurring creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and therefore logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which seek to fit observable phenomena into a framework that is not contradicted by observations. These theories have proven to be consistent with a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be proven as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.

On the other hand, let's assume an observation will occur that cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus proving a supernatural realm. Further, let's assume that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds. Gawds are, by definiton, supernatural beings. They exist in an immaterial, eternal realm in charge over immaterial, immortal humans. The logical implication is that such a supernatural entity would consider material, temporal existence to be irrelevant. These supernatural beings responsible for creation of the natural universe would, after having finished their creation, would themselves become irrelevant and could then cease to exist.

These statements are logically consistent. Those looking for evidence of supernatural beings in logic would more profitably consider looking elsewhere.


----------



## Koios

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you left out in its entirety was the closing summary by Edward E. Max wherein he asks some rather obvious questions of Spetner and makes some similarly obvious observations
> 
> The Evolution of Improved Fitness: Correspondence with Lee Spetner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spetner has avoided specifying precisely what he means by his preferred model of "creation," so he avoids having to defend his model against scrutiny similar to what he has applied to evolutionary theory. Even a supernatural "creation" should leave traces that might be different from those expected from evolutionary theory. If his "creation" alternative does not make specific predictions that might distinguish it from evolution, it is not a useful scientific model. This may not bother Spetner, who has said that science is not the only source of knowledge; but as discussed below, it suggests that Spetner's views do not deserve consideration in science classrooms or textbooks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is obvious that the creationist cabal is hoping to avoid some rather glaring inconsistencies. We see for example that Spetner is critical of what he describes as *macroevolution never being seen* but does he similarly question one or more forms of creation never being seen?
> 
> We know that the universe came into existence. As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proven to be consistent with a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be proven as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.
> 
> On the other hand, assume that an observation will occur that cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus proving a supernatural realm. Assume further that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds. Gawds are, by definiton, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal souls. The logical implication is that such a being would consider material, temporal existence irrelevant. These supernatural beings responsible for creation of the natural universe would, after having finished the action of creation, also become irrelevant and could then without repercussion, cease to exist.
> 
> These statements are logically consistent. Those looking for evidence of supernatural beings in logic would more profitably consider looking elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Thanks for doing the heavy lifting (reading the drivel).  I rejected it on its face, considering the source.

And I'm astonished.  Never seen macroevolution???  What in the fuck were the finches on the Galapagos Islands that got Darwin's curiosity brewing????

Can these people be more dense!!!!!  Astonishing.  Truly.  I was taken aback when reading what you'd quoted from the numbskull.


----------



## Hollie

Koios said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you left out in its entirety was the closing summary by Edward E. Max wherein he asks some rather obvious questions of Spetner and makes some similarly obvious observations
> 
> The Evolution of Improved Fitness: Correspondence with Lee Spetner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spetner has avoided specifying precisely what he means by his preferred model of "creation," so he avoids having to defend his model against scrutiny similar to what he has applied to evolutionary theory. Even a supernatural "creation" should leave traces that might be different from those expected from evolutionary theory. If his "creation" alternative does not make specific predictions that might distinguish it from evolution, it is not a useful scientific model. This may not bother Spetner, who has said that science is not the only source of knowledge; but as discussed below, it suggests that Spetner's views do not deserve consideration in science classrooms or textbooks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is obvious that the creationist cabal is hoping to avoid some rather glaring inconsistencies. We see for example that Spetner is critical of what he describes as &#8220;*macroevolution never being seen*&#8221; but does he similarly question one or more forms of &#8220;creation&#8221; never being seen?
> 
> We know that the universe came into existence. As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proven to be consistent with a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be proven as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.
> 
> On the other hand, assume that an observation will occur that cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus proving a supernatural realm. Assume further that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds. Gawds are, by definiton, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal souls. The logical implication is that such a being would consider material, temporal existence irrelevant. These supernatural beings responsible for creation of the natural universe would, after having finished the action of creation, also become irrelevant and could then without repercussion, cease to exist.
> 
> These statements are logically consistent. Those looking for evidence of supernatural beings in logic would more profitably consider looking elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for doing the heavy lifting (reading the drivel).  I rejected it on its face, considering the source.
> 
> And I'm astonished.  Never seen macroevolution???  What in the fuck were the finches on the Galapagos Islands that got Darwin's curiosity brewing????
> 
> Can these people be more dense!!!!!  Astonishing.  Truly.  I was taken aback when reading what you'd quoted from the numbskull.
Click to expand...


I can't say I read the entire exchange between Spetner and Max but enough to understand the relative positions. As is usual for arguments from creationists, there was never, ever, any attempt to provide positive evidence for whatever "creator(s)" were proposed by Spetner. His entire position was one of (in my opinion) failed attempts to discredit evolution. This seems to be a standard tactic of creationism: attack the various sciences supporting evolution while inferring that will promote creationism.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and how many gay people would that be one ..two ..five..
> the admission of child sexual abuse is no indicator of sexual preference.
> you interpreted it that way to fit you agenda.
> 
> The American Psychiatric Association stated in its May 2000 website fact sheet "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues":
> 
> 
> "[N]o specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.
> 
> Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual."
> 
> May 2000 - American Psychiatric Association
> 
> 
> 
> Kali Munro, M.Ed., an online psychotherapist, wrote the following statements in her 2002 article titled "Am I Gay Because of the Abuse?," and posted on her website KaliMunro.com (accessed Mar. 5, 2009):
> 
> 
> "Sexual abuse can interfere with sexual enjoyment; contribute to a survivor engaging in sexual behaviours that arise from the abuse; and interfere with survivors' ability to know what they want. But, sexual abuse can't create a survivor's deepest passion and desires...
> 
> We are all socially conditioned through culture, education, family, media, etc. Sexual abuse is another form of conditioning. As a result, sexual abuse survivors can be drawn to or be repulsed by things that have nothing to do with their authentic selves, and have more to do with their abuse... Homophobia plays a big role in creating the link between gay sexuality and sexual abuse. The myth that lesbians and gay men are sexual predators is still very much alive. In a society that links lesbian and gay sexuality with sexual predators, and where there is little or no information for youth about lesbian and gay sexuality, many lesbian and gay survivors assume that sexual abuse by someone of the same sex is what being gay is...
> 
> The truth is that sexual abuse and sexuality are a million miles apart; they truly have nothing in common. Something as wonderful and beautiful as our sexuality could never have arisen out of something as ugly and painful as sexual abuse."
> 
> Can childhood sexual abuse by a person of the same sex cause homosexuality? - Born Gay - ProCon.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manipulated data. Just like the militant gay lobby silenced the AIDs epidemic and all reporting. Nice try monkey effer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just as expected, cry conspiracy when you have no evidence.
> for someone who claims to have no homosexual urges you're inordinately interested in it.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you caught me. I'm gay and I don't care who knows it!! No more closet for me!!! Woo Hoo!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you ignorant slut!  We know that evolution is a myth, because it can be disproven by anyone who has studied genetics by seeing one or two TV shows that talk about it with cool video that helps them think they understand shit, and are thus able to make wild assumptions in keeping with HIS! word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Micro-adaptations are what evolutionist extrapolate from to say macro-evolution happens. Let's get more in depth of mutations with a guy from your side and one from my side that debates the issue of mutations. My guy believes in evolution but not mutations as being a mechanism.
> 
> Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E.  Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999).  His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists.  Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance.  He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments.  I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.
> 
> The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source.  I call this the grand sweep of evolution.  The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection.  The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.
> 
> That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance.  There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here.  That is for another place and another time.  What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution.  The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.
> 
> Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story.  No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work.  Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so.  (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is.  John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)
> 
> For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of beneficial mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism.  The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today.  There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population.  Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.
> 
> The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context.  That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an adaptive hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum.  No one has ever shown this to be possible.
> 
> Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak.  Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable.  They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable.  No one has shown this to be possible either.
> 
> Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance.  Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we cant think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them.  Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all.  They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.
> 
> Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval.  Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes.  But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.
> 
> Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations.  And I agree with your further comment that we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.  But you go on to say that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.  An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.
> 
> Spetner: Now Ed, thats ridiculous!  Those two statements are not symmetrical.  I dont have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT.  You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist.  You are obliged to show an existence.  I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
> [LMS:  IN MAXS POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE.  I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good girl, Ywc.  Quote some Creationist junk science loons.  That way they seem stupid, and not you seeming stupid, by saying your own stuff.  Bravo, madame.
Click to expand...


Koios has added even more douchebaggery and mental midgetry to this thread than even Daws and Gawly Hawly were capable of. Time to take another hiatus until some intelligence makes an appearance. Good luck YWC.


----------



## CrackedSkull

We know creation stories are a myth because every ancient civilization had one...So what are creationists bring to the table that has not been recreated already? Your purporting nothing new only a rehash of ancient junk that came before the bible myth.


----------



## ima

So how many rolls of toilet paper did Noah bring for his crew for 40 days?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you left out in its entirety was the closing summary by Edward E. Max wherein he asks some rather obvious questions of Spetner and makes some similarly obvious observations
> 
> The Evolution of Improved Fitness: Correspondence with Lee Spetner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spetner has avoided specifying precisely what he means by his preferred model of "creation," so he avoids having to defend his model against scrutiny similar to what he has applied to evolutionary theory. Even a supernatural "creation" should leave traces that might be different from those expected from evolutionary theory. If his "creation" alternative does not make specific predictions that might distinguish it from evolution, it is not a useful scientific model. This may not bother Spetner, who has said that science is not the only source of knowledge; but as discussed below, it suggests that Spetner's views do not deserve consideration in science classrooms or textbooks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is obvious that the creationist cabal is hoping to avoid some rather glaring inconsistencies. We see for example that Spetner is critical of what he describes as *macroevolution never being seen* but does he similarly question one or more forms of creation never being seen?
> 
> We know that the universe came into existence. As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proven to be consistent with a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be proven as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.
> 
> On the other hand, assume that an observation will occur that cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus proving a supernatural realm. Assume further that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds. Gawds are, by definiton, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal souls. The logical implication is that such a being would consider material, temporal existence irrelevant. These supernatural beings responsible for creation of the natural universe would, after having finished the action of creation, also become irrelevant and could then without repercussion, cease to exist.
> 
> These statements are logically consistent. Those looking for evidence of supernatural beings in logic would more profitably consider looking elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for doing the heavy lifting (reading the drivel).  I rejected it on its face, considering the source.
> 
> And I'm astonished.  Never seen macroevolution???  What in the fuck were the finches on the Galapagos Islands that got Darwin's curiosity brewing????
> 
> Can these people be more dense!!!!!  Astonishing.  Truly.  I was taken aback when reading what you'd quoted from the numbskull.
Click to expand...


The finches were not macro-evolution  They were micro-adaptations.

You are speaking nonsense what both Dr's were commenting on neither of you apparently never understood.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Koios has added even more douchebaggery and mental midgetry to this thread than even Daws and Gawly Hawly were capable of. Time to take another hiatus until some intelligence makes an appearance. Good luck YWC.


There sure is a lot of hate in fundie'dom. I suppose with the efforts at proselytizing not going well it was appropriate to define anyone who disagreed with the creationist position as a "douchebag" and a "mental midget". 

Hate, seems to define the creationist mindset.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Just question their objectivity in saying what it means and how it came about.  Noodle on that; you might have an epiphany bordering on biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe you should know them before you pass judgement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's not to know?  They're Creationists, making it their mission to advance the nonsense!!!!
> 
> If Jews are writing all manner of things about how eating pork is bad, might it be okay to assume they won't eat bacon?
Click to expand...


Dr. Max is not a creationist. Both are well respected in the field you will see nasty articles from the atheistic evolutionist on spetner because he blows up the current theory of evolution that atheists cling to.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. I see. So because your arguments self-refute, you're forced to launch yet another conspiracy involving "my side".
> 
> Have you tried to objectively read your comments? You're simply making up nonsense as you go along and you're now "sounding" like an even bigger buffoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry but you can't teach a chimp to type a sentence, it went over your head. This is my last attempt to explain this I will try to put it in simple to understand explanation. All genes get expressed and with more and more generations all the genetic information from the other breeds that it took to create the new breed their information is bred out of the line over generations proving you breed out information not breed in new information unless of course you cross breed where new information is introduced.
> 
> Parents genes determine what the offspring will be and sometimes one parents gene is expressed over the other parents gene but both parents genes are passed on to the genome of the offspring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> trying to make a little extra cash with your sig line ..cheap.
Click to expand...


Nope,it is a great product and it's done wonders for me and after what I went through I am thankful for what the product has done for me and don't mind helping others.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.  But I need your help.  Where in theology (not junk Creationist pseudosciense; real live religion(s)) might God's gene expression design (intelligent, we assume) be mentioned?
> 
> Pray you can point me to it, since I'm fucking pins and needles, praise God.
> 
> Amen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It say's 10 times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kinds. Notice what it say's concerning the seed.
> 
> Gen 1:11  And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so.
> Gen 1:12  And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> Gen 1:24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.
> Gen 1:25  And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again it's no proof
> observation by who?
Click to expand...


Daws we know that parents only have genetic information to reproduce what they are. Hell that should be obvious to your side as well. Cells reproduce what they are as well and every living organism reproduces what they are.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It say's 10 times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kinds. Notice what it say's concerning the seed.
> 
> Gen 1:11  And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so.
> Gen 1:12  And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> Gen 1:24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.
> Gen 1:25  And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  That's just talking about how to plant shit, and how the "birds and bees" story works.  It has ZIPPOLA to do with genetic variations over time.  Hell; consider its authors: living in the eastern med / north africa region, and planting shit.  Plus they raised goats and other beasts.  And all was seemingly ordered, and predicatable.  So their imagined maker (God) made everthing the same way and never did it occur to them (Bible authors) that shit will change with time due to MUTATIONS which no reigious belief, to my knowledge, ever fucking imagined, much less even alluded to. "_Each after their own kind_" says APES make FUCKING APES, ONLY, AND ALWAYS WILL.  (but we know better, now, don't we?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ywc "thinks" that observation some how disproves evolution, the idea there is evidence proving it eludes him.
Click to expand...


What is this evidence that proves macro-evolution ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you left out in its entirety was the closing summary by Edward E. Max wherein he asks some rather obvious questions of Spetner and makes some similarly obvious observations
> 
> The Evolution of Improved Fitness: Correspondence with Lee Spetner
> 
> 
> 
> It really is obvious that the creationist cabal is hoping to avoid some rather glaring inconsistencies. We see for example that Spetner is critical of what he describes as *macroevolution never being seen* but does he similarly question one or more forms of creation never being seen?
> 
> We know that the universe came into existence. As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proven to be consistent with a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be proven as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.
> 
> On the other hand, assume that an observation will occur that cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus proving a supernatural realm. Assume further that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds. Gawds are, by definiton, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal souls. The logical implication is that such a being would consider material, temporal existence irrelevant. These supernatural beings responsible for creation of the natural universe would, after having finished the action of creation, also become irrelevant and could then without repercussion, cease to exist.
> 
> These statements are logically consistent. Those looking for evidence of supernatural beings in logic would more profitably consider looking elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for doing the heavy lifting (reading the drivel).  I rejected it on its face, considering the source.
> 
> And I'm astonished.  Never seen macroevolution???  What in the fuck were the finches on the Galapagos Islands that got Darwin's curiosity brewing????
> 
> Can these people be more dense!!!!!  Astonishing.  Truly.  I was taken aback when reading what you'd quoted from the numbskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The finches were not macro-evolution  They were micro-adaptations.
> 
> You are speaking nonsense what both Dr's were commenting on neither of you apparently never understood.
Click to expand...

It is you who is not understanding. Furthering a position on an issue would suggest that one has facts, evidence or at least the framework of a theory to bolster their position. 

As we saw, Spetner had neither. He made no case for whatever "creation" scenario he apparently was flailing his pom poms for. As is typical for creationists, Spetner spent a great deal of effort attempting to discredit science and evolution but was unable to offer a single, positive, countering argument for supermagical "creation".


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you left out in its entirety was the closing summary by Edward E. Max wherein he asks some rather obvious questions of Spetner and makes some similarly obvious observations
> 
> The Evolution of Improved Fitness: Correspondence with Lee Spetner
> 
> 
> 
> It really is obvious that the creationist cabal is hoping to avoid some rather glaring inconsistencies. We see for example that Spetner is critical of what he describes as *macroevolution never being seen* but does he similarly question one or more forms of creation never being seen?
> 
> We know that the universe came into existence. As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proven to be consistent with a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be proven as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.
> 
> On the other hand, assume that an observation will occur that cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus proving a supernatural realm. Assume further that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds. Gawds are, by definiton, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal souls. The logical implication is that such a being would consider material, temporal existence irrelevant. These supernatural beings responsible for creation of the natural universe would, after having finished the action of creation, also become irrelevant and could then without repercussion, cease to exist.
> 
> These statements are logically consistent. Those looking for evidence of supernatural beings in logic would more profitably consider looking elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for doing the heavy lifting (reading the drivel).  I rejected it on its face, considering the source.
> 
> And I'm astonished.  Never seen macroevolution???  What in the fuck were the finches on the Galapagos Islands that got Darwin's curiosity brewing????
> 
> Can these people be more dense!!!!!  Astonishing.  Truly.  I was taken aback when reading what you'd quoted from the numbskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't say I read the entire exchange between Spetner and Max but enough to understand the relative positions. As is usual for arguments from creationists, there was never, ever, any attempt to provide positive evidence for whatever "creator(s)" were proposed by Spetner. His entire position was one of (in my opinion) failed attempts to discredit evolution. This seems to be a standard tactic of creationism: attack the various sciences supporting evolution while inferring that will promote creationism.
Click to expand...


No you havn't and you are locking in on a claim that was not accurate. You need to look at the give and takes in it's entirety.

Dr. Spetner schooled Dr. Max and Dr. max lowered an accusation against spetner that he later withdrew.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  That's just talking about how to plant shit, and how the "birds and bees" story works.  It has ZIPPOLA to do with genetic variations over time.  Hell; consider its authors: living in the eastern med / north africa region, and planting shit.  Plus they raised goats and other beasts.  And all was seemingly ordered, and predicatable.  So their imagined maker (God) made everthing the same way and never did it occur to them (Bible authors) that shit will change with time due to MUTATIONS which no reigious belief, to my knowledge, ever fucking imagined, much less even alluded to. "_Each after their own kind_" says APES make FUCKING APES, ONLY, AND ALWAYS WILL.  (but we know better, now, don't we?)
> 
> 
> 
> ywc "thinks" that observation some how disproves evolution, the idea there is evidence proving it eludes him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is this evidence that proves macro-evolution ?
Click to expand...


"Proof" is an elusive term in science.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent


So, we can now expect a similarly comprehensive, peer reviewed, testable series of data for your partisan gawds.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for doing the heavy lifting (reading the drivel).  I rejected it on its face, considering the source.
> 
> And I'm astonished.  Never seen macroevolution???  What in the fuck were the finches on the Galapagos Islands that got Darwin's curiosity brewing????
> 
> Can these people be more dense!!!!!  Astonishing.  Truly.  I was taken aback when reading what you'd quoted from the numbskull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say I read the entire exchange between Spetner and Max but enough to understand the relative positions. As is usual for arguments from creationists, there was never, ever, any attempt to provide positive evidence for whatever "creator(s)" were proposed by Spetner. His entire position was one of (in my opinion) failed attempts to discredit evolution. This seems to be a standard tactic of creationism: attack the various sciences supporting evolution while inferring that will promote creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you havn't and you are locking in on a claim that was not accurate. You need to look at the give and takes in it's entirety.
> 
> Dr. Spetner schooled Dr. Max and Dr. max lowered an accusation against spetner that he later withdrew.
Click to expand...

It is you who needs to read the exchange. 

I never read any indication where Spetner identified his facts, evidence and supporting references for his supernatural "creation" scenario. 

Please identify where I might find that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for doing the heavy lifting (reading the drivel).  I rejected it on its face, considering the source.
> 
> And I'm astonished.  Never seen macroevolution???  What in the fuck were the finches on the Galapagos Islands that got Darwin's curiosity brewing????
> 
> Can these people be more dense!!!!!  Astonishing.  Truly.  I was taken aback when reading what you'd quoted from the numbskull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The finches were not macro-evolution  They were micro-adaptations.
> 
> You are speaking nonsense what both Dr's were commenting on neither of you apparently never understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is you who is not understanding. Furthering a position on an issue would suggest that one has facts, evidence or at least the framework of a theory to bolster their position.
> 
> As we saw, Spetner had neither. He made no case for whatever "creation" scenario he apparently was flailing his pom poms for. As is typical for creationists, Spetner spent a great deal of effort attempting to discredit science and evolution but was unable to offer a single, positive, countering argument for supermagical "creation".
Click to expand...


You are a liar and your buddy bought your lie. Dr. Spetner is not a creationist.

Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ywc "thinks" that observation some how disproves evolution, the idea there is evidence proving it eludes him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is this evidence that proves macro-evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Proof" is an elusive term in science.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
> 
> 
> So, we can now expect a similarly comprehensive, peer reviewed, testable series of data for your partisan gawds.
Click to expand...


Will you please quit posting this nonsense by Douglas Theobald this has already been refuted there has been no macro-evolution ever observed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say I read the entire exchange between Spetner and Max but enough to understand the relative positions. As is usual for arguments from creationists, there was never, ever, any attempt to provide positive evidence for whatever "creator(s)" were proposed by Spetner. His entire position was one of (in my opinion) failed attempts to discredit evolution. This seems to be a standard tactic of creationism: attack the various sciences supporting evolution while inferring that will promote creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you havn't and you are locking in on a claim that was not accurate. You need to look at the give and takes in it's entirety.
> 
> Dr. Spetner schooled Dr. Max and Dr. max lowered an accusation against spetner that he later withdrew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is you who needs to read the exchange.
> 
> I never read any indication where Spetner identified his facts, evidence and supporting references for his supernatural "creation" scenario.
> 
> Please identify where I might find that.
Click to expand...


Hollie you're a liar because Dr. Spetner is not a creationist


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say I read the entire exchange between Spetner and Max but enough to understand the relative positions. As is usual for arguments from creationists, there was never, ever, any attempt to provide positive evidence for whatever "creator(s)" were proposed by Spetner. His entire position was one of (in my opinion) failed attempts to discredit evolution. This seems to be a standard tactic of creationism: attack the various sciences supporting evolution while inferring that will promote creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you havn't and you are locking in on a claim that was not accurate. You need to look at the give and takes in it's entirety.
> 
> Dr. Spetner schooled Dr. Max and Dr. max lowered an accusation against spetner that he later withdrew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is you who needs to read the exchange.
> 
> I never read any indication where Spetner identified his facts, evidence and supporting references for his supernatural "creation" scenario.
> 
> Please identify where I might find that.
Click to expand...





Critique of modern evolutionary synthesis


Lee M. Spetner is an American physicist and author, known best for his critique of the modern evolutionary synthesis. In spite of his opposition to neo-Darwinism, Spetner accepts a form of non-random evolution outlined in his 1996 book "Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution"[1]


Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is this evidence that proves macro-evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Proof" is an elusive term in science.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
> 
> 
> So, we can now expect a similarly comprehensive, peer reviewed, testable series of data for your partisan gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you please quit posting this nonsense by Douglas Theobald this has already been refuted there has been no macro-evolution ever observed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, I'll take the above to mean that you will not and can not provide a similarly comprehensive, peer reviewed, testable series of data for your partisan gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie Dr. Max lowered the accusation and tried to get off the hook with his creationist accusation that was outlined in spetners book and that is why Dr. Max withdrew his accusation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Proof" is an elusive term in science.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
> 
> 
> So, we can now expect a similarly comprehensive, peer reviewed, testable series of data for your partisan gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you please quit posting this nonsense by Douglas Theobald this has already been refuted there has been no macro-evolution ever observed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, I'll take the above to mean that you will not and can not provide a similarly comprehensive, peer reviewed, testable series of data for your partisan gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spinning now that you were caught in a lie,typical of you
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you havn't and you are locking in on a claim that was not accurate. You need to look at the give and takes in it's entirety.
> 
> Dr. Spetner schooled Dr. Max and Dr. max lowered an accusation against spetner that he later withdrew.
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who needs to read the exchange.
> 
> I never read any indication where Spetner identified his facts, evidence and supporting references for his supernatural "creation" scenario.
> 
> Please identify where I might find that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie you're a liar because Dr. Spetner is not a creationist
Click to expand...


Your attempt at melodrama is weak. In the meantime, why don't you identify for us the non-random form of evolution proposed by Spetner?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will you please quit posting this nonsense by Douglas Theobald this has already been refuted there has been no macro-evolution ever observed.
> 
> Spinning now that you were caught in a lie,typical of you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning at all. I notice your frantic attempts to sidestep my query. So, where is your similarly comprehensive, peer reviewed, testable series of data for your partisan gawds?
> 
> Further, I'm not aware of any refutation you have provided to the work of Theobald. Is this yet another challenge you will dodge and sidestep?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios is just as disengenuous as you with making the same claim as you and Dr. Max before knowing the facts. When you get in over your head you scream creationist nut,to funny.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who needs to read the exchange.
> 
> I never read any indication where Spetner identified his facts, evidence and supporting references for his supernatural "creation" scenario.
> 
> Please identify where I might find that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you're a liar because Dr. Spetner is not a creationist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your attempt at melodrama is weak. In the meantime, why don't you identify for us the non-random form of evolution proposed by Spetner?
Click to expand...


Why don't you read his book I still don't believe in evolution under any mechanism. I believe in micro-adaptations and that ability to adapt to ones enviornment is a natural ability but there are limits to adaptability if that was not the case nothing would go extinct.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning at all. I notice your frantic attempts to sidestep my query. So, where is your similarly comprehensive, peer reviewed, testable series of data for your partisan gawds?
> 
> Further, I'm not aware of any refutation you have provided to the work of Theobald. Is this yet another challenge you will dodge and sidestep?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The refutation was that Dr. Theobald extrapolated from cases of micro-adaptations and inferred macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios is just as disengenuous as you with making the same claim as you and Dr. Max before knowing the facts. When you get in over your head you scream creationist nut,to funny.



Actually, I supplied many facts of the exchange you neglected to identify. 

It's when fundies are exposed as frauds they behave as you do.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The refutation was that Dr. Theobald extrapolated from cases of micro-adaptations and inferred macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What refutation? I know from experience you have a habit of mis-quoting and worse, fraudulently posting 'mined' quotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Koios is just as disengenuous as you with making the same claim as you and Dr. Max before knowing the facts. When you get in over your head you scream creationist nut,to funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I supplied many facts of the exchange you neglected to identify.
> 
> It's when fundies are exposed as frauds they behave as you do.
Click to expand...


You once again have been exposed as a liar there will be no future exchange with you. You are a waste of time. Have a good day !


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What refutation? I know from experience you have a habit of mis-quoting and worse, fraudulently posting 'mined' quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered this question.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered this question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still side-stepping.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you left out in its entirety was the closing summary by Edward E. Max wherein he asks some rather obvious questions of Spetner and makes some similarly obvious observations
> 
> The Evolution of Improved Fitness: Correspondence with Lee Spetner
> 
> 
> 
> It really is obvious that the creationist cabal is hoping to avoid some rather glaring inconsistencies. We see for example that Spetner is critical of what he describes as &#8220;*macroevolution never being seen*&#8221; but does he similarly question one or more forms of &#8220;creation&#8221; never being seen?
> 
> We know that the universe came into existence. As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proven to be consistent with a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be proven as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.
> 
> On the other hand, assume that an observation will occur that cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus proving a supernatural realm. Assume further that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds. Gawds are, by definiton, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal souls. The logical implication is that such a being would consider material, temporal existence irrelevant. These supernatural beings responsible for creation of the natural universe would, after having finished the action of creation, also become irrelevant and could then without repercussion, cease to exist.
> 
> These statements are logically consistent. Those looking for evidence of supernatural beings in logic would more profitably consider looking elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for doing the heavy lifting (reading the drivel).  I rejected it on its face, considering the source.
> 
> And I'm astonished.  Never seen macroevolution???  What in the fuck were the finches on the Galapagos Islands that got Darwin's curiosity brewing????
> 
> Can these people be more dense!!!!!  Astonishing.  Truly.  I was taken aback when reading what you'd quoted from the numbskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The finches were not macro-evolution  They were micro-adaptations.
> 
> You are speaking nonsense what both Dr's were commenting on neither of you apparently never understood.
Click to expand...


Nope.  Sorry, Ywc.  They (finches on the Galopogos Islands) are a classical example of macroevolution, and are the species that first alerted Darwin to the natural forces he discovered.

And it's well documented in a book you may recall, titled, _On the origin of species_.  A remarkable discovery, and indeed the THE discovery of the 19th Century.  But Darwin held it back for many years, since he and his wife worried about its impact on their family, since they knew religionists would attempt to shun and discredit them, which they did.  But in late 1859, around November, if memory serves, Darwin and his wife agreed he needed to publish his life's work, especially due to other naturalists who were independently coming to the same conclusions, albeit, were decades behind Darwin, as _On the orgin of species _proved to all in the scientific community.

And what followed, the 20th Century in which human technology and understanding exploded at an unbelievable pace, only further reinforced everything Darwin had concluded from his observations.

So those who are unwilling to except the in depth understanding and proof of evolution need to be remarkably and willfully ignorant to support the notion of Creationism, which itself is a misnomer, since it does nothing to prove that creation and not evolution created the Cosmos; it's merely an evolution-denier movement, by those with a mental lock-down on religious dogma.

And it's absurd. It's akin to me coming home to my 6-year-old granddaughter, to find the vase once on the shelf now broken on the floor.  But then I posit that my granddaughter is not the source of its breaking; she's too short and could not have reached it; she urges, "I didn't break it; it broke."  So an unknown culprit or force MUST be at play, I imagine.  Then I make a gigantic and unsubstantiated mental leap, and say, "God did it; and now I have PROOF! of His existence!!!"

Creationism is nothing more than that.


----------



## ima

So when Moses talked to a burning bush, do they mean that he ate too many hot peppers?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for doing the heavy lifting (reading the drivel).  I rejected it on its face, considering the source.
> 
> And I'm astonished.  Never seen macroevolution???  What in the fuck were the finches on the Galapagos Islands that got Darwin's curiosity brewing????
> 
> Can these people be more dense!!!!!  Astonishing.  Truly.  I was taken aback when reading what you'd quoted from the numbskull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The finches were not macro-evolution  They were micro-adaptations.
> 
> You are speaking nonsense what both Dr's were commenting on neither of you apparently never understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Sorry, Ywc.  They (finches on the Galopogos Islands) are a classical example of macroevolution, and are the species that first alerted Darwin to the natural forces he discovered.
> 
> And it's well documented in a book you may recall, titled, _On the origin of species_.  A remarkable discovery, and indeed the THE discovery of the 19th Century.  But Darwin held it back for many years, since he and his wife worried about its impact on their family, since they knew religionists would attempt to shun and discredit them, which they did.  But in late 1859, around November, if memory serves, Darwin and his wife agreed he needed to publish his life's work, especially due to other naturalists who were independently coming to the same conclusions, albeit, were decades behind Darwin, as _On the orgin of species _proved to all in the scientific community.
> 
> And what followed, the 20th Century in which human technology and understanding exploded at an unbelievable pace, only further reinforced everything Darwin had concluded from his observations.
> 
> So those who are unwilling to except the in depth understanding and proof of evolution need to be remarkably and willfully ignorant to support the notion of Creationism, which itself is a misnomer, since it does nothing to prove that creation and not evolution created the Cosmos; it's merely an evolution-denier movement, by those with a mental lock-down on religious dogma.
> 
> And it's absurd. It's akin to me coming home to my 6-year-old granddaughter, to find the vase once on the shelf now broken on the floor.  But then I posit that my granddaughter is not the source of its breaking; she's too short and could not have reached it; she urges, "I didn't break it; it broke."  So an unknown culprit or force MUST be at play, I imagine.  Then I make a gigantic and unsubstantiated mental leap, and say, "God did it; and now I have PROOF! of His existence!!!"
> 
> Creationism is nothing more than that.
Click to expand...


Finches were not a product of macro-evolution they were a product of micro-adaptations and cross breeding. Finches are still finches correct ? do you understand the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution ?

Do you remember darwins own words ? "if my theory be true it will be confirmed in the fossil record there will be millions of transitional fossils found in different layers strata showing gradualism"

If the finches were macro-evolution then he did not need the fossil record understand ? so darwin confirmed what he observed in the finches were only a case of micro-adaptations.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The finches were not macro-evolution  They were micro-adaptations.
> 
> You are speaking nonsense what both Dr's were commenting on neither of you apparently never understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Sorry, Ywc.  They (finches on the Galopogos Islands) are a classical example of macroevolution, and are the species that first alerted Darwin to the natural forces he discovered.
> 
> And it's well documented in a book you may recall, titled, _On the origin of species_.  A remarkable discovery, and indeed the THE discovery of the 19th Century.  But Darwin held it back for many years, since he and his wife worried about its impact on their family, since they knew religionists would attempt to shun and discredit them, which they did.  But in late 1859, around November, if memory serves, Darwin and his wife agreed he needed to publish his life's work, especially due to other naturalists who were independently coming to the same conclusions, albeit, were decades behind Darwin, as _On the orgin of species _proved to all in the scientific community.
> 
> And what followed, the 20th Century in which human technology and understanding exploded at an unbelievable pace, only further reinforced everything Darwin had concluded from his observations.
> 
> So those who are unwilling to except the in depth understanding and proof of evolution need to be remarkably and willfully ignorant to support the notion of Creationism, which itself is a misnomer, since it does nothing to prove that creation and not evolution created the Cosmos; it's merely an evolution-denier movement, by those with a mental lock-down on religious dogma.
> 
> And it's absurd. It's akin to me coming home to my 6-year-old granddaughter, to find the vase once on the shelf now broken on the floor.  But then I posit that my granddaughter is not the source of its breaking; she's too short and could not have reached it; she urges, "I didn't break it; it broke."  So an unknown culprit or force MUST be at play, I imagine.  Then I make a gigantic and unsubstantiated mental leap, and say, "God did it; and now I have PROOF! of His existence!!!"
> 
> Creationism is nothing more than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Finches were not a product of macro-evolution they were a product of micro-adaptations and cross breeding. *Finches are still finches correct ? do you understand the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution ?
> 
> Do you remember darwins own words ? "if my theory be true it will be confirmed in the fossil record there will be millions of transitional fossils found in different strata"
> 
> If the finches were macro-evolution then he did not need the fossil record understand ? so darwin confirmed what he observed in the finches were only a case of micro-adaptations.
Click to expand...


Patently false, and beyond mere willful ignorance, since Creationists cling to this one absurdity by distrorting the definition of macroevolution.

Check the facts on that.  You'll see it's the truth.

Or don't, and preserve your religious dogma.  I have no problem with that. In fact my younger brother and his wife are extremely devout Christians; and I love and respect them, especially since they believe so strongly that they need not quench their doubts (have none) with pseudoscience bullshit.  They're content in their faith, which I respect.

But if you feel the need to post falsehoods, herein, then I'll challenge them with factual corrections.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The finches were not macro-evolution  They were micro-adaptations.
> 
> You are speaking nonsense what both Dr's were commenting on neither of you apparently never understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Sorry, Ywc.  They (finches on the Galopogos Islands) are a classical example of macroevolution, and are the species that first alerted Darwin to the natural forces he discovered.
> 
> And it's well documented in a book you may recall, titled, _On the origin of species_.  A remarkable discovery, and indeed the THE discovery of the 19th Century.  But Darwin held it back for many years, since he and his wife worried about its impact on their family, since they knew religionists would attempt to shun and discredit them, which they did.  But in late 1859, around November, if memory serves, Darwin and his wife agreed he needed to publish his life's work, especially due to other naturalists who were independently coming to the same conclusions, albeit, were decades behind Darwin, as _On the orgin of species _proved to all in the scientific community.
> 
> And what followed, the 20th Century in which human technology and understanding exploded at an unbelievable pace, only further reinforced everything Darwin had concluded from his observations.
> 
> So those who are unwilling to except the in depth understanding and proof of evolution need to be remarkably and willfully ignorant to support the notion of Creationism, which itself is a misnomer, since it does nothing to prove that creation and not evolution created the Cosmos; it's merely an evolution-denier movement, by those with a mental lock-down on religious dogma.
> 
> And it's absurd. It's akin to me coming home to my 6-year-old granddaughter, to find the vase once on the shelf now broken on the floor.  But then I posit that my granddaughter is not the source of its breaking; she's too short and could not have reached it; she urges, "I didn't break it; it broke."  So an unknown culprit or force MUST be at play, I imagine.  Then I make a gigantic and unsubstantiated mental leap, and say, "God did it; and now I have PROOF! of His existence!!!"
> 
> Creationism is nothing more than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finches were not a product of macro-evolution they were a product of micro-adaptations and cross breeding. Finches are still finches correct ? do you understand the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution ?
> 
> *Do you remember darwins own words ? "if my theory be true it will be confirmed in the fossil record there will be millions of transitional fossils found in different layers strata showing gradualism"*
> 
> If the finches were macro-evolution then he did not need the fossil record understand ? so darwin confirmed what he observed in the finches were only a case of micro-adaptations.
Click to expand...


In truth; no, I hadn't committed that to memory, exactly.  But what's your point?  It's not true?  (tip: it's absolutely true.)


----------



## Koios

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Sorry, Ywc.  They (finches on the Galopogos Islands) are a classical example of macroevolution, and are the species that first alerted Darwin to the natural forces he discovered.
> 
> And it's well documented in a book you may recall, titled, _On the origin of species_.  A remarkable discovery, and indeed the THE discovery of the 19th Century.  But Darwin held it back for many years, since he and his wife worried about its impact on their family, since they knew religionists would attempt to shun and discredit them, which they did.  But in late 1859, around November, if memory serves, Darwin and his wife agreed he needed to publish his life's work, especially due to other naturalists who were independently coming to the same conclusions, albeit, were decades behind Darwin, as _On the orgin of species _proved to all in the scientific community.
> 
> And what followed, the 20th Century in which human technology and understanding exploded at an unbelievable pace, only further reinforced everything Darwin had concluded from his observations.
> 
> So those who are unwilling to except the in depth understanding and proof of evolution need to be remarkably and willfully ignorant to support the notion of Creationism, which itself is a misnomer, since it does nothing to prove that creation and not evolution created the Cosmos; it's merely an evolution-denier movement, by those with a mental lock-down on religious dogma.
> 
> And it's absurd. It's akin to me coming home to my 6-year-old granddaughter, to find the vase once on the shelf now broken on the floor.  But then I posit that my granddaughter is not the source of its breaking; she's too short and could not have reached it; she urges, "I didn't break it; it broke."  So an unknown culprit or force MUST be at play, I imagine.  Then I make a gigantic and unsubstantiated mental leap, and say, "God did it; and now I have PROOF! of His existence!!!"
> 
> Creationism is nothing more than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Finches were not a product of macro-evolution they were a product of micro-adaptations and cross breeding. *Finches are still finches correct ? do you understand the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution ?
> 
> Do you remember darwins own words ? "if my theory be true it will be confirmed in the fossil record there will be millions of transitional fossils found in different strata"
> 
> If the finches were macro-evolution then he did not need the fossil record understand ? so darwin confirmed what he observed in the finches were only a case of micro-adaptations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Patently false, and beyond mere willful ignorance, since Creationists cling to this one absurdity by distrorting the definition of macroevolution.
> 
> *Check the facts on that.  You'll see it's the truth.*
> 
> Or don't, and preserve your religious dogma.  I have no problem with that. In fact my younger brother and his wife are extremely devout Christians; and I love and respect them, especially since they believe so strongly that they need not quench their doubts (have none) with pseudoscience bullshit.  They're content in their faith, which I respect.
> 
> But if you feel the need to post falsehoods, herein, then I'll challenge them with factual corrections.
Click to expand...


Here's a starting point on fact-checking: Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that the Wiki is merely a gateway to the referenced data and articles, which clicking will help you find more-quickly the truth of the distortions by Creation Science advocates in the meaning of "macroevolution."


----------



## pinqy

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The finches were not macro-evolution  They were micro-adaptations.
> 
> You are speaking nonsense what both Dr's were commenting on neither of you apparently never understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Sorry, Ywc.  They (finches on the Galopogos Islands) are a classical example of macroevolution, and are the species that first alerted Darwin to the natural forces he discovered.
> 
> And it's well documented in a book you may recall, titled, _On the origin of species_.  A remarkable discovery, and indeed the THE discovery of the 19th Century.  But Darwin held it back for many years, since he and his wife worried about its impact on their family, since they knew religionists would attempt to shun and discredit them, which they did.  But in late 1859, around November, if memory serves, Darwin and his wife agreed he needed to publish his life's work, especially due to other naturalists who were independently coming to the same conclusions, albeit, were decades behind Darwin, as _On the orgin of species _proved to all in the scientific community.
> 
> And what followed, the 20th Century in which human technology and understanding exploded at an unbelievable pace, only further reinforced everything Darwin had concluded from his observations.
> 
> So those who are unwilling to except the in depth understanding and proof of evolution need to be remarkably and willfully ignorant to support the notion of Creationism, which itself is a misnomer, since it does nothing to prove that creation and not evolution created the Cosmos; it's merely an evolution-denier movement, by those with a mental lock-down on religious dogma.
> 
> And it's absurd. It's akin to me coming home to my 6-year-old granddaughter, to find the vase once on the shelf now broken on the floor.  But then I posit that my granddaughter is not the source of its breaking; she's too short and could not have reached it; she urges, "I didn't break it; it broke."  So an unknown culprit or force MUST be at play, I imagine.  Then I make a gigantic and unsubstantiated mental leap, and say, "God did it; and now I have PROOF! of His existence!!!"
> 
> Creationism is nothing more than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finches were not a product of macro-evolution they were a product of micro-adaptations and cross breeding. Finches are still finches correct ? do you understand the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution ?
Click to expand...

Well, Darwin's finches are not true finches, but regardless; Darwin's finches are 15 seperate species in 5 different genera.  That's macro-evolution...above the species level.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Manipulated data. Just like the militant gay lobby silenced the AIDs epidemic and all reporting. Nice try monkey effer.
> 
> 
> 
> just as expected, cry conspiracy when you have no evidence.
> for someone who claims to have no homosexual urges you're inordinately interested in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you caught me. I'm gay and I don't care who knows it!! No more closet for me!!! Woo Hoo!!!
Click to expand...

 almost humorous!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Micro-adaptations are what evolutionist extrapolate from to say macro-evolution happens. Let's get more in depth of mutations with a guy from your side and one from my side that debates the issue of mutations. My guy believes in evolution but not mutations as being a mechanism.
> 
> Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E.  Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999).  His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists.  Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance.  He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments.  I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.
> 
> The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source.  I call this the grand sweep of evolution.  The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection.  The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.
> 
> That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance.  There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here.  That is for another place and another time.  What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution.  The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.
> 
> Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story.  No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work.  Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so.  (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is.  John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)
> 
> For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of &#8220;beneficial&#8221; mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism.  The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today.  There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population.  Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.
> 
> The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context.  That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an &#8220;adaptive&#8221; hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum.  No one has ever shown this to be possible.
> 
> Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak.  Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable.  They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable.  No one has shown this to be possible either.
> 
> Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance.  Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we can&#8217;t think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them.  Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all.  They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.
> 
> Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval.  Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes.  But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.
> 
> Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations.  And I agree with your further comment that &#8220;we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.&#8221;  But you go on to say that &#8220;our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.&#8221;  An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.
> 
> Spetner: Now Ed, that&#8217;s ridiculous!  Those two statements are not symmetrical.  I don&#8217;t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT.  You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist.  You are obliged to show an existence.  I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
> [LMS:  IN MAX&#8217;S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE.  I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]
> 
> Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good girl, Ywc.  Quote some Creationist junk science loons.  That way they seem stupid, and not you seeming stupid, by saying your own stuff.  Bravo, madame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Koios has added even more douchebaggery and mental midgetry to this thread than even Daws and Gawly Hawly were capable of. Time to take another hiatus until some intelligence makes an appearance. Good luck YWC.
Click to expand...

 what  hiatus? you last one only lasted a couple days longer than ywc's 3 day weekend.
you'll be here.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry but you can't teach a chimp to type a sentence, it went over your head. This is my last attempt to explain this I will try to put it in simple to understand explanation. All genes get expressed and with more and more generations all the genetic information from the other breeds that it took to create the new breed their information is bred out of the line over generations proving you breed out information not breed in new information unless of course you cross breed where new information is introduced.
> 
> Parents genes determine what the offspring will be and sometimes one parents gene is expressed over the other parents gene but both parents genes are passed on to the genome of the offspring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trying to make a little extra cash with your sig line ..cheap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope,it is a great product and it's done wonders for me and after what I went through I am thankful for what the product has done for me and don't mind helping others.
Click to expand...

noni juice? 
that would only be true if you were giving it away ..you're not !


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It say's 10 times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kinds. Notice what it say's concerning the seed.
> 
> Gen 1:11  And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so.
> Gen 1:12  And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> Gen 1:24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.
> Gen 1:25  And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.
> 
> 
> 
> again it's no proof
> observation by who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws we know that parents only have genetic information to reproduce what they are. Hell that should be obvious to your side as well. Cells reproduce what they are as well and every living organism reproduces what they are.
Click to expand...

nice dodge .
stating the obvious is no proof that god did it .
no matter how hard you wish it did.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  That's just talking about how to plant shit, and how the "birds and bees" story works.  It has ZIPPOLA to do with genetic variations over time.  Hell; consider its authors: living in the eastern med / north africa region, and planting shit.  Plus they raised goats and other beasts.  And all was seemingly ordered, and predicatable.  So their imagined maker (God) made everthing the same way and never did it occur to them (Bible authors) that shit will change with time due to MUTATIONS which no reigious belief, to my knowledge, ever fucking imagined, much less even alluded to. "_Each after their own kind_" says APES make FUCKING APES, ONLY, AND ALWAYS WILL.  (but we know better, now, don't we?)
> 
> 
> 
> ywc "thinks" that observation some how disproves evolution, the idea there is evidence proving it eludes him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is this evidence that proves macro-evolution ?
Click to expand...

asked and answered .
does that juice effect memory?


----------



## Youwerecreated

pinqy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Sorry, Ywc.  They (finches on the Galopogos Islands) are a classical example of macroevolution, and are the species that first alerted Darwin to the natural forces he discovered.
> 
> And it's well documented in a book you may recall, titled, _On the origin of species_.  A remarkable discovery, and indeed the THE discovery of the 19th Century.  But Darwin held it back for many years, since he and his wife worried about its impact on their family, since they knew religionists would attempt to shun and discredit them, which they did.  But in late 1859, around November, if memory serves, Darwin and his wife agreed he needed to publish his life's work, especially due to other naturalists who were independently coming to the same conclusions, albeit, were decades behind Darwin, as _On the orgin of species _proved to all in the scientific community.
> 
> And what followed, the 20th Century in which human technology and understanding exploded at an unbelievable pace, only further reinforced everything Darwin had concluded from his observations.
> 
> So those who are unwilling to except the in depth understanding and proof of evolution need to be remarkably and willfully ignorant to support the notion of Creationism, which itself is a misnomer, since it does nothing to prove that creation and not evolution created the Cosmos; it's merely an evolution-denier movement, by those with a mental lock-down on religious dogma.
> 
> And it's absurd. It's akin to me coming home to my 6-year-old granddaughter, to find the vase once on the shelf now broken on the floor.  But then I posit that my granddaughter is not the source of its breaking; she's too short and could not have reached it; she urges, "I didn't break it; it broke."  So an unknown culprit or force MUST be at play, I imagine.  Then I make a gigantic and unsubstantiated mental leap, and say, "God did it; and now I have PROOF! of His existence!!!"
> 
> Creationism is nothing more than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finches were not a product of macro-evolution they were a product of micro-adaptations and cross breeding. Finches are still finches correct ? do you understand the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Darwin's finches are not true finches, but regardless; Darwin's finches are 15 seperate species in 5 different genera.  That's macro-evolution...above the species level.
Click to expand...


Hello Pinqy, long time no talk. I have always enjoyed our give and takes one of the nicest persons I have ever disagreed with. I must disagree with you again they are not different species.

The difficulty in identifying the finches is rooted in precisely what makes them so interesting and important - the evolutionary process. If we believe that two species share a common ancestor, then as one traces the species back in time, they should become closer and closer in form. At the branch point, the species should become ambiguous. That is precisely the point at which we find the Darwin's finches. They are in the process of separating, but they haven't completely done so at this point in time. The definition of the term "species" includes the presence of a fertility barrier between individuals of different species. In the case of Darwin's finches, those barriers are not completely formed yet, and there is a certain amount of documented hybridization between species. This also contributes to the ambiguity of the birds.

Darwin's Finches - Page 2


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Sorry, Ywc.  They (finches on the Galopogos Islands) are a classical example of macroevolution, and are the species that first alerted Darwin to the natural forces he discovered.
> 
> And it's well documented in a book you may recall, titled, _On the origin of species_.  A remarkable discovery, and indeed the THE discovery of the 19th Century.  But Darwin held it back for many years, since he and his wife worried about its impact on their family, since they knew religionists would attempt to shun and discredit them, which they did.  But in late 1859, around November, if memory serves, Darwin and his wife agreed he needed to publish his life's work, especially due to other naturalists who were independently coming to the same conclusions, albeit, were decades behind Darwin, as _On the orgin of species _proved to all in the scientific community.
> 
> And what followed, the 20th Century in which human technology and understanding exploded at an unbelievable pace, only further reinforced everything Darwin had concluded from his observations.
> 
> So those who are unwilling to except the in depth understanding and proof of evolution need to be remarkably and willfully ignorant to support the notion of Creationism, which itself is a misnomer, since it does nothing to prove that creation and not evolution created the Cosmos; it's merely an evolution-denier movement, by those with a mental lock-down on religious dogma.
> 
> And it's absurd. It's akin to me coming home to my 6-year-old granddaughter, to find the vase once on the shelf now broken on the floor.  But then I posit that my granddaughter is not the source of its breaking; she's too short and could not have reached it; she urges, "I didn't break it; it broke."  So an unknown culprit or force MUST be at play, I imagine.  Then I make a gigantic and unsubstantiated mental leap, and say, "God did it; and now I have PROOF! of His existence!!!"
> 
> Creationism is nothing more than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finches were not a product of macro-evolution they were a product of micro-adaptations and cross breeding. Finches are still finches correct ? do you understand the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution ?
> 
> *Do you remember darwins own words ? "if my theory be true it will be confirmed in the fossil record there will be millions of transitional fossils found in different layers strata showing gradualism"*
> 
> If the finches were macro-evolution then he did not need the fossil record understand ? so darwin confirmed what he observed in the finches were only a case of micro-adaptations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth; no, I hadn't committed that to memory, exactly.  But what's your point?  It's not true?  (tip: it's absolutely true.)
Click to expand...


Look what famous evolutionists said concerning the fossil record that darwin claimed would prove his theory if it be true.

Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny 





"It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms."  (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230) 



"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191) 



"There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life.  There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon."  (Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p. 45)



"Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing." (Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)



"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms."  (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641) 



"It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position." (Cracraft, J., "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism," 1983, p. 180) 



"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."  (Eldredge, N., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)



"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95) 



"Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny."  (Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121) 



"Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations."  (Gould, Stephen J. and Eldredge, Niles, "Species Selection: Its Range and Power," 1988, p. 19) 



"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 million years ago.  Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then."  ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376)



"Many 'trends' singled out by evolutionary biologists are ex post facto rendering of phylogenetic history: biologists may simply pick out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in phylogenetic history. This is particularly so in situations, especially common prior to about 1970, in which analysis of the phylogenetic relationships among species was incompletely or poorly done." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 134) 



"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." (Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59) 



"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories."  (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, p. 353-354) 









Stasis and Sudden Appearance





"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:  1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.  2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"  (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182) 



"Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. ...If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."  (Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766) 



"Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years."  (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24) 



"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..."  (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239) 



"The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82) 



"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."  (Eldredge, (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22) 



"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."  (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360) 



"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."  (Wesson, R., Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p. 45) 



"All through the fossil record, groups - both large and small - abruptly appear and disappear.  ...The earliest phase of rapid change usually is undiscovered, and must be inferred by comparison with its probable relatives."  (Newell, N. D., Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality, 1984, p. 10) 



"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism...and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."  (Mayr, E., Our Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138) 



"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."  (Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187) 



"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find."  (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23) 



"A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations.  This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." (Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56)



"Eldredge and Gould, by contrast, decided to take the record at face value. On this view, there is little evidence of modification within species, or of forms intermediate between species because neither generally occurred. A species forms and evolves almost instantaneously (on the geological timescale) and then remains virtually unchanged until it disappears, yielding its habitat to a new species."  (Smith, Peter J., "Evolution's Most Worrisome Questions," Review of Life Pulse by Niles Eldredge, New Scientist, 1987, p. 59) 



"The principle problem is morphological stasis.  A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214) 



"It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their duration..." (Eldredge, Niles, The Pattern of Evolution, 1998, p. 157) 



"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition."  (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716) 



"We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology," Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7) 



"Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55) 



"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong.' A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it? ...As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the 'punctuated equilibrium' pattern of Eldredge and Gould."  (Kemp, Tom S., "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, p. 66-67) 



"The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence.  Most changes are random rather than systematic modifications, until species drop out. There is no sign of directed order here. Trends do occur in many lines, but they are not the rule." (Newell, N. D., "Systematics and Evolution," 1984, p. 10) 



"Well-represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species." (Gould Stephen J., "Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness," Natural History, 1988, p. 14) 



"Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution).  (Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15) 



"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ...That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."  (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46) 









Large Gaps





"We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multi-cellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning... A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists are Wrong, Prometheus Books, 1984, p. 95)



"There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.  In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be."  (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65) 



"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.  Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record.  The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."  (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)



"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.  Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189) 



"One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms."  (Brouwer, A., "General Paleontology," [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163)



"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration.  The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Neville, George, T., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, p. 1-3) 



"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real:  the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history not the artifact of a poor fossil record...The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59, 163)



"Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record."  (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22) 



"The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted."  (Paul, C.R.C, "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record," 1982, p. 75) 



"Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing." (Jepsen, L. Glenn; Mayr, Ernst; Simpson George Gaylord. Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, New York, Athenaeum, 1963, p. 114)



"For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology..."  (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984) 



"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."  (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)



"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."   (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127)



"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important  places." (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, p.19)



"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after.  But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.  This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found.  In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)



"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved.  ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89) 



"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.  The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467) 



"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163) 









Miscellaneous





"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.  We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."  (Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4) 



"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?  I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.  I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138) 



"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.  Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption?  The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."  (E.J.H. Corner "Evolution" in A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds., Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago, IL:  Quadrangle Books, 1961, at 95, 97 from Bird, I, p. 234)  



"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."  (More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)



"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." (Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164)



"One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles,  "A Divine Design:  Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)



"I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb.  In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."  (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)



"The origin of life is still a mystery. As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing evolution]...I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation...can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles.  How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?"  (d'Aubigne, Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 158)



"Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance."  (Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)



"The third assumption was the Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated...We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated." (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergammon Press, 1960, p. 151)



"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.  They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter?  And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.  Scientists do not know how that happened, and furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening.  Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability.  Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe.  No scientific evidence precludes that possibility."  (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)



"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold.  We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."  (Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44)



"With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny." (Paul, C. R. C., 1989, "Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates", Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 1989, p. 105)



"The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery." (Darwin, Charles R., letter to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, in Darwin F. & Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, p. 20-21)



"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.  So many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.  But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.  The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)



"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)



"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)



"The geological record has provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes."  (Norman, J., A History of Fishes, 1963, p. 298)



"None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates."  (Stahl, B., Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., NY, 1985, p. 148)



"The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."  (Millikan, Robert A., Nashville Banner, August 7, 1925, quoted in Brewer's lecture) 









After reading these words from evolutionists, would you say the evidence points more towards spontaneous generation and evolution or divine creation?



Anointed-One.net


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finches were not a product of macro-evolution they were a product of micro-adaptations and cross breeding. Finches are still finches correct ? do you understand the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution ?
> 
> *Do you remember darwins own words ? "if my theory be true it will be confirmed in the fossil record there will be millions of transitional fossils found in different layers strata showing gradualism"*
> 
> If the finches were macro-evolution then he did not need the fossil record understand ? so darwin confirmed what he observed in the finches were only a case of micro-adaptations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In truth; no, I hadn't committed that to memory, exactly.  But what's your point?  It's not true?  (tip: it's absolutely true.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look what famous evolutionists said concerning the fossil record that darwin claimed would prove his theory if it be true.
> 
> Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny
> 
> 
> "There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life.  There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon."  (Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p. 45)
> 
> 
> After reading these words from evolutionists, would you say the evidence points more towards spontaneous generation and evolution or divine creation?
> 
> 
> 
> Anointed-One.net
Click to expand...


Oh my. Here again, we have examples of fundie christian creationist quote mining.

While the fundie has copied and pasted pages of "quotes", I'll take a look at just one and we can expose that "quote" as falsified, altered or simply manufactured by creationist ministries. I was not at all surprised that the fundie, even after being exposed multiple times for cutting and pasting these lies, is now back to committing the same sleazy and unethical "quote mining".
Niles Eldridge frequently appears in lists of falsified creationist "quotes". This particular "quote" was familiar and so recognized it right away as a creationist fraud.  

Quote Mine Project: "Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny"

Quote #3



> "There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life. There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon." (Niles Eldredge)



ee Eldredge's discussion of this diversification in chapter 2 of Life Pulse, where he apparently sees no insurmountable difficulties.
- John Wilkins

________________________________________
According to The IDEA Club Fossil Record Quote Collection the citation is Niles Eldredge, quoted in _Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems_ by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p 45
- Floyd

________________________________________
_Darwin's Enigma_ is a rather infamous creationist book. I have a copy though I have not read it yet. I looked at page 45 and what Eldredge is talking about, if it was not already obvious, is the Cambrian explosion. He is basically saying something quite real happened in it and it is not a mere artifact of an imperfect fossil record.

Of course evolution deniers try to paint this event as something that disproves evolution which is rather silly if you think about it. Since they have this false idea that the Cambrian explosion is somehow something that evolutionary biology cannot handle they gather quotes from various people who correctly state that there really was such an event.

In any event Eldredge was not very happy with how Sunderland handled his interview with him and other paleontologists and ranted on how his views were distorted in both his _The Monkey Business_ and _The Triumph of Evolution_.


After reading these lies from christian creationists, would you say the evidence points more towards an inability to effectivey present a workable model for creationist supermagicalism or the christian creationist affinity for lies and deceit.


----------



## Hollie

Anyone who has ever weed whacked through the landscape of christian creationist lies has come upon the sleazy tactics of the creationist ministries and their falsified, alterd and parsed "quotes". 

The _talkorigins_ website has a huge collection of these creationist lies.

The following is another, typical example of creationist lies.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)


Snipped in the ellipsis is:

"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Following this passage is:


"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.

"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.

"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.

- John Wilkins

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A more complete citation would be: Gould, Stephen Jay 1980. "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change" The Panda's Thumb. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 181-182.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Anyone who has ever weed whacked through the landscape of christian creationist lies has come upon the sleazy tactics of the creationist ministries and their falsified, alterd and parsed "quotes".
> 
> The _talkorigins_ website has a huge collection of these creationist lies.
> 
> The following is another, typical example of creationist lies.
> 
> Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"
> 
> "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
> 
> 
> Snipped in the ellipsis is:
> 
> "We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."
> 
> Following this passage is:
> 
> 
> "Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
> 
> "Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.
> 
> "Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.
> 
> - John Wilkins
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A more complete citation would be: Gould, Stephen Jay 1980. "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change" The Panda's Thumb. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 181-182.



Hollie pound sand,these quotes are all documented.your Idelogoical site can't spin what was said.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again it's no proof
> observation by who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws we know that parents only have genetic information to reproduce what they are. Hell that should be obvious to your side as well. Cells reproduce what they are as well and every living organism reproduces what they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice dodge .
> stating the obvious is no proof that god did it .
> no matter how hard you wish it did.
Click to expand...


The bible is supported by the evidence this is not evidence that supports your theory.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has ever weed whacked through the landscape of christian creationist lies has come upon the sleazy tactics of the creationist ministries and their falsified, alterd and parsed "quotes".
> 
> The _talkorigins_ website has a huge collection of these creationist lies.
> 
> The following is another, typical example of creationist lies.
> 
> Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"
> 
> "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
> 
> 
> Snipped in the ellipsis is:
> 
> "We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."
> 
> Following this passage is:
> 
> 
> "Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
> 
> "Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.
> 
> "Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.
> 
> - John Wilkins
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A more complete citation would be: Gould, Stephen Jay 1980. "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change" The Panda's Thumb. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 181-182.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie pound sand,these quotes are all documented.your Idelogoical site can't spin what was said.
Click to expand...

I see. You take no issue with your creationist ministries editing, parsing and altering "quotes" as long as they further your anti-science agenda.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has ever weed whacked through the landscape of christian creationist lies has come upon the sleazy tactics of the creationist ministries and their falsified, alterd and parsed "quotes".
> 
> The _talkorigins_ website has a huge collection of these creationist lies.
> 
> The following is another, typical example of creationist lies.
> 
> Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"
> 
> "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
> 
> 
> Snipped in the ellipsis is:
> 
> "We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."
> 
> Following this passage is:
> 
> 
> "Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
> 
> "Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.
> 
> "Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.
> 
> - John Wilkins
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A more complete citation would be: Gould, Stephen Jay 1980. "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change" The Panda's Thumb. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 181-182.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie pound sand,these quotes are all documented.your Idelogoical site can't spin what was said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. You take no issue with your creationist ministries editing, parsing and altering "quotes" as long as they further your anti-science agenda.
Click to expand...


Everyone of those quotes are documented. Has it happened in some cases I would say yes but it has happened on both sides.

Hollie the theory of punctuated equilibrium would not exist if the fossil record didn't support it.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie pound sand,these quotes are all documented.your Idelogoical site can't spin what was said.
> 
> 
> 
> I see. You take no issue with your creationist ministries editing, parsing and altering "quotes" as long as they further your anti-science agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone of those quotes are documented. Has it happened in some cases I would say yes but it has happened on both sides.
> 
> Hollie the theory of punctuated equilibrium would not exist if the fossil record didn't support it.
Click to expand...


"Has it happened on some cases"? Yes it has, on the creationist side. This is now the fourth time you have posted fraudulent "quotes" in spite of the "quotes" being exposed as frauds.




> Hollie the theory of punctuated equilibrium would not exist if the fossil record didn't support it.



Let me ponder over this for a moment. 

Still pondering.....

You're correct. Similarly, today would not be Thursday if it was actually Wednesday.


----------



## ima

So what proof is there that Noah was 600 years old?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see. You take no issue with your creationist ministries editing, parsing and altering "quotes" as long as they further your anti-science agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of those quotes are documented. Has it happened in some cases I would say yes but it has happened on both sides.
> 
> Hollie the theory of punctuated equilibrium would not exist if the fossil record didn't support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Has it happened on some cases"? Yes it has, on the creationist side. This is now the fourth time you have posted fraudulent "quotes" in spite of the "quotes" being exposed as frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie the theory of punctuated equilibrium would not exist if the fossil record didn't support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me ponder over this for a moment.
> 
> Still pondering.....
> 
> You're correct. Similarly, today would not be Thursday if it was actually Wednesday.
Click to expand...


Like I said earlier you are a waste of time and nothing more then an ideologue. Have a good day,wallow in your hate.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> So what proof is there that Noah was 600 years old?



Can't prove it.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of those quotes are documented. Has it happened in some cases I would say yes but it has happened on both sides.
> 
> Hollie the theory of punctuated equilibrium would not exist if the fossil record didn't support it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Has it happened on some cases"? Yes it has, on the creationist side. This is now the fourth time you have posted fraudulent "quotes" in spite of the "quotes" being exposed as frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie the theory of punctuated equilibrium would not exist if the fossil record didn't support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me ponder over this for a moment.
> 
> Still pondering.....
> 
> You're correct. Similarly, today would not be Thursday if it was actually Wednesday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said earlier you are a waste of time and nothing more then an ideologue. Have a good day,wallow in your hate.
Click to expand...


You're pretty typical for creationists. Challenges to your specious opinions and calling out your frauds sends you running for the exits.


----------



## Koios

ima said:


> So what proof is there that Noah was 600 years old?



It is written! 

Amen.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what proof is there that Noah was 600 years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't prove it.
Click to expand...


Just curious, do you believe he was that old anyways, even with zero proof?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finches were not a product of macro-evolution they were a product of micro-adaptations and cross breeding. Finches are still finches correct ? do you understand the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution ?
> 
> *Do you remember darwins own words ? "if my theory be true it will be confirmed in the fossil record there will be millions of transitional fossils found in different layers strata showing gradualism"*
> 
> If the finches were macro-evolution then he did not need the fossil record understand ? so darwin confirmed what he observed in the finches were only a case of micro-adaptations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In truth; no, I hadn't committed that to memory, exactly.  But what's your point?  It's not true?  (tip: it's absolutely true.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look what famous evolutionists said concerning the fossil record that darwin claimed would prove his theory if it be true.
> 
> Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms."  (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)
> 
> 
> 
> "Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)
> 
> 
> 
> "There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life.  There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon."  (Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p. 45)
> 
> 
> 
> "Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing." (Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)
> 
> 
> 
> "The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms."  (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)
> 
> 
> 
> "It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position." (Cracraft, J., "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism," 1983, p. 180)
> 
> 
> 
> "Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."  (Eldredge, N., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)
> 
> 
> 
> "Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny."  (Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)
> 
> 
> 
> "Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations."  (Gould, Stephen J. and Eldredge, Niles, "Species Selection: Its Range and Power," 1988, p. 19)
> 
> 
> 
> "The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 million years ago.  Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then."  ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376)
> 
> 
> 
> "Many 'trends' singled out by evolutionary biologists are ex post facto rendering of phylogenetic history: biologists may simply pick out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in phylogenetic history. This is particularly so in situations, especially common prior to about 1970, in which analysis of the phylogenetic relationships among species was incompletely or poorly done." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 134)
> 
> 
> 
> "The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." (Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59)
> 
> 
> 
> "Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories."  (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, p. 353-354)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stasis and Sudden Appearance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:  1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.  2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"  (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. ...If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."  (Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766)
> 
> 
> 
> "Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years."  (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24)
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..."  (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239)
> 
> 
> 
> "The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82)
> 
> 
> 
> "Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."  (Eldredge, (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."  (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)
> 
> 
> 
> "The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."  (Wesson, R., Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p. 45)
> 
> 
> 
> "All through the fossil record, groups - both large and small - abruptly appear and disappear.  ...The earliest phase of rapid change usually is undiscovered, and must be inferred by comparison with its probable relatives."  (Newell, N. D., Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality, 1984, p. 10)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism...and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."  (Mayr, E., Our Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138)
> 
> 
> 
> "The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."  (Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187)
> 
> 
> 
> "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find."  (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)
> 
> 
> 
> "A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations.  This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." (Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56)
> 
> 
> 
> "Eldredge and Gould, by contrast, decided to take the record at face value. On this view, there is little evidence of modification within species, or of forms intermediate between species because neither generally occurred. A species forms and evolves almost instantaneously (on the geological timescale) and then remains virtually unchanged until it disappears, yielding its habitat to a new species."  (Smith, Peter J., "Evolution's Most Worrisome Questions," Review of Life Pulse by Niles Eldredge, New Scientist, 1987, p. 59)
> 
> 
> 
> "The principle problem is morphological stasis.  A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214)
> 
> 
> 
> "It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their duration..." (Eldredge, Niles, The Pattern of Evolution, 1998, p. 157)
> 
> 
> 
> "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition."  (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)
> 
> 
> 
> "We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology," Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55)
> 
> 
> 
> "In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong.' A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it? ...As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the 'punctuated equilibrium' pattern of Eldredge and Gould."  (Kemp, Tom S., "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, p. 66-67)
> 
> 
> 
> "The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence.  Most changes are random rather than systematic modifications, until species drop out. There is no sign of directed order here. Trends do occur in many lines, but they are not the rule." (Newell, N. D., "Systematics and Evolution," 1984, p. 10)
> 
> 
> 
> "Well-represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species." (Gould Stephen J., "Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness," Natural History, 1988, p. 14)
> 
> 
> 
> "Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution).  (Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ...That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."  (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large Gaps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multi-cellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning... A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists are Wrong, Prometheus Books, 1984, p. 95)
> 
> 
> 
> "There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.  In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be."  (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)
> 
> 
> 
> "It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.  Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record.  The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."  (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)
> 
> 
> 
> "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.  Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)
> 
> 
> 
> "One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms."  (Brouwer, A., "General Paleontology," [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163)
> 
> 
> 
> "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration.  The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Neville, George, T., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, p. 1-3)
> 
> 
> 
> "The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real:  the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history not the artifact of a poor fossil record...The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59, 163)
> 
> 
> 
> "Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record."  (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted."  (Paul, C.R.C, "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record," 1982, p. 75)
> 
> 
> 
> "Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing." (Jepsen, L. Glenn; Mayr, Ernst; Simpson George Gaylord. Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, New York, Athenaeum, 1963, p. 114)
> 
> 
> 
> "For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology..."  (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984)
> 
> 
> 
> "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."  (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)
> 
> 
> 
> "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."   (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127)
> 
> 
> 
> "The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important  places." (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, p.19)
> 
> 
> 
> "If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after.  But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.  This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found.  In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)
> 
> 
> 
> "Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved.  ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89)
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.  The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)
> 
> 
> 
> "A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miscellaneous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.  We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."  (Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)
> 
> 
> 
> "If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?  I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.  I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)
> 
> 
> 
> "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.  Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption?  The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."  (E.J.H. Corner "Evolution" in A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds., Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago, IL:  Quadrangle Books, 1961, at 95, 97 from Bird, I, p. 234)
> 
> 
> 
> "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."  (More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)
> 
> 
> 
> "At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." (Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164)
> 
> 
> 
> "One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles,  "A Divine Design:  Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)
> 
> 
> 
> "I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb.  In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."  (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)
> 
> 
> 
> "The origin of life is still a mystery. As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing evolution]...I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation...can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles.  How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?"  (d'Aubigne, Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 158)
> 
> 
> 
> "Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance."  (Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)
> 
> 
> 
> "The third assumption was the Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated...We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated." (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergammon Press, 1960, p. 151)
> 
> 
> 
> "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.  They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter?  And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.  Scientists do not know how that happened, and furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening.  Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability.  Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe.  No scientific evidence precludes that possibility."  (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)
> 
> 
> 
> "...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold.  We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."  (Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44)
> 
> 
> 
> "With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny." (Paul, C. R. C., 1989, "Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates", Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 1989, p. 105)
> 
> 
> 
> "The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery." (Darwin, Charles R., letter to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, in Darwin F. & Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, p. 20-21)
> 
> 
> 
> "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.  So many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.  But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.  The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)
> 
> 
> 
> "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)
> 
> 
> 
> "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
> 
> 
> 
> "The geological record has provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes."  (Norman, J., A History of Fishes, 1963, p. 298)
> 
> 
> 
> "None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates."  (Stahl, B., Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., NY, 1985, p. 148)
> 
> 
> 
> "The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."  (Millikan, Robert A., Nashville Banner, August 7, 1925, quoted in Brewer's lecture)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading these words from evolutionists, would you say the evidence points more towards spontaneous generation and evolution or divine creation?
> 
> 
> 
> Anointed-One.net
Click to expand...


No sweat. Apparently all we need to do to get you nincumpoops on-board is to dig up every fucking fossil on the planet. 

Stay tuned. Just a matter of time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what proof is there that Noah was 600 years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just curious, do you believe he was that old anyways, even with zero proof?
Click to expand...


Yes,I believe everything the bible say's things I can't prove in the bible I take on faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> In truth; no, I hadn't committed that to memory, exactly.  But what's your point?  It's not true?  (tip: it's absolutely true.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look what famous evolutionists said concerning the fossil record that darwin claimed would prove his theory if it be true.
> 
> Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms."  (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)
> 
> 
> 
> "Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)
> 
> 
> 
> "There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life.  There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon."  (Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p. 45)
> 
> 
> 
> "Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing." (Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)
> 
> 
> 
> "The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms."  (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)
> 
> 
> 
> "It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position." (Cracraft, J., "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism," 1983, p. 180)
> 
> 
> 
> "Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."  (Eldredge, N., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)
> 
> 
> 
> "Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny."  (Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)
> 
> 
> 
> "Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations."  (Gould, Stephen J. and Eldredge, Niles, "Species Selection: Its Range and Power," 1988, p. 19)
> 
> 
> 
> "The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 million years ago.  Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then."  ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376)
> 
> 
> 
> "Many 'trends' singled out by evolutionary biologists are ex post facto rendering of phylogenetic history: biologists may simply pick out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in phylogenetic history. This is particularly so in situations, especially common prior to about 1970, in which analysis of the phylogenetic relationships among species was incompletely or poorly done." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 134)
> 
> 
> 
> "The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." (Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59)
> 
> 
> 
> "Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories."  (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, p. 353-354)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stasis and Sudden Appearance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:  1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.  2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"  (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. ...If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."  (Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766)
> 
> 
> 
> "Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years."  (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24)
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..."  (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239)
> 
> 
> 
> "The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82)
> 
> 
> 
> "Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."  (Eldredge, (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."  (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)
> 
> 
> 
> "The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."  (Wesson, R., Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p. 45)
> 
> 
> 
> "All through the fossil record, groups - both large and small - abruptly appear and disappear.  ...The earliest phase of rapid change usually is undiscovered, and must be inferred by comparison with its probable relatives."  (Newell, N. D., Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality, 1984, p. 10)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism...and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."  (Mayr, E., Our Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138)
> 
> 
> 
> "The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."  (Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187)
> 
> 
> 
> "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find."  (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)
> 
> 
> 
> "A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations.  This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." (Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56)
> 
> 
> 
> "Eldredge and Gould, by contrast, decided to take the record at face value. On this view, there is little evidence of modification within species, or of forms intermediate between species because neither generally occurred. A species forms and evolves almost instantaneously (on the geological timescale) and then remains virtually unchanged until it disappears, yielding its habitat to a new species."  (Smith, Peter J., "Evolution's Most Worrisome Questions," Review of Life Pulse by Niles Eldredge, New Scientist, 1987, p. 59)
> 
> 
> 
> "The principle problem is morphological stasis.  A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214)
> 
> 
> 
> "It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their duration..." (Eldredge, Niles, The Pattern of Evolution, 1998, p. 157)
> 
> 
> 
> "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition."  (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)
> 
> 
> 
> "We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology," Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55)
> 
> 
> 
> "In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong.' A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it? ...As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the 'punctuated equilibrium' pattern of Eldredge and Gould."  (Kemp, Tom S., "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, p. 66-67)
> 
> 
> 
> "The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence.  Most changes are random rather than systematic modifications, until species drop out. There is no sign of directed order here. Trends do occur in many lines, but they are not the rule." (Newell, N. D., "Systematics and Evolution," 1984, p. 10)
> 
> 
> 
> "Well-represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species." (Gould Stephen J., "Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness," Natural History, 1988, p. 14)
> 
> 
> 
> "Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution).  (Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ...That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."  (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large Gaps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multi-cellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning... A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists are Wrong, Prometheus Books, 1984, p. 95)
> 
> 
> 
> "There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.  In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be."  (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)
> 
> 
> 
> "It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.  Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record.  The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."  (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)
> 
> 
> 
> "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.  Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)
> 
> 
> 
> "One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms."  (Brouwer, A., "General Paleontology," [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163)
> 
> 
> 
> "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration.  The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Neville, George, T., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, p. 1-3)
> 
> 
> 
> "The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real:  the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history not the artifact of a poor fossil record...The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59, 163)
> 
> 
> 
> "Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record."  (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted."  (Paul, C.R.C, "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record," 1982, p. 75)
> 
> 
> 
> "Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing." (Jepsen, L. Glenn; Mayr, Ernst; Simpson George Gaylord. Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, New York, Athenaeum, 1963, p. 114)
> 
> 
> 
> "For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology..."  (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984)
> 
> 
> 
> "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."  (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)
> 
> 
> 
> "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."   (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127)
> 
> 
> 
> "The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important  places." (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, p.19)
> 
> 
> 
> "If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after.  But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.  This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found.  In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)
> 
> 
> 
> "Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved.  ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89)
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.  The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)
> 
> 
> 
> "A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miscellaneous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.  We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."  (Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)
> 
> 
> 
> "If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?  I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.  I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)
> 
> 
> 
> "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.  Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption?  The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."  (E.J.H. Corner "Evolution" in A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds., Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago, IL:  Quadrangle Books, 1961, at 95, 97 from Bird, I, p. 234)
> 
> 
> 
> "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."  (More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)
> 
> 
> 
> "At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." (Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164)
> 
> 
> 
> "One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles,  "A Divine Design:  Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)
> 
> 
> 
> "I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb.  In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."  (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)
> 
> 
> 
> "The origin of life is still a mystery. As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing evolution]...I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation...can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles.  How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?"  (d'Aubigne, Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 158)
> 
> 
> 
> "Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance."  (Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)
> 
> 
> 
> "The third assumption was the Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated...We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated." (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergammon Press, 1960, p. 151)
> 
> 
> 
> "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.  They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter?  And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.  Scientists do not know how that happened, and furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening.  Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability.  Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe.  No scientific evidence precludes that possibility."  (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)
> 
> 
> 
> "...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold.  We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."  (Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44)
> 
> 
> 
> "With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny." (Paul, C. R. C., 1989, "Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates", Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 1989, p. 105)
> 
> 
> 
> "The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery." (Darwin, Charles R., letter to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, in Darwin F. & Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, p. 20-21)
> 
> 
> 
> "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.  So many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.  But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.  The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)
> 
> 
> 
> "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)
> 
> 
> 
> "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
> 
> 
> 
> "The geological record has provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes."  (Norman, J., A History of Fishes, 1963, p. 298)
> 
> 
> 
> "None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates."  (Stahl, B., Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., NY, 1985, p. 148)
> 
> 
> 
> "The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."  (Millikan, Robert A., Nashville Banner, August 7, 1925, quoted in Brewer's lecture)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading these words from evolutionists, would you say the evidence points more towards spontaneous generation and evolution or divine creation?
> 
> 
> 
> Anointed-One.net
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sweat. Apparently all we need to do to get you nincumpoops on-board is to dig up every fucking fossil on the planet.
> 
> Stay tuned. Just a matter of time.
Click to expand...


That is what Darwin thought


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, do you believe he was that old anyways, even with zero proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes,I believe everything the bible say's things I can't prove in the bible I take on faith.
Click to expand...


Cool.  I respect that.

How about the extensive proof we Evolutionists demand?  Must you try to discredit it?  If so, why?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look what famous evolutionists said concerning the fossil record that darwin claimed would prove his theory if it be true.
> 
> Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms."  (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)
> 
> 
> 
> "Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)
> 
> 
> 
> "There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life.  There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon."  (Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p. 45)
> 
> 
> 
> "Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing." (Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)
> 
> 
> 
> "The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms."  (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)
> 
> 
> 
> "It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position." (Cracraft, J., "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism," 1983, p. 180)
> 
> 
> 
> "Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."  (Eldredge, N., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)
> 
> 
> 
> "Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny."  (Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)
> 
> 
> 
> "Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations."  (Gould, Stephen J. and Eldredge, Niles, "Species Selection: Its Range and Power," 1988, p. 19)
> 
> 
> 
> "The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 million years ago.  Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then."  ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376)
> 
> 
> 
> "Many 'trends' singled out by evolutionary biologists are ex post facto rendering of phylogenetic history: biologists may simply pick out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in phylogenetic history. This is particularly so in situations, especially common prior to about 1970, in which analysis of the phylogenetic relationships among species was incompletely or poorly done." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 134)
> 
> 
> 
> "The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." (Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59)
> 
> 
> 
> "Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories."  (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, p. 353-354)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stasis and Sudden Appearance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:  1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.  2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"  (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. ...If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."  (Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766)
> 
> 
> 
> "Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years."  (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24)
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..."  (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239)
> 
> 
> 
> "The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82)
> 
> 
> 
> "Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."  (Eldredge, (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."  (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)
> 
> 
> 
> "The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."  (Wesson, R., Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p. 45)
> 
> 
> 
> "All through the fossil record, groups - both large and small - abruptly appear and disappear.  ...The earliest phase of rapid change usually is undiscovered, and must be inferred by comparison with its probable relatives."  (Newell, N. D., Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality, 1984, p. 10)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism...and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."  (Mayr, E., Our Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138)
> 
> 
> 
> "The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."  (Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187)
> 
> 
> 
> "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find."  (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)
> 
> 
> 
> "A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations.  This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." (Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56)
> 
> 
> 
> "Eldredge and Gould, by contrast, decided to take the record at face value. On this view, there is little evidence of modification within species, or of forms intermediate between species because neither generally occurred. A species forms and evolves almost instantaneously (on the geological timescale) and then remains virtually unchanged until it disappears, yielding its habitat to a new species."  (Smith, Peter J., "Evolution's Most Worrisome Questions," Review of Life Pulse by Niles Eldredge, New Scientist, 1987, p. 59)
> 
> 
> 
> "The principle problem is morphological stasis.  A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214)
> 
> 
> 
> "It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their duration..." (Eldredge, Niles, The Pattern of Evolution, 1998, p. 157)
> 
> 
> 
> "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition."  (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)
> 
> 
> 
> "We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology," Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55)
> 
> 
> 
> "In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong.' A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it? ...As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the 'punctuated equilibrium' pattern of Eldredge and Gould."  (Kemp, Tom S., "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, p. 66-67)
> 
> 
> 
> "The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence.  Most changes are random rather than systematic modifications, until species drop out. There is no sign of directed order here. Trends do occur in many lines, but they are not the rule." (Newell, N. D., "Systematics and Evolution," 1984, p. 10)
> 
> 
> 
> "Well-represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species." (Gould Stephen J., "Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness," Natural History, 1988, p. 14)
> 
> 
> 
> "Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution).  (Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ...That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."  (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large Gaps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multi-cellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning... A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists are Wrong, Prometheus Books, 1984, p. 95)
> 
> 
> 
> "There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.  In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be."  (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)
> 
> 
> 
> "It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.  Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record.  The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."  (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)
> 
> 
> 
> "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.  Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)
> 
> 
> 
> "One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms."  (Brouwer, A., "General Paleontology," [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163)
> 
> 
> 
> "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration.  The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Neville, George, T., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, p. 1-3)
> 
> 
> 
> "The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real:  the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history not the artifact of a poor fossil record...The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59, 163)
> 
> 
> 
> "Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record."  (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted."  (Paul, C.R.C, "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record," 1982, p. 75)
> 
> 
> 
> "Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing." (Jepsen, L. Glenn; Mayr, Ernst; Simpson George Gaylord. Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, New York, Athenaeum, 1963, p. 114)
> 
> 
> 
> "For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology..."  (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984)
> 
> 
> 
> "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."  (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)
> 
> 
> 
> "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."   (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127)
> 
> 
> 
> "The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important  places." (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, p.19)
> 
> 
> 
> "If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after.  But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.  This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found.  In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)
> 
> 
> 
> "Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved.  ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89)
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.  The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)
> 
> 
> 
> "A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miscellaneous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.  We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."  (Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)
> 
> 
> 
> "If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?  I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.  I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)
> 
> 
> 
> "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.  Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption?  The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."  (E.J.H. Corner "Evolution" in A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds., Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago, IL:  Quadrangle Books, 1961, at 95, 97 from Bird, I, p. 234)
> 
> 
> 
> "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."  (More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)
> 
> 
> 
> "At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." (Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164)
> 
> 
> 
> "One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles,  "A Divine Design:  Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)
> 
> 
> 
> "I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb.  In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."  (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)
> 
> 
> 
> "The origin of life is still a mystery. As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing evolution]...I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation...can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles.  How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?"  (d'Aubigne, Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 158)
> 
> 
> 
> "Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance."  (Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)
> 
> 
> 
> "The third assumption was the Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated...We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated." (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergammon Press, 1960, p. 151)
> 
> 
> 
> "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.  They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter?  And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.  Scientists do not know how that happened, and furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening.  Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability.  Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe.  No scientific evidence precludes that possibility."  (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)
> 
> 
> 
> "...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold.  We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."  (Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44)
> 
> 
> 
> "With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny." (Paul, C. R. C., 1989, "Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates", Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 1989, p. 105)
> 
> 
> 
> "The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery." (Darwin, Charles R., letter to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, in Darwin F. & Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, p. 20-21)
> 
> 
> 
> "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.  So many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.  But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.  The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)
> 
> 
> 
> "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)
> 
> 
> 
> "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
> 
> 
> 
> "The geological record has provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes."  (Norman, J., A History of Fishes, 1963, p. 298)
> 
> 
> 
> "None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates."  (Stahl, B., Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., NY, 1985, p. 148)
> 
> 
> 
> "The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."  (Millikan, Robert A., Nashville Banner, August 7, 1925, quoted in Brewer's lecture)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading these words from evolutionists, would you say the evidence points more towards spontaneous generation and evolution or divine creation?
> 
> 
> 
> Anointed-One.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sweat. Apparently all we need to do to get you nincumpoops on-board is to dig up every fucking fossil on the planet.
> 
> Stay tuned. Just a matter of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what Darwin thought
Click to expand...


Indeed.  And so far, so good.  Seems Chuck's gambit is yet to bite him in the butt, sorry to say.


----------



## Hollie

More dishonest creationist "quote mining" exposed as intentionally fraudulent. 




> "Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution,1983, p. 190-191)



Preceding paragraph ....

"Contrary to Creationist claims, the transitions among vertebrate species are almost all documented to a greater or lesser extent. Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds; the therapsids provide an abundance of evidence for the transition from reptiles to mammals. Moreover, there are exquisite fossil links between the crossopterygian fishes and the amphibians (the icthyostegids). Of course, many other ancestor-descendent series also exist in the fossil record. I have mentioned (Chapter 4) the bactritid-ammonoid transition, the derivation of several mammalian orders from condylarthlike mammals, the evolution of horses, and of course the hominids."

... (quoted sentences) .....

Following sentences ....

"But in view of the rapid pace evolution can take, and the extreme incompleteness of fossil deposits, we are fortunate to have as many transitions as we do. The creationist argument that if evolution were true we should have an abundance of intermediate fossils is built by denying the richness of paleontological collections, by denying the transitional series that exist, and by distorting, or misunderstanding, the genetical theory of evolution."

- Laurence A. Moran, John Wilkins and Sverker Johansson


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finches were not a product of macro-evolution they were a product of micro-adaptations and cross breeding. Finches are still finches correct ? do you understand the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution ?
> 
> *Do you remember darwins own words ? "if my theory be true it will be confirmed in the fossil record there will be millions of transitional fossils found in different layers strata showing gradualism"*
> 
> If the finches were macro-evolution then he did not need the fossil record understand ? so darwin confirmed what he observed in the finches were only a case of micro-adaptations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In truth; no, I hadn't committed that to memory, exactly.  But what's your point?  It's not true?  (tip: it's absolutely true.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look what famous evolutionists said concerning the fossil record that darwin claimed would prove his theory if it be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WALL OF TEXT violation  !!!!!!!!!!!!!! SLAPDICK !
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

More dishonest creationist "quote mining"



> "It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms." (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution,1978, p. 230)



[T]his is on a par with "crimes are not all observed - film at eleven".

- John Wilkins


"It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms. A direct method of tracing phylogenies has been to trace a series of fossils that resemble each other but show a sequence of changes leading through time from an ancestral to a descendant form. Relationships among the fossils are thus judged by their relative ages and their morphological resemblances and differences. This works well when abundant fossils are available in a continuous record, but unfortunately the fossil record is quite incomplete. Most animals have no easily fossilizable hard parts, and only a small fraction of animals with shells or bones are actually preserved as fossils. For most lineages we have to employ more indirect methods of phylogenetic reconstruction."


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has ever weed whacked through the landscape of christian creationist lies has come upon the sleazy tactics of the creationist ministries and their falsified, alterd and parsed "quotes".
> 
> The _talkorigins_ website has a huge collection of these creationist lies.
> 
> The following is another, typical example of creationist lies.
> 
> Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"
> 
> "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
> 
> 
> Snipped in the ellipsis is:
> 
> "We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."
> 
> Following this passage is:
> 
> 
> "Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
> 
> "Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.
> 
> "Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.
> 
> - John Wilkins
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A more complete citation would be: Gould, Stephen Jay 1980. "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change" The Panda's Thumb. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 181-182.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie pound sand,these quotes are all documented.your Idelogoical site can't spin what was said.
Click to expand...

he just did and the spin is yours the site is a creationist site it's bias precludes it's  validly .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws we know that parents only have genetic information to reproduce what they are. Hell that should be obvious to your side as well. Cells reproduce what they are as well and every living organism reproduces what they are.
> 
> 
> 
> nice dodge .
> stating the obvious is no proof that god did it .
> no matter how hard you wish it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible is supported by the evidence this is not evidence that supports your theory.
Click to expand...

for the millionth time NO IT'S NOT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL CORROBERATING THE CREATION MYTH!
THE BIBLE IS NOT EVIDENCE IN IT'S SELF.
NOAHS ARK , JOSUHA STOPPING THE SUN, JESUS MIRICALING UP FISH AND LOAFS ETC..
HAVE NO NON BIBLICAL MENTIONS IN OTHER HISTISTORIES WRITTEN AT THAT TIME.


----------



## pinqy

Youwerecreated said:


> Daws we know that parents only have genetic information to reproduce what they are. Hell that should be obvious to your side as well. Cells reproduce what they are as well and every living organism reproduces what they are.



No one argues otherwise.  One species giving birth to another would DISPROVE Evolution.

But the fact remains that over time species do change...traits are gained, traits drop out, and different populations experience different changes.  Enough small changes (so that no one generation is significantly different from the previous) build up over thousands of  generations so that two different groups are no longer the same or that the present members of a group are no longer the same as those a million years ago.


----------



## Hollie

More dishonest creationist "quote mining"




> "Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations." (Gould, Stephen J. and Eldredge, Niles, "Species Selection: Its Range and Power," 1988, p. 19)



OK, this is a one-page letter to Nature in July 1988 in response to a letter by Maynard Smith criticising Gould's and Eldredge's idea of species selection. Maynard Smith had, in G&E's words,



> "...accused us of overextending the potential role of species selection by proposing it as a source for the origin of complex morphological adaptations. We agreed [ref] that species selection could not work in such a manner, and pointed out that all proponents of the idea had always so acknowledged."



Maynard Smith's letter is Nature 330:516 (1987). The referred letter is Nature 332:211-212 (1988)

Here is the quoted section in context:

"Maynard Smith's quotations simply illustrate a misunderstanding in the use of terms. The quotations all advocate species selection as a cause of paleontological 'trends' and Maynard Smith has equated trends with complex adaptations. Not so. In our original paper on punctuated equilibrium [ref8] we defined trends as 'biostratigraphic character gradients' -- the standards paleontological usage. Most empirical trends in fossils are chronological gradients in simple characters, the most famous being trends towards increased body size expressed as Cope's rule. [ref9] Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations -- the jaws and eyes of vertebrates, to cite two classic cases. Thus, paleontological trends, properly defined, are the very aspects of morphology that are most subject to potential explanation by species selection, because trends are simple, sustained changes that can arise by hitchhiking on a process of sorting among species."

[ref8] Eldredge, N. & Gould, S. J. in Models in Apleobiology (ed. Schopf T.J.M.) 82-115 (Freeman Cooper, San Francisco, 1972)

[ref9] Stanley, S. M. Evolution 27, 1-26 (1973).

This is not a case of misquotation, or taking it out of a qualifying context. However, it is a partial quotation, and in context it is discussing whether or not trends of complex morphological adaptations are explicable in terms of the Gould and Eldredge conception of species selection; they answer that they are not.

- John Wilkins


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> for the millionth time NO IT'S NOT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL CORROBERATING THE CREATION MYTH!
> THE BIBLE IS NOT EVIDENCE IN IT'S SELF.
> NOAHS ARK , JOSUHA STOPPING THE SUN, JESUS MIRICALING UP FISH AND LOAFS ETC..
> HAVE NO NON BIBLICAL MENTIONS IN OTHER HISTISTORIES WRITTEN AT THAT TIME.



Joshua&#8217;s Long Day around the World?

Having concluded that Joshua&#8217;s long day is a miracle, we may ask whether or not it was restricted just to the area of Canaan or whether it was global in scope.  Certainly a &#8220;missing day&#8221; would generate considerable consternation among the peoples of the world, provided it was a global event. Are there other accounts of a long day or even a long night?  Indeed, we can find stories of a long night as well as a long day.  We can even find tales where the sun hung near the horizon for a long time.  All the accounts taken together allow us to ascertain the time of day when Joshua told the sun to stand still.

Some of the world&#8217;s recitations of Joshua&#8217;s long day are vague and unspecific while others are quite clear.  Among the former are those which relate only that the people had knowledge of the concept that the sun, moon, and stars can reverse their motions. An example of one of these is the account referred to by Augustine in The City of God where he quotes the Æneid about a witch who: 



...can reverse the wheeling of the planets, halt rivers in their flowing.22 



Joshua&#8217;s Long Day in Africa

Toward the end of the last century, Charles Adiel Lewis Totten, then a retired Professor of Military Science from Yale University, published a controversial study on Joshua&#8217;s long day.23  The book dealt extensively with Joshua&#8217;s long day and Hezekiah&#8217;s sign.  In recent times attempts to discredit it center more on the person of Totten than they do on the mathematics and science involved.  Totten was the editor of Our Race, a publication devoted to the promotion of what today is called &#8220;British Israelitism,&#8221; although Totten&#8217;s stance is eminently more realistic and moderate than that taken by that faction today.  Robert Olden24 says Totten obtained most of his material from J. B. Dimbleby of South Hackney, England, who was the premier chronologist of the British Chronological Society.  Lest Totten be accused of plagiarism, Dimbleby is cited numerous times in Totten&#8217;s works.  Totten has also been accused of worshipping the Great Pyramid of Giza, from which, it is claimed, he received his inspiration for his work on Joshua&#8217;s long day.  Actually, the latter sounds more like Dimbleby, for a reading of Totten&#8217;s works on the Great Pyramid reveals none of the mysticism implied by the charge. 

Anyhow, flawed though some of Totten&#8217;s works might be, in his book, he relates two independent and geographically distinct accounts of Joshua&#8217;s long day.  One of Totten&#8217;s sources is a report by the Greek historian Herodotus who wrote that when he visited Egypt, the priests there showed him an ancient manuscript which told the story of a day which lasted about twice as long as a nor mal day.  Now the Egyptians had water clocks at that time so that they could accurately measure the duration of the day, not being dependent on the motion of the sun, moon, and stars, as would other peoples around the world.  Totten&#8217;s second account is from the Chinese which we shall present later.

For the Egyptian account, we find that the French classical scholar, Fernand Crombette, translated some Egyptian hieroglyphics which tell of Joshua&#8217;s long day.25  The text starts out with an edict from the king to exempt from taxation those who had been victims of a flood some two weeks earlier. Evidently the flood had been caused by an unusually high tide.  The cause, according to the Egyptian hieroglyphics, was: 



The sun, thrown into confusion, had remained low on the horizon, and by not rising had spread terror amongst the great doctors.  Two days had been rolled into one.  The morning was lengthened to one-and-a-half times the normal period of effective daylight.  A certain time after this divine phenomenon, the master had an image built to keep further misfortune from the country.

Hephaistos...grant protection to your worshipers.  Prevent the words of these foreign travelers from having any effect.  They are impostors.  Let these enemies of the sacrifices to the images be destroyed in the temples of the great gods by the people of all classes.  Make life harder for these cursed worshipers of the Eternal.  Punish them.  Increase the hardships of these shepherds.  Reduce the size of their herds.  Burn their dwellings.

Rameses, our celestial ancestral chief; you who forced these wretched people to work, who ill-treated them, who gave them no help when they were in need: cast them into the sea. They made the moon stop in a small angle at the edge of the horizon.  In a small angle on the edge of the horizon, the sun itself, which had just risen at the spot where the moon was going, instead of crossing the sky stayed where it was.  Whilst the moon, following a narrow path, reduced its speed and climbed slowly, the sun stopped moving and its intensity of light was reduced to the brightness at daybreak.  The waves formed a wall of water against the boats that were in the harbor and those that had left it.  Those fishermen that had ventured onto the deck to watch the waves were washed into the sea.

The tide, which had risen high, overflowed into the plains where the herds were grazing.  The cattle drowned represented half the herds of Lower Egypt.  The remains of abandoned boats broken against the sides of the canals were piled up in places.  Their anchors, which should have protected them, had been ground into them.  Quite out of control, the sea had penetrated deep into the country.  The expanding waters reached the fortified walls constructed by Rameses, the celestial ancestral chief.  The sea swept around both sides of the region behind, sterilizing the gar dens as it went and causing openings in the dikes.  A great country had been turned into a wilderness and brought into poverty.  All the crops that had been planted had been destroyed and heaps of cereal shoots lay scattered on the ground. 



The Crombette account is significant for a number of reasons.  For one, it tells that the moon &#8220;climbed slowly,&#8221; which would be correct if the moon kept its orbital speed but stopped its daily motion.  This is allowed by Joshua 10:13&#8217;s weaker statement on the moon: &#8220;and the moon stayed,&#8221; instead of the stronger &#8220;stopped,&#8221; for &#8220;stay&#8221; may mean &#8220;to linger or wait to witness an event.&#8221;  Likewise, Crombette&#8217;s interpretation that the moon was going to the spot where the sun had risen is thus explained by having the moon continue its orbital motion and its being located west of the sun, perhaps near last quarter. 

Whether or not the tides mentioned in translation were really tides or a storm swell cannot be said.  It is possible that the tidal bulge kept moving, but it is unlikely that the narrows of the Nile delta and the narrowness of the canals mentioned caused a bore wave, for then such should always have been the case under nor mal tidal conditions.  It is possible, though unlikely, that the breakup for the tidal bulge may have caused waves which interfered with each other and that Egypt&#8217;s dikes might have broken at one or two points by constructive interference, thus the resulting flooding.  But it seems more likely that the events mentioned in Egypt were the result of a severe storm swell in the Mediterranean caused by the very storm that formed the hailstones mentioned in Joshua 10 



And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Beth-horon, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword. 



Although most commentators insist that Joshua&#8217;s long day started at noon or later, the sun is here mentioned low on the horizon.  The Bible itself does not mention the time when Joshua spake.  For comparison with the Egyptian account, and complementing it, there is a West African story of a long night.26 In that account, the night lasted way too long because the owl over slept and did not awaken the sun. 



The Chinese Account of Joshua&#8217;s Long Day

The second secular source about Joshua&#8217;s long day, which was mentioned by Totten, is based on what seems to be a recently lost ancient Chinese manuscript. In 1810 Gill presents the account: 



In the Chinese history27 it is reported, that in the time of their seventh emperor, Yao, the sun did not set for ten days, and that men were afraid the world would be burnt, and there were great fires at that time; and though the time of the sun&#8217;s standing still were enlarged beyond the bounds of truth, yet it seems to refer to this fact, and was manifestly about the same time; for this miracle was wrought in the year of the world 2554, which fell in the 75th, or, as some say, the 67th year of that emperor&#8217;s reign, who reigned 90 years.28 



Now the year of the world 2554 is identical to Bouw&#8217;s independently derived biblical chronology for the date of Joshua&#8217;s long day.29  Incidentally, note that a 90-year reign (not Yao&#8217;s age) is thoroughly consistent with the 110 to 120 year ages achieved by Moses, Aaron, and Joshua who would have been contemporaries of Yao.  The length of time mentioned by the Chinese, ten days, may be too long simply because the Chinese did not have clocks which ran independently of the sun&#8217;s motion so that the estimate would be purely subjective.  Probably, the duration was exaggerated both by the trauma of the event and in the transmission of the story through time.

Despite the solid-sounding account by Gill, manuscripts which have survived to the twentieth century do not include the long day.  The first mention of the long day associated with emperor Yao was by Hübner in 1733.30  Although Hübner was quoted during that century, no manuscript exists today.  Those manuscripts which have survived to this day differ from Hübner&#8217;s in at least two ways: first, there is no mention of the 10-day long day, and second, the reign of Yao is reported to be 100 years, not 90.  

Although there is no mention of the ten-day long day in current Chinese accounts, there is one in the &#8220;Brahman Yast,&#8221; one of the books of the Avesta.  That reference is not, however, to a past event.  Instead, it is a prophecy.  The Avesta says that 1600 years from the date of the Persian culture (corresponding to about A.D. 1200), Hushedar will be born and, at age 30, he will command the sun to stand still for 10 days and nights.  Obviously, the prophecy never came to pass, still it is strongly reminiscent of the Chinese account and may either have confused Hübner or else may reflect the actual Chinese account used by Hübner. 



Joshua&#8217;s Long Day in North America

Tales relating to Joshua&#8217;s long day abound in North America. Almost all of the tales in North America tell of a long night.  The only exceptions are those related in the chapter on Hezekiah&#8217;s sign.  Olcott31 has collected five of particular interest. 



The Ojibways tell of a long night without any light.32 
The Wyandot Indians told missionary Paul Le Jeune of a long night.33 
The Dogrib Indians of the North-West tell of a day when the sun was caught at noon and it instantly became dark.34 
The Omahas say that once the sun was caught in a trap by a rabbit who checked his traps at the break of dawn, presumably before sunrise.35  (This may be Hezekiah&#8217;s sign, instead.)  Finally, 
the Bungee Indians from the Lake Winnipeg area of Canada also tell of a long night.36 


The preponderance of long night tales in the Americas would rule out the theory that Joshua&#8217;s long day was a miracle which was local to Canaan. It also rules out the speculation that the story migrated around the world, for then it would everywhere be a long day (or a long night), but not a mixture of long days and long nights. 



The Long Night in the Central and South Americas

Turning to the south, we find that Central and South America similarly experienced a long night.  In the Annals of Chauhtitlan, the Mexican Indians tell of a long night.  The Aztecs wrote of an extended period of time when the sun did not rise.  According to their legend, there had been no sun for many years. 



... So a conclave of the gods was called in Teotihuacan, and there it was decided that one of them should offer himself as a sacrifice that once again the world might have a sun ... The sacrificed gods had disappeared in the brazier&#8217;s flames, but as there was no sign of the sun, the remaining wonder when it would first appear. At long last, the sun burst forth ... But the sun, despite his brilliant light, did not move; he hung on the edge of the sky, apparently unwilling to begin his appointed task.37 



Likewise, in their national book the Popol Vuh, (which translates into &#8220;Book of the Princes,&#8221 the Quiché Mayans of Guatemala wrote about the people&#8217;s reaction to a long night with these words: 



They did not sleep; they remained standing and great was the anxiety of their hearts and their stomachs for the coming of the dawn and the day ... &#8220;Oh, ... if we only could see the rising of the sun!  What shall we do now?&#8221; ... They talked, but they could not calm their hearts which were anxious for the coming of the dawn.38 



Now in recent years it has become fashionable to assail the above translations on the grounds that they are biased towards the Judeo-Christian history of the world.  For example, the Aztec god who sacrificed himself was to have the honor of becoming the sun.  His condition for rising was that the gods kill themselves, which they ultimately were forced to do.39  It would seem that this is a creation myth rather than an account of Joshua&#8217;s long day, but the nature of Central American folk tales is very complex. For example, according to the myth there had been a sun before, and it had not risen for so long that people feared it dead. So how is it a creation account?  

A similar situation exists with the Popol Vuh.  According to some, that entire work is nothing more than one long creation myth.  But the creation of man comes very late in the Popol Vuh, long after people have existed and had many adventures.  The text quoted above from Goetz and Morley lies embedded in a lengthy section which starts with the longing and waiting for the sun, digresses into the origin of fire, and makes mention of the parting of the sea for the newly-arrived forefathers before resuming the story of the long wait for the dawn.  If this is a creation account which occurred before the creation of man and which speaks of the creation of the sun, why are there many priests and tribes in existence?  Why the reference to the forefathers who existed then if man had yet to be created?  Such situations are typical in the literature of that region and time, and it may easily be understood in the light of the purpose of these tales: they exist to tie together salient pieces of history.  So it is, too, with the Aztec tale.  There was a long night, but the story has been expanded almost beyond recognition.  Similarly with the Popol Vuh there is evidence of changes in the tale even over the last few centuries. 

As for the charge that early translators were biased, are the anti-Christian translators not equally biased for their view?  The fact remains, there is a reference here to a long night, exactly as would be expected if the various accounts around the world of Joshua&#8217;s long day were true.

Besides the accounts of a long night in North and Central America, there is also at least one story of a long night in Peru.  According to Montesinos, the collector of the tale, the sun was hidden for nearly 20 hours in the third year of the reign of Titu Yupanqui Pachacuti II because of sin in the land.40  Titu Yupanqui Pachacuti II ruled about 1400 B.C. 



The Long Sunset

Stories of a long day and stories of a long night: are there any stories of a long sunrise or a long sunset?  There may be some uncollected stories of a long sunrise in Africa, but none have surfaced.  There is, however, a story of a long sunset in the Fiji Is lands.  J. G. Frazer tells of a tradition on the island of Lakomba in the eastern Fiji Islands where there is a hillside with a patch of weeds on it.  The story goes that natives will tie the weeds together in order to keep the sun from going down.  It is said that the sun did, indeed, stop from setting at one time.41  

Although there are several other traditions of stopping the sun, most are remotely, if at all, connected to Joshua&#8217;s long day.  In Australia, for example, if a native wanted to stop the sun he would place a piece of sod in the fork of a tree.  Similar traditions exist in Africa and in Central America.  A tradition of that nature in Japan meant nothing more than the belief that a man&#8217;s friends would wait dinner for him if he was going to arrive home late.  Still, underlying all but the last of these traditions is the idea that the sun can, and by implication, did stop at least once upon a time. 



The Extra-Long Night

A handful of long day and long night tales do not seem to fit.  The Hawaiian tale of Maui&#8217;s capture of the sun is one, for it implies an arrest of the sun at sunrise.  It is similar to the myths from other Polynesian Islands peoples, and those similarities serve to tie it to Peru&#8217;s Hezekiah&#8217;s sign accounts, not Joshua&#8217;s long day.

Three peoples have a tale of a night which lasted several months: the Japanese, an ancient tribe in Lithuania, and the Cherokee Indians of North America.  The Cherokee and Japanese tales are virtually identical and seem to stem from the same source.  Both have the sun hiding in a cave for a long time and being tricked out of the cave.42

The account from Lithuania was collected by Jerome of Prague when he visited the &#8220;heathen&#8221; of the area in the early 15th century.  There he discovered a tribe which had migrated from the east and which also told tales of a night lasting several months.

There are two possible reasons for these accounts.  All could be related to the Japanese account and could reflect either a volcanic eruption which darkened the sky over Japan and Siberia for months on end or else, it could be a tale of the long Arctic night, almost six months long at the pole.  A two-month night is experienced about the latitude of Point Barrow, Alaska.  Perhaps the accounts relate to these natural events.  In any case, they stand in stark contrast with the other long day and long night tales from around the world.



Joshua&#8217;s Long Day and the Computers

In the late 1970s and early 1980s two stories appeared in print about a computer finding a missing day. The first is told by Harold Hill in his book, How to Live Like a King&#8217;s Kid.43  In Hill&#8217;s own words: 



When NASA&#8217;s Goddard Space Flight Center here at Greenbelt, Md. first went on the air, a horrendous technical boo-boo surfaced, causing a complete shutdown [of the computer] after less than an hour&#8217;s operation.

I was called in as an outside consultant and came up with a &#8220;quick-fix&#8221; that saved the day for them.

After things fired up I stayed around as an interested observer, to catch the very beginning of our Space Exploration activity. That was somewhere back in the sixties.  

&#8230; A large team of IBM technicians was present to debug the system and get it running.  No one really knew much except that it looked O.K. on paper.  It was during that time that I heard about the aberration in the location of the Heavenly bodies that led to the Bible account of how the MISSING DAY incident came about.

I was not the one who came up with the Bible answer, nor do I know the names of those involved.  I simply reported it as it came to me and used it in my lectures on the Bible and Science, which I frequently deliver in schools and Colleges in Science Seminars.

A Newspaper reporter in Spencer, Indiana [Mary Kathryn Bryan in 1970] came across a copy, and fed it into the major News Services.  To date I have received over 10,000 letters from all parts of the world.44 



Many have correctly pointed out that computers do not stop &#8220;and put up a red flag.&#8221;45  Some have reported that Hill has retracted his story, but that is not true.  Hill still maintains its veracity even though NASA has disavowed any knowledge of him, and others have charged him with various degrees of fraud.  It has also been suggested that Hill had based the story on Totten&#8217;s book,46 but Hill claims not to have known of the Totten book at the time.47  However, the main problem with Hill&#8217;s story is that it would require an independent date for some event such as an eclipse of the sun prior to Joshua&#8217;s long day.  The most ancient of these observations does not go back as far as 1,000 B.C., let alone 1,500 B.C.  Still, Hill&#8217;s story raised quite a bit of interest.

A second computer account of a missing day appeared in the Swedish Goteborgs Tidningen on March 15, 1981.  According to that story, Stig Flodmark of the University of Stockholm had discovered that the earth&#8217;s axis had flipped on May 3, 1375 B.C. and associated that with Joshua&#8217;s long day.  This proposal is the same as that of Rand who was mentioned earlier in this chapter.  According to Flodmark, an Ugaritic astronomer described the event and gave the date.  Flodmark refers to a book entitled Tidal Friction and the Earth&#8217;s Rotation.48  The comment by the author of the quoted paper, F. R. Stephenson, in summarizing the Ugaritic observation, is &#8220;Sun put to shame; went down in daytime.&#8221;  This hardly describes a tippie top phenomenon, especially with Gibeon at the rotational north pole for the day, for the sun would have been circumpolar for the Ugaritic astronomer; it would not have gone &#8220;down in daytime.&#8221; 



Related Verses

Joshua 10:13 does not stand alone in the Bible. There are several similar verses.  One of those is found in Habakkuk 3:11 which states: 



The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear. 



Now Habakkuk 3:11 is a double reference: in the first instance, it refers to a future event foreseen by Habakkuk; and in the second instance, it refers back to the taking of Canaan, back to Joshua&#8217;s long day.  As such, we may consider it as a unit with Joshua 10.

An apparent prophetic reference to Joshua&#8217;s long day is found in Job 9:7 which seems to foretell the events described in Joshua 10.  It is evident that Job was most likely a contemporary of Abraham or, at least, Job lived no later than Joseph or his sons.49  The verse reads as follows: 



[God] commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars. 



The Date of Joshua&#8217;s Long Day

We noted that the entry into the promised land was early April of 1448 B.C.  Can we ascertain the month and day of Joshua&#8217;s long day with any degree of certainty?  It turns out that we can come close. 

When the Israelites entered the promised land, it was the tenth day of the first month (Joshua 4:19), shortly before the time of the Passover which is at the time of the full moon. Now in 1448 B.C. the new moon and the first day of spring closely coincided, the first day of spring being March 19.5 at the time;50 so we can date the very entry into the promised land as Thursday, March 29, give or take a day. 

The events which are described between the Passover and the battle at Gibeon all took time.  The Passover celebration itself took a week; the fall of Jericho took seven days; the fall of Ai took at least four days; the construction of the altar on mount Ebal and the copying of the law probably took a week or more; the trickery of the Gibeonites took still more time; the communication of that trickery to the Gibeonites&#8217; neighbors and the subsequent formation of an alliance, not to mention their march to Gibeon, all took time.  It is reasonable to assume that over a month passed between the celebration of the Passover and Joshua&#8217;s long day.  This is entirely consistent with the geometry of sun and moon presented in Joshua 10 where the moon seems to be west of the sun and both visible in daylight.  Given that the time for the event was 9:00 a.m., the moon was most likely near or after its last quarter.  More specifically, then, it appears that Joshua&#8217;s long day happened somewhere between May 8 to May 15 of 1448 B.C. 



The Commentators Concluded

It should be painfully clear by this time that not only was Joshua&#8217;s long day a real miracle, but also it presents man with a great problem: either God writes what he means and means what he writes, or he does not.  Most Christian scholars over the centuries have been of the opinion that God needs them to make his truth known, that God is incapable of explaining certain matters to man without that help.  This is why most churches hold tradition over the authority of the Bible.  Joshua 10:12-14 strikes at the heart of this heresy.

In the twelfth verse it can be argued that when Joshua spoke, he was simply ignorant of the rotation of the earth and thus accused the sun and moon of moving.  Hence he spoke geocentrically.  This would not introduce an error in the Bible since this is a direct quote.  All that inerrancy requires is that the quote must be an accurate quote.  That&#8217;s fine and well for Joshua, but what of the thirteenth verse?  Who is the writer who reports that the &#8220;sun stood still, and the moon stayed?&#8221;  The Bible says that God is its author through the Holy Ghost (2 Timothy 3:16).  Verses 13 and 14 of Joshua 10 present us with the point of view of the author, and the author is God himself.  God cannot lie, so this point of view must be true.  If the perspective is not true, then either God is lying or someone else inspired the wording.  If the author is not God then who is he?  And just what is that person doing putting words in God&#8217;s mouth?  If this verse cannot be trusted, then how can we trust any other Bible passage?  Could not the same shadow of doubt be cast onto any other particular passage of scripture?  And what, then, becomes of the Bible&#8217;s witness of itself in such passages as 2Timothy 3:16-17?  Or if the commentator is God him self, is he speaking phenomenologically or anthropocentrically?  Or is that impossible? 

For the moment, let us assume that God is speaking either anthropocentrically or phenomenologically. Let us further sup pose that this is not the only place in the Bible where God does so but that, in particular, he does so in all geocentric passages.  Then what does that mean?  Just what does it mean to speak anthropocentrically or phenomenologically?

Anthropocentrism literally means &#8220;man-centeredness.&#8221;  In this view, God puts himself in man&#8217;s place and speaks from a human perspective.  Given that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, this is not at all far-fetched, but does this really excuse the God of Truth, who is the Truth, from writing the whole truth and nothing but the truth? God forbid!  Note how simply God could have avoided the contradiction between heliocentrism and geocentricity if instead he had started the thirteenth verse with: &#8220;And the earth stopped its turning ....&#8221;  God does not go out of his way to avoid difficult wording just for the sake of simplicity (Proverbs 1:22).  Nor does He express the science of the Bible in simple terms.  Take Job chapter 38, for example, where two or three &#8220;puzzling&#8221; and &#8220;poetic&#8221; passages have in, recent years, been found to be literally true; yet most of the chapter is completely above man&#8217;s comprehension.  Simply put, God does not speak anthropocentrically because God is not a man.

Phenomenology is a science which deals with appearances rather than with actual existence (the study of the latter is called ontology).  Phenomenology is based on the observation that appearances can be deceiving.  Thus when one claims that Joshua 10:13 is phenomenological, one effectively claims that God is not presenting the situation as it actually is but only presents it as it appears to be.  If the appearance is not the same as actual fact, then in the final analysis God is not relaying accurate information about the situation.  For the sake of &#8220;convenience,&#8221; God wrote an untruth.  God presented the appearance of the situation as the truth rather than presenting the truth as the truth: this is what one means when one says that the Bible speaks phenomenologically.

Phenomenological or anthropocentric: either the sun stood still or the earth stood still; either God inerrantly inspired the wording or He did not; either the Bible is trustworthy or it is not.  There is no middle ground.  There is no room for compromise.  After all, both the anthropocentric theory of inspiration and the phenomenological-language theory are forms of accommodation where God is said to accommodate his wording to the understanding of the common man. Good though that may sound on the surface, accommodation still maintains that God goes along with the accepted story even though he really does not believe it.

The whole issue would be moot if, as the liberals and infidels claim, the Bible was written by men and not God.  Belief in the human authorship of Bible earmarked the Sadducees in Christ&#8217;s day and still earmarks their spiritual descendants, the liberals, today.  The Pharisees recognized the truth about the authorship of the Bible but failed to live up to that fact.  When confronted by the truth of their hypocrisy they became enraged rather than repentant.  Today&#8217;s Pharisee is no different, reacting with violent rage when confronted by these matters.  Still, let God be true and every man a liar. 



Putting it all Together

When it is all put together, we know more about Joshua&#8217;s long day than we know of most other events recorded in the Bible.  The best date seems to be within four or five days either side of May 12, 1448 B.C., sometime between 8:30 and 9:30 a.m.  This we may conclude from plotting all of the long day, long night, and the long sunset accounts on a globe.  Such extensive observations preclude the conclusion that the event was an optical illusion restricted to the land of Israel.  It also disallows the notion that Joshua&#8217;s long day is fictitious, for the testimony of the peoples around the world is entirely consistent with its reality.  That some peoples have tales of a long night while others tell of a long day while none have both a long day and a long night tale signifies that Joshua&#8217;s long day is not one account, originating in the mid-East, which has migrated all over the world; for if such were the case, then all nations would tell of a long day and none would tell of a long night, let alone a perfectly-placed long sunset.  So we must conclude that Joshua&#8217;s long day was a real, historical event and not some fiction.

Why, despite the testimonies of various peoples around the globe to the reality of an extremely long day or night, and despite the geographic consistency of the data in terms of day and night, why should the majority of scholars dismiss this wealth of evidence as mere superstition?  How could there be more substantial evidence?  On the other hand, we shall have occasion to document examples where modern science has accepted the testimony of one individual of dubious integrity.  Actually, the heliocentric/geocentric debate is not new, nor is it secret, but the stakes are high and rarely mentioned; for authority is itself at stake.  Just who is authoritative and in what?  If doubt can be cast on the Bible as an authority in the area of science, then that leaves scientists as the final authority in that area.  All too often science is merely another form of politics with little regard for truth if the truth be not expedient.  Thus it can be said quite literally that today&#8217;s science is tomorrow&#8217;s superstition. That was as true in the sixth century B.C. as it is true today.

Witness Galileo Galilei, an early and vocal proponent of heliocentrism and regarded by many as the first true physicist.  In 1613 he wrote in a letter to Castelli why Joshua&#8217;s long day should not be believed: 



And first I ask the adversary if he knows by what motions the sun is moved? If he does know, he must reply that it is moved with two motions, that is, an annual motion from west to east and an opposite diurnal motion from east to west.  Hence, in the second place, I ask if these two movements, so diverse and almost contrary to one another, both belong to the sun and are equally its own?  They are forced to answer no; that one alone is its own and particular motion, which is the annual, while the other is not the sun&#8217;s at all, but that of the highest sky, called the Prime Mobile, which sweeps along with itself the sun and the other planets and also the starry sphere, constraining them to make one revolution around the earth in 24 hours, with a motion (as I said) almost contrary to their natural and proper motions.

So I come to the third question, and ask them by which of these two motions the sun produces day and night, that is, by its own or from the Prime Mobile? It is necessary to respond that day and night are the effects of motion of the Prime Mobile, while from the proper motion of the sun not day and night, but the different seasons, and the year itself are produced. 

Now if the day depends not on the sun&#8217;s motion, but on that of the Prime Mobile, who can fail to see that in order to prolong the day it is necessary to stop the Prime Mobile, and not the sun?  ... It being therefore absolutely impossible, in the arrangement of Ptolemy and Aristotle, to stop the motion of the sun and to lengthen the day, as the Scripture affirms to have happened.51 



In his challenge, Galileo sets up a straw man and thus exemplifies the ignorance of the Bible which is so characteristic of humanity.  True, if one ascribes the annual motion to the sun and the diurnal (daily) motion to the stars, then Galileo&#8217;s argument is correct; but the Bible does not fall into such simple traps.  The Bible clearly indicates that the sun is to rule the day.  This means that the daily motion is unique to the sun and has nothing to do with the annual motion.  The sun&#8217;s period is exactly 24 hours.  The stars&#8217; daily motion nearly matches the sun&#8217;s period, being about 3 minutes 56 seconds less than the sun&#8217;s period.  Over the course of one year this amounts to one extra revolution about the earth, namely, the annual effect.  (The north-south annual motion of the sun can be shown to be due to the difference between the sun&#8217;s period of revolution and the rotation rate of the rest of the universe.)  When viewed from that perspective, Galileo&#8217;s argument falls flat on its face.  Both motions are from east to west, but the sun&#8217;s motion is roughly 1/365th slower than that of the cosmos.  Thus the motions are not &#8220;almost contrary&#8221; but are almost identical.  Yet no theologian has ever come up with a better argument against Joshua&#8217;s long day than has Galileo at this one point.



Conclusion

The upshot is that there appears to be solid evidence from the Bible and from folklore around the world that there was one day which, depending upon geographical location, presented the inhabitants of the earth with an unusually long span of daylight or night. Attempts to explain this phenomenon by naturalistic means have all failed because no mechanism known to physics can absorb the earth&#8217;s spin energy and momentum (or the universe&#8217;s from a geocentric point of view) in such a short period of time without causing great upheavals such as the oceans spilling over the continents.  Agnostic or atheistic scholars choose not to deal with the ancient witnesses.  Such a phenomenon as Joshua&#8217;s long day can only happen with divine intervention.  But then science does not claim to have all the answers: its authority is found wanting.  Is the Bible, then, the final authority after all?  Not if God said that the sun stopped when it was actually the earth which ceased to rotate.  And that brings us to the heart of the matter. 

Attempts to phenomenalize Joshua&#8217;s long day or to make it allegorical thus fail.  Christians and Jewish people are presented with a real historical event in Joshua 10:12-14.  The central issue from their perspective is that of inerrancy of the Bible.  God wrote in verse 13 that the &#8220;sun stood still and the moon stayed.&#8221;  God either meant what he wrote, or he did not.  There is no excuse for God because he is the God of truth; therefore all things he says and does must reflect that fact. So God cannot utter an untruth and we must conclude that the Bible teaches, in Joshua 10:13 and else where, that the universe rotates around the earth once per day, carrying the sun, moon and stars with it, regardless of what introductory astronomy texts may say.


----------



## CrackedSkull

And all  this was before it was discovered that the Sun is the center of the universe and not the other way around as bible writers thought.


----------



## AsheedMidrarwz

CrackedSkull said:


> And all  this was before it was discovered that the Sun is the center of the universe and not the other way around as bible writers thought.



You have some unfinished business.  Show the post to back up your claim that I'm a racist.


----------



## LittleNipper

CrackedSkull said:


> And all  this was before it was discovered that the Sun is the center of the universe and not the other way around as bible writers thought.



God holds the Universe together. The Universe was made for the earth, The earth was not made for the Universe...


----------



## CrackedSkull

LittleNipper said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> And all  this was before it was discovered that the Sun is the center of the universe and not the other way around as bible writers thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God holds the Universe together. The Universe was made for the earth, The earth was not made for the Universe...
Click to expand...


You know how ridiculous that sounds? For starters its all an Argument from Perfection. No proof a  god did any of it.


----------



## ima

CrackedSkull said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> And all  this was before it was discovered that the Sun is the center of the universe and not the other way around as bible writers thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God holds the Universe together. The Universe was made for the earth, The earth was not made for the Universe...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know how ridiculous that sounds? For starters its all an Argument from Perfection. No proof a  god did any of it.
Click to expand...


Didn't you know? When it rains, that's god taking a leak.


----------



## LittleNipper

CrackedSkull said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> And all  this was before it was discovered that the Sun is the center of the universe and not the other way around as bible writers thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God holds the Universe together. The Universe was made for the earth, The earth was not made for the Universe...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know how ridiculous that sounds? For starters its all an Argument from Perfection. No proof a  god did any of it.
Click to expand...


There is even far less proof that everything happened of its own accord.


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God holds the Universe together. The Universe was made for the earth, The earth was not made for the Universe...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know how ridiculous that sounds? For starters its all an Argument from Perfection. No proof a  god did any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is even far less proof that everything happened of its own accord.
Click to expand...

So you agree that there's not much proof to what you claim. So what is your proof that god holds the universe together? And do you mean like in a big man hug?


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> for the millionth time NO IT'S NOT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL CORROBERATING THE CREATION MYTH!
> THE BIBLE IS NOT EVIDENCE IN IT'S SELF.
> NOAHS ARK , JOSUHA STOPPING THE SUN, JESUS MIRICALING UP FISH AND LOAFS ETC..
> HAVE NO NON BIBLICAL MENTIONS IN OTHER HISTISTORIES WRITTEN AT THAT TIME.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua&#8217;s Long Day around the World?
> 
> EDITED FOR WALL OF TEXT VIOLATION AND UTTER Nonsense!
> next time you want to post a long ass piece use a link.
> you might want to try actual science..
> btw shit for brains, where's the link for that is post? you did not write that yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> best answer!
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God holds the Universe together. The Universe was made for the earth, The earth was not made for the Universe...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know how ridiculous that sounds? For starters its all an Argument from Perfection. No proof a  god did any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is even far less proof that everything happened of its own accord.
Click to expand...

false declarative ..no corroborating evidence.


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how ridiculous that sounds? For starters its all an Argument from Perfection. No proof a  god did any of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is even far less proof that everything happened of its own accord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that there's not much proof to what you claim. So what is your proof that god holds the universe together? And do you mean like in a big man hug?
Click to expand...



I know that there is a God the very same way you know that you have an earthly dad.


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how ridiculous that sounds? For starters its all an Argument from Perfection. No proof a  god did any of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is even far less proof that everything happened of its own accord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false declarative ..no corroborating evidence.
Click to expand...



Carl Sagon is dead and will soon be forgotten, but the nation of Israel lives on and on... Exactly as God ordained. Such could not happen if God didn't exist.


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> for the millionth time NO IT'S NOT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL CORROBERATING THE CREATION MYTH!
> THE BIBLE IS NOT EVIDENCE IN IT'S SELF.
> NOAHS ARK , JOSUHA STOPPING THE SUN, JESUS MIRICALING UP FISH AND LOAFS ETC..
> HAVE NO NON BIBLICAL MENTIONS IN OTHER HISTISTORIES WRITTEN AT THAT TIME.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshuas Long Day around the World?
> 
> EDITED FOR WALL OF TEXT VIOLATION AND UTTER Nonsense!
> next time you want to post a long ass piece use a link.
> you might want to try actual science..
> btw shit for brains, where's the link for that is post? you did not write that yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/kf0DYaMjhZc]Scopes Monkey Trial, Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> best answer!
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/58xCWUibDGU]Scopes Monkey Trial, Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your foul mouth hangs a big sign around your neck. You certainly do not sound like a child of God, and obviously according to you, one cannot be since (according to you) God doesn't exist. So why are you like you are and I am like I am?
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is even far less proof that everything happened of its own accord.
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that there's not much proof to what you claim. So what is your proof that god holds the universe together? And do you mean like in a big man hug?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know that there is a God the very same way you know that you have an earthly dad.
Click to expand...


Actually, you _know_ that there are gawds in the same way that people _know_ Bigfoot exists, that space aliens have visited this planet and that Dorothy and Toto visited the Emerald city.


----------



## ima

It's what's at the heart of most, if not all religions.


----------



## CrackedSkull

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is even far less proof that everything happened of its own accord.
> 
> 
> 
> false declarative ..no corroborating evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Carl Sagon is dead and will soon be forgotten, but the nation of Israel lives on and on... Exactly as God ordained. Such could not happen if God didn't exist.
Click to expand...


No. Israel was going to become a nation anyway it had nothing to do with some 2000 year old prophecy 2000 years later.


----------



## CrackedSkull

AsheedMidrarwz said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> And all  this was before it was discovered that the Sun is the center of the universe and not the other way around as bible writers thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have some unfinished business.  Show the post to back up your claim that I'm a racist.
Click to expand...

 
Nope. I was done with you the minute you started typing and if you think for one minute I am going back through 100+ pages of this thread to prove a point your dumber than I thought.


----------



## LittleNipper

CrackedSkull said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false declarative ..no corroborating evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carl Sagon is dead and will soon be forgotten, but the nation of Israel lives on and on... Exactly as God ordained. Such could not happen if God didn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Israel was going to become a nation anyway it had nothing to do with some 2000 year old prophecy 2000 years later.
Click to expand...


There are thousands of years of history as to why Israel should not exist and not the least of these was Nazi Germany. If they had not made a few "mistakes," I see no logical reason the much of world could not have ended up under their control. The Jew would be but a memory. Such a "Jewish" state would not be allowed and the Arabs would likely have helped in the extermination ---- as they are ready to do now...


----------



## Youwerecreated

LittleNipper said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carl Sagon is dead and will soon be forgotten, but the nation of Israel lives on and on... Exactly as God ordained. Such could not happen if God didn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Israel was going to become a nation anyway it had nothing to do with some 2000 year old prophecy 2000 years later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are thousands of years of history as to why Israel should not exist and not the least of these was Nazi Germany. If they had not made a few "mistakes," I see no logical reason the much of world could not have ended up under their control. The Jew would be but a memory. Such a "Jewish" state would not be allowed and the Arabs would likely have helped in the extermination ---- as they are ready to do now...
Click to expand...


These people are completely devoid of rational thought. They rest their views on hope and chance.

God was right about these people.

Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good. 

Psa 94:8  Understand, you beastly ones among the people; and fools, when will you be wise?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how ridiculous that sounds? For starters its all an Argument from Perfection. No proof a  god did any of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is even far less proof that everything happened of its own accord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that there's not much proof to what you claim. So what is your proof that god holds the universe together? And do you mean like in a big man hug?
Click to expand...


There is for the one that has his eyes open and can reason rationally.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LittleNipper said:


> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God holds the Universe together. The Universe was made for the earth, The earth was not made for the Universe...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know how ridiculous that sounds? For starters its all an Argument from Perfection. No proof a  god did any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is even far less proof that everything happened of its own accord.
Click to expand...


They can't see the design and the necessity of the thing designed.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Israel was going to become a nation anyway it had nothing to do with some 2000 year old prophecy 2000 years later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are thousands of years of history as to why Israel should not exist and not the least of these was Nazi Germany. If they had not made a few "mistakes," I see no logical reason the much of world could not have ended up under their control. The Jew would be but a memory. Such a "Jewish" state would not be allowed and the Arabs would likely have helped in the extermination ---- as they are ready to do now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people are completely devoid of rational thought. They rest their view on hope and chance.
> 
> God was right about these people.
> 
> Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good.
> 
> Psa 94:8  Understand, you beastly ones among the people; and fools, when will you be wise?
Click to expand...


God was right? How so, since it's never actually spoken or shown its face? 

And you can't exterminate Jews, no more than Hitler could have, they are spread too much around the world to kill them all at once, so stop dreaming about armageddon in Israel, it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is even far less proof that everything happened of its own accord.
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that there's not much proof to what you claim. So what is your proof that god holds the universe together? And do you mean like in a big man hug?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is for the one that *has his eyes open and can reason rationally*.
Click to expand...


So I guess that counts you out.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Israel was going to become a nation anyway it had nothing to do with some 2000 year old prophecy 2000 years later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are thousands of years of history as to why Israel should not exist and not the least of these was Nazi Germany. If they had not made ao few "mistakes," I see no logical reason the much of world could not have ended up under their control. The Jew would be but a memory. Such a "Jewish" state would not be allowed and the Arabs would likely have helped in the extermination ---- as they are ready to do now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people are completely devoid of rational thought. They rest their views on hope and chance.
> 
> God was right about these people.
> 
> Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good.
> 
> Psa 94:8  Understand, you beastly ones among the people; and fools, when will you be wise?
Click to expand...

How sad for you. You have chosen the wrong gawds.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are thousands of years of history as to why Israel should not exist and not the least of these was Nazi Germany. If they had not made a few "mistakes," I see no logical reason the much of world could not have ended up under their control. The Jew would be but a memory. Such a "Jewish" state would not be allowed and the Arabs would likely have helped in the extermination ---- as they are ready to do now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These people are completely devoid of rational thought. They rest their view on hope and chance.
> 
> God was right about these people.
> 
> Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good.
> 
> Psa 94:8  Understand, you beastly ones among the people; and fools, when will you be wise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God was right? How so, since it's never actually spoken or shown its face?
> 
> And you can't exterminate Jews, no more than Hitler could have, they are spread too much around the world to kill them all at once, so stop dreaming about armageddon in Israel, it ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...


How do you know he hasn't ? God said you can see the works of his hands but yet many reject the works of his hands to hold on to views they can't back with evidence they keep screaming for.

Joh 3:11  Truly, truly, I say to you, We speak what we know and testify what we have seen. And you do not receive our witness. 
Joh 3:12  If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that there's not much proof to what you claim. So what is your proof that god holds the universe together? And do you mean like in a big man hug?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is for the one that *has his eyes open and can reason rationally*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I guess that counts you out.
Click to expand...


I say not,because I can see the works of Gods hands.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how ridiculous that sounds? For starters its all an Argument from Perfection. No proof a  god did any of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is even far less proof that everything happened of its own accord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can't see the design and the necessity of the thing designed.
Click to expand...


You can't see you have inherited belief in incompetent gawds.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are thousands of years of history as to why Israel should not exist and not the least of these was Nazi Germany. If they had not made ao few "mistakes," I see no logical reason the much of world could not have ended up under their control. The Jew would be but a memory. Such a "Jewish" state would not be allowed and the Arabs would likely have helped in the extermination ---- as they are ready to do now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These people are completely devoid of rational thought. They rest their views on hope and chance.
> 
> God was right about these people.
> 
> Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good.
> 
> Psa 94:8  Understand, you beastly ones among the people; and fools, when will you be wise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How sad for you. You have chosen the wrong gawds.
Click to expand...


There is only one God hollie that is God to all.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is even far less proof that everything happened of its own accord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't see the design and the necessity of the thing designed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't see you have inherited belief in incompetent gawds.
Click to expand...


How is my God incompetent hollie ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is for the one that *has his eyes open and can reason rationally*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess that counts you out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say not,because I can see the works of Gods hands.
Click to expand...


Of course you can. Your gawds are the most evil, prolific mass murderers ever to be invented by mankind.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is for the one that *has his eyes open and can reason rationally*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess that counts you out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say not,because I can see the works of Gods hands.
Click to expand...


Amazing! Things made by invisible people! Are you on drugs?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess that counts you out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say not,because I can see the works of Gods hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing! Things made by invisible people! Are you on drugs?
Click to expand...


Hmm things made by an invisible and un-directed process ! Are you on drugs ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess that counts you out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say not,because I can see the works of Gods hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you can. Your gawds are the most evil, prolific mass murderers ever to be invented by mankind.
Click to expand...


I thought there were no invisible beings ?let me point out the obvious man has done the same thing whether they were believers or not.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are completely devoid of rational thought. They rest their views on hope and chance.
> 
> God was right about these people.
> 
> Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good.
> 
> Psa 94:8  Understand, you beastly ones among the people; and fools, when will you be wise?
> 
> 
> 
> How sad for you. You have chosen the wrong gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is only one God hollie that is God to all.
Click to expand...


Not true at all. You have done nothing more intellectually rigorous than accept the gawds that were provided to you as part of your family/majority religion. 

We can dismiss your gawds for precisely the same reasons we can dismiss the gawds invented prior to yours.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess that counts you out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say not,because I can see the works of Gods hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you can. Your gawds are the most evil, prolific mass murderers ever to be invented by mankind.
Click to expand...


The god that runs this world is not the God that created all. He is the god that is doing the evil things you're complaining about.

2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them. 

This god is satan.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say not,because I can see the works of Gods hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can. Your gawds are the most evil, prolific mass murderers ever to be invented by mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought there were no invisible beings ?let me point out the obvious man has done the same thing whether they were believers or not.
Click to expand...


We have no evidence of any supernagically beings. It is also obvious that man has done the most horrible things to other men in furtherance of their beliefs in your gawds and other gawds. Certainly, your gawds are one model for how humanity can commit the most brutal of crimes. It's the "will of the gawds", afterall.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How sad for you. You have chosen the wrong gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one God hollie that is God to all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true at all. You have done nothing more intellectually rigorous than accept the gawds that were provided to you as part of your family/majority religion.
> 
> We can dismiss your gawds for precisely the same reasons we can dismiss the gawds invented prior to yours.
Click to expand...


There is only one true God.

Joh 17:3  And this is life eternal, that they might know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say not,because I can see the works of Gods hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can. Your gawds are the most evil, prolific mass murderers ever to be invented by mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The god that runs this world is not the God that created all. He is the god that is doing the evil things you're complaining about.
> 
> 2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.
> 
> This god is satan.
Click to expand...


Just how many of your gawds are there?

You seem to have this need to invent gawds on the fly to excuse the atrocities of your other gawds.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can. Your gawds are the most evil, prolific mass murderers ever to be invented by mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought there were no invisible beings ?let me point out the obvious man has done the same thing whether they were believers or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of any supernagically beings. It is also obvious that man has done the most horrible things to other men in furtherance of their beliefs in your gawds and other gawds. Certainly, your gawds are one model for how humanity can commit the most brutal of crimes. It's the "will of the gawds", afterall.
Click to expand...


Hollie, so only believers get blamed for the evil of man ? only believers commit murder hollie ?

Rev 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world. He was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can. Your gawds are the most evil, prolific mass murderers ever to be invented by mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The god that runs this world is not the God that created all. He is the god that is doing the evil things you're complaining about.
> 
> 2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.
> 
> This god is satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just how many of your gawds are there?
> 
> You seem to have this need to invent gawds on the fly to excuse the atrocities of your other gawds.
Click to expand...


There is only one true God the creator of all.

An Angel would seem like a god with their abilities.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can. Your gawds are the most evil, prolific mass murderers ever to be invented by mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The god that runs this world is not the God that created all. He is the god that is doing the evil things you're complaining about.
> 
> 2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.
> 
> This god is satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just how many of your gawds are there?
> 
> You seem to have this need to invent gawds on the fly to excuse the atrocities of your other gawds.
Click to expand...


Mat 15:7  Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 
Mat 15:8  "This people draws near to Me with their mouth, and honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. 
Mat 15:9  But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." 

People who claim they are believers that do evil are not true believers. Here is your answer for the ones who claim to worship God but do evil things.

Mat 7:20  Therefore by their fruits you shall know them. 
Mat 7:21  Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven. 
Mat 7:22  Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works? 
Mat 7:23  And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought there were no invisible beings ?let me point out the obvious man has done the same thing whether they were believers or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of any supernagically beings. It is also obvious that man has done the most horrible things to other men in furtherance of their beliefs in your gawds and other gawds. Certainly, your gawds are one model for how humanity can commit the most brutal of crimes. It's the "will of the gawds", afterall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, so only believers get blamed for the evil of man ? only believers commit murder hollie ?
> 
> Rev 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world. He was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Click to expand...

Youthinkyouwerecreated, can you tell us why you excuse the atrocities committed by your alleged gawds, youthinkwerecreated?

Youthinkyouwerecreated, can you tell us with certainty that the atrocities committed by men were not the direct result of humans being directly command by the gawds, youthinkyouwerecreated?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The god that runs this world is not the God that created all. He is the god that is doing the evil things you're complaining about.
> 
> 2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.
> 
> This god is satan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many of your gawds are there?
> 
> You seem to have this need to invent gawds on the fly to excuse the atrocities of your other gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is only one true God the creator of all.
> 
> An Angel would seem like a god with their abilities.
Click to expand...


There are many inventions of the true gawds. Your inventions of gawds are simply the most recent invention as the one-stop-shopping gawds of convenience.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have no evidence of any supernagically beings. It is also obvious that man has done the most horrible things to other men in furtherance of their beliefs in your gawds and other gawds. Certainly, your gawds are one model for how humanity can commit the most brutal of crimes. It's the "will of the gawds", afterall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, so only believers get blamed for the evil of man ? only believers commit murder hollie ?
> 
> Rev 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world. He was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youthinkyouwerecreated, can you tell us why you excuse the atrocities committed by your alleged gawds, youthinkwerecreated?
> 
> Youthinkyouwerecreated, can you tell us with certainty that the atrocities committed by men were not the direct result of humans being directly command by the gawds, youthinkyouwerecreated?
Click to expand...


How sweet a new nickname for me.

Man has the choice of doing good or evil. The one that does evil will be judged and punished.

We all sin so we all die but one has forgivness that asks for it and their gift for forgivness is everlasting life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many of your gawds are there?
> 
> You seem to have this need to invent gawds on the fly to excuse the atrocities of your other gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one true God the creator of all.
> 
> An Angel would seem like a god with their abilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many inventions of the true gawds. Your inventions of gawds are simply the most recent invention as the one-stop-shopping gawds of convenience.
Click to expand...


The Jews,muslims,and Christians are all monotheistic.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say not,because I can see the works of Gods hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can. Your gawds are the most evil, prolific mass murderers ever to be invented by mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The god that runs this world is not the God that created all. He is the god that is doing the evil things you're complaining about.
> 
> 2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.
> 
> This god is satan.
Click to expand...


According to the men who wrote the genesis tale, Satan was created by your gawds. It's a bit late to be re-writing the various bibles.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one true God the creator of all.
> 
> An Angel would seem like a god with their abilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many inventions of the true gawds. Your inventions of gawds are simply the most recent invention as the one-stop-shopping gawds of convenience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jews,muslims,and Christians are all monotheistic.
Click to expand...


Not true for Christians and moslems.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can. Your gawds are the most evil, prolific mass murderers ever to be invented by mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The god that runs this world is not the God that created all. He is the god that is doing the evil things you're complaining about.
> 
> 2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.
> 
> This god is satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the men who wrote the genesis tale, Satan was created by your gawds. It's a bit late to be re-writing the various bibles.
Click to expand...


Yes and satan and the fallen angels had freewill as well as man.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many inventions of the true gawds. Your inventions of gawds are simply the most recent invention as the one-stop-shopping gawds of convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews,muslims,and Christians are all monotheistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true for Christians and moslems.
Click to expand...


Wrong again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Have a good day.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, so only believers get blamed for the evil of man ? only believers commit murder hollie ?
> 
> Rev 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world. He was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
> 
> 
> 
> Youthinkyouwerecreated, can you tell us why you excuse the atrocities committed by your alleged gawds, youthinkwerecreated?
> 
> Youthinkyouwerecreated, can you tell us with certainty that the atrocities committed by men were not the direct result of humans being directly command by the gawds, youthinkyouwerecreated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How sweet a new nickname for me.
> 
> Man has the choice of doing good or evil. The one that does evil will be judged and punished.
> 
> We all sin so we all die but one has forgivness that asks for it and their gift for forgivness is everlasting life.
Click to expand...

So goes the tale. It seems you have never studied the tale.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews,muslims,and Christians are all monotheistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true for Christians and moslems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
Click to expand...

You need to learn your biblical tales and fables (the trinity), and Mo' choosing to partner himself with the gawds. 

Harun Yahya doesn't necessarily teach you this.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say not,because I can see the works of Gods hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing! Things made by invisible people! Are you on drugs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm things made by an invisible and un-directed process ! Are you on drugs ?
Click to expand...


I never claimed such a thing. But yes, I'm lighting up a big joint as I type.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is for the one that *has his eyes open and can reason rationally*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess that counts you out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say not,because I can see the works of Gods hands.
Click to expand...


Finally.  Evidence we can work with!!!

Okay now, carefully take them with a gloved hand, and see if He left latent prints.  Local PD station should be able to help.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The god that runs this world is not the God that created all. He is the god that is doing the evil things you're complaining about.
> 
> 2Co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.
> 
> This god is satan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the men who wrote the genesis tale, Satan was created by your gawds. It's a bit late to be re-writing the various bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and satan and the fallen angels had freewill as well as man.
Click to expand...

False. There is no such thing as free will in the gawds environment.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true for Christians and moslems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn your biblical tales and fables (the trinity), and Mo' choosing to partner himself with the gawds.
> 
> Harun Yahya doesn't necessarily teach you this.
Click to expand...


The oneness teaching of the trinity would take to long to teach someone that would only mock it.

The muslims believe only in one God so yes you're wrong again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing! Things made by invisible people! Are you on drugs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm things made by an invisible and un-directed process ! Are you on drugs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed such a thing. But yes, I'm lighting up a big joint as I type.
Click to expand...


Thought so.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess that counts you out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say not,because I can see the works of Gods hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally.  Evidence we can work with!!!
> 
> Okay now, carefully take them with a gloved hand, and see if He left latent prints.  Local PD station should be able to help.
Click to expand...


Finally you get it and all this time you claimed complexity proves nothing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the men who wrote the genesis tale, Satan was created by your gawds. It's a bit late to be re-writing the various bibles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and satan and the fallen angels had freewill as well as man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. There is no such thing as free will in the gawds environment.
Click to expand...


Wrong, you have been given a choice you can't blame anyone but yourself when the time comes if you choose poorly.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm things made by an invisible and un-directed process ! Are you on drugs ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed such a thing. But yes, I'm lighting up a big joint as I type.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thought so.
Click to expand...


Hey, god created the herb for us to enjoy! Or was that to trick me into sinning so he can stick me on the high grill when I die.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing! Things made by invisible people! Are you on drugs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm things made by an invisible and un-directed process ! Are you on drugs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed such a thing. But yes, I'm lighting up a big joint as I type.
Click to expand...


Well then how did they get here if there was no designer or natural un-directed process ?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and satan and the fallen angels had freewill as well as man.
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no such thing as free will in the gawds environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, you have been given a choice you can't blame anyone but yourself when the time comes if you choose poorly.
Click to expand...


Unless you're Catholic, the folks who invented Christianity.  No wonder it's so friggin successful. 'You mean I can sin like a mutherfucker then get absolution on my death bed and be fast-tracked to life everlasting in paradise? Where do I sign up???'


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is even far less proof that everything happened of its own accord.
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that there's not much proof to what you claim. So what is your proof that god holds the universe together? And do you mean like in a big man hug?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know that there is a God the very same way you know that you have an earthly dad.
Click to expand...

 sure you do....


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed such a thing. But yes, I'm lighting up a big joint as I type.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thought so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, god created the herb for us to enjoy! Or was that to trick me into sinning so he can stick me on the high grill when I die.
Click to expand...


Have no idea but he does declare drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God. He does not condemn drinking wine so that could be left to interpretation.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm things made by an invisible and un-directed process ! Are you on drugs ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed such a thing. But yes, I'm lighting up a big joint as I type.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then how did they get here if there was no designer or natural un-directed process ?
Click to expand...


Ordered natural processes, which thinking people yearn to better-understand.  And the more intellegent and uber curious of us go to great lengths helping we thinking people better understand, more all the time.

Then for everyone else, there's the idiot's refuges (plural)

It's all random, dudes!

God made it, hethens!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no such thing as free will in the gawds environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, you have been given a choice you can't blame anyone but yourself when the time comes if you choose poorly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you're Catholic, the folks who invented Christianity.  No wonder it's so friggin successful. 'You mean I can sin like a mutherfucker then get absolution on my death bed and be fast-tracked to life everlasting in paradise? Where do I sign up???'
Click to expand...


Think as you wish.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joshuas Long Day around the World?
> 
> EDITED FOR WALL OF TEXT VIOLATION AND UTTER Nonsense!
> next time you want to post a long ass piece use a link.
> you might want to try actual science..
> btw shit for brains, where's the link for that is post? you did not write that yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Scopes Monkey Trial, Part 1 - YouTube
> 
> best answer!
> 
> Scopes Monkey Trial, Part 2 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your foul mouth hangs a big sign around your neck. You certainly do not sound like a child of God, and obviously according to you, one cannot be since (according to you) God doesn't exist. So why are you like you are and I am like I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we had different parents...
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed such a thing. But yes, I'm lighting up a big joint as I type.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then how did they get here if there was no designer or natural un-directed process ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ordered natural processes, which thinking people yearn to better-understand.  And the more intellegent and uber curious of us go to great lengths helping we thinking people better understand, more all the time.
> 
> Then for everyone else, there's the idiot's refuges (plural)
> 
> It's all random, dudes!
> 
> God made it, hethens!
Click to expand...


Nothing wrong with understanding things what's wrong is the stupidity of the conclusions that are accepted and taught by people with vivid imaginations.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrackedSkull said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Israel was going to become a nation anyway it had nothing to do with some 2000 year old prophecy 2000 years later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are thousands of years of history as to why Israel should not exist and not the least of these was Nazi Germany. If they had not made a few "mistakes," I see no logical reason the much of world could not have ended up under their control. The Jew would be but a memory. Such a "Jewish" state would not be allowed and the Arabs would likely have helped in the extermination ---- as they are ready to do now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people are completely devoid of rational thought. They rest their views on hope and chance.
> 
> God was right about these people.
> 
> Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good.
> 
> Psa 94:8  Understand, you beastly ones among the people; and fools, when will you be wise?
Click to expand...

didn't you leave? 
btw god did not say that David did and it's out of context ..slapdick.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your foul mouth hangs a big sign around your neck. You certainly do not sound like a child of God, and obviously according to you, one cannot be since (according to you) God doesn't exist. So why are you like you are and I am like I am?
> 
> 
> 
> we had different parents...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have us a genius here.
Click to expand...


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, you have been given a choice you can't blame anyone but yourself when the time comes if you choose poorly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you're Catholic, the folks who invented Christianity.  No wonder it's so friggin successful. 'You mean I can sin like a mutherfucker then get absolution on my death bed and be fast-tracked to life everlasting in paradise? Where do I sign up???'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think as you wish.
Click to expand...


Thanks.  You too.  And it's great, since some can celebrate Christ's rising from the dead by finding chocolate eggs in the yard, left by a giant rabbit.

Then we others, whose lord and savior is Bill Hicks celebrate it by finding Lincoln Logs left in our sock drawers by a goldfish.  It's the story of JESUS, praise baby holy ghost!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are thousands of years of history as to why Israel should not exist and not the least of these was Nazi Germany. If they had not made a few "mistakes," I see no logical reason the much of world could not have ended up under their control. The Jew would be but a memory. Such a "Jewish" state would not be allowed and the Arabs would likely have helped in the extermination ---- as they are ready to do now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These people are completely devoid of rational thought. They rest their views on hope and chance.
> 
> God was right about these people.
> 
> Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good.
> 
> Psa 94:8  Understand, you beastly ones among the people; and fools, when will you be wise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> didn't you leave?
> btw god did not say that David did and it's out of context ..slapdick.
Click to expand...


Leave where ?

You have such an infatuation with slapping dingy's.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then how did they get here if there was no designer or natural un-directed process ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ordered natural processes, which thinking people yearn to better-understand.  And the more intellegent and uber curious of us go to great lengths helping we thinking people better understand, more all the time.
> 
> Then for everyone else, there's the idiot's refuges (plural)
> 
> It's all random, dudes!
> 
> God made it, hethens!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with understanding things what's wrong is the stupidity of the *conclusions that are accepted and taught by people with vivid imaginations*.
Click to expand...


It's imaginary, obviously, which is no problem when writing a nice movie script.  In fact it's a real plus.

But when wanting to actually know about life, planets, etc, real is the cat's pajamas and imagined is mere delusion, comforting or otherwise.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you're Catholic, the folks who invented Christianity.  No wonder it's so friggin successful. 'You mean I can sin like a mutherfucker then get absolution on my death bed and be fast-tracked to life everlasting in paradise? Where do I sign up???'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think as you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.  You too.  And it's great, since some can celebrate Christ's rising from the dead by finding chocolate eggs in the yard, left by a giant rabbit.
> 
> Then we others, whose lord and savior is Bill Hicks celebrate it by finding Lincoln Logs left in our sock drawers by a goldfish.  It's the story of JESUS, praise baby holy ghost!
Click to expand...


I don't subscribe to your pagan fairytales.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say not,because I can see the works of Gods hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing! Things made by invisible people! Are you on drugs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm things made by an invisible and un-directed process ! Are you on drugs ?
Click to expand...

you must be, as you've made that unprovable statement ad nausium and never proved design or designer.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think as you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  You too.  And it's great, since some can celebrate Christ's rising from the dead by finding chocolate eggs in the yard, left by a giant rabbit.
> 
> Then we others, whose lord and savior is Bill Hicks celebrate it by finding Lincoln Logs left in our sock drawers by a goldfish.  It's the story of JESUS, praise baby holy ghost!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't subscribe to your pagan fairytales.
Click to expand...


Me either.  Shit, Ywc, we agree at last praise babyjesus!  Someone hand me a tissue; I'm getting misty here.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ordered natural processes, which thinking people yearn to better-understand.  And the more intellegent and uber curious of us go to great lengths helping we thinking people better understand, more all the time.
> 
> Then for everyone else, there's the idiot's refuges (plural)
> 
> It's all random, dudes!
> 
> God made it, hethens!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with understanding things what's wrong is the stupidity of the *conclusions that are accepted and taught by people with vivid imaginations*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's imaginary, obviously, which is no problem when writing a nice movie script.  In fact it's a real plus.
> 
> But when wanting to actually know about life, planets, etc, real is the cat's pajamas and imagined is mere delusion, comforting or otherwise.
Click to expand...


Have no problem with real science nor does any creationist or ID proponent. The problem your side has is when our explanations and predictions are better supported by the evidence.


----------



## daws101

hollie said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course you can. Your gawds are the most evil, prolific mass murderers ever to be invented by mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the god that runs this world is not the god that created all. He is the god that is doing the evil things you're complaining about.
> 
> 2co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of christ (who is the image of god) should not dawn on them.
> 
> This god is satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> according to the men who wrote the genesis tale, satan was created by your gawds. It's a bit late to be re-writing the various bibles.
Click to expand...

fun fact satan is never mentioned in the old testament.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with understanding things what's wrong is the stupidity of the *conclusions that are accepted and taught by people with vivid imaginations*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's imaginary, obviously, which is no problem when writing a nice movie script.  In fact it's a real plus.
> 
> But when wanting to actually know about life, planets, etc, real is the cat's pajamas and imagined is mere delusion, comforting or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Have no problem with real science nor does any creationist or ID proponent. *The problem your side has is when our explanations and predictions are better supported by the evidence.
Click to expand...


Actually, all you and other Creationists do is try to discredit "real" scientific findings, in ways that merely reinforce delusions in those that are prone to unsupported belief systems.

But I do have a problem with psuedoscience, since it's so fucking stupid, I can actually feel the braincells dying while I listen to or read the nonsense you folks take on faith. But it's funny as shit, so on balance, no prob.  Glad to have ya'll "thinking" the shit up, and gladder still I am not one of you abject fucking nincumpoops.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> we had different parents...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have us a genius here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES WE DO ...as compared to your tiny intellect.
> try rereading or actually reading that post.
> mine is the simple but true answer .
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with understanding things what's wrong is the stupidity of the *conclusions that are accepted and taught by people with vivid imaginations*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's imaginary, obviously, which is no problem when writing a nice movie script.  In fact it's a real plus.
> 
> But when wanting to actually know about life, planets, etc, real is the cat's pajamas and imagined is mere delusion, comforting or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have no problem with real science nor does any creationist or ID proponent. The problem your side has is when our explanations and predictions are better supported by the evidence.
Click to expand...


The difficulty that creationist or ID'iot cultists have is that neither of those religious beliefs offer explanations or make predictions.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with understanding things what's wrong is the stupidity of the *conclusions that are accepted and taught by people with vivid imaginations*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's imaginary, obviously, which is no problem when writing a nice movie script.  In fact it's a real plus.
> 
> But when wanting to actually know about life, planets, etc, real is the cat's pajamas and imagined is mere delusion, comforting or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have no problem with real science nor does any creationist or ID proponent. The problem your side has is when our explanations and predictions are better supported by the evidence.
Click to expand...


So what proof do you have that the world was made in 6 days, because the evidence doesn't support that.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm things made by an invisible and un-directed process ! Are you on drugs ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed such a thing. But yes, I'm lighting up a big joint as I type.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then how did they get here if there was no designer or natural un-directed process ?
Click to expand...


Scientists are trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe. If invisible superbeings are found, I'll let you know. But for now, they are just a theory.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's imaginary, obviously, which is no problem when writing a nice movie script.  In fact it's a real plus.
> 
> But when wanting to actually know about life, planets, etc, real is the cat's pajamas and imagined is mere delusion, comforting or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have no problem with real science nor does any creationist or ID proponent. The problem your side has is when our explanations and predictions are better supported by the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difficulty that creationist or ID'iot cultists have is that neither of those religious beliefs offer explanations or make predictions.
Click to expand...

Ahh, you may wish to view the following:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have no problem with real science nor does any creationist or ID proponent. The problem your side has is when our explanations and predictions are better supported by the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difficulty that creationist or ID'iot cultists have is that neither of those religious beliefs offer explanations or make predictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, you may wish to view the following:
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions
Click to expand...


Better yet! Learn some real science.


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difficulty that creationist or ID'iot cultists have is that neither of those religious beliefs offer explanations or make predictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, you may wish to view the following:
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better yet! Learn some real science.
Click to expand...


Real science is based on observation and experimentation and repeatability. Unfortunately, none of this applies to evolution. God does move in mysterious ways, as does the wind. No one I know of rejects the reality of wind or gravity. Yet, it would seem no matter what kind of proof is provided for the truth of living according to biblical principles actually works, its historic content, and valid observations surrounding its writings, there will be those who refuse to budge from their own little designer box ---- so they can remain in control.


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, you may wish to view the following:
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better yet! Learn some real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Real science is based on observation and experimentation and repeatability. Unfortunately, none of this applies to evolution*. God does move in mysterious ways, as does the wind. No one I know of rejects the reality of wind or gravity. Yet, it would seem no matter what kind of proof is provided for the truth of living according to biblical principles actually works, its historic content, and valid observations surrounding its writings, there will be those who refuse to budge from their own little designer box ---- so they can remain in control.
Click to expand...

Of course it does, evolution has been observed by Darwin, ever hear of him? Here, I'll give you one simple example of evolution that you can see: If you ever go into a house built in, say, 1600, the first thing you'll notice is how small the doorways are, and the ceilings are lower... everything is smaller. You know why? Because back then, humans weren't as tall as we are now (you can check any clothes from the period), and we EVOLVED to be taller, and live longer, btw. Why can't evolution be part of a creator's plan? I know, it's proves your book wrong, but who cares? Isn't the truth (about the creator) more important than some 1500 year old book of hearsay and myths?


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better yet! Learn some real science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Real science is based on observation and experimentation and repeatability. Unfortunately, none of this applies to evolution*. God does move in mysterious ways, as does the wind. No one I know of rejects the reality of wind or gravity. Yet, it would seem no matter what kind of proof is provided for the truth of living according to biblical principles actually works, its historic content, and valid observations surrounding its writings, there will be those who refuse to budge from their own little designer box ---- so they can remain in control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does, evolution has been observed by Darwin, ever hear of him? Here, I'll give you one simple example of evolution that you can see: If you ever go into a house built in, say, 1600, the first thing you'll notice is how small the doorways are, and the ceilings are lower... everything is smaller. You know why? Because back then, humans weren't as tall as we are now (you can check any clothes from the period), and we EVOLVED to be taller, and live longer, btw. Why can't evolution be part of a creator's plan? I know, it's proves your book wrong, but who cares? Isn't the truth (about the creator) more important than some 1500 year old book of hearsay and myths?
Click to expand...

You may wish to read the following:
What Darwin Got Wrong

As to your other reasoning: I happen to belong to a historic presevation commission. There is some truth in what you say; however, the total reality is that nutrition plays a large part in the development of living things. The early settlers lived a very hard life. They ate what was available and often it lacked certain minerals, etc...  Also, once people made it to adulthood many lived to be quite old, especially if they lived a comfortable life. However, the mortality rate of babies and children was rather high. Wars are another factor. If the United States added the numbers of aborted babies, one would likely see a different picture. Now as far as houses of the period --- building materials were expensive and hard to come by. Also, lower ceilings made for warmer rooms in the winter. Beds were shorter because it was considered unhealthy to sleep lying down. People propped themselves up with pillows to sleep in a more of a seated position. Washington was over 6 foot tall.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have no problem with real science nor does any creationist or ID proponent. The problem your side has is when our explanations and predictions are better supported by the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difficulty that creationist or ID'iot cultists have is that neither of those religious beliefs offer explanations or make predictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, you may wish to view the following:
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions
Click to expand...


 I'm afraid your link to AIG is simply boilerplate creationist fake science. The "predictions" are not predictions at all but pseudo-science in a burqa of false and debunked claims.

CD701: Decay of Earth's magnetic field


Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field

I'm not going to waste time and bandwidth by addressing every false claim the charlatans at AIG have listed. 

We can all imagine that if any of the gawds had really given us a book, they would have managed to drop in a real proof now and then, like, say, the chemical structure of a few of the elements or a comprehensive description of the process of nuclear fusion that powers our sun. But we don't, obviously. Instead we get dumb stuff from creationists who feel that silly "proofs" of a 6000 year old planet are to be taken seriously.  That's just awful. The people who are propagating that nonsense are slandering everyones intelligence.

Don't be an accomplice.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Real science is based on observation and experimentation and repeatability. Unfortunately, none of this applies to evolution*. God does move in mysterious ways, as does the wind. No one I know of rejects the reality of wind or gravity. Yet, it would seem no matter what kind of proof is provided for the truth of living according to biblical principles actually works, its historic content, and valid observations surrounding its writings, there will be those who refuse to budge from their own little designer box ---- so they can remain in control.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does, evolution has been observed by Darwin, ever hear of him? Here, I'll give you one simple example of evolution that you can see: If you ever go into a house built in, say, 1600, the first thing you'll notice is how small the doorways are, and the ceilings are lower... everything is smaller. You know why? Because back then, humans weren't as tall as we are now (you can check any clothes from the period), and we EVOLVED to be taller, and live longer, btw. Why can't evolution be part of a creator's plan? I know, it's proves your book wrong, but who cares? Isn't the truth (about the creator) more important than some 1500 year old book of hearsay and myths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may wish to read the following:
> What Darwin Got Wrong
> 
> As to your other reasoning: I happen to belong to a historic presevation commission. There is some truth in what you say; however, the total reality is that nutrition plays a large part in the development of living things. The early settlers lived a very hard life. They ate what was available and often it lacked certain minerals, etc...  Also, once people made it to adulthood many lived to be quite old, especially if they lived a comfortable life. However, the mortality rate of babies and children was rather high. Wars are another factor. If the United States added the numbers of aborted babies, one would likely see a different picture. Now as far as houses of the period --- building materials were expensive and hard to come by. Also, lower ceilings made for warmer rooms in the winter. Beds were shorter because it was considered unhealthy to sleep lying down. People propped themselves up with pillows to sleep in a more of a seated position. Washington was over 6 foot tall.
Click to expand...


Do-while Jones?

You're kidding, right?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difficulty that creationist or ID'iot cultists have is that neither of those religious beliefs offer explanations or make predictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, you may wish to view the following:
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your link to AIG is simply boilerplate creationist fake science. The "predictions" are not predictions at all but pseudo-science in a burqa of false and debunked claims.
> 
> CD701: Decay of Earth's magnetic field
> 
> 
> Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field
> 
> I'm not going to waste time and bandwidth by addressing every false claim the charlatans at AIG have listed.
> 
> We can all imagine that if any of the gawds had really given us a book, they would have managed to drop in a real proof now and then, like, say, the chemical structure of a few of the elements or a comprehensive description of the process of nuclear fusion that powers our sun. But we don't, obviously. Instead we get dumb stuff from creationists who feel that silly "proofs" of a 6000 year old planet are to be taken seriously.  That's just awful. The people who are propagating that nonsense are slandering everyones intelligence.
> 
> Don't be an accomplice.
Click to expand...


Evolution is not acceptable science. Those that believe in it are looking for a way out of their dilemma. If there is no God how could all this have happened? The fact that you insist on mocking God in your posts should demonstrate to even the most simple minded that you have a agenda. What seems silly to a person who cannot accept that God is the reality, makes logical sense to those that know God, trust in Him and His power.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does, evolution has been observed by Darwin, ever hear of him? Here, I'll give you one simple example of evolution that you can see: If you ever go into a house built in, say, 1600, the first thing you'll notice is how small the doorways are, and the ceilings are lower... everything is smaller. You know why? Because back then, humans weren't as tall as we are now (you can check any clothes from the period), and we EVOLVED to be taller, and live longer, btw. Why can't evolution be part of a creator's plan? I know, it's proves your book wrong, but who cares? Isn't the truth (about the creator) more important than some 1500 year old book of hearsay and myths?
> 
> 
> 
> You may wish to read the following:
> What Darwin Got Wrong
> 
> As to your other reasoning: I happen to belong to a historic presevation commission. There is some truth in what you say; however, the total reality is that nutrition plays a large part in the development of living things. The early settlers lived a very hard life. They ate what was available and often it lacked certain minerals, etc...  Also, once people made it to adulthood many lived to be quite old, especially if they lived a comfortable life. However, the mortality rate of babies and children was rather high. Wars are another factor. If the United States added the numbers of aborted babies, one would likely see a different picture. Now as far as houses of the period --- building materials were expensive and hard to come by. Also, lower ceilings made for warmer rooms in the winter. Beds were shorter because it was considered unhealthy to sleep lying down. People propped themselves up with pillows to sleep in a more of a seated position. Washington was over 6 foot tall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do-while Jones?
> 
> You're kidding, right?
Click to expand...


Hollie? 
You're joking too?

It is funny how many ways people will find excuses for their own beliefs --- even to disregard those on their side... Do you hate God?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may wish to read the following:
> What Darwin Got Wrong
> 
> As to your other reasoning: I happen to belong to a historic presevation commission. There is some truth in what you say; however, the total reality is that nutrition plays a large part in the development of living things. The early settlers lived a very hard life. They ate what was available and often it lacked certain minerals, etc...  Also, once people made it to adulthood many lived to be quite old, especially if they lived a comfortable life. However, the mortality rate of babies and children was rather high. Wars are another factor. If the United States added the numbers of aborted babies, one would likely see a different picture. Now as far as houses of the period --- building materials were expensive and hard to come by. Also, lower ceilings made for warmer rooms in the winter. Beds were shorter because it was considered unhealthy to sleep lying down. People propped themselves up with pillows to sleep in a more of a seated position. Washington was over 6 foot tall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do-while Jones?
> 
> You're kidding, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie?
> You're joking too?
> 
> It is funny how many ways people will find excuses for their own beliefs --- even to disregard those on their side... Do you hate God?
Click to expand...

Not joking. 

Why don't you identify for us the credentials of Do-while Jones? 

In the meantime...

Creation Science and Magnetic Fields


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, you may wish to view the following:
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your link to AIG is simply boilerplate creationist fake science. The "predictions" are not predictions at all but pseudo-science in a burqa of false and debunked claims.
> 
> CD701: Decay of Earth's magnetic field
> 
> 
> Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field
> 
> I'm not going to waste time and bandwidth by addressing every false claim the charlatans at AIG have listed.
> 
> We can all imagine that if any of the gawds had really given us a book, they would have managed to drop in a real proof now and then, like, say, the chemical structure of a few of the elements or a comprehensive description of the process of nuclear fusion that powers our sun. But we don't, obviously. Instead we get dumb stuff from creationists who feel that silly "proofs" of a 6000 year old planet are to be taken seriously.  That's just awful. The people who are propagating that nonsense are slandering everyones intelligence.
> 
> Don't be an accomplice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is not acceptable science. Those that believe in it are looking for a way out of their dilemma. If there is no God how could all this have happened? The fact that you insist on mocking God in your posts should demonstrate to even the most simple minded that you have a agenda. What seems silly to a person who cannot accept that God is the reality, makes logical sense to those that know God, trust in Him and His power.
Click to expand...


Evolution is not acceptable science?  Not acceptable to who? 

I can understand your dilemma in that the many fields of science supporting evolution presents an obvious contradiction to biblical tales and fables but you appear to be among those fundie Christians who believe that evolutionary science is a worldwide conspiracy.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your link to AIG is simply boilerplate creationist fake science. The "predictions" are not predictions at all but pseudo-science in a burqa of false and debunked claims.
> 
> CD701: Decay of Earth's magnetic field
> 
> 
> Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field
> 
> I'm not going to waste time and bandwidth by addressing every false claim the charlatans at AIG have listed.
> 
> We can all imagine that if any of the gawds had really given us a book, they would have managed to drop in a real proof now and then, like, say, the chemical structure of a few of the elements or a comprehensive description of the process of nuclear fusion that powers our sun. But we don't, obviously. Instead we get dumb stuff from creationists who feel that silly "proofs" of a 6000 year old planet are to be taken seriously.  That's just awful. The people who are propagating that nonsense are slandering everyones intelligence.
> 
> Don't be an accomplice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not acceptable science. Those that believe in it are looking for a way out of their dilemma. If there is no God how could all this have happened? The fact that you insist on mocking God in your posts should demonstrate to even the most simple minded that you have a agenda. What seems silly to a person who cannot accept that God is the reality, makes logical sense to those that know God, trust in Him and His power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is not acceptable science?  Not acceptable to who?
> 
> I can understand your dilemma in that the many fields of science supporting evolution presents an obvious contradiction to biblical tales and fables but you appear to be among those fundie Christians who believe that evolutionary science is a worldwide conspiracy.
Click to expand...


I see the contradiction that anyone  (no matter how many years of scientific study or how much research has been done)  are labeled unscientific and not a scientist, when they reject evolution or pursue to understand the Bible as truth. I do not reject evolutionists their titles just because I happen to disagree with their opinions based on limited findings. So why should the opposite be true unless there is indeed a conspiracy to silence opposition and hold control.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do-while Jones?
> 
> You're kidding, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie?
> You're joking too?
> 
> It is funny how many ways people will find excuses for their own beliefs --- even to disregard those on their side... Do you hate God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not joking.
> 
> Why don't you identify for us the credentials of Do-while Jones?
> 
> In the meantime...
> 
> Creation Science and Magnetic Fields
Click to expand...


Why not seek the credentials of the atheistic authors? Jones might be a Christian only presenting what seems an interesting view that seems to be coming from some atheists. There is nothing wrong in that unless the atheists are not atheists.


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Real science is based on observation and experimentation and repeatability. Unfortunately, none of this applies to evolution*. God does move in mysterious ways, as does the wind. No one I know of rejects the reality of wind or gravity. Yet, it would seem no matter what kind of proof is provided for the truth of living according to biblical principles actually works, its historic content, and valid observations surrounding its writings, there will be those who refuse to budge from their own little designer box ---- so they can remain in control.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does, evolution has been observed by Darwin, ever hear of him? Here, I'll give you one simple example of evolution that you can see: If you ever go into a house built in, say, 1600, the first thing you'll notice is how small the doorways are, and the ceilings are lower... everything is smaller. You know why? Because back then, humans weren't as tall as we are now (you can check any clothes from the period), and we EVOLVED to be taller, and live longer, btw. Why can't evolution be part of a creator's plan? I know, it's proves your book wrong, but who cares? Isn't the truth (about the creator) more important than some 1500 year old book of hearsay and myths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may wish to read the following:
> What Darwin Got Wrong
> 
> As to your other reasoning: I happen to belong to a historic presevation commission. There is some truth in what you say; however, the total reality is that nutrition plays a large part in the development of living things. The early settlers lived a very hard life. They ate what was available and often it lacked certain minerals, etc...  Also, once people made it to adulthood many lived to be quite old, especially if they lived a comfortable life. However, the mortality rate of babies and children was rather high. Wars are another factor. If the United States added the numbers of aborted babies, one would likely see a different picture. Now as far as houses of the period --- building materials were expensive and hard to come by. Also, lower ceilings made for warmer rooms in the winter. Beds were shorter because it was considered unhealthy to sleep lying down. People propped themselves up with pillows to sleep in a more of a seated position. Washington was over 6 foot tall.
Click to expand...


So it's a review of 2 guys trying hard to advance a new theory, so what? People propose new ideas all the time. Oh wait... Except in religion. You're all stuck in the distant past. Evolution is part of a creator's plan, if a creator there is. Get over it. If the church can get past the earth not being flat, so can you get past this as well. So the world wasn't made in 6 days either, does that really matter? Shouldn't you be more open to what your creator actually did as we discover new things all the time?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difficulty that creationist or ID'iot cultists have is that neither of those religious beliefs offer explanations or make predictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, you may wish to view the following:
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better yet! Learn some real science.
Click to expand...



Creationism has a scientific theory.

A Theory of Creation
A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists 

© 2000 Timothy Wallace.  All Rights Reserved. 

popular practice among many proponents of evolutionismincluding the regulars at the Talk.Origins newsgroupis to claim that no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,[1] without which they find it impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.  They then hasten to confirm this by evaluating the idea of creationwithout objectivity!  Such an approach to the topic of origins shall be shown below to be unreasonable, prejudiced, less-than-honest, and (therefore) not particularly scientific. 


Feigned(?) Ignorance
A classic example of evolutionist pretending may be found at the Talk.Origins Archive, an evolutionist website professing to explore origins, yet advocating only evolutionary perspectives.  There, a welcome document suggests to prospective participants in the evolution/creation debate, that to really impress the regulars they should come prepared with a scientific Theory of Creation, which is then described as the Holy Grail of the origins debatesince (it is claimed) no ones ever seen it.[2]  Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community[3] the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty.

Many arguments advanced in support of evolutionary beliefs do indeed suggest that willful ignorance is indeed widespread among adherents of evolutionism.  Their criticisms are often focused on simplistic caricatures instead of authentic creation science concepts.  Such straw man caricatures are easily felled by little more than sophomoric derision, giving evolutionists (and many an unwitting observer) the deceptive impression that the creation model has been effectively undone.  These same caricatures (and their Quixotic challengers) persist in peppering the landscape of debate, despite an abundance of informative explanations and clarifications, patiently and repeatedly proffered by a growing number of individual creationists and several creationary organizations. 

Many of evolutions proponents have thus been exposed to accurate and empirically relevant descriptions of the creation paradigm, yet they continue to limit their response to dismantling a caricature.  They either pretend not be unaware of anything better than the arsenal of straw men they parade before the public eye, or they willfully ignore what the other side is saying.  Neither tactic is representative of sound scholarship, reasonable scientific debate, or ethical standards worthy of admiration.  Ironically (perhaps as a diversionary tactic?), some of them publish or cite web pages supposedly documenting dishonesty among leading creationists. 


Conclusion

By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the theory of creation not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart.  It has predictive value, is internally consistent, is no less falsifiable than evolution, and consistently explains at least as many phenomena allegedly explained by evolution. 

The vocal proponents of evolution have demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in this kind of straightforward clarity or information.  They object to its presentation, excuse themselves from paying much (if any) careful attention to it, then return to hacking up their favorite straw-man caricatures and congratulating each other on a job well done.  (Dont let this happen to you!) 

Vocal proponents of evolutionism such as are found at Talk.Origins have employed willful ignorance and arbitrary double-standards to question the scientific legitimacy of the creation science model.  They then go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for using such unscientificif not outright deceptivetactics to disparage their worst nightmare:  the truth. 

Timothy Wall

A Theory of Biblical Creation

Visit site for more details.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, you may wish to view the following:
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better yet! Learn some real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism has a scientific theory.
> 
> A Theory of Creation
> A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists
> 
> © 2000 Timothy Wallace.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> popular practice among many proponents of evolutionism&#8212;including the &#8220;regulars&#8221; at the Talk.Origins newsgroup&#8212;is to claim that &#8220;no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,&#8221;[1] without which they find it &#8220;impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.&#8221;  They then hasten to confirm this by &#8220;evaluating&#8221; the idea of creation&#8212;without objectivity!  Such an approach to the topic of origins shall be shown below to be unreasonable, prejudiced, less-than-honest, and (therefore) not particularly scientific.
> 
> 
> Feigned(?) Ignorance
> A classic example of evolutionist pretending may be found at the &#8220;Talk.Origins Archive,&#8221; an evolutionist website professing to &#8220;explore&#8221; origins, yet advocating only evolutionary perspectives.  There, a &#8220;welcome&#8221; document suggests to prospective participants in the evolution/creation debate, that to &#8220;really impress the regulars&#8221; they should &#8220;come prepared with a scientific Theory of Creation,&#8221; which is then described as &#8220;the Holy Grail of the origins debate&#8221;&#8212;since (it is claimed) &#8220;no one&#8217;s ever seen it.&#8221;[2]  Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community[3] the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty.
> 
> Many arguments advanced in support of evolutionary beliefs do indeed suggest that willful ignorance is indeed widespread among adherents of evolutionism.  Their criticisms are often focused on simplistic caricatures instead of authentic creation science concepts.  Such &#8220;straw man&#8221; caricatures are easily felled by little more than sophomoric derision, giving evolutionists (and many an unwitting observer) the deceptive impression that the creation model has been effectively undone.  These same caricatures (and their Quixotic &#8220;challengers&#8221 persist in peppering the landscape of debate, despite an abundance of informative explanations and clarifications, patiently and repeatedly proffered by a growing number of individual creationists and several creationary organizations.
> 
> Many of evolution&#8217;s proponents have thus been exposed to accurate and empirically relevant descriptions of the creation paradigm, yet they continue to limit their response to dismantling a caricature.  They either pretend not be unaware of anything better than the arsenal of &#8220;straw men&#8221; they parade before the public eye, or they willfully ignore what the other side is saying.  Neither tactic is representative of sound scholarship, reasonable scientific debate, or ethical standards worthy of admiration.  Ironically (perhaps as a diversionary tactic?), some of them publish or cite web pages supposedly documenting &#8220;dishonesty&#8221; among leading creationists.
> 
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the &#8220;theory of creation&#8221; not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart.  It has predictive value, is internally consistent, is no less falsifiable than evolution, and consistently explains at least as many phenomena allegedly &#8220;explained&#8221; by evolution.
> 
> The vocal proponents of evolution have demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in this kind of straightforward clarity or information.  They object to its presentation, excuse themselves from paying much (if any) careful attention to it, then return to hacking up their favorite &#8220;straw-man&#8221; caricatures and congratulating each other on a job well done.  (Don&#8217;t let this happen to you!)
> 
> Vocal proponents of evolutionism such as are found at Talk.Origins have employed willful ignorance and arbitrary double-standards to question the scientific legitimacy of the creation science model.  They then go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for using such unscientific&#8212;if not outright deceptive&#8212;tactics to disparage their worst nightmare:  the truth.
> 
> Timothy Wall
> 
> A Theory of Biblical Creation
> 
> Visit site for more details.
Click to expand...


Pseudo-scientific theory, to be exact.  It endeavors to prove a postulate, formed entirely on faith in an imagined entity, and rejects all evidence not in support of the objective.

That's the polar opposite of scientific method.  Sorry.  Just the truth, pursuant to the 9th Commandment.


----------



## ima

I saw no scientific theory that proves the bible right. It didn't scientifically prove that the world was made in 6 days. or anything else for that matter.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> the god that runs this world is not the god that created all. He is the god that is doing the evil things you're complaining about.
> 
> 2co 4:4  in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of christ (who is the image of god) should not dawn on them.
> 
> This god is satan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> according to the men who wrote the genesis tale, satan was created by your gawds. It's a bit late to be re-writing the various bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fun fact satan is never mentioned in the old testament.
Click to expand...


Actually Jews,muslims and Christians all believe in satan the Jews have a different view of what and who satan is.

S.C.J. FAQ: Section 12.35. Jewish Thought: What does Judaism believe about Satan?

What do Muslims believe about Satan

Job 1:6  And a day came when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah. And Satan also came among them.

The Jewish tanakh. Who is the advesary to man and God  in heaven ?

Ivoy 1:6. Now the day came about, and the angels of God came to stand beside the Lord, and the Adversary, too, came among them.




Sa·tan
 [seyt-n] Show IPA 

noun 
the chief evil spirit; the great adversary of humanity; the devil. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin: 
before 900; Middle English, Old English  < Late Latin  < Greek Satân, Satán  < Hebrew &#347;&#257;t&#257;n  adversary


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better yet! Learn some real science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism has a scientific theory.
> 
> A Theory of Creation
> A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists
> 
> © 2000 Timothy Wallace.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> popular practice among many proponents of evolutionismincluding the regulars at the Talk.Origins newsgroupis to claim that no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,[1] without which they find it impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.  They then hasten to confirm this by evaluating the idea of creationwithout objectivity!  Such an approach to the topic of origins shall be shown below to be unreasonable, prejudiced, less-than-honest, and (therefore) not particularly scientific.
> 
> 
> Feigned(?) Ignorance
> A classic example of evolutionist pretending may be found at the Talk.Origins Archive, an evolutionist website professing to explore origins, yet advocating only evolutionary perspectives.  There, a welcome document suggests to prospective participants in the evolution/creation debate, that to really impress the regulars they should come prepared with a scientific Theory of Creation, which is then described as the Holy Grail of the origins debatesince (it is claimed) no ones ever seen it.[2]  Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community[3] the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty.
> 
> Many arguments advanced in support of evolutionary beliefs do indeed suggest that willful ignorance is indeed widespread among adherents of evolutionism.  Their criticisms are often focused on simplistic caricatures instead of authentic creation science concepts.  Such straw man caricatures are easily felled by little more than sophomoric derision, giving evolutionists (and many an unwitting observer) the deceptive impression that the creation model has been effectively undone.  These same caricatures (and their Quixotic challengers) persist in peppering the landscape of debate, despite an abundance of informative explanations and clarifications, patiently and repeatedly proffered by a growing number of individual creationists and several creationary organizations.
> 
> Many of evolutions proponents have thus been exposed to accurate and empirically relevant descriptions of the creation paradigm, yet they continue to limit their response to dismantling a caricature.  They either pretend not be unaware of anything better than the arsenal of straw men they parade before the public eye, or they willfully ignore what the other side is saying.  Neither tactic is representative of sound scholarship, reasonable scientific debate, or ethical standards worthy of admiration.  Ironically (perhaps as a diversionary tactic?), some of them publish or cite web pages supposedly documenting dishonesty among leading creationists.
> 
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the theory of creation not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart.  It has predictive value, is internally consistent, is no less falsifiable than evolution, and consistently explains at least as many phenomena allegedly explained by evolution.
> 
> The vocal proponents of evolution have demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in this kind of straightforward clarity or information.  They object to its presentation, excuse themselves from paying much (if any) careful attention to it, then return to hacking up their favorite straw-man caricatures and congratulating each other on a job well done.  (Dont let this happen to you!)
> 
> Vocal proponents of evolutionism such as are found at Talk.Origins have employed willful ignorance and arbitrary double-standards to question the scientific legitimacy of the creation science model.  They then go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for using such unscientificif not outright deceptivetactics to disparage their worst nightmare:  the truth.
> 
> Timothy Wall
> 
> A Theory of Biblical Creation
> 
> Visit site for more details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pseudo-scientific theory, to be exact.  It endeavors to prove a postulate, formed entirely on faith in an imagined entity, and rejects all evidence not in support of the objective.
> 
> That's the polar opposite of scientific method.  Sorry.  Just the truth, pursuant to the 9th Commandment.
Click to expand...


You truly don't know what you're talking about. by the way tell us your exp in college science ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> I saw no scientific theory that proves the bible right. It didn't scientifically prove that the world was made in 6 days. or anything else for that matter.



What is a Scientific Theory?
Evolutionists pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, andif there isto ask what it is.  As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined.  This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation).  Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debatevis-à-vis the empirical evidencemay proceed unhindered. 

The word theory in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this: 


theo·ry n.  a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree. 

Likewise, science in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this: 


sci·ence n.   1 the state or fact of knowledge   2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied 

It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either science or a theory must (or must not) be attached.  This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a scientific theory must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid: 


nat·u·ral·ism n. philos.   the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance 

Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of scienceeven though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is.  The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism.  It is not, by definition, any more or less scientific than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God.  While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God.  Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery, they reason, the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.  Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity. 

It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world.  This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it.  There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy:  The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists.  [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and natural law emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.] 

Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in generalor God in particularopens science up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions.  But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of Godthe only threat is to a science strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism.  The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of science to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the scientific community.  [Its no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the scientific community exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalismthe only religious framework theyre willing to tolerate!] 

The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like There is no such thing as creation science! or If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!  What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejectionby philosophical naturalists!  A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find. 

So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a scientific theory must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirementand a double standard: 


The Evolutionary Double Standard 
Characteristic Creation
Hypothesis
 Evolution
Hypothesis

Primary approach to scientific methodology
 Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
 Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.

Predominant religious/philosophical
belief system
 Biblical Christianity
 Humanistic Naturalism

Primary means of demonstrating systems
positive empirical support
 Citation of empirical data
 Citation of empirical data

Primary means of criticizing
counterpart system
 Citation of empirical data
 A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences

Table 1.  Close examination reveals that evolutionists out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositionswhich range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheismthan to matters of empirical science. 


The Talk.Origins Archive Welcome FAQ also ascribes the following set of (reasonable) requirements to a genuinely scientific theory: 

A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory.

These traits do loosely constitute a popular norm in defining scientific theories.  As shall be seen below, an analysis of both the creation and evolution models reveals that the two theories conform with comparable integrity to such demands, when adequate information and analysis are allowed into the picture.  But in typically dismissive style, the FAQ declares that: 

such statements as God created the heavens and the earth... are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable.
What the Talk.Origins authors have failed to tell their readers is that there is much more to the creation science model than simply declaring God created the heavens and the earth, including much that is both as falsifiable and predictive (if not more so) as the evolutionary model. 
What then is the Theory of Creation?
Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm.  To help illustrate its key points vis-à-vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison.  This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time. 
Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories 
Phenomenon/Condition Creation
Hypothesis
 Evolution
Hypothesis

Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]
 As with all mans endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past
 Mans scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm mans autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false

Empirically Falsifiable?
 No
 No

Empirically Falsified?
 No
 No

Predominant approach
to the Bible[5]
 The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data
 The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data

Empirically Falsifiable?
 No
 No

Empirically Falsified?
 No
 No

Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]
 God Created...
 Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created.

Empirically Falsifiable?
 No
 Yes

Empirically Falsified?
 No
 Yes

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]
 Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection
 Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years

Empirically Falsifiable?
 Yes
 Yes

Empirically Falsified?
 No
 Yes

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]
 Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation
 Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years

Empirically Falsifiable?
 Yes
 Yes

Empirically Falsified?
 No
 Yes

Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]
 Indicative of Creators prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms
 Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors

Empirically Falsifiable?
 No
 No

Empirically Falsified?
 No
 No

Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]
 Global Flood & aftermath
 Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial

Empirically Falsifiable?
 No
 No

Empirically Falsified?
 No
 No

The Ice Age[11]
 Post-Flood climate compensation
 Unknown

Empirically Falsifiable?
 No
 No

Empirically Falsified?
 No
 No

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]
 Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation
 Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information

Empirically Falsifiable?
 Yes
 Yes

Empirically Falsified?
 No
 Yes

Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]
 General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected
 Strict pattern of million-year depositions from simple to complex variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic

Empirically Falsifiable?
 Yes
 Yes

Empirically Falsified?
 No
 Yes

Erratic Ages given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]
 Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood
 Selective and dogmatic use of supportive ages & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators

Empirically Falsifiable?
 Yes
 Yes

Empirically Falsified?
 No
 Yes

Table 2.  The so-called non-existent creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart. 



Where is the Theory of Creation documented?
Some of the most vocal opponents of creationary thought, ostensibly repulsed by the work involved in objectively studying the technical details of an unfamiliar matter, persist in demanding something like a one- or two-sentence theory of creation [preferrably subservient to their naturalistic presuppositions].  Their insistence on such a simplistic approach to both evolution and creation has its reasons:  Evolution appears more credible when essential technical details remain beyond scrutiny, whereas creation finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles vis-a-vis both perspectives. 

While a simplistic sound bite approach to the origins issue may be fashionable by contemporary popular media standards, genuine science remains a matter of technical details, empirical data, and thorough analysis of the same.  So what awaits those who sincerely seek an authentic theory of creation is not another sugar-coated pill, but a body of literature comprising a technical second opinion bringing into question the superficial diagnosis popularly embraced by a world reluctant to face the implications of a sovereign Creator who has spoken.

Whereas the landscape of popular media and selected science texts are peppered with simplistic allusions to evolutionary theory as fact, literature describing and explaining the creationary alternative, while not as plentiful as its dominant counterpart, is readily available to those who seriously want to study it.  This is where the details of empirical science are brought to bear against both competing paradigms.  [Sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of evolutionary literature, which largely persists in treating the assumption of evolution as an immutable fact (and, on that basis, an inevitable conclusion), while heaping derision on heavily caricatured renderings of the creationary perspective.] 

Books
Each of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins.  All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists.  The list begins with general and/or early overviews and moves toward somewhat more specialized and/or recent offerings.

  Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism [0-89052-003-2] 
(Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985)

Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? [0-89051-081-4] 
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987)

Wilder-Smith, A. E., Mans Origin, Mans Destiny [0-87123-356-8] 
(Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968)

Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory [9992139676] 
(Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987)

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood [0-87552-338-2] 
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)

Roth, Ariel A., OriginsLinking Science and Scripture [0-8280-1328-4] 
(Hagarstown , MD: Review and Herals Publishing Association, 1998)

Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology [0-932766-54-4] 
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)

Woodmorappe, John, Noahs Ark: A Feasibility Study [0-932766-41-2] 
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996)

Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods [0-932766-57-9] 
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999)

Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book [0-949906-23-9] 
(Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)

Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution [089051258-2] 
(Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)

A slightly more descriptive list appears at - Selected Creation Books -- TrueOrigin Archive, while two much more extensive bibliographies are - Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography - and - A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography -. 
Many of these books can be purchased in the U.S. through the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Ministries Internationalthe last of which also trades on a nearly worldwide basis. 

Journals
The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community.  Each is published on a quarterly basis and managed by an editorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists.  Very few of evolutions most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications.  The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured creationism therefore comes as no surprise. 

The Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)
CRS Quarterly 

Journal of Creation
http://creation.com/periodicals#journal_of_creation 

A Theory of Biblical Creation


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism has a scientific theory.
> 
> A Theory of Creation
> A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists
> 
> © 2000 Timothy Wallace.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> popular practice among many proponents of evolutionism&#8212;including the &#8220;regulars&#8221; at the Talk.Origins newsgroup&#8212;is to claim that &#8220;no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,&#8221;[1] without which they find it &#8220;impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.&#8221;  They then hasten to confirm this by &#8220;evaluating&#8221; the idea of creation&#8212;without objectivity!  Such an approach to the topic of origins shall be shown below to be unreasonable, prejudiced, less-than-honest, and (therefore) not particularly scientific.
> 
> 
> Feigned(?) Ignorance
> A classic example of evolutionist pretending may be found at the &#8220;Talk.Origins Archive,&#8221; an evolutionist website professing to &#8220;explore&#8221; origins, yet advocating only evolutionary perspectives.  There, a &#8220;welcome&#8221; document suggests to prospective participants in the evolution/creation debate, that to &#8220;really impress the regulars&#8221; they should &#8220;come prepared with a scientific Theory of Creation,&#8221; which is then described as &#8220;the Holy Grail of the origins debate&#8221;&#8212;since (it is claimed) &#8220;no one&#8217;s ever seen it.&#8221;[2]  Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community[3] the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty.
> 
> Many arguments advanced in support of evolutionary beliefs do indeed suggest that willful ignorance is indeed widespread among adherents of evolutionism.  Their criticisms are often focused on simplistic caricatures instead of authentic creation science concepts.  Such &#8220;straw man&#8221; caricatures are easily felled by little more than sophomoric derision, giving evolutionists (and many an unwitting observer) the deceptive impression that the creation model has been effectively undone.  These same caricatures (and their Quixotic &#8220;challengers&#8221 persist in peppering the landscape of debate, despite an abundance of informative explanations and clarifications, patiently and repeatedly proffered by a growing number of individual creationists and several creationary organizations.
> 
> Many of evolution&#8217;s proponents have thus been exposed to accurate and empirically relevant descriptions of the creation paradigm, yet they continue to limit their response to dismantling a caricature.  They either pretend not be unaware of anything better than the arsenal of &#8220;straw men&#8221; they parade before the public eye, or they willfully ignore what the other side is saying.  Neither tactic is representative of sound scholarship, reasonable scientific debate, or ethical standards worthy of admiration.  Ironically (perhaps as a diversionary tactic?), some of them publish or cite web pages supposedly documenting &#8220;dishonesty&#8221; among leading creationists.
> 
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the &#8220;theory of creation&#8221; not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart.  It has predictive value, is internally consistent, is no less falsifiable than evolution, and consistently explains at least as many phenomena allegedly &#8220;explained&#8221; by evolution.
> 
> The vocal proponents of evolution have demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in this kind of straightforward clarity or information.  They object to its presentation, excuse themselves from paying much (if any) careful attention to it, then return to hacking up their favorite &#8220;straw-man&#8221; caricatures and congratulating each other on a job well done.  (Don&#8217;t let this happen to you!)
> 
> Vocal proponents of evolutionism such as are found at Talk.Origins have employed willful ignorance and arbitrary double-standards to question the scientific legitimacy of the creation science model.  They then go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for using such unscientific&#8212;if not outright deceptive&#8212;tactics to disparage their worst nightmare:  the truth.
> 
> Timothy Wall
> 
> A Theory of Biblical Creation
> 
> Visit site for more details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pseudo-scientific theory, to be exact.  It endeavors to prove a postulate, formed entirely on faith in an imagined entity, and rejects all evidence not in support of the objective.
> 
> That's the polar opposite of scientific method.  Sorry.  Just the truth, pursuant to the 9th Commandment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You truly don't know what you're talking about. by the way tell us your exp in college science ?
Click to expand...


Not in colllege, per se.  But it helped in learning the methodology which I applied in my business career, as a marketing executive, where accepting cooked up data in support of what we wanted to believe the market to be, would be death to the enterprise.  So in my marketing research, the null hypothesis came into play big time.  Before developing new products or taking our existing product line in a new direction, be damn sure the data is thorough and accurate.  In short, don't just prove it's right; prove it's not wrong.

Creationism only endeavors to prove it's right, which any moron can "prove" about damn near anything.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pseudo-scientific theory, to be exact.  It endeavors to prove a postulate, formed entirely on faith in an imagined entity, and rejects all evidence not in support of the objective.
> 
> That's the polar opposite of scientific method.  Sorry.  Just the truth, pursuant to the 9th Commandment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You truly don't know what you're talking about. by the way tell us your exp in college science ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in colllege, per se.  But it helped in learning the methodology which I applied in my business career, as a marketing executive, where accepting cooked up data in support of what we wanted to believe the market to be, would be death to the enterprise.  So in my marketing research, the null hypothesis came into play big time.  Before developing new products or taking our existing product line in a new direction, be damn sure the data is thorough and accurate.  In short, don't just prove it's right; prove it's not wrong.
> 
> Creationism only endeavors to prove it's right, which any moron can "prove" about damn near anything.
Click to expand...


Marketing enough said. You have never stepped foot in a genetics class room and you wish to debate mutations with me lol. So you're are one of those who only believes what he reads on the internet


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You truly don't know what you're talking about. by the way tell us your exp in college science ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in colllege, per se.  But it helped in learning the methodology which I applied in my business career, as a marketing executive, where accepting cooked up data in support of what we wanted to believe the market to be, would be death to the enterprise.  So in my marketing research, the null hypothesis came into play big time.  Before developing new products or taking our existing product line in a new direction, be damn sure the data is thorough and accurate.  In short, don't just prove it's right; prove it's not wrong.
> 
> Creationism only endeavors to prove it's right, which any moron can "prove" about damn near anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marketing enough said. You have never stepped foot in a genetics class room and you wish to debate mutations with me lol. So you're are one of those who only believes what he reads on the internet
Click to expand...


Had biology classes, too.  But again, that kinda helps with how to learn more so than actual teaching.  And after some decades of trying to learn, objectively, the college-learned skills do help on the path ... merely to a destination you never really reach.

And while indeed I use Google to refresh my memory or to fact-check certain things, most of my Internet reading is via Kindle or Google Play Books on my phone, with a personal discipline of 1 learning book for every 2 brain candy books (Legal Thrillers, mostly).

Meanwhile, another thing I learned in psychology and in further studies in market psychology is our tendency to assume others think and do as we do, which the Pot-Calling-Kettle-Black cliche speaks to.  So when someone accuses me of some mental laziness, etc, my first thought is they're unknowingly speaking of themselves.

Ergo your numberous copy-pastes of stuff easily found online.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in colllege, per se.  But it helped in learning the methodology which I applied in my business career, as a marketing executive, where accepting cooked up data in support of what we wanted to believe the market to be, would be death to the enterprise.  So in my marketing research, the null hypothesis came into play big time.  Before developing new products or taking our existing product line in a new direction, be damn sure the data is thorough and accurate.  In short, don't just prove it's right; prove it's not wrong.
> 
> Creationism only endeavors to prove it's right, which any moron can "prove" about damn near anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marketing enough said. You have never stepped foot in a genetics class room and you wish to debate mutations with me lol. So you're are one of those who only believes what he reads on the internet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had biology classes, too.  But again, that kinda helps with how to learn more so than actual teaching.  And after some decades of trying to learn, objectively, the college-learned skills do help on the path ... merely to a destination you never really reach.
> 
> And while indeed I use Google to refresh my memory or to fact-check certain things, most of my Internet reading is via Kindle or Google Play Books on my phone, with a personal discipline of 1 learning book for every 2 brain candy books (Legal Thrillers, mostly).
> 
> Meanwhile, another thing I learned in psychology and in further studies in market psychology is our tendency to assume others think and do as we do, which the Pot-Calling-Kettle-Black cliche speaks to.  So when someone accuses me of some mental laziness, etc, my first thought is they're unknowingly speaking of themselves.
> 
> Ergo your numberous copy-pastes of stuff easily found online.
Click to expand...


If you wish we can discuss mutation rates seen in nature and do the math that shows evolutionist didn't assign enough time for mutations producing the diversity seen.

Also take a look at DNA base pairs to show how far apart man is from any living primate. Anyone who does the math on mutation rates know the impossibility of the theory.

I don't need to copy and paste to discuss this issue with you. I do it because sometimes I just don't like wasting my time with someone who is not open to learning.

I think I already did my mutation rate argument earlier in the thread but am willing to do it again but the moment you copy and paste the debate is over got it ?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marketing enough said. You have never stepped foot in a genetics class room and you wish to debate mutations with me lol. So you're are one of those who only believes what he reads on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had biology classes, too.  But again, that kinda helps with how to learn more so than actual teaching.  And after some decades of trying to learn, objectively, the college-learned skills do help on the path ... merely to a destination you never really reach.
> 
> And while indeed I use Google to refresh my memory or to fact-check certain things, most of my Internet reading is via Kindle or Google Play Books on my phone, with a personal discipline of 1 learning book for every 2 brain candy books (Legal Thrillers, mostly).
> 
> Meanwhile, another thing I learned in psychology and in further studies in market psychology is our tendency to assume others think and do as we do, which the Pot-Calling-Kettle-Black cliche speaks to.  So when someone accuses me of some mental laziness, etc, my first thought is they're unknowingly speaking of themselves.
> 
> Ergo your numberous copy-pastes of stuff easily found online.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If you wish we can discuss mutation rates seen in nature and do the math that shows evolutionist didn't assign enough time for mutations producing the diversity seen.*
> 
> Also take a look at DNA base pairs to show how far apart man is from any living primate. Anyone who does the math on mutation rates know the impossibility of the theory.
> 
> I don't need to copy and paste to discuss this issue with you. I do it because sometimes I just don't like wasting my time with someone who is not open to learning.
> 
> I think I already did my mutation rate argument earlier in the thread but am willing to do it again but the moment you copy and paste the debate is over got it ?
Click to expand...


Thanks, but I'll pass.  That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature.  I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll  be corrected when we know more.  It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history.  The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand. 

And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not acceptable science. Those that believe in it are looking for a way out of their dilemma. If there is no God how could all this have happened? The fact that you insist on mocking God in your posts should demonstrate to even the most simple minded that you have a agenda. What seems silly to a person who cannot accept that God is the reality, makes logical sense to those that know God, trust in Him and His power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not acceptable science?  Not acceptable to who?
> 
> I can understand your dilemma in that the many fields of science supporting evolution presents an obvious contradiction to biblical tales and fables but you appear to be among those fundie Christians who believe that evolutionary science is a worldwide conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see the contradiction that anyone  (no matter how many years of scientific study or how much research has been done)  are labeled unscientific and not a scientist, when they reject evolution or pursue to understand the Bible as truth. I do not reject evolutionists their titles just because I happen to disagree with their opinions based on limited findings. So why should the opposite be true unless there is indeed a conspiracy to silence opposition and hold control.
Click to expand...


You make a mistake common among creationists of disregarding the practice of peer review which separates Christian creationism from real science. You apparently missed that the work prepared by Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995, (in an earlier link), was published in the journal _Nature_. 

Such peer review allows for others to review and either confirm or falsify such work. As you probably know, Christian creationist ministries such as AIG, the ICR and others do no research and do not publish in scientific journals where their works are subject to review and scrutiny. 

 I think the terms "gawds, intuition, spirituality", adequately convey metaphysical concepts that are within the realm of supernaturalism. In the realm of the natural world, we would replace those terms with such expressions as peer reviewed data, falsify, test and verify.

What I don't do is make presumptions that supernaturalism is the cause of purely natural events. You are making every effort to support supernaturalism while offering nothing to make any case to support it.

What I do find interesting is your continued relating of scientific advances in an attempt to further your belief in supernaturalism. It's as though your argument for both the supernatural and sectarian gawds relies on scientific discovery so you can claim that "see, science only recently discovered this which is proof that the supernatural and my sectarian gawds truly exist".


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had biology classes, too.  But again, that kinda helps with how to learn more so than actual teaching.  And after some decades of trying to learn, objectively, the college-learned skills do help on the path ... merely to a destination you never really reach.
> 
> And while indeed I use Google to refresh my memory or to fact-check certain things, most of my Internet reading is via Kindle or Google Play Books on my phone, with a personal discipline of 1 learning book for every 2 brain candy books (Legal Thrillers, mostly).
> 
> Meanwhile, another thing I learned in psychology and in further studies in market psychology is our tendency to assume others think and do as we do, which the Pot-Calling-Kettle-Black cliche speaks to.  So when someone accuses me of some mental laziness, etc, my first thought is they're unknowingly speaking of themselves.
> 
> Ergo your numberous copy-pastes of stuff easily found online.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If you wish we can discuss mutation rates seen in nature and do the math that shows evolutionist didn't assign enough time for mutations producing the diversity seen.*
> 
> Also take a look at DNA base pairs to show how far apart man is from any living primate. Anyone who does the math on mutation rates know the impossibility of the theory.
> 
> I don't need to copy and paste to discuss this issue with you. I do it because sometimes I just don't like wasting my time with someone who is not open to learning.
> 
> I think I already did my mutation rate argument earlier in the thread but am willing to do it again but the moment you copy and paste the debate is over got it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, but I'll pass.  That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature.  I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll  be corrected when we know more.  It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history.  The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand.
> 
> And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.
Click to expand...


Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.

This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie?
> You're joking too?
> 
> It is funny how many ways people will find excuses for their own beliefs --- even to disregard those on their side... Do you hate God?
> 
> 
> 
> Not joking.
> 
> Why don't you identify for us the credentials of Do-while Jones?
> 
> In the meantime...
> 
> Creation Science and Magnetic Fields
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not seek the credentials of the atheistic authors? Jones might be a Christian only presenting what seems an interesting view that seems to be coming from some atheists. There is nothing wrong in that unless the atheists are not atheists.
Click to expand...


I would encourage you to seek the credentials of the "atheistic" authors . Bear in mind,  that might cause you to confront authors who hold a religious/spiritual belief other than christianity who have no issue at all with biological evolution, an ancient earth and an appreciation of a purely natural world. You may have to come to terms with and understand that reason and rationality operate in a realm separated from supernaturalism. 
As for establishing whether or not you believe the complexity in nature is the result of supernatural creation depends on whether you believe in meatphysics, creationism or some form of "intelligent design", typically modeled on a benevolent creator. It is possible that all living species and all of life as we know it --even all of the universe--could have been created by a cosmic, supernatural designer/creator who deceived us by giving all of our physical world the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and immense time spans. And of course, that deception could have been performed by any of the gods because as we know, your gawds are only one conception of gawds. 

I've found that creationists recoil at this argument because if true, it means their preference for "intelligent designer" would be quite obviously lying about creation and that would not do for their arguments. So, creationists persist in using metaphysics as the core of their argument or they hope to show that the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and the immense time spans we see in nature reveals supernatural design if only the evidence is correctly interpreted by the methods they propose, (i.e., pseudoscience).


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you wish we can discuss mutation rates seen in nature and do the math that shows evolutionist didn't assign enough time for mutations producing the diversity seen.*
> 
> Also take a look at DNA base pairs to show how far apart man is from any living primate. Anyone who does the math on mutation rates know the impossibility of the theory.
> 
> I don't need to copy and paste to discuss this issue with you. I do it because sometimes I just don't like wasting my time with someone who is not open to learning.
> 
> I think I already did my mutation rate argument earlier in the thread but am willing to do it again but the moment you copy and paste the debate is over got it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, but I'll pass.  That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature.  I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll  be corrected when we know more.  It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history.  The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand.
> 
> And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.
> 
> This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.
Click to expand...

You're really using the last, dying gasp of the creationist ministries with the "it's too complex to have occurred naturally" argument. 

Meyer stole that from Behe who has been thoroughly refuted for that nonsense argument.


----------



## daws101

Where Did the Devil Come From? 

       Satan is first mentioned by "name" in Job 1:6-7:



       One day the angels came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Satan also came with them. Yahweh said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" 
        Satan answered Yahweh, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it." 

       Here God asks where it is that Satan comes from; however, it is not a question of ultimate origins, but of "what have you been doing lately?" From the story of Job, we learn that Satan is responsible for bringing misery and suffering to people. In 1 Chronicles 21:1 we see him active in tempting a person to sin. The only other place that Satan is mentioned in the Old Testament is Zechariah 3:1-2, where he is seen accusing the saints; and of course that is exactly what his name "Satan" means: "the accuser". In fact, in the Old Testament "Satan" is always preceded by a definite article, from which we gather "Satan" is more a designation of his character than an actual personal name. His actual first appearance in the Bible is generally assumed to be at the very beginning, in the form of a serpent, when he convinces Eve to doubt God's goodness. If this serpent is indeed Satan (there is no explicit biblical indication that it is), then Satan is responsible for creating all the misery that exists in our world today. 


 If this serpent is indeed Satan (there is no explicit biblical indication that it is), then Satan is responsible for creating all the misery that exists in our world today.


http://www.theology.edu/theology/angel.htm btw ywc  I was wrong ! maybe one of these day you will be man enough to admit the same.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you wish we can discuss mutation rates seen in nature and do the math that shows evolutionist didn't assign enough time for mutations producing the diversity seen.*
> 
> Also take a look at DNA base pairs to show how far apart man is from any living primate. Anyone who does the math on mutation rates know the impossibility of the theory.
> 
> I don't need to copy and paste to discuss this issue with you. I do it because sometimes I just don't like wasting my time with someone who is not open to learning.
> 
> I think I already did my mutation rate argument earlier in the thread but am willing to do it again but the moment you copy and paste the debate is over got it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, but I'll pass.  That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature.  I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll  be corrected when we know more.  It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history.  The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand.
> 
> And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.
> 
> This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.
Click to expand...


The planet is billons of years old and humans evolved from a common ancestor of apes or chimps some 4 to 6 million years ago.  Or so we think based on what we know, now.  Maybe it's wrong on some of the minor details, i.e. time estimates.  If so, that does not -- by default -- mean God did it. It only means we do not know, and we thus can, at best, today, guess a range of time.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you wish we can discuss mutation rates seen in nature and do the math that shows evolutionist didn't assign enough time for mutations producing the diversity seen.*
> 
> Also take a look at DNA base pairs to show how far apart man is from any living primate. Anyone who does the math on mutation rates know the impossibility of the theory.
> 
> I don't need to copy and paste to discuss this issue with you. I do it because sometimes I just don't like wasting my time with someone who is not open to learning.
> 
> I think I already did my mutation rate argument earlier in the thread but am willing to do it again but the moment you copy and paste the debate is over got it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, but I'll pass.  That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature.  I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll  be corrected when we know more.  It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history.  The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand.
> 
> And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.
> 
> This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://youtu.be/tgC3hkCGJMU]Refuting Creationist Arguments - Mutations - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/EyjufVuQZ48]Evolution for ID-iots - YouTube[/ame]


yes this is


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, but I'll pass.  That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature.  I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll  be corrected when we know more.  It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history.  The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand.
> 
> And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.
> 
> This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're really using the last, dying gasp of the creationist ministries with the "it's too complex to have occurred naturally" argument.
> 
> Meyer stole that from Behe who has been thoroughly refuted for that nonsense argument.
Click to expand...


 what we were discussing went right over your head, I will explain in the morning.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, but I'll pass.  That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature.  I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll  be corrected when we know more.  It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history.  The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand.
> 
> And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.
> 
> This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/tgC3hkCGJMU]Refuting Creationist Arguments - Mutations - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/EyjufVuQZ48]Evolution for ID-iots - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> yes this is
Click to expand...


Why thank you for the videos you will help make my argument in the morning for me. Actually creationist or I have never made the claim that mutations are to rare just beneficial mutations are to rare. I will give you the real numbers of the mutation rates. I will show deleterious (harmful) mutations are too high. So your video was right in one area they are high but they are actually higher then your video claims. They are so high they outnumber beneficial mutations which is what you really need for evolution. Your video got something else right neutral mutations happen more frequently then the other two but it is not neutral mutations that evolutionist need.

I will even throw in some boring math you probably won't understand. These numbers have already been calculated and it came from evolutionist. Goodnight have your thinking cap on you're gonna need it.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.
> 
> This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.
> 
> 
> 
> You're really using the last, dying gasp of the creationist ministries with the "it's too complex to have occurred naturally" argument.
> 
> Meyer stole that from Behe who has been thoroughly refuted for that nonsense argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what we were discussing went right over your head, I will explain in the morning.
Click to expand...

Actually, you don't understand the arguments furthered by Meyer and Behe constitute those you have presented. 

The creationist "it's too complex to have happened except by actions of supermagical  gawds", is a dead argument. Harun Yahya can't save you on this one either. 

But I'm sure we can expect you will copy and paste half the contents of the ICR charlatans.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're really using the last, dying gasp of the creationist ministries with the "it's too complex to have occurred naturally" argument.
> 
> Meyer stole that from Behe who has been thoroughly refuted for that nonsense argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what we were discussing went right over your head, I will explain in the morning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you don't understand the arguments furthered by Meyer and Behe constitute those you have presented.
> 
> The creationist "it's too complex to have happened except by actions of supermagical  gawds", is a dead argument. Harun Yahya can't save you on this one either.
> 
> But I'm sure we can expect you will copy and paste half the contents of the ICR charlatans.
Click to expand...


We were not discussing complexity.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw no scientific theory that proves the bible right. It didn't scientifically prove that the world was made in 6 days. or anything else for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a Scientific Theory?
> Evolutionists pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, andif there isto ask what it is.  As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined.  This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation).  Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debatevis-à-vis the empirical evidencemay proceed unhindered.
> 
> The word theory in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:
> 
> 
> theo·ry n.  a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.
> 
> Likewise, science in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:
> 
> 
> sci·ence n.   1 the state or fact of knowledge   2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied
> 
> It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either science or a theory must (or must not) be attached.  This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a scientific theory must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:
> 
> 
> nat·u·ral·ism n. philos.   the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance
> 
> Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of scienceeven though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is.  The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism.  It is not, by definition, any more or less scientific than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God.  While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God.  Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery, they reason, the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.  Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.
> 
> It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world.  This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it.  There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy:  The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists.  [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and natural law emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]
> 
> Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in generalor God in particularopens science up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions.  But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of Godthe only threat is to a science strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism.  The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of science to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the scientific community.  [Its no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the scientific community exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalismthe only religious framework theyre willing to tolerate!]
> 
> The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like There is no such thing as creation science! or If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!  What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejectionby philosophical naturalists!  A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find.
> 
> So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a scientific theory must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirementand a double standard:
> 
> 
> The Evolutionary Double Standard
> Characteristic Creation
> Hypothesis
> Evolution
> Hypothesis
> 
> Primary approach to scientific methodology
> Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
> Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
> 
> Predominant religious/philosophical
> belief system
> Biblical Christianity
> Humanistic Naturalism
> 
> Primary means of demonstrating systems
> positive empirical support
> Citation of empirical data
> Citation of empirical data
> 
> Primary means of criticizing
> counterpart system
> Citation of empirical data
> A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences
> 
> Table 1.  Close examination reveals that evolutionists out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositionswhich range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheismthan to matters of empirical science.
> 
> 
> The Talk.Origins Archive Welcome FAQ also ascribes the following set of (reasonable) requirements to a genuinely scientific theory:
> 
> A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory.
> 
> These traits do loosely constitute a popular norm in defining scientific theories.  As shall be seen below, an analysis of both the creation and evolution models reveals that the two theories conform with comparable integrity to such demands, when adequate information and analysis are allowed into the picture.  But in typically dismissive style, the FAQ declares that:
> 
> such statements as God created the heavens and the earth... are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable.
> What the Talk.Origins authors have failed to tell their readers is that there is much more to the creation science model than simply declaring God created the heavens and the earth, including much that is both as falsifiable and predictive (if not more so) as the evolutionary model.
> What then is the Theory of Creation?
> Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm.  To help illustrate its key points vis-à-vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison.  This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time.
> Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories
> Phenomenon/Condition Creation
> Hypothesis
> Evolution
> Hypothesis
> 
> Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]
> As with all mans endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past
> Mans scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm mans autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> Predominant approach
> to the Bible[5]
> The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data
> The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]
> God Created...
> Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created.
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]
> Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection
> Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]
> Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation
> Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]
> Indicative of Creators prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms
> Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]
> Global Flood & aftermath
> Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> The Ice Age[11]
> Post-Flood climate compensation
> Unknown
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]
> Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation
> Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]
> General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected
> Strict pattern of million-year depositions from simple to complex variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Erratic Ages given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]
> Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood
> Selective and dogmatic use of supportive ages & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Table 2.  The so-called non-existent creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the Theory of Creation documented?
> Some of the most vocal opponents of creationary thought, ostensibly repulsed by the work involved in objectively studying the technical details of an unfamiliar matter, persist in demanding something like a one- or two-sentence theory of creation [preferrably subservient to their naturalistic presuppositions].  Their insistence on such a simplistic approach to both evolution and creation has its reasons:  Evolution appears more credible when essential technical details remain beyond scrutiny, whereas creation finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles vis-a-vis both perspectives.
> 
> While a simplistic sound bite approach to the origins issue may be fashionable by contemporary popular media standards, genuine science remains a matter of technical details, empirical data, and thorough analysis of the same.  So what awaits those who sincerely seek an authentic theory of creation is not another sugar-coated pill, but a body of literature comprising a technical second opinion bringing into question the superficial diagnosis popularly embraced by a world reluctant to face the implications of a sovereign Creator who has spoken.
> 
> Whereas the landscape of popular media and selected science texts are peppered with simplistic allusions to evolutionary theory as fact, literature describing and explaining the creationary alternative, while not as plentiful as its dominant counterpart, is readily available to those who seriously want to study it.  This is where the details of empirical science are brought to bear against both competing paradigms.  [Sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of evolutionary literature, which largely persists in treating the assumption of evolution as an immutable fact (and, on that basis, an inevitable conclusion), while heaping derision on heavily caricatured renderings of the creationary perspective.]
> 
> Books
> Each of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins.  All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists.  The list begins with general and/or early overviews and moves toward somewhat more specialized and/or recent offerings.
> 
> Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism [0-89052-003-2]
> (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985)
> 
> Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? [0-89051-081-4]
> (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987)
> 
> Wilder-Smith, A. E., Mans Origin, Mans Destiny [0-87123-356-8]
> (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968)
> 
> Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory [9992139676]
> (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987)
> 
> Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood [0-87552-338-2]
> (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)
> 
> Roth, Ariel A., OriginsLinking Science and Scripture [0-8280-1328-4]
> (Hagarstown , MD: Review and Herals Publishing Association, 1998)
> 
> Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology [0-932766-54-4]
> (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)
> 
> Woodmorappe, John, Noahs Ark: A Feasibility Study [0-932766-41-2]
> (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996)
> 
> Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods [0-932766-57-9]
> (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999)
> 
> Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book [0-949906-23-9]
> (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
> 
> Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution [089051258-2]
> (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
> 
> A slightly more descriptive list appears at - Selected Creation Books -- TrueOrigin Archive, while two much more extensive bibliographies are - Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography - and - A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography -.
> Many of these books can be purchased in the U.S. through the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Ministries Internationalthe last of which also trades on a nearly worldwide basis.
> 
> Journals
> The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community.  Each is published on a quarterly basis and managed by an editorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists.  Very few of evolutions most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications.  The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured creationism therefore comes as no surprise.
> 
> The Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)
> CRS Quarterly
> 
> Journal of Creation
> http://creation.com/periodicals#journal_of_creation
> 
> A Theory of Biblical Creation
Click to expand...


Nice cut & paste, can you think for yourself though?   Because I still see no scientific proof of creation, it's just a mumbo jumbo comparison with no empirical facts to back it up, as usual.

If creator there is, evolution is part of his plan, get over it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, but I'll pass.  That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature.  I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll  be corrected when we know more.  It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history.  The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand.
> 
> And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.
> 
> This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The planet is billons of years old and humans evolved from a common ancestor of apes or chimps some 4 to 6 million years ago.  Or so we think based on what we know, now.  Maybe it's wrong on some of the minor details, i.e. time estimates.  If so, that does not -- by default -- mean God did it. It only means we do not know, and we thus can, at best, today, guess a range of time.
Click to expand...


You have made my argument for me as well we will go with your numbers as well. I said 2.2 because that was once the figure given for the divergence from ape and man. So you're saying 4 to 6 million years how bout those dating methods for accuracy.  I couldn't resist.

The rate of beneficial mutations are so low 4 to 6 million years is not enough time for evolution.It's not enough time to account for the diversity seen in nature. The beneficial mutation rate is so rare they can't seem to tell us how often they happen. Are you getting the picture ?

Now I will respond to daws the person infatuated with slapping dick I guess, because he is always bringing it up.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw no scientific theory that proves the bible right. It didn't scientifically prove that the world was made in 6 days. or anything else for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a Scientific Theory?
> Evolutionists pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, andif there isto ask what it is.  As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined.  This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation).  Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debatevis-à-vis the empirical evidencemay proceed unhindered.
> 
> The word theory in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:
> 
> 
> theo·ry n.  a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.
> 
> Likewise, science in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:
> 
> 
> sci·ence n.   1 the state or fact of knowledge   2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied
> 
> It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either science or a theory must (or must not) be attached.  This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a scientific theory must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:
> 
> 
> nat·u·ral·ism n. philos.   the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance
> 
> Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of scienceeven though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is.  The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism.  It is not, by definition, any more or less scientific than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God.  While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God.  Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery, they reason, the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.  Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.
> 
> It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world.  This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it.  There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy:  The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists.  [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and natural law emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]
> 
> Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in generalor God in particularopens science up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions.  But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of Godthe only threat is to a science strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism.  The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of science to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the scientific community.  [Its no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the scientific community exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalismthe only religious framework theyre willing to tolerate!]
> 
> The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like There is no such thing as creation science! or If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!  What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejectionby philosophical naturalists!  A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find.
> 
> So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a scientific theory must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirementand a double standard:
> 
> 
> The Evolutionary Double Standard
> Characteristic Creation
> Hypothesis
> Evolution
> Hypothesis
> 
> Primary approach to scientific methodology
> Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
> Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
> 
> Predominant religious/philosophical
> belief system
> Biblical Christianity
> Humanistic Naturalism
> 
> Primary means of demonstrating systems
> positive empirical support
> Citation of empirical data
> Citation of empirical data
> 
> Primary means of criticizing
> counterpart system
> Citation of empirical data
> A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences
> 
> Table 1.  Close examination reveals that evolutionists out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositionswhich range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheismthan to matters of empirical science.
> 
> 
> The Talk.Origins Archive Welcome FAQ also ascribes the following set of (reasonable) requirements to a genuinely scientific theory:
> 
> A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory.
> 
> These traits do loosely constitute a popular norm in defining scientific theories.  As shall be seen below, an analysis of both the creation and evolution models reveals that the two theories conform with comparable integrity to such demands, when adequate information and analysis are allowed into the picture.  But in typically dismissive style, the FAQ declares that:
> 
> such statements as God created the heavens and the earth... are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable.
> What the Talk.Origins authors have failed to tell their readers is that there is much more to the creation science model than simply declaring God created the heavens and the earth, including much that is both as falsifiable and predictive (if not more so) as the evolutionary model.
> What then is the Theory of Creation?
> Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm.  To help illustrate its key points vis-à-vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison.  This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time.
> Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories
> Phenomenon/Condition Creation
> Hypothesis
> Evolution
> Hypothesis
> 
> Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]
> As with all mans endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past
> Mans scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm mans autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> Predominant approach
> to the Bible[5]
> The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data
> The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]
> God Created...
> Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created.
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]
> Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection
> Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]
> Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation
> Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]
> Indicative of Creators prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms
> Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]
> Global Flood & aftermath
> Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> The Ice Age[11]
> Post-Flood climate compensation
> Unknown
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]
> Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation
> Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]
> General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected
> Strict pattern of million-year depositions from simple to complex variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Erratic Ages given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]
> Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood
> Selective and dogmatic use of supportive ages & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Table 2.  The so-called non-existent creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the Theory of Creation documented?
> Some of the most vocal opponents of creationary thought, ostensibly repulsed by the work involved in objectively studying the technical details of an unfamiliar matter, persist in demanding something like a one- or two-sentence theory of creation [preferrably subservient to their naturalistic presuppositions].  Their insistence on such a simplistic approach to both evolution and creation has its reasons:  Evolution appears more credible when essential technical details remain beyond scrutiny, whereas creation finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles vis-a-vis both perspectives.
> 
> While a simplistic sound bite approach to the origins issue may be fashionable by contemporary popular media standards, genuine science remains a matter of technical details, empirical data, and thorough analysis of the same.  So what awaits those who sincerely seek an authentic theory of creation is not another sugar-coated pill, but a body of literature comprising a technical second opinion bringing into question the superficial diagnosis popularly embraced by a world reluctant to face the implications of a sovereign Creator who has spoken.
> 
> Whereas the landscape of popular media and selected science texts are peppered with simplistic allusions to evolutionary theory as fact, literature describing and explaining the creationary alternative, while not as plentiful as its dominant counterpart, is readily available to those who seriously want to study it.  This is where the details of empirical science are brought to bear against both competing paradigms.  [Sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of evolutionary literature, which largely persists in treating the assumption of evolution as an immutable fact (and, on that basis, an inevitable conclusion), while heaping derision on heavily caricatured renderings of the creationary perspective.]
> 
> Books
> Each of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins.  All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists.  The list begins with general and/or early overviews and moves toward somewhat more specialized and/or recent offerings.
> 
> Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism [0-89052-003-2]
> (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985)
> 
> Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? [0-89051-081-4]
> (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987)
> 
> Wilder-Smith, A. E., Mans Origin, Mans Destiny [0-87123-356-8]
> (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968)
> 
> Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory [9992139676]
> (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987)
> 
> Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood [0-87552-338-2]
> (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)
> 
> Roth, Ariel A., OriginsLinking Science and Scripture [0-8280-1328-4]
> (Hagarstown , MD: Review and Herals Publishing Association, 1998)
> 
> Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology [0-932766-54-4]
> (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)
> 
> Woodmorappe, John, Noahs Ark: A Feasibility Study [0-932766-41-2]
> (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996)
> 
> Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods [0-932766-57-9]
> (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999)
> 
> Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book [0-949906-23-9]
> (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
> 
> Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution [089051258-2]
> (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
> 
> A slightly more descriptive list appears at - Selected Creation Books -- TrueOrigin Archive, while two much more extensive bibliographies are - Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography - and - A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography -.
> Many of these books can be purchased in the U.S. through the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Ministries Internationalthe last of which also trades on a nearly worldwide basis.
> 
> Journals
> The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community.  Each is published on a quarterly basis and managed by an editorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists.  Very few of evolutions most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications.  The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured creationism therefore comes as no surprise.
> 
> The Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)
> CRS Quarterly
> 
> Journal of Creation
> http://creation.com/periodicals#journal_of_creation
> 
> A Theory of Biblical Creation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice cut & paste, can you think for yourself though?   Because I still see no scientific proof of creation, it's just a mumbo jumbo comparison with no empirical facts to back it up, as usual.
> 
> If creator there is, evolution is part of his plan, get over it.
Click to expand...


Watch and see who resorts to copy and paste, follow along you will learn something.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a Scientific Theory?
> Evolutionists pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, andif there isto ask what it is.  As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined.  This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation).  Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debatevis-à-vis the empirical evidencemay proceed unhindered.
> 
> The word theory in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:
> 
> 
> theo·ry n.  a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.
> 
> Likewise, science in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:
> 
> 
> sci·ence n.   1 the state or fact of knowledge   2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied
> 
> It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either science or a theory must (or must not) be attached.  This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a scientific theory must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:
> 
> 
> nat·u·ral·ism n. philos.   the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance
> 
> Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of scienceeven though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is.  The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism.  It is not, by definition, any more or less scientific than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God.  While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God.  Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery, they reason, the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.  Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.
> 
> It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world.  This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it.  There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy:  The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists.  [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and natural law emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]
> 
> Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in generalor God in particularopens science up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions.  But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of Godthe only threat is to a science strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism.  The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of science to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the scientific community.  [Its no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the scientific community exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalismthe only religious framework theyre willing to tolerate!]
> 
> The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like There is no such thing as creation science! or If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!  What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejectionby philosophical naturalists!  A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find.
> 
> So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a scientific theory must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirementand a double standard:
> 
> 
> The Evolutionary Double Standard
> Characteristic Creation
> Hypothesis
> Evolution
> Hypothesis
> 
> Primary approach to scientific methodology
> Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
> Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
> 
> Predominant religious/philosophical
> belief system
> Biblical Christianity
> Humanistic Naturalism
> 
> Primary means of demonstrating systems
> positive empirical support
> Citation of empirical data
> Citation of empirical data
> 
> Primary means of criticizing
> counterpart system
> Citation of empirical data
> A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences
> 
> Table 1.  Close examination reveals that evolutionists out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositionswhich range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheismthan to matters of empirical science.
> 
> 
> The Talk.Origins Archive Welcome FAQ also ascribes the following set of (reasonable) requirements to a genuinely scientific theory:
> 
> A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory.
> 
> These traits do loosely constitute a popular norm in defining scientific theories.  As shall be seen below, an analysis of both the creation and evolution models reveals that the two theories conform with comparable integrity to such demands, when adequate information and analysis are allowed into the picture.  But in typically dismissive style, the FAQ declares that:
> 
> such statements as God created the heavens and the earth... are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable.
> What the Talk.Origins authors have failed to tell their readers is that there is much more to the creation science model than simply declaring God created the heavens and the earth, including much that is both as falsifiable and predictive (if not more so) as the evolutionary model.
> What then is the Theory of Creation?
> Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm.  To help illustrate its key points vis-à-vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison.  This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time.
> Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories
> Phenomenon/Condition Creation
> Hypothesis
> Evolution
> Hypothesis
> 
> Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]
> As with all mans endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past
> Mans scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm mans autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> Predominant approach
> to the Bible[5]
> The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data
> The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]
> God Created...
> Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created.
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]
> Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection
> Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]
> Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation
> Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]
> Indicative of Creators prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms
> Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]
> Global Flood & aftermath
> Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> The Ice Age[11]
> Post-Flood climate compensation
> Unknown
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]
> Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation
> Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]
> General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected
> Strict pattern of million-year depositions from simple to complex variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Erratic Ages given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]
> Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood
> Selective and dogmatic use of supportive ages & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Table 2.  The so-called non-existent creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the Theory of Creation documented?
> Some of the most vocal opponents of creationary thought, ostensibly repulsed by the work involved in objectively studying the technical details of an unfamiliar matter, persist in demanding something like a one- or two-sentence theory of creation [preferrably subservient to their naturalistic presuppositions].  Their insistence on such a simplistic approach to both evolution and creation has its reasons:  Evolution appears more credible when essential technical details remain beyond scrutiny, whereas creation finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles vis-a-vis both perspectives.
> 
> While a simplistic sound bite approach to the origins issue may be fashionable by contemporary popular media standards, genuine science remains a matter of technical details, empirical data, and thorough analysis of the same.  So what awaits those who sincerely seek an authentic theory of creation is not another sugar-coated pill, but a body of literature comprising a technical second opinion bringing into question the superficial diagnosis popularly embraced by a world reluctant to face the implications of a sovereign Creator who has spoken.
> 
> Whereas the landscape of popular media and selected science texts are peppered with simplistic allusions to evolutionary theory as fact, literature describing and explaining the creationary alternative, while not as plentiful as its dominant counterpart, is readily available to those who seriously want to study it.  This is where the details of empirical science are brought to bear against both competing paradigms.  [Sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of evolutionary literature, which largely persists in treating the assumption of evolution as an immutable fact (and, on that basis, an inevitable conclusion), while heaping derision on heavily caricatured renderings of the creationary perspective.]
> 
> Books
> Each of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins.  All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists.  The list begins with general and/or early overviews and moves toward somewhat more specialized and/or recent offerings.
> 
> Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism [0-89052-003-2]
> (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985)
> 
> Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? [0-89051-081-4]
> (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987)
> 
> Wilder-Smith, A. E., Mans Origin, Mans Destiny [0-87123-356-8]
> (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968)
> 
> Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory [9992139676]
> (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987)
> 
> Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood [0-87552-338-2]
> (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)
> 
> Roth, Ariel A., OriginsLinking Science and Scripture [0-8280-1328-4]
> (Hagarstown , MD: Review and Herals Publishing Association, 1998)
> 
> Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology [0-932766-54-4]
> (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)
> 
> Woodmorappe, John, Noahs Ark: A Feasibility Study [0-932766-41-2]
> (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996)
> 
> Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods [0-932766-57-9]
> (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999)
> 
> Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book [0-949906-23-9]
> (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
> 
> Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution [089051258-2]
> (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
> 
> A slightly more descriptive list appears at - Selected Creation Books -- TrueOrigin Archive, while two much more extensive bibliographies are - Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography - and - A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography -.
> Many of these books can be purchased in the U.S. through the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Ministries Internationalthe last of which also trades on a nearly worldwide basis.
> 
> Journals
> The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community.  Each is published on a quarterly basis and managed by an editorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists.  Very few of evolutions most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications.  The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured creationism therefore comes as no surprise.
> 
> The Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)
> CRS Quarterly
> 
> Journal of Creation
> http://creation.com/periodicals#journal_of_creation
> 
> A Theory of Biblical Creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice cut & paste, can you think for yourself though?   Because I still see no scientific proof of creation, it's just a mumbo jumbo comparison with no empirical facts to back it up, as usual.
> 
> If creator there is, evolution is part of his plan, get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch and see who resorts to copy and paste, follow along you will learn something.
Click to expand...


 I hope you will do us a favor and avoid your relentless copy and paste from creationist charlatans such as Henry Morris. 

The Creation Research Society (CRS). The following is quoted from original CRS material:

_The Creation Research Society is one of the leading organisations researching special creation and claim to have founded their membership from members who are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history. All of it's members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. 

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished only changes within the original created kinds. 

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect. 

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Saviour for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Saviour._

Can you spell c h a r l a t a n?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a Scientific Theory?
> Evolutionists pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, andif there isto ask what it is.  As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined.  This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation).  Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debatevis-à-vis the empirical evidencemay proceed unhindered.
> 
> The word theory in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:
> 
> 
> theo·ry n.  a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.
> 
> Likewise, science in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:
> 
> 
> sci·ence n.   1 the state or fact of knowledge   2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied
> 
> It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either science or a theory must (or must not) be attached.  This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a scientific theory must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:
> 
> 
> nat·u·ral·ism n. philos.   the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance
> 
> Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of scienceeven though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is.  The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism.  It is not, by definition, any more or less scientific than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God.  While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God.  Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery, they reason, the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.  Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.
> 
> It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world.  This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it.  There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy:  The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists.  [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and natural law emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]
> 
> Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in generalor God in particularopens science up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions.  But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of Godthe only threat is to a science strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism.  The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of science to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the scientific community.  [Its no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the scientific community exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalismthe only religious framework theyre willing to tolerate!]
> 
> The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like There is no such thing as creation science! or If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!  What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejectionby philosophical naturalists!  A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find.
> 
> So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a scientific theory must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirementand a double standard:
> 
> 
> The Evolutionary Double Standard
> Characteristic Creation
> Hypothesis
> Evolution
> Hypothesis
> 
> Primary approach to scientific methodology
> Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
> Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
> 
> Predominant religious/philosophical
> belief system
> Biblical Christianity
> Humanistic Naturalism
> 
> Primary means of demonstrating systems
> positive empirical support
> Citation of empirical data
> Citation of empirical data
> 
> Primary means of criticizing
> counterpart system
> Citation of empirical data
> A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences
> 
> Table 1.  Close examination reveals that evolutionists out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositionswhich range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheismthan to matters of empirical science.
> 
> 
> The Talk.Origins Archive Welcome FAQ also ascribes the following set of (reasonable) requirements to a genuinely scientific theory:
> 
> A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory.
> 
> These traits do loosely constitute a popular norm in defining scientific theories.  As shall be seen below, an analysis of both the creation and evolution models reveals that the two theories conform with comparable integrity to such demands, when adequate information and analysis are allowed into the picture.  But in typically dismissive style, the FAQ declares that:
> 
> such statements as God created the heavens and the earth... are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable.
> What the Talk.Origins authors have failed to tell their readers is that there is much more to the creation science model than simply declaring God created the heavens and the earth, including much that is both as falsifiable and predictive (if not more so) as the evolutionary model.
> What then is the Theory of Creation?
> Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm.  To help illustrate its key points vis-à-vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison.  This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time.
> Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories
> Phenomenon/Condition Creation
> Hypothesis
> Evolution
> Hypothesis
> 
> Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]
> As with all mans endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past
> Mans scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm mans autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> Predominant approach
> to the Bible[5]
> The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data
> The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]
> God Created...
> Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created.
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]
> Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection
> Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]
> Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation
> Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]
> Indicative of Creators prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms
> Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]
> Global Flood & aftermath
> Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> The Ice Age[11]
> Post-Flood climate compensation
> Unknown
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> No
> No
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> No
> 
> Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]
> Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation
> Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]
> General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected
> Strict pattern of million-year depositions from simple to complex variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Erratic Ages given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]
> Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood
> Selective and dogmatic use of supportive ages & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators
> 
> Empirically Falsifiable?
> Yes
> Yes
> 
> Empirically Falsified?
> No
> Yes
> 
> Table 2.  The so-called non-existent creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the Theory of Creation documented?
> Some of the most vocal opponents of creationary thought, ostensibly repulsed by the work involved in objectively studying the technical details of an unfamiliar matter, persist in demanding something like a one- or two-sentence theory of creation [preferrably subservient to their naturalistic presuppositions].  Their insistence on such a simplistic approach to both evolution and creation has its reasons:  Evolution appears more credible when essential technical details remain beyond scrutiny, whereas creation finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles vis-a-vis both perspectives.
> 
> While a simplistic sound bite approach to the origins issue may be fashionable by contemporary popular media standards, genuine science remains a matter of technical details, empirical data, and thorough analysis of the same.  So what awaits those who sincerely seek an authentic theory of creation is not another sugar-coated pill, but a body of literature comprising a technical second opinion bringing into question the superficial diagnosis popularly embraced by a world reluctant to face the implications of a sovereign Creator who has spoken.
> 
> Whereas the landscape of popular media and selected science texts are peppered with simplistic allusions to evolutionary theory as fact, literature describing and explaining the creationary alternative, while not as plentiful as its dominant counterpart, is readily available to those who seriously want to study it.  This is where the details of empirical science are brought to bear against both competing paradigms.  [Sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of evolutionary literature, which largely persists in treating the assumption of evolution as an immutable fact (and, on that basis, an inevitable conclusion), while heaping derision on heavily caricatured renderings of the creationary perspective.]
> 
> Books
> Each of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins.  All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists.  The list begins with general and/or early overviews and moves toward somewhat more specialized and/or recent offerings.
> 
> Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism [0-89052-003-2]
> (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985)
> 
> Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? [0-89051-081-4]
> (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987)
> 
> Wilder-Smith, A. E., Mans Origin, Mans Destiny [0-87123-356-8]
> (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968)
> 
> Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory [9992139676]
> (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987)
> 
> Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood [0-87552-338-2]
> (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)
> 
> Roth, Ariel A., OriginsLinking Science and Scripture [0-8280-1328-4]
> (Hagarstown , MD: Review and Herals Publishing Association, 1998)
> 
> Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology [0-932766-54-4]
> (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)
> 
> Woodmorappe, John, Noahs Ark: A Feasibility Study [0-932766-41-2]
> (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996)
> 
> Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods [0-932766-57-9]
> (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999)
> 
> Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book [0-949906-23-9]
> (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
> 
> Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution [089051258-2]
> (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
> 
> A slightly more descriptive list appears at - Selected Creation Books -- TrueOrigin Archive, while two much more extensive bibliographies are - Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography - and - A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography -.
> Many of these books can be purchased in the U.S. through the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Ministries Internationalthe last of which also trades on a nearly worldwide basis.
> 
> Journals
> The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community.  Each is published on a quarterly basis and managed by an editorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists.  Very few of evolutions most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications.  The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured creationism therefore comes as no surprise.
> 
> The Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)
> CRS Quarterly
> 
> Journal of Creation
> http://creation.com/periodicals#journal_of_creation
> 
> A Theory of Biblical Creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice cut & paste, can you think for yourself though?   Because I still see no scientific proof of creation, it's just a mumbo jumbo comparison with no empirical facts to back it up, as usual.
> 
> If creator there is, evolution is part of his plan, get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch and see who resorts to copy and paste, follow along you will learn something.
Click to expand...


So where was the scientific proof of creation? I didn't see ANY, just a lot of mumbo jumbo.


----------



## Hollie

_Journals:

The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community. Each is published on a quarterlybasisand managed by aneditorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists. Very few of evolution&#8217;s most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications. The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured &#8220;creationism&#8221; therefore comes as no surprise._

Creationist peer review?

That's so silly. What the above suggests is that creationist holding a similar bias are simply reading the opinions of other creationist. 

It's nonsense to claim that creationist do any actual research.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, but I'll pass.  That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature.  I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll  be corrected when we know more.  It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history.  The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand.
> 
> And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.
> 
> This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/tgC3hkCGJMU]Refuting Creationist Arguments - Mutations - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/EyjufVuQZ48]Evolution for ID-iots - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> yes this is
Click to expand...


Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.

Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.

over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.

So let's figure the reproductive impact.

P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation

The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.

B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p 

p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U

B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?

females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.

But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.

This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice cut & paste, can you think for yourself though?   Because I still see no scientific proof of creation, it's just a mumbo jumbo comparison with no empirical facts to back it up, as usual.
> 
> If creator there is, evolution is part of his plan, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch and see who resorts to copy and paste, follow along you will learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you will do us a favor and avoid your relentless copy and paste from creationist charlatans such as Henry Morris.
> 
> The Creation Research Society (CRS). The following is quoted from original CRS material:
> 
> _The Creation Research Society is one of the leading organisations researching special creation and claim to have founded their membership from members who are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history. All of it's members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
> 
> 1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
> 
> 2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
> 
> 3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
> 
> 4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Saviour for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Saviour._
> 
> Can you spell c h a r l a t a n?
Click to expand...


Only rhetoric hollie, can you not follow along with the conversation ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch and see who resorts to copy and paste, follow along you will learn something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you will do us a favor and avoid your relentless copy and paste from creationist charlatans such as Henry Morris.
> 
> The Creation Research Society (CRS). The following is quoted from original CRS material:
> 
> _The Creation Research Society is one of the leading organisations researching special creation and claim to have founded their membership from members who are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history. All of it's members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
> 
> 1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
> 
> 2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
> 
> 3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
> 
> 4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Saviour for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Saviour._
> 
> Can you spell c h a r l a t a n?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only rhetoric hollie, can you not follow along with the conversation ?
Click to expand...


Only excuses for an obvious bias, ywc?

What you're hoping to avoid is addressing that on the part of creationist, there is an obvious need to promote the creationist view, not seek facts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you will do us a favor and avoid your relentless copy and paste from creationist charlatans such as Henry Morris.
> 
> The Creation Research Society (CRS). The following is quoted from original CRS material:
> 
> _The Creation Research Society is one of the leading organisations researching special creation and claim to have founded their membership from members who are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history. All of it's members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
> 
> 1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
> 
> 2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
> 
> 3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
> 
> 4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Saviour for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Saviour._
> 
> Can you spell c h a r l a t a n?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only rhetoric hollie, can you not follow along with the conversation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only excuses for an obvious bias, ywc?
> 
> What you're hoping to avoid is addressing that on the part of creationist, there is an obvious need to promote the creationist view, not seek facts.
Click to expand...


Really Hollie ? I just presented you with the facts evolution over millions of years through mutations is the fairytale.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only rhetoric hollie, can you not follow along with the conversation ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only excuses for an obvious bias, ywc?
> 
> What you're hoping to avoid is addressing that on the part of creationist, there is an obvious need to promote the creationist view, not seek facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really Hollie ? I just presented you with the facts evolution over millions of years through mutations is the fairytale.
Click to expand...


No; you didn't.  Bear in mind, it's merely bullshit pseudoscience designed so the Christians whose faiths may be fragile in the light of current human understanding, can quench doubts that science is building within them.

It's not designed to in fact discredit what actual scientists, adhering to scientific method, know to be utterly beyond reproach: life evolved on Earth and was not placed here by any intelligent being that has left the slightest trace of his/her/its existence, much less proof of the creation point, method and source.

Simple truth, pursuant to the 9th Commandment.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.
> 
> This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/tgC3hkCGJMU]Refuting Creationist Arguments - Mutations - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/EyjufVuQZ48]Evolution for ID-iots - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> yes this is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct!
> 
> 
> the rest was edited for lack of actual scientific content ...
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only excuses for an obvious bias, ywc?
> 
> What you're hoping to avoid is addressing that on the part of creationist, there is an obvious need to promote the creationist view, not seek facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really Hollie ? I just presented you with the facts evolution over millions of years through mutations is the fairytale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No; you didn't.  Bear in mind, it's merely bullshit pseudoscience designed so the Christians whose faiths may be fragile in the light of current human understanding, can quench doubts that science is building within them.
> 
> It's not designed to in fact discredit what actual scientists, adhering to scientific method, know to be utterly beyond reproach: life evolved on Earth and was not placed here by any intelligent being that has left the slightest trace of his/her/its existence, much less proof of the creation point, method and source.
> 
> Simple truth, pursuant to the 9th Commandment.
Click to expand...

major bump.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only rhetoric hollie, can you not follow along with the conversation ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only excuses for an obvious bias, ywc?
> 
> What you're hoping to avoid is addressing that on the part of creationist, there is an obvious need to promote the creationist view, not seek facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really Hollie ? I just presented you with the facts evolution over millions of years through mutations is the fairytale.
Click to expand...

Really, dear, it's difficult to know what you presented as you provided no source. Which is just as well because having to slog through creationist websites to find that source is tedious and frustrating. 

Why are you arbitrarily going to account for all of existence being at the sweeping hand of gawds which you claim are eternal, uncreated, etc., etc.? Why are you arbitrarily excusing your gawds from being created? Why not super gawds who are the creators of your sectarian gawds?

Of course it helps if we first decide what it is we mean (or meant) by "gawd" as it applies to ones beliefs in a supernatural being, the "creator of all", the "Big Cheese", and being consigned to heaven or hell. I must confess to an assumption here; that is, when I enter into theistic debates I assume for the sake of efficiency that your "gawds" are defined in the Judeo-Christian vein, i.e., an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural being who exists both eternally in the past and into the future, etc., etc., etc. I should stop assuming that of course, but the vast majority of debates stem from that definition, so allow me the mea culpa

Your primary contention with the science of evolution appears to be for you, an irresolvable dilemma with timelines: the indisputable fact of an ancient earth vs. the  biblical take of a young earth. A simple solution to this entire gawds issue would be for the gawds to make their presence known in a clearly defined way. Maybe a first start would be for the creation tale to not delineate things in terms of "days" at all then. Why would the divine being purposely use a term that humans would use within their own context, thus purposely obscuring the true nature of reality?

I don't buy typical apologists' claims that only through their particular interpretation can "the will of the gawds" be understood. We're talking about a book that was written not too distantly from the building of the pyramids-- clearly in certain areas humans were quite advanced. And even within the book itself concepts of "eternity" are brought to light, so why don't the gods just state the "facts" as they are? "In the first 1 billion years...."

For eternal gawds who are, on the one hand excused for being obscure regarding "time" related issues to suddenly have some problem with the idea that within about 4000 years of the writing of your "holy text", (given the biblical timeline) humans would advance enough to be able to make credible interpretations of the clues of creation is self-defeating the original proposition that gawds would "speak" in obscure ways about time.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.
> 
> This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/tgC3hkCGJMU]Refuting Creationist Arguments - Mutations - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/EyjufVuQZ48]Evolution for ID-iots - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> yes this is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.
> 
> Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.
> 
> over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.
> 
> So let's figure the reproductive impact.
> 
> P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation
> 
> The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.
> 
> B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p
> 
> p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U
> 
> B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?
> 
> females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.
> 
> But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.
> 
> This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.
Click to expand...


It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.

The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.


----------



## LittleNipper

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refuting Creationist Arguments - Mutations - YouTube
> 
> Evolution for ID-iots - YouTube
> 
> 
> yes this is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.
> 
> Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.
> 
> over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.
> 
> So let's figure the reproductive impact.
> 
> P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation
> 
> The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.
> 
> B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p
> 
> p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U
> 
> B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?
> 
> females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.
> 
> But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.
> 
> This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
> 
> The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
Click to expand...


The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.


----------



## Koios

LittleNipper said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.
> 
> Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.
> 
> over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.
> 
> So let's figure the reproductive impact.
> 
> P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation
> 
> The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.
> 
> B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p
> 
> p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U
> 
> B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?
> 
> females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.
> 
> But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.
> 
> This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
> 
> The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.
Click to expand...


Ask away.  Any question you wish.  Better?

So hell; let me start: did God evolve or was He created by a higher god(s)?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.
> 
> Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.
> 
> over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.
> 
> So let's figure the reproductive impact.
> 
> P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation
> 
> The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.
> 
> B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p
> 
> p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U
> 
> B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?
> 
> females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.
> 
> But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.
> 
> This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
> 
> The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.
Click to expand...

I think turning public (secular) schools into Christian madrassahs is the perfect solution. We can churn out legions of vacant minded creationists whose rote memorization of the bible hasn't prepared them for the concept of a spherical earth. 

It would be like living in a Pakistani tribal region.

Go team!


----------



## LittleNipper

Koios said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
> 
> The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask away.  Any question you wish.  Better?
> 
> So hell; let me start: did God evolve or was He created by a higher god(s)?
Click to expand...


I'll answer your question with a question. Did ONE PLUS ONE always EQUAL TWO?


----------



## newpolitics

> The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.



Really? That's a fact? No, it's not. That's simply your belief that this is a bias of mine. Considering you have no evidence, I could say the same thing about you, and we are then at a standstill. So, lets skip the proof by assertion fallacies and deal with what actually is as best as possible. This makes your conclusion about secular education incredibly unfounded, and I could easily say that it is theistic education that h has lead your mind astray. Great. We are again at a standstill. The difference with science, is that it is not just about beliefs. We have evidence to back up our claims and justify our beliefs. You do not. There is an objectivity with scientific claims that is not rivaled anywhere is theistic epistemologies.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

I love that term "secular education" 

better known by its other name: education.


----------



## Koios

LittleNipper said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask away.  Any question you wish.  Better?
> 
> So hell; let me start: did God evolve or was He created by a higher god(s)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer your question with a question. Did ONE PLUS ONE always EQUAL TWO?
Click to expand...


No; still doesn't.  One goose and one frog is not two of either.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only excuses for an obvious bias, ywc?
> 
> What you're hoping to avoid is addressing that on the part of creationist, there is an obvious need to promote the creationist view, not seek facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really Hollie ? I just presented you with the facts evolution over millions of years through mutations is the fairytale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No; you didn't.  Bear in mind, it's merely bullshit pseudoscience designed so the Christians whose faiths may be fragile in the light of current human understanding, can quench doubts that science is building within them.
> 
> It's not designed to in fact discredit what actual scientists, adhering to scientific method, know to be utterly beyond reproach: life evolved on Earth and was not placed here by any intelligent being that has left the slightest trace of his/her/its existence, much less proof of the creation point, method and source.
> 
> Simple truth, pursuant to the 9th Commandment.
Click to expand...


Simple truth was given. The numbers were provided by evolutionist but they don't teach their pupils the problems that they know exists that I pointed out to you. Pseudoscience was just presented to you that is being taught by evolutionist. They have no answer for this problem and they tried nameing a process in which it rids harmful mutations in bunches but that just is not the case we have over 6,000 genetic disorders and counting. So I just refuted your fairytale and built evidence for a young earth with one little post. The thing is I did this before earlier in the thread it either got ignored or the people like daws didn't understand it the argument, I would say the latter.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refuting Creationist Arguments - Mutations - YouTube
> 
> Evolution for ID-iots - YouTube
> 
> 
> yes this is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct!
> 
> 
> the rest was edited for lack of actual scientific content ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was an accurate number daws but that was before the Genome was mapped.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only excuses for an obvious bias, ywc?
> 
> What you're hoping to avoid is addressing that on the part of creationist, there is an obvious need to promote the creationist view, not seek facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really Hollie ? I just presented you with the facts evolution over millions of years through mutations is the fairytale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really, dear, it's difficult to know what you presented as you provided no source. Which is just as well because having to slog through creationist websites to find that source is tedious and frustrating.
> 
> Why are you arbitrarily going to account for all of existence being at the sweeping hand of gawds which you claim are eternal, uncreated, etc., etc.? Why are you arbitrarily excusing your gawds from being created? Why not super gawds who are the creators of your sectarian gawds?
> 
> Of course it helps if we first decide what it is we mean (or meant) by "gawd" as it applies to ones beliefs in a supernatural being, the "creator of all", the "Big Cheese", and being consigned to heaven or hell. I must confess to an assumption here; that is, when I enter into theistic debates I assume for the sake of efficiency that your "gawds" are defined in the Judeo-Christian vein, i.e., an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural being who exists both eternally in the past and into the future, etc., etc., etc. I should stop assuming that of course, but the vast majority of debates stem from that definition, so allow me the mea culpa
> 
> Your primary contention with the science of evolution appears to be for you, an irresolvable dilemma with timelines: the indisputable fact of an ancient earth vs. the  biblical take of a young earth. A simple solution to this entire gawds issue would be for the gawds to make their presence known in a clearly defined way. Maybe a first start would be for the creation tale to not delineate things in terms of "days" at all then. Why would the divine being purposely use a term that humans would use within their own context, thus purposely obscuring the true nature of reality?
> 
> I don't buy typical apologists' claims that only through their particular interpretation can "the will of the gawds" be understood. We're talking about a book that was written not too distantly from the building of the pyramids-- clearly in certain areas humans were quite advanced. And even within the book itself concepts of "eternity" are brought to light, so why don't the gods just state the "facts" as they are? "In the first 1 billion years...."
> 
> For eternal gawds who are, on the one hand excused for being obscure regarding "time" related issues to suddenly have some problem with the idea that within about 4000 years of the writing of your "holy text", (given the biblical timeline) humans would advance enough to be able to make credible interpretations of the clues of creation is self-defeating the original proposition that gawds would "speak" in obscure ways about time.
Click to expand...


I provided you the scientists that provided the numbers and the Genome project say's it could be higher then U=3.1 mutation rate because there are areas of the Genome that has not been unlocked to scientists.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refuting Creationist Arguments - Mutations - YouTube
> 
> Evolution for ID-iots - YouTube
> 
> 
> yes this is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.
> 
> Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.
> 
> over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.
> 
> So let's figure the reproductive impact.
> 
> P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation
> 
> The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.
> 
> B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p
> 
> p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U
> 
> B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?
> 
> females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.
> 
> But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.
> 
> This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
> 
> The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
Click to expand...


It is a fact jack .We are accumulating more harmful mutations then we can get rid of. It's like this. A person thinks they can be rich if they contiue to spend more then they bring in,kinda like Obama. Unless you would like to present a number on beneficial mutation rate and compare it to the harmful mutation rate.

I didn't think so.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

what claim are you trying to make about the human genome?


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refuting Creationist Arguments - Mutations - YouTube
> 
> Evolution for ID-iots - YouTube
> 
> 
> yes this is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.
> 
> Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.
> 
> over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.
> 
> So let's figure the reproductive impact.
> 
> P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation
> 
> The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.
> 
> B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p
> 
> p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U
> 
> B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?
> 
> females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.
> 
> But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.
> 
> This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
> 
> The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
Click to expand...

not to worry np, what he's not making up is cut and paste pseudoscience.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
> 
> The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask away.  Any question you wish.  Better?
> 
> So hell; let me start: did God evolve or was He created by a higher god(s)?
Click to expand...


What is the point you could not give an honest and non-bias answer,you have already demostrated that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> what claim are you trying to make about the human genome?



I posted it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.
> 
> Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.
> 
> over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.
> 
> So let's figure the reproductive impact.
> 
> P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation
> 
> The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.
> 
> B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p
> 
> p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U
> 
> B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?
> 
> females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.
> 
> But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.
> 
> This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
> 
> The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not to worry np, what he's not making up is cut and paste pseudoscience.
Click to expand...


I told you before if it got technical you would not understand.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.
> 
> Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.
> 
> over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.
> 
> So let's figure the reproductive impact.
> 
> P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation
> 
> The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.
> 
> B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p
> 
> p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U
> 
> B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?
> 
> females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.
> 
> But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.
> 
> This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
> 
> The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.
Click to expand...

stop whining like a bitch, if as you creationists do, set yourself against actual fact and attempt to replace with unfounded and unprovable folk tales, you cannot and should not expect to be shown any respect as you do not respect the opposing pov.
in other words you bring on the shit storm by your smug and condescending attitude .


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask away.  Any question you wish.  Better?
> 
> So hell; let me start: did God evolve or was He created by a higher god(s)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the point you could not give an honest and non-bias answer,you have already demostrated that.
Click to expand...


The point was to GET an anwer.  Note the question mark.  That'll clue you in.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
> 
> The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
> 
> 
> 
> not to worry np, what he's not making up is cut and paste pseudoscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you before if it got technical you would not understand.
Click to expand...

wrong as always.
it was not as technical as you wish it was.
besides you have no evidence as np so elegantly stated.
as always it's no proof that god did it.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.
> 
> Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.
> 
> over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.
> 
> So let's figure the reproductive impact.
> 
> P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation
> 
> The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.
> 
> B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p
> 
> p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U
> 
> B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?
> 
> females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.
> 
> But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.
> 
> This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
> 
> The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It is a fact jack .We are accumulating more harmful mutations then we can get rid of.* It's like this. A person thinks they can be rich if they contiue to spend more then they bring in,kinda like Obama. Unless you would like to present a number on beneficial mutation rate and compare it to the harmful mutation rate.
> 
> I didn't think so.
Click to expand...


Patently false.  Most are neutral.  The beneficial ones lead to reproduction (get copied)  The harmful ones do not get reproduced (go away)

Now you know.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct!
> 
> 
> the rest was edited for lack of actual scientific content ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was an accurate number daws but that was before the Genome was mapped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those clips were done after The Human Genome Project was declared complete in April 2003.
> so you're  talking out your ass...but hey, you always are.
Click to expand...


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Koios said:


> Patently false.  Most are neutral.  The beneficial ones lead to reproduction (get copied)  The harmful ones do not get reproduced (go away)
> 
> Now you know.



This is true. Actually bad mutations are largely fatal and do not produce viable offspring. The majority of mutations are neutral and affects junk DNA which has little to know effect on the outcome. To add to this summary though, we have built-in genes that edit DNA and correct mutations.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really Hollie ? I just presented you with the facts evolution over millions of years through mutations is the fairytale.
> 
> 
> 
> Really, dear, it's difficult to know what you presented as you provided no source. Which is just as well because having to slog through creationist websites to find that source is tedious and frustrating.
> 
> Why are you arbitrarily going to account for all of existence being at the sweeping hand of gawds which you claim are eternal, uncreated, etc., etc.? Why are you arbitrarily excusing your gawds from being created? Why not super gawds who are the creators of your sectarian gawds?
> 
> Of course it helps if we first decide what it is we mean (or meant) by "gawd" as it applies to ones beliefs in a supernatural being, the "creator of all", the "Big Cheese", and being consigned to heaven or hell. I must confess to an assumption here; that is, when I enter into theistic debates I assume for the sake of efficiency that your "gawds" are defined in the Judeo-Christian vein, i.e., an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural being who exists both eternally in the past and into the future, etc., etc., etc. I should stop assuming that of course, but the vast majority of debates stem from that definition, so allow me the mea culpa
> 
> Your primary contention with the science of evolution appears to be for you, an irresolvable dilemma with timelines: the indisputable fact of an ancient earth vs. the  biblical take of a young earth. A simple solution to this entire gawds issue would be for the gawds to make their presence known in a clearly defined way. Maybe a first start would be for the creation tale to not delineate things in terms of "days" at all then. Why would the divine being purposely use a term that humans would use within their own context, thus purposely obscuring the true nature of reality?
> 
> I don't buy typical apologists' claims that only through their particular interpretation can "the will of the gawds" be understood. We're talking about a book that was written not too distantly from the building of the pyramids-- clearly in certain areas humans were quite advanced. And even within the book itself concepts of "eternity" are brought to light, so why don't the gods just state the "facts" as they are? "In the first 1 billion years...."
> 
> For eternal gawds who are, on the one hand excused for being obscure regarding "time" related issues to suddenly have some problem with the idea that within about 4000 years of the writing of your "holy text", (given the biblical timeline) humans would advance enough to be able to make credible interpretations of the clues of creation is self-defeating the original proposition that gawds would "speak" in obscure ways about time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I provided you the scientists that provided the numbers and the Genome project say's it could be higher then U=3.1 mutation rate because there are areas of the Genome that has not been unlocked to scientists.
Click to expand...

could? that's maybe or might?
what  are the odds it's more and what %  is beneficial ?


----------



## Koios

SmarterThanHick said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patently false.  Most are neutral.  The beneficial ones lead to reproduction (get copied)  The harmful ones do not get reproduced (go away)
> 
> Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true. Actually bad mutations are largely fatal and do not produce viable offspring. The majority of mutations are neutral and affects junk DNA which has little to know effect on the outcome. To add to this summary though, we have built-in genes that edit DNA and correct mutations.
Click to expand...


Plus protenome, epi-genetic variations ...  more to learn all the time, about evolution, a goddamn fact of all life, here or on other planets, which no so long ago (few 1000 years) wer though to be ... GODS!!!

Hahahahahahahaha


----------



## SmarterThanHick

I wonder if we ever find intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, if religious nuts will claim jesus died for their alien sins as well. hahaha


----------



## newpolitics

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not to worry np, what he's not making up is cut and paste pseudoscience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you before if it got technical you would not understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong as always.
> it was not as technical as you wish it was.
> besides you have no evidence as np so elegantly stated.
> as always it's no proof that god did it.
Click to expand...


Thank you 

YWC, If you are claiming that all genomes contain a self-destruct sequence, to use an analogy, you should have some understanding of the biological mechanism that would cause this, yet you are mysteriously absent this, despite being a former biologist with an intimate understanding of this facet of existence. Instead, you look at the incidence of genetic disorders, and somehow conclude that it must therefore be due to the genome progressively falling apart over time, without any direct evidence. I assert that there is no justification for this belief, and is merely leading the evidence to your presuppositions in whatever way possible. Being that your model of reality is, in my opinion, utterly wrong, I would a expect to find a number of holes in your reasoning, which indeed, we do, as I have just pointed out one of them.


----------



## daws101

Koios said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patently false.  Most are neutral.  The beneficial ones lead to reproduction (get copied)  The harmful ones do not get reproduced (go away)
> 
> Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true. Actually bad mutations are largely fatal and do not produce viable offspring. The majority of mutations are neutral and affects junk DNA which has little to know effect on the outcome. To add to this summary though, we have built-in genes that edit DNA and correct mutations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plus protenome, epi-genetic variations ...  more to learn all the time, about evolution, a goddamn fact of all life, here or on other planets, which no so long ago (few 1000 years) wer though to be ... GODS!!!
> 
> Hahahahahahahaha
Click to expand...

blasphemer !  it's the pillory for you ! we'll whip god into you !


----------



## Koios

daws101 said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true. Actually bad mutations are largely fatal and do not produce viable offspring. The majority of mutations are neutral and affects junk DNA which has little to know effect on the outcome. To add to this summary though, we have built-in genes that edit DNA and correct mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plus protenome, epi-genetic variations ...  more to learn all the time, about evolution, a goddamn fact of all life, here or on other planets, which no so long ago (few 1000 years) wer though to be ... GODS!!!
> 
> Hahahahahahahaha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> blasphemer !  it's the pillory for you ! we'll whip god into you !
Click to expand...


But only blaspheming the old defunct gods and not the shiny new God Almighty / Allah / Etc., praise babyjesus amen.

LOL


----------



## Koios

SmarterThanHick said:


> I wonder if we ever find intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, if religious nuts will claim jesus died for their alien sins as well. hahaha



Or elsewhere on this site, for that matter.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really Hollie ? I just presented you with the facts evolution over millions of years through mutations is the fairytale.
> 
> 
> 
> Really, dear, it's difficult to know what you presented as you provided no source. Which is just as well because having to slog through creationist websites to find that source is tedious and frustrating.
> 
> Why are you arbitrarily going to account for all of existence being at the sweeping hand of gawds which you claim are eternal, uncreated, etc., etc.? Why are you arbitrarily excusing your gawds from being created? Why not super gawds who are the creators of your sectarian gawds?
> 
> Of course it helps if we first decide what it is we mean (or meant) by "gawd" as it applies to ones beliefs in a supernatural being, the "creator of all", the "Big Cheese", and being consigned to heaven or hell. I must confess to an assumption here; that is, when I enter into theistic debates I assume for the sake of efficiency that your "gawds" are defined in the Judeo-Christian vein, i.e., an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural being who exists both eternally in the past and into the future, etc., etc., etc. I should stop assuming that of course, but the vast majority of debates stem from that definition, so allow me the mea culpa
> 
> Your primary contention with the science of evolution appears to be for you, an irresolvable dilemma with timelines: the indisputable fact of an ancient earth vs. the  biblical take of a young earth. A simple solution to this entire gawds issue would be for the gawds to make their presence known in a clearly defined way. Maybe a first start would be for the creation tale to not delineate things in terms of "days" at all then. Why would the divine being purposely use a term that humans would use within their own context, thus purposely obscuring the true nature of reality?
> 
> I don't buy typical apologists' claims that only through their particular interpretation can "the will of the gawds" be understood. We're talking about a book that was written not too distantly from the building of the pyramids-- clearly in certain areas humans were quite advanced. And even within the book itself concepts of "eternity" are brought to light, so why don't the gods just state the "facts" as they are? "In the first 1 billion years...."
> 
> For eternal gawds who are, on the one hand excused for being obscure regarding "time" related issues to suddenly have some problem with the idea that within about 4000 years of the writing of your "holy text", (given the biblical timeline) humans would advance enough to be able to make credible interpretations of the clues of creation is self-defeating the original proposition that gawds would "speak" in obscure ways about time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I provided you the scientists that provided the numbers and the Genome project say's it could be higher then U=3.1 mutation rate because there are areas of the Genome that has not been unlocked to scientists.
Click to expand...


As with everything you post, I find a need to investigate your claims / sources. 

I was suspicious as to why you refused to return a link to what you claim was data from  _"Eyre, Walker and Keightley_". At least two articles I found by the referenced authors did not suggest the results you posted. 

Did you realize that your source, the link you refuse to supply, have managed to mis-spell the names of the authors? 

The authors are Adam Eyre-Walker and Peter D. Keightley. 

NOT Eyre, Walker and Keightley per your post.

Let me guess, your "information" is from a creationist website that has altered or manipulated the data, right?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not to worry np, what he's not making up is cut and paste pseudoscience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you before if it got technical you would not understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong as always.
> it was not as technical as you wish it was.
> besides you have no evidence as np so elegantly stated.
> as always it's no proof that god did it.
Click to expand...


The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (Muller 1950; Wallace 1981; Crow 1993; Kondrashov 1995; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 &#8722; e&#8722;U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection (Wallace 1991) or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (Kondrashov 1995; Crow 1997; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely. 

Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, dear, it's difficult to know what you presented as you provided no source. Which is just as well because having to slog through creationist websites to find that source is tedious and frustrating.
> 
> Why are you arbitrarily going to account for all of existence being at the sweeping hand of gawds which you claim are eternal, uncreated, etc., etc.? Why are you arbitrarily excusing your gawds from being created? Why not super gawds who are the creators of your sectarian gawds?
> 
> Of course it helps if we first decide what it is we mean (or meant) by "gawd" as it applies to ones beliefs in a supernatural being, the "creator of all", the "Big Cheese", and being consigned to heaven or hell. I must confess to an assumption here; that is, when I enter into theistic debates I assume for the sake of efficiency that your "gawds" are defined in the Judeo-Christian vein, i.e., an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural being who exists both eternally in the past and into the future, etc., etc., etc. I should stop assuming that of course, but the vast majority of debates stem from that definition, so allow me the mea culpa
> 
> Your primary contention with the science of evolution appears to be for you, an irresolvable dilemma with timelines: the indisputable fact of an ancient earth vs. the  biblical take of a young earth. A simple solution to this entire gawds issue would be for the gawds to make their presence known in a clearly defined way. Maybe a first start would be for the creation tale to not delineate things in terms of "days" at all then. Why would the divine being purposely use a term that humans would use within their own context, thus purposely obscuring the true nature of reality?
> 
> I don't buy typical apologists' claims that only through their particular interpretation can "the will of the gawds" be understood. We're talking about a book that was written not too distantly from the building of the pyramids-- clearly in certain areas humans were quite advanced. And even within the book itself concepts of "eternity" are brought to light, so why don't the gods just state the "facts" as they are? "In the first 1 billion years...."
> 
> For eternal gawds who are, on the one hand excused for being obscure regarding "time" related issues to suddenly have some problem with the idea that within about 4000 years of the writing of your "holy text", (given the biblical timeline) humans would advance enough to be able to make credible interpretations of the clues of creation is self-defeating the original proposition that gawds would "speak" in obscure ways about time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you the scientists that provided the numbers and the Genome project say's it could be higher then U=3.1 mutation rate because there are areas of the Genome that has not been unlocked to scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As with everything you post, I find a need to investigate your claims / sources.
> 
> I was suspicious as to why you refused to return a link to what you claim was data from  _"Eyre, Walker and Keightley_". At least two articles I found by the referenced authors did not suggest the results you posted.
> 
> Did you realize that your source, the link you refuse to supply, have managed to mis-spell the names of the authors?
> 
> The authors are Adam Eyre-Walker and Peter D. Keightley.
> 
> NOT Eyre, Walker and Keightley per your post.
> 
> Let me guess, your "information" is from a creationist website that has altered or manipulated the data, right?
Click to expand...




Lookie hollie is wrong again.

The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (Muller 1950; Wallace 1981; Crow 1993; Kondrashov 1995; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 &#8722; e&#8722;U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection (Wallace 1991) or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (Kondrashov 1995; Crow 1997; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely. 

When will you learn dummy ?


Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you before if it got technical you would not understand.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong as always.
> it was not as technical as you wish it was.
> besides you have no evidence as np so elegantly stated.
> as always it's no proof that god did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (Muller 1950; Wallace 1981; Crow 1993; Kondrashov 1995; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 &#8722; e&#8722;U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection (Wallace 1991) or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (Kondrashov 1995; Crow 1997; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.
> 
> Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans
Click to expand...


From the same article:

"MUTATION is the ultimate source of genetic variation; it is both the substrate for evolution and the cause of genetic disease".


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you the scientists that provided the numbers and the Genome project say's it could be higher then U=3.1 mutation rate because there are areas of the Genome that has not been unlocked to scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As with everything you post, I find a need to investigate your claims / sources.
> 
> I was suspicious as to why you refused to return a link to what you claim was data from  _"Eyre, Walker and Keightley_". At least two articles I found by the referenced authors did not suggest the results you posted.
> 
> Did you realize that your source, the link you refuse to supply, have managed to mis-spell the names of the authors?
> 
> The authors are Adam Eyre-Walker and Peter D. Keightley.
> 
> NOT Eyre, Walker and Keightley per your post.
> 
> Let me guess, your "information" is from a creationist website that has altered or manipulated the data, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lookie hollie is wrong again.
> 
> The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (Muller 1950; Wallace 1981; Crow 1993; Kondrashov 1995; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 &#8722; e&#8722;U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection (Wallace 1991) or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (Kondrashov 1995; Crow 1997; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.
> 
> When will you learn dummy ?
> 
> 
> Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans
Click to expand...


Wrong about what? I noted that you were unable to correctly recite the names of the authors you were referencing.

I've learned from experience that your creationist sources have a habit of editing, parsing and manipulating data. That is why I wanted you to supply a link.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong as always.
> it was not as technical as you wish it was.
> besides you have no evidence as np so elegantly stated.
> as always it's no proof that god did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (Muller 1950; Wallace 1981; Crow 1993; Kondrashov 1995; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 &#8722; e&#8722;U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection (Wallace 1991) or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (Kondrashov 1995; Crow 1997; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.
> 
> Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the same article:
> 
> "MUTATION is the ultimate source of genetic variation; it is both the substrate for evolution and the cause of genetic disease".
Click to expand...


What do you expect from an evolutionist based site ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie hollie hollie, you're still in denial.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (Muller 1950; Wallace 1981; Crow 1993; Kondrashov 1995; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 &#8722; e&#8722;U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection (Wallace 1991) or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (Kondrashov 1995; Crow 1997; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.
> 
> Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the same article:
> 
> "MUTATION is the ultimate source of genetic variation; it is both the substrate for evolution and the cause of genetic disease".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you expect from an evolutionist based site ?
Click to expand...


Do you ever think before you hit the "submit reply" button?

Why would you link to an "evolutionist based site" in a failed attempt to prove your gawds?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie hollie hollie, you're still in denial.



You're befuddled, as usual.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

YWC, you do realize that genetic mutations can get corrected, don't you?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie hollie hollie, you're still in denial.


how's that? hollies' never denied your full of shit.
face it wyc you're  de queen of denial.


----------



## daws101

SmarterThanHick said:


> YWC, you do realize that genetic mutations can get corrected, don't you?


 no it would fuck up his entropy is god's punishment for sin fantasy.


----------



## newpolitics

> It is a fact jack .We are accumulating more harmful mutations then we can get rid of. It's like this. A person thinks they can be rich if they contiue to spend more then they bring in,kinda like Obama. Unless you would like to present a number on beneficial mutation rate and compare it to the harmful mutation rate.
> 
> I didn't think so.



Because you don't believe in evolution, you fail to realize that evolution has effectively stopped in human populations, especially in industrialized nations. This is because there are no consistent selective pressures, since we have successfully conquered our environment. Except for the most debilitating diseases, most people born in industrialized societies will make it to maturity and potentially mate. This is completely unnatural relative to how our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived. This means that harmful mutations are not selected against and are allowed to propagate themselves within the population. However, because of sexual selection, the fittest and most attractive are still procreating amongst eachother. 

This all means that harmful mutations being evermore present in our population is simply due to he fact that there is no longer a selective pressure to kill them off. It is not because the genome is falling apart. Your proposed cause for the observed effect is wrong.


----------



## Koios

newpolitics said:


> It is a fact jack .We are accumulating more harmful mutations then we can get rid of. It's like this. A person thinks they can be rich if they contiue to spend more then they bring in,kinda like Obama. Unless you would like to present a number on beneficial mutation rate and compare it to the harmful mutation rate.
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you don't believe in evolution, you fail to realize that evolution has effectively stopped in human populations, especially in industrialized nations. This is because there are no consistent selective pressures, since we have successfully conquered our environment. Except for the most debilitating diseases, most people born in industrialized societies will make it to maturity and potentially mate. This is completely unnatural relative to how our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived. This means that harmful mutations are not selected against and are allowed to propagate themselves within the population. However, because of sexual selection, the fittest and most attractive are still procreating amongst eachother.
> 
> This all means that harmful mutations being evermore present in our population is simply due to he fact that there is no longer a selective pressure to kill them off. It is not because the genome is falling apart. Your proposed cause for the observed effect is wrong.
Click to expand...


Not at all. For one thing, we're getting taller.


----------



## newpolitics

Koios said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact jack .We are accumulating more harmful mutations then we can get rid of. It's like this. A person thinks they can be rich if they contiue to spend more then they bring in,kinda like Obama. Unless you would like to present a number on beneficial mutation rate and compare it to the harmful mutation rate.
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you don't believe in evolution, you fail to realize that evolution has effectively stopped in human populations, especially in industrialized nations. This is because there are no consistent selective pressures, since we have successfully conquered our environment. Except for the most debilitating diseases, most people born in industrialized societies will make it to maturity and potentially mate. This is completely unnatural relative to how our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived. This means that harmful mutations are not selected against and are allowed to propagate themselves within the population. However, because of sexual selection, the fittest and most attractive are still procreating amongst eachother.
> 
> This all means that harmful mutations being evermore present in our population is simply due to he fact that there is no longer a selective pressure to kill them off. It is not because the genome is falling apart. Your proposed cause for the observed effect is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all. For one thing, we're getting taller.
Click to expand...

 I would argue that any selection pressure that caused humans to get taller over even relatively recent human history no longer exists. Technically, we are always evolving in small ways, but I am saying there isn't a consistent enough selection pressure to produce a macroscopically observable effects anymore. Although, one exception might those that are best able to deal with environmental toxins such as plastics, industrial chemicals in our water and food.  Those that are able to live surrounded by these carcinogenic substances without developing cancer might be the next stage of humans. This is the only possible avenue I see for us evolutionarily. As long as everyone is permitted to live because of modern medicine, which will only get better, the idea of selection pressure becomes obsolete for humans. Although sexual selection will always be there, and is something I am not taking into account. So, at best, I am saying no natural selection exists for humans anymore, aside from getting past environmental toxins. This simply leaves sexual selection to do whatever it is it will do. Who knows.


----------



## Koios

newpolitics said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you don't believe in evolution, you fail to realize that evolution has effectively stopped in human populations, especially in industrialized nations. This is because there are no consistent selective pressures, since we have successfully conquered our environment. Except for the most debilitating diseases, most people born in industrialized societies will make it to maturity and potentially mate. This is completely unnatural relative to how our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived. This means that harmful mutations are not selected against and are allowed to propagate themselves within the population. However, because of sexual selection, the fittest and most attractive are still procreating amongst eachother.
> 
> This all means that harmful mutations being evermore present in our population is simply due to he fact that there is no longer a selective pressure to kill them off. It is not because the genome is falling apart. Your proposed cause for the observed effect is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. For one thing, we're getting taller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would argue that any selection pressure that caused humans to get taller over even relatively recent human history no longer exists. Technically, we are always evolving in small ways, but I am saying there isn't a consistent enough selection pressure to produce a macroscopically observable effects anymore. Although, one exception might those that are best able to deal with environmental toxins such as plastics, industrial chemicals in our water and food.  Those that are able to live surrounded by these carcinogenic substances without developing cancer might be the next stage of humans. This is the only possible avenue I see for us evolutionarily. As long as everyone is permitted to live because of modern medicine, which will only get better, the idea of selection pressure becomes obsolete for humans. Although sexual selection will always be there, and is something I am not taking into account. So, at best, I am saying no natural selection exists for humans anymore, aside from getting past environmental toxins. This simply leaves sexual selection to do whatever it is it will do. Who knows.
Click to expand...


Chicks dig taller guys, and thus have taller babies.


----------



## ReallyMeow

Theres no escaping evolution just because we have padded ourselves from one facet of natural selection, theres still mutations (cancer and variation) and non- instant death scenarios. peoples ability to focus and endure the commute without dying, stay sharp through a days work so you can move forward in a career by being seen as hard working rather than lazy, come home and still be well adjusted around the wife is probably the biggest selector, in my bullshit estimate.

Lactose tolerance is pretty recent too iirc.


----------



## newpolitics

Koios said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. For one thing, we're getting taller.
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that any selection pressure that caused humans to get taller over even relatively recent human history no longer exists. Technically, we are always evolving in small ways, but I am saying there isn't a consistent enough selection pressure to produce a macroscopically observable effects anymore. Although, one exception might those that are best able to deal with environmental toxins such as plastics, industrial chemicals in our water and food.  Those that are able to live surrounded by these carcinogenic substances without developing cancer might be the next stage of humans. This is the only possible avenue I see for us evolutionarily. As long as everyone is permitted to live because of modern medicine, which will only get better, the idea of selection pressure becomes obsolete for humans. Although sexual selection will always be there, and is something I am not taking into account. So, at best, I am saying no natural selection exists for humans anymore, aside from getting past environmental toxins. This simply leaves sexual selection to do whatever it is it will do. Who knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chicks dig taller guys, and thus have taller babies.
Click to expand...


Indeed. Sexual selection is still in play. But they could only get so tall without further mutation. As the population gets bigger, it will take longer for these mutations to be expressed in the entire population. In other words, without mutation, the species could only become as tall as the tallest human right now. Isn't this the case? I am kind of guessing here, but it seems intuitive.


----------



## newpolitics

ReallyMeow said:


> Theres no escaping evolution just because we have padded ourselves from one facet of natural selection, theres still mutations (cancer and variation) and non- instant death scenarios. peoples ability to focus and endure the commute without dying, stay sharp through a days work so you can move forward in a career by being seen as hard working rather than lazy, come home and still be well adjusted around the wife is probably the biggest selector, in my bullshit estimate.
> 
> Lactose tolerance is pretty recent too iirc.



I agree there is no stopping evolution, but I believe we have slowed it down considerably and fundamentally altered it, relative to how it operates in nature for other species, or for humans before we developed civilization, but more importantly, modern medicine and technology. Perhaps I am exhibiting an incredible bias here. I do not know. Only time will tell, however there are some scientists who would agree, including Michio Kaku. Check out his video with "Big Think" on YouTube about this.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really Hollie ? I just presented you with the facts evolution over millions of years through mutations is the fairytale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No; you didn't.  Bear in mind, it's merely bullshit pseudoscience designed so the Christians whose faiths may be fragile in the light of current human understanding, can quench doubts that science is building within them.
> 
> It's not designed to in fact discredit what actual scientists, adhering to scientific method, know to be utterly beyond reproach: life evolved on Earth and was not placed here by any intelligent being that has left the slightest trace of his/her/its existence, much less proof of the creation point, method and source.
> 
> Simple truth, pursuant to the 9th Commandment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple truth was given. The numbers were provided by evolutionist but they don't teach their pupils the problems that they know exists that I pointed out to you. Pseudoscience was just presented to you that is being taught by evolutionist. They have no answer for this problem and they tried nameing a process in which it rids harmful mutations in bunches but that just is not the case we have over 6,000 genetic disorders and counting. So I just refuted your fairytale and built evidence for a young earth with one little post. The thing is I did this before earlier in the thread it either got ignored or the people like daws didn't understand it the argument, I would say the latter.
Click to expand...


Here's a simple truth: if creator there is, it created life as we know it to have evolved as we are now discovering through real science. Science would then be only human's observation of creation. The bible simply needs a re-write. Or just throw it away. That's what I did.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the same article:
> 
> "MUTATION is the ultimate source of genetic variation; it is both the substrate for evolution and the cause of genetic disease".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you expect from an evolutionist based site ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you ever think before you hit the "submit reply" button?
> 
> Why would you link to an "evolutionist based site" in a failed attempt to prove your gawds?
Click to expand...


I don't want to believe in God so you failed, in other words.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> YWC, you do realize that genetic mutations can get corrected, don't you?



Yes and the process of repairing mutations are enzymes that find and attempt to repair these errors. That to me is evidence for design not something that would happen by random chance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie hollie hollie, you're still in denial.
> 
> 
> 
> how's that? hollies' never denied your full of shit.
> face it wyc you're  de queen of denial.
Click to expand...


You have nothing really to say but spread hate, got it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> It is a fact jack .We are accumulating more harmful mutations then we can get rid of. It's like this. A person thinks they can be rich if they contiue to spend more then they bring in,kinda like Obama. Unless you would like to present a number on beneficial mutation rate and compare it to the harmful mutation rate.
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you don't believe in evolution, you fail to realize that evolution has effectively stopped in human populations, especially in industrialized nations. This is because there are no consistent selective pressures, since we have successfully conquered our environment. Except for the most debilitating diseases, most people born in industrialized societies will make it to maturity and potentially mate. This is completely unnatural relative to how our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived. This means that harmful mutations are not selected against and are allowed to propagate themselves within the population. However, because of sexual selection, the fittest and most attractive are still procreating amongst eachother.
> 
> This all means that harmful mutations being evermore present in our population is simply due to he fact that there is no longer a selective pressure to kill them off. It is not because the genome is falling apart. Your proposed cause for the observed effect is wrong.
Click to expand...



What ever floats your boat but that is hardly what evolutionist think.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No; you didn't.  Bear in mind, it's merely bullshit pseudoscience designed so the Christians whose faiths may be fragile in the light of current human understanding, can quench doubts that science is building within them.
> 
> It's not designed to in fact discredit what actual scientists, adhering to scientific method, know to be utterly beyond reproach: life evolved on Earth and was not placed here by any intelligent being that has left the slightest trace of his/her/its existence, much less proof of the creation point, method and source.
> 
> Simple truth, pursuant to the 9th Commandment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple truth was given. The numbers were provided by evolutionist but they don't teach their pupils the problems that they know exists that I pointed out to you. Pseudoscience was just presented to you that is being taught by evolutionist. They have no answer for this problem and they tried nameing a process in which it rids harmful mutations in bunches but that just is not the case we have over 6,000 genetic disorders and counting. So I just refuted your fairytale and built evidence for a young earth with one little post. The thing is I did this before earlier in the thread it either got ignored or the people like daws didn't understand it the argument, I would say the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a simple truth: if creator there is, it created life as we know it to have evolved as we are now discovering through real science. Science would then be only human's observation of creation. The bible simply needs a re-write. Or just throw it away. That's what I did.
Click to expand...


In short, the theory was built on the extrapolations of microadaptations which I argue organisms have the ability to adapt to their enviornment but there are limits to adapting and that is one of the reasons for extinction. The organism lacked the ability to adapt to it's enviornment.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, you do realize that genetic mutations can get corrected, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and the process of repairing mutations are enzymes that find and attempt to repair these errors. That to me is evidence for design not something that would happen by random chance.
Click to expand...


Similarly, harmful mutations could be evidence of creation at the hand of incompetent designer gawds,


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you expect from an evolutionist based site ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever think before you hit the "submit reply" button?
> 
> Why would you link to an "evolutionist based site" in a failed attempt to prove your gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to believe in God so you failed, in other words.
Click to expand...


You're befuddled, as usual.

Quote obviously, the failure is yours: your over reaching need to believe in gawds. That need of yours supplants any requirement for reason, rationality or objectivity. 

The issue, which you are unwilling to come to terms with, is not a matter of which gawds myth you have arbitrarily accepted to believe but the utter lack of reasonable or rational standard you accept with that belief. None of your views regarding gawds are either reasonable or even intuitive. You simply accept what you are fed by charlatans at various Christian ministries and you spend not a moment being concerned by the blatant lies, falsehoods and propaganda they disseminate. It's a complete lack of any ethical standard, yet you blithely proceed on, unaware and unconcerned that you are an accomplice to lies, falsehoods and propaganda.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple truth was given. The numbers were provided by evolutionist but they don't teach their pupils the problems that they know exists that I pointed out to you. Pseudoscience was just presented to you that is being taught by evolutionist. They have no answer for this problem and they tried nameing a process in which it rids harmful mutations in bunches but that just is not the case we have over 6,000 genetic disorders and counting. So I just refuted your fairytale and built evidence for a young earth with one little post. The thing is I did this before earlier in the thread it either got ignored or the people like daws didn't understand it the argument, I would say the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a simple truth: if creator there is, it created life as we know it to have evolved as we are now discovering through real science. Science would then be only human's observation of creation. The bible simply needs a re-write. Or just throw it away. That's what I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In short, the theory was built on the extrapolations of microadaptations which I argue organisms have the ability to adapt to their enviornment but there are limits to adapting and that is one of the reasons for extinction. The organism lacked the ability to adapt to it's enviornment.*
Click to expand...


Is this in response to what I said? How?


----------



## Crackerjaxon

The belief that the earth is 6000 years old stems from research done by Bishop James Ussher who arrived at the figure by adding the lifespans of the offspring of Adam and Eve.  Not all Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old.  I would say that most don't.

Fundie atheists love to use the 6000 year figure to belittle people of faith while maintaining, with a straight face, that hydrogen evolves into human beings. 

The concept of spontaneous generation was disproved years ago, yet fundie atheists still maintain that is exactly how life began -- some sort of mysterious generation of cells from an undefined primordial soup.

They leap from the perfectly reasonable assumption that environment affects the genetic makeup of populations to the preposterous notion that evolution is the sole reason things are the way they are.

Evolution to them is a magical force that shapes our being based on the miracle of random chance.  They steadfastly maintain the idiotic lie that dogs evolved from wolves while everyone with a triple digit IQ understands that they are a product of selective breeding.  

Living things adapt to their environment or die.  That is not a groundbreaking idea, or the be-all end-all of existence.

Fundie atheists constantly create straw man gods and then destroy the straw man ecstatically claiming that they've proven there is no God.

Fundie athiests take it as an article of faith that any teleological evidence of design in living matter is a creationist plot.  

They are, on the whole, not very bright and should be ignored by people of good will with a genuine desire to know the universe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a simple truth: if creator there is, it created life as we know it to have evolved as we are now discovering through real science. Science would then be only human's observation of creation. The bible simply needs a re-write. Or just throw it away. That's what I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In short, the theory was built on the extrapolations of microadaptations which I argue organisms have the ability to adapt to their enviornment but there are limits to adapting and that is one of the reasons for extinction. The organism lacked the ability to adapt to it's enviornment.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this in response to what I said? How?
Click to expand...


Yes it was an asnwer to your thought .They = evolutionist believe these microadaptations are evidence of evolution and they believe adaptations are due to mutations. They had to try and come up with a mechanism to explain adaptations,ruling out the idea we had the ability to adapt already in our genes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Crackerjaxon said:


> The belief that the earth is 6000 years old stems from research done by Bishop James Ussher who arrived at the figure by adding the lifespans of the offspring of Adam and Eve.  Not all Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old.  I would say that most don't.
> 
> Fundie atheists love to use the 6000 year figure to belittle people of faith while maintaining, with a straight face, that hydrogen evolves into human beings.
> 
> The concept of spontaneous generation was disproved years ago, yet fundie atheists still maintain that is exactly how life began -- some sort of mysterious generation of cells from an undefined primordial soup.
> 
> They leap from the perfectly reasonable assumption that environment affects the genetic makeup of populations to the preposterous notion that evolution is the sole reason things are the way they are.
> 
> Evolution to them is a magical force that shapes our being based on the miracle of random chance.  They steadfastly maintain the idiotic lie that dogs evolved from wolves while everyone with a triple digit IQ understands that they are a product of selective breeding.
> 
> Living things adapt to their environment or die.  That is not a groundbreaking idea, or the be-all end-all of existence.
> 
> Fundie atheists constantly create straw man gods and then destroy the straw man ecstatically claiming that they've proven there is no God.
> 
> Fundie athiests take it as an article of faith that any teleological evidence of design in living matter is a creationist plot.
> 
> They are, on the whole, not very bright and should be ignored by people of good will with a genuine desire to know the universe.



I have no idea how long man has been on this planet it could not have been as long as evolutionist claim though and that is a fact supported by the data.

Creantionist love science and to want to know how God did it. You're sounding like an atheist fundie and should be ignored.

Geez that was simple.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever think before you hit the "submit reply" button?
> 
> Why would you link to an "evolutionist based site" in a failed attempt to prove your gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to believe in God so you failed, in other words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're befuddled, as usual.
> 
> Quote obviously, the failure is yours: your over reaching need to believe in gawds. That need of yours supplants any requirement for reason, rationality or objectivity.
> 
> The issue, which you are unwilling to come to terms with, is not a matter of which gawds myth you have arbitrarily accepted to believe but the utter lack of reasonable or rational standard you accept with that belief. None of your views regarding gawds are either reasonable or even intuitive. You simply accept what you are fed by charlatans at various Christian ministries and you spend not a moment being concerned by the blatant lies, falsehoods and propaganda they disseminate. It's a complete lack of any ethical standard, yet you blithely proceed on, unaware and unconcerned that you are an accomplice to lies, falsehoods and propaganda.
Click to expand...



How many times must you be shown that you're an Idelogue and nothing more before you understand most people ignore your hateful posts filled with rhetoric.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to believe in God so you failed, in other words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're befuddled, as usual.
> 
> Quote obviously, the failure is yours: your over reaching need to believe in gawds. That need of yours supplants any requirement for reason, rationality or objectivity.
> 
> The issue, which you are unwilling to come to terms with, is not a matter of which gawds myth you have arbitrarily accepted to believe but the utter lack of reasonable or rational standard you accept with that belief. None of your views regarding gawds are either reasonable or even intuitive. You simply accept what you are fed by charlatans at various Christian ministries and you spend not a moment being concerned by the blatant lies, falsehoods and propaganda they disseminate. It's a complete lack of any ethical standard, yet you blithely proceed on, unaware and unconcerned that you are an accomplice to lies, falsehoods and propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How many times must you be shown that you're an Idelogue and nothing more before you understand most people ignore your hateful posts filled with rhetoric.
Click to expand...

You have shown only that you become incensed when your specious opinions are refuted. 

That causes you to lash out with angry diatribes which you hope will provide you an excuse for avoidance and sidestepping.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The belief that the earth is 6000 years old stems from research done by Bishop James Ussher who arrived at the figure by adding the lifespans of the offspring of Adam and Eve.  Not all Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old.  I would say that most don't.
> 
> Fundie atheists love to use the 6000 year figure to belittle people of faith while maintaining, with a straight face, that hydrogen evolves into human beings.
> 
> The concept of spontaneous generation was disproved years ago, yet fundie atheists still maintain that is exactly how life began -- some sort of mysterious generation of cells from an undefined primordial soup.
> 
> They leap from the perfectly reasonable assumption that environment affects the genetic makeup of populations to the preposterous notion that evolution is the sole reason things are the way they are.
> 
> Evolution to them is a magical force that shapes our being based on the miracle of random chance.  They steadfastly maintain the idiotic lie that dogs evolved from wolves while everyone with a triple digit IQ understands that they are a product of selective breeding.
> 
> Living things adapt to their environment or die.  That is not a groundbreaking idea, or the be-all end-all of existence.
> 
> Fundie atheists constantly create straw man gods and then destroy the straw man ecstatically claiming that they've proven there is no God.
> 
> Fundie athiests take it as an article of faith that any teleological evidence of design in living matter is a creationist plot.
> 
> They are, on the whole, not very bright and should be ignored by people of good will with a genuine desire to know the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea how long man has been on this planet it could not have been as long as evolutionist claim though and that is a fact supported by the data.
> 
> Creantionist love science and to want to know how God did it. You're sounding like an atheist fundie and should be ignored.
> 
> Geez that was simple.
Click to expand...

You're free to believe creationist insistence of literal biblical tales and fables including a 6000 year old earth. Among the enlightened and relevant science community, there is no doubt about hunankinds lineage extending hundreds of thousands of years into the past. 

The revulsion for science held by creationist is no excuse for promoting the falsehoods emanating from creationist ministries.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, you do realize that genetic mutations can get corrected, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and the process of repairing mutations are enzymes that find and attempt to repair these errors. That to me is evidence for design not something that would happen by random chance.
Click to expand...


Who said it happened by random chance? I love when hicks use phrases like that. It demonstrates their complete lack of knowledge on the subject. In this case, it comes down to the idea that you don't understand something, and therefore it must be divine intervention that created it. In a nutshell: Your stupidity equals your religion.


----------



## LittleNipper

Koios said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask away.  Any question you wish.  Better?
> 
> So hell; let me start: did God evolve or was He created by a higher god(s)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer your question with a question. Did ONE PLUS ONE always EQUAL TWO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No; still doesn't.  One goose and one frog is not two of either.
Click to expand...


Still they are two animals, but a frog and the goose have not always existed... God has always existed.


----------



## Koios

newpolitics said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that any selection pressure that caused humans to get taller over even relatively recent human history no longer exists. Technically, we are always evolving in small ways, but I am saying there isn't a consistent enough selection pressure to produce a macroscopically observable effects anymore. Although, one exception might those that are best able to deal with environmental toxins such as plastics, industrial chemicals in our water and food.  Those that are able to live surrounded by these carcinogenic substances without developing cancer might be the next stage of humans. This is the only possible avenue I see for us evolutionarily. As long as everyone is permitted to live because of modern medicine, which will only get better, the idea of selection pressure becomes obsolete for humans. Although sexual selection will always be there, and is something I am not taking into account. So, at best, I am saying no natural selection exists for humans anymore, aside from getting past environmental toxins. This simply leaves sexual selection to do whatever it is it will do. Who knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chicks dig taller guys, and thus have taller babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. Sexual selection is still in play. But they could only get so tall without further mutation. As the population gets bigger, it will take longer for these mutations to be expressed in the entire population. In other words, without mutation, the species could only become as tall as the tallest human right now. Isn't this the case? I am kind of guessing here, but it seems intuitive.
Click to expand...


Mutations happen no matter how smart our smart-phones get, nor how fast our computers become.  So that aspect of human evolution will proceed as it has.

Meanwhile, aesthetics (choice / natural selection) will change with the zeitgeist, and thus come into play, as it always has, too.

We evolved and are evolving.  Simple truth.


----------



## Koios

LittleNipper said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer your question with a question. Did ONE PLUS ONE always EQUAL TWO?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No; still doesn't.  One goose and one frog is not two of either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still they are two animals, but a frog and the goose have not always existed... God has always existed.
Click to expand...


Yes; in that senario.  But as I pointed out, not all senarios.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Hey YWC, let's pull out your old playbook.  

I wiped your face across this entire forum on these topics last time. Well, multiple times. 

Remember this from years ago? It's how I could prophesize your ignorant hick ways. It's rather sad that you've had absolutely zero intellectual growth in all that time.  Let's lay it out again.

HOW YOUWERECREATED RESPONDS TO EVOLUTION
1. Claim evolution is made up. 
2. Ignore all supporting evidence. 
3. Claim that evolution was completely debunked because he personally doesn't understand certain traits found in organisms. 
4. Ignore people pointing out that his lack of understanding in no way proves the topic wrong or proves his backwoods ideas correct. 
5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution.
6. Repeat steps 1-5 several times.
7. After being shot down and shown to be wrong repeatedly, retreat to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition, to once again claim using circular reasoning that the evidence magically "doesn't count." 
8. Upon being shot down on the topic of macroevolution, run away and pretend none of it happened, to repeat the process again at a later date. 


Wow! You're following you're ignorant hick playbook really well still after all this time. Looks like you're on #3 right now.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie hollie hollie, you're still in denial.
> 
> 
> 
> how's that? hollies' never denied you're full of shit.
> face it wyc you're  de queen of denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have nothing really to say but spread hate, got it.
Click to expand...

that would be nothing real to say ,and it's like all your accusations false.
the only hate being spread around here is from you, thus proving my previous statement.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie hollie hollie, you're still in denial.
> 
> 
> 
> how's that? hollies' never denied your full of shit.
> face it wyc you're  de queen of denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have nothing really to say but spread hate, got it.
Click to expand...


Patently false.  In my refer, right now, I have ...

Mayo

Mustard (multiple)

Cream cheese

Tapenade

Others ... plus x-refero, PB, etc.


----------



## daws101

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how's that? hollies' never denied your full of shit.
> face it wyc you're  de queen of denial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing really to say but spread hate, got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Patently false.  In my refer, right now, I have ...
> 
> Mayo
> 
> Mustard (multiple)
> 
> Cream cheese
> 
> Tapenade
> 
> Others ... plus x-refero, PB, etc.
Click to expand...

what no horseradish?


----------



## Koios

daws101 said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing really to say but spread hate, got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patently false.  In my refer, right now, I have ...
> 
> Mayo
> 
> Mustard (multiple)
> 
> Cream cheese
> 
> Tapenade
> 
> Others ... plus x-refero, PB, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what no horseradish?
Click to expand...


That's in the veggie drawer.  Give me freshness or give me death!!!

Oh wait; that last one comes free with every birth.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact jack .We are accumulating more harmful mutations then we can get rid of. It's like this. A person thinks they can be rich if they contiue to spend more then they bring in,kinda like Obama. Unless you would like to present a number on beneficial mutation rate and compare it to the harmful mutation rate.
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you don't believe in evolution, you fail to realize that evolution has effectively stopped in human populations, especially in industrialized nations. This is because there are no consistent selective pressures, since we have successfully conquered our environment. Except for the most debilitating diseases, most people born in industrialized societies will make it to maturity and potentially mate. This is completely unnatural relative to how our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived. This means that harmful mutations are not selected against and are allowed to propagate themselves within the population. However, because of sexual selection, the fittest and most attractive are still procreating amongst eachother.
> 
> This all means that harmful mutations being evermore present in our population is simply due to he fact that there is no longer a selective pressure to kill them off. It is not because the genome is falling apart. Your proposed cause for the observed effect is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What ever floats your boat but that is hardly what evolutionist think.
Click to expand...


Source?

You do realize that we are talking about the future here? I am not the only one who thinks this either. Michio Kaku has said the same thing, and I am willing to bet many others do as well.


----------



## newpolitics

Koios said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chicks dig taller guys, and thus have taller babies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Sexual selection is still in play. But they could only get so tall without further mutation. As the population gets bigger, it will take longer for these mutations to be expressed in the entire population. In other words, without mutation, the species could only become as tall as the tallest human right now. Isn't this the case? I am kind of guessing here, but it seems intuitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations happen no matter how smart our smart-phones get, nor how fast our computers become.  So that aspect of human evolution will proceed as it has.
> 
> Meanwhile, aesthetics (choice / natural selection) will change with the zeitgeist, and thus come into play, as it always has, too.
> 
> We evolved and are evolving.  Simple truth.
Click to expand...


Mutations and sexual selection will continue to happen. Natural selection will not. What this means for our evolutionary future remains to be seen.  If we have taken away what drives natural selection- the death of those unfit before they can pass in their genetic information, then natural selection is over. Perhaps we will simply devolve at this point. In this sense, YWC has a point, but it js not for the reasons or having the outcome he thinks and predicts. Nor will it be that simple. The presence of what would normally be bad DNA in our population does not mean destruction for the entire species because of sexual selection.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer your question with a question. Did ONE PLUS ONE always EQUAL TWO?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No; still doesn't.  One goose and one frog is not two of either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still they are two animals, but a frog and the goose have not always existed... God has always existed.
Click to expand...

you have no proof of that, it's specious reasoning.


----------



## Koios

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No; still doesn't.  One goose and one frog is not two of either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still they are two animals, but a frog and the goose have not always existed... God has always existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no proof of that, it's specious reasoning.
Click to expand...


Not at all ... the logic is quite simple.

1. Nothing as complex as a human could result from chance.

2. The Universe did not and could not just pop into existence.

3. A vastly more complex being, God, can and *did!* result from something, random, ordered, some of both, who the fuck knows?  But He really is there, even if we cannot see Him.  And He's always existed, even if it's lunacy to suggest the Universe always existed, which is stooooopiiiiiid, since nothing can always exist!!!  (Except God)

Jeez.  Get a clue!!!!


----------



## Koios

newpolitics said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Sexual selection is still in play. But they could only get so tall without further mutation. As the population gets bigger, it will take longer for these mutations to be expressed in the entire population. In other words, without mutation, the species could only become as tall as the tallest human right now. Isn't this the case? I am kind of guessing here, but it seems intuitive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations happen no matter how smart our smart-phones get, nor how fast our computers become.  So that aspect of human evolution will proceed as it has.
> 
> Meanwhile, aesthetics (choice / natural selection) will change with the zeitgeist, and thus come into play, as it always has, too.
> 
> We evolved and are evolving.  Simple truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations and sexual selection will continue to happen. *Natural selection will not.* What this means for our evolutionary future remains to be seen.  If we have taken away what drives natural selection- the death of those unfit before they can pass in their genetic information, then natural selection is over. Perhaps we will simply devolve at this point. In this sense, YWC has a point, but it js not for the reasons or having the outcome he thinks and predicts. Nor will it be that simple. The presence of what would normally be bad DNA in our population does not mean destruction for the entire species because of sexual selection.
Click to expand...


Yeah; it did.  Me, a white guy, was attracted to a darker, more exotic-looking BEAUTIFUL (to me) chick and we had offspring, resulting from her/my natural selection.

And there's a genetic component, which while perhaps not implicit in our natural coming together, was indeed at play: opposites attract, naturally, which is a hedge against me fucking my sister and having our kids turn out blind retards like the Brunei royal family which is having to deal with a bit too much of, against nature, being too keen on fucking their own kind.

Are you seeing?


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, you do realize that genetic mutations can get corrected, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and the process of repairing mutations are enzymes that find and attempt to repair these errors. That to me is evidence for design not something that would happen by random chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it happened by random chance? I love when hicks use phrases like that. It demonstrates their complete lack of knowledge on the subject. In this case, it comes down to the idea that you don't understand something, and therefore it must be divine intervention that created it. In a nutshell: Your stupidity equals your religion.
Click to expand...


You're right it was not by random chance, it was by design.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Hey YWC, let's pull out your old playbook.
> 
> I wiped your face across this entire forum on these topics last time. Well, multiple times.
> 
> Remember this from years ago? It's how I could prophesize your ignorant hick ways. It's rather sad that you've had absolutely zero intellectual growth in all that time.  Let's lay it out again.
> 
> HOW YOUWERECREATED RESPONDS TO EVOLUTION
> 1. Claim evolution is made up.
> 2. Ignore all supporting evidence.
> 3. Claim that evolution was completely debunked because he personally doesn't understand certain traits found in organisms.
> 4. Ignore people pointing out that his lack of understanding in no way proves the topic wrong or proves his backwoods ideas correct.
> 5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution.
> 6. Repeat steps 1-5 several times.
> 7. After being shot down and shown to be wrong repeatedly, retreat to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition, to once again claim using circular reasoning that the evidence magically "doesn't count."
> 8. Upon being shot down on the topic of macroevolution, run away and pretend none of it happened, to repeat the process again at a later date.
> 
> 
> Wow! You're following you're ignorant hick playbook really well still after all this time. Looks like you're on #3 right now.



In your dreams pal and no you don't strike me as being smarter than a hick.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you don't believe in evolution, you fail to realize that evolution has effectively stopped in human populations, especially in industrialized nations. This is because there are no consistent selective pressures, since we have successfully conquered our environment. Except for the most debilitating diseases, most people born in industrialized societies will make it to maturity and potentially mate. This is completely unnatural relative to how our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived. This means that harmful mutations are not selected against and are allowed to propagate themselves within the population. However, because of sexual selection, the fittest and most attractive are still procreating amongst eachother.
> 
> This all means that harmful mutations being evermore present in our population is simply due to he fact that there is no longer a selective pressure to kill them off. It is not because the genome is falling apart. Your proposed cause for the observed effect is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ever floats your boat but that is hardly what evolutionist think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> You do realize that we are talking about the future here? I am not the only one who thinks this either. Michio Kaku has said the same thing, and I am willing to bet many others do as well.
Click to expand...


Have you not seen evolutionist make the claim that evolution has not stopped, everything is still evolving ? They made this claim in this thread.

You people don't know what the heck to believe.

Discover Magazine: The latest in science and technology news, blogs and articles - Has Human Evolution Ended?


Humans are still evolving, scientists find - Telegraph


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey YWC, let's pull out your old playbook.
> 
> I wiped your face across this entire forum on these topics last time. Well, multiple times.
> 
> Remember this from years ago? It's how I could prophesize your ignorant hick ways. It's rather sad that you've had absolutely zero intellectual growth in all that time.  Let's lay it out again.
> 
> HOW YOUWERECREATED RESPONDS TO EVOLUTION
> 1. Claim evolution is made up.
> 2. Ignore all supporting evidence.
> 3. Claim that evolution was completely debunked because he personally doesn't understand certain traits found in organisms.
> 4. Ignore people pointing out that his lack of understanding in no way proves the topic wrong or proves his backwoods ideas correct.
> 5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution.
> 6. Repeat steps 1-5 several times.
> 7. After being shot down and shown to be wrong repeatedly, retreat to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition, to once again claim using circular reasoning that the evidence magically "doesn't count."
> 8. Upon being shot down on the topic of macroevolution, run away and pretend none of it happened, to repeat the process again at a later date.
> 
> 
> Wow! You're following you're ignorant hick playbook really well still after all this time. Looks like you're on #3 right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams pal and no you don't strike me as being smarter than a hick.
Click to expand...


Then apply your vastly smarter-than-hick intelligence to this little thought experiment:

1. Question evolution, demanding everything be known, down the minutia of how and when evolution occurred.

2. Question creation, demanding everything be known, down to the minutia of how and when creation occurred.

And apply the same evidentiary rules when doing both.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey YWC, let's pull out your old playbook.
> 
> I wiped your face across this entire forum on these topics last time. Well, multiple times.
> 
> Remember this from years ago? It's how I could prophesize your ignorant hick ways. It's rather sad that you've had absolutely zero intellectual growth in all that time.  Let's lay it out again.
> 
> HOW YOUWERECREATED RESPONDS TO EVOLUTION
> 1. Claim evolution is made up.
> 2. Ignore all supporting evidence.
> 3. Claim that evolution was completely debunked because he personally doesn't understand certain traits found in organisms.
> 4. Ignore people pointing out that his lack of understanding in no way proves the topic wrong or proves his backwoods ideas correct.
> 5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution.
> 6. Repeat steps 1-5 several times.
> 7. After being shot down and shown to be wrong repeatedly, retreat to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition, to once again claim using circular reasoning that the evidence magically "doesn't count."
> 8. Upon being shot down on the topic of macroevolution, run away and pretend none of it happened, to repeat the process again at a later date.
> 
> 
> Wow! You're following you're ignorant hick playbook really well still after all this time. Looks like you're on #3 right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams pal and no you don't strike me as being smarter than a hick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then apply your vastly smarter-than-hick intelligence to this little thought experiment:
> 
> 1. Question evolution, demanding everything be known, down the minutia of how and when evolution occurred.
> 
> 2. Question creation, demanding everything be known, down to the minutia of how and when creation occurred.
> 
> And apply the same evidentiary rules when doing both.
Click to expand...


You can never answer every question raised but you can test the data that has been collected and draw intelligent conclusions, If not, man would have never made it to the moon.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams pal and no you don't strike me as being smarter than a hick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your vastly smarter-than-hick intelligence to this little thought experiment:
> 
> 1. Question evolution, demanding everything be known, down the minutia of how and when evolution occurred.
> 
> 2. Question creation, demanding everything be known, down to the minutia of how and when creation occurred.
> 
> And apply the same evidentiary rules when doing both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can never answer every question raised but you can test the data that has been collected and draw intelligent conclusions, If not, man would have never made it to the moon.
Click to expand...


Sure I can.  If saying one book (Bible) = fact, then it follows the counter argument is merely one book (On the Origin of Species) = fact.

Or if something more is required, such as physical evidence, then evolution is FACT and Bible is MYTH.

How do you want to play it?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your vastly smarter-than-hick intelligence to this little thought experiment:
> 
> 1. Question evolution, demanding everything be known, down the minutia of how and when evolution occurred.
> 
> 2. Question creation, demanding everything be known, down to the minutia of how and when creation occurred.
> 
> And apply the same evidentiary rules when doing both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can never answer every question raised but you can test the data that has been collected and draw intelligent conclusions, If not, man would have never made it to the moon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I can.  If saying one book (Bible) = fact, then it follows the counter argument is merely one book (On the Origin of Species) = fact.
> 
> Or if something more is required, such as physical evidence, then evolution is FACT and Bible is MYTH.
> 
> How do you want to play it?
Click to expand...


Then how did the origins of life start ?

How do you know life was not the product of design ?

Why is it that scientist can give us a rate of deleterious mutations but they can't do the same for beneficial mutations ?

How do you want to play it ?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can never answer every question raised but you can test the data that has been collected and draw intelligent conclusions, If not, man would have never made it to the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I can.  If saying one book (Bible) = fact, then it follows the counter argument is merely one book (On the Origin of Species) = fact.
> 
> Or if something more is required, such as physical evidence, then evolution is FACT and Bible is MYTH.
> 
> How do you want to play it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Then how did the origins of life start ?*
> 
> How do you know life was not the product of design ?
> 
> Why is it that scientist can give us a rate of deleterious mutations but they can't do the same for beneficial mutations ?
> 
> How do you want to play it ?
Click to expand...


Liquid water, organic molecules and sun or chemical energy.

How did Creation occur?  Tell me that and I can answer your second question, maybe.


----------



## Koios

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I can.  If saying one book (Bible) = fact, then it follows the counter argument is merely one book (On the Origin of Species) = fact.
> 
> Or if something more is required, such as physical evidence, then evolution is FACT and Bible is MYTH.
> 
> How do you want to play it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Then how did the origins of life start ?*
> 
> How do you know life was not the product of design ?
> 
> Why is it that scientist can give us a rate of deleterious mutations but they can't do the same for beneficial mutations ?
> 
> How do you want to play it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liquid water, organic molecules and sun or chemical energy.
> 
> How did Creation occur?  Tell me that and I can answer your second question, maybe.
Click to expand...


In truth, I can answer your second question ...

Because no creator has been proven to have done so.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams pal and no you don't strike me as being smarter than a hick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your vastly smarter-than-hick intelligence to this little thought experiment:
> 
> 1. Question evolution, demanding everything be known, down the minutia of how and when evolution occurred.
> 
> 2. Question creation, demanding everything be known, down to the minutia of how and when creation occurred.
> 
> And apply the same evidentiary rules when doing both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can never answer every question raised but you can test the data that has been collected and draw intelligent conclusions, If not, man would have never made it to the moon.
Click to expand...


Gee whiz, pages of posts and still no one is stepping up to the plate to effectively defend creationism / ID. I was hoping creationist would finally propose their _General Creation Theory_...but after these pages of posts, not a single one has. In that sense, how disappointing that we don&#8217;t have a consensus of creationist.

YWC has finally, finally offered a reasonable course of action for creationist - we can test the data and draw conclusions. It's about time creationist stepped up to the plate and presented their data for supermagical gawds. Let creationist present their data for peer review and let's draw conclusions. 

I'm just tingling with anticipation to see the data that supports this supernatural, mystical realm that creationist claim exists. 

So.... when can we expect the various creation ministries to submit their testing for peer review?  Or, must we wait for Ann Gauger to pose in front of another green screen?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I can.  If saying one book (Bible) = fact, then it follows the counter argument is merely one book (On the Origin of Species) = fact.
> 
> Or if something more is required, such as physical evidence, then evolution is FACT and Bible is MYTH.
> 
> How do you want to play it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Then how did the origins of life start ?*
> 
> How do you know life was not the product of design ?
> 
> Why is it that scientist can give us a rate of deleterious mutations but they can't do the same for beneficial mutations ?
> 
> How do you want to play it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liquid water, organic molecules and sun or chemical energy.
> 
> How did Creation occur?  Tell me that and I can answer your second question, maybe.
Click to expand...


Prove your claim.

God designed all life and things that are a necessity for life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Then how did the origins of life start ?*
> 
> How do you know life was not the product of design ?
> 
> Why is it that scientist can give us a rate of deleterious mutations but they can't do the same for beneficial mutations ?
> 
> How do you want to play it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid water, organic molecules and sun or chemical energy.
> 
> How did Creation occur?  Tell me that and I can answer your second question, maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In truth, I can answer your second question ...
> 
> Because no creator has been proven to have done so.
Click to expand...


You don't need to know the designer to see evidence of design that is a copout.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Then how did the origins of life start ?*
> 
> How do you know life was not the product of design ?
> 
> Why is it that scientist can give us a rate of deleterious mutations but they can't do the same for beneficial mutations ?
> 
> How do you want to play it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid water, organic molecules and sun or chemical energy.
> 
> How did Creation occur?  Tell me that and I can answer your second question, maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1.* Prove your claim.
> 
> *2.* God designed all life and things that are a necessity for life.
Click to expand...


1. Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com

2. Your turn.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then apply your vastly smarter-than-hick intelligence to this little thought experiment:
> 
> 1. Question evolution, demanding everything be known, down the minutia of how and when evolution occurred.
> 
> 2. Question creation, demanding everything be known, down to the minutia of how and when creation occurred.
> 
> And apply the same evidentiary rules when doing both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can never answer every question raised but you can test the data that has been collected and draw intelligent conclusions, If not, man would have never made it to the moon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee whiz, pages of posts and still no one is stepping up to the plate to effectively defend creationism / ID. I was hoping creationist would finally propose their _General Creation Theory_...but after these pages of posts, not a single one has. In that sense, how disappointing that we dont have a consensus of creationist.
> 
> YWC has finally, finally offered a reasonable course of action for creationist - we can test the data and draw conclusions. It's about time creationist stepped up to the plate and presented their data for supermagical gawds. Let creationist present their data for peer review and let's draw conclusions.
> 
> I'm just tingling with anticipation to see the data that supports this supernatural, mystical realm that creationist claim exists.
> 
> So.... when can we expect the various creation ministries to submit their testing for peer review?  Or, must we wait for Ann Gauger to pose in front of another green screen?
Click to expand...


I did yesterday hollie ,were you asleep ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Then how did the origins of life start ?*
> 
> How do you know life was not the product of design ?
> 
> Why is it that scientist can give us a rate of deleterious mutations but they can't do the same for beneficial mutations ?
> 
> How do you want to play it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid water, organic molecules and sun or chemical energy.
> 
> How did Creation occur?  Tell me that and I can answer your second question, maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove your claim.
> 
> God designed all life and things that are a necessity for life.
Click to expand...


You forgot to append "..... because I say so." to your silly admonishment.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid water, organic molecules and sun or chemical energy.
> 
> How did Creation occur?  Tell me that and I can answer your second question, maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In truth, I can answer your second question ...
> 
> Because no creator has been proven to have done so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need to know the designer to see evidence of design that is a copout.
Click to expand...


Actually, the cop-out is: _"Believe in Me."_  It's void of any proof, and not even one little speck of evidence supports it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid water, organic molecules and sun or chemical energy.
> 
> How did Creation occur?  Tell me that and I can answer your second question, maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Prove your claim.
> 
> *2.* God designed all life and things that are a necessity for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> 2. Your turn.
Click to expand...


You are no different then any of the other evolutionist we covered this many times and I already poked holes in that fallacious theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> In truth, I can answer your second question ...
> 
> Because no creator has been proven to have done so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to know the designer to see evidence of design that is a copout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the cop-out is: _"Believe in Me."_  It's void of any proof, and not even one little speck of evidence supports it.
Click to expand...


Are you telling me you can't look at something and detect design ,really ?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Prove your claim.
> 
> *2.* God designed all life and things that are a necessity for life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> 2. Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are no different then any of the other evolutionist we covered this many times and I already poked holes in that fallacious theory.
Click to expand...


Fine.  Move onto item two.  Prove your claim of Creation (not evolution debunking. PROOF OF FUCKING CREATION!!)

Have a ball, amen.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can never answer every question raised but you can test the data that has been collected and draw intelligent conclusions, If not, man would have never made it to the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz, pages of posts and still no one is stepping up to the plate to effectively defend creationism / ID. I was hoping creationist would finally propose their _General Creation Theory_...but after these pages of posts, not a single one has. In that sense, how disappointing that we dont have a consensus of creationist.
> 
> YWC has finally, finally offered a reasonable course of action for creationist - we can test the data and draw conclusions. It's about time creationist stepped up to the plate and presented their data for supermagical gawds. Let creationist present their data for peer review and let's draw conclusions.
> 
> I'm just tingling with anticipation to see the data that supports this supernatural, mystical realm that creationist claim exists.
> 
> So.... when can we expect the various creation ministries to submit their testing for peer review?  Or, must we wait for Ann Gauger to pose in front of another green screen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did yesterday hollie ,were you asleep ?
Click to expand...


Neither you, nor any of the creationist drones have done so. 

Are you having continued problems separating reality from your imagined spirit worlds?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid water, organic molecules and sun or chemical energy.
> 
> How did Creation occur?  Tell me that and I can answer your second question, maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Prove your claim.
> 
> *2.* God designed all life and things that are a necessity for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> 2. Your turn.
Click to expand...


Besides you don't want to go there I am sure you have not been educated enough in chemistry to argue this either.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> 2. Your turn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are no different then any of the other evolutionist we covered this many times and I already poked holes in that fallacious theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.  Move onto item two.  Prove your claim of Creation (not evolution debunking. PROOF OF FUCKING CREATION!!)
> 
> Have a ball, amen.
Click to expand...


The complexity of the cell is evidence of creation by the designer.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Prove your claim.
> 
> *2.* God designed all life and things that are a necessity for life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> 2. Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides you don't want to go there I am sure you have not been educated enough in chemistry to argue this either.
Click to expand...


If your description of the creation process gets into chemistry that's over my head, I'll let you know and ask you dumb it down for me. K?

So then, please go hog wild not fearing my understanding (lack of) of chemisty or anything else.  Prove away.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are no different then any of the other evolutionist we covered this many times and I already poked holes in that fallacious theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  Move onto item two.  Prove your claim of Creation (not evolution debunking. PROOF OF FUCKING CREATION!!)
> 
> Have a ball, amen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The complexity of the cell is evidence of creation by the designer.
Click to expand...


Nope.  Just proof that cells exist and are complex and shit.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  Move onto item two.  Prove your claim of Creation (not evolution debunking. PROOF OF FUCKING CREATION!!)
> 
> Have a ball, amen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The complexity of the cell is evidence of creation by the designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Just proof that cells exist and are complex and shit.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40cOy-i_7zM]Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 1 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to know the designer to see evidence of design that is a copout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the cop-out is: _"Believe in Me."_  It's void of any proof, and not even one little speck of evidence supports it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you telling me you can't look at something and detect design ,really ?
Click to expand...


"Design" is not indicative of supernatural entities. You can't separate reality from supernaturalism? Really?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The complexity of the cell is evidence of creation by the designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Just proof that cells exist and are complex and shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40cOy-i_7zM]Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 1 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Bullshit that ignores all the evidence to the contrary, which is extensive to the nth fucking degree.

Keep trying, in your words please, since apparently you know the chemisty of creation.  You know; some dude actually doing the creating, and how he did it, with evidence supporting it.

For example: folks might think Elvis is alive.  Proof is not that a guitar he might use was foudn in the woods.  Proof would be Elvis himself coming on TV, and being aliive, for example.

Now then, please proceed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> 2. Your turn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides you don't want to go there I am sure you have not been educated enough in chemistry to argue this either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your description of the creation process gets into chemistry that's over my head, I'll let you know and ask you dumb it down for me. K?
> 
> So then, please go hog wild not fearing my understanding (lack of) of chemisty or anything else.  Prove away.
Click to expand...


If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Just proof that cells exist and are complex and shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40cOy-i_7zM]Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 1 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit that ignores all the evidence to the contrary, which is extensive to the nth fucking degree.
> 
> Keep trying, in your words please, since apparently you know the chemisty of creation.  You know; some dude actually doing the creating, and how he did it, with evidence supporting it.
> 
> For example: folks might think Elvis is alive.  Proof is not that a guitar he might use was foudn in the woods.  Proof would be Elvis himself coming on TV, and being aliive, for example.
> 
> Now then, please proceed.
Click to expand...


Well I know you havn't had time to watch the video so the bull shit is on you.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides you don't want to go there I am sure you have not been educated enough in chemistry to argue this either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your description of the creation process gets into chemistry that's over my head, I'll let you know and ask you dumb it down for me. K?
> 
> So then, please go hog wild not fearing my understanding (lack of) of chemisty or anything else.  Prove away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.
Click to expand...


No I understood.  Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense.  Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.

Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit.  4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire fucking human genome did not evolve in that time.  Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF FUCKING YEARS!!!

You people are beyond ignorant.  You're complete fucking idiots.

Fact, not opinion.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 1 of 2 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit that ignores all the evidence to the contrary, which is extensive to the nth fucking degree.
> 
> Keep trying, in your words please, since apparently you know the chemisty of creation.  You know; some dude actually doing the creating, and how he did it, with evidence supporting it.
> 
> For example: folks might think Elvis is alive.  Proof is not that a guitar he might use was foudn in the woods.  Proof would be Elvis himself coming on TV, and being aliive, for example.
> 
> Now then, please proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I know you havn't had time to watch the video so the bull shit is on you.
Click to expand...


I got the gist, and saw at once it was the same lame bullshit ya'll have been spouting since damn near the day after Nov (whatever) 1859.  Ooh; it's sublime in its perfection (except for retarded cousin Johnny, which was probably because aunt Judy ate cherries whilst pregant, without also having milk) so *GOD* made it, and everything else, including light, time, space, the top fucking quark, you name it, cuz just look how really complicated it is!!!

Abject

Fucking

Retards


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your description of the creation process gets into chemistry that's over my head, I'll let you know and ask you dumb it down for me. K?
> 
> So then, please go hog wild not fearing my understanding (lack of) of chemisty or anything else.  Prove away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I understood.  Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense.  Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.
> 
> Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit.  4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire fucking human genome did not evolve in that time.  Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF FUCKING YEARS!!!
> 
> You people are beyond ignorant.  You're complete fucking idiots.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.
Click to expand...


Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.

The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the  human Genome.

When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I understood.  Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense.  Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.
> 
> Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit.  4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire fucking human genome did not evolve in that time.  Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF FUCKING YEARS!!!
> 
> You people are beyond ignorant.  You're complete fucking idiots.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.*
> 
> The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the  human Genome.
> 
> When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3R1I9Xi1FU]Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


No.  I'm talking about you and making a factual claim:

Abject.

Fucking.

Retard.


----------



## daws101

Koios said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still they are two animals, but a frog and the goose have not always existed... God has always existed.
> 
> 
> 
> you have no proof of that, it's specious reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all ... the logic is quite simple.
> 
> 1. Nothing as complex as a human could result from chance.
> 
> 2. The Universe did not and could not just pop into existence.
> 
> 3. A vastly more complex being, God, can and *did!* result from something, random, ordered, some of both, who the fuck knows?  But He really is there, even if we cannot see Him.  And He's always existed, even if it's lunacy to suggest the Universe always existed, which is stooooopiiiiiid, since nothing can always exist!!!  (Except God)
> 
> Jeez.  Get a clue!!!!
Click to expand...

thanks pastor Josephus ,can I go out and be judgmental now?!


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I understood.  Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense.  Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.
> 
> Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit.  4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire fucking human genome did not evolve in that time.  Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF FUCKING YEARS!!!
> 
> You people are beyond ignorant.  You're complete fucking idiots.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.
> 
> *The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the  human Genome.*
> 
> When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3R1I9Xi1FU]Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


And for the love of god!!!

For starters, the "human" Genome was in fact a sampling, I think from one or two celebs, a few scientists, etc.  But a very small sampling.

It's not THE human genome, and to suggest rates of mutation which are not simply time driven, but also subject to environmental factors, are NOT KNOWN!!!  Hell; even speculations on rates is STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your description of the creation process gets into chemistry that's over my head, I'll let you know and ask you dumb it down for me. K?
> 
> So then, please go hog wild not fearing my understanding (lack of) of chemisty or anything else.  Prove away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I understood.  Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense.  Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.
> 
> Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit.  4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire fucking human genome did not evolve in that time.  Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF FUCKING YEARS!!!
> 
> You people are beyond ignorant.  You're complete fucking idiots.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.
Click to expand...


 no you didn't understand what was presented yeasterdy because it makes my argument stronger if you believe 4 to 6 million years vs 2.2 million years. Don't you know you can find people of science who thinks man didn't show up till 65,000 years ago on up to what you are saying. Really though you didn't understand that the more years you assign to it makes it less viable because of the mutation rate. Now don't waste my time just watch the videos so you can educate yourself so we can discuss design.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I understood.  Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense.  Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.
> 
> Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit.  4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire fucking human genome did not evolve in that time.  Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF FUCKING YEARS!!!
> 
> You people are beyond ignorant.  You're complete fucking idiots.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.*
> 
> The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the  human Genome.
> 
> When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3R1I9Xi1FU]Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I'm talking about you and making a factual claim:
> 
> Abject.
> 
> Fucking.
> 
> Retard.
Click to expand...


Someone is having a bad day.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I understood.  Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense.  Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.
> 
> Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit.  4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire fucking human genome did not evolve in that time.  Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF FUCKING YEARS!!!
> 
> You people are beyond ignorant.  You're complete fucking idiots.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.
> 
> *The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the  human Genome.*
> 
> When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3R1I9Xi1FU]Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And for the love of god!!!
> 
> For starters, the "human" Genome was in fact a sampling, I think from one or two celebs, a few scientists, etc.  But a very small sampling.
> 
> It's not THE human genome, and to suggest rates of mutation which are not simply time driven, but also subject to environmental factors, are NOT KNOWN!!!  Hell; even speculations on rates is STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION!!
Click to expand...


You never heard of the human Genome project and the many scientists that worked on this project ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Then how did the origins of life start ?*
> 
> How do you know life was not the product of design ?
> 
> Why is it that scientist can give us a rate of deleterious mutations but they can't do the same for beneficial mutations ?
> 
> How do you want to play it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid water, organic molecules and sun or chemical energy.
> 
> How did Creation occur?  Tell me that and I can answer your second question, maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove your claim.
> 
> God designed all life and things that are a necessity for life.
Click to expand...

prove, yours without specious conjecture or the intervention of imaginary gawds or cut and paste pseudoscience.


----------



## Koios

daws101 said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no proof of that, it's specious reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all ... the logic is quite simple.
> 
> 1. Nothing as complex as a human could result from chance.
> 
> 2. The Universe did not and could not just pop into existence.
> 
> 3. A vastly more complex being, God, can and *did!* result from something, random, ordered, some of both, who the fuck knows?  But He really is there, even if we cannot see Him.  And He's always existed, even if it's lunacy to suggest the Universe always existed, which is stooooopiiiiiid, since nothing can always exist!!!  (Except God)
> 
> Jeez.  Get a clue!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks pastor Josephus ,can I go out and be judgmental now?!
Click to expand...


Yes, My Son.  Go forth now, and multiply, or at least have a ball trying!!!

Amen.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.
> 
> *The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the  human Genome.*
> 
> When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.
> 
> 
> Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for the love of god!!!
> 
> For starters, the "human" Genome was in fact a sampling, I think from one or two celebs, a few scientists, etc.  But a very small sampling.
> 
> It's not THE human genome, and to suggest rates of mutation which are not simply time driven, but also subject to environmental factors, are NOT KNOWN!!!  Hell; even speculations on rates is STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never heard of the human Genome project and the many scientists that worked on this project ?
Click to expand...


Projects actually.  There was a race between public and private funded efforts, since private ones we patenting sections of the code as they parsed / discovered it.

Meanwhile, all the hubbub may have been over thought.  Turns out the vastly more complex Protenome is what's controlling the bitch, not to mention the Epi-genetic deal where enviroment comes into play and the same fucking gene in identical twins doesn't necessarily result in the same outcome.  Shit!!!  No cure for cancer, nor the common cold.  But we know more, so there's that.

How'd I do?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.*
> 
> The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the  human Genome.
> 
> When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.
> 
> 
> Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm talking about you and making a factual claim:
> 
> Abject.
> 
> Fucking.
> 
> Retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone is having a bad day.
Click to expand...


Yeah; and someone else is having a bad life.  Sucks to be a moron, yeah?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid water, organic molecules and sun or chemical energy.
> 
> How did Creation occur?  Tell me that and I can answer your second question, maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In truth, I can answer your second question ...
> 
> Because no creator has been proven to have done so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need to know the designer to see evidence of design that is a copout.
Click to expand...

if nobody's caught on to this badly executed and zero logic party trick ywc  is for the nth time attempting to present as fact, I'll make it simple :ywc "believes" but has no evidence that because we design god must also design.
it's a classic logical fallacy .


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides you don't want to go there I am sure you have not been educated enough in chemistry to argue this either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your description of the creation process gets into chemistry that's over my head, I'll let you know and ask you dumb it down for me. K?
> 
> So then, please go hog wild not fearing my understanding (lack of) of chemisty or anything else.  Prove away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.
Click to expand...


You really should consider taking some courses in the biological sciences. It would help you to understand the abysmal lack of facts in your arguments.

Have you not yet learned that your nonsensical "mutation rate" claims, which you apparently dredge up from creationist sites, are baseless?


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your description of the creation process gets into chemistry that's over my head, I'll let you know and ask you dumb it down for me. K?
> 
> So then, please go hog wild not fearing my understanding (lack of) of chemisty or anything else.  Prove away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should consider taking some courses in the biological sciences. It would help you to understand the abysmal lack of facts in your arguments.
> 
> Have you not yet learned that your nonsensical "mutation rate" claims, which you apparently dredge up from creationist sites, are baseless?
Click to expand...

ywc will say we're befuddled or stupid or hateful  or some variation on those themes in 5......4.....3......2.....


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I understood.  Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense.  Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.
> 
> Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit.  4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire fucking human genome did not evolve in that time.  Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF FUCKING YEARS!!!
> 
> You people are beyond ignorant.  You're complete fucking idiots.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.
> 
> The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the  human Genome.
> 
> When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3R1I9Xi1FU]Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I made it 4 min into the video and seriously.  This guy isn't a scientist.  He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on.   He is a fraud.  Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.  

It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.


----------



## Hollie

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I understood.  Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense.  Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.
> 
> Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit.  4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire fucking human genome did not evolve in that time.  Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF FUCKING YEARS!!!
> 
> You people are beyond ignorant.  You're complete fucking idiots.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.
> 
> The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the  human Genome.
> 
> When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made it 4 min into the video and seriously.  This guy isn't a scientist.  He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on.   He is a fraud.  Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.
> 
> It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.
Click to expand...


Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.
> 
> The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the  human Genome.
> 
> When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made it 4 min into the video and seriously.  This guy isn't a scientist.  He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on.   He is a fraud.  Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.
> 
> It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.
Click to expand...


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.



I guess you never watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos." Credentials or not, baffonery certainly isn't limited to creationists in the least. By the way, was Darwin a scientist?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and the process of repairing mutations are enzymes that find and attempt to repair these errors. That to me is evidence for design not something that would happen by random chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it happened by random chance? I love when hicks use phrases like that. It demonstrates their complete lack of knowledge on the subject. In this case, it comes down to the idea that you don't understand something, and therefore it must be divine intervention that created it. In a nutshell: Your stupidity equals your religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right it was not by random chance, it was by design.
Click to expand...

I am right. But it was you who claimed that evolution supports correction enzymes arising out of "random chance."  This again shows, after years of being told you are clueless, that you still don't understand evolution. Don't you find it odd that you try to shoot down a scientific theory on par with the theory of gravitation, and you don't even have a basic understanding of the general concepts?



Youwerecreated said:


> Have you not seen evolutionist make the claim that evolution has not stopped, everything is still evolving ? They made this claim in this thread.
> 
> You people don't know what the heck to believe.


Shhh, honey, the big kids are talking. When you have a 3rd grade understanding of evolution concepts, then you can participate in whimsical conjecture about how established scientific facts may play out in the future.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

SmarterThanHick said:


> HOW YOUWERECREATED RESPONDS TO EVOLUTION
> 1. Claim evolution is made up.
> 2. Ignore all supporting evidence.
> 3. Claim that evolution was completely debunked because he personally doesn't understand certain traits found in organisms.
> 4. Ignore people pointing out that his lack of understanding in no way proves the topic wrong or proves his backwoods ideas correct.
> 5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution.
> 6. Repeat steps 1-5 several times.
> 7. After being shot down and shown to be wrong repeatedly, retreat to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition, to once again claim using circular reasoning that the evidence magically "doesn't count."
> 8. Upon being shot down on the topic of macroevolution, run away and pretend none of it happened, to repeat the process again at a later date.





Youwerecreated said:


> Then how did the origins of life start ?
> 
> How do you know life was not the product of design ?
> 
> Why is it that scientist can give us a rate of deleterious mutations but they can't do the same for beneficial mutations ?
> 
> How do you want to play it ?


AHAHA now you're moving to #5. Ignorance is so predictable it's astonishing!


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Are you telling me you can't look at something and detect design ,really ?


"Detect design?!" No please, educate us. What part of you "detects" design? I'm curious. What specific criteria do you have that serves as your design detection? I'd like to apply those criteria to various other things in the world to see which holds up and which don't.

I love boxing you into your own stupidity. This is where science with its clear definitions and evidence outshines the "witch hunt" detection of antiquity. Please, provide your criteria for design detection so we can see if it holds water. 

My guess is that you will avoid providing such support to your argument like the plague, seeing as it would wreck your case. 



Youwerecreated said:


> The complexity of the cell is evidence of creation by the designer.


Does the complexity of my dog's vomit also provide evidence of a divine designer?  To assume anything complex requires a designer is so childishly foolish. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.


This coming from the person whose entire argument is "the bible told me what's in the bible is all true". HAHAHAHA.  hey, you should watch this informative video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmx4twCK3_I]State Farm® - State of Disbelief (French Model) - YouTube[/ame]

BUNJURE!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.
> 
> The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the  human Genome.
> 
> When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made it 4 min into the video and seriously.  This guy isn't a scientist.  He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on.   He is a fraud.  Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.
> 
> It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.
Click to expand...


Hawly, you are such a freakin' liar it is pathetic.  I have told you before and it is easily discovered on the internet that Meyer earned his PhD in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University and his doctoral dissertation was titled: "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of *origin of life studies*." You have repeated over and over that he lacks credentials on the subject matter to which he speaks but you are just repeated the same lie over and over as usual. And your blind atheist sheeple like Daws and NP are quick to jump on your lies and misinformation bandwagon. 

And Huggy is also horribly mis-informed. There are no legitimate scientists that believe that chance can account for the origin of life. Even your high priest Dawkins does not make such an ignorant and stupid assertion. So you couldn't get past the first 4 minutes because of your own incredible ignorance and confirmation bias for false information from atheist agenda websites. 

I have come to the conclusion that you, Daws, and Hawly are just incredibly stupid, or incredibly EVIL. I'll give you all the benefit of the doubt and assume you are EVIL.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made it 4 min into the video and seriously.  This guy isn't a scientist.  He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on.   He is a fraud.  Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.
> 
> It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Typical Dumbass Daws, applauding Hawly's lies because you are too freakin's stupid to go find out the real information out for yourself. You're a blind follower and the worst kind of coward.


----------



## UltimateReality

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos." Credentials or not, baffonery certainly isn't limited to creationists in the least. By the way, was Darwin a scientist?
Click to expand...


Not formally. He received his Bachelor's in Theology from Cambridge, the same university where Meyer would later receive his PhD from. Darwin liked to pretend he was a geologist. Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.

Hawly likes to ignore the fact that the man she bases her whole pathetic, EVIL religion on had no formal training on the subject on which he wrote a book on, while simultaneously discrediting Meyer, which the ignoramus Daws buys hook, line and sinker and applauds her stupidity. Which way did he go George?? What an angry, evofundie hypocrite Hawly is.


----------



## UltimateReality

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it happened by random chance? I love when hicks use phrases like that. It demonstrates their complete lack of knowledge on the subject. In this case, it comes down to the idea that you don't understand something, and therefore it must be divine intervention that created it. In a nutshell: Your stupidity equals your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right it was not by random chance, it was by design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am right. But it was you who claimed that evolution supports correction enzymes arising out of "random chance."  This again shows, after years of being told you are clueless, that you still don't understand evolution. Don't you find it odd that you try to shoot down a scientific theory *on par with the theory of gravitation*...
Click to expand...




Typical cut and paste from angry atheist websites. This shows a 3rd grade understanding of the differences between the historical sciences and the observational sciences. What a mindless, spoon-fed atheist lap dog you've just proven yourself to be. Your credibility is totally shredded with that stupid statement.


----------



## UltimateReality

SmarterThanHick said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> HOW YOUWERECREATED RESPONDS TO EVOLUTION
> 1. Claim evolution is made up.
> 2. Ignore all supporting evidence.
> 3. Claim that evolution was completely debunked because he personally doesn't understand certain traits found in organisms.
> 4. Ignore people pointing out that his lack of understanding in no way proves the topic wrong or proves his backwoods ideas correct.
> 5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution.
> 6. Repeat steps 1-5 several times.
> 7. After being shot down and shown to be wrong repeatedly, retreat to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition, to once again claim using circular reasoning that the evidence magically "doesn't count."
> 8. Upon being shot down on the topic of macroevolution, run away and pretend none of it happened, to repeat the process again at a later date.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then how did the origins of life start ?
> 
> How do you know life was not the product of design ?
> 
> Why is it that scientist can give us a rate of deleterious mutations but they can't do the same for beneficial mutations ?
> 
> How do you want to play it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AHAHA now you're moving to #5. Ignorance is so predictable it's astonishing!
Click to expand...


Ah good old Number 5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution. 

Your whole theory is built on a house of cards my friend. You can claim your theory starts with a complex cell all day long but this is really just avoiding the hard truth... denialism at its best. How did the information get into the first cell? Even Jodie Foster recognized an intelligent source in the movie Contact when she received a message containing the first 261 prime numbers. She knew there was no way in hell that the message had been generated randomly from outerspace. Yet you buffoons would have us believe the complex information in DNA occurred randomly. Maybe you should take a hint from Jodie. 

Even Darwin thought evolution and the origin of life questions were inextricably connected. Evolutionists like the easy answers and run very hard and fast from the hard questions.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

UltimateReality said:


> Hawly, you are such a freakin' liar it is pathetic.  I have told you before and it is easily discovered on the internet that Meyer earned his PhD in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University and his doctoral dissertation was titled: "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of *origin of life studies*." You have repeated over and over that he lacks credentials on the subject matter to which he speaks but you are just repeated the same lie over and over as usual. And your blind atheist sheeple like Daws and NP are quick to jump on your lies and misinformation bandwagon.


You seem to think a history dissertation on people studying science is proof of credentials of being a scientist? Perhaps if I write a long paper on the history of mozart I would instantly have the credentials to compose symphonies or play the violin! I really like your reasoning. Maybe if I, as a history major, report on the great depression, I can get a job as an economist. If I academically discuss the philosophy behind naval wars in the last 1000 years, do you think I could ask to become a US Navy Fleet Admiral?  Maybe if I write a dissertation on American football, someone will hire me as a quarterback to a major NFL team.  I love your reasoning. Yes, this surely creates sound credentialing. 



UltimateReality said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right it was not by random chance, it was by design.
> 
> 
> 
> I am right. But it was you who claimed that evolution supports correction enzymes arising out of "random chance."  This again shows, after years of being told you are clueless, that you still don't understand evolution. Don't you find it odd that you try to shoot down a scientific theory *on par with the theory of gravitation*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical cut and paste from angry atheist websites. This shows a 3rd grade understanding of the differences between the historical sciences and the observational sciences. What a mindless, spoon-fed atheist lap dog you've just proven yourself to be. Your credibility is totally shredded with that stupid statement.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you have some good point in there, but you should probably explain it to the rest of us. The theory of evolution and the theory of gravity are similar because they are both sound scientific theories as deemed so by the scientific community based on evidence. What part of that do you disagree with exactly?

As for the term "historic science" I had to look that one up. The first hit on google provided this excerpt: "The term is often misused by creationists" Well that answers my questions pretty quickly. It's a made up term to muddy the waters because actual reasoning doesn't work. If you disagree, please point out which part of the scientific method is less valid with "historic science"


----------



## UltimateReality

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me you can't look at something and detect design ,really ?
> 
> 
> 
> "Detect design?!" No please, educate us. What part of you "detects" design? I'm curious. What specific criteria do you have that serves as your design detection? I'd like to apply those criteria to various other things in the world to see which holds up and which don't.
> 
> I love boxing you into your own stupidity. This is where science with its clear definitions and evidence outshines the "witch hunt" detection of antiquity. Please, provide your criteria for design detection so we can see if it holds water.
> 
> My guess is that you will avoid providing such support to your argument like the plague, seeing as it would wreck your case.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The complexity of the cell is evidence of creation by the designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does the complexity of my dog's vomit also provide evidence of a divine designer?  To assume *anything complex requires a designer is so childishly foolish*...
Click to expand...


What is foolish is your childish understanding of the design argument. It is not merely complex information Einstein. Shannon information is complex. It is complex information with specificity. It imparts a function. This doesn't occur randomly in nature... EVER. There is not a single, modern day example of randomly-occurring, complex, functional information. ALL of it has an intelligent agent as its source.  If you can find such a modern day random occurrence, then you can single-handedly disprove the ID theory. Good luck with that. 

The specifiably complex information in DNA was *created* billions of years ago, along with molecular machines to translate and transcribe it, to use the information to build proteins with complex folds, without which they could not perform their complex functions. This information, the origin of which an intelligent agent is the only viable explanation, has been passed along for billions of years. 

Once again, it is your lack of understanding of what you are dealing with that has exposed you as the 3rd grader.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

UltimateReality said:


> Ah good old Number 5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution.
> 
> Your whole theory is built on a house of cards my friend. You can claim your theory starts with a complex cell all day long but this is really just avoiding the hard truth... denialism at its best. How did the information get into the first cell? Even Jodie Foster recognized an intelligent source in the movie Contact when she received a message containing the first 261 prime numbers. She knew there was no way in hell that the message had been generated randomly from outerspace. Yet you buffoons would have us believe the complex information in DNA occurred randomly. Maybe you should take a hint from Jodie.
> 
> Even Darwin thought evolution and the origin of life questions were inextricably connected. Evolutionists like the easy answers and run very hard and fast from the hard questions.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok-Oz7huWFw



So your counterargument to the defined limitations of evolution is a sci-fi movie about ALIENS from outer space. Really now?  Please go on. Tell me more about how Jodie Foster teaches you about creationism. 

Who said DNA occurred randomly? I love when hicks say things like that.  It really shows that they're arguing against a concept they don't understand. Evolution is not an entirely random process. If has random parts to it, but the end result is far from random. It's unfortunate you didn't actually know that before entering this discussion. 

And yes, evolution and the origins of life are connected.  And yet they are separate. Connection does not mean "the same thing" Similarly the theory of gravity and how gravity came into existence are connected, and yet we don't need to prove how it got there to know that things roll downhill. Again, you really should have a better understanding of the concept you're failing to discredit.


----------



## UltimateReality

SmarterThanHick said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly, you are such a freakin' liar it is pathetic.  I have told you before and it is easily discovered on the internet that Meyer earned his PhD in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University and his doctoral dissertation was titled: "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of *origin of life studies*." You have repeated over and over that he lacks credentials on the subject matter to which he speaks but you are just repeated the same lie over and over as usual. And your blind atheist sheeple like Daws and NP are quick to jump on your lies and misinformation bandwagon.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think a history dissertation on people studying science is proof of credentials of being a scientist? Perhaps if I write a long paper on the history of mozart I would instantly have the credentials to compose symphonies or play the violin! I really like your reasoning.
Click to expand...

 Of course you do!!! No duh, Captain Obvious. This is the same flawed reasoning that allows you to give credibility to the supposed science book The Origin of the Species. Let's see, *I just need to write a book about bird beaks and poof! instant scientist.** Please tell me you see the utter stupidity in the self-debasing logic of the argument you just presented???* 


SmarterThanHick said:


> Maybe if I, as a history major, report on the great depression, I can get a job as an economist. If I academically discuss the philosophy behind naval wars in the last 1000 years, do you think I could ask to become a US Navy Fleet Admiral?  Maybe if I write a dissertation on American football, someone will hire me as a quarterback to a major NFL team.  I love your reasoning. Yes, this surely creates sound credentialing.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am right. But it was you who claimed that evolution supports correction enzymes arising out of "random chance."  This again shows, after years of being told you are clueless, that you still don't understand evolution. Don't you find it odd that you try to shoot down a scientific theory *on par with the theory of gravitation*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical cut and paste from angry atheist websites. This shows a 3rd grade understanding of the differences between the historical sciences and the observational sciences. What a mindless, spoon-fed atheist lap dog you've just proven yourself to be. Your credibility is totally shredded with that stupid statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you have some good point in there, but you should probably explain it to the rest of us. The theory of evolution and the theory of gravity are similar because they are both sound scientific theories as deemed so by the scientific community based on evidence. What part of that do you disagree with exactly?
> 
> As for the term "historic science" I had to look that one up. The first hit on google provided this excerpt: "The term is often misused by creationists" Well that answers my questions pretty quickly. It's a made up term to muddy the waters because actual reasoning doesn't work. If you disagree, please point out which part of the scientific method is less valid with "historic science"
Click to expand...


You wouldn't know the scientific method if it hit you in the face because it has been so bastardized by the "make it up as you go along" pseudo science of evolution. You really have no clue the spoon fed atheist agenda you are even arguing so I really don't feel like wasting my time to bring you up to speed. The information is out there if you are truly seeking the truth. But alas, like everyone else that shows up here, you are hopelessly blinded by your materialistic, atheist agenda. Your confirmation bias blinds you from the validity of any opposing viewpoint. Even if Charles Darwin appeared to you in the flesh and told you his whole book was a lie, you would come up with some excuse because you will never deny the religion that motivates you.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

UltimateReality said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me you can't look at something and detect design ,really ?
> 
> 
> 
> "Detect design?!" No please, educate us. What part of you "detects" design? I'm curious. What specific criteria do you have that serves as your design detection? I'd like to apply those criteria to various other things in the world to see which holds up and which don't.
> 
> I love boxing you into your own stupidity. This is where science with its clear definitions and evidence outshines the "witch hunt" detection of antiquity. Please, provide your criteria for design detection so we can see if it holds water.
> 
> My guess is that you will avoid providing such support to your argument like the plague, seeing as it would wreck your case.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The complexity of the cell is evidence of creation by the designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does the complexity of my dog's vomit also provide evidence of a divine designer?  To assume *anything complex requires a designer is so childishly foolish*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is foolish is your childish understanding of the design argument. It is not merely complex information Einstein. Shannon information is complex. It is complex information with specificity. It imparts a function. This doesn't occur randomly in nature... EVER. There is not a single, modern day example of randomly-occurring, complex, functional information. ALL of it has an intelligent agent as its source.  If you can find such a modern day random occurrence, then you can single-handedly disprove the ID theory. Good luck with that.
> 
> The specifiably complex information in DNA was *created* billions of years ago, along with molecular machines to translate and transcribe it, to use the information to build proteins with complex folds, without which they could not perform their complex functions. This information, the origin of which an intelligent agent is the only viable explanation, has been passed along for billions of years.
> 
> Once again, it is your lack of understanding of what you are dealing with that has exposed you as the 3rd grader.
Click to expand...

So it seems like your criteria are that it must be complex, provide function, and occur naturally in the non-living world. Is that correct?  Now when we remove all life from the planet and look at the remaining natural elements, how do you define FUNCTION exactly?  HAHAHA. I do enjoy a good circular reasoning argument. Go on, share yours.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

UltimateReality said:


> Of course you do!!! No duh, Captain Obvious. This is the same flawed reasoning that allows you to give credibility to the supposed science book The Origin of the Species. Let's see, *I just need to write a book about bird beaks and poof! instant scientist.** Please tell me you see the utter stupidity in the self-debasing logic of the argument you just presented???*


I think it's the providing of evidence and using the scientific method correctly that makes scientists. But lets assume that Darwin doesn't count as a scientist. How do you propose to discredit all of the credentialed scientists that have extensively studied this topic since the 1800s? I always love how creationist nutjobs rely on information from the 1800s as the sole source of information on evolution. hahaha. 

let's say darwin was a quack. how do you plan to discredit the entire field of phylogenetics?





UltimateReality said:


> You wouldn't know the scientific method if it hit you in the face because it has been so bastardized by the "make it up as you go along" pseudo science of evolution. You really have no clue the spoon fed atheist agenda you are even arguing so I really don't feel like wasting my time to bring you up to speed. The information is out there if you are truly seeking the truth. But alas, like everyone else that shows up here, you are hopelessly blinded by your materialistic, atheist agenda. Your confirmation bias blinds you from the validity of any opposing viewpoint. Even if Charles Darwin appeared to you in the flesh and told you his whole book was a lie, you would come up with some excuse because you will never deny the religion that motivates you.


You still seem to be pushing hard on the Darwin thing as the end-all of evolution. How short sighted. 

So, you claim that I have the scientific method wrong, and your notion is correct. Please, educate everyone. What is the scientific method in your own words?


----------



## UltimateReality

SmarterThanHick said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah good old Number 5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution.
> 
> Your whole theory is built on a house of cards my friend. You can claim your theory starts with a complex cell all day long but this is really just avoiding the hard truth... denialism at its best. How did the information get into the first cell? Even Jodie Foster recognized an intelligent source in the movie Contact when she received a message containing the first 261 prime numbers. She knew there was no way in hell that the message had been generated randomly from outerspace. Yet you buffoons would have us believe the complex information in DNA occurred randomly. Maybe you should take a hint from Jodie.
> 
> Even Darwin thought evolution and the origin of life questions were inextricably connected. Evolutionists like the easy answers and run very hard and fast from the hard questions.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok-Oz7huWFw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your counterargument to the defined limitations of evolution is a sci-fi movie about ALIENS from outer space. Really now?  Please go on. Tell me more about how Jodie Foster teaches you about creationism.
> 
> Who said DNA occurred randomly? I love when hicks say things like that.  It really shows that they're arguing against a concept they don't understand. Evolution is not an entirely random process. *If has random parts to it, but the end result is far from random.*
Click to expand...


Wow! Just Wow! Above you stated Evolution and Origins weren't related. Now you post a sentence that insinuates Natural Selection had something to do with the specifiably complex information in DNA. Yawn. You are horribly out matched here. You might want to quit while your behind. 

Here's one for you, Mister Evolution is on Par with Gravity: Please provide me a link to one example of experiment where a random mutation resulted in additional information which resulted in natural selection. Please don't make the mistake of linking to the pathetic 20-year-old Ecoli experiment in which destruction of information resulted in mutations. For your theory to work, we need proof of information ADDED by a random mutation. Remember, us "creationists" are claiming the information has always been there.


----------



## UltimateReality

SmarterThanHick said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Detect design?!" No please, educate us. What part of you "detects" design? I'm curious. What specific criteria do you have that serves as your design detection? I'd like to apply those criteria to various other things in the world to see which holds up and which don't.
> 
> I love boxing you into your own stupidity. This is where science with its clear definitions and evidence outshines the "witch hunt" detection of antiquity. Please, provide your criteria for design detection so we can see if it holds water.
> 
> My guess is that you will avoid providing such support to your argument like the plague, seeing as it would wreck your case.
> 
> 
> Does the complexity of my dog's vomit also provide evidence of a divine designer?  To assume *anything complex requires a designer is so childishly foolish*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is foolish is your childish understanding of the design argument. It is not merely complex information Einstein. Shannon information is complex. It is complex information with specificity. It imparts a function. This doesn't occur randomly in nature... EVER. There is not a single, modern day example of randomly-occurring, complex, functional information. ALL of it has an intelligent agent as its source.  If you can find such a modern day random occurrence, then you can single-handedly disprove the ID theory. Good luck with that.
> 
> The specifiably complex information in DNA was *created* billions of years ago, along with molecular machines to translate and transcribe it, to use the information to build proteins with complex folds, without which they could not perform their complex functions. This information, the origin of which an intelligent agent is the only viable explanation, has been passed along for billions of years.
> 
> Once again, it is your lack of understanding of what you are dealing with that has exposed you as the 3rd grader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it seems like your criteria are that it must be complex, provide function, and occur naturally in the non-living world. Is that correct?  Now when we remove all life from the planet and look at the remaining natural elements, how do you define FUNCTION exactly?  HAHAHA. I do enjoy a good circular reasoning argument. Go on, share yours.
Click to expand...


This doesn't even make sense.


----------



## UltimateReality

SmarterThanHick said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do!!! No duh, Captain Obvious. This is the same flawed reasoning that allows you to give credibility to the supposed science book The Origin of the Species. Let's see, *I just need to write a book about bird beaks and poof! instant scientist.** Please tell me you see the utter stupidity in the self-debasing logic of the argument you just presented???*
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's the providing of evidence and using the scientific method correctly that makes scientists. But lets assume that Darwin doesn't count as a scientist. How do you propose to discredit all of the credentialed scientists that have extensively studied this topic since the 1800s? I always love how creationist nutjobs rely on information from the 1800s as the sole source of information on evolution. hahaha.
> 
> let's say darwin was a quack. how do you plan to discredit the entire field of phylogenetics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know the scientific method if it hit you in the face because it has been so bastardized by the "make it up as you go along" pseudo science of evolution. You really have no clue the spoon fed atheist agenda you are even arguing so I really don't feel like wasting my time to bring you up to speed. The information is out there if you are truly seeking the truth. But alas, like everyone else that shows up here, you are hopelessly blinded by your materialistic, atheist agenda. Your confirmation bias blinds you from the validity of any opposing viewpoint. Even if Charles Darwin appeared to you in the flesh and told you his whole book was a lie, you would come up with some excuse because you will never deny the religion that motivates you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still seem to be pushing hard on the Darwin thing as the end-all of evolution. How short sighted.
> 
> So, you claim that I have the scientific method wrong, and your notion is correct. Please, educate everyone. What is the scientific method in your own words?
Click to expand...


You go first. Remember, google is definitely YOUR friend.


----------



## UltimateReality

SmarterThanHick said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do!!! No duh, Captain Obvious. This is the same flawed reasoning that allows you to give credibility to the supposed science book The Origin of the Species. Let's see, *I just need to write a book about bird beaks and poof! instant scientist.** Please tell me you see the utter stupidity in the self-debasing logic of the argument you just presented???*
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's the providing of evidence and using the scientific method correctly that makes scientists. But lets assume that Darwin doesn't count as a scientist. How do you propose to discredit all of the credentialed scientists that have extensively studied this topic since the 1800s? I always love how creationist nutjobs rely on information from the 1800s as the sole source of information on evolution. hahaha.
> 
> let's say darwin was a quack. how do you plan to discredit the entire field of phylogenetics?
Click to expand...


No need. They continually discredit themselves. You will remember a few posts back my comment about making it up as you go along.

_If falsifiability is essential in science then perhaps evolutionary theory belongs in a different box. Repeatedly evolution sustains contradictory evidence without missing a beat and the latest example is the next step in the long story of horizontal transfer of genomic material. Once evolutionary theory held that when the species were compared they would form an evolutionary tree, common descent, pattern. And when the genes of bacteria violated this pattern, it was said they had been horizontally transferred&#8212;a complicated mechanism that allows bacteria to trade genetic material with each other rather than merely inheriting it. Suddenly the framework of evolutionary theory was much more fluid as most any genetic pattern could be explained. The horizontal gene transfer explanation was used liberally and it was even recruited and greatly expanded in highly speculative narratives of how early evolution created its designs. But all of that was for bacteria. The higher eukaryote species, evolutionists argued, still very much confirmed the traditional evolutionary tree model. The theory was solid and falsifiable, the evolutionists assured their skeptics. That is, until now. For new research has brought horizontal transfer to the front and center for eukaryotes as well. To wit:

    In higher organisms such as vertebrates, it is generally believed that lateral transfer of genetic information does not readily occur, with the exception of retroviral infection. However, horizontal transfer (HT) of protein coding repetitive elements is the simplest way to explain the patchy distribution of BovB, a long interspersed element (LINE) about 3.2 kb long, that has been found in ruminants, marsupials, squamates, monotremes, and African mammals.


The point here is not that any of this is impossible. The details of how such horizontal transfer of genetic material could occur and then propagate in the higher species are not well understood. But that doesn&#8217;t mean it cannot happen. In fact BovB has been found in a reptile tick. So BovB vectors do exist.

The point, rather, is that this is another example of how failed predictions are so easily sustained by evolutionary theory. And when you sustain failed predictions you crush the theory&#8217;s explanatory power. *For when a theory explains everything, then it really is nothing more than a tautology.*_

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/01/horizontal-transfer-finally-reaches.html


----------



## UltimateReality

_If there is one concept on Earth that has been the absolute bane of human existence (besides global elitism), it would have to be the concept of the majority opinion.  The moment men began refusing to develop their own world views without first asking What does everyone else think?, they set themselves up for an endless future of failures. Human beings desperately want to belong, but, they also desperately want to understand the environment around them.  Often, the desire to belong and the desire to know the truth conflict.  In some societies, in order to be accepted, one must give up on his search for truth and avoid eliciting the anger of others. *The idea of the majority view or the mainstream, gives people the sense that they are a part of a group, and at the same time, gives them the illusion of being informed.*_

*Their rationale is: 

If most of the population believes something to be true, then, by statistical law, it most likely is true.  Those who do not share in the majority opinion are therefore in opposition to statistical law; meaning they are behind the times, social deviants, or just plain crazy.. *

Guest Post: The "Majority Opinion" Is An Illusion | Zero Hedge


----------



## SmarterThanHick

UltimateReality said:


> Wow! Just Wow! Above you stated Evolution and Origins weren't related.


Actually I never said that. In fact what I said was "evolution and the origins of life are connected." Do you have trouble reading English, do you unknowingly make up reality as you go, or do you just purposely write drastically incorrect statements because you can't create an honest argument?  You literally stated I said the exact opposite of what was actually said. Do you realize how moronic that makes you look?



UltimateReality said:


> Here's one for you, Mister Evolution is on Par with Gravity: Please provide me a link to one example of experiment where a random mutation resulted in additional information which resulted in natural selection. Please don't make the mistake of linking to the pathetic 20-year-old Ecoli experiment in which destruction of information resulted in mutations. For your theory to work, we need proof of information ADDED by a random mutation. Remember, us "creationists" are claiming the information has always been there.


Actually, creationists believe in this made up term called macroevolution which poorly attempts to justify small amounts of new information "not counting" as evolution. To claim no new information is possible shows a complete lack of understanding of the concept of mutation AND evolution. Regardless most creationists do believe new information can be created, and this has been extensively documented in countless experiments:
Researchers Trace HIV Mutations that Lead to Drug Resistance
PLOS Biology: The Genetic Basis of Thermal Reaction Norm Evolution in Lab and Natural Phage Populations
Evolutionary rescue of a green alga kept in the dark. [Biol Lett. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli

To name a few examples. To assert that nothing beneficial could possibly come from mutation is incredibly foolish. How do you think bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? We can literally reproduce it from bacteria that are all sensitive to antibiotics in a lab at any time. They acquire beneficial mutations to allow for survival in antibiotics. Most creationists don't even try to contest this. I find it amusing that you do. 



UltimateReality said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it seems like your criteria are that it must be complex, provide function, and occur naturally in the non-living world. Is that correct?  Now when we remove all life from the planet and look at the remaining natural elements, how do you define FUNCTION exactly?  HAHAHA. I do enjoy a good circular reasoning argument. Go on, share yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't even make sense.
Click to expand...

Ah, perhaps I misread. Please, provide me with your personal criteria on how to "detect" intelligent design.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

UltimateReality said:


> You go first. Remember, google is definitely YOUR friend.


You claim I don't understand the scientific method, but then back away from explaining it yourself. This is your claim, not mine. If you believe, for whatever made up reason, that I don't understand the scientific method, it's your job to to support your claim via correction. Notice how when I claim you're a moron, I can provide specific support to the claim.  Well, I suppose YOU provide support to that claim and I just point it out with other evidence, but you get the idea. 

If you think I don't understand the scientific method, it's your responsibility to show or correct it. But let's face it, this is just another one of your finger-pointing unsupported ad hominem attacks because you can't actually support your own claims, and now you're backpedaling because you were called out on it. 



UltimateReality said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do!!! No duh, Captain Obvious. This is the same flawed reasoning that allows you to give credibility to the supposed science book The Origin of the Species. Let's see, *I just need to write a book about bird beaks and poof! instant scientist.** Please tell me you see the utter stupidity in the self-debasing logic of the argument you just presented???*
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's the providing of evidence and using the scientific method correctly that makes scientists. But lets assume that Darwin doesn't count as a scientist. How do you propose to discredit all of the credentialed scientists that have extensively studied this topic since the 1800s? I always love how creationist nutjobs rely on information from the 1800s as the sole source of information on evolution. hahaha.
> 
> let's say darwin was a quack. how do you plan to discredit the entire field of phylogenetics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need. They continually discredit themselves. You will remember a few posts back my comment about making it up as you go along.
> 
> _If falsifiability is essential in science then perhaps evolutionary theory belongs in a different box. Repeatedly evolution sustains contradictory evidence without missing a beat and the latest example is the next step in the long story of horizontal transfer of genomic material. Once evolutionary theory held that when the species were compared they would form an evolutionary tree, common descent, pattern. And when the genes of bacteria violated this pattern, it was said they had been horizontally transferreda complicated mechanism that allows bacteria to trade genetic material with each other rather than merely inheriting it. Suddenly the framework of evolutionary theory was much more fluid as most any genetic pattern could be explained. The horizontal gene transfer explanation was used liberally and it was even recruited and greatly expanded in highly speculative narratives of how early evolution created its designs. But all of that was for bacteria. The higher eukaryote species, evolutionists argued, still very much confirmed the traditional evolutionary tree model. The theory was solid and falsifiable, the evolutionists assured their skeptics. That is, until now. For new research has brought horizontal transfer to the front and center for eukaryotes as well. To wit:
> 
> In higher organisms such as vertebrates, it is generally believed that lateral transfer of genetic information does not readily occur, with the exception of retroviral infection. However, horizontal transfer (HT) of protein coding repetitive elements is the simplest way to explain the patchy distribution of BovB, a long interspersed element (LINE) about 3.2 kb long, that has been found in ruminants, marsupials, squamates, monotremes, and African mammals.
> 
> 
> The point here is not that any of this is impossible. The details of how such horizontal transfer of genetic material could occur and then propagate in the higher species are not well understood. But that doesnt mean it cannot happen. In fact BovB has been found in a reptile tick. So BovB vectors do exist.
> 
> The point, rather, is that this is another example of how failed predictions are so easily sustained by evolutionary theory. And when you sustain failed predictions you crush the theorys explanatory power. *For when a theory explains everything, then it really is nothing more than a tautology.*_
> 
> Darwin's God: Horizontal Transfer Finally Reaches the Eukaryotes
Click to expand...




UltimateReality said:


> _If there is one concept on Earth that has been the absolute bane of human existence (besides global elitism), it would have to be the concept of the majority opinion.  The moment men began refusing to develop their own world views without first asking What does everyone else think?, they set themselves up for an endless future of failures. Human beings desperately want to belong, but, they also desperately want to understand the environment around them.  Often, the desire to belong and the desire to know the truth conflict.  In some societies, in order to be accepted, one must give up on his search for truth and avoid eliciting the anger of others. *The idea of the majority view or the mainstream, gives people the sense that they are a part of a group, and at the same time, gives them the illusion of being informed.*_
> 
> *Their rationale is:
> 
> If most of the population believes something to be true, then, by statistical law, it most likely is true.  Those who do not share in the majority opinion are therefore in opposition to statistical law; meaning they are behind the times, social deviants, or just plain crazy.. *
> 
> Guest Post: The "Majority Opinion" Is An Illusion | Zero Hedge



I find it hilarious that you falsely accuse me of copying and pasting, when I've done no such thing, and you follow it up with copied and pasted drivel. If you'd like to make a point on your own, please feel free to make it, and I'll shoot you down accordingly.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos." Credentials or not, baffonery certainly isn't limited to creationists in the least. By the way, was Darwin a scientist?
Click to expand...


You're suffering real confusion regarding science vs. hyper-religious claims to supernaturalism so I'm happy to lend an assist. Firstly, it's a common tactic of the hyper-religious / science loathing fundie crowd to attack Darwin without understanding his theory.  Darwin was a learned man who presented a theory of common descent with modification. His theory was based upon the rigors of the scientific method and that theory has been supported and confirmed in the last 150 years. As with the other Christian fundies in this thread, you seem to be suggesting a worldwide conspiracy among relevant scientists and teaching universities that involves promotion of those horrible attributes of literacy and education.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for the love of god!!!
> 
> For starters, the "human" Genome was in fact a sampling, I think from one or two celebs, a few scientists, etc.  But a very small sampling.
> 
> It's not THE human genome, and to suggest rates of mutation which are not simply time driven, but also subject to environmental factors, are NOT KNOWN!!!  Hell; even speculations on rates is STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never heard of the human Genome project and the many scientists that worked on this project ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projects actually.  There was a race between public and private funded efforts, since private ones we patenting sections of the code as they parsed / discovered it.
> 
> Meanwhile, all the hubbub may have been over thought.  Turns out the vastly more complex Protenome is what's controlling the bitch, not to mention the Epi-genetic deal where enviroment comes into play and the same fucking gene in identical twins doesn't necessarily result in the same outcome.  Shit!!!  No cure for cancer, nor the common cold.  But we know more, so there's that.
> 
> How'd I do?
Click to expand...


You failed.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos." Credentials or not, baffonery certainly isn't limited to creationists in the least. By the way, was Darwin a scientist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're suffering real confusion regarding science vs. hyper-religious claims to supernaturalism so I'm happy to lend an assist. Firstly, it's a common tactic of the hyper-religious / science loathing fundie crowd to attack Darwin without understanding his theory.  Darwin was a learned man who presented a theory of common descent with modification. His theory was based upon the rigors of the scientific method and that theory has been supported and confirmed in the last 150 years. As with the other Christian fundies in this thread, you seem to be suggesting a worldwide conspiracy among relevant scientists and teaching universities that involves promotion of those horrible attributes of literacy and education.
Click to expand...


Was Darwin a sientist?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your description of the creation process gets into chemistry that's over my head, I'll let you know and ask you dumb it down for me. K?
> 
> So then, please go hog wild not fearing my understanding (lack of) of chemisty or anything else.  Prove away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should consider taking some courses in the biological sciences. It would help you to understand the abysmal lack of facts in your arguments.
> 
> Have you not yet learned that your nonsensical "mutation rate" claims, which you apparently dredge up from creationist sites, are baseless?
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm talking about you and making a factual claim:
> 
> Abject.
> 
> Fucking.
> 
> Retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone is having a bad day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah; and someone else is having a bad life.  Sucks to be a moron, yeah?
Click to expand...


So you're down to name calling. Yep you're using every play in the book that atheistic evolutionists use when their brain is stuck on stop.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I understood.  Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense.  Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.
> 
> Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit.  4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire fucking human genome did not evolve in that time.  Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF FUCKING YEARS!!!
> 
> You people are beyond ignorant.  You're complete fucking idiots.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.
> 
> The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the  human Genome.
> 
> When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3R1I9Xi1FU]Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made it 4 min into the video and seriously.  This guy isn't a scientist.  He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on.   He is a fraud.  Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.
> 
> It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.
Click to expand...


Really? a Professor that is well known from Cambridge University


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it happened by random chance? I love when hicks use phrases like that. It demonstrates their complete lack of knowledge on the subject. In this case, it comes down to the idea that you don't understand something, and therefore it must be divine intervention that created it. In a nutshell: Your stupidity equals your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right it was not by random chance, it was by design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am right. But it was you who claimed that evolution supports correction enzymes arising out of "random chance."  This again shows, after years of being told you are clueless, that you still don't understand evolution. Don't you find it odd that you try to shoot down a scientific theory on par with the theory of gravitation, and you don't even have a basic understanding of the general concepts?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you not seen evolutionist make the claim that evolution has not stopped, everything is still evolving ? They made this claim in this thread.
> 
> You people don't know what the heck to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shhh, honey, the big kids are talking. When you have a 3rd grade understanding of evolution concepts, then you can participate in whimsical conjecture about how established scientific facts may play out in the future.
Click to expand...


I argue so much from your side I forget I am a creationist. I believe things exist because they were designed. that is the mechanism to keep humans from going extinct. But the mutation rate is so high deletrious mutations are going through without being repaired.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me you can't look at something and detect design ,really ?
> 
> 
> 
> "Detect design?!" No please, educate us. What part of you "detects" design? I'm curious. What specific criteria do you have that serves as your design detection? I'd like to apply those criteria to various other things in the world to see which holds up and which don't.
> 
> I love boxing you into your own stupidity. This is where science with its clear definitions and evidence outshines the "witch hunt" detection of antiquity. Please, provide your criteria for design detection so we can see if it holds water.
> 
> My guess is that you will avoid providing such support to your argument like the plague, seeing as it would wreck your case.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The complexity of the cell is evidence of creation by the designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does the complexity of my dog's vomit also provide evidence of a divine designer?  To assume anything complex requires a designer is so childishly foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This coming from the person whose entire argument is "the bible told me what's in the bible is all true". HAHAHAHA.  hey, you should watch this informative video:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmx4twCK3_I]State Farm® - State of Disbelief (French Model) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> BUNJURE!
Click to expand...


Mathematics helps deciding the probability on chance or purposeful design.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.
> 
> The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the  human Genome.
> 
> When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.
> 
> 
> Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made it 4 min into the video and seriously.  This guy isn't a scientist.  He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on.   He is a fraud.  Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.
> 
> It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? a Professor that is well known from Cambridge University
Click to expand...


So, your criteria for credibility amounts to being "well known"?

You should be aware that Meyer is a demonstrated hack fronting for the Disco'tute. 

He also has no credentials that would provide for knowledgeable testimony on cell biology. That would account for the blundering incompetence of his work ato the Disco'tute.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah good old Number 5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution.
> 
> Your whole theory is built on a house of cards my friend. You can claim your theory starts with a complex cell all day long but this is really just avoiding the hard truth... denialism at its best. How did the information get into the first cell? Even Jodie Foster recognized an intelligent source in the movie Contact when she received a message containing the first 261 prime numbers. She knew there was no way in hell that the message had been generated randomly from outerspace. Yet you buffoons would have us believe the complex information in DNA occurred randomly. Maybe you should take a hint from Jodie.
> 
> Even Darwin thought evolution and the origin of life questions were inextricably connected. Evolutionists like the easy answers and run very hard and fast from the hard questions.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok-Oz7huWFw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your counterargument to the defined limitations of evolution is a sci-fi movie about ALIENS from outer space. Really now?  Please go on. Tell me more about how Jodie Foster teaches you about creationism.
> 
> Who said DNA occurred randomly? I love when hicks say things like that.  It really shows that they're arguing against a concept they don't understand. Evolution is not an entirely random process. If has random parts to it, but the end result is far from random. It's unfortunate you didn't actually know that before entering this discussion.
> 
> And yes, evolution and the origins of life are connected.  And yet they are separate. Connection does not mean "the same thing" Similarly the theory of gravity and how gravity came into existence are connected, and yet we don't need to prove how it got there to know that things roll downhill. Again, you really should have a better understanding of the concept you're failing to discredit.
Click to expand...


You are finally coming around hick you believe everything is being ran by someone or something that things were not developed through randomness.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me you can't look at something and detect design ,really ?
> 
> 
> 
> "Detect design?!" No please, educate us. What part of you "detects" design? I'm curious. What specific criteria do you have that serves as your design detection? I'd like to apply those criteria to various other things in the world to see which holds up and which don't.
> 
> I love boxing you into your own stupidity. This is where science with its clear definitions and evidence outshines the "witch hunt" detection of antiquity. Please, provide your criteria for design detection so we can see if it holds water.
> 
> My guess is that you will avoid providing such support to your argument like the plague, seeing as it would wreck your case.
> 
> 
> Does the complexity of my dog's vomit also provide evidence of a divine designer?  To assume anything complex requires a designer is so childishly foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This coming from the person whose entire argument is "the bible told me what's in the bible is all true". HAHAHAHA.  hey, you should watch this informative video:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmx4twCK3_I]State Farm® - State of Disbelief (French Model) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> BUNJURE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mathematics helps deciding the probability on chance or purposeful design.
Click to expand...


Sweepingly ignorant. There is no mechanism to calculate a probability of purposeful design when there is no rational, demonstrated, or meaningful example of such a thing. 

Supernaturalism, magic and metaphysics do not lend themselves to the rigors of mathematics. The madrassahs run by Harun Yahya are probably not real strong on math and science. 

Learn to adapt.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made it 4 min into the video and seriously.  This guy isn't a scientist.  He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on.   He is a fraud.  Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.
> 
> It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? a Professor that is well known from Cambridge University
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, your criteria for credibility amounts to being "well known"?
> 
> You should be aware that Meyer is a demonstrated hack fronting for the Disco'tute.
> 
> He also has no credentials that would provide for knowledgeable testimony on cell biology. That would account for the blundering incompetence of his work ato the Disco'tute.
Click to expand...


Well educated people who believe in a designer seem to drive you over the edge.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Detect design?!" No please, educate us. What part of you "detects" design? I'm curious. What specific criteria do you have that serves as your design detection? I'd like to apply those criteria to various other things in the world to see which holds up and which don't.
> 
> I love boxing you into your own stupidity. This is where science with its clear definitions and evidence outshines the "witch hunt" detection of antiquity. Please, provide your criteria for design detection so we can see if it holds water.
> 
> My guess is that you will avoid providing such support to your argument like the plague, seeing as it would wreck your case.
> 
> 
> Does the complexity of my dog's vomit also provide evidence of a divine designer?  To assume anything complex requires a designer is so childishly foolish.
> 
> 
> This coming from the person whose entire argument is "the bible told me what's in the bible is all true". HAHAHAHA.  hey, you should watch this informative video:
> 
> State Farm® - State of Disbelief (French Model) - YouTube
> 
> BUNJURE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathematics helps deciding the probability on chance or purposeful design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sweepingly ignorant. There is no mechanism to calculate a probability of purposeful design when there is no rational, demonstrated, or meaningful example of such a thing.
> 
> Supernaturalism, magic and metaphysics do not lend themselves to the rigors of mathematics. The madrassahs run by Harun Yahya are probably not real strong on math and science.
> 
> Learn to adapt.
Click to expand...


Wrong again hollie.

The specificity in living organisms is evidence of design. Why is this so hard for you to understand ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? a Professor that is well known from Cambridge University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your criteria for credibility amounts to being "well known"?
> 
> You should be aware that Meyer is a demonstrated hack fronting for the Disco'tute.
> 
> He also has no credentials that would provide for knowledgeable testimony on cell biology. That would account for the blundering incompetence of his work ato the Disco'tute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well educated people who believe in a designer seem to drive you over the edge.
Click to expand...

What you hope to sidestep is the fact that Meyer, like so many representing the Christian creationist ministries, is not well educated in the subject matter he rattles on about. 

That's one of the reasons why creationist are such laughable buffoons - Casey Luskin is authoring "science" material on behalf of the Disco'tute. 

It's enough to make one cringe, but at the same time, reading these charlatans getting flamed on their own blogs is always good for a bit of schadenfreude


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mathematics helps deciding the probability on chance or purposeful design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweepingly ignorant. There is no mechanism to calculate a probability of purposeful design when there is no rational, demonstrated, or meaningful example of such a thing.
> 
> Supernaturalism, magic and metaphysics do not lend themselves to the rigors of mathematics. The madrassahs run by Harun Yahya are probably not real strong on math and science.
> 
> Learn to adapt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again hollie.
> 
> The specificity in living organisms is evidence of design. Why is this so hard for you to understand ?
Click to expand...

False. The "specificity" you claim is an illusion that you cling to as a way to placate your hyper-religious belief. By the same twisted thinking, your "specificity" would also apply to cancer cells, for one example. Aside from your hyper-religious "because I say so" admonition, there is no reason to accept your unfounded and demonstrably false claim that "living organisms is evidence of design".


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made it 4 min into the video and seriously.  This guy isn't a scientist.  He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on.   He is a fraud.  Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.
> 
> It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hawly, you are such a freakin' liar it is pathetic.  I have told you before and it is easily discovered on the internet that Meyer earned his PhD in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University and his doctoral dissertation was titled: "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of *origin of life studies*." You have repeated over and over that he lacks credentials on the subject matter to which he speaks but you are just repeated the same lie over and over as usual. And your blind atheist sheeple like Daws and NP are quick to jump on your lies and misinformation bandwagon.
> 
> *And Huggy is also horribly mis-informed*. There are no legitimate scientists that believe that chance can account for the origin of life. Even your high priest Dawkins does not make such an ignorant and stupid assertion. So you couldn't get past the first 4 minutes because of your own incredible ignorance and confirmation bias for false information from atheist agenda websites.
> 
> I have come to the conclusion that you, Daws, and Hawly are just incredibly stupid, or incredibly EVIL. I'll give you all the benefit of the doubt and assume you are EVIL.
Click to expand...


The problem is that I was only wearing hip waders and the bullshit was getting deeper with every statement on the video.  If the requirement is to drown in the nonsense "to understand it" then I will pass.  Wading is pure crap up to my knees and heading north rapidly I choose to keep my clothing clean.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.
> 
> The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the  human Genome.
> 
> When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.
> 
> 
> Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made it 4 min into the video and seriously.  This guy isn't a scientist.  He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on.   He is a fraud.  Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.
> 
> It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? a Professor that is well known from Cambridge University
Click to expand...


Indeed. Note he's a professor of philosophy and not a geneticist.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos." Credentials or not, baffonery certainly isn't limited to creationists in the least. By the way, was Darwin a scientist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not formally. He received his Bachelor's in Theology from Cambridge, the same university where Meyer would later receive his PhD from. Darwin liked to pretend he was a geologist. Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.
> 
> Hawly likes to ignore the fact that the man she bases her whole pathetic, EVIL religion on had no formal training on the subject on which he wrote a book on, while simultaneously discrediting Meyer, which the ignoramus Daws buys hook, line and sinker and applauds her stupidity. Which way did he go George?? What an angry, evofundie hypocrite Hawly is.
Click to expand...


The angry fundie is perturbed that Meyer is exposed as a fraud in connection with defining cell biology. But then again, fraudulent credentials are so common among creationist charlatans. 

What the angry fundies hope to avoid addressing is that the theory proposed by Darwin has passed through the filter of the scientific method and has science supported evidence to support the theory. 

Desperate, angry, hyper-religious fundies seek to promote supermagicalism and mysticism as promoted by Christian ministries as a substitute for research and peer-reviewed data. That's why the charlatans are forced to pose in front of green screens in attempts to deceive the gullible that religion supplants science.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never heard of the human Genome project and the many scientists that worked on this project ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projects actually.  There was a race between public and private funded efforts, since private ones we patenting sections of the code as they parsed / discovered it.
> 
> Meanwhile, all the hubbub may have been over thought.  Turns out the vastly more complex Protenome is what's controlling the bitch, not to mention the Epi-genetic deal where enviroment comes into play and the same fucking gene in identical twins doesn't necessarily result in the same outcome.  Shit!!!  No cure for cancer, nor the common cold.  But we know more, so there's that.
> 
> How'd I do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You failed.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you'd like to think so. But then, comfortable delusions are the stock and trade of religionists.


----------



## Hollie

More Creationist Credential Inflation

Recursivity: More Creationist Credential Inflation 

I've written at least once before about the propensity of creationists for credential inflation. Recursivity: Credential Inflation: A Favorite Tactic of Denialists 

Here is yet another example: V. J. Torley, one of the most longwinded creationists at Uncommon Descent, refers to "Dr. David Coppedge".

Coppedge, according to his profile on Linkedin, has no doctorate at all. He has a bachelor of science, secondary education, from the august institution, "Bob Jones University", in 1972, and a B. S., Physics, from California State, Northridge, 1995.

Update: Torley has now corrected his claim.


----------



## Hollie

Some Questionable Creationist Credentials

Suspicious Creationist Credentials


----------



## Koios

Hollie said:


> Some Questionable Creationist Credentials
> 
> Suspicious Creationist Credentials



They'll burn in Hell for their flagrant disregard for God's 9th Commandment, Amen.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your criteria for credibility amounts to being "well known"?
> 
> You should be aware that Meyer is a demonstrated hack fronting for the Disco'tute.
> 
> He also has no credentials that would provide for knowledgeable testimony on cell biology. That would account for the blundering incompetence of his work ato the Disco'tute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well educated people who believe in a designer seem to drive you over the edge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you hope to sidestep is the fact that Meyer, like so many representing the Christian creationist ministries, is not well educated in the subject matter he rattles on about.
> 
> That's one of the reasons why creationist are such laughable buffoons - Casey Luskin is authoring "science" material on behalf of the Disco'tute.
> 
> It's enough to make one cringe, but at the same time, reading these charlatans getting flamed on their own blogs is always good for a bit of schadenfreude
Click to expand...


Hollie you're a liar why would anyone in their right mind trust you ?

Biography

Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] After graduating, Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.[6] Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[8]

[edit] Intelligent design

Meyer is one of a small group of prominent young intelligent design creationist advocates. Other well known creationist advocates include William Dembski, Paul Nelson, and Jonathan Wells.[9] Meyer's involvement in intelligent design (ID) can be traced to his participation in the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' defending Phillip E. Johnson's Darwin on Trial in 1992 or 1993 (in response to Stephen Jay Gould's "devastating"[10] review of it in the July 1992 issue of Scientific American), while with the Philosophy department at Whitworth College.[10] He was later a participant in the first formal meeting devoted to ID, hosted at Southern Methodist University in 1992.[10]
Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hollie

Koios said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some Questionable Creationist Credentials
> 
> Suspicious Creationist Credentials
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They'll burn in Hell for their flagrant disregard for God's 9th Commandment, Amen.
Click to expand...

_Can_ I get a _hallelujah_ brothas' and sistas'


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> More Creationist Credential Inflation
> 
> Recursivity: More Creationist Credential Inflation
> 
> I've written at least once before about the propensity of creationists for credential inflation. Recursivity: Credential Inflation: A Favorite Tactic of Denialists
> 
> Here is yet another example: V. J. Torley, one of the most longwinded creationists at Uncommon Descent, refers to "Dr. David Coppedge".
> 
> Coppedge, according to his profile on Linkedin, has no doctorate at all. He has a bachelor of science, secondary education, from the august institution, "Bob Jones University", in 1972, and a B. S., Physics, from California State, Northridge, 1995.
> 
> Update: Torley has now corrected his claim.



What does this have to do with meyer you delusional fundie ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well educated people who believe in a designer seem to drive you over the edge.
> 
> 
> 
> What you hope to sidestep is the fact that Meyer, like so many representing the Christian creationist ministries, is not well educated in the subject matter he rattles on about.
> 
> That's one of the reasons why creationist are such laughable buffoons - Casey Luskin is authoring "science" material on behalf of the Disco'tute.
> 
> It's enough to make one cringe, but at the same time, reading these charlatans getting flamed on their own blogs is always good for a bit of schadenfreude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie you're a liar why would anyone in their right mind trust you ?
> 
> Biography
> 
> Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] After graduating, Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.[6] Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[8]
> 
> [edit] Intelligent design
> 
> Meyer is one of a small group of prominent young intelligent design creationist advocates. Other well known creationist advocates include William Dembski, Paul Nelson, and Jonathan Wells.[9] Meyer's involvement in intelligent design (ID) can be traced to his participation in the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' defending Phillip E. Johnson's Darwin on Trial in 1992 or 1993 (in response to Stephen Jay Gould's "devastating"[10] review of it in the July 1992 issue of Scientific American), while with the Philosophy department at Whitworth College.[10] He was later a participant in the first formal meeting devoted to ID, hosted at Southern Methodist University in 1992.[10]
> Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


My goodness, a flaming fundie. 

A degree in history and philosophy of science qualifies Meyer as a biologist how?

Your melodrama is as flaccid as Meyers' fraudulent attempts to pass himself off as qualified to discuss biological mechanisms. 

This is as comical as you claiming to have worked in a biology lab.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well educated people who believe in a designer seem to drive you over the edge.
> 
> 
> 
> What you hope to sidestep is the fact that Meyer, like so many representing the Christian creationist ministries, is not well educated in the subject matter he rattles on about.
> 
> That's one of the reasons why creationist are such laughable buffoons - Casey Luskin is authoring "science" material on behalf of the Disco'tute.
> 
> It's enough to make one cringe, but at the same time, reading these charlatans getting flamed on their own blogs is always good for a bit of schadenfreude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie you're a liar why would anyone in their right mind trust you ?
> 
> Biography
> 
> Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] After graduating, Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.[6] Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[8]
> 
> [edit] Intelligent design
> 
> Meyer is one of a small group of prominent young intelligent design creationist advocates. Other well known creationist advocates include William Dembski, Paul Nelson, and Jonathan Wells.[9] Meyer's involvement in intelligent design (ID) can be traced to his participation in the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' defending Phillip E. Johnson's Darwin on Trial in 1992 or 1993 (in response to Stephen Jay Gould's "devastating"[10] review of it in the July 1992 issue of Scientific American), while with the Philosophy department at Whitworth College.[10] He was later a participant in the first formal meeting devoted to ID, hosted at Southern Methodist University in 1992.[10]
> Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


CVs notwithstanding, whether embellished or not, the simple truth is: Meyer is blinded by his religious dogma and an embarrassment to the scientific community, if in fact he considers himself a member of it, while also poo-pooing everything science has discovered in regard to the subject matter he speaks to.

Fact, not opinion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some Questionable Creationist Credentials
> 
> Suspicious Creationist Credentials
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They'll burn in Hell for their flagrant disregard for God's 9th Commandment, Amen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Can_ I get a _hallelujah_ brothas' and sistas'
Click to expand...


And you claimed atheism is not a religous view.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> More Creationist Credential Inflation
> 
> Recursivity: More Creationist Credential Inflation
> 
> I've written at least once before about the propensity of creationists for credential inflation. Recursivity: Credential Inflation: A Favorite Tactic of Denialists
> 
> Here is yet another example: V. J. Torley, one of the most longwinded creationists at Uncommon Descent, refers to "Dr. David Coppedge".
> 
> Coppedge, according to his profile on Linkedin, has no doctorate at all. He has a bachelor of science, secondary education, from the august institution, "Bob Jones University", in 1972, and a B. S., Physics, from California State, Northridge, 1995.
> 
> Update: Torley has now corrected his claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with meyer you delusional fundie ?
Click to expand...

It is connected with the creationist propensity for lies, deceit and fraud that defines so much of the industry co-habited Christian creationist charlatans, you angry fundie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you hope to sidestep is the fact that Meyer, like so many representing the Christian creationist ministries, is not well educated in the subject matter he rattles on about.
> 
> That's one of the reasons why creationist are such laughable buffoons - Casey Luskin is authoring "science" material on behalf of the Disco'tute.
> 
> It's enough to make one cringe, but at the same time, reading these charlatans getting flamed on their own blogs is always good for a bit of schadenfreude
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you're a liar why would anyone in their right mind trust you ?
> 
> Biography
> 
> Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] After graduating, Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.[6] Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[8]
> 
> [edit] Intelligent design
> 
> Meyer is one of a small group of prominent young intelligent design creationist advocates. Other well known creationist advocates include William Dembski, Paul Nelson, and Jonathan Wells.[9] Meyer's involvement in intelligent design (ID) can be traced to his participation in the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' defending Phillip E. Johnson's Darwin on Trial in 1992 or 1993 (in response to Stephen Jay Gould's "devastating"[10] review of it in the July 1992 issue of Scientific American), while with the Philosophy department at Whitworth College.[10] He was later a participant in the first formal meeting devoted to ID, hosted at Southern Methodist University in 1992.[10]
> Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My goodness, a flaming fundie.
> 
> A degree in history and philosophy of science qualifies Meyer as a biologist how?
> 
> Your melodrama is as flaccid as Meyers' fraudulent attempts to pass himself off as qualified to discuss biological mechanisms.
> 
> This is as comical as you claiming to have worked in a biology lab.
Click to expand...


Comprehension problems hollie "Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981" Is he more qualified to speak on this matter concerning the cell than you and your buddies ?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> They'll burn in Hell for their flagrant disregard for God's 9th Commandment, Amen.
> 
> 
> 
> _Can_ I get a _hallelujah_ brothas' and sistas'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you claimed atheism is not a religous view.
Click to expand...


It's not.  Consider if the tables were turned, and God Almighty did Oprah, to tell us how He sent C Darwin to Hell for his sinful work, _On the Origin of Species_.

I personally, would be Atheist no more, drop to my knees and beg His mercy and forgiveness.

See how that works?  *Not dogma*, since new information* is not *rejected in service of older misunderstandings.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you hope to sidestep is the fact that Meyer, like so many representing the Christian creationist ministries, is not well educated in the subject matter he rattles on about.
> 
> That's one of the reasons why creationist are such laughable buffoons - Casey Luskin is authoring "science" material on behalf of the Disco'tute.
> 
> It's enough to make one cringe, but at the same time, reading these charlatans getting flamed on their own blogs is always good for a bit of schadenfreude
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you're a liar why would anyone in their right mind trust you ?
> 
> Biography
> 
> Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] After graduating, Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.[6] Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[8]
> 
> [edit] Intelligent design
> 
> Meyer is one of a small group of prominent young intelligent design creationist advocates. Other well known creationist advocates include William Dembski, Paul Nelson, and Jonathan Wells.[9] Meyer's involvement in intelligent design (ID) can be traced to his participation in the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' defending Phillip E. Johnson's Darwin on Trial in 1992 or 1993 (in response to Stephen Jay Gould's "devastating"[10] review of it in the July 1992 issue of Scientific American), while with the Philosophy department at Whitworth College.[10] He was later a participant in the first formal meeting devoted to ID, hosted at Southern Methodist University in 1992.[10]
> Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CVs notwithstanding, whether embellished or not, the simple truth is: Meyer is blinded by his religious dogma and an embarrassment to the scientific community, if in fact he considers himself a member of it, while also poo-pooing everything science has discovered in regard to the subject matter he speaks to.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.
Click to expand...


Blinded really ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> They'll burn in Hell for their flagrant disregard for God's 9th Commandment, Amen.
> 
> 
> 
> _Can_ I get a _hallelujah_ brothas' and sistas'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you claimed atheism is not a religous view.
Click to expand...


And it is not. 

Back to your madrassah - the gawds command you!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Can_ I get a _hallelujah_ brothas' and sistas'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you claimed atheism is not a religous view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not.  Consider if the tables were turned, and God Almighty did Oprah, to tell us how He sent C Darwin to Hell for his sinful work, _On the Origin of Species_.
> 
> I personally, would be Atheist no more, drop to my knees and beg His mercy and forgiveness.
> 
> See how that works?  *Not dogma*, since new information* is not *rejected in service of older misunderstandings.
Click to expand...


We will see.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you're a liar why would anyone in their right mind trust you ?
> 
> Biography
> 
> Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] After graduating, Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.[6] Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[8]
> 
> [edit] Intelligent design
> 
> Meyer is one of a small group of prominent young intelligent design creationist advocates. Other well known creationist advocates include William Dembski, Paul Nelson, and Jonathan Wells.[9] Meyer's involvement in intelligent design (ID) can be traced to his participation in the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' defending Phillip E. Johnson's Darwin on Trial in 1992 or 1993 (in response to Stephen Jay Gould's "devastating"[10] review of it in the July 1992 issue of Scientific American), while with the Philosophy department at Whitworth College.[10] He was later a participant in the first formal meeting devoted to ID, hosted at Southern Methodist University in 1992.[10]
> Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CVs notwithstanding, whether embellished or not, the simple truth is: Meyer is blinded by his religious dogma and an embarrassment to the scientific community, if in fact he considers himself a member of it, while also poo-pooing everything science has discovered in regard to the subject matter he speaks to.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blinded really ?
Click to expand...


Absolutely.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you claimed atheism is not a religous view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not.  Consider if the tables were turned, and God Almighty did Oprah, to tell us how He sent C Darwin to Hell for his sinful work, _On the Origin of Species_.
> 
> I personally, would be Atheist no more, drop to my knees and beg His mercy and forgiveness.
> 
> See how that works?  *Not dogma*, since new information* is not *rejected in service of older misunderstandings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We will see.
Click to expand...


Some of us are already seeing.  Noodle on that; you might have an epiphany to an extent bordering on biblical.


----------



## UltimateReality

SmarterThanHick said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Just Wow! Above you stated Evolution and Origins weren't related.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I never said that. In fact what I said was "evolution and the origins of life are connected." Do you have trouble reading English, do you unknowingly make up reality as you go, or do you just purposely write drastically incorrect statements because you can't create an honest argument?  You literally stated I said the exact opposite of what was actually said. Do you realize how moronic that makes you look?
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one for you, Mister Evolution is on Par with Gravity: Please provide me a link to one example of experiment where a random mutation resulted in additional information which resulted in natural selection. Please don't make the mistake of linking to the pathetic 20-year-old Ecoli experiment in which destruction of information resulted in mutations. For your theory to work, we need proof of information ADDED by a random mutation. Remember, us "creationists" are claiming the information has always been there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, creationists believe in this made up term called macroevolution which poorly attempts to justify small amounts of new information "not counting" as evolution. To claim no new information is possible shows a complete lack of understanding of the concept of mutation AND evolution. Regardless most creationists do believe new information can be created, and this has been extensively documented in countless experiments:
> Researchers Trace HIV Mutations that Lead to Drug Resistance
> PLOS Biology: The Genetic Basis of Thermal Reaction Norm Evolution in Lab and Natural Phage Populations
> Evolutionary rescue of a green alga kept in the dark. [Biol Lett. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
> Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli
> 
> To name a few examples. To assert that nothing beneficial could possibly come from mutation is incredibly foolish. How do you think bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? We can literally reproduce it from bacteria that are all sensitive to antibiotics in a lab at any time. They acquire beneficial mutations to allow for survival in antibiotics. Most creationists don't even try to contest this. I find it amusing that you do.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it seems like your criteria are that it must be complex, provide function, and occur naturally in the non-living world. Is that correct?  Now when we remove all life from the planet and look at the remaining natural elements, how do you define FUNCTION exactly?  HAHAHA. I do enjoy a good circular reasoning argument. Go on, share yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't even make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, perhaps I misread. Please, provide me with your personal criteria on how to "detect" intelligent design.
Click to expand...


Nice Story. Still waiting for your examples of where genetic information was added.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you're a liar why would anyone in their right mind trust you ?
> 
> Biography
> 
> Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] After graduating, Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.[6] Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[8]
> 
> [edit] Intelligent design
> 
> Meyer is one of a small group of prominent young intelligent design creationist advocates. Other well known creationist advocates include William Dembski, Paul Nelson, and Jonathan Wells.[9] Meyer's involvement in intelligent design (ID) can be traced to his participation in the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' defending Phillip E. Johnson's Darwin on Trial in 1992 or 1993 (in response to Stephen Jay Gould's "devastating"[10] review of it in the July 1992 issue of Scientific American), while with the Philosophy department at Whitworth College.[10] He was later a participant in the first formal meeting devoted to ID, hosted at Southern Methodist University in 1992.[10]
> Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness, a flaming fundie.
> 
> A degree in history and philosophy of science qualifies Meyer as a biologist how?
> 
> Your melodrama is as flaccid as Meyers' fraudulent attempts to pass himself off as qualified to discuss biological mechanisms.
> 
> This is as comical as you claiming to have worked in a biology lab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comprehension problems hollie "Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981" Is he more qualified to speak on this matter concerning the cell than you and your buddies ?
Click to expand...


You certainly are desperate to promote Meyer but, no, he is not. 

Like so many of the charlatans representing Christian ministries, his degree or field of study is strangely dissociated from the fields of biology, paleontology, etc. that would allow him to speak authoritatively on evidence for evolutionary science. 

What Christian creationist won't fess-up to is that the entirety of the creationist agenda is to discredit evolutionary science. That, of course, does nothing to advance the creationist gawds. It's an abysmal failure on the part of creationist ministries because their failed energies at vilifying science only lends an image of fear and desperation to their lies and misrepresentations.


----------



## UltimateReality

SmarterThanHick said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go first. Remember, google is definitely YOUR friend.
> 
> 
> 
> You claim I don't understand the scientific method, but then back away from explaining it yourself. This is your claim, not mine. If you believe, for whatever made up reason, that I don't understand the scientific method, it's your job to to support your claim via correction. Notice how when I claim you're a moron, I can provide specific support to the claim.  Well, I suppose YOU provide support to that claim and I just point it out with other evidence, but you get the idea.
> 
> If you think I don't understand the scientific method, it's your responsibility to show or correct it. But let's face it, this is just another one of your finger-pointing unsupported ad hominem attacks because you can't actually support your own claims, and now you're backpedaling because you were called out on it.
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need. They continually discredit themselves. You will remember a few posts back my comment about making it up as you go along.
> 
> _If falsifiability is essential in science then perhaps evolutionary theory belongs in a different box. Repeatedly evolution sustains contradictory evidence without missing a beat and the latest example is the next step in the long story of horizontal transfer of genomic material. Once evolutionary theory held that when the species were compared they would form an evolutionary tree, common descent, pattern. And when the genes of bacteria violated this pattern, it was said they had been horizontally transferreda complicated mechanism that allows bacteria to trade genetic material with each other rather than merely inheriting it. Suddenly the framework of evolutionary theory was much more fluid as most any genetic pattern could be explained. The horizontal gene transfer explanation was used liberally and it was even recruited and greatly expanded in highly speculative narratives of how early evolution created its designs. But all of that was for bacteria. The higher eukaryote species, evolutionists argued, still very much confirmed the traditional evolutionary tree model. The theory was solid and falsifiable, the evolutionists assured their skeptics. That is, until now. For new research has brought horizontal transfer to the front and center for eukaryotes as well. To wit:
> 
> In higher organisms such as vertebrates, it is generally believed that lateral transfer of genetic information does not readily occur, with the exception of retroviral infection. However, horizontal transfer (HT) of protein coding repetitive elements is the simplest way to explain the patchy distribution of BovB, a long interspersed element (LINE) about 3.2 kb long, that has been found in ruminants, marsupials, squamates, monotremes, and African mammals.
> 
> 
> The point here is not that any of this is impossible. The details of how such horizontal transfer of genetic material could occur and then propagate in the higher species are not well understood. But that doesnt mean it cannot happen. In fact BovB has been found in a reptile tick. So BovB vectors do exist.
> 
> The point, rather, is that this is another example of how failed predictions are so easily sustained by evolutionary theory. And when you sustain failed predictions you crush the theorys explanatory power. *For when a theory explains everything, then it really is nothing more than a tautology.*_
> 
> Darwin's God: Horizontal Transfer Finally Reaches the Eukaryotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _If there is one concept on Earth that has been the absolute bane of human existence (besides global elitism), it would have to be the concept of the majority opinion.  The moment men began refusing to develop their own world views without first asking What does everyone else think?, they set themselves up for an endless future of failures. Human beings desperately want to belong, but, they also desperately want to understand the environment around them.  Often, the desire to belong and the desire to know the truth conflict.  In some societies, in order to be accepted, one must give up on his search for truth and avoid eliciting the anger of others. *The idea of the majority view or the mainstream, gives people the sense that they are a part of a group, and at the same time, gives them the illusion of being informed.*_
> 
> *Their rationale is:
> 
> If most of the population believes something to be true, then, by statistical law, it most likely is true.  Those who do not share in the majority opinion are therefore in opposition to statistical law; meaning they are behind the times, social deviants, or just plain crazy.. *
> 
> Guest Post: The "Majority Opinion" Is An Illusion | Zero Hedge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it hilarious that you falsely accuse me of copying and pasting, when I've done no such thing, and you follow it up with copied and pasted drivel. If you'd like to make a point on your own, please feel free to make it, and I'll shoot you down accordingly.
Click to expand...


Nice dodge to avoid presenting a rebuttal to the information. So let me get this straight, by stating that you don't cut and paste you are somehow inferring that all the information you present is your own??? It must have spontaneously generated in your head just like your evolutionary theory of spontaneous generation.   You're a dimwit.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your criteria for credibility amounts to being "well known"?
> 
> You should be aware that Meyer is a demonstrated hack fronting for the Disco'tute.
> 
> He also has no credentials that would provide for knowledgeable testimony on cell biology. That would account for the blundering incompetence of his work ato the Disco'tute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well educated people who believe in a designer seem to drive you over the edge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you hope to sidestep is the fact that Meyer, like so many representing the Christian creationist ministries, is not well educated in the subject matter he rattles on about.
> 
> That's one of the reasons why creationist are such laughable buffoons - Casey Luskin is authoring "science" material on behalf of the Disco'tute.
> 
> It's enough to make one cringe, but at the same time, reading these charlatans getting flamed on their own blogs is always good for a bit of schadenfreude
Click to expand...


Perhaps you missed this little tidbit...



UltimateReality said:


> *Hawly, you are such a freakin' liar it is pathetic.*  I have told you before and it is easily discovered on the internet that Meyer earned his PhD in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University and his doctoral dissertation was titled: "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of *origin of life studies*." You have repeated over and over that he lacks credentials on the subject matter to which he speaks but you are just repeated the same lie over and over as usual. And your blind atheist sheeple like Daws and NP are quick to jump on your lies and misinformation bandwagon.
> 
> And Huggy is also horribly mis-informed. There are no legitimate scientists that believe that chance can account for the origin of life. Even your high priest Dawkins does not make such an ignorant and stupid assertion. So you couldn't get past the first 4 minutes because of your own incredible ignorance and confirmation bias for false information from atheist agenda websites.
> 
> I have come to the conclusion that you, Daws, and Hawly are just incredibly stupid, or incredibly EVIL. I'll give you all the benefit of the doubt and assume you are EVIL.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos." Credentials or not, baffonery certainly isn't limited to creationists in the least. By the way, was Darwin a scientist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not formally. He received his Bachelor's in Theology from Cambridge, the same university where Meyer would later receive his PhD from. Darwin liked to pretend he was a geologist. Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.
> 
> Hawly likes to ignore the fact that the man she bases her whole pathetic, EVIL religion on had no formal training on the subject on which he wrote a book on, while simultaneously discrediting Meyer, which the ignoramus Daws buys hook, line and sinker and applauds her stupidity. Which way did he go George?? What an angry, evofundie hypocrite Hawly is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The angry fundie is perturbed that Meyer is exposed as a fraud in connection with defining cell biology. But then again, fraudulent credentials are so common among creationist charlatans.
> 
> What the angry fundies hope to avoid addressing is that the theory proposed by Darwin has passed through the filter of the scientific method and has science supported evidence to support the theory.
> 
> Desperate, angry, hyper-religious fundies seek to promote supermagicalism and mysticism as promoted by Christian ministries as a substitute for research and peer-reviewed data. That's why the charlatans are forced to pose in front of green screens in attempts to deceive the gullible that religion supplants science.
Click to expand...


Typical incredibly ignorant post. Gone over a week and nothing changes. How do you not apply the same argument to Darwin's credentials??? Please do tell.


----------



## Koios

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> CVs notwithstanding, whether embellished or not, the simple truth is: Meyer is blinded by his religious dogma and an embarrassment to the scientific community, if in fact he considers himself a member of it, while also poo-pooing everything science has discovered in regard to the subject matter he speaks to.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blinded really ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
Click to expand...


And here's why, Ywc.

Meyer will reject any and all old or new information which would in any way contradict his (and many other's) postulate: 

Sublime order within some/all organisms = some intelligence must be behind it = Christian god is ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL.

And that, I'm sorry to say, if the fucking EPITOME of logical fallasy.

Simple truth, pursuant to 9th Commandment, which is a gooder, IMO, since we humans thought it up and nearly all of us can agree it's as Martha would say, "a good thing."


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you hope to sidestep is the fact that Meyer, like so many representing the Christian creationist ministries, is not well educated in the subject matter he rattles on about.
> 
> That's one of the reasons why creationist are such laughable buffoons - Casey Luskin is authoring "science" material on behalf of the Disco'tute.
> 
> It's enough to make one cringe, but at the same time, reading these charlatans getting flamed on their own blogs is always good for a bit of schadenfreude
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you're a liar why would anyone in their right mind trust you ?
> 
> Biography
> 
> Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] After graduating, Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.[6] Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[8]
> 
> [edit] Intelligent design
> 
> Meyer is one of a small group of prominent young intelligent design creationist advocates. Other well known creationist advocates include William Dembski, Paul Nelson, and Jonathan Wells.[9] Meyer's involvement in intelligent design (ID) can be traced to his participation in the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' defending Phillip E. Johnson's Darwin on Trial in 1992 or 1993 (in response to Stephen Jay Gould's "devastating"[10] review of it in the July 1992 issue of Scientific American), while with the Philosophy department at Whitworth College.[10] He was later a participant in the first formal meeting devoted to ID, hosted at Southern Methodist University in 1992.[10]
> Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My goodness, a flaming fundie.
> 
> A degree in history and philosophy of science qualifies Meyer as a biologist how?
> 
> Your melodrama is as flaccid as Meyers' fraudulent attempts to pass himself off as qualified to discuss biological mechanisms.
> 
> This is as comical as you claiming to have worked in a biology lab.
Click to expand...


His doctoral dissertation was on the origin of life you dimwit.


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not formally. He received his Bachelor's in Theology from Cambridge, the same university where Meyer would later receive his PhD from. Darwin liked to pretend he was a geologist. Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.
> 
> Hawly likes to ignore the fact that the man she bases her whole pathetic, EVIL religion on had no formal training on the subject on which he wrote a book on, while simultaneously discrediting Meyer, which the ignoramus Daws buys hook, line and sinker and applauds her stupidity. Which way did he go George?? What an angry, evofundie hypocrite Hawly is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The angry fundie is perturbed that Meyer is exposed as a fraud in connection with defining cell biology. But then again, fraudulent credentials are so common among creationist charlatans.
> 
> What the angry fundies hope to avoid addressing is that the theory proposed by Darwin has passed through the filter of the scientific method and has science supported evidence to support the theory.
> 
> Desperate, angry, hyper-religious fundies seek to promote supermagicalism and mysticism as promoted by Christian ministries as a substitute for research and peer-reviewed data. That's why the charlatans are forced to pose in front of green screens in attempts to deceive the gullible that religion supplants science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical incredibly ignorant post. Gone over a week and nothing changes. How do you not apply the same argument to Darwin's credentials??? Please do tell.
Click to expand...


Perhaps because it's irrelevant?  Since when did a wrong answer by someone with 80 PhDs doing post-doc studies thrump a correct answer by a Kindergardener?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness, a flaming fundie.
> 
> A degree in history and philosophy of science qualifies Meyer as a biologist how?
> 
> Your melodrama is as flaccid as Meyers' fraudulent attempts to pass himself off as qualified to discuss biological mechanisms.
> 
> This is as comical as you claiming to have worked in a biology lab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comprehension problems hollie "Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981" Is he more qualified to speak on this matter concerning the cell than you and your buddies ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly are desperate to promote Meyer but, no, he is not.
> 
> Like so many of the charlatans representing Christian ministries, his degree or field of study is strangely dissociated from the fields of biology, paleontology, etc. that would allow him to speak authoritatively on evidence for evolutionary science.
> 
> What Christian creationist won't fess-up to is that the entirety of the creationist agenda is to discredit evolutionary science. That, of course, does nothing to advance the creationist gawds. It's an abysmal failure on the part of creationist ministries because their failed energies at vilifying science only lends an image of fear and desperation to their lies and misrepresentations.
Click to expand...


Says the douchebag who has never revealed his/her/its credentials. And then the sheeple douchebag Koios thanks her for her hypocritical post. We are dealing with a bunch of Mensa members here for sure.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blinded really ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here's why, Ywc.
> 
> Meyer will reject any and all old or new information which would in any way contradict his (and many other's) postulate:
> 
> Sublime order within some/all organisms = some intelligence must be behind it = Christian god is ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL.
> 
> And that, I'm sorry to say, if the fucking EPITOME of logical fallasy.
> 
> Simple truth, pursuant to 9th Commandment, which is a gooder, IMO, since we humans thought it up and nearly all of us can agree it's as Martha would say, "a good thing."
Click to expand...


This post shows your incredible ignorance. If you want to even have a shred of credibility left in this discussion you really need to read Signature In The Cell so you don't make such incredibly misinformed stupid comments on the topic.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The angry fundie is perturbed that Meyer is exposed as a fraud in connection with defining cell biology. But then again, fraudulent credentials are so common among creationist charlatans.
> 
> What the angry fundies hope to avoid addressing is that the theory proposed by Darwin has passed through the filter of the scientific method and has science supported evidence to support the theory.
> 
> Desperate, angry, hyper-religious fundies seek to promote supermagicalism and mysticism as promoted by Christian ministries as a substitute for research and peer-reviewed data. That's why the charlatans are forced to pose in front of green screens in attempts to deceive the gullible that religion supplants science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical incredibly ignorant post. Gone over a week and nothing changes. How do you not apply the same argument to Darwin's credentials??? Please do tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps because it's irrelevant?  Since when did a wrong answer by someone with 80 PhDs doing post-doc studies thrump a correct answer by a Kindergardener?
Click to expand...


I don't know. Ask Hawly.


----------



## UltimateReality

I have realized that engaging in the rampant stupidity exhibited by atheist agenda disciples in this thread is hazardous to my intelligence. Peace out until next time.


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's why, Ywc.
> 
> Meyer will reject any and all old or new information which would in any way contradict his (and many other's) postulate:
> 
> Sublime order within some/all organisms = some intelligence must be behind it = Christian god is ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL.
> 
> And that, I'm sorry to say, if the fucking EPITOME of logical fallasy.
> 
> Simple truth, pursuant to 9th Commandment, which is a gooder, IMO, since we humans thought it up and nearly all of us can agree it's as Martha would say, "a good thing."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This post shows your incredible ignorance. If you want to even have a shred of credibility left in this discussion you really need to read _Signature In The Cell _so you don't make such incredibly misinformed stupid comments on the topic.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't work on me; and it's not intended to.  It's for ya'll's consumption, and speaks to the myriad other logical fallacies advanced by Creationists, which again, is a misnomer, since they/you are merely Evolution Denialists.

Some examples of other logical fallacies ...

Mutations do exists, after all = Human Genome Project (plural actually) proves rates don't fit time factors (patently false) = some other force it at play (true; evironment, proteins, no doubt others) = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.

Or ...

Cells have components = some intelligence put it there = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.

Got any more?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well educated people who believe in a designer seem to drive you over the edge.
> 
> 
> 
> What you hope to sidestep is the fact that Meyer, like so many representing the Christian creationist ministries, is not well educated in the subject matter he rattles on about.
> 
> That's one of the reasons why creationist are such laughable buffoons - Casey Luskin is authoring "science" material on behalf of the Disco'tute.
> 
> It's enough to make one cringe, but at the same time, reading these charlatans getting flamed on their own blogs is always good for a bit of schadenfreude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you missed this little tidbit...
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hawly, you are such a freakin' liar it is pathetic.*  I have told you before and it is easily discovered on the internet that Meyer earned his PhD in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University and his doctoral dissertation was titled: "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of *origin of life studies*." You have repeated over and over that he lacks credentials on the subject matter to which he speaks but you are just repeated the same lie over and over as usual. And your blind atheist sheeple like Daws and NP are quick to jump on your lies and misinformation bandwagon.
> 
> And Huggy is also horribly mis-informed. There are no legitimate scientists that believe that chance can account for the origin of life. Even your high priest Dawkins does not make such an ignorant and stupid assertion. So you couldn't get past the first 4 minutes because of your own incredible ignorance and confirmation bias for false information from atheist agenda websites.
> 
> I have come to the conclusion that you, Daws, and Hawly are just incredibly stupid, or incredibly EVIL. I'll give you all the benefit of the doubt and assume you are EVIL.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I didn't miss it. It was just more of the angry, self-hating rhetoric that defines your forgettable comments.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> I have realized that engaging in the rampant stupidity exhibited by atheist agenda disciples in this thread is hazardous to my intelligence. Peace out until next time.



How many more times and in how many more ways can your specious, unsupported, irrevelant, angry, self-refuting claims be dismantled?

It's the will of the gawds!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comprehension problems hollie "Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981" Is he more qualified to speak on this matter concerning the cell than you and your buddies ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly are desperate to promote Meyer but, no, he is not.
> 
> Like so many of the charlatans representing Christian ministries, his degree or field of study is strangely dissociated from the fields of biology, paleontology, etc. that would allow him to speak authoritatively on evidence for evolutionary science.
> 
> What Christian creationist won't fess-up to is that the entirety of the creationist agenda is to discredit evolutionary science. That, of course, does nothing to advance the creationist gawds. It's an abysmal failure on the part of creationist ministries because their failed energies at vilifying science only lends an image of fear and desperation to their lies and misrepresentations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the douchebag who has never revealed his/her/its credentials. And then the sheeple douchebag Koios thanks her for her hypocritical post. We are dealing with a bunch of Mensa members here for sure.
Click to expand...

Oh my. It seems the angry Meyer groupie, while being unable to defend fraudulent credentials of Christian creationists, has only hurling of childish insults to defend his specious claims.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

LittleNipper said:


> Was Darwin a sientist?



Who cares? Let's say for the sake of argument he wasn't a scientist even though he correctly used the scientific method. Let's claim he was a quack.

Well, the countless credentialed scientists that came after him that also accurately utilized the scientific method and bias-free approaches to confirm and expand upon his work were scientists. So remind me what's your point again?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Koios said:


> CVs notwithstanding, whether embellished or not, the simple truth is: Meyer is blinded by his religious dogma and an embarrassment to the scientific community, if in fact he considers himself a member of it, while also poo-pooing everything science has discovered in regard to the subject matter he speaks to.
> 
> Fact, not opinion.



CVs notwithstanding, the bottom line credential behind anyone claiming to do scientific work is if they use the most bias-free protocols for determining if reproducible evidence supports or rejects a hypothesis, better known as the scientific method. 

When it comes to questioning whether creationists are using this bias-reducing method, the answer is a resounding NO across the board.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made it 4 min into the video and seriously.  This guy isn't a scientist.  He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on.   He is a fraud.  Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.
> 
> It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hawly, you are such a freakin' liar it is pathetic.  I have told you before and it is easily discovered on the internet that Meyer earned his PhD in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University and his doctoral dissertation was titled: "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of *origin of life studies*." You have repeated over and over that he lacks credentials on the subject matter to which he speaks but you are just repeated the same lie over and over as usual. And your blind atheist sheeple like Daws and NP are quick to jump on your lies and misinformation bandwagon.
> 
> And Huggy is also horribly mis-informed. There are no legitimate scientists that believe that chance can account for the origin of life. Even your high priest Dawkins does not make such an ignorant and stupid assertion. So you couldn't get past the first 4 minutes because of your own incredible ignorance and confirmation bias for false information from atheist agenda websites.
> 
> I have come to the conclusion that you, Daws, and Hawly are just incredibly stupid, or incredibly EVIL. I'll give you all the benefit of the doubt and assume you are EVIL.
Click to expand...

hey detective douche bag didn't you leave?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

UltimateReality said:


> Nice Story. Still waiting for your examples of where genetic information was added.


Yeah because that takes reading. I have you multiple examples of drug resistance coming about from new genetic information as a result of mutation, along with numerous other survival advantages. We can literally reproduce this in a lab at any time. Even YouWereCreated believes this is possible. It's sad that you don't even understand how basic mutation works and believe yourself suitable to enter this discussion. 

Let me put this another way: do you feel a single one of the links I provided DOES NOT show new genetic information coming from mutation?  Pick one out and tell me why you think it doesn't count. 



UltimateReality said:


> Nice dodge to avoid presenting a rebuttal to the information. So let me get this straight, by stating that you don't cut and paste you are somehow inferring that all the information you present is your own??? It must have spontaneously generated in your head just like your evolutionary theory of spontaneous generation.   You're a dimwit.


You must be new to the internet. or forums. You see copying and pasting others work is seen as moronic. It demonstrates that you aren't even able to understand the concept that someone else is trying to say, and so have to literally vomit what they said verbatim in hopes something in there makes sense to others. In short: make your own point using your big boy words, or leave the thread and let the adults keep talking.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

UltimateReality said:


> His doctoral dissertation was on the origin of life you dimwit.


His doctoral dissertation in HISTORY was on the HISTORY of an evolutionist. Again, you seem to think that reporting on history or philosophy qualifies someone who couldn't get into a science program suddenly qualified in science. 

Do you believe that reporting on the history of other subjects also makes someone qualified in them?  I asked you this before you and avoided it like the plague. Does writing a biography on Mozart make me qualified to play the violin?  Your point, just like that person's attempt to skirt acquiring actual credentials, is laughable.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah good old Number 5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution.
> 
> Your whole theory is built on a house of cards my friend. You can claim your theory starts with a complex cell all day long but this is really just avoiding the hard truth... denialism at its best. How did the information get into the first cell? Even Jodie Foster recognized an intelligent source in the movie Contact when she received a message containing the first 261 prime numbers. She knew there was no way in hell that the message had been generated randomly from outerspace. Yet you buffoons would have us believe the complex information in DNA occurred randomly. Maybe you should take a hint from Jodie.
> 
> Even Darwin thought evolution and the origin of life questions were inextricably connected. Evolutionists like the easy answers and run very hard and fast from the hard questions.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok-Oz7huWFw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your counterargument to the defined limitations of evolution is a sci-fi movie about ALIENS from outer space. Really now?  Please go on. Tell me more about how Jodie Foster teaches you about creationism.
> 
> Who said DNA occurred randomly? I love when hicks say things like that.  It really shows that they're arguing against a concept they don't understand. It's unfortunate you didn't actually know that before entering this discussion.
> 
> And yes, evolution and the origins of life are connected.  And yet they are separate. Connection does not mean "the same thing" Similarly the theory of gravity and how gravity came into existence are connected, and yet we don't need to prove how it got there to know that things roll downhill. Again, you really should have a better understanding of the concept you're failing to discredit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are finally coming around hick you believe everything is being ran by someone or something that things were not developed through randomness.
Click to expand...

wrong again slapdick! your answer is more proof that you are illiterate. you've, by some convoluted logic gleaned wrongly that this " Evolution is not an entirely random process. If has random parts to it, but the end result is far from random." -STH
means this:"You are finally coming around hick you believe everything is being ran by someone or something that things were not developed through randomness." -YWC
(BTW THAT'S RUN BY) 

NOWHERE DOES STH infer, mention, or hint at , a supernatural someone or some thing is behind the scenes directing existence.
that's all you reading in what's not there.
denial of fact at it's finest.


----------



## UltimateReality

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here's why, Ywc.
> 
> Meyer will reject any and all old or new information which would in any way contradict his (and many other's) postulate:
> 
> Sublime order within some/all organisms = some intelligence must be behind it = Christian god is ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL.
> 
> And that, I'm sorry to say, if the fucking EPITOME of logical fallasy.
> 
> Simple truth, pursuant to 9th Commandment, which is a gooder, IMO, since we humans thought it up and nearly all of us can agree it's as Martha would say, "a good thing."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post shows your incredible ignorance. If you want to even have a shred of credibility left in this discussion you really need to read _Signature In The Cell _so you don't make such incredibly misinformed stupid comments on the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't work on me; and it's not intended to.  It's for ya'll's consumption, and speaks to the myriad other logical fallacies advanced by Creationists, which again, is a misnomer, since they/you are merely Evolution Denialists.
> 
> Some examples of other logical fallacies ...
> 
> Mutations do exists, after all = Human Genome Project (plural actually) proves rates don't fit time factors (patently false) = some other force it at play (true; evironment, proteins, no doubt others) = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.
> 
> Or ...
> 
> Cells have components = some intelligence put it there = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.
> 
> Got any more?
Click to expand...


Repeating the same ignorant fallacy won't make it any more applicable to the actual ID argument.


----------



## daws101

hollie said:


> koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> some questionable creationist credentials
> 
> suspicious creationist credentials
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they'll burn in hell for their flagrant disregard for god's 9th commandment, amen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _can_ i get a _hallelujah_ brothas' and sistas'
Click to expand...

 hallelujah! And a do da day!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> They'll burn in Hell for their flagrant disregard for God's 9th Commandment, Amen.
> 
> 
> 
> _Can_ I get a _hallelujah_ brothas' and sistas'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you claimed atheism is not a religous view.
Click to expand...

 IT'S NOT in  the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.




disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. 

Origin:  
158090;  < Greek  áthe ( os ) godless + -ism .

just the opposite of theism : 
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism ). 

2. 
belief in the existence of a god or gods  

as always wrong! and talking out your ass


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> I have realized that engaging in the rampant stupidity exhibited by atheist agenda disciples in this thread is hazardous to my intelligence. Peace out until next time.


translation : nobody's buying the bullshit. UR is in and out of this thread so much he should be a closet!


----------



## Koios

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post shows your incredible ignorance. If you want to even have a shred of credibility left in this discussion you really need to read _Signature In The Cell _so you don't make such incredibly misinformed stupid comments on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't work on me; and it's not intended to.  It's for ya'll's consumption, and speaks to the myriad other logical fallacies advanced by Creationists, which again, is a misnomer, since they/you are merely Evolution Denialists.
> 
> Some examples of other logical fallacies ...
> 
> Mutations do exists, after all = Human Genome Project (plural actually) proves rates don't fit time factors (patently false) = some other force it at play (true; evironment, proteins, no doubt others) = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.
> 
> Or ...
> 
> Cells have components = some intelligence put it there = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.
> 
> Got any more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating the same ignorant fallacy won't make it any more applicable to the actual ID argument.
Click to expand...


We agree.  Imagine you and I agreeing. Please someone: bring me a tissue; I'm getting misty here.

Now then, UR, since we're both real prickly on the subject of fallacies and shit, might some fallacious nonsense be within my comments, aside from those which merely illustrate the fallacies employed by Creationists, an apparent science in which "creation" is studied by ignoring most of evolutionary science and distrorting what's left of it?

Apologies for the run-on question.  Thanks in advance for your speedy reply now that we're all agreeable and shit, praise babygod.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post shows your incredible ignorance. If you want to even have a shred of credibility left in this discussion you really need to read _Signature In The Cell _so you don't make such incredibly misinformed stupid comments on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't work on me; and it's not intended to.  It's for ya'll's consumption, and speaks to the myriad other logical fallacies advanced by Creationists, which again, is a misnomer, since they/you are merely Evolution Denialists.
> 
> Some examples of other logical fallacies ...
> 
> Mutations do exists, after all = Human Genome Project (plural actually) proves rates don't fit time factors (patently false) = some other force it at play (true; evironment, proteins, no doubt others) = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.
> 
> Or ...
> 
> Cells have components = some intelligence put it there = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.
> 
> Got any more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating the same ignorant fallacy won't make it any more applicable to the actual ID argument.
Click to expand...

staying or leaving? the fickle school girl routine is so last year.


----------



## Koios

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you never watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos." Credentials or not, baffonery certainly isn't limited to creationists in the least. By the way, was Darwin a scientist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're suffering real confusion regarding science vs. hyper-religious claims to supernaturalism so I'm happy to lend an assist. Firstly, it's a common tactic of the hyper-religious / science loathing fundie crowd to attack Darwin without understanding his theory.  Darwin was a learned man who presented a theory of common descent with modification. His theory was based upon the rigors of the scientific method and that theory has been supported and confirmed in the last 150 years. As with the other Christian fundies in this thread, you seem to be suggesting a worldwide conspiracy among relevant scientists and teaching universities that involves promotion of those horrible attributes of literacy and education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was Darwin a sientist?
Click to expand...


No; a scientist, in the field of study called "Naturalist," at that time in England.  He was considered as being among the scientific elite, from a young age.

And his later accomplishments, which GREATLY advanced the field of science, certainly suggest the "elite" he was considered when young proved well-founded.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The angry fundie is perturbed that Meyer is exposed as a fraud in connection with defining cell biology. But then again, fraudulent credentials are so common among creationist charlatans.
> 
> What the angry fundies hope to avoid addressing is that the theory proposed by Darwin has passed through the filter of the scientific method and has science supported evidence to support the theory.
> 
> Desperate, angry, hyper-religious fundies seek to promote supermagicalism and mysticism as promoted by Christian ministries as a substitute for research and peer-reviewed data. That's why the charlatans are forced to pose in front of green screens in attempts to deceive the gullible that religion supplants science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical incredibly ignorant post. Gone over a week and nothing changes. How do you not apply the same argument to Darwin's credentials??? Please do tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps because it's irrelevant?  Since when did a wrong answer by someone with 80 PhDs doing post-doc studies thrump a correct answer by a Kindergardener?
Click to expand...


Oh boy


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Darwin a sientist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? Let's say for the sake of argument he wasn't a scientist even though he correctly used the scientific method. Let's claim he was a quack.
> 
> Well, the countless credentialed scientists that came after him that also accurately utilized the scientific method and bias-free approaches to confirm and expand upon his work were scientists. So remind me what's your point again?
Click to expand...


I dare you and the other defenders of the faith to take a look at your theory and predictions vs creationism. Everything on this site can be verified don't look unless you're willing to accept that Science better supports the creationist theory over the evolutionary theory.

It points out evolutionist and creationism Hypothesis supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation, In other words the scientific method.

The Hypothesis of Evolution And Creation Science 


Part two.

The Age of the Earth


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post shows your incredible ignorance. If you want to even have a shred of credibility left in this discussion you really need to read _Signature In The Cell _so you don't make such incredibly misinformed stupid comments on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't work on me; and it's not intended to.  It's for ya'll's consumption, and speaks to the myriad other logical fallacies advanced by Creationists, which again, is a misnomer, since they/you are merely Evolution Denialists.
> 
> Some examples of other logical fallacies ...
> 
> Mutations do exists, after all = Human Genome Project (plural actually) proves rates don't fit time factors (patently false) = some other force it at play (true; evironment, proteins, no doubt others) = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.
> 
> Or ...
> 
> Cells have components = some intelligence put it there = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.
> 
> Got any more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating the same ignorant fallacy won't make it any more applicable to the actual ID argument.
Click to expand...

The "actual ID'iot" argument is really quite simple.

"In all of these efforts, [to promote creationism in schools] the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must." 
_--William J. Bennetta, from "Alabama Will Use Schoolbooks to Spread Lies and Foster Creationism"_

Creationists are fundie Christians. Fundie Christians believe the various Bibles to be the  absolute word of Gawd. Creationism is the extension of fundie Christian belief into the realm of science and scientific endeavour. Creationist believe that the entire universe, the Earth and all life, was created by Gawds in six days between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago as described in the Old Testament's Book of Genesis.

There are minor variations to the script but YEC'ists, ID'iots, etc., hold to the common theme of christian gawds as the "designer gawds".


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Darwin a sientist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? Let's say for the sake of argument he wasn't a scientist even though he correctly used the scientific method. Let's claim he was a quack.
> 
> Well, the countless credentialed scientists that came after him that also accurately utilized the scientific method and bias-free approaches to confirm and expand upon his work were scientists. So remind me what's your point again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dare you and the other defenders of the faith to take a look at your theory and predictions vs creationism. Everything on this site can be verified don't look unless you're willing to accept that Science better supports the creationist theory over the evolutionary theory.
> 
> It points out evolutionist and creationism Hypothesis supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation, In other words the scientific method.
> 
> The Hypothesis of Evolution And Creation Science*
> 
> 
> Part two.
> 
> The Age of the Earth
Click to expand...


Part two would be a contrasting opinion, such as someone from the evolutionist side addressing the same comparitive matters.

What you have is nothing more than a stupid product comparison by the maker of whatever.  It's akin to Coca-Cola doing a comparison of Coke vs. Pepsi.  Whadaya bet Coke might win such a comparison?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Darwin a sientist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? Let's say for the sake of argument he wasn't a scientist even though he correctly used the scientific method. Let's claim he was a quack.
> 
> Well, the countless credentialed scientists that came after him that also accurately utilized the scientific method and bias-free approaches to confirm and expand upon his work were scientists. So remind me what's your point again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dare you and the other defenders of the faith to take a look at your theory and predictions vs creationism. Everything on this site can be verified don't look unless you're willing to accept that Science better supports the creationist theory over the evolutionary theory.
> 
> It points out evolutionist and creationism Hypothesis supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation, In other words the scientific method.
> 
> The Hypothesis of Evolution And Creation Science*
> 
> 
> Part two.
> 
> The Age of the Earth
Click to expand...


From the "about us" section of your slanted copy and paste:



> The website's main purpose after much prayer, is to provide many Christian resources for the purpose of growing in the Lord, and proclaim the Gospel to the lost.  News items was later added due to the ever increasing bias in the media towards Christians. Many topics haven't been covered yet or just touched upon, but will be added to the array of Christian resources on this site. Lord willing...



Puh-rayze  hey-zoos. He ain't willing.


----------



## Koios

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't work on me; and it's not intended to.  It's for ya'll's consumption, and speaks to the myriad other logical fallacies advanced by Creationists, which again, is a misnomer, since they/you are merely Evolution Denialists.
> 
> Some examples of other logical fallacies ...
> 
> Mutations do exists, after all = Human Genome Project (plural actually) proves rates don't fit time factors (patently false) = some other force it at play (true; evironment, proteins, no doubt others) = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.
> 
> Or ...
> 
> Cells have components = some intelligence put it there = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.
> 
> Got any more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating the same ignorant fallacy won't make it any more applicable to the actual ID argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "actual ID'iot" argument is really quite simple.
> 
> "In all of these efforts, [to promote creationism in schools] the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must."
> _--William J. Bennetta, from "Alabama Will Use Schoolbooks to Spread Lies and Foster Creationism"_
> 
> Creationists are fundie Christians. Fundie Christians believe the various Bibles to be the  absolute word of Gawd. Creationism is the extension of fundie Christian belief into the realm of science and scientific endeavour. Creationist believe that the entire universe, the Earth and all life, was created by Gawds in six days between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago as described in the Old Testament's Book of Genesis.
> 
> There are minor variations to the script but YEC'ists, ID'iots, etc., hold to the common theme of christian gawds as the "designer gawds".
Click to expand...


Well said, Hollie and William.  Bow, bow, kudos a many!!!  Perfectly succinct and sublime in it's reasoning and accuracy!!!

Thumbs up, times a googol; or 1 times 10 to the 100th, unless you're a Creationist, in which case it's a number we do not know and thus God is real, which we've proven mathematically!!!!


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah good old Number 5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution.
> 
> Your whole theory is built on a house of cards my friend. You can claim your theory starts with a complex cell all day long but this is really just avoiding the hard truth... denialism at its best. How did the information get into the first cell? Even Jodie Foster recognized an intelligent source in the movie Contact when she received a message containing the first 261 prime numbers. She knew there was no way in hell that the message had been generated randomly from outerspace. Yet you buffoons would have us believe the complex information in DNA occurred randomly. Maybe you should take a hint from Jodie.
> 
> Even Darwin thought evolution and the origin of life questions were inextricably connected. Evolutionists like the easy answers and run very hard and fast from the hard questions.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok-Oz7huWFw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your counterargument to the defined limitations of evolution is a sci-fi movie about ALIENS from outer space. Really now?  Please go on. Tell me more about how Jodie Foster teaches you about creationism.
> 
> Who said DNA occurred randomly? I love when hicks say things like that.  It really shows that they're arguing against a concept they don't understand. Evolution is not an entirely random process. *If has random parts to it, but the end result is far from random.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! Just Wow! Above you stated Evolution and Origins weren't related. Now you post a sentence that insinuates Natural Selection had something to do with the specifiably complex information in DNA. Yawn. You are horribly out matched here. You might want to quit while your behind.
> 
> Here's one for you, Mister Evolution is on Par with Gravity: Please provide me a link to one example of experiment where a random mutation resulted in additional information which resulted in natural selection. Please don't make the mistake of linking to the pathetic 20-year-old Ecoli experiment in which destruction of information resulted in mutations. For your theory to work, we need proof of information ADDED by a random mutation. Remember, us "creationists" are claiming the information has always been there.
Click to expand...


we have the example which I've already provided twice, wherein humans evolved the ability to digest lactase into adulthood through a mutation that increased our survivability.

This is an example of a mutation that survived natural selection. However I don't understand your obsession with information being added. This is not required for a beneficial mutation as evidenced with this example.


----------



## LOki

"These two meanings are worlds apart, and defenders of faith equivocate on these two definitions constantly to try and show that faith is justified. This is logically fallacious, because you are sneakily switching definitions of faith, interchanging them as needed."

Expect nothing else from intellectually and morally disingenuous douche-bags.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hmm no rebuttal,that is usually the case when dealing with the facts.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you claimed atheism is not a religous view.
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT in  the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Click to expand...

The problem with religious nutjobs is that they can't even fathom the concept that someone can procure knowledge without faith that is different but on par with their own. The very idea baffles them. So they assign faith where none existed to avoid addressing any other possibilities. 

But this is ultimately the difference between science and religion. Science strives for bias-free examination, allowing for perspective to be changed based on that evidence, whereas religion requires bias to cherry pick evidence so that faith can be preserved. 




Youwerecreated said:


> I dare you and the other defenders of the faith to take a look at your theory and predictions vs creationism. Everything on this site can be verified don't look unless you're willing to accept that Science better supports the creationist theory over the evolutionary theory.
> 
> It points out evolutionist and creationism Hypothesis supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation, In other words the scientific method.
> 
> The Hypothesis of Evolution And Creation Science*
> 
> 
> Part two.
> 
> The Age of the Earth


And I dare you to make an argument of your own instead of copying and pasting the crap of others. I'm fairly certain I shot down these links previously. In this thread. 

Yes, coherent arguments of your own! Crazy idea! You, who in this very thread have been shown to fabricate evidence and information on the topic. You who in this very thread has shown himself on countless occasion to have absolutely no understanding of the basis of evolution despite despising it. People have actually made lists of all the erroneous things you've said. How is it that you still believe, after being proven wrong so many times about the same things, that you never actually learn anything about evolution? How is that depth of ignorance humanly possible?


----------



## newpolitics

LOki said:


> "These two meanings are worlds apart, and defenders of faith equivocate on these two definitions constantly to try and show that faith is justified. This is logically fallacious, because you are sneakily switching definitions of faith, interchanging them as needed."
> 
> Expect nothing else from intellectually and morally disingenuous douche-bags.



Who write this?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Darwin a sientist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? Let's say for the sake of argument he wasn't a scientist even though he correctly used the scientific method. Let's claim he was a quack.
> 
> Well, the countless credentialed scientists that came after him that also accurately utilized the scientific method and bias-free approaches to confirm and expand upon his work were scientists. So remind me what's your point again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dare you and the other defenders of the faith to take a look at your theory and predictions vs creationism. Everything on this site can be verified don't look unless you're willing to accept that Science better supports the creationist theory over the evolutionary theory.
> It points out evolutionist and creationism Hypothesis supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation, In other words the scientific method.
> The Hypothesis of Evolution And Creation Science*
> Part two.
> 
> The Age of the Earth
Click to expand...


I don't get why creationists have to involve evolution when they want to prove their theory. Disproving a different theory doesn't prove yours right. 
Do you have a link to a site that explains the proof of creation without involving evolution? I'd be interested to read how they prove creation scientifically on their own.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? Let's say for the sake of argument he wasn't a scientist even though he correctly used the scientific method. Let's claim he was a quack.
> 
> Well, the countless credentialed scientists that came after him that also accurately utilized the scientific method and bias-free approaches to confirm and expand upon his work were scientists. So remind me what's your point again?
> 
> 
> 
> I dare you and the other defenders of the faith to take a look at your theory and predictions vs creationism. Everything on this site can be verified don't look unless you're willing to accept that Science better supports the creationist theory over the evolutionary theory.
> It points out evolutionist and creationism Hypothesis supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation, In other words the scientific method.
> The Hypothesis of Evolution And Creation Science*
> Part two.
> 
> The Age of the Earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get why creationists have to involve evolution when they want to prove their theory. Disproving a different theory doesn't prove yours right.
> Do you have a link to a site that explains the proof of creation without involving evolution? I'd be interested to read how they prove creation scientifically on their own.
Click to expand...


To show which theory is more viable not to mention since the introduction of evolution and it has become widely accepted people of faith have been literally treated like they had a plague.God was Kicked out of the schools and atheist highjacked the theory and science trying to remove God from the public as well.Creationists thoughts have been a subject of ridicule in the fields of science even though it was creationist that got the scientific method going.

They are two theories that are at odds with each other. until the science community overwhelmingly rejects the theory you will always see these debates rage.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you claimed atheism is not a religous view.
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT in  the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with religious nutjobs is that they can't even fathom the concept that someone can procure knowledge without faith that is different but on par with their own. The very idea baffles them. So they assign faith where none existed to avoid addressing any other possibilities.
> 
> But this is ultimately the difference between science and religion. Science strives for bias-free examination, allowing for perspective to be changed based on that evidence, whereas religion requires bias to cherry pick evidence so that faith can be preserved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dare you and the other defenders of the faith to take a look at your theory and predictions vs creationism. Everything on this site can be verified don't look unless you're willing to accept that Science better supports the creationist theory over the evolutionary theory.
> 
> It points out evolutionist and creationism Hypothesis supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation, In other words the scientific method.
> 
> The Hypothesis of Evolution And Creation Science*
> 
> 
> Part two.
> 
> The Age of the Earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I dare you to make an argument of your own instead of copying and pasting the crap of others. I'm fairly certain I shot down these links previously. In this thread.
> 
> Yes, coherent arguments of your own! Crazy idea! You, who in this very thread have been shown to fabricate evidence and information on the topic. You who in this very thread has shown himself on countless occasion to have absolutely no understanding of the basis of evolution despite despising it. People have actually made lists of all the erroneous things you've said. How is it that you still believe, after being proven wrong so many times about the same things, that you never actually learn anything about evolution? How is that depth of ignorance humanly possible?
Click to expand...


The only argument I can make is from data that has already been explained. This debate has been raging for many years there is nothing new to introduce to the debate that has not been introduced already.

As we do more study we can introduce new data to the debate but all the major areas of concern have been argued to ad nauseam.

I bring to light many things people are not being taught in school. They blindly accept many theories without knowing the facts.

If you look at this whole thread I have been here since it's start and we pretty much covered everything. I believe a creator or designer is definitely a more credible belief then naturalism. I also believe it is better supported by the evidence observed and put to the test.

My rejections of the theory are the same as many before me.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dare you and the other defenders of the faith to take a look at your theory and predictions vs creationism. Everything on this site can be verified don't look unless you're willing to accept that Science better supports the creationist theory over the evolutionary theory.
> It points out evolutionist and creationism Hypothesis supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation, In other words the scientific method.
> The Hypothesis of Evolution And Creation Science*
> Part two.
> 
> The Age of the Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get why creationists have to involve evolution when they want to prove their theory. Disproving a different theory doesn't prove yours right.
> Do you have a link to a site that explains the proof of creation without involving evolution? I'd be interested to read how they prove creation scientifically on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To show which theory is more viable not to mention since the introduction of evolution and it has become widely accepted people of faith have been literally treated like they had a plague.God was Kicked out of the schools and atheist highjacked the theory and science trying to remove God from the public as well.Creationists thoughts have been a subject of ridicule in the fields of science even though it was creationist that got the scientific method going.
> 
> They are two theories that are at odds with each other. until the science community overwhelmingly rejects the theory you will always see these debates rage.
Click to expand...


The debate goes on, that's cool. But what I'm saying is that evolutionists don't try to prove their theory by discrediting someone else's. Do you have a site that tries to prove creation without attacking something else? Like proof with real scientific facts? Is there even such a site?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get why creationists have to involve evolution when they want to prove their theory. Disproving a different theory doesn't prove yours right.
> Do you have a link to a site that explains the proof of creation without involving evolution? I'd be interested to read how they prove creation scientifically on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To show which theory is more viable not to mention since the introduction of evolution and it has become widely accepted people of faith have been literally treated like they had a plague.God was Kicked out of the schools and atheist highjacked the theory and science trying to remove God from the public as well.Creationists thoughts have been a subject of ridicule in the fields of science even though it was creationist that got the scientific method going.
> 
> They are two theories that are at odds with each other. until the science community overwhelmingly rejects the theory you will always see these debates rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The debate goes on, that's cool. But what I'm saying is that evolutionists don't try to prove their theory by discrediting someone else's. Do you have a site that tries to prove creation without attacking something else? Like proof with real scientific facts? Is there even such a site?
Click to expand...


There are but you can't have one without the other. The atheistic evolutionist do the same thing.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To show which theory is more viable not to mention since the introduction of evolution and it has become widely accepted people of faith have been literally treated like they had a plague.God was Kicked out of the schools and atheist highjacked the theory and science trying to remove God from the public as well.Creationists thoughts have been a subject of ridicule in the fields of science even though it was creationist that got the scientific method going.
> 
> They are two theories that are at odds with each other. until the science community overwhelmingly rejects the theory you will always see these debates rage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The debate goes on, that's cool. But what I'm saying is that evolutionists don't try to prove their theory by discrediting someone else's. Do you have a site that tries to prove creation without attacking something else? Like proof with real scientific facts? Is there even such a site?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are but you can't have one without the other. The atheistic evolutionist do the same thing.
Click to expand...


Atheists are just as deluded as theists. So you have ZERO sites where creation is proven on its own merits? Buddy, that's ridiculous. In other words, creationists have nothing.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> To show which theory is more viable not to mention since the introduction of evolution and it has become widely accepted people of faith have been literally treated like they had a plague.God was Kicked out of the schools and atheist highjacked the theory and science trying to remove God from the public as well.Creationists thoughts have been a subject of ridicule in the fields of science even though it was creationist that got the scientific method going.
> 
> They are two theories that are at odds with each other. until the science community overwhelmingly rejects the theory you will always see these debates rage.


Yeah cuz stupidity should be avoided like the plague. Religion has no place in schools. This is really simple watch this:
Libraries have books
Churches have religion
Firehouses have firefighters
Schools have....  religion?  NO!  Education. You teach whatever unsupported useless things you want at home. Keep your religion away from factual learning. 



Youwerecreated said:


> The only argument I can make is from data that has already been explained. This debate has been raging for many years there is nothing new to introduce to the debate that has not been introduced already.
> 
> As we do more study we can introduce new data to the debate but all the major areas of concern have been argued to ad nauseam.
> 
> I bring to light many things people are not being taught in school. They blindly accept many theories without knowing the facts.
> 
> If you look at this whole thread I have been here since it's start and we pretty much covered everything. I believe a creator or designer is definitely a more credible belief then naturalism. I also believe it is better supported by the evidence observed and put to the test.
> 
> My rejections of the theory are the same as many before me.


Blindly accept theories? When presented with evidence and asked for all the possible explanations, you can't provide any. None. You avoid such academic exercises at all cost. You avoid education like the plague and then wonder why religious nuts are treated like the plague?

Here, let's go over one of my favorite examples that you can't stand to look at. Why do you suppose two of our chromosomes look identical to two great ape chromosomes fused end to end? What are the possibilities? Evolution is one possibility.  Having an intelligent designer trick people to test their faith is another. What explanation do you have.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To show which theory is more viable not to mention since the introduction of evolution and it has become widely accepted people of faith have been literally treated like they had a plague.God was Kicked out of the schools and atheist highjacked the theory and science trying to remove God from the public as well.Creationists thoughts have been a subject of ridicule in the fields of science even though it was creationist that got the scientific method going.
> 
> They are two theories that are at odds with each other. until the science community overwhelmingly rejects the theory you will always see these debates rage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The debate goes on, that's cool. But what I'm saying is that evolutionists don't try to prove their theory by discrediting someone else's. Do you have a site that tries to prove creation without attacking something else? Like proof with real scientific facts? Is there even such a site?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are but you can't have one without the other. The atheistic evolutionist do the same thing.
Click to expand...


It is a shame that in all the time you have spent in this thread, you refuse to learn a single thing. Its as though fundamentalist Christianity is a disease that corrupts the mind.

As it has been pointed out to you repeatedly and tediously, there really isnt a single case in the thread where creationist have made any attempt to offer data or relevant arguments in support of gawds. 

The creationist argument is structured to attack science in lieu of offering positive support for gawds. Creationist attempt to discredit knowledge and scientific research by claiming that what they preach is aligned with science and of course its not. Creationist are explicit regarding their view that if scientific findings contradict the biblical record then science is wrong. In the fundamentalist mindset, science is defined as merely the search for principles of one or more gawds creation. In their twisted worldview of superstition and fear of angry gawds, such principles as reproducible experiments and all theories concerning the natural world must always be subjected to the test of the Bibles. Apart from the obvious absurdity and intellectual dishonesty of this approach, creationist conduct no experiments, submit to no peer review, propose no testable theories and publish no supported work with supportive evidence of their gawds. Instead their every effort amounts to (failed) attempts to undermine and discredit the proven foundations of evolutionary science by misrepresenting scientific findings and falsifying the words and writing of reputable scientists.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> The debate goes on, that's cool. But what I'm saying is that evolutionists don't try to prove their theory by discrediting someone else's. Do you have a site that tries to prove creation without attacking something else? Like proof with real scientific facts? Is there even such a site?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are but you can't have one without the other. The atheistic evolutionist do the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a shame that in all the time you have spent in this thread, you refuse to learn a single thing. It&#8217;s as though fundamentalist Christianity is a disease that corrupts the mind.
> 
> As it has been pointed out to you repeatedly and tediously, there really isn&#8217;t a single case in the thread where creationist have made any attempt to offer data or relevant arguments in support of gawds.
> 
> The creationist argument is structured to attack science in lieu of offering positive support for gawds. Creationist attempt to discredit knowledge and scientific research by claiming that what they preach is aligned with science and of course it&#8217;s not. Creationist are explicit regarding their view that if scientific findings contradict the biblical record then science is wrong. In the fundamentalist mindset, science is defined as merely the search for principles of one or more gawds creation. In their twisted worldview of superstition and fear of angry gawds, such principles as reproducible experiments and all theories concerning the natural world must always be subjected to the test of the Bibles. Apart from the obvious absurdity and intellectual dishonesty of this approach, creationist conduct no experiments, submit to no peer review, propose no testable theories and publish no supported work with supportive evidence of their gawds. Instead their every effort amounts to (failed) attempts to undermine and discredit the proven foundations of evolutionary science by misrepresenting scientific findings and falsifying the words and writing of reputable scientists.
Click to expand...


God is a personal experience and one must be willing to allow God to prove Himself on a personal level. That involves asking God to reveal Himself by the person seeking after God. If one isn't honestly seeking God, that one is lost to himself and no amount of imput by a believer will convince that one of anything. But the reality is that every older friend I know has found God when all other options were gone. So my prayer is that you soon run into that roadblock. However, one may also choose to take one's own life. I personally know of at least 2 cases of that nature...


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are but you can't have one without the other. The atheistic evolutionist do the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame that in all the time you have spent in this thread, you refuse to learn a single thing. Its as though fundamentalist Christianity is a disease that corrupts the mind.
> 
> As it has been pointed out to you repeatedly and tediously, there really isnt a single case in the thread where creationist have made any attempt to offer data or relevant arguments in support of gawds.
> 
> The creationist argument is structured to attack science in lieu of offering positive support for gawds. Creationist attempt to discredit knowledge and scientific research by claiming that what they preach is aligned with science and of course its not. Creationist are explicit regarding their view that if scientific findings contradict the biblical record then science is wrong. In the fundamentalist mindset, science is defined as merely the search for principles of one or more gawds creation. In their twisted worldview of superstition and fear of angry gawds, such principles as reproducible experiments and all theories concerning the natural world must always be subjected to the test of the Bibles. Apart from the obvious absurdity and intellectual dishonesty of this approach, creationist conduct no experiments, submit to no peer review, propose no testable theories and publish no supported work with supportive evidence of their gawds. Instead their every effort amounts to (failed) attempts to undermine and discredit the proven foundations of evolutionary science by misrepresenting scientific findings and falsifying the words and writing of reputable scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is a personal experience and one must be willing to allow God to prove Himself on a personal level. That involves asking God to reveal Himself by the person seeking after God. If one isn't honestly seeking God, that one is lost to himself and no amount of imput by a believer will convince that one of anything. But the reality is that every older friend I know has found God when all other options were gone. So my prayer is that you soon run into that roadblock. However, one may also choose to take one's own life. I personally know of at least 2 cases of that nature...
Click to expand...


People can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive power of fear and superstition and seekt o impose ones personal fears and superstitions upon others seems antithetical to the notion of freedom of choice.

The notion that one can communicate with the denizens of a spirit world is commonplace amongst religionists. Perchance you feel you are in a unique position to intercede on behalf of the gawds and exert influence upon them from whom you seek a favour? In brief, influence peddling.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are but you can't have one without the other. The atheistic evolutionist do the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame that in all the time you have spent in this thread, you refuse to learn a single thing. It&#8217;s as though fundamentalist Christianity is a disease that corrupts the mind.
> 
> As it has been pointed out to you repeatedly and tediously, there really isn&#8217;t a single case in the thread where creationist have made any attempt to offer data or relevant arguments in support of gawds.
> 
> The creationist argument is structured to attack science in lieu of offering positive support for gawds. Creationist attempt to discredit knowledge and scientific research by claiming that what they preach is aligned with science and of course it&#8217;s not. Creationist are explicit regarding their view that if scientific findings contradict the biblical record then science is wrong. In the fundamentalist mindset, science is defined as merely the search for principles of one or more gawds creation. In their twisted worldview of superstition and fear of angry gawds, such principles as reproducible experiments and all theories concerning the natural world must always be subjected to the test of the Bibles. Apart from the obvious absurdity and intellectual dishonesty of this approach, creationist conduct no experiments, submit to no peer review, propose no testable theories and publish no supported work with supportive evidence of their gawds. Instead their every effort amounts to (failed) attempts to undermine and discredit the proven foundations of evolutionary science by misrepresenting scientific findings and falsifying the words and writing of reputable scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is a personal experience and one must be willing to allow God to prove Himself on a personal level. That involves asking God to reveal Himself by the person seeking after God. If one isn't honestly seeking God, that one is lost to himself and no amount of imput by a believer will convince that one of anything. But the reality is that every older friend I know has found God when all other options were gone. So my prayer is that you soon run into that roadblock. However, one may also choose to take one's own life. I personally know of at least 2 cases of that nature...
Click to expand...

so you're saying is,  it's either god or death?
it must suck to be you..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame that in all the time you have spent in this thread, you refuse to learn a single thing. Its as though fundamentalist Christianity is a disease that corrupts the mind.
> 
> As it has been pointed out to you repeatedly and tediously, there really isnt a single case in the thread where creationist have made any attempt to offer data or relevant arguments in support of gawds.
> 
> The creationist argument is structured to attack science in lieu of offering positive support for gawds. Creationist attempt to discredit knowledge and scientific research by claiming that what they preach is aligned with science and of course its not. Creationist are explicit regarding their view that if scientific findings contradict the biblical record then science is wrong. In the fundamentalist mindset, science is defined as merely the search for principles of one or more gawds creation. In their twisted worldview of superstition and fear of angry gawds, such principles as reproducible experiments and all theories concerning the natural world must always be subjected to the test of the Bibles. Apart from the obvious absurdity and intellectual dishonesty of this approach, creationist conduct no experiments, submit to no peer review, propose no testable theories and publish no supported work with supportive evidence of their gawds. Instead their every effort amounts to (failed) attempts to undermine and discredit the proven foundations of evolutionary science by misrepresenting scientific findings and falsifying the words and writing of reputable scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is a personal experience and one must be willing to allow God to prove Himself on a personal level. That involves asking God to reveal Himself by the person seeking after God. If one isn't honestly seeking God, that one is lost to himself and no amount of imput by a believer will convince that one of anything. But the reality is that every older friend I know has found God when all other options were gone. So my prayer is that you soon run into that roadblock. However, one may also choose to take one's own life. I personally know of at least 2 cases of that nature...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you're saying is,  it's either god or death?
> it must suck to be you..
Click to expand...


We all will eventually die until the new kingdom comes in to power. Many are choosing everlasting death over everlasting life what is your point ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> The debate goes on, that's cool. But what I'm saying is that evolutionists don't try to prove their theory by discrediting someone else's. Do you have a site that tries to prove creation without attacking something else? Like proof with real scientific facts? Is there even such a site?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are but you can't have one without the other. The atheistic evolutionist do the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a shame that in all the time you have spent in this thread, you refuse to learn a single thing. Its as though fundamentalist Christianity is a disease that corrupts the mind.
> 
> As it has been pointed out to you repeatedly and tediously, there really isnt a single case in the thread where creationist have made any attempt to offer data or relevant arguments in support of gawds.
> 
> The creationist argument is structured to attack science in lieu of offering positive support for gawds. Creationist attempt to discredit knowledge and scientific research by claiming that what they preach is aligned with science and of course its not. Creationist are explicit regarding their view that if scientific findings contradict the biblical record then science is wrong. In the fundamentalist mindset, science is defined as merely the search for principles of one or more gawds creation. In their twisted worldview of superstition and fear of angry gawds, such principles as reproducible experiments and all theories concerning the natural world must always be subjected to the test of the Bibles. Apart from the obvious absurdity and intellectual dishonesty of this approach, creationist conduct no experiments, submit to no peer review, propose no testable theories and publish no supported work with supportive evidence of their gawds. Instead their every effort amounts to (failed) attempts to undermine and discredit the proven foundations of evolutionary science by misrepresenting scientific findings and falsifying the words and writing of reputable scientists.
Click to expand...


Talk origins is not guilty of these very things ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To show which theory is more viable not to mention since the introduction of evolution and it has become widely accepted people of faith have been literally treated like they had a plague.God was Kicked out of the schools and atheist highjacked the theory and science trying to remove God from the public as well.Creationists thoughts have been a subject of ridicule in the fields of science even though it was creationist that got the scientific method going.
> 
> They are two theories that are at odds with each other. until the science community overwhelmingly rejects the theory you will always see these debates rage.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah cuz stupidity should be avoided like the plague. Religion has no place in schools. This is really simple watch this:
> Libraries have books
> Churches have religion
> Firehouses have firefighters
> Schools have....  religion?  NO!  Education. You teach whatever unsupported useless things you want at home. Keep your religion away from factual learning.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only argument I can make is from data that has already been explained. This debate has been raging for many years there is nothing new to introduce to the debate that has not been introduced already.
> 
> As we do more study we can introduce new data to the debate but all the major areas of concern have been argued to ad nauseam.
> 
> I bring to light many things people are not being taught in school. They blindly accept many theories without knowing the facts.
> 
> If you look at this whole thread I have been here since it's start and we pretty much covered everything. I believe a creator or designer is definitely a more credible belief then naturalism. I also believe it is better supported by the evidence observed and put to the test.
> 
> My rejections of the theory are the same as many before me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blindly accept theories? When presented with evidence and asked for all the possible explanations, you can't provide any. None. You avoid such academic exercises at all cost. You avoid education like the plague and then wonder why religious nuts are treated like the plague?
> 
> Here, let's go over one of my favorite examples that you can't stand to look at. Why do you suppose two of our chromosomes look identical to two great ape chromosomes fused end to end? What are the possibilities? Evolution is one possibility.  Having an intelligent designer trick people to test their faith is another. What explanation do you have.
Click to expand...


You show ignorance when you go on your fundie rants by claiming that believers are stupid. What really scares you is that you know creationist are well educated and well equipped to take on atheistic evolutionist. You know they are not ignorant of the facts.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are but you can't have one without the other. The atheistic evolutionist do the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame that in all the time you have spent in this thread, you refuse to learn a single thing. Its as though fundamentalist Christianity is a disease that corrupts the mind.
> 
> As it has been pointed out to you repeatedly and tediously, there really isnt a single case in the thread where creationist have made any attempt to offer data or relevant arguments in support of gawds.
> 
> The creationist argument is structured to attack science in lieu of offering positive support for gawds. Creationist attempt to discredit knowledge and scientific research by claiming that what they preach is aligned with science and of course its not. Creationist are explicit regarding their view that if scientific findings contradict the biblical record then science is wrong. In the fundamentalist mindset, science is defined as merely the search for principles of one or more gawds creation. In their twisted worldview of superstition and fear of angry gawds, such principles as reproducible experiments and all theories concerning the natural world must always be subjected to the test of the Bibles. Apart from the obvious absurdity and intellectual dishonesty of this approach, creationist conduct no experiments, submit to no peer review, propose no testable theories and publish no supported work with supportive evidence of their gawds. Instead their every effort amounts to (failed) attempts to undermine and discredit the proven foundations of evolutionary science by misrepresenting scientific findings and falsifying the words and writing of reputable scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk origins is not guilty of these very things ?
Click to expand...


Given what hollie just said (that I agree with), YWC you seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so does not having any real scientific facts about creation ever bother you?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is a personal experience and one must be willing to allow God to prove Himself on a personal level. That involves asking God to reveal Himself by the person seeking after God. If one isn't honestly seeking God, that one is lost to himself and no amount of imput by a believer will convince that one of anything. But the reality is that every older friend I know has found God when all other options were gone. So my prayer is that you soon run into that roadblock. However, one may also choose to take one's own life. I personally know of at least 2 cases of that nature...
> 
> 
> 
> so you're saying is,  it's either god or death?
> it must suck to be you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all will eventually die until the new kingdom comes in to power. Many are choosing everlasting death over everlasting life what is your point ?
Click to expand...



Classic fundamentalist Christian tactics: the use fear and intimidation as a coercive effort. 

As an Atheist, Im not saddled with the compulsive admonition of believe as youre told or be consigned to everlasting pain and torment.  Think about it, what is the best way to get someone to believe as you wish for them to? FEAR. Scare the hell out of him. Tell the people that evolutionist are on a paved road to hell....and you will deter them (for a time) until they LEARN better.

Secondly, you make another of the typical fundamentalist Christian claims of some alleged kingdom established by some alleged gawds. Which gawd(s)?.  You must first define your terms here. What do you mean by "gawd"? There are many conceptions of gawds, ranging from incorporeal entities to long haired hippies walking around in sandals. Additionally, there have been something on the order of 14,000 versions of gawd(s). Can you make the irrefutable case of your conception of gawds having primacy over all others? 
No, obviously you cant. 

Your conception of gawds is simply one that has been hurled at you, using the same tactics of fear and intimidation that you now use to hurl at others. Effectively, you're just another hater, one who has been abused by tactics of fear and intimidation who now attempts to inflict that fear and intimidation on others.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are but you can't have one without the other. The atheistic evolutionist do the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame that in all the time you have spent in this thread, you refuse to learn a single thing. It&#8217;s as though fundamentalist Christianity is a disease that corrupts the mind.
> 
> As it has been pointed out to you repeatedly and tediously, there really isn&#8217;t a single case in the thread where creationist have made any attempt to offer data or relevant arguments in support of gawds.
> 
> The creationist argument is structured to attack science in lieu of offering positive support for gawds. Creationist attempt to discredit knowledge and scientific research by claiming that what they preach is aligned with science and of course it&#8217;s not. Creationist are explicit regarding their view that if scientific findings contradict the biblical record then science is wrong. In the fundamentalist mindset, science is defined as merely the search for principles of one or more gawds creation. In their twisted worldview of superstition and fear of angry gawds, such principles as reproducible experiments and all theories concerning the natural world must always be subjected to the test of the Bibles. Apart from the obvious absurdity and intellectual dishonesty of this approach, creationist conduct no experiments, submit to no peer review, propose no testable theories and publish no supported work with supportive evidence of their gawds. Instead their every effort amounts to (failed) attempts to undermine and discredit the proven foundations of evolutionary science by misrepresenting scientific findings and falsifying the words and writing of reputable scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk origins is not guilty of these very things ?
Click to expand...


You can't support your claim with evidence?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame that in all the time you have spent in this thread, you refuse to learn a single thing. Its as though fundamentalist Christianity is a disease that corrupts the mind.
> 
> As it has been pointed out to you repeatedly and tediously, there really isnt a single case in the thread where creationist have made any attempt to offer data or relevant arguments in support of gawds.
> 
> The creationist argument is structured to attack science in lieu of offering positive support for gawds. Creationist attempt to discredit knowledge and scientific research by claiming that what they preach is aligned with science and of course its not. Creationist are explicit regarding their view that if scientific findings contradict the biblical record then science is wrong. In the fundamentalist mindset, science is defined as merely the search for principles of one or more gawds creation. In their twisted worldview of superstition and fear of angry gawds, such principles as reproducible experiments and all theories concerning the natural world must always be subjected to the test of the Bibles. Apart from the obvious absurdity and intellectual dishonesty of this approach, creationist conduct no experiments, submit to no peer review, propose no testable theories and publish no supported work with supportive evidence of their gawds. Instead their every effort amounts to (failed) attempts to undermine and discredit the proven foundations of evolutionary science by misrepresenting scientific findings and falsifying the words and writing of reputable scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk origins is not guilty of these very things ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't support your claim with evidence?
Click to expand...


All you have to do is go their and open your eyes why do you post so much from that site ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

This country is divided in politics and religous beliefs.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk origins is not guilty of these very things ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't support your claim with evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have to do is go their and open your eyes why do you post so much from that site ?
Click to expand...


As you have demonstrated, You can't support your claim with evidence. Just more of the creationist propensity for lies and deceit.


----------



## ima

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame that in all the time you have spent in this thread, you refuse to learn a single thing. Its as though fundamentalist Christianity is a disease that corrupts the mind.
> 
> As it has been pointed out to you repeatedly and tediously, there really isnt a single case in the thread where creationist have made any attempt to offer data or relevant arguments in support of gawds.
> 
> The creationist argument is structured to attack science in lieu of offering positive support for gawds. Creationist attempt to discredit knowledge and scientific research by claiming that what they preach is aligned with science and of course its not. Creationist are explicit regarding their view that if scientific findings contradict the biblical record then science is wrong. In the fundamentalist mindset, science is defined as merely the search for principles of one or more gawds creation. In their twisted worldview of superstition and fear of angry gawds, such principles as reproducible experiments and all theories concerning the natural world must always be subjected to the test of the Bibles. Apart from the obvious absurdity and intellectual dishonesty of this approach, creationist conduct no experiments, submit to no peer review, propose no testable theories and publish no supported work with supportive evidence of their gawds. Instead their every effort amounts to (failed) attempts to undermine and discredit the proven foundations of evolutionary science by misrepresenting scientific findings and falsifying the words and writing of reputable scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk origins is not guilty of these very things ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given what hollie just said (that I agree with), YWC you seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so does not having any real scientific facts about creation ever bother you?
Click to expand...


So that's a YES!


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame that in all the time you have spent in this thread, you refuse to learn a single thing. Its as though fundamentalist Christianity is a disease that corrupts the mind.
> 
> As it has been pointed out to you repeatedly and tediously, there really isnt a single case in the thread where creationist have made any attempt to offer data or relevant arguments in support of gawds.
> 
> The creationist argument is structured to attack science in lieu of offering positive support for gawds. Creationist attempt to discredit knowledge and scientific research by claiming that what they preach is aligned with science and of course its not. Creationist are explicit regarding their view that if scientific findings contradict the biblical record then science is wrong. In the fundamentalist mindset, science is defined as merely the search for principles of one or more gawds creation. In their twisted worldview of superstition and fear of angry gawds, such principles as reproducible experiments and all theories concerning the natural world must always be subjected to the test of the Bibles. Apart from the obvious absurdity and intellectual dishonesty of this approach, creationist conduct no experiments, submit to no peer review, propose no testable theories and publish no supported work with supportive evidence of their gawds. Instead their every effort amounts to (failed) attempts to undermine and discredit the proven foundations of evolutionary science by misrepresenting scientific findings and falsifying the words and writing of reputable scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk origins is not guilty of these very things ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given what hollie just said (that I agree with), YWC you seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so does not having any real scientific facts about creation ever bother you?
Click to expand...


I have seen enough evidence for me to believe. I was once a doubter like many here. from the evidence I have seen has brought me to my faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't support your claim with evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is go their and open your eyes why do you post so much from that site ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have demonstrated, You can't support your claim with evidence. Just more of the creationist propensity for lies and deceit.
Click to expand...


Hollie you ignored my question,why ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk origins is not guilty of these very things ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given what hollie just said (that I agree with), YWC you seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so does not having any real scientific facts about creation ever bother you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's a YES!
Click to expand...


That would be a no


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't support your claim with evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is go their and open your eyes why do you post so much from that site ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have demonstrated, You can't support your claim with evidence. Just more of the creationist propensity for lies and deceit.
Click to expand...


Hollie why have all the experimentation for macroevolution failed or even small scale microadaptations . Why can't they show mutation fixation through long running experiments ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is go their and open your eyes why do you post so much from that site ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you have demonstrated, You can't support your claim with evidence. Just more of the creationist propensity for lies and deceit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie you ignored my question,why ?
Click to expand...

You're inventing delusional claims, why?


----------



## zombiehunter696

Youwerecreated said:


> I have seen enough evidence for me to believe. I was once a doubter like many here. from the evidence I have seen has brought me to my faith.



You guys talk a lot about evidence for creation, but when asked to present it, you never seem to be able to. Just the usual "oh it's there. Just look"

Arguments from ignorance and Bible passages are not evidence by the way.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is go their and open your eyes why do you post so much from that site ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you have demonstrated, You can't support your claim with evidence. Just more of the creationist propensity for lies and deceit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie why have all the experimentation for macroevolution failed or even small scale microadaptations . Why can't they show mutation fixation through long running experiments ?
Click to expand...


There is testable and demonstrated evidence for adaptation, which is a function of fitness for survival which is demonstration of evolution. Many examples have provided to you in this thread, yet you continue to ignore the scientific data. 

It really is remarkable that your every waking moment is spent in frantic attempts to vilify science as a cover for your inability to present positive evidence of your alleged gawds.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk origins is not guilty of these very things ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given what hollie just said (that I agree with), YWC you seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so does not having any real scientific facts about creation ever bother you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen enough evidence for me to believe. I was once a doubter like many here. from the evidence I have seen has brought me to my faith.
Click to expand...


Your "evidence" amounts to anecdotal stories, cultural / familial biases and personal opinions. Let's be honest, if you had been raised in a culture / familial environment where different gawds represented the majority religion, those gawds would have been your gawds, not of choice but of circumstance.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk origins is not guilty of these very things ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given what hollie just said (that I agree with), YWC you seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so does not having any real scientific facts about creation ever bother you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen enough evidence for me to believe. I was once a doubter like many here. from the evidence I have seen has brought me to my faith.
Click to expand...


So not having any real scientific facts to back up your beliefs doesn't matter to you? 
So what's it like living in a fantasy world?


----------



## Youwerecreated

zombiehunter696 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen enough evidence for me to believe. I was once a doubter like many here. from the evidence I have seen has brought me to my faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys talk a lot about evidence for creation, but when asked to present it, you never seem to be able to. Just the usual "oh it's there. Just look"
> 
> Arguments from ignorance and Bible passages are not evidence by the way.
Click to expand...


Evidence of design in the heavens as well as here on this planet and throughout nature.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you have demonstrated, You can't support your claim with evidence. Just more of the creationist propensity for lies and deceit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie why have all the experimentation for macroevolution failed or even small scale microadaptations . Why can't they show mutation fixation through long running experiments ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is testable and demonstrated evidence for adaptation, which is a function of fitness for survival which is demonstration of evolution. Many examples have provided to you in this thread, yet you continue to ignore the scientific data.
> 
> It really is remarkable that your every waking moment is spent in frantic attempts to vilify science as a cover for your inability to present positive evidence of your alleged gawds.
Click to expand...


False,Hollie since Pierre Grasse until to today they have experimented with many organisms mostly on flies where they tested both nturally occurring mutations and induced mutations there was no mutation fixation ever observed. We saw less fitness what little changes were observed eventually new generations exp gene recombination and the temoprary changes went away.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given what hollie just said (that I agree with), YWC you seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so does not having any real scientific facts about creation ever bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen enough evidence for me to believe. I was once a doubter like many here. from the evidence I have seen has brought me to my faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "evidence" amounts to anecdotal stories, cultural / familial biases and personal opinions. Let's be honest, if you had been raised in a culture / familial environment where different gawds represented the majority religion, those gawds would have been your gawds, not of choice but of circumstance.
Click to expand...


You are just wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given what hollie just said (that I agree with), YWC you seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so does not having any real scientific facts about creation ever bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen enough evidence for me to believe. I was once a doubter like many here. from the evidence I have seen has brought me to my faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So not having any real scientific facts to back up your beliefs doesn't matter to you?
> So what's it like living in a fantasy world?
Click to expand...


Fact is design in nature is observed.

What facts do you have to prove that design in nature is only an appearance as being designed claimed by evolutionist ? do admit things appear to have been designed.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen enough evidence for me to believe. I was once a doubter like many here. from the evidence I have seen has brought me to my faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So not having any real scientific facts to back up your beliefs doesn't matter to you?
> So what's it like living in a fantasy world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is design in nature is observed.
> 
> What facts do you have to prove that design in nature is only an appearance as being designed claimed by evolutionist ? do admit things appear to have been designed.
Click to expand...


All you have is a theory not supported by scientific facts. And no, I can't say that the universe and everything in it was designed. There's just no proof of a designer, you admit as much. There COULD be a designer, that's why I'm an agnostic and not an atheist: no proof has been shown either way that a designer exists or not, but if you ever find some, I'm open to changing my mind in front of real proof of the designer.


----------



## zombiehunter696

Youwerecreated said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen enough evidence for me to believe. I was once a doubter like many here. from the evidence I have seen has brought me to my faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys talk a lot about evidence for creation, but when asked to present it, you never seem to be able to. Just the usual "oh it's there. Just look"
> 
> Arguments from ignorance and Bible passages are not evidence by the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence of design in the heavens as well as here on this planet and throughout nature.
Click to expand...


So it's the classic "oh, it's there. Just look" response? Not like I expected anything more?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen enough evidence for me to believe. I was once a doubter like many here. from the evidence I have seen has brought me to my faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "evidence" amounts to anecdotal stories, cultural / familial biases and personal opinions. Let's be honest, if you had been raised in a culture / familial environment where different gawds represented the majority religion, those gawds would have been your gawds, not of choice but of circumstance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just wrong.
Click to expand...


Not wrong at all. Youre just really very typical when it comes to religious belief. Like most religionists, you did nothing more thoughtful or introspective about your religious belief than accept the religion of your family. Theres nothing profound or thought provoking in that, it just makes you predictable. What is also predictable is your willingness to use your religion as a mechanism of hate.

Invariably those who hurl the darkest invectives tend to be the most the most chaotic thinkers. There is definitely a strong link between people who believe fervently in their religions (to the point of wishing harm to any and all who disagree) and an appalling lack of even the most rudimentary levels of education. Having read the Bible cover to cover, I'm not surprised at this interlocking phenomenum-- the Bible advocates ignorance, and religions based on the Bible historically have stood in the way of education and literacy. What better way to convince the populace, if not to keep them illiterate?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen enough evidence for me to believe. I was once a doubter like many here. from the evidence I have seen has brought me to my faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys talk a lot about evidence for creation, but when asked to present it, you never seem to be able to. Just the usual "oh it's there. Just look"
> 
> Arguments from ignorance and Bible passages are not evidence by the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence of design in the heavens as well as here on this planet and throughout nature.
Click to expand...


Of course, dear. 

It's just strange that as science and literay have advanced, claims to gawds, miracles, supermagical entities have retreated. 

Humanity is evolving away from mythologies, that much is clear. Religious beliefs have nowhere near the power and clout they used to, and as science progresses forward, the god of the gaps pleadings get thinner and thinner. Once, gawds opened every flower, now, they're reduced to tales and fables used to induce fear and coerce behaviors . One day, that too will be taken away from them as they are merely myth and always has been. 

Will it be borne out? Speculatively, everything we've learned so far shows that the theisms are simply poetic perceptions of existence, important for their time, less relevant as we progress and learn the truth about existence. So yes, eventually when we come to the finish line of what is Truth, the natural explanation will reign supreme. They already do.


----------



## Youwerecreated

zombiehunter696 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys talk a lot about evidence for creation, but when asked to present it, you never seem to be able to. Just the usual "oh it's there. Just look"
> 
> Arguments from ignorance and Bible passages are not evidence by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence of design in the heavens as well as here on this planet and throughout nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it's the classic "oh, it's there. Just look" response? Not like I expected anything more?
Click to expand...


Dose of reality. Let's begin with our Finely Tuned Universe then we can discuss just this planet and the organisms that inhabit this planet. Let's just see the miracles you believe in since you can't see evidence of design.

Our Finely Tuned Universe



by 

Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
Brad Harrub, Ph.D.



 Imagine donning a gown and mask, and walking into the operating suite of a Level One trauma center. That cool, sterile environment exudes extreme order and neatnessafter all, surgeons need to have instant access to a multitude of surgical supplies. Lives are at stake, and time is of the utmost importance. Now, consider for a moment if someone were to suggest that this precisely ordered surgical suite happened by mere chance, and that every single item just happened to find its way there by chance. Sound ludicrous? Well, then, consider for a moment how ludicrous it is for men dressed in starched white lab coats to stand before college students and proclaim that this finely tuned Universe just happened without any intervention. It is an undeniable fact that the Universe is delicately ordered and intricately complexfar more so than any operating room. Yet, we continue to be told that we, and the Universe around us, are the end result of some vast, inexplicable cosmological accident that occurred 13.7 billion years ago.

How can this bein light of the impressive amount (and quality) of design that we routinely see all around us? Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies, in his book, The Cosmic Blueprint, opined:

There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all.... It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned natures numbers to make the Universe.... The impression of design is overwhelming (1988, p. 203, emp. added).

Our Universe is indeed fine-tuned in such a way that it is impossible to suggest logically that it simply popped into existence out of nothing and then went from the chaos associated with the inflationary Big Bang Model (as if the Universe were a giant firecracker!) to the sublime order that it presently exhibits. Nancey Murphy and George Ellis discussed this very point in their book, On the Moral Nature of the Universe:

The symmetries and delicate balances we observe in the universe require an extraordinary coherence of conditions and cooperation of laws and effects, suggesting that in some sense they have been purposely designed. That is, they give evidence of intention, realized both in the setting of the laws of physics and in the choice of boundary conditions for the universe (1996, p. 57, emp. added).

The suggestion that the Universe and its laws have been purposely designed has surfaced much more frequently in the past several years. For example, the late British cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle wrote:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question (1982, 20:16).

In his book, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, Davies made this amazing statement:

If nature is so clever as to exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of intelligent design behind the universe? If the worlds finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance? (1984, pp. 235-236, emp. added).

Eight years later, in 1992, Davies authored The Mind of God, in which he remarked:

I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama.... Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor by-product of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here (1992, p. 232, emp. added).

That we are truly meant to be here is reminiscent of the statement made by physicist Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study. In his semi-autobiographical book, Disturbing the Universe, Dyson stated:

...[T]he universe is an unexpectedly hospitable place for living creatures to make their home in. Being a scientist, trained in the habits of thought and language of the twentieth century rather than the eighteenth, I do not claim that the architecture of the universe proves the existence of God. I claim only that the architecture of the universe is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays an essential role in its functioning.... The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming (1979, pp. 250,251, emp. added).

The idea that in some sense the Universe must have known that we were coming, is the same sentiment expressed by two prominent cosmologists, Frank Tipler and John Barrow, in their 1986 book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, which discussed the possibility that the Universe seems to have been tailor-made for man. Interestingly, a mere eight years after that book was published, Dr. Tipler authored another book, The Physics of Immortality, in which he professed:

When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics (1994, preface).

In 1995, NASA astronomer John OKeefe stated in an interview:

We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.... If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in (as quoted in Heeren, 1995, p. 200).

Then, thirteen years after British molecular biologist Michael Denton published his 1985 book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, he shocked everyoneespecially his evolutionist colleagueswhen he published his 1998 tome, Natures Destiny, in which he acknowledged:

Whether one accepts or rejects the design hypothesis...there is no avoiding the conclusion that the world looks as if it has been tailored for life; it appears to have been designed. All reality appears to be a vast, coherent, teleological whole with life and mankind as its purpose and goal (p. 387, emp. in orig.).

Fred Hoyle, in addressing the fine-tuning of the nuclear resonances responsible for the oxygen and carbon synthesis in stars, observed:

I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part of a deep-laid scheme. If not, then we are back again at a monstrous sequence of accidents (1959, emp. added).

When we (to use Hoyles words) examine the evidence, what do we find? Michael J. Murray answered:

Almost everything about the basic structure of the universefor example, the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial distribution of matter and energyis balanced on a razors edge for life to occur.... Scientists call this extraordinary balancing of the parameters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe the fine-tuning of the cosmos (1999, p. 48, emp. added).

But what is the evidence for that fine-tuning of the cosmos? Consider just a small sampling of the many pieces of evidence that are available.

Our Universe operates in accordance with exact scientific laws. The precision of the Universe, and the exactness of these laws, allow scientists to launch rockets to the Moon, with the full knowledge that, upon their arrival, they can land within a few feet of their intended target. Such precision and exactness also allow astronomers to predict solar/lunar eclipses years in advance, or to determine when Halleys Comet can be seen once again from the Earth. Science writer Lincoln Barnett observed:

This functional harmony of nature Berkeley, Descartes, and Spinoza attributed to God. Modern physicists who prefer to solve their problems without recourse to God (although this seems to be more difficult all the time) emphasize that nature mysteriously operates on mathematical principles. It is the mathematical orthodoxy of the Universe that enables theorists like Einstein to predict and discover natural laws, simply by the solution of equations (1959, p. 22, parenthetical item in orig.)

While many evolutionists willingly concede complexityand even orderthey are not prepared to concede design because the implication of such a concession would demand a Designer. Is there evidence of design? The person who does not believe in a Creator claims no such evidence exists. The individual who acknowledges the existence of that Creator, affirms that it does, and offers the following information in support of such an affirmation.

We live in an incredibly large Universe. While its outer limits have not been measured, it is estimated to be as much as 20 billion light-years in diameter. [A light-year is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one year at a speed of slightly more than 186,000 miles per second. Distances expressed in light-years express the time that light would take to cross that distance.] There are an estimated one billion galaxies in the Universe (Lawton, 1981), and an estimated 25 sextillion stars. The Milky Way galaxy in which we live contains over 100 billion stars, and is so large that even traveling at the speed of light would require 100,000 years to cross its diameter. Light travels approximately 5.88 x 1012 miles in a single year; in 100,000 years, that would be 5.88 x 1017 miles, or 588 quadrillion miles just to cross the diameter of a single galaxy. Without doubt, this is a rather impressive Universe.

Yet while the size itself is impressive, the inherent design is even more so. The Sun, which is like a giant nuclear engine, gives off more energy in a single second than mankind has produced since the Creation. It converts eight million tons of matter into energy every single second, and has an interior temperature of more than twenty million degrees Celsius (see Lawton, 1981). The Sun also produces radiation, which, in certain amounts, can be deadly to living things. The Earth, however, is located at exactly the correct distance from the Sun to receive the proper amount of heat and radiation to permit life as we know it. We should be grateful that we live so far from the Sun, because the 93 million miles of empty space between the Earth and the Sun help stop the destructive pressure waves produced by the Sun as it converts matter to energy. If the Earth were much closer to the Sun, human life could not survive because of the horrible heat and pressure. If the Earth were moved just 10% closer to the Sun (about 10 million miles), far too much radiation (and heat) would be absorbed. If the Earth were moved just 10% farther from the Sun, too little heat would be absorbed. Either scenario would spell doom for life on the Earth.

Fortunately, creatures living on Earth receive some protection from the Suns radiation because in one of the layers of the atmosphere (known as the mesosphereabout 12 to 18 miles above the Earth), there is a form of oxygen known as ozone, which filters out most of the ultraviolet rays from the Sun that would be harmful (or fatal) in larger amounts. In addition, the Sun constantly sends out an invisible wind that is composed of protons and electrons. These particles approach the Earth from outer space at an extremely high speed, and could be very dangerous to humans. Fortunately, most of these protons and electrons are reflected back into space because the Earth was created like a giant magnet that pushes away the solar wind and makes life on this planet both possible and comfortable.

The Earth is rotating on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, and moving around the Sun at 70,000 miles per hour (approximately 19 miles per second), while the Sun and its solar system are moving through space at 600,000 miles per hour in an orbit so large it would take over 220 million years just to complete a single orbit. This rotation provides periods of light and darknessa phenomenon necessary for sustaining life as we experience it. If the Earth rotated much faster, fierce cyclones would stir over the Earth like a kitchen food-mixer. If the Earth turned significantly slower, the days and nights would be impossibly hot or cold. Venus, for example, turns only once every 243 daysa fact that accounts in part for daytime temperatures reaching as high as 500 degrees Celsius (water boils at 100° C). The Earths orbital speed and tilt are just right. Just by accident? The Earth completes its orbit roughly once every 365.25 daysthe time period we designate as a year. This, together with the fact that the Earth is tilted on its axis, allows for what we refer to as seasons.

The Earths orbit is not a perfect circle, however, but is elliptical. This means that sometimes the Earth is closer to the Sun than at other times. In January, the Earth is closest to the Sun; in July, it is farthest away. When it is closer, the Earth speeds up to avoid being pulled into the Sun; when it is farther away, it slows down, so that it remains in a position in space that is just right. How does the Earth know to do all of this?

Interestingly, as the Earth moves in its orbit around the Sun, it departs from a straight line by only one-ninth of an inch every eighteen miles. If it departed by one-eighth of an inch, we would come so close to the Sun that we would be incinerated; if it departed by one-tenth of an inch, we would find ourselves so far from the Sun that we would all freeze to death (see Science Digest, 1981). What would happen if the rotation rate of the Earth were cut in halfor doubled? If it were halved, the seasons would be doubled in their length, which would cause such harsh heat and cold over much of the Earth that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to grow enough food to feed the Earths population. If the rotation rate were doubled, the length of each season would be halved, and again it would be difficult or impossible to grow enough food to feed the Earths population.

The Earth is tilted on its axis at exactly 23.5 degrees. If it were not tilted as it is, but instead sat straight up in its orbit around the Sun, there would be no seasons. The tropics would be hotter, and the deserts would get bigger. If the tilt went all the way over to 90 degrees, much of the Earth would switch between very cold winters and very hot summers.

The Earth is poised some 240,000 miles from the Moon. This, too, is just right. The Moon helps control the movement of the oceans (tides). This movement is very beneficial to the Earth, because it provides a cleansing of shorelines, and helps ocean life to prosper. Tides are an important part of ocean currents. Without these currents, the oceans would stagnate, and the animals and plants living in the oceans and seas soon would perish. Our existence as humans depends upon the Moons tides as they help balance a delicate food chain in nature. If the Moon were moved closer to the Earth by just a fifth, the tides would be so enormous that twice a day they would reach 35-50 feet high over most of the surface of the Earth.

The Earths oceans are another good example of perfect design. Water covers about 72% of the Earths surface, which is good because the oceans provide a reservoir of moisture that constantly is evaporating and condensing. Eventually, this causes rain to fall on the Earth. It is a well-known fact that water heats and cools at a much slower rate than a solid land mass, which explains why desert regions can be blistering hot in the daytime and freezing cold at night. Water, however, holds its temperature longer, and provides a sort of natural heating/air-conditioning system for the land areas of the Earth. The Earths annual average temperature (56°F; 13.3°C) is closely maintained by the great reservoir of heat contained within the waters of the oceans. Temperature extremes would be much more erratic than they are, were it not for the fact that approximately three-fourths of the Earth is covered with water. In addition, humans and animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. On the other hand, plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. We depend upon the world of botany for our oxygen supply, yet we often fail to realize that approximately 90% of our oxygen comes from microscopic plants in the seas (Asimov, 1975, 2:116). If our oceans were appreciably smaller, we soon would be out of air to breathe.

Wrapped around the Earth is a protective blanket we know as the atmosphere. It is composed of nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%), and carbon dioxide (0.03%), in addition to water vapor and small levels of other gases. The proper balance of these gases is essential to life on the Earth. The atmosphere of Venus is too thick to sustain life; that of Mars is too thin. But the Earths atmosphere does several things. It scatters light waves so that you can read the words on this page. It captures solar heat so that it does not escape too rapidly. Without atmosphere, the heat would escape as soon as the Sun set each day, and nights would be unbearably cold. Frequently, meteors fall from space. Were it not for the fact that most of them burn up (from friction) when they strike the atmosphere, the Earth would be pounded almost daily by these unwelcome visitors. And, electronically charged particles (ions) in the upper atmosphere (referred to as the ionosphere) help make radio communications on the Earth possible. The Earth has an atmosphere that is just right. Just by accident?

Richard Dawkins once remarked: The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer (1982, 94:130, emp. added). Twenty years later, in an article on Natures August 13, 2002, on-line Science-Update, Philip Ball wrote: Our Universe is so unlikely that we must be missing something. We agree: evolutionists are missing something. But that some
Apologetics Press - Our Finely Tuned Universe


----------



## Youwerecreated

More miracles for you to absorb.

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that various chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.

2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?

Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10

The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.

3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.

How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?

"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."11

Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."12

4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.

All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!

Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.13

Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.

Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.

Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Existence of God - Proof of God


----------



## Youwerecreated

We can go into more deatail concerning the cell if you like but you see you're the one that believes in miracles I merely believe in the creator of all.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> We can go into more deatail concerning the cell if you like but you see you're the one that believes in miracles I merely believe in the creator of all.



My friend just gave me the blue ray "Promethius" I'll have to watch it and see if I change my mind...


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> We can go into more deatail concerning the cell if you like but you see you're the one that believes in miracles I merely believe in the creator of all.



I take it all back. There is a god.  He *DOES* love football.  His name is *WILSON*.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> More miracles for you to absorb.
> 
> 1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
> 
> Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
> 
> The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
> 
> The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
> 
> And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4
> 
> Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
> 
> It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.
> 
> Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that various chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5
> 
> Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.
> 
> Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.
> 
> Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.
> 
> Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6
> 
> The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
> 
> The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.
> 
> The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.
> 
> 2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?
> 
> Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
> 
> Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9
> 
> Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10
> 
> The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
> 
> 3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
> 
> Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.
> 
> How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?
> 
> "The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."11
> 
> Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."12
> 
> 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
> 
> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!
> 
> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.13
> 
> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.
> 
> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.
> 
> Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Existence of God - Proof of God



You listed a bunch of observations, none of which are evidence that they were created by a deity. It is question begging to conclude this, by throwing in a hidden premise that says "this observations are only explainable if a deity created it all. Therefore, a deity created it all." That's circular.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence of design in the heavens as well as here on this planet and throughout nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's the classic "oh, it's there. Just look" response? Not like I expected anything more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dose of reality. Let's begin with our Finely Tuned Universe then we can discuss just this planet and the organisms that inhabit this planet. Let's just see the miracles you believe in since you can't see evidence of design.
> 
> Our Finely Tuned Universe
Click to expand...

Oh, lordy man. That was your worst example yet of spamming the thread with creationist lies, "quote-mining", juvenile banter and the creationist propensity for self refuting arguments.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> We can go into more deatail concerning the cell if you like but you see you're the one that believes in miracles I merely believe in the creator of all.



The claims to "miracles of the cell" that you copy and paste from Harun Yahya are an embarrassment.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> More miracles for you to absorb.
> 
> 1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
> 
> Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
> 
> The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
> 
> The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
> 
> And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4
> 
> Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
> 
> It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.
> 
> Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that various chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5
> 
> Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.
> 
> Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.
> 
> Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.
> 
> Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6
> 
> The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
> 
> The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.
> 
> The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.
> 
> 2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?
> 
> Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
> 
> Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9
> 
> Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10
> 
> The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
> 
> 3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
> 
> Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.
> 
> How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?
> 
> "The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."11
> 
> Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."12
> 
> 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
> 
> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!
> 
> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.13
> 
> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.
> 
> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.
> 
> Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Existence of God - Proof of God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You listed a bunch of observations, none of which are evidence that they were created by a deity. It is question begging to conclude this, by throwing in a hidden premise that says "this observations are only explainable if a deity created it all. Therefore, a deity created it all." That's circular.
Click to expand...


Miracle upon miracle for such a planet to exist that can sustain the very diverse life that  exists here. Through probability naturalists fail. Like I said, you say it's not evidence so it must of been miracles for all these to happen. There is so much more that has not been brought up.I think most people when they consider such evidence just can't bring themselves to believe as you do I believe most people can and will use rationale for this evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's the classic "oh, it's there. Just look" response? Not like I expected anything more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dose of reality. Let's begin with our Finely Tuned Universe then we can discuss just this planet and the organisms that inhabit this planet. Let's just see the miracles you believe in since you can't see evidence of design.
> 
> Our Finely Tuned Universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, lordy man. That was your worst example yet of spamming the thread with creationist lies, "quote-mining", juvenile banter and the creationist propensity for self refuting arguments.
Click to expand...


What was a lie dork ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can go into more deatail concerning the cell if you like but you see you're the one that believes in miracles I merely believe in the creator of all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The claims to "miracles of the cell" that you copy and paste from Harun Yahya are an embarrassment.
Click to expand...


Yes I didn't bring up all the molecular machines that are needed in the cell without them there would be no life.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dose of reality. Let's begin with our Finely Tuned Universe then we can discuss just this planet and the organisms that inhabit this planet. Let's just see the miracles you believe in since you can't see evidence of design.
> 
> Our Finely Tuned Universe
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, lordy man. That was your worst example yet of spamming the thread with creationist lies, "quote-mining", juvenile banter and the creationist propensity for self refuting arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was a lie dork ?
Click to expand...

The phony, edited, parsed and out of context quotes. 

I've pointed out at least three times now your willingness for lies when it comes to promoting creationist agenda. 

Do you believe your gawds approve of such behavior?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can go into more deatail concerning the cell if you like but you see you're the one that believes in miracles I merely believe in the creator of all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The claims to "miracles of the cell" that you copy and paste from Harun Yahya are an embarrassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I didn't bring up all the molecular machines that are needed in the cell without them there would be no life.
Click to expand...


You can recite all the creationist slogans you like but the "molecular machines" nonsense is only credible among the science illiterate creationist bumpkins.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, lordy man. That was your worst example yet of spamming the thread with creationist lies, "quote-mining", juvenile banter and the creationist propensity for self refuting arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was a lie dork ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The phony, edited, parsed and out of context quotes.
> 
> I've pointed out at least three times now your willingness for lies when it comes to promoting creationist agenda.
> 
> Do you believe your gawds approve of such behavior?
Click to expand...


Did you not understand when the writer said emphasis added where it was added ?

The quotes used only support the evidence from scientific people but the evidence still stands.It's not the quotes that are convincing it's the evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claims to "miracles of the cell" that you copy and paste from Harun Yahya are an embarrassment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I didn't bring up all the molecular machines that are needed in the cell without them there would be no life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can recite all the creationist slogans you like but the "molecular machines" nonsense is only credible among the science illiterate creationist bumpkins.
Click to expand...


The happenings of a cell are a fact.So you're suggesting that Molecular Biologists don't know what they are talking about ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie do you understand probability ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie do you understand probability ?



Sure looks like you don't.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie do you understand the laws of probability ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie do you understand the laws of probability ?



Here Basic Laws of Probability

Enjoy


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was a lie dork ?
> 
> 
> 
> The phony, edited, parsed and out of context quotes.
> 
> I've pointed out at least three times now your willingness for lies when it comes to promoting creationist agenda.
> 
> Do you believe your gawds approve of such behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you not understand when the writer said emphasis added where it was added ?
> 
> The quotes used only support the evidence from scientific people but the evidence still stands.It's not the quotes that are convincing it's the evidence.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Creationist use of 'quotes" is calculated and dishonest. I've pointed out on several occasions your dishonest use of edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" that are manipulated so as to redefine what the author intended. 

What a shame that you cannot recognize your own dishonesty.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie do you understand probability ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure looks like you don't.
Click to expand...


As I stated before mathematics is a law of probability to determine the probability of an event then when you add several events according to the laws of probability naturalism is very unlikely.

You can test this by determining whether there is any evidence of design that did not come from an intelligen agent. Can you provide any evidence that appears to be designed but it came through natural processes ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie do you understand the laws of probability ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here Basic Laws of Probability
> 
> Enjoy
Click to expand...


What have I said that you think I need educating on the laws of probability ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The phony, edited, parsed and out of context quotes.
> 
> I've pointed out at least three times now your willingness for lies when it comes to promoting creationist agenda.
> 
> Do you believe your gawds approve of such behavior?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand when the writer said emphasis added where it was added ?
> 
> The quotes used only support the evidence from scientific people but the evidence still stands.It's not the quotes that are convincing it's the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Creationist use of 'quotes" is calculated and dishonest. I've pointed out on several occasions your dishonest use of edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" that are manipulated so as to redefine what the author intended.
> 
> What a shame that you cannot recognize your own dishonesty.
Click to expand...


Hollie are your views influenced by what people say and think or the evidence ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie do you understand the laws of probability ?



Yes. Do you understand that creationist do not? 

The nonsensical creationist "...it couldn't have happened by chance" argument is one stolen by Meyer from Behe. Creationist believe that repeating lies and falsehoods will somehow, by magical means, transform those lies and falsehoods into truth. 

What a sad existence that creationist must believe their own lies.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie do you understand the laws of probability ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here Basic Laws of Probability
> 
> Enjoy
Click to expand...


Ima I'll ask you the same question as Hollie are your views the result of what fallible man say's or the evidence ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie do you understand the laws of probability ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Do you understand that creationist do not?
> 
> The nonsensical creationist "...it couldn't have happened by chance" argument is one stolen by Meyer from Behe. Creationist believe that repeating lies and falsehoods will somehow, by magical means, transform those lies and falsehoods into truth.
> 
> What a sad existence that creationist must believe their own lies.
Click to expand...


More nonsense.

Now answer my question.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie do you understand the laws of probability ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Do you understand that creationist do not?
> 
> The nonsensical creationist "...it couldn't have happened by chance" argument is one stolen by Meyer from Behe. Creationist believe that repeating lies and falsehoods will somehow, by magical means, transform those lies and falsehoods into truth.
> 
> What a sad existence that creationist must believe their own lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More nonsense.
> 
> Now answer my question.
Click to expand...

Still side stepping. 

Do you believe your lies?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Do you understand that creationist do not?
> 
> The nonsensical creationist "...it couldn't have happened by chance" argument is one stolen by Meyer from Behe. Creationist believe that repeating lies and falsehoods will somehow, by magical means, transform those lies and falsehoods into truth.
> 
> What a sad existence that creationist must believe their own lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More nonsense.
> 
> Now answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still side stepping.
> 
> Do you believe your lies?
Click to expand...


Typical Hollie response.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> More nonsense.
> 
> Now answer my question.
> 
> 
> 
> Still side stepping.
> 
> Do you believe your lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical Hollie response.
Click to expand...


So, you refuse to even acknowledge that your "quotes" are falsified and manipulated.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

I feel sorry for all you non-believers. 

I have witnessed first hand the power of God and though I cannot prove his existence, no one can disprove it.


----------



## ima

Lonestar_logic said:


> I feel sorry for all you non-believers.
> 
> I have witnessed first hand the power of God and though I cannot prove his existence, no one can disprove it.



Was that while you were burning a cross?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> I feel sorry for all you non-believers.
> 
> I have witnessed first hand the power of God and though I cannot prove his existence, no one can disprove it.



False. I have disproof of the gawds. 

Prove I don't.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for all you non-believers.
> 
> I have witnessed first hand the power of God and though I cannot prove his existence, no one can disprove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. I have disproof of the gawds.
> 
> Prove I don't.
Click to expand...


Do you have an answer for my question yet.

Hollie are your views the result of what fallible man say's or the evidence ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for all you non-believers.
> 
> I have witnessed first hand the power of God and though I cannot prove his existence, no one can disprove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that while you were burning a cross?
Click to expand...


Do you have an answer for my question yet.

are your views the result of what fallible man say's or the evidence ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for all you non-believers.
> 
> I have witnessed first hand the power of God and though I cannot prove his existence, no one can disprove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that while you were burning a cross?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an answer for my question yet.
> 
> are your views the result of what fallible man say's or the evidence ?
Click to expand...


Your evidence for gawds is the various bibles... written by fallible men.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for all you non-believers.
> 
> I have witnessed first hand the power of God and though I cannot prove his existence, no one can disprove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that while you were burning a cross?
Click to expand...


No, actually it was in the last days of my Mother's life.


----------



## ima

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for all you non-believers.
> 
> I have witnessed first hand the power of God and though I cannot prove his existence, no one can disprove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that while you were burning a cross?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually it was in the last days of my Mother's life.
Click to expand...


You burned her on a cross?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was that while you were burning a cross?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it was in the last days of my Mother's life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You burned her on a cross?
Click to expand...


I'll pray for you.


----------



## pinqy

Lonestar_logic said:


> I feel sorry for all you non-believers.
> 
> I have witnessed first hand the power of God and though I cannot prove his existence, no one can disprove it.



Yeah, but neither can you disprove the existence of any other gods nor disprove fairies, time-travelers, aliens, or time-traveling aliens.

I can provide evidence that shows there is little support for the belief in Santa Clause and that there's no evidence to show he exists, but I can't prove he doesn't.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

pinqy said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for all you non-believers.
> 
> I have witnessed first hand the power of God and though I cannot prove his existence, no one can disprove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but neither can you disprove the existence of any other gods nor disprove fairies, time-travelers, aliens, or time-traveling aliens.
> 
> I can provide evidence that shows there is little support for the belief in Santa Clause and that there's no evidence to show he exists, but I can't prove he doesn't.
Click to expand...


Well you see, I don't need to disprove anything.

I know what I know. And if there are those that choose to ignore the existence of my Lord, then so be it.

What I don't understand is why there is such an intolerance to Christians.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for all you non-believers.
> 
> I have witnessed first hand the power of God and though I cannot prove his existence, no one can disprove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but neither can you disprove the existence of any other gods nor disprove fairies, time-travelers, aliens, or time-traveling aliens.
> 
> I can provide evidence that shows there is little support for the belief in Santa Clause and that there's no evidence to show he exists, but I can't prove he doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you see, I don't need to disprove anything.
> 
> I know what I know. And if there are those that choose to ignore the existence of my Lord, then so be it.
> 
> What I don't understand is why there is such an intolerance to Christians.
Click to expand...

"I know what I know"

The mantra of the fundie Christian. 

We can modify that slightly: "I don't care what evidence you got, I ain't believin' it"


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but neither can you disprove the existence of any other gods nor disprove fairies, time-travelers, aliens, or time-traveling aliens.
> 
> I can provide evidence that shows there is little support for the belief in Santa Clause and that there's no evidence to show he exists, but I can't prove he doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you see, I don't need to disprove anything.
> 
> I know what I know. And if there are those that choose to ignore the existence of my Lord, then so be it.
> 
> What I don't understand is why there is such an intolerance to Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I know what I know"
> 
> The mantra of the fundie Christian.
> 
> We can modify that slightly: "I don't care what evidence you got, I ain't believin' it"
Click to expand...


It's ok, God still loves you. I pray that you find peace and can shed yourself of your intolerance and hatred.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you see, I don't need to disprove anything.
> 
> I know what I know. And if there are those that choose to ignore the existence of my Lord, then so be it.
> 
> What I don't understand is why there is such an intolerance to Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> "I know what I know"
> 
> The mantra of the fundie Christian.
> 
> We can modify that slightly: "I don't care what evidence you got, I ain't believin' it"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's ok, God still loves you. I pray that you find peace and can shed yourself of your intolerance and hatred.
Click to expand...


Yes, Zeus loves me. 

But more to the point: "I know what I know". So who, really, is the hateful, intolerant one?

It's OK. Jim Jones would still love you.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I know what I know"
> 
> The mantra of the fundie Christian.
> 
> We can modify that slightly: "I don't care what evidence you got, I ain't believin' it"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's ok, God still loves you. I pray that you find peace and can shed yourself of your intolerance and hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Zeus loves me.
> 
> But more to the point: "I know what I know". *So who, really, is the hateful, intolerant one?*It's OK. Jim Jones would still love you.
Click to expand...


You are.

Oh and yes, I know what I know. I'm guessing you don't know what you know or is it you know what you don't know?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is a personal experience and one must be willing to allow God to prove Himself on a personal level. That involves asking God to reveal Himself by the person seeking after God. If one isn't honestly seeking God, that one is lost to himself and no amount of imput by a believer will convince that one of anything. But the reality is that every older friend I know has found God when all other options were gone. So my prayer is that you soon run into that roadblock. However, one may also choose to take one's own life. I personally know of at least 2 cases of that nature...
> 
> 
> 
> so you're saying is,  it's either god or death?
> it must suck to be you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all will eventually die until the new kingdom comes in to power. Many are choosing everlasting death over everlasting life what is your point ?
Click to expand...

as with all the shit you post and this is no exception ,you are projecting a fantasy there is no evidence of everlasting life, just a wish to placate the fear of death and the unknown.
the point O slapdick is you, despite all your proselytizing, you are no closer to knowing if there is life after death than the least complex creatures on earth.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> This country is divided in politics and religous beliefs.


your point private obvious?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen enough evidence for me to believe. I was once a doubter like many here. from the evidence I have seen has brought me to my faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys talk a lot about evidence for creation, but when asked to present it, you never seem to be able to. Just the usual "oh it's there. Just look"
> 
> Arguments from ignorance and Bible passages are not evidence by the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence of design in the heavens as well as here on this planet and throughout nature.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen enough evidence for me to believe. I was once a doubter like many here. from the evidence I have seen has brought me to my faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So not having any real scientific facts to back up your beliefs doesn't matter to you?
> So what's it like living in a fantasy world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is design in nature is observed.
> 
> What facts do you have to prove that design in nature is only an appearance as being designed claimed by evolutionist ? do admit things appear to have been designed.
Click to expand...

FALSE!
THE APPEARANCE OF DESIGN is no proof of design


 APPEARANCE 
outward show or seeming; semblance.
IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING DESIGNED.


----------



## daws101

huggy said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> we can go into more deatail concerning the cell if you like but you see you're the one that believes in miracles i merely believe in the creator of all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my friend just gave me the blue ray "promethius" i'll have to watch it and see if i change my mind...
Click to expand...

excelent film!


----------



## daws101

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie do you understand probability ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure looks like you don't.
Click to expand...

fun fact ywc's posts get longer as the bullshit get deeper.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie do you understand the laws of probability ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here Basic Laws of Probability
> 
> Enjoy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ima I'll ask you the same question as Hollie are your views the result of what fallible man say's or the evidence ?
Click to expand...

funny you should say that as all your sources are observed and written about by fallible men including the bible.
you claim to have evidence in fact you don't.
evidence is only as good as it's interpretation. yours suck!


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> I feel sorry for all you non-believers.
> 
> I have witnessed first hand the power of God and though I cannot prove his existence, no one can disprove it.








neither can you prove it!


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for all you non-believers.
> 
> I have witnessed first hand the power of God and though I cannot prove his existence, no one can disprove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that while you were burning a cross?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually it was in the last days of my Mother's life.
Click to expand...

melodramatic much?


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's ok, God still loves you. I pray that you find peace and can shed yourself of your intolerance and hatred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Zeus loves me.
> 
> But more to the point: "I know what I know". *So who, really, is the hateful, intolerant one?*It's OK. Jim Jones would still love you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are.
> 
> Oh and yes, I know what I know. I'm guessing you don't know what you know or is it you know what you don't know?
Click to expand...

you may know what you know except everything you know is wrong.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was that while you were burning a cross?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it was in the last days of my Mother's life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> melodramatic much?
Click to expand...


My mother passed away Jan. 25, 2013. We will be burying her this Wednesday.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Zeus loves me.
> 
> But more to the point: "I know what I know". *So who, really, is the hateful, intolerant one?*It's OK. Jim Jones would still love you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are.
> 
> Oh and yes, I know what I know. I'm guessing you don't know what you know or is it you know what you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you may know what you know except everything you know is wrong.
Click to expand...


Prove it.


----------



## G.T.

sorry to hear about your mom, ll. 

RIP


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it was in the last days of my Mother's life.
> 
> 
> 
> melodramatic much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mother passed away Jan. 25, 2013. We will be burying her this Wednesday.
Click to expand...

my condolences. no one is really dead unless you forget them.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are.
> 
> Oh and yes, I know what I know. I'm guessing you don't know what you know or is it you know what you don't know?
> 
> 
> 
> you may know what you know except everything you know is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...

no need, since you cannot prove that what you know is correct , it's the same as if I'd proven you wrong.


----------



## UltimateReality

Seems that God had already headed off the infinite regression arguments over 2500 years ago. Can we just put the Gawds argument to rest??

Isaiah 43:10 (King James Version)

10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: *before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me*.


----------



## UltimateReality

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it was in the last days of my Mother's life.
> 
> 
> 
> melodramatic much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mother passed away Jan. 25, 2013. We will be burying her this Wednesday.
Click to expand...


Please accept my condolences. Rest in the peace of knowing her soul goes on.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Seems that God had already headed off the infinite regression arguments over 2500 years ago. Can we just put the Gawds argument to rest??
> 
> Isaiah 43:10 (King James Version)
> 
> 10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: *before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me*.



It's pretty typical for the men who invent gawdz to claim that their gawdz are the "true" gawdz. 

The inventors of religions never claim their gawds are secondary in comparison to the competing gawds. That workd dismantle the authority of their religion. 

Do the Hindus say "well, we're sort of right, but you know, maybe those Greeks are really, right" 

To the back of the line you go with your also-ran gawds.


----------



## Big_D2

Youwerecreated and other creationists,

Do you believe in the changing within the species or microevolution?


----------



## koshergrl

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems that God had already headed off the infinite regression arguments over 2500 years ago. Can we just put the Gawds argument to rest??
> 
> Isaiah 43:10 (King James Version)
> 
> 10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: *before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty typical for the men who invent gawdz to claim that their gawdz are the "true" gawdz.
> 
> The inventors of religions never claim their gawds are secondary in comparison to the competing gawds. That workd dismantle the authority of their religion.
> 
> Do the Hindus say "well, we're sort of right, but you know, maybe those Greeks are really, right"
> 
> To the back of the line you go with your also-ran gawds.
Click to expand...

 
Really?
Aside from the abramic religions, what religions make that claim?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> More miracles for you to absorb.
> 
> 1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
> 
> Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
> 
> The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
> 
> The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
> 
> And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4
> 
> Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
> 
> It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.
> 
> Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that various chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5
> 
> Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.
> 
> Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.
> 
> Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.
> 
> Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6
> 
> The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
> 
> The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.
> 
> The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.
> 
> 2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?
> 
> Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
> 
> Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9
> 
> Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10
> 
> The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
> 
> 3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
> 
> Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.
> 
> How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?
> 
> "The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."11
> 
> Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."12
> 
> 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
> 
> All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!
> 
> Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.13
> 
> Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.
> 
> Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.
> 
> Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Existence of God - Proof of God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You listed a bunch of observations, none of which are evidence that they were created by a deity. It is question begging to conclude this, by throwing in a hidden premise that says "this observations are only explainable if a deity created it all. Therefore, a deity created it all." That's circular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Miracle upon miracle for such a planet to exist that can sustain the very diverse life that  exists here. Through probability naturalists fail. Like I said, you say it's not evidence so it must of been miracles for all these to happen. There is so much more that has not been brought up.I think most people when they consider such evidence just can't bring themselves to believe as you do I believe most people can and will use rationale for this evidence.
Click to expand...


By definition, there haven't been any miracles since the beginning of space and time in a naturalistic universe. Everything arising naturally precludes miracles, by the definition o miracle. Just because you call something a miracle, doesn't mean it is.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated and other creationists,
> 
> Do you believe in the changing within the species or microevolution?



The important distinction is that we observe changes that do not increase the genetic information in an organism.Such variation within created kinds of organisms is observable in nature and may be influenced by natural selection as well as other factors genetic drift, founder effects, etc. Creation scientists do not disagree that such change occurs and is even a way in which speciation sometimes occurs.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You listed a bunch of observations, none of which are evidence that they were created by a deity. It is question begging to conclude this, by throwing in a hidden premise that says "this observations are only explainable if a deity created it all. Therefore, a deity created it all." That's circular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miracle upon miracle for such a planet to exist that can sustain the very diverse life that  exists here. Through probability naturalists fail. Like I said, you say it's not evidence so it must of been miracles for all these to happen. There is so much more that has not been brought up.I think most people when they consider such evidence just can't bring themselves to believe as you do I believe most people can and will use rationale for this evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition, there haven't been any miracles since the beginning of space and time in a naturalistic universe. Everything arising naturally precludes miracles, by the definition o miracle. Just because you call something a miracle, doesn't mean it is.
Click to expand...


If you believe everything is the result of accidents and copying errors yes you believe in miracles.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Miracle upon miracle for such a planet to exist that can sustain the very diverse life that  exists here. Through probability naturalists fail. Like I said, you say it's not evidence so it must of been miracles for all these to happen. There is so much more that has not been brought up.I think most people when they consider such evidence just can't bring themselves to believe as you do I believe most people can and will use rationale for this evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, there haven't been any miracles since the beginning of space and time in a naturalistic universe. Everything arising naturally precludes miracles, by the definition o miracle. Just because you call something a miracle, doesn't mean it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe everything is the result of accidents and copying errors yes you believe in miracles.
Click to expand...


Please explain how this is a miracle, by the definition. I sense an argument from ignorance.


----------



## newpolitics

A naturalistic universe precludes miracles.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Miracle upon miracle for such a planet to exist that can sustain the very diverse life that  exists here. Through probability naturalists fail. Like I said, you say it's not evidence so it must of been miracles for all these to happen. There is so much more that has not been brought up.I think most people when they consider such evidence just can't bring themselves to believe as you do I believe most people can and will use rationale for this evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, there haven't been any miracles since the beginning of space and time in a naturalistic universe. Everything arising naturally precludes miracles, by the definition o miracle. Just because you call something a miracle, doesn't mean it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe everything is the result of accidents and copying errors yes you believe in miracles.
Click to expand...

That is another rather embarrassing admission on your part to a basic failure to understand the mechanisms of the biological life sciences. Fitness for survival explains the methodology for reproductive success whereby those attributes which provide an advantage for survival are passed along during reproduction. 

That is one of the most basic principles of evolutionary theoy. 

Your gawds failed that course.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, there haven't been any miracles since the beginning of space and time in a naturalistic universe. Everything arising naturally precludes miracles, by the definition o miracle. Just because you call something a miracle, doesn't mean it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe everything is the result of accidents and copying errors yes you believe in miracles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain how this is a miracle, by the definition. I sense an argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...


You sense nothing of the sort there is nothing to debate here if you're a naturalist you believe in miracles.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> A naturalistic universe precludes miracles.



Then you should be able to answer these questions if that is what you believe. Explain this without violating known laws.

Where did the matter come from? what caused the explosion ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> A naturalistic universe precludes miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to answer these questions if that is what you believe. Explain this without violating known laws.
> 
> Where did the matter come from? what caused the explosion ?
Click to expand...


Not knowing these questions doesn't automatically point to an invisible superbeing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, there haven't been any miracles since the beginning of space and time in a naturalistic universe. Everything arising naturally precludes miracles, by the definition o miracle. Just because you call something a miracle, doesn't mean it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe everything is the result of accidents and copying errors yes you believe in miracles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain how this is a miracle, by the definition. I sense an argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...


What kind of rationale is used by the naturalist to believe that important things needed for good health such as;

Sodium,potassium,fiber,sugars,protein,vitamin A,Vitamin C,Iron, Vitamin D3,Vitamin E, Thiamin B1, Riboflavin B2, Niacin, Vitamin B6,Folic Acid, Vitamin B12,Biotin, Pantothenic Acid,Phosphrous, Magnesium,Zinc,Manganese,Tocotrienols, Omega3 and Omega6 fatty acids,Inositol Ip6, Gamma Oryzanol,Phyto Sterols,Beta Sitosterol. All provided to us through plants and minerals that our body needs for health and wellness and good cell reproduction.

What kind of rationale do you people use to believe all of this just came naturally that a designer did not proivide these things to us.

You people say you use logic but do you really ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> A naturalistic universe precludes miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to answer these questions if that is what you believe. Explain this without violating known laws.
> 
> Where did the matter come from? what caused the explosion ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not knowing these questions doesn't automatically point to an invisible superbeing.
Click to expand...


Then why would you think it just happened by chance ? Look at my last post the designer has provided things to us to help most of us with good health while we are alive. It is a bit much to think all of this happened by chance.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe everything is the result of accidents and copying errors yes you believe in miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how this is a miracle, by the definition. I sense an argument from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of rationale is used by the naturalist to believe that important things needed for good health such as;
> 
> Sodium,potassium,fiber,sugars,protein,vitamin A,Vitamin C,Iron, Vitamin D3,Vitamin E, Thiamin B1, Riboflavin B2, Niacin, Vitamin B6,Folic Acid, Vitamin B12,Biotin, Pantothenic Acid,Phosphrous, Magnesium,Zinc,Manganese,Tocotrienols, Omega3 and Omega6 fatty acids,Inositol Ip6, Gamma Oryzanol,Phyto Sterols,Beta Sitosterol. All provided to us through plants and minerals that our body needs for health and wellness and good cell reproduction.
> 
> What kind of rationale do you people use to believe all of this just came naturally that a designer did not proivide these things to us.
> 
> You people say you use logic but do you really ?
Click to expand...


posts like this are why they're telling you that you don't seem to have studied the science. 

how?

you wouldn't have asked, if you had.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe everything is the result of accidents and copying errors yes you believe in miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how this is a miracle, by the definition. I sense an argument from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of rationale is used by the naturalist to believe that important things needed for good health such as;
> 
> Sodium,potassium,fiber,sugars,protein,vitamin A,Vitamin C,Iron, Vitamin D3,Vitamin E, Thiamin B1, Riboflavin B2, Niacin, Vitamin B6,Folic Acid, Vitamin B12,Biotin, Pantothenic Acid,Phosphrous, Magnesium,Zinc,Manganese,Tocotrienols, Omega3 and Omega6 fatty acids,Inositol Ip6, Gamma Oryzanol,Phyto Sterols,Beta Sitosterol. All provided to us through plants and minerals that our body needs for health and wellness and good cell reproduction.
> 
> What kind of rationale do you people use to believe all of this just came naturally that a designer did not proivide these things to us.
> 
> You people say you use logic but do you really ?
Click to expand...

All of the basic building blocks of life occur naturally in the universe. All of the simpler, lighter elements readily combine to form more complicated structures.

Those are basic principles that any high school chemistry student would know. You have been indoctrinated with the belief that only through magic and mysticism can the natural world be explained. You shouldn't feel a need to impose your superstitious ignorance on others.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to answer these questions if that is what you believe. Explain this without violating known laws.
> 
> Where did the matter come from? what caused the explosion ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not knowing these questions doesn't automatically point to an invisible superbeing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why would you think it just happened by chance ? Look at my last post the designer has provided things to us to help most of us with good health while we are alive. It is a bit much to think all of this happened by chance.
Click to expand...


I never said that it happened by chance, those are your words. But you still have no proof of a designer, just a theory.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to answer these questions if that is what you believe. Explain this without violating known laws.
> 
> Where did the matter come from? what caused the explosion ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not knowing these questions doesn't automatically point to an invisible superbeing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why would you think it just happened by chance ? Look at my last post the designer has provided things to us to help most of us with good health while we are alive. It is a bit much to think all of this happened by chance.
Click to expand...

You're not paying attention. "Chance", is a term you hurl falsely and ignorantly.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how this is a miracle, by the definition. I sense an argument from ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of rationale is used by the naturalist to believe that important things needed for good health such as;
> 
> Sodium,potassium,fiber,sugars,protein,vitamin A,Vitamin C,Iron, Vitamin D3,Vitamin E, Thiamin B1, Riboflavin B2, Niacin, Vitamin B6,Folic Acid, Vitamin B12,Biotin, Pantothenic Acid,Phosphrous, Magnesium,Zinc,Manganese,Tocotrienols, Omega3 and Omega6 fatty acids,Inositol Ip6, Gamma Oryzanol,Phyto Sterols,Beta Sitosterol. All provided to us through plants and minerals that our body needs for health and wellness and good cell reproduction.
> 
> What kind of rationale do you people use to believe all of this just came naturally that a designer did not proivide these things to us.
> 
> You people say you use logic but do you really ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> posts like this are why they're telling you that you don't seem to have studied the science.
> 
> how?
> 
> you wouldn't have asked, if you had.
Click to expand...


Sorry I am not understanding your point forgive me it is early in the morning where I am.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not knowing these questions doesn't automatically point to an invisible superbeing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why would you think it just happened by chance ? Look at my last post the designer has provided things to us to help most of us with good health while we are alive. It is a bit much to think all of this happened by chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not paying attention. "Chance", is a term you hurl falsely and ignorantly.
Click to expand...


Everything is the result of chance if there was no designer. Naturalists believe everything is the result of natural processes with having no explanation how it happened naturally.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not knowing these questions doesn't automatically point to an invisible superbeing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why would you think it just happened by chance ? Look at my last post the designer has provided things to us to help most of us with good health while we are alive. It is a bit much to think all of this happened by chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not paying attention. "Chance", is a term you hurl falsely and ignorantly.
Click to expand...


So what term would you use if not chance since everything happens through undirected processes ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why would you think it just happened by chance ? Look at my last post the designer has provided things to us to help most of us with good health while we are alive. It is a bit much to think all of this happened by chance.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not paying attention. "Chance", is a term you hurl falsely and ignorantly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what term would you use if not chance since everything happens through undirected processes ?
Click to expand...


Fact is, we don't know the "why" or "what for" of the universe, it's that simple.


----------



## Youwerecreated

More examples,the sun the moon,the plane and axis,the atmoshere,water,oxygen you can see the importance to this planet and everything that lives here ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not paying attention. "Chance", is a term you hurl falsely and ignorantly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what term would you use if not chance since everything happens through undirected processes ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is, we don't know the "why" or "what for" of the universe, it's that simple.
Click to expand...


Exactly, and it's just one of those miracles we exist.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> More examples,the sun the moon,the plane and axis,the atmoshere,water,oxygen you can see the importance to this planet and everything that lives here ?



the proximity is not unique in this universe...we're just recently finding


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what term would you use if not chance since everything happens through undirected processes ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, we don't know the "why" or "what for" of the universe, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, and it's just one of those miracles we exist.
Click to expand...


It's not a miracle at all. Based upon our knowledge of life on this planet, we see that under the right conditions, life flourishes. No gawds needed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> More examples,the sun the moon,the plane and axis,the atmoshere,water,oxygen you can see the importance to this planet and everything that lives here ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the proximity is not unique in this universe...we're just recently finding
Click to expand...


Wrong,it is crucial because of radiation from the sun and temperature of this planet and the moon affects the tides.  How is this planet not unigue ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, we don't know the "why" or "what for" of the universe, it's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and it's just one of those miracles we exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a miracle at all. Based upon our knowledge of life on this planet, we see that under the right conditions, life flourishes. No gawds needed.
Click to expand...


If it were not for miracles life would not flourish get it? That is if you're a naturalist. I believe in God not miracles.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> More examples,the sun the moon,the plane and axis,the atmoshere,water,oxygen you can see the importance to this planet and everything that lives here ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the proximity is not unique in this universe...we're just recently finding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong,it is crucial because of radiation from the sun and temperature of this planet and the moon affects the tides.  How is this planet not unigue ?
Click to expand...


It's not unique at all, we're just now exploring outside of our tiny (in comparison) solar system and finding allllll kinds of planets within the same goldilocks zone that makes life sustainable.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, we don't know the "why" or "what for" of the universe, it's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and it's just one of those miracles we exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a miracle at all. Based upon our knowledge of life on this planet, we see that under the right conditions, life flourishes. No gawds needed.
Click to expand...


This planet has a Hydrologic system if it were not for this Hydrologic system we would not have fresh water which is very important for all life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> the proximity is not unique in this universe...we're just recently finding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,it is crucial because of radiation from the sun and temperature of this planet and the moon affects the tides.  How is this planet not unigue ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not unique at all, we're just now exploring outside of our tiny (in comparison) solar system and finding allllll kinds of planets within the same goldilocks zone that makes life sustainable.
Click to expand...


I don't believe your statement but let's say your statement is accurate let's ask the all important question. Why is there no life on these other planets ?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you may know what you know except everything you know is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need, since you cannot prove that what you know is correct , it's the same as if I'd proven you wrong.
Click to expand...


That's the funny thing about "faith" it requires no proof. 

I know for a fact that God exists, I have witnessed his work. And peronally I don't care who believes in Him or not. 

I am however confused by why those that profess not to believe in Him go to such extremes to denounce a God they don't even believe exists.

IMO in denouncing Him you're in effect acknowledging Him. And you're also reaffiriming what Jesus said when He told us that we would be persecuted, insulted and mocked because of our belief in Him.

Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. (Matt. 5:11)

If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you... If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you... because they do not know Him who sent Me." (John 15: 18-21)


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not paying attention. "Chance", is a term you hurl falsely and ignorantly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what term would you use if not chance since everything happens through undirected processes ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is, *we don't know the "why" or "what for"* of the universe, it's that simple.
Click to expand...


If that's the case how can you so easily dismiss the possibility of a creator?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and it's just one of those miracles we exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a miracle at all. Based upon our knowledge of life on this planet, we see that under the right conditions, life flourishes. No gawds needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it were not for miracles life would not flourish get it? That is if you're a naturalist. I believe in God not miracles.
Click to expand...

Your comment is typically circular and configured to return the answer you prefer. 

You have defined nothing miraculous about existence. You have defined no cause for your particular, partisan gawds, no reason why your particular gawds are required for the diversity of life we see and nothing to indicate your partisan gawds "did it". 

You offer only the typical question begging, special pleading, appeals to ignorance that defines the gawds argument.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,it is crucial because of radiation from the sun and temperature of this planet and the moon affects the tides.  How is this planet not unigue ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not unique at all, we're just now exploring outside of our tiny (in comparison) solar system and finding allllll kinds of planets within the same goldilocks zone that makes life sustainable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe your statement but let's say your statement is accurate let's ask the all important question. Why is there no life on these other planets ?
Click to expand...


You don't believe my statement?

Then you haven't done any research.

What sense is it to converse about something that you're admittedly ignorant of?

And - we do not know if there is or is not life on these other planets. We are unable, currently, to get close enough. Which is why we're currently only exploring the shit out of mars, which is WITHIN our solar system. One of 8 planets, in our solar system..............there are billions and possible trillions of planets out there. 

Do you believe in math?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, we don't know the "why" or "what for" of the universe, it's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and it's just one of those miracles we exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a miracle at all. Based upon our knowledge of life on this planet, we see that under the right conditions, life flourishes. No gawds needed.
Click to expand...


More scientific garbage.

If science knows what these "right conditions" are then they could create life out of nothing. But yet........


----------



## G.T.

I think that *Religions*, specifically, are all bullshit, but I leave it open to "I dont know" whether or not there is a creator.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a miracle at all. Based upon our knowledge of life on this planet, we see that under the right conditions, life flourishes. No gawds needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were not for miracles life would not flourish get it? That is if you're a naturalist. I believe in God not miracles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comment is typically circular and configured to return the answer you prefer.
> 
> You have defined nothing miraculous about existence. You have defined no cause for your particular, partisan gawds, no reason why your particular gawds are required for the diversity of life we see and nothing to indicate your partisan gawds "did it".
> 
> You offer only the typical question begging, special pleading, appeals to ignorance that defines the gawds argument.
Click to expand...


The theory of evolution is built on unseen evidence and circular explanations.


----------



## G.T.

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and it's just one of those miracles we exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a miracle at all. Based upon our knowledge of life on this planet, we see that under the right conditions, life flourishes. No gawds needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More scientific garbage.
> 
> If science knows what these "right conditions" are then they could create life out of nothing. But yet........
Click to expand...


they HAVE discovered how to create amino acids - the building blocks of life - by smashing material from asteroids into an object at high speeds.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> the proximity is not unique in this universe...we're just recently finding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,it is crucial because of radiation from the sun and temperature of this planet and the moon affects the tides.  How is this planet not unigue ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not unique at all, we're just now exploring outside of our tiny (in comparison) solar system and finding allllll kinds of planets within the same goldilocks zone that makes life sustainable.
Click to expand...


Which planets would these be?  And a link would be nice.


----------



## G.T.

Lonestar_logic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,it is crucial because of radiation from the sun and temperature of this planet and the moon affects the tides.  How is this planet not unigue ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not unique at all, we're just now exploring outside of our tiny (in comparison) solar system and finding allllll kinds of planets within the same goldilocks zone that makes life sustainable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which planets would these be?  And a link would be nice.
Click to expand...


Four planets in 'habitable zones' spotted within spitting distance of Earth - CSMonitor.com

Three Habitable Zone Planets Discovered Around One Red Dwarf | MIT Technology Review

Earth-like planet found in distant sun's habitable zone | The Space Shot - CNET News

NASA Telescope Confirms Alien Planet in Habitable Zone | NASA & Kepler Mission | Alien Planets & Solar Systems | Space.com


----------



## Lonestar_logic

G.T. said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a miracle at all. Based upon our knowledge of life on this planet, we see that under the right conditions, life flourishes. No gawds needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More scientific garbage.
> 
> If science knows what these "right conditions" are then they could create life out of nothing. But yet........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they HAVE discovered how to create amino acids - the building blocks of life - by smashing material from asteroids into an object at high speeds.
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## G.T.

Lonestar_logic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> More scientific garbage.
> 
> If science knows what these "right conditions" are then they could create life out of nothing. But yet........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they HAVE discovered how to create amino acids - the building blocks of life - by smashing material from asteroids into an object at high speeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


NASA - NASA Scientists Create Amino Acids in Deep-Space-Like Environment


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not unique at all, we're just now exploring outside of our tiny (in comparison) solar system and finding allllll kinds of planets within the same goldilocks zone that makes life sustainable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe your statement but let's say your statement is accurate let's ask the all important question. Why is there no life on these other planets ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't believe my statement?
> 
> Then you haven't done any research.
> 
> What sense is it to converse about something that you're admittedly ignorant of?
> 
> And - we do not know if there is or is not life on these other planets. We are unable, currently, to get close enough. Which is why we're currently only exploring the shit out of mars, which is WITHIN our solar system. One of 8 planets, in our solar system..............there are billions and possible trillions of planets out there.
> 
> Do you believe in math?
Click to expand...


Of course I believe in math how do you think I showed the mutation rate was to high for man to exist as long as evolutionist claim.

Just because someone say's There are planets out there that could sustain life does not mean it's true. Is that not circular reasoning to suggest because there are so many planets out there we have not been able to reach there must be life out there.  You admittedly shot your own argument down.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe your statement but let's say your statement is accurate let's ask the all important question. Why is there no life on these other planets ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe my statement?
> 
> Then you haven't done any research.
> 
> What sense is it to converse about something that you're admittedly ignorant of?
> 
> And - we do not know if there is or is not life on these other planets. We are unable, currently, to get close enough. Which is why we're currently only exploring the shit out of mars, which is WITHIN our solar system. One of 8 planets, in our solar system..............there are billions and possible trillions of planets out there.
> 
> Do you believe in math?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I believe in math how do you think I howed the mutation rate argument.
> 
> Just because someone say's There are planets out there that could sustain life does not mean it's true. Is that not circular reasoning to suggest because there are so many planets out there we have not been able to reach there must be life out there.  You admittedly shot your own argument down.
Click to expand...


No, I didn't shoot it down.

You shoot down science of which you're not even qualified to have a message board discussion on, let alone shoot down men who've worked in the field their entire lives. 

"just because someone says"

^ most laughable thing you've said, to date.

They're not "just saying." 

cripes.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

G.T. said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not unique at all, we're just now exploring outside of our tiny (in comparison) solar system and finding allllll kinds of planets within the same goldilocks zone that makes life sustainable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which planets would these be?  And a link would be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Four planets in 'habitable zones' spotted within spitting distance of Earth - CSMonitor.com
> 
> Three Habitable Zone Planets Discovered Around One Red Dwarf | MIT Technology Review
> 
> Earth-like planet found in distant sun's habitable zone | The Space Shot - CNET News
> 
> NASA Telescope Confirms Alien Planet in Habitable Zone | NASA & Kepler Mission | Alien Planets & Solar Systems | Space.com
Click to expand...


All these links discuss the possibility of such planets where liquid water could be.

It's all speculation and absolutely no empirical evidence to support these claims.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were not for miracles life would not flourish get it? That is if you're a naturalist. I believe in God not miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment is typically circular and configured to return the answer you prefer.
> 
> You have defined nothing miraculous about existence. You have defined no cause for your particular, partisan gawds, no reason why your particular gawds are required for the diversity of life we see and nothing to indicate your partisan gawds "did it".
> 
> You offer only the typical question begging, special pleading, appeals to ignorance that defines the gawds argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution is built on unseen evidence and circular explanations.
Click to expand...


Your willful ignorance of evolutionary science, biology, chemistry, paleontology and the life sciences makes you ill equipped to comment. Making emphatic statements about that which you don't understand is reason to reject your comments as ridiculous. 

You generally hope to paint all of science as a worldwide conspiracy and in doing so, you simply align yourself with so many of the dangerous and self-destructive religious cults / death cultists who have a peculiar habit of doing harm to themselves and others.


----------



## G.T.

Lonestar_logic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which planets would these be?  And a link would be nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Four planets in 'habitable zones' spotted within spitting distance of Earth - CSMonitor.com
> 
> Three Habitable Zone Planets Discovered Around One Red Dwarf | MIT Technology Review
> 
> Earth-like planet found in distant sun's habitable zone | The Space Shot - CNET News
> 
> NASA Telescope Confirms Alien Planet in Habitable Zone | NASA & Kepler Mission | Alien Planets & Solar Systems | Space.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All these links discuss the possibility of such planets where liquid water could be.
> 
> It's all speculation and absolutely no empirical evidence to support these claims.
Click to expand...


If you're saying there's no empirical evidence - then you didn't read the links. 

What else is there to discuss?

"gimme links i cant google for myself, dammit!"

"the links dont say what they say, their methods are bunk! I'm a much more highly qualified scientist, to offer this opinion! dismissed!"



It's corny denial, bro. Seriously.


----------



## ima

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what term would you use if not chance since everything happens through undirected processes ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, *we don't know the "why" or "what for"* of the universe, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's the case how can you so easily dismiss the possibility of a creator?
Click to expand...


I never have dismissed the potential of a creator, that's why I'm an agnostic, which for me means that there's no real proof to prove or disprove a creator, and I leave the door open to change my mind if someone ever produces REAL tangible proof either way. That's why I consider atheists as deluded as theists, because you can't say for sure that it's not something, we just don't know at this point.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a miracle at all. Based upon our knowledge of life on this planet, we see that under the right conditions, life flourishes. No gawds needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More scientific garbage.
> 
> If science knows what these "right conditions" are then they could create life out of nothing. But yet........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they HAVE discovered how to create amino acids - the building blocks of life - by smashing material from asteroids into an object at high speeds.
Click to expand...


Ok through perfect conditions intelligence was used to produce amino acids but what does that prove ? now you need to show how only the right amino acids would bond and in the right sequence to produce the right proteins not to mention the molecular machines and THE  all important instructions DNA came together to form a cell that could reproduce itself time and time again.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

G.T. said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> they HAVE discovered how to create amino acids - the building blocks of life - by smashing material from asteroids into an object at high speeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NASA - NASA Scientists Create Amino Acids in Deep-Space-Like Environment
Click to expand...


From you r link:

Deep-space ice is common water ice laced with simple molecules. The team subsequently *discovered amino acids*, molecules present in, and essential for, life on Earth.

"We found that *amino acids can be made in the dense interstellar clouds *where planetary systems and stars are made. Our experiments suggest that *amino acids should be everywhere, wherever there are stars and planets*."



Seems they didn't "create" amino acids.

The title and your claim is not factual.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which planets would these be?  And a link would be nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Four planets in 'habitable zones' spotted within spitting distance of Earth - CSMonitor.com
> 
> Three Habitable Zone Planets Discovered Around One Red Dwarf | MIT Technology Review
> 
> Earth-like planet found in distant sun's habitable zone | The Space Shot - CNET News
> 
> NASA Telescope Confirms Alien Planet in Habitable Zone | NASA & Kepler Mission | Alien Planets & Solar Systems | Space.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All these links discuss the possibility of such planets where liquid water could be.
> 
> It's all speculation and absolutely no empirical evidence to support these claims.
Click to expand...


Not surprisingly, a young, vibrant science that is exploring and discovering absolutely terrifies Christian fundies.


----------



## G.T.

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, *we don't know the "why" or "what for"* of the universe, it's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the case how can you so easily dismiss the possibility of a creator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never have dismissed the potential of a creator, that's why I'm an agnostic, which for me means that there's no real proof to prove or disprove a creator, and I leave the door open to change my mind if someone ever produces REAL tangible proof either way. That's why I consider atheists as deluded as theists, because you can't say for sure that it's not something, we just don't know at this point.
Click to expand...


my thoughts exactly.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> More scientific garbage.
> 
> If science knows what these "right conditions" are then they could create life out of nothing. But yet........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they HAVE discovered how to create amino acids - the building blocks of life - by smashing material from asteroids into an object at high speeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok through perfect conditions intelligence was used to produce amino acids but what does that prove ? now you need to show how only the right amino acids would bond and in the right sequence to produce the right proteins not to mention the molecular machines and THE  all important instructions DNA came together to form a cell that could reproduce itself time and time again.
Click to expand...

No, you should prove that your creator didn't start life on earth with amino acids and whatnot. Maybe your creator only provides the spark, and his laws of the universe (that he created) take over. I know, it makes your book wrong, but isn't your creator's truth more important than some ignorant book?


----------



## G.T.

Lonestar_logic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NASA - NASA Scientists Create Amino Acids in Deep-Space-Like Environment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From you r link:
> 
> Deep-space ice is common water ice laced with simple molecules. The team subsequently *discovered amino acids*, molecules present in, and essential for, life on Earth.
> 
> "We found that *amino acids can be made in the dense interstellar clouds *where planetary systems and stars are made. Our experiments suggest that *amino acids should be everywhere, wherever there are stars and planets*."
> 
> 
> 
> Seems they didn't "create" amino acids.
> 
> The title and your claim is not factual.
Click to expand...


Obviously, ypou miss the entire point. 

That amino acids aren't unique to earth. derp.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> More scientific garbage.
> 
> If science knows what these "right conditions" are then they could create life out of nothing. But yet........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they HAVE discovered how to create amino acids - the building blocks of life - by smashing material from asteroids into an object at high speeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok through perfect conditions intelligence was used to produce amino acids but what does that prove ? now you need to show how only the right amino acids would bond and in the right sequence to produce the right proteins not to mention the molecular machines and THE  all important instructions DNA came together to form a cell that could reproduce itself time and time again.
Click to expand...


no, I don't need to show anything.

you need to learn how to read and research without the confirmation bias, and then come back with real conclusions and not ones you're admittedly unaware of and blatantly ignorant of.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment is typically circular and configured to return the answer you prefer.
> 
> You have defined nothing miraculous about existence. You have defined no cause for your particular, partisan gawds, no reason why your particular gawds are required for the diversity of life we see and nothing to indicate your partisan gawds "did it".
> 
> You offer only the typical question begging, special pleading, appeals to ignorance that defines the gawds argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution is built on unseen evidence and circular explanations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your willful ignorance of evolutionary science, biology, chemistry, paleontology and the life sciences makes you ill equipped to comment. Making emphatic statements about that which you don't understand is reason to reject your comments as ridiculous.
> 
> You generally hope to paint all of science as a worldwide conspiracy and in doing so, you simply align yourself with so many of the dangerous and self-destructive religious cults / death cultists who have a peculiar habit of doing harm to themselves and others.
Click to expand...


How many times must your arguments be shot down before you get it ? The only cultist here would be you and daws none of you have taken enough science to debate the issue nor has your new friend with the picture of the baby in the car seat.

This guy does know speculation from actual scientific fact and surely does not understand the scientific method.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

G.T. said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Four planets in 'habitable zones' spotted within spitting distance of Earth - CSMonitor.com
> 
> Three Habitable Zone Planets Discovered Around One Red Dwarf | MIT Technology Review
> 
> Earth-like planet found in distant sun's habitable zone | The Space Shot - CNET News
> 
> NASA Telescope Confirms Alien Planet in Habitable Zone | NASA & Kepler Mission | Alien Planets & Solar Systems | Space.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All these links discuss the possibility of such planets where liquid water could be.
> 
> It's all speculation and absolutely no empirical evidence to support these claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're saying there's no empirical evidence - then you didn't read the links.
> 
> What else is there to discuss?
> 
> "gimme links i cant google for myself, dammit!"
> 
> "the links dont say what they say, their methods are bunk! I'm a much more highly qualified scientist, to offer this opinion! dismissed!"
> 
> 
> 
> It's corny denial, bro. Seriously.
Click to expand...


Yes I read every one of the links.

They conduct test and throw out the findings that doesn't suit their preconceived ideas and use the results that do. 

Pretty simple really.

When words like "could", "possibly", "may", appear you can pretty much bet it's not a certainty.

And why is it they can conduct all these test and experiments on planets far, far way, but can't look to see if there is in fact liquid water and/or life there?

How can you use an instrument to conduct a test light years away and be certain of it's accuracy?

In Short, you can't. You can only speculate on the results.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> they HAVE discovered how to create amino acids - the building blocks of life - by smashing material from asteroids into an object at high speeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok through perfect conditions intelligence was used to produce amino acids but what does that prove ? now you need to show how only the right amino acids would bond and in the right sequence to produce the right proteins not to mention the molecular machines and THE  all important instructions DNA came together to form a cell that could reproduce itself time and time again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, I don't need to show anything.
> 
> you need to learn how to read and research without the confirmation bias, and then come back with real conclusions and not ones you're admittedly unaware of and blatantly ignorant of.
Click to expand...


Six years of college, getting a degree in molecular biology and studying cells and mutations for 11 years. I think you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok through perfect conditions intelligence was used to produce amino acids but what does that prove ? now you need to show how only the right amino acids would bond and in the right sequence to produce the right proteins not to mention the molecular machines and THE  all important instructions DNA came together to form a cell that could reproduce itself time and time again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, I don't need to show anything.
> 
> you need to learn how to read and research without the confirmation bias, and then come back with real conclusions and not ones you're admittedly unaware of and blatantly ignorant of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Six years of college, getting a degree in molecular biology and studying cells and mutations for 11 years. I think you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


So why don't you get the amino acid thing that your creator made?


----------



## G.T.

Lonestar_logic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these links discuss the possibility of such planets where liquid water could be.
> 
> It's all speculation and absolutely no empirical evidence to support these claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're saying there's no empirical evidence - then you didn't read the links.
> 
> What else is there to discuss?
> 
> "gimme links i cant google for myself, dammit!"
> 
> "the links dont say what they say, their methods are bunk! I'm a much more highly qualified scientist, to offer this opinion! dismissed!"
> 
> 
> 
> It's corny denial, bro. Seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I read every one of the links.
> 
> They conduct test and throw out the findings that doesn't suit their preconceived ideas and use the results that do.
> 
> Pretty simple really.
> 
> When words like "could", "possibly", "may", appear you can pretty much bet it's not a certainty.
> 
> And why is it they can conduct all these test and experiments on planets far, far way, but can't look to see if there is in fact liquid water and/or life there?
> 
> How can you use an instrument to conduct a test light years away and be certain of it's accuracy?
> 
> In Short, you can't. You can only speculate on the results.
Click to expand...


The fact that you ask, is an admission that you're not very well versed on the study of the Universe, in general. 

If you don't like reading, which a lot of people don't for some reason, I'd start with season 1 of "through the wormhole."

It's a docu-series and has like 6 or 7 seasons now. 

The series hosts the most advanced men in the field of study to date, it explains their theories, findings, their methods, etc. in a very succinct way for you,

and it answers the question I bolded above. 




But don't reject the sciences out of hand and at the same time admit that you've not even bothered to study much into any of them. That's just confirmation bias. Being more open minded makes you smarter, believe it or not. I learned that when I was like 22.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, *we don't know the "why" or "what for"* of the universe, it's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the case how can you so easily dismiss the possibility of a creator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never have dismissed the potential of a creator, that's why I'm an agnostic, which for me means that there's no real proof to prove or disprove a creator, and I leave the door open to change my mind if someone ever produces REAL tangible proof either way. That's why I consider atheists as deluded as theists, because you can't say for sure that it's not something, we just don't know at this point.
Click to expand...


Well if you're waiting on proof there is a God before you believe, it may be too late.

God requires faith. Without it you will not see the kingdom of Heaven. 

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Romans 3:28

But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. 
Hebrews 11:6


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok through perfect conditions intelligence was used to produce amino acids but what does that prove ? now you need to show how only the right amino acids would bond and in the right sequence to produce the right proteins not to mention the molecular machines and THE  all important instructions DNA came together to form a cell that could reproduce itself time and time again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, I don't need to show anything.
> 
> you need to learn how to read and research without the confirmation bias, and then come back with real conclusions and not ones you're admittedly unaware of and blatantly ignorant of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Six years of college, getting a degree in molecular biology and studying cells and mutations for 11 years. I think you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


You dont have a degree in molecular biology and were ignorant of the fact that amino acids are found in space.

You don't have a degree in molecular biology and deny evolution. 

and if you do, you studied for the tests to pass, and you forget 99% of what you learned.


----------



## G.T.

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the case how can you so easily dismiss the possibility of a creator?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never have dismissed the potential of a creator, that's why I'm an agnostic, which for me means that there's no real proof to prove or disprove a creator, and I leave the door open to change my mind if someone ever produces REAL tangible proof either way. That's why I consider atheists as deluded as theists, because you can't say for sure that it's not something, we just don't know at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you're waiting on proof there is a God before you believe, it may be too late.
> 
> God requires faith. Without it you will not see the kingdom of Heaven.
> 
> For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
> John 3:16
> 
> Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
> Romans 3:28
> 
> But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.
> Hebrews 11:6
Click to expand...


*Religion* says God requires faith. 

That doesn't make it fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, I don't need to show anything.
> 
> you need to learn how to read and research without the confirmation bias, and then come back with real conclusions and not ones you're admittedly unaware of and blatantly ignorant of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Six years of college, getting a degree in molecular biology and studying cells and mutations for 11 years. I think you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why don't you get the amino acid thing that your creator made?
Click to expand...


Can you be morte specific ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, I don't need to show anything.
> 
> you need to learn how to read and research without the confirmation bias, and then come back with real conclusions and not ones you're admittedly unaware of and blatantly ignorant of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Six years of college, getting a degree in molecular biology and studying cells and mutations for 11 years. I think you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dont have a degree in molecular biology and were ignorant of the fact that amino acids are found in space.
> 
> You don't have a degree in molecular biology and deny evolution.
> 
> and if you do, you studied for the tests to pass, and you forget 99% of what you learned.
Click to expand...


Really ? because I have a degree molecular biology I can't possess this degree because I disagree with the evolutionary theory 

Creationist and ID proponents hold many different degrees in science and reject the theory.


----------



## G.T.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dt1HE8NQoc]Through The Wormhole: How Did We Get Here? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never have dismissed the potential of a creator, that's why I'm an agnostic, which for me means that there's no real proof to prove or disprove a creator, and I leave the door open to change my mind if someone ever produces REAL tangible proof either way. That's why I consider atheists as deluded as theists, because you can't say for sure that it's not something, we just don't know at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you're waiting on proof there is a God before you believe, it may be too late.
> 
> God requires faith. Without it you will not see the kingdom of Heaven.
> 
> For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
> John 3:16
> 
> Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
> Romans 3:28
> 
> But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.
> Hebrews 11:6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Religion* says God requires faith.
> 
> That doesn't make it fact.
Click to expand...


The many theories you hold dear require faith, now what ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Six years of college, getting a degree in molecular biology and studying cells and mutations for 11 years. I think you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you get the amino acid thing that your creator made?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you be morte specific ?
Click to expand...


If you've studied all this stuff extensively, then why can't you accept that your creator starts life on planets through the amino acids thing?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

G.T. said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're saying there's no empirical evidence - then you didn't read the links.
> 
> What else is there to discuss?
> 
> "gimme links i cant google for myself, dammit!"
> 
> "the links dont say what they say, their methods are bunk! I'm a much more highly qualified scientist, to offer this opinion! dismissed!"
> 
> 
> 
> It's corny denial, bro. Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I read every one of the links.
> 
> They conduct test and throw out the findings that doesn't suit their preconceived ideas and use the results that do.
> 
> Pretty simple really.
> 
> When words like "could", "possibly", "may", appear you can pretty much bet it's not a certainty.
> 
> And why is it they can conduct all these test and experiments on planets far, far way, but can't look to see if there is in fact liquid water and/or life there?
> 
> How can you use an instrument to conduct a test light years away and be certain of it's accuracy?
> 
> In Short, you can't. You can only speculate on the results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you ask, is an admission that you're not very well versed on the study of the Universe, in general.
> 
> If you don't like reading, which a lot of people don't for some reason, I'd start with season 1 of "through the wormhole."
> 
> It's a docu-series and has like 6 or 7 seasons now.
> 
> The series hosts the most advanced men in the field of study to date, it explains their theories, findings, their methods, etc. in a very succinct way for you,
> 
> and it answers the question I bolded above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But don't reject the sciences out of hand and at the same time admit that you've not even bothered to study much into any of them. That's just confirmation bias. Being more open minded makes you smarter, believe it or not. I learned that when I was like 22.
Click to expand...


I never professed to be.

I am cursed with logic and reason which is something not acceptable in evolutionary science.

No liquid water has ever been found on any planet besides earth. That is a fact. Now they can speculate that other planets MAY have the right conditions for liquid water, but that's not any type of proof. It's theory and speculation and I'm not going to hang my hat on that nonsense. 

Now it may very well be that one day they may find another planet with liquid water, but what does that prove exactly? It doesn't negate the idea that a creator was involved.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you're waiting on proof there is a God before you believe, it may be too late.
> 
> God requires faith. Without it you will not see the kingdom of Heaven.
> 
> For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
> John 3:16
> 
> Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
> Romans 3:28
> 
> But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.
> Hebrews 11:6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Religion* says God requires faith.
> 
> That doesn't make it fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The many theories you hold dear require faith, now what ?
Click to expand...


what theories do i hold dear?

which of them require faith?


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Through The Wormhole: How Did We Get Here? - YouTube



You really don't unserstand conjecture do you ?


----------



## G.T.

Lonestar_logic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I read every one of the links.
> 
> They conduct test and throw out the findings that doesn't suit their preconceived ideas and use the results that do.
> 
> Pretty simple really.
> 
> When words like "could", "possibly", "may", appear you can pretty much bet it's not a certainty.
> 
> And why is it they can conduct all these test and experiments on planets far, far way, but can't look to see if there is in fact liquid water and/or life there?
> 
> How can you use an instrument to conduct a test light years away and be certain of it's accuracy?
> 
> In Short, you can't. You can only speculate on the results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you ask, is an admission that you're not very well versed on the study of the Universe, in general.
> 
> If you don't like reading, which a lot of people don't for some reason, I'd start with season 1 of "through the wormhole."
> 
> It's a docu-series and has like 6 or 7 seasons now.
> 
> The series hosts the most advanced men in the field of study to date, it explains their theories, findings, their methods, etc. in a very succinct way for you,
> 
> and it answers the question I bolded above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But don't reject the sciences out of hand and at the same time admit that you've not even bothered to study much into any of them. That's just confirmation bias. Being more open minded makes you smarter, believe it or not. I learned that when I was like 22.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never professed to be.
> 
> I am cursed with logic and reason which is something not acceptable in evolutionary science.
> 
> No liquid water has ever been found on any planet besides earth. That is a fact. Now they can speculate that other planets MAY have the right conditions for liquid water, but that's not any type of proof. It's theory and speculation and I'm not going to hang my hat on that nonsense.
> 
> Now it may very well be that one day they may find another planet with liquid water, but what does that prove exactly? It doesn't negate the idea that a creator was involved.
Click to expand...


It doesnt negate that at all.

And there's a big difference between ignorant speculation and speculation based on something you proclaim to hold dear: logic and reason.

Men study this their entire lives, and are thus more qualified to speculate then....say, youwerecreated.


----------



## ima

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Religion* says God requires faith.
> 
> That doesn't make it fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The many theories you hold dear require faith, now what ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what theories do i hold dear?
> 
> which of them require faith?
Click to expand...


I'm a Dallas Cowboys fan, it makes no sense, I know, but I keep the faith!


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Through The Wormhole: How Did We Get Here? - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't unserstand conjecture do you ?
Click to expand...


You don't understand that studies in progress are still viable, without being 100% proven.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Through The Wormhole: How Did We Get Here? - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't unserstand conjecture do you ?
Click to expand...


You mean like religion?


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Religion* says God requires faith.
> 
> That doesn't make it fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The many theories you hold dear require faith, now what ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what theories do i hold dear?
> 
> which of them require faith?
Click to expand...


Evolution,Stellar nucleosynthesis,Spontaneous generation,Abiogenesis to name a few.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

G.T. said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never have dismissed the potential of a creator, that's why I'm an agnostic, which for me means that there's no real proof to prove or disprove a creator, and I leave the door open to change my mind if someone ever produces REAL tangible proof either way. That's why I consider atheists as deluded as theists, because you can't say for sure that it's not something, we just don't know at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you're waiting on proof there is a God before you believe, it may be too late.
> 
> God requires faith. Without it you will not see the kingdom of Heaven.
> 
> For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
> John 3:16
> 
> Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
> Romans 3:28
> 
> But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.
> Hebrews 11:6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Religion* says God requires faith.
> 
> That doesn't make it fact.
Click to expand...


Yes it is a fact. It comes from the only book on the subject.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)


----------



## G.T.

Lonestar_logic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you're waiting on proof there is a God before you believe, it may be too late.
> 
> God requires faith. Without it you will not see the kingdom of Heaven.
> 
> For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
> John 3:16
> 
> Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
> Romans 3:28
> 
> But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.
> Hebrews 11:6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Religion* says God requires faith.
> 
> That doesn't make it fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is a fact. It comes from the only book on the subject.
> 
> Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)
Click to expand...


A book which requires faith to believe it is fact. 

That's circular logic.

It's like using a word inside of its definition.

you werent cursed with logic and reason, I guess.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The many theories you hold dear require faith, now what ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what theories do i hold dear?
> 
> which of them require faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution,Stellar nucleosynthesis,Spontaneous generation,Abiogenesis to name a few.
Click to expand...


speaking of conjecture


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Through The Wormhole: How Did We Get Here? - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't unserstand conjecture do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand that studies in progress are still viable, without being 100% proven.
Click to expand...


In all my years in the field I have not seen enough evidence that makes any of the theories viable that I mentioned. I saw evidence that suggests design. hell it's all around us you don't have to look through a microscope as I did for many years.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

G.T. said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you ask, is an admission that you're not very well versed on the study of the Universe, in general.
> 
> If you don't like reading, which a lot of people don't for some reason, I'd start with season 1 of "through the wormhole."
> 
> It's a docu-series and has like 6 or 7 seasons now.
> 
> The series hosts the most advanced men in the field of study to date, it explains their theories, findings, their methods, etc. in a very succinct way for you,
> 
> and it answers the question I bolded above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But don't reject the sciences out of hand and at the same time admit that you've not even bothered to study much into any of them. That's just confirmation bias. Being more open minded makes you smarter, believe it or not. I learned that when I was like 22.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never professed to be.
> 
> I am cursed with logic and reason which is something not acceptable in evolutionary science.
> 
> No liquid water has ever been found on any planet besides earth. That is a fact. Now they can speculate that other planets MAY have the right conditions for liquid water, but that's not any type of proof. It's theory and speculation and I'm not going to hang my hat on that nonsense.
> 
> Now it may very well be that one day they may find another planet with liquid water, but what does that prove exactly? It doesn't negate the idea that a creator was involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesnt negate that at all.
> 
> And there's a big difference between ignorant speculation and speculation based on something you proclaim to hold dear: logic and reason.
> 
> Men study this their entire lives, and are thus more qualified to speculate then....say, youwerecreated.
Click to expand...


Not trusting their hypothesis is being ignorant?

Look these scientist have an agenda and they will manipulate data to reach a desired result. This is not an uncommon practice.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Religion* says God requires faith.
> 
> That doesn't make it fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is a fact. It comes from the only book on the subject.
> 
> Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A book which requires faith to believe it is fact.
> 
> That's circular logic.
> 
> It's like using a word inside of its definition.
> 
> you werent cursed with logic and reason, I guess.
Click to expand...


What do you think most do when they go to College or for that matter High School.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

G.T. said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Religion* says God requires faith.
> 
> That doesn't make it fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is a fact. It comes from the only book on the subject.
> 
> Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A book which requires faith to believe it is fact.
> 
> That's circular logic.
> 
> It's like using a word inside of its definition.
> 
> you werent cursed with logic and reason, I guess.
Click to expand...


Thank you for agreeing with me that it requires faith.

Which was the point I made in the first damn place!


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> what theories do i hold dear?
> 
> which of them require faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution,Stellar nucleosynthesis,Spontaneous generation,Abiogenesis to name a few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> speaking of conjecture
Click to expand...


Now you're getting it,give that man a Cigar.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution is built on unseen evidence and circular explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your willful ignorance of evolutionary science, biology, chemistry, paleontology and the life sciences makes you ill equipped to comment. Making emphatic statements about that which you don't understand is reason to reject your comments as ridiculous.
> 
> You generally hope to paint all of science as a worldwide conspiracy and in doing so, you simply align yourself with so many of the dangerous and self-destructive religious cults / death cultists who have a peculiar habit of doing harm to themselves and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times must your arguments be shot down before you get it ? The only cultist here would be you and daws none of you have taken enough science to debate the issue nor has your new friend with the picture of the baby in the car seat.
> 
> This guy does know speculation from actual scientific fact and surely does not understand the scientific method.
Click to expand...

Lashing out with emotional tirades does little to sway your appearance as a cultist. Your rejection of science, your revulsion for knowledge and your affinity for conspiracies does nothing at all to assist your arguments for supernaturalism and mysticism. 

To suggest as you do that scientists and all the major teaching universities are deluded about evolution and are conspiring to further an agenda of "atheistic evolutionist" suggests that you are a cultist.


----------



## G.T.

Lonestar_logic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is a fact. It comes from the only book on the subject.
> 
> Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A book which requires faith to believe it is fact.
> 
> That's circular logic.
> 
> It's like using a word inside of its definition.
> 
> you werent cursed with logic and reason, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for agreeing with me that it requires faith.
> 
> Which was the point I made in the first damn place!
Click to expand...


you called it fact.

faith is the belief with the absence of proof.

fact requires proof.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Not all,never said that but the powers to be are. I worked for one of them nuts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A book which requires faith to believe it is fact.
> 
> That's circular logic.
> 
> It's like using a word inside of its definition.
> 
> you werent cursed with logic and reason, I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for agreeing with me that it requires faith.
> 
> Which was the point I made in the first damn place!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you called it fact.
> 
> faith is the belief with the absence of proof.
> 
> fact requires proof.
Click to expand...


Please give me a fact that supports any of the theories I mentioned.

Bingo ! you hit the nail on the head.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't unserstand conjecture do you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand that studies in progress are still viable, without being 100% proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In all my years in the field I have not seen enough evidence that makes any of the theories viable that I mentioned*. I saw evidence that suggests design. hell it's all around us you don't have to look through a microscope as I did for many years.
Click to expand...


And you're on a messageboard.

Not an accomplished scientist.

The vast majority of accomplished scientists accept evolution.

you're in a very tiny minority, *for a reason.*

It's called confirmation bias.

You have a big problem with that.

Your confirmation bias problem is evidenced when you look at something and consider it proof that it was created. That's not sound reasoning.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for agreeing with me that it requires faith.
> 
> Which was the point I made in the first damn place!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you called it fact.
> 
> faith is the belief with the absence of proof.
> 
> fact requires proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please give me a fact that supports any of the theories I mentioned.
> 
> Bingo ! you hit the nail on the head.
Click to expand...


the fact that i need to leads me to suggest that you have never done your research.


----------



## ima

conjecture is saying the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

G.T. said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A book which requires faith to believe it is fact.
> 
> That's circular logic.
> 
> It's like using a word inside of its definition.
> 
> you werent cursed with logic and reason, I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for agreeing with me that it requires faith.
> 
> Which was the point I made in the first damn place!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you called it fact.
> 
> faith is the belief with the absence of proof.
> 
> fact requires proof.
Click to expand...


It is written (many times) in the only book on the subject that is a fact.

Don't believe me? Read the book!


----------



## ima

Lonestar_logic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for agreeing with me that it requires faith.
> 
> Which was the point I made in the first damn place!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you called it fact.
> 
> faith is the belief with the absence of proof.
> 
> fact requires proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is written (many times) in the only book on the subject that is a fact.
> 
> Don't believe me? Read the book!
Click to expand...

Total fiction, or can you prove the world was made in 6 days, that Noah was 600 years old, and that water covered the entire earth for 40 days then disappeared. And that's only the first fucking page!!!!


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> conjecture is saying the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing.



You can't talk about a 'time' before time was created.

God, existing in an eternal present, created chronological time for the benefit of our human minds and existence.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you called it fact.
> 
> faith is the belief with the absence of proof.
> 
> fact requires proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is written (many times) in the only book on the subject that is a fact.
> 
> Don't believe me? Read the book!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Total fiction, or can you prove the world was made in 6 days, that Noah was 600 years old, and that water covered the entire earth for 40 days then disappeared. And that's only the first fucking page!!!!
Click to expand...


I can no more prove it than you can disprove it or that you can prove that life was created by chance.

It's called faith for a reason and you don't have any. I'll pray for you.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> conjecture is saying the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't talk about a 'time' before time was created.
> 
> God, existing in an eternal present, created chronological time for the benefit of our human minds and existence.
Click to expand...


Substitute _The Easter Bunny_ for gawds in the statement above.

Now your statement makes sense.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is written (many times) in the only book on the subject that is a fact.
> 
> Don't believe me? Read the book!
> 
> 
> 
> Total fiction, or can you prove the world was made in 6 days, that Noah was 600 years old, and that water covered the entire earth for 40 days then disappeared. And that's only the first fucking page!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can no more prove it than you can disprove it or that you can prove that life was created by chance.
> 
> It's called faith for a reason and you don't have any. I'll pray for you.
Click to expand...


I can easily disprove your particular gawds. Can you disprove my claim?


----------



## Koios

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total fiction, or can you prove the world was made in 6 days, that Noah was 600 years old, and that water covered the entire earth for 40 days then disappeared. And that's only the first fucking page!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can no more prove it than you can disprove it or that you can prove that life was created by chance.
> 
> It's called faith for a reason and you don't have any. I'll pray for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can easily disprove your particular gawds. Can you disprove my claim?
Click to expand...


Eye for an eye ... so let's prove Evolution, using Creationist "logic."

1. Caine and Able could not produce offspring!  PROOF of evolution.

2. Not all the earth's creatures could fit on an ark as small as the one Noah is claimed to have built, much less two of each, which btw is the very fucking definition of extinction (single breeding pair). PROOF of evolution.

Amen


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you called it fact.
> 
> faith is the belief with the absence of proof.
> 
> fact requires proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please give me a fact that supports any of the theories I mentioned.
> 
> Bingo ! you hit the nail on the head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the fact that i need to leads me to suggest that you have never done your research.
Click to expand...


That is a copout. I know you can't and I'm just bringing you back to reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> conjecture is saying the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing.



Sound familliar ?

con·jec·ture  

/k&#601;n&#712;jekCH&#601;r/
Noun
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
Verb
Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Seems that God had already headed off the infinite regression arguments over 2500 years ago. Can we just put the Gawds argument to rest??
> 
> Isaiah 43:10 (King James Version)
> 
> 10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: *before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me*.


no we can't .there is no evidence god actually said that .
as with all bible scripture it's hearsay, mostly 2nd or 3rd generation hearsay.
why is it you guys conveniently forget your whole pov is based on an assumption not fact.?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe everything is the result of accidents and copying errors yes you believe in miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how this is a miracle, by the definition. I sense an argument from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sense nothing of the sort there is nothing to debate here if you're a naturalist you believe in miracles.
Click to expand...

again you're talking out your ass, a miracle:
mir·a·cle
  [mir-uh-kuhl]  Show IPA  

noun  
1. 
an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause. 

2. 
such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.  
a work of god (that's if one existed)
NP'S SPIDY SENSE IS 100% CORRECT.
YOUR (YWC) IGNORANCE IS NOT DUE TO 
in·no·cence
  [in-uh-suhns]  Show IPA  

noun  
1. 
the quality or state of being innocent; freedom from sin or moral wrong. 

2. 
freedom from legal or specific wrong; guiltlessness: simplicity; absence of guile or cunning; naiveté. 

4. 
lack of knowledge or understanding
BUT IS However due to an extreme bias.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> conjecture is saying the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sound familliar ?
> 
> con·jec·ture
> 
> /k&#601;n&#712;jekCH&#601;r/
> Noun
> An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
> Verb
> Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
Click to expand...

so you agree that your faith is based on conjecture. not fact or evidence


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe everything is the result of accidents and copying errors yes you believe in miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how this is a miracle, by the definition. I sense an argument from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of rationale is used by the naturalist to believe that important things needed for good health such as;
> 
> Sodium,potassium,fiber,sugars,protein,vitamin A,Vitamin C,Iron, Vitamin D3,Vitamin E, Thiamin B1, Riboflavin B2, Niacin, Vitamin B6,Folic Acid, Vitamin B12,Biotin, Pantothenic Acid,Phosphrous, Magnesium,Zinc,Manganese,Tocotrienols, Omega3 and Omega6 fatty acids,Inositol Ip6, Gamma Oryzanol,Phyto Sterols,Beta Sitosterol. All provided to us through plants and minerals that our body needs for health and wellness and good cell reproduction.
> 
> What kind of rationale do you people use to believe all of this just came naturally that a designer did not proivide these things to us.
> 
> You people say you use logic but do you really ?
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> no need, since you cannot prove that what you know is correct , it's the same as if I'd proven you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the funny thing about "faith" it requires no proof.
> 
> I know for a fact that God exists, I have witnessed his work. And peronally I don't care who believes in Him or not.
> 
> I am however confused by why those that profess not to believe in Him go to such extremes to denounce a God they don't even believe exists.
> 
> IMO in denouncing Him you're in effect acknowledging Him. And you're also reaffiriming what Jesus said when He told us that we would be persecuted, insulted and mocked because of our belief in Him.
> 
> Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. (Matt. 5:11)
> 
> If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you... If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you... because they do not know Him who sent Me." (John 15: 18-21)
Click to expand...

sorry tex but you got it wrong.
you have to have faith to denounce it.
the same goes for god.
it'd be silly and a waste of time to hate (your words not mine)  a fantasy.
the denouncement is NOT of  the faith but the faithful.
if you actually took the time to see yourselves as others see you ,it would by clear why.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution is built on unseen evidence and circular explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your willful ignorance of evolutionary science, biology, chemistry, paleontology and the life sciences makes you ill equipped to comment. Making emphatic statements about that which you don't understand is reason to reject your comments as ridiculous.
> 
> You generally hope to paint all of science as a worldwide conspiracy and in doing so, you simply align yourself with so many of the dangerous and self-destructive religious cults / death cultists who have a peculiar habit of doing harm to themselves and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times must your arguments be shot down before you get it ? The only cultist here would be you and daws none of you have taken enough science to debate the issue nor has your new friend with the picture of the baby in the car seat.
> 
> This guy does know speculation from actual scientific fact and surely does not understand the scientific method.
Click to expand...

if you listen closely you'll hear the sound of ywc getting his ass handed to him.


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the case how can you so easily dismiss the possibility of a creator?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never have dismissed the potential of a creator, that's why I'm an agnostic, which for me means that there's no real proof to prove or disprove a creator, and I leave the door open to change my mind if someone ever produces REAL tangible proof either way. That's why I consider atheists as deluded as theists, because you can't say for sure that it's not something, we just don't know at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you're waiting on proof there is a God before you believe, it may be too late.
> 
> God requires faith. Without it you will not see the kingdom of Heaven.
> 
> For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
> John 3:16
> 
> Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
> Romans 3:28
> 
> But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.
> Hebrews 11:6
Click to expand...

this friends, is what I like to call the pleading to an nonexistent authority ploy.
desperation at it's  best.


----------



## Big_D2

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated and other creationists,
> 
> Do you believe in the changing within the species or microevolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The important distinction is that we observe changes that do not increase the genetic information in an organism.Such variation within created kinds of organisms is observable in nature and may be influenced by natural selection as well as other factors genetic drift, founder effects, etc. Creation scientists do not disagree that such change occurs and is even a way in which speciation sometimes occurs.
Click to expand...


Can you explain scientifically what is the biological or genetic mechanism which permits all manner of "variation" within a "kind" but somehow slams the door shut at the "kind barrier", preventing one "kind" from "varying" into another "kind".

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/kent_hovind's_lies.htm


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> conjecture is saying the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sound familliar ?
> 
> con·jec·ture
> 
> /k&#601;n&#712;jekCH&#601;r/
> Noun
> An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
> Verb
> Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you agree that your faith is based on conjecture. not fact or evidence
Click to expand...


No difference from the atheistic evolutionist except there is better and more evidence to support what I believe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your willful ignorance of evolutionary science, biology, chemistry, paleontology and the life sciences makes you ill equipped to comment. Making emphatic statements about that which you don't understand is reason to reject your comments as ridiculous.
> 
> You generally hope to paint all of science as a worldwide conspiracy and in doing so, you simply align yourself with so many of the dangerous and self-destructive religious cults / death cultists who have a peculiar habit of doing harm to themselves and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times must your arguments be shot down before you get it ? The only cultist here would be you and daws none of you have taken enough science to debate the issue nor has your new friend with the picture of the baby in the car seat.
> 
> This guy does know speculation from actual scientific fact and surely does not understand the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you listen closely you'll hear the sound of ywc getting his ass handed to him.
Click to expand...



I don't think so I am sitting on it.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times must your arguments be shot down before you get it ? The only cultist here would be you and daws none of you have taken enough science to debate the issue nor has your new friend with the picture of the baby in the car seat.
> 
> This guy does know speculation from actual scientific fact and surely does not understand the scientific method.
> 
> 
> 
> if you listen closely you'll hear the sound of ywc getting his ass handed to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so I am sitting on it.
Click to expand...


Wow!  That's got to make breathing difficult for you.  Try standing.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sound familliar ?
> 
> con·jec·ture
> 
> /k&#601;n&#712;jekCH&#601;r/
> Noun
> An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
> Verb
> Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
> 
> 
> 
> so you agree that your faith is based on conjecture. not fact or evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No difference from the atheistic evolutionist except there is better and more evidence to support what I believe.
Click to expand...

wrong since you have no evidence ,it cannot be better or more saying it is ,is a rationalization and a lie.
the only thing you have is belief and that'S not evidence.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times must your arguments be shot down before you get it ? The only cultist here would be you and daws none of you have taken enough science to debate the issue nor has your new friend with the picture of the baby in the car seat.
> 
> This guy does know speculation from actual scientific fact and surely does not understand the scientific method.
> 
> 
> 
> if you listen closely you'll hear the sound of ywc getting his ass handed to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so I am sitting on it.
Click to expand...

that's an impossibility since your head is tightly packed in your colon.


----------



## daws101

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you listen closely you'll hear the sound of ywc getting his ass handed to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so I am sitting on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!  That's got to make breathing difficult for you.  Try standing.
Click to expand...

SPIT TAKE !


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sound familliar ?
> 
> con·jec·ture
> 
> /k&#601;n&#712;jekCH&#601;r/
> Noun
> An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
> Verb
> Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
> 
> 
> 
> so you agree that your faith is based on conjecture. not fact or evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No difference from the atheistic evolutionist except there is better and more evidence to support what I believe.
Click to expand...

No kidding, there is evidence for conceptions of supermagical agents?


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you agree that your faith is based on conjecture. not fact or evidence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No difference from the atheistic evolutionist except there is better and more evidence to support what I believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No kidding, there is evidence for conceptions of supermagical agents?
Click to expand...

 And he say's we're arrogant!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated and other creationists,
> 
> Do you believe in the changing within the species or microevolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The important distinction is that we observe changes that do not increase the genetic information in an organism.Such variation within created kinds of organisms is observable in nature and may be influenced by natural selection as well as other factors genetic drift, founder effects, etc. Creation scientists do not disagree that such change occurs and is even a way in which speciation sometimes occurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain scientifically what is the biological or genetic mechanism which permits all manner of "variation" within a "kind" but somehow slams the door shut at the "kind barrier", preventing one "kind" from "varying" into another "kind".
> 
> It Seems Kent Hovind is a Liar too
Click to expand...


Microadaptations.

Fact#1 plants and animals only produce what they are because of the genetic code barrier because they only have the genetic information to produce what they are.

Fact #2 Microadaptations result from the sorting or loss of genetic information. Adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools it's called gene depletion. Purebreds are from weaker gene pools because the loss of information. All the other genetic information was bred out of them. Smaller gene pools become weaker. The fact is that is why mutts are healthier they are from a larger gene pool. You can't over breed mutts where you can purebreds.

Fact #3 We know of no way of increasing appreciables amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

There are many examples of microadaptations they are simply changes within a kind and not a new kind. Example a cow does not produce a non cow because of the genetic code barrier won't allow it. The barrier is simply the genetic data available.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you listen closely you'll hear the sound of ywc getting his ass handed to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so I am sitting on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!  That's got to make breathing difficult for you.  Try standing.
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you agree that your faith is based on conjecture. not fact or evidence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No difference from the atheistic evolutionist except there is better and more evidence to support what I believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong since you have no evidence ,it cannot be better or more saying it is ,is a rationalization and a lie.
> the only thing you have is belief and that'S not evidence.
Click to expand...


So you say


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No difference from the atheistic evolutionist except there is better and more evidence to support what I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong since you have no evidence ,it cannot be better or more saying it is ,is a rationalization and a lie.
> the only thing you have is belief and that'S not evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you say
Click to expand...


Well let's test it, versus, well, the fossil record, where we have quite a lot of evidence of species in varying stages of evolution, not to mention a pretty darn good idea that science is a lot better at determining the age of the universe, than the runner up: Hindus.

But with God, let's not be so strident.  Start with baby steps: now then, we are made in His likeness.  Fair enough.  What does He look like?  Male pattern baldness, or great hair?  Tallish? Maybe 5'11" or better?  Color of His eyes?

Whadaya got?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong since you have no evidence ,it cannot be better or more saying it is ,is a rationalization and a lie.
> the only thing you have is belief and that'S not evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well let's test it, versus, well, the fossil record, where we have quite a lot of evidence of species in varying stages of evolution, not to mention a pretty darn good idea that science is a lot better at determining the age of the universe, than the runner up: Hindus.
> 
> But with God, let's not be so strident.  Start with baby steps: now then, we are made in His likeness.  Fair enough.  What does He look like?  Male pattern baldness, or great hair?  Tallish? Maybe 5'11" or better?  Color of His eyes?
> 
> Whadaya got?
Click to expand...

 If you think man has the ability to judge the age of the earth or universe I have ocean front property in Arizona you can buy. The fossil record is a joke. Ever heard of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and why it exists ?


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's test it, versus, well, the fossil record, where we have quite a lot of evidence of species in varying stages of evolution, not to mention a pretty darn good idea that science is a lot better at determining the age of the universe, than the runner up: Hindus.
> 
> But with God, let's not be so strident.  Start with baby steps: now then, we are made in His likeness.  Fair enough.  What does He look like?  Male pattern baldness, or great hair?  Tallish? Maybe 5'11" or better?  Color of His eyes?
> 
> Whadaya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think man has the ability to judge the age of the earth or universe I have ocean front property in Arizona you can buy. The fossil record is a joke. Ever heard of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and why it exists ?
Click to expand...


Okie doke.  At least we know what the universe looks like (and looked like; being light travels a snails pace of only ~300 million meters a second, and it's big goddamn Universe) and we have some nice 3D examples of dinosaurs and shit, what with the many bones we keep digging up. So there's that.

Back to God, who apparently we look like, and Moses not to mention others chatted it up with frequently (comparitively, what with none having done so, too much, lately. Perhaps He's losing interest.  Who knows.  But anyway, you get the idea): what does He look like?  

Got anything?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's test it, versus, well, the fossil record, where we have quite a lot of evidence of species in varying stages of evolution, not to mention a pretty darn good idea that science is a lot better at determining the age of the universe, than the runner up: Hindus.
> 
> But with God, let's not be so strident.  Start with baby steps: now then, we are made in His likeness.  Fair enough.  What does He look like?  Male pattern baldness, or great hair?  Tallish? Maybe 5'11" or better?  Color of His eyes?
> 
> Whadaya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think man has the ability to judge the age of the earth or universe I have ocean front property in Arizona you can buy. The fossil record is a joke. Ever heard of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and why it exists ?
Click to expand...

I find it not the least bit odd that a religious zealot would decide that many complimentary branches of science and the consensus they share all amounts to a global conspiracy.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The important distinction is that we observe changes that do not increase the genetic information in an organism.Such variation within created kinds of organisms is observable in nature and may be influenced by natural selection as well as other factors genetic drift, founder effects, etc. Creation scientists do not disagree that such change occurs and is even a way in which speciation sometimes occurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain scientifically what is the biological or genetic mechanism which permits all manner of "variation" within a "kind" but somehow slams the door shut at the "kind barrier", preventing one "kind" from "varying" into another "kind".
> 
> It Seems Kent Hovind is a Liar too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Microadaptations.
> 
> Fact#1 plants and animals only produce what they are because of the genetic code barrier because they only have the genetic information to produce what they are.
> 
> Fact #2 Microadaptations result from the sorting or loss of genetic information. Adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools it's called gene depletion. Purebreds are from weaker gene pools because the loss of information. All the other genetic information was bred out of them. Smaller gene pools become weaker. The fact is that is why mutts are healthier they are from a larger gene pool. You can't over breed mutts where you can purebreds.
> 
> Fact #3 We know of no way of increasing appreciables amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.
> 
> There are many examples of microadaptations they are simply changes within a kind and not a new kind. Example a cow does not produce a non cow because of the genetic code barrier won't allow it. The barrier is simply the genetic data available.
Click to expand...

When the religiously addled claim to spew irrefutable "facts", regarding evolution. it usually means they've been scouring Harun Yahya again.

Observed Instances of Speciation


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain scientifically what is the biological or genetic mechanism which permits all manner of "variation" within a "kind" but somehow slams the door shut at the "kind barrier", preventing one "kind" from "varying" into another "kind".
> 
> It Seems Kent Hovind is a Liar too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Microadaptations.
> 
> Fact#1 plants and animals only produce what they are because of the genetic code barrier because they only have the genetic information to produce what they are.
> 
> Fact #2 Microadaptations result from the sorting or loss of genetic information. Adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools it's called gene depletion. Purebreds are from weaker gene pools because the loss of information. All the other genetic information was bred out of them. Smaller gene pools become weaker. The fact is that is why mutts are healthier they are from a larger gene pool. You can't over breed mutts where you can purebreds.
> 
> Fact #3 We know of no way of increasing appreciables amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.
> 
> There are many examples of microadaptations they are simply changes within a kind and not a new kind. Example a cow does not produce a non cow because of the genetic code barrier won't allow it. The barrier is simply the genetic data available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the religiously addled claim to spew irrefutable "facts", regarding evolution. it usually means they've been scouring Harun Yahya again.
> 
> Observed Instances of Speciation
Click to expand...


Funny then you copy and paste from talk origins. What is your point ? are you once again showing you have reading comp problems.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Microadaptations.
> 
> Fact#1 plants and animals only produce what they are because of the genetic code barrier because they only have the genetic information to produce what they are.
> 
> Fact #2 Microadaptations result from the sorting or loss of genetic information. Adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools it's called gene depletion. Purebreds are from weaker gene pools because the loss of information. All the other genetic information was bred out of them. Smaller gene pools become weaker. The fact is that is why mutts are healthier they are from a larger gene pool. You can't over breed mutts where you can purebreds.
> 
> Fact #3 We know of no way of increasing appreciables amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.
> 
> There are many examples of microadaptations they are simply changes within a kind and not a new kind. Example a cow does not produce a non cow because of the genetic code barrier won't allow it. The barrier is simply the genetic data available.
> 
> 
> 
> When the religiously addled claim to spew irrefutable "facts", regarding evolution. it usually means they've been scouring Harun Yahya again.
> 
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny then you copy and paste from talk origins. What is your point ? are you once again showing you have reading comp problems.
Click to expand...

What's really funny is watching you run for the exits when your invented "facts' are shown to be fraudulent.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the religiously addled claim to spew irrefutable "facts", regarding evolution. it usually means they've been scouring Harun Yahya again.
> 
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny then you copy and paste from talk origins. What is your point ? are you once again showing you have reading comp problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's really funny is watching you run for the exits when your invented "facts' are shown to be fraudulent.
Click to expand...


Care to elaborate.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny then you copy and paste from talk origins. What is your point ? are you once again showing you have reading comp problems.
> 
> 
> 
> What's really funny is watching you run for the exits when your invented "facts' are shown to be fraudulent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to elaborate.
Click to expand...

Sure. Your "facts" have been refuted several times previously. Are you really so intellectually crippled by religious dogma that you equate ignorance with strong theistic belief?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the religiously addled claim to spew irrefutable "facts", regarding evolution. it usually means they've been scouring Harun Yahya again.
> 
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny then you copy and paste from talk origins. What is your point ? are you once again showing you have reading comp problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's really funny is watching you run for the exits when your invented "facts' are shown to be fraudulent.
Click to expand...


This article addresses your point.


Species&#8221; and &#8220;Kind&#8221;


by Dr. Gary Parker on

January 1, 1994




 author-gary-parker
 creation-facts-of-life
 evolution
 kinds
 speciation

Whoops! Two or more species from one kind! Isn&#8217;t that evolution?

Some evolutionists certainly think so. After I participated in a creation-evolution debate at Texas A & M, a biology professor got up and told everyone about the flies on certain islands that used to interbreed but no longer do. They&#8217;ve become separate species, and that, he said, to a fair amount of applause, proves evolution is a fact&#8212;period!

Well, what about it? Barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? Or does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others? As I explained to the university-debate audience (also to applause), the answer is simply no, of course not. It doesn&#8217;t even come close.

?Species? and ?Kind? - Answers in Genesis


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's really funny is watching you run for the exits when your invented "facts' are shown to be fraudulent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to elaborate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure. Your "facts" have been refuted several times previously. Are you really so intellectually crippled by religious dogma that you equate ignorance with strong theistic belief?
Click to expand...


You're such a bonehead.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to elaborate.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Your "facts" have been refuted several times previously. Are you really so intellectually crippled by religious dogma that you equate ignorance with strong theistic belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're such a bonehead.
Click to expand...

You've done one thing correctly: you decided to avoid further embarrassment by not attempting to defend your ridiculous and fraudulent "facts".


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Your "facts" have been refuted several times previously. Are you really so intellectually crippled by religious dogma that you equate ignorance with strong theistic belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a bonehead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've done one thing correctly: you decided to avoid further embarrassment by not attempting to defend your ridiculous and fraudulent "facts".
Click to expand...


I gave the person asking for the mechanism of change within a kind or group how did you refute what I said ? How would you explain microadaptations ?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> A naturalistic universe precludes miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to answer these questions if that is what you believe. Explain this without violating known laws.
> 
> Where did the matter come from? what caused the explosion ?
Click to expand...


Why should I? You don't get to make demands of knowledge that you yourself can't provide. You can't prove your gods existence, so you are no better off than I am.


----------



## LittleNipper

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> A naturalistic universe precludes miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to answer these questions if that is what you believe. Explain this without violating known laws.
> 
> Where did the matter come from? what caused the explosion ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I? You don't get to make demands if knowledge that you yourself can't provide. You can't prove your gods existence, so you are no better off than I am.
Click to expand...


But you seem to be allowed an advantage. You can promote your beliefs as scientific. But Christians cannot promote their beliefs being spiritual. Miracles happen every day, you have just shut your heart to them. You replace the word "miracle" with the word "coincidence" and you consider yourself scientific?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe everything is the result of accidents and copying errors yes you believe in miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how this is a miracle, by the definition. I sense an argument from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of rationale is used by the naturalist to believe that important things needed for good health such as;
> 
> Sodium,potassium,fiber,sugars,protein,vitamin A,Vitamin C,Iron, Vitamin D3,Vitamin E, Thiamin B1, Riboflavin B2, Niacin, Vitamin B6,Folic Acid, Vitamin B12,Biotin, Pantothenic Acid,Phosphrous, Magnesium,Zinc,Manganese,Tocotrienols, Omega3 and Omega6 fatty acids,Inositol Ip6, Gamma Oryzanol,Phyto Sterols,Beta Sitosterol. All provided to us through plants and minerals that our body needs for health and wellness and good cell reproduction.
> 
> What kind of rationale do you people use to believe all of this just came naturally that a designer did not proivide these things to us.
> 
> You people say you use logic but do you really ?
Click to expand...


What kind of logic are you using to say there is a designer without any evidence? This is an argument from ignorance. We don't know how matter got here (the Big Bang), so you posit an explanation, and claim it is true, with no evidence or justification. You apparently have no functional understanding of logic or epistemology. I wish you did, because then we wouldn't have to constantly be putting down your tired, Oft-repeated arguments ad infinitum.


----------



## newpolitics

LittleNipper said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to answer these questions if that is what you believe. Explain this without violating known laws.
> 
> Where did the matter come from? what caused the explosion ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I? You don't get to make demands if knowledge that you yourself can't provide. You can't prove your gods existence, so you are no better off than I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you seem to be allowed an advantage. You can promote your beliefs as scientific. But Christians cannot promote their beliefs being spiritual. Miracles happen every day, you have just shut your heart to them. You replace the word "miracle" with the word "coincidence" and you consider yourself scientific?
Click to expand...


Those whose claims have evidence have an advantage. That's the way it works. Otherwise, you are vulnerable to believing anything without it actually being true.


----------



## newpolitics

Actually, those whose claims have evidence are the only ones we are justified in believing, and possibly calling knowledge. Lacking evidence, there is no justification for belief. You don't know if your religious beliefs are Correct. Were you born in a different time or place, your theology would be utterly different, yet you would hold it with as much conviction as you do know. You have no way of knowing which, if any, of the worlds religions are true. You believe in Christianity purely because of your geography. That should irk you a bit.


----------



## newpolitics

You seem to think that the standards of evidence are arbitrary. This is where you are wrong. The standards of evidence in science are simply that evidence is required, and should be able to be observed by anyone else who follows the same procedure. Therefore, this is an objective standard, not some subjective standard that religious people who hate science complain about. They just want their epistemology to be on the same level as science, but without demonstrable evidence, it will never be. This isn't a bias, its just that religious claims are unreliable. If god showed up in the evidence, there would be no bias against him. Yet, god isn't shown in any evidence. Humans are fallible beings with inherent cognitive biases which religion seems to promote and in fact, be a product of. Science attempts to minimize these biases using evidence and peer review.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a bonehead.
> 
> 
> 
> You've done one thing correctly: you decided to avoid further embarrassment by not attempting to defend your ridiculous and fraudulent "facts".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave the person asking for the mechanism of change within a kind or group how did you refute what I said ? How would you explain microadaptations ?
Click to expand...


Examples of evolutionary change (adaptation over time), have been presented to you on many occasions. How is it you choose to remain ignorant of these examples?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> conjecture is saying the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sound familliar ?
> 
> con·jec·ture
> 
> /k&#601;n&#712;jekCH&#601;r/
> Noun
> An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
> Verb
> Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
Click to expand...


Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've done one thing correctly: you decided to avoid further embarrassment by not attempting to defend your ridiculous and fraudulent "facts".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave the person asking for the mechanism of change within a kind or group how did you refute what I said ? How would you explain microadaptations ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Examples of evolutionary change (adaptation over time), have been presented to you on many occasions. How is it you choose to remain ignorant of these examples?
Click to expand...


You really don't know what evolutionary change is over time do you. Both sides agree that changes happen within kinds but where we draw the line is a chicken becomes a cat or  microbes becomes a micro-biologist.

Microadaptations is what evolutionist extrapolate from for the bigger changes of evolution they claimed happened. They have no mechanism nor any evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've done one thing correctly: you decided to avoid further embarrassment by not attempting to defend your ridiculous and fraudulent "facts".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave the person asking for the mechanism of change within a kind or group how did you refute what I said ? How would you explain microadaptations ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Examples of evolutionary change (adaptation over time), have been presented to you on many occasions. How is it you choose to remain ignorant of these examples?
Click to expand...


Wrong this evidence don't exist you believe in a fairytale.


----------



## G.T.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctuloBOYolE]Does a Good God Exist? A Debate Between Hitchens and Dembski (November 2010) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> conjecture is saying the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sound familliar ?
> 
> con·jec·ture
> 
> /k&#601;n&#712;jekCH&#601;r/
> Noun
> An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
> Verb
> Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.
Click to expand...


And if they are wrong and there is a designer ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sound familliar ?
> 
> con·jec·ture
> 
> /k&#601;n&#712;jekCH&#601;r/
> Noun
> An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
> Verb
> Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they are wrong and there is a designer ?
Click to expand...


If there's a designer, there's a designer, so what? Scientists are exploring your creator's creation, which unfortunately, makes a lot of stuff in the bible wrong, but so what? Isn't your creator's truth more important?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> conjecture is saying the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sound familliar ?
> 
> con·jec·ture
> 
> /k&#601;n&#712;jekCH&#601;r/
> Noun
> An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
> Verb
> Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.
Click to expand...


What they also observe are natural processes but don't have a clue how these natural processes could of ever got started naturally.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if they are wrong and there is a designer ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's a designer, there's a designer, so what? Scientists are exploring your creator's creation, which unfortunately, makes a lot of stuff in the bible wrong, but so what? Isn't your creator's truth more important?
Click to expand...


If there is a designer they will never get it right because they ruled out the designer. You will have theories like we do now full of gaps.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sound familliar ?
> 
> con·jec·ture
> 
> /k&#601;n&#712;jekCH&#601;r/
> Noun
> An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
> Verb
> Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they also observe are natural processes but don't have a clue how these natural processes could of ever got started naturally.
Click to expand...


Yes they do have a very valid theory that they are trying out about how life got started. So maybe your creator provides a spark and his laws of the universe take over, including evolution? You have no way to rule this out except with an outdated book written by semi-retards, compared to today's knowledge.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave the person asking for the mechanism of change within a kind or group how did you refute what I said ? How would you explain microadaptations ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examples of evolutionary change (adaptation over time), have been presented to you on many occasions. How is it you choose to remain ignorant of these examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong this evidence don't exist you believe in a fairytale.
Click to expand...


Promoting conspiracy theories is a poor excuse for denying objective reality.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if they are wrong and there is a designer ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there's a designer, there's a designer, so what? Scientists are exploring your creator's creation, which unfortunately, makes a lot of stuff in the bible wrong, but so what? Isn't your creator's truth more important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there is a designer they will never get it right because they ruled out the designer. You will have theories like we do now full of gaps.
Click to expand...


If there are designers, there is no reason to believe they are your designer gawds. As we see, your unsupported theories of designer gawds are pointless.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sound familliar ?
> 
> con·jec·ture
> 
> /k&#601;n&#712;jekCH&#601;r/
> Noun
> An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
> Verb
> Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they also observe are natural processes but don't have a clue how these natural processes could of ever got started naturally.
Click to expand...

The proto-typical argument from ignorance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they also observe are natural processes but don't have a clue how these natural processes could of ever got started naturally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The proto-typical argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...


Really, then you can shed light on as to how these natural processes got their start,Go.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they also observe are natural processes but don't have a clue how these natural processes could of ever got started naturally.
> 
> 
> 
> The proto-typical argument from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, then you can shed light on as to how these natural processes got their start,Go.
Click to expand...


Read a science book.

"Precision in nature" is proof of nature. 

That you can't feel the presence of nature is a function of your own limitations. 

Therefore, the natural world is proof of nature.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if they are wrong and there is a designer ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there's a designer, there's a designer, so what? Scientists are exploring your creator's creation, which unfortunately, makes a lot of stuff in the bible wrong, but so what? Isn't your creator's truth more important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there is a designer they will never get it right because they ruled out the designer. You will have theories like we do now full of gaps.
Click to expand...


Blaise Pascal would be proud of this mind-numbing idiocy. It really shows the damage suffered by those instilled with fear and ignorance.

 So, whether I'm right or wrong in my beliefs, I've got nothin' to lose. If I'm right, hooray for me and if I'm wrong, no loss.

Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there are gawds on the chance they will not send you to an eternity of torture."

Fallacies:

a. What if you have chosen the wrong gawds? You will spend an eternity apart from your &#8220;real&#8221; gawds for making such an egregious error

b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gawds, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error

c. Gawds might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error

d. What if the gawds deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.

e. What if the gawds are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there's a designer, there's a designer, so what? Scientists are exploring your creator's creation, which unfortunately, makes a lot of stuff in the bible wrong, but so what? Isn't your creator's truth more important?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a designer they will never get it right because they ruled out the designer. You will have theories like we do now full of gaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there are designers, there is no reason to believe they are your designer gawds. As we see, your unsupported theories of designer gawds are pointless.
Click to expand...


If there is a designer who could it be if not God Hollie ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proto-typical argument from ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, then you can shed light on as to how these natural processes got their start,Go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read a science book.
> 
> "Precision in nature" is proof of nature.
> 
> That you can't feel the presence of nature is a function of your own limitations.
> 
> Therefore, the natural world is proof of nature.
Click to expand...


I have read several hollie. That is your best response read a science book


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there's a designer, there's a designer, so what? Scientists are exploring your creator's creation, which unfortunately, makes a lot of stuff in the bible wrong, but so what? Isn't your creator's truth more important?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a designer they will never get it right because they ruled out the designer. You will have theories like we do now full of gaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blaise Pascal would be proud of this mind-numbing idiocy. It really shows the damage suffered by those instilled with fear and ignorance.
> 
> So, whether I'm right or wrong in my beliefs, I've got nothin' to lose. If I'm right, hooray for me and if I'm wrong, no loss.
> 
> Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there are gawds on the chance they will not send you to an eternity of torture."
> 
> Fallacies:
> 
> a. What if you have chosen the wrong gawds? You will spend an eternity apart from your real gawds for making such an egregious error
> 
> b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gawds, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> c. Gawds might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> d. What if the gawds deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
> 
> e. What if the gawds are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
Click to expand...


Still no attempt at your assertion.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a designer they will never get it right because they ruled out the designer. You will have theories like we do now full of gaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there are designers, there is no reason to believe they are your designer gawds. As we see, your unsupported theories of designer gawds are pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there is a designer who could it be if not God Hollie ?
Click to expand...


There is no need for designer gawds. 

Even if we entertain your lurid fantasies, who are the designers of the designer gawds?

It could be the syndicate of Greek gawds. A formidable, unionized conglomeration of designers of designer gawds. 

Can you disprove it?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a designer they will never get it right because they ruled out the designer. You will have theories like we do now full of gaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blaise Pascal would be proud of this mind-numbing idiocy. It really shows the damage suffered by those instilled with fear and ignorance.
> 
> So, whether I'm right or wrong in my beliefs, I've got nothin' to lose. If I'm right, hooray for me and if I'm wrong, no loss.
> 
> Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there are gawds on the chance they will not send you to an eternity of torture."
> 
> Fallacies:
> 
> a. What if you have chosen the wrong gawds? You will spend an eternity apart from your &#8220;real&#8221; gawds for making such an egregious error
> 
> b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gawds, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> c. Gawds might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> d. What if the gawds deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
> 
> e. What if the gawds are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no attempt at your assertion.
Click to expand...

It needs no attempt. 

The "precision in nature" is proof.

Can't you feel it?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there's a designer, there's a designer, so what? Scientists are exploring your creator's creation, which unfortunately, makes a lot of stuff in the bible wrong, but so what? Isn't your creator's truth more important?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a designer they will never get it right because they ruled out the designer. You will have theories like we do now full of gaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blaise Pascal would be proud of this mind-numbing idiocy. It really shows the damage suffered by those instilled with fear and ignorance.
> 
> So, whether I'm right or wrong in my beliefs, I've got nothin' to lose. If I'm right, hooray for me and if I'm wrong, no loss.
> 
> Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there are gawds on the chance they will not send you to an eternity of torture."
> 
> Fallacies:
> 
> a. What if you have chosen the wrong gawds? You will spend an eternity apart from your real gawds for making such an egregious error
> 
> b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gawds, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> c. Gawds might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> d. What if the gawds deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
> 
> e. What if the gawds are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
Click to expand...


Hollie what is your explanation for living fossils with ancestors dated back as far as 325 million years or more and that very same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blaise Pascal would be proud of this mind-numbing idiocy. It really shows the damage suffered by those instilled with fear and ignorance.
> 
> So, whether I'm right or wrong in my beliefs, I've got nothin' to lose. If I'm right, hooray for me and if I'm wrong, no loss.
> 
> Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there are gawds on the chance they will not send you to an eternity of torture."
> 
> Fallacies:
> 
> a. What if you have chosen the wrong gawds? You will spend an eternity apart from your real gawds for making such an egregious error
> 
> b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gawds, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> c. Gawds might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> d. What if the gawds deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
> 
> e. What if the gawds are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no attempt at your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It needs no attempt.
> 
> The "precision in nature" is proof.
Click to expand...


That is correct precision in nature is evidence of design.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a designer they will never get it right because they ruled out the designer. You will have theories like we do now full of gaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blaise Pascal would be proud of this mind-numbing idiocy. It really shows the damage suffered by those instilled with fear and ignorance.
> 
> So, whether I'm right or wrong in my beliefs, I've got nothin' to lose. If I'm right, hooray for me and if I'm wrong, no loss.
> 
> Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there are gawds on the chance they will not send you to an eternity of torture."
> 
> Fallacies:
> 
> a. What if you have chosen the wrong gawds? You will spend an eternity apart from your real gawds for making such an egregious error
> 
> b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gawds, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> c. Gawds might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> d. What if the gawds deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
> 
> e. What if the gawds are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie what is your explanation for living fossils with ancestors dated back as far as 325 million years or more and that very same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?
Click to expand...


if you knew anything about evolution, you'd know the answer.

here, let me help:

a species that has survived 325 million years is quite obviously already in its optimum survival body type.

derp derp.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no attempt at your assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> It needs no attempt.
> 
> The "precision in nature" is proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct precision in nature is evidence of design.
Click to expand...


you cant use precision in nature as evidence of design, obviously, and even if you were dumb enough to do so, you'd have to explain the areas where there's lack of precision.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blaise Pascal would be proud of this mind-numbing idiocy. It really shows the damage suffered by those instilled with fear and ignorance.
> 
> So, whether I'm right or wrong in my beliefs, I've got nothin' to lose. If I'm right, hooray for me and if I'm wrong, no loss.
> 
> Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there are gawds on the chance they will not send you to an eternity of torture."
> 
> Fallacies:
> 
> a. What if you have chosen the wrong gawds? You will spend an eternity apart from your &#8220;real&#8221; gawds for making such an egregious error
> 
> b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gawds, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> c. Gawds might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> d. What if the gawds deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
> 
> e. What if the gawds are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie what is your explanation for living fossils with ancestors dated back as far as 325 million years or more and that very same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you knew anything about evolution, you'd know the answer.
> 
> here, let me help:
> 
> a species that has survived 325 million years is quite obviously already in its optimum survival body type.
> 
> derp derp.
Click to expand...


So you are gonna rely on theory to attempt to explain this problem. Wrong answer because these organisms are still subject to environmental pressures and they still experience mutations,whatever derp derp means.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie what is your explanation for living fossils with ancestors dated back as far as 325 million years or more and that very same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you knew anything about evolution, you'd know the answer.
> 
> here, let me help:
> 
> a species that has survived 325 million years is quite obviously already in its optimum survival body type.
> 
> derp derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are gonna rely on theory to attempt to explain this problem. Wrong answer because these organisms are still subject to environmental pressures and they still experience mutations,whatever derp derp means.
Click to expand...


they still experience mutations?

didnt your question say:

*same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?[/B]

My god you're dense.*


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It needs no attempt.
> 
> The "precision in nature" is proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct precision in nature is evidence of design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you cant use precision in nature as evidence of design, obviously, and even if you were dumb enough to do so, you'd have to explain the areas where there's lack of precision.
Click to expand...


How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you knew anything about evolution, you'd know the answer.
> 
> here, let me help:
> 
> a species that has survived 325 million years is quite obviously already in its optimum survival body type.
> 
> derp derp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are gonna rely on theory to attempt to explain this problem. Wrong answer because these organisms are still subject to environmental pressures and they still experience mutations,whatever derp derp means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they still experience mutations?
> 
> didnt your question say:
> 
> *same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?[/B]
> 
> My god you're dense.*
Click to expand...

*

Are you that dense and don't understand these are your mechanisms for evolution ?*


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct precision in nature is evidence of design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you cant use precision in nature as evidence of design, obviously, and even if you were dumb enough to do so, you'd have to explain the areas where there's lack of precision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.
Click to expand...


How can you get precision from chaos?

Really? That's what you'd hang your hat on?

First of all, there's (no precision!). 

All species decay.

Even fucking trees. 

All stars eventually fizzle out, read about supernovae. 

There is no precision.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are gonna rely on theory to attempt to explain this problem. Wrong answer because these organisms are still subject to environmental pressures and they still experience mutations,whatever derp derp means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they still experience mutations?
> 
> didnt your question say:
> 
> *same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?[/B]
> 
> My god you're dense.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Are you that dense and don't understand these are your mechanisms for evolution ?*
Click to expand...

*

No no, I understand that completely.

It was you who said "show no evolutionary changes"

and then in the next post said 

"they experience mutations"

A complete contradiction, derp derp.*


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct precision in nature is evidence of design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you cant use precision in nature as evidence of design, obviously, and even if you were dumb enough to do so, you'd have to explain the areas where there's lack of precision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.
Click to expand...


That's possibly the dumbest statement I've read here so far. And that's saying something!


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you cant use precision in nature as evidence of design, obviously, and even if you were dumb enough to do so, you'd have to explain the areas where there's lack of precision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you get precision from chaos?
> 
> Really? That's what you'd hang your hat on?
> 
> First of all, there's (no precision!).
> 
> All species decay.
> 
> Even fucking trees.
> 
> All stars eventually fizzle out, read about supernovae.
> 
> There is no precision.
Click to expand...


The big bang began from a state of chaos but then settled down and produced precison in nature ?

Evidently you don't understand the precision of the formation of a cell nor the precision of this planet and how it can sustain life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> they still experience mutations?
> 
> didnt your question say:
> 
> *same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?[/B]
> 
> My god you're dense.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Are you that dense and don't understand these are your mechanisms for evolution ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> No no, I understand that completely.
> 
> It was you who said "show no evolutionary changes"
> 
> and then in the next post said
> 
> "they experience mutations"
> 
> A complete contradiction, derp derp.*
Click to expand...

*

Because mutations don't do as evolutionist claim which has been my argument all along.*


----------



## LittleNipper

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



"Someone" actually realizes that there is something bigger, greater, more powerful, wiser, stronger, and an eternity beyond the intelligence of man.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you get precision from chaos?
> 
> Really? That's what you'd hang your hat on?
> 
> First of all, there's (no precision!).
> 
> All species decay.
> 
> Even fucking trees.
> 
> All stars eventually fizzle out, read about supernovae.
> 
> There is no precision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The big bang began from a state of chaos but then settled down and produced precison in nature ?
> 
> Evidently you don't understand the precision of the formation of a cell nor the precision of this planet and how it can sustain life.
Click to expand...


It's not precision when there's decay.

Decay is not precision in design. 

Also - it's not settled down. The Universe is still expanding out. The rate of which is actually increasing, making the formation of new life on other planets difficult over time. 

But to call our conditions precision is asinine. We decay, that's a flaw in design.

Also - we are one of trillions of planets, and we haven't even picked up one piece of sand yet, of all the grains of sand on all the beaches on earth - - - - in terms of ability to explore other planets out there and see what type of life they may or may not have.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you cant use precision in nature as evidence of design, obviously, and even if you were dumb enough to do so, you'd have to explain the areas where there's lack of precision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's possibly the dumbest statement I've read here so far. And that's saying something!
Click to expand...


I have stated before there are things in nature that exhibit precision but not all things exhibit precision got it ?


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you that dense and don't understand these are your mechanisms for evolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No no, I understand that completely.
> 
> It was you who said "show no evolutionary changes"
> 
> and then in the next post said
> 
> "they experience mutations"
> 
> A complete contradiction, derp derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because mutations don't do as evolutionist claim which has been my argument all along.
Click to expand...


aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahah.

The fact that you don't know

when you show how little you actually understand about a subject

is great comedy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you get precision from chaos?
> 
> Really? That's what you'd hang your hat on?
> 
> First of all, there's (no precision!).
> 
> All species decay.
> 
> Even fucking trees.
> 
> All stars eventually fizzle out, read about supernovae.
> 
> There is no precision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang began from a state of chaos but then settled down and produced precison in nature ?
> 
> Evidently you don't understand the precision of the formation of a cell nor the precision of this planet and how it can sustain life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not precision when there's decay.
> 
> Decay is not precision in design.
> 
> Also - it's not settled down. The Universe is still expanding out. The rate of which is actually increasing, making the formation of new life on other planets difficult over time.
> 
> But to call our conditions precision is asinine. We decay, that's a flaw in design.
> 
> Also - we are one of trillions of planets, and we haven't even picked up one piece of sand yet, of all the grains of sand on all the beaches on earth - - - - in terms of ability to explore other planets out there and see what type of life they may or may not have.
Click to expand...


The decay humans experience is a cycle but absent of biological precision we would have never existed.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang began from a state of chaos but then settled down and produced precison in nature ?
> 
> Evidently you don't understand the precision of the formation of a cell nor the precision of this planet and how it can sustain life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not precision when there's decay.
> 
> Decay is not precision in design.
> 
> Also - it's not settled down. The Universe is still expanding out. The rate of which is actually increasing, making the formation of new life on other planets difficult over time.
> 
> But to call our conditions precision is asinine. We decay, that's a flaw in design.
> 
> Also - we are one of trillions of planets, and we haven't even picked up one piece of sand yet, of all the grains of sand on all the beaches on earth - - - - in terms of ability to explore other planets out there and see what type of life they may or may not have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The decay humans experience is a cycle but absent of biological precision we would have never existed.
Click to expand...


The death _*is*_ the absence of biological precision.

The existence, to begin with, *is chaotic*.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No no, I understand that completely.
> 
> It was you who said "show no evolutionary changes"
> 
> and then in the next post said
> 
> "they experience mutations"
> 
> A complete contradiction, derp derp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because mutations don't do as evolutionist claim which has been my argument all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahah.
> 
> The fact that you don't know
> 
> when you show how little you actually understand about a subject
> 
> is great comedy.
Click to expand...


You would be surprised at the amusement I get from watching you squirm as you try to come up with an answer to logical questions.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's possibly the dumbest statement I've read here so far. And that's saying something!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have stated before there are things in nature that exhibit precision but not all things exhibit precision got it ?
Click to expand...


But your whole belief system is based on fairy tales while rejecting real science. Sorry I can't debate with retarded, it's a waste of my time. I was curious to probe you to see if you had anything real to base your arguments on. I have my answer. Now the question is: are there any creationists who can base their theories on real science? You obviously can't.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not precision when there's decay.
> 
> Decay is not precision in design.
> 
> Also - it's not settled down. The Universe is still expanding out. The rate of which is actually increasing, making the formation of new life on other planets difficult over time.
> 
> But to call our conditions precision is asinine. We decay, that's a flaw in design.
> 
> Also - we are one of trillions of planets, and we haven't even picked up one piece of sand yet, of all the grains of sand on all the beaches on earth - - - - in terms of ability to explore other planets out there and see what type of life they may or may not have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The decay humans experience is a cycle but absent of biological precision we would have never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The death _*is*_ the absence of biological precision.
> 
> The existence, to begin with, *is chaotic*.
Click to expand...


A child is born from chaos ? you can't be serious. The decay is a lack of maintaining precision.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's possibly the dumbest statement I've read here so far. And that's saying something!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have stated before there are things in nature that exhibit precision but not all things exhibit precision got it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But your whole belief system is based on fairy tales while rejecting real science. Sorry I can't debate with retarded, it's a waste of my time. I was curious to probe you to see if you had anything real to base your arguments on. I have my answer. Now the question is: are there any creationists who can base their theories on real science? You obviously can't.
Click to expand...


I know you can't argue against logic.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because mutations don't do as evolutionist claim which has been my argument all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahah.
> 
> The fact that you don't know
> 
> when you show how little you actually understand about a subject
> 
> is great comedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would be surprised at the amusement I get from watching you squirm as you try to come up with an answer to logical questions.
Click to expand...


It's not a good look to show such arrogance when anyone who knows the most basic principles of the topic you're so blatantly ignorant of are sitting there in fascination of your stubborninity.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The decay humans experience is a cycle but absent of biological precision we would have never existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The death _*is*_ the absence of biological precision.
> 
> The existence, to begin with, *is chaotic*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A child is born from chaos ? you can't be serious. The decay is a lack of maintaining precision.
Click to expand...


lack of maintaining precision? lol

you're hilarious. 

Decay is unstoppable, maintenance can only slow it. 

Yes, a child is born from chaos. It's quite evident from the fact that the Universe is its age, and humans are so much younger. 

You really should watch every episode of through the worm hole. 

They really dumb down these complicated topics, something you seem to would benefit greatly from.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have stated before there are things in nature that exhibit precision but not all things exhibit precision got it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But your whole belief system is based on fairy tales while rejecting real science. Sorry I can't debate with retarded, it's a waste of my time. I was curious to probe you to see if you had anything real to base your arguments on. I have my answer. Now the question is: are there any creationists who can base their theories on real science? You obviously can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you can't argue against logic.
Click to expand...


But it's not logical that Noah would be able to gather up 2 of every animal FROM AROUND THE WORLD and feed them for 40 days on a FUCKING BOAT!!!!!!!


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie what is your explanation for living fossils with ancestors dated back as far as 325 million years or more and that very same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?



This is my favorite, favorite example of youwerecreated BLATANTLY showing his ignorance of the most basic tenets of evolution. 

Best-post-evah. 

I'm gunna bookmark that bitch. Maybe even frame it.


----------



## LittleNipper

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie what is your explanation for living fossils with ancestors dated back as far as 325 million years or more and that very same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my favorite, favorite example of youwerecreated BLATANTLY showing his ignorance of the most basic tenets of evolution.
> 
> Best-post-evah.
> 
> I'm gunna bookmark that bitch. Maybe even frame it.
Click to expand...


Do you really imagine that the baby sitting in the carseat (your icon) is simply the end product of chance or another freak of natural selection? I cannot believe that. I see that baby as God's illustration of His feelings concerning us.  And not some mutantion or the end result of billions of years of natural chance. You can either direct that little one towards seeking after God or send him out into a world that says do whatever --- eat drink and make merry --- for tomorrow we all will die...


----------



## G.T.

LittleNipper said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie what is your explanation for living fossils with ancestors dated back as far as 325 million years or more and that very same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my favorite, favorite example of youwerecreated BLATANTLY showing his ignorance of the most basic tenets of evolution.
> 
> Best-post-evah.
> 
> I'm gunna bookmark that bitch. Maybe even frame it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really imagine that the baby sitting in the carseat (your icon) is simply the end product of chance or another freak of natural selection? I cannot believe that. I see that baby as God's illustration of His feelings concerning us.  And not some mutantion or the end result of billions of years of natural chance. You can either direct that little one towards seeking after God or send him out into a world that says do whatever --- eat drink and make merry --- for tomorrow we all will die...
Click to expand...


It's a girl.

And you're appealing to emotion in the place of logic. 

I know that evolution happened. 

I do not know what started the Universe itself, God, not God, whatever - so I am an agnostic.

But I do not deny solid science. Being an agnostic is admitting one does not know, and keeping an open mind. 

Anyone doing the opposite is doing so out of their ego, whether pulled by emotion or tautologies written by men as a means to control people into behaving.


----------



## LittleNipper

G.T. said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my favorite, favorite example of youwerecreated BLATANTLY showing his ignorance of the most basic tenets of evolution.
> 
> Best-post-evah.
> 
> I'm gunna bookmark that bitch. Maybe even frame it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really imagine that the baby sitting in the carseat (your icon) is simply the end product of chance or another freak of natural selection? I cannot believe that. I see that baby as God's illustration of His feelings concerning us.  And not some mutantion or the end result of billions of years of natural chance. You can either direct that little one towards seeking after God or send him out into a world that says do whatever --- eat drink and make merry --- for tomorrow we all will die...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a girl.
> 
> And you're appealing to emotion in the place of logic.
> 
> I know that evolution happened.
> 
> I do not know what started the Universe itself, God, not God, whatever - so I am an agnostic.
> 
> But I do not deny solid science. Being an agnostic is admitting one does not know, and keeping an open mind.
> 
> Anyone doing the opposite is doing so out of their ego, whether pulled by emotion or tautologies written by men as a means to control people into behaving.
Click to expand...


You deny the sprituality of man. You believe in ADDING to solid science. Evolution is a theory and not observable. Variety is truth, but variety never crosses over into new species which have never been demonstrated nor proven. That little girl is a spiritual being and not just material. Emotion mirrors our soul. Pure logic has led many to have an abortion. One needs to consider both...


----------



## G.T.

LittleNipper said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really imagine that the baby sitting in the carseat (your icon) is simply the end product of chance or another freak of natural selection? I cannot believe that. I see that baby as God's illustration of His feelings concerning us.  And not some mutantion or the end result of billions of years of natural chance. You can either direct that little one towards seeking after God or send him out into a world that says do whatever --- eat drink and make merry --- for tomorrow we all will die...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a girl.
> 
> And you're appealing to emotion in the place of logic.
> 
> I know that evolution happened.
> 
> I do not know what started the Universe itself, God, not God, whatever - so I am an agnostic.
> 
> But I do not deny solid science. Being an agnostic is admitting one does not know, and keeping an open mind.
> 
> Anyone doing the opposite is doing so out of their ego, whether pulled by emotion or tautologies written by men as a means to control people into behaving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You deny the sprituality of man. You believe in ADDING to solid science. Evolution is a theory and not observable. Variety is truth, but variety never crosses over into new species which have never been demonstrated nor proven. That little girl is a spiritual being and not just material. Emotion mirrors our soul. Pure logic has led many to have an abortion. One needs to consider both...
Click to expand...


This is all hot air.

And evolution *is* observable, and "theory" means something different in science, if you never knew. 

Pure logic is something I'm glad to have as a sentient species.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

G.T. said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a girl.
> 
> And you're appealing to emotion in the place of logic.
> 
> I know that evolution happened.
> 
> I do not know what started the Universe itself, God, not God, whatever - so I am an agnostic.
> 
> But I do not deny solid science. Being an agnostic is admitting one does not know, and keeping an open mind.
> 
> Anyone doing the opposite is doing so out of their ego, whether pulled by emotion or tautologies written by men as a means to control people into behaving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You deny the sprituality of man. You believe in ADDING to solid science. Evolution is a theory and not observable. Variety is truth, but variety never crosses over into new species which have never been demonstrated nor proven. That little girl is a spiritual being and not just material. Emotion mirrors our soul. Pure logic has led many to have an abortion. One needs to consider both...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is all hot air.
> 
> And evolution *is* observable, and "theory" means something different in science, if you never knew.
> 
> Pure logic is something I'm glad to have as a sentient species.
Click to expand...


Evolution is not observable.  Never has been, never will be -- unless someone figures out time travel. Nor is it falsifiable, for all that matter, especially when people define evolution as change over time -- a wonderfully vague definition.

Logical people understand that the existence of God is certainly possible and the difference between naturalism and science.

How, exactly, does hydrogen turn into human beings over time?

Does the likelihod of an event change over time?

Does environment affect genetic change in populations?  Of course it does.

Is that the sole mechanism that explains our existence?  I kinda doubt it.


----------



## G.T.

Crackerjaxon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You deny the sprituality of man. You believe in ADDING to solid science. Evolution is a theory and not observable. Variety is truth, but variety never crosses over into new species which have never been demonstrated nor proven. That little girl is a spiritual being and not just material. Emotion mirrors our soul. Pure logic has led many to have an abortion. One needs to consider both...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is all hot air.
> 
> And evolution *is* observable, and "theory" means something different in science, if you never knew.
> 
> Pure logic is something I'm glad to have as a sentient species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is not observable.  Never has been, never will be -- unless someone figures out time travel. Nor is it falsifiable, for all that matter, especially when people define evolution as change over time -- a wonderfully vague definition.
> 
> Logical people understand that the existence of God is certainly possible and the difference between naturalism and science.
> 
> How, exactly, does hydrogen turn into human beings over time?
> 
> Does the likelihod of an event change over time?
> 
> Does environment affect genetic change in populations?  Of course it does.
> 
> Is that the sole mechanism that explains our existence?  I kinda doubt it.
Click to expand...



go to google.com

type "evolution observed in a lab"

have fun.


----------



## ima

Crackerjaxon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You deny the sprituality of man. You believe in ADDING to solid science. Evolution is a theory and not observable. Variety is truth, but variety never crosses over into new species which have never been demonstrated nor proven. That little girl is a spiritual being and not just material. Emotion mirrors our soul. Pure logic has led many to have an abortion. One needs to consider both...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is all hot air.
> 
> And evolution *is* observable, and "theory" means something different in science, if you never knew.
> 
> Pure logic is something I'm glad to have as a sentient species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Evolution is not observable.  Never has been, never will be *-- unless someone figures out time travel. Nor is it falsifiable, for all that matter, especially when people define evolution as change over time -- a wonderfully vague definition.
> 
> Logical people understand that the existence of God is certainly possible and the difference between naturalism and science.
> 
> How, exactly, does hydrogen turn into human beings over time?
> 
> Does the likelihod of an event change over time?
> 
> Does environment affect genetic change in populations?  Of course it does.
> 
> Is that the sole mechanism that explains our existence?  I kinda doubt it.
Click to expand...


We've evolved from being shorter to getting taller all the time. You can see it for yourself when you enter a house built in the 17th century, i.e., the rooms are smaller, the doorways, the ceilings... are all shorter and smaller. You need more proof? How about this: I used to eat meat but my thinking evolved to a healthier mindset and now I'm a vegetarian.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The death _*is*_ the absence of biological precision.
> 
> The existence, to begin with, *is chaotic*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A child is born from chaos ? you can't be serious. The decay is a lack of maintaining precision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lack of maintaining precision? lol
> 
> you're hilarious.
> 
> Decay is unstoppable, maintenance can only slow it.
> 
> Yes, a child is born from chaos. It's quite evident from the fact that the Universe is its age, and humans are so much younger.
> 
> You really should watch every episode of through the worm hole.
> 
> They really dumb down these complicated topics, something you seem to would benefit greatly from.
Click to expand...


Of course decay is unstoppable but you deny the obvious that it took precision to form the child in the womb without blemish. The decay don't begin until the child is born which is the life cycle.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahah.
> 
> The fact that you don't know
> 
> when you show how little you actually understand about a subject
> 
> is great comedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would be surprised at the amusement I get from watching you squirm as you try to come up with an answer to logical questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a good look to show such arrogance when anyone who knows the most basic principles of the topic you're so blatantly ignorant of are sitting there in fascination of your stubborninity.
Click to expand...


From what I see you know very little about the subjects being discussed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The death _*is*_ the absence of biological precision.
> 
> The existence, to begin with, *is chaotic*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A child is born from chaos ? you can't be serious. The decay is a lack of maintaining precision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lack of maintaining precision? lol
> 
> you're hilarious.
> 
> Decay is unstoppable, maintenance can only slow it.
> 
> Yes, a child is born from chaos. It's quite evident from the fact that the Universe is its age, and humans are so much younger.
> 
> You really should watch every episode of through the worm hole.
> 
> They really dumb down these complicated topics, something you seem to would benefit greatly from.
Click to expand...


Already responded to this.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A child is born from chaos ? you can't be serious. The decay is a lack of maintaining precision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lack of maintaining precision? lol
> 
> you're hilarious.
> 
> Decay is unstoppable, maintenance can only slow it.
> 
> Yes, a child is born from chaos. It's quite evident from the fact that the Universe is its age, and humans are so much younger.
> 
> You really should watch every episode of through the worm hole.
> 
> They really dumb down these complicated topics, something you seem to would benefit greatly from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course decay is unstoppable but you deny the obvious that it took precision to form the child in the womb without blemish. The decay don't begin until the child is born which is the life cycle.
Click to expand...


Your comment is even more nonsensical than usual. This "precision" slogan you use is obviously false. Pregnancy carries enormous risk, both to mother and fetus. 

You see "precision" because you're ignorantly promoting religious dogma, not because you know any facts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blaise Pascal would be proud of this mind-numbing idiocy. It really shows the damage suffered by those instilled with fear and ignorance.
> 
> So, whether I'm right or wrong in my beliefs, I've got nothin' to lose. If I'm right, hooray for me and if I'm wrong, no loss.
> 
> Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there are gawds on the chance they will not send you to an eternity of torture."
> 
> Fallacies:
> 
> a. What if you have chosen the wrong gawds? You will spend an eternity apart from your &#8220;real&#8221; gawds for making such an egregious error
> 
> b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gawds, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> c. Gawds might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error
> 
> d. What if the gawds deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
> 
> e. What if the gawds are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie what is your explanation for living fossils with ancestors dated back as far as 325 million years or more and that very same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you knew anything about evolution, you'd know the answer.
> 
> here, let me help:
> 
> a species that has survived 325 million years is quite obviously already in its optimum survival body type.
> 
> derp derp.
Click to expand...


Where do you get this stupidity from  you're now arguing against your own theory and solid science ? funny.

Environmental pressures,Mutations and natural serlection no longer have an effect on an organism this is your best response to living fossils. You are correct about one thing your understanding of your theory is very basic and Ideological.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang began from a state of chaos but then settled down and produced precison in nature ?
> 
> Evidently you don't understand the precision of the formation of a cell nor the precision of this planet and how it can sustain life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not precision when there's decay.
> 
> Decay is not precision in design.
> 
> Also - it's not settled down. The Universe is still expanding out. The rate of which is actually increasing, making the formation of new life on other planets difficult over time.
> 
> But to call our conditions precision is asinine. We decay, that's a flaw in design.
> 
> Also - we are one of trillions of planets, and we haven't even picked up one piece of sand yet, of all the grains of sand on all the beaches on earth - - - - in terms of ability to explore other planets out there and see what type of life they may or may not have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The decay humans experience is a cycle but absent of biological precision we would have never existed.
Click to expand...


More "precision" idiocy. Yet you can't account for the myriad diseases and genetic defects that cause such harm to human biology. 

What a shame your gawds are such incompetent designers.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie what is your explanation for living fossils with ancestors dated back as far as 325 million years or more and that very same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you knew anything about evolution, you'd know the answer.
> 
> here, let me help:
> 
> a species that has survived 325 million years is quite obviously already in its optimum survival body type.
> 
> derp derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get this stupidity from  you're now arguing against your own theory and solid science ? funny.
> 
> Environmental pressures,Mutations and natural serlection no longer have an effect on an organism this is your best response to living fossils. You are correct about one thing your understanding of your theory is very basic and Ideological.
Click to expand...


mutations are a part of evolution you dumb fucking prick. 

if an organism has mutations, is has evolved. 

jesus fucking christ.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's possibly the dumbest statement I've read here so far. And that's saying something!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have stated before there are things in nature that exhibit precision but not all things exhibit precision got it ?
Click to expand...


Actually, you have now exceeded your "stupid statement of the day", quota.


----------



## Hollie

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie what is your explanation for living fossils with ancestors dated back as far as 325 million years or more and that very same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my favorite, favorite example of youwerecreated BLATANTLY showing his ignorance of the most basic tenets of evolution.
> 
> Best-post-evah.
> 
> I'm gunna bookmark that bitch. Maybe even frame it.
Click to expand...


Agreed.

May I suggest we provide ywc with a tee shirt, emblazoned with big, red letters spelling out, "kick me".


----------



## G.T.

nah just some reading for the dumb fucker.

Mutation


----------



## G.T.

_Hollie what is your explanation for living fossils with ancestors dated back as far as 325 million years or more and that very same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?_

_these organisms are still subject to environmental pressures and they still experience mutations_

- same author (somehow)


----------



## Crackerjaxon

G.T. said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is all hot air.
> 
> And evolution *is* observable, and "theory" means something different in science, if you never knew.
> 
> Pure logic is something I'm glad to have as a sentient species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not observable.  Never has been, never will be -- unless someone figures out time travel. Nor is it falsifiable, for all that matter, especially when people define evolution as change over time -- a wonderfully vague definition.
> 
> Logical people understand that the existence of God is certainly possible and the difference between naturalism and science.
> 
> How, exactly, does hydrogen turn into human beings over time?
> 
> Does the likelihod of an event change over time?
> 
> Does environment affect genetic change in populations?  Of course it does.
> 
> Is that the sole mechanism that explains our existence?  I kinda doubt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> go to google.com
> 
> type "evolution observed in a lab"
> 
> have fun.
Click to expand...


I went and saw the usual crowing about an observed change in bacteria under laboratory conditions. How does this prove that mankind evolved from hydrogen?

Only Eviel Kneivel would make a leap like that.

This is the usual tact taken by smarmy would-be scientists in arguments.

Oh look, a genetic change in a single cell animal!    That proves that evolution is observable.

Please.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is all hot air.
> 
> And evolution *is* observable, and "theory" means something different in science, if you never knew.
> 
> Pure logic is something I'm glad to have as a sentient species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Evolution is not observable.  Never has been, never will be *-- unless someone figures out time travel. Nor is it falsifiable, for all that matter, especially when people define evolution as change over time -- a wonderfully vague definition.
> 
> Logical people understand that the existence of God is certainly possible and the difference between naturalism and science.
> 
> How, exactly, does hydrogen turn into human beings over time?
> 
> Does the likelihod of an event change over time?
> 
> Does environment affect genetic change in populations?  Of course it does.
> 
> Is that the sole mechanism that explains our existence?  I kinda doubt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've evolved from being shorter to getting taller all the time. You can see it for yourself when you enter a house built in the 17th century, i.e., the rooms are smaller, the doorways, the ceilings... are all shorter and smaller. You need more proof? How about this: I used to eat meat but my thinking evolved to a healthier mindset and now I'm a vegetarian.
Click to expand...


See how vague evolutionary thinking is. I changed my mind about something that means I evolved,really ?


----------



## G.T.

Crackerjaxon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not observable.  Never has been, never will be -- unless someone figures out time travel. Nor is it falsifiable, for all that matter, especially when people define evolution as change over time -- a wonderfully vague definition.
> 
> Logical people understand that the existence of God is certainly possible and the difference between naturalism and science.
> 
> How, exactly, does hydrogen turn into human beings over time?
> 
> Does the likelihod of an event change over time?
> 
> Does environment affect genetic change in populations?  Of course it does.
> 
> Is that the sole mechanism that explains our existence?  I kinda doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> go to google.com
> 
> type "evolution observed in a lab"
> 
> have fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went and saw the usual crowing about an observed change in bacteria under laboratory conditions. How does this prove that mankind evolved from hydrogen?
> 
> Only Eviel Kneivel would make a leap like that.
> 
> This is the usual tact taken by smarmy would-be scientists in arguments.
> 
> Oh look, a genetic change in a single cell animal!    That proves that evolution is observable.
> 
> Please.
Click to expand...


It's tough to argue against someone so blatantly wrong about their understanding of evolution to begin with. 

It's like asking someone to multiply when they know they can't even add yet. It's pointless.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you knew anything about evolution, you'd know the answer.
> 
> here, let me help:
> 
> a species that has survived 325 million years is quite obviously already in its optimum survival body type.
> 
> derp derp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get this stupidity from  you're now arguing against your own theory and solid science ? funny.
> 
> Environmental pressures,Mutations and natural serlection no longer have an effect on an organism this is your best response to living fossils. You are correct about one thing your understanding of your theory is very basic and Ideological.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> mutations are a part of evolution you dumb fucking prick.
> 
> if an organism has mutations, is has evolved.
> 
> jesus fucking christ.
Click to expand...


You really must educate yourself on the effects of mutations nitwit.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Evolution is not observable.  Never has been, never will be *-- unless someone figures out time travel. Nor is it falsifiable, for all that matter, especially when people define evolution as change over time -- a wonderfully vague definition.
> 
> Logical people understand that the existence of God is certainly possible and the difference between naturalism and science.
> 
> How, exactly, does hydrogen turn into human beings over time?
> 
> Does the likelihod of an event change over time?
> 
> Does environment affect genetic change in populations?  Of course it does.
> 
> Is that the sole mechanism that explains our existence?  I kinda doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've evolved from being shorter to getting taller all the time. You can see it for yourself when you enter a house built in the 17th century, i.e., the rooms are smaller, the doorways, the ceilings... are all shorter and smaller. You need more proof? How about this: I used to eat meat but my thinking evolved to a healthier mindset and now I'm a vegetarian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See how vague evolutionary thinking is. I changed my mind about something that means I evolved,really ?
Click to expand...


Evolution is not vague.

Its accepted as Scientific theory, it's been peer reviewed for over a century and still stands. 

The only ones left who deny it are crack-pot obsessives who think Noah had an Ark. 

You fall into that category. 

You cannot read through and intelligently decipher evidence because you have a confirmation bias. You screen name is "youwerecreated" for fuck's sakes. 

It's like letting a slave owner tell us all what is best for an African. 

confirmation bias. 

it makes you retarded. 

Evolution is fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> go to google.com
> 
> type "evolution observed in a lab"
> 
> have fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went and saw the usual crowing about an observed change in bacteria under laboratory conditions. How does this prove that mankind evolved from hydrogen?
> 
> Only Eviel Kneivel would make a leap like that.
> 
> This is the usual tact taken by smarmy would-be scientists in arguments.
> 
> Oh look, a genetic change in a single cell animal!    That proves that evolution is observable.
> 
> Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's tough to argue against someone so blatantly wrong about their understanding of evolution to begin with.
> 
> It's like asking someone to multiply when they know they can't even add yet. It's pointless.
Click to expand...


You repeating yourself does not make your argument anymore credible.


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get this stupidity from  you're now arguing against your own theory and solid science ? funny.
> 
> Environmental pressures,Mutations and natural serlection no longer have an effect on an organism this is your best response to living fossils. You are correct about one thing your understanding of your theory is very basic and Ideological.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mutations are a part of evolution you dumb fucking prick.
> 
> if an organism has mutations, is has evolved.
> 
> jesus fucking christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really must educate yourself on the effects of mutations nitwit.
Click to expand...


Mutations are the driving force of evolution ya fucking moron. 

you did not go to school for biology. FACT>


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've evolved from being shorter to getting taller all the time. You can see it for yourself when you enter a house built in the 17th century, i.e., the rooms are smaller, the doorways, the ceilings... are all shorter and smaller. You need more proof? How about this: I used to eat meat but my thinking evolved to a healthier mindset and now I'm a vegetarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See how vague evolutionary thinking is. I changed my mind about something that means I evolved,really ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is not vague.
> 
> Its accepted as Scientific theory, it's been peer reviewed for over a century and still stands.
> 
> The only ones left who deny it are crack-pot obsessives who think Noah had an Ark.
> 
> You fall into that category.
> 
> You cannot read through and intelligently decipher evidence because you have a confirmation bias. You screen name is "youwerecreated" for fuck's sakes.
> 
> It's like letting a slave owner tell us all what is best for an African.
> 
> confirmation bias.
> 
> it makes you retarded.
> 
> Evolution is fact.
Click to expand...


If evolution is not vague then why do you need terms and corresponding theories to support it ?


----------



## G.T.

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> See how vague evolutionary thinking is. I changed my mind about something that means I evolved,really ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not vague.
> 
> Its accepted as Scientific theory, it's been peer reviewed for over a century and still stands.
> 
> The only ones left who deny it are crack-pot obsessives who think Noah had an Ark.
> 
> You fall into that category.
> 
> You cannot read through and intelligently decipher evidence because you have a confirmation bias. You screen name is "youwerecreated" for fuck's sakes.
> 
> It's like letting a slave owner tell us all what is best for an African.
> 
> confirmation bias.
> 
> it makes you retarded.
> 
> Evolution is fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If evolution is not vague then why do you need terms and corresponding theories to support it ?
Click to expand...


^ another retarded post from a retarded poster. Think hard on why, get back to me.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> mutations are a part of evolution you dumb fucking prick.
> 
> if an organism has mutations, is has evolved.
> 
> jesus fucking christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really must educate yourself on the effects of mutations nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mutations are the driving force of evolution ya fucking moron.
> 
> you did not go to school for biology. FACT>
Click to expand...


Then tell me why more genetic disorders are documented then benefits such as fitness from mutations ?

Why have more genetic disorders been fixated in the gene pool then benefits from mutations ? There are 6,000 genetic disorders and very few beneficial mutations can be pointed to,why ?

I studied mutations in flies for 11 years and I saw the same thing as pierre grasse french evolutionist.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

G.T. said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> go to google.com
> 
> type "evolution observed in a lab"
> 
> have fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went and saw the usual crowing about an observed change in bacteria under laboratory conditions. How does this prove that mankind evolved from hydrogen?
> 
> Only Eviel Kneivel would make a leap like that.
> 
> This is the usual tact taken by smarmy would-be scientists in arguments.
> 
> Oh look, a genetic change in a single cell animal!    That proves that evolution is observable.
> 
> Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's tough to argue against someone so blatantly wrong about their understanding of evolution to begin with.
> 
> It's like asking someone to multiply when they know they can't even add yet. It's
> pointless.
Click to expand...


Define your terms, then, and amaze me with your brilliance.  Are we talking about macro or micro evolution?  Are they one and the same?  

How does evolution negate the notion that we are created beings?

Go ahead.  Wow me.

I can take it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not vague.
> 
> Its accepted as Scientific theory, it's been peer reviewed for over a century and still stands.
> 
> The only ones left who deny it are crack-pot obsessives who think Noah had an Ark.
> 
> You fall into that category.
> 
> You cannot read through and intelligently decipher evidence because you have a confirmation bias. You screen name is "youwerecreated" for fuck's sakes.
> 
> It's like letting a slave owner tell us all what is best for an African.
> 
> confirmation bias.
> 
> it makes you retarded.
> 
> Evolution is fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If evolution is not vague then why do you need terms and corresponding theories to support it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ another retarded post from a retarded poster. Think hard on why, get back to me.
Click to expand...


Retarded ? this term tells me all I need to know about your maturity. You're in over your head, run along child.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Crackerjaxon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and saw the usual crowing about an observed change in bacteria under laboratory conditions. How does this prove that mankind evolved from hydrogen?
> 
> Only Eviel Kneivel would make a leap like that.
> 
> This is the usual tact taken by smarmy would-be scientists in arguments.
> 
> Oh look, a genetic change in a single cell animal!    That proves that evolution is observable.
> 
> Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's tough to argue against someone so blatantly wrong about their understanding of evolution to begin with.
> 
> It's like asking someone to multiply when they know they can't even add yet. It's
> pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define your terms, then, and amaze me with your brilliance.  Are we talking about macro or micro evolution?  Are they one and the same?
> 
> How does evolution negate the notion that we are created beings?
> 
> Go ahead.  Wow me.
> 
> I can take it.
Click to expand...


This one will give the ideological answer they are one in the same.


----------



## Hollie

G.T. said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> go to google.com
> 
> type "evolution observed in a lab"
> 
> have fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went and saw the usual crowing about an observed change in bacteria under laboratory conditions. How does this prove that mankind evolved from hydrogen?
> 
> Only Eviel Kneivel would make a leap like that.
> 
> This is the usual tact taken by smarmy would-be scientists in arguments.
> 
> Oh look, a genetic change in a single cell animal!    That proves that evolution is observable.
> 
> Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's tough to argue against someone so blatantly wrong about their understanding of evolution to begin with.
> 
> It's like asking someone to multiply when they know they can't even add yet. It's pointless.
Click to expand...


Just think, this is the kind of retrograde nonsense that fundies want to introduce into a public school syllabus. Every class - a fundie madrassah.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

G.T. said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've evolved from being shorter to getting taller all the time. You can see it for yourself when you enter a house built in the 17th century, i.e., the rooms are smaller, the doorways, the ceilings... are all shorter and smaller. You need more proof? How about this: I used to eat meat but my thinking evolved to a healthier mindset and now I'm a vegetarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See how vague evolutionary thinking is. I changed my mind about something that means I evolved,really ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is not vague.
> 
> Its accepted as Scientific theory, it's been peer reviewed for over a century and still stands.
> 
> The only ones left who deny it are crack-pot obsessives who think Noah had an Ark.
> 
> You fall into that category.
> 
> You cannot read through and intelligently decipher evidence because you have a confirmation bias. You screen name is "youwerecreated" for fuck's sakes.
> 
> It's like letting a slave owner tell us all what is best for an African.
> 
> confirmation bias.
> 
> it makes you retarded.
> 
> Evolution is fact.
Click to expand...


The only people who think evolution negates creationism are hare-brained naturalists whose idea of God is some guy in the sky pointing a finger and making things happen.

A sub-genre is the supercilious self-superior oaf who delights in destroying the faith of people who are seeking meaning in the universe.


----------



## Hollie

Crackerjaxon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and saw the usual crowing about an observed change in bacteria under laboratory conditions. How does this prove that mankind evolved from hydrogen?
> 
> Only Eviel Kneivel would make a leap like that.
> 
> This is the usual tact taken by smarmy would-be scientists in arguments.
> 
> Oh look, a genetic change in a single cell animal!    That proves that evolution is observable.
> 
> Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's tough to argue against someone so blatantly wrong about their understanding of evolution to begin with.
> 
> It's like asking someone to multiply when they know they can't even add yet. It's
> pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define your terms, then, and amaze me with your brilliance.  Are we talking about macro or micro evolution?  Are they one and the same?
> 
> How does evolution negate the notion that we are created beings?
> 
> Go ahead.  Wow me.
> 
> I can take it.
Click to expand...


Why do you insist, without a shred of evidence, that we are "created"?

Can you similarly account for the creators of your creator gawds?

Lastly, how do you account for a hierarchy of gawds who are such incompetent creators?


----------



## Hollie

Crackerjaxon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> See how vague evolutionary thinking is. I changed my mind about something that means I evolved,really ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not vague.
> 
> Its accepted as Scientific theory, it's been peer reviewed for over a century and still stands.
> 
> The only ones left who deny it are crack-pot obsessives who think Noah had an Ark.
> 
> You fall into that category.
> 
> You cannot read through and intelligently decipher evidence because you have a confirmation bias. You screen name is "youwerecreated" for fuck's sakes.
> 
> It's like letting a slave owner tell us all what is best for an African.
> 
> confirmation bias.
> 
> it makes you retarded.
> 
> Evolution is fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only people who think evolution negates creationism are hare-brained naturalists whose idea of God is some guy in the sky pointing a finger and making things happen.
> 
> A sub-genre is the supercilious self-superior oaf who delights in destroying the faith of people who are seeking meaning in the universe.
Click to expand...


Yet another angry, self-hating fundie.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

Hollie said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and saw the usual crowing about an observed change in bacteria under laboratory conditions. How does this prove that mankind evolved from hydrogen?
> 
> Only Eviel Kneivel would make a leap like that.
> 
> This is the usual tact taken by smarmy would-be scientists in arguments.
> 
> Oh look, a genetic change in a single cell animal!    That proves that evolution is observable.
> 
> Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's tough to argue against someone so blatantly wrong about their understanding of evolution to begin with.
> 
> It's like asking someone to multiply when they know they can't even add yet. It's pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just think, this is the kind of retrograde nonsense that fundies want to introduce into a public school syllabus. Every class - a fundie madrassah.
Click to expand...


Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

Hollie said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not vague.
> 
> Its accepted as Scientific theory, it's been peer reviewed for over a century and still stands.
> 
> The only ones left who deny it are crack-pot obsessives who think Noah had an Ark.
> 
> You fall into that category.
> 
> You cannot read through and intelligently decipher evidence because you have a confirmation bias. You screen name is "youwerecreated" for fuck's sakes.
> 
> It's like letting a slave owner tell us all what is best for an African.
> 
> confirmation bias.
> 
> it makes you retarded.
> 
> Evolution is fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only people who think evolution negates creationism are hare-brained naturalists whose idea of God is some guy in the sky pointing a finger and making things happen.
> 
> A sub-genre is the supercilious self-superior oaf who delights in destroying the faith of people who are seeking meaning in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another angry, self-hating fundie.
Click to expand...


Yet another fundie atheist unable to defend his position lapsing into absurdity.


----------



## Hollie

Crackerjaxon said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's tough to argue against someone so blatantly wrong about their understanding of evolution to begin with.
> 
> It's like asking someone to multiply when they know they can't even add yet. It's pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, this is the kind of retrograde nonsense that fundies want to introduce into a public school syllabus. Every class - a fundie madrassah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what a horrible thing. Science should be banned so fundie creationists can transform schools into madrassahs. 

Legions of Kool-aid drinkers.


----------



## Hollie

Crackerjaxon said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only people who think evolution negates creationism are hare-brained naturalists whose idea of God is some guy in the sky pointing a finger and making things happen.
> 
> A sub-genre is the supercilious self-superior oaf who delights in destroying the faith of people who are seeking meaning in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another angry, self-hating fundie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another fundie atheist unable to defend his position lapsing into absurdity.
Click to expand...


What "position" would that be? Religious zealots typically attack science as a means to promote their gawds. It's pointless and time-wasting because evidence for gawds (of which there is none), is not an endeavor that science has any interest in. Science cannot investigate supernaturalism and mysticism. 

Fundie zealots despise science and knowledge because it conflicts with their ancient tales and fables. 

Your revulsion for enlightenment is your own issue to deal with.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

Hollie said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's tough to argue against someone so blatantly wrong about their understanding of evolution to begin with.
> 
> It's like asking someone to multiply when they know they can't even add yet. It's
> pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define your terms, then, and amaze me with your brilliance.  Are we talking about macro or micro evolution?  Are they one and the same?
> 
> How does evolution negate the notion that we are created beings?
> 
> Go ahead.  Wow me.
> 
> I can take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you insist, without a shred of evidence, that we are "created"?
> 
> Can you similarly account for the creators of your creator gawds?
> 
> Lastly, how do you account for a hierarchy of gawds who are such incompetent creators?
Click to expand...


No sir.  You made the claim that evolution negates the notion of creationism.

How does it do that?

Why are the two views oppositional?

How can you, without a shred of evidence, buy into the notion that hydrogen, through some mysterious ever-changing force you call evolution, will, unaided, turn into human beings?

I am uninterested in your religious views.  Plainly they are unsophisticated and are based on the idea of an anthropomorphical god and your "clever" proof that no such god exists.  If you can accept the idea that energy can display intelligence, the case for the existence of God is made.  If you don't acccept that, we have no common ground on which to argue.

Now back to the real question.  By what mechanism does hydrogen turn into human beings?  Certainly, the macro-evolution of single-celled animals does not explain it.  By the way, how did those single cell animals come to be in the first place?  

How do you seperate cosmology from evolution?  Does one not follow the other?

Oh, and please give me a working definition of evolution to proceed from.  I get tired of constantly shifting defintions.


----------



## Hollie

Crackerjaxon said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define your terms, then, and amaze me with your brilliance.  Are we talking about macro or micro evolution?  Are they one and the same?
> 
> How does evolution negate the notion that we are created beings?
> 
> Go ahead.  Wow me.
> 
> I can take it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you insist, without a shred of evidence, that we are "created"?
> 
> Can you similarly account for the creators of your creator gawds?
> 
> Lastly, how do you account for a hierarchy of gawds who are such incompetent creators?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir.  You made the claim that evolution negates the notion of creationism.
> 
> How does it do that?
> 
> Why are the two views oppositional?
> 
> How can you, without a shred of evidence, buy into the notion that hydrogen, through some mysterious ever-changing force you call evolution, will, unaided, turn into human beings?
> 
> I am uninterested in your religious views.  Plainly they are unsophisticated and are based on the idea of an anthropomorphical god and your "clever" proof that no such god exists.  If you can accept the idea that energy can display intelligence, the case for the existence of God is made.  If you don't acccept that, we have no common ground on which to argue.
> 
> Now back to the real question.  By what mechanism does hydrogen turn into human beings?  Certainly, the macro-evolution of single-celled animals does not explain it.  By the way, how did those single cell animals come to be in the first place?
> 
> How do you seperate cosmology from evolution?  Does one not follow the other?
> 
> Oh, and please give me a working definition of evolution to proceed from.  I get tired of constantly shifting defintions.
Click to expand...

Hydrogen turning into a humans being suggests you know nothing of the various sciences supporting evolution. Secondly, do all fundie zealots believe that the entirety of science is a global conspiracy?


----------



## Crackerjaxon

Hollie said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, this is the kind of retrograde nonsense that fundies want to introduce into a public school syllabus. Every class - a fundie madrassah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, what a horrible thing. Science should be banned so fundie creationists can transform schools into madrassahs.
> 
> Legions of Kool-aid drinkers.
Click to expand...



Science is fine.  Atheism disguised as science is a disgrace.  Legions of empty-headed, atheistic propagandists hiding behind the skirts of science.

Science should have nothing to do with religion, just as religion should have nothing to do with science.  If evolutionists would simply present what they actually know, instead of what they surmise, the world would be a better place.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

Hollie said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another angry, self-hating fundie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another fundie atheist unable to defend his position lapsing into absurdity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "position" would that be? Religious zealots typically attack science as a means to promote their gawds. It's pointless and time-wasting because evidence for gawds (of which there is none), is not an endeavor that science has any interest in. Science cannot investigate supernaturalism and mysticism.
> 
> Fundie zealots despise science and knowledge because it conflicts with their ancient tales and fables.
> 
> Your revulsion for enlightenment is your own issue to deal with.
Click to expand...


Fundie atheists try to use science to prove their nihilistic, mistaken view of the universe.  It's not about denying evolution, it's about you using evolution to persecute those with religious beliefs.

I'm perfectly willing to accept science.  I am unwilling to accept science as religion.  Science is one method of inquiry.  That's all it is and all it will ever be.  The idea that science should be used to promote a naturalistic view of the universe is nefarious.


----------



## Hollie

Crackerjaxon said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what a horrible thing. Science should be banned so fundie creationists can transform schools into madrassahs.
> 
> Legions of Kool-aid drinkers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Science is fine.  Atheism disguised as science is a disgrace.  Legions of empty-headed, atheistic propagandists hiding behind the skirts of science.
> 
> Science should have nothing to do with religion, just as religion should have nothing to do with science.  If evolutionists would simply present what they actually know, instead of what they surmise, the world would be a better place.
Click to expand...


The term "evolutionists" suggests you're another fundie zealot who spends a lot of time on hate promoting fundie websites. 

It's a shame that your agenda is promotion if hate, fear and ignorance. Your anti-enlightenment agenda just screams of amateur.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

Hollie said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you insist, without a shred of evidence, that we are "created"?
> 
> Can you similarly account for the creators of your creator gawds?
> 
> Lastly, how do you account for a hierarchy of gawds who are such incompetent creators?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sir.  You made the claim that evolution negates the notion of creationism.
> 
> How does it do that?
> 
> Why are the two views oppositional?
> 
> How can you, without a shred of evidence, buy into the notion that hydrogen, through some mysterious ever-changing force you call evolution, will, unaided, turn into human beings?
> 
> I am uninterested in your religious views.  Plainly they are unsophisticated and are based on the idea of an anthropomorphical god and your "clever" proof that no such god exists.  If you can accept the idea that energy can display intelligence, the case for the existence of God is made.  If you don't acccept that, we have no common ground on which to argue.
> 
> Now back to the real question.  By what mechanism does hydrogen turn into human beings?  Certainly, the macro-evolution of single-celled animals does not explain it.  By the way, how did those single cell animals come to be in the first place?
> 
> How do you seperate cosmology from evolution?  Does one not follow the other?
> 
> Oh, and please give me a working definition of evolution to proceed from.  I get tired of constantly shifting defintions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hydrogen turning into a humans being suggests you know nothing of the various sciences supporting evolution. Secondly, do all fundie zealots believe that the entirety of science is a global conspiracy?
Click to expand...


No, it is a concise statement describing what is being taught to our children in public schools. 

They are taught that the universe began for no reason, that hydrogen and other gases formed into solids, that those solids sprang to life and evolved into us, no?

I'll ignore the fact that religion is generally presented as something awful that should only be practiced in your home and not fit to be discussed in public.

I have no beef with scientific proof.  I'd actually like to see some instead of a naturalist cosmology being palmed off as science.

If evolutionists would simply state that environment has an effect on the genetic make-up of populations, they'd be on solid ground.

Why try to sell it as anything else?  How is that an argument against a created universe?

Do all fundie atheists avoid answering questions and rely on hiding behind "science" to advance thier beliefs?

Is that it?

Once again, how does evolution negate the idea of a created universe?


----------



## Crackerjaxon

Hollie said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what a horrible thing. Science should be banned so fundie creationists can transform schools into madrassahs.
> 
> Legions of Kool-aid drinkers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science is fine.  Atheism disguised as science is a disgrace.  Legions of empty-headed, atheistic propagandists hiding behind the skirts of science.
> 
> Science should have nothing to do with religion, just as religion should have nothing to do with science.  If evolutionists would simply present what they actually know, instead of what they surmise, the world would be a better place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term "evolutionists" suggests you're another fundie zealot who spends a lot of time on hate promoting fundie websites.
> 
> It's a shame that your agenda is promotion if hate, fear and ignorance. Your anti-enlightenment agenda just screams of amateur.
Click to expand...



The term fundie suggest to me that you are an anti-religious zealot who wouldn't know enlightenment if it crawled up her leg and bit her on the ass.

The fact that you equate religion with fear and ignorance pretty much proves it.


----------



## ima

Hollie said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what a horrible thing. Science should be banned so fundie creationists can transform schools into madrassahs.
> 
> Legions of Kool-aid drinkers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science is fine.  Atheism disguised as science is a disgrace.  Legions of empty-headed, atheistic propagandists hiding behind the skirts of science.
> 
> Science should have nothing to do with religion, *just as religion should have nothing to do with science. * If evolutionists would simply present what they actually know, instead of what they surmise, the world would be a better place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term "evolutionists" suggests you're another fundie zealot who spends a lot of time on hate promoting fundie websites.
> 
> It's a shame that your agenda is promotion if hate, fear and ignorance. Your anti-enlightenment agenda just screams of amateur.
Click to expand...

But why is religion afraid of science? Ok, the bible is wrong, but we all knew that anyways. And why can't evolution be part of a creator's plan? Because of the book again?


----------



## Crackerjaxon

ima said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is fine.  Atheism disguised as science is a disgrace.  Legions of empty-headed, atheistic propagandists hiding behind the skirts of science.
> 
> Science should have nothing to do with religion, *just as religion should have nothing to do with science. * If evolutionists would simply present what they actually know, instead of what they surmise, the world would be a better place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term "evolutionists" suggests you're another fundie zealot who spends a lot of time on hate promoting fundie websites.
> 
> It's a shame that your agenda is promotion if hate, fear and ignorance. Your anti-enlightenment agenda just screams of amateur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But why is religion afraid of science? Ok, the bible is wrong, but we all knew that anyways. And why can't evolution be part of a creator's plan? Because of the book again?
Click to expand...



You are confused because you think I am not accepting scientific proof of evolution and because you think I subscribe to a litreral interpretation of the bible.

Evolution certainly is a factor in a created universe.

That said, the first level of interpretation of any work should be literal.  People grow to understand deeper meanings as they are ready for them.  Why beat up fundamentalists?

Oh, and the bible isn't wrong.  It's just a little past your present understanding of it.


----------



## Hollie

Crackerjaxon said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term "evolutionists" suggests you're another fundie zealot who spends a lot of time on hate promoting fundie websites.
> 
> It's a shame that your agenda is promotion if hate, fear and ignorance. Your anti-enlightenment agenda just screams of amateur.
> 
> 
> 
> But why is religion afraid of science? Ok, the bible is wrong, but we all knew that anyways. And why can't evolution be part of a creator's plan? Because of the book again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused because you think I am not accepting scientific proof of evolution and because you think I subscribe to a litreral interpretation of the bible.
> 
> Evolution certainly is a factor in a created universe.
> 
> That said, the first level of interpretation of any work should be literal.  People grow to understand deeper meanings as they are ready for them.  Why beat up fundamentalists?
> 
> Oh, and the bible isn't wrong.  It's just a little past your present understanding of it.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry. The bibles are not just wrong but sweepingly wrong. The gross errors, contradictions and falsehoods are not surprising in that the bibles were penned at a time when fear and superstition were used to coerce behavior. In the limited framework of knowledge regarding the natural world that existed at the time, this is understandable.


----------



## Hollie

Crackerjaxon said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's tough to argue against someone so blatantly wrong about their understanding of evolution to begin with.
> 
> It's like asking someone to multiply when they know they can't even add yet. It's pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, this is the kind of retrograde nonsense that fundies want to introduce into a public school syllabus. Every class - a fundie madrassah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.
Click to expand...


I think your revulsion for science and knowledge is quite typical for the fundie crowd. It's strange that you would define a science program in public schools as jamming a naturalistic view of the universe down anyone's throat. 

Other than a naturalistic view of the universe, what un-natural view should be taught?  Transforming the school system into a third world backwater of madrassahs is not an answer. 

 I think you will find that limiting your education of the sciences and the natural world by scouring creationist websites for quote-mining material will only deepen your inability to separate "faith" from the science of evolution. I understand that you hope to denigrate the sciences by dragging them into the realm of supernaturalism, superstition and fables which are all inextricably linked to religious dogma but the consecrating success of evolutionary science undeniably separates it from your myths and legends. Not only is the supernaturalist deficient at supporting their claims but they are deficient at offering even the most basic of proofs for these silly claims.

Your partisan religious claims to supermagicalism and mysticism have no place in the public school system.  As a philosophical argument for angry, hateful gawds, demons, spoons, spirits and other such nonsense, you can make any claim you wish as you don't feel you're under any obligation to support your claim. I should remind you though that the issues here are not philosophical. Evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to philosophical argument.

This is why the anti-evolution / anti-science crowd tends to run screaming from actual discussion of the science surrounding evolution and instead insist that they be linked to issues that are philosophical or theological. Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is effectively useless in the study of science. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine demonstrable utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

Hollie said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> But why is religion afraid of science? Ok, the bible is wrong, but we all knew that anyways. And why can't evolution be part of a creator's plan? Because of the book again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused because you think I am not accepting scientific proof of evolution and because you think I subscribe to a litreral interpretation of the bible.
> 
> Evolution certainly is a factor in a created universe.
> 
> That said, the first level of interpretation of any work should be literal.  People grow to understand deeper meanings as they are ready for them.  Why beat up fundamentalists?
> 
> Oh, and the bible isn't wrong.  It's just a little past your present understanding of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh sorry. The bibles are not just wrong but sweepingly wrong. The gross errors, contradictions and falsehoods are not surprising in that the bibles were penned at a time when fear and superstition were used to coerce behavior. In the limited framework of knowledge regarding the natural world that existed at the time, this is understandable.
Click to expand...



Another semi-literate atheist heard from.  You don't know an allegory from an allele, but you're damned well going to pontificate on both, aren't you?


----------



## Crackerjaxon

Hollie said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, this is the kind of retrograde nonsense that fundies want to introduce into a public school syllabus. Every class - a fundie madrassah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think your revulsion for science and knowledge is quite typical for the fundie crowd. It's strange that you would define a science program in public schools as jamming a naturalistic view of the universe down anyone's throat.
> 
> Other than a naturalistic view of the universe, what un-natural view should be taught?  Transforming the school system into a third world backwater of madrassahs is not an answer.
> 
> I think you will find that limiting your education of the sciences and the natural world by scouring creationist websites for quote-mining material will only deepen your inability to separate "faith" from the science of evolution. I understand that you hope to denigrate the sciences by dragging them into the realm of supernaturalism, superstition and fables which are all inextricably linked to religious dogma but the consecrating success of evolutionary science undeniably separates it from your myths and legends. Not only is the supernaturalist deficient at supporting their claims but they are deficient at offering even the most basic of proofs for these silly claims.
> 
> Your partisan religious claims to supermagicalism and mysticism have no place in the public school system.  As a philosophical argument for angry, hateful gawds, demons, spoons, spirits and other such nonsense, you can make any claim you wish as you don't feel you're under any obligation to support your claim. I should remind you though that the issues here are not philosophical. Evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to philosophical argument.
> 
> This is why the anti-evolution / anti-science crowd tends to run screaming from actual discussion of the science surrounding evolution and instead insist that they be linked to issues that are philosophical or theological. Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is effectively useless in the study of science. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine demonstrable utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.
Click to expand...



No, my revulsion is for blatant ignorance disguised as enlightenment.   Like philosophy, (and religion for all that matter) science should be a search for the truth, not a tool for close-minded, ignorant, know-it-all atheists who pretend to know things they do not.

That is why atheists run away screaming when anyone questions the philosophical underpinnings of their ridiculous. quasi-religious prostitution of science.  When you manage to seperate naturalist philosophy from science, get back to me.  Until then, stop pretending that it isn't there when it so obviously is.

Anyone with the sense God gave a rutabaga knows that real science does not negate the notion of creation.  Please don't pretend like it does.  It's getting embarrassing for you.

When any teleological evidence is presented in living tissue, trust atheists to run away screaming  "That means a creator." like little girls who've just seen a snake in the garden.

Why does the notion of a created universe disturb you so?


----------



## Hollie

Crackerjaxon said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused because you think I am not accepting scientific proof of evolution and because you think I subscribe to a litreral interpretation of the bible.
> 
> Evolution certainly is a factor in a created universe.
> 
> That said, the first level of interpretation of any work should be literal.  People grow to understand deeper meanings as they are ready for them.  Why beat up fundamentalists?
> 
> Oh, and the bible isn't wrong.  It's just a little past your present understanding of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh sorry. The bibles are not just wrong but sweepingly wrong. The gross errors, contradictions and falsehoods are not surprising in that the bibles were penned at a time when fear and superstition were used to coerce behavior. In the limited framework of knowledge regarding the natural world that existed at the time, this is understandable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another semi-literate atheist heard from.  You don't know an allegory from an allele, but you're damned well going to pontificate on both, aren't you?
Click to expand...


My goodness. Fundie zealots have a habit if being really, really angry.

I suppose I should expect that you - and only you - are tasked with deciding what parts of your "holy texts" are allegory and what parts are not. 

Such a weighty burden you bear. 

I hope you will be so kind as to advise who bestowed this authority upon you: "Doctor, Field Marshall General of Allegory Interpretation", Division of fundies, Bureau of the Science Loathing"

It seems your co-religionists have had a great deal of difficulty coming to a consensus as to what is allegory, and who decides such things. 

Could that be why religions have splintered into so many competing sects and subdivisions?

We're all glad you're on the job... as head decision maker in charge.


----------



## Hollie

Crackerjaxon said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think your revulsion for science and knowledge is quite typical for the fundie crowd. It's strange that you would define a science program in public schools as jamming a naturalistic view of the universe down anyone's throat.
> 
> Other than a naturalistic view of the universe, what un-natural view should be taught?  Transforming the school system into a third world backwater of madrassahs is not an answer.
> 
> I think you will find that limiting your education of the sciences and the natural world by scouring creationist websites for quote-mining material will only deepen your inability to separate "faith" from the science of evolution. I understand that you hope to denigrate the sciences by dragging them into the realm of supernaturalism, superstition and fables which are all inextricably linked to religious dogma but the consecrating success of evolutionary science undeniably separates it from your myths and legends. Not only is the supernaturalist deficient at supporting their claims but they are deficient at offering even the most basic of proofs for these silly claims.
> 
> Your partisan religious claims to supermagicalism and mysticism have no place in the public school system.  As a philosophical argument for angry, hateful gawds, demons, spoons, spirits and other such nonsense, you can make any claim you wish as you don't feel you're under any obligation to support your claim. I should remind you though that the issues here are not philosophical. Evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to philosophical argument.
> 
> This is why the anti-evolution / anti-science crowd tends to run screaming from actual discussion of the science surrounding evolution and instead insist that they be linked to issues that are philosophical or theological. Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is effectively useless in the study of science. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine demonstrable utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, my revulsion is for blatant ignorance disguised as enlightenment.   Like philosophy, (and religion for all that matter) science should be a search for the truth, not a tool for close-minded, ignorant, know-it-all atheists who pretend to know things they do not.
> 
> That is why atheists run away screaming when anyone questions the philosophical underpinnings of their ridiculous. quasi-religious prostitution of science.  When you manage to seperate naturalist philosophy from science, get back to me.  Until then, stop pretending that it isn't there when it so obviously is.
> 
> Anyone with the sense God gave a rutabaga knows that real science does not negate the notion of creation.  Please don't pretend like it does.  It's getting embarrassing for you.
> 
> When any teleological evidence is presented in living tissue, trust atheists to run away screaming  "That means a creator." like little girls who've just seen a snake in the garden.
> 
> Why does the notion of a created universe disturb you so?
Click to expand...



Unfortunately, the religious perspectives furthered by the science-loathing, fear and superstition promoting, self-hating fundies most of us are familiar with have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants; Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of an arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated book, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats! 

For your enlightenment, science is the process of discovery. You will want to scream the four word "The Gawds Did It", and proceed on as though you have answered every query, resolved every mystery and vacated every original thought, when what you actually have done is to further your religious dogma by retreating from any further investigation. 

There is the brightness of hope and achievement that is falling across the land called literacy and education and knowledge, and exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition, each giving us hope for a better day tomorrow. The hatreds that you espouse for science and the knowledge it brings will always be your worst enemy.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No difference from the atheistic evolutionist except there is better and more evidence to support what I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong since you have no evidence ,it cannot be better or more saying it is ,is a rationalization and a lie.
> the only thing you have is belief and that'S not evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you say
Click to expand...

just stating fact. Your answer screams denial of fact.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Microadaptations.
> 
> Fact#1 plants and animals only produce what they are because of the genetic code barrier because they only have the genetic information to produce what they are.
> 
> Fact #2 Microadaptations result from the sorting or loss of genetic information. Adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools it's called gene depletion. Purebreds are from weaker gene pools because the loss of information. All the other genetic information was bred out of them. Smaller gene pools become weaker. The fact is that is why mutts are healthier they are from a larger gene pool. You can't over breed mutts where you can purebreds.
> 
> Fact #3 We know of no way of increasing appreciables amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.
> 
> There are many examples of microadaptations they are simply changes within a kind and not a new kind. Example a cow does not produce a non cow because of the genetic code barrier won't allow it. The barrier is simply the genetic data available.
> 
> 
> 
> When the religiously addled claim to spew irrefutable "facts", regarding evolution. it usually means they've been scouring Harun Yahya again.
> 
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny then you copy and paste from talk origins. What is your point ? are you once again showing you have reading comp problems.
Click to expand...

here's a fine example of ywc's lack of originality, the phrase:" you have reading comp problems" was first used by Me in this thread .it also points up ,quite nicely I might add, that ywc has no concept of context.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny then you copy and paste from talk origins. What is your point ? are you once again showing you have reading comp problems.
> 
> 
> 
> What's really funny is watching you run for the exits when your invented "facts' are shown to be fraudulent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This article addresses your point.
> 
> 
> Species and Kind
> 
> 
> by on
> 
> January 1, 1994
> 
> 
> 
> 
> author-gary-parker
> creation-facts-of-life
> evolution
> kinds
> speciation
> 
> Whoops! Two or more species from one kind! Isnt that evolution?
> 
> Some evolutionists certainly think so. After I participated in a creation-evolution debate at Texas A & M, a biology professor got up and told everyone about the flies on certain islands that used to interbreed but no longer do. Theyve become separate species, and that, he said, to a fair amount of applause, proves evolution is a factperiod!
> 
> Well, what about it? Barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? Or does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others? As I explained to the university-debate audience (also to applause), the answer is simply no, of course not. It doesnt even come close.
> 
> ?Species? and ?Kind? - Answers in Genesis
Click to expand...

this is not a scientific site


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave the person asking for the mechanism of change within a kind or group how did you refute what I said ? How would you explain microadaptations ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examples of evolutionary change (adaptation over time), have been presented to you on many occasions. How is it you choose to remain ignorant of these examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong this evidence don't exist you believe in a fairytale.
Click to expand...

notice the lost of grammar in this fact less rebuttal.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sound familliar ?
> 
> con·jec·ture
> 
> /k&#601;n&#712;jekCH&#601;r/
> Noun
> An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
> Verb
> Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they are wrong and there is a designer ?
Click to expand...

 so you're not confident that existence is a product of a designer?
if you were you wouldn't have used the word if?


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> For your enlightenment, science is the process of discovery. You will want to scream the four word "The Gawds Did It", and proceed on as though you have answered every query, resolved every mystery and vacated every original thought, when what you actually have done is to further your religious dogma by retreating from any further investigation.
> 
> There is the brightness of hope and achievement that is falling across the land called literacy and education and knowledge, and exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition, each giving us hope for a better day tomorrow. The hatreds that you espouse for science and the knowledge it brings will always be your worst enemy.



OK Hollie when science is used to establish that spiritual healing is real, and there is a measurable cause and effect and healing effect and even cure from applying exorcism or deliverance, then maybe you will see there is no need to demonize religion for science.

If science would change your beliefs by discovery, then you would prove you are not being hypocritical nor avoiding anything because of your own biases, but are open to science and truth even if this proves that some things taught in religion are actually natural laws at work.


----------



## Koios

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your enlightenment, science is the process of discovery. You will want to scream the four word "The Gawds Did It", and proceed on as though you have answered every query, resolved every mystery and vacated every original thought, when what you actually have done is to further your religious dogma by retreating from any further investigation.
> 
> There is the brightness of hope and achievement that is falling across the land called literacy and education and knowledge, and exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition, each giving us hope for a better day tomorrow. The hatreds that you espouse for science and the knowledge it brings will always be your worst enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *OK Hollie when science is used to establish that spiritual healing *is real, and there is a measurable cause and effect and healing effect and even cure from applying exorcism or deliverance, then maybe you will see there is no need to demonize religion for science.
> 
> If science would change your beliefs by discovery, then you would prove you are not being hypocritical nor avoiding anything because of your own biases, but are open to science and truth even if this proves that some things taught in religion are actually natural laws at work.
Click to expand...


Science already has: placebo effect.

Actual healing, science does, too, i.e. reattaching a severed arm, which will not regrow, even if the entire fucking planet is praying in unison.

There's what's real (scientifically discovered) and what's believed (take your fucking pick.)

And it's none too complicated.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct precision in nature is evidence of design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you cant use precision in nature as evidence of design, obviously, and even if you were dumb enough to do so, you'd have to explain the areas where there's lack of precision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.
Click to expand...

and it's false...based on an unprovable assumption.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you get precision from chaos?
> 
> Really? That's what you'd hang your hat on?
> 
> First of all, there's (no precision!).
> 
> All species decay.
> 
> Even fucking trees.
> 
> All stars eventually fizzle out, read about supernovae.
> 
> There is no precision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The big bang began from a state of chaos but then settled down and produced precison in nature ?
> 
> Evidently you don't understand the precision of the formation of a cell nor the precision of this planet and how it can sustain life.
Click to expand...

bullshit alert ! bullshit alert!
 since there was nothing before the big bang there could be no chaos.
to be chaotic there has to something. slap dick!
  the big  bang  At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurrence was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.  

THE BIG BANG

 At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point.
by definition NOT CHAOTIC.


----------



## daws101

littlenipper said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "someone" actually realizes that there is something bigger, greater, more powerful, wiser, stronger, and an eternity beyond the intelligence of man.
Click to expand...

stfu!


----------



## Hollie

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your enlightenment, science is the process of discovery. You will want to scream the four word "The Gawds Did It", and proceed on as though you have answered every query, resolved every mystery and vacated every original thought, when what you actually have done is to further your religious dogma by retreating from any further investigation.
> 
> There is the brightness of hope and achievement that is falling across the land called literacy and education and knowledge, and exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition, each giving us hope for a better day tomorrow. The hatreds that you espouse for science and the knowledge it brings will always be your worst enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK Hollie when science is used to establish that spiritual healing is real, and there is a measurable cause and effect and healing effect and even cure from applying exorcism or deliverance, then maybe you will see there is no need to demonize religion for science.
> 
> If science would change your beliefs by discovery, then you would prove you are not being hypocritical nor avoiding anything because of your own biases, but are open to science and truth even if this proves that some things taught in religion are actually natural laws at work.
Click to expand...


You need to define your terms here. Aren't you in effect suggesting bargaining with the gawds? Do you believe the gawds will reward you with something in exchange for a specific behavior?

Please identify for us a single, documented case of prayer ever curing a disease. There is none.

As to the efficacy of prayer, perceived from a position of meditation I would not deny that it clears the mind -- but prayer from a theistic perspective is not meditation, it is an asserted communication that has some actual real specific effect on human issues. This remains totally undemonstrated except in the following manner -- it is a very powerful tool to coerce behavior, which is why (seemingly), the more fanatical or fundamental a religion is, the more reliant on the asserted efficacy of prayer you're liable to find.

When prayers aren't answered, I know religionists will sometimes say, "Well, that's not god's fault" or something similar, but the point is this: prayer _doesn't actually work_ (at least it remains asserted and unproven that it does). Clearing the mind? Allowing a person to collect their thoughts? Giving the illusion of comfort (which may be indistinguishable from comfort itself), yes to all of those. But does it actually work? No, it can be shown over and over that it does not. And the fact is, many people actually rely on it, usually to their disappointment... or worse.

It's really the application of science and an understanding of biology that has allowed the development of drugs that treat and cure disease.


----------



## daws101

Crackerjaxon said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define your terms, then, and amaze me with your brilliance.  Are we talking about macro or micro evolution?  Are they one and the same?
> 
> How does evolution negate the notion that we are created beings?
> 
> Go ahead.  Wow me.
> 
> I can take it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you insist, without a shred of evidence, that we are "created"?
> 
> Can you similarly account for the creators of your creator gawds?
> 
> Lastly, how do you account for a hierarchy of gawds who are such incompetent creators?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No sir.  You made the claim that evolution negates the notion of creationism.
> 
> How does it do that?
> 
> Why are the two views oppositional?
> 
> How can you, without a shred of evidence, buy into the notion that hydrogen, through some mysterious ever-changing force you call evolution, will, unaided, turn into human beings?
> 
> I am uninterested in your religious views.  Plainly they are unsophisticated and are based on the idea of an anthropomorphical god and your "clever" proof that no such god exists.  If you can accept the idea that energy can display intelligence, the case for the existence of God is made.  If you don't acccept that, we have no common ground on which to argue.
> 
> Now back to the real question.  By what mechanism does hydrogen turn into human beings?  Certainly, the macro-evolution of single-celled animals does not explain it.  By the way, how did those single cell animals come to be in the first place?
> 
> How do you seperate cosmology from evolution?  Does one not follow the other?
> 
> Oh, and please give me a working definition of evolution to proceed from.  I get tired of constantly shifting defintions.
Click to expand...

Seems  we have another smug faux Christian on this thread.


----------



## LittleNipper

Evolution is not science:

Scientists tell why evolution is not supported by the facts!

http://www.icr.org/article/455/

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/science.html


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Evolution is not science:
> 
> Scientists tell why evolution is not supported by the facts!
> 
> Evolution Is Religion--Not Science
> 
> Is Evolution Science?



Here, have a cookie.


----------



## LittleNipper

Evolution is propaganda:

PBS's 'Evolution' Series is Propaganda, Not Science


----------



## emilynghiem

Koios said:


> Science already has: placebo effect.
> 
> Actual healing, science does, too, i.e. reattaching a severed arm, which will not regrow, even if the entire fucking planet is praying in unison.
> 
> There's what's real (scientifically discovered) and what's believed (take your fucking pick.)
> 
> And it's none too complicated.



Whoa Koios please back up and not jump ahead into things I don't mean by spiritual healing. Please!


The spiritual healing I mean requires DEEP spiritual forgiveness, and cannot be faked. It must be freely chosen and cannot be imposed from outside as  people see religion!

Please make the distinction between false faith healing (which DOESN'T work and I have friends who have witnessed this fail or reverse when the full forgiveness isn't done first)

and true spiritual healing taught by authentic ministers and teachers

Please consult with experts who know the difference between false faith practices and the real deal which is consistent with science, medicine and secular therapies from AA to Buddhism that involve recognizing what people have not forgiven or let go in their minds that is keeping them from healing naturally.

Sorry I wasn't clear let's make this distinction first!
I agree the placebo effect is false and cannot provide real healing so that's not what i mean.

sources: "Healing" by Francis MacNutt Christian Healing Ministries
explains how healing works by forgiveness on many different levels depending on
where the problem lies and what types of prayer or therapy are required to heal
body mind and spirit, 

'The healing light" by agnes sanford also explains how life energy
and healing are natural, and the point is not to block these laws from working in our lives
but to open the connections so the energy flows and healing takes place naturally

Dr. Scott Peck "Glimpses of the Devil" as a secular minded scientist he took on the challenge of disproving exorcism and deliverance and possession as mental delusion, and found these have real and measurable stages that can be diagnosed and written up for medical practice.

This is serious stuff. A friend of mine who remains atheist and anti-christian went through the same deliverance process as in Peck's book and described the same things.  He did not convert to Christianity and still does not believe in personified God Christ etc. But he is healed of his demons of rage that used to overtake his mind and prevent him from getting medical help to heal his body and mind from past abuses.  So he described his changes so much like this book, it amazed me and I learned from that.  He did get his free will back and the ability to keep the demonic voices and impulses out of his life, he did not have before. The patient in Peck's book also did not convert and also described the process like rape it was so invasive and painful to go through the cleansing therapy on a spiritual level.

so this is not the placebo effect it goes beyond teh human will and into the spiritual levels we don't control and need help to clean out when evil or negative energy overtakes people and makes them mentally or criminally sick. this is serious to find such diseases can be cured

No placebo can cure schizophrenia
Dr. Peck and Dr. MacNutt both report cases of schizophrenic patients being cured
and it takes serious therapy that cannot be faked! It is too painful the work involved!


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear CrackerJaxon and Hollie: I appreciate your msgs and find you are both intelligent and discerning in your statements. May I please encourage you to keep appealing to each other's higher intelligence and understanding you are well capable of expressing?

CJ I could not thank you for your biting msg to Hollie, but I agree with your point just not the language. I understand this was called for given how she was talking, but again, I want to encourage your intelligent discussions and not resort to emotional names or labels or jabs.

Please do continue minus any jabs or namecalling

CJ you wrote the best msgs I have ever read on how these things do not negate each other!
I agree!  Please focus on science, and the only pt I disagreed with you on, I DO believe a naturalist view will work fine and can be established without negating things in religion either. I believe science will achieve truth and agreement on all sides, so thank you both!!!

Gotta go, do press on and stick to points we can resolve and discern. 
You are both so intelligent and literate, you can meet this challenge and succeed at it!


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Evolution is propaganda:
> 
> PBS's 'Evolution' Series is Propaganda, Not Science



Once again, the science loathing, knowledge rejecting fundies have no positive evidence for gawds, thus are left to further conspiracy theories and attack science.


----------



## Hollie

emilynghiem said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science already has: placebo effect.
> 
> Actual healing, science does, too, i.e. reattaching a severed arm, which will not regrow, even if the entire fucking planet is praying in unison.
> 
> There's what's real (scientifically discovered) and what's believed (take your fucking pick.)
> 
> And it's none too complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa Koios please back up and not jump ahead into things I don't mean by spiritual healing. Please!
> 
> 
> The spiritual healing I mean requires DEEP spiritual forgiveness, and cannot be faked. It must be freely chosen and cannot be imposed from outside as  people see religion!
> 
> Please make the distinction between false faith healing (which DOESN'T work and I have friends who have witnessed this fail or reverse when the full forgiveness isn't done first)
> 
> and true spiritual healing taught by authentic ministers and teachers
> 
> Please consult with experts who know the difference between false faith practices and the real deal which is consistent with science, medicine and secular therapies from AA to Buddhism that involve recognizing what people have not forgiven or let go in their minds that is keeping them from healing naturally.
> 
> Sorry I wasn't clear let's make this distinction first!
> I agree the placebo effect is false and cannot provide real healing so that's not what i mean.
> 
> sources: "Healing" by Francis MacNutt Christian Healing Ministries
> explains how healing works by forgiveness on many different levels depending on
> where the problem lies and what types of prayer or therapy are required to heal
> body mind and spirit,
> 
> 'The healing light" by agnes sanford also explains how life energy
> and healing are natural, and the point is not to block these laws from working in our lives
> but to open the connections so the energy flows and healing takes place naturally
> 
> Dr. Scott Peck "Glimpses of the Devil" as a secular minded scientist he took on the challenge of disproving exorcism and deliverance and possession as mental delusion, and found these have real and measurable stages that can be diagnosed and written up for medical practice.
> 
> This is serious stuff. A friend of mine who remains atheist and anti-christian went through the same deliverance process as in Peck's book and described the same things.  He did not convert to Christianity and still does not believe in personified God Christ etc. But he is healed of his demons of rage that used to overtake his mind and prevent him from getting medical help to heal his body and mind from past abuses.  So he described his changes so much like this book, it amazed me and I learned from that.  He did get his free will back and the ability to keep the demonic voices and impulses out of his life, he did not have before. The patient in Peck's book also did not convert and also described the process like rape it was so invasive and painful to go through the cleansing therapy on a spiritual level.
> 
> so this is not the placebo effect it goes beyond teh human will and into the spiritual levels we don't control and need help to clean out when evil or negative energy overtakes people and makes them mentally or criminally sick. this is serious to find such diseases can be cured
> 
> No placebo can cure schizophrenia
> Dr. Peck and Dr. MacNutt both report cases of schizophrenic patients being cured
> and it takes serious therapy that cannot be faked! It is too painful the work involved!
Click to expand...


I'll propose an experiment:

Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently?

Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.


----------



## emilynghiem

Close Hollie! We could set up a valid scientific study that is replicable, with tweaks
to what you propose. It's not just praying externally as you suggest. That will fail, I agree.

What true healing involves is diagnosing the cause of the spiritual blocks and praying for forgiveness of those memories thoughts or perceptions, or in the case of full demonic possession as Peck studied, even more serious intervention with team prayer in addition to the other levels.

Here's what I propose:
(A) Set up teams of trained prayer partners to work with Rheumatoid Arthritis patients.
Oops sorry, that's already been done. MacNutt's study which he includes in his 1999 edition of Healing gave testimony of a man healed of any pain, where he went from crippled to walking after the therapy was applied.

If you want, you can throw in the placebo effect by having people pray without the spiritual diagnosis and forgiveness prayer, but use bone rattling and external things without any thoughts of forgiveness.  This may be hard to isolate, to make sure no one thinks a single forgiving thought of prayer for healing but just prays without connection or whatever.

How about 
(B) give a professional psychiatrist who is either neutral or even biased against exorcism being real, two schizophrenic patients deemed incureable and see if the treatment works.
Oops. sorry Peck already changed his mind and published a book on why he did.

Maybe we could repeat these experiments? Because I would LOVE to take you up on this
and replicate the studies started by Peck and MacNutt.

MacNutt specifies why the process fails or is delayed and how to correct most of those
reasons.  So as long as the study DISTINGUISHES the different types of steps or causes of teh sickness, to make sure the right process is applied, then it would not produce a false positive or negative.

Hollie anyone can set up an experiment to fail or succeed if you rig it that way.

I am interested in proving that MacNutt's distinctions need to be made to prove
WHY certain cases fail WHY some succeed and which can be corrected.

The ones that cannot be, that is like how for some people chemotherapy works
and other times it fails. This is better than chemo because it has no ill side effects
adn is natural and the cure of the root cause is permanent not just placating symptoms.

Also important: spiritual healing does not negate or exclude science and medicine!
it works alongside it.

Just because you go to a heart doctor for your heart doesn't mean you reject
going to the skin doctor for your skin or the therapist for your mind.

Spiritual healing is for healing causes or diseases rooted in teh spirit.
So you heal the spirit using this.
You heal the mind using therapy for one's thoughts and perceptions to change
And you heal the body using medical means.

sometimes it happens that the spiritual healing allows the mind and body to follow also.
But not always

In the case of the schizophrenic patients, they still required therapy afterwards
to finish the process. they could not even begin that part of the treatment until
after the exorcism got rid of the obstructions on the spiritual level. once they got
their minds back then they could follow doctor's instructions and do the
physical and mental therapy to heal on all levels. this is only one level and 
does NOT replace the other levels of treatments that can still be required.

I hope that is clear! thank you Hollie I will set up a website and let's do this!!!



Hollie said:


> I'll propose an experiment:
> 
> Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently?
> 
> Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.



P.S. appendicitis is rarely caused by a spiritual illness. you don't expect to heal a heart attack by calling on a foot doctor which is for a different field or area of disease or conditions. I could see healing people of pain related to healing of surgery indirectly
but not the appendicitis itself.  Maybe something else that is clearly in someon'es spirit
or mind, like pedophilia or schizophrenia, multiple personalities. one friend of mine
has helped people heal of cancer and also diabetes. let's try all areas shall we? and see?


----------



## Hollie

emilynghiem said:


> Close Hollie! We could set up a valid scientific study that is replicable, with tweaks
> to what you propose. It's not just praying externally as you suggest. That will fail, I agree.
> 
> What true healing involves is diagnosing the cause of the spiritual blocks and praying for forgiveness of those memories thoughts or perceptions, or in the case of full demonic possession as Peck studied, even more serious intervention with team prayer in addition to the other levels.
> 
> Here's what I propose:
> (A) Set up teams of trained prayer partners to work with Rheumatoid Arthritis patients.
> Oops sorry, that's already been done. MacNutt's study which he includes in his 1999 edition of Healing gave testimony of a man healed of any pain, where he went from crippled to walking after the therapy was applied.
> 
> If you want, you can throw in the placebo effect by having people pray without the spiritual diagnosis and forgiveness prayer, but use bone rattling and external things without any thoughts of forgiveness.  This may be hard to isolate, to make sure no one thinks a single forgiving thought of prayer for healing but just prays without connection or whatever.
> 
> How about
> (B) give a professional psychiatrist who is either neutral or even biased against exorcism being real, two schizophrenic patients deemed incureable and see if the treatment works.
> Oops. sorry Peck already changed his mind and published a book on why he did.
> 
> Maybe we could repeat these experiments? Because I would LOVE to take you up on this
> and replicate the studies started by Peck and MacNutt.
> 
> MacNutt specifies why the process fails or is delayed and how to correct most of those
> reasons.  So as long as the study DISTINGUISHES the different types of steps or causes of teh sickness, to make sure the right process is applied, then it would not produce a false positive or negative.
> 
> Hollie anyone can set up an experiment to fail or succeed if you rig it that way.
> 
> I am interested in proving that MacNutt's distinctions need to be made to prove
> WHY certain cases fail WHY some succeed and which can be corrected.
> 
> The ones that cannot be, that is like how for some people chemotherapy works
> and other times it fails. This is better than chemo because it has no ill side effects
> adn is natural and the cure of the root cause is permanent not just placating symptoms.
> 
> Also important: spiritual healing does not negate or exclude science and medicine!
> it works alongside it.
> 
> Just because you go to a heart doctor for your heart doesn't mean you reject
> going to the skin doctor for your skin or the therapist for your mind.
> 
> Spiritual healing is for healing causes or diseases rooted in teh spirit.
> So you heal the spirit using this.
> You heal the mind using therapy for one's thoughts and perceptions to change
> And you heal the body using medical means.
> 
> sometimes it happens that the spiritual healing allows the mind and body to follow also.
> But not always
> 
> In the case of the schizophrenic patients, they still required therapy afterwards
> to finish the process. they could not even begin that part of the treatment until
> after the exorcism got rid of the obstructions on the spiritual level. once they got
> their minds back then they could follow doctor's instructions and do the
> physical and mental therapy to heal on all levels. this is only one level and
> does NOT replace the other levels of treatments that can still be required.
> 
> I hope that is clear! thank you Hollie I will set up a website and let's do this!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll propose an experiment:
> 
> Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently?
> 
> Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. appendicitis is rarely caused by a spiritual illness. you don't expect to heal a heart attack by calling on a foot doctor which is for a different field or area of disease or conditions. I could see healing people of pain related to healing of surgery indirectly
> but not the appendicitis itself.  Maybe something else that is clearly in someon'es spirit
> or mind, like pedophilia or schizophrenia, multiple personalities. one friend of mine
> has helped people heal of cancer and also diabetes. let's try all areas shall we? and see?
Click to expand...

As with so many of the claims made by Christian faith healing ministries, a simple solution to resolve the efficacy of the claims would be for the faith healers and the allegedly healed to submit to peer reviewed, double blind testing. 

That never happens. Why do you think that is?


----------



## newpolitics

Crackerjaxon said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's tough to argue against someone so blatantly wrong about their understanding of evolution to begin with.
> 
> It's like asking someone to multiply when they know they can't even add yet. It's pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, this is the kind of retrograde nonsense that fundies want to introduce into a public school syllabus. Every class - a fundie madrassah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.
Click to expand...


What is a "fundie athiest?" There are no gradations to a lack of belief. Are you referring to someone that doesn't selectively pick which science he will accept, because it might interfere with other held beliefs? Science has nothing to do with atheism. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are many Christians who fully accept evolution, such as Kenneth Miller and William Lane Craig, the latter being modern Christianity's foremost apologist.


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> Evolution is propaganda:
> 
> PBS's 'Evolution' Series is Propaganda, Not Science



But can you prove creation?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, this is the kind of retrograde nonsense that fundies want to introduce into a public school syllabus. Every class - a fundie madrassah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, what a horrible thing. Science should be banned so fundie creationists can transform schools into madrassahs.
> 
> Legions of Kool-aid drinkers.
Click to expand...


Not real science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the religiously addled claim to spew irrefutable "facts", regarding evolution. it usually means they've been scouring Harun Yahya again.
> 
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny then you copy and paste from talk origins. What is your point ? are you once again showing you have reading comp problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> here's a fine example of ywc's lack of originality, the phrase:" you have reading comp problems" was first used by Me in this thread .it also points up ,quite nicely I might add, that ywc has no concept of context.
Click to expand...


Are you the only one who didn't understand why I posted what I did ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's really funny is watching you run for the exits when your invented "facts' are shown to be fraudulent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article addresses your point.
> 
> 
> Species and Kind
> 
> 
> by on
> 
> January 1, 1994
> 
> 
> 
> 
> author-gary-parker
> creation-facts-of-life
> evolution
> kinds
> speciation
> 
> Whoops! Two or more species from one kind! Isnt that evolution?
> 
> Some evolutionists certainly think so. After I participated in a creation-evolution debate at Texas A & M, a biology professor got up and told everyone about the flies on certain islands that used to interbreed but no longer do. Theyve become separate species, and that, he said, to a fair amount of applause, proves evolution is a factperiod!
> 
> Well, what about it? Barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? Or does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others? As I explained to the university-debate audience (also to applause), the answer is simply no, of course not. It doesnt even come close.
> 
> ?Species? and ?Kind? - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is not a scientific site
Click to expand...


Nor are many that you copy and paste from.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if they are wrong and there is a designer ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you're not confident that existence is a product of a designer?
> if you were you wouldn't have used the word if?
Click to expand...


I have no doubts of creation and the Creator.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your enlightenment, science is the process of discovery. You will want to scream the four word "The Gawds Did It", and proceed on as though you have answered every query, resolved every mystery and vacated every original thought, when what you actually have done is to further your religious dogma by retreating from any further investigation.
> 
> There is the brightness of hope and achievement that is falling across the land called literacy and education and knowledge, and exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition, each giving us hope for a better day tomorrow. The hatreds that you espouse for science and the knowledge it brings will always be your worst enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *OK Hollie when science is used to establish that spiritual healing *is real, and there is a measurable cause and effect and healing effect and even cure from applying exorcism or deliverance, then maybe you will see there is no need to demonize religion for science.
> 
> If science would change your beliefs by discovery, then you would prove you are not being hypocritical nor avoiding anything because of your own biases, but are open to science and truth even if this proves that some things taught in religion are actually natural laws at work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science already has: placebo effect.
> 
> Actual healing, science does, too, i.e. reattaching a severed arm, which will not regrow, even if the entire fucking planet is praying in unison.
> 
> There's what's real (scientifically discovered) and what's believed (take your fucking pick.)
> 
> And it's none too complicated.
Click to expand...


I hope you don't talk like this in front of that little girl.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you cant use precision in nature as evidence of design, obviously, and even if you were dumb enough to do so, you'd have to explain the areas where there's lack of precision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and it's false...based on an unprovable assumption.
Click to expand...


Did the big bang produce chaos origionally ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> littlenipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "someone" actually realizes that there is something bigger, greater, more powerful, wiser, stronger, and an eternity beyond the intelligence of man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stfu!
Click to expand...


Tough guy here


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not science:
> 
> Scientists tell why evolution is not supported by the facts!
> 
> Evolution Is Religion--Not Science
> 
> Is Evolution Science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here, have a cookie.
Click to expand...


Why don't you sweetheart !


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, this is the kind of retrograde nonsense that fundies want to introduce into a public school syllabus. Every class - a fundie madrassah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a "fundie athiest?" There are no gradations to a lack of belief. Are you referring to someone that doesn't selectively pick which science he will accept, because it might interfere with other held beliefs? Science has nothing to do with atheism. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are many Christians who fully accept evolution, such as Kenneth Miller and William Lane Craig, the latter being modern Christianity's foremost apologist.
Click to expand...


It's been on display since the beginning of this thread.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is propaganda:
> 
> PBS's 'Evolution' Series is Propaganda, Not Science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the science loathing, knowledge rejecting fundies have no positive evidence for gawds, thus are left to further conspiracy theories and attack science.
Click to expand...


I enjoy science. What I dislike is its application to circumvent the existance God, ban the suggestion of God as unconsitutional, and then promote theories that seen to fit data that could very well be interpreted differently provided one considered the likelyhood of God. It is just as likely to prove the existance of God through science, as it is possible to prove the Big Bang and formulate how life began. They all require belief in the mix. Now, I can certainly see that bias people and those looking to keep control seem more interested in eliminating a competative understanding of the data. However, medicine and invention will certainly not be in anyway affected if a Creationistic view became even more popular. The entire reason that our industry has moved overseas has nothing to do with God centered people. However, it has everything to do with people interested only in themselves and their accumulation of wealth, given the notion that they have only a willing government to answer to. God fearing people understand that this is an ignorant course of action, which will eventually come back to undermine everything wealth centered people hope to manipulate...


----------



## ima

Can anyone prove creation?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "fundie athiest?" There are no gradations to a lack of belief. Are you referring to someone that doesn't selectively pick which science he will accept, because it might interfere with other held beliefs? Science has nothing to do with atheism. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are many Christians who fully accept evolution, such as Kenneth Miller and William Lane Craig, the latter being modern Christianity's foremost apologist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been on display since the beginning of this thread.
Click to expand...


You didn't answer the question.


----------



## newpolitics

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is propaganda:
> 
> PBS's 'Evolution' Series is Propaganda, Not Science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the science loathing, knowledge rejecting fundies have no positive evidence for gawds, thus are left to further conspiracy theories and attack science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I enjoy science. What I dislike is its application to circumvent the existance God, ban the suggestion of God as unconsitutional, and then promote theories that seen to fit data that could very well be interpreted differently provided one considered the likelyhood of God. It is just as likely to prove the existance of God through science, as it is possible to prove the Big Bang and formulate how life began. They all require belief in the mix. Now, I can certainly see that bias people and those looking to keep control seem more interested in eliminating a competative understanding of the data. However, medicine and invention will certainly not be in anyway affected if a Creationistic view became even more popular. The entire reason that our industry has moved overseas has nothing to do with God centered people. However, it has everything to do with people interested only in themselves and their accumulation of wealth, given the notion that they have only a willing government to answer to. God fearing people understand that this is an ignorant course of action, which will eventually come back to undermine everything wealth centered people hope to manipulate...
Click to expand...


There is no bias against god, scientifically. Rather, god doesn't show up in science, yet you arrogantly demand that it simply does, by ... magic? Also, the constitution explicitly makes respecting any religion illegal.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *OK Hollie when science is used to establish that spiritual healing *is real, and there is a measurable cause and effect and healing effect and even cure from applying exorcism or deliverance, then maybe you will see there is no need to demonize religion for science.
> 
> If science would change your beliefs by discovery, then you would prove you are not being hypocritical nor avoiding anything because of your own biases, but are open to science and truth even if this proves that some things taught in religion are actually natural laws at work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science already has: placebo effect.
> 
> Actual healing, science does, too, i.e. reattaching a severed arm, which will not regrow, even if the entire fucking planet is praying in unison.
> 
> There's what's real (scientifically discovered) and what's believed (take your fucking pick.)
> 
> And it's none too complicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you don't talk like this in front of that little girl.
Click to expand...


Keep hoping.  Who knows; maybe you'll get lucky.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if they are wrong and there is a designer ?
> 
> 
> 
> so you're not confident that existence is a product of a designer?
> if you were you wouldn't have used the word if?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no doubts of creation and the Creator.
Click to expand...

Quite obviously you do. Your every waking moment appears to be consumed with vilifying science and scientific discovery. That speaks to someone who sees their gawds becoming less relevant and reduced to.... mere paper shufflers. 

Let's be honest, you have never even attempted to offer positive evidence for your gawds. What you have offered is lies, falsified "quotes" and profoundly silly attacks on the relevant sciences supporting evolution as though doing so, somehow supports your claims to supermagicalism.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what a horrible thing. Science should be banned so fundie creationists can transform schools into madrassahs.
> 
> Legions of Kool-aid drinkers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not real science.
Click to expand...

A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science. 

 Various forms of creationism fail on all three counts here. For example, "intelligent design" creationism makes no testable predictions at all - it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer's goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided - and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them - ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science. 

 Other forms of creationism, such as the young-earth creationism derived from a literal reading of the Bible, do make some testable claims. However, when these claims do not pan out, YEC advocates typically seek to rescue them from falsification by adding additional qualifications that make them untestable. For example, when radiometric and other dating methods show the Earth to be older than the 6,000 years YEC predicts, advocates of this idea often respond by saying that the world was created with an "appearance of age" - that it came complete with false evidence of a history that never happened. No conceivable evidence could prove this idea wrong even in principle, making any version of creationism that relies on it unambiguously not science. 

 Even some of creationism's defenders admit this. Henry Morris writes in his textbook Scientific Creationism that "Creation... is inaccessible to the scientific method", and that "It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place." His colleague and fellow creationist Duane Gish agrees, writing in Evolution: The Fossils Say No! that "We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator."
 A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic - i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles - cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit (see below).
 A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research. 
 Finally, a scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Those ideas that survive the test of time, that pass every test to which they are subjected, become generally accepted knowledge and are added to the scientific canon. Nevertheless, no theory is ever considered to be proven beyond any further possibility of doubt, since there's always the chance that that one startling bit of evidence might turn up tomorrow. In short, doing science means always accepting the possibility of error, and always being willing to test your ideas and accept the results whatever they may be. 

 This, more than anything else, is the one thing creationists refuse to do. Creationism starts with the Bible and goes nowhere. Most major creationist institutions, despite annual budgets in the millions of dollars, do not fund or perform any original scientific research at all. Indeed, such research would be redundant as far as creationists are concerned; they are already so convinced of the correctness of their conclusions that they see no need to test them. (If any reader thinks this is in any way an exaggeration, see below.) The moment you say, "I know I'm right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise", you are no longer doing science. 

For further evidence that creationism is not science, consider their "Statements of Faith". Almost every major creationist organization has one, which consists of a list of tenets that all members of that organization adhere to. The mere existence of such a thing is suspicious; no legitimate scientific body would require its members to hold certain opinions as a precondition of belonging. But it is in the specific wording of these statements that the creationists' bias comes out most clearly. These affirmations show in exceedingly clear detail that creationists subscribe, not to the self-correcting system of science, but to the infallible dogma of fundamentalist religion. 

Ebon Musings: Why Creationism Isn't Science


----------



## daws101

Presented for your approval, here are excerpts from some of the statements of faith of prominent creationist organizations. 
&#8226; The Institute for Creation Research: Tenets of Creationism
 In their belief statement, the ICR attempts to draw a distinction between "scientific" and "Biblical" creationism, claiming that the former can and should be taught in public schools, and that only the latter is religious. However, their version of "scientific creationism" includes statements such as "The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity" and "The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator". These are patently religious statements by any meaningful definition of the word, explicitly invoking supernatural creation, which is definitively outside science. The ICR also boasts "a firm commitment to creationism and to full Biblical inerrancy and authority". (Note, also, that elsewhere the ICR specifically identifies itself as "an arm of the church"). 
&#8226; Answers in Genesis: Statement of Faith
 AiG's Statement of Faith delivers the most brazenly anti-scientific statement to be found in any creationist document, which is the following, at the very end: "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." Apparently, as far as this group is concerned, when reality contradicts their interpretation of the Bible, it is reality that is wrong. This is not science, but the antithesis of science. Declaring that you know you are right, that the evidence cannot sway you, and more, that you will reject any evidence that contradicts what you believe, is as unscientific as one can possibly get, and shows in the clearest way imaginable that the brand of creationism these groups espouse is not science but religion.
&#8226; Reasons to Believe: What We Believe
 This old-earth creationist organization's doctrinal statement says the following: "The following paragraphs express the doctrinal convictions of every member of the Reasons to Believe staff and board of directors.... We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a 'God-breathed' revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings." Reasons to Believe also proclaims that it belongs to the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy, a group whose own doctrinal statement includes this: "We deny that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it." 

 Again, these are not scientific, but religious statements. Declaring that their interpretation Bible is completely true and that no evidence can ever disprove any part of it is an admission that their view is unfalsifiable. (Try, by contrast, to find a scientific body saying, "We deny that external evidence can ever disprove evolution or hold priority over it.") The creationists have come to the table with their minds made up, and they don't want to be confused by the facts. 
&#8226; The Creation Research Society: Statement of Belief
 This document reads in much the same vein as the others. "The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs." Of course, one's personal religious beliefs do not prevent one from doing legitimate science. However, when the two are this intimately intertwined, the author's scientific integrity and objectivity must inevitably be compromised, because their belief that their interpretation of the Bible must be true will tend to override and color everything they observe. Real scientists, by contrast, must always follow where the evidence leads, regardless of whether that evidence overturns a generally accepted theory or even a cherished personal belief. Can any member of the CRS honestly state that they would accept evidence contrary to creationist doctrine? 

In closing, it is worth noting the asymmetry here. Imagine if the scientific world was as biased towards evolution as the creationists are against it. Imagine if Nature and other top scientific journals boasted on their masthead that they possessed a "firm commitment to the truth of evolution and the inerrancy and authority of Charles Darwin", and refused to accept any papers submitted by anyone who held creationist beliefs. Imagine if science popularizers like Stephen Jay Gould or Ken Miller wrote that, "By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including biology, geology and physics, can be valid if it contradicts evolution." Imagine if publishers of science textbooks or associations of science teachers declared, "We believe that the Origin of Species is completely without error, and all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs." Imagine, in this scenario, what an outcry the creationists would raise against unscientific bias and prejudice - and justifiably so. Now return to the real world, where exactly the opposite situation pertains. What does this say about the scientific status of both sides in the evolution/creationism debate? 

Recommended Links: 
&#8226;The Skeptic's Dictionary: Creationism and Creation Science
&#8226;Statement on Creationism by the American Geophysical Union
&#8226;Vatican's Chief Astronomer: Intelligent Design is Not Science


http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/crenotscience.html


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny then you copy and paste from talk origins. What is your point ? are you once again showing you have reading comp problems.
> 
> 
> 
> here's a fine example of ywc's lack of originality, the phrase:" you have reading comp problems" was first used by Me in this thread .it also points up ,quite nicely I might add, that ywc has no concept of context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you the only one who didn't understand why I posted what I did ?
Click to expand...

you posted what you did because you've never learned when not answering is best.
this was one of those times.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This article addresses your point.
> 
> 
> Species and Kind
> 
> 
> by on
> 
> January 1, 1994
> 
> 
> 
> 
> author-gary-parker
> creation-facts-of-life
> evolution
> kinds
> speciation
> 
> Whoops! Two or more species from one kind! Isnt that evolution?
> 
> Some evolutionists certainly think so. After I participated in a creation-evolution debate at Texas A & M, a biology professor got up and told everyone about the flies on certain islands that used to interbreed but no longer do. Theyve become separate species, and that, he said, to a fair amount of applause, proves evolution is a factperiod!
> 
> Well, what about it? Barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? Or does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others? As I explained to the university-debate audience (also to applause), the answer is simply no, of course not. It doesnt even come close.
> 
> ?Species? and ?Kind? - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> this is not a scientific site
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor are many that you copy and paste from.
Click to expand...

denial of fact in action .. please present a site that I have use that is not scientific.
even the cartoons I've posted have a scientific basis..


----------



## ima

Creation is for retards.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you're not confident that existence is a product of a designer?
> if you were you wouldn't have used the word if?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubts of creation and the Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite obviously you do. Your every waking moment appears to be consumed with vilifying science and scientific discovery. That speaks to someone who sees their gawds becoming less relevant and reduced to.... mere paper shufflers.
> 
> Let's be honest, you have never even attempted to offer positive evidence for your gawds. What you have offered is lies, falsified "quotes" and profoundly silly attacks on the relevant sciences supporting evolution as though doing so, somehow supports your claims to supermagicalism.
Click to expand...

bump!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.
> 
> 
> 
> and it's false...based on an unprovable assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the big bang produce chaos origionally ?
Click to expand...

asked and answered


----------



## Koios

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w]The Erosion of Progress by Religions - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

ima said:


> Creation is for retards.


self made retards that is.


----------



## daws101

Koios said:


> The Erosion of Progress by Religions - YouTube


 thanks!


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Can anyone prove creation?



You're here aren't you?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're here aren't you?
Click to expand...


In the relevant first world, we understand that to be a function of biological mechanisms. 

In your madrassah, you were no doubt taught that "the gawds for it".  Your madrassah instructor was wrong.


----------



## Koios

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're here aren't you?
Click to expand...


Creation, obviously.  It's here, and got here some way.  Creator?  None we know of, albeit, many a religion has over the course of human history, imagined what he/they/it might be, in myriad forms.

Think of it this way:  There's a cake, just sitting there, with no one taking credit for its making. We have no idea who put it there, or what it's made of.  Some might think that the unknown is more-easily explained away by merely imagining God or whatever put it there.  No real thought energy, or logical steps needed. Just imagine God, Santa, Easter Bunny, frog in a clown suit, or whatever put it there, and made it pink, for reasons you care to attribute to it.  A 7th Pink Heaven, or whatever.

Or try to understand it.  Slice it and see what's inside.  Maybe it's only pink on the outside.  And maybe it tastes like strawberry, and not peppermint.  Or get really fucking ambitious, and do a chemical analysis ... if knowing what is real is worth the effort, in your opinion.

The choice is yours.


----------



## Hollie

Koios said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're here aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation, obviously.  It's here, and got here some way.  Creator?  None we know of, albeit, many a religion has over the course of human history, imagined what he/they/it might be, in myriad forms.
> 
> Think of it this way:  There's a cake, just sitting there, with no one taking credit for its making. We have no idea who put it there, or what it's made of.  Some might think that the unknown is more-easily explained away by merely imagining God or whatever put it there.  No real thought energy, or logical steps needed. Just imagine God, Santa, Easter Bunny, frog in a clown suit, or whatever put it there, and made it pink, for reasons you care to attribute to it.  A 7th Pink Heaven, or whatever.
> 
> Or try to understand it.  Slice it and see what's inside.  Maybe it's only pink on the outside.  And maybe it tastes like strawberry, and not peppermint.  Or get really fucking ambitious, and do a chemical analysis ... if knowing what is real is worth the effort, in your opinion.
> 
> The choice is yours.
Click to expand...


But.... but, but, but....but, but.....but, but but.... but , but, since the cake shows evidence of design, we know that specifiable, complex code was required for cake DNA (molecular machines) to assemble into cake frosting. 

Thus, once again, proof of the gawds.


----------



## Koios

Hollie said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're here aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation, obviously.  It's here, and got here some way.  Creator?  None we know of, albeit, many a religion has over the course of human history, imagined what he/they/it might be, in myriad forms.
> 
> Think of it this way:  There's a cake, just sitting there, with no one taking credit for its making. We have no idea who put it there, or what it's made of.  Some might think that the unknown is more-easily explained away by merely imagining God or whatever put it there.  No real thought energy, or logical steps needed. Just imagine God, Santa, Easter Bunny, frog in a clown suit, or whatever put it there, and made it pink, for reasons you care to attribute to it.  A 7th Pink Heaven, or whatever.
> 
> Or try to understand it.  Slice it and see what's inside.  Maybe it's only pink on the outside.  And maybe it tastes like strawberry, and not peppermint.  Or get really fucking ambitious, and do a chemical analysis ... if knowing what is real is worth the effort, in your opinion.
> 
> The choice is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But.... but, but, but....but, but.....but, but but.... but , but, since the cake shows evidence of design, we know that specifiable, complex code was required for cake DNA (molecular machines) to assemble into cake frosting.
> 
> Thus, once again, proof of the gawds.
Click to expand...


Indeed.  That is the essence of the Creationist argument, which even if so, leaves much to the imagination.

Okay, design that could only be the product of intelligence.  Let's say it's true.  Why God?  Why not a group of intelligent beings?  But okay, let's imagine it's one guy, God.  He made it.  How then do we know He even cares?  Maybe it was done on a whim, billions of years ago, and being all supreme and shit, He moved onto bigger and better challenges.  Why are we, and what we can see of the Universe around us, more than a mere fancy of His, long ago, and He couldn't give a fuck about what we do, or what happens after we die?

What do believers in God think?  Have you answers for those questions, even if EVERY last little minutia of the Creationist Postulate, is spot on fucking accurate?

Hmmmm?


----------



## ima

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're here aren't you?
Click to expand...


No, slave owner. I mean creation as depicted in the bible, isn't that what you believe? Can anyone prove the 6 day thing? Or is your religion built on hot fart smoke?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Can anyone prove creation?



Can anyone prove any theory ?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're here aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the relevant first world, we understand that to be a function of biological mechanisms.
> 
> In your madrassah, you were no doubt taught that "the gawds for it".  Your madrassah instructor was wrong.
Click to expand...


If you made any sense at all you'd still be dumb. My prayers go out to you and yours.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Koios said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're here aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation, obviously.  It's here, and got here some way.  Creator?  None we know of, albeit, many a religion has over the course of human history, imagined what he/they/it might be, in myriad forms.
> 
> Think of it this way:  There's a cake, just sitting there, with no one taking credit for its making. We have no idea who put it there, or what it's made of.  Some might think that the unknown is more-easily explained away by merely imagining God or whatever put it there.  No real thought energy, or logical steps needed. Just imagine God, Santa, Easter Bunny, frog in a clown suit, or whatever put it there, and made it pink, for reasons you care to attribute to it.  A 7th Pink Heaven, or whatever.
> 
> Or try to understand it.  Slice it and see what's inside.  Maybe it's only pink on the outside.  And maybe it tastes like strawberry, and not peppermint.  Or get really fucking ambitious, and do a chemical analysis ... if knowing what is real is worth the effort, in your opinion.
> 
> The choice is yours.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry you've had such a terrible life. I'll keep you in my prayers.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove any theory ?
Click to expand...


Not in science.  They're only supported, some more than others ... and some even to an extent we call it a fact, i.e. evolution.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're here aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, slave owner. I mean creation as depicted in the bible, isn't that what you believe? Can anyone prove the 6 day thing? Or is your religion built on hot fart smoke?
Click to expand...


You've been educated about the "6 day" thing yet you choose to remain ignorant.

I will say this, it takes no more faith to believe that God created man than it does to believe that all life began when simple chemicals built up into more complex chemicals which became a concentrated organic broth where our earliest ancestor, a bacteria like creature began.


----------



## Koios

Lonestar_logic said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're here aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation, obviously.  It's here, and got here some way.  Creator?  None we know of, albeit, many a religion has over the course of human history, imagined what he/they/it might be, in myriad forms.
> 
> Think of it this way:  There's a cake, just sitting there, with no one taking credit for its making. We have no idea who put it there, or what it's made of.  Some might think that the unknown is more-easily explained away by merely imagining God or whatever put it there.  No real thought energy, or logical steps needed. Just imagine God, Santa, Easter Bunny, frog in a clown suit, or whatever put it there, and made it pink, for reasons you care to attribute to it.  A 7th Pink Heaven, or whatever.
> 
> Or try to understand it.  Slice it and see what's inside.  Maybe it's only pink on the outside.  And maybe it tastes like strawberry, and not peppermint.  Or get really fucking ambitious, and do a chemical analysis ... if knowing what is real is worth the effort, in your opinion.
> 
> The choice is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you've had such a terrible life. I'll keep you in my prayers.
Click to expand...


Your sympathy is greatly appreciated, what with my having lost a leg in a skeet-shooting accident, which only hurt a little, Praise the Lord.

So, and since the Lord heals and answers our prayers, I'm hoping you and everyone else on the planet prays for my leg to regrow, if He is not too busy guiding the hand of surgeons fixing hearts and such, in medical centers across the heartland of this great country.

Thanks again for your prayers.


----------



## Koios

Bonzai said:


> Creationism = Mythology



The little tree has spoken!  Oh wait; I guess it's burning bushes we're supposed to heed.

My bad. Hahahahahahahahaha


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're here aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the relevant first world, we understand that to be a function of biological mechanisms.
> 
> In your madrassah, you were no doubt taught that "the gawds for it".  Your madrassah instructor was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you made any sense at all you'd still be dumb. My prayers go out to you and yours.
Click to expand...


Ah, the angry, belligerent fundie persona. You're all so cute in your continuing state of being befuddled.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Koios said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove any theory ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in science.  They're only supported, some more than others ... and some even to an extent we call it a fact, i.e. evolution.
Click to expand...


Contradict yourself much.


----------



## Koios

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove any theory ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in science.  They're only supported, some more than others ... and some even to an extent we call it a fact, i.e. evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Contradict yourself much.
Click to expand...


I try not to.  And note that calling something a fact, does not make it such.  Ergo the qualifier.  Noodle on that; it'll come to you.

But is there not a contradiction in using science to disprove science?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're here aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, slave owner. I mean creation as depicted in the bible, isn't that what you believe? Can anyone prove the 6 day thing? Or is your religion built on hot fart smoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been educated about the "6 day" thing yet you choose to remain ignorant.
> 
> I will say this, it takes no more faith to believe that God created man than it does to believe that all life began when simple chemicals built up into more complex chemicals which became a concentrated organic broth where our earliest ancestor, a bacteria like creature began.
Click to expand...


The continually befuddled. It requires no faith to understand biological mechanisms. 

What's remarkable is belief in partisan gawds with no more intellectual rigor than choosing the color of your socks. fundies simply inherit belief in a version of gawds with unthinking, uncaring mindlesness.


----------



## ima

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're here aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, slave owner. I mean creation as depicted in the bible, isn't that what you believe? Can anyone prove the 6 day thing? Or is your religion built on hot fart smoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been educated about the "6 day" thing yet you choose to remain ignorant.
> 
> I will say this, it takes no more faith to believe that God created man than it does to believe that all life began when simple chemicals built up into more complex chemicals which became a concentrated organic broth where our earliest ancestor, a bacteria like creature began.
Click to expand...


Cmon, you need to be nearly retarded to believe that you have to care what a non-existent invisible superhero thinks of you. And why couldn't your non-existent invisible superhero use evolution to develop life on planets? Any particular reason?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what a horrible thing. Science should be banned so fundie creationists can transform schools into madrassahs.
> 
> Legions of Kool-aid drinkers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.
> 
> Various forms of creationism fail on all three counts here. For example, "intelligent design" creationism makes no testable predictions at all - it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer's goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided - and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them - ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.
> 
> Other forms of creationism, such as the young-earth creationism derived from a literal reading of the Bible, do make some testable claims. However, when these claims do not pan out, YEC advocates typically seek to rescue them from falsification by adding additional qualifications that make them untestable. For example, when radiometric and other dating methods show the Earth to be older than the 6,000 years YEC predicts, advocates of this idea often respond by saying that the world was created with an "appearance of age" - that it came complete with false evidence of a history that never happened. No conceivable evidence could prove this idea wrong even in principle, making any version of creationism that relies on it unambiguously not science.
> 
> Even some of creationism's defenders admit this. Henry Morris writes in his textbook Scientific Creationism that "Creation... is inaccessible to the scientific method", and that "It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place." His colleague and fellow creationist Duane Gish agrees, writing in Evolution: The Fossils Say No! that "We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator."
>  A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic - i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles - cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit (see below).
>  A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.
>  Finally, a scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Those ideas that survive the test of time, that pass every test to which they are subjected, become generally accepted knowledge and are added to the scientific canon. Nevertheless, no theory is ever considered to be proven beyond any further possibility of doubt, since there's always the chance that that one startling bit of evidence might turn up tomorrow. In short, doing science means always accepting the possibility of error, and always being willing to test your ideas and accept the results whatever they may be.
> 
> This, more than anything else, is the one thing creationists refuse to do. Creationism starts with the Bible and goes nowhere. Most major creationist institutions, despite annual budgets in the millions of dollars, do not fund or perform any original scientific research at all. Indeed, such research would be redundant as far as creationists are concerned; they are already so convinced of the correctness of their conclusions that they see no need to test them. (If any reader thinks this is in any way an exaggeration, see below.) The moment you say, "I know I'm right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise", you are no longer doing science.
> 
> For further evidence that creationism is not science, consider their "Statements of Faith". Almost every major creationist organization has one, which consists of a list of tenets that all members of that organization adhere to. The mere existence of such a thing is suspicious; no legitimate scientific body would require its members to hold certain opinions as a precondition of belonging. But it is in the specific wording of these statements that the creationists' bias comes out most clearly. These affirmations show in exceedingly clear detail that creationists subscribe, not to the self-correcting system of science, but to the infallible dogma of fundamentalist religion.
> 
> Ebon Musings: Why Creationism Isn't Science
Click to expand...


Maybe it's time for you to learn what a hypothesis really is and see how your precious theory,macroevolution should not qualify as even a hypothesis let alone a theory. They have taken changes that happen in a family of organisms and extrapolate from these changes to major changes like an ape evolving in to a human and so on.

A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an educated guess, based on prior knowledge and observation, as to the cause of a particular phenomenon. It is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. A hypothesis is the inkling of an idea that can become a theory, which is the next step in the scientific method.

The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation.

A key function in this step in the scientific method is deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether they support the predictions.

The primary trait of a hypothesis is that something can be tested and that those tests can be replicated. A hypothesis, which is often in the form of an if/then statement, is often examined by multiple scientists to ensure the integrity and veracity of the experiment. This process can take years, and in many cases hypotheses do not become theories as it is difficult to gather sufficient supporting evidence.

Upon analysis of the results, a hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but it can never be proven to be correct 100 percent of the time. For example, relativity has been tested many times so it is generally accepted as true, but there could be an instance, which has not been encountered, where it is not true.

Most formal hypotheses consist of concepts that can be connected and their relationships tested. A group of hypotheses comes together to form a conceptual framework. As sufficient data and evidence are gathered to support a hypothesis, it becomes a working hypothesis, which is a milestone on the way to becoming a theory.

Now explain to me the many theories you have put forth as an explanation that truly qualifies ? be careful I am asking you a loaded question so I can use your words aginst you.

What is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis | LiveScience






A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next stepknown as a theoryin the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

When used in non-scientific context, the word theory implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newtons theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.

A few theories do become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon.


Hmm they don't point to the major theory that divides us as a solid theory.

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions and then acquiring the knowledge to either support or disprove a specific theory. That is where the collection of empirical data comes into play.

Before any piece of empirical data is collected, scientists carefully design their research methods to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data. If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid.

The scientific method often involves lab experiments that are repeated over and over, and these experiments result in quantitative datain the form of numbers and statistics. However, that is not the only process used for gathering information to support or refute a theory. Qualitative research, often used in the social sciences, examines the reasons behind human behavior.

The objective of science is that all empirical data that has been gathered through observation, experience and experimentation is without bias. The strength of any scientific research depends on the ability to gather and analyze empirical data in the most unbiased and controlled fashion possible. However, in the 1960s, scientific historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn promoted the idea that scientists can be influenced by prior beliefs and experiences.

Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters which could skew the results.

The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific methods, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Koios said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation, obviously.  It's here, and got here some way.  Creator?  None we know of, albeit, many a religion has over the course of human history, imagined what he/they/it might be, in myriad forms.
> 
> Think of it this way:  There's a cake, just sitting there, with no one taking credit for its making. We have no idea who put it there, or what it's made of.  Some might think that the unknown is more-easily explained away by merely imagining God or whatever put it there.  No real thought energy, or logical steps needed. Just imagine God, Santa, Easter Bunny, frog in a clown suit, or whatever put it there, and made it pink, for reasons you care to attribute to it.  A 7th Pink Heaven, or whatever.
> 
> Or try to understand it.  Slice it and see what's inside.  Maybe it's only pink on the outside.  And maybe it tastes like strawberry, and not peppermint.  Or get really fucking ambitious, and do a chemical analysis ... if knowing what is real is worth the effort, in your opinion.
> 
> The choice is yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you've had such a terrible life. I'll keep you in my prayers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your sympathy is greatly appreciated, what with my having lost a leg in a skeet-shooting accident, which only hurt a little, Praise the Lord.
> 
> So, and since the Lord heals and answers our prayers, I'm hoping you and everyone else on the planet prays for my leg to regrow, if He is not too busy guiding the hand of surgeons fixing hearts and such, in medical centers across the heartland of this great country.
> 
> Thanks again for your prayers.
Click to expand...


Your body isn't the only thing that has something missing. Apparently you have lost a good portion of your mind as well.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, slave owner. I mean creation as depicted in the bible, isn't that what you believe? Can anyone prove the 6 day thing? Or is your religion built on hot fart smoke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been educated about the "6 day" thing yet you choose to remain ignorant.
> 
> I will say this, it takes no more faith to believe that God created man than it does to believe that all life began when simple chemicals built up into more complex chemicals which became a concentrated organic broth where our earliest ancestor, a bacteria like creature began.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The continually befuddled. It requires no faith to understand biological mechanisms.
> 
> What's remarkable is belief in partisan gawds with no more intellectual rigor than choosing the color of your socks. fundies simply inherit belief in a version of gawds with unthinking, uncaring mindlesness.
Click to expand...


Evolution has neven been proven. To believe that life was created from some primordial soup takes quite a leap of faith.

All you have going for you are insults. I pity people like you. You must live a sad and lonely life.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science.



Peer review is also essential to protect against religious quackery.

Creationists do not submit for peer review because they do no research, perform no experimentation and hold to no rigorous standards.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ima said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, slave owner. I mean creation as depicted in the bible, isn't that what you believe? Can anyone prove the 6 day thing? Or is your religion built on hot fart smoke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been educated about the "6 day" thing yet you choose to remain ignorant.
> 
> I will say this, it takes no more faith to believe that God created man than it does to believe that all life began when simple chemicals built up into more complex chemicals which became a concentrated organic broth where our earliest ancestor, a bacteria like creature began.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cmon, you need to be nearly retarded to believe that you have to care what a non-existent invisible superhero thinks of you. And why couldn't your non-existent invisible superhero use evolution to develop life on planets? Any particular reason?
Click to expand...


If evolution is indeed a fact then please explain how did there come to be male and female? 

I mean regardless of whether we are talking about animals, fish, or plant life, it's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties. Why?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've been educated about the "6 day" thing yet you choose to remain ignorant.
> 
> I will say this, it takes no more faith to believe that God created man than it does to believe that all life began when simple chemicals built up into more complex chemicals which became a concentrated organic broth where our earliest ancestor, a bacteria like creature began.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The continually befuddled. It requires no faith to understand biological mechanisms.
> 
> What's remarkable is belief in partisan gawds with no more intellectual rigor than choosing the color of your socks. fundies simply inherit belief in a version of gawds with unthinking, uncaring mindlesness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution has neven been proven. To believe that life was created from some primordial soup takes quite a leap of faith.
> 
> All you have going for you are insults. I pity people like you. You must live a sad and lonely life.
Click to expand...

The prayer leader at your madrassah has lied to you. As much as science can "prove" anything, there is ample proof of evolution. You shouldn't let your limited imagination and need to believe that all of science being a conspiracy be a limitation on thinking minds.

What a shame that christianity still vacates the mind.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The continually befuddled. It requires no faith to understand biological mechanisms.
> 
> What's remarkable is belief in partisan gawds with no more intellectual rigor than choosing the color of your socks. fundies simply inherit belief in a version of gawds with unthinking, uncaring mindlesness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has neven been proven. To believe that life was created from some primordial soup takes quite a leap of faith.
> 
> All you have going for you are insults. I pity people like you. You must live a sad and lonely life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The prayer leader at your madrassah has lied to you. As much as science can "prove" anything, there is ample proof of evolution. You shouldn't let your limited imagination and need to believe that all of science being a conspiracy be a limitation on thinking minds.
> 
> What a shame that christianity still vacates the mind.
Click to expand...



Lesson 09: Who Are We?






There are only two options when considering the existence of the universe.  Either something outside space and time or something inside of space and time has caused everything as we know it.  Within the framework of these two options lies yet another question, Who are we?  When this question is asked, we take one step away from considering our ultimate beginnings and one step toward our specific origins.  We are no longer asking, How did the universe begin to exist?  Instead, we are asking, How did we come to exist and what is our identity?  Specifically, we are asking about human rather than universal origins.

There are essentially three positions that hold prominence in answering this question.

1.  Creationism  God purposefully created us.

2.  Theistic Evolution  We have evolved, but God guided the evolutionary process.

3. Evolution/Darwinism  We are the product of the blind (i.e. without reason) force of the evolutionary process.

According to a 2012 Gallup survey 46% of Americans are creationists, 32% are theistic evolutionists and 15% are evolutionists.  These percentages have remained virtually the same for the past 30 years.  The issue is that Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive.  Both cannot be true because they make opposing claims.  Theistic evolution attempts to provide a moderating voice for common ground among the two.  However, theistic evolution also provides direct opposition to at least one aspect of the other two claims.  Therefore, among the three, only one may have the ability to truly reflect reality.

What is Evolution?

When someone begins a conversation about evolution, we must be careful to ask, What do you mean by evolution?  Most informed persons believe in some form of evolution.  This is because there are two primary types of evolution.


Macroevolution
 &#9632;
Macroevolution  This is evolution across types.  Theoretically, one species may eventually become another if it is given enough time.  The most stereotyped example of this is that a monkey (or its ancestor) can eventually evolve into a human.  Another example is that some scientists would say that birds have evolved from dinosaurs.



Microevolution
 &#9632;
Microevolution  Whereas macro means large, micro means small.  This is evolution within a species.  Microevolution explains the differences that occur within humans or dogs or birds.


One of the differences between the two types of evolution is that macro believes new species can spring from different ones while micro says that changes do happen, but only within the species.

The Debate

Nearly all scientists, creationists, theistic evolutionists and Darwinists/evolutionists can agree on microevolution.  These are changes that can be observed from generation to generation and by scientific expermientation.  However, when it comes to macroevolution it is a different story.  Creationists do not think macroevolution is a viable scientific theory.  Theistic evolutionists believe in the macroevolutionary theory but only if it is noted that God directed the process.  Evolutionists believe that macroevolutionary theory is fact and that God has no part in the equation.  What is the cause for such difference in belief?


John Scopes

The debate took its current form in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925.  The State of Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes trial (known as the Scopes Monkey Trial) brought evolution vs. creationism to the forefront of the American mind.  Scopes was a high school science teacher who was on trial for teaching evolution in a state-funded school.  In 1925, it was illegal in Tennessee to teach evolution in public school.  Today, it is illegal (or at least highly discouraged) to teach creationism in public school.  How America has changed!  To see how this change happened, we must examine each possibility in more detail.

Why Do Creationists Not Believe in Macroevolution?

For creationists, there are generally two reasons for not believing in macroevolution.  One has to do with the fact the his or her authority (some form of Scriptures, most usually the Bible) shows that humans were specially created by God.  For example, the Bible says  in Genesis 1:26,


Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

Not only does this Scripture show that mankind is made in the image of God (Imago Deo), but mankind is also to rule over all other living creatures on the earth.  Further, the Bible speaks directly against macroevolution when it states that both animals (Genesis 1:24) and plants (Genesis 1:11) will reproduce according to its own kind and seed.  For example, an apple contains an apple seed which will always make an apple.  In the same way, a human contains human seed and will always produce another human.

The second reason creationists do not believe in macroevolution is science.  Remember, science does not interpret the facts.  It is the scientists who interpret their findings.  The branch of science who finds that scientific evidence points to a creator is called Intelligent Design.  Whereas a creationist will generally say that the One who created is specifically the God of the Bible, an Intelligent Design scientist withholds identification of who the designer is.  He simply says, The scientific facts show us that there must be a grand designer who is intelligent.  However, creationists and Intelligent Design scientists find common ground by agreeing that human life is the result of special design rather than spontaneous generation and chance.  Popular proponents of Intelligent Design are Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells who asks 10 Questions to evolutionists.

Why Do Theistic Evolutionists Believe in God-guided Macroevolution?

Whereas many creationists interpret science through the lens of Scripture, Theistic-evolutionists interpret Scripture through the lens of science.  In other words they believe Scripture is correct; it is just up to science to tell us how the events of Scripture happened.  However, there is no good reason to actually believe Theistic Evolution.  It is simply a moderate position that does not want to deny the reliability of authority or popular science.  However, some will interpret the Quran in 21:30 as being in agreement with macroevolution that all life indeed comes from water.

Why Do Evolutionists Believe in Macroevolution?

Bill Nye the Science Guy recently waded into the debate.  Nye is vehemently opposed to creationism because of the undeniable evolutionary facts that science produce.  The scientist appeals to his teacher Carl Sagan who was famous for saying that we are made of star stuff in his PBS series Cosmos a few decades ago.

One Molecular Biologist writes that the most common answers scientists give for believing in evolution are:
 &#9632;
a laboratory flask containing a simulation of the earths primitive atmosphere, in which electric sparks produce the chemical building-blocks of living cells; 

&#9632;
the evolutionary tree of life, reconstructed from a large and growing body of fossil and molecular evidence; 

&#9632;
similar bone structures in a bats wing, a porpoises flipper, a horses leg, and a human hand that indicate their evolutionary origin in a common ancestor; 

&#9632;
pictures of similarities in early embryos showing that amphibians, reptiles, birds and human beings are all descended from a fish-like animal; 

&#9632;
Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird with teeth in its jaws and claws on its wings, the missing link between ancient reptiles and modern birds; 

&#9632;
peppered moths on tree trunks, showing how camouflage and predatory birds produced the most famous example of evolution by natural selection; 

&#9632;
Darwins finches on the Galapagos Islands, thirteen separate species that diverged from one when natural selection produced differences in their beaks, and that inspired Darwin to formulate his theory of evolution; 

&#9632;
fruit flies with an extra pair of wings, showing that genetic mutations can provide the raw materials for evolution; 

&#9632;
a branching-tree pattern of horse fossils that refutes the old-fashioned idea that evolution was directed; and 

&#9632;
drawings of ape-like creatures evolving into humans, showing that we are just animals and that our existence is merely a by-product of purposeless natural causes.


Would Charles Darwin be a Darwinist Today?

In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:


If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.  On the Origin of the Species, page 171

Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.  In Darwins day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one.  Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls irreducibly complex.

Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function.  Think of a mouse trap, for example.  All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work.  If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice.  Thus, it is irreducibly complex.

An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state.  Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work.  Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work.  It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned.  Look at how complex the eye is.  It is irreducibly complex.  You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.

Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced.  On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,


To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Darwin today could not be a Darwinist.  Science disproves his own theories.  It absolutely break down when one understand that inside of each cell there are about 3,000 million pairs of the genetic alphabetic letters.  Further, each body has trillions of cells and makes millions of new cells every second, but each cell is irreducibly complex and contains irreducibly complex subsystems! (Geisler and Turek, I Dont Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, pgs. 145-6).  True, he would most likely still be atheistic and would hold to some other scientific system.  One thing however, is for sure: he could not be a Darwinist.

Conclusion

One small article can just begin to see the tip of the iceberg in the debate of Creationism vs. Darwinism.  These two ideologies also just barely begin to describe the reasons for what it means to either be created in the image of God or to have evolved without ultimate purpose.  There are innumerable books and resources that will further your understand of the subject.  However, after being introduced to the debate there are some things we must keep in mind.
 &#9632;Macroevolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of different species, but not the ultimate beginning.
 &#9632;Evolution is not the same thing as the Big Bang.
 &#9632;Evolution and Creationism are contradictory.  Therefore, both cannot be correct answers to the question, Who Are We?.  This also means that the mediating position of Theistic Evolution must by default be wrong as well.
 &#9632;Creationists cannot discount the claims of science.  True science is a genuine pursuit of the truth.  Good science is the friend, rather than foe, of religion.
 &#9632;Scientific theories such as evolution are interpretations of the facts by scientists.  Science does not interpret itself.

Lesson 09: Who Are We? « Truth Matters


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The continually befuddled. It requires no faith to understand biological mechanisms.
> 
> What's remarkable is belief in partisan gawds with no more intellectual rigor than choosing the color of your socks. fundies simply inherit belief in a version of gawds with unthinking, uncaring mindlesness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has neven been proven. To believe that life was created from some primordial soup takes quite a leap of faith.
> 
> All you have going for you are insults. I pity people like you. You must live a sad and lonely life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The prayer leader at your madrassah has lied to you. As much as science can "prove" anything, there is ample proof of evolution. You shouldn't let your limited imagination and need to believe that all of science being a conspiracy be a limitation on thinking minds.
> 
> What a shame that christianity still vacates the mind.
Click to expand...


Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells who asks 10 Questions to evolutionists.

ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery? 


DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life? 


HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence? 


VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked? 


ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it? 


PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged? 


DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred? 


MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory? 


HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like? 


EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're here aren't you?
Click to expand...

that's not proof, it's a wish.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not real science.
> 
> 
> 
> A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.
> 
> Various forms of creationism fail on all three counts here. For example, "intelligent design" creationism makes no testable predictions at all - it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer's goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided - and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them - ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.
> 
> Other forms of creationism, such as the young-earth creationism derived from a literal reading of the Bible, do make some testable claims. However, when these claims do not pan out, YEC advocates typically seek to rescue them from falsification by adding additional qualifications that make them untestable. For example, when radiometric and other dating methods show the Earth to be older than the 6,000 years YEC predicts, advocates of this idea often respond by saying that the world was created with an "appearance of age" - that it came complete with false evidence of a history that never happened. No conceivable evidence could prove this idea wrong even in principle, making any version of creationism that relies on it unambiguously not science.
> 
> Even some of creationism's defenders admit this. Henry Morris writes in his textbook Scientific Creationism that "Creation... is inaccessible to the scientific method", and that "It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place." His colleague and fellow creationist Duane Gish agrees, writing in Evolution: The Fossils Say No! that "We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator."
>  A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic - i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles - cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit (see below).
>  A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.
>  Finally, a scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Those ideas that survive the test of time, that pass every test to which they are subjected, become generally accepted knowledge and are added to the scientific canon. Nevertheless, no theory is ever considered to be proven beyond any further possibility of doubt, since there's always the chance that that one startling bit of evidence might turn up tomorrow. In short, doing science means always accepting the possibility of error, and always being willing to test your ideas and accept the results whatever they may be.
> 
> This, more than anything else, is the one thing creationists refuse to do. Creationism starts with the Bible and goes nowhere. Most major creationist institutions, despite annual budgets in the millions of dollars, do not fund or perform any original scientific research at all. Indeed, such research would be redundant as far as creationists are concerned; they are already so convinced of the correctness of their conclusions that they see no need to test them. (If any reader thinks this is in any way an exaggeration, see below.) The moment you say, "I know I'm right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise", you are no longer doing science.
> 
> For further evidence that creationism is not science, consider their "Statements of Faith". Almost every major creationist organization has one, which consists of a list of tenets that all members of that organization adhere to. The mere existence of such a thing is suspicious; no legitimate scientific body would require its members to hold certain opinions as a precondition of belonging. But it is in the specific wording of these statements that the creationists' bias comes out most clearly. These affirmations show in exceedingly clear detail that creationists subscribe, not to the self-correcting system of science, but to the infallible dogma of fundamentalist religion.
> 
> Ebon Musings: Why Creationism Isn't Science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> edited for wall of text and  dodging the facts.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells who asks 10 Questions to evolutionists.
> acts?



You obviously missed my earlier comment about religious quackery.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has neven been proven. To believe that life was created from some primordial soup takes quite a leap of faith.
> 
> All you have going for you are insults. I pity people like you. You must live a sad and lonely life.
> 
> 
> 
> The prayer leader at your madrassah has lied to you. As much as science can "prove" anything, there is ample proof of evolution. You shouldn't let your limited imagination and need to believe that all of science being a conspiracy be a limitation on thinking minds.
> 
> What a shame that christianity still vacates the mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lesson 09: Who Are We?
> edited for non science content, wall of text and religious bias.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has neven been proven. To believe that life was created from some primordial soup takes quite a leap of faith.
> 
> All you have going for you are insults. I pity people like you. You must live a sad and lonely life.
> 
> 
> 
> The prayer leader at your madrassah has lied to you. As much as science can "prove" anything, there is ample proof of evolution. You shouldn't let your limited imagination and need to believe that all of science being a conspiracy be a limitation on thinking minds.
> 
> What a shame that christianity still vacates the mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells who asks 10 Questions to evolutionists.
> 
> ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
> 
> 
> DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
> 
> 
> HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
> 
> 
> VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
> 
> 
> ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
> 
> 
> PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
> 
> 
> DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
> 
> 
> MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
> 
> 
> HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
> 
> 
> EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
Click to expand...

sorry should have neg reped you for this post not the last one


----------



## daws101

ywc has proven me correct again "the deeper the bullshit the longer and more stridently the proselytizing"


----------



## emilynghiem

ima said:


> Can anyone prove creation?



Can anyone prove evolution?
Both are based on how you interpret the information.
The proof of either is based on faith that your interpretation makes sense!

Even if you agreed on what data to interpret, people would still see it differently.
It will always be faith based to some degree.

I'm more interested in how people's perceptions change
when studies of spiritual healing are replicated and proven.

I think that is more tangible, and manageable where you
can measure the before and after conditions and isolate the cause and effects,
and the key factor of forgiveness in various healing methods applied to different cases.

I compare it to proving how gravity works.
Once you have faith that your understanding is consistent with natural laws that won't change,
then you don't keep asking for proof. You just use the laws of gravity and take them for granted.
Proving spiritual healing or God is the same way. Once you are comfortable with
your understanding, then it fits with everything else and you take it for granted and don't need proof. Just like gravity.


----------



## emilynghiem

daws101 said:


> ywc has proven me correct again "the deeper the bullshit the longer and more stridently the proselytizing"



No, it's the fear behind BOTH things, correlated not cause and effect.
The deeper the fear then the more BS to try to cover it up.
The deeper the fear, the more stress and pressure to preach or blame the other person.

Perfect love conquers all fear.
The more understanding, there is more love and less fear.

So the more people share out of pure love of truth and understanding,
that is unconditional and not for the purpose of being right or making others wrong,
then we will see less fear, less stress and less bullying and projected blame.
We will see more respect, and it will catch on as we address each other in this way.

Thank you for sharing and I trust it will get better
and easier to communicate as we proceed from here!


----------



## daws101

emilynghiem said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ywc has proven me correct again "the deeper the bullshit the longer and more stridently the proselytizing"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's the fear behind BOTH things, correlated not cause and effect.
> The deeper the fear then the more BS to try to cover it up.
> The deeper the fear, the more stress and pressure to preach or blame the other person.
> 
> Perfect love conquers all fear.
> The more understanding, there is more love and less fear.
> 
> So the more people share out of pure love of truth and understanding,
> that is unconditional and not for the purpose of being right or making others wrong,
> then we will see less fear, less stress and less bullying and projected blame.
> We will see more respect, and it will catch on as we address each other in this way.
> 
> Thank you for sharing and I trust it will get better
> and easier to communicate as we proceed from here!
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prayer leader at your madrassah has lied to you. As much as science can "prove" anything, there is ample proof of evolution. You shouldn't let your limited imagination and need to believe that all of science being a conspiracy be a limitation on thinking minds.
> 
> What a shame that christianity still vacates the mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells who asks 10 Questions to evolutionists.
> 
> ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
> 
> 
> DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
> 
> 
> HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
> 
> 
> VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
> 
> 
> ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
> 
> 
> PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
> 
> 
> DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
> 
> 
> MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
> 
> 
> HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
> 
> 
> EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry should have neg reped you for this post not the last one
Click to expand...


Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?

Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.


----------



## LittleNipper

What is so funny is that creationist provide all kinds of well thought out explanations (whether one agrees with those explanations or not). The evolotionist says, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." And that is it! The evolutionist provides nothing of value and just makes snide remarks in passing. The fools out there yell, "Right on, Dude! Go evolutionists!" And I'm left with a feeling they (evolutionists) really know nothing and can only poke fun at creationists, but have nothing tangable. 

Now, I'm not suggesting we (creationists) throw up our hands and say, "One cannot argue with ignorance." I'm of the opinion that many read these threads and this may very likely be the only space where they are confronted with opposing views on the subject. This is likely causing perhaps many to do further research on their own, and even begin to question evolution (or at least not accept it hook, line and sinker). So just keep plugging!

Evolution cannot explain why we exist. 
Evolution cannot provide a reason why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
Evolution cannot provide a reason why people even care to understand about origins.
Evolution cannot demonstrate one progression of any species from it's simplest ancestor to a descendant alive today.

I know, the evolutionist is going to say, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." Please save your breath, unless you really have something to add of any interest.


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> What is so funny is that creationist provide all kinds of well thought out explanations (whether one agrees with those explanations or not). The evolotionist says, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." And that is it! The evolutionist provides nothing of value and just makes snide remarks in passing. The fools out there yell, "Right on, Dude! Go evolutionists!" And I'm left with a feeling they (evolutionists) really know nothing and can only poke fun at creationists, but have nothing tangable.
> 
> Now, I'm not suggesting we (creationists) throw up our hands and say, "One cannot argue with ignorance." I'm of the opinion that many read these threads and this may very likely be the only space where they are confronted with opposing views on the subject. This is likely causing perhaps many to do further research on their own, and even begin to question evolution (or at least not accept it hook, line and sinker). So just keep plugging!
> 
> Evolution cannot explain why we exist.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why people even care to understand about origins.
> Evolution cannot demonstrate one progression of any species from it's simplest ancestor to a descendant alive today.
> 
> I know, the evolutionist is going to say, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." Please save your breath, unless you really have something to add of any interest.


Evolution isn't trying to explain why we exist. 
Evolution isn't trying to explain why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
Evolution isn't trying to explain why people even care to understand about origins.
There is tons of scientific evidence for evolution, you just choose to be ignorant.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?
> 
> Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.



For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.

Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.

This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian creationist have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny is that creationist provide all kinds of well thought out explanations (whether one agrees with those explanations or not). The evolotionist says, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." And that is it! The evolutionist provides nothing of value and just makes snide remarks in passing. The fools out there yell, "Right on, Dude! Go evolutionists!" And I'm left with a feeling they (evolutionists) really know nothing and can only poke fun at creationists, but have nothing tangable.
> 
> Now, I'm not suggesting we (creationists) throw up our hands and say, "One cannot argue with ignorance." I'm of the opinion that many read these threads and this may very likely be the only space where they are confronted with opposing views on the subject. This is likely causing perhaps many to do further research on their own, and even begin to question evolution (or at least not accept it hook, line and sinker). So just keep plugging!
> 
> Evolution cannot explain why we exist.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why people even care to understand about origins.
> Evolution cannot demonstrate one progression of any species from it's simplest ancestor to a descendant alive today.
> 
> I know, the evolutionist is going to say, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." Please save your breath, unless you really have something to add of any interest.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution isn't trying to explain why we exist.
> Evolution isn't trying to explain why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
> Evolution isn't trying to explain why people even care to understand about origins.
> There is tons of scientific evidence for evolution, you just choose to be ignorant.
Click to expand...


You are kidding right ? 

There is nothing scientists don't want to understand.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> What is so funny is that creationist provide all kinds of well thought out explanations (whether one agrees with those explanations or not). The evolotionist says, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." And that is it! The evolutionist provides nothing of value and just makes snide remarks in passing. The fools out there yell, "Right on, Dude! Go evolutionists!" And I'm left with a feeling they (evolutionists) really know nothing and can only poke fun at creationists, but have nothing tangable.
> 
> Now, I'm not suggesting we (creationists) throw up our hands and say, "One cannot argue with ignorance." I'm of the opinion that many read these threads and this may very likely be the only space where they are confronted with opposing views on the subject. This is likely causing perhaps many to do further research on their own, and even begin to question evolution (or at least not accept it hook, line and sinker). So just keep plugging!
> 
> Evolution cannot explain why we exist.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why people even care to understand about origins.
> Evolution cannot demonstrate one progression of any species from it's simplest ancestor to a descendant alive today.
> 
> I know, the evolutionist is going to say, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." Please save your breath, unless you really have something to add of any interest.


Actually, creationist supply nothing in terms of any actual argument. 

Try proof reading your own post. You're unable to defend creationist argument. The entirety of your post, and the creationist agenda, is to vilify science. 

Creationist really don't understand how inept, vacant and hopeless they have made their narrative. Their silly anti- science, anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge agenda has reduced the Christian creationist to something of a caricature of the Flat Earth believing bufoon clutching one of the bibles in one hand and a glass of Kool-aid in the other.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny is that creationist provide all kinds of well thought out explanations (whether one agrees with those explanations or not). The evolotionist says, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." And that is it! The evolutionist provides nothing of value and just makes snide remarks in passing. The fools out there yell, "Right on, Dude! Go evolutionists!" And I'm left with a feeling they (evolutionists) really know nothing and can only poke fun at creationists, but have nothing tangable.
> 
> Now, I'm not suggesting we (creationists) throw up our hands and say, "One cannot argue with ignorance." I'm of the opinion that many read these threads and this may very likely be the only space where they are confronted with opposing views on the subject. This is likely causing perhaps many to do further research on their own, and even begin to question evolution (or at least not accept it hook, line and sinker). So just keep plugging!
> 
> Evolution cannot explain why we exist.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why people even care to understand about origins.
> Evolution cannot demonstrate one progression of any species from it's simplest ancestor to a descendant alive today.
> 
> I know, the evolutionist is going to say, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." Please save your breath, unless you really have something to add of any interest.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution isn't trying to explain why we exist.
> Evolution isn't trying to explain why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
> Evolution isn't trying to explain why people even care to understand about origins.
> There is tons of scientific evidence for evolution, you just choose to be ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are kidding right ?
> 
> There is nothing scientists don't want to understand.
Click to expand...


Which part don't you agree with? About science? Well, science disproves the bible and the creation story, you have to stay ignorant about science to believe your magic book.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny is that creationist provide all kinds of well thought out explanations (whether one agrees with those explanations or not). The evolotionist says, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." And that is it! The evolutionist provides nothing of value and just makes snide remarks in passing. The fools out there yell, "Right on, Dude! Go evolutionists!" And I'm left with a feeling they (evolutionists) really know nothing and can only poke fun at creationists, but have nothing tangable.
> 
> Now, I'm not suggesting we (creationists) throw up our hands and say, "One cannot argue with ignorance." I'm of the opinion that many read these threads and this may very likely be the only space where they are confronted with opposing views on the subject. This is likely causing perhaps many to do further research on their own, and even begin to question evolution (or at least not accept it hook, line and sinker). So just keep plugging!
> 
> Evolution cannot explain why we exist.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why people even care to understand about origins.
> Evolution cannot demonstrate one progression of any species from it's simplest ancestor to a descendant alive today.
> 
> I know, the evolutionist is going to say, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." Please save your breath, unless you really have something to add of any interest.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution isn't trying to explain why we exist.
> Evolution isn't trying to explain why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
> Evolution isn't trying to explain why people even care to understand about origins.
> There is tons of scientific evidence for evolution, you just choose to be ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are kidding right ?
> 
> There is nothing scientists don't want to understand.
Click to expand...


Shake a shiny object in front of creationist to get their attention and you will still get that blank, koranified stare that Behe has.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?
> 
> Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.
> 
> Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.
> 
> This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from &#8220;creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity&#8221; to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian creationist have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.
Click to expand...


Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.

Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?

I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.

Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution isn't trying to explain why we exist.
> Evolution isn't trying to explain why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
> Evolution isn't trying to explain why people even care to understand about origins.
> There is tons of scientific evidence for evolution, you just choose to be ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are kidding right ?
> 
> There is nothing scientists don't want to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part don't you agree with? About science? Well, science disproves the bible and the creation story, you have to stay ignorant about science to believe your magic book.
Click to expand...


You mean which parts have they studied but admitted ignorance to and moved on only to come at agian years later ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are kidding right ?
> 
> There is nothing scientists don't want to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part don't you agree with? About science? Well, science disproves the bible and the creation story, you have to stay ignorant about science to believe your magic book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean which parts have they studied but admitted ignorance to and moved on only to come at agian years later ?
Click to expand...


Wtf are you talking about?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny is that creationist provide all kinds of well thought out explanations (whether one agrees with those explanations or not). The evolotionist says, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." And that is it! The evolutionist provides nothing of value and just makes snide remarks in passing. The fools out there yell, "Right on, Dude! Go evolutionists!" And I'm left with a feeling they (evolutionists) really know nothing and can only poke fun at creationists, but have nothing tangable.
> 
> Now, I'm not suggesting we (creationists) throw up our hands and say, "One cannot argue with ignorance." I'm of the opinion that many read these threads and this may very likely be the only space where they are confronted with opposing views on the subject. This is likely causing perhaps many to do further research on their own, and even begin to question evolution (or at least not accept it hook, line and sinker). So just keep plugging!
> 
> Evolution cannot explain why we exist.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why people even care to understand about origins.
> Evolution cannot demonstrate one progression of any species from it's simplest ancestor to a descendant alive today.
> 
> I know, the evolutionist is going to say, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." Please save your breath, unless you really have something to add of any interest.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, creationist supply nothing in terms of any actual argument.
> 
> Try proof reading your own post. You're unable to defend creationist argument. The entirety of your post, and the creationist agenda, is to vilify science.
> 
> Creationist really don't understand how inept, vacant and hopeless they have made their narrative. Their silly anti- science, anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge agenda has reduced the Christian creationist to something of a caricature of the Flat Earth believing bufoon clutching one of the bibles in one hand and a glass of Kool-aid in the other.
Click to expand...


Have you had your morning coffee ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which part don't you agree with? About science? Well, science disproves the bible and the creation story, you have to stay ignorant about science to believe your magic book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean which parts have they studied but admitted ignorance to and moved on only to come at agian years later ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wtf are you talking about?
Click to expand...


For one the origins question. You needed chemical evolution to form a living cell. Then you needed abiogenesis to form living organisms all these are forms of evolution which they have no evidence for and have to plead ignorance on.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny is that creationist provide all kinds of well thought out explanations (whether one agrees with those explanations or not). The evolotionist says, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." And that is it! The evolutionist provides nothing of value and just makes snide remarks in passing. The fools out there yell, "Right on, Dude! Go evolutionists!" And I'm left with a feeling they (evolutionists) really know nothing and can only poke fun at creationists, but have nothing tangable.
> 
> Now, I'm not suggesting we (creationists) throw up our hands and say, "One cannot argue with ignorance." I'm of the opinion that many read these threads and this may very likely be the only space where they are confronted with opposing views on the subject. This is likely causing perhaps many to do further research on their own, and even begin to question evolution (or at least not accept it hook, line and sinker). So just keep plugging!
> 
> Evolution cannot explain why we exist.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why people even care to understand about origins.
> Evolution cannot demonstrate one progression of any species from it's simplest ancestor to a descendant alive today.
> 
> I know, the evolutionist is going to say, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." Please save your breath, unless you really have something to add of any interest.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, creationist supply nothing in terms of any actual argument.
> 
> Try proof reading your own post. You're unable to defend creationist argument. The entirety of your post, and the creationist agenda, is to vilify science.
> 
> Creationist really don't understand how inept, vacant and hopeless they have made their narrative. Their silly anti- science, anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge agenda has reduced the Christian creationist to something of a caricature of the Flat Earth believing bufoon clutching one of the bibles in one hand and a glass of Kool-aid in the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you had your morning coffee ?
Click to expand...


Creationist have a habit of dodging and side-stepping those comments that address their inability to defend creationist propaganda.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, creationist supply nothing in terms of any actual argument.
> 
> Try proof reading your own post. You're unable to defend creationist argument. The entirety of your post, and the creationist agenda, is to vilify science.
> 
> Creationist really don't understand how inept, vacant and hopeless they have made their narrative. Their silly anti- science, anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge agenda has reduced the Christian creationist to something of a caricature of the Flat Earth believing bufoon clutching one of the bibles in one hand and a glass of Kool-aid in the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you had your morning coffee ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationist have a habit of dodging and side-stepping those comments that address their inability to defend creationist propaganda.
Click to expand...


Really? they have presented many arguments with evidence and they go ignored by the ones blinded by an agenda.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, creationist supply nothing in terms of any actual argument.
> 
> Try proof reading your own post. You're unable to defend creationist argument. The entirety of your post, and the creationist agenda, is to vilify science.
> 
> Creationist really don't understand how inept, vacant and hopeless they have made their narrative. Their silly anti- science, anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge agenda has reduced the Christian creationist to something of a caricature of the Flat Earth believing bufoon clutching one of the bibles in one hand and a glass of Kool-aid in the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you had your morning coffee ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationist have a habit of dodging and side-stepping those comments that address their inability to defend creationist propaganda.
Click to expand...


You said creationist provide no arguments who is dodging here and trying to change the subject ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?
> 
> Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.
> 
> Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.
> 
> This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian creationist have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.
> 
> Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?
> 
> I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.
> 
> Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial. 

The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity 

Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591

One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.
> 
> Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.
> 
> This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian creationist have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.
> 
> Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?
> 
> I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.
> 
> Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.
> 
> The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
> 
> Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
> 
> Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591
> 
> One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.
Click to expand...


Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site 

Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.

Did you miss this important part ?

In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:


If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.  On the Origin of the Species, page 171

Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwins day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls irreducibly complex.

Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is irreducibly complex.

An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.

Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,


To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Darwin today could not be a Darwinist. Science disproves his own theories. It absolutely break down when one understand that inside of each cell there are about 3,000 million pairs of the genetic alphabetic letters. Further, each body has trillions of cells and makes millions of new cells every second, but each cell is irreducibly complex and contains irreducibly complex subsystems! (Geisler and Turek, I Dont Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, pgs. 145-6). True, he would most likely still be atheistic and would hold to some other scientific system. One thing however, is for sure: he could not be a Darwinist.


This is slowly evolving ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.
> 
> Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?
> 
> I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.
> 
> Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.
> 
> The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
> 
> Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
> 
> Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591
> 
> One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site
> 
> Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.
> 
> Did you miss this important part ?
> 
> In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:
> 
> 
> If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.  On the Origin of the Species, page 171
> 
> Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwins day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls irreducibly complex.
> 
> Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.
> 
> Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,.....
> 
> 
> This is slowly evolving ?
Click to expand...


 Ah, yes. Typical, dishonest creationist "quote mining". You have apparently forgotten that this bit of creationist falsehood had been exposed as fraudulent as has so much of your dishonest "quote mining".

I'm afraid that as usual, the inability of creationist to defend their supermagical gawds leaves them no option but to attack science. 

Three Darwin quote-mines corrected? | The Dispersal of Darwin



Secondly, you have scoured the bowels of creationist nonsense by employing a mainstay of creationist nonsense: the eye is too complex to have evolved. 

This is another failed attempt by creationist to discredit science with truly nonsensical claims. 

Yet again, creationist are forced to expose themselves as frauds by attacking science as their gawds tales fade into obscurity. 

CB301: Eye complexity

Evolution of vertebrate eyes - The Panda's Thumb


----------



## ima

Creationists are self-deniers. They know that science is right, but don't want to admit that the bible is wrong.


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> Evolution isn't trying to explain why we exist.
> Evolution isn't trying to explain why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
> Evolution isn't trying to explain why people even care to understand about origins.
> There is tons of scientific evidence for evolution, you just choose to be ignorant.



Creationism does present an intellegent reason why man exists.
Creationism does offer a very logical reason as to why we do not share this planet with equally intellegent life forms.
Creationism does explain why man is thoughtfully interested in knowing things.
There is tons of scientific evidence for creationim, but you choose to misrepresent it.


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> Creationists are self-deniers. They know that science is right, but don't want to admit that the bible is wrong.



Evolutionists do not take into consideration all the data, and they totally leave out GOD. They do not study the Bible and so they do not know if it is right or wrong...


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so funny is that creationist provide all kinds of well thought out explanations (whether one agrees with those explanations or not). The evolotionist says, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." And that is it! The evolutionist provides nothing of value and just makes snide remarks in passing. The fools out there yell, "Right on, Dude! Go evolutionists!" And I'm left with a feeling they (evolutionists) really know nothing and can only poke fun at creationists, but have nothing tangable.
> 
> Now, I'm not suggesting we (creationists) throw up our hands and say, "One cannot argue with ignorance." I'm of the opinion that many read these threads and this may very likely be the only space where they are confronted with opposing views on the subject. This is likely causing perhaps many to do further research on their own, and even begin to question evolution (or at least not accept it hook, line and sinker). So just keep plugging!
> 
> Evolution cannot explain why we exist.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why people even care to understand about origins.
> Evolution cannot demonstrate one progression of any species from it's simplest ancestor to a descendant alive today.
> 
> I know, the evolutionist is going to say, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." Please save your breath, unless you really have something to add of any interest.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, creationist supply nothing in terms of any actual argument.
> 
> Try proof reading your own post. You're unable to defend creationist argument. The entirety of your post, and the creationist agenda, is to vilify science.
> 
> Creationist really don't understand how inept, vacant and hopeless they have made their narrative. Their silly anti- science, anti-intellectual and anti-knowledge agenda has reduced the Christian creationist to something of a caricature of the Flat Earth believing bufoon clutching one of the bibles in one hand and a glass of Kool-aid in the other.
Click to expand...


I believe in God and there is historical evidence for both Israel and Jesus of Nazareth. And had Jim Jones studied his Bible, he would have found no support for what he did and his followers should have had their eyes on Christ instead of some false prophet.


----------



## LittleNipper

G.T. said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a girl.
> 
> And you're appealing to emotion in the place of logic.
> 
> I know that evolution happened.
> 
> I do not know what started the Universe itself, God, not God, whatever - so I am an agnostic.
> 
> But I do not deny solid science. Being an agnostic is admitting one does not know, and keeping an open mind.
> 
> Anyone doing the opposite is doing so out of their ego, whether pulled by emotion or tautologies written by men as a means to control people into behaving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You deny the sprituality of man. You believe in ADDING to solid science. Evolution is a theory and not observable. Variety is truth, but variety never crosses over into new species which have never been demonstrated nor proven. That little girl is a spiritual being and not just material. Emotion mirrors our soul. Pure logic has led many to have an abortion. One needs to consider both...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is all hot air.
> 
> And evolution *is* observable, and "theory" means something different in science, if you never knew.
> 
> Pure logic is something I'm glad to have as a sentient species.
Click to expand...


Well, I glad of heaven and I do wish the best for you and that little girl. However, no one is saved by believing in evolution.


----------



## LittleNipper

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.
> 
> Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?
> 
> I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.
> 
> Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.
> 
> The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
> 
> Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
> 
> Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591
> 
> One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site
> 
> Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.
> 
> Did you miss this important part ?
> 
> In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:
> 
> 
> If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.  On the Origin of the Species, page 171
> 
> Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwins day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls irreducibly complex.
> 
> Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.
> 
> Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,
> 
> 
> To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
> 
> Darwin today could not be a Darwinist. Science disproves his own theories. It absolutely break down when one understand that inside of each cell there are about 3,000 million pairs of the genetic alphabetic letters. Further, each body has trillions of cells and makes millions of new cells every second, but each cell is irreducibly complex and contains irreducibly complex subsystems! (Geisler and Turek, I Dont Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, pgs. 145-6). True, he would most likely still be atheistic and would hold to some other scientific system. One thing however, is for sure: he could not be a Darwinist.
> 
> 
> This is slowly evolving ?
Click to expand...



Please watch this video:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E]Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye - YouTube[/ame]

Note that this scientist has *proof of nothing*, but certainly offers his opinion as though it were fact. But when Creationists do likewise, foul is always the responce.... The thing this gentlemean does not offer is how an organism could survive not knowing what he was looking at -- food, tree, rock, enemy.........


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you had your morning coffee ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist have a habit of dodging and side-stepping those comments that address their inability to defend creationist propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said creationist provide no arguments who is dodging here and trying to change the subject ?
Click to expand...


It's true. Creationist provide no positive arguments for their gawds. Read through the thread. Creationist arguments consist of frantic attempts to vilify science.

Where is the evidence for magic and supernaturalism that defines your gawds?

What evidence defines your partisan gawds as "the" gawds as opposed to the Hindu gawds?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells who asks 10 Questions to evolutionists.
> 
> ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
> 
> 
> DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
> 
> 
> HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
> 
> 
> VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
> 
> 
> ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
> 
> 
> PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
> 
> 
> DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
> 
> 
> MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
> 
> 
> HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
> 
> 
> EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
> 
> 
> 
> sorry should have neg reped you for this post not the last one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?
> 
> Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.
Click to expand...

you know why slapdick. to source the articles, copy write laws. 
you must be afraid that we'll find you quote mining out of context.
just like you've done here.     

Copyright Guidelines:
Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting "Copy and Paste" material, please use small sections and link to the content. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, Publisher, regardless of how you originally came across the material. 
Link Each Copy And Paste To It's Source.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> What is so funny is that creationist provide all kinds of well thought out explanations (whether one agrees with those explanations or not). The evolotionist says, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." And that is it! The evolutionist provides nothing of value and just makes snide remarks in passing. The fools out there yell, "Right on, Dude! Go evolutionists!" And I'm left with a feeling they (evolutionists) really know nothing and can only poke fun at creationists, but have nothing tangable.
> 
> Now, I'm not suggesting we (creationists) throw up our hands and say, "One cannot argue with ignorance." I'm of the opinion that many read these threads and this may very likely be the only space where they are confronted with opposing views on the subject. This is likely causing perhaps many to do further research on their own, and even begin to question evolution (or at least not accept it hook, line and sinker). So just keep plugging!
> 
> Evolution cannot explain why we exist.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
> Evolution cannot provide a reason why people even care to understand about origins.
> Evolution cannot demonstrate one progression of any species from it's simplest ancestor to a descendant alive today.
> 
> I know, the evolutionist is going to say, "Sorry, that is stupid, worthless, and unscientific." Please save your breath, unless you really have something to add of any interest.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?
> 
> Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.
> 
> Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.
> 
> This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian creationist have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?
> 
> Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the background of Michael Behe, here are a few pointers. Among others of the fundamentalist Christian ministries, Behe also fronts for The Discovery Institute. They are a fundie Christian driven ministry promoting a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This "stealth christianity" approach was configured for legal reasons in the US, where public, state run schools are not allowed to promote religion. As many are probably aware, creationism and the later re-titled "Creation Science" are nothing more than configurations of fundie Christian ministries which suffered humiliating defeats in the court system as their veiled agenda of promoting religious dogma was ruled as such in the courts to be religion, not scientific doctrines.
> 
> Creationist tactics rest upon one overriding pillar of faith, and that is: evolution is Atheistic and the whole political crusade being waged is one of Christians versus Atheists. We see this routinely in this thread where the fundies use Christian creationist slogans such as "atheistic evolutionist" assigned to anyone who accepts the science conclusions as opposed to Christian dogma.
> 
> This dynamic requires mentioning because there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First, all the hysteria that is framed by fundies as a conflict being waged to defend christianity is thought to be effective as a means to recruit and retain fundie Christians to "the cause". Note that this is a recruiting tactic employed by other groups that plead conspiracy theories. Secondly the conflict is manipulated by fundies to divert the debate away from creationism is nothing more than literalist christianity to the more conspiracy driven "Atheist versus Christian" issues. This is the latest tactic Christian creationist have employed believing that by framing their crusade in terms they hope will garner pity, they have a greater chance of obtaining religious support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.
> 
> Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?
> 
> I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.
> 
> Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

more bullshit...he is "attacked" because his science is as bad as yours   Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Behe is a Biochemist and a Professor of Biochemistry. He is your worst enemy with his knowledge. You're a fundie atheistic evolutionist that could not compete with his knowledge in science.
> 
> Ask yourself why evolutionist hate him so ?
> 
> I'll tell you why,he points out things in living organisms that are irreducible complexity meaning they could not develop through evolution or they would not function unless fully formed. Same with the cell if it was missing any part of the cell it would not function nor reproduce.
> 
> Now that is why people on your side attack him so. Can't attack his arguments let's attack his religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.
> 
> The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
> 
> Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
> 
> Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591
> 
> One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site
> 
> Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.
> 
> Did you miss this important part ?
> 
> In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:
> 
> 
> If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.  On the Origin of the Species, page 171
> 
> Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwins day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls irreducibly complex.
> 
> Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.
> 
> Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,
> 
> 
> To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
> 
> Darwin today could not be a Darwinist. Science disproves his own theories. It absolutely break down when one understand that inside of each cell there are about 3,000 million pairs of the genetic alphabetic letters. Further, each body has trillions of cells and makes millions of new cells every second, but each cell is irreducibly complex and contains irreducibly complex subsystems! (Geisler and Turek, I Dont Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, pgs. 145-6). True, he would most likely still be atheistic and would hold to some other scientific system. One thing however, is for sure: he could not be a Darwinist.
> 
> 
> This is slowly evolving ?
Click to expand...

link? slap dick!


----------



## daws101

bible length 1,281 pages 
this thread  1002 pages
278 pages to go.


----------



## emilynghiem

daws101 said:


> bible length 1,281 pages
> this thread  1002 pages
> 278 pages to go.



A better use of those pages
would be to read HEALING by Francis MacNutt (1999 edition or later)
which has 268 pages.  I give out free copies of this book, so if anyone here wants one, I would gladly argue over that, and what it will take to prove spiritual healing scientifically!

When you understand the spirit of the process humanity is going through,
in terms of individual process multiplied collectively to equal all society,
then it is clear there is no need to nitpick over little arguments.
All that would be resolved in the same process.

There are much bigger things we can use science to study and agree on that are just as critical to resolving the same issues (of reconciling science and faith in general and not judge blame or reject any person or group), AND have practical application in real life.

Arguing over creation and evolution isn't going to solve the world's problems
that spiritual healing and generational therapy can change.  Both the Buddhists and the Christians, and even more secularized methods of forgiveness and recovery therapy such as AA and the 5 stages of grief, recognize how issues carried from the past affect our mental and psychological states of mind, which affect our perceptions actions and relations.

These are based on natural laws that govern all human relations, where faith and science can agree and show there is a common process going on that we are all a part of.

Might as well work together and figure out the best way to facilitate that process as smoothly and peacefully as possible, without pressuring anyone to compromise or prove each other right or wrong for personal defense, but stick to points that prove themselves.


----------



## emilynghiem

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution isn't trying to explain why we exist.
> Evolution isn't trying to explain why we do not share this planet with other equally intelligent life forms.
> Evolution isn't trying to explain why people even care to understand about origins.
> There is tons of scientific evidence for evolution, you just choose to be ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism does present an intellegent reason why man exists.
> Creationism does offer a very logical reason as to why we do not share this planet with equally intellegent life forms.
> Creationism does explain why man is thoughtfully interested in knowing things.
> There is tons of scientific evidence for creationim, but you choose to misrepresent it.
Click to expand...


Dear Ima and LittleNipper:
I wonder if we all met in person, maybe we could have these differences and not be so defensive or personally against the other person for seeing it differently.

I told my boyfriend my views (that both evolution and creation depend on one's interpretation of the data, and both are faith-based). He said the exact opposite!
He says both have been proven and anyone who doesn't get that is an idiot (i.e., in denial).

It is ironic that he is less openminded that there may not be a Creator since he is nonChristian and very much Gentile! He believes there is a God but greater than anything we can define, so he is nontheistic in terms of a "personal relationship with God." He believes God stays out of man's affairs that are our free will. He does not believe life is fair, because people do unjust things to those who least deserve it, and God is not going to fix this, we have to learn to quit rewarding irresponsible behavior and that is up to us.  He does not get Jesus at all, but he does agree and believe in Justice, so when I put Jesus in those terms he does agree he believes in seeking Justice.  He just doesn't believe we are ever going to get there, which is where I differ as a Christian because I believe we are, and we do every time and every day we embody justice in our relations so collectively this is the process of the coming of Christ for all humanity, or salvation when we embrace and live by equal justice (ie restorative justice, not retributive which is not equal). 

So it is interesting he seems more closedminded in his pro-Creation views than I am as a Christian,
when the stereotype is the other way! Isn't that funny?  I believe there are more true nontheists who simply do not see God in terms of personification, but he thinks atheists are in denial and there are very few that are truly atheist.  I find more of them are nontheists, so there is no reason to judge people for seeing things in this perspective.

I am secular Gentile and also a Christian believer, where I enjoy working with people who believe in EITHER a personified God or a nontheist approach to God's truth without religious deification.  So regardless of my own views, I accept that people can have both views that there is or "could be" a beginning to all the universe, or being infinite, it may have no beginning and no end and "always was," and may not have a beginning.  It could be that if nothing can come out of nowhere, then the universe always had to be; for where would the Creator come from who created the universe, who would create the Creator?  I happen to agree with the concept that the Bible mainly talks about the beginning of man's LINEAGE of conscious knowledge and self-awareness, and that is the process we can learn and do something about, regardless of the larger truth that is infinite and beyond our ability to perceive much less prove but by faith. So all this talk of 6,000 year timeline in the Bible refers to the conscious lineage of man in terms of knowledge of the laws, which is what historically gets humanity in trouble, as contained in the Bible as well!

Both things are possible because none of us was there when it happened if it did happen, and we are interpreting what happened based on whatever knowledge or ideas we have now. so that is what I mean by it being faith-based either way.

It is interesting that I am more Christian than he is, where he is clearly secular Gentile and I am both, yet I strive to be more objective in accepting people of both views (theist and nontheist, pro or con on either evolution or creation) while he already has his mind made up!

So if anyone thinks nontheists are more objective than Christians, I would love for you to witness some of the discussions or debates I have with my boyfriend.  We are both as fair as we can be, given our biases, but it is funny sometimes how the things we believe in end up being the opposite stereotype. He's more conservative and I lean more liberal, but he is more open to legalizing prostitution and I am less open about that.  Stuff like that.

It is interesting and I wish some of the people here could meet each other
and see if our perceptions change on how we talk to each other as people not groups being represented each time we say something!

There is a free website for video/audio meetings online at digitalsamba dot com. It's free for 2-3 people and if you want bigger groups you pay a subscription for up to 100 people.

If you are interested in trying this, I wouldn't mind trying to have live chats online and see if we can talk more freely without getting stuck on who is blaming who for being in denial etc. Everyone has biases and beliefs and the data can be interpreted in any number of ways, so I'm not going to judge what people see or don't see.

Let me know what you think!

I also want to start websites for
consensusongod
consensusonlaw
where I am betting that it is easier to reach a consensus on god than on law.
if you think arguing about religious theories and what does science show is impossible,
look at politics where people have their laws and finances riding on one side ruling over others. that requires even more peacemaking work and real life problem solving before those deadlocked relations will open up.  so in comparison I think reaching agreement on the meaning of god woudl be easier. in reality the two processes are going on simulataneoulsy, the more people see proof in real life that relations can be resolved, they are more forgiving and have more faith and hope the truth will prevail; and the more people reach agreements in truth point by point in debates or discussions, this opens up minds and relations to work together so we can have real life cooperation and solutions.

If you have your own webpage blog or favorite citation you use all the time that works to resovle issues, I can start a network of resources or links on those websites, and have people share to try to reach a consensus by eliminating false information or faulty arguments. But it has to be things that have WORKED to change people's minds, not things you think if you just kept repeating then something would change.  Scott Peck wrote a whole book on what changed his mind, as a scientist using the scientific method, so I cite that and even give out free copies.

Thanks let me know if you have ideas or suggestions how to work together and organize online, and not keep going in circles claiming it's the other people being closed to truth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry should have neg reped you for this post not the last one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?
> 
> Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you know why slapdick. to source the articles, copy write laws.
> you must be afraid that we'll find you quote mining out of context.
> just like you've done here.
> 
> Copyright Guidelines:
> Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting "Copy and Paste" material, please use small sections and link to the content. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, Publisher, regardless of how you originally came across the material.
> Link Each Copy And Paste To It's Source.
Click to expand...



A link was provided when they were first posted. I merely went back to the same link that Was provided, evidently you guys are not reading.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.
> 
> The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
> 
> Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
> 
> Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591
> 
> One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site
> 
> Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.
> 
> Did you miss this important part ?
> 
> In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:
> 
> 
> If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.  On the Origin of the Species, page 171
> 
> Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwins day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls irreducibly complex.
> 
> Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.
> 
> Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,.....
> 
> 
> This is slowly evolving ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes. Typical, dishonest creationist "quote mining". You have apparently forgotten that this bit of creationist falsehood had been exposed as fraudulent as has so much of your dishonest "quote mining".
> 
> I'm afraid that as usual, the inability of creationist to defend their supermagical gawds leaves them no option but to attack science.
> 
> Three Darwin quote-mines corrected? | The Dispersal of Darwin
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, you have scoured the bowels of creationist nonsense by employing a mainstay of creationist nonsense: the eye is too complex to have evolved.
> 
> This is another failed attempt by creationist to discredit science with truly nonsensical claims.
> 
> Yet again, creationist are forced to expose themselves as frauds by attacking science as their gawds tales fade into obscurity.
> 
> CB301: Eye complexity
> 
> Evolution of vertebrate eyes - The Panda's Thumb
Click to expand...


You're a dishonest Ideologue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.
> 
> The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
> 
> Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity
> 
> Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591
> 
> One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site
> 
> Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.
> 
> Did you miss this important part ?
> 
> In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:
> 
> 
> If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.  On the Origin of the Species, page 171
> 
> Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwins day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls irreducibly complex.
> 
> Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.
> 
> Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,
> 
> 
> To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
> 
> Darwin today could not be a Darwinist. Science disproves his own theories. It absolutely break down when one understand that inside of each cell there are about 3,000 million pairs of the genetic alphabetic letters. Further, each body has trillions of cells and makes millions of new cells every second, but each cell is irreducibly complex and contains irreducibly complex subsystems! (Geisler and Turek, I Dont Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, pgs. 145-6). True, he would most likely still be atheistic and would hold to some other scientific system. One thing however, is for sure: he could not be a Darwinist.
> 
> 
> This is slowly evolving ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> link? slap dick!
Click to expand...



A link was provided in the first post pervert, learn to read.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?
> 
> Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.
> 
> 
> 
> you know why slapdick. to source the articles, copy write laws.
> you must be afraid that we'll find you quote mining out of context.
> just like you've done here.
> 
> Copyright Guidelines:
> Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting "Copy and Paste" material, please use small sections and link to the content. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, Publisher, regardless of how you originally came across the material.
> Link Each Copy And Paste To It's Source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A link was provided when they were first posted. I merely went back to the same link that Was provided, evidently you guys are not reading.
Click to expand...

lie and a dodge ..a link is necessary each and every time you post. slapdick.


----------



## daws101

emilynghiem said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bible length 1,281 pages
> this thread  1002 pages
> 278 pages to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A better use of those pages
> would be to read HEALING by Francis MacNutt (1999 edition or later)
> which has 268 pages.  I give out free copies of this book, so if anyone here wants one, I would gladly argue over that, and what it will take to prove spiritual healing scientifically!
> 
> When you understand the spirit of the process humanity is going through,
> in terms of individual process multiplied collectively to equal all society,
> then it is clear there is no need to nitpick over little arguments.
> All that would be resolved in the same process.
> 
> There are much bigger things we can use science to study and agree on that are just as critical to resolving the same issues (of reconciling science and faith in general and not judge blame or reject any person or group), AND have practical application in real life.
> 
> Arguing over creation and evolution isn't going to solve the world's problems
> that spiritual healing and generational therapy can change.  Both the Buddhists and the Christians, and even more secularized methods of forgiveness and recovery therapy such as AA and the 5 stages of grief, recognize how issues carried from the past affect our mental and psychological states of mind, which affect our perceptions actions and relations.
> 
> These are based on natural laws that govern all human relations, where faith and science can agree and show there is a common process going on that we are all a part of.
> 
> Might as well work together and figure out the best way to facilitate that process as smoothly and peacefully as possible, without pressuring anyone to compromise or prove each other right or wrong for personal defense, but stick to points that prove themselves.
Click to expand...

ahh, that was meant to be humorous.....


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site
> 
> Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.
> 
> Did you miss this important part ?
> 
> In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:
> 
> 
> If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.  On the Origin of the Species, page 171
> 
> Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwins day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls irreducibly complex.
> 
> Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.
> 
> Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,.....
> 
> 
> This is slowly evolving ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes. Typical, dishonest creationist "quote mining". You have apparently forgotten that this bit of creationist falsehood had been exposed as fraudulent as has so much of your dishonest "quote mining".
> 
> I'm afraid that as usual, the inability of creationist to defend their supermagical gawds leaves them no option but to attack science.
> 
> Three Darwin quote-mines corrected? | The Dispersal of Darwin
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, you have scoured the bowels of creationist nonsense by employing a mainstay of creationist nonsense: the eye is too complex to have evolved.
> 
> This is another failed attempt by creationist to discredit science with truly nonsensical claims.
> 
> Yet again, creationist are forced to expose themselves as frauds by attacking science as their gawds tales fade into obscurity.
> 
> CB301: Eye complexity
> 
> Evolution of vertebrate eyes - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a dishonest Ideologue.
Click to expand...



I understand you're embarrassed. Once again, you were exposed as a fraud by copying and pasting falsified quotes that you scour from creationist websites.

Similarly, your silly copy and paste from the charlatan Behe have been refuted as fraudulent.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site
> 
> Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.
> 
> Did you miss this important part ?
> 
> In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:
> 
> 
> If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.  On the Origin of the Species, page 171
> 
> Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwins day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls irreducibly complex.
> 
> Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.
> 
> Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,.....
> 
> 
> This is slowly evolving ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes. Typical, dishonest creationist "quote mining". You have apparently forgotten that this bit of creationist falsehood had been exposed as fraudulent as has so much of your dishonest "quote mining".
> 
> I'm afraid that as usual, the inability of creationist to defend their supermagical gawds leaves them no option but to attack science.
> 
> Three Darwin quote-mines corrected? | The Dispersal of Darwin
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, you have scoured the bowels of creationist nonsense by employing a mainstay of creationist nonsense: the eye is too complex to have evolved.
> 
> This is another failed attempt by creationist to discredit science with truly nonsensical claims.
> 
> Yet again, creationist are forced to expose themselves as frauds by attacking science as their gawds tales fade into obscurity.
> 
> CB301: Eye complexity
> 
> Evolution of vertebrate eyes - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a dishonest Ideologue.
Click to expand...

dishonest? seems like you are the one fucking with the facts.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site
> 
> Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.
> 
> Did you miss this important part ?
> 
> In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:
> 
> 
> If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.  On the Origin of the Species, page 171
> 
> Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwins day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls irreducibly complex.
> 
> Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is irreducibly complex.
> 
> An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.
> 
> Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,
> 
> 
> To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
> 
> Darwin today could not be a Darwinist. Science disproves his own theories. It absolutely break down when one understand that inside of each cell there are about 3,000 million pairs of the genetic alphabetic letters. Further, each body has trillions of cells and makes millions of new cells every second, but each cell is irreducibly complex and contains irreducibly complex subsystems! (Geisler and Turek, I Dont Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, pgs. 145-6). True, he would most likely still be atheistic and would hold to some other scientific system. One thing however, is for sure: he could not be a Darwinist.
> 
> 
> This is slowly evolving ?
> 
> 
> 
> link? slap dick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A link was provided in the first post pervert, learn to read.
Click to expand...

stating fact is in no way a perversion.. but quote mining  is.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes. Typical, dishonest creationist "quote mining". You have apparently forgotten that this bit of creationist falsehood had been exposed as fraudulent as has so much of your dishonest "quote mining".
> 
> I'm afraid that as usual, the inability of creationist to defend their supermagical gawds leaves them no option but to attack science.
> 
> Three Darwin quote-mines corrected? | The Dispersal of Darwin
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, you have scoured the bowels of creationist nonsense by employing a mainstay of creationist nonsense: the eye is too complex to have evolved.
> 
> This is another failed attempt by creationist to discredit science with truly nonsensical claims.
> 
> Yet again, creationist are forced to expose themselves as frauds by attacking science as their gawds tales fade into obscurity.
> 
> CB301: Eye complexity
> 
> Evolution of vertebrate eyes - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a dishonest Ideologue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're embarrassed. Once again, you were exposed as a fraud by copying and pasting falsified quotes that you scour from creationist websites.
> 
> Similarly, your silly copy and paste from the charlatan Behe have been refuted as fraudulent.
Click to expand...

lying for god! jerry Falwell  WOULD BE PROUD!


----------



## Reality91

The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.


----------



## Intense

Reality91 said:


> The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.



How long was the first day?


----------



## emilynghiem

Reality91 said:


> The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.



Hi R91: Since that doesn't even make sense, it can't be the real meaning of the Bible for the Bible to be true. The most consistent interpretation I have found is that 6,000 represents 6 eras or Days such as the Day of Technology which is not just 1 earth day.

Also the 6,000 year timeline represents the HEBREW lineage or Adamic and Mosaic Law, as claimed by Jewish Christian and Muslims, and which Christians teach is fulfilled in Christ Jesus.  [I also believe and teach that natural laws such as in Buddhism and the Constitution are also fulfilled in Christ, and these are equally given by God to the secular Gentiles, but you won't find many who believe in both Universal Salvation and the central role of Christ Jesus, usually you will find one but not the other, where people are either centered in Christ so much they EXCLUDE other tribes, or if people are open to all groups they don't hold Christ to be the central authority for all others united in agreement.]

You will find more and more Christians who will interpret the 6,000 year timeline to represent a period or progression that IS consistent with history as well as spiritual teachings.

For the fundamentalists who won't let go of the literal 6 day interpretation, you'll find as many fundamentalist stuck on any idea in any faith or belief system.  It's really about that person's process, and less about whatever they are stuck on, which can vary.  The common factor is that all people go through phases in their spiritual growth, and fundamentalism is one of those phases, no matter WHAT their beliefs, they go through it.


----------



## emilynghiem

daws101 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bible length 1,281 pages
> this thread  1002 pages
> 278 pages to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A better use of those pages
> would be to read HEALING by Francis MacNutt (1999 edition or later)
> which has 268 pages.  I give out free copies of this book, so if anyone here wants one, I would gladly argue over that, and what it will take to prove spiritual healing scientifically!
> 
> When you understand the spirit of the process humanity is going through,
> in terms of individual process multiplied collectively to equal all society,
> then it is clear there is no need to nitpick over little arguments.
> All that would be resolved in the same process.
> 
> There are much bigger things we can use science to study and agree on that are just as critical to resolving the same issues (of reconciling science and faith in general and not judge blame or reject any person or group), AND have practical application in real life.
> 
> Arguing over creation and evolution isn't going to solve the world's problems
> that spiritual healing and generational therapy can change.  Both the Buddhists and the Christians, and even more secularized methods of forgiveness and recovery therapy such as AA and the 5 stages of grief, recognize how issues carried from the past affect our mental and psychological states of mind, which affect our perceptions actions and relations.
> 
> These are based on natural laws that govern all human relations, where faith and science can agree and show there is a common process going on that we are all a part of.
> 
> Might as well work together and figure out the best way to facilitate that process as smoothly and peacefully as possible, without pressuring anyone to compromise or prove each other right or wrong for personal defense, but stick to points that prove themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ahh, that was meant to be humorous.....
Click to expand...


Actually Daws, I am being serious!

I'm still glad you see the humor in this, which shows your high intelligence which helps.
I truly urge and encourage you to apply your intellect to more successful approaches
and focus, and I hope to form a team of people like you who can discuss this as logically!

As for the import and impact of spiritual healing,
to realize that it is real and free, consistent with science and medicine,
and can be proven so everyone has equal access to it, not just Christian believers,
is quite humbling.

You may either "cry" to think of the people who died or could have been cured
if they had at least tried it.  I grieve for the people who commit suicide or seek euthanasia for pain that others have overcome through spiritual therapy and live free of pain or fear.

Or you may laugh for joy to know that one day we won't have to fear criminal illness, people killing their babies fearing demons are in them, or going mad with rage and shooting up innocent people.  All these addictive mental and criminal disorders can be diagnoses, treated and even cured by applying spiritual methods of deliverance and forgiveness prayer that both Buddhists and Christians are studying for generational healing.

Once the idea catches on that these things can be studied, measured and proven, we will see more and more productive work between the communities of faith and science, and not this false division and fear of propoganda and denial by one side or the other. It will change the whole paradigm as well as speed up reform of the mental health, health care and also criminal justice system when people are treated effectively for their sicknesses.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean which parts have they studied but admitted ignorance to and moved on only to come at agian years later ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For one the origins question. You needed chemical evolution to form a living cell. Then you needed abiogenesis to form living organisms all these are forms of evolution which they have no evidence for and have to plead ignorance on.
Click to expand...


As do you, yet you know the answer? Argument from ignorance.


----------



## newpolitics

I think the problem here is that our epistemologies are different. The science crowd considers knowledge of the universe to be something that is only possible with evidence. I belong in this camp. Religionists consider faith to be sufficient to grant knowledge. As long as this vast separation exist, this thread will continue forever. Any thoughts? Is this the fundamental problem here? I am convinced it is definitely one of epistemology.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



I'm a little baffled by your question:  what does creationism in and of itself, i.e., the notion that God exists and therefore created all things apart from Himself, have to do with the age of the earth?

Certainly, the Bible doesn't indicate the age of the Earth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes. Typical, dishonest creationist "quote mining". You have apparently forgotten that this bit of creationist falsehood had been exposed as fraudulent as has so much of your dishonest "quote mining".
> 
> I'm afraid that as usual, the inability of creationist to defend their supermagical gawds leaves them no option but to attack science.
> 
> Three Darwin quote-mines corrected? | The Dispersal of Darwin
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, you have scoured the bowels of creationist nonsense by employing a mainstay of creationist nonsense: the eye is too complex to have evolved.
> 
> This is another failed attempt by creationist to discredit science with truly nonsensical claims.
> 
> Yet again, creationist are forced to expose themselves as frauds by attacking science as their gawds tales fade into obscurity.
> 
> CB301: Eye complexity
> 
> Evolution of vertebrate eyes - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a dishonest Ideologue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're embarrassed. Once again, you were exposed as a fraud by copying and pasting falsified quotes that you scour from creationist websites.
> 
> Similarly, your silly copy and paste from the charlatan Behe have been refuted as fraudulent.
Click to expand...


Why would the science community debate the man or that matter even respond to him if his arguments were no threat ? kinda like how you and daws operate.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes. Typical, dishonest creationist "quote mining". You have apparently forgotten that this bit of creationist falsehood had been exposed as fraudulent as has so much of your dishonest "quote mining".
> 
> I'm afraid that as usual, the inability of creationist to defend their supermagical gawds leaves them no option but to attack science.
> 
> Three Darwin quote-mines corrected? | The Dispersal of Darwin
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, you have scoured the bowels of creationist nonsense by employing a mainstay of creationist nonsense: the eye is too complex to have evolved.
> 
> This is another failed attempt by creationist to discredit science with truly nonsensical claims.
> 
> Yet again, creationist are forced to expose themselves as frauds by attacking science as their gawds tales fade into obscurity.
> 
> CB301: Eye complexity
> 
> Evolution of vertebrate eyes - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a dishonest Ideologue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dishonest? seems like you are the one fucking with the facts.
Click to expand...


Wrong, Behe was accurate with his argument of irreducible complexity to bad neither of you understand it. There are many organs in the human body where it could not work by slowly evolving. They had to be fully formed or they would not work.

Funny, the cambrian was full of fossils that were fully complete and showed no gradualism. Remember the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium ? This further supports Behe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> link? slap dick!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A link was provided in the first post pervert, learn to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stating fact is in no way a perversion.. but quote mining  is.
Click to expand...


You bring this slap dick up to often for it not to be something you do or think about a lot.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Reality91 said:


> The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.



This has been throughly refuted and the population growth rate better supports the worlds current population with the timeline and the people that came off the ark than it supports evolutionists millions of years story.

Population Statistics and a Young Earth




by 

Jeff Miller, Ph.D.




Both sides of the creation/evolution debate are locked in a heated battle over the truth about human origins, the age of the Universe, and the ultimate Cause of all things. Interestingly, while this debate rages and arguments are flying from both sides of the issue, there is reasonable evidence available which sidesteps much of the seeming complexity of this conflict and helps to illuminate the truth on the matter of human origins. This evidence comes from the realm of population statistics. What is the reasonable conclusion that should be drawn from the evidence in this area?

There is no question that both viewpointsbiblical and evolutionaryrequire a commencement point for mankind to begin propagation of the species. The biblical (i.e., Flood) model asserts that God started the process, creating both Adam and Eveone male and one femaleapproximately 6,000 years ago. From them, the human race was established and ultimately exterminated in the global Flood of Noahs day (Genesis 6-9), with the exception of Noah and his family. After the Flood, Noahs three sons and their wives commenced the repopulation of the human species (Genesis 9:19).

The evolutionary model claims that the first man of the genus Homo emerged around two to three million years ago (cf. Corballis, 2002, p. 183; Johanson, 2001; The Emergence, 2011; University of Utah, 2005; Walker, 2002). It has always been intriguing that the evolutionary side of the aisle appears to be quiet about the fact that at the commencement of the human species, both male and female human beings had to evolve simultaneously, in the same geographic area, and while both were alive, in order for the human species to propagate itselfnot just one male or one female, and not two males or two females. Further, these male and female human bodies also had to contain the fully functional reproductive components that would be necessary to replicate humanity. In The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality, Graham Bell discusses this quandary, stating that:


Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation (1982, p. 19).

Evolutionist Philip Kitcher admitted, Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction (1982, p. 54). Evolutionist Mark Ridley noted that ex is a puzzle that has not yet been solved; no one knows why it exists (2001, p. 111). Julie Schecter said that sex remains a mystery to researchers, to say nothing of the rest of the population. Why sex? (1984, 34:680). [See Thompson and Harrub, 2002 for an in depth discussion on the origin of genders and sexuality.]

Besides the problem raised for evolutionists by the origin of sexual reproduction, more problems exist that evolutionists appear to be quite reticent about. For instance, the patriarch and matriarch of the human race, having miraculously emerged in the same time period of history with each other, also had to be able to find each other on planet Earth without first starving, without being eaten by the ferocious animals that evolutionary images of early man portray, and without getting too old to replicate. And still further, just because there is another human being near you, does that mean you will be attracted to him/her? The male and female had to decide that they liked each other and do something about it before dying. And even further, the baby and mother had to survive the ordeal of child birth in those allegedly primitive circumstances. If the emergence of one human being from a non-human being seems ludicrous due to its contradiction of the Law of Biogenesis, surely this realization makes the evolutionary proposition beyond preposterous.

POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE EVOLUTIONARY MODEL

However, for the sake of argument, let us grant the atheistic evolutionist several miraculous featstwo living, opposite-sex human beings, with the necessary sexual components to propagate the species, in the same region on Earth, safe guarded from their primitive environment, with a desire for each other, and young enough to replicate. Even granting all of these significant but unrealistic assumptions, the evolutionist is left with statistical obstacles. Consider the mathematics for this argument.

Let us suppose that couples throughout history have had an average of (2 × c) children (i.e., c boys plus c girls). Starting with two humans, this would make the population after the first generation, Pn = 2+2 &#8729; c. Then, the children, marrying each other, had another (2 &#8729; c) children per couple. As illustrated in Scientific Studies in Special Creation (Lammerts, 1971), continuing this progression results in the following equation, where n is the number of generations for which the calculation is done.



After multiplying both sides of Equation (1) by c, subtracting the resulting equation from Equation (1), grouping, and dividing both sides by (c - 1), the following equation results:



This gives the total population after n generations, without any deaths. Assuming each person lives an average of d generations, the number of deceased people by the final generation (i.e., the (n - d)th generation) can be calculated using Equation (3):



Therefore, the total population after n generations, accounting for death, can be calculated by subtracting the population of the (n - d)th  generation from the population calculated in Equation (2), resulting in the following:



If each couple has only two children (i.e., c = 1), the population will remain constant, and if each couple has fewer than two children on average (i.e., c < 1), the population will decrease (Lammerts, pp. 198-205). [See also Morris and Morris, 1996 and Wysong, 1976 for more information on the derivation of the above equations.]

The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the worlds population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology, lifespans (especially considering the long lifespans in the generations immediately following the Flood and the shorter lifespans preceding the current state of medical knowledge), and fluctuating offspring production rates. However, this approach allows for the use of long-term averages to get a rough estimate of what the worlds population should look like over time.

Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2. Thus, each couple throughout history has had, on average, at least two children, and many times three or more children were born. Also, let us assume that each person has lived, on average, one and a third generations (i.e., d = 1.3). This means that each person died having seen some, though not all, of their grandchildren. Again, this estimate is likely very conservative, especially since effective birth control methods are a relatively recent innovation. However, these conservative estimates certainly take into account the long periods of time in history when people lived shorter lives and had fewer children. Let us further assign a reasonable estimate of a generation to be 38 years. This means that each couple has had all of their children by age 38. All of these numbers could easily and fairly be increased, but doing so would do even further damage to the evolutionists case.

Using these conservative estimates, if human beings have been on the planet producing offspring for one million years, over 26,000 generations have passed. There are currently about seven billion people on earth6.9x109 (U.S. & World Population, 2011). However, according to Equation (4), there should be over 102,000 people on the Earth today if propagation commenced one million years ago. That is a one, followed by 2,000 zeros. In order to try to fathom that number, consider the following analogy. The known Universe is thought to be 28 billion light years in diameter (Powell, 2006; Tully, 2000). That is the equivalent of over 1070 cubic miles of volume. If tiny, three foot humans, modeled as cylinders with five inch radii (i.e., very narrow shoulders), were crammed into the Universe like sardines, 1082 people might fit (if they have not eaten in awhile). That leaves more than 101,918 additional people! And whats worse, if c, d, or n are increased, as they legitimately could be, the problem is further amplified. Consider also that these numbers are based on a starting point of one million years ago. Evolutionists claim that humans have been on the Earth for two to three million years.  To make their plight even worse, the evolutionary community digs its own grave significantly deeper by speculating that the original Adam and Eve were actually Adam, Eve, and about 10,000 other people (Hawks, et al., 2000). Even if 10,000 such miracles were accomplished in the same period of time in human history, one can easily imagine how many more people would result in a given period of time if  5,000 couples initially began bearing children instead of one couple. Where, pray tell, are all of the imaginary people that should be in existence if evolution is the true history of humanity?

The evolutionary community certainly has trouble adjusting the numbers to allow for this preposterous scenario. However, they must be able to come up with a reasonable explanation in order to maintain their position. If evolution is true, it must be assumed that there were times when the human population remained constant for very long periods of time or decreased to the point of extinction at different times in history (cf. Weiss, 1984; Hawks, et al., 2000). Such speculation is a leap into the dark without sufficient, verifiable evidence. [NOTE: Incidentally, such speculation is in contradiction with uniformitarian principles, which are fundamental to evolutionary dating techniques. If the Earth has not progressed in a constant, uniform fashion as macroevolution suggests, then old ages based on those uniformitarian assumptions cannot be assigned to the Earth. It seems that the evolutionary community wants to have their cake and eat it, too.] History grants us no world population estimates based on censuss until the last 200 years. Before that, according to population statisticians estimates, the average annual population growth was estimated to be relatively constant, ranging between 0.03-0.15% from 1750 A.D. to 10,000 B.C. (Historical Estimates of World Population, 2010) [NOTE: World populations are estimated at this later date based on the assumption that the theory of evolution is true. Such a time frame would be pre-Creation, according to the Bible, and is rejected by the author.] Likely due to medical breakthroughs and technological advancement, the annual population growth has since jumped to about 2%. Note that even the irreligious community recognizes the likelihood of significant population growth on average over time throughout history and makes its estimates accordingly. The evolutionary position, in order to exist at all, must stand in contradiction to this fact. The evidence, as well as common sense, cannot be denied. If growth is the norm as the evidence indicates, evolution is impossible. The evidence conveyed by population statistics simply does not support the evolutionary model.

POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE CREATION MODEL

What about the creation model? Is it supported by the evidence from population statistics? The biblical position asserts that after the Flood, repopulation of the Earth commenced, starting with six people (i.e., Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives), instead of two (or 10,000). Using the aforementioned procedure, the following equation can be derived for calculation of the projected population for any given time, starting with six people:



If we assume, based on biblical genealogies, that the Flood took place roughly 4,300 years ago (cf. Bass, 2003), using the same c andd as above, as well as a generation of 38 years, then 113 generations have passed since the global Flood of Noahs day. Based on these numbers, the approximate projected population for today can be calculated. According to the calculations, there should be approximately seven billion people on Earth6.7x109. This is strikingly close to the current population as recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau6.9x109.

CONCLUSION

What does the evidence indicate? Is the evolutionary model a plausible explanation for mans existence? The evidence from the field of population statistics says, Certainly not. Even granting very conservative numbers in the calculation of projected populations, it is the biblical model that is in keeping with the numerical evidence provided by the worlds population. The evidence supports a young age for the Earth and mankind. One would have to be dishonest to examine such concrete evidence and dismiss it out of hand. Yet, this attitude pervades much of the scientific community today. The same people who proclaim that they, unlike theists, are the ones who examine the evidence without bias, only drawing those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence, are the very ones who turn against the evidence when it does not suit their purpose and agenda. Philosopher David Hume once said that no man turns against reason until reason turns against him (as quoted in Warren, 1982, p. 4). That certainly sums up the mentality of many in the scientific community. Why not choose to go with the reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence? The Earth is young. Evolution cannot explain human existence. The biblical model canand does.

Apologetics Press - Population Statistics and a Young Earth


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a dishonest Ideologue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're embarrassed. Once again, you were exposed as a fraud by copying and pasting falsified &#8220;quotes&#8221; that you scour from creationist websites.
> 
> Similarly, your silly copy and paste from the charlatan Behe have been refuted as fraudulent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the science community debate the man or that matter even respond to him if his arguments were no threat ? kinda like how you and daws operate.
Click to expand...


Behe and Christian fundies are not a threat to the science community. Christian creationism has long ago been defined as void of science and simply a front for Christian cultists. 

The danger represented by charlatans such as Behe and fundies such as yourself is your need to impose your retrograde fear and superstition on others, especially in the public school system. Should the teaching of Christianity in public schools become widespread, the harm it would cause our nation would be tragic. As fundie Christians would have it, school children would be taught that the bibles are literally true and that soundly based scientific principles, when not accord with the biblical interpretation, would cease to be fact. 

Childrens minds would be confused because fear, ancient superstition and myth masquerading as science would be used to instill fear and superstition. Children in public schools should be encouraged to explore their curiosity about nature, science and the natural world and to use their curiosity to arrive at the facts of a matter by rational deduction framed by the discipline of the scientific method. Any attempts to indoctrinate our public school children with false information, fear instilling doctrines and ancient superstitions based on the unscientific hypotheses of christian creationists would be a tragedy.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Reality91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been throughly refuted and the population growth rate better supports the worlds current population with the timeline and the people that came off the ark than it supports evolutionists millions of years story.
> 
> Population Statistics and a Young Earth
> 
> 
> by
> 
> Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
> 
> 
> Both sides of the creation/evolution debate are locked in a heated battle over the truth about human origins, the age of the Universe, and the ultimate Cause of all things. ]
Click to expand...


I snipped out the wall of christian creationist nonsense for lack of relevance, utter absurdity and the usual appeals to fear, ignorance and conspiracy theory. 

There really are no parties locked in any debate or battle over the truth about human origins. While science doesn&#8217;t have every answer regarding the origin of life (and to educate brain-dead christian fundies, evolution does not address origins of life), Christian fundies typically seek to link life origins and evolution as a way to weaken the science of evolution.

There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution. There is a well accepted, solidly established body of evidence showing that evolution is observable and testable.  Although knowledge of some of the precise mechanisms by which evolution occurs may be incomplete, vast knowledge is known about how evolution works.

What Christian fundies attempt to avoid is that the same processes of theory, hypothesis and testing that led to the theory of evolution exist in all branches of science. It's known as the scientific method. In addition, evolution gets direct and indirect support from complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, physics, etc., different facts from varied science disciplines, all supporting the fact of evolution. Science is not an isolated batch of unrelated theories - science is a consolidation of many disciplines of knowledge.

As Christian fundies propose it, their dogma demands we believe that six thousand years ago the universe was created by magic, that two proto-humans were created by magic and that those humans were deceived by the magical creator gawds. Further, we&#8217;re to believe that the sun appeared long after plants, and that humankind lived concurrently with dinosaurs.

Fundie Christian creationists further demand that all the valid evidence which coincides with evolutionary theory (continental drift, plate tectonics, the geologic table, _et cetera_), all the testable biological / chemical evidence (anthropology, biochemistry, DNA, microbiology, _et cetera_), all the relevant historical evidence (archaeology, the fossil record, paleontology, anthropology, _et cetera_), all the astronomical evidence (Black Holes, the distance to stars, the effects of gravity on celestial bodies and light, _et cetera_) has been shaped as a global conspiracy by those &#8220;evolutionists&#8221;. The evidence from chemistry and physics (the laws of thermodynamics, the chemistry of proteins and amino acids and even the speed of light, _et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad absurdum_) according to brain dead christian creationists amounts to one, grand, global conspiracy.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're embarrassed. Once again, you were exposed as a fraud by copying and pasting falsified quotes that you scour from creationist websites.
> 
> Similarly, your silly copy and paste from the charlatan Behe have been refuted as fraudulent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the science community debate the man or that matter even respond to him if his arguments were no threat ? kinda like how you and daws operate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Behe and Christian fundies are not a threat to the science community. Christian creationism has long ago been defined as void of science and simply a front for Christian cultists.
> 
> The danger represented by charlatans such as Behe and fundies such as yourself is your need to impose your retrograde fear and superstition on others, especially in the public school system. Should the teaching of Christianity in public schools become widespread, the harm it would cause our nation would be tragic. As fundie Christians would have it, school children would be taught that the bibles are literally true and that soundly based scientific principles, when not accord with the biblical interpretation, would cease to be fact.
> 
> Childrens minds would be confused because fear, ancient superstition and myth masquerading as science would be used to instill fear and superstition. Children in public schools should be encouraged to explore their curiosity about nature, science and the natural world and to use their curiosity to arrive at the facts of a matter by rational deduction framed by the discipline of the scientific method. Any attempts to indoctrinate our public school children with false information, fear instilling doctrines and ancient superstitions based on the unscientific hypotheses of christian creationists would be a tragedy.
Click to expand...

Here is exactly what your secularized education has led to:
10 years later, the real story behind Columbine - USATODAY.com


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For one the origins question. You needed chemical evolution to form a living cell. Then you needed abiogenesis to form living organisms all these are forms of evolution which they have no evidence for and have to plead ignorance on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do you, yet you know the answer? Argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...


Seriously Dude, you are getting as bad as Hawly. The Meyer hypothesis has been presented to you numerous times and you still wrongly claim an "argument from ignorance" when Meyers proof is no such thing. It is based on a process currently in operation, i.e., the origin of information with specificity only having an intelligent agent as its source. How long are you going to keep repeating the same WRONG thing over and over again?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> I think the problem here is that our epistemologies are different. *The science crowd considers knowledge of the universe to be something that is only possible with evidence.* I belong in this camp. ....





Then I guess evolutionists like you don't belong to the science crowd.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're embarrassed. Once again, you were exposed as a fraud by copying and pasting falsified &#8220;quotes&#8221; that you scour from creationist websites.
> 
> Similarly, your silly copy and paste from the charlatan Behe have been refuted as fraudulent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the science community debate the man or that matter even respond to him if his arguments were no threat ? kinda like how you and daws operate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Behe and Christian fundies are not a threat to the science community. Christian creationism has long ago been defined as void of science and simply a front for Christian cultists.
> 
> The danger represented by charlatans such as Behe and fundies such as yourself is your need to impose your retrograde fear and superstition on others, especially in the public school system. Should the teaching of Christianity in public schools become widespread, the harm it would cause our nation would be tragic. As fundie Christians would have it, school children would be taught that the bibles are literally true and that soundly based scientific principles, when not accord with the biblical interpretation, would cease to be fact.
> 
> Childrens minds would be confused because fear, ancient superstition and myth masquerading as science would be used to instill fear and superstition. Children in public schools should be encouraged to explore their curiosity about nature, science and the natural world and to use their curiosity to arrive at the facts of a matter by rational deduction framed by the discipline of the scientific method. Any attempts to indoctrinate our public school children with false information, fear instilling doctrines and ancient superstitions based on the unscientific hypotheses of christian creationists would be a tragedy.
Click to expand...


Don't you ever get tired of spewing this bullshit?? Over 1000 pages and you can't come up with any new cut and pastes? Get a life!!! Seriously, you need to get out the house. Step away from the computer. You have lost all touch with reality.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the science community debate the man or that matter even respond to him if his arguments were no threat ? kinda like how you and daws operate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behe and Christian fundies are not a threat to the science community. Christian creationism has long ago been defined as void of science and simply a front for Christian cultists.
> 
> The danger represented by charlatans such as Behe and fundies such as yourself is your need to impose your retrograde fear and superstition on others, especially in the public school system. Should the teaching of Christianity in public schools become widespread, the harm it would cause our nation would be tragic. As fundie Christians would have it, school children would be taught that the bibles are literally true and that soundly based scientific principles, when not accord with the biblical interpretation, would cease to be fact.
> 
> Childrens minds would be confused because fear, ancient superstition and myth masquerading as science would be used to instill fear and superstition. Children in public schools should be encouraged to explore their curiosity about nature, science and the natural world and to use their curiosity to arrive at the facts of a matter by rational deduction framed by the discipline of the scientific method. Any attempts to indoctrinate our public school children with false information, fear instilling doctrines and ancient superstitions based on the unscientific hypotheses of christian creationists would be a tragedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you ever get tired of spewing this bullshit?? Over 1000 pages and you can't come up with any new cut and pastes? Get a life!!! Seriously, you need to get out the house. Step away from the computer. You have lost all touch with reality.
Click to expand...


Isn't this like the 8th time you have done the pissy schoolgirl thing and stormed away because your fundie Christian arguments have been totally dismantled?

Once again, you enter thread with no purpose than stalking me as a desperate plea for attention.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the problem here is that our epistemologies are different. *The science crowd considers knowledge of the universe to be something that is only possible with evidence.* I belong in this camp. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess evolutionists like you don't belong to the science crowd.
Click to expand...


Actually, yours is the type of pointless, waste of bandwidth babble that defines the brain-dead Christian fundie argument.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> For one the origins question. You needed chemical evolution to form a living cell. Then you needed abiogenesis to form living organisms all these are forms of evolution which they have no evidence for and have to plead ignorance on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As do you, yet you know the answer? Argument from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously Dude, you are getting as bad as Hawly. The Meyer hypothesis has been presented to you numerous times and you still wrongly claim an "argument from ignorance" when Meyers proof is no such thing. It is based on a process currently in operation, i.e., the origin of information with specificity only having an intelligent agent as its source. How long are you going to keep repeating the same WRONG thing over and over again?
Click to expand...


Why do you bother flailing your pom poms for the Christian hack, Meyer? He's really just another charlatan fronting for the disco' tute and in typical fashion for fundie hacks, he has no academic credentials in the field of science he babbles about.


----------



## LittleNipper

Please read: Evidence against Evolution (concise and short)


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Please read: Evidence against Evolution (concise and short)



Boilerplate christian apologetics. It's been thoroughly refuted as nonsense.


----------



## Big_D2

Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,

If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?


----------



## Hollie

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
> 
> If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?



And why would the gawds provide for incestuous relationships (Noah's immediate family) as the means to repopulate the planet?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're embarrassed. Once again, you were exposed as a fraud by copying and pasting falsified quotes that you scour from creationist websites.
> 
> Similarly, your silly copy and paste from the charlatan Behe have been refuted as fraudulent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the science community debate the man or that matter even respond to him if his arguments were no threat ? kinda like how you and daws operate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Behe and Christian fundies are not a threat to the science community. Christian creationism has long ago been defined as void of science and simply a front for Christian cultists.
> 
> The danger represented by charlatans such as Behe and fundies such as yourself is your need to impose your retrograde fear and superstition on others, especially in the public school system. Should the teaching of Christianity in public schools become widespread, the harm it would cause our nation would be tragic. As fundie Christians would have it, school children would be taught that the bibles are literally true and that soundly based scientific principles, when not accord with the biblical interpretation, would cease to be fact.
> 
> Childrens minds would be confused because fear, ancient superstition and myth masquerading as science would be used to instill fear and superstition. Children in public schools should be encouraged to explore their curiosity about nature, science and the natural world and to use their curiosity to arrive at the facts of a matter by rational deduction framed by the discipline of the scientific method. Any attempts to indoctrinate our public school children with false information, fear instilling doctrines and ancient superstitions based on the unscientific hypotheses of christian creationists would be a tragedy.
Click to expand...


Yes they are hollie,because if their arguments were no threat your side would not resort to attacking ones intelligence or their character. They sure as heck can't take on their arguments.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the problem here is that our epistemologies are different. *The science crowd considers knowledge of the universe to be something that is only possible with evidence.* I belong in this camp. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess evolutionists like you don't belong to the science crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yours is the type of pointless, waste of bandwidth babble that defines the brain-dead Christian fundie argument.
Click to expand...


Hollie, you really should look at your posts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> As do you, yet you know the answer? Argument from ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously Dude, you are getting as bad as Hawly. The Meyer hypothesis has been presented to you numerous times and you still wrongly claim an "argument from ignorance" when Meyers proof is no such thing. It is based on a process currently in operation, i.e., the origin of information with specificity only having an intelligent agent as its source. How long are you going to keep repeating the same WRONG thing over and over again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you bother flailing your pom poms for the Christian hack, Meyer? He's really just another charlatan fronting for the disco' tute and in typical fashion for fundie hacks, he has no academic credentials in the field of science he babbles about.
Click to expand...


Again do you think repeating the same thing over and over is convincing ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
> 
> If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?



No one knows exactly when the flood took place.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
> 
> If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?



I posted the population growth argument it explains it in detail.

The human population of the world supports a young earth.

World Population Since Creation

NOVA | World in the Balance | Human Numbers Through Time | PBS


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
> 
> If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why would the gawds provide for incestuous relationships (Noah's immediate family) as the means to repopulate the planet?
Click to expand...


You need to read your bible noah's sons had wives that were not related to them. Evolution allows and needed incest to populate the earth to but God is wrong because he may have allowed it at a time when man was closer to perfection with less chance of passing on genetic disorders. God did put a stop to it at a certain point because he knew the harm that would come if it was still practiced.

If you think about it since evolution is your answer on how the planet got filled with living organisms,incestral relationships had to populate the earth. How did groups of organisms survive this practice if they were not near perfection ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the science community debate the man or that matter even respond to him if his arguments were no threat ? kinda like how you and daws operate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behe and Christian fundies are not a threat to the science community. Christian creationism has long ago been defined as void of science and simply a front for Christian cultists.
> 
> The danger represented by charlatans such as Behe and fundies such as yourself is your need to impose your retrograde fear and superstition on others, especially in the public school system. Should the teaching of Christianity in public schools become widespread, the harm it would cause our nation would be tragic. As fundie Christians would have it, school children would be taught that the bibles are literally true and that soundly based scientific principles, when not accord with the biblical interpretation, would cease to be fact.
> 
> Childrens minds would be confused because fear, ancient superstition and myth masquerading as science would be used to instill fear and superstition. Children in public schools should be encouraged to explore their curiosity about nature, science and the natural world and to use their curiosity to arrive at the facts of a matter by rational deduction framed by the discipline of the scientific method. Any attempts to indoctrinate our public school children with false information, fear instilling doctrines and ancient superstitions based on the unscientific hypotheses of christian creationists would be a tragedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they are hollie,because if their arguments were no threat your side would not resort to attacking ones intelligence or their character. They sure as heck can't take on their arguments.
Click to expand...

I was certain you would make every effort to avoid the salient points in my post because that would require you to actually counter with relevant points. 

As I noted, Christian ministries are not a threat to the knowledge and discipline of science. Fundie Christians are only an annoyance in that they wish to impose fundamentalist christianity into the public schools and transform young minds into vacant slates.

Fortunately, the courts have been uncompromising in their dismissal of stealth fundamentalist christianity disguised as ID'iosy.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
> 
> If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why would the gawds provide for incestuous relationships (Noah's immediate family) as the means to repopulate the planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read your bible noah's sons had wives that were not related to them. Evolution allows and needed incest to populate the earth to but God is wrong because he may have allowed it at a time when man was closer to perfection with less chance of passing on genetic disorders. God did put a stop to it at a certain point because he knew the harm that would come if it was still practiced.
> 
> If you think about it since evolution is your answer on how the planet got filled with living organisms,incestral relationships had to populate the earth. How did groups of organisms survive this practice if they were not near perfection ?
Click to expand...


You have become so comfortable with lies on behalf of christianity that you just make up nonsensical claims as you go. You should actually read your bibles and understand that according to the Noah tale, incestuous relations are an inevitable conclusion, at least by those not addled by fundie indoctrination. 

Your second paragraph is a total joke.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
> 
> If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows exactly when the flood took place.
Click to expand...


Thinking humans know that no global flood took place. 

The flood tale in the various bibles is simply a re-telling of earlier food tales.  The men who wrote the bibles passed on that tale as they did with other earlier tales. 

Why do you think the Jewish scriptures are a part of Christianity?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
> 
> If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the population growth argument it explains it in detail.
> 
> The human population of the world supports a young earth.
> 
> World Population Since Creation
> 
> NOVA | World in the Balance | Human Numbers Through Time | PBS
Click to expand...


As we see, the flood tale that describes your angry, mass murdering gawds destroying most of humanity because they were a disappoint to him is one version of a flood tale that the writers of the bibles modified, embellished and revised to suit their book of tales and fables.

Flood Stories from Around the World


----------



## Youwerecreated

Delilah said:


> How did noah gets the animals from australia to his boat in the middle east?



If you want my opinion,the global flood caused the ice age and in that ice age produced land bridges . Evolutionist believe land bridges was how animals migrated all over the world. Evolutionist would need to explain how and what animals evolved from that are in australia if there were no major animal migrations. Remember evolutionist believe all organisms are decendants of the origional life that started so evolutionist are faced with the same question.


Here are some of the explanations from a creationists view.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/how-did-animals-spread


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
> 
> If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the population growth argument it explains it in detail.
> 
> The human population of the world supports a young earth.
> 
> World Population Since Creation
> 
> NOVA | World in the Balance | Human Numbers Through Time | PBS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As we see, the flood tale that describes your angry, mass murdering gawds destroying most of humanity because they were a disappoint to him is one version of a flood tale that the writers of the bibles modified, embellished and revised to suit their book of tales and fables.
> 
> Flood Stories from Around the World
Click to expand...


Ask yourself why so many cultures have flood legends ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the population growth argument it explains it in detail.
> 
> The human population of the world supports a young earth.
> 
> World Population Since Creation
> 
> NOVA | World in the Balance | Human Numbers Through Time | PBS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we see, the flood tale that describes your angry, mass murdering gawds destroying most of humanity because they were a disappoint to him is one version of a flood tale that the writers of the bibles modified, embellished and revised to suit their book of tales and fables.
> 
> Flood Stories from Around the World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask yourself why so many cultures have flood legends ?
Click to expand...

I have. 

Ask yourself why the flood tale in the bibles is similar to flood tales that preceded the one in the bibles.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Reality91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been throughly refuted and the population growth rate better supports the worlds current population with the timeline and the people that came off the ark than it supports evolutionists millions of years story.
> 
> Population Statistics and a Young Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by
> 
> Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides of the creation/evolution debate are locked in a heated battle over the truth about human origins, the age of the Universe, and the ultimate Cause of all things. Interestingly, while this debate rages and arguments are flying from both sides of the issue, there is reasonable evidence available which sidesteps much of the seeming complexity of this conflict and helps to illuminate the truth on the matter of human origins. This evidence comes from the realm of population statistics. What is the reasonable conclusion that should be drawn from the evidence in this area?
> 
> There is no question that both viewpointsbiblical and evolutionaryrequire a commencement point for mankind to begin propagation of the species. The biblical (i.e., Flood) model asserts that God started the process, creating both Adam and Eveone male and one femaleapproximately 6,000 years ago. From them, the human race was established and ultimately exterminated in the global Flood of Noahs day (Genesis 6-9), with the exception of Noah and his family. After the Flood, Noahs three sons and their wives commenced the repopulation of the human species (Genesis 9:19).
> 
> The evolutionary model claims that the first man of the genus Homo emerged around two to three million years ago (cf. Corballis, 2002, p. 183; Johanson, 2001; The Emergence, 2011; University of Utah, 2005; Walker, 2002). It has always been intriguing that the evolutionary side of the aisle appears to be quiet about the fact that at the commencement of the human species, both male and female human beings had to evolve simultaneously, in the same geographic area, and while both were alive, in order for the human species to propagate itselfnot just one male or one female, and not two males or two females. Further, these male and female human bodies also had to contain the fully functional reproductive components that would be necessary to replicate humanity. In The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality, Graham Bell discusses this quandary, stating that:
> 
> 
> Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation (1982, p. 19).
> 
> Evolutionist Philip Kitcher admitted, Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction (1982, p. 54). Evolutionist Mark Ridley noted that ex is a puzzle that has not yet been solved; no one knows why it exists (2001, p. 111). Julie Schecter said that sex remains a mystery to researchers, to say nothing of the rest of the population. Why sex? (1984, 34:680). [See Thompson and Harrub, 2002 for an in depth discussion on the origin of genders and sexuality.]
> 
> Besides the problem raised for evolutionists by the origin of sexual reproduction, more problems exist that evolutionists appear to be quite reticent about. For instance, the patriarch and matriarch of the human race, having miraculously emerged in the same time period of history with each other, also had to be able to find each other on planet Earth without first starving, without being eaten by the ferocious animals that evolutionary images of early man portray, and without getting too old to replicate. And still further, just because there is another human being near you, does that mean you will be attracted to him/her? The male and female had to decide that they liked each other and do something about it before dying. And even further, the baby and mother had to survive the ordeal of child birth in those allegedly primitive circumstances. If the emergence of one human being from a non-human being seems ludicrous due to its contradiction of the Law of Biogenesis, surely this realization makes the evolutionary proposition beyond preposterous.
> 
> POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE EVOLUTIONARY MODEL
> 
> However, for the sake of argument, let us grant the atheistic evolutionist several miraculous featstwo living, opposite-sex human beings, with the necessary sexual components to propagate the species, in the same region on Earth, safe guarded from their primitive environment, with a desire for each other, and young enough to replicate. Even granting all of these significant but unrealistic assumptions, the evolutionist is left with statistical obstacles. Consider the mathematics for this argument.
> 
> Let us suppose that couples throughout history have had an average of (2 × c) children (i.e., c boys plus c girls). Starting with two humans, this would make the population after the first generation, Pn = 2+2 &#8729; c. Then, the children, marrying each other, had another (2 &#8729; c) children per couple. As illustrated in Scientific Studies in Special Creation (Lammerts, 1971), continuing this progression results in the following equation, where n is the number of generations for which the calculation is done.
> 
> 
> 
> After multiplying both sides of Equation (1) by c, subtracting the resulting equation from Equation (1), grouping, and dividing both sides by (c - 1), the following equation results:
> 
> 
> 
> This gives the total population after n generations, without any deaths. Assuming each person lives an average of d generations, the number of deceased people by the final generation (i.e., the (n - d)th generation) can be calculated using Equation (3):
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, the total population after n generations, accounting for death, can be calculated by subtracting the population of the (n - d)th  generation from the population calculated in Equation (2), resulting in the following:
> 
> 
> 
> If each couple has only two children (i.e., c = 1), the population will remain constant, and if each couple has fewer than two children on average (i.e., c < 1), the population will decrease (Lammerts, pp. 198-205). [See also Morris and Morris, 1996 and Wysong, 1976 for more information on the derivation of the above equations.]
> 
> The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the worlds population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology, lifespans (especially considering the long lifespans in the generations immediately following the Flood and the shorter lifespans preceding the current state of medical knowledge), and fluctuating offspring production rates. However, this approach allows for the use of long-term averages to get a rough estimate of what the worlds population should look like over time.
> 
> Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2. Thus, each couple throughout history has had, on average, at least two children, and many times three or more children were born. Also, let us assume that each person has lived, on average, one and a third generations (i.e., d = 1.3). This means that each person died having seen some, though not all, of their grandchildren. Again, this estimate is likely very conservative, especially since effective birth control methods are a relatively recent innovation. However, these conservative estimates certainly take into account the long periods of time in history when people lived shorter lives and had fewer children. Let us further assign a reasonable estimate of a generation to be 38 years. This means that each couple has had all of their children by age 38. All of these numbers could easily and fairly be increased, but doing so would do even further damage to the evolutionists case.
> 
> Using these conservative estimates, if human beings have been on the planet producing offspring for one million years, over 26,000 generations have passed. There are currently about seven billion people on earth6.9x109 (U.S. & World Population, 2011). However, according to Equation (4), there should be over 102,000 people on the Earth today if propagation commenced one million years ago. That is a one, followed by 2,000 zeros. In order to try to fathom that number, consider the following analogy. The known Universe is thought to be 28 billion light years in diameter (Powell, 2006; Tully, 2000). That is the equivalent of over 1070 cubic miles of volume. If tiny, three foot humans, modeled as cylinders with five inch radii (i.e., very narrow shoulders), were crammed into the Universe like sardines, 1082 people might fit (if they have not eaten in awhile). That leaves more than 101,918 additional people! And whats worse, if c, d, or n are increased, as they legitimately could be, the problem is further amplified. Consider also that these numbers are based on a starting point of one million years ago. Evolutionists claim that humans have been on the Earth for two to three million years.  To make their plight even worse, the evolutionary community digs its own grave significantly deeper by speculating that the original Adam and Eve were actually Adam, Eve, and about 10,000 other people (Hawks, et al., 2000). Even if 10,000 such miracles were accomplished in the same period of time in human history, one can easily imagine how many more people would result in a given period of time if  5,000 couples initially began bearing children instead of one couple. Where, pray tell, are all of the imaginary people that should be in existence if evolution is the true history of humanity?
> 
> The evolutionary community certainly has trouble adjusting the numbers to allow for this preposterous scenario. However, they must be able to come up with a reasonable explanation in order to maintain their position. If evolution is true, it must be assumed that there were times when the human population remained constant for very long periods of time or decreased to the point of extinction at different times in history (cf. Weiss, 1984; Hawks, et al., 2000). Such speculation is a leap into the dark without sufficient, verifiable evidence. [NOTE: Incidentally, such speculation is in contradiction with uniformitarian principles, which are fundamental to evolutionary dating techniques. If the Earth has not progressed in a constant, uniform fashion as macroevolution suggests, then old ages based on those uniformitarian assumptions cannot be assigned to the Earth. It seems that the evolutionary community wants to have their cake and eat it, too.] History grants us no world population estimates based on censuss until the last 200 years. Before that, according to population statisticians estimates, the average annual population growth was estimated to be relatively constant, ranging between 0.03-0.15% from 1750 A.D. to 10,000 B.C. (Historical Estimates of World Population, 2010) [NOTE: World populations are estimated at this later date based on the assumption that the theory of evolution is true. Such a time frame would be pre-Creation, according to the Bible, and is rejected by the author.] Likely due to medical breakthroughs and technological advancement, the annual population growth has since jumped to about 2%. Note that even the irreligious community recognizes the likelihood of significant population growth on average over time throughout history and makes its estimates accordingly. The evolutionary position, in order to exist at all, must stand in contradiction to this fact. The evidence, as well as common sense, cannot be denied. If growth is the norm as the evidence indicates, evolution is impossible. The evidence conveyed by population statistics simply does not support the evolutionary model.
> 
> POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE CREATION MODEL
> 
> What about the creation model? Is it supported by the evidence from population statistics? The biblical position asserts that after the Flood, repopulation of the Earth commenced, starting with six people (i.e., Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives), instead of two (or 10,000). Using the aforementioned procedure, the following equation can be derived for calculation of the projected population for any given time, starting with six people:
> 
> 
> 
> If we assume, based on biblical genealogies, that the Flood took place roughly 4,300 years ago (cf. Bass, 2003), using the same c andd as above, as well as a generation of 38 years, then 113 generations have passed since the global Flood of Noahs day. Based on these numbers, the approximate projected population for today can be calculated. According to the calculations, there should be approximately seven billion people on Earth6.7x109. This is strikingly close to the current population as recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau6.9x109.
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> What does the evidence indicate? Is the evolutionary model a plausible explanation for mans existence? The evidence from the field of population statistics says, Certainly not. Even granting very conservative numbers in the calculation of projected populations, it is the biblical model that is in keeping with the numerical evidence provided by the worlds population. The evidence supports a young age for the Earth and mankind. One would have to be dishonest to examine such concrete evidence and dismiss it out of hand. Yet, this attitude pervades much of the scientific community today. The same people who proclaim that they, unlike theists, are the ones who examine the evidence without bias, only drawing those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence, are the very ones who turn against the evidence when it does not suit their purpose and agenda. Philosopher David Hume once said that no man turns against reason until reason turns against him (as quoted in Warren, 1982, p. 4). That certainly sums up the mentality of many in the scientific community. Why not choose to go with the reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence? The Earth is young. Evolution cannot explain human existence. The biblical model canand does.
> 
> Apologetics Press - Population Statistics and a Young Earth
Click to expand...



We do know sex exists. It offers greater survival advantage to species because the genetic information is more diversified, so in case of disease, not everyone will get wiped out. In asexual species, everyone is nearly identical, so what will kill one animal will easily kill the next. Not so is sexual species.


----------



## newpolitics

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been throughly refuted and the population growth rate better supports the worlds current population with the timeline and the people that came off the ark than it supports evolutionists millions of years story.
> 
> Population Statistics and a Young Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by
> 
> Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides of the creation/evolution debate are locked in a heated battle over the truth about human origins, the age of the Universe, and the ultimate Cause of all things. Interestingly, while this debate rages and arguments are flying from both sides of the issue, there is reasonable evidence available which sidesteps much of the seeming complexity of this conflict and helps to illuminate the truth on the matter of human origins. This evidence comes from the realm of population statistics. What is the reasonable conclusion that should be drawn from the evidence in this area?
> 
> There is no question that both viewpointsbiblical and evolutionaryrequire a commencement point for mankind to begin propagation of the species. The biblical (i.e., Flood) model asserts that God started the process, creating both Adam and Eveone male and one femaleapproximately 6,000 years ago. From them, the human race was established and ultimately exterminated in the global Flood of Noahs day (Genesis 6-9), with the exception of Noah and his family. After the Flood, Noahs three sons and their wives commenced the repopulation of the human species (Genesis 9:19).
> 
> The evolutionary model claims that the first man of the genus Homo emerged around two to three million years ago (cf. Corballis, 2002, p. 183; Johanson, 2001; The Emergence, 2011; University of Utah, 2005; Walker, 2002). It has always been intriguing that the evolutionary side of the aisle appears to be quiet about the fact that at the commencement of the human species, both male and female human beings had to evolve simultaneously, in the same geographic area, and while both were alive, in order for the human species to propagate itselfnot just one male or one female, and not two males or two females. Further, these male and female human bodies also had to contain the fully functional reproductive components that would be necessary to replicate humanity. In The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality, Graham Bell discusses this quandary, stating that:
> 
> 
> Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation (1982, p. 19).
> 
> Evolutionist Philip Kitcher admitted, Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction (1982, p. 54). Evolutionist Mark Ridley noted that ex is a puzzle that has not yet been solved; no one knows why it exists (2001, p. 111). Julie Schecter said that sex remains a mystery to researchers, to say nothing of the rest of the population. Why sex? (1984, 34:680). [See Thompson and Harrub, 2002 for an in depth discussion on the origin of genders and sexuality.]
> 
> Besides the problem raised for evolutionists by the origin of sexual reproduction, more problems exist that evolutionists appear to be quite reticent about. For instance, the patriarch and matriarch of the human race, having miraculously emerged in the same time period of history with each other, also had to be able to find each other on planet Earth without first starving, without being eaten by the ferocious animals that evolutionary images of early man portray, and without getting too old to replicate. And still further, just because there is another human being near you, does that mean you will be attracted to him/her? The male and female had to decide that they liked each other and do something about it before dying. And even further, the baby and mother had to survive the ordeal of child birth in those allegedly primitive circumstances. If the emergence of one human being from a non-human being seems ludicrous due to its contradiction of the Law of Biogenesis, surely this realization makes the evolutionary proposition beyond preposterous.
> 
> POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE EVOLUTIONARY MODEL
> 
> However, for the sake of argument, let us grant the atheistic evolutionist several miraculous featstwo living, opposite-sex human beings, with the necessary sexual components to propagate the species, in the same region on Earth, safe guarded from their primitive environment, with a desire for each other, and young enough to replicate. Even granting all of these significant but unrealistic assumptions, the evolutionist is left with statistical obstacles. Consider the mathematics for this argument.
> 
> Let us suppose that couples throughout history have had an average of (2 × c) children (i.e., c boys plus c girls). Starting with two humans, this would make the population after the first generation, Pn = 2+2 &#8729; c. Then, the children, marrying each other, had another (2 &#8729; c) children per couple. As illustrated in Scientific Studies in Special Creation (Lammerts, 1971), continuing this progression results in the following equation, where n is the number of generations for which the calculation is done.
> 
> 
> 
> After multiplying both sides of Equation (1) by c, subtracting the resulting equation from Equation (1), grouping, and dividing both sides by (c - 1), the following equation results:
> 
> 
> 
> This gives the total population after n generations, without any deaths. Assuming each person lives an average of d generations, the number of deceased people by the final generation (i.e., the (n - d)th generation) can be calculated using Equation (3):
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, the total population after n generations, accounting for death, can be calculated by subtracting the population of the (n - d)th  generation from the population calculated in Equation (2), resulting in the following:
> 
> 
> 
> If each couple has only two children (i.e., c = 1), the population will remain constant, and if each couple has fewer than two children on average (i.e., c < 1), the population will decrease (Lammerts, pp. 198-205). [See also Morris and Morris, 1996 and Wysong, 1976 for more information on the derivation of the above equations.]
> 
> The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the worlds population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology, lifespans (especially considering the long lifespans in the generations immediately following the Flood and the shorter lifespans preceding the current state of medical knowledge), and fluctuating offspring production rates. However, this approach allows for the use of long-term averages to get a rough estimate of what the worlds population should look like over time.
> 
> Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2. Thus, each couple throughout history has had, on average, at least two children, and many times three or more children were born. Also, let us assume that each person has lived, on average, one and a third generations (i.e., d = 1.3). This means that each person died having seen some, though not all, of their grandchildren. Again, this estimate is likely very conservative, especially since effective birth control methods are a relatively recent innovation. However, these conservative estimates certainly take into account the long periods of time in history when people lived shorter lives and had fewer children. Let us further assign a reasonable estimate of a generation to be 38 years. This means that each couple has had all of their children by age 38. All of these numbers could easily and fairly be increased, but doing so would do even further damage to the evolutionists case.
> 
> Using these conservative estimates, if human beings have been on the planet producing offspring for one million years, over 26,000 generations have passed. There are currently about seven billion people on earth6.9x109 (U.S. & World Population, 2011). However, according to Equation (4), there should be over 102,000 people on the Earth today if propagation commenced one million years ago. That is a one, followed by 2,000 zeros. In order to try to fathom that number, consider the following analogy. The known Universe is thought to be 28 billion light years in diameter (Powell, 2006; Tully, 2000). That is the equivalent of over 1070 cubic miles of volume. If tiny, three foot humans, modeled as cylinders with five inch radii (i.e., very narrow shoulders), were crammed into the Universe like sardines, 1082 people might fit (if they have not eaten in awhile). That leaves more than 101,918 additional people! And whats worse, if c, d, or n are increased, as they legitimately could be, the problem is further amplified. Consider also that these numbers are based on a starting point of one million years ago. Evolutionists claim that humans have been on the Earth for two to three million years.  To make their plight even worse, the evolutionary community digs its own grave significantly deeper by speculating that the original Adam and Eve were actually Adam, Eve, and about 10,000 other people (Hawks, et al., 2000). Even if 10,000 such miracles were accomplished in the same period of time in human history, one can easily imagine how many more people would result in a given period of time if  5,000 couples initially began bearing children instead of one couple. Where, pray tell, are all of the imaginary people that should be in existence if evolution is the true history of humanity?
> 
> The evolutionary community certainly has trouble adjusting the numbers to allow for this preposterous scenario. However, they must be able to come up with a reasonable explanation in order to maintain their position. If evolution is true, it must be assumed that there were times when the human population remained constant for very long periods of time or decreased to the point of extinction at different times in history (cf. Weiss, 1984; Hawks, et al., 2000). Such speculation is a leap into the dark without sufficient, verifiable evidence. [NOTE: Incidentally, such speculation is in contradiction with uniformitarian principles, which are fundamental to evolutionary dating techniques. If the Earth has not progressed in a constant, uniform fashion as macroevolution suggests, then old ages based on those uniformitarian assumptions cannot be assigned to the Earth. It seems that the evolutionary community wants to have their cake and eat it, too.] History grants us no world population estimates based on censuss until the last 200 years. Before that, according to population statisticians estimates, the average annual population growth was estimated to be relatively constant, ranging between 0.03-0.15% from 1750 A.D. to 10,000 B.C. (Historical Estimates of World Population, 2010) [NOTE: World populations are estimated at this later date based on the assumption that the theory of evolution is true. Such a time frame would be pre-Creation, according to the Bible, and is rejected by the author.] Likely due to medical breakthroughs and technological advancement, the annual population growth has since jumped to about 2%. Note that even the irreligious community recognizes the likelihood of significant population growth on average over time throughout history and makes its estimates accordingly. The evolutionary position, in order to exist at all, must stand in contradiction to this fact. The evidence, as well as common sense, cannot be denied. If growth is the norm as the evidence indicates, evolution is impossible. The evidence conveyed by population statistics simply does not support the evolutionary model.
> 
> POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE CREATION MODEL
> 
> What about the creation model? Is it supported by the evidence from population statistics? The biblical position asserts that after the Flood, repopulation of the Earth commenced, starting with six people (i.e., Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives), instead of two (or 10,000). Using the aforementioned procedure, the following equation can be derived for calculation of the projected population for any given time, starting with six people:
> 
> 
> 
> If we assume, based on biblical genealogies, that the Flood took place roughly 4,300 years ago (cf. Bass, 2003), using the same c andd as above, as well as a generation of 38 years, then 113 generations have passed since the global Flood of Noahs day. Based on these numbers, the approximate projected population for today can be calculated. According to the calculations, there should be approximately seven billion people on Earth6.7x109. This is strikingly close to the current population as recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau6.9x109.
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> What does the evidence indicate? Is the evolutionary model a plausible explanation for mans existence? The evidence from the field of population statistics says, Certainly not. Even granting very conservative numbers in the calculation of projected populations, it is the biblical model that is in keeping with the numerical evidence provided by the worlds population. The evidence supports a young age for the Earth and mankind. One would have to be dishonest to examine such concrete evidence and dismiss it out of hand. Yet, this attitude pervades much of the scientific community today. The same people who proclaim that they, unlike theists, are the ones who examine the evidence without bias, only drawing those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence, are the very ones who turn against the evidence when it does not suit their purpose and agenda. Philosopher David Hume once said that no man turns against reason until reason turns against him (as quoted in Warren, 1982, p. 4). That certainly sums up the mentality of many in the scientific community. Why not choose to go with the reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence? The Earth is young. Evolution cannot explain human existence. The biblical model canand does.
> 
> Apologetics Press - Population Statistics and a Young Earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We do know why sex exists. It offers greater survival advantage to species because the genetic information is more diversified, so in case of disease, not everyone will get wiped out. In asexual species, everyone is nearly identical, so what will kill one animal will easily kill the next. By having a relatively greater diversity of genetic information across individuals, it confers an advantage for the entire species.
> 
> I learned this when I was in middle school, fifteen years ago.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Specific Arguments - Population Growth 

Young-earth "proof" #25: The current population of Earth (5.5 billion) could easily be generated from 8 people in less than 4000 years. If the earth were really billions of years old, the human population would have gone through the roof!


Yes, given unlimited living space, an inexhaustible supply of food, a good deal of luck in the early stages, and a high motivation to travel while having more kids than is practical, eight people could probably populate the earth in a few thousand years. Eight germs could do it in less than a week. Eight bunny rabbits would fall somewhere in between. Eight cats would give us yet another figure. What do any of these figures have to do with the age of the earth? Nothing! What do these figures have to do with actual growth rates? Absolutely nothing!

The human exponential growth rate of the last few hundred years is possible only because of technology. When our ability to stay one jump ahead of starvation and disease fails, when our resources give out, then you'll see a dramatic change in that growth rate! It will no longer be exponential; it will be disastrous!


----------



## Hollie

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Hovind's 'Proofs' (continued) 

Those who imagine that eight people gave rise to everyone living today according to a simple exponential growth curve have demonstrated an inability to think things through. Let's look at the equation involved in these growth rate calculations.

P(n) = P(1 + r) n

P(n),called the function P of n,is the population generated after n years. (With the proper adjustment of r,n could be months or generations, etc. For our purposes, years will do nicely and r will be adjusted accordingly.) P (the multiplied factor on the right-hand side of the equation) is the initial population which, in our case, is eight. The growth rate is r which would be close to zero for humanity per year. A negative value would indicate a population decline. Henry Morris used a value for r of 0.0033 [0.33%] in a similar calculation which started with Adam and Eve. However, since the flood supposedly reduced the population to eight people 1656 years after creation, a figure Dr. Hovind gives based on patriarchal ages, we should start our exponential curve at the latter date. If we assume, for the sake of this argument, that the earth is 6000 years old, then we start our calculation with 8 people 4344 years ago. We must wind up with the present population of 5.5 billion people.

It turns out that if r = 0.0047 then after 4344 years we would wind up with about 5.6 billion people (1995), which is close enough. After substituting the values for P and r into the above equation we are at liberty to try out different values for n to obtain the population at different times. At the time the Israelites entered Canaan, for instance, we get a world population of 2024! By the time you divide that up between Egypt, Canaan, the rest of the world, and Israel, that leaves maybe 6 or 7 people for the Israeli army! If we go back to the time that the Hykos were expelled from Egypt, in 1560 BC, we get a world population of 325 people!

We can't calculate the population at the time the Great Pyramid of Cheops was built, around 2500 BC, because it was supposedly washed away by Noah's flood!! Being an antediluvian structure, many people might have been available to work on it. Odd, that the Great Pyramid of Cheops shows no water marks. Stranger still, that the Egyptians should be unaware of Noah's flood! I would think that Noah's flood, coming a mere century or thereabouts after the Great Pyramid of Cheops was built, would have found a prominent place in the Egyptian annals.

As you can see, an exponential growth curve leads to absurdity when we assume that 8 people generated today's population. Creationists, of course, could jack the r value way up at the start, jack it way down in the middle, and jack it up again for modern times, but the ad hoc nature of such an argument becomes a little too obvious. Regarding the foolishness of this whole enterprise, Dr. Alan Hayward had this to say:

Nobody who has ever studied the population explosion would make such an unwise extrapolation. It is well known that growth rates have increased enormously in recent centuries. Population expert Paul Ehrlich gives world average yearly growth rates of 0.9 per cent between 1850 and 1930, 0.3 per cent between 1650 and 1850, and a mere 0.07 per cent in the thousand years prior to 1650. And in the fourteenth century the population increase must have been very small indeed, and it may even have been turned into a big decrease,because of the Black Death. Ehrlich's figures are not just guesses; they are based on historical records. These facts show how misguided it is to extrapolate present population trends into the remote past.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please read: Evidence against Evolution (concise and short)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boilerplate christian apologetics. It's been thoroughly refuted as nonsense.
Click to expand...


How?


----------



## LittleNipper

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
> 
> If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?



I believe the actual event was closer to 5000 years ago. More like 4900


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please read: Evidence against Evolution (concise and short)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boilerplate christian apologetics. It's been thoroughly refuted as nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How?
Click to expand...


Evidence.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
> 
> If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the actual event was closer to 5000 years ago. More like 4900
Click to expand...


That was about the time of the Mayan civilization. Did your gawds hate the Maya, too? We may be on to something here. 

It seems the Maya were not wiped out by your gawds humanity wiping flood. 

That proves the Mayan gawds as the true gawds.

Thanks.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As we see, the flood tale that describes your angry, mass murdering gawds destroying most of humanity because they were a disappoint to him is one version of a flood tale that the writers of the bibles modified, embellished and revised to suit their book of tales and fables.
> 
> Flood Stories from Around the World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourself why so many cultures have flood legends ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have.
> 
> Ask yourself why the flood tale in the bibles is similar to flood tales that preceded the one in the bibles.
Click to expand...


Can you prove this ?


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the population growth argument it explains it in detail.
> 
> The human population of the world supports a young earth.
> 
> World Population Since Creation
> 
> NOVA | World in the Balance | Human Numbers Through Time | PBS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we see, the flood tale that describes your angry, mass murdering gawds destroying most of humanity because they were a disappoint to him is one version of a flood tale that the writers of the bibles modified, embellished and revised to suit their book of tales and fables.
> 
> Flood Stories from Around the World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask yourself why so many cultures have flood legends ?
Click to expand...


Because when the last ice age ended around twelve thousand years ago, and the glaciers receded, the ice melted causing massive flooding. This is why so many flood stories are found in and around Mesopotamia after that time, which is where civilization began, in the Fertile Crescent.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the problem here is that our epistemologies are different. *The science crowd considers knowledge of the universe to be something that is only possible with evidence.* I belong in this camp. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess evolutionists like you don't belong to the science crowd.
Click to expand...


Good one!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Specific Arguments - Population Growth
> 
> Young-earth "proof" #25: The current population of Earth (5.5 billion) could easily be generated from 8 people in less than 4000 years. If the earth were really billions of years old, the human population would have gone through the roof!
> 
> 
> Yes, given unlimited living space, an inexhaustible supply of food, a good deal of luck in the early stages, and a high motivation to travel while having more kids than is practical, eight people could probably populate the earth in a few thousand years. Eight germs could do it in less than a week. Eight bunny rabbits would fall somewhere in between. Eight cats would give us yet another figure. What do any of these figures have to do with the age of the earth? Nothing! What do these figures have to do with actual growth rates? Absolutely nothing!
> 
> The human exponential growth rate of the last few hundred years is possible only because of technology. When our ability to stay one jump ahead of starvation and disease fails, when our resources give out, then you'll see a dramatic change in that growth rate! It will no longer be exponential; it will be disastrous!



Wrong wrong wrong. To think the human population only boomed in the last few hundred years is rediculous considering war, faminie and natural disasters let's not forget pestilence that took many.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Hovind's 'Proofs' (continued)
> 
> Those who imagine that eight people gave rise to everyone living today according to a simple exponential growth curve have demonstrated an inability to think things through. Let's look at the equation involved in these growth rate calculations.
> 
> P(n) = P(1 + r) n
> 
> P(n),called the function P of n,is the population generated after n years. (With the proper adjustment of r,n could be months or generations, etc. For our purposes, years will do nicely and r will be adjusted accordingly.) P (the multiplied factor on the right-hand side of the equation) is the initial population which, in our case, is eight. The growth rate is r which would be close to zero for humanity per year. A negative value would indicate a population decline. Henry Morris used a value for r of 0.0033 [0.33%] in a similar calculation which started with Adam and Eve. However, since the flood supposedly reduced the population to eight people 1656 years after creation, a figure Dr. Hovind gives based on patriarchal ages, we should start our exponential curve at the latter date. If we assume, for the sake of this argument, that the earth is 6000 years old, then we start our calculation with 8 people 4344 years ago. We must wind up with the present population of 5.5 billion people.
> 
> It turns out that if r = 0.0047 then after 4344 years we would wind up with about 5.6 billion people (1995), which is close enough. After substituting the values for P and r into the above equation we are at liberty to try out different values for n to obtain the population at different times. At the time the Israelites entered Canaan, for instance, we get a world population of 2024! By the time you divide that up between Egypt, Canaan, the rest of the world, and Israel, that leaves maybe 6 or 7 people for the Israeli army! If we go back to the time that the Hykos were expelled from Egypt, in 1560 BC, we get a world population of 325 people!
> 
> We can't calculate the population at the time the Great Pyramid of Cheops was built, around 2500 BC, because it was supposedly washed away by Noah's flood!! Being an antediluvian structure, many people might have been available to work on it. Odd, that the Great Pyramid of Cheops shows no water marks. Stranger still, that the Egyptians should be unaware of Noah's flood! I would think that Noah's flood, coming a mere century or thereabouts after the Great Pyramid of Cheops was built, would have found a prominent place in the Egyptian annals.
> 
> As you can see, an exponential growth curve leads to absurdity when we assume that 8 people generated today's population. Creationists, of course, could jack the r value way up at the start, jack it way down in the middle, and jack it up again for modern times, but the ad hoc nature of such an argument becomes a little too obvious. Regarding the foolishness of this whole enterprise, Dr. Alan Hayward had this to say:
> 
> Nobody who has ever studied the population explosion would make such an unwise extrapolation. It is well known that growth rates have increased enormously in recent centuries. Population expert Paul Ehrlich gives world average yearly growth rates of 0.9 per cent between 1850 and 1930, 0.3 per cent between 1650 and 1850, and a mere 0.07 per cent in the thousand years prior to 1650. And in the fourteenth century the population increase must have been very small indeed, and it may even have been turned into a big decrease,because of the Black Death. Ehrlich's figures are not just guesses; they are based on historical records. These facts show how misguided it is to extrapolate present population trends into the remote past.



 spin much hollie ? average length of life was figured in hollie. Just think human population is still being increased with contraceptives and abortion.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> For one the origins question. You needed chemical evolution to form a living cell. Then you needed abiogenesis to form living organisms all these are forms of evolution which they have no evidence for and have to plead ignorance on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As do you, yet you know the answer? Argument from ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously Dude, you are getting as bad as Hawly. The Meyer hypothesis has been presented to you numerous times and you still wrongly claim an "argument from ignorance" when Meyers proof is no such thing. It is based on a process currently in operation, i.e., the origin of information with specificity only having an intelligent agent as its source. How long are you going to keep repeating the same WRONG thing over and over again?
Click to expand...


Yes, I know it has, and his two fallacious arguments are completely unconvincing. His first argument, which attempts to dismantle abiogenesis with probability theory, is an argument from ignorance, since he nor anybody else has the numbers to describe accurately something we are ignorant to. I've mentioned  this numerous times yet you fail to adequately address. Instead you simply deny it and try to ridicule me for always calling out fallacies, without ever refuting my claims. Next, Meyers makes an inductive argument, claiming that because we are intelligent and wrote specifiable, digital code, DNA must also have an intelligent designer, being a code with apparently the same characteristics. It does not follow necessarily that DNA must also have had am intelligent designer. It is only a probabilistic determination, which is the major weakness of inductively derived conclusions. So, both prongs of Meyers argument are blatantly fallacious. An inductive argument isn't even formally valid. Try to actually address these charges instead of the usual sidestepping and ridiculing to get around these  blatant facts. You seem so enamored by Meyers false credentials, that won't admit to yourself, the possibility that he is wrong. You can still have your faith, just stop trying to prove religious claims in a scientific setting. It's never going to work. Just accept your delusion for what it is: an existential security blanket. At least, don't be deluded enough to think you are going to convince anybody here of your false beliefs. You're better off preaching the bible, since that is basically what you are trying to do- convince us of your god.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please read: Evidence against Evolution (concise and short)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boilerplate christian apologetics. It's been thoroughly refuted as nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How?
Click to expand...


You see hollie thinks any rebuttal by the atheistic evolutionist refutes what a creationist say's,she is kinda shallow.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As we see, the flood tale that describes your angry, mass murdering gawds destroying most of humanity because they were a disappoint to him is one version of a flood tale that the writers of the bibles modified, embellished and revised to suit their book of tales and fables.
> 
> Flood Stories from Around the World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourself why so many cultures have flood legends ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because when the last ice age ended around twelve thousand years ago, and the glaciers receded, the ice melted causing massive flooding. This is why so many flood stories are found in and around Mesopotamia after that time, which is where civilization began, in the Fertile Crescent.
Click to expand...


Speculative.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourself why so many cultures have flood legends ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because when the last ice age ended around twelve thousand years ago, and the glaciers receded, the ice melted causing massive flooding. This is why so many flood stories are found in and around Mesopotamia after that time, which is where civilization began, in the Fertile Crescent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speculative.
Click to expand...


Judging by the frailty of this response, I assume you know that there was an ice age that ended during this time, which is corroborated by multiple scientific disciplines and observations. This fact adequately explains why we find so many flood stories. You're right, it is no coincidence.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourself why so many cultures have flood legends ?
> 
> 
> 
> I have.
> 
> Ask yourself why the flood tale in the bibles is similar to flood tales that preceded the one in the bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you prove this ?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boilerplate christian apologetics. It's been thoroughly refuted as nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see hollie thinks any rebuttal by the atheistic evolutionist refutes what a creationist say's,she is kinda shallow.
Click to expand...

I have to be blunt and advise that the fundamentalist Christianist says things that are so often self-refuting and absent any corroboration.

I can't be held accountable for creationist ineptitude at presenting a coherent argument.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourself why so many cultures have flood legends ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because when the last ice age ended around twelve thousand years ago, and the glaciers receded, the ice melted causing massive flooding. This is why so many flood stories are found in and around Mesopotamia after that time, which is where civilization began, in the Fertile Crescent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speculative.
Click to expand...


Demonstrable.

The problem you're faced with is a vast assembly of physical evidence that presents a convincing case for an ice age in the not too distant past. This is an obvious contradiction to biblical tales and fables due to the timelines in the bibles which, despite your fundamentalist beliefs, are lacking any credibility versus the physical evidence.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourself why so many cultures have flood legends ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because when the last ice age ended around twelve thousand years ago, and the glaciers receded, the ice melted causing massive flooding. This is why so many flood stories are found in and around Mesopotamia after that time, which is where civilization began, in the Fertile Crescent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speculative.
Click to expand...


In anticipation of a soon-to-be-posted conspiracy theory from creationist...

CH590: Flood and Ice


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boilerplate christian apologetics. It's been thoroughly refuted as nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence.
Click to expand...


What evidence contradicts the Bible, beyond a shadow of a doubt.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
> 
> If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the actual event was closer to 5000 years ago. More like 4900
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was about the time of the Mayan civilization. Did your gawds hate the Maya, too? We may be on to something here.
> 
> It seems the Maya were not wiped out by your gawds humanity wiping flood.
> 
> That proves the Mayan gawds as the true gawds.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


The Mayans believed in human sacrafices to various gods for various needs. This amounted to murder.


----------



## LittleNipper

Youwerecreated said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boilerplate christian apologetics. It's been thoroughly refuted as nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see hollie thinks any rebuttal by the atheistic evolutionist refutes what a creationist say's,she is kinda shallow.
Click to expand...


Well, I am willing to suggest that she has become indoctrinated and is seeing things through the eyes of a material world. She does not consider the heart of the matter nor see spritual influences. At the very least she is ignoring them. Hiter was not just some surprise. I feel he was the end result of the belief that one is only accountable to one's self. If anything, what happened in Gernany made many Americans of the 1950's very religious. And America of the 1950's seemed to be an improvement and was improving. It was not until America stopped growing spiritually that she began to drown.


----------



## G.T.




----------



## G.T.




----------



## LittleNipper

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because when the last ice age ended around twelve thousand years ago, and the glaciers receded, the ice melted causing massive flooding. This is why so many flood stories are found in and around Mesopotamia after that time, which is where civilization began, in the Fertile Crescent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judging by the frailty of this response, I assume you know that there was an ice age that ended during this time, which is corroborated by multiple scientific disciplines and observations. This fact adequately explains why we find so many flood stories. You're right, it is no coincidence.
Click to expand...


I can see that the ice age was a direct result of the FLOOD and that it happened faster than uniformitarians presently understand.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because when the last ice age ended around twelve thousand years ago, and the glaciers receded, the ice melted causing massive flooding. This is why so many flood stories are found in and around Mesopotamia after that time, which is where civilization began, in the Fertile Crescent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Demonstrable.
> 
> The problem you're faced with is a vast assembly of physical evidence that presents a convincing case for an ice age in the not too distant past. This is an obvious contradiction to biblical tales and fables due to the timelines in the bibles which, despite your fundamentalist beliefs, are lacking any credibility versus the physical evidence.
Click to expand...


I'm waiting.


----------



## daws101

Intense said:


> Reality91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long was the first day?
Click to expand...

you'd have to clarify, were there days when the galaxy was forming? was time even a factor during the formation ?
maybe this will be easier [ame=http://youtu.be/buqtdpuZxvk]Galaxy Song - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a dishonest Ideologue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're embarrassed. Once again, you were exposed as a fraud by copying and pasting falsified quotes that you scour from creationist websites.
> 
> Similarly, your silly copy and paste from the charlatan Behe have been refuted as fraudulent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the science community debate the man or that matter even respond to him if his arguments were no threat ? kinda like how you and daws operate.
Click to expand...

fine example of your paranoia..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A link was provided in the first post pervert, learn to read.
> 
> 
> 
> stating fact is in no way a perversion.. but quote mining  is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You bring this slap dick up to often for it not to be something you do or think about a lot.
Click to expand...

as always you're wrong, I bring it up as it's so you, that it's a shame you weren't named that before.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Reality91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been throughly refuted and the population growth rate better supports the worlds current population with the timeline and the people that came off the ark than it supports evolutionists millions of years story.
> 
> Population Statistics and a Young Earth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by
> 
> Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologetics Press - Population Statistics and a Young Earth
Click to expand...

EDITED FOR WALL OF TEXT VIOLATION....
COULD SOMBODY NEG REP YWC FOR THIS, I'M ALL OUT OF POINTS?


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the science community debate the man or that matter even respond to him if his arguments were no threat ? kinda like how you and daws operate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behe and Christian fundies are not a threat to the science community. Christian creationism has long ago been defined as void of science and simply a front for Christian cultists.
> 
> The danger represented by charlatans such as Behe and fundies such as yourself is your need to impose your retrograde fear and superstition on others, especially in the public school system. Should the teaching of Christianity in public schools become widespread, the harm it would cause our nation would be tragic. As fundie Christians would have it, school children would be taught that the bibles are literally true and that soundly based scientific principles, when not accord with the biblical interpretation, would cease to be fact.
> 
> Childrens minds would be confused because fear, ancient superstition and myth masquerading as science would be used to instill fear and superstition. Children in public schools should be encouraged to explore their curiosity about nature, science and the natural world and to use their curiosity to arrive at the facts of a matter by rational deduction framed by the discipline of the scientific method. Any attempts to indoctrinate our public school children with false information, fear instilling doctrines and ancient superstitions based on the unscientific hypotheses of christian creationists would be a tragedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is exactly what your secularized education has led to:
> 10 years later, the real story behind Columbine - USATODAY.com
Click to expand...

WAY TO MAKE HOLLIE'S POINT CRYSTAL CLEAR!  asshole!


----------



## daws101

hollie said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> behe and christian fundies are not a threat to the science community. Christian creationism has long ago been defined as void of science and simply a front for christian cultists.
> 
> The danger represented by charlatans such as behe and fundies such as yourself is your need to impose your retrograde fear and superstition on others, especially in the public school system. Should the teaching of christianity in public schools become widespread, the harm it would cause our nation would be tragic. As fundie christians would have it, school children would be taught that the bibles are literally true and that soundly based scientific principles, when not accord with the biblical interpretation, would cease to be fact.
> 
> Childrens minds would be confused because fear, ancient superstition and myth masquerading as science would be used to instill fear and superstition. Children in public schools should be encouraged to explore their curiosity about nature, science and the natural world and to use their curiosity to arrive at the facts of a matter by rational deduction framed by the discipline of the scientific method. Any attempts to indoctrinate our public school children with false information, fear instilling doctrines and ancient superstitions based on the unscientific hypotheses of christian creationists would be a tragedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> don't you ever get tired of spewing this bullshit?? Over 1000 pages and you can't come up with any new cut and pastes? Get a life!!! Seriously, you need to get out the house. Step away from the computer. You have lost all touch with reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> isn't this like the 8th time you have done the pissy schoolgirl thing and stormed away because your fundie christian arguments have been totally dismantled?
> 
> Once again, you enter thread with no purpose than stalking me as a desperate plea for attention.
Click to expand...

bump! Bump bump!


----------



## daws101

littlenipper said:


> please read: evidence against evolution (concise and short)


the no evidence is evidence ploy...


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
> 
> If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why would the gawds provide for incestuous relationships (Noah's immediate family) as the means to repopulate the planet?
Click to expand...

Isn't that the plot for the film deliverance?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
> 
> If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the population growth argument it explains it in detail.
> 
> The human population of the world supports a young earth.
> 
> World Population Since Creation
> 
> NOVA | World in the Balance | Human Numbers Through Time | PBS
Click to expand...

once again ywc extreme dishonesty shines  nowhere in the PBS doc is Noah or god or creation even hinted at.
you are quote mining and fraudulently misinterpreting the info . slap dick !


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
> 
> If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why would the gawds provide for incestuous relationships (Noah's immediate family) as the means to repopulate the planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read your bible noah's sons had wives that were not related to them. Evolution allows and needed incest to populate the earth to but God is wrong because he may have allowed it at a time when man was closer to perfection with less chance of passing on genetic disorders. God did put a stop to it at a certain point because he knew the harm that would come if it was still practiced.
> 
> If you think about it since evolution is your answer on how the planet got filled with living organisms,incestral relationships had to populate the earth. How did groups of organisms survive this practice if they were not near perfection ?
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Delilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did noah gets the animals from australia to his boat in the middle east?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want my opinion,the global flood caused the ice age and in that ice age produced land bridges . Evolutionist believe land bridges was how animals migrated all over the world. Evolutionist would need to explain how and what animals evolved from that are in australia if there were no major animal migrations. Remember evolutionist believe all organisms are decendants of the origional life that started so evolutionist are faced with the same question.
> 
> 
> Here are some of the explanations from a creationists view.
> 
> 
> How Did Animals Spread All Over the World from Where the Ark Landed? - Answers in Genesis
Click to expand...

 the most hilarious thing about this steaming pile of bullshit is ywc believes it true! ahahahahahahahahahah!


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speculative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judging by the frailty of this response, I assume you know that there was an ice age that ended during this time, which is corroborated by multiple scientific disciplines and observations. This fact adequately explains why we find so many flood stories. You're right, it is no coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see that the ice age was a direct result of the FLOOD and that it happened faster than uniformitarians presently understand.
Click to expand...


It's difficult to imagine the self-deceit and lies you must accept in order to reject all facts that differ from what you prefer to believe.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judging by the frailty of this response, I assume you know that there was an ice age that ended during this time, which is corroborated by multiple scientific disciplines and observations. This fact adequately explains why we find so many flood stories. You're right, it is no coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that the ice age was a direct result of the FLOOD and that it happened faster than uniformitarians presently understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's difficult to imagine the self-deceit and lies you must accept in order to reject all facts that differ from what you prefer to believe.
Click to expand...

not if you prefer ignorance.

A little side note: some parts of the earth have NEVER been covered with water .
the continent of Australia  springs to mind.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hey GT I see more things like this going on:

http://www.emilynghiem.com.istemp.com/forum/debaters.jpg


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


>



Try discussing what Jesus represents in terms of Justice.
We all have a concept of Justice, but do we believe we can all have it?
Do we believe retributive justice or restorative justice is more powerful?

If we believe in Justice but have yet to see it,
that's like faith in Jesus, what Jesus means, before we realize it if ever.

So yes, it helps to have faith in Jesus or Justice in order to seek it, live by it and receive it.


----------



## newpolitics

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence contradicts the Bible, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Click to expand...


There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory. Does god not even know the path To salvation that he supposedly offers? Or did he put that in the bible just to divide us, making it an evil god? Either way, your screwed.


----------



## newpolitics

LittleNipper said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speculative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judging by the frailty of this response, I assume you know that there was an ice age that ended during this time, which is corroborated by multiple scientific disciplines and observations. This fact adequately explains why we find so many flood stories. You're right, it is no coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see that the ice age was a direct result of the FLOOD and that it happened faster than uniformitarians presently understand.
Click to expand...


................................


----------



## newpolitics

newpolitics said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judging by the frailty of this response, I assume you know that there was an ice age that ended during this time, which is corroborated by multiple scientific disciplines and observations. This fact adequately explains why we find so many flood stories. You're right, it is no coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that the ice age was a direct result of the FLOOD and that it happened faster than uniformitarians presently understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay. Show me some links to demonstrable evidence that supports this.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

newpolitics said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence contradicts the Bible, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory. Does god not even know the path To salvation that he supposedly offers? Or did he put that in the bible just to divide us, making it an evil god? Either way, your screwed.
Click to expand...


Interesting.
I agree that if you enforce things in teh Bible as "Conditions" on salvation that contradicts itself and yes you screw things up that way. But that is part of the learning curve, and the real point is to FORGIVE those screwups, let go of manmade conditions we project, and that's when grace peace and salvation come to us.  We don't get there by striving to meet manmade conditions by which one person is judged over another. Both Buddha and Jesus taught to let go of this material conditional thinking and receiving higher wisdom or truth that transcends that. Jesus fulfills all the paths including the laws given by Moses, Buddha, etc. So the spirit and message Jesus represents is unique in that it connects all the others.

As for the Bible, I understand it as teaching that "restorative justice" is what saves us and our relationships to bring salvation to all humanity; and "retributive justice" is what kills our humanity and relationships.  You do have a choice, but by our free will and reason, we learn the difference between the two ways by Experience.  It makes no sense to judge people for our faults if God made us to be imperfect in how we exercise our minds and free will. What makes the difference is forgiveness, and once we learn then of course we choose forgiveness and correction over judgment and punishment.  So by definition once we truly understand then of course we will choose the right course of action; and if we are choosing incorrectly that means there is something we don't understand or we would choose better! 

Why judge then? The point is not to judge "people" but to judge one's judgment for the purpose of learning, improving and correction.  So again, justice for restoring relations by forgiveness, repentance and responsibility for restitution is what saves us; while imposing justice for retributive or punitive agenda is what causes killing and ill will in society.

Learning the difference that forgiveness and grace makes sets us free from strife and suffering, and that fulfills both the teachings in Buddhism, Christianity and all religions seeking God's universal Truth. The reason for the focus on Jesus is the central connection between all humanity in the forgiveness and spiritual process to reach full maturity.

Whatever is the ultimate Justice for All people to become one in peace and harmony,
that is what Jesus represents so that eventually all humanity will become unified in truth, even as we remain distinct individually and diverse culturally and religiously, there will be no false division when we are all neighbors in Christ living in spiritual harmony and agreement.


----------



## UltimateReality

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
> 
> If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?



Its called exponential growth. This chart says it all. The very steep line at the end is made entirely possible by the OIL age we are living in. The oil age has produced the excess of food making it possible for a few people to produce food for thousands.

Fileopulation curve.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> As do you, yet you know the answer? Argument from ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously Dude, you are getting as bad as Hawly. The Meyer hypothesis has been presented to you numerous times and you still wrongly claim an "argument from ignorance" when Meyers proof is no such thing. It is based on a process currently in operation, i.e., the origin of information with specificity only having an intelligent agent as its source. How long are you going to keep repeating the same WRONG thing over and over again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know it has, and his two fallacious arguments are completely unconvincing. His first argument, which attempts to dismantle abiogenesis with probability theory, is an argument from ignorance, since he nor anybody else has the numbers to describe accurately something we are ignorant to. I've mentioned  this numerous times yet you fail to adequately address. Instead you simply deny it and try to ridicule me for always calling out fallacies, without ever refuting my claims. Next, Meyers makes an inductive argument, claiming that because we are intelligent and wrote specifiable, digital code, DNA must also have an intelligent designer, being a code with apparently the same characteristics. It does not follow necessarily that DNA must also have had am intelligent designer. It is only a probabilistic determination, which is the major weakness of inductively derived conclusions. So, both prongs of Meyers argument are blatantly fallacious. An inductive argument isn't even formally valid. Try to actually address these charges instead of the usual sidestepping and ridiculing to get around these  blatant facts. You seem so enamored by Meyers false credentials, that won't admit to yourself, the possibility that he is wrong. You can still have your faith, just stop trying to prove religious claims in a scientific setting. It's never going to work. Just accept your delusion for what it is: an existential security blanket. At least, don't be deluded enough to think you are going to convince anybody here of your false beliefs. You're better off preaching the bible, since that is basically what you are trying to do- convince us of your god.
Click to expand...


Speaking of repeating the same thing over and over again, I have refuted your claims of induction and to deny Meyers argument is valid is to deny Darwin's argument is valid. Both rely on evidence of causes now in operation, a fact which you conveniently continue to fail to address. Or, the logic of it just escapes you.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because when the last ice age ended around twelve thousand years ago, and the glaciers receded, the ice melted causing massive flooding. This is why so many flood stories are found in and around Mesopotamia after that time, which is where civilization began, in the Fertile Crescent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judging by the frailty of this response, I assume you know that there was an ice age that ended during this time, which is corroborated by multiple scientific disciplines and observations. This fact adequately explains why we find so many flood stories. You're right, it is no coincidence.
Click to expand...


I think you are getting science confused with the Pixar Movie "Ice Age".


----------



## UltimateReality

LittleNipper said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see hollie thinks any rebuttal by the atheistic evolutionist refutes what a creationist say's,she is kinda shallow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I am willing to suggest that she has become indoctrinated and is seeing things through the eyes of a material world. She does not consider the heart of the matter nor see spritual influences. At the very least she is ignoring them. Hiter was not just some surprise. I feel he was the end result of the belief that one is only accountable to one's self. If anything, what happened in Gernany made many Americans of the 1950's very religious. And America of the 1950's seemed to be an improvement and was improving. It was not until America stopped growing spiritually that she began to drown.
Click to expand...


She uses the same flawed logic of the Libs, spewing hatred for God for Genocide while simultaneously calling for the death of millions of unborn babies. You can't reason with someone like Hawly, who is completely devoid of the ability to reason and think logically.


----------



## UltimateReality

G.T. said:


>



There are actually 66 *independent literary works* that either mention Christ by name or speak of or infer of his coming. 

The epitome of ignorance is the failure of someone to be able to discern between separate literary works simply because they have been gathered into a single collection.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did noah gets the animals from australia to his boat in the middle east?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want my opinion,the global flood caused the ice age and in that ice age produced land bridges . Evolutionist believe land bridges was how animals migrated all over the world. Evolutionist would need to explain how and what animals evolved from that are in australia if there were no major animal migrations. Remember evolutionist believe all organisms are decendants of the origional life that started so evolutionist are faced with the same question.
> 
> 
> Here are some of the explanations from a creationists view.
> 
> 
> How Did Animals Spread All Over the World from Where the Ark Landed? - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the most hilarious thing about this steaming pile of bullshit is ywc believes it true! ahahahahahahahahahah!
Click to expand...


Slap dick ! once again shows his ignorance of the theory he defends,priceless 


Land bridges are something like Internet company start-ups: once they were everywhere but today there are relatively few. However, those still left are important.

Bridging Continents with Land

A land bridge is a connection between landmasses that comes and goes. The land bridge we all think of today connects Alaska with Siberia when the sea level is low, as it did during the recent ice ages. When polar ice caps take water from the ocean, much of the Bering Sea, including the Bering Strait, becomes dry land. Geologists have named the land Beringia.

Similar land bridges are postulated between Britain and Europe, between New Guinea and Australia, between the Philippines and Indonesia, between Sri Lanka and India, and between the Southeast Asian mainland and the Indonesian islands.

A land bridge is like a real bridge in that not everything can cross it. Beringia, for instance, is too cold to serve as a highway for palm trees or any other tree. Carnivores won't move where the animals they feed on can't go. The main species of interest when we consider the ice-age land bridges is Homo sapiens, which invaded many areas during late glacial times. The earliest humans in Australia, the Philippines, Japan and the Americas probably arrived on land bridges.

The Rise and Fall of Land Bridges

You're such a dumbshit but funny


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence contradicts the Bible, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't. This is just your failed understanding because you heard it on Panda's thumb. You might try actually reading it for yourself. The Bible is very clear about the purpose of the law. All have the ability to choose to live under the law or choose to live under the forgiveness of the Cross.

Galatians 3 (NIV)

_10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.[e] 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because the righteous will live by faith.[f] 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, The person who does these things will live by them.[g] 13 *Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us*, for it is written: Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.[h] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

*The Law and the Promise*

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say and to seeds, meaning many people, but and to your seed, meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19 *Why, then, was the law given at all?* It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

Children of God

23 *Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.*

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 *There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.* 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise._


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want my opinion,the global flood caused the ice age and in that ice age produced land bridges . Evolutionist believe land bridges was how animals migrated all over the world. Evolutionist would need to explain how and what animals evolved from that are in australia if there were no major animal migrations. Remember evolutionist believe all organisms are decendants of the origional life that started so evolutionist are faced with the same question.
> 
> 
> Here are some of the explanations from a creationists view.
> 
> 
> How Did Animals Spread All Over the World from Where the Ark Landed? - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> the most hilarious thing about this steaming pile of bullshit is ywc believes it true! ahahahahahahahahahah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slap dick ! once again shows his ignorance of the theory he defends,priceless
> 
> 
> Land bridges are something like Internet company start-ups: once they were everywhere but today there are relatively few. However, those still left are important.
> 
> Bridging Continents with Land
> 
> A land bridge is a connection between landmasses that comes and goes. The land bridge we all think of today connects Alaska with Siberia when the sea level is low, as it did during the recent ice ages. When polar ice caps take water from the ocean, much of the Bering Sea, including the Bering Strait, becomes dry land. Geologists have named the land Beringia.
> 
> Similar land bridges are postulated between Britain and Europe, between New Guinea and Australia, between the Philippines and Indonesia, between Sri Lanka and India, and between the Southeast Asian mainland and the Indonesian islands.
> 
> A land bridge is like a real bridge in that not everything can cross it. Beringia, for instance, is too cold to serve as a highway for palm trees or any other tree. Carnivores won't move where the animals they feed on can't go. The main species of interest when we consider the ice-age land bridges is Homo sapiens, which invaded many areas during late glacial times. The earliest humans in Australia, the Philippines, Japan and the Americas probably arrived on land bridges.
> 
> The Rise and Fall of Land Bridges
> 
> You're such a dumbshit but funny
Click to expand...

your point?  as always you have no evidence that these land bridges were the work of god..
they are however a by product of glaciation..
once again proving  the real dumb shit is you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that the ice age was a direct result of the FLOOD and that it happened faster than uniformitarians presently understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's difficult to imagine the self-deceit and lies you must accept in order to reject all facts that differ from what you prefer to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if you prefer ignorance.
> 
> A little side note: some parts of the earth have NEVER been covered with water .
> the continent of Australia  springs to mind.
Click to expand...


You don't know what the hell you are talking about dummy.

The Ordovician Period: The Rise of The Cephalopods


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the most hilarious thing about this steaming pile of bullshit is ywc believes it true! ahahahahahahahahahah!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slap dick ! once again shows his ignorance of the theory he defends,priceless
> 
> 
> Land bridges are something like Internet company start-ups: once they were everywhere but today there are relatively few. However, those still left are important.
> 
> Bridging Continents with Land
> 
> A land bridge is a connection between landmasses that comes and goes. The land bridge we all think of today connects Alaska with Siberia when the sea level is low, as it did during the recent ice ages. When polar ice caps take water from the ocean, much of the Bering Sea, including the Bering Strait, becomes dry land. Geologists have named the land Beringia.
> 
> Similar land bridges are postulated between Britain and Europe, between New Guinea and Australia, between the Philippines and Indonesia, between Sri Lanka and India, and between the Southeast Asian mainland and the Indonesian islands.
> 
> A land bridge is like a real bridge in that not everything can cross it. Beringia, for instance, is too cold to serve as a highway for palm trees or any other tree. Carnivores won't move where the animals they feed on can't go. The main species of interest when we consider the ice-age land bridges is Homo sapiens, which invaded many areas during late glacial times. The earliest humans in Australia, the Philippines, Japan and the Americas probably arrived on land bridges.
> 
> The Rise and Fall of Land Bridges
> 
> You're such a dumbshit but funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your point?  as always you have no evidence that these land bridges were the work of god..
> they are however a by product of glaciation..
> once again proving  the real dumb shit is you.
Click to expand...


Trying to spin out of your stupidity ? no one will take you serious from this point on I hope no one ever did.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence contradicts the Bible, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. This is just your failed understanding because you heard it on Panda's thumb. You might try actually reading it for yourself. The Bible is very clear about the purpose of the law. All have the ability to choose to live under the law or choose to live under the forgiveness of the Cross.
> 
> Galatians 3 (NIV)
> 
> _10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.[e] 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because the righteous will live by faith.[f] 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, The person who does these things will live by them.[g] 13 *Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us*, for it is written: Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.[h] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
> 
> *The Law and the Promise*
> 
> 15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say and to seeds, meaning many people, but and to your seed, meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
> 
> 19 *Why, then, was the law given at all?* It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
> 
> 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
> 
> Children of God
> 
> 23 *Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.*
> 
> 26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 *There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.* 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise._
Click to expand...

_bullshit alert!
 A List of Biblical Contradictions (1992)

 Jim Meritt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Editor's note: Not everyone will agree that all of the listed "contradictions" are, in fact, contradictions. It is therefore up to the reader to use his/her own intelligence and decide for himself/herself what s/he can and will accept as a contradiction. In other words, you need not agree with what Meritt sees as a problem or contradiction. It should be kept in mind, however, that a perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient god would reasonably be expected to have done a better job of it than the Bible had such a god inspired a book. In any case, lists such as this can be useful in serving as a springboard for further study. For more, see also: Biblical Errancy and Biblical Criticism.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of my statements, past, present and future express solely my opinions and/or beliefs and do not in any way represent those of any of my employer's unless such is specifically stated in the content of the text. (Jim Merrit)

Table of Contents
Introduction to Contradictions
Contradictions
References

Introduction to Contradictions

The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?

4. "There was just a copying/writing error." This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

6. "God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A List Of Biblical Contradictions


using the bible to prove the bible is also a contradiction!

odd how "Christians" will say and do highly non Christian shit to cover the bibles fuck ups._


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the most hilarious thing about this steaming pile of bullshit is ywc believes it true! ahahahahahahahahahah!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slap dick ! once again shows his ignorance of the theory he defends,priceless
> 
> 
> Land bridges are something like Internet company start-ups: once they were everywhere but today there are relatively few. However, those still left are important.
> 
> Bridging Continents with Land
> 
> A land bridge is a connection between landmasses that comes and goes. The land bridge we all think of today connects Alaska with Siberia when the sea level is low, as it did during the recent ice ages. When polar ice caps take water from the ocean, much of the Bering Sea, including the Bering Strait, becomes dry land. Geologists have named the land Beringia.
> 
> Similar land bridges are postulated between Britain and Europe, between New Guinea and Australia, between the Philippines and Indonesia, between Sri Lanka and India, and between the Southeast Asian mainland and the Indonesian islands.
> 
> A land bridge is like a real bridge in that not everything can cross it. Beringia, for instance, is too cold to serve as a highway for palm trees or any other tree. Carnivores won't move where the animals they feed on can't go. The main species of interest when we consider the ice-age land bridges is Homo sapiens, which invaded many areas during late glacial times. The earliest humans in Australia, the Philippines, Japan and the Americas probably arrived on land bridges.
> 
> The Rise and Fall of Land Bridges
> 
> You're such a dumbshit but funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your point?  as always you have no evidence that these land bridges were the work of god..
> they are however a by product of glaciation..
> once again proving  the real dumb shit is you.
Click to expand...


So dummy how did the animals and humans get to Australia ? 

Don't use terms you don't understand, you're are just making yourself look like you're full of shit which we already knew.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. This is just your failed understanding because you heard it on Panda's thumb. You might try actually reading it for yourself. The Bible is very clear about the purpose of the law. All have the ability to choose to live under the law or choose to live under the forgiveness of the Cross.
> 
> Galatians 3 (NIV)
> 
> _10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.[e] 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because the righteous will live by faith.[f] 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, The person who does these things will live by them.[g] 13 *Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us*, for it is written: Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.[h] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
> 
> *The Law and the Promise*
> 
> 15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say and to seeds, meaning many people, but and to your seed, meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
> 
> 19 *Why, then, was the law given at all?* It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
> 
> 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
> 
> Children of God
> 
> 23 *Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.*
> 
> 26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 *There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.* 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _bullshit alert!
> A List of Biblical Contradictions (1992)
> 
> Jim Meritt
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [Editor's note: Not everyone will agree that all of the listed "contradictions" are, in fact, contradictions. It is therefore up to the reader to use his/her own intelligence and decide for himself/herself what s/he can and will accept as a contradiction. In other words, you need not agree with what Meritt sees as a problem or contradiction. It should be kept in mind, however, that a perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient god would reasonably be expected to have done a better job of it than the Bible had such a god inspired a book. In any case, lists such as this can be useful in serving as a springboard for further study. For more, see also: Biblical Errancy and Biblical Criticism.]
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> All of my statements, past, present and future express solely my opinions and/or beliefs and do not in any way represent those of any of my employer's unless such is specifically stated in the content of the text. (Jim Merrit)
> 
> Table of Contents
> Introduction to Contradictions
> Contradictions
> References
> 
> Introduction to Contradictions
> 
> The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.
> 
> Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:
> 
> 1. "That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...
> 
> 2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.
> 
> 3. "It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?
> 
> 4. "There was just a copying/writing error." This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong.
> 
> 5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.
> 
> 6. "God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A List Of Biblical Contradictions
> 
> 
> using the bible to prove the bible is also a contradiction!
> 
> odd how "Christians" will say and do highly non Christian shit to cover the bibles fuck ups._
Click to expand...

_

Dummy is trying to change the subject _


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slap dick ! once again shows his ignorance of the theory he defends,priceless
> 
> 
> Land bridges are something like Internet company start-ups: once they were everywhere but today there are relatively few. However, those still left are important.
> 
> Bridging Continents with Land
> 
> A land bridge is a connection between landmasses that comes and goes. The land bridge we all think of today connects Alaska with Siberia when the sea level is low, as it did during the recent ice ages. When polar ice caps take water from the ocean, much of the Bering Sea, including the Bering Strait, becomes dry land. Geologists have named the land Beringia.
> 
> Similar land bridges are postulated between Britain and Europe, between New Guinea and Australia, between the Philippines and Indonesia, between Sri Lanka and India, and between the Southeast Asian mainland and the Indonesian islands.
> 
> A land bridge is like a real bridge in that not everything can cross it. Beringia, for instance, is too cold to serve as a highway for palm trees or any other tree. Carnivores won't move where the animals they feed on can't go. The main species of interest when we consider the ice-age land bridges is Homo sapiens, which invaded many areas during late glacial times. The earliest humans in Australia, the Philippines, Japan and the Americas probably arrived on land bridges.
> 
> The Rise and Fall of Land Bridges
> 
> You're such a dumbshit but funny
> 
> 
> 
> your point?  as always you have no evidence that these land bridges were the work of god..
> they are however a by product of glaciation..
> once again proving  the real dumb shit is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to spin out of your stupidity ? no one will take you serious from this point on I hope no one ever did.
Click to expand...

no just pointing out the major flaws in your non logic.
there you go again making slapdicky statements.
the fact is no one with  even the smallest amount of intelligence or the ability to read has ever taken you seriously.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your point?  as always you have no evidence that these land bridges were the work of god..
> they are however a by product of glaciation..
> once again proving  the real dumb shit is you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to spin out of your stupidity ? no one will take you serious from this point on I hope no one ever did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no just pointing out the major flaws in your non logic.
> there you go again making slapdicky statements.
> the fact is no one with  even the smallest amount of intelligence or the ability to read has ever taken you seriously.
Click to expand...


You're a fool and a fool you will always be but it is fun exposing your ignorance of the theory you defend,priceless.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slap dick ! once again shows his ignorance of the theory he defends,priceless
> 
> 
> Land bridges are something like Internet company start-ups: once they were everywhere but today there are relatively few. However, those still left are important.
> 
> Bridging Continents with Land
> 
> A land bridge is a connection between landmasses that comes and goes. The land bridge we all think of today connects Alaska with Siberia when the sea level is low, as it did during the recent ice ages. When polar ice caps take water from the ocean, much of the Bering Sea, including the Bering Strait, becomes dry land. Geologists have named the land Beringia.
> 
> Similar land bridges are postulated between Britain and Europe, between New Guinea and Australia, between the Philippines and Indonesia, between Sri Lanka and India, and between the Southeast Asian mainland and the Indonesian islands.
> 
> A land bridge is like a real bridge in that not everything can cross it. Beringia, for instance, is too cold to serve as a highway for palm trees or any other tree. Carnivores won't move where the animals they feed on can't go. The main species of interest when we consider the ice-age land bridges is Homo sapiens, which invaded many areas during late glacial times. The earliest humans in Australia, the Philippines, Japan and the Americas probably arrived on land bridges.
> 
> The Rise and Fall of Land Bridges
> 
> You're such a dumbshit but funny
> 
> 
> 
> your point?  as always you have no evidence that these land bridges were the work of god..
> they are however a by product of glaciation..
> once again proving  the real dumb shit is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So dummy how did the animals and humans get to Australia ?
> 
> Don't use terms you don't understand, you're are just making yourself look like you're full of shit which we already knew.
Click to expand...

that's never stopped you...
well dummy...ever heard of plate tectonics? continental drift? you did know that at one point in time all of the continents were one super continent :  Supercontinent" is a term used for a large landmass formed by the convergence of multiple continents. The most frequently referenced supercontinent is known as "Pangaea" (also "Pangea"), which existed approximately 225 million years ago. It is thought that all major continents at that time were assembled into the Pangaea supercontinent.  
The supercontinent of Pangaea subsequently fragmented and the pieces now account for Earth's current continents. The geography of Pangaea and the more recent continent movements are shown the the map sequence below. 

The theory of plate tectonics provides an explanation for these continent movements. According to this theory Earth's outer shell is divided into a series of plates. These plates consist of the crust and a small amount of the underlying mantle. The plates slide over a weak zone in the mantle at a rate of a few centimeters per year. Convection currents in the mantle, caused by the escape of heat from Earth's interior, are what drives the movement of these plates. 

If you study the maps below you will see that the Atlantic Ocean is getting wider as a result of the plate movement. Also, the Pacific Ocean is closing. A new supercontinent might form when the Pacific Ocean completely closes and the continents surrounding it converge
Pangea Supercontinent - Pangaea Supercontinent - GEOLOGY.COM 

Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener

Australia's fossil past - australia.gov.au


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to spin out of your stupidity ? no one will take you serious from this point on I hope no one ever did.
> 
> 
> 
> no just pointing out the major flaws in your non logic.
> there you go again making slapdicky statements.
> the fact is no one with  even the smallest amount of intelligence or the ability to read has ever taken you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fool and a fool you will always be but it is fun exposing your ignorance of the theory you defend,priceless.
Click to expand...

 you've exposed nothing but your hubris.  the more you post the larger an asshole you become. 
that's only a guess ,because it's hard to imagine an anal aperture as large as you already are.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. This is just your failed understanding because you heard it on Panda's thumb. You might try actually reading it for yourself. The Bible is very clear about the purpose of the law. All have the ability to choose to live under the law or choose to live under the forgiveness of the Cross.
> 
> Galatians 3 (NIV)
> 
> _10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: &#8220;Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.&#8221;[e] 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because &#8220;the righteous will live by faith.&#8221;[f] 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, &#8220;The person who does these things will live by them.&#8221;[g] 13 *Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us*, for it is written: &#8220;Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.&#8221;[h] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
> 
> *The Law and the Promise*
> 
> 15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say &#8220;and to seeds,&#8221; meaning many people, but &#8220;and to your seed,&#8221; meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
> 
> 19 *Why, then, was the law given at all?* It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
> 
> 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
> 
> Children of God
> 
> 23 *Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.*
> 
> 26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 *There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.* 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham&#8217;s seed, and heirs according to the promise._
> 
> 
> 
> _bullshit alert!
> A List of Biblical Contradictions (1992)
> 
> Jim Meritt
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [Editor's note: Not everyone will agree that all of the listed "contradictions" are, in fact, contradictions. It is therefore up to the reader to use his/her own intelligence and decide for himself/herself what s/he can and will accept as a contradiction. In other words, you need not agree with what Meritt sees as a problem or contradiction. It should be kept in mind, however, that a perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient god would reasonably be expected to have done a better job of it than the Bible had such a god inspired a book. In any case, lists such as this can be useful in serving as a springboard for further study. For more, see also: Biblical Errancy and Biblical Criticism.]
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> All of my statements, past, present and future express solely my opinions and/or beliefs and do not in any way represent those of any of my employer's unless such is specifically stated in the content of the text. (Jim Merrit)
> 
> Table of Contents
> &#8226;Introduction to Contradictions
> &#8226;Contradictions
> &#8226;References
> 
> Introduction to Contradictions
> 
> The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.
> 
> Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:
> 
> 1. "That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...
> 
> 2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.
> 
> 3. "It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?
> 
> 4. "There was just a copying/writing error." This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong.
> 
> 5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.
> 
> 6. "God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A List Of Biblical Contradictions
> 
> 
> using the bible to prove the bible is also a contradiction!
> 
> odd how "Christians" will say and do highly non Christian shit to cover the bibles fuck ups._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> Dummy is trying to change the subject _
Click to expand...

_

Actually, it was stalker fundie who chose proselytizing and ignorantly using the bibles to prove the bibles are true.

That&#8217;s especially ironic when proselytizing and ignorantly using the bibles to prove the bibles are true only proves the bibles are a mess.

ON SEEING GOD
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18


ON THE POWER OF GOD
"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19 Note: not "would not" but could not.


ON MAKING GRAVEN IMAGES
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water". (Lev. 26:1)

"[And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying...] And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them." (Exodus 25:18)


ON PUNISHING CRIME
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5


ON TEMPTATION
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1


ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
"Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26


ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
"...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9

"...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29


ON GOD CHANGING HIS MIND
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." (Ezek. 24:14; James 1:17)

"And the Lord repented of the evil which he had thought to do unto his people." (Gen. 6:6; Jonah 3:10; Sam. 2:30-31; II Kings 20:1-6; Num. 16:20-35)

I think it's time for yet more bibles to correct the errors, omissions, contradictions and outright falsehoods._


----------



## emilynghiem

Sophist said:


> Millions of the smartest people in the world advocate the fact that the world is at least older than 6000. I don't know but given the facts I vote for the scientists.


I vote for the interpretation of the Bible that the 6000 year timeline refers to the Hebrew Lineage, and the 6 Days of Creation refers to 6 Ages or Epochs (not literal earth days).

Would you vote for a political candidate you don't agree with?
Then why vote for a Biblical interpretation you disagree with?



Sophist said:


> Creationists then say: But it's highly unlikely the world was created from a simultaneous explosion into what it is today...
> 
> My reply: Well it is highly unlikely that the single specific sperm cell that fertilized the egg within your mother's womb was able to make the creature that you call yourself today yet it happened didn't it?



Creationists I know make a similar argument as you, about the chances of random DNA creating a human being instead of some kind of higher plan or intentional order.

So are you OK when they use a similar argument in favor of their views over yours?


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Behe and Christian fundies are not a threat to the science community. Christian creationism has long ago been defined as void of science and simply a front for Christian cultists.
> 
> The danger represented by charlatans such as Behe and fundies such as yourself is your need to impose your retrograde fear and superstition on others, especially in the public school system. Should the teaching of Christianity in public schools become widespread, the harm it would cause our nation would be tragic. As fundie Christians would have it, school children would be taught that the bibles are literally true and that soundly based scientific principles, when not accord with the biblical interpretation, would cease to be fact.
> 
> Childrens minds would be confused because fear, ancient superstition and myth masquerading as science would be used to instill fear and superstition. Children in public schools should be encouraged to explore their curiosity about nature, science and the natural world and to use their curiosity to arrive at the facts of a matter by rational deduction framed by the discipline of the scientific method. Any attempts to indoctrinate our public school children with false information, fear instilling doctrines and ancient superstitions based on the unscientific hypotheses of christian creationists would be a tragedy.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is exactly what your secularized education has led to:
> 10 years later, the real story behind Columbine - USATODAY.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WAY TO MAKE HOLLIE'S POINT CRYSTAL CLEAR!  asshole!
Click to expand...


Hollie's point was that bringing Creationism into the classroom would cause fear, confusion, and bring about superstition. Well, the TRUTH is that the public school system in these United States has had 50 years of no Christian understanding expressed and little such influence (due to governmental legal control). The result has been fear, confusion, and the growth of superstious hedonism. The gothic movement, mass shootings, and a breakdown of stable family values. Instead of coming out of the cave, as evolutionists promote, society seems to be headed towards a new dark age. Students are faced with making poor judgment calls with regard to hygene, sex, drugs, behavior patterns. Abortion rates have gone up. Unwed motherhood has increased. Boys thinks they are girls and girls think they are boys. Both think that skin is a canvas for billboard displays and punching holes in the likes of which have not been seen even among jungle tribes.
The truth is that while American Judao/Christian values had an open expression in the public school classroom, things were not perfect; however, things were far more stable. There was far less confusion between what was right and wrong/logical and illogical. Agnostic/hedonistic opinion/values faced opposition and didn't have an unlimited influence.  
Note: I have not stooped to childish name calling and feel that I have presented a fair apraisal from a position of having witnessed the time period in question. I lived the educational changes from 50's/early 60's education to the downward spiral after the fall of 1963. The change was drastic and immediate. I can see that only the reintroduction of God in some degree of representation is what will reestablish progressive education, and help end the increasing cicle of helpless negativity so pervasive throughout society today.


----------



## Borderline

Well, the question itself has holes in it. It leads one to arrive at an answer that anyone who does agree with the subject matter is stupid or ignorant. The ignorant, we can deal with... they can be informed. Stupid are those who are informed but too stuck in an opinion to change point of view or to attempt to rationalize opposing point of view or ideology. Stupid can be; arranging questions in a manner as to focus the attention away from the subject in question and onto someone else's supposed ignorance or strupidity. Now... let's re-arrange a bit; the context of the question. **How does one come to a conclusion that the earth is [only] 6000 years old?** I see how a person can come to that conclusion, *if so desired*[because I have done it]... just as I can see how people more readily accept the explanation that it to be much older. I can find agreement with both conclusions.
   First, let's go with science and technology. Let's try to avoid "psuedo-science" let's try to avoid ideology of bought off scientists who may be agenda based... those who believe the statistcs presented by science... must have "faith" in the research... and that "faith" the sole factor that allows agreement with the conclusion. The research is based on presented "evidence". We *know* from evidence of bone dicovery there were at one time GREAT land animals that roamed the earth, we reference them in a category called "dinosaurs". To date, there has  been no evidence of any drawing upon the wall of any cave by earliest "man"... a dinosaur. Is that evidence that the dinosaur never existed... was at one time, I suspect. To me... it's more evidence that "man" did not exist during the same time frame. Some millinia later... beacuse they were mainly cave dwellers, and again, *I* suspect did quite a bit of digging *within* the caves for specific purposes such as fire pits... a bone might be unearthed that was a point of amazement to the one who found it. From that bone great creatures may have been drawn on walls... the fiercer the creature the better. From earliest recorded history man has found great comfort and/or pride in over-coming the obstacles of his environment... the great bears and bison of America... as did those in Africa, the great cats and elephants. These things are documented and often illustrated. Sometimes the illustrations are today considered quite simple... generally in profile only... and quite 2 demisional. This held true through the construction and use of the great pyramids... both Egyptian and otherwise[Mayan for example]. Totem poles and carvings in weaponry brought in 3-D to a degree. But that ability seemed to have found its' way into the art world and dissappeared again for some time[lost to flat panel illustration]. Anyway... as far as science detected time relationships... it's based for acceptance in the human's ability to reason with the explanation. Many explanations have been discounted over the years... due to admittance later of the fraud purpetrated by the one who did the original presentations... Darwin is a good example. BUT, as yet there has been no scientific rebuttal to date that will clearly state that his theories along with those who both prceded and followed him... that the *theory* itself is not worthy of investigation. A great many, this day, still subscribe to Darwin's theories. There seems to be a point today... where, if man cannot explain a thing... it's little more than something within  "NATURAL OCCURENCES", that just hasn't been properly addressed. THIS where I find humor with ANY governing agency or body that believes it can control nature. Weather/climate being a specific point of contention... and issue these days. But he'll try to sell his wares... because it gives the governing body more control over those governed. Generally the outcome to the governed is severe in personal losses and costs while enriching those who supported the governing forces.
   Well, back on subject, whether it's right or wrong... dependent on how believable it becomes to the masses... a thing is proven to be scientifically acceptable within the "community at large". Man cannot control nature. Where is the scientific data that proves that last sentence true or false? A Deity did not create the heavens and the earth... much "evidence" has been ammased to show how a great many things of re-occurence *may* have transpired. If you have *faith* in the research... then you'll easily agree. But as yet... there has been no scientist or group of scientists that can discount the theory that a Deity did, in fact, create the heavens and earth. I believe many scientists, researchers, naturists, among others have been trying to discount the ideology of the Creation for some time. BUT, also, I believe, related to a scientist or one of curiosity,.. as a child is drawn to disassemble a toy to see how it works... hopefully... THIS to also be the driving force behind much discovery, NOT to disprove a point but to have a better understanding of a thing. 
   Now... to the understanding as to how one might come to the conclusion that the earth is no more than 6000 years old... of course... we begin by accepting that several years have passed since the idea originally arose... which means... THAT time has added many more years. So hence we place a 6000+/- years old. Also... we must accept that who-so-ever makes that statement is held in deep religious conviction. So, whereby he may also accept much scientific information... THAT is not the basis of conclusion on the subject matter. The conclusion is based in the conviction of "THE WORD". Also many who have come to the same conclusion do NOT discount ALL scientific discovery... but accept both have merit. 
  The Text begins, "In the beginning..." this does relate to the beginning of all things... but the beginning of what we refer to as "earth's/the world's creation"... here *I* accept many things existed prior to this point... had already been created.
[NOT  TO WORRY, DEAR READER... we're not going sentence to sentence throughout the text] 
There are numerous interpretations as to what transpired... in various languages... the term in the original language of interpretation for "created" also defines "formed"... the one who forms a thing, may not have at the same time created it. So here we have an opening for rebuttal... related to the time constraints. It is my belief that a Deity of such a magnitude as to have done what has been presented thusfar... could have just as easily done all within the span of one day. At this point the text does NO reference of time... we have no idea if the "earth" was yet rotating on its' own axis, nor, if so... at the rate it does at present. We know there were waters, says so. Then "light" was created, at this point the only way to divide the light and darkness was to put the earth rotating on it's axis or in some manner place a block between the source of light and the earth, so I'm thinking this being the point the earth began rotating on its' own axis... anyone have any idea how much "time" transpired during this and the last event? I think not. And the "light" was not the light of the sun... yet to be created. So THIS light may have encompassed the whole earth... if darkness came first... is darkness the absence of light? How would you define it? Anyhow... this is the light that defines day and night, today we use the sun which was not in existence as yet... so how many hours of daylight were there by standards of THIS light? Well, the above is for reason... we seem to be very *TIME* oriented today... this is not the light that would become the acknowledged time table... a time for planting, a time to sow, a time to reap. These became the acknowleded timetables. The day from night time spectrum became times of duty and times of rest. Among all things. But we focus on time... and now MY explanation as to how one who follows the teachings coming to the "earth age" being as little as 6000+/- years. Psalms 90-4: "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday..." or 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day". You can mathmatically change the above noted time spectrums in either direction... more years, less years than have actually transpired. Imagine something thought to be a million years old or older. If each of those years might be accepted as a single day, and there are [now] 365 days in a year... how large can that number the million be expanded to? If 1000 years can be dwindled to the mind as a single day... what can 6000 years be dwindled to or expanded to? dwindled to 6 days... expanded to... infinity. This can be the understanding some want to express... for those who desire to use it as a point of argument... to rebute a statistic of acceptance, I feel sorry... more-so I feel they have the need to draw attention more to themselves than to a convicted belief. So as shown here, I can see where one comes to the "conclusion" that the earth is little more than 6000 years old... but THAT is... if you are GOD... those proclaiming this fall far from the ability to claim themselves as such. Just my humble opinion... may or may not reflect the opinion of staff and/or the management. Take it for what it is. What is presented shows that in GOD's eye, there is no conscript to time... in time all things will be... those things that have passed... did so in man's understanding of time. A thing that happened 10,000 years ago... in the mind of GOD is as fresh as it had happened yesterday. For too many, I sadly state it to be a ploy to give such explanation as so many tend to do without acknowledging... it may or may NOT apply to them... they are, in present state... merely mortal. I have found it not wise to play with the teachings of "mother nature" NOR... GOD. This is not a scientific explanation... not meant to be. This presented to show how one might present the "opinion" that according to scripture... one could see the age of the earth, as seen by GOD... as being as few as 6000 years old. Am I believer that the earth is merely 6000 years old? YES... am *I* a believer that in years as *I* understand a year to be... it is much older... YES.
Thank you for your indulgence. Now what I would suggest... if there is any misunderstanding a person has about ANY aspect of life... before pointing fingers and eluding to ignorance or stupidity of another... do some research into the matter. In that this question was posted on the internet... there is a WORLD of explanation to answer ANY question I have thus far seen posted anywhere... and some questions... well they just become rhetorical, because we have become a society that wants everyone else to do the footwork. Generally, I have found, one of the things that make life so seemingly complicated is a severe desire to NOT want to study anything... just be fed whatever anyone wants you to think.


----------



## LittleNipper

The simplistic explanation of my biblical belief is that God reveals through His Word that Adam was created (likely appearing as a fully mature, grown, 30 something, male. He likely was even designed with a navel) being the prototype for all humanity to come. Now, if one can accept this concept, the next step is to understand that God created and designed a perfect universe and earth with a perfect ecological system in place to support that man and eventually Eve.

Now when man sinned, confusion entered into the entire universe (all creation). From this point the perfect world began to be ruined. The violence among men is revealed in the Bible and finally the earth is changed even more rapidly by the Flood. Something man had never seen before. 

Logically, pre-existing rocks were crushed and once perfect strata ruptured and pulled apart. Out in space the universe (having been thrown out of wack) comets, asteroids, and meteors come into existance and hit the various planets, moons, etc., throughout the solar system & the entire universe. So, the result is that what was once created in 6 days has been mixed in with everything that happened during the Flood and has occurred since the Flood ended.

The obvious problem is that man now wants a "natural" explanation for what he finds, but is in fact missing the real interpretation without understanding God, Creation, and the Flood. The "natural" man cannot accept the spiritual reality and so he fabricates a "natural" tale from what he sees and comes to false conclusions. It isn't that there is no evidence for God. The "natural" man is simply ignoring that evidence to the point of not even understanding why society is becoming more and more unmanageable the farther it drifts from doing God's will.


----------



## Borderline

>>>The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors.<<< I have to disagree, the term Bible references to the modern word bibliography. It is NOT a history book, as history books are considered to be today... but a bibliography of the recordings of that history. >>>The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones?<<< What thing would GOD have created that was unclean? The times marked the understanding... also this was to include HUMANS of various tribes that were allowed into the ark. >>>The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection.<<< Disagrees[?] or one might include more information than the other. As stated throughout the Bible, not all were present at any given event... and the events of that day may have been passed to other disciples through letters or messengers. Also to be noted... most of the books were written from oral testimony or letters... not BY the original source, the disciple. >>>Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.<<< Again, I state... the Bible is a BIBLIOGRAPHY of the events, a layman might consider it a history book... he'd be in grave error to do so. 

Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:

1. >>>"That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...<<< Often Jesus spoke in parables. Does that make any interpretation of a parable a lie? I think not... however it can show a misunderstanding. Even the night before he is taken, Jesus makes reference to the disciples lack of understanding... THEY still have the view of MORTAL human beings and even after witnessing the "miracles" they had witnessed... were stuck, being mere mortals and lacked a full comprehension of just how vital they were to the over-all mission of Christ. They were fishermen, carpenters, soldiers, accountants, etc... there view of the mission, very limited... in NO way could they grasp completely the impact this "Man" would have on the world.

2. >>>"There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.<<< Merely as amusing as those who want to rebute its' presentation without a good understanding OF it?

3. >>>"It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?<<< At what point do you consider a thing taken out of context... John 3:16 pretty much will stand on its' own in any venue, I would think. I do not understand your point here.

4. >>>"There was just a copying/writing error." This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong.<<< There are numerous places where although a thing might be misinterpreted the end meaning be close enough and the same to pass through various understandings to mean the same... seen in the first book, first chapter, and verse... the term "created" and "formed" are the same when translated from the original text to Greek, although todays defining might find difference in the two terms.

5. >>>"That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.<<<Miracle: super-natural occurence. An occurence that cannot be defined by any natural explanation... happens every day... in all parts of the world. Why does the word miracle upset you so? Because it's not the term "super-natural"?

6. >>>"God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.<<<Sorry but I find your weak attempts of pointing finger at mere mortals short of amusing and generally poor in reasoning. Also... I believe, your understanding of the text is not thanks to study, but done with a preformed conclusion. Your dissappointment in mankind is not cause to point a finger at an interpretation one may have of the text. Perhaps you should be more intro-spective with accusation and a bit less in telling others of "lies" you did not find but went in search of.


----------



## Borderline

Does this show contradiction?
ON TEMPTATION
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1

 Abarham is not, was not... and never will be, GOD "for GOD cannot be tempted WITH EVIL, NEITHER tempteth him he any man"... There is a difference between "test" and "tempt", again... in various translation of original text... at the time of translation, the terms were quite inner-changeable. An examination of a complete English dictionary will verify this. Note that some of the meanings carry positive connotations, while some carry negative connotations. This is a fact and not debatable. And yes... God did TEST Abraham. As is and has been true throughout history and various cultures... James being of the Roman era, Abraham of the "Creation era", the terminology although still in use was used in context as a test of Abraham's dedication to GOD and not a temptation to do evil for a purpose against good and GOD. Also... you will find explanation of the terms and differences in the explanations within the writings themselves... through Concordance you can fit the statements and separate the differences in meaning... if you so desire... OR... you can completely omit such information if it fits your agenda... which I have found that the original poster does on a regular basis... I guess you are supposed to take ANY written word, by any author and accept it as you understand it... discount of course that you may not understand any word in it... don't consult an encyclopedia or dictionary. Just take it at face value as the posting individual would like to present it. I find no contradiction here as with most of the so-called contradictions posted. And if he weren't so diametrically opposed to the study, I'm quite sure, with a little research, so that he might gain a better understanding of the subject matter he is so laxxed on... he himself might be amazed at actually understanding what is being presented... a GREAT deal better. Perhaps that poster will enlighten us again... by telling us... what did GOD promise Abraham as payment for his falling to the temptattion... for temptation... there has to be a reward. Satan tempted Christ... promising Him grand rewards, Eve was tempted by Satan in form of reward... she was to have her eyes opened... and become acknowledged in all things. So what was Abraham's reward in the temptation to be?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously Dude, you are getting as bad as Hawly. The Meyer hypothesis has been presented to you numerous times and you still wrongly claim an "argument from ignorance" when Meyers proof is no such thing. It is based on a process currently in operation, i.e., the origin of information with specificity only having an intelligent agent as its source. How long are you going to keep repeating the same WRONG thing over and over again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know it has, and his two fallacious arguments are completely unconvincing. His first argument, which attempts to dismantle abiogenesis with probability theory, is an argument from ignorance, since he nor anybody else has the numbers to describe accurately something we are ignorant to. I've mentioned  this numerous times yet you fail to adequately address. Instead you simply deny it and try to ridicule me for always calling out fallacies, without ever refuting my claims. Next, Meyers makes an inductive argument, claiming that because we are intelligent and wrote specifiable, digital code, DNA must also have an intelligent designer, being a code with apparently the same characteristics. It does not follow necessarily that DNA must also have had am intelligent designer. It is only a probabilistic determination, which is the major weakness of inductively derived conclusions. So, both prongs of Meyers argument are blatantly fallacious. An inductive argument isn't even formally valid. Try to actually address these charges instead of the usual sidestepping and ridiculing to get around these  blatant facts. You seem so enamored by Meyers false credentials, that won't admit to yourself, the possibility that he is wrong. You can still have your faith, just stop trying to prove religious claims in a scientific setting. It's never going to work. Just accept your delusion for what it is: an existential security blanket. At least, don't be deluded enough to think you are going to convince anybody here of your false beliefs. You're better off preaching the bible, since that is basically what you are trying to do- convince us of your god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of repeating the same thing over and over again, I have refuted your claims of induction and to deny Meyers argument is valid is to deny Darwin's argument is valid. Both rely on evidence of causes now in operation, a fact which you conveniently continue to fail to address. Or, the logic of it just escapes you.
Click to expand...


You haven't refuted any of my claims. Meyers does not rely on forces now in operation. He makes assumptions he is not justified in making, such as Pretending that his probabilities accurately describe anything. Tell me, how does he know what numbers to plug into his probabilities? How does he know his numbers are descriptive of what happened? He doesn't. He is just selling an idea, and you've bought it. Whether it not he is using forces now in operation doesn't save him from his use of an inductive argument. Try actually researching inductive reasoning so you can understand what he is doing, Although I am guessing you don't really want to find out how wrong he is. Your stupid equivalency  of meyers argument  to darwin's is laughable. Darwin had direct, demonstrable evidence for his claims. Meyers has none.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your point?  as always you have no evidence that these land bridges were the work of god..
> they are however a by product of glaciation..
> once again proving  the real dumb shit is you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So dummy how did the animals and humans get to Australia ?
> 
> Don't use terms you don't understand, you're are just making yourself look like you're full of shit which we already knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's never stopped you...
> well dummy...ever heard of plate tectonics? continental drift? you did know that at one point in time all of the continents were one super continent :  Supercontinent" is a term used for a large landmass formed by the convergence of multiple continents. The most frequently referenced supercontinent is known as "Pangaea" (also "Pangea"), which existed approximately 225 million years ago. It is thought that all major continents at that time were assembled into the Pangaea supercontinent.
> The supercontinent of Pangaea subsequently fragmented and the pieces now account for Earth's current continents. The geography of Pangaea and the more recent continent movements are shown the the map sequence below.
> 
> The theory of plate tectonics provides an explanation for these continent movements. According to this theory Earth's outer shell is divided into a series of plates. These plates consist of the crust and a small amount of the underlying mantle. The plates slide over a weak zone in the mantle at a rate of a few centimeters per year. Convection currents in the mantle, caused by the escape of heat from Earth's interior, are what drives the movement of these plates.
> 
> If you study the maps below you will see that the Atlantic Ocean is getting wider as a result of the plate movement. Also, the Pacific Ocean is closing. A new supercontinent might form when the Pacific Ocean completely closes and the continents surrounding it converge
> Pangea Supercontinent - Pangaea Supercontinent - GEOLOGY.COM
> 
> Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
> 
> Australia's fossil past - australia.gov.au
Click to expand...


You tried to spin out of your dumb, uneducated comments, I won't let you off the hook this time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Borderline said:


> Does this show contradiction?
> ON TEMPTATION
> "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13
> 
> "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1
> 
> Abarham is not, was not... and never will be, GOD "for GOD cannot be tempted WITH EVIL, NEITHER tempteth him he any man"... There is a difference between "test" and "tempt", again... in various translation of original text... at the time of translation, the terms were quite inner-changeable. An examination of a complete English dictionary will verify this. Note that some of the meanings carry positive connotations, while some carry negative connotations. This is a fact and not debatable. And yes... God did TEST Abraham. As is and has been true throughout history and various cultures... James being of the Roman era, Abraham of the "Creation era", the terminology although still in use was used in context as a test of Abraham's dedication to GOD and not a temptation to do evil for a purpose against good and GOD. Also... you will find explanation of the terms and differences in the explanations within the writings themselves... through Concordance you can fit the statements and separate the differences in meaning... if you so desire... OR... you can completely omit such information if it fits your agenda... which I have found that the original poster does on a regular basis... I guess you are supposed to take ANY written word, by any author and accept it as you understand it... discount of course that you may not understand any word in it... don't consult an encyclopedia or dictionary. Just take it at face value as the posting individual would like to present it. I find no contradiction here as with most of the so-called contradictions posted. And if he weren't so diametrically opposed to the study, I'm quite sure, with a little research, so that he might gain a better understanding of the subject matter he is so laxxed on... he himself might be amazed at actually understanding what is being presented... a GREAT deal better. Perhaps that poster will enlighten us again... by telling us... what did GOD promise Abraham as payment for his falling to the temptattion... for temptation... there has to be a reward. Satan tempted Christ... promising Him grand rewards, Eve was tempted by Satan in form of reward... she was to have her eyes opened... and become acknowledged in all things. So what was Abraham's reward in the temptation to be?



Tempt is a poor choice of words here the word should be tested.

Gen 22:1  And it happened after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham! And he said, Behold me. 

Here is the same verse in the jewish bible



The Torah (Jewish Bible)



Bereishit - Genesis - Chapter 22

 1. And it came to pass after these things, that God tested Abraham, and He said to him, "Abraham," and he said, "Here I am."

 &#1488;. &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1488;&#1463;&#1495;&#1463;&#1512; &#1492;&#1463;&#1491;&#1468;&#1456;&#1489;&#1464;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1461;&#1500;&#1468;&#1462;&#1492; &#1493;&#1456;&#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1504;&#1460;&#1505;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1488;&#1463;&#1489;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1492;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1461;&#1500;&#1464;&#1497;&#1493; &#1488;&#1463;&#1489;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1492;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1492;&#1460;&#1504;&#1468;&#1461;&#1504;&#1460;&#1497;:


Abraham was put to the test.

Putting someone to the test is what God will do God will not tempt someone.


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long was the first day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you'd have to clarify, were there days when the galaxy was forming? was time even a factor during the formation ?
> maybe this will be easier [ame=http://youtu.be/buqtdpuZxvk]Galaxy Song - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day).  God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.


----------



## LittleNipper

newpolitics said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence contradicts the Bible, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory. Does god not even know the path To salvation that he supposedly offers? Or did he put that in the bible just to divide us, making it an evil god? Either way, your screwed.
Click to expand...


Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...


----------



## Youwerecreated

LittleNipper said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence contradicts the Bible, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory. Does god not even know the path To salvation that he supposedly offers? Or did he put that in the bible just to divide us, making it an evil god? Either way, your screwed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...
Click to expand...


I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.


----------



## Hollie

emilynghiem said:


> Sophist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of the smartest people in the world advocate the fact that the world is at least older than 6000. I don't know but given the facts I vote for the scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> I vote for the interpretation of the Bible that the 6000 year timeline refers to the Hebrew Lineage, and the 6 Days of Creation refers to 6 Ages or Epochs (not literal earth days).
> 
> Would you vote for a political candidate you don't agree with?
> Then why vote for a Biblical interpretation you disagree with?
> 
> 
> 
> Sophist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists then say: But it's highly unlikely the world was created from a simultaneous explosion into what it is today...
> 
> My reply: Well it is highly unlikely that the single specific sperm cell that fertilized the egg within your mother's womb was able to make the creature that you call yourself today yet it happened didn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationists I know make a similar argument as you, about the chances of random DNA creating a human being instead of some kind of higher plan or intentional order.
> 
> So are you OK when they use a similar argument in favor of their views over yours?
Click to expand...


 While you may wish to rewrite the bibles as many fundies do, the bad news is that you dont get a vote on which is the true definition of gawds. The gawds have left many contradictory conceptions of what they expect people to accept. Whether a single one of the many conceptions of gawds is true,  something completely different, or quite obviously, they're all man-made, you simply have to deal with it. You dont really get a vote in the matter and its not a majority rules issue.

 Hey-Zeus as a savior says something quite different from what competing religions claim. So why do you accept that claim (i.e., that he is your savior) but by implication reject other claims to gawds which are just as authoritative (i.e., that many people believe it)? 

If the alleged "deeper meanings" within any of the various competing religious / gawds are only accessible to personal interpretation, his do you know you have chosen the correct gawds? If you can't personally state your own beliefs and reasons for holding them, what merit is there in holding your beliefs? If you are consigned to accepting the portions of your religion that are acceptable to the religious authority or religious sect that you would prefer to believe, how do you choose that authority / sect except by the declarative "well mist people I know believe that" If it's only by virtue of an outside authority that one can be secure in one's faith, how do you avoid error in selecting your authority?

Secondly, I'm familiar with the ignorant and false claim by Christian fundies regarding "random DNA". That is an argument typically "quite-mined" from charlatans at Christian creationist ministries which is lapped up by fundies who are science illiterate. 

The principle of fitness for survival refutes the nonsensical "random DNA" nonsense. 

Lastly, why do creationist need to constantly re-write their bibles to avoid the errors and inconsistencies such as "days" becoming "epochs"?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory. Does god not even know the path To salvation that he supposedly offers? Or did he put that in the bible just to divide us, making it an evil god? Either way, your screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.
Click to expand...


Delete the adverb "sometimes" and your post is corrected. 

Burn in hell, sinner. It's the will of the gawds.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long was the first day?
> 
> 
> 
> you'd have to clarify, were there days when the galaxy was forming? was time even a factor during the formation ?
> maybe this will be easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day).  God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.
Click to expand...


YouTube


----------



## LittleNipper

newpolitics said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that the ice age was a direct result of the FLOOD and that it happened faster than uniformitarians presently understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Show me some links to demonstrable evidence that supports this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I'd like you to see some interesting Flood evidence: Ice Age Floods-Discover Glacial Lake Missoula and Lake Bonneville
> 
> Now, this is a uniformitarian site that believes in hundreds of millions of years; however, see it for what it is ----- FLOOD evidence that has been attributied to an Ice Age. I see it as Flood damage...
> 
> Note the rings formed by one small recent dam burst:
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sophist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of the smartest people in the world advocate the fact that the world is at least older than 6000. I don't know but given the facts I vote for the scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> I vote for the interpretation of the Bible that the 6000 year timeline refers to the Hebrew Lineage, and the 6 Days of Creation refers to 6 Ages or Epochs (not literal earth days).
> 
> Would you vote for a political candidate you don't agree with?
> Then why vote for a Biblical interpretation you disagree with?
> 
> 
> 
> Sophist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists then say: But it's highly unlikely the world was created from a simultaneous explosion into what it is today...
> 
> My reply: Well it is highly unlikely that the single specific sperm cell that fertilized the egg within your mother's womb was able to make the creature that you call yourself today yet it happened didn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationists I know make a similar argument as you, about the chances of random DNA creating a human being instead of some kind of higher plan or intentional order.
> 
> So are you OK when they use a similar argument in favor of their views over yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While you may wish to rewrite the bibles as many fundies do, the bad news is that you don&#8217;t get a vote on which is the true definition of gawds. The gawds have left many contradictory conceptions of what they expect people to accept. Whether a single one of the many conceptions of gawds is true,  something completely different, or quite obviously, they're all man-made, you simply have to deal with it. You don&#8217;t really get a vote in the matter and it&#8217;s not a majority rules issue.
> 
> Hey-Zeus as a savior says something quite different from what competing religions claim. So why do you accept that claim (i.e., that he is your savior) but by implication reject other claims to gawds which are just as authoritative (i.e., that many people believe it)?
> 
> If the alleged "deeper meanings" within any of the various competing religious / gawds are only accessible to personal interpretation, his do you know you have chosen the correct gawds? If you can't personally state your own beliefs and reasons for holding them, what merit is there in holding your beliefs? If you are consigned to accepting the portions of your religion that are acceptable to the religious authority or religious sect that you would prefer to believe, how do you choose that authority / sect except by the declarative "well mist people I know believe that&#8230;" If it's only by virtue of an outside authority that one can be secure in one's faith, how do you avoid error in selecting your authority?
> 
> Secondly, I'm familiar with the ignorant and false claim by Christian fundies regarding "random DNA". That is an argument typically "quite-mined" from charlatans at Christian creationist ministries which is lapped up by fundies who are science illiterate.
> 
> The principle of fitness for survival refutes the nonsensical "random DNA" nonsense.
> 
> Lastly, why do creationist need to constantly re-write their bibles to avoid the errors and inconsistencies such as "days" becoming "epochs"?
Click to expand...


Do you understand that people who wish to attack the bible look through the various bibles to find these contradictions ? as language evolves there are better terms to be used.

I posted the Jewish bible with the Hebrew writing, enough said.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Delete the adverb "sometimes" and your post is corrected.
> 
> Burn in hell, sinner. It's the will of the gawds.
Click to expand...


Your interpretation of Hell is not mine.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you'd have to clarify, were there days when the galaxy was forming? was time even a factor during the formation ?
> maybe this will be easier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day).  God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YouTube
Click to expand...


Ted Nugent - Uncle Ted on Gun Control

The point is that where the Federal government defines what everyone will do, rights are taken away from its citizens everywhere to decide how things will be done. And if the Federal Government is confused and agnostic and a spend thrift, the country becomes agnostic and confused and poor. Where the Federal Government mandates education, the students are limited to what the government believes is a resonable education and a proper mode of study. Everything is tied together with how the Government deals with God and Creationism. It does not stop there. The government will eventually want to decide what people believe --- Gun ownership is bad, Abortion is a good example of population control, Homosexual marriage is equal with heterosexual marriage, all opinion is equally valid unless it not accepted by the government....


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I vote for the interpretation of the Bible that the 6000 year timeline refers to the Hebrew Lineage, and the 6 Days of Creation refers to 6 Ages or Epochs (not literal earth days).
> 
> Would you vote for a political candidate you don't agree with?
> Then why vote for a Biblical interpretation you disagree with?
> 
> P
> 
> Creationists I know make a similar argument as you, about the chances of random DNA creating a human being instead of some kind of higher plan or intentional order.
> 
> So are you OK when they use a similar argument in favor of their views over yours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you may wish to rewrite the bibles as many fundies do, the bad news is that you don&#8217;t get a vote on which is the true definition of gawds. The gawds have left many contradictory conceptions of what they expect people to accept. Whether a single one of the many conceptions of gawds is true,  something completely different, or quite obviously, they're all man-made, you simply have to deal with it. You don&#8217;t really get a vote in the matter and it&#8217;s not a majority rules issue.
> 
> Hey-Zeus as a savior says something quite different from what competing religions claim. So why do you accept that claim (i.e., that he is your savior) but by implication reject other claims to gawds which are just as authoritative (i.e., that many people believe it)?
> 
> If the alleged "deeper meanings" within any of the various competing religious / gawds are only accessible to personal interpretation, his do you know you have chosen the correct gawds? If you can't personally state your own beliefs and reasons for holding them, what merit is there in holding your beliefs? If you are consigned to accepting the portions of your religion that are acceptable to the religious authority or religious sect that you would prefer to believe, how do you choose that authority / sect except by the declarative "well mist people I know believe that&#8230;" If it's only by virtue of an outside authority that one can be secure in one's faith, how do you avoid error in selecting your authority?
> 
> Secondly, I'm familiar with the ignorant and false claim by Christian fundies regarding "random DNA". That is an argument typically "quite-mined" from charlatans at Christian creationist ministries which is lapped up by fundies who are science illiterate.
> 
> The principle of fitness for survival refutes the nonsensical "random DNA" nonsense.
> 
> Lastly, why do creationist need to constantly re-write their bibles to avoid the errors and inconsistencies such as "days" becoming "epochs"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand that people who wish to attack the bible look through the various bibles to find these contradictions ? as language evolves there are better terms to be used.
> 
> I posted the Jewish bible with the Hebrew writing, enough said.
Click to expand...

How sad for creationist. 

Do you not understand that Judaism is not christianity? The different spelling should have been a clue. If you need Judaism to fill in the (gawds of the) gaps left by christianity, why not convert to Judaism?

Do you correct the bibles with passages from the Hindu scriptures, also?

How strange that you need to steal material from other religious to prop-up your religion. 

More than enough said.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day).  God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ted Nugent - Uncle Ted on Gun Control
Click to expand...


Uncle Ted don't care for liberal agendas.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delete the adverb "sometimes" and your post is corrected.
> 
> Burn in hell, sinner. It's the will of the gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your interpretation of Hell is not mine.
Click to expand...


Creationist have as many interpretations of hell as they do verses in their bibles. 

It's whatever you want it to be for conveniences' sake.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delete the adverb "sometimes" and your post is corrected.
> 
> Burn in hell, sinner. It's the will of the gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your interpretation of Hell is not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationist have as many interpretations of hell as they do verses in their bibles.
> 
> It's whatever you want it to be for conveniences' sake.
Click to expand...


From this point on I will ignore your posts you're simply to irrational to have a rational conversation with. For your information if you do some research you will find that Hades,Sheol,and Gahenna represent Hell and through careful interpretation they are referring to the Grave,not a place of torment. There is torment mentioned but,but there is no literal torment ,it is a metaphor dear. People have taken the fires and torment of Hell as literal but througfh study of the scriptures you can see that is not what is meant.


----------



## LittleNipper

Youwerecreated said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Nugent - Uncle Ted on Gun Control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncle Ted don't care for liberal agendas.
Click to expand...


He certainly does not pull any punches. He seems openly honest and at least more reasonable, than someone who imagins that if govenrmant makes blank laws that evil people will not find a way to do evil things. It is the honest person who gets hurt. The honest person pays the taxes too support the results of the evil person's evil habits.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delete the adverb "sometimes" and your post is corrected.
> 
> Burn in hell, sinner. It's the will of the gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your interpretation of Hell is not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationist have as many interpretations of hell as they do verses in their bibles.
> 
> It's whatever you want it to be for conveniences' sake.
Click to expand...


Hell means different things in the Bible. One must read the particular verses/chapter in context. Yes, I know that sometimes hell does mean the grave, sometimes a garbage dump and sometimes eternal separation from God. Hell is the timeless place people go who never wanted anything to do with God. They get their heart's desire. The issue is that everyone will see the glory of God one day and have a glimpse of heaven. But not all will be allowed to remain. That is hell.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your interpretation of Hell is not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist have as many interpretations of hell as they do verses in their bibles.
> 
> It's whatever you want it to be for conveniences' sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell means different things in the Bible. One must read the particular verses/chapter in context. Yes, I know that sometimes hell does mean the grave, sometimes a garbage dump and sometimes eternal separation from God. Hell is the timeless place people go who never wanted anything to do with God. They get their heart's desire. The issue is that everyone will see the glory of God one day and have a glimpse of heaven. But not all will be allowed to remain. That is hell.
Click to expand...


As to opinions, you are entitled to define hell as you wish. As you noted, "hell" Is subject to interpretation of the particular verse / chapter. The interpretation is also a function of the interpreter which means that "hell" can be whatever one wishes it to be. 

How convenient.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your interpretation of Hell is not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist have as many interpretations of hell as they do verses in their bibles.
> 
> It's whatever you want it to be for conveniences' sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From this point on I will ignore your posts you're simply to irrational to have a rational conversation with. For your information if you do some research you will find that Hades,Sheol,and Gahenna represent Hell and through careful interpretation they are referring to the Grave,not a place of torment. There is torment mentioned but,but there is no literal torment ,it is a metaphor dear. People have taken the fires and torment of Hell as literal but througfh study of the scriptures you can see that is not what is meant.
Click to expand...


Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've made such idle threats before - that you will punish me for refuting your falsified "quote-mining" and your cutting and pasting from creationist ministries. 

I have every intention to hold you accountable for your lies and will respond as needed to correct and refute your comments.

I must!  I saw a bird this morning flying toward the east. It was a sign from the gawds.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your interpretation of Hell is not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist have as many interpretations of hell as they do verses in their bibles.
> 
> It's whatever you want it to be for conveniences' sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From this point on I will ignore your posts you're simply to irrational to have a rational conversation with. For your information if you do some research you will find that Hades,Sheol,and Gahenna represent Hell and through careful interpretation they are referring to the Grave,not a place of torment. There is torment mentioned but,but there is no literal torment ,it is a metaphor dear. People have taken the fires and torment of Hell as literal but througfh study of the scriptures you can see that is not what is meant.
Click to expand...


Your interpretation of hell is in conflict with the definition offered by Little Nipper. 

Shall we assume that you are both one-half correct, divide by two, and bifurcate the rest?


----------



## UltimateReality

Borderline said:


> Does this show contradiction?
> ON TEMPTATION
> "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13
> 
> "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1
> 
> Abarham is not, was not... and never will be, GOD "for GOD cannot be tempted WITH EVIL, NEITHER tempteth him he any man"... There is a difference between "test" and "tempt", again... in various translation of original text... at the time of translation, the terms were quite inner-changeable. An examination of a complete English dictionary will verify this. Note that some of the meanings carry positive connotations, while some carry negative connotations. This is a fact and not debatable. And yes... God did TEST Abraham. As is and has been true throughout history and various cultures... James being of the Roman era, Abraham of the "Creation era", the terminology although still in use was used in context as a test of Abraham's dedication to GOD and not a temptation to do evil for a purpose against good and GOD. Also... you will find explanation of the terms and differences in the explanations within the writings themselves... through Concordance you can fit the statements and separate the differences in meaning... if you so desire... OR... you can completely omit such information if it fits your agenda... which I have found that the original poster does on a regular basis... I guess you are supposed to take ANY written word, by any author and accept it as you understand it... discount of course that you may not understand any word in it... don't consult an encyclopedia or dictionary. Just take it at face value as the posting individual would like to present it. I find no contradiction here as with most of the so-called contradictions posted. And if he weren't so diametrically opposed to the study, I'm quite sure, with a little research, so that he might gain a better understanding of the subject matter he is so laxxed on... he himself might be amazed at actually understanding what is being presented... a GREAT deal better. Perhaps that poster will enlighten us again... by telling us... what did GOD promise Abraham as payment for his falling to the temptattion... for temptation... there has to be a reward. Satan tempted Christ... promising Him grand rewards, Eve was tempted by Satan in form of reward... she was to have her eyes opened... and become acknowledged in all things. So what was Abraham's reward in the temptation to be?



There have been many books written on Hermeneutics. Many modern Christian religions, and even more so uneducated atheists,  have no understanding of this.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know it has, and his two fallacious arguments are completely unconvincing. His first argument, which attempts to dismantle abiogenesis with probability theory, is an argument from ignorance, since he nor anybody else has the numbers to describe accurately something we are ignorant to. I've mentioned  this numerous times yet you fail to adequately address. Instead you simply deny it and try to ridicule me for always calling out fallacies, without ever refuting my claims. Next, Meyers makes an inductive argument, claiming that because we are intelligent and wrote specifiable, digital code, DNA must also have an intelligent designer, being a code with apparently the same characteristics. It does not follow necessarily that DNA must also have had am intelligent designer. It is only a probabilistic determination, which is the major weakness of inductively derived conclusions. So, both prongs of Meyers argument are blatantly fallacious. An inductive argument isn't even formally valid. Try to actually address these charges instead of the usual sidestepping and ridiculing to get around these  blatant facts. You seem so enamored by Meyers false credentials, that won't admit to yourself, the possibility that he is wrong. You can still have your faith, just stop trying to prove religious claims in a scientific setting. It's never going to work. Just accept your delusion for what it is: an existential security blanket. At least, don't be deluded enough to think you are going to convince anybody here of your false beliefs. You're better off preaching the bible, since that is basically what you are trying to do- convince us of your god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of repeating the same thing over and over again, I have refuted your claims of induction and to deny Meyers argument is valid is to deny Darwin's argument is valid. Both rely on evidence of causes now in operation, a fact which you conveniently continue to fail to address. Or, the logic of it just escapes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't refuted any of my claims. Meyers does not rely on forces now in operation. He makes assumptions he is not justified in making, such as Pretending that his probabilities accurately describe anything. Tell me, how does he know what numbers to plug into his probabilities? How does he know his numbers are descriptive of what happened? He doesn't. He is just selling an idea, and you've bought it. Whether it not he is using forces now in operation doesn't save him from his use of an inductive argument. Try actually researching inductive reasoning so you can understand what he is doing, Although I am guessing you don't really want to find out how wrong he is. Your stupid equivalency  of meyers argument  to darwin's is laughable.* Darwin had direct, demonstrable evidence for his claims*. Meyers has none.
Click to expand...


Meyer does too: No complex, information with specificity exists in nature unless it has an intelligent agent as its source, period. Or put another way, ALL functional, complex information has an intelligent agent as its source. This is a hypothesis that will become a law eventually until you prove otherwise. However, you are too blind to even have a logical discussion with, as evidenced by this post. Logic escapes you so what is the point in arguing with you?


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory. Does god not even know the path To salvation that he supposedly offers? Or did he put that in the bible just to divide us, making it an evil god? Either way, your screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.
Click to expand...


Don't fall prey to evil people like Hawly. Here tactic is to make you so frustrated with her stupidity and repetitive dribble that you act unbecomingly.


----------



## UltimateReality

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day).  God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ted Nugent - Uncle Ted on Gun Control
> 
> The point is that where the Federal government defines what everyone will do, rights are taken away from its citizens everywhere to decide how things will be done. And if the Federal Government is confused and agnostic and a spend thrift, the country becomes agnostic and confused and poor. Where the Federal Government mandates education, the students are limited to what the government believes is a resonable education and a proper mode of study. Everything is tied together with how the Government deals with God and Creationism. It does not stop there. The government will eventually want to decide what people believe --- Gun ownership is bad, Abortion is a good example of population control, Homosexual marriage is equal with heterosexual marriage, all opinion is equally valid unless it not accepted by the government....
Click to expand...


Taken one step further... If our rights come from the Creator, and you eliminate the Creator, then our rights can only come from the State. Then we are at the mercy of the State because they can just as easily take away any rights that they can give. My inalienable rights come from God. No government will ever have power over me, not even unto death. I will remain free, regardless of the un-Constitutional laws the left wing liberal nutjobs try to impose.


----------



## UltimateReality

LittleNipper said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Nugent - Uncle Ted on Gun Control
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncle Ted don't care for liberal agendas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He certainly does not pull any punches. He seems openly honest and at least more reasonable, than someone who imagins that if govenrmant makes blank laws that evil people will not find a way to do evil things. It is the honest person who gets hurt. The honest person pays the taxes too support the results of the evil person's evil habits.
Click to expand...


It makes me sick knowing I am working to pay for someone like Hawly to sit around on her fat ass claiming her fake disability in order to use her time to torment others instead of working. Gotta love the liberal agenda.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist have as many interpretations of hell as they do verses in their bibles.
> 
> It's whatever you want it to be for conveniences' sake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell means different things in the Bible. One must read the particular verses/chapter in context. Yes, I know that sometimes hell does mean the grave, sometimes a garbage dump and sometimes eternal separation from God. Hell is the timeless place people go who never wanted anything to do with God. They get their heart's desire. The issue is that everyone will see the glory of God one day and have a glimpse of heaven. But not all will be allowed to remain. That is hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... *The interpretation is also a function of the interpreter *which means that "hell" can be whatever one wishes it to be.
> 
> How convenient.
Click to expand...


WRONG!! Interpretation should be done according the principles of Hermeneutics. If these "rules" are followed, 100 people would come up with the same interpretation.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't fall prey to evil people like Hawly. Here tactic is to make you so frustrated with her stupidity and repetitive dribble that you act unbecomingly.
Click to expand...


Actually, my creepy stalker gets frustrated beyond words when his nonsensical arguments are trashed as pointless and baseless.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hell means different things in the Bible. One must read the particular verses/chapter in context. Yes, I know that sometimes hell does mean the grave, sometimes a garbage dump and sometimes eternal separation from God. Hell is the timeless place people go who never wanted anything to do with God. They get their heart's desire. The issue is that everyone will see the glory of God one day and have a glimpse of heaven. But not all will be allowed to remain. That is hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... *The interpretation is also a function of the interpreter *which means that "hell" can be whatever one wishes it to be.
> 
> How convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRONG!! Interpretation should be done according the principles of Hermeneutics. If these "rules" are followed, 100 people would come up with the same interpretation.
Click to expand...

That's typically foolish. Christianity has splintered into so many competing sects and subdivisions for what reasons?

It's amazing, the (retarded) mental gymnastics used by creationist to re-write the bibles which, after millennia, still are being rewritten.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Nugent - Uncle Ted on Gun Control
> 
> The point is that where the Federal government defines what everyone will do, rights are taken away from its citizens everywhere to decide how things will be done. And if the Federal Government is confused and agnostic and a spend thrift, the country becomes agnostic and confused and poor. Where the Federal Government mandates education, the students are limited to what the government believes is a resonable education and a proper mode of study. Everything is tied together with how the Government deals with God and Creationism. It does not stop there. The government will eventually want to decide what people believe --- Gun ownership is bad, Abortion is a good example of population control, Homosexual marriage is equal with heterosexual marriage, all opinion is equally valid unless it not accepted by the government....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taken one step further... If our rights come from the Creator, and you eliminate the Creator, then our rights can only come from the State. Then we are at the mercy of the State because they can just as easily take away any rights that they can give. My inalienable rights come from God. No government will ever have power over me, not even unto death. I will remain free, regardless of the un-Constitutional laws the left wing liberal nutjobs try to impose.
Click to expand...

The creator Hindu gawds will work things out. 

The true Hindu gawds should supplant the false xtian gawds in public schools. 

Don't sweat it fundie-man, you can still wear your _Gott mit Uns_ belt buckles.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is exactly what your secularized education has led to:
> 10 years later, the real story behind Columbine - USATODAY.com
> 
> 
> 
> WAY TO MAKE HOLLIE'S POINT CRYSTAL CLEAR!  asshole!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie's point was that bringing Creationism into the classroom would cause fear, confusion, and bring about superstition. Well, the TRUTH is that the public school system in these United States has had 50 years of no Christian understanding expressed and little such influence (due to governmental legal control). The result has been fear, confusion, and the growth of superstious hedonism. The gothic movement, mass shootings, and a breakdown of stable family values. Instead of coming out of the cave, as evolutionists promote, society seems to be headed towards a new dark age. Students are faced with making poor judgment calls with regard to hygene, sex, drugs, behavior patterns. Abortion rates have gone up. Unwed motherhood has increased. Boys thinks they are girls and girls think they are boys. Both think that skin is a canvas for billboard displays and punching holes in the likes of which have not been seen even among jungle tribes.
> The truth is that while American Judao/Christian values had an open expression in the public school classroom, things were not perfect; however, things were far more stable. There was far less confusion between what was right and wrong/logical and illogical. Agnostic/hedonistic opinion/values faced opposition and didn't have an unlimited influence.
> Note: I have not stooped to childish name calling and feel that I have presented a fair apraisal from a position of having witnessed the time period in question. I lived the educational changes from 50's/early 60's education to the downward spiral after the fall of 1963. The change was drastic and immediate. I can see that only the reintroduction of God in some degree of representation is what will reestablish progressive education, and help end the increasing cicle of helpless negativity so pervasive throughout society today.
Click to expand...

hummm... you would bring back repression of minorities, LGBT persons, CENSORSHIP Back alley abortions just to name a few.
other Christian hijinks through history include the crusades the 
in·qui·si·tion
  [in-kwuh-zish-uhn, ing-]  Show IPA  

noun  
1. 
an official investigation, especially one of a political or religious nature, characterized by lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners, and recklessly cruel punishments. 
what you've presented is a fine example of bigotry, theism, false declarations, hubris ethnocentrism and plain old ignorance.


 now I will refute your steaming pile of bullshit!
 The truth about God in public schools
By Charles C. Haynes

Attacks on the "Godless public schools" have been at the top of the culture-war hit list for more than 40 years. Hardly a day goes by without some politician or televangelist reminding Americans of how the Supreme Court kicked God out of the schools in the 1960s  and how the nation has been sliding down a slippery slope of moral and spiritual decline ever since.

The banishment of the Deity from the classroom is a compelling story that plays well in a nation where millions of citizens take their faith seriously. There's only one problem:

It isn't true.

Yes, 20 years ago many public schools did come close to being religion-free zones. In the wake of the controversial court decisions banning state-sponsored religious practices, some school officials overreacted by trying to keep all religion out. Textbooks largely ignored religion, and teachers were hesitant to teach about it. Administrators mistakenly confused student speech with government speech and told kids to leave their religion at the schoolhouse door.

But that was 20 years ago. Today, most state standards and textbooks include considerable mention of religion; student religious clubs meet on hundreds, if not thousands, of high school campuses; the sight of Christian students praying around the 

flagpole or in the lunchroom is not uncommon; and Muslim students are routinely given a free room to perform daily prayers.

How we got here

What accounts for this dramatic turnaround? Start with the Equal Access Act of 1984 that opened the door for student-initiated religious clubs in secondary schools. Then look at how California broke the mold in the late '80s by deciding to require more teaching about religion in history classes. Finally, give credit to the remarkable agreements developed in the '90s on how schools should deal with everything from religious holidays to the Bible under the First Amendment  a series of consensus guides endorsed by everyone from the National Education Association to the National Association of Evangelicals.

In spite of these positive developments, some opponents of public schools stick to the storyline of the Godless school where guns get in the door but prayers are banned. These are the "Restorers," people who long to bring back the "good old days" when one religion (historically Protestant Christianity) was preferred in school policies and practices. Still angry that the courts won't allow school officials to promote religion with prayers over the intercom or by posting the Ten Commandments on classroom walls, the Restorers downplay or ignore all of the ways in which religion is alive and well in schools. Any concession that things have changed for the better would undermine their call for an "exodus" from "atheistic government schools," to quote a recent direct-mail letter from a religious conservative group.

Of course, it doesn't help that people on the other end of the spectrum  the "Removers"  are determined to scrub every vestige of religion from the classroom. Proposals to teach more about religions are attacked as backdoor ways to impose religion. Policies designed to protect students' religious expression are seen as efforts to encourage evangelization and harassment.

All it takes are a few bad stories to obscure the progress of the past two decades and to reinvigorate the culture warriors on both sides.

Exhibit A is the recent national brouhaha in which one teacher in one California school district (Cupertino) was accused of proselytizing in the classroom by inserting his religious views into the teaching of history. The Removers latched onto the incident as confirmation that teachers just can't be trusted to "teach about religion." Meanwhile, the Restorers saw it as fresh evidence of public-school hostility to all things Christian.


  RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS    



From Religious Liberty, Public Education, and the Future of American Democracy: A Statement of Principles , published by the First Amendment Center and endorsed by 24 organizations in 1995. The list includes a wide spectrum of religious and educational groups ranging from the Christian Coalition to the People for the American Way: 
"Public schools may not inculcate nor inhibit religion. They must be places where religion and religious conviction are treated with fairness and respect. 
"Public schools uphold the First Amendment when they protect the religious liberty rights of students of all faiths or none. Schools demonstrate fairness when they ensure that the curriculum includes study about religion, where appropriate, as an important part of a complete education."

Download the entire statement of principles at: www.firstamendment 
 center.org/about.aspx?id=6251

 Caught in the crossfire, it's not surprising that some school officials are still nervous about implementing the consensus guidelines or that some teachers remain afraid to touch religion, whatever the standards say.

And it's no mystery why many students and parents are confused about what is and isn't allowed under the First Amendment. Nevertheless, the quiet revolution begun 20 years ago continues to spread.

All of the changes  the Equal Access Act, new standards and textbooks, consensus guides  are built on this: Under the First Amendment, public schools may not inculcate or inhibit religion. This means that school officials must be careful to protect the religious liberty rights of students of all faiths and none. And they must ensure that the curriculum includes study about religion (as distinguished from religious indoctrination) as an important part of a complete education.

Success in the classroom

To see what this looks like, visit Ramona, Calif.; Davis County, Utah; Mustang, Okla.; or any one of the many other school districts that have successfully translated the national agreements into local policies and practices that take the First Amendment seriously.

Instead of lawsuits and shouting matches, these communities have come together to find common ground on how to protect student religious expression while guarding against school endorsement of religion. Visit schools in these districts and you'll see teachers teaching about religions without controversy, students practicing their faith during the school day without interfering with the rights of others, and school officials handling potential conflicts over religion with the support and trust of their communities. Getting it right, however, won't be easy after more than 150 years of getting it wrong.

Moreover, agreement on some issues  such as the place of religion in the curriculum or when students may pray together  doesn't mean agreement on everything. The latest fight over evolution and recent lawsuits over where to draw the line on student religious expression in the classroom are stark reminders of how much work still needs to be done.

However great the challenge, schools have no choice but to move beyond the failed models of the past.

In a nation committed to religious liberty, public schools are neither the local church nor religion-free zones. They must be places where people of all faiths and none are treated with fairness and respect. In the USA, religion goes to school  but always through the First Amendment door.

Charles C. Haynes is the co-author of Finding Common Ground: A Guide to Religious Liberty in Public Schools and a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So dummy how did the animals and humans get to Australia ?
> 
> Don't use terms you don't understand, you're are just making yourself look like you're full of shit which we already knew.
> 
> 
> 
> that's never stopped you...
> well dummy...ever heard of plate tectonics? continental drift? you did know that at one point in time all of the continents were one super continent :  Supercontinent" is a term used for a large landmass formed by the convergence of multiple continents. The most frequently referenced supercontinent is known as "Pangaea" (also "Pangea"), which existed approximately 225 million years ago. It is thought that all major continents at that time were assembled into the Pangaea supercontinent.
> The supercontinent of Pangaea subsequently fragmented and the pieces now account for Earth's current continents. The geography of Pangaea and the more recent continent movements are shown the the map sequence below.
> 
> The theory of plate tectonics provides an explanation for these continent movements. According to this theory Earth's outer shell is divided into a series of plates. These plates consist of the crust and a small amount of the underlying mantle. The plates slide over a weak zone in the mantle at a rate of a few centimeters per year. Convection currents in the mantle, caused by the escape of heat from Earth's interior, are what drives the movement of these plates.
> 
> If you study the maps below you will see that the Atlantic Ocean is getting wider as a result of the plate movement. Also, the Pacific Ocean is closing. A new supercontinent might form when the Pacific Ocean completely closes and the continents surrounding it converge
> Pangea Supercontinent - Pangaea Supercontinent - GEOLOGY.COM
> 
> Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
> 
> Australia's fossil past - australia.gov.au
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You tried to spin out of your dumb, uneducated comments, I won't let you off the hook this time.
Click to expand...

how's that slapdick? as you have no line or hook to cast!
please present my uneducated statements!


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long was the first day?
> 
> 
> 
> you'd have to clarify, were there days when the galaxy was forming? was time even a factor during the formation ?
> maybe this will be easier [ame=http://youtu.be/buqtdpuZxvk]Galaxy Song - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day).  God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.
Click to expand...

as stated before you have no quantifiable proof that god did anything.
funny if god created everything why was human kind the species that invented the clock?


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know it has, and his two fallacious arguments are completely unconvincing. His first argument, which attempts to dismantle abiogenesis with probability theory, is an argument from ignorance, since he nor anybody else has the numbers to describe accurately something we are ignorant to. I've mentioned  this numerous times yet you fail to adequately address. Instead you simply deny it and try to ridicule me for always calling out fallacies, without ever refuting my claims. Next, Meyers makes an inductive argument, claiming that because we are intelligent and wrote specifiable, digital code, DNA must also have an intelligent designer, being a code with apparently the same characteristics. It does not follow necessarily that DNA must also have had am intelligent designer. It is only a probabilistic determination, which is the major weakness of inductively derived conclusions. So, both prongs of Meyers argument are blatantly fallacious. An inductive argument isn't even formally valid. Try to actually address these charges instead of the usual sidestepping and ridiculing to get around these  blatant facts. You seem so enamored by Meyers false credentials, that won't admit to yourself, the possibility that he is wrong. You can still have your faith, just stop trying to prove religious claims in a scientific setting. It's never going to work. Just accept your delusion for what it is: an existential security blanket. At least, don't be deluded enough to think you are going to convince anybody here of your false beliefs. You're better off preaching the bible, since that is basically what you are trying to do- convince us of your god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of repeating the same thing over and over again, I have refuted your claims of induction and to deny Meyers argument is valid is to deny Darwin's argument is valid. Both rely on evidence of causes now in operation, a fact which you conveniently continue to fail to address. Or, the logic of it just escapes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't refuted any of my claims. Meyers does not rely on forces now in operation. He makes assumptions he is not justified in making, such as Pretending that his probabilities accurately describe anything. Tell me, how does he know what numbers to plug into his probabilities? How does he know his numbers are descriptive of what happened? He doesn't. He is just selling an idea, and you've bought it. Whether it not he is using forces now in operation doesn't save him from his use of an inductive argument. Try actually researching inductive reasoning so you can understand what he is doing, Although I am guessing you don't really want to find out how wrong he is. Your stupid equivalency  of meyers argument  to darwin's is laughable. Darwin had direct, demonstrable evidence for his claims. Meyers has none.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory. Does god not even know the path To salvation that he supposedly offers? Or did he put that in the bible just to divide us, making it an evil god? Either way, your screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.
Click to expand...

Not so, you're an expert at believing in fairy tales, being willfully ignorant, quote mining, misrepresenting, braggadocio, bigotry, homophobia, hubris, pseudoscience.
all in all you're one of the most fabulous fuck up's I've ever met.
after 30 years in showbiz that's saying something.    




 &#8194;


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so, you're an expert at believing in fairy tales, being willfully ignorant, quote mining, misrepresenting, braggadocio, bigotry, homophobia, hubris, pseudoscience.
> all in all you're one of the most fabulous fuck up's I've ever met.
> after 30 years in showbiz that's saying something.
> 
> &#8194;
Click to expand...


Whatever, Pot.


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so, you're an expert at believing in fairy tales, being willfully ignorant, quote mining, misrepresenting, braggadocio, bigotry, homophobia, hubris, pseudoscience.
> all in all you're one of the most fabulous f--k up's I've ever met.
> after 30 years in showbiz that's saying something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8194;
Click to expand...


Actually, it would seem you are a bigot, as you base your own opinions on how you feel and not on what God reveals/teaches. Judge not lest ye be judged. Your own opinion is not a reason to disrespect someone. Homosexuality is non productive. It is founded on self debasement and the misuse of the human body. God's Word is very clear in this regard. And the random use of deragatory terms for sexual encounters is only another symptom of a negative self righteous destructive society promoting hedonism.


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you'd have to clarify, were there days when the galaxy was forming? was time even a factor during the formation ?
> maybe this will be easier Galaxy Song - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day).  God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as stated before you have no quantifiable proof that god did anything.
> funny if god created everything why was human kind the species that invented the clock?
Click to expand...


God created man in His own image ------ and that includes a creative spirit. God created life. Can you create life?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day).  God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.
> 
> 
> 
> as stated before you have no quantifiable proof that god did anything.
> funny if god created everything why was human kind the species that invented the clock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God created man in His own image ------ and that includes a creative spirit. God created life. Can you create life?
Click to expand...

, 
What leads you to believe your partisan gawds, as opposed to other gawds, created anything?


----------



## newpolitics

LittleNipper said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence contradicts the Bible, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory. Does god not even know the path To salvation that he supposedly offers? Or did he put that in the bible just to divide us, making it an evil god? Either way, your screwed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...
Click to expand...


The bible explicitly claims two distinct ways to salvation. Faith alone, or faith and works. There can't be two ways. It is a contradiction. Thus, falsifying the bible as having any truth value.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of repeating the same thing over and over again, I have refuted your claims of induction and to deny Meyers argument is valid is to deny Darwin's argument is valid. Both rely on evidence of causes now in operation, a fact which you conveniently continue to fail to address. Or, the logic of it just escapes you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't refuted any of my claims. Meyers does not rely on forces now in operation. He makes assumptions he is not justified in making, such as Pretending that his probabilities accurately describe anything. Tell me, how does he know what numbers to plug into his probabilities? How does he know his numbers are descriptive of what happened? He doesn't. He is just selling an idea, and you've bought it. Whether it not he is using forces now in operation doesn't save him from his use of an inductive argument. Try actually researching inductive reasoning so you can understand what he is doing, Although I am guessing you don't really want to find out how wrong he is. Your stupid equivalency  of meyers argument  to darwin's is laughable.* Darwin had direct, demonstrable evidence for his claims*. Meyers has none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meyer does too: No complex, information with specificity exists in nature unless it has an intelligent agent as its source, period. Or put another way, ALL functional, complex information has an intelligent agent as its source. This is a hypothesis that will become a law eventually until you prove otherwise. However, you are too blind to even have a logical discussion with, as evidenced by this post. Logic escapes you so what is the point in arguing with you?
Click to expand...


There is only one species that we know of who is "intelligent," by our own definition: us. We are therefore, by definition, the ONLY Known intelligent source of specifiable, complex information. My point: you are begging the question, and your sample size is far too small to generalize this to then claim that "all specifiable, complex information is created by intelligence." So small, as to make your argument laughable. Your sample size is n=1. Are you serious? Your inductive argument is so incredibly weak. Even if we knew of a million intelligent species who created specifiable information, that doesn't mean that the next unknown example of information is necessarily made by an intelligence. You can never make that conclusion without direct evidence. This is the fallacy of inductive reasoning. You could never claim with any certainty, therefore t will never be a law.

What you are doing is the equivalent of seeing  a red apple for first time and saying, "this red apple has seeds and is round, therefore anything that has seeds and is round is also a red apple." This is the level of your arrogance. There are green apples, yellow apples, etc...You can't generalize to all apples being red based on the  first apple you saw. Yet, this is what you are doing while looking at human created information. Even more arrogant is that you are the one defining us as intelligent. Therefore, you are defining this conclusion into existence. It is begging the question, yet another fallacy.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as stated before you have no quantifiable proof that god did anything.
> funny if god created everything why was human kind the species that invented the clock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God created man in His own image ------ and that includes a creative spirit. God created life. Can you create life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ,
> What leads you to believe your partisan gawds, as opposed to other gawds, created anything?
Click to expand...


Jesus Christ


----------



## LittleNipper

newpolitics said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory. Does god not even know the path To salvation that he supposedly offers? Or did he put that in the bible just to divide us, making it an evil god? Either way, your screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible explicitly claims two distinct ways to salvation. Faith alone, or faith and works. There can't be two ways. It is a contradiction. Thus, falsifying the bible as having any truth value.
Click to expand...


You have never read the book of Hebrews I can see. Faith without some sort of evidence does not exist, but works without faith is worthless.
Hebrews 11 
New King James Version (NKJV)

By Faith We Understand
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.

3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

Faith at the Dawn of History
4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.

5 By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, &#8220;and was not found, because God had taken him&#8221;; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

Faithful Abraham
8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; 10 for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

11 By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born as many as the stars of the sky in multitude&#8212;innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore.

The Heavenly Hope
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. 15 And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.

The Faith of the Patriarchs
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 of whom it was said, &#8220;In Isaac your seed shall be called,&#8221; 19 concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.

20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.

21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshiped, leaning on the top of his staff.

22 By faith Joseph, when he was dying, made mention of the departure of the children of Israel, and gave instructions concerning his bones.

The Faith of Moses
23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king&#8217;s command.

24 By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh&#8217;s daughter, 25 choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 26 esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward.

27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured as seeing Him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood, lest he who destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

29 By faith they passed through the Red Sea as by dry land, whereas the Egyptians, attempting to do so, were drowned.

By Faith They Overcame
30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.

32 And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: 33 who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. 35 Women received their dead raised to life again.

Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. 36 Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented&#8212; 38 of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth.

39 And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, 40 God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's never stopped you...
> well dummy...ever heard of plate tectonics? continental drift? you did know that at one point in time all of the continents were one super continent :  Supercontinent" is a term used for a large landmass formed by the convergence of multiple continents. The most frequently referenced supercontinent is known as "Pangaea" (also "Pangea"), which existed approximately 225 million years ago. It is thought that all major continents at that time were assembled into the Pangaea supercontinent.
> The supercontinent of Pangaea subsequently fragmented and the pieces now account for Earth's current continents. The geography of Pangaea and the more recent continent movements are shown the the map sequence below.
> 
> The theory of plate tectonics provides an explanation for these continent movements. According to this theory Earth's outer shell is divided into a series of plates. These plates consist of the crust and a small amount of the underlying mantle. The plates slide over a weak zone in the mantle at a rate of a few centimeters per year. Convection currents in the mantle, caused by the escape of heat from Earth's interior, are what drives the movement of these plates.
> 
> If you study the maps below you will see that the Atlantic Ocean is getting wider as a result of the plate movement. Also, the Pacific Ocean is closing. A new supercontinent might form when the Pacific Ocean completely closes and the continents surrounding it converge
> Pangea Supercontinent - Pangaea Supercontinent - GEOLOGY.COM
> 
> Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener
> 
> Australia's fossil past - australia.gov.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tried to spin out of your dumb, uneducated comments, I won't let you off the hook this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how's that slapdick? as you have no line or hook to cast!
> please present my uneducated statements!
Click to expand...


You said it in your posts. One was attacking the theory migration was due to land bridges and that is how animals got to Australia.The other was to suggest Australia was never flooded or under water.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you'd have to clarify, were there days when the galaxy was forming? was time even a factor during the formation ?
> maybe this will be easier Galaxy Song - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day).  God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as stated before you have no quantifiable proof that god did anything.
> funny if god created everything why was human kind the species that invented the clock?
Click to expand...


Your ability to believe in miracles is noted.

God gave human kind the ability to do so through intelligence. That is what separates us from all living organisms our intelligence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so, you're an expert at believing in fairy tales, being willfully ignorant, quote mining, misrepresenting, braggadocio, bigotry, homophobia, hubris, pseudoscience.
> all in all you're one of the most fabulous fuck up's I've ever met.
> after 30 years in showbiz that's saying something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8194;
Click to expand...


I was speaking of keeping my patience with nitwits like yourself where your views are based on miracles and or fairytales.

You're the queen of ignorance.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created man in His own image ------ and that includes a creative spirit. God created life. Can you create life?
> 
> 
> 
> ,
> What leads you to believe your partisan gawds, as opposed to other gawds, created anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ
Click to expand...


Robin Hood.

They're both mythical characters.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Not so, you're an expert at believing in fairy tales, being willfully ignorant, quote mining, misrepresenting, braggadocio, bigotry, homophobia, hubris, pseudoscience.
> all in all you're one of the most fabulous fuck up's I've ever met.
> after 30 years in showbiz that's saying something.
> 
> &#8194;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever, Pot.
Click to expand...

scathing retort detective douche bag!


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Not so, you're an expert at believing in fairy tales, being willfully ignorant, quote mining, misrepresenting, braggadocio, bigotry, homophobia, hubris, pseudoscience.
> all in all you're one of the most fabulous f--k up's I've ever met.
> after 30 years in showbiz that's saying something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8194;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it would seem you are a bigot, as you base your own opinions on how you feel and not on what God reveals/teaches. Judge not lest ye be judged. Your own opinion is not a reason to disrespect someone. Homosexuality is non productive. It is founded on self debasement and the misuse of the human body. God's Word is very clear in this regard. And the random use of deragatory terms for sexual encounters is only another symptom of a negative self righteous destructive society promoting hedonism.
Click to expand...

hardly! your religious delusion is so pervasive that you fail to notice how truly bigoted it is.
you have no proof god reveals anything, what you are taught from the bible is an interpretation by either yourself or someone you "believe" to be more in touch with a so called god. most of all it's subjective.. your use of this phrase:"Judge not lest ye be judged"  is contradictive.
as you've already judged wrongly,  myself... homosexuality...what is productive and what's not and society as a whole.
or to put it another way: opinions are like assholes everybody's got one and yours stinks!


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created man in His own image ------ and that includes a creative spirit. God created life. Can you create life?
> 
> 
> 
> ,
> What leads you to believe your partisan gawds, as opposed to other gawds, created anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ
Click to expand...

typical non answer, there is no actual evidence Jesus did anything he's credited with ,since none of his actions can be corroborated by non biblical sources they can only be deemed  fiction.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day).  God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.
> 
> 
> 
> as stated before you have no quantifiable proof that god did anything.
> funny if god created everything why was human kind the species that invented the clock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God created man in His own image ------ and that includes a creative spirit. God created life. Can you create life?
Click to expand...

another non answer.. the point, Small Nipples, is you have no possible way of knowing if god did 12 hour shifts as the concept of measuring time by hours mins ,seconds  is completely human.
so your assumption is false.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tried to spin out of your dumb, uneducated comments, I won't let you off the hook this time.
> 
> 
> 
> how's that slapdick? as you have no line or hook to cast!
> please present my uneducated statements!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said it in your posts. One was attacking the theory migration was due to land bridges and that is how animals got to Australia.The other was to suggest Australia was never flooded or under water.
Click to expand...

more proof you are an illiterate so you exposed nothing but your own ignorance ....


The great Flood: the story from the Bible


A modern reconstruction of the Ark, in Schagen (Holland). Photo Johan Huibers.
 Modern reconstruction of Noah's Ark
 The Great Flood: mythological story about a great destruction that once befell the earth. There are several variants; the Biblical version is the most famous. The possibility that there is a historical event behind the story (a local flood in southern Babylonia in the twenty-eighth century BCE) can not be excluded. 

Bible Sumer Babylonia Greece Archaeology 
Full text Eridu Genesis Atrahasis Ovid 

Reconstruction 
 Gilgame&#353; Hyginus 

Quran 
 Berossus Apollodorus 



Introduction
The famous story about the Great Flood is best known from the Bible (Genesis 6-9). It has always been known that there were similar stories from Greece and Rome (like the ones by Apollodorus, Ovid, and Hyginus), but in the nineteenth century, several texts from ancient Iraq were added. The first discovery was Tablet XI of the Babylonian Epic of Gilgame&#353; (in 1872), the second the Sumerian original, now called the Eridu Genesis (1914), and the third the Epic of Atrahasis (1956). It is now clear that the Biblical account stays close to a Babylonian model. 
http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/flood/flood1.html


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day).  God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.
> 
> 
> 
> as stated before you have no quantifiable proof that god did anything.
> funny if god created everything why was human kind the species that invented the clock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ability to believe in miracles is noted.
> 
> God gave human kind the ability to do so through intelligence. That is what separates us from all living organisms our intelligence.
Click to expand...

funny, god's stock and trade is miracles .
your denial of this means you fashioned god in your own image.
you can believe god gave humans abilities but you have no proof to back it up.
on the other hand it's been proven that humans developed skills and abilities over time with no help from 
deities
Bitching, whining and unprovable pseudoscience ravings in 3...2.....1


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't refuted any of my claims. Meyers does not rely on forces now in operation. He makes assumptions he is not justified in making, such as Pretending that his probabilities accurately describe anything. Tell me, how does he know what numbers to plug into his probabilities? How does he know his numbers are descriptive of what happened? He doesn't. He is just selling an idea, and you've bought it. Whether it not he is using forces now in operation doesn't save him from his use of an inductive argument. Try actually researching inductive reasoning so you can understand what he is doing, Although I am guessing you don't really want to find out how wrong he is. Your stupid equivalency  of meyers argument  to darwin's is laughable.* Darwin had direct, demonstrable evidence for his claims*. Meyers has none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer does too: No complex, information with specificity exists in nature unless it has an intelligent agent as its source, period. Or put another way, ALL functional, complex information has an intelligent agent as its source. This is a hypothesis that will become a law eventually until you prove otherwise. However, you are too blind to even have a logical discussion with, as evidenced by this post. Logic escapes you so what is the point in arguing with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is only one species that we know of who is "intelligent," by our own definition: us. We are therefore, by definition, the ONLY Known intelligent source of specifiable, complex information. My point: you are begging the question, and your sample size is far too small to generalize this to then claim that "*all specifiable, complex information is created by intelligence.*"
Click to expand...

 Prove me wrong then!!! 





newpolitics said:


> So small, as to make your argument laughable. Your sample size is n=1. Are you serious? Your inductive argument is so incredibly weak. Even if we knew of a million intelligent species who created specifiable information, that doesn't mean that the next unknown example of information is necessarily made by an intelligence. You can never make that conclusion without direct evidence. This is the fallacy of inductive reasoning. You could never claim with any certainty, therefore t will never be a law.
> 
> What you are doing is the equivalent of seeing  a red apple for first time and saying, "this red apple has seeds and is round, therefore anything that has seeds and is round is also a red apple."


 Omigosh!! I can't believe you are so ignorant to your own theory of Evolution!! The TOE does this continually. All the historic sciences do this. When there are multiple explanations, they default to the best explanation. Meyer refutes all the chance, necessity and chance with necessity arguments and then points to a cause presently in operation as being the best explanation. Again, you denial of Meyers probability arguments just screams of your ignorance of origins arguments made by the so called pseudo scientist of evolultion. Meyers probability arguments are merely a rebuttal to origins theories from your camp. Your inability to acknowledge this just shows your blatant ignorance of your own worldview. 





newpolitics said:


> This is the level of your arrogance.


No, its the level of yours. 





newpolitics said:


> There are green apples, yellow apples, etc...You can't generalize to all apples being red based on the  first apple you saw.


Wrong again!! You have not presented me with any yellow or green apples in this case so your fallacy accusation has no merit!!! Find an example of complex, functional information that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source and you will have your green apple. Furthermore, we have billions examples of information created by intelligent agents, dating as far back as cave drawings, NOT ONE, as in your completely ignorant and fallacious apple comparison. So it is not the first apple, but apple after apple after apple after apple infinity that fits until you falsify it with an example that violates the hypothesis.  That silly,  false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly, who were quick to thank you for your fallacious example,  but you are sadly mistaken if you think you can pass it off on the intelligent folks here. Until then, your silly comparison has no merit and is fallacious in and of itself. 





newpolitics said:


> Yet, this is what you are doing while looking at human created information. Even more arrogant is that you are the one defining us as intelligent. Therefore, you are defining this conclusion into existence. It is begging the question, yet another fallacy.


 This is by far the dumbest thing you have said yet and shows a complete lack of intelligence on your part. So excluding yourself, are you are saying that the human mind does not represent intelligence??? Really???


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so, you're an expert at believing in fairy tales, being willfully ignorant, quote mining, misrepresenting, braggadocio, bigotry, homophobia, hubris, pseudoscience.
> all in all you're one of the most fabulous fuck up's I've ever met.
> after 30 years in showbiz that's saying something.
> 
> &#8194;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever, Pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> scathing retort detective douche bag!
Click to expand...


Do you think you are bothering me with your little nickname? Quite the contrary!! You are just demonstrating your own lack of maturity and stupidity.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer does too: No complex, information with specificity exists in nature unless it has an intelligent agent as its source, period. Or put another way, ALL functional, complex information has an intelligent agent as its source. This is a hypothesis that will become a law eventually until you prove otherwise. However, you are too blind to even have a logical discussion with, as evidenced by this post. Logic escapes you so what is the point in arguing with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one species that we know of who is "intelligent," by our own definition: us. We are therefore, by definition, the ONLY Known intelligent source of specifiable, complex information. My point: you are begging the question, and your sample size is far too small to generalize this to then claim that "*all specifiable, complex information is created by intelligence.*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove me wrong then!!!  Omigosh!! I can't believe you are so ignorant to your own theory of Evolution!! The TOE does this continually. All the historic sciences do this. When there are multiple explanations, they default to the best explanation. Meyer refutes all the chance, necessity and chance with necessity arguments and then points to a cause presently in operation as being the best explanation. Again, you denial of Meyers probability arguments just screams of your ignorance of origins arguments made by the so called pseudo scientist of evolultion. Meyers probability arguments are merely a rebuttal to origins theories from your camp. Your inability to acknowledge this just shows your blatant ignorance of your own worldview.
> No, its the level of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are green apples, yellow apples, etc...You can't generalize to all apples being red based on the  first apple you saw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again!! You have not presented me with any yellow or green apples in this case so your fallacy accusation has no merit!!! Find an example of complex, functional information that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source and you will have your green apple. Furthermore, we have billions examples of information created by intelligent agents, dating as far back as cave drawings, NOT ONE, as in your completely ignorant and fallacious apple comparison. So it is not the first apple, but apple after apple after apple after apple infinity that fits until you falsify it with an example that violates the hypothesis.  That silly,  false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly, who were quick to thank you for your fallacious example,  but you are sadly mistaken if you think you can pass it off on the intelligent folks here. Until then, your silly comparison has no merit and is fallacious in and of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, this is what you are doing while looking at human created information. Even more arrogant is that you are the one defining us as intelligent. Therefore, you are defining this conclusion into existence. It is begging the question, yet another fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is by far the dumbest thing you have said yet and shows a complete lack of intelligence on your part. So excluding yourself, are you are saying that the human mind does not represent intelligence??? Really???
Click to expand...


Gee whiz but angry stalker is on a tear  as usual, showing ignorance, incompetence and a willingness to believe whatever is concocted by the IDiot cabal of Christian creationist. It is always interesting to see a Meyer groupie blather into an incoherent frothing rage when in a stupor, not realizing what a con job Meyer has pulled on him.

Fundie stalker is, as usual, frothing over the creationist invented all specifiable, complex information is created by intelligence, which is - I have to advise - pure gibberish. As an example,  both Christian creationist charlatans Mayer and Dembski blather on about "ordered sequence complexity" and "random sequence complexity". Both are their own self-invented terms. What is laughable is that neither charlatan can even give a well-defined way to calculate such complexity.

Theres a thorough trashing of Meyers falsehoods and inventions, here:

Recursivity: Stephen Meyer's Bogus Information Theory



> Creationist information, as discussed by Meyer, is an incoherent mess. One version of it has been introduced by William Dembski, and criticized in detail by Mark Perakh, Richard Wein, and many others (including me). Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition of creationist information; nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations.


----------



## Hollie

The ID&#8217;iot methodology of claiming &#8220;The Gawds Did It&#8221;

It&#8217;s one logical fallacy after another but for ID&#8217;iots, logical fallacies are the stuff of affirming an incoherent and derelict argument.

_The ID&#8217;iot argument_:
(a) All landscape flamingos are pink; 
(b) An object in my yard is pink. 
(c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.


This is the ID&#8217;iot argument that Meyer stole from Behe and Dembski. They just make up this nonsense as they go along.
(a) - DNA has 'specified complexity'
(b) - 'Specified complexity' can only be caused by intelligent agents
(c) - DNA was made by an intelligent agent

It's really just an embarrassing admission of the failure of the fundie Christian creationist cabal.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever, Pot.
> 
> 
> 
> scathing retort detective douche bag!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think you are bothering me with your little nickname? Quite the contrary!! You are just demonstrating your own lack of maturity and stupidity.
Click to expand...


"That silly, false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly,..."

It seems fundie stalker has yet to emerge from his stupor.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever, Pot.
> 
> 
> 
> scathing retort detective douche bag!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think you are bothering me with your little nickname? Quite the contrary!! You are just demonstrating your own lack of maturity and stupidity.
Click to expand...

 really ? if that's the case why mention it at all....


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> scathing retort detective douche bag!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think you are bothering me with your little nickname? Quite the contrary!! You are just demonstrating your own lack of maturity and stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "That silly, false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly,..."
> 
> It seems fundie stalker has yet to emerge from his stupor.
Click to expand...

 he's like a neurotic school girl.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> The ID&#8217;iot methodology of claiming &#8220;The Gawds Did It&#8221;
> 
> It&#8217;s one logical fallacy after another but for ID&#8217;iots, logical fallacies are the stuff of affirming an incoherent and derelict argument.
> 
> _The ID&#8217;iot argument_:
> (a) All landscape flamingos are pink;
> (b) An object in my yard is pink.
> (c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.
> 
> 
> This is the ID&#8217;iot argument that Meyer stole from Behe and Dembski. They just make up this nonsense as they go along.
> (a) - DNA has 'specified complexity'
> (b) - 'Specified complexity' can only be caused by intelligent agents
> (c) - DNA was made by an intelligent agent
> 
> It's really just an embarrassing admission of the failure of the fundie Christian creationist cabal.



Wow, just wow. Your angry fundie persona might be more effective if you actually knew how to compose a syllogism. The first syllogism you used doesn't even qualify so it is worthless for comparison purposes. How many countless times must I expose your lack of education? You can educate yourself here:

Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In your stupid example below, (b) does not even qualify as a premise. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

(a) All landscape flamingos are pink; 
(b) An object in my yard is pink. 
(c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.

Here is your incompetent example rephrased as a valid syllogism:

All landscape flamingos are pink.

Hawly is a landscape flamingo.

Hawly is pink. 

The correct and *true* ID syllogism would go like this:

All functional information has an intelligent agent as its source. (prove this statement isn't true)

DNA contains functional information. (prove this statement isn't true)

DNA has an intelligent agent as its source. 

Now I'm just waiting for the imbecile Daws to thank Hawly for her incompetent post.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think you are bothering me with your little nickname? Quite the contrary!! You are just demonstrating your own lack of maturity and stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "That silly, false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly,..."
> 
> It seems fundie stalker has yet to emerge from his stupor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he's like a neurotic school girl.
Click to expand...


When you say Thespian, do you pronounce it thethspian?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The IDiot methodology of claiming The Gawds Did It
> 
> Its one logical fallacy after another but for IDiots, logical fallacies are the stuff of affirming an incoherent and derelict argument.
> 
> _The IDiot argument_:
> (a) All landscape flamingos are pink;
> (b) An object in my yard is pink.
> (c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.
> 
> 
> This is the IDiot argument that Meyer stole from Behe and Dembski. They just make up this nonsense as they go along.
> (a) - DNA has 'specified complexity'
> (b) - 'Specified complexity' can only be caused by intelligent agents
> (c) - DNA was made by an intelligent agent
> 
> It's really just an embarrassing admission of the failure of the fundie Christian creationist cabal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, just wow. Your angry fundie persona might be more effective if you actually knew how to compose a syllogism. The first syllogism you used doesn't even qualify so it is worthless for comparison purposes. How many countless times must I expose your lack of education? You can educate yourself here:
> 
> Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In your stupid example below, (b) does not even qualify as a premise. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
> 
> (a) All landscape flamingos are pink;
> (b) An object in my yard is pink.
> (c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.
> 
> Here is your incompetent example rephrased as a valid syllogism:
> 
> All landscape flamingos are pink.
> 
> Hawly is a landscape flamingo.
> 
> Hawly is pink.
> 
> The correct and *true* ID syllogism would go like this:
> 
> All functional information has an intelligent agent as its source. (prove this statement isn't true)
> 
> DNA contains functional information. (prove this statement isn't true)
> 
> DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.
> 
> Now I'm just waiting for the imbecile Daws to thank Hawly for her incompetent post.
Click to expand...

Oh my. Angry fundie fails again. It seems the religiously addled are unable to defend their bad analogies, inept comparisons and false claims, thus are forced to retreat to wiki. It seems that the hyper-religious Loon doesn't understand the false result, of the false premise that is set forth by the ID'iot argument. 

Fundie Christians promoting ID'iosy seem to forget that their charade has long ago been exposed as fraudulent.


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so, you're an expert at believing in fairy tales, being willfully ignorant, quote mining, misrepresenting, braggadocio, bigotry, homophobia, hubris, pseudoscience.
> all in all you're one of the most fabulous f--k up's I've ever met.
> after 30 years in showbiz that's saying something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8194;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it would seem you are a bigot, as you base your own opinions on how you feel and not on what God reveals/teaches. Judge not lest ye be judged. Your own opinion is not a reason to disrespect someone. Homosexuality is non productive. It is founded on self debasement and the misuse of the human body. God's Word is very clear in this regard. And the random use of deragatory terms for sexual encounters is only another symptom of a negative self righteous destructive society promoting hedonism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hardly! your religious delusion is so pervasive that you fail to notice how truly bigoted it is.
> you have no proof god reveals anything, what you are taught from the bible is an interpretation by either yourself or someone you "believe" to be more in touch with a so called god. most of all it's subjective.. your use of this phrase:"Judge not lest ye be judged"  is contradictive.
> as you've already judged wrongly,  myself... homosexuality...what is productive and what's not and society as a whole.
> or to put it another way: opinions are like assholes everybody's got one and yours stinks!
Click to expand...


God Word says that the wages of sin is death. Do you believe that you will die one day? Even if you believe you will not --- God's Word says you will. Can the act of sex between two men produce a child? If not, it is not productive. And you are correct when you say everyone has a anus. But not everyone enjoys something to be stuck up it.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ID&#8217;iot methodology of claiming &#8220;The Gawds Did It&#8221;
> 
> It&#8217;s one logical fallacy after another but for ID&#8217;iots, logical fallacies are the stuff of affirming an incoherent and derelict argument.
> 
> _The ID&#8217;iot argument_:
> (a) All landscape flamingos are pink;
> (b) An object in my yard is pink.
> (c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.
> 
> 
> This is the ID&#8217;iot argument that Meyer stole from Behe and Dembski. They just make up this nonsense as they go along.
> (a) - DNA has 'specified complexity'
> (b) - 'Specified complexity' can only be caused by intelligent agents
> (c) - DNA was made by an intelligent agent
> 
> It's really just an embarrassing admission of the failure of the fundie Christian creationist cabal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, just wow. Your angry fundie persona might be more effective if you actually knew how to compose a syllogism. The first syllogism you used doesn't even qualify so it is worthless for comparison purposes. How many countless times must I expose your lack of education? You can educate yourself here:
> 
> Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In your stupid example below, (b) does not even qualify as a premise. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
> 
> (a) All landscape flamingos are pink;
> (b) An object in my yard is pink.
> (c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.
> 
> Here is your incompetent example rephrased as a valid syllogism:
> 
> All landscape flamingos are pink.
> 
> Hawly is a landscape flamingo.
> 
> Hawly is pink.
> 
> The correct and *true* ID syllogism would go like this:
> 
> All functional information has an intelligent agent as its source. (prove this statement isn't true)
> 
> DNA contains functional information. (prove this statement isn't true)
> 
> DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.
> 
> Now I'm just waiting for the imbecile Daws to thank Hawly for her incompetent post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my. Angry fundie fails again. It seems the religiously addled are unable to defend their bad analogies, inept comparisons and false claims, thus are forced to retreat to wiki. It seems that the hyper-religious Loon doesn't understand the false result, of the false premise that is set forth by the ID'iot argument.
> 
> Fundie Christians promoting ID'iosy seem to forget that their charade has long ago been exposed as fraudulent.
Click to expand...


I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meyer does too: No complex, information with specificity exists in nature unless it has an intelligent agent as its source, period. Or put another way, ALL functional, complex information has an intelligent agent as its source. This is a hypothesis that will become a law eventually until you prove otherwise. However, you are too blind to even have a logical discussion with, as evidenced by this post. Logic escapes you so what is the point in arguing with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one species that we know of who is "intelligent," by our own definition: us. We are therefore, by definition, the ONLY Known intelligent source of specifiable, complex information. My point: you are begging the question, and your sample size is far too small to generalize this to then claim that "*all specifiable, complex information is created by intelligence.*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove me wrong then!!!  Omigosh!! I can't believe you are so ignorant to your own theory of Evolution!! The TOE does this continually. All the historic sciences do this. When there are multiple explanations, they default to the best explanation. Meyer refutes all the chance, necessity and chance with necessity arguments and then points to a cause presently in operation as being the best explanation. Again, you denial of Meyers probability arguments just screams of your ignorance of origins arguments made by the so called pseudo scientist of evolultion. Meyers probability arguments are merely a rebuttal to origins theories from your camp. Your inability to acknowledge this just shows your blatant ignorance of your own worldview.
> No, its the level of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are green apples, yellow apples, etc...You can't generalize to all apples being red based on the  first apple you saw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again!! You have not presented me with any yellow or green apples in this case so your fallacy accusation has no merit!!! Find an example of complex, functional information that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source and you will have your green apple. Furthermore, we have billions examples of information created by intelligent agents, dating as far back as cave drawings, NOT ONE, as in your completely ignorant and fallacious apple comparison. So it is not the first apple, but apple after apple after apple after apple infinity that fits until you falsify it with an example that violates the hypothesis.  That silly,  false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly, who were quick to thank you for your fallacious example,  but you are sadly mistaken if you think you can pass it off on the intelligent folks here. Until then, your silly comparison has no merit and is fallacious in and of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, this is what you are doing while looking at human created information. Even more arrogant is that you are the one defining us as intelligent. Therefore, you are defining this conclusion into existence. It is begging the question, yet another fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is by far the dumbest thing you have said yet and shows a complete lack of intelligence on your part. So excluding yourself, are you are saying that the human mind does not represent intelligence??? Really???
Click to expand...


Considering you start off with trying to shift the burden of proof to me to "prove you wrong," I'll keep this short and consider this maneuver a microcosm of the rest of your fallacy-laden post and of your posts in general. It is not incumbent upon me to disprove your assertions. You must do your own work, and you can not, without employing multiple fallacies as I've mentioned, which you  continuously deny. 

Nowhere did you refute anything I wrote. You just ridiculed me without actually addressing arguments. So, there is really nothing to say. All of my points stand. You haven't refuted the inductive nature of Meyers conclusions, instead only attacked evolution, which does nothing to rescue your theory from its fallacies. Also, you failed to follow through on your own assertions about evolution. Science looking for a best explanation had nothing to with inductively concluding something, necessarily. The assertion is a non-sequitur as you failed to explain how this is applies here. As for the intelligence issue, you completely missed the point and obviously don't know what begging the question means, so I find it hilarious that you attempt to school others about syllogisms when it is clear you don't know the first thing about them or logic. Basically, Intelligence is a subjective term, and considering it is being used in the premise and the conclusion, it is begging the question. One other annoying point in your posts is that you keep on talking about origins, which has nothing to do with evolution, so stop attacking abiogenesis as if that would weaken evolutionary theory. The two are completely independent of one another. If you want to discuss one or the other, fine, but stop putting them in the same category of discussion.


You can not reach the conclusions that DNA was created by intelligence without invalid argumentation. I have tired of constantly having to dismantle your egregious use of logical fallacy, only to have you deny any fallacy exists. It's a little exhausting, especially when I keep on having to identify and point out the same fallacies over and over again. You just don't want to learn. You are so convinced of your truth, it seems as though you never thought to question it. I have questioned evolutions, because of this thread. I have allowed that doubt to take place, and have found that it doesn't alter the evidence for evolution, and I find your arguments so utterly unconvincing, simply because I don't already believe in an intelligent designer. Perhaps you should allow yourself the same doubt so you can discontinue your streak or arrogance and hubris, leveraged off of Meyers confidence no doubt, instead of off the merits of the argument itself. I have gotten way off course here, but as I said, I've already dismantled Meyers argument again and again, yet you seem to think this isn't possible, so I digress.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, just wow. Your angry fundie persona might be more effective if you actually knew how to compose a syllogism. The first syllogism you used doesn't even qualify so it is worthless for comparison purposes. How many countless times must I expose your lack of education? You can educate yourself here:
> 
> Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In your stupid example below, (b) does not even qualify as a premise. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
> 
> (a) All landscape flamingos are pink;
> (b) An object in my yard is pink.
> (c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.
> 
> Here is your incompetent example rephrased as a valid syllogism:
> 
> All landscape flamingos are pink.
> 
> Hawly is a landscape flamingo.
> 
> Hawly is pink.
> 
> The correct and *true* ID syllogism would go like this:
> 
> All functional information has an intelligent agent as its source. (prove this statement isn't true)
> 
> DNA contains functional information. (prove this statement isn't true)
> 
> DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.
> 
> Now I'm just waiting for the imbecile Daws to thank Hawly for her incompetent post.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. Angry fundie fails again. It seems the religiously addled are unable to defend their bad analogies, inept comparisons and false claims, thus are forced to retreat to wiki. It seems that the hyper-religious Loon doesn't understand the false result, of the false premise that is set forth by the ID'iot argument.
> 
> Fundie Christians promoting ID'iosy seem to forget that their charade has long ago been exposed as fraudulent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.
Click to expand...


What hasn't gone unnoticed is your use of a syllogism that defines the circular and presumptive nature of hyper-religious creationist. Obviously, you didn't realize that you used such measures to dismantle your own argument.

It's actually laughable to watch the Meyer groupies repeat the same silly slogans without understanding how utterly pompous they appear. 

As it was pointed out to you earlier - and it's obvious why you chose to side step: "Creationist information, as discussed by Meyer, is an incoherent mess. One version of it has been introduced by William Dembski, and criticized in detail by Mark Perakh, Richard Wein, and many others (including me). Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition of creationist information; nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations".

Creationism, as defined by "stealth fundamentalist christianity", is a laughable joke.  Critics know that "specified information" is a slogan invented by fundie Christians and is a term chosen to suggest relative importance, yet, there is no objective standard for either measurement or evaluation of such creationist babble. Scientists, (to exclude hacks such as creationists with dubious or non-existent credentials), know that "information" routinely comes from many  sources, such as biological processes. Mutation and natural selection do just fine without the introduction of magic and mysticism required by Christian fundies.

Two things struck me as I read the slogans invented by Meyer and the Christian cabal: first, Its essential dishonesty, and second, Meyer's  misunderstanding and thus gross errors regarding information theory. 

The logical reply to fundie Christians who invent means, methods and mechanisms for how " The gawds did it", is to require an answer to the question, "If we concede your point that gawds are incomprehensible,then why is any attribute you attach to them, including that they are  incomprehensible -- to be taken as accurate?

See, the problem shared by Christian fundies is their inability to escape internal collpase. If they are granted their premise, that Gawds are incomprehenisble, then you exclude yourself from saying anything meaningful about them and even your claim that they are indeed "incomprehensible" is suspect.

Fundies are simply confirming they have nothing but invented suppositions and conjecture 


Actually, I find the Christian gawds "plan" to be ridiculously simple. Basically, they're trying to teach themselves a lesson. They do this by creating Satan and using humans as pawns in a game.

In other words, the gawds comes across as lethargic and bored with doing nothing for infinity and need to amuse themselves, not unlike countless other bored gawds who dicker with humankind in order to get some sort of entertainment out of existence.

Of course, the problem with this view (specifically, the frivolous fundie Christian view) is that by definition, gawds cannot have any wants. To ascribe "want" and "desire" to a being that authored everything is self-evidently absurd.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as stated before you have no quantifiable proof that god did anything.
> funny if god created everything why was human kind the species that invented the clock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ability to believe in miracles is noted.
> 
> God gave human kind the ability to do so through intelligence. That is what separates us from all living organisms our intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> funny, god's stock and trade is miracles .
> your denial of this means you fashioned god in your own image.
> you can believe god gave humans abilities but you have no proof to back it up.
> on the other hand it's been proven that humans developed skills and abilities over time with no help from
> deities
> Bitching, whining and unprovable pseudoscience ravings in 3...2.....1
Click to expand...


God's work are not miracles to him they may seem like a miracle to us but Gods work is his natural ability but for a naturalist everything is the result of mircales.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ability to believe in miracles is noted.
> 
> God gave human kind the ability to do so through intelligence. That is what separates us from all living organisms our intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> funny, god's stock and trade is miracles .
> your denial of this means you fashioned god in your own image.
> you can believe god gave humans abilities but you have no proof to back it up.
> on the other hand it's been proven that humans developed skills and abilities over time with no help from
> deities
> Bitching, whining and unprovable pseudoscience ravings in 3...2.....1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's work are not miracles to him they may seem like a miracle to us but Gods work is his natural ability but for a naturalist everything is the result of mircales.
Click to expand...


It really is remarkable that creationist take it upon themselves to speak with authority on the wants, needs, desires and intentions of the gawds they similarly insist are incomprehensible. 

We're now to understand that creationist have configured their gawds such that "naturalistic everything" is the work of the gawds. 

So..... are we to take away that the natural world is a miracle configured by the gawds?

If so, why would a natural world require the intervention of gawds? Are we to believe that the supernatural gawds, supernaturally made a natural world?

Have creationist fallen out of the gawds tree and bumped their heads on the way down?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "That silly, false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly,..."
> 
> It seems fundie stalker has yet to emerge from his stupor.
> 
> 
> 
> he's like a neurotic school girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say Thespian, do you pronounce it thethspian?
Click to expand...

can't seem to kick your homoerotic fantasies.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it would seem you are a bigot, as you base your own opinions on how you feel and not on what God reveals/teaches. Judge not lest ye be judged. Your own opinion is not a reason to disrespect someone. Homosexuality is non productive. It is founded on self debasement and the misuse of the human body. God's Word is very clear in this regard. And the random use of deragatory terms for sexual encounters is only another symptom of a negative self righteous destructive society promoting hedonism.
> 
> 
> 
> hardly! your religious delusion is so pervasive that you fail to notice how truly bigoted it is.
> you have no proof god reveals anything, what you are taught from the bible is an interpretation by either yourself or someone you "believe" to be more in touch with a so called god. most of all it's subjective.. your use of this phrase:"Judge not lest ye be judged"  is contradictive.
> as you've already judged wrongly,  myself... homosexuality...what is productive and what's not and society as a whole.
> or to put it another way: opinions are like assholes everybody's got one and yours stinks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God Word says that the wages of sin is death. Do you believe that you will die one day? Even if you believe you will not --- God's Word says you will. Can the act of sex between two men produce a child? If not, it is not productive. And you are correct when you say everyone has a anus. But not everyone enjoys something to be stuck up it.
Click to expand...

 your religious delusion is so pervasive that you fail to notice how truly bigoted it is.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, just wow. Your angry fundie persona might be more effective if you actually knew how to compose a syllogism. The first syllogism you used doesn't even qualify so it is worthless for comparison purposes. How many countless times must I expose your lack of education? You can educate yourself here:
> 
> Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In your stupid example below, (b) does not even qualify as a premise. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
> 
> (a) All landscape flamingos are pink;
> (b) An object in my yard is pink.
> (c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.
> 
> Here is your incompetent example rephrased as a valid syllogism:
> 
> All landscape flamingos are pink.
> 
> Hawly is a landscape flamingo.
> 
> Hawly is pink.
> 
> The correct and *true* ID syllogism would go like this:
> 
> All functional information has an intelligent agent as its source. (prove this statement isn't true)
> 
> DNA contains functional information. (prove this statement isn't true)
> 
> DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.
> 
> Now I'm just waiting for the imbecile Daws to thank Hawly for her incompetent post.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. Angry fundie fails again. It seems the religiously addled are unable to defend their bad analogies, inept comparisons and false claims, thus are forced to retreat to wiki. It seems that the hyper-religious Loon doesn't understand the false result, of the false premise that is set forth by the ID'iot argument.
> 
> Fundie Christians promoting ID'iosy seem to forget that their charade has long ago been exposed as fraudulent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.
Click to expand...

god will punish you for your many false declarations like this one.
who's immature again?


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is only one species that we know of who is "intelligent," by our own definition: Us. We are therefore, by definition, the only known intelligent source of specifiable, complex information. My point: You are begging the question, and your sample size is far too small to generalize this to then claim that "*all specifiable, complex information is created by intelligence.*"
> 
> 
> 
> prove me wrong then!!!  Omigosh!! I can't believe you are so ignorant to your own theory of evolution!! The toe does this continually. All the historic sciences do this. When there are multiple explanations, they default to the best explanation. Meyer refutes all the chance, necessity and chance with necessity arguments and then points to a cause presently in operation as being the best explanation. Again, you denial of meyers probability arguments just screams of your ignorance of origins arguments made by the so called pseudo scientist of evolultion. Meyers probability arguments are merely a rebuttal to origins theories from your camp. Your inability to acknowledge this just shows your blatant ignorance of your own worldview.
> No, its the level of yours.
> Wrong again!! You have not presented me with any yellow or green apples in this case so your fallacy accusation has no merit!!! Find an example of complex, functional information that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source and you will have your green apple. Furthermore, we have billions examples of information created by intelligent agents, dating as far back as cave drawings, not one, as in your completely ignorant and fallacious apple comparison. So it is not the first apple, but apple after apple after apple after apple infinity that fits until you falsify it with an example that violates the hypothesis.  That silly,  false comparison might work on the mental giants like daws and hawly, who were quick to thank you for your fallacious example,  but you are sadly mistaken if you think you can pass it off on the intelligent folks here. Until then, your silly comparison has no merit and is fallacious in and of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> yet, this is what you are doing while looking at human created information. Even more arrogant is that you are the one defining us as intelligent. Therefore, you are defining this conclusion into existence. It is begging the question, yet another fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is by far the dumbest thing you have said yet and shows a complete lack of intelligence on your part. So excluding yourself, are you are saying that the human mind does not represent intelligence??? Really???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> considering you start off with trying to shift the burden of proof to me to "prove you wrong," i'll keep this short and consider this maneuver a microcosm of the rest of your fallacy-laden post and of your posts in general. It is not incumbent upon me to disprove your assertions. You must do your own work, and you can not, without employing multiple fallacies as i've mentioned, which you  continuously deny.
> 
> Nowhere did you refute anything i wrote. You just ridiculed me without actually addressing arguments. So, there is really nothing to say. All of my points stand. You haven't refuted the inductive nature of meyers conclusions, instead only attacked evolution, which does nothing to rescue your theory from its fallacies. Also, you failed to follow through on your own assertions about evolution. Science looking for a best explanation had nothing to with inductively concluding something, necessarily. The assertion is a non-sequitur as you failed to explain how this is applies here. As for the intelligence issue, you completely missed the point and obviously don't know what begging the question means, so i find it hilarious that you attempt to school others about syllogisms when it is clear you don't know the first thing about them or logic. Basically, intelligence is a subjective term, and considering it is being used in the premise and the conclusion, it is begging the question. One other annoying point in your posts is that you keep on talking about origins, which has nothing to do with evolution, so stop attacking abiogenesis as if that would weaken evolutionary theory. The two are completely independent of one another. If you want to discuss one or the other, fine, but stop putting them in the same category of discussion.
> 
> 
> You can not reach the conclusions that dna was created by intelligence without invalid argumentation. I have tired of constantly having to dismantle your egregious use of logical fallacy, only to have you deny any fallacy exists. It's a little exhausting, especially when i keep on having to identify and point out the same fallacies over and over again. You just don't want to learn. You are so convinced of your truth, it seems as though you never thought to question it. I have questioned evolutions, because of this thread. I have allowed that doubt to take place, and have found that it doesn't alter the evidence for evolution, and i find your arguments so utterly unconvincing, simply because i don't already believe in an intelligent designer. Perhaps you should allow yourself the same doubt so you can discontinue your streak or arrogance and hubris, leveraged off of meyers confidence no doubt, instead of off the merits of the argument itself. I have gotten way off course here, but as i said, i've already dismantled meyers argument again and again, yet you seem to think this isn't possible, so i digress.
Click to expand...

bump!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ability to believe in miracles is noted.
> 
> God gave human kind the ability to do so through intelligence. That is what separates us from all living organisms our intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> funny, god's stock and trade is miracles .
> your denial of this means you fashioned god in your own image.
> you can believe god gave humans abilities but you have no proof to back it up.
> on the other hand it's been proven that humans developed skills and abilities over time with no help from
> deities
> Bitching, whining and unprovable pseudoscience ravings in 3...2.....1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's work are not miracles to him they may seem like a miracle to us but Gods work is his natural ability but for a naturalist everything is the result of mircales.
Click to expand...

you fashioned god in your own image.SLAPDICK...


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny, god's stock and trade is miracles .
> your denial of this means you fashioned god in your own image.
> you can believe god gave humans abilities but you have no proof to back it up.
> on the other hand it's been proven that humans developed skills and abilities over time with no help from
> deities
> Bitching, whining and unprovable pseudoscience ravings in 3...2.....1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's work are not miracles to him they may seem like a miracle to us but Gods work is his natural ability but for a naturalist everything is the result of mircales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is remarkable that creationist take it upon themselves to speak with authority on the wants, needs, desires and intentions of the gawds they similarly insist are incomprehensible.
> 
> We're now to understand that creationist have configured their gawds such that "naturalistic everything" is the work of the gawds.
> 
> So..... are we to take away that the natural world is a miracle configured by the gawds?
> 
> If so, why would a natural world require the intervention of gawds? Are we to believe that the supernatural gawds, supernaturally made a natural world?
> 
> Have creationist fallen out of the gawds tree and bumped their heads on the way down?
Click to expand...

 YES AN THE EFFECTS ARE OBVIOUS:  mircales


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "That silly, false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly,..."
> 
> It seems fundie stalker has yet to emerge from his stupor.
> 
> 
> 
> he's like a neurotic school girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say Thespian, do you pronounce it thethspian?
Click to expand...

no it's thessspian..
if you insist on doing stereotypical gay affections, try these classics: "I'll ssssscratch your eyesss out! " or You brute!....you brute!


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hardly! your religious delusion is so pervasive that you fail to notice how truly bigoted it is.
> you have no proof god reveals anything, what you are taught from the bible is an interpretation by either yourself or someone you "believe" to be more in touch with a so called god. most of all it's subjective.. your use of this phrase:"Judge not lest ye be judged"  is contradictive.
> as you've already judged wrongly,  myself... homosexuality...what is productive and what's not and society as a whole.
> or to put it another way: opinions are like assholes everybody's got one and yours stinks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God Word says that the wages of sin is death. Do you believe that you will die one day? Even if you believe you will not --- God's Word says you will. Can the act of sex between two men produce a child? If not, it is not productive. And you are correct when you say everyone has a anus. But not everyone enjoys something to be stuck up it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your religious delusion is so pervasive that you fail to notice how truly bigoted it is.
Click to expand...

I trust God. God is the light of the world. A bigot is someone who cannot live outside a box of his own making. 
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one species that we know of who is "intelligent," by our own definition: us. We are therefore, by definition, the ONLY Known intelligent source of specifiable, complex information. My point: you are begging the question, and your sample size is far too small to generalize this to then claim that "*all specifiable, complex information is created by intelligence.*"
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong then!!!  Omigosh!! I can't believe you are so ignorant to your own theory of Evolution!! The TOE does this continually. All the historic sciences do this. When there are multiple explanations, they default to the best explanation. Meyer refutes all the chance, necessity and chance with necessity arguments and then points to a cause presently in operation as being the best explanation. Again, you denial of Meyers probability arguments just screams of your ignorance of origins arguments made by the so called pseudo scientist of evolultion. Meyers probability arguments are merely a rebuttal to origins theories from your camp. Your inability to acknowledge this just shows your blatant ignorance of your own worldview.
> No, its the level of yours.
> Wrong again!! You have not presented me with any yellow or green apples in this case so your fallacy accusation has no merit!!! Find an example of complex, functional information that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source and you will have your green apple. Furthermore, we have billions examples of information created by intelligent agents, dating as far back as cave drawings, NOT ONE, as in your completely ignorant and fallacious apple comparison. So it is not the first apple, but apple after apple after apple after apple infinity that fits until you falsify it with an example that violates the hypothesis.  That silly,  false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly, who were quick to thank you for your fallacious example,  but you are sadly mistaken if you think you can pass it off on the intelligent folks here. Until then, your silly comparison has no merit and is fallacious in and of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, this is what you are doing while looking at human created information. Even more arrogant is that you are the one defining us as intelligent. Therefore, you are defining this conclusion into existence. It is begging the question, yet another fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is by far the dumbest thing you have said yet and shows a complete lack of intelligence on your part. So excluding yourself, are you are saying that the human mind does not represent intelligence??? Really???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering you start off with trying to shift the burden of proof to me to "prove you wrong," I'll keep this short and consider this maneuver a microcosm of the rest of your fallacy-laden post and of your posts in general. It is not incumbent upon me to disprove your assertions. You must do your own work, and you can not, without employing multiple fallacies as I've mentioned, which you  continuously deny.
> 
> Nowhere did you refute anything I wrote. You just ridiculed me without actually addressing arguments. So, there is really nothing to say. All of my points stand. You haven't refuted the inductive nature of Meyers conclusions, instead only attacked evolution, which does nothing to rescue your theory from its fallacies. Also, you failed to follow through on your own assertions about evolution. Science looking for a best explanation had nothing to with inductively concluding something, necessarily. The assertion is a non-sequitur as you failed to explain how this is applies here. As for the intelligence issue, you completely missed the point and obviously don't know what begging the question means, so I find it hilarious that you attempt to school others about syllogisms when it is clear you don't know the first thing about them or logic. Basically, Intelligence is a subjective term, and considering it is being used in the premise and the conclusion, it is begging the question. One other annoying point in your posts is that you keep on talking about origins, which has nothing to do with evolution, so stop attacking abiogenesis as if that would weaken evolutionary theory. The two are completely independent of one another. If you want to discuss one or the other, fine, but stop putting them in the same category of discussion.
> 
> 
> You can not reach the conclusions that DNA was created by intelligence without invalid argumentation. I have tired of constantly having to dismantle your egregious use of logical fallacy, only to have you deny any fallacy exists. It's a little exhausting, especially when I keep on having to identify and point out the same fallacies over and over again. You just don't want to learn. You are so convinced of your truth, it seems as though you never thought to question it. I have questioned evolutions, because of this thread. I have allowed that doubt to take place, and have found that it doesn't alter the evidence for evolution, and I find your arguments so utterly unconvincing, simply because I don't already believe in an intelligent designer. Perhaps you should allow yourself the same doubt so you can discontinue your streak or arrogance and hubris, leveraged off of Meyers confidence no doubt, instead of off the merits of the argument itself. I have gotten way off course here, but as I said, I've already dismantled Meyers argument again and again, yet you seem to think this isn't possible, so I digress.
Click to expand...


I think the most alarming thing is that you actually believe you have dismantled Meyer's hypothesis!! You have done no such thing. And it is you who is arguing the origins points to me. That is what we were discussing in case your limited attention span has failed you again. As far as Meyer's hypothesis, I was giving you the option to discredit it. You can prove his theory wrong by merely coming up with an example of complex, functional information which is randomly generated or the result of a natural process, a fact which you have continually side stepped and ignored. Why? Because you know in your heart his hypothesis stands for now, until some major discovery is made that would prove otherwise, a fact you also choose to conveniently ignore.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. Angry fundie fails again. It seems the religiously addled are unable to defend their bad analogies, inept comparisons and false claims, thus are forced to retreat to wiki. It seems that the hyper-religious Loon doesn't understand the false result, of the false premise that is set forth by the ID'iot argument.
> 
> Fundie Christians promoting ID'iosy seem to forget that their charade has long ago been exposed as fraudulent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What hasn't gone unnoticed is your use of a syllogism that defines the circular and presumptive nature of hyper-religious creationist. Obviously, you didn't realize that you used such measures to dismantle your own argument.
> 
> It's actually laughable to watch the Meyer groupies repeat the same silly slogans without understanding how utterly pompous they appear.
> 
> As it was pointed out to you earlier - and it's obvious why you chose to side step: "Creationist information, as discussed by Meyer, is an incoherent mess. One version of it has been introduced by William Dembski, and criticized in detail by Mark Perakh, Richard Wein, and many others (including me). Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition of creationist information; nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations".
> 
> Creationism, as defined by "stealth fundamentalist christianity", is a laughable joke.  Critics know that "specified information" is a slogan invented by fundie Christians and is a term chosen to suggest relative importance, yet, there is no objective standard for either measurement or evaluation of such creationist babble. Scientists, (to exclude hacks such as creationists with dubious or non-existent credentials), know that "information" routinely comes from many  sources, such as biological processes. Mutation and natural selection do just fine without the introduction of magic and mysticism required by Christian fundies.
> 
> Two things struck me as I read the slogans invented by Meyer and the Christian cabal: first, Its essential dishonesty, and second, Meyer's  misunderstanding and thus gross errors regarding information theory.
> 
> The logical reply to fundie Christians who invent means, methods and mechanisms for how " The gawds did it", is to require an answer to the question, "If we concede your point that gawds are incomprehensible,then why is any attribute you attach to them, including that they are  incomprehensible -- to be taken as accurate?
> 
> See, the problem shared by Christian fundies is their inability to escape internal collpase. If they are granted their premise, that Gawds are incomprehenisble, then you exclude yourself from saying anything meaningful about them and even your claim that they are indeed "incomprehensible" is suspect.
> 
> Fundies are simply confirming they have nothing but invented suppositions and conjecture
> 
> 
> Actually, I find the Christian gawds "plan" to be ridiculously simple. Basically, they're trying to teach themselves a lesson. They do this by creating Satan and using humans as pawns in a game.
> 
> In other words, the gawds comes across as lethargic and bored with doing nothing for infinity and need to amuse themselves, not unlike countless other bored gawds who dicker with humankind in order to get some sort of entertainment out of existence.
> 
> Of course, the problem with this view (specifically, the frivolous fundie Christian view) is that by definition, gawds cannot have any wants. To ascribe "want" and "desire" to a being that authored everything is self-evidently absurd.
Click to expand...


Funny, in this long, useless, typical Ad-Hawlyman response, you said nothing to dismantle the ID syllogism,  and provided no evidence to contradict the premises or conclusion.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. Angry fundie fails again. It seems the religiously addled are unable to defend their bad analogies, inept comparisons and false claims, thus are forced to retreat to wiki. It seems that the hyper-religious Loon doesn't understand the false result, of the false premise that is set forth by the ID'iot argument.
> 
> Fundie Christians promoting ID'iosy seem to forget that their charade has long ago been exposed as fraudulent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> god will punish you for your many false declarations like this one.
> who's immature again?
Click to expand...


It's not false, thespi-douche.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> he's like a neurotic school girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say Thespian, do you pronounce it thethspian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it's thessspian..
> if you insist on doing stereotypical gay affections, try these classics: "I'll ssssscratch your eyesss out! " or You brute!....you brute!
Click to expand...


This got your goat so bad it required not one, but two responses!


----------



## UltimateReality




----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What hasn't gone unnoticed is your use of a syllogism that defines the circular and presumptive nature of hyper-religious creationist. Obviously, you didn't realize that you used such measures to dismantle your own argument.
> 
> It's actually laughable to watch the Meyer groupies repeat the same silly slogans without understanding how utterly pompous they appear.
> 
> As it was pointed out to you earlier - and it's obvious why you chose to side step: "Creationist information, as discussed by Meyer, is an incoherent mess. One version of it has been introduced by William Dembski, and criticized in detail by Mark Perakh, Richard Wein, and many others (including me). Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition of creationist information; nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations".
> 
> Creationism, as defined by "stealth fundamentalist christianity", is a laughable joke.  Critics know that "specified information" is a slogan invented by fundie Christians and is a term chosen to suggest relative importance, yet, there is no objective standard for either measurement or evaluation of such creationist babble. Scientists, (to exclude hacks such as creationists with dubious or non-existent credentials), know that "information" routinely comes from many  sources, such as biological processes. Mutation and natural selection do just fine without the introduction of magic and mysticism required by Christian fundies.
> 
> Two things struck me as I read the slogans invented by Meyer and the Christian cabal: first, Its essential dishonesty, and second, Meyer's  misunderstanding and thus gross errors regarding information theory.
> 
> The logical reply to fundie Christians who invent means, methods and mechanisms for how " The gawds did it", is to require an answer to the question, "If we concede your point that gawds are incomprehensible,then why is any attribute you attach to them, including that they are  incomprehensible -- to be taken as accurate?
> 
> See, the problem shared by Christian fundies is their inability to escape internal collpase. If they are granted their premise, that Gawds are incomprehenisble, then you exclude yourself from saying anything meaningful about them and even your claim that they are indeed "incomprehensible" is suspect.
> 
> Fundies are simply confirming they have nothing but invented suppositions and conjecture
> 
> 
> Actually, I find the Christian gawds "plan" to be ridiculously simple. Basically, they're trying to teach themselves a lesson. They do this by creating Satan and using humans as pawns in a game.
> 
> In other words, the gawds comes across as lethargic and bored with doing nothing for infinity and need to amuse themselves, not unlike countless other bored gawds who dicker with humankind in order to get some sort of entertainment out of existence.
> 
> Of course, the problem with this view (specifically, the frivolous fundie Christian view) is that by definition, gawds cannot have any wants. To ascribe "want" and "desire" to a being that authored everything is self-evidently absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, in this long, useless response, you said nothing to dismantle the ID syllogism,  and provided no evidence to contradict the premises or conclusion.
Click to expand...

I was certain your befuddlement would cause you to slither away from any attempt at a response. Absent reciting goofy slogans from creationist charlatans such as Meyer, your limitations with both imagination and availability of fact in support of the ID'iot argument leaves you with no options. 

You are befuddled in that you haven't been able to grasp the concept that the ID'iot argument is one of circular references, false analogies and appeals to ignorance. A read through of any of your incompetent citing of creationist charlatans is convincing of that. 

I suppose it escapes you that a syllogism is typically a mal-formed argument that derives from one with an inability to construct coherent and logically connected ideas. That failure typifies the ID'iot argument.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you say Thespian, do you pronounce it thethspian?
> 
> 
> 
> no it's thessspian..
> if you insist on doing stereotypical gay affections, try these classics: "I'll ssssscratch your eyesss out! " or You brute!....you brute!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This got your goat so bad it required not one, but two responses!
Click to expand...


Promoted by the pointless babble that typifies similarly pointless ID'iot claims.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What hasn't gone unnoticed is your use of a syllogism that defines the circular and presumptive nature of hyper-religious creationist. Obviously, you didn't realize that you used such measures to dismantle your own argument.
> 
> It's actually laughable to watch the Meyer groupies repeat the same silly slogans without understanding how utterly pompous they appear.
> 
> As it was pointed out to you earlier - and it's obvious why you chose to side step: "Creationist information, as discussed by Meyer, is an incoherent mess. One version of it has been introduced by William Dembski, and criticized in detail by Mark Perakh, Richard Wein, and many others (including me). Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition of creationist information; nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations".
> 
> Creationism, as defined by "stealth fundamentalist christianity", is a laughable joke.  Critics know that "specified information" is a slogan invented by fundie Christians and is a term chosen to suggest relative importance, yet, there is no objective standard for either measurement or evaluation of such creationist babble. Scientists, (to exclude hacks such as creationists with dubious or non-existent credentials), know that "information" routinely comes from many  sources, such as biological processes. Mutation and natural selection do just fine without the introduction of magic and mysticism required by Christian fundies.
> 
> Two things struck me as I read the slogans invented by Meyer and the Christian cabal: first, Its essential dishonesty, and second, Meyer's  misunderstanding and thus gross errors regarding information theory.
> 
> The logical reply to fundie Christians who invent means, methods and mechanisms for how " The gawds did it", is to require an answer to the question, "If we concede your point that gawds are incomprehensible,then why is any attribute you attach to them, including that they are  incomprehensible -- to be taken as accurate?
> 
> See, the problem shared by Christian fundies is their inability to escape internal collpase. If they are granted their premise, that Gawds are incomprehenisble, then you exclude yourself from saying anything meaningful about them and even your claim that they are indeed "incomprehensible" is suspect.
> 
> Fundies are simply confirming they have nothing but invented suppositions and conjecture
> 
> 
> Actually, I find the Christian gawds "plan" to be ridiculously simple. Basically, they're trying to teach themselves a lesson. They do this by creating Satan and using humans as pawns in a game.
> 
> In other words, the gawds comes across as lethargic and bored with doing nothing for infinity and need to amuse themselves, not unlike countless other bored gawds who dicker with humankind in order to get some sort of entertainment out of existence.
> 
> Of course, the problem with this view (specifically, the frivolous fundie Christian view) is that by definition, gawds cannot have any wants. To ascribe "want" and "desire" to a being that authored everything is self-evidently absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, in this long, useless, typical Ad-Hawlyman response, you said nothing to dismantle the ID syllogism,  and provided no evidence to contradict the premises or conclusion.
Click to expand...


I couldn't help but notice that you had to further dumb-down your pointless comments to include your typically pointless name calling. 

I suppose that appeals to your low class ambitions and abilities.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> I think the most alarming thing is that you actually believe you have dismantled Meyer's hypothesis!! You have done no such thing. And it is you who is arguing the origins points to me. That is what we were discussing in case your limited attention span has failed you again. As far as Meyer's hypothesis, I was giving you the option to discredit it. You can prove his theory wrong by merely coming up with an example of complex, functional information which is randomly generated or the result of a natural process, a fact which you have continually side stepped and ignored. Why? Because you know in your heart his hypothesis stands for now, until some major discovery is made that would prove otherwise, a fact you also choose to conveniently ignore.



The most alarming thing is that you think I haven't. It is not my job to falsify a theory that doesn't stand on its own two feet, since it can't even get off the ground in the first place. I have shown why the theory is logically invalid, being that its conclusions do not follow deductively from its premises,therefore I don't need to jump through your hoops. Finding specifiable information is again, a silly request, when you know the only maker of such information is humans, unless you are suggesting I go and find some aliens. Only someone who already believes the conclusion before even encountering its premises, could overlook and ignore such obvious fallacies. You are trying to work backwards from the presupposition that an intelligent creator exists, and is why you can't be honest about Meyers shortcomings. The display of confirmation bias here is simply staggering.


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the most alarming thing is that you actually believe you have dismantled Meyer's hypothesis!! You have done no such thing. And it is you who is arguing the origins points to me. That is what we were discussing in case your limited attention span has failed you again. As far as Meyer's hypothesis, I was giving you the option to discredit it. You can prove his theory wrong by merely coming up with an example of complex, functional information which is randomly generated or the result of a natural process, a fact which you have continually side stepped and ignored. Why? Because you know in your heart his hypothesis stands for now, until some major discovery is made that would prove otherwise, a fact you also choose to conveniently ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most alarming thing is that you think I haven't. It is not my job to falsify a theory that doesn't stand on its own two feet, since it can't even get off the ground in the first place. I have shown why the theory is logically invalid, being that its conclusions do not follow deductively from its premises,therefore I don't need to jump through your hoops. Finding specifiable information is again, a silly request, when you know the only maker of such information is humans, unless you are suggesting I go and find some aliens. Only someone who already believes the conclusion before even encountering its premises, could overlook and ignore such obvious fallacies. You are trying to work backwards from the presupposition that an intelligent creator exists, and is why you can't be honest about Meyers shortcomings. The display of confirmation bias here is simply staggering.
Click to expand...


I think it's also worth noting that the "specifiable information" slogan as used by Behe, Dembski and Meyer is a creationist generated slogan that is intended to add a veneer of science to a fundamentalist Christian agenda that is utterly hostile to science.


----------



## newpolitics

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the most alarming thing is that you actually believe you have dismantled Meyer's hypothesis!! You have done no such thing. And it is you who is arguing the origins points to me. That is what we were discussing in case your limited attention span has failed you again. As far as Meyer's hypothesis, I was giving you the option to discredit it. You can prove his theory wrong by merely coming up with an example of complex, functional information which is randomly generated or the result of a natural process, a fact which you have continually side stepped and ignored. Why? Because you know in your heart his hypothesis stands for now, until some major discovery is made that would prove otherwise, a fact you also choose to conveniently ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most alarming thing is that you think I haven't. It is not my job to falsify a theory that doesn't stand on its own two feet, since it can't even get off the ground in the first place. I have shown why the theory is logically invalid, being that its conclusions do not follow deductively from its premises,therefore I don't need to jump through your hoops. Finding specifiable information is again, a silly request, when you know the only maker of such information is humans, unless you are suggesting I go and find some aliens. Only someone who already believes the conclusion before even encountering its premises, could overlook and ignore such obvious fallacies. You are trying to work backwards from the presupposition that an intelligent creator exists, and is why you can't be honest about Meyers shortcomings. The display of confirmation bias here is simply staggering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's also worth noting that the "specifiable information" slogan as used by Behe, Dembski and Meyer is a creationist generated slogan that is intended to add a veneer of science to a fundamentalist Christian agenda that is utterly hostile to science.
Click to expand...


Indeed. I read the link you posted and it is very telling. I admit to being intimated by the term "specifiable information" as if it held a meaningful distinction in information theory. After reading your link, it seems like this terms doesn't carry much weight outside of the lingo used by proponents of this theory. This doesn't mean necessarily that it isn't a useful description, just that it was likely invented in order to make their case stronger, but having no application or utility elsewhere in science.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.
> 
> 
> 
> god will punish you for your many false declarations like this one.
> who's immature again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not false, thespi-douche.
Click to expand...

 of course it is, unless you've engaged in some illegal shenanigans to pry in to hollies' private life. 
fact is, you're a lying vindictive bitch ,who gets his ass handed to him every time you post.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you say Thespian, do you pronounce it thethspian?
> 
> 
> 
> no it's thessspian..
> if you insist on doing stereotypical gay affections, try these classics: "I'll ssssscratch your eyesss out! " or You brute!....you brute!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This got your goat so bad it required not one, but two responses!
Click to expand...

 you wish, you've not got the wherewithal, brains or experience to "get my goat".
you've brought a spoon to a gun fight.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God Word says that the wages of sin is death. Do you believe that you will die one day? Even if you believe you will not --- God's Word says you will. Can the act of sex between two men produce a child? If not, it is not productive. And you are correct when you say everyone has a anus. But not everyone enjoys something to be stuck up it.
> 
> 
> 
> your religious delusion is so pervasive that you fail to notice how truly bigoted it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I trust God. God is the light of the world. A bigot is someone who cannot live outside a box of his own making.
> Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."
Click to expand...


Of course you trust in the gawds, in a self-serving and limited fashion. 

Let's be honest though, if you cross the street mid block you look both ways before stepping into the street, right? If you had a serious illness, you'd seek competent medical care, correct? 

It appears your trust in the gawds is limited by many here and now circumstances that could shorten your life irrespective of trust, reliance or accommodation of any of the asserted gawds.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you didn't apologize for your preposterous abuse of a logical syllogism. Please do yourself a favor and spend some your computer time actually educating yourself. If you are going to cheat the government for a fake disability, at least do something to better yourself while you are spending countless unproductive hours in your section 8 apartment.
> 
> 
> 
> god will punish you for your many false declarations like this one.
> who's immature again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not false, thespi-douche.
Click to expand...


Your proud display of biblically-inspired bigotry is a little insane. I would expect Christians to try and shake this stigma, instead you seem to want to strengthen it, and without shame. That's strange. You demonstrate why faith in the bible is so errant. It causes you to judge another for something that has no effect on your life. I would call that idiotic and immoral.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What hasn't gone unnoticed is your use of a syllogism that defines the circular and presumptive nature of hyper-religious creationist. Obviously, you didn't realize that you used such measures to dismantle your own argument.
> 
> It's actually laughable to watch the Meyer groupies repeat the same silly slogans without understanding how utterly pompous they appear.
> 
> As it was pointed out to you earlier - and it's obvious why you chose to side step: "Creationist information, as discussed by Meyer, is an incoherent mess. One version of it has been introduced by William Dembski, and criticized in detail by Mark Perakh, Richard Wein, and many others (including me). Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition of creationist information; nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations".
> 
> Creationism, as defined by "stealth fundamentalist christianity", is a laughable joke.  Critics know that "specified information" is a slogan invented by fundie Christians and is a term chosen to suggest relative importance, yet, there is no objective standard for either measurement or evaluation of such creationist babble. Scientists, (to exclude hacks such as creationists with dubious or non-existent credentials), know that "information" routinely comes from many  sources, such as biological processes. Mutation and natural selection do just fine without the introduction of magic and mysticism required by Christian fundies.
> 
> Two things struck me as I read the slogans invented by Meyer and the Christian cabal: first, Its essential dishonesty, and second, Meyer's  misunderstanding and thus gross errors regarding information theory.
> 
> The logical reply to fundie Christians who invent means, methods and mechanisms for how " The gawds did it", is to require an answer to the question, "If we concede your point that gawds are incomprehensible,then why is any attribute you attach to them, including that they are  incomprehensible -- to be taken as accurate?
> 
> See, the problem shared by Christian fundies is their inability to escape internal collpase. If they are granted their premise, that Gawds are incomprehenisble, then you exclude yourself from saying anything meaningful about them and even your claim that they are indeed "incomprehensible" is suspect.
> 
> Fundies are simply confirming they have nothing but invented suppositions and conjecture
> 
> 
> Actually, I find the Christian gawds "plan" to be ridiculously simple. Basically, they're trying to teach themselves a lesson. They do this by creating Satan and using humans as pawns in a game.
> 
> In other words, the gawds comes across as lethargic and bored with doing nothing for infinity and need to amuse themselves, not unlike countless other bored gawds who dicker with humankind in order to get some sort of entertainment out of existence.
> 
> Of course, the problem with this view (specifically, the frivolous fundie Christian view) is that by definition, gawds cannot have any wants. To ascribe "want" and "desire" to a being that authored everything is self-evidently absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, in this long, useless response, you said nothing to dismantle the ID syllogism,  and provided no evidence to contradict the premises or conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was certain your befuddlement would cause you to slither away from any attempt at a response. Absent reciting goofy slogans from creationist charlatans such as Meyer, your limitations with both imagination and availability of fact in support of the ID'iot argument leaves you with no options.
> 
> You are befuddled in that you haven't been able to grasp the concept that the ID'iot argument is one of circular references, false analogies and appeals to ignorance. A read through of any of your incompetent citing of creationist charlatans is convincing of that.
> 
> I suppose it escapes you that a syllogism is typically a mal-formed argument that derives from one with an inability to construct coherent and logically connected ideas. That failure typifies the ID'iot argument.
Click to expand...


Once again, in your befuddlement, you fail to address the premises or apologize for your angry fundie, ridiculous post.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What hasn't gone unnoticed is your use of a syllogism that defines the circular and presumptive nature of hyper-religious creationist. Obviously, you didn't realize that you used such measures to dismantle your own argument.
> 
> It's actually laughable to watch the Meyer groupies repeat the same silly slogans without understanding how utterly pompous they appear.
> 
> As it was pointed out to you earlier - and it's obvious why you chose to side step: "Creationist information, as discussed by Meyer, is an incoherent mess. One version of it has been introduced by William Dembski, and criticized in detail by Mark Perakh, Richard Wein, and many others (including me). Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition of creationist information; nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations".
> 
> Creationism, as defined by "stealth fundamentalist christianity", is a laughable joke.  Critics know that "specified information" is a slogan invented by fundie Christians and is a term chosen to suggest relative importance, yet, there is no objective standard for either measurement or evaluation of such creationist babble. Scientists, (to exclude hacks such as creationists with dubious or non-existent credentials), know that "information" routinely comes from many  sources, such as biological processes. Mutation and natural selection do just fine without the introduction of magic and mysticism required by Christian fundies.
> 
> Two things struck me as I read the slogans invented by Meyer and the Christian cabal: first, Its essential dishonesty, and second, Meyer's  misunderstanding and thus gross errors regarding information theory.
> 
> The logical reply to fundie Christians who invent means, methods and mechanisms for how " The gawds did it", is to require an answer to the question, "If we concede your point that gawds are incomprehensible,then why is any attribute you attach to them, including that they are  incomprehensible -- to be taken as accurate?
> 
> See, the problem shared by Christian fundies is their inability to escape internal collpase. If they are granted their premise, that Gawds are incomprehenisble, then you exclude yourself from saying anything meaningful about them and even your claim that they are indeed "incomprehensible" is suspect.
> 
> Fundies are simply confirming they have nothing but invented suppositions and conjecture
> 
> 
> Actually, I find the Christian gawds "plan" to be ridiculously simple. Basically, they're trying to teach themselves a lesson. They do this by creating Satan and using humans as pawns in a game.
> 
> In other words, the gawds comes across as lethargic and bored with doing nothing for infinity and need to amuse themselves, not unlike countless other bored gawds who dicker with humankind in order to get some sort of entertainment out of existence.
> 
> Of course, the problem with this view (specifically, the frivolous fundie Christian view) is that by definition, gawds cannot have any wants. To ascribe "want" and "desire" to a being that authored everything is self-evidently absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, in this long, useless, typical Ad-Hawlyman response, you said nothing to dismantle the ID syllogism,  and provided no evidence to contradict the premises or conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't help but notice that you had to further dumb-down your pointless comments to include your typically pointless name calling.
> 
> I suppose that appeals to your low class ambitions and abilities.
Click to expand...


I know you are but what am I?


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the most alarming thing is that you actually believe you have dismantled Meyer's hypothesis!! You have done no such thing. And it is you who is arguing the origins points to me. That is what we were discussing in case your limited attention span has failed you again. As far as Meyer's hypothesis, I was giving you the option to discredit it. You can prove his theory wrong by merely coming up with an example of complex, functional information which is randomly generated or the result of a natural process, a fact which you have continually side stepped and ignored. Why? Because you know in your heart his hypothesis stands for now, until some major discovery is made that would prove otherwise, a fact you also choose to conveniently ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most alarming thing is that you think I haven't. It is not my job to falsify a theory that doesn't stand on its own two feet, since it can't even get off the ground in the first place. I have shown why the theory is logically invalid, being that its conclusions do not follow deductively from its premises,therefore I don't need to jump through your hoops. Finding specifiable information is again, a silly request, when you know the only maker of such information is humans, unless you are suggesting I go and find some aliens. Only someone who already believes the conclusion before even encountering its premises, could overlook and ignore such obvious fallacies. You are trying to work backwards from the presupposition that an intelligent creator exists, and is why you can't be honest about Meyers shortcomings. The display of confirmation bias here is simply staggering.
Click to expand...

 I agree. Your confirmation bias is off the charts. So much so you have lost your ability to reason and are in total denial about the evidence presented to you.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most alarming thing is that you think I haven't. It is not my job to falsify a theory that doesn't stand on its own two feet, since it can't even get off the ground in the first place. I have shown why the theory is logically invalid, being that its conclusions do not follow deductively from its premises,therefore I don't need to jump through your hoops. Finding specifiable information is again, a silly request, when you know the only maker of such information is humans, unless you are suggesting I go and find some aliens. Only someone who already believes the conclusion before even encountering its premises, could overlook and ignore such obvious fallacies. You are trying to work backwards from the presupposition that an intelligent creator exists, and is why you can't be honest about Meyers shortcomings. The display of confirmation bias here is simply staggering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's also worth noting that the "specifiable information" slogan as used by Behe, Dembski and Meyer is a creationist generated slogan that is intended to add a veneer of science to a fundamentalist Christian agenda that is utterly hostile to science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. I read the link you posted and it is very telling. I admit to being intimated by the term "specifiable information" as if it held a meaningful distinction in information theory. After reading your link, it seems like this terms doesn't carry much weight outside of the lingo used by proponents of this theory. This doesn't mean necessarily that it isn't a useful description, just that it was likely invented in order to make their case stronger, but having no application or utility elsewhere in science.
Click to expand...

 You are now as deluded as Hawly.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> god will punish you for your many false declarations like this one.
> who's immature again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not false, thespi-douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of course it is, unless you've engaged in some illegal shenanigans to pry in to hollies' private life.
> fact is, you're a lying vindictive bitch ,who gets his ass handed to him every time you post.
Click to expand...

 This is a great example of the typical, angry evo-fundie lashing out.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> god will punish you for your many false declarations like this one.
> who's immature again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not false, thespi-douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your proud display of biblically-inspired bigotry is a little insane. I would expect Christians to try and shake this stigma, instead you seem to want to strengthen it, and without shame. That's strange. You demonstrate why faith in the bible is so errant. It causes you to judge another for something that has no effect on your life. I would call that idiotic and immoral.
Click to expand...


Your proud display of militant homosexually-inspired bigotry is a little insane. I would expect homosexuals to try and shake this stigma, but instead you seem to want to strengthen it, and without shame. That's strange. You demonstrate how your hatred for God is really about your own guilt and shame. It causes you to demand acceptance from others because you don't accept yourself. This hatred of yourself is also the source of your intense bigotry and hatred for Christians. I would call that hypocritical, as well is pathetic and immoral.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your religious delusion is so pervasive that you fail to notice how truly bigoted it is.
> 
> 
> 
> I trust God. God is the light of the world. A bigot is someone who cannot live outside a box of his own making.
> Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you trust in the gawds, in a self-serving and limited fashion.
> 
> Let's be honest though, if you cross the street mid block you look both ways before stepping into the street, right? If you had a serious illness, you'd seek competent medical care, correct?
> 
> It appears your trust in the gawds is limited by many here and now circumstances that could shorten your life irrespective of trust, reliance or accommodation of any of the asserted gawds.
Click to expand...

I believe God provided doctors, And I do pray that God will provide the doctor with the best solution for an illness. I do look both ways but I also ask God for traveling mercies. I just had a case where I had no idea how I was going to make an appointment my wife wanted me to keep. I put it to prayer and another appointment cancelled at the last minute. I didn't have to worry at all. God worked it out....


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny, god's stock and trade is miracles .
> your denial of this means you fashioned god in your own image.
> you can believe god gave humans abilities but you have no proof to back it up.
> on the other hand it's been proven that humans developed skills and abilities over time with no help from
> deities
> Bitching, whining and unprovable pseudoscience ravings in 3...2.....1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's work are not miracles to him they may seem like a miracle to us but Gods work is his natural ability but for a naturalist everything is the result of mircales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you fashioned god in your own image.SLAPDICK...
Click to expand...


Still angry over being shown to be someone that is cluless concerning the
 theory you defend out of ignorance ? don't you get tired of getting slapped around ?


----------



## LittleNipper

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> god will punish you for your many false declarations like this one.
> who's immature again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not false, thespi-douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your proud display of biblically-inspired bigotry is a little insane. I would expect Christians to try and shake this stigma, instead you seem to want to strengthen it, and without shame. That's strange. You demonstrate why faith in the bible is so errant. It causes you to judge another for something that has no effect on your life. I would call that idiotic and immoral.
Click to expand...


I do believe you would get a rather big argument from LOT.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, in this long, useless response, you said nothing to dismantle the ID syllogism,  and provided no evidence to contradict the premises or conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> I was certain your befuddlement would cause you to slither away from any attempt at a response. Absent reciting goofy slogans from creationist charlatans such as Meyer, your limitations with both imagination and availability of fact in support of the ID'iot argument leaves you with no options.
> 
> You are befuddled in that you haven't been able to grasp the concept that the ID'iot argument is one of circular references, false analogies and appeals to ignorance. A read through of any of your incompetent citing of creationist charlatans is convincing of that.
> 
> I suppose it escapes you that a syllogism is typically a mal-formed argument that derives from one with an inability to construct coherent and logically connected ideas. That failure typifies the ID'iot argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, in your befuddlement, you fail to address the premises or apologize for your angry fundie, ridiculous post.
Click to expand...

Your creepy stalker syndrome has consumed you. Your pathology has forced you to parotting my comnents. 

You poor, pathetic emotional and intellectual train wreck.

And here you have slithered back, unable to defend your creepy fascination with a fundie Christian charlatan such as Meyer, you're left only to embarrass yourself with nothing to add, nothing to contribute.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's also worth noting that the "specifiable information" slogan as used by Behe, Dembski and Meyer is a creationist generated slogan that is intended to add a veneer of science to a fundamentalist Christian agenda that is utterly hostile to science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I read the link you posted and it is very telling. I admit to being intimated by the term "specifiable information" as if it held a meaningful distinction in information theory. After reading your link, it seems like this terms doesn't carry much weight outside of the lingo used by proponents of this theory. This doesn't mean necessarily that it isn't a useful description, just that it was likely invented in order to make their case stronger, but having no application or utility elsewhere in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are now as deluded as Hawly.
Click to expand...


My creepy stalker is desperate for attention.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I trust God. God is the light of the world. A bigot is someone who cannot live outside a box of his own making.
> Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigotry in the following quotation: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you trust in the gawds, in a self-serving and limited fashion.
> 
> Let's be honest though, if you cross the street mid block you look both ways before stepping into the street, right? If you had a serious illness, you'd seek competent medical care, correct?
> 
> It appears your trust in the gawds is limited by many here and now circumstances that could shorten your life irrespective of trust, reliance or accommodation of any of the asserted gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe God provided doctors, And I do pray that God will provide the doctor with the best solution for an illness. I do look both ways but I also ask God for traveling mercies. I just had a case where I had no idea how I was going to make an appointment my wife wanted me to keep. I put it to prayer and another appointment cancelled at the last minute. I didn't have to worry at all. God worked it out....
Click to expand...

I suppose the gawds provided doctors to cure disease they created. The gawds provided water for the purpose of drowning most of humanity. I suppose the gawds thus provided different religions so humans could do some of the gawds mass murders .

In the OT (the parts of the Christian bibles stolen from Judaism), there is no greater mass murder / source of pure hatred and evil than Yahweh. 

Hallelujah brotha'


----------



## Hollie

*This just in*

Hyper-religious loons at the Disco'tute.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #409: Jonathan Wells 

Jonathan Wells has just been named to the Encyclopedia of American Loons: #409: Jonathan Wells. He joins another Discovery Institute Fellow, #411 John West.

_Appallingly inane crackpot, infuriatingly dense, and reprehensibly dishonest, Wellss lack of insight and inability to even pretend to begin to understand anything before he starts criticizing it based on personal dislike, is of almost epic proportions. Yet he continues to be shockingly influential.

Less than ideally honest chucklehead, and a prime case of every strand of cognitive bias channeled into a single-minded force of rage against reality. West should not be underestimated, however, as he has made serious contribution to undermining science and education._


For anyone keeping track, the Disco'tute is a fundie Christian organization that promotes "creationism", which, as we know, is a front for hyper-religious Christians who are trying to force fundamentalist religion into the public schools.


----------



## oldirishfan

Evolutionists act as though education and creationism are mutually exclusive.

Many leading fathers of the physical sciences, both before and after Darwin, rejected atheistic origins, like Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Cuvier, Dalton before, and after Darwin including Faraday, Pasteur, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, Carver, who continued to advocate for special creation and reject evolution. This is not an argument from authority, as a typical evolutionist might claim. Rather, this list rebuts the common claim that only uneducated people reject evolution, made by countless atheists.

I've studied the evidence and as I have no fear of the truth, I allow it to take me where it may. It has led to me to the conclusion that if I were in a courtroom building a case, the evidences point toward intelligent design.

What are your 3 best pieces of evidence for evolution?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you trust in the gawds, in a self-serving and limited fashion.
> 
> Let's be honest though, if you cross the street mid block you look both ways before stepping into the street, right? If you had a serious illness, you'd seek competent medical care, correct?
> 
> It appears your trust in the gawds is limited by many here and now circumstances that could shorten your life irrespective of trust, reliance or accommodation of any of the asserted gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God provided doctors, And I do pray that God will provide the doctor with the best solution for an illness. I do look both ways but I also ask God for traveling mercies. I just had a case where I had no idea how I was going to make an appointment my wife wanted me to keep. I put it to prayer and another appointment cancelled at the last minute. I didn't have to worry at all. God worked it out....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose the gawds provided doctors to cure disease they created. The gawds provided water for the purpose of drowning most of humanity. I suppose the gawds thus provided different religions so humans could do some of the gawds mass murders .
> 
> In the OT (the parts of the Christian bibles stolen from Judaism), there is no greater mass murder / source of pure hatred and evil than Yahweh.
> 
> Hallelujah brotha'
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight... you are saying God is responsible for sickness because He created Satan, who tempted humans, whom He also created to choose it and bring illness and copying errors in the world? But you deny evolution is responsible for computers and rocket ships. Didn't evolution create humans who created rocket ships and computers so logically according to your argument about God, evolution created computers and rocket ships. We'll let that sink in for just a second while you try to figure out the logical implications of what I just said.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God provided doctors, And I do pray that God will provide the doctor with the best solution for an illness. I do look both ways but I also ask God for traveling mercies. I just had a case where I had no idea how I was going to make an appointment my wife wanted me to keep. I put it to prayer and another appointment cancelled at the last minute. I didn't have to worry at all. God worked it out....
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the gawds provided doctors to cure disease they created. The gawds provided water for the purpose of drowning most of humanity. I suppose the gawds thus provided different religions so humans could do some of the gawds mass murders .
> 
> In the OT (the parts of the Christian bibles stolen from Judaism), there is no greater mass murder / source of pure hatred and evil than Yahweh.
> 
> Hallelujah brotha'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight... you are saying God is responsible for sickness because He created Satan, who tempted humans, whom He also created to choose it and bring illness and copying errors in the world? But you deny evolution is responsible for computers and rocket ships. Didn't evolution create humans who created rocket ships and computers so logically according to your argument about God, evolution created computers and rocket ships. We'll let that sink in for just a second while you try to figure out the logical implications of what I just said.
Click to expand...

That train wreck of a thought process is in concert with what is typically belched out by creation charlatan ministries.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the gawds provided doctors to cure disease they created. The gawds provided water for the purpose of drowning most of humanity. I suppose the gawds thus provided different religions so humans could do some of the gawds mass murders .
> 
> In the OT (the parts of the Christian bibles stolen from Judaism), there is no greater mass murder / source of pure hatred and evil than Yahweh.
> 
> Hallelujah brotha'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight... you are saying God is responsible for sickness because He created Satan, who tempted humans, whom He also created to choose it and bring illness and copying errors in the world? But you deny evolution is responsible for computers and rocket ships. Didn't evolution create humans who created rocket ships and computers so logically according to your argument about God, evolution created computers and rocket ships. We'll let that sink in for just a second while you try to figure out the logical implications of what I just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That train wreck of a thought process is in concert with what is typically belched out by creation charlatan ministries.
Click to expand...


I guess we will need longer than a second to let some logic penetrate your thick skull, my little angry stalker.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight... you are saying God is responsible for sickness because He created Satan, who tempted humans, whom He also created to choose it and bring illness and copying errors in the world? But you deny evolution is responsible for computers and rocket ships. Didn't evolution create humans who created rocket ships and computers so logically according to your argument about God, evolution created computers and rocket ships. We'll let that sink in for just a second while you try to figure out the logical implications of what I just said.
> 
> 
> 
> That train wreck of a thought process is in concert with what is typically belched out by creation charlatan ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess we will need longer than a second to let some logic penetrate your thick skull, my little angry stalker.
Click to expand...

Angry fundie stalker using terms such as logic?

What a joke.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That train wreck of a thought process is in concert with what is typically belched out by creation charlatan ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we will need longer than a second to let some logic penetrate your thick skull, my little angry stalker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Angry fundie stalker using terms such as logic?
> 
> What a joke.
Click to expand...


Why are you so angry and why do you stalk me so much?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not false, thespi-douche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your proud display of biblically-inspired bigotry is a little insane. I would expect Christians to try and shake this stigma, instead you seem to want to strengthen it, and without shame. That's strange. You demonstrate why faith in the bible is so errant. It causes you to judge another for something that has no effect on your life. I would call that idiotic and immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your proud display of militant homosexually-inspired bigotry is a little insane. I would expect homosexuals to try and shake this stigma, but instead you seem to want to strengthen it, and without shame. That's strange. You demonstrate how your hatred for God is really about your own guilt and shame. It causes you to demand acceptance from others because you don't accept yourself. This hatred of yourself is also the source of your intense bigotry and hatred for Christians. I would call that hypocritical, as well is pathetic and immoral.
Click to expand...


You are like a two year old! This isn't ad libs, you crackpot.


----------



## Hollie

Christian creationists and their problems with honesty and integrity. 

Over at Jeffrey Shallit&#8217;s blog, there is an article citing his personal experience with fundie Christians that mirrors a pervasive problem with creationist: lies and deceit!

lies and deceit seem particularly addictive to Christian creationists (and Meyer groupies in particular), when attempting to promote such nonsensical slogans such as &#8220;specified complexity&#8221;. 

Recursivity: Search results for meyer



> Like most intelligent design advocates, Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute&#8217;s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, has a little problem telling the truth.
> 
> I first encountered his dissembling at an intelligent design conference held at Calvin College in May 2001. Meyer had written in 2000 that "Systems that are characterized by both specificity and complexity (what information theorists call "specified complexity'') have "information content''."
> 
> The only problem is, information theorists don't use the term "specified complexity" and they don't refer to "specificity" when discussing information. At the time, there was precisely one mathematician who was pushing the term "specified complexity", and that was William Dembski, who tried (but failed) to create a new, mathematically-rigorous definition at information which (were it coherent) would be at odds with how information is defined by other mathematicians and computer scientists.
> 
> I went up to Meyer at the conference and asked him, "You wrote that 'information theorists' (plural) talk about specified complexity. Who are they?" He then admitted that he knew no one but Dembski (and Dembski himself is not much of an information theorist, having published exactly 0 papers so far on the topic in the peer-reviewed scientific literature).
> 
> So the use of the plural, when Meyer knew perfectly well that information theorists do not use the term "specified complexity", was just a lie - and a lie intended to deceive the reader that his claims are supported by the scientific community, when they are not.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we will need longer than a second to let some logic penetrate your thick skull, my little angry stalker.
> 
> 
> 
> Angry fundie stalker using terms such as logic?
> 
> What a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you so angry and why do you stalk me so much?
Click to expand...


Have you completed your drug and alcohol rehab program?


----------



## oldirishfan

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Angry fundie stalker using terms such as logic?
> 
> What a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so angry and why do you stalk me so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you completed your drug and alcohol rehab program?
Click to expand...


Why do you seem to spend soooo much time and effort refuting something that you seem to think is ridiculous?

I certainly wouldn't waste a moment on a web site trying to persuade people that tiny leprachauns weren't about to invade the White House.


----------



## oldirishfan

oldirishfan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so angry and why do you stalk me so much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you completed your drug and alcohol rehab program?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you seem to spend soooo much time and effort refuting something that you seem to think is ridiculous?
> 
> I certainly wouldn't waste a moment on a web site trying to persuade people that tiny leprachauns weren't about to invade the White House.
Click to expand...


Hollie,

I'm new to this discussion. I'm not even going to attempt to read the thousand-plus pages on this thread.

I'll just ASSUME that you're hostile toward creationists.

I would enjoy a friendly debate with you.


----------



## oldirishfan

Well,

obviously you're not 'at-home' right now.

BUT, when you get back, I'd enjoy a debate.

I'll start.

Any good debate should start with foundational ideas.

So, do you believe in absolutes? That is, do absolute right or absolute wrong exist?

I'll wait for your answer when you return.


----------



## eots

we have no Idea how old the universe is or how we got here


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not false, thespi-douche.
> 
> 
> 
> of course it is, unless you've engaged in some illegal shenanigans to pry in to hollies' private life.
> fact is, you're a lying vindictive bitch ,who gets his ass handed to him every time you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a great example of the typical, angry evo-fundie lashing out.
Click to expand...

it's just the facts ... lashing out to cover a lie is your gig not mine...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's work are not miracles to him they may seem like a miracle to us but Gods work is his natural ability but for a naturalist everything is the result of mircales.
> 
> 
> 
> you fashioned god in your own image.SLAPDICK...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still angry over being shown to be someone that is cluless concerning the
> theory you defend out of ignorance ? don't you get tired of getting slapped around ?
Click to expand...

lol  where do you get this shit?  you've never proven me or anyone to be clueless.
although you proven yourself to be  countless times. slapped around? I've bitch slapped you so often that it's second nature.lol.


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your proud display of biblically-inspired bigotry is a little insane. I would expect Christians to try and shake this stigma, instead you seem to want to strengthen it, and without shame. That's strange. You demonstrate why faith in the bible is so errant. It causes you to judge another for something that has no effect on your life. I would call that idiotic and immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your proud display of militant homosexually-inspired bigotry is a little insane. I would expect homosexuals to try and shake this stigma, but instead you seem to want to strengthen it, and without shame. That's strange. You demonstrate how your hatred for God is really about your own guilt and shame. It causes you to demand acceptance from others because you don't accept yourself. This hatred of yourself is also the source of your intense bigotry and hatred for Christians. I would call that hypocritical, as well is pathetic and immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are like a two year old! This isn't ad libs, you crackpot.
Click to expand...

np, what detective douche bag does is not an ad lib of any kind.
to adlib one must have the ability to think on their feet and be original .
detective douche bag is a plagiarist and not a skilled one.


----------



## newpolitics

eots said:


> we have no Idea how old the universe is or how we got here



Uh... Yes we do. The universe, as we know it, is 13.7 billion years old. How we got here is an ambiguous question. The universe? Humans?


----------



## newpolitics

daws101 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your proud display of militant homosexually-inspired bigotry is a little insane. I would expect homosexuals to try and shake this stigma, but instead you seem to want to strengthen it, and without shame. That's strange. You demonstrate how your hatred for God is really about your own guilt and shame. It causes you to demand acceptance from others because you don't accept yourself. This hatred of yourself is also the source of your intense bigotry and hatred for Christians. I would call that hypocritical, as well is pathetic and immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are like a two year old! This isn't ad libs, you crackpot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> np, what detective douche bag does is not an ad lib of any kind.
> to adlib one must have the ability to think on their feet and be original .
> detective douche bag is a plagiarist and not a skilled one.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. He is very eager to cut as deep as possible, and uses others own words against them to do this.


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have no Idea how old the universe is or how we got here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... Yes we do. The universe, as we know it, is 13.7 billion years old. How we got here is an ambiguous question. The universe? Humans?
Click to expand...

hey np don't waste you time providing facts to eot's ,words with more than two syllables confuse him.


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are like a two year old! This isn't ad libs, you crackpot.
> 
> 
> 
> np, what detective douche bag does is not an ad lib of any kind.
> to adlib one must have the ability to think on their feet and be original .
> detective douche bag is a plagiarist and not a skilled one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. He is very eager to cut as deep as possible, and uses others own words against them to do this.
Click to expand...

so true ,doing so kills any small credibility he might have had.
I recall something about bearing false witness being a sin...


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are like a two year old! This isn't ad libs, you crackpot.
> 
> 
> 
> np, what detective douche bag does is not an ad lib of any kind.
> to adlib one must have the ability to think on their feet and be original .
> detective douche bag is a plagiarist and not a skilled one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. *He is very eager to cut as deep as possible*, and uses others own words against them to do this.
Click to expand...


So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine. 

If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."

I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say that I haven't, but they drew first blood.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> np, what detective douche bag does is not an ad lib of any kind.
> to adlib one must have the ability to think on their feet and be original .
> detective douche bag is a plagiarist and not a skilled one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. *He is very eager to cut as deep as possible*, and uses others own words against them to do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.
> 
> If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."
> 
> I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say they I haven't, but they drew first blood.
Click to expand...


Your primary malfunction is that your delicate ego was damaged by: 
a) your creepy advances all being refused,
b) your fundie christian arguments have been thoroughly refuted and,
c) your creepy stalking has been exposed.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> np, what detective douche bag does is not an ad lib of any kind.
> to adlib one must have the ability to think on their feet and be original .
> detective douche bag is a plagiarist and not a skilled one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. *He is very eager to cut as deep as possible*, and uses others own words against them to do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.
> 
> If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."
> 
> I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say they I haven't, but they drew first blood.
Click to expand...


The "he/she did it first" line is not an excuse for your own action. Also, I disagree with your claim about this forum of communication being the only one that allows such impersonal confrontation. Going back as far as written letter, there have been exchanges of this nature through personal letters, for instance. The distinction now is the anonymity available through the Internet, and would agree that it makes it easier fling insults, but this is an aspect afforded by everyone. It might also allow people to be more intelligent, being that in eye to eye confrontation, anxieties and fears may prevent some from speaking their mind or from being able to form coherent, logical strings of thought, because strong emotions get in the way. Absent the intensity of human confrontation, ideas can and thoughts might be more easily gathered and expressed. So, there is a give and take with the anonymity and impersonal aspect of online debate. It not only allows for greater ease of insult, but greater ease of intellectual expression in general, good and bad. Your insinuation that Daws or Holly wouldn't say these to you in person is self-refuting. Neither would you.

Copying and pasting someone's post and changing the wording to fit your narrative is a cheap move. It is not difficult to stomach or deal with intellectually, as it is basically plagiarism, and thus constitutes an informal breach of conduct, known as the golden rule. It is a tactic no one wants to use, because for most, it is beneath them. Yet, you seem to have no problem proudly using such a distasteful tactic. This is the annoyance of others.  If you consider the standard of a real debate, such a tactic would be derided and ridiculed, and you would lose points for it, so why is it okay here? It's not. It's a cheap move, that has no place in a mature debate. It is analogous to poking someone in the eyes in a street fight anyone is free to do it, but it is considered a cheap move and not the considered to be skillful. You might technically beat someone with this maneuver, but it would be a shameful win. Same here, except, there is no audience to deride you for it, so you can get away with it. So, you are taking advantage of the Internet in this regard.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. *He is very eager to cut as deep as possible*, and uses others own words against them to do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.
> 
> If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."
> 
> I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say they I haven't, but they drew first blood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your primary malfunction is that your delicate ego was damaged by:
> a) your creepy advances all being refused,
> b) your fundie christian arguments have been thoroughly refuted and,
> c) your creepy stalking has been exposed.
Click to expand...


Speaking of stalkers, another poster has challenged you to a debate and his request goes ignored for a day. However, the second I show up, you show up. Creeeeeeepy.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. *He is very eager to cut as deep as possible*, and uses others own words against them to do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.
> 
> If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."
> 
> I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say they I haven't, but they drew first blood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "he/she did it first" line is not an excuse for your own action. Also, I disagree with your claim about this forum of communication being the only one that allows such impersonal confrontation. Going back as far as written letter, there have been exchanges of this nature through personal letters, for instance. The distinction now is the anonymity available through the Internet, and would agree that it makes it easier fling insults, but this is an aspect afforded by everyone. It might also allow people to be more intelligent, being that in eye to eye confrontation, anxieties and fears may prevent some from speaking their mind or from being able to form coherent, logical strings of thought, because strong emotions get in the way. Absent the intensity of human confrontation, ideas can and thoughts might be more easily gathered and expressed. So, there is a give and take with the anonymity and impersonal aspect of online debate. It not only allows for greater ease of insult, but greater ease of intellectual expression in general, good and bad. Your insinuation that Daws or Holly wouldn't say these to you in person is self-refuting. Neither would you.
> 
> Copying and pasting someone's post and changing the wording to fit your narrative is a cheap move. It is not difficult to stomach or deal with intellectually, as it is basically plagiarism, and thus constitutes an informal breach of conduct, known as the golden rule. It is a tactic no one wants to use, because for most, it is beneath them. Yet, you seem to have no problem proudly using such a distasteful tactic. This is the annoyance of others.  If you consider the standard of a real debate, such a tactic would be derided and ridiculed, and you would lose points for it, so why is it okay here? It's not. It's a cheap move, that has no place in a mature debate. It is analogous to poking someone in the eyes in a street fight anyone is free to do it, but it is considered a cheap move and not the considered to be skillful. You might technically beat someone with this maneuver, but it would be a shameful win. Same here, except, there is no audience to deride you for it, so you can get away with it. So, you are taking advantage of the Internet in this regard.
Click to expand...


While I would agree that altering your posts and parroting them back to you is a tactic, the intention of it is not to "poke you in the eye". The purpose is to force you to view your own vitriol and bigotry by reflecting it back on you. While you may think Christianity is a joke, it is very sacred to me. Do negative comments about homosexuality cut deep to you? The same could be said for your comments about my faith. Now before you go and say I choose my faith, but you didn't choose homosexuality, I would say to you... everyone always has a choice. To deny this is to is to claim your sexual urges rule you, that you are powerless to overcome your same sex attraction. It is this powerlessness and hopelessness that makes me think homosexuality is an addiction, not a personality trait. That is where evolution comes in, since it boots ethics, and aligns with your claim is that you are helpless to do anything except what you are programmed to do. Christianity is the antithesis of this, claiming humans have free will and choice. Could this be the reason so many homosexuals are drawn to the materialistic worldview and a deep hatred of Christianity, because Christianity claims you have a choice? And just like Lady Gaga, evolution claims are that you are "born this way". Could Lady Gaga's claim, which is basically the materialistic worldview's claim, that you are born this way just as easily be applied to alcoholics, pedophiles, kleptomaniacs, mass murderers, and anyone with urges they feel powerless to overcome?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.
> 
> If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."
> 
> I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say they I haven't, but they drew first blood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your primary malfunction is that your delicate ego was damaged by:
> a) your creepy advances all being refused,
> b) your fundie christian arguments have been thoroughly refuted and,
> c) your creepy stalking has been exposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of stalkers, another poster has challenged you to a debate and his request goes ignored for a day. However, the second I show up, you show up. Creeeeeeepy.
Click to expand...


And as usual, you are unable to post a single comment without including me in your nonsensical diatribes. 

Your history of creepy stalking has been something of frequent discussion outside the limits of this thread. I suppose you are unable to take an objective view of your pathology; your desperate pleas for my attention, your frequent "threats" to leave the thread only to return time after time, and your seriously deranged belief in conspiracy theories.

You need help, Bunky.


----------



## Hollie

Over at Jeffrey Shallit&#8217;s blog, he&#8217;s had an interesting review of ID&#8217;iot math. 

It seems that just as the ID'iots have been bumbling and fumbling with the _amazing, disappearing gawds_ model, the ID&#8217;iots have been bumbling and fumbling in vain attempts to cabal together the ID&#8217;iot inspired &#8220;it&#8217;s just too complicated to occurred without the Christian gawds&#8221;.


Recursivity

*The Mathematics of Intelligent Design*

Here we have a classic example (Sequences Probability Calculator | Uncommon Descent) why it's hard to take intelligent design seriously.

The flagship blog of intelligent design presents a worthless piece of software, not even at the level of a bad junior-high-school science project, as an accomplishment. It `tries to answer questions like this: &#8220;a random process generating sequences of length L from an alphabet of S symbols in T trials of t seconds each, involving c chemical reactions, does exceed the resources of the universe (age, max number of chemical reactions, universal probability bound)?&#8221;'. We are told that this silly exercise "may give an idea of the numbers involved in scenarios as origin of life, production of biopolymers, binary and character text generation, and so on." Right.

The author clearly doesn't know what "random process" means (hint: it doesn't necessarily mean uniform probability). And his program doesn't take into account anything interesting about chemistry at all. It's just worthless number pushing.

Garbage in, garbage out. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the description of intelligent design.

Addendum: they've already removed the page. I guess there are some things that are so stupid, even Uncommon Descent can't get behind it. But you can still see the software here: (Sequence Probability Calculator v.1.1.)

Addendum: it's now back again. Not much different than before, except they added a few English mistakes.


----------



## LittleNipper

newpolitics said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have no Idea how old the universe is or how we got here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... Yes we do. The universe, as we know it, is 13.7 billion years old. How we got here is an ambiguous question. The universe? Humans?
Click to expand...


And the universe, as you perceive it, could not be 13.5 billion years old or 13. 9 billion years old, or 12.5 billion years old. "On bother," said the Democrat, "What's another trillion among friends! Anyway, it's just money!" 

The universe you perceive is self-sustaining. The universe I see is held together by God's design alone.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Over at Jeffrey Shallit&#8217;s blog, he&#8217;s had an interesting review of ID&#8217;iot math.
> 
> It seems that just as the ID'iots have been bumbling and fumbling with the _amazing, disappearing gawds_ model, the ID&#8217;iots have been bumbling and fumbling in vain attempts to cabal together the ID&#8217;iot inspired &#8220;it&#8217;s just too complicated to occurred without the Christian gawds&#8221;.
> 
> 
> Recursivity
> 
> *The Mathematics of Intelligent Design*
> 
> Here we have a classic example (Sequences Probability Calculator | Uncommon Descent) why it's hard to take intelligent design seriously.
> 
> The flagship blog of intelligent design presents a worthless piece of software, not even at the level of a bad junior-high-school science project, as an accomplishment. It `tries to answer questions like this: &#8220;a random process generating sequences of length L from an alphabet of S symbols in T trials of t seconds each, involving c chemical reactions, does exceed the resources of the universe (age, max number of chemical reactions, universal probability bound)?&#8221;'. We are told that this silly exercise "may give an idea of the numbers involved in scenarios as origin of life, production of biopolymers, binary and character text generation, and so on." Right.
> 
> The author clearly doesn't know what "random process" means (hint: it doesn't necessarily mean uniform probability). And his program doesn't take into account anything interesting about chemistry at all. It's just worthless number pushing.
> 
> Garbage in, garbage out. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the description of intelligent design.
> 
> Addendum: they've already removed the page. I guess there are some things that are so stupid, even Uncommon Descent can't get behind it. But you can still see the software here: (Sequence Probability Calculator v.1.1.)
> 
> Addendum: it's now back again. Not much different than before, except they added a few English mistakes.



This post really exposes your limited understanding of your own evo fundie camp's origins arguments involving chance and necessity. While trying to sound intelligent, you have totally exposed yourself as a fraud. Your comment about random processes and taking into account chemistry allude to the necessity arguments that have long been disproved. The base pairs have no affinity for the sugar-phosphate backbone. The backbone will readily accept any of the four nucleotides without any higher probability occurrence for a specific one. There is no chemistry "law" that can account for the complex information contained in dna.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over at Jeffrey Shallits blog, hes had an interesting review of IDiot math.
> 
> It seems that just as the ID'iots have been bumbling and fumbling with the _amazing, disappearing gawds_ model, the IDiots have been bumbling and fumbling in vain attempts to cabal together the IDiot inspired its just too complicated to occurred without the Christian gawds.
> 
> 
> Recursivity
> 
> *The Mathematics of Intelligent Design*
> 
> Here we have a classic example (Sequences Probability Calculator | Uncommon Descent) why it's hard to take intelligent design seriously.
> 
> The flagship blog of intelligent design presents a worthless piece of software, not even at the level of a bad junior-high-school science project, as an accomplishment. It `tries to answer questions like this: a random process generating sequences of length L from an alphabet of S symbols in T trials of t seconds each, involving c chemical reactions, does exceed the resources of the universe (age, max number of chemical reactions, universal probability bound)?'. We are told that this silly exercise "may give an idea of the numbers involved in scenarios as origin of life, production of biopolymers, binary and character text generation, and so on." Right.
> 
> The author clearly doesn't know what "random process" means (hint: it doesn't necessarily mean uniform probability). And his program doesn't take into account anything interesting about chemistry at all. It's just worthless number pushing.
> 
> Garbage in, garbage out. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the description of intelligent design.
> 
> Addendum: they've already removed the page. I guess there are some things that are so stupid, even Uncommon Descent can't get behind it. But you can still see the software here: (Sequence Probability Calculator v.1.1.)
> 
> Addendum: it's now back again. Not much different than before, except they added a few English mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post really exposes your limited understanding of your own evo fundie camp's origins arguments involving chance and necessity. While trying to sound intelligent, you have totally exposed yourself as a fraud. Your comment about random processes and taking into account chemistry allude to the necessity arguments that have long been disproved. The base pairs have no affinity for the sugar-phosphate backbone. The backbone will readily accept any of the four nucleotides without any higher probability occurrence for a specific one. There is no chemistry "law" that can account for the complex information contained in dna.
Click to expand...


In your failed attempt at copying and pasting what you dont understand, you have inadvertently neglected to take into consideration you have copied and pasted into an argument not connected with your copy and paste. 

Fundie Christians simply make themselves look foolish by copying and pasting out of context IDiot blathering.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> np, what detective douche bag does is not an ad lib of any kind.
> to adlib one must have the ability to think on their feet and be original .
> detective douche bag is a plagiarist and not a skilled one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. *He is very eager to cut as deep as possible*, and uses others own words against them to do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.
> 
> If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."
> 
> I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say that I haven't, but they drew first blood.
Click to expand...

lol  again wrong detective douche bag I'm no different on line then I am in real life, this discussion would exactly the same in real life as it is here.
you do know before  the internet people did gather and debate.
as to your law enforcement career so what? you have the constant need to self aggrandize your actions. you might have been a fair cop but as always you over play your hand.
btw YOU are in a relationship with all of us no matter how much you deny it. as to drawing first blood you were talking shit and making false accusations before I typed my first post.
so quit trying to put lipstick on a pig and calling it truth.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. *He is very eager to cut as deep as possible*, and uses others own words against them to do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.
> 
> If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."
> 
> I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say they I haven't, but they drew first blood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your primary malfunction is that your delicate ego was damaged by:
> a) your creepy advances all being refused,
> b) your fundie christian arguments have been thoroughly refuted and,
> c) your creepy stalking has been exposed.
Click to expand...

bump!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.
> 
> If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."
> 
> I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say they I haven't, but they drew first blood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "he/she did it first" line is not an excuse for your own action. Also, I disagree with your claim about this forum of communication being the only one that allows such impersonal confrontation. Going back as far as written letter, there have been exchanges of this nature through personal letters, for instance. The distinction now is the anonymity available through the Internet, and would agree that it makes it easier fling insults, but this is an aspect afforded by everyone. It might also allow people to be more intelligent, being that in eye to eye confrontation, anxieties and fears may prevent some from speaking their mind or from being able to form coherent, logical strings of thought, because strong emotions get in the way. Absent the intensity of human confrontation, ideas can and thoughts might be more easily gathered and expressed. So, there is a give and take with the anonymity and impersonal aspect of online debate. It not only allows for greater ease of insult, but greater ease of intellectual expression in general, good and bad. Your insinuation that Daws or Holly wouldn't say these to you in person is self-refuting. Neither would you.
> 
> Copying and pasting someone's post and changing the wording to fit your narrative is a cheap move. It is not difficult to stomach or deal with intellectually, as it is basically plagiarism, and thus constitutes an informal breach of conduct, known as the golden rule. It is a tactic no one wants to use, because for most, it is beneath them. Yet, you seem to have no problem proudly using such a distasteful tactic. This is the annoyance of others.  If you consider the standard of a real debate, such a tactic would be derided and ridiculed, and you would lose points for it, so why is it okay here? It's not. It's a cheap move, that has no place in a mature debate. It is analogous to poking someone in the eyes in a street fight anyone is free to do it, but it is considered a cheap move and not the considered to be skillful. You might technically beat someone with this maneuver, but it would be a shameful win. Same here, except, there is no audience to deride you for it, so you can get away with it. So, you are taking advantage of the Internet in this regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I would agree that altering your posts and parroting them back to you is a tactic, the intention of it is not to "poke you in the eye". The purpose is to force you to view your own vitriol and bigotry by reflecting it back on you. While you may think Christianity is a joke, it is very sacred to me. Do negative comments about homosexuality cut deep to you? The same could be said for your comments about my faith. Now before you go and say I choose my faith, but you didn't choose homosexuality, I would say to you... everyone always has a choice. To deny this is to is to claim your sexual urges rule you, that you are powerless to overcome your same sex attraction. It is this powerlessness and hopelessness that makes me think homosexuality is an addiction, not a personality trait. That is where evolution comes in, since it boots ethics, and aligns with your claim is that you are helpless to do anything except what you are programmed to do. Christianity is the antithesis of this, claiming humans have free will and choice. Could this be the reason so many homosexuals are drawn to the materialistic worldview and a deep hatred of Christianity, because Christianity claims you have a choice? And just like Lady Gaga, evolution claims are that you are "born this way". Could Lady Gaga's claim, which is basically the materialistic worldview's claim, that you are born this way just as easily be applied to alcoholics, pedophiles, kleptomaniacs, mass murderers, and anyone with urges they feel powerless to overcome?
Click to expand...

wow! an all about me rant and gay bashing at the same time...Christian contradiction at it's finest!


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have no Idea how old the universe is or how we got here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... Yes we do. The universe, as we know it, is 13.7 billion years old. How we got here is an ambiguous question. The universe? Humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the universe, as you perceive it, could not be 13.5 billion years old or 13. 9 billion years old, or 12.5 billion years old. "On bother," said the Democrat, "What's another trillion among friends! Anyway, it's just money!"
> 
> The universe you perceive is self-sustaining. The universe I see is held together by God's design alone.
Click to expand...

 I have some beach front property in Iowa you might like!?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over at Jeffrey Shallits blog, hes had an interesting review of IDiot math.
> 
> It seems that just as the ID'iots have been bumbling and fumbling with the _amazing, disappearing gawds_ model, the IDiots have been bumbling and fumbling in vain attempts to cabal together the IDiot inspired its just too complicated to occurred without the Christian gawds.
> 
> 
> Recursivity
> 
> *The Mathematics of Intelligent Design*
> 
> Here we have a classic example (Sequences Probability Calculator | Uncommon Descent) why it's hard to take intelligent design seriously.
> 
> The flagship blog of intelligent design presents a worthless piece of software, not even at the level of a bad junior-high-school science project, as an accomplishment. It `tries to answer questions like this: a random process generating sequences of length L from an alphabet of S symbols in T trials of t seconds each, involving c chemical reactions, does exceed the resources of the universe (age, max number of chemical reactions, universal probability bound)?'. *We are told that this silly exercise "may give an idea of the numbers involved in scenarios as origin of life, production of biopolymers, binary and character text generation, and so on." *Right.
> 
> The author clearly doesn't know what "random process" means (hint: it doesn't necessarily mean uniform probability). And *his program doesn't take into account anything interesting about chemistry at all.* It's just worthless number pushing.
> 
> Garbage in, garbage out. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the description of intelligent design.
> 
> Addendum: they've already removed the page. I guess there are some things that are so stupid, even Uncommon Descent can't get behind it. But you can still see the software here: (Sequence Probability Calculator v.1.1.)
> 
> Addendum: it's now back again. Not much different than before, except they added a few English mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post really exposes your limited understanding of your own evo fundie camp's origins arguments involving chance and necessity. While trying to sound intelligent, you have totally exposed yourself as a fraud. Your comment about random processes and taking into account chemistry allude to the necessity arguments that have long been disproved. The base pairs have no affinity for the sugar-phosphate backbone. The backbone will readily accept any of the four nucleotides without any higher probability occurrence for a specific one. There is no chemistry "law" that can account for the complex information contained in dna.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your failed attempt at copying and pasting what you dont understand, you have inadvertently neglected to take into consideration you have copied and pasted into an argument not connected with your copy and paste.
Click to expand...

 Really??? I think it is you who needs to read your own cut and paste. Don't look now but your ignorance is showing. 


Hollie said:


> Fundie Christians simply make themselves look foolish by copying and pasting out of context IDiot blathering.



Here Einstein, I have bolded the portions of your incompetent post above I was referring to. And unlike you, I can actually compose thoughts of my own, which the above post was.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call him a plagiarist as much as I would simply call him unoriginal. *He is very eager to cut as deep as possible*, and uses others own words against them to do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.
> 
> If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."
> 
> I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say that I haven't, but they drew first blood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol  again wrong detective douche bag *I'm no different on line then I am in real life,* this discussion would exactly the same in real life as it is here.
> you do know before  the internet people did gather and debate.
> as to your law enforcement career so what? you have the constant need to self aggrandize your actions. you might have been a fair cop but as always you over play your hand.
> btw YOU are in a relationship with all of us no matter how much you deny it. as to drawing first blood you were talking shit and making false accusations before I typed my first post.
> so quit trying to put lipstick on a pig and calling it truth.
Click to expand...


PM me and lets meet in person to continue our discussion on Intelligent Design and Atheism. We can meet at a restaurant of your choice and I will even buy. My job takes me all over the US so there is a good chance I will be with in 100 miles of your town in the next 6 months. PM the town you are in and I will give the dates I will be there. We will see how big those raisins are in person Internet Bravado Boy.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post really exposes your limited understanding of your own evo fundie camp's origins arguments involving chance and necessity. While trying to sound intelligent, you have totally exposed yourself as a fraud. Your comment about random processes and taking into account chemistry allude to the necessity arguments that have long been disproved. The base pairs have no affinity for the sugar-phosphate backbone. The backbone will readily accept any of the four nucleotides without any higher probability occurrence for a specific one. There is no chemistry "law" that can account for the complex information contained in dna.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your failed attempt at copying and pasting what you don&#8217;t understand, you have inadvertently neglected to take into consideration you have copied and pasted into an argument not connected with your copy and paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really??? I think it is you who needs to read your own cut and paste. Don't look now but your ignorance is showing.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundie Christians simply make themselves look foolish by copying and pasting out of context ID&#8217;iot blathering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here Einstein, I have bolded the portions of your incompetent post above I was referring to. And unlike you, I can actually compose thoughts of my own, which the above post was.
Click to expand...


You&#8217;re getting frothy, my little stalker man. You see, ruthlessly copying and pasting from christian creationist websites does nothing to support your wish to promote your gawds.

I see you&#8217;re embarrassed at having your silly cut and paste exposed as yet more fraudulent nonsense from Christian creationist hacks. You might have actually perused the link to the fraudulently and incompetently composed Sequence Probability Calculator v.1.1.) authored by fundie hacks. It really is nothing more than another fraud perpetrated by Christian fundies. Meyer and Dembski have set a pattern, now followed by many Christian fundies wherein they phony-up bad math and phony &#8220;probabilities&#8221;. 

It&#8217;s the usual tactic coming out the Christian creation ministries. That&#8217;s why fundie Christians such as Meyer, who has no expertise or training in biology, penned a book that was widely panned by the relevant science community as a fraud. And with good reason: Meyer had nothing to contribute to the Christian creationist arguments from ignorance. He simply trotted out the worn out creationist canards such as &#8220;the chances are too great...&#8221;

Have you ever wondered why the charlatans at the Disco &#8216;tute never chose to disassociate themselves from that organization after the Ann Gauger fiasco? Obviously, you wouldn&#8217;t know any better but professional credentials carry with them, professional integrity. That the hacks at the Disco &#8216;tute chose to ignore that breach of professionalism is not surprising. When you&#8217;re running a pyramid scheme-type syndicate, professionalism is of little concern.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.
> 
> If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."
> 
> I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say that I haven't, but they drew first blood.
> 
> 
> 
> lol  again wrong detective douche bag *I'm no different on line then I am in real life,* this discussion would exactly the same in real life as it is here.
> you do know before  the internet people did gather and debate.
> as to your law enforcement career so what? you have the constant need to self aggrandize your actions. you might have been a fair cop but as always you over play your hand.
> btw YOU are in a relationship with all of us no matter how much you deny it. as to drawing first blood you were talking shit and making false accusations before I typed my first post.
> so quit trying to put lipstick on a pig and calling it truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PM me and lets meet in person to continue our discussion on Intelligent Design and Atheism. We can meet at a restaurant of your choice and I will even buy. My job takes me all over the US so there is a good chance I will be with in 100 miles of your town in the next 6 months. PM the town you are in and I will give the dates I will be there. We will see how big those raisins are in person Internet Bravado Boy.
Click to expand...


"Internet Bravado Boy"

Oh, that's rich coming from the Internet Tough Guy... behind the keyboard.


Good luck daws. I am but one amongst a likely fortunate multitude that escaped "Ultimate Tough Guy's" creepy, unwelcomed advances. 

If you share your PM address, "Ultimate Tough Guy" might feel at liberty to share his Boy George penetration fantasies.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your sole purpose on here isn't to attack Christians? I would think you need to get the log out of your own eye before you go after the splinter in mine.
> 
> If your words turned back on you are offensive, and cut deep, then this is a prime example of what they call "dishing it out but not being able to take it."
> 
> I've said it before, the internet is a bad place for exchanges of this type. Because I am not in relationship with you, most or all of the typical social conventions are thrown out the window. Daws is a prime example of this. I guarantee you his ginormous balls would shrink up like raisins if he was having the same discussion with me face to face. And why attack my distinguished law enforcement career simply because we differ in opinion? Both he and Hawly can't keep up with the discussion so they resort to personal attacks. Not to say that I haven't, but they drew first blood.
> 
> 
> 
> lol  again wrong detective douche bag *I'm no different on line then I am in real life,* this discussion would exactly the same in real life as it is here.
> you do know before  the internet people did gather and debate.
> as to your law enforcement career so what? you have the constant need to self aggrandize your actions. you might have been a fair cop but as always you over play your hand.
> btw YOU are in a relationship with all of us no matter how much you deny it. as to drawing first blood you were talking shit and making false accusations before I typed my first post.
> so quit trying to put lipstick on a pig and calling it truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PM me and lets meet in person to continue our discussion on Intelligent Design and Atheism. We can meet at a restaurant of your choice and I will even buy. My job takes me all over the US so there is a good chance I will be with in 100 miles of your town in the next 6 months. PM the town you are in and I will give the dates I will be there. We will see how big those raisins are in person Internet Bravado Boy.
Click to expand...

what's the point? I would just get you thrown out of any restaurant anywhere .
besides as I've already explained an eye to eye "meeting" would give you no imaginary advantage.
societal niceties have never stopped me from speaking my mind.
finally, why would I waste my time and gas to hear you rant and brag ,you do that in this thread for free.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol  again wrong detective douche bag *I'm no different on line then I am in real life,* this discussion would exactly the same in real life as it is here.
> you do know before  the internet people did gather and debate.
> as to your law enforcement career so what? you have the constant need to self aggrandize your actions. you might have been a fair cop but as always you over play your hand.
> btw YOU are in a relationship with all of us no matter how much you deny it. as to drawing first blood you were talking shit and making false accusations before I typed my first post.
> so quit trying to put lipstick on a pig and calling it truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PM me and lets meet in person to continue our discussion on Intelligent Design and Atheism. We can meet at a restaurant of your choice and I will even buy. My job takes me all over the US so there is a good chance I will be with in 100 miles of your town in the next 6 months. PM the town you are in and I will give the dates I will be there. We will see how big those raisins are in person Internet Bravado Boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Internet Bravado Boy"
> 
> Oh, that's rich coming from the Internet Tough Guy... behind the keyboard.
> 
> 
> Good luck daws. I am but one amongst a likely fortunate multitude that escaped "Ultimate Tough Guy's" creepy, unwelcomed advances.
> 
> If you share your PM address, "Ultimate Tough Guy" might feel at liberty to share his Boy George penetration fantasies.
Click to expand...

thanks, but I make it a rule never to accept invitations from crazy people, well there was that party in Brentwood.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your failed attempt at copying and pasting what you dont understand, you have inadvertently neglected to take into consideration you have copied and pasted into an argument not connected with your copy and paste.
> 
> 
> 
> Really??? I think it is you who needs to read your own cut and paste. Don't look now but your ignorance is showing.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fundie Christians simply make themselves look foolish by copying and pasting out of context IDiot blathering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here Einstein, I have bolded the portions of your incompetent post above I was referring to. And unlike you, I can actually compose thoughts of my own, which the above post was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youre getting frothy, my little stalker man. You see, ruthlessly copying and pasting from christian creationist websites does nothing to support your wish to promote your gawds.
> 
> I see youre embarrassed at having your silly cut and paste exposed as yet more fraudulent nonsense from Christian creationist hacks. You might have actually perused the link to the fraudulently and incompetently composed Sequence Probability Calculator v.1.1.) authored by fundie hacks. It really is nothing more than another fraud perpetrated by Christian fundies. Meyer and Dembski have set a pattern, now followed by many Christian fundies wherein they phony-up bad math and phony probabilities.
> 
> Its the usual tactic coming out the Christian creation ministries. Thats why fundie Christians such as Meyer, who has no expertise or training in biology, penned a book that was widely panned by the relevant science community as a fraud. And with good reason: Meyer had nothing to contribute to the Christian creationist arguments from ignorance. He simply trotted out the worn out creationist canards such as the chances are too great...
> 
> Have you ever wondered why the charlatans at the Disco tute never chose to disassociate themselves from that organization after the Ann Gauger fiasco? Obviously, you wouldnt know any better but professional credentials carry with them, professional integrity. That the hacks at the Disco tute chose to ignore that breach of professionalism is not surprising. When youre running a pyramid scheme-type syndicate, professionalism is of little concern.
Click to expand...


Huh? As usual a bunch of words but no real meaning. And you definitely totally dodged the issue.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> PM me and lets meet in person to continue our discussion on Intelligent Design and Atheism. We can meet at a restaurant of your choice and I will even buy. My job takes me all over the US so there is a good chance I will be with in 100 miles of your town in the next 6 months. PM the town you are in and I will give the dates I will be there. We will see how big those raisins are in person Internet Bravado Boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Internet Bravado Boy"
> 
> Oh, that's rich coming from the Internet Tough Guy... behind the keyboard.
> 
> 
> Good luck daws. I am but one amongst a likely fortunate multitude that escaped "Ultimate Tough Guy's" creepy, unwelcomed advances.
> 
> If you share your PM address, "Ultimate Tough Guy" might feel at liberty to share his Boy George penetration fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks, but I make it a rule never to accept invitations from crazy people, well there was that party in Brentwood.
Click to expand...


I'll be in Santa Monica in April, right next door to Brentwood. Name a nice public place where we can continue our discussion in person so we can see how polite you are.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol  again wrong detective douche bag *I'm no different on line then I am in real life,* this discussion would exactly the same in real life as it is here.
> you do know before  the internet people did gather and debate.
> as to your law enforcement career so what? you have the constant need to self aggrandize your actions. you might have been a fair cop but as always you over play your hand.
> btw YOU are in a relationship with all of us no matter how much you deny it. as to drawing first blood you were talking shit and making false accusations before I typed my first post.
> so quit trying to put lipstick on a pig and calling it truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PM me and lets meet in person to continue our discussion on Intelligent Design and Atheism. We can meet at a restaurant of your choice and I will even buy. My job takes me all over the US so there is a good chance I will be with in 100 miles of your town in the next 6 months. PM the town you are in and I will give the dates I will be there. We will see how big those raisins are in person Internet Bravado Boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what's the point? I would just get you thrown out of any restaurant anywhere .
> besides as I've already explained an eye to eye "meeting" would give you no imaginary advantage.
> societal niceties have never stopped me from speaking my mind.
> finally, why would I waste my time and gas to hear you rant and brag ,you do that in this thread for free.
Click to expand...


You waste alot of time here. If gas is a problem, I'll come to you. Why not just admit you wouldn't be such a tough guy if you weren't hiding behind a keyboard and start being real?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol  again wrong detective douche bag *I'm no different on line then I am in real life,* this discussion would exactly the same in real life as it is here.
> you do know before  the internet people did gather and debate.
> as to your law enforcement career so what? you have the constant need to self aggrandize your actions. you might have been a fair cop but as always you over play your hand.
> btw YOU are in a relationship with all of us no matter how much you deny it. as to drawing first blood you were talking shit and making false accusations before I typed my first post.
> so quit trying to put lipstick on a pig and calling it truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PM me and lets meet in person to continue our discussion on Intelligent Design and Atheism. We can meet at a restaurant of your choice and I will even buy. My job takes me all over the US so there is a good chance I will be with in 100 miles of your town in the next 6 months. PM the town you are in and I will give the dates I will be there. We will see how big those raisins are in person Internet Bravado Boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Internet Bravado Boy"
> 
> Oh, that's rich coming from the Internet Tough Guy... behind the keyboard.
> 
> 
> Good luck daws. I am but one amongst a likely fortunate multitude that escaped "Ultimate Tough Guy's" creepy, unwelcomed advances.
> 
> If you share your PM address, "Ultimate Tough Guy" might feel at liberty to share his Boy George penetration fantasies.
Click to expand...


Just more evidence of your delusions. You really shouldn't go off your meds.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really??? I think it is you who needs to read your own cut and paste. Don't look now but your ignorance is showing.
> 
> 
> Here Einstein, I have bolded the portions of your incompetent post above I was referring to. And unlike you, I can actually compose thoughts of my own, which the above post was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youre getting frothy, my little stalker man. You see, ruthlessly copying and pasting from christian creationist websites does nothing to support your wish to promote your gawds.
> 
> I see youre embarrassed at having your silly cut and paste exposed as yet more fraudulent nonsense from Christian creationist hacks. You might have actually perused the link to the fraudulently and incompetently composed Sequence Probability Calculator v.1.1.) authored by fundie hacks. It really is nothing more than another fraud perpetrated by Christian fundies. Meyer and Dembski have set a pattern, now followed by many Christian fundies wherein they phony-up bad math and phony probabilities.
> 
> Its the usual tactic coming out the Christian creation ministries. Thats why fundie Christians such as Meyer, who has no expertise or training in biology, penned a book that was widely panned by the relevant science community as a fraud. And with good reason: Meyer had nothing to contribute to the Christian creationist arguments from ignorance. He simply trotted out the worn out creationist canards such as the chances are too great...
> 
> Have you ever wondered why the charlatans at the Disco tute never chose to disassociate themselves from that organization after the Ann Gauger fiasco? Obviously, you wouldnt know any better but professional credentials carry with them, professional integrity. That the hacks at the Disco tute chose to ignore that breach of professionalism is not surprising. When youre running a pyramid scheme-type syndicate, professionalism is of little concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? As usual a bunch of words but no real meaning. And you definitely totally dodged the issue.
Click to expand...


Your slithering away was totally predictable. 

Christian creationist hacks are easily refuted with facts. It's just a fact that creationist charlatans are utterly incapable of making any relevant or meaningful case for their arguments appealing to supermagical gawds. As a result, creationist arguments are confined entirely to denigrating science and worse, setting forth the most assinine and profoundly stupid examples of pleas to fear and ignorance as exemplified by Meyer, Dembski and the ICR.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> PM me and lets meet in person to continue our discussion on Intelligent Design and Atheism. We can meet at a restaurant of your choice and I will even buy. My job takes me all over the US so there is a good chance I will be with in 100 miles of your town in the next 6 months. PM the town you are in and I will give the dates I will be there. We will see how big those raisins are in person Internet Bravado Boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Internet Bravado Boy"
> 
> Oh, that's rich coming from the Internet Tough Guy... behind the keyboard.
> 
> 
> Good luck daws. I am but one amongst a likely fortunate multitude that escaped "Ultimate Tough Guy's" creepy, unwelcomed advances.
> 
> If you share your PM address, "Ultimate Tough Guy" might feel at liberty to share his Boy George penetration fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just more evidence of your delusions. You really shouldn't go off your meds.
Click to expand...


It's just that men who are confident about their sexual identification, and particularly their adequacy, rarely find the need to exhibit, as you do, that ultra tough image and sexually belittling manner of the latent homosexual or sexual inadequate.... 

It's a well recognized phenomenon in psychology. I could suggest a reading list if you'd like?


----------



## Hollie

G.R. Morton

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/demise.html



> In recent reading, Dembski and other ID proponents make the claim that evolution (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall. This claim has many forms and has been made for over 185 years. This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is two-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution. Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal. In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area for the last 50 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim. Now for the claims in chronological order.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre getting frothy, my little stalker man. You see, ruthlessly copying and pasting from christian creationist websites does nothing to support your wish to promote your gawds.
> 
> I see youre embarrassed at having your silly cut and paste exposed as yet more fraudulent nonsense from Christian creationist hacks. You might have actually perused the link to the fraudulently and incompetently composed Sequence Probability Calculator v.1.1.) authored by fundie hacks. It really is nothing more than another fraud perpetrated by Christian fundies. Meyer and Dembski have set a pattern, now followed by many Christian fundies wherein they phony-up bad math and phony probabilities.
> 
> Its the usual tactic coming out the Christian creation ministries. Thats why fundie Christians such as Meyer, who has no expertise or training in biology, penned a book that was widely panned by the relevant science community as a fraud. And with good reason: Meyer had nothing to contribute to the Christian creationist arguments from ignorance. He simply trotted out the worn out creationist canards such as the chances are too great...
> 
> Have you ever wondered why the charlatans at the Disco tute never chose to disassociate themselves from that organization after the Ann Gauger fiasco? Obviously, you wouldnt know any better but professional credentials carry with them, professional integrity. That the hacks at the Disco tute chose to ignore that breach of professionalism is not surprising. When youre running a pyramid scheme-type syndicate, professionalism is of little concern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? As usual a bunch of words but no real meaning. And you definitely totally dodged the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your slithering away was totally predictable.
> 
> Christian creationist hacks are easily refuted with facts. It's just a fact that creationist charlatans are utterly incapable of making any relevant or meaningful case for their arguments appealing to supermagical gawds. As a result, creationist arguments are confined entirely to denigrating science and worse, setting forth the most assinine and profoundly stupid examples of pleas to fear and ignorance as exemplified by Meyer, Dembski and the ICR.
Click to expand...


What facts? You couldn't articulate facts if your life depending on it!!! So you resort to cut and pasting with no true understanding of what it is you are even copying.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Internet Bravado Boy"
> 
> Oh, that's rich coming from the Internet Tough Guy... behind the keyboard.
> 
> 
> Good luck daws. I am but one amongst a likely fortunate multitude that escaped "Ultimate Tough Guy's" creepy, unwelcomed advances.
> 
> If you share your PM address, "Ultimate Tough Guy" might feel at liberty to share his Boy George penetration fantasies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just more evidence of your delusions. You really shouldn't go off your meds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just that men who are confident about their sexual identification, and particularly their adequacy, rarely find the need to exhibit, as you do, that ultra tough image and sexually belittling manner of the latent homosexual or sexual inadequate....
> 
> It's a well recognized phenomenon in psychology. I could suggest a reading list if you'd like?
Click to expand...


Yes, please do. Maybe you can help me.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? As usual a bunch of words but no real meaning. And you definitely totally dodged the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your slithering away was totally predictable.
> 
> Christian creationist hacks are easily refuted with facts. It's just a fact that creationist charlatans are utterly incapable of making any relevant or meaningful case for their arguments appealing to supermagical gawds. As a result, creationist arguments are confined entirely to denigrating science and worse, setting forth the most assinine and profoundly stupid examples of pleas to fear and ignorance as exemplified by Meyer, Dembski and the ICR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What facts? You couldn't articulate facts if your life depending on it!!! So you resort to cut and pasting with no true understanding of what it is you are even copying.
Click to expand...


As expected, youre befuddled.

This is to be expected from fundie creationists who resort to cutting and pasting from IDiot websites. Even your failed attempts at cutting / pasting / using what Ive previously written is a striking example of your failure to be able to construct a coherent argument on your own.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just more evidence of your delusions. You really shouldn't go off your meds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just that men who are confident about their sexual identification, and particularly their adequacy, rarely find the need to exhibit, as you do, that ultra tough image and sexually belittling manner of the latent homosexual or sexual inadequate....
> 
> It's a well recognized phenomenon in psychology. I could suggest a reading list if you'd like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, please do. Maybe you can help me.
Click to expand...


Might you provide specificity concerning the primary areas of your failures and inadequacies? I'll strive to help you as best I can, but a holistic transformation is a tall order.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> PM me and lets meet in person to continue our discussion on Intelligent Design and Atheism. We can meet at a restaurant of your choice and I will even buy. My job takes me all over the US so there is a good chance I will be with in 100 miles of your town in the next 6 months. PM the town you are in and I will give the dates I will be there. We will see how big those raisins are in person Internet Bravado Boy.
> 
> 
> 
> what's the point? I would just get you thrown out of any restaurant anywhere .
> besides as I've already explained an eye to eye "meeting" would give you no imaginary advantage.
> societal niceties have never stopped me from speaking my mind.
> finally, why would I waste my time and gas to hear you rant and brag ,you do that in this thread for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You waste alot of time here. If gas is a problem, I'll come to you. Why not just admit you wouldn't be such a tough guy if you weren't hiding behind a keyboard and start being real?
Click to expand...


This is rather inappropriate. I am not sure what your intentions are, or what outcome you expect out of this, but keep online interactions where they belong: online. Asking someone to meet in person and insinuating that they are weak if they don't want to is manipulative and immature.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I think that Creationists are a hoot! I would love to visit the Creationist museum in Kentucky. However, I have always suspected that they are not really serious...kind of like the "Flat Earth Society". It is possible that I tend to think that way, because the thought of serious adults dismissing evolution, and claiming that man and dinosaures coexisted, is too scary to contemplate.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just that men who are confident about their sexual identification, and particularly their adequacy, rarely find the need to exhibit, as you do, that ultra tough image and sexually belittling manner of the latent homosexual or sexual inadequate....
> 
> It's a well recognized phenomenon in psychology. I could suggest a reading list if you'd like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, please do. Maybe you can help me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might you provide specificity concerning the primary areas of your failures and inadequacies? I'll strive to help you as best I can, but a holistic transformation is a tall order.
Click to expand...


You laid out exactly what you believed my problem was and said you had a reading list, albeit, no doubt received from your own psychologist, but don't tell me you are you backpedaling now? Please post the reading list.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's the point? I would just get you thrown out of any restaurant anywhere .
> besides as I've already explained an eye to eye "meeting" would give you no imaginary advantage.
> societal niceties have never stopped me from speaking my mind.
> finally, why would I waste my time and gas to hear you rant and brag ,you do that in this thread for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You waste alot of time here. If gas is a problem, I'll come to you. Why not just admit you wouldn't be such a tough guy if you weren't hiding behind a keyboard and start being real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is rather inappropriate. I am not sure what your intentions are, or what outcome you expect out of this, but keep online interactions where they belong: online. Asking someone to meet in person and insinuating that they are weak if they don't want to is manipulative and immature.
Click to expand...


Inappropriate is your middle name. My intention is to stop the BS. And by the way, what planet have you been living on? Certainly not earth. I have met quite a few folks on the internet in a discussion forum very much like this one whom I have eventually met in person. I am a member of several gun forums and have actually met many of the posters at the range. I think your accusation is pretty stupid actually. I bet Daws and I could actually have a good discussion in person, because regardless of what he claims hiding behind his keyboard, he would no doubt be much more civil in person. I don't live my life in fear and I am dead serious... I would take up anyone's offer on this forum to meet for a discussion in person. The real problem is when you are dealing with a bunch of liars and fakes. Their fear isn't of the person who would meet in a public forum. Their fear is being found out for the fraud they are perpetrating. Really, what are you so scared of?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, please do. Maybe you can help me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might you provide specificity concerning the primary areas of your failures and inadequacies? I'll strive to help you as best I can, but a holistic transformation is a tall order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You laid out exactly what you believed my problem was and said you had a reading list, albeit, no doubt received from your own psychologist, but don't tell me you are you backpedalingnow? Please post the reading list.
Click to expand...

Here ya' go, limpy

Sexual inadequacy in the male

I applaud you for your efforts to resolve your anger, self-hate and issues of sexual dysfunction.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

If Evolution is a Fact. 

How did there come to be male and female?

It's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties.

So where did they come from? 

How did they get started? 

Who decided which was which, or which was going to be which?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> If Evolution is a Fact.
> 
> How did there come to be male and female?
> 
> It's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties.
> 
> So where did they come from?
> 
> How did they get started?
> 
> Who decided which was which, or which was going to be which?



I recall you posted this previously and it was addressed.

If designer gawds were a fact, how do you account for the required designers of your designer gawds?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You waste alot of time here. If gas is a problem, I'll come to you. Why not just admit you wouldn't be such a tough guy if you weren't hiding behind a keyboard and start being real?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is rather inappropriate. I am not sure what your intentions are, or what outcome you expect out of this, but keep online interactions where they belong: online. Asking someone to meet in person and insinuating that they are weak if they don't want to is manipulative and immature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inappropriate is your middle name. My intention is to stop the BS. And by the way, what planet have you been living on? Certainly not earth. I have met quite a few folks on the internet in a discussion forum very much like this one whom I have eventually met in person. I am a member of several gun forums and have actually met many of the posters at the range. I think your accusation is pretty stupid actually. I bet Daws and I could actually have a good discussion in person, because regardless of what he claims hiding behind his keyboard, he would no doubt be much more civil in person. I don't live my life in fear and I am dead serious... I would take up anyone's offer on this forum to meet for a discussion in person. The real problem is when you are dealing with a bunch of liars and fakes. Their fear isn't of the person who would meet in a public forum. Their fear is being found out for the fraud they are perpetrating. Really, what are you so scared of?
Click to expand...


Meeting in person because of mutual interests and/or passions is one thing. However, meeting to hash out a heated debate that you are unsatisfied with is something else entirely.


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> If Evolution is a Fact.
> 
> How did there come to be male and female?
> 
> It's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties.
> 
> So where did they come from?
> 
> How did they get started?
> 
> Who decided which was which, or which was going to be which?



Its undeniable falsehood what you just stated. The actual truth, is that Most of the biomass on this planet are made up of single-called bacteria who are asexual.


----------



## Underhill

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Evolution is a Fact.
> 
> How did there come to be male and female?
> 
> It's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties.
> 
> So where did they come from?
> 
> How did they get started?
> 
> Who decided which was which, or which was going to be which?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recall you posted this previously and it was addressed.
> 
> If designer gawds were a fact, how do you account for the required designers of your designer gawds?
Click to expand...


This is the crux of the whole thing.

What really boggles the mind is this.

Creationist scoff at the notion that we came about gradually over millions of years.    

Of course the same people seem to have no problem believing that an even more complex and powerful deity has just always been there.  That this deity spoke everything into existence, and that he sent his son down to do impossible things (created food from nothing, healed the sick and brought the dead back to life), and after dieing, floats up to heaven on a cloud (where exactly was he going?)   These things are believable.  

But gradual change over millions of years....  fucking retarded.   

If there is a god out there and all of this is true, I have just one question for him.

Why the hell would you want to spend eternity with these people?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Evolution is a Fact.
> 
> How did there come to be male and female?
> 
> It's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties.
> 
> So where did they come from?
> 
> How did they get started?
> 
> Who decided which was which, or which was going to be which?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recall you posted this previously and it was addressed.
> 
> If designer gawds were a fact, how do you account for the required designers of your designer gawds?
Click to expand...


No it was never answered adequately.

You can't answer it either.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Evolution is a Fact.
> 
> How did there come to be male and female?
> 
> It's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties.
> 
> So where did they come from?
> 
> How did they get started?
> 
> Who decided which was which, or which was going to be which?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its undeniable falsehood what you just stated. The actual truth, is that Most of the biomass on this planet are made up of single-called bacteria who are asexual.
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Evolution is a Fact.
> 
> How did there come to be male and female?
> 
> It's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties.
> 
> So where did they come from?
> 
> How did they get started?
> 
> Who decided which was which, or which was going to be which?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recall you posted this previously and it was addressed.
> 
> If designer gawds were a fact, how do you account for the required designers of your designer gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it was never answered adequately.
> 
> You can't answer it either.
Click to expand...

The question was answered. The answer conflicts with your religious beliefs, thus your antagonism.

Asexual reproduction is not uncommon in the natural world. It may be uncommon in your alleged spirit world, but lets be honest, your alleged spirit world is just one of many.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might you provide specificity concerning the primary areas of your failures and inadequacies? I'll strive to help you as best I can, but a holistic transformation is a tall order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You laid out exactly what you believed my problem was and said you had a reading list, albeit, no doubt received from your own psychologist, but don't tell me you are you backpedalingnow? Please post the reading list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here ya' go, limpy
> 
> Sexual inadequacy in the male
> 
> I applaud you for your efforts to resolve your anger, self-hate and issues of sexual dysfunction.
Click to expand...


That's not a reading list. Guess you were just lying as usual.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You laid out exactly what you believed my problem was and said you had a reading list, albeit, no doubt received from your own psychologist, but don't tell me you are you backpedalingnow? Please post the reading list.
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, limpy
> 
> Sexual inadequacy in the male
> 
> I applaud you for your efforts to resolve your anger, self-hate and issues of sexual dysfunction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a reading list. Guess you were just lying as usual.
Click to expand...

As you are the one in need of help, you shouldn't expect me to assist you in maintaining your helplessness. Learn to make your own decisions and take responsibility for your failures and ineptitude.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recall you posted this previously and it was addressed.
> 
> If designer gawds were a fact, how do you account for the required designers of your designer gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it was never answered adequately.
> 
> You can't answer it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was answered. The answer conflicts with your religious beliefs, thus your antagonism.
> 
> Asexual reproduction is not uncommon in the natural world. It may be uncommon in your alleged spirit world, but lets be honest, your alleged spirit world is just one of many.
Click to expand...


Still no answer.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it was never answered adequately.
> 
> You can't answer it either.
> 
> 
> 
> The question was answered. The answer conflicts with your religious beliefs, thus your antagonism.
> 
> Asexual reproduction is not uncommon in the natural world. It may be uncommon in your alleged spirit world, but lets be honest, your alleged spirit world is just one of many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no answer.
Click to expand...

I agree. You provided no answer. 

Here's the question again:

If designer gawds were a fact, how do you account for the required designers of your designer gawds?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Internet Bravado Boy"
> 
> Oh, that's rich coming from the Internet Tough Guy... behind the keyboard.
> 
> 
> Good luck daws. I am but one amongst a likely fortunate multitude that escaped "Ultimate Tough Guy's" creepy, unwelcomed advances.
> 
> If you share your PM address, "Ultimate Tough Guy" might feel at liberty to share his Boy George penetration fantasies.
> 
> 
> 
> thanks, but I make it a rule never to accept invitations from crazy people, well there was that party in Brentwood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll be in Santa Monica in April, right next door to Brentwood. Name a nice public place where we can continue our discussion in person so we can see how polite you are.
Click to expand...

no thanks ,you must enjoy being dressed down in public .
as I stated before, societal niceties are no hindrance to me.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> PM me and lets meet in person to continue our discussion on Intelligent Design and Atheism. We can meet at a restaurant of your choice and I will even buy. My job takes me all over the US so there is a good chance I will be with in 100 miles of your town in the next 6 months. PM the town you are in and I will give the dates I will be there. We will see how big those raisins are in person Internet Bravado Boy.
> 
> 
> 
> what's the point? I would just get you thrown out of any restaurant anywhere .
> besides as I've already explained an eye to eye "meeting" would give you no imaginary advantage.
> societal niceties have never stopped me from speaking my mind.
> finally, why would I waste my time and gas to hear you rant and brag ,you do that in this thread for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You waste alot of time here. If gas is a problem, I'll come to you. Why not just admit you wouldn't be such a tough guy if you weren't hiding behind a keyboard and start being real?
Click to expand...

I do ? that's news to me ,ever hear of multi tasking?
why would I admit something that's not true?
this is as real as it gets.
it seems you have a hard time with the concept that some people are just what they appear to be, myself included.  

 you'll have to find another way to quench your obsession.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Internet Bravado Boy"
> 
> Oh, that's rich coming from the Internet Tough Guy... behind the keyboard.
> 
> 
> Good luck daws. I am but one amongst a likely fortunate multitude that escaped "Ultimate Tough Guy's" creepy, unwelcomed advances.
> 
> If you share your PM address, "Ultimate Tough Guy" might feel at liberty to share his Boy George penetration fantasies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just more evidence of your delusions. You really shouldn't go off your meds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just that men who are confident about their sexual identification, and particularly their adequacy, rarely find the need to exhibit, as you do, that ultra tough image and sexually belittling manner of the latent homosexual or sexual inadequate....
> 
> It's a well recognized phenomenon in psychology. I could suggest a reading list if you'd like?
Click to expand...

well said!


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's the point? I would just get you thrown out of any restaurant anywhere .
> besides as I've already explained an eye to eye "meeting" would give you no imaginary advantage.
> societal niceties have never stopped me from speaking my mind.
> finally, why would I waste my time and gas to hear you rant and brag ,you do that in this thread for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You waste alot of time here. If gas is a problem, I'll come to you. Why not just admit you wouldn't be such a tough guy if you weren't hiding behind a keyboard and start being real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is rather inappropriate. I am not sure what your intentions are, or what outcome you expect out of this, but keep online interactions where they belong: online. Asking someone to meet in person and insinuating that they are weak if they don't want to is manipulative and immature.
Click to expand...

my guess is his intention would be to attempt to embarrass me with a public display of his imagined mastery of scripture or suck my dick!?  
you can never tell with obsessive personalities.
there is a slight chance he would want to duke it out or shoot me .


----------



## daws101

Vandalshandle said:


> I think that Creationists are a hoot! I would love to visit the Creationist museum in Kentucky. However, I have always suspected that they are not really serious...kind of like the "Flat Earth Society". It is possible that I tend to think that way, because the thought of serious adults dismissing evolution, and claiming that man and dinosaures coexisted, is too scary to contemplate.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You waste alot of time here. If gas is a problem, I'll come to you. Why not just admit you wouldn't be such a tough guy if you weren't hiding behind a keyboard and start being real?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is rather inappropriate. I am not sure what your intentions are, or what outcome you expect out of this, but keep online interactions where they belong: online. Asking someone to meet in person and insinuating that they are weak if they don't want to is manipulative and immature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inappropriate is your middle name. My intention is to stop the BS. And by the way, what planet have you been living on? Certainly not earth. I have met quite a few folks on the internet in a discussion forum very much like this one whom I have eventually met in person. I am a member of several gun forums and have actually met many of the posters at the range. I think your accusation is pretty stupid actually. I bet Daws and I could actually have a good discussion in person, because regardless of what he claims hiding behind his keyboard, he would no doubt be much more civil in person. I don't live my life in fear and I am dead serious... I would take up anyone's offer on this forum to meet for a discussion in person. The real problem is when you are dealing with a bunch of liars and fakes. Their fear isn't of the person who would meet in a public forum. Their fear is being found out for the fraud they are perpetrating. Really, what are you so scared of?
Click to expand...

since I'm neither a fake or a fraud you be in for a big fucking surprise   btw civility has nothing to do with language, public place or no.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was answered. The answer conflicts with your religious beliefs, thus your antagonism.
> 
> Asexual reproduction is not uncommon in the natural world. It may be uncommon in your alleged spirit world, but lets be honest, your alleged spirit world is just one of many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. You provided no answer.
> 
> Here's the question again:
> 
> If designer gawds were a fact, how do you account for the required designers of your designer gawds?
Click to expand...


I have no idea what "gawds" are.

Yet still no answer to my question.


----------



## Hollie

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no answer.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. You provided no answer.
> 
> Here's the question again:
> 
> If designer gawds were a fact, how do you account for the required designers of your designer gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what "gawds" are.
> 
> Yet still no answer to my question.
Click to expand...


It really is in poor form for you to demand answers of others, (which are provided), and then run for the exits when you are requested to supply answers in connection with your various gawds


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. You provided no answer.
> 
> Here's the question again:
> 
> If designer gawds were a fact, how do you account for the required designers of your designer gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what "gawds" are.
> 
> Yet still no answer to my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is in poor form for you to demand answers of others, (which are provided), and then run for the exits when you are requested to supply answers in connection with your various gawds
Click to expand...


When you grow up and learn how to show some respect I may answer your silly question. 

And I have not SEEN an answer to my question!


----------



## Hollie

Montana Creationism Bill: dead in committee(?)

Montana Creationism Bill: dead in committee(?) - The Panda's Thumb



> As Matt noted above, one of the creationist so-called &#8220;academic freedom&#8221; bills was filed in the Montana state legislature. Now the Sensuous Curmudgeon reports that the bill has been tabled in committee, whatever that means. In that post SC also has a video of some of the testimony at the committee hearing on the bill, noting that the proposer, Representative Clayton Fiscus, was the only speaker in support while a couple of dozen professors, teachers, and citizens testified in opposition. It&#8217;s worth watching both for the testimony in opposition and for the almost sad ignorance and confusion of Representative Fiscus. I genuinely wonder how he navigates through life given his evident inability to think coherently. if he&#8217;s the best the Disco Tute can come up with to sponsor their bills, they&#8217;re in deeper trouble than I thought.
> 
> That video is edited from the full hearing, and another set of excerpts consisting mostly of speakers&#8217; identifications is on NCSE&#8217;s YouTube channel. It does not include Representative Fiscus&#8217; remarks. I wouldn&#8217;t be surprised if video of the full hearing including all testimony is somewhere, but I haven&#8217;t looked for it.



I watched the video and was embarrassed for the entirety of the Christian creationist cabal. 

Here are some excerpts:
Montana?s 2013 Creationism Bill ? Tabled | The Sensuous Curmudgeon




*Think of the Dark Ages*

I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won&#8217;t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be. 
_-Jerry Falwell_


There will never be world peace until Gods house and Gods people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world. 
_-Pat Robertson_


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya' go, limpy
> 
> Sexual inadequacy in the male
> 
> I applaud you for your efforts to resolve your anger, self-hate and issues of sexual dysfunction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a reading list. Guess you were just lying as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you are the one in need of help, you shouldn't expect me to assist you in maintaining your helplessness. Learn to make your own decisions and take responsibility for your failures and ineptitude.
Click to expand...


You are the one who offered and now we find that, like all your other posts, you simply don't have the information to back up your lies. So typical of the angry, befuddled, self-loathing, cross dressing, evo-fundie.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a reading list. Guess you were just lying as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> As you are the one in need of help, you shouldn't expect me to assist you in maintaining your helplessness. Learn to make your own decisions and take responsibility for your failures and ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who offered and now we find that, like all your other posts, you simply don't have the information to back up your lies. So typical of the angry, befuddled, self-loathing, cross dressing, evo-fundie.
Click to expand...


You never finished your drug rehab, right?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks, but I make it a rule never to accept invitations from crazy people, well there was that party in Brentwood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be in Santa Monica in April, right next door to Brentwood. Name a nice public place where we can continue our discussion in person so we can see how polite you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no thanks ,you must enjoy being dressed down in public .
> as I stated before, societal niceties are no hindrance to me.
Click to expand...


Easy to say while hiding behind your keyboard. You are the typical internet coward. You are all talk with no balls to back up your internet bravado. From now on your antics will get a big chuckle from me. You sir, are a fraud.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You waste alot of time here. If gas is a problem, I'll come to you. Why not just admit you wouldn't be such a tough guy if you weren't hiding behind a keyboard and start being real?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is rather inappropriate. I am not sure what your intentions are, or what outcome you expect out of this, but keep online interactions where they belong: online. Asking someone to meet in person and insinuating that they are weak if they don't want to is manipulative and immature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> there is a slight chance he would want to duke it out or shoot me .
Click to expand...


Yeah because I want to get arrested and tarnish my perfect law enforcement career over a curmudgeon with small mans complex.

I just thought it would be interesting to have a civil conversation without your tough guy, inflated internet personality.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you are the one in need of help, you shouldn't expect me to assist you in maintaining your helplessness. Learn to make your own decisions and take responsibility for your failures and ineptitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who offered and now we find that, like all your other posts, you simply don't have the information to back up your lies. So typical of the angry, befuddled, self-loathing, cross dressing, evo-fundie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never finished your drug rehab, right?
Click to expand...


Nope, I'm typing you from the center right now.


----------



## UltimateReality

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no answer.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. You provided no answer.
> 
> Here's the question again:
> 
> If designer gawds were a fact, how do you account for the required designers of your designer gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what "gawds" are.
> 
> Yet still no answer to my question.
Click to expand...


Lonestar, you are going to be waiting a very long time if you are waiting for an answer from Hawly. She has not posted one substantive thing since she has been frequenting here. I think she thinks her constant attacks and putdowns will cause people not to realize her total lack of knowledge on the topics discussed. She has proven over and over how deep here delusions run.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. You provided no answer.
> 
> Here's the question again:
> 
> If designer gawds were a fact, how do you account for the required designers of your designer gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what "gawds" are.
> 
> Yet still no answer to my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lonestar, you are going to be waiting a very long time if you are waiting for an answer from Hawly. She has not posted one substantive thing since she has been frequenting here. I think she thinks her constant attacks and putdowns will cause people not to realize her total lack of knowledge on the topics discussed. She has proven over and over how deep here delusions run.
Click to expand...


You're still angry. Your anger and befuddlement derives from your creepy advances and stalking being met with rejection. You really are the rejected schoolboy who spends inordinate amounts of time obsessing over his failures. 

Now would be a good time re-direct your energies and threaten other people from behind the safety of your keyboard.

*snicker*


----------



## newpolitics

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what "gawds" are.
> 
> Yet still no answer to my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is in poor form for you to demand answers of others, (which are provided), and then run for the exits when you are requested to supply answers in connection with your various gawds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you grow up and learn how to show some respect I may answer your silly question.
> 
> And I have not SEEN an answer to my question!
Click to expand...


Who are you to demand information that you yourself can obtain, freely and easily?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what "gawds" are.
> 
> Yet still no answer to my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar, you are going to be waiting a very long time if you are waiting for an answer from Hawly. She has not posted one substantive thing since she has been frequenting here. I think she thinks her constant attacks and putdowns will cause people not to realize her total lack of knowledge on the topics discussed. She has proven over and over how deep here delusions run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still angry. Your anger and befuddlement derives from your creepy advances and stalking being met with rejection. You really are the rejected schoolboy who spends inordinate amounts of time obsessing over his failures.
> 
> Now would be a good time re-direct your energies and threaten other people from behind the safety of your keyboard.
> 
> *snicker*
Click to expand...


I think you meant this for Daws.   *chuckle*


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be in Santa Monica in April, right next door to Brentwood. Name a nice public place where we can continue our discussion in person so we can see how polite you are.
> 
> 
> 
> no thanks ,you must enjoy being dressed down in public .
> as I stated before, societal niceties are no hindrance to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy to say while hiding behind your keyboard. You are the typical internet coward. You are all talk with no balls to back up your internet bravado. From now on your antics will get a big chuckle from me. You sir, are a fraud.
Click to expand...

only in your dreams. as to chuckles I've been laughing at you since I started posting on this thread.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is rather inappropriate. I am not sure what your intentions are, or what outcome you expect out of this, but keep online interactions where they belong: online. Asking someone to meet in person and insinuating that they are weak if they don't want to is manipulative and immature.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> there is a slight chance he would want to duke it out or shoot me .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah because I want to get arrested and tarnish my perfect law enforcement career over a curmudgeon with small mans complex.
> 
> I just thought it would be interesting to have a civil conversation without your tough guy, inflated internet personality.
Click to expand...

really? I'm not small in any sense of the word.
height 6'4'' weight 272 lbs.
 their you go again over playing your role, "perfect" career my ass, and you say my personality is inflated.


----------



## LittleNipper

Another word for "career" is "trunk"


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar, you are going to be waiting a very long time if you are waiting for an answer from Hawly. She has not posted one substantive thing since she has been frequenting here. I think she thinks her constant attacks and putdowns will cause people not to realize her total lack of knowledge on the topics discussed. She has proven over and over how deep here delusions run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still angry. Your anger and befuddlement derives from your creepy advances and stalking being met with rejection. You really are the rejected schoolboy who spends inordinate amounts of time obsessing over his failures.
> 
> Now would be a good time re-direct your energies and threaten other people from behind the safety of your keyboard.
> 
> *snicker*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you meant this for Daws.   *chuckle*
Click to expand...

 high school humor at it's lowest 
man up! if you have any thing to say regarding me then say to me.
that's a girl's tactic or gay..


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> Another word for "career" is "trunk"


ex detective douche bag is a traveling salesman....


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is in poor form for you to demand answers of others, (which are provided), and then run for the exits when you are requested to supply answers in connection with your various gawds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you grow up and learn how to show some respect I may answer your silly question.
> 
> And I have not SEEN an answer to my question!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you to demand information that you yourself can obtain, freely and easily?
Click to expand...


I wouldnt expect Christian creationists to perform any actual research on their own. Doing so might expose them to the harsh light of open inquiry. The scientific community has learned from past experience that anecdotal evidence can be rife with error. The greatest distinction separating modern science from ancient religious tales and fables is the randomized double-bind test. True scientists publish their work in peer reviewed scientific literature. This allows a body of work to be reviewed and either corroborated or rejected as flawed. 

None of the above applies to creationist dogma. On the contrary, Christian fundies seem to believe themselves to be in the process of overthrowing modern biology, astronomy, physics, geology, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, oceanography, cosmology, and other fields of science. Anything that doesn't conform to their interpretation of the Bibles is suspect and in need of correction / alignment with their subjective interpretations. Creationists have a _siege mentality_. Even in the face of evidence long ago refuting their claims to supernaturalism and magic, they will maintain their ignorance because to admit biblical error is to admit that that their entire argument rests on false claims. And as we see, with no reliable mechanism for correcting errors in creationist dogma, the errors are passed down like family heirlooms.


----------



## newpolitics

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you grow up and learn how to show some respect I may answer your silly question.
> 
> And I have not SEEN an answer to my question!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you to demand information that you yourself can obtain, freely and easily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldnt expect Christian creationists to perform any actual research on their own. Doing so might expose them to the harsh light of open inquiry. The scientific community has learned from past experience that anecdotal evidence can be rife with error. The greatest distinction separating modern science from ancient religious tales and fables is the randomized double-bind test. True scientists publish their work in peer reviewed scientific literature. This allows a body of work to be reviewed and either corroborated or rejected as flawed.
> 
> None of the above applies to creationist dogma. On the contrary, Christian fundies seem to believe themselves to be in the process of overthrowing modern biology, astronomy, physics, geology, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, oceanography, cosmology, and other fields of science. Anything that doesn't conform to their interpretation of the Bibles is suspect and in need of correction / alignment with their subjective interpretations. Creationists have a _siege mentality_. Even in the face of evidence long ago refuting their claims to supernaturalism and magic, they will maintain their ignorance because to admit biblical error is to admit that that their entire argument rests on false claims. And as we see, with no reliable mechanism for correcting errors in creationist dogma, the errors are passed down like family heirlooms.
Click to expand...


Exactly. It is disappointing to behold such behavior in theists, especially during an age where actual truth is so available. This circumstance is unique to human history: to understand the universe as we do, and yet there are groups of people who call this knowledge "evil." We are a primitive species, indeed.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no thanks ,you must enjoy being dressed down in public .
> as I stated before, societal niceties are no hindrance to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to say while hiding behind your keyboard. You are the typical internet coward. You are all talk with no balls to back up your internet bravado. From now on your antics will get a big chuckle from me. You sir, are a fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in your dreams. as to chuckles I've been laughing at you since I started posting on this thread.
Click to expand...


Whatever, coward.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> there is a slight chance he would want to duke it out or shoot me .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because I want to get arrested and tarnish my perfect law enforcement career over a curmudgeon with small mans complex.
> 
> I just thought it would be interesting to have a civil conversation without your tough guy, inflated internet personality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? I'm not small in any sense of the word.
> height 6'4'' weight 272 lbs.
> their you go again over playing your role, "perfect" career my ass, and you say my personality is inflated.
Click to expand...


That's right Daws, you can be any size, age or sex you want on the internet. The possibilities are unlimited. You can even be a chick posing as a dude like Hawly did on the Islam forum with her "RuggedTouch".   Who knows? Maybe you are a pimply faced teenage girl and Hawly is your masculinity counselor.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you to demand information that you yourself can obtain, freely and easily?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn&#8217;t expect Christian creationists to perform any actual research on their own. Doing so might expose them to the harsh light of open inquiry. The scientific community has learned from past experience that anecdotal evidence can be rife with error. The greatest distinction separating modern science from ancient religious tales and fables is the randomized double-bind test. True scientists publish their work in peer reviewed scientific literature. This allows a body of work to be reviewed and either corroborated or rejected as flawed.
> 
> None of the above applies to creationist dogma. On the contrary, Christian fundies seem to believe themselves to be in the process of overthrowing modern biology, astronomy, physics, geology, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, oceanography, cosmology, and other fields of science. Anything that doesn't conform to their interpretation of the Bibles is suspect and in need of correction / alignment with their subjective interpretations. Creationists have a _siege mentality_. Even in the face of evidence long ago refuting their claims to supernaturalism and magic, they will maintain their ignorance because to admit biblical error is to admit that that their entire argument rests on false claims. And as we see, with no reliable mechanism for correcting errors in creationist dogma, the errors are passed down like family heirlooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. It is disappointing to behold such behavior in theists, especially during an age where actual truth is so available. This circumstance is unique to human history: to understand the universe as we do, and yet there are groups of people who call this knowledge "evil." We are a primitive species, indeed.
Click to expand...


Now this is funny!!!! You and Hawly wouldn't know truth if if smacked you in the forehead.   And funny that you would be so bold as to judge anyone's behavior, when your worldview has NO foundation for ethics. Methinks evo-fundie speak with forked tongue.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt expect Christian creationists to perform any actual research on their own. Doing so might expose them to the harsh light of open inquiry. The scientific community has learned from past experience that anecdotal evidence can be rife with error. The greatest distinction separating modern science from ancient religious tales and fables is the randomized double-bind test. True scientists publish their work in peer reviewed scientific literature. This allows a body of work to be reviewed and either corroborated or rejected as flawed.
> 
> None of the above applies to creationist dogma. On the contrary, Christian fundies seem to believe themselves to be in the process of overthrowing modern biology, astronomy, physics, geology, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, oceanography, cosmology, and other fields of science. Anything that doesn't conform to their interpretation of the Bibles is suspect and in need of correction / alignment with their subjective interpretations. Creationists have a _siege mentality_. Even in the face of evidence long ago refuting their claims to supernaturalism and magic, they will maintain their ignorance because to admit biblical error is to admit that that their entire argument rests on false claims. And as we see, with no reliable mechanism for correcting errors in creationist dogma, the errors are passed down like family heirlooms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. It is disappointing to behold such behavior in theists, especially during an age where actual truth is so available. This circumstance is unique to human history: to understand the universe as we do, and yet there are groups of people who call this knowledge "evil." We are a primitive species, indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now this is funny!!!! You and Hawly wouldn't know truth if if smacked you in the forehead.   And funny that you would be so bold as to judge anyone's behavior, when your worldview has NO foundation for ethics. Methinks evo-fundie speak with forked tongue.
Click to expand...


Religions are not something that increase moral behavior. Atheists are just as moral, if not more so, than those who would excuse their transgressions by appealing to a god, rather than the actual person wronged. The idea that Christians are more moral is a farce, and demonstrably false. Christians are proportionally represented in prison populations relative to the whole population, while atheists are under-represented, for example.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because I want to get arrested and tarnish my perfect law enforcement career over a curmudgeon with small mans complex.
> 
> I just thought it would be interesting to have a civil conversation without your tough guy, inflated internet personality.
> 
> 
> 
> really? I'm not small in any sense of the word.
> height 6'4'' weight 272 lbs.
> their you go again over playing your role, "perfect" career my ass, and you say my personality is inflated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right Daws, you can be any size, age or sex you want on the internet. The possibilities are unlimited. You can even be a chick posing as a dude like Hawly did on the Islam forum with her "RuggedTouch".   Who knows? Maybe you are a pimply faced teenage girl and Hawly is your masculinity counselor.
Click to expand...


And as usual, the creepy stalker being rejected as left him angry and frustrated. 

I'm afraid creepy stalker can't get through a single post without his obsession (and failed advances),  causing him to lash out in angry tirades. Really, my creepy stalker, you need professional help with your pathological need for my attention.


----------



## LittleNipper

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. It is disappointing to behold such behavior in theists, especially during an age where actual truth is so available. This circumstance is unique to human history: to understand the universe as we do, and yet there are groups of people who call this knowledge "evil." We are a primitive species, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is funny!!!! You and Hawly wouldn't know truth if if smacked you in the forehead.   And funny that you would be so bold as to judge anyone's behavior, when your worldview has NO foundation for ethics. Methinks evo-fundie speak with forked tongue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religions are not something that increase moral behavior. Atheists are just as moral, if not more so, than those who would excuse their transgressions by appealing to a god, rather than the actual person wronged. The idea that Christians are more moral is a farce, and demonstrably false. Christians are proportionally represented in prison populations relative to the whole population, while atheists are under-represented, for example.
Click to expand...


The question always reminds me of who started the hospitals, orphanages, schools, colleges, universities, daycare, food banks, shelters, intoduced Mother's Day, Memorial Day, Scouting, The Red Cross, Who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin? It has been Ghristians. Atheists might lend a hand, but they have not been the one's taking the lead --- except maybe as usurpers. They have a way of taking over....


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is funny!!!! You and Hawly wouldn't know truth if if smacked you in the forehead.   And funny that you would be so bold as to judge anyone's behavior, when your worldview has NO foundation for ethics. Methinks evo-fundie speak with forked tongue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religions are not something that increase moral behavior. Atheists are just as moral, if not more so, than those who would excuse their transgressions by appealing to a god, rather than the actual person wronged. The idea that Christians are more moral is a farce, and demonstrably false. Christians are proportionally represented in prison populations relative to the whole population, while atheists are under-represented, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question always reminds me of who started the hospitals, orphanages, schools, colleges, universities, daycare, food banks, shelters, intoduced Mother's Day, Memorial Day, Scouting, The Red Cross, Who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin? It has been Ghristians. Atheists might lend a hand, but they have not been the one's taking the lead --- except maybe as usurpers. They have a way of taking over....
Click to expand...


Gee whiz. I hadn't realized that with exclusivity, all the institutions you mentioned were Christian endeavors. 

I suppose I'll have to rally my atheistic brethren and begin a 500 year long campaign of witch hunts, torture of heretics, inquisitions, Crusades, human and animal sacrifice, etc., just to catch up.

_Gott mit uns_.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religions are not something that increase moral behavior. Atheists are just as moral, if not more so, than those who would excuse their transgressions by appealing to a god, rather than the actual person wronged. The idea that Christians are more moral is a farce, and demonstrably false. Christians are proportionally represented in prison populations relative to the whole population, while atheists are under-represented, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question always reminds me of who started the hospitals, orphanages, schools, colleges, universities, daycare, food banks, shelters, intoduced Mother's Day, Memorial Day, Scouting, The Red Cross, Who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin? It has been Ghristians. Atheists might lend a hand, but they have not been the one's taking the lead --- except maybe as usurpers. They have a way of taking over....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. I hadn't realized that with exclusivity, all the institutions you mentioned were Christian endeavors.
> 
> I suppose I'll have to rally my atheistic brethren and begin a 500 year long campaign of witch hunts, torture of heretics, inquisitions, Crusades, human and animal sacrifice, etc., just to catch up.
> 
> _Gott mit uns_.
Click to expand...


No need to play catch up. Atheistic governments murdered over 80 million people in the 20th century alone so I think you're good. Please tell me you haven't forgotten that cozy little retreat called the Soviet Union, where they outlawed God and built walls to keep their people IN. Yep, there certainly were more Christians in the prison population there because it was against the law to worship God. So much for your skewed statistics.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Evolution is a Fact.
> 
> How did there come to be male and female?
> 
> It's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties.
> 
> So where did they come from?
> 
> How did they get started?
> 
> Who decided which was which, or which was going to be which?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its undeniable falsehood what you just stated. The actual truth, is that Most of the biomass on this planet are made up of single-called bacteria who are asexual.
Click to expand...


Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium 

The planet is covered with bacterium how do you account for them in your evolutionary tree ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Evolution is a Fact.
> 
> How did there come to be male and female?
> 
> It's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties.
> 
> So where did they come from?
> 
> How did they get started?
> 
> Who decided which was which, or which was going to be which?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recall you posted this previously and it was addressed.
> 
> If designer gawds were a fact, how do you account for the required designers of your designer gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the crux of the whole thing.
> 
> What really boggles the mind is this.
> 
> Creationist scoff at the notion that we came about gradually over millions of years.
> 
> Of course the same people seem to have no problem believing that an even more complex and powerful deity has just always been there.  That this deity spoke everything into existence, and that he sent his son down to do impossible things (created food from nothing, healed the sick and brought the dead back to life), and after dieing, floats up to heaven on a cloud (where exactly was he going?)   These things are believable.
> 
> But gradual change over millions of years....  fucking retarded.
> 
> If there is a god out there and all of this is true, I have just one question for him.
> 
> Why the hell would you want to spend eternity with these people?
Click to expand...


I guess you never heard of the cambrian explosion and the theory of punctuated equilibrium and why it exists.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question always reminds me of who started the hospitals, orphanages, schools, colleges, universities, daycare, food banks, shelters, intoduced Mother's Day, Memorial Day, Scouting, The Red Cross, Who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin? It has been Ghristians. Atheists might lend a hand, but they have not been the one's taking the lead --- except maybe as usurpers. They have a way of taking over....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. I hadn't realized that with exclusivity, all the institutions you mentioned were Christian endeavors.
> 
> I suppose I'll have to rally my atheistic brethren and begin a 500 year long campaign of witch hunts, torture of heretics, inquisitions, Crusades, human and animal sacrifice, etc., just to catch up.
> 
> _Gott mit uns_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to play catch up. Atheistic governments murdered over 80 million people in the 20th century alone so I think you're good. Please tell me you haven't forgotten that cozy little retreat called the Soviet Union, where they outlawed God and built walls to keep their people IN. Yep, there certainly were more Christians in the prison population there because it was against the law to worship God. So much for your skewed statistics.
Click to expand...

Because you're as clueless as usual, I'll note that you're referring to political ideologies (Marxism/Stalinism), as the entity responsible for your roll call.

Get a clue, stalker.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Lonestar_logic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Evolution is a Fact.
> 
> How did there come to be male and female?
> 
> It's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties.
> 
> So where did they come from?
> 
> How did they get started?
> 
> Who decided which was which, or which was going to be which?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recall you posted this previously and it was addressed.
> 
> If designer gawds were a fact, how do you account for the required designers of your designer gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it was never answered adequately.
> 
> You can't answer it either.
Click to expand...


They avoided the question by bringing up Asexual reproducing bacterium like that answers the question. As far as I know a bacterium has never evolved because it's genetic information say's it's offspring will continue being  bacterium with no hope of genetic being introduced to cause them to evolve in to non-bacterium.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Creationists are a hoot! I would love to visit the Creationist museum in Kentucky. However, I have always suspected that they are not really serious...kind of like the "Flat Earth Society". It is possible that I tend to think that way, because the thought of serious adults dismissing evolution, and claiming that man and dinosaures coexisted, is too scary to contemplate.
Click to expand...


You silly Ideologue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is in poor form for you to demand answers of others, (which are provided), and then run for the exits when you are requested to supply answers in connection with your various gawds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you grow up and learn how to show some respect I may answer your silly question.
> 
> And I have not SEEN an answer to my question!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you to demand information that you yourself can obtain, freely and easily?
Click to expand...


What do you do ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> there is a slight chance he would want to duke it out or shoot me .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because I want to get arrested and tarnish my perfect law enforcement career over a curmudgeon with small mans complex.
> 
> I just thought it would be interesting to have a civil conversation without your tough guy, inflated internet personality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? I'm not small in any sense of the word.
> height 6'4'' weight 272 lbs.
> their you go again over playing your role, "perfect" career my ass, and you say my personality is inflated.
Click to expand...


I picture you as a 5"6 145 weakling,sorry.


----------



## Underhill

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question always reminds me of who started the hospitals, orphanages, schools, colleges, universities, daycare, food banks, shelters, intoduced Mother's Day, Memorial Day, Scouting, The Red Cross, Who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin? It has been Ghristians. Atheists might lend a hand, but they have not been the one's taking the lead --- except maybe as usurpers. They have a way of taking over....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. I hadn't realized that with exclusivity, all the institutions you mentioned were Christian endeavors.
> 
> I suppose I'll have to rally my atheistic brethren and begin a 500 year long campaign of witch hunts, torture of heretics, inquisitions, Crusades, human and animal sacrifice, etc., just to catch up.
> 
> _Gott mit uns_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to play catch up. Atheistic governments murdered over 80 million people in the 20th century alone so I think you're good. Please tell me you haven't forgotten that cozy little retreat called the Soviet Union, where they outlawed God and built walls to keep their people IN. Yep, there certainly were more Christians in the prison population there because it was against the law to worship God. So much for your skewed statistics.
Click to expand...


These mass murders (both the inquisition and the soviets among others) aren't so much about ideology as they were about control.    Their ideology was simply a tool they used to maintain an iron grip.  

I wouldn't go so far as to say atheist are innocents.   But there is no evidence whatsoever that they are any worse than the average religious person.   If anything I would say that modern atheist are above average in many ways.


----------



## UltimateReality

Underhill said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. I hadn't realized that with exclusivity, all the institutions you mentioned were Christian endeavors.
> 
> I suppose I'll have to rally my atheistic brethren and begin a 500 year long campaign of witch hunts, torture of heretics, inquisitions, Crusades, human and animal sacrifice, etc., just to catch up.
> 
> _Gott mit uns_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to play catch up. Atheistic governments murdered over 80 million people in the 20th century alone so I think you're good. Please tell me you haven't forgotten that cozy little retreat called the Soviet Union, where they outlawed God and built walls to keep their people IN. Yep, there certainly were more Christians in the prison population there because it was against the law to worship God. So much for your skewed statistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These mass murders (both the inquisition and the soviets among others) aren't so much about ideology as they were about control.    Their ideology was simply a tool they used to maintain an iron grip.
> 
> I wouldn't go so far as to say atheist are innocents.   But there is no evidence whatsoever that they are any worse than the average religious person.   If anything I would say that modern atheist are above average in many ways.
Click to expand...


An ideology that denied God's existence. It is amazing what people can justify when they are not answering to a Higher Power. Contrast that with the never before seen liberty granted by a government founded on the basis of God, i.e., the once Christian Nation of the United States.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need to play catch up. Atheistic governments murdered over 80 million people in the 20th century alone so I think you're good. Please tell me you haven't forgotten that cozy little retreat called the Soviet Union, where they outlawed God and built walls to keep their people IN. Yep, there certainly were more Christians in Ithe prison population there because it was against the law to worship God. So much for your skewed statistics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These mass murders (both the inquisition and the soviets among others) aren't so much about ideology as they were about control.    Their ideology was simply a tool they used to maintain an iron grip.
> 
> I wouldn't go so far as to say atheist are innocents.   But there is no evidence whatsoever that they are any worse than the average religious person.   If anything I would say that modern atheist are above average in many ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An ideology that denied God's existence. It is amazing what people can justify when they are not answering to a Higher Power. Contrast that with the never before seen liberty granted by a government founded on the basis of God, i.e., the once Christian Nation of the United States.
Click to expand...


Actually, what is horrific is what people can justify when they ARE answering to gawds. It's called the Dark Ages.

The US was never a Christian nation. The Founding Fathers knew the dangers of Christian based theocracies.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you grow up and learn how to show some respect I may answer your silly question.
> 
> And I have not SEEN an answer to my question!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you to demand information that you yourself can obtain, freely and easily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you do ?
Click to expand...


I don't arrogantly demand information about anything that is easily gotten to, or refuse to learn about something because it threatens my beliefs about how the world works. I have read the NT And studied the Torah academically. I have examined all arguments for the existence of god, and find none of it to be convincing. All gods were so obviously made in the image of man, including the Judeo-Christian god. I do find it interesting that anybody could actually buy into it, from a psychological standpoint. It is that reason I am here.


----------



## newpolitics

More importantly, I don't expect others to compensate for my lack of willingness to learn about something that is challenging or unknown, and then demand that they feed me this knowledge with a silver spoon. It is doubly absurd in the age of the Internet, of free and abundant information. Auto-didacticism has never been more possible in the history of humanity.


----------



## Underhill

UltimateReality said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need to play catch up. Atheistic governments murdered over 80 million people in the 20th century alone so I think you're good. Please tell me you haven't forgotten that cozy little retreat called the Soviet Union, where they outlawed God and built walls to keep their people IN. Yep, there certainly were more Christians in the prison population there because it was against the law to worship God. So much for your skewed statistics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These mass murders (both the inquisition and the soviets among others) aren't so much about ideology as they were about control.    Their ideology was simply a tool they used to maintain an iron grip.
> 
> I wouldn't go so far as to say atheist are innocents.   But there is no evidence whatsoever that they are any worse than the average religious person.   If anything I would say that modern atheist are above average in many ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An ideology that denied God's existence. It is amazing what people can justify when they are not answering to a Higher Power. Contrast that with the never before seen liberty granted by a government founded on the basis of God, i.e., the once Christian Nation of the United States.
Click to expand...


See that is where you go off the rails.

How can you claim a lack of god as the cause when the same things were done by the inquisition and a dozen others (including the Israelis in the old testament)?

It's ridiculous.

Rome was the first "christian nation" and they slaughtered those who chose to follow the old gods.   There have been dozens more since.

And America was not a christian nation.    It was founded as a nation under a generic god which specifically allowed for belief in anything.   Not only christ.    That is not, by definition, a christian nation.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to say while hiding behind your keyboard. You are the typical internet coward. You are all talk with no balls to back up your internet bravado. From now on your antics will get a big chuckle from me. You sir, are a fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> only in your dreams. as to chuckles I've been laughing at you since I started posting on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever, coward.
Click to expand...

the jilted girlfriend ploy


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because I want to get arrested and tarnish my perfect law enforcement career over a curmudgeon with small mans complex.
> 
> I just thought it would be interesting to have a civil conversation without your tough guy, inflated internet personality.
> 
> 
> 
> really? I'm not small in any sense of the word.
> height 6'4'' weight 272 lbs.
> their you go again over playing your role, "perfect" career my ass, and you say my personality is inflated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right Daws, you can be any size, age or sex you want on the internet. The possibilities are unlimited. You can even be a chick posing as a dude like Hawly did on the Islam forum with her "RuggedTouch".   Who knows? Maybe you are a pimply faced teenage girl and Hawly is your masculinity counselor.
Click to expand...

fine example of hubris and inflated self image detective douche bag. 
unlike yourself,  I've never had the need to disguise who or what I 'am.


----------



## emilynghiem

Youwerecreated said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recall you posted this previously and it was addressed.
> 
> If designer gawds were a fact, how do you account for the required designers of your designer gawds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it was never answered adequately.
> 
> You can't answer it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They avoided the question by bringing up Asexual reproducing bacterium like that answers the question. As far as I know a bacterium has never evolved because it's genetic information say's it's offspring will continue being  bacterium with no hope of genetic being introduced to cause them to evolve in to non-bacterium.
Click to expand...


If evolution is real, then why isn't anyone in this discussion evolving?
Why are we seeing the same old straw man arguments and
personal attacks not getting anywhere?

If there is a tendency of change toward improvement, where is this change?
Show me proof, somebody! Anybody?


----------



## emilynghiem

Underhill said:


> And America was not a christian nation.    It was founded as a nation under a generic god which specifically allowed for belief in anything.   Not only christ.    That is not, by definition, a christian nation.



Dear Underhill:
There is "Christian" by the external letter or cultural traditions using the Bible, etc.
There is "Christian" by the internal spirit which means to embody the laws by conscience.

The Founding Fathers clearly practiced the second type
because the people WERE the government. The people
who built the nation WERE the ones who embraced the laws and enforced them.
This is the equivalent of teaching that the people ARE the Church or the body.

So that part is Christian. Where people embody the laws by conscience.
The external expression was using Constitutional laws not necessarily Biblical laws,
but the spiritual concept and commitment is the same:

to adopt and commit to enforcing and upholding the laws ONESELF by conscience
for the sake of "Justice with Mercy for all" is the same spirit as in Christianity

You can do this with Buddhist laws, Muslim, Constitutional laws etc. (not just Bible laws)
and still be one with the body of Christ by the spirit of truth and justice
which God and Jesus represent regardless of political or religious affiliation.

We are still joined as one in the spirit of Justice or Jesus
and the Founding Fathers did recognize this and pray in that spirit,
while also recognizing the external diversity of religious beliefs protected thereunder.

The God of Nature the Deists believed in is
still the same as the God in the Bible of the Christians.
Whether we govern ourselves under natural laws as made statutory in the Constitution
or under sacred laws of the Bible or other scriptures, the same God/Jesus
representing universal truth/justice includes all people equally regardless of affiliation.
We are joined by conscience or by Christ, no matter what we call this.


----------



## UltimateReality

Underhill said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> These mass murders (both the inquisition and the soviets among others) aren't so much about ideology as they were about control.    Their ideology was simply a tool they used to maintain an iron grip.
> 
> I wouldn't go so far as to say atheist are innocents.   But there is no evidence whatsoever that they are any worse than the average religious person.   If anything I would say that modern atheist are above average in many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An ideology that denied God's existence. It is amazing what people can justify when they are not answering to a Higher Power. Contrast that with the never before seen liberty granted by a government founded on the basis of God, i.e., the once Christian Nation of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See that is where you go off the rails.
> 
> How can you claim a lack of god as the cause when the same things were done by the inquisition and a dozen others (including the Israelis in the old testament)?
> 
> It's ridiculous.
> 
> Rome was the first "christian nation" and they slaughtered those who chose to follow the old gods.   There have been dozens more since.
> 
> And America was not a christian nation.    It was founded as a nation under a generic god which specifically allowed for belief in anything.   Not only christ.    That is not, by definition, a christian nation.
Click to expand...


How many historical revisionist will parade through this thread? You are one of many who have visited, and you don't actually expect me to believe your ignorant lies do you?

You can start by educating yourself at the Library of Congress website, where you can read about ALL of the Christian Church services held in the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives. 

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

Or you could look up the original charters of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Perhaps you could take a tour of the inscriptions of Lincoln's tomb or read Washington's Inaugural address, the first of its kind, and then study what he and the joint session of Congress proceeded to do after the inauguration. 

You don't have to look very hard to find the Christian spirit running deep in every part of the new at the time United States government.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? I'm not small in any sense of the word.
> height 6'4'' weight 272 lbs.
> their you go again over playing your role, "perfect" career my ass, and you say my personality is inflated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right Daws, you can be any size, age or sex you want on the internet. The possibilities are unlimited. You can even be a chick posing as a dude like Hawly did on the Islam forum with her "RuggedTouch".   Who knows? Maybe you are a pimply faced teenage girl and Hawly is your masculinity counselor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fine example of hubris and inflated self image detective douche bag.
> unlike yourself,  I've never had the need to disguise who or what I 'am.
Click to expand...


That is, while you were protected by the anonymity of the computer... coward.


----------



## UltimateReality

Excerpt from the 1st Inaugural address of the United States. Every reference to the Christian God has been bolded for your convenience.

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that *Almighty Being* who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and *whose providential aids* can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this *homage to the Great Author* of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. *No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States.* Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of *providential agency.*"

More info on the days events:

First Inaugural Address

"At that auspicious moment marking the birth of the federal government under the Constitution, Senator William Maclay of Pennsylvania observed that even the great Washington trembled when he faced the assembled representatives and senators. "This great man was agitated and embarrassed," Maclay added, "more than ever he was by the levelled Cannon or pointed Musket." After concluding his remarks, *the President and Congress proceeded through crowds lined up on Broadway to St. Paul's Church, where a service was conducted.*

Image of St Pauls Church near Ground Zero New York


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Excerpt from the 1st Inaugural address of the United States. Every reference to the Christian God has been bolded for your convenience.
> 
> "Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that *Almighty Being* who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and *whose providential aids* can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this *homage to the Great Author* of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. *No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States.* Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of *providential agency.*"


And as much as you would like to force the xtian gawds on others, the Constitution is quite clear you cannot.


----------



## Underhill

UltimateReality said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ideology that denied God's existence. It is amazing what people can justify when they are not answering to a Higher Power. Contrast that with the never before seen liberty granted by a government founded on the basis of God, i.e., the once Christian Nation of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See that is where you go off the rails.
> 
> How can you claim a lack of god as the cause when the same things were done by the inquisition and a dozen others (including the Israelis in the old testament)?
> 
> It's ridiculous.
> 
> Rome was the first "christian nation" and they slaughtered those who chose to follow the old gods.   There have been dozens more since.
> 
> And America was not a christian nation.    It was founded as a nation under a generic god which specifically allowed for belief in anything.   Not only christ.    That is not, by definition, a christian nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many historical revisionist will parade through this thread? You are one of many who have visited, and you don't actually expect me to believe your ignorant lies do you?
> 
> You can start by educating yourself at the Library of Congress website, where you can read about ALL of the Christian Church services held in the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives.
> 
> Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
> 
> Or you could look up the original charters of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Perhaps you could take a tour of the inscriptions of Lincoln's tomb or read Washington's Inaugural address, the first of its kind, and then study what he and the joint session of Congress proceeded to do after the inauguration.
> 
> You don't have to look very hard to find the Christian spirit running deep in every part of the new at the time United States government.
Click to expand...


No shit.   Really?

But the fact that some(and not all) of the founders had deep religious convictions isn't relevant.    The question is, was America founded as a christian nation?

And the answer is no.   Nowhere in the constitution does it call out christ by name.    And they specifically went out of their way to keep religion and the foundation of our country separate.    

I don't know that they were interested in strict separation.   In fact I'm quite sure from what I have read from the founders, that they didn't worry about it.   What they didn't want was a church, any church, dictating policy.    

So I don't know how you can call it a "christian nation".   The citizenry was majority christian.   But the foundations of the country were not.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ideology that denied God's existence. It is amazing what people can justify when they are not answering to a Higher Power. Contrast that with the never before seen liberty granted by a government founded on the basis of God, i.e., the once Christian Nation of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See that is where you go off the rails.
> 
> How can you claim a lack of god as the cause when the same things were done by the inquisition and a dozen others (including the Israelis in the old testament)?
> 
> It's ridiculous.
> 
> Rome was the first "christian nation" and they slaughtered those who chose to follow the old gods.   There have been dozens more since.
> 
> And America was not a christian nation.    It was founded as a nation under a generic god which specifically allowed for belief in anything.   Not only christ.    That is not, by definition, a christian nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many historical revisionist will parade through this thread? You are one of many who have visited, and you don't actually expect me to believe your ignorant lies do you?
> 
> You can start by educating yourself at the Library of Congress website, where you can read about ALL of the Christian Church services held in the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives.
> 
> Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
> 
> Or you could look up the original charters of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Perhaps you could take a tour of the inscriptions of Lincoln's tomb or read Washington's Inaugural address, the first of its kind, and then study what he and the joint session of Congress proceeded to do after the inauguration.
> 
> You don't have to look very hard to find the Christian spirit running deep in every part of the new at the time United States government.
Click to expand...

Or, you could just read the Constitution to find a muzzle on the xtian spirit. The Founding Fathers knew full well the dangers of christianity as some of them had fled the british theocracy.


----------



## Underhill

UltimateReality said:


> Excerpt from the 1st Inaugural address of the United States. Every reference to the Christian God has been bolded for your convenience.
> 
> "Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that *Almighty Being* who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and *whose providential aids* can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this *homage to the Great Author* of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. *No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States.* Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of *providential agency.*"
> 
> More info on the days events:
> 
> First Inaugural Address
> 
> "At that auspicious moment marking the birth of the federal government under the Constitution, Senator William Maclay of Pennsylvania observed that even the great Washington trembled when he faced the assembled representatives and senators. "This great man was agitated and embarrassed," Maclay added, "more than ever he was by the levelled Cannon or pointed Musket." After concluding his remarks, *the President and Congress proceeded through crowds lined up on Broadway to St. Paul's Church, where a service was conducted.*



So we have the first example of political pandering in the white house...

But the guy may have even meant what he said.   It changes nothing.   Obama has talked about his religious convictions from the podium as has Bush 1&2, Reagan, Carter and dozens of other presidents.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt from the 1st Inaugural address of the United States. Every reference to the Christian God has been bolded for your convenience.
> 
> "Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that *Almighty Being* who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and *whose providential aids* can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this *homage to the Great Author* of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. *No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States.* Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of *providential agency.*"
> 
> 
> 
> And as much as you would like to force the xtian gawds on others, the Constitution is quite clear you cannot.
Click to expand...


As usual, you miss the point. The Constitution embraces the free will teachings of the Christian religion and also reflects the Pilgrims initial reason for fleeing England, so that the government could not have an official Church. This doesn't change the fact the nation was found by Christian men, on Christian principles, for a largely Christian populace. And as long as the websites like the Library of Congress and the National Archives don't succumb to the rabid revisionism that you continually preach, any one who searches will still be able to find the truth. My fear is that the actual documents will be lost, and eventually the bits and bytes will be corrupted, and evil people like you Hawly will have their way at erasing what really happened, to serve their own miserable, self-loathing, Christ-hating agendas. People like you are dangerous like Hitler was, because evil and violence against a certain group is your goal. Just one of the tools of your hate and bigotry is revisionism. The other is repeating lies over and over enough that you first believe the lie yourself and then you convince other weak-minded and impressionable people like NP and Daws to believe your lies.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt from the 1st Inaugural address of the United States. Every reference to the Christian God has been bolded for your convenience.
> 
> "Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that *Almighty Being* who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and *whose providential aids* can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this *homage to the Great Author* of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. *No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States.* Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of *providential agency.*"
> 
> 
> 
> And as much as you would like to force the xtian gawds on others, the Constitution is quite clear you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you miss the point. The Constitution embraces the free will teachings of the Christian religion and also reflects the Pilgrims initial reason for fleeing England, so that the government could not have an official Church. This doesn't change the fact the nation was found by Christian men, on Christian principles, for a largely Christian populace. And as long as the websites like the Library of Congress and the National Archives don't succumb to the rabid revisionism that you continually preach, any one who searches will still be able to find the truth. My fear is that the actual documents will be lost, and eventually the bits and bytes will be corrupted, and evil people like you Hawly will have their way at erasing what really happened, to serve their own miserable, self-loathing, Christ-hating agendas. People like you are dangerous like Hitler was, because evil and violence against a certain group is your goal. Just one of the tools of your hate and bigotry is revisionism. The other is repeating lies over and over enough that you first believe the lie yourself and then you convince other weak-minded and impressionable people like NP and Daws to believe your lies.
Click to expand...

What you're missing, dear, is that the Constitution actually protects me and other americans from religious fundamentalists such as you and others who, given the chance, would seek to turn this nation into an Iranian style theocracy.

How interesting that the Christian men who framed the constitution knew precisely how religious fundamentalism (Christian) tends to propagate and thus chose to protect the free exercise of religious freedom (freedom FROM religion).

Obviously, they knew quite well the dangers of a majority religion imposing its views on the populace.


----------



## Underhill

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt from the 1st Inaugural address of the United States. Every reference to the Christian God has been bolded for your convenience.
> 
> "Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that *Almighty Being* who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and *whose providential aids* can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this *homage to the Great Author* of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. *No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States.* Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of *providential agency.*"
> 
> 
> 
> And as much as you would like to force the xtian gawds on others, the Constitution is quite clear you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you miss the point. The Constitution embraces the free will teachings of the Christian religion and also reflects the Pilgrims initial reason for fleeing England, so that the government could not have an official Church. This doesn't change the fact the nation was found by Christian men, on Christian principles, for a largely Christian populace. And as long as the websites like the Library of Congress and the National Archives don't succumb to the rabid revisionism that you continually preach, any one who searches will still be able to find the truth. My fear is that the actual documents will be lost, and eventually the bits and bytes will be corrupted, and evil people like you Hawly will have their way at erasing what really happened, to serve their own miserable, self-loathing, Christ-hating agendas. People like you are dangerous like Hitler was, because evil and violence against a certain group is your goal. Just one of the tools of your hate and bigotry is revisionism. The other is repeating lies over and over enough that you first believe the lie yourself and then you convince other weak-minded and impressionable people like NP and Daws to believe your lies.
Click to expand...


Violence?   Really?

I see christianity as a myth.  A fraud.   A means of control.   I grew up in it.   Know the book cover to cover and think Jesus teachings, while good, are among the most ignored in the whole bible.  

I see christians as judgmental, hateful, spiteful people who bath in ignorance.   

But violence?   Come on...


----------



## UltimateReality

Underhill said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> See that is where you go off the rails.
> 
> How can you claim a lack of god as the cause when the same things were done by the inquisition and a dozen others (including the Israelis in the old testament)?
> 
> It's ridiculous.
> 
> Rome was the first "christian nation" and they slaughtered those who chose to follow the old gods.   There have been dozens more since.
> 
> And America was not a christian nation.    It was founded as a nation under a generic god which specifically allowed for belief in anything.   Not only christ.    That is not, by definition, a christian nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many historical revisionist will parade through this thread? You are one of many who have visited, and you don't actually expect me to believe your ignorant lies do you?
> 
> You can start by educating yourself at the Library of Congress website, where you can read about ALL of the Christian Church services held in the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives.
> 
> Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
> 
> Or you could look up the original charters of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Perhaps you could take a tour of the inscriptions of Lincoln's tomb or read Washington's Inaugural address, the first of its kind, and then study what he and the joint session of Congress proceeded to do after the inauguration.
> 
> You don't have to look very hard to find the Christian spirit running deep in every part of the new at the time United States government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit.   Really?
> 
> But the fact that some(and not all) of the founders had deep religious convictions isn't relevant.    The question is, was America founded as a christian nation?
> 
> And the answer is no.   Nowhere in the constitution does it call out christ by name.    And they specifically went out of their way to keep religion and the foundation of our country separate.
> 
> I don't know that they were interested in strict separation.   In fact I'm quite sure from what I have read from the founders, that they didn't worry about it.   What they didn't want was a church, any church, dictating policy.
> 
> So I don't know how you can call it a "christian nation".   The citizenry was majority christian.   But the foundations of the country were not.
Click to expand...


Ahh, said with the typical misunderstanding of the history behind the founding of America. In context of what was happening, the American government was founded without any allegiance to a specific denomination, or official *church.* People were free to worship in whatever denomination of the CHRISTIAN religion they chose, whether that be Catholic or Baptist or Presbyterian, etc. The Founders did not feel the need to include the Christian religion in the Constitution because the culture they were in was so steeped in the Christian tradition they couldn't even fathom that it would ever not be the religion of the day. So, the mistake you make, and one many revisionists purposely make, is to confuse Separation of CHURCH and state, with something that was never intended, which is Separation of RELIGION and state. You see Christianity is a religion. The Church of England was just that, a church. The Founders did not want the government to force which Church (denomination) citizens were to belong to as they had done in England. Everyone was free to worship *Christ* as they pleased. 

Nevertheless, it is no longer a Christian nation, even though it was founded as such. I think God sent a pretty good message that the US was lost when, at the very same church where President Washington and the First joint Session of Congress dedicated our nation to God, God allowed foreigners to destroy everything around it. Americans have turned their backs on God and so now God has turned his back on America. We maybe have 3 to 5 years before the financial collapse of the US government and the rioting starts. What's left after the turmoil of that event is anyone's guess, but my hope is that out of that people will return to God, and good will not be repaid with evil, as it is common practice in our nation now.


----------



## Underhill

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as much as you would like to force the xtian gawds on others, the Constitution is quite clear you cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you miss the point. The Constitution embraces the free will teachings of the Christian religion and also reflects the Pilgrims initial reason for fleeing England, so that the government could not have an official Church. This doesn't change the fact the nation was found by Christian men, on Christian principles, for a largely Christian populace. And as long as the websites like the Library of Congress and the National Archives don't succumb to the rabid revisionism that you continually preach, any one who searches will still be able to find the truth. My fear is that the actual documents will be lost, and eventually the bits and bytes will be corrupted, and evil people like you Hawly will have their way at erasing what really happened, to serve their own miserable, self-loathing, Christ-hating agendas. People like you are dangerous like Hitler was, because evil and violence against a certain group is your goal. Just one of the tools of your hate and bigotry is revisionism. The other is repeating lies over and over enough that you first believe the lie yourself and then you convince other weak-minded and impressionable people like NP and Daws to believe your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're missing, dear, is that the Constitution actually protects me and other americans from religious fundamentalists such as you and others who, given the chance, would seek to turn this nation into an Iranian style theocracy.
> 
> How interesting that the Christian men who framed the constitution knew precisely how religious fundamentalism (Christian) tends to propagate and thus chose to protect the free exercise of religious freedom (freedom FROM religion).
> 
> Obviously, they knew quite well the dangers of a majority religion imposing its views on the populace.
Click to expand...


I think the religion of the founders is nothing like that of modern christians.     Perhaps there were those people around in their day.   But these men were often men of education.   Some even men of science, limited as it was in that day.

They didn't use the government models of imposing a godly king.   (Washington would have been the ideal choice.)   Instead they looked to the heathen Greeks and early Romans for inspiration.   These were not fundamentalist who believed man inherently evil.   They believed that mankind could make the right decisions if only they were educated (a truly liberal and humanist position if ever there was one).

So they may have believed in a god.   But I've seen nothing in my extensive reading to suggest they were anything like the christians of today.


----------



## Underhill

UltimateReality said:


> Ahh, said with the typical misunderstanding of the history behind the founding of America. In context of what was happening, the American government was founded without any allegiance to a specific denomination, or official *church.* People were free to worship in whatever denomination of the CHRISTIAN religion they chose, whether that be Catholic or Baptist or Presbyterian, etc. The Founders did not feel the need to include the Christian religion in the Constitution because the culture they were in was so steeped in the Christian tradition they couldn't even fathom that it would ever not be the religion of the day. So, the mistake you make, and one many revisionists purposely make, is to confuse Separation of CHURCH and state, with something that was never intended, which is Separation of RELIGION and state. You see Christianity is a religion. The Church of England was just that, a church. The Founders did not want the government to force which Church (denomination) citizens were to belong to as they had done in England. Everyone was free to worship *Christ* as they pleased.



Pretty much what I said.  It was not founded as a christian nation.   Except that last bit.    Everyone was free to worship whomever and whatever they pleased.   



> Nevertheless, it is no longer a Christian nation, even though it was founded as such. I think God sent a pretty good message that the US was lost when, at the very same church where President Washington and the First joint Session of Congress dedicated our nation to God, God allowed foreigners to destroy everything around it. Americans have turned their backs on God and so now God has turned his back on America. We maybe have 3 to 5 years before the financial collapse of the US government and the rioting starts. What's left after the turmoil of that event is anyone's guess, but my hope is that out of that people will return to God, and good will not be repaid with evil, as it is common practice in our nation now.



Yep, otherwise the god fearing Chinese will rise up and take our place!


----------



## UltimateReality

Underhill said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> See that is where you go off the rails.
> 
> How can you claim a lack of god as the cause when the same things were done by the inquisition and a dozen others (including the Israelis in the old testament)?
> 
> It's ridiculous.
> 
> Rome was the first "christian nation" and they slaughtered those who chose to follow the old gods.   There have been dozens more since.
> 
> And America was not a christian nation.    It was founded as a nation under a generic god which specifically allowed for belief in anything.   Not only christ.    That is not, by definition, a christian nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many historical revisionist will parade through this thread? You are one of many who have visited, and you don't actually expect me to believe your ignorant lies do you?
> 
> You can start by educating yourself at the Library of Congress website, where you can read about ALL of the Christian Church services held in the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives.
> 
> Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
> 
> Or you could look up the original charters of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Perhaps you could take a tour of the inscriptions of Lincoln's tomb or read Washington's Inaugural address, the first of its kind, and then study what he and the joint session of Congress proceeded to do after the inauguration.
> 
> You don't have to look very hard to find the Christian spirit running deep in every part of the new at the time United States government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit.   Really?
> 
> But the fact that some(and not all) of the founders had deep religious convictions isn't relevant.    The question is, was America founded as a christian nation?
> 
> And the answer is no.   Nowhere in the constitution does it call out christ by name.    And they specifically went out of their way to keep religion and the foundation of our country separate.
> 
> I don't know that they were interested in strict separation.   In fact I'm quite sure from what I have read from the founders, that they didn't worry about it.  * What they didn't want was a church, any church, dictating policy.    *
> 
> So I don't know how you can call it a "christian nation".   The citizenry was majority christian.   But the foundations of the country were not.
Click to expand...


You are confusing the definition of "Church" with the definition of "religion". The bolded statement above is entirely true, but has nothing to do with us being a Christian nation. In fact, the sole concept of Separation of Church and State is taken from one line in one letter by Jefferson. A one liner which atheist everywhere have capitalized to the fullest extent to drive God out of every aspect of government. But this doesn't change the fact He was there in the beginning as part of the founding, and that He was the Christian God. Sorry to burst your bubble.


----------



## UltimateReality

Underhill said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, said with the typical misunderstanding of the history behind the founding of America. In context of what was happening, the American government was founded without any allegiance to a specific denomination, or official *church.* People were free to worship in whatever denomination of the CHRISTIAN religion they chose, whether that be Catholic or Baptist or Presbyterian, etc. The Founders did not feel the need to include the Christian religion in the Constitution because the culture they were in was so steeped in the Christian tradition they couldn't even fathom that it would ever not be the religion of the day. So, the mistake you make, and one many revisionists purposely make, is to confuse Separation of CHURCH and state, with something that was never intended, which is Separation of RELIGION and state. You see Christianity is a religion. The Church of England was just that, a church. The Founders did not want the government to force which Church (denomination) citizens were to belong to as they had done in England. Everyone was free to worship *Christ* as they pleased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much what I said.  It was not founded as a christian nation.   Except that last bit.    Everyone was free to worship whomever and whatever they pleased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, it is no longer a Christian nation, even though it was founded as such. I think God sent a pretty good message that the US was lost when, at the very same church where President Washington and the First joint Session of Congress dedicated our nation to God, God allowed foreigners to destroy everything around it. Americans have turned their backs on God and so now God has turned his back on America. We maybe have 3 to 5 years before the financial collapse of the US government and the rioting starts. What's left after the turmoil of that event is anyone's guess, but my hope is that out of that people will return to God, and good will not be repaid with evil, as it is common practice in our nation now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, otherwise *the... Chinese will rise up and take our place!*
Click to expand...


Not otherwise. The ball that has already started rolling will not be stopped...

IMF Predicts Chinese Economy to Surpass U.S. in 2016 | Fox News


----------



## UltimateReality

Underhill said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you miss the point. The Constitution embraces the free will teachings of the Christian religion and also reflects the Pilgrims initial reason for fleeing England, so that the government could not have an official Church. This doesn't change the fact the nation was found by Christian men, on Christian principles, for a largely Christian populace. And as long as the websites like the Library of Congress and the National Archives don't succumb to the rabid revisionism that you continually preach, any one who searches will still be able to find the truth. My fear is that the actual documents will be lost, and eventually the bits and bytes will be corrupted, and evil people like you Hawly will have their way at erasing what really happened, to serve their own miserable, self-loathing, Christ-hating agendas. People like you are dangerous like Hitler was, because evil and violence against a certain group is your goal. Just one of the tools of your hate and bigotry is revisionism. The other is repeating lies over and over enough that you first believe the lie yourself and then you convince other weak-minded and impressionable people like NP and Daws to believe your lies.
> 
> 
> 
> What you're missing, dear, is that the Constitution actually protects me and other americans from religious fundamentalists such as you and others who, given the chance, would seek to turn this nation into an Iranian style theocracy.
> 
> How interesting that the Christian men who framed the constitution knew precisely how religious fundamentalism (Christian) tends to propagate and thus chose to protect the free exercise of religious freedom (freedom FROM religion).
> 
> Obviously, they knew quite well the dangers of a majority religion imposing its views on the populace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the religion of the founders is nothing like that of modern christians.     Perhaps there were those people around in their day.   But these men were often men of education.   Some even men of science, limited as it was in that day.
> 
> They didn't use the government models of imposing a godly king.   (Washington would have been the ideal choice.)   Instead they looked to the heathen Greeks and early Romans for inspiration.   These were not fundamentalist who believed man inherently evil.   *They believed that mankind could make the right decisions if only they were educated *
Click to expand...

 They so did not!!!! Pick up a history book, a real one, not an electronic one!!! Please!!  The numerous quotes from the founders do not support this at all! 





Underhill said:


> (a truly liberal and humanist position if ever there was one).
> 
> So they may have believed in a god.   But I've seen nothing in my extensive reading to suggest they were anything like the christians of today.



Dude, what history books are you reading??? The Founders absolutely felt that mans propensity for evil was as sure as the sunrise. That is why they attempted to install so many checks and balances to keep evil tyrants out of power. They knew men were evil and easily corrupted by power.


----------



## UltimateReality

Underhill said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as much as you would like to force the xtian gawds on others, the Constitution is quite clear you cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you miss the point. The Constitution embraces the free will teachings of the Christian religion and also reflects the Pilgrims initial reason for fleeing England, so that the government could not have an official Church. This doesn't change the fact the nation was found by Christian men, on Christian principles, for a largely Christian populace. And as long as the websites like the Library of Congress and the National Archives don't succumb to the rabid revisionism that you continually preach, any one who searches will still be able to find the truth. My fear is that the actual documents will be lost, and eventually the bits and bytes will be corrupted, and evil people like you Hawly will have their way at erasing what really happened, to serve their own miserable, self-loathing, Christ-hating agendas. People like you are dangerous like Hitler was, because evil and violence against a certain group is your goal. Just one of the tools of your hate and bigotry is revisionism. The other is repeating lies over and over enough that you first believe the lie yourself and then you convince other weak-minded and impressionable people like NP and Daws to believe your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Violence?   Really?
> 
> I see christianity as a myth.  A fraud.   A means of control.   I grew up in it.   Know the book cover to cover and think Jesus teachings, while good, are among the most ignored in the whole bible.
> 
> I see christians as judgmental, hateful, spiteful people who bath in ignorance.
> 
> *But violence? *  Come on...
Click to expand...


You sound like a Jew in Nazi Germany, totally in denial of what was to come. You kids these days, our dumbed down education system has failed you. You believe the horrors of the past can never happen again. But they can, and they will. Humans are inherently evil.


----------



## UltimateReality

"It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. *The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave*." Sam Adams

Sam Adams on Obama:

*"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"*

My personal favorite and commentary on the rampant worship of stuff in this country:

_If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom &#8212; go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. *Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you*, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!_


----------



## UltimateReality

*Let Divines, and Philosophers, Statesmen and Patriots unite their endeavours to renovate the Age, by impressing the Minds of Men with the importance of educating their little boys, and girls  of inculcating in the Minds of youth the fear, and Love of the Deity, and universal Phylanthropy; and in subordination to these great principles, the Love of their Country  of instructing them in the Art of self government, without which they never can act a wise part in the Government of Societys great, or small  in short of leading them in the Study, and Practice of the exalted Virtues of the Christian system.* Sam Adams


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're missing, dear, is that the Constitution actually protects me and other americans from religious fundamentalists such as you and others who, given the chance, would seek to turn this nation into an Iranian style theocracy.
> 
> How interesting that the Christian men who framed the constitution knew precisely how religious fundamentalism (Christian) tends to propagate and thus chose to protect the free exercise of religious freedom (freedom FROM religion).
> 
> Obviously, they knew quite well the dangers of a majority religion imposing its views on the populace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the religion of the founders is nothing like that of modern christians.     Perhaps there were those people around in their day.   But these men were often men of education.   Some even men of science, limited as it was in that day.
> 
> They didn't use the government models of imposing a godly king.   (Washington would have been the ideal choice.)   Instead they looked to the heathen Greeks and early Romans for inspiration.   These were not fundamentalist who believed man inherently evil.   *They believed that mankind could make the right decisions if only they were educated *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They so did not!!!! Pick up a history book, a real one, not an electronic one!!! Please!!  The numerous quotes from the founders do not support this at all!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> (a truly liberal and humanist position if ever there was one).
> 
> So they may have believed in a god.   But I've seen nothing in my extensive reading to suggest they were anything like the christians of today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, what history books are you reading??? The Founders absolutely felt that mans propensity for evil was as sure as the sunrise. That is why they attempted to install so many checks and balances to keep evil tyrants out of power. They knew men were evil and easily corrupted by power.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't be so quick to impose your self-hate and retrogression on the Founding Fathers.

Therein lies the danger of religious fundamentalism.  The point being, theism does not allow for options -- it cant be emphasized enough that from a christian point of view, humans are inherently evil, base, greedy, etc. That is a self-fulfilling speculation, and given that fact that we continue to survive, it is _not empirically true_. And because it's not true -- what purpose does self-hate serve? Is it extraneous and superfluous? Yes, of course it is. Assuming that evil acts are borne out of the influence of religion, is religion worth the price is extracts on human development?

Dismissing the net effect of cooperation that has grown over time is just ignoring the vast majority of people throughout time who have behaved benevolently. Humans are progressing, in spite of some ideologies that are regressive. Remember, slavery was a common global phenomenon until a mere two centuries ago. What was it other than the implementation of an "ethical" system that considered slavery to (at least some) individuals as a positive good? But were those societies themselves "immoral?" Certainly not by their own standards. And arguably not by the standards of any "revealed" ethical system as the Abrahamic monotheisms (just for example) tolerated the institution of slavery for centuries or millennia.

Actually, man's ethics and morality beats out god by light-years. God tacitly and obviously approves of slavery (Jesus speaks of servants to a Master and never thinks to condemn the injustice of one man owning another)-- man finds it repulsive. God not only approves of war, he ignites them left and right -- man creates a United Nations in an attempt to stop war. God commits genocide without blinking an eye -- man imprisons mass murderers and is repulsed by wanton slaughter. God not only approves of raping young women, he specifically rewards his soldiers with them.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> *Let Divines, and Philosophers, Statesmen and Patriots unite their endeavours to renovate the Age, by impressing the Minds of Men with the importance of educating their little boys, and girls &#8212; of inculcating in the Minds of youth the fear, and Love of the Deity, and universal Phylanthropy; and in subordination to these great principles, the Love of their Country &#8212; of instructing them in the Art of self government, without which they never can act a wise part in the Government of Societys great, or small &#8212; in short of leading them in the Study, and Practice of the exalted Virtues of the Christian system.* Sam Adams



"Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

_-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America"_



Of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness around the idea of a priest as no mortal could deserve ... the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from episcopal fingers."

_-- John Adams, "A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law," printed in the Boston Gazette, August 1765_



"The Church of Rome has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of ignorant or wicked priests."

_-- John Adams, Diary and Autobiography_


----------



## Hollie

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."

_-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814_



"Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes ... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself. All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude....


----------



## Hollie

Thomas Jefferson

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

_SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short_


But America is a "christian" nation?


----------



## Hollie

Thomas Jefferson - (on freedom FROM religion)


"It is proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?... Civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." 

_--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428 _


----------



## Hollie

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." 

_--Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800._


But... but.... but.... but.... but the U.S. is a "christian" nation?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man."
> 
> _--Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800._
> 
> 
> But... but.... but.... but.... but the U.S. is a "christian" nation?



It must be remembered that Thomas Jefferson was not noted for being perfect. He also took one of his slaves to bed, and chopped up the Bible to eliminate all the verses he objected to... What Jefferson said and did privately is not what he said or did publically. He is not my most favorite Founding Father, but he is one of the most colorful.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as much as you would like to force the xtian gawds on others, the Constitution is quite clear you cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you miss the point. The Constitution embraces the free will teachings of the Christian religion and also reflects the Pilgrims initial reason for fleeing England, so that the government could not have an official Church. This doesn't change the fact the nation was found by Christian men, on Christian principles, for a largely Christian populace. And as long as the websites like the Library of Congress and the National Archives don't succumb to the rabid revisionism that you continually preach, any one who searches will still be able to find the truth. My fear is that the actual documents will be lost, and eventually the bits and bytes will be corrupted, and evil people like you Hawly will have their way at erasing what really happened, to serve their own miserable, self-loathing, Christ-hating agendas. People like you are dangerous like Hitler was, because evil and violence against a certain group is your goal. Just one of the tools of your hate and bigotry is revisionism. The other is repeating lies over and over enough that you first believe the lie yourself and then you convince other weak-minded and impressionable people like NP and Daws to believe your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're missing, dear, is that the Constitution actually protects me and other americans from religious fundamentalists such as you and others who, given the chance, would seek to turn this nation into an Iranian style theocracy.
> 
> How interesting that the Christian men who framed the constitution knew precisely how religious fundamentalism (Christian) tends to propagate and thus chose to protect the free exercise of religious freedom (freedom FROM religion).
> 
> Obviously, they knew quite well the dangers of a majority religion imposing its views on the populace.
Click to expand...


This nation was a tad more Christian than it is presently and quite a  lot more tolerant in the 1950's. I know what you're already thinking ---- what about Blacks, Gays, and Abortion.  The reality is that we had come a very long way by the 1950's. Blacks faced the biggest issues in the Democratic South. Deviate sex was behind closed doors and not in everybody's lap, and abortion was and still is murder (there was a whole lot less of that then than there is today  --- even when abortion is excluded). The major religion today is hedonistic atheistic Humanism. 
But lets see ---- in the 1950's a smoker could smoke anywhere. Guys could ride in the back of a pick-up truck. Scouts could bring pen knives to class --- we even played dodge ball. Banks provided 1% interest for passbook accounts opened for $1.00. Blacks were free to sit with whites at Billy Graham Crusades. Doctors made house calls. Milk was delivered. A litter of unwanted kittens could be drowned. And dry cleaners made house to house pickups. Ethnic jokes were told openly and everyone was a target. And I went for a ride at the age of six on the back of my uncle's cycle without a helmet. Was everything perfect and acceptable? NO. Was the "Christian" nation more tolerant of bad choices and less restrictive? I believe it actually was.  Sorry, I feel that today we are living the "Brave New World" and "1984" and "Fahrenheit 451" but simply too controlled to realize it ---- dear.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the religion of the founders is nothing like that of modern christians.     Perhaps there were those people around in their day.   But these men were often men of education.   Some even men of science, limited as it was in that day.
> 
> They didn't use the government models of imposing a godly king.   (Washington would have been the ideal choice.)   Instead they looked to the heathen Greeks and early Romans for inspiration.   These were not fundamentalist who believed man inherently evil.   *They believed that mankind could make the right decisions if only they were educated *
> 
> 
> 
> They so did not!!!! Pick up a history book, a real one, not an electronic one!!! Please!!  The numerous quotes from the founders do not support this at all!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> (a truly liberal and humanist position if ever there was one).
> 
> So they may have believed in a god.   But I've seen nothing in my extensive reading to suggest they were anything like the christians of today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, what history books are you reading??? The Founders absolutely felt that mans propensity for evil was as sure as the sunrise. That is why they attempted to install so many checks and balances to keep evil tyrants out of power. They knew men were evil and easily corrupted by power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be so quick to impose your self-hate and retrogression on the Founding Fathers.
> 
> Therein lies the danger of religious fundamentalism.  The point being, theism does not allow for options -- it cant be emphasized enough that from a christian point of view, humans are inherently evil, base, greedy, etc. That is a self-fulfilling speculation, and given that fact that we continue to survive, it is _not empirically true_. And because it's not true -- what purpose does self-hate serve? Is it extraneous and superfluous? Yes, of course it is. Assuming that evil acts are borne out of the influence of religion, is religion worth the price is extracts on human development?
> 
> Dismissing the net effect of cooperation that has grown over time is just ignoring the vast majority of people throughout time who have behaved benevolently. Humans are progressing, in spite of some ideologies that are regressive. Remember, slavery was a common global phenomenon until a mere two centuries ago. What was it other than the implementation of an "ethical" system that considered slavery to (at least some) individuals as a positive good? But were those societies themselves "immoral?" Certainly not by their own standards. And arguably not by the standards of any "revealed" ethical system as the Abrahamic monotheisms (just for example) tolerated the institution of slavery for centuries or millennia.
> 
> Actually, man's ethics and morality beats out god by light-years. God tacitly and obviously approves of slavery (Jesus speaks of servants to a Master and never thinks to condemn the injustice of one man owning another)-- man finds it repulsive. God not only approves of war, he ignites them left and right -- man creates a United Nations in an attempt to stop war. God commits genocide without blinking an eye -- man imprisons mass murderers and is repulsed by wanton slaughter. God not only approves of raping young women, he specifically rewards his soldiers with them.
Click to expand...


You have no clue what you are even saying. Under your materialistic worldview, there is no such thing as evil. If matter is the only reality then all behaviors are natural. Child molesters, murderers, rapists... they are just a product of their genes, which evolved he behaviors they exhibit.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Let Divines, and Philosophers, Statesmen and Patriots unite their endeavours to renovate the Age, by impressing the Minds of Men with the importance of educating their little boys, and girls  of inculcating in the Minds of youth the fear, and Love of the Deity, and universal Phylanthropy; and in subordination to these great principles, the Love of their Country  of instructing them in the Art of self government, without which they never can act a wise part in the Government of Societys great, or small  in short of leading them in the Study, and Practice of the exalted Virtues of the Christian system.* Sam Adams
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
> 
> _-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America"_
> 
> 
> 
> Of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness around the idea of a priest as no mortal could deserve ... the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from episcopal fingers."
> 
> _-- John Adams, "A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law," printed in the Boston Gazette, August 1765_
> 
> 
> 
> "The Church of Rome has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of ignorant or wicked priests."
> 
> _-- John Adams, Diary and Autobiography_
Click to expand...


Hawly, your posts reveal your rampant ignorance. John Adams had a very low opinion of the Catholic church, which your quotes above refer to. As usual, you make the critical error of leaving out the important and pertinent parts in order to further your lying agenda and Christian-hating bigotry. You are befuddled with anger and aren't thinking straight. Here, *John Adams declares he is a Christian and declares the nation was founded on Christian principles.*(never bring a knife to a gunfight)

-The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were ... the *general principles of Christianity*, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I* then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God;* and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. 

More quotes from John Adams courtesy of Wikiquote:

-Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is *Religion and Morality alone*, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.

-The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, *by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.*

-The new Government has my best Wishes and most fervent Prayers, for its Success and Prosperity: but whether I shall have any Thing more to do with it, besides praying for it, depends on the future suffrages of Freemen. 

-Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. 

-I have thought proper to recommend, and I do hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the 25th day of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain as far as may be from their secular occupations, devote the time to the sacred duties of religion in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the Most High God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come; that He would interpose to arrest the progress of that impiety and licentiousness in principle and practice so offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind; that He would make us deeply sensible that "righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people;" that He would turn us from our transgressions and turn His displeasure from us; that He would withhold us from unreasonable discontent, from disunion, faction, sedition, and insurrection; that He would preserve our country from the desolating sword; that He would save our cities and towns from a repetition of those awful pestilential visitations under which they have lately suffered so severely, and that the health of our inhabitants generally may be precious in His sight; that He would favor us with fruitful seasons and so bless the labors of the husbandman as that there may be food in abundance for man and beast; that He would prosper our commerce, manufactures, and fisheries, and give success to the people in all their lawful industry and enterprise; that He would smile on our colleges, academies, schools, and seminaries of learning, and make them nurseries of sound science, morals, and religion; that He would bless all magistrates, from the highest to the lowest, give them the true spirit of their station, make them a terror to evil doers and a praise to them that do well; that He would preside over the councils of the nation at this critical period, enlighten them to a just discernment of the public interest, and save them from mistake, division, and discord; that He would make succeed our preparations for defense and bless our armaments by land and by sea; that He would put an end to the effusion of human blood and the accumulation of human misery among the contending nations of the earth by disposing them to justice, to equity, to benevolence, and to peace; and that he would extend the blessings of knowledge, of true liberty, and of pure and undefiled religion throughout the world.

    Presidential proclamation of a national day of fasting and prayer (6 March 1799).

-


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> "The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
> 
> _-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814_
> 
> 
> 
> "Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was *framed by the Romish clergy *for the aggrandizement of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes ... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, *with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself.* All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude....



Here you go again, cutting and pasting things you know not the history nor the meaning of, and there is your lackey, weak-minded impressionable NP thanking you for your fallacious post!!!   Adams, as a good protestant, rejected all the Catholic doctrines, including the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which teaches the bread and wine become the REAL body and blood of Christ. This is heresy to a protestant!!!!

Sorry, but you have for the hundredth time revealed your ignorance of things. You have not proven Adams was atheist. You have just proven your own stupidity.

Jefferson, an admitted Deist, who believed in God but rejected the Divinity of Christ, is all you got. So quote away!!!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
> 
> _-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814_
> 
> 
> 
> "Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was *framed by the Romish clergy *for the aggrandizement of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes ... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, *with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself.* All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go again, cutting and pasting things you know not the history nor the meaning of, and there is your lackey, weak-minded impressionable NP thanking you for your fallacious post!!!   Adams, as a good protestant, rejected all the Catholic doctrines, including the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which teaches the bread and wine become the REAL body and blood of Christ. This is heresy to a protestant!!!!
> 
> Sorry, but you have for the hundredth time revealed your ignorance of things. You have not proven Adams was atheist. You have just proven your own stupidity.
> 
> Jefferson, an admitted Deist, who believed in God but rejected the Divinity of Christ, is all you got. So quote away!!!
Click to expand...


As usual, you are limited to cutting and pasting what you are ignorant of. 

In almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists -- they believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered. Instead, they needed a "supreme author" of existence but not one who necessarily was involved in the day to day requirements or needs of humanity.

Deism was very popular at the time, and waned when Darwin's Origin's of Life made it clear that a creator was not neccessarily required. For example, Thomas Jefferson's Bible ends with Jesus crucified and nothing more. He does not return from the dead, which is quite essential from a Christian perspective. Jefferson "believed in Jesus Christ" as a philospher, but not as a god incarnate. Thomas Paine, of whom it was said, "Without Paine's pen, Washington's sword would never have been wielded", was a thorough-going Deist who's "Age of Reason" deconstructed the bible completely. Notice Franklin also uses very deist terminology, although Franklin did waver back and forth and his autobiography clearly depicts this.

I find it not strange at all that a fundie takes it upon himself to force his religious beliefs on others.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
> 
> _-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814_
> 
> 
> 
> "Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was *framed by the Romish clergy *for the aggrandizement of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes ... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, *with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself.* All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go again, cutting and pasting things you know not the history nor the meaning of, and there is your lackey, weak-minded impressionable NP thanking you for your fallacious post!!!   Adams, as a good protestant, rejected all the Catholic doctrines, including the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which teaches the bread and wine become the REAL body and blood of Christ. This is heresy to a protestant!!!!
> 
> Sorry, but you have for the hundredth time revealed your ignorance of things. You have not proven Adams was atheist. You have just proven your own stupidity.
> 
> Jefferson, an admitted Deist, who believed in God but rejected the Divinity of Christ, is all you got. So quote away!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you are limited to cutting and pasting what you are ignorant of.
> 
> In almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists -- they believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered. Instead, they needed a "supreme author" of existence but not one who necessarily was involved in the day to day requirements or needs of humanity.
> 
> Deism was very popular at the time, and waned when Darwin's Origin's of Life made it clear that a creator was not neccessarily required. For example, Thomas Jefferson's Bible ends with Jesus crucified and nothing more. He does not return from the dead, which is quite essential from a Christian perspective. Jefferson "believed in Jesus Christ" as a philospher, but not as a god incarnate. Thomas Paine, of whom it was said, "Without Paine's pen, Washington's sword would never have been wielded", was a thorough-going Deist who's "Age of Reason" deconstructed the bible completely. Notice Franklin also uses very deist terminology, although Franklin did waver back and forth and his autobiography clearly depicts this.
> 
> I find it not strange at all that a fundie takes it upon himself to force his religious beliefs on others.
Click to expand...


You are right that all the Founding Father's were not Christian. This is very evident in the mistakes they overlooked (one being slavery). However, many belonged to the Church of England. And with the Revolution that church (reigned over by the King of England) became a problem for many members in the colonies for obvious reasons. So they called themselves diests until such time the dust settled... Franklin suggested that the national language should be Hebrew, so that Americans might read the Bible in its original form. This might have been a bit of a joke, but Mr. Franklin had a deep respect for the Word of God, and like most he felt that a good education was impossible without reading it.


----------



## Underhill

UltimateReality said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you miss the point. The Constitution embraces the free will teachings of the Christian religion and also reflects the Pilgrims initial reason for fleeing England, so that the government could not have an official Church. This doesn't change the fact the nation was found by Christian men, on Christian principles, for a largely Christian populace. And as long as the websites like the Library of Congress and the National Archives don't succumb to the rabid revisionism that you continually preach, any one who searches will still be able to find the truth. My fear is that the actual documents will be lost, and eventually the bits and bytes will be corrupted, and evil people like you Hawly will have their way at erasing what really happened, to serve their own miserable, self-loathing, Christ-hating agendas. People like you are dangerous like Hitler was, because evil and violence against a certain group is your goal. Just one of the tools of your hate and bigotry is revisionism. The other is repeating lies over and over enough that you first believe the lie yourself and then you convince other weak-minded and impressionable people like NP and Daws to believe your lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Violence?   Really?
> 
> I see christianity as a myth.  A fraud.   A means of control.   I grew up in it.   Know the book cover to cover and think Jesus teachings, while good, are among the most ignored in the whole bible.
> 
> I see christians as judgmental, hateful, spiteful people who bath in ignorance.
> 
> But violence?  Come on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a Jew in Nazi Germany, totally in denial of what was to come. You kids these days, our dumbed down education system has failed you. You believe the horrors of the past can never happen again. But they can, and they will. Humans are inherently evil.
Click to expand...


Where did I say any of that?   But if it will happen, it will be by demonizing the opposition.   Something you are guilty of with your bullshit claims that we want violence.   

Hitler did not kill the jews by telling them they were wrong.   He didn't bother talking to them about their faults.

He did it by claiming they were conspiring against the german people.   By making up lies about them.   By demonizing them and then destroying them.

As you are doing here with us...   

So if I sound like a Jew, it's because you sound like a Nazi.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
> 
> _-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814_
> 
> 
> 
> "Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was *framed by the Romish clergy *for the aggrandizement of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes ... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, *with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself.* All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go again, cutting and pasting things you know not the history nor the meaning of, and there is your lackey, weak-minded impressionable NP thanking you for your fallacious post!!!   Adams, as a good protestant, rejected all the Catholic doctrines, including the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which teaches the bread and wine become the REAL body and blood of Christ. This is heresy to a protestant!!!!
> 
> Sorry, but you have for the hundredth time revealed your ignorance of things. You have not proven Adams was atheist. You have just proven your own stupidity.
> 
> Jefferson, an admitted Deist, who believed in God but rejected the Divinity of Christ, is all you got. So quote away!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you are limited to cutting and pasting what you are ignorant of.
> 
> In almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists -- they believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered. Instead, they needed a "supreme author" of existence but not one who necessarily was involved in the day to day requirements or needs of humanity.
> 
> Deism was very popular at the time, and waned when Darwin's Origin's of Life made it clear that a creator was not neccessarily required. For example, Thomas Jefferson's Bible ends with Jesus crucified and nothing more. He does not return from the dead, which is quite essential from a Christian perspective. Jefferson "believed in Jesus Christ" as a philospher, but not as a god incarnate. Thomas Paine, of whom it was said, "Without Paine's pen, Washington's sword would never have been wielded", was a thorough-going Deist who's "Age of Reason" deconstructed the bible completely. Notice Franklin also uses very deist terminology, although Franklin did waver back and forth and his autobiography clearly depicts this.
> 
> I find it not strange at all that a fundie takes it upon himself to force his religious beliefs on others.
Click to expand...


It is you who is attempting to force your Darwinistic, materialist religious beliefs on the traditions of American by your rabid revisionism. 

The FEW founders that were Deist were not Deist in the modern sense. They believed in providence even if they didn't believe in the deity of Christ. 

Like I said, all you got is Thomas Jefferson so cut and paste to your little evil hearts content!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Underhill said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Violence?   Really?
> 
> I see christianity as a myth.  A fraud.   A means of control.   I grew up in it.   Know the book cover to cover and think Jesus teachings, while good, are among the most ignored in the whole bible.
> 
> I see christians as judgmental, hateful, spiteful people who bath in ignorance.
> 
> But violence?  Come on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a Jew in Nazi Germany, totally in denial of what was to come. You kids these days, our dumbed down education system has failed you. You believe the horrors of the past can never happen again. But they can, and they will. Humans are inherently evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say any of that?   But if it will happen, it will be by demonizing the opposition.   Something you are guilty of with your bullshit claims that we want violence.
> 
> Hitler did not kill the jews by telling them they were wrong.   He didn't bother talking to them about their faults.
> 
> He did it by claiming they were conspiring against the german people.   By making up lies about them.   By demonizing them and then destroying them.
> 
> As you are doing here with us...
> 
> So if I sound like a Jew, it's because you sound like a Nazi.
Click to expand...


You need to take a long hard look in the mirror. It is you who is the Christian-hating Bigot. Might I remind you that you are in the Creationist thread making attacks. Hawly has made it clear she believes all Christians should be persecuted and wiped out. So if your comments here aren't persecuting me for my religious beliefs, then what is your motivation for being here? You, my friend, are the Nazi. Your hate has blinded you and you just can't see it.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Evolution is a Fact.
> 
> How did there come to be male and female?
> 
> It's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties.
> 
> So where did they come from?
> 
> How did they get started?
> 
> Who decided which was which, or which was going to be which?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its undeniable falsehood what you just stated. The actual truth, is that Most of the biomass on this planet are made up of single-called bacteria who are asexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium
> 
> The planet is covered with bacterium how do you account for them in your evolutionary tree ?
Click to expand...

another ignorant post by ywc 

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab 
22:00 09 June 2008 by Bob Holmes 
For similar stories, visit the Evolution Topic Guide 




A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Profound change

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

Rare mutation?

By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.

That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.

To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.

Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?

Evidence of evolution

The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.

Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

 bacterium evolve into better bacteria... just as humans are a better form of ape.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because I want to get arrested and tarnish my perfect law enforcement career over a curmudgeon with small mans complex.
> 
> I just thought it would be interesting to have a civil conversation without your tough guy, inflated internet personality.
> 
> 
> 
> really? I'm not small in any sense of the word.
> height 6'4'' weight 272 lbs.
> their you go again over playing your role, "perfect" career my ass, and you say my personality is inflated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I picture you as a 5"6 145 weakling,sorry.
Click to expand...

that's just more proof of your willful ignorance, denial of fact and why you make  fact less assumptions based on fairy tales.


----------



## Underhill

UltimateReality said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a Jew in Nazi Germany, totally in denial of what was to come. You kids these days, our dumbed down education system has failed you. You believe the horrors of the past can never happen again. But they can, and they will. Humans are inherently evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say any of that?   But if it will happen, it will be by demonizing the opposition.   Something you are guilty of with your bullshit claims that we want violence.
> 
> Hitler did not kill the jews by telling them they were wrong.   He didn't bother talking to them about their faults.
> 
> He did it by claiming they were conspiring against the german people.   By making up lies about them.   By demonizing them and then destroying them.
> 
> As you are doing here with us...
> 
> So if I sound like a Jew, it's because you sound like a Nazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to take a long hard look in the mirror. It is you who is the Christian-hating Bigot. Might I remind you that you are in the Creationist thread making attacks. Hawly has made it clear she believes all Christians should be persecuted and wiped out. So if your comments here aren't persecuting me for my religious beliefs, then what is your motivation for being here? You, my friend, are the Nazi. Your hate has blinded you and you just can't see it.
Click to expand...


My parents are christian missionaries.   My best man at my wedding is a pastor.   I discuss these issues with them on a weekly basis, sometimes more.   And no, I do not hate them.

I think they are deluding themselves.   That is not hatred.    

If I have any angst it is toward the religion itself.    The hatred it all too often espouses.   And yes, I have a serious problem with anyone who calls themselves a christian but believes being rich is a good thing and the poor are a drag on society.     

I can respect someone who believes and teaches the words of jesus.   Even if he didn't exist (debatable), the words professed to come from him are generally wholesome.   But an awful lot of what comes out of churches is old testament style hatred and bigotry.


----------



## daws101

The Founding Fathers

Rather than address explicit constitutional provisions, American fundamentalists often like to quote-mine the Founding Fathers in order to divine their intentions and "prove" that they actually envisioned the new state as a Christian nation. They primarily target George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the first three Presidents of the United States, and claim that they were deeply devout Christians whose actions were to a large degree inspired by their faith.[2][3] 

This notion is patently false: Jefferson's Deistic convictions are evident from his writings, and he was a high-profile critic of established Christian dogma; he even wrote his own version of the New Testament, the Jefferson Bible, expunging the Gospels of all references to the supernatural. Washington never attended communion services at his church and took great pains to refer to his god by Deistic terms like "Great Author" and "Almighty Being" in his inaugural address. While Adams credited religion in general with bolstering public morality, he consistently argued that the United States had been founded on rationalist and Enlightenment principles and rejected the notion of divine legitimation for political leadership.[4][5] 

It is also interesting that these eminent figures were heavily criticized for their lack of religious devotion in times past. Rev. Bird Wilson had this to say about them in a 1831 sermon: 


&#8220;&#8221;The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity.[6]


[edit] First Amendment

A common argument is that the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was intended to mean different denominations instead of different religions, because the idea of non-Christians living in the United States would have been unthinkable at the time. (George Washington's 1790 letter to the Jewish Congregation of Newport notwithstanding.[7]) 

This is of course not paying attention to the fact that several of the founding fathers were deists, and the Christian ones were almost all secularists. There was generally a liberal feeling throughout the Christian establishment in the U.S. at that time. The New England Puritans had really lost their steam by that point (indeed, a great number of Congregational churches would become Unitarian over the course of the next half-century); the Anglicans were, well, Anglicans; the Quakers were quite a liberal bunch as usual; other groups had insufficient political clout to do anything but support a completely secular state under which they would not be persecuted. 

There is positive documentation that mere non-sectarianism was not what was meant by "free exercise of religion." In his Detached Memoranda, James Madison recounted the following occurrence during the passage in 1786 of Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which was specifically intended to guarantee at the Virginia state level what the U.S. Constitution did at the federal level: 


&#8220;&#8221;In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which, would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst.

&#8212;James Madison, Detached Memoranda[8]  

In the same document, Madison opined that it was an encroachment on separation of church and state to "exempt Houses of Worship from taxes," and in response to a proposed measure to provide state support to all Christian ministers, he warned against the very concept that was being put into his mouth: 


&#8220;&#8221;Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?[9]


To showcase a prime example of how deeply the "Christian nation" mythographers stick their heads in the sand, Christine Millard, the owner of a Washington, D.C. touring outfit called "Christian Heritage Tours," actually quoted the above statement of Madison's and then, in a jaw-dropping non sequitur, concluded that Madison was talking only about freedom for Christian denominations.[10] 

[edit] Treaty of Tripoli

The most obvious falsification of this myth is the Treaty of Tripoli, a peace treaty signed with the Ottoman possession of Tripoli in 1805. Tripoli being a Muslim state, and accustomed to the hostility shown to Muslims by the established Christian states of Europe, the U.S. wanted to demonstrate that its religious policy was not of a similar sort, and so inserted the following language in the treaty: 


&#8220;&#8221;the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen.[11]


The text of the treaty was printed on the front page of many newspapers without any sort of public outcry.[12] 

In the face of such a smoking-gun falsification, the best that the "Christian nation" mythographers have been able to do is assert that this was mere politics designed to keep the Ottomans happy and to harp on the point that the treaty no longer holds force of law, having been superseded by later treaties; the latter a neat example of moving the goalposts.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_United_States_as_a_Christian_nation


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a Jew in Nazi Germany, totally in denial of what was to come. You kids these days, our dumbed down education system has failed you. You believe the horrors of the past can never happen again. But they can, and they will. Humans are inherently evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say any of that?   But if it will happen, it will be by demonizing the opposition.   Something you are guilty of with your bullshit claims that we want violence.
> 
> Hitler did not kill the jews by telling them they were wrong.   He didn't bother talking to them about their faults.
> 
> He did it by claiming they were conspiring against the german people.   By making up lies about them.   By demonizing them and then destroying them.
> 
> As you are doing here with us...
> 
> So if I sound like a Jew, it's because you sound like a Nazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to take a long hard look in the mirror. It is you who is the Christian-hating Bigot. Might I remind you that you are in the Creationist thread making attacks. Hawly has made it clear she believes all Christians should be persecuted and wiped out. So if your comments here aren't persecuting me for my religious beliefs, then what is your motivation for being here? You, my friend, are the Nazi. Your hate has blinded you and you just can't see it.
Click to expand...

It appears that your paranoid delusions have supplanted any ability to compose a coherent comment.

Drink the Kool aid.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go again, cutting and pasting things you know not the history nor the meaning of, and there is your lackey, weak-minded impressionable NP thanking you for your fallacious post!!!   Adams, as a good protestant, rejected all the Catholic doctrines, including the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which teaches the bread and wine become the REAL body and blood of Christ. This is heresy to a protestant!!!!
> 
> Sorry, but you have for the hundredth time revealed your ignorance of things. You have not proven Adams was atheist. You have just proven your own stupidity.
> 
> Jefferson, an admitted Deist, who believed in God but rejected the Divinity of Christ, is all you got. So quote away!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are limited to cutting and pasting what you are ignorant of.
> 
> In almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists -- they believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered. Instead, they needed a "supreme author" of existence but not one who necessarily was involved in the day to day requirements or needs of humanity.
> 
> Deism was very popular at the time, and waned when Darwin's Origin's of Life made it clear that a creator was not neccessarily required. For example, Thomas Jefferson's Bible ends with Jesus crucified and nothing more. He does not return from the dead, which is quite essential from a Christian perspective. Jefferson "believed in Jesus Christ" as a philospher, but not as a god incarnate. Thomas Paine, of whom it was said, "Without Paine's pen, Washington's sword would never have been wielded", was a thorough-going Deist who's "Age of Reason" deconstructed the bible completely. Notice Franklin also uses very deist terminology, although Franklin did waver back and forth and his autobiography clearly depicts this.
> 
> I find it not strange at all that a fundie takes it upon himself to force his religious beliefs on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is you who is attempting to force your Darwinistic, materialist religious beliefs on the traditions of American by your rabid revisionism.
> 
> The FEW founders that were Deist were not Deist in the modern sense. They believed in providence even if they didn't believe in the deity of Christ.
> 
> Like I said, all you got is Thomas Jefferson so cut and paste to your little evil hearts content!!!
Click to expand...


Really, fundie zealot? Your frantic, saliva-slinging tirades are nothing more than goofy cliches' you copy and paste from fundie websites. 

Your rabid hate, self-hate seems to mirror that of so many fundie Christians.  When Mel Gibson's _The Passion of the Christ_ came out, I watched it with revulsion and felt it to be deeply hateful and anti-Semitic. But I could not honestly say that it was not an accurate rendition of the New Testament Christian  attitude towards the Jews. Christian anti-Semitism has what is (to them) a solid "scriptural" basis. Even Saint Augustine eventually penned a diatribe against the Jews. As a result, much of humanity finds the gawds actions in the OT to be an abomination (that's some great gawd to believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. Gawds are not fair, in the OT they're ruthless and makes a sane, rational person reel in horror just reading about their atrocities (don't forget -- I don't believe any of this is god, I know this is all legend-- these things may have happened, but they were man being cruel to other men and in spite of god's viciousness, we've slowly overcome it. Why? Because we use our reason to recognize such behavior is ultimately harmful to all of us.)

Effectively, your observations and value system regarding morality are skewed and immoral. Your self-hate, which derives from your view that all of humanity is base and evil, is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. Your willingness to believe in those "gawds of love" humanity wiping floods or virgin slaughters, or one of those long nights accompanied with the sacrificial lamb's blood being painted on the door thingys was to be visited upon humanity. 

You're free to believe in any of that, but when you attempt to inflict that hateful and retrograde ideology on others, you should expect others will reject your hate.

While _hate_ placates your emotional need to further your politico-religious ideology without the intellectual baggage of conscience or a moral compass, you dismiss the blatant double standards inherent in all of this without a hint of the dishonesty associated with doing so. I've pointed this out to you but you blithely proceed on as though they don't understand the concept of a double standard.

Certainly, you can continue to try to dictate morality to others but that is a fools errand. I think there's only one miracle available in the world, and that would be for religious people to truly live the so-called extolling of fairness and commitment they claim their religions preach. But humans are not like that, and the human created religions create a false sense of superiority. The majority focus of these religions is on what happens after you die, meanwhile, the world trembles in misery brought about specifically by the dogmas of these religions.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> As usual, you are limited to cutting and pasting what you are ignorant of.
> 
> In almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists -- they believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered. Instead, they needed a "supreme author" of existence but not one who necessarily was involved in the day to day requirements or needs of humanity.
> 
> Deism was very popular at the time, and waned when Darwin's Origin's of Life made it clear that a creator was not neccessarily required. For example, Thomas Jefferson's Bible ends with Jesus crucified and nothing more. He does not return from the dead, which is quite essential from a Christian perspective. Jefferson "believed in Jesus Christ" as a philospher, but not as a god incarnate. Thomas Paine, of whom it was said, "Without Paine's pen, Washington's sword would never have been wielded", was a thorough-going Deist who's "Age of Reason" deconstructed the bible completely. Notice Franklin also uses very deist terminology, although Franklin did waver back and forth and his autobiography clearly depicts this.
> 
> I find it not strange at all that a fundie takes it upon himself to force his religious beliefs on others.



Dear Hollie:
For the Gentiles like Jefferson who believed in God of Nature and Natural Laws,
Jesus said in the Bible if you are not against me then you are with me. Jesus said
he governs the Gentiles as a separate fold of the same flock; while clearly the
Gentiles are under natural laws that are distinct (in Romans: the Gentiles "having not the law"
but by conscience "do the things contained in the law" become a "law unto themselves.")
Both the natural laws and sacred laws are governed by the same God/Christ,
and you can see by Jefferson's positions he takes the Natural law path, as I also am inclined.
(My boyfriend is even more like Jefferson's Deist view than I am, because I at least
learned to speak other languages like Christian terms and Buddhist terms to explain to different people
the same concepts that are universal and do not depend on any one religious approach more than another,
they are all necessary for teaching certain ideas and for reaching certain people that the others would otherwise miss)

Please see my msg to Underhill where you may be under Constitutional laws
or secular/civil laws instead of Biblic Scripture or sacred laws, and STILL
be following and embodying the spirit of Christ Jesus by taking the laws
to heart by conscience as Jefferson and the Founding Fathers surely did.

Example:
They prayed together in agreement before convening to author the Constitution,
calling on Divine providence and wisdom to guide the future of the nation.

So this IS a Christian concept to join in prayer in agreement in the SPIRIT of
Christ which is to unite by CONSCIENCE.

Just because someone uses Constitutional laws instead of Biblical laws
does not preclude the same God/Christ from governing by the spirit of the laws.

Jesus pointed to the Samaritan when giving an example of who
is your neighbor: the one who ACTS in the spirit of CHARITY which is
the spirit of CHRISTIANITY.  That is one of Jesus, who is your neighbor in Christ.

With the Constitutional laws, whoever teaches self-governance and responsibility
by consent of the governed, and equal protection of interests, due process and
represenation, that is the equivalent of following the laws by the spirit of truth and justice.

So the SPIRIT of God/Jesus is one and the same
whether this is expressed using Constitutional/natural laws
or Scriptural/Biblical laws.

If you are enforcing, embracing and embodying the laws
by CONSCIENCE for love of truth and justice, that is the same as following God/Jesus.

I share a lot of the same beliefs and perspectives as Jefferson
as a secular Gentile and Constitutionalist who believes in one God/Christ,
and this is the best way I can explain it to fellow secular Gentiles
who, like me, don't necessarily depend on or require Biblical laws.

I am more concerned that people agree in Spirit, what the
universal principles and concepts are, and then from there
we might understand how these are expressed DIFFERENTLY
through either Constitutional or Christian laws or even Buddhism or Islam
where followers use different teachings to express similar values or principles.

We can have this diversity, without having conflicting values,
and maintain unity.  it is like we can have one law of the land under
the Constitution but separate State laws that only govern those local populations,
and still have one Union.  Same with religions.

Thanks and I hope some of this helps!


----------



## emilynghiem

Well said Hollie! In short what is missing is forgiveness and compassion/charity toward
others, which is indeed the very message and gift of Christ. it is forgiveness/mercy
that ultimately opens the door to man's salvation. Every Christian knows this, and
it is just as hard to practice it whether we are Christian or nontheist or what.

it is hard not to hate the injustice we see in the world,
and not let that affect our perception and ability to forgive the people we most blame.

this is indeed the challenge facing not only Christians but all humanity.
And this is precisely why Christians pray in private and in public, seeking
the grace and strength to receive forgiveness on a higher divine level
that far supercedes any of our weak human will which cannot always forgive.

What you state below is EXACTLY why Christians turn to God and the
sacrifice of Christ as representing that divine ability to take injustice and
spiritually transform and redeem all the wrongs of the world
to make things right. Only the highest grace and divine forgiveness
attributed to God through Christ can open hearts and minds to this level of change.

May the love of God be yours as I see you are
calling out for mercy and justice, to stop these same injustices
that all people suffer in the world. Thank you and may you be richly blessed for asking.



Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are limited to cutting and pasting what you are ignorant of.
> 
> In almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists -- they believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered. Instead, they needed a "supreme author" of existence but not one who necessarily was involved in the day to day requirements or needs of humanity.
> 
> Deism was very popular at the time, and waned when Darwin's Origin's of Life made it clear that a creator was not neccessarily required. For example, Thomas Jefferson's Bible ends with Jesus crucified and nothing more. He does not return from the dead, which is quite essential from a Christian perspective. Jefferson "believed in Jesus Christ" as a philospher, but not as a god incarnate. Thomas Paine, of whom it was said, "Without Paine's pen, Washington's sword would never have been wielded", was a thorough-going Deist who's "Age of Reason" deconstructed the bible completely. Notice Franklin also uses very deist terminology, although Franklin did waver back and forth and his autobiography clearly depicts this.
> 
> I find it not strange at all that a fundie takes it upon himself to force his religious beliefs on others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who is attempting to force your Darwinistic, materialist religious beliefs on the traditions of American by your rabid revisionism.
> 
> The FEW founders that were Deist were not Deist in the modern sense. They believed in providence even if they didn't believe in the deity of Christ.
> 
> Like I said, all you got is Thomas Jefferson so cut and paste to your little evil hearts content!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, fundie zealot? Your frantic, saliva-slinging tirades are nothing more than goofy cliches' you copy and paste from fundie websites.
> 
> Your rabid hate, self-hate seems to mirror that of so many fundie Christians.  When Mel Gibson's _The Passion of the Christ_ came out, I watched it with revulsion and felt it to be deeply hateful and anti-Semitic. But I could not honestly say that it was not an accurate rendition of the New Testament Christian  attitude towards the Jews. Christian anti-Semitism has what is (to them) a solid "scriptural" basis. Even Saint Augustine eventually penned a diatribe against the Jews. As a result, much of humanity finds the gawds actions in the OT to be an abomination (that's some great gawd to believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. Gawds are not fair, in the OT they're ruthless and makes a sane, rational person reel in horror just reading about their atrocities (don't forget -- I don't believe any of this is god, I know this is all legend-- these things may have happened, but they were man being cruel to other men and in spite of god's viciousness, we've slowly overcome it. Why? Because we use our reason to recognize such behavior is ultimately harmful to all of us.)
> 
> Effectively, your observations and value system regarding morality are skewed and immoral. Your self-hate, which derives from your view that all of humanity is base and evil, is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. Your willingness to believe in those "gawds of love" humanity wiping floods or virgin slaughters, or one of those long nights accompanied with the sacrificial lamb's blood being painted on the door thingys was to be visited upon humanity.
> 
> You're free to believe in any of that, but when you attempt to inflict that hateful and retrograde ideology on others, you should expect others will reject your hate.
> 
> While _hate_ placates your emotional need to further your politico-religious ideology without the intellectual baggage of conscience or a moral compass, you dismiss the blatant double standards inherent in all of this without a hint of the dishonesty associated with doing so. I've pointed this out to you but you blithely proceed on as though they don't understand the concept of a double standard.
> 
> Certainly, you can continue to try to dictate morality to others but that is a fools errand. I think there's only one miracle available in the world, and that would be for religious people to truly live the so-called extolling of fairness and commitment they claim their religions preach. But humans are not like that, and the human created religions create a false sense of superiority. The majority focus of these religions is on what happens after you die, meanwhile, the world trembles in misery brought about specifically by the dogmas of these religions.
Click to expand...


I am in agreement that all this hypocrisy be removed and replaced with 
true love and charity, wisdom and compassion, and unifying truth
that brings all people and nations together in greater ways
than we have ever been divided against each other by fear
and selfish ignorance and unforgiven conflicts from the past.
May all these be taken out to be corrected in the spirit of
forgiveness, redemption and healing of all human relations.
In Christ Jesus name, may all justice be restored for all we have affected by our
words, thoughts and actions, Amen.


----------



## UltimateReality

Underhill said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say any of that?   But if it will happen, it will be by demonizing the opposition.   Something you are guilty of with your bullshit claims that we want violence.
> 
> Hitler did not kill the jews by telling them they were wrong.   He didn't bother talking to them about their faults.
> 
> He did it by claiming they were conspiring against the german people.   By making up lies about them.   By demonizing them and then destroying them.
> 
> As you are doing here with us...
> 
> So if I sound like a Jew, it's because you sound like a Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to take a long hard look in the mirror. It is you who is the Christian-hating Bigot. Might I remind you that you are in the Creationist thread making attacks. Hawly has made it clear she believes all Christians should be persecuted and wiped out. So if your comments here aren't persecuting me for my religious beliefs, then what is your motivation for being here? You, my friend, are the Nazi. Your hate has blinded you and you just can't see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My parents are christian missionaries.   My best man at my wedding is a pastor.   I discuss these issues with them on a weekly basis, sometimes more.   And no, I do not hate them.
> 
> I think they are deluding themselves.   That is not hatred.
> 
> If I have any angst it is toward the religion itself.    The hatred it all too often espouses.   And yes, I have a serious problem with *anyone who calls themselves a christian but believes being rich is a good thing and the poor are a drag on society*.
> 
> I can respect someone who believes and teaches the words of jesus.   Even if he didn't exist (debatable), the words professed to come from him are generally wholesome.   But an awful lot of what comes out of churches is old testament style hatred and bigotry.
Click to expand...


Typical atheist socialist. Yeah, we saw how that worked out in the Soviet Union. Good luck with that.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are limited to cutting and pasting what you are ignorant of.
> 
> In almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists -- they believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered. Instead, they needed a "supreme author" of existence but not one who necessarily was involved in the day to day requirements or needs of humanity.
> 
> Deism was very popular at the time, and waned when Darwin's Origin's of Life made it clear that a creator was not neccessarily required. For example, Thomas Jefferson's Bible ends with Jesus crucified and nothing more. He does not return from the dead, which is quite essential from a Christian perspective. Jefferson "believed in Jesus Christ" as a philospher, but not as a god incarnate. Thomas Paine, of whom it was said, "Without Paine's pen, Washington's sword would never have been wielded", was a thorough-going Deist who's "Age of Reason" deconstructed the bible completely. Notice Franklin also uses very deist terminology, although Franklin did waver back and forth and his autobiography clearly depicts this.
> 
> I find it not strange at all that a fundie takes it upon himself to force his religious beliefs on others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who is attempting to force your Darwinistic, materialist religious beliefs on the traditions of American by your rabid revisionism.
> 
> The FEW founders that were Deist were not Deist in the modern sense. They believed in providence even if they didn't believe in the deity of Christ.
> 
> Like I said, all you got is Thomas Jefferson so cut and paste to your little evil hearts content!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, fundie zealot? Your frantic, saliva-slinging tirades are nothing more than goofy cliches' you copy and paste from fundie websites.
> 
> Your rabid hate, self-hate seems to mirror that of so many fundie Christians.  When Mel Gibson's _The Passion of the Christ_ came out, I watched it with revulsion and felt it to be deeply hateful and anti-Semitic. But I could not honestly say that it was not an accurate rendition of the New Testament Christian  attitude towards the Jews. Christian anti-Semitism has what is (to them) a solid "scriptural" basis. Even Saint Augustine eventually penned a diatribe against the Jews. As a result, much of humanity finds the gawds actions in the OT to be an abomination (that's some great gawd to believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. Gawds are not fair, in the OT they're ruthless and makes a sane, rational person reel in horror just reading about their atrocities (don't forget -- I don't believe any of this is god, I know this is all legend-- these things may have happened, but they were man being cruel to other men and in spite of god's viciousness, we've slowly overcome it. Why? Because we use our reason to recognize such behavior is ultimately harmful to all of us.)
> 
> Effectively, your observations and value system regarding morality are skewed and immoral. Your self-hate, which derives from your view that all of humanity is base and evil, is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. Your willingness to believe in those "gawds of love" humanity wiping floods or virgin slaughters, or one of those long nights accompanied with the sacrificial lamb's blood being painted on the door thingys was to be visited upon humanity.
> 
> You're free to believe in any of that, but when you attempt to inflict that hateful and retrograde ideology on others, you should expect others will reject your hate.
> 
> While _hate_ placates your emotional need to further your politico-religious ideology without the intellectual baggage of conscience or a moral compass, you dismiss the blatant double standards inherent in all of this without a hint of the dishonesty associated with doing so. I've pointed this out to you but you blithely proceed on as though they don't understand the concept of a double standard.
> 
> Certainly, you can continue to try to dictate morality to others but that is a fools errand. I think there's only one miracle available in the world, and that would be for religious people to truly live the so-called extolling of fairness and commitment they claim their religions preach. But humans are not like that, and the human created religions create a false sense of superiority. The majority focus of these religions is on what happens after you die, meanwhile, the world trembles in misery brought about specifically by the dogmas of these religions.
Click to expand...


Wait, you are talking about yourself right? You're projecting again.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to take a long hard look in the mirror. It is you who is the Christian-hating Bigot. Might I remind you that you are in the Creationist thread making attacks. Hawly has made it clear she believes all Christians should be persecuted and wiped out. So if your comments here aren't persecuting me for my religious beliefs, then what is your motivation for being here? You, my friend, are the Nazi. Your hate has blinded you and you just can't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My parents are christian missionaries.   My best man at my wedding is a pastor.   I discuss these issues with them on a weekly basis, sometimes more.   And no, I do not hate them.
> 
> I think they are deluding themselves.   That is not hatred.
> 
> If I have any angst it is toward the religion itself.    The hatred it all too often espouses.   And yes, I have a serious problem with *anyone who calls themselves a christian but believes being rich is a good thing and the poor are a drag on society*.
> 
> I can respect someone who believes and teaches the words of jesus.   Even if he didn't exist (debatable), the words professed to come from him are generally wholesome.   But an awful lot of what comes out of churches is old testament style hatred and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical atheist socialist. Yeah, we saw how that worked out in the Soviet Union. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

this is not the USSR, although you would like it to be so you could play at being a Christian martyr... here you just get laughed at.


----------



## newpolitics

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its undeniable falsehood what you just stated. The actual truth, is that Most of the biomass on this planet are made up of single-called bacteria who are asexual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium
> 
> The planet is covered with bacterium how do you account for them in your evolutionary tree ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another ignorant post by ywc
> 
> Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
> 22:00 09 June 2008 by Bob Holmes
> For similar stories, visit the Evolution Topic Guide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
> 
> And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.
> 
> Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.
> 
> The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.
> 
> Profound change
> 
> Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.
> 
> But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
> 
> Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.
> 
> "It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.
> 
> Rare mutation?
> 
> By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.
> 
> That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.
> 
> To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.
> 
> Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?
> 
> Evidence of evolution
> 
> The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.
> 
> Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.
> 
> In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.
> 
> Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."
> 
> Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
> 
> bacterium evolve into better bacteria... just as humans are a better form of ape.
Click to expand...


Very interesting. Nice find.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who is attempting to force your Darwinistic, materialist religious beliefs on the traditions of American by your rabid revisionism.
> 
> The FEW founders that were Deist were not Deist in the modern sense. They believed in providence even if they didn't believe in the deity of Christ.
> 
> Like I said, all you got is Thomas Jefferson so cut and paste to your little evil hearts content!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, fundie zealot? Your frantic, saliva-slinging tirades are nothing more than goofy cliches' you copy and paste from fundie websites.
> 
> Your rabid hate, self-hate seems to mirror that of so many fundie Christians.  When Mel Gibson's _The Passion of the Christ_ came out, I watched it with revulsion and felt it to be deeply hateful and anti-Semitic. But I could not honestly say that it was not an accurate rendition of the New Testament Christian  attitude towards the Jews. Christian anti-Semitism has what is (to them) a solid "scriptural" basis. Even Saint Augustine eventually penned a diatribe against the Jews. As a result, much of humanity finds the gawds actions in the OT to be an abomination (that's some great gawd to believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. Gawds are not fair, in the OT they're ruthless and makes a sane, rational person reel in horror just reading about their atrocities (don't forget -- I don't believe any of this is god, I know this is all legend-- these things may have happened, but they were man being cruel to other men and in spite of god's viciousness, we've slowly overcome it. Why? Because we use our reason to recognize such behavior is ultimately harmful to all of us.)
> 
> Effectively, your observations and value system regarding morality are skewed and immoral. Your self-hate, which derives from your view that all of humanity is base and evil, is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. Your willingness to believe in those "gawds of love" humanity wiping floods or virgin slaughters, or one of those long nights accompanied with the sacrificial lamb's blood being painted on the door thingys was to be visited upon humanity.
> 
> You're free to believe in any of that, but when you attempt to inflict that hateful and retrograde ideology on others, you should expect others will reject your hate.
> 
> While _hate_ placates your emotional need to further your politico-religious ideology without the intellectual baggage of conscience or a moral compass, you dismiss the blatant double standards inherent in all of this without a hint of the dishonesty associated with doing so. I've pointed this out to you but you blithely proceed on as though they don't understand the concept of a double standard.
> 
> Certainly, you can continue to try to dictate morality to others but that is a fools errand. I think there's only one miracle available in the world, and that would be for religious people to truly live the so-called extolling of fairness and commitment they claim their religions preach. But humans are not like that, and the human created religions create a false sense of superiority. The majority focus of these religions is on what happens after you die, meanwhile, the world trembles in misery brought about specifically by the dogmas of these religions.[/QUOT
> Wait, you are talking about yourself right? You're projecting again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I anticipated that you would be unable to respond.
> 
> I see a lot of hate emanating from religious institutions, I carry money that informs me I trust gods I actually don't believe in, and in general I see a lot of religious belief and theism tossed about in a comfortable way. Across the globe, I see a lot of religious belief used as an instrument of self-serving elitism, objects of repression and a means to an end for oppression. Fortunately, in my part of the world, there were men who understood religious bigotry who fashioned a framework of law that prevented the majority religious bigots from forcing their religion on the minority. In fact, oftentimes strangers do ring my doorbell to tell me that not only does god exist, but I'm going to burn forever if I don't accept them at their word. So who, really, are the bigots?
Click to expand...


----------



## Underhill

UltimateReality said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to take a long hard look in the mirror. It is you who is the Christian-hating Bigot. Might I remind you that you are in the Creationist thread making attacks. Hawly has made it clear she believes all Christians should be persecuted and wiped out. So if your comments here aren't persecuting me for my religious beliefs, then what is your motivation for being here? You, my friend, are the Nazi. Your hate has blinded you and you just can't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My parents are christian missionaries.   My best man at my wedding is a pastor.   I discuss these issues with them on a weekly basis, sometimes more.   And no, I do not hate them.
> 
> I think they are deluding themselves.   That is not hatred.
> 
> If I have any angst it is toward the religion itself.    The hatred it all too often espouses.   And yes, I have a serious problem with *anyone who calls themselves a christian but believes being rich is a good thing and the poor are a drag on society*.
> 
> I can respect someone who believes and teaches the words of jesus.   Even if he didn't exist (debatable), the words professed to come from him are generally wholesome.   But an awful lot of what comes out of churches is old testament style hatred and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical atheist socialist. Yeah, we saw how that worked out in the Soviet Union. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...


From Jesus, in the bible.

Luke 6:20-21 Then he looked up at his disciples and said: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

'Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. 'Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.'

Matthew 25:34-36 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."

Mark 10:21-22 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

Luke 14:13 &14  "But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed,
because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just."  

Matthew 19:23  Then Jesus said to his disciples, Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.

If that makes Jesus a socialist, so be it...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as much as you would like to force the xtian gawds on others, the Constitution is quite clear you cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you miss the point. The Constitution embraces the free will teachings of the Christian religion and also reflects the Pilgrims initial reason for fleeing England, so that the government could not have an official Church. This doesn't change the fact the nation was found by Christian men, on Christian principles, for a largely Christian populace. And as long as the websites like the Library of Congress and the National Archives don't succumb to the rabid revisionism that you continually preach, any one who searches will still be able to find the truth. My fear is that the actual documents will be lost, and eventually the bits and bytes will be corrupted, and evil people like you Hawly will have their way at erasing what really happened, to serve their own miserable, self-loathing, Christ-hating agendas. People like you are dangerous like Hitler was, because evil and violence against a certain group is your goal. Just one of the tools of your hate and bigotry is revisionism. The other is repeating lies over and over enough that you first believe the lie yourself and then you convince other weak-minded and impressionable people like NP and Daws to believe your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Violence?   Really?
> 
> I see christianity as a myth.  A fraud.   A means of control.   I grew up in it.   Know the book cover to cover and think Jesus teachings, while good, are among the most ignored in the whole bible.
> 
> I see christians as judgmental, hateful, spiteful people who bath in ignorance.
> 
> But violence?   Come on...
Click to expand...


Jesus spoke of these which you describe providing strength to his words.

Is this not what we see of many so called Christians leaders of the poast and presence ?

Mat 23:13  But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of Heaven against men. For you neither go in, nor do you allow those entering to go in. 
Mat 23:14  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and pray at length as a pretense. Therefore you shall receive the greater condemnation. 
Mat 23:15  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you compass sea and the dry land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. 
Mat 23:16  Woe to you, blind guides, saying, Whoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor. 
Mat 23:17  Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold? 
Mat 23:18  And, Whoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is a debtor! 
Mat 23:19  Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 
Mat 23:20  Therefore whoever shall swear by the altar swears by it, and by all things on it. 
Mat 23:21  And whoever shall swear by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it. 
Mat 23:22  And he who shall swear by Heaven swears by the throne of God, and by Him who sits on it. 
Mat 23:23  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and you have left undone the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy, and faith. You ought to have done these and not to leave the other undone. 
Mat 23:24  Blind guides who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! 
Mat 23:25  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of extortion and excess. 
Mat 23:26  Blind Pharisee! First cleanse the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of them may be clean also. 
Mat 23:27  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which indeed appear beautiful outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 
Mat 23:28  Even so you also appear righteous to men outwardly, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. 
Mat 23:29  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets, and decorate the tombs of the righteous, 
Mat 23:30  and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 
Mat 23:31  Therefore you are witnesses to yourselves, that you are the sons of those who killed the prophets; 
Mat 23:32  and you fill up the measure of your fathers. 
Mat 23:33  Serpents! Offspring of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 
Mat 23:34  Therefore, behold, I send prophets and wise men and scribes to you. And you will kill and crucify some of them. And some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city; 
Mat 23:35  so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berachiah, whom you killed between the temple and the altar. 
Mat 23:36  Truly I say to you, All these things shall come on this generation. 
Mat 23:37  O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not! 
Mat 23:38  Behold, your house is left to you desolate. 
Mat 23:39  For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." 

Mat 15:7  Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 
Mat 15:8  "This people draws near to Me with their mouth, and honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. 
Mat 15:9  But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." 


Mat 6:5  And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, They have their reward. 
Mat 6:6  But you, when you pray, enter into your room. And shutting your door, pray to your Father in secret; and your Father who sees in secret shall reward you openly.

Hypocrites and blind guides are gonna pay a price and have brought disrespect to the true God but cannot allow these to mislead them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you miss the point. The Constitution embraces the free will teachings of the Christian religion and also reflects the Pilgrims initial reason for fleeing England, so that the government could not have an official Church. This doesn't change the fact the nation was found by Christian men, on Christian principles, for a largely Christian populace. And as long as the websites like the Library of Congress and the National Archives don't succumb to the rabid revisionism that you continually preach, any one who searches will still be able to find the truth. My fear is that the actual documents will be lost, and eventually the bits and bytes will be corrupted, and evil people like you Hawly will have their way at erasing what really happened, to serve their own miserable, self-loathing, Christ-hating agendas. People like you are dangerous like Hitler was, because evil and violence against a certain group is your goal. Just one of the tools of your hate and bigotry is revisionism. The other is repeating lies over and over enough that you first believe the lie yourself and then you convince other weak-minded and impressionable people like NP and Daws to believe your lies.
> 
> 
> 
> What you're missing, dear, is that the Constitution actually protects me and other americans from religious fundamentalists such as you and others who, given the chance, would seek to turn this nation into an Iranian style theocracy.
> 
> How interesting that the Christian men who framed the constitution knew precisely how religious fundamentalism (Christian) tends to propagate and thus chose to protect the free exercise of religious freedom (freedom FROM religion).
> 
> Obviously, they knew quite well the dangers of a majority religion imposing its views on the populace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the religion of the founders is nothing like that of modern christians.     Perhaps there were those people around in their day.   But these men were often men of education.   Some even men of science, limited as it was in that day.
> 
> They didn't use the government models of imposing a godly king.   (Washington would have been the ideal choice.)   Instead they looked to the heathen Greeks and early Romans for inspiration.   These were not fundamentalist who believed man inherently evil.   They believed that mankind could make the right decisions if only they were educated (a truly liberal and humanist position if ever there was one).
> 
> So they may have believed in a god.   But I've seen nothing in my extensive reading to suggest they were anything like the christians of today.
Click to expand...


So are you suggesting creationist today are not men of science ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its undeniable falsehood what you just stated. The actual truth, is that Most of the biomass on this planet are made up of single-called bacteria who are asexual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium
> 
> The planet is covered with bacterium how do you account for them in your evolutionary tree ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another ignorant post by ywc
> 
> Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
> 22:00 09 June 2008 by Bob Holmes
> For similar stories, visit the Evolution Topic Guide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
> 
> And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.
> 
> Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.
> 
> The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.
> 
> Profound change
> 
> Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.
> 
> But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
> 
> Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.
> 
> "It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.
> 
> Rare mutation?
> 
> By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.
> 
> That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.
> 
> To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.
> 
> Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?
> 
> Evidence of evolution
> 
> The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.
> 
> Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.
> 
> In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.
> 
> Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."
> 
> Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist
> 
> bacterium evolve into better bacteria... just as humans are a better form of ape.
Click to expand...


Hello Daws you have yet to understand the difference between microadaptations and macro-evolution I even made my point clear by saying a "non-bacterium".


You really don't understand your own theory now do you. If humans are just a better form of the ape what did the ape come from ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium
> 
> The planet is covered with bacterium how do you account for them in your evolutionary tree ?
> 
> 
> 
> another ignorant post by ywc
> 
> Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
> 22:00 09 June 2008 by Bob Holmes
> For similar stories, visit the Evolution Topic Guide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
> 
> And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.
> 
> Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.
> 
> The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.
> 
> Profound change
> 
> Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.
> 
> But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
> 
> Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.
> 
> "It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.
> 
> Rare mutation?
> 
> By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.
> 
> That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.
> 
> To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.
> 
> Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?
> 
> Evidence of evolution
> 
> The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.
> 
> Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.
> 
> In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.
> 
> Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."
> 
> Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist
> 
> bacterium evolve into better bacteria... just as humans are a better form of ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very interesting. Nice find.
Click to expand...


Showing your ignorance as well.


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're missing, dear, is that the Constitution actually protects me and other americans from religious fundamentalists such as you and others who, given the chance, would seek to turn this nation into an Iranian style theocracy.
> 
> How interesting that the Christian men who framed the constitution knew precisely how religious fundamentalism (Christian) tends to propagate and thus chose to protect the free exercise of religious freedom (freedom FROM religion).
> 
> Obviously, they knew quite well the dangers of a majority religion imposing its views on the populace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the religion of the founders is nothing like that of modern christians.     Perhaps there were those people around in their day.   But these men were often men of education.   Some even men of science, limited as it was in that day.
> 
> They didn't use the government models of imposing a godly king.   (Washington would have been the ideal choice.)   Instead they looked to the heathen Greeks and early Romans for inspiration.   These were not fundamentalist who believed man inherently evil.   They believed that mankind could make the right decisions if only they were educated (a truly liberal and humanist position if ever there was one).
> 
> So they may have believed in a god.   But I've seen nothing in my extensive reading to suggest they were anything like the christians of today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting creationist today are not men of science ?
Click to expand...


Of course many aren't.    But I'm suggesting a bit more than that.   I think at least some of the founders were intellectuals first and held religion as a cultural nicety.    

I spent a lot of time reading the writings of Jefferson and Franklin.   Both rarely talked about god as anything more than a curiosity.   

So I suspect they (and probably others) were christians as many people today are christians.   They played the game, talked the talk as needed, but really didn't bother with it all that much.  

This is why I don't buy the premise that they were a "godly bunch of men" in the strictest sense.   Even Adams didn't really focus much on religion until later in life.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, fundie zealot? Your frantic, saliva-slinging tirades are nothing more than goofy cliches' you copy and paste from fundie websites.
> 
> Your rabid hate, self-hate seems to mirror that of so many fundie Christians.  When Mel Gibson's _The Passion of the Christ_ came out, I watched it with revulsion and felt it to be deeply hateful and anti-Semitic. But I could not honestly say that it was not an accurate rendition of the New Testament Christian  attitude towards the Jews. Christian anti-Semitism has what is (to them) a solid "scriptural" basis. Even Saint Augustine eventually penned a diatribe against the Jews. As a result, much of humanity finds the gawds actions in the OT to be an abomination (that's some great gawd to believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. Gawds are not fair, in the OT they're ruthless and makes a sane, rational person reel in horror just reading about their atrocities (don't forget -- I don't believe any of this is god, I know this is all legend-- these things may have happened, but they were man being cruel to other men and in spite of god's viciousness, we've slowly overcome it. Why? Because we use our reason to recognize such behavior is ultimately harmful to all of us.)
> 
> Effectively, your observations and value system regarding morality are skewed and immoral. Your self-hate, which derives from your view that all of humanity is base and evil, is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. Your willingness to believe in those "gawds of love" humanity wiping floods or virgin slaughters, or one of those long nights accompanied with the sacrificial lamb's blood being painted on the door thingys was to be visited upon humanity.
> 
> You're free to believe in any of that, but when you attempt to inflict that hateful and retrograde ideology on others, you should expect others will reject your hate.
> 
> While _hate_ placates your emotional need to further your politico-religious ideology without the intellectual baggage of conscience or a moral compass, you dismiss the blatant double standards inherent in all of this without a hint of the dishonesty associated with doing so. I've pointed this out to you but you blithely proceed on as though they don't understand the concept of a double standard.
> 
> Certainly, you can continue to try to dictate morality to others but that is a fools errand. I think there's only one miracle available in the world, and that would be for religious people to truly live the so-called extolling of fairness and commitment they claim their religions preach. But humans are not like that, and the human created religions create a false sense of superiority. The majority focus of these religions is on what happens after you die, meanwhile, the world trembles in misery brought about specifically by the dogmas of these religions.[/QUOT
> Wait, you are talking about yourself right? You're projecting again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I anticipated that you would be unable to respond.
> 
> I see a lot of hate emanating from religious institutions, I carry money that informs me I trust gods I actually don't believe in, and in general I see a lot of religious belief and theism tossed about in a comfortable way. Across the globe, I see a lot of religious belief used as an instrument of self-serving elitism, objects of repression and a means to an end for oppression. Fortunately, in my part of the world, there were men who understood religious bigotry who fashioned a framework of law that prevented the majority religious bigots from forcing their religion on the minority. In fact, oftentimes strangers do ring my doorbell to tell me that not only does god exist, but I'm going to burn forever if I don't accept them at their word. So who, really, are the bigots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's about twice a week at my house .
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you miss the point. The Constitution embraces the free will teachings of the Christian religion and also reflects the Pilgrims initial reason for fleeing England, so that the government could not have an official Church. This doesn't change the fact the nation was found by Christian men, on Christian principles, for a largely Christian populace. And as long as the websites like the Library of Congress and the National Archives don't succumb to the rabid revisionism that you continually preach, any one who searches will still be able to find the truth. My fear is that the actual documents will be lost, and eventually the bits and bytes will be corrupted, and evil people like you Hawly will have their way at erasing what really happened, to serve their own miserable, self-loathing, Christ-hating agendas. People like you are dangerous like Hitler was, because evil and violence against a certain group is your goal. Just one of the tools of your hate and bigotry is revisionism. The other is repeating lies over and over enough that you first believe the lie yourself and then you convince other weak-minded and impressionable people like NP and Daws to believe your lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Violence?   Really?
> 
> I see christianity as a myth.  A fraud.   A means of control.   I grew up in it.   Know the book cover to cover and think Jesus teachings, while good, are among the most ignored in the whole bible.
> 
> I see christians as judgmental, hateful, spiteful people who bath in ignorance.
> 
> But violence?   Come on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus spoke of these which you describe providing strength to his words.
> 
> Is this not what we see of many so called Christians leaders of the poast and presence ?
> 
> Mat 23:13  But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of Heaven against men. For you neither go in, nor do you allow those entering to go in.
> Mat 23:14  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and pray at length as a pretense. Therefore you shall receive the greater condemnation.
> Mat 23:15  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you compass sea and the dry land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
> Mat 23:16  Woe to you, blind guides, saying, Whoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor.
> Mat 23:17  Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold?
> Mat 23:18  And, Whoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is a debtor!
> Mat 23:19  Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift?
> Mat 23:20  Therefore whoever shall swear by the altar swears by it, and by all things on it.
> Mat 23:21  And whoever shall swear by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it.
> Mat 23:22  And he who shall swear by Heaven swears by the throne of God, and by Him who sits on it.
> Mat 23:23  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and you have left undone the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy, and faith. You ought to have done these and not to leave the other undone.
> Mat 23:24  Blind guides who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
> Mat 23:25  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of extortion and excess.
> Mat 23:26  Blind Pharisee! First cleanse the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of them may be clean also.
> Mat 23:27  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which indeed appear beautiful outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
> Mat 23:28  Even so you also appear righteous to men outwardly, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
> Mat 23:29  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets, and decorate the tombs of the righteous,
> Mat 23:30  and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
> Mat 23:31  Therefore you are witnesses to yourselves, that you are the sons of those who killed the prophets;
> Mat 23:32  and you fill up the measure of your fathers.
> Mat 23:33  Serpents! Offspring of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
> Mat 23:34  Therefore, behold, I send prophets and wise men and scribes to you. And you will kill and crucify some of them. And some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city;
> Mat 23:35  so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berachiah, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.
> Mat 23:36  Truly I say to you, All these things shall come on this generation.
> Mat 23:37  O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!
> Mat 23:38  Behold, your house is left to you desolate.
> Mat 23:39  For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."
> 
> Mat 15:7  Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
> Mat 15:8  "This people draws near to Me with their mouth, and honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
> Mat 15:9  But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
> 
> 
> Mat 6:5  And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, They have their reward.
> Mat 6:6  But you, when you pray, enter into your room. And shutting your door, pray to your Father in secret; and your Father who sees in secret shall reward you openly.
> 
> Hypocrites and blind guides are gonna pay a price and have brought disrespect to the true God but cannot allow these to mislead them.
Click to expand...

of the poast and presence ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're missing, dear, is that the Constitution actually protects me and other americans from religious fundamentalists such as you and others who, given the chance, would seek to turn this nation into an Iranian style theocracy.
> 
> How interesting that the Christian men who framed the constitution knew precisely how religious fundamentalism (Christian) tends to propagate and thus chose to protect the free exercise of religious freedom (freedom FROM religion).
> 
> Obviously, they knew quite well the dangers of a majority religion imposing its views on the populace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the religion of the founders is nothing like that of modern christians.     Perhaps there were those people around in their day.   But these men were often men of education.   Some even men of science, limited as it was in that day.
> 
> They didn't use the government models of imposing a godly king.   (Washington would have been the ideal choice.)   Instead they looked to the heathen Greeks and early Romans for inspiration.   These were not fundamentalist who believed man inherently evil.   They believed that mankind could make the right decisions if only they were educated (a truly liberal and humanist position if ever there was one).
> 
> So they may have believed in a god.   But I've seen nothing in my extensive reading to suggest they were anything like the christians of today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting creationist today are not men of science ?
Click to expand...

no that's not what Underhill was saying.. Underhill was however pointing out the huge differences between you bigoted, bible thumping, ignorant propagandists and the founding fathers.
to answer your provocation, no creationists are not men or women of science.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium
> 
> The planet is covered with bacterium how do you account for them in your evolutionary tree ?
> 
> 
> 
> another ignorant post by ywc
> 
> Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
> 22:00 09 June 2008 by Bob Holmes
> For similar stories, visit the Evolution Topic Guide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
> 
> And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.
> 
> Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.
> 
> The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.
> 
> Profound change
> 
> Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.
> 
> But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
> 
> Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.
> 
> "It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.
> 
> Rare mutation?
> 
> By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.
> 
> That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.
> 
> To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.
> 
> Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?
> 
> Evidence of evolution
> 
> The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.
> 
> Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.
> 
> In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.
> 
> Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."
> 
> Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist
> 
> bacterium evolve into better bacteria... just as humans are a better form of ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello Daws you have yet to understand the difference between microadaptations and macro-evolution I even made my point clear by saying a "non-bacterium".
> 
> 
> You really don't understand your own theory now do you. If humans are just a better form of the ape what did the ape come from ?
Click to expand...

really slapdick? what you fail epically and constantly to understand is your false comparisons are meaningless so instead of answering that inane question,"Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium"- ywc (btw other than is not the same as non! ) I presented actually proof that bacteria do evolve.   

 also  micro adaptations and macro-evolution are bullshit creationist pseudoscience AND are not actual scientific terms . 
apes and men had a common ancestor that's WHERE.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another ignorant post by ywc
> 
> Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
> 22:00 09 June 2008 by Bob Holmes
> For similar stories, visit the Evolution Topic Guide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
> 
> And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.
> 
> Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.
> 
> The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.
> 
> Profound change
> 
> Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.
> 
> But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
> 
> Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.
> 
> "It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.
> 
> Rare mutation?
> 
> By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.
> 
> That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.
> 
> To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.
> 
> Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?
> 
> Evidence of evolution
> 
> The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.
> 
> Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.
> 
> In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.
> 
> Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."
> 
> Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist
> 
> bacterium evolve into better bacteria... just as humans are a better form of ape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting. Nice find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Showing your ignorance as well.
Click to expand...


As usual, you call demonstrable truth that negates your own existential claims "ignorant." In reality, it is reality, and you are living in fantasy dream world for denying it.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're missing, dear, is that the Constitution actually protects me and other americans from religious fundamentalists such as you and others who, given the chance, would seek to turn this nation into an Iranian style theocracy.
> 
> How interesting that the Christian men who framed the constitution knew precisely how religious fundamentalism (Christian) tends to propagate and thus chose to protect the free exercise of religious freedom (freedom FROM religion).
> 
> Obviously, they knew quite well the dangers of a majority religion imposing its views on the populace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the religion of the founders is nothing like that of modern christians.     Perhaps there were those people around in their day.   But these men were often men of education.   Some even men of science, limited as it was in that day.
> 
> They didn't use the government models of imposing a godly king.   (Washington would have been the ideal choice.)   Instead they looked to the heathen Greeks and early Romans for inspiration.   These were not fundamentalist who believed man inherently evil.   They believed that mankind could make the right decisions if only they were educated (a truly liberal and humanist position if ever there was one).
> 
> So they may have believed in a god.   But I've seen nothing in my extensive reading to suggest they were anything like the christians of today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting creationist today are not men of science ?
Click to expand...


Now you're starting to get it.


----------



## LittleNipper

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you miss the point. The Constitution embraces the free will teachings of the Christian religion and also reflects the Pilgrims initial reason for fleeing England, so that the government could not have an official Church. This doesn't change the fact the nation was found by Christian men, on Christian principles, for a largely Christian populace. And as long as the websites like the Library of Congress and the National Archives don't succumb to the rabid revisionism that you continually preach, any one who searches will still be able to find the truth. My fear is that the actual documents will be lost, and eventually the bits and bytes will be corrupted, and evil people like you Hawly will have their way at erasing what really happened, to serve their own miserable, self-loathing, Christ-hating agendas. People like you are dangerous like Hitler was, because evil and violence against a certain group is your goal. Just one of the tools of your hate and bigotry is revisionism. The other is repeating lies over and over enough that you first believe the lie yourself and then you convince other weak-minded and impressionable people like NP and Daws to believe your lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Violence?   Really?
> 
> I see christianity as a myth.  A fraud.   A means of control.   I grew up in it.   Know the book cover to cover and think Jesus teachings, while good, are among the most ignored in the whole bible.
> 
> I see christians as judgmental, hateful, spiteful people who bath in ignorance.
> 
> But violence?   Come on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus spoke of these which you describe providing strength to his words.
> 
> Is this not what we see of many so called Christians leaders of the poast and presence ?
> 
> Mat 23:13  But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of Heaven against men. For you neither go in, nor do you allow those entering to go in.
> Mat 23:14  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and pray at length as a pretense. Therefore you shall receive the greater condemnation.
> Mat 23:15  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you compass sea and the dry land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
> Mat 23:16  Woe to you, blind guides, saying, Whoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor.
> Mat 23:17  Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold?
> Mat 23:18  And, Whoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is a debtor!
> Mat 23:19  Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift?
> Mat 23:20  Therefore whoever shall swear by the altar swears by it, and by all things on it.
> Mat 23:21  And whoever shall swear by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it.
> Mat 23:22  And he who shall swear by Heaven swears by the throne of God, and by Him who sits on it.
> Mat 23:23  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and you have left undone the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy, and faith. You ought to have done these and not to leave the other undone.
> Mat 23:24  Blind guides who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
> Mat 23:25  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of extortion and excess.
> Mat 23:26  Blind Pharisee! First cleanse the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of them may be clean also.
> Mat 23:27  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which indeed appear beautiful outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
> Mat 23:28  Even so you also appear righteous to men outwardly, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
> Mat 23:29  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets, and decorate the tombs of the righteous,
> Mat 23:30  and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
> Mat 23:31  Therefore you are witnesses to yourselves, that you are the sons of those who killed the prophets;
> Mat 23:32  and you fill up the measure of your fathers.
> Mat 23:33  Serpents! Offspring of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
> Mat 23:34  Therefore, behold, I send prophets and wise men and scribes to you. And you will kill and crucify some of them. And some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city;
> Mat 23:35  so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berachiah, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.
> Mat 23:36  Truly I say to you, All these things shall come on this generation.
> Mat 23:37  O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!
> Mat 23:38  Behold, your house is left to you desolate.
> Mat 23:39  For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."
> 
> Mat 15:7  Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
> Mat 15:8  "This people draws near to Me with their mouth, and honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
> Mat 15:9  But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
> 
> 
> Mat 6:5  And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, They have their reward.
> Mat 6:6  But you, when you pray, enter into your room. And shutting your door, pray to your Father in secret; and your Father who sees in secret shall reward you openly.
> 
> Hypocrites and blind guides are gonna pay a price and have brought disrespect to the true God but cannot allow these to mislead them.
Click to expand...


Actually, Our Lord was speaking of the educators of his day. Today, He would be speaking of the Evolutionist and the Democtatic liberal socialist reformer. 

Proof of God: Hundreds injured as meteor fireball screams across the sky in Russia - Cosmic Log


----------



## LittleNipper

Proof of God: Hundreds injured as meteor fireball screams across the sky in Russia - Cosmic Log


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Proof of God: Hundreds injured as meteor fireball screams across the sky in Russia - Cosmic Log



I thought meteors were missiles against jinn?

Those gawds, they're such kidders.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof of God: Hundreds injured as meteor fireball screams across the sky in Russia - Cosmic Log
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought meteors were missiles against jinn?
> 
> Those gawds, they're such kidders.
Click to expand...


The only gawds are those worshipped iin place of the GOD. The remarkable thing is had that meteor made a direct hit, many lives would have been lost. As it is, there was some noise, broken glass and a few bandaids. It is a miracle. Another proof of GOD's abilities.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the religion of the founders is nothing like that of modern christians.     Perhaps there were those people around in their day.   But these men were often men of education.   Some even men of science, limited as it was in that day.
> 
> They didn't use the government models of imposing a godly king.   (Washington would have been the ideal choice.)   Instead they looked to the heathen Greeks and early Romans for inspiration.   These were not fundamentalist who believed man inherently evil.   They believed that mankind could make the right decisions if only they were educated (a truly liberal and humanist position if ever there was one).
> 
> So they may have believed in a god.   But I've seen nothing in my extensive reading to suggest they were anything like the christians of today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting creationist today are not men of science ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course many aren't.    But I'm suggesting a bit more than that.   I think at least some of the founders were intellectuals first and held religion as a cultural nicety.
> 
> I spent a lot of time reading the writings of Jefferson and Franklin.   Both rarely talked about god as anything more than a curiosity.
> 
> So I suspect they (and probably others) were christians as many people today are christians.   They played the game, talked the talk as needed, but really didn't bother with it all that much.
> 
> This is why I don't buy the premise that they were a "godly bunch of men" in the strictest sense.   Even Adams didn't really focus much on religion until later in life.
Click to expand...


The forefathers had a plan and an effective plan for man to be free and proud,a people that would overcome oppression and be free to believe as they choose. Many of these forefathers were influenced by what is taught in the scriptures and possessed Christian view and values. Unfortunately because of the ones that did not heed the Teachings of Christ their actions are being used again'st Gods true followers.

God told us what to look for and how to Identify his people and how to know who are not his people. It's the works these people do in front of others. He started with the Pharisee's and saducee's but you can see these same hypocrites and blind guides at work in our society today. Jesus refers to them as being from their father the father of lies and Identifies him by the name of satan. Some Christians don't even realize that is who they are representing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the religion of the founders is nothing like that of modern christians.     Perhaps there were those people around in their day.   But these men were often men of education.   Some even men of science, limited as it was in that day.
> 
> They didn't use the government models of imposing a godly king.   (Washington would have been the ideal choice.)   Instead they looked to the heathen Greeks and early Romans for inspiration.   These were not fundamentalist who believed man inherently evil.   They believed that mankind could make the right decisions if only they were educated (a truly liberal and humanist position if ever there was one).
> 
> So they may have believed in a god.   But I've seen nothing in my extensive reading to suggest they were anything like the christians of today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting creationist today are not men of science ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no that's not what Underhill was saying.. Underhill was however pointing out the huge differences between you bigoted, bible thumping, ignorant propagandists and the founding fathers.
> to answer your provocation, no creationists are not men or women of science.
Click to expand...


Take a close look at yourself and your posts you could be the real propagandists. Showing your hatred for people who merely believe in a higher power where does the hatred and contempt come from daws ? What have believers done to you for you to feel this way about them ? You are wrong there are many of us educated in the sciences and believe in the creator and creation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another ignorant post by ywc
> 
> Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
> 22:00 09 June 2008 by Bob Holmes
> For similar stories, visit the Evolution Topic Guide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
> 
> And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.
> 
> Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.
> 
> The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.
> 
> Profound change
> 
> Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.
> 
> But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
> 
> Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.
> 
> "It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.
> 
> Rare mutation?
> 
> By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.
> 
> That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.
> 
> To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.
> 
> Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?
> 
> Evidence of evolution
> 
> The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.
> 
> Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.
> 
> In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.
> 
> Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."
> 
> Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist
> 
> bacterium evolve into better bacteria... just as humans are a better form of ape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Daws you have yet to understand the difference between microadaptations and macro-evolution I even made my point clear by saying a "non-bacterium".
> 
> 
> You really don't understand your own theory now do you. If humans are just a better form of the ape what did the ape come from ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really slapdick? what you fail epically and constantly to understand is your false comparisons are meaningless so instead of answering that inane question,"Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium"- ywc (btw other than is not the same as non! ) I presented actually proof that bacteria do evolve.
> 
> also  micro adaptations and macro-evolution are bullshit creationist pseudoscience AND are not actual scientific terms .
> apes and men had a common ancestor that's WHERE.
Click to expand...


I am asking you what did humans evolve from ? what did apes evolve from ? What did the common ancestor evolve from ?

Those terms were actually coined by evolutionist please don't force me to continue repeating myself.

From one of your favorite sites.

"Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology."

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

What they don't share with their readers there is much debate on what constitutes a completely new species.

Sure you have different kinds within  a species but that hardly constitutes macroevolution or speciation. We want to know how a Microbe winds up a Microbiologist. They extrapolate from microadaptations to suggest macroevolution but this is what they can't demonstrate that an accumulation of microadaptations leads to a microbe evolving all the way to the Microbiololgist.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Daws you have yet to understand the difference between microadaptations and macro-evolution I even made my point clear by saying a "non-bacterium".
> 
> 
> You really don't understand your own theory now do you. If humans are just a better form of the ape what did the ape come from ?
> 
> 
> 
> really slapdick? what you fail epically and constantly to understand is your false comparisons are meaningless so instead of answering that inane question,"Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium"- ywc (btw other than is not the same as non! ) I presented actually proof that bacteria do evolve.
> 
> also  micro adaptations and macro-evolution are bullshit creationist pseudoscience AND are not actual scientific terms .
> apes and men had a common ancestor that's WHERE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you what did humans evolve from ? what did apes evolve from ? What did the common ancestor evolve from ?
> 
> Those terms were actually coined by evolutionist please don't force me to continue repeating myself.
> 
> From one of your favorite sites.
> 
> "Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology."
> 
> Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
> 
> What they don't share with their readers there is much debate on what constitutes a completely new species.
> 
> Sure you have different kinds within  a species but that hardly constitutes macroevolution or speciation. We want to know how a Microbe winds up a Microbiologist. They extrapolate from microadaptations to suggest macroevolution but this is what they can't demonstrate that an accumulation of microadaptations leads to a microbe evolving all the way to the Microbiololgist.
Click to expand...

Your confusion and ignorance deries from not reading the link you posted. 

Speciation has been observed. This has been explained to you and other creationist multiple times.

Are you dense?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof of God: Hundreds injured as meteor fireball screams across the sky in Russia - Cosmic Log
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought meteors were missiles against jinn?
> 
> Those gawds, they're such kidders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only gawds are those worshipped iin place of the GOD. The remarkable thing is had that meteor made a direct hit, many lives would have been lost. As it is, there was some noise, broken glass and a few bandaids. It is a miracle. Another proof of GOD's abilities.
Click to expand...

How do you know if the gawds had intended to wipe out a bunch of humanity but missed?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought meteors were missiles against jinn?
> 
> Those gawds, they're such kidders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only gawds are those worshipped iin place of the GOD. The remarkable thing is had that meteor made a direct hit, many lives would have been lost. As it is, there was some noise, broken glass and a few bandaids. It is a miracle. Another proof of GOD's abilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know if the gawds had intended to wipe out a bunch of humanity but missed?
Click to expand...


The one true GOD never missed in the Bible. Funny that the scientists you trust were caught by surprise...


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really slapdick? what you fail epically and constantly to understand is your false comparisons are meaningless so instead of answering that inane question,"Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium"- ywc (btw other than is not the same as non! ) I presented actually proof that bacteria do evolve.
> 
> also  micro adaptations and macro-evolution are bullshit creationist pseudoscience AND are not actual scientific terms .
> apes and men had a common ancestor that's WHERE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you what did humans evolve from ? what did apes evolve from ? What did the common ancestor evolve from ?
> 
> Those terms were actually coined by evolutionist please don't force me to continue repeating myself.
> 
> From one of your favorite sites.
> 
> "Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology."
> 
> Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
> 
> What they don't share with their readers there is much debate on what constitutes a completely new species.
> 
> Sure you have different kinds within  a species but that hardly constitutes macroevolution or speciation. We want to know how a Microbe winds up a Microbiologist. They extrapolate from microadaptations to suggest macroevolution but this is what they can't demonstrate that an accumulation of microadaptations leads to a microbe evolving all the way to the Microbiololgist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusion and ignorance deries from not reading the link you posted.
> 
> Speciation has been observed. This has been explained to you and other creationist multiple times.
> 
> Are you dense?
Click to expand...


Ok, so a Orthodontist is specialized in his field. However, specialized, he is no less human. He might be taller, stronger, wiser, handsomer, but he still is very human ---- with some extra ability.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you what did humans evolve from ? what did apes evolve from ? What did the common ancestor evolve from ?
> 
> Those terms were actually coined by evolutionist please don't force me to continue repeating myself.
> 
> From one of your favorite sites.
> 
> "Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology."
> 
> Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
> 
> What they don't share with their readers there is much debate on what constitutes a completely new species.
> 
> Sure you have different kinds within  a species but that hardly constitutes macroevolution or speciation. We want to know how a Microbe winds up a Microbiologist. They extrapolate from microadaptations to suggest macroevolution but this is what they can't demonstrate that an accumulation of microadaptations leads to a microbe evolving all the way to the Microbiololgist.
> 
> 
> 
> Your confusion and ignorance deries from not reading the link you posted.
> 
> Speciation has been observed. This has been explained to you and other creationist multiple times.
> 
> Are you dense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so a Orthodontist is specialized in his field. However, specialized, he is no less human. He might be taller, stronger, wiser, handsomer, but he still is very human ---- with some extra ability.
Click to expand...

Speciation. 

Good gawds, man.

Speciation.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only gawds are those worshipped iin place of the GOD. The remarkable thing is had that meteor made a direct hit, many lives would have been lost. As it is, there was some noise, broken glass and a few bandaids. It is a miracle. Another proof of GOD's abilities.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know if the gawds had intended to wipe out a bunch of humanity but missed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one true GOD never missed in the Bible. Funny that the scientists you trust were caught by surprise...
Click to expand...


You have no way of knowing if any of the gawds missed or not.


----------



## ima

So after the flood, how did all the animals get back to Australia, Hawaii and other far off places from where the boat landed?


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> So after the Flood, how did all the animals get back to Australia, Hawaii and other far off places from where the boat landed?


 After the actual Flood came an Ice Age. This caused ocean depths to drop. Likely such animals lived elsewhere originally and migrated to places prone to support their kind in the brave new Post Flood environment. Scientists say a land bridge once connected Asia to North America. So, there were likely others.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting creationist today are not men of science ?
> 
> 
> 
> no that's not what Underhill was saying.. Underhill was however pointing out the huge differences between you bigoted, bible thumping, ignorant propagandists and the founding fathers.
> to answer your provocation, no creationists are not men or women of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a close look at yourself and your posts you could be the real propagandists. Showing your hatred for people who merely believe in a higher power where does the hatred and contempt come from daws ? What have believers done to you for you to feel this way about them ? You are wrong there are many of us educated in the sciences and believe in the creator and creation.
Click to expand...

lol ... the basis of your whole belief system is if you don't do as we tell you to do then you are going to hell...please not shit about free choice 

if that's not propaganda and hubris .then there is none .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Daws you have yet to understand the difference between microadaptations and macro-evolution I even made my point clear by saying a "non-bacterium".
> 
> 
> You really don't understand your own theory now do you. If humans are just a better form of the ape what did the ape come from ?
> 
> 
> 
> really slapdick? what you fail epically and constantly to understand is your false comparisons are meaningless so instead of answering that inane question,"Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium"- ywc (btw other than is not the same as non! ) I presented actually proof that bacteria do evolve.
> 
> also  micro adaptations and macro-evolution are bullshit creationist pseudoscience AND are not actual scientific terms .
> apes and men had a common ancestor that's WHERE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you what did humans evolve from ? what did apes evolve from ? What did the common ancestor evolve from ?
> 
> Those terms were actually coined by evolutionist please don't force me to continue repeating myself.
> 
> From one of your favorite sites.
> 
> "Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology."
> 
> Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
> 
> What they don't share with their readers there is much debate on what constitutes a completely new species.
> 
> Sure you have different kinds within  a species but that hardly constitutes macroevolution or speciation. We want to know how a Microbe winds up a Microbiologist. They extrapolate from microadaptations to suggest macroevolution but this is what they can't demonstrate that an accumulation of microadaptations leads to a microbe evolving all the way to the Microbiololgist.
Click to expand...

how the fuck is we? if you are not a paid or recognized representative of this imaginary WE then speak for yourself only...almost forgot your oft repeated "question" has been asked and answered .....you like all slapdicks DON'T LIKE THE ANSWER...
OH YEAH,   this meteor strike kinda blows the shit out of your closed system nonsense.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Violence?   Really?
> 
> I see christianity as a myth.  A fraud.   A means of control.   I grew up in it.   Know the book cover to cover and think Jesus teachings, while good, are among the most ignored in the whole bible.
> 
> I see christians as judgmental, hateful, spiteful people who bath in ignorance.
> 
> But violence?   Come on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus spoke of these which you describe providing strength to his words.
> 
> Is this not what we see of many so called Christians leaders of the poast and presence ?
> 
> Mat 23:13  But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of Heaven against men. For you neither go in, nor do you allow those entering to go in.
> Mat 23:14  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and pray at length as a pretense. Therefore you shall receive the greater condemnation.
> Mat 23:15  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you compass sea and the dry land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
> Mat 23:16  Woe to you, blind guides, saying, Whoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor.
> Mat 23:17  Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold?
> Mat 23:18  And, Whoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is a debtor!
> Mat 23:19  Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift?
> Mat 23:20  Therefore whoever shall swear by the altar swears by it, and by all things on it.
> Mat 23:21  And whoever shall swear by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it.
> Mat 23:22  And he who shall swear by Heaven swears by the throne of God, and by Him who sits on it.
> Mat 23:23  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and you have left undone the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy, and faith. You ought to have done these and not to leave the other undone.
> Mat 23:24  Blind guides who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
> Mat 23:25  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of extortion and excess.
> Mat 23:26  Blind Pharisee! First cleanse the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of them may be clean also.
> Mat 23:27  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which indeed appear beautiful outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
> Mat 23:28  Even so you also appear righteous to men outwardly, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
> Mat 23:29  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets, and decorate the tombs of the righteous,
> Mat 23:30  and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
> Mat 23:31  Therefore you are witnesses to yourselves, that you are the sons of those who killed the prophets;
> Mat 23:32  and you fill up the measure of your fathers.
> Mat 23:33  Serpents! Offspring of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
> Mat 23:34  Therefore, behold, I send prophets and wise men and scribes to you. And you will kill and crucify some of them. And some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city;
> Mat 23:35  so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berachiah, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.
> Mat 23:36  Truly I say to you, All these things shall come on this generation.
> Mat 23:37  O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!
> Mat 23:38  Behold, your house is left to you desolate.
> Mat 23:39  For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."
> 
> Mat 15:7  Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
> Mat 15:8  "This people draws near to Me with their mouth, and honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
> Mat 15:9  But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
> 
> 
> Mat 6:5  And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, They have their reward.
> Mat 6:6  But you, when you pray, enter into your room. And shutting your door, pray to your Father in secret; and your Father who sees in secret shall reward you openly.
> 
> Hypocrites and blind guides are gonna pay a price and have brought disrespect to the true God but cannot allow these to mislead them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Our Lord was speaking of the educators of his day. Today, He would be speaking of the Evolutionist and the Democtatic liberal socialist reformer.
> 
> Proof of God: Hundreds injured as meteor fireball screams across the sky in Russia - Cosmic Log
Click to expand...

sorry but you're wrong it proves that interstellar objects do  from time to time hit the earth.
it's no proof god did it. 
were those Russians sinners targeted by god?
or does god have really shitty aim?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really slapdick? what you fail epically and constantly to understand is your false comparisons are meaningless so instead of answering that inane question,"Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium"- ywc (btw other than is not the same as non! ) I presented actually proof that bacteria do evolve.
> 
> also  micro adaptations and macro-evolution are bullshit creationist pseudoscience AND are not actual scientific terms .
> apes and men had a common ancestor that's WHERE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you what did humans evolve from ? what did apes evolve from ? What did the common ancestor evolve from ?
> 
> Those terms were actually coined by evolutionist please don't force me to continue repeating myself.
> 
> From one of your favorite sites.
> 
> "Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology."
> 
> Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
> 
> What they don't share with their readers there is much debate on what constitutes a completely new species.
> 
> Sure you have different kinds within  a species but that hardly constitutes macroevolution or speciation. We want to know how a Microbe winds up a Microbiologist. They extrapolate from microadaptations to suggest macroevolution but this is what they can't demonstrate that an accumulation of microadaptations leads to a microbe evolving all the way to the Microbiololgist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusion and ignorance deries from not reading the link you posted.
> 
> Speciation has been observed. This has been explained to you and other creationist multiple times.
> 
> Are you dense?
Click to expand...


Your lack of comprehension of my argument causes ignorant statements from you. Speciation is a tough argument for your side when the community is divided over what constitutes  a species. If you want to call the many different dog breeds macroevolution  or speciation that is fine and that is what you're in a sense doing but you will never see any breed of canine be a non-canine get it ?

You're asking the one that holds a degree in molecular biology if he is dense  Like I said I will ignore your posts again. Listen to me really good,I agree with very little of that sites opinions, I was just merely pointing out the ignorance of daws and the others here that don't know what they are talking about.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your confusion and ignorance deries from not reading the link you posted.
> 
> Speciation has been observed. This has been explained to you and other creationist multiple times.
> 
> Are you dense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so a Orthodontist is specialized in his field. However, specialized, he is no less human. He might be taller, stronger, wiser, handsomer, but he still is very human ---- with some extra ability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speciation.
> 
> Good gawds, man.
> 
> Speciation.
Click to expand...


Define a species and let me point out how your definition will contain contradictions are you ready ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> So after the flood, how did all the animals get back to Australia, Hawaii and other far off places from where the boat landed?



This has been addressed already but the question should be answered by your side as well. The creationist actually agree with evolutionist on this answer


----------



## Youwerecreated

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So after the Flood, how did all the animals get back to Australia, Hawaii and other far off places from where the boat landed?
> 
> 
> 
> After the actual Flood came an Ice Age. This caused ocean depths to drop. Likely such animals lived elsewhere originally and migrated to places prone to support their kind in the brave new Post Flood environment. Scientists say a land bridge once connected Asia to North America. So, there were likely others.
Click to expand...


Good answer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no that's not what Underhill was saying.. Underhill was however pointing out the huge differences between you bigoted, bible thumping, ignorant propagandists and the founding fathers.
> to answer your provocation, no creationists are not men or women of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take a close look at yourself and your posts you could be the real propagandists. Showing your hatred for people who merely believe in a higher power where does the hatred and contempt come from daws ? What have believers done to you for you to feel this way about them ? You are wrong there are many of us educated in the sciences and believe in the creator and creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol ... the basis of your whole belief system is if you don't do as we tell you to do then you are going to hell...please not shit about free choice
> 
> if that's not propaganda and hubris .then there is none .
Click to expand...


You're stereotyping daws,I do not believe that hell is the kind of place that many Christians and atheists take it as. A careful study shows what kind of place Hell really is.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really slapdick? what you fail epically and constantly to understand is your false comparisons are meaningless so instead of answering that inane question,"Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium"- ywc (btw other than is not the same as non! ) I presented actually proof that bacteria do evolve.
> 
> also  micro adaptations and macro-evolution are bullshit creationist pseudoscience AND are not actual scientific terms .
> apes and men had a common ancestor that's WHERE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you what did humans evolve from ? what did apes evolve from ? What did the common ancestor evolve from ?
> 
> Those terms were actually coined by evolutionist please don't force me to continue repeating myself.
> 
> From one of your favorite sites.
> 
> "Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology."
> 
> Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
> 
> What they don't share with their readers there is much debate on what constitutes a completely new species.
> 
> Sure you have different kinds within  a species but that hardly constitutes macroevolution or speciation. We want to know how a Microbe winds up a Microbiologist. They extrapolate from microadaptations to suggest macroevolution but this is what they can't demonstrate that an accumulation of microadaptations leads to a microbe evolving all the way to the Microbiololgist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how the fuck is we? if you are not a paid or recognized representative of this imaginary WE then speak for yourself only...almost forgot your oft repeated "question" has been asked and answered .....you like all slapdicks DON'T LIKE THE ANSWER...
> OH YEAH,   this meteor strike kinda blows the shit out of your closed system nonsense.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to duck and avoid that your ignorance was on clear display once again ? I even showed it from one of your favorite sites you run to when the questions get to tough for you to answer.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take a close look at yourself and your posts you could be the real propagandists. Showing your hatred for people who merely believe in a higher power where does the hatred and contempt come from daws ? What have believers done to you for you to feel this way about them ? You are wrong there are many of us educated in the sciences and believe in the creator and creation.
> 
> 
> 
> lol ... the basis of your whole belief system is if you don't do as we tell you to do then you are going to hell...please not shit about free choice
> 
> if that's not propaganda and hubris .then there is none .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're stereotyping daws,I do not believe that hell is the kind of place that many Christians and atheists take it as. A careful study shows what kind of place Hell really is.
Click to expand...

are you really this fucking dumb, no I'm not stereotyping the fact is you believe in hell no matter how you try to candy coat it.  so my statements stands


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you what did humans evolve from ? what did apes evolve from ? What did the common ancestor evolve from ?
> 
> Those terms were actually coined by evolutionist please don't force me to continue repeating myself.
> 
> From one of your favorite sites.
> 
> "Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology."
> 
> Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
> 
> What they don't share with their readers there is much debate on what constitutes a completely new species.
> 
> Sure you have different kinds within  a species but that hardly constitutes macroevolution or speciation. We want to know how a Microbe winds up a Microbiologist. They extrapolate from microadaptations to suggest macroevolution but this is what they can't demonstrate that an accumulation of microadaptations leads to a microbe evolving all the way to the Microbiololgist.
> 
> 
> 
> how the fuck is we? if you are not a paid or recognized representative of this imaginary WE then speak for yourself only...almost forgot your oft repeated "question" has been asked and answered .....you like all slapdicks DON'T LIKE THE ANSWER...
> OH YEAH,   this meteor strike kinda blows the shit out of your closed system nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to duck and avoid that your ignorance was on clear display once again ? I even showed it from one of your favorite sites you run to when the questions get to tough for you to answer.
Click to expand...

sorry, you must be looking in the mirror again. my statement stands. 

OH YEAH,   this meteor strike kinda blows the shit out of your closed system nonsense.


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how the fuck is we? if you are not a paid or recognized representative of this imaginary WE then speak for yourself only...almost forgot your oft repeated "question" has been asked and answered .....you like all slapdicks DON'T LIKE THE ANSWER...
> OH YEAH,   this meteor strike kinda blows the shit out of your closed system nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to duck and avoid that your ignorance was on clear display once again ? I even showed it from one of your favorite sites you run to when the questions get to tough for you to answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry, you must be looking in the mirror again. my statement stands.
> 
> OH YEAH,   this meteor strike kinda blows the shit out of your closed system nonsense.
Click to expand...


Closed smosed! The entire Universe is God's domain. It all is one and the same. Every part needs the other. There is nothing independent of GOD.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you what did humans evolve from ? what did apes evolve from ? What did the common ancestor evolve from ?
> 
> Those terms were actually coined by evolutionist please don't force me to continue repeating myself.
> 
> From one of your favorite sites.
> 
> "Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology."
> 
> Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
> 
> What they don't share with their readers there is much debate on what constitutes a completely new species.
> 
> Sure you have different kinds within  a species but that hardly constitutes macroevolution or speciation. We want to know how a Microbe winds up a Microbiologist. They extrapolate from microadaptations to suggest macroevolution but this is what they can't demonstrate that an accumulation of microadaptations leads to a microbe evolving all the way to the Microbiololgist.
> 
> 
> 
> Your confusion and ignorance deries from not reading the link you posted.
> 
> Speciation has been observed. This has been explained to you and other creationist multiple times.
> 
> Are you dense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of comprehension of my argument causes ignorant statements from you. Speciation is a tough argument for your side when the community is divided over what constitutes  a species. If you want to call the many different dog breeds macroevolution  or speciation that is fine and that is what you're in a sense doing but you will never see any breed of canine be a non-canine get it ?
> 
> You're asking the one that holds a degree in molecular biology if he is dense  Like I said I will ignore your posts again. Listen to me really good,I agree with very little of that sites opinions, I was just merely pointing out the ignorance of daws and the others here that don't know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...


The problem youre having is that you dont have an argument. Speciation is a not a tough argumenr at all. Obviously, it presents a great deal of difficulty for your side (the side that needs to invoke magic and supermagical forces), because that is all that that fundie zealots can produce. Additionally, it's quite evident that like so many of the lies you post, your claim to holding a degree in molecular biology is a farce. The vocabulary you possess in those rare circumstances when you attempt to define biological terms in your own words is a joke. Your copying and pasting from Harun Yaya makes your weak attempts at discussion regarding biology a total fraud. 

The observance of speciation isn't a problem for biologists and the study of  evolution. Evolution actually is observed in the present with living species. Being ignorant of science and refusing to allow for science to supplant ancient myths is a problem for the fundie zealot. Its a well understood field of science. Fundie zealots hear the word _species_ and copy /paste siliness from creationist websites Species can be many biological organisms such as fruit flies, or daffodils. Look at Observed Instances ofSpeciation: Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Instances of Speciation:  Some More Observed Speciation Events

Your frantic anti-science agenda is rife with falsehoods perpetuated by creationist, who believe it is okay to lie, deceive and promote fear and superstition in order to "save souls".
In order to disprove evolution, (macroevolution or otherwise), critics (fundie christians) need to demonstrate that the sorts of changes to organisms cannot and have not occurred. This will be impossible for creationist, since we have observed, in human, not geologic timeframes, speciation happening, morphological changes and the genetic changes are understood and in many cases reproducible.

As with all frantic creationist anti-science rhetoric intended to discredit hard, scientific evidence, your efforts are an abysmal failure. You say that design requires a designer. Quite clearly, it then falls to creationist to demonstrate what evidence they have to require that the world was designed not just by any designer but your specific, alleged designer. The natural world is certainly complex, and complexity requires explanations, not hand-me-down, invented designer gawds.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to duck and avoid that your ignorance was on clear display once again ? I even showed it from one of your favorite sites you run to when the questions get to tough for you to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, you must be looking in the mirror again. my statement stands.
> 
> OH YEAH,   this meteor strike kinda blows the shit out of your closed system nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Closed smosed! The entire Universe is God's domain. It all is one and the same. Every part needs the other. There is nothing independent of GOD.
Click to expand...


Of course it is dear.

Here, have a cookie.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So after the Flood, how did all the animals get back to Australia, Hawaii and other far off places from where the boat landed?
> 
> 
> 
> After the actual Flood came an Ice Age. This caused ocean depths to drop. Likely such animals lived elsewhere originally and migrated to places prone to support their kind in the brave new Post Flood environment. Scientists say a land bridge once connected Asia to North America. So, there were likely others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good answer.
Click to expand...


Pointless babble.

The christian bibles tales of a global flood have been thoroughly debunked.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol ... the basis of your whole belief system is if you don't do as we tell you to do then you are going to hell...please not shit about free choice
> 
> if that's not propaganda and hubris .then there is none .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're stereotyping daws,I do not believe that hell is the kind of place that many Christians and atheists take it as. A careful study shows what kind of place Hell really is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you really this fucking dumb, no I'm not stereotyping the fact is you believe in hell no matter how you try to candy coat it.  so my statements stands
Click to expand...


Yes I believe Hell is nothing more then the Grave some will go there for everlasting death and some will be resurrected from there to everlasting life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how the fuck is we? if you are not a paid or recognized representative of this imaginary WE then speak for yourself only...almost forgot your oft repeated "question" has been asked and answered .....you like all slapdicks DON'T LIKE THE ANSWER...
> OH YEAH,   this meteor strike kinda blows the shit out of your closed system nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to duck and avoid that your ignorance was on clear display once again ? I even showed it from one of your favorite sites you run to when the questions get to tough for you to answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry, you must be looking in the mirror again. my statement stands.
> 
> OH YEAH,   this meteor strike kinda blows the shit out of your closed system nonsense.
Click to expand...


How do you figure lol ? we know meteors have passed through the atmosphere without burning completely up. What do you think metal detectors find all the time ? But I would like you to explain to me why this proves it's an open system ? Heck by your reasoning the sun would prove it was an open system. The atmoshere is there for several reasons but to complex to explain it to you it is there to protect Gods creation.


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> Proof of God: Hundreds injured as meteor fireball screams across the sky in Russia - Cosmic Log



Just how is this proof of god?


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof of God: Hundreds injured as meteor fireball screams across the sky in Russia - Cosmic Log
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how is this proof of god?
Click to expand...


What is the chance of a meteor of that size stricking the earth or exploding over a town or city and not killing hundreds if not thousands of people. As it is, this meteor was not even the one observed by scientists (yet they published that one would come close to the earth that very same day ---- but not hit it). Now, had this meteror come in at a steeper angle, it would have likely hit a populated area. 

So, here we have a report that on a given day a meteor was going to come close to earth. So, there is a warning of sorts. Next another meteor (totally unforeseen) does come but misses landing on a populated area. The injuries are from broken glass and not a thermal explosion... And you don't see God in any of this?


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof of God: Hundreds injured as meteor fireball screams across the sky in Russia - Cosmic Log
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how is this proof of god?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the chance of a meteor of that size stricking the earth or exploding over a town or city and not killing hundreds if not thousands of people. As it is, this meteor was not even the one observed by scientists (yet they published that one would come close to the earth that very same day ---- but not hit it). Now, had this meteror come in at a steeper angle, it would have likely hit a populated area.
> 
> So, here we have a report that on a given day a meteor was going to come close to earth. So, there is a warning of sorts. Next another meteor (totally unforeseen) does come but misses landing on a populated area. The injuries are from broken glass and not a thermal explosion... And you don't see God in any of this?
Click to expand...


The earth is mostly water and most of the land is unoccupied, so the chances of it hitting a populated are are really quite small, and this one did (most meteors don't hit the ground but explode over it, no matter what the angle of descent). 1000 or so people were injured. So what's your point? God saved them from being wiped out? You're nuts. It was a TOTALLY random event.
So you're saying that god wiped out the dinosaurs on purpose with a massive asteroid or didn't he see it coming?


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to duck and avoid that your ignorance was on clear display once again ? I even showed it from one of your favorite sites you run to when the questions get to tough for you to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, you must be looking in the mirror again. my statement stands.
> 
> OH YEAH,   this meteor strike kinda blows the shit out of your closed system nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Closed smosed! The entire Universe is God's domain. It all is one and the same. Every part needs the other. There is nothing independent of GOD.
Click to expand...

ywc would disagree.
but as always you have no proof that it's your god or any other god's domain.
just a wish!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're stereotyping daws,I do not believe that hell is the kind of place that many Christians and atheists take it as. A careful study shows what kind of place Hell really is.
> 
> 
> 
> are you really this fucking dumb, no I'm not stereotyping the fact is you believe in hell no matter how you try to candy coat it.  so my statements stands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I believe Hell is nothing more then the Grave some will go there for everlasting death and some will be resurrected from there to everlasting life.
Click to expand...

still more propaganda


----------



## ima

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you really this fucking dumb, no I'm not stereotyping the fact is you believe in hell no matter how you try to candy coat it.  so my statements stands
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I believe Hell is nothing more then the Grave some will go there for everlasting death and some will be resurrected from there to everlasting life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still more propaganda
Click to expand...


So youw, will god resurrect any muslims or jews, or just your favorite people?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to duck and avoid that your ignorance was on clear display once again ? I even showed it from one of your favorite sites you run to when the questions get to tough for you to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, you must be looking in the mirror again. my statement stands.
> 
> OH YEAH,   this meteor strike kinda blows the shit out of your closed system nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure lol ? we know meteors have passed through the atmosphere without burning completely up. What do you think metal detectors find all the time ? But I would like you to explain to me why this proves it's an open system ? Heck by your reasoning the sun would prove it was an open system. The atmoshere is there for several reasons but to complex to explain it to you it is there to protect Gods creation.
Click to expand...

lol lol  you've contradicted yourself yet again :

closed system
An isolated system that has no interaction with its external environment. Closed systems with outputs are knowable only thorough their outputs which are not dependent on the system being a closed or open system. Closed systems without any output are knowable only from within. See also entropy.


Read more: What is closed system? definition and meaning

the sun does proves it's an open system it's  energy is what power the earth .
who's ignorant?


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof of God: Hundreds injured as meteor fireball screams across the sky in Russia - Cosmic Log
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just how is this proof of god?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the chance of a meteor of that size stricking the earth or exploding over a town or city and not killing hundreds if not thousands of people. As it is, this meteor was not even the one observed by scientists (yet they published that one would come close to the earth that very same day ---- but not hit it). Now, had this meteror come in at a steeper angle, it would have likely hit a populated area.
> 
> So, here we have a report that on a given day a meteor was going to come close to earth. So, there is a warning of sorts. Next another meteor (totally unforeseen) does come but misses landing on a populated area. The injuries are from broken glass and not a thermal explosion... And you don't see God in any of this?
Click to expand...

lol.... you did know that there are only a handful of observatories that scan then sky for asteroids. 
together all of them can only scan 10% of the sky at any time.
so the odds of seeing  all potential asteroid strikes is (pun intended ) astronomical!
your specious conjecture about it being gods work is just silly.


----------



## Vandalshandle

God sent a meteor just to get our attention? Guess he was telling me to remember to turn off the lights before I went to bed last week when I saw one streaking across the sky while I was sitting on my patio


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just how is this proof of god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the chance of a meteor of that size stricking the earth or exploding over a town or city and not killing hundreds if not thousands of people. As it is, this meteor was not even the one observed by scientists (yet they published that one would come close to the earth that very same day ---- but not hit it). Now, had this meteror come in at a steeper angle, it would have likely hit a populated area.
> 
> So, here we have a report that on a given day a meteor was going to come close to earth. So, there is a warning of sorts. Next another meteor (totally unforeseen) does come but misses landing on a populated area. The injuries are from broken glass and not a thermal explosion... And you don't see God in any of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The earth is mostly water and most of the land is unoccupied, so the chances of it hitting a populated are are really quite small, and this one did (most meteors don't hit the ground but explode over it, no matter what the angle of descent). 1000 or so people were injured. So what's your point? God saved them from being wiped out? You're nuts. It was a TOTALLY random event.
> So you're saying that god wiped out the dinosaurs on purpose with a massive asteroid or didn't he see it coming?
Click to expand...


No, I believe that there were at least baby dinosaurs on the Ark and they made it through the Flood. They just didn't do so well around St. George.

And if a Meteor hit the ocean, well, let's say "Sandy" would have seemed like a sun shower...  Injured is not dead. And God didn't design the flimsey glass windows. You're nuts because everything happens for a reason.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the chance of a meteor of that size stricking the earth or exploding over a town or city and not killing hundreds if not thousands of people. As it is, this meteor was not even the one observed by scientists (yet they published that one would come close to the earth that very same day ---- but not hit it). Now, had this meteror come in at a steeper angle, it would have likely hit a populated area.
> 
> So, here we have a report that on a given day a meteor was going to come close to earth. So, there is a warning of sorts. Next another meteor (totally unforeseen) does come but misses landing on a populated area. The injuries are from broken glass and not a thermal explosion... And you don't see God in any of this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The earth is mostly water and most of the land is unoccupied, so the chances of it hitting a populated are are really quite small, and this one did (most meteors don't hit the ground but explode over it, no matter what the angle of descent). 1000 or so people were injured. So what's your point? God saved them from being wiped out? You're nuts. It was a TOTALLY random event.
> So you're saying that god wiped out the dinosaurs on purpose with a massive asteroid or didn't he see it coming?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I believe that there were at least baby dinosaurs on the Ark and they made it through the Flood. They just didn't do so well around St. George.
> 
> And if a Meteor hit the ocean, well, let's say "Sandy" would have seemed like a sun shower...  Injured is not dead. And God didn't design the flimsey glass windows. You're nuts because everything happens for a reason.
Click to expand...

again you're wrong totally wrong .
the yarn about the ark and dinosaurs is pure fantasy.
as to things happening for a reason... shit happens and we make up reason for why...and most of those are wrong .
yours is specious at best.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I believe Hell is nothing more then the Grave some will go there for everlasting death and some will be resurrected from there to everlasting life.
> 
> 
> 
> still more propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So youw, will god resurrect any muslims or jews, or just your favorite people?
Click to expand...


God will resurrect all that he has not judged and put to death already. Some will be resurrected to face God for their everlasting punishment which is death. The others a resurrection to everlasting life. All men will see the one they eiither accepted or denied.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, you must be looking in the mirror again. my statement stands.
> 
> OH YEAH,   this meteor strike kinda blows the shit out of your closed system nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure lol ? we know meteors have passed through the atmosphere without burning completely up. What do you think metal detectors find all the time ? But I would like you to explain to me why this proves it's an open system ? Heck by your reasoning the sun would prove it was an open system. The atmoshere is there for several reasons but to complex to explain it to you it is there to protect Gods creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol lol  you've contradicted yourself yet again :
> 
> closed system
> An isolated system that has no interaction with its external environment. Closed systems with outputs are knowable only thorough their outputs which are not dependent on the system being a closed or open system. Closed systems without any output are knowable only from within. See also entropy.
> 
> 
> Read more: What is closed system? definition and meaning
> 
> the sun does proves it's an open system it's  energy is what power the earth .
> who's ignorant?
Click to expand...


You are the one that is still ignorant and don't fully understand what the atmosphere does for this planet.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> The earth is mostly water and most of the land is unoccupied, so the chances of it hitting a populated are are really quite small, and this one did (most meteors don't hit the ground but explode over it, no matter what the angle of descent). 1000 or so people were injured. So what's your point? God saved them from being wiped out? You're nuts. It was a TOTALLY random event.
> So you're saying that god wiped out the dinosaurs on purpose with a massive asteroid or didn't he see it coming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I believe that there were at least baby dinosaurs on the Ark and they made it through the Flood. They just didn't do so well around St. George.
> 
> And if a Meteor hit the ocean, well, let's say "Sandy" would have seemed like a sun shower...  Injured is not dead. And God didn't design the flimsey glass windows. You're nuts because everything happens for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again you're wrong totally wrong .
> the yarn about the ark and dinosaurs is pure fantasy.
> as to things happening for a reason... shit happens and we make up reason for why...and most of those are wrong .
> yours is specious at best.
Click to expand...


What do you think science is ? You make crap up and hope it's not proven wrong,then when it is proven wrong you move the goalposts and present another explanation until it's proven wrong. This way they can use the claim it's both fact and theory.


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the chance of a meteor of that size stricking the earth or exploding over a town or city and not killing hundreds if not thousands of people. As it is, this meteor was not even the one observed by scientists (yet they published that one would come close to the earth that very same day ---- but not hit it). Now, had this meteror come in at a steeper angle, it would have likely hit a populated area.
> 
> So, here we have a report that on a given day a meteor was going to come close to earth. So, there is a warning of sorts. Next another meteor (totally unforeseen) does come but misses landing on a populated area. The injuries are from broken glass and not a thermal explosion... And you don't see God in any of this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The earth is mostly water and most of the land is unoccupied, so the chances of it hitting a populated are are really quite small, and this one did (most meteors don't hit the ground but explode over it, no matter what the angle of descent). 1000 or so people were injured. So what's your point? God saved them from being wiped out? You're nuts. It was a TOTALLY random event.
> So you're saying that god wiped out the dinosaurs on purpose with a massive asteroid or didn't he see it coming?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I believe that there were at least baby dinosaurs on the Ark and they made it through the Flood. They just didn't do so well around St. George.
> 
> And if a Meteor hit the ocean, well, let's say "Sandy" would have seemed like a sun shower...  Injured is not dead. And God didn't design the flimsey glass windows. You're nuts because everything happens for a reason.
Click to expand...

Dinosaurs are found in layers of sediment that are far older than 4 or 5000 years. How long ago was the Noah thing supposed to have happened? Anyways, some baby dinosaurs were massive and couldn't fit on his boat. Plus they'd eat all the other animals in 40 days.
I have another question: if the world was covered in water, where did all the water go after 40 days?


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> The earth is mostly water and most of the land is unoccupied, so the chances of it hitting a populated are are really quite small, and this one did (most meteors don't hit the ground but explode over it, no matter what the angle of descent). 1000 or so people were injured. So what's your point? God saved them from being wiped out? You're nuts. It was a TOTALLY random event.
> So you're saying that god wiped out the dinosaurs on purpose with a massive asteroid or didn't he see it coming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I believe that there were at least baby dinosaurs on the Ark and they made it through the Flood. They just didn't do so well around St. George.
> 
> And if a Meteor hit the ocean, well, let's say "Sandy" would have seemed like a sun shower...  Injured is not dead. And God didn't design the flimsey glass windows. You're nuts because everything happens for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinosaurs are found in layers of sediment that are far older than 4 or 5000 years. How long ago was the Noah thing supposed to have happened? Anyways, some baby dinosaurs were massive and couldn't fit on his boat. Plus they'd eat all the other animals in 40 days.
> I have another question: if the world was covered in water, where did all the water go after 40 days?
Click to expand...


They (dinosaurs) are found in sediment that is dated older using uniformitarian logic. God created a fully complete universe and earth with a finished ecological system. The Flood buried these large creatures under mud etc.  If I bury a body in what appears to be very ancient sediment, the body doesn't become millions of years old simply because its been there only 5000. God chose the animals to be on the ark. I'm sure He picked tame ones and dinosaur eggs are not that large. We have no idea how fast or even how big dinosaurs could grow. It is very possible that some dinosaurs scientists say were different kinds, actually were one in the same only very old. I have no idea what a 1000 year old dinosaur might look like. And you cannot say that dinosaurs couldn't have lived to be very old...


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> The earth is mostly water and most of the land is unoccupied, so the chances of it hitting a populated are are really quite small, and this one did (most meteors don't hit the ground but explode over it, no matter what the angle of descent). 1000 or so people were injured. So what's your point? God saved them from being wiped out? You're nuts. It was a TOTALLY random event.
> So you're saying that god wiped out the dinosaurs on purpose with a massive asteroid or didn't he see it coming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I believe that there were at least baby dinosaurs on the Ark and they made it through the Flood. They just didn't do so well around St. George.
> 
> And if a Meteor hit the ocean, well, let's say "Sandy" would have seemed like a sun shower...  Injured is not dead. And God didn't design the flimsey glass windows. You're nuts because everything happens for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinosaurs are found in layers of sediment that are far older than 4 or 5000 years. How long ago was the Noah thing supposed to have happened? Anyways, some baby dinosaurs were massive and couldn't fit on his boat. Plus they'd eat all the other animals in 40 days.
> I have another question: if the world was covered in water, where did all the water go after 40 days?
Click to expand...


You're are relying on fallible to determine the accurate age of sediment. They also want to claim it took millions of years for strata to form when there is evidence that layers of strata can form over a short period of time like during a catastrophic event.

Also fossils to be preserved they need rapid burial not gradual burial.


----------



## LittleNipper

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I believe that there were at least baby dinosaurs on the Ark and they made it through the Flood. They just didn't do so well around St. George.
> 
> And if a Meteor hit the ocean, well, let's say "Sandy" would have seemed like a sun shower...  Injured is not dead. And God didn't design the flimsey glass windows. You're nuts because everything happens for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> again you're wrong totally wrong .
> the yarn about the ark and dinosaurs is pure fantasy.
> as to things happening for a reason... shit happens and we make up reason for why...and most of those are wrong .
> yours is specious at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think science is ? You make crap up and hope it's not proven wrong,then when it is proven wrong you move the goalposts and present another explanation until it's proven wrong. This way they can use the claim it's both fact and theory.
Click to expand...

Oh please,  uniformitarians have been making things up for years. They need to prove life is the end result of a natural process --- no matter want. When I was in the fifth grade, we were taught that the moon pulled out of what is now the Pacific Ocean. I told the teacher that the theory was bunk and that God made the moon. The teacher said that this was a scientific theory with lots of scientific research behind it. The scientists then knew that the moon is moving away from the earth at a measurable rate and if the earth is a old as they believe, that is proof that the moon pulled out of the earth. Today, scientists no longer believe this ---- they were proven wrong when they got to the moon. Yet my belief is firm.
And I do believe that the movement of the moon is valid proof of a young earth, but of course this involves a Creator. So we are at a stale mate. However, science has nothing to do with it. The fact of a CREATOR does not eliminate science. And the fact that we have science does not disprove the existance God. But one needs to accept that if GOD created the universe, there is no rational logic to insisting that it took billions of years. If God made Adam, there is no reason to presuppose that Adam was nursed from an infant and not created a fully grown and mature man. So, I am of the firm belief (since I know God exists) that God created everything in 6 days (as He revealed in His Word) more like an artist than a demolition expert. And I accept His word because Jesus is the Word made flesh --- the only son emanating directly from the Father.


----------



## newpolitics

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I believe that there were at least baby dinosaurs on the Ark and they made it through the Flood. They just didn't do so well around St. George.
> 
> And if a Meteor hit the ocean, well, let's say "Sandy" would have seemed like a sun shower...  Injured is not dead. And God didn't design the flimsey glass windows. You're nuts because everything happens for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs are found in layers of sediment that are far older than 4 or 5000 years. How long ago was the Noah thing supposed to have happened? Anyways, some baby dinosaurs were massive and couldn't fit on his boat. Plus they'd eat all the other animals in 40 days.
> I have another question: if the world was covered in water, where did all the water go after 40 days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They (dinosaurs) are found in sediment that is dated older using uniformitarian logic. God created a fully complete universe and earth with a finished ecological system. The Flood buried these large creatures under mud etc.  If I bury a body in what appears to be very ancient sediment, the body doesn't become millions of years old simply because its been there only 5000. God chose the animals to be on the ark. I'm sure He picked tame ones and dinosaur eggs are not that large. We have no idea how fast or even how big dinosaurs could grow. It is very possible that some dinosaurs scientists say were different kinds, actually were one in the same only very old. I have no idea what a 1000 year old dinosaur might look like. And you cannot say that dinosaurs couldn't have lived to be very old...
Click to expand...


Uniformitarian logic? You mean like yesterday being the same as today?That's not a contestable notion unless you introduce a demonstrable mechanism that would cause things to be non-uniformitarian. Considering your reason for needing a non-uniformitarian universe is as an ad hoc theory to have your young universe theory make sense, I am certain you will never find any evidence to support this, especially since evidence already confirms and supports uniformity, such as the speed of light being constant everywhere, and there being no known model that would explain it slowing down ever, or being non-uniformitarian.


----------



## Youwerecreated

LittleNipper said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again you're wrong totally wrong .
> the yarn about the ark and dinosaurs is pure fantasy.
> as to things happening for a reason... shit happens and we make up reason for why...and most of those are wrong .
> yours is specious at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think science is ? You make crap up and hope it's not proven wrong,then when it is proven wrong you move the goalposts and present another explanation until it's proven wrong. This way they can use the claim it's both fact and theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please,  uniformitarians have been making things up for years. They need to prove life is the end result of a natural process --- no matter want. When I was in the fifth grade, we were taught that the moon pulled out of what is now the Pacific Ocean. I told the teacher that the theory was bunk and that God made the moon. The teacher said that this was a scientific theory with lots of scientific research behind it. The scientists then knew that the moon is moving away from the earth at a measurable rate and if the earth is a old as they believe, that is proof that the moon pulled out of the earth. Today, scientists no longer believe this ---- they were proven wrong when they got to the moon. Yet my belief is firm.
> And I do believe that the movement of the moon is valid proof of a young earth, but of course this involves a Creator. So we are at a stale mate. However, science has nothing to do with it. The fact of a CREATOR does not eliminate science. And the fact that we have science does not disprove the existance God. But one needs to accept that if GOD created the universe, there is no rational logic to insisting that it took billions of years. If God made Adam, there is no reason to presuppose that Adam was nursed from an infant and not created a fully grown and mature man. So, I am of the firm belief (since I know God exists) that God created everything in 6 days (as He revealed in His Word) more like an artist than a demolition expert. And I accept His word because Jesus is the Word made flesh --- the only son emanating directly from the Father.
Click to expand...


Maybe you misunderstood my point and maybe I chose a poor way to make my point. Now that I read what I posted I am kinda slapping the science community and it was the wrong road to take. Many good things have come from real science and their research. The problem I have is the numbers that are being fed a line of bull with some of the theories that are being taught to our children and because these teachers are in a position to be respected and trusted they are indoctrinating our children with theories they call science  and by looking at the evidence it can easily be seen that it is not real science. The scientific method takes a back seat when it comes to the theory of naturalism.

I love science and that is why it was my major and I worked in the field for several years.  It just became to difficult trying to work along side of the agenda driven. I can verify that a majority of the scientific labs have been highjacked by Idelogical,agenda driven, atheistic evolutionists. They are not a pleasant crowd they seem down right angry and a very bitter crowd. you can see what I am saying on display in this thread.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I believe that there were at least baby dinosaurs on the Ark and they made it through the Flood. They just didn't do so well around St. George.
> 
> And if a Meteor hit the ocean, well, let's say "Sandy" would have seemed like a sun shower...  Injured is not dead. And God didn't design the flimsey glass windows. You're nuts because everything happens for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs are found in layers of sediment that are far older than 4 or 5000 years. How long ago was the Noah thing supposed to have happened? Anyways, some baby dinosaurs were massive and couldn't fit on his boat. Plus they'd eat all the other animals in 40 days.
> I have another question: if the world was covered in water, where did all the water go after 40 days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're are relying on fallible to determine the accurate age of sediment. They also want to claim it took millions of years for strata to form when there is evidence that layers of strata can form over a short period of time like during a catastrophic event.
> 
> Also fossils to be preserved they need rapid burial not gradual burial.
Click to expand...


You're relying on nonsense furthered by creationist. 

CH210: Age of the Earth

Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

Relying on creationist quacks such as Henry Morris for earth science will only result in your further embarrassment.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs are found in layers of sediment that are far older than 4 or 5000 years. How long ago was the Noah thing supposed to have happened? Anyways, some baby dinosaurs were massive and couldn't fit on his boat. Plus they'd eat all the other animals in 40 days.
> I have another question: if the world was covered in water, where did all the water go after 40 days?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They (dinosaurs) are found in sediment that is dated older using uniformitarian logic. God created a fully complete universe and earth with a finished ecological system. The Flood buried these large creatures under mud etc.  If I bury a body in what appears to be very ancient sediment, the body doesn't become millions of years old simply because its been there only 5000. God chose the animals to be on the ark. I'm sure He picked tame ones and dinosaur eggs are not that large. We have no idea how fast or even how big dinosaurs could grow. It is very possible that some dinosaurs scientists say were different kinds, actually were one in the same only very old. I have no idea what a 1000 year old dinosaur might look like. And you cannot say that dinosaurs couldn't have lived to be very old...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uniformitarian logic? You mean like yesterday being the same as today?That's not a contestable notion unless you introduce a demonstrable mechanism that would cause things to be non-uniformitarian. Considering your reason for needing a non-uniformitarian universe is as an ad hoc theory to have your young universe theory make sense, I am certain you will never find any evidence to support this, especially since evidence already confirms and supports uniformity, such as the speed of light being constant everywhere, and there being no known model that would explain it slowing down ever, or being non-uniformitarian.
Click to expand...


Charles Lyell created a new paradigm for geology in 1830 by emphasizing a radical uniformity in nature. Though remarkably successful for over 150 years, his system has fallen into disfavor, partly because as Gould (1987) noted, he conjoined distinct concepts into what was soon dubbed uniformitarianism by William Whewell. Though Whewell did not mean it favorably, the term became a symbol of pride and for 150 years geologists trumpeted it as the fundamental principle of geology (Challinor 1968, p. 331). 

But things have changed. By the late twentieth century, many geologists rejected uniformitarianism and some were calling for eliminating the term (Austin 1979; Shea 1982). Much of the clamor can be traced back to the semantic confusion begun by Lyell. Thanks to historians of science, that confusion has been lessened by a rigorous examination of the multiple concepts subsumed for many years under uniformitarianism, although many appear to believe that the conflicts are resolved by the mere explication of these definitions. 

If this were not enough, another layer of complexity is added by the often-unstated metaphysical battle between Christianity and Naturalism. An early manifestation of this conflict was the mythologyalso begun by Lyellthat recast the origin of the science of geology as a simplistic saga. Even today, the public is told that geology began when scientific uniformitarians (the good guys) finally triumphed over religious catastrophists (the bad guys) and claimed the soul of geology. This cartoonish distortion can be traced to the propaganda of Enlightenment apologists, and is, amazingly, echoed today (for example, Repcheck 2003). Though the polemic trick of pitting religion against science proved helpful to non-theistic elements in both the earth and life sciences during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the logic of that position fails under scrutiny, and its propaganda is more widely recognized as such (for example, Stark 2003). 

Continue

Untangling Uniformitarianism - Answers in Genesis


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I believe that there were at least baby dinosaurs on the Ark and they made it through the Flood. They just didn't do so well around St. George.
> 
> And if a Meteor hit the ocean, well, let's say "Sandy" would have seemed like a sun shower...  Injured is not dead. And God didn't design the flimsey glass windows. You're nuts because everything happens for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs are found in layers of sediment that are far older than 4 or 5000 years. How long ago was the Noah thing supposed to have happened? Anyways, some baby dinosaurs were massive and couldn't fit on his boat. Plus they'd eat all the other animals in 40 days.
> I have another question: if the world was covered in water, where did all the water go after 40 days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They (dinosaurs) are found in sediment that is dated older using uniformitarian logic. God created a fully complete universe and earth with a finished ecological system. The Flood buried these large creatures under mud etc.  If I bury a body in what appears to be very ancient sediment, the body doesn't become millions of years old simply because its been there only 5000. God chose the animals to be on the ark. I'm sure He picked tame ones and dinosaur eggs are not that large. We have no idea how fast or even how big dinosaurs could grow. It is very possible that some dinosaurs scientists say were different kinds, actually were one in the same only very old. I have no idea what a 1000 year old dinosaur might look like. And you cannot say that dinosaurs couldn't have lived to be very old...
Click to expand...


By what mechanism(s) can uniformitarian logic be used to date sedimentary layers?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs are found in layers of sediment that are far older than 4 or 5000 years. How long ago was the Noah thing supposed to have happened? Anyways, some baby dinosaurs were massive and couldn't fit on his boat. Plus they'd eat all the other animals in 40 days.
> I have another question: if the world was covered in water, where did all the water go after 40 days?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're are relying on fallible to determine the accurate age of sediment. They also want to claim it took millions of years for strata to form when there is evidence that layers of strata can form over a short period of time like during a catastrophic event.
> 
> Also fossils to be preserved they need rapid burial not gradual burial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're relying on nonsense furthered by creationist.
> 
> CH210: Age of the Earth
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
> 
> Relying on creationist quacks such as Henry Morris for earth science will only result in your further embarrassment.
Click to expand...


Why do you continue to quote me ?

Some of my views are based in faith but I can admit to it. Some is based on actual evidence. Your problem is you are unwilling to admit the faith needed to believe many of the things you believe. Believe as you wish but until you can provide actual evidence supporting all your views you are no different from the believer in the creator.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs are found in layers of sediment that are far older than 4 or 5000 years. How long ago was the Noah thing supposed to have happened? Anyways, some baby dinosaurs were massive and couldn't fit on his boat. Plus they'd eat all the other animals in 40 days.
> I have another question: if the world was covered in water, where did all the water go after 40 days?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They (dinosaurs) are found in sediment that is dated older using uniformitarian logic. God created a fully complete universe and earth with a finished ecological system. The Flood buried these large creatures under mud etc.  If I bury a body in what appears to be very ancient sediment, the body doesn't become millions of years old simply because its been there only 5000. God chose the animals to be on the ark. I'm sure He picked tame ones and dinosaur eggs are not that large. We have no idea how fast or even how big dinosaurs could grow. It is very possible that some dinosaurs scientists say were different kinds, actually were one in the same only very old. I have no idea what a 1000 year old dinosaur might look like. And you cannot say that dinosaurs couldn't have lived to be very old...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what mechanism(s) can uniformitarian logic be used to date sedimentary layers?
Click to expand...


Uniformitarianism: Charles Lyell


Discrete rock layers containing different fossils reinforced the idea that the Earth's history could be divided into ages marked by catastrophic change. However, gradual change, like that caused by erosion, has also played an important role in the Earth's history. 
Thanks to the pioneering work of researchers such as William Smith, geologists in the early 1800s were able to swiftly organize rock formations into a single colossal record of Earth's history. Many geologists saw in this record a stormy epic, one in which our planet had been convulsed repeatedly by abrupt changes. Mountains were built in catastrophic instants, and in the process whole groups of animals became extinct and were replaced by new species. Giant tropical plants, for example, left their fossils in northern Europe during the Carboniferous Period, never to be seen there again. Earth's history might not fit a strict Biblical narrative any longer, but these revolutions seemed to be a sign that it did have a direction. From its formation, catastrophes altered the planets surface step by step leading towards the present Earth. Life, likewise, had its own arrow through time.

Uniformitarianism: Charles Lyell

This is evidence that could support the creationist view no ? sounds like global flood if you ask me.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're are relying on fallible to determine the accurate age of sediment. They also want to claim it took millions of years for strata to form when there is evidence that layers of strata can form over a short period of time like during a catastrophic event.
> 
> Also fossils to be preserved they need rapid burial not gradual burial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're relying on nonsense furthered by creationist.
> 
> CH210: Age of the Earth
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
> 
> Relying on creationist quacks such as Henry Morris for earth science will only result in your further embarrassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to quote me ?
> 
> Some of my views are based in faith but I can admit to it. Some is based on actual evidence. Your problem is you are unwilling to admit the faith needed to believe many of the things you believe. Believe as you wish but until you can provide actual evidence supporting all your views you are no different from the believer in the creator.
Click to expand...


I think its important to counter creationist lies with fact. For example, you state you are unwilling to admit the faith needed to believe many of the things you believe.  That is an obvious falsehood as there is no faith required to understand natural forces. In order to believe biblical tales and fables, you are forced to accept outrageously silly tales of supernatural events that are utterly contrary to our understanding of the natural world. Without such belief in supermagical events, biblical tales and fables devolve into tales designed to promote fear and superstition.

The acceptance of various tales and fables is merely a matter of choosing to accept the stories (tales and fables) without regard to authenticity or accuracy. It's remarkable that you and others will bicker about - and even defend - the relative strength of such hearsay claims yet you will dismiss facts describing the natural world accepted without such critique.

As for evidences, evidence for gawd(s) is non-existent. It has been part of human culture to invent supernatural agents to explain that which could not already be explained. Whenever there is a gap in our knowledge, it was tempting for cultures and societies to simply throw up their hands in defeat and say 'Gawdidit' (or more frequently 'Thegawdsdidit'). Kings, rulers, pharaohs and "scholars" etc made use of this idea, by claiming for themselves a special ability to receive messages or to translate the true meaning from a divine supernatural ruler, even though the best evidence for their existence was simply the fact that there were some things we didn't understand. Societies grew, codified rituals, passed on these ideas from parent to child with severe warnings for not believing - such as eternal burning and torment and unrealistic 'carrots' for believing e.g an eternity of sensual gratification and so giant structures and substructures grew which evolved (yes, evolved) into the religions we see today. 

Monotheism is currently in vogue for many religions. Multi-gawd religions have been replaced by a one-stop-shopping god of convenience.

Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, and it will eventually go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.

You can always depend on religion that way. Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> They (dinosaurs) are found in sediment that is dated older using uniformitarian logic. God created a fully complete universe and earth with a finished ecological system. The Flood buried these large creatures under mud etc.  If I bury a body in what appears to be very ancient sediment, the body doesn't become millions of years old simply because its been there only 5000. God chose the animals to be on the ark. I'm sure He picked tame ones and dinosaur eggs are not that large. We have no idea how fast or even how big dinosaurs could grow. It is very possible that some dinosaurs scientists say were different kinds, actually were one in the same only very old. I have no idea what a 1000 year old dinosaur might look like. And you cannot say that dinosaurs couldn't have lived to be very old...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By what mechanism(s) can uniformitarian logic be used to date sedimentary layers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uniformitarianism: Charles Lyell
> 
> 
> Discrete rock layers containing different fossils reinforced the idea that the Earth's history could be divided into ages marked by catastrophic change. However, gradual change, like that caused by erosion, has also played an important role in the Earth's history.
> Thanks to the pioneering work of researchers such as William Smith, geologists in the early 1800s were able to swiftly organize rock formations into a single colossal record of Earth's history. Many geologists saw in this record a stormy epic, one in which our planet had been convulsed repeatedly by abrupt changes. Mountains were built in catastrophic instants, and in the process whole groups of animals became extinct and were replaced by new species. Giant tropical plants, for example, left their fossils in northern Europe during the Carboniferous Period, never to be seen there again. Earth's history might not fit a strict Biblical narrative any longer, but these revolutions seemed to be a sign that it did have a direction. From its formation, catastrophes altered the planet&#8217;s surface step by step leading towards the present Earth. Life, likewise, had its own arrow through time.
> 
> Uniformitarianism: Charles Lyell
> 
> This is evidence that could support the creationist view no ? sounds like global flood if you ask me.
Click to expand...


The biblical tale of a global flood has been thoroughly debunked.

Secondly, your "quotes", being from creationist sites are typically unreliable.

http://www.enotes.com/uniformitarianism-reference/uniformitarianism-177611


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I believe that there were at least baby dinosaurs on the Ark and they made it through the Flood. They just didn't do so well around St. George.
> 
> And if a Meteor hit the ocean, well, let's say "Sandy" would have seemed like a sun shower...  Injured is not dead. And God didn't design the flimsey glass windows. You're nuts because everything happens for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> again you're wrong totally wrong .
> the yarn about the ark and dinosaurs is pure fantasy.
> as to things happening for a reason... shit happens and we make up reason for why...and most of those are wrong .
> yours is specious at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think science is ? You make crap up and hope it's not proven wrong,then when it is proven wrong you move the goalposts and present another explanation until it's proven wrong. This way they can use the claim it's both fact and theory.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that Renaissance thing was such a shame. 


"There will never be world peace until Gods house and Gods people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world." 

_-Pat Robertson_


Uh, sorry Pat. Your christian pals already tried that. 

The Christian church managed to keep Europe in the Dark Ages and literally set back humanity by 800 years.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're relying on nonsense furthered by creationist.
> 
> CH210: Age of the Earth
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
> 
> Relying on creationist quacks such as Henry Morris for earth science will only result in your further embarrassment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to quote me ?
> 
> Some of my views are based in faith but I can admit to it. Some is based on actual evidence. Your problem is you are unwilling to admit the faith needed to believe many of the things you believe. Believe as you wish but until you can provide actual evidence supporting all your views you are no different from the believer in the creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it&#8217;s important to counter creationist lies with fact. For example, you state &#8220;&#8230;you are unwilling to admit the faith needed to believe many of the things you believe&#8221;.  That is an obvious falsehood as there is no &#8220;faith&#8221; required to understand natural forces. In order to believe biblical tales and fables, you are forced to accept outrageously silly tales of supernatural events that are utterly contrary to our understanding of the natural world. Without such &#8220;belief&#8221; in supermagical events, biblical tales and fables devolve into tales designed to promote fear and superstition.
> 
> The acceptance of various tales and fables is merely a matter of choosing to accept the stories (tales and fables) without regard to authenticity or accuracy. It's remarkable that you and others will bicker about - and even defend - the relative strength of such hearsay claims yet you will dismiss facts describing the natural world accepted without such critique.
> 
> As for evidences, evidence for gawd(s) is non-existent. It has been part of human culture to invent supernatural agents to explain that which could not already be explained. Whenever there is a gap in our knowledge, it was tempting for cultures and societies to simply throw up their hands in defeat and say 'Gawdidit' (or more frequently 'Thegawdsdidit'). Kings, rulers, pharaohs and "scholars" etc made use of this idea, by claiming for themselves a special ability to receive messages or to translate the true meaning from a divine supernatural ruler, even though the best evidence for their existence was simply the fact that there were some things we didn't understand. Societies grew, codified rituals, passed on these ideas from parent to child with severe warnings for not believing - such as eternal burning and torment and unrealistic 'carrots' for believing e.g an eternity of sensual gratification and so giant structures and substructures grew which evolved (yes, evolved) into the religions we see today.
> 
> Monotheism is currently in vogue for many religions. Multi-gawd religions have been replaced by a one-stop-shopping god of convenience.
> 
> Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, and it will eventually go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.
> 
> You can always depend on religion that way. Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics.
Click to expand...


Fact ? you use this term loosely.


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I believe that there were at least baby dinosaurs on the Ark and they made it through the Flood. They just didn't do so well around St. George.
> 
> And if a Meteor hit the ocean, well, let's say "Sandy" would have seemed like a sun shower...  Injured is not dead. And God didn't design the flimsey glass windows. You're nuts because everything happens for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs are found in layers of sediment that are far older than 4 or 5000 years. How long ago was the Noah thing supposed to have happened? Anyways, some baby dinosaurs were massive and couldn't fit on his boat. Plus they'd eat all the other animals in 40 days.
> I have another question: if the world was covered in water, where did all the water go after 40 days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They (dinosaurs) are found in sediment that is dated older using uniformitarian logic. God created a fully complete universe and earth with a finished ecological system. The Flood buried these large creatures under mud etc.  If I bury a body in what appears to be very ancient sediment, the body doesn't become millions of years old simply because its been there only 5000. God chose the animals to be on the ark. I'm sure He picked tame ones and dinosaur eggs are not that large. We have no idea how fast or even how big dinosaurs could grow. It is very possible that some dinosaurs scientists say were different kinds, actually were one in the same only very old. I have no idea what a 1000 year old dinosaur might look like. And you cannot say that dinosaurs couldn't have lived to be very old...
Click to expand...


Geez, it's like I'm arguing with a guy who's on magic mushrooms or something. 

So you're saying that there exists ancient sediment that is millions of years old? So the earth is older than 6 or 7000 years?
There is no mention of Noah bringing huge eggs or dinosaurs on the ark, you just made that up. And anyways, if Noah did get 2 of EVERY dinosaur, where are they all now? Not ONE survived? So why would god save them from the flood and then let them all die? What's the point?
You can't say that dinosaurs couldn't have flown down from Jupiter in big pink limos either. Doesn't mean it happened like that.
So I still never got an answer to: where did all the water go after the flood? It had to recede to somewhere, no?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> By what mechanism(s) can uniformitarian logic be used to date sedimentary layers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uniformitarianism: Charles Lyell
> 
> 
> Discrete rock layers containing different fossils reinforced the idea that the Earth's history could be divided into ages marked by catastrophic change. However, gradual change, like that caused by erosion, has also played an important role in the Earth's history.
> Thanks to the pioneering work of researchers such as William Smith, geologists in the early 1800s were able to swiftly organize rock formations into a single colossal record of Earth's history. Many geologists saw in this record a stormy epic, one in which our planet had been convulsed repeatedly by abrupt changes. Mountains were built in catastrophic instants, and in the process whole groups of animals became extinct and were replaced by new species. Giant tropical plants, for example, left their fossils in northern Europe during the Carboniferous Period, never to be seen there again. Earth's history might not fit a strict Biblical narrative any longer, but these revolutions seemed to be a sign that it did have a direction. From its formation, catastrophes altered the planets surface step by step leading towards the present Earth. Life, likewise, had its own arrow through time.
> 
> Uniformitarianism: Charles Lyell
> 
> This is evidence that could support the creationist view no ? sounds like global flood if you ask me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The biblical tale of a global flood has been thoroughly debunked.
> 
> Secondly, your "quotes", being from creationist sites are typically unreliable.
> 
> Uniformitarianism (World of Earth Science) Study Guide & Homework Help - eNotes.com
Click to expand...


Ok You have my curiosity,please explain how the global flood has been debunked ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again you're wrong totally wrong .
> the yarn about the ark and dinosaurs is pure fantasy.
> as to things happening for a reason... shit happens and we make up reason for why...and most of those are wrong .
> yours is specious at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think science is ? You make crap up and hope it's not proven wrong,then when it is proven wrong you move the goalposts and present another explanation until it's proven wrong. This way they can use the claim it's both fact and theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that Renaissance thing was such a shame.
> 
> 
> "There will never be world peace until Gods house and Gods people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world."
> 
> _-Pat Robertson_
> 
> 
> Uh, sorry Pat. Your christian pals already tried that.
> 
> The Christian church managed to keep Europe in the Dark Ages and literally set back humanity by 800 years.
Click to expand...


You quote self professed Christians that do not represent all Christians got it ? hmm funny Christians broke free of oppressive leaders to only build a country set up on Christian  principles but you deny this fact. It was not the Christian principles that was the problem it was the oppressive leaders of england that were the problem. God has not endorsed any religion they are creations of man but God did endorse  Christian priciples and the Christian philosophy.


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs are found in layers of sediment that are far older than 4 or 5000 years. How long ago was the Noah thing supposed to have happened? Anyways, some baby dinosaurs were massive and couldn't fit on his boat. Plus they'd eat all the other animals in 40 days.
> I have another question: if the world was covered in water, where did all the water go after 40 days?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They (dinosaurs) are found in sediment that is dated older using uniformitarian logic. God created a fully complete universe and earth with a finished ecological system. The Flood buried these large creatures under mud etc.  If I bury a body in what appears to be very ancient sediment, the body doesn't become millions of years old simply because its been there only 5000. God chose the animals to be on the ark. I'm sure He picked tame ones and dinosaur eggs are not that large. We have no idea how fast or even how big dinosaurs could grow. It is very possible that some dinosaurs scientists say were different kinds, actually were one in the same only very old. I have no idea what a 1000 year old dinosaur might look like. And you cannot say that dinosaurs couldn't have lived to be very old...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geez, it's like I'm arguing with a guy who's on magic mushrooms or something.
> 
> So you're saying that there exists ancient sediment that is millions of years old? So the earth is older than 6 or 7000 years?
> There is no mention of Noah bringing huge eggs or dinosaurs on the ark, you just made that up. And anyways, if Noah did get 2 of EVERY dinosaur, where are they all now? Not ONE survived? So why would god save them from the flood and then let them all die? What's the point?
> You can't say that dinosaurs couldn't have flown down from Jupiter in big pink limos either. Doesn't mean it happened like that.
> So I still never got an answer to: where did all the water go after the flood? It had to recede to somewhere, no?
Click to expand...


What I am saying is that scientists estimated, that given what they see forming today and extrapolating such backwards, they have come to conclusions void of a Creator's handle. Creation scientific logic is that baby dinosaurs were not that large. And scientists presently have no way of knowing how fast dinosaurs even grew. I accept the Biblical revelation from God and have no reason to accept otherwise. Scientists really do not know and I for one am not going to accept their conclusions hook-line-and-sinker.


----------



## LittleNipper

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uniformitarianism: Charles Lyell
> 
> 
> Discrete rock layers containing different fossils reinforced the idea that the Earth's history could be divided into ages marked by catastrophic change. However, gradual change, like that caused by erosion, has also played an important role in the Earth's history.
> Thanks to the pioneering work of researchers such as William Smith, geologists in the early 1800s were able to swiftly organize rock formations into a single colossal record of Earth's history. Many geologists saw in this record a stormy epic, one in which our planet had been convulsed repeatedly by abrupt changes. Mountains were built in catastrophic instants, and in the process whole groups of animals became extinct and were replaced by new species. Giant tropical plants, for example, left their fossils in northern Europe during the Carboniferous Period, never to be seen there again. Earth's history might not fit a strict Biblical narrative any longer, but these revolutions seemed to be a sign that it did have a direction. From its formation, catastrophes altered the planets surface step by step leading towards the present Earth. Life, likewise, had its own arrow through time.
> 
> Uniformitarianism: Charles Lyell
> 
> This is evidence that could support the creationist view no ? sounds like global flood if you ask me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biblical tale of a global flood has been thoroughly debunked.
> 
> Secondly, your "quotes", being from creationist sites are typically unreliable.
> 
> Uniformitarianism (World of Earth Science) Study Guide & Homework Help - eNotes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok You have my curiosity,please explain how the global flood has been debunked ?
Click to expand...


I imagine it is assumed it has been dedunked because a slight majority of the Supreme Court once said there is a separation between STATE and God? And they are perfect and all knowingly without error.


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> They (dinosaurs) are found in sediment that is dated older using uniformitarian logic. God created a fully complete universe and earth with a finished ecological system. The Flood buried these large creatures under mud etc.  If I bury a body in what appears to be very ancient sediment, the body doesn't become millions of years old simply because its been there only 5000. God chose the animals to be on the ark. I'm sure He picked tame ones and dinosaur eggs are not that large. We have no idea how fast or even how big dinosaurs could grow. It is very possible that some dinosaurs scientists say were different kinds, actually were one in the same only very old. I have no idea what a 1000 year old dinosaur might look like. And you cannot say that dinosaurs couldn't have lived to be very old...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, it's like I'm arguing with a guy who's on magic mushrooms or something.
> 
> So you're saying that there exists ancient sediment that is millions of years old? So the earth is older than 6 or 7000 years?
> There is no mention of Noah bringing huge eggs or dinosaurs on the ark, you just made that up. And anyways, if Noah did get 2 of EVERY dinosaur, where are they all now? Not ONE survived? So why would god save them from the flood and then let them all die? What's the point?
> You can't say that dinosaurs couldn't have flown down from Jupiter in big pink limos either. Doesn't mean it happened like that.
> So I still never got an answer to: where did all the water go after the flood? It had to recede to somewhere, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that scientists estimated, that given what they see forming today and extrapolating such backwards, they have come to conclusions void of a Creator's handle. Creation scientific logic is that baby dinosaurs were not that large. And scientists presently have no way of knowing how fast dinosaurs even grew. I accept the Biblical revelation from God and have no reason to accept otherwise. Scientists really do not know and I for one am not going to accept their conclusions hook-line-and-sinker.
Click to expand...


Scientists are merely discovering what a creator created. That that disproves the biblical stories just shows that back then, they didn't know very much scientifically and got some things wrong. So what? Isn't your creator's creation more important as it actually is, rather then how people thought it was 1500 years ago?

SO WHERE DID ALL THE FUCKING WATER GO AFTER THE FLOOD? Does no one here even know?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to quote me ?
> 
> Some of my views are based in faith but I can admit to it. Some is based on actual evidence. Your problem is you are unwilling to admit the faith needed to believe many of the things you believe. Believe as you wish but until you can provide actual evidence supporting all your views you are no different from the believer in the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think its important to counter creationist lies with fact. For example, you state you are unwilling to admit the faith needed to believe many of the things you believe.  That is an obvious falsehood as there is no faith required to understand natural forces. In order to believe biblical tales and fables, you are forced to accept outrageously silly tales of supernatural events that are utterly contrary to our understanding of the natural world. Without such belief in supermagical events, biblical tales and fables devolve into tales designed to promote fear and superstition.
> 
> The acceptance of various tales and fables is merely a matter of choosing to accept the stories (tales and fables) without regard to authenticity or accuracy. It's remarkable that you and others will bicker about - and even defend - the relative strength of such hearsay claims yet you will dismiss facts describing the natural world accepted without such critique.
> 
> As for evidences, evidence for gawd(s) is non-existent. It has been part of human culture to invent supernatural agents to explain that which could not already be explained. Whenever there is a gap in our knowledge, it was tempting for cultures and societies to simply throw up their hands in defeat and say 'Gawdidit' (or more frequently 'Thegawdsdidit'). Kings, rulers, pharaohs and "scholars" etc made use of this idea, by claiming for themselves a special ability to receive messages or to translate the true meaning from a divine supernatural ruler, even though the best evidence for their existence was simply the fact that there were some things we didn't understand. Societies grew, codified rituals, passed on these ideas from parent to child with severe warnings for not believing - such as eternal burning and torment and unrealistic 'carrots' for believing e.g an eternity of sensual gratification and so giant structures and substructures grew which evolved (yes, evolved) into the religions we see today.
> 
> Monotheism is currently in vogue for many religions. Multi-gawd religions have been replaced by a one-stop-shopping god of convenience.
> 
> Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, and it will eventually go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.
> 
> You can always depend on religion that way. Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact ? you use this term loosely.
Click to expand...


I use the term when it's appropriate.

It's just a fact that science has been proven to be reliable for the attainment of knowledge where religious dogma has been a yolk around the neck of humanity. It's not religious dogma promoting fear and superstition that has cured disease, advanced technology and allowed us to explore the solar system, it has been science.

We can use the process of science to perceive existence, and our _reason_ to interpret or categorize it. If you disagree that reason is the keystone of our perception of existence, then please announce what it is you think _is_ the keystone, and cite support for that claim. I would point out to you that to engage in such an exercise immediately requires you to use your powers of reason, and as such would negate your assertion by the very attempt.

While there certainly are things unknown about the Universe, this does not mean they are intrinsically unknowable. In fact, it is irrational beliefs in things such as the supernatural that would make the Universe incomprehensible, which is why I feel that intransigent religious belief systems do Man a great disservice as the promotion of religious fear and superstition negatively affects humanity. 

It has been science that has peeled back the layers of superstition that previously assigned to the gods such tasks as making thunder and lighting, floods and earthquakes. Speaking of shaky foundations, assigning such actions to the will of the gawds has been the definition of shaky foundations.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biblical tale of a global flood has been thoroughly debunked.
> 
> Secondly, your "quotes", being from creationist sites are typically unreliable.
> 
> Uniformitarianism (World of Earth Science) Study Guide & Homework Help - eNotes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok You have my curiosity,please explain how the global flood has been debunked ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I imagine it is assumed it has been dedunked because a slight majority of the Supreme Court once said there is a separation between STATE and God? And they are perfect and all knowingly without error.
Click to expand...


That makes no sense. I can understand your frustration in that your religious dogma is not taken seriously, but your comment is just silly.

The biblical flood tale has been debunked because the religious claims to miracles; psychopathic gawds wiping out humanity, is simply not supported by the rational science.

The biblical flood story is nothing more than a re-telling of earlier flood myths. Like much of the various bibles, the tales and fables are often the re-telling of stories, tales and fables passed down from generation to generation while the origins of the tales and fables have long ago been forgotten and the later re-telling has resulted in embellished and manufactured legend building.


----------



## jack113

Youwerecreated said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think science is ? You make crap up and hope it's not proven wrong,then when it is proven wrong you move the goalposts and present another explanation until it's proven wrong. This way they can use the claim it's both fact and theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please,  uniformitarians have been making things up for years. They need to prove life is the end result of a natural process --- no matter want. When I was in the fifth grade, we were taught that the moon pulled out of what is now the Pacific Ocean. I told the teacher that the theory was bunk and that God made the moon. The teacher said that this was a scientific theory with lots of scientific research behind it. The scientists then knew that the moon is moving away from the earth at a measurable rate and if the earth is a old as they believe, that is proof that the moon pulled out of the earth. Today, scientists no longer believe this ---- they were proven wrong when they got to the moon. Yet my belief is firm.
> And I do believe that the movement of the moon is valid proof of a young earth, but of course this involves a Creator. So we are at a stale mate. However, science has nothing to do with it. The fact of a CREATOR does not eliminate science. And the fact that we have science does not disprove the existance God. But one needs to accept that if GOD created the universe, there is no rational logic to insisting that it took billions of years. If God made Adam, there is no reason to presuppose that Adam was nursed from an infant and not created a fully grown and mature man. So, I am of the firm belief (since I know God exists) that God created everything in 6 days (as He revealed in His Word) more like an artist than a demolition expert. And I accept His word because Jesus is the Word made flesh --- the only son emanating directly from the Father.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you misunderstood my point and maybe I chose a poor way to make my point. Now that I read what I posted I am kinda slapping the science community and it was the wrong road to take. Many good things have come from real science and their research. The problem I have is the numbers that are being fed a line of bull with some of the theories that are being taught to our children and because these teachers are in a position to be respected and trusted they are indoctrinating our children with theories they call science  and by looking at the evidence it can easily be seen that it is not real science. The scientific method takes a back seat when it comes to the theory of naturalism.
> 
> I love science and that is why it was my major and I worked in the field for several years.  It just became to difficult trying to work along side of the agenda driven. I can verify that a majority of the scientific labs have been highjacked by Idelogical,agenda driven, atheistic evolutionists. They are not a pleasant crowd they seem down right angry and a very bitter crowd. you can see what I am saying on display in this thread.
Click to expand...


Dinosaurs are fantasy? lol of course some kook went around the world planting the bones just to throw you off lol.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think science is ? You make crap up and hope it's not proven wrong,then when it is proven wrong you move the goalposts and present another explanation until it's proven wrong. This way they can use the claim it's both fact and theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that Renaissance thing was such a shame.
> 
> 
> "There will never be world peace until Gods house and Gods people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world."
> 
> _-Pat Robertson_
> 
> 
> Uh, sorry Pat. Your christian pals already tried that.
> 
> The Christian church managed to keep Europe in the Dark Ages and literally set back humanity by 800 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You quote self professed Christians that do not represent all Christians got it ? hmm funny Christians broke free of oppressive leaders to only build a country set up on Christian  principles but you deny this fact. It was not the Christian principles that was the problem it was the oppressive leaders of england that were the problem. God has not endorsed any religion they are creations of man but God did endorse  Christian priciples and the Christian philosophy.
Click to expand...


Your self-professed claim to speak on behalf of the gawds and what your gawds what / don't want for christianity is laughable.

It is only the credulous tendency of self-professed interpreters of the will of the gawds to claim that they, and they alone, speak to what the gawds really want and really mean.

As we have seen, that is fundamentally a futile effort given the ambiguous and non-scientific nature of the actual texts. But more to the point, why would anyone feel the need to "scientifically prove" the foundational documents of any religion in the first place? Is the truth or falsehood of the various bibles resting upon what they say about the science?

Further, the truth or falsity of christianity does not depend on what any of the bibles say about a flat earth or a geocentricity. It depends on whether the bibles and the ideology that was manufactured from earlier supernatural / creation myths can pass the much tougher tests of _reason_ and evidence.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> They (dinosaurs) are found in sediment that is dated older using uniformitarian logic. God created a fully complete universe and earth with a finished ecological system. The Flood buried these large creatures under mud etc.  If I bury a body in what appears to be very ancient sediment, the body doesn't become millions of years old simply because its been there only 5000. God chose the animals to be on the ark. I'm sure He picked tame ones and dinosaur eggs are not that large. We have no idea how fast or even how big dinosaurs could grow. It is very possible that some dinosaurs scientists say were different kinds, actually were one in the same only very old. I have no idea what a 1000 year old dinosaur might look like. And you cannot say that dinosaurs couldn't have lived to be very old...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, it's like I'm arguing with a guy who's on magic mushrooms or something.
> 
> So you're saying that there exists ancient sediment that is millions of years old? So the earth is older than 6 or 7000 years?
> There is no mention of Noah bringing huge eggs or dinosaurs on the ark, you just made that up. And anyways, if Noah did get 2 of EVERY dinosaur, where are they all now? Not ONE survived? So why would god save them from the flood and then let them all die? What's the point?
> You can't say that dinosaurs couldn't have flown down from Jupiter in big pink limos either. Doesn't mean it happened like that.
> So I still never got an answer to: where did all the water go after the flood? It had to recede to somewhere, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that scientists estimated, that given what they see forming today and extrapolating such backwards, they have come to conclusions void of a Creator's handle. Creation scientific logic is that baby dinosaurs were not that large. And scientists presently have no way of knowing how fast dinosaurs even grew. I accept the Biblical revelation from God and have no reason to accept otherwise. Scientists really do not know and I for one am not going to accept their conclusions hook-line-and-sinker.
Click to expand...


You can certainly say "...that scientists estimated, that given what they see forming today and extrapolating such backwards...", but of course you would be incorrect to say that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

jack113 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please,  uniformitarians have been making things up for years. They need to prove life is the end result of a natural process --- no matter want. When I was in the fifth grade, we were taught that the moon pulled out of what is now the Pacific Ocean. I told the teacher that the theory was bunk and that God made the moon. The teacher said that this was a scientific theory with lots of scientific research behind it. The scientists then knew that the moon is moving away from the earth at a measurable rate and if the earth is a old as they believe, that is proof that the moon pulled out of the earth. Today, scientists no longer believe this ---- they were proven wrong when they got to the moon. Yet my belief is firm.
> And I do believe that the movement of the moon is valid proof of a young earth, but of course this involves a Creator. So we are at a stale mate. However, science has nothing to do with it. The fact of a CREATOR does not eliminate science. And the fact that we have science does not disprove the existance God. But one needs to accept that if GOD created the universe, there is no rational logic to insisting that it took billions of years. If God made Adam, there is no reason to presuppose that Adam was nursed from an infant and not created a fully grown and mature man. So, I am of the firm belief (since I know God exists) that God created everything in 6 days (as He revealed in His Word) more like an artist than a demolition expert. And I accept His word because Jesus is the Word made flesh --- the only son emanating directly from the Father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you misunderstood my point and maybe I chose a poor way to make my point. Now that I read what I posted I am kinda slapping the science community and it was the wrong road to take. Many good things have come from real science and their research. The problem I have is the numbers that are being fed a line of bull with some of the theories that are being taught to our children and because these teachers are in a position to be respected and trusted they are indoctrinating our children with theories they call science  and by looking at the evidence it can easily be seen that it is not real science. The scientific method takes a back seat when it comes to the theory of naturalism.
> 
> I love science and that is why it was my major and I worked in the field for several years.  It just became to difficult trying to work along side of the agenda driven. I can verify that a majority of the scientific labs have been highjacked by Idelogical,agenda driven, atheistic evolutionists. They are not a pleasant crowd they seem down right angry and a very bitter crowd. you can see what I am saying on display in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs are fantasy? lol of course some kook went around the world planting the bones just to throw you off lol.
Click to expand...


You must have a point with this post but I don't see it.


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, it's like I'm arguing with a guy who's on magic mushrooms or something.
> 
> So you're saying that there exists ancient sediment that is millions of years old? So the earth is older than 6 or 7000 years?
> There is no mention of Noah bringing huge eggs or dinosaurs on the ark, you just made that up. And anyways, if Noah did get 2 of EVERY dinosaur, where are they all now? Not ONE survived? So why would god save them from the flood and then let them all die? What's the point?
> You can't say that dinosaurs couldn't have flown down from Jupiter in big pink limos either. Doesn't mean it happened like that.
> So I still never got an answer to: where did all the water go after the flood? It had to recede to somewhere, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that scientists estimated, that given what they see forming today and extrapolating such backwards, they have come to conclusions void of a Creator's handle. Creation scientific logic is that baby dinosaurs were not that large. And scientists presently have no way of knowing how fast dinosaurs even grew. I accept the Biblical revelation from God and have no reason to accept otherwise. Scientists really do not know and I for one am not going to accept their conclusions hook-line-and-sinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists are merely discovering what a creator created. That that disproves the biblical stories just shows that back then, they didn't know very much scientifically and got some things wrong. So what? Isn't your creator's creation more important as it actually is, rather then how people thought it was 1500 years ago?
> 
> SO WHERE DID ALL THE ... WATER GO AFTER THE FLOOD? Does no one here even know?
Click to expand...


Over two thirds of the earth is under water.  We now live on the tops of plateaus. Some scientists are making assumptions founded on "naturalism" and devoid of the supernatural. What God revealed concerning the creation of space and material goes much further back than 1500 years. What is more important is the spiritual over the material.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, it's like I'm arguing with a guy who's on magic mushrooms or something.
> 
> So you're saying that there exists ancient sediment that is millions of years old? So the earth is older than 6 or 7000 years?
> There is no mention of Noah bringing huge eggs or dinosaurs on the ark, you just made that up. And anyways, if Noah did get 2 of EVERY dinosaur, where are they all now? Not ONE survived? So why would god save them from the flood and then let them all die? What's the point?
> You can't say that dinosaurs couldn't have flown down from Jupiter in big pink limos either. Doesn't mean it happened like that.
> So I still never got an answer to: where did all the water go after the flood? It had to recede to somewhere, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that scientists estimated, that given what they see forming today and extrapolating such backwards, they have come to conclusions void of a Creator's handle. Creation scientific logic is that baby dinosaurs were not that large. And scientists presently have no way of knowing how fast dinosaurs even grew. I accept the Biblical revelation from God and have no reason to accept otherwise. Scientists really do not know and I for one am not going to accept their conclusions hook-line-and-sinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can certainly say "...that scientists estimated, that given what they see forming today and extrapolating such backwards...", but of course you would be incorrect to say that.
Click to expand...


The don't get it right when they examine the material either.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, it's like I'm arguing with a guy who's on magic mushrooms or something.
> 
> So you're saying that there exists ancient sediment that is millions of years old? So the earth is older than 6 or 7000 years?
> There is no mention of Noah bringing huge eggs or dinosaurs on the ark, you just made that up. And anyways, if Noah did get 2 of EVERY dinosaur, where are they all now? Not ONE survived? So why would god save them from the flood and then let them all die? What's the point?
> You can't say that dinosaurs couldn't have flown down from Jupiter in big pink limos either. Doesn't mean it happened like that.
> So I still never got an answer to: where did all the water go after the flood? It had to recede to somewhere, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that scientists estimated, that given what they see forming today and extrapolating such backwards, they have come to conclusions void of a Creator's handle. Creation scientific logic is that baby dinosaurs were not that large. And scientists presently have no way of knowing how fast dinosaurs even grew. I accept the Biblical revelation from God and have no reason to accept otherwise. Scientists really do not know and I for one am not going to accept their conclusions hook-line-and-sinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can certainly say "...that scientists estimated, that given what they see forming today and extrapolating such backwards...", but of course you would be incorrect to say that.
Click to expand...


They don't get it right when they examine the material either. See the following: RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS - Do they prove the earth is billions of years old? ? ChristianAnswers.Net


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that scientists estimated, that given what they see forming today and extrapolating such backwards, they have come to conclusions void of a Creator's handle. Creation scientific logic is that baby dinosaurs were not that large. And scientists presently have no way of knowing how fast dinosaurs even grew. I accept the Biblical revelation from God and have no reason to accept otherwise. Scientists really do not know and I for one am not going to accept their conclusions hook-line-and-sinker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can certainly say "...that scientists estimated, that given what they see forming today and extrapolating such backwards...", but of course you would be incorrect to say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The don't get it right when they examine the material either.
Click to expand...


What is it that they don't get right?

Additionally, aside from examining the material, how does anyone examine the immaterial or supernatural?


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that scientists estimated, that given what they see forming today and extrapolating such backwards, they have come to conclusions void of a Creator's handle. Creation scientific logic is that baby dinosaurs were not that large. And scientists presently have no way of knowing how fast dinosaurs even grew. I accept the Biblical revelation from God and have no reason to accept otherwise. Scientists really do not know and I for one am not going to accept their conclusions hook-line-and-sinker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can certainly say "...that scientists estimated, that given what they see forming today and extrapolating such backwards...", but of course you would be incorrect to say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The don't get it right when they examine the material either. See the following: RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS - Do they prove the earth is billions of years old? ? ChristianAnswers.Net
Click to expand...


Try quoting real scientific studies, you'd look less foolish.


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can certainly say "...that scientists estimated, that given what they see forming today and extrapolating such backwards...", but of course you would be incorrect to say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The don't get it right when they examine the material either. See the following: RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS - Do they prove the earth is billions of years old? ? ChristianAnswers.Net
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try quoting real scientific studies, you'd look less foolish.
Click to expand...


Try to comprehend that scientific investigation is not simply secular and you will look less of a bigot.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can certainly say "...that scientists estimated, that given what they see forming today and extrapolating such backwards...", but of course you would be incorrect to say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The don't get it right when they examine the material either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it that they don't get right?
Click to expand...

When specimens from a known dateable event are examined by labs that are not told this, the age of the specimens that are in fact only a hundred or so years old are dated to be millions. This should call into question the validity of all such "scientific" determinations.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The don't get it right when they examine the material either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it that they don't get right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When specimens from a known dateable event are examined by labs that are not told this, the age of the specimens that are in fact only a hundred or so years old are dated to be millions. This should call into question the validity of all such "scientific" determinations.
Click to expand...


What specimens? What labs?

I suspect you're just making this up as you go.


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The don't get it right when they examine the material either. See the following: RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS - Do they prove the earth is billions of years old? ? ChristianAnswers.Net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try quoting real scientific studies, you'd look less foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to comprehend that scientific investigation is not simply secular and you will look less of a bigot.
Click to expand...


Right after you find some REAL scientists to base your scientific theories on. I wouldn't mind a "christian science" point of view if only they'd use real science to prove their christian points of view.

So my question still stands: where did all the water go after the 40 day flood?


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try quoting real scientific studies, you'd look less foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try to comprehend that scientific investigation is not simply secular and you will look less of a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right after you find some REAL scientists to base your scientific theories on. I wouldn't mind a "christian science" point of view if only they'd use real science to prove their christian points of view.
> 
> So my question still stands: where did all the water go after the 40 day flood?
Click to expand...


Is COSMOS your estimation of "real" scientists/science?

There are whole areas of the ocean that are presently 7 miles deep. Over 2/3rds of the earth is covered with water. Can you not understand that the land masses were once flatter and the oceans shallower? There was more subterranean water prior to the flood.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to comprehend that scientific investigation is not simply secular and you will look less of a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right after you find some REAL scientists to base your scientific theories on. I wouldn't mind a "christian science" point of view if only they'd use real science to prove their christian points of view.
> 
> So my question still stands: where did all the water go after the 40 day flood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is COSMOS your estimation of "real" scientists/science?
> 
> There are whole areas of the ocean that are presently 7 miles deep. Over 2/3rds of the earth is covered with water. Can you not understand that the land masses were once flatter and the oceans shallower? There was more subterranean water prior to the flood.
Click to expand...


Where do you get these quack ideas from? 

It seems to me that "... by magic", is all the explanation needed to explain what the gawds have done.


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting creationist today are not men of science ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course many aren't.    But I'm suggesting a bit more than that.   I think at least some of the founders were intellectuals first and held religion as a cultural nicety.
> 
> I spent a lot of time reading the writings of Jefferson and Franklin.   Both rarely talked about god as anything more than a curiosity.
> 
> So I suspect they (and probably others) were christians as many people today are christians.   They played the game, talked the talk as needed, but really didn't bother with it all that much.
> 
> This is why I don't buy the premise that they were a "godly bunch of men" in the strictest sense.   Even Adams didn't really focus much on religion until later in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The forefathers had a plan and an effective plan for man to be free and proud,a people that would overcome oppression and be free to believe as they choose. Many of these forefathers were influenced by what is taught in the scriptures and possessed Christian view and values. Unfortunately because of the ones that did not heed the Teachings of Christ their actions are being used again'st Gods true followers.
> 
> God told us what to look for and how to Identify his people and how to know who are not his people. It's the works these people do in front of others. He started with the Pharisee's and saducee's but you can see these same hypocrites and blind guides at work in our society today. Jesus refers to them as being from their father the father of lies and Identifies him by the name of satan. Some Christians don't even realize that is who they are representing.
Click to expand...


I find it interesting that you think God wanted people to be free to choose.

Of course he gives people a choice.   But it's essentially a gun at your head.   Choose me or eternal damnation.   Not much of a choice.    More like the choice the Romans in Constantines day gave those who chose the old gods.   Or the choice the inquisitors gave heathens of their day.

I see what the founders did a bit differently.  I see it as an attempt to limit the influence of the church in order to avoid histories mistakes.  It's an effort to curtail the true believers, the fundamentalist, the extremist...


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course many aren't.    But I'm suggesting a bit more than that.   I think at least some of the founders were intellectuals first and held religion as a cultural nicety.
> 
> I spent a lot of time reading the writings of Jefferson and Franklin.   Both rarely talked about god as anything more than a curiosity.
> 
> So I suspect they (and probably others) were christians as many people today are christians.   They played the game, talked the talk as needed, but really didn't bother with it all that much.
> 
> This is why I don't buy the premise that they were a "godly bunch of men" in the strictest sense.   Even Adams didn't really focus much on religion until later in life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The forefathers had a plan and an effective plan for man to be free and proud,a people that would overcome oppression and be free to believe as they choose. Many of these forefathers were influenced by what is taught in the scriptures and possessed Christian view and values. Unfortunately because of the ones that did not heed the Teachings of Christ their actions are being used again'st Gods true followers.
> 
> God told us what to look for and how to Identify his people and how to know who are not his people. It's the works these people do in front of others. He started with the Pharisee's and saducee's but you can see these same hypocrites and blind guides at work in our society today. Jesus refers to them as being from their father the father of lies and Identifies him by the name of satan. Some Christians don't even realize that is who they are representing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that you think God wanted people to be free to choose.
> 
> Of course he gives people a choice.   But it's essentially a gun at your head.   Choose me or eternal damnation.   Not much of a choice.    More like the choice the Romans in Constantines day gave those who chose the old gods.   Or the choice the inquisitors gave heathens of their day.
> 
> I see what the founders did a bit differently.  I see it as an attempt to limit the influence of the church in order to avoid histories mistakes.  It's an effort to curtail the true believers, the fundamentalist, the extremist...
Click to expand...


If one choice is offering you a perfect life under pefect conditons and everlasting life and the other choice is everlasting death you are right that is no choice, but many are choosing everlasting death why ?

Do we not teach our children if you continue to do wrong you will exp punishment ? this is life and it is full of choices but there are consequences for the choices we make sometimes good and sometimes bad things come to us because of our choices. God wants you to make the right choice but he is letting us decide for ourselves.

Would you rather God made that choice for all ?


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forefathers had a plan and an effective plan for man to be free and proud,a people that would overcome oppression and be free to believe as they choose. Many of these forefathers were influenced by what is taught in the scriptures and possessed Christian view and values. Unfortunately because of the ones that did not heed the Teachings of Christ their actions are being used again'st Gods true followers.
> 
> God told us what to look for and how to Identify his people and how to know who are not his people. It's the works these people do in front of others. He started with the Pharisee's and saducee's but you can see these same hypocrites and blind guides at work in our society today. Jesus refers to them as being from their father the father of lies and Identifies him by the name of satan. Some Christians don't even realize that is who they are representing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that you think God wanted people to be free to choose.
> 
> Of course he gives people a choice.   But it's essentially a gun at your head.   Choose me or eternal damnation.   Not much of a choice.    More like the choice the Romans in Constantines day gave those who chose the old gods.   Or the choice the inquisitors gave heathens of their day.
> 
> I see what the founders did a bit differently.  I see it as an attempt to limit the influence of the church in order to avoid histories mistakes.  It's an effort to curtail the true believers, the fundamentalist, the extremist...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one choice is offering you a perfect life under pefect conditons and everlasting life and the other choice is everlasting death you are right that is no choice, but many are choosing everlasting death why ?
Click to expand...


Two reasons.

First, because any god who would force people to make that kind of choice is an asshole and I want nothing to do with him.

And second, because I think it's all shit.   There is no truth in it.  



> Do we not teach our children if you continue to do wrong you will exp punishment ? this is life and it is full of choices but there are consequences for the choices we make sometimes good and sometimes bad things come to us because of our choices. God wants you to make the right choice but he is letting us decide for ourselves.



I teach my children to do what is right.   But I do not teach them to do what is right because otherwise they will face punishment.   I teach them to do what is right because it is the best thing for them and society at large.   It's called the golden rule.   And it makes sense without having someone looking over your shoulder. 



> Would you rather God made that choice for all ?



Um, you mean the god I don't believe in?  

But here is my question.   If there is an all powerful god out there.  Capable of great and wonderful things.    Why would he create a system where people would have to set aside reason and logic and believe in him blindly in order that those people would spend eternity with him?

I think if there was a god out there somewhere, he wouldn't want more faithful followers.   After a few hundred years, hell, after a decade, that would get old.    And if he does, if he is so vane that he needs legions of faithful praising his name for all eternity, I want nothing to do with him.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure lol ? we know meteors have passed through the atmosphere without burning completely up. What do you think metal detectors find all the time ? But I would like you to explain to me why this proves it's an open system ? Heck by your reasoning the sun would prove it was an open system. The atmoshere is there for several reasons but to complex to explain it to you it is there to protect Gods creation.
> 
> 
> 
> lol lol  you've contradicted yourself yet again :
> 
> closed system
> An isolated system that has no interaction with its external environment. Closed systems with outputs are knowable only thorough their outputs which are not dependent on the system being a closed or open system. Closed systems without any output are knowable only from within. See also entropy.
> 
> 
> Read more: What is closed system? definition and meaning
> 
> the sun does proves it's an open system it's  energy is what power the earth .
> who's ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one that is still ignorant and don't fully understand what the atmosphere does for this planet.
Click to expand...

really? that's strange as I learned about the atmospheric strata in junior high..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I believe that there were at least baby dinosaurs on the Ark and they made it through the Flood. They just didn't do so well around St. George.
> 
> And if a Meteor hit the ocean, well, let's say "Sandy" would have seemed like a sun shower...  Injured is not dead. And God didn't design the flimsey glass windows. You're nuts because everything happens for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> again you're wrong totally wrong .
> the yarn about the ark and dinosaurs is pure fantasy.
> as to things happening for a reason... shit happens and we make up reason for why...and most of those are wrong .
> yours is specious at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think science is ? You make crap up and hope it's not proven wrong,then when it is proven wrong you move the goalposts and present another explanation until it's proven wrong. This way they can use the claim it's both fact and theory.
Click to expand...

ahh that what you do.. my pov stands .


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to comprehend that scientific investigation is not simply secular and you will look less of a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right after you find some REAL scientists to base your scientific theories on. I wouldn't mind a "christian science" point of view if only they'd use real science to prove their christian points of view.
> 
> So my question still stands: where did all the water go after the 40 day flood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is COSMOS your estimation of "real" scientists/science?
> 
> There are whole areas of the ocean that are presently 7 miles deep. Over 2/3rds of the earth is covered with water. Can you not understand that the land masses were once flatter and the oceans shallower? There was more subterranean water prior to the flood.
Click to expand...

cosmos a  thirty year old TV show. did carl Sagan turn you down for a date? 
cosmos was a groundbreaking  cutting edge series and has never been proven wrong by real science.
what flood? every culture has a flood myth...you have no actua proof for your assertion.
actual evidence proves you are talking out your ass..


----------



## daws101

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that you think God wanted people to be free to choose.
> 
> Of course he gives people a choice.   But it's essentially a gun at your head.   Choose me or eternal damnation.   Not much of a choice.    More like the choice the Romans in Constantines day gave those who chose the old gods.   Or the choice the inquisitors gave heathens of their day.
> 
> I see what the founders did a bit differently.  I see it as an attempt to limit the influence of the church in order to avoid histories mistakes.  It's an effort to curtail the true believers, the fundamentalist, the extremist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one choice is offering you a perfect life under pefect conditons and everlasting life and the other choice is everlasting death you are right that is no choice, but many are choosing everlasting death why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two reasons.
> 
> First, because any god who would force people to make that kind of choice is an asshole and I want nothing to do with him.
> 
> And second, because I think it's all shit.   There is no truth in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we not teach our children if you continue to do wrong you will exp punishment ? this is life and it is full of choices but there are consequences for the choices we make sometimes good and sometimes bad things come to us because of our choices. God wants you to make the right choice but he is letting us decide for ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I teach my children to do what is right.   But I do not teach them to do what is right because otherwise they will face punishment.   I teach them to do what is right because it is the best thing for them and society at large.   It's called the golden rule.   And it makes sense without having someone looking over your shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather God made that choice for all ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, you mean the god I don't believe in?
> 
> But here is my question.   If there is an all powerful god out there.  Capable of great and wonderful things.    Why would he create a system where people would have to set aside reason and logic and believe in him blindly in order that those people would spend eternity with him?
> 
> I think if there was a god out there somewhere, he wouldn't want more faithful followers.   After a few hundred years, hell, after a decade, that would get old.    And if he does, if he is so vane that he needs legions of faithful praising his name for all eternity, I want nothing to do with him.
Click to expand...

bump!


----------



## Big_D2

Youwerecreated,
Why do you feel that radiometric dating makes assumptions?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that you think God wanted people to be free to choose.
> 
> Of course he gives people a choice.   But it's essentially a gun at your head.   Choose me or eternal damnation.   Not much of a choice.    More like the choice the Romans in Constantines day gave those who chose the old gods.   Or the choice the inquisitors gave heathens of their day.
> 
> I see what the founders did a bit differently.  I see it as an attempt to limit the influence of the church in order to avoid histories mistakes.  It's an effort to curtail the true believers, the fundamentalist, the extremist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one choice is offering you a perfect life under pefect conditons and everlasting life and the other choice is everlasting death you are right that is no choice, but many are choosing everlasting death why ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two reasons.
> 
> First, because any god who would force people to make that kind of choice is an asshole and I want nothing to do with him.
> 
> And second, because I think it's all shit.   There is no truth in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we not teach our children if you continue to do wrong you will exp punishment ? this is life and it is full of choices but there are consequences for the choices we make sometimes good and sometimes bad things come to us because of our choices. God wants you to make the right choice but he is letting us decide for ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I teach my children to do what is right.   But I do not teach them to do what is right because otherwise they will face punishment.   I teach them to do what is right because it is the best thing for them and society at large.   It's called the golden rule.   And it makes sense without having someone looking over your shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather God made that choice for all ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, you mean the god I don't believe in?
> 
> But here is my question.   If there is an all powerful god out there.  Capable of great and wonderful things.    Why would he create a system where people would have to set aside reason and logic and believe in him blindly in order that those people would spend eternity with him?
> 
> I think if there was a god out there somewhere, he wouldn't want more faithful followers.   After a few hundred years, hell, after a decade, that would get old.    And if he does, if he is so vane that he needs legions of faithful praising his name for all eternity, I want nothing to do with him.
Click to expand...


Man's sin caused this choice to exist, it was not Gods doing. God provided the sacrifice for us to have this chance and bring mankind back to him. If you wish to blow off God because you don't like how he dealt with rebellious man you were never one of his sheep that knew his voice and obeyed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol lol  you've contradicted yourself yet again :
> 
> closed system
> An isolated system that has no interaction with its external environment. Closed systems with outputs are knowable only thorough their outputs which are not dependent on the system being a closed or open system. Closed systems without any output are knowable only from within. See also entropy.
> 
> 
> Read more: What is closed system? definition and meaning
> 
> the sun does proves it's an open system it's  energy is what power the earth .
> who's ignorant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that is still ignorant and don't fully understand what the atmosphere does for this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? that's strange as I learned about the atmospheric strata in junior high..
Click to expand...


You must have slept through class by your post.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated,
> Why do you feel that radiometric dating makes assumptions?



Don't believe the method makes assumptions but assumptions are used in the dating method.


Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions - Answers in Genesis


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one choice is offering you a perfect life under pefect conditons and everlasting life and the other choice is everlasting death you are right that is no choice, but many are choosing everlasting death why ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two reasons.
> 
> First, because any god who would force people to make that kind of choice is an asshole and I want nothing to do with him.
> 
> And second, because I think it's all shit.   There is no truth in it.
> 
> 
> 
> I teach my children to do what is right.   But I do not teach them to do what is right because otherwise they will face punishment.   I teach them to do what is right because it is the best thing for them and society at large.   It's called the golden rule.   And it makes sense without having someone looking over your shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather God made that choice for all ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, you mean the god I don't believe in?
> 
> But here is my question.   If there is an all powerful god out there.  Capable of great and wonderful things.    Why would he create a system where people would have to set aside reason and logic and believe in him blindly in order that those people would spend eternity with him?
> 
> I think if there was a god out there somewhere, he wouldn't want more faithful followers.   After a few hundred years, hell, after a decade, that would get old.    And if he does, if he is so vane that he needs legions of faithful praising his name for all eternity, I want nothing to do with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man's sin caused this choice to exist, it was not Gods doing. God provided the sacrifice for us to have this chance and bring mankind back to him. If you wish to blow off God because you don't like how he dealt with rebellious man you were never one of his sheep that knew his voice and obeyed.
Click to expand...

since none of us are sheep (maybe you) it's a false comparison.
even if you were right, what  god /Jesus did was  street theatre, the so called sacrifice is a dog and pony show, Jesus was in no real danger,unless he was lying about resurrection.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that is still ignorant and don't fully understand what the atmosphere does for this planet.
> 
> 
> 
> really? that's strange as I learned about the atmospheric strata in junior high..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have slept through class by your post.
Click to expand...

really? how's that false assumption man?
the atmosphere filters out some harmful radiation not all.
there is not enough oxygen above 30.000 feet to support much life.
air pressure hold us together.
none of theses fact are proof that a god did it. 
so as always you have no real point ...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated,
> Why do you feel that radiometric dating makes assumptions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe the method makes assumptions but assumptions are used in the dating method.
> 
> 
> Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions - Answers in Genesis
Click to expand...

non credible site.


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two reasons.
> 
> First, because any god who would force people to make that kind of choice is an asshole and I want nothing to do with him.
> 
> And second, because I think it's all shit.   There is no truth in it.
> 
> 
> 
> I teach my children to do what is right.   But I do not teach them to do what is right because otherwise they will face punishment.   I teach them to do what is right because it is the best thing for them and society at large.   It's called the golden rule.   And it makes sense without having someone looking over your shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, you mean the god I don't believe in?
> 
> But here is my question.   If there is an all powerful god out there.  Capable of great and wonderful things.    Why would he create a system where people would have to set aside reason and logic and believe in him blindly in order that those people would spend eternity with him?
> 
> I think if there was a god out there somewhere, he wouldn't want more faithful followers.   After a few hundred years, hell, after a decade, that would get old.    And if he does, if he is so vane that he needs legions of faithful praising his name for all eternity, I want nothing to do with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man's sin caused this choice to exist, it was not Gods doing. God provided the sacrifice for us to have this chance and bring mankind back to him. If you wish to blow off God because you don't like how he dealt with rebellious man you were never one of his sheep that knew his voice and obeyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since none of us are sheep (maybe you) it's a false comparison.
> even if you were right, what  god /Jesus did was  street theatre, the so called sacrifice is a dog and pony show, Jesus was in no real danger,unless he was lying about resurrection.
Click to expand...


It isn't a matter of danger. It is a matter of Christ being debased and to suffer for things He is incapable of doing. It is also a matter of Christ assuming a permanent human form for all eternity in order to accomplish what He accomplished. It might be sort of like becoming an ant, and to live as an ant. Would you enjoy giving up your humanity to assume the role of an ant? How much worse was it for God to become a human?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two reasons.
> 
> First, because any god who would force people to make that kind of choice is an asshole and I want nothing to do with him.
> 
> And second, because I think it's all shit.   There is no truth in it.
> 
> 
> 
> I teach my children to do what is right.   But I do not teach them to do what is right because otherwise they will face punishment.   I teach them to do what is right because it is the best thing for them and society at large.   It's called the golden rule.   And it makes sense without having someone looking over your shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, you mean the god I don't believe in?
> 
> But here is my question.   If there is an all powerful god out there.  Capable of great and wonderful things.    Why would he create a system where people would have to set aside reason and logic and believe in him blindly in order that those people would spend eternity with him?
> 
> I think if there was a god out there somewhere, he wouldn't want more faithful followers.   After a few hundred years, hell, after a decade, that would get old.    And if he does, if he is so vane that he needs legions of faithful praising his name for all eternity, I want nothing to do with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man's sin caused this choice to exist, it was not Gods doing. God provided the sacrifice for us to have this chance and bring mankind back to him. If you wish to blow off God because you don't like how he dealt with rebellious man you were never one of his sheep that knew his voice and obeyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since none of us are sheep (maybe you) it's a false comparison.
> even if you were right, what  god /Jesus did was  street theatre, the so called sacrifice is a dog and pony show, Jesus was in no real danger,unless he was lying about resurrection.
Click to expand...


We are related to sheep if we were all the product of evolution


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? that's strange as I learned about the atmospheric strata in junior high..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have slept through class by your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? how's that false assumption man?
> the atmosphere filters out some harmful radiation not all.
> there is not enough oxygen above 30.000 feet to support much life.
> air pressure hold us together.
> none of theses fact are proof that a god did it.
> so as always you have no real point ...
Click to expand...


That atmosphere does much more then you're letting on.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated,
> Why do you feel that radiometric dating makes assumptions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe the method makes assumptions but assumptions are used in the dating method.
> 
> 
> Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> non credible site.
Click to expand...


Say's who / an atheist like you who doesn't have a dog in the hunt


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe the method makes assumptions but assumptions are used in the dating method.
> 
> 
> Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> non credible site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say's who / an atheist like you who doesn't have a dog in the hunt
Click to expand...

It's true. AIG is not credible. Fundies, such as those from AIG, would be expected to press an agenda that serves their religious dogma. There is no reason to expect either objectivity or honesty from creationist.


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one choice is offering you a perfect life under pefect conditons and everlasting life and the other choice is everlasting death you are right that is no choice, but many are choosing everlasting death why ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two reasons.
> 
> First, because any god who would force people to make that kind of choice is an asshole and I want nothing to do with him.
> 
> And second, because I think it's all shit.   There is no truth in it.
> 
> 
> 
> I teach my children to do what is right.   But I do not teach them to do what is right because otherwise they will face punishment.   I teach them to do what is right because it is the best thing for them and society at large.   It's called the golden rule.   And it makes sense without having someone looking over your shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather God made that choice for all ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, you mean the god I don't believe in?
> 
> But here is my question.   If there is an all powerful god out there.  Capable of great and wonderful things.    Why would he create a system where people would have to set aside reason and logic and believe in him blindly in order that those people would spend eternity with him?
> 
> I think if there was a god out there somewhere, he wouldn't want more faithful followers.   After a few hundred years, hell, after a decade, that would get old.    And if he does, if he is so vane that he needs legions of faithful praising his name for all eternity, I want nothing to do with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man's sin caused this choice to exist, it was not Gods doing. God provided the sacrifice for us to have this chance and bring mankind back to him. If you wish to blow off God because you don't like how he dealt with rebellious man you were never one of his sheep that knew his voice and obeyed.
Click to expand...


Keep telling yourself that.

But one last thing.  The bible says god knows past, present and future.  

So if god created man, knowing he would sin, then created the punishment for that sin... how can you hold man responsible for that ethically?  

It's like putting a steak in front of a starving dog then beating it for taking a bite.   You can't reasonably punish the animal for something you instigated.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man's sin caused this choice to exist, it was not Gods doing. God provided the sacrifice for us to have this chance and bring mankind back to him. If you wish to blow off God because you don't like how he dealt with rebellious man you were never one of his sheep that knew his voice and obeyed.
> 
> 
> 
> since none of us are sheep (maybe you) it's a false comparison.
> even if you were right, what  god /Jesus did was  street theatre, the so called sacrifice is a dog and pony show, Jesus was in no real danger,unless he was lying about resurrection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are related to sheep if we were all the product of evolution
Click to expand...


Either that, or we are all the product of incestuous relations if we believe the silly Noah fable.


----------



## ima

So did anyone ever figure where all the water went after the flood?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> non credible site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say's who / an atheist like you who doesn't have a dog in the hunt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's true. AIG is not credible. Fundies, such as those from AIG, would be expected to press an agenda that serves their religious dogma. There is no reason to expect either objectivity or honesty from creationist.
Click to expand...


The same can be said for the other side as well.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two reasons.
> 
> First, because any god who would force people to make that kind of choice is an asshole and I want nothing to do with him.
> 
> And second, because I think it's all shit.   There is no truth in it.
> 
> 
> 
> I teach my children to do what is right.   But I do not teach them to do what is right because otherwise they will face punishment.   I teach them to do what is right because it is the best thing for them and society at large.   It's called the golden rule.   And it makes sense without having someone looking over your shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, you mean the god I don't believe in?
> 
> But here is my question.   If there is an all powerful god out there.  Capable of great and wonderful things.    Why would he create a system where people would have to set aside reason and logic and believe in him blindly in order that those people would spend eternity with him?
> 
> I think if there was a god out there somewhere, he wouldn't want more faithful followers.   After a few hundred years, hell, after a decade, that would get old.    And if he does, if he is so vane that he needs legions of faithful praising his name for all eternity, I want nothing to do with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man's sin caused this choice to exist, it was not Gods doing. God provided the sacrifice for us to have this chance and bring mankind back to him. If you wish to blow off God because you don't like how he dealt with rebellious man you were never one of his sheep that knew his voice and obeyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that.
> 
> But one last thing.  The bible says god knows past, present and future.
> 
> So if god created man, knowing he would sin, then created the punishment for that sin... how can you hold man responsible for that ethically?
> 
> It's like putting a steak in front of a starving dog then beating it for taking a bite.   You can't reasonably punish the animal for something you instigated.
Click to expand...


According to the scriptures Adam and Eve were warned what would happen if they were disobedient and ate from the tree of knowledge ,the tree would open their eyes to evil for which they did not know until sin. They only had to obey one law do not eat from the tree of knowledge.

Gen 2:16  And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree in the garden, 
Gen 2:17  but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. 


Gen 3:1  Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said to the woman, Is it so that God has said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 
Gen 3:2  And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. 
Gen 3:3  But of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die. 

Is this not how our government rules is by laws and there is a price to pay if you break these laws ?

Adam and Eve did not need to eat from the tree, they made the choice and we are all living this life with a choice we are gonna make.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since none of us are sheep (maybe you) it's a false comparison.
> even if you were right, what  god /Jesus did was  street theatre, the so called sacrifice is a dog and pony show, Jesus was in no real danger,unless he was lying about resurrection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are related to sheep if we were all the product of evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either that, or we are all the product of incestuous relations if we believe the silly Noah fable.
Click to expand...


If you believe in the evolutionary fable you are products of incestuous relationships as well.


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man's sin caused this choice to exist, it was not Gods doing. God provided the sacrifice for us to have this chance and bring mankind back to him. If you wish to blow off God because you don't like how he dealt with rebellious man you were never one of his sheep that knew his voice and obeyed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that.
> 
> But one last thing.  The bible says god knows past, present and future.
> 
> So if god created man, knowing he would sin, then created the punishment for that sin... how can you hold man responsible for that ethically?
> 
> It's like putting a steak in front of a starving dog then beating it for taking a bite.   You can't reasonably punish the animal for something you instigated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the scriptures Adam and Eve were warned what would happen if they were disobedient and ate from the tree of knowledge ,the tree would open their eyes to evil for which they did not know until sin. They only had to obey one law do not eat from the tree of knowledge.
> 
> Gen 2:16  And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree in the garden,
> Gen 2:17  but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
> 
> 
> Gen 3:1  Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said to the woman, Is it so that God has said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
> Gen 3:2  And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.
> Gen 3:3  But of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.
> 
> Is this not how our government rules is by laws and there is a price to pay if you break these laws ?
> 
> Adam and Eve did not need to eat from the tree, they made the choice and we are all living this life with a choice we are gonna make.
Click to expand...


Two things.   According to your bible, god created adam and eve knowing they would eat of the tree.   

He then created the rule saying they couldn't.

The most clear cut case of entrapment in sudo-history.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> non credible site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say's who / an atheist like you who doesn't have a dog in the hunt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's true. AIG is not credible. Fundies, such as those from AIG, would be expected to press an agenda that serves their religious dogma. There is no reason to expect either objectivity or honesty from creationist.
Click to expand...


And uniformitarians/evolutionists do not expect their would be associates to adhere to uniformitarian/evolutionist theories..? That doen't sound either honest or objective...


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> So did anyone ever figure where all the water went after the flood?



Where it came from.

Do you realize not counting the water under ground that there are spots in the ocean you could saw off mount everest and drop it in the ocean and when it hit bottom there would  be a mile of water above the top of the mountain ?

71% of the earth's surface is covered by water. How did this planet end up with so much water ? and why is there no other planet like this one ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that.
> 
> But one last thing.  The bible says god knows past, present and future.
> 
> So if god created man, knowing he would sin, then created the punishment for that sin... how can you hold man responsible for that ethically?
> 
> It's like putting a steak in front of a starving dog then beating it for taking a bite.   You can't reasonably punish the animal for something you instigated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the scriptures Adam and Eve were warned what would happen if they were disobedient and ate from the tree of knowledge ,the tree would open their eyes to evil for which they did not know until sin. They only had to obey one law do not eat from the tree of knowledge.
> 
> Gen 2:16  And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree in the garden,
> Gen 2:17  but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
> 
> 
> Gen 3:1  Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said to the woman, Is it so that God has said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
> Gen 3:2  And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.
> Gen 3:3  But of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.
> 
> Is this not how our government rules is by laws and there is a price to pay if you break these laws ?
> 
> Adam and Eve did not need to eat from the tree, they made the choice and we are all living this life with a choice we are gonna make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two things.   According to your bible, god created adam and eve knowing they would eat of the tree.
> 
> He then created the rule saying they couldn't.
> 
> The most clear cut case of entrapment in sudo-history.
Click to expand...


God has never acted on foreknowledge that I know of. God is letting everything run it's course until his final judgement.

The whole thing is will you obey him or will you not that is the question you are answering same as adam and eve.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did anyone ever figure where all the water went after the flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where it came from.
> 
> Do you realize not counting the water under ground that there are spots in the ocean you could saw off mount everest and drop it in the ocean and when it hit bottom there would  be a mile of water above the top of the mountain ?
> 
> 71% of the earth's surface is covered by water. How did this planet end up with so much water ? and why is there no other planet like this one ?
Click to expand...


So where did the water come from? Because no matter how deep the ocean is, you still would have needed more water to cover all the land masses.

And you don't know that there aren't other planets like ours out there in the universe.


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the scriptures Adam and Eve were warned what would happen if they were disobedient and ate from the tree of knowledge ,the tree would open their eyes to evil for which they did not know until sin. They only had to obey one law do not eat from the tree of knowledge.
> 
> Gen 2:16  And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree in the garden,
> Gen 2:17  but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
> 
> 
> Gen 3:1  Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said to the woman, Is it so that God has said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
> Gen 3:2  And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.
> Gen 3:3  But of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.
> 
> Is this not how our government rules is by laws and there is a price to pay if you break these laws ?
> 
> Adam and Eve did not need to eat from the tree, they made the choice and we are all living this life with a choice we are gonna make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things.   According to your bible, god created adam and eve knowing they would eat of the tree.
> 
> He then created the rule saying they couldn't.
> 
> The most clear cut case of entrapment in sudo-history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God has never acted on foreknowledge that I know of. God is letting everything run it's course until his final judgement.
> 
> The whole thing is will you obey him or will you not that is the question you are answering same as adam and eve.
Click to expand...


Why would I?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did anyone ever figure where all the water went after the flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where it came from.
> 
> Do you realize not counting the water under ground that there are spots in the ocean you could saw off mount everest and drop it in the ocean and when it hit bottom there would  be a mile of water above the top of the mountain ?
> 
> 71% of the earth's surface is covered by water. How did this planet end up with so much water ? and why is there no other planet like this one ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where did the water come from? Because no matter how deep the ocean is, you still would have needed more water to cover all the land masses.
> 
> And you don't know that there aren't other planets like ours out there in the universe.
Click to expand...


The bible said rain and the great fountains of the deep. We know for sure we have not observed any planets like ours at this time. So what makes you think we will find a planet like ours ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did anyone ever figure where all the water went after the flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where it came from.
> 
> Do you realize not counting the water under ground that there are spots in the ocean you could saw off mount everest and drop it in the ocean and when it hit bottom there would  be a mile of water above the top of the mountain ?
> 
> 71% of the earth's surface is covered by water. How did this planet end up with so much water ? and why is there no other planet like this one ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where did the water come from? Because no matter how deep the ocean is, you still would have needed more water to cover all the land masses.
> 
> And you don't know that there aren't other planets like ours out there in the universe.
Click to expand...


The bible states God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form yet. 

Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 
Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters. 


Sounds like to me the land was covered with water.


Gen 1:9  And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. 
Gen 1:10  And God called the dry land, Earth. And He called the gathering together of the waters, Seas. And God saw that it was good.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two things.   According to your bible, god created adam and eve knowing they would eat of the tree.
> 
> He then created the rule saying they couldn't.
> 
> The most clear cut case of entrapment in sudo-history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God has never acted on foreknowledge that I know of. God is letting everything run it's course until his final judgement.
> 
> The whole thing is will you obey him or will you not that is the question you are answering same as adam and eve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I?
Click to expand...


You have made your choice like all of us will do.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where it came from.
> 
> Do you realize not counting the water under ground that there are spots in the ocean you could saw off mount everest and drop it in the ocean and when it hit bottom there would  be a mile of water above the top of the mountain ?
> 
> 71% of the earth's surface is covered by water. How did this planet end up with so much water ? and why is there no other planet like this one ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where did the water come from? Because no matter how deep the ocean is, you still would have needed more water to cover all the land masses.
> 
> And you don't know that there aren't other planets like ours out there in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible said rain and the great fountains of the deep. We know for sure we have not observed any planets like ours at this time. So what makes you think we will find a planet like ours ?
Click to expand...


The number of galaxies containing billions of stars make it probable.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where it came from.
> 
> Do you realize not counting the water under ground that there are spots in the ocean you could saw off mount everest and drop it in the ocean and when it hit bottom there would  be a mile of water above the top of the mountain ?
> 
> 71% of the earth's surface is covered by water. How did this planet end up with so much water ? and why is there no other planet like this one ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where did the water come from? Because no matter how deep the ocean is, you still would have needed more water to cover all the land masses.
> 
> And you don't know that there aren't other planets like ours out there in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible states God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form yet.
> 
> Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
> Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
> 
> 
> Sounds like to me the land was covered with water.
> 
> 
> Gen 1:9  And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.
> Gen 1:10  And God called the dry land, Earth. And He called the gathering together of the waters, Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Click to expand...

The person who wrote genesis made all that shit up, there's zero proof for any of it. It's one thing to believe in a creator, it's quite another to believe the unsubstanciated nonsense in the bible.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man's sin caused this choice to exist, it was not Gods doing. God provided the sacrifice for us to have this chance and bring mankind back to him. If you wish to blow off God because you don't like how he dealt with rebellious man you were never one of his sheep that knew his voice and obeyed.
> 
> 
> 
> since none of us are sheep (maybe you) it's a false comparison.
> even if you were right, what  god /Jesus did was  street theatre, the so called sacrifice is a dog and pony show, Jesus was in no real danger,unless he was lying about resurrection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't a matter of danger. It is a matter of Christ being debased and to suffer for things He is incapable of doing. It is also a matter of Christ assuming a permanent human form for all eternity in order to accomplish what He accomplished. It might be sort of like becoming an ant, and to live as an ant. Would you enjoy giving up your humanity to assume the role of an ant? How much worse was it for God to become a human?
Click to expand...

nonsense ..nice rationalizing though.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man's sin caused this choice to exist, it was not Gods doing. God provided the sacrifice for us to have this chance and bring mankind back to him. If you wish to blow off God because you don't like how he dealt with rebellious man you were never one of his sheep that knew his voice and obeyed.
> 
> 
> 
> since none of us are sheep (maybe you) it's a false comparison.
> even if you were right, what  god /Jesus did was  street theatre, the so called sacrifice is a dog and pony show, Jesus was in no real danger,unless he was lying about resurrection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are related to sheep if we were all the product of evolution
Click to expand...

that is true as we are mammals and have a boney spine.
your mom never had to buy you a sweater, did she.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must have slept through class by your post.
> 
> 
> 
> really? how's that false assumption man?
> the atmosphere filters out some harmful radiation not all.
> there is not enough oxygen above 30.000 feet to support much life.
> air pressure hold us together.
> none of theses fact are proof that a god did it.
> so as always you have no real point ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That atmosphere does much more then you're letting on.
Click to expand...

really? still no proof god did it..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe the method makes assumptions but assumptions are used in the dating method.
> 
> 
> Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> non credible site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say's who / an atheist like you who doesn't have a dog in the hunt
Click to expand...

no  not just me, actual  science.
how do I not have a dog in the hunt?
if a "dog" translates to fact then I have all the dogs and you have none.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say's who / an atheist like you who doesn't have a dog in the hunt
> 
> 
> 
> It's true. AIG is not credible. Fundies, such as those from AIG, would be expected to press an agenda that serves their religious dogma. There is no reason to expect either objectivity or honesty from creationist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same can be said for the other side as well.
Click to expand...

yes it could but it would be a lie...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did anyone ever figure where all the water went after the flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where it came from.
> 
> Do you realize not counting the water under ground that there are spots in the ocean you could saw off mount everest and drop it in the ocean and when it hit bottom there would  be a mile of water above the top of the mountain ?
> 
> 71% of the earth's surface is covered by water. How did this planet end up with so much water ? and why is there no other planet like this one ?
Click to expand...

bullshit  Europa. Calisto and Ganymede. all have liquid water and are as large as earth.
 there are other planets like this one. this like all your pseudoscience statements is false and ignorant.


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two things.   According to your bible, god created adam and eve knowing they would eat of the tree.
> 
> He then created the rule saying they couldn't.
> 
> The most clear cut case of entrapment in sudo-history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God has never acted on foreknowledge that I know of.
Click to expand...


Upon farther perusal I just noticed this gem.

So god knows everything.   Just forgets it when decision time comes along....

Brilliant!   

I do the same thing with my kids.   Hide a bear trap in front of the cookie jar.   I told em not to touch the damn cookies!   They had it comin!


----------



## koshergrl

He gives us the key, and then allows us to use it, or not.

That's the way it works. You don't restrain your children physically to keep them from experiencing the world. You advise and guide them, and you realize that they will make mistakes; and you allow those mistakes knowing that they will grow through them.


----------



## Underhill

koshergrl said:


> He gives us the key, and then allows us to use it, or not.
> 
> That's the way it works. You don't restrain your children physically to keep them from experiencing the world. You advise and guide them, and you realize that they will make mistakes; and you allow those mistakes knowing that they will grow through them.



Yep, just don't believe those evil scientific facts all around you or you will go to hell for all eternity.

Loving god my ass.


----------



## daws101

Underhill said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> He gives us the key, and then allows us to use it, or not.
> 
> That's the way it works. You don't restrain your children physically to keep them from experiencing the world. You advise and guide them, and you realize that they will make mistakes; and you allow those mistakes knowing that they will grow through them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, just don't believe those evil scientific facts all around you or you will go to hell for all eternity.
> 
> Loving god my ass.
Click to expand...

of course she loves the god she fashioned.


----------



## koshergrl

Underhill said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> He gives us the key, and then allows us to use it, or not.
> 
> That's the way it works. You don't restrain your children physically to keep them from experiencing the world. You advise and guide them, and you realize that they will make mistakes; and you allow those mistakes knowing that they will grow through them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, just don't believe those evil scientific facts all around you or you will go to hell for all eternity.
> 
> Loving god my ass.
Click to expand...

 
There is no science that negates the existence of God. Besides which, you lie when you imply that I have ever suggested that science is evil, or that it is incompatible with faith. Some of the greatest scientific and mathematical minds in the world were and are devout Christians. It's only people who don't understand science who think that there is *proof* that God doesn't exist. In fact, it's evidence of your lack of scholarship that you even utter such idiocy.

This is where I send you to the illiteracy or the stupid people threads. You claim to be all about science, but your actual skills are pathetic.


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> He gives us the key, and then allows us to use it, or not.
> 
> That's the way it works. You don't restrain your children physically to keep them from experiencing the world. You advise and guide them, and you realize that they will make mistakes; and you allow those mistakes knowing that they will grow through them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, just don't believe those evil scientific facts all around you or you will go to hell for all eternity.
> 
> Loving god my ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of course she loves the god she fashioned.
Click to expand...

 
I didn't fashion God. He fashioned me.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, just don't believe those evil scientific facts all around you or you will go to hell for all eternity.
> 
> Loving god my ass.
> 
> 
> 
> of course she loves the god she fashioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't fashion God. He fashioned me.
Click to expand...

then he really fuck up.
you have no proof he or it fashioned anything, just a wish.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where did the water come from? Because no matter how deep the ocean is, you still would have needed more water to cover all the land masses.
> 
> And you don't know that there aren't other planets like ours out there in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible said rain and the great fountains of the deep. We know for sure we have not observed any planets like ours at this time. So what makes you think we will find a planet like ours ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The number of galaxies containing billions of stars make it probable.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't only in your mind is it probable. I play Golf every day surely I will one day be playing on the PGA tour by your reasoning.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where did the water come from? Because no matter how deep the ocean is, you still would have needed more water to cover all the land masses.
> 
> And you don't know that there aren't other planets like ours out there in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible states God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form yet.
> 
> Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
> Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
> 
> 
> Sounds like to me the land was covered with water.
> 
> 
> Gen 1:9  And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.
> Gen 1:10  And God called the dry land, Earth. And He called the gathering together of the waters, Seas. And God saw that it was good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The person who wrote genesis made all that shit up, there's zero proof for any of it. It's one thing to believe in a creator, it's quite another to believe the unsubstanciated nonsense in the bible.
Click to expand...


How do you know it's only fantasy ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did anyone ever figure where all the water went after the flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where it came from.
> 
> Do you realize not counting the water under ground that there are spots in the ocean you could saw off mount everest and drop it in the ocean and when it hit bottom there would  be a mile of water above the top of the mountain ?
> 
> 71% of the earth's surface is covered by water. How did this planet end up with so much water ? and why is there no other planet like this one ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit  Europa. Calisto and Ganymede. all have liquid water and are as large as earth.
> there are other planets like this one. this like all your pseudoscience statements is false and ignorant.
Click to expand...


Prove it daws ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two things.   According to your bible, god created adam and eve knowing they would eat of the tree.
> 
> He then created the rule saying they couldn't.
> 
> The most clear cut case of entrapment in sudo-history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God has never acted on foreknowledge that I know of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Upon farther perusal I just noticed this gem.
> 
> So god knows everything.   Just forgets it when decision time comes along....
> 
> Brilliant!
> 
> I do the same thing with my kids.   Hide a bear trap in front of the cookie jar.   I told em not to touch the damn cookies!   They had it comin!
Click to expand...


God has not kept it hidden. What do you think his followers message is to all ? you have a choice and have been warned of the coming judgement you have the choice of everlasting life or everlasting death.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> He gives us the key, and then allows us to use it, or not.
> 
> That's the way it works. You don't restrain your children physically to keep them from experiencing the world. You advise and guide them, and you realize that they will make mistakes; and you allow those mistakes knowing that they will grow through them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, just don't believe those evil scientific facts all around you or you will go to hell for all eternity.
> 
> Loving god my ass.
Click to expand...


Do you understand there are different interpretations of the same evidence within the science community and outside the science community ?


----------



## ima

So basically the official story of where the flood water came from and went is that god moved the land masses around so that the water would cover them all? Did I get that right?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible said rain and the great fountains of the deep. We know for sure we have not observed any planets like ours at this time. So what makes you think we will find a planet like ours ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The number of galaxies containing billions of stars make it probable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't only in your mind is it probable. I play Golf every day surely I will one day be playing on the PGA tour by your reasoning.
Click to expand...

just when I think you can't get more ignorant you post total shit.
just because you play every day does not guarantee you are any good at it.
to put it into evolutionary terms  you've not evolved the skills to survive the rigors of the pga.
nor will you since , even with everyday practice you've not gotten more proficient.


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God has never acted on foreknowledge that I know of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Upon farther perusal I just noticed this gem.
> 
> So god knows everything.   Just forgets it when decision time comes along....
> 
> Brilliant!
> 
> I do the same thing with my kids.   Hide a bear trap in front of the cookie jar.   I told em not to touch the damn cookies!   They had it comin!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God has not kept it hidden. What do you think his followers message is to all ? you have a choice and have been warned of the coming judgement you have the choice of everlasting life or everlasting death.
Click to expand...


So every person on the planet has heard that message?

Of course god kept it hidden.   It was hidden when he made a world with no evidence of him.   A world which leaves evidence of natural events excluding a guiding hand.    The whole religion is based upon the tenant that you have to believe without evidence.   That alone says it's hidden.

It's clear that if god exist, he is a masochist.   He enjoys just fucking with human kind.   Otherwise he could easily make himself known.    

I want nothing to do with a deity that would do something like that to people.    Any god who would send a child to hell for all eternity for simply denying something he can't see is a monster.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where it came from.
> 
> Do you realize not counting the water under ground that there are spots in the ocean you could saw off mount everest and drop it in the ocean and when it hit bottom there would  be a mile of water above the top of the mountain ?
> 
> 71% of the earth's surface is covered by water. How did this planet end up with so much water ? and why is there no other planet like this one ?
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit  Europa. Calisto and Ganymede. all have liquid water and are as large as earth.
> there are other planets like this one. this like all your pseudoscience statements is false and ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it daws ?
Click to expand...

no need it's fact proven by telescope, satellite and Spectroscopy and spectrography are terms used to refer to the measurement of radiation intensity as a function of wavelength and are often used to describe experimental spectroscopic methods. Spectral measurement devices are referred to as spectrometers, spectrophotometers, spectrographs or spectral analyzers.

Daily observations of color can be related to spectroscopy. Neon lighting is a direct application of atomic spectroscopy. Neon and other noble gases have characteristic emission colors, and neon lamps use electricity to excite these emissions. Inks, dyes and paints include chemical compounds selected for their spectral characteristics in order to generate specific colors and hues. A commonly encountered molecular spectrum is that of nitrogen dioxide. Gaseous nitrogen dioxide has a characteristic red absorption feature, and this gives air polluted with nitrogen dioxide a reddish brown color. Rayleigh scattering is a spectroscopic scattering phenomenon that accounts for the color of the sky.

Spectroscopic studies were central to the development of quantum mechanics and included Max Planck's explanation of blackbody radiation, Albert Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect and Niels Bohr's explanation of atomic structure and spectra. Spectroscopy is used in physical and analytical chemistry because atoms and molecules have unique spectra. These spectra can be interpreted to derive information about the atoms and molecules, and they can also be used to detect, identify and quantify chemicals. Spectroscopy is also used in astronomy and remote sensing. Most research telescopes have spectrographs. The measured spectra are used to determine the chemical composition and physical properties of astronomical objects (such as their temperature and velocity).

exposing ywc's willful ignorance one post at a time.


----------



## daws101

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upon farther perusal I just noticed this gem.
> 
> So god knows everything.   Just forgets it when decision time comes along....
> 
> Brilliant!
> 
> I do the same thing with my kids.   Hide a bear trap in front of the cookie jar.   I told em not to touch the damn cookies!   They had it comin!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God has not kept it hidden. What do you think his followers message is to all ? you have a choice and have been warned of the coming judgement you have the choice of everlasting life or everlasting death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So every person on the planet has heard that message?
> 
> Of course god kept it hidden.   It was hidden when he made a world with no evidence of him.   A world which leaves evidence of natural events excluding a guiding hand.    The whole religion is based upon the tenant that you have to believe without evidence.   That alone says it's hidden.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

everlasting death is a term tossed around a lot by creationists 
As I understand it, death is always ever lasting .
the term seems to infer from their pov that when you die your not really dead but in some sort of conscious stasis until the fabled judgment day then you are woken up to face god and be adjudicated.
only after that is the true death. ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> The number of galaxies containing billions of stars make it probable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't only in your mind is it probable. I play Golf every day surely I will one day be playing on the PGA tour by your reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just when I think you can't get more ignorant you post total shit.
> just because you play every day does not guarantee you are any good at it.
> to put it into evolutionary terms  you've not evolved the skills to survive the rigors of the pga.
> nor will you since , even with everyday practice you've not gotten more proficient.
Click to expand...


Just because the there are many, many,many,galaxies out there it does not make it probable that there is a planet  just like ours out there.  Just because I play and practice Golf everyday does not make it probable I will ever be able to play on the PGA.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upon farther perusal I just noticed this gem.
> 
> So god knows everything.   Just forgets it when decision time comes along....
> 
> Brilliant!
> 
> I do the same thing with my kids.   Hide a bear trap in front of the cookie jar.   I told em not to touch the damn cookies!   They had it comin!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God has not kept it hidden. What do you think his followers message is to all ? you have a choice and have been warned of the coming judgement you have the choice of everlasting life or everlasting death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So every person on the planet has heard that message?
> 
> Of course god kept it hidden.   It was hidden when he made a world with no evidence of him.   A world which leaves evidence of natural events excluding a guiding hand.    The whole religion is based upon the tenant that you have to believe without evidence.   That alone says it's hidden.
> 
> It's clear that if god exist, he is a masochist.   He enjoys just fucking with human kind.   Otherwise he could easily make himself known.
> 
> I want nothing to do with a deity that would do something like that to people.    Any god who would send a child to hell for all eternity for simply denying something he can't see is a monster.
Click to expand...


No, but God said he will judge the ignorant by the condition of their heart but everyone that has been introduced to the truth and either accepts it or rejects you are making your choice, In other words we sleep in the bed we make for ourselves.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit  Europa. Calisto and Ganymede. all have liquid water and are as large as earth.
> there are other planets like this one. this like all your pseudoscience statements is false and ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no need it's fact proven by telescope, satellite and Spectroscopy and spectrography are terms used to refer to the measurement of radiation intensity as a function of wavelength and are often used to describe experimental spectroscopic methods. Spectral measurement devices are referred to as spectrometers, spectrophotometers, spectrographs or spectral analyzers.
> 
> Daily observations of color can be related to spectroscopy. Neon lighting is a direct application of atomic spectroscopy. Neon and other noble gases have characteristic emission colors, and neon lamps use electricity to excite these emissions. Inks, dyes and paints include chemical compounds selected for their spectral characteristics in order to generate specific colors and hues. A commonly encountered molecular spectrum is that of nitrogen dioxide. Gaseous nitrogen dioxide has a characteristic red absorption feature, and this gives air polluted with nitrogen dioxide a reddish brown color. Rayleigh scattering is a spectroscopic scattering phenomenon that accounts for the color of the sky.
> 
> Spectroscopic studies were central to the development of quantum mechanics and included Max Planck's explanation of blackbody radiation, Albert Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect and Niels Bohr's explanation of atomic structure and spectra. Spectroscopy is used in physical and analytical chemistry because atoms and molecules have unique spectra. These spectra can be interpreted to derive information about the atoms and molecules, and they can also be used to detect, identify and quantify chemicals. Spectroscopy is also used in astronomy and remote sensing. Most research telescopes have spectrographs. The measured spectra are used to determine the chemical composition and physical properties of astronomical objects (such as their temperature and velocity).
> 
> exposing ywc's willful ignorance one post at a time.
Click to expand...


Daws do you always make up crap ?

People have been intrigued for centuries by whether life could exist on other planets. While we now know that it is very unlikely that life as we know it could exist on other planets in our Solar System, many people do not know the surface conditions of these various planets.

Surface of the Planets

If they don't know the surface conditions of planets in our solar system what you said was total bullshit.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> everlasting death is a term tossed around a lot by creationists
> As I understand it, death is always ever lasting .
> the term seems to infer from their pov that when you die your not really dead but in some sort of conscious stasis until the fabled judgment day then you are woken up to face god and be adjudicated.
> only after that is the true death. ?



Well daws you have a choice just like everyone else,everlasting life or everlasting death your choice and no one can make it for you.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> everlasting death is a term tossed around a lot by creationists
> As I understand it, death is always ever lasting .
> the term seems to infer from their pov that when you die your not really dead but in some sort of conscious stasis until the fabled judgment day then you are woken up to face god and be adjudicated.
> only after that is the true death. ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well daws you have a choice just like everyone else,everlasting life or everlasting death your choice and no one can make it for you.
Click to expand...


"_You'll get yours_!" - a universally sustaining benediction for fundies issuing threats.


Try this:

"_I'll get you my pretty_.... _*and your little dog, too*_".


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't only in your mind is it probable. I play Golf every day surely I will one day be playing on the PGA tour by your reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> just when I think you can't get more ignorant you post total shit.
> just because you play every day does not guarantee you are any good at it.
> to put it into evolutionary terms  you've not evolved the skills to survive the rigors of the pga.
> nor will you since , even with everyday practice you've not gotten more proficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because the there are many, many,many,galaxies out there it does not make it probable that there is a planet  just like ours out there.  Just because I play and practice Golf everyday does not make it probable I will ever be able to play on the PGA.
Click to expand...

your answer just proves you know dick about the science of probabilities.
 probability science definition
A number expressing the likelihood of the occurrence of a given event, especially a fraction expressing how many times the event will happen in a given number of tests or experiments. For example, when rolling a six-sided die, the probability of rolling a particular side is 1 in 6, or 1/6 .


exposing ywc's willful ignorance one post at a time.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> no need it's fact proven by telescope, satellite and Spectroscopy and spectrography are terms used to refer to the measurement of radiation intensity as a function of wavelength and are often used to describe experimental spectroscopic methods. Spectral measurement devices are referred to as spectrometers, spectrophotometers, spectrographs or spectral analyzers.
> 
> Daily observations of color can be related to spectroscopy. Neon lighting is a direct application of atomic spectroscopy. Neon and other noble gases have characteristic emission colors, and neon lamps use electricity to excite these emissions. Inks, dyes and paints include chemical compounds selected for their spectral characteristics in order to generate specific colors and hues. A commonly encountered molecular spectrum is that of nitrogen dioxide. Gaseous nitrogen dioxide has a characteristic red absorption feature, and this gives air polluted with nitrogen dioxide a reddish brown color. Rayleigh scattering is a spectroscopic scattering phenomenon that accounts for the color of the sky.
> 
> Spectroscopic studies were central to the development of quantum mechanics and included Max Planck's explanation of blackbody radiation, Albert Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect and Niels Bohr's explanation of atomic structure and spectra. Spectroscopy is used in physical and analytical chemistry because atoms and molecules have unique spectra. These spectra can be interpreted to derive information about the atoms and molecules, and they can also be used to detect, identify and quantify chemicals. Spectroscopy is also used in astronomy and remote sensing. Most research telescopes have spectrographs. The measured spectra are used to determine the chemical composition and physical properties of astronomical objects (such as their temperature and velocity).
> 
> exposing ywc's willful ignorance one post at a time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws do you always make up crap ?
> 
> People have been intrigued for centuries by whether life could exist on other planets. While we now know that it is very unlikely that life as we know it could exist on other planets in our Solar System, many people do not know the surface conditions of these various planets.
> 
> Surface of the Planets
> 
> If they don't know the surface conditions of planets in our solar system what you said was total bullshit.
Click to expand...

as always your willful ignorance shines"
Liquid water on Saturn moon could support life 

Cassini spacecraft sees signs of geysers on icy Enceladus 

Image: Enceladus
  NASA / JPL / SSI 
An enhanced-color image of Enceladus, based on data from the Cassini spacecraft, highlights dark "tiger stripes" in the south polar region. Those stripes are actually fissures that appear to be the source of the Saturnian moon's geysers.

 By Alan Boyle Science editor
msnbc.com  

updated 3/9/2006 8:16:12 PM ET  

Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface. 

The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.

"I think this is important enough that we will see a redirection in the planetary exploration program," Carolyn Porco, head of the imaging team for the Cassini mission to Saturn, told MSNBC.com. "We've just brought Enceladus up to the forefront as a major target of astrobiological interest."

The readings from Enceladus' geyser plumes indicate that all the prerequisites for life as we know it could exist beneath Enceladus' surface, Porco said.

"Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane &#8212; they contain several organic materials."

The third necessary ingredient &#8212; energy for fueling life's processes &#8212; could exist around hydrothermal vents around the bottom of Enceladus' water reservoirs, just as it does around Earth's deep-ocean hydrothermal vents.

The results impressed University of Colorado planetary scientist Robert Pappalardo, who has studied Enceladus and other icy moons but was not involved in the newly published research.


Water on Saturn moon could support life - Technology & science - Space | NBC News 


Is There Water on Saturn?

by Fraser Cain on July 3, 2008


Share on linkedinShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services 

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter

Saturn\'s moon Enceladus behind the rings. Image credit: NASA/JPL/SSI
 Saturn is almost entirely hydrogen and helium, but it does have trace amounts of other chemicals, including water. When we look at Saturn, we&#8217;re actually seeing the upper cloud tops of Saturn&#8217;s atmosphere. These are made of frozen crystals of ammonia.

You can also check out these cool telescopes that will help you see the beauty of planet Saturn.


But beneath this upper cloud layer, astronomers think there&#8217;s a lower cloud deck made of ammonium hydrosulfide and water. There is water, but not very much.

Once you get away from Saturn itself, though, the nearby area has plenty of water. Saturn&#8217;s rings are almost entirely made of water ice, in chunks ranging in size from dust to house-sized boulders.

And all of Saturn&#8217;s moons have large quantities of water ice. For example, Saturn&#8217;s moon Enceladus is thought to have a mantle rich in water ice, surrounding a silicate core. Geysers of water vapor were detected by NASA&#8217;s Cassini spacecraft, spraying out of cracks at Enceladus&#8217; southern pole.

If you want to look for water at Saturn, don&#8217;t look at the planet itself, but there&#8217;s water all around it.

Here&#8217;s an article from Universe Today about the plume of water ice coming off of Enceladus, and how Saturn&#8217;s environment is driven by ice.

Here&#8217;s an article from NASA about the composition of ice at Saturn&#8217;s moon Rhea, and the discovery of liquid water on Enceladus.

We have recorded two episodes of Astronomy Cast just about Saturn. The first is Episode 59: Saturn, and the second is Episode 61: Saturn&#8217;s Moons.
.

Read more: Is There Water on Saturn?


exposing ywc willful ignorance one post at a time.
I even used same source as you did to refute your bullshit.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> everlasting death is a term tossed around a lot by creationists
> As I understand it, death is always ever lasting .
> the term seems to infer from their pov that when you die your not really dead but in some sort of conscious stasis until the fabled judgment day then you are woken up to face god and be adjudicated.
> only after that is the true death. ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well daws you have a choice just like everyone else,everlasting life or everlasting death your choice and no one can make it for you.
Click to expand...

a classic ywc non answer.
the question is : is the so called death before "judgment day" really death?
your own faith infers it's not. slapdick.


----------



## ima

So how did Noah get the kangaroos from Australia to his boat and then back again?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> So how did Noah get the kangaroos from Australia to his boat and then back again?



How do you know kangaroos did not migrate to Australia after the flood ? How did Kangaroos get to Australia in the first place ?

The scriptures say that the animals were brought to Noah by God. The bible does not say Noah went to the animals.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> everlasting death is a term tossed around a lot by creationists
> As I understand it, death is always ever lasting .
> the term seems to infer from their pov that when you die your not really dead but in some sort of conscious stasis until the fabled judgment day then you are woken up to face god and be adjudicated.
> only after that is the true death. ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well daws you have a choice just like everyone else,everlasting life or everlasting death your choice and no one can make it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a classic ywc non answer.
> the question is : is the so called death before "judgment day" really death?
> your own faith infers it's not. slapdick.
Click to expand...


Don't try to infer your ignorance on Christianity when it is clear you're ignorant of the word of God. Sorry because many Christians are ignorant of the truth as well.

Because there is a resurrection of both the ones that did good and the ones that did evil The good will be resurrected to life and the ones that did evil to be judged.

Joh 5:29

(ASV)  and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. 

(BBE)  And they will come out; those who have done good, into the new life; and those who have done evil, to be judged.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no need it's fact proven by telescope, satellite and Spectroscopy and spectrography are terms used to refer to the measurement of radiation intensity as a function of wavelength and are often used to describe experimental spectroscopic methods. Spectral measurement devices are referred to as spectrometers, spectrophotometers, spectrographs or spectral analyzers.
> 
> Daily observations of color can be related to spectroscopy. Neon lighting is a direct application of atomic spectroscopy. Neon and other noble gases have characteristic emission colors, and neon lamps use electricity to excite these emissions. Inks, dyes and paints include chemical compounds selected for their spectral characteristics in order to generate specific colors and hues. A commonly encountered molecular spectrum is that of nitrogen dioxide. Gaseous nitrogen dioxide has a characteristic red absorption feature, and this gives air polluted with nitrogen dioxide a reddish brown color. Rayleigh scattering is a spectroscopic scattering phenomenon that accounts for the color of the sky.
> 
> Spectroscopic studies were central to the development of quantum mechanics and included Max Planck's explanation of blackbody radiation, Albert Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect and Niels Bohr's explanation of atomic structure and spectra. Spectroscopy is used in physical and analytical chemistry because atoms and molecules have unique spectra. These spectra can be interpreted to derive information about the atoms and molecules, and they can also be used to detect, identify and quantify chemicals. Spectroscopy is also used in astronomy and remote sensing. Most research telescopes have spectrographs. The measured spectra are used to determine the chemical composition and physical properties of astronomical objects (such as their temperature and velocity).
> 
> exposing ywc's willful ignorance one post at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws do you always make up crap ?
> 
> People have been intrigued for centuries by whether life could exist on other planets. While we now know that it is very unlikely that life as we know it could exist on other planets in our Solar System, many people do not know the surface conditions of these various planets.
> 
> Surface of the Planets
> 
> If they don't know the surface conditions of planets in our solar system what you said was total bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as always your willful ignorance shines"
> Liquid water on Saturn moon could support life
> 
> Cassini spacecraft sees signs of geysers on icy Enceladus
> 
> Image: Enceladus
> NASA / JPL / SSI
> An enhanced-color image of Enceladus, based on data from the Cassini spacecraft, highlights dark "tiger stripes" in the south polar region. Those stripes are actually fissures that appear to be the source of the Saturnian moon's geysers.
> 
> By Alan Boyle Science editor
> msnbc.com
> 
> updated 3/9/2006 8:16:12 PM ET
> 
> Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface.
> 
> The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.
> 
> "I think this is important enough that we will see a redirection in the planetary exploration program," Carolyn Porco, head of the imaging team for the Cassini mission to Saturn, told MSNBC.com. "We've just brought Enceladus up to the forefront as a major target of astrobiological interest."
> 
> The readings from Enceladus' geyser plumes indicate that all the prerequisites for life as we know it could exist beneath Enceladus' surface, Porco said.
> 
> "Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane  they contain several organic materials."
> 
> The third necessary ingredient  energy for fueling life's processes  could exist around hydrothermal vents around the bottom of Enceladus' water reservoirs, just as it does around Earth's deep-ocean hydrothermal vents.
> 
> The results impressed University of Colorado planetary scientist Robert Pappalardo, who has studied Enceladus and other icy moons but was not involved in the newly published research.
> 
> 
> Water on Saturn moon could support life - Technology & science - Space | NBC News
> 
> 
> Is There Water on Saturn?
> 
> by Fraser Cain on July 3, 2008
> 
> 
> Share on linkedinShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services
> 
> Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter
> 
> Saturn\'s moon Enceladus behind the rings. Image credit: NASA/JPL/SSI
> Saturn is almost entirely hydrogen and helium, but it does have trace amounts of other chemicals, including water. When we look at Saturn, were actually seeing the upper cloud tops of Saturns atmosphere. These are made of frozen crystals of ammonia.
> 
> You can also check out these cool telescopes that will help you see the beauty of planet Saturn.
> 
> 
> But beneath this upper cloud layer, astronomers think theres a lower cloud deck made of ammonium hydrosulfide and water. There is water, but not very much.
> 
> Once you get away from Saturn itself, though, the nearby area has plenty of water. Saturns rings are almost entirely made of water ice, in chunks ranging in size from dust to house-sized boulders.
> 
> And all of Saturns moons have large quantities of water ice. For example, Saturns moon Enceladus is thought to have a mantle rich in water ice, surrounding a silicate core. Geysers of water vapor were detected by NASAs Cassini spacecraft, spraying out of cracks at Enceladus southern pole.
> 
> If you want to look for water at Saturn, dont look at the planet itself, but theres water all around it.
> 
> Heres an article from Universe Today about the plume of water ice coming off of Enceladus, and how Saturns environment is driven by ice.
> 
> Heres an article from NASA about the composition of ice at Saturns moon Rhea, and the discovery of liquid water on Enceladus.
> 
> We have recorded two episodes of Astronomy Cast just about Saturn. The first is Episode 59: Saturn, and the second is Episode 61: Saturns Moons.
> .
> 
> Read more: Is There Water on Saturn?
> 
> 
> exposing ywc willful ignorance one post at a time.
> I even used same source as you did to refute your bullshit.
Click to expand...


You're really, really dumb daws. The reality is,they know very little other then speculation when it comes to other planets.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how did Noah get the kangaroos from Australia to his boat and then back again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know kangaroos did not migrate to Australia after the flood ? How did Kangaroos get to Australia in the first place ?
> 
> The scriptures say that the animals were brought to Noah by God. The bible does not say Noah went to the animals.
Click to expand...


God brought all the animals that were in all the different parts of the world and then brought them back? Cmon man, get a grip. You actually believe that?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> just when I think you can't get more ignorant you post total shit.
> just because you play every day does not guarantee you are any good at it.
> to put it into evolutionary terms  you've not evolved the skills to survive the rigors of the pga.
> nor will you since , even with everyday practice you've not gotten more proficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the there are many, many,many,galaxies out there it does not make it probable that there is a planet  just like ours out there.  Just because I play and practice Golf everyday does not make it probable I will ever be able to play on the PGA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your answer just proves you know dick about the science of probabilities.
> probability science definition
> A number expressing the likelihood of the occurrence of a given event, especially a fraction expressing how many times the event will happen in a given number of tests or experiments. For example, when rolling a six-sided die, the probability of rolling a particular side is 1 in 6, or 1/6 .
> 
> 
> exposing ywc's willful ignorance one post at a time.
Click to expand...


The only probability I concern myself with is the reality that non-living matter does not convert itself to living matter.

Non-life does not produce life get it ? Living organisms produce other living organisms can you prove otherwise ?


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> God has not kept it hidden. What do you think his followers message is to all ? you have a choice and have been warned of the coming judgement you have the choice of everlasting life or everlasting death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So every person on the planet has heard that message?
> 
> Of course god kept it hidden.   It was hidden when he made a world with no evidence of him.   A world which leaves evidence of natural events excluding a guiding hand.    The whole religion is based upon the tenant that you have to believe without evidence.   That alone says it's hidden.
> 
> It's clear that if god exist, he is a masochist.   He enjoys just fucking with human kind.   Otherwise he could easily make himself known.
> 
> I want nothing to do with a deity that would do something like that to people.    Any god who would send a child to hell for all eternity for simply denying something he can't see is a monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but God said he will judge the ignorant by the condition of their heart but everyone that has been introduced to the truth and either accepts it or rejects you are making your choice, In other words we sleep in the bed we make for ourselves.
Click to expand...


So anyone who hears the truth but denies based upon factual evidence is bound for hell, regardless of how good they are.   But a person who doesn't hear the message gets a pass if their heart is in the right place?

That hardly seems just.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how did Noah get the kangaroos from Australia to his boat and then back again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know kangaroos did not migrate to Australia after the flood ? How did Kangaroos get to Australia in the first place ?
> 
> The scriptures say that the animals were brought to Noah by God. The bible does not say Noah went to the animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God brought all the animals that were in all the different parts of the world and then brought them back? Cmon man, get a grip. You actually believe that?
Click to expand...


I have answered this before even evolutionist agree with my views animals and humans migrated on land bridges.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> So every person on the planet has heard that message?
> 
> Of course god kept it hidden.   It was hidden when he made a world with no evidence of him.   A world which leaves evidence of natural events excluding a guiding hand.    The whole religion is based upon the tenant that you have to believe without evidence.   That alone says it's hidden.
> 
> It's clear that if god exist, he is a masochist.   He enjoys just fucking with human kind.   Otherwise he could easily make himself known.
> 
> I want nothing to do with a deity that would do something like that to people.    Any god who would send a child to hell for all eternity for simply denying something he can't see is a monster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but God said he will judge the ignorant by the condition of their heart but everyone that has been introduced to the truth and either accepts it or rejects you are making your choice, In other words we sleep in the bed we make for ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So anyone who hears the truth but denies based upon factual evidence is bound for hell, regardless of how good they are.   But a person who doesn't hear the message gets a pass if their heart is in the right place?
> 
> That hardly seems just.
Click to expand...


Yes we all die and go to the grave whatever that grave is and stay there until the resurrection. Yes people that have good hearts and never hear the truth of Christ it is up to God to judge that person through their heart condition.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know kangaroos did not migrate to Australia after the flood ? How did Kangaroos get to Australia in the first place ?
> 
> The scriptures say that the animals were brought to Noah by God. The bible does not say Noah went to the animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God brought all the animals that were in all the different parts of the world and then brought them back? Cmon man, get a grip. You actually believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have answered this before even evolutionist agree with my views animals and humans migrated on land bridges.
Click to expand...


Not what you're saying. You said that god brought the animals to noah. Kinda cuckoo, don't you think?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how did Noah get the kangaroos from Australia to his boat and then back again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know kangaroos did not migrate to Australia after the flood ? How did Kangaroos get to Australia in the first place ?
> 
> The scriptures say that the animals were brought to Noah by God. The bible does not say Noah went to the animals.
Click to expand...

because there are no fossil remains or living kangaroos any where else on this planet except new Zealand.
there was no great flood and Australia shows no signs of being completely submerged in water and there is no actual evidence of a land bridge just a postulationefinition of POSTULATE
a : to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of  

b : to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics) 
the correct answer is continental drift.
also kangaroos like all marsupials evolved from a common ancestor.
most all life in Australia  evolved in isolation


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well daws you have a choice just like everyone else,everlasting life or everlasting death your choice and no one can make it for you.
> 
> 
> 
> a classic ywc non answer.
> the question is : is the so called death before "judgment day" really death?
> your own faith infers it's not. slapdick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to infer your ignorance on Christianity when it is clear you're ignorant of the word of God. Sorry because many Christians are ignorant of the truth as well.
> 
> Because there is a resurrection of both the ones that did good and the ones that did evil The good will be resurrected to life and the ones that did evil to be judged.
> 
> Joh 5:29
> 
> (ASV)  and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.
> 
> (BBE)  And they will come out; those who have done good, into the new life; and those who have done evil, to be judged.
Click to expand...

so you don't have an answer?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws do you always make up crap ?
> 
> People have been intrigued for centuries by whether life could exist on other planets. While we now know that it is very unlikely that life as we know it could exist on other planets in our Solar System, many people do not know the surface conditions of these various planets.
> 
> Surface of the Planets
> 
> If they don't know the surface conditions of planets in our solar system what you said was total bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> as always your willful ignorance shines"
> Liquid water on Saturn moon could support life
> 
> Cassini spacecraft sees signs of geysers on icy Enceladus
> 
> Image: Enceladus
> NASA / JPL / SSI
> An enhanced-color image of Enceladus, based on data from the Cassini spacecraft, highlights dark "tiger stripes" in the south polar region. Those stripes are actually fissures that appear to be the source of the Saturnian moon's geysers.
> 
> By Alan Boyle Science editor
> msnbc.com
> 
> updated 3/9/2006 8:16:12 PM ET
> 
> Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface.
> 
> The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.
> 
> "I think this is important enough that we will see a redirection in the planetary exploration program," Carolyn Porco, head of the imaging team for the Cassini mission to Saturn, told MSNBC.com. "We've just brought Enceladus up to the forefront as a major target of astrobiological interest."
> 
> The readings from Enceladus' geyser plumes indicate that all the prerequisites for life as we know it could exist beneath Enceladus' surface, Porco said.
> 
> "Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane  they contain several organic materials."
> 
> The third necessary ingredient  energy for fueling life's processes  could exist around hydrothermal vents around the bottom of Enceladus' water reservoirs, just as it does around Earth's deep-ocean hydrothermal vents.
> 
> The results impressed University of Colorado planetary scientist Robert Pappalardo, who has studied Enceladus and other icy moons but was not involved in the newly published research.
> 
> 
> Water on Saturn moon could support life - Technology & science - Space | NBC News
> 
> 
> Is There Water on Saturn?
> 
> by Fraser Cain on July 3, 2008
> 
> 
> Share on linkedinShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services
> 
> Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter
> 
> Saturn\'s moon Enceladus behind the rings. Image credit: NASA/JPL/SSI
> Saturn is almost entirely hydrogen and helium, but it does have trace amounts of other chemicals, including water. When we look at Saturn, were actually seeing the upper cloud tops of Saturns atmosphere. These are made of frozen crystals of ammonia.
> 
> You can also check out these cool telescopes that will help you see the beauty of planet Saturn.
> 
> 
> But beneath this upper cloud layer, astronomers think theres a lower cloud deck made of ammonium hydrosulfide and water. There is water, but not very much.
> 
> Once you get away from Saturn itself, though, the nearby area has plenty of water. Saturns rings are almost entirely made of water ice, in chunks ranging in size from dust to house-sized boulders.
> 
> And all of Saturns moons have large quantities of water ice. For example, Saturns moon Enceladus is thought to have a mantle rich in water ice, surrounding a silicate core. Geysers of water vapor were detected by NASAs Cassini spacecraft, spraying out of cracks at Enceladus southern pole.
> 
> If you want to look for water at Saturn, dont look at the planet itself, but theres water all around it.
> 
> Heres an article from Universe Today about the plume of water ice coming off of Enceladus, and how Saturns environment is driven by ice.
> 
> Heres an article from NASA about the composition of ice at Saturns moon Rhea, and the discovery of liquid water on Enceladus.
> 
> We have recorded two episodes of Astronomy Cast just about Saturn. The first is Episode 59: Saturn, and the second is Episode 61: Saturns Moons.
> .
> 
> Read more: Is There Water on Saturn?
> 
> 
> exposing ywc willful ignorance one post at a time.
> I even used same source as you did to refute your bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're really, really dumb daws. The reality is,they know very little other then speculation when it comes to other planets.
Click to expand...

no that would be you, and in denial too.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the there are many, many,many,galaxies out there it does not make it probable that there is a planet  just like ours out there.  Just because I play and practice Golf everyday does not make it probable I will ever be able to play on the PGA.
> 
> 
> 
> your answer just proves you know dick about the science of probabilities.
> probability science definition
> A number expressing the likelihood of the occurrence of a given event, especially a fraction expressing how many times the event will happen in a given number of tests or experiments. For example, when rolling a six-sided die, the probability of rolling a particular side is 1 in 6, or 1/6 .
> 
> 
> exposing ywc's willful ignorance one post at a time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only probability I concern myself with is the reality that non-living matter does not convert itself to living matter.
> 
> Non-life does not produce life get it ? Living organisms produce other living organisms can you prove otherwise ?
Click to expand...

dodge !


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know kangaroos did not migrate to Australia after the flood ? How did Kangaroos get to Australia in the first place ?
> 
> The scriptures say that the animals were brought to Noah by God. The bible does not say Noah went to the animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God brought all the animals that were in all the different parts of the world and then brought them back? Cmon man, get a grip. You actually believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have answered this before even evolutionist agree with my views animals and humans migrated on land bridges.
Click to expand...

wrong!  taking credit for something you did not do.
btw there is only one proven land bridge between Russia and Alaska.
that means most all life was where it is now.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> God brought all the animals that were in all the different parts of the world and then brought them back? Cmon man, get a grip. You actually believe that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered this before even evolutionist agree with my views animals and humans migrated on land bridges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what you're saying. You said that god brought the animals to noah. Kinda cuckoo, don't you think?
Click to expand...


The animals were scattered but I don't believe they were in all lands and if God had the ability to create all we see, surely, he can bring animals to Noah.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how did Noah get the kangaroos from Australia to his boat and then back again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know kangaroos did not migrate to Australia after the flood ? How did Kangaroos get to Australia in the first place ?
> 
> The scriptures say that the animals were brought to Noah by God. The bible does not say Noah went to the animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because there are no fossil remains or living kangaroos any where else on this planet except new Zealand.
> there was no great flood and Australia shows no signs of being completely submerged in water and there is no actual evidence of a land bridge just a postulationefinition of POSTULATE
> a : to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of
> 
> b : to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)
> the correct answer is continental drift.
> also kangaroos like all marsupials evolved from a common ancestor.
> most all life in Australia  evolved in isolation
Click to expand...


It was hard to believe all things evolved from the first cell and now you believe everything in Australia evolved on their own as well 

Wrong, I already posted an article that said Australia was submerged back in time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a classic ywc non answer.
> the question is : is the so called death before "judgment day" really death?
> your own faith infers it's not. slapdick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to infer your ignorance on Christianity when it is clear you're ignorant of the word of God. Sorry because many Christians are ignorant of the truth as well.
> 
> Because there is a resurrection of both the ones that did good and the ones that did evil The good will be resurrected to life and the ones that did evil to be judged.
> 
> Joh 5:29
> 
> (ASV)  and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.
> 
> (BBE)  And they will come out; those who have done good, into the new life; and those who have done evil, to be judged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't have an answer?
Click to expand...


To what ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your answer just proves you know dick about the science of probabilities.
> probability science definition
> A number expressing the likelihood of the occurrence of a given event, especially a fraction expressing how many times the event will happen in a given number of tests or experiments. For example, when rolling a six-sided die, the probability of rolling a particular side is 1 in 6, or 1/6 .
> 
> 
> exposing ywc's willful ignorance one post at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only probability I concern myself with is the reality that non-living matter does not convert itself to living matter.
> 
> Non-life does not produce life get it ? Living organisms produce other living organisms can you prove otherwise ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dodge !
Click to expand...


Didn't dodge anything, I stated a fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> God brought all the animals that were in all the different parts of the world and then brought them back? Cmon man, get a grip. You actually believe that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered this before even evolutionist agree with my views animals and humans migrated on land bridges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong!  taking credit for something you did not do.
> btw there is only one proven land bridge between Russia and Alaska.
> that means most all life was where it is now.
Click to expand...




There were extensive land bridges between islands in present-day Indonesia, connected them to the southeast Asian mainland. These made it possible for early humans to travel from Africa to islands like Borneo. In what is the first confirmed instance of humans traveling over a significant stretch of open ocean, early man built rafts and made it across the present-day Wallace Line, a deep sea channel in central Indonesia that separates the fauna of west Indonesia (which is more Asian) from east Indonesia (more Australian). From the east side of the Wallace Line, these people reached New Guinea and Australia, which were also connected by land bridges.

What is a Land Bridge?

I have a trivia  question for you. Cynognathus Lystrosaurus, how can this dinosaur be found on almost every continent but it can't swim ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered this before even evolutionist agree with my views animals and humans migrated on land bridges.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong!  taking credit for something you did not do.
> btw there is only one proven land bridge between Russia and Alaska.
> that means most all life was where it is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were extensive land bridges between islands in present-day Indonesia, connected them to the southeast Asian mainland. These made it possible for early humans to travel from Africa to islands like Borneo. In what is the first confirmed instance of humans traveling over a significant stretch of open ocean, early man built rafts and made it across the present-day Wallace Line, a deep sea channel in central Indonesia that separates the fauna of west Indonesia (which is more Asian) from east Indonesia (more Australian). From the east side of the Wallace Line, these people reached New Guinea and Australia, which were also connected by land bridges.
> 
> What is a Land Bridge?
> 
> I have a trivia  question for you. Cynognathus Lystrosaurus, how can this dinosaur be found on almost every continent but it can't swim ?
Click to expand...

The land masses are in constant movement. Are you saying that in Noah's day, there were land bridges connecting everything and that in the space of a week or so, all the animals walked to where Noah was? And only 2 of each animal? And none died on the way? And then after the water magically disappeared, they all walked back?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong!  taking credit for something you did not do.
> btw there is only one proven land bridge between Russia and Alaska.
> that means most all life was where it is now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were extensive land bridges between islands in present-day Indonesia, connected them to the southeast Asian mainland. These made it possible for early humans to travel from Africa to islands like Borneo. In what is the first confirmed instance of humans traveling over a significant stretch of open ocean, early man built rafts and made it across the present-day Wallace Line, a deep sea channel in central Indonesia that separates the fauna of west Indonesia (which is more Asian) from east Indonesia (more Australian). From the east side of the Wallace Line, these people reached New Guinea and Australia, which were also connected by land bridges.
> 
> What is a Land Bridge?
> 
> I have a trivia  question for you. Cynognathus Lystrosaurus, how can this dinosaur be found on almost every continent but it can't swim ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The land masses are in constant movement. Are you saying that in Noah's day, there were land bridges connecting everything and that in the space of a week or so, all the animals walked to where Noah was? And only 2 of each animal? And none died on the way? And then after the water magically disappeared, they all walked back?
Click to expand...


No I'm saying the land bridges were used after the flood I believe all animals were not scattered over the whole earth prior to the flood.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered this before even evolutionist agree with my views animals and humans migrated on land bridges.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong!  taking credit for something you did not do.
> btw there is only one proven land bridge between Russia and Alaska.
> that means most all life was where it is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were extensive land bridges between islands in present-day Indonesia, connected them to the southeast Asian mainland. These made it possible for early humans to travel from Africa to islands like Borneo. In what is the first confirmed instance of humans traveling over a significant stretch of open ocean, early man built rafts and made it across the present-day Wallace Line, a deep sea channel in central Indonesia that separates the fauna of west Indonesia (which is more Asian) from east Indonesia (more Australian). From the east side of the Wallace Line, these people reached New Guinea and Australia, which were also connected by land bridges.
> 
> What is a Land Bridge?
> 
> I have a trivia  question for you. Cynognathus Lystrosaurus, how can this dinosaur be found on almost every continent but it can't swim ?
Click to expand...


You do realize you have refuted your own young earth position by introducing timelines far older than 6,000 years, right?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were extensive land bridges between islands in present-day Indonesia, connected them to the southeast Asian mainland. These made it possible for early humans to travel from Africa to islands like Borneo. In what is the first confirmed instance of humans traveling over a significant stretch of open ocean, early man built rafts and made it across the present-day Wallace Line, a deep sea channel in central Indonesia that separates the fauna of west Indonesia (which is more Asian) from east Indonesia (more Australian). From the east side of the Wallace Line, these people reached New Guinea and Australia, which were also connected by land bridges.
> 
> What is a Land Bridge?
> 
> I have a trivia  question for you. Cynognathus Lystrosaurus, how can this dinosaur be found on almost every continent but it can't swim ?
> 
> 
> 
> The land masses are in constant movement. Are you saying that in Noah's day, there were land bridges connecting everything and that in the space of a week or so, all the animals walked to where Noah was? And only 2 of each animal? And none died on the way? And then after the water magically disappeared, they all walked back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm saying the land bridges were used after the flood I believe all animals were not scattered over the whole earth prior to the flood.
Click to expand...


So polar bears and penguins were living near enough to Noah to get to him fairly quickly? And basically all the species animals of the world were all close enough to Noah and then walked back , some halfway around the world? Geez, you're fucking hopeless. Do you realize what an idiot you are? Seriously.


----------



## HUGGY

No group IMO has contributed more to the myth of religion than the Blacks of faith.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4cknWqVnVg]Aretha Franklin - People Get Ready - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Underhill

HUGGY said:


> No group IMO has contributed more to the myth of religion than the Blacks of faith.
> 
> Aretha Franklin - People Get Ready - YouTube



Clearly you don't know much about religion then.   It all depends on location, but globally they are low single digits as a percentage of the religious populations.   Even in this country they would struggle to get above 20%.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong!  taking credit for something you did not do.
> btw there is only one proven land bridge between Russia and Alaska.
> that means most all life was where it is now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were extensive land bridges between islands in present-day Indonesia, connected them to the southeast Asian mainland. These made it possible for early humans to travel from Africa to islands like Borneo. In what is the first confirmed instance of humans traveling over a significant stretch of open ocean, early man built rafts and made it across the present-day Wallace Line, a deep sea channel in central Indonesia that separates the fauna of west Indonesia (which is more Asian) from east Indonesia (more Australian). From the east side of the Wallace Line, these people reached New Guinea and Australia, which were also connected by land bridges.
> 
> What is a Land Bridge?
> 
> I have a trivia  question for you. Cynognathus Lystrosaurus, how can this dinosaur be found on almost every continent but it can't swim ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize you have refuted your own young earth position by introducing timelines far older than 6,000 years, right?
Click to expand...

You can't prove when this took place nor can you prove when the one super continent broke up and gave us the many different continents.


----------



## HUGGY

Underhill said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> No group IMO has contributed more to the myth of religion than the Blacks of faith.
> 
> Aretha Franklin - People Get Ready - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you don't know much about religion then.   It all depends on location, but globally they are low single digits as a percentage of the religious populations.   Even in this country they would struggle to get above 20%.
Click to expand...


I'm not refering to the black population.  I am refering to the gospel influence on music in general and the gereral population.  Much black music afferms a god and that affermation is imbedded in a lot of music because of the gospel influence which extends all thruout the musical experience of just about everyone with a pair of ears.  Elvis Presley was highly influenced by black gospel music as well as other popular entertainers and his god message was delivered with a sexy stage presence.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were extensive land bridges between islands in present-day Indonesia, connected them to the southeast Asian mainland. These made it possible for early humans to travel from Africa to islands like Borneo. In what is the first confirmed instance of humans traveling over a significant stretch of open ocean, early man built rafts and made it across the present-day Wallace Line, a deep sea channel in central Indonesia that separates the fauna of west Indonesia (which is more Asian) from east Indonesia (more Australian). From the east side of the Wallace Line, these people reached New Guinea and Australia, which were also connected by land bridges.
> 
> What is a Land Bridge?
> 
> I have a trivia  question for you. Cynognathus Lystrosaurus, how can this dinosaur be found on almost every continent but it can't swim ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize you have refuted your own young earth position by introducing timelines far older than 6,000 years, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't prove when this took place nor can you prove when the one super continent broke up and gave us the many different continents.
Click to expand...


So what proof do YOU have that this happened in the past 6000 years?


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were extensive land bridges between islands in present-day Indonesia, connected them to the southeast Asian mainland. These made it possible for early humans to travel from Africa to islands like Borneo. In what is the first confirmed instance of humans traveling over a significant stretch of open ocean, early man built rafts and made it across the present-day Wallace Line, a deep sea channel in central Indonesia that separates the fauna of west Indonesia (which is more Asian) from east Indonesia (more Australian). From the east side of the Wallace Line, these people reached New Guinea and Australia, which were also connected by land bridges.
> 
> What is a Land Bridge?
> 
> I have a trivia  question for you. Cynognathus Lystrosaurus, how can this dinosaur be found on almost every continent but it can't swim ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize you have refuted your own young earth position by introducing timelines far older than 6,000 years, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't prove when this took place nor can you prove when the one super continent broke up and gave us the many different continents.
Click to expand...


Actually it is proven, give or a few hundred thousand years.    It didn't happen in the last 6000, that much is fact.   The last super continent broke up roughly 200million years ago.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only probability I concern myself with is the reality that non-living matter does not convert itself to living matter.
> 
> Non-life does not produce life get it ? Living organisms produce other living organisms can you prove otherwise ?
> 
> 
> 
> dodge !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't dodge anything, I stated a fact.
Click to expand...

no you did not, you dodged the fact that the science of probability  works against your bull shit about the earth being a one off.
and then you pull a classic denial of fact" The only probability I concern myself with is"- YWC.
You have no proof that the first living things did not come from non living" organic" matter.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered this before even evolutionist agree with my views animals and humans migrated on land bridges.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong!  taking credit for something you did not do.
> btw there is only one proven land bridge between Russia and Alaska.
> that means most all life was where it is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were extensive land bridges between islands in present-day Indonesia, connected them to the southeast Asian mainland. These made it possible for early humans to travel from Africa to islands like Borneo. In what is the first confirmed instance of humans traveling over a significant stretch of open ocean, early man built rafts and made it across the present-day Wallace Line, a deep sea channel in central Indonesia that separates the fauna of west Indonesia (which is more Asian) from east Indonesia (more Australian). From the east side of the Wallace Line, these people reached New Guinea and Australia, which were also connected by land bridges.
> 
> What is a Land Bridge?
> 
> I have a trivia  question for you. Cynognathus Lystrosaurus, how can this dinosaur be found on almost every continent but it can't swim ?
Click to expand...

continental drift...
your trivia question supports continental drift .
the more accurate answer is the dinosaur was wide spread when all the continents were one.  In 1915, the German geologist and meteorologist Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) first proposed the theory of continental drift, which states that parts of the Earth's crust slowly drift atop a liquid core. The fossil record supports and gives credence to the theories of continental drift and plate tectonics. 

Wegener hypothesized that there was an original, gigantic supercontinent 200 million years ago, which he named Pangaea, meaning "All-earth". Pangaea was a supercontinent consisting of all of Earth's land masses. It existed from the Permian through Jurassic periods. It began breaking up during the late Triassic period. 
Pangaea - ZoomSchool.com


it also refutes your young earth steaming pile

exposing YWC'S willful ignorance one post at a time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize you have refuted your own young earth position by introducing timelines far older than 6,000 years, right?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove when this took place nor can you prove when the one super continent broke up and gave us the many different continents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what proof do YOU have that this happened in the past 6000 years?
Click to expand...


What proof do you have that supports your views and do you understand what proof is ? I can't prove God exists. I can't prove how old the earth is. I can't prove how long life existed. I can only try to reason from the evidence. What accounts for precision in nature that is the only question to answer is it the result of naturalism or deliberate design. For me deliberate design seems like the correct reasoning .


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize you have refuted your own young earth position by introducing timelines far older than 6,000 years, right?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove when this took place nor can you prove when the one super continent broke up and gave us the many different continents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it is proven, give or a few hundred thousand years.    It didn't happen in the last 6000, that much is fact.   The last super continent broke up roughly 200million years ago.
Click to expand...


You base this on what ?


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove when this took place nor can you prove when the one super continent broke up and gave us the many different continents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is proven, give or a few hundred thousand years.    It didn't happen in the last 6000, that much is fact.   The last super continent broke up roughly 200million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You base this on what ?
Click to expand...


Ever heard of geology?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong!  taking credit for something you did not do.
> btw there is only one proven land bridge between Russia and Alaska.
> that means most all life was where it is now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were extensive land bridges between islands in present-day Indonesia, connected them to the southeast Asian mainland. These made it possible for early humans to travel from Africa to islands like Borneo. In what is the first confirmed instance of humans traveling over a significant stretch of open ocean, early man built rafts and made it across the present-day Wallace Line, a deep sea channel in central Indonesia that separates the fauna of west Indonesia (which is more Asian) from east Indonesia (more Australian). From the east side of the Wallace Line, these people reached New Guinea and Australia, which were also connected by land bridges.
> 
> What is a Land Bridge?
> 
> I have a trivia  question for you. Cynognathus Lystrosaurus, how can this dinosaur be found on almost every continent but it can't swim ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> continental drift...
> your trivia question supports continental drift .
> the more accurate answer is the dinosaur was wide spread when all the continents were one.  In 1915, the German geologist and meteorologist Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) first proposed the theory of continental drift, which states that parts of the Earth's crust slowly drift atop a liquid core. The fossil record supports and gives credence to the theories of continental drift and plate tectonics.
> 
> Wegener hypothesized that there was an original, gigantic supercontinent 200 million years ago, which he named Pangaea, meaning "All-earth". Pangaea was a supercontinent consisting of all of Earth's land masses. It existed from the Permian through Jurassic periods. It began breaking up during the late Triassic period.
> Pangaea - ZoomSchool.com
> 
> 
> it also refutes your young earth steaming pile
> 
> exposing YWC'S willful ignorance one post at a time.
Click to expand...

So a global flood could not move large animals before they were buried to fossilize ? Explain how whales were found inland by hundreds of miles ? Exposing your own lack of reasoning.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is proven, give or a few hundred thousand years.    It didn't happen in the last 6000, that much is fact.   The last super continent broke up roughly 200million years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You base this on what ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever heard of geology?
Click to expand...


Like I said where is your proof ? your views are based on opinions.


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove when this took place nor can you prove when the one super continent broke up and gave us the many different continents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is proven, give or a few hundred thousand years.    It didn't happen in the last 6000, that much is fact.   The last super continent broke up roughly 200million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You base this on what ?
Click to expand...


Geology.   Look it up.   There are entire libraries on the subject.


----------



## Underhill

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is proven, give or a few hundred thousand years.    It didn't happen in the last 6000, that much is fact.   The last super continent broke up roughly 200million years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You base this on what ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever heard of geology?
Click to expand...


Or what he said....


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You base this on what ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of geology?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said where is your proof ? your views are based on opinions.
Click to expand...


Yes, the opinions of a great many smart men who have looked at the evidence.

This as apposed to a guy reading an old book and making claims based upon zero evidence whatsoever.


----------



## ima

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of geology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said where is your proof ? your views are based on opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the opinions of a great many smart men who have looked at the evidence.
> 
> This as apposed to a guy reading an old book and making claims based upon zero evidence whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Geologic studies are based on observed facts. You have nothing. Go back to bed.


----------



## Underhill

ima said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said where is your proof ? your views are based on opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the opinions of a great many smart men who have looked at the evidence.
> 
> This as apposed to a guy reading an old book and making claims based upon zero evidence whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geologic studies are based on observed facts. You have nothing. Go back to bed.
Click to expand...


So observed facts are meaningless as apposed to what exactly?


----------



## ima

Underhill said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the opinions of a great many smart men who have looked at the evidence.
> 
> This as apposed to a guy reading an old book and making claims based upon zero evidence whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geologic studies are based on observed facts. You have nothing. Go back to bed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So observed facts are meaningless as apposed to what exactly?
Click to expand...

I never said that observable facts were meaningless. What's your point.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were extensive land bridges between islands in present-day Indonesia, connected them to the southeast Asian mainland. These made it possible for early humans to travel from Africa to islands like Borneo. In what is the first confirmed instance of humans traveling over a significant stretch of open ocean, early man built rafts and made it across the present-day Wallace Line, a deep sea channel in central Indonesia that separates the fauna of west Indonesia (which is more Asian) from east Indonesia (more Australian). From the east side of the Wallace Line, these people reached New Guinea and Australia, which were also connected by land bridges.
> 
> What is a Land Bridge?
> 
> I have a trivia  question for you. Cynognathus Lystrosaurus, how can this dinosaur be found on almost every continent but it can't swim ?
> 
> 
> 
> continental drift...
> your trivia question supports continental drift .
> the more accurate answer is the dinosaur was wide spread when all the continents were one.  In 1915, the German geologist and meteorologist Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) first proposed the theory of continental drift, which states that parts of the Earth's crust slowly drift atop a liquid core. The fossil record supports and gives credence to the theories of continental drift and plate tectonics.
> 
> Wegener hypothesized that there was an original, gigantic supercontinent 200 million years ago, which he named Pangaea, meaning "All-earth". Pangaea was a supercontinent consisting of all of Earth's land masses. It existed from the Permian through Jurassic periods. It began breaking up during the late Triassic period.
> Pangaea - ZoomSchool.com
> 
> 
> it also refutes your young earth steaming pile
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a global flood could not move large animals before they were buried to fossilize ? Explain how whales were found inland by hundreds of miles ? Exposing your own lack of reasoning.
Click to expand...

ever heard of inland seas.
you're not really trying to say the bogus great flood beached wales.
to be more  accurate  the wales fossils  are much older then your great flood myth.
in the 4 billon  or so years  life of the earth, seas have come and gone just as mountains, deserts, and forest have.Pictures: Prehistoric Whale "Graveyard" Found in Desert 

exposing YWC'S willful ignorance one post at a time


----------



## HUGGY

"One of the reasons the Pope quit is that the Catholic Church is losing followers..."

NBC News 2/27/13

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_H-LY4Jb2M]Paul Simon - Slip Slidin' Away + lyrics - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is proven, give or a few hundred thousand years.    It didn't happen in the last 6000, that much is fact.   The last super continent broke up roughly 200million years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You base this on what ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geology.   Look it up.   There are entire libraries on the subject.
Click to expand...


Yes, a library is filled with opinions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of geology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said where is your proof ? your views are based on opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the opinions of a great many smart men who have looked at the evidence.
> 
> This as apposed to a guy reading an old book and making claims based upon zero evidence whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Opinions are like you know what and everybody has one. Zero evcidence ? I can infer just like others who disagree my views. Proving an opinion is a different story.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said where is your proof ? your views are based on opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the opinions of a great many smart men who have looked at the evidence.
> 
> This as apposed to a guy reading an old book and making claims based upon zero evidence whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geologic studies are based on observed facts. You have nothing. Go back to bed.
Click to expand...


Really ? how do they know how long a layer of strata took to form ?


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said where is your proof ? your views are based on opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the opinions of a great many smart men who have looked at the evidence.
> 
> This as apposed to a guy reading an old book and making claims based upon zero evidence whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinions are like you know what and everybody has one. Zero evcidence ? I can infer just like others who disagree my views. Proving an opinion is a different story.
Click to expand...


We can date objects very accurately.   We can date events that happened near those objects almost as accurately.   Yes it may be off in some cases, but looking at the assemblage of thousands of objects tied to dozens of events in history, you can get a very clear timeline.

This is not opinion.   This is fact.   It is repeatable, testable and observable.    If you don't believe me, look into it yourself.   

But sitting there saying 'nu uh', like a 6 year old told Santa isn't real, does not help your position in the least.


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the opinions of a great many smart men who have looked at the evidence.
> 
> This as apposed to a guy reading an old book and making claims based upon zero evidence whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geologic studies are based on observed facts. You have nothing. Go back to bed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really ? how do they know how long a layer of strata took to form ?
Click to expand...


Radiometric Dating


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said where is your proof ? your views are based on opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the opinions of a great many smart men who have looked at the evidence.
> 
> This as apposed to a guy reading an old book and making claims based upon zero evidence whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinions are like you know what and everybody has one. Zero evcidence ? I can infer just like others who disagree my views. *Proving an opinion is a different story*.
Click to expand...


Is that why you're having so much trouble proving your opinion about ID?


----------



## daws101

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the opinions of a great many smart men who have looked at the evidence.
> 
> This as apposed to a guy reading an old book and making claims based upon zero evidence whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like you know what and everybody has one. Zero evcidence ? I can infer just like others who disagree my views. Proving an opinion is a different story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can date objects very accurately.   We can date events that happened near those objects almost as accurately.   Yes it may be off in some cases, but looking at the assemblage of thousands of objects tied to dozens of events in history, you can get a very clear timeline.
> 
> This is not opinion.   This is fact.   It is repeatable, testable and observable.    If you don't believe me, look into it yourself.
> 
> But sitting there saying 'nu uh', like a 6 year old told Santa isn't real, does not help your position in the least.
Click to expand...

actually the dating method you are referring to is highly inaccurate: example amphora : Prehistoric origins

Ceramics of shapes and uses falling within the range of amphorae, with or without handles, are of prehistoric heritage across Eurasia, from the Caucasus to China. For example, the qvevri, common in Russia and the Caucasus, can be traced back to about 6000 BC. Amphorae dated to around 4800 BC have been found in Banpo, a Neolithic site of the Yangshao culture in China. Amphorae first appeared on the Phoenician coast around 3500 BC.

In the Bronze and Iron Ages amphorae spread around the ancient Mediterranean world, being used by the ancient Greeks and Romans as the principal means for transporting and storing grapes, olive oil, wine, oil, olives, grain, fish, and other commodities.[1] They were produced on an industrial scale until about the 7th century AD. Wooden and skin containers seem to have supplanted amphorae thereafter.
the point is  lots of objects used in that method design did not change very much over time.


----------



## newpolitics

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> They (dinosaurs) are found in sediment that is dated older using uniformitarian logic. God created a fully complete universe and earth with a finished ecological system. The Flood buried these large creatures under mud etc.  If I bury a body in what appears to be very ancient sediment, the body doesn't become millions of years old simply because its been there only 5000. God chose the animals to be on the ark. I'm sure He picked tame ones and dinosaur eggs are not that large. We have no idea how fast or even how big dinosaurs could grow. It is very possible that some dinosaurs scientists say were different kinds, actually were one in the same only very old. I have no idea what a 1000 year old dinosaur might look like. And you cannot say that dinosaurs couldn't have lived to be very old...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uniformitarian logic? You mean like yesterday being the same as today?That's not a contestable notion unless you introduce a demonstrable mechanism that would cause things to be non-uniformitarian. Considering your reason for needing a non-uniformitarian universe is as an ad hoc theory to have your young universe theory make sense, I am certain you will never find any evidence to support this, especially since evidence already confirms and supports uniformity, such as the speed of light being constant everywhere, and there being no known model that would explain it slowing down ever, or being non-uniformitarian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Charles Lyell created a new paradigm for geology in 1830 by emphasizing a radical uniformity in nature. Though remarkably successful for over 150 years, his system has fallen into disfavor, partly because as Gould (1987) noted, he conjoined distinct concepts into what was soon dubbed uniformitarianism by William Whewell. Though Whewell did not mean it favorably, the term became a symbol of pride and for 150 years geologists trumpeted it as the fundamental principle of geology (Challinor 1968, p. 331).
> 
> But things have changed. By the late twentieth century, many geologists rejected uniformitarianism and some were calling for eliminating the term (Austin 1979; Shea 1982). Much of the clamor can be traced back to the semantic confusion begun by Lyell. Thanks to historians of science, that confusion has been lessened by a rigorous examination of the multiple concepts subsumed for many years under uniformitarianism, although many appear to believe that the conflicts are resolved by the mere explication of these definitions.
> 
> If this were not enough, another layer of complexity is added by the often-unstated metaphysical battle between Christianity and Naturalism. An early manifestation of this conflict was the mythologyalso begun by Lyellthat recast the origin of the science of geology as a simplistic saga. Even today, the public is told that geology began when scientific uniformitarians (the good guys) finally triumphed over religious catastrophists (the bad guys) and claimed the soul of geology. This cartoonish distortion can be traced to the propaganda of Enlightenment apologists, and is, amazingly, echoed today (for example, Repcheck 2003). Though the polemic trick of pitting religion against science proved helpful to non-theistic elements in both the earth and life sciences during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the logic of that position fails under scrutiny, and its propaganda is more widely recognized as such (for example, Stark 2003).
> 
> Continue
> 
> Untangling Uniformitarianism - Answers in Genesis
Click to expand...


Answers in genesis? Are you kidding??? Is this where you get your inspiration for your beliefs? How utterly sad. That website is nothing but an editorial.

Here's the problem: you start with the presupposition, based purely on the bible, that the earth is ten thousand years old. Then you try to fit the evidence to your beliefs. You cant actually do this because the evidence doesn't exist to support your theory, so you are forced to insert doubt about such concepts as uniformitarianism, as an ad hoc explanation for why modern science doesn't bear out your version on the universe. Put differently, You don't follow the evidence to their desired conclusions, you lead them presuppositions formed when you took the bible to be literally true. Yet, you have no reason to believe the bible other than your faith, which by definition requires no evidence, just conviction. So, the only basis for your conviction, is a lack of evidence. What you imply, is that real evidence is bad- possibly the work of the devil to deceive all of us, or the work of god to test our faith? Either scenario challenges the idea that god is who it claims to be. This is all plainly visible to everyone who isn't a YEC. Is it possible you are right? Yes.  Does the evidence indicate that this is likely? Not even remotely. You have to start with the evidence, not your own preformed beliefs. Ever heard of Bayes Theorem? If not, I suggest taking a gander.


----------



## Underhill

daws101 said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like you know what and everybody has one. Zero evcidence ? I can infer just like others who disagree my views. Proving an opinion is a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can date objects very accurately.   We can date events that happened near those objects almost as accurately.   Yes it may be off in some cases, but looking at the assemblage of thousands of objects tied to dozens of events in history, you can get a very clear timeline.
> 
> This is not opinion.   This is fact.   It is repeatable, testable and observable.    If you don't believe me, look into it yourself.
> 
> But sitting there saying 'nu uh', like a 6 year old told Santa isn't real, does not help your position in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually the dating method you are referring to is highly inaccurate: example amphora : Prehistoric origins
> 
> Ceramics of shapes and uses falling within the range of amphorae, with or without handles, are of prehistoric heritage across Eurasia, from the Caucasus to China. For example, the qvevri, common in Russia and the Caucasus, can be traced back to about 6000 BC. Amphorae dated to around 4800 BC have been found in Banpo, a Neolithic site of the Yangshao culture in China. Amphorae first appeared on the Phoenician coast around 3500 BC.
> 
> In the Bronze and Iron Ages amphorae spread around the ancient Mediterranean world, being used by the ancient Greeks and Romans as the principal means for transporting and storing grapes, olive oil, wine, oil, olives, grain, fish, and other commodities.[1] They were produced on an industrial scale until about the 7th century AD. Wooden and skin containers seem to have supplanted amphorae thereafter.
> the point is  lots of objects used in that method design did not change very much over time.
Click to expand...


Then you need to keep reading.   

I'm not talking about dating objects by their type or design.   I specifically mentioned radiometric dating which is very accurate.


----------



## daws101

Underhill said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can date objects very accurately.   We can date events that happened near those objects almost as accurately.   Yes it may be off in some cases, but looking at the assemblage of thousands of objects tied to dozens of events in history, you can get a very clear timeline.
> 
> This is not opinion.   This is fact.   It is repeatable, testable and observable.    If you don't believe me, look into it yourself.
> 
> But sitting there saying 'nu uh', like a 6 year old told Santa isn't real, does not help your position in the least.
> 
> 
> 
> actually the dating method you are referring to is highly inaccurate: example amphora : Prehistoric origins
> 
> Ceramics of shapes and uses falling within the range of amphorae, with or without handles, are of prehistoric heritage across Eurasia, from the Caucasus to China. For example, the qvevri, common in Russia and the Caucasus, can be traced back to about 6000 BC. Amphorae dated to around 4800 BC have been found in Banpo, a Neolithic site of the Yangshao culture in China. Amphorae first appeared on the Phoenician coast around 3500 BC.
> 
> In the Bronze and Iron Ages amphorae spread around the ancient Mediterranean world, being used by the ancient Greeks and Romans as the principal means for transporting and storing grapes, olive oil, wine, oil, olives, grain, fish, and other commodities.[1] They were produced on an industrial scale until about the 7th century AD. Wooden and skin containers seem to have supplanted amphorae thereafter.
> the point is  lots of objects used in that method design did not change very much over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you need to keep reading.
> 
> I'm not talking about dating objects by their type or design.   I specifically mentioned radiometric dating which is very accurate.
Click to expand...

I agree.. it's  ywc that has major difficulties understanding any dating system that doesn't  fit in his 6000 year fantasy time frame..


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the opinions of a great many smart men who have looked at the evidence.
> 
> This as apposed to a guy reading an old book and making claims based upon zero evidence whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geologic studies are based on observed facts. You have nothing. Go back to bed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really ? how do they know how long a layer of strata took to form ?
Click to expand...


I'm not a geologist, but the deeper the excavation the further back in time it's from. So I guess you can figure out from that how fast the accumulation is.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uniformitarian logic? You mean like yesterday being the same as today?That's not a contestable notion unless you introduce a demonstrable mechanism that would cause things to be non-uniformitarian. Considering your reason for needing a non-uniformitarian universe is as an ad hoc theory to have your young universe theory make sense, I am certain you will never find any evidence to support this, especially since evidence already confirms and supports uniformity, such as the speed of light being constant everywhere, and there being no known model that would explain it slowing down ever, or being non-uniformitarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Lyell created a new paradigm for geology in 1830 by emphasizing a radical uniformity in nature. Though remarkably successful for over 150 years, his system has fallen into disfavor, partly because as Gould (1987) noted, he conjoined distinct concepts into what was soon dubbed uniformitarianism by William Whewell. Though Whewell did not mean it favorably, the term became a symbol of pride and for 150 years geologists trumpeted it as the fundamental principle of geology (Challinor 1968, p. 331).
> 
> But things have changed. By the late twentieth century, many geologists rejected uniformitarianism and some were calling for eliminating the term (Austin 1979; Shea 1982). Much of the clamor can be traced back to the semantic confusion begun by Lyell. Thanks to historians of science, that confusion has been lessened by a rigorous examination of the multiple concepts subsumed for many years under uniformitarianism, although many appear to believe that the conflicts are resolved by the mere explication of these definitions.
> 
> If this were not enough, another layer of complexity is added by the often-unstated metaphysical battle between Christianity and Naturalism. An early manifestation of this conflict was the mythologyalso begun by Lyellthat recast the origin of the science of geology as a simplistic saga. Even today, the public is told that geology began when scientific uniformitarians (the good guys) finally triumphed over religious catastrophists (the bad guys) and claimed the soul of geology. This cartoonish distortion can be traced to the propaganda of Enlightenment apologists, and is, amazingly, echoed today (for example, Repcheck 2003). Though the polemic trick of pitting religion against science proved helpful to non-theistic elements in both the earth and life sciences during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the logic of that position fails under scrutiny, and its propaganda is more widely recognized as such (for example, Stark 2003).
> 
> Continue
> 
> Untangling Uniformitarianism - Answers in Genesis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answers in genesis? Are you kidding??? Is this where you get your inspiration for your beliefs? How utterly sad. That website is nothing but an editorial...
Click to expand...


*Here's the problem: you start with the presupposition, based purely on pseudoscience about magical events that happened in the very distant past, that evolution is true. Then you try to fit the evidence to suport your beliefs. ...*

*Physician heal thyself!!!*


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geologic studies are based on observed facts. You have nothing. Go back to bed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? how do they know how long a layer of strata took to form ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a geologist, but the deeper the excavation the further back in time it's from. So I guess you can figure out from that how fast the accumulation is.
Click to expand...


Wow, you guys are so smart and YWC is so clueless. Except for the fact that you are totally ignorant to the effects of extrapolation. In the brainwashed world of the pseudoscience of evolution, they like to pretend that extrapolation produces as meaningful results as interpolation. 

From Wiki: _...Extrapolation is the process of estimating, beyond the original observation interval, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable. It is similar to interpolation, which produces estimates between known observations, but *extrapolation is subject to greater uncertainty and a higher risk of producing meaningless results.*_


----------



## UltimateReality

Underhill said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can date objects very accurately.   We can date events that happened near those objects almost as accurately.   Yes it may be off in some cases, but looking at the assemblage of thousands of objects tied to dozens of events in history, you can get a very clear timeline.
> 
> This is not opinion.   This is fact.   It is repeatable, testable and observable.    If you don't believe me, look into it yourself.
> 
> But sitting there saying 'nu uh', like a 6 year old told Santa isn't real, does not help your position in the least.
> 
> 
> 
> actually the dating method you are referring to is highly inaccurate: example amphora : Prehistoric origins
> 
> Ceramics of shapes and uses falling within the range of amphorae, with or without handles, are of prehistoric heritage across Eurasia, from the Caucasus to China. For example, the qvevri, common in Russia and the Caucasus, can be traced back to about 6000 BC. Amphorae dated to around 4800 BC have been found in Banpo, a Neolithic site of the Yangshao culture in China. Amphorae first appeared on the Phoenician coast around 3500 BC.
> 
> In the Bronze and Iron Ages amphorae spread around the ancient Mediterranean world, being used by the ancient Greeks and Romans as the principal means for transporting and storing grapes, olive oil, wine, oil, olives, grain, fish, and other commodities.[1] They were produced on an industrial scale until about the 7th century AD. Wooden and skin containers seem to have supplanted amphorae thereafter.
> the point is  lots of objects used in that method design did not change very much over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you need to keep reading.
> 
> I'm not talking about dating objects by their type or design.   I specifically mentioned radiometric dating which is very accurate.
Click to expand...


...Within the miniscule time line of dated events. If we laid out the history of the earth time line on a straight road and let known human history be represented by one foot, the rest of earth's history would stretch out behind that foot for 150 miles!!!!! So in theory, you are examining phenomenon inside the one foot and claiming it continues for 100 miles. See the definition for extrapolation above. Only the blinded Darwinists aren't aware of the limitations of dating methods. Of course I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe the earth is 3.5 to 4 Billion years old. Nevertheless, I do realize the scientific limitations of radiometric dating, as well as other dating methods.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Lyell created a new paradigm for geology in 1830 by emphasizing a radical uniformity in nature. Though remarkably successful for over 150 years, his system has fallen into disfavor, partly because as Gould (1987) noted, he conjoined distinct concepts into what was soon dubbed uniformitarianism by William Whewell. Though Whewell did not mean it favorably, the term became a symbol of pride and for 150 years geologists trumpeted it as the fundamental principle of geology (Challinor 1968, p. 331).
> 
> But things have changed. By the late twentieth century, many geologists rejected uniformitarianism and some were calling for eliminating the term (Austin 1979; Shea 1982). Much of the clamor can be traced back to the semantic confusion begun by Lyell. Thanks to historians of science, that confusion has been lessened by a rigorous examination of the multiple concepts subsumed for many years under uniformitarianism, although many appear to believe that the conflicts are resolved by the mere explication of these definitions.
> 
> If this were not enough, another layer of complexity is added by the often-unstated metaphysical battle between Christianity and Naturalism. An early manifestation of this conflict was the mythologyalso begun by Lyellthat recast the origin of the science of geology as a simplistic saga. Even today, the public is told that geology began when scientific uniformitarians (the good guys) finally triumphed over religious catastrophists (the bad guys) and claimed the soul of geology. This cartoonish distortion can be traced to the propaganda of Enlightenment apologists, and is, amazingly, echoed today (for example, Repcheck 2003). Though the polemic trick of pitting religion against science proved helpful to non-theistic elements in both the earth and life sciences during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the logic of that position fails under scrutiny, and its propaganda is more widely recognized as such (for example, Stark 2003).
> 
> Continue
> 
> Untangling Uniformitarianism - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answers in genesis? Are you kidding??? Is this where you get your inspiration for your beliefs? How utterly sad. That website is nothing but an editorial...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Here's the problem: you start with the presupposition, based purely on pseudoscience about magical events that happened in the very distant past, that evolution is true. Then you try to fit the evidence to suport your beliefs. ...*
> 
> *Physician heal thyself!!!*
Click to expand...


I'm not starting with the presupposition that the Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist. Here you are trying to switch the burden of proof, again. I am simply unconvinced by the evidence that a god does exist. In this case, it is a complete lack of evidence.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? how do they know how long a layer of strata took to form ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a geologist, but the deeper the excavation the further back in time it's from. So I guess you can figure out from that how fast the accumulation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you guys are so smart and YWC is so clueless. Except for the fact that you are totally ignorant to the effects of extrapolation. In the brainwashed world of the pseudoscience of evolution, they like to pretend that extrapolation produces as meaningful results as interpolation.
> 
> From Wiki: _...Extrapolation is the process of estimating, beyond the original observation interval, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable. It is similar to interpolation, which produces estimates between known observations, but *extrapolation is subject to greater uncertainty and a higher risk of producing meaningless results.*_
Click to expand...


Like I said, I'm not a geologist. And I'm not a fool. Which is more than you can say. You think Noah was 900 years old had a big boat with dinosaurs on it. 'Nuff said.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? how do they know how long a layer of strata took to form ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a geologist, but the deeper the excavation the further back in time it's from. So I guess you can figure out from that how fast the accumulation is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you guys are so smart and YWC is so clueless. Except for the fact that you are totally ignorant to the effects of extrapolation. In the brainwashed world of the pseudoscience of evolution, they like to pretend that extrapolation produces as meaningful results as interpolation.
> 
> From Wiki: _...Extrapolation is the process of estimating, beyond the original observation interval, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable. It is similar to interpolation, which produces estimates between known observations, but *extrapolation is subject to greater uncertainty and a higher risk of producing meaningless results.*_
Click to expand...


Extrapolation is precisely the process employed by fundies in terms of adding human based attributes in the formulation of their gawds.

Posting in gargantuan fonts makes my statements true!


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a geologist, but the deeper the excavation the further back in time it's from. So I guess you can figure out from that how fast the accumulation is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you guys are so smart and YWC is so clueless. Except for the fact that you are totally ignorant to the effects of extrapolation. In the brainwashed world of the pseudoscience of evolution, they like to pretend that extrapolation produces as meaningful results as interpolation.
> 
> From Wiki: _...Extrapolation is the process of estimating, beyond the original observation interval, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable. It is similar to interpolation, which produces estimates between known observations, but *extrapolation is subject to greater uncertainty and a higher risk of producing meaningless results.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Extrapolation is precisely the process employed by fundies in terms of adding human based attributes in the formulation of their gawds.
> 
> Posting in gargantuan fonts makes my statements true!
Click to expand...

must have been a slow day at creation museum ....


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you guys are so smart and YWC is so clueless. Except for the fact that you are totally ignorant to the effects of extrapolation. In the brainwashed world of the pseudoscience of evolution, they like to pretend that extrapolation produces as meaningful results as interpolation.
> 
> From Wiki: _...Extrapolation is the process of estimating, beyond the original observation interval, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable. It is similar to interpolation, which produces estimates between known observations, but *extrapolation is subject to greater uncertainty and a higher risk of producing meaningless results.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extrapolation is precisely the process employed by fundies in terms of adding human based attributes in the formulation of their gawds.
> 
> Posting in gargantuan fonts makes my statements true!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> must have been a slow day at creation museum ....
Click to expand...


Negative. I have just realized that arguing with fools is an exercise in futility and a huge time waster which basically accomplishes nothing. Only an idiot would continue to argue with idiots so I have chosen not to argue with you and Hawly anymore.


_*Psalm 14:1 (NIV)
The fool says in his heart, &#8220;There is no God.&#8221;*_


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Extrapolation is precisely the process employed by fundies in terms of adding human based attributes in the formulation of their gawds.
> 
> Posting in gargantuan fonts makes my statements true!
> 
> 
> 
> must have been a slow day at creation museum ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negative. I have just realized that arguing with fools is an exercise in futility and a huge time waster which basically accomplishes nothing. Only an idiot would continue to argue with idiots so I have chosen not to argue with you and Hawly anymore.
> 
> 
> _*Psalm 14:1 (NIV)
> The fool says in his heart, There is no God.*_
Click to expand...


So... it seems attendance is down at the creation museum.

A wise man once said of the fundie christians:

*"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism". *


----------



## LittleNipper

300 million year old coal --- 500 million year old coal. Such "odd" artifacts make complete sense if they are 6000 years old and Uniformitarians are wrong about the dates. Please watch the fpllowing:

MSN Entertainment -


----------



## Underhill

UltimateReality said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually the dating method you are referring to is highly inaccurate: example amphora : Prehistoric origins
> 
> Ceramics of shapes and uses falling within the range of amphorae, with or without handles, are of prehistoric heritage across Eurasia, from the Caucasus to China. For example, the qvevri, common in Russia and the Caucasus, can be traced back to about 6000 BC. Amphorae dated to around 4800 BC have been found in Banpo, a Neolithic site of the Yangshao culture in China. Amphorae first appeared on the Phoenician coast around 3500 BC.
> 
> In the Bronze and Iron Ages amphorae spread around the ancient Mediterranean world, being used by the ancient Greeks and Romans as the principal means for transporting and storing grapes, olive oil, wine, oil, olives, grain, fish, and other commodities.[1] They were produced on an industrial scale until about the 7th century AD. Wooden and skin containers seem to have supplanted amphorae thereafter.
> the point is  lots of objects used in that method design did not change very much over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to keep reading.
> 
> I'm not talking about dating objects by their type or design.   I specifically mentioned radiometric dating which is very accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...Within the miniscule time line of dated events. If we laid out the history of the earth time line on a straight road and let known human history be represented by one foot, the rest of earth's history would stretch out behind that foot for 150 miles!!!!! So in theory, you are examining phenomenon inside the one foot and claiming it continues for 100 miles. See the definition for extrapolation above. Only the blinded Darwinists aren't aware of the limitations of dating methods. Of course I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe the earth is 3.5 to 4 Billion years old. Nevertheless, I do realize the scientific limitations of radiometric dating, as well as other dating methods.
Click to expand...


As do I.   And if you were talking about dating one object I might agree that the evidence is not conclusive.   Even 10 objects has some margin of error.

But when you are talking about dating hundreds, or thousands or even tens of thousands of objects, which has been done, the argument becomes shit.


----------



## ima

So WHY did god create the universe and the world? IDers must have a theory.


----------



## UltimateReality

Underhill said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to keep reading.
> 
> I'm not talking about dating objects by their type or design.   I specifically mentioned radiometric dating which is very accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Within the miniscule time line of dated events. If we laid out the history of the earth time line on a straight road and let known human history be represented by one foot, the rest of earth's history would stretch out behind that foot for 150 miles!!!!! So in theory, you are examining phenomenon inside the one foot and claiming it continues for 100 miles. See the definition for extrapolation above. Only the blinded Darwinists aren't aware of the limitations of dating methods. Of course I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe the earth is 3.5 to 4 Billion years old. Nevertheless, I do realize the scientific limitations of radiometric dating, as well as other dating methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do I.   And if you were talking about dating one object I might agree that the evidence is not conclusive.   Even 10 objects has some margin of error.
> 
> But when you are talking about dating hundreds, or thousands or even tens of thousands of objects, which has been done, the argument becomes shit.
Click to expand...


Your assumption is flawed. If you are using a flawed methodology, then the sheer number of times said methodology is used has no bearing on its validity.


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> So WHY did god create the universe and the world? IDers must have a theory.



I believe God ultimately wanted to become a human and interact with His creation on an intimate level. I believe God created the universe to express eternity in a way humans might visualize it.


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So WHY did god create the universe and the world? IDers must have a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God ultimately wanted to become a human and interact with His creation on an intimate level. I believe God created the universe to express eternity in a way humans might visualize it.
Click to expand...


But why create humans in the first place? So they can behave and be chosen to go live with god when they die? Why not just not make the universe in the first place, then everyone could live with god. Please try to make some sense.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So WHY did god create the universe and the world? IDers must have a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God ultimately wanted to become a human and interact with His creation on an intimate level. I believe God created the universe to express eternity in a way humans might visualize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But why create humans in the first place? So they can behave and be chosen to go live with god when they die? Why not just not make the universe in the first place, then everyone could live with god. Please try to make some sense.
Click to expand...


God created a place where we could freely choose him. What worth is love from a zombie or robot that has no other choice? Theologians have been wrestling with these topics for thousands of years. You are not the first to question such things. I think if you really wanted answers you could find them. Books by CS Lewis would be a good place to start. The truth of the matter is, I don't think your question was really in search of the truth. Like others here, it is a taunt or attack. There are enough books on the topic to fill a huge library so if you really seek the truth, then why not seriously go look for it?


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God ultimately wanted to become a human and interact with His creation on an intimate level. I believe God created the universe to express eternity in a way humans might visualize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But why create humans in the first place? So they can behave and be chosen to go live with god when they die? Why not just not make the universe in the first place, then everyone could live with god. Please try to make some sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *God created a place where we could freely choose him*. What worth is love from a zombie or robot that has no other choice? Theologians have been wrestling with these topics for thousands of years. You are not the first to question such things. I think if you really wanted answers you could find them. Books by CS Lewis would be a good place to start. The truth of the matter is, I don't think your question was really in search of the truth. Like others here, it is a taunt or attack. There are enough books on the topic to fill a huge library so if you really seek the truth, then why not seriously go look for it?
Click to expand...


That makes no sense. If god wanted us to choose him, why give us the choice? And why punish anyone who doesn't choose him? That's cuckoo.


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> But why create humans in the first place? So they can behave and be chosen to go live with god when they die? Why not just not make the universe in the first place, then everyone could live with god. Please try to make some sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *God created a place where we could freely choose him*. What worth is love from a zombie or robot that has no other choice? Theologians have been wrestling with these topics for thousands of years. You are not the first to question such things. I think if you really wanted answers you could find them. Books by CS Lewis would be a good place to start. The truth of the matter is, I don't think your question was really in search of the truth. Like others here, it is a taunt or attack. There are enough books on the topic to fill a huge library so if you really seek the truth, then why not seriously go look for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. If god wanted us to choose him, why give us the choice? And why punish anyone who doesn't choose him? That's cuckoo.
Click to expand...


Man has been guided by laws and choices since his beginning.

What is the point of choices and laws ?


----------



## Hollie

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> But why create humans in the first place? So they can behave and be chosen to go live with god when they die? Why not just not make the universe in the first place, then everyone could live with god. Please try to make some sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *God created a place where we could freely choose him*. What worth is love from a zombie or robot that has no other choice? Theologians have been wrestling with these topics for thousands of years. You are not the first to question such things. I think if you really wanted answers you could find them. Books by CS Lewis would be a good place to start. The truth of the matter is, I don't think your question was really in search of the truth. Like others here, it is a taunt or attack. There are enough books on the topic to fill a huge library so if you really seek the truth, then why not seriously go look for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. If god wanted us to choose him, why give us the choice? And why punish anyone who doesn't choose him? That's cuckoo.
Click to expand...


Nicely stated. 

Quite clearly, there is no "choice". There is only a coercive and really ugly threat: &#8220;Believe in me and have an eternity of paradise&#8230; or&#8230; refuse and suffer searing flesh and eternal torment.

How nice!


From the _Mafioso Book of the Dead_:

&#8220;Make em&#8217; an offer he can&#8217;t refuse&#8221;


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> *God created a place where we could freely choose him*. What worth is love from a zombie or robot that has no other choice? Theologians have been wrestling with these topics for thousands of years. You are not the first to question such things. I think if you really wanted answers you could find them. Books by CS Lewis would be a good place to start. The truth of the matter is, I don't think your question was really in search of the truth. Like others here, it is a taunt or attack. There are enough books on the topic to fill a huge library so if you really seek the truth, then why not seriously go look for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. If god wanted us to choose him, why give us the choice? And why punish anyone who doesn't choose him? That's cuckoo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man has been guided by laws and choices since his beginning.
> 
> What is the point of choices and laws ?
Click to expand...

the continuation of the species.
without them you'd still be a cannibal...


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So WHY did god create the universe and the world? IDers must have a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God ultimately wanted to become a human and interact with His creation on an intimate level. I believe God created the universe to express eternity in a way humans might visualize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But why create humans in the first place? So they can behave and be chosen to go live with god when they die? Why not just not make the universe in the first place, then everyone could live with god. Please try to make some sense.
Click to expand...


God did create perfect humans and allowed them to do whatever they desired. There was only one thing they were no to do, and that is to eat of the forbidden fruit. Now God allowed this to Adam & Eve because He was aware that choice would result in humans  who were not perfect, but many would choose to listen to God and depend on Him --- given that future. God is going to make a new universe and destroy the old one. Everyone who accepted God's love (Christ) will then have their memory erased and will be sealed (as were the angels who did not side with Lucifer were sealed). Then all these will live with God and be as God desired them to be in God's new universe.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God ultimately wanted to become a human and interact with His creation on an intimate level. I believe God created the universe to express eternity in a way humans might visualize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But why create humans in the first place? So they can behave and be chosen to go live with god when they die? Why not just not make the universe in the first place, then everyone could live with god. Please try to make some sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God did create perfect humans and allowed them to do whatever they desired. There was only one thing they were no to do, and that is to eat of the forbidden fruit. Now God allowed this to Adam & Eve because He was aware that choice would result in humans  who were not perfect, but many would choose to listen to God and depend on Him --- given that future. God is going to make a new universe and destroy the old one. Everyone who accepted God's love (Christ) will then have their memory erased and will be sealed (as were the angels who did not side with Lucifer were sealed). Then all these will live with God and be as God desired them to be in God's new universe.
Click to expand...

 there is no evidence that any of the previous statement is fact....
the human form is not and never has been perfect....it has major design flaws, is highly susceptible to disease and damage..


----------



## t_polkow

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



"If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also 
teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction."
..........Judith Haye


----------



## ima

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> But why create humans in the first place? So they can behave and be chosen to go live with god when they die? Why not just not make the universe in the first place, then everyone could live with god. Please try to make some sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God did create perfect humans and allowed them to do whatever they desired. There was only one thing they were no to do, and that is to eat of the forbidden fruit. Now God allowed this to Adam & Eve because He was aware that choice would result in humans  who were not perfect, but many would choose to listen to God and depend on Him --- given that future. God is going to make a new universe and destroy the old one. Everyone who accepted God's love (Christ) will then have their memory erased and will be sealed (as were the angels who did not side with Lucifer were sealed). Then all these will live with God and be as God desired them to be in God's new universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no evidence that any of the previous statement is fact....
> the human form is not and never has been perfect....it has major design flaws, is highly susceptible to disease and damage..
Click to expand...


Nip, by your response I'd say that you probably have mental problems. I suggest that you get it checked just to be safe.


----------



## newpolitics

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God ultimately wanted to become a human and interact with His creation on an intimate level. I believe God created the universe to express eternity in a way humans might visualize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But why create humans in the first place? So they can behave and be chosen to go live with god when they die? Why not just not make the universe in the first place, then everyone could live with god. Please try to make some sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God did create perfect humans and allowed them to do whatever they desired. There was only one thing they were no to do, and that is to eat of the forbidden fruit. Now God allowed this to Adam & Eve because He was aware that choice would result in humans  who were not perfect, but many would choose to listen to God and depend on Him --- given that future. God is going to make a new universe and destroy the old one. Everyone who accepted God's love (Christ) will then have their memory erased and will be sealed (as were the angels who did not side with Lucifer were sealed). Then all these will live with God and be as God desired them to be in God's new universe.
Click to expand...


How do you know?


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> But why create humans in the first place? So they can behave and be chosen to go live with god when they die? Why not just not make the universe in the first place, then everyone could live with god. Please try to make some sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God did create perfect humans and allowed them to do whatever they desired. There was only one thing they were no to do, and that is to eat of the forbidden fruit. Now God allowed this to Adam & Eve because He was aware that choice would result in humans  who were not perfect, but many would choose to listen to God and depend on Him --- given that future. God is going to make a new universe and destroy the old one. Everyone who accepted God's love (Christ) will then have their memory erased and will be sealed (as were the angels who did not side with Lucifer were sealed). Then all these will live with God and be as God desired them to be in God's new universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know?
Click to expand...

the short answer ....he /she doesn't,  great fairy tale though.


----------



## Underhill

daws101 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did create perfect humans and allowed them to do whatever they desired. There was only one thing they were no to do, and that is to eat of the forbidden fruit. Now God allowed this to Adam & Eve because He was aware that choice would result in humans  who were not perfect, but many would choose to listen to God and depend on Him --- given that future. God is going to make a new universe and destroy the old one. Everyone who accepted God's love (Christ) will then have their memory erased and will be sealed (as were the angels who did not side with Lucifer were sealed). Then all these will live with God and be as God desired them to be in God's new universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the short answer ....he /she doesn't,  great fairy tale though.
Click to expand...


That's just it.   They want it to be true really bad.

When you've spent decades giving to the church, investing your time and so much energy into the idea that you are building up a spiritual savings account (only what's done for christ will last), it's a hard thing, damn near impossible really, to look at the situation objectively and even entertain the notion that you were duped.

It's like the wife finding out her loving husband has been cheating on her for years, she really doesn't want to believe it.  

And it is comforting to think you will live forever.   It's a lovely thought that you will get to see beloved family members again in the next life.    The man in the sky who loves you and looks out for you (accept when he doesn't because his ways are mysterious) can make you feel better.   

Problem is, it's all delusion.   And it is so obvious to the outsider.    If I were to come up with a similar story and claim it as truth, people would laugh at me.    Call me a liar.    That's how it started for Joseph Smith and Charles Russel.    And most christians still do look at mormons and jehovah's witnesses that way.    At least until one of them decided to run for president. *boggle


----------



## daws101

Underhill said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> the short answer ....he /she doesn't,  great fairy tale though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just it.   They want it to be true really bad.
> 
> When you've spent decades giving to the church, investing your time and so much energy into the idea that you are building up a spiritual savings account (only what's done for christ will last), it's a hard thing, damn near impossible really, to look at the situation objectively and even entertain the notion that you were duped.
> 
> It's like the wife finding out her loving husband has been cheating on her for years, she really doesn't want to believe it.
> 
> And it is comforting to think you will live forever.   It's a lovely thought that you will get to see beloved family members again in the next life.    The man in the sky who loves you and looks out for you (accept when he doesn't because his ways are mysterious) can make you feel better.
> 
> Problem is, it's all delusion.   And it is so obvious to the outsider.    If I were to come up with a similar story and claim it as truth, people would laugh at me.    Call me a liar.    That's how it started for Joseph Smith and Charles Russel.    And most christians still do look at mormons and jehovah's witnesses that way.    At least until one of them decided to run for president. *boggle
Click to expand...

I grew up Mormon so you're preaching to the choir..(pun intended)


----------



## LittleNipper

t_polkow said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also
> teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction."
> ..........Judith Haye
Click to expand...


This is apples and oranges. We know how a baby is procreated and this is substantiated by the Bible. Man knew thousands of years ago what it took to have a baby. There is revealed documented evidence regarding Creation. The is no absolute proof that uniformitarianism and evolution are how man appeared on this planet. There is cause to believe that there is GOD. There is no proof that man or history is the result of the roll of the dice. Everything is interconnected. All one needs to do is study history to see how this caused that and that caused this. It is like there are forces at work.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also
> teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction."
> ..........Judith Haye
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is apples and oranges. We know how a baby is procreated and this is substantiated by the Bible. Man knew thousands of years ago what it took to have a baby. There is revealed documented evidence regarding Creation. The is no absolute proof that uniformitarianism and evolution are how man appeared on this planet. There is cause to believe that there is GOD. There is no proof that man or history is the result of the roll of the dice. Everything is interconnected. All one needs to do is study history to see how this caused that and that caused this. It is like there are forces at work.
Click to expand...


----------



## LittleNipper

newpolitics said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> But why create humans in the first place? So they can behave and be chosen to go live with god when they die? Why not just not make the universe in the first place, then everyone could live with god. Please try to make some sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God did create perfect humans and allowed them to do whatever they desired. There was only one thing they were not to do, and that is to eat of the forbidden fruit. Now God allowed this to Adam & Eve because He was aware that choice would result in humans  who were not perfect, but many would choose to listen to God and depend on Him --- given that future. God is going to make a new universe and destroy the old one. Everyone who accepted God's love (Christ) will then have their memory erased and will be sealed (as were the angels who did not side with Lucifer were sealed). Then all these will live with God and be as God desired them to be in God's new universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know?
Click to expand...

 I see the world around me. I see that those who really love the Lord have faith and are kind (not perfect) and loving. They are not swayed by every little fad that comes along. I look at US history and see both punishment and reward, just as appears in the Bible. I see that various religions either help or hurt people in general as they move biblically or unbiblically. I see that atheism has made people change to be indifferent. I also see that people who say they are servants of GOD, but in fact are only interested in wealth and power, are no different than atheists (perhaps even worse) as they manipulate and contrive to control. I see that the prophetic message of the Bible actually seems to be right on target.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did create perfect humans and allowed them to do whatever they desired. There was only one thing they were not to do, and that is to eat of the forbidden fruit. Now God allowed this to Adam & Eve because He was aware that choice would result in humans  who were not perfect, but many would choose to listen to God and depend on Him --- given that future. God is going to make a new universe and destroy the old one. Everyone who accepted God's love (Christ) will then have their memory erased and will be sealed (as were the angels who did not side with Lucifer were sealed). Then all these will live with God and be as God desired them to be in God's new universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the world around me. I see that those who really love the Lord have faith and are kind (not perfect) and loving. They are not swayed by every little fad that comes along. I look at US history and see both punishment and reward, just as appears in the Bible. I see that various religions either help or hurt people in general as they move biblically or unbiblically. I see that atheism has made people change to be indifferent. I also see that people who say they are servants of GOD, but in fact are only interested in wealth and power, are no different than atheists (perhaps even worse) as they manipulate and contrive to control. I see that the prophetic message of the Bible actually seems to be right on target.
Click to expand...

none of this statement has anything to do with the question asked. 

it's like an answering machine message..


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also
> teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction."
> ..........Judith Haye
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is apples and oranges. *We know how a baby is procreated and this is substantiated by the Bible.* Man knew thousands of years ago what it took to have a baby. There is revealed documented evidence regarding Creation. The is no absolute proof that uniformitarianism and evolution are how man appeared on this planet. There is cause to believe that there is GOD. There is no proof that man or history is the result of the roll of the dice. Everything is interconnected. All one needs to do is study history to see how this caused that and that caused this. It is like there are forces at work.
Click to expand...


Mary was a virgin according to the bible, so either she only got assfucked by Joseph and some of his sperm dribbled down into her vagina, or else what could it be?


----------



## daws101

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also
> teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction."
> ..........Judith Haye
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is apples and oranges. *We know how a baby is procreated and this is substantiated by the Bible.* Man knew thousands of years ago what it took to have a baby. There is revealed documented evidence regarding Creation. The is no absolute proof that uniformitarianism and evolution are how man appeared on this planet. There is cause to believe that there is GOD. There is no proof that man or history is the result of the roll of the dice. Everything is interconnected. All one needs to do is study history to see how this caused that and that caused this. It is like there are forces at work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mary was a virgin according to the bible, so either she only got assfucked by Joseph and some of his sperm dribbled down into her vagina, or else what could it be?
Click to expand...

if it was emaculate  conception, did god by her dinner first?


----------



## theHawk

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



Ask Obama.  He's a Christian.


----------



## pjnlsn

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God ultimately wanted to become a human and interact with His creation on an intimate level. I believe God created the universe to express eternity in a way humans might visualize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But why create humans in the first place? So they can behave and be chosen to go live with god when they die? Why not just not make the universe in the first place, then everyone could live with god. Please try to make some sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God did create perfect humans and allowed them to do whatever they desired. There was only one thing they were no to do, and that is to eat of the forbidden fruit. Now God allowed this to Adam & Eve because He was aware that choice would result in humans  who were not perfect, but many would choose to listen to God and depend on Him --- given that future. God is going to make a new universe and destroy the old one. Everyone who accepted God's love (Christ) will then have their memory erased and will be sealed (as were the angels who did not side with Lucifer were sealed). Then all these will live with God and be as God desired them to be in God's new universe.
Click to expand...


The claim that a god exists is impossible to prove, or even to find evidence specifically in support or in contradiction. And the addition of unverified events and people (or places) doesn't help that in any way.


----------



## daws101

theHawk said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask Obama.  He's a Christian.
Click to expand...

but not a creationist!


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did create perfect humans and allowed them to do whatever they desired. There was only one thing they were no to do, and that is to eat of the forbidden fruit. Now God allowed this to Adam & Eve because He was aware that choice would result in humans  who were not perfect, but many would choose to listen to God and depend on Him --- given that future. God is going to make a new universe and destroy the old one. Everyone who accepted God's love (Christ) will then have their memory erased and will be sealed (as were the angels who did not side with Lucifer were sealed). Then all these will live with God and be as God desired them to be in God's new universe.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no evidence that any of the previous statement is fact....
> the human form is not and never has been perfect....it has major design flaws, is highly susceptible to disease and damage..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nip, by your response I'd say that you probably have mental problems. I suggest that you get it checked just to be safe.
Click to expand...


I believe that those who do not see God in nature are stupidly blind. I plainly see cause and affect played out even in the news. Non-believers scoff at conspiracy theory; however, I know that evil is in a heated battle to overpower good. The conspiracy is to say such is not the case.


----------



## pjnlsn

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no evidence that any of the previous statement is fact....
> the human form is not and never has been perfect....it has major design flaws, is highly susceptible to disease and damage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nip, by your response I'd say that you probably have mental problems. I suggest that you get it checked just to be safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that those who do not see God in nature are stupidly blind. I plainly see cause and affect played out even in the news. Non-believers scoff at conspiracy theory; however, I know that evil is in a heated battle to overpower good. The conspiracy is to say such is not the case.
Click to expand...


Very simply, that people behave as they do and think as they do, and that some are given over to slightly melodramatic descriptions of such does not mean that there is a god or a devil, or that there is any great conflict between good and evil, in the context of the figures and events described by your religion.

It may be true that civilized society seeks to repress certain primal aspects of human nature, and perhaps particular aspects more than others, but to describe the tendency of many people and society at large to ignore our baser nature as a 'conspiracy' is a bit hyperbolic.

Human nature can be as it is, people can act as they do, without there being a god or any other religious entity, or without any sequence of events described or predicted by Christianity in general having happened or being inevitable, respectively.


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no evidence that any of the previous statement is fact....
> the human form is not and never has been perfect....it has major design flaws, is highly susceptible to disease and damage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nip, by your response I'd say that you probably have mental problems. I suggest that you get it checked just to be safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that those who do not see God in nature are stupidly blind. I plainly see cause and affect played out even in the news. Non-believers scoff at conspiracy theory; however, I know that evil is in a heated battle to overpower good. The conspiracy is to say such is not the case.
Click to expand...

So why would god make a universe with evil in it? Why not just leave that shit out?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no evidence that any of the previous statement is fact....
> the human form is not and never has been perfect....it has major design flaws, is highly susceptible to disease and damage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nip, by your response I'd say that you probably have mental problems. I suggest that you get it checked just to be safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that those who do not see God in nature are stupidly blind. I plainly see cause and affect played out even in the news. Non-believers scoff at conspiracy theory; however, I know that evil is in a heated battle to overpower good. The conspiracy is to say such is not the case.
Click to expand...


Well, yeah. Anyone who doesnt believe in the gawds that you believe in must be stupid. 


Personally, I believe that the cost of spreading knowledge, science and critical thinking, (with the acknowledgement that for some, fear and superstition will never relinquish their stranglehold on the fearful and superstitious), is the bitter spite of ineffectual, hateful, naysaying cynics, (such as yourself, for example), is definitely worth every penny.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nip, by your response I'd say that you probably have mental problems. I suggest that you get it checked just to be safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that those who do not see God in nature are stupidly blind. I plainly see cause and affect played out even in the news. Non-believers scoff at conspiracy theory; however, I know that evil is in a heated battle to overpower good. The conspiracy is to say such is not the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yeah. Anyone who doesnt believe in the gawds that you believe in must be stupid.
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that the cost of spreading knowledge, science and critical thinking, (with the acknowledgement that for some, fear and superstition will never relinquish their stranglehold on the fearful and superstitious), is the bitter spite of ineffectual, hateful, naysaying cynics, (such as yourself, for example), is definitely worth every penny.
Click to expand...

Knowledge without future is futile. And only God provides a reason for existance. Hateful is making light of faith and trying to take hope from the hopeful.


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that those who do not see God in nature are stupidly blind. I plainly see cause and affect played out even in the news. Non-believers scoff at conspiracy theory; however, I know that evil is in a heated battle to overpower good. The conspiracy is to say such is not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yeah. Anyone who doesnt believe in the gawds that you believe in must be stupid.
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that the cost of spreading knowledge, science and critical thinking, (with the acknowledgement that for some, fear and superstition will never relinquish their stranglehold on the fearful and superstitious), is the bitter spite of ineffectual, hateful, naysaying cynics, (such as yourself, for example), is definitely worth every penny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Knowledge without future is futile. *And only God provides a reason for existance*. Hateful is making light of faith and trying to take hope from the hopeful.
Click to expand...

So we can all die and be with him, what a great reason!!!!


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that those who do not see God in nature are stupidly blind. I plainly see cause and affect played out even in the news. Non-believers scoff at conspiracy theory; however, I know that evil is in a heated battle to overpower good. The conspiracy is to say such is not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yeah. Anyone who doesnt believe in the gawds that you believe in must be stupid.
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that the cost of spreading knowledge, science and critical thinking, (with the acknowledgement that for some, fear and superstition will never relinquish their stranglehold on the fearful and superstitious), is the bitter spite of ineffectual, hateful, naysaying cynics, (such as yourself, for example), is definitely worth every penny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Knowledge without future is futile. And only God provides a reason for existance. Hateful is making light of faith and trying to take hope from the hopeful.
Click to expand...

wtf? is it just me or does this :"Knowledge without future is futile"- Ln. make absolutely no sense.


----------



## pjnlsn

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that those who do not see God in nature are stupidly blind. I plainly see cause and affect played out even in the news. Non-believers scoff at conspiracy theory; however, I know that evil is in a heated battle to overpower good. The conspiracy is to say such is not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yeah. Anyone who doesnt believe in the gawds that you believe in must be stupid.
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that the cost of spreading knowledge, science and critical thinking, (with the acknowledgement that for some, fear and superstition will never relinquish their stranglehold on the fearful and superstitious), is the bitter spite of ineffectual, hateful, naysaying cynics, (such as yourself, for example), is definitely worth every penny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Knowledge without future is futile. And only God provides a reason for existance. Hateful is making light of faith and trying to take hope from the hopeful.
Click to expand...


That you feel futility, that you feel as though you are hated, in some fashion, in some scope, that you might otherwise feel like your life has no meaning, these things are irrelevant to what is true and what is not. 

And what is true is that, give the most common definition of the Christian god, it is too insubstantial to be proven, or specifically evidenced or contradicted. But if you simply were to define it with reference to what you feel, and i'm sure you do, that you feel anything in particular, in whatever sense, does not mean there is any existential being that exists anywhere.


----------



## LittleNipper

pjnlsn said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yeah. Anyone who doesnt believe in the gawds that you believe in must be stupid.
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that the cost of spreading knowledge, science and critical thinking, (with the acknowledgement that for some, fear and superstition will never relinquish their stranglehold on the fearful and superstitious), is the bitter spite of ineffectual, hateful, naysaying cynics, (such as yourself, for example), is definitely worth every penny.
> 
> 
> 
> Knowledge without future is futile. And only God provides a reason for existance. Hateful is making light of faith and trying to take hope from the hopeful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you feel futility, that you feel as though you are hated, in some fashion, in some scope, that you might otherwise feel like your life has no meaning, these things are irrelevant to what is true and what is not.
> 
> And what is true is that, give the most common definition of the Christian god, it is too insubstantial to be proven, or specifically evidenced or contradicted. But if you simply were to define it with reference to what you feel, and i'm sure you do, that you feel anything in particular, in whatever sense, does not mean there is any existential being that exists anywhere.
Click to expand...


The continued existance of the JEW is the human proof of God's promise. The Messiah (The Lord Jesus Christ) is the incarnate proof of God's Love . Christians are the continuous work of God's will.


----------



## Underhill

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that those who do not see God in nature are stupidly blind. I plainly see cause and affect played out even in the news. Non-believers scoff at conspiracy theory; however, I know that evil is in a heated battle to overpower good. The conspiracy is to say such is not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yeah. Anyone who doesnt believe in the gawds that you believe in must be stupid.
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that the cost of spreading knowledge, science and critical thinking, (with the acknowledgement that for some, fear and superstition will never relinquish their stranglehold on the fearful and superstitious), is the bitter spite of ineffectual, hateful, naysaying cynics, (such as yourself, for example), is definitely worth every penny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Knowledge without future is futile. And only God provides a reason for existance. Hateful is making light of faith and trying to take hope from the hopeful.
Click to expand...


This is the age old notion of "without god, man is worthless".    A statement that is debunked daily by men of science.   Atheism does not make a person care less about his friends and family.    It does not make the golden rule any less affective or important.  

I thoroughly enjoy life.   I do more than my share of community service.   I take care of my family and have raised good kids.   All without god.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knowledge without future is futile. And only God provides a reason for existance. Hateful is making light of faith and trying to take hope from the hopeful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you feel futility, that you feel as though you are hated, in some fashion, in some scope, that you might otherwise feel like your life has no meaning, these things are irrelevant to what is true and what is not.
> 
> And what is true is that, give the most common definition of the Christian god, it is too insubstantial to be proven, or specifically evidenced or contradicted. But if you simply were to define it with reference to what you feel, and i'm sure you do, that you feel anything in particular, in whatever sense, does not mean there is any existential being that exists anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The continued existance of the JEW is the human proof of God's promise. The Messiah (The Lord Jesus Christ) is the incarnate proof of God's Love . Christians are the continuous work of God's will.
Click to expand...

are you pontificating or proselytizing ...I get the two mixed up sometimes?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also
> teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction."
> ..........Judith Haye
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is apples and oranges. *We know how a baby is procreated and this is substantiated by the Bible.* Man knew thousands of years ago what it took to have a baby. There is revealed documented evidence regarding Creation. The is no absolute proof that uniformitarianism and evolution are how man appeared on this planet. There is cause to believe that there is GOD. There is no proof that man or history is the result of the roll of the dice. Everything is interconnected. All one needs to do is study history to see how this caused that and that caused this. It is like there are forces at work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mary was a virgin according to the bible, so either she only got assfucked by Joseph and some of his sperm dribbled down into her vagina, or else what could it be?
Click to expand...


This is the maturity level of the non-believer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

pjnlsn said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nip, by your response I'd say that you probably have mental problems. I suggest that you get it checked just to be safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that those who do not see God in nature are stupidly blind. I plainly see cause and affect played out even in the news. Non-believers scoff at conspiracy theory; however, I know that evil is in a heated battle to overpower good. The conspiracy is to say such is not the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very simply, that people behave as they do and think as they do, and that some are given over to slightly melodramatic descriptions of such does not mean that there is a god or a devil, or that there is any great conflict between good and evil, in the context of the figures and events described by your religion.
> 
> It may be true that civilized society seeks to repress certain primal aspects of human nature, and perhaps particular aspects more than others, but to describe the tendency of many people and society at large to ignore our baser nature as a 'conspiracy' is a bit hyperbolic.
> 
> Human nature can be as it is, people can act as they do, without there being a god or any other religious entity, or without any sequence of events described or predicted by Christianity in general having happened or being inevitable, respectively.
Click to expand...


The same could be said about those who believe in macroevolution,now what ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nip, by your response I'd say that you probably have mental problems. I suggest that you get it checked just to be safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that those who do not see God in nature are stupidly blind. I plainly see cause and affect played out even in the news. Non-believers scoff at conspiracy theory; however, I know that evil is in a heated battle to overpower good. The conspiracy is to say such is not the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yeah. Anyone who doesnt believe in the gawds that you believe in must be stupid.
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that the cost of spreading knowledge, science and critical thinking, (with the acknowledgement that for some, fear and superstition will never relinquish their stranglehold on the fearful and superstitious), is the bitter spite of ineffectual, hateful, naysaying cynics, (such as yourself, for example), is definitely worth every penny.
Click to expand...


If you truly promoted critical thinking you would not easily dismiss a designer with no evidence.


----------



## Underhill

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that those who do not see God in nature are stupidly blind. I plainly see cause and affect played out even in the news. Non-believers scoff at conspiracy theory; however, I know that evil is in a heated battle to overpower good. The conspiracy is to say such is not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yeah. Anyone who doesnt believe in the gawds that you believe in must be stupid.
> 
> 
> Personally, I believe that the cost of spreading knowledge, science and critical thinking, (with the acknowledgement that for some, fear and superstition will never relinquish their stranglehold on the fearful and superstitious), is the bitter spite of ineffectual, hateful, naysaying cynics, (such as yourself, for example), is definitely worth every penny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Knowledge without future is futile. And only God provides a reason for existance. Hateful is making light of faith and trying to take hope from the hopeful.
Click to expand...


That's just stupid. 

Of course the rest of us have a reason for existence (e not a).   It's our children, our community, the people we care about.    

I still see life as a wondrously rare and awesome thing.    I don't need god for any part of it.   

God simply makes for better excuses.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is apples and oranges. *We know how a baby is procreated and this is substantiated by the Bible.* Man knew thousands of years ago what it took to have a baby. There is revealed documented evidence regarding Creation. The is no absolute proof that uniformitarianism and evolution are how man appeared on this planet. There is cause to believe that there is GOD. There is no proof that man or history is the result of the roll of the dice. Everything is interconnected. All one needs to do is study history to see how this caused that and that caused this. It is like there are forces at work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mary was a virgin according to the bible, so either she only got assfucked by Joseph and some of his sperm dribbled down into her vagina, or else what could it be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the maturity level of the non-believer.
Click to expand...

how is this immature? Jewish law at the time was very strict about vaginal sex just like the Mormons and other evangelicals today but that's never stopped anybody. 
if you claim you never had sex  before marriage with anybody including your wife then you are lying.
or extremely unlucky.


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nip, by your response I'd say that you probably have mental problems. I suggest that you get it checked just to be safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that those who do not see God in nature are stupidly blind. I plainly see cause and affect played out even in the news. Non-believers scoff at conspiracy theory; however, I know that evil is in a heated battle to overpower good. The conspiracy is to say such is not the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why would god make a universe with evil in it? Why not just leave that shit out?
Click to expand...


Ima, you have proven on numerous occasions to be pretty thick. I know this has been explained to you several times and a simple internet search would provide more info than you could ever want or read on dualism, good vs. evil, etc.


----------



## UltimateReality

_"One of the most common metaphysical premises in evolutionary theory is the claim that similarity implies common descent. If two species share similar genes then they must share a common ancestor, from which those genes originated. Evolutionists dont think twice about this metaphysical claim. Among friends it is taken for granted and any challenges from creationists dont matter to begin with. Why is this claim metaphysical? Because it doesnt come from science. There is no scientific experiment or observation that tells us that biological similarity implies common descent. And yet, in a sure sign of metaphysics at work, evolutionists are certain of this premise. Similarity must arise as a consequence of common descent. This conclusion can be trumped only by the finding of even more similarity elsewhere. And such conflicts are common. Evolutionists often need to retract earlier conclusions of relatedness, and the evolutionary tree is filled with conflicting similarities and differences."_

Darwin's God: A Common Code: Surely That Means They?re All Related?Doesn?t It?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> _"One of the most common metaphysical premises in evolutionary theory is the claim that similarity implies common descent. If two species share similar genes then they must share a common ancestor, from which those genes originated. Evolutionists dont think twice about this metaphysical claim. Among friends it is taken for granted and any challenges from creationists dont matter to begin with. Why is this claim metaphysical? Because it doesnt come from science. There is no scientific experiment or observation that tells us that biological similarity implies common descent. And yet, in a sure sign of metaphysics at work, evolutionists are certain of this premise. Similarity must arise as a consequence of common descent. This conclusion can be trumped only by the finding of even more similarity elsewhere. And such conflicts are common. Evolutionists often need to retract earlier conclusions of relatedness, and the evolutionary tree is filled with conflicting similarities and differences."_
> 
> Darwin's God: A Common Code: Surely That Means They?re All Related?Doesn?t It?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Darwin's God: A Common Code: Surely That Means They?re All Related?Doesn?t It?



The expected creationist tripe from Cornelius Hunter. Another fundie whack-job.


----------



## koshergrl

Ah, back to the old familiar "every Christian that doesn't support abortion and queer marriage is a fundie whack-job.

"Including Oxford researchers. Cuz Oxford is a fundie school."

You're such an idiot.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Ah, back to the old familiar "every Christian that doesn't support abortion and queer marriage is a fundie whack-job.
> 
> "Including Oxford researchers. Cuz Oxford is a fundie school."
> 
> You're such an idiot.


odd no one said that but you..my guess is you have some version of turrets syndrome...spewing out of context vitriolic shit every time you post.
queer marriage? what's that? oh, it's the trailer trash version of same sex marriage. 
too bad for you marriage equality will soon be the law of the land.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that those who do not see God in nature are stupidly blind. I plainly see cause and affect played out even in the news. Non-believers scoff at conspiracy theory; however, I know that evil is in a heated battle to overpower good. The conspiracy is to say such is not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> So why would god make a universe with evil in it? Why not just leave that shit out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ima, you have proven on numerous occasions to be pretty thick. I know this has been explained to you several times and a simple internet search would provide more info than you could ever want or read on dualism, good vs. evil, etc.
Click to expand...


I think it's your god that seriously thick. He makes a world, gives us free will, then punishes us if we don't choose him. Sorry, but I can't worship such a massive egotistical douchesack.


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why would god make a universe with evil in it? Why not just leave that shit out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima, you have proven on numerous occasions to be pretty thick. I know this has been explained to you several times and a simple internet search would provide more info than you could ever want or read on dualism, good vs. evil, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's your god that seriously thick. He makes a world, gives us free will, then punishes us if we don't choose him. Sorry, but I can't worship such a massive egotistical douchesack.
Click to expand...


God gave us free will and warned that there will be consequences for our actions.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ima, you have proven on numerous occasions to be pretty thick. I know this has been explained to you several times and a simple internet search would provide more info than you could ever want or read on dualism, good vs. evil, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's your god that seriously thick. He makes a world, gives us free will, then punishes us if we don't choose him. Sorry, but I can't worship such a massive egotistical douchesack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God gave us free will and warned that there will be consequences for our actions.
Click to expand...

is it just me or is that just the opposite of free will..?


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, back to the old familiar "every Christian that doesn't support abortion and queer marriage is a fundie whack-job.
> 
> "Including Oxford researchers. Cuz Oxford is a fundie school."
> 
> You're such an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> odd no one said that but you..my guess is you have some version of turrets syndrome...spewing out of context vitriolic shit every time you post.
> queer marriage? what's that? oh, it's the trailer trash version of same sex marriage.
> too bad for you marriage equality will soon be the law of the land.
Click to expand...


Well actually, a husband and wife may have their own children some day as a gift from God. The homosexual couple, living together in sin and being allowed to call it marriage by some bureaucrat will not ever be given that gift from God. They will have to take it by means of a heterosexual union...


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, back to the old familiar "every Christian that doesn't support abortion and queer marriage is a fundie whack-job.
> 
> "Including Oxford researchers. Cuz Oxford is a fundie school."
> 
> You're such an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> odd no one said that but you..my guess is you have some version of turrets syndrome...spewing out of context vitriolic shit every time you post.
> queer marriage? what's that? oh, it's the trailer trash version of same sex marriage.
> too bad for you marriage equality will soon be the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well actually, a husband and wife may have their own children some day as a gift from God. The homosexual couple, living together in sin and being allowed to call it marriage by some bureaucrat will not ever be given that gift from God. They will have to take it by means of a heterosexual union...
Click to expand...

wrong as always. in your twisted and unprovable pov adoption and invitro fertilization are not gifs from god?
if that's the case then your god is an asshole..


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> odd no one said that but you..my guess is you have some version of turrets syndrome...spewing out of context vitriolic shit every time you post.
> queer marriage? what's that? oh, it's the trailer trash version of same sex marriage.
> too bad for you marriage equality will soon be the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well actually, a husband and wife may have their own children some day as a gift from God. The homosexual couple, living together in sin and being allowed to call it marriage by some bureaucrat will not ever be given that gift from God. They will have to take it by means of a heterosexual union...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong as always. in your twisted and unprovable pov adoption and invitro fertilization are not gifs from god?
> if that's the case then your god is an asshole..
Click to expand...


I would not allow abnormal couples adopt children that already have enough problems under their belts. And invitro fertilization still  needs both a female's egg and a male's sperm. Same sex "gay" couple cannot provide both. And it seems to me that the latter part of your post is true of a "gay" male's focus of worship.....


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well actually, a husband and wife may have their own children some day as a gift from God. The homosexual couple, living together in sin and being allowed to call it marriage by some bureaucrat will not ever be given that gift from God. They will have to take it by means of a heterosexual union...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong as always. in your twisted and unprovable pov adoption and invitro fertilization are not gifs from god?
> if that's the case then your god is an asshole..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not allow abnormal couples adopt children that already have enough problems under their belts. And invitro fertilization still  needs both a female's egg and a male's sperm. Same sex "gay" couple cannot provide both. And it seems to me that the latter part of your post is true of a "gay" male's focus of worship.....
Click to expand...

that assumption like all your other assumption is false.
being gay is not abnormal or not natural.
you did prove one thing , you're a bigot a homophobe..
where the egg and sperm come from is not the point, anyone can have sex.
the gift as you call it is in the raising and nurture of the child.
GAY couples  do have one huge advantage over "straight couples they do not fill group homes and mortuaries with their creations.
did I tell you what a ignorant and hateful person you are today?


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong as always. in your twisted and unprovable pov adoption and invitro fertilization are not gifs from god?
> if that's the case then your god is an asshole..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not allow abnormal couples adopt children that already have enough problems under their belts. And invitro fertilization still  needs both a female's egg and a male's sperm. Same sex "gay" couple cannot provide both. And it seems to me that the latter part of your post is true of a "gay" male's focus of worship.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that assumption like all your other assumption is false.
> being gay is not abnormal or not natural.
> you did prove one thing , you're a bigot a homophobe..
> where the egg and sperm come from is not the point, anyone can have sex.
> the gift as you call it is in the raising and nurture of the child.
> GAY couples  do have one huge advantage over "straight couples they do not fill group homes and mortuaries with their creations.
> did I tell you what a ignorant and hateful person you are today?
Click to expand...

I would say that from your unfounded rant that you are the one who is bias. Please note the following: 
Percentage wise Heterosexuals males who engage in child pronography are at a lower percentage to homosexuals who engage in such.

Please see: Report - Pedophilia More Common Among 'Gays'[/QUOTE]


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not allow abnormal couples adopt children that already have enough problems under their belts. And invitro fertilization still  needs both a female's egg and a male's sperm. Same sex "gay" couple cannot provide both. And it seems to me that the latter part of your post is true of a "gay" male's focus of worship.....
> 
> 
> 
> that assumption like all your other assumption is false.
> being gay is not abnormal or not natural.
> you did prove one thing , you're a bigot a homophobe..
> where the egg and sperm come from is not the point, anyone can have sex.
> the gift as you call it is in the raising and nurture of the child.
> GAY couples  do have one huge advantage over "straight couples they do not fill group homes and mortuaries with their creations.
> did I tell you what a ignorant and hateful person you are today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would say that from your unfounded rant that you are the one who is bias. Please note the following:
> Percentage wise Heterosexuals males who engage in child pronography are at a lower percentage to homosexuals who engage in such.
> 
> Please see: Report - Pedophilia More Common Among 'Gays'
Click to expand...


[/QUOTE]you've just proven my point,  you're a bigot a homophobe..


Jeff Rense is an American conspiracy theorist and radio talk-show host of the Jeff Rense Program, broadcast on US satellite radio via Republic Broadcasting Network (RBN) and Internet radio.[1]

Rense's radio program and website, Rense.com, cover subjects such as 9/11 conspiracy theories,[2] UFO reporting, paranormal phenomena, Holocaust denial,[3] Zionism, tracking of new diseases and possible resultant pandemics, environmental concerns (see chemtrails), animal rights, possible evidence of advanced ancient technology, geopolitical developments and emergent energy technologies, complementary and alternative medicine among other subjects.

Rense's show has been accused of being among "conspiracy-oriented Internet radio shows that often feature anti-Semites and extremists" by the Anti-Defamation League.


 Rense hosts a web site on the music and life of tenor Mario Lanza (that's about as gay as collecting pictures of Judy garland)
seems like someone is on the down low...Jeff Rense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
damn you're ignorant..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"One of the most common metaphysical premises in evolutionary theory is the claim that similarity implies common descent. If two species share similar genes then they must share a common ancestor, from which those genes originated. Evolutionists don&#8217;t think twice about this metaphysical claim. Among friends it is taken for granted and any challenges from creationists don&#8217;t matter to begin with. Why is this claim metaphysical? Because it doesn&#8217;t come from science. There is no scientific experiment or observation that tells us that biological similarity implies common descent. And yet, in a sure sign of metaphysics at work, evolutionists are certain of this premise. Similarity must arise as a consequence of common descent. This conclusion can be trumped only by the finding of even more similarity elsewhere. And such conflicts are common. Evolutionists often need to retract earlier conclusions of relatedness, and the evolutionary tree is filled with conflicting similarities and differences."_
> 
> Darwin's God: A Common Code: Surely That Means They?re All Related?Doesn?t It?
Click to expand...


Yeah he hit the nail on the head the only B.S. being spewed is the side trying to suggest exactly what UR stated.

DNA similarity does not prove common ancestry got it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why would god make a universe with evil in it? Why not just leave that shit out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ima, you have proven on numerous occasions to be pretty thick. I know this has been explained to you several times and a simple internet search would provide more info than you could ever want or read on dualism, good vs. evil, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's your god that seriously thick. He makes a world, gives us free will, then punishes us if we don't choose him. Sorry, but I can't worship such a massive egotistical douchesack.
Click to expand...


No God created a world without sin and man had a choice not to sin but is now paying a price for choosing to live in sin.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's your god that seriously thick. He makes a world, gives us free will, then punishes us if we don't choose him. Sorry, but I can't worship such a massive egotistical douchesack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God gave us free will and warned that there will be consequences for our actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is it just me or is that just the opposite of free will..?
Click to expand...


No God warned what disobedience would bring on mankind. That is free will in action Adam and Eve chose disobedience.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong as always. in your twisted and unprovable pov adoption and invitro fertilization are not gifs from god?
> if that's the case then your god is an asshole..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not allow abnormal couples adopt children that already have enough problems under their belts. And invitro fertilization still  needs both a female's egg and a male's sperm. Same sex "gay" couple cannot provide both. And it seems to me that the latter part of your post is true of a "gay" male's focus of worship.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that assumption like all your other assumption is false.
> being gay is not abnormal or not natural.
> you did prove one thing , you're a bigot a homophobe..
> where the egg and sperm come from is not the point, anyone can have sex.
> the gift as you call it is in the raising and nurture of the child.
> GAY couples  do have one huge advantage over "straight couples they do not fill group homes and mortuaries with their creations.
> did I tell you what a ignorant and hateful person you are today?
Click to expand...


This is the playbook of an Ideologue on display when someone disagrees with their view.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ima, you have proven on numerous occasions to be pretty thick. I know this has been explained to you several times and a simple internet search would provide more info than you could ever want or read on dualism, good vs. evil, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's your god that seriously thick. He makes a world, gives us free will, then punishes us if we don't choose him. Sorry, but I can't worship such a massive egotistical douchesack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No God created a world without sin and man had a choice not to sin but is now paying a price for choosing to live in sin.
Click to expand...

Your gawds created evil. 

The "test" was a fraud. 

You need some new gawds.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"One of the most common metaphysical premises in evolutionary theory is the claim that similarity implies common descent. If two species share similar genes then they must share a common ancestor, from which those genes originated. Evolutionists dont think twice about this metaphysical claim. Among friends it is taken for granted and any challenges from creationists dont matter to begin with. Why is this claim metaphysical? Because it doesnt come from science. There is no scientific experiment or observation that tells us that biological similarity implies common descent. And yet, in a sure sign of metaphysics at work, evolutionists are certain of this premise. Similarity must arise as a consequence of common descent. This conclusion can be trumped only by the finding of even more similarity elsewhere. And such conflicts are common. Evolutionists often need to retract earlier conclusions of relatedness, and the evolutionary tree is filled with conflicting similarities and differences."_
> 
> Darwin's God: A Common Code: Surely That Means They?re All Related?Doesn?t It?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah he hit the nail on the head the only B.S. being spewed is the side trying to suggest exactly what UR stated.
> 
> DNA similarity does not prove common ancestry got it ?
Click to expand...

so not debating me any more was a lie? god will appreciate that.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not allow abnormal couples adopt children that already have enough problems under their belts. And invitro fertilization still  needs both a female's egg and a male's sperm. Same sex "gay" couple cannot provide both. And it seems to me that the latter part of your post is true of a "gay" male's focus of worship.....
> 
> 
> 
> that assumption like all your other assumption is false.
> being gay is not abnormal or not natural.
> you did prove one thing , you're a bigot a homophobe..
> where the egg and sperm come from is not the point, anyone can have sex.
> the gift as you call it is in the raising and nurture of the child.
> GAY couples  do have one huge advantage over "straight couples they do not fill group homes and mortuaries with their creations.
> did I tell you what a ignorant and hateful person you are today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the playbook of an Ideologue on display when someone disagrees with their view.
Click to expand...

no these are facts and any rebuttal to them is willful ignorance...


----------



## ima

So why did god make ugly people?


----------



## daws101

ima said:


> So why did god make ugly people?


my guess is, god is no brad pitt.


----------



## Vandalshandle

God told me that homosexuals are condemned to hell, except the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, and Evangelical Luthern churches, who God has decided may ordain practicing gay and lesbian ministers. I am not sure if God is saying that these churches are so far beyond the pale that He doesn't care, or if He is saying that these are his favorite churches, and wants them to be examples of what He likes.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he hit the nail on the head the only B.S. being spewed is the side trying to suggest exactly what UR stated.
> 
> DNA similarity does not prove common ancestry got it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so not debating me any more was a lie? god will appreciate that.
Click to expand...


I thought he wasn't debating you anymore... anymore like the last half-dozen times he wasn't debating you anymore. 

He went wee wee wee all the way home.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he hit the nail on the head the only B.S. being spewed is the side trying to suggest exactly what UR stated.
> 
> DNA similarity does not prove common ancestry got it ?
> 
> 
> 
> so not debating me any more was a lie? god will appreciate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought he wasn't debating you anymore... anymore like the last half-dozen times he wasn't debating you anymore.
> 
> He went wee wee wee all the way home.
Click to expand...

 with wee wee running down his leg.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's your god that seriously thick. He makes a world, gives us free will, then punishes us if we don't choose him. Sorry, but I can't worship such a massive egotistical douchesack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God gave us free will and warned that there will be consequences for our actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is it just me or is that just the opposite of free will..?
Click to expand...


It's just you. Now if he had said negative consequences, you might have the basis of an argument. But he didn't, so as usual your post is completely devoid of any logic... Thethspy-douche. I think I've figured out the source of your anger... shrunken tights!!!

Even when people know there are negative consequences, they still choose destruction... kind of like choosing to engage in homosexual behavior. Did I ever tell you about the search warrant we did on an ecstasy lab run by a group of gay guys? The one guy was obviously dying of AIDS... 5'9" and about 90 lbs when we arrested him. We found pics of him handcuffed to a wall, wasting ribs protruding from his chest, with his buddy trying to cram what must have been a 5-inch diameter dildo up his ass. You would have enjoyed the pics but they just made me want to vomit... literally. I was nauseated. Even though he was obviously dying, he couldn't stop engaging in the behavior that killed him. At least that was the lie he had bought from evolutionist, genetic deterministic pricks like you Daws, which sold him the lie he was *powerless* to do anything about his *deviant, destructive urges*.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not allow abnormal couples adopt children that already have enough problems under their belts. And invitro fertilization still  needs both a female's egg and a male's sperm. Same sex "gay" couple cannot provide both. And it seems to me that the latter part of your post is true of a "gay" male's focus of worship.....
> 
> 
> 
> that assumption like all your other assumption is false.
> being gay is not abnormal or not natural.
> you did prove one thing , you're a bigot a homophobe..
> where the egg and sperm come from is not the point, anyone can have sex.
> the gift as you call it is in the raising and nurture of the child.
> GAY couples  do have one huge advantage over "straight couples they do not fill group homes and mortuaries with their creations.
> did I tell you what a ignorant and hateful person you are today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the playbook of an Ideologue on display when someone disagrees with their view.
Click to expand...


I can sum up Daws rebuttal easily... "Because I said so" statements and Ad Hominem attacks.... NEXT!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

ima said:


> So why did god make ugly people?


 Answer me this question... If EVERYONE was beautiful, how would anyone know they were beautiful?

Ugly-beautiful, Light-Dark, Hot-Cold, Good-Evil...

You really should get some formal education starting with a basic philosophy class.


----------



## UltimateReality

Epigentics...

_"This is far more involved than a random mutation occurring that just happens to improve slightly how the organism works. In fact epigenetics would involve literally hundreds (and that is conservative) of changes required before any benefit would be realized.

The tagging machines not only need to be built, or adapted from other machines, but they need to know where in all the genome to place the tags. Likewise for the machines that remove and move the tags. In other words, it is not good enough merely to evolve the machines. They somehow much know where to place the tags given a spectrum of environmental signals.

And then the machines that interpret the tags would have to do so correctly. They would have to know what the tag means. So again, not only must these machines have evolved or adapted, but they must know what they are doing.

That is astronomically unlikely to occur according to our knowledge of science."_

Darwin's God: Plant's Epigenome as Varied as Their Environments

Wait! Here comes Hawly without a rebuttal and another lame Ad Hominem attack.


----------



## holston

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



 Not ALL "creationists" believe that the earth is 6000 years old, only that it was created.
 They may also believe that there was an intelligence in the universe which was in the form of a "spirit", or "ghost",........a Holy ghost, if you will, that was responsible for creating it. 
This alone says nothing about HOW this "Ghost" created the universe, only that it was a form of intelligence that did so. 

 No, this does not explain the chicken and the egg paradox. 
 But neither does the explanation of ....... "Well, it just always was."

 One expresses the belief that a spirit preceded matter, or that matter proceeded _from_ the conscious will of the spirit. 

 The other believes essentially that there is no ultimate explanation for the origin of energy or matter, or if there is, it remains for some future _intelligence_ to discern. 
Otherwise, consciousness, and what we call "intelligence" was purely an accident and is not eternal, whereas matter and energy are. 

 Which scenario makes more sense depends on whether how you rank intelligence and energy or matter. 
 For there is no reason to assume that an intelligent spirit could not have just "always been", than it does to suppose that matter has just "always been".


 If in the future, it becomes possible to comprehend the origin of the universe by some highly involved intelligence which ultimately owed it's origin to matter, what logic precludes that future intelligence from "mastering" matter so to speak by finding a way to achieve eternal life?

 The puzzle still remains.... "WHEN was the beginning in relation to a future
which has no end?

 And if for some reason the universe must ultimately cease to exist, then why should it have ever existed in the first place?

 Faced with all of these numinous and ineffable prospects, is it really all that preposterous to posit the existence of God the intelligent creator? 
I don't think so. 

 Some people would try to convince you it is. Why they feel that is important to do is for you to ponder.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Epigentics...
> 
> _"This is far more involved than a random mutation occurring that just happens to improve slightly how the organism works. In fact epigenetics would involve literally hundreds (and that is conservative) of changes required before any benefit would be realized.
> 
> The tagging machines not only need to be built, or adapted from other machines, but they need to know where in all the genome to place the tags. Likewise for the machines that remove and move the tags. In other words, it is not good enough merely to evolve the machines. They somehow much know where to place the tags given a spectrum of environmental signals.
> 
> And then the machines that interpret the tags would have to do so correctly. They would have to know what the tag means. So again, not only must these machines have evolved or adapted, but they must know what they are doing.
> 
> That is astronomically unlikely to occur according to our knowledge of science."_
> 
> Darwin's God: Plant's Epigenome as Varied as Their Environments
> 
> Wait! Here comes Hawly without a rebuttal and another lame Ad Hominem attack.



No, wait. Here comes the knucklehead with another cut and paste  outlined in  gargantuan fonts and bright colors. All from the same fundie whackjob.


----------



## ima

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why did god make ugly people?
> 
> 
> 
> Answer me this question... If EVERYONE was beautiful, how would anyone know they were beautiful?
> 
> Ugly-beautiful, Light-Dark, Hot-Cold, Good-Evil...
> 
> You really should get some formal education starting with a basic philosophy class.
Click to expand...


So god made some people really ugly so that the beautiful people would know that they're good looking?


----------



## Hollie

To Distinguish Creationism from ID, Try Evolution as the Outgroup - The Panda's Thumb

After the unit on Creationism and Intelligent Design in my Critical Thinking/Science and Pseudoscience class at New Mexico Tech (Psych 189), I asked the students to write an essay on the question

Is &#8220;Intelligent Design&#8221; just another version of Creationism? Why?

Along came student Elaine, who included this comment in her essay:

It seems that if you are only comparing Intelligent Design against Creationism, there are enough subtleties to identify one or the other. However, if it is a case of arguing Intelligent Design vs. Creationism vs. evolution, the contrast between evolution and the other two is so great that Intelligent Design and Creationism become indistinguishable in their respective arguments. The only giveaway would be a reference to Genesis, the use of &#8220;God&#8221; rather than &#8220;Creator/Designer&#8221;, or some explicit differentiation between the two. In contrast, no one could ever possibly confuse an evolution argument with any other.

I remarked that the student had used evolution as an outgroup to correctly root the evolution/creationism/ID tree, and gave her an &#8220;A&#8221; for the assignment.


----------



## holston

The theory that man is an ape is actively promoted in the Judeo Zionist academic world.

 Students are rewarded for politically correct answers and punished for those which deviate from the acceptable political narrative. 

 However one imagines man to have come into existence, man is still man, and apes are still apes. 

 One need not degrade the primate world in order to ascribe to man the existence of a moral dimension or to allow for the possibility that the temporal body is survived by the spirit which once inhabited it. 

 It should be emphasized that all theories remain theories until they have been proven. 
 Any thinking man should be reluctant to accept alleged proofs based on nothing more than another persons word, even if that person has a PhD. 

 Since a PhD is no guarantee of complete honesty, integrity, or correctness, the possibility is left open that such a person may have reasons for promoting particular ideas for personal or political reasons with little regard for the truth.

 One can pay deference to the credentials and accomplishments of others by allowing their words added weight. Personally I would come nearer to accepting the opinion of an expert than a novice. At the same time I remain conscious of the fact that all of us are capable of error.


----------



## koshergrl

Hollie said:


> To Distinguish Creationism from ID, Try Evolution as the Outgroup - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> After the unit on Creationism and Intelligent Design in my Critical Thinking/Science and Pseudoscience class at New Mexico Tech (Psych 189), I asked the students to write an essay on the question
> 
> Is Intelligent Design just another version of Creationism? Why?
> 
> Along came student Elaine, who included this comment in her essay:
> 
> It seems that if you are only comparing Intelligent Design against Creationism, there are enough subtleties to identify one or the other. However, if it is a case of arguing Intelligent Design vs. Creationism vs. evolution, the contrast between evolution and the other two is so great that Intelligent Design and Creationism become indistinguishable in their respective arguments. The only giveaway would be a reference to Genesis, the use of God rather than Creator/Designer, or some explicit differentiation between the two. In contrast, no one could ever possibly confuse an evolution argument with any other.
> 
> I remarked that the student had used evolution as an outgroup to correctly root the evolution/creationism/ID tree, and gave her an A for the assignment.


 
Nice blog. Try using quotation marks next time.

Did you see this:

"
When it comes to relying entirely on science and not on religion, its rather clear that YOU EVOLUTIONISTS simply arent in any position to accuse the Discovery Institute of failing to do so.
Indeed, (on top of the EA4 example), at Eugenie Scotts website (the NSCE), youll find plenty of theistic-evolution religious sects that shes happy to promote and quote for saying the very same TE claim given by Pope John Paul II which was promoted in EA4. And the NAS book Science, Evolution, and Creationism includes a reference to that NSCE religion section.
Therefore, since you evolutionists clearly feel that YOU have the right to exploit promote, and teach what various theistic-evolution religious sects believe about biology/evolution, *and even textbook-teach those religious TE positions in supposed-to-be-science textbooks when it suits you*, there is nothing wrong, nothing ironic, and even nothing unscientific, regarding the Discovery Institute critically examining and rejecting the theistic-evolution positions of those various TE religious sects as well. 
(By the way, I do have a copy of the DIs book God and Evolution, so I know what it is youre talking about, regarding the DIs critiques of said sects. Of course, the arguments presented by the DI on this TE thing are quite strong and quite accurate, theres really no disputing about that. Im also glad that you at least were willing to allow your students to at least see some of what the DI is saying, even though you oppose the DI.)"

? 

Lol.


----------



## Hollie

"The theory that man is an ape is actively promoted in the Judeo Zionist academic world".

I think someone is suffering from IJHS (Irrational Jew Hatred Syndrome)


----------



## holston

ima said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why did god make ugly people?
> 
> 
> 
> Answer me this question... If EVERYONE was beautiful, how would anyone know they were beautiful?
> 
> Ugly-beautiful, Light-Dark, Hot-Cold, Good-Evil...
> 
> You really should get some formal education starting with a basic philosophy class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So god made some people really ugly so that the beautiful people would know that they're good looking?
Click to expand...


 Maybe God made people ugly to let us know that we are not the Gods we imagine ourselves to be. 

 Or maybe He wants us to learn that a man is more than flesh. 

 And maybe He wants to teach us to learn a kind of love which is not based purely on the lust of the flesh. 

 If pride goeth before a fall, one might say that a person who is born physically beautiful is at somewhat of a disadvantage. They may be deceived into thinking that the attention they receive is due to some quality associated with their inner being, the part which would for example survive a freak accident which marred the appearance. 

 Could it be that blond blue eyed women get saddled with the reputation for being dumb because they grow up not having to depend upon their wits to open doors and therefore never feel a pressing need to educate themselves to any level of competency?

 A "beautiful" person may also run a greater risk of losing their eternal soul if caused them to become so conceited that they developed a sense of self worth which was far beyond what they actually possessed in terms of the things which God prizes most. 

 An person who is physically unattractive learns to adjust to the fact at a much earlier age than one who is destined to lose their appeal due to old age. 
 An ugly person learns quickly what they must acquire in order to succeed in this life. Therefore they begin making provisions for themselves at an early age. 

 They may not be so conceited or infatuated with themselves that they neglect this effort, falsely assuming that they will always be able to get what they want by simply batting eye lids. 

 What physical beauty or the lack of it may do to a person's soul, depends a great deal on the quality of that person's soul to begin with. A sizable portion of that lies within that persons ability to determine, whereas their is little one can do about their physical appearance outwardly, and nothing one can do to alter their genetic inheritance. 

 Isn't it for reasons such as these that it is popular to assume that "discrimination" based on appearance is considered _morally wrong_ in the realm of political correctness?


----------



## holston

Hollie said:


> "The theory that man is an ape is actively promoted in the Judeo Zionist academic world".
> 
> I think someone is suffering from IJHS (Irrational Jew Hatred Syndrome)



Has this malady been entered into the DSMMD yet ?


----------



## Hollie

koshergrl said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To Distinguish Creationism from ID, Try Evolution as the Outgroup - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> After the unit on Creationism and Intelligent Design in my Critical Thinking/Science and Pseudoscience class at New Mexico Tech (Psych 189), I asked the students to write an essay on the question
> 
> Is Intelligent Design just another version of Creationism? Why?
> 
> Along came student Elaine, who included this comment in her essay:
> 
> It seems that if you are only comparing Intelligent Design against Creationism, there are enough subtleties to identify one or the other. However, if it is a case of arguing Intelligent Design vs. Creationism vs. evolution, the contrast between evolution and the other two is so great that Intelligent Design and Creationism become indistinguishable in their respective arguments. The only giveaway would be a reference to Genesis, the use of God rather than Creator/Designer, or some explicit differentiation between the two. In contrast, no one could ever possibly confuse an evolution argument with any other.
> 
> I remarked that the student had used evolution as an outgroup to correctly root the evolution/creationism/ID tree, and gave her an A for the assignment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.
Click to expand...


Lol. As pointless as your usual babbling. 

The Disco' tute Is a collection of Christian hacks, charlatans and snake oil salesmen.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To Distinguish Creationism from ID, Try Evolution as the Outgroup - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> After the unit on Creationism and Intelligent Design in my Critical Thinking/Science and Pseudoscience class at New Mexico Tech (Psych 189), I asked the students to write an essay on the question
> 
> Is Intelligent Design just another version of Creationism? Why?
> 
> Along came student Elaine, who included this comment in her essay:
> 
> It seems that if you are only comparing Intelligent Design against Creationism, there are enough subtleties to identify one or the other. However, if it is a case of arguing Intelligent Design vs. Creationism vs. evolution, the contrast between evolution and the other two is so great that Intelligent Design and Creationism become indistinguishable in their respective arguments. The only giveaway would be a reference to Genesis, the use of God rather than Creator/Designer, or some explicit differentiation between the two. In contrast, no one could ever possibly confuse an evolution argument with any other.
> 
> I remarked that the student had used evolution as an outgroup to correctly root the evolution/creationism/ID tree, and gave her an A for the assignment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. As pointless as your usual babbling.
> 
> The Disco' tute Is a collection of Christian hacks, charlatans and snake oil salesmen.
Click to expand...

I guess the creationist club is gearing of for Easter a truly pagan holiday.
didn't ur just say he's was not going to debate you or I ANY MORE?


----------



## holston

daws101 said:


> I guess the creationist club is gearing of for Easter a truly pagan holiday.
> didn't ur just say he's was not going to debate you or I ANY MORE?



 Does it bear any resemblance to Seder or Hannakah or junk like that?


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. As pointless as your usual babbling.
> 
> The Disco' tute Is a collection of Christian hacks, charlatans and snake oil salesmen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess the creationist club is gearing of for Easter a truly pagan holiday.
> didn't ur just say he's was not going to debate you or I ANY MORE?
Click to expand...

Yep. But like bronchitis, he keeps coming back.


----------



## daws101

holston said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the creationist club is gearing of for Easter a truly pagan holiday.
> didn't ur just say he's was not going to debate you or I ANY MORE?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it bear any resemblance to Seder or Hannakah or junk like that?
Click to expand...

are you this incredibly stupid all the time? 
Judaism is not pagan, slapdick, they believe in the same god as Christians and Muslims.
using your lack of logic, logic would mean all Christian celebrations would be junk too.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. As pointless as your usual babbling.
> 
> The Disco' tute Is a collection of Christian hacks, charlatans and snake oil salesmen.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the creationist club is gearing of for Easter a truly pagan holiday.
> didn't ur just say he's was not going to debate you or I ANY MORE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. But like bronchitis, he keeps coming back.
Click to expand...

or herpes.


----------



## holston

daws101 said:


> Judaism is not pagan, slapdick, they believe in *the same god as Christians *and Muslims.
> using your lack of logic, logic would mean all Christian celebrations would be junk too.



 But you just said that Easter was Pagan, diklik. 

 Using your logic all Jewish sacrifice of chickens OR money would actually transfer their personal sins onto the chickens.

 You aren't going to try to say that all their rip off schemes like the one Bernie Madoff pulled was the fault of a chicken?

 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NuNnsj3K_0]Protestors rally against Orthodox Jews' chicken sacrifice - YouTube[/ame]

 I guess at least now we know why they never admit to doing anything wrong.

 IT WAS ALL THE CHICKENS' FAULT!


----------



## holston

daws101 said:


> Yep. But like bronchitis, he keeps coming back.or herpes.



 Or the Eternal Hasbarat.


----------



## daws101

holston said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. But like bronchitis, he keeps coming back.or herpes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the Eternal Hasbarat.
Click to expand...

still stupid Christians did sacrifice too ...ever heard of sacrament. 
not to state the obvious, but were your parents neo Nazis  too?


----------



## daws101

holston said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judaism is not pagan, slapdick, they believe in *the same god as Christians *and Muslims.
> using your lack of logic, logic would mean all Christian celebrations would be junk too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you just said that Easter was Pagan, diklik.
> 
> Using your logic all Jewish sacrifice of chickens OR money would actually transfer their personal sins onto the chickens.
> 
> You aren't going to try to say that all their rip off schemes like the one Bernie Madoff pulled was the fault of a chicken?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NuNnsj3K_0]Protestors rally against Orthodox Jews' chicken sacrifice - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> I guess at least now we know why they never admit to doing anything wrong.
> 
> IT WAS ALL THE CHICKENS' FAULT!
Click to expand...

mr ignorance Easter was usurped by the Christians along with what is now Christmas and lot s of others.
the gist O shit for brains is that any one who celebrates Easter is celebrating a pagan holiday with some Christian frosting..


----------



## holston

daws101 said:


> the gist O shit for brains is that any one who celebrates Easter is celebrating a pagan holiday with some Christian frosting..



 The gist "Oh sh!t for brains", is that the Jews are as Pagan as anyone else, more so than Christians, because the "Jews" retain the Laws and ordinances which practiced THOUSANDS of YEARS ago by ancient Hebrews. 

 Easter is a holiday which commemorates the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of CHRIST, who, the Jews totally reject, and therefore have absolutely NOTHING to do with.


----------



## daws101

holston said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the gist O shit for brains is that any one who celebrates Easter is celebrating a pagan holiday with some Christian frosting..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gist "Oh sh!t for brains", is that the Jews are as Pagan as anyone else, more so than Christians, because the "Jews" retain the Laws and ordinances which practiced THOUSANDS of YEARS ago by ancient Hebrews.
> 
> Easter is a holiday which commemorates the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of CHRIST, who, the Jews totally reject, and therefore have absolutely NOTHING to do with.
Click to expand...

wrong it's obvious you have no idea what usurped means. 

Why are these traditions so ingrained in Easter Sunday? And what do they have to do with the resurrection of Jesus?

Well, to be frank, nothing.

Bunnies, eggs, Easter gifts and fluffy, yellow chicks in gardening hats all stem from pagan roots. These tropes were incorporated into the celebration of Easter separately from the Christian tradition of honoring the day Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

According to the University of Florida's Center for Children's Literature and Culture, the origin of the celebration  and the origin of the Easter Bunny  can be traced back to 13th-century, pre-Christian Germany, when people worshiped several gods and goddesses. The Teutonic deity Eostra was the goddess of spring and fertility, and feasts were held in her honor on the Vernal Equinox. Her symbol was the rabbit because of the animals high reproduction rate.

Spring also symbolized new life and rebirth; eggs were an ancient symbol of fertility. According to History.com, Easter eggs represent Jesus' resurrection. However, this association came much later when Roman Catholicism became the dominant religion in Germany in the 15th century and merged with already ingrained pagan beliefs.

The first Easter Bunny legend was documented in the 1500s. By 1680, the first story about a rabbit laying eggs and hiding them in a garden was published. These legends were brought to the United States in the 1700s, when German immigrants settled in Pennsylvania Dutch country, according to the Center for Children's Literature and Culture.


----------



## holston

daws101 said:


> Why are these traditions so ingrained in Easter Sunday? And what do they have to do with the resurrection of Jesus?
> 
> Well, to be frank, nothing.
> 
> *Bunnies, eggs, Easter gifts and fluffy, yellow chicks in gardening hats all stem from pagan roots. *These tropes were incorporated into the celebration of Easter separately from the Christian tradition of honoring the day Jesus Christ rose from the dead.



 You are right about that. 

 The celebration of Christmas also had similar beginnings. 

 It is possible that early Christians "usurped" the pagan holidays by incorporating the elements of Christianity into them as a means of drawing them away from their paganism. 

 It's also possible that Pagans who were converted by the Gospel decided to alter their old holidays to accommodate their new found beliefs. 

 However these transitions occurred, few people are aware of the pagan vestiges which may remain in them. 
 The fact remains that these celebrations came to be associated in the popular mindset with the birth of Christ and His resurrection. 

 It is for these reasons that the Jewish factions are so determined to either malign them or do away with them all together. It is associations of these holidays to Christ they abhor, NOT the pagan history behind them. 



> Observing the Lord's Supper
> (Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:14-23)
> 23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; 24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, *This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.* 25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, *This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it , in remembrance of me.* 26 *For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.*



 That is what communion is about. It does not require the slaughter of chickens or their blood. The blood of chickens can not take away sins. Neither can goats or any other animal you can think of. 

 The "for so often" that you do this part, means whenever you assemble together for worship service. The ceremony is to facilitate the remembrance. The ceremony should be performed every assembly. I can't think of a time when it would be good to forget about it. 

 As things are, once a year is about as often that most people get reminded of the birth or the resurrection of Christ. The Jews are doing all they can to remove even those reminders. 

 There was a time when people considered "the meaning of" Christmas and Easter. 

 Now days one can see Christmas decorations on display before the Halloween decorations are removed. 
 Not only does this increase someones profit margins, it creates an association of Halloween with Christmas to such an extent that the lines between them are blurred. 

 Whereas Halloween was once a celebration of Autumn that was supposed to be a time of Jack O lanterns, candy and harmless spooky fun for kids, now days you have lunatics that use it as an occasion to seriously worship the devil, thanks in part to the work of Hollywood. 


Top 10 Devil Themed Movies | HorrorNews.net



> Rosemary's Baby is a 1968 American psychological horror film written and directed by **Roman Polanski*, based on the bestselling 1967 novel Rosemary's Baby by *Ira Levin.*



*the child rapist










Merry *X*mas

 Pleasant dreams, kiddies.


----------



## t_polkow

Hollie said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To Distinguish Creationism from ID, Try Evolution as the Outgroup - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> After the unit on Creationism and Intelligent Design in my Critical Thinking/Science and Pseudoscience class at New Mexico Tech (Psych 189), I asked the students to write an essay on the question
> 
> Is Intelligent Design just another version of Creationism? Why?
> 
> Along came student Elaine, who included this comment in her essay:
> 
> It seems that if you are only comparing Intelligent Design against Creationism, there are enough subtleties to identify one or the other. However, if it is a case of arguing Intelligent Design vs. Creationism vs. evolution, the contrast between evolution and the other two is so great that Intelligent Design and Creationism become indistinguishable in their respective arguments. The only giveaway would be a reference to Genesis, the use of God rather than Creator/Designer, or some explicit differentiation between the two. In contrast, no one could ever possibly confuse an evolution argument with any other.
> 
> I remarked that the student had used evolution as an outgroup to correctly root the evolution/creationism/ID tree, and gave her an A for the assignment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. As pointless as your usual babbling.
> 
> The Disco' tute Is a collection of Christian hacks, charlatans and snake oil salesmen.
Click to expand...


----------



## t_polkow

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I7e9vnwTjJA#]WATCH THIS YOU WILL LAUGH TO DEATH - YouTube[/ame]!


----------



## holston

I couldn't agree more. Some of these people know they are deceiving people. Others may be genuinely confused. 



> Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold [him] guiltless that taketh his name in vain.



 Philippians 1NIV



> 15 *It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill.* 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17* The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.* 18_ But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice._



 The clips in the film chosen to illustrate the makers intention, ie to expose Charlatans or reveal human error, could have done a better job. I could think of much better examples to present if I was merely trying to reveal how fallible, gullible, frail, weak, uneducated, and otherwise mixed up some people can be, even when they call themselves Christians.

 However none of those examples alter the words of God or change the actual message of the Gospel of Christ one iota. Therefore neither charlatans, imbeciles , nor the Kohanim detract from my faith.



> Cohen (Hebrew: &#1499;&#1465;&#1468;&#1492;&#1461;&#1503;, k&#333;h&#275;n, "priest") is a Jewish surname[1] of biblical origins (see: Kohen). It is a very common Jewish surname, comparable to 'Smith' in an English-language context.
> 
> Bearing the surname indicates that one's patrilineal ancestors were priests in the Temple of Jerusalem. A single such priest was known as a Kohen, and the hereditary caste descending from these priests is collectively known as the Kohanim


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Epigentics...
> 
> _"This is far more involved than a random mutation occurring that just happens to improve slightly how the organism works. In fact epigenetics would involve literally hundreds (and that is conservative) of changes required before any benefit would be realized.
> 
> The tagging machines not only need to be built, or adapted from other machines, but they need to know where in all the genome to place the tags. Likewise for the machines that remove and move the tags. In other words, it is not good enough merely to evolve the machines. They somehow much know where to place the tags given a spectrum of environmental signals.
> 
> And then the machines that interpret the tags would have to do so correctly. They would have to know what the tag means. So again, not only must these machines have evolved or adapted, but they must know what they are doing.
> 
> That is astronomically unlikely to occur according to our knowledge of science."_
> 
> Darwin's God: Plant's Epigenome as Varied as Their Environments
> 
> Wait! Here comes Hawly without a rebuttal and another lame Ad Hominem attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, wait. Here comes the knucklehead with another cut and paste  outlined in  gargantuan fonts and bright colors. All from the same fundie whackjob.
Click to expand...


Your response is exactly as I said it would be. Man you are easily manipulated.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Epigentics...
> 
> _"This is far more involved than a random mutation occurring that just happens to improve slightly how the organism works. In fact epigenetics would involve literally hundreds (and that is conservative) of changes required before any benefit would be realized.
> 
> The tagging machines not only need to be built, or adapted from other machines, but they need to know where in all the genome to place the tags. Likewise for the machines that remove and move the tags. In other words, it is not good enough merely to evolve the machines. They somehow much know where to place the tags given a spectrum of environmental signals.
> 
> And then the machines that interpret the tags would have to do so correctly. They would have to know what the tag means. So again, not only must these machines have evolved or adapted, but they must know what they are doing.
> 
> That is astronomically unlikely to occur according to our knowledge of science."_
> 
> Darwin's God: Plant's Epigenome as Varied as Their Environments
> 
> Wait! Here comes Hawly without a rebuttal and another lame Ad Hominem attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, wait. Here comes the knucklehead with another cut and paste  outlined in  gargantuan fonts and bright colors. All from the same fundie whackjob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response is exactly as I said it would be. Man you are easily manipulated.
Click to expand...


Your predictable cutting and pasting of creationist babble is exactly predictable.


----------



## Ancient lion




----------



## daws101

holston said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are these traditions so ingrained in Easter Sunday? And what do they have to do with the resurrection of Jesus?
> 
> Well, to be frank, nothing.
> 
> *Bunnies, eggs, Easter gifts and fluffy, yellow chicks in gardening hats all stem from pagan roots. *These tropes were incorporated into the celebration of Easter separately from the Christian tradition of honoring the day Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right about that.
> 
> The celebration of Christmas also had similar beginnings.
> 
> It is possible that early Christians "usurped" the pagan holidays by incorporating the elements of Christianity into them as a means of drawing them away from their paganism.
> 
> It's also possible that Pagans who were converted by the Gospel decided to alter their old holidays to accommodate their new found beliefs.
> 
> However these transitions occurred, few people are aware of the pagan vestiges which may remain in them.
> The fact remains that these celebrations came to be associated in the popular mindset with the birth of Christ and His resurrection.
> 
> It is for these reasons that the Jewish factions are so determined to either malign them or do away with them all together. It is associations of these holidays to Christ they abhor, NOT the pagan history behind them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Observing the Lord's Supper
> (Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:14-23)
> 23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; 24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, *This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.* 25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, *This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it , in remembrance of me.* 26 *For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what communion is about. It does not require the slaughter of chickens or their blood. The blood of chickens can not take away sins. Neither can goats or any other animal you can think of.
> 
> The "for so often" that you do this part, means whenever you assemble together for worship service. The ceremony is to facilitate the remembrance. The ceremony should be performed every assembly. I can't think of a time when it would be good to forget about it.
> 
> As things are, once a year is about as often that most people get reminded of the birth or the resurrection of Christ. The Jews are doing all they can to remove even those reminders.
> 
> There was a time when people considered "the meaning of" Christmas and Easter.
> 
> Now days one can see Christmas decorations on display before the Halloween decorations are removed.
> Not only does this increase someones profit margins, it creates an association of Halloween with Christmas to such an extent that the lines between them are blurred.
> 
> Whereas Halloween was once a celebration of Autumn that was supposed to be a time of Jack O lanterns, candy and harmless spooky fun for kids, now days you have lunatics that use it as an occasion to seriously worship the devil, thanks in part to the work of Hollywood.
> 
> 
> Top 10 Devil Themed Movies | HorrorNews.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rosemary's Baby is a 1968 American psychological horror film written and directed by **Roman Polanski*, based on the bestselling 1967 novel Rosemary's Baby by *Ira Levin.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *the child rapist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Merry *X*mas
> 
> Pleasant dreams, kiddies.
Click to expand...

Christian wackjob anti-Semites Jesus would just love you asshats..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he hit the nail on the head the only B.S. being spewed is the side trying to suggest exactly what UR stated.
> 
> DNA similarity does not prove common ancestry got it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so not debating me any more was a lie? god will appreciate that.
Click to expand...


When you and I have an exchange it's not debating I am merely correcting you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that assumption like all your other assumption is false.
> being gay is not abnormal or not natural.
> you did prove one thing , you're a bigot a homophobe..
> where the egg and sperm come from is not the point, anyone can have sex.
> the gift as you call it is in the raising and nurture of the child.
> GAY couples  do have one huge advantage over "straight couples they do not fill group homes and mortuaries with their creations.
> did I tell you what a ignorant and hateful person you are today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the playbook of an Ideologue on display when someone disagrees with their view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no these are facts and any rebuttal to them is willful ignorance...
Click to expand...


Wrong,name calling is what you resort to when someone disagrees with your views. The terms bigot and homophobe are nothing more than silly attacks and does not bother me in the least.

We all sin but some are forgiven for their sins where others are to arrogant to ask for that forgiveness.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he hit the nail on the head the only B.S. being spewed is the side trying to suggest exactly what UR stated.
> 
> DNA similarity does not prove common ancestry got it ?
> 
> 
> 
> so not debating me any more was a lie? god will appreciate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you and I have an exchange it's not debating I am merely correcting you.
Click to expand...

only in your mind, in reality you're showcasing you're tenuous grip on reality in a highly humorous way..


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> So why did god make ugly people?



Imperfection produced ugly people sorry if you are dealing with this.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the playbook of an Ideologue on display when someone disagrees with their view.
> 
> 
> 
> no these are facts and any rebuttal to them is willful ignorance...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong,name calling is what you resort to when someone disagrees with your views. The terms bigot and homophobe are nothing more than silly attacks and does not bother me in the least.
> 
> We all sin but some are forgiven for their sins where others are to arrogant to ask for that forgiveness.
Click to expand...

your point ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he hit the nail on the head the only B.S. being spewed is the side trying to suggest exactly what UR stated.
> 
> DNA similarity does not prove common ancestry got it ?
> 
> 
> 
> so not debating me any more was a lie? god will appreciate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought he wasn't debating you anymore... anymore like the last half-dozen times he wasn't debating you anymore.
> 
> He went wee wee wee all the way home.
Click to expand...


I have not come across anyone here worthy of a scientific debate from your side. You can't debate common sense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why did god make ugly people?
> 
> 
> 
> Answer me this question... If EVERYONE was beautiful, how would anyone know they were beautiful?
> 
> Ugly-beautiful, Light-Dark, Hot-Cold, Good-Evil...
> 
> You really should get some formal education starting with a basic philosophy class.
Click to expand...


I have to admit I have viewed a few very ugly people without even laying eyes on them.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> "The theory that man is an ape is actively promoted in the Judeo Zionist academic world".
> 
> I think someone is suffering from IJHS (Irrational Jew Hatred Syndrome)



Anyone believing that humans are related or have evolved from apes do not believe in the words of God. There I said it !


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so not debating me any more was a lie? god will appreciate that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought he wasn't debating you anymore... anymore like the last half-dozen times he wasn't debating you anymore.
> 
> He went wee wee wee all the way home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not come across anyone here worthy of a scientific debate from your side. You can't debate common sense.
Click to expand...

off your meds this fine morning? 
answering posts not directed at you, with out of context nonsense is a waste of time.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The theory that man is an ape is actively promoted in the Judeo Zionist academic world".
> 
> I think someone is suffering from IJHS (Irrational Jew Hatred Syndrome)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone believing that humans are related or have evolved from apes do not believe in the words of God. There I said it !
Click to expand...

wow! that was stating the obvious...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the creationist club is gearing of for Easter a truly pagan holiday.
> didn't ur just say he's was not going to debate you or I ANY MORE?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it bear any resemblance to Seder or Hannakah or junk like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you this incredibly stupid all the time?
> Judaism is not pagan, slapdick, they believe in the same god as Christians and Muslims.
> using your lack of logic, logic would mean all Christian celebrations would be junk too.
Click to expand...


Are you saying pagans didn't become Christians and brought some of their traditions with them slap weenie ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it bear any resemblance to Seder or Hannakah or junk like that?
> 
> 
> 
> are you this incredibly stupid all the time?
> Judaism is not pagan, slapdick, they believe in the same god as Christians and Muslims.
> using your lack of logic, logic would mean all Christian celebrations would be junk too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying pagans didn't become Christians and brought some of their traditions with them slap weenie ?
Click to expand...

they believe in the same god as Christians and Muslims.
using your lack of logic, logic would mean all Christian celebrations would be junk too.[/QUOTE]
learn to read.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Ancient lion said:


>



That is friggen funny.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so not debating me any more was a lie? god will appreciate that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you and I have an exchange it's not debating I am merely correcting you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in your mind, in reality you're showcasing you're tenuous grip on reality in a highly humorous way..
Click to expand...


Only in your mind do you consider our exchanges as debates.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought he wasn't debating you anymore... anymore like the last half-dozen times he wasn't debating you anymore.
> 
> He went wee wee wee all the way home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not come across anyone here worthy of a scientific debate from your side. You can't debate common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> off your meds this fine morning?
> answering posts not directed at you, with out of context nonsense is a waste of time.
Click to expand...


Please don't waste my time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The theory that man is an ape is actively promoted in the Judeo Zionist academic world".
> 
> I think someone is suffering from IJHS (Irrational Jew Hatred Syndrome)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone believing that humans are related or have evolved from apes do not believe in the words of God. There I said it !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow! that was stating the obvious...
Click to expand...


Did you look at Hollies comment before you posted this


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you and I have an exchange it's not debating I am merely correcting you.
> 
> 
> 
> only in your mind, in reality you're showcasing you're tenuous grip on reality in a highly humorous way..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only in your mind do you consider our exchanges as debates.
Click to expand...

wrong as always, what our discussions amount to is you making a total ass of yourself each and every time  you post.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not come across anyone here worthy of a scientific debate from your side. You can't debate common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> off your meds this fine morning?
> answering posts not directed at you, with out of context nonsense is a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don't waste my time.
Click to expand...

only you can waste your time, evidenced by your answer in this post.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone believing that humans are related or have evolved from apes do not believe in the words of God. There I said it !
> 
> 
> 
> wow! that was stating the obvious...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you look at Hollies comment before you posted this
Click to expand...

I always read hollies' comments your answer is not relevant to it ,but that's nothing new.


----------



## daws101

[ame=http://youtu.be/kzMjGbSoTj4]Jello Biafra & Mojo Nixon - Plastic Jesus - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## holston

* Psalm* 1


> How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, *Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!*


----------



## daws101

holston said:


> * Psalm* 1
> 
> 
> 
> How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, *Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!*
Click to expand...

more out of context bible blabber


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in your mind, in reality you're showcasing you're tenuous grip on reality in a highly humorous way..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your mind do you consider our exchanges as debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong as always, what our discussions amount to is you making a total ass of yourself each and every time  you post.
Click to expand...


I know you are but what am I?


----------



## holston

daws101 said:


> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Psalm* 1
> 
> 
> 
> How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, *Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more out of context bible blabber
Click to expand...


 On the contrary, I think you fit perfectly within that context.


----------



## Big_D2

Humans have the genes for a tail.  Why would God create humans with a gene for a tail if He never intended for us to have or evolve from species that have a tail?


----------



## newpolitics

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no evidence that any of the previous statement is fact....
> the human form is not and never has been perfect....it has major design flaws, is highly susceptible to disease and damage..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nip, by your response I'd say that you probably have mental problems. I suggest that you get it checked just to be safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that those who do not see God in nature are stupidly blind. I plainly see cause and affect played out even in the news. Non-believers scoff at conspiracy theory; however, I know that evil is in a heated battle to overpower good. The conspiracy is to say such is not the case.
Click to expand...


You do realize that Stars Wars was a fiction movie, right? The battle between good and evil is a fairy tale. Come back to reality.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why did god make ugly people?
> 
> 
> 
> Answer me this question... If EVERYONE was beautiful, how would anyone know they were beautiful?
> 
> Ugly-beautiful, Light-Dark, Hot-Cold, Good-Evil...
> 
> You really should get some formal education starting with a basic philosophy class.
Click to expand...


You really should study the science of sexual attraction. We don't know beauty because of non-beauty. We know beauty because of the properties of that which are beautiful, in and of itself, without relation to anything outside of itself. If everyone were beautiful, everyone would still be beautiful, because beauty is  sexual marker for fitness, such as skin tone, symmetry, facial proportion, waist to hip ratio, and hip to shoulder ratio. These are OBJECTIVE markers for sexual attraction that do not rely on a relational context for their definition. In other words, beauty is not relationally defined. Go read a Wikipedia article, will ya?


----------



## HUGGY

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why did god make ugly people?
> 
> 
> 
> Answer me this question... If EVERYONE was beautiful, how would anyone know they were beautiful?
> 
> Ugly-beautiful, Light-Dark, Hot-Cold, Good-Evil...
> 
> You really should get some formal education starting with a basic philosophy class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should study the science of sexual attraction. We don't know beauty because of non-beauty. We know beauty because of the properties of that which are beautiful, in and of itself, without relation to anything outside of itself. If everyone were beautiful, everyone would still be beautiful, because beauty is  sexual marker for fitness, such as skin tone, symmetry, facial proportion, waist to hip ratio, and hip to shoulder ratio. These are OBJECTIVE markers for sexual attraction that do not rely on a relational context for their definition. In other words, beauty is not relationally defined. Go read a Wikipedia article, will ya?
Click to expand...


Well then ..riddle me this Batman...  why is the best sex dirty?


----------



## daws101

holston said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Psalm* 1
> 
> 
> 
> more out of context bible blabber
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, I think you fit perfectly within that context.
Click to expand...

thus proving my point.


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer me this question... If EVERYONE was beautiful, how would anyone know they were beautiful?
> 
> Ugly-beautiful, Light-Dark, Hot-Cold, Good-Evil...
> 
> You really should get some formal education starting with a basic philosophy class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should study the science of sexual attraction. We don't know beauty because of non-beauty. We know beauty because of the properties of that which are beautiful, in and of itself, without relation to anything outside of itself. If everyone were beautiful, everyone would still be beautiful, because beauty is  sexual marker for fitness, such as skin tone, symmetry, facial proportion, waist to hip ratio, and hip to shoulder ratio. These are OBJECTIVE markers for sexual attraction that do not rely on a relational context for their definition. In other words, beauty is not relationally defined. Go read a Wikipedia article, will ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then ..riddle me this Batman...  why is the best sex dirty?
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

HUGGY said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer me this question... If EVERYONE was beautiful, how would anyone know they were beautiful?
> 
> Ugly-beautiful, Light-Dark, Hot-Cold, Good-Evil...
> 
> You really should get some formal education starting with a basic philosophy class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should study the science of sexual attraction. We don't know beauty because of non-beauty. We know beauty because of the properties of that which are beautiful, in and of itself, without relation to anything outside of itself. If everyone were beautiful, everyone would still be beautiful, because beauty is  sexual marker for fitness, such as skin tone, symmetry, facial proportion, waist to hip ratio, and hip to shoulder ratio. These are OBJECTIVE markers for sexual attraction that do not rely on a relational context for their definition. In other words, beauty is not relationally defined. Go read a Wikipedia article, will ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then ..riddle me this Batman...  why is the best sex dirty?
Click to expand...


Because lying there like a stiff is no good.


----------



## UltimateReality

Big_D2 said:


> Humans have the genes for a tail.  Why would God create humans with a gene for a tail if He never intended for us to have or evolve from species that have a tail?



Why do men have nipples? Did evolution intend for men to breast feed?


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans have the genes for a tail.  Why would God create humans with a gene for a tail if He never intended for us to have or evolve from species that have a tail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do men have nipples? Did evolution intend for men to breast feed?
Click to expand...


Evolution doesn't intend anything, but you know that, yet you post this garbage anyway. And if you don't know that, then you sir, are an idiot, and after being here for how long? A long ass motherfuckin time.

Men have nipples because nipples are formed before sexual dimorphism begins in the womb. Simple!


----------



## Underhill

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans have the genes for a tail.  Why would God create humans with a gene for a tail if He never intended for us to have or evolve from species that have a tail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do men have nipples? Did evolution intend for men to breast feed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution doesn't intend anything, but you know that, yet you post this garbage anyway. And if you don't know that, then you sir, are an idiot, and after being here for how long? A long ass motherfuckin time.
> 
> Men have nipples because nipples are formed before sexual dimorphism begins in the womb. Simple!
Click to expand...


Ironic that UR chooses nipples as an example.  

Why would god put nipples on a man?   Symmetry?    It seems a designer would give us something more useful.   A cup holder perhaps?

As you say newpolitics, evolution doesn't plan ahead.   Leftovers like nipples on a man are evidence of evolution, if anything.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans have the genes for a tail.  Why would God create humans with a gene for a tail if He never intended for us to have or evolve from species that have a tail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do men have nipples? Did evolution intend for men to breast feed?
Click to expand...

all mammals male and female have nipples.  

Why do men have nipples? 

Andrew M. Simons, a professor of biology at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, explains. 

Like all "why" queries, the question of why men have nipples can be addressed on many levels. My four-year-old daughter, always suspicious of a trick when asked such obvious questions, answered: "because they grow them." In search of the trick answer, she quickly added that "chests would also look pretty funny with just hair." 

Evolutionary biologists, whose job it is to explain variety in nature, are often expected to provide adaptive explanations for such "why" questions. Some traits may prove&#8212;through appropriate tests&#8212;to be best explained as adaptations; others have perfectly good evolutionary, but nonadaptive, explanations. This is because evolution is a process constrained by many factors including history, chance, and the mechanisms of heredity, which also explains why particular attributes of organisms are not as they would be had they been "designed" from scratch. Nipples in male mammals illustrate a constrained evolutionary result. 

A human baby inherits one copy of every gene from his or her father and one copy of every gene from his or her mother. Inherited traits of a boy should thus be a combination of traits from both his parents. Thus, from a genetic perspective, the question should be turned around: How can males and females ever diverge if genes from both parents are inherited? We know that consistent differences between males and females (so-called sexual dimorphisms) are common--examples include bird plumage coloration and size dimorphism in insects. The only way such differences can evolve is if the same trait (color, for example) in males and females has become "uncoupled" at the genetic level. This happens if a trait is influenced by different genes in males and females, if it is under control of genes located on sex chromosomes, or if gene expression has evolved to be dependent on context (whether genes find themselves within a male or a female genome). The idea of the shared genetic basis of two traits (in this case in males and females) is known as a genetic correlation, and it is a quantity routinely measured by evolutionary geneticists. The evolutionary default is for males and females to share characters through genetic correlations. 

The uncoupling of male and female traits occurs if there is selection for it: if the trait is important to the reproductive success of both males and females but the best or "optimal" trait is different for a male and a female. We would not expect such an uncoupling if the attribute is important in both sexes and the "optimal" value is similar in both sexes, nor would we expect uncoupling to evolve if the attribute is important to one sex but unimportant in the other. The latter is the case for nipples. Their advantage in females, in terms of reproductive success, is clear. But because the genetic "default" is for males and females to share characters, the presence of nipples in males is probably best explained as a genetic correlation that persists through lack of selection against them, rather than selection for them. Interestingly, though, it could be argued that the occurrence of problems associated with the male nipple, such as carcinoma, constitutes contemporary selection against them. In a sense, male nipples are analogous to vestigial structures such as the remnants of useless pelvic bones in whales: if they did much harm, they would have disappeared. 

In a now-famous paper, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin emphasize that we should not immediately assume that every trait has an adaptive explanation. Just as the spandrels of St. Mark's domed cathedral in Venice are simply an architectural consequence of the meeting of a vaulted ceiling with its supporting pillars, the presence of nipples in male mammals is a genetic architectural by-product of nipples in females. So, why do men have nipples? Because females do. 
Why do men have nipples?: Scientific American


----------



## daws101

Underhill said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do men have nipples? Did evolution intend for men to breast feed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution doesn't intend anything, but you know that, yet you post this garbage anyway. And if you don't know that, then you sir, are an idiot, and after being here for how long? A long ass motherfuckin time.
> 
> Men have nipples because nipples are formed before sexual dimorphism begins in the womb. Simple!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic that UR chooses nipples as an example.
> 
> Why would god put nipples on a man?   Symmetry?    It seems a designer would give us something more useful.   A cup holder perhaps?
> 
> As you say newpolitics, evolution doesn't plan ahead.   Leftovers like nipples on a man are evidence of evolution, if anything.
Click to expand...

what god?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans have the genes for a tail.  Why would God create humans with a gene for a tail if He never intended for us to have or evolve from species that have a tail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do men have nipples? Did evolution intend for men to breast feed?
Click to expand...


Why do many mammals have vestigial bones? 

Have the gawds played a cruel joke on you, or, is evolution an imperfect process of starts, stops and sometimes utter dead ends?


----------



## t_polkow

Kooks on parade


----------



## holston

God wants spiritual fruit, not religious nuts.


----------



## daws101

holston said:


> God wants spiritual fruit, not religious nuts.


then why are you a believer.? 
your prose suck.


----------



## newpolitics

Underhill said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do men have nipples? Did evolution intend for men to breast feed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution doesn't intend anything, but you know that, yet you post this garbage anyway. And if you don't know that, then you sir, are an idiot, and after being here for how long? A long ass motherfuckin time.
> 
> Men have nipples because nipples are formed before sexual dimorphism begins in the womb. Simple!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic that UR chooses nipples as an example.
> 
> Why would god put nipples on a man?   Symmetry?    It seems a designer would give us something more useful.   A cup holder perhaps?
> 
> As you say newpolitics, evolution doesn't plan ahead.   Leftovers like nipples on a man are evidence of evolution, if anything.
Click to expand...


Right. The same question could be asked of a designer. Why something so obviously useless? His rhetorical question is self-defeating. You would expect something like this of evolution, which has no telos, but not of a perfect designer god.


----------



## holston

daws101 said:


> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> God wants spiritual fruit, not religious nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> then why are you a believer.?
> your prose suck.
Click to expand...


 And you just plain suck.


----------



## holston

newpolitics said:


> Why would god put nipples on a man?   Symmetry?    It seems a designer would give us something more useful.   *A cup holder perhaps?*
> 
> As you say newpolitics, evolution doesn't plan ahead.   Leftovers like nipples on a man are evidence of evolution, if anything.



Right. The same question could be asked of a designer. Why something so obviously useless? His rhetorical question is self-defeating. You would expect something like this of evolution, which has no telos, but not of a perfect designer god.[/QUOTE]

 I don't know newpolitics, there is a growing number of men who would like some boobs to go with those nipples, like flyingsaucer man for instance. He sucks you know. 

 I can look around me at anytime or place and see all sorts of things which are apparently useless, just as so many events seem to lack rhyme or reason. 

 But who am I to say. Just because I lack an understanding of all things, does not mean that all things can not be understood. 

 We make the mistake of assuming that we have reached the pinnacle of wisdom when we purport to know the mind of God. That strikes me as more than a little presumptuous on the part of man, even fervent Darwinists.  

Nevertheless, it is difficult to live and reconcile oneself with the fact that they don't know everything and maybe never will.


----------



## newpolitics

holston said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would god put nipples on a man?   Symmetry?    It seems a designer would give us something more useful.   *A cup holder perhaps?*
> 
> As you say newpolitics, evolution doesn't plan ahead.   Leftovers like nipples on a man are evidence of evolution, if anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. The same question could be asked of a designer. Why something so obviously useless? His rhetorical question is self-defeating. You would expect something like this of evolution, which has no telos, but not of a perfect designer god.
Click to expand...




> I don't know newpolitics, there is a growing number of men who would like some boobs to go with those nipples, like flyingsaucer man for instance. He sucks you know.
> 
> I can look around me at anytime or place and see all sorts of things which are apparently useless, just as so many events seem to lack rhyme or reason.
> 
> But who am I to say. Just because I lack an understanding of all things, does not mean that all things can not be understood.
> 
> We make the mistake of assuming that we have reached the pinnacle of wisdom when we purport to know the mind of God. That strikes me as more than a little presumptuous on the part of man, even fervent Darwinists.
> 
> Nevertheless, it is difficult to live and reconcile oneself with the fact that they don't know everything and maybe never will.



Well, if you are going to talk about the mind of god ontologically, then you need to show that god exists. Since this has not been done, no one can be said to be arrogant for trying to figure out the nature of the universe. Your last paragraph makes little sense: you have trouble reconciling your own existential dilemmas because other people don't know everything? That's a little like looking over someone's shoulder during a test and being upset that they don't know an answer to a problem that you also don't have the answer to.


----------



## daws101

holston said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> God wants spiritual fruit, not religious nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> then why are you a believer.?
> your prose suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you just plain suck.
Click to expand...

jealous


----------



## SmarterThanHick

> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would god put nipples on a man?   Symmetry?    It seems a designer would give us something more useful.   *A cup holder perhaps?*
> 
> As you say newpolitics, evolution doesn't plan ahead.   Leftovers like nipples on a man are evidence of evolution, if anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. The same question could be asked of a designer. Why something so obviously useless? His rhetorical question is self-defeating. You would expect something like this of evolution, which has no telos, but not of a perfect designer god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know newpolitics, there is a growing number of men who would like some boobs to go with those nipples, like flyingsaucer man for instance. He sucks you know.
> 
> I can look around me at anytime or place and see all sorts of things which are apparently useless, just as so many events seem to lack rhyme or reason.
> 
> But who am I to say. Just because I lack an understanding of all things, does not mean that all things can not be understood.
> 
> We make the mistake of assuming that we have reached the pinnacle of wisdom when we purport to know the mind of God. That strikes me as more than a little presumptuous on the part of man, even fervent Darwinists.
> 
> Nevertheless, it is difficult to live and reconcile oneself with the fact that they don't know everything and maybe never will.
Click to expand...

The mistake is not assuming we've reached the pinnacle of wisdom. The mistake is seeing something you don't understand and believing there's a deeper meaning to it when no such evidence has ever presented itself. 

Intelligent designers do not put seemingly useless pieces into their products. Have you ever seen an iPad with nipples? There are tons of examples of vestigiality in our body that has since lost its initial use. Heck even one of our chromosomes is the product of fusing two great ape chromosomes together. Why would a designer make chromosomes to appear as if they are two great ape chromosomes fused together when they would work just the same separately?  Go on. Tell me something so simple REALLY represents the vast complexity of a deity.


----------



## ima

Creationists are living in a fantasy world, Like, who decided that the world was made in 6 days?


----------



## holston

newpolitics said:


> Well, if you are going to talk about the mind of god ontologically, then you need to show that god exists. Since this has not been done, no one can be said to be arrogant for trying to figure out the nature of the universe. Your last paragraph makes little sense: you have trouble reconciling your own existential dilemmas because other people don't know everything? That's a little like looking over someone's shoulder during a test and being upset that they don't know an answer to a problem that you also don't have the answer to.



 No. What I am saying is that it is just as arrogant for an atheist to make similar assertions about things for which he has no proof either. 

 I'm not looking to atheists for answers. The evidence which I have is sufficient to meet my needs, ie to persuade me that it is more logical to think that a creator preceded the creation than to think that the creation could produce a creator. 
 The later is what the transhumanistic Darwinians would want us all to believe, or rather, place our faith in. 
 What they have to offer is of no practical use to me. 

 I would say that many atheists and doubters come across as being much more angry because those who believe in God do not have a sort of Santa Claus figure to offer them which does all their homework for them and hands them with whatever they feel they are entitled to.


----------



## holston

ima said:


> Creationists are living in a fantasy world, Like, who decided that the world was made in 6 days?



 Again. Not all who believe in a creator being pretend to know the details of how the universe was created. 

 It's OK for you guys to speculate all you want, so long as you don't try to foist your theories on everyone else as proven facts. That's very intellectually dishonest and I see a lot of that behavior on the part of those who smugly feel they have the market cornered on reason.


----------



## holston

SmarterThanHick said:


> Intelligent designers do not put seemingly useless pieces into their products. Have you ever seen an iPad with nipples? There are tons of examples of vestigiality in our body that has since lost its initial use. Heck even one of our chromosomes is the product of fusing two great ape chromosomes together. Why would a designer make chromosomes to appear as if they are two great ape chromosomes fused together when they would work just the same separately?  Go on. Tell me something so simple REALLY represents the vast complexity of a deity.



 OH. I can see already that you are smarter than the average hick. So pardon me if I humor you a little. 

 How intelligent is it to assume that a thing is purposeless when you admit that you see no purpose to begin with. That admission is no guarantee of the lack of purpose is it?

 Perhaps you should say something like "serves an  immediate function which is apparent to me" or 
"has some intrinsic meaning which makes sense to me" rather than use the term "purpose" which has different connotations. 

 As for vestigial organs, what is vestigial, or useless may be subject to some debate. The appendix was once considered to be useless. But the last time I heard there are some very credible people who have been having second thoughts about it. 

 I certainly wouldn't say that there are "tons" of vestigial organs in our bodies. To begin with, our bodies weigh no where near a ton despite the epidemic of obesity in this country. 

 There are certain products of our bodies that people deliberately rid themselves of which no longer serve any "purpose" too. But the process of ridding ourselves of them is very purposeful. 


 I'm sorry but I am unaware of any chromosomes in the human genome which could be fused together to form a great ape. I would think that if there were, there are many people who would like to see it done and others that would certainly give it a try. 

 Do you have something against apes?

 I wouldn't say that an ape is at all a "simple" creation. 

If it was that simple the boys in my neighborhood would have whipped one up to go with the tales of the great white ape that was supposed to have roamed the knobs behind our subdivision.  All they could conjure up were stories. Most of them weren't creative enough to do even that.


----------



## daws101

holston said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you are going to talk about the mind of god ontologically, then you need to show that god exists. Since this has not been done, no one can be said to be arrogant for trying to figure out the nature of the universe. Your last paragraph makes little sense: you have trouble reconciling your own existential dilemmas because other people don't know everything? That's a little like looking over someone's shoulder during a test and being upset that they don't know an answer to a problem that you also don't have the answer to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. What I am saying is that it is just as arrogant for an atheist to make similar assertions about things for which he has no proof either.
> 
> I'm not looking to atheists for answers. The evidence which I have is sufficient to meet my needs, ie to persuade me that it is more logical to think that a creator preceded the creation than to think that the creation could produce a creator.
> The later is what the transhumanistic Darwinians would want us all to believe, or rather, place our faith in.
> What they have to offer is of no practical use to me.
> 
> I would say that many atheists and doubters come across as being much more angry because those who believe in God do not have a sort of Santa Claus figure to offer them which does all their homework for them and hands them with whatever they feel they are entitled to.
Click to expand...

rolf ! god would be the ultimate Santa Claus! in your belief system  he did everything, made everything and all his ask for is not to ask questions and obey.
seems very odd as humans for the most part are curious and disobedient..


----------



## daws101

holston said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent designers do not put seemingly useless pieces into their products. Have you ever seen an iPad with nipples? There are tons of examples of vestigiality in our body that has since lost its initial use. Heck even one of our chromosomes is the product of fusing two great ape chromosomes together. Why would a designer make chromosomes to appear as if they are two great ape chromosomes fused together when they would work just the same separately?  Go on. Tell me something so simple REALLY represents the vast complexity of a deity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH. I can see already that you are smarter than the average hick. So pardon me if I humor you a little.
> 
> How intelligent is it to assume that a thing is purposeless when you admit that you see no purpose to begin with. That admission is no guarantee of the lack of purpose is it?
> 
> Perhaps you should say something like "serves an  immediate function which is apparent to me" or
> "has some intrinsic meaning which makes sense to me" rather than use the term "purpose" which has different connotations.
> 
> As for vestigial organs, what is vestigial, or useless may be subject to some debate. The appendix was once considered to be useless. But the last time I heard there are some very credible people who have been having second thoughts about it.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't say that there are "tons" of vestigial organs in our bodies. To begin with, our bodies weigh no where near a ton despite the epidemic of obesity in this country.
> 
> There are certain products of our bodies that people deliberately rid themselves of which no longer serve any "purpose" too. But the process of ridding ourselves of them is very purposeful.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but I am unaware of any chromosomes in the human genome which could be fused together to form a great ape. I would think that if there were, there are many people who would like to see it done and others that would certainly give it a try.
> 
> Do you have something against apes?
> 
> I wouldn't say that an ape is at all a "simple" creation.
> 
> If it was that simple the boys in my neighborhood would have whipped one up to go with the tales of the great white ape that was supposed to have roamed the knobs behind our subdivision.  All they could conjure up were stories. Most of them weren't creative enough to do even that.
Click to expand...

another DNA denier..
if there was as much proof for the ark( place laughter here ) as there is for the apes and us being very closely related, then the bible would not be the best selling fantasy of all time.


----------



## newpolitics

holston said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you are going to talk about the mind of god ontologically, then you need to show that god exists. Since this has not been done, no one can be said to be arrogant for trying to figure out the nature of the universe. Your last paragraph makes little sense: you have trouble reconciling your own existential dilemmas because other people don't know everything? That's a little like looking over someone's shoulder during a test and being upset that they don't know an answer to a problem that you also don't have the answer to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. What I am saying is that it is just as arrogant for an atheist to make similar assertions about things for which he has no proof either.
> 
> I'm not looking to atheists for answers. The evidence which I have is sufficient to meet my needs, ie to persuade me that it is more logical to think that a creator preceded the creation than to think that the creation could produce a creator.
> The later is what the transhumanistic Darwinians would want us all to believe, or rather, place our faith in.
> What they have to offer is of no practical use to me.
> 
> I would say that many atheists and doubters come across as being much more angry because those who believe in God do not have a sort of Santa Claus figure to offer them which does all their homework for them and hands them with whatever they feel they are entitled to.
Click to expand...


I've never heard of anyone claiming that the universe created god. I believe humans created the concept of god, but that is quite different. Is this what you are referring to?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

holston said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you are going to talk about the mind of god ontologically, then you need to show that god exists. Since this has not been done, no one can be said to be arrogant for trying to figure out the nature of the universe. Your last paragraph makes little sense: you have trouble reconciling your own existential dilemmas because other people don't know everything? That's a little like looking over someone's shoulder during a test and being upset that they don't know an answer to a problem that you also don't have the answer to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. What I am saying is that it is just as arrogant for an atheist to make similar assertions about things for which he has no proof either.
> 
> I'm not looking to atheists for answers. The evidence which I have is sufficient to meet my needs, ie to persuade me that it is more logical to think that a creator preceded the creation than to think that the creation could produce a creator.
> The later is what the transhumanistic Darwinians would want us all to believe, or rather, place our faith in.
> What they have to offer is of no practical use to me.
> 
> I would say that many atheists and doubters come across as being much more angry because those who believe in God do not have a sort of Santa Claus figure to offer them which does all their homework for them and hands them with whatever they feel they are entitled to.
Click to expand...

Is that your perspective on atheists?  hahahaha

I don't think anyone looks to atheists for answers. After all, the fundamental prerequisite for being an atheist is not believing in magical thinking. 

Who I recommend you look to for answers are scientists.  You know, people who draw logical conclusions from that thing called EVIDENCE. 

When you think of god, do you see him as a man?  Why do you suppose that is?



holston said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent designers do not put seemingly useless pieces into their products. Have you ever seen an iPad with nipples? There are tons of examples of vestigiality in our body that has since lost its initial use. Heck even one of our chromosomes is the product of fusing two great ape chromosomes together. Why would a designer make chromosomes to appear as if they are two great ape chromosomes fused together when they would work just the same separately?  Go on. Tell me something so simple REALLY represents the vast complexity of a deity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH. I can see already that you are smarter than the average hick. So pardon me if I humor you a little.
> 
> How intelligent is it to assume that a thing is purposeless when you admit that you see no purpose to begin with. That admission is no guarantee of the lack of purpose is it?
> 
> Perhaps you should say something like "serves an  immediate function which is apparent to me" or
> "has some intrinsic meaning which makes sense to me" rather than use the term "purpose" which has different connotations.
> 
> As for vestigial organs, what is vestigial, or useless may be subject to some debate. The appendix was once considered to be useless. But the last time I heard there are some very credible people who have been having second thoughts about it.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't say that there are "tons" of vestigial organs in our bodies. To begin with, our bodies weigh no where near a ton despite the epidemic of obesity in this country.
> 
> There are certain products of our bodies that people deliberately rid themselves of which no longer serve any "purpose" too. But the process of ridding ourselves of them is very purposeful.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but I am unaware of any chromosomes in the human genome which could be fused together to form a great ape. I would think that if there were, there are many people who would like to see it done and others that would certainly give it a try.
> 
> Do you have something against apes?
> 
> I wouldn't say that an ape is at all a "simple" creation.
> 
> If it was that simple the boys in my neighborhood would have whipped one up to go with the tales of the great white ape that was supposed to have roamed the knobs behind our subdivision.  All they could conjure up were stories. Most of them weren't creative enough to do even that.
Click to expand...

First off, vestigiality does not denote uselessness. It simply means a loss of original function. The appendix, as you mentioned, still some minor secondary function, but it has lost its original function. We can tell vestigiality from genetics, and track things back to our animal relatives that have complete genetics in those vestigial structures. 

With that in mind, let's return to male breast tissue. You are right: the word PURPOSE can be misleading. Let me make it simpler: there is no function to male breast tissue. At the cellular level, it provides nothing for the male body. If removed, no functionality is lost or changed. Intelligent design demands intelligence. I can assure you that the human body is not a particularly streamlined intelligent system, either at the organ level or genetically.


----------



## holston

holston said:


> I would say that many atheists and doubters come across as being much more angry because those who believe in God do not have a sort of Santa Claus figure to offer them which does all their homework for them and hands them with whatever they feel they are entitled to.





daws101 said:


> rolf ! god would be the ultimate Santa Claus! in your belief system  he did everything, made everything and all his ask for is not to ask questions and obey.
> seems very odd as humans for the most part are curious and disobedient..



 You don't seem to know much about my belief system.
 What makes you think you do?

 Try rereading my statement more slowly.


----------



## holston

daws101 said:


> another DNA denier..
> if there was as much proof for the ark( place laughter here ) as there is for the apes and us being very closely related, then the bible would not be the best selling fantasy of all time.



 Who "denied" DNA? 

 If I am denying anything here, that would be some of the presumptions you seem to be making about it. 

 And how do you know the stories in the Bible are fantasy?


----------



## holston

newpolitics said:


> I've never heard of anyone claiming that the universe created god. I believe humans created the concept of god, but that is quite different. Is this what you are referring to?



 Partly yes. 

 Why should you assume that matter must precede a conscious entity?

 Can you demonstrate what consciousness is?

 If only matter can generate consciousness, or if consciousness cannot exist apart from it,
 how can you be certain that it can't or that it never does if you can not explain the connection in the first place?

 You assert that the concept of God is merely the product of the human imagination, and that the human imagination is the product of the brain, and that the brain is the product of matter.

 Which seems more reasonable, that mind should emerge from matter or that matter should emerge from mind?

 You assert that mind (consciousness) can only exist as a product of matter. How do you justify this argument apart from the fact that matter is all that is accessible to your physical senses? 

 The grounds for your argument cannot rest on comprehension since no one understands the process. They merely assume that the matter they perceive called the brain is all there is because that's all they can see or detect. How can they be certain of this assumption?

 If the process by which consciousness emerges from the brain is comprehensible, then one can imagine that man may someday understand it. From there, he should also be able to duplicate the process.  

 People frequently speculate on advancements in science which would prolong life. The logical conclusion of this would be to prolong it indefinitely however theoretical or far in the future that may be. 

 In the meantime, does it not strike you as something of an impenetrable mystery how disorganized matter and energy could spontaneously erupt in an order which is complex enough to generate consciousness, since the understanding of consciousness remains one of the ultimate challenges to the human mind, to understand itself?

 And isn't it strange that mindless matter should create of itself an inquisitive consciousness which would retroactively ascribe to the inanimate origin of the universe the conscious characteristics of a Creator being?

 Maybe not least of all is the age old riddle of the watchmaker. 

 Man considers his machines as being the height of technical complexity. Yet he is not able to mechanically reproduce the simplest forms of life without the aid of preexisting life. 

 So which "invention" should be considered the more complex of the two, those which are man made or those which are found in nature?

 Isn't it strange that mindless chaos should result in the most complex of "machines"?

 Anywhere we find a machine we expect that some blueprint existed prior to it's fabrication, if not on paper, in the mind of the one who assembled it.

 So is it so unreasonable to assume that the universe with all it's life forms and intricate relations between things could have been the product of a sort of primordial seed which contained within it the blue print for all things which are seen?

 Is there any solid understanding of these beginnings which precludes the existence of an organizing factor predating the first building block? 
 Or why should that concept be more difficult to grasp or even less likely than simply to say that matter simply always existed and that in the grand scheme of things, over eons life resulted as one tremendously long series of violations of the law of entropy?


----------



## ima

holston said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another DNA denier..
> if there was as much proof for the ark( place laughter here ) as there is for the apes and us being very closely related, then the bible would not be the best selling fantasy of all time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who "denied" DNA?
> 
> If I am denying anything here, that would be some of the presumptions you seem to be making about it.
> 
> And how do you know the stories in the Bible are fantasy?
Click to expand...


Because there's zero proof for the big things in the bible. Ex: page 1, god created the world in six days. Says who? From what evidence?


----------



## Youwerecreated

ima said:


> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another DNA denier..
> if there was as much proof for the ark( place laughter here ) as there is for the apes and us being very closely related, then the bible would not be the best selling fantasy of all time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who "denied" DNA?
> 
> If I am denying anything here, that would be some of the presumptions you seem to be making about it.
> 
> And how do you know the stories in the Bible are fantasy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there's zero proof for the big things in the bible. Ex: page 1, god created the world in six days. Says who? From what evidence?
Click to expand...


If you're basing your views solely on evidence as you claim then you should have no view on whether life was the product of creation nor was life the product of spontaneous generation because there is no evidence supporting either. Yet it stands to reason it was one of the two methods that started life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

holston said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> God wants spiritual fruit, not religious nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> then why are you a believer.?
> your prose suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you just plain suck.
Click to expand...


He is a mental midget and I fear he always will be.


----------



## ima

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who "denied" DNA?
> 
> If I am denying anything here, that would be some of the presumptions you seem to be making about it.
> 
> And how do you know the stories in the Bible are fantasy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there's zero proof for the big things in the bible. Ex: page 1, god created the world in six days. Says who? From what evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're basing your views solely on evidence as you claim then you should have no view on whether life was the product of creation nor was life the product of spontaneous generation because there is no evidence supporting either. Yet it stands to reason it was one of the two methods that started life.
Click to expand...

I don't presume to know either way. I'll let the scientists sort out how we possibly came to be. At least they look for real evidence and base their theories on that, whereas the bible has no real evidence to support its claims.

It's also possible that your creator started life out on earth as the scientists theorize. Ever think of that? That evolution is part of your god's plan?


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. The same question could be asked of a designer. Why something so obviously useless? His rhetorical question is self-defeating. You would expect something like this of evolution, which has no telos, but not of a perfect designer god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know newpolitics, there is a growing number of men who would like some boobs to go with those nipples, like flyingsaucer man for instance. He sucks you know.
> 
> I can look around me at anytime or place and see all sorts of things which are apparently useless, just as so many events seem to lack rhyme or reason.
> 
> But who am I to say. Just because I lack an understanding of all things, does not mean that all things can not be understood.
> 
> We make the mistake of assuming that we have reached the pinnacle of wisdom when we purport to know the mind of God. That strikes me as more than a little presumptuous on the part of man, even fervent Darwinists.
> 
> Nevertheless, it is difficult to live and reconcile oneself with the fact that they don't know everything and maybe never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mistake is not assuming we've reached the pinnacle of wisdom. The mistake is seeing something you don't understand and believing there's a deeper meaning to it when no such evidence has ever presented itself.
> 
> Intelligent designers do not put seemingly useless pieces into their products. Have you ever seen an iPad with nipples? There are tons of examples of vestigiality in our body that has since lost its initial use. Heck even one of our chromosomes is the product of fusing two great ape chromosomes together. Why would a designer make chromosomes to appear as if they are two great ape chromosomes fused together when they would work just the same separately?  Go on. Tell me something so simple REALLY represents the vast complexity of a deity.
Click to expand...


So let's ignore all functions and parts that would suggest design and let's get hung up on something we don't always know the purpose of. Funny they have done that purposely looking for flaws so they can say if we were designed it was not a very intelligent being behind our design. Well if you can draw that conclusion after considering the complexity of the Brain,eyes or a cell then I believe people don't want to consider the possibility of design. The question is why is it that they don't like the possibility of a designer ?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Oh YWC. Back at the same antics. Years of being on this board and the best you can continue to come up with is "THERE ARE COMPLEX THINGS IN THE BODY, AND I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THEM, THEREFORE IT MUST BE GOD!" Moronic. Your lack of intelligence is not an indicator for a higher being. Complexity does not denote design. There are countless flaws in the human body, structurally, and genetically. 

Get some new content, YWC.  Oh that's right, you can't. Educating yourself means questioning your loony belief system.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Oh YWC. Back at the same antics. Years of being on this board and the best you can continue to come up with is "THERE ARE COMPLEX THINGS IN THE BODY, AND I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THEM, THEREFORE IT MUST BE GOD!" Moronic. Your lack of intelligence is not an indicator for a higher being. Complexity does not denote design. There are countless flaws in the human body, structurally, and genetically.
> 
> Get some new content, YWC.  Oh that's right, you can't. Educating yourself means questioning your loony belief system.



No there is far more evidence supporting the view that living organisms produce other living organisms and these living organisms reproduce their own kind.

We have discussed that no form of communication written or in the form of a code or language came about absent of intelligence.

Their are complex creations of man like computers,lights,telephone that was the product of design so why are you willing to draw the line at complex biological systems and organisms or functions performed ?

There is zero evidence of the production of such complexity absent of intelligence. There is zero evidence of these complex things being designed or produced except by other complex things. Why is this the unanimous case ?

I follow the laws of reason not fantasy.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know newpolitics, there is a growing number of men who would like some boobs to go with those nipples, like flyingsaucer man for instance. He sucks you know.
> 
> I can look around me at anytime or place and see all sorts of things which are apparently useless, just as so many events seem to lack rhyme or reason.
> 
> But who am I to say. Just because I lack an understanding of all things, does not mean that all things can not be understood.
> 
> We make the mistake of assuming that we have reached the pinnacle of wisdom when we purport to know the mind of God. That strikes me as more than a little presumptuous on the part of man, even fervent Darwinists.
> 
> Nevertheless, it is difficult to live and reconcile oneself with the fact that they don't know everything and maybe never will.
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake is not assuming we've reached the pinnacle of wisdom. The mistake is seeing something you don't understand and believing there's a deeper meaning to it when no such evidence has ever presented itself.
> 
> Intelligent designers do not put seemingly useless pieces into their products. Have you ever seen an iPad with nipples? There are tons of examples of vestigiality in our body that has since lost its initial use. Heck even one of our chromosomes is the product of fusing two great ape chromosomes together. Why would a designer make chromosomes to appear as if they are two great ape chromosomes fused together when they would work just the same separately?  Go on. Tell me something so simple REALLY represents the vast complexity of a deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's ignore all functions and parts that would suggest design and let's get hung up on something we don't always know the purpose of. Funny they have done that purposely looking for flaws so they can say if we were designed it was not a very intelligent being behind our design. Well if you can draw that conclusion after considering the complexity of the Brain,eyes or a cell then I believe people don't want to consider the possibility of design. The question is why is it that they don't like the possibility of a designer ?
Click to expand...


You have never offered anything that supports supermagical "design". It's difficult to ignore what there is no evidence for.


----------



## daws101

holston said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another DNA denier..
> if there was as much proof for the ark( place laughter here ) as there is for the apes and us being very closely related, then the bible would not be the best selling fantasy of all time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who "denied" DNA?
> 
> If I am denying anything here, that would be some of the presumptions you seem to be making about it.
> 
> And how do you know the stories in the Bible are fantasy?
Click to expand...

a little thing called evidence.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who "denied" DNA?
> 
> If I am denying anything here, that would be some of the presumptions you seem to be making about it.
> 
> And how do you know the stories in the Bible are fantasy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there's zero proof for the big things in the bible. Ex: page 1, god created the world in six days. Says who? From what evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're basing your views solely on evidence as you claim then you should have no view on whether life was the product of creation nor was life the product of spontaneous generation because there is no evidence supporting either. Yet it stands to reason it was one of the two methods that started life.
Click to expand...

yet another based on nothing comment from ywc.. what reasoning leads you to believe that only two ways could be the only methods for creation?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> then why are you a believer.?
> your prose suck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you just plain suck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is a mental midget and I fear he always will be.
Click to expand...

place irony here


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh YWC. Back at the same antics. Years of being on this board and the best you can continue to come up with is "THERE ARE COMPLEX THINGS IN THE BODY, AND I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THEM, THEREFORE IT MUST BE GOD!" Moronic. Your lack of intelligence is not an indicator for a higher being. Complexity does not denote design. There are countless flaws in the human body, structurally, and genetically.
> 
> Get some new content, YWC.  Oh that's right, you can't. Educating yourself means questioning your loony belief system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No there is far more evidence supporting the view that living organisms produce other living organisms and these living organisms reproduce their own kind.
> 
> We have discussed that no form of communication written or in the form of a code or language came about absent of intelligence.
> 
> Their are complex creations of man like computers,lights,telephone that was the product of design so why are you willing to draw the line at complex biological systems and organisms or functions performed ?
> 
> There is zero evidence of the production of such complexity absent of intelligence. There is zero evidence of these complex things being designed or produced except by other complex things. Why is this the unanimous case ?
> 
> I follow the laws of reason not fantasy.
Click to expand...

not this silly shit again...


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who "denied" DNA?
> 
> If I am denying anything here, that would be some of the presumptions you seem to be making about it.
> 
> And how do you know the stories in the Bible are fantasy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there's zero proof for the big things in the bible. Ex: page 1, god created the world in six days. Says who? From what evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're basing your views solely on evidence as you claim then you should have no view on whether life was the product of creation nor was life the product of spontaneous generation because there is no evidence supporting either. Yet it stands to reason it was one of the two methods that started life.
Click to expand...

And thus we return to the fundamental flaw in your terrible reasoning: you think that if science is wrong or can't explain something, the only other POSSIBLE explanation is god. Science examines all possibilities for a given setup. You examine one. 

Anything you don't understand is god. Anything science can't explain is also god. But such has been the case for centuries with morons. Can't explain the sun? It's god. Don't understand plague or microorganisms?  God magic. The eyeball is too complex for you to understand?  Then surely it can't be science!

In your mind there are only two possibilities, and your crusade is proving the other one, not wrong, but incomplete, as a means of justifying your own. Moronic logic at its best. 



Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know newpolitics, there is a growing number of men who would like some boobs to go with those nipples, like flyingsaucer man for instance. He sucks you know.
> 
> I can look around me at anytime or place and see all sorts of things which are apparently useless, just as so many events seem to lack rhyme or reason.
> 
> But who am I to say. Just because I lack an understanding of all things, does not mean that all things can not be understood.
> 
> We make the mistake of assuming that we have reached the pinnacle of wisdom when we purport to know the mind of God. That strikes me as more than a little presumptuous on the part of man, even fervent Darwinists.
> 
> Nevertheless, it is difficult to live and reconcile oneself with the fact that they don't know everything and maybe never will.
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake is not assuming we've reached the pinnacle of wisdom. The mistake is seeing something you don't understand and believing there's a deeper meaning to it when no such evidence has ever presented itself.
> 
> Intelligent designers do not put seemingly useless pieces into their products. Have you ever seen an iPad with nipples? There are tons of examples of vestigiality in our body that has since lost its initial use. Heck even one of our chromosomes is the product of fusing two great ape chromosomes together. Why would a designer make chromosomes to appear as if they are two great ape chromosomes fused together when they would work just the same separately?  Go on. Tell me something so simple REALLY represents the vast complexity of a deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's ignore all functions and parts that would suggest design and let's get hung up on something we don't always know the purpose of. Funny they have done that purposely looking for flaws so they can say if we were designed it was not a very intelligent being behind our design. Well if you can draw that conclusion after considering the complexity of the Brain,eyes or a cell then I believe people don't want to consider the possibility of design. The question is why is it that they don't like the possibility of a designer ?
Click to expand...

You coerce parts of biology into things that would "suggest design." I've asked you this countless times and you've avoided it every one: what litmus test do you have to determine if something is designed or not?

How do you explain the redundancies, the flaws, and the poor design if everything was designed intelligently? Oh that's right, we step back and believe "everything has a purpose" and leave it to more magical thinking. Great. This is why crazies like you don't get to decide what is taught in science classrooms. 




Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh YWC. Back at the same antics. Years of being on this board and the best you can continue to come up with is "THERE ARE COMPLEX THINGS IN THE BODY, AND I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THEM, THEREFORE IT MUST BE GOD!" Moronic. Your lack of intelligence is not an indicator for a higher being. Complexity does not denote design. There are countless flaws in the human body, structurally, and genetically.
> 
> Get some new content, YWC.  Oh that's right, you can't. Educating yourself means questioning your loony belief system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No there is far more evidence supporting the view that living organisms produce other living organisms and these living organisms reproduce their own kind.
> 
> We have discussed that no form of communication written or in the form of a code or language came about absent of intelligence.
> 
> Their are complex creations of man like computers,lights,telephone that was the product of design so why are you willing to draw the line at complex biological systems and organisms or functions performed ?
> 
> There is zero evidence of the production of such complexity absent of intelligence. There is zero evidence of these complex things being designed or produced except by other complex things. Why is this the unanimous case ?
> 
> I follow the laws of reason not fantasy.
Click to expand...

Fantasy is the only thing you preach. Laws of reason go out the window because you disallow yourself to see any other possibilities.


----------



## Big_D2

Nobody answered why humans have genes for a tail if never evolved from animals with tails.


----------



## daws101

Big_D2 said:


> Nobody answered why humans have genes for a tail if never evolved from animals with tails.


but we did, and that fact scares the beJesus (pun intended ) out of believers. consequently they make shit up!


----------



## holston

SmarterThanHick said:


> Because there's zero proof for the big things in the bible. Ex: page 1, god created the world in six days. Says who? From what evidence?



 Genesis was not written as a scientific treatise. Even if God provided us with some sort of manual which explained everything our satisfaction, it's no telling how long it would be and we probably wouldn't understand it anyway. 

 There are myriads of questions that one could ask about creation and a thousand other things. Why man was created as he is and why is finite in his capacity to understand or do other things is not known although you are free to speculate on that as much as you are about the origin of time, energy, and matter. 

 When you arrive at the formula you can explain it to us all. I'm sure there are many people that would be eager to learn. 

 The question I am posing to you is whether it is reasonable to presuppose the existence of a creator before creation.

 In other words, does reason permit this theory? Or is there any reason that rules out that possibility altogether?

 I submit to you that it is reasonable to assume the existence of a creator that one may logically accept without having to postulate on the mechanisms by which time, energy, and matter came into existence. 

 Thus far, all the naysayers have yet to provide evidence which rules this supposition out. 





> And thus we return to the fundamental flaw in your terrible reasoning: *you think that if science is wrong or can't explain something, the only other POSSIBLE explanation is god.* Science examines all possibilities for a given setup. You examine one.



 That's not true. You admit that you have no scientific explanation for the mysteries we are discussing. Yet you claim to have evidence which rules out the possibility of a creator. 
You would have us believe that there is no other possibility but the _absence_ or _non-existence_ of a creator. 



 You are attempting to attribute ideas to others based upon your own suppositions about what they must adhere to in order to maintain a belief in an intelligent designer. 

You are welcome to prove your theory. It will remain a theory until you prove it. 



> *Anything you don't understand is god.* Anything science can't explain is also god. But such has been the case for centuries with morons. Can't explain the sun? It's god. Don't understand plague or microorganisms?  God magic. The eyeball is too complex for you to understand?  Then surely it can't be science!



 Not at all. Anything I can't understand is simply that, ie something I can't understand. 
 I believe that we all suffer from deficiencies of these sorts, the best and brightest included. 
 Despite these gaps in our knowledge, (or should I say, gaping voids), we are still faced with the problems that life presents to us and are still required to respond to them in one fashion or another. 
 To do this we must do the best with what we have to work with. This may involve forming a frame of reference from which we can base our decisions. 
 Some people elect to believe in a creator God which provides them with a moral reference and a hope which makes the world more intelligible. 

 To believe that our conscious minds could emerge from stones however long and convoluted the process is a puzzle we will not solve during our brief existence. 

 You admit to seeing no purpose in vestigial organs as you have pronounced them to be according to your own understanding of these things. A similar purposelessness could be ascribed to an existence which appears for a brief period and then disappears just as mysteriously as though it never existed at all. 

 The problem assigning purpose to such an existence such as we humans experience could only be described as _absurd_ given no other explanation than that random collisions of atoms resulted in random mutations which ultimately lead to the existence of sentient beings who speculated upon the meaning of their own existence as it was decreed by a universe which was mindless to begin with. 



> In your mind there are only two possibilities, and your crusade is proving the other one, not wrong, but incomplete, as a means of justifying your own. Moronic logic at its best.



 Can you provide us a comprehensive list of all those possibilities?




> You coerce parts of biology into things that would "suggest design." I've asked you this countless times and you've avoided it every one: what litmus test do you have to determine if something is designed or not?



 No. We just don't try to assign subjective standards to the things which are observed while we realize an incomplete understanding of them. By the same token, we don't rule out possibilities that may escape our attention either. 

 The wisdom of design or the lack of it could be as much beyond your reach as it is mine. 
Thus far you have given no indication that it is otherwise. 



> How do you explain the redundancies, the flaws, and the poor design if everything was designed intelligently? Oh that's right, we step back and believe "everything has a purpose" and leave it to more magical thinking. Great. This is why crazies like you don't get to decide what is taught in science classrooms.


 
 If I fail to explain to you what you count as flaws and redundancies can you deduce from the lack of an explanation that there was no design inherent in them? 

 The idea of "everything has a purpose" belongs more to the realm of the metaphysical or spiritual aspect of life. I can just as easily say that you are trying to force biology to provide you with answers to questions that are misplaced. 

 In other words, one can't really look to physics for answers to spiritual problems. 

 I am simply suggesting to you, that the lack of a full knowledge of those things is no reason to despair of the unreasonableness of the universe. After all, you are attempting to place your faith in reasoning to begin with. Otherwise you would not attempt to tout what you are loosely calling "Science" as the be all and end all of everything. 








SmarterThanHick said:


> Oh YWC. Back at the same antics. Years of being on this board and the best you can continue to come up with is "THERE ARE COMPLEX THINGS IN THE BODY, AND I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THEM, THEREFORE IT MUST BE GOD!" Moronic. *Your lack of intelligence is not an indicator for a higher being. *Complexity does not denote design. There are countless flaws in the human body, structurally, and genetically.


 
 You keep insisting that you know something that rules out the possibility of a creator but you still haven't produced it. 
 You are suggesting that it is the mark of intelligence to deny the possibility of a creator even before that premise has been ruled out. 

 To say that a thing is complex might be interpreted as an admission to a level of comprehension which is difficult to attain. Or it might suggest a level of organization about it which could not easily be attributed to chance occurrences or that statistically might be so unlikely as to be practically impossible. 

 I don't understand why I was born with the physical defects that I am forced to live with or how that could possibly tie in with my moral development. But this lack of understanding about a thing which seems totally pointless to me and absolutely a pain at the same time, does not permit me to escape the riddle of my existence. 

 If I could reach a level of absolute certainty that my existence was totally without meaning, purpose, or any consequences other than those I can expect to be met out by man and natural law, then I would be freed up to do anything that I might take a notion to without the limitations imposed upon me by a conscience or fear of a greater judgement. 

You can find many people in this world who operate on just such an assumption. 







> Get some new content, YWC.  Oh that's right, you can't. Educating yourself means questioning your loony belief system.



 Personally I've subjected my belief system to some very demanding tests. I'm not about to relinquish the lessons I've learned from them on the basis of someone else's disbelief. 
That time has long since past.




> Fantasy is the only thing you preach. Laws of reason go out the window because you disallow yourself to see any other possibilities.



 Exactly what is it that you are trying to convince us of? 
 Feel free to enumerate as many possibilities as you can think of. 
 I'll let you know if there are any of them that I have not considered.


----------



## holston

daws101 said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody answered why humans have genes for a tail if never evolved from animals with tails.
> 
> 
> 
> but we did, and that fact scares the beJesus (pun intended ) out of believers. consequently they make shit up!
Click to expand...


 If we are going to discuss genetics then we need to be more specific. 

 If you can provide a detailed description of these genes and give the rational behind the conclusion that you seem to be drawing from the alleged evidence, then I for one would much appreciate it. 

 Until you had more clarification to what you are trying to say, I cannot speculate as to the meaning you are trying to assign to these alleged findings. 

You are welcome to prove your theory. It will remain a theory until you prove it.



> The tailbone is commonly thought of as the remnant of an actual tail, left over from a time before we evolved into humans. Some describe it as a "vestigial tail," meaning it has no real purpose in our bodies. However, it does serve as an attachment site for muscles and ligaments, which makes this a misnomer. There are several muscles that attach to the tailbone, including the gluteus maximus, the levator ani, the sphincter ani externis and the coccygeus. These muscles all play important roles in standing, bowel control and pelvic floor support.
> 
> Misconceptions
> 
> The tailbone is not actually a tail, despite what its name implies. While it is true that occasionally a person is born with what appears to be a tail, these have nothing to do with the coccyx. In fact, these so-called tails do not contain any bones at all.



 One can find examples of miscarriages depicted in medical books. We used to call these abortions "monster babies". Why they occur and what role they play in the grand scheme of things is beyond me. 

 I have to believe that if the universe is intelligible, that it is so despite my ability to comprehend it. 

 Science functions on the assumption that the universe is intelligible. If it is, then what strikes us "meaningless" may be due to a deficiency or some misconception that stems from our own lack of knowledge and understanding. 
 As disconcerting as this may be, I am not in a position to draw a conclusion from it that "there is no God", especially if I have no certain working definition of who or what "God" is to begin with. 

 If the disciples of Carl Sagan can say that "All things are derived from matter" and "Matter just always was" I might be permitted to define "God" as that spirit from which all spirit was derived and that it "just always existed". There's no need to go to war about it, is there?


----------



## newpolitics

holston said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard of anyone claiming that the universe created god. I believe humans created the concept of god, but that is quite different. Is this what you are referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partly yes.
> 
> Why should you assume that matter must precede a conscious entity?
> 
> Can you demonstrate what consciousness is?
> 
> If only matter can generate consciousness, or if consciousness cannot exist apart from it,
> how can you be certain that it can't or that it never does if you can not explain the connection in the first place?
> 
> You assert that the concept of God is merely the product of the human imagination, and that the human imagination is the product of the brain, and that the brain is the product of matter.
> 
> Which seems more reasonable, that mind should emerge from matter or that matter should emerge from mind?
> 
> You assert that mind (consciousness) can only exist as a product of matter. How do you justify this argument apart from the fact that matter is all that is accessible to your physical senses?
> 
> The grounds for your argument cannot rest on comprehension since no one understands the process. They merely assume that the matter they perceive called the brain is all there is because that's all they can see or detect. How can they be certain of this assumption?
> 
> If the process by which consciousness emerges from the brain is comprehensible, then one can imagine that man may someday understand it. From there, he should also be able to duplicate the process.
> 
> People frequently speculate on advancements in science which would prolong life. The logical conclusion of this would be to prolong it indefinitely however theoretical or far in the future that may be.
> 
> In the meantime, does it not strike you as something of an impenetrable mystery how disorganized matter and energy could spontaneously erupt in an order which is complex enough to generate consciousness, since the understanding of consciousness remains one of the ultimate challenges to the human mind, to understand itself?
> 
> And isn't it strange that mindless matter should create of itself an inquisitive consciousness which would retroactively ascribe to the inanimate origin of the universe the conscious characteristics of a Creator being?
> 
> Maybe not least of all is the age old riddle of the watchmaker.
> 
> Man considers his machines as being the height of technical complexity. Yet he is not able to mechanically reproduce the simplest forms of life without the aid of preexisting life.
> 
> So which "invention" should be considered the more complex of the two, those which are man made or those which are found in nature?
> 
> Isn't it strange that mindless chaos should result in the most complex of "machines"?
> 
> Anywhere we find a machine we expect that some blueprint existed prior to it's fabrication, if not on paper, in the mind of the one who assembled it.
> 
> So is it so unreasonable to assume that the universe with all it's life forms and intricate relations between things could have been the product of a sort of primordial seed which contained within it the blue print for all things which are seen?
> 
> Is there any solid understanding of these beginnings which precludes the existence of an organizing factor predating the first building block?
> Or why should that concept be more difficult to grasp or even less likely than simply to say that matter simply always existed and that in the grand scheme of things, over eons life resulted as one tremendously long series of violations of the law of entropy?
Click to expand...


Okay, so you are talking about the problem of consciousness and the teleological argument. The latter can be dismissed out of hand, as it has been addressed ad infinitum since it was formed millennia ago, but consciousness is an interesting problem for a materialist universe, and one I often contemplate, and would seem the only plausible reason to have faith in the supernatural, as the agent behind the doling out of "souls" from which to have a subjective experience. This has convinced me for a time, and still irks me, and is something which  I, nor anybody, has an answer for. God would be a solution, but the  that only puts the question And mystery a step back: what is god? Where is it? What can be known about it? How was it created? How exactly does it create consciousness? how does it interact with our material universe? Given these questions, you may have solved consciousness, but opened up a whole new set of questions which completely out of reach and unsolvable, making you worse off, epistemically, although perhaps emotionally satisfied, because you can identify with the concept of "another mind at work." We do it all the time when we talk to other people, yet positing this concept and projecting it ontologically into existence is a whole other step, which you have little warrant to do, aside from the emotional awards reaped from perceived existential security. You ask some good, honest questions, and I appreciate that. However, something seeming unsolvable does not mean "god did it," because you are only allaying the unsolvable onto another realm: the supernatural.


----------



## holston

newpolitics said:


> Okay, so you are talking about the problem of consciousness and the teleological argument. The latter can be dismissed out of hand, as it has been addressed ad infinitum since it was formed millennia ago, but consciousness is an interesting problem for a materialist universe, and one I often contemplate, and would seem the *only plausible reason to have faith in the supernatural, as the agent behind the doling out of "souls" from which to have a subjective experience.* This has convinced me for a time, and still irks me, and is something which  I, nor anybody, has an answer for. God would be a solution, but the  that only puts the question And mystery a step back: what is god? Where is it? What can be known about it? How was it created? How exactly does it create consciousness? how does it interact with our material universe? Given these questions, you may have solved consciousness, but opened up a whole new set of questions which completely out of reach and unsolvable,* making you worse off, epistemically, *although perhaps emotionally satisfied, because you can identify with the concept of *"another mind at work."* We do it all the time when we talk to other people, yet positing this concept and projecting it ontologically into existence is a whole other step, which you have little warrant to do, aside from the emotional awards reaped from perceived existential security. You ask some good, honest questions, and I appreciate that. However, *something seeming unsolvable does not mean "god did it,"* because you are only allaying the unsolvable onto another realm: *the supernatural.*



 To attribute the creation to Creator (mind, power, source) does open the doors to questions concerning "It's", "HIS" nature. 

  It is somewhat of a cop out to just dismiss everything that exceeds the grasp of our knowledge as an "act of God". I don't attempt to do that. What I am doing is tempering my desire to know with the practical knowledge of the limits on my time and abilities. Reason itself compels me to admit that there is much more that I don't know than that which I do know, or even can possibly know in my lifetime.

 So judging from what I do know and have experienced I ask myself whether it is reasonable to assume that there is a Creator Being. I have surmised that it is. That assumption carries with it the caveat that my knowledge and understanding of that Being is also finite. So it is necessary for me to leave room in my minds eye scheme of things to allow for growth. 

 I do not really know anything that would rule out that possibility to begin with. After having studied the matter, it seemed more rational to assume the existence of a creator than not. The acceptance of that idea provided a frame work from which to make practical decisions about how to conduct myself whereas the atheistic option reduced to this world and this life to an absurd practice in futility. 

 Regardless of which avenue one chooses to take, the kind of explanations that we are looking for so far as the tangible world goes remain about as deep one way as the other. Realistically speaking, I will doubtless die never knowing. 

 Science as we know it does not really address the metaphysical questions of existence or attempt to explain the spiritual nature of it. Therefore it is of little or no use to look to a book such as the Bible for explanations about the physical origin of the universe. One can approach those problems without having to jettison speculation about the supernatural. 

 Personally I believe that there IS a super _natural_ aspect to the universe. 
But I do not mean by that a belief in a sort of _anything goes_ world where one can conjure into existence anything that the imagination can drum up. I think a lot of people who cannot find the spiritual answers they seek in science will embrace an acceptance of the supernatural that will admit to practically anything. I don't. 

 To clarify this idea, I would be as skeptical as you probably are of some peoples professing themselves to be "witches" or gifted with some other implausible connection to "other worlds". I'm long since past the stage where I have to whistle past grave yards as well. 

 But as I said, I leave room in my concept of the universe to include a revised and expanded version of it _which DOES operate by certain rules. _

 I am not asserting that the phenomenon of consciousness cannot be derived from matter or that it is impossible for it to be understood. I am saying that this problem and many others are realistically beyond us at this stage and that we should not be overly presumptuous in assuming that the explanation for it lies strictly within our concepts of how the material universe operates. I suspect that there may be concepts involved in grasping it which may include regions that touch on the supernatural. Some developments, like progress in technology, have to wait on other developments to take place first. 

 Baring some_ miracle _ it will be well beyond our lifetimes before anyone will be _in the position_ to approach the problem with any _hope_ of success. 
 I expect that someone will master gravity and discover the means to travel beyond the stars before that happens. 

 When I look up at the black sky at night and try to contemplate where the "end" of the universe may be, or how tiny can a thing get before it can't get any tinier, I feel dwarfed if not awestruck. It's very difficult for me to debunk every sensation like that or others that overcome me when I am forced to confront the numinous. 

 I would define the term "miracle" as being applied only to those things which could be attributed to "God" in which He preforms a deed which lies totally outside the realm of the laws of the physical universe. I do not mean those which may only lie outside of that which is known but those which lie outside the realm of all that _could be known._ I mean only those acts which would by any conceivable means BE _impossible under natural law_ even with a full knowledge of it. Those are the kinds of acts which I would ascribe to "God", as I conceive Him; the master of all that is, that could be, or which may be possible by any means which one less than God Himself _could conceive._

 Somewhere between the tangible universe and the one in which miracles may occur, I would place the supernatural. That isn't to say that this realm is illogical or is not governed by principles which are analogous to the physical laws as we are acquainted with such as those introduced by Newton, Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg and those other guys. I bet they would be the first to admit that mankind still has a long way to go before he approaches the status of a Creator God.

  Some people imagine the pinnacle of creation to be man. But what if their are aliens on distant worlds that are as far above us as we think we are above ants? 
  What prevents one from imagining powers derived from knowledge which is even greater than that? 
If there is a limit to what can be known, or if all that is knowable is a finite amount, just how far would that go, and what would place the limit on it? 

 If you proceed in Science on the assumption that all may eventually be understood, then it is only a matter of time until one would acquire the knowledge needed to master any aspect of nature. Doesn't the knowledge of science enable one to control those forces which are sought to be understood? Take the atom bomb for example or light and heat from electricity. Just try to follow the logical conclusion of this procession in your mind. So far all we can do is theorize about these things.


----------



## UltimateReality

holston said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent designers do not put seemingly useless pieces into their products. Have you ever seen an iPad with nipples? There are tons of examples of vestigiality in our body that has since lost its initial use. Heck even one of our chromosomes is the product of fusing two great ape chromosomes together. Why would a designer make chromosomes to appear as if they are two great ape chromosomes fused together when they would work just the same separately?  Go on. Tell me something so simple REALLY represents the vast complexity of a deity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH. I can see already that you are smarter than the average hick. So pardon me if I humor you a little.
> 
> How intelligent is it to assume that a thing is purposeless when you admit that you see no purpose to begin with. That admission is no guarantee of the lack of purpose is it?
> 
> Perhaps you should say something like "serves an  immediate function which is apparent to me" or
> "has some intrinsic meaning which makes sense to me" rather than use the term "purpose" which has different connotations.
> 
> As for vestigial organs, what is vestigial, or useless may be subject to some debate. The appendix was once considered to be useless. But the last time I heard there are some very credible people who have been having second thoughts about it.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't say that there are "tons" of vestigial organs in our bodies. To begin with, our bodies weigh no where near a ton despite the epidemic of obesity in this country.
> 
> There are certain products of our bodies that people deliberately rid themselves of which no longer serve any "purpose" too. But the process of ridding ourselves of them is very purposeful.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but I am unaware of any chromosomes in the human genome which could be fused together to form a great ape. I would think that if there were, there are many people who would like to see it done and others that would certainly give it a try.
> 
> Do you have something against apes?
> 
> I wouldn't say that an ape is at all a "simple" creation.
> 
> If it was that simple the boys in my neighborhood would have whipped one up to go with the tales of the great white ape that was supposed to have roamed the knobs behind our subdivision.  All they could conjure up were stories. Most of them weren't creative enough to do even that.
Click to expand...


Holston, please don't ever lose the perspective that Darwinists are just making up crap as they go along. Remember junk dna??? Evolutionists didn't have an understanding of its purpose at the time so therefore, since they have to have all the answers, it must be junk, right? "We don't know what does so it must do nothing." 

And I love all the tired "The designer wouldn't do it this way" arguments. It goes perfectly with the narcissistic evolutionist who has declared himself the god of his own existence. If he wouldn't do it that way then it must not be valid, right?

From a design perspective, one would expect to find commonality among designs and even basic parts. Why wouldn't a designer include most of the code in a program and merely switch the needed portions on and off to fit the purpose or environment. Instead we hear, "This is the way evolution did it." 

Back to the nipples argument, where is the fossil evidence for the Asexual Breast Feeding Mammalian? And please no "might have", "could have" or "probably arose" just-so evolution fairy tales.


----------



## UltimateReality

SmarterThanHick said:


> After all, the fundamental prerequisite for being an atheist is not believing in magical thinking.



Omigosh! I just wiped the tears out of my eyes. This is the funniest thing I have read all morning.


----------



## UltimateReality

holston said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard of anyone claiming that the universe created god. I believe humans created the concept of god, but that is quite different. Is this what you are referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partly yes.
> 
> Why should you assume that matter must precede a conscious entity?
> 
> Can you demonstrate what consciousness is?
> 
> If only matter can generate consciousness, or if consciousness cannot exist apart from it,
> how can you be certain that it can't or that it never does if you can not explain the connection in the first place?
> 
> You assert that the concept of God is merely the product of the human imagination, and that the human imagination is the product of the brain, and that the brain is the product of matter.
> 
> Which seems more reasonable, that mind should emerge from matter or that matter should emerge from mind?
> 
> You assert that mind (consciousness) can only exist as a product of matter. How do you justify this argument apart from the fact that matter is all that is accessible to your physical senses?
> 
> The grounds for your argument cannot rest on comprehension since no one understands the process. They merely assume that the matter they perceive called the brain is all there is because that's all they can see or detect. How can they be certain of this assumption?
> 
> If the process by which consciousness emerges from the brain is comprehensible, then one can imagine that man may someday understand it. From there, he should also be able to duplicate the process.
> 
> People frequently speculate on advancements in science which would prolong life. The logical conclusion of this would be to prolong it indefinitely however theoretical or far in the future that may be.
> 
> In the meantime, does it not strike you as something of an impenetrable mystery how disorganized matter and energy could spontaneously erupt in an order which is complex enough to generate consciousness, since the understanding of consciousness remains one of the ultimate challenges to the human mind, to understand itself?
> 
> And isn't it strange that mindless matter should create of itself an inquisitive consciousness which would retroactively ascribe to the inanimate origin of the universe the conscious characteristics of a Creator being?
> 
> Maybe not least of all is the age old riddle of the watchmaker.
> 
> Man considers his machines as being the height of technical complexity. Yet he is not able to mechanically reproduce the simplest forms of life without the aid of preexisting life.
> 
> So which "invention" should be considered the more complex of the two, those which are man made or those which are found in nature?
> 
> Isn't it strange that mindless chaos should result in the most complex of "machines"?
> 
> Anywhere we find a machine we expect that some blueprint existed prior to it's fabrication, if not on paper, in the mind of the one who assembled it.
> 
> So is it so unreasonable to assume that the universe with all it's life forms and intricate relations between things could have been the product of a sort of primordial seed which contained within it the blue print for all things which are seen?
> 
> Is there any solid understanding of these beginnings which precludes the existence of an organizing factor predating the first building block?
> Or why should that concept be more difficult to grasp or even less likely than simply to say that matter simply always existed and that in the grand scheme of things, over eons life resulted as one tremendously long series of violations of the law of entropy?
Click to expand...


I think you would really enjoy reading _Signature In The Cell _if you haven't already.


----------



## UltimateReality

SmarterThanHick said:


> Oh YWC. Back at the same antics. Years of being on this board and the best you can continue to come up with is "THERE ARE COMPLEX THINGS IN THE BODY, AND I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THEM, THEREFORE IT MUST BE GOD!" Moronic. Your lack of intelligence is not an indicator for a higher being. Complexity does not denote design. There are countless flaws in the human body, structurally, and genetically.
> 
> Get some new content, YWC.  Oh that's right, you can't. Educating yourself means questioning your loony belief system.



Ah, but *specified* complexity does denote design. DNA contains specified complexity which eliminates any observable or detectable naturalistic method for its origin, either now or in the distant past. Right now the best hypothesis for the origin of the specified complexity in DNA is an intelligent agent. There is no other known source for it so it at this point, it is currently the best explanation, since we observe it all around us.

Now one could propose an alien life form as that intelligence responsible for the first DNA, but then that opens up all kinds of infinite regression arguments. The only way out of the infinite regression arguments is an infinite being or entity. This entity must exist outside space, time matter and energy, since it caused the Big Bang. 

Now speaking from a purely religious standpoint, and not a scientific one, the Hebrew God of the Bible makes this claim. When asked His name, He replies "I am". In context He makes the claim, "I have always been." And since He is outside time, He easily anticipates Hawly's, tired infinite regression arguments and goes further in Isaiah:

Isaiah 43 (NIV)
_
10 &#8220;You are my witnesses,&#8221; declares the Lord,
    &#8220;and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
    and understand that I am he.
*Before me no god was formed,
    nor will there be one after me. *_

Christ also predates the Big Bang:

Colossians 1: (NIV)

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 *For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth*, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 *He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. *


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh YWC. Back at the same antics. Years of being on this board and the best you can continue to come up with is "THERE ARE COMPLEX THINGS IN THE BODY, AND I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THEM, THEREFORE IT MUST BE GOD!" Moronic. Your lack of intelligence is not an indicator for a higher being. Complexity does not denote design. There are countless flaws in the human body, structurally, and genetically.
> 
> Get some new content, YWC.  Oh that's right, you can't. Educating yourself means questioning your loony belief system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but *specified* complexity does denote design. DNA contains specified complexity which eliminates any observable or detectable naturalistic method for its origin, either now or in the distant past. Right now the best hypothesis for the origin of the specified complexity in DNA is an intelligent agent. There is no other known source for it so it at this point, it is currently the best explanation, since we observe it all around us.
> 
> Now one could propose an alien life form as that intelligence responsible for the first DNA, but then that opens up all kinds of infinite regression arguments. The only way out of the infinite regression arguments is an infinite being or entity. This entity must exist outside space, time matter and energy, since it caused the Big Bang.
> 
> Now speaking from a purely religious standpoint, and not a scientific one, the Hebrew God of the Bible makes this claim. When asked His name, He replies "I am". In context He makes the claim, "I have always been." And since He is outside time, He easily anticipates Hawly's, tired infinite regression arguments and goes further in Isaiah:
> 
> Isaiah 43 (NIV)
> _
> 10 You are my witnesses, declares the Lord,
> and my servant whom I have chosen,
> so that you may know and believe me
> and understand that I am he.
> *Before me no god was formed,
> nor will there be one after me. *_
> 
> Christ also predates the Big Bang:
> 
> Colossians 1: (NIV)
> 
> 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 *For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth*, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 *He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. *
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent designers do not put seemingly useless pieces into their products. Have you ever seen an iPad with nipples? There are tons of examples of vestigiality in our body that has since lost its initial use. Heck even one of our chromosomes is the product of fusing two great ape chromosomes together. Why would a designer make chromosomes to appear as if they are two great ape chromosomes fused together when they would work just the same separately?  Go on. Tell me something so simple REALLY represents the vast complexity of a deity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH. I can see already that you are smarter than the average hick. So pardon me if I humor you a little.
> 
> How intelligent is it to assume that a thing is purposeless when you admit that you see no purpose to begin with. That admission is no guarantee of the lack of purpose is it?
> 
> Perhaps you should say something like "serves an  immediate function which is apparent to me" or
> "has some intrinsic meaning which makes sense to me" rather than use the term "purpose" which has different connotations.
> 
> As for vestigial organs, what is vestigial, or useless may be subject to some debate. The appendix was once considered to be useless. But the last time I heard there are some very credible people who have been having second thoughts about it.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't say that there are "tons" of vestigial organs in our bodies. To begin with, our bodies weigh no where near a ton despite the epidemic of obesity in this country.
> 
> There are certain products of our bodies that people deliberately rid themselves of which no longer serve any "purpose" too. But the process of ridding ourselves of them is very purposeful.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but I am unaware of any chromosomes in the human genome which could be fused together to form a great ape. I would think that if there were, there are many people who would like to see it done and others that would certainly give it a try.
> 
> Do you have something against apes?
> 
> I wouldn't say that an ape is at all a "simple" creation.
> 
> If it was that simple the boys in my neighborhood would have whipped one up to go with the tales of the great white ape that was supposed to have roamed the knobs behind our subdivision.  All they could conjure up were stories. Most of them weren't creative enough to do even that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holston, please don't ever lose the perspective that Darwinists are just making up crap as they go along. Remember junk dna??? Evolutionists didn't have an understanding of its purpose at the time so therefore, since they have to have all the answers, it must be junk, right? "We don't know what does so it must do nothing."
> 
> And I love all the tired "The designer wouldn't do it this way" arguments. It goes perfectly with the narcissistic evolutionist who has declared himself the god of his own existence. If he wouldn't do it that way then it must not be valid, right?
> 
> From a design perspective, one would expect to find commonality among designs and even basic parts. Why wouldn't a designer include most of the code in a program and merely switch the needed portions on and off to fit the purpose or environment. Instead we hear, "This is the way evolution did it."
> 
> Back to the nipples argument, where is the fossil evidence for the Asexual Breast Feeding Mammalian? And please no "might have", "could have" or "probably arose" just-so evolution fairy tales.
Click to expand...


----------



## holston

Wow! Look at those big red letters! 
I guess that cinches it.

 And there coming from a man in a flying saucer. Maybe he's one of those aliens that seeded the earth with people a long long time ago. 
You know; the ones who built the pyramids and so forth and so on.


----------



## daws101

holston said:


> Wow! Look at those big red letters!
> I guess that cinches it.


it has the unbeatable advantage of directness unlike your walls of typed diarrhea...


----------



## daws101

holston said:


> Wow! Look at those big red letters!
> I guess that cinches it.
> 
> And there coming from a man in a flying saucer. Maybe he's one of those aliens that seeded the earth with people a long long time ago.
> You know; the ones who built the pyramids and so forth and so on.


self portrait?


----------



## UltimateReality

SmarterThanHick said:


> I've asked you this countless times and you've avoided it every one: what litmus test do you have to determine if something is designed or not?



There is now a whole branch of science dedicated to quantifying the answer to your question. The test for determining if something is designed is mostly grounded in examining currently observable phenomena which we know to be designed. For example, every time we find information with specified complexity in our current environment, it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. Therefore, we can state with high probability that the information in DNA has an intelligent agent as its source, until such time as someone comes up with a instance where specifiable complex information is discovered that does not have an intelligent agent as its source, but a naturalistic source other than intelligence. If that was discovered, the current claim would be be falsified. But until such time, intelligence is the best explanation for the source code in DNA. 

Humans can also detect design based on their past experiences. *Upon standing and viewing Mt. Rushmore, would you need for someone to tell you that wind and erosion were not responsible for the shapes in the rocks?? *Of course not, that is, if you had previously encountered images of the faces depicted there. Based on your past experience with the images, perhaps on currency or in a history book, you would recognize that the formations in the rock were highly specified and the odds of wind and erosion producing them so small as to be impossible. 

Upon viewing this grass and flowers in the picture below, *would you conclude that this randomly occurred?* After all, grass and flowers occur in nature together all the time. *What is the "litmus" test you would use to conclude there is a mind behind this particular grass and flowers?*











The flowers are arranged to say "Welcome To Victoria". *Why would you conclude there is a mind behind the arrangement?*

What about these markings on a cave wall? *Why would you conclude this was not the source of moss and mineral laden water or some other random process?
*





Archeologist recognize design all the time. *For you at act like there is some mystery to the process is either ignorance or blatant intellectual dishonesty.*


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you this countless times and you've avoided it every one: what litmus test do you have to determine if something is designed or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is now a whole branch of science dedicated to quantifying the answer to your question. The test for determining if something is designed is mostly grounded in examining currently observable phenomena which we know to be designed. For example, every time we find information with specified complexity in our current environment, it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. Therefore, we can state with high probability that the information in DNA has an intelligent agent as its source, until such time as someone comes up with a instance where specifiable complex information is discovered that does not have an intelligent agent as its source in which case the current theory will be falsified.
> 
> Humans can also detect design based on their past experiences. Upon standing and viewing Mt. Rushmore, would you need for someone to tell you that wind and erosion were not responsible for the shapes in the rocks?? Of course not, that is, if you had previously encountered images of the faces depicted there. Based on your past experience with the images, perhaps on currency or in a history book, you would recognize that the formations in the rock were highly specified and the odds of wind and erosion producing them so small as to be impossible.
> 
> Upon viewing this grass and flowers, would you conclude that this randomly occurred? After all, grass and flowers occur in nature together all the time. What is the "litmus" test you would use to conclude there is a mind behind this particular grass and flowers?
Click to expand...


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH. I can see already that you are smarter than the average hick. So pardon me if I humor you a little.
> 
> How intelligent is it to assume that a thing is purposeless when you admit that you see no purpose to begin with. That admission is no guarantee of the lack of purpose is it?
> 
> Perhaps you should say something like "serves an  immediate function which is apparent to me" or
> "has some intrinsic meaning which makes sense to me" rather than use the term "purpose" which has different connotations.
> 
> As for vestigial organs, what is vestigial, or useless may be subject to some debate. The appendix was once considered to be useless. But the last time I heard there are some very credible people who have been having second thoughts about it.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't say that there are "tons" of vestigial organs in our bodies. To begin with, our bodies weigh no where near a ton despite the epidemic of obesity in this country.
> 
> There are certain products of our bodies that people deliberately rid themselves of which no longer serve any "purpose" too. But the process of ridding ourselves of them is very purposeful.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but I am unaware of any chromosomes in the human genome which could be fused together to form a great ape. I would think that if there were, there are many people who would like to see it done and others that would certainly give it a try.
> 
> Do you have something against apes?
> 
> I wouldn't say that an ape is at all a "simple" creation.
> 
> If it was that simple the boys in my neighborhood would have whipped one up to go with the tales of the great white ape that was supposed to have roamed the knobs behind our subdivision.  All they could conjure up were stories. Most of them weren't creative enough to do even that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holston, please don't ever lose the perspective that Darwinists are just making up crap as they go along. Remember junk dna??? Evolutionists didn't have an understanding of its purpose at the time so therefore, since they have to have all the answers, it must be junk, right? "We don't know what does so it must do nothing."
> 
> And I love all the tired "The designer wouldn't do it this way" arguments. It goes perfectly with the narcissistic evolutionist who has declared himself the god of his own existence. If he wouldn't do it that way then it must not be valid, right?
> 
> From a design perspective, one would expect to find commonality among designs and even basic parts. Why wouldn't a designer include most of the code in a program and merely switch the needed portions on and off to fit the purpose or environment. Instead we hear, "This is the way evolution did it."
> 
> Back to the nipples argument, where is the fossil evidence for the Asexual Breast Feeding Mammalian? And please no "might have", "could have" or "probably arose" just-so evolution fairy tales.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you this countless times and you've avoided it every one: what litmus test do you have to determine if something is designed or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is now a whole branch of science dedicated to quantifying the answer to your question. The test for determining if something is designed is mostly grounded in examining currently observable phenomena which we know to be designed. For example, every time we find information with specified complexity in our current environment, it ALWAYS has an intelligent agent as its source. Therefore, we can state with high probability that the information in DNA has an intelligent agent as its source, until such time as someone comes up with a instance where specifiable complex information is discovered that does not have an intelligent agent as its source in which case the current theory will be falsified.
> 
> Humans can also detect design based on their past experiences. Upon standing and viewing Mt. Rushmore, would you need for someone to tell you that wind and erosion were not responsible for the shapes in the rocks?? Of course not, that is, if you had previously encountered images of the faces depicted there. Based on your past experience with the images, perhaps on currency or in a history book, you would recognize that the formations in the rock were highly specified and the odds of wind and erosion producing them so small as to be impossible.
> 
> Upon viewing this grass and flowers, would you conclude that this randomly occurred? After all, grass and flowers occur in nature together all the time. What is the "litmus" test you would use to conclude there is a mind behind this particular grass and flowers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Daws, there were actually questions in that post that you could attempt to give an intellectual rebuttal to and disprove my assertion. I went back and bolded them to make it easier for you to respond. I know looking for you to give an intelligent response is expecting alot but alas, one can always dream.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holston, please don't ever lose the perspective that Darwinists are just making up crap as they go along. Remember junk dna??? Evolutionists didn't have an understanding of its purpose at the time so therefore, since they have to have all the answers, it must be junk, right? "We don't know what does so it must do nothing."
> 
> And I love all the tired "The designer wouldn't do it this way" arguments. It goes perfectly with the narcissistic evolutionist who has declared himself the god of his own existence. If he wouldn't do it that way then it must not be valid, right?
> 
> From a design perspective, one would expect to find commonality among designs and even basic parts. Why wouldn't a designer include most of the code in a program and merely switch the needed portions on and off to fit the purpose or environment. Instead we hear, "This is the way evolution did it."
> 
> Back to the nipples argument, where is the fossil evidence for the Asexual Breast Feeding Mammalian? And please no "might have", "could have" or "probably arose" just-so evolution fairy tales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."
Click to expand...

for those just joining us this as all of ur's comments are: bullshit, as the subject has been completely refuted.
it' boils down to this: there is no quantifiable or circumstantial evidence of a intelligent designer AKA god.
any and all reference to a god are conjectures based on an unprovable premise.
any so called evidence drawn for that premise is also conjecture.
on a purely speculative level there" could" be a god and he she or it "might have" or "probably" (two phrases repetitively  describing the same action)have done it,
but there is no corroborating evidence to prove it .
the phrase" because I say so" is far more evident in religious dogma then in any science.
 as a matter of fact most all biblical  passages allude or directly mention god said or god did. with no proof of it's validity.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> for those just joining us this as all of ur's comments are: bullshit, as the subject has been completely refuted.
> it' boils down to this: there is no quantifiable or circumstantial evidence of a intelligent designer AKA god.
> any and all reference to a god are conjectures based on an unprovable premise.
> any so called evidence drawn for that premise is also conjecture.
> on a purely speculative level there" could" be a god and he she or it "might have" or "probably" (two phrases repetitively  describing the same action)have done it,
> but there is no corroborating evidence to prove it .
> the phrase" because I say so" is far more evident in religious dogma then in any science.
> as a matter of fact most all biblical  passages allude or directly mention god said or god did. with no proof of it's validity.
Click to expand...


The concept of God is purely a religious belief. I was careful to assert when I was speaking from a religious standpoint. Speaking purely scientifically, there is incredible evidence to support that an intelligent mind is responsible for the specifiably complex code in DNA. So far you have said nothing to rebut this scientific argument, but instead, argue against the strawman and persist in your childish temper tantrums.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holston, please don't ever lose the perspective that Darwinists are just making up crap as they go along. Remember junk dna??? Evolutionists didn't have an understanding of its purpose at the time so therefore, since they have to have all the answers, it must be junk, right? "We don't know what does so it must do nothing."
> 
> And I love all the tired "The designer wouldn't do it this way" arguments. It goes perfectly with the narcissistic evolutionist who has declared himself the god of his own existence. If he wouldn't do it that way then it must not be valid, right?
> 
> From a design perspective, one would expect to find commonality among designs and even basic parts. Why wouldn't a designer include most of the code in a program and merely switch the needed portions on and off to fit the purpose or environment. Instead we hear, "This is the way evolution did it."
> 
> Back to the nipples argument, where is the fossil evidence for the Asexual Breast Feeding Mammalian? And please no "might have", "could have" or "probably arose" just-so evolution fairy tales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."
Click to expand...


This is not an ad hominem attack, you moron. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."
> 
> 
> 
> for those just joining us this as all of ur's comments are: bullshit, as the subject has been completely refuted.
> it' boils down to this: there is no quantifiable or circumstantial evidence of a intelligent designer AKA god.
> any and all reference to a god are conjectures based on an unprovable premise.
> any so called evidence drawn for that premise is also conjecture.
> on a purely speculative level there" could" be a god and he she or it "might have" or "probably" (two phrases repetitively  describing the same action)have done it,
> but there is no corroborating evidence to prove it .
> the phrase" because I say so" is far more evident in religious dogma then in any science.
> as a matter of fact most all biblical  passages allude or directly mention god said or god did. with no proof of it's validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The concept of God is purely a religious belief. I was careful to assert when I was speaking from a religious standpoint. Speaking purely scientifically, there is incredible evidence to support that an intelligent mind is responsible for the specifiably complex code in DNA. So far you have said nothing to rebut this scientific argument, but instead, argue against the strawman and persist in your childish temper tantrums.
Click to expand...

again, there is no actual science to bolster you bogus claim, only the pseudoscience nonsense you blather endlessly about.
a quick check revels your info is from the usual BullShit sources.


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not an ad hominem attack, you moron. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.
Click to expand...

true! but It' makes him feel like a martyr the ultimate rush for religofanatics..


----------



## Big_D2

holston said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody answered why humans have genes for a tail if never evolved from animals with tails.
> 
> 
> 
> but we did, and that fact scares the beJesus (pun intended ) out of believers. consequently they make shit up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we are going to discuss genetics then we need to be more specific.
> 
> If you can provide a detailed description of these genes and give the rational behind the conclusion that you seem to be drawing from the alleged evidence, then I for one would much appreciate it.
> 
> Until you had more clarification to what you are trying to say, I cannot speculate as to the meaning you are trying to assign to these alleged findings.
> 
> You are welcome to prove your theory. It will remain a theory until you prove it.
Click to expand...


I am no scientist.  However, this view is shared among the scientific community.  

Atavism: Embryology, Development and Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not an ad hominem attack, *you moron*. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.
Click to expand...


Daws unfairly characterized my argument as "BULLSHIT". 

*Smear Tactic:*

*A smear tactic is an unfair characterization* either *of* the opponent or *the opponent&#8217;s* position or *argument.* *Smearing the opponent causes an ad hominem fallacy.*

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#SmearTactic

Also, claiming one's argument is BULLSHIT is akin to calling one a liar. Will the real moron please stand up? 

*"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."*


----------



## newpolitics

holston said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so you are talking about the problem of consciousness and the teleological argument. The latter can be dismissed out of hand, as it has been addressed ad infinitum since it was formed millennia ago, but consciousness is an interesting problem for a materialist universe, and one I often contemplate, and would seem the *only plausible reason to have faith in the supernatural, as the agent behind the doling out of "souls" from which to have a subjective experience.* This has convinced me for a time, and still irks me, and is something which  I, nor anybody, has an answer for. God would be a solution, but the  that only puts the question And mystery a step back: what is god? Where is it? What can be known about it? How was it created? How exactly does it create consciousness? how does it interact with our material universe? Given these questions, you may have solved consciousness, but opened up a whole new set of questions which completely out of reach and unsolvable,* making you worse off, epistemically, *although perhaps emotionally satisfied, because you can identify with the concept of *"another mind at work."* We do it all the time when we talk to other people, yet positing this concept and projecting it ontologically into existence is a whole other step, which you have little warrant to do, aside from the emotional awards reaped from perceived existential security. You ask some good, honest questions, and I appreciate that. However, *something seeming unsolvable does not mean "god did it,"* because you are only allaying the unsolvable onto another realm: *the supernatural.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To attribute the creation to Creator (mind, power, source) does open the doors to questions concerning "It's", "HIS" nature.
> 
> It is somewhat of a cop out to just dismiss everything that exceeds the grasp of our knowledge as an "act of God". I don't attempt to do that. What I am doing is tempering my desire to know with the practical knowledge of the limits on my time and abilities. Reason itself compels me to admit that there is much more that I don't know than that which I do know, or even can possibly know in my lifetime.
> 
> So judging from what I do know and have experienced I ask myself whether it is reasonable to assume that there is a Creator Being. I have surmised that it is. That assumption carries with it the caveat that my knowledge and understanding of that Being is also finite. So it is necessary for me to leave room in my minds eye scheme of things to allow for growth.
> 
> I do not really know anything that would rule out that possibility to begin with. After having studied the matter, it seemed more rational to assume the existence of a creator than not. The acceptance of that idea provided a frame work from which to make practical decisions about how to conduct myself whereas the atheistic option reduced to this world and this life to an absurd practice in futility.
> 
> Regardless of which avenue one chooses to take, the kind of explanations that we are looking for so far as the tangible world goes remain about as deep one way as the other. Realistically speaking, I will doubtless die never knowing.
> 
> Science as we know it does not really address the metaphysical questions of existence or attempt to explain the spiritual nature of it. Therefore it is of little or no use to look to a book such as the Bible for explanations about the physical origin of the universe. One can approach those problems without having to jettison speculation about the supernatural.
> 
> Personally I believe that there IS a super _natural_ aspect to the universe.
> But I do not mean by that a belief in a sort of _anything goes_ world where one can conjure into existence anything that the imagination can drum up. I think a lot of people who cannot find the spiritual answers they seek in science will embrace an acceptance of the supernatural that will admit to practically anything. I don't.
> 
> To clarify this idea, I would be as skeptical as you probably are of some peoples professing themselves to be "witches" or gifted with some other implausible connection to "other worlds". I'm long since past the stage where I have to whistle past grave yards as well.
> 
> But as I said, I leave room in my concept of the universe to include a revised and expanded version of it _which DOES operate by certain rules. _
> 
> I am not asserting that the phenomenon of consciousness cannot be derived from matter or that it is impossible for it to be understood. I am saying that this problem and many others are realistically beyond us at this stage and that we should not be overly presumptuous in assuming that the explanation for it lies strictly within our concepts of how the material universe operates. I suspect that there may be concepts involved in grasping it which may include regions that touch on the supernatural. Some developments, like progress in technology, have to wait on other developments to take place first.
> 
> Baring some_ miracle _ it will be well beyond our lifetimes before anyone will be _in the position_ to approach the problem with any _hope_ of success.
> I expect that someone will master gravity and discover the means to travel beyond the stars before that happens.
> 
> When I look up at the black sky at night and try to contemplate where the "end" of the universe may be, or how tiny can a thing get before it can't get any tinier, I feel dwarfed if not awestruck. It's very difficult for me to debunk every sensation like that or others that overcome me when I am forced to confront the numinous.
> 
> I would define the term "miracle" as being applied only to those things which could be attributed to "God" in which He preforms a deed which lies totally outside the realm of the laws of the physical universe. I do not mean those which may only lie outside of that which is known but those which lie outside the realm of all that _could be known._ I mean only those acts which would by any conceivable means BE _impossible under natural law_ even with a full knowledge of it. Those are the kinds of acts which I would ascribe to "God", as I conceive Him; the master of all that is, that could be, or which may be possible by any means which one less than God Himself _could conceive._
> 
> Somewhere between the tangible universe and the one in which miracles may occur, I would place the supernatural. That isn't to say that this realm is illogical or is not governed by principles which are analogous to the physical laws as we are acquainted with such as those introduced by Newton, Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg and those other guys. I bet they would be the first to admit that mankind still has a long way to go before he approaches the status of a Creator God.
> 
> Some people imagine the pinnacle of creation to be man. But what if their are aliens on distant worlds that are as far above us as we think we are above ants?
> What prevents one from imagining powers derived from knowledge which is even greater than that?
> If there is a limit to what can be known, or if all that is knowable is a finite amount, just how far would that go, and what would place the limit on it?
> 
> If you proceed in Science on the assumption that all may eventually be understood, then it is only a matter of time until one would acquire the knowledge needed to master any aspect of nature. Doesn't the knowledge of science enable one to control those forces which are sought to be understood? Take the atom bomb for example or light and heat from electricity. Just try to follow the logical conclusion of this procession in your mind. So far all we can do is theorize about these things.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say its "unreasonable" to believe in some type of creator or intelligence. We are emotional, human creatures that feel fear and emptiness, and god may be a way to quell such disconcerting emotions, but that does not make our realizations at all true about the actual universe. Intuition is not a good pathway to truth, only hypothesis'. I would say it is unreasonable to believe in the Christian or Islamic conception of god, given that the theological framework is internally inconsistent in a multitude of ways, whether it be in gods supposed ontology (omniscience/omnipotence paradox), his supposed revelation when compared against his supposed attributes (the atrocity committed by god in the bible), or the state of existence (the problem of evil, which has not been refuted).


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an ad hominem attack, *you moron*. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws unfairly characterized my argument as "BULLSHIT".
> 
> *Smear Tactic:*
> 
> *A smear tactic is an unfair characterization* either *of* the opponent or *the opponents* position or *argument.* *Smearing the opponent causes an ad hominem fallacy.*
> 
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#SmearTactic
> 
> Also, claiming one's argument is BULLSHIT is akin to calling one a liar. Will the real moron please stand up?
> 
> *"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."*
Click to expand...


You're a buffoon! Almost nothing you just wrote is true. Calling someone's argument bullshit is not calling someone a liar at all. That is an illogical and unnecessary conclusion. Stop being a little bitch. He "unfairly" characterized your argument as bullshit... According to who? You? That's an entirely subjective determination. You don't like it, so you bitch about it and call it "unfair" Too fucking bad. Further, a smear tactic is not an ad hominem fallacy. This isn't a political campaign. You are being very overdramatic. We don't have to sit here and listen to your bullshit arguments over and over again. If you weren't such a dick head yourself, maybe people would take you more seriously. Before you go off calling this an ad hominem and crying to ywc... It isn't. I'm not saying that your arguments are bad because your a dickhead. I'm saying your arguments are bad AND you're a dickhead.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an ad hominem attack, *you moron*. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws unfairly characterized my argument as "BULLSHIT".
> 
> *Smear Tactic:*
> 
> *A smear tactic is an unfair characterization* either *of* the opponent or *the opponents* position or *argument.* *Smearing the opponent causes an ad hominem fallacy.*
> 
> Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
> 
> Also, claiming one's argument is BULLSHIT is akin to calling one a liar. Will the real moron please stand up?
> 
> *"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."*
Click to expand...

the facts are not a smear. though they are often times painful. fact: you are a liar.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an ad hominem attack, *you moron*. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws unfairly characterized my argument as "BULLSHIT".
> 
> *Smear Tactic:*
> 
> *A smear tactic is an unfair characterization* either *of* the opponent or *the opponent&#8217;s* position or *argument.* *Smearing the opponent causes an ad hominem fallacy.*
> 
> Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
> 
> Also, claiming one's argument is BULLSHIT is akin to calling one a liar. Will the real moron please stand up?
> 
> *"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a buffoon! Almost nothing you just wrote is true. Calling someone's argument bullshit is not calling someone a liar at all. That is an illogical and unnecessary conclusion. Stop being a little bitch. He "unfairly" characterized your argument as bullshit... According to who? You? That's an entirely subjective determination. You don't like it, so you bitch about it and call it "unfair" Too fucking bad. Further, a smear tactic is not an ad hominem fallacy. This isn't a political campaign. You are being very overdramatic. We don't have to sit here and listen to your bullshit arguments over and over again. If you weren't such a dick head yourself, maybe people would take you more seriously. Before you go off calling this an ad hominem and crying to ywc... It isn't. I'm not saying that your arguments are bad because your a dickhead. I'm saying your arguments are bad AND you're a dickhead.
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving my point with your Ad Hominem attack above. Looks like Daws baby tantrums are rubbing off on you. And I think it is evident for all to see now who is really full of poo poo. It figures you would claim superiority over the *Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.* 

By the way, you have NEVER provided a sound, logical rebuttal to the argument, so you are forced to resort to petty attacks since that is all you have.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an ad hominem attack, *you moron*. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws unfairly characterized my argument as "BULLSHIT".
> 
> *Smear Tactic:*
> 
> *A smear tactic is an unfair characterization* either *of* the opponent or *the opponent&#8217;s* position or *argument.* *Smearing the opponent causes an ad hominem fallacy.*
> 
> Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
> 
> Also, claiming one's argument is BULLSHIT is akin to calling one a liar. Will the real moron please stand up?
> 
> *"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the facts are not a smear. though they are often times painful. fact: you are a liar.
Click to expand...


Really? No. Really??? You can't respond to the argument with a logical rebuttal, so you too, like NewPottypants, are left with nothing more than name calling. You're the tool. Go back to school.


----------



## HUGGY

The only "Ultimate Reality" and "faith" anyone needs is in your self.


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> The only "Ultimate Reality" and "faith" anyone needs is in your self.



Ah, the lie of the narcissistic evolutionist. Funny how it always ends the same... on the ugly side of humanity.


----------



## UltimateReality

A little clarification for the dumbfounded atheists (you know who you are) on what specified complexity actually means....

_The video above features a short excerpt from a debate between well-known atheist philosopher A.C. Grayling (famous for conveniently "forgetting" having debated William Lane Craig) and Christian philosopher Peter S. Williams. Their subject: the fine-tuning of the universe's initial conditions to support complex life, bearing on the case for intelligent design. Williams articulates the argument from specified complexity, using the analogy of an ATM bank machine. A bank pin number is a very specific combination of four digits (some banks allow more), and there is a total of ten digits (0-9) on an ATM keypad. There is thus only one four-digit combination out of a total of 10,000 (10^4) combinatorial possibilities that will allow the money to be retrieved from the machine. Since ATM machines typically allow only three attempts before denying access to one's bank account, it is vastly more probable than not that the machine will not be cracked by chance. This is analogous to the kind of specified complexity that is of interest to ID theorists.

Grayling's response to Williams' analogy is to point out that his own existence is immensely improbable, since it depends on very specific and improbable meetings of people down through the centuries (it also depends on, among other things, the fusion of specific gametes, specific recombination events and environmental factors). In making this argument, however, Grayling betrays his own misunderstanding of the concept of specified complexity. Chance can account for a myriad of very improbable phenomena. For example, any given sequence of 100 rolls of a fair die is, for all practical purposes, equally improbable at 1 in 6^100. This is why improbability on its own does not necessarily warrant a design inference. R*ather, there are two criteria that have to be met to justify such an inference -- improbability (factoring in the pertinent probabilistic resources) and specification. In other words, in addition to being immensely improbable, the phenomenon in question must also conform to some independently given pattern. For example, in the ATM analogy, the independently given pattern is the specific pin number needed to obtain money from the bank account. *To take a biological example, the independently given pattern associated with proteins is the specific arrangement of amino acid subunits necessary to cause a protein to collapse into a stable and functional fold. Or, in the field of cosmology, the independently given pattern associated with the finely tuned constants and physical laws is the specific combination of values necessary for a bio-habitable universe. _

British Atheist Philosopher A.C. Grayling Is Confused About Intelligent Design - Evolution News & Views


----------



## LittleNipper

With God we have complexity and direction. Without God everything desolves into a discussion surrounding cow patties. Think about it.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws unfairly characterized my argument as "BULLSHIT".
> 
> *Smear Tactic:*
> 
> *A smear tactic is an unfair characterization* either *of* the opponent or *the opponents* position or *argument.* *Smearing the opponent causes an ad hominem fallacy.*
> 
> Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
> 
> Also, claiming one's argument is BULLSHIT is akin to calling one a liar. Will the real moron please stand up?
> 
> *"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a buffoon! Almost nothing you just wrote is true. Calling someone's argument bullshit is not calling someone a liar at all. That is an illogical and unnecessary conclusion. Stop being a little bitch. He "unfairly" characterized your argument as bullshit... According to who? You? That's an entirely subjective determination. You don't like it, so you bitch about it and call it "unfair" Too fucking bad. Further, a smear tactic is not an ad hominem fallacy. This isn't a political campaign. You are being very overdramatic. We don't have to sit here and listen to your bullshit arguments over and over again. If you weren't such a dick head yourself, maybe people would take you more seriously. Before you go off calling this an ad hominem and crying to ywc... It isn't. I'm not saying that your arguments are bad because your a dickhead. I'm saying your arguments are bad AND you're a dickhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point with your Ad Hominem attack above. Looks like Daws baby tantrums are rubbing off on you. And I think it is evident for all to see now who is really full of poo poo. It figures you would claim superiority over the *Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.*
> 
> By the way, you have NEVER provided a sound, logical rebuttal to the argument, so you are forced to resort to petty attacks since that is all you have.
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving my prediction true by calling my personal attacks "ad hominem" debate fallacies. You don't what that is. I'm not saying your arguments are wrong because your an idiot. I have proven your arguments do not stand on their own. I am simply saying... You're an idiot for your inability to respond to or concede salient points, and for other reasons that have NOTHING to do with your crappy arguments, but how you handle yourself here. You are a DICKHEAD for your immature tactics, entirely independent of your arguments. This is not an ad hominem unless I am trying to discredit your arguments, which I am not. I am not saying you're arguments are wrong because you are a dickhead.  I am not even currently debating you, so this is an impossibility. Get it? Good. What you do is, act like an asshole, and then when people call you on it, you cry "ad hominem!"


----------



## HUGGY

I ask nothing of my fellow human beings to have faith in themselves.  Can the other side claim as completely an unselfish demand?  As in all things human..follow the money.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a buffoon! Almost nothing you just wrote is true. Calling someone's argument bullshit is not calling someone a liar at all. That is an illogical and unnecessary conclusion. Stop being a little bitch. He "unfairly" characterized your argument as bullshit... According to who? You? That's an entirely subjective determination. You don't like it, so you bitch about it and call it "unfair" Too fucking bad. Further, a smear tactic is not an ad hominem fallacy. This isn't a political campaign. You are being very overdramatic. We don't have to sit here and listen to your bullshit arguments over and over again. If you weren't such a dick head yourself, maybe people would take you more seriously. Before you go off calling this an ad hominem and crying to ywc... It isn't. I'm not saying that your arguments are bad because your a dickhead. I'm saying your arguments are bad AND you're a dickhead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point with your Ad Hominem attack above. Looks like Daws baby tantrums are rubbing off on you. And I think it is evident for all to see now who is really full of poo poo. It figures you would claim superiority over the *Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.*
> 
> By the way, you have NEVER provided a sound, logical rebuttal to the argument, so you are forced to resort to petty attacks since that is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...I have proven your arguments do not stand on their own.
Click to expand...


Ha, ha, ha, only in your dreams, my friend, only in your dreams.

And by the way, how would you describe your behavior here? You are not in a position to be talking about someone's maturity.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point with your Ad Hominem attack above. Looks like Daws baby tantrums are rubbing off on you. And I think it is evident for all to see now who is really full of poo poo. It figures you would claim superiority over the *Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.*
> 
> By the way, you have NEVER provided a sound, logical rebuttal to the argument, so you are forced to resort to petty attacks since that is all you have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...I have proven your arguments do not stand on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, ha, ha, only in your dreams, my friend, only in your dreams.
> 
> And by the way, how would you describe your behavior here? You are not in a position to be talking about someone's maturity.
Click to expand...


Actually, this is happening, in reality: your arguments have been refuted. right now. you're arguments fail and have failed, repeatedly  and on a massive scale. thats right, an massive scale. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can stop resisting and get on with your life. And here you are trying to talk about someones maturity. oh the irony. You live in alternate reality. The fact that you even have to declare that I am not in a position to talk about maturity speaks to your level of maturity.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws unfairly characterized my argument as "BULLSHIT".
> 
> *Smear Tactic:*
> 
> *A smear tactic is an unfair characterization* either *of* the opponent or *the opponent&#8217;s* position or *argument.* *Smearing the opponent causes an ad hominem fallacy.*
> 
> Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
> 
> Also, claiming one's argument is BULLSHIT is akin to calling one a liar. Will the real moron please stand up?
> 
> *"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."*
> 
> 
> 
> the facts are not a smear. though they are often times painful. fact: you are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? No. Really??? You can't respond to the argument with a logical rebuttal, so you too, like NewPottypants, are left with nothing more than name calling. You're the tool. Go back to school.
Click to expand...

that is a logical rebuttal, you have no credible argument to make only a repeat performance of same pseudoscience  you've  been spewing for the last 1000 pages.


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a buffoon! Almost nothing you just wrote is true. Calling someone's argument bullshit is not calling someone a liar at all. That is an illogical and unnecessary conclusion. Stop being a little bitch. He "unfairly" characterized your argument as bullshit... According to who? You? That's an entirely subjective determination. You don't like it, so you bitch about it and call it "unfair" Too fucking bad. Further, a smear tactic is not an ad hominem fallacy. This isn't a political campaign. You are being very overdramatic. We don't have to sit here and listen to your bullshit arguments over and over again. If you weren't such a dick head yourself, maybe people would take you more seriously. Before you go off calling this an ad hominem and crying to ywc... It isn't. I'm not saying that your arguments are bad because your a dickhead. I'm saying your arguments are bad AND you're a dickhead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point with your Ad Hominem attack above. Looks like Daws baby tantrums are rubbing off on you. And I think it is evident for all to see now who is really full of poo poo. It figures you would claim superiority over the *Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.*
> 
> By the way, you have NEVER provided a sound, logical rebuttal to the argument, so you are forced to resort to petty attacks since that is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my prediction true by calling my personal attacks "ad hominem" debate fallacies. You don't what that is. I'm not saying your arguments are wrong because your an idiot. I have proven your arguments do not stand on their own. I am simply saying... You're an idiot for your inability to respond to or concede salient points, and for other reasons that have NOTHING to do with your crappy arguments, but how you handle yourself here. You are a DICKHEAD for your immature tactics, entirely independent of your arguments. This is not an ad hominem unless I am trying to discredit your arguments, which I am not. I am not saying you're arguments are wrong because you are a dickhead.  I am not even currently debating you, so this is an impossibility. Get it? Good. What you do is, act like an asshole, and then when people call you on it, you cry "ad hominem!"
Click to expand...

bravo bump!


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I have proven your arguments do not stand on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, ha, ha, only in your dreams, my friend, only in your dreams.
> 
> And by the way, how would you describe your behavior here? You are not in a position to be talking about someone's maturity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, this is happening, in reality: your arguments have been refuted. right now. you're arguments fail and have failed, repeatedly  and on a massive scale. thats right, an massive scale. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can stop resisting and get on with your life. And here you are trying to talk about someones maturity. oh the irony. You live in alternate reality. The fact that you even have to declare that I am not in a position to talk about maturity speaks to your level of maturity.
Click to expand...


The fact that you say my declaration about you not being in a position to talk about maturity speaks about my level of maturity just solidifies the evidence for your total lack of maturity. All your non-existent rebuttals have been proven wrong on an infinite scale. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can go about changing your life and start dealing with your inner guilt and shame, which is the reason you are here clamoring for acceptance in the first place.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> A little clarification for the dumbfounded atheists (you know who you are) on what specified complexity actually means....
> 
> The video above features a short excerpt from a debate between well-known atheist philosopher A.C. Grayling (famous for conveniently "forgetting" having debated William Lane Craig)



How typical. Firstly, William Lane Craig is among the more notoriously ineffectual and brain-dead of the fundie xtian crowd.

Secondly, it is as pointless now as it was 1,000 pages ago to spam the thread with the silly slogans lifted from Stephen Meyer who stole them from William Dembski.

The goofy fundie websites you copy and paste from have long ago been dismissed as nothing more than front organizations for fundie Christian apologetics.

Do something valuable with your free time. Send an email to Ann Gauger. Have her phony-up another video of phony charlatans in phony labs doing phony "research". 

What a bunch of bumpkins.


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, ha, ha, only in your dreams, my friend, only in your dreams.
> 
> And by the way, how would you describe your behavior here? You are not in a position to be talking about someone's maturity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this is happening, in reality: your arguments have been refuted. right now. you're arguments fail and have failed, repeatedly  and on a massive scale. thats right, an massive scale. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can stop resisting and get on with your life. And here you are trying to talk about someones maturity. oh the irony. You live in alternate reality. The fact that you even have to declare that I am not in a position to talk about maturity speaks to your level of maturity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you say my declaration about you not being in a position to talk about maturity speaks about my level of maturity just solidifies the evidence for your total lack of maturity. All your non-existent rebuttals have been proven wrong on an infinite scale. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can go about changing your life and start dealing with your inner guilt and shame, which is the reason you are here clamoring for acceptance in the first place.
Click to expand...


Okay boo-boo. Whatever makes you feel better.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, ha, ha, only in your dreams, my friend, only in your dreams.
> 
> And by the way, how would you describe your behavior here? You are not in a position to be talking about someone's maturity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this is happening, in reality: your arguments have been refuted. right now. you're arguments fail and have failed, repeatedly  and on a massive scale. thats right, an massive scale. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can stop resisting and get on with your life. And here you are trying to talk about someones maturity. oh the irony. You live in alternate reality. The fact that you even have to declare that I am not in a position to talk about maturity speaks to your level of maturity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you say my declaration about you not being in a position to talk about maturity speaks about my level of maturity just solidifies the evidence for your total lack of maturity. All your non-existent rebuttals have been proven wrong on an infinite scale. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can go about changing your life and start dealing with your inner guilt and shame, which is the reason you are here clamoring for acceptance in the first place.
Click to expand...

speaking of ad hominem.. and the  age old guilt and shame ploy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not an ad hominem attack, you moron. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.
Click to expand...


Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. - Frank Outlaw


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an ad hominem attack, you moron. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch your thoughts; they become words.
> Watch your words; they become actions.
> Watch your actions; they become habits.
> Watch your habits; they become character.
> Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. - Frank Outlaw
Click to expand...



Watch your fears, superstitions and pathologies; they become your gawds.  

-Frank Outlaw (_redux_)


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an ad hominem attack, you moron. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch your thoughts; they become words.
> Watch your words; they become actions.
> Watch your actions; they become habits.
> Watch your habits; they become character.
> Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. - Frank Outlaw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Watch your fears, superstitions and pathologies; they become your gawds.
> 
> -Frank Outlaw (_redux_)
Click to expand...


Paranoia only brings harm Hollie.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you just joining us, this is your most basic Ad Hominem attack. You notice there is no educated rebuttal, only a claim the argument is "bullshit" only an inferred basis to the "bullshit" claim of "because I say so."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an ad hominem attack, you moron. He is not attacking your person in an attempt to discredit your argument, which is what an ad hominem is. In insult is not an ad hominem, by itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch your thoughts; they become words.
> Watch your words; they become actions.
> Watch your actions; they become habits.
> Watch your habits; they become character.
> Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. - Frank Outlaw
Click to expand...

frank outlaw? you gotta be fuckin' kiddin'.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch your thoughts; they become words.
> Watch your words; they become actions.
> Watch your actions; they become habits.
> Watch your habits; they become character.
> Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. - Frank Outlaw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch your fears, superstitions and pathologies; they become your gawds.
> 
> -Frank Outlaw (_redux_)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paranoia only brings harm Hollie.
Click to expand...

then you must be the plague.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch your thoughts; they become words.
> Watch your words; they become actions.
> Watch your actions; they become habits.
> Watch your habits; they become character.
> Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. - Frank Outlaw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch your fears, superstitions and pathologies; they become your gawds.
> 
> -Frank Outlaw (_redux_)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paranoia only brings harm Hollie.
Click to expand...

Such are the conditions caused by religious fundamentalism.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch your fears, superstitions and pathologies; they become your gawds.
> 
> -Frank Outlaw (_redux_)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paranoia only brings harm Hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such are the conditions caused by religious fundamentalism.
Click to expand...

ywc's reasonless response in 5....4...3..2..1


----------



## LittleNipper

People believe in conspiracy theories because the truth "is either too simple or too remote," says sociologist Clifton Bryant of Virginia Tech University, who has made a study of "deviant logic" and behavior.

I wonder what sociologist Bryant thinks of "gay" marriage. When people say it is normal, is the truth of the matter just too simple or too remote for them. Sin is too simple and God is too remote?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paranoia only brings harm Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> Such are the conditions caused by religious fundamentalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ywc's reasonless response in 5....4...3..2..1
Click to expand...


Most students do hang on my every word, eager to learn.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> People believe in conspiracy theories because the truth "is either too simple or too remote," says sociologist Clifton Bryant of Virginia Tech University, who has made a study of "deviant logic" and behavior.
> 
> I wonder what sociologist Bryant thinks of "gay" marriage. When people say it is normal, is the truth of the matter just too simple or too remote for them. Sin is too simple and God is too remote?


kinda the long way round to say nothing?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such are the conditions caused by religious fundamentalism.
> 
> 
> 
> ywc's reasonless response in 5....4...3..2..1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most students do hang on my every word, eager to learn.
Click to expand...

did this start before or after your stroke?
my  guess is your students are products of hallucinations. their eagerness to learn is a symptom.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ywc's reasonless response in 5....4...3..2..1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most students do hang on my every word, eager to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did this start before or after your stroke?
> my  guess is your students are products of hallucinations. their eagerness to learn is a symptom.
Click to expand...


Long before the stroke Daws, you already knew the answer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paranoia only brings harm Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> Such are the conditions caused by religious fundamentalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ywc's reasonless response in 5....4...3..2..1
Click to expand...


You prove my point!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch your fears, superstitions and pathologies; they become your gawds.
> 
> -Frank Outlaw (_redux_)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paranoia only brings harm Hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then you must be the plague.
Click to expand...


No,one much greater than I will bring plagues.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most students do hang on my every word, eager to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> did this start before or after your stroke?
> my  guess is your students are products of hallucinations. their eagerness to learn is a symptom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Long before the stroke Daws, you already knew the answer.
Click to expand...

yes, I did you hallucinate


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paranoia only brings harm Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> then you must be the plague.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,one much greater than I will bring plagues.
Click to expand...

you just proved my point!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such are the conditions caused by religious fundamentalism.
> 
> 
> 
> ywc's reasonless response in 5....4...3..2..1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You prove my point!
Click to expand...

I did, you're a paranoid...your claim that everyone  else is, is a seminal indicator of that condition.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Daws paranoia is someone suffering from a mental condition. You put this paranoia on display by quoting and feeling the need to attempt  discrediting every response I make.

5-4-3-2-1


----------



## Youwerecreated

I preferred this thread when we actually discussed things on topic like the origins question.

Did a natural unguided, non-intelligent ,process poof us into existence or was their an intelligent agent that designed and created life ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> I preferred this thread when we actually discussed things on topic like the origins question.
> 
> Did a natural unguided, non-intelligent ,process poof us into existence or was their an intelligent agent that designed and created life ?



It seems you havent been paying attention to this thread since its inception.

What evidence for your gods (your euphemism for intelligent agent) can you supply to demonstrate the *poofing* of all things into existence.

Because you havent been paying attention, you should be aware that question has been posed like a million times only to be met by goofy bible verses or silly slogans from William Dembski that have been stolen by Meyer and barfed-up by goofy creationists / Flat-Earthers.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Daws paranoia is someone suffering from a mental condition. You put this paranoia on display by quoting and feeling the need to attempt  discrediting every response I make.
> 
> 5-4-3-2-1



Your discredited responses are a function of a bankrupt argument, drenched in flaws and fallacious claims. 

Blaming others for pointing out those flaws and fallacious claims is juvenile.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paranoia only brings harm Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> then you must be the plague.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,one much greater than I will bring plagues.
Click to expand...


Oh cool. An Endtimer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I preferred this thread when we actually discussed things on topic like the origins question.
> 
> Did a natural unguided, non-intelligent ,process poof us into existence or was their an intelligent agent that designed and created life ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you havent been paying attention to this thread since its inception.
> 
> What evidence for your gods (your euphemism for intelligent agent) can you supply to demonstrate the *poofing* of all things into existence.
> 
> Because you havent been paying attention, you should be aware that question has been posed like a million times only to be met by goofy bible verses or silly slogans from William Dembski that have been stolen by Meyer and barfed-up by goofy creationists / Flat-Earthers.
Click to expand...


You were not here at the beginning of this thread lol Daws is that you ?

No you have not been paying attention complexity in nature is evidence of design and an intelligent agent.

Now where is your evidence of complexity being the product of a non-intelligent natural process ?

Fact is you can't point to anything that is complex being the result of non-intelligence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws paranoia is someone suffering from a mental condition. You put this paranoia on display by quoting and feeling the need to attempt  discrediting every response I make.
> 
> 5-4-3-2-1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your discredited responses are a function of a bankrupt argument, drenched in flaws and fallacious claims.
> 
> Blaming others for pointing out those flaws and fallacious claims is juvenile.
Click to expand...


So daws had to use a new name


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> then you must be the plague.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,one much greater than I will bring plagues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh cool. An Endtimer.
Click to expand...


The end days started with the destruction of Israel and the Temple almost two thousand years ago which was a prophecy by Christ and was written down before it was fulfilled.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws paranoia is someone suffering from a mental condition. You put this paranoia on display by quoting and feeling the need to attempt  discrediting every response I make.
> 
> 5-4-3-2-1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your discredited responses are a function of a bankrupt argument, drenched in flaws and fallacious claims.
> 
> Blaming others for pointing out those flaws and fallacious claims is juvenile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So daws had to use a new name
Click to expand...


So you're befuddled


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,one much greater than I will bring plagues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh cool. An Endtimer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The end days started with the destruction of Israel and the Temple almost two thousand years ago which was a prophecy by Christ and was written down before it was fulfilled.
Click to expand...


Well then, maybe in another 2,000 years your gods will decide to once again wipe humanity from the planet. 


Just drink the Kool Aid.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I preferred this thread when we actually discussed things on topic like the origins question.
> 
> Did a natural unguided, non-intelligent ,process poof us into existence or was their an intelligent agent that designed and created life ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you havent been paying attention to this thread since its inception.
> 
> What evidence for your gods (your euphemism for intelligent agent) can you supply to demonstrate the *poofing* of all things into existence.
> 
> Because you havent been paying attention, you should be aware that question has been posed like a million times only to be met by goofy bible verses or silly slogans from William Dembski that have been stolen by Meyer and barfed-up by goofy creationists / Flat-Earthers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were not here at the beginning of this thread lol Daws is that you ?
> 
> No you have not been paying attention complexity in nature is evidence of design and an intelligent agent.
> 
> Now where is your evidence of complexity being the product of a non-intelligent natural process ?
> 
> Fact is you can't point to anything that is complex being the result of non-intelligence.
Click to expand...


The fact is, your silly claims have been refuted many times previously. Parroting the nonsense you clone from fundie Christian websites makes you appear quite foolish... and quite the desperate zealot.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

You don't understand the difference between a fundamentalist and a creationist.  A creationist believes the universe is an act of creation.  Fundamentalists believe every world of the bible is true in a literal sense, thus the belief that the earth is approximately 6000 years old.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh cool. An Endtimer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The end days started with the destruction of Israel and the Temple almost two thousand years ago which was a prophecy by Christ and was written down before it was fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, maybe in another 2,000 years your gods will decide to once again wipe humanity from the planet.
> 
> 
> Just drink the Kool Aid.
Click to expand...


Just read the book if you want to have some kind of idea concerning the conclusion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you haven&#8217;t been paying attention to this thread since its inception.
> 
> What evidence for your gods (your euphemism for &#8220;intelligent agent&#8221 can you supply to demonstrate the *poofing* of all things into existence.
> 
> Because you haven&#8217;t been paying attention, you should be aware that question has been posed like a million times only to be met by goofy bible verses or silly slogans from William Dembski that have been stolen by Meyer and barfed-up by goofy creationists / Flat-Earth&#8217;ers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were not here at the beginning of this thread lol Daws is that you ?
> 
> No you have not been paying attention complexity in nature is evidence of design and an intelligent agent .
> 
> Now where is your evidence of complexity being the product of a non-intelligent natural process ?
> 
> Fact is you can't point to anything that is complex being the result of non-intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is, your silly claims have been refuted many times previously. Parroting the nonsense you clone from fundie Christian websites makes you appear quite foolish... and quite the desperate zealot.
Click to expand...


You're avoiding the origins question again while claiming victory with no evidence of anything I said concerning the origins of life being refuted.

You have no evidence to refute my views on complexity do you Hollie ?


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were not here at the beginning of this thread lol Daws is that you ?
> 
> No you have not been paying attention complexity in nature is evidence of design and an intelligent agent .
> 
> Now where is your evidence of complexity being the product of a non-intelligent natural process ?
> 
> Fact is you can't point to anything that is complex being the result of non-intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, your silly claims have been refuted many times previously. Parroting the nonsense you clone from fundie Christian websites makes you appear quite foolish... and quite the desperate zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're avoiding the origins question again while claiming victory with no evidence of anything I said concerning the origins of life being refuted.
> 
> You have no evidence to refute my views on complexity do you Hollie ?
Click to expand...


Complexity as an argument for god is pointless.    Any God capable of creation would have to be even more complex than his creations.   Making his existence even less likely than our own.   

It's explaining the unlikely with the impossible.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Daws paranoia is someone suffering from a mental condition. You put this paranoia on display by quoting and feeling the need to attempt  discrediting every response I make.
> 
> 5-4-3-2-1


it obvious you have no clue what the definition of paranoid is.


Paranoid personality disorder (PPD) is a mental disorder characterized by paranoia and a pervasive, long-standing suspiciousness and generalized mistrust of others. Individuals with this personality disorder may be hypersensitive, easily feel slighted, and habitually relate to the world by vigilant scanning of the environment for clues or suggestions that may validate their fears or biases. Paranoid individuals are eager observers. They think they are in danger and look for signs and threats of that danger, potentially not appreciating other evidence.[1]

They tend to be guarded and suspicious and have quite constricted emotional lives. Their reduced capacity for meaningful emotional involvement and the general pattern of isolated withdrawal often lend a quality of schizoid isolation to their life experience.[2][verification needed] People with this particular disorder may or may not have a tendency to bear grudges, suspiciousness, tendency to interpret others' actions as hostile, persistent tendency to self-reference, or a tenacious sense of personal right.[3]


 if this isn't a spot on description of YWC then shoot me now.


----------



## koshergrl

Crackerjaxon said:


> You don't understand the difference between a fundamentalist and a creationist. A creationist believes the universe is an act of creation. Fundamentalists believe every world of the bible is true in a literal sense, thus the belief that the earth is approximately 6000 years old.


 
She understands. Hollie is an ideologue who uses language (improperly) to further her agenda.

Her agenda is to paint all non-progressives as "fundies". She uses the term to discredit anyone who doesn't support free abortion for all, and she uses the term to discredit anyone who dares speak out against anti-Christian bigotry and persecution. So if you aren't a militant, anti-Christian, pro-negative eugenics extremist, she is going to call you a "fundie".

Her determined use of the term tells me that although she _is_ quite stupid, the misuse of the word is intentional.

She used it to describe Oxford researchers.

tee hee.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were not here at the beginning of this thread lol Daws is that you ?
> 
> No you have not been paying attention complexity in nature is evidence of design and an intelligent agent .
> 
> Now where is your evidence of complexity being the product of a non-intelligent natural process ?
> 
> Fact is you can't point to anything that is complex being the result of non-intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, your silly claims have been refuted many times previously. Parroting the nonsense you clone from fundie Christian websites makes you appear quite foolish... and quite the desperate zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're avoiding the origins question again while claiming victory with no evidence of anything I said concerning the origins of life being refuted.
> 
> You have no evidence to refute my views on complexity do you Hollie ?
Click to expand...

the question should read: "I have no evidence that complexity is nothing more then billions of years of evolution at work ,for reasons that have no basis in fact I choose to believe a unseen, untraceable, form of intelligence made everything. I know this because this intelligence makes itself known to me by the peanuts in my shit." ywc


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the difference between a fundamentalist and a creationist. A creationist believes the universe is an act of creation. Fundamentalists believe every world of the bible is true in a literal sense, thus the belief that the earth is approximately 6000 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She understands. Hollie is an ideologue who uses language (improperly) to further her agenda.
> 
> Her agenda is to paint all non-progressives as "fundies". She uses the term to discredit anyone who doesn't support free abortion for all, and she uses the term to discredit anyone who dares speak out against anti-Christian bigotry and persecution. So if you aren't a militant, anti-Christian, pro-negative eugenics extremist, she is going to call you a "fundie".
> 
> Her determined use of the term tells me that although she _is_ quite stupid, the misuse of the word is intentional.
> 
> She used it to describe Oxford researchers.
> 
> tee hee.
Click to expand...

shouldn't you be drowning kittens or something.?


----------



## koshergrl

Brilliant reparte there, daws bud...


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Brilliant reparte there, daws bud...


and to the point!


----------



## Underhill

Perhaps we need another term for some of you guys.   Militant creationist?  A mentalist?


----------



## daws101

Underhill said:


> Perhaps we need another term for some of you guys.   Militant creationist?  A mentalist?


fantasist?


----------



## Underhill

daws101 said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need another term for some of you guys.   Militant creationist?  A mentalist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fantasist?
Click to expand...


Not bad.  But that could apply to all christians.   

I'm saying a term to describe those not buying into the whole book, but absolutely 100% enthralled by the bits that they do get behind.    

Like a half ass fundamentalist?  Half the cheek is on that chair, but they aren't budging, compromising or in the least bit flexible.   What bit of cheek is on the chair is super glued, then nailed in place.


----------



## koshergrl

I love to watch progressive nutjobs think up new words to demonize groups of people, with the stated goal of making whatever current train of thought they don't like, illegal....


----------



## Hollie

koshergrl said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the difference between a fundamentalist and a creationist. A creationist believes the universe is an act of creation. Fundamentalists believe every world of the bible is true in a literal sense, thus the belief that the earth is approximately 6000 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She understands. Hollie is an ideologue who uses language (improperly) to further her agenda.
> 
> Her agenda is to paint all non-progressives as "fundies". She uses the term to discredit anyone who doesn't support free abortion for all, and she uses the term to discredit anyone who dares speak out against anti-Christian bigotry and persecution. So if you aren't a militant, anti-Christian, pro-negative eugenics extremist, she is going to call you a "fundie".
> 
> Her determined use of the term tells me that although she _is_ quite stupid, the misuse of the word is intentional.
> 
> She used it to describe Oxford researchers.
> 
> tee hee.
Click to expand...


I think your rabid conspiracy theories are comical. But then again, the religiously insane do feel secure while safely ensconced in their delusions.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The end days started with the destruction of Israel and the Temple almost two thousand years ago which was a prophecy by Christ and was written down before it was fulfilled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, maybe in another 2,000 years your gods will decide to once again wipe humanity from the planet.
> 
> 
> Just drink the Kool Aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just read the book if you want to have some kind of idea concerning the conclusion.
Click to expand...


I've read the book.  Spend your life in trembling fear of ancient superstitions if you wish. Just don't presume that everyone else will share your superstitions.


----------



## koshergrl

Hollie said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the difference between a fundamentalist and a creationist. A creationist believes the universe is an act of creation. Fundamentalists believe every world of the bible is true in a literal sense, thus the belief that the earth is approximately 6000 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She understands. Hollie is an ideologue who uses language (improperly) to further her agenda.
> 
> Her agenda is to paint all non-progressives as "fundies". She uses the term to discredit anyone who doesn't support free abortion for all, and she uses the term to discredit anyone who dares speak out against anti-Christian bigotry and persecution. So if you aren't a militant, anti-Christian, pro-negative eugenics extremist, she is going to call you a "fundie".
> 
> Her determined use of the term tells me that although she _is_ quite stupid, the misuse of the word is intentional.
> 
> She used it to describe Oxford researchers.
> 
> tee hee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think your rabid conspiracy theories are comical. But then again, the religiously insane do feel secure while safely ensconced in their delusions.
Click to expand...

 
Hey hollie, are those so-called Oxford researchers "fundies"?

HAHAHA...you're a fruitcake. We needed someone to replace Sky and we got you! She used to make shit up as well....


----------



## koshergrl

Sky's best one was advocating for the removal of children from church-going households, and barring Christians from positions of influence and power....teaching, politics, you name it.

She finally completely nutted out and had to be removed from the site for good. Eventually you will, too.


----------



## koshergrl

Loons:

"
Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as 'child abuse'.
In typically incendiary style, the leading atheist said he was against the 'indoctrination of religion' and teaching it as fact.

The evolutionary scientist, speaking at the Chipping Norton Literary Festival yesterday, was repeating claims he made last year which were roundly condemned by charities and politicians.



Read more: Richard Dawkins: Forcing religion on your children is child abuse, claims atheist professor | Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook​


----------



## koshergrl

Even funnier...he used to be an Oxford prof!

Yup, those damn fundies.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> I love to watch progressive nutjobs think up new words to demonize groups of people, with the stated goal of making whatever current train of thought they don't like, illegal....


another ironic post....


----------



## Hollie

koshergrl said:


> Loons:
> 
> "
> Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as 'child abuse'.
> In typically incendiary style, the leading atheist said he was against the 'indoctrination of religion' and teaching it as fact.
> k
> The evolutionary scientist, speaking at the Chipping Norton Literary Festival yesterday, was repeating claims he made last year which were roundly condemned by charities and politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Richard Dawkins: Forcing religion on your children is child abuse, claims atheist professor | Mail Online
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook​


There seems to be a _gargantuan font_ syndrome shared by fundie zealots.


----------



## Hollie

koshergrl said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> She understands. Hollie is an ideologue who uses language (improperly) to further her agenda.
> 
> Her agenda is to paint all non-progressives as "fundies". She uses the term to discredit anyone who doesn't support free abortion for all, and she uses the term to discredit anyone who dares speak out against anti-Christian bigotry and persecution. So if you aren't a militant, anti-Christian, pro-negative eugenics extremist, she is going to call you a "fundie".
> 
> Her determined use of the term tells me that although she _is_ quite stupid, the misuse of the word is intentional.
> 
> She used it to describe Oxford researchers.
> 
> tee hee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think your rabid conspiracy theories are comical. But then again, the religiously insane do feel secure while safely ensconced in their delusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey hollie, are those so-called Oxford researchers "fundies"?
> 
> HAHAHA...you're a fruitcake. We needed someone to replace Sky and we got you! She used to make shit up as well....
Click to expand...


Gee whiz. A post drenched in HAHAHA' s and tee hee's. 

It's as though you don't understand that people point and laugh at your mindless prattle.


----------



## Hollie

koshergrl said:


> Sky's best one was advocating for the removal of children from church-going households, and barring Christians from positions of influence and power....teaching, politics, you name it.
> 
> She finally completely nutted out and had to be removed from the site for good. Eventually you will, too.



How strange that you rattle on with your pointless babbling, oblivious to the fact that your self-hate is an object of ridicule.


----------



## Youwerecreated

They avoid the origins question like the plague, I wonder why ? The nut jobs try desperately to change the subject now that is funny.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, your silly claims have been refuted many times previously. Parroting the nonsense you clone from fundie Christian websites makes you appear quite foolish... and quite the desperate zealot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're avoiding the origins question again while claiming victory with no evidence of anything I said concerning the origins of life being refuted.
> 
> You have no evidence to refute my views on complexity do you Hollie ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complexity as an argument for god is pointless.    Any God capable of creation would have to be even more complex than his creations.   Making his existence even less likely than our own.
> 
> It's explaining the unlikely with the impossible.
Click to expand...


Of course the creator is greater than the creation. Man creates is he not greater than what he created ? Does man exist ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws paranoia is someone suffering from a mental condition. You put this paranoia on display by quoting and feeling the need to attempt  discrediting every response I make.
> 
> 5-4-3-2-1
> 
> 
> 
> it obvious you have no clue what the definition of paranoid is.
> 
> 
> Paranoid personality disorder (PPD) is a mental disorder characterized by paranoia and a pervasive, long-standing suspiciousness and generalized mistrust of others. Individuals with this personality disorder may be hypersensitive, easily feel slighted, and habitually relate to the world by vigilant scanning of the environment for clues or suggestions that may validate their fears or biases. Paranoid individuals are eager observers. They think they are in danger and look for signs and threats of that danger, potentially not appreciating other evidence.[1]
> 
> They tend to be guarded and suspicious and have quite constricted emotional lives. Their reduced capacity for meaningful emotional involvement and the general pattern of isolated withdrawal often lend a quality of schizoid isolation to their life experience.[2][verification needed] People with this particular disorder may or may not have a tendency to bear grudges, suspiciousness, tendency to interpret others' actions as hostile, persistent tendency to self-reference, or a tenacious sense of personal right.[3]
> 
> 
> if this isn't a spot on description of YWC then shoot me now.
Click to expand...


Hey dummy,I do know what paranoia means and when you look it up in a dictionary there is a description of you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, your silly claims have been refuted many times previously. Parroting the nonsense you clone from fundie Christian websites makes you appear quite foolish... and quite the desperate zealot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're avoiding the origins question again while claiming victory with no evidence of anything I said concerning the origins of life being refuted.
> 
> You have no evidence to refute my views on complexity do you Hollie ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the question should read: "I have no evidence that complexity is nothing more then billions of years of evolution at work ,for reasons that have no basis in fact I choose to believe a unseen, untraceable, form of intelligence made everything. I know this because this intelligence makes itself known to me by the peanuts in my shit." ywc
Click to expand...


Oh that is right evolution makes all things better over time is that what you're saying daws ?  a totally natural and undirected process is gonna improve living organisms over time. Daws are you really this dense to believe such nonsense.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Perhaps we need another term for some of you guys.   Militant creationist?  A mentalist?



Maybe we should come up with a few for your side of militant atheist's.


----------



## Underhill

koshergrl said:


> I love to watch progressive nutjobs think up new words to demonize groups of people, with the stated goal of making whatever current train of thought they don't like, illegal....



I'm not demonizing anyone.   You said you weren't fundamentalist.   I said creationist doesn't really fit either.

Fundamentalist christian has never really been a hardcore militant movement.   More of a set of beliefs that are unmovable.   

Some of you are militant without being fundamentalist.   There is no real term for that.   

I suppose we could call you radical christians in the same way the media portrays radical muslims....


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> They avoid the origins question like the plague, I wonder why ? The nut jobs try desperately to change the subject now that is funny.


who's avoiding what? the fact is the origins question has been beaten to death.
you have no actual quantifiable evidence to bolster your speculation.
it appears to me your need to reopen that done to death subject is to reassure yourself , not  answer the age old question "how did we get here"?
you already have your answer, (it's not the correct one as there is no correct answer at this time) 
there might never be.
I'm highly confident it will not be found by reading folk tales from a 2000 thousand year old compendium of short stories.
or pseudoscience.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws paranoia is someone suffering from a mental condition. You put this paranoia on display by quoting and feeling the need to attempt  discrediting every response I make.
> 
> 5-4-3-2-1
> 
> 
> 
> it obvious you have no clue what the definition of paranoid is.
> 
> 
> Paranoid personality disorder (PPD) is a mental disorder characterized by paranoia and a pervasive, long-standing suspiciousness and generalized mistrust of others. Individuals with this personality disorder may be hypersensitive, easily feel slighted, and habitually relate to the world by vigilant scanning of the environment for clues or suggestions that may validate their fears or biases. Paranoid individuals are eager observers. They think they are in danger and look for signs and threats of that danger, potentially not appreciating other evidence.[1]
> 
> They tend to be guarded and suspicious and have quite constricted emotional lives. Their reduced capacity for meaningful emotional involvement and the general pattern of isolated withdrawal often lend a quality of schizoid isolation to their life experience.[2][verification needed] People with this particular disorder may or may not have a tendency to bear grudges, suspiciousness, tendency to interpret others' actions as hostile, persistent tendency to self-reference, or a tenacious sense of personal right.[3]
> 
> 
> if this isn't a spot on description of YWC then shoot me now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dummy,I do know what paranoia means and when you look it up in a dictionary there is a description of you.
Click to expand...

obviously not....


----------



## daws101

Underhill said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love to watch progressive nutjobs think up new words to demonize groups of people, with the stated goal of making whatever current train of thought they don't like, illegal....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not demonizing anyone.   You said you weren't fundamentalist.   I said creationist doesn't really fit either.
> 
> Fundamentalist christian has never really been a hardcore militant movement.   More of a set of beliefs that are unmovable.
> 
> Some of you are militant without being fundamentalist.   There is no real term for that.
> 
> I suppose we could call you radical christians in the same way the media portrays radical muslims....
Click to expand...

terrorists for Jesus?


----------



## Underhill

daws101 said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love to watch progressive nutjobs think up new words to demonize groups of people, with the stated goal of making whatever current train of thought they don't like, illegal....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not demonizing anyone.   You said you weren't fundamentalist.   I said creationist doesn't really fit either.
> 
> Fundamentalist christian has never really been a hardcore militant movement.   More of a set of beliefs that are unmovable.
> 
> Some of you are militant without being fundamentalist.   There is no real term for that.
> 
> I suppose we could call you radical christians in the same way the media portrays radical muslims....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> terrorists for Jesus?
Click to expand...


Terrorist is too far.   They aren't blowing anyone up.


----------



## Underhill

koshergrl said:


> Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as 'child abuse'.
> In typically incendiary style, the leading atheist said he was against the 'indoctrination of religion' and teaching it as fact.
> 
> The evolutionary scientist, speaking at the Chipping Norton Literary Festival yesterday, was repeating claims he made last year which were roundly condemned by charities and politicians.



He is right.   Forcing religion on children is wrong.   If you want to teach your children your beliefs fine, but don't force them.


----------



## daws101

Underhill said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not demonizing anyone.   You said you weren't fundamentalist.   I said creationist doesn't really fit either.
> 
> Fundamentalist christian has never really been a hardcore militant movement.   More of a set of beliefs that are unmovable.
> 
> Some of you are militant without being fundamentalist.   There is no real term for that.
> 
> I suppose we could call you radical christians in the same way the media portrays radical muslims....
> 
> 
> 
> terrorists for Jesus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrorist is too far.   They aren't blowing anyone up.
Click to expand...

not yet
ok, how bout annoyists for jesus?


----------



## daws101

Underhill said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as 'child abuse'.
> In typically incendiary style, the leading atheist said he was against the 'indoctrination of religion' and teaching it as fact.
> 
> The evolutionary scientist, speaking at the Chipping Norton Literary Festival yesterday, was repeating claims he made last year which were roundly condemned by charities and politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is right.   Forcing religion on children is wrong.   If you want to teach your children your beliefs fine, but don't force them.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt she knows the difference.
 my guess is she's one of those scare the shit out of them with threats of hell, sin and Armageddon types.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They avoid the origins question like the plague, I wonder why ? The nut jobs try desperately to change the subject now that is funny.
> 
> 
> 
> who's avoiding what? the fact is the origins question has been beaten to death.
> you have no actual quantifiable evidence to bolster your speculation.
> it appears to me your need to reopen that done to death subject is to reassure yourself , not  answer the age old question "how did we get here"?
> you already have your answer, (it's not the correct one as there is no correct answer at this time)
> there might never be.
> I'm highly confident it will not be found by reading folk tales from a 2000 thousand year old compendium of short stories.
> or pseudoscience.
Click to expand...


There is plenty of evidence that life could not have happened without direction. There is zero evidence that life could have formed without direction.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love to watch progressive nutjobs think up new words to demonize groups of people, with the stated goal of making whatever current train of thought they don't like, illegal....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not demonizing anyone.   You said you weren't fundamentalist.   I said creationist doesn't really fit either.
> 
> Fundamentalist christian has never really been a hardcore militant movement.   More of a set of beliefs that are unmovable.
> 
> Some of you are militant without being fundamentalist.   There is no real term for that.
> 
> I suppose we could call you radical christians in the same way the media portrays radical muslims....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> terrorists for Jesus?
Click to expand...


There are terrorists for satan THOUGH.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as 'child abuse'.
> In typically incendiary style, the leading atheist said he was against the 'indoctrination of religion' and teaching it as fact.
> 
> The evolutionary scientist, speaking at the Chipping Norton Literary Festival yesterday, was repeating claims he made last year which were roundly condemned by charities and politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is right.   Forcing religion on children is wrong.   If you want to teach your children your beliefs fine, but don't force them.
Click to expand...


But it is ok to force views on these children in schools and then grade them poorly because the child did not give the answer they wanted ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> terrorists for Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorist is too far.   They aren't blowing anyone up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not yet
> ok, how bout annoyists for jesus?
Click to expand...


Ideologue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as 'child abuse'.
> In typically incendiary style, the leading atheist said he was against the 'indoctrination of religion' and teaching it as fact.
> 
> The evolutionary scientist, speaking at the Chipping Norton Literary Festival yesterday, was repeating claims he made last year which were roundly condemned by charities and politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is right.   Forcing religion on children is wrong.   If you want to teach your children your beliefs fine, but don't force them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I seriously doubt she knows the difference.
> my guess is she's one of those scare the shit out of them with threats of hell, sin and Armageddon types.
Click to expand...


I do not get the impression that Christians worship God out of fear nor do they want you to accept God out of fear. If you were to see someone backing up would you warn that person there is a cliff behind them or simply let them back over the edge ?


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They avoid the origins question like the plague, I wonder why ? The nut jobs try desperately to change the subject now that is funny.
> 
> 
> 
> who's avoiding what? the fact is the origins question has been beaten to death.
> you have no actual quantifiable evidence to bolster your speculation.
> it appears to me your need to reopen that done to death subject is to reassure yourself , not  answer the age old question "how did we get here"?
> you already have your answer, (it's not the correct one as there is no correct answer at this time)
> there might never be.
> I'm highly confident it will not be found by reading folk tales from a 2000 thousand year old compendium of short stories.
> or pseudoscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence that life could not have happened without direction. There is zero evidence that life could have formed without direction.
Click to expand...


Okay, but even if I buy into that (and I don't) there is also zero evidence of god.   There is also a wealth of evidence that god cannot exist in the form laid out in the bible (or most other religions for that matter).   

You are trying to explain away the improbable with the impossible.   It just doesn't work logically.

I have no problem with those of faith relying on that faith.  I obviously disagree but that is their choice and I respect that right.   But don't try to pawn it off as logical.   It's absurd.   Even the bible doesn't do that.     It says "faith is the evidence".   If there were actual evidence, why would anyone need faith?


----------



## Bezukhov

I guess one could argue somewhat persuasively for a First Cause. Now try proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that He was born of a virgin, walked on water, and rose from the dead.


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is right.   Forcing religion on children is wrong.   If you want to teach your children your beliefs fine, but don't force them.
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt she knows the difference.
> my guess is she's one of those scare the shit out of them with threats of hell, sin and Armageddon types.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not get the impression that Christians worship God out of fear nor do they want you to accept God out of fear. If you were to see someone backing up would you warn that person there is a cliff behind them or simply let them back over the edge ?
Click to expand...


As adults probably not.  

But many of them certainly push their kids to faith with fear.   

As a child I was shown movies designed to scare the shit out of us.   End of the world scenarios where people were left alone when their family was spirited away, where those left were forced to choose the mark of the beast or death.   Books about demons physically fighting over our souls....

I've told this story before but my sister in law, when she was 5 or 6, came into her moms room crying about bad dreams.

Her mom proceeded to go into her room and start vigorously praying, begging Jesus and god to cast the demons out of this poor child.   

And of course the bad dreams immediately went away...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They avoid the origins question like the plague, I wonder why ? The nut jobs try desperately to change the subject now that is funny.
> 
> 
> 
> who's avoiding what? the fact is the origins question has been beaten to death.
> you have no actual quantifiable evidence to bolster your speculation.
> it appears to me your need to reopen that done to death subject is to reassure yourself , not  answer the age old question "how did we get here"?
> you already have your answer, (it's not the correct one as there is no correct answer at this time)
> there might never be.
> I'm highly confident it will not be found by reading folk tales from a 2000 thousand year old compendium of short stories.
> or pseudoscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence that life could not have happened without direction. There is zero evidence that life could have formed without direction.
Click to expand...

no there is not.
all you have is a belief that there is.
you've presented no actual evidence to support your claim.. the shit you have presented is by definition not science.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as 'child abuse'.
> In typically incendiary style, the leading atheist said he was against the 'indoctrination of religion' and teaching it as fact.
> 
> The evolutionary scientist, speaking at the Chipping Norton Literary Festival yesterday, was repeating claims he made last year which were roundly condemned by charities and politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is right.   Forcing religion on children is wrong.   If you want to teach your children your beliefs fine, but don't force them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it is ok to force views on these children in schools and then grade them poorly because the child did not give the answer they wanted ?
Click to expand...

public schools don't not force views on children, if that were true then the parents who impose their view on their kids should put them in another school that is a better fit for their pov.  
your solution screams of theism.
btw Christian schools  force their world view on students at will.
it's their stock and trade.
ass hat!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not demonizing anyone.   You said you weren't fundamentalist.   I said creationist doesn't really fit either.
> 
> Fundamentalist christian has never really been a hardcore militant movement.   More of a set of beliefs that are unmovable.
> 
> Some of you are militant without being fundamentalist.   There is no real term for that.
> 
> I suppose we could call you radical christians in the same way the media portrays radical muslims....
> 
> 
> 
> terrorists for Jesus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are terrorists for satan THOUGH.
Click to expand...

Christian Terrorists Continue to Attack America

By Austin Cline, About.com GuideJanuary 15, 2012



Bobby Joe Rogers has been charged by police in Florida with firebombing a family planning clinic. If Rogers had been a Muslim who firebombed a synagogue, he'd be immediately branded a Muslim terrorist, leading to even more calls for profiling of Muslims in America. 

Because Bobby Joe Rogers is a white Christian, though, no one in law enforcement will label his actions what they clearly are: violent Christian terrorism.   

"Rogers admitted to intentionally setting fire to the clinic due to his strong disbelief in abortion," the affidavit stated, and "he stated (he) was further fueled when he recently witnessed a young female entering the clinic while he was sitting amongst anti-abortion protesters." 

 The two-story clinic had been attacked before. 

 It was bombed on Christmas Day in 1984, and in 1994 a doctor and a volunteer who escorted patients to and from the clinic were shot to death as they arrived. The gunman, Paul Hill, was executed in 2003. Pensacola was the site of other abortion-related violence in 1993 when Dr. David Gunn was shot and killed at another clinic by an abortion protester. 

 Source: The Washington Post 

Terrorism is something that abortion providers have to contend with on a daily basis. It's not "Islamofascists" who are responsible for that terrorism, though. It's not strange, foreign, brown-skinned people who force abortion providers to work behind bullet-proof glass, wear bullet-proof vests, and hire bodyguards. No, it's good, God-fearing, white Christians who are committing terrorism in America. And on a regular basis, too. 

But of course the legal system in this country won't treat them as terrorists and won't even label their actions as terrorism. That's how successful their terrorism has been: they have cowed the government into denying that the terrorism is even being committed in the first place. 

At the same time, though, they have also cowed the government into treating similar acts from other groups as so "different" that they can't be handled by the regular criminal justice system. American Christians are thus, in a sense, far more successful at their terrorism than Muslim militants in the Middle East have been. 

Christian Terrorists Continue to Attack America


----------



## Youwerecreated

Bezukhov said:


> I guess one could argue somewhat persuasively for a First Cause. Now try proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that He was born of a virgin, walked on water, and rose from the dead.



Don't need to I can admit my beliefs are based in faith.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess one could argue somewhat persuasively for a First Cause. Now try proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that He was born of a virgin, walked on water, and rose from the dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need to I can admit my beliefs are based in faith.
Click to expand...

which makes them subjective and not fact...


----------



## koshergrl

You deny that his faith is a fact?

Lol. You're not one of the smarter anti-Christian trolls, that's for sure.


----------



## konradv

koshergrl said:


> You deny that his faith is a fact?
> 
> Lol. You're not one of the smarter anti-Christian trolls, that's for sure.



Since faith can't be proven, doesn't that make it "just a theory"?


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> You deny that his faith is a fact?
> 
> Lol. You're not one of the smarter anti-Christian trolls, that's for sure.


as always you're wrong. to any non perceptually challenge person, stating that his faith is fact, is unnecessary.
once again, you've made three false assumptions/accusations in two sentences.

 I'm not anti- Christian. I am however, extremely anti- nut job Christian zealot. 
if you believe you're an example of main stream Christianity, the you're more deluded and psychotic then a Charles Manson wet dream.


----------



## daws101

konradv said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You deny that his faith is a fact?
> 
> Lol. You're not one of the smarter anti-Christian trolls, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since faith can't be proven, doesn't that make it "just a theory"?
Click to expand...

bravo


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You deny that his faith is a fact?
> 
> Lol. You're not one of the smarter anti-Christian trolls, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since faith can't be proven, doesn't that make it "just a theory"?
Click to expand...


My faith is on parr with the theories that are being taught as fact in our schools. This brings us back to the all important question is the universe and everything in it a product of a designer and purposeful design or poof a non-intelligent natural unguided process ?

Now considering the evidence which theory takes more faith to believe ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You deny that his faith is a fact?
> 
> Lol. You're not one of the smarter anti-Christian trolls, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since faith can't be proven, doesn't that make it "just a theory"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bravo
Click to expand...


Critical thinking can be your friend.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You deny that his faith is a fact?
> 
> Lol. You're not one of the smarter anti-Christian trolls, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since faith can't be proven, doesn't that make it "just a theory"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My faith is on parr with the theories that are being taught as fact in our schools. This brings us back to the all important question is the universe and everything in it a product of a designer and purposeful design or poof a non-intelligent natural unguided process ?
> 
> Now considering the evidence which theory takes more faith to believe ?
Click to expand...


I don't operate on faith when it comes to evolution.  The facts found in the fossil record and in DNA research are what I go on.  Because of that evidence and the known Laws of Chemistry and Physics to posit an alternate explanation is a reach that makes your position totally faith, having no hard evidence to support it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since faith can't be proven, doesn't that make it "just a theory"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My faith is on parr with the theories that are being taught as fact in our schools. This brings us back to the all important question is the universe and everything in it a product of a designer and purposeful design or poof a non-intelligent natural unguided process ?
> 
> Now considering the evidence which theory takes more faith to believe ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't operate on faith when it comes to evolution.  The facts found in the fossil record and in DNA research are what I go on.  Because of that evidence and the known Laws of Chemistry and Physics to posit an alternate explanation is a reach that makes your position totally faith, having no hard evidence to support it.
Click to expand...


Well you're not relying on facts you're relying on opinions which in turn is reduced to faith. What are these so called facts ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since faith can't be proven, doesn't that make it "just a theory"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My faith is on parr with the theories that are being taught as fact in our schools. This brings us back to the all important question is the universe and everything in it a product of a designer and purposeful design or poof a non-intelligent natural unguided process ?
> 
> Now considering the evidence which theory takes more faith to believe ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't operate on faith when it comes to evolution.  The facts found in the fossil record and in DNA research are what I go on.  Because of that evidence and the known Laws of Chemistry and Physics to posit an alternate explanation is a reach that makes your position totally faith, having no hard evidence to support it.
Click to expand...


The fossil record is a reason not to trust the theory of evolution. Living fossils refute the idea of gradualism. That is why punctuated Equilibrium became a theory. I like how they try to explain away the non-evidence for gradualism.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You deny that his faith is a fact?
> 
> Lol. You're not one of the smarter anti-Christian trolls, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since faith can't be proven, doesn't that make it "just a theory"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My faith is on parr with the theories that are being taught as fact in our schools. This brings us back to the all important question is the universe and everything in it a product of a designer and purposeful design or poof a non-intelligent natural unguided process ?
> 
> Now considering the evidence which theory takes more faith to believe ?
Click to expand...

your faith is not science so it cannot be used as evidence, in reality your faith is a false and extremely poor substitute for fact.
it is a tale told by an unbalanced ignorant zealot ,all sound and fury ,signifying nothing.
(sorry Will)


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since faith can't be proven, doesn't that make it "just a theory"?
> 
> 
> 
> bravo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Critical thinking can be your friend.
Click to expand...

ah the correct term is analytical thinking and you do neither..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My faith is on parr with the theories that are being taught as fact in our schools. This brings us back to the all important question is the universe and everything in it a product of a designer and purposeful design or poof a non-intelligent natural unguided process ?
> 
> Now considering the evidence which theory takes more faith to believe ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't operate on faith when it comes to evolution.  The facts found in the fossil record and in DNA research are what I go on.  Because of that evidence and the known Laws of Chemistry and Physics to posit an alternate explanation is a reach that makes your position totally faith, having no hard evidence to support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you're not relying on facts you're relying on opinions which in turn is reduced to faith. What are these so called facts ?
Click to expand...

bullshit! asked and answered..
example: we know dinosaurs existed as there is evidence to prove it.
you however, cannot prove any of the events in the bible ever happened.
there is no quantifiable evidence supporting the narratives.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My faith is on parr with the theories that are being taught as fact in our schools. This brings us back to the all important question is the universe and everything in it a product of a designer and purposeful design or poof a non-intelligent natural unguided process ?
> 
> Now considering the evidence which theory takes more faith to believe ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't operate on faith when it comes to evolution.  The facts found in the fossil record and in DNA research are what I go on.  Because of that evidence and the known Laws of Chemistry and Physics to posit an alternate explanation is a reach that makes your position totally faith, having no hard evidence to support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fossil record is a reason not to trust the theory of evolution. Living fossils refute the idea of gradualism. That is why punctuated Equilibrium became a theory. I like how they try to explain away the non-evidence for gradualism.
Click to expand...

another creationist piece of bullshit propaganda!

Living fossil 

 Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.
Part of the series on 
Evolution 

Icon evolution.svg  
People  
Charles Darwin 
Gregor Mendel 
Alfred Russel Wallace 
Richard Dawkins 
Jerry Coyne 

Science  
Chimpanzee 
Endurance running hypothesis 
Stephen Jay Gould 
Xenicibis 

Pseudoscience  
Young Earth Creationism 
Old Earth Creationism 
Intelligent Design 
"Microevolution" vs."Macroevolution" 

 A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive. 

 The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an innacurate assesment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cainozoic is because the coelacanth's current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens. 
 The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago. 
 One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian. 

[edit] History of term

Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted: 

These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3] 

Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution. 

Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it: 

Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4] 

This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains: 

According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6] 

This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis. 

Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists. 



Living fossil - RationalWiki


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't operate on faith when it comes to evolution.  The facts found in the fossil record and in DNA research are what I go on.  Because of that evidence and the known Laws of Chemistry and Physics to posit an alternate explanation is a reach that makes your position totally faith, having no hard evidence to support it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is a reason not to trust the theory of evolution. Living fossils refute the idea of gradualism. That is why punctuated Equilibrium became a theory. I like how they try to explain away the non-evidence for gradualism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another creationist piece of bullshit propaganda!
> 
> Living fossil
> 
> Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.
> Part of the series on
> Evolution
> 
> Icon evolution.svg
> People
> Charles Darwin
> Gregor Mendel
> Alfred Russel Wallace
> Richard Dawkins
> Jerry Coyne
> 
> Science
> Chimpanzee
> Endurance running hypothesis
> Stephen Jay Gould
> Xenicibis
> 
> Pseudoscience
> Young Earth Creationism
> Old Earth Creationism
> Intelligent Design
> "Microevolution" vs."Macroevolution"
> 
> A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
> A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive.
> 
> The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an innacurate assesment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cainozoic is because the coelacanth's current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens.
> The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago.
> One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian.
> 
> [edit] History of term
> 
> Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted:
> 
> These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3]
> 
> Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution.
> 
> Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it:
> 
> Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4]
> 
> This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains:
> 
> According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6]
> 
> This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis.
> 
> Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> Living fossil - RationalWiki
Click to expand...


Question, how do you know the organisms you refer to are nothing more than similar species gone extinct ? How do you prove they evolved ?

A dose of reality junior.

Living-Fossils.com


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since faith can't be proven, doesn't that make it "just a theory"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My faith is on parr with the theories that are being taught as fact in our schools. This brings us back to the all important question is the universe and everything in it a product of a designer and purposeful design or poof a non-intelligent natural unguided process ?
> 
> Now considering the evidence which theory takes more faith to believe ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your faith is not science so it cannot be used as evidence, in reality your faith is a false and extremely poor substitute for fact.
> it is a tale told by an unbalanced ignorant zealot ,all sound and fury ,signifying nothing.
> (sorry Will)
Click to expand...


Why is faith necessary to believe the theories on how life started and how everything became more complex through evolution ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

A little more for you to take in.

Living-Fossils.com


----------



## Youwerecreated

Living-Fossils.com


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is a reason not to trust the theory of evolution. Living fossils refute the idea of gradualism. That is why punctuated Equilibrium became a theory. I like how they try to explain away the non-evidence for gradualism.
> 
> 
> 
> another creationist piece of bullshit propaganda!
> 
> Living fossil
> 
> Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.
> Part of the series on
> Evolution
> 
> Icon evolution.svg
> People
> Charles Darwin
> Gregor Mendel
> Alfred Russel Wallace
> Richard Dawkins
> Jerry Coyne
> 
> Science
> Chimpanzee
> Endurance running hypothesis
> Stephen Jay Gould
> Xenicibis
> 
> Pseudoscience
> Young Earth Creationism
> Old Earth Creationism
> Intelligent Design
> "Microevolution" vs."Macroevolution"
> 
> A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
> A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive.
> 
> The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an innacurate assesment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cainozoic is because the coelacanth's current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens.
> The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago.
> One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian.
> 
> [edit] History of term
> 
> Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted:
> 
> These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3]
> 
> Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution.
> 
> Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it:
> 
> Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4]
> 
> This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains:
> 
> According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6]
> 
> This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis.
> 
> Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> Living fossil - RationalWiki
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Question, how do you know the organisms you refer to are nothing more than similar species gone extinct ? How do you prove they evolved ?
> 
> A dose of reality junior.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
Click to expand...


Yep.   Obviously it is much more likely someone just spoke and poof!   There they were.


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't operate on faith when it comes to evolution.  The facts found in the fossil record and in DNA research are what I go on.  Because of that evidence and the known Laws of Chemistry and Physics to posit an alternate explanation is a reach that makes your position totally faith, having no hard evidence to support it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're not relying on facts you're relying on opinions which in turn is reduced to faith. What are these so called facts ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answered..
> example: we know dinosaurs existed as there is evidence to prove it.
> you however, cannot prove any of the events in the bible ever happened.
> there is no quantifiable evidence supporting the narratives.
Click to expand...


We know dinosaurs existed because the Bible says so in the book of Job. Their fossils exist today, because they became so big that when they were finally buried in mud by the Flood their fossilized remains prove much easier to find. Man today is so determined to prove evolution and millions of years that he tosses data out to the contrary and makes "scientific" assumptions that actually contradict what miners have found while digging for minerals. They have to throw in extraterrestrials to make sense of seemingly illogical data being found today...


----------



## Lonestar_logic

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't operate on faith when it comes to evolution.  The facts found in the fossil record and in DNA research are what I go on.  Because of that evidence and the known Laws of Chemistry and Physics to posit an alternate explanation is a reach that makes your position totally faith, having no hard evidence to support it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're not relying on facts you're relying on opinions which in turn is reduced to faith. What are these so called facts ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit! asked and answered..
> example: we know dinosaurs existed as there is evidence to prove it.
> you however, cannot prove any of the events in the bible ever happened.
> there is no quantifiable evidence supporting the narratives.
Click to expand...


The Bible refers to many the common animals we know today. The list includes lions, wolves, bears, sheep, cattle and dogs along with various kinds of birds, rodents, reptiles, and insects. What is interesting is that this extensive list includes three animals that we no longer recognize. These three are (in the original Hebrew language) tanniyn, b@hemowth (yes, its spelled correctlyat least as close as we can get in Roman characters), and livyathan.

Behemoth has the following attributes according to Job 40:15-24

It eats grass like an ox. 
It moves his tail like a cedar. (In Hebrew, this literally reads, he lets hang his tail like a cedar.) 
Its bones are like beams of bronze,
 His ribs like bars of iron. 
He is the first of the ways of God. 
He lies under the lotus trees,
 In a covert of reeds and marsh. 

Leviathan has the following attributes according to Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1. This is only a partial listingjust enough to make the point.

No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up. 
Who can open the doors of his face, with his terrible teeth all around? 
His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal; one is so near another that no air can come between them; they are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted. 
His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth. 
Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin. He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones become like stubble to him. Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the threat of javelins. 
On earth there is nothing like him, which is made without fear. 
Leviathan played in the great and wide sea (a paraphrase of Psalm 104 verses 25 and 26get the exact sense by reading them yourself). 
Leviathan is a reptile [a] that is in the sea. (Isaiah 27:1) 
[a] Note: The word translated reptile here is the Hebrew word tanniyn. This shows that Leviathan was also a tanniyn (dragon).


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another creationist piece of bullshit propaganda!
> 
> Living fossil
> 
> Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.
> Part of the series on
> Evolution
> 
> Icon evolution.svg
> People
> Charles Darwin
> Gregor Mendel
> Alfred Russel Wallace
> Richard Dawkins
> Jerry Coyne
> 
> Science
> Chimpanzee
> Endurance running hypothesis
> Stephen Jay Gould
> Xenicibis
> 
> Pseudoscience
> Young Earth Creationism
> Old Earth Creationism
> Intelligent Design
> "Microevolution" vs."Macroevolution"
> 
> A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
> A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive.
> 
> The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an innacurate assesment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cainozoic is because the coelacanth's current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens.
> The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago.
> One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian.
> 
> [edit] History of term
> 
> Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted:
> 
> These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3]
> 
> Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution.
> 
> Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it:
> 
> Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4]
> 
> This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains:
> 
> According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6]
> 
> This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis.
> 
> Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> Living fossil - RationalWiki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question, how do you know the organisms you refer to are nothing more than similar species gone extinct ? How do you prove they evolved ?
> 
> A dose of reality junior.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.   Obviously it is much more likely someone just spoke and poof!   There they were.
Click to expand...


Yes if you understood the molecular make up of just one cell let alone a trillion cells that make up a human.


----------



## wjmacguffin

LittleNipper said:


> We know dinosaurs existed because the Bible says so in the book of Job.


The Bible discusses a behemoth and a leviathan. These can be dinosaurs, myths, or allegories. The Bible must be taken as a matter of faith--we cannot prove what happened anymore than we can prove Jesus Christ was the son of God. That's fine--faith is what religion is made of. My faith in Christ is unshaken by a lack of proof. But we're talking science here, which DOES require proof. 



LittleNipper said:


> Their fossils exist today, because they became so big that when they were finally buried in mud by the Flood their fossilized remains prove much easier to find. Man today is so determined to prove evolution and millions of years that he tosses data out to the contrary and makes "scientific" assumptions that actually contradict what miners have found while digging for minerals.


Your premise requires a vast conspiracy of scientists across hundreds of years to "toss data out to the contrary". Are you seriously suggesting that? Has the Devil somehow gotten into the minds of all scientists in all areas, forcing archaeologists, paleontologists, physicists, geologists, and so on, getting them to throw out contradictory data just to distract people from God? 



LittleNipper said:


> They have to throw in extraterrestrials to make sense of seemingly illogical data being found today...


First, who is "they"? Second, can you find me an example of scientists blaming aliens for data problems?


----------



## Youwerecreated

wjmacguffin said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know dinosaurs existed because the Bible says so in the book of Job.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible discusses a behemoth and a leviathan. These can be dinosaurs, myths, or allegories. The Bible must be taken as a matter of faith--we cannot prove what happened anymore than we can prove Jesus Christ was the son of God. That's fine--faith is what religion is made of. My faith in Christ is unshaken by a lack of proof. But we're talking science here, which DOES require proof.
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their fossils exist today, because they became so big that when they were finally buried in mud by the Flood their fossilized remains prove much easier to find. Man today is so determined to prove evolution and millions of years that he tosses data out to the contrary and makes "scientific" assumptions that actually contradict what miners have found while digging for minerals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your premise requires a vast conspiracy of scientists across hundreds of years to "toss data out to the contrary". Are you seriously suggesting that? Has the Devil somehow gotten into the minds of all scientists in all areas, forcing archaeologists, paleontologists, physicists, geologists, and so on, getting them to throw out contradictory data just to distract people from God?
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have to throw in extraterrestrials to make sense of seemingly illogical data being found today...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, who is "they"? Second, can you find me an example of scientists blaming aliens for data problems?
Click to expand...


To your first comment. How can Behemoth and leviathan be considered myths, or allegories When they actually existed and exist ? So the bible was speaking of something that was not a fantasy.

Many  men within the scientific community lock in on a natural explanation because they have no explanation for the designer but neither do they have a viable explanation for the origins of life.

There are Hypothesis for people believing life and technology came from visitors of another world can that not be God and the Angels ?


----------



## wjmacguffin

Youwerecreated said:


> To your first comment. How can Behemoth and leviathan be considered myths, or allegories When they actually existed and exist ? So the bible was speaking of something that was not a fantasy.


You are assuming everything in the Bible is accurate and historical. That's fine to believe in, and I'm not saying your belief if wrong. But when it comes to proof, you have none. It's a matter of faith. Therefore, you cannot say with any certainty that those creatures were real. If you disagree with me, please provide a link to proof. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Many  men within the scientific community lock in on a natural explanation because they have no explanation for the designer but neither do they have a viable explanation for the origins of life.


You did not address my argument that your hypothesis requires a large, powerful conspiracy that has existed for hundreds of years. Such a conspiracy is highly unlikely. While scientists as a whole may or may not have a viable explanation for the origin of life, that doesn't mean evolution is incorrect. The two are apples and oranges, and you can believe that God created life while still believing in evolution. 

Also, you claim "many men within the scientific community" are in on this conspiracy. Can you provide any proof? Links? 



Youwerecreated said:


> There are Hypothesis for people believing life and technology came from visitors of another world can that not be God and the Angels ?


There are also hypotheses that the world really is flat, that ghosts exist, and that Nazis live in a secret base on the moon. Just because crackpots create a theory doesn't mean the scientific community embraces it. To put it another way, just because some Christians use religion to justify being racist doesn't mean all Christians are racist. 

If you have proof and links that show I'm wrong, please provide them.


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question, how do you know the organisms you refer to are nothing more than similar species gone extinct ? How do you prove they evolved ?
> 
> A dose of reality junior.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.   Obviously it is much more likely someone just spoke and poof!   There they were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes if you understood the molecular make up of just one cell let alone a trillion cells that make up a human.
Click to expand...


So tell me this.   How would the molecular make up of a god look?   How likely do you think the odds are of his existence, as apposed to ours?


----------



## Underhill

wjmacguffin said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know dinosaurs existed because the Bible says so in the book of Job.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible discusses a behemoth and a leviathan. These can be dinosaurs, myths, or allegories. The Bible must be taken as a matter of faith--we cannot prove what happened anymore than we can prove Jesus Christ was the son of God. That's fine--faith is what religion is made of. My faith in Christ is unshaken by a lack of proof. But we're talking science here, which DOES require proof.
Click to expand...


The maps in Columbus's day claimed there were dragons. 

Someone could see a blue whale or a whale shark and call them leviathan.   A person could have seen the rhinos or elephants in Africa and called them behemoths.   

The lie is in that second bit.   We can prove with reasonable certainty what happened.   We have in many cases.    

Can we prove everything?  No.   But since you can't prove anything about god, our position is vastly superior.    

If you want to hold onto faith I have no problem with that.   But this lie, that science is inferior in the evidence department, is laughable.    Science depends on evidence.  It is the basis for all science.   Faith requires a good story.   Nothing else.


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> There are Hypothesis for people believing life and technology came from visitors of another world can that not be God and the Angels ?



I have heard it hypothesized by serious people that life may have come from other places in an extremely simple form.   Never anything about technology, as we have a pretty good idea where that came from.   *boggle

But sure, life may have come from other places millions or billions of light years away.  But then it would not be the god of any religion now in existence.    None that I know of anyway.


----------



## Youwerecreated

wjmacguffin said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> To your first comment. How can Behemoth and leviathan be considered myths, or allegories When they actually existed and exist ? So the bible was speaking of something that was not a fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> You are assuming everything in the Bible is accurate and historical. That's fine to believe in, and I'm not saying your belief if wrong. But when it comes to proof, you have none. It's a matter of faith. Therefore, you cannot say with any certainty that those creatures were real. If you disagree with me, please provide a link to proof.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many  men within the scientific community lock in on a natural explanation because they have no explanation for the designer but neither do they have a viable explanation for the origins of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not address my argument that your hypothesis requires a large, powerful conspiracy that has existed for hundreds of years. Such a conspiracy is highly unlikely. While scientists as a whole may or may not have a viable explanation for the origin of life, that doesn't mean evolution is incorrect. The two are apples and oranges, and you can believe that God created life while still believing in evolution.
> 
> Also, you claim "many men within the scientific community" are in on this conspiracy. Can you provide any proof? Links?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are Hypothesis for people believing life and technology came from visitors of another world can that not be God and the Angels ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are also hypotheses that the world really is flat, that ghosts exist, and that Nazis live in a secret base on the moon. Just because crackpots create a theory doesn't mean the scientific community embraces it. To put it another way, just because some Christians use religion to justify being racist doesn't mean all Christians are racist.
> 
> If you have proof and links that show I'm wrong, please provide them.
Click to expand...


The description of the Behemoth could have been describing the 

https://www.google.com/search?q=the...wKn4YGQDg&sqi=2&ved=0CEEQsAQ&biw=1221&bih=849

Job 40:15  Now behold behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox; 
Job 40:16  see, now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the muscles of his belly. 
Job 40:17  He hangs his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. 
Job 40:18  His bones are like tubes of bronze; his bones are like bars of iron. 
Job 40:19  He is the first of the ways of God; his Maker brings near his sword. 
Job 40:20  For the mountains yield food for him, and all the beasts of the field play there. 
Job 40:21  He lies under the lotus, in the hiding place of the reed and the marsh. 
Job 40:22  The lotus trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook surround him. 
Job 40:23  Behold, though a flood presses, he does not run away; he feels safe even if Jordan swells up to his mouth. 
Job 40:24  Shall any take him before his eyes, or pierce through his nose with cords? 

Sounds interesting no ?

If you read the scriptures there has been a conspiracy agains't God with the very first fall of man by his advesary. Really maybe you should turn on the T.V. and watch the history channel. I was part of that science community and you're wrong.

It does not mean they can provide a viable explanation for macroevolution either. There is plenty of scientific evidence that does not support the Theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.   Obviously it is much more likely someone just spoke and poof!   There they were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes if you understood the molecular make up of just one cell let alone a trillion cells that make up a human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me this.   How would the molecular make up of a god look?   How likely do you think the odds are of his existence, as apposed to ours?
Click to expand...


I would say pretty good since there is so much evidence showing complex things simply do not come into existence it takes intelligence to produce them. Why do you draw the lines at biological organisms.

The molecular machines in a cell provide a necessary function.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> wjmacguffin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know dinosaurs existed because the Bible says so in the book of Job.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible discusses a behemoth and a leviathan. These can be dinosaurs, myths, or allegories. The Bible must be taken as a matter of faith--we cannot prove what happened anymore than we can prove Jesus Christ was the son of God. That's fine--faith is what religion is made of. My faith in Christ is unshaken by a lack of proof. But we're talking science here, which DOES require proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The maps in Columbus's day claimed there were dragons.
> 
> Someone could see a blue whale or a whale shark and call them leviathan.   A person could have seen the rhinos or elephants in Africa and called them behemoths.
> 
> The lie is in that second bit.   We can prove with reasonable certainty what happened.   We have in many cases.
> 
> Can we prove everything?  No.   But since you can't prove anything about god, our position is vastly superior.
> 
> If you want to hold onto faith I have no problem with that.   But this lie, that science is inferior in the evidence department, is laughable.    Science depends on evidence.  It is the basis for all science.   Faith requires a good story.   Nothing else.
Click to expand...


Many cultures used the term dragons and how do you know that was not the term that best described dinosaurs  at the time after all the term Dinosaur came much later.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are Hypothesis for people believing life and technology came from visitors of another world can that not be God and the Angels ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard it hypothesized by serious people that life may have come from other places in an extremely simple form.   Never anything about technology, as we have a pretty good idea where that came from.   *boggle
> 
> But sure, life may have come from other places millions or billions of light years away.  But then it would not be the god of any religion now in existence.    None that I know of anyway.
Click to expand...


Watch the history channel more and you will see them.


----------



## wjmacguffin

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are Hypothesis for people believing life and technology came from visitors of another world can that not be God and the Angels ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard it hypothesized by serious people that life may have come from other places in an extremely simple form.   Never anything about technology, as we have a pretty good idea where that came from.   *boggle
> 
> But sure, life may have come from other places millions or billions of light years away.  But then it would not be the god of any religion now in existence.    None that I know of anyway.
Click to expand...


I think he's talking about the Ancient Astronaut idea, that aliens landed on Earth and gave tech to Aztecs, Egyptians, etc. Because people of color couldn't have invented those things by themselves!


----------



## wjmacguffin

Youwerecreated said:


> The description of the Behemoth could have been describing the
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=the...wKn4YGQDg&sqi=2&ved=0CEEQsAQ&biw=1221&bih=849
> 
> Job 40:15  Now behold behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox;
> Job 40:16  see, now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the muscles of his belly.
> Job 40:17  He hangs his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
> Job 40:18  His bones are like tubes of bronze; his bones are like bars of iron.
> Job 40:19  He is the first of the ways of God; his Maker brings near his sword.
> Job 40:20  For the mountains yield food for him, and all the beasts of the field play there.
> Job 40:21  He lies under the lotus, in the hiding place of the reed and the marsh.
> Job 40:22  The lotus trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook surround him.
> Job 40:23  Behold, though a flood presses, he does not run away; he feels safe even if Jordan swells up to his mouth.
> Job 40:24  Shall any take him before his eyes, or pierce through his nose with cords?
> 
> Sounds interesting no ?



Sure! But it doesn't prove jack. Your own words betray you: It "could" have been describing a dinosaur. "Could" doesn't mean proof! It could have been a myth! It could have been someone tripping on mushrooms! It could have been anything. 

Again, your BELIEF in the Bible as historically true in all cases doesn't count as proof, because it's belief. Proof does not equal belief. 

Look, I believe in God. But I could be wrong. I have no proof. Now, I don't need proof because it's a matter of faith. But when it comes to science, you cannot use faith--you have to use facts and evidence. And all of the facts and evidence collected so far suggests dinosaurs died out long before the Bible was written. 



Youwerecreated said:


> If you read the scriptures there has been a conspiracy agains't God with the very first fall of man by his advesary. Really maybe you should turn on the T.V. and watch the history channel. I was part of that science community and you're wrong.


I have read Scripture--I'm a practicing Catholic. Again, please provide evidence that Satan has been behind all of the scientific community who has advocated evolution for hundreds of years. Bear in mind that said community has math and science behind their assertions. 



Youwerecreated said:


> It does not mean they can provide a viable explanation for macroevolution either. There is plenty of scientific evidence that does not support the Theory.


Please share with me some of the "plenty" of evidence, will you?


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wjmacguffin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible discusses a behemoth and a leviathan. These can be dinosaurs, myths, or allegories. The Bible must be taken as a matter of faith--we cannot prove what happened anymore than we can prove Jesus Christ was the son of God. That's fine--faith is what religion is made of. My faith in Christ is unshaken by a lack of proof. But we're talking science here, which DOES require proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The maps in Columbus's day claimed there were dragons.
> 
> Someone could see a blue whale or a whale shark and call them leviathan.   A person could have seen the rhinos or elephants in Africa and called them behemoths.
> 
> The lie is in that second bit.   We can prove with reasonable certainty what happened.   We have in many cases.
> 
> Can we prove everything?  No.   But since you can't prove anything about god, our position is vastly superior.
> 
> If you want to hold onto faith I have no problem with that.   But this lie, that science is inferior in the evidence department, is laughable.    Science depends on evidence.  It is the basis for all science.   Faith requires a good story.   Nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many cultures used the term dragons and how do you know that was not the term that best described dinosaurs  at the time after all the term Dinosaur came much later.
Click to expand...


So there happened to be dinosaurs just off the edge of all the maps?

No, it was a term of ignorance.   They didn't know what was there so stories loomed large.   Sounds a lot like religion aye?


----------



## Underhill

wjmacguffin said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are Hypothesis for people believing life and technology came from visitors of another world can that not be God and the Angels ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard it hypothesized by serious people that life may have come from other places in an extremely simple form.   Never anything about technology, as we have a pretty good idea where that came from.   *boggle
> 
> But sure, life may have come from other places millions or billions of light years away.  But then it would not be the god of any religion now in existence.    None that I know of anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he's talking about the Ancient Astronaut idea, that aliens landed on Earth and gave tech to Aztecs, Egyptians, etc. Because people of color couldn't have invented those things by themselves!
Click to expand...


Thus the term "serious people" in my post...   But yeah, I understand.


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are Hypothesis for people believing life and technology came from visitors of another world can that not be God and the Angels ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard it hypothesized by serious people that life may have come from other places in an extremely simple form.   Never anything about technology, as we have a pretty good idea where that came from.   *boggle
> 
> But sure, life may have come from other places millions or billions of light years away.  But then it would not be the god of any religion now in existence.    None that I know of anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch the history channel more and you will see them.
Click to expand...


Brilliant.    So you get your science from the history channel.   The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap.    Try reading a book.   Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.


----------



## koshergrl

Unsolved Mysteries...and Unsolved HISTORY (haha that's a little word fun, eh?)

Gotta love the history channel.

But you still have to do research. Everything they broadcast is not incontestable, or even necessarily current. Or real.


----------



## HUGGY

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard it hypothesized by serious people that life may have come from other places in an extremely simple form.   Never anything about technology, as we have a pretty good idea where that came from.   *boggle
> 
> But sure, life may have come from other places millions or billions of light years away.  But then it would not be the god of any religion now in existence.    None that I know of anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the history channel more and you will see them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brilliant.    So you get your science from the history channel.   The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap.    Try reading a book.   Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.
Click to expand...


Why is a printed "book" any more credible than any other source of information?  Print alone is no more "real" than a video presentation ..nor less.


----------



## Youwerecreated

wjmacguffin said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The description of the Behemoth could have been describing the
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=the...wKn4YGQDg&sqi=2&ved=0CEEQsAQ&biw=1221&bih=849
> 
> Job 40:15  Now behold behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox;
> Job 40:16  see, now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the muscles of his belly.
> Job 40:17  He hangs his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
> Job 40:18  His bones are like tubes of bronze; his bones are like bars of iron.
> Job 40:19  He is the first of the ways of God; his Maker brings near his sword.
> Job 40:20  For the mountains yield food for him, and all the beasts of the field play there.
> Job 40:21  He lies under the lotus, in the hiding place of the reed and the marsh.
> Job 40:22  The lotus trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook surround him.
> Job 40:23  Behold, though a flood presses, he does not run away; he feels safe even if Jordan swells up to his mouth.
> Job 40:24  Shall any take him before his eyes, or pierce through his nose with cords?
> 
> Sounds interesting no ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure! But it doesn't prove jack. Your own words betray you: It "could" have been describing a dinosaur. "Could" doesn't mean proof! It could have been a myth! It could have been someone tripping on mushrooms! It could have been anything.
> 
> Again, your BELIEF in the Bible as historically true in all cases doesn't count as proof, because it's belief. Proof does not equal belief.
> 
> Look, I believe in God. But I could be wrong. I have no proof. Now, I don't need proof because it's a matter of faith. But when it comes to science, you cannot use faith--you have to use facts and evidence. And all of the facts and evidence collected so far suggests dinosaurs died out long before the Bible was written.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read the scriptures there has been a conspiracy agains't God with the very first fall of man by his advesary. Really maybe you should turn on the T.V. and watch the history channel. I was part of that science community and you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read Scripture--I'm a practicing Catholic. Again, please provide evidence that Satan has been behind all of the scientific community who has advocated evolution for hundreds of years. Bear in mind that said community has math and science behind their assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does not mean they can provide a viable explanation for macroevolution either. There is plenty of scientific evidence that does not support the Theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please share with me some of the "plenty" of evidence, will you?
Click to expand...


The fossil record has been given. What is your mechanism for the process of Macroevolution ? I will be more than happy to present evidence once I know what you claim as the mechanism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard it hypothesized by serious people that life may have come from other places in an extremely simple form.   Never anything about technology, as we have a pretty good idea where that came from.   *boggle
> 
> But sure, life may have come from other places millions or billions of light years away.  But then it would not be the god of any religion now in existence.    None that I know of anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the history channel more and you will see them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brilliant.    So you get your science from the history channel.   The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap.    Try reading a book.   Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.
Click to expand...


I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.

I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?


----------



## Truthbetold

The way I see it some of us were created and some of us came from monkeys.  If you really want your ancestry to be primates I'll oblige.  I just came from the side where human beings were created.


----------



## Underhill

HUGGY said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the history channel more and you will see them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant.    So you get your science from the history channel.   The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap.    Try reading a book.   Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is a printed "book" any more credible than any other source of information?  Print alone is no more "real" than a video presentation ..nor less.
Click to expand...


Of course.   But there are plenty of good sources for information among print media and very few on television.   What is on television tends to be watered down or dramatically oversimplified. 

My point was to pick up a book from those who have actually done the research rather than watch a mockumentary from some shill trying to get ratings.


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the history channel more and you will see them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant.    So you get your science from the history channel.   The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap.    Try reading a book.   Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.
> 
> I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?
Click to expand...


And I from RIT.   

My point is that these shows on the history channel are there for ratings.   They don't give one shit about truth, or real research, study or science.    The truth takes a back seat to ratings every time.

There may be some nut out there proposing such nonsense.   But it's a position held by virtually 0% of serious scientist and yet these shows put them on even footing with theories held by the top minds in the country.     If you watch them for anything more than entertainment you are making a mistake.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant.    So you get your science from the history channel.   The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap.    Try reading a book.   Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is a printed "book" any more credible than any other source of information?  Print alone is no more "real" than a video presentation ..nor less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.   But there are plenty of good sources for information among print media and very few on television.   What is on television tends to be watered down or dramatically oversimplified.
> 
> My point was to pick up a book from those who have actually done the research rather than watch a mockumentary from some shill trying to get ratings.
Click to expand...


You mean many of these men and women that worked very hard for their degrees and built their reputation are gonna put that all at risk over a documentary ? If they did the documentary the way they learned their field in school no one would stick around to watch it.

You mean they lack the credentials to give their opinions ? What is the difference between that summary vs the summary of a Professor in the class room ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant.    So you get your science from the history channel.   The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap.    Try reading a book.   Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.
> 
> I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I from RIT.
> 
> My point is that these shows on the history channel are there for ratings.   They don't give one shit about truth, or real research, study or science.    The truth takes a back seat to ratings every time.
> 
> There may be some nut out there proposing such nonsense.   But it's a position held by virtually 0% of serious scientist and yet these shows put them on even footing with theories held by the top minds in the country.     If you watch them for anything more than entertainment you are making a mistake.
Click to expand...


Of course that television station wants ratings but do you think these men and women would risk their reputations they built over many years for ratings ?


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.
> 
> I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I from RIT.
> 
> My point is that these shows on the history channel are there for ratings.   They don't give one shit about truth, or real research, study or science.    The truth takes a back seat to ratings every time.
> 
> There may be some nut out there proposing such nonsense.   But it's a position held by virtually 0% of serious scientist and yet these shows put them on even footing with theories held by the top minds in the country.     If you watch them for anything more than entertainment you are making a mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course that television station wants ratings but do you think these men and women would risk their reputations they built over many years for ratings ?
Click to expand...


Anyone who would stand by that hypothesis has no reputation to worry about.    They are most likely already labeled a crackpot.    But it does depend somewhat on the phrasing, and this is critical.

If a scientist were to say, "It is possible, extremely unlikely, but theoretically possible, that life as we know it started by little green men showing up and spreading seeds all over the planet."   And a producer took that statement and did an entire 'documentary' on that statement, the scientist can't really be blamed.    

The producer of the show is taking what is seen by everyone of any value as a fringe possibility and putting it out there as if it were a mainstream idea.   

This is what these shows do for ratings.   The more fringe, the more crazy, the more spectacular the notion, the more they love it.   The more play it receives.      So people are left with a skewed notion of what is likely.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I from RIT.
> 
> My point is that these shows on the history channel are there for ratings.   They don't give one shit about truth, or real research, study or science.    The truth takes a back seat to ratings every time.
> 
> There may be some nut out there proposing such nonsense.   But it's a position held by virtually 0% of serious scientist and yet these shows put them on even footing with theories held by the top minds in the country.     If you watch them for anything more than entertainment you are making a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that television station wants ratings but do you think these men and women would risk their reputations they built over many years for ratings ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who would stand by that hypothesis has no reputation to worry about.    They are most likely already labeled a crackpot.    But it does depend somewhat on the phrasing, and this is critical.
> 
> If a scientist were to say, "It is possible, extremely unlikely, but theoretically possible, that life as we know it started by little green men showing up and spreading seeds all over the planet."   And a producer took that statement and did an entire 'documentary' on that statement, the scientist can't really be blamed.
> 
> The producer of the show is taking what is seen by everyone of any value as a fringe possibility and putting it out there as if it were a mainstream idea.
> 
> This is what these shows do for ratings.   The more fringe, the more crazy, the more spectacular the notion, the more they love it.   The more play it receives.      So people are left with a skewed notion of what is likely.
Click to expand...


You can say that for many theories that exist today. Sometimes they are scientists that  appear on the history channel  supporting these theories.  You don't watch the history channel I see.


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that television station wants ratings but do you think these men and women would risk their reputations they built over many years for ratings ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who would stand by that hypothesis has no reputation to worry about.    They are most likely already labeled a crackpot.    But it does depend somewhat on the phrasing, and this is critical.
> 
> If a scientist were to say, "It is possible, extremely unlikely, but theoretically possible, that life as we know it started by little green men showing up and spreading seeds all over the planet."   And a producer took that statement and did an entire 'documentary' on that statement, the scientist can't really be blamed.
> 
> The producer of the show is taking what is seen by everyone of any value as a fringe possibility and putting it out there as if it were a mainstream idea.
> 
> This is what these shows do for ratings.   The more fringe, the more crazy, the more spectacular the notion, the more they love it.   The more play it receives.      So people are left with a skewed notion of what is likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can say that for many theories that exist today. Sometimes they are scientists that  appear on the history channel  supporting these theories.  You don't watch the history channel I see.
Click to expand...


No doubt there are hundreds of thousands of scientist in the world.   So I have no problem believing they can find nuts to be on these shows as "experts".  

And I do watch some history channel.   But it is for entertainment purposes only.    I find American Pickers interesting and funny.   Staged as hell, but entertaining.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is a reason not to trust the theory of evolution. Living fossils refute the idea of gradualism. That is why punctuated Equilibrium became a theory. I like how they try to explain away the non-evidence for gradualism.
> 
> 
> 
> another creationist piece of bullshit propaganda!
> 
> Living fossil
> 
> Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.
> Part of the series on
> Evolution
> 
> Icon evolution.svg
> People
> Charles Darwin
> Gregor Mendel
> Alfred Russel Wallace
> Richard Dawkins
> Jerry Coyne
> 
> Science
> Chimpanzee
> Endurance running hypothesis
> Stephen Jay Gould
> Xenicibis
> 
> Pseudoscience
> Young Earth Creationism
> Old Earth Creationism
> Intelligent Design
> "Microevolution" vs."Macroevolution"
> 
> A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
> A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive.
> 
> The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an innacurate assesment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cainozoic is because the coelacanth's current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens.
> The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago.
> One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian.
> 
> [edit] History of term
> 
> Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted:
> 
> These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3]
> 
> Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution.
> 
> Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it:
> 
> Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4]
> 
> This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains:
> 
> According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6]
> 
> This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis.
> 
> Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> Living fossil - RationalWiki
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Question, how do you know the organisms you refer to are nothing more than similar species gone extinct ? How do you prove they evolved ?
> 
> A dose of reality junior.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
Click to expand...

really? 
not if you got your info from this:



 All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment. Today's living things, with all their perfect features as manifestations of God's superior artistry, possess exactly the same splendor and perfection as their counterparts that existed millions of years ago. Once all evolutionist speculation and claims are eliminated, the fact of creation is revealed for all to see&#8212;albeit in a manner totally unexpected by evolutionists.

"Living fossils" are proofs that all the living things on Earth, past and present, were created from nothing; and that each one, possessing complex and superior attributes, is a miracle of God. This means that in fact, the supposed developmental process that evolutionists claim took place over millions of years never happened at all. Fictitious intermediate forms disappear along with fictitious scena.....http://www.living-fossils.com/4_1.php
 edit for obvious pseudoscience content.

you and reality parted company long ago... that's assuming you ever met at all....and I DON'T assume..


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're not relying on facts you're relying on opinions which in turn is reduced to faith. What are these so called facts ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered..
> example: we know dinosaurs existed as there is evidence to prove it.
> you however, cannot prove any of the events in the bible ever happened.
> there is no quantifiable evidence supporting the narratives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know dinosaurs existed because the Bible says so in the book of Job. Their fossils exist today, because they became so big that when they were finally buried in mud by the Flood their fossilized remains prove much easier to find. Man today is so determined to prove evolution and millions of years that he tosses data out to the contrary and makes "scientific" assumptions that actually contradict what miners have found while digging for minerals. They have to throw in extraterrestrials to make sense of seemingly illogical data being found today...
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the history channel more and you will see them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant.    So you get your science from the history channel.   The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap.    Try reading a book.   Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.
> 
> I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?
Click to expand...

your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's  one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...


----------



## daws101

Truthbetold said:


> The way I see it some of us were created and some of us came from monkeys.  If you really want your ancestry to be primates I'll oblige.  I just came from the side where human beings were created.


yeah the ones at the shallow end of the gene pool.


----------



## daws101

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I from RIT.
> 
> My point is that these shows on the history channel are there for ratings.   They don't give one shit about truth, or real research, study or science.    The truth takes a back seat to ratings every time.
> 
> There may be some nut out there proposing such nonsense.   But it's a position held by virtually 0% of serious scientist and yet these shows put them on even footing with theories held by the top minds in the country.     If you watch them for anything more than entertainment you are making a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that television station wants ratings but do you think these men and women would risk their reputations they built over many years for ratings ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who would stand by that hypothesis has no reputation to worry about.    They are most likely already labeled a crackpot.    But it does depend somewhat on the phrasing, and this is critical.
> 
> If a scientist were to say, "It is possible, extremely unlikely, but theoretically possible, that life as we know it started by little green men showing up and spreading seeds all over the planet."   And a producer took that statement and did an entire 'documentary' on that statement, the scientist can't really be blamed.
> 
> The producer of the show is taking what is seen by everyone of any value as a fringe possibility and putting it out there as if it were a mainstream idea.
> 
> This is what these shows do for ratings.   The more fringe, the more crazy, the more spectacular the notion, the more they love it.   The more play it receives.      So people are left with a skewed notion of what is likely.
Click to expand...

having been in that biz here's what  happens a writer or producer will pitch an show idea if accepted it will be researched then it will be "worked" to fit a target audience.
take a show like ancient aliens or bible secrets reveled ,the producers know from experience and focus groups that most of  target audience has a short attention span  is not, for the most part college educated, so any complex ideas must be presented in the simplest, broadest strokes .
this has more to do with the pace of the show and the attention and retention handicaps of the target viewer then anything else.
other then ratings the reason for this is to make the viewers "think" they actually learned something profound.
for real science, history, and current events documentaries watch PBS..NOVA, NATURE, AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, FRONTLINE are all excellent.


----------



## Underhill

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant.    So you get your science from the history channel.   The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap.    Try reading a book.   Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.
> 
> I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
> in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's  one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...
Click to expand...


Not to nitpick, but 1 in 100 would be 1% of the time...


----------



## daws101

Underhill said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.
> 
> I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?
> 
> 
> 
> your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
> in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's  one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to nitpick, but 1 in 100 would be 1% of the time...
Click to expand...

I did say unless my math is wrong....but thanks!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another creationist piece of bullshit propaganda!
> 
> Living fossil
> 
> Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.
> Part of the series on
> Evolution
> 
> Icon evolution.svg
> People
> Charles Darwin
> Gregor Mendel
> Alfred Russel Wallace
> Richard Dawkins
> Jerry Coyne
> 
> Science
> Chimpanzee
> Endurance running hypothesis
> Stephen Jay Gould
> Xenicibis
> 
> Pseudoscience
> Young Earth Creationism
> Old Earth Creationism
> Intelligent Design
> "Microevolution" vs."Macroevolution"
> 
> A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
> A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive.
> 
> The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an innacurate assesment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cainozoic is because the coelacanth's current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens.
> The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago.
> One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian.
> 
> [edit] History of term
> 
> Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted:
> 
> These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3]
> 
> Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution.
> 
> Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it:
> 
> Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4]
> 
> This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains:
> 
> According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6]
> 
> This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis.
> 
> Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> Living fossil - RationalWiki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question, how do you know the organisms you refer to are nothing more than similar species gone extinct ? How do you prove they evolved ?
> 
> A dose of reality junior.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really?
> not if you got your info from this:
> 
> 
> 
> All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment. Today's living things, with all their perfect features as manifestations of God's superior artistry, possess exactly the same splendor and perfection as their counterparts that existed millions of years ago. Once all evolutionist speculation and claims are eliminated, the fact of creation is revealed for all to see&#8212;albeit in a manner totally unexpected by evolutionists.
> 
> "Living fossils" are proofs that all the living things on Earth, past and present, were created from nothing; and that each one, possessing complex and superior attributes, is a miracle of God. This means that in fact, the supposed developmental process that evolutionists claim took place over millions of years never happened at all. Fictitious intermediate forms disappear along with fictitious scena.....Living-Fossils.com
> edit for obvious pseudoscience content.
> 
> you and reality parted company long ago... that's assuming you ever met at all....and I DON'T assume..
Click to expand...


Why don't you explain the evidence presented ? You have fossils that have been dated from the very very distant past and there is no evolutionary change for the same organism that is alive and well today. why is that daws ?

Did the mechanism for evolution stop working ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant.    So you get your science from the history channel.   The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap.    Try reading a book.   Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.
> 
> I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
> in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's  one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...
Click to expand...


Really Genius ? The point was he was referring to people that hold degrees that believe theories that he does not believe are merely crackpots. Yes my degree in science has plenty to do with what gets discussed in this thread.

It Just burns you up that what I hold a degree in, is beyond your comprehension.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Truthbetold said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it some of us were created and some of us came from monkeys.  If you really want your ancestry to be primates I'll oblige.  I just came from the side where human beings were created.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah the ones at the shallow end of the gene pool.
Click to expand...


How Ironic.

Can you give me a brief summary on gene expression please ? I am gonna give you the strongest evidence for an intelligent designer.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthbetold said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it some of us were created and some of us came from monkeys.  If you really want your ancestry to be primates I'll oblige.  I just came from the side where human beings were created.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah the ones at the shallow end of the gene pool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How Ironic.
> 
> Can you give me a brief summary on gene expression please ? I am gonna give you the strongest evidence for an intelligent designer.
Click to expand...

Please spare us your typical cutting and pasting from fundie websites as alleged "pwoof" of your gawds.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question, how do you know the organisms you refer to are nothing more than similar species gone extinct ? How do you prove they evolved ?
> 
> A dose of reality junior.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> not if you got your info from this:
> 
> 
> 
> All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment. Today's living things, with all their perfect features as manifestations of God's superior artistry, possess exactly the same splendor and perfection as their counterparts that existed millions of years ago. Once all evolutionist speculation and claims are eliminated, the fact of creation is revealed for all to seealbeit in a manner totally unexpected by evolutionists.
> 
> "Living fossils" are proofs that all the living things on Earth, past and present, were created from nothing; and that each one, possessing complex and superior attributes, is a miracle of God. This means that in fact, the supposed developmental process that evolutionists claim took place over millions of years never happened at all. Fictitious intermediate forms disappear along with fictitious scena.....Living-Fossils.com
> edit for obvious pseudoscience content.
> 
> you and reality parted company long ago... that's assuming you ever met at all....and I DON'T assume..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you explain the evidence presented ? You have fossils that have been dated from the very very distant past and there is no evolutionary change for the same organism that is alive and well today. why is that daws ?
> 
> Did the mechanism for evolution stop working ?
Click to expand...


Oh good gawd, man. Not Harun Yahya again.


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.
> 
> I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?
> 
> 
> 
> your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
> in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's  one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really Genius ? The point was he was referring to people that hold degrees that believe theories that he does not believe are merely crackpots. Yes my degree in science has plenty to do with what gets discussed in this thread.
> 
> It Just burns you up that what I hold a degree in, is beyond your comprehension.
Click to expand...


Actually I was referring to serious people in that field of study.   Most of them have degrees I would guess, but there is a bit more to it than that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah the ones at the shallow end of the gene pool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Ironic.
> 
> Can you give me a brief summary on gene expression please ? I am gonna give you the strongest evidence for an intelligent designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please spare us your typical cutting and pasting from fundie websites as alleged "pwoof" of your gawds.
Click to expand...


I don't need to copy and paste as you and your buddies do about things I know about.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> not if you got your info from this:
> 
> 
> 
> All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment. Today's living things, with all their perfect features as manifestations of God's superior artistry, possess exactly the same splendor and perfection as their counterparts that existed millions of years ago. Once all evolutionist speculation and claims are eliminated, the fact of creation is revealed for all to seealbeit in a manner totally unexpected by evolutionists.
> 
> "Living fossils" are proofs that all the living things on Earth, past and present, were created from nothing; and that each one, possessing complex and superior attributes, is a miracle of God. This means that in fact, the supposed developmental process that evolutionists claim took place over millions of years never happened at all. Fictitious intermediate forms disappear along with fictitious scena.....Living-Fossils.com
> edit for obvious pseudoscience content.
> 
> you and reality parted company long ago... that's assuming you ever met at all....and I DON'T assume..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you explain the evidence presented ? You have fossils that have been dated from the very very distant past and there is no evolutionary change for the same organism that is alive and well today. why is that daws ?
> 
> Did the mechanism for evolution stop working ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh good gawd, man. Not Harun Yahya again.
Click to expand...


Good Lord another dodge of the evidence


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.
> 
> I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?
> 
> 
> 
> your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
> in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's  one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really Genius ? The point was he was referring to people that hold degrees that believe theories that he does not believe are merely crackpots. Yes my degree in science has plenty to do with what gets discussed in this thread.
> 
> It Just burns you up that what I hold a degree in, is beyond your comprehension.
Click to expand...


By degree do you mean "Dr."? By a respected college?  I find it astonishing that someone could invest that much time in the quest for learning and be co-signed by teaching authorities to receive a high degree and still believe in a god in this day and age.  It does not say much for the education when what someone "wants" to believe is verified by what someone else "wants" to teach even though ALL evidense suggests otherwise and NO evidense supports it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Underhill said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
> in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's  one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really Genius ? The point was he was referring to people that hold degrees that believe theories that he does not believe are merely crackpots. Yes my degree in science has plenty to do with what gets discussed in this thread.
> 
> It Just burns you up that what I hold a degree in, is beyond your comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I was referring to serious people in that field of study.   Most of them have degrees I would guess, but there is a bit more to it than that.
Click to expand...


Of course there are and by the way I don't believe that theory either.

Stephen Hawking has appeared on both the discovery channel and the History channel you can add Jane Goodall and James Hansen to that list as well of well known scientist that participated in documentaries on these channels.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
> in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's  one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really Genius ? The point was he was referring to people that hold degrees that believe theories that he does not believe are merely crackpots. Yes my degree in science has plenty to do with what gets discussed in this thread.
> 
> It Just burns you up that what I hold a degree in, is beyond your comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By degree do you mean "Dr."? By a respected college?  I find it astonishing that someone could invest that much time in the quest for learning and be co-signed by teaching authorities to receive a high degree and still believe in a god in this day and age.  It does not say much for the education when what someone "wants" to believe is verified by what someone else "wants" to teach even though ALL evidense suggests otherwise and NO evidense supports it.
Click to expand...


My education has been discussed many times here and yes from the University of Arizona. Sorry to bust your bubble but there are many of us.


----------



## Underhill

Youwerecreated said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really Genius ? The point was he was referring to people that hold degrees that believe theories that he does not believe are merely crackpots. Yes my degree in science has plenty to do with what gets discussed in this thread.
> 
> It Just burns you up that what I hold a degree in, is beyond your comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I was referring to serious people in that field of study.   Most of them have degrees I would guess, but there is a bit more to it than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there are and by the way I don't believe that theory either.
> 
> Stephen Hawking has appeared on both the discovery channel and the History channel you can add Jane Goodall and James Hansen to that list as well of well known scientist that participated in documentaries on these channels.
Click to expand...


Yes, did I say everything on these channels is shit?

No.

But just because a program is on the history channel and has some "expert" talking to the camera does not make it factual or an indicator of the scientific community at large.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really Genius ? The point was he was referring to people that hold degrees that believe theories that he does not believe are merely crackpots. Yes my degree in science has plenty to do with what gets discussed in this thread.
> 
> It Just burns you up that what I hold a degree in, is beyond your comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By degree do you mean "Dr."? By a respected college?  I find it astonishing that someone could invest that much time in the quest for learning and be co-signed by teaching authorities to receive a high degree and still believe in a god in this day and age.  It does not say much for the education when what someone "wants" to believe is verified by what someone else "wants" to teach even though ALL evidense suggests otherwise and NO evidense supports it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *My education has been discussed many times here *and yes from the University of Arizona. Sorry to bust your bubble but there are many of us.
Click to expand...


That might be valuable 411 in a thread that has ten pages or less.  No one is going to research 1066 pages to get "up to speed" on your education.  I don't fault an uneducated person with a low IQ believing in fantasy as the reason why we are here.  It doesn't bode well for humanity that apparently so many go to college in the hopes of actually learning something close to the truth and end up believing nonsense.  If I were you I would sue U of A for fraud.  They should just give you back what you paid in tuition.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you explain the evidence presented ? You have fossils that have been dated from the very very distant past and there is no evolutionary change for the same organism that is alive and well today. why is that daws ?
> 
> Did the mechanism for evolution stop working ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good gawd, man. Not Harun Yahya again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good Lord another dodge of the evidence
Click to expand...


Dodge what evidence? You did nothing but cut and paste from a site and and individual that preys upon the gullible and those with a predefined agenda.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Ironic.
> 
> Can you give me a brief summary on gene expression please ? I am gonna give you the strongest evidence for an intelligent designer.
> 
> 
> 
> Please spare us your typical cutting and pasting from fundie websites as alleged "pwoof" of your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to copy and paste as you and your buddies do about things I know about.
Click to expand...

So much of what you "know about" is simply material that is cut and pasted from charlatans who are pressing a religious agenda. 

Promoting ignorance and superstition as furthered by Harun Yahya is hardly relevant to grown-up conversation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> By degree do you mean "Dr."? By a respected college?  I find it astonishing that someone could invest that much time in the quest for learning and be co-signed by teaching authorities to receive a high degree and still believe in a god in this day and age.  It does not say much for the education when what someone "wants" to believe is verified by what someone else "wants" to teach even though ALL evidense suggests otherwise and NO evidense supports it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *My education has been discussed many times here *and yes from the University of Arizona. Sorry to bust your bubble but there are many of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That might be valuable 411 in a thread that has ten pages or less.  No one is going to research 1066 pages to get "up to speed" on your education.  I don't fault an uneducated person with a low IQ believing in fantasy as the reason why we are here.  It doesn't bode well for humanity that apparently so many go to college in the hopes of actually learning something close to the truth and end up believing nonsense.  If I were you I would sue U of A for fraud.  They should just give you back what you paid in tuition.
Click to expand...


Why would I do that ? it's because of my education and the Job that came from that education that has me where I am today.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good gawd, man. Not Harun Yahya again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord another dodge of the evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodge what evidence? You did nothing but cut and paste from a site and and individual that preys upon the gullible and those with a predefined agenda.
Click to expand...


I posted a link containing real evidence that you're are scoffing at which shows your IQ by not responding to the evidence. Once again you show you are a complete Ideologue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please spare us your typical cutting and pasting from fundie websites as alleged "pwoof" of your gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to copy and paste as you and your buddies do about things I know about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much of what you "know about" is simply material that is cut and pasted from charlatans who are pressing a religious agenda.
> 
> Promoting ignorance and superstition as furthered by Harun Yahya is hardly relevant to grown-up conversation.
Click to expand...


Here is your chance to show your accusation contains credibility. I asked a question that your side is avoiding why ? let's hear it and then I will respond to your response if you have one oh and by all means stick to your own words You made the rules.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question, how do you know the organisms you refer to are nothing more than similar species gone extinct ? How do you prove they evolved ?
> 
> A dose of reality junior.
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> not if you got your info from this:
> 
> 
> 
> All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment. Today's living things, with all their perfect features as manifestations of God's superior artistry, possess exactly the same splendor and perfection as their counterparts that existed millions of years ago. Once all evolutionist speculation and claims are eliminated, the fact of creation is revealed for all to seealbeit in a manner totally unexpected by evolutionists.
> 
> "Living fossils" are proofs that all the living things on Earth, past and present, were created from nothing; and that each one, possessing complex and superior attributes, is a miracle of God. This means that in fact, the supposed developmental process that evolutionists claim took place over millions of years never happened at all. Fictitious intermediate forms disappear along with fictitious scena.....Living-Fossils.com
> edit for obvious pseudoscience content.
> 
> you and reality parted company long ago... that's assuming you ever met at all....and I DON'T assume..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you explain the evidence presented ? You have fossils that have been dated from the very very distant past and there is no evolutionary change for the same organism that is alive and well today. why is that daws ?
> 
> Did the mechanism for evolution stop working ?
Click to expand...

you do understand that those fossils existence refutes your whole argument, in one deft stroke, they destroy your 10,000 to 6000 year fantasy TIME LINE.
but to answer, the environmental pressure to evolve further was either not strong enough or that species had reached it's evolutionary peak.
as always your question is not a question but a desperate attempt equate your myth with actual evidence.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.
> 
> I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?
> 
> 
> 
> your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
> in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's  one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really Genius ? The point was he was referring to people that hold degrees that believe theories that he does not believe are merely crackpots. Yes my degree in science has plenty to do with what gets discussed in this thread.
> 
> It Just burns you up that what I hold a degree in, is beyond your comprehension.
Click to expand...

lol!
your degree has absolutely nothing in common with the faith /pseudoscience BullShit you spew.
oh yeah my degrees can beat up your degree...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthbetold said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it some of us were created and some of us came from monkeys.  If you really want your ancestry to be primates I'll oblige.  I just came from the side where human beings were created.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah the ones at the shallow end of the gene pool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How Ironic.
> 
> Can you give me a brief summary on gene expression please ? I am gonna give you the strongest evidence for an intelligent designer.
Click to expand...

none is the strongest evidence you have.
anything else you present is conjecture based on a false premise..
I win...neener neener neener.....


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> not if you got your info from this:
> 
> 
> 
> All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment. Today's living things, with all their perfect features as manifestations of God's superior artistry, possess exactly the same splendor and perfection as their counterparts that existed millions of years ago. Once all evolutionist speculation and claims are eliminated, the fact of creation is revealed for all to seealbeit in a manner totally unexpected by evolutionists.
> 
> "Living fossils" are proofs that all the living things on Earth, past and present, were created from nothing; and that each one, possessing complex and superior attributes, is a miracle of God. This means that in fact, the supposed developmental process that evolutionists claim took place over millions of years never happened at all. Fictitious intermediate forms disappear along with fictitious scena.....Living-Fossils.com
> edit for obvious pseudoscience content.
> 
> you and reality parted company long ago... that's assuming you ever met at all....and I DON'T assume..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you explain the evidence presented ? You have fossils that have been dated from the very very distant past and there is no evolutionary change for the same organism that is alive and well today. why is that daws ?
> 
> Did the mechanism for evolution stop working ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh good gawd, man. Not Harun Yahya again.
Click to expand...

guess he was in such a hurry to post anything to bolster his wounded ego, that he never saw the disclaimer on that site's home page which reads : this site is based on the works of  Harun Yahya.
ywc has claimed he has never read or used that author's steaming piles...but not any more!


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> By degree do you mean "Dr."? By a respected college?  I find it astonishing that someone could invest that much time in the quest for learning and be co-signed by teaching authorities to receive a high degree and still believe in a god in this day and age.  It does not say much for the education when what someone "wants" to believe is verified by what someone else "wants" to teach even though ALL evidense suggests otherwise and NO evidense supports it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *My education has been discussed many times here *and yes from the University of Arizona. Sorry to bust your bubble but there are many of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That might be valuable 411 in a thread that has ten pages or less.  No one is going to research 1066 pages to get "up to speed" on your education.  I don't fault an uneducated person with a low IQ believing in fantasy as the reason why we are here.  It doesn't bode well for humanity that apparently so many go to college in the hopes of actually learning something close to the truth and end up believing nonsense.  If I were you I would sue U of A for fraud.  They should just give you back what you paid in tuition.
Click to expand...

he does toss that little gem around a lot.
I have three degrees along with  a master electrician's cert, carpenters cert, a Sam's club membership and a laser tag id..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *My education has been discussed many times here *and yes from the University of Arizona. Sorry to bust your bubble but there are many of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That might be valuable 411 in a thread that has ten pages or less.  No one is going to research 1066 pages to get "up to speed" on your education.  I don't fault an uneducated person with a low IQ believing in fantasy as the reason why we are here.  It doesn't bode well for humanity that apparently so many go to college in the hopes of actually learning something close to the truth and end up believing nonsense.  If I were you I would sue U of A for fraud.  They should just give you back what you paid in tuition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I do that ? it's because of my education and the Job that came from that education that has me where I am today.
Click to expand...

so which lie is the closet to the truth? the one you just told or the one about your mining operation that got you where you are to day?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord another dodge of the evidence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge what evidence? You did nothing but cut and paste from a site and and individual that preys upon the gullible and those with a predefined agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted a link containing real evidence that you're are scoffing at which shows your IQ by not responding to the evidence. Once again you show you are a complete Ideologue.
Click to expand...

the link you posted ABOUT THE SITE 


fossil is the remains or traces of a plant or animal that have been preserved in the Earth's crust down to the present day. Fossils collected from all over the world are our most important source of information about the species that have existed on Earth since life began.



 Below left: a Caddis fly in amber, between 50 and 45 million years old. 

To its right: a tropical stingless bee in 24-million-year-old Dominican amber.

At top right:  termites trapped in an amber, 25 million years old.


The skeletons of living things whose contact with the air was suddenly interrupted have come down, often perfectly preserved, to the present day. Research into these fossils permits us to learn increasingly detailed information about extinct animals or plants. Most basically, this information also tells us about which living things existed during which period.

For evolutionists, fossil specimens, often hundreds of millions of years old, are all tools they can use in line with their own theories. Evolutionists take a fossil, link it arbitrarily to some present-day species, and then claim that the fossil is the ancestor of the living organism in question. Upon this premise, they then construct dramatic and detailed scenarios. If the fossil in question is a fish, for example, they claim on the basis of a few bones that it possesses primitive features, newly developing organs and limbs in the process of undergoing a transition to a "higher" life form. They write books about the creature, hold conferences, and exhibit it as the intermediate form or "missing link" they have been seeking for so long.

That is, until they find themselves looking at a living specimen of this supposedly extinct creature!

When a living thing emerges in the same form it was known to have existed in millions of years ago, it of course demolishes all the evolutionist fables told about it. Its simple presence demonstrates that a living organism that&#8212;according to Darwinists' claims&#8212;should have undergone considerable evolution after the course of millions of years, somehow remained immune to the process. Moreover, it proves that at a time when, again according to evolution, only primitive forms of life were in existence, fully developed life forms with complex features and their own unique structures were already thriving. The creature that evolutionists imagine to be "primitive" is in fact nothing of the sort. In other words, the deceptive nature of invalid claims regarding "transition from a single-celled organism," "an intermediate form" and "a primitive life-form" is soon realized. Eventually, important evidence proves that the "process of gradual evolution" is nothing but a myth.

All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment. Today's living things, with all their perfect features as manifestations of God's superior artistry, possess exactly the same splendor and perfection as their counterparts that existed millions of years ago. Once all evolutionist speculation and claims are eliminated, the fact of creation is revealed for all to see&#8212;albeit in a manner totally unexpected by evolutionists.

"Living fossils" are proofs that all the living things on Earth, past and present, were created from nothing; and that each one, possessing complex and superior attributes, is a miracle of God. This means that in fact, the supposed developmental process that evolutionists claim took place over millions of years never happened at all. Fictitious intermediate forms disappear along with fictitious scenarios.



: is to a creationist bullshit site, it has no evidence...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> not if you got your info from this:
> 
> 
> 
> All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment. Today's living things, with all their perfect features as manifestations of God's superior artistry, possess exactly the same splendor and perfection as their counterparts that existed millions of years ago. Once all evolutionist speculation and claims are eliminated, the fact of creation is revealed for all to seealbeit in a manner totally unexpected by evolutionists.
> 
> "Living fossils" are proofs that all the living things on Earth, past and present, were created from nothing; and that each one, possessing complex and superior attributes, is a miracle of God. This means that in fact, the supposed developmental process that evolutionists claim took place over millions of years never happened at all. Fictitious intermediate forms disappear along with fictitious scena.....Living-Fossils.com
> edit for obvious pseudoscience content.
> 
> you and reality parted company long ago... that's assuming you ever met at all....and I DON'T assume..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you explain the evidence presented ? You have fossils that have been dated from the very very distant past and there is no evolutionary change for the same organism that is alive and well today. why is that daws ?
> 
> Did the mechanism for evolution stop working ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you do understand that those fossils existence refutes your whole argument, in one deft stroke, they destroy your 10,000 to 6000 year fantasy TIME LINE.
> but to answer, the environmental pressure to evolve further was either not strong enough or that species had reached it's evolutionary peak.
> as always your question is not a question but a desperate attempt equate your myth with actual evidence.
Click to expand...


You do not fully understand your mechanism of evolution do you ? Hold on there partner,those are not dates I trust, I am just showing how your fellow believers in the faith step on each others toes with their theories.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
> in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's  one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really Genius ? The point was he was referring to people that hold degrees that believe theories that he does not believe are merely crackpots. Yes my degree in science has plenty to do with what gets discussed in this thread.
> 
> It Just burns you up that what I hold a degree in, is beyond your comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol!
> your degree has absolutely nothing in common with the faith /pseudoscience BullShit you spew.
> oh yeah my degrees can beat up your degree...
Click to expand...


Daws if you cannot keep up please take notes


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah the ones at the shallow end of the gene pool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Ironic.
> 
> Can you give me a brief summary on gene expression please ? I am gonna give you the strongest evidence for an intelligent designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> none is the strongest evidence you have.
> anything else you present is conjecture based on a false premise..
> I win...neener neener neener.....
Click to expand...


If you understood gene expression and the evidence I was gonna give you once you gave a brief summary you would see once again you're wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you explain the evidence presented ? You have fossils that have been dated from the very very distant past and there is no evolutionary change for the same organism that is alive and well today. why is that daws ?
> 
> Did the mechanism for evolution stop working ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good gawd, man. Not Harun Yahya again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> guess he was in such a hurry to post anything to bolster his wounded ego, that he never saw the disclaimer on that site's home page which reads : this site is based on the works of  Harun Yahya.
> ywc has claimed he has never read or used that author's steaming piles...but not any more!
Click to expand...


I am not sure which one of you are less intelligent.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That might be valuable 411 in a thread that has ten pages or less.  No one is going to research 1066 pages to get "up to speed" on your education.  I don't fault an uneducated person with a low IQ believing in fantasy as the reason why we are here.  It doesn't bode well for humanity that apparently so many go to college in the hopes of actually learning something close to the truth and end up believing nonsense.  If I were you I would sue U of A for fraud.  They should just give you back what you paid in tuition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I do that ? it's because of my education and the Job that came from that education that has me where I am today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so which lie is the closet to the truth? the one you just told or the one about your mining operation that got you where you are to day?
Click to expand...


I made good money while working in the field as a Lab Tech but I made a killing because of the beating the dollar has taken due to incompetent leadership of this country. My mining business is doing very well. Sorry you can't read when someone goes on the record about himself and puts it into simple terms.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge what evidence? You did nothing but cut and paste from a site and and individual that preys upon the gullible and those with a predefined agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a link containing real evidence that you're are scoffing at which shows your IQ by not responding to the evidence. Once again you show you are a complete Ideologue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the link you posted ABOUT THE SITE
> 
> 
> fossil is the remains or traces of a plant or animal that have been preserved in the Earth's crust down to the present day. Fossils collected from all over the world are our most important source of information about the species that have existed on Earth since life began.
> 
> 
> 
> Below left: a Caddis fly in amber, between 50 and 45 million years old.
> 
> To its right: a tropical stingless bee in 24-million-year-old Dominican amber.
> 
> At top right:  termites trapped in an amber, 25 million years old.
> 
> 
> The skeletons of living things whose contact with the air was suddenly interrupted have come down, often perfectly preserved, to the present day. Research into these fossils permits us to learn increasingly detailed information about extinct animals or plants. Most basically, this information also tells us about which living things existed during which period.
> 
> For evolutionists, fossil specimens, often hundreds of millions of years old, are all tools they can use in line with their own theories. Evolutionists take a fossil, link it arbitrarily to some present-day species, and then claim that the fossil is the ancestor of the living organism in question. Upon this premise, they then construct dramatic and detailed scenarios. If the fossil in question is a fish, for example, they claim on the basis of a few bones that it possesses primitive features, newly developing organs and limbs in the process of undergoing a transition to a "higher" life form. They write books about the creature, hold conferences, and exhibit it as the intermediate form or "missing link" they have been seeking for so long.
> 
> That is, until they find themselves looking at a living specimen of this supposedly extinct creature!
> 
> When a living thing emerges in the same form it was known to have existed in millions of years ago, it of course demolishes all the evolutionist fables told about it. Its simple presence demonstrates that a living organism thataccording to Darwinists' claimsshould have undergone considerable evolution after the course of millions of years, somehow remained immune to the process. Moreover, it proves that at a time when, again according to evolution, only primitive forms of life were in existence, fully developed life forms with complex features and their own unique structures were already thriving. The creature that evolutionists imagine to be "primitive" is in fact nothing of the sort. In other words, the deceptive nature of invalid claims regarding "transition from a single-celled organism," "an intermediate form" and "a primitive life-form" is soon realized. Eventually, important evidence proves that the "process of gradual evolution" is nothing but a myth.
> 
> All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment. Today's living things, with all their perfect features as manifestations of God's superior artistry, possess exactly the same splendor and perfection as their counterparts that existed millions of years ago. Once all evolutionist speculation and claims are eliminated, the fact of creation is revealed for all to seealbeit in a manner totally unexpected by evolutionists.
> 
> "Living fossils" are proofs that all the living things on Earth, past and present, were created from nothing; and that each one, possessing complex and superior attributes, is a miracle of God. This means that in fact, the supposed developmental process that evolutionists claim took place over millions of years never happened at all. Fictitious intermediate forms disappear along with fictitious scenarios.
> 
> 
> 
> : is to a creationist bullshit site, it has no evidence...
Click to expand...


Daws where do you think the story of Jurassic park came from ? you really can't be this ignorant can you ?

There are lots of fossils preserved in many different ways that have been dated way back in time.


----------



## LittleNipper

Here is something on fossil formation from a Christian perspective; however, the quickness with which they must form is something that evolutionists would be in agreement with.
How Fast? - Answers in Genesis


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really Genius ? The point was he was referring to people that hold degrees that believe theories that he does not believe are merely crackpots. Yes my degree in science has plenty to do with what gets discussed in this thread.
> 
> It Just burns you up that what I hold a degree in, is beyond your comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By degree do you mean "Dr."? By a respected college?  I find it astonishing that someone could invest that much time in the quest for learning and be co-signed by teaching authorities to receive a high degree and still believe in a god in this day and age.  It does not say much for the education when what someone "wants" to believe is verified by what someone else "wants" to teach even though ALL evidense suggests otherwise and NO evidense supports it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My education has been discussed many times here and yes from the University of Arizona. Sorry to bust your bubble but there are many of us.
Click to expand...


I don't have a bubble.  But, thanks for your apology even as misguided as it is.  Recognising that there is a problem is the first step.  Lying is a problem.  Wraping a lot of words around a lie makes it no less a lie.  You only seek to make the truth harder to discover.  I think that when you undress the "onion" and peel away the layers of your education and peer back into your youth we will find the truth of what you have been hiding.  You did not "discover" god in your education. You have been carrying this mental disease all along since you indoctrination as a much younger man.  Now you find some who are challenging the core of your philosophy.  Your "education" gave you the tools to debate.  It is a shame you waste them like this.  The ability to argue can be applied to any premis.  Yours is nonsense.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord another dodge of the evidence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge what evidence? You did nothing but cut and paste from a site and and individual that preys upon the gullible and those with a predefined agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted a link containing real evidence that you're are scoffing at which shows your IQ by not responding to the evidence. Once again you show you are a complete Ideologue.
Click to expand...


You posted a link to a creationist charlatan. 

How sad that you expect anyone to take Harun Yahya seriously.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> By degree do you mean "Dr."? By a respected college?  I find it astonishing that someone could invest that much time in the quest for learning and be co-signed by teaching authorities to receive a high degree and still believe in a god in this day and age.  It does not say much for the education when what someone "wants" to believe is verified by what someone else "wants" to teach even though ALL evidense suggests otherwise and NO evidense supports it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My education has been discussed many times here and yes from the University of Arizona. Sorry to bust your bubble but there are many of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a bubble.  But, thanks for your apology even as misguided as it is.  Recognising that there is a problem is the first step.  Lying is a problem.  Wraping a lot of words around a lie makes it no less a lie.  You only seek to make the truth harder to discover.  I think that when you undress the "onion" and peel away the layers of your education and peer back into your youth we will find the truth of what you have been hiding.  You did not "discover" god in your education. You have been carrying this mental disease all along since you indoctrination as a much younger man.  Now you find some who are challenging the core of your philosophy.  Your "education" gave you the tools to debate.  It is a shame you waste them like this.  The ability to argue can be applied to any premis.  Yours is nonsense.
Click to expand...


Wow the truth is not hard to come by however trying to remember Biological fantasies of others is. Not all science and theories are nonsense only the ideological theories are. I was once brainwashed that is correct but not concerning the creator.

I do not waste my education I share it with others. I stopped visiting this thread for a while because this is where it usually winds up,me trying to get your side to think and be honest with themselves but it turns into a slander party. That is fine that is what happens when you can't really defend your faith. Have a nice day.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge what evidence? You did nothing but cut and paste from a site and and individual that preys upon the gullible and those with a predefined agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a link containing real evidence that you're are scoffing at which shows your IQ by not responding to the evidence. Once again you show you are a complete Ideologue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You posted a link to a creationist charlatan.
> 
> How sad that you expect anyone to take Harun Yahya seriously.
Click to expand...


Oh boy


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you explain the evidence presented ? You have fossils that have been dated from the very very distant past and there is no evolutionary change for the same organism that is alive and well today. why is that daws ?
> 
> Did the mechanism for evolution stop working ?
> 
> 
> 
> you do understand that those fossils existence refutes your whole argument, in one deft stroke, they destroy your 10,000 to 6000 year fantasy TIME LINE.
> but to answer, the environmental pressure to evolve further was either not strong enough or that species had reached it's evolutionary peak.
> as always your question is not a question but a desperate attempt equate your myth with actual evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not fully understand your mechanism of evolution do you ? Hold on there partner,those are not dates I trust, I am just showing how your fellow believers in the faith step on each others toes with their theories.
Click to expand...

as a matter of fact I do. .I could give a shit about your trust issues.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really Genius ? The point was he was referring to people that hold degrees that believe theories that he does not believe are merely crackpots. Yes my degree in science has plenty to do with what gets discussed in this thread.
> 
> It Just burns you up that what I hold a degree in, is beyond your comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> lol!
> your degree has absolutely nothing in common with the faith /pseudoscience BullShit you spew.
> oh yeah my degrees can beat up your degree...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws if you cannot keep up please take notes
Click to expand...

dodge  asshat


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Ironic.
> 
> Can you give me a brief summary on gene expression please ? I am gonna give you the strongest evidence for an intelligent designer.
> 
> 
> 
> none is the strongest evidence you have.
> anything else you present is conjecture based on a false premise..
> I win...neener neener neener.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you understood gene expression and the evidence I was gonna give you once you gave a brief summary you would see once again you're wrong.
Click to expand...

you were going to give? 
what to chicken shit to present it? as it it's most likely pseudoscience.
I've  never been wrong yet about the total lack of scientific credibility of your false evidence..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good gawd, man. Not Harun Yahya again.
> 
> 
> 
> guess he was in such a hurry to post anything to bolster his wounded ego, that he never saw the disclaimer on that site's home page which reads : this site is based on the works of  Harun Yahya.
> ywc has claimed he has never read or used that author's steaming piles...but not any more!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure which one of you are less intelligent.
Click to expand...

 less intelligent then you? that's something I'll never have to worry about...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I do that ? it's because of my education and the Job that came from that education that has me where I am today.
> 
> 
> 
> so which lie is the closet to the truth? the one you just told or the one about your mining operation that got you where you are to day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made good money while working in the field as a Lab Tech but I made a killing because of the beating the dollar has taken due to incompetent leadership of this country. My mining business is doing very well. Sorry you can't read when someone goes on the record about himself and puts it into simple terms.
Click to expand...

you do realize you're not making any sense..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a link containing real evidence that you're are scoffing at which shows your IQ by not responding to the evidence. Once again you show you are a complete Ideologue.
> 
> 
> 
> the link you posted ABOUT THE SITE
> 
> 
> fossil is the remains or traces of a plant or animal that have been preserved in the Earth's crust down to the present day. Fossils collected from all over the world are our most important source of information about the species that have existed on Earth since life began.
> 
> 
> 
> Below left: a Caddis fly in amber, between 50 and 45 million years old.
> 
> To its right: a tropical stingless bee in 24-million-year-old Dominican amber.
> 
> At top right:  termites trapped in an amber, 25 million years old.
> 
> 
> The skeletons of living things whose contact with the air was suddenly interrupted have come down, often perfectly preserved, to the present day. Research into these fossils permits us to learn increasingly detailed information about extinct animals or plants. Most basically, this information also tells us about which living things existed during which period.
> 
> For evolutionists, fossil specimens, often hundreds of millions of years old, are all tools they can use in line with their own theories. Evolutionists take a fossil, link it arbitrarily to some present-day species, and then claim that the fossil is the ancestor of the living organism in question. Upon this premise, they then construct dramatic and detailed scenarios. If the fossil in question is a fish, for example, they claim on the basis of a few bones that it possesses primitive features, newly developing organs and limbs in the process of undergoing a transition to a "higher" life form. They write books about the creature, hold conferences, and exhibit it as the intermediate form or "missing link" they have been seeking for so long.
> 
> That is, until they find themselves looking at a living specimen of this supposedly extinct creature!
> 
> When a living thing emerges in the same form it was known to have existed in millions of years ago, it of course demolishes all the evolutionist fables told about it. Its simple presence demonstrates that a living organism thataccording to Darwinists' claimsshould have undergone considerable evolution after the course of millions of years, somehow remained immune to the process. Moreover, it proves that at a time when, again according to evolution, only primitive forms of life were in existence, fully developed life forms with complex features and their own unique structures were already thriving. The creature that evolutionists imagine to be "primitive" is in fact nothing of the sort. In other words, the deceptive nature of invalid claims regarding "transition from a single-celled organism," "an intermediate form" and "a primitive life-form" is soon realized. Eventually, important evidence proves that the "process of gradual evolution" is nothing but a myth.
> 
> All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment. Today's living things, with all their perfect features as manifestations of God's superior artistry, possess exactly the same splendor and perfection as their counterparts that existed millions of years ago. Once all evolutionist speculation and claims are eliminated, the fact of creation is revealed for all to seealbeit in a manner totally unexpected by evolutionists.
> 
> "Living fossils" are proofs that all the living things on Earth, past and present, were created from nothing; and that each one, possessing complex and superior attributes, is a miracle of God. This means that in fact, the supposed developmental process that evolutionists claim took place over millions of years never happened at all. Fictitious intermediate forms disappear along with fictitious scenarios.
> 
> 
> 
> : is to a creationist bullshit site, it has no evidence...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws where do you think the story of Jurassic park came from ? you really can't be this ignorant can you ?
> 
> There are lots of fossils preserved in many different ways that have been dated way back in time.
Click to expand...

is to a creationist bullshit site, it has no evidence


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> Here is something on fossil formation from a Christian perspective; however, the quickness with which they must form is something that evolutionists would be in agreement with.
> How Fast? - Answers in Genesis


not credible ...false premise.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My education has been discussed many times here and yes from the University of Arizona. Sorry to bust your bubble but there are many of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a bubble.  But, thanks for your apology even as misguided as it is.  Recognising that there is a problem is the first step.  Lying is a problem.  Wraping a lot of words around a lie makes it no less a lie.  You only seek to make the truth harder to discover.  I think that when you undress the "onion" and peel away the layers of your education and peer back into your youth we will find the truth of what you have been hiding.  You did not "discover" god in your education. You have been carrying this mental disease all along since you indoctrination as a much younger man.  Now you find some who are challenging the core of your philosophy.  Your "education" gave you the tools to debate.  It is a shame you waste them like this.  The ability to argue can be applied to any premis.  Yours is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow the truth is not hard to come by however trying to remember Biological fantasies of others is. Not all science and theories are nonsense only the ideological theories are. I was once brainwashed that is correct but not concerning the creator.
> 
> I do not waste my education I share it with others. I stopped visiting this thread for a while because this is where it usually winds up,me trying to get your side to think and be honest with themselves but it turns into a slander party. That is fine that is what happens when you can't really defend your faith. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

another hubris laden pile of nonsense....btw ywc no one is trying to get you on "OUR" SIDE.
YOU AND YOUR CREATIONIST circle jerkers are the ones who drew the imaginary line in the sand....


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so which lie is the closet to the truth? the one you just told or the one about your mining operation that got you where you are to day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made good money while working in the field as a Lab Tech but I made a killing because of the beating the dollar has taken due to incompetent leadership of this country. My mining business is doing very well. Sorry you can't read when someone goes on the record about himself and puts it into simple terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you do realize you're not making any sense..
Click to expand...

 

You have something wrong with you.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made good money while working in the field as a Lab Tech but I made a killing because of the beating the dollar has taken due to incompetent leadership of this country. My mining business is doing very well. Sorry you can't read when someone goes on the record about himself and puts it into simple terms.
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize you're not making any sense..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have something wrong with you.
Click to expand...

(place irony here)


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you do understand that those fossils existence refutes your whole argument, in one deft stroke, they destroy your 10,000 to 6000 year fantasy TIME LINE.
> but to answer, the environmental pressure to evolve further was either not strong enough or that species had reached it's evolutionary peak.
> as always your question is not a question but a desperate attempt equate your myth with actual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not fully understand your mechanism of evolution do you ? Hold on there partner,those are not dates I trust, I am just showing how your fellow believers in the faith step on each others toes with their theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as a matter of fact I do. .I could give a shit about your trust issues.
Click to expand...


No you really don't or you would have addressed my earlier question about the mechanism for no longer happening.

Here is a clue for you mutations never stop happening silly.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> none is the strongest evidence you have.
> anything else you present is conjecture based on a false premise..
> I win...neener neener neener.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you understood gene expression and the evidence I was gonna give you once you gave a brief summary you would see once again you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you were going to give?
> what to chicken shit to present it? as it it's most likely pseudoscience.
> I've  never been wrong yet about the total lack of scientific credibility of your false evidence..
Click to expand...


I am waiting on you to go on the record and make your commitment.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so which lie is the closet to the truth? the one you just told or the one about your mining operation that got you where you are to day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made good money while working in the field as a Lab Tech but I made a killing because of the beating the dollar has taken due to incompetent leadership of this country. My mining business is doing very well. Sorry you can't read when someone goes on the record about himself and puts it into simple terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you do realize you're not making any sense..
Click to expand...


Sure I am making sense the money I made as a lab Tech allowed me to invest in mining. When the currency takes a beating by from incompetent leaders by printing money when they have nothing to  back drives down the value of the currency and drives up the price of precious metals.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something on fossil formation from a Christian perspective; however, the quickness with which they must form is something that evolutionists would be in agreement with.
> How Fast? - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> not credible ...false premise.
Click to expand...


You have no background in science so you pretty much are speaking out of your butt.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a bubble.  But, thanks for your apology even as misguided as it is.  Recognising that there is a problem is the first step.  Lying is a problem.  Wraping a lot of words around a lie makes it no less a lie.  You only seek to make the truth harder to discover.  I think that when you undress the "onion" and peel away the layers of your education and peer back into your youth we will find the truth of what you have been hiding.  You did not "discover" god in your education. You have been carrying this mental disease all along since you indoctrination as a much younger man.  Now you find some who are challenging the core of your philosophy.  Your "education" gave you the tools to debate.  It is a shame you waste them like this.  The ability to argue can be applied to any premis.  Yours is nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow the truth is not hard to come by however trying to remember Biological fantasies of others is. Not all science and theories are nonsense only the ideological theories are. I was once brainwashed that is correct but not concerning the creator.
> 
> I do not waste my education I share it with others. I stopped visiting this thread for a while because this is where it usually winds up,me trying to get your side to think and be honest with themselves but it turns into a slander party. That is fine that is what happens when you can't really defend your faith. Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another hubris laden pile of nonsense....btw ywc no one is trying to get you on "OUR" SIDE.
> YOU AND YOUR CREATIONIST circle jerkers are the ones who drew the imaginary line in the sand....
Click to expand...


Seeing your responses you need me


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize you're not making any sense..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have something wrong with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (place irony here)
Click to expand...


Place a picture of you here.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Now that I have managed to rattle you and Hollie I am out.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not fully understand your mechanism of evolution do you ? Hold on there partner,those are not dates I trust, I am just showing how your fellow believers in the faith step on each others toes with their theories.
> 
> 
> 
> as a matter of fact I do. .I could give a shit about your trust issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you really don't or you would have addressed my earlier question about the mechanism for no longer happening.
> 
> Here is a clue for you mutations never stop happening silly.
Click to expand...

obviously they do or the  coelacanth would have by you no logic logic,  mutated in to something else by now
I did address you non question, evolution /mutation never stop ,that's true.
but there is no set rate of change.
the coelacanth is a prime example, also both are effected by the environment ,if there is little or very slow change in that environment the there is no compelling force for mutation.
we've been over this before and your god did it fantasy was wrong then and is now.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you understood gene expression and the evidence I was gonna give you once you gave a brief summary you would see once again you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> you were going to give?
> what to chicken shit to present it? as it it's most likely pseudoscience.
> I've  never been wrong yet about the total lack of scientific credibility of your false evidence..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am waiting on you to go on the record and make your commitment.
Click to expand...

don't you mean comment? I already have.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made good money while working in the field as a Lab Tech but I made a killing because of the beating the dollar has taken due to incompetent leadership of this country. My mining business is doing very well. Sorry you can't read when someone goes on the record about himself and puts it into simple terms.
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize you're not making any sense..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I am making sense the money I made as a lab Tech allowed me to invest in mining. When the currency takes a beating by from incompetent leaders by printing money when they have nothing to  back drives down the value of the currency and drives up the price of precious metals.
Click to expand...

read you first post again ..that's not what you said...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something on fossil formation from a Christian perspective; however, the quickness with which they must form is something that evolutionists would be in agreement with.
> How Fast? - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> not credible ...false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no background in science so you pretty much are speaking out of your butt.
Click to expand...

another false declarative.. actually I have more background in science the you do the  science is just different, also I know enough biology to know that the only poster  talking out his ass is you.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow the truth is not hard to come by however trying to remember Biological fantasies of others is. Not all science and theories are nonsense only the ideological theories are. I was once brainwashed that is correct but not concerning the creator.
> 
> I do not waste my education I share it with others. I stopped visiting this thread for a while because this is where it usually winds up,me trying to get your side to think and be honest with themselves but it turns into a slander party. That is fine that is what happens when you can't really defend your faith. Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> another hubris laden pile of nonsense....btw ywc no one is trying to get you on "OUR" SIDE.
> YOU AND YOUR CREATIONIST circle jerkers are the ones who drew the imaginary line in the sand....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing your responses you need me
Click to expand...

only in your masturbation fantasies..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Now that I have managed to rattle you and Hollie I am out.


another false assumption.
the hubris of the ignorant is amazing..


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Now that I have managed to rattle you and Hollie I am out.



Resigning before you're fired is always a prudent course of action.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I have managed to rattle you and Hollie I am out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resigning before you're fired is always a prudent course of action.
Click to expand...

if I recall he has a long history of that.


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My faith is on parr with the theories that are being taught as fact in our schools. This brings us back to the all important question is the universe and everything in it a product of a designer and purposeful design or poof a non-intelligent natural unguided process ?
> 
> Now considering the evidence which theory takes more faith to believe ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't operate on faith when it comes to evolution.  The facts found in the fossil record and in DNA research are what I go on.  Because of that evidence and the known Laws of Chemistry and Physics to posit an alternate explanation is a reach that makes your position totally faith, having no hard evidence to support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you're not relying on facts you're relying on opinions which in turn is reduced to faith. What are these so called facts ?
Click to expand...


The brainwashing runs strong with this one. Funny how they trick themselves into thinking their beliefs are based on facts.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not credible ...false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no background in science so you pretty much are speaking out of your butt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false declarative.. actually I have more background in science the you do the  science is just different, also I know enough biology to know that the only poster  talking out his ass is you.
Click to expand...


Science? I thought your life was a tale told by an idiot.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no background in science so you pretty much are speaking out of your butt.
> 
> 
> 
> another false declarative.. actually I have more background in science the you do the  science is just different, also I know enough biology to know that the only poster  talking out his ass is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science? I thought your life was a tale told by an idiot.
Click to expand...

that would be yours.. evidenced  by your constant out of context misquotes.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another false declarative.. actually I have more background in science the you do the  science is just different, also I know enough biology to know that the only poster  talking out his ass is you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science? I thought your life was a tale told by an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would be yours.. evidenced  by your constant out of context misquotes.
Click to expand...


If evolution is true, your life signifies absolutely nothing. You are nothing more than a cosmic accident, meant to struggle and squirm down the path of your meaningless existence. In the big scheme of materialism, it doesn't matter whether you live or die. When you are gone, no one will remember you. You will cease to exist. And all that you think your life is, will have meant absolutely nothing. As the molecules of your rotting corpse decay and return to the cosmos via the belly of a worm, it will be like you never happened.

What an inspiring belief system that materialist religion is!!!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science? I thought your life was a tale told by an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> that would be yours.. evidenced  by your constant out of context misquotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If evolution is true, your life signifies absolutely nothing. You are nothing more than a cosmic accident, meant to struggle and squirm down the path of your meaningless existence. In the big scheme of materialism, it doesn't matter whether you live or die. When you are gone, no one will remember you. You will cease to exist. And all that you think your life is, will have meant absolutely nothing. As the molecules of your rotting corpse decay and return to the cosmos via the belly of a worm, it will be like you never happened.
> 
> What an inspiring belief system that materialist religion is!!!
Click to expand...

the same can be said about your life, believing in fairytales gods has the same effect .
besides in a hundred years no one will care anyway.
might have been a good speech if I were as emotionally and intellectually bereft as you.
unlike yourself,  I'm unafraid of death and see no need for the false comfort of an imaginary friend.
we all die and nothing we do here and now will prepare us for what's next, if anything.
 it's a trip you can't pack for.
as to becoming fertilizer and ensuring life will spring from it  is the highest form of doing good I can think of.
so fuck you and arrogance!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that would be yours.. evidenced  by your constant out of context misquotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If evolution is true, your life signifies absolutely nothing. You are nothing more than a cosmic accident, meant to struggle and squirm down the path of your meaningless existence. In the big scheme of materialism, it doesn't matter whether you live or die. When you are gone, no one will remember you. You will cease to exist. And all that you think your life is, will have meant absolutely nothing. As the molecules of your rotting corpse decay and return to the cosmos via the belly of a worm, it will be like you never happened.
> 
> What an inspiring belief system that materialist religion is!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the same can be said about your life, believing in fairytales gods has the same effect .
> besides in a hundred years no one will care anyway.
> might have been a good speech if I were as emotionally and intellectually bereft as you.
> unlike yourself,  I'm unafraid of death and see no need for the false comfort of an imaginary friend.
> we all die and nothing we do here and now will prepare us for what's next, if anything.
> it's a trip you can't pack for.
> as to becoming fertilizer and ensuring life will spring from it  is the highest form of doing good I can think of.
> so fuck you and arrogance!
Click to expand...


Blah, blah, blah. All I hear is clanging symbols.


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not credible ...false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no background in science so you pretty much are speaking out of your butt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false declarative.. actually I have more background in science the you do the science is just different, also I know enough biology to know that the only poster talking out his ass is you.
Click to expand...

 
Really. What's your "science" background?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> If evolution is true, your life signifies absolutely nothing. You are nothing more than a cosmic accident, meant to struggle and squirm down the path of your meaningless existence. In the big scheme of materialism, it doesn't matter whether you live or die. When you are gone, no one will remember you. You will cease to exist. And all that you think your life is, will have meant absolutely nothing. As the molecules of your rotting corpse decay and return to the cosmos via the belly of a worm, it will be like you never happened.
> 
> What an inspiring belief system that materialist religion is!!!
> 
> 
> 
> the same can be said about your life, believing in fairytales gods has the same effect .
> besides in a hundred years no one will care anyway.
> might have been a good speech if I were as emotionally and intellectually bereft as you.
> unlike yourself,  I'm unafraid of death and see no need for the false comfort of an imaginary friend.
> we all die and nothing we do here and now will prepare us for what's next, if anything.
> it's a trip you can't pack for.
> as to becoming fertilizer and ensuring life will spring from it  is the highest form of doing good I can think of.
> so fuck you and arrogance!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah. All I hear is clanging symbols.
Click to expand...

willful ignorance has that effect..


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no background in science so you pretty much are speaking out of your butt.
> 
> 
> 
> another false declarative.. actually I have more background in science the you do the science is just different, also I know enough biology to know that the only poster talking out his ass is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really. What's your "science" background?
Click to expand...

engineering, logic, design. 6 years of biology
and many more things that you have no concept of.


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that would be yours.. evidenced  by your constant out of context misquotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If evolution is true, your life signifies absolutely nothing. You are nothing more than a cosmic accident, meant to struggle and squirm down the path of your meaningless existence. In the big scheme of materialism, it doesn't matter whether you live or die. When you are gone, no one will remember you. You will cease to exist. And all that you think your life is, will have meant absolutely nothing. As the molecules of your rotting corpse decay and return to the cosmos via the belly of a worm, it will be like you never happened.
> 
> What an inspiring belief system that materialist religion is!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the same can be said about your life, believing in fairytales gods has the same effect .
> besides in a hundred years no one will care anyway.
> might have been a good speech if I were as emotionally and intellectually bereft as you.
> unlike yourself,  I'm unafraid of death and see no need for the false comfort of an imaginary friend.
> we all die and nothing we do here and now will prepare us for what's next, if anything.
> it's a trip you can't pack for.
> as to becoming fertilizer and ensuring life will spring from it  is the highest form of doing good I can think of.
> so *&^% you and arrogance!
Click to expand...



I'm unafraid of death. It is the living that can be disconcerting, but with God and Christ I have a much better reason to be happy.


----------



## t_polkow

Baron said:


> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube


----------



## t_polkow

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3PDZTveY4uQ#]Creationism by Lewis Black - YouTube[/ame]!


----------



## UltimateReality

t_polkow said:


> Creationism by Lewis Black - YouTube!



Guess you missed the last thousand pages. The tactic of rolling out ignorant so called creationists has been tried ad nauseum, and failed. So sorry you didn't get the memo.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism by Lewis Black - YouTube!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you missed the last thousand pages. The tactic of rolling out ignorant so called creationists has been tried ad nauseum, and failed. So sorry you didn't get the memo.
Click to expand...

another one of UR'S fantasies !


----------



## PMZ

Some learn, others believe that they are entitled to just know. 

Some want the truth, some want what they want. 

It has always been thus.

Those who choose not to learn, can never be taught, but they can be ignored.

Ignorance is never relevant.


----------



## UltimateReality

PMZ said:


> Some learn, others believe that they are entitled to just know.
> 
> Some want the truth, some want what they want.
> 
> It has always been thus.
> 
> Those who choose not to learn, can never be taught, but they can be ignored.
> 
> Ignorance is never relevant.



Bravo!! This is a perfect description of the Darwinist Intellectual Slaves.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another false declarative.. actually I have more background in science the you do the science is just different, also I know enough biology to know that the only poster talking out his ass is you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really. What's your "science" background?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> engineering, logic, design. 6 years of biology
> and many more things that you have no concept of.
Click to expand...




Then you would have no problem detecting design in nature but you cling to coincidence after coincidence in other words you believe in miracles. I find it hard to believe that you're educated as you claim with the level of your ignorance and the inability to carry on a debate concerning  origins and biological organisms without you running off to wiki or talk origins to respond to questions. What is more absurd is when you copy and paste nonsense that does not address the question.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some learn, others believe that they are entitled to just know.
> 
> Some want the truth, some want what they want.
> 
> It has always been thus.
> 
> Those who choose not to learn, can never be taught, but they can be ignored.
> 
> Ignorance is never relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bravo!! This is a perfect description of the Darwinist Intellectual Slaves.
Click to expand...

Yeah. What a shame that science, exploration and discovery should crowd hyper-religious fear and superstition.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really. What's your "science" background?
> 
> 
> 
> engineering, logic, design. 6 years of biology
> and many more things that you have no concept of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would have no problem detecting design in nature but you cling to coincidence after coincidence in other words you believe in miracles. I find it hard to believe that you're educated as you claim with the level of your ignorance and the inability to carry on a debate concerning  origins and biological organisms without you running off to wiki or talk origins to respond to questions. What is more absurd is when you copy and paste nonsense that does not address the question.
Click to expand...


Identify a single instance of "design" in nature that can be attributed to any gawds. 

Identify a single element or function in nature that has supernatural causation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> engineering, logic, design. 6 years of biology
> and many more things that you have no concept of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would have no problem detecting design in nature but you cling to coincidence after coincidence in other words you believe in miracles. I find it hard to believe that you're educated as you claim with the level of your ignorance and the inability to carry on a debate concerning  origins and biological organisms without you running off to wiki or talk origins to respond to questions. What is more absurd is when you copy and paste nonsense that does not address the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Identify a single instance of "design" in nature that can be attributed to any gawds.
> 
> Identify a single element or function in nature that has supernatural causation.
Click to expand...


I have to ad nauseam. Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would have no problem detecting design in nature but you cling to coincidence after coincidence in other words you believe in miracles. I find it hard to believe that you're educated as you claim with the level of your ignorance and the inability to carry on a debate concerning  origins and biological organisms without you running off to wiki or talk origins to respond to questions. What is more absurd is when you copy and paste nonsense that does not address the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Identify a single instance of "design" in nature that can be attributed to any gawds.
> 
> Identify a single element or function in nature that has supernatural causation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to ad nauseam. Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?
Click to expand...


Stuttering and mumbling won't save a false claim. 

Here's the question for you again: Identify a single instance of "design" in nature that can be attributed to any gawds. 

Identify a single element or function in nature that has supernatural causation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Identify a single instance of "design" in nature that can be attributed to any gawds.
> 
> Identify a single element or function in nature that has supernatural causation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to ad nauseam. Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stuttering and mumbling won't save a false claim.
> 
> Here's the question for you again: Identify a single instance of "design" in nature that can be attributed to any gawds.
> 
> Identify a single element or function in nature that has supernatural causation.
Click to expand...


Dodge!

I already have.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to ad nauseam. Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stuttering and mumbling won't save a false claim.
> 
> Here's the question for you again: Identify a single instance of "design" in nature that can be attributed to any gawds.
> 
> Identify a single element or function in nature that has supernatural causation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodge!
> 
> I already have.
Click to expand...


I expected you to slither away.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stuttering and mumbling won't save a false claim.
> 
> Here's the question for you again: Identify a single instance of "design" in nature that can be attributed to any gawds.
> 
> Identify a single element or function in nature that has supernatural causation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge!
> 
> I already have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I expected you to slither away.
Click to expand...


The only one slithering away is the one avoiding my question.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge!
> 
> I already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expected you to slither away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only one slithering away is the one avoiding my question.
Click to expand...


You're as confused as always.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I expected you to slither away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only one slithering away is the one avoiding my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're as confused as always.
Click to expand...


This is the question you're avoiding.

 Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really. What's your "science" background?
> 
> 
> 
> engineering, logic, design. 6 years of biology
> and many more things that you have no concept of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would have no problem detecting design in nature but you cling to coincidence after coincidence in other words you believe in miracles. I find it hard to believe that you're educated as you claim with the level of your ignorance and the inability to carry on a debate concerning  origins and biological organisms without you running off to wiki or talk origins to respond to questions. What is more absurd is when you copy and paste nonsense that does not address the question.
Click to expand...

another false declarative ,you or your  dogma infested pseudoscience have proven nothing of the kind.
you talking about copying and pasting is farcical.
when that's all that you do and then try to pass it off as your own.
slap dick!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would have no problem detecting design in nature but you cling to coincidence after coincidence in other words you believe in miracles. I find it hard to believe that you're educated as you claim with the level of your ignorance and the inability to carry on a debate concerning  origins and biological organisms without you running off to wiki or talk origins to respond to questions. What is more absurd is when you copy and paste nonsense that does not address the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Identify a single instance of "design" in nature that can be attributed to any gawds.
> 
> Identify a single element or function in nature that has supernatural causation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to ad nauseam. Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?
Click to expand...

bullshit.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to ad nauseam. Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stuttering and mumbling won't save a false claim.
> 
> Here's the question for you again: Identify a single instance of "design" in nature that can be attributed to any gawds.
> 
> Identify a single element or function in nature that has supernatural causation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodge!
> 
> I already have.
Click to expand...

imitation is the highest form of flattery!
especially when you got nothing like now!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> engineering, logic, design. 6 years of biology
> and many more things that you have no concept of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would have no problem detecting design in nature but you cling to coincidence after coincidence in other words you believe in miracles. I find it hard to believe that you're educated as you claim with the level of your ignorance and the inability to carry on a debate concerning  origins and biological organisms without you running off to wiki or talk origins to respond to questions. What is more absurd is when you copy and paste nonsense that does not address the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false declarative ,you or your  dogma infested pseudoscience have proven nothing of the kind.
> you talking about copying and pasting is farcical.
> when that's all that you do and then try to pass it off as your own.
> slap dick!
Click to expand...


So what is my false declarative that I made ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Identify a single instance of "design" in nature that can be attributed to any gawds.
> 
> Identify a single element or function in nature that has supernatural causation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to ad nauseam. Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit.
Click to expand...


Bullshit ?do you not believe Random Chance is what produces your miracles for your views ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one slithering away is the one avoiding my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're as confused as always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the question you're avoiding.
> 
> Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?
Click to expand...


Firstly, why do you capitalize "Random Chance"? Is melodrama a necessary part of your post or is it just confusion on your part?

Secondly, this has been addressed previously for you, many times. It seems you make the same phony claims and ask the same questions you have already been given answers to. 

Evolutionary principles do not function per random chance. This "random chance" canard is simply a slogan you picked up on Harun Yahya's website. 

As usual, you make no sense. I would suggest that you, or any creationist, should become versed in evolutionary theory before you attack it. I have yet to encounter this in a creationist. You should be able to explain how the process works. Common sense says that you cannot criticize what you cannot explain.

Science is more than an accumulated body of knowledge. It is a process of discovery. Unlike Christian creationism which assumes a position of infallible truth, science, as a process of investigation, does not make any such claim to infallibility. It is a process that is built upon error correction, and will remedy its own mistakes. Creationists, by their own admission, hold an infallible truth of the various bibles which are incapable of being in error.   

"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model." 
- Henry Morris 
President, Institute for Creation Research


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stuttering and mumbling won't save a false claim.
> 
> Here's the question for you again: Identify a single instance of "design" in nature that can be attributed to any gawds.
> 
> Identify a single element or function in nature that has supernatural causation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge!
> 
> I already have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> imitation is the highest form of flattery!
> especially when you got nothing like now!
Click to expand...


oh boy


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one slithering away is the one avoiding my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're as confused as always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the question you're avoiding.
> 
> Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?
Click to expand...

who say it was random chance? creationist do!  with no proof at all !  

Random chance 

  A common claim by creationists is that evolution is nothing but random chance which they then follow by claiming that there is no way random chance could produce a particular adaptation or animal. This is most commonly used in association with an argument from design. 

The "random chance" criticism is actually a straw man, since evolution does not rely only on random chance. While some elements of evolution are random, most notably mutation, the cornerstone of Charles Darwin's theory is natural selection, which is the opposite of chance. Natural selection is non-random and is one of the primary shaping forces for adaptation in nature. By ignoring natural selection in evolution, creationists are better able to argue that a god must have intervened, which is completely fallacious. 

It is also interesting that because creationism makes no attempt (for it would represent a merely human limitation on divine power) to describe any regularities about the world, or to discriminate between what might happen and what might not happen as a consequence of creation (or intelligent design), there is no difference between the results of divine creation and random chance. While evolutionary biology rules out certain things - it is extremely unlikely that there would be a rabbit with ceramic armor or a supersonic hawk (unless a mad scientist decided to design one) - there is nothing that is less plausible than anything else in a creationist's world. 

If we can say that "random chance" operates in evolution, we can say that it operates elsewhere in the world of life. One striking example is in the action of the adaptive immune system in jawed vertebrates. We jawed vertebrates are protected against diseases caused by certain viruses, fungi, bacteria, and parasites by changing our immune system to meet novel assaults. The adaptive immune system is the reason why vaccination works, and why we get certain diseases only once. The adaptive immune system generates great numbers of cells to detect alien biological molecules, and by "random chance" eventually one of these cells makes a match. This then allows our immune system to destroy the source of this novel alien molecule. As it turns out, relying on this "random chance" provides better protection against certain diseases than anything that we humans can "intelligently design". 

"Random chance" is not incompatible with "intelligent design", or the achievement of goals. Creative artists often avail themselves of chance effects. There is the crackle glaze in pottery, which deliberately achieves artistic effects by encouraging the random patterns in the cooling of the pottery when it is removed from the kiln. Bronze outdoor sculptures are designed to acquire a patina. Performers respond to the unpredictability of the audience. Composers and playwrights release control over their works to the interpretation of the performers. Photographers and other visual artists respond to what is presented to them, for example the appearance of the model. 

Malaria: A case study

The efficacy of evolution vs. design can be studied with respect to the malaria parasite and the ways of combatting it.[1] The standard evolutionary explanation for the development of sickle-cell anemia in humans is that it provides protection against the malaria parasite. Sickle-cell anemia is generally recognized as a result of a random mutation. It can cause a debilitating disease in humans, yet it also, more often, provides a defense against malaria. There are also several other random mutations in humans which can both cause diseases and defend against malaria. In the hemoglobin alpha chain, there are point mutations HbS, HbC, HbE; in the hemoglobin gamma chain, there is HPHF; in various parts of hemoglobin, there is thalassemia; and others.(page 39)[1] These various random mutations have provided defenses against malaria which have been working for a long time. We may characterize the competition between the random human evolution and the random malaria evolution as a stand-off. In contrast, there are the human-designed defenses against malaria. It is famous how malaria has evolved resistance to just about everything that we can design to go against it. Despite our best designs, not limited to drugs, the deaths from malaria continue in great numbers. (page 17)[1] "Resistance to one recent drug, atovaquone, arose in the lab scant weeks after a small culture of malaria was exposed to it. Almost a hundred thousand times as many clicks of the clock have passed since [the first appearance of sickle-cell]. About that much time since [HbC] ... and since thalassemia first appeared. Yet they are all still effective against malaria."(page 52)[1] On the other hand, the drug which was not designed seems to be somewhat intermediate: "Quinine, the natural drug that first turned the tide of battle toward humanity's side, is still pretty effective against [the malaria parasite]. But the bug is slowly gaining ground ... ."(page 260)[1] 

In summary, in a contest between "random evolution" and "design", random is not just effective, but more effective; the closest contest is between the "random evolution" and the "chance discovery" of quinine. 

[edit] So what does the Bible say about random chance?

Are the two elements needed for natural selection -- time and chance -- heretical or biblical? Bible thumpers should check out Ecclesiastes 9:11. 


I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.[2]


Where as the verse is true, in it's context that it's place in above it is not true. If one was to read the verse further (or all of Ecclesiastes) we would see: 


For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a cruel net, Like birds caught in a snare, So the sons of men [are] snared in an evil time, When it falls suddenly upon them


The point of the verse and all of Ecclesiastes (if one was to actually read it) would be that man is nothing but random chance without God, that there is no value in a life without God. That is exactly the point of creationists. If this is taken in context with the rest of the bible we know that God is all knowing, so things to man may seem random, but they aren't to God. God creating the world with purpose would mean there would be no random chance, or selection. 

Random chance - RationalWiki


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're as confused as always.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the question you're avoiding.
> 
> Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, why do you capitalize "Random Chance"? Is melodrama a necessary part of your post or is it just confusion on your part?
> 
> Secondly, this has been addressed previously for you, many times. It seems you make the same phony claims and ask the same questions you have already been given answers to.
> 
> Evolutionary principles do not function per random chance. This "random chance" canard is simply a slogan you picked up on Harun Yahya's website.
> 
> As usual, you make no sense. I would suggest that you, or any creationist, should become versed in evolutionary theory before you attack it. I have yet to encounter this in a creationist. You should be able to explain how the process works. Common sense says that you cannot criticize what you cannot explain.
> 
> Science is more than an accumulated body of knowledge. It is a process of discovery. Unlike Christian creationism which assumes a position of infallible truth, science, as a process of investigation, does not make any such claim to infallibility. It is a process that is built upon error correction, and will remedy its own mistakes. Creationists, by their own admission, hold an infallible truth of the various bibles which are incapable of being in error.
> 
> "There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."
> - Henry Morris
> President, Institute for Creation Research
Click to expand...


Let me point something out to you. Life was a product of purposeful design or random chance.

This planet is a product of purposeful design or random chance. Do you believe random chance is responsible for all we observe ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would have no problem detecting design in nature but you cling to coincidence after coincidence in other words you believe in miracles. I find it hard to believe that you're educated as you claim with the level of your ignorance and the inability to carry on a debate concerning  origins and biological organisms without you running off to wiki or talk origins to respond to questions. What is more absurd is when you copy and paste nonsense that does not address the question.
> 
> 
> 
> another false declarative ,you or your  dogma infested pseudoscience have proven nothing of the kind.
> you talking about copying and pasting is farcical.
> when that's all that you do and then try to pass it off as your own.
> slap dick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what is my false declarative that I made ?
Click to expand...

all of the above!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're as confused as always.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the question you're avoiding.
> 
> Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who say it was random chance? creationist do!  with no proof at all !
> 
> Random chance
> 
> A common claim by creationists is that evolution is nothing but random chance which they then follow by claiming that there is no way random chance could produce a particular adaptation or animal. This is most commonly used in association with an argument from design.
> 
> The "random chance" criticism is actually a straw man, since evolution does not rely only on random chance. While some elements of evolution are random, most notably mutation, the cornerstone of Charles Darwin's theory is natural selection, which is the opposite of chance. Natural selection is non-random and is one of the primary shaping forces for adaptation in nature. By ignoring natural selection in evolution, creationists are better able to argue that a god must have intervened, which is completely fallacious.
> 
> It is also interesting that because creationism makes no attempt (for it would represent a merely human limitation on divine power) to describe any regularities about the world, or to discriminate between what might happen and what might not happen as a consequence of creation (or intelligent design), there is no difference between the results of divine creation and random chance. While evolutionary biology rules out certain things - it is extremely unlikely that there would be a rabbit with ceramic armor or a supersonic hawk (unless a mad scientist decided to design one) - there is nothing that is less plausible than anything else in a creationist's world.
> 
> If we can say that "random chance" operates in evolution, we can say that it operates elsewhere in the world of life. One striking example is in the action of the adaptive immune system in jawed vertebrates. We jawed vertebrates are protected against diseases caused by certain viruses, fungi, bacteria, and parasites by changing our immune system to meet novel assaults. The adaptive immune system is the reason why vaccination works, and why we get certain diseases only once. The adaptive immune system generates great numbers of cells to detect alien biological molecules, and by "random chance" eventually one of these cells makes a match. This then allows our immune system to destroy the source of this novel alien molecule. As it turns out, relying on this "random chance" provides better protection against certain diseases than anything that we humans can "intelligently design".
> 
> "Random chance" is not incompatible with "intelligent design", or the achievement of goals. Creative artists often avail themselves of chance effects. There is the crackle glaze in pottery, which deliberately achieves artistic effects by encouraging the random patterns in the cooling of the pottery when it is removed from the kiln. Bronze outdoor sculptures are designed to acquire a patina. Performers respond to the unpredictability of the audience. Composers and playwrights release control over their works to the interpretation of the performers. Photographers and other visual artists respond to what is presented to them, for example the appearance of the model.
> 
> Malaria: A case study
> 
> The efficacy of evolution vs. design can be studied with respect to the malaria parasite and the ways of combatting it.[1] The standard evolutionary explanation for the development of sickle-cell anemia in humans is that it provides protection against the malaria parasite. Sickle-cell anemia is generally recognized as a result of a random mutation. It can cause a debilitating disease in humans, yet it also, more often, provides a defense against malaria. There are also several other random mutations in humans which can both cause diseases and defend against malaria. In the hemoglobin alpha chain, there are point mutations HbS, HbC, HbE; in the hemoglobin gamma chain, there is HPHF; in various parts of hemoglobin, there is thalassemia; and others.(page 39)[1] These various random mutations have provided defenses against malaria which have been working for a long time. We may characterize the competition between the random human evolution and the random malaria evolution as a stand-off. In contrast, there are the human-designed defenses against malaria. It is famous how malaria has evolved resistance to just about everything that we can design to go against it. Despite our best designs, not limited to drugs, the deaths from malaria continue in great numbers. (page 17)[1] "Resistance to one recent drug, atovaquone, arose in the lab scant weeks after a small culture of malaria was exposed to it. Almost a hundred thousand times as many clicks of the clock have passed since [the first appearance of sickle-cell]. About that much time since [HbC] ... and since thalassemia first appeared. Yet they are all still effective against malaria."(page 52)[1] On the other hand, the drug which was not designed seems to be somewhat intermediate: "Quinine, the natural drug that first turned the tide of battle toward humanity's side, is still pretty effective against [the malaria parasite]. But the bug is slowly gaining ground ... ."(page 260)[1]
> 
> In summary, in a contest between "random evolution" and "design", random is not just effective, but more effective; the closest contest is between the "random evolution" and the "chance discovery" of quinine.
> 
> [edit] So what does the Bible say about random chance?
> 
> Are the two elements needed for natural selection -- time and chance -- heretical or biblical? Bible thumpers should check out Ecclesiastes 9:11.
> 
> 
> I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.[2]
> 
> 
> Where as the verse is true, in it's context that it's place in above it is not true. If one was to read the verse further (or all of Ecclesiastes) we would see:
> 
> 
> For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a cruel net, Like birds caught in a snare, So the sons of men [are] snared in an evil time, When it falls suddenly upon them
> 
> 
> The point of the verse and all of Ecclesiastes (if one was to actually read it) would be that man is nothing but random chance without God, that there is no value in a life without God. That is exactly the point of creationists. If this is taken in context with the rest of the bible we know that God is all knowing, so things to man may seem random, but they aren't to God. God creating the world with purpose would mean there would be no random chance, or selection.
> 
> Random chance - RationalWiki
Click to expand...


Sorry but evolutionist in the other thread said it was random chance. The bullshit you just posted is simply that. If by your views it was not random chance it was purposeful design.

I knew you could not resist copying and pasting a bunch of nonsense and you don't have a thought of your own.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another false declarative ,you or your  dogma infested pseudoscience have proven nothing of the kind.
> you talking about copying and pasting is farcical.
> when that's all that you do and then try to pass it off as your own.
> slap dick!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what is my false declarative that I made ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of the above!
Click to expand...


Uh oh can't explain your own accusation in detail this is typical of you.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the question you're avoiding.
> 
> Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, why do you capitalize "Random Chance"? Is melodrama a necessary part of your post or is it just confusion on your part?
> 
> Secondly, this has been addressed previously for you, many times. It seems you make the same phony claims and ask the same questions you have already been given answers to.
> 
> Evolutionary principles do not function per random chance. This "random chance" canard is simply a slogan you picked up on Harun Yahya's website.
> 
> As usual, you make no sense. I would suggest that you, or any creationist, should become versed in evolutionary theory before you attack it. I have yet to encounter this in a creationist. You should be able to explain how the process works. Common sense says that you cannot criticize what you cannot explain.
> 
> Science is more than an accumulated body of knowledge. It is a process of discovery. Unlike Christian creationism which assumes a position of infallible truth, science, as a process of investigation, does not make any such claim to infallibility. It is a process that is built upon error correction, and will remedy its own mistakes. Creationists, by their own admission, hold an infallible truth of the various bibles which are incapable of being in error.
> 
> "There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."
> - Henry Morris
> President, Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me point something out to you. Life was a product of purposeful design or random chance.
> 
> This planet is a product of purposeful design or random chance. Do you believe random chance is responsible for all we observe ?
Click to expand...

there you go attempting to make your opinions sound like evidence.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the question you're avoiding.
> 
> Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, why do you capitalize "Random Chance"? Is melodrama a necessary part of your post or is it just confusion on your part?
> 
> Secondly, this has been addressed previously for you, many times. It seems you make the same phony claims and ask the same questions you have already been given answers to.
> 
> Evolutionary principles do not function per random chance. This "random chance" canard is simply a slogan you picked up on Harun Yahya's website.
> 
> As usual, you make no sense. I would suggest that you, or any creationist, should become versed in evolutionary theory before you attack it. I have yet to encounter this in a creationist. You should be able to explain how the process works. Common sense says that you cannot criticize what you cannot explain.
> 
> Science is more than an accumulated body of knowledge. It is a process of discovery. Unlike Christian creationism which assumes a position of infallible truth, science, as a process of investigation, does not make any such claim to infallibility. It is a process that is built upon error correction, and will remedy its own mistakes. Creationists, by their own admission, hold an infallible truth of the various bibles which are incapable of being in error.
> 
> "There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."
> - Henry Morris
> President, Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me point something out to you. Life was a product of purposeful design or random chance.
> 
> This planet is a product of purposeful design or random chance. Do you believe random chance is responsible for all we observe ?
Click to expand...


As usual, your posts are silly "because I say so", commentaries. Do yourself a favor and scour your comments from someplace other than Harun Yahya.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is my false declarative that I made ?
> 
> 
> 
> all of the above!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh can't explain your own accusation in detail this is typical of you.
Click to expand...

all is self-explanatory no more detail is needed..
I love it when you try that old ploy...btw that was not an accusation it in fact a statement of fact.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the question you're avoiding.
> 
> Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?
> 
> 
> 
> who say it was random chance? creationist do!  with no proof at all !
> 
> Random chance
> 
> A common claim by creationists is that evolution is nothing but random chance which they then follow by claiming that there is no way random chance could produce a particular adaptation or animal. This is most commonly used in association with an argument from design.
> 
> The "random chance" criticism is actually a straw man, since evolution does not rely only on random chance. While some elements of evolution are random, most notably mutation, the cornerstone of Charles Darwin's theory is natural selection, which is the opposite of chance. Natural selection is non-random and is one of the primary shaping forces for adaptation in nature. By ignoring natural selection in evolution, creationists are better able to argue that a god must have intervened, which is completely fallacious.
> 
> It is also interesting that because creationism makes no attempt (for it would represent a merely human limitation on divine power) to describe any regularities about the world, or to discriminate between what might happen and what might not happen as a consequence of creation (or intelligent design), there is no difference between the results of divine creation and random chance. While evolutionary biology rules out certain things - it is extremely unlikely that there would be a rabbit with ceramic armor or a supersonic hawk (unless a mad scientist decided to design one) - there is nothing that is less plausible than anything else in a creationist's world.
> 
> If we can say that "random chance" operates in evolution, we can say that it operates elsewhere in the world of life. One striking example is in the action of the adaptive immune system in jawed vertebrates. We jawed vertebrates are protected against diseases caused by certain viruses, fungi, bacteria, and parasites by changing our immune system to meet novel assaults. The adaptive immune system is the reason why vaccination works, and why we get certain diseases only once. The adaptive immune system generates great numbers of cells to detect alien biological molecules, and by "random chance" eventually one of these cells makes a match. This then allows our immune system to destroy the source of this novel alien molecule. As it turns out, relying on this "random chance" provides better protection against certain diseases than anything that we humans can "intelligently design".
> 
> "Random chance" is not incompatible with "intelligent design", or the achievement of goals. Creative artists often avail themselves of chance effects. There is the crackle glaze in pottery, which deliberately achieves artistic effects by encouraging the random patterns in the cooling of the pottery when it is removed from the kiln. Bronze outdoor sculptures are designed to acquire a patina. Performers respond to the unpredictability of the audience. Composers and playwrights release control over their works to the interpretation of the performers. Photographers and other visual artists respond to what is presented to them, for example the appearance of the model.
> 
> Malaria: A case study
> 
> The efficacy of evolution vs. design can be studied with respect to the malaria parasite and the ways of combatting it.[1] The standard evolutionary explanation for the development of sickle-cell anemia in humans is that it provides protection against the malaria parasite. Sickle-cell anemia is generally recognized as a result of a random mutation. It can cause a debilitating disease in humans, yet it also, more often, provides a defense against malaria. There are also several other random mutations in humans which can both cause diseases and defend against malaria. In the hemoglobin alpha chain, there are point mutations HbS, HbC, HbE; in the hemoglobin gamma chain, there is HPHF; in various parts of hemoglobin, there is thalassemia; and others.(page 39)[1] These various random mutations have provided defenses against malaria which have been working for a long time. We may characterize the competition between the random human evolution and the random malaria evolution as a stand-off. In contrast, there are the human-designed defenses against malaria. It is famous how malaria has evolved resistance to just about everything that we can design to go against it. Despite our best designs, not limited to drugs, the deaths from malaria continue in great numbers. (page 17)[1] "Resistance to one recent drug, atovaquone, arose in the lab scant weeks after a small culture of malaria was exposed to it. Almost a hundred thousand times as many clicks of the clock have passed since [the first appearance of sickle-cell]. About that much time since [HbC] ... and since thalassemia first appeared. Yet they are all still effective against malaria."(page 52)[1] On the other hand, the drug which was not designed seems to be somewhat intermediate: "Quinine, the natural drug that first turned the tide of battle toward humanity's side, is still pretty effective against [the malaria parasite]. But the bug is slowly gaining ground ... ."(page 260)[1]
> 
> In summary, in a contest between "random evolution" and "design", random is not just effective, but more effective; the closest contest is between the "random evolution" and the "chance discovery" of quinine.
> 
> [edit] So what does the Bible say about random chance?
> 
> Are the two elements needed for natural selection -- time and chance -- heretical or biblical? Bible thumpers should check out Ecclesiastes 9:11.
> 
> 
> I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.[2]
> 
> 
> Where as the verse is true, in it's context that it's place in above it is not true. If one was to read the verse further (or all of Ecclesiastes) we would see:
> 
> 
> For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a cruel net, Like birds caught in a snare, So the sons of men [are] snared in an evil time, When it falls suddenly upon them
> 
> 
> The point of the verse and all of Ecclesiastes (if one was to actually read it) would be that man is nothing but random chance without God, that there is no value in a life without God. That is exactly the point of creationists. If this is taken in context with the rest of the bible we know that God is all knowing, so things to man may seem random, but they aren't to God. God creating the world with purpose would mean there would be no random chance, or selection.
> 
> Random chance - RationalWiki
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but evolutionist in the other thread said it was random chance. The bullshit you just posted is simply that. If by your views it was not random chance it was purposeful design.
> 
> I knew you could not resist copying and pasting a bunch of nonsense and you don't have a thought of your own.
Click to expand...

you didn't read the post!
and who was the evolutionist who said it was random chance?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, why do you capitalize "Random Chance"? Is melodrama a necessary part of your post or is it just confusion on your part?
> 
> Secondly, this has been addressed previously for you, many times. It seems you make the same phony claims and ask the same questions you have already been given answers to.
> 
> Evolutionary principles do not function per random chance. This "random chance" canard is simply a slogan you picked up on Harun Yahya's website.
> 
> As usual, you make no sense. I would suggest that you, or any creationist, should become versed in evolutionary theory before you attack it. I have yet to encounter this in a creationist. You should be able to explain how the process works. Common sense says that you cannot criticize what you cannot explain.
> 
> Science is more than an accumulated body of knowledge. It is a process of discovery. Unlike Christian creationism which assumes a position of infallible truth, science, as a process of investigation, does not make any such claim to infallibility. It is a process that is built upon error correction, and will remedy its own mistakes. Creationists, by their own admission, hold an infallible truth of the various bibles which are incapable of being in error.
> 
> "There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."
> - Henry Morris
> President, Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point something out to you. Life was a product of purposeful design or random chance.
> 
> This planet is a product of purposeful design or random chance. Do you believe random chance is responsible for all we observe ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there you go attempting to make your opinions sound like evidence.
Click to expand...


Not evidence it's a fact.

If I am wrong then tell me otherwise and why I am wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, why do you capitalize "Random Chance"? Is melodrama a necessary part of your post or is it just confusion on your part?
> 
> Secondly, this has been addressed previously for you, many times. It seems you make the same phony claims and ask the same questions you have already been given answers to.
> 
> Evolutionary principles do not function per random chance. This "random chance" canard is simply a slogan you picked up on Harun Yahya's website.
> 
> As usual, you make no sense. I would suggest that you, or any creationist, should become versed in evolutionary theory before you attack it. I have yet to encounter this in a creationist. You should be able to explain how the process works. Common sense says that you cannot criticize what you cannot explain.
> 
> Science is more than an accumulated body of knowledge. It is a process of discovery. Unlike Christian creationism which assumes a position of infallible truth, science, as a process of investigation, does not make any such claim to infallibility. It is a process that is built upon error correction, and will remedy its own mistakes. Creationists, by their own admission, hold an infallible truth of the various bibles which are incapable of being in error.
> 
> "There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."
> - Henry Morris
> President, Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point something out to you. Life was a product of purposeful design or random chance.
> 
> This planet is a product of purposeful design or random chance. Do you believe random chance is responsible for all we observe ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, your posts are silly "because I say so", commentaries. Do yourself a favor and scour your comments from someplace other than Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...


The Troll is on ignore once again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> who say it was random chance? creationist do!  with no proof at all !
> 
> Random chance
> 
> A common claim by creationists is that evolution is nothing but random chance which they then follow by claiming that there is no way random chance could produce a particular adaptation or animal. This is most commonly used in association with an argument from design.
> 
> The "random chance" criticism is actually a straw man, since evolution does not rely only on random chance. While some elements of evolution are random, most notably mutation, the cornerstone of Charles Darwin's theory is natural selection, which is the opposite of chance. Natural selection is non-random and is one of the primary shaping forces for adaptation in nature. By ignoring natural selection in evolution, creationists are better able to argue that a god must have intervened, which is completely fallacious.
> 
> It is also interesting that because creationism makes no attempt (for it would represent a merely human limitation on divine power) to describe any regularities about the world, or to discriminate between what might happen and what might not happen as a consequence of creation (or intelligent design), there is no difference between the results of divine creation and random chance. While evolutionary biology rules out certain things - it is extremely unlikely that there would be a rabbit with ceramic armor or a supersonic hawk (unless a mad scientist decided to design one) - there is nothing that is less plausible than anything else in a creationist's world.
> 
> If we can say that "random chance" operates in evolution, we can say that it operates elsewhere in the world of life. One striking example is in the action of the adaptive immune system in jawed vertebrates. We jawed vertebrates are protected against diseases caused by certain viruses, fungi, bacteria, and parasites by changing our immune system to meet novel assaults. The adaptive immune system is the reason why vaccination works, and why we get certain diseases only once. The adaptive immune system generates great numbers of cells to detect alien biological molecules, and by "random chance" eventually one of these cells makes a match. This then allows our immune system to destroy the source of this novel alien molecule. As it turns out, relying on this "random chance" provides better protection against certain diseases than anything that we humans can "intelligently design".
> 
> "Random chance" is not incompatible with "intelligent design", or the achievement of goals. Creative artists often avail themselves of chance effects. There is the crackle glaze in pottery, which deliberately achieves artistic effects by encouraging the random patterns in the cooling of the pottery when it is removed from the kiln. Bronze outdoor sculptures are designed to acquire a patina. Performers respond to the unpredictability of the audience. Composers and playwrights release control over their works to the interpretation of the performers. Photographers and other visual artists respond to what is presented to them, for example the appearance of the model.
> 
> Malaria: A case study
> 
> The efficacy of evolution vs. design can be studied with respect to the malaria parasite and the ways of combatting it.[1] The standard evolutionary explanation for the development of sickle-cell anemia in humans is that it provides protection against the malaria parasite. Sickle-cell anemia is generally recognized as a result of a random mutation. It can cause a debilitating disease in humans, yet it also, more often, provides a defense against malaria. There are also several other random mutations in humans which can both cause diseases and defend against malaria. In the hemoglobin alpha chain, there are point mutations HbS, HbC, HbE; in the hemoglobin gamma chain, there is HPHF; in various parts of hemoglobin, there is thalassemia; and others.(page 39)[1] These various random mutations have provided defenses against malaria which have been working for a long time. We may characterize the competition between the random human evolution and the random malaria evolution as a stand-off. In contrast, there are the human-designed defenses against malaria. It is famous how malaria has evolved resistance to just about everything that we can design to go against it. Despite our best designs, not limited to drugs, the deaths from malaria continue in great numbers. (page 17)[1] "Resistance to one recent drug, atovaquone, arose in the lab scant weeks after a small culture of malaria was exposed to it. Almost a hundred thousand times as many clicks of the clock have passed since [the first appearance of sickle-cell]. About that much time since [HbC] ... and since thalassemia first appeared. Yet they are all still effective against malaria."(page 52)[1] On the other hand, the drug which was not designed seems to be somewhat intermediate: "Quinine, the natural drug that first turned the tide of battle toward humanity's side, is still pretty effective against [the malaria parasite]. But the bug is slowly gaining ground ... ."(page 260)[1]
> 
> In summary, in a contest between "random evolution" and "design", random is not just effective, but more effective; the closest contest is between the "random evolution" and the "chance discovery" of quinine.
> 
> [edit] So what does the Bible say about random chance?
> 
> Are the two elements needed for natural selection -- time and chance -- heretical or biblical? Bible thumpers should check out Ecclesiastes 9:11.
> 
> 
> I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.[2]
> 
> 
> Where as the verse is true, in it's context that it's place in above it is not true. If one was to read the verse further (or all of Ecclesiastes) we would see:
> 
> 
> For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a cruel net, Like birds caught in a snare, So the sons of men [are] snared in an evil time, When it falls suddenly upon them
> 
> 
> The point of the verse and all of Ecclesiastes (if one was to actually read it) would be that man is nothing but random chance without God, that there is no value in a life without God. That is exactly the point of creationists. If this is taken in context with the rest of the bible we know that God is all knowing, so things to man may seem random, but they aren't to God. God creating the world with purpose would mean there would be no random chance, or selection.
> 
> Random chance - RationalWiki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but evolutionist in the other thread said it was random chance. The bullshit you just posted is simply that. If by your views it was not random chance it was purposeful design.
> 
> I knew you could not resist copying and pasting a bunch of nonsense and you don't have a thought of your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you didn't read the post!
> and who was the evolutionist who said it was random chance?
Click to expand...


Go back and look you thanked him for his responses.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point something out to you. Life was a product of purposeful design or random chance.
> 
> This planet is a product of purposeful design or random chance. Do you believe random chance is responsible for all we observe ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, your posts are silly "because I say so", commentaries. Do yourself a favor and scour your comments from someplace other than Harun Yahya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Troll is on ignore once again.
Click to expand...


It really is cowardly (and juvenile), that you so often resort to name-calling as a defense for your baseless arguments. Although, I should acknowledge that your "arguments" are so often little more than cutting and pasting from creationist websites.

So... if evolution is false, have you ever asked yourself why the gods would have made a world "instantly old". The gods certainly would not have had to. Certainly, I understand from your previous posts that you hold to a literal, 6,000 year old earth, but there is no mainstream science organization that accepts your view.  Taking your line of thought further... this leads to conclusions that the gods have deliberately intended to deceive us into thinking the world is billions of years old. These immense spans are exactly what's needed for evolution to take place. Deliberate deception on the part of your gods by creating an instantly old earth / universe also aids in the widespread acceptance of evolution.

Unless, of course, your gods have played a cruel joke on you?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, your posts are silly "because I say so", commentaries. Do yourself a favor and scour your comments from someplace other than Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Troll is on ignore once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is cowardly (and juvenile), that you so often resort to name-calling as a defense for your baseless arguments. Although, I should acknowledge that your "arguments" are so often little more than cutting and pasting from creationist websites.
> 
> So... if evolution is false, have you ever asked yourself why the gods would have made a world "instantly old". The gods certainly would not have had to. Certainly, I understand from your previous posts that you hold to a literal, 6,000 year old earth, but there is no mainstream science organization that accepts your view.  Taking your line of thought further... this leads to conclusions that the gods have deliberately intended to deceive us into thinking the world is billions of years old. These immense spans are exactly what's needed for evolution to take place. Deliberate deception on the part of your gods by creating an instantly old earth / universe also aids in the widespread acceptance of evolution.
> 
> Unless, of course, your gods have played a cruel joke on you?
Click to expand...

 That is Ironic you referring to someone as cowardly and juvenile


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Troll is on ignore once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is cowardly (and juvenile), that you so often resort to name-calling as a defense for your baseless arguments. Although, I should acknowledge that your "arguments" are so often little more than cutting and pasting from creationist websites.
> 
> So... if evolution is false, have you ever asked yourself why the gods would have made a world "instantly old". The gods certainly would not have had to. Certainly, I understand from your previous posts that you hold to a literal, 6,000 year old earth, but there is no mainstream science organization that accepts your view.  Taking your line of thought further... this leads to conclusions that the gods have deliberately intended to deceive us into thinking the world is billions of years old. These immense spans are exactly what's needed for evolution to take place. Deliberate deception on the part of your gods by creating an instantly old earth / universe also aids in the widespread acceptance of evolution.
> 
> Unless, of course, your gods have played a cruel joke on you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is Ironic you referring to someone as cowardly and juvenile
Click to expand...


How careful you were to avoid any attempt at a grown-up response. 

How typical for you.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point something out to you. Life was a product of purposeful design or random chance.
> 
> This planet is a product of purposeful design or random chance. Do you believe random chance is responsible for all we observe ?
> 
> 
> 
> there you go attempting to make your opinions sound like evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not evidence it's a fact.
> 
> If I am wrong then tell me otherwise and why I am wrong.
Click to expand...

false premise 

An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results.[1] A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)

This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably unsound, because its first premise is false  one could hose down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, or the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.

Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships. The adage warns, "Correlated does not necessarily mean causally related".

A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly, or incompletely, defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:


"An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." [2]

The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female; therefore, he is not a lesbian.

Argument from false premises - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

can't make it any clearer than that .


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> ...
> 
> Identify a single element or function in nature that has supernatural causation.



The Big Bang. Next!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're as confused as always.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the question you're avoiding.
> 
> Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who say it was random chance? creationist do!  with no proof at all !
> 
> Random chance
> 
> A common claim by creationists is that evolution is nothing but random chance which they then follow by claiming that there is no way random chance could produce a particular adaptation or animal. This is most commonly used in association with an argument from design.
> 
> The "random chance" criticism is actually a straw man, since evolution does not rely only on random chance. While some elements of evolution are random, most notably mutation, the cornerstone of Charles Darwin's theory is natural selection, which is the opposite of chance. Natural selection is non-random and is one of the primary shaping forces for adaptation in nature. By ignoring natural selection in evolution, creationists are better able to argue that a god must have intervened, which is completely fallacious.
> 
> It is also interesting that because creationism makes no attempt (for it would represent a merely human limitation on divine power) to describe any regularities about the world, or to discriminate between what might happen and what might not happen as a consequence of creation (or intelligent design), there is no difference between the results of divine creation and random chance. While evolutionary biology rules out certain things - it is extremely unlikely that there would be a rabbit with ceramic armor or a supersonic hawk (unless a mad scientist decided to design one) - there is nothing that is less plausible than anything else in a creationist's world.
> 
> If we can say that "random chance" operates in evolution, we can say that it operates elsewhere in the world of life. One striking example is in the action of the adaptive immune system in jawed vertebrates. We jawed vertebrates are protected against diseases caused by certain viruses, fungi, bacteria, and parasites by changing our immune system to meet novel assaults. The adaptive immune system is the reason why vaccination works, and why we get certain diseases only once. The adaptive immune system generates great numbers of cells to detect alien biological molecules, and by "random chance" eventually one of these cells makes a match. This then allows our immune system to destroy the source of this novel alien molecule. As it turns out, relying on this "random chance" provides better protection against certain diseases than anything that we humans can "intelligently design".
> 
> "Random chance" is not incompatible with "intelligent design", or the achievement of goals. Creative artists often avail themselves of chance effects. There is the crackle glaze in pottery, which deliberately achieves artistic effects by encouraging the random patterns in the cooling of the pottery when it is removed from the kiln. Bronze outdoor sculptures are designed to acquire a patina. Performers respond to the unpredictability of the audience. Composers and playwrights release control over their works to the interpretation of the performers. Photographers and other visual artists respond to what is presented to them, for example the appearance of the model.
> 
> Malaria: A case study
> 
> The efficacy of evolution vs. design can be studied with respect to the malaria parasite and the ways of combatting it.[1] The standard evolutionary explanation for the development of sickle-cell anemia in humans is that it provides protection against the malaria parasite. Sickle-cell anemia is generally recognized as a result of a random mutation. It can cause a debilitating disease in humans, yet it also, more often, provides a defense against malaria. There are also several other random mutations in humans which can both cause diseases and defend against malaria. In the hemoglobin alpha chain, there are point mutations HbS, HbC, HbE; in the hemoglobin gamma chain, there is HPHF; in various parts of hemoglobin, there is thalassemia; and others.(page 39)[1] These various random mutations have provided defenses against malaria which have been working for a long time. We may characterize the competition between the random human evolution and the random malaria evolution as a stand-off. In contrast, there are the human-designed defenses against malaria. It is famous how malaria has evolved resistance to just about everything that we can design to go against it. Despite our best designs, not limited to drugs, the deaths from malaria continue in great numbers. (page 17)[1] "Resistance to one recent drug, atovaquone, arose in the lab scant weeks after a small culture of malaria was exposed to it. Almost a hundred thousand times as many clicks of the clock have passed since [the first appearance of sickle-cell]. About that much time since [HbC] ... and since thalassemia first appeared. Yet they are all still effective against malaria."(page 52)[1] On the other hand, the drug which was not designed seems to be somewhat intermediate: "Quinine, the natural drug that first turned the tide of battle toward humanity's side, is still pretty effective against [the malaria parasite]. But the bug is slowly gaining ground ... ."(page 260)[1]
> 
> In summary, in a contest between "random evolution" and "design", random is not just effective, but more effective; the closest contest is between the "random evolution" and the "chance discovery" of quinine.
> 
> [edit] So what does the Bible say about random chance?
> 
> Are the two elements needed for natural selection -- time and chance -- heretical or biblical? Bible thumpers should check out Ecclesiastes 9:11.
> 
> 
> &#8220;&#8221;I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.[2]
> 
> 
> Where as the verse is true, in it's context that it's place in above it is not true. If one was to read the verse further (or all of Ecclesiastes) we would see:
> 
> 
> &#8220;&#8221;For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a cruel net, Like birds caught in a snare, So the sons of men [are] snared in an evil time, When it falls suddenly upon them
> 
> 
> The point of the verse and all of Ecclesiastes (if one was to actually read it) would be that man is nothing but random chance without God, that there is no value in a life without God. That is exactly the point of creationists. If this is taken in context with the rest of the bible we know that God is all knowing, so things to man may seem random, but they aren't to God. God creating the world with purpose would mean there would be no random chance, or selection.
> 
> Random chance - RationalWiki
Click to expand...


This is a joke. Do educated people actually buy into this nonsense? I love the tired and bogus malaria argument. They are able to fool ignorant folks like Hollie and Daws by just ignoring the complex micro machines that have been in place for millions of years that even make the Malaria resistance possible. Of course if questioned on this, their response is "Move along. There is nothing to see here."


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, your posts are silly "because I say so", commentaries. Do yourself a favor and scour your comments from someplace other than Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Troll is on ignore once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really is cowardly (and juvenile), that you so often resort to name-calling as a defense for your baseless arguments. Although, I should acknowledge that your "arguments" are so often little more than cutting and pasting from creationist websites.
> 
> So... if evolution is false, have you ever asked yourself why the gods would have made a world "instantly old". The gods certainly would not have had to. Certainly, I understand from your previous posts that you hold to a literal, 6,000 year old earth, but there is no mainstream science organization that accepts your view.  Taking your line of thought further... this leads to conclusions that the gods have deliberately intended to deceive us into thinking the world is billions of years old. These immense spans are exactly what's needed for evolution to take place. Deliberate deception on the part of your gods by creating an instantly old earth / universe also aids in the widespread acceptance of evolution.
> 
> Unless, of course, your gods have played a cruel joke on you?
Click to expand...


Some things never change. Typical strawman claim. Yawn.


----------



## UltimateReality

It amazes me that educated people can look it this and believe that systems like these spontaneously generated themselves from an amino acid rich soup. Ha!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Shs3lFU_OFM]ATPsynthase.mp4 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there you go attempting to make your opinions sound like evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not evidence it's a fact.
> 
> If I am wrong then tell me otherwise and why I am wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false premise
> 
> An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results.[1] A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
> 
> For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
> If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
> The streets are wet. (premise)
> Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
> 
> This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably unsound, because its first premise is false  one could hose down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, or the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
> 
> Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships. The adage warns, "Correlated does not necessarily mean causally related".
> 
> A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly, or incompletely, defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:
> 
> 
> "An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." [2]
> 
> The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female; therefore, he is not a lesbian.
> 
> Argument from false premises - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> can't make it any clearer than that .
Click to expand...


 lol you're precious.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Troll is on ignore once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is cowardly (and juvenile), that you so often resort to name-calling as a defense for your baseless arguments. Although, I should acknowledge that your "arguments" are so often little more than cutting and pasting from creationist websites.
> 
> So... if evolution is false, have you ever asked yourself why the gods would have made a world "instantly old". The gods certainly would not have had to. Certainly, I understand from your previous posts that you hold to a literal, 6,000 year old earth, but there is no mainstream science organization that accepts your view.  Taking your line of thought further... this leads to conclusions that the gods have deliberately intended to deceive us into thinking the world is billions of years old. These immense spans are exactly what's needed for evolution to take place. Deliberate deception on the part of your gods by creating an instantly old earth / universe also aids in the widespread acceptance of evolution.
> 
> Unless, of course, your gods have played a cruel joke on you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some things never change. Typical strawman claim. Yawn.
Click to expand...


Typical babbling from the fundie who can't compose a coherent thought.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> It amazes me that educated people can look it this and believe that systems like these spontaneously generated themselves from an amino acid rich soup. Ha!
> 
> ATPsynthase.mp4 - YouTube



Amen  brother !


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is cowardly (and juvenile), that you so often resort to name-calling as a defense for your baseless arguments. Although, I should acknowledge that your "arguments" are so often little more than cutting and pasting from creationist websites.
> 
> So... if evolution is false, have you ever asked yourself why the gods would have made a world "instantly old". The gods certainly would not have had to. Certainly, I understand from your previous posts that you hold to a literal, 6,000 year old earth, but there is no mainstream science organization that accepts your view.  Taking your line of thought further... this leads to conclusions that the gods have deliberately intended to deceive us into thinking the world is billions of years old. These immense spans are exactly what's needed for evolution to take place. Deliberate deception on the part of your gods by creating an instantly old earth / universe also aids in the widespread acceptance of evolution.
> 
> Unless, of course, your gods have played a cruel joke on you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some things never change. Typical strawman claim. Yawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical babbling from the fundie who can't compose a coherent thought.
Click to expand...


 Will you please stop,you're killing me.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> It amazes me that educated people can look it this and believe that systems like these spontaneously generated themselves from an amino acid rich soup. Ha!


What's amazing is how clueless you are regarding such things as biology and evolutionary science. 

I suppose we should expect such from the Steven Meyer / Henry Morris groupies.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some things never change. Typical strawman claim. Yawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical babbling from the fundie who can't compose a coherent thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you please stop,you're killing me.
Click to expand...


Yet another Harun Yahya academy graduate.


----------



## UltimateReality

YWC, when Hollie gets owned she just ignores it and hopes no one will notice. I owned her with the supernatural cause for the big bang!!!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> YWC, when Hollie gets owned she just ignores it and hopes no one will notice. I owned her with the supernatural cause for the big bang!!!



You confuse cutting and pasting from xtian creationist websites with making an actual argument. 

I'm afraid that the best YWC has to offer is cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya. 

I'm afraid you have been "owned" by your own ineptitude and incompetence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, when Hollie gets owned she just ignores it and hopes no one will notice. I owned her with the supernatural cause for the big bang!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse cutting and pasting from xtian creationist websites with making an actual argument.
> 
> I'm afraid that the best YWC has to offer is cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.
> 
> I'm afraid you have been "owned" by your own ineptitude and incompetence.
Click to expand...


Hollie you  and are a liar.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, when Hollie gets owned she just ignores it and hopes no one will notice. I owned her with the supernatural cause for the big bang!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse cutting and pasting from xtian creationist websites with making an actual argument.
> 
> I'm afraid that the best YWC has to offer is cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.
> 
> I'm afraid you have been "owned" by your own ineptitude and incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie you  and are a liar.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're unable to be honest with yourself or others regarding so many things.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse cutting and pasting from xtian creationist websites with making an actual argument.
> 
> I'm afraid that the best YWC has to offer is cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.
> 
> I'm afraid you have been "owned" by your own ineptitude and incompetence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you  and are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid you're unable to be honest with yourself or others regarding so many things.
Click to expand...


That is not a problem for me I have asked repeatedly for your side to make that convincing argument on how life began through a total natural process and heck you guys are not even using the Miller and Urey experiment to make your argument but you're convinced there is no intelligent designer.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse cutting and pasting from xtian creationist websites with making an actual argument.
> 
> I'm afraid that the best YWC has to offer is cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.
> 
> I'm afraid you have been "owned" by your own ineptitude and incompetence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you  and are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid you're unable to be honest with yourself or others regarding so many things.
Click to expand...


You seriously need to get a life. All that seething hate and vicious anger only damages you internally... not others. Forgiveness is the path to happiness.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you  and are a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid you're unable to be honest with yourself or others regarding so many things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not a problem for me I have asked repeatedly for your side to make that convincing argument on how life began through a total natural process and heck you guys are not even using the Miller and Urey experiment to make your argument but you're convinced there is no intelligent designer.
Click to expand...

You have been told repeatedly and tediously that the precise mechanisms that define how life began are not entirely understood.

Why don't you give us a comprehensive description of the hierarchy of gawds who designed your designer gawds. 

When you're through, you can identify for us why your designer gawds lied to us about creation and why they lied about a 6,000 year old earth that we know to be billions of years old.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you  and are a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid you're unable to be honest with yourself or others regarding so many things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seriously need to get a life. All that seething hate and vicious anger only damages you internally... not others. Forgiveness is the path to happiness.
Click to expand...

Sorry thumpie. Go peddle your hateful ideology elsewhere.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid you're unable to be honest with yourself or others regarding so many things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a problem for me I have asked repeatedly for your side to make that convincing argument on how life began through a total natural process and heck you guys are not even using the Miller and Urey experiment to make your argument but you're convinced there is no intelligent designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been told repeatedly and tediously that the precise mechanisms that define how life began are not entirely understood.
> 
> Why don't you give us a comprehensive description of the hierarchy of gawds who designed your designer gawds.
> 
> When you're through, you can identify for us why your designer gawds lied to us about creation and why they lied about a 6,000 year old earth that we know to be billions of years old.
Click to expand...


So you have backed off from the miller and Urey experiment as proof life happened naturally ? If not then supposedly Miller and Urey has provided mechanisms that produced life. Now explain how through these mechanisms life was formed ? Also show life being observed spontaneous being generated now and if you can't why do you believe in naturalism ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not evidence it's a fact.
> 
> If I am wrong then tell me otherwise and why I am wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> false premise
> 
> An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results.[1] A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
> 
> For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
> If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
> The streets are wet. (premise)
> Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
> 
> This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably unsound, because its first premise is false  one could hose down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, or the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
> 
> Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships. The adage warns, "Correlated does not necessarily mean causally related".
> 
> A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly, or incompletely, defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:
> 
> 
> "An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." [2]
> 
> The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female; therefore, he is not a lesbian.
> 
> Argument from false premises - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> can't make it any clearer than that .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol you're precious.
Click to expand...

thanks but that doesn't make you any less ignorant! 
also it's a chicken shit dodge..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me that educated people can look it this and believe that systems like these spontaneously generated themselves from an amino acid rich soup. Ha!
> 
> ATPsynthase.mp4 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen  brother !
Click to expand...

false premise


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> YWC, when Hollie gets owned she just ignores it and hopes no one will notice. I owned her with the supernatural cause for the big bang!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse cutting and pasting from xtian creationist websites with making an actual argument.
> 
> I'm afraid that the best YWC has to offer is cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.
> 
> I'm afraid you have been "owned" by your own ineptitude and incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie you  and are a liar.
Click to expand...

false premise


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you  and are a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid you're unable to be honest with yourself or others regarding so many things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not a problem for me I have asked repeatedly for your side to make that convincing argument on how life began through a total natural process and heck you guys are not even using the Miller and Urey experiment to make your argument but you're convinced there is no intelligent designer.
Click to expand...

false premise


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> YWC, when Hollie gets owned she just ignores it and hopes no one will notice. I owned her with the supernatural cause for the big bang!!!


typical ignorant hubris, all you owned was your underwhelming non originality,
 false integrity. self aggrandizement..
it's a hoot watching you trip over your imaginary dick.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> So you have backed off from the miller and Urey experiment as proof life happened naturally ? If not then supposedly Miller and Urey has provided mechanisms that produced life.


I&#8217;ve never maintained that Miller and Urey either was, or is, the determining factor for how life began on the planet. I understand you tend to focus on this because you feel it appeals to the loathing you have for science. How sad for you.

Here's why fundies such as yourself devote so much energy toward your science loathing agenda: Creationists are almost exclusively Christian Fundamentalists; that is to say, literalists, taking every word of the bible to be the true and infallable word of God. Many echo the sentiments of  Henry Morris, previous chief snake-oil salesman in charge fronting for fundie Christian charlatans who you have frequently cut and pasted from: 

"But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture." 

_Dr. Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33_



The fundie charlatans are nearly universal in that they view evolutionary science, which flatly contradicts the book of Genesis, as a direct threat to their theology, the foundation of society and a threat to the basis of morality itself.

I&#8217;ve noticed also, with near universality, that fundies attempt to sidestep the problem by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that their gawds made the stars, galaxies and _intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies_, in their present configurations. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to _mislead_ scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the spurious conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about...




> Now explain how through these mechanisms life was formed ? Also show life being observed spontaneous being generated now and if you can't why do you believe in naturalism ?



In spite of your inability to form coherent sentences&#8230;.. I&#8217;ve already explained to you (on many occasions), that the precise biological mechanisms that sparked the first existence of life are unknown.

However, because you are forever burdened by a yolk of ignorance you choose to be constrained with (a function of your religious affliction), are you looking for the fact that species are observed to evolve into new species?:
Observed Instances of Speciation 


How about some more observed Speciation Events:
Some More Observed Speciation Events


Or are you looking for the fact that there are tons of transitional fossils, showing the transformation of species?
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ



Here is a one good example out of hundreds you can find within the pages above:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."


This is an example witnessed in nature, not a laboratory (not that it makes much of a difference). Yes, we're talking about plants in this one instance. But it doesn't matter if we are talking about plants, flies, bacterium, dogs or humans-- the biological process is the same-- it makes no distinction. Remember that the shorter the lifespan of the organisms, the easier it is to witness evolution in action.

There are hundreds of clear examples to choose from. You can look at Evidence for Evolution for more examples.
Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey



So&#8230;. I&#8217;m still waiting for your comprehensive description of the hierarchy of gawds who designed your designer gawds.

And why do your gawds lie?

The bibles state that there are winged creatures that go about on 4 legs (Lev 11:20-21).

There aren't. Ooops. 

The bibles also state specifically that rabbits chew their cud (Deu 14:7). They don't. Jesus states that there were some standing and listening to him speak who would still be alive to see his second coming (Mat 16:28)... obviously untrue.

He also stated that the world would come to an end during his generation:
Jesus is talking of signs that will happen before the end of the world to his disciples. (Notice: Jesus probably thought the stars were little lights attached to a solid rotating sky dome like everyone else at that time. Imagine just one star "falling to earth"!)


(Mat 24:29 NRSV) "Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; *the stars will fall from heaven*, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory.

(Jesus now says to his disciples that their generation will not pass away before the end of the world)

(Mat 24:34 NRSV) Truly I tell you, *this generation will not pass away* until all these things have taken place.

(Their generation did pass away, but the world didn't end) The evidence is the current existence of the world.


Need more?

Ezekiel predicted Babylon would conquer Egypt and was wrong. It never happened, and can now never be fulfilled.

In Luke 1:26, the angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the "throne of David", that he will reign over Israel. It never happened, did it?
Here is another factual error. "The love of money is the root of all evil." (1 Timothy 6:10) This is obviously untrue, and a blatantly ridiculous statement. There are sources of evil other than the love of money. Racism, sexism, jealousy, pride, shame, hate-- all these things are evil and can drive someone to murder. I am sure you can think of more, if you try.

Sorry, but hey -  if you want to play Lumberjack, try holding up your end of the log.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have backed off from the miller and Urey experiment as proof life happened naturally ? If not then supposedly Miller and Urey has provided mechanisms that produced life.
> 
> 
> 
> I&#8217;ve never maintained that Miller and Urey either was, or is, the determining factor for how life began on the planet. I understand you tend to focus on this because you feel it appeals to the loathing you have for science. How sad for you.
> 
> Here's why fundies such as yourself devote so much energy toward your science loathing agenda: Creationists are almost exclusively Christian Fundamentalists; that is to say, literalists, taking every word of the bible to be the true and infallable word of God. Many echo the sentiments of  Henry Morris, previous chief snake-oil salesman in charge fronting for fundie Christian charlatans who you have frequently cut and pasted from:
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> 
> _Dr. Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33_
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie charlatans are nearly universal in that they view evolutionary science, which flatly contradicts the book of Genesis, as a direct threat to their theology, the foundation of society and a threat to the basis of morality itself.
> 
> I&#8217;ve noticed also, with near universality, that fundies attempt to sidestep the problem by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that their gawds made the stars, galaxies and _intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies_, in their present configurations. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to _mislead_ scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the spurious conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.
> 
> Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now explain how through these mechanisms life was formed ? Also show life being observed spontaneous being generated now and if you can't why do you believe in naturalism ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In spite of your inability to form coherent sentences&#8230;.. I&#8217;ve already explained to you (on many occasions), that the precise biological mechanisms that sparked the first existence of life are unknown.
> 
> However, because you are forever burdened by a yolk of ignorance you choose to be constrained with (a function of your religious affliction), are you looking for the fact that species are observed to evolve into new species?:
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> 
> How about some more observed Speciation Events:
> Some More Observed Speciation Events
> 
> 
> Or are you looking for the fact that there are tons of transitional fossils, showing the transformation of species?
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a one good example out of hundreds you can find within the pages above:
> 
> "Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
> 
> 
> This is an example witnessed in nature, not a laboratory (not that it makes much of a difference). Yes, we're talking about plants in this one instance. But it doesn't matter if we are talking about plants, flies, bacterium, dogs or humans-- the biological process is the same-- it makes no distinction. Remember that the shorter the lifespan of the organisms, the easier it is to witness evolution in action.
> 
> There are hundreds of clear examples to choose from. You can look at Evidence for Evolution for more examples.
> Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey
> 
> 
> 
> So&#8230;. I&#8217;m still waiting for your comprehensive description of the hierarchy of gawds who designed your designer gawds.
> 
> And why do your gawds lie?
> 
> The bibles state that there are winged creatures that go about on 4 legs (Lev 11:20-21).
> 
> There aren't. Ooops.
> 
> The bibles also state specifically that rabbits chew their cud (Deu 14:7). They don't. Jesus states that there were some standing and listening to him speak who would still be alive to see his second coming (Mat 16:28)... obviously untrue.
> 
> He also stated that the world would come to an end during his generation:
> Jesus is talking of signs that will happen before the end of the world to his disciples. (Notice: Jesus probably thought the stars were little lights attached to a solid rotating sky dome like everyone else at that time. Imagine just one star "falling to earth"!)
> 
> 
> (Mat 24:29 NRSV) "Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; *the stars will fall from heaven*, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory.
> 
> (Jesus now says to his disciples that their generation will not pass away before the end of the world)
> 
> (Mat 24:34 NRSV) Truly I tell you, *this generation will not pass away* until all these things have taken place.
> 
> (Their generation did pass away, but the world didn't end) The evidence is the current existence of the world.
> 
> 
> Need more?
> 
> Ezekiel predicted Babylon would conquer Egypt and was wrong. It never happened, and can now never be fulfilled.
> 
> In Luke 1:26, the angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the "throne of David", that he will reign over Israel. It never happened, did it?
> Here is another factual error. "The love of money is the root of all evil." (1 Timothy 6:10) This is obviously untrue, and a blatantly ridiculous statement. There are sources of evil other than the love of money. Racism, sexism, jealousy, pride, shame, hate-- all these things are evil and can drive someone to murder. I am sure you can think of more, if you try.
> 
> Sorry, but hey -  if you want to play Lumberjack, try holding up your end of the log.
Click to expand...


You, Daws and a few others in this thread most certainly turned to the miller and urey experiment as an answer for origins until You were owned on the issue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid you're unable to be honest with yourself or others regarding so many things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a problem for me I have asked repeatedly for your side to make that convincing argument on how life began through a total natural process and heck you guys are not even using the Miller and Urey experiment to make your argument but you're convinced there is no intelligent designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false premise
Click to expand...


How do you think life got it's start ? use your own words and no copying and pasting like your partner and let's have this discussion. You must have a thought of your own with 6 years of biology under your belt.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have backed off from the miller and Urey experiment as proof life happened naturally ? If not then supposedly Miller and Urey has provided mechanisms that produced life.
> 
> 
> 
> Ive never maintained that Miller and Urey either was, or is, the determining factor for how life began on the planet. I understand you tend to focus on this because you feel it appeals to the loathing you have for science. How sad for you.
> 
> Here's why fundies such as yourself devote so much energy toward your science loathing agenda: Creationists are almost exclusively Christian Fundamentalists; that is to say, literalists, taking every word of the bible to be the true and infallable word of God. Many echo the sentiments of  Henry Morris, previous chief snake-oil salesman in charge fronting for fundie Christian charlatans who you have frequently cut and pasted from:
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> 
> _Dr. Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33_
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie charlatans are nearly universal in that they view evolutionary science, which flatly contradicts the book of Genesis, as a direct threat to their theology, the foundation of society and a threat to the basis of morality itself.
> 
> Ive noticed also, with near universality, that fundies attempt to sidestep the problem by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that their gawds made the stars, galaxies and _intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies_, in their present configurations. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to _mislead_ scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the spurious conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.
> 
> Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now explain how through these mechanisms life was formed ? Also show life being observed spontaneous being generated now and if you can't why do you believe in naturalism ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In spite of your inability to form coherent sentences.. Ive already explained to you (on many occasions), that the precise biological mechanisms that sparked the first existence of life are unknown.
> 
> However, because you are forever burdened by a yolk of ignorance you choose to be constrained with (a function of your religious affliction), are you looking for the fact that species are observed to evolve into new species?:
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> 
> How about some more observed Speciation Events:
> Some More Observed Speciation Events
> 
> 
> Or are you looking for the fact that there are tons of transitional fossils, showing the transformation of species?
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a one good example out of hundreds you can find within the pages above:
> 
> "Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
> 
> 
> This is an example witnessed in nature, not a laboratory (not that it makes much of a difference). Yes, we're talking about plants in this one instance. But it doesn't matter if we are talking about plants, flies, bacterium, dogs or humans-- the biological process is the same-- it makes no distinction. Remember that the shorter the lifespan of the organisms, the easier it is to witness evolution in action.
> 
> There are hundreds of clear examples to choose from. You can look at Evidence for Evolution for more examples.
> Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey
> 
> 
> 
> So. Im still waiting for your comprehensive description of the hierarchy of gawds who designed your designer gawds.
> 
> And why do your gawds lie?
> 
> The bibles state that there are winged creatures that go about on 4 legs (Lev 11:20-21).
> 
> There aren't. Ooops.
> 
> The bibles also state specifically that rabbits chew their cud (Deu 14:7). They don't. Jesus states that there were some standing and listening to him speak who would still be alive to see his second coming (Mat 16:28)... obviously untrue.
> 
> He also stated that the world would come to an end during his generation:
> Jesus is talking of signs that will happen before the end of the world to his disciples. (Notice: Jesus probably thought the stars were little lights attached to a solid rotating sky dome like everyone else at that time. Imagine just one star "falling to earth"!)
> 
> 
> (Mat 24:29 NRSV) "Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; *the stars will fall from heaven*, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory.
> 
> (Jesus now says to his disciples that their generation will not pass away before the end of the world)
> 
> (Mat 24:34 NRSV) Truly I tell you, *this generation will not pass away* until all these things have taken place.
> 
> (Their generation did pass away, but the world didn't end) The evidence is the current existence of the world.
> 
> 
> Need more?
> 
> Ezekiel predicted Babylon would conquer Egypt and was wrong. It never happened, and can now never be fulfilled.
> 
> In Luke 1:26, the angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the "throne of David", that he will reign over Israel. It never happened, did it?
> Here is another factual error. "The love of money is the root of all evil." (1 Timothy 6:10) This is obviously untrue, and a blatantly ridiculous statement. There are sources of evil other than the love of money. Racism, sexism, jealousy, pride, shame, hate-- all these things are evil and can drive someone to murder. I am sure you can think of more, if you try.
> 
> Sorry, but hey -  if you want to play Lumberjack, try holding up your end of the log.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You, Daws and a few others in this thread most certainly turned to the miller and urey experiment as an answer for origins until You were owned on the issue.
Click to expand...


You certainly made every effort to sidestep, dodge and avoid addressing the issues presented to you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ive never maintained that Miller and Urey either was, or is, the determining factor for how life began on the planet. I understand you tend to focus on this because you feel it appeals to the loathing you have for science. How sad for you.
> 
> Here's why fundies such as yourself devote so much energy toward your science loathing agenda: Creationists are almost exclusively Christian Fundamentalists; that is to say, literalists, taking every word of the bible to be the true and infallable word of God. Many echo the sentiments of  Henry Morris, previous chief snake-oil salesman in charge fronting for fundie Christian charlatans who you have frequently cut and pasted from:
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> 
> _Dr. Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33_
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie charlatans are nearly universal in that they view evolutionary science, which flatly contradicts the book of Genesis, as a direct threat to their theology, the foundation of society and a threat to the basis of morality itself.
> 
> Ive noticed also, with near universality, that fundies attempt to sidestep the problem by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that their gawds made the stars, galaxies and _intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies_, in their present configurations. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to _mislead_ scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the spurious conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.
> 
> Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of your inability to form coherent sentences.. Ive already explained to you (on many occasions), that the precise biological mechanisms that sparked the first existence of life are unknown.
> 
> However, because you are forever burdened by a yolk of ignorance you choose to be constrained with (a function of your religious affliction), are you looking for the fact that species are observed to evolve into new species?:
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> 
> How about some more observed Speciation Events:
> Some More Observed Speciation Events
> 
> 
> Or are you looking for the fact that there are tons of transitional fossils, showing the transformation of species?
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a one good example out of hundreds you can find within the pages above:
> 
> "Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
> 
> 
> This is an example witnessed in nature, not a laboratory (not that it makes much of a difference). Yes, we're talking about plants in this one instance. But it doesn't matter if we are talking about plants, flies, bacterium, dogs or humans-- the biological process is the same-- it makes no distinction. Remember that the shorter the lifespan of the organisms, the easier it is to witness evolution in action.
> 
> There are hundreds of clear examples to choose from. You can look at Evidence for Evolution for more examples.
> Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey
> 
> 
> 
> So. Im still waiting for your comprehensive description of the hierarchy of gawds who designed your designer gawds.
> 
> And why do your gawds lie?
> 
> The bibles state that there are winged creatures that go about on 4 legs (Lev 11:20-21).
> 
> There aren't. Ooops.
> 
> The bibles also state specifically that rabbits chew their cud (Deu 14:7). They don't. Jesus states that there were some standing and listening to him speak who would still be alive to see his second coming (Mat 16:28)... obviously untrue.
> 
> He also stated that the world would come to an end during his generation:
> Jesus is talking of signs that will happen before the end of the world to his disciples. (Notice: Jesus probably thought the stars were little lights attached to a solid rotating sky dome like everyone else at that time. Imagine just one star "falling to earth"!)
> 
> 
> (Mat 24:29 NRSV) "Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; *the stars will fall from heaven*, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory.
> 
> (Jesus now says to his disciples that their generation will not pass away before the end of the world)
> 
> (Mat 24:34 NRSV) Truly I tell you, *this generation will not pass away* until all these things have taken place.
> 
> (Their generation did pass away, but the world didn't end) The evidence is the current existence of the world.
> 
> 
> Need more?
> 
> Ezekiel predicted Babylon would conquer Egypt and was wrong. It never happened, and can now never be fulfilled.
> 
> In Luke 1:26, the angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the "throne of David", that he will reign over Israel. It never happened, did it?
> Here is another factual error. "The love of money is the root of all evil." (1 Timothy 6:10) This is obviously untrue, and a blatantly ridiculous statement. There are sources of evil other than the love of money. Racism, sexism, jealousy, pride, shame, hate-- all these things are evil and can drive someone to murder. I am sure you can think of more, if you try.
> 
> Sorry, but hey -  if you want to play Lumberjack, try holding up your end of the log.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You, Daws and a few others in this thread most certainly turned to the miller and urey experiment as an answer for origins until You were owned on the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly made every effort to sidestep, dodge and avoid addressing the issues presented to you.
Click to expand...


 Hollie, how did your copy and paste job address my question ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, Daws and a few others in this thread most certainly turned to the miller and urey experiment as an answer for origins until You were owned on the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly made every effort to sidestep, dodge and avoid addressing the issues presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, how did your copy and paste job address my question ?
Click to expand...


Why are you unable to make any attempt at addressing the origins of your gawds. 

Doesn't Harun Yahya have something you can cut and paste?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly made every effort to sidestep, dodge and avoid addressing the issues presented to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, how did your copy and paste job address my question ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you unable to make any attempt at addressing the origins of your gawds.
> 
> Doesn't Harun Yahya have something you can cut and paste?
Click to expand...


Who is side stepping


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, how did your copy and paste job address my question ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you unable to make any attempt at addressing the origins of your gawds.
> 
> Doesn't Harun Yahya have something you can cut and paste?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is side stepping
Click to expand...


Your lack of any identifiable ability to offer facts supporting your specious opinions would demonstrate you are the one sidestepping.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you unable to make any attempt at addressing the origins of your gawds.
> 
> Doesn't Harun Yahya have something you can cut and paste?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is side stepping
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of any identifiable ability to offer facts supporting your specious opinions would demonstrate you are the one sidestepping.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is side stepping
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of any identifiable ability to offer facts supporting your specious opinions would demonstrate you are the one sidestepping.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So, what was it I just wrote about "... lack of any identifiable..."


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of any identifiable ability to offer facts supporting your specious opinions would demonstrate you are the one sidestepping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what was it I just wrote about "... lack of any identifiable..."
Click to expand...


Still side stepping ?

You're getting owned in the other thread.

Oh and this one to you might want to rejoin that other forum you were a member of.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, what was it I just wrote about "... lack of any identifiable..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still side stepping ?
> 
> You're getting owned in the other thread.
> 
> Oh and this one to you might want to rejoin that other forum you were a member of.
Click to expand...

I hadn't realized I was getting "owned". That's often a lot of bluster coming from the party who is unable to address the topic. 

Why not address how the fosill evidence is, according to you, faked, contrived,
or the product if conspiracy?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie you're a joke.

Have a wonderful day.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie you're a joke.
> 
> Have a wonderful day.



I suppose this will be the 11th time you're "no longer responding to my posts"...


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false premise
> 
> An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results.[1] A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
> 
> For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
> If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
> The streets are wet. (premise)
> Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
> 
> This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably unsound, because its first premise is false  one could hose down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, or the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
> 
> Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships. The adage warns, "Correlated does not necessarily mean causally related".
> 
> A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly, or incompletely, defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:
> 
> 
> "An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." [2]
> 
> The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female; therefore, he is not a lesbian.
> 
> Argument from false premises - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> can't make it any clearer than that .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol you're precious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> also it's a chicken shit dodge..
Click to expand...


That's your middle name.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have backed off from the miller and Urey experiment as proof life happened naturally ? If not then supposedly Miller and Urey has provided mechanisms that produced life.
> 
> 
> 
> Ive never maintained that Miller and Urey either was, or is, the determining factor for how life began on the planet. I understand you tend to focus on this because you feel it appeals to the loathing you have for science. How sad for you.
> 
> Here's why fundies such as yourself devote so much energy toward your science loathing agenda: Creationists are almost exclusively Christian Fundamentalists; that is to say, literalists, taking every word of the bible to be the true and infallable word of God. Many echo the sentiments of  Henry Morris, previous chief snake-oil salesman in charge fronting for fundie Christian charlatans who you have frequently cut and pasted from:
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> 
> _Dr. Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33_
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie charlatans are nearly universal in that they view evolutionary science, which flatly contradicts the book of Genesis, as a direct threat to their theology, the foundation of society and a threat to the basis of morality itself.
> 
> Ive noticed also, with near universality, that fundies attempt to sidestep the problem by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that their gawds made the stars, galaxies and _intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies_, in their present configurations. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to _mislead_ scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the spurious conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.
> 
> Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now explain how through these mechanisms life was formed ? Also show life being observed spontaneous being generated now and if you can't why do you believe in naturalism ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In spite of your inability to form coherent sentences.. Ive already explained to you (on many occasions), that the precise biological mechanisms that sparked the first existence of life are unknown.
> 
> However, because you are forever burdened by a yolk of ignorance you choose to be constrained with (a function of your religious affliction), are you looking for the fact that species are observed to evolve into new species?:
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> 
> How about some more observed Speciation Events:
> Some More Observed Speciation Events
> 
> 
> Or are you looking for the fact that there are tons of transitional fossils, showing the transformation of species?
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a one good example out of hundreds you can find within the pages above:
> 
> "Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
> 
> 
> This is an example witnessed in nature, not a laboratory (not that it makes much of a difference). Yes, we're talking about plants in this one instance. But it doesn't matter if we are talking about plants, flies, bacterium, dogs or humans-- the biological process is the same-- it makes no distinction. Remember that the shorter the lifespan of the organisms, the easier it is to witness evolution in action.
> 
> There are hundreds of clear examples to choose from. You can look at Evidence for Evolution for more examples.
> Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey
> 
> 
> 
> So. Im still waiting for your comprehensive description of the hierarchy of gawds who designed your designer gawds.
> 
> And why do your gawds lie?
> 
> The bibles state that there are winged creatures that go about on 4 legs (Lev 11:20-21).
> 
> There aren't. Ooops.
> 
> The bibles also state specifically that rabbits chew their cud (Deu 14:7). They don't. Jesus states that there were some standing and listening to him speak who would still be alive to see his second coming (Mat 16:28)... obviously untrue.
> 
> He also stated that the world would come to an end during his generation:
> Jesus is talking of signs that will happen before the end of the world to his disciples. (Notice: Jesus probably thought the stars were little lights attached to a solid rotating sky dome like everyone else at that time. Imagine just one star "falling to earth"!)
> 
> 
> (Mat 24:29 NRSV) "Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; *the stars will fall from heaven*, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory.
> 
> (Jesus now says to his disciples that their generation will not pass away before the end of the world)
> 
> (Mat 24:34 NRSV) Truly I tell you, *this generation will not pass away* until all these things have taken place.
> 
> (Their generation did pass away, but the world didn't end) The evidence is the current existence of the world.
> 
> 
> Need more?
> 
> Ezekiel predicted Babylon would conquer Egypt and was wrong. It never happened, and can now never be fulfilled.
> 
> In Luke 1:26, the angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the "throne of David", that he will reign over Israel. It never happened, did it?
> Here is another factual error. "The love of money is the root of all evil." (1 Timothy 6:10) This is obviously untrue, and a blatantly ridiculous statement. There are sources of evil other than the love of money. Racism, sexism, jealousy, pride, shame, hate-- all these things are evil and can drive someone to murder. I am sure you can think of more, if you try.
> 
> Sorry, but hey -  if you want to play Lumberjack, try holding up your end of the log.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You, Daws and a few others in this thread most certainly turned to the miller and urey experiment as an answer for origins until You were owned on the issue.
Click to expand...

OWNED by whom? are you inferring  yourself or UR?
if so then then that's the second biggest lie you've told in the last hour. bahahahahaha!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have backed off from the miller and Urey experiment as proof life happened naturally ? If not then supposedly Miller and Urey has provided mechanisms that produced life.
> 
> 
> 
> I&#8217;ve never maintained that Miller and Urey either was, or is, the determining factor for how life began on the planet. I understand you tend to focus on this because you feel it appeals to the loathing you have for science. How sad for you.
> 
> Here's why fundies such as yourself devote so much energy toward your science loathing agenda: Creationists are almost exclusively Christian Fundamentalists; that is to say, literalists, taking every word of the bible to be the true and infallable word of God. Many echo the sentiments of  Henry Morris, previous chief snake-oil salesman in charge fronting for fundie Christian charlatans who you have frequently cut and pasted from:
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> 
> _Dr. Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33_
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie charlatans are nearly universal in that they view evolutionary science, which flatly contradicts the book of Genesis, as a direct threat to their theology, the foundation of society and a threat to the basis of morality itself.
> 
> I&#8217;ve noticed also, with near universality, that fundies attempt to sidestep the problem by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that their gawds made the stars, galaxies and _intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies_, in their present configurations. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to _mislead_ scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the spurious conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.
> 
> Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now explain how through these mechanisms life was formed ? Also show life being observed spontaneous being generated now and if you can't why do you believe in naturalism ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In spite of your inability to form coherent sentences&#8230;.. I&#8217;ve already explained to you (on many occasions), that the precise biological mechanisms that sparked the first existence of life are unknown.
> 
> However, because you are forever burdened by a yolk of ignorance you choose to be constrained with (a function of your religious affliction), are you looking for the fact that species are observed to evolve into new species?:
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> 
> How about some more observed Speciation Events:
> Some More Observed Speciation Events
> 
> 
> Or are you looking for the fact that there are tons of transitional fossils, showing the transformation of species?
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a one good example out of hundreds you can find within the pages above:
> 
> "Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
> 
> 
> This is an example witnessed in nature, not a laboratory (not that it makes much of a difference). Yes, we're talking about plants in this one instance. But it doesn't matter if we are talking about plants, flies, bacterium, dogs or humans-- the biological process is the same-- it makes no distinction. Remember that the shorter the lifespan of the organisms, the easier it is to witness evolution in action.
> 
> There are hundreds of clear examples to choose from. You can look at Evidence for Evolution for more examples.
> Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey
> 
> 
> 
> So&#8230;. I&#8217;m still waiting for your comprehensive description of the hierarchy of gawds who designed your designer gawds.
> 
> And why do your gawds lie?
> 
> The bibles state that there are winged creatures that go about on 4 legs (Lev 11:20-21).
> 
> There aren't. Ooops.
> 
> The bibles also state specifically that rabbits chew their cud (Deu 14:7). They don't. Jesus states that there were some standing and listening to him speak who would still be alive to see his second coming (Mat 16:28)... obviously untrue.
> 
> He also stated that the world would come to an end during his generation:
> Jesus is talking of signs that will happen before the end of the world to his disciples. (Notice: Jesus probably thought the stars were little lights attached to a solid rotating sky dome like everyone else at that time. Imagine just one star "falling to earth"!)
> 
> 
> (Mat 24:29 NRSV) "Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; *the stars will fall from heaven*, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory.
> 
> (Jesus now says to his disciples that their generation will not pass away before the end of the world)
> 
> (Mat 24:34 NRSV) Truly I tell you, *this generation will not pass away* until all these things have taken place.
> 
> (Their generation did pass away, but the world didn't end) The evidence is the current existence of the world.
> 
> 
> Need more?
> 
> Ezekiel predicted Babylon would conquer Egypt and was wrong. It never happened, and can now never be fulfilled.
> 
> In Luke 1:26, the angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the "throne of David", that he will reign over Israel. It never happened, did it?
> Here is another factual error. "The love of money is the root of all evil." (1 Timothy 6:10) This is obviously untrue, and a blatantly ridiculous statement. There are sources of evil other than the love of money. Racism, sexism, jealousy, pride, shame, hate-- all these things are evil and can drive someone to murder. I am sure you can think of more, if you try.
> 
> Sorry, but hey -  if you want to play Lumberjack, try holding up your end of the log.
Click to expand...


Speaking of things that have been refuted thousands of times, you hierarchy of gawds argument has been refuted over and over and has proven to be based on bad logic and a false premise, but yet you persist in presenting it over and over as if repeating something a thousand times will legitimize it. Pathetic. 

Let's repeat it one more time for those who just joined us, only a beginning necessitates a cause, like the beginning of the universe for instance. God has always existed and predates the universe. Since God has no beginning, he requires no cause. He claims in the Bible, "no gods were formed before me and none will be formed after me". 

Your weak argument is based on the false premise that God had a beginning. Of course I have no hope that you will respond to this valid, logical argument which refutes yours, nor will you cease repeating your tired, stupid, devoid of logic argument in the future, but one can dream.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a problem for me I have asked repeatedly for your side to make that convincing argument on how life began through a total natural process and heck you guys are not even using the Miller and Urey experiment to make your argument but you're convinced there is no intelligent designer.
> 
> 
> 
> false premise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you think life got it's start ? use your own words and no copying and pasting like your partner and let's have this discussion. You must have a thought of your own with 6 years of biology under your belt.
Click to expand...

ok.. but first you must learn what a false premise is. until you do no real discussion can happen.
examples of a false premises "there is proof of guided or intelligent  design in nature."
"creation science is science"


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I&#8217;ve never maintained that Miller and Urey either was, or is, the determining factor for how life began on the planet. I understand you tend to focus on this because you feel it appeals to the loathing you have for science. How sad for you.
> 
> Here's why fundies such as yourself devote so much energy toward your science loathing agenda: Creationists are almost exclusively Christian Fundamentalists; that is to say, literalists, taking every word of the bible to be the true and infallable word of God. Many echo the sentiments of  Henry Morris, previous chief snake-oil salesman in charge fronting for fundie Christian charlatans who you have frequently cut and pasted from:
> 
> "But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
> 
> _Dr. Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33_
> 
> 
> 
> The fundie charlatans are nearly universal in that they view evolutionary science, which flatly contradicts the book of Genesis, as a direct threat to their theology, the foundation of society and a threat to the basis of morality itself.
> 
> I&#8217;ve noticed also, with near universality, that fundies attempt to sidestep the problem by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that their gawds made the stars, galaxies and _intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies_, in their present configurations. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to _mislead_ scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the spurious conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.
> 
> Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of your inability to form coherent sentences&#8230;.. I&#8217;ve already explained to you (on many occasions), that the precise biological mechanisms that sparked the first existence of life are unknown.
> 
> However, because you are forever burdened by a yolk of ignorance you choose to be constrained with (a function of your religious affliction), are you looking for the fact that species are observed to evolve into new species?:
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> 
> How about some more observed Speciation Events:
> Some More Observed Speciation Events
> 
> 
> Or are you looking for the fact that there are tons of transitional fossils, showing the transformation of species?
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a one good example out of hundreds you can find within the pages above:
> 
> "Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
> 
> 
> This is an example witnessed in nature, not a laboratory (not that it makes much of a difference). Yes, we're talking about plants in this one instance. But it doesn't matter if we are talking about plants, flies, bacterium, dogs or humans-- the biological process is the same-- it makes no distinction. Remember that the shorter the lifespan of the organisms, the easier it is to witness evolution in action.
> 
> There are hundreds of clear examples to choose from. You can look at Evidence for Evolution for more examples.
> Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey
> 
> 
> 
> So&#8230;. I&#8217;m still waiting for your comprehensive description of the hierarchy of gawds who designed your designer gawds.
> 
> And why do your gawds lie?
> 
> The bibles state that there are winged creatures that go about on 4 legs (Lev 11:20-21).
> 
> There aren't. Ooops.
> 
> The bibles also state specifically that rabbits chew their cud (Deu 14:7). They don't. Jesus states that there were some standing and listening to him speak who would still be alive to see his second coming (Mat 16:28)... obviously untrue.
> 
> He also stated that the world would come to an end during his generation:
> Jesus is talking of signs that will happen before the end of the world to his disciples. (Notice: Jesus probably thought the stars were little lights attached to a solid rotating sky dome like everyone else at that time. Imagine just one star "falling to earth"!)
> 
> 
> (Mat 24:29 NRSV) "Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; *the stars will fall from heaven*, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory.
> 
> (Jesus now says to his disciples that their generation will not pass away before the end of the world)
> 
> (Mat 24:34 NRSV) Truly I tell you, *this generation will not pass away* until all these things have taken place.
> 
> (Their generation did pass away, but the world didn't end) The evidence is the current existence of the world.
> 
> 
> Need more?
> 
> Ezekiel predicted Babylon would conquer Egypt and was wrong. It never happened, and can now never be fulfilled.
> 
> In Luke 1:26, the angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the "throne of David", that he will reign over Israel. It never happened, did it?
> Here is another factual error. "The love of money is the root of all evil." (1 Timothy 6:10) This is obviously untrue, and a blatantly ridiculous statement. There are sources of evil other than the love of money. Racism, sexism, jealousy, pride, shame, hate-- all these things are evil and can drive someone to murder. I am sure you can think of more, if you try.
> 
> Sorry, but hey -  if you want to play Lumberjack, try holding up your end of the log.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You, Daws and a few others in this thread most certainly turned to the miller and urey experiment as an answer for origins until You were owned on the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly made every effort to sidestep, dodge and avoid addressing the issues presented to you.
Click to expand...


You must be looking at your own reflection as you type this. You haven't had a single original thought or argument since this thread began and you certainly haven't refuted any arguments presented to you without feeble attempts at rabid cut and pasting of irrelevant material.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol you're precious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> also it's a chicken shit dodge..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your middle name.
Click to expand...

more proof of you willful ignorance! and ham handed cherry picking.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, Daws and a few others in this thread most certainly turned to the miller and urey experiment as an answer for origins until You were owned on the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly made every effort to sidestep, dodge and avoid addressing the issues presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be looking at your own reflection as you type this.
Click to expand...

another unoriginal and needless retort.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly made every effort to sidestep, dodge and avoid addressing the issues presented to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be looking at your own reflection as you type this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another unoriginal and needless retort.
Click to expand...


And you as well staring into the mirror as you type. You are the king of needless retorts and unoriginal material.

And while you are at schooling folks on the definition of false premise, you might want to refer to Hollies argument refuted above.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be looking at your own reflection as you type this.
> 
> 
> 
> another unoriginal and needless retort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you as well staring into the mirror as you type. You are the king of needless retorts and unoriginal material.
> 
> And while you are at schooling folks on the definition of false premise, you might want to refer to Hollies argument refuted above.
Click to expand...

Refuted where?

You have contributed nothing but whining as a result of your fragile, wounded ego being damaged. 

You have something on your chin.


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> you must be looking at your own reflection as you type this.
> 
> 
> 
> another unoriginal and needless retort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you as well staring into the mirror as you type. You are the king of needless retorts and unoriginal material.
> 
> And while you are at schooling folks on the definition of false premise, you might want to refer to hollies argument refuted above.
Click to expand...

see post# 16146.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another unoriginal and needless retort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you as well staring into the mirror as you type. You are the king of needless retorts and unoriginal material.
> 
> And while you are at schooling folks on the definition of false premise, you might want to refer to hollies argument refuted above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> see post# 16146.
Click to expand...


See post 16140. Flawed logic and false premise refuted.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you as well staring into the mirror as you type. You are the king of needless retorts and unoriginal material.
> 
> And while you are at schooling folks on the definition of false premise, you might want to refer to hollies argument refuted above.
> 
> 
> 
> see post# 16146.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See post 16140. Flawed logic and false premise refuted.
Click to expand...

you mean this steaming pile of rationalizing:

" Speaking of things that have been refuted thousands of times, you hierarchy of gawds argument has been refuted over and over and has proven to be based on bad logic and a false premise, but yet you persist in presenting it over and over as if repeating something a thousand times will legitimize it. Pathetic. 

Let's repeat it one more time for those who just joined us, only a beginning necessitates a cause, like the beginning of the universe for instance. God has always existed and predates the universe. Since God has no beginning, he requires no cause. He claims in the Bible, "no gods were formed before me and none will be formed after me".- 
Your weak argument is based on the false premise that God had a beginning. Of course I have no hope that you will respond to this valid, logical argument which refutes yours, nor will you cease repeating your tired, stupid, devoid of logic argument in the future, but one can dream. [/QUOTE]

thanks for the fine example of the false premise rule in action. 
1."false premise that God had a beginning." wrong! the FP here is assuming that god has always been. There is no evidence for that argument.
to make this short and sweet.
anything you base on the assumption " god has ALWAYS existed" like theories or speculation are also by definition false because the basic premise is false.
any argument you make from that premise is subjective and unsupportable.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false premise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you think life got it's start ? use your own words and no copying and pasting like your partner and let's have this discussion. You must have a thought of your own with 6 years of biology under your belt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok.. but first you must learn what a false premise is. until you do no real discussion can happen.
> examples of a false premises "there is proof of guided or intelligent  design in nature."
> "creation science is science"
Click to expand...


So the False premise is to assume that a natural process is responsible for life ? sorry there is evidence of purposeful design.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you think life got it's start ? use your own words and no copying and pasting like your partner and let's have this discussion. You must have a thought of your own with 6 years of biology under your belt.
> 
> 
> 
> ok.. but first you must learn what a false premise is. until you do no real discussion can happen.
> examples of a false premises "there is proof of guided or intelligent  design in nature."
> "creation science is science"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the False premise is to assume that a natural process is responsible for life ? sorry there is evidence of purposeful design.
Click to expand...

as always wrong: "examples of a false premises "there is proof of guided or intelligent  design in nature."
until you understand that the appearance of design is not actual design, your assumption of a designer will always be false.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok.. but first you must learn what a false premise is. until you do no real discussion can happen.
> examples of a false premises "there is proof of guided or intelligent  design in nature."
> "creation science is science"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the False premise is to assume that a natural process is responsible for life ? sorry there is evidence of purposeful design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as always wrong: "examples of a false premises "there is proof of guided or intelligent  design in nature."
> until you understand that the appearance of design is not actual design, your assumption of a designer will always be false.
Click to expand...

 
Ok so you choose to believe in coincidence and miracles to many to number.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the False premise is to assume that a natural process is responsible for life ? sorry there is evidence of purposeful design.
> 
> 
> 
> as always wrong: "examples of a false premises "there is proof of guided or intelligent  design in nature."
> until you understand that the appearance of design is not actual design, your assumption of a designer will always be false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok so you choose to believe in coincidence and miracles to many to number.
Click to expand...

another false assumption based on a false premise.
 also your  use of the words  coincidence, believe, miracles have no bearing on the veracity of my statement.
because they are based on the same FP as your designer assumption.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as always wrong: "examples of a false premises "there is proof of guided or intelligent  design in nature."
> until you understand that the appearance of design is not actual design, your assumption of a designer will always be false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so you choose to believe in coincidence and miracles to many to number.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false assumption based on a false premise.
> also your  use of the words  coincidence, believe, miracles have no bearing on the veracity of my statement.
> because they are based on the same FP as your designer assumption.
Click to expand...


Wrong by your reasoning you just eliminated the scientific method 

What is the first step in the scientific method ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so you choose to believe in coincidence and miracles to many to number.
> 
> 
> 
> another false assumption based on a false premise.
> also your  use of the words  coincidence, believe, miracles have no bearing on the veracity of my statement.
> because they are based on the same FP as your designer assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong by your reasoning you just eliminated the scientific method
> 
> What is the first step in the scientific method ?
Click to expand...





btw no I did not, I eliminated then non evidence based variables...  and you call yourself a scientist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another false assumption based on a false premise.
> also your  use of the words  coincidence, believe, miracles have no bearing on the veracity of my statement.
> because they are based on the same FP as your designer assumption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong by your reasoning you just eliminated the scientific method
> 
> What is the first step in the scientific method ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw no I did not, I eliminated then non evidence based variables...  and you call yourself a scientist.
Click to expand...


What is an idea ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong by your reasoning you just eliminated the scientific method
> 
> What is the first step in the scientific method ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw no I did not, I eliminated then non evidence based variables...  and you call yourself a scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is an idea ?
Click to expand...

something you never had...that is to say an original or creative one.
I know what you're hinting at and its false too.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw no I did not, I eliminated then non evidence based variables...  and you call yourself a scientist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is an idea ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> something you never had...that is to say an original or creative one.
> I know what you're hinting at and its false too.
Click to expand...


You were looking for the term Hypotheses nitwit. I showed you why your graph was in error in the other thread.

You really should stick to a subject you know something about if you can't handle a 7th grade question


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is an idea ?
> 
> 
> 
> something you never had...that is to say an original or creative one.
> I know what you're hinting at and its false too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were looking for the term Hypotheses nitwit. I showed you why your graph was in error in the other thread.
> 
> You really should stick to a subject you know something about if you can't handle a 7th grade question
Click to expand...

making shit up to cover you ignorance fucking typical!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> something you never had...that is to say an original or creative one.
> I know what you're hinting at and its false too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were looking for the term Hypotheses nitwit. I showed you why your graph was in error in the other thread.
> 
> You really should stick to a subject you know something about if you can't handle a 7th grade question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> making shit up to cover you ignorance fucking typical!
Click to expand...


LOL you're silly.

Quote by daws

"I just did.
you're kinda slow on the uptake.
since those fossils cannot be formed anywhere except under water and only between the surface and a certain depth. and liquid water for the most part is found in the lowest places on the earths surface. it's obvious that they could not have formed on dry land mountains, so other then fictional supernatural intervention the only logical conclusion is plate tectonics .
you did know that the Rockies are where the continental plate and the pacific plate meet that's why they're mountains.
got it or do I have to explain 6th grade science to you?
what were once seabed's were forced upwards by the plates grinding into each other"


So you're saying there were no mountains ?  hmm you're a flat earther 

You see daws yo agree with the bible and so does science.

Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 
Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters. 


Gen 1:9  And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. 
Gen 1:10  And God called the dry land, Earth. And He called the gathering together of the waters, Seas. And God saw that it was good. 

The mountains were not as high at one point because God say's 

Psa 104:8  (The mountains rose, the valleys sank down) Unto the place which thou hadst founded for them. 

But we now know those mountains were not as high as they are now. The organisms were not created yet so the fossils came after plate tectonics happened.

Explain to me if fossils do not form on ocean floors now how did they do it in the past then explain how in the same strata you have dry land fossils buried in the same strata as marine fossils. Do you need me to explain how fossils are formed ?

So science and you agree with the bible just not your twisted explanations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Oh and daws water is necessary to form fossils that is correct but you need dirt that forms mud the mud turns to rock so you need the sun to dry the mud and make the rock fossils are found in.

So it was a flood that put fossils on mountains not as you claim they were fossils on the ocean floor but thanks for once again exposing your ignorance.

If marine fossils were formed in water how did you get dry land fossils in the same strata ? I am waiting for your response.

Since you got the other thread closed we will get this thread going again.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were looking for the term Hypotheses nitwit. I showed you why your graph was in error in the other thread.
> 
> You really should stick to a subject you know something about if you can't handle a 7th grade question
> 
> 
> 
> making shit up to cover you ignorance fucking typical!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL you're silly.
> 
> Quote by daws
> 
> "I just did.
> you're kinda slow on the uptake.
> since those fossils cannot be formed anywhere except under water and only between the surface and a certain depth. and liquid water for the most part is found in the lowest places on the earths surface. it's obvious that they could not have formed on dry land mountains, so other then fictional supernatural intervention the only logical conclusion is plate tectonics .
> you did know that the Rockies are where the continental plate and the pacific plate meet that's why they're mountains.
> got it or do I have to explain 6th grade science to you?
> what were once seabed's were forced upwards by the plates grinding into each other"
> 
> 
> So you're saying there were no mountains ?  hmm you're a flat earther
> 
> You see daws yo agree with the bible and so does science.
> 
> Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
> Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
> 
> 
> Gen 1:9  And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.
> Gen 1:10  And God called the dry land, Earth. And He called the gathering together of the waters, Seas. And God saw that it was good.
> 
> The mountains were not as high at one point because God say's
> 
> Psa 104:8  (The mountains rose, the valleys sank down) Unto the place which thou hadst founded for them.
> 
> But we now know those mountains were not as high as they are now. The organisms were not created yet so the fossils came after plate tectonics happened.
> 
> Explain to me if fossils do not form on ocean floors now how did they do it in the past then explain how in the same strata you have dry land fossils buried in the same strata as marine fossils. Do you need me to explain how fossils are formed ?
> 
> So science and you agree with the bible just not your twisted explanations.
Click to expand...

wrong again you're attempting to twist the bible to fit your own willfully ignorant and false vision of reality . 

neither of those passages are evidence of any kind.
I never said fossils did not form on ocean floors
again you as always are making a false assumption that no fossils are forming today. 
the strata question has already been answered you just don't like the out come.
as to plate tectonics you're so full shit it's running out your ears.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Oh and daws water is necessary to form fossils that is correct but you need dirt that forms mud the mud turns to rock so you need the sun to dry the mud and make the rock fossils are found in.
> 
> So it was a flood that put fossils on mountains not as you claim they were fossils on the ocean floor but thanks for once again exposing your ignorance.
> 
> If marine fossils were formed in water how did you get dry land fossils in the same strata ? I am waiting for your response.
> 
> Since you got the other thread closed we will get this thread going again.


again talking shit. IT WAS YOU who got the other thread closed.
as to rest of your yammering "   thanks for once again exposing your ignorance."


----------



## FactFinder

God's ways are higher than our ways. 

There is no comparison to earthly experience or the man created scientific method to what exists in realms above ours. 

Good luck with that.


----------



## daws101

FactFinder said:


> God's ways are higher than our ways.
> 
> There is no comparison to earthly experience or the man created scientific method to what exists in realms above ours.
> 
> Good luck with that.


(place laff track  here)


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> making shit up to cover you ignorance fucking typical!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you're silly.
> 
> Quote by daws
> 
> "I just did.
> you're kinda slow on the uptake.
> since those fossils cannot be formed anywhere except under water and only between the surface and a certain depth. and liquid water for the most part is found in the lowest places on the earths surface. it's obvious that they could not have formed on dry land mountains, so other then fictional supernatural intervention the only logical conclusion is plate tectonics .
> you did know that the Rockies are where the continental plate and the pacific plate meet that's why they're mountains.
> got it or do I have to explain 6th grade science to you?
> what were once seabed's were forced upwards by the plates grinding into each other"
> 
> 
> So you're saying there were no mountains ?  hmm you're a flat earther
> 
> You see daws yo agree with the bible and so does science.
> 
> Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
> Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
> 
> 
> Gen 1:9  And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.
> Gen 1:10  And God called the dry land, Earth. And He called the gathering together of the waters, Seas. And God saw that it was good.
> 
> The mountains were not as high at one point because God say's
> 
> Psa 104:8  (The mountains rose, the valleys sank down) Unto the place which thou hadst founded for them.
> 
> But we now know those mountains were not as high as they are now. The organisms were not created yet so the fossils came after plate tectonics happened.
> 
> Explain to me if fossils do not form on ocean floors now how did they do it in the past then explain how in the same strata you have dry land fossils buried in the same strata as marine fossils. Do you need me to explain how fossils are formed ?
> 
> So science and you agree with the bible just not your twisted explanations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong again you're attempting to twist the bible to fit your own willfully ignorant and false vision of reality .
> 
> neither of those passages are evidence of any kind.
> 'I never said fossils did not form on ocean floors'
> again you as always are making a false assumption that no fossils are forming today.
> the strata question has already been answered you just don't like the out come.
> as to plate tectonics you're so full shit it's running out your ears.
Click to expand...



Daws comment

'I never said fossils did not form on ocean floors' 

I said that is what you were suggesting that fossils form on ocean floors but one problem fossils do not form on ocean floors. Organisms float and are eaten by scavengers same as on the land you need rapid burial. Mud is what covers organisms and is hardened by the sun to form rock that is where fossils are found.

Now how do you get the dry land organisms in the same strata ? you see both marine organisms and dry land animals and plants had to be buried in the same mud that formed the rock strata that they are found in. That is 7 layers of strata world wide where we find marine and land fossils buried together.

The fossils we are discussing were not found in lava flows so that rules out volcanoes. Not saying fossils can't be preserved in lava flows but these fossils were found in strata that was once mud but is now rock.

So your response is plate tectonics but that does not answer the question. Once again you're accepting a theory for an answer that really don't answer the question.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and daws water is necessary to form fossils that is correct but you need dirt that forms mud the mud turns to rock so you need the sun to dry the mud and make the rock fossils are found in.
> 
> So it was a flood that put fossils on mountains not as you claim they were fossils on the ocean floor but thanks for once again exposing your ignorance.
> 
> If marine fossils were formed in water how did you get dry land fossils in the same strata ? I am waiting for your response.
> 
> Since you got the other thread closed we will get this thread going again.
> 
> 
> 
> again talking shit. IT WAS YOU who got the other thread closed.
> as to rest of your yammering "   thanks for once again exposing your ignorance."
Click to expand...


He said enough after 4 of your comments


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and daws water is necessary to form fossils that is correct but you need dirt that forms mud the mud turns to rock so you need the sun to dry the mud and make the rock fossils are found in.
> 
> So it was a flood that put fossils on mountains not as you claim they were fossils on the ocean floor but thanks for once again exposing your ignorance.
> 
> If marine fossils were formed in water how did you get dry land fossils in the same strata ? I am waiting for your response.
> 
> Since you got the other thread closed we will get this thread going again.
> 
> 
> 
> again talking shit. IT WAS YOU who got the other thread closed.
> as to rest of your yammering "   thanks for once again exposing your ignorance."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said enough after 4 of your comments
Click to expand...

wrong as always !


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's ways are higher than our ways.
> 
> There is no comparison to earthly experience or the man created scientific method to what exists in realms above ours.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> (place laff track  here)
Click to expand...


Why would you laugh when you're getting thumped ? You're flailing and it is evident you're in over your head.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Daws it's really comical watching you flail. The bible gives a better account of what happened then your text book.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you're silly.
> 
> Quote by daws
> 
> "I just did.
> you're kinda slow on the uptake.
> since those fossils cannot be formed anywhere except under water and only between the surface and a certain depth. and liquid water for the most part is found in the lowest places on the earths surface. it's obvious that they could not have formed on dry land mountains, so other then fictional supernatural intervention the only logical conclusion is plate tectonics .
> you did know that the Rockies are where the continental plate and the pacific plate meet that's why they're mountains.
> got it or do I have to explain 6th grade science to you?
> what were once seabed's were forced upwards by the plates grinding into each other"
> 
> 
> So you're saying there were no mountains ?  hmm you're a flat earther
> 
> You see daws yo agree with the bible and so does science.
> 
> Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
> Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
> 
> 
> Gen 1:9  And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.
> Gen 1:10  And God called the dry land, Earth. And He called the gathering together of the waters, Seas. And God saw that it was good.
> 
> The mountains were not as high at one point because God say's
> 
> Psa 104:8  (The mountains rose, the valleys sank down) Unto the place which thou hadst founded for them.
> 
> But we now know those mountains were not as high as they are now. The organisms were not created yet so the fossils came after plate tectonics happened.
> 
> Explain to me if fossils do not form on ocean floors now how did they do it in the past then explain how in the same strata you have dry land fossils buried in the same strata as marine fossils. Do you need me to explain how fossils are formed ?
> 
> So science and you agree with the bible just not your twisted explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again you're attempting to twist the bible to fit your own willfully ignorant and false vision of reality .
> 
> neither of those passages are evidence of any kind.
> 'I never said fossils did not form on ocean floors'
> again you as always are making a false assumption that no fossils are forming today.
> the strata question has already been answered you just don't like the out come.
> as to plate tectonics you're so full shit it's running out your ears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Daws comment
> 
> 'I never said fossils did not form on ocean floors'
> 
> I said that is what you were suggesting that fossils form on ocean floors but one problem fossils do not form on ocean floors. Organisms float and are eaten by scavengers same as on the land you need rapid burial. Mud is what covers organisms and is hardened by the sun to form rock that is where fossils are found.
> 
> Now how do you get the dry land organisms in the same strata ? you see both marine organisms and dry land animals and plants had to be buried in the same mud that formed the rock strata that they are found in. That is 7 layers of strata world wide where we find marine and land fossils buried together.
> 
> The fossils we are discussing were not found in lava flows so that rules out volcanoes. Not saying fossils can't be preserved in lava flows but there fossils were found in strata that was once mud but is now rock.
> 
> So your response is plate tectonics but that does not answer the question. Once again you're accepting a theory for an answer that really don't answer the question.
Click to expand...




Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

According to the creationists, all species (or basic kinds--whatever), living and extinct were created at the same time and the fossil record was laid down by the biblical flood.

 If that were the case, you would find fossils of the approximately 5,000 present-day species of mammals, including humans, and of the approximately 10,000 present-day species of birds, mixed in with the fossils of, for example, dinosaurs. You do not and will never find such a mixture. That is because they are separated in time by more than 60 million years and the fossil record reflects that fact. The only fossils of mammals and birds that are found in the same strata as dinosaurs are primitive types quite unlike anything that exists today (even if you consider the "kinds" that creationists refer to as the source of present-day mammals and birds). And you will also not find those fossils of present-day mammals and birds in the same strata with trilobites, or of numerous other early types of animals.

 And that scenario even continues after the demise of the dinosaurs. There are numerous strata which show that mammals became predominate for several tens of millions of years on up to today. But the strata that was laid down during the first half of that time contains a large number of fossils of mammals quite unlike anything that exists today, and again, none of the fossils are of present-day mammals, including humans, and present-day birds. As those strata get progressively younger, you begin to see more and more fossils of mammals and birds that are similar to the present-day species. That includes hominid fossils, which are present only in the strata laid down in the past few million years. Hominid fossils are totally absent in the vast number of earlier fossil-containing strata.

 Thus, if you look at the geological strata, you will find a changing representation of species through the oldest to the youngest strata, and those changes reflect an evolutionary process.

 For example, in the Cambrian, you will find the initial appearance of most of the phyla, but they will be only very primitive species--none of which exist today--belonging to those phyla. You will not find one single amphibian, reptile, dinosaur, bird, mammal, or teleost fish. And as you progress through the strata you will find new forms, but still nothing like what you would find today until you get to relatively young strata. That is not what you would find if the fossil record had been laid down by a flood such as that described in the Bible. But it is what would be expected in an evolutionary scenario.

 This is not a matter of interpreting things according to one's belief, as creationists usually say. It is a matter of honestly accepting the evidence for what it says. The Bible believer holds that all things must be interpreted according to the Bible. Therefore, they are are forced to be dishonest in interpreting the evidence.

 The geological strata indicate an evolutionary progression. If there was no evolutionary progression, but all species (or kinds, whatever) had been created at the same time, then there would be no evolutionary progression in the strata. That is fact.

 A flood such as described in the Bible would not leave stratified deposits on the tops of mountains. The material forming deposits would flow down the sides of the mountains. The same for marine fossil deposits. How would the shells of clams end up on the tops of mountains, even Mount Everest? Clams couldn't swim to the tops of the mountains, nor could they climb up the sides of mountains. 

 Plate tectonics explains why sea shells and other marine deposits are found on mountain tops. Sections, or plates, of the earth's crust are constantly moving, albeit very slowly, about an inch or so per year. This movement has been measured with scientific instruments and has been tracked in the analysis of paleomagnetism and other means. In areas where one plate impinges upon another, the movement forces the earth's crust to uplift, which is what causes mountains to build up over millions of years. If the area that was uplifted was originally a part of the sea floor, then any sea shells and other marine fossil deposits would be uplifted during the mountain building as well.

http://www.doeacckolkata.in/Piyali-geogr&#8230;




one more time -----Plate tectonics explains why sea shells and other marine deposits are found on mountain tops.


----------



## daws101

Marine fossils on mountains do not confirm the Flood 



Another argument that creationists make regarding evidence for a global flood is the fact that some mountains have marine fossils on them. Such fossils could only be present if the land forming those mountains wasnt under water at one time.

Doesnt that show that there was once a global flood?

Actually, no it doesnt.
Carumbas Blog: Marine fossils on mountains do not confirm the Flood


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again you're attempting to twist the bible to fit your own willfully ignorant and false vision of reality .
> 
> neither of those passages are evidence of any kind.
> 'I never said fossils did not form on ocean floors'
> again you as always are making a false assumption that no fossils are forming today.
> the strata question has already been answered you just don't like the out come.
> as to plate tectonics you're so full shit it's running out your ears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws comment
> 
> 'I never said fossils did not form on ocean floors'
> 
> I said that is what you were suggesting that fossils form on ocean floors but one problem fossils do not form on ocean floors. Organisms float and are eaten by scavengers same as on the land you need rapid burial. Mud is what covers organisms and is hardened by the sun to form rock that is where fossils are found.
> 
> Now how do you get the dry land organisms in the same strata ? you see both marine organisms and dry land animals and plants had to be buried in the same mud that formed the rock strata that they are found in. That is 7 layers of strata world wide where we find marine and land fossils buried together.
> 
> The fossils we are discussing were not found in lava flows so that rules out volcanoes. Not saying fossils can't be preserved in lava flows but there fossils were found in strata that was once mud but is now rock.
> 
> So your response is plate tectonics but that does not answer the question. Once again you're accepting a theory for an answer that really don't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
> 
> According to the creationists, all species (or basic kinds--whatever), living and extinct were created at the same time and the fossil record was laid down by the biblical flood.
> 
> If that were the case, you would find fossils of the approximately 5,000 present-day species of mammals, including humans, and of the approximately 10,000 present-day species of birds, mixed in with the fossils of, for example, dinosaurs. You do not and will never find such a mixture. That is because they are separated in time by more than 60 million years and the fossil record reflects that fact. The only fossils of mammals and birds that are found in the same strata as dinosaurs are primitive types quite unlike anything that exists today (even if you consider the "kinds" that creationists refer to as the source of present-day mammals and birds). And you will also not find those fossils of present-day mammals and birds in the same strata with trilobites, or of numerous other early types of animals.
> 
> And that scenario even continues after the demise of the dinosaurs. There are numerous strata which show that mammals became predominate for several tens of millions of years on up to today. But the strata that was laid down during the first half of that time contains a large number of fossils of mammals quite unlike anything that exists today, and again, none of the fossils are of present-day mammals, including humans, and present-day birds. As those strata get progressively younger, you begin to see more and more fossils of mammals and birds that are similar to the present-day species. That includes hominid fossils, which are present only in the strata laid down in the past few million years. Hominid fossils are totally absent in the vast number of earlier fossil-containing strata.
> 
> Thus, if you look at the geological strata, you will find a changing representation of species through the oldest to the youngest strata, and those changes reflect an evolutionary process.
> 
> For example, in the Cambrian, you will find the initial appearance of most of the phyla, but they will be only very primitive species--none of which exist today--belonging to those phyla. You will not find one single amphibian, reptile, dinosaur, bird, mammal, or teleost fish. And as you progress through the strata you will find new forms, but still nothing like what you would find today until you get to relatively young strata. That is not what you would find if the fossil record had been laid down by a flood such as that described in the Bible. But it is what would be expected in an evolutionary scenario.
> 
> This is not a matter of interpreting things according to one's belief, as creationists usually say. It is a matter of honestly accepting the evidence for what it says. The Bible believer holds that all things must be interpreted according to the Bible. Therefore, they are are forced to be dishonest in interpreting the evidence.
> 
> The geological strata indicate an evolutionary progression. If there was no evolutionary progression, but all species (or kinds, whatever) had been created at the same time, then there would be no evolutionary progression in the strata. That is fact.
> 
> A flood such as described in the Bible would not leave stratified deposits on the tops of mountains. The material forming deposits would flow down the sides of the mountains. The same for marine fossil deposits. How would the shells of clams end up on the tops of mountains, even Mount Everest? Clams couldn't swim to the tops of the mountains, nor could they climb up the sides of mountains.
> 
> Plate tectonics explains why sea shells and other marine deposits are found on mountain tops. Sections, or plates, of the earth's crust are constantly moving, albeit very slowly, about an inch or so per year. This movement has been measured with scientific instruments and has been tracked in the analysis of paleomagnetism and other means. In areas where one plate impinges upon another, the movement forces the earth's crust to uplift, which is what causes mountains to build up over millions of years. If the area that was uplifted was originally a part of the sea floor, then any sea shells and other marine fossil deposits would be uplifted during the mountain building as well.
> 
> http://www.doeacckolkata.in/Piyali-geogr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one more time -----Plate tectonics explains why sea shells and other marine deposits are found on mountain tops.
Click to expand...


No it don't if this was the case you're depending on  volcanoes distributing these fossils on mountain tops and that is not the case.

Amazing World: Massive Whale Fossil Graveyard In Chile

Massive Dinosaur "Graveyard" Discovered in Spain

Joel kontinen: Huge Fossil Graveyard Found in China

Fossils - Truth That Matters

How do you explain these massive fossil graveyards world wide ? the walls are closing in daws.


----------



## Youwerecreated

One more for you to check out.

Here's Your Evidence There Was A Great Flood ! : Ancient Mysteries


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> One more for you to check out.
> 
> Here's Your Evidence There Was A Great Flood ! : Ancient Mysteries



Why would anyone take you seriously when you link to silly videos from Christian snake oil salesmen?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws comment
> 
> 'I never said fossils did not form on ocean floors'
> 
> I said that is what you were suggesting that fossils form on ocean floors but one problem fossils do not form on ocean floors. Organisms float and are eaten by scavengers same as on the land you need rapid burial. Mud is what covers organisms and is hardened by the sun to form rock that is where fossils are found.
> 
> Now how do you get the dry land organisms in the same strata ? you see both marine organisms and dry land animals and plants had to be buried in the same mud that formed the rock strata that they are found in. That is 7 layers of strata world wide where we find marine and land fossils buried together.
> 
> The fossils we are discussing were not found in lava flows so that rules out volcanoes. Not saying fossils can't be preserved in lava flows but there fossils were found in strata that was once mud but is now rock.
> 
> So your response is plate tectonics but that does not answer the question. Once again you're accepting a theory for an answer that really don't answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
> 
> According to the creationists, all species (or basic kinds--whatever), living and extinct were created at the same time and the fossil record was laid down by the biblical flood.
> 
> If that were the case, you would find fossils of the approximately 5,000 present-day species of mammals, including humans, and of the approximately 10,000 present-day species of birds, mixed in with the fossils of, for example, dinosaurs. You do not and will never find such a mixture. That is because they are separated in time by more than 60 million years and the fossil record reflects that fact. The only fossils of mammals and birds that are found in the same strata as dinosaurs are primitive types quite unlike anything that exists today (even if you consider the "kinds" that creationists refer to as the source of present-day mammals and birds). And you will also not find those fossils of present-day mammals and birds in the same strata with trilobites, or of numerous other early types of animals.
> 
> And that scenario even continues after the demise of the dinosaurs. There are numerous strata which show that mammals became predominate for several tens of millions of years on up to today. But the strata that was laid down during the first half of that time contains a large number of fossils of mammals quite unlike anything that exists today, and again, none of the fossils are of present-day mammals, including humans, and present-day birds. As those strata get progressively younger, you begin to see more and more fossils of mammals and birds that are similar to the present-day species. That includes hominid fossils, which are present only in the strata laid down in the past few million years. Hominid fossils are totally absent in the vast number of earlier fossil-containing strata.
> 
> Thus, if you look at the geological strata, you will find a changing representation of species through the oldest to the youngest strata, and those changes reflect an evolutionary process.
> 
> For example, in the Cambrian, you will find the initial appearance of most of the phyla, but they will be only very primitive species--none of which exist today--belonging to those phyla. You will not find one single amphibian, reptile, dinosaur, bird, mammal, or teleost fish. And as you progress through the strata you will find new forms, but still nothing like what you would find today until you get to relatively young strata. That is not what you would find if the fossil record had been laid down by a flood such as that described in the Bible. But it is what would be expected in an evolutionary scenario.
> 
> This is not a matter of interpreting things according to one's belief, as creationists usually say. It is a matter of honestly accepting the evidence for what it says. The Bible believer holds that all things must be interpreted according to the Bible. Therefore, they are are forced to be dishonest in interpreting the evidence.
> 
> The geological strata indicate an evolutionary progression. If there was no evolutionary progression, but all species (or kinds, whatever) had been created at the same time, then there would be no evolutionary progression in the strata. That is fact.
> 
> A flood such as described in the Bible would not leave stratified deposits on the tops of mountains. The material forming deposits would flow down the sides of the mountains. The same for marine fossil deposits. How would the shells of clams end up on the tops of mountains, even Mount Everest? Clams couldn't swim to the tops of the mountains, nor could they climb up the sides of mountains.
> 
> Plate tectonics explains why sea shells and other marine deposits are found on mountain tops. Sections, or plates, of the earth's crust are constantly moving, albeit very slowly, about an inch or so per year. This movement has been measured with scientific instruments and has been tracked in the analysis of paleomagnetism and other means. In areas where one plate impinges upon another, the movement forces the earth's crust to uplift, which is what causes mountains to build up over millions of years. If the area that was uplifted was originally a part of the sea floor, then any sea shells and other marine fossil deposits would be uplifted during the mountain building as well.
> 
> http://www.doeacckolkata.in/Piyali-geogr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one more time -----Plate tectonics explains why sea shells and other marine deposits are found on mountain tops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it don't if this was the case you're depending on  volcanoes distributing these fossils on mountain tops and that is not the case.
> 
> Amazing World: Massive Whale Fossil Graveyard In Chile
> 
> Massive Dinosaur "Graveyard" Discovered in Spain
> 
> Joel kontinen: Huge Fossil Graveyard Found in China
> 
> Fossils - Truth That Matters
> 
> How do you explain these massive fossil graveyards world wide ? the walls are closing in daws.
Click to expand...


How do you explain your utter lack of knowledge regarding science?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Daws it's really comical watching you flail. The bible gives a better account of what happened then your text book.



There are many versions of many bibles. 

One constant among them all is their lack of credibility regarding the natural world.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> One more for you to check out.
> 
> Here's Your Evidence There Was A Great Flood ! : Ancient Mysteries



Here's the thorough debunking of christian creationist lies, myths and false claims regarding the biblical flood:

Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more for you to check out.
> 
> Here's Your Evidence There Was A Great Flood ! : Ancient Mysteries
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone take you seriously when you link to silly videos from Christian snake oil salesmen?
Click to expand...


Why would anyone listen to someone that links to a theory or explanation that is contradicted by the evidence ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
> 
> According to the creationists, all species (or basic kinds--whatever), living and extinct were created at the same time and the fossil record was laid down by the biblical flood.
> 
> If that were the case, you would find fossils of the approximately 5,000 present-day species of mammals, including humans, and of the approximately 10,000 present-day species of birds, mixed in with the fossils of, for example, dinosaurs. You do not and will never find such a mixture. That is because they are separated in time by more than 60 million years and the fossil record reflects that fact. The only fossils of mammals and birds that are found in the same strata as dinosaurs are primitive types quite unlike anything that exists today (even if you consider the "kinds" that creationists refer to as the source of present-day mammals and birds). And you will also not find those fossils of present-day mammals and birds in the same strata with trilobites, or of numerous other early types of animals.
> 
> And that scenario even continues after the demise of the dinosaurs. There are numerous strata which show that mammals became predominate for several tens of millions of years on up to today. But the strata that was laid down during the first half of that time contains a large number of fossils of mammals quite unlike anything that exists today, and again, none of the fossils are of present-day mammals, including humans, and present-day birds. As those strata get progressively younger, you begin to see more and more fossils of mammals and birds that are similar to the present-day species. That includes hominid fossils, which are present only in the strata laid down in the past few million years. Hominid fossils are totally absent in the vast number of earlier fossil-containing strata.
> 
> Thus, if you look at the geological strata, you will find a changing representation of species through the oldest to the youngest strata, and those changes reflect an evolutionary process.
> 
> For example, in the Cambrian, you will find the initial appearance of most of the phyla, but they will be only very primitive species--none of which exist today--belonging to those phyla. You will not find one single amphibian, reptile, dinosaur, bird, mammal, or teleost fish. And as you progress through the strata you will find new forms, but still nothing like what you would find today until you get to relatively young strata. That is not what you would find if the fossil record had been laid down by a flood such as that described in the Bible. But it is what would be expected in an evolutionary scenario.
> 
> This is not a matter of interpreting things according to one's belief, as creationists usually say. It is a matter of honestly accepting the evidence for what it says. The Bible believer holds that all things must be interpreted according to the Bible. Therefore, they are are forced to be dishonest in interpreting the evidence.
> 
> The geological strata indicate an evolutionary progression. If there was no evolutionary progression, but all species (or kinds, whatever) had been created at the same time, then there would be no evolutionary progression in the strata. That is fact.
> 
> A flood such as described in the Bible would not leave stratified deposits on the tops of mountains. The material forming deposits would flow down the sides of the mountains. The same for marine fossil deposits. How would the shells of clams end up on the tops of mountains, even Mount Everest? Clams couldn't swim to the tops of the mountains, nor could they climb up the sides of mountains.
> 
> Plate tectonics explains why sea shells and other marine deposits are found on mountain tops. Sections, or plates, of the earth's crust are constantly moving, albeit very slowly, about an inch or so per year. This movement has been measured with scientific instruments and has been tracked in the analysis of paleomagnetism and other means. In areas where one plate impinges upon another, the movement forces the earth's crust to uplift, which is what causes mountains to build up over millions of years. If the area that was uplifted was originally a part of the sea floor, then any sea shells and other marine fossil deposits would be uplifted during the mountain building as well.
> 
> http://www.doeacckolkata.in/Piyali-geogr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one more time -----Plate tectonics explains why sea shells and other marine deposits are found on mountain tops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it don't if this was the case you're depending on  volcanoes distributing these fossils on mountain tops and that is not the case.
> 
> Amazing World: Massive Whale Fossil Graveyard In Chile
> 
> Massive Dinosaur "Graveyard" Discovered in Spain
> 
> Joel kontinen: Huge Fossil Graveyard Found in China
> 
> Fossils - Truth That Matters
> 
> How do you explain these massive fossil graveyards world wide ? the walls are closing in daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you explain your utter lack of knowledge regarding science?
Click to expand...


I hold a degree in science how bout you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws it's really comical watching you flail. The bible gives a better account of what happened then your text book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many versions of many bibles.
> 
> One constant among them all is their lack of credibility regarding the natural world.
Click to expand...


All the bibles agree that God created the mountains before fossils were found on them.

All the bibles say God caused the mountains to rise and the valleys to sink.

All the bibles agree that the planet was covered by water and was without form when God made the land appear.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more for you to check out.
> 
> Here's Your Evidence There Was A Great Flood ! : Ancient Mysteries
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thorough debunking of christian creationist lies, myths and false claims regarding the biblical flood:
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
Click to expand...


Didn't you complain about Ideological sites lol. Talk origins hehe that is your source.

So now why don't you explain the massive graveyards of the diverse fossils found in the graveyards. Then explain why world wide land fossils and marine fossils are found high on the tops of mountains ? Don't forget we are talking over 7 different layers of strata.

Run along and copy and paste your nonsense.

Here watch and learn something.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0]Origins - The Worldwide Flood - Geologic Evidences - Pt 1 with Dr. Andrew Snelling - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMSSwoJFq-8&feature=fvwp&NR=1]Origins - The Worldwide Flood - Geologic Evidences - Pt 2 with Dr. Andrew Snelling - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it don't if this was the case you're depending on  volcanoes distributing these fossils on mountain tops and that is not the case.
> 
> Amazing World: Massive Whale Fossil Graveyard In Chile
> 
> Massive Dinosaur "Graveyard" Discovered in Spain
> 
> Joel kontinen: Huge Fossil Graveyard Found in China
> 
> Fossils - Truth That Matters
> 
> How do you explain these massive fossil graveyards world wide ? the walls are closing in daws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain your utter lack of knowledge regarding science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hold a degree in science how bout you ?
Click to expand...


I have every reason to believe that you have never attended formal schooling past 8th grade.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more for you to check out.
> 
> Here's Your Evidence There Was A Great Flood ! : Ancient Mysteries
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thorough debunking of christian creationist lies, myths and false claims regarding the biblical flood:
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't you complain about Ideological sites lol. Talk origins hehe that is your source.
> 
> So now why don't you explain the massive graveyards of the diverse fossils found in the graveyards. Then explain why world wide land fossils and marine fossils are found high on the tops of mountains ? Don't forget we are talking over 7 different layers of strata.
> 
> Run along and copy and paste your nonsense.
> 
> Here watch and learn something.
Click to expand...


You will find that the link I gave you have a complete list of scientific and verifiable references.

That's quite in contrast to the silly videos you post which are hosted by Christian creationist charlatans.

Here - drink the Kool Aid.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws it's really comical watching you flail. The bible gives a better account of what happened then your text book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many versions of many bibles.
> 
> One constant among them all is their lack of credibility regarding the natural world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the bibles agree that God created the mountains before fossils were found on them.
> 
> All the bibles say God caused the mountains to rise and the valleys to sink.
> 
> All the bibles agree that the planet was covered by water and was without form when God made the land appear.
Click to expand...


All the bibles say many things which are wrong. Here you are, promoting lies and falsehoods.

How do you feel about that?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> See post 16140. Flawed logic and false premise refuted.
> 
> 
> 
> you mean this steaming pile of rationalizing:
> 
> " Speaking of things that have been refuted thousands of times, you hierarchy of gawds argument has been refuted over and over and has proven to be based on bad logic and a false premise, but yet you persist in presenting it over and over as if repeating something a thousand times will legitimize it. Pathetic.
> 
> Let's repeat it one more time for those who just joined us, only a beginning necessitates a cause, like the beginning of the universe for instance. God has always existed and predates the universe. Since God has no beginning, he requires no cause. He claims in the Bible, "no gods were formed before me and none will be formed after me".-
> Your weak argument is based on the false premise that God had a beginning. Of course I have no hope that you will respond to this valid, logical argument which refutes yours, nor will you cease repeating your tired, stupid, devoid of logic argument in the future, but one can dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thanks for the fine example of the false premise rule in action.
> 1."false premise that God had a beginning." wrong! the FP here is assuming that god has always been. There is no evidence for that argument.
> to make this short and sweet.
> anything you base on the assumption " god has ALWAYS existed" like theories or speculation are also by definition false because the basic premise is false.
> any argument you make from that premise is subjective and unsupportable.
Click to expand...


Daws, you just proved what a huge idiot you really are!! Do you see the absurdity of your flawed logic in the post above?? Why aren't you attacking Hollie's infinite regression argument then??? You just proved me right you buffoon!! You just proved that Hollie is arguing from a false premise stupid. Do you hear your self? Hollie is not using a false premise because she is using a false premise. 

What you missed in your utter and complete ignorance is that Hollie's argument is made from the assumption that God exists. In order for her to make her stupid argument, she has to first assume that God exists. Otherwise, how can she argue some other god made god? She is attempting to deny God by putting forth an argument whose basis is God exists. Of course we would expect you to miss this. My point is, if you are going to attack the concept of the Judeo-Christian God, then you can't make up your own Judeo-Christian theology. You can make a different argument to attack other mythological gods, but if you are going to assume the Judeo-Christian God exists as the basis of your argument, then you should also follow with the stated and commonly accepted theology that accompanies that basis, i.e., 1.) God has always existed 2.) God predates the Universe (Bible reference)  3.) God claims in the Bible there are no gods before him. 

So according to you, Hollie's argument is based on a false premise of a false premise. *YOU FAIL, THESPIDOUCHE!!!*  This is what happens when make your bed with a liar.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain your utter lack of knowledge regarding science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hold a degree in science how bout you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have every reason to believe that you have never attended formal schooling past 8th grade.
Click to expand...


You're wrong as usual.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thorough debunking of christian creationist lies, myths and false claims regarding the biblical flood:
> 
> Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you complain about Ideological sites lol. Talk origins hehe that is your source.
> 
> So now why don't you explain the massive graveyards of the diverse fossils found in the graveyards. Then explain why world wide land fossils and marine fossils are found high on the tops of mountains ? Don't forget we are talking over 7 different layers of strata.
> 
> Run along and copy and paste your nonsense.
> 
> Here watch and learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will find that the link I gave you have a complete list of scientific and verifiable references.
> 
> That's quite in contrast to the silly videos you post which are hosted by Christian creationist charlatans.
> 
> Here - drink the Kool Aid.
Click to expand...


I am looking for your answer that can't be answered through a theory got it ? The theory does not answer the question got it ?

The only charlatans here is you and your other half daws.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many versions of many bibles.
> 
> One constant among them all is their lack of credibility regarding the natural world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the bibles agree that God created the mountains before fossils were found on them.
> 
> All the bibles say God caused the mountains to rise and the valleys to sink.
> 
> All the bibles agree that the planet was covered by water and was without form when God made the land appear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the bibles say many things which are wrong. Here you are, promoting lies and falsehoods.
> 
> How do you feel about that?
Click to expand...


Not worthy of a response.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the bibles agree that God created the mountains before fossils were found on them.
> 
> All the bibles say God caused the mountains to rise and the valleys to sink.
> 
> All the bibles agree that the planet was covered by water and was without form when God made the land appear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the bibles say many things which are wrong. Here you are, promoting lies and falsehoods.
> 
> How do you feel about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not worthy of a response.
Click to expand...


I understand you limited abilities. 

Why do you think it is that with exclusivity, you must resort to cutting and pasting from fundie Christian creationist sources to promote your biblical tales and fables?

I'd have thought that proof of your various bibles tales and fables, if true, would find among real scientists. Instead, we're left with you cutting and pasting silly youtube videos and nonsense from Harun Yahya.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you complain about Ideological sites lol. Talk origins hehe that is your source.
> 
> So now why don't you explain the massive graveyards of the diverse fossils found in the graveyards. Then explain why world wide land fossils and marine fossils are found high on the tops of mountains ? Don't forget we are talking over 7 different layers of strata.
> 
> Run along and copy and paste your nonsense.
> 
> Here watch and learn something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will find that the link I gave you have a complete list of scientific and verifiable references.
> 
> That's quite in contrast to the silly videos you post which are hosted by Christian creationist charlatans.
> 
> Here - drink the Kool Aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am looking for your answer that can't be answered through a theory got it ? The theory does not answer the question got it ?
> 
> The only charlatans here is you and your other half daws.
Click to expand...


I am looking to see if you can post a sentence with some occasional punctuation and a connected series of rational thoughts.

Why do you suppose it is that legitimate science organizations have long ago refuted the silly bible tales? It's obvious you don't have a clue about plate tectonics, continental drift or the processes of evolution, but why would you presume to impose your ignorance on others?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hold a degree in science how bout you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have every reason to believe that you have never attended formal schooling past 8th grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong as usual.
Click to expand...


Your lack of understanding of even the most basic precepts of the earth sciences and your utter lack of a science vocabulary determines I'm right.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean this steaming pile of rationalizing:
> 
> " Speaking of things that have been refuted thousands of times, you hierarchy of gawds argument has been refuted over and over and has proven to be based on bad logic and a false premise, but yet you persist in presenting it over and over as if repeating something a thousand times will legitimize it. Pathetic.
> 
> Let's repeat it one more time for those who just joined us, only a beginning necessitates a cause, like the beginning of the universe for instance. God has always existed and predates the universe. Since God has no beginning, he requires no cause. He claims in the Bible, "no gods were formed before me and none will be formed after me".-
> Your weak argument is based on the false premise that God had a beginning. Of course I have no hope that you will respond to this valid, logical argument which refutes yours, nor will you cease repeating your tired, stupid, devoid of logic argument in the future, but one can dream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for the fine example of the false premise rule in action.
> 1."false premise that God had a beginning." wrong! the FP here is assuming that god has always been. There is no evidence for that argument.
> to make this short and sweet.
> anything you base on the assumption " god has ALWAYS existed" like theories or speculation are also by definition false because the basic premise is false.
> any argument you make from that premise is subjective and unsupportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, you just proved what a huge idiot you really are!! Do you see the absurdity of your flawed logic in the post above?? Why aren't you attacking Hollie's infinite regression argument then??? You just proved me right you buffoon!! You just proved that Hollie is arguing from a false premise stupid. Do you hear your self? Hollie is not using a false premise because she is using a false premise.
> 
> What you missed in your utter and complete ignorance is that Hollie's argument is made from the assumption that God exists. In order for her to make her stupid argument, she has to first assume that God exists. Otherwise, how can she argue some other god made god? She is attempting to deny God by putting forth an argument whose basis is God exists. Of course we would expect you to miss this. My point is, if you are going to attack the concept of the Judeo-Christian God, then you can't make up your own Judeo-Christian theology. You can make a different argument to attack other mythological gods, but if you are going to assume the Judeo-Christian God exists as the basis of your argument, then you should also follow with the stated and commonly accepted theology that accompanies that basis, i.e., 1.) God has always existed 2.) God predates the Universe (Bible reference)  3.) God claims in the Bible there are no gods before him.
> 
> So according to you, Hollie's argument is based on a false premise of a false premise. *YOU FAIL, THESPIDOUCHE!!!*  This is what happens when make your bed with a liar.
Click to expand...


Gee whiz. Thumpie stalker is drooling.

Here's a bit of enlightenment for you: you make no sense - as usual.

Go thump (and stalk), elsewhere.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the bibles say many things which are wrong. Here you are, promoting lies and falsehoods.
> 
> How do you feel about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not worthy of a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you limited abilities.
> 
> Why do you think it is that with exclusivity, you must resort to cutting and pasting from fundie Christian creationist sources to promote your biblical tales and fables?
> 
> I'd have thought that proof of your various bibles tales and fables, if true, would find among real scientists. Instead, we're left with you cutting and pasting silly youtube videos and nonsense from Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...


My questions had nothing to do with creationists websites. My questions came right from the evidence that was admitted on the BLM website by their biologists.

So Fundie answer the questions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will find that the link I gave you have a complete list of scientific and verifiable references.
> 
> That's quite in contrast to the silly videos you post which are hosted by Christian creationist charlatans.
> 
> Here - drink the Kool Aid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am looking for your answer that can't be answered through a theory got it ? The theory does not answer the question got it ?
> 
> The only charlatans here is you and your other half daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am looking to see if you can post a sentence with some occasional punctuation and a connected series of rational thoughts.
> 
> Why do you suppose it is that legitimate science organizations have long ago refuted the silly bible tales? It's obvious you don't have a clue about plate tectonics, continental drift or the processes of evolution, but why would you presume to impose your ignorance on others?
Click to expand...


If you wish in one hand and poop in the other hand which one fills up first ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have every reason to believe that you have never attended formal schooling past 8th grade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of understanding of even the most basic precepts of the earth sciences and your utter lack of a science vocabulary determines I'm right.
Click to expand...


Still no rebuttal.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for the fine example of the false premise rule in action.
> 1."false premise that God had a beginning." wrong! the FP here is assuming that god has always been. There is no evidence for that argument.
> to make this short and sweet.
> anything you base on the assumption " god has ALWAYS existed" like theories or speculation are also by definition false because the basic premise is false.
> any argument you make from that premise is subjective and unsupportable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, you just proved what a huge idiot you really are!! Do you see the absurdity of your flawed logic in the post above?? Why aren't you attacking Hollie's infinite regression argument then??? You just proved me right you buffoon!! You just proved that Hollie is arguing from a false premise stupid. Do you hear your self? Hollie is not using a false premise because she is using a false premise.
> 
> What you missed in your utter and complete ignorance is that Hollie's argument is made from the assumption that God exists. In order for her to make her stupid argument, she has to first assume that God exists. Otherwise, how can she argue some other god made god? She is attempting to deny God by putting forth an argument whose basis is God exists. Of course we would expect you to miss this. My point is, if you are going to attack the concept of the Judeo-Christian God, then you can't make up your own Judeo-Christian theology. You can make a different argument to attack other mythological gods, but if you are going to assume the Judeo-Christian God exists as the basis of your argument, then you should also follow with the stated and commonly accepted theology that accompanies that basis, i.e., 1.) God has always existed 2.) God predates the Universe (Bible reference)  3.) God claims in the Bible there are no gods before him.
> 
> So according to you, Hollie's argument is based on a false premise of a false premise. *YOU FAIL, THESPIDOUCHE!!!*  This is what happens when make your bed with a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. Thumpie stalker is drooling.
> 
> Here's a bit of enlightenment for you: you make no sense - as usual.
> 
> Go thump (and stalk), elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Hollie, you're a Troll and nothing more and that has been clearly demonstrated.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie, you're a Troll and nothing more and that has been clearly demonstrated.



I understand you're angry and that lashing out like a petulant child is your usual tacit.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you've made no attempt to support your flaccid arguments when they have been thoroughly dismantled. 

Be a good boy and offer your best cut and paste from Harun Yahya.


It seems your gawds have yet again been demoted to performing menial tasks.

You should spend less time thumping your various bibles and more time actually learning. 


*Icy Cosmic Start for Amino Acids and DNA Ingredients*

Icy cosmic start for amino acids and DNA ingredients



> Using new technology at the telescope and in laboratories, researchers have discovered an important pair of prebiotic molecules in interstellar space. The discoveries indicate that some basic chemicals that are key steps on the way to life may have formed on dusty ice grains floating between the stars.
> 
> The scientists used the National Science Foundation's Green Bank Telescope (GBT) in West Virginia to study a giant cloud of gas some 25,000 light-years from Earth, near the center of our Milky Way Galaxy. The chemicals they found in that cloud include a molecule thought to be a precursor to a key component of DNA and another that may have a role in the formation of the amino acid alanine.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of understanding of even the most basic precepts of the earth sciences and your utter lack of a science vocabulary determines I'm right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no rebuttal.
Click to expand...


Done long ago. 

Where is your best Harun Yahya cut and paste?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am looking for your answer that can't be answered through a theory got it ? The theory does not answer the question got it ?
> 
> The only charlatans here is you and your other half daws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am looking to see if you can post a sentence with some occasional punctuation and a connected series of rational thoughts.
> 
> Why do you suppose it is that legitimate science organizations have long ago refuted the silly bible tales? It's obvious you don't have a clue about plate tectonics, continental drift or the processes of evolution, but why would you presume to impose your ignorance on others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you wish in one hand and poop in the other hand which one fills up first ?
Click to expand...


Yet another of the gems of wisdom offered by the fundie creationist crowd. 

Would jeebus approve of your behavior?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worthy of a response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you limited abilities.
> 
> Why do you think it is that with exclusivity, you must resort to cutting and pasting from fundie Christian creationist sources to promote your biblical tales and fables?
> 
> I'd have thought that proof of your various bibles tales and fables, if true, would find among real scientists. Instead, we're left with you cutting and pasting silly youtube videos and nonsense from Harun Yahya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My questions had nothing to do with creationists websites. My questions came right from the evidence that was admitted on the BLM website by their biologists.
> 
> So Fundie answer the questions.
Click to expand...

As usual, you're confused. I'd take a break from lapping up the putrid bile spewed from your silly youtube videos. They only cause you further befuddlement.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more for you to check out.
> 
> Here's Your Evidence There Was A Great Flood ! : Ancient Mysteries
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone take you seriously when you link to silly videos from Christian snake oil salesmen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone listen to someone that links to a theory or explanation that is contradicted by the evidence ?
Click to expand...


You would need to first provide evidence for your gawds before suggesting that you have evidence one or more of your angry, mass-murdering gawds wiped most of humanity from the planet with a global flood. You have even failed to provide relevant data to _support_ a global flood. 

You have failed at every attempt to support any of your specious opinions.

See, this is the danger you face when you lie and attempt to deceive.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you're a Troll and nothing more and that has been clearly demonstrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're angry and that lashing out like a petulant child is your usual tacit.
> 
> It hasn't gone unnoticed that you've made no attempt to support your flaccid arguments when they have been thoroughly dismantled.
> 
> Be a good boy and offer your best cut and paste from Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> It seems your gawds have yet again been demoted to performing menial tasks.
> 
> You should spend less time thumping your various bibles and more time actually learning.
> 
> 
> *Icy Cosmic Start for Amino Acids and DNA Ingredients*
> 
> Icy cosmic start for amino acids and DNA ingredients
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using new technology at the telescope and in laboratories, researchers have discovered an important pair of prebiotic molecules in interstellar space. The discoveries indicate that some basic chemicals that are key steps on the way to life may have formed on dusty ice grains floating between the stars.
> 
> The scientists used the National Science Foundation's Green Bank Telescope (GBT) in West Virginia to study a giant cloud of gas some 25,000 light-years from Earth, near the center of our Milky Way Galaxy. The chemicals they found in that cloud include a molecule thought to be a precursor to a key component of DNA and another that may have a role in the formation of the amino acid alanine.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Trying to change the subject are you lol.

We can deal with that at a later date but what do you think is scattered throughout  the universe ? and what is not scattered throughout the universe ? 

Come on copy and paste to avoid my questions so sorry not falling for it nitwit.


----------



## t_polkow

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone take you seriously when you link to silly videos from Christian snake oil salesmen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone listen to someone that links to a theory or explanation that is contradicted by the evidence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would need to first provide evidence for your gawds before suggesting that you have evidence one or more of your angry, mass-murdering gawds wiped most of humanity from the planet with a global flood. You have even failed to provide relevant data to _support_ a global flood.
> 
> You have failed at every attempt to support any of your specious opinions.
> 
> See, this is the danger you face when you lie and attempt to deceive.
Click to expand...

7 reasons why religion is a form of mental illness

(1) Hallucinations - the person has invisible friends who (s)he insists are real, and to whom (s)he speaks daily, even though nobody can actually see or hear
these friends.

(2) Delusions - the patient believes that the invisible friends have magical powers to make them rich, cure cancer, bring about world peace, and will do so eventually if asked.

(3) Denial/Inability to learn - though the requests for world peace remain unanswered, even after hundreds of years, the patients persist with the praying behaviour, each time expecting different results.

(4) Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality - the beliefs are contingent upon ancient mythology being accepted as historical fact.

(5) Paranoia - the belief that anyone who does not share their supernatural concept of reality is "evil," "the devil," "an agent of Satan".

(6) Emotional abuse - * religious concepts such as sin, hell, cause feelings of guilt, shame, fear, and other types of emotional "baggage" which can scar the
psyche for life.

(7) Violence - many patients insist that others should share in their delusions, even to the extent of using violence.


7 reasons why religion is a form of mental illness


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of understanding of even the most basic precepts of the earth sciences and your utter lack of a science vocabulary determines I'm right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Done long ago.
> 
> Where is your best Harun Yahya cut and paste?
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Exposing more absurdity of creationist flood claims.

CH541: Fish in the Flood


Claim CH541:
Present-day fish and other aquatic organisms could have survived the Flood. Many freshwater fish can survive in salt water, and many saltwater fish can tolerate fresh water. The floodwaters may have been layered by salinity, allowing others to find their preferred habitat. 
Source:

Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study. Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, pp. 140-152. 

Response:
1. Layering of the floodwaters contradicts the Flood model, which proposes that the Flood was turbulent enough to stir up sediments on an incredible scale. The model proposes that the floodwaters became the present oceans, so all the water flowing into the oceans would have ensured that they were well mixed. The freshwater fish would have had no place to find fresh water. 


2. The fact that many fish can tolerate wide ranges in salinity does not mean that all can. Furthermore, the problem applies to more than fish. Freshwater invertebrates are commonly used as indicators of the health of streams. Even a tiny amount of pollution can cause many species to disappear from the stream. 


3. Aquatic organisms would have more than salinity to worry about, such as the following: &#8226; Heat. All mechanisms proposed to cause the Flood would have released enough heat to boil the oceans. The deposition of limestone would release enough heat to boil them again. Meteors and volcanoes that occurred during the Flood, as implied by their presence in layers attributed to the Flood by flood geologists, would probably have boiled them again (Isaak 1998). Woodmorappe (1996, 140) dismissed the problem of volcanoes but ignored all the other sources of heat.

&#8226; Acid. The volcanoes that erupted during the Flood would also have produced sulfuric acid, enough to lower the pH of the ocean to 2.2, which would be fatal to almost all marine life (Morton 1998b). 

&#8226; Substrate. Many freshwater and marine invertebrates rely on a substrate. They anchor themselves on the substrate and rely on currents to carry their food to them. During the Flood, substrates would have been uninhabitable at least part of the time, especially on land. Woodmorappe (1996, 141) suggested floating pumice as a substrate, but it would float with the currents, so currents would not bring nutrients to animals on them.

&#8226; Pressure. The Flood would have caused great fluctuation in sea pressures. Many deep-sea creatures invariably die from the decompression when brought to the surface. Other surface animals would die from too much pressure if forced deep underwater. 


4. Woodmorappe predicted a sudden extinction of fish caused by the Flood. "[P]resent-day marine life is but an impoverished remnant of that which had originally been created and had existed before the Flood" (1996, 142). However, the actual pattern of extinction we see shows convincing disproof of the Flood. Living genera become decreasingly represented in fossils as one goes deeper in the geological column, until there are no recent genera in the Triassic, and only about 12 percent of recent genera have any fossil record. Extinct genera continue back to the Cambrian (Morton 1998a). This pattern exactly matches what one would expect from evolution. It contradicts a global flood, which should include modern fish more-or-less uniformly throughout the flood-deposited sediments. 

References:

1. Isaak, Mark, 1998. Problems with a global flood, 2nd ed. Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition 
2. Morton, Glenn R., 1998a. Fish cause problems for the global flood. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fish.htm 
3. Morton, Glenn R., 1998b. The global flood produces acidic flood waters. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/acid.htm 



Fundie Christian creationist claims are easily dismantled.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am looking to see if you can post a sentence with some occasional punctuation and a connected series of rational thoughts.
> 
> Why do you suppose it is that legitimate science organizations have long ago refuted the silly bible tales? It's obvious you don't have a clue about plate tectonics, continental drift or the processes of evolution, but why would you presume to impose your ignorance on others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you wish in one hand and poop in the other hand which one fills up first ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another of the gems of wisdom offered by the fundie creationist crowd.
> 
> Would jeebus approve of your behavior?
Click to expand...


Do you think he would approve of your behavior Atleast I am wise enough to ask for forgiveness.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, you're a Troll and nothing more and that has been clearly demonstrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're angry and that lashing out like a petulant child is your usual tacit.
> 
> It hasn't gone unnoticed that you've made no attempt to support your flaccid arguments when they have been thoroughly dismantled.
> 
> Be a good boy and offer your best cut and paste from Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> It seems your gawds have yet again been demoted to performing menial tasks.
> 
> You should spend less time thumping your various bibles and more time actually learning.
> 
> 
> *Icy Cosmic Start for Amino Acids and DNA Ingredients*
> 
> Icy cosmic start for amino acids and DNA ingredients
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using new technology at the telescope and in laboratories, researchers have discovered an important pair of prebiotic molecules in interstellar space. The discoveries indicate that some basic chemicals that are key steps on the way to life may have formed on dusty ice grains floating between the stars.
> 
> The scientists used the National Science Foundation's Green Bank Telescope (GBT) in West Virginia to study a giant cloud of gas some 25,000 light-years from Earth, near the center of our Milky Way Galaxy. The chemicals they found in that cloud include a molecule thought to be a precursor to a key component of DNA and another that may have a role in the formation of the amino acid alanine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to change the subject are you lol.
> 
> We can deal with that at a later date but what do you think is scattered throughout  the universe ? and what is not scattered throughout the universe ?
> 
> Come on copy and paste to avoid my questions so sorry not falling for it nitwit.
Click to expand...


Yet another weak attempt by the Christian creationist to slither away from the difficult questions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you limited abilities.
> 
> Why do you think it is that with exclusivity, you must resort to cutting and pasting from fundie Christian creationist sources to promote your biblical tales and fables?
> 
> I'd have thought that proof of your various bibles tales and fables, if true, would find among real scientists. Instead, we're left with you cutting and pasting silly youtube videos and nonsense from Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My questions had nothing to do with creationists websites. My questions came right from the evidence that was admitted on the BLM website by their biologists.
> 
> So Fundie answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you're confused. I'd take a break from lapping up the putrid bile spewed from your silly youtube videos. They only cause you further befuddlement.
Click to expand...


Sorry ask daws since you have a comprehension problem.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you wish in one hand and poop in the other hand which one fills up first ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another of the gems of wisdom offered by the fundie creationist crowd.
> 
> Would jeebus approve of your behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think he would approve of your behavior Atleast I am wise enough to ask for forgiveness.
Click to expand...


This is not the thread for thumping your bibles.


----------



## Youwerecreated

t_polkow said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone listen to someone that links to a theory or explanation that is contradicted by the evidence ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would need to first provide evidence for your gawds before suggesting that you have evidence one or more of your angry, mass-murdering gawds wiped most of humanity from the planet with a global flood. You have even failed to provide relevant data to _support_ a global flood.
> 
> You have failed at every attempt to support any of your specious opinions.
> 
> See, this is the danger you face when you lie and attempt to deceive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 7 reasons why religion is a form of mental illness
> 
> (1) Hallucinations - the person has invisible friends who (s)he insists are real, and to whom (s)he speaks daily, even though nobody can actually see or hear
> these friends.
> 
> (2) Delusions - the patient believes that the invisible friends have magical powers to make them rich, cure cancer, bring about world peace, and will do so eventually if asked.
> 
> (3) Denial/Inability to learn - though the requests for world peace remain unanswered, even after hundreds of years, the patients persist with the praying behaviour, each time expecting different results.
> 
> (4) Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality - the beliefs are contingent upon ancient mythology being accepted as historical fact.
> 
> (5) Paranoia - the belief that anyone who does not share their supernatural concept of reality is "evil," "the devil," "an agent of Satan".
> 
> (6) Emotional abuse - * religious concepts such as sin, hell, cause feelings of guilt, shame, fear, and other types of emotional "baggage" which can scar the
> psyche for life.
> 
> (7) Violence - many patients insist that others should share in their delusions, even to the extent of using violence.
> 
> 
> 7 reasons why religion is a form of mental illness
Click to expand...


Is this the one claiming to be a jew


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Exposing more absurdity of creationist flood claims.
> 
> CH541: Fish in the Flood
> 
> 
> Claim CH541:
> Present-day fish and other aquatic organisms could have survived the Flood. Many freshwater fish can survive in salt water, and many saltwater fish can tolerate fresh water. The floodwaters may have been layered by salinity, allowing others to find their preferred habitat.
> Source:
> 
> Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study. Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, pp. 140-152.
> 
> Response:
> 1. Layering of the floodwaters contradicts the Flood model, which proposes that the Flood was turbulent enough to stir up sediments on an incredible scale. The model proposes that the floodwaters became the present oceans, so all the water flowing into the oceans would have ensured that they were well mixed. The freshwater fish would have had no place to find fresh water.
> 
> 
> 2. The fact that many fish can tolerate wide ranges in salinity does not mean that all can. Furthermore, the problem applies to more than fish. Freshwater invertebrates are commonly used as indicators of the health of streams. Even a tiny amount of pollution can cause many species to disappear from the stream.
> 
> 
> 3. Aquatic organisms would have more than salinity to worry about, such as the following:  Heat. All mechanisms proposed to cause the Flood would have released enough heat to boil the oceans. The deposition of limestone would release enough heat to boil them again. Meteors and volcanoes that occurred during the Flood, as implied by their presence in layers attributed to the Flood by flood geologists, would probably have boiled them again (Isaak 1998). Woodmorappe (1996, 140) dismissed the problem of volcanoes but ignored all the other sources of heat.
> 
>  Acid. The volcanoes that erupted during the Flood would also have produced sulfuric acid, enough to lower the pH of the ocean to 2.2, which would be fatal to almost all marine life (Morton 1998b).
> 
>  Substrate. Many freshwater and marine invertebrates rely on a substrate. They anchor themselves on the substrate and rely on currents to carry their food to them. During the Flood, substrates would have been uninhabitable at least part of the time, especially on land. Woodmorappe (1996, 141) suggested floating pumice as a substrate, but it would float with the currents, so currents would not bring nutrients to animals on them.
> 
>  Pressure. The Flood would have caused great fluctuation in sea pressures. Many deep-sea creatures invariably die from the decompression when brought to the surface. Other surface animals would die from too much pressure if forced deep underwater.
> 
> 
> 4. Woodmorappe predicted a sudden extinction of fish caused by the Flood. "[P]resent-day marine life is but an impoverished remnant of that which had originally been created and had existed before the Flood" (1996, 142). However, the actual pattern of extinction we see shows convincing disproof of the Flood. Living genera become decreasingly represented in fossils as one goes deeper in the geological column, until there are no recent genera in the Triassic, and only about 12 percent of recent genera have any fossil record. Extinct genera continue back to the Cambrian (Morton 1998a). This pattern exactly matches what one would expect from evolution. It contradicts a global flood, which should include modern fish more-or-less uniformly throughout the flood-deposited sediments.
> 
> References:
> 
> 1. Isaak, Mark, 1998. Problems with a global flood, 2nd ed. Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
> 2. Morton, Glenn R., 1998a. Fish cause problems for the global flood. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fish.htm
> 3. Morton, Glenn R., 1998b. The global flood produces acidic flood waters. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/acid.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Fundie Christian creationist claims are easily dismantled.



No matter how hard you try you can't dismantle truth hollie.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My questions had nothing to do with creationists websites. My questions came right from the evidence that was admitted on the BLM website by their biologists.
> 
> So Fundie answer the questions.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you're confused. I'd take a break from lapping up the putrid bile spewed from your silly youtube videos. They only cause you further befuddlement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry ask daws since you have a comprehension problem.
Click to expand...


How curious that the entirety of your creationist claims derive from Christian creationist websites and oddly, from Harun Yahya, a moslem who steals ruthlessly from Christian creationists.

The coalition of dumb and dumber... and dumber'ers.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're angry and that lashing out like a petulant child is your usual tacit.
> 
> It hasn't gone unnoticed that you've made no attempt to support your flaccid arguments when they have been thoroughly dismantled.
> 
> Be a good boy and offer your best cut and paste from Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> It seems your gawds have yet again been demoted to performing menial tasks.
> 
> You should spend less time thumping your various bibles and more time actually learning.
> 
> 
> *Icy Cosmic Start for Amino Acids and DNA Ingredients*
> 
> Icy cosmic start for amino acids and DNA ingredients
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to change the subject are you lol.
> 
> We can deal with that at a later date but what do you think is scattered throughout  the universe ? and what is not scattered throughout the universe ?
> 
> Come on copy and paste to avoid my questions so sorry not falling for it nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another weak attempt by the Christian creationist to slither away from the difficult questions.
Click to expand...


I already refuted your nonsense but here is more for you, let me know when those chemicals result in life on another planet


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exposing more absurdity of creationist flood claims.
> 
> CH541: Fish in the Flood
> 
> 
> Claim CH541:
> Present-day fish and other aquatic organisms could have survived the Flood. Many freshwater fish can survive in salt water, and many saltwater fish can tolerate fresh water. The floodwaters may have been layered by salinity, allowing others to find their preferred habitat.
> Source:
> 
> Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study. Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, pp. 140-152.
> 
> Response:
> 1. Layering of the floodwaters contradicts the Flood model, which proposes that the Flood was turbulent enough to stir up sediments on an incredible scale. The model proposes that the floodwaters became the present oceans, so all the water flowing into the oceans would have ensured that they were well mixed. The freshwater fish would have had no place to find fresh water.
> 
> 
> 2. The fact that many fish can tolerate wide ranges in salinity does not mean that all can. Furthermore, the problem applies to more than fish. Freshwater invertebrates are commonly used as indicators of the health of streams. Even a tiny amount of pollution can cause many species to disappear from the stream.
> 
> 
> 3. Aquatic organisms would have more than salinity to worry about, such as the following:  Heat. All mechanisms proposed to cause the Flood would have released enough heat to boil the oceans. The deposition of limestone would release enough heat to boil them again. Meteors and volcanoes that occurred during the Flood, as implied by their presence in layers attributed to the Flood by flood geologists, would probably have boiled them again (Isaak 1998). Woodmorappe (1996, 140) dismissed the problem of volcanoes but ignored all the other sources of heat.
> 
>  Acid. The volcanoes that erupted during the Flood would also have produced sulfuric acid, enough to lower the pH of the ocean to 2.2, which would be fatal to almost all marine life (Morton 1998b).
> 
>  Substrate. Many freshwater and marine invertebrates rely on a substrate. They anchor themselves on the substrate and rely on currents to carry their food to them. During the Flood, substrates would have been uninhabitable at least part of the time, especially on land. Woodmorappe (1996, 141) suggested floating pumice as a substrate, but it would float with the currents, so currents would not bring nutrients to animals on them.
> 
>  Pressure. The Flood would have caused great fluctuation in sea pressures. Many deep-sea creatures invariably die from the decompression when brought to the surface. Other surface animals would die from too much pressure if forced deep underwater.
> 
> 
> 4. Woodmorappe predicted a sudden extinction of fish caused by the Flood. "[P]resent-day marine life is but an impoverished remnant of that which had originally been created and had existed before the Flood" (1996, 142). However, the actual pattern of extinction we see shows convincing disproof of the Flood. Living genera become decreasingly represented in fossils as one goes deeper in the geological column, until there are no recent genera in the Triassic, and only about 12 percent of recent genera have any fossil record. Extinct genera continue back to the Cambrian (Morton 1998a). This pattern exactly matches what one would expect from evolution. It contradicts a global flood, which should include modern fish more-or-less uniformly throughout the flood-deposited sediments.
> 
> References:
> 
> 1. Isaak, Mark, 1998. Problems with a global flood, 2nd ed. Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
> 2. Morton, Glenn R., 1998a. Fish cause problems for the global flood. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fish.htm
> 3. Morton, Glenn R., 1998b. The global flood produces acidic flood waters. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/acid.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Fundie Christian creationist claims are easily dismantled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how hard you try you can't dismantle truth hollie.
Click to expand...


That's true. But then, I'm not offering lies and deceit (as you are), hoping to shroud the truth with religious fundamentalism.

That's why your silly youtube videos and your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is so pathetic.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you're confused. I'd take a break from lapping up the putrid bile spewed from your silly youtube videos. They only cause you further befuddlement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry ask daws since you have a comprehension problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How curious that the entirety of your creationist claims derive from Christian creationist websites and oddly, from Harun Yahya, a moslem who steals ruthlessly from Christian creationists.
> 
> The coalition of dumb and dumber... and dumber'ers.
Click to expand...


Once again you're a liar. The evidence exists and I am asking you for a rational explanation but I knew that would be a False premise lol. You know that you could be rational.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to change the subject are you lol.
> 
> We can deal with that at a later date but what do you think is scattered throughout  the universe ? and what is not scattered throughout the universe ?
> 
> Come on copy and paste to avoid my questions so sorry not falling for it nitwit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another weak attempt by the Christian creationist to slither away from the difficult questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already refuted your nonsense but here is more for you, let me know when those chemicals result in life on another planet
Click to expand...


You never addressed a single point.

Remember, you're not just having bad luck. It's Jeebus punishing you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exposing more absurdity of creationist flood claims.
> 
> CH541: Fish in the Flood
> 
> 
> Claim CH541:
> Present-day fish and other aquatic organisms could have survived the Flood. Many freshwater fish can survive in salt water, and many saltwater fish can tolerate fresh water. The floodwaters may have been layered by salinity, allowing others to find their preferred habitat.
> Source:
> 
> Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study. Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, pp. 140-152.
> 
> Response:
> 1. Layering of the floodwaters contradicts the Flood model, which proposes that the Flood was turbulent enough to stir up sediments on an incredible scale. The model proposes that the floodwaters became the present oceans, so all the water flowing into the oceans would have ensured that they were well mixed. The freshwater fish would have had no place to find fresh water.
> 
> 
> 2. The fact that many fish can tolerate wide ranges in salinity does not mean that all can. Furthermore, the problem applies to more than fish. Freshwater invertebrates are commonly used as indicators of the health of streams. Even a tiny amount of pollution can cause many species to disappear from the stream.
> 
> 
> 3. Aquatic organisms would have more than salinity to worry about, such as the following:  Heat. All mechanisms proposed to cause the Flood would have released enough heat to boil the oceans. The deposition of limestone would release enough heat to boil them again. Meteors and volcanoes that occurred during the Flood, as implied by their presence in layers attributed to the Flood by flood geologists, would probably have boiled them again (Isaak 1998). Woodmorappe (1996, 140) dismissed the problem of volcanoes but ignored all the other sources of heat.
> 
>  Acid. The volcanoes that erupted during the Flood would also have produced sulfuric acid, enough to lower the pH of the ocean to 2.2, which would be fatal to almost all marine life (Morton 1998b).
> 
>  Substrate. Many freshwater and marine invertebrates rely on a substrate. They anchor themselves on the substrate and rely on currents to carry their food to them. During the Flood, substrates would have been uninhabitable at least part of the time, especially on land. Woodmorappe (1996, 141) suggested floating pumice as a substrate, but it would float with the currents, so currents would not bring nutrients to animals on them.
> 
>  Pressure. The Flood would have caused great fluctuation in sea pressures. Many deep-sea creatures invariably die from the decompression when brought to the surface. Other surface animals would die from too much pressure if forced deep underwater.
> 
> 
> 4. Woodmorappe predicted a sudden extinction of fish caused by the Flood. "[P]resent-day marine life is but an impoverished remnant of that which had originally been created and had existed before the Flood" (1996, 142). However, the actual pattern of extinction we see shows convincing disproof of the Flood. Living genera become decreasingly represented in fossils as one goes deeper in the geological column, until there are no recent genera in the Triassic, and only about 12 percent of recent genera have any fossil record. Extinct genera continue back to the Cambrian (Morton 1998a). This pattern exactly matches what one would expect from evolution. It contradicts a global flood, which should include modern fish more-or-less uniformly throughout the flood-deposited sediments.
> 
> References:
> 
> 1. Isaak, Mark, 1998. Problems with a global flood, 2nd ed. Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
> 2. Morton, Glenn R., 1998a. Fish cause problems for the global flood. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fish.htm
> 3. Morton, Glenn R., 1998b. The global flood produces acidic flood waters. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/acid.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Fundie Christian creationist claims are easily dismantled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how hard you try you can't dismantle truth hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true. But then, I'm not offering lies and deceit (as you are), hoping to shroud the truth with religious fundamentalism.
> 
> That's why your silly youtube videos and your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is so pathetic.
Click to expand...


Have a nice day Hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another weak attempt by the Christian creationist to slither away from the difficult questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already refuted your nonsense but here is more for you, let me know when those chemicals result in life on another planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never addressed a single point.
> 
> Remember, you're not just having bad luck. It's Jeebus punishing you.
Click to expand...


Then you didn't understand what you posted.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry ask daws since you have a comprehension problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How curious that the entirety of your creationist claims derive from Christian creationist websites and oddly, from Harun Yahya, a moslem who steals ruthlessly from Christian creationists.
> 
> The coalition of dumb and dumber... and dumber'ers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you're a liar. The evidence exists and I am asking you for a rational explanation but I knew that would be a False premise lol. You know that you could be rational.
Click to expand...


The angry Christian fundie is cute, but it's getting old.

How strange you cite "evidence" for your specious claims but you're unable to provide even the most simple of proofs for those claims.

It's as though you simply mimic Christian creationist charlatans and the tactics of lies and deceit they use.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already refuted your nonsense but here is more for you, let me know when those chemicals result in life on another planet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never addressed a single point.
> 
> Remember, you're not just having bad luck. It's Jeebus punishing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you didn't understand what you posted.
Click to expand...


I understand you understand very little.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how hard you try you can't dismantle truth hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true. But then, I'm not offering lies and deceit (as you are), hoping to shroud the truth with religious fundamentalism.
> 
> That's why your silly youtube videos and your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is so pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have a nice day Hollie.
Click to expand...


I'm having a great day exposing Christian creationist lies and deceit.

It's the will of the gawds.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how hard you try you can't dismantle truth hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true. But then, I'm not offering lies and deceit (as you are), hoping to shroud the truth with religious fundamentalism.
> 
> That's why your silly youtube videos and your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is so pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have a nice day Hollie.
Click to expand...


This is where you bail out of the thread in hopeless attempts to avoid further embarrassment. 

Shouldn't the other tag-team fundie creationist step in here?


----------



## t_polkow

&#8216;If you want to deny evolution and live in your world that&#8217;s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that&#8217;s fine. But don&#8217;t make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.&#8217;

Why Bill Nye Is Right To Warn Against Creationism - Forbes


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gHbYJfwFgOU#at=11[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

t_polkow said:


> If you want to deny evolution and live in your world thats completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, thats fine. But dont make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.
> 
> Why Bill Nye Is Right To Warn Against Creationism - Forbes
> 
> 
> Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children - YouTube



Bill Nye is a good spokesman for science. He strikes a balance whereby criticism of dreamy-eyed creationists / flat-earth types is done while promoting the fact we live in a technical world that demands critical thinkers.

I suspect that the real objection to this thread by the two primary creationists / fundies is that criticism of their religious perspectives is allowed at all. In a totalitarian theocracy such as Iran, the matters discussed within this thread would never see the light of day. Such distaste for criticism of creationism and their gawds seems to be the real objection of the cresationists. 
Having a belief in angry gawds who are alleged to have wiped most of humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment actually _is_ a viable reason to criticize another person or peoples belief system.  When those people insist on forcing those beliefs / superstitions and irrational fears on others or insist that supernaturalism must be part of a public school syllabus, action must be taken to prevent that. 

I see no valid reason why we in the West should condemn our students in public, state funded schools to the irrelevancies of angry gawds or to subject anyone to live in trembling fear of angry dieties. I happen to think it is outrageous to even consider such absurdities as a geocentric model, a flat earth, etc., I really see no mechanism to address these concepts as in any way short of being ludicrous.

American companies and firms look for truly analytical minds with the capacity for deductive thought and rationality, and an increasingly technical world demands them. 

I happen to live within a four hour drive of several of the most respected universities in the world. Guess what; none of them include jinn 101 in their course curriculum. I have no desire to see our education system devolve to the point where we churn out the legions of vacant, religiously addled minds such as what the Jerry Falwells of this nation would want.


----------



## t_polkow

Hollie said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to deny evolution and live in your world thats completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, thats fine. But dont make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.
> 
> Why Bill Nye Is Right To Warn Against Creationism - Forbes
> 
> 
> Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Nye is a good spokesman for science. He strikes a balance whereby criticism of dreamy-eyed creationists / flat-earth types is done while promoting the fact we live in a technical world that demands critical thinkers.
> 
> I suspect that the real objection to this thread by the two primary creationists / fundies is that criticism of their religious perspectives is allowed at all. In a totalitarian theocracy such as Iran, the matters discussed within this thread would never see the light of day. Such distaste for criticism of creationism and their gawds seems to be the real objection of the cresationists.
> Having a belief in angry gawds who are alleged to have wiped most of humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment actually _is_ a viable reason to criticize another person or peoples belief system.  When those people insist on forcing those beliefs / superstitions and irrational fears on others or insist that supernaturalism must be part of a public school syllabus, action must be taken to prevent that.
> 
> I see no valid reason why we in the West should condemn our students in public, state funded schools to the irrelevancies of angry gawds or to subject anyone to live in trembling fear of angry dieties. I happen to think it is outrageous to even consider such absurdities as a geocentric model, a flat earth, etc., I really see no mechanism to address these concepts as in any way short of being ludicrous.
> 
> American companies and firms look for truly analytical minds with the capacity for deductive thought and rationality, and an increasingly technical world demands them.
> 
> I happen to live within a four hour drive of several of the most respected universities in the world. Guess what; none of them include jinn 101 in their course curriculum. I have no desire to see our education system devolve to the point where we churn out the legions of vacant, religiously addled minds such as what the Jerry Falwells of this nation would want.
Click to expand...


Creation "Scientists"

Dr. Richard Bliss, Curriculum Mgr. for the Institute for Creation Research, got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited diploma mill operating out of a hotel.
Dr. Kelly Segraves, Co-founder of the Creation Science Research Center, says he got his "doctorate" from "Christian University" which doesn't exist.
Dr. Harold Slusher, Co-founder of the Creation Research Society, got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited diploma mill operating out of a post office box.
Dr. Cliffford Burdick of the Creation Research Society got his "doctorate" from another post office box in Phoenix.
Dr. Carl Baugh of the Creation Evidences Museum got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited bible college on the grounds of a church.
Dr. Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino) of the Creation Science Evangelism Ministry (now in prison) got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited mail order outfit called 'Patriot University'.


----------



## LittleNipper

t_polkow said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> &#8216;If you want to deny evolution and live in your world that&#8217;s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that&#8217;s fine. But don&#8217;t make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.&#8217;
> 
> Why Bill Nye Is Right To Warn Against Creationism - Forbes
> 
> 
> Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Nye is a good spokesman for science. He strikes a balance whereby criticism of dreamy-eyed creationists / flat-earth types is done while promoting the fact we live in a technical world that demands critical thinkers.
> 
> I suspect that the real objection to this thread by the two primary creationists / fundies is that criticism of their religious perspectives is allowed at all. In a totalitarian theocracy such as Iran, the matters discussed within this thread would never see the light of day. Such distaste for criticism of creationism and their gawds seems to be the real objection of the cresationists.
> Having a belief in angry gawds who are alleged to have wiped most of humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment actually _is_ a viable reason to criticize another person or peoples belief system.  When those people insist on forcing those beliefs / superstitions and irrational fears on others or insist that supernaturalism must be part of a public school syllabus, action must be taken to prevent that.
> 
> I see no valid reason why we in the West should condemn our students in public, state funded schools to the irrelevancies of angry gawds or to subject anyone to live in trembling fear of angry dieties. I happen to think it is outrageous to even consider such absurdities as a geocentric model, a flat earth, etc., I really see no mechanism to address these concepts as in any way short of being ludicrous.
> 
> American companies and firms look for truly analytical minds with the capacity for deductive thought and rationality, and an increasingly technical world demands them.
> 
> I happen to live within a four hour drive of several of the most respected universities in the world. Guess what; none of them include jinn 101 in their course curriculum. I have no desire to see our education system devolve to the point where we churn out the legions of vacant, religiously addled minds such as what the Jerry Falwell&#8217;s of this nation would want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation "Scientists"
> 
> &#8220;Dr. Richard Bliss, Curriculum Mgr. for the Institute for Creation Research, got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited diploma mill operating out of a hotel.
> Dr. Kelly Segraves, Co-founder of the Creation Science Research Center, says he got his "doctorate" from "Christian University" which doesn't exist.
> Dr. Harold Slusher, Co-founder of the Creation Research Society, got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited diploma mill operating out of a post office box.
> Dr. Cliffford Burdick of the Creation Research Society got his "doctorate" from another post office box in Phoenix.
> Dr. Carl Baugh of the Creation Evidences Museum got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited bible college on the grounds of a church.
> Dr. Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino) of the Creation Science Evangelism Ministry (now in prison) got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited mail order outfit called 'Patriot University'.
Click to expand...


Where did Charles Darwin get his degree? Did Charles Darwin get a college degree
Where did Alfred Wallace get his degree? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace
Where did Charles Lyell get his degree and for what? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell
Where did Robert Chambers get his degree and for what? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Chambers_(publisher_born_1802)

Shall I continue?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Nye is a good spokesman for science. He strikes a balance whereby criticism of dreamy-eyed creationists / flat-earth types is done while promoting the fact we live in a technical world that demands critical thinkers.
> 
> I suspect that the real objection to this thread by the two primary creationists / fundies is that criticism of their religious perspectives is allowed at all. In a totalitarian theocracy such as Iran, the matters discussed within this thread would never see the light of day. Such distaste for criticism of creationism and their gawds seems to be the real objection of the cresationists.
> Having a belief in angry gawds who are alleged to have wiped most of humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment actually _is_ a viable reason to criticize another person or peoples belief system.  When those people insist on forcing those beliefs / superstitions and irrational fears on others or insist that supernaturalism must be part of a public school syllabus, action must be taken to prevent that.
> 
> I see no valid reason why we in the West should condemn our students in public, state funded schools to the irrelevancies of angry gawds or to subject anyone to live in trembling fear of angry dieties. I happen to think it is outrageous to even consider such absurdities as a geocentric model, a flat earth, etc., I really see no mechanism to address these concepts as in any way short of being ludicrous.
> 
> American companies and firms look for truly analytical minds with the capacity for deductive thought and rationality, and an increasingly technical world demands them.
> 
> I happen to live within a four hour drive of several of the most respected universities in the world. Guess what; none of them include jinn 101 in their course curriculum. I have no desire to see our education system devolve to the point where we churn out the legions of vacant, religiously addled minds such as what the Jerry Falwells of this nation would want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation "Scientists"
> 
> Dr. Richard Bliss, Curriculum Mgr. for the Institute for Creation Research, got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited diploma mill operating out of a hotel.
> Dr. Kelly Segraves, Co-founder of the Creation Science Research Center, says he got his "doctorate" from "Christian University" which doesn't exist.
> Dr. Harold Slusher, Co-founder of the Creation Research Society, got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited diploma mill operating out of a post office box.
> Dr. Cliffford Burdick of the Creation Research Society got his "doctorate" from another post office box in Phoenix.
> Dr. Carl Baugh of the Creation Evidences Museum got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited bible college on the grounds of a church.
> Dr. Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino) of the Creation Science Evangelism Ministry (now in prison) got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited mail order outfit called 'Patriot University'.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did Charles Darwin get his degree? Did Charles Darwin get a college degree
> Where did Alfred Wallace get his degree? Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Where did Charles Lyell get his degree and for what? Charles Lyell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Where did Robert Chambers get his degree and for what? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Chambers_(publisher_born_1802)
> 
> Shall I continue?
Click to expand...


Please don't. You've wasted enough bandwidth. The charlatans and scammers who represent so many of the Christian "creation science" organizations have long ago been forced to run for cover when their lack of credibility has been exposed.

*Texas Judge Rips Creationism Group in Science Degree Suit*

Texas Judge Rips Creationism Group in Science Degree Suit - Law Blog - WSJ

Austin federal judge Sam Sparks dismissed a suit by the Dallas-based Institute of Creation Research, which seeks the right to grant a masters degree in science from a biblical perspective. And by dismissed, we mean the judge tore it apart.

But first, a summary of the suit, as reported today by the San Antonio Express-News. The Institute seeks to offer a masters degree that critiques evolution and champions a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation. Texass higher education board nixed the groups application, because of the proposed programs creationist slant. This, the Institute contended, was a violation of its First Amendment Rights.

That claim was dismissed by Sparks in an opinion that criticized the Institutes arguments as incoherent. At one point he writes that he will address the groups concerns to the extent [he] is able to understand them. At another, he describes the groups filings as overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information. Click here for the judges opinion.


----------



## t_polkow

LittleNipper said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Nye is a good spokesman for science. He strikes a balance whereby criticism of dreamy-eyed creationists / flat-earth types is done while promoting the fact we live in a technical world that demands critical thinkers.
> 
> I suspect that the real objection to this thread by the two primary creationists / fundies is that criticism of their religious perspectives is allowed at all. In a totalitarian theocracy such as Iran, the matters discussed within this thread would never see the light of day. Such distaste for criticism of creationism and their gawds seems to be the real objection of the cresationists.
> Having a belief in angry gawds who are alleged to have wiped most of humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment actually _is_ a viable reason to criticize another person or peoples belief system.  When those people insist on forcing those beliefs / superstitions and irrational fears on others or insist that supernaturalism must be part of a public school syllabus, action must be taken to prevent that.
> 
> I see no valid reason why we in the West should condemn our students in public, state funded schools to the irrelevancies of angry gawds or to subject anyone to live in trembling fear of angry dieties. I happen to think it is outrageous to even consider such absurdities as a geocentric model, a flat earth, etc., I really see no mechanism to address these concepts as in any way short of being ludicrous.
> 
> American companies and firms look for truly analytical minds with the capacity for deductive thought and rationality, and an increasingly technical world demands them.
> 
> I happen to live within a four hour drive of several of the most respected universities in the world. Guess what; none of them include jinn 101 in their course curriculum. I have no desire to see our education system devolve to the point where we churn out the legions of vacant, religiously addled minds such as what the Jerry Falwell&#8217;s of this nation would want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation "Scientists"
> 
> &#8220;Dr. Richard Bliss, Curriculum Mgr. for the Institute for Creation Research, got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited diploma mill operating out of a hotel.
> Dr. Kelly Segraves, Co-founder of the Creation Science Research Center, says he got his "doctorate" from "Christian University" which doesn't exist.
> Dr. Harold Slusher, Co-founder of the Creation Research Society, got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited diploma mill operating out of a post office box.
> Dr. Cliffford Burdick of the Creation Research Society got his "doctorate" from another post office box in Phoenix.
> Dr. Carl Baugh of the Creation Evidences Museum got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited bible college on the grounds of a church.
> Dr. Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino) of the Creation Science Evangelism Ministry (now in prison) got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited mail order outfit called 'Patriot University'.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did Charles Darwin get his degree? Did Charles Darwin get a college degree
> Where did Alfred Wallace get his degree? Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Where did Charles Lyell get his degree and for what? Charles Lyell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Where did Robert Chambers get his degree and for what? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Chambers_(publisher_born_1802)
> 
> Shall I continue?
Click to expand...


I wasn't aware they those you listed  claimed bogus"doctorates" from mail order bible schools and PO boxes..... 

Why do creation"Scientists" claim these bogus degrees with the title Doctor? I'll tell you why, because the uneducated low IQ inbred buffoons don't know the difference between real academic study and a bogus degree.  Really impresses the bible thumping numb skulls in jesusland  Geezz rev grababuck must be smart and knows what he talks about,  he got his Dr degree from the jethro Bodine "skool" of scienceing by mail!!!!!


The diploma mill typically awards its degrees to people who complete a token of easy coursework (one diploma mill reportedly hands out "doctorates" in exchange for the reading of one book and the payment of $600). The mill's overhead is minimal as those who run it do not have to maintain the kind of facilities or qualified staff real schools do. They consequently charge the "student" a small fee for their "course work."

A "schools" "accreditation" may be be as phony as their degrees

There are phony accrediting agencies that these unethical organizations use, so a "schools" "accreditation" may be be as phony as their degrees. There are many diploma mills churning out degrees to undeserving ministers in a practice Christian author Steve Levicoff has referred to as "name it and frame it."

"Dr. Dino," (Kent Hovind), spoke in many churches, always calling himself "Dr.," though his formal education past high school consisted of an undergraduate degree from an unaccredited Bible College, and a "doctorate" from a diploma mill run out of the modest home of a man named Lonnie Skinner. Unfortunately for Hovind, he used similar ethics in paying his taxes and is now in prison for tax evasion.

One, prominent diploma mill for ministers is "Friends International Christian University." This "school" awards doctorates to candidates who, after completing very minimal prerequisites, finish eight, easy correspondence classes. A diligent high school graduate can have his or her "doctorate" in less than a year.

The average, real, earned doctorate takes over eight years to obtain after earning a bachelors and then a master's degree.


Perhaps no diploma mill has been more successful than "Life Christian University," which consists of a group of people with mostly phony degrees who have awarded "doctorates" to dignitaries such as &#8220;Dr.&#8221; Rodney Howard-Browne, &#8220;Dr.&#8221; Joyce Meyer, &#8220;Dr.&#8221; Kenneth Copeland, &#8220;Dr.&#8221; Norvel Hayes, &#8220;Dr.&#8221; Kevin McNulty, "Dr. Billye Brim, and &#8220;Dr.&#8221; Benny Hinn.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's true. But then, I'm not offering lies and deceit (as you are), hoping to shroud the truth with religious fundamentalism.
> 
> That's why your silly youtube videos and your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is so pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have a nice day Hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where you bail out of the thread in hopeless attempts to avoid further embarrassment.
> 
> Shouldn't the other tag-team fundie creationist step in here?
Click to expand...


All this nonsense between you and the Jew and still neither of you addressed my questions.

You try to change the subject and deflect so you don't have answer the questions . typical of you.

You tried to raise a hypothetical question concerning chemicals on other planets you answer my question then I will make you look silly on that halfhearted reach.

Bill Nye and the other Ideologues are your hero I get it but the guy is just another Ideologue not wanting to face reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another weak attempt by the Christian creationist to slither away from the difficult questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already refuted your nonsense but here is more for you, let me know when those chemicals result in life on another planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never addressed a single point.
> 
> Remember, you're not just having bad luck. It's Jeebus punishing you.
Click to expand...


Sure I did, the response went over your head.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How curious that the entirety of your creationist claims derive from Christian creationist websites and oddly, from Harun Yahya, a moslem who steals ruthlessly from Christian creationists.
> 
> The coalition of dumb and dumber... and dumber'ers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you're a liar. The evidence exists and I am asking you for a rational explanation but I knew that would be a False premise lol. You know that you could be rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The angry Christian fundie is cute, but it's getting old.
> 
> How strange you cite "evidence" for your specious claims but you're unable to provide even the most simple of proofs for those claims.
> 
> It's as though you simply mimic Christian creationist charlatans and the tactics of lies and deceit they use.
Click to expand...


Sorry you can't handle the truth.

Now how bout you address my earlier questions.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already refuted your nonsense but here is more for you, let me know when those chemicals result in life on another planet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never addressed a single point.
> 
> Remember, you're not just having bad luck. It's Jeebus punishing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I did, the response went over your head.
Click to expand...


Cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya hardly qualifies as a response.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never addressed a single point.
> 
> Remember, you're not just having bad luck. It's Jeebus punishing you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you didn't understand what you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you understand very little.
Click to expand...


Well let's have no copy and pasting and discuss the issues and test your Hypothesis.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you're a liar. The evidence exists and I am asking you for a rational explanation but I knew that would be a False premise lol. You know that you could be rational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The angry Christian fundie is cute, but it's getting old.
> 
> How strange you cite "evidence" for your specious claims but you're unable to provide even the most simple of proofs for those claims.
> 
> It's as though you simply mimic Christian creationist charlatans and the tactics of lies and deceit they use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't handle the truth.
> 
> Now how bout you address my earlier questions.
Click to expand...


Already addressed. You just can't accept any response that conflicts your need to believe in fear and superstition.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you didn't understand what you posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you understand very little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well let's have no copy and pasting and discuss the issues and test your Hypothesis.
Click to expand...


The entirety of your responses are cutting and pasting.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never addressed a single point.
> 
> Remember, you're not just having bad luck. It's Jeebus punishing you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I did, the response went over your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya hardly qualifies as a response.
Click to expand...


You really need some new material so then you won't mind taking me up on my challenge


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I did, the response went over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya hardly qualifies as a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need some new material so then you won't mind taking me up on my challenge
Click to expand...


You have no challenge.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The angry Christian fundie is cute, but it's getting old.
> 
> How strange you cite "evidence" for your specious claims but you're unable to provide even the most simple of proofs for those claims.
> 
> It's as though you simply mimic Christian creationist charlatans and the tactics of lies and deceit they use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't handle the truth.
> 
> Now how bout you address my earlier questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already addressed. You just can't accept any response that conflicts your need to believe in fear and superstition.
Click to expand...


Where did you explain land animals  and plants that are now fossils in the same layers of strata  both in lower strata and top strata ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you understand very little.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's have no copy and pasting and discuss the issues and test your Hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entirety of your responses are cutting and pasting.
Click to expand...


Well take me up on my challenge do you understand what a coward you sound like at this point ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't handle the truth.
> 
> Now how bout you address my earlier questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed. You just can't accept any response that conflicts your need to believe in fear and superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you explain land animals  and plants that are now fossils in the same layers of strata  both in lower strata and top strata ?
Click to expand...


Only a religious zealot with no science background would have difficulty with that.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's have no copy and pasting and discuss the issues and test your Hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entirety of your responses are cutting and pasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well take me up on my challenge do you understand what a coward you sound like at this point ?
Click to expand...


Your silly challenge is as meaningless as your meaningless bluster.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The angry Christian fundie is cute, but it's getting old.
> 
> How strange you cite "evidence" for your specious claims but you're unable to provide even the most simple of proofs for those claims.
> 
> It's as though you simply mimic Christian creationist charlatans and the tactics of lies and deceit they use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't handle the truth.
> 
> Now how bout you address my earlier questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already addressed. You just can't accept any response that conflicts your need to believe in fear and superstition.
Click to expand...


If you addressed my questions give me a brief summary of how that was done.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed. You just can't accept any response that conflicts your need to believe in fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you explain land animals  and plants that are now fossils in the same layers of strata  both in lower strata and top strata ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a religious zealot with no science background would have difficulty with that.
Click to expand...


Exactly Hollie


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't handle the truth.
> 
> Now how bout you address my earlier questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed. You just can't accept any response that conflicts your need to believe in fear and superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you addressed my questions give me a brief summary of how that was done.
Click to expand...


You can do a search in this thread.

Otherwise, you can easily refute the science with a comprehensive description of how your gawds did it. 

Just remember to first offer proof of your gawds.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you explain land animals  and plants that are now fossils in the same layers of strata  both in lower strata and top strata ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a religious zealot with no science background would have difficulty with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly Hollie
Click to expand...


Exactly, religious zealot.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entirety of your responses are cutting and pasting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well take me up on my challenge do you understand what a coward you sound like at this point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your silly challenge is as meaningless as your meaningless bluster.
Click to expand...


Meaningless because you know the truth of your background ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a religious zealot with no science background would have difficulty with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, religious zealot.
Click to expand...


I'm waiting you fundie zealot.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well take me up on my challenge do you understand what a coward you sound like at this point ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your silly challenge is as meaningless as your meaningless bluster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless because you know the truth of your background ?
Click to expand...


That makes no sense.

It seems your comments are not even formed into meaningful sentences absent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly Hollie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, religious zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm waiting you fundie zealot.
Click to expand...


Hold your breath.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed. You just can't accept any response that conflicts your need to believe in fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you addressed my questions give me a brief summary of how that was done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do a search in this thread.
> 
> Otherwise, you can easily refute the science with a comprehensive description of how your gawds did it.
> 
> Just remember to first offer proof of your gawds.
Click to expand...


I already have the global flood laid down many layers of strata world wide containing the fossils we find at lower elevations as well as higher elevations.

Explain how both land fossils and marine fossils are found on mountain tops buried in the same strata. Do you understand what has to happen for living organisms to become fossilized ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your silly challenge is as meaningless as your meaningless bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless because you know the truth of your background ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> It seems your comments are not even formed into meaningful sentences absent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...


Your background is nothing more then a religious zealot background lacking understanding of even basic science.

The only time you attempt to respond to a question you do it through a copy and paste job many times response does not respond to the question. Then when pressed you run to your anti christ material trying to change the subject.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, religious zealot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting you fundie zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold your breath.
Click to expand...


What are you afraid of ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

That is what I thought busy with her next copy and paste job.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> That is what I thought busy with her next copy and paste job.



You poor angry fundie. I know you find it galling that others dismiss your claims to supernaturalism as specious and untenable but that's your issue to deal with. 

Flaccid claims are yours to keep.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless because you know the truth of your background ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> It seems your comments are not even formed into meaningful sentences absent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your background is nothing more then a religious zealot background lacking understanding of even basic science.
> 
> The only time you attempt to respond to a question you do it through a copy and paste job many times response does not respond to the question. Then when pressed you run to your anti christ material trying to change the subject.
Click to expand...


The angry fundie persona only elicits ridicule.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you addressed my questions give me a brief summary of how that was done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can do a search in this thread.
> 
> Otherwise, you can easily refute the science with a comprehensive description of how your gawds did it.
> 
> Just remember to first offer proof of your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have the global flood laid down many layers of strata world wide containing the fossils we find at lower elevations as well as higher elevations.
> 
> Explain how both land fossils and marine fossils are found on mountain tops buried in the same strata. Do you understand what has to happen for living organisms to become fossilized ?
Click to expand...

Explain why your gawds would leave any fossil evidence at all.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless because you know the truth of your background ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> It seems your comments are not even formed into meaningful sentences absent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your background is nothing more then a religious zealot background lacking understanding of even basic science.
> 
> The only time you attempt to respond to a question you do it through a copy and paste job many times response does not respond to the question. Then when pressed you run to your anti christ material trying to change the subject.
Click to expand...


Why do you have such difficulty forming coherent sentences?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can do a search in this thread.
> 
> Otherwise, you can easily refute the science with a comprehensive description of how your gawds did it.
> 
> Just remember to first offer proof of your gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have the global flood laid down many layers of strata world wide containing the fossils we find at lower elevations as well as higher elevations.
> 
> Explain how both land fossils and marine fossils are found on mountain tops buried in the same strata. Do you understand what has to happen for living organisms to become fossilized ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain why your gawds would leave any fossil evidence at all.
Click to expand...


The rest of your posts were not worthy of a response but I don't mind teaching so this question is deserving a response even though I have already answered this.

Because the fossil record proclaims the truth of and evidence to support the global flood story confirming your God and creator.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> It seems your comments are not even formed into meaningful sentences absent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your background is nothing more then a religious zealot background lacking understanding of even basic science.
> 
> The only time you attempt to respond to a question you do it through a copy and paste job many times response does not respond to the question. Then when pressed you run to your anti christ material trying to change the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you have such difficulty forming coherent sentences?
Click to expand...


Coherent ? why did you understand my sentences and yet avoid directly responding to my comments ?

Your insults are just that and nothing of substance as usual.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Now are you ready to adjust my questions then we can discuss the questions you raised about chemicals on other planets.


----------



## t_polkow

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have a nice day Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you bail out of the thread in hopeless attempts to avoid further embarrassment.
> 
> Shouldn't the other tag-team fundie creationist step in here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All this nonsense between you and the Jew and still neither of you addressed my questions.
> 
> You try to change the subject and deflect so you don't have answer the questions . typical of you.
> 
> You tried to raise a hypothetical question concerning chemicals on other planets you answer my question then I will make you look silly on that halfhearted reach.
> 
> Bill Nye and the other Ideologues are your hero I get it but the guy is just another Ideologue not wanting to face reality.
Click to expand...


----------



## t_polkow

t_polkow said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you bail out of the thread in hopeless attempts to avoid further embarrassment.
> 
> Shouldn't the other tag-team fundie creationist step in here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All this nonsense between you and the Jew and still neither of you addressed my questions.
> 
> You try to change the subject and deflect so you don't have answer the questions . typical of you.
> 
> You tried to raise a hypothetical question concerning chemicals on other planets you answer my question then I will make you look silly on that halfhearted reach.
> 
> Bill Nye and the other Ideologues are your hero I get it but the guy is just another Ideologue not wanting to face reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Laughing, Mocking, and ridiculing creationists!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY]Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

t_polkow said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you bail out of the thread in hopeless attempts to avoid further embarrassment.
> 
> Shouldn't the other tag-team fundie creationist step in here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All this nonsense between you and the Jew and still neither of you addressed my questions.
> 
> You try to change the subject and deflect so you don't have answer the questions . typical of you.
> 
> You tried to raise a hypothetical question concerning chemicals on other planets you answer my question then I will make you look silly on that halfhearted reach.
> 
> Bill Nye and the other Ideologues are your hero I get it but the guy is just another Ideologue not wanting to face reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Let's put you to the test.

1. First off what is your theory for how geological strata was distributed across this planet ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have the global flood laid down many layers of strata world wide containing the fossils we find at lower elevations as well as higher elevations.
> 
> Explain how both land fossils and marine fossils are found on mountain tops buried in the same strata. Do you understand what has to happen for living organisms to become fossilized ?
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why your gawds would leave any fossil evidence at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rest of your posts were not worthy of a response but I don't mind teaching so this question is deserving a response even though I have already answered this.
> 
> Because the fossil record proclaims the truth of and evidence to support the global flood story confirming your God and creator.
Click to expand...

As pointless as usual.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why your gawds would leave any fossil evidence at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your posts were not worthy of a response but I don't mind teaching so this question is deserving a response even though I have already answered this.
> 
> Because the fossil record proclaims the truth of and evidence to support the global flood story confirming your God and creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As pointless as usual.
Click to expand...


Pointless lol, I don't see either of you willing to jump in the ring with me to see which theory is best supported by the evidence. You had better be able to make an argument from your copy and paste job because I will call you on it. I know you can't make an argument in your own words it's just a matter of time before you copy and paste.

First give me the theory of how strata was distributed across continents that you supposedly support ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this nonsense between you and the Jew and still neither of you addressed my questions.
> 
> You try to change the subject and deflect so you don't have answer the questions . typical of you.
> 
> You tried to raise a hypothetical question concerning chemicals on other planets you answer my question then I will make you look silly on that halfhearted reach.
> 
> Bill Nye and the other Ideologues are your hero I get it but the guy is just another Ideologue not wanting to face reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's put you to the test.
> 
> 1. First off what is your theory for how geological strata was distributed across this planet ?
Click to expand...


The Theory of Magic.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your posts were not worthy of a response but I don't mind teaching so this question is deserving a response even though I have already answered this.
> 
> Because the fossil record proclaims the truth of and evidence to support the global flood story confirming your God and creator.
> 
> 
> 
> As pointless as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pointless lol, I don't see either of you willing to jump in the ring with me to see which theory is best supported by the evidence. You had better be able to make an argument from your copy and paste job because I will call you on it. I know you can't make an argument in your own words it's just a matter of time before you copy and paste.
> 
> First give me the theory of how strata was distributed across continents that you supposedly support ?
Click to expand...


I think the goofy professional wrestler references are really a bit silly. 

Secondly, your typical pattern of posting goofy, 1970's vintage creationist nonsense and silly Harun Yahya links aren't going to be taken seriously.


----------



## Hollie

RE: Why do people laugh at creationists? 

Other than appeals to magical gawds and spurious allegations of worldwide conspiracy theories among relevant scientists and leading teaching universities supporting scientific data, well... what else do creationists offer?


----------



## t_polkow

Youwerecreated said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this nonsense between you and the Jew and still neither of you addressed my questions.
> 
> You try to change the subject and deflect so you don't have answer the questions . typical of you.
> 
> You tried to raise a hypothetical question concerning chemicals on other planets you answer my question then I will make you look silly on that halfhearted reach.
> 
> Bill Nye and the other Ideologues are your hero I get it but the guy is just another Ideologue not wanting to face reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's put you to the test.
> 
> 1. First off what is your theory for how geological strata was distributed across this planet ?
Click to expand...


Sorry I don't have time to  match wits with the witless, run along and  wait for your  jesus


----------



## Youwerecreated

t_polkow said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEKMCFcJvGg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put you to the test.
> 
> 1. First off what is your theory for how geological strata was distributed across this planet ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't have time to  match wits with the witless, run along and  wait for your  jesus
Click to expand...


It wouldn't be matching wits at all 

 Dang you people don't even know what you believe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As pointless as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pointless lol, I don't see either of you willing to jump in the ring with me to see which theory is best supported by the evidence. You had better be able to make an argument from your copy and paste job because I will call you on it. I know you can't make an argument in your own words it's just a matter of time before you copy and paste.
> 
> First give me the theory of how strata was distributed across continents that you supposedly support ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the goofy professional wrestler references are really a bit silly.
> 
> Secondly, your typical pattern of posting goofy, 1970's vintage creationist nonsense and silly Harun Yahya links aren't going to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...


Sorry that was not wrestling reference.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEKMCFcJvGg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put you to the test.
> 
> 1. First off what is your theory for how geological strata was distributed across this planet ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Theory of Magic.
Click to expand...


It might be magic to you but what my creator does is create through his natural ability the same way a man would design and build a super computer.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointless lol, I don't see either of you willing to jump in the ring with me to see which theory is best supported by the evidence. You had better be able to make an argument from your copy and paste job because I will call you on it. I know you can't make an argument in your own words it's just a matter of time before you copy and paste.
> 
> First give me the theory of how strata was distributed across continents that you supposedly support ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the goofy professional wrestler references are really a bit silly.
> 
> Secondly, your typical pattern of posting goofy, 1970's vintage creationist nonsense and silly Harun Yahya links aren't going to be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry that was not wrestling reference.
Click to expand...

Sure it was. You're a buffoonish impersonator of loud, obnoxious, goofy professional wrestler.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put you to the test.
> 
> 1. First off what is your theory for how geological strata was distributed across this planet ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Theory of Magic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might be magic to you but what my creator does is create through his natural ability the same way a man would design and build a super computer.
Click to expand...


What a pointless, silly attempt at analogy.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

Hollie said:


> RE: Why do people laugh at creationists?
> 
> Other than appeals to magical gawds and spurious allegations of worldwide conspiracy theories among relevant scientists and leading teaching universities supporting scientific data, well... what else do creationists offer?




Why do people laugh at atheists?

Because they believe that scientific data says that the universe is a random, meaningless event.

At least that's why I laugh at them.  I am amused by their self-important nattering, too.  Sometimes it gets old, though.


----------



## t_polkow

Youwerecreated said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put you to the test.
> 
> 1. First off what is your theory for how geological strata was distributed across this planet ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't have time to  match wits with the witless, run along and  wait for your  jesus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be matching wits at all
> 
> Dang you people don't even know what you believe.
Click to expand...


Science is not a belief , thumperboy

"dang" ? LOL, Do I detect a slack jawed bible thumping southern inbred?
Hang in there , Help is on the way


A leading neurologist at the University of Oxford said this week that recent developments meant that science may one day be able to identify religious fundamentalism as a mental illness and a cure it.

During a talk at the Hay Literary Festival in Wales on Wednesday, Kathleen Taylor was asked what positive developments she anticipated in neuroscience in the next 60 years.

One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated, 
Leading neuroscientist: Religious fundamentalism may be a ?mental illness? that can be ?cured? | The Raw Story


----------



## Crackerjaxon

t_polkow said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't have time to  match wits with the witless, run along and  wait for your  jesus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be matching wits at all
> 
> Dang you people don't even know what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is not a belief , thumperboy
> 
> "dang" ? LOL, Do I detect a slack jawed bible thumping southern inbred?
> Hang in there , Help is on the way
> 
> 
> A leading neurologist at the University of Oxford said this week that recent developments meant that science may one day be able to identify religious fundamentalism as a mental illness and a cure it.
> 
> During a talk at the Hay Literary Festival in Wales on Wednesday, Kathleen Taylor was asked what positive developments she anticipated in neuroscience in the next 60 years.
> 
> One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated,
> Leading neuroscientist: Religious fundamentalism may be a ?mental illness? that can be ?cured? | The Raw Story
Click to expand...


Of course science is a belief.  You believe in it because it works for you.  See James on pragmatism.

People believe in religion because it works for them.

Your totalitarian idea that people like you should be able to manipulate people like me would be scary if it wasn't obvious that you are much too stupid to accomplish it.

So I'll just put it down to another one of your Mittyish masturbatory fantasies.


----------



## Youwerecreated

t_polkow said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't have time to  match wits with the witless, run along and  wait for your  jesus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be matching wits at all
> 
> Dang you people don't even know what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is not a belief , thumperboy
> 
> "dang" ? LOL, Do I detect a slack jawed bible thumping southern inbred?
> Hang in there , Help is on the way
> 
> 
> A leading neurologist at the University of Oxford said this week that recent developments meant that science may one day be able to identify religious fundamentalism as a &#8220;mental illness&#8221; and a cure it.
> 
> During a talk at the Hay Literary Festival in Wales on Wednesday, Kathleen Taylor was asked what positive developments she anticipated in neuroscience in the next 60 years.
> 
> &#8220;One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated,&#8221;
> Leading neuroscientist: Religious fundamentalism may be a ?mental illness? that can be ?cured? | The Raw Story
Click to expand...


There are opposing theories on subjects what do you mean there is no beliefs in science ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws comment
> 
> 'I never said fossils did not form on ocean floors'
> 
> I said that is what you were suggesting that fossils form on ocean floors but one problem fossils do not form on ocean floors. Organisms float and are eaten by scavengers same as on the land you need rapid burial. Mud is what covers organisms and is hardened by the sun to form rock that is where fossils are found.
> 
> Now how do you get the dry land organisms in the same strata ? you see both marine organisms and dry land animals and plants had to be buried in the same mud that formed the rock strata that they are found in. That is 7 layers of strata world wide where we find marine and land fossils buried together.
> 
> The fossils we are discussing were not found in lava flows so that rules out volcanoes. Not saying fossils can't be preserved in lava flows but there fossils were found in strata that was once mud but is now rock.
> 
> So your response is plate tectonics but that does not answer the question. Once again you're accepting a theory for an answer that really don't answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
> 
> According to the creationists, all species (or basic kinds--whatever), living and extinct were created at the same time and the fossil record was laid down by the biblical flood.
> 
> If that were the case, you would find fossils of the approximately 5,000 present-day species of mammals, including humans, and of the approximately 10,000 present-day species of birds, mixed in with the fossils of, for example, dinosaurs. You do not and will never find such a mixture. That is because they are separated in time by more than 60 million years and the fossil record reflects that fact. The only fossils of mammals and birds that are found in the same strata as dinosaurs are primitive types quite unlike anything that exists today (even if you consider the "kinds" that creationists refer to as the source of present-day mammals and birds). And you will also not find those fossils of present-day mammals and birds in the same strata with trilobites, or of numerous other early types of animals.
> 
> And that scenario even continues after the demise of the dinosaurs. There are numerous strata which show that mammals became predominate for several tens of millions of years on up to today. But the strata that was laid down during the first half of that time contains a large number of fossils of mammals quite unlike anything that exists today, and again, none of the fossils are of present-day mammals, including humans, and present-day birds. As those strata get progressively younger, you begin to see more and more fossils of mammals and birds that are similar to the present-day species. That includes hominid fossils, which are present only in the strata laid down in the past few million years. Hominid fossils are totally absent in the vast number of earlier fossil-containing strata.
> 
> Thus, if you look at the geological strata, you will find a changing representation of species through the oldest to the youngest strata, and those changes reflect an evolutionary process.
> 
> For example, in the Cambrian, you will find the initial appearance of most of the phyla, but they will be only very primitive species--none of which exist today--belonging to those phyla. You will not find one single amphibian, reptile, dinosaur, bird, mammal, or teleost fish. And as you progress through the strata you will find new forms, but still nothing like what you would find today until you get to relatively young strata. That is not what you would find if the fossil record had been laid down by a flood such as that described in the Bible. But it is what would be expected in an evolutionary scenario.
> 
> This is not a matter of interpreting things according to one's belief, as creationists usually say. It is a matter of honestly accepting the evidence for what it says. The Bible believer holds that all things must be interpreted according to the Bible. Therefore, they are are forced to be dishonest in interpreting the evidence.
> 
> The geological strata indicate an evolutionary progression. If there was no evolutionary progression, but all species (or kinds, whatever) had been created at the same time, then there would be no evolutionary progression in the strata. That is fact.
> 
> A flood such as described in the Bible would not leave stratified deposits on the tops of mountains. The material forming deposits would flow down the sides of the mountains. The same for marine fossil deposits. How would the shells of clams end up on the tops of mountains, even Mount Everest? Clams couldn't swim to the tops of the mountains, nor could they climb up the sides of mountains.
> 
> Plate tectonics explains why sea shells and other marine deposits are found on mountain tops. Sections, or plates, of the earth's crust are constantly moving, albeit very slowly, about an inch or so per year. This movement has been measured with scientific instruments and has been tracked in the analysis of paleomagnetism and other means. In areas where one plate impinges upon another, the movement forces the earth's crust to uplift, which is what causes mountains to build up over millions of years. If the area that was uplifted was originally a part of the sea floor, then any sea shells and other marine fossil deposits would be uplifted during the mountain building as well.
> 
> http://www.doeacckolkata.in/Piyali-geogr&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one more time -----Plate tectonics explains why sea shells and other marine deposits are found on mountain tops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it don't if this was the case you're depending on  volcanoes distributing these fossils on mountain tops and that is not the case.
> 
> Amazing World: Massive Whale Fossil Graveyard In Chile
> 
> Massive Dinosaur "Graveyard" Discovered in Spain
> 
> Joel kontinen: Huge Fossil Graveyard Found in China
> 
> Fossils - Truth That Matters
> 
> How do you explain these massive fossil graveyards world wide ? the walls are closing in daws.
Click to expand...

3 out of the four sites you posted are not credible as they are based on the false premise that a great flood happened based on another false premise that god or an intelligent designer caused it. since the base premise is false ALL conclusions drawn from it are also false the natgeo site refutes all the others as it talks about millions of years not thousands.(The 70-million-year-old fossils show a stunning array of dinosaur diversity for a period that is very poorly known in Western Europe, said paleontologist José Luis Sanz of Autonomous University in Madrid. 

"We are sure that in future, [once we have] studied the huge amount of fossil material recovered from the site, the diversity will increase," Sanz, who is in charge of the dig, said in an email. 

The fossils date to some four million years before the dinosaurs went extinct, shedding new light "on these last European dinosaur ecosystems," Sanz said.) 

proving YWC'S willful ignorance one post a at a time.
btw yes it's certain your walls are closing in.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it don't if this was the case you're depending on  volcanoes distributing these fossils on mountain tops and that is not the case.
> 
> Amazing World: Massive Whale Fossil Graveyard In Chile
> 
> Massive Dinosaur "Graveyard" Discovered in Spain
> 
> Joel kontinen: Huge Fossil Graveyard Found in China
> 
> Fossils - Truth That Matters
> 
> How do you explain these massive fossil graveyards world wide ? the walls are closing in daws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain your utter lack of knowledge regarding science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hold a degree in science how bout you ?
Click to expand...

who'd I know you'd say that!
another example of slapdickery.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's ways are higher than our ways.
> 
> There is no comparison to earthly experience or the man created scientific method to what exists in realms above ours.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> (place laff track  here)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you laugh when you're getting thumped ? You're flailing and it is evident you're in over your head.
Click to expand...

thumped by who? the laughter comes from knowing my opponents are drowning in sea of  delusion..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Daws it's really comical watching you flail. The bible gives a better account of what happened then your text book.


thanks for proving my point about delusional posters.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean this steaming pile of rationalizing:
> 
> " Speaking of things that have been refuted thousands of times, you hierarchy of gawds argument has been refuted over and over and has proven to be based on bad logic and a false premise, but yet you persist in presenting it over and over as if repeating something a thousand times will legitimize it. Pathetic.
> 
> Let's repeat it one more time for those who just joined us, only a beginning necessitates a cause, like the beginning of the universe for instance. God has always existed and predates the universe. Since God has no beginning, he requires no cause. He claims in the Bible, "no gods were formed before me and none will be formed after me".-
> Your weak argument is based on the false premise that God had a beginning. Of course I have no hope that you will respond to this valid, logical argument which refutes yours, nor will you cease repeating your tired, stupid, devoid of logic argument in the future, but one can dream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for the fine example of the false premise rule in action.
> 1."false premise that God had a beginning." wrong! the FP here is assuming that god has always been. There is no evidence for that argument.
> to make this short and sweet.
> anything you base on the assumption " god has ALWAYS existed" like theories or speculation are also by definition false because the basic premise is false.
> any argument you make from that premise is subjective and unsupportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, you just proved what a huge idiot you really are!! Do you see the absurdity of your flawed logic in the post above?? Why aren't you attacking Hollie's infinite regression argument then??? You just proved me right you buffoon!! You just proved that Hollie is arguing from a false premise stupid. Do you hear your self? Hollie is not using a false premise because she is using a false premise.
> 
> What you missed in your utter and complete ignorance is that Hollie's argument is made from the assumption that God exists. In order for her to make her stupid argument, she has to first assume that God exists. Otherwise, how can she argue some other god made god? She is attempting to deny God by putting forth an argument whose basis is God exists. Of course we would expect you to miss this. My point is, if you are going to attack the concept of the Judeo-Christian God, then you can't make up your own Judeo-Christian theology. You can make a different argument to attack other mythological gods, but if you are going to assume the Judeo-Christian God exists as the basis of your argument, then you should also follow with the stated and commonly accepted theology that accompanies that basis, i.e., 1.) God has always existed 2.) God predates the Universe (Bible reference)  3.) God claims in the Bible there are no gods before him.
> 
> So according to you, Hollie's argument is based on a false premise of a false premise. *YOU FAIL, THESPIDOUCHE!!!*  This is what happens when make your bed with a liar.
Click to expand...

I love when you rationalize...
there is only one false premise and it yours :anything you base on the assumption " god has ALWAYS existed" like theories or speculation are also by definition false because the basic premise is false.
any argument you make from that premise is subjective and unsupportable.[/QUOTE]any argument you make from that assumption is false.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for the fine example of the false premise rule in action.
> 1."false premise that God had a beginning." wrong! the FP here is assuming that god has always been. There is no evidence for that argument.
> to make this short and sweet.
> anything you base on the assumption " god has ALWAYS existed" like theories or speculation are also by definition false because the basic premise is false.
> any argument you make from that premise is subjective and unsupportable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, you just proved what a huge idiot you really are!! Do you see the absurdity of your flawed logic in the post above?? Why aren't you attacking Hollie's infinite regression argument then??? You just proved me right you buffoon!! You just proved that Hollie is arguing from a false premise stupid. Do you hear your self? Hollie is not using a false premise because she is using a false premise.
> 
> What you missed in your utter and complete ignorance is that Hollie's argument is made from the assumption that God exists. In order for her to make her stupid argument, she has to first assume that God exists. Otherwise, how can she argue some other god made god? She is attempting to deny God by putting forth an argument whose basis is God exists. Of course we would expect you to miss this. My point is, if you are going to attack the concept of the Judeo-Christian God, then you can't make up your own Judeo-Christian theology. You can make a different argument to attack other mythological gods, but if you are going to assume the Judeo-Christian God exists as the basis of your argument, then you should also follow with the stated and commonly accepted theology that accompanies that basis, i.e., 1.) God has always existed 2.) God predates the Universe (Bible reference)  3.) God claims in the Bible there are no gods before him.
> 
> So according to you, Hollie's argument is based on a false premise of a false premise. *YOU FAIL, THESPIDOUCHE!!!*  This is what happens when make your bed with a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. Thumpie stalker is drooling.
> 
> Here's a bit of enlightenment for you: you make no sense - as usual.
> 
> Go thump (and stalk), elsewhere.
Click to expand...

gotta wonder how many times he had to wipe off the keyboard?
when he raves like that it's a sure sign you've hooked him by the scrotum.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you wish in one hand and poop in the other hand which one fills up first ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another of the gems of wisdom offered by the fundie creationist crowd.
> 
> Would jeebus approve of your behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think he would approve of your behavior Atleast I am wise enough to ask for forgiveness.
Click to expand...

so your conversion is only because you fear divine retribution?
just as I expected you are a fuckup and your belief is a thin veneer to cover you ass.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry ask daws since you have a comprehension problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How curious that the entirety of your creationist claims derive from Christian creationist websites and oddly, from Harun Yahya, a moslem who steals ruthlessly from Christian creationists.
> 
> The coalition of dumb and dumber... and dumber'ers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you're a liar. The evidence exists and I am asking you for a rational explanation but I knew that would be a False premise lol. You know that you could be rational.
Click to expand...

wrong that's not an example of an FP but  this is" ask daws since you have a comprehension problem" -YWC
it's Ironic with all your  yammering about your degree in science ,why is it you have no concept of what a FP is.?
as I recall it was part of science 101 in college.


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> have a nice day hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is where you bail out of the thread in hopeless attempts to avoid further embarrassment.
> 
> Shouldn't the other tag-team fundie creationist step in here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all this nonsense between you and the jew and still neither of you addressed my questions.
> 
> You try to change the subject and deflect so you don't have answer the questions . Typical of you.
> 
> You tried to raise a hypothetical question concerning chemicals on other planets you answer my question then i will make you look silly on that halfhearted reach.
> 
> Bill nye and the other ideologues are your hero i get it but the guy is just another ideologue not wanting to face reality.
Click to expand...

the jew?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
> 
> According to the creationists, all species (or basic kinds--whatever), living and extinct were created at the same time and the fossil record was laid down by the biblical flood.
> 
> If that were the case, you would find fossils of the approximately 5,000 present-day species of mammals, including humans, and of the approximately 10,000 present-day species of birds, mixed in with the fossils of, for example, dinosaurs. You do not and will never find such a mixture. That is because they are separated in time by more than 60 million years and the fossil record reflects that fact. The only fossils of mammals and birds that are found in the same strata as dinosaurs are primitive types quite unlike anything that exists today (even if you consider the "kinds" that creationists refer to as the source of present-day mammals and birds). And you will also not find those fossils of present-day mammals and birds in the same strata with trilobites, or of numerous other early types of animals.
> 
> And that scenario even continues after the demise of the dinosaurs. There are numerous strata which show that mammals became predominate for several tens of millions of years on up to today. But the strata that was laid down during the first half of that time contains a large number of fossils of mammals quite unlike anything that exists today, and again, none of the fossils are of present-day mammals, including humans, and present-day birds. As those strata get progressively younger, you begin to see more and more fossils of mammals and birds that are similar to the present-day species. That includes hominid fossils, which are present only in the strata laid down in the past few million years. Hominid fossils are totally absent in the vast number of earlier fossil-containing strata.
> 
> Thus, if you look at the geological strata, you will find a changing representation of species through the oldest to the youngest strata, and those changes reflect an evolutionary process.
> 
> For example, in the Cambrian, you will find the initial appearance of most of the phyla, but they will be only very primitive species--none of which exist today--belonging to those phyla. You will not find one single amphibian, reptile, dinosaur, bird, mammal, or teleost fish. And as you progress through the strata you will find new forms, but still nothing like what you would find today until you get to relatively young strata. That is not what you would find if the fossil record had been laid down by a flood such as that described in the Bible. But it is what would be expected in an evolutionary scenario.
> 
> This is not a matter of interpreting things according to one's belief, as creationists usually say. It is a matter of honestly accepting the evidence for what it says. The Bible believer holds that all things must be interpreted according to the Bible. Therefore, they are are forced to be dishonest in interpreting the evidence.
> 
> The geological strata indicate an evolutionary progression. If there was no evolutionary progression, but all species (or kinds, whatever) had been created at the same time, then there would be no evolutionary progression in the strata. That is fact.
> 
> A flood such as described in the Bible would not leave stratified deposits on the tops of mountains. The material forming deposits would flow down the sides of the mountains. The same for marine fossil deposits. How would the shells of clams end up on the tops of mountains, even Mount Everest? Clams couldn't swim to the tops of the mountains, nor could they climb up the sides of mountains.
> 
> Plate tectonics explains why sea shells and other marine deposits are found on mountain tops. Sections, or plates, of the earth's crust are constantly moving, albeit very slowly, about an inch or so per year. This movement has been measured with scientific instruments and has been tracked in the analysis of paleomagnetism and other means. In areas where one plate impinges upon another, the movement forces the earth's crust to uplift, which is what causes mountains to build up over millions of years. If the area that was uplifted was originally a part of the sea floor, then any sea shells and other marine fossil deposits would be uplifted during the mountain building as well.
> 
> http://www.doeacckolkata.in/Piyali-geogr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one more time -----Plate tectonics explains why sea shells and other marine deposits are found on mountain tops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it don't if this was the case you're depending on  volcanoes distributing these fossils on mountain tops and that is not the case.
> 
> Amazing World: Massive Whale Fossil Graveyard In Chile
> 
> Massive Dinosaur "Graveyard" Discovered in Spain
> 
> Joel kontinen: Huge Fossil Graveyard Found in China
> 
> Fossils - Truth That Matters
> 
> How do you explain these massive fossil graveyards world wide ? the walls are closing in daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3 out of the four sites you posted are not credible as they are based on the false premise that a great flood happened based on another false premise that god or an intelligent designer caused it. since the base premise is false ALL conclusions drawn from it are also false the natgeo site refutes all the others as it talks about millions of years not thousands.(The 70-million-year-old fossils show a stunning array of dinosaur diversity for a period that is very poorly known in Western Europe, said paleontologist José Luis Sanz of Autonomous University in Madrid.
> 
> "We are sure that in future, [once we have] studied the huge amount of fossil material recovered from the site, the diversity will increase," Sanz, who is in charge of the dig, said in an email.
> 
> The fossils date to some four million years before the dinosaurs went extinct, shedding new light "on these last European dinosaur ecosystems," Sanz said.)
> 
> proving YWC'S willful ignorance one post a at a time.
> btw yes it's certain your walls are closing in.
Click to expand...


False premise ? how do you know have you really considered the evidence ? not just your sides interpretation of the evidence that honestly needs a little faith to accept.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
> 
> According to the creationists, all species (or basic kinds--whatever), living and extinct were created at the same time and the fossil record was laid down by the biblical flood.
> 
> If that were the case, you would find fossils of the approximately 5,000 present-day species of mammals, including humans, and of the approximately 10,000 present-day species of birds, mixed in with the fossils of, for example, dinosaurs. You do not and will never find such a mixture. That is because they are separated in time by more than 60 million years and the fossil record reflects that fact. The only fossils of mammals and birds that are found in the same strata as dinosaurs are primitive types quite unlike anything that exists today (even if you consider the "kinds" that creationists refer to as the source of present-day mammals and birds). And you will also not find those fossils of present-day mammals and birds in the same strata with trilobites, or of numerous other early types of animals.
> 
> And that scenario even continues after the demise of the dinosaurs. There are numerous strata which show that mammals became predominate for several tens of millions of years on up to today. But the strata that was laid down during the first half of that time contains a large number of fossils of mammals quite unlike anything that exists today, and again, none of the fossils are of present-day mammals, including humans, and present-day birds. As those strata get progressively younger, you begin to see more and more fossils of mammals and birds that are similar to the present-day species. That includes hominid fossils, which are present only in the strata laid down in the past few million years. Hominid fossils are totally absent in the vast number of earlier fossil-containing strata.
> 
> Thus, if you look at the geological strata, you will find a changing representation of species through the oldest to the youngest strata, and those changes reflect an evolutionary process.
> 
> For example, in the Cambrian, you will find the initial appearance of most of the phyla, but they will be only very primitive species--none of which exist today--belonging to those phyla. You will not find one single amphibian, reptile, dinosaur, bird, mammal, or teleost fish. And as you progress through the strata you will find new forms, but still nothing like what you would find today until you get to relatively young strata. That is not what you would find if the fossil record had been laid down by a flood such as that described in the Bible. But it is what would be expected in an evolutionary scenario.
> 
> This is not a matter of interpreting things according to one's belief, as creationists usually say. It is a matter of honestly accepting the evidence for what it says. The Bible believer holds that all things must be interpreted according to the Bible. Therefore, they are are forced to be dishonest in interpreting the evidence.
> 
> The geological strata indicate an evolutionary progression. If there was no evolutionary progression, but all species (or kinds, whatever) had been created at the same time, then there would be no evolutionary progression in the strata. That is fact.
> 
> A flood such as described in the Bible would not leave stratified deposits on the tops of mountains. The material forming deposits would flow down the sides of the mountains. The same for marine fossil deposits. How would the shells of clams end up on the tops of mountains, even Mount Everest? Clams couldn't swim to the tops of the mountains, nor could they climb up the sides of mountains.
> 
> Plate tectonics explains why sea shells and other marine deposits are found on mountain tops. Sections, or plates, of the earth's crust are constantly moving, albeit very slowly, about an inch or so per year. This movement has been measured with scientific instruments and has been tracked in the analysis of paleomagnetism and other means. In areas where one plate impinges upon another, the movement forces the earth's crust to uplift, which is what causes mountains to build up over millions of years. If the area that was uplifted was originally a part of the sea floor, then any sea shells and other marine fossil deposits would be uplifted during the mountain building as well.
> 
> http://www.doeacckolkata.in/Piyali-geogr&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one more time -----Plate tectonics explains why sea shells and other marine deposits are found on mountain tops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it don't if this was the case you're depending on  volcanoes distributing these fossils on mountain tops and that is not the case.
> 
> Amazing World: Massive Whale Fossil Graveyard In Chile
> 
> Massive Dinosaur "Graveyard" Discovered in Spain
> 
> Joel kontinen: Huge Fossil Graveyard Found in China
> 
> Fossils - Truth That Matters
> 
> How do you explain these massive fossil graveyards world wide ? the walls are closing in daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3 out of the four sites you posted are not credible as they are based on the false premise that a great flood happened based on another false premise that god or an intelligent designer caused it. since the base premise is false ALL conclusions drawn from it are also false the natgeo site refutes all the others as it talks about millions of years not thousands.(The 70-million-year-old fossils show a stunning array of dinosaur diversity for a period that is very poorly known in Western Europe, said paleontologist José Luis Sanz of Autonomous University in Madrid.
> 
> "We are sure that in future, [once we have] studied the huge amount of fossil material recovered from the site, the diversity will increase," Sanz, who is in charge of the dig, said in an email.
> 
> The fossils date to some four million years before the dinosaurs went extinct, shedding new light "on these last European dinosaur ecosystems," Sanz said.)
> 
> proving YWC'S willful ignorance one post a at a time.
> btw yes it's certain your walls are closing in.
Click to expand...


Is it just me or is what daws posted full of conjecture ? oh and if there is more diversity that is more supporting of a graveyard due to catastrophe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Daws only one of your posts were worthy of a response.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Since none of you are willing to say what theory you believe in let's move on. How did the dinosaurs die ? should be a simple enough question.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it don't if this was the case you're depending on  volcanoes distributing these fossils on mountain tops and that is not the case.
> 
> Amazing World: Massive Whale Fossil Graveyard In Chile
> 
> Massive Dinosaur "Graveyard" Discovered in Spain
> 
> Joel kontinen: Huge Fossil Graveyard Found in China
> 
> Fossils - Truth That Matters
> 
> How do you explain these massive fossil graveyards world wide ? the walls are closing in daws.
> 
> 
> 
> 3 out of the four sites you posted are not credible as they are based on the false premise that a great flood happened based on another false premise that god or an intelligent designer caused it. since the base premise is false ALL conclusions drawn from it are also false the natgeo site refutes all the others as it talks about millions of years not thousands.(The 70-million-year-old fossils show a stunning array of dinosaur diversity for a period that is very poorly known in Western Europe, said paleontologist José Luis Sanz of Autonomous University in Madrid.
> 
> "We are sure that in future, [once we have] studied the huge amount of fossil material recovered from the site, the diversity will increase," Sanz, who is in charge of the dig, said in an email.
> 
> The fossils date to some four million years before the dinosaurs went extinct, shedding new light "on these last European dinosaur ecosystems," Sanz said.)
> 
> proving YWC'S willful ignorance one post a at a time.
> btw yes it's certain your walls are closing in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False premise ? how do you know have you really considered the evidence ? not just your sides interpretation of the evidence that honestly needs a little faith to accept.
Click to expand...

yes slap dick  I do know as your side HAS NOT produced a ANY  evidence.. what you have produced is based on a false premise "GOD DID IT" ANY THING BASED ON THAT PREMISE IS ALSO FALSE.
as is your assumption about the need for faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 out of the four sites you posted are not credible as they are based on the false premise that a great flood happened based on another false premise that god or an intelligent designer caused it. since the base premise is false ALL conclusions drawn from it are also false the natgeo site refutes all the others as it talks about millions of years not thousands.(The 70-million-year-old fossils show a stunning array of dinosaur diversity for a period that is very poorly known in Western Europe, said paleontologist José Luis Sanz of Autonomous University in Madrid.
> 
> "We are sure that in future, [once we have] studied the huge amount of fossil material recovered from the site, the diversity will increase," Sanz, who is in charge of the dig, said in an email.
> 
> The fossils date to some four million years before the dinosaurs went extinct, shedding new light "on these last European dinosaur ecosystems," Sanz said.)
> 
> proving YWC'S willful ignorance one post a at a time.
> btw yes it's certain your walls are closing in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False premise ? how do you know have you really considered the evidence ? not just your sides interpretation of the evidence that honestly needs a little faith to accept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes slap dick  I do know as your side HAS NOT produced a ANY  evidence.. what you have produced is based on a false premise "GOD DID IT" ANY THING BASED ON THAT PREMISE IS ALSO FALSE.
> as is your assumption about the need for faith.
Click to expand...


The walls are closing in daws. How did the dinosaurs die ? I have produced evidence and I will produce more. You still have not named the theory you believe in.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it don't if this was the case you're depending on  volcanoes distributing these fossils on mountain tops and that is not the case.
> 
> Amazing World: Massive Whale Fossil Graveyard In Chile
> 
> Massive Dinosaur "Graveyard" Discovered in Spain
> 
> Joel kontinen: Huge Fossil Graveyard Found in China
> 
> Fossils - Truth That Matters
> 
> How do you explain these massive fossil graveyards world wide ? the walls are closing in daws.
> 
> 
> 
> 3 out of the four sites you posted are not credible as they are based on the false premise that a great flood happened based on another false premise that god or an intelligent designer caused it. since the base premise is false ALL conclusions drawn from it are also false the natgeo site refutes all the others as it talks about millions of years not thousands.(The 70-million-year-old fossils show a stunning array of dinosaur diversity for a period that is very poorly known in Western Europe, said paleontologist José Luis Sanz of Autonomous University in Madrid.
> 
> "We are sure that in future, [once we have] studied the huge amount of fossil material recovered from the site, the diversity will increase," Sanz, who is in charge of the dig, said in an email.
> 
> The fossils date to some four million years before the dinosaurs went extinct, shedding new light "on these last European dinosaur ecosystems," Sanz said.)
> 
> proving YWC'S willful ignorance one post a at a time.
> btw yes it's certain your walls are closing in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it just me or is what daws posted full of conjecture ? oh and if there is more diversity that is more supporting of a graveyard due to catastrophe.
Click to expand...

it just you! the site you're quoting from does not hint at or infer a great catastrophe. that's you wishing it did.
however there was a  localized catastrophe 70 million years that created that "graveyard."
 it is no proof of a great flood 5000 years ago.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> False premise ? how do you know have you really considered the evidence ? not just your sides interpretation of the evidence that honestly needs a little faith to accept.
> 
> 
> 
> yes slap dick  I do know as your side HAS NOT produced a ANY  evidence.. what you have produced is based on a false premise "GOD DID IT" ANY THING BASED ON THAT PREMISE IS ALSO FALSE.
> as is your assumption about the need for faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The walls are closing in daws. How did the dinosaurs die ? I have produced evidence and I will produce more. You still have not named the theory you believe in.
Click to expand...

repeating yourself is a symptom.
as stated before all of what you've presented is based on an FP so it's not valid.
to say it is, only compounds it's lack of credibility.
now look, who's trying to change the subject....


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes slap dick  I do know as your side HAS NOT produced a ANY  evidence.. what you have produced is based on a false premise "GOD DID IT" ANY THING BASED ON THAT PREMISE IS ALSO FALSE.
> as is your assumption about the need for faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The walls are closing in daws. How did the dinosaurs die ? I have produced evidence and I will produce more. You still have not named the theory you believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> repeating yourself is a symptom.
> as stated before all of what you've presented is based on an FP so it's not valid.
> to say it is, only compounds it's lack of credibility.
> now look, who's trying to change the subject....
Click to expand...


How did the dinosaurs die out daws ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 out of the four sites you posted are not credible as they are based on the false premise that a great flood happened based on another false premise that god or an intelligent designer caused it. since the base premise is false ALL conclusions drawn from it are also false the natgeo site refutes all the others as it talks about millions of years not thousands.(The 70-million-year-old fossils show a stunning array of dinosaur diversity for a period that is very poorly known in Western Europe, said paleontologist José Luis Sanz of Autonomous University in Madrid.
> 
> "We are sure that in future, [once we have] studied the huge amount of fossil material recovered from the site, the diversity will increase," Sanz, who is in charge of the dig, said in an email.
> 
> The fossils date to some four million years before the dinosaurs went extinct, shedding new light "on these last European dinosaur ecosystems," Sanz said.)
> 
> proving YWC'S willful ignorance one post a at a time.
> btw yes it's certain your walls are closing in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it just me or is what daws posted full of conjecture ? oh and if there is more diversity that is more supporting of a graveyard due to catastrophe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it just you! the site you're quoting from does not hint at or infer a great catastrophe. that's you wishing it did.
> however there was a  localized catastrophe 70 million years that created that "graveyard."
> it is no proof of a great flood 5000 years ago.
Click to expand...


There are graveyards of mixed fossils all over the world daws.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it just me or is what daws posted full of conjecture ? oh and if there is more diversity that is more supporting of a graveyard due to catastrophe.
> 
> 
> 
> it just you! the site you're quoting from does not hint at or infer a great catastrophe. that's you wishing it did.
> however there was a  localized catastrophe 70 million years that created that "graveyard."
> it is no proof of a great flood 5000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are graveyards of mixed fossils all over the world daws.
Click to expand...

all of them older then your fantasy allows.
that in it's self proves the great flood was a non event.!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it just you! the site you're quoting from does not hint at or infer a great catastrophe. that's you wishing it did.
> however there was a  localized catastrophe 70 million years that created that "graveyard."
> it is no proof of a great flood 5000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are graveyards of mixed fossils all over the world daws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of them older then your fantasy allows.
> that in it's self proves the great flood was a non event.!
Click to expand...


Maybe not, why are you not answering my question ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The walls are closing in daws. How did the dinosaurs die ? I have produced evidence and I will produce more. You still have not named the theory you believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> repeating yourself is a symptom.
> as stated before all of what you've presented is based on an FP so it's not valid.
> to say it is, only compounds it's lack of credibility.
> now look, who's trying to change the subject....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did the dinosaurs die out daws ?
Click to expand...

asked and answered ...in this thread  many times and as always you had your ass handed to you .


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are graveyards of mixed fossils all over the world daws.
> 
> 
> 
> all of them older then your fantasy allows.
> that in it's self proves the great flood was a non event.!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not, why are you not answering my question ?
Click to expand...

see my last post!
btw it's no maybe.. its fact.


----------



## daws101

The Premises of Scientific Creationism

Answers to creationist arguments have been provided in the Evolutionary Theory FAQ and in numerous articles and books, so they will not be discussed here. Instead, this section focuses on the philosophical premises behind the scientific creationist movement.

The main premises of scientific creationism are, in many ways, in opposition to the premises of actual science. First, scientific creationists see no need to prove their theories, and firmly believe that healthy scientific disagreements between evolutionary theorists are evidence that the whole idea is false. Second, creationists - whether they admit it or not - are fundamentally basing their arguments not on evidence derived from real-world observation, but rather from religious dogma misapplied and misinterpreted. Third, creationists think that evolution, too, is religion, is based on faith, and therefore is on an equal footing with creationism. Finally, creationists misattribute social evils to the rise of evolutionary theory, and cite this as proof against evolution.

The Burden of Proof

Creationist assertions aside, there is currently an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of evolution and of associated facts in geology and astronomy. Fossil evidence, molecular evidence, radioactive dating, etc. all converge on one common point: the earth is old (about 4.5 billion years) and life has evolved. Creationists, however, do not realize that the convergence of this amount of evidence is tantamount to certainty. They commonly take a smaller puzzle, a question or discussion of how a particular thing might have evolved, and claim the discussion as proof that evolutionary theory is "in crisis" (For example, the debate over punctuated equilibrium is commonly misrepresented in creationist literature.)

Creationists often think that disproof of an evolutionary idea - or even just disagreement among the ranks of evolutionists - automatically supports creationism. As a result, they spend a great deal of time picking at minor details of evolutionary theory, and very little time proving their own case (which is fundamentally unprovable). By using this tactic, they not only take controversy within evolution out of context and out of proportion, but also misrepresent the evidence for their own theory (which, when examined closely, doesn't amount to much.)

In addition, it must be emphasized that the burden of proof is on the creationists and their claims that contradict much of established science. It is not enough to say "Prove evolution" and, when not convinced by the proof, declare the theory false. In addition, though some true arguments have been maligned by the scientific community (i.e., plate tectonics), merely being in opposition to established theory does not guarantee - or even imply - correctness.

Scientific Creationism Isn't Science

Though many scientific creationists deny their religious affiliations, creationism is fundamentally a religious theory, not a scientific one. As mentioned above, it is not based on real evidence. In reality, creationism appeals not to the scientifically-minded, but rather to those seeking to protect their religious beliefs from what they see as the threat of Darwinism. If scientific creationism were a science, it would not take all the "evidence" it offers from a holy book written thousands of years ago, before the advent of anything approaching modern science.

Moreover, scientific creationism's fundamental assumption - that the Bible is literally true - is the exact polar opposite of true science, which is always open to disproof or revision. For those who argue that creationism is not religious, consider this statement from the Institute for Creation Research: "The Bible . . . is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological" (ICR Tenets of Creationism).

It is for this reason that scientific creationism does not belong in the educational systems. Scientific creationism is religion, not science, and religion cannot be taught in public schools as literal truth. It could be appropriate to discuss the creationist movement and tenets in history or sociology classes, but creationism does not meet the criteria required for inclusion in scientific curricula.
Evolution vs. Creation


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> The Premises of Scientific Creationism
> 
> Answers to creationist arguments have been provided in the Evolutionary Theory FAQ and in numerous articles and books, so they will not be discussed here. Instead, this section focuses on the philosophical premises behind the scientific creationist movement.
> 
> The main premises of scientific creationism are, in many ways, in opposition to the premises of actual science. First, scientific creationists see no need to prove their theories, and firmly believe that healthy scientific disagreements between evolutionary theorists are evidence that the whole idea is false. Second, creationists - whether they admit it or not - are fundamentally basing their arguments not on evidence derived from real-world observation, but rather from religious dogma misapplied and misinterpreted. Third, creationists think that evolution, too, is religion, is based on faith, and therefore is on an equal footing with creationism. Finally, creationists misattribute social evils to the rise of evolutionary theory, and cite this as proof against evolution.
> 
> The Burden of Proof
> 
> Creationist assertions aside, there is currently an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of evolution and of associated facts in geology and astronomy. Fossil evidence, molecular evidence, radioactive dating, etc. all converge on one common point: the earth is old (about 4.5 billion years) and life has evolved. Creationists, however, do not realize that the convergence of this amount of evidence is tantamount to certainty. They commonly take a smaller puzzle, a question or discussion of how a particular thing might have evolved, and claim the discussion as proof that evolutionary theory is "in crisis" (For example, the debate over punctuated equilibrium is commonly misrepresented in creationist literature.)
> 
> Creationists often think that disproof of an evolutionary idea - or even just disagreement among the ranks of evolutionists - automatically supports creationism. As a result, they spend a great deal of time picking at minor details of evolutionary theory, and very little time proving their own case (which is fundamentally unprovable). By using this tactic, they not only take controversy within evolution out of context and out of proportion, but also misrepresent the evidence for their own theory (which, when examined closely, doesn't amount to much.)
> 
> In addition, it must be emphasized that the burden of proof is on the creationists and their claims that contradict much of established science. It is not enough to say "Prove evolution" and, when not convinced by the proof, declare the theory false. In addition, though some true arguments have been maligned by the scientific community (i.e., plate tectonics), merely being in opposition to established theory does not guarantee - or even imply - correctness.
> 
> Scientific Creationism Isn't Science
> 
> Though many scientific creationists deny their religious affiliations, creationism is fundamentally a religious theory, not a scientific one. As mentioned above, it is not based on real evidence. In reality, creationism appeals not to the scientifically-minded, but rather to those seeking to protect their religious beliefs from what they see as the threat of Darwinism. If scientific creationism were a science, it would not take all the "evidence" it offers from a holy book written thousands of years ago, before the advent of anything approaching modern science.
> 
> Moreover, scientific creationism's fundamental assumption - that the Bible is literally true - is the exact polar opposite of true science, which is always open to disproof or revision. For those who argue that creationism is not religious, consider this statement from the Institute for Creation Research: "The Bible . . . is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological" (ICR Tenets of Creationism).
> 
> It is for this reason that scientific creationism does not belong in the educational systems. Scientific creationism is religion, not science, and religion cannot be taught in public schools as literal truth. It could be appropriate to discuss the creationist movement and tenets in history or sociology classes, but creationism does not meet the criteria required for inclusion in scientific curricula.
> Evolution vs. Creation



Aha trying to change the subject again ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Is this your answer for the dinosaurs ? "however there was a localized catastrophe 70 million years ago"

So you're saying dinosaurs died out through a catastrophic event all over the world but it was only localized ?

What was this catastrophic event ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> repeating yourself is a symptom.
> as stated before all of what you've presented is based on an FP so it's not valid.
> to say it is, only compounds it's lack of credibility.
> now look, who's trying to change the subject....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did the dinosaurs die out daws ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answered ...in this thread  many times and as always you had your ass handed to you .
Click to expand...


Wake up daws. What theory do you believe concerning how layers of strata were formed ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Premises of Scientific Creationism
> 
> Answers to creationist arguments have been provided in the Evolutionary Theory FAQ and in numerous articles and books, so they will not be discussed here. Instead, this section focuses on the philosophical premises behind the scientific creationist movement.
> 
> The main premises of scientific creationism are, in many ways, in opposition to the premises of actual science. First, scientific creationists see no need to prove their theories, and firmly believe that healthy scientific disagreements between evolutionary theorists are evidence that the whole idea is false. Second, creationists - whether they admit it or not - are fundamentally basing their arguments not on evidence derived from real-world observation, but rather from religious dogma misapplied and misinterpreted. Third, creationists think that evolution, too, is religion, is based on faith, and therefore is on an equal footing with creationism. Finally, creationists misattribute social evils to the rise of evolutionary theory, and cite this as proof against evolution.
> 
> The Burden of Proof
> 
> Creationist assertions aside, there is currently an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of evolution and of associated facts in geology and astronomy. Fossil evidence, molecular evidence, radioactive dating, etc. all converge on one common point: the earth is old (about 4.5 billion years) and life has evolved. Creationists, however, do not realize that the convergence of this amount of evidence is tantamount to certainty. They commonly take a smaller puzzle, a question or discussion of how a particular thing might have evolved, and claim the discussion as proof that evolutionary theory is "in crisis" (For example, the debate over punctuated equilibrium is commonly misrepresented in creationist literature.)
> 
> Creationists often think that disproof of an evolutionary idea - or even just disagreement among the ranks of evolutionists - automatically supports creationism. As a result, they spend a great deal of time picking at minor details of evolutionary theory, and very little time proving their own case (which is fundamentally unprovable). By using this tactic, they not only take controversy within evolution out of context and out of proportion, but also misrepresent the evidence for their own theory (which, when examined closely, doesn't amount to much.)
> 
> In addition, it must be emphasized that the burden of proof is on the creationists and their claims that contradict much of established science. It is not enough to say "Prove evolution" and, when not convinced by the proof, declare the theory false. In addition, though some true arguments have been maligned by the scientific community (i.e., plate tectonics), merely being in opposition to established theory does not guarantee - or even imply - correctness.
> 
> Scientific Creationism Isn't Science
> 
> Though many scientific creationists deny their religious affiliations, creationism is fundamentally a religious theory, not a scientific one. As mentioned above, it is not based on real evidence. In reality, creationism appeals not to the scientifically-minded, but rather to those seeking to protect their religious beliefs from what they see as the threat of Darwinism. If scientific creationism were a science, it would not take all the "evidence" it offers from a holy book written thousands of years ago, before the advent of anything approaching modern science.
> 
> Moreover, scientific creationism's fundamental assumption - that the Bible is literally true - is the exact polar opposite of true science, which is always open to disproof or revision. For those who argue that creationism is not religious, consider this statement from the Institute for Creation Research: "The Bible . . . is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological" (ICR Tenets of Creationism).
> 
> It is for this reason that scientific creationism does not belong in the educational systems. Scientific creationism is religion, not science, and religion cannot be taught in public schools as literal truth. It could be appropriate to discuss the creationist movement and tenets in history or sociology classes, but creationism does not meet the criteria required for inclusion in scientific curricula.
> Evolution vs. Creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aha trying to change the subject again ?
Click to expand...

wrong slap dick! just posting the necessary info when dealing with zealots like your self.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I guess daws finally realized he is contradicting himself. Daws let's continue on with this I have not even lowered the boom on you yet.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Premises of Scientific Creationism
> 
> Answers to creationist arguments have been provided in the Evolutionary Theory FAQ and in numerous articles and books, so they will not be discussed here. Instead, this section focuses on the philosophical premises behind the scientific creationist movement.
> 
> The main premises of scientific creationism are, in many ways, in opposition to the premises of actual science. First, scientific creationists see no need to prove their theories, and firmly believe that healthy scientific disagreements between evolutionary theorists are evidence that the whole idea is false. Second, creationists - whether they admit it or not - are fundamentally basing their arguments not on evidence derived from real-world observation, but rather from religious dogma misapplied and misinterpreted. Third, creationists think that evolution, too, is religion, is based on faith, and therefore is on an equal footing with creationism. Finally, creationists misattribute social evils to the rise of evolutionary theory, and cite this as proof against evolution.
> 
> The Burden of Proof
> 
> Creationist assertions aside, there is currently an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of evolution and of associated facts in geology and astronomy. Fossil evidence, molecular evidence, radioactive dating, etc. all converge on one common point: the earth is old (about 4.5 billion years) and life has evolved. Creationists, however, do not realize that the convergence of this amount of evidence is tantamount to certainty. They commonly take a smaller puzzle, a question or discussion of how a particular thing might have evolved, and claim the discussion as proof that evolutionary theory is "in crisis" (For example, the debate over punctuated equilibrium is commonly misrepresented in creationist literature.)
> 
> Creationists often think that disproof of an evolutionary idea - or even just disagreement among the ranks of evolutionists - automatically supports creationism. As a result, they spend a great deal of time picking at minor details of evolutionary theory, and very little time proving their own case (which is fundamentally unprovable). By using this tactic, they not only take controversy within evolution out of context and out of proportion, but also misrepresent the evidence for their own theory (which, when examined closely, doesn't amount to much.)
> 
> In addition, it must be emphasized that the burden of proof is on the creationists and their claims that contradict much of established science. It is not enough to say "Prove evolution" and, when not convinced by the proof, declare the theory false. In addition, though some true arguments have been maligned by the scientific community (i.e., plate tectonics), merely being in opposition to established theory does not guarantee - or even imply - correctness.
> 
> Scientific Creationism Isn't Science
> 
> Though many scientific creationists deny their religious affiliations, creationism is fundamentally a religious theory, not a scientific one. As mentioned above, it is not based on real evidence. In reality, creationism appeals not to the scientifically-minded, but rather to those seeking to protect their religious beliefs from what they see as the threat of Darwinism. If scientific creationism were a science, it would not take all the "evidence" it offers from a holy book written thousands of years ago, before the advent of anything approaching modern science.
> 
> Moreover, scientific creationism's fundamental assumption - that the Bible is literally true - is the exact polar opposite of true science, which is always open to disproof or revision. For those who argue that creationism is not religious, consider this statement from the Institute for Creation Research: "The Bible . . . is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological" (ICR Tenets of Creationism).
> 
> It is for this reason that scientific creationism does not belong in the educational systems. Scientific creationism is religion, not science, and religion cannot be taught in public schools as literal truth. It could be appropriate to discuss the creationist movement and tenets in history or sociology classes, but creationism does not meet the criteria required for inclusion in scientific curricula.
> Evolution vs. Creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aha trying to change the subject again ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong slap dick! just posting the necessary info when dealing with zealots like your self.
Click to expand...


The only one looking like a slapdick is yourself.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Is this your answer for the dinosaurs ? "however there was a localized catastrophe 70 million years ago"
> 
> So you're saying dinosaurs died out through a catastrophic event all over the world but it was only localized ?
> 
> What was this catastrophic event ?


no, as always you're again misrepresenting what I POSTED.
either learn to read or stfu.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the dinosaurs die out daws ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered ...in this thread  many times and as always you had your ass handed to you .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wake up daws. What theory do you believe concerning how layers of strata were formed ?
Click to expand...

asked and answered


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this your answer for the dinosaurs ? "however there was a localized catastrophe 70 million years ago"
> 
> So you're saying dinosaurs died out through a catastrophic event all over the world but it was only localized ?
> 
> What was this catastrophic event ?
> 
> 
> 
> no, as always you're again misrepresenting what I POSTED.
> either learn to read or stfu.
Click to expand...


Then by all means give me your quick answer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered ...in this thread  many times and as always you had your ass handed to you .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake up daws. What theory do you believe concerning how layers of strata were formed ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answered
Click to expand...


It's one term did you forget what it is ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> I guess daws finally realized he is contradicting himself. Daws let's continue on with this I have not even lowered the boom on you yet.


again you be falsely assuming none of what I posted contradicts it self .
it does however contradict,  refute, smash, kick ass on all you nonsense.
lower the boom?  a good trick as you have no boom to lower.
if it consists of creationist shit based on a FP it should be good for. a laugh


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this your answer for the dinosaurs ? "however there was a localized catastrophe 70 million years ago"
> 
> So you're saying dinosaurs died out through a catastrophic event all over the world but it was only localized ?
> 
> What was this catastrophic event ?
> 
> 
> 
> no, as always you're again misrepresenting what I POSTED.
> either learn to read or stfu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then by all means give me your quick answer.
Click to expand...

you're again misrepresenting


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wake up daws. What theory do you believe concerning how layers of strata were formed ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's one term did you forget what it is ?
Click to expand...

you must have or why would you still be asking?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess daws finally realized he is contradicting himself. Daws let's continue on with this I have not even lowered the boom on you yet.
> 
> 
> 
> again you be falsely assuming none of what I posted contradicts it self .
> it does however contradict,  refute, smash, kick ass al you nonsense.
> lower the boom?  a good trick as you have no boom to lower.
> if it consists of creationist shit based on a FP it should be good for. a laugh
Click to expand...


Sounding like Hollie who are you trying to convince of your dribble ?

What Theory ?

How did the dinosaurs die out ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's one term did you forget what it is ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you must have or why would you still be asking?
Click to expand...


Because there is more then one theory I want to know which one you believe in.

I know the theories but I want to hear it from you.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aha trying to change the subject again ?
> 
> 
> 
> wrong slap dick! just posting the necessary info when dealing with zealots like your self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only one looking like a slapdick is yourself.
Click to expand...

really? guess you've never seriously read anything you've written..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess daws finally realized he is contradicting himself. Daws let's continue on with this I have not even lowered the boom on you yet.
> 
> 
> 
> again you be falsely assuming none of what I posted contradicts it self .
> it does however contradict,  refute, smash, kick ass al you nonsense.
> lower the boom?  a good trick as you have no boom to lower.
> if it consists of creationist shit based on a FP it should be good for. a laugh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounding like Hollie who are you trying to convince of your dribble ?
> 
> What Theory ?
> 
> How did the dinosaurs die out ?
Click to expand...

as always you've got it backwards .
as to the other two questions  asked and answered.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's one term did you forget what it is ?
> 
> 
> 
> you must have or why would you still be asking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there is more then one theory I want to know which one you believe in.
> 
> I know the theories but I want to hear it from you.
Click to expand...

since I don't "believe" the question is invalid besides being ask and answered many time on this thread.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again you be falsely assuming none of what I posted contradicts it self .
> it does however contradict,  refute, smash, kick ass al you nonsense.
> lower the boom?  a good trick as you have no boom to lower.
> if it consists of creationist shit based on a FP it should be good for. a laugh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounding like Hollie who are you trying to convince of your dribble ?
> 
> What Theory ?
> 
> How did the dinosaurs die out ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as always you've got it backwards .
> as to the other two questions  asked and answered.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounding like Hollie who are you trying to convince of your dribble ?
> 
> What Theory ?
> 
> How did the dinosaurs die out ?
> 
> 
> 
> as always you've got it backwards .
> as to the other two questions  asked and answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I win !


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you must have or why would you still be asking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is more then one theory I want to know which one you believe in.
> 
> I know the theories but I want to hear it from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since I don't "believe" the question is invalid besides being ask and answered many time on this thread.
Click to expand...


You never stop revealing your ignorance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as always you've got it backwards .
> as to the other two questions  asked and answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I win !
Click to expand...


You can't tell the theory you believe concerning this issue.

You can't tell me how you think the dinosaurs died out.

You can't explain how dry land fossils are buried in the same strata as marine fossils.

You think you won


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is more then one theory I want to know which one you believe in.
> 
> I know the theories but I want to hear it from you.
> 
> 
> 
> since I don't "believe" the question is invalid besides being ask and answered many time on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never stop revealing your ignorance.
Click to expand...

another fine example of a false premise in action.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I win !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't tell the theory you believe concerning this issue.
> 
> You can't tell me how you think the dinosaurs died out.
> 
> You can't explain how dry land fossils are buried in the same strata as marine fossils.
> 
> You think you won
Click to expand...

wrong!  I already have...  many many times!
see the difference.

every time you  blather your not basis in fact ravings, I win.
every time you attempt to use creationist dogma as evidence I win.
every time you  plagiarize I win.
every time you imitate or mention me I win..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since I don't "believe" the question is invalid besides being ask and answered many time on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never stop revealing your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another fine example of a false premise in action.
Click to expand...


The only False premise here is someone thinking you're intelligent.


----------



## t_polkow

DISPATCHES FROM JESUS LAND: IT&#8217;S A DUMB EARTH AFTER ALL


"I think it&#8217;s important to realize that this is not funny &#8220;ha-ha&#8221; because we&#8217;re talking about some idiot rube. Instead, it&#8217;s funny &#8220;ha-ha-fuck-pour-me-a-drink&#8221;, because this is sad and sickening. You have to realize the incredible arrogance of a person who can baldly declare the work of tens of thousands of brilliant men and women&#8211;work that has often been proven mathematically or supported by mountains of physical evidence&#8211;to be wrong, and himself right."

Dispatches from Jesus Land: It?s a Dumb Earth After All | A Semiliterate Take on Life, Science and Politics...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I win !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't tell the theory you believe concerning this issue.
> 
> You can't tell me how you think the dinosaurs died out.
> 
> You can't explain how dry land fossils are buried in the same strata as marine fossils.
> 
> You think you won
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong!  I already have...  many many times!
> see the difference.
Click to expand...


What,you can't remember your copy paste jobs ? why are you scared to answer the questions. Talk about a dumbshit.


----------



## Youwerecreated

t_polkow said:


> DISPATCHES FROM JESUS LAND: ITS A DUMB EARTH AFTER ALL
> 
> 
> "I think its important to realize that this is not funny ha-ha because were talking about some idiot rube. Instead, its funny ha-ha-fuck-pour-me-a-drink, because this is sad and sickening. You have to realize the incredible arrogance of a person who can baldly declare the work of tens of thousands of brilliant men and womenwork that has often been proven mathematically or supported by mountains of physical evidenceto be wrong, and himself right."
> 
> Dispatches from Jesus Land: It?s a Dumb Earth After All | A Semiliterate Take on Life, Science and Politics...



Another hit and miss coward to the rescue.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never stop revealing your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> another fine example of a false premise in action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only False premise here is someone thinking you're intelligent.
Click to expand...

another fine example of a false premise


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't tell the theory you believe concerning this issue.
> 
> You can't tell me how you think the dinosaurs died out.
> 
> You can't explain how dry land fossils are buried in the same strata as marine fossils.
> 
> You think you won
> 
> 
> 
> wrong!  I already have...  many many times!
> see the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What,you can't remember your copy paste jobs ? why are you scared to answer the questions. Talk about a dumbshit.
Click to expand...

every time you blather your no basis in fact ravings, I win.


----------



## itfitzme

Youwerecreated said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> DISPATCHES FROM JESUS LAND: ITS A DUMB EARTH AFTER ALL
> 
> 
> "I think its important to realize that this is not funny ha-ha because were talking about some idiot rube. Instead, its funny ha-ha-fuck-pour-me-a-drink, because this is sad and sickening. You have to realize the incredible arrogance of a person who can baldly declare the work of tens of thousands of brilliant men and womenwork that has often been proven mathematically or supported by mountains of physical evidenceto be wrong, and himself right."
> 
> Dispatches from Jesus Land: It?s a Dumb Earth After All | A Semiliterate Take on Life, Science and Politics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another hit and miss coward to the rescue.
Click to expand...


I just finished reading 50 of your over 500 posts and you managed to never really say anything.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> DISPATCHES FROM JESUS LAND: ITS A DUMB EARTH AFTER ALL
> 
> 
> "I think its important to realize that this is not funny ha-ha because were talking about some idiot rube. Instead, its funny ha-ha-fuck-pour-me-a-drink, because this is sad and sickening. You have to realize the incredible arrogance of a person who can baldly declare the work of tens of thousands of brilliant men and womenwork that has often been proven mathematically or supported by mountains of physical evidenceto be wrong, and himself right."
> 
> Dispatches from Jesus Land: It?s a Dumb Earth After All | A Semiliterate Take on Life, Science and Politics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another hit and miss coward to the rescue.
Click to expand...

rescue? from who or what? 
somebody should rescue you from yourself.


----------



## daws101

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> DISPATCHES FROM JESUS LAND: ITS A DUMB EARTH AFTER ALL
> 
> 
> "I think its important to realize that this is not funny ha-ha because were talking about some idiot rube. Instead, its funny ha-ha-fuck-pour-me-a-drink, because this is sad and sickening. You have to realize the incredible arrogance of a person who can baldly declare the work of tens of thousands of brilliant men and womenwork that has often been proven mathematically or supported by mountains of physical evidenceto be wrong, and himself right."
> 
> Dispatches from Jesus Land: It?s a Dumb Earth After All | A Semiliterate Take on Life, Science and Politics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another hit and miss coward to the rescue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just finished reading 50 of your over 500 posts and you managed to never really say anything.
Click to expand...

if you really want to laugh read all his posts


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong!  I already have...  many many times!
> see the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What,you can't remember your copy paste jobs ? why are you scared to answer the questions. Talk about a dumbshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every time you blather your no basis in fact ravings, I win.
Click to expand...


Here I will help you with the theories.

1. Catasrophism

2. Uniformitarianism

Now which one do you believe in go google them and get back to me.


----------



## Youwerecreated

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> DISPATCHES FROM JESUS LAND: ITS A DUMB EARTH AFTER ALL
> 
> 
> "I think its important to realize that this is not funny ha-ha because were talking about some idiot rube. Instead, its funny ha-ha-fuck-pour-me-a-drink, because this is sad and sickening. You have to realize the incredible arrogance of a person who can baldly declare the work of tens of thousands of brilliant men and womenwork that has often been proven mathematically or supported by mountains of physical evidenceto be wrong, and himself right."
> 
> Dispatches from Jesus Land: It?s a Dumb Earth After All | A Semiliterate Take on Life, Science and Politics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another hit and miss coward to the rescue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just finished reading 50 of your over 500 posts and you managed to never really say anything.
Click to expand...


Don't feed the trolls,the ideological atheists are not cooperating by answering a few questions.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What,you can't remember your copy paste jobs ? why are you scared to answer the questions. Talk about a dumbshit.
> 
> 
> 
> every time you blather your no basis in fact ravings, I win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here I will help you with the theories.
> 
> 1. Catasrophism
> 
> 2. Uniformitarianism
> 
> Now which one do you believe in go google them and get back to me.
Click to expand...

neither and both!
get back to you for what, a private display of you ignorance!?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> every time you blather your no basis in fact ravings, I win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here I will help you with the theories.
> 
> 1. Catasrophism
> 
> 2. Uniformitarianism
> 
> Now which one do you believe in go google them and get back to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> neither and both!
> get back to you for what, a private display of you ignorance!?
Click to expand...


Neither and both explain.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another hit and miss coward to the rescue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished reading 50 of your over 500 posts and you managed to never really say anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't feed the trolls,the ideological atheists are not cooperating by answering a few questions.
Click to expand...

false ! those few question have been answered. 
you just don't like the out come.
your contestant repetition of them is a the definition for insanity


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished reading 50 of your over 500 posts and you managed to never really say anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't feed the trolls,the ideological atheists are not cooperating by answering a few questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false ! those few question have been answered.
> you just don't like the out come.
> your contestant repetition of them is a the definition for insanity
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here I will help you with the theories.
> 
> 1. Catasrophism
> 
> 2. Uniformitarianism
> 
> Now which one do you believe in go google them and get back to me.
> 
> 
> 
> neither and both!
> get back to you for what, a private display of you ignorance!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither and both explain.
Click to expand...

just did.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't feed the trolls,the ideological atheists are not cooperating by answering a few questions.
> 
> 
> 
> false ! those few question have been answered.
> you just don't like the out come.
> your contestant repetition of them is a the definition for insanity
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

why yes you are!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> neither and both!
> get back to you for what, a private display of you ignorance!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither and both explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just did.
Click to expand...


So in other words you don't want to incriminate yourself through having your ignorance revealed. sorry but that has already been done by your stupid pointless posts.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither and both explain.
> 
> 
> 
> just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in other words you don't want to incriminate yourself through having your ignorance revealed. sorry but that has already been done by your stupid pointless posts.
Click to expand...

as always you're totally fucking wrong..
but it is fun to watch you trip over you dick by making  erroneous assumptions based on FP'S LIKE THE ONE ABOVE.
  I GOTTA GET SOME LUNCH..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false ! those few question have been answered.
> you just don't like the out come.
> your contestant repetition of them is a the definition for insanity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why yes you are!
Click to expand...


Here twit I will give you something to chew on. I know your sides explanation for this but it just does not add up.

Malachite man or in other words Moab man. 10 modern day humans fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs what ?!

All those reckless comments by the evolutionists why are humans fossils not found with dinosaur fossils uh oh.

I can't wait for your next copy and paste. If you believe in naturalism you have to believe in one of those theories


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> just did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words you don't want to incriminate yourself through having your ignorance revealed. sorry but that has already been done by your stupid pointless posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as always you're totally fucking wrong..
> but it is fun to watch you trip over you dick by making  erroneous assumptions based on FP'S LIKE THE ONE ABOVE.
> I GOTTA GET SOME LUNCH..
Click to expand...


At least I have one to trip over but not in the way you're insinuating.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for the fine example of the false premise rule in action.
> 1."false premise that God had a beginning." wrong! the FP here is assuming that god has always been. There is no evidence for that argument.
> to make this short and sweet.
> anything you base on the assumption " god has ALWAYS existed" like theories or speculation are also by definition false because the basic premise is false.
> any argument you make from that premise is subjective and unsupportable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, you just proved what a huge idiot you really are!! Do you see the absurdity of your flawed logic in the post above?? Why aren't you attacking Hollie's infinite regression argument then??? You just proved me right you buffoon!! You just proved that Hollie is arguing from a false premise stupid. Do you hear your self? Hollie is not using a false premise because she is using a false premise.
> 
> What you missed in your utter and complete ignorance is that Hollie's argument is made from the assumption that God exists. In order for her to make her stupid argument, she has to first assume that God exists. Otherwise, how can she argue some other god made god? She is attempting to deny God by putting forth an argument whose basis is God exists. Of course we would expect you to miss this. My point is, if you are going to attack the concept of the Judeo-Christian God, then you can't make up your own Judeo-Christian theology. You can make a different argument to attack other mythological gods, but if you are going to assume the Judeo-Christian God exists as the basis of your argument, then you should also follow with the stated and commonly accepted theology that accompanies that basis, i.e., 1.) God has always existed 2.) God predates the Universe (Bible reference)  3.) God claims in the Bible there are no gods before him.
> 
> So according to you, Hollie's argument is based on a false premise of a false premise. *YOU FAIL, THESPIDOUCHE!!!*  This is what happens when make your bed with a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. Thumpie stalker is drooling.
> 
> Here's a bit of enlightenment for you: you make no sense - as usual.
> 
> Go thump (and stalk), elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Daws gets totally owned for his total lack of logic and all he can do is thank Hollie for her typical incoherent response. That Hollie has a mad crush on Haran Yahhan.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another fine example of a false premise in action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only False premise here is someone thinking you're intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another fine example of a false premise
Click to expand...


Says the Thespidouche that can't even form a simple logical argument.


----------



## UltimateReality

t_polkow said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I don't have time to  match wits with the witless, run along and  wait for your  jesus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be matching wits at all
> 
> Dang you people don't even know what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is not a belief ...
Click to expand...



To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for the fine example of the false premise rule in action.
> 1."false premise that God had a beginning." wrong! the FP here is assuming that god has always been. There is no evidence for that argument.
> to make this short and sweet.
> anything you base on the assumption " god has ALWAYS existed" like theories or speculation are also by definition false because the basic premise is false.
> any argument you make from that premise is subjective and unsupportable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, you just proved what a huge idiot you really are!! Do you see the absurdity of your flawed logic in the post above?? Why aren't you attacking Hollie's infinite regression argument then??? You just proved me right you buffoon!! You just proved that Hollie is arguing from a false premise stupid. Do you hear your self? Hollie is not using a false premise because she is using a false premise.
> 
> What you missed in your utter and complete ignorance is that Hollie's argument is made from the assumption that God exists. In order for her to make her stupid argument, she has to first assume that God exists. Otherwise, how can she argue some other god made god? She is attempting to deny God by putting forth an argument whose basis is God exists. Of course we would expect you to miss this. My point is, if you are going to attack the concept of the Judeo-Christian God, then you can't make up your own Judeo-Christian theology. You can make a different argument to attack other mythological gods, but if you are going to assume the Judeo-Christian God exists as the basis of your argument, then you should also follow with the stated and commonly accepted theology that accompanies that basis, i.e., 1.) God has always existed 2.) God predates the Universe (Bible reference)  3.) God claims in the Bible there are no gods before him.
> 
> So according to you, Hollie's argument is based on a false premise of a false premise. *YOU FAIL, THESPIDOUCHE!!!*  This is what happens when make your bed with a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love when you rationalize...
> there is only one false premise and it yours :anything you base on the assumption " god has ALWAYS existed" like theories or speculation are also by definition false because the basic premise is false.
> any argument you make from that premise is subjective and unsupportable.any argument you make from that assumption is false.
Click to expand...


I get what you are saying. Hollie infinite regression argument is based on a false premise according to you. So what caused the Big Bang?


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it don't if this was the case you're depending on  volcanoes distributing these fossils on mountain tops and that is not the case.
> 
> Amazing World: Massive Whale Fossil Graveyard In Chile
> 
> Massive Dinosaur "Graveyard" Discovered in Spain
> 
> Joel kontinen: Huge Fossil Graveyard Found in China
> 
> Fossils - Truth That Matters
> 
> How do you explain these massive fossil graveyards world wide ? the walls are closing in daws.
> 
> 
> 
> 3 out of the four sites you posted are not credible as they are based on the false premise that a great flood happened based on another false premise that god or an intelligent designer caused it. since the base premise is false ALL conclusions drawn from it are also false the natgeo site refutes all the others as it talks about millions of years not thousands.(The 70-million-year-old fossils show a stunning array of dinosaur diversity for a period that is very poorly known in Western Europe, said paleontologist José Luis Sanz of Autonomous University in Madrid.
> 
> "We are sure that in future, [once we have] studied the huge amount of fossil material recovered from the site, the diversity will increase," Sanz, who is in charge of the dig, said in an email.
> 
> The fossils date to some four million years before the dinosaurs went extinct, shedding new light "on these last European dinosaur ecosystems," Sanz said.)
> 
> proving YWC'S willful ignorance one post a at a time.
> btw yes it's certain your walls are closing in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it just me or is what daws posted full of conjecture ? oh and if there is more diversity that is more supporting of a graveyard due to catastrophe.
Click to expand...


Daws has always been in way over his head in this thread. He is kind of like Obama without a teleprompter.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished reading 50 of your over 500 posts and you managed to never really say anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't feed the trolls,the ideological atheists are not cooperating by answering a few questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false ! those few question have been answered.
> you just don't like the out come.
> your contestant repetition of them is a the definition for insanity
Click to expand...


So you and Hollie are insane? You are the king and drag queen of repetition. Your job is to figure out which person I'm referring to in the second sentence.


----------



## t_polkow

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> DISPATCHES FROM JESUS LAND: ITS A DUMB EARTH AFTER ALL
> 
> 
> "I think its important to realize that this is not funny ha-ha because were talking about some idiot rube. Instead, its funny ha-ha-fuck-pour-me-a-drink, because this is sad and sickening. You have to realize the incredible arrogance of a person who can baldly declare the work of tens of thousands of brilliant men and womenwork that has often been proven mathematically or supported by mountains of physical evidenceto be wrong, and himself right."
> 
> Dispatches from Jesus Land: It?s a Dumb Earth After All | A Semiliterate Take on Life, Science and Politics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another hit and miss coward to the rescue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rescue? from who or what?
> somebody should rescue you from yourself.
Click to expand...


Any wonder why christian fundamentalism is going to be classified as a mental illness


----------



## itfitzme

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



Anything is believable.  It just depends on what information you have obtained.


----------



## itfitzme

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another hit and miss coward to the rescue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished reading 50 of your over 500 posts and you managed to never really say anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't feed the trolls,the ideological atheists are not cooperating by answering a few questions.
Click to expand...


You make a lot of unrealized assumption.


----------



## itfitzme

t_polkow said:


> Any wonder why christian fundamentalism is going to be classified as a mental illness



I'm not sure what you mean to say/ask.  Taken literally, assumimg a question, it states that the psychiatric community currently expects to add "christian fundamentalism" to the DMS and you are asking if there is any wonder about this.

Actually, some of the behaviors displayed by some christian fundamentalists is a diagnostic indicator of psychosis.


----------



## itfitzme

Youwerecreated said:


> *I have produced evidence and I will produce more. You still have not named the theory you believe in.



Like I said, I read fifty of your over five hundred posts and you never presented any evidence of anything.

Would you mind pointing out a few of them?


UPDATE: I found one, "land bridges".  That is one in 51 counted.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why yes you are!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here twit I will give you something to chew on. I know your sides explanation for this but it just does not add up.
> 
> Malachite man or in other words Moab man. 10 modern day humans fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs what ?!
> 
> All those reckless comments by the evolutionists why are humans fossils not found with dinosaur fossils uh oh.
> 
> I can't wait for your next copy and paste. If you believe in naturalism you have to believe in one of those theories
Click to expand...

more creationist bullshit based on the false premise of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time.

 In the late 1980's some of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of 210 +/- 70 years (Berger and Protsch, 1989). Shortly thereafter Arthur Strahler (1989) published his book Science and Earth History, a chapter of which recounted the Moab Man saga. Later carbon dating tests on more recent excavations from the mine in the early 1990's yielded dates of 1450 +/- 90, with a calibrated one-sigma date range of AD 540 to AD 670, suggesting that the mine had been used by native Americans for at least several hundred years. (Coulam and Schroedl, 1995). However, the dates are consistent with intrusive burials, and contradict claims that the bones were part of the Mesozoic, Dakota Sandstone host rock, dated at approximately 100 million years by mainstream geology. Further corroboration of Marwitt's analysis is found in a draft of a book by researchers Eckert and Eckert (1979), who were dismayed by the failure of Burdick and other creationists to depict the Moab Man evidence fairly and accurately. For several years afterward the case seemed to be largely abandoned by most creationists. 


Conclusions:  

The Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone, and are not integral parts of the host formation. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. There is no foundation for the claims of a few creationists that the bones contradict mainstream geology or support dinosaur/human cohabitation. 
Moab Man and Malachite Man

thanks for the after lunch story time.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words you don't want to incriminate yourself through having your ignorance revealed. sorry but that has already been done by your stupid pointless posts.
> 
> 
> 
> as always you're totally fucking wrong..
> but it is fun to watch you trip over you dick by making  erroneous assumptions based on FP'S LIKE THE ONE ABOVE.
> I GOTTA GET SOME LUNCH..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least I have one to trip over but not in the way you're insinuating.
Click to expand...

one what? 
btw I'm not insinuation (another word you need to look up) it's a direct statement.
and it's fact your answer proves it.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, you just proved what a huge idiot you really are!! Do you see the absurdity of your flawed logic in the post above?? Why aren't you attacking Hollie's infinite regression argument then??? You just proved me right you buffoon!! You just proved that Hollie is arguing from a false premise stupid. Do you hear your self? Hollie is not using a false premise because she is using a false premise.
> 
> What you missed in your utter and complete ignorance is that Hollie's argument is made from the assumption that God exists. In order for her to make her stupid argument, she has to first assume that God exists. Otherwise, how can she argue some other god made god? She is attempting to deny God by putting forth an argument whose basis is God exists. Of course we would expect you to miss this. My point is, if you are going to attack the concept of the Judeo-Christian God, then you can't make up your own Judeo-Christian theology. You can make a different argument to attack other mythological gods, but if you are going to assume the Judeo-Christian God exists as the basis of your argument, then you should also follow with the stated and commonly accepted theology that accompanies that basis, i.e., 1.) God has always existed 2.) God predates the Universe (Bible reference)  3.) God claims in the Bible there are no gods before him.
> 
> So according to you, Hollie's argument is based on a false premise of a false premise. *YOU FAIL, THESPIDOUCHE!!!*  This is what happens when make your bed with a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. Thumpie stalker is drooling.
> 
> Here's a bit of enlightenment for you: you make no sense - as usual.
> 
> Go thump (and stalk), elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws gets totally owned for his total lack of logic and all he can do is thank Hollie for her typical incoherent response. That Hollie has a mad crush on Haran Yahhan.
Click to expand...

yep! still drooling and yammering nonsense.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only False premise here is someone thinking you're intelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> another fine example of a false premise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the Thespidouche that can't even form a simple logical argument.
Click to expand...

the misery of OCD.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be matching wits at all
> 
> Dang you people don't even know what you believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not a belief ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.
Click to expand...

FUNNY coming from the man who doesn't even know what he does not know.


----------



## t_polkow

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. Thumpie stalker is drooling.
> 
> Here's a bit of enlightenment for you: you make no sense - as usual.
> 
> Go thump (and stalk), elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws gets totally owned for his total lack of logic and all he can do is thank Hollie for her typical incoherent response. That Hollie has a mad crush on Haran Yahhan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep! still drooling and yammering nonsense.
Click to expand...


I bet that idiot lives in a trailer house somewhere in the south and didn't get beyond basic elementary  school science


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, you just proved what a huge idiot you really are!! Do you see the absurdity of your flawed logic in the post above?? Why aren't you attacking Hollie's infinite regression argument then??? You just proved me right you buffoon!! You just proved that Hollie is arguing from a false premise stupid. Do you hear your self? Hollie is not using a false premise because she is using a false premise.
> 
> What you missed in your utter and complete ignorance is that Hollie's argument is made from the assumption that God exists. In order for her to make her stupid argument, she has to first assume that God exists. Otherwise, how can she argue some other god made god? She is attempting to deny God by putting forth an argument whose basis is God exists. Of course we would expect you to miss this. My point is, if you are going to attack the concept of the Judeo-Christian God, then you can't make up your own Judeo-Christian theology. You can make a different argument to attack other mythological gods, but if you are going to assume the Judeo-Christian God exists as the basis of your argument, then you should also follow with the stated and commonly accepted theology that accompanies that basis, i.e., 1.) God has always existed 2.) God predates the Universe (Bible reference)  3.) God claims in the Bible there are no gods before him.
> 
> So according to you, Hollie's argument is based on a false premise of a false premise. *YOU FAIL, THESPIDOUCHE!!!*  This is what happens when make your bed with a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> I love when you rationalize...
> there is only one false premise and it yours :anything you base on the assumption " god has ALWAYS existed" like theories or speculation are also by definition false because the basic premise is false.
> any argument you make from that premise is subjective and unsupportable.any argument you make from that assumption is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get what you are saying. Hollie infinite regression argument is based on a false premise according to you. So what caused the Big Bang?
Click to expand...

there is only one false premise and it yours..


----------



## daws101

t_polkow said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws gets totally owned for his total lack of logic and all he can do is thank Hollie for her typical incoherent response. That Hollie has a mad crush on Haran Yahhan.
> 
> 
> 
> yep! still drooling and yammering nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet that idiot lives in a trailer house somewhere in the south and didn't get beyond basic elementary  school science
Click to expand...

close, Arizona he 's as epically religiously delusional as YWC.


----------



## itfitzme

Hollie said:


> So, whether I'm right or wrong in my beliefs, I've got nothin' to lose. If I'm right, hooray for me and if I'm wrong, no loss.



Well, there is statement of truth. Indeed, why not go all the way on it and say that you have more to gain even if your wrong?


----------



## itfitzme

"Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications"

I found this statement interesting.  It is interesting because it is so highly unlikely and entirely immposible. The probability of an empirical study, experiment, or even a deductivve argument from accepted axioms, demomstrating that an organ could not have llikey formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications is itself highly unlikely as to be impossible.

If only science could pull of such a feat as being able to prove such a thing.

The closest I've seen to such a thing is the Theory of Relativity deductively proving that no mass can be accelerated beyond the speed of light.


----------



## daws101

Fred Flintstone waded here: Hoaxsters ready to teach creationism to Texas kids

Creationists in Texas claim to have found a stone with footprints of a human and a dinosaur.

No, Im not kidding.

Hoax dinosaur and human foot prints, claimed to be found near Glen Rose, Texas

Could you make this stuff up? Well, yeah, I guess some people think you could. Somebody did make this stuff up.

According to a report in the too-gullible Mineral Wells Index, long-time hoaxster and faux doctorate Carl Baughs Creation Evidence Museum announced the rock was found just outside Dinosaur Valley State Park. The area has been the site of more than one creationist hoax since 1960, and was an area rife with hoax dinosaur prints dating back to the 1930s. (See these notes on the warning signs of science hoaxes and history hoaxes.)


The estimated 140-pound stone was recovered in July 2000 from the bank of a creek that feeds the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas, located about 53 miles south of Fort Worth. The find was made just outside Dinosaur Valley State Park, a popular destination for tourists known for its well-preserved dinosaur tracks and other fossils.

The limestone contains two distinct prints  one of a human footprint and one belonging to a dinosaur. The significance of the cement-hard fossil is that it shows the dinosaur print partially over and intersecting the human print.

In other words, the stones impressions indicate that the human stepped first, the dinosaur second. If proven genuine, the artifact would provide evidence that man and dinosaur roamed the Earth at the same time, according to those associated with the find and with its safekeeping. It could potentially toss out the window many commonly held scientific theories on evolution and the history of the world.

Except, as you can see, Dear Reader and Viewer, its a hoax. No dinosaur has a footprint exactly resembling the print of Fred Flintstones pet Dino, as the rock shows; nor do human footprints left in mud look like the print shown.

Dear God, save us from such tom-foolery, please.
Fred Flintstone waded here: Hoaxsters ready to teach creationism to Texas kids | Millard Fillmore's Bathtub


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> why yes you are!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here twit I will give you something to chew on. I know your sides explanation for this but it just does not add up.
> 
> Malachite man or in other words Moab man. 10 modern day humans fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs what ?!
> 
> All those reckless comments by the evolutionists why are humans fossils not found with dinosaur fossils uh oh.
> 
> I can't wait for your next copy and paste. If you believe in naturalism you have to believe in one of those theories
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more creationist bullshit based on the false premise of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time.
> 
> In the late 1980's some of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of 210 +/- 70 years (Berger and Protsch, 1989). Shortly thereafter Arthur Strahler (1989) published his book Science and Earth History, a chapter of which recounted the Moab Man saga. Later carbon dating tests on more recent excavations from the mine in the early 1990's yielded dates of 1450 +/- 90, with a calibrated one-sigma date range of AD 540 to AD 670, suggesting that the mine had been used by native Americans for at least several hundred years. (Coulam and Schroedl, 1995). However, the dates are consistent with intrusive burials, and contradict claims that the bones were part of the Mesozoic, Dakota Sandstone host rock, dated at approximately 100 million years by mainstream geology. Further corroboration of Marwitt's analysis is found in a draft of a book by researchers Eckert and Eckert (1979), who were dismayed by the failure of Burdick and other creationists to depict the Moab Man evidence fairly and accurately. For several years afterward the case seemed to be largely abandoned by most creationists.
> 
> 
> Conclusions:
> 
> The Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone, and are not integral parts of the host formation. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. There is no foundation for the claims of a few creationists that the bones contradict mainstream geology or support dinosaur/human cohabitation.
> Moab Man and Malachite Man
> 
> thanks for the after lunch story time.
Click to expand...




I saw that daws already exposed the fraud by ywc but this latest fraud is really symptomatic of the lies, deceit and utter nonsense coming from the creationist hoaxsters.

The phrasing and syntax used by ywc was instantly recognizable and easy to find. YWC found the silly _Malachite man_ here: 

"Human Fossils In Same Rock Strata As Dinosaur Fossils!"

The site is a front for Christian creationist charlatans. If you scroll down the page, youll see that the discovery was made by Dr. Don Patton.

So who is Dr. Don Patton? Hes a young earth creationist charlatan. And hes not even a Dr.

Suspicious Creationist Credentials 


> Don Patton is a young-earth creationist who, along with Carl Baugh, is known as a proponent of the claim that human footprints appear alongside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas.
> 
> Patton has claimed Ph.D. candidacy in geology from Queensland Christian University in Australia. According to Glen Kuban:
> When I asked Patton for clarification on this during the [1989 Bible-Science] conference, he stated that he had no degrees, but was about to receive a Ph.D. degree in geology, pending accreditation of QCU, which he assured me was "three days away." Many days have since passed, and Patton still has no valid degree in geology. Nor is the accreditation of QCU imminent. [4]
> 
> Glen Kuban has written more extensively on Patton's claimed degrees in his articles on the Paluxy "man-tracks".



As with every phony link, attempted scam, lie and falsehood spewed by YWC, this is just another attempt to pass off phony creationists and their phony credentials.


Heres a link to the phony Paluxy "man-tracks" perpetrated by the creationist fraud Carl Baugh. 

A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Claimed Credentials


As it turns out, Carl Baugh had some help perpetrating his fraud with some help from another creationist fraudster:  Don Patton 

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #476: Carl Baugh



> Carl Edward Baugh is a young earth creationist who is most infamous for claiming to have discovered human alongside dinosaur footprints near the Paluxy River in Texas. Yes, Baugh is the big promoter of the infamous (fake) Paluxy footprints, and he still believes theyre genuine.




Further along in the link:



> Don Patton, a close associate of Baughs who also leads the Metroplex Institute of Origins Science (MIOS) near Dallas, deserves a brief mention as well as one of the most staggering quote-miners the world has yet seen, including an ellipsis (...) that spans 4 whole chapters of Origin of Species (no direct link to it, but you can access it from here)), and as an ardently delusional PRATT-regurgitator.






I'm sure we're all feeling a bit queasy at the lies, falsehoods and staggering dishonesty perpetrated by creationist charlatans so let's bring it on home with another review of the fraud that is "Dr." Donald Patton  

The North Texas Skeptic


----------



## Youwerecreated

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I have produced evidence and I will produce more. You still have not named the theory you believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I read fifty of your over five hundred posts and you never presented any evidence of anything.
> 
> Would you mind pointing out a few of them?
> 
> 
> UPDATE: I found one, "land bridges".  That is one in 51 counted.
Click to expand...


 How bout Amino acids bonding in just the right sequence and they are left handed amino acids no right handed amino acids. How bout molecular machines that take care of Dna transcription.

How bout the take that evolutionists believe mutations are the mechanism that drives evolution but beneficial mutations are so rare and yet we have over 6,000 genetic disorders and counting. We also have a mechanism repairing most mutations. seems far fetched to believe these are just random processes. Looks like design to me.


Do I need to continue ? or maybe you should move back a little earlier in the thread I have been here since the start of the thread. I can't give you a complete summary of the thread because it has hit all over like most evolution vs creation threads.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> why yes you are!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here twit I will give you something to chew on. I know your sides explanation for this but it just does not add up.
> 
> Malachite man or in other words Moab man. 10 modern day humans fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs what ?!
> 
> All those reckless comments by the evolutionists why are humans fossils not found with dinosaur fossils uh oh.
> 
> I can't wait for your next copy and paste. If you believe in naturalism you have to believe in one of those theories
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more creationist bullshit based on the false premise of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time.
> 
> In the late 1980's some of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of 210 +/- 70 years (Berger and Protsch, 1989). Shortly thereafter Arthur Strahler (1989) published his book Science and Earth History, a chapter of which recounted the Moab Man saga. Later carbon dating tests on more recent excavations from the mine in the early 1990's yielded dates of 1450 +/- 90, with a calibrated one-sigma date range of AD 540 to AD 670, suggesting that the mine had been used by native Americans for at least several hundred years. (Coulam and Schroedl, 1995). However, the dates are consistent with intrusive burials, and contradict claims that the bones were part of the Mesozoic, Dakota Sandstone host rock, dated at approximately 100 million years by mainstream geology. Further corroboration of Marwitt's analysis is found in a draft of a book by researchers Eckert and Eckert (1979), who were dismayed by the failure of Burdick and other creationists to depict the Moab Man evidence fairly and accurately. For several years afterward the case seemed to be largely abandoned by most creationists.
> 
> 
> Conclusions:
> 
> The Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone, and are not integral parts of the host formation. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. There is no foundation for the claims of a few creationists that the bones contradict mainstream geology or support dinosaur/human cohabitation.
> Moab Man and Malachite Man
> 
> thanks for the after lunch story time.
Click to expand...


I was waiting for your copy and paste on this issue. Let's see if you can be rational. What would a mother and her infant be doing that deep in a mine lol ?

I would not call anything bullshit you have demonstrated you lack the grey matter to speak for yourself.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not a belief ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FUNNY coming from the man who doesn't even know what he does not know.
Click to expand...


How old are you really ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

t_polkow said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws gets totally owned for his total lack of logic and all he can do is thank Hollie for her typical incoherent response. That Hollie has a mad crush on Haran Yahhan.
> 
> 
> 
> yep! still drooling and yammering nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet that idiot lives in a trailer house somewhere in the south and didn't get beyond basic elementary  school science
Click to expand...


Careful you're about to be made to look foolish again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here twit I will give you something to chew on. I know your sides explanation for this but it just does not add up.
> 
> Malachite man or in other words Moab man. 10 modern day humans fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs what ?!
> 
> All those reckless comments by the evolutionists why are humans fossils not found with dinosaur fossils uh oh.
> 
> I can't wait for your next copy and paste. If you believe in naturalism you have to believe in one of those theories
> 
> 
> 
> more creationist bullshit based on the false premise of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time.
> 
> In the late 1980's some of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of 210 +/- 70 years (Berger and Protsch, 1989). Shortly thereafter Arthur Strahler (1989) published his book Science and Earth History, a chapter of which recounted the Moab Man saga. Later carbon dating tests on more recent excavations from the mine in the early 1990's yielded dates of 1450 +/- 90, with a calibrated one-sigma date range of AD 540 to AD 670, suggesting that the mine had been used by native Americans for at least several hundred years. (Coulam and Schroedl, 1995). However, the dates are consistent with intrusive burials, and contradict claims that the bones were part of the Mesozoic, Dakota Sandstone host rock, dated at approximately 100 million years by mainstream geology. Further corroboration of Marwitt's analysis is found in a draft of a book by researchers Eckert and Eckert (1979), who were dismayed by the failure of Burdick and other creationists to depict the Moab Man evidence fairly and accurately. For several years afterward the case seemed to be largely abandoned by most creationists.
> 
> 
> Conclusions:
> 
> The Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone, and are not integral parts of the host formation. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. There is no foundation for the claims of a few creationists that the bones contradict mainstream geology or support dinosaur/human cohabitation.
> Moab Man and Malachite Man
> 
> thanks for the after lunch story time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that daws already exposed the fraud by ywc but this latest fraud is really symptomatic of the lies, deceit and utter nonsense coming from the creationist hoaxsters.
> 
> The phrasing and syntax used by ywc was instantly recognizable and easy to find. YWC found the silly _Malachite man_ here:
> 
> "Human Fossils In Same Rock Strata As Dinosaur Fossils!"
> 
> The site is a front for Christian creationist charlatans. If you scroll down the page, youll see that the discovery was made by Dr. Don Patton.
> 
> So who is Dr. Don Patton? Hes a young earth creationist charlatan. And hes not even a Dr.
> 
> Suspicious Creationist Credentials
> 
> 
> As with every phony link, attempted scam, lie and falsehood spewed by YWC, this is just another attempt to pass off phony creationists and their phony credentials.
> 
> 
> Heres a link to the phony Paluxy "man-tracks" perpetrated by the creationist fraud Carl Baugh.
> 
> A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Claimed Credentials
> 
> 
> As it turns out, Carl Baugh had some help perpetrating his fraud with some help from another creationist fraudster:  Don Patton
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #476: Carl Baugh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carl Edward Baugh is a young earth creationist who is most infamous for claiming to have discovered human alongside dinosaur footprints near the Paluxy River in Texas. Yes, Baugh is the big promoter of the infamous (fake) Paluxy footprints, and he still believes theyre genuine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Further along in the link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don Patton, a close associate of Baughs who also leads the Metroplex Institute of Origins Science (MIOS) near Dallas, deserves a brief mention as well as one of the most staggering quote-miners the world has yet seen, including an ellipsis (...) that spans 4 whole chapters of Origin of Species (no direct link to it, but you can access it from here)), and as an ardently delusional PRATT-regurgitator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure we're all feeling a bit queasy at the lies, falsehoods and staggering dishonesty perpetrated by creationist charlatans so let's bring it on home with another review of the fraud that is "Dr." Donald Patton
> 
> The North Texas Skeptic
Click to expand...


I guess we need to stoop to your level and bring out the many hoaxes from the scientific community. Thank God there are some still in the science community that has integrity and exposes the frauds.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more creationist bullshit based on the false premise of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time.
> 
> In the late 1980's some of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of 210 +/- 70 years (Berger and Protsch, 1989). Shortly thereafter Arthur Strahler (1989) published his book Science and Earth History, a chapter of which recounted the Moab Man saga. Later carbon dating tests on more recent excavations from the mine in the early 1990's yielded dates of 1450 +/- 90, with a calibrated one-sigma date range of AD 540 to AD 670, suggesting that the mine had been used by native Americans for at least several hundred years. (Coulam and Schroedl, 1995). However, the dates are consistent with intrusive burials, and contradict claims that the bones were part of the Mesozoic, Dakota Sandstone host rock, dated at approximately 100 million years by mainstream geology. Further corroboration of Marwitt's analysis is found in a draft of a book by researchers Eckert and Eckert (1979), who were dismayed by the failure of Burdick and other creationists to depict the Moab Man evidence fairly and accurately. For several years afterward the case seemed to be largely abandoned by most creationists.
> 
> 
> Conclusions:
> 
> The Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone, and are not integral parts of the host formation. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. There is no foundation for the claims of a few creationists that the bones contradict mainstream geology or support dinosaur/human cohabitation.
> Moab Man and Malachite Man
> 
> thanks for the after lunch story time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that daws already exposed the fraud by ywc but this latest fraud is really symptomatic of the lies, deceit and utter nonsense coming from the creationist hoaxsters.
> 
> The phrasing and syntax used by ywc was instantly recognizable and easy to find. YWC found the silly _Malachite man_ here:
> 
> "Human Fossils In Same Rock Strata As Dinosaur Fossils!"
> 
> The site is a front for Christian creationist charlatans. If you scroll down the page, youll see that the discovery was made by Dr. Don Patton.
> 
> So who is Dr. Don Patton? Hes a young earth creationist charlatan. And hes not even a Dr.
> 
> Suspicious Creationist Credentials
> 
> 
> As with every phony link, attempted scam, lie and falsehood spewed by YWC, this is just another attempt to pass off phony creationists and their phony credentials.
> 
> 
> Heres a link to the phony Paluxy "man-tracks" perpetrated by the creationist fraud Carl Baugh.
> 
> A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Claimed Credentials
> 
> 
> As it turns out, Carl Baugh had some help perpetrating his fraud with some help from another creationist fraudster:  Don Patton
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #476: Carl Baugh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further along in the link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don Patton, a close associate of Baughs who also leads the Metroplex Institute of Origins Science (MIOS) near Dallas, deserves a brief mention as well as one of the most staggering quote-miners the world has yet seen, including an ellipsis (...) that spans 4 whole chapters of Origin of Species (no direct link to it, but you can access it from here)), and as an ardently delusional PRATT-regurgitator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure we're all feeling a bit queasy at the lies, falsehoods and staggering dishonesty perpetrated by creationist charlatans so let's bring it on home with another review of the fraud that is "Dr." Donald Patton
> 
> The North Texas Skeptic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess we need to stoop to your level and bring out the many hoaxes from the scientific community. Thank God there are some still in the science community that has integrity and exposes the frauds.
Click to expand...


I thought you would perform your usual tactic of avoidance and make every effort to avoid addressing the really sleazy tactics employed by the creationist cabal.

Theyre all dishonest to the core and your promotion of such dishonesty is similarly sleazy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Oh and one more thing Hollie, this is not ,I repeat, not fabricated evidence. These were modern day humans found in the same strata as dinosaurs.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Oh and one more thing Hollie, this is not ,I repeat, not fabricated evidence. These were modern day humans found in the same strata as dinosaurs.



Oh, and one more thing. Pathological liars behave as you do. They neither recognize or understand that they're lying.

We can attribute your behavior to a pathology.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that daws already exposed the fraud by ywc but this latest fraud is really symptomatic of the lies, deceit and utter nonsense coming from the creationist hoaxsters.
> 
> The phrasing and syntax used by ywc was instantly recognizable and easy to find. YWC found the silly _Malachite man_ here:
> 
> "Human Fossils In Same Rock Strata As Dinosaur Fossils!"
> 
> The site is a front for Christian creationist charlatans. If you scroll down the page, youll see that the discovery was made by Dr. Don Patton.
> 
> So who is Dr. Don Patton? Hes a young earth creationist charlatan. And hes not even a Dr.
> 
> Suspicious Creationist Credentials
> 
> 
> As with every phony link, attempted scam, lie and falsehood spewed by YWC, this is just another attempt to pass off phony creationists and their phony credentials.
> 
> 
> Heres a link to the phony Paluxy "man-tracks" perpetrated by the creationist fraud Carl Baugh.
> 
> A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Claimed Credentials
> 
> 
> As it turns out, Carl Baugh had some help perpetrating his fraud with some help from another creationist fraudster:  Don Patton
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #476: Carl Baugh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further along in the link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure we're all feeling a bit queasy at the lies, falsehoods and staggering dishonesty perpetrated by creationist charlatans so let's bring it on home with another review of the fraud that is "Dr." Donald Patton
> 
> The North Texas Skeptic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we need to stoop to your level and bring out the many hoaxes from the scientific community. Thank God there are some still in the science community that has integrity and exposes the frauds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you would perform your usual tactic of avoidance and make every effort to avoid addressing the really sleazy tactics employed by the creationist cabal.
> 
> Theyre all dishonest to the core and your promotion of such dishonesty is similarly sleazy.
Click to expand...


No the dishonest would assume these people were accidentally entombed that deep in a mine lol.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and one more thing Hollie, this is not ,I repeat, not fabricated evidence. These were modern day humans found in the same strata as dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and one more thing. Pathological liars behave as you do. They neither recognize or understand that they're lying.
> 
> We can attribute your behavior to a pathology.
Click to expand...


You are to stupid to take serious.


----------



## t_polkow

Youwerecreated said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep! still drooling and yammering nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet that idiot lives in a trailer house somewhere in the south and didn't get beyond basic elementary  school science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Careful you're about to be made to look foolish again.
Click to expand...



The Ice Age in the Bible
Bad Science, Creationism, Kooks, Liars for Jesus by PZ Myers
Every time I despair at the dreadful nonsense from the Discovery Institute, I can reliably turn to Answers in Genesis and despair harder. They've just announced that &#8220;after two centuries of research&#8221;, they've finally determined the dates of the Ice Age. They've even announced that they&#8217;re going to have a chat on their facebook page at 2pm ET today if you really want to learn more. They have figured out the dates of the Ice Age (singular) from reading their Bibles closely.
You might quibble and say that the Bible doesn't say anything about glaciers or ice sheets or changes in climate, so how could they possibly determine anything about Ice Age(s) from that book? Easy. They make shit up.
First step: build everything around a chronology derived from the catalog of patriarchs in Genesis.
The Bible gives us an inerrant chronology for marking historical events. It tells exactly how many human generations passed from the Flood to Abraham&#8217;s birth: eight.1 God&#8217;s judgment occurred at Babel sometime during the days of Peleg, who was the fourth generation after the Flood.
Second: reject all of the science that says the Ice Ages occurred between roughly 3 million and 10 thousand years ago.
Though this range is clearly not accurate because it lies outside the Bible&#8217;s total timeline of 6,000 years, several lines of evidence support the choice of the Pleistocene layers for the Ice Age.
Pay attention to that last line. They&#8217;re accepting that the Ice Ages and the Pleistocene occurred concurrently. But the third step is a devious one: reject the dates set by the radiometric and other data, and simply compress and shift the entirety of the Pleistocene into a Biblical window: it started in 2250BCE, and instead of lasting 2½ million years, it was only 250 years long. They&#8217;re only off by four orders of magnitude.
Wait. That puts the Pleistocene smack in the middle of the Bronze Age. How can they do that? Fourth: by ignoring the actual dates and making sweeping, simplified claims about human technology.
Knowing these things, how can we use the human history described in the Bible to shed light on the Ice Age&#8217;s beginning? Well, for one thing, no human tools or fossils appear anywhere on the earth until found in deposits from the beginning of the Ice Age.8 (God appears to have wiped away all remains of pre-Flood man; see Genesis 6:7.) Since their earliest remains suddenly appear throughout the Old World (Asia, Africa, and Europe), it appears that these are the people who scattered from Babel.
It&#8217;s not true: the earliest stone tools are found in the late Pliocene. But setting that aside, it&#8217;s a cunning game they&#8217;re playing. They can say that they accept the science, that modern humans appeared in the Pleistocene and that they built stone tools, and make the case that they accept the evidence real scientists have uncovered. It&#8217;s just that they've redefined the Pleistocene to be a brief sliver of time in a window that occurred only about 4,000 years ago.
It&#8217;s a bit like saying I believe the historians when they say Charlemagne existed, and I think the primary documents and accounts they have are just nifty, but they read the dates wrong, because I had a burger with him at White Castle last week. Only worse.
Fifth: that old reliable standby, the argument from incredulity. They point to stone tools, and say it&#8217;s absurd that human beings would use such crude and ugly things for millions of years. We&#8217;re smarter than that! Doesn't it make much more sense that the Stone Age only lasted for a few decades?


These bozos are anti-science, anti-history, and anti-knowledge, all because they've decided that their holy book is the only arbiter of truth. But they are serenely confident in their ignorance

The Ice Age in the Bible » Pharyngula


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we need to stoop to your level and bring out the many hoaxes from the scientific community. Thank God there are some still in the science community that has integrity and exposes the frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you would perform your usual tactic of avoidance and make every effort to avoid addressing the really sleazy tactics employed by the creationist cabal.
> 
> Theyre all dishonest to the core and your promotion of such dishonesty is similarly sleazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the dishonest would assume these people were accidentally entombed that deep in a mine lol.
Click to expand...


Yes. It would be realistic to understand that you lie without even being aware that you're lying. 

It's a syndrome shared by those with such a pathology.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and one more thing Hollie, this is not ,I repeat, not fabricated evidence. These were modern day humans found in the same strata as dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and one more thing. Pathological liars behave as you do. They neither recognize or understand that they're lying.
> 
> We can attribute your behavior to a pathology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are to stupid to take serious.
Click to expand...


Such is the tactic of liars, cheaters and charlatans who have been exposed as such.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and one more thing. Pathological liars behave as you do. They neither recognize or understand that they're lying.
> 
> We can attribute your behavior to a pathology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are to stupid to take serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such is the tactic of liars, cheaters and charlatans who have been exposed as such.
Click to expand...



What did I lie about ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

t_polkow said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet that idiot lives in a trailer house somewhere in the south and didn't get beyond basic elementary  school science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful you're about to be made to look foolish again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Ice Age in the Bible
> Bad Science, Creationism, Kooks, Liars for Jesus by PZ Myers
> Every time I despair at the dreadful nonsense from the Discovery Institute, I can reliably turn to Answers in Genesis and despair harder. They've just announced that after two centuries of research, they've finally determined the dates of the Ice Age. They've even announced that theyre going to have a chat on their facebook page at 2pm ET today if you really want to learn more. They have figured out the dates of the Ice Age (singular) from reading their Bibles closely.
> You might quibble and say that the Bible doesn't say anything about glaciers or ice sheets or changes in climate, so how could they possibly determine anything about Ice Age(s) from that book? Easy. They make shit up.
> First step: build everything around a chronology derived from the catalog of patriarchs in Genesis.
> The Bible gives us an inerrant chronology for marking historical events. It tells exactly how many human generations passed from the Flood to Abrahams birth: eight.1 Gods judgment occurred at Babel sometime during the days of Peleg, who was the fourth generation after the Flood.
> Second: reject all of the science that says the Ice Ages occurred between roughly 3 million and 10 thousand years ago.
> Though this range is clearly not accurate because it lies outside the Bibles total timeline of 6,000 years, several lines of evidence support the choice of the Pleistocene layers for the Ice Age.
> Pay attention to that last line. Theyre accepting that the Ice Ages and the Pleistocene occurred concurrently. But the third step is a devious one: reject the dates set by the radiometric and other data, and simply compress and shift the entirety of the Pleistocene into a Biblical window: it started in 2250BCE, and instead of lasting 2½ million years, it was only 250 years long. Theyre only off by four orders of magnitude.
> Wait. That puts the Pleistocene smack in the middle of the Bronze Age. How can they do that? Fourth: by ignoring the actual dates and making sweeping, simplified claims about human technology.
> Knowing these things, how can we use the human history described in the Bible to shed light on the Ice Ages beginning? Well, for one thing, no human tools or fossils appear anywhere on the earth until found in deposits from the beginning of the Ice Age.8 (God appears to have wiped away all remains of pre-Flood man; see Genesis 6:7.) Since their earliest remains suddenly appear throughout the Old World (Asia, Africa, and Europe), it appears that these are the people who scattered from Babel.
> Its not true: the earliest stone tools are found in the late Pliocene. But setting that aside, its a cunning game theyre playing. They can say that they accept the science, that modern humans appeared in the Pleistocene and that they built stone tools, and make the case that they accept the evidence real scientists have uncovered. Its just that they've redefined the Pleistocene to be a brief sliver of time in a window that occurred only about 4,000 years ago.
> Its a bit like saying I believe the historians when they say Charlemagne existed, and I think the primary documents and accounts they have are just nifty, but they read the dates wrong, because I had a burger with him at White Castle last week. Only worse.
> Fifth: that old reliable standby, the argument from incredulity. They point to stone tools, and say its absurd that human beings would use such crude and ugly things for millions of years. Were smarter than that! Doesn't it make much more sense that the Stone Age only lasted for a few decades?
> 
> 
> These bozos are anti-science, anti-history, and anti-knowledge, all because they've decided that their holy book is the only arbiter of truth. But they are serenely confident in their ignorance
> 
> The Ice Age in the Bible » Pharyngula
Click to expand...

 Roughly between 10,000 and 3,000,000 years boy that us narrowing it down lol. That is code for we don't have a clue when it happened.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I have produced evidence and I will produce more. You still have not named the theory you believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I read fifty of your over five hundred posts and you never presented any evidence of anything.
> 
> Would you mind pointing out a few of them?
> 
> 
> UPDATE: I found one, "land bridges".  That is one in 51 counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How bout Amino acids bonding in just the right sequence and they are left handed amino acids no right handed amino acids. How bout molecular machines that take care of Dna transcription.
> 
> How bout the take that evolutionists believe mutations are the mechanism that drives evolution but beneficial mutations are so rare and yet we have over 6,000 genetic disorders and counting. We also have a mechanism repairing most mutations. seems far fetched to believe these are just random processes. Looks like design to me.
> 
> 
> Do I need to continue ? or maybe you should move back a little earlier in the thread I have been here since the start of the thread. I can't give you a complete summary of the thread because it has hit all over like most evolution vs creation threads.
Click to expand...

what part of never presented anything do you not understand.?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are to stupid to take serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the tactic of liars, cheaters and charlatans who have been exposed as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What did I lie about ?
Click to expand...


Such is the pathology shared by Christian creationists.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here twit I will give you something to chew on. I know your sides explanation for this but it just does not add up.
> 
> Malachite man or in other words Moab man. 10 modern day humans fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs what ?!
> 
> All those reckless comments by the evolutionists why are humans fossils not found with dinosaur fossils uh oh.
> 
> I can't wait for your next copy and paste. If you believe in naturalism you have to believe in one of those theories
> 
> 
> 
> more creationist bullshit based on the false premise of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time.
> 
> In the late 1980's some of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of 210 +/- 70 years (Berger and Protsch, 1989). Shortly thereafter Arthur Strahler (1989) published his book Science and Earth History, a chapter of which recounted the Moab Man saga. Later carbon dating tests on more recent excavations from the mine in the early 1990's yielded dates of 1450 +/- 90, with a calibrated one-sigma date range of AD 540 to AD 670, suggesting that the mine had been used by native Americans for at least several hundred years. (Coulam and Schroedl, 1995). However, the dates are consistent with intrusive burials, and contradict claims that the bones were part of the Mesozoic, Dakota Sandstone host rock, dated at approximately 100 million years by mainstream geology. Further corroboration of Marwitt's analysis is found in a draft of a book by researchers Eckert and Eckert (1979), who were dismayed by the failure of Burdick and other creationists to depict the Moab Man evidence fairly and accurately. For several years afterward the case seemed to be largely abandoned by most creationists.
> 
> 
> Conclusions:
> 
> The Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone, and are not integral parts of the host formation. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. There is no foundation for the claims of a few creationists that the bones contradict mainstream geology or support dinosaur/human cohabitation.
> Moab Man and Malachite Man
> 
> thanks for the after lunch story time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was waiting for your copy and paste on this issue. Let's see if you can be rational. What would a mother and her infant be doing that deep in a mine lol ?
> 
> I would not call anything bullshit you have demonstrated you lack the grey matter to speak for yourself.
Click to expand...

another fine example of ywc lack of basic history .
listen up slapdick did you not understand the term native Americans it was common practice for the group or tribe to take their kids with them everywhere.
 to keep them safe.
you've watched too many john Wayne movies..
so like every thing you post it's bullshit.
I speak for myself rather succinctly and well.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> FUNNY coming from the man who doesn't even know what he does not know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old are you really ?
Click to expand...

another ask and answered question.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Oh and one more thing Hollie, this is not ,I repeat, not fabricated evidence. These were modern day humans found in the same strata as dinosaurs.


that a half truth and it even worse the your usual lies 
guess the term intrusive burial and mine  are not important.
talk about cherry picking.
ok slap dick explain why the human remains were not fossilized if they were buried with dinosaurs? btw no fossils of any kind were found at that site.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we need to stoop to your level and bring out the many hoaxes from the scientific community. Thank God there are some still in the science community that has integrity and exposes the frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you would perform your usual tactic of avoidance and make every effort to avoid addressing the really sleazy tactics employed by the creationist cabal.
> 
> They&#8217;re all dishonest to the core and your promotion of such dishonesty is similarly sleazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the dishonest would assume these people were accidentally entombed that deep in a mine lol.
Click to expand...

so mining accidents never happen? 
anThe Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone, and are not integral parts of the host formation. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. There is no foundation for the claims of a few creationists that the bones contradict mainstream geology or support dinosaur/human cohabitation. 
Moab Man and Malachite Man
any rational person would have come to the conclusion that mines 1000 or 500 years would have more cave in then modern ones for obvious reasons..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more creationist bullshit based on the false premise of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time.
> 
> In the late 1980's some of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of 210 +/- 70 years (Berger and Protsch, 1989). Shortly thereafter Arthur Strahler (1989) published his book Science and Earth History, a chapter of which recounted the Moab Man saga. Later carbon dating tests on more recent excavations from the mine in the early 1990's yielded dates of 1450 +/- 90, with a calibrated one-sigma date range of AD 540 to AD 670, suggesting that the mine had been used by native Americans for at least several hundred years. (Coulam and Schroedl, 1995). However, the dates are consistent with intrusive burials, and contradict claims that the bones were part of the Mesozoic, Dakota Sandstone host rock, dated at approximately 100 million years by mainstream geology. Further corroboration of Marwitt's analysis is found in a draft of a book by researchers Eckert and Eckert (1979), who were dismayed by the failure of Burdick and other creationists to depict the Moab Man evidence fairly and accurately. For several years afterward the case seemed to be largely abandoned by most creationists.
> 
> 
> Conclusions:
> 
> The Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone, and are not integral parts of the host formation. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. There is no foundation for the claims of a few creationists that the bones contradict mainstream geology or support dinosaur/human cohabitation.
> Moab Man and Malachite Man
> 
> thanks for the after lunch story time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was waiting for your copy and paste on this issue. Let's see if you can be rational. What would a mother and her infant be doing that deep in a mine lol ?
> 
> I would not call anything bullshit you have demonstrated you lack the grey matter to speak for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another fine example of ywc lack of basic history .
> listen up slapdick did you not understand the term native Americans it was common practice for the group or tribe to take their kids with them everywhere.
> to keep them safe.
> you've watched too many john Wayne movies..
> so like every thing you post it's bullshit.
> I speak for myself rather succinctly and well.
Click to expand...


Ok what you're talking about is the two bodies found in 1971 they are automatically suggesting the finds in 1971 were related to the 1990 finds. What your side is not sharing with you are the differences.

You're speaking to a Native American dipshit and you don't have a clue concerning their practices. Anything to embellish the bulkshit.

Really ? Indians that mine lol.

Now let's look at the truth.

Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)








Talkorigins.jpg


Response Article
This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims. 
Index




Claim CC111: 
Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument. 
Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man. 


CreationWiki response: 

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue) 


Talk origins 1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998] 


Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two sites are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated. 

Talk Origins2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.

The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep. 

Talk Origins* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).

This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion. 

The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized. 

The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock. 

* The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]

Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago. 

Talk Origins 3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.

Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified. 

http://creationwiki.org/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone_(Talk.Origins)

Emphasis mine,Do evolutionist have something to hide ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and one more thing Hollie, this is not ,I repeat, not fabricated evidence. These were modern day humans found in the same strata as dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> that a half truth and it even worse the your usual lies
> guess the term intrusive burial and mine  are not important.
> talk about cherry picking.
> ok slap dick explain why the human remains were not fossilized if they were buried with dinosaurs? btw no fossils of any kind were found at that site.
Click to expand...


Because the 1971 skeletons were probably from a burial. The ones in 1990 were fossilized.

They were found in the same sandstone as dinosaurs  got it ? that sandstone is strata now do you understand ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I read fifty of your over five hundred posts and you never presented any evidence of anything.
> 
> Would you mind pointing out a few of them?
> 
> 
> UPDATE: I found one, "land bridges".  That is one in 51 counted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How bout Amino acids bonding in just the right sequence and they are left handed amino acids no right handed amino acids. How bout molecular machines that take care of Dna transcription.
> 
> How bout the take that evolutionists believe mutations are the mechanism that drives evolution but beneficial mutations are so rare and yet we have over 6,000 genetic disorders and counting. We also have a mechanism repairing most mutations. seems far fetched to believe these are just random processes. Looks like design to me.
> 
> 
> Do I need to continue ? or maybe you should move back a little earlier in the thread I have been here since the start of the thread. I can't give you a complete summary of the thread because it has hit all over like most evolution vs creation threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what part of never presented anything do you not understand.?
Click to expand...


I can't help it you have a problem detecting design in nature.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more creationist bullshit based on the false premise of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time.
> 
> In the late 1980's some of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of 210 +/- 70 years (Berger and Protsch, 1989). Shortly thereafter Arthur Strahler (1989) published his book Science and Earth History, a chapter of which recounted the Moab Man saga. Later carbon dating tests on more recent excavations from the mine in the early 1990's yielded dates of 1450 +/- 90, with a calibrated one-sigma date range of AD 540 to AD 670, suggesting that the mine had been used by native Americans for at least several hundred years. (Coulam and Schroedl, 1995). However, the dates are consistent with intrusive burials, and contradict claims that the bones were part of the Mesozoic, Dakota Sandstone host rock, dated at approximately 100 million years by mainstream geology. Further corroboration of Marwitt's analysis is found in a draft of a book by researchers Eckert and Eckert (1979), who were dismayed by the failure of Burdick and other creationists to depict the Moab Man evidence fairly and accurately. For several years afterward the case seemed to be largely abandoned by most creationists.
> 
> 
> Conclusions:
> 
> The Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone, and are not integral parts of the host formation. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. There is no foundation for the claims of a few creationists that the bones contradict mainstream geology or support dinosaur/human cohabitation.
> Moab Man and Malachite Man
> 
> thanks for the after lunch story time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was waiting for your copy and paste on this issue. Let's see if you can be rational. What would a mother and her infant be doing that deep in a mine lol ?
> 
> I would not call anything bullshit you have demonstrated you lack the grey matter to speak for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another fine example of ywc lack of basic history .
> listen up slapdick did you not understand the term native Americans it was common practice for the group or tribe to take their kids with them everywhere.
> to keep them safe.
> you've watched too many john Wayne movies..
> so like every thing you post it's bullshit.
> I speak for myself rather succinctly and well.
Click to expand...


Pretty typical (clueless) response from ywc.  Creationist whackjobs fabricate / invent data or don't understand the data in front of them but use their sheer ignorance as a means to attack science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was waiting for your copy and paste on this issue. Let's see if you can be rational. What would a mother and her infant be doing that deep in a mine lol ?
> 
> I would not call anything bullshit you have demonstrated you lack the grey matter to speak for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> another fine example of ywc lack of basic history .
> listen up slapdick did you not understand the term native Americans it was common practice for the group or tribe to take their kids with them everywhere.
> to keep them safe.
> you've watched too many john Wayne movies..
> so like every thing you post it's bullshit.
> I speak for myself rather succinctly and well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok what you're talking about is the two bodies found in 1971 they are automatically suggesting the finds in 1971 were related to the 1990 finds. What your side is not sharing with you are the differences.
> 
> You're speaking to a Native American dipshit and you don't have a clue concerning their practices. Anything to embellish the bulkshit.
> 
> Really ? Indians that mine lol.
> 
> Now let's look at the truth.
> 
> Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talkorigins.jpg
> 
> 
> Response Article
> This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
> Index
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claim CC111:
> Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
> Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man.
> 
> 
> CreationWiki response:
> 
> (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
> 
> 
> Talk origins 1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998]
> 
> 
> Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two sites are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated.
> 
> Talk Origins2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.
> 
> The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep.
> 
> Talk Origins* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).
> 
> This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion.
> 
> The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized.
> 
> The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock.
> 
> * The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]
> 
> Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.
> 
> Talk Origins 3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.
> 
> Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified.
> 
> http://creationwiki.org/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone_(Talk.Origins)
> 
> Emphasis mine,Do evolutionist have something to hide ?
Click to expand...


Do fundie creationists get anything right?

I always get a chuckle when you copy and paste from "creationwiki". It's like you scream out your ignorance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another fine example of ywc lack of basic history .
> listen up slapdick did you not understand the term native Americans it was common practice for the group or tribe to take their kids with them everywhere.
> to keep them safe.
> you've watched too many john Wayne movies..
> so like every thing you post it's bullshit.
> I speak for myself rather succinctly and well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok what you're talking about is the two bodies found in 1971 they are automatically suggesting the finds in 1971 were related to the 1990 finds. What your side is not sharing with you are the differences.
> 
> You're speaking to a Native American dipshit and you don't have a clue concerning their practices. Anything to embellish the bulkshit.
> 
> Really ? Indians that mine lol.
> 
> Now let's look at the truth.
> 
> Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)T
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talkorigins.jpg
> 
> 
> Response Article
> This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
> Index
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claim CC111:
> Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
> Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man.
> 
> 
> CreationWiki response:
> 
> (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
> 
> 
> Talk origins 1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998]
> 
> 
> Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two sites are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated.
> 
> Talk Origins2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.
> 
> The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep.
> 
> Talk Origins* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).
> 
> This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion.
> 
> The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized.
> 
> The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock.
> 
> * The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]
> 
> Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.
> 
> Talk Origins 3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.
> 
> Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified.
> 
> http://creationwiki.org/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone_(Talk.Origins)
> 
> Emphasis mine,Do evolutionist have something to hide ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do fundie creationists get anything right?
> 
> I always get a chuckle when you copy and paste from "creationwiki". It's like you scream out your ignorance.
Click to expand...

 That was a debate between creationwiki and your favorite site talk origins. The point is your side were ignorant on the facts.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> That was a debate between creationwiki and your favorite site talk origins. The point is your side were ignorant on the facts.



it wasn't actually a debate as creationist wiki is as notoriously pointkess as Harun Yahya


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here twit I will give you something to chew on. I know your sides explanation for this but it just does not add up.
> 
> Malachite man or in other words Moab man. 10 modern day humans fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs what ?!
> 
> All those reckless comments by the evolutionists why are humans fossils not found with dinosaur fossils uh oh.
> 
> I can't wait for your next copy and paste. If you believe in naturalism you have to believe in one of those theories
> 
> 
> 
> more creationist bullshit based on the false premise of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time.
> 
> In the late 1980's some of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of 210 +/- 70 years (Berger and Protsch, 1989). Shortly thereafter Arthur Strahler (1989) published his book Science and Earth History, a chapter of which recounted the Moab Man saga. Later carbon dating tests on more recent excavations from the mine in the early 1990's yielded dates of 1450 +/- 90, with a calibrated one-sigma date range of AD 540 to AD 670, suggesting that the mine had been used by native Americans for at least several hundred years. (Coulam and Schroedl, 1995). However, the dates are consistent with intrusive burials, and contradict claims that the bones were part of the Mesozoic, Dakota Sandstone host rock, dated at approximately 100 million years by mainstream geology. Further corroboration of Marwitt's analysis is found in a draft of a book by researchers Eckert and Eckert (1979), who were dismayed by the failure of Burdick and other creationists to depict the Moab Man evidence fairly and accurately. For several years afterward the case seemed to be largely abandoned by most creationists.
> 
> 
> Conclusions:
> 
> The Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone, and are not integral parts of the host formation. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. There is no foundation for the claims of a few creationists that the bones contradict mainstream geology or support dinosaur/human cohabitation.
> Moab Man and Malachite Man
> 
> thanks for the after lunch story time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that daws already exposed the fraud by ywc but this latest fraud is really symptomatic of the lies, deceit and utter nonsense coming from the creationist hoaxsters.
> 
> The phrasing and syntax used by ywc was instantly recognizable and easy to find. YWC found the silly _Malachite man_ here:
> 
> "Human Fossils In Same Rock Strata As Dinosaur Fossils!"
> 
> The site is a front for Christian creationist charlatans. If you scroll down the page, youll see that the discovery was made by Dr. Don Patton.
> 
> So who is Dr. Don Patton? Hes a young earth creationist charlatan. And hes not even a Dr.
> 
> Suspicious Creationist Credentials
> 
> 
> As with every phony link, attempted scam, lie and falsehood spewed by YWC, this is just another attempt to pass off phony creationists and their phony credentials.
> 
> 
> Heres a link to the phony Paluxy "man-tracks" perpetrated by the creationist fraud Carl Baugh.
> 
> A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Claimed Credentials
> 
> 
> As it turns out, Carl Baugh had some help perpetrating his fraud with some help from another creationist fraudster:  Don Patton
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #476: Carl Baugh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carl Edward Baugh is a young earth creationist who is most infamous for claiming to have discovered human alongside dinosaur footprints near the Paluxy River in Texas. Yes, Baugh is the big promoter of the infamous (fake) Paluxy footprints, and he still believes theyre genuine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Further along in the link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don Patton, a close associate of Baughs who also leads the Metroplex Institute of Origins Science (MIOS) near Dallas, deserves a brief mention as well as one of the most staggering quote-miners the world has yet seen, including an ellipsis (...) that spans 4 whole chapters of Origin of Species (no direct link to it, but you can access it from here)), and as an ardently delusional PRATT-regurgitator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure we're all feeling a bit queasy at the lies, falsehoods and staggering dishonesty perpetrated by creationist charlatans so let's bring it on home with another review of the fraud that is "Dr." Donald Patton
> 
> The North Texas Skeptic
Click to expand...


I never did see where creationist wiki addressed the false / manufactured credentials of the fundie whackjobs who lie about their silly inventions of  falsified data made by creationist hacks and charlatans.


----------



## t_polkow

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another fine example of ywc lack of basic history .
> listen up slapdick did you not understand the term native Americans it was common practice for the group or tribe to take their kids with them everywhere.
> to keep them safe.
> you've watched too many john Wayne movies..
> so like every thing you post it's bullshit.
> I speak for myself rather succinctly and well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok what you're talking about is the two bodies found in 1971 they are automatically suggesting the finds in 1971 were related to the 1990 finds. What your side is not sharing with you are the differences.
> 
> You're speaking to a Native American dipshit and you don't have a clue concerning their practices. Anything to embellish the bulkshit.
> 
> Really ? Indians that mine lol.
> 
> Now let's look at the truth.
> 
> Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talkorigins.jpg
> 
> 
> Response Article
> This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
> Index
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claim CC111:
> Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
> Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man.
> 
> 
> CreationWiki response:
> 
> (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
> 
> 
> Talk origins 1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998]
> 
> 
> Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two sites are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated.
> 
> Talk Origins2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.
> 
> The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep.
> 
> Talk Origins* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).
> 
> This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion.
> 
> The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized.
> 
> The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock.
> 
> * The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]
> 
> Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.
> 
> Talk Origins 3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.
> 
> Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified.
> 
> http://creationwiki.org/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone_(Talk.Origins)
> 
> Emphasis mine,Do evolutionist have something to hide ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do fundie creationists get anything right?
> 
> I always get a chuckle when you copy and paste from "creationwiki". It's like you scream out your ignorance.
Click to expand...


I think this guy is a parody poster, why else would someone post links from discredited bible thumping science illiterate morons with mail order doctorates.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another fine example of ywc lack of basic history .
> listen up slapdick did you not understand the term native Americans it was common practice for the group or tribe to take their kids with them everywhere.
> to keep them safe.
> you've watched too many john Wayne movies..
> so like every thing you post it's bullshit.
> I speak for myself rather succinctly and well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok what you're talking about is the two bodies found in 1971 they are automatically suggesting the finds in 1971 were related to the 1990 finds. What your side is not sharing with you are the differences.
> 
> You're speaking to a Native American dipshit and you don't have a clue concerning their practices. Anything to embellish the bulkshit.
> 
> Really ? Indians that mine lol.
> 
> Now let's look at the truth.
> 
> Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talkorigins.jpg
> 
> 
> Response Article
> This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
> Index
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claim CC111:
> Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
> Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man.
> 
> 
> CreationWiki response:
> 
> (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
> 
> 
> Talk origins 1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998]
> 
> 
> Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two sites are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated.
> 
> Talk Origins2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.
> 
> The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep.
> 
> Talk Origins* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).
> 
> This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion.
> 
> The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized.
> 
> The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock.
> 
> * The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]
> 
> Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.
> 
> Talk Origins 3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.
> 
> Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified.
> 
> http://creationwiki.org/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone_(Talk.Origins)
> 
> Emphasis mine,Do evolutionist have something to hide ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do fundie creationists get anything right?
> 
> I always get a chuckle when you copy and paste from "creationwiki". It's like you scream out your ignorance.
Click to expand...


If what you say is true why would Talk Origins waste their time with them ? The truth is Talk Origins know that the finds in 1990 were over  100 ft away from the first find. The find in 1990 they were 58 ft deep where in 1971 the two skeletons were only 15 ft deep.

The find in 1990 were covered by solid sandstone where the 1971 find they were covered by only blowsand. I thought it took large spans of time to produce strata but these people in the first find had a lot of earth moved over on them you really don't think they were buried 15 ft deep do you ?

I ask you again in the find in 1990 why would a mother and her infant be that deep in a mine ? the problem is the guy that was running the big cat and discovered them said the fossils were not found in the mine shaft nor did they appear to be in soft material but solid rock material.

Your side believes it takes large spans of time for an organism to become fossilized that has been thoroughly refuted with evidence. This evidence destroys many theories that is why your side is taking this evidence seriously.

I am a creationist and I do not subscribe to every explanation given by creationist I do however agree with them on this. I have seen the pictures and they are worth a thousand words.


----------



## Youwerecreated

t_polkow said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok what you're talking about is the two bodies found in 1971 they are automatically suggesting the finds in 1971 were related to the 1990 finds. What your side is not sharing with you are the differences.
> 
> You're speaking to a Native American dipshit and you don't have a clue concerning their practices. Anything to embellish the bulkshit.
> 
> Really ? Indians that mine lol.
> 
> Now let's look at the truth.
> 
> Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talkorigins.jpg
> 
> 
> Response Article
> This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
> Index
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claim CC111:
> Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
> Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man.
> 
> 
> CreationWiki response:
> 
> (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
> 
> 
> Talk origins 1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998]
> 
> 
> Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two sites are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated.
> 
> Talk Origins2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.
> 
> The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep.
> 
> Talk Origins* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).
> 
> This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion.
> 
> The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized.
> 
> The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock.
> 
> * The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]
> 
> Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.
> 
> Talk Origins 3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.
> 
> Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified.
> 
> http://creationwiki.org/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone_(Talk.Origins)
> 
> Emphasis mine,Do evolutionist have something to hide ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do fundie creationists get anything right?
> 
> I always get a chuckle when you copy and paste from "creationwiki". It's like you scream out your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think this guy is a parody poster, why else would someone post links from discredited bible thumping science illiterate morons with mail order doctorates.
Click to expand...


Wow, all of you sound the same who do you get your marching orders and talking points from ?

Did daws create another account.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:
			
		

> Wow, all of you sound the same who do you get your marching orders and talking points from ?
> 
> Did daws create another account.



The primary issue that creationist cannot address is their lack of credibility. 

The various creationist scams of "intelligent design", "young earth creationism" and designer gawds is laughable. The proponents are routinely exposed as charlatans and frauds. The entire creationist scam is based upon a committment to religious dogma.



> "...the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture." Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33



You, dead Henry and your cabal of haters, cheats, charlatans and snake oil salesmen who front for your Christian ministries should stick with fleecing the gullible.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, all of you sound the same who do you get your marching orders and talking points from ?
> 
> Did daws create another account.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The primary issue that creationist cannot address is their lack of credibility.
> 
> The various creationist scams of "intelligent design", "young earth creationism" and designer gawds is laughable. The proponents are routinely exposed as charlatans and frauds. The entire creationist scam is based upon a committment to religious dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture." Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You, dead Henry and your cabal of haters, cheats, charlatans and snake oil salesmen who front for your Christian ministries should stick with fleecing the gullible.
Click to expand...


Is this what you do for the atheistic evolutionists ?

I think you're just an angry fundie.

SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE THE BIBLE

Enlarged October 7, 2009 (first published August 8, 2009) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

High Schools, colleges, and universities typically teach only one theory of origins, that being evolution, and the students are not presented with a creationist viewpoint. In fact, they are often given the idea that no true scientist today is a creationist. When the National Academy of Sciences in America published an educational tool in 1998 entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, they posed this question, Dont many scientists reject evolution? The answer was, No; the scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. 

Richard Dawkins, a brash atheist and anti-creationist, says in his recent book The Greatest Show in Earth, 

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. ... Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.

According to Dawkins, if you reject evolution, you are unintelligent and your sanity should be questioned, and he proclaims that no reputable scientist disputes it. 

In fact, modern science was invented by men who believed in divine creation. In his book Refuting Evolution, JONATHAN SARFATI, who has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand, says:

It is fallacious to claim, as many evolutionists do, that believing in miracles means that laboratory science would be impossible. In fact, most branches of modern science were founded by believers in the Bibles account of creation. 

Consider some samples:

Physics -- Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Joule
Chemistry - Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology - Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology - Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
Astronomy - Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics - Pascal, Leibniz, Euler 

In 1979, Science Digest reported that scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities, and stated that, Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science (Larry Hatfield, Educators Against Darwin, Science Digest Special, Winter 1979, pp. 94-96).

Dr. Sarfati continues:

Even today, many scientists reject evolution. The Creation Ministries International staff scientists have published many scientific papers in their own fields. DR. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, a nuclear physicist working with Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has had over 20 articles published in physics journals, while DR. JOHN BAUMGARDNERS catastrophic plate tectonics theory was reported in Nature magazine. DR. EDWARD BOUDREAUX of the University of New Orleans has published 26 articles and four books in physical chemistry. DR. MACIEJ GIERTYCH, head of the Department of Genetics at the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, has published 90 papers in scientific journals. DR. RAYMOND JONES was described as one of Australias top scientists for his discoveries about the legume Leucaena and bacterial symbiosis with grazing animals, worth millions of dollars per year to Australia. DR. BRIAN STONE has won a record number of awards for excellence in engineering teaching at Australian universities (Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 2007, pp. 26-28). 

I guess Dawkins forgot about those scientists.

The man behind the Apollo moon mission, rocket scientist WERNHER VON BRAUN, believed that God created the world.

DUANE GISH has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and worked for many years in pharmaceutical research at Cornell University, the University of California, and the Upjohn Company. As a biochemist, he has synthesized peptides, compounds intermediate between amino acids and proteins. He has been co-author of a number of outstanding publications in peptide chemistry. Gish lists the following scientists who reject evolution and believe in creationism. Lets see if any of them might be considered reputable. 

While it is true that creationists among scientists definitely constitute a minority, there are many creation scientists, and their number is growing. Among these may be numbered such well-established scientists as the late DR. W. R. THOMPSON, world-famous biologist and former Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control of Canada; DR. MELVIN A. COOK, winner of the 1968 E. G. Murphee Award in Industrial and Engineering Chemistry from the American Chemical Society and also winner of the Nobel Nitro Award, now president of the Ireco Chemical Company, Salt Lake City; DR. HENRY M. MORRIS, for thirteen years Professor of Hydraulic Engineering and Head of the Civil Engineering Department of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University, one of the largest in the U.S. DR. WALTER LAMMERTS, geneticist and famous plant breeder, the late DR. FRANK MARSH, Professor of Biology at Andrews University until his retirement; the late DR. J.J. DUYVENE DE WIT, Professor of Zoology at the University of the Orange Free State, South Africa, at the time of his death; DR. THOMAS G. BARNES, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso; DR. DMITRI KOUZNETSOV, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., winner of the Komosmol Lenin Prize in 1983 as one of the two most promising young scientists in the Soviet Union, and winner of the Council of Ministries Prize of the USSR in 1986 for his research in biochemistry (Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No, 1995, pp. 13, 14). 

A.E. WILDER-SMITH (1915-1995), who defended creationism against evolution in his many books, had three Ph.D.s, one in physical organic chemistry from Reading University, England, one in pharmacology from the University of Geneva, and one in pharmacological sciences from ETH, a senior university in Zurich, Switzerland. A Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry and a NATO three-star general, Dr. Wilder-Smith was an expert on chemotherapy, pharmacology, organic chemistry, and biochemistry.

RAYMOND DAMADIAN, M.D., biophysicist, is the recipient of the Lemelson-MIT Achievement Award as the man who invented the MRI scanner. In 1988, he was awarded the National Medal of Technology, Americas highest award for applied science, and a year later, he was inducted into the Inventors Hall of Fame, an honor he shares with Thomas Edison, Samuel Morse, and the Wright Brothers. The first MRI scanner that Dr. Damadian and his colleagues built in 1977 resides at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Damadian is a Bible-believing Christian and attends a Baptist church in Long Island, New York. Dr. Damadian has stated that the highest purpose a man can find for his life is to serve the will of God.  

RICHARD LUMSDEN (1938-97), Ph.D., converted from Darwinian atheist to Bible-believing Christian at the apex of his professional career when, challenged by one of his students, he decided to check out the evidence for himself. A professor of parisitology and cell biology, he was dean of the graduate school at Tulane University. He trained 30 Ph.D.s., published hundreds of scholarly papers, and was the winner of the highest award for parasitology. 

LEE SPETNER, author of Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, has a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. He was a researcher with John Hopkins University from 1951-1970. 

JAMES ALLAN has a Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh and was a senior lecturer in genetics at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa. He is an international consultant in dairy cattle breeding. The testimony of his Christian faith was published in the book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation.

JERRY BERGMAN, co-author of the book Persuaded by the Evidence, has five masters degrees and two Ph.D.s, one in human biology and another in measurement and evaluation. He had a 4.0 grade point average for both Ph.D.s and close to a 4.0 for all five of his masters degrees. 

The CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY membership consists of more than 600 men and women who hold advanced degrees and are committed to biblical creationism. 

The KOREA ASSOCIATION OF CREATION RESEARCH membership includes 450 scientists, 150 of them with Ph.D.s in the sciences. The President of KACR, Young-Gil Kim, Ph.D. in Materials Science, is with the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology and is the inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

FRANK MARSH has a Ph.D. in biology and is emeritus Professor of Biology at Andrews University. He is the author of Variation and Fixity in Nature: The Meaning of Diversity and Discontinuity in the World of Living Things, and Their Bearing on Creation and Evolution. 

JOSEPH MASTROPAOLO, who has a Ph.D. in kinesiology from the University of Iowa, has taught biomechanics and physiology at the University of Chicago and California State University. He holds the patent for crew conditioning for extended manned space missions. He is adjunct faculty at the Institute for Creation Research.

The speaking staff of ANSWERS IN GENESIS includes 10 men and women who have earned doctorates. DAVID DEWITT has a Ph.D. in neuroscience. DONALD DEYOUNG has a Ph.D. in physics. JASON LISLE has a Ph.D. in astrophysics. DAVID MENTON has a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University. Tommy Mitchell has an M.D. from Vanderbilt University. TERRY MORTENSON has a Ph.D. in the history of geology. GARY PARKER has a doctorate in education in biology/geology. GEORGIA PURDOM has a Ph.D. in molecular genetics. ANDREW SNELLING has a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney. 

Of course, even if NO scientist disputed evolution, as Richard Dawkins contents, this does not mean it is correct. The Bible says, let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3:4), and Jesus said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes (Matthew 11:25).

Scientists Who Believe the Bible

There are plenty of us out there and our numbers are growing.


----------



## Hollie

Here's a list of creationist who have contributed to science:


----------



## Hollie

Did anyone see Ann Gauger (another creationist hack) on ywc's roll call of charlatans, fakes, religious zealots and scammers?


The Disco Tutes fake laboratory

The Disco 'Tute's fake laboratory - The Panda's Thumb

By Richard B. Hoppe on December 18,2012 12:08 PM | 120 Comments

This deserves its own post. Yesterday I pointed to a post at Larry Morans Sandwalk about a Discovery Institute video showing Ann Gauger, a researcher at the Disco Tutes BioLogic Institute, in which she mangles phylogenetics and population genetics. Commenters on Youtube and both Sandwalk and here have identified the laboratory in which Gauger was supposedly speaking. It is a stock photograph from a commercial photo site. Its a green screen job, which is a peculiarly appropriate method by which to present the DIs pseudoscience. Fake lab, fake science.

Can we say pathetic?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Here's a list of creationist who have contributed to science:



Have a problem reading do you or are you ignorant of some of the famous scientists that were creationist.

Dr Felix Konotey Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle cell anemia.

Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging 

Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics 

Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education 

There are many more that have contributed in fields of science. Newton was one of the best.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Did anyone see Ann Gauger (another creationist hack) on ywc's roll call of charlatans, fakes, religious zealots and scammers?
> 
> 
> The Disco Tutes fake laboratory
> 
> The Disco 'Tute's fake laboratory - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> By Richard B. Hoppe on December 18,2012 12:08 PM | 120 Comments
> 
> This deserves its own post. Yesterday I pointed to a post at Larry Morans Sandwalk about a Discovery Institute video showing Ann Gauger, a researcher at the Disco Tutes BioLogic Institute, in which she mangles phylogenetics and population genetics. Commenters on Youtube and both Sandwalk and here have identified the laboratory in which Gauger was supposedly speaking. It is a stock photograph from a commercial photo site. Its a green screen job, which is a peculiarly appropriate method by which to present the DIs pseudoscience. Fake lab, fake science.
> 
> Can we say pathetic?



There are frauds on both sides what is your point ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone see Ann Gauger (another creationist hack) on ywc's roll call of charlatans, fakes, religious zealots and scammers?
> 
> 
> The Disco Tutes fake laboratory
> 
> The Disco 'Tute's fake laboratory - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> By Richard B. Hoppe on December 18,2012 12:08 PM | 120 Comments
> 
> This deserves its own post. Yesterday I pointed to a post at Larry Morans Sandwalk about a Discovery Institute video showing Ann Gauger, a researcher at the Disco Tutes BioLogic Institute, in which she mangles phylogenetics and population genetics. Commenters on Youtube and both Sandwalk and here have identified the laboratory in which Gauger was supposedly speaking. It is a stock photograph from a commercial photo site. Its a green screen job, which is a peculiarly appropriate method by which to present the DIs pseudoscience. Fake lab, fake science.
> 
> Can we say pathetic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are frauds on both sides what is your point ?
Click to expand...

The point escapes you because.... you're pointless.

The science community will relentlessly pursue the facts via peer review.

The christian creationist charlatans relentlessly press dogma, In spite of the religious claims being thoroughly discredited as lies.

How sad that you further and promote the lies and falsehoods of creationist frauds.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone see Ann Gauger (another creationist hack) on ywc's roll call of charlatans, fakes, religious zealots and scammers?
> 
> 
> The Disco Tutes fake laboratory
> 
> The Disco 'Tute's fake laboratory - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> By Richard B. Hoppe on December 18,2012 12:08 PM | 120 Comments
> 
> This deserves its own post. Yesterday I pointed to a post at Larry Morans Sandwalk about a Discovery Institute video showing Ann Gauger, a researcher at the Disco Tutes BioLogic Institute, in which she mangles phylogenetics and population genetics. Commenters on Youtube and both Sandwalk and here have identified the laboratory in which Gauger was supposedly speaking. It is a stock photograph from a commercial photo site. Its a green screen job, which is a peculiarly appropriate method by which to present the DIs pseudoscience. Fake lab, fake science.
> 
> Can we say pathetic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are frauds on both sides what is your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point escapes you because.... you're pointless.
> 
> The science community will relentlessly pursue the facts via peer review.
> 
> The christian creationist charlatans relentlessly press dogma, In spite of the religious claims being thoroughly discredited as lies.
> 
> How sad that you further and promote the lies and falsehoods of creationist frauds.
Click to expand...


You're hopeless.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are frauds on both sides what is your point ?
> 
> 
> 
> The point escapes you because.... you're pointless.
> 
> The science community will relentlessly pursue the facts via peer review.
> 
> The christian creationist charlatans relentlessly press dogma, In spite of the religious claims being thoroughly discredited as lies.
> 
> How sad that you further and promote the lies and falsehoods of creationist frauds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're hopeless.
Click to expand...

As usual, your comments are pointless. 

I knew that the concept of peer review would leave you befuddled. It is an important concept. That's why scientists will publish their work in peer reviewed journals where others can perform similar experiments and establish the veracity of results.

Such a process does not exist in the creation fraud syndicates because all conclusions are required to support the fundies preconceived dogma.

I'll bet they didn't teach peer review at the Harun Yahya madrassah, right?


----------



## UltimateReality

Youwerecreated said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep! still drooling and yammering nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet that idiot lives in a trailer house somewhere in the south and didn't get beyond basic elementary  school science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Careful you're about to be made to look foolish again.
Click to expand...


No need to respond to his projection of his own meaningless existence.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that daws already exposed the fraud by ywc but this latest fraud is really symptomatic of the lies, deceit and utter nonsense coming from the creationist hoaxsters.
> 
> The phrasing and syntax used by ywc was instantly recognizable and easy to find. YWC found the silly _Malachite man_ here:
> 
> "Human Fossils In Same Rock Strata As Dinosaur Fossils!"
> 
> The site is a front for Christian creationist charlatans. If you scroll down the page, youll see that the discovery was made by Dr. Don Patton.
> 
> So who is Dr. Don Patton? Hes a young earth creationist charlatan. And hes not even a Dr.
> 
> Suspicious Creationist Credentials
> 
> 
> As with every phony link, attempted scam, lie and falsehood spewed by YWC, this is just another attempt to pass off phony creationists and their phony credentials.
> 
> 
> Heres a link to the phony Paluxy "man-tracks" perpetrated by the creationist fraud Carl Baugh.
> 
> A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Claimed Credentials
> 
> 
> As it turns out, Carl Baugh had some help perpetrating his fraud with some help from another creationist fraudster:  Don Patton
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #476: Carl Baugh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further along in the link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure we're all feeling a bit queasy at the lies, falsehoods and staggering dishonesty perpetrated by creationist charlatans so let's bring it on home with another review of the fraud that is "Dr." Donald Patton
> 
> The North Texas Skeptic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we need to stoop to your level and bring out the many hoaxes from the scientific community. Thank God there are some still in the science community that has integrity and exposes the frauds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you would perform your usual tactic of avoidance and make every effort to avoid addressing the really sleazy tactics employed by the creationist cabal.
> 
> Theyre all dishonest to the core and your promotion of such dishonesty is similarly sleazy.
Click to expand...


Coming from the goof who still believes in spontaneous generation. So I guess you believe the maggots on a dead carcass spontaneously generate too?


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and one more thing Hollie, this is not ,I repeat, not fabricated evidence. These were modern day humans found in the same strata as dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> that a half truth and it even worse the your usual lies
> guess the term intrusive burial and mine  are not important.
> talk about cherry picking.
> ok slap dick explain why the human remains were not fossilized if they were buried with dinosaurs? btw no fossils of any kind were found at that site.
Click to expand...


You sure do like that slap dick name. Your continuous use of the term reveals your obsession with your own self-deprecation. On in the the case when you don't have your Depends on, self-defecation.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not a belief ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FUNNY coming from the man who doesn't even know what he does not know.
Click to expand...


Change the wording and repeat the same thing back to me. Wow, aren't you the mental giant!!! Quick!! Hollie and Dogchow thank him for his original post!!!


----------



## t_polkow

From Psychology Today:  Creationism as a mental illness 

"Hence creationism, the theory/superstition that, contrary to massive scientific evidence, the world began exactly as described in the Book of Genesis. Instead of deriving from millions of years of patient evolution, Adam and Eve popped out, fully formed, like characters from a Swiss cuckoo clock. Would you Adam and Eve it? Of course not. It's a myth, but like many myths it serves a psychological purpose which is to provide a storybook sense of simple origins, which allays people's fears. Those who believe this myth to be the truth are in a state of denial.." 

Creationism as a mental illness | Psychology Today


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we need to stoop to your level and bring out the many hoaxes from the scientific community. Thank God there are some still in the science community that has integrity and exposes the frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you would perform your usual tactic of avoidance and make every effort to avoid addressing the really sleazy tactics employed by the creationist cabal.
> 
> Theyre all dishonest to the core and your promotion of such dishonesty is similarly sleazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from the goof who still believes in spontaneous generation. So I guess you believe the maggots on a dead carcass spontaneously generate too?
Click to expand...

Such an angry xtian fundie.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was waiting for your copy and paste on this issue. Let's see if you can be rational. What would a mother and her infant be doing that deep in a mine lol ?
> 
> I would not call anything bullshit you have demonstrated you lack the grey matter to speak for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> another fine example of ywc lack of basic history .
> listen up slapdick did you not understand the term native Americans it was common practice for the group or tribe to take their kids with them everywhere.
> to keep them safe.
> you've watched too many john Wayne movies..
> so like every thing you post it's bullshit.
> I speak for myself rather succinctly and well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok what you're talking about is the two bodies found in 1971 they are automatically suggesting the finds in 1971 were related to the 1990 finds. What your side is not sharing with you are the differences.
> 
> You're speaking to a Native American dipshit and you don't have a clue concerning their practices. Anything to embellish the bulkshit.
> 
> Really ? Indians that mine lol.
> 
> Now let's look at the truth.
> 
> Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talkorigins.jpg
> 
> 
> Response Article
> This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
> Index
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claim CC111:
> Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
> Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man.
> 
> 
> CreationWiki response:
> 
> (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
> 
> 
> Talk origins 1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998]
> 
> 
> Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two sites are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated.
> 
> Talk Origins2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.
> 
> The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep.
> 
> Talk Origins* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).
> 
> This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion.
> 
> The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized.
> 
> The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock.
> 
> * The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]
> 
> Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.
> 
> Talk Origins 3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.
> 
> Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified.
> 
> http://creationwiki.org/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone_(Talk.Origins)
> 
> Emphasis mine,Do evolutionist have something to hide ?
Click to expand...

right you're as  native American as the queen of Spain.
on the other hand I'm half cheetwood  Cherokee. 
so once again you're making shit up .
 as to your so called truth  since it based on an FP it's also false.
 here are the facts....Claim

Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 150 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument. 

Responses
1."Malachite man" is quite simply a hoax. It was buried 15 feet deep rather than 58, was found in soft sand rather than hard sandstone, the bones are completely dissimilar to nearby dinosaur bones in composition (the dinosaur bones are fossilized, whereas the human bones are not, indicating they were not buried anywhere near the same time) and radiometric dating puts the skeleton at around 200 years old. See Kuban's link below. 
2.Finding human remains surrounded by Cretaceous rock is neither shocking nor horrifying to scientists. Humans - this skeleton appears to be one - certainly would have had the capability to dig graves, so could have been buried much deeper than by natural processes. 
3.The fossils at Dinosaur National Monument are at least 50 million years older, making them Jurassic, not Cretaceous. 
tp://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone


other chirstians refute YWC'S BULLSHIT..Creation Science Rebuttals

Answers in Genesis

Human Fossils?



By Greg Neyman

© Old Earth Ministries

First Published February 2003

 An excellent question is posed on the young earth creation science website  Answers in Genesis.  The title of the article is "Where are all the human fossils?&#8221;1 The subtitle goes on to ask, "Why are human fossils not found with trilobites, for example? If humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, why aren&#8217;t their fossils found together? How could the Flood produce the order in the fossil record?"

     The author, whoever it might be, tries to explain it.  Those willing to accept his article without questioning its accuracy will be swayed by his arguments.  But, if you apply a little common sense logic to it, his conclusions fall apart.



Rock Strata



     Here is the problem for the young earth creation science believer.  Creationists believe that most of the fossils were formed during the year-long global Flood recorded in Genesis.  This is a minor point, but...I'm an old earth proponent, and I'm a Creationist, but I don't believe this.

     His first section is "Do the rock strata represent eons of time?"  As an example of this, he chooses the ill-fated example of the Coconino sandstone.  I've already proved that this sandstone cannot be formed using the Flood model (see my article on this by clicking here).  He makes another mistake by claiming, "Other rock layers in the Grand Canyon indicate that they were rapidly deposited also, and without substantial time-breaks between the laying down of each unit."  Exactly what is the definition of "substantial time-breaks?"  In fact, there are multiple time breaks in the Grand Canyon strata, one of them lasting 230 million years.  (see the article on Stratigraphy,  click here)



 Dinosaurs



     The next section is "Evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed."  The author mentions the "many historical accounts" of living animals, known as dragons.  I didn't know that Triceratops, Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, and Anklyosaurus breathed fire!  That would certainly make the front page of most newspapers (click here for an explanation of recent sightings and drawings).  Then he mentions the behemoth of Job 40.  Unfortunately, this is not a passage that people take literally, but figuratively.  For instance, Job 39:9 states, &#8220;Canst thou bind the unicorn&#8230;&#8221;   Seen any unicorn fossils lately?  None have ever been recovered.  Look at Leviathan in Job 41&#8230;have any "fire-breathing" leviathans of Job 41:18-21 been discovered.  If every single verse of the Bible is to be taken literally, then EVERY Christian in the world would be crawling around with both their hands and feet chopped off, and their eyes poked out (Matthew 18:8-9).

     Other claims in this section include:
&#8226;
Unmineralized (unfossilized) dinosaur bones.  Could some even have blood cells in them?  So what if they do!  We have uncovered billions of bones.  Odds are that some would be preserved much better than others!

&#8226;
Rocks with dinosaur fossils have very little plant material.  Let's see, bacteria can break down plant material in a year, and how long will bones last...many years.  Even so, depositional systems are mostly fluvial, the plant material mostly floating away.  


Where are the Humans?



     Next the author talks about "What about the general pattern?"  He states that rock strata follows a general pattern.  Finally, we agree on something, but only the generalizations of the first two paragraphs.  The author then states,  "If there were, say, 10 million people at the time of the Flood and all their bodies were preserved and uniformly distributed throughout the 700 million cubic kilometres of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers, only one would be found in every 70 cubic kilometres of rock. Thus you would be unlikely to find even one human fossil." 

     He is forgetting something.  Before the Tower of Babel, before the Flood, people all lived in one area in the Middle East!  He can't assume they were uniformly distributed throughout all the fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers worldwide.  In fact, they propose that the mass graves of the dinosaurs indicated their end in the Flood.  But if you have 10 million people in a small geographic area, they probably would have "huddled" together before they drowned, so where are these mass graves?  None have been found!  The authors' conclusion that we "would be unlikely to find even one human fossil" is a gross inaccuracy.  But, he HAS to state this, because no evidence of these human fossils has been found to support the Flood. 

     The author then makes a startling statement..."On the other hand, land animals, such as mammals and birds, being mobile (especially birds), could escape to higher ground and be the last to succumb."  Yes, he said "birds."  Thanks for bringing this up!  Exactly what "birds" of the Jurassic and Cretaceous period are you talking about?  Nobody has ever found any modern day birds, buried in the same rock formation as the flyers of the Dinosaur Era, the Pteranadon and Pterodactyl.  If they all fled the flood by air, why are they not buried together in the same rock layer???  We should see modern birds, buried with Pterodactyls...but we don't.

     The author then states, "People would cling to rafts, logs etc. until the very end and then tend to bloat and float and be scavenged by fish, with the bones breaking down rather quickly, rather than being preserved.  This would make human fossils from the Flood exceedingly rare."  This theory won't float either.  Even if they were scavenged by fish, the bones would merely need to last one year, since the Flood was only on the earth that long.  After a few days of scavenging by fish, the meat gone, the dense bone would sink, and be buried rapidly, if we follow the model of the Flood proposed by young-earth creationists.  So, where are the fossils...they should be there!

   Then he claims more mobile, intelligent animals would tend to survive the longest and be buried last.  Not sure what he is intending here, after all, studies of dinosaur brain cavities have not shown a lot of intelligence on their part, except for a few of the raptor types.

     Interesting to note he refers to "Cope's Rule."  This is another trick I've noticed in several young-earth creation articles.  They like to use old, outdated research material to support their cause.  Here, they rely on 19th century material.   



http://www.oldearth.org/humanfossils.htm


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How bout Amino acids bonding in just the right sequence and they are left handed amino acids no right handed amino acids. How bout molecular machines that take care of Dna transcription.
> 
> How bout the take that evolutionists believe mutations are the mechanism that drives evolution but beneficial mutations are so rare and yet we have over 6,000 genetic disorders and counting. We also have a mechanism repairing most mutations. seems far fetched to believe these are just random processes. Looks like design to me.
> 
> 
> Do I need to continue ? or maybe you should move back a little earlier in the thread I have been here since the start of the thread. I can't give you a complete summary of the thread because it has hit all over like most evolution vs creation threads.
> 
> 
> 
> what part of never presented anything do you not understand.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't help it you have a problem detecting design in nature.
Click to expand...

OFF TOPIC. 
I see no design in nature as I don't hallucinate on a daily basis like you do.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Here's a list of creationist who have contributed to science:


bump!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and one more thing Hollie, this is not ,I repeat, not fabricated evidence. These were modern day humans found in the same strata as dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> that a half truth and it even worse the your usual lies
> guess the term intrusive burial and mine  are not important.
> talk about cherry picking.
> ok slap dick explain why the human remains were not fossilized if they were buried with dinosaurs? btw no fossils of any kind were found at that site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure do like that slap dick name. Your continuous use of the term reveals your obsession with your own self-deprecation. On in the the case when you don't have your Depends on, self-defecation.
Click to expand...

not near as much as you adore your own typed self involved nonsense.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> FUNNY coming from the man who doesn't even know what he does not know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Change the wording and repeat the same thing back to me. Wow, aren't you the mental giant!!! Quick!! Hollie and Dogchow thank him for his original post!!!
Click to expand...

love it when you showcase your hubris.


----------



## daws101

New Evidence Ties Mass Extinction to Massive Collision
  Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic
(February 22, 2001)


About 250 million years ago, when Earth's landmass was one giant supercontinent known as Pangea, the planet suffered its largest mass extinction.

    Scientists estimate that the massive asteroid or comet that struck Earth 250 million years ago measured between 3.7 and 7.4 miles (6 to 12 kilometers) wide. 

 Known as "the Great Dying" among paleontologists, more than 90 percent of the Earth's marine species perished, along with 70 percent of the land's reptile, amphibian, insect, and plant species. This mass extinction preceded the rise of the dinosaurs. 

What caused the extinction event has been a matter of heated debate among scientists&#8212;until now. Researchers from the University of Washington and the University of Rochester have found extraterrestrial clusters of carbon atoms known as buckyballs in sediment samples from China and Japan. Their presence suggests that a massive comet or asteroid collided with the Earth, triggering the catastrophic collapse of life. 

The study, which also involved researchers from New York University and NASA, is featured in the February 23 issue of the journal Science. 

More than Just Volcanoes 

"We've come full circle on the old argument about whether a collision or volcanism caused these extinctions," says lead researcher Luann Becker, assistant professor of Earth and space sciences at the University of Washington. "We can say with a good degree of certainty that there's a coupling of the two events." 

Where exactly the comet or asteroid hit is unknown. It was probably somewhere between 3.7 and 7.4 miles (6 to 12 kilometers) wide, similar in size to the asteroid that crashed into Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula about 65 million years ago&#8212;the collision thought by many scientists that lead to the extinction of the dinosaurs. 

The impact 250 million years ago occurred during a time of extreme volcanism on Earth. Volcanic eruptions can change climates in several ways. Massive amounts of sediment and ash expelled during an explosion can block sunlight from reaching the Earth, causing a significant drop in temperature, inhibiting the photosynthesis that allows plants to grow, and causing food chains to collapse. 

Alternatively, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases ejected into the Earth's atmosphere by eruptions trap the sun's heat, sending temperatures soaring, and causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise. 

When these changes in temperature or sea level occur faster than a species can adjust to them, extinction results. 

"If the species cannot adjust, they perish. It's a survival-of-the-fittest sort of thing," says Becker. 

But volcanism alone couldn't explain the rapid rate of extinction. 

"As paleontologists have gotten better and better resolution on how quickly the extinction took place, it became more and more clear that more than one cause was needed to explain it," says Becker. 

"The volcanism went on for millions of years, and the extinctions took place much, much faster." Fossil evidence shows that the extinction took place in 8,000 to 100,000 years&#8212;a heartbeat, in geological time. 

Buckyballs: Cosmic Stowaways 

The collision, which caused the rapid extincitions, left its signature in the sediment layers of the earth in the form of buckminsterfullerenes&#8212;buckyballs or fullerenes for short. 

Buckyballs are microscopic clusters of carbon atoms that bond together to form a hollow geodesic cage, most frequently described as resembling a soccer ball. The cage can trap gases and is robust enough to survive interplanetary travel. 

Becker and her colleagues were able to demonstrate that this form of carbon has an extraterrestrial origin. 

The researchers studied the gases trapped within fullerenes found in high concentrations in the 250 million-year-old sedimentary layer, which divides the Permian and Triassic periods. The trapped gases contain forms of helium and argon structurally different from those found on Earth and could only have been formed in the extreme temperatures and gas pressures of outer space. 

"These gas-laden fullerenes were formed outside the Solar System, and their concentration at the Permian-Triassic boundary means they were delivered by a comet or asteroid," says Becker. 



National Geographic News @ nationalgeographic.com


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another fine example of ywc lack of basic history .
> listen up slapdick did you not understand the term native Americans it was common practice for the group or tribe to take their kids with them everywhere.
> to keep them safe.
> you've watched too many john Wayne movies..
> so like every thing you post it's bullshit.
> I speak for myself rather succinctly and well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok what you're talking about is the two bodies found in 1971 they are automatically suggesting the finds in 1971 were related to the 1990 finds. What your side is not sharing with you are the differences.
> 
> You're speaking to a Native American dipshit and you don't have a clue concerning their practices. Anything to embellish the bulkshit.
> 
> Really ? Indians that mine lol.
> 
> Now let's look at the truth.
> 
> Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talkorigins.jpg
> 
> 
> Response Article
> This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
> Index
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claim CC111:
> Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
> Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man.
> 
> 
> CreationWiki response:
> 
> (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
> 
> 
> Talk origins 1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998]
> 
> 
> Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two sites are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated.
> 
> Talk Origins2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.
> 
> The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep.
> 
> Talk Origins* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).
> 
> This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion.
> 
> The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized.
> 
> The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock.
> 
> * The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]
> 
> Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.
> 
> Talk Origins 3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.
> 
> Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified.
> 
> http://creationwiki.org/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone_(Talk.Origins)
> 
> Emphasis mine,Do evolutionist have something to hide ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right you're as  native American as the queen of Spain.
> on the other hand I'm half cheetwood  Cherokee.
> so once again you're making shit up .
> as to your so called truth  since it based on an FP it's also false.
> here are the facts....Claim
> 
> Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 150 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
> 
> Responses
> 1."Malachite man" is quite simply a hoax. It was buried 15 feet deep rather than 58, was found in soft sand rather than hard sandstone, the bones are completely dissimilar to nearby dinosaur bones in composition (the dinosaur bones are fossilized, whereas the human bones are not, indicating they were not buried anywhere near the same time) and radiometric dating puts the skeleton at around 200 years old. See Kuban's link below.
> 2.Finding human remains surrounded by Cretaceous rock is neither shocking nor horrifying to scientists. Humans - this skeleton appears to be one - certainly would have had the capability to dig graves, so could have been buried much deeper than by natural processes.
> 3.The fossils at Dinosaur National Monument are at least 50 million years older, making them Jurassic, not Cretaceous.
> tp://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone
> 
> 
> other chirstians refute YWC'S BULLSHIT..Creation Science Rebuttals
> 
> Answers in Genesis
> 
> Human Fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> By Greg Neyman
> 
> © Old Earth Ministries
> 
> First Published February 2003
> 
> An excellent question is posed on the young earth creation science website  Answers in Genesis.  The title of the article is "Where are all the human fossils?1 The subtitle goes on to ask, "Why are human fossils not found with trilobites, for example? If humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, why arent their fossils found together? How could the Flood produce the order in the fossil record?"
> 
> The author, whoever it might be, tries to explain it.  Those willing to accept his article without questioning its accuracy will be swayed by his arguments.  But, if you apply a little common sense logic to it, his conclusions fall apart.
> 
> 
> 
> Rock Strata
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the problem for the young earth creation science believer.  Creationists believe that most of the fossils were formed during the year-long global Flood recorded in Genesis.  This is a minor point, but...I'm an old earth proponent, and I'm a Creationist, but I don't believe this.
> 
> His first section is "Do the rock strata represent eons of time?"  As an example of this, he chooses the ill-fated example of the Coconino sandstone.  I've already proved that this sandstone cannot be formed using the Flood model (see my article on this by clicking here).  He makes another mistake by claiming, "Other rock layers in the Grand Canyon indicate that they were rapidly deposited also, and without substantial time-breaks between the laying down of each unit."  Exactly what is the definition of "substantial time-breaks?"  In fact, there are multiple time breaks in the Grand Canyon strata, one of them lasting 230 million years.  (see the article on Stratigraphy,  click here)
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> The next section is "Evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed."  The author mentions the "many historical accounts" of living animals, known as dragons.  I didn't know that Triceratops, Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, and Anklyosaurus breathed fire!  That would certainly make the front page of most newspapers (click here for an explanation of recent sightings and drawings).  Then he mentions the behemoth of Job 40.  Unfortunately, this is not a passage that people take literally, but figuratively.  For instance, Job 39:9 states, Canst thou bind the unicorn   Seen any unicorn fossils lately?  None have ever been recovered.  Look at Leviathan in Job 41have any "fire-breathing" leviathans of Job 41:18-21 been discovered.  If every single verse of the Bible is to be taken literally, then EVERY Christian in the world would be crawling around with both their hands and feet chopped off, and their eyes poked out (Matthew 18:8-9).
> 
> Other claims in this section include:
> 
> Unmineralized (unfossilized) dinosaur bones.  Could some even have blood cells in them?  So what if they do!  We have uncovered billions of bones.  Odds are that some would be preserved much better than others!
> 
> 
> Rocks with dinosaur fossils have very little plant material.  Let's see, bacteria can break down plant material in a year, and how long will bones last...many years.  Even so, depositional systems are mostly fluvial, the plant material mostly floating away.
> 
> 
> Where are the Humans?
> 
> 
> 
> Next the author talks about "What about the general pattern?"  He states that rock strata follows a general pattern.  Finally, we agree on something, but only the generalizations of the first two paragraphs.  The author then states,  "If there were, say, 10 million people at the time of the Flood and all their bodies were preserved and uniformly distributed throughout the 700 million cubic kilometres of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers, only one would be found in every 70 cubic kilometres of rock. Thus you would be unlikely to find even one human fossil."
> 
> He is forgetting something.  Before the Tower of Babel, before the Flood, people all lived in one area in the Middle East!  He can't assume they were uniformly distributed throughout all the fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers worldwide.  In fact, they propose that the mass graves of the dinosaurs indicated their end in the Flood.  But if you have 10 million people in a small geographic area, they probably would have "huddled" together before they drowned, so where are these mass graves?  None have been found!  The authors' conclusion that we "would be unlikely to find even one human fossil" is a gross inaccuracy.  But, he HAS to state this, because no evidence of these human fossils has been found to support the Flood.
> 
> The author then makes a startling statement..."On the other hand, land animals, such as mammals and birds, being mobile (especially birds), could escape to higher ground and be the last to succumb."  Yes, he said "birds."  Thanks for bringing this up!  Exactly what "birds" of the Jurassic and Cretaceous period are you talking about?  Nobody has ever found any modern day birds, buried in the same rock formation as the flyers of the Dinosaur Era, the Pteranadon and Pterodactyl.  If they all fled the flood by air, why are they not buried together in the same rock layer???  We should see modern birds, buried with Pterodactyls...but we don't.
> 
> The author then states, "People would cling to rafts, logs etc. until the very end and then tend to bloat and float and be scavenged by fish, with the bones breaking down rather quickly, rather than being preserved.  This would make human fossils from the Flood exceedingly rare."  This theory won't float either.  Even if they were scavenged by fish, the bones would merely need to last one year, since the Flood was only on the earth that long.  After a few days of scavenging by fish, the meat gone, the dense bone would sink, and be buried rapidly, if we follow the model of the Flood proposed by young-earth creationists.  So, where are the fossils...they should be there!
> 
> Then he claims more mobile, intelligent animals would tend to survive the longest and be buried last.  Not sure what he is intending here, after all, studies of dinosaur brain cavities have not shown a lot of intelligence on their part, except for a few of the raptor types.
> 
> Interesting to note he refers to "Cope's Rule."  This is another trick I've noticed in several young-earth creation articles.  They like to use old, outdated research material to support their cause.  Here, they rely on 19th century material.
> 
> 
> 
> Creation Science Rebuttals, Answers in Genesis, Human Fossils
Click to expand...


Have you decided on a theory yet ?

Have you decided on a method that caused the dinosaurs dying out yet ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> New Evidence Ties Mass Extinction to Massive Collision
> Hillary Mayell
> for National Geographic
> (February 22, 2001)
> 
> 
> About 250 million years ago, when Earth's landmass was one giant supercontinent known as Pangea, the planet suffered its largest mass extinction.
> 
> Scientists estimate that the massive asteroid or comet that struck Earth 250 million years ago measured between 3.7 and 7.4 miles (6 to 12 kilometers) wide.
> 
> Known as "the Great Dying" among paleontologists, more than 90 percent of the Earth's marine species perished, along with 70 percent of the land's reptile, amphibian, insect, and plant species. This mass extinction preceded the rise of the dinosaurs.
> 
> What caused the extinction event has been a matter of heated debate among scientistsuntil now. Researchers from the University of Washington and the University of Rochester have found extraterrestrial clusters of carbon atoms known as buckyballs in sediment samples from China and Japan. Their presence suggests that a massive comet or asteroid collided with the Earth, triggering the catastrophic collapse of life.
> 
> The study, which also involved researchers from New York University and NASA, is featured in the February 23 issue of the journal Science.
> 
> More than Just Volcanoes
> 
> "We've come full circle on the old argument about whether a collision or volcanism caused these extinctions," says lead researcher Luann Becker, assistant professor of Earth and space sciences at the University of Washington. "We can say with a good degree of certainty that there's a coupling of the two events."
> 
> Where exactly the comet or asteroid hit is unknown. It was probably somewhere between 3.7 and 7.4 miles (6 to 12 kilometers) wide, similar in size to the asteroid that crashed into Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula about 65 million years agothe collision thought by many scientists that lead to the extinction of the dinosaurs.
> 
> The impact 250 million years ago occurred during a time of extreme volcanism on Earth. Volcanic eruptions can change climates in several ways. Massive amounts of sediment and ash expelled during an explosion can block sunlight from reaching the Earth, causing a significant drop in temperature, inhibiting the photosynthesis that allows plants to grow, and causing food chains to collapse.
> 
> Alternatively, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases ejected into the Earth's atmosphere by eruptions trap the sun's heat, sending temperatures soaring, and causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise.
> 
> When these changes in temperature or sea level occur faster than a species can adjust to them, extinction results.
> 
> "If the species cannot adjust, they perish. It's a survival-of-the-fittest sort of thing," says Becker.
> 
> But volcanism alone couldn't explain the rapid rate of extinction.
> 
> "As paleontologists have gotten better and better resolution on how quickly the extinction took place, it became more and more clear that more than one cause was needed to explain it," says Becker.
> 
> "The volcanism went on for millions of years, and the extinctions took place much, much faster." Fossil evidence shows that the extinction took place in 8,000 to 100,000 yearsa heartbeat, in geological time.
> 
> Buckyballs: Cosmic Stowaways
> 
> The collision, which caused the rapid extincitions, left its signature in the sediment layers of the earth in the form of buckminsterfullerenesbuckyballs or fullerenes for short.
> 
> Buckyballs are microscopic clusters of carbon atoms that bond together to form a hollow geodesic cage, most frequently described as resembling a soccer ball. The cage can trap gases and is robust enough to survive interplanetary travel.
> 
> Becker and her colleagues were able to demonstrate that this form of carbon has an extraterrestrial origin.
> 
> The researchers studied the gases trapped within fullerenes found in high concentrations in the 250 million-year-old sedimentary layer, which divides the Permian and Triassic periods. The trapped gases contain forms of helium and argon structurally different from those found on Earth and could only have been formed in the extreme temperatures and gas pressures of outer space.
> 
> "These gas-laden fullerenes were formed outside the Solar System, and their concentration at the Permian-Triassic boundary means they were delivered by a comet or asteroid," says Becker.
> 
> 
> 
> National Geographic News @ nationalgeographic.com



We are sure it was a comet collision not sure where the impact was on the planet. Great more conjecture in other words they don't have a clue how the mass extinction took place.

So are you saying the dinosaurs died out through catastrophism ? There is no evidence of this comet impacting earth but there is for strata being spread out through a global flood.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Evidence Ties Mass Extinction to Massive Collision
> Hillary Mayell
> for National Geographic
> (February 22, 2001)
> 
> 
> About 250 million years ago, when Earth's landmass was one giant supercontinent known as Pangea, the planet suffered its largest mass extinction.
> 
> Scientists estimate that the massive asteroid or comet that struck Earth 250 million years ago measured between 3.7 and 7.4 miles (6 to 12l kilometers) wide.
> 
> Known as "the Great Dying" among paleontologists, more than 90 percent of the Earth's marine species perished, along with 70 percent of the land's reptile, amphibian, insect, and plant species. This mass extinction preceded the rise of the dinosaurs.
> 
> What caused the extinction event has been a matter of heated debate among scientistsuntil now. Researchers from the University of Washington and the University of Rochester have found extraterrestrial clusters of carbon atoms known as buckyballs in sediment samples from China and Japan. Their presence suggests that a massive comet or asteroid collided with the Earth, triggering the catastrophic collapse of life.
> 
> The study, which also involved researchers from New York University and NASA, is featured in the February 23 issue of the journal Science.
> 
> More than Just Volcanoes
> 
> "We've come full circle on the old argument about whether a collision or volcanism caused these extinctions," says lead researcher Luann Becker, assistant professor of Earth and space sciences at the University of Washington. "We can say with a good degree of certainty that there's a coupling of the two events."
> 
> Where exactly the comet or asteroid hit is unknown. It was probably somewhere between 3.7 and 7.4 miles (6 to 12 kilometers) wide, similar in size to the asteroid that crashed into Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula about 65 million years agothe collision thought by many scientists that lead to the extinction of the dinosaurs.
> 
> The impact 250 million years ago occurred during a time of extreme volcanism on Earth. Volcanic eruptions can change climates in several ways. Massive amounts of sediment and ash expelled during an explosion can block sunlight from reaching the Earth, causing a significant drop in temperature, inhibiting the photosynthesis that allows plants to grow, and causing food chains to collapse.
> 
> Alternatively, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases ejected into the Earth's atmosphere by eruptions trap the sun's heat, sending temperatures soaring, and causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise.
> 
> When these changes in temperature or sea level occur faster than a species can adjust to them, extinction results.
> 
> "If the species cannot adjust, they perish. It's a survival-of-the-fittest sort of thing," says Becker.
> 
> But volcanism alone couldn't explain the rapid rate of extinction.
> 
> "As paleontologists have gotten better and better resolution on how quickly the extinction took place, it became more and more clear that more than one cause was needed to explain it," says Becker.
> 
> "The volcanism went on for millions of years, and the extinctions took place much, much faster." Fossil evidence shows that the extinction took place in 8,000 to 100,000 yearsa heartbeat, in geological time.
> 
> Buckyballs: Cosmic Stowaways
> 
> The collision, which caused the rapid extincitions, left its signature in the sediment layers of the earth in the form of buckminsterfullerenesbuckyballs or fullerenes for short.
> 
> Buckyballs are microscopic clusters of carbon atoms that bond together to form a hollow geodesic cage, most frequently described as resembling a soccer ball. The cage can trap gases and is robust enough to survive interplanetary travel.
> 
> Becker and her colleagues were able to demonstrate that this form of carbon has an extraterrestrial origin.
> 
> The researchers studied the gases trapped within fullerenes found in high concentrations in the 250 million-year-old sedimentary layer, which divides the Permian and Triassic periods. The trapped gases contain forms of helium and argon structurally different from those found on Earth and could only have been formed in the extreme temperatures and gas pressures of outer space.
> 
> "These gas-laden fullerenes were formed outside the Solar System, and their concentration at the Permian-Triassic boundary means they were delivered by a comet or asteroid," says Becker.
> 
> 
> 
> National Geographic News @ nationalgeographic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are sure it was a comet collision not sure where the impact was on the planet. Great more conjecture in other words they don't have a clue how the mass extinction took place.
> 
> So are you saying the dinosaurs died out through catastrophism ? There is no evidence of this comet impacting earth but there is for strata being spread out through a global flood.
Click to expand...


There is actually a great deal of evidence for a catastrophic impact in the Yucatan. You're not aware of that evidence but the relevant science community has great confidence in the physical evidence.

As to your bogus flood tales, it is really only religious (Christian) zealots who accept those tales and fabled. It is your committment to religious dogma that keeps you ignorant.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Evidence Ties Mass Extinction to Massive Collision
> Hillary Mayell
> for National Geographic
> (February 22, 2001)
> 
> 
> About 250 million years ago, when Earth's landmass was one giant supercontinent known as Pangea, the planet suffered its largest mass extinction.
> 
> Scientists estimate that the massive asteroid or comet that struck Earth 250 million years ago measured between 3.7 and 7.4 miles (6 to 12l kilometers) wide.
> 
> Known as "the Great Dying" among paleontologists, more than 90 percent of the Earth's marine species perished, along with 70 percent of the land's reptile, amphibian, insect, and plant species. This mass extinction preceded the rise of the dinosaurs.
> 
> What caused the extinction event has been a matter of heated debate among scientists&#8212;until now. Researchers from the University of Washington and the University of Rochester have found extraterrestrial clusters of carbon atoms known as buckyballs in sediment samples from China and Japan. Their presence suggests that a massive comet or asteroid collided with the Earth, triggering the catastrophic collapse of life.
> 
> The study, which also involved researchers from New York University and NASA, is featured in the February 23 issue of the journal Science.
> 
> More than Just Volcanoes
> 
> "We've come full circle on the old argument about whether a collision or volcanism caused these extinctions," says lead researcher Luann Becker, assistant professor of Earth and space sciences at the University of Washington. "We can say with a good degree of certainty that there's a coupling of the two events."
> 
> Where exactly the comet or asteroid hit is unknown. It was probably somewhere between 3.7 and 7.4 miles (6 to 12 kilometers) wide, similar in size to the asteroid that crashed into Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula about 65 million years ago&#8212;the collision thought by many scientists that lead to the extinction of the dinosaurs.
> 
> The impact 250 million years ago occurred during a time of extreme volcanism on Earth. Volcanic eruptions can change climates in several ways. Massive amounts of sediment and ash expelled during an explosion can block sunlight from reaching the Earth, causing a significant drop in temperature, inhibiting the photosynthesis that allows plants to grow, and causing food chains to collapse.
> 
> Alternatively, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases ejected into the Earth's atmosphere by eruptions trap the sun's heat, sending temperatures soaring, and causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise.
> 
> When these changes in temperature or sea level occur faster than a species can adjust to them, extinction results.
> 
> "If the species cannot adjust, they perish. It's a survival-of-the-fittest sort of thing," says Becker.
> 
> But volcanism alone couldn't explain the rapid rate of extinction.
> 
> "As paleontologists have gotten better and better resolution on how quickly the extinction took place, it became more and more clear that more than one cause was needed to explain it," says Becker.
> 
> "The volcanism went on for millions of years, and the extinctions took place much, much faster." Fossil evidence shows that the extinction took place in 8,000 to 100,000 years&#8212;a heartbeat, in geological time.
> 
> Buckyballs: Cosmic Stowaways
> 
> The collision, which caused the rapid extincitions, left its signature in the sediment layers of the earth in the form of buckminsterfullerenes&#8212;buckyballs or fullerenes for short.
> 
> Buckyballs are microscopic clusters of carbon atoms that bond together to form a hollow geodesic cage, most frequently described as resembling a soccer ball. The cage can trap gases and is robust enough to survive interplanetary travel.
> 
> Becker and her colleagues were able to demonstrate that this form of carbon has an extraterrestrial origin.
> 
> The researchers studied the gases trapped within fullerenes found in high concentrations in the 250 million-year-old sedimentary layer, which divides the Permian and Triassic periods. The trapped gases contain forms of helium and argon structurally different from those found on Earth and could only have been formed in the extreme temperatures and gas pressures of outer space.
> 
> "These gas-laden fullerenes were formed outside the Solar System, and their concentration at the Permian-Triassic boundary means they were delivered by a comet or asteroid," says Becker.
> 
> 
> 
> National Geographic News @ nationalgeographic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are sure it was a comet collision not sure where the impact was on the planet. Great more conjecture in other words they don't have a clue how the mass extinction took place.
> 
> So are you saying the dinosaurs died out through catastrophism ? There is no evidence of this comet impacting earth but there is for strata being spread out through a global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is actually a great deal of evidence for a catastrophic impact in the Yucatan. You're not aware of that evidence but the relevant science community has great confidence in the physical evidence.
> 
> As to your bogus flood tales, it is really only religious (Christian) zealots who accept those tales and fabled. It is your committment to religious dogma that keeps you ignorant.
Click to expand...


Oh boy do you know why they now think that it was a comet that  hit the Yucatan ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Well here it is Hollie talk about fabricating evidence and now you can understand why I don't trust dating methods.

The revised dates clear up lingering confusion over whether the impact actually occurred before or after the extinction event. lol

New evidence comet or asteroid impact was last straw for dinosaurs


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are sure it was a comet collision not sure where the impact was on the planet. Great more conjecture in other words they don't have a clue how the mass extinction took place.
> 
> So are you saying the dinosaurs died out through catastrophism ? There is no evidence of this comet impacting earth but there is for strata being spread out through a global flood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is actually a great deal of evidence for a catastrophic impact in the Yucatan. You're not aware of that evidence but the relevant science community has great confidence in the physical evidence.
> 
> As to your bogus flood tales, it is really only religious (Christian) zealots who accept those tales and fabled. It is your committment to religious dogma that keeps you ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy do you know why they now think that it was a comet that  hit the Yucatan ?
Click to expand...

Much of the relevant science community does.

The fundamentalist religious nutbars don't. But of course, the fundies do no research,  perform no tests, publish no papers and don't write in peer reviewed journals where they would otherwise have to support their claims to various gawds, miracles and supernatural events. 

I suppose the fundies will have to be content with being laughable caricatures of bible thumping morons.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Well here it is Hollie talk about fabricating evidence and now you can understand why I don't trust dating methods.
> 
> The revised dates clear up lingering confusion over whether the impact actually occurred before or after the extinction event. lol
> 
> New evidence comet or asteroid impact was last straw for dinosaurs



Your confusion seems to be fully a matter of your own inability to not be confused.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well here it is Hollie talk about fabricating evidence and now you can understand why I don't trust dating methods.
> 
> The revised dates clear up lingering confusion over whether the impact actually occurred before or after the extinction event. lol
> 
> New evidence comet or asteroid impact was last straw for dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your confusion seems to be fully a matter of your own inability to not be confused.
Click to expand...


Put on your dancing shoes.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok what you're talking about is the two bodies found in 1971 they are automatically suggesting the finds in 1971 were related to the 1990 finds. What your side is not sharing with you are the differences.
> 
> You're speaking to a Native American dipshit and you don't have a clue concerning their practices. Anything to embellish the bulkshit.
> 
> Really ? Indians that mine lol.
> 
> Now let's look at the truth.
> 
> Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talkorigins.jpg
> 
> 
> Response Article
> This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
> Index
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claim CC111:
> Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
> Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man.
> 
> 
> CreationWiki response:
> 
> (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
> 
> 
> Talk origins 1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998]
> 
> 
> Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two sites are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated.
> 
> Talk Origins2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.
> 
> The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep.
> 
> Talk Origins* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).
> 
> This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion.
> 
> The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized.
> 
> The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock.
> 
> * The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]
> 
> Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.
> 
> Talk Origins 3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.
> 
> Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified.
> 
> http://creationwiki.org/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone_(Talk.Origins)
> 
> Emphasis mine,Do evolutionist have something to hide ?
> 
> 
> 
> right you're as  native American as the queen of Spain.
> on the other hand I'm half cheetwood  Cherokee.
> so once again you're making shit up .
> as to your so called truth  since it based on an FP it's also false.
> here are the facts....Claim
> 
> Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 150 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
> 
> Responses
> 1."Malachite man" is quite simply a hoax. It was buried 15 feet deep rather than 58, was found in soft sand rather than hard sandstone, the bones are completely dissimilar to nearby dinosaur bones in composition (the dinosaur bones are fossilized, whereas the human bones are not, indicating they were not buried anywhere near the same time) and radiometric dating puts the skeleton at around 200 years old. See Kuban's link below.
> 2.Finding human remains surrounded by Cretaceous rock is neither shocking nor horrifying to scientists. Humans - this skeleton appears to be one - certainly would have had the capability to dig graves, so could have been buried much deeper than by natural processes.
> 3.The fossils at Dinosaur National Monument are at least 50 million years older, making them Jurassic, not Cretaceous.
> tp://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone
> 
> 
> other chirstians refute YWC'S BULLSHIT..Creation Science Rebuttals
> 
> Answers in Genesis
> 
> Human Fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> By Greg Neyman
> 
> © Old Earth Ministries
> 
> First Published February 2003
> 
> An excellent question is posed on the young earth creation science website  Answers in Genesis.  The title of the article is "Where are all the human fossils?1 The subtitle goes on to ask, "Why are human fossils not found with trilobites, for example? If humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, why arent their fossils found together? How could the Flood produce the order in the fossil record?"
> 
> The author, whoever it might be, tries to explain it.  Those willing to accept his article without questioning its accuracy will be swayed by his arguments.  But, if you apply a little common sense logic to it, his conclusions fall apart.
> 
> 
> 
> Rock Strata
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the problem for the young earth creation science believer.  Creationists believe that most of the fossils were formed during the year-long global Flood recorded in Genesis.  This is a minor point, but...I'm an old earth proponent, and I'm a Creationist, but I don't believe this.
> 
> His first section is "Do the rock strata represent eons of time?"  As an example of this, he chooses the ill-fated example of the Coconino sandstone.  I've already proved that this sandstone cannot be formed using the Flood model (see my article on this by clicking here).  He makes another mistake by claiming, "Other rock layers in the Grand Canyon indicate that they were rapidly deposited also, and without substantial time-breaks between the laying down of each unit."  Exactly what is the definition of "substantial time-breaks?"  In fact, there are multiple time breaks in the Grand Canyon strata, one of them lasting 230 million years.  (see the article on Stratigraphy,  click here)
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> The next section is "Evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed."  The author mentions the "many historical accounts" of living animals, known as dragons.  I didn't know that Triceratops, Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, and Anklyosaurus breathed fire!  That would certainly make the front page of most newspapers (click here for an explanation of recent sightings and drawings).  Then he mentions the behemoth of Job 40.  Unfortunately, this is not a passage that people take literally, but figuratively.  For instance, Job 39:9 states, Canst thou bind the unicorn   Seen any unicorn fossils lately?  None have ever been recovered.  Look at Leviathan in Job 41have any "fire-breathing" leviathans of Job 41:18-21 been discovered.  If every single verse of the Bible is to be taken literally, then EVERY Christian in the world would be crawling around with both their hands and feet chopped off, and their eyes poked out (Matthew 18:8-9).
> 
> Other claims in this section include:
> 
> Unmineralized (unfossilized) dinosaur bones.  Could some even have blood cells in them?  So what if they do!  We have uncovered billions of bones.  Odds are that some would be preserved much better than others!
> 
> 
> Rocks with dinosaur fossils have very little plant material.  Let's see, bacteria can break down plant material in a year, and how long will bones last...many years.  Even so, depositional systems are mostly fluvial, the plant material mostly floating away.
> 
> 
> Where are the Humans?
> 
> 
> 
> Next the author talks about "What about the general pattern?"  He states that rock strata follows a general pattern.  Finally, we agree on something, but only the generalizations of the first two paragraphs.  The author then states,  "If there were, say, 10 million people at the time of the Flood and all their bodies were preserved and uniformly distributed throughout the 700 million cubic kilometres of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers, only one would be found in every 70 cubic kilometres of rock. Thus you would be unlikely to find even one human fossil."
> 
> He is forgetting something.  Before the Tower of Babel, before the Flood, people all lived in one area in the Middle East!  He can't assume they were uniformly distributed throughout all the fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers worldwide.  In fact, they propose that the mass graves of the dinosaurs indicated their end in the Flood.  But if you have 10 million people in a small geographic area, they probably would have "huddled" together before they drowned, so where are these mass graves?  None have been found!  The authors' conclusion that we "would be unlikely to find even one human fossil" is a gross inaccuracy.  But, he HAS to state this, because no evidence of these human fossils has been found to support the Flood.
> 
> The author then makes a startling statement..."On the other hand, land animals, such as mammals and birds, being mobile (especially birds), could escape to higher ground and be the last to succumb."  Yes, he said "birds."  Thanks for bringing this up!  Exactly what "birds" of the Jurassic and Cretaceous period are you talking about?  Nobody has ever found any modern day birds, buried in the same rock formation as the flyers of the Dinosaur Era, the Pteranadon and Pterodactyl.  If they all fled the flood by air, why are they not buried together in the same rock layer???  We should see modern birds, buried with Pterodactyls...but we don't.
> 
> The author then states, "People would cling to rafts, logs etc. until the very end and then tend to bloat and float and be scavenged by fish, with the bones breaking down rather quickly, rather than being preserved.  This would make human fossils from the Flood exceedingly rare."  This theory won't float either.  Even if they were scavenged by fish, the bones would merely need to last one year, since the Flood was only on the earth that long.  After a few days of scavenging by fish, the meat gone, the dense bone would sink, and be buried rapidly, if we follow the model of the Flood proposed by young-earth creationists.  So, where are the fossils...they should be there!
> 
> Then he claims more mobile, intelligent animals would tend to survive the longest and be buried last.  Not sure what he is intending here, after all, studies of dinosaur brain cavities have not shown a lot of intelligence on their part, except for a few of the raptor types.
> 
> Interesting to note he refers to "Cope's Rule."  This is another trick I've noticed in several young-earth creation articles.  They like to use old, outdated research material to support their cause.  Here, they rely on 19th century material.
> 
> 
> 
> Creation Science Rebuttals, Answers in Genesis, Human Fossils
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you decided on a theory yet ?
> 
> Have you decided on a method that caused the dinosaurs dying out yet ?
Click to expand...

asked and answered..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Evidence Ties Mass Extinction to Massive Collision
> Hillary Mayell
> for National Geographic
> (February 22, 2001)
> 
> 
> About 250 million years ago, when Earth's landmass was one giant supercontinent known as Pangea, the planet suffered its largest mass extinction.
> 
> Scientists estimate that the massive asteroid or comet that struck Earth 250 million years ago measured between 3.7 and 7.4 miles (6 to 12 kilometers) wide.
> 
> Known as "the Great Dying" among paleontologists, more than 90 percent of the Earth's marine species perished, along with 70 percent of the land's reptile, amphibian, insect, and plant species. This mass extinction preceded the rise of the dinosaurs.
> 
> What caused the extinction event has been a matter of heated debate among scientistsuntil now. Researchers from the University of Washington and the University of Rochester have found extraterrestrial clusters of carbon atoms known as buckyballs in sediment samples from China and Japan. Their presence suggests that a massive comet or asteroid collided with the Earth, triggering the catastrophic collapse of life.
> 
> The study, which also involved researchers from New York University and NASA, is featured in the February 23 issue of the journal Science.
> 
> More than Just Volcanoes
> 
> "We've come full circle on the old argument about whether a collision or volcanism caused these extinctions," says lead researcher Luann Becker, assistant professor of Earth and space sciences at the University of Washington. "We can say with a good degree of certainty that there's a coupling of the two events."
> 
> Where exactly the comet or asteroid hit is unknown. It was probably somewhere between 3.7 and 7.4 miles (6 to 12 kilometers) wide, similar in size to the asteroid that crashed into Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula about 65 million years agothe collision thought by many scientists that lead to the extinction of the dinosaurs.
> 
> The impact 250 million years ago occurred during a time of extreme volcanism on Earth. Volcanic eruptions can change climates in several ways. Massive amounts of sediment and ash expelled during an explosion can block sunlight from reaching the Earth, causing a significant drop in temperature, inhibiting the photosynthesis that allows plants to grow, and causing food chains to collapse.
> 
> Alternatively, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases ejected into the Earth's atmosphere by eruptions trap the sun's heat, sending temperatures soaring, and causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise.
> 
> When these changes in temperature or sea level occur faster than a species can adjust to them, extinction results.
> 
> "If the species cannot adjust, they perish. It's a survival-of-the-fittest sort of thing," says Becker.
> 
> But volcanism alone couldn't explain the rapid rate of extinction.
> 
> "As paleontologists have gotten better and better resolution on how quickly the extinction took place, it became more and more clear that more than one cause was needed to explain it," says Becker.
> 
> "The volcanism went on for millions of years, and the extinctions took place much, much faster." Fossil evidence shows that the extinction took place in 8,000 to 100,000 yearsa heartbeat, in geological time.
> 
> Buckyballs: Cosmic Stowaways
> 
> The collision, which caused the rapid extincitions, left its signature in the sediment layers of the earth in the form of buckminsterfullerenesbuckyballs or fullerenes for short.
> 
> Buckyballs are microscopic clusters of carbon atoms that bond together to form a hollow geodesic cage, most frequently described as resembling a soccer ball. The cage can trap gases and is robust enough to survive interplanetary travel.
> 
> Becker and her colleagues were able to demonstrate that this form of carbon has an extraterrestrial origin.
> 
> The researchers studied the gases trapped within fullerenes found in high concentrations in the 250 million-year-old sedimentary layer, which divides the Permian and Triassic periods. The trapped gases contain forms of helium and argon structurally different from those found on Earth and could only have been formed in the extreme temperatures and gas pressures of outer space.
> 
> "These gas-laden fullerenes were formed outside the Solar System, and their concentration at the Permian-Triassic boundary means they were delivered by a comet or asteroid," says Becker.
> 
> 
> 
> National Geographic News @ nationalgeographic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are sure it was a comet collision not sure where the impact was on the planet. Great more conjecture in other words they don't have a clue how the mass extinction took place.
> 
> So are you saying the dinosaurs died out through catastrophism ? There is no evidence of this comet impacting earth but there is for strata being spread out through a global flood.
Click to expand...

see post# 16427


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Well here it is Hollie talk about fabricating evidence and now you can understand why I don't trust dating methods.
> 
> The revised dates clear up lingering confusion over whether the impact actually occurred before or after the extinction event. lol
> 
> New evidence comet or asteroid impact was last straw for dinosaurs


if you insist on refuting your own shit have at it.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well here it is Hollie talk about fabricating evidence and now you can understand why I don't trust dating methods.
> 
> The revised dates clear up lingering confusion over whether the impact actually occurred before or after the extinction event. lol
> 
> New evidence comet or asteroid impact was last straw for dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your confusion seems to be fully a matter of your own inability to not be confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put on your dancing shoes.
Click to expand...

best dodge ever or what!


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well here it is Hollie talk about fabricating evidence and now you can understand why I don't trust dating methods.
> 
> The revised dates clear up lingering confusion over whether the impact actually occurred before or after the extinction event. lol
> 
> New evidence comet or asteroid impact was last straw for dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your confusion seems to be fully a matter of your own inability to not be confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put on your dancing shoes.
Click to expand...


No need to. What's comical is that you initially rejected the idea of an asteroid / meteor strike. You subsequently post an article that confirms what most of the relevant science community agrees happened. 

You actually refuted your earlier objection. Did you fall down and bump your head when you tripped over your own argument?


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your confusion seems to be fully a matter of your own inability to not be confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put on your dancing shoes.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to. What's comical is that you initially rejected the idea of an asteroid / meteor strike. You subsequently post an article that confirms what most of the relevant science community agrees happened.
> 
> You actually refuted your earlier objection. Did you fall down and bump your head when you tripped over your own argument?
Click to expand...

either way it refutes the silly great flood myth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well here it is Hollie talk about fabricating evidence and now you can understand why I don't trust dating methods.
> 
> The revised dates clear up lingering confusion over whether the impact actually occurred before or after the extinction event. lol
> 
> New evidence comet or asteroid impact was last straw for dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> if you insist on refuting your own shit have at it.
Click to expand...


Just pointing how stupid you're by the crap you post. Magically we can fix our problem by fudging with the dating method numbers. Sorry you're to dense to see the obvious fabrication which by the way they had to do to try and make evolution fit they always need more time and they magically get it with their dating methods.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put on your dancing shoes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to. What's comical is that you initially rejected the idea of an asteroid / meteor strike. You subsequently post an article that confirms what most of the relevant science community agrees happened.
> 
> You actually refuted your earlier objection. Did you fall down and bump your head when you tripped over your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> either way it refutes the silly great flood myth.
Click to expand...

I've always been curious as to where all the extra water came from to flood the planet and where it all eventually went.

Could it be that ywc will cut and paste some really, really, globally stupid article from a fundie website?

Nah!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Evidence Ties Mass Extinction to Massive Collision
> Hillary Mayell
> for National Geographic
> (February 22, 2001)
> 
> 
> About 250 million years ago, when Earth's landmass was one giant supercontinent known as Pangea, the planet suffered its largest mass extinction.
> 
> Scientists estimate that the massive asteroid or comet that struck Earth 250 million years ago measured between 3.7 and 7.4 miles (6 to 12 kilometers) wide.
> 
> Known as "the Great Dying" among paleontologists, more than 90 percent of the Earth's marine species perished, along with 70 percent of the land's reptile, amphibian, insect, and plant species. This mass extinction preceded the rise of the dinosaurs.
> 
> What caused the extinction event has been a matter of heated debate among scientistsuntil now. Researchers from the University of Washington and the University of Rochester have found extraterrestrial clusters of carbon atoms known as buckyballs in sediment samples from China and Japan. Their presence suggests that a massive comet or asteroid collided with the Earth, triggering the catastrophic collapse of life.
> 
> The study, which also involved researchers from New York University and NASA, is featured in the February 23 issue of the journal Science.
> 
> More than Just Volcanoes
> 
> "We've come full circle on the old argument about whether a collision or volcanism caused these extinctions," says lead researcher Luann Becker, assistant professor of Earth and space sciences at the University of Washington. "We can say with a good degree of certainty that there's a coupling of the two events."
> 
> Where exactly the comet or asteroid hit is unknown. It was probably somewhere between 3.7 and 7.4 miles (6 to 12 kilometers) wide, similar in size to the asteroid that crashed into Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula about 65 million years agothe collision thought by many scientists that lead to the extinction of the dinosaurs.
> 
> The impact 250 million years ago occurred during a time of extreme volcanism on Earth. Volcanic eruptions can change climates in several ways. Massive amounts of sediment and ash expelled during an explosion can block sunlight from reaching the Earth, causing a significant drop in temperature, inhibiting the photosynthesis that allows plants to grow, and causing food chains to collapse.
> 
> Alternatively, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases ejected into the Earth's atmosphere by eruptions trap the sun's heat, sending temperatures soaring, and causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise.
> 
> When these changes in temperature or sea level occur faster than a species can adjust to them, extinction results.
> 
> "If the species cannot adjust, they perish. It's a survival-of-the-fittest sort of thing," says Becker.
> 
> But volcanism alone couldn't explain the rapid rate of extinction.
> 
> "As paleontologists have gotten better and better resolution on how quickly the extinction took place, it became more and more clear that more than one cause was needed to explain it," says Becker.
> 
> "The volcanism went on for millions of years, and the extinctions took place much, much faster." Fossil evidence shows that the extinction took place in 8,000 to 100,000 yearsa heartbeat, in geological time.
> 
> Buckyballs: Cosmic Stowaways
> 
> The collision, which caused the rapid extincitions, left its signature in the sediment layers of the earth in the form of buckminsterfullerenesbuckyballs or fullerenes for short.
> 
> Buckyballs are microscopic clusters of carbon atoms that bond together to form a hollow geodesic cage, most frequently described as resembling a soccer ball. The cage can trap gases and is robust enough to survive interplanetary travel.
> 
> Becker and her colleagues were able to demonstrate that this form of carbon has an extraterrestrial origin.
> 
> The researchers studied the gases trapped within fullerenes found in high concentrations in the 250 million-year-old sedimentary layer, which divides the Permian and Triassic periods. The trapped gases contain forms of helium and argon structurally different from those found on Earth and could only have been formed in the extreme temperatures and gas pressures of outer space.
> 
> "These gas-laden fullerenes were formed outside the Solar System, and their concentration at the Permian-Triassic boundary means they were delivered by a comet or asteroid," says Becker.
> 
> 
> 
> National Geographic News @ nationalgeographic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are sure it was a comet collision not sure where the impact was on the planet. Great more conjecture in other words they don't have a clue how the mass extinction took place.
> 
> So are you saying the dinosaurs died out through catastrophism ? There is no evidence of this comet impacting earth but there is for strata being spread out through a global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> see post# 16427
Click to expand...

 Unlike you I don't need to read your posts more than once.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your confusion seems to be fully a matter of your own inability to not be confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put on your dancing shoes.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to. What's comical is that you initially rejected the idea of an asteroid / meteor strike. You subsequently post an article that confirms what most of the relevant science community agrees happened.
> 
> You actually refuted your earlier objection. Did you fall down and bump your head when you tripped over your own argument?
Click to expand...

 You're no different then saws you guys can't recognize fabricated evidence nor can you see conjecture when it is right in your face.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need to. What's comical is that you initially rejected the idea of an asteroid / meteor strike. You subsequently post an article that confirms what most of the relevant science community agrees happened.
> 
> You actually refuted your earlier objection. Did you fall down and bump your head when you tripped over your own argument?
> 
> 
> 
> either way it refutes the silly great flood myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always been curious as to where all the extra water came from to flood the planet and where it all eventually went.
> 
> Could it be that ywc will cut and paste some really, really, globally stupid article from a fundie website?
> 
> Nah!
Click to expand...


Where does all rain and water eventually wind up ?

Now this shows your ignorance. Plate tectonics the water is in the ocean.

Did you know you can saw off Mt everest and drop it in the ocean in some places and when it hit bottom there would be over a mile of water covering it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put on your dancing shoes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to. What's comical is that you initially rejected the idea of an asteroid / meteor strike. You subsequently post an article that confirms what most of the relevant science community agrees happened.
> 
> You actually refuted your earlier objection. Did you fall down and bump your head when you tripped over your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> either way it refutes the silly great flood myth.
Click to expand...


You are not smart.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Amazing the bible even declares where the water goes.


----------



## itfitzme

Youwerecreated said:


> Amazing the bible even declares where the water goes.



The ice caps?


----------



## itfitzme

Youwerecreated said:


> Amazing the bible even declares where the water goes.



Plate techtonics made the mountains higher and the oceans deeper?


----------



## itfitzme

Youwerecreated said:


> Amazing the bible even declares where the water goes.



"When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:"
(Proverbs 8:27-29 KJV)

"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."
(Genesis 2:5-6 KJV)

Yep, plate techtonics made the moutains higher, the valleys lower.  The water eveporated into the sky, flowed into the valleys to create the rivers and oceans, and some became the polar ice caps


----------



## Youwerecreated

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing the bible even declares where the water goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ice caps?
Click to expand...


The ice caps could be the result of the flood.


----------



## Youwerecreated

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing the bible even declares where the water goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plate techtonics made the mountains higher and the oceans deeper?
Click to expand...


Plate tectonics was the result of the fountains of the deep breaking up that pressure would have caused the uplifting of mountains.

There was once one super continent.

Gen 1:9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry [land] appear"; and it was so.  


 Gen 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that [it was] good.  

Gen 7:11  In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep came bursting through, and the windows of heaven were open;


----------



## Youwerecreated

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing the bible even declares where the water goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ice caps?
Click to expand...


Job 38:29 From whose womb comes the ice? And the frost of heaven, who gives it birth?  


 Job 38:30 The waters harden like stone, And the surface of the deep is frozen.  


Job 37:10 By the breath of God ice is given, And the broad waters are frozen.


----------



## Youwerecreated

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing the bible even declares where the water goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:"
> (Proverbs 8:27-29 KJV)
> 
> "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."
> (Genesis 2:5-6 KJV)
> 
> Yep, plate techtonics made the moutains higher, the valleys lower.  The water eveporated into the sky, flowed into the valleys to create the rivers and oceans, and some became the polar ice caps
Click to expand...


Ecc 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea, Yet the sea [is] not full; To the place from which the rivers come, There they return again. 

Jer 10:13 When He utters His voice, [There is] a multitude of waters in the heavens: "And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth. He makes lightning for the rain, He brings the wind out of His treasuries."  

Amo 9:6 He who builds His layers in the sky, And has founded His strata in the earth; Who calls for the waters of the sea, And pours them out on the face of the earth--The LORD [is] His name. 

Job 36:27 For He draws up drops of water, Which distill as rain from the mist,  


 Job 36:28 Which the clouds drop down [And] pour abundantly on man.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing the bible even declares where the water goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ice caps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ice caps could be the result of the flood.
Click to expand...


What flood?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing the bible even declares where the water goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:"
> (Proverbs 8:27-29 KJV)
> 
> "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."
> (Genesis 2:5-6 KJV)
> 
> Yep, plate techtonics made the moutains higher, the valleys lower.  The water eveporated into the sky, flowed into the valleys to create the rivers and oceans, and some became the polar ice caps
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ecc 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea, Yet the sea [is] not full; To the place from which the rivers come, There they return again.
> 
> Jer 10:13 When He utters His voice, [There is] a multitude of waters in the heavens: "And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth. He makes lightning for the rain, He brings the wind out of His treasuries."
> 
> Amo 9:6 He who builds His layers in the sky, And has founded His strata in the earth; Who calls for the waters of the sea, And pours them out on the face of the earth--The LORD [is] His name.
> 
> Job 36:27 For He draws up drops of water, Which distill as rain from the mist,
> 
> 
> Job 36:28 Which the clouds drop down [And] pour abundantly on man.
Click to expand...


Job 36:28-a: Thou shallest not spameth the board with pointless cut and paste.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing the bible even declares where the water goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plate techtonics made the mountains higher and the oceans deeper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plate tectonics was the result of the fountains of the deep breaking up that pressure would have caused the uplifting of mountains.
Click to expand...


Only in the juvenile, fantasy world of religious zealots.


----------



## t_polkow

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are sure it was a comet collision not sure where the impact was on the planet. Great more conjecture in other words they don't have a clue how the mass extinction took place.
> 
> So are you saying the dinosaurs died out through catastrophism ? There is no evidence of this comet impacting earth but there is for strata being spread out through a global flood.
> 
> 
> 
> see post# 16427
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I don't need to read your posts more than once.
Click to expand...


this may help you escape that mind numbing nonsense you try to peddle


----------



## Youwerecreated

t_polkow said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> see post# 16427
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I don't need to read your posts more than once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this may help you escape that mind numbing nonsense you try to peddle
Click to expand...



I will pray for you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

t_polkow said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> see post# 16427
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I don't need to read your posts more than once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this may help you escape that mind numbing nonsense you try to peddle
Click to expand...


This may help you escape that mind numbing nonsense you try to peddle

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhG4ddVyk54]EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE By Dr Richard Kent MD - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I don't need to read your posts more than once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this may help you escape that mind numbing nonsense you try to peddle
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I will pray for you.
Click to expand...


Why? Praying to gawds doesn't actually work.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I don't need to read your posts more than once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this may help you escape that mind numbing nonsense you try to peddle
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This may help you escape that mind numbing nonsense you try to peddle
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhG4ddVyk54]EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE By Dr Richard Kent MD - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


You should convert to a real religion such as Hinduism. You will have the benefit of many gawds.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> this may help you escape that mind numbing nonsense you try to peddle
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn_EPW17Fdc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will pray for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Praying to gawds doesn't actually work.
Click to expand...


You know this how Hollie ?

I will pray for you to Hollie. This video is to long I know you have not watched it you really should the truth is an Amazing weapon.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> this may help you escape that mind numbing nonsense you try to peddle
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn_EPW17Fdc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may help you escape that mind numbing nonsense you try to peddle
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhG4ddVyk54]EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE By Dr Richard Kent MD - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should convert to a real religion such as Hinduism. You will have the benefit of many gawds.
Click to expand...


Why should I convert to a religion that does not give me the truth of the world ? The bible has proven to be very reliable even supported by science in many areas other then Ideological teachings of science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will pray for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Praying to gawds doesn't actually work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know this how Hollie ?
> 
> I will pray for you to Hollie. This video is to long I know you have not watched it you really should the truth is an Amazing weapon.
Click to expand...


Yes, I know this. Prayer doesn't actually work.

I make a habit of avoiding your silly videos. And yes, truth is important... which is why I avoid your silly videos. I find creationist propaganda to be completely contrary to truth and fact.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may help you escape that mind numbing nonsense you try to peddle
> 
> EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE By Dr Richard Kent MD - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should convert to a real religion such as Hinduism. You will have the benefit of many gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I convert to a religion that does not give me the truth of the world ? The bible has proven to be very reliable even supported by science in many areas other then Ideological teachings of science.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the bibles are frequently wrong, contradictory and contrary to our morality.

Zeaots frequently make the same claims you have made regarding "reliability". There is a consistency among the zealiots that reeks of a clone mindset.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Praying to gawds doesn't actually work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know this how Hollie ?
> 
> I will pray for you to Hollie. This video is to long I know you have not watched it you really should the truth is an Amazing weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know this. Prayer doesn't actually work.
> 
> I make a habit of avoiding your silly videos. And yes, truth is important... which is why I avoid your silly videos. I find creationist propaganda to be completely contrary to truth and fact.
Click to expand...


That is why you still believe in fairytales.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should convert to a real religion such as Hinduism. You will have the benefit of many gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I convert to a religion that does not give me the truth of the world ? The bible has proven to be very reliable even supported by science in many areas other then Ideological teachings of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, the bibles are frequently wrong, contradictory and contrary to our morality.
> 
> Zeaots frequently make the same claims you have made regarding "reliability". There is a consistency among the zealiots that reeks of a clone mindset.
Click to expand...


The same could be said for your side. It does not matter what I say or any creationist say's nor is it what any man of science might say. What matters is what the evidence say's and which side is better supported by the evidence.


----------



## itfitzme

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will pray for you to Hollie. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know this. Prayer doesn't actually work.
Click to expand...


It works at least one out every hundred times. Even more if you pray for the right things. How often do you expect God to answer peoples prayers, he is busy.

The good church folk of Dover prayed that enough money would be made available to fund the purchase of the book "Of Pandas and People" so the school district could buy them.  And, because they all prayed together, the funds appeared.  They didn't ask any one to donate the funds, it wasn't like that.  Nope, just goes to show you the power of prayer.

You just have to pray for the right things


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know this how Hollie ?
> 
> I will pray for you to Hollie. This video is to long I know you have not watched it you really should the truth is an Amazing weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know this. Prayer doesn't actually work.
> 
> I make a habit of avoiding your silly videos. And yes, truth is important... which is why I avoid your silly videos. I find creationist propaganda to be completely contrary to truth and fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why you still believe in fairytales.
Click to expand...

I understand you are convinced that much of science is conspiracy theory but why would you expect others to share your paranoia and delusions?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Flood Geology videos part 1 and part 2

Flood Geology - Answers in Genesis


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know this. Prayer doesn't actually work.
> 
> I make a habit of avoiding your silly videos. And yes, truth is important... which is why I avoid your silly videos. I find creationist propaganda to be completely contrary to truth and fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you still believe in fairytales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you are convinced that much of science is conspiracy theory but why would you expect others to share your paranoia and delusions?
Click to expand...


Nope, I believe some is but much of it is derived from bad assumptions.


----------



## Hollie

itfitzme said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will pray for you to Hollie. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know this. Prayer doesn't actually work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It works at least one out every hundred times. Even more if you pray for the right things. How often do you expect God to answer peoples prayers, he is busy.
> 
> The good church folk of Dover prayed that enough money would be made available to fund the purchase of the book "Of Pandas and People" so the school district could buy them.  And, because they all prayed together, the funds appeared.  They didn't ask any one to donate the funds, it wasn't like that.  Nope, just goes to show you the power of prayer.
> 
> You just have to pray for the right things
Click to expand...


Your delusions are disturbing. So, in your story above, (the good church folk, praying for money), did the money appear by magic?

Here's the question: if I pray for money... if I pray 100 times, will I magically receive money, too?  

If I pray extra, extra hard? You make the Jesus to be little more than a handy automated teller.


----------



## itfitzme

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I convert to a religion that does not give me the truth of the world ? The bible has proven to be very reliable even supported by science in many areas other then Ideological teachings of science.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the bibles are frequently wrong, contradictory and contrary to our morality.
> 
> Zeaots frequently make the same claims you have made regarding "reliability". There is a consistency among the zealiots that reeks of a clone mindset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same could be said for your side. It does not matter what I say or any creationist say's nor is it what any man of science might say. What matters is what the evidence say's and which side is better supported by the evidence.
Click to expand...


Not to mention the axioms and postulates that set the foundation for what is taken as evidentiary.  You didn't mention the axioms and postulates.  You never mention the axioms and postulates.


----------



## itfitzme

Hollie said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know this. Prayer doesn't actually work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It works at least one out every hundred times. Even more if you pray for the right things. How often do you expect God to answer peoples prayers, he is busy.
> 
> The good church folk of Dover prayed that enough money would be made available to fund the purchase of the book "Of Pandas and People" so the school district could buy them.  And, because they all prayed together, the funds appeared.  They didn't ask any one to donate the funds, it wasn't like that.  Nope, just goes to show you the power of prayer.
> 
> You just have to pray for the right things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your delusions are disturbing. So, in your story above, (the good church folk, praying for money), did the money appear by magic?
> 
> Here's the question: if I pray for money... if I pray 100 times, will I magically receive money, too?
> 
> If I pray extra, extra hard? You make the Jesus to be little more than a handy automated teller.
Click to expand...


I pray that your bloodpressure and heart rate will subside.

I pray you will get your sense of irony and humor back again.

Serioiusly, I know there is reward in that elevates heart rate and blood pressure, but are you sure your going to be okay?


----------



## itfitzme

Hollie said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know this. Prayer doesn't actually work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It works at least one out every hundred times. Even more if you pray for the right things. How often do you expect God to answer peoples prayers, he is busy.
> 
> The good church folk of Dover prayed that enough money would be made available to fund the purchase of the book "Of Pandas and People" so the school district could buy them. *And, because they all prayed together, the funds appeared. *They didn't ask any one to donate the funds, it wasn't like that. *Nope, just goes to show you the power of prayer.
> 
> You just have to pray for the right things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your delusions are disturbing. So, in your story above, (the good church folk, praying for money), did the money appear by magic?
Click to expand...


That was the court testimony.



Hollie said:


> Here's the question: if I pray for money... if I pray 100 times, will I magically receive money, too? *
> 
> If I pray extra, extra hard? You make the Jesus to be little more than a handy automated teller.



It COULD happen... *;-) ... You may have to pray harder. *Of course, perhaps that isn't the RIGHT thing to pray for. *You never known Gods plan. ROTFLMAO ...

You do know the difference between an p-value of less than .05 and a*p-value of less that .95, right?

Alpha, beta, p-value, power, type I and type II errors? What do you suppose these are for your detractors?

You do understand behavior and learning? *Positive and negative, reward and punishment?

Social environment provides external reward for verbal behaviors. Surely you recogize that?

High visualization skills provide internal reward?

Depending on numerous environmental, in-vitro, and genetic factors, the effects of external and internal rewards may vary.

This then changes the very foundation of perception and world *view constructs.*

In can describe this in terms of  the cerebial cortex and the thalumus/hypocampus dominance and the feedback loop that supports and supresses internal reward through activation control of the hypothalamus and the sympathetic/para-sympathetic system.

It's all right there.  The evolution of the brain, basil ganglia (lizard brain), hippocampus/thalimus/hypothalamus complex (mamillary brain) and cerebrial cortex that starts from the visual cortex and completes the feedback loop at the frontal lobe.  Emotion, consciousness, memory reconstruction, internalized reward and punishment.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well here it is Hollie talk about fabricating evidence and now you can understand why I don't trust dating methods.
> 
> The revised dates clear up lingering confusion over whether the impact actually occurred before or after the extinction event. lol
> 
> New evidence comet or asteroid impact was last straw for dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> if you insist on refuting your own shit have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just pointing how stupid you're by the crap you post. Magically we can fix our problem by fudging with the dating method numbers. Sorry you're to dense to see the obvious fabrication which by the way they had to do to try and make evolution fit they always need more time and they magically get it with their dating methods.
Click to expand...

wrong! what you post is your inability to accept the accuracy of real science it is you and your pseudoscience creationist dogma that fabricates and fudges..
"paranoia and willfully ignorance are no way to go through life" (my apologies to the writers of animal house).


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are sure it was a comet collision not sure where the impact was on the planet. Great more conjecture in other words they don't have a clue how the mass extinction took place.
> 
> So are you saying the dinosaurs died out through catastrophism ? There is no evidence of this comet impacting earth but there is for strata being spread out through a global flood.
> 
> 
> 
> see post# 16427
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I don't need to read your posts more than once.
Click to expand...

unlike you I did not assume that post# was mine.. 
it was hollies' and it proves to thing you did not read the original post and lie consistently.
god will have to take you behind the wood shed when this life is over.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing the bible even declares where the water goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ice caps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ice caps could be the result of the flood.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ice caps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ice caps could be the result of the flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


What's-his-name has the best hair on tv.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I don't need to read your posts more than once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this may help you escape that mind numbing nonsense you try to peddle
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I will pray for you.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I don't need to read your posts more than once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this may help you escape that mind numbing nonsense you try to peddle
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This may help you escape that mind numbing nonsense you try to peddle
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhG4ddVyk54]EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE By Dr Richard Kent MD - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

non credible source FALSE  PREMISE BASED.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will pray for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Praying to gawds doesn't actually work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know this how Hollie ?
> 
> I will pray for you to Hollie. This video is to long I know you have not watched it you really should the truth is an Amazing weapon.
Click to expand...

that is true but that video is not by any stretch of the imagination or credibility true... 

yes, I have seen it and it was a gut buster of absurdity.


----------



## itfitzme

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ice caps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ice caps could be the result of the flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I fear your humor and sense of irony has also been burned out by to much investment in driving your sympatetic nervous system and hypothalus to increase adrenaline. I get the reward, but if you keep up to long, it can be damaging. *It results in a narrow focus, limiting input, causing you to miss things. *Pretty soon you're quickly putting things into generalized categories based on the feeling invoked by single environmental cues. *This leads to ingroup/outgroup thinking and a host of other emotional based mental behaviors that your dedication to scientific thought would have you otherwise reject.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Flood Geology videos part 1 and part 2
> 
> Flood Geology - Answers in Genesis


non credible pseudoscience ...based on the unprovable premise god did it!


----------



## daws101

itfitzme said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It works at least one out every hundred times. Even more if you pray for the right things. How often do you expect God to answer peoples prayers, he is busy.
> 
> The good church folk of Dover prayed that enough money would be made available to fund the purchase of the book "Of Pandas and People" so the school district could buy them.  And, because they all prayed together, the funds appeared.  They didn't ask any one to donate the funds, it wasn't like that.  Nope, just goes to show you the power of prayer.
> 
> You just have to pray for the right things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your delusions are disturbing. So, in your story above, (the good church folk, praying for money), did the money appear by magic?
> 
> Here's the question: if I pray for money... if I pray 100 times, will I magically receive money, too?
> 
> If I pray extra, extra hard? You make the Jesus to be little more than a handy automated teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ice caps could be the result of the flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fear your humor and sense of irony has also been burned out by to much investment in driving you sympatetic nervous system and hypothalus to increase adrenaline. I get the reward, but if you keep up to long, it can be damaging.  It results in a narrow focus, limiting input, causing you to miss things.
Click to expand...

well put but false!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ice caps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ice caps could be the result of the flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Now this is the kind of theorist I can see you listening to.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flood Geology videos part 1 and part 2
> 
> Flood Geology - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> non credible pseudoscience ...based on the unprovable premise god did it!
Click to expand...


You determining who is credible and who isn't involving science,now that is Ironic with your background.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I find it really hard to believe the science community would take the bible so lightly and not curious who really inspired it.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge


----------



## t_polkow

Youwerecreated said:


> I find it really hard to believe the science community would take the bible so lightly and not curious who really inspired it.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge



They take the bible as they would any book of fiction, as fiction with NO scientific basis


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flood Geology videos part 1 and part 2
> 
> Flood Geology - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> non credible pseudoscience ...based on the unprovable premise god did it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You determining who is credible and who isn't involving science,now that is Ironic with your background.
Click to expand...

AIG is a fundie Christian organization of charlatans and bible thumpers. 

We know with certainty that all of their conclusions will conform (be contorted) to fit with fundamentalist Christian doctrine. 

Let's not pretend that blow-hards, with phoney, mail-order credentials are in any way believable except to other fundies.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ice caps could be the result of the flood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now this is the kind of theorist I can see you listening to.
Click to expand...

you would! just more  proof of  your disconnect with reality. 
he spouts the same shit you do!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flood Geology videos part 1 and part 2
> 
> Flood Geology - Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> 
> non credible pseudoscience ...based on the unprovable premise god did it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You determining who is credible and who isn't involving science,now that is Ironic with your background.
Click to expand...

 the fact is, I have larger  volume of science and a far more varied scientific education then you do.
if you knew anything about the technical side of show biz. you would not make the slapdicky assumptions you do.

even if none of that were true ,all anyone who isn't mentally and emotionally needed as you are, needs to do is read your creationist shit to know it's not science.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> I find it really hard to believe the science community would take the bible so lightly and not curious who really inspired it.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge


cripplingly basis assumption, no basis in fact or logic.
so called foreknowledge is completely subjective.
I like to describe it this way:  in context  " people find what they are looking even when it's not there.
that's especially true in matters of faith or the psychic world. "


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> non credible pseudoscience ...based on the unprovable premise god did it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You determining who is credible and who isn't involving science,now that is Ironic with your background.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the fact is, I have larger  volume of science and a far more varied scientific education then you do.
> if you knew anything about the technical side of show biz. you would not make the slapdicky assumptions you do.
> 
> even if none of that were true ,all anyone who isn't mentally and emotionally needed as you are, needs to do is read your creationist shit to know it's not science.
Click to expand...

 with your so called degrees what field of science would you have a need for ? My major were various fields of science to obtain a molecular biology degree you make me laugh fool.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it really hard to believe the science community would take the bible so lightly and not curious who really inspired it.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> 
> 
> cripplingly basis assumption, no basis in fact or logic.
> so called foreknowledge is completely subjective.
> I like to describe it this way:  in context  " people find what they are looking even when it's not there.
> that's especially true in matters of faith or the psychic world. "
Click to expand...


Tell me how these men over 3,000 years ago knew of such things the bible mentions and was  proven with modern day technology. You can't reason things through if you had to.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> non credible pseudoscience ...based on the unprovable premise god did it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You determining who is credible and who isn't involving science,now that is Ironic with your background.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the fact is, I have larger  volume of science and a far more varied scientific education then you do.
> if you knew anything about the technical side of show biz. you would not make the slapdicky assumptions you do.
> 
> even if none of that were true ,all anyone who isn't mentally and emotionally needed as you are, needs to do is read your creationist shit to know it's not science.
Click to expand...


If this was accurate you could have answered some of my questions without the need of a copy and paste job.

You don't even know opposing theories on a subject that was evident by your refusal to answer my questions. Do you really think everyone reading this thread is that stupid ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is the kind of theorist I can see you listening to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you would! just more  proof of  your disconnect with reality.
> he spouts the same shit you do!
Click to expand...


No he doesn't.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> non credible pseudoscience ...based on the unprovable premise god did it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You determining who is credible and who isn't involving science,now that is Ironic with your background.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the fact is, I have larger  volume of science and a far more varied scientific education then you do.
> if you knew anything about the technical side of show biz. you would not make the slapdicky assumptions you do.
> 
> even if none of that were true ,all anyone who isn't mentally and emotionally needed as you are, needs to do is read your creationist shit to know it's not science.
Click to expand...


You make an awful lot of your science background. I will ask you one simple college question and see if you can answer it.

 According to theory earth's earliest organisms was made up of what MOLECULE ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Oh and daws explain it in detail.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You determining who is credible and who isn't involving science,now that is Ironic with your background.
> 
> 
> 
> the fact is, I have larger  volume of science and a far more varied scientific education then you do.
> if you knew anything about the technical side of show biz. you would not make the slapdicky assumptions you do.
> 
> even if none of that were true ,all anyone who isn't mentally and emotionally needed as you are, needs to do is read your creationist shit to know it's not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make an awful lot of your science background. I will ask you one simple college question and see if you can answer it.
> 
> According to theory earth's earliest organisms was made up of what MOLECULE ?
Click to expand...

Fundies are so cute when they're cutting and pasting these "challenges" they find on Harun Yahya.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the fact is, I have larger  volume of science and a far more varied scientific education then you do.
> if you knew anything about the technical side of show biz. you would not make the slapdicky assumptions you do.
> 
> even if none of that were true ,all anyone who isn't mentally and emotionally needed as you are, needs to do is read your creationist shit to know it's not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make an awful lot of your science background. I will ask you one simple college question and see if you can answer it.
> 
> According to theory earth's earliest organisms was made up of what MOLECULE ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fundies are so cute when they're cutting and pasting these "challenges" they find on Harun Yahya.
Click to expand...


Then answer the question since you're a fundie expert. If you think this is a fundie challenge just once again shows your level of ignorance concerning science..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You determining who is credible and who isn't involving science,now that is Ironic with your background.
> 
> 
> 
> the fact is, I have larger  volume of science and a far more varied scientific education then you do.
> if you knew anything about the technical side of show biz. you would not make the slapdicky assumptions you do.
> 
> even if none of that were true ,all anyone who isn't mentally and emotionally needed as you are, needs to do is read your creationist shit to know it's not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with your so called degrees what field of science would you have a need for ? My major were various fields of science to obtain a molecular biology degree you make me laugh fool.
Click to expand...

then you laugh the laugh of the ignorant...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it really hard to believe the science community would take the bible so lightly and not curious who really inspired it.
> 
> Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
> 
> 
> 
> cripplingly basis assumption, no basis in fact or logic.
> so called foreknowledge is completely subjective.
> I like to describe it this way:  in context  " people find what they are looking even when it's not there.
> that's especially true in matters of faith or the psychic world. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me how these men over 3,000 years ago knew of such things the bible mentions and was  proven with modern day technology. You can't reason things through if you had to.
Click to expand...

they did not really what they wrote down were stories or hear say none of it has been proved true by science.
you will however dispute this .....there is no need as anything you present will be based on FP'S  and intentional misrepresentations and misinterpretations ...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You determining who is credible and who isn't involving science,now that is Ironic with your background.
> 
> 
> 
> the fact is, I have larger  volume of science and a far more varied scientific education then you do.
> if you knew anything about the technical side of show biz. you would not make the slapdicky assumptions you do.
> 
> even if none of that were true ,all anyone who isn't mentally and emotionally needed as you are, needs to do is read your creationist shit to know it's not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this was accurate you could have answered some of my questions without the need of a copy and paste job.
> 
> You don't even know opposing theories on a subject that was evident by your refusal to answer my questions. Do you really think everyone reading this thread is that stupid ?
Click to expand...

it is accurate and why do I need to answer the same questions I've already answered many times over in this thread.
you were wrong then and your still wrong now 
asking the same refuted shit again and again is stupid.
what people do you mean? the ones who like myself who actively refute you bullshit or the ones that just laugh at you.
you must mean the people who suffer the same delusions you do .
let me clue you in slapdick, "they"
 are far from everyone .  

 three is not a majority.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is the kind of theorist I can see you listening to.
> 
> 
> 
> you would! just more  proof of  your disconnect with reality.
> he spouts the same shit you do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he doesn't.
Click to expand...

thanks again for showcasing your ignorance.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You determining who is credible and who isn't involving science,now that is Ironic with your background.
> 
> 
> 
> the fact is, I have larger  volume of science and a far more varied scientific education then you do.
> if you knew anything about the technical side of show biz. you would not make the slapdicky assumptions you do.
> 
> even if none of that were true ,all anyone who isn't mentally and emotionally needed as you are, needs to do is read your creationist shit to know it's not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make an awful lot of your science background. I will ask you one simple college question and see if you can answer it.
> 
> According to theory earth's earliest organisms was made up of what MOLECULE ?
Click to expand...

rna.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you would! just more  proof of  your disconnect with reality.
> he spouts the same shit you do!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks again for showcasing your ignorance.
Click to expand...


He speaks on the ancient alien theory that is hardly what I speak about thank you for your ignorant comments.

I guess with all that science background you claim to have you can't answer a basic science question. What gives ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Oh and daws explain it in detail.


what are you paying me?r are you my wife? since you are not doing one and are the other ..fuck you. my answer was correct   that being so no further explanation is necessary..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the fact is, I have larger  volume of science and a far more varied scientific education then you do.
> if you knew anything about the technical side of show biz. you would not make the slapdicky assumptions you do.
> 
> even if none of that were true ,all anyone who isn't mentally and emotionally needed as you are, needs to do is read your creationist shit to know it's not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make an awful lot of your science background. I will ask you one simple college question and see if you can answer it.
> 
> According to theory earth's earliest organisms was made up of what MOLECULE ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rna.
Click to expand...


Why would you say Rna ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and daws explain it in detail.
> 
> 
> 
> what are you paying me?r are you my wife? since you are not doing one and are the other ..fuck you. my answer was correct   that being so no further explanation is necessary..
Click to expand...


Why would you say it is right ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No he doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> thanks again for showcasing your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He speaks on the ancient alien theory that is hardly what I speak about thank you for your ignorant comments.
> 
> I guess with all that science background you claim to have you can't answer a basic science question. What gives ?
Click to expand...

really you might want to think about that.. if god is not an ancient alien what is god? 
already answered.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make an awful lot of your science background. I will ask you one simple college question and see if you can answer it.
> 
> According to theory earth's earliest organisms was made up of what MOLECULE ?
> 
> 
> 
> rna.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you say Rna ?
Click to expand...

because it's correct.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and daws explain it in detail.
> 
> 
> 
> what are you paying me?r are you my wife? since you are not doing one and are the other ..fuck you. my answer was correct   that being so no further explanation is necessary..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you say it is right ?
Click to expand...

why would I not.
listen up slapdick,  I neither care or need to prove anything to you.
the only rep here that's questionable is yours..
that fact is obvious to everyone but you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rna.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you say Rna ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because it's correct.
Click to expand...


Thank you for googling the question it shows your ignorance in science and it shows you will believe everything you read on the internet.

Now since you read the article on it why do you think the answer is correct ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what are you paying me?r are you my wife? since you are not doing one and are the other ..fuck you. my answer was correct   that being so no further explanation is necessary..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you say it is right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why would I not.
> listen up slapdick,  I neither care or need to prove anything to you.
> the only rep here that's questionable is yours..
> that fact is obvious to everyone but you.
Click to expand...


You don't think you need to give evidence for the claims you make ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you say Rna ?
> 
> 
> 
> because it's correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for googling the question it shows your ignorance in science and it shows you will believe everything you read on the internet.
> 
> Now since you read the article on it why do you think the answer is correct ?
Click to expand...

SORRY SLAPDICK YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN and that was a not college level science that was high school.
 but thanks for playing.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you say it is right ?
> 
> 
> 
> why would I not.
> listen up slapdick,  I neither care or need to prove anything to you.
> the only rep here that's questionable is yours..
> that fact is obvious to everyone but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think you need to give evidence for the claims you make ?
Click to expand...

I don't make claims that's what you do. 
I post facts that refute you bullshit
facts aka  evidence 

you post neither.


----------



## petro

Based upon the mathematical and scientific nature of our universe, God (higher intelligence) is most likely wearing a white lab coat, not a white robe.

The size and age of the universe is so vast that it is very likely that higher intelligence does exist, even the Drake equation puts a conservative estimate at 10,000 civilizations within our galaxy alone. Even if you shrunk that number to 100 it would be probable that at least a couple would be far advanced beyond us, even appearing Godlike and outside our awareness. It is up to each individual whether to worship such intelligence. I choose not to and appreciate that those who do not push that "belief" upon others. If believers took that course of action there would be far less violence on our world.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> because it's correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for googling the question it shows your ignorance in science and it shows you will believe everything you read on the internet.
> 
> Now since you read the article on it why do you think the answer is correct ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SORRY SLAPDICK YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN and that was a not college level science that was high school.
> but thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


You're a liar because they were running tests on it just recently and it became theory because they found that Rna can replicate itself. When were you in high school fool 

Now I will shoot a hole in this theory because so what if it can replicate itself because RNA  transcribes the DNA code so that it can be translated into proteins. It not only transcribes Dna but it keeps a copy.

You should not try bullshiting your way with me when will you learn.

Rna is useless without Dna.

Just in case you run off to fetch an article on a virus as an argument the The Dna information for the virus came from the host cell so it could replicate itself.


----------



## Youwerecreated

petro said:


> Based upon the mathematical and scientific nature of our universe, God (higher intelligence) is most likely wearing a white lab coat, not a white robe.
> 
> The size and age of the universe is so vast that it is very likely that higher intelligence does exist, even the Drake equation puts a conservative estimate at 10,000 civilizations within our galaxy alone. Even if you shrunk that number to 100 it would be probable that at least a couple would be far advanced beyond us, even appearing Godlike and outside our awareness. It is up to each individual whether to worship such intelligence. I choose not to and appreciate that those who do not push that "belief" upon others. If believers took that course of action there would be far less violence on our world.



Believe as you wish.


----------



## petro

Youwerecreated said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based upon the mathematical and scientific nature of our universe, God (higher intelligence) is most likely wearing a white lab coat, not a white robe.
> 
> The size and age of the universe is so vast that it is very likely that higher intelligence does exist, even the Drake equation puts a conservative estimate at 10,000 civilizations within our galaxy alone. Even if you shrunk that number to 100 it would be probable that at least a couple would be far advanced beyond us, even appearing Godlike and outside our awareness. It is up to each individual whether to worship such intelligence. I choose not to and appreciate that those who do not push that "belief" upon others. If believers took that course of action there would be far less violence on our world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish.
Click to expand...


Why not? That is exactly what you are doing. It just is that those who take a scientific point of view don't murder or start wars to "convert" others to their way of thinking.


----------



## Youwerecreated

petro said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based upon the mathematical and scientific nature of our universe, God (higher intelligence) is most likely wearing a white lab coat, not a white robe.
> 
> The size and age of the universe is so vast that it is very likely that higher intelligence does exist, even the Drake equation puts a conservative estimate at 10,000 civilizations within our galaxy alone. Even if you shrunk that number to 100 it would be probable that at least a couple would be far advanced beyond us, even appearing Godlike and outside our awareness. It is up to each individual whether to worship such intelligence. I choose not to and appreciate that those who do not push that "belief" upon others. If believers took that course of action there would be far less violence on our world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? That is exactly what you are doing.
Click to expand...


That is correct.


----------



## Youwerecreated

petro said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based upon the mathematical and scientific nature of our universe, God (higher intelligence) is most likely wearing a white lab coat, not a white robe.
> 
> The size and age of the universe is so vast that it is very likely that higher intelligence does exist, even the Drake equation puts a conservative estimate at 10,000 civilizations within our galaxy alone. Even if you shrunk that number to 100 it would be probable that at least a couple would be far advanced beyond us, even appearing Godlike and outside our awareness. It is up to each individual whether to worship such intelligence. I choose not to and appreciate that those who do not push that "belief" upon others. If believers took that course of action there would be far less violence on our world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? That is exactly what you are doing. It just is that those who take a scientific point of view don't murder or start wars to "convert" others to their way of thinking.
Click to expand...


My beliefs are simple you can believe as you wish. I do not lose sleep over someone not believing as I do.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for googling the question it shows your ignorance in science and it shows you will believe everything you read on the internet.
> 
> Now since you read the article on it why do you think the answer is correct ?
> 
> 
> 
> SORRY SLAPDICK YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN and that was a not college level science that was high school.
> but thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a liar because they were running tests on it just recently and it became theory because they found that Rna can replicate itself. When were you in high school fool
> 
> Now I will shoot a hole in this theory because so what if it can replicate itself because RNA  transcribes the DNA code so that it can be translated into proteins. It not only transcribes Dna but it keeps a copy.
> 
> You should not try bullshiting your way with me when will you learn.
> 
> Rna is useless without Dna.
> 
> Just in case you run off to fetch an article on a virus as an argument the The Dna information for the virus came from the host cell so it could replicate itself.
Click to expand...

again you're shooting blanks:
here's a short history of rna Research on RNA has led to many important biological discoveries and numerous Nobel Prizes. Nucleic acids were discovered in 1868 by Friedrich Miescher, who called the material 'nuclein' since it was found in the nucleus.[57] It was later discovered that prokaryotic cells, which do not have a nucleus, also contain nucleic acids. The role of RNA in protein synthesis was suspected already in 1939.[58] Severo Ochoa won the 1959 Nobel Prize in Medicine (shared with Arthur Kornberg) after he discovered an enzyme that can synthesize RNA in the laboratory.[59] However, the enzyme discovered by Ochoa (polynucleotide phosphorylase) was later shown to be responsible for RNA degradation, not RNA synthesis.

The sequence of the 77 nucleotides of a yeast tRNA was found by Robert W. Holley in 1965,[60] winning Holley the 1968 Nobel Prize in Medicine (shared with Har Gobind Khorana and Marshall Nirenberg). In 1967, Carl Woese hypothesized that RNA might be catalytic and suggested that the earliest forms of life (self-replicating molecules) could have relied on RNA both to carry genetic information and to catalyze biochemical reactions&#8212;an RNA world.[61][62]

During the early 1970s retroviruses and reverse transcriptase were discovered, showing for the first time that enzymes could copy RNA into DNA (the opposite of the usual route for transmission of genetic information). For this work, David Baltimore, Renato Dulbecco and Howard Temin were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1975. In 1976, Walter Fiers and his team determined the first complete nucleotide sequence of an RNA virus genome, that of bacteriophage MS2.[63]

In 1977, introns and RNA splicing were discovered in both mammalian viruses and in cellular genes, resulting in a 1993 Nobel to Philip Sharp and Richard Roberts. Catalytic RNA molecules (ribozymes) were discovered in the early 1980s, leading to a 1989 Nobel award to Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman. In 1990 it was found in Petunia that introduced genes can silence similar genes of the plant's own, now known to be a result of RNA interference.[64][65]

At about the same time, 22 nt long RNAs, now called microRNAs, were found to have a role in the development of C. elegans.[66] Studies on RNA interference gleaned a Nobel Prize for Andrew Fire and Craig Mello in 2006, and another Nobel was awarded for studies on transcription of RNA to Roger Kornberg in the same year 


 I post this slapdick to  show you high schools were teaching gene "theory" as part of biology  in 1977 the year I graduated high school.
 so as always somebody's talking out their ass and it's not me...    

btw About me


Industry
Religion 

Occupation
apologetics evangelism 

Location
Des Moines, IA, United States 

Introduction
Welcome to You Don't Have To Have A Ph.D.! by Have You Not Read Ministries. We are here to show you that you do not need to have a degree in science to understand God's world, how it works and to see why evolutionary science does not fit. 

Interests
Creation Evolution Jesus salvation and the inerrant word of God 

Favorite Movies
Fireproof, Facing the Giants, Timechanger, Passion of the Christ 

Favorite Music
Third Day, Kutless, Jeremy Camp 

Favorite Books
The Bible, Books by Answers in Genesis and The Way of the Master. 


Question: Are you a good person? Have you ever: Told a lie? Stolen something? Used the Lords name in vain? Looked at someone with lust? Liked something with more passion than God? Hated someone? Not reserved one day a week to honor God? Argued with your parents? Really wanted something that belonged to someone else? Had something more important to you than God? That's all 10 Commandments!

this is your source?  Blogger: User Profile: You Don't Have To Have A Ph.D.!

as always based on a false premise.
 here's your ass again.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? That is exactly what you are doing. It just is that those who take a scientific point of view don't murder or start wars to "convert" others to their way of thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My beliefs are simple you can believe as you wish. I do not lose sleep over someone not believing as I do.
Click to expand...

that's total bullshit as you spend weekends and vacations pimping your falsehoods on this site.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> SORRY SLAPDICK YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN and that was a not college level science that was high school.
> but thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar because they were running tests on it just recently and it became theory because they found that Rna can replicate itself. When were you in high school fool
> 
> Now I will shoot a hole in this theory because so what if it can replicate itself because RNA  transcribes the DNA code so that it can be translated into proteins. It not only transcribes Dna but it keeps a copy.
> 
> You should not try bullshiting your way with me when will you learn.
> 
> Rna is useless without Dna.
> 
> Just in case you run off to fetch an article on a virus as an argument the The Dna information for the virus came from the host cell so it could replicate itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again you're shooting blanks:
> here's a short history of rna Research on RNA has led to many important biological discoveries and numerous Nobel Prizes. Nucleic acids were discovered in 1868 by Friedrich Miescher, who called the material 'nuclein' since it was found in the nucleus.[57] It was later discovered that prokaryotic cells, which do not have a nucleus, also contain nucleic acids. The role of RNA in protein synthesis was suspected already in 1939.[58] Severo Ochoa won the 1959 Nobel Prize in Medicine (shared with Arthur Kornberg) after he discovered an enzyme that can synthesize RNA in the laboratory.[59] However, the enzyme discovered by Ochoa (polynucleotide phosphorylase) was later shown to be responsible for RNA degradation, not RNA synthesis.
> 
> The sequence of the 77 nucleotides of a yeast tRNA was found by Robert W. Holley in 1965,[60] winning Holley the 1968 Nobel Prize in Medicine (shared with Har Gobind Khorana and Marshall Nirenberg). In 1967, Carl Woese hypothesized that RNA might be catalytic and suggested that the earliest forms of life (self-replicating molecules) could have relied on RNA both to carry genetic information and to catalyze biochemical reactions&#8212;an RNA world.[61][62]
> 
> During the early 1970s retroviruses and reverse transcriptase were discovered, showing for the first time that enzymes could copy RNA into DNA (the opposite of the usual route for transmission of genetic information). For this work, David Baltimore, Renato Dulbecco and Howard Temin were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1975. In 1976, Walter Fiers and his team determined the first complete nucleotide sequence of an RNA virus genome, that of bacteriophage MS2.[63]
> 
> In 1977, introns and RNA splicing were discovered in both mammalian viruses and in cellular genes, resulting in a 1993 Nobel to Philip Sharp and Richard Roberts. Catalytic RNA molecules (ribozymes) were discovered in the early 1980s, leading to a 1989 Nobel award to Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman. In 1990 it was found in Petunia that introduced genes can silence similar genes of the plant's own, now known to be a result of RNA interference.[64][65]
> 
> At about the same time, 22 nt long RNAs, now called microRNAs, were found to have a role in the development of C. elegans.[66] Studies on RNA interference gleaned a Nobel Prize for Andrew Fire and Craig Mello in 2006, and another Nobel was awarded for studies on transcription of RNA to Roger Kornberg in the same year
> 
> 
> I post this slapdick to  show you high schools were teaching gene "theory" as part of biology  in 1977 the year I graduated high school.
> so as always somebody's talking out their ass and it's not me...
> 
> btw About me
> 
> 
> Industry
> Religion
> 
> Occupation
> apologetics evangelism
> 
> Location
> Des Moines, IA, United States
> 
> Introduction
> Welcome to You Don't Have To Have A Ph.D.! by Have You Not Read Ministries. We are here to show you that you do not need to have a degree in science to understand God's world, how it works and to see why evolutionary science does not fit.
> 
> Interests
> Creation Evolution Jesus salvation and the inerrant word of God
> 
> Favorite Movies
> Fireproof, Facing the Giants, Timechanger, Passion of the Christ
> 
> Favorite Music
> Third Day, Kutless, Jeremy Camp
> 
> Favorite Books
> The Bible, Books by Answers in Genesis and The Way of the Master.
> 
> 
> Question: Are you a good person? Have you ever: Told a lie? Stolen something? Used the Lords name in vain? Looked at someone with lust? Liked something with more passion than God? Hated someone? Not reserved one day a week to honor God? Argued with your parents? Really wanted something that belonged to someone else? Had something more important to you than God? That's all 10 Commandments!
> 
> this is your source?  Blogger: User Profile: You Don't Have To Have A Ph.D.!
> 
> as always based on a false premise.
> here's your ass again.
Click to expand...


They did not show until recently that Rna could be self replicating what you're not understanding is  reverse transcriptase This enzyme, found in the protein shell, transcribes RNA back into DNA, which is then inserted into the genome of the host. You see they failed in proving their point because the Rna stored the original Dna message and it is injected in the host cells Genome so they can reproduce.

Originally they were hypothesising That Rna was self replicating because they needed a molecule that was self replicating so they could teach spontaneous generation. They showed that but it took Rna that had a copy of Dna for it to happen other wise this virus could not invade the host cell and be reproduced.

So it was an epic fail as I said and Rna is useless in producing life absent of Dna. Rna is the messenger got it ?

So no it did not become theory until recently it was only hypothesized in the 60's and 70's


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? That is exactly what you are doing. It just is that those who take a scientific point of view don't murder or start wars to "convert" others to their way of thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My beliefs are simple you can believe as you wish. I do not lose sleep over someone not believing as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's total bullshit as you spend weekends and vacations pimping your falsehoods on this site.
Click to expand...


Because I participate in discussions on here does not mean I lose sleep over people that don't believe as I do. That might be what drives you but it does not drive me.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe as you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? That is exactly what you are doing. It just is that those who take a scientific point of view don't murder or start wars to "convert" others to their way of thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My beliefs are simple you can believe as you wish. I do not lose sleep over someone not believing as I do.
Click to expand...


Lets be honest. Youre consumed whole by people not believing in your gawds.  Youre incensed by it. Thats exactly why you spend so much time proselytizing.  Its also why youre completely oblivious to, and utterly hostile to the facts of science.  Its why you repeatedly have cut and pasted falsified, parsed and edited quotes even in the face of those falsifications being repeatedly exposed as hoaxes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? That is exactly what you are doing. It just is that those who take a scientific point of view don't murder or start wars to "convert" others to their way of thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My beliefs are simple you can believe as you wish. I do not lose sleep over someone not believing as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets be honest. Youre consumed whole by people not believing in your gawds.  Youre incensed by it. Thats exactly why you spend so much time proselytizing.  Its also why youre completely oblivious to, and utterly hostile to the facts of science.  Its why you repeatedly have cut and pasted falsified, parsed and edited quotes even in the face of those falsifications being repeatedly exposed as hoaxes.
Click to expand...


Hollie I come on here for the entertainment and maybe a few people will look beyond the bullshit people like you and daws spread but people can believe as they choose. Now why do you spend so much time on here ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My beliefs are simple you can believe as you wish. I do not lose sleep over someone not believing as I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be honest. Youre consumed whole by people not believing in your gawds.  Youre incensed by it. Thats exactly why you spend so much time proselytizing.  Its also why youre completely oblivious to, and utterly hostile to the facts of science.  Its why you repeatedly have cut and pasted falsified, parsed and edited quotes even in the face of those falsifications being repeatedly exposed as hoaxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie I come on here for the entertainment and maybe a few people will look beyond the bullshit people like you and daws spread but people can believe as they choose. Now why do you spend so much time on here ?
Click to expand...


What "bullshit" would that be?

It's not "bullshit" to confront lies and falsehoods. That's precisely what you have repeatedly dumped in this thread to promote your religion. Do you find it at all paradoxical that you use your religious views to promote lies and falsehoods?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let&#8217;s be honest. You&#8217;re consumed whole by people not believing in your gawds.  You&#8217;re incensed by it. That&#8217;s exactly why you spend so much time proselytizing.  It&#8217;s also why you&#8217;re completely oblivious to, and utterly hostile to the facts of science.  It&#8217;s why you repeatedly have cut and pasted falsified, parsed and edited &#8220;quotes&#8221; even in the face of those falsifications being repeatedly exposed as hoaxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie I come on here for the entertainment and maybe a few people will look beyond the bullshit people like you and daws spread but people can believe as they choose. Now why do you spend so much time on here ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "bullshit" would that be?
> 
> It's not "bullshit" to confront lies and falsehoods. That's precisely what you have repeatedly dumped in this thread to promote your religion. Do you find it at all paradoxical that you use your religious views to promote lies and falsehoods?
Click to expand...

 when have I ever mentioned my religion ? I go through what you people post and point out errors ,contradictions,and correct that is not spreading lies and falsehoods. I also point out things you people try to pass off as facts which are only based on conjecture.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar because they were running tests on it just recently and it became theory because they found that Rna can replicate itself. When were you in high school fool
> 
> Now I will shoot a hole in this theory because so what if it can replicate itself because RNA  transcribes the DNA code so that it can be translated into proteins. It not only transcribes Dna but it keeps a copy.
> 
> You should not try bullshiting your way with me when will you learn.
> 
> Rna is useless without Dna.
> 
> Just in case you run off to fetch an article on a virus as an argument the The Dna information for the virus came from the host cell so it could replicate itself.
> 
> 
> 
> again you're shooting blanks:
> here's a short history of rna Research on RNA has led to many important biological discoveries and numerous Nobel Prizes. Nucleic acids were discovered in 1868 by Friedrich Miescher, who called the material 'nuclein' since it was found in the nucleus.[57] It was later discovered that prokaryotic cells, which do not have a nucleus, also contain nucleic acids. The role of RNA in protein synthesis was suspected already in 1939.[58] Severo Ochoa won the 1959 Nobel Prize in Medicine (shared with Arthur Kornberg) after he discovered an enzyme that can synthesize RNA in the laboratory.[59] However, the enzyme discovered by Ochoa (polynucleotide phosphorylase) was later shown to be responsible for RNA degradation, not RNA synthesis.
> 
> The sequence of the 77 nucleotides of a yeast tRNA was found by Robert W. Holley in 1965,[60] winning Holley the 1968 Nobel Prize in Medicine (shared with Har Gobind Khorana and Marshall Nirenberg). In 1967, Carl Woese hypothesized that RNA might be catalytic and suggested that the earliest forms of life (self-replicating molecules) could have relied on RNA both to carry genetic information and to catalyze biochemical reactionsan RNA world.[61][62]
> 
> During the early 1970s retroviruses and reverse transcriptase were discovered, showing for the first time that enzymes could copy RNA into DNA (the opposite of the usual route for transmission of genetic information). For this work, David Baltimore, Renato Dulbecco and Howard Temin were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1975. In 1976, Walter Fiers and his team determined the first complete nucleotide sequence of an RNA virus genome, that of bacteriophage MS2.[63]
> 
> In 1977, introns and RNA splicing were discovered in both mammalian viruses and in cellular genes, resulting in a 1993 Nobel to Philip Sharp and Richard Roberts. Catalytic RNA molecules (ribozymes) were discovered in the early 1980s, leading to a 1989 Nobel award to Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman. In 1990 it was found in Petunia that introduced genes can silence similar genes of the plant's own, now known to be a result of RNA interference.[64][65]
> 
> At about the same time, 22 nt long RNAs, now called microRNAs, were found to have a role in the development of C. elegans.[66] Studies on RNA interference gleaned a Nobel Prize for Andrew Fire and Craig Mello in 2006, and another Nobel was awarded for studies on transcription of RNA to Roger Kornberg in the same year
> 
> 
> I post this slapdick to  show you high schools were teaching gene "theory" as part of biology  in 1977 the year I graduated high school.
> so as always somebody's talking out their ass and it's not me...
> 
> btw About me
> 
> 
> Industry
> Religion
> 
> Occupation
> apologetics evangelism
> 
> Location
> Des Moines, IA, United States
> 
> Introduction
> Welcome to You Don't Have To Have A Ph.D.! by Have You Not Read Ministries. We are here to show you that you do not need to have a degree in science to understand God's world, how it works and to see why evolutionary science does not fit.
> 
> Interests
> Creation Evolution Jesus salvation and the inerrant word of God
> 
> Favorite Movies
> Fireproof, Facing the Giants, Timechanger, Passion of the Christ
> 
> Favorite Music
> Third Day, Kutless, Jeremy Camp
> 
> Favorite Books
> The Bible, Books by Answers in Genesis and The Way of the Master.
> 
> 
> Question: Are you a good person? Have you ever: Told a lie? Stolen something? Used the Lords name in vain? Looked at someone with lust? Liked something with more passion than God? Hated someone? Not reserved one day a week to honor God? Argued with your parents? Really wanted something that belonged to someone else? Had something more important to you than God? That's all 10 Commandments!
> 
> this is your source?  Blogger: User Profile: You Don't Have To Have A Ph.D.!
> 
> as always based on a false premise.
> here's your ass again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did not show until recently that Rna could be self replicating what you're not understanding is  reverse transcriptase This enzyme, found in the protein shell, transcribes RNA back into DNA, which is then inserted into the genome of the host. You see they failed in proving their point because the Rna stored the original Dna message and it is injected in the host cells Genome so they can reproduce.
> 
> Originally they were hypothesising That Rna was self replicating because they needed a molecule that was self replicating so they could teach spontaneous generation. They showed that but it took Rna that had a copy of Dna for it to happen other wise this virus could not invade the host cell and be reproduced.
> 
> So it was an epic fail as I said and Rna is useless in producing life absent of Dna. Rna is the messenger got it ?
> 
> So no it did not become theory until recently it was only hypothesized in the 60's and 70's
Click to expand...

your answer has nothing to do with the questions you asked me. rna and what year I graduated HS. the rest of you babble in no proof of a creator god or great flood .
I was taught genetic THEORY as apart of evolutionary biology in high school in my junior and senior years --1976 -1977 .
as always the epic fail is yours.
one day when you grow up maybe you'll realize your not the smartest kid in the class or school or town or county or state...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> My beliefs are simple you can believe as you wish. I do not lose sleep over someone not believing as I do.
> 
> 
> 
> that's total bullshit as you spend weekends and vacations pimping your falsehoods on this site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I participate in discussions on here does not mean I lose sleep over people that don't believe as I do. That might be what drives you but it does not drive me.
Click to expand...

bullshit! what drives you is a messiah complex and an absolute mania for thinking you're right all the time when the truth is you're wrong about just about everything all the time.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie I come on here for the entertainment and maybe a few people will look beyond the bullshit people like you and daws spread but people can believe as they choose. Now why do you spend so much time on here ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "bullshit" would that be?
> 
> It's not "bullshit" to confront lies and falsehoods. That's precisely what you have repeatedly dumped in this thread to promote your religion. Do you find it at all paradoxical that you use your religious views to promote lies and falsehoods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when have I ever mentioned my religion ? I go through what you people post and point out errors ,contradictions,and correct that is not spreading lies and falsehoods. I also point out things you people try to pass off as facts which are only based on conjecture.
Click to expand...

do I REALLY NEED TO point out how everything you just posted is a total false hood.
I know what your religion is  no matter what bogus name you give your little coven of believers you're an evangelical creationist..
my guess is your leader has no formal religious training.
he might even be you.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie I come on here for the entertainment and maybe a few people will look beyond the bullshit people like you and daws spread but people can believe as they choose. Now why do you spend so much time on here ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "bullshit" would that be?
> 
> It's not "bullshit" to confront lies and falsehoods. That's precisely what you have repeatedly dumped in this thread to promote your religion. Do you find it at all paradoxical that you use your religious views to promote lies and falsehoods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when have I ever mentioned my religion ? I go through what you people post and point out errors ,contradictions,and correct that is not spreading lies and falsehoods. I also point out things you people try to pass off as facts which are only based on conjecture.
Click to expand...


You give yourself credit for doing nothing. I can't recall you refuting the peer reviewed science presented to you. What you have done is post nonsense from Christian crestionist websites. Have you considered that using Christian fundie websites ( excluding the Harun Yahya nonsense), and posting verses from the various bibles pre-announces your religious affiliation?

You are a poor candidate for making claims regarding conjecture when using creationist sources for your posts. It's really laughable to see you suggesting that the notoriously inept and biblical literalist creationist websites you use as "sources" In any way refutes the relevant science community.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "bullshit" would that be?
> 
> It's not "bullshit" to confront lies and falsehoods. That's precisely what you have repeatedly dumped in this thread to promote your religion. Do you find it at all paradoxical that you use your religious views to promote lies and falsehoods?
> 
> 
> 
> when have I ever mentioned my religion ? I go through what you people post and point out errors ,contradictions,and correct that is not spreading lies and falsehoods. I also point out things you people try to pass off as facts which are only based on conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You give yourself credit for doing nothing. I can't recall you refuting the peer reviewed science presented to you. What you have done is post nonsense from Christian crestionist websites. Have you considered that using Christian fundie websites ( excluding the Harun Yahya nonsense), and posting verses from the various bibles pre-announces your religious affiliation?
> 
> You are a poor candidate for making claims regarding conjecture when using creationist sources for your posts. It's really laughable to see you suggesting that the notoriously inept and biblical literalist creationist websites you use as "sources" In any way refutes the relevant science community.
Click to expand...

amen (pun intended) 

CHRISTIAN  A follower or believer in Jesus.

 FUNDAMENTALIST One who believes the Bible is literally true and must be followed exactly.

 Therefore they are followers of the bible and not Jesus making them non Christians!!!

 But worse is to follow it also makes them ideologists.

 IDEOLOGY An idea that is false or held for the wrong reasons but is believed with such conviction as to be irrefutable.

 So Christians have a loving and forgiving god and fundamentalist - well - Just are not Christians!!!!

 So many Christians are praying fervently that they will discover the loving god and start acting like it but sadly realize that is so unlikely!!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again you're shooting blanks:
> here's a short history of rna Research on RNA has led to many important biological discoveries and numerous Nobel Prizes. Nucleic acids were discovered in 1868 by Friedrich Miescher, who called the material 'nuclein' since it was found in the nucleus.[57] It was later discovered that prokaryotic cells, which do not have a nucleus, also contain nucleic acids. The role of RNA in protein synthesis was suspected already in 1939.[58] Severo Ochoa won the 1959 Nobel Prize in Medicine (shared with Arthur Kornberg) after he discovered an enzyme that can synthesize RNA in the laboratory.[59] However, the enzyme discovered by Ochoa (polynucleotide phosphorylase) was later shown to be responsible for RNA degradation, not RNA synthesis.
> 
> The sequence of the 77 nucleotides of a yeast tRNA was found by Robert W. Holley in 1965,[60] winning Holley the 1968 Nobel Prize in Medicine (shared with Har Gobind Khorana and Marshall Nirenberg). In 1967, Carl Woese hypothesized that RNA might be catalytic and suggested that the earliest forms of life (self-replicating molecules) could have relied on RNA both to carry genetic information and to catalyze biochemical reactionsan RNA world.[61][62]
> 
> During the early 1970s retroviruses and reverse transcriptase were discovered, showing for the first time that enzymes could copy RNA into DNA (the opposite of the usual route for transmission of genetic information). For this work, David Baltimore, Renato Dulbecco and Howard Temin were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1975. In 1976, Walter Fiers and his team determined the first complete nucleotide sequence of an RNA virus genome, that of bacteriophage MS2.[63]
> 
> In 1977, introns and RNA splicing were discovered in both mammalian viruses and in cellular genes, resulting in a 1993 Nobel to Philip Sharp and Richard Roberts. Catalytic RNA molecules (ribozymes) were discovered in the early 1980s, leading to a 1989 Nobel award to Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman. In 1990 it was found in Petunia that introduced genes can silence similar genes of the plant's own, now known to be a result of RNA interference.[64][65]
> 
> At about the same time, 22 nt long RNAs, now called microRNAs, were found to have a role in the development of C. elegans.[66] Studies on RNA interference gleaned a Nobel Prize for Andrew Fire and Craig Mello in 2006, and another Nobel was awarded for studies on transcription of RNA to Roger Kornberg in the same year
> 
> 
> I post this slapdick to  show you high schools were teaching gene "theory" as part of biology  in 1977 the year I graduated high school.
> so as always somebody's talking out their ass and it's not me...
> 
> btw About me
> 
> 
> Industry
> Religion
> 
> Occupation
> apologetics evangelism
> 
> Location
> Des Moines, IA, United States
> 
> Introduction
> Welcome to You Don't Have To Have A Ph.D.! by Have You Not Read Ministries. We are here to show you that you do not need to have a degree in science to understand God's world, how it works and to see why evolutionary science does not fit.
> 
> Interests
> Creation Evolution Jesus salvation and the inerrant word of God
> 
> Favorite Movies
> Fireproof, Facing the Giants, Timechanger, Passion of the Christ
> 
> Favorite Music
> Third Day, Kutless, Jeremy Camp
> 
> Favorite Books
> The Bible, Books by Answers in Genesis and The Way of the Master.
> 
> 
> Question: Are you a good person? Have you ever: Told a lie? Stolen something? Used the Lords name in vain? Looked at someone with lust? Liked something with more passion than God? Hated someone? Not reserved one day a week to honor God? Argued with your parents? Really wanted something that belonged to someone else? Had something more important to you than God? That's all 10 Commandments!
> 
> this is your source?  Blogger: User Profile: You Don't Have To Have A Ph.D.!
> 
> as always based on a false premise.
> here's your ass again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did not show until recently that Rna could be self replicating what you're not understanding is  reverse transcriptase This enzyme, found in the protein shell, transcribes RNA back into DNA, which is then inserted into the genome of the host. You see they failed in proving their point because the Rna stored the original Dna message and it is injected in the host cells Genome so they can reproduce.
> 
> Originally they were hypothesising That Rna was self replicating because they needed a molecule that was self replicating so they could teach spontaneous generation. They showed that but it took Rna that had a copy of Dna for it to happen other wise this virus could not invade the host cell and be reproduced.
> 
> So it was an epic fail as I said and Rna is useless in producing life absent of Dna. Rna is the messenger got it ?
> 
> So no it did not become theory until recently it was only hypothesized in the 60's and 70's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your answer has nothing to do with the questions you asked me. rna and what year I graduated HS. the rest of you babble in no proof of a creator god or great flood .
> I was taught genetic THEORY as apart of evolutionary biology in high school in my junior and senior years --1976 -1977 .
> as always the epic fail is yours.
> one day when you grow up maybe you'll realize your not the smartest kid in the class or school or town or county or state...
Click to expand...


Here is the question that was asked.
According to theory earth's earliest organisms was made up of what MOLECULE ?
Daws do you know the difference between theory and Hypothesis ? When you were in High School you may have heard something about the Hypothesis but it was not theory. You said you learned this in High school I said it was not a theory when you were in high 
school.

 Genetics is not even what we are discussing Genetics deal with heredity and the variation of inherited characteristics.We were discussing Molecular biology that is the study of structures and function of the macromolecules proteins and nucleic acids.

I think you had limited science and you rush off and copy and paste things you think answer the questions when challenged.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's total bullshit as you spend weekends and vacations pimping your falsehoods on this site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I participate in discussions on here does not mean I lose sleep over people that don't believe as I do. That might be what drives you but it does not drive me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit! what drives you is a messiah complex and an absolute mania for thinking you're right all the time when the truth is you're wrong about just about everything all the time.
Click to expand...


Daws I am not right all the time and when I am wrong I can put my big boy pants on and fess up how bout you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "bullshit" would that be?
> 
> It's not "bullshit" to confront lies and falsehoods. That's precisely what you have repeatedly dumped in this thread to promote your religion. Do you find it at all paradoxical that you use your religious views to promote lies and falsehoods?
> 
> 
> 
> when have I ever mentioned my religion ? I go through what you people post and point out errors ,contradictions,and correct that is not spreading lies and falsehoods. I also point out things you people try to pass off as facts which are only based on conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do I REALLY NEED TO point out how everything you just posted is a total false hood.
> I know what your religion is  no matter what bogus name you give your little coven of believers you're an evangelical creationist..
> my guess is your leader has no formal religious training.
> he might even be you.
Click to expand...


I have never mentioned my religion fact is I am no fan of religion. Religion was mans creation not Gods creation so you can try and show this so called religion That I supposedly push on others.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "bullshit" would that be?
> 
> It's not "bullshit" to confront lies and falsehoods. That's precisely what you have repeatedly dumped in this thread to promote your religion. Do you find it at all paradoxical that you use your religious views to promote lies and falsehoods?
> 
> 
> 
> when have I ever mentioned my religion ? I go through what you people post and point out errors ,contradictions,and correct that is not spreading lies and falsehoods. I also point out things you people try to pass off as facts which are only based on conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You give yourself credit for doing nothing. I can't recall you refuting the peer reviewed science presented to you. What you have done is post nonsense from Christian crestionist websites. Have you considered that using Christian fundie websites ( excluding the Harun Yahya nonsense), and posting verses from the various bibles pre-announces your religious affiliation?
> 
> You are a poor candidate for making claims regarding conjecture when using creationist sources for your posts. It's really laughable to see you suggesting that the notoriously inept and biblical literalist creationist websites you use as "sources" In any way refutes the relevant science community.
Click to expand...


Peer reviews impress you hollie ?

Global Warming Hoax: Peer Reviewed Journal Papers Showing Natural Causes for Climate Change

Blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> when have I ever mentioned my religion ? I go through what you people post and point out errors ,contradictions,and correct that is not spreading lies and falsehoods. I also point out things you people try to pass off as facts which are only based on conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You give yourself credit for doing nothing. I can't recall you refuting the peer reviewed science presented to you. What you have done is post nonsense from Christian crestionist websites. Have you considered that using Christian fundie websites ( excluding the Harun Yahya nonsense), and posting verses from the various bibles pre-announces your religious affiliation?
> 
> You are a poor candidate for making claims regarding conjecture when using creationist sources for your posts. It's really laughable to see you suggesting that the notoriously inept and biblical literalist creationist websites you use as "sources" In any way refutes the relevant science community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> amen (pun intended)
> 
> CHRISTIAN  A follower or believer in Jesus.
> 
> FUNDAMENTALIST One who believes the Bible is literally true and must be followed exactly.
> 
> Therefore they are followers of the bible and not Jesus making them non Christians!!!
> 
> But worse is to follow it also makes them ideologists.
> 
> IDEOLOGY An idea that is false or held for the wrong reasons but is believed with such conviction as to be irrefutable.
> 
> So Christians have a loving and forgiving god and fundamentalist - well - Just are not Christians!!!!
> 
> So many Christians are praying fervently that they will discover the loving god and start acting like it but sadly realize that is so unlikely!!!
Click to expand...


Christianity is a philosophy not a religion. catholics,baptists,pentecostals are religions.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> when have I ever mentioned my religion ? I go through what you people post and point out errors ,contradictions,and correct that is not spreading lies and falsehoods. I also point out things you people try to pass off as facts which are only based on conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You give yourself credit for doing nothing. I can't recall you refuting the peer reviewed science presented to you. What you have done is post nonsense from Christian crestionist websites. Have you considered that using Christian fundie websites ( excluding the Harun Yahya nonsense), and posting verses from the various bibles pre-announces your religious affiliation?
> 
> You are a poor candidate for making claims regarding conjecture when using creationist sources for your posts. It's really laughable to see you suggesting that the notoriously inept and biblical literalist creationist websites you use as "sources" In any way refutes the relevant science community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peer reviews impress you hollie ?
> 
> Global Warming Hoax: Peer Reviewed Journal Papers Showing Natural Causes for Climate Change
> 
> Blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked
Click to expand...


Another typical example of your need to not understand.

Provide a peer reviewed paper...  reviewed by the relevant science community, that supports your christian creationist charlatans claims to the biblical flood or a 6,000 year old earth, or men rising from the dead.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You give yourself credit for doing nothing. I can't recall you refuting the peer reviewed science presented to you. What you have done is post nonsense from Christian crestionist websites. Have you considered that using Christian fundie websites ( excluding the Harun Yahya nonsense), and posting verses from the various bibles pre-announces your religious affiliation?
> 
> You are a poor candidate for making claims regarding conjecture when using creationist sources for your posts. It's really laughable to see you suggesting that the notoriously inept and biblical literalist creationist websites you use as "sources" In any way refutes the relevant science community.
> 
> 
> 
> amen (pun intended)
> 
> CHRISTIAN  A follower or believer in Jesus.
> 
> FUNDAMENTALIST One who believes the Bible is literally true and must be followed exactly.
> 
> Therefore they are followers of the bible and not Jesus making them non Christians!!!
> 
> But worse is to follow it also makes them ideologists.
> 
> IDEOLOGY An idea that is false or held for the wrong reasons but is believed with such conviction as to be irrefutable.
> 
> So Christians have a loving and forgiving god and fundamentalist - well - Just are not Christians!!!!
> 
> So many Christians are praying fervently that they will discover the loving god and start acting like it but sadly realize that is so unlikely!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christianity is a philosophy not a religion. catholics,baptists,pentecostals are religions.
Click to expand...

It's as though you define ignorance as a virtue.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You give yourself credit for doing nothing. I can't recall you refuting the peer reviewed science presented to you. What you have done is post nonsense from Christian crestionist websites. Have you considered that using Christian fundie websites ( excluding the Harun Yahya nonsense), and posting verses from the various bibles pre-announces your religious affiliation?
> 
> You are a poor candidate for making claims regarding conjecture when using creationist sources for your posts. It's really laughable to see you suggesting that the notoriously inept and biblical literalist creationist websites you use as "sources" In any way refutes the relevant science community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peer reviews impress you hollie ?
> 
> Global Warming Hoax: Peer Reviewed Journal Papers Showing Natural Causes for Climate Change
> 
> Blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another typical example of your need to not understand.
> 
> Provide a peer reviewed paper...  reviewed by the relevant science community, that supports your christian creationist charlatans claims to the biblical flood or a 6,000 year old earth, or men rising from the dead.
Click to expand...


We were not discussing the global flood were we. The fact is because there are peer reviews does not mean they can't be wrong lol.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> amen (pun intended)
> 
> CHRISTIAN  A follower or believer in Jesus.
> 
> FUNDAMENTALIST One who believes the Bible is literally true and must be followed exactly.
> 
> Therefore they are followers of the bible and not Jesus making them non Christians!!!
> 
> But worse is to follow it also makes them ideologists.
> 
> IDEOLOGY An idea that is false or held for the wrong reasons but is believed with such conviction as to be irrefutable.
> 
> So Christians have a loving and forgiving god and fundamentalist - well - Just are not Christians!!!!
> 
> So many Christians are praying fervently that they will discover the loving god and start acting like it but sadly realize that is so unlikely!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is a philosophy not a religion. catholics,baptists,pentecostals are religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's as though you define ignorance as a virtue.
Click to expand...


Why is it you can explain yourself very well but not see you're are the person you loathe.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did not show until recently that Rna could be self replicating what you're not understanding is  reverse transcriptase This enzyme, found in the protein shell, transcribes RNA back into DNA, which is then inserted into the genome of the host. You see they failed in proving their point because the Rna stored the original Dna message and it is injected in the host cells Genome so they can reproduce.
> 
> Originally they were hypothesising That Rna was self replicating because they needed a molecule that was self replicating so they could teach spontaneous generation. They showed that but it took Rna that had a copy of Dna for it to happen other wise this virus could not invade the host cell and be reproduced.
> 
> So it was an epic fail as I said and Rna is useless in producing life absent of Dna. Rna is the messenger got it ?
> 
> So no it did not become theory until recently it was only hypothesized in the 60's and 70's
> 
> 
> 
> your answer has nothing to do with the questions you asked me. rna and what year I graduated HS. the rest of you babble in no proof of a creator god or great flood .
> I was taught genetic THEORY as apart of evolutionary biology in high school in my junior and senior years --1976 -1977 .
> as always the epic fail is yours.
> one day when you grow up maybe you'll realize your not the smartest kid in the class or school or town or county or state...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the question that was asked.
> According to theory earth's earliest organisms was made up of what MOLECULE ?
> Daws do you know the difference between theory and Hypothesis ? When you were in High School you may have heard something about the Hypothesis but it was not theory. You said you learned this in High school I said it was not a theory when you were in high
> school.
> 
> Genetics is not even what we are discussing Genetics deal with heredity and the variation of inherited characteristics.We were discussing Molecular biology that is the study of structures and function of the macromolecules proteins and nucleic acids.
> 
> I think you had limited science and you rush off and copy and paste things you think answer the questions when challenged.
Click to expand...

and as always you be wrong...
genetics and microbiology are for all practical purposes the same : Genetic Microbiology is a subdiscipline of microbiology dealing especially with genetic components of life such as DNA and RNA....
what we were actually discussing is your imaginary superiority in education and life in general.
you spend most of your time here looking for some fantasy breech in your detractors evidence or character you can exploit.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I participate in discussions on here does not mean I lose sleep over people that don't believe as I do. That might be what drives you but it does not drive me.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! what drives you is a messiah complex and an absolute mania for thinking you're right all the time when the truth is you're wrong about just about everything all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws I am not right all the time and when I am wrong I can put my big boy pants on and fess up how bout you ?
Click to expand...

now that's a total falsehood...
in the context of this thread I've never been wrong so there's no reason for me to fess up.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> when have I ever mentioned my religion ? I go through what you people post and point out errors ,contradictions,and correct that is not spreading lies and falsehoods. I also point out things you people try to pass off as facts which are only based on conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> do I REALLY NEED TO point out how everything you just posted is a total false hood.
> I know what your religion is  no matter what bogus name you give your little coven of believers you're an evangelical creationist..
> my guess is your leader has no formal religious training.
> he might even be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never mentioned my religion fact is I am no fan of religion. Religion was mans creation not Gods creation so you can try and show this so called religion That I supposedly push on others.
Click to expand...

the religion you pimp  no matter how had you deny it is evangelical creationism.
 you belong to a group of like minded people so by definition it's organized your beliefs are 
kinda of Christian so again it's a organized religion. 
it's also base on the most false of false premises GOD.


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> when have i ever mentioned my religion ? I go through what you people post and point out errors ,contradictions,and correct that is not spreading lies and falsehoods. I also point out things you people try to pass off as facts which are only based on conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you give yourself credit for doing nothing. I can't recall you refuting the peer reviewed science presented to you. What you have done is post nonsense from christian crestionist websites. Have you considered that using christian fundie websites ( excluding the harun yahya nonsense), and posting verses from the various bibles pre-announces your religious affiliation?
> 
> You are a poor candidate for making claims regarding conjecture when using creationist sources for your posts. It's really laughable to see you suggesting that the notoriously inept and biblical literalist creationist websites you use as "sources" in any way refutes the relevant science community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> peer reviews impress you hollie ?
> 
> global warming hoax: Peer reviewed journal papers showing natural causes for climate change
> 
> blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked
Click to expand...

both sites are blogs not research!!!


----------



## daws101

youwerecreated said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> peer reviews impress you hollie ?
> 
> global warming hoax: Peer reviewed journal papers showing natural causes for climate change
> 
> blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another typical example of your need to not understand.
> 
> Provide a peer reviewed paper...  Reviewed by the relevant science community, that supports your christian creationist charlatans claims to the biblical flood or a 6,000 year old earth, or men rising from the dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we were not discussing the global flood were we. The fact is because there are peer reviews does not mean they can't be wrong lol.
Click to expand...

youmust as ignorant as you seem.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is a philosophy not a religion. catholics,baptists,pentecostals are religions.
> 
> 
> 
> It's as though you define ignorance as a virtue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it you can explain yourself very well but not see you're are the person you loathe.
Click to expand...

?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! what drives you is a messiah complex and an absolute mania for thinking you're right all the time when the truth is you're wrong about just about everything all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws I am not right all the time and when I am wrong I can put my big boy pants on and fess up how bout you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> now that's a total falsehood...
> in the context of this thread I've never been wrong so there's no reason for me to fess up.
Click to expand...


Your posts are revealing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> do I REALLY NEED TO point out how everything you just posted is a total false hood.
> I know what your religion is  no matter what bogus name you give your little coven of believers you're an evangelical creationist..
> my guess is your leader has no formal religious training.
> he might even be you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never mentioned my religion fact is I am no fan of religion. Religion was mans creation not Gods creation so you can try and show this so called religion That I supposedly push on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the religion you pimp  no matter how had you deny it is evangelical creationism.
> you belong to a group of like minded people so by definition it's organized your beliefs are
> kinda of Christian so again it's a organized religion.
> it's also base on the most false of false premises GOD.
Click to expand...

 Nope I share some views with creationists and intelligent design advocates and even evolutionists so I don't know what category I belong to.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you give yourself credit for doing nothing. I can't recall you refuting the peer reviewed science presented to you. What you have done is post nonsense from christian crestionist websites. Have you considered that using christian fundie websites ( excluding the harun yahya nonsense), and posting verses from the various bibles pre-announces your religious affiliation?
> 
> You are a poor candidate for making claims regarding conjecture when using creationist sources for your posts. It's really laughable to see you suggesting that the notoriously inept and biblical literalist creationist websites you use as "sources" in any way refutes the relevant science community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peer reviews impress you hollie ?
> 
> global warming hoax: Peer reviewed journal papers showing natural causes for climate change
> 
> blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> both sites are blogs not research!!!
Click to expand...

Global warming has been debunked and there are peer review articles on global warming M y claim stands.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> another typical example of your need to not understand.
> 
> Provide a peer reviewed paper...  Reviewed by the relevant science community, that supports your christian creationist charlatans claims to the biblical flood or a 6,000 year old earth, or men rising from the dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we were not discussing the global flood were we. The fact is because there are peer reviews does not mean they can't be wrong lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> youmust as ignorant as you seem.
Click to expand...

What ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's as though you define ignorance as a virtue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it you can explain yourself very well but not see you're are the person you loathe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?
Click to expand...

It's not a riddle.


----------



## Youwerecreated

From now on I will not respond to every post so say what you have to say in one post.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your answer has nothing to do with the questions you asked me. rna and what year I graduated HS. the rest of you babble in no proof of a creator god or great flood .
> I was taught genetic THEORY as apart of evolutionary biology in high school in my junior and senior years --1976 -1977 .
> as always the epic fail is yours.
> one day when you grow up maybe you'll realize your not the smartest kid in the class or school or town or county or state...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the question that was asked.
> According to theory earth's earliest organisms was made up of what MOLECULE ?
> Daws do you know the difference between theory and Hypothesis ? When you were in High School you may have heard something about the Hypothesis but it was not theory. You said you learned this in High school I said it was not a theory when you were in high
> school.
> 
> Genetics is not even what we are discussing Genetics deal with heredity and the variation of inherited characteristics.We were discussing Molecular biology that is the study of structures and function of the macromolecules proteins and nucleic acids.
> 
> I think you had limited science and you rush off and copy and paste things you think answer the questions when challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and as always you be wrong...
> genetics and microbiology are for all practical purposes the same : Genetic Microbiology is a subdiscipline of microbiology dealing especially with genetic components of life such as DNA and RNA....
> what we were actually discussing is your imaginary superiority in education and life in general.
> you spend most of your time here looking for some fantasy breech in your detractors evidence or character you can exploit.
Click to expand...

 Daws you're embarrassing yourself please drop it lol. Microbiology is the study of microorganisms. You're talking out your butt. I am sorry I brought this up I dont get any pleasure of making someone look so foolish. While you want schooling in Genetics and Microbiology to be a molecular biologist  the question I asked can best be answered from molecular biology.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws I am not right all the time and when I am wrong I can put my big boy pants on and fess up how bout you ?
> 
> 
> 
> now that's a total falsehood...
> in the context of this thread I've never been wrong so there's no reason for me to fess up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts are revealing.
Click to expand...

yes they are about you they are .
as to myself you know no more about me then you did on the first day I posted...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never mentioned my religion fact is I am no fan of religion. Religion was mans creation not Gods creation so you can try and show this so called religion That I supposedly push on others.
> 
> 
> 
> the religion you pimp  no matter how had you deny it is evangelical creationism.
> you belong to a group of like minded people so by definition it's organized your beliefs are
> kinda of Christian so again it's a organized religion.
> it's also base on the most false of false premises GOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope I share some views with creationists and intelligent design advocates and even evolutionists so I don't know what category I belong to.
Click to expand...

your answer proves me right.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> peer reviews impress you hollie ?
> 
> global warming hoax: Peer reviewed journal papers showing natural causes for climate change
> 
> blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked
> 
> 
> 
> both sites are blogs not research!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Global warming has been debunked and there are peer review articles on global warming M y claim stands.
Click to expand...

only in your dreams 
Climate change: How do we know?

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: [[LINK||http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/||NOAA]]) 

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: NOAA)


The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era  and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earths orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives. 


"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1 

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute: 
&#9726; The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response. 
&#9726; Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earths climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earths orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands3


these are the facts not speculation.
you can't wish them away with prayers to the imaginary sky god


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> we were not discussing the global flood were we. The fact is because there are peer reviews does not mean they can't be wrong lol.
> 
> 
> 
> youmust as ignorant as you seem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What ?
Click to expand...

what? it's called a typo?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it you can explain yourself very well but not see you're are the person you loathe.
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a riddle.
Click to expand...

no it's shitty grammar..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> From now on I will not respond to every post so say what you have to say in one post.


that what you said about the ignore function.
also I will answer and post as I please.
 talk about ego...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the question that was asked.
> According to theory earth's earliest organisms was made up of what MOLECULE ?
> Daws do you know the difference between theory and Hypothesis ? When you were in High School you may have heard something about the Hypothesis but it was not theory. You said you learned this in High school I said it was not a theory when you were in high
> school.
> 
> Genetics is not even what we are discussing Genetics deal with heredity and the variation of inherited characteristics.We were discussing Molecular biology that is the study of structures and function of the macromolecules proteins and nucleic acids.
> 
> I think you had limited science and you rush off and copy and paste things you think answer the questions when challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> and as always you be wrong...
> genetics and microbiology are for all practical purposes the same : Genetic Microbiology is a subdiscipline of microbiology dealing especially with genetic components of life such as DNA and RNA....
> what we were actually discussing is your imaginary superiority in education and life in general.
> you spend most of your time here looking for some fantasy breech in your detractors evidence or character you can exploit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Daws you're embarrassing yourself please drop it lol. Microbiology is the study of microorganisms. You're talking out your butt. I am sorry I brought this up I dont get any pleasure of making someone look so foolish. While you want schooling in Genetics and Microbiology to be a molecular biologist  the question I asked can best be answered from molecular biology.
Click to expand...

incorrect I'm embarrassing you.
this is one of those posts where you attempt to and fail  to showcase  your imaginary superiority in education and life in general.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a riddle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it's shitty grammar..
Click to expand...


Sorry it went over your head.

Oh and I believe Hollie got the message.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and as always you be wrong...
> genetics and microbiology are for all practical purposes the same : Genetic Microbiology is a subdiscipline of microbiology dealing especially with genetic components of life such as DNA and RNA....
> what we were actually discussing is your imaginary superiority in education and life in general.
> you spend most of your time here looking for some fantasy breech in your detractors evidence or character you can exploit.
> 
> 
> 
> Daws you're embarrassing yourself please drop it lol. Microbiology is the study of microorganisms. You're talking out your butt. I am sorry I brought this up I dont get any pleasure of making someone look so foolish. While you want schooling in Genetics and Microbiology to be a molecular biologist  the question I asked can best be answered from molecular biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> incorrect I'm embarrassing you.
> this is one of those posts where you attempt to and fail  to showcase  your imaginary superiority in education and life in general.
Click to expand...


Don't need to it's apparent.

Daws there are different fields of science for a reason.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a riddle.
> 
> 
> 
> no it's shitty grammar..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry it went over your head.
> 
> Oh and I believe Hollie got the message.
Click to expand...

another false assumption, I'm very adept a translating gibberish.
your so called message was a childish shot at Hollie. BTW didn't you just say you would not answer every post? HMMMMM...
and you wonder why you have no credibility   pants on fire.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws you're embarrassing yourself please drop it lol. Microbiology is the study of microorganisms. You're talking out your butt. I am sorry I brought this up I dont get any pleasure of making someone look so foolish. While you want schooling in Genetics and Microbiology to be a molecular biologist  the question I asked can best be answered from molecular biology.
> 
> 
> 
> incorrect I'm embarrassing you.
> this is one of those posts where you attempt to and fail  to showcase  your imaginary superiority in education and life in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't need to it's apparent.
> 
> Daws there are different fields of science for a reason.
Click to expand...

you're right, it is apparent that you're an embarrassment to real scientists.
it's even more apparent that your actual lack education makes you feel inferior ,compelling you to badly fake the illusion of superiority.  
you do have a great talent for being a legend in your own mind


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> incorrect I'm embarrassing you.
> this is one of those posts where you attempt to and fail  to showcase  your imaginary superiority in education and life in general.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need to it's apparent.
> 
> Daws there are different fields of science for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're right, it is apparent that you're an embarrassment to real scientists.
> it's even more apparent that your actual lack education makes you feel inferior ,compelling you to badly fake the illusion of superiority.
> you do have a great talent for being a legend in your own mind
Click to expand...


Just a normal guy that worked very hard for my education. I have proven all I need to in this thread. now It's up to the readers to decide for themselves or they can further educate themselves on the issues if they choose to.

The bible stands on it's own merits more people should actually read and study it if they truly want to find God but it is a book you can't just read, you have to study it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I would like to Apologize to anyone I have offended in this thread. I never meant to do that but discussing some issues it does cause some exchanges to get personal. I have not acted like the person I should have at times in this thread and I regret that.

Take care all, will see you sometime maybe in another thread. Montrovant I do appreciate you being a very reasonable person and I did enjoy discussing issues with you.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> I would like to Apologize to anyone I have offended in this thread. I never meant to do that but discussing some issues it does cause some exchanges to get personal. I have not acted like the person I should have at times in this thread and I regret that.
> 
> Take care all, will see you sometime maybe in another thread. Montrovant I do appreciate you being a very reasonable person and I did enjoy discussing issues with you.



This is now the 7th or 8th time you've made this melodramatic pronouncement.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to Apologize to anyone I have offended in this thread. I never meant to do that but discussing some issues it does cause some exchanges to get personal. I have not acted like the person I should have at times in this thread and I regret that.
> 
> Take care all, will see you sometime maybe in another thread. Montrovant I do appreciate you being a very reasonable person and I did enjoy discussing issues with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is now the 7th or 8th time you've made this melodramatic pronouncement.
Click to expand...


I am constantly aware that I have not acted like a Christian like I should have in this thread.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to Apologize to anyone I have offended in this thread. I never meant to do that but discussing some issues it does cause some exchanges to get personal. I have not acted like the person I should have at times in this thread and I regret that.
> 
> Take care all, will see you sometime maybe in another thread. Montrovant I do appreciate you being a very reasonable person and I did enjoy discussing issues with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is now the 7th or 8th time you've made this melodramatic pronouncement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am constantly aware that I have not acted like a Christian like I should have in this thread.
Click to expand...


Well, you haven't burned any witches at the stake. So, you're correct.

With that settled, for the 9th time... 

Here we go...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need to it's apparent.
> 
> Daws there are different fields of science for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> you're right, it is apparent that you're an embarrassment to real scientists.
> it's even more apparent that your actual lack education makes you feel inferior ,compelling you to badly fake the illusion of superiority.
> you do have a great talent for being a legend in your own mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a normal guy that worked very hard for my education. I have proven all I need to in this thread. now It's up to the readers to decide for themselves or they can further educate themselves on the issues if they choose to.
> 
> The bible stands on it's own merits more people should actually read and study it if they truly want to find God but it is a book you can't just read, you have to study it.
Click to expand...

hahahahahaha!


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> I would like to Apologize to anyone I have offended in this thread. I never meant to do that but discussing some issues it does cause some exchanges to get personal. I have not acted like the person I should have at times in this thread and I regret that.
> 
> Take care all, will see you sometime maybe in another thread. Montrovant I do appreciate you being a very reasonable person and I did enjoy discussing issues with you.


insincerity at it's finest !


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to Apologize to anyone I have offended in this thread. I never meant to do that but discussing some issues it does cause some exchanges to get personal. I have not acted like the person I should have at times in this thread and I regret that.
> 
> Take care all, will see you sometime maybe in another thread. Montrovant I do appreciate you being a very reasonable person and I did enjoy discussing issues with you.
> 
> 
> 
> insincerity at it's finest !
Click to expand...


Go ahead down that bitter road but do it without me.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to Apologize to anyone I have offended in this thread. I never meant to do that but discussing some issues it does cause some exchanges to get personal. I have not acted like the person I should have at times in this thread and I regret that.
> 
> Take care all, will see you sometime maybe in another thread. Montrovant I do appreciate you being a very reasonable person and I did enjoy discussing issues with you.
> 
> 
> 
> insincerity at it's finest !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go ahead down that bitter road but do it without me.
Click to expand...

the bitterness is yours


----------



## itfitzme

It's all about the postulates and axioms. There-in lies the difference


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws you're embarrassing yourself please drop it lol. Microbiology is the study of microorganisms. You're talking out your butt. I am sorry I brought this up I dont get any pleasure of making someone look so foolish. While you want schooling in Genetics and Microbiology to be a molecular biologist  the question I asked can best be answered from molecular biology.
> 
> 
> 
> incorrect I'm embarrassing you.
> this is one of those posts where you attempt to and fail  to showcase  your imaginary superiority in education and life in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't need to it's apparent.
> 
> Daws there are different fields of science for a reason.
Click to expand...


Yes. Different fields of science were all configured among global conspirators to persecute Christian fundamentalists.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> I would like to Apologize to anyone I have offended in this thread. I never meant to do that but discussing some issues it does cause some exchanges to get personal. I have not acted like the person I should have at times in this thread and I regret that.
> 
> Take care all, will see you sometime maybe in another thread. Montrovant I do appreciate you being a very reasonable person and I did enjoy discussing issues with you.



This latest, weepy-eyed farewell lasted only a few hours. Usually (the last 8 or 9 weepy-eyed farewell's) you had the good sense to bail out long enough for your latest, profoundly silly claim to scroll past a few pages so as to reduce the embarrassment.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to Apologize to anyone I have offended in this thread. I never meant to do that but discussing some issues it does cause some exchanges to get personal. I have not acted like the person I should have at times in this thread and I regret that.
> 
> Take care all, will see you sometime maybe in another thread. Montrovant I do appreciate you being a very reasonable person and I did enjoy discussing issues with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This latest, weepy-eyed farewell lasted only a few hours. Usually (the last 8 or 9 weepy-eyed farewell's) you had the good sense to bail out long enough for your latest, profoundly silly claim to scroll past a few pages so as to reduce the embarrassment.
Click to expand...


I really wish you would get a life and leave the thread, even if it meant several weepy eyed attempts. Ah, alas one can dream. One question, what will you have really accomplished at the end of your self-loathing, miserable, Christian-hating, nazi-loving existence? Yours is the tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, while signifying absolutely nothing.


----------



## UltimateReality

Just pre-ordered my copy...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6YDTHsy3RsI]Darwin's Doubt, by Stephen C. Meyer - YouTube[/ame]

_&#8220;In the origin of species, Darwin openly acknowledges important weaknesses in his theory and professed his own doubts about key aspects of it.  Yet today&#8217;s public defenders of a Darwin-only science curriculum apparently do not want these, or any other scientific doubts about contemporary Darwinian theory, reported to students.  This book addresses Darwin&#8217;s most significant doubt . . . and how a seemingly isolated anomaly that Darwin acknowledged almost in passing has grown to become illustrative of a fundamental problem for all of evolutionary biology.&#8221; &#8212;FROM THE PROLOGUE

Charles Darwin knew that there was a significant event in the history of life that his theory did not explain. In what is known today as the "Cambrian explosion," 530 million years ago many animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record without apparent ancestors in earlier layers of rock. In Darwin&#8217;s Doubt Stephen C. Meyer tells the story of the mystery surrounding this explosion of animal life&#8212;a mystery that has intensified, not only because the expected ancestors of these animals have not been found, but also because scientists have learned more about what it takes to construct an animal.

Expanding on the compelling case he presented in his last book, Signature in the Cell, Meyer argues that the theory of intelligent design&#8212;which holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection&#8212;is ultimately the best explanation for the origin of the Cambrian animals."_


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to Apologize to anyone I have offended in this thread. I never meant to do that but discussing some issues it does cause some exchanges to get personal. I have not acted like the person I should have at times in this thread and I regret that.
> 
> Take care all, will see you sometime maybe in another thread. Montrovant I do appreciate you being a very reasonable person and I did enjoy discussing issues with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This latest, weepy-eyed farewell lasted only a few hours. Usually (the last 8 or 9 weepy-eyed farewell's) you had the good sense to bail out long enough for your latest, profoundly silly claim to scroll past a few pages so as to reduce the embarrassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really wish you would get a life and leave the thread, even if it meant several weepy eyed attempts. Ah, alas one can dream. One question, what will you have really accomplished at the end of your self-loathing, miserable, Christian-hating, nazi-loving existence? Yours is the tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, while signifying absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...


Another angry fundamentalist.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Just pre-ordered my copy...



Meyer can always count on the gullible, the weak minded and the superstitious to further his Christian ministry.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Just pre-ordered my copy...



If you order in the next ten minutes, they'll also include a popeil pocket fisherman.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fh_YwAnv7w]Popeil Pocket Fisherman Commercial - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

A good article from Laurence A. Moran at _sandwalk_

Sandwalk

Let's look at a recent post on _Evolutin News * Views (sic)_: From Discovering Intelligent Design: Opposition from the Scientific Establishment. As the title suggests, this is an excerpt from one of the books being heavily promoted by the IDiots.

They have a problem. How do the IDiots explain why 99.9% of biologists oppose Intelligent Design Creationism? It's because they all have a materialistic bias that prevents them from following the evidence wherever it may lead. Read this bit ...



> ID challenges a reigning scientific paradigm. But as sociologist Steve Fuller says, ID is not anti-science, but rather anti-establishment. ID theorists want more scientific investigation, not less. They simply want the freedom to follow the evidence without harassment or philosophical restrictions.
> 
> An ID-based view of science promises to open new avenues of scientific investigation. Without materialist paradigms governing science, perhaps more scientists would have sought function for structures like "junk" DNA and vestigial organs, rather than assuming they were non-functional evolutionary relics.



Let me remind you that the presence of junk DNA in our genome was not anticipated by those who believed in the importance of natural selection. What happened was that the evidence became too substantive to ignore so scientists had to accept the presence of junk DNA in spite of the fact that most of them expected selection to eliminate it.

Now if you insist on believing in an intelligent design paradigm then you simply can't follow the evidence wherever it may lead because junk DNA isn't part of your worldview. In other words, the example used by the IDiots in this post is the exact opposite of the point they are making. 

Oops!

Now you know why we call them IDiots.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> incorrect I'm embarrassing you.
> this is one of those posts where you attempt to and fail  to showcase  your imaginary superiority in education and life in general.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need to it's apparent.
> 
> Daws there are different fields of science for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Different fields of science were all configured among global conspirators to persecute Christian fundamentalists.
Click to expand...


I never said this I do however believe presuppositions will affect conclusions in some cases.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> A good article from Laurence A. Moran at _sandwalk_
> 
> Sandwalk
> 
> Let's look at a recent post on _Evolutin News * Views (sic)_: From Discovering Intelligent Design: Opposition from the Scientific Establishment. As the title suggests, this is an excerpt from one of the books being heavily promoted by the IDiots.
> 
> They have a problem. How do the IDiots explain why 99.9% of biologists oppose Intelligent Design Creationism? It's because they all have a materialistic bias that prevents them from following the evidence wherever it may lead. Read this bit ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ID challenges a reigning scientific paradigm. But as sociologist Steve Fuller says, ID is not anti-science, but rather anti-establishment. ID theorists want more scientific investigation, not less. They simply want the freedom to follow the evidence without harassment or philosophical restrictions.
> 
> An ID-based view of science promises to open new avenues of scientific investigation. Without materialist paradigms governing science, perhaps more scientists would have sought function for structures like "junk" DNA and vestigial organs, rather than assuming they were non-functional evolutionary relics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me remind you that the presence of junk DNA in our genome was not anticipated by those who believed in the importance of natural selection. What happened was that the evidence became too substantive to ignore so scientists had to accept the presence of junk DNA in spite of the fact that most of them expected selection to eliminate it.
> 
> Now if you insist on believing in an intelligent design paradigm then you simply can't follow the evidence wherever it may lead because junk DNA isn't part of your worldview. In other words, the example used by the IDiots in this post is the exact opposite of the point they are making.
> 
> Oops!
> 
> Now you know why we call them IDiots.
Click to expand...


Still waiting for your response concerning this since you brought it up. It seems Harun Yahya kicked your butt again another reason to loathe them so.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7352667-post2445.html


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need to it's apparent.
> 
> Daws there are different fields of science for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Different fields of science were all configured among global conspirators to persecute Christian fundamentalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said this I do however believe presuppositions will affect conclusions in some cases.
Click to expand...


Well, yeah. Presuppositions affecting conclusions is precisely the mechanism used by creationists to define their nonsensical claims thus their conclusions: "the gawds did it" 

Sure, it's dishonest and pointless but that doesn't stop the creation ministries and the Meyer groupies from continuing their lies.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Different fields of science were all configured among global conspirators to persecute Christian fundamentalists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said this I do however believe presuppositions will affect conclusions in some cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yeah. Presuppositions affecting conclusions is precisely the mechanism used by creationists to define their nonsensical claims thus their conclusions: "the gawds did it"
> 
> Sure, it's dishonest and pointless but that doesn't stop the creation ministries and the Meyer groupies from continuing their lies.
Click to expand...


Hell you argue for a theory you know very little about because it fits your agenda.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good article from Laurence A. Moran at _sandwalk_
> 
> Sandwalk
> 
> Let's look at a recent post on _Evolutin News * Views (sic)_: From Discovering Intelligent Design: Opposition from the Scientific Establishment. As the title suggests, this is an excerpt from one of the books being heavily priomoted by the IDiots.
> 
> They have a problem. How do the IDiots explain why 99.9% of biologists oppose Intelligent Design Creationism? It's because they all have a materialistic bias that prevents them from following the evidence wherever it may lead. Read this bit ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ID challenges a reigning scientific paradigm. But as sociologist Steve Fuller says, ID is not anti-science, but rather anti-establishment. ID theorists want more scientific investigation, not less. They simply want the freedom to follow the evidence without harassment or philosophical restrictions.
> 
> An ID-based view of science promises to open new avenues of scientific investigation. Without materialist paradigms governing science, perhaps more scientists would have sought function for structures like "junk" DNA and vestigial organs, rather than assuming they were non-functional evolutionary relics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me remind you that the presence of junk DNA in our genome was not anticipated by those who believed in the importance of natural selection. What happened was that the evidence became too substantive to ignore so scientists had to accept the presence of junk DNA in spite of the fact that most of them expected selection to eliminate it.
> 
> Now if you insist on believing in an intelligent design paradigm then you simply can't follow the evidence wherever it may lead because junk DNA isn't part of your worldview. In other words, the example used by the IDiots in this post is the exact opposite of the point they are making.
> 
> Oops!
> 
> Now you know why we call them IDiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your response concerning this since you brought it up. It seems Harun Yahya kicked your butt again another reason to loathe them so.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7352667-post2445.html
Click to expand...


This has been explained to you countless times already. 

That aside, a 6,000 year old earth precludes any consideration of evilution on the time scale you mentioned. 

You can confirm this on Harun Yahya's website.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said this I do however believe presuppositions will affect conclusions in some cases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yeah. Presuppositions affecting conclusions is precisely the mechanism used by creationists to define their nonsensical claims thus their conclusions: "the gawds did it"
> 
> Sure, it's dishonest and pointless but that doesn't stop the creation ministries and the Meyer groupies from continuing their lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell you argue for a theory you know very little about because it fits your agenda.
Click to expand...

funny coming from you.
you argue for a fantasy ...


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said this I do however believe presuppositions will affect conclusions in some cases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yeah. Presuppositions affecting conclusions is precisely the mechanism used by creationists to define their nonsensical claims thus their conclusions: "the gawds did it"
> 
> Sure, it's dishonest and pointless but that doesn't stop the creation ministries and the Meyer groupies from continuing their lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell you argue for a theory you know very little about because it fits your agenda.
Click to expand...


Well, hell, I've schooled you many times on the matters of science, biology, and the many fields of science that collectively support evolution.

You're a poor student. I can attribute that in part to your Christian fundamentalist beliefs and likely poor aptitude. I suspect you have also learned from the creation ministries you frequent that lies and deceit are a tactic to promote your fundamentalist beliefs. 

Yes, it's dishonest and sleazy, but considering the number of times I have scolded you for cutting and pasting the same lies and phony / altered "quotes", I can only accept your actions as intentionally dishonest and sleazy.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yeah. Presuppositions affecting conclusions is precisely the mechanism used by creationists to define their nonsensical claims thus their conclusions: "the gawds did it"
> 
> Sure, it's dishonest and pointless but that doesn't stop the creation ministries and the Meyer groupies from continuing their lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell you argue for a theory you know very little about because it fits your agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> funny coming from you.
> you argue for a fantasy ...
Click to expand...


There never was really a debate considering your knowledge.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yeah. Presuppositions affecting conclusions is precisely the mechanism used by creationists to define their nonsensical claims thus their conclusions: "the gawds did it"
> 
> Sure, it's dishonest and pointless but that doesn't stop the creation ministries and the Meyer groupies from continuing their lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell you argue for a theory you know very little about because it fits your agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, hell, I've schooled you many times on the matters of science, biology, and the many fields of science that collectively support evolution.
> 
> You're a poor student. I can attribute that in part to your Christian fundamentalist beliefs and likely poor aptitude. I suspect you have also learned from the creation ministries you frequent that lies and deceit are a tactic to promote your fundamentalist beliefs.
> 
> Yes, it's dishonest and sleazy, but considering the number of times I have scolded you for cutting and pasting the same lies and phony / altered "quotes", I can only accept your actions as intentionally dishonest and sleazy.
Click to expand...


Wake up hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good article from Laurence A. Moran at _sandwalk_
> 
> Sandwalk
> 
> Let's look at a recent post on _Evolutin News * Views (sic)_: From Discovering Intelligent Design: Opposition from the Scientific Establishment. As the title suggests, this is an excerpt from one of the books being heavily priomoted by the IDiots.
> 
> They have a problem. How do the IDiots explain why 99.9% of biologists oppose Intelligent Design Creationism? It's because they all have a materialistic bias that prevents them from following the evidence wherever it may lead. Read this bit ...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me remind you that the presence of junk DNA in our genome was not anticipated by those who believed in the importance of natural selection. What happened was that the evidence became too substantive to ignore so scientists had to accept the presence of junk DNA in spite of the fact that most of them expected selection to eliminate it.
> 
> Now if you insist on believing in an intelligent design paradigm then you simply can't follow the evidence wherever it may lead because junk DNA isn't part of your worldview. In other words, the example used by the IDiots in this post is the exact opposite of the point they are making.
> 
> Oops!
> 
> Now you know why we call them IDiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your response concerning this since you brought it up. It seems Harun Yahya kicked your butt again another reason to loathe them so.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7352667-post2445.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has been explained to you countless times already.
> 
> That aside, a 6,000 year old earth precludes any consideration of evilution on the time scale you mentioned.
> 
> You can confirm this on Harun Yahya's website.
Click to expand...


Evade.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hell you argue for a theory you know very little about because it fits your agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, hell, I've schooled you many times on the matters of science, biology, and the many fields of science that collectively support evolution.
> 
> You're a poor student. I can attribute that in part to your Christian fundamentalist beliefs and likely poor aptitude. I suspect you have also learned from the creation ministries you frequent that lies and deceit are a tactic to promote your fundamentalist beliefs.
> 
> Yes, it's dishonest and sleazy, but considering the number of times I have scolded you for cutting and pasting the same lies and phony / altered "quotes", I can only accept your actions as intentionally dishonest and sleazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wake up hollie.
Click to expand...

It is interesting how you denied cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya. When your posts were identified, you abruptly stuttered and mumbled about how you "may have" done exactly that. Yet again your dishonest tactics were exposed.  

Would you care to stutter and mumble your way past some examples of your dishonest "quote mining"?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your response concerning this since you brought it up. It seems Harun Yahya kicked your butt again another reason to loathe them so.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7352667-post2445.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been explained to you countless times already.
> 
> That aside, a 6,000 year old earth precludes any consideration of evilution on the time scale you mentioned.
> 
> You can confirm this on Harun Yahya's website.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evade.
Click to expand...


No evasion. Harun Yahya has stolen a young earth model of the planet from Christian creation ministries. 

You're aware of that you have frequently cut and pasted from that site.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, hell, I've schooled you many times on the matters of science, biology, and the many fields of science that collectively support evolution.
> 
> You're a poor student. I can attribute that in part to your Christian fundamentalist beliefs and likely poor aptitude. I suspect you have also learned from the creation ministries you frequent that lies and deceit are a tactic to promote your fundamentalist beliefs.
> 
> Yes, it's dishonest and sleazy, but considering the number of times I have scolded you for cutting and pasting the same lies and phony / altered "quotes", I can only accept your actions as intentionally dishonest and sleazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake up hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is interesting how you denied cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya. When your posts were identified, you abruptly stuttered and mumbled about how you "may have" done exactly that. Yet again your dishonest tactics were exposed.
> 
> Would you care to stutter and mumble your way past some examples of your dishonest "quote mining"?
Click to expand...


Now you're making stuff up I admitted the living fossils article was from those people once it was brought to my attention on saturday but you are still evading the evidence and the questions.

Your favorite group did a good job.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been explained to you countless times already.
> 
> That aside, a 6,000 year old earth precludes any consideration of evilution on the time scale you mentioned.
> 
> You can confirm this on Harun Yahya's website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No evasion. Harun Yahya has stolen a young earth model of the planet from Christian creation ministries.
> 
> You're aware of that you have frequently cut and pasted from that site.
Click to expand...


The only one I know of was the living fossils article and you don't seem to have a rebuttal which is not surprising.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No evasion. Harun Yahya has stolen a young earth model of the planet from Christian creation ministries.
> 
> You're aware of that you have frequently cut and pasted from that site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only one I know of was the living fossils article and you don't seem to have a rebuttal which is not surprising.
Click to expand...

The only rebuttal to young earth creationism is that the entirety of practicing scientists have conspired to fake the record of paleontology, biology and history. 

Of course, that's not actually a rebuttal, just an appeal to the religiously insane.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wake up hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting how you denied cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya. When your posts were identified, you abruptly stuttered and mumbled about how you "may have" done exactly that. Yet again your dishonest tactics were exposed.
> 
> Would you care to stutter and mumble your way past some examples of your dishonest "quote mining"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're making stuff up I admitted the living fossils article was from those people once it was brought to my attention on saturday but you are still evading the evidence and the questions.
> 
> Your favorite group did a good job.
Click to expand...


I thought it was sadly pathetic to see your lies peeled away and then your grudging acceptance that you were a fish with a large hook through the gills.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie your posts show your maturity level.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hell you argue for a theory you know very little about because it fits your agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> funny coming from you.
> you argue for a fantasy ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There never was really a debate considering your knowledge.
Click to expand...

thank you! I wonder why you went this long having your ass handed to you everyday without conceding you have no real knowledge of science.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your response concerning this since you brought it up. It seems Harun Yahya kicked your butt again another reason to loathe them so.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7352667-post2445.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been explained to you countless times already.
> 
> That aside, a 6,000 year old earth precludes any consideration of evilution on the time scale you mentioned.
> 
> You can confirm this on Harun Yahya's website.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evade.
Click to expand...

imitation is the highest form of flattery.
originality  was never your forte .


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie your posts show your maturity level.



I'm mature enough not to post phony, altered, falsified and parsed "quotes" with the specific intention of pressing an agenda, as you have. 

Whose maturity level (and ability to present the truth), are you criticizing?*


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wake up hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting how you denied cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya. When your posts were identified, you abruptly stuttered and mumbled about how you "may have" done exactly that. Yet again your dishonest tactics were exposed.
> 
> Would you care to stutter and mumble your way past some examples of your dishonest "quote mining"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're making stuff up I admitted the living fossils article was from those people once it was brought to my attention on saturday but you are still evading the evidence and the questions.
> 
> Your favorite group did a good job.
Click to expand...

bullshit you admitted nothing because as always you will not take responsibly for you actions phrases like this "was from those people"  are smoking gun proof that you don't.
then you do the classic dodge maneuver by falsely accusing other posters of an imagined slight.
your "questions" have been answered every time you bring up.
as to your evidence ,it's nonexistent so evasion is unnecessary.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No evasion. Harun Yahya has stolen a young earth model of the planet from Christian creation ministries.
> 
> You're aware of that you have frequently cut and pasted from that site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only one I know of was the living fossils article and you don't seem to have a rebuttal which is not surprising.
Click to expand...

how do you rebut nothing?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie your posts show your maturity level.


(snicker) repeat as necessary!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie your posts show your maturity level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm mature enough not to post phony, altered, falsified and parsed "quotes" with the specific intention of pressing an agenda, as you have.
> 
> Whose maturity level (and ability to present the truth), are you criticizing?*
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting how you denied cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya. When your posts were identified, you abruptly stuttered and mumbled about how you "may have" done exactly that. Yet again your dishonest tactics were exposed.
> 
> Would you care to stutter and mumble your way past some examples of your dishonest "quote mining"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're making stuff up I admitted the living fossils article was from those people once it was brought to my attention on saturday but you are still evading the evidence and the questions.
> 
> Your favorite group did a good job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit you admitted nothing because as always you will not take responsibly for you actions phrases like this "was from those people"  are smoking gun proof that you don't.
> then you do the classic dodge maneuver by falsely accusing other posters of an imagined slight.
> your "questions" have been answered every time you bring up.
> as to your evidence ,it's nonexistent so evasion is unnecessary.
Click to expand...


Reading and comprehension seems to be a problem for you.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No evasion. Harun Yahya has stolen a young earth model of the planet from Christian creation ministries.
> 
> You're aware of that you have frequently cut and pasted from that site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only one I know of was the living fossils article and you don't seem to have a rebuttal which is not surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you rebut nothing?
Click to expand...


I explained the problem for your side and you and your buddy avoided it like it was a plague.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie your posts show your maturity level.
> 
> 
> 
> (snicker) repeat as necessary!
Click to expand...


You have been reduced to poop. Eventually the only one thanking you for your predictable posts will be Hollie,maybe hollie.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie your posts show your maturity level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm mature enough not to post phony, altered, falsified and parsed "quotes" with the specific intention of pressing an agenda, as you have.
> 
> Whose maturity level (and ability to present the truth), are you criticizing?*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I generally expect nothing of substance from your posts. This latest bit of "nothing" confirms my expectation. 

Absent cutting and pasting from fundie web sites, you're always coming up short.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're making stuff up I admitted the living fossils article was from those people once it was brought to my attention on saturday but you are still evading the evidence and the questions.
> 
> Your favorite group did a good job.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit you admitted nothing because as always you will not take responsibly for you actions phrases like this "was from those people"  are smoking gun proof that you don't.
> then you do the classic dodge maneuver by falsely accusing other posters of an imagined slight.
> your "questions" have been answered every time you bring up.
> as to your evidence ,it's nonexistent so evasion is unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading and comprehension seems to be a problem for you.
Click to expand...

epically failed dodge attempt.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie your posts show your maturity level.
> 
> 
> 
> (snicker) repeat as necessary!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been reduced to poop. Eventually the only one thanking you for your predictable posts will be Hollie,maybe hollie.
Click to expand...

you keep dreaming that dream!


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm mature enough not to post phony, altered, falsified and parsed "quotes" with the specific intention of pressing an agenda, as you have.
> 
> Whose maturity level (and ability to present the truth), are you criticizing?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I generally expect nothing of substance from your posts. This latest bit of "nothing" confirms my expectation.
> 
> Absent cutting and pasting from fundie web sites, you're always coming up short.
Click to expand...

there's a small penis joke in there somewhere ....lol!


----------



## Youwerecreated

I am gonna let someone else kick you and hollie around for a while it was fun though.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> I am gonna let someone else kick you and hollie around for a while it was fun though.



This will be your 10th weepy eyed farewell.... only you consistently reappear hours later with the same goofy Christian fundamentalist cut and paste...which you steal from Harun Yahya, a Moslem.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> I am gonna let someone else kick you and hollie around for a while it was fun though.


what a rich fantasy life you have!
what's fun is watching you wallow in your own shit!


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am gonna let someone else kick you and hollie around for a while it was fun though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This will be your 10th weepy eyed farewell.... only you consistently reappear hours later with the same goofy Christian fundamentalist cut and paste...which you steal from Harun Yahya, a Moslem.
Click to expand...

 he'll deny that too, and claim another false victory.
it's telling how fast his so called Christianity falls apart when he's not taking responsibly for his actions!


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am gonna let someone else kick you and hollie around for a while it was fun though.
> 
> 
> 
> what a rich fantasy life you have!
> what's fun is watching you wallow in your own shit!
Click to expand...


He cross posted this comment in the "god", thread.

He's so befuddled, he's lost track of where and when he's typing.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am gonna let someone else kick you and hollie around for a while it was fun though.
> 
> 
> 
> what a rich fantasy life you have!
> what's fun is watching you wallow in your own shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He cross posted this comment in the "god", thread.
> 
> He's so befuddled, he's lost track of where and when he's typing.
Click to expand...

trying to cover his lies has that effect!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a rich fantasy life you have!
> what's fun is watching you wallow in your own shit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He cross posted this comment in the "god", thread.
> 
> He's so befuddled, he's lost track of where and when he's typing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trying to cover his lies has that effect!
Click to expand...


Who is the liar that once again got exposed and his ignorance concerning science was on display.

Lookie here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7356872-post2582.html


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> He cross posted this comment in the "god", thread.
> 
> He's so befuddled, he's lost track of where and when he's typing.
> 
> 
> 
> trying to cover his lies has that effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is the liar that once again got exposed and his ignorance concerning science was on display.
> 
> Lookie here.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7356872-post2582.html
Click to expand...

yep it's proof alright of your failed attempts at slander.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> trying to cover his lies has that effect!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the liar that once again got exposed and his ignorance concerning science was on display.
> 
> Lookie here.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7356872-post2582.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep it's proof alright of your failed attempts at slander.
Click to expand...


I don't believe everyone has comprehension problems like yourself.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the liar that once again got exposed and his ignorance concerning science was on display.
> 
> Lookie here.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7356872-post2582.html
> 
> 
> 
> yep it's proof alright of your failed attempts at slander.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe everyone has comprehension problems like yourself.
Click to expand...

what you believe is irrelevant and false..
1. because you 've exposed only yourself .
2 you have no idea what comprehension means.

what you don't even seem to notice is your answers are out of context besides being dodges.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep it's proof alright of your failed attempts at slander.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe everyone has comprehension problems like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you believe is irrelevant and false..
> 1. because you 've exposed only yourself .
> 2 you have no idea what comprehension means.
> 
> what you don't even seem to notice is your answers are out of context besides being dodges.
Click to expand...


Out of context ? you're still trying to cover your lies. That conversation evolved and nothing was taken out of context I went back to the start of that conversation and you can see the results.

Instead of having integrity and just admitting you were wrong and you really don't know much about scientific theories as you portray all would have been good.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe everyone has comprehension problems like yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> what you believe is irrelevant and false..
> 1. because you 've exposed only yourself .
> 2 you have no idea what comprehension means.
> 
> what you don't even seem to notice is your answers are out of context besides being dodges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Out of context ? you're still trying to cover your lies. That conversation evolved and nothing was taken out of context I went back to the start of that conversation and you can see the results.
> 
> Instead of having integrity and just admitting you were wrong and you really don't know much about scientific theories as you portray all would have been good.
Click to expand...

wrong as always that was only part of a much longer conversation.

starting on page 1071  post#1654 . is where this conversation started. 
I'm not covering anything the lies are yours !


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what you believe is irrelevant and false..
> 1. because you 've exposed only yourself .
> 2 you have no idea what comprehension means.
> 
> what you don't even seem to notice is your answers are out of context besides being dodges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of context ? you're still trying to cover your lies. That conversation evolved and nothing was taken out of context I went back to the start of that conversation and you can see the results.
> 
> Instead of having integrity and just admitting you were wrong and you really don't know much about scientific theories as you portray all would have been good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong as always that was only part of a much longer conversation.
> 
> starting on page 1071  post#1654 . is where this conversation started.
> I'm not covering anything the lies are yours !
Click to expand...


You are trying to spin dummy well it won't work.

 You and I were both quoted. What a dumbshit,you can't hide your words nor mine because they were quoted Geez.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Out of context ? you're still trying to cover your lies. That conversation evolved and nothing was taken out of context I went back to the start of that conversation and you can see the results.
> 
> Instead of having integrity and just admitting you were wrong and you really don't know much about scientific theories as you portray all would have been good.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong as always that was only part of a much longer conversation.
> 
> starting on page 1071  post#1654 . is where this conversation started.
> I'm not covering anything the lies are yours !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to spin dummy well it won't work.
> 
> You and I were both quoted. What a dumbshit,you can't hide your words nor mine because they were quoted Geez.
Click to expand...

another false assumption I 'm not spinning any thing or trying to hide anything..
yes we were both quoted O master of the obvious .
judging from the incredible NON response to your false accusations it's clear you have epically failed again..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong as always that was only part of a much longer conversation.
> 
> starting on page 1071  post#1654 . is where this conversation started.
> I'm not covering anything the lies are yours !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to spin dummy well it won't work.
> 
> You and I were both quoted. What a dumbshit,you can't hide your words nor mine because they were quoted Geez.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false assumption I 'm not spinning any thing or trying to hide anything..
> yes we were both quoted O master of the obvious .
> judging from the incredible NON response to your false accusations it's clear you have epically failed again..
Click to expand...


 what else is funny your buddy is just as ignorant as you are.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to spin dummy well it won't work.
> 
> You and I were both quoted. What a dumbshit,you can't hide your words nor mine because they were quoted Geez.
> 
> 
> 
> another false assumption I 'm not spinning any thing or trying to hide anything..
> yes we were both quoted O master of the obvious .
> judging from the incredible NON response to your false accusations it's clear you have epically failed again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what else is funny your buddy is just as ignorant as you are.
Click to expand...

dreamin' is free !


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong as always that was only part of a much longer conversation.
> 
> starting on page 1071  post#1654 . is where this conversation started.
> I'm not covering anything the lies are yours !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to spin dummy well it won't work.
> 
> You and I were both quoted. What a dumbshit,you can't hide your words nor mine because they were quoted Geez.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> another false assumption I 'm not spinning any thing or trying to hide anything..
> yes we were both quoted O master of the obvious .
> judging from the incredible NON response to your false accusations it's clear you have epically failed again..
Click to expand...


Are you ready to share with us how the Gene Theory answered the question I asked you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another false assumption I 'm not spinning any thing or trying to hide anything..
> yes we were both quoted O master of the obvious .
> judging from the incredible NON response to your false accusations it's clear you have epically failed again..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what else is funny your buddy is just as ignorant as you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dreamin' is free !
Click to expand...


So tell me again what you studied in high school to answer my question that is what you said.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to spin dummy well it won't work.
> 
> You and I were both quoted. What a dumbshit,you can't hide your words nor mine because they were quoted Geez.
> 
> 
> 
> another false assumption I 'm not spinning any thing or trying to hide anything..
> yes we were both quoted O master of the obvious .
> judging from the incredible NON response to your false accusations it's clear you have epically failed again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you ready to share with us how the Gene Theory answered the question I asked you ?
Click to expand...

asked and answered


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> what else is funny your buddy is just as ignorant as you are.
> 
> 
> 
> dreamin' is free !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me again what you studied in high school to answer my question that is what you said.
Click to expand...

in English please.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another false assumption I 'm not spinning any thing or trying to hide anything..
> yes we were both quoted O master of the obvious .
> judging from the incredible NON response to your false accusations it's clear you have epically failed again..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you ready to share with us how the Gene Theory answered the question I asked you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> asked and answered
Click to expand...


Nope never answered lol.

You evading is revealing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> dreamin' is free !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me again what you studied in high school to answer my question that is what you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in English please.
Click to expand...




So tell me again what you studied in high school to answer the science  question that was asked of you ? after all you said you learned the answer in high school.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Come on daws what theory was that again ? what field of science would be best at answering that question ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you ready to share with us how the Gene Theory answered the question I asked you ?
> 
> 
> 
> asked and answered
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope never answered lol.
> 
> You evading is revealing.
Click to expand...

 since I'm not evading what is revealed is your frustration.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me again what you studied in high school to answer my question that is what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> in English please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me again what you studied in high school to answer the science  question that was asked of you ? after all you said you learned the answer in high school.
Click to expand...

I studied genetic theory as part of evolutionary biology...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Come on daws what theory was that again ? what field of science would be best at answering that question ?


asked and answered by you several times...you have a talent for sabotaging yourself.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> in English please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me again what you studied in high school to answer the science  question that was asked of you ? after all you said you learned the answer in high school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I studied genetic theory as part of evolutionary biology...
Click to expand...


Tell me how this theory answers the question? Once again you point out the wrong theory.


Gene Theory

Daws the question is best answered through Biochemistry at the Molecular level.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> in English please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me again what you studied in high school to answer the science  question that was asked of you ? after all you said you learned the answer in high school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I studied genetic theory as part of evolutionary biology...
Click to expand...


Which is only the basics at the high school level. You have gotten the theory and branch of science all wrong. You did a quick google search which is what I knew you would do and to make matters worse then you started making things up. It's only been recent since it became theory because they found Rna that could replicate itself..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me again what you studied in high school to answer the science  question that was asked of you ? after all you said you learned the answer in high school.
> 
> 
> 
> I studied genetic theory as part of evolutionary biology...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me how this theory answers the question? Once again you point out the wrong theory.
> 
> 
> Gene Theory
> 
> Daws the question is best answered through Biochemistry at the Molecular level.
Click to expand...

no I did not and again you're talking shit.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me again what you studied in high school to answer the science  question that was asked of you ? after all you said you learned the answer in high school.
> 
> 
> 
> I studied genetic theory as part of evolutionary biology...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only the basics at the high school level. You have gotten the theory and branch of science all wrong. You did a quick google search which is what I knew you would do and to make matters worse then you started making things up. It's only been recent since it became theory because they found Rna that could replicate itself..
Click to expand...

once again somebody's talking out their ass and its not me.
ever heard of accelerated programs ?
well slapdick I was in those in high school ...evolutionary biology at college level.
your question was about fist molecules nothing more, I answered that correctly.   every thing you said about it since is from you own twisted agenda.
how could I have gotten " it" wrong when I never said shit about theory and branch of science.
you did .
then you made one of your world famous false assumptions/ accusations . about me googling  my answer.
and as always you are wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I studied genetic theory as part of evolutionary biology...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is only the basics at the high school level. You have gotten the theory and branch of science all wrong. You did a quick google search which is what I knew you would do and to make matters worse then you started making things up. It's only been recent since it became theory because they found Rna that could replicate itself..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> once again somebody's talking out their ass and its not me.
> ever heard of accelerated programs ?
> well slapdick I was in those in high school ...evolutionary biology at college level.
> your question was about fist molecules nothing more, I answered that correctly.   every thing you said about it since is from you own twisted agenda.
> how could I have gotten " it" wrong when I never said shit about theory and branch of science.
> you did .
> then you made one of your world famous false assumptions/ accusations . about me googling  my answer.
> and as always you are wrong.
Click to expand...


Changing your story again lol looks like you can't seem to keep your story straight.

Quotes by daws

"well slapdick I was in those in high school ...evolutionary biology at college level."


"SORRY SLAPDICK YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN and that was a not college level science that was high school.
but thanks for playing."

Looks like someone is definitely talking out his butt what a liar. Now everyone can clearly see what you have been doing all along.

Now tell me what was this accelerated program you were in ? not that it matters you are a habitual liar.
__________________


----------



## Youwerecreated

I guess when daws starts out a comment with slapdick you better check what is said  lol.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is only the basics at the high school level. You have gotten the theory and branch of science all wrong. You did a quick google search which is what I knew you would do and to make matters worse then you started making things up. It's only been recent since it became theory because they found Rna that could replicate itself..
> 
> 
> 
> once again somebody's talking out their ass and its not me.
> ever heard of accelerated programs ?
> well slapdick I was in those in high school ...evolutionary biology at college level.
> your question was about fist molecules nothing more, I answered that correctly.   every thing you said about it since is from you own twisted agenda.
> how could I have gotten " it" wrong when I never said shit about theory and branch of science.
> you did .
> then you made one of your world famous false assumptions/ accusations . about me googling  my answer.
> and as always you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Changing your story again lol looks like you can't seem to keep your story straight.
> 
> Quotes by daws
> 
> "well slapdick I was in those in high school ...evolutionary biology at college level."
> 
> 
> "SORRY SLAPDICK YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN and that was a not college level science that was high school.
> but thanks for playing."
> 
> Looks like someone is definitely talking out his butt what a liar. Now everyone can clearly see what you have been doing all along.
> 
> Now tell me what was this accelerated program you were in ? not that it matters you are a habitual liar.
> __________________
Click to expand...

once again SLAP DICK lies!               WHEN I SAID NOT COLLEGE LEVEL SCIENCE I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE MOLCULE QUESTION.. not the course ....so you lose again hahaha!
 if I was unclear too bad.
as to what program it was I've already answered that too..


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> I guess when daws starts out a comment with slapdick you better check what is said  lol.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess when daws starts out a comment with slapdick you better check what is said  lol.
Click to expand...


Anyways daws do not quote me anymore I have no use for a lying shit stain.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess when daws starts out a comment with slapdick you better check what is said  lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyways daws do not quote me anymore I have no use for a lying shit stain.
Click to expand...

then  you should stop posting!


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways daws do not quote me anymore I have no use for a lying shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then  you should stop posting!
Click to expand...


I responded to your lies in the other thread.

Proof of God thread.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Youwerecreated said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finches were not a product of macro-evolution they were a product of micro-adaptations and cross breeding. Finches are still finches correct ? do you understand the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution ?
> 
> *Do you remember darwins own words ? "if my theory be true it will be confirmed in the fossil record there will be millions of transitional fossils found in different layers strata showing gradualism"*
> 
> If the finches were macro-evolution then he did not need the fossil record understand ? so darwin confirmed what he observed in the finches were only a case of micro-adaptations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In truth; no, I hadn't committed that to memory, exactly.  But what's your point?  It's not true?  (tip: it's absolutely true.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look what famous evolutionists said concerning the fossil record that darwin claimed would prove his theory if it be true.
> 
> Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms."  (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)
> 
> 
> 
> "Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)
> 
> 
> 
> "There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life.  There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon."  (Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p. 45)
> 
> 
> 
> "Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing." (Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)
> 
> 
> 
> "The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms."  (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)
> 
> 
> 
> "It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position." (Cracraft, J., "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism," 1983, p. 180)
> 
> 
> 
> "Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."  (Eldredge, N., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)
> 
> 
> 
> "Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny."  (Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)
> 
> 
> 
> "Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations."  (Gould, Stephen J. and Eldredge, Niles, "Species Selection: Its Range and Power," 1988, p. 19)
> 
> 
> 
> "The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 million years ago.  Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then."  ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376)
> 
> 
> 
> "Many 'trends' singled out by evolutionary biologists are ex post facto rendering of phylogenetic history: biologists may simply pick out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in phylogenetic history. This is particularly so in situations, especially common prior to about 1970, in which analysis of the phylogenetic relationships among species was incompletely or poorly done." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 134)
> 
> 
> 
> "The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." (Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59)
> 
> 
> 
> "Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories."  (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, p. 353-354)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stasis and Sudden Appearance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:  1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.  2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"  (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. ...If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."  (Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766)
> 
> 
> 
> "Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years."  (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24)
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..."  (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239)
> 
> 
> 
> "The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82)
> 
> 
> 
> "Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."  (Eldredge, (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."  (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)
> 
> 
> 
> "The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."  (Wesson, R., Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p. 45)
> 
> 
> 
> "All through the fossil record, groups - both large and small - abruptly appear and disappear.  ...The earliest phase of rapid change usually is undiscovered, and must be inferred by comparison with its probable relatives."  (Newell, N. D., Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality, 1984, p. 10)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism...and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."  (Mayr, E., Our Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138)
> 
> 
> 
> "The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."  (Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187)
> 
> 
> 
> "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find."  (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)
> 
> 
> 
> "A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations.  This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." (Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56)
> 
> 
> 
> "Eldredge and Gould, by contrast, decided to take the record at face value. On this view, there is little evidence of modification within species, or of forms intermediate between species because neither generally occurred. A species forms and evolves almost instantaneously (on the geological timescale) and then remains virtually unchanged until it disappears, yielding its habitat to a new species."  (Smith, Peter J., "Evolution's Most Worrisome Questions," Review of Life Pulse by Niles Eldredge, New Scientist, 1987, p. 59)
> 
> 
> 
> "The principle problem is morphological stasis.  A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214)
> 
> 
> 
> "It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their duration..." (Eldredge, Niles, The Pattern of Evolution, 1998, p. 157)
> 
> 
> 
> "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition."  (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)
> 
> 
> 
> "We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology," Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55)
> 
> 
> 
> "In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong.' A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it? ...As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the 'punctuated equilibrium' pattern of Eldredge and Gould."  (Kemp, Tom S., "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, p. 66-67)
> 
> 
> 
> "The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence.  Most changes are random rather than systematic modifications, until species drop out. There is no sign of directed order here. Trends do occur in many lines, but they are not the rule." (Newell, N. D., "Systematics and Evolution," 1984, p. 10)
> 
> 
> 
> "Well-represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species." (Gould Stephen J., "Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness," Natural History, 1988, p. 14)
> 
> 
> 
> "Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution).  (Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ...That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."  (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large Gaps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multi-cellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning... A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists are Wrong, Prometheus Books, 1984, p. 95)
> 
> 
> 
> "There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.  In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be."  (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)
> 
> 
> 
> "It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.  Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record.  The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."  (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)
> 
> 
> 
> "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.  Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)
> 
> 
> 
> "One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms."  (Brouwer, A., "General Paleontology," [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163)
> 
> 
> 
> "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration.  The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Neville, George, T., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, p. 1-3)
> 
> 
> 
> "The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real:  the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history not the artifact of a poor fossil record...The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59, 163)
> 
> 
> 
> "Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record."  (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted."  (Paul, C.R.C, "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record," 1982, p. 75)
> 
> 
> 
> "Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing." (Jepsen, L. Glenn; Mayr, Ernst; Simpson George Gaylord. Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, New York, Athenaeum, 1963, p. 114)
> 
> 
> 
> "For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology..."  (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984)
> 
> 
> 
> "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."  (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)
> 
> 
> 
> "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."   (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127)
> 
> 
> 
> "The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important  places." (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, p.19)
> 
> 
> 
> "If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after.  But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.  This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found.  In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)
> 
> 
> 
> "Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved.  ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89)
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.  The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)
> 
> 
> 
> "A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miscellaneous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.  We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."  (Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)
> 
> 
> 
> "If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?  I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.  I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)
> 
> 
> 
> "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.  Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption?  The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."  (E.J.H. Corner "Evolution" in A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds., Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago, IL:  Quadrangle Books, 1961, at 95, 97 from Bird, I, p. 234)
> 
> 
> 
> "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."  (More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)
> 
> 
> 
> "At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." (Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164)
> 
> 
> 
> "One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles,  "A Divine Design:  Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)
> 
> 
> 
> "I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb.  In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."  (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)
> 
> 
> 
> "The origin of life is still a mystery. As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing evolution]...I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation...can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles.  How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?"  (d'Aubigne, Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 158)
> 
> 
> 
> "Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance."  (Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)
> 
> 
> 
> "The third assumption was the Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated...We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated." (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergammon Press, 1960, p. 151)
> 
> 
> 
> "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.  They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter?  And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.  Scientists do not know how that happened, and furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening.  Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability.  Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe.  No scientific evidence precludes that possibility."  (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)
> 
> 
> 
> "...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold.  We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."  (Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44)
> 
> 
> 
> "With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny." (Paul, C. R. C., 1989, "Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates", Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 1989, p. 105)
> 
> 
> 
> "The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery." (Darwin, Charles R., letter to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, in Darwin F. & Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, p. 20-21)
> 
> 
> 
> "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.  So many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.  But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.  The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)
> 
> 
> 
> "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)
> 
> 
> 
> "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
> 
> 
> 
> "The geological record has provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes."  (Norman, J., A History of Fishes, 1963, p. 298)
> 
> 
> 
> "None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates."  (Stahl, B., Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., NY, 1985, p. 148)
> 
> 
> 
> "The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."  (Millikan, Robert A., Nashville Banner, August 7, 1925, quoted in Brewer's lecture)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading these words from evolutionists, would you say the evidence points more towards spontaneous generation and evolution or divine creation?
> 
> 
> 
> Anointed-One.net
Click to expand...


Hollie it's a proven fact Finches were produced through micro-adaptations or Micro-evolution that is not macro-evolution dummy. They are still birds and they are still finches lol.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> In truth; no, I hadn't committed that to memory, exactly.  But what's your point?  It's not true?  (tip: it's absolutely true.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look what famous evolutionists said concerning the fossil record that darwin claimed would prove his theory if it be true.
> 
> Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms."  (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)
> 
> 
> 
> "Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)
> 
> 
> 
> "There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life.  There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon."  (Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p. 45)
> 
> 
> 
> "Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing." (Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)
> 
> 
> 
> "The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms."  (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)
> 
> 
> 
> "It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position." (Cracraft, J., "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism," 1983, p. 180)
> 
> 
> 
> "Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."  (Eldredge, N., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)
> 
> 
> 
> "Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny."  (Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)
> 
> 
> 
> "Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations."  (Gould, Stephen J. and Eldredge, Niles, "Species Selection: Its Range and Power," 1988, p. 19)
> 
> 
> 
> "The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 million years ago.  Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then."  ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376)
> 
> 
> 
> "Many 'trends' singled out by evolutionary biologists are ex post facto rendering of phylogenetic history: biologists may simply pick out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in phylogenetic history. This is particularly so in situations, especially common prior to about 1970, in which analysis of the phylogenetic relationships among species was incompletely or poorly done." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 134)
> 
> 
> 
> "The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." (Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59)
> 
> 
> 
> "Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories."  (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, p. 353-354)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stasis and Sudden Appearance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:  1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.  2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"  (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. ...If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."  (Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766)
> 
> 
> 
> "Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years."  (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24)
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..."  (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239)
> 
> 
> 
> "The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82)
> 
> 
> 
> "Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."  (Eldredge, (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."  (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)
> 
> 
> 
> "The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."  (Wesson, R., Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p. 45)
> 
> 
> 
> "All through the fossil record, groups - both large and small - abruptly appear and disappear.  ...The earliest phase of rapid change usually is undiscovered, and must be inferred by comparison with its probable relatives."  (Newell, N. D., Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality, 1984, p. 10)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism...and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."  (Mayr, E., Our Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138)
> 
> 
> 
> "The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."  (Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187)
> 
> 
> 
> "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find."  (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)
> 
> 
> 
> "A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations.  This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." (Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56)
> 
> 
> 
> "Eldredge and Gould, by contrast, decided to take the record at face value. On this view, there is little evidence of modification within species, or of forms intermediate between species because neither generally occurred. A species forms and evolves almost instantaneously (on the geological timescale) and then remains virtually unchanged until it disappears, yielding its habitat to a new species."  (Smith, Peter J., "Evolution's Most Worrisome Questions," Review of Life Pulse by Niles Eldredge, New Scientist, 1987, p. 59)
> 
> 
> 
> "The principle problem is morphological stasis.  A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214)
> 
> 
> 
> "It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their duration..." (Eldredge, Niles, The Pattern of Evolution, 1998, p. 157)
> 
> 
> 
> "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition."  (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)
> 
> 
> 
> "We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology," Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55)
> 
> 
> 
> "In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong.' A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it? ...As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the 'punctuated equilibrium' pattern of Eldredge and Gould."  (Kemp, Tom S., "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, p. 66-67)
> 
> 
> 
> "The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence.  Most changes are random rather than systematic modifications, until species drop out. There is no sign of directed order here. Trends do occur in many lines, but they are not the rule." (Newell, N. D., "Systematics and Evolution," 1984, p. 10)
> 
> 
> 
> "Well-represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species." (Gould Stephen J., "Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness," Natural History, 1988, p. 14)
> 
> 
> 
> "Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution).  (Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ...That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."  (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large Gaps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multi-cellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning... A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists are Wrong, Prometheus Books, 1984, p. 95)
> 
> 
> 
> "There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.  In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be."  (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)
> 
> 
> 
> "It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.  Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record.  The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."  (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)
> 
> 
> 
> "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.  Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)
> 
> 
> 
> "One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms."  (Brouwer, A., "General Paleontology," [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163)
> 
> 
> 
> "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration.  The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Neville, George, T., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, p. 1-3)
> 
> 
> 
> "The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real:  the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history not the artifact of a poor fossil record...The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59, 163)
> 
> 
> 
> "Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record."  (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted."  (Paul, C.R.C, "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record," 1982, p. 75)
> 
> 
> 
> "Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing." (Jepsen, L. Glenn; Mayr, Ernst; Simpson George Gaylord. Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, New York, Athenaeum, 1963, p. 114)
> 
> 
> 
> "For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology..."  (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984)
> 
> 
> 
> "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."  (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)
> 
> 
> 
> "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."   (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127)
> 
> 
> 
> "The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important  places." (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, p.19)
> 
> 
> 
> "If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after.  But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.  This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found.  In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)
> 
> 
> 
> "Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved.  ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89)
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.  The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)
> 
> 
> 
> "A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miscellaneous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.  We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."  (Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)
> 
> 
> 
> "If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?  I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.  I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)
> 
> 
> 
> "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.  Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption?  The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."  (E.J.H. Corner "Evolution" in A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds., Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago, IL:  Quadrangle Books, 1961, at 95, 97 from Bird, I, p. 234)
> 
> 
> 
> "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."  (More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)
> 
> 
> 
> "At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." (Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164)
> 
> 
> 
> "One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles,  "A Divine Design:  Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)
> 
> 
> 
> "I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb.  In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."  (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)
> 
> 
> 
> "The origin of life is still a mystery. As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing evolution]...I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation...can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles.  How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?"  (d'Aubigne, Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 158)
> 
> 
> 
> "Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance."  (Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)
> 
> 
> 
> "The third assumption was the Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated...We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated." (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergammon Press, 1960, p. 151)
> 
> 
> 
> "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.  They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter?  And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.  Scientists do not know how that happened, and furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening.  Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability.  Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe.  No scientific evidence precludes that possibility."  (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)
> 
> 
> 
> "...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold.  We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."  (Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44)
> 
> 
> 
> "With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny." (Paul, C. R. C., 1989, "Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates", Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 1989, p. 105)
> 
> 
> 
> "The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery." (Darwin, Charles R., letter to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, in Darwin F. & Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, p. 20-21)
> 
> 
> 
> "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.  So many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.  But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.  The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)
> 
> 
> 
> "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)
> 
> 
> 
> "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
> 
> 
> 
> "The geological record has provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes."  (Norman, J., A History of Fishes, 1963, p. 298)
> 
> 
> 
> "None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates."  (Stahl, B., Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., NY, 1985, p. 148)
> 
> 
> 
> "The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."  (Millikan, Robert A., Nashville Banner, August 7, 1925, quoted in Brewer's lecture)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading these words from evolutionists, would you say the evidence points more towards spontaneous generation and evolution or divine creation?
> 
> 
> 
> Anointed-One.net
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie it's a proven fact Finches were produced through micro-adaptations or Micro-evolution that is not macro-evolution dummy. They are still birds and they are still finches lol.
Click to expand...

bullshit ! another lie from a non credible source...
?Evolution? of Finch Beaks?Again - Answers in Genesis


----------



## UltimateReality

_"Critics attempt to smear Meyer by claiming he's doing "pseudoscience" or not doing science at all.

Well, if Meyer isn't, doing science, then neither was Darwin (or any Darwinist today). Meyer is using the same forensic or historical scientific method that Darwin himself used. That's all that can be used. Since these are historical questions, a scientist can't go into the lab to repeat and observe the origin and history of life. Scientists must evaluate the clues left behind and then make an inference to the best explanation. Does our repeated experience tell us that natural mechanisms have the power to create the effects in question or is intelligence required?

Meyer writes, "Neo-Darwinism and the theory of intelligent design are not two different kinds of inquiry, as some critics have asserted. They are two different answers -- formulated using a similar logic and method of reasoning--to the same question: 'What caused biological forms and the appearance of design in the history of life?'"

The reason Darwinists and Meyer arrive at different answers is not because there's a difference in their scientific methods, but because Meyer and other Intelligent Design proponents don't limit themselves to materialistic causes. They are open to intelligent causes as well (just like archaeologists and crime scene investigators are).

So this is not a debate about evidence. Everyone is looking at the same evidence. This is a debate about how to interpret the evidence, and that involves philosophical commitments about what causes will be considered possible before looking at the evidence. If you philosophically rule out intelligent causes beforehand -- as the Darwinists do -- you will never arrive at the truth if an intelligent being actually is responsible.

Since all evidence needs to be interpreted, science doesn't actually say anything--scientists do. So if certain self-appointed priests of science say that a particular theory is outside the bounds of their own scientific dogma, that doesn't mean that the theory is false. The issue is truth -- not whether something fits a materialistic definition of science."_
- See more at: Science and "Pseudoscience": Frank Turek on <em>Darwin's Doubt</em> - Evolution News & Views


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> "Critics attempt to smear Meyer by claiming he's doing "pseudoscience" or not doing science at all.


 
Which of course is true.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koios said:
> 
> 
> 
> In truth; no, I hadn't committed that to memory, exactly.  But what's your point?  It's not true?  (tip: it's absolutely true.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look what famous evolutionists said concerning the fossil record that darwin claimed would prove his theory if it be true.
> 
> Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms."  (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)
> 
> 
> 
> "Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)
> 
> 
> 
> "There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life.  There is no question about that. That's a real phenomenon."  (Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p. 45)
> 
> 
> 
> "Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing." (Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)
> 
> 
> 
> "The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms."  (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)
> 
> 
> 
> "It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position." (Cracraft, J., "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism," 1983, p. 180)
> 
> 
> 
> "Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."  (Eldredge, N., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)
> 
> 
> 
> "Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny."  (Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)
> 
> 
> 
> "Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations."  (Gould, Stephen J. and Eldredge, Niles, "Species Selection: Its Range and Power," 1988, p. 19)
> 
> 
> 
> "The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 million years ago.  Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then."  ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376)
> 
> 
> 
> "Many 'trends' singled out by evolutionary biologists are ex post facto rendering of phylogenetic history: biologists may simply pick out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in phylogenetic history. This is particularly so in situations, especially common prior to about 1970, in which analysis of the phylogenetic relationships among species was incompletely or poorly done." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 134)
> 
> 
> 
> "The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." (Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59)
> 
> 
> 
> "Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories."  (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, p. 353-354)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stasis and Sudden Appearance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:  1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.  2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"  (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. ...If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."  (Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766)
> 
> 
> 
> "Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years."  (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24)
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..."  (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239)
> 
> 
> 
> "The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82)
> 
> 
> 
> "Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors."  (Eldredge, (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."  (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)
> 
> 
> 
> "The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."  (Wesson, R., Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p. 45)
> 
> 
> 
> "All through the fossil record, groups - both large and small - abruptly appear and disappear.  ...The earliest phase of rapid change usually is undiscovered, and must be inferred by comparison with its probable relatives."  (Newell, N. D., Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality, 1984, p. 10)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism...and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."  (Mayr, E., Our Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138)
> 
> 
> 
> "The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."  (Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187)
> 
> 
> 
> "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find."  (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)
> 
> 
> 
> "A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations.  This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." (Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56)
> 
> 
> 
> "Eldredge and Gould, by contrast, decided to take the record at face value. On this view, there is little evidence of modification within species, or of forms intermediate between species because neither generally occurred. A species forms and evolves almost instantaneously (on the geological timescale) and then remains virtually unchanged until it disappears, yielding its habitat to a new species."  (Smith, Peter J., "Evolution's Most Worrisome Questions," Review of Life Pulse by Niles Eldredge, New Scientist, 1987, p. 59)
> 
> 
> 
> "The principle problem is morphological stasis.  A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214)
> 
> 
> 
> "It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their duration..." (Eldredge, Niles, The Pattern of Evolution, 1998, p. 157)
> 
> 
> 
> "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition."  (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)
> 
> 
> 
> "We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology," Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55)
> 
> 
> 
> "In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong.' A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it? ...As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the 'punctuated equilibrium' pattern of Eldredge and Gould."  (Kemp, Tom S., "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, p. 66-67)
> 
> 
> 
> "The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence.  Most changes are random rather than systematic modifications, until species drop out. There is no sign of directed order here. Trends do occur in many lines, but they are not the rule." (Newell, N. D., "Systematics and Evolution," 1984, p. 10)
> 
> 
> 
> "Well-represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species." (Gould Stephen J., "Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness," Natural History, 1988, p. 14)
> 
> 
> 
> "Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution).  (Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15)
> 
> 
> 
> "Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ...That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."  (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large Gaps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multi-cellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning... A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists are Wrong, Prometheus Books, 1984, p. 95)
> 
> 
> 
> "There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.  In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be."  (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)
> 
> 
> 
> "It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.  Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record.  The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."  (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)
> 
> 
> 
> "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.  Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)
> 
> 
> 
> "One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms."  (Brouwer, A., "General Paleontology," [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163)
> 
> 
> 
> "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration.  The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Neville, George, T., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, p. 1-3)
> 
> 
> 
> "The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real:  the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history not the artifact of a poor fossil record...The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59, 163)
> 
> 
> 
> "Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record."  (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22)
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted."  (Paul, C.R.C, "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record," 1982, p. 75)
> 
> 
> 
> "Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing." (Jepsen, L. Glenn; Mayr, Ernst; Simpson George Gaylord. Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, New York, Athenaeum, 1963, p. 114)
> 
> 
> 
> "For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology..."  (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984)
> 
> 
> 
> "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."  (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)
> 
> 
> 
> "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."   (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127)
> 
> 
> 
> "The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important  places." (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, p.19)
> 
> 
> 
> "If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after.  But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.  This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found.  In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)
> 
> 
> 
> "Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved.  ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89)
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.  The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)
> 
> 
> 
> "A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miscellaneous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.  We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."  (Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)
> 
> 
> 
> "If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?  I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.  I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)
> 
> 
> 
> "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.  Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption?  The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."  (E.J.H. Corner "Evolution" in A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds., Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago, IL:  Quadrangle Books, 1961, at 95, 97 from Bird, I, p. 234)
> 
> 
> 
> "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."  (More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)
> 
> 
> 
> "At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." (Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164)
> 
> 
> 
> "One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles,  "A Divine Design:  Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)
> 
> 
> 
> "I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb.  In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."  (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)
> 
> 
> 
> "The origin of life is still a mystery. As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing evolution]...I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation...can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles.  How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?"  (d'Aubigne, Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 158)
> 
> 
> 
> "Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance."  (Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)
> 
> 
> 
> "The third assumption was the Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated...We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated." (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergammon Press, 1960, p. 151)
> 
> 
> 
> "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.  They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter?  And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.  Scientists do not know how that happened, and furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening.  Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability.  Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe.  No scientific evidence precludes that possibility."  (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)
> 
> 
> 
> "...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold.  We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."  (Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44)
> 
> 
> 
> "With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny." (Paul, C. R. C., 1989, "Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates", Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 1989, p. 105)
> 
> 
> 
> "The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery." (Darwin, Charles R., letter to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, in Darwin F. & Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, p. 20-21)
> 
> 
> 
> "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.  So many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.  But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.  The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)
> 
> 
> 
> "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)
> 
> 
> 
> "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
> 
> 
> 
> "The geological record has provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes."  (Norman, J., A History of Fishes, 1963, p. 298)
> 
> 
> 
> "None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates."  (Stahl, B., Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., NY, 1985, p. 148)
> 
> 
> 
> "The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."  (Millikan, Robert A., Nashville Banner, August 7, 1925, quoted in Brewer's lecture)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading these words from evolutionists, would you say the evidence points more towards spontaneous generation and evolution or divine creation?
> 
> 
> 
> Anointed-One.net
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie it's a proven fact Finches were produced through micro-adaptations or Micro-evolution that is not macro-evolution dummy. They are still birds and they are still finches lol.
Click to expand...

What a pathetic joke. Several of the falsified "quotes" in the above extremist Christian collection of falsehoods I've previously exposed as lies.

What a shame that your extremist views are only supported with lies.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Critics attempt to smear Meyer by claiming he's doing "pseudoscience" or not doing science at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of course is true.
Click to expand...


Some things never change. Instead of addressing the salient points of the post you just repeat the irrelevant attack.


----------



## Youwerecreated

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Critics attempt to smear Meyer by claiming he's doing "pseudoscience" or not doing science at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of course is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some things never change. Instead of addressing the salient points of the post you just repeat the irrelevant attack.
Click to expand...


Amen.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Critics attempt to smear Meyer by claiming he's doing "pseudoscience" or not doing science at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of course is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some things never change. Instead of addressing the salient points of the post you just repeat the irrelevant attack.
Click to expand...


Some things never change. You cut and paste a few sentences from one of your creation ministries and expect to be taken seriously.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which of course is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some things never change. Instead of addressing the salient points of the post you just repeat the irrelevant attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen.
Click to expand...


How many more of your falsified, edited, parsed and purged "quotes" do I have to expose before we come to the conclusion that you're a pathological liar?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some things never change. Instead of addressing the salient points of the post you just repeat the irrelevant attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many more of your falsified, edited, parsed and purged "quotes" do I have to expose before we come to the conclusion that you're a pathological liar?
Click to expand...


I know you are but what am I?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many more of your falsified, edited, parsed and purged "quotes" do I have to expose before we come to the conclusion that you're a pathological liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you are but what am I?
Click to expand...


Rather than address the lies and falsehoods that must be used to prop up the claims of the hyper-religious, were faced by the hyper-religious with tacit acceptance of those lies and falsehoods. Creationists dont even bother with damage control at this point. Window dressing for a building on fire.

Even the rabid Meyer groupies dont even bother with any pretense of reliability or ethics. The _House of Shame_, otherwise known as the Disco tute which Meyer shills for, is so unethical and dishonest as to put one of their scientists in front of a green screen. The background for this bit of chicanery was a stock photo of a real lab.  Not all that surprising in the sense that hyper-religious creationists dont do any actual research. 

A critical component of the science surrounding evolutionary science is the process of observation and testing.  Those attributes defining science consist of gathering evidence and testing which can be peer reviewed. And evidence is the only tool we have to distinguish between claims in which we can have confidence and claims in which we cannot.

That IDiot creationist consider observation and testing to hold no merit in regard to demands for them to support their claims to magic and supernaturalism. That goes some length to explain the general disconnect between so much of the IDiot creationist  reasoning" and the evidence of the natural world.


So once again, lets bring it on home for the intellectually impaired and the religiously addled:

1) The evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming and comes from multiple different sources, each of which independently establishes the identical pattern of evolutionary descent. The sources for that evidence come independently from anatomy, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry and the fossil record.

2) The fossil record of human evolution from apelike ancestors is particular rich and well documented with multiple intermediate species between modern humans and those ancestors.

3) Different species do not exchange genetic information. One species evolves into another species by accumulating genetic mutations over many generations, until such time that enough genetic distance is established to prevent interbreeding. This is what the ring species demonstrate so elegantly.

4) There are several competing explanations for abiogenesis, and the current research in the field is on-going. But the point remains, what research is being undertaken by ID'iot creationist to support their claims to gawds?  It does not matter whether the first DNA boiled out of primordial soup, was seeded on Earth by space aliens, or created by Zeus. Humans still evolved from Apelike ancestors. The evolution of all living things since that original DNA is established scientific fact.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Critics attempt to smear Meyer by claiming he's doing "pseudoscience" or not doing science at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of course is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some things never change. Instead of addressing the salient points of the post you just repeat the irrelevant attack.
Click to expand...

salient points? now that is funny!!!!!


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many more of your falsified, edited, parsed and purged "quotes" do I have to expose before we come to the conclusion that you're a pathological liar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you are but what am I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rather than address the lies and falsehoods that must be used to prop up the claims of the hyper-religious, were faced by the hyper-religious with tacit acceptance of those lies and falsehoods. Creationists dont even bother with damage control at this point. Window dressing for a building on fire.
> 
> Even the rabid Meyer groupies dont even bother with any pretense of reliability or ethics. The _House of Shame_, otherwise known as the Disco tute which Meyer shills for, is so unethical and dishonest as to put one of their scientists in front of a green screen. The background for this bit of chicanery was a stock photo of a real lab.  Not all that surprising in the sense that hyper-religious creationists dont do any actual research.
> 
> A critical component of the science surrounding evolutionary science is the process of observation and testing.  Those attributes defining science consist of gathering evidence and testing which can be peer reviewed. And evidence is the only tool we have to distinguish between claims in which we can have confidence and claims in which we cannot.
> 
> That IDiot creationist consider observation and testing to hold no merit in regard to demands for them to support their claims to magic and supernaturalism. That goes some length to explain the general disconnect between so much of the IDiot creationist  reasoning" and the evidence of the natural world.
> 
> 
> So once again, lets bring it on home for the intellectually impaired and the religiously addled:
> 
> 1) The evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming and comes from multiple different sources, each of which independently establishes the identical pattern of evolutionary descent. The sources for that evidence come independently from anatomy, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry and the fossil record.
> 
> 2) The fossil record of human evolution from apelike ancestors is particular rich and well documented with multiple intermediate species between modern humans and those ancestors.
> 
> 3) Different species do not exchange genetic information. One species evolves into another species by accumulating genetic mutations over many generations, until such time that enough genetic distance is established to prevent interbreeding. This is what the ring species demonstrate so elegantly.
> 
> 4) There are several competing explanations for abiogenesis, and the current research in the field is on-going. But the point remains, what research is being undertaken by ID'iot creationist to support their claims to gawds?  It does not matter whether the first DNA boiled out of primordial soup, was seeded on Earth by space aliens, or created by Zeus. Humans still evolved from Apelike ancestors. The evolution of all living things since that original DNA is established scientific fact.
Click to expand...


How totally ignorant is it to judge something you have not read? But that is what the tools at Panda's thumb and the drooling troll thumb disciple Hollie continually do.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which of course is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some things never change. Instead of addressing the salient points of the post you just repeat the irrelevant attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> salient points? now that is funny!!!!!
Click to expand...


Funny ha ha or funny like a grown man in tights?


----------



## UltimateReality




----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you are but what am I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than address the lies and falsehoods that must be used to prop up the claims of the hyper-religious, were faced by the hyper-religious with tacit acceptance of those lies and falsehoods. Creationists dont even bother with damage control at this point. Window dressing for a building on fire.
> 
> Even the rabid Meyer groupies dont even bother with any pretense of reliability or ethics. The _House of Shame_, otherwise known as the Disco tute which Meyer shills for, is so unethical and dishonest as to put one of their scientists in front of a green screen. The background for this bit of chicanery was a stock photo of a real lab.  Not all that surprising in the sense that hyper-religious creationists dont do any actual research.
> 
> A critical component of the science surrounding evolutionary science is the process of observation and testing.  Those attributes defining science consist of gathering evidence and testing which can be peer reviewed. And evidence is the only tool we have to distinguish between claims in which we can have confidence and claims in which we cannot.
> 
> That IDiot creationist consider observation and testing to hold no merit in regard to demands for them to support their claims to magic and supernaturalism. That goes some length to explain the general disconnect between so much of the IDiot creationist  reasoning" and the evidence of the natural world.
> 
> 
> So once again, lets bring it on home for the intellectually impaired and the religiously addled:
> 
> 1) The evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming and comes from multiple different sources, each of which independently establishes the identical pattern of evolutionary descent. The sources for that evidence come independently from anatomy, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry and the fossil record.
> 
> 2) The fossil record of human evolution from apelike ancestors is particular rich and well documented with multiple intermediate species between modern humans and those ancestors.
> 
> 3) Different species do not exchange genetic information. One species evolves into another species by accumulating genetic mutations over many generations, until such time that enough genetic distance is established to prevent interbreeding. This is what the ring species demonstrate so elegantly.
> 
> 4) There are several competing explanations for abiogenesis, and the current research in the field is on-going. But the point remains, what research is being undertaken by ID'iot creationist to support their claims to gawds?  It does not matter whether the first DNA boiled out of primordial soup, was seeded on Earth by space aliens, or created by Zeus. Humans still evolved from Apelike ancestors. The evolution of all living things since that original DNA is established scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How totally ignorant is it to judge something you have not read? But that is what the tools at Panda's thumb and the drooling troll thumb disciple Hollie continually do.
Click to expand...

I thought so. The best remedy for countering fear and ignorance as promoted by religious extremists is to confront their I'D'iosy with facts. 

That leaves them slack-jawed and impotent.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some things never change. Instead of addressing the salient points of the post you just repeat the irrelevant attack.
> 
> 
> 
> salient points? now that is funny!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny ha ha or funny like a grown man in tights?
Click to expand...


Funny like an ID'iot who is a groupie for charlatans at the Disco'tute.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some things never change. Instead of addressing the salient points of the post you just repeat the irrelevant attack.
> 
> 
> 
> salient points? now that is funny!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny ha ha or funny like a grown man in tights?
Click to expand...

false comparison ..


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


>


Peer review controversy[edit]

Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy

On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[25] On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed.[26] The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.[27]

The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time.[28] As evidence they cite that Sternberg is a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design,[29] and presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[30]

Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views.[31] Such assertions have been refuted, disputed or dismissed by a wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources. In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of writers that included historian of science Ronald L. Numbers (author of The Creationists), philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, Wisconsin State Assemblywoman Terese Berceau and four members of the department of biochemistry at the University of WisconsinMadison, dismissed such claims as a "hoax".[32] In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."[33] In analysing an Academic Freedom bill, that was based upon a Discovery Institute model statute, the Florida Senate found that:


According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work.[34]
Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peer review controversy[edit]
> 
> Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy
> 
> On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[25] On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed.[26] The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.[27]
> 
> The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time.[28] As evidence they cite that Sternberg is a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design,[29] and presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[30]
> 
> Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views.[31] Such assertions have been refuted, disputed or dismissed by a wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources. In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of writers that included historian of science Ronald L. Numbers (author of The Creationists), philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, Wisconsin State Assemblywoman Terese Berceau and four members of the department of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin&#8211;Madison, dismissed such claims as a "hoax".[32] In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."[33] In analysing an Academic Freedom bill, that was based upon a Discovery Institute model statute, the Florida Senate found that:
> 
> 
> According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work.[34]
> Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Daws, you would think that after all this time you wouldn't be so stupid as to post an ad hominem attack instead of responding to the points presented. I mean, really, haven't you learned anything in over 1000 pages?? All you do is make yourself look like an ass because it is clear to everyone you can't argue the points, just like your buddy Hollie (get it-Buddy Hollie), and you are pathetically forced to resort to biased ad hominem gobblygook. Truly pathetic and you are without excuse. Maybe your tights are too small and its choking the oxygen to your brain.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Peer review controversy[edit]
> 
> Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy.



Much like the other Flat Earther, you're reduced to floating silly conspiracy theories to account for the chuckles and sneering that greets the false claims of ID'iots.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peer review controversy[edit]
> 
> Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much like the other Flat Earther, you're reduced to floating silly conspiracy theories to account for the chuckles and sneering that greets the false claims of ID'iots.
Click to expand...


Speaking from ignorance once again hollie ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peer review controversy[edit]
> 
> Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much like the other Flat Earther, you're reduced to floating silly conspiracy theories to account for the chuckles and sneering that greets the false claims of ID'iots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking from ignorance once again hollie ?
Click to expand...


No. "Speaking" from experience. I used to be surprised at the lies and goofy conspiracy theories emanating from the creationist. Now, I've come to learn that lies and conspiracy theories are the only things that maintain the religious extremist.


----------



## UltimateReality

Just read the prologue from Darwin's Doubt. This is going to be a great book!!!


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peer review controversy[edit]
> 
> Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy
> 
> On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[25] On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed.[26] The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.[27]
> 
> The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time.[28] As evidence they cite that Sternberg is a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design,[29] and presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[30]
> 
> Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views.[31] Such assertions have been refuted, disputed or dismissed by a wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources. In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of writers that included historian of science Ronald L. Numbers (author of The Creationists), philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, Wisconsin State Assemblywoman Terese Berceau and four members of the department of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin&#8211;Madison, dismissed such claims as a "hoax".[32] In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."[33] In analysing an Academic Freedom bill, that was based upon a Discovery Institute model statute, the Florida Senate found that:
> 
> 
> According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work.[34]
> Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, you would think that after all this time you wouldn't be so stupid as to post an ad hominem attack instead of responding to the points presented. I mean, really, haven't you learned anything in over 1000 pages?? All you do is make yourself look like an ass because it is clear to everyone you can't argue the points, just like your buddy Hollie (get it-Buddy Hollie), and you are pathetically forced to resort to biased ad hominem gobblygook. Truly pathetic and you are without excuse. Maybe your tights are too small and its choking the oxygen to your brain.
Click to expand...


There is the nothing to argue, since "Darwin's Doubt" doesn't present any sound defeaters of evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory is contradicted by the Cambrian Explosion. Creationists love to cite this, as if it were a defeater, when it isn't. It's hilarious that you "peacock" this as evidence of something, when all it shows is your putting arbitrary limits on evolution as to the speed at which it can proceed. I wish creationists would stop being so dishonest, when they attack a strawman of evolutionary theory and proclaim victory.


----------



## Hollie

newpolitics said:


> There is the nothing to argue, since "Darwin's Doubt" doesn't present any sound defeaters of evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory is contradicted by the Cambrian Explosion. Creationists love to cite this, as if it were a defeater, when it isn't. It's hilarious that you "peacock" this as evidence of something, when all it shows is your putting arbitrary limits on evolution as to the speed at which it can proceed. I wish creationists would stop being so dishonest, when they attack a strawman of evolutionary theory and proclaim victory.


As we see with regularity, the creationist agenda has been reduced to nothing more than attacks on science. The "support" for supernaturalism is postured  in terms of rhetorical statements such as "among the many problems with the theory of evolution are the questions it is unable to answer."

If someone were to state that, because the current theory of Gravity is incomplete in some instances that gravity does not exist, then that person would be a fool. Such are the tactics of religious extremists. 

How fortunate we are to be able to view any of the many peer reviewed science journals and be able to read of new discoveries in science. Almost every issue includes notes on how the discovery addresses a particular question related to science. And very often, we find that if the evidence is confirmed, it will require a modification or change in a certain part of the current theory.

And Science will accommodate change! After all, the goal of science is to progress, to study and to learn. That is totally unlike religious extremists who (on religious grounds) are convinced that their bibles contain all knowledge and that no new knowledge can conflict with their dogma.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peer review controversy[edit]
> 
> Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy
> 
> On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[25] On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed.[26] The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.[27]
> 
> The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time.[28] As evidence they cite that Sternberg is a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design,[29] and presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[30]
> 
> Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views.[31] Such assertions have been refuted, disputed or dismissed by a wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources. In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of writers that included historian of science Ronald L. Numbers (author of The Creationists), philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, Wisconsin State Assemblywoman Terese Berceau and four members of the department of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin&#8211;Madison, dismissed such claims as a "hoax".[32] In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."[33] In analysing an Academic Freedom bill, that was based upon a Discovery Institute model statute, the Florida Senate found that:
> 
> 
> According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work.[34]
> Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, you would think that after all this time you wouldn't be so stupid as to post an ad hominem attack instead of responding to the points presented. I mean, really, haven't you learned anything in over 1000 pages?? All you do is make yourself look like an ass because it is clear to everyone you can't argue the points, just like your buddy Hollie (get it-Buddy Hollie), and you are pathetically forced to resort to biased ad hominem gobblygook. Truly pathetic and you are without excuse. Maybe your tights are too small and its choking the oxygen to your brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is the nothing to argue, since "Darwin's Doubt" doesn't present any sound defeaters of evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory is contradicted by the Cambrian Explosion. Creationists love to cite this, as if it were a defeater, when it isn't. It's hilarious that you "peacock" this as evidence of something, when all it shows is your putting arbitrary limits on evolution as to the speed at which it can proceed. I wish creationists would stop being so dishonest, when they attack a strawman of evolutionary theory and proclaim victory.
Click to expand...


The blatant foolishness of your post shows you know nothing about the book. Just like the Douchebags at Panda's Thumb, you would be so arrogant to critique a book you've never read. You are living proof of the mass brainwashing that has so twisted your conscience you believe can just assimilate knowledge through the air without actually having to read anything. Pathetic.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the nothing to argue, since "Darwin's Doubt" doesn't present any sound defeaters of evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory is contradicted by the Cambrian Explosion. Creationists love to cite this, as if it were a defeater, when it isn't. It's hilarious that you "peacock" this as evidence of something, when all it shows is your putting arbitrary limits on evolution as to the speed at which it can proceed. I wish creationists would stop being so dishonest, when they attack a strawman of evolutionary theory and proclaim victory.
> 
> 
> 
> As we see with regularity, the creationist agenda has been reduced to nothing more than attacks on science. The "support" for supernaturalism is postured  in terms of rhetorical statements such as "among the many problems with the theory of evolution are the questions it is unable to answer."
> 
> If someone were to state that, because the current theory of Gravity is incomplete in some instances that gravity does not exist, then that person would be a fool. Such are the tactics of religious extremists.
> 
> How fortunate we are to be able to view any of the many peer reviewed science journals and be able to read of new discoveries in science. Almost every issue includes notes on how the discovery addresses a particular question related to science. And very often, we find that if the evidence is confirmed, it will require a modification or change in a certain part of the current theory.
> 
> And Science will accommodate change! After all, the goal of science is to progress, to study and to learn. That is totally unlike religious extremists who (on religious grounds) are convinced that their bibles contain all knowledge and that no new knowledge can conflict with their dogma.
Click to expand...


You're an idiot.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the nothing to argue, since "Darwin's Doubt" doesn't present any sound defeaters of evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory is contradicted by the Cambrian Explosion. Creationists love to cite this, as if it were a defeater, when it isn't. It's hilarious that you "peacock" this as evidence of something, when all it shows is your putting arbitrary limits on evolution as to the speed at which it can proceed. I wish creationists would stop being so dishonest, when they attack a strawman of evolutionary theory and proclaim victory.
> 
> 
> 
> As we see with regularity, the creationist agenda has been reduced to nothing more than attacks on science. The "support" for supernaturalism is postured  in terms of rhetorical statements such as "among the many problems with the theory of evolution are the questions it is unable to answer."
> 
> If someone were to state that, because the current theory of Gravity is incomplete in some instances that gravity does not exist, then that person would be a fool. Such are the tactics of religious extremists.
> 
> How fortunate we are to be able to view any of the many peer reviewed science journals and be able to read of new discoveries in science. Almost every issue includes notes on how the discovery addresses a particular question related to science. And very often, we find that if the evidence is confirmed, it will require a modification or change in a certain part of the current theory.
> 
> And Science will accommodate change! After all, the goal of science is to progress, to study and to learn. That is totally unlike religious extremists who (on religious grounds) are convinced that their bibles contain all knowledge and that no new knowledge can conflict with their dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.
Click to expand...


Compelling, insightful and well-composed... by the standards of your usual contribution.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peer review controversy[edit]
> 
> Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy
> 
> On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[25] On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed.[26] The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.[27]
> 
> The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time.[28] As evidence they cite that Sternberg is a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design,[29] and presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[30]
> 
> Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views.[31] Such assertions have been refuted, disputed or dismissed by a wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources. In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of writers that included historian of science Ronald L. Numbers (author of The Creationists), philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, Wisconsin State Assemblywoman Terese Berceau and four members of the department of biochemistry at the University of WisconsinMadison, dismissed such claims as a "hoax".[32] In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."[33] In analysing an Academic Freedom bill, that was based upon a Discovery Institute model statute, the Florida Senate found that:
> 
> 
> According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work.[34]
> Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daws, you would think that after all this time you wouldn't be so stupid as to post an ad hominem attack instead of responding to the points presented. I mean, really, haven't you learned anything in over 1000 pages?? All you do is make yourself look like an ass because it is clear to everyone you can't argue the points, just like your buddy Hollie (get it-Buddy Hollie), and you are pathetically forced to resort to biased ad hominem gobblygook. Truly pathetic and you are without excuse. Maybe your tights are too small and its choking the oxygen to your brain.
Click to expand...

what stupid here is your repetitive  and meaningless insistence that you have any points to present...


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peer review controversy[edit]
> 
> Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy
> 
> On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[25] On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed.[26] The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.[27]
> 
> The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time.[28] As evidence they cite that Sternberg is a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design,[29] and presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[30]
> 
> Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views.[31] Such assertions have been refuted, disputed or dismissed by a wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources. In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of writers that included historian of science Ronald L. Numbers (author of The Creationists), philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, Wisconsin State Assemblywoman Terese Berceau and four members of the department of biochemistry at the University of WisconsinMadison, dismissed such claims as a "hoax".[32] In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."[33] In analysing an Academic Freedom bill, that was based upon a Discovery Institute model statute, the Florida Senate found that:
> 
> 
> According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work.[34]
> Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, you would think that after all this time you wouldn't be so stupid as to post an ad hominem attack instead of responding to the points presented. I mean, really, haven't you learned anything in over 1000 pages?? All you do is make yourself look like an ass because it is clear to everyone you can't argue the points, just like your buddy Hollie (get it-Buddy Hollie), and you are pathetically forced to resort to biased ad hominem gobblygook. Truly pathetic and you are without excuse. Maybe your tights are too small and its choking the oxygen to your brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what stupid here is your repetitive  and meaningless insistence that you have any points to present...
Click to expand...


This, from the town buffoon.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As we see with regularity, the creationist agenda has been reduced to nothing more than attacks on science. The "support" for supernaturalism is postured  in terms of rhetorical statements such as "among the many problems with the theory of evolution are the questions it is unable to answer."
> 
> If someone were to state that, because the current theory of Gravity is incomplete in some instances that gravity does not exist, then that person would be a fool. Such are the tactics of religious extremists.
> 
> How fortunate we are to be able to view any of the many peer reviewed science journals and be able to read of new discoveries in science. Almost every issue includes notes on how the discovery addresses a particular question related to science. And very often, we find that if the evidence is confirmed, it will require a modification or change in a certain part of the current theory.
> 
> And Science will accommodate change! After all, the goal of science is to progress, to study and to learn. That is totally unlike religious extremists who (on religious grounds) are convinced that their bibles contain all knowledge and that no new knowledge can conflict with their dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compelling, insightful and well-composed... by the standards of your usual contribution.
Click to expand...


Says the nincapoop.


----------



## newpolitics

Hollie said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the nothing to argue, since "Darwin's Doubt" doesn't present any sound defeaters of evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory is contradicted by the Cambrian Explosion. Creationists love to cite this, as if it were a defeater, when it isn't. It's hilarious that you "peacock" this as evidence of something, when all it shows is your putting arbitrary limits on evolution as to the speed at which it can proceed. I wish creationists would stop being so dishonest, when they attack a strawman of evolutionary theory and proclaim victory.
> 
> 
> 
> As we see with regularity, the creationist agenda has been reduced to nothing more than attacks on science. The "support" for supernaturalism is postured  in terms of rhetorical statements such as "among the many problems with the theory of evolution are the questions it is unable to answer."
> 
> If someone were to state that, because the current theory of Gravity is incomplete in some instances that gravity does not exist, then that person would be a fool. Such are the tactics of religious extremists.
> 
> How fortunate we are to be able to view any of the many peer reviewed science journals and be able to read of new discoveries in science. Almost every issue includes notes on how the discovery addresses a particular question related to science. And very often, we find that if the evidence is confirmed, it will require a modification or change in a certain part of the current theory.
> 
> And Science will accommodate change! After all, the goal of science is to progress, to study and to learn. That is totally unlike religious extremists who (on religious grounds) are convinced that their bibles contain all knowledge and that no new knowledge can conflict with their dogma.
Click to expand...


Very well-stated, Hollie!


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, you would think that after all this time you wouldn't be so stupid as to post an ad hominem attack instead of responding to the points presented. I mean, really, haven't you learned anything in over 1000 pages?? All you do is make yourself look like an ass because it is clear to everyone you can't argue the points, just like your buddy Hollie (get it-Buddy Hollie), and you are pathetically forced to resort to biased ad hominem gobblygook. Truly pathetic and you are without excuse. Maybe your tights are too small and its choking the oxygen to your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is the nothing to argue, since "Darwin's Doubt" doesn't present any sound defeaters of evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory is contradicted by the Cambrian Explosion. Creationists love to cite this, as if it were a defeater, when it isn't. It's hilarious that you "peacock" this as evidence of something, when all it shows is your putting arbitrary limits on evolution as to the speed at which it can proceed. I wish creationists would stop being so dishonest, when they attack a strawman of evolutionary theory and proclaim victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The blatant foolishness of your post shows you know nothing about the book. Just like the Douchebags at Panda's Thumb, you would be so arrogant to critique a book you've never read. You are living proof of the mass brainwashing that has so twisted your conscience you believe can just assimilate knowledge through the air without actually having to read anything. Pathetic.
Click to expand...


I know of the summary you posted about the book, and if that is any indication about what is in the book, then I do know something about the book, so you are incorrect. Was not the point of posting a synopsis of the book, to give us some idea of what's in it? Yet, when I comment on the synopsis, all of a sudden, I know nothing about what's in the book? So, I gather then, that the synopsis of the book, contains no information about what is in the book. Interesting. That's a really shitty synopsis then. Why don't you enlighten us as to what is actually in the book? Oh, that's right, it was contained in the synopsis you posted, which I validly attacked for what it is: anti-science rhetoric devoid of logic, reason, or evidence. This book is then, likewise, bullshit. Have fun reading your bullshit. I'll stick to the facts, thank you.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is the nothing to argue, since "darwin's doubt" doesn't present any sound defeaters of evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory is contradicted by the cambrian explosion. Creationists love to cite this, as if it were a defeater, when it isn't. It's hilarious that you "peacock" this as evidence of something, when all it shows is your putting arbitrary limits on evolution as to the speed at which it can proceed. I wish creationists would stop being so dishonest, when they attack a strawman of evolutionary theory and proclaim victory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the blatant foolishness of your post shows you know nothing about the book. Just like the douchebags at panda's thumb, you would be so arrogant to critique a book you've never read. You are living proof of the mass brainwashing that has so twisted your conscience you believe can just assimilate knowledge through the air without actually having to read anything. Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i know of the summary you posted about the book, and if that is any indication about what is in the book, then i do know something about the book, so you are incorrect. Was not the point of posting a synopsis of the book, to give us some idea of what's in it? Yet, when i comment on the synopsis, all of a sudden, i know nothing about what's in the book? So, i gather then, that the synopsis of the book, contains no information about what is in the book. Interesting. That's a really shitty synopsis then. Why don't you enlighten us as to what is actually in the book? Oh, that's right, it was contained in the synopsis you posted, which i validly attacked for what it is: Anti-science rhetoric devoid of logic, reason, or evidence. This book is then, likewise, bullshit. Have fun reading your bullshit.* i'll stick to the facts*, thank you.
Click to expand...


rotflmao


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> the blatant foolishness of your post shows you know nothing about the book. Just like the douchebags at panda's thumb, you would be so arrogant to critique a book you've never read. You are living proof of the mass brainwashing that has so twisted your conscience you believe can just assimilate knowledge through the air without actually having to read anything. Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i know of the summary you posted about the book, and if that is any indication about what is in the book, then i do know something about the book, so you are incorrect. Was not the point of posting a synopsis of the book, to give us some idea of what's in it? Yet, when i comment on the synopsis, all of a sudden, i know nothing about what's in the book? So, i gather then, that the synopsis of the book, contains no information about what is in the book. Interesting. That's a really shitty synopsis then. Why don't you enlighten us as to what is actually in the book? Oh, that's right, it was contained in the synopsis you posted, which i validly attacked for what it is: Anti-science rhetoric devoid of logic, reason, or evidence. This book is then, likewise, bullshit. Have fun reading your bullshit.* i'll stick to the facts*, thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rotflmao
Click to expand...


Yet another of the really compelling arguments coming from the Flat Earth crowd.


----------



## UltimateReality

Through parts one and two of Darwin's Doubt and not a single religious reference. It is basically a review of all the data from scientific research and discovery and an expose' of the lies and exaggerations of the atheist community. What becomes blatantly obvious in reading this book is how the real scientist doing the research and producing the data, make no such claims for the body of evidence regarding Darwinism, but it is the atheist community that exaggerates the data and blatantly lies about the results to promote their materialist, statist religion. 

After reading this book, I am convinced Darwinism is dead, and a new scientific theory, regardless of whether or not you believe in God, needs to take its place. There is simply not enough evidence to continue to believe that natural selection acting on random mutations is responsible for the numerous body plans that suddenly appear in the Cambrian Explosion.

Meyer not only goes into the overwhelming lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record of different Cambrian strata, he explores the massive amount of genetic evidence mounting against Neo Darwinism. He sums it up best when he gives the illustration of marbles in a large barrel. As you begin to draw red, yellow and blue marbles from the barrel, you might believe you just haven't drawn enough out to find the other colors. But as you continue to draw them out for days, and red, yellow and blue are the only ones turning up, you are left with the gnawing feeling that maybe the burnt orange, violet, and green hues, that is, the endless plethora of intermediate colors resulting from primary colors mixing, aren't being drawn because they simply do not exist. At some point, you are left with just the evidence, and any hope for finding the elusive transitional forms of the Cambrian period evaporates. It is then you must come up with a new theory or look like a complete fool.

We find overwhelming evidence that the tree of life, is in fact, upside down in the Cambrian strata, and Darwin, and all the fools clinging to his pathetic theory, need to quit being influenced by their religion and confront the evidence head on.


----------



## Steven_R

I'm curious about your scientific credentials. Are you actually qualified to make the determination that Darwinism is a dead idea because you can read the original papers yourself, or can you only get the general idea of what is going on from second and third hand accounts, many of which are agenda driven?

This isn't an attack, but I don't understand how people who have never taken a single class beyond Biology 101 are really able to discuss the technical merits of Evolutionary Theory in any meaningful way. Scientists spend a decade in school studying their subjects is being judged by people whose only exposure is the internet and popular science books from Borders.


----------



## daws101

Steven_R said:


> I'm curious about your scientific credentials. Are you actually qualified to make the determination that Darwinism is a dead idea because you can read the original papers yourself, or can you only get the general idea of what is going on from second and third hand accounts, many of which are agenda driven?
> 
> This isn't an attack, but I don't understand how people who have never taken a single class beyond Biology 101 are really able to discuss the technical merits of Evolutionary Theory in any meaningful way. Scientists spend a decade in school studying their subjects is being judged by people whose only exposure is the internet and popular science books from Borders.


he has none....


----------



## HUGGY

UltimateReality said:


> Through parts one and two of Darwin's Doubt and not a single religious reference. It is basically a review of all the data from scientific research and discovery and an expose' of the lies and exaggerations of the atheist community. What becomes blatantly obvious in reading this book is how the real scientist doing the research and producing the data, make no such claims for the body of evidence regarding Darwinism, but it is the atheist community that exaggerates the data and blatantly lies about the results to promote their materialist, statist religion.
> 
> After reading this book, I am convinced Darwinism is dead, and a new scientific theory, regardless of whether or not you believe in God, needs to take its place. There is simply not enough evidence to continue to believe that natural selection acting on random mutations is responsible for the numerous body plans that suddenly appear in the Cambrian Explosion.
> 
> Meyer not only goes into the overwhelming lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record of different Cambrian strata, he explores the massive amount of genetic evidence mounting against Neo Darwinism. *He sums it up best when he gives the illustration of marbles in a large barrel. As you begin to draw red, yellow and blue marbles from the barrel, you might believe you just haven't drawn enough out to find the other colors. But as you continue to draw them out for days, and red, yellow and blue are the only ones turning up, you are left with the gnawing feeling that maybe the burnt orange, violet, and green hues, that is, the endless plethora of intermediate colors resulting from primary colors mixing, aren't being drawn because they simply do not exist.* At some point, you are left with just the evidence, and any hope for finding the elusive transitional forms of the Cambrian period evaporates. It is then you must come up with a new theory or look like a complete fool.
> 
> We find overwhelming evidence that the tree of life, is in fact, upside down in the Cambrian strata, and Darwin, and all the fools clinging to his pathetic theory, need to quit being influenced by their religion and confront the evidence head on.



Stupid analogy.  REALLY stupid.  Are we to believe that you and Meyer see the earth then as no more complex than a barrel full of marbles?

The earth has gone through many violent physical changes as the life forms have struggled to survive.  Seas have risen.. Much of the evidense has been washed away or buried deep in the earth.  Much if not almost all of the animal life that died was eaten including bones.  Fragile life such as humanoid would have been easy prey to almost every kind of hungry predator or scavenger.  Another factor is that humans do not bred as frequently or with as much survival success for the offspring as most other animals.  

Someday far into the future long after the christians and muslims have destroyed mankind an inteligent being will find a skull and pick it up and shake it.  There will be a strange sound coming from within it.  Upon further examination the future being will discover marbles within the christian's head.  AHHH! the being will excaim!  That explains everything!


----------



## UltimateReality

HUGGY said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Through parts one and two of Darwin's Doubt and not a single religious reference. It is basically a review of all the data from scientific research and discovery and an expose' of the lies and exaggerations of the atheist community. What becomes blatantly obvious in reading this book is how the real scientist doing the research and producing the data, make no such claims for the body of evidence regarding Darwinism, but it is the atheist community that exaggerates the data and blatantly lies about the results to promote their materialist, statist religion.
> 
> After reading this book, I am convinced Darwinism is dead, and a new scientific theory, regardless of whether or not you believe in God, needs to take its place. There is simply not enough evidence to continue to believe that natural selection acting on random mutations is responsible for the numerous body plans that suddenly appear in the Cambrian Explosion.
> 
> Meyer not only goes into the overwhelming lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record of different Cambrian strata, he explores the massive amount of genetic evidence mounting against Neo Darwinism. *He sums it up best when he gives the illustration of marbles in a large barrel. As you begin to draw red, yellow and blue marbles from the barrel, you might believe you just haven't drawn enough out to find the other colors. But as you continue to draw them out for days, and red, yellow and blue are the only ones turning up, you are left with the gnawing feeling that maybe the burnt orange, violet, and green hues, that is, the endless plethora of intermediate colors resulting from primary colors mixing, aren't being drawn because they simply do not exist.* At some point, you are left with just the evidence, and *any hope for finding the elusive transitional forms of the Cambrian period evaporates*. It is then you must come up with a new theory or look like a complete fool.
> 
> We find overwhelming evidence that the tree of life, is in fact, upside down in the Cambrian strata, and Darwin, and all the fools clinging to his pathetic theory, need to quit being influenced by their religion and confront the evidence head on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid analogy.  REALLY stupid.  Are we to believe that you and Meyer see the earth then as no more complex than a barrel full of marbles?
> 
> The earth has gone through many violent physical changes as the life forms have struggled to survive.  Seas have risen.. Much of the evidense has been washed away or buried deep in the earth.  Much if not almost all of the animal life that died was eaten including bones.  Fragile life such as humanoid would have been easy prey to almost every kind of hungry predator or scavenger.  Another factor is that humans do not bred as frequently or with as much survival success for the offspring as most other animals.
> 
> Someday far into the future long after the christians and muslims have destroyed mankind an inteligent being will find a skull and pick it up and shake it.  There will be a strange sound coming from within it.  Upon further examination the future being will discover marbles within the christian's head.  AHHH! the being will excaim!  That explains everything!
Click to expand...


Stupid response. Really stupid. His analogy was referring to the fossil record, specifically the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian strata. Your lack of reading comprehension gets the best of you again. The specific Phyla fossils are plentiful, the "inbetweeners" or rainbow of intermediate colors as referred to in the analogy, are no where to be found in the Cambrian strata. And yes, your arguments above were examined in the book and just as easily quickly and easily refuted. You might want to read it.


----------



## UltimateReality

Here come the liars and misreprenters at Panda's Thumb. And once again it is laid bare that the militant atheists at Panda's Thumb have nothing in common with real scientists...

_On June 19, the day after Darwin's Doubt was first available for purchase, Nick Matzke published a 9400-word "review" of the book in which it appears that he tried to anticipate many of Stephen Meyer's arguments. Unfortunately, he often either guessed wrong as to what Meyer would say or -- assuming he actually read the book as he claims -- misread many of Meyer's specific claims. As I showed in a previous response to Matzke, Matzke repeatedly misquoted Meyer, at one point claiming he referred to the Cambrian explosion as "instantaneous," when Meyer nowhere makes that claim. Indeed, Matzke faulted Meyer for not recognizing that the Cambrian explosion "was not really 'instantaneous' nor particularly 'sudden.'" Oddly, he also criticized Meyer for not recognizing that the Cambrian explosion "took at least 30 million years" -- despite expert opinion showing it was far shorter.

Since Matzke published his review, The New Yorker reviewed Meyer's book. Gareth Cook, the science writer who wrote the piece, relied heavily on Matzke's critical evaluation, even though Matzke is a graduate student and not an established Cambrian expert. Cook uncritically recycled Matzke's claim that the Cambrian explosion took "many tens of millions of years," even saying that the main problem with Darwin's Doubt is that Meyer failed to recognize this alleged fact.

DebatingDD.jpegSo, was Matzke right about the length of the Cambrian explosion? In fact, Matzke's preemptive -- or hastily written -- review not only misrepresented Meyer's view, it also misrepresented the length and character of the Cambrian explosion as numerous authoritative peer-reviewed scientific sources on the subject clearly show.

Before going on, let's briefly look first at what Meyer actually says. First, Meyer does not equate the Cambrian explosion with the entire radiation -- as most Cambrian experts also do not. By "radiation" here I mean the period of time in which all the new phyla, classes, orders that first arose during the Cambrian apparently did so. Instead, he equates the Cambrian explosion with the most explosive period of the Cambrian radiation (as most Cambrian experts do) in which the vast majority of the higher taxa arose. He asserts specifically that the re-dating of critical Cambrian strata in 1993 established that the strata documenting the first appearance of the majority of the Cambrian phyla and classes took place within a 10 million year period -- a period Meyer does equate with "the explosion of novel Cambrian animal forms." (pp. 71-72) As he describes it, "these studies [i.e., radiometric analyses of zircon crystals in Siberian rocks] also suggested that the explosion of novel Cambrian animal forms" took about 10 million years. (p. 71)_

How "Sudden" Was the Cambrian Explosion? Nick Matzke Misreads Stephen Meyer and the Paleontological Literature; <i>New Yorker</i> Recycles Misrepresentation - Evolution News & Views


----------



## Hollie

The article written by Nick Matzke can be found here:

Meyer's Hopeless Monster, Part II - The Panda's Thumb

Creationist tend to get a bit confused when addressing the specifics of "evilution". They do better with conspiracy theories.


----------



## Hollie

The author below has captured the entirety of the Christian fundie ID'iot argunent. The bolded parts (my addition), is the delineation.



Doubting Stephen Meyer's 'Darwin's Doubt' : The New Yorker


*Weve been here before*. The intelligent-design movement was born more than two decades ago, in the wreckage of creation science, and the idea is closely associated with the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank where Meyer works. The scientific arguments have changed over the years, but intelligent design is probably best understood as the central element of a cunning legal argument. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that creation science could not be taught in public schools because it was a poorly disguised version of the Bible, so the engineers of intelligent design improved the disguise: a theory that made room for the Bible without any explicit mention of the book. Advocates were thus able to argue that intelligent design should be taught in public-school biology classes. Their agenda was dealt a serious setback in 2005, when a federal judge declared that intelligent design was religion, not science, and barred it from schools.

Scientific readers will likely find that Darwins Doubt has an inspired-by-true-events feel: a few elements are recognizable, but the story makes no sense to anyone who was there. The problem for Meyer is that what has come to be called the Cambrian explosion was not, in fact, an explosion. It took place over tens of millions of yearsfar more time than, for example, it took humans and chimpanzees to go their separate ways. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see.

It turns out that many of the major gaps that Meyer identifies are the result of his misleading rearrangement of the tree. Nick Matzke, a scientist who blogs at Pandas Thumb, makes a convincing case that Meyer does not understand the fields key statistical techniques (among other things). For example, Meyer presents a chart on page thirty-five of Darwins Doubt that appears to show the sudden appearance of large numbers of major animal groups in the Cambrian: the smoking gun. But if one looks at a family tree based on current science, it looks nothing like Meyers, and precisely like what Darwinian theory would predict. All of this is pretty good evidence for the basic idea that the Cambrian Explosion is really the radiation of simple bilaterian worms into more complex worms[which] occurred in many stages, instead of all at once, Matzke writes.

Meyer goes on to build a grander, more bizarre argument that draws from the intelligent-design well. The genetic machinery of life, he writes, is incapable of grand leaps forward, meaning that any dramatic biological innovation must be the work of the intelligent designer. Yet scientific literature contains many well-documented counterexamples to Meyers argument, and the mechanisms by which lifes machinery can change quickly are well known. Whole genes can be duplicated, for example, and the copy can evolve new functions.

*Most absurd of all is the books stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by todays scienceand there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannotthen we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.*


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> The author below has captured the entirety of the Christian fundie ID'iot argunent. The bolded parts (my addition), is the delineation.
> 
> 
> 
> Doubting Stephen Meyer's 'Darwin's Doubt' : The New Yorker
> 
> 
> *Weve been here before*. The intelligent-design movement was born more than two decades ago, in the wreckage of creation science, and the idea is closely associated with the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank where Meyer works. The scientific arguments have changed over the years, but intelligent design is probably best understood as the central element of a cunning legal argument. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that creation science could not be taught in public schools because it was a poorly disguised version of the Bible, so the engineers of intelligent design improved the disguise: a theory that made room for the Bible without any explicit mention of the book. Advocates were thus able to argue that intelligent design should be taught in public-school biology classes. Their agenda was dealt a serious setback in 2005, when a federal judge declared that intelligent design was religion, not science, and barred it from schools.
> 
> Scientific readers will likely find that Darwins Doubt has an inspired-by-true-events feel: a few elements are recognizable, but the story makes no sense to anyone who was there. The problem for Meyer is that what has come to be called the Cambrian explosion was not, in fact, an explosion. It took place over tens of millions of yearsfar more time than, for example, it took humans and chimpanzees to go their separate ways. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see.
> 
> It turns out that many of the major gaps that Meyer identifies are the result of his misleading rearrangement of the tree. Nick Matzke, a scientist who blogs at Pandas Thumb, makes a convincing case that Meyer does not understand the fields key statistical techniques (among other things). For example, Meyer presents a chart on page thirty-five of Darwins Doubt that appears to show the sudden appearance of large numbers of major animal groups in the Cambrian: the smoking gun. But if one looks at a family tree based on current science, it looks nothing like Meyers, and precisely like what Darwinian theory would predict. All of this is pretty good evidence for the basic idea that the Cambrian Explosion is really the radiation of simple bilaterian worms into more complex worms[which] occurred in many stages, instead of all at once, Matzke writes.
> 
> Meyer goes on to build a grander, more bizarre argument that draws from the intelligent-design well. The genetic machinery of life, he writes, is incapable of grand leaps forward, meaning that any dramatic biological innovation must be the work of the intelligent designer. Yet scientific literature contains many well-documented counterexamples to Meyers argument, and the mechanisms by which lifes machinery can change quickly are well known. Whole genes can be duplicated, for example, and the copy can evolve new functions.
> 
> *Most absurd of all is the books stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by todays scienceand there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannotthen we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.*



Guess you missed the title of the article in the post above. "New Yorker recycles Matzke's misrepsentation". You miss alot of important stuff, or rather, conveniently ignore any facts that don't support your Darwinist, atheistic worldview.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Through parts one and two of Darwin's Doubt and not a single religious reference. It is basically a review of all the data from scientific research and discovery and an expose' of the lies and exaggerations of the atheist community. What becomes blatantly obvious in reading this book is how the real scientist doing the research and producing the data, make no such claims for the body of evidence regarding Darwinism, but it is the atheist community that exaggerates the data and blatantly lies about the results to promote their materialist, statist religion.
> 
> After reading this book, I am convinced Darwinism is dead, and a new scientific theory, regardless of whether or not you believe in God, needs to take its place. There is simply not enough evidence to continue to believe that natural selection acting on random mutations is responsible for the numerous body plans that suddenly appear in the Cambrian Explosion.
> 
> Meyer not only goes into the overwhelming lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record of different Cambrian strata, he explores the massive amount of genetic evidence mounting against Neo Darwinism. *He sums it up best when he gives the illustration of marbles in a large barrel. As you begin to draw red, yellow and blue marbles from the barrel, you might believe you just haven't drawn enough out to find the other colors. But as you continue to draw them out for days, and red, yellow and blue are the only ones turning up, you are left with the gnawing feeling that maybe the burnt orange, violet, and green hues, that is, the endless plethora of intermediate colors resulting from primary colors mixing, aren't being drawn because they simply do not exist.* At some point, you are left with just the evidence, and *any hope for finding the elusive transitional forms of the Cambrian period evaporates*. It is then you must come up with a new theory or look like a complete fool.
> 
> We find overwhelming evidence that the tree of life, is in fact, upside down in the Cambrian strata, and Darwin, and all the fools clinging to his pathetic theory, need to quit being influenced by their religion and confront the evidence head on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid analogy.  REALLY stupid.  Are we to believe that you and Meyer see the earth then as no more complex than a barrel full of marbles?
> 
> The earth has gone through many violent physical changes as the life forms have struggled to survive.  Seas have risen.. Much of the evidense has been washed away or buried deep in the earth.  Much if not almost all of the animal life that died was eaten including bones.  Fragile life such as humanoid would have been easy prey to almost every kind of hungry predator or scavenger.  Another factor is that humans do not bred as frequently or with as much survival success for the offspring as most other animals.
> 
> Someday far into the future long after the christians and muslims have destroyed mankind an inteligent being will find a skull and pick it up and shake it.  There will be a strange sound coming from within it.  Upon further examination the future being will discover marbles within the christian's head.  AHHH! the being will excaim!  That explains everything!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid response. Really stupid. His analogy was referring to the fossil record, specifically the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian strata. Your lack of reading comprehension gets the best of you again. The specific Phyla fossils are plentiful, the "inbetweeners" or rainbow of intermediate colors as referred to in the analogy, are no where to be found in the Cambrian strata. And yes, your arguments above were examined in the book and just as easily quickly and easily refuted. You might want to read it.
Click to expand...

since the book is speculative fiction and not based on research or evidence or the lack of it ,the author can say anything he wishes.
whether it fits the facts or not.  

 Most absurd of all is the books stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by todays scienceand there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannotthen we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Here come the liars and misreprenters at Panda's Thumb. And once again it is laid bare that the militant atheists at Panda's Thumb have nothing in common with real scientists...
> 
> _On June 19, the day after Darwin's Doubt was first available for purchase, Nick Matzke published a 9400-word "review" of the book in which it appears that he tried to anticipate many of Stephen Meyer's arguments. Unfortunately, he often either guessed wrong as to what Meyer would say or -- assuming he actually read the book as he claims -- misread many of Meyer's specific claims. As I showed in a previous response to Matzke, Matzke repeatedly misquoted Meyer, at one point claiming he referred to the Cambrian explosion as "instantaneous," when Meyer nowhere makes that claim. Indeed, Matzke faulted Meyer for not recognizing that the Cambrian explosion "was not really 'instantaneous' nor particularly 'sudden.'" Oddly, he also criticized Meyer for not recognizing that the Cambrian explosion "took at least 30 million years" -- despite expert opinion showing it was far shorter.
> 
> Since Matzke published his review, The New Yorker reviewed Meyer's book. Gareth Cook, the science writer who wrote the piece, relied heavily on Matzke's critical evaluation, even though Matzke is a graduate student and not an established Cambrian expert. Cook uncritically recycled Matzke's claim that the Cambrian explosion took "many tens of millions of years," even saying that the main problem with Darwin's Doubt is that Meyer failed to recognize this alleged fact.
> 
> DebatingDD.jpegSo, was Matzke right about the length of the Cambrian explosion? In fact, Matzke's preemptive -- or hastily written -- review not only misrepresented Meyer's view, it also misrepresented the length and character of the Cambrian explosion as numerous authoritative peer-reviewed scientific sources on the subject clearly show.
> 
> Before going on, let's briefly look first at what Meyer actually says. First, Meyer does not equate the Cambrian explosion with the entire radiation -- as most Cambrian experts also do not. By "radiation" here I mean the period of time in which all the new phyla, classes, orders that first arose during the Cambrian apparently did so. Instead, he equates the Cambrian explosion with the most explosive period of the Cambrian radiation (as most Cambrian experts do) in which the vast majority of the higher taxa arose. He asserts specifically that the re-dating of critical Cambrian strata in 1993 established that the strata documenting the first appearance of the majority of the Cambrian phyla and classes took place within a 10 million year period -- a period Meyer does equate with "the explosion of novel Cambrian animal forms." (pp. 71-72) As he describes it, "these studies [i.e., radiometric analyses of zircon crystals in Siberian rocks] also suggested that the explosion of novel Cambrian animal forms" took about 10 million years. (p. 71)_
> 
> How "Sudden" Was the Cambrian Explosion? Nick Matzke Misreads Stephen Meyer and the Paleontological Literature; <i>New Yorker</i> Recycles Misrepresentation - Evolution News & Views


discovery institute hahahhahahahahahahahahahahah!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author below has captured the entirety of the Christian fundie ID'iot argunent. The bolded parts (my addition), is the delineation.
> 
> 
> 
> Doubting Stephen Meyer's 'Darwin's Doubt' : The New Yorker
> 
> 
> *Weve been here before*. The intelligent-design movement was born more than two decades ago, in the wreckage of creation science, and the idea is closely associated with the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank where Meyer works. The scientific arguments have changed over the years, but intelligent design is probably best understood as the central element of a cunning legal argument. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that creation science could not be taught in public schools because it was a poorly disguised version of the Bible, so the engineers of intelligent design improved the disguise: a theory that made room for the Bible without any explicit mention of the book. Advocates were thus able to argue that intelligent design should be taught in public-school biology classes. Their agenda was dealt a serious setback in 2005, when a federal judge declared that intelligent design was religion, not science, and barred it from schools.
> 
> Scientific readers will likely find that Darwins Doubt has an inspired-by-true-events feel: a few elements are recognizable, but the story makes no sense to anyone who was there. The problem for Meyer is that what has come to be called the Cambrian explosion was not, in fact, an explosion. It took place over tens of millions of yearsfar more time than, for example, it took humans and chimpanzees to go their separate ways. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see.
> 
> It turns out that many of the major gaps that Meyer identifies are the result of his misleading rearrangement of the tree. Nick Matzke, a scientist who blogs at Pandas Thumb, makes a convincing case that Meyer does not understand the fields key statistical techniques (among other things). For example, Meyer presents a chart on page thirty-five of Darwins Doubt that appears to show the sudden appearance of large numbers of major animal groups in the Cambrian: the smoking gun. But if one looks at a family tree based on current science, it looks nothing like Meyers, and precisely like what Darwinian theory would predict. All of this is pretty good evidence for the basic idea that the Cambrian Explosion is really the radiation of simple bilaterian worms into more complex worms[which] occurred in many stages, instead of all at once, Matzke writes.
> 
> Meyer goes on to build a grander, more bizarre argument that draws from the intelligent-design well. The genetic machinery of life, he writes, is incapable of grand leaps forward, meaning that any dramatic biological innovation must be the work of the intelligent designer. Yet scientific literature contains many well-documented counterexamples to Meyers argument, and the mechanisms by which lifes machinery can change quickly are well known. Whole genes can be duplicated, for example, and the copy can evolve new functions.
> 
> *Most absurd of all is the books stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by todays scienceand there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannotthen we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you missed the title of the article in the post above. "New Yorker recycles Matzke's misrepsentation". You miss alot of important stuff, or rather, conveniently ignore any facts that don't support your Darwinist, atheistic worldview.
Click to expand...


Actually, you missed the humor of the Disco' tute peddling their bile to the Flat Earth types willing to mouth the bait.


----------



## daws101

Discovery Institute tries to "swift-boat" Judge Jones
October 17th, 2008
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services
2
by Kevin Padian and Nick Matzke


As predictable as sunup, the Discovery Institute reacted to their drubbing in Federal Court (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, 20 December 2005) without the least introspection. One would have thought that after six weeks of testimony by both sides in the public debate (there is, of course, no scientific debate) about evolution and intelligent design, both sides would say, "Okay, we gave it our best shot," and at least have the common decency to read the Courts decision before spinmeistering. 

Instead, the DI immediately tried to "swift-boat" the judge. 

Before the electrons on the pdf of the judge's decision were even cool, the DI released the following salvo: 
The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design.
In the DI's lexicon, "activist" means someone who says or does things you don't like: the ACLU, the NCSE, Americans United, and  oh. A Republican judge from central Pennsylvania. 

Of course, the DI folks aren't activists. They just sit in their think-tank, performing first-class research for the best scientific journals, waiting for the awards and accolades from the scientific and educational communities to come in. (So far, they're still waiting for the awards, and we're still waiting for the research.) Apparently it's not "activist" for the Discovery Institute to send their own "Icons of Evolution" video to the Dover Area School Board (a video that DASB member William Buckingham apparently bullied teachers to watch  twice  and was clearly an inspiration to Buckingham in his various efforts to squelch the teaching of evolution in Dover. Apparently it's not "activist" to send DI staff to Dover to counsel the school board on how to promote ID in science classes. 
Discovery Institute tries to "swift-boat" Judge Jones | NCSE


----------



## Steven_R

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author below has captured the entirety of the Christian fundie ID'iot argunent. The bolded parts (my addition), is the delineation.
> 
> 
> 
> Doubting Stephen Meyer's 'Darwin's Doubt' : The New Yorker
> 
> 
> *Weve been here before*. The intelligent-design movement was born more than two decades ago, in the wreckage of creation science, and the idea is closely associated with the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank where Meyer works. The scientific arguments have changed over the years, but intelligent design is probably best understood as the central element of a cunning legal argument. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that creation science could not be taught in public schools because it was a poorly disguised version of the Bible, so the engineers of intelligent design improved the disguise: a theory that made room for the Bible without any explicit mention of the book. Advocates were thus able to argue that intelligent design should be taught in public-school biology classes. Their agenda was dealt a serious setback in 2005, when a federal judge declared that intelligent design was religion, not science, and barred it from schools.
> 
> Scientific readers will likely find that Darwins Doubt has an inspired-by-true-events feel: a few elements are recognizable, but the story makes no sense to anyone who was there. The problem for Meyer is that what has come to be called the Cambrian explosion was not, in fact, an explosion. It took place over tens of millions of yearsfar more time than, for example, it took humans and chimpanzees to go their separate ways. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see.
> 
> It turns out that many of the major gaps that Meyer identifies are the result of his misleading rearrangement of the tree. Nick Matzke, a scientist who blogs at Pandas Thumb, makes a convincing case that Meyer does not understand the fields key statistical techniques (among other things). For example, Meyer presents a chart on page thirty-five of Darwins Doubt that appears to show the sudden appearance of large numbers of major animal groups in the Cambrian: the smoking gun. But if one looks at a family tree based on current science, it looks nothing like Meyers, and precisely like what Darwinian theory would predict. All of this is pretty good evidence for the basic idea that the Cambrian Explosion is really the radiation of simple bilaterian worms into more complex worms[which] occurred in many stages, instead of all at once, Matzke writes.
> 
> Meyer goes on to build a grander, more bizarre argument that draws from the intelligent-design well. The genetic machinery of life, he writes, is incapable of grand leaps forward, meaning that any dramatic biological innovation must be the work of the intelligent designer. Yet scientific literature contains many well-documented counterexamples to Meyers argument, and the mechanisms by which lifes machinery can change quickly are well known. Whole genes can be duplicated, for example, and the copy can evolve new functions.
> 
> *Most absurd of all is the books stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by todays scienceand there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannotthen we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you missed the title of the article in the post above. "New Yorker recycles Matzke's misrepsentation". You miss alot of important stuff, or rather, conveniently ignore any facts that don't support your Darwinist, atheistic worldview.
Click to expand...


We don't expect the legal community to debate the Sovereign Citizen movement, we don't expect historians to debate Holocaust Deniers, we don't expect political scientists to debate conspiracy theorists, but we expect scientists to debate non-scientists over extremely technical issues and have the science just thrown out whenever the non-scientist disagree with it (at least when they aren't deliberately misleading the ignorant masses over what the evil atheist scientists are lying about) when they bring out "evidence" that first year grad students know is wrong.


----------



## PMZ

It's intelligence 101 to figure out who accepts what's true and who wants what makes them feel good to be true. It's essential to keep them straight.

Truth is what's important.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid analogy.  REALLY stupid.  Are we to believe that you and Meyer see the earth then as no more complex than a barrel full of marbles?
> 
> The earth has gone through many violent physical changes as the life forms have struggled to survive.  Seas have risen.. Much of the evidense has been washed away or buried deep in the earth.  Much if not almost all of the animal life that died was eaten including bones.  Fragile life such as humanoid would have been easy prey to almost every kind of hungry predator or scavenger.  Another factor is that humans do not bred as frequently or with as much survival success for the offspring as most other animals.
> 
> Someday far into the future long after the christians and muslims have destroyed mankind an inteligent being will find a skull and pick it up and shake it.  There will be a strange sound coming from within it.  Upon further examination the future being will discover marbles within the christian's head.  AHHH! the being will excaim!  That explains everything!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid response. Really stupid. His analogy was referring to the fossil record, specifically the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian strata. Your lack of reading comprehension gets the best of you again. The specific Phyla fossils are plentiful, the "inbetweeners" or rainbow of intermediate colors as referred to in the analogy, are no where to be found in the Cambrian strata. And yes, your arguments above were examined in the book and just as easily quickly and easily refuted. You might want to read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since the book is speculative fiction and not based on research or evidence or the lack of it ,the author can say anything he wishes.
> whether it fits the facts or not.
> 
> Most absurd of all is the books stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by todays scienceand there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannotthen we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.
Click to expand...


This has to be your most asinine post yet. You reveal that you are just as much of a stupid, douche bag as all the others that think they can *comment on a book they have never read*. I'm seeing a pattern here. It makes it totally understandable how we got to where we are with the current theory because just about everyone preaching Darwinism proves time and again they have no qualms about making crap up, as evidenced by your post above. REALLY PATHETIC.


----------



## UltimateReality

Steven_R said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author below has captured the entirety of the Christian fundie ID'iot argunent. The bolded parts (my addition), is the delineation.
> 
> 
> 
> Doubting Stephen Meyer's 'Darwin's Doubt' : The New Yorker
> 
> 
> *Weve been here before*. The intelligent-design movement was born more than two decades ago, in the wreckage of creation science, and the idea is closely associated with the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank where Meyer works. The scientific arguments have changed over the years, but intelligent design is probably best understood as the central element of a cunning legal argument. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that creation science could not be taught in public schools because it was a poorly disguised version of the Bible, so the engineers of intelligent design improved the disguise: a theory that made room for the Bible without any explicit mention of the book. Advocates were thus able to argue that intelligent design should be taught in public-school biology classes. Their agenda was dealt a serious setback in 2005, when a federal judge declared that intelligent design was religion, not science, and barred it from schools.
> 
> Scientific readers will likely find that Darwins Doubt has an inspired-by-true-events feel: a few elements are recognizable, but the story makes no sense to anyone who was there. The problem for Meyer is that what has come to be called the Cambrian explosion was not, in fact, an explosion. It took place over tens of millions of yearsfar more time than, for example, it took humans and chimpanzees to go their separate ways. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see.
> 
> It turns out that many of the major gaps that Meyer identifies are the result of his misleading rearrangement of the tree. Nick Matzke, a scientist who blogs at Pandas Thumb, makes a convincing case that Meyer does not understand the fields key statistical techniques (among other things). For example, Meyer presents a chart on page thirty-five of Darwins Doubt that appears to show the sudden appearance of large numbers of major animal groups in the Cambrian: the smoking gun. But if one looks at a family tree based on current science, it looks nothing like Meyers, and precisely like what Darwinian theory would predict. All of this is pretty good evidence for the basic idea that the Cambrian Explosion is really the radiation of simple bilaterian worms into more complex worms[which] occurred in many stages, instead of all at once, Matzke writes.
> 
> Meyer goes on to build a grander, more bizarre argument that draws from the intelligent-design well. The genetic machinery of life, he writes, is incapable of grand leaps forward, meaning that any dramatic biological innovation must be the work of the intelligent designer. Yet scientific literature contains many well-documented counterexamples to Meyers argument, and the mechanisms by which lifes machinery can change quickly are well known. Whole genes can be duplicated, for example, and the copy can evolve new functions.
> 
> *Most absurd of all is the books stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by todays scienceand there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannotthen we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you missed the title of the article in the post above. "New Yorker recycles Matzke's misrepsentation". You miss alot of important stuff, or rather, conveniently ignore any facts that don't support your Darwinist, atheistic worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't expect the legal community to debate the Sovereign Citizen movement, we don't expect historians to debate Holocaust Deniers, we don't expect political scientists to debate conspiracy theorists, but we expect scientists to debate non-scientists over extremely technical issues and have the science just thrown out whenever the non-scientist disagree with it (at least when they aren't deliberately misleading the ignorant masses over what the evil atheist scientists are lying about) when they bring out "evidence" that first year grad students know is wrong.
Click to expand...


To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you missed the title of the article in the post above. "New Yorker recycles Matzke's misrepsentation". You miss alot of important stuff, or rather, conveniently ignore any facts that don't support your Darwinist, atheistic worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't expect the legal community to debate the Sovereign Citizen movement, we don't expect historians to debate Holocaust Deniers, we don't expect political scientists to debate conspiracy theorists, but we expect scientists to debate non-scientists over extremely technical issues and have the science just thrown out whenever the non-scientist disagree with it (at least when they aren't deliberately misleading the ignorant masses over what the evil atheist scientists are lying about) when they bring out "evidence" that first year grad students know is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.
Click to expand...


The Meyer groupies are so cute when they're wearing those little hats with the propellers on top and reciting their Disco'tute slogans.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid response. Really stupid. His analogy was referring to the fossil record, specifically the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian strata. Your lack of reading comprehension gets the best of you again. The specific Phyla fossils are plentiful, the "inbetweeners" or rainbow of intermediate colors as referred to in the analogy, are no where to be found in the Cambrian strata. And yes, your arguments above were examined in the book and just as easily quickly and easily refuted. You might want to read it.
> 
> 
> 
> since the book is speculative fiction and not based on research or evidence or the lack of it ,the author can say anything he wishes.
> whether it fits the facts or not.
> 
> Most absurd of all is the books stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by todays scienceand there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannotthen we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has to be your most asinine post yet. You reveal that you are just as much of a stupid, douche bag as all the others that think they can *comment on a book they have never read*. I'm seeing a pattern here. It makes it totally understandable how we got to where we are with the current theory because just about everyone preaching Darwinism proves time and again they have no qualms about making crap up, as evidenced by your post above. REALLY PATHETIC.
Click to expand...

just bend over and take it like a man!


----------



## UltimateReality

Here is evidence of the open debate and TRUTH at Evolution News. This is contrary to the lies and manipulations of Panda's Scum. Of course none of the usual liars here will bother to read these posts, but that won't stop them from pretending that they know what was written in them. 

Guest, *Opposing* Viewpoint from Dr. Poenie, Associate Professor in Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, University of Texas at Austin

Douglas Axe, Protein Evolution, and <em>Darwin's Doubt</em>: A Reply - Evolution News & Views

Response here...

Answering Objections to <em>Darwin's Doubt</em> from University of Texas Biologist Martin Poenie - Evolution News & Views


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Here is evidence of the open debate and TRUTH at Evolution News. This is contrary to the lies and manipulations of Panda's Scum. Of course none of the usual liars here will bother to read these posts, but that won't stop them from pretending that they know what was written in them.
> 
> Guest, *Opposing* Viewpoint from Dr. Poenie, Associate Professor in Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, University of Texas at Austin
> 
> Douglas Axe, Protein Evolution, and <em>Darwin's Doubt</em>: A Reply - Evolution News & Views
> 
> Response here...
> 
> Answering Objections to <em>Darwin's Doubt</em> from University of Texas Biologist Martin Poenie - Evolution News & Views



That was actually comical. What a collection of misfits.  A hyper-religious loon from the Disco'tute and the ever silly Cornelius Hunter.


----------



## Hollie

Prothero reviews Meyer's Hopeless Monster - The Panda's Thumb 

Donald Prothero, paleontologist and author of Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, has reviewed Meyers Darwins Doubt monstrosity on Amazon. Money quote:



> In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As Ive written before, if you are a complete amateur and dont understand a subject, dont demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Here is evidence of the open debate and TRUTH at Evolution News. This is contrary to the lies and manipulations of Panda's Scum. Of course none of the usual liars here will bother to read these posts, but that won't stop them from pretending that they know what was written in them.
> 
> Guest, *Opposing* Viewpoint from Dr. Poenie, Associate Professor in Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, University of Texas at Austin
> 
> Douglas Axe, Protein Evolution, and <em>Darwin's Doubt</em>: A Reply - Evolution News & Views
> 
> Response here...
> 
> Answering Objections to <em>Darwin's Doubt</em> from University of Texas Biologist Martin Poenie - Evolution News & Views


since it's an Id/ creationist site it's bias and not scientifically balanced ..no matter who they have as guests!


----------



## Hollie

Speaking of nitwits, it was Dougie Axe along with Ann Gauger who used a green screen and a lab background to make phony images of a lab

Why Gauger's green-screened 'lab' is an appropriate target of ridicule - The Panda's Thumb


Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger, both of the BioLogic Institute, have put out a series of videos summarizing some of the content of Science and Human Origins. They attempt to undermine the case for common descent, and in particular the descent of humans from non-human ancestors. John Harshman, in comments on my posts on the use of a commercial stock photo of a lab as a background for Ann Gaugers blather about  a hidden secret in population genetics and in evolution, argued that the focus on the green-screening diverts attention from the real issue, which is her mangling of the science (see here for an example). While John is right that setting the record straight on the science is important, its also the case that the green-screening is but one aspect of a larger effort on the part of the Disco Tute to erode public confidence in mainstream science. And that effort is what underpins the newest strategy of the Disco Tute and its fellow travelers, which is to promote legislation embodying so-called academic freedom for public school teachers who want to teach creationism and intelligent design (see here for an overview and here for a Barbara Forrest video on it).


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you missed the title of the article in the post above. "New Yorker recycles Matzke's misrepsentation". You miss alot of important stuff, or rather, conveniently ignore any facts that don't support your Darwinist, atheistic worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't expect the legal community to debate the Sovereign Citizen movement, we don't expect historians to debate Holocaust Deniers, we don't expect political scientists to debate conspiracy theorists, but we expect scientists to debate non-scientists over extremely technical issues and have the science just thrown out whenever the non-scientist disagree with it (at least when they aren't deliberately misleading the ignorant masses over what the evil atheist scientists are lying about) when they bring out "evidence" that first year grad students know is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.
Click to expand...


And how do you know that your'e not ignorant?


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Speaking of nitwits, it was Dougie Axe along with Ann Gauger who used a green screen and a lab background to make phony images of a lab
> 
> Why Gauger's green-screened 'lab' is an appropriate target of ridicule - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger, both of the BioLogic Institute, have put out a series of videos summarizing some of the content of Science and Human Origins. They attempt to undermine the case for common descent, and in particular the descent of humans from non-human ancestors. John Harshman, in comments on my posts on the use of a commercial stock photo of a lab as a background for Ann Gaugers blather about  a hidden secret in population genetics and in evolution, argued that the focus on the green-screening diverts attention from the real issue, which is her mangling of the science (see here for an example). While John is right that setting the record straight on the science is important, its also the case that the green-screening is but one aspect of a larger effort on the part of the Disco Tute to erode public confidence in mainstream science. And that effort is what underpins the newest strategy of the Disco Tute and its fellow travelers, which is to promote legislation embodying so-called academic freedom for public school teachers who want to teach creationism and intelligent design (see here for an overview and here for a Barbara Forrest video on it).



How many times will you regurgitate this ad hominem attack? You're pathetic. Get some new material.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is evidence of the open debate and TRUTH at Evolution News. This is contrary to the lies and manipulations of Panda's Scum. Of course none of the usual liars here will bother to read these posts, but that won't stop them from pretending that they know what was written in them.
> 
> Guest, *Opposing* Viewpoint from Dr. Poenie, Associate Professor in Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, University of Texas at Austin
> 
> Douglas Axe, Protein Evolution, and <em>Darwin's Doubt</em>: A Reply - Evolution News & Views
> 
> Response here...
> 
> Answering Objections to <em>Darwin's Doubt</em> from University of Texas Biologist Martin Poenie - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was actually comical. What a collection of misfits.  A hyper-religious loon from the Disco'tute and the ever silly Cornelius Hunter.
Click to expand...


Like I said, the she-man idiot in this thread won't bother to read the links.


----------



## UltimateReality

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't expect the legal community to debate the Sovereign Citizen movement, we don't expect historians to debate Holocaust Deniers, we don't expect political scientists to debate conspiracy theorists, but we expect scientists to debate non-scientists over extremely technical issues and have the science just thrown out whenever the non-scientist disagree with it (at least when they aren't deliberately misleading the ignorant masses over what the evil atheist scientists are lying about) when they bring out "evidence" that first year grad students know is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how do you know that your'e not ignorant?
Click to expand...


Because I'm not blinded by hatred from same-sex attraction resulting from child molestation. Unbelievable the militant, bullying gay community is trying to outlaw counseling for children suffering from same sex attraction. Will they just ignore the abuse??


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how do you know that your'e not ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I'm not blinded by hatred from same-sex attraction resulting from child molestation. Unbelievable the militant, bullying gay community is trying to outlaw counseling for children suffering from same sex attraction. Will they just ignore the abuse??
Click to expand...

You are to be applauded for resolving your same-sex attraction and coming out.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how do you know that your'e not ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I'm not blinded by hatred from same-sex attraction resulting from child molestation. Unbelievable the militant, bullying gay community is trying to outlaw counseling for children suffering from same sex attraction. Will they just ignore the abuse??
Click to expand...

really? what you've just posted is the most blindly ignorant hate filled steaming pile of shit you've posted to date!


----------



## Steven_R

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how do you know that your'e not ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I'm not blinded by hatred from same-sex attraction resulting from child molestation. Unbelievable the militant, bullying gay community is trying to outlaw counseling for children suffering from same sex attraction. Will they just ignore the abuse??
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with scientists ignoring the arguments of pseudoscientists and the pseudoscientists getting all butthurt...

...butthurt...

...now I get the connection. 

Well played, sir. Well played.


----------



## UltimateReality

Steven_R said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how do you know that your'e not ignorant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I'm not blinded by hatred from same-sex attraction resulting from child molestation. Unbelievable the militant, bullying gay community is trying to outlaw counseling for children suffering from same sex attraction. Will they just ignore the abuse??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with scientists ignoring the arguments of pseudoscientists and the pseudoscientists getting all butthurt...
> 
> ...butthurt...
> 
> ...now I get the connection.
> 
> Well played, sir. Well played.
Click to expand...


You would be referring to the pseudoscience masquerading as real science that the Darwinist put their blind faith in and do not question.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how do you know that your'e not ignorant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I'm not blinded by hatred from same-sex attraction resulting from child molestation. Unbelievable the militant, bullying gay community is trying to outlaw counseling for children suffering from same sex attraction. Will they just ignore the abuse??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? what you've just posted is the most blindly ignorant hate filled steaming pile of shit you've posted to date!
Click to expand...


... says the curmudgeon.


----------



## Steven_R

UltimateReality said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I'm not blinded by hatred from same-sex attraction resulting from child molestation. Unbelievable the militant, bullying gay community is trying to outlaw counseling for children suffering from same sex attraction. Will they just ignore the abuse??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with scientists ignoring the arguments of pseudoscientists and the pseudoscientists getting all butthurt...
> 
> ...butthurt...
> 
> ...now I get the connection.
> 
> Well played, sir. Well played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would be referring to the pseudoscience masquerading as real science that the Darwinist put their blind faith in and do not question.
Click to expand...


Trust, not faith. I can always test they hypotheses of science and see if they are correct. I can't do that with religion.


----------



## eots

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



what baffles me is how folk like you say creationist when they are really speaking about Christians and judge the validity of the evolutionary theory not on evidence but buy holding it up to the strawman of bible stories..the truth is there is flaws in the evolutionary theory and there is evidence to suggest an intelligence to the universe .the simple fact is at this time we a have no definitive  proof of the evolutionary theory  or of an intelligence behind creation
it is still an unknown


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I'm not blinded by hatred from same-sex attraction resulting from child molestation. Unbelievable the militant, bullying gay community is trying to outlaw counseling for children suffering from same sex attraction. Will they just ignore the abuse??
> 
> 
> 
> really? what you've just posted is the most blindly ignorant hate filled steaming pile of shit you've posted to date!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... says the curmudgeon.
Click to expand...

doesn't make any less factual..too bad the same cannot be  
said about you ...


----------



## Steven_R

eots said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what baffles me is how folk like you say creationist when they are really speaking about Christians and judge the validity of the evolutionary theory not on evidence but buy holding it up to the strawman of bible stories..the truth is there is flaws in the evolutionary theory and there is evidence to suggest an intelligence to the universe .the simple fact is at this time we a have no definitive  proof of the evolutionary theory  or of an intelligence behind creation
> it is still an unknown
Click to expand...


Take a couple biology classes.


----------



## daws101

Steven_R said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what baffles me is how folk like you say creationist when they are really speaking about Christians and judge the validity of the evolutionary theory not on evidence but buy holding it up to the strawman of bible stories..the truth is there is flaws in the evolutionary theory and there is evidence to suggest an intelligence to the universe .the simple fact is at this time we a have no definitive  proof of the evolutionary theory  or of an intelligence behind creation
> it is still an unknown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a couple biology classes.
Click to expand...

never gonna happen ..for eots if it's not on youtube it's not real..


----------



## Steven_R

daws101 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what baffles me is how folk like you say creationist when they are really speaking about Christians and judge the validity of the evolutionary theory not on evidence but buy holding it up to the strawman of bible stories..the truth is there is flaws in the evolutionary theory and there is evidence to suggest an intelligence to the universe .the simple fact is at this time we a have no definitive  proof of the evolutionary theory  or of an intelligence behind creation
> it is still an unknown
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take a couple biology classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> never gonna happen ..for eots if it's not on youtube it's not real..
Click to expand...


Fine.


----------



## eots

Steven_R said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what baffles me is how folk like you say creationist when they are really speaking about Christians and judge the validity of the evolutionary theory not on evidence but buy holding it up to the strawman of bible stories..the truth is there is flaws in the evolutionary theory and there is evidence to suggest an intelligence to the universe .the simple fact is at this time we a have no definitive  proof of the evolutionary theory  or of an intelligence behind creation
> it is still an unknown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a couple biology classes.
Click to expand...


that statement means nothing


----------



## Steven_R

eots said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what baffles me is how folk like you say creationist when they are really speaking about Christians and judge the validity of the evolutionary theory not on evidence but buy holding it up to the strawman of bible stories..the truth is there is flaws in the evolutionary theory and there is evidence to suggest an intelligence to the universe .the simple fact is at this time we a have no definitive  proof of the evolutionary theory  or of an intelligence behind creation
> it is still an unknown
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take a couple biology classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that statement means nothing
Click to expand...




> the simple fact is at this time we a have no definitive proof of the evolutionary theory



We have plenty of proof in the form of fossils and genetics. We have two centuries of refinement to the Evolutionary Theory and the plugging of holes and the revamping of assumptions. We've seen evolution in action. We're as certain that evolution happened as we are of any other accepted scientific principle. 

Before you state we have no definitive proof, take a couple biology classes because you are dead wrong.


----------



## eots

Steven_R said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take a couple biology classes.
> 
> 
> 
> never gonna happen ..for eots if it's not on youtube it's not real..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.
> 
> 
> *lol the video actually supports the scientific basis of intelligent design *
Click to expand...


*This video is a perfect example of of trying support the theory of evolution with the strawman of right-wing Christianity...thanks for proving my Point*


----------



## eots

steven_r said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steven_r said:
> 
> 
> 
> take a couple biology classes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that statement means nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the simple fact is at this time we a have no definitive proof of the evolutionary theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we have plenty of proof in the form of fossils and genetics. We have two centuries of refinement to the evolutionary theory and the plugging of holes and the revamping of assumptions. We've seen evolution in action. We're as certain that evolution happened as we are of any other accepted scientific principle.
> 
> Before you state we have no definitive proof, take a couple biology classes because you are dead wrong.
Click to expand...


its called the theory of evolution because it is in fact a _theory _and if there is some evidence to support the theory it does not excluded intelligent design


----------



## eots

steven_r said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steven_r said:
> 
> 
> 
> take a couple biology classes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that statement means nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the simple fact is at this time we a have no definitive proof of the evolutionary theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we have plenty of proof in the form of fossils and genetics. We have two centuries of refinement to the evolutionary theory and the plugging of holes and the revamping of assumptions. We've seen evolution in action. We're as certain that evolution happened as we are of any other accepted scientific principle.
> 
> Before you state we have no definitive proof, take a couple biology classes because you are dead wrong.
Click to expand...


please share your definitive proof there is no intelligence behind the creation of the universe


----------



## Steven_R

eots said:


> steven_r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> that statement means nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the simple fact is at this time we a have no definitive proof of the evolutionary theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we have plenty of proof in the form of fossils and genetics. We have two centuries of refinement to the evolutionary theory and the plugging of holes and the revamping of assumptions. We've seen evolution in action. We're as certain that evolution happened as we are of any other accepted scientific principle.
> 
> Before you state we have no definitive proof, take a couple biology classes because you are dead wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> its called the theory of evolution because it is in fact a _theory _and if there is some evidence to support the theory it does not excluded intelligent design
Click to expand...


"It's just a theory..." from someone who doesn't understand what the term theory means in science.


----------



## Steven_R

eots said:


> steven_r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> that statement means nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the simple fact is at this time we a have no definitive proof of the evolutionary theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we have plenty of proof in the form of fossils and genetics. We have two centuries of refinement to the evolutionary theory and the plugging of holes and the revamping of assumptions. We've seen evolution in action. We're as certain that evolution happened as we are of any other accepted scientific principle.
> 
> Before you state we have no definitive proof, take a couple biology classes because you are dead wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> please share your definitive proof there is no intelligence behind the creation of the universe
Click to expand...


There's no proof there is any intelligence behind creation. The challenge is on those making the claim to back up the claim. They can't.

Beyond which, we're discussing biology and how evolution is "just a theory".


----------



## eots

Steven_R said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steven_r said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have plenty of proof in the form of fossils and genetics. We have two centuries of refinement to the evolutionary theory and the plugging of holes and the revamping of assumptions. We've seen evolution in action. We're as certain that evolution happened as we are of any other accepted scientific principle.
> 
> Before you state we have no definitive proof, take a couple biology classes because you are dead wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its called the theory of evolution because it is in fact a _theory _and if there is some evidence to support the theory it does not excluded intelligent design
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It's just a theory..." from someone who doesn't understand what the term theory means in science.
Click to expand...


I KNOW VERY WELL WHAT THEORY MEANS IN SCIENCE AND I ALSO KNOW  WIDELY ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORIES HAVE BEEN FLAWED OR INCOMPLETE

Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong) - Toptenz.net


----------



## Steven_R

eots said:


> *This video is a perfect example of of trying support the theory of evolution with the strawman of right-wing Christianity...thanks for proving my Point*



Before I forget, the only voices pushing for ID are the fundamentalist religions of the world, be they fundamentalist Christianity, ultraorthodox Judaism, of mainstream Islam. It's not a strawman when they are the ones making the claim themselves.


----------



## eots

steven_r said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steven_r said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have plenty of proof in the form of fossils and genetics. We have two centuries of refinement to the evolutionary theory and the plugging of holes and the revamping of assumptions. We've seen evolution in action. We're as certain that evolution happened as we are of any other accepted scientific principle.
> 
> Before you state we have no definitive proof, take a couple biology classes because you are dead wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please share your definitive proof there is no intelligence behind the creation of the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there's no proof there is any intelligence behind creation. The challenge is on those making the claim to back up the claim. They can't.
> 
> Beyond which, we're discussing biology and how evolution is "just a theory".
Click to expand...


you have no definitive proof on the creation of the universe  and have provided none


----------



## eots

steven_r said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *this video is a perfect example of of trying support the theory of evolution with the strawman of right-wing christianity...thanks for proving my point*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> before i forget, the only voices pushing for id are the fundamentalist religions of the world, be they fundamentalist christianity, ultraorthodox judaism, of mainstream islam. It's not a strawman when they are the ones making the claim themselves.
Click to expand...


simply not true...


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf5y6PJR5lE]Halton Arp : victim of RATIONAL Scientific society. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Divine Wind

cbirch2 said:


> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.



I think education and IQ have something to do with it.


----------



## daws101

hey everybody if you haven't figured it out already, eots  will argue ignorance continually..


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> hey everybody if you haven't figured it out already, eots  will argue ignorance continually..



The Ignorance is yours in not accepting the fact we are far from having any definitive answer as the the creation of the universe..I never once said or implied anyone should teach in schools  the world is 6000 years old


----------



## oldfart

daws101 said:


> hey everybody if you haven't figured it out already, eots  will argue ignorance continually..



Never trust anyone who gets the date of Guy Fawkes Day wrong.

"Please to remember, the FIFTH of November,
Gunpowder, Treason, and Plot."

Maybe he'll have better luck with the bonfire.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of nitwits, it was Dougie Axe along with Ann Gauger who used a green screen and a lab background to make phony images of a lab
> 
> Why Gauger's green-screened 'lab' is an appropriate target of ridicule - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger, both of the BioLogic Institute, have put out a series of videos summarizing some of the content of Science and Human Origins. They attempt to undermine the case for common descent, and in particular the descent of humans from non-human ancestors. John Harshman, in comments on my posts on the use of a commercial stock photo of a lab as a background for Ann Gaugers blather about  a hidden secret in population genetics and in evolution, argued that the focus on the green-screening diverts attention from the real issue, which is her mangling of the science (see here for an example). While John is right that setting the record straight on the science is important, its also the case that the green-screening is but one aspect of a larger effort on the part of the Disco Tute to erode public confidence in mainstream science. And that effort is what underpins the newest strategy of the Disco Tute and its fellow travelers, which is to promote legislation embodying so-called academic freedom for public school teachers who want to teach creationism and intelligent design (see here for an overview and here for a Barbara Forrest video on it).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times will you regurgitate this ad hominem attack? You're pathetic. Get some new material.
Click to expand...


Well, in all honesty, it is worth pointing out the sleazy tactics used by creationists to press their hyper-religious agenda. Lets remember also that Meyer is a senior fellow at the Discotute and apparently has no issue with sleaze, fraud and dishonesty as a tactic to promote his agenda.

I think what is pathetic is the lack of ethics on the part of creationist ministries.

The charlatans staffing the Discotute dont even bother with any pretense of reliability or ethics. As with virtually all of the creationist ministries, the Discotute is simply a front-end for the anti-evolution / anti-science position under which creationists unite in an attack on science.


----------



## eots

oldfart said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey everybody if you haven't figured it out already, eots  will argue ignorance continually..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> never trust anyone who gets the date of guy fawkes day wrong.
> 
> "please to remember, the fifth of november,
> gunpowder, treason, and plot."
> 
> maybe he'll have better luck with the bonfire.
Click to expand...


I would not trust anyone to dimwitted to realize it is intentional


----------



## Hollie

IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria 

Sandwalk: IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria



> Intelligent Design Creationism is a movement dedicated to discrediting evolution and attacking the rational explanation of nature.1 The evidence is in the books and blogs and the propaganda distributed to local school boards and state legislators. The attack on science and scientists makes up about 99% of their activities.
> 
> Given their dedication to disproving evolution, you'd think that the IDiots must at least understand it. Maybe not all of thembecause there are some really, really, stupid IDiotsbut certainly some of the most prominent IDiots should know what they're talking about? Right? Doesn't that seem reasonable?
> 
> 
> **
> 
> 
> The latest example of an IDiot is Raymond (Ray) Bohlin [Encycleopedia of American Loons]. He has a Ph.D. in molecular cell biology from the University of Texas (Dallas). The post is on Evolution News & Views (sic) and it announces The Quiet Passing of Punctuated Equilibrium, Finally!.



What the IDiots have never been able to resolve is that there is no scientific theory of creationism whether the religious fundies re-title their religion as creationism, "intelligent design" or otherwise. The hyper-religious simply have no coherent framework for supernatural intervention, no reliable data and dont publish in peer-reviewed technical, academic or professional journals. "Intelligent design creationism" does not meet the essential characteristics of science as outlined in several legal cases wherein the IDiots were suffered humiliating losses and were derided by the courts as effectively wasting everyones time.

We can review past history by referencing Judge Overton's 1982 decision in _McLean v. Arkansas_ wherein IDiosy failed on several levels by not meeting the testable methods of science  such as: 1) It is guided by natural laws, 2) It has to be explanatory by natural laws, 3) It is testable against the empirical world, 4) Its conclusions are tentative--subject to continual review and revision, and 5) It is falsifiable. On every point, "intelligent design" and every other form of creationism fail as science.


----------



## Hollie

Divine.Wind said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think education and IQ have something to do with it.
Click to expand...


I would add that creationism requires a high EQ (*E*ntertainment *Q*uotient)


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Divine.Wind said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
> 
> Meh. It baffles me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think education and IQ have something to do with it.
Click to expand...


As in little of the former and low concerning the latter. 

Add to that fear and youve got your answer.


----------



## jwoodie

Why do Darwinists feel the need to describe what they think "Creationists" believe?  Why don't they concentrate on describing what they themselves believe?  Is offense the best defense?  Is there anyone on this forum that believes the Earth is 6,000 years old?  Why the Big Lie?

Why don't Darwinists explain how one species can perpetuate itself into another species (i.e., that can't procreate with the original species)? Apparently, it is much easier for them to describe a straw man.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria
> 
> Sandwalk: IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent Design Creationism is a movement dedicated to discrediting evolution and attacking the rational explanation of nature.1 The evidence is in the books and blogs and the propaganda distributed to local school boards and state legislators. The attack on science and scientists makes up about 99% of their activities.
> 
> Given their dedication to disproving evolution, you'd think that the IDiots must at least understand it. Maybe not all of thembecause there are some really, really, stupid IDiotsbut certainly some of the most prominent IDiots should know what they're talking about? Right? Doesn't that seem reasonable?
> 
> 
> **
> 
> 
> The latest example of an IDiot is Raymond (Ray) Bohlin [Encycleopedia of American Loons]. He has a Ph.D. in molecular cell biology from the University of Texas (Dallas). The post is on Evolution News & Views (sic) and it announces The Quiet Passing of Punctuated Equilibrium, Finally!.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the IDiots have never been able to resolve is that there is no scientific theory of creationism whether the religious fundies re-title their religion as creationism, "intelligent design" or otherwise. The hyper-religious simply have no coherent framework for supernatural intervention, no reliable data and dont publish in peer-reviewed technical, academic or professional journals. "Intelligent design creationism" does not meet the essential characteristics of science as outlined in several legal cases wherein the IDiots were suffered humiliating losses and were derided by the courts as effectively wasting everyones time.
> 
> We can review past history by referencing Judge Overton's 1982 decision in _McLean v. Arkansas_ wherein IDiosy failed on several levels by not meeting the testable methods of science  such as: 1) It is guided by natural laws, 2) It has to be explanatory by natural laws, 3) It is testable against the empirical world, 4) Its conclusions are tentative-*-subject to continual review and revision,* and 5) It is falsifiable. On every point, "intelligent design" and every other form of creationism fail as science.
Click to expand...


Histrionic ramblings..Who said anything about supernatural ?..an intelligent universe would be perfectly natural if that is indeed what it is ..we just simply would not yet be a the level of science required to understand the mechanics of it


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? what you've just posted is the most blindly ignorant hate filled steaming pile of shit you've posted to date!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... says the curmudgeon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> doesn't make any less factual..too bad the same cannot be
> said about you ...
Click to expand...


You're a legend in your own mind. You have posted a single fact since you started here.


----------



## UltimateReality

Steven_R said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take a couple biology classes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that statement means nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the simple fact is at this time we a have no definitive proof of the evolutionary theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have plenty of proof in the form of fossils and genetics. We have two centuries of refinement to the Evolutionary Theory and the plugging of holes and the revamping of assumptions. We've seen evolution in action. *We're as certain that evolution happened as we are of any other accepted scientific principle.*
> 
> Before you state we have no definitive proof, take a couple biology classes because you are dead wrong.
Click to expand...


Oh here we go. The same ignorant argument that attempts to compare a historical science like evolution to a measurable science like physics. Sorry to burst your bubble but evolution is in no way a fact and to compare it to gravity would show you really are as brainwashed as the rest of the Darloons here.

Darwin believed in gradualism, which has never been proven in the fossil record, especially not in the Cambrian explosion. Then along came DNA and genetics and the neo-Darnitwits came up with a simple genetic explanation, natural selection acting on random mutations. After that all they could come up with was about six examples, none of which were evidence of a new species from the process and one of which was a bird brained, errr bird beak story that remains the most atonishing of all that educated people actually fall for this nonsense. Forget God and the third section of Darwin's Doubt that talks about ID and just take the first two parts on their own scientific merit. Darwinian Evolution and Neo-Darwinian Evolution is a lie. A bunch of atheists with an agenda just don't know it yet. In fact, in 100 years people will look back on it and wonder how so many educated masses could be tricked into falling for something so foolish with so little evidence. 

Next you're going to tell me some nice Giraffe neck story with a bunch of "might haves" and "could haves" to make it sound real.


----------



## UltimateReality

Steven_R said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steven_r said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have plenty of proof in the form of fossils and genetics. We have two centuries of refinement to the evolutionary theory and the plugging of holes and the revamping of assumptions. We've seen evolution in action. We're as certain that evolution happened as we are of any other accepted scientific principle.
> 
> Before you state we have no definitive proof, take a couple biology classes because you are dead wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its called the theory of evolution because it is in fact a _theory _and if there is some evidence to support the theory it does not excluded intelligent design
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It's just a theory..." from someone who doesn't understand what the term theory means in science.
Click to expand...


Whoa!!! Another canned Panda's Scum regurgitated falsity. Go ahead and tell us about the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution and that the words law and theory don't mean what they meant for 100's of years prior to 1856. You're pathetic. Maybe you should try investigating for yourself instead of believe everything you read on the internet. An actual library would be a good place to start.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of nitwits, it was Dougie Axe along with Ann Gauger who used a green screen and a lab background to make phony images of a lab
> 
> Why Gauger's green-screened 'lab' is an appropriate target of ridicule - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> 
> Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger, both of the BioLogic Institute, have put out a series of videos summarizing some of the content of &#8220;Science and Human Origins.&#8221; They attempt to undermine the case for common descent, and in particular the descent of humans from non-human ancestors. John Harshman, in comments on my posts on the use of a commercial stock photo of a lab as a background for Ann Gauger&#8217;s blather about &#8220;&#8230; a hidden secret in population genetics and in evolution,&#8221; argued that the focus on the green-screening diverts attention from the real issue, which is her mangling of the science (see here for an example). While John is right that setting the record straight on the science is important, it&#8217;s also the case that the green-screening is but one aspect of a larger effort on the part of the Disco &#8216;Tute to erode public confidence in &#8216;mainstream&#8217; science. And that effort is what underpins the newest strategy of the Disco &#8216;Tute and its fellow travelers, which is to promote legislation embodying so-called &#8220;academic freedom&#8221; for public school teachers who want to teach creationism and intelligent design (see here for an overview and here for a Barbara Forrest video on it).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times will you regurgitate this ad hominem attack? You're pathetic. Get some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in all honesty, *it is worth pointing out the sleazy tactics* used by creationists to press their hyper-religious agenda. Let&#8217;s remember also that Meyer is a &#8220;senior fellow&#8221; at the Disco&#8217;tute and apparently has no issue with sleaze, fraud and dishonesty as a tactic to promote his agenda.
> 
> I think what is pathetic is the lack of ethics on the part of creationist ministries.
> 
> The charlatans staffing the Disco&#8217;tute don&#8217;t even bother with any pretense of reliability or ethics. As with virtually all of the creationist ministries, the Disco&#8217;tute is simply a front-end for the anti-evolution / anti-science position under which creationists unite in an attack on science.
Click to expand...


Hawly, you have just incriminated thousands of TV Weatherman and thousands of news casters and their guests. So anyone using a green screen is not to be trusted, right? You're stupid.

Guess this guy is a sleazy liar too. He is probably not even in London. You think they would at least run a feed with the Eye moving...


This guy is definitely sleezy...


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria
> 
> Sandwalk: IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent Design Creationism is a movement dedicated to discrediting evolution and attacking the rational explanation of nature.1 The evidence is in the books and blogs and the propaganda distributed to local school boards and state legislators. The attack on science and scientists makes up about 99% of their activities.
> 
> Given their dedication to disproving evolution, you'd think that the IDiots must at least understand it. Maybe not all of thembecause there are some really, really, stupid IDiotsbut certainly some of the most prominent IDiots should know what they're talking about? Right? Doesn't that seem reasonable?
> 
> 
> **
> 
> 
> The latest example of an IDiot is Raymond (Ray) Bohlin [Encycleopedia of American Loons]. He has a Ph.D. in molecular cell biology from the University of Texas (Dallas). The post is on Evolution News & Views (sic) and it announces The Quiet Passing of Punctuated Equilibrium, Finally!.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the IDiots have never been able to resolve is that there is no scientific theory of creationism whether the religious fundies re-title their religion as creationism, "intelligent design" or otherwise. The hyper-religious simply have no coherent framework for supernatural intervention, no reliable data and dont publish in peer-reviewed technical, academic or professional journals. "Intelligent design creationism" does not meet the essential characteristics of science as outlined in several legal cases wherein the IDiots were suffered humiliating losses and were derided by the courts as effectively wasting everyones time.
> 
> We can review past history by referencing Judge Overton's 1982 decision in _McLean v. Arkansas_ wherein IDiosy failed on several levels by not meeting the testable methods of science  such as: 1) It is guided by natural laws, 2) It has to be explanatory by natural laws, 3) It is testable against the empirical world, 4) Its conclusions are tentative--subject to continual review and revision, and 5) It is falsifiable. On every point, "intelligent design" and every other form of creationism fail as science.
Click to expand...


The Darwidiots don't even claim PE anymore!!!! Geez, man! Would you go read a science journal for Charles sake!!!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times will you regurgitate this ad hominem attack? You're pathetic. Get some new material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in all honesty, *it is worth pointing out the sleazy tactics* used by creationists to press their hyper-religious agenda. Lets remember also that Meyer is a senior fellow at the Discotute and apparently has no issue with sleaze, fraud and dishonesty as a tactic to promote his agenda.
> 
> I think what is pathetic is the lack of ethics on the part of creationist ministries.
> 
> The charlatans staffing the Discotute dont even bother with any pretense of reliability or ethics. As with virtually all of the creationist ministries, the Discotute is simply a front-end for the anti-evolution / anti-science position under which creationists unite in an attack on science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hawly, you have just incriminated thousands of TV Weatherman and thousands of news casters and their guests. So anyone using a green screen is not to be trusted, right? You're stupid.
> 
> Guess this guy is a sleazy liar too...
Click to expand...


Goofy name-caller, what a shame you're unable to understand the difference between TV weathermen and the phony charlatans at the Disco'tute.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria
> 
> Sandwalk: IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent Design Creationism is a movement dedicated to discrediting evolution and attacking the rational explanation of nature.1 The evidence is in the books and blogs and the propaganda distributed to local school boards and state legislators. The attack on science and scientists makes up about 99% of their activities.
> 
> Given their dedication to disproving evolution, you'd think that the IDiots must at least understand it. Maybe not all of thembecause there are some really, really, stupid IDiotsbut certainly some of the most prominent IDiots should know what they're talking about? Right? Doesn't that seem reasonable?
> 
> 
> **
> 
> 
> The latest example of an IDiot is Raymond (Ray) Bohlin [Encycleopedia of American Loons]. He has a Ph.D. in molecular cell biology from the University of Texas (Dallas). The post is on Evolution News & Views (sic) and it announces The Quiet Passing of Punctuated Equilibrium, Finally!.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the IDiots have never been able to resolve is that there is no scientific theory of creationism whether the religious fundies re-title their religion as creationism, "intelligent design" or otherwise. The hyper-religious simply have no coherent framework for supernatural intervention, no reliable data and dont publish in peer-reviewed technical, academic or professional journals. "Intelligent design creationism" does not meet the essential characteristics of science as outlined in several legal cases wherein the IDiots were suffered humiliating losses and were derided by the courts as effectively wasting everyones time.
> 
> We can review past history by referencing Judge Overton's 1982 decision in _McLean v. Arkansas_ wherein IDiosy failed on several levels by not meeting the testable methods of science  such as: 1) It is guided by natural laws, 2) It has to be explanatory by natural laws, 3) It is testable against the empirical world, 4) Its conclusions are tentative--subject to continual review and revision, and 5) It is falsifiable. On every point, "intelligent design" and every other form of creationism fail as science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Darwidiots don't even claim PE anymore!!!! Geez, man! Would you go read a science journal for Charles sake!!!
Click to expand...


Geez, but the ID'iots are slow.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria
> 
> Sandwalk: IDiots Don't Understand Punctuated Equilibria
> 
> 
> 
> What the IDiots have never been able to resolve is that there is no scientific theory of creationism whether the religious fundies re-title their religion as creationism, "intelligent design" or otherwise. The hyper-religious simply have no coherent framework for supernatural intervention, no reliable data and dont publish in peer-reviewed technical, academic or professional journals. "Intelligent design creationism" does not meet the essential characteristics of science as outlined in several legal cases wherein the IDiots were suffered humiliating losses and were derided by the courts as effectively wasting everyones time.
> 
> We can review past history by referencing Judge Overton's 1982 decision in _McLean v. Arkansas_ wherein IDiosy failed on several levels by not meeting the testable methods of science  such as: 1) It is guided by natural laws, 2) It has to be explanatory by natural laws, 3) It is testable against the empirical world, 4) Its conclusions are tentative--subject to continual review and revision, and 5) It is falsifiable. On every point, "intelligent design" and every other form of creationism fail as science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Darwidiots don't even claim PE anymore!!!! Geez, man! Would you go read a science journal for Charles sake!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geez, but the ID'iots are slow.
Click to expand...


Show me some current info on PE Einstein. No one is falling for your dodge.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in all honesty, *it is worth pointing out the sleazy tactics* used by creationists to press their hyper-religious agenda. Let&#8217;s remember also that Meyer is a &#8220;senior fellow&#8221; at the Disco&#8217;tute and apparently has no issue with sleaze, fraud and dishonesty as a tactic to promote his agenda.
> 
> I think what is pathetic is the lack of ethics on the part of creationist ministries.
> 
> The charlatans staffing the Disco&#8217;tute don&#8217;t even bother with any pretense of reliability or ethics. As with virtually all of the creationist ministries, the Disco&#8217;tute is simply a front-end for the anti-evolution / anti-science position under which creationists unite in an attack on science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly, you have just incriminated thousands of TV Weatherman and thousands of news casters and their guests. So anyone using a green screen is not to be trusted, right? You're stupid.
> 
> Guess this guy is a sleazy liar too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goofy name-caller, what a shame you're unable to understand the difference between TV weathermen and the phony charlatans at the Disco'tute.
Click to expand...


Go back and look at my edit. Do you mean the charlatan Richard Dawkins? You're dim. And is that really all you've got? Pathetic.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> its called the theory of evolution because it is in fact a _theory _and if there is some evidence to support the theory it does not excluded intelligent design
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It's just a theory..." from someone who doesn't understand what the term theory means in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa!!! Another canned Panda's Scum regurgitated falsity. Go ahead and tell us about the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution and that the words law and theory don't mean what they meant for 100's of years prior to 1856. You're pathetic. Maybe you should try investigating for yourself instead of believe everything you read on the internet. An actual library would be a good place to start.
Click to expand...


Gee whiz - the YEC'ers sure get angry when their religious tales and fables are challenged.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Darwidiots don't even claim PE anymore!!!! Geez, man! Would you go read a science journal for Charles sake!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, but the ID'iots are slow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me some current info on PE Einstein. No one is falling for your dodge.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid there's not a lot of detail on jeebus and miracles in the science literature dealing with PE.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly, you have just incriminated thousands of TV Weatherman and thousands of news casters and their guests. So anyone using a green screen is not to be trusted, right? You're stupid.
> 
> Guess this guy is a sleazy liar too...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Goofy name-caller, what a shame you're unable to understand the difference between TV weathermen and the phony charlatans at the Disco'tute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back and look at my edit. Do you mean the charlatan Richard Dawkins? You're dim. And is that really all you've got? Pathetic.
Click to expand...


Oh my. You have sunk to the lowest levels of the of the Christian creation charlatans who are left only with lies, deceit and limp attacks on science to defend your religious fundamentalism.


----------



## Hollie

Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt 

Sandwalk: Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt

Donald Prothero is a paleontologist. He has reviewed Darwin's Doubt [ Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies]. The reason why this is important is because the IDiots want a "real expert" to review the book [see IDiot Irony.]

Well, they got their wish. It's a long, detained review but here's the fun part.

The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.

**

Stephen Meyer's first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer's Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he's just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their "expert" in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that knows no science at all with his slick but completely false understanding of the subject.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly, you have just incriminated thousands of TV Weatherman and thousands of news casters and their guests. So anyone using a green screen is not to be trusted, right? You're stupid.
> 
> Guess this guy is a sleazy liar too...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Goofy name-caller, what a shame you're unable to understand the difference between TV weathermen and the phony charlatans at the Disco'tute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back and look at my edit. Do you mean the charlatan Richard Dawkins? You're dim. And is that really all you've got? Pathetic.
Click to expand...


You still insist on making excuses for lies and deceit on the part of Christian fundies at the Discotute. 

The Discotutes green-screened lab is much more than just another example of Christian creationist lies and deceit. Its really an appropriate metaphor for the entire IDiot / (angry) Christian creationism syndicate. The Ann Gauger charade is simply another episode in the long history of creationist pseudo-science. The undeniably phony and manufactured setting symbolically demonstrates that IDiosy, AKA Christian fundamentalism has been metaphorically green-screened and is nothing more than a false facade  masquerading as a science.


It's almost comical that Flat Earth'ers such as yourself defend creationist lies and deceit. But then again, the entirety of the ID'iot position is one of pressing a fundamentalist religious agenda. And as we see with regularity, the anti-science attitudes, phony "quote-mining", and lack of science discipline defines the ID'iot syndicates.


----------



## eots

hollie said:


> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> goofy name-caller, what a shame you're unable to understand the difference between tv weathermen and the phony charlatans at the disco'tute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> go back and look at my edit. Do you mean the charlatan richard dawkins? You're dim. And is that really all you've got? Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you still insist on making excuses for lies and deceit on the part of christian fundies at the disco&#8217;tute.
> 
> The disco&#8217;tute&#8217;s green-screened lab is much more than just another example of christian creationist lies and deceit. It&#8217;s really an appropriate metaphor for the entire id&#8217;iot / (angry) christian creationism syndicate. The ann gauger charade is simply another episode in the long history of creationist pseudo-science. The undeniably phony and manufactured setting symbolically demonstrates that id&#8217;iosy, aka christian fundamentalism has been metaphorically green-screened and is nothing more than a false facade  masquerading as a science.
> 
> 
> It's almost comical that flat earth'ers such as yourself defend creationist lies and deceit. But then again, the entirety of the id'iot position is one of pressing a fundamentalist religious agenda. And as we see with regularity, the anti-science attitudes, phony "quote-mining", and lack of science discipline defines the id'iot syndicates.
Click to expand...


I can not help but notice as your position weakness you move the goal post from intelligent design vs darwinism to darwinism vs your interpitation of  bible stories


----------



## Steven_R

UltimateReality said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> its called the theory of evolution because it is in fact a _theory _and if there is some evidence to support the theory it does not excluded intelligent design
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It's just a theory..." from someone who doesn't understand what the term theory means in science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa!!! Another canned Panda's Scum regurgitated falsity. Go ahead and tell us about the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution and that the words law and theory don't mean what they meant for 100's of years prior to 1856. You're pathetic. Maybe you should try investigating for yourself instead of believe everything you read on the internet. An actual library would be a good place to start.
Click to expand...


For the record, I'm a physics student. I use those law and theory things every day. I am well away of what those words mean in a technical sense and I didn't need some pseudoscientist with a diploma mill doctorate to tell me either. 

Now, I had a real response to that babbling nonsense you wrote, but why bother? You're not going to read it anyhow except through the filter of your own self-induced ignorance. I'm not going to waste my time or your time.

However, if you are willing to actually learn about the science, I am more than happy to discuss this with you and actually explain what those terms mean.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> go back and look at my edit. Do you mean the charlatan richard dawkins? You're dim. And is that really all you've got? Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you still insist on making excuses for lies and deceit on the part of christian fundies at the disco&#8217;tute.
> 
> The disco&#8217;tute&#8217;s green-screened lab is much more than just another example of christian creationist lies and deceit. It&#8217;s really an appropriate metaphor for the entire id&#8217;iot / (angry) christian creationism syndicate. The ann gauger charade is simply another episode in the ulong history of creationist pseudo-science. The undeniably phony and manufactured setting symbolically demonstrates that id&#8217;iosy, aka christian fundamentalism has been metaphorically green-screened and is nothing more than a false facade  masquerading as a science.
> 
> 
> It's almost comical that flat earth'ers such as yourself defend creationist lies and deceit. But then again, the entirety of the id'iot position is one of pressing a fundamentalist religious agenda. And as we see with regularity, the anti-science attitudes, phony "quote-mining", and lack of science discipline defines the id'iot syndicates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can not help but notice as your position weakness you move the goal post from intelligent design vs darwinism to darwinism vs your interpitation of  bible stories
Click to expand...


I can't help but notice your inability to recognize that the creationist/ ID'iot agenda is driven by fundamentalist christians, hence the references to tales and fables from the various bibles.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you still insist on making excuses for lies and deceit on the part of christian fundies at the disco&#8217;tute.
> 
> The disco&#8217;tute&#8217;s green-screened lab is much more than just another example of christian creationist lies and deceit. It&#8217;s really an appropriate metaphor for the entire id&#8217;iot / (angry) christian creationism syndicate. The ann gauger charade is simply another episode in the ulong history of creationist pseudo-science. The undeniably phony and manufactured setting symbolically demonstrates that id&#8217;iosy, aka christian fundamentalism has been metaphorically green-screened and is nothing more than a false facade  masquerading as a science.
> 
> 
> It's almost comical that flat earth'ers such as yourself defend creationist lies and deceit. But then again, the entirety of the id'iot position is one of pressing a fundamentalist religious agenda. And as we see with regularity, the anti-science attitudes, phony "quote-mining", and lack of science discipline defines the id'iot syndicates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can not help but notice as your position weakness you move the goal post from intelligent design vs darwinism to darwinism vs your interpitation of  bible stories
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't help but notice your inability to recognize that the creationist/ ID'iot agenda is driven by fundamentalist christians, hence the references to tales and fables from the various bibles.
Click to expand...


No that's just your strawman ...you have trouble defending Darwinism  hence the references to tales and fables from the various bibles.


----------



## eots

Steven_R said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It's just a theory..." from someone who doesn't understand what the term theory means in science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa!!! Another canned Panda's Scum regurgitated falsity. Go ahead and tell us about the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution and that the words law and theory don't mean what they meant for 100's of years prior to 1856. You're pathetic. Maybe you should try investigating for yourself instead of believe everything you read on the internet. An actual library would be a good place to start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the record, I'm a physics student. I use those law and theory things every day. I am well away of what those words mean in a technical sense and I didn't need some pseudoscientist with a diploma mill doctorate to tell me either.
> 
> Now, I had a real response to that babbling nonsense you wrote, but why bother? You're not going to read it anyhow except through the filter of your own self-induced ignorance. I'm not going to waste my time or your time.
> 
> However, if you are willing to actually learn about the science, I am more than happy to discuss this with you and actually explain what those terms mean.
Click to expand...


So Einsteiin is the theory of relativity a fact that can not be questioned ?...lol


----------



## Steven_R

Yes, and if I dare question it the APS will put a bounty on my head and there won't be a physics symposium in the world I can attend without some Cosmology Bounty Hunter looking to take me down. If I dare ask questions about St. Einstein, I'll be the Han Solo of physics with Stephen Hawking as Vader and Neil Degrasse Tyson as Boba Fett. 

Or I can question it all I want, but so far every experiment has said Einstein is right so unless I have some reason to question it (beyond self-imposed purposeful ignorance), I can spend my time, energy, and most importantly: funding, in more useful pursuits.


----------



## eots

Steven_R said:


> Yes, and if I dare question it the APS will put a bounty on my head and there won't be a physics symposium in the world I can attend without some Cosmology Bounty Hunter looking to take me down. If I dare ask questions about St. Einstein, I'll be the Han Solo of physics with Stephen Hawking as Vader and Neil Degrasse Tyson as Boba Fett.
> 
> Or I can question it all I want, but so far every experiment has said Einstein is right so unless I have some reason to question it (beyond self-imposed purposeful ignorance), I can spend my time, energy, and most importantly: funding, in more useful pursuits.



Neutrinos travel faster than light, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity in doubt
Updated: 23 Sep 2011Share this news?...Click box    Bookmark and Share
Read more on Einstein's theory of Special Relativity   neutrinos travel faster than light  
PHYSICISTS have reported that sub-atomic particles called neutrinos can travel faster than light, a finding that, if verified, would be inconsistent with Einstein's theory of relativity.

In experiments conducted between the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland and a laboratory in Italy, the tiny particles were clocked at 300,006 kilometres per second, slightly faster that the speed of light, the researchers said today.

"This result comes as a complete surprise," said physicist Antonio Ereditato, spokesman for the experiment, known as OPERA. "We wanted to measure the speed of neutrinos, but we didn't expect to find anything special."

Scientists spent nearly six months "checking, testing, controlling and rechecking everything" before making an announcement, he said.

Researchers involved in the experiments were cautious in describing its implications, and called on physicists around the world to scrutinise their data, to be made available online

http://www.whatsontianjin.com/news-...-s-theory-of-special-relativity-in-doubt.html


----------



## Steven_R

That experiment was found to be flawed (the clock was miswired or something like that). Einstein was right. 

Large Hadron Collider at CERN: Einstein 'was right all along' - Telegraph
CERN's Mea Culpa: Einstein Was Right, Neutrinos Do Obey The Speed Of Light - Forbes
Einstein was right! CERN says particles DIDN'T travel faster than light - and something was 'not quite right' with last year's experiment | Mail Online
Neutrino researchers admit Einstein was right | Science | guardian.co.uk


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6nTYZ6rvz4]Big Bang Theory wrong again? Plank telescope data doesn't 'fit' theory of Big Bang cosmic inflation - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can not help but notice as your position weakness you move the goal post from intelligent design vs darwinism to darwinism vs your interpitation of  bible stories
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help but notice your inability to recognize that the creationist/ ID'iot agenda is driven by fundamentalist christians, hence the references to tales and fables from the various bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No that's just your strawman ...you have trouble defending Darwinism  hence the references to tales and fables from the various bibles.
Click to expand...


If by Darwinism you are referring to the theory of evolution, then no, I have no trouble defending it. Or, by using such terms as Darwinism, are you referring to many fields of science which support evolutionary science  and well get to that in a moment. 

Let me guess. You are one of those delightful fellows who is convinced that science is a global conspiracy intended to further the spread of communism and atheism.

I think what you have trouble with is an ability to separate yourself from the propaganda spewed by creation ministries. To help you out, I can advise you that evolutionary science (or evilutionary science if that makes you feel better), employs disciplines from many science discipliness. Evolutionary science is really the synthesis of many scientific fields (geology, biology, botany,  population genetics, paleontology, microbiology,  embryology, and more). 

The reason why you devote such hatred toward science and knowledge is simple: Creationists are largely Christian Fundamentalists; literalists, who take every word of the various bibles to be the true and unalterable word of the gods. 

Many echo the sentiments of the thankfully dead Henry Morris:

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible." 
_-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey_


----------



## Steven_R

Are we going to do this all day? You post some video purporting to say something and then I come back with articles that say those videos are wrong? I'm only asking because I'm leaving for the evening and I wonder if you wouldn't just collect your videos so I can take them down all at one time tomorrow.

Thanks.


----------



## eots

Steven_R said:


> That experiment was found to be flawed (the clock was miswired or something like that). Einstein was right.
> 
> Large Hadron Collider at CERN: Einstein 'was right all along' - Telegraph
> CERN's Mea Culpa: Einstein Was Right, Neutrinos Do Obey The Speed Of Light - Forbes
> Einstein was right! CERN says particles DIDN'T travel faster than light - and something was 'not quite right' with last year's experiment | Mail Online
> Neutrino researchers admit Einstein was right | Science | guardian.co.uk



funny how all these non- scientist are still exploring the subject...maybe you need to tell them theories and models are in fact laws...


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and if I dare question it the APS will put a bounty on my head and there won't be a physics symposium in the world I can attend without some Cosmology Bounty Hunter looking to take me down. If I dare ask questions about St. Einstein, I'll be the Han Solo of physics with Stephen Hawking as Vader and Neil Degrasse Tyson as Boba Fett.
> 
> Or I can question it all I want, but so far every experiment has said Einstein is right so unless I have some reason to question it (beyond self-imposed purposeful ignorance), I can spend my time, energy, and most importantly: funding, in more useful pursuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neutrinos travel faster than light, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity in doubt
> Updated: 23 Sep 2011Share this news?...Click box    Bookmark and Share
> Read more on Einstein's theory of Special Relativity   neutrinos travel faster than light
> PHYSICISTS have reported that sub-atomic particles called neutrinos can travel faster than light, a finding that, if verified, would be inconsistent with Einstein's theory of relativity.
> 
> In experiments conducted between the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland and a laboratory in Italy, the tiny particles were clocked at 300,006 kilometres per second, slightly faster that the speed of light, the researchers said today.
> 
> "This result comes as a complete surprise," said physicist Antonio Ereditato, spokesman for the experiment, known as OPERA. "We wanted to measure the speed of neutrinos, but we didn't expect to find anything special."
> 
> Scientists spent nearly six months "checking, testing, controlling and rechecking everything" before making an announcement, he said.
> 
> Researchers involved in the experiments were cautious in describing its implications, and called on physicists around the world to scrutinise their data, to be made available online
> 
> Neutrinos travel faster than light, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity in doubt - What's On Tianjin
Click to expand...


Once Again, Physicists Debunk Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos | Science/AAAS | News







> Researchers involved in the experiments were cautious in describing its implications, and called on physicists around the world to scrutinise their data, to be made available online


Oh my gawd! Peer review?


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> That experiment was found to be flawed (the clock was miswired or something like that). Einstein was right.
> 
> Large Hadron Collider at CERN: Einstein 'was right all along' - Telegraph
> CERN's Mea Culpa: Einstein Was Right, Neutrinos Do Obey The Speed Of Light - Forbes
> Einstein was right! CERN says particles DIDN'T travel faster than light - and something was 'not quite right' with last year's experiment | Mail Online
> Neutrino researchers admit Einstein was right | Science | guardian.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny how all these non- scientist are still exploring the subject...maybe you need to tell them theories and models are in fact laws...
Click to expand...


I'm sure you offer some comprehensive research undertaken by the AIG folks, right"

Anything yet from the ICR "researchers"?


----------



## eots

Steven_R said:


> Are we going to do this all day? You post some video purporting to say something and then I come back with articles that say those videos are wrong? I'm only asking because I'm leaving for the evening and I wonder if you wouldn't just collect your videos so I can take them down all at one time tomorrow.
> 
> Thanks.


*
real science  is open to constant revision...*


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we going to do this all day? You post some video purporting to say something and then I come back with articles that say those videos are wrong? I'm only asking because I'm leaving for the evening and I wonder if you wouldn't just collect your videos so I can take them down all at one time tomorrow.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> real science  is open to constant revision...*
Click to expand...


Is the same true for real religion?


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we going to do this all day? You post some video purporting to say something and then I come back with articles that say those videos are wrong? I'm only asking because I'm leaving for the evening and I wonder if you wouldn't just collect your videos so I can take them down all at one time tomorrow.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> real science  is open to constant revision...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the same true for real religion?
Click to expand...


I don't know ask someone who is religious


----------



## itfitzme

eots said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and if I dare question it the APS will put a bounty on my head and there won't be a physics symposium in the world I can attend without some Cosmology Bounty Hunter looking to take me down. If I dare ask questions about St. Einstein, I'll be the Han Solo of physics with Stephen Hawking as Vader and Neil Degrasse Tyson as Boba Fett.
> 
> Or I can question it all I want, but so far every experiment has said Einstein is right so unless I have some reason to question it (beyond self-imposed purposeful ignorance), I can spend my time, energy, and most importantly: funding, in more useful pursuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neutrinos travel faster than light, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity in doubt
> Updated: 23 Sep 2011Share this news?...Click box    Bookmark and Share
> Read more on Einstein's theory of Special Relativity   neutrinos travel faster than light
> PHYSICISTS have reported that sub-atomic particles called neutrinos can travel faster than light, a finding that, if verified, would be inconsistent with Einstein's theory of relativity.
> 
> In experiments conducted between the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland and a laboratory in Italy, the tiny particles were clocked at 300,006 kilometres per second, slightly faster that the speed of light, the researchers said today.
> 
> "This result comes as a complete surprise," said physicist Antonio Ereditato, spokesman for the experiment, known as OPERA. "We wanted to measure the speed of neutrinos, but we didn't expect to find anything special."
> 
> Scientists spent nearly six months "checking, testing, controlling and rechecking everything" before making an announcement, he said.
> 
> Researchers involved in the experiments were cautious in describing its implications, and called on physicists around the world to scrutinise their data, to be made available online
> 
> Neutrinos travel faster than light, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity in doubt - What's On Tianjin
Click to expand...


Yeah, except Einstein never said that nothing can go faster than light.  If you read his paper on special relativity, he clearly states that he has nothing to say about anything above the speed of light. He makes it clear that his theory only applies to getting mass from sublight speed up to the speed of light.

It is a good read and easily found in a google search.

There are a number of excellent books available as well.  Even my local library, which caters to farmers, has three.

EDIT/UPDATE:

Here is the quote from Einstein's, "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"

*For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become meaningless;* we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity.

He specifically points out the theory has no meaning beyond light speed.  The concept of faster than light speed particles rests on the idea that they are created at higher than light speed, thus relieving them of falling into Einstein's special relativity context.  It is the stuff that science fiction is made of.  We were kinda hopeful of that neutrino experiment, but it seems to have fallen short of expectation.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt
> 
> Sandwalk: Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt
> 
> Donald Prothero is a paleontologist. He has reviewed Darwin's Doubt [ Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies]. The reason why this is important is because the IDiots want a "real expert" to review the book [see IDiot Irony.]
> 
> Well, they got their wish. It's a long, detained review but here's the fun part.
> 
> The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.
> 
> *&#8230;*
> 
> Stephen Meyer's first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer's Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he's just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their "expert" in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that knows no science at all with his slick but completely false understanding of the subject.



You are always one step behind...


----------



## UltimateReality

Steven_R said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It's just a theory..." from someone who doesn't understand what the term theory means in science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa!!! Another canned Panda's Scum regurgitated falsity. Go ahead and tell us about the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution and that the words law and theory don't mean what they meant for 100's of years prior to 1856. You're pathetic. Maybe you should try investigating for yourself instead of believe everything you read on the internet. An actual library would be a good place to start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the record, *I'm a physics student.* I use those law and theory things every day. I am well away of what those words mean in a technical sense and I didn't need some pseudoscientist with a diploma mill doctorate to tell me either.
> 
> Now, I had a real response to that babbling nonsense you wrote, but why bother? You're not going to read it anyhow except through the filter of your own self-induced ignorance. I'm not going to waste my time or your time.
> 
> However, if you are willing to actually learn about the science, I am more than happy to discuss this with you and actually explain what those terms mean.
Click to expand...


Yeah and I'm the Prince of Wales. That's the thing about the internet. You can be anything you want. Why don't you cut and paste the pseudoscience argument on theory vs. law because we haven't seen that here before.


----------



## itfitzme

eots said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we going to do this all day? You post some video purporting to say something and then I come back with articles that say those videos are wrong? I'm only asking because I'm leaving for the evening and I wonder if you wouldn't just collect your videos so I can take them down all at one time tomorrow.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> real science  is open to constant revision...*
Click to expand...


Not all of it.  Just a few things.  And not by anyone on this forum.

Most folk haven't caught up to the 1900's yet.  Some seemed to have skipped it all together, thinking it wasn't all that important or somethin'.  The math is a bitch.


----------



## UltimateReality

Steven_R said:


> Yes, and if I dare question it the APS will put a bounty on my head and there won't be a physics symposium in the world I can attend without some Cosmology Bounty Hunter looking to take me down. If I dare ask questions about St. Einstein, I'll be the Han Solo of physics with Stephen Hawking as Vader and Neil Degrasse Tyson as Boba Fett.
> 
> Or I can question it all I want, but so far every experiment has said Einstein is right so unless I have some reason to question it (beyond self-imposed purposeful ignorance), I can spend my time, energy, and most importantly: funding, in more useful pursuits.



This post right here. You have just revealed your ignorance of having no clue about the difference in Empirical Science and Historical Science.


----------



## UltimateReality

eots said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and if I dare question it the APS will put a bounty on my head and there won't be a physics symposium in the world I can attend without some Cosmology Bounty Hunter looking to take me down. If I dare ask questions about St. Einstein, I'll be the Han Solo of physics with Stephen Hawking as Vader and Neil Degrasse Tyson as Boba Fett.
> 
> Or I can question it all I want, but so far every experiment has said Einstein is right so unless I have some reason to question it (beyond self-imposed purposeful ignorance), I can spend my time, energy, and most importantly: funding, in more useful pursuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neutrinos travel faster than light, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity in doubt
> Updated: 23 Sep 2011Share this news?...Click box    Bookmark and Share
> Read more on Einstein's theory of Special Relativity   neutrinos travel faster than light
> PHYSICISTS have reported that sub-atomic particles called neutrinos can travel faster than light, a finding that, if verified, would be inconsistent with Einstein's theory of relativity.
> 
> In experiments conducted between the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland and a laboratory in Italy, the tiny particles were clocked at 300,006 kilometres per second, slightly faster that the speed of light, the researchers said today.
> 
> "This result comes as a complete surprise," said physicist Antonio Ereditato, spokesman for the experiment, known as OPERA. "We wanted to measure the speed of neutrinos, but we didn't expect to find anything special."
> 
> Scientists spent nearly six months "checking, testing, controlling and rechecking everything" before making an announcement, he said.
> 
> Researchers involved in the experiments were cautious in describing its implications, and called on physicists around the world to scrutinise their data, to be made available online
> 
> Neutrinos travel faster than light, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity in doubt - What's On Tianjin
Click to expand...


Einstein also believed in the eternal universe for most of his career while the Bible taught that the universe had a beginning. But as we all know from Hawly, "scientist" are always right and the Bible is always wrong so we should discard the Big Bang Theory immediately and go back to what Einstein thought.


----------



## itfitzme

UltimateReality said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa!!! Another canned Panda's Scum regurgitated falsity. Go ahead and tell us about the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution and that the words law and theory don't mean what they meant for 100's of years prior to 1856. You're pathetic. Maybe you should try investigating for yourself instead of believe everything you read on the internet. An actual library would be a good place to start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, *I'm a physics student.* I use those law and theory things every day. I am well away of what those words mean in a technical sense and I didn't need some pseudoscientist with a diploma mill doctorate to tell me either.
> 
> Now, I had a real response to that babbling nonsense you wrote, but why bother? You're not going to read it anyhow except through the filter of your own self-induced ignorance. I'm not going to waste my time or your time.
> 
> However, if you are willing to actually learn about the science, I am more than happy to discuss this with you and actually explain what those terms mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah and I'm the Prince of Wales. That's the thing about the internet. You can be anything you want. Why don't you cut and paste the pseudoscience argument on theory vs. law because we haven't seen that here before.
Click to expand...


First one that can

1) Describe the difference between dx and &#948;x.

2) Detail three canonical conjugate pairs.

3) What is the cental limit theorem?

Point for succinct breavity that demonstrate it isn't cut and paste.  Loss of points for being too vague and general.  Extra points if you can present it with both mathematical form and clear text that descibes what the math represents.


----------



## UltimateReality

itfitzme said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, *I'm a physics student.* I use those law and theory things every day. I am well away of what those words mean in a technical sense and I didn't need some pseudoscientist with a diploma mill doctorate to tell me either.
> 
> Now, I had a real response to that babbling nonsense you wrote, but why bother? You're not going to read it anyhow except through the filter of your own self-induced ignorance. I'm not going to waste my time or your time.
> 
> However, if you are willing to actually learn about the science, I am more than happy to discuss this with you and actually explain what those terms mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and I'm the Prince of Wales. That's the thing about the internet. You can be anything you want. Why don't you cut and paste the pseudoscience argument on theory vs. law because we haven't seen that here before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First one that can
> 
> 1) Describe the difference between dx and &#948;x.
> 
> 2)* Detail three canonical conjugate pairs.*
> 
> 3) What is the cental limit theorem?
> 
> Point for succinct breavity that demonstrate it isn't cut and paste.  Loss of points for being too vague and general.  Extra points if you can present it with both mathematical form and clear text that descibes what the math represents.
Click to expand...


Are we allowed to use Hamiltonian/Lagrangian mechanics when detailing the three canonical conjugate pairs?

_This guy just proved my point. I have no clue what the heck he is talking about but I googled it and my simple question back looks like I actually know what it is. Funny thing is I got an 'B' in Differential Equations at the University of Arizona in 1988 but having never solved a differential equation since then, I couldn't solve one now to save my life. _


----------



## UltimateReality

_"Writing here at Evolution News & Views, Dr. Poenie has now contributed a rebuttal to Axe's remarks. Poenie's critiques are a welcome oasis from the uncivil and ad hominem attacks that have come to characterize the debate surrounding Darwin's Doubt.* Unlike many of our critics, Poenie seems to have read the book.* -  _

Hmm. Seems this is a common tactic as evidenced by our very own Ad Hawlyman and Daws Herring.

A Response to Martin Poenie on Protein Evolution - Evolution News & Views


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt
> 
> Sandwalk: Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt
> 
> Donald Prothero is a paleontologist. He has reviewed Darwin's Doubt [ Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies]. The reason why this is important is because the IDiots want a "real expert" to review the book [see IDiot Irony.]
> 
> Well, they got their wish. It's a long, detained review but here's the fun part.
> 
> The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.
> 
> *&#8230;*
> 
> Stephen Meyer's first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer's Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he's just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their "expert" in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that knows no science at all with his slick but completely false understanding of the subject.



_"Since Nick Matzke at Panda's Thumb published a review of Darwin's Doubt that badly failed to preemptively knock down Stephen Meyer's thesis (see here, here, here, and here), the *Internet's Darwin brigade* has been hoping for something better. So the folks at *Panda's Thumb* along with Larry Moran and Jerry Coyne are all excited that geologist Donald Prothero has now posted an Amazon review of Darwin's Doubt. Their readers have eagerly voted up Prothero's post, artfully titled "Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies," as the "most helpful critical review."

According to Dr. Prothero, Darwin's Doubt is a mess of "fumbling," "bumbling," "distortions," and "blunders." The book is an "amateur" exercise, evidence of Meyer's "folly." It "butchers" the subject matter; was written by a "fool" who is "incompetent," guilty of "ignorance," is in "way over his head" and has a "completely false understanding of the subject." In case that's all a little too subtle for you, Prothero says Meyer argues "dishonestly" and promotes a "flat out lie," a "fundamental lie," and other "lies" to promote a "fairy tale."

Well, what justifies all the ad hominem invectives? Prothero's first complaint is that Meyer's Ph.D. is in the history and philosophy of science which, according to Prothero "give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution." Yes that's a lame objection (it's called the genetic fallacy). Indeed, Meyer's undergraduate degree is in geology and physics, and he worked as a geophysicist for four years, giving him formal training on geology-related issues -- the primary issues Prothero raises in his review. Prothero, however, has already undercut his own complaint, as he admitted:

    [Y]ou don't need a Ph.D. to do good science, and not all people who have Ph.D.s are good scientists either. As those of us who have gone through the ordeal know, a Ph.D. only proves that you can survive a grueling test of endurance in doing research and writing a dissertation on a very narrow topic. It doesn't prove that you are smarter than anyone else or more qualified to render an opinion than anyone else. (Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, p. 16)

Prothero's review later complains that creationists "love to flaunt their Ph.D.'s on their book covers." I guess that means Meyer isn't a "creationist," since Prothero failed to notice that Meyer doesn't mention his Ph.D. on the cover of Darwin's Doubt. (And isn't it a bit ironic that Prothero touts his own Ph.D. in his bio over at Skepticblog?)

In any case, Prothero's second complaint is that "Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards." Of course Prothero doesn't list examples from "almost every page," but at least this time he tries to give one. He claims "we now know that the 'explosion' now takes place over an 80 m.y. time framework." Perhaps Prothero didn't notice that Meyer specifically discusses Prothero's own view on this in Darwin's Doubt, and refutes it (see Chapter 3). I refuted the same argument in my recent response to Nick Matzke, which cited numerous articles from the mainstream technical literature stating that the Cambrian explosion took no more than 10 million years."_

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/darwin_defender_1074791.html


----------



## newpolitics

UltimateReality said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how do you know that your'e not ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I'm not blinded by hatred from same-sex attraction resulting from child molestation. Unbelievable the militant, bullying gay community is trying to outlaw counseling for children suffering from same sex attraction. Will they just ignore the abuse??
Click to expand...



Wow... that was ignorant. The irony! Insults aside, you didn't answer my question. If ignorant people are unaware of their ignorance, how do you know you are not yourself ignorant and  simply unaware of it? You don't. That's the point, so writing these cute aphorisms as if they bolster your position is delusional, since it can applied to yourself as well, and you have no defense against it, as you clearly just demonstrated with this nonsensical response.


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt
> 
> Sandwalk: Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt
> 
> Donald Prothero is a paleontologist. He has reviewed Darwin's Doubt [ Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies]. The reason why this is important is because the IDiots want a "real expert" to review the book [see IDiot Irony.]
> 
> Well, they got their wish. It's a long, detained review but here's the fun part.
> 
> The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.
> 
> **
> 
> Stephen Meyer's first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer's Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he's just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their "expert" in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that knows no science at all with his slick but completely false understanding of the subject.



Well, here we are again with another of Meyer's incompetent attempts at writing about a subject he has no formal training in. 

Just par for the course for creationist hacks


----------



## PMZ

The interesting thing about creationists is that they have no faith in science nor Faith.  They need to declare that the universe must be as they wish that it was, to be ''comfortable ''.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt
> 
> Sandwalk: Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt
> 
> Donald Prothero is a paleontologist. He has reviewed Darwin's Doubt [ Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies]. The reason why this is important is because the IDiots want a "real expert" to review the book [see IDiot Irony.]
> 
> Well, they got their wish. It's a long, detained review but here's the fun part.
> 
> The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.
> 
> **
> 
> Stephen Meyer's first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer's Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he's just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their "expert" in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that knows no science at all with his slick but completely false understanding of the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, here we are again with another of Meyer's incompetent attempts at writing about a subject he has no formal training in.
> 
> Just par for the course for creationist hacks
Click to expand...


...says the leader of the Internet Darwin Brigade!!!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt
> 
> Sandwalk: Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt
> 
> Donald Prothero is a paleontologist. He has reviewed Darwin's Doubt [ Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies]. The reason why this is important is because the IDiots want a "real expert" to review the book [see IDiot Irony.]
> 
> Well, they got their wish. It's a long, detained review but here's the fun part.
> 
> The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.
> 
> **
> 
> Stephen Meyer's first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer's Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he's just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their "expert" in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that knows no science at all with his slick but completely false understanding of the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, here we are again with another of Meyer's incompetent attempts at writing about a subject he has no formal training in.
> 
> Just par for the course for creationist hacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...says the leader of the Internet Darwin Brigade!!!
Click to expand...


Now, dear. While I do have an abiding respect for the discipline of science, and the concensus it brings, Im hardly the leader of any brigade.

I do think debates such as these are important, however. Although they do nothing to advance the methods of science, they do expose the lack of science in fundamentalist, religious creationism, the dishonest creationist tactics, and they really do demonstrate to any reader that science has nothing to hide. An advantage in a web-based forum such as this goes to the scienceminded. The _atheistic evilutionists_ can go over every written word of the religious extremist and hold them accountable for the lies, falsehoods, quote-mining and edited / parsed quotes. That was done with great effect to expose the blatant lies furthered by the creationists in this thread. You religious extremists were repeatedly exposed for fraudulent quotes and the laughable green screening by the Discotute.

Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables.  Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of creationists that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels.

If you have evidence for the gods, you should come forward with it quick! The Creationist Movement really needs it! They have been unable to provide any evidence for their position in all the years that they have been trying! Step up and show the evidence for the gods!


----------



## eots

HOW ABOUT LESSER GODS...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQdvYFMBAU]BREAKING!!! UFO ALIEN DISCLOSURE by Canadian Minister of Defense May 2013 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhxxHxIEmO4]Edgar Mitchell UFO and Aliens are Real and Watching Us - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, here we are again with another of Meyer's incompetent attempts at writing about a subject he has no formal training in.
> 
> Just par for the course for creationist hacks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...says the leader of the Internet Darwin Brigade!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, dear. While I do have an abiding respect for the discipline of science, and the concensus it brings, Im hardly the leader of any brigade.
> 
> I do think debates such as these are important, however. Although they do nothing to advance the methods of science, they do expose the lack of science in fundamentalist, religious creationism, the dishonest creationist tactics, and they really do demonstrate to any reader that science has nothing to hide. An advantage in a web-based forum such as this goes to the scienceminded. The _atheistic evilutionists_ can go over every written word of the religious extremist and hold them accountable for the lies, falsehoods, quote-mining and edited / parsed quotes. That was done with great effect to expose the blatant lies furthered by the creationists in this thread. You religious extremists were repeatedly exposed for fraudulent quotes and the laughable green screening by the Discotute.
> 
> Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables.  Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of creationists that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels.
> 
> If you have evidence for the gods, you should come forward with it quick! The Creationist Movement really needs it! They have been unable to provide any evidence for their position in all the years that they have been trying! Step up and show the evidence for the gods!
Click to expand...


You are either really stupid or really purposefully annoying. Or maybe both.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...says the leader of the Internet Darwin Brigade!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, dear. While I do have an abiding respect for the discipline of science, and the concensus it brings, Im hardly the leader of any brigade.
> 
> I do think debates such as these are important, however. Although they do nothing to advance the methods of science, they do expose the lack of science in fundamentalist, religious creationism, the dishonest creationist tactics, and they really do demonstrate to any reader that science has nothing to hide. An advantage in a web-based forum such as this goes to the scienceminded. The _atheistic evilutionists_ can go over every written word of the religious extremist and hold them accountable for the lies, falsehoods, quote-mining and edited / parsed quotes. That was done with great effect to expose the blatant lies furthered by the creationists in this thread. You religious extremists were repeatedly exposed for fraudulent quotes and the laughable green screening by the Discotute.
> 
> Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables.  Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of creationists that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels.
> 
> If you have evidence for the gods, you should come forward with it quick! The Creationist Movement really needs it! They have been unable to provide any evidence for their position in all the years that they have been trying! Step up and show the evidence for the gods!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are either really stupid or really purposefully annoying. Or maybe both.
Click to expand...


Gee whiz, thumpie. Here I was hoping you could finally ofter a coherent defense for creation "science", you know, by hurling bible verses at me and threatening me with what will happen when the jeebus returns.

To borrow a slogan from the creation ministries: I suppose the chances of you actually constructing a meaningful thought are so miniscule, to do so would be proof of the gods.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, dear. While I do have an abiding respect for the discipline of science, and the concensus it brings, Im hardly the leader of any brigade.
> 
> I do think debates such as these are important, however. Although they do nothing to advance the methods of science, they do expose the lack of science in fundamentalist, religious creationism, the dishonest creationist tactics, and they really do demonstrate to any reader that science has nothing to hide. An advantage in a web-based forum such as this goes to the scienceminded. The _atheistic evilutionists_ can go over every written word of the religious extremist and hold them accountable for the lies, falsehoods, quote-mining and edited / parsed quotes. That was done with great effect to expose the blatant lies furthered by the creationists in this thread. You religious extremists were repeatedly exposed for fraudulent quotes and the laughable green screening by the Discotute.
> 
> Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables.  Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of creationists that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels.
> 
> If you have evidence for the gods, you should come forward with it quick! The Creationist Movement really needs it! They have been unable to provide any evidence for their position in all the years that they have been trying! Step up and show the evidence for the gods!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are either really stupid or really purposefully annoying. Or maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee whiz, thumpie. Here I was hoping you could finally ofter a coherent defense for creation "science", you know, by hurling bible verses at me and threatening me with what will happen when the jeebus returns.
> 
> To borrow a slogan from the creation ministries: I suppose the chances of you actually constructing a meaningful thought are so miniscule, to do so would be proof of the gods.
Click to expand...


Of course you would miss the meaning of my last post. It has been done so many times for you in the last 1100 pages but until the scales fall from your eyes and the wax is cleared from your ears, it is useless to waste another breath or keystroke on you, Viper.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are either really stupid or really purposefully annoying. Or maybe both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz, thumpie. Here I was hoping you could finally ofter a coherent defense for creation "science", you know, by hurling bible verses at me and threatening me with what will happen when the jeebus returns.
> 
> To borrow a slogan from the creation ministries: I suppose the chances of you actually constructing a meaningful thought are so miniscule, to do so would be proof of the gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you would miss the meaning of my last post. It has been done so many times for you in the last 1100 pages but until the scales fall from your eyes and the wax is cleared from your ears, it is useless to waste another breath or keystroke on you, Viper.
Click to expand...

You're befuddled. I get it. Unless you're cutting and pasting from the charlatans at the creation ministries you are in thrall to, you really have nothing to contribute. 

Your posts have that vacant, mindless rambling of someone who is watching their extremist beliefs crumble before them.


----------



## eots

Its funny watching puny lil humans thinking they know how the universe was created and the essence of the life force....


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey everybody if you haven't figured it out already, eots  will argue ignorance continually..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> never trust anyone who gets the date of guy fawkes day wrong.
> 
> "please to remember, the fifth of november,
> gunpowder, treason, and plot."
> 
> maybe he'll have better luck with the bonfire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not trust anyone to dimwitted to realize it is intentional
Click to expand...

only a half wit would make such a false comparison..


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... says the curmudgeon.
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't make any less factual..too bad the same cannot be
> said about you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a legend in your own mind. You have posted a single fact since you started here.
Click to expand...

so you're admitting I've posted one fact?


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> go back and look at my edit. Do you mean the charlatan richard dawkins? You're dim. And is that really all you've got? Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you still insist on making excuses for lies and deceit on the part of christian fundies at the discotute.
> 
> The discotutes green-screened lab is much more than just another example of christian creationist lies and deceit. Its really an appropriate metaphor for the entire idiot / (angry) christian creationism syndicate. The ann gauger charade is simply another episode in the long history of creationist pseudo-science. The undeniably phony and manufactured setting symbolically demonstrates that idiosy, aka christian fundamentalism has been metaphorically green-screened and is nothing more than a false facade  masquerading as a science.
> 
> 
> It's almost comical that flat earth'ers such as yourself defend creationist lies and deceit. But then again, the entirety of the id'iot position is one of pressing a fundamentalist religious agenda. And as we see with regularity, the anti-science attitudes, phony "quote-mining", and lack of science discipline defines the id'iot syndicates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can not help but notice as your position weakness you move the goal post from intelligent design vs darwinism to darwinism vs your interpitation of  bible stories
Click to expand...

really?


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> real science  is open to constant revision...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the same true for real religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know ask someone who is religious
Click to expand...

your about as religious as a human can be...everything you argue is done with a religious zealotry only matched by your wilful ignorance.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt
> 
> Sandwalk: Donald Prothero Reviews Darwin's Doubt
> 
> Donald Prothero is a paleontologist. He has reviewed Darwin's Doubt [ Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Cambrian Amateur Follies]. The reason why this is important is because the IDiots want a "real expert" to review the book [see IDiot Irony.]
> 
> Well, they got their wish. It's a long, detained review but here's the fun part.
> 
> The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.
> 
> **
> 
> Stephen Meyer's first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer's Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he's just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their "expert" in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that knows no science at all with his slick but completely false understanding of the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are always one step behind...
Click to expand...

wow! that was a stinger!


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa!!! Another canned Panda's Scum regurgitated falsity. Go ahead and tell us about the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution and that the words law and theory don't mean what they meant for 100's of years prior to 1856. You're pathetic. Maybe you should try investigating for yourself instead of believe everything you read on the internet. An actual library would be a good place to start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, *I'm a physics student.* I use those law and theory things every day. I am well away of what those words mean in a technical sense and I didn't need some pseudoscientist with a diploma mill doctorate to tell me either.
> 
> Now, I had a real response to that babbling nonsense you wrote, but why bother? You're not going to read it anyhow except through the filter of your own self-induced ignorance. I'm not going to waste my time or your time.
> 
> However, if you are willing to actually learn about the science, I am more than happy to discuss this with you and actually explain what those terms mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah and I'm the Prince of Wales. That's the thing about the internet. You can be anything you want. Why don't you cut and paste the pseudoscience argument on theory vs. law because we haven't seen that here before.
Click to expand...

funny how you always say that when your ass is handed to you...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and if I dare question it the APS will put a bounty on my head and there won't be a physics symposium in the world I can attend without some Cosmology Bounty Hunter looking to take me down. If I dare ask questions about St. Einstein, I'll be the Han Solo of physics with Stephen Hawking as Vader and Neil Degrasse Tyson as Boba Fett.
> 
> Or I can question it all I want, but so far every experiment has said Einstein is right so unless I have some reason to question it (beyond self-imposed purposeful ignorance), I can spend my time, energy, and most importantly: funding, in more useful pursuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post right here. You have just revealed your ignorance of having no clue about the difference in Empirical Science and Historical Science.
Click to expand...

bullshit alert :!!!!!!
Empirical science is finding the solution through observation or experimentation. 

Historical science is generally BS. Its the common idea behind theist science and to me it gives me a headache even trying to read through the butchery of words they throw into sentences which amount to nothing. They are trying to bring god into science, if you can't repeat a situation then god did it. Thats the sum of it.

Empirical Science is what we call Science

Historical Science is what we call Speculation


----------



## daws101

newpolitics said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how do you know that your'e not ignorant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I'm not blinded by hatred from same-sex attraction resulting from child molestation. Unbelievable the militant, bullying gay community is trying to outlaw counseling for children suffering from same sex attraction. Will they just ignore the abuse??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... that was ignorant. The irony! Insults aside, you didn't answer my question. If ignorant people are unaware of their ignorance, how do you know you are not yourself ignorant and  simply unaware of it? You don't. That's the point, so writing these cute aphorisms as if they bolster your position is delusional, since it can applied to yourself as well, and you have no defense against it, as you clearly just demonstrated with this nonsensical response.
Click to expand...

bump!


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> is the same true for real religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i don't know ask someone who is religious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your about as religious as a human can be...everything you argue is done with a religious zealotry only matched by your wilful ignorance.
Click to expand...


it seems the zealot here is you I have made no religious reference anywhere in this thread...unlike you


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't know ask someone who is religious
> 
> 
> 
> your about as religious as a human can be...everything you argue is done with a religious zealotry only matched by your wilful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it seems the zealot here is you i have made no religious reference anywhere in this thread
Click to expand...

and as always you'd be wrong on both counts .


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your about as religious as a human can be...everything you argue is done with a religious zealotry only matched by your wilful ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it seems the zealot here is you i have made no religious reference anywhere in this thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and as always you'd be wrong on both counts .
Click to expand...


As usual you babble empty statements backed with nothing..No where in this thread did I reference religion and you can provide no link to any such statement...as ususal


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> it seems the zealot here is you i have made no religious reference anywhere in this thread
> 
> 
> 
> and as always you'd be wrong on both counts .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual you babble empty statements backed with nothing..No where in this thread did I reference religion and you can provide no link to any such statement...as ususal
Click to expand...

as usual when a statement of fact, "and as always you'd be wrong on both counts" -me
is above your comprehension level ,you say it's babbling.. your zealotry and religious belief    is blatantly obvious to everyone but you..
it is unnecessary for you to proclaim you made no such statement ,as YOU are the statement.
I guess you never heard the phrase "it goes without saying"...meaning it needs no further explanation or a link.

IN YOUR OWN WORDS: "Its funny watching puny lil humans thinking they know how the universe was created and the essence of the life force...." EOTS
THAT SENTENCE IS A QUASI RELIGIOUS STATEMENT.


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and as always you'd be wrong on both counts .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual you babble empty statements backed with nothing..No where in this thread did I reference religion and you can provide no link to any such statement...as ususal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as usual when a statement of fact, "and as always you'd be wrong on both counts" -me
> is above your comprehension level ,you say it's babbling.. your zealotry and religious belief    is blatantly obvious to everyone but you..
> it is unnecessary for you to proclaim you made no such statement ,as YOU are the statement.
> I guess you never heard the phrase "it goes without saying"...meaning it needs no further explanation or a link.
> 
> IN YOUR OWN WORDS: "Its funny watching puny lil humans thinking they know how the universe was created and the essence of the life force...." EOTS
> THAT SENTENCE IS A QUASI RELIGIOUS STATEMENT.
Click to expand...


That is just a fact..all science is open for revision...only bad science would claim to have unquestionable evidence for the creation of the universe or the origins of all life on earth..we are not even close to the level of technology required to think otherwise is total arrogance.. the other-side of the same shit-coin..a faith based "science" zealot


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual you babble empty statements backed with nothing..No where in this thread did I reference religion and you can provide no link to any such statement...as ususal
> 
> 
> 
> as usual when a statement of fact, "and as always you'd be wrong on both counts" -me
> is above your comprehension level ,you say it's babbling.. your zealotry and religious belief    is blatantly obvious to everyone but you..
> it is unnecessary for you to proclaim you made no such statement ,as YOU are the statement.
> I guess you never heard the phrase "it goes without saying"...meaning it needs no further explanation or a link.
> 
> IN YOUR OWN WORDS: "Its funny watching puny lil humans thinking they know how the universe was created and the essence of the life force...." EOTS
> THAT SENTENCE IS A QUASI RELIGIOUS STATEMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is just a fact..all science is open for revision...only bad science would claim to have unquestionable evidence for the creation of the universe or the origins of all life on earth..we are not even close to the level of technology required to think otherwise is total arrogance.. the other-side of the same shit-coin..a faith based "science" zealot
Click to expand...

dodge!


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and if I dare question it the APS will put a bounty on my head and there won't be a physics symposium in the world I can attend without some Cosmology Bounty Hunter looking to take me down. If I dare ask questions about St. Einstein, I'll be the Han Solo of physics with Stephen Hawking as Vader and Neil Degrasse Tyson as Boba Fett.
> 
> Or I can question it all I want, but so far every experiment has said Einstein is right so unless I have some reason to question it (beyond self-imposed purposeful ignorance), I can spend my time, energy, and most importantly: funding, in more useful pursuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post right here. You have just revealed your ignorance of having no clue about the difference in Empirical Science and Historical Science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit alert :!!!!!!
> Empirical science is finding the solution through observation or experimentation.
> 
> Historical science is generally BS. Its the common idea behind theist science and to me it gives me a headache even trying to read through the butchery of words they throw into sentences which amount to nothing. They are trying to bring god into science, if you can't repeat a situation then god did it. Thats the sum of it.
> 
> Empirical Science is what we call Science
> 
> Historical Science is what we call Speculation
Click to expand...


Speculation is what we call Evolutionary Thought. Here come the "might haves" and "could haves"!!!!


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post right here. You have just revealed your ignorance of having no clue about the difference in Empirical Science and Historical Science.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit alert :!!!!!!
> Empirical science is finding the solution through observation or experimentation.
> 
> Historical science is generally BS. Its the common idea behind theist science and to me it gives me a headache even trying to read through the butchery of words they throw into sentences which amount to nothing. They are trying to bring god into science, if you can't repeat a situation then god did it. Thats the sum of it.
> 
> Empirical Science is what we call Science
> 
> Historical Science is what we call Speculation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speculation is what we call Evolutionary Thought. Here come the "might haves" and "could haves"!!!!
Click to expand...


Actually, among the relevant science community, evolution is an accepted fact. It is almost exclusively the Christian fundamentalists who are the laughable tools, pounding their bibles as science texts. There is a certain element of religious extremism that is exploited by the science-loathing crowd as represented by the Disco'tute, Falwell, Robertson, etc.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit alert :!!!!!!
> Empirical science is finding the solution through observation or experimentation.
> 
> Historical science is generally BS. Its the common idea behind theist science and to me it gives me a headache even trying to read through the butchery of words they throw into sentences which amount to nothing. They are trying to bring god into science, if you can't repeat a situation then god did it. Thats the sum of it.
> 
> Empirical Science is what we call Science
> 
> Historical Science is what we call Speculation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation is what we call Evolutionary Thought. Here come the "might haves" and "could haves"!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, among the relevant science community, evolution is an accepted fact. It is almost exclusively the Christian fundamentalists who are the laughable tools, pounding their bibles as science texts. There is a certain element of religious extremism that is exploited by the science-loathing crowd as represented by the Disco'tute, Falwell, Robertson, etc.
Click to expand...


The really sad thing about you Hawly is you are totally unaware how incredibly irrelevant you are to the discussion. You are reduced to repeating the same ad hawlyman attacks over and over ad nauseum.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post right here. You have just revealed your ignorance of having no clue about the difference in Empirical Science and Historical Science.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit alert :!!!!!!
> Empirical science is finding the solution through observation or experimentation.
> 
> Historical science is generally BS. Its the common idea behind theist science and to me it gives me a headache even trying to read through the butchery of words they throw into sentences which amount to nothing. They are trying to bring god into science, if you can't repeat a situation then god did it. Thats the sum of it.
> 
> Empirical Science is what we call Science
> 
> Historical Science is what we call Speculation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speculation is what we call Evolutionary Thought. Here come the "might haves" and "could haves"!!!!
Click to expand...

not unlike the creationist /id fairytale...


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation is what we call Evolutionary Thought. Here come the "might haves" and "could haves"!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, among the relevant science community, evolution is an accepted fact. It is almost exclusively the Christian fundamentalists who are the laughable tools, pounding their bibles as science texts. There is a certain element of religious extremism that is exploited by the science-loathing crowd as represented by the Disco'tute, Falwell, Robertson, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The really sad thing about you Hawly is you are totally unaware how incredibly irrelevant you are to the discussion. You are reduced to repeating the same ad hawlyman attacks over and over ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

whiner....


----------



## daws101

[ame=http://youtu.be/9c0RFxXrYzg]Holy Bible - Epic Fail - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit alert :!!!!!!
> Empirical science is finding the solution through observation or experimentation.
> 
> Historical science is generally BS. Its the common idea behind theist science and to me it gives me a headache even trying to read through the butchery of words they throw into sentences which amount to nothing. They are trying to bring god into science, if you can't repeat a situation then god did it. Thats the sum of it.
> 
> Empirical Science is what we call Science
> 
> Historical Science is what we call Speculation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation is what we call Evolutionary Thought. Here come the "might haves" and "could haves"!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, among the relevant science community, evolution is an accepted fact. It is almost exclusively the Christian fundamentalists who are the laughable tools, pounding their bibles as science texts. There is a certain element of religious extremism that is exploited by the science-loathing crowd as represented by the Disco'tute, Falwell, Robertson, etc.
Click to expand...


So you are not debating if there could be alternative theories to Darwinism you are actually debating Christian fundamentalism.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit alert :!!!!!!
> Empirical science is finding the solution through observation or experimentation.
> 
> Historical science is generally BS. Its the common idea behind theist science and to me it gives me a headache even trying to read through the butchery of words they throw into sentences which amount to nothing. They are trying to bring god into science, if you can't repeat a situation then god did it. Thats the sum of it.
> 
> Empirical Science is what we call Science
> 
> Historical Science is what we call Speculation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation is what we call Evolutionary Thought. Here come the "might haves" and "could haves"!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, among the relevant science community, evolution is an accepted fact. It is almost exclusively the Christian fundamentalists who are the laughable tools, pounding their bibles as science texts. There is a certain element of religious extremism that is exploited by the science-loathing crowd as represented by the Disco'tute, Falwell, Robertson, etc.
Click to expand...


so it is your belief that the majority of the worlds scientist have no spiritual beliefs ?....link ?


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation is what we call Evolutionary Thought. Here come the "might haves" and "could haves"!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, among the relevant science community, evolution is an accepted fact. It is almost exclusively the Christian fundamentalists who are the laughable tools, pounding their bibles as science texts. There is a certain element of religious extremism that is exploited by the science-loathing crowd as represented by the Disco'tute, Falwell, Robertson, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are not debating if there could be alternative theories to Darwinism you are actually debating Christian fundamentalism.
Click to expand...

nobody's arguing that there are no alternate "theories" there are.. evolution  empirical quantifiable  evidence to back it up. 
none of the others have .


----------



## eots

What do scientists think about religion?
Opinion
Members of the scientific community are often seen as doubting Thomases, but the reality is more complex. Even Charles Darwin may have made room for God.
November 24, 2009|By David Masci
Email
Share

Today, a century and a half after Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," the overwhelming majority of scientists in the United States accept Darwinian evolution as the basis for understanding how life on Earth developed. But although evolutionary theory is often portrayed as antithetical to religion, it has not destroyed the religious faith of the scientific community.

According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, *a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power,* while 41% say they do not.

What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation is what we call Evolutionary Thought. Here come the "might haves" and "could haves"!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, among the relevant science community, evolution is an accepted fact. It is almost exclusively the Christian fundamentalists who are the laughable tools, pounding their bibles as science texts. There is a certain element of religious extremism that is exploited by the science-loathing crowd as represented by the Disco'tute, Falwell, Robertson, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so it is your belief that the majority of the worlds scientist have no spiritual beliefs ?....link ?
Click to expand...

it's not a belief (that requires faith) the fact is most credible scientist do not believe in god.
you could argue that spirituality and belief in god are separate issue.
but that's been done to death on another thread.


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> What do scientists think about religion?
> Opinion
> Members of the scientific community are often seen as doubting Thomases, but the reality is more complex. Even Charles Darwin may have made room for God.
> November 24, 2009|By David Masci
> Email
> Share
> 
> Today, a century and a half after Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," the overwhelming majority of scientists in the United States accept Darwinian evolution as the basis for understanding how life on Earth developed. But although evolutionary theory is often portrayed as antithetical to religion, it has not destroyed the religious faith of the scientific community.
> 
> According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, *a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power,* while 41% say they do not.
> 
> What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


52 percent of scientists surveyed said they had no religious affiliation, compared with only 14 percent of the general population. 
 Of the religious scientists, however, 15 percent identified themselves as Jewish compared to 2 percent of the religious general population. 
 14 percent of the general population described themselves as "evangelical" or "fundamentalist. Less than 2 percent of scientists, however, identified themselves as either of these.

Science Not to Blame for Non-Religious Scientists | LiveScience


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, among the relevant science community, evolution is an accepted fact. It is almost exclusively the Christian fundamentalists who are the laughable tools, pounding their bibles as science texts. There is a certain element of religious extremism that is exploited by the science-loathing crowd as represented by the Disco'tute, Falwell, Robertson, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so it is your belief that the majority of the worlds scientist have no spiritual beliefs ?....link ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's not a belief (that requires faith)* the fact is most credible scientist do not believe in god.*
> you could argue that spirituality and belief in god are separate issue.
> but that's been done to death on another thread.
Click to expand...


so according to you 51% of all scientist are not credible and this is evident in their belief a "god "/intelligent universe?


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so it is your belief that the majority of the worlds scientist have no spiritual beliefs ?....link ?
> 
> 
> 
> it's not a belief (that requires faith)* the fact is most credible scientist do not believe in god.*
> you could argue that spirituality and belief in god are separate issue.
> but that's been done to death on another thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so according to you 51% of all scientist are not credible and this is evident in their belief a "god "/intelligent universe?
Click to expand...

wow false assumption man .........not according to me but to them...52 percent of scientists surveyed said they had no religious affiliation, compared with only 14 percent of the general population. 
 Of the religious scientists, however, 15 percent identified themselves as Jewish compared to 2 percent of the religious general population. 
 14 percent of the general population described themselves as "evangelical" or "fundamentalist. Less than 2 percent of scientists, however, identified themselves as either of these.

Science Not to Blame for Non-Religious Scientists | LiveScience


----------



## eots

Teaching evolution is fine as long as it is done honestly and presented as the best scientific theory at present..


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> Teaching evolution is fine as long as it is done honestly and presented as the best scientific theory at present..


how is your statement at all relevant  to this thread?


----------



## eots

There is also the big white elephant in the room no one wants to address but if...Apollo astronauts and British and Canadian defense ministers are speaking truthfully there could very well be another explanation for the origin of species on this planet


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> There is also the big white elephant in the room no one wants to address but if...Apollo astronauts and British and Canadian defense ministers are speaking truthfully there could very well be another explanation for the origin of species on this planet


the science fiction ploy....you were almost rational for a second.


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is also the big white elephant in the room no one wants to address but if...apollo astronauts and british and canadian defense ministers are speaking truthfully there could very well be another explanation for the origin of species on this planet
> 
> 
> 
> the science fiction ploy....you were almost rational for a second.
Click to expand...


it is hard to wrap your mind around I agree..but it is hardly science fiction.. When you have several of the few men to ever walk on the moon and ministers of defense from major western countries   saying the same thing...it seems irrational to dismiss it as just science-fiction


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjbw35zyXSs]Mankind's Creation from Alien Genetic Engineering (Full Documentary) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is also the big white elephant in the room no one wants to address but if...apollo astronauts and british and canadian defense ministers are speaking truthfully there could very well be another explanation for the origin of species on this planet
> 
> 
> 
> the science fiction ploy....you were almost rational for a second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is hard to wrap your mind around I agree..but it is hardly science fiction.. When you have several of the few men to ever walk on the moon and ministers of defense from major western countries   saying the same thing...it seems irrational to dismiss it as just science-fiction
Click to expand...

no it's not hard to wrap your mind around..
is there life on other planets ?.....yes 
does it have the technology to overcome the time and distance problem....?


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> Mankind's Creation from Alien Genetic Engineering (Full Documentary) - YouTube


seen it..
entertaining but not fact...


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the science fiction ploy....you were almost rational for a second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is hard to wrap your mind around I agree..but it is hardly science fiction.. When you have several of the few men to ever walk on the moon and ministers of defense from major western countries   saying the same thing...it seems irrational to dismiss it as just science-fiction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it's not hard to wrap your mind around..
> is there life on other planets ?.....yes
> does it have the technology to overcome the time and distance problem....?
Click to expand...


Well according to the British and Canadian defense ministers and three men who walked on the moon the answer is ...yes they have


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is hard to wrap your mind around I agree..but it is hardly science fiction.. When you have several of the few men to ever walk on the moon and ministers of defense from major western countries   saying the same thing...it seems irrational to dismiss it as just science-fiction
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not hard to wrap your mind around..
> is there life on other planets ?.....yes
> does it have the technology to overcome the time and distance problem....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well according to the British and Canadian defense ministers and three men who walked on the moon the answer is ...yes they have
Click to expand...

but there's no actual evidence..right?
being an astronaut or defence minister is not defence against misidentification or cognitive bias.


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not hard to wrap your mind around..
> is there life on other planets ?.....yes
> does it have the technology to overcome the time and distance problem....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well according to the British and Canadian defense ministers and three men who walked on the moon the answer is ...yes they have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there's no actual evidence..right?
> being an astronaut or defence minister is not defence against misidentification or cognitive bias.
Click to expand...


Well according to these gentlemen there is ample evidence we are just not allowed to see it and this why they have joined in the petition to congress for full discloser


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOyGyJMQiQs]MAY 2013. UFO COVER UP, FMR. SENATOR MIKE GRAVEL SPEAKS OUT! HQ - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

The problem with the alien theory is one of infinite regression. There isn't rationally enough time for humans to have evolved in 4.5 billion years. If aliens made us, then who made the aliens? Or are you saying the alien or aliens is outside the cosmos, not subject to space, time, matter or energy? I have heard of this alien. We refer to him as Jehovah.


----------



## eots

UltimateReality said:


> The problem with the alien theory is one of infinite regression. There isn't rationally enough time for humans to have evolved in 4.5 billion years. If aliens made us, then who made the aliens? Or are you say the alien or aliens is outside the cosmos, not subject to space, time, matter or energy? I have heard of this alien. We refer to him as Jehovah.



A rose by any other name perhaps and indeed what created the aliens..what created the big bang ..what was before it ? it seems logical to me to conclude there is a something beyond space and time not governed by the human concept of a beginning and a end...and given the  limitations created by  space and time it does lead me to wonder if in fact these beings have the ability to transcend that human concept it would account for tales of angels and demons ...It seems adopting a religious belief in Darwinism and the big bang requires a very narrow view to other possibilities and writes them off as some sort of childish magical thinking...I don't not think any of it occurs by _magic_ and I believe with enough billions of years of calculations and measurements possibly  science could achieve Einsteins goal of "understanding the thoughts of god" but we appear far from that place at present


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> The problem with the alien theory is one of infinite regression. There isn't rationally enough time for humans to have evolved in 4.5 billion years. If aliens made us, then who made the aliens? Or are you saying the alien or aliens is outside the cosmos, not subject to space, time, matter or energy? I have heard of this alien. We refer to him as Jehovah.


----------



## Hollie

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the alien theory is one of infinite regression. There isn't rationally enough time for humans to have evolved in 4.5 billion years. If aliens made us, then who made the aliens? Or are you saying the alien or aliens is outside the cosmos, not subject to space, time, matter or energy? I have heard of this alien. We refer to him as Jehovah.
Click to expand...


"There isn't rationally enough time for humans to have evolved in 4.5 billion years"

Of course, the religious extremist has no data, no evidence and no supportable facts to make that assessment.

So, if the gawds "made" us in just the last 6,000 years, who made the gawds who in turn made us?

Jehovah / Yahweh is just one (or maybe two) of the gawds "we" call gawds. Depending upon the geographic and cultural location of one's place of birth, "we" would have different names for gawds quite unlike the Jehovah's / Yahweh's of ancient tales and fables.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the alien theory is one of infinite regression. There isn't rationally enough time for humans to have evolved in 4.5 billion years. If aliens made us, then who made the aliens? Or are you saying the alien or aliens is outside the cosmos, not subject to space, time, matter or energy? I have heard of this alien. We refer to him as Jehovah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...
> So, if the gawds "made" us in just the last 6,000 years, who made the gawds who in turn made us?....
Click to expand...


Have you really forgotten how many times I've answered this? Really? Are you really that dense? The last time 6 times I've given you the logical answer to this question, you scurried off totally befuddled. Is your memory that bad?

Do you remember? Do I need to go back and link the multiple times I've answered this and shown your twisted logic to be completely flawed? Have you not admitted to horribly flawed logic, by your continued failure to post a rebuttal. Your silence in each instance speaks volumes... volumes of ignorance.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> So, if the gawds "made" us in just the last 6,000 years, who made the gawds who in turn made us?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you really forgotten how many times I've answered this? Really? Are you really that dense? The last time 6 times I've given you the logical answer to this question, you scurried off totally befuddled. Is your memory that bad?
> 
> Do you remember? Do I need to go back and link the multiple times I've answered this and shown your twisted logic to be completely flawed? Have you not admitted to horribly flawed logic, by your continued failure to post a rebuttal. Your silence in each instance speaks volumes... volumes of ignorance.
Click to expand...

Have you forgotten how many times your pleas to self-serving ignorance have resulted only in your confirming yourself as the village ID'iot?

Have you not admitted your religious fundamentalism makes you a poor candidate for objective reasoning?


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> So, if the gawds "made" us in just the last 6,000 years, who made the gawds who in turn made us?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you really forgotten how many times I've answered this? Really? Are you really that dense? The last time 6 times I've given you the logical answer to this question, you scurried off totally befuddled. Is your memory that bad?
> 
> Do you remember? Do I need to go back and link the multiple times I've answered this and shown your twisted logic to be completely flawed? Have you not admitted to horribly flawed logic, by your continued failure to post a rebuttal. Your silence in each instance speaks volumes... volumes of ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you forgotten how many times your pleas to self-serving ignorance have resulted only in your confirming yourself as the village ID'iot?
> 
> Have you not admitted your religious fundamentalism makes you a poor candidate for objective reasoning?
Click to expand...


religious fundamentalist ?...you mean like Einstein ?...I think its the bean up your ass for right wing Christians that cripples your ability for objective reasoning as you have  not displayed any as of yet...your only refute is use your strawman of fundelmentilist


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you really forgotten how many times I've answered this? Really? Are you really that dense? The last time 6 times I've given you the logical answer to this question, you scurried off totally befuddled. Is your memory that bad?
> 
> Do you remember? Do I need to go back and link the multiple times I've answered this and shown your twisted logic to be completely flawed? Have you not admitted to horribly flawed logic, by your continued failure to post a rebuttal. Your silence in each instance speaks volumes... volumes of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you forgotten how many times your pleas to self-serving ignorance have resulted only in your confirming yourself as the village ID'iot?
> 
> Have you not admitted your religious fundamentalism makes you a poor candidate for objective reasoning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> religious fundamentalist ?...you mean like Einstein ?...I think its the bean up your ass for right wing Christians that cripples your ability for objective reasoning as you have  not displayed any as of yet...your only refute is use your strawman of fundelmentilist
Click to expand...

You are, of course, free to defend religious zealots.

So maybe you can support the case for "the gawds did it". The zealots cannot and so far, you have offered nothing of substance to explain existence other than not so subtle references to space aliens Intervening.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you forgotten how many times your pleas to self-serving ignorance have resulted only in your confirming yourself as the village ID'iot?
> 
> Have you not admitted your religious fundamentalism makes you a poor candidate for objective reasoning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> religious fundamentalist ?...you mean like Einstein ?...I think its the bean up your ass for right wing Christians that cripples your ability for objective reasoning as you have  not displayed any as of yet...your only refute is use your strawman of fundelmentilist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are, of course, free to defend religious zealots.
> 
> So maybe you can support the case for "the gawds did it". The zealots cannot and so far, you have offered nothing of substance to explain existence other than not so subtle references to space aliens Intervening.
Click to expand...


I  feel given the recent revelations from such prominent people as minsters of defense, men who have walked on the moon and the historical records of ancient history that "alien" DNA manipulation needs to be considered as a possible explanation for the origin of life on earth .as far as existence and origins of the universe itself would seem logical to me to consider that the human concepts and limitations of space and time may not apply to all that is conscious in "existence"


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you really forgotten how many times I've answered this? Really? Are you really that dense? The last time 6 times I've given you the logical answer to this question, you scurried off totally befuddled. Is your memory that bad?
> 
> Do you remember? Do I need to go back and link the multiple times I've answered this and shown your twisted logic to be completely flawed? Have you not admitted to horribly flawed logic, by your continued failure to post a rebuttal. Your silence in each instance speaks volumes... volumes of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you forgotten how many times your pleas to self-serving ignorance have resulted only in your confirming yourself as the village ID'iot?
> 
> Have you not admitted your religious fundamentalism makes you a poor candidate for objective reasoning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit! on both counts:
> 
> religious fundamentalist ?...you mean like Einstein ?...I think its the bean up your ass for right wing Christians that cripples your ability for objective reasoning as you have  not displayed any as of yet...your only refute is use your strawman of fundelmentilist
Click to expand...

Einstein was raised by secular Jewish parents. In his Autobiographical Notes, Einstein wrote that he had gradually lost his faith early in childhood:
. . . I camethough the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parentsto a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environmentan attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections. It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it.[2]
Beliefs
Religious views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> religious fundamentalist ?...you mean like Einstein ?...I think its the bean up your ass for right wing Christians that cripples your ability for objective reasoning as you have  not displayed any as of yet...your only refute is use your strawman of fundelmentilist
> 
> 
> 
> You are, of course, free to defend religious zealots.
> 
> So maybe you can support the case for "the gawds did it". The zealots cannot and so far, you have offered nothing of substance to explain existence other than not so subtle references to space aliens Intervening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I  feel given the recent revelations from such prominent people as minsters of defense, men who have walked on the moon and the historical records of ancient history that "alien" DNA manipulation needs to be considered as a possible explanation for the origin of life on earth .as far as existence and origins of the universe itself would seem logical to me to consider that the human concepts and limitations of space and time may not apply to all that is conscious in "existence"
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> religious fundamentalist ?...you mean like Einstein ?...I think its the bean up your ass for right wing Christians that cripples your ability for objective reasoning as you have  not displayed any as of yet...your only refute is use your strawman of fundelmentilist
> 
> 
> 
> You are, of course, free to defend religious zealots.
> 
> So maybe you can support the case for "the gawds did it". The zealots cannot and so far, you have offered nothing of substance to explain existence other than not so subtle references to space aliens Intervening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I  feel given the recent revelations from such prominent people as minsters of defense, men who have walked on the moon and the historical records of ancient history that "alien" DNA manipulation needs to be considered as a possible explanation for the origin of life on earth .as far as existence and origins of the universe itself would seem logical to me to consider that the human concepts and limitations of space and time may not apply to all that is conscious in "existence"
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't have much to respond to regarding the "space alien DNA / aliens among us", thing, except to say... I'm backing away slowly, keep your hands where I can see them, don't make any sudden moves.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are, of course, free to defend religious zealots.
> 
> So maybe you can support the case for "the gawds did it". The zealots cannot and so far, you have offered nothing of substance to explain existence other than not so subtle references to space aliens Intervening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I  feel given the recent revelations from such prominent people as minsters of defense, men who have walked on the moon and the historical records of ancient history that "alien" DNA manipulation needs to be considered as a possible explanation for the origin of life on earth .as far as existence and origins of the universe itself would seem logical to me to consider that the human concepts and limitations of space and time may not apply to all that is conscious in "existence"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid I don't have much to respond to regarding the "space alien DNA / aliens among us", thing, except to say... I'm backing away slowly, keep your hands where I can see them, don't make any sudden moves.
Click to expand...

easy hollie ,eots is only harmful to himself..


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you forgotten how many times your pleas to self-serving ignorance have resulted only in your confirming yourself as the village ID'iot?
> 
> Have you not admitted your religious fundamentalism makes you a poor candidate for objective reasoning?
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! on both counts:
> 
> religious fundamentalist ?...you mean like Einstein ?...I think its the bean up your ass for right wing Christians that cripples your ability for objective reasoning as you have  not displayed any as of yet...your only refute is use your strawman of fundelmentilist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Einstein was raised by secular Jewish parents. In his Autobiographical Notes, Einstein wrote that he had gradually lost his faith early in childhood:
> . . . I camethough the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parentsto a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environmentan attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections. It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like *a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking.* The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. *The road to this paradise *was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it.[2]
> Beliefs
> Religious views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


That is a rejection of dogma and does not negate his reference to an intelligent universe


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are, of course, free to defend religious zealots.
> 
> So maybe you can support the case for "the gawds did it". The zealots cannot and so far, you have offered nothing of substance to explain existence other than not so subtle references to space aliens Intervening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I  feel given the recent revelations from such prominent people as minsters of defense, men who have walked on the moon and the historical records of ancient history that "alien" DNA manipulation needs to be considered as a possible explanation for the origin of life on earth .as far as existence and origins of the universe itself would seem logical to me to consider that the human concepts and limitations of space and time may not apply to all that is conscious in "existence"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid I don't have much to respond to regarding the "space alien DNA / aliens among us", thing, except to say... I'm backing away slowly, keep your hands where I can see them, don't make any sudden moves.
Click to expand...


That is just the responses someone would expect from a fundamentalist such as yourself...but the fact remains we have western leaders entrusted as
 the head of defense..men in control of nuclear arsenals and Men of the caliber to be selected for moon mission..that make the claim of alien contact
but programmed one -liners is all you can respond with...so is it your assertion these men are all  dangerous and insane ?  and that all these men are having some commonly shared delusion ?..can you give any kind of intelligent response to this fact other than shooting the messenger ?


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I  feel given the recent revelations from such prominent people as minsters of defense, men who have walked on the moon and the historical records of ancient history that "alien" DNA manipulation needs to be considered as a possible explanation for the origin of life on earth .as far as existence and origins of the universe itself would seem logical to me to consider that the human concepts and limitations of space and time may not apply to all that is conscious in "existence"
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I don't have much to respond to regarding the "space alien DNA / aliens among us", thing, except to say... I'm backing away slowly, keep your hands where I can see them, don't make any sudden moves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is just the responses someone would expect from a fundamentalist such as yourself...but the fact remains we have western leaders entrusted as
> the head of defense..men in control of nuclear arsenals and Men of the caliber to be selected for moon mission..that make the claim of alien contact
> but programmed one -liners is all you can respond with...so is it your assertion these men are all  dangerous and insane ?  and that all these men are having some commonly shared delusion ?..can you give any kind of intelligent response to this fact other than shooting the messenger ?
Click to expand...


Oh my. I made you angry. 

It's just a shame that there are those who will make outrageous claims and there is so often a willing audience. What is consistent about these type of outrageous claims is the curious lack of evidence offered in support. 

No one is saying you cant believe that aliens are among us. Honestly, thats no more outrageous than people believing in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster or other tales of monsters and demons. It's not for me personally, and I argue that such things had their place and there are better and more realistic models that show factual evidence. Those will eventually replace beliefs in monsters and demons (like these days you don't hear about monsters and demons, but instead the more science-oriented UFOs and aliens -- both are mythic belief systems with no evidence in support of the claims). If I criticize such assertions as space aliens breeding with humans, that is a philosophical approach toward rejecting unsupported claims seeming only to be borne of _fear and superstition _... and honestly, a criticism of your willingness to face reality.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I don't have much to respond to regarding the "space alien DNA / aliens among us", thing, except to say... I'm backing away slowly, keep your hands where I can see them, don't make any sudden moves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is just the responses someone would expect from a fundamentalist such as yourself...but the fact remains we have western leaders entrusted as
> the head of defense..men in control of nuclear arsenals and Men of the caliber to be selected for moon mission..that make the claim of alien contact
> but programmed one -liners is all you can respond with...so is it your assertion these men are all  dangerous and insane ?  and that all these men are having some commonly shared delusion ?..can you give any kind of intelligent response to this fact other than shooting the messenger ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. I made you angry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not see were I expressed any anger toward you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a shame that there are those who will make outrageous claims and there is so often a willing audience. What is consistent about these type of outrageous claims is the curious lack of evidence offered in support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You display a cognitive dissonance to the evidence due to your rigid fundamentalist beliefs..there is historical and archaeological evidence to support these theories..there is the testimony of highly credible people of the level of NASA astronauts ,heads nuclear defense and defense ministers of leading nations as well their is their consensus that conclusive evidence is being withheld and petitions by therm before congress for the  disclosure.of these classified files
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is saying you can&#8217;t believe that aliens are among us. Honestly, that&#8217;s no more outrageous than people believing in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster or other tales of monsters and demons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not believe you can provide any Apollo astronauts,heads of nuclear defense. ministers of defense ,congressmen that have petitioned congress for the release of Bigfoot files..or any recorded of classified documents pertaining to Bigfoot, monster or demons...there is no comparison to be made and it only shows the weakness of your argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not for me personally, and I argue that such things had their place and there are better and more realistic models that show factual evidence. Those will eventually replace beliefs in monsters and demons (like these days you don't hear about monsters and demons, but instead the more science-oriented UFOs and aliens -- both are mythic belief systems with no evidence in support of the claims).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think its been established that assertion is not in keeping with the facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I criticize such assertions as space aliens breeding with humans, that is a philosophical approach toward rejecting unsupported claims seeming only to be borne of _fear and superstition _... and honestly, a criticism of your willingness to face reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems it is you that has the problem with having your perception of reality challenged..I am simply stating facts..we have a large body and ever growing body of of highly credible people ..in some of the highest positions of government and  national defense that claim knowledge of alien contact and that have petitioned congress for disclosure...you seem completly unable to address this fact with any rational response
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> I do not see were I expressed any anger toward you ?


On the contrary, you're angry that others are not believers in your conspiracy theories.






> You display a cognitive dissonance to the evidence due to your rigid fundamentalist beliefs..there is historical and archaeological evidence to support these theories..there is the testimony of highly credible people of the level of NASA astronauts ,heads nuclear defense and defense ministers of leading nations as well their is their consensus that conclusive evidence is being withheld and petitions by therm before congress for the  disclosure.of these classified files


What classified files?

You display a desperate need to enlist others in your conspiracy theories.

I'm not an accomplice. 




> I do not believe you can provide any Apollo astronauts,heads of nuclear defense. ministers of defense ,congressmen that have petitioned congress for the release of Bigfoot files..or any recorded of classified documents pertaining to Bigfoot, monster or demons...there is no comparison to be made and it only shows the weakness of your argument


I'm not the one making an argument for aliens breeding and living among humans. That seems to be your conspiracy. 





> I think its been established that assertion is not in keeping with the facts


Established by who?




> It seems it is you that has the problem with having your perception of reality challenged..I am simply stating facts..we have a large body and ever growing body of of highly credible people ..in some of the highest positions of government and  national defense that claim knowledge of alien contact and that have petitioned congress for disclosure...you seem completly unable to address this fact with any rational response


My perception of reality is not challenged by your conspiracy theories. 

There's no need to be angry. I may be able to help you. If we agree that there are aliens among us, I may have knowledge that will benefit you. 

If you send me your MasterCard number, I'll only charge a small fee for imparting to you such knowledge.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not see were I expressed any anger toward you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, you're angry that others are not believers in your conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am ?...news to me and I displayed this anger how ? Its not my theories its one of defense minsters and Apollo crew members ..I am simply giving them the respect they deserve and considering their information
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What classified files?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thousands  and thousands of pages of classified documents surrounding ufo encounters...this is not a matter of opinion or something in dispute..the existence of these documents is not in dispute ..you can only argue as to what they may contain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You display a desperate need to enlist others in your conspiracy theories.
> 
> I'm not an accomplice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again they aren't my theories..they are the conclusions of much more learned and experienced men than I ..I am interested in what they have to say and the reasoned feedback of others ..but have no interest in _enlisting_ anyone to any thing..how do you come up with this stuff ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one making an argument for aliens breeding and living among humans. That seems to be your conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my conspiracy..but you do seem to cling to that Idea as a way of avoiding the statement of these highly of regarded NASA astronauts and defense ministers etc as if they do not exist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need to be angry. I may be able to help you. If we agree that there are aliens among us, I may have knowledge that will benefit you.
> 
> If you send me your MasterCard number, I'll only charge a small fee for imparting to you such knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the anger you continue to speak of is clearly your own projection..and why would I seek these answers from you...when I can look to men who walked on the moon ,heads of nuclear defense programs...defense ministers etc...not very rational ..if anyone would have knowleadge of such things I would think men who walked on the moon might be more in the know..you have only avoided addressing the facts presented with a bunch of projections and straw-man arguments ..I would love to hear any rational thoughts you may have on why these people in such elevated and highly responsible positions are claiming knowledge of alien contact and petitioned congress for full disclosure ..but I have my doubts that is forthcoming
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQdvYFMBAU]BREAKING!!! UFO ALIEN DISCLOSURE by Canadian Minister of Defense May 2013 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXCzsm1CV3A]BREAKING!!! UFO Alien Disclosure by Head Minister Of Defense UFO PROJECT DECLASSIFIED - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhxxHxIEmO4]Edgar Mitchell UFO and Aliens are Real and Watching Us - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDEitab_Z_Q]Disclosure Project Witness Testimony Archives - Gordon Cooper - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLOPca_MZyE]Buzz Aldrin - Alien creatures built Phobos monolit - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IhgZOBNSJQ]UFO - Military Wittnesses at Nuclear Sites (Nuclear Weapons Compromised by UFOs) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTos4RTPpmc]U.S. Nuclear Weapons Have Been Compromised By Alien SpaceCraft - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iS893wGiNA]The Disclosure Project ~ An Exective Summary Of The Greatest Secret Of The 20th Century - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

> I am ?...news to me and I displayed this anger how ? Its not my theories its one of defense minsters and Apollo crew members ..I am simply giving them the respect they deserve and considering their information


There's no reason to get angry at me for not buying in to your conspiracy theories. 






> thousands  and thousands of pages of classified documents surrounding ufo encounters...this is not a matter of opinion or something in dispute..the existence of these documents is not in dispute ..you can only argue as to what they may contain


So thrill us. What do those thousands  and thousands of pages of classified documents surrounding ufo encounters contain?






> Once again they aren't my theories..they are the conclusions of much more learned and experienced men than I ..I am interested in what they have to say and the reasoned feedback of others ..but have no interest in _enlisting_ anyone to any thing..how do you come up with this stuff ?


You are quite desperate to enlist others in your conspiracy. The simple solution would be for you or anyone else to present evidence for your claimed alien breeding program. 

But of course, you can't.





> Not my conspiracy..but you do seem to cling to that Idea as a way of avoiding the statement of these highly of regarded NASA astronauts and defense ministers etc as if they do not exist


Yes. We've identified your appeals to authority with your tediously written roll call of NASA astronauts and defense ministers who are convinced the aliens are among us.

Conspiracies are fun, aren't they?  





> the anger you continue to speak of is clearly your own projection..and why would I seek these answers from you...when I can look to men who walked on the moon ,heads of nuclear defense programs...defense ministers etc...not very rational ..if anyone would have knowleadge of such things I would think men who walked on the moon might be more in the know..you have only avoided addressing the facts presented with a bunch of projections and straw-man arguments ..I would love to hear any rational thoughts you may have on why these people in such elevated and highly responsible positions are claiming knowledge of alien contact and petitioned congress for full disclosure ..but I have my doubts that is forthcoming



You're getting quite frothy. It's difficult to take your conspiracy theories seriously. One of the elements that maintains conspiracy theorists is the lack of evidence for the alleged conspiracy. Another element is for the conspiracy theorists to find what they describe as an authority figure to us as a means to bolster the strength of their conspiracy.

Flailing your pom poms for "highly of regarded NASA astronauts and defense ministers" who you claim are at the forefront of the subversive alien invasion makes for entertaining youtube videos. But as far as conspiracy theories are concerned, yours are mere pedestrian.


----------



## daws101

another eot's tamtrum!


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> I am ?...news to me and I displayed this anger how ? Its not my theories its one of defense minsters and Apollo crew members ..I am simply giving them the respect they deserve and considering their information
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to get angry at me for not buying in to your conspiracy theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thousands  and thousands of pages of classified documents surrounding ufo encounters...this is not a matter of opinion or something in dispute..the existence of these documents is not in dispute ..you can only argue as to what they may contain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So thrill us. What do those thousands  and thousands of pages of classified documents surrounding ufo encounters contain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no Idea what may be contained in these files..that is the whole reason  Apollo astronauts among others have joined in petitioning for their release..is this concept to difficult for you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite desperate to enlist others in your conspiracy. The simple solution would be for you or anyone else to present evidence for your claimed alien breeding program.
> 
> But of course, you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would consider the sworn testimony of people with some of the the highest levels of security clearance to be evidence..not saying it is conclusive...but it is without question considered evidence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not my conspiracy..but you do seem to cling to that Idea as a way of avoiding the statement of these highly of regarded NASA astronauts and defense ministers etc as if they do not exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. We've identified your appeals to authority with your tediously written roll call of NASA astronauts and defense ministers who are convinced the aliens are among us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracies are fun, aren't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so in the strange fundamentalist world you live in there is a vast conspiracy among defense minsters and Apollo crew driven by the fact conspiracies are  fun...is this your theory to explain their sworn testimony and extensive efforts for disclosure ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the anger you continue to speak of is clearly your own projection..and why would I seek these answers from you...when I can look to men who walked on the moon ,heads of nuclear defense programs...defense ministers etc...not very rational ..if anyone would have knowledge of such things I would think men who walked on the moon might be more in the know..you have only avoided addressing the facts presented with a bunch of projections and straw-man arguments ..I would love to hear any rational thoughts you may have on why these people in such elevated and highly responsible positions are claiming knowledge of alien contact and petitioned congress for full disclosure ..but I have my doubts that is forthcoming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting quite frothy. It's difficult to take your conspiracy theories seriously. One of the elements that maintains conspiracy theorists is the lack of evidence for the alleged conspiracy. Another element is for the conspiracy theorists to find what they describe as an authority figure to us as a means to bolster the strength of their conspiracy.
> 
> Flailing your pom poms for "highly of regarded NASA astronauts and defense ministers" who you claim are at the forefront of the subversive alien invasion makes for entertaining youtube videos. But as far as conspiracy theories are concerned, yours are mere pedestrian.[
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you trying to say there is no disclosure project and it does not included the people I have listed and their sworn statements..is this your crazy theory ?..is this how you maintain you cognitive dissonance...it would be easy enough for you or anyone else to confirm of disprove the exsistence ofthe  disclosure project its members, mandate and testimony..
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

and btw you clearly do not understand the definition of appeal to athourity


----------



## eots

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> I am ?...news to me and I displayed this anger how ? Its not my theories its one of defense minsters and Apollo crew members ..I am simply giving them the respect they deserve and considering their information





> There's no reason to get angry at me for not buying in to your conspiracy theories.






> I have no Idea what may be contained in these files..that is the whole reason  Apollo astronauts among others have joined in petitioning for their release..is this concept to difficult for you ?
> 
> 
> 
> I would consider the sworn testimony of people with some of the the highest levels of security clearance to be evidence..not saying it is conclusive...but it is without question considered evidence




Yes. We've identified your appeals to authority with your tediously written roll call of NASA astronauts and defense ministers who are convinced the aliens are among us.

so in the strange fundamentalist world you live in there is a vast conspiracy among defense minsters and Apollo crew driven by the fact conspiracies are  fun...is this your theory to explain their sworn testimony and extensive efforts for disclosure ?


You're getting quite frothy. It's difficult to take your conspiracy theories seriously. One of the elements that maintains conspiracy theorists is the lack of evidence for the alleged conspiracy. Another element is for the conspiracy theorists to find what they describe as an authority figure to us as a means to bolster the strength of their conspiracy.

Flailing your pom poms for "highly of regarded NASA astronauts and defense ministers" who you claim are at the forefront of the subversive alien invasion makes for entertaining youtube videos. But as far as conspiracy theories are concerned, yours are mere pedestrian.



> So are you trying to say there is no disclosure project and it does not included the people I have listed and their sworn statements..is this your crazy theory ?..is this how you maintain you cognitive dissonance...it would be easy enough for you or anyone else to confirm of disprove the exsistence ofthe  disclosure project its members, mandate and testimony..



So far, your conspiracy theory is only being promoted by a handful of people. As conspiracy theories go, yours is pretty weak.

Still no evidence available to support your conspiracies? Gee Whiz. How... predictable.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge



Define for us how your "experts" have expertise in detecting aliens among us and alien in-breeding with human species.

Have you considered that the very people who are promoting the alien infiltration could themselves by hybrid alien-humans?


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define for us how your "experts" have expertise in detecting aliens among us and alien in-breeding with human species.
> 
> Have you considered that the very people who are promoting the alien infiltration could themselves by hybrid alien-humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because they  were in positions to encounter them by being..involved in both military and civil flight and NASA space programs in a variety of capacities from walking on the moon to ufo investigation...because alien contact and technology would be a significant national security concern,if anyone would have knowledge of such events ministers of defense and men who have been to the moon would be expected to be among them ...The question "Have you considered that the very people who are promoting the alien infiltration could themselves by hybrid alien-humans?"...is somewhat redundant as it would not change the assertions of the disclosure project that aliens exists and have made contact..could it a be a grand conspiracy with defense ministers and Apollo crew who for some unknown reason are attempting to deceive ?  I suppose anything is possible..I would like to see full disclosure and see what the classified documents contain..I am simply giving the sworn testimony of these highly credible people the consideration it deserves ..if it is true..it is fantastic..if its a conspiracy involving people of this level of public and military service..it is fantastic..either way it seems in a story of a magnitude not to just be ignored or off handly dismissed
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am ?...news to me and I displayed this anger how ? Its not my theories its one of defense minsters
> So far, your conspiracy theory is only being promoted by a handful of people. As conspiracy theories go, yours is pretty weak.
> 
> Still no evidence available to support your conspiracies? Gee Whiz. How... predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol..a handful of Apollo astronauts , defense minister,and ex-NASA employees and high ranking military that held top level national security clearance...would you expect more than a handful of astronauts and defense minsters ??
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am ?...news to me and I displayed this anger how ? Its not my theories its one of defense minsters
> So far, your conspiracy theory is only being promoted by a handful of people. As conspiracy theories go, yours is pretty weak.
> 
> Still no evidence available to support your conspiracies? Gee Whiz. How... predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol..a handful of Apollo astronauts , defense minister,and ex-NASA employees and high ranking military that held top level national security clearance...would you expect more than a handful of astronauts and defense minsters ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So. As I thought, you have no evidence to support your conspiracy theory. You have only corroborated hearsay.  It's ok to admit that.
> 
> That's the problem with conspiracy theories such as this one. Evidence is the final arbiter of truth and you have only conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol..a handful of Apollo astronauts , defense minister,and ex-NASA employees and high ranking military that held top level national security clearance...would you expect more than a handful of astronauts and defense minsters ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So. As I thought, you have no evidence to support your conspiracy theory. You have only corroborated hearsay.  It's ok to admit that.
> 
> That's the problem with conspiracy theories such as this one. Evidence is the final arbiter of truth and you have only conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conspiracy theories are all yours..I have not theorized anything..I have simple presented the facts and available evidence ..the sworn testimony does in fact constitute evidence..it does not however provide proof
> 
> 
> 
> The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
> Verb
> Be or show evidence of.
> Synonyms
> noun.  	proof -* testimony* - *witness* - attestation - obviousness
> verb.  	prove - show -* testify -* demonstrate - evince - manifest
> 
> 
> 
> it is not a *conspiracy theory* that  Apollo astronauts and defense ministers have stated unequivocally there is alien contact..that is a fact with ample evidence provided...and not in dispute...the only theories involved are is it true or deception
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> So. As I thought, you have no evidence to support your conspiracy theory. You have only corroborated hearsay.  It's ok to admit that.
> 
> That's the problem with conspiracy theories such as this one. Evidence is the final arbiter of truth and you have only conspiracy theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conspiracy theories are all yours..I have not theorized anything..I have simple presented the facts and available evidence ..the sworn testimony does in fact constitute evidence..it does not however provide proof
> 
> 
> 
> The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
> Verb
> Be or show evidence of.
> Synonyms
> noun.  	proof -* testimony* - *witness* - attestation - obviousness
> verb.  	prove - show -* testify -* demonstrate - evince - manifest
> 
> 
> 
> it is not a *conspiracy theory* that  Apollo astronauts and defense ministers have stated unequivocally there is alien contact..that is a fact with ample evidence provided...and not in dispute...the only theories involved are is it true or deception
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Others will claim that they have seen Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, Leprechauns and yes, even space aliens.
> 
> So yes, there is evidence for Leprechauns.
> 
> Happy, now?
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conspiracy theories are all yours..I have not theorized anything..I have simple presented the facts and available evidence ..the sworn testimony does in fact constitute evidence..it does not however provide proof
> 
> 
> 
> The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
> Verb
> Be or show evidence of.
> Synonyms
> noun.  	proof -* testimony* - *witness* - attestation - obviousness
> verb.  	prove - show -* testify -* demonstrate - evince - manifest
> 
> 
> 
> it is not a *conspiracy theory* that  Apollo astronauts and defense ministers have stated unequivocally there is alien contact..that is a fact with ample evidence provided...and not in dispute...the only theories involved are is it true or deception
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Others will claim that they have seen Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, Leprechauns and yes, even space aliens.
> 
> So yes, there is evidence for Leprechauns.
> 
> Happy, now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An important consideration in wittiness testimony is credibility..you can provide no credible government or military personal that have held some the highest levels of national security clearance and are willing to testify before congress under oath as to the existence of Leprechauns .Loch Ness monster
> Bigfoot or any of your other strawmen...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Others will claim that they have seen Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, Leprechauns and yes, even space aliens.
> 
> So yes, there is evidence for Leprechauns.
> 
> Happy, now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An important consideration in wittiness testimony is credibility..you can provide no credible government or military personal that have held some the highest levels of national security clearance and are willing to testify before congress under oath as to the existence of Leprechauns .Loch Ness monster
> Bigfoot or any of your other strawmen...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably unaware that witness testimony hinges upon credible evidence.
> 
> So where is the evidence for your space aliens, human/space alien hybrids and Leprechauns?
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> An important consideration in wittiness testimony is credibility..you can provide no credible government or military personal that have held some the highest levels of national security clearance and are willing to testify before congress under oath as to the existence of Leprechauns .Loch Ness monster
> Bigfoot or any of your other strawmen...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably unaware that witness testimony hinges upon credible evidence.
> 
> So where is the evidence for your space aliens, human/space alien hybrids and Leprechauns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is a body of evidence that would take hours to present to support the highly credible testimony but there is not conclusive physical evidence none of this is the case with your strawman...your argument is completely disingenuous I have no doubt if the worlds most respected evolutionist claimed in multitudes that they have seen evidence that conclusively proves evolutionary theory but it was being held and classified by the government and would not be released to the public and they where willing to petition the government for full disclosure and to testify before congress under oath you would not be babbling about Leprechauns...such is the nature of cognitive dissonance
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably unaware that witness testimony hinges upon credible evidence.
> 
> So where is the evidence for your space aliens, human/space alien hybrids and Leprechauns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is a body of evidence that would take hours to present to support the highly credible testimony but there is not conclusive physical evidence none of this is the case with your strawman...your argument is completely disingenuous I have no doubt if the worlds most respected evolutionist claimed in multitudes that they have seen evidence that conclusively proves evolutionary theory but it was being held and classified by the government and would not be released to the public and they where willing to petition the government for full disclosure and to testify before congress under oath you would not be babbling about Leprechauns...such is the nature of cognitive dissonance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes. I suppose an important component in the maintenance of your conspiracy theories are appeals to "classified government secrets" which shield the evidence for your space alien hybrid humans.
> 
> Odd that you claim that I am the one babbling when it is you who is screeching about space alien-human hybrids, for which you conveniently have no evidence for.
Click to expand...


----------



## PMZ

It wouldn't be a conspiracy theory if there were compelling evidence to support it.  It would be a fact,  the opposite of conspiracy theory.


----------



## Hollie

PMZ said:


> It wouldn't be a conspiracy theory if there were compelling evidence to support it.  It would be a fact,  the opposite of conspiracy theory.



We would call that "stating the obvious".

So where is the compelling evidence for aliens living among us and space alien / human hybrids?


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is a body of evidence that would take hours to present to support the highly credible testimony but there is not conclusive physical evidence none of this is the case with your strawman...your argument is completely disingenuous I have no doubt if the worlds most respected evolutionist claimed in multitudes that they have seen evidence that conclusively proves evolutionary theory but it was being held and classified by the government and would not be released to the public and they where willing to petition the government for full disclosure and to testify before congress under oath you would not be babbling about Leprechauns...such is the nature of cognitive dissonance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes. I suppose an important component in the maintenance of your conspiracy theories are appeals to "classified government secrets" which shield the evidence for your space alien hybrid humans.
> 
> Odd that you claim that I am the one babbling when it is you who is screeching about space alien-human hybrids, for which you conveniently have no evidence for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you trying to imply these documents do not exist ? because that is not in dispute ..it is a fact they exist...what they contain is all that is in question..their are high ranking military involved in incidents that are willing to swear to under oath before congress and have petitioned to have the release of these incident reports
Click to expand...


----------



## PMZ

Hollie said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a conspiracy theory if there were compelling evidence to support it.  It would be a fact,  the opposite of conspiracy theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We would call that "stating the obvious".
> 
> So where is the compelling evidence for aliens living among us and space alien / human hybrids?
Click to expand...


To your first paragraph,  I agree.

To your second,  conspiracy theories aren't based on evidence.  They are mythological.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a conspiracy theory if there were compelling evidence to support it.  It would be a fact,  the opposite of conspiracy theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We would call that "stating the obvious".
> 
> So where is the compelling evidence for aliens living among us and space alien / human hybrids?
Click to expand...


I would consider the sworn testimony of Apollo astronauts,Defense Minsters,High ranking Military that served in the positions of the highest national security as compelling.. I find much of the secondary evidence such as radar and photos to be compelling ..I find much of the archaeological evidence to be compelling.. anyone who would say its not is disconnected from reality and most likely an agenda driven individual coming from a place of Cognitive dissonance


----------



## eots

PMZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a conspiracy theory if there were compelling evidence to support it.  It would be a fact,  the opposite of conspiracy theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We would call that "stating the obvious".
> 
> So where is the compelling evidence for aliens living among us and space alien / human hybrids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To your first paragraph,  I agree.
> 
> To your second,  conspiracy theories aren't based on evidence.  They are mythological.
Click to expand...


There are endless example of of events labeled as conspiracy theory that were found to be true over time  or with release of classified documents...   people are found guilty of conspiracy charges all the time...your statement is completely baseless


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes. I suppose an important component in the maintenance of your conspiracy theories are appeals to "classified government secrets" which shield the evidence for your space alien hybrid humans.
> 
> Odd that you claim that I am the one babbling when it is you who is screeching about space alien-human hybrids, for which you conveniently have no evidence for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you trying to imply these documents do not exist ? because that is not in dispute ..it is a fact they exist...what they contain is all that is in question..their are high ranking military involved in incidents that are willing to swear to under oath before congress and have petitioned to have the release of these incident reports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, let's sum up.
> 
> As to your conspiracy theory that space aliens are living among us and are breeding with humans, and is a part of a massive government cover up, you can produce zero evidence for this.
> 
> Great. Thanks.
> 
> Thanks again.
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you trying to imply these documents do not exist ? because that is not in dispute ..it is a fact they exist...what they contain is all that is in question..their are high ranking military involved in incidents that are willing to swear to under oath before congress and have petitioned to have the release of these incident reports
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, let's sum up.
> 
> As to your conspiracy theory that space aliens are living among us and are breeding with humans, and is a part of a massive government cover up, you can produce zero evidence for this.
> 
> Great. Thanks.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO. TO SUM IT UP WE HAVE HIGHLY CREDIBLE PEOPLE BY ANY STANDARD WHO ARE WILLING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH AS TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF ALIEN EXISTENCE AND SEEKING DISCLOSURE FROM CONGRESS OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS SO THEY CAN PROVIDE THE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR SWORN TESTIMONY .THIS INVOLVES NO THEORY.. THESE ARE THE FACTS...BUT DUE TO YOUR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE YOU ARE UNABLE TO PROCESS THESE FACTS IN ANY RATIONAL WAY
> 
> YOU ARE WELCOME...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, let's sum up.
> 
> As to your conspiracy theory that space aliens are living among us and are breeding with humans, and is a part of a massive government cover up, you can produce zero evidence for this.
> 
> Great. Thanks.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO. TO SUM IT UP WE HAVE HIGHLY CREDIBLE PEOPLE BY ANY STANDARD WHO ARE WILLING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH AS TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF ALIEN EXISTENCE AND SEEKING DISCLOSURE FROM CONGRESS OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS SO THEY CAN PROVIDE THE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR SWORN TESTIMONY .THIS INVOLVES NO THEORY.. THESE ARE THE FACTS...BUT DUE TO YOUR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE YOU ARE UNABLE TO PROCESS THESE FACTS IN ANY RATIONAL WAY
> 
> YOU ARE WELCOME...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's childish to respond as you did. You're behaving like a petulant child. You could have been honest and admitted your space alien conspiracy was fabrication, designed only to appeal to some lurid fantasy.
> 
> You will let us know when you have some actual evidence for space alien- human hybrids won't you?
> 
> Now, put down the modeling glue and go outside to play.
Click to expand...


----------



## newpolitics

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Others will claim that they have seen Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, Leprechauns and yes, even space aliens.
> 
> So yes, there is evidence for Leprechauns.
> 
> Happy, now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An important consideration in wittiness testimony is credibility..you can provide no credible government or military personal that have held some the highest levels of national security clearance and are willing to testify before congress under oath as to the existence of Leprechauns .Loch Ness monster
> Bigfoot or any of your other strawmen...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "credible eyewitness account" when it comes to supernatural claims, and the mere existence of faithful people is not evidence of the supernatural. This is an argument from popularity, at best. Name one criterion that allows a faithful person's testimony of the supernatural to be considered actual evidence.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

if you hadn't noticed already eot's has no concept of  :eyewitness testimony must be back by physical evidence to be credible.
the files (the holy grail of conspiracy) do exist but they themselves are not evidence .


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> if you hadn't noticed already eot's has no concept of  :eyewitness testimony must be back by physical evidence to be credible.
> the files (the holy grail of conspiracy) do exist but they themselves are not evidence .



In a court of law, most credible evidence is introduced through the testimony of witnesses. These individuals may be people who saw the alleged crime or event actually occur, or they may be law enforcement officers or other officials who witnessed the aftermath or effects of the incident. 

What Is Credible Evidence? (with picture)


----------



## eots

newpolitics said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> An important consideration in wittiness testimony is credibility..you can provide no credible government or military personal that have held some the highest levels of national security clearance and are willing to testify before congress under oath as to the existence of Leprechauns .Loch Ness monster
> Bigfoot or any of your other strawmen...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "credible eyewitness account" when it comes to supernatural claims, and the mere existence of faithful people is not evidence of the supernatural. This is an argument from popularity, at best. Name one criterion that allows a faithful person's testimony of the supernatural to be considered actual evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apollo astronauts etc are not" faithful people" these are men of science and they are not giving testimony of the supernatural they are giving testimony of advanced technology witnessed and other life forms and have petitioned for disclosure  of these incident reports and corroborating evidence to congress
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you hadn't noticed already eot's has no concept of  :eyewitness testimony must be back by physical evidence to be credible.
> the files (the holy grail of conspiracy) do exist but they themselves are not evidence .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a court of law, most credible evidence is introduced through the testimony of witnesses. These individuals may be people who saw the alleged crime or event actually occur, or they may be law enforcement officers or other officials who witnessed the aftermath or effects of the incident.
> 
> What Is Credible Evidence? (with picture)
Click to expand...

your point? their testimony by itself is not evidence..it must be linked to physical or forensic evidence to be acceptable if not it's hearsay or opinion
the real question is, why are you cruising these threads...?


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "credible eyewitness account" when it comes to supernatural claims, and the mere existence of faithful people is not evidence of the supernatural. This is an argument from popularity, at best. Name one criterion that allows a faithful person's testimony of the supernatural to be considered actual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apollo astronauts etc are not" faithful people" these are men of science and they are not giving testimony of the supernatural they are giving testimony of advanced technology witnessed and other life forms and have petitioned for disclosure  of these incident reports and corroborating evidence to congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you might wanna rethink your bullshit!:The following are a partial list of astronauts who were/are believers.
> 
> The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific RevolutionCommunion on the Moon - Buzz Aldrin - The first religious act performed on the moon (Apollo 11) was the Christian celebration of communion.
> 
> James Benson Irwin (Colonel, United States Air Force) - Apollo 15, July, 1971. He was the founding president of the High Flight Foundation, a Christian inter-denominational evangelical ministry based in Colorado Springs. Died in 1991.
> 
> Charles Moss Duke, Jr. (Brigadier General, USAF, Ret.) - Lunar module pilot of Apollo 16, April 16-27, 1972. He is an active speaker and Christian lay witness and President of Duke Ministry For Christ.
> 
> Space Shuttle Columbia Astronauts
> Astronauts remembered at hometown churches - Both Rick Husband and Michael Anderson were committed Christians, who attended the same church, Grace Community Church.
> 'Tell Them About Jesus' -
> People of Faith - Astronauts
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO. TO SUM IT UP WE HAVE HIGHLY CREDIBLE PEOPLE BY ANY STANDARD WHO ARE WILLING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH AS TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF ALIEN EXISTENCE AND SEEKING DISCLOSURE FROM CONGRESS OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS SO THEY CAN PROVIDE THE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR SWORN TESTIMONY .THIS INVOLVES NO THEORY.. THESE ARE THE FACTS...BUT DUE TO YOUR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE YOU ARE UNABLE TO PROCESS THESE FACTS IN ANY RATIONAL WAY
> 
> YOU ARE WELCOME...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's childish to respond as you did. You're behaving like a petulant child. You could have been honest and admitted your space alien conspiracy was fabrication, designed only to appeal to some lurid fantasy.
> 
> You will let us know when you have some actual evidence for space alien- human hybrids won't you?
> 
> Now, put down the modeling glue and go outside to play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your conspiracy theory is that Apollo astronauts and defense ministers..high raking military who controlled of nuclear arsenals are all
> are all in collusion to fabricate a lurid fantasy fueled off of modeling glue and present it to congress ?? really ?...that's some active imagination you have I would love to hear more details of your conspiracy theory...please do
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's childish to respond as you did. You're behaving like a petulant child. You could have been honest and admitted your space alien conspiracy was fabrication, designed only to appeal to some lurid fantasy.
> 
> You will let us know when you have some actual evidence for space alien- human hybrids won't you?
> 
> Now, put down the modeling glue and go outside to play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your conspiracy theory is that Apollo astronauts and defense ministers..high raking military who controlled of nuclear arsenals are all
> are all in collusion to fabricate a lurid fantasy fueled off of modeling glue and present it to congress ?? really ?...that's some active imagination you have I would love to hear more details of your conspiracy theory...please do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conspiracy theory is yours.
> 
> Strange, how after many, many posts, we're left with you insisting that there are aliens among us and that the existence of space alien / human interbreeding is a vast conspiracy of denial.
> 
> But you can produce no evidence.
> 
> How predictable.
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your conspiracy theory is that Apollo astronauts and defense ministers..high raking military who controlled of nuclear arsenals are all
> are all in collusion to fabricate a lurid fantasy fueled off of modeling glue and present it to congress ?? really ?...that's some active imagination you have I would love to hear more details of your conspiracy theory...please do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conspiracy theory is yours.
> 
> Strange, how after many, many posts, we're left with you insisting that there are aliens among us and that the existence of space alien / human interbreeding is a vast conspiracy of denial.
> 
> But you can produce no evidence.
> 
> How predictable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol ..you can not provide a single post I claimed anything but the facts...I have personally made no claims of any kind...you however have put forth your theory it is all a lurid fantasy presented by astronauts etc to congress ...the conspiracy is clearly all yours ...I have presented only the facts and responded to these facts with theories of conspiracy you seem to be unable or unwilling to expand upon
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2FyONXh22M]Sent by Eisenhower to Meet an ALIEN - Amazing Confession of Ex Military - YouTube[/ame]

This video interview was displayed as part of the Citizen Hearing held April 30 - May 3, 2013, about ET disclosure and the cover up. This hearing was held in Washington, in front of six former US congressmen and congresswomen, as well as a US senator.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conspiracy theory is yours.
> 
> Strange, how after many, many posts, we're left with you insisting that there are aliens among us and that the existence of space alien / human interbreeding is a vast conspiracy of denial.
> 
> But you can produce no evidence.
> 
> How predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol ..you can not provide a single post I claimed anything but the facts...I have personally made no claims of any kind...you however have put forth your theory it is all a lurid fantasy presented by astronauts etc to congress ...the conspiracy is clearly all yours ...I have presented only the facts and responded to these facts with theories of conspiracy you seem to be unable or unwilling to expand upon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a bit confused regarding facts. In terms of how you haven't submitted a relevant fact to support your space alien / human interbreeding program, why are you wailing on about "facts"?
> 
> As conspiracy theories go, yours are mere pedestrian babbling.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conspiracy theory is yours.
> 
> Strange, how after many, many posts, we're left with you insisting that there are aliens among us and that the existence of space alien / human interbreeding is a vast conspiracy of denial.
> 
> But you can produce no evidence.
> 
> How predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol ..you can not provide a single post I claimed anything but the facts...I have personally made no claims of any kind...you however have put forth your theory it is all a lurid fantasy presented by astronauts etc to congress ...the conspiracy is clearly all yours ...I have presented only the facts and responded to these facts with theories of conspiracy you seem to be unable or unwilling to expand upon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the only facts you've presented are at best circumstantial.
> besides what you posted is a reflection of what you believe so technically you are making a claim.
> the I'm just the messenger bullshit does not play...
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Sent by Eisenhower to Meet an ALIEN - Amazing Confession of Ex Military - YouTube
> 
> This video interview was displayed as part of the Citizen Hearing held April 30 - May 3, 2013, about ET disclosure and the cover up. This hearing was held in Washington, in front of six former US congressmen and congresswomen, as well as a US senator.



That is pretty amazing. Amazingly silly. 

If the hearing had taken place in front of ranking members of the Flat Earth Society, I would have given a nod to credibility.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sent by Eisenhower to Meet an ALIEN - Amazing Confession of Ex Military - YouTube
> 
> This video interview was displayed as part of the Citizen Hearing held April 30 - May 3, 2013, about ET disclosure and the cover up. This hearing was held in Washington, in front of six former US congressmen and congresswomen, as well as a US senator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is pretty amazing. Amazingly silly.
> 
> If the hearing had taken place in front of ranking members of the Flat Earth Society, I would have given a nod to credibility.
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol ..you can not provide a single post I claimed anything but the facts...I have personally made no claims of any kind...you however have put forth your theory it is all a lurid fantasy presented by astronauts etc to congress ...the conspiracy is clearly all yours ...I have presented only the facts and responded to these facts with theories of conspiracy you seem to be unable or unwilling to expand upon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a bit confused regarding facts. In terms of how you haven't submitted a relevant fact to support your space alien / human interbreeding program, why are you wailing on about "facts"?
> 
> As conspiracy theories go, yours are mere pedestrian babbling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not theorizing about space alien / human interbreeding programs   you are...I am presenting the facts surrounding the disclosuer project ..who is involved and what their claims are...this is not theory  or speculation
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol ..you can not provide a single post I claimed anything but the facts...I have personally made no claims of any kind...you however have put forth your theory it is all a lurid fantasy presented by astronauts etc to congress ...the conspiracy is clearly all yours ...I have presented only the facts and responded to these facts with theories of conspiracy you seem to be unable or unwilling to expand upon
> 
> 
> 
> the only facts you've presented are at best circumstantial.
> besides what you posted is a reflection of what you believe so technically you are making a claim.
> the I'm just the messenger bullshit does not play...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no Idea what the truth is..and have made no such claim..but I absolutely think any rational person would consider multiple defense ministers and Apollo crew making such claims and going to such efforts for disclosure as something that needs to be adressed
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sent by Eisenhower to Meet an ALIEN - Amazing Confession of Ex Military - YouTube
> 
> This video interview was displayed as part of the Citizen Hearing held April 30 - May 3, 2013, about ET disclosure and the cover up. This hearing was held in Washington, in front of six former US congressmen and congresswomen, as well as a US senator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is pretty amazing. Amazingly silly.
> 
> If the hearing had taken place in front of ranking members of the Flat Earth Society, I would have given a nod to credibility.
Click to expand...


any Idea how many senators, congressmen ,Apollo astronauts and defense ministers  are a part of a flat earth society ..again with the strawmen...amazingly silly


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sent by Eisenhower to Meet an ALIEN - Amazing Confession of Ex Military - YouTube
> 
> This video interview was displayed as part of the Citizen Hearing held April 30 - May 3, 2013, about ET disclosure and the cover up. This hearing was held in Washington, in front of six former US congressmen and congresswomen, as well as a US senator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is pretty amazing. Amazingly silly.
> 
> If the hearing had taken place in front of ranking members of the Flat Earth Society, I would have given a nod to credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> any Idea how many senators, congressmen ,Apollo astronauts and defense ministers  are a part of a flat earth society ..again with the strawmen...amazingly silly
Click to expand...

How many senators, congressmen ,Apollo astronauts and defense ministers are a part of your space alien conspiracy?


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is pretty amazing. Amazingly silly.
> 
> If the hearing had taken place in front of ranking members of the Flat Earth Society, I would have given a nod to credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any Idea how many senators, congressmen ,Apollo astronauts and defense ministers  are a part of a flat earth society ..again with the strawmen...amazingly silly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many senators, congressmen ,Apollo astronauts and defense ministers are a part of your space alien conspiracy?
Click to expand...


3 Apollo crew members  2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud49Gh9yYLs]4 Hour Witness DVD - Part 1 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> any Idea how many senators, congressmen ,Apollo astronauts and defense ministers  are a part of a flat earth society ..again with the strawmen...amazingly silly
> 
> 
> 
> How many senators, congressmen ,Apollo astronauts and defense ministers are a part of your space alien conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3 Apollo crew members  2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology
Click to expand...


Add one more: me. 

An ET stopped by for dinner last night and had two servings of meatloaf.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many senators, congressmen ,Apollo astronauts and defense ministers are a part of your space alien conspiracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 Apollo crew members  2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Add one more: me.
> 
> An ET stopped by for dinner last night and had two servings of meatloaf.
Click to expand...


Your response speaks volumes on your inability to process this factual information rationally


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 Apollo crew members  2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add one more: me.
> 
> An ET stopped by for dinner last night and had two servings of meatloaf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response speaks volumes on your inability to process this factual information rationally
Click to expand...

What factual information? 

Your claims to space aliens are not factual. Your insensate need to invest in conspiracy theories is actually pretty disturbing.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Add one more: me.
> 
> An ET stopped by for dinner last night and had two servings of meatloaf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your response speaks volumes on your inability to process this factual information rationally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What factual information?
> 
> Your claims to space aliens are not factual. Your insensate need to invest in conspiracy theories is actually pretty disturbing.
Click to expand...


claims of aliens are not factual ?..and by what scientific method did you determine this ?...but regardless I made no claims of aliens..that is once again one of your strawman arguments as you well know...the facts I speak of are 3 Apollo crew members 2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology  have petioned congress for full disclosuer...these are the facts you can not seem to process in any rational way


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your response speaks volumes on your inability to process this factual information rationally
> 
> 
> 
> What factual information?
> 
> Your claims to space aliens are not factual. Your insensate need to invest in conspiracy theories is actually pretty disturbing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> claims of aliens are not factual ?..and by what scientific method did you determine this ?...but regardless I made no claims of aliens..that is once again one of your strawman arguments as you well know...the facts I speak of are 3 Apollo crew members 2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology  have petioned congress for full disclosuer...these are the facts you can not seem to process in any rational way
Click to expand...

You may want to save your post above as a Microsoft Word document. It's the same copied and pasted babbling you have entered numerous times. 

Space aliens, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, etc.  You groupies should unionize and open your own theme park.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What factual information?
> 
> Your claims to space aliens are not factual. Your insensate need to invest in conspiracy theories is actually pretty disturbing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> claims of aliens are not factual ?..and by what scientific method did you determine this ?...but regardless I made no claims of aliens..that is once again one of your strawman arguments as you well know...the facts I speak of are 3 Apollo crew members 2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology  have petitioned congress for full disclosure...these are the facts you can not seem to process in any rational way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may want to save your post above as a Microsoft Word document. It's the same copied and pasted babbling you have entered numerous times.
> 
> Space aliens, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, etc.  You groupies should unionize and open your own theme park.
Click to expand...


you do love your stawmen don't you..can not adresses the issue without them.. they they protect  your fragile belief system...as I have said before you can not provide a single person with the credibility of an Apollo astronaut..defense minister etc.. that is willing to testify under oath before congress to any of your strawmen..You brain can not come up with a way to logically address why such high profile and highly credible people would presenting such  information with such conviction and diligence...so you create strawmen and avoid the issue completely and in the process sound completly irrational


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> claims of aliens are not factual ?..and by what scientific method did you determine this ?...but regardless I made no claims of aliens..that is once again one of your strawman arguments as you well know...the facts I speak of are 3 Apollo crew members 2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology  have petitioned congress for full disclosure...these are the facts you can not seem to process in any rational way
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to save your post above as a Microsoft Word document. It's the same copied and pasted babbling you have entered numerous times.
> 
> Space aliens, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, etc.  You groupies should unionize and open your own theme park.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you do love your stawmen don't you..can not adresses the issue without them.. they they protect  your fragile belief system...as I have said before you can not provide a single person with the credibility of an Apollo astronaut..defense minister etc.. that is willing to testify under oath before congress to any of your strawmen..You brain can not come up with a way to logically address why such high profile and highly credible people would presenting such  information with such conviction and diligence...so you create strawmen and avoid the issue completely and in the process sound completly irrational
Click to expand...


I'm sure you will find this Interesting:


American Bigfoot Society - ABS Homepage


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to save your post above as a Microsoft Word document. It's the same copied and pasted babbling you have entered numerous times.
> 
> Space aliens, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, etc.  You groupies should unionize and open your own theme park.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do love your stawmen don't you..can not adresses the issue without them.. they they protect  your fragile belief system...as I have said before you can not provide a single person with the credibility of an Apollo astronaut..defense minister etc.. that is willing to testify under oath before congress to any of your strawmen..You brain can not come up with a way to logically address why such high profile and highly credible people would presenting such  information with such conviction and diligence...so you create strawmen and avoid the issue completely and in the process sound completly irrational
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you will find this Interesting:
> 
> 
> American Bigfoot Society - ABS Homepage
Click to expand...


No not really,..but your inability to directly address the facts and use of strawmen is a somewhat  mildly entertaining and insightful look into 
Cognitive dissonance in action


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> you do love your stawmen don't you..can not adresses the issue without them.. they they protect  your fragile belief system...as I have said before you can not provide a single person with the credibility of an Apollo astronaut..defense minister etc.. that is willing to testify under oath before congress to any of your strawmen..You brain can not come up with a way to logically address why such high profile and highly credible people would presenting such  information with such conviction and diligence...so you create strawmen and avoid the issue completely and in the process sound completly irrational
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you will find this Interesting:
> 
> 
> American Bigfoot Society - ABS Homepage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No not really,..but your inability to directly address the facts and use of strawmen is a somewhat  mildly entertaining and insightful look into
> Cognitive dissonance in action
Click to expand...

Oh my. How sharper than a serpent's tooth is an angry eots?

Conspiracy theorist wannabe in action.


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your response speaks volumes on your inability to process this factual information rationally
> 
> 
> 
> What factual information?
> 
> Your claims to space aliens are not factual. Your insensate need to invest in conspiracy theories is actually pretty disturbing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> claims of aliens are not factual ?..and by what scientific method did you determine this ?...but regardless I made no claims of aliens..that is once again one of your strawman arguments as you well know...the facts I speak of are 3 Apollo crew members 2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology  have petioned congress for full disclosuer...these are the facts you can not seem to process in any rational way
Click to expand...

actually no they're not, until the testimonies can be verified by other evidence they are speculation.


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What factual information?
> 
> Your claims to space aliens are not factual. Your insensate need to invest in conspiracy theories is actually pretty disturbing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> claims of aliens are not factual ?..and by what scientific method did you determine this ?...but regardless I made no claims of aliens..that is once again one of your strawman arguments as you well know...the facts I speak of are 3 Apollo crew members 2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology  have petioned congress for full disclosuer...these are the facts you can not seem to process in any rational way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually no they're not, until the testimonies can be verified by other evidence they are speculation.
Click to expand...


ev·i·dence  [ev-i-duhns]  Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
*that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.*
2.
something that makes plain or clear;* an indication or sign:* His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include* the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, *or objects.
verb (used with object)
4.
to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5.
to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.

Evidence | Define Evidence at Dictionary.com


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you will find this Interesting:
> 
> 
> American Bigfoot Society - ABS Homepage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No not really,..but your inability to directly address the facts and use of strawmen is a somewhat  mildly entertaining and insightful look into
> Cognitive dissonance in action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my. How sharper than a serpent's tooth is an angry eots?
> 
> Conspiracy theorist wannabe in action.
Click to expand...


as I said before no conspiracy or theories involved ...these are facts...not speculation..3 Apollo crew members 2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology have petitioned congress for full disclosure...this is a fact...the only speculation is are they correct in their assertion


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> No not really,..but your inability to directly address the facts and use of strawmen is a somewhat  mildly entertaining and insightful look into
> Cognitive dissonance in action
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. How sharper than a serpent's tooth is an angry eots?
> 
> Conspiracy theorist wannabe in action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as I said before no conspiracy or theories involved ...these are facts...not speculation..3 Apollo crew members 2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology have petitioned congress for full disclosure...this is a fact...the only speculation is are they correct in their assertion
Click to expand...


So, of these Apollo crew members 2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen  (.5 congressmen, really), 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology, how many have presented credible evidence of their encounters with the space aliens?

I'm curious as to how it is that Apollo crew members 2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology have not managed to acquire some evidence.

Are you at all curious as to why Apollo crew members 2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology somehow forgot to pocket some space alien swag.

I'd have thought that at least one Apollo crew members 2 ministers of defense, (at least) ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET would  have thought this through.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. How sharper than a serpent's tooth is an angry eots?
> 
> Conspiracy theorist wannabe in action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as I said before no conspiracy or theories involved ...these are facts...not speculation..3 Apollo crew members 2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology have petitioned congress for full disclosure...this is a fact...the only speculation is are they correct in their assertion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, of these Apollo crew members 2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen  (.5 congressmen, really), 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology, how many have presented credible evidence of their encounters with the space aliens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some fairly compelling corroborating evidence has been presented in the form of military reports and radar and according to those involved much more evidence is corroborating available  but remains classified.and in fact definitive evidence exist and these are in fact the assertion of both Apollo astronauts and British and Canadian defense minsters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious as to how it is that Apollo crew members 2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology have not managed to acquire some evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because its classified ??..because  they were told in was a matter of national security and they were never to speak about it.. Gordon cooper testified to an alien craft landing directly in front of him and held his silence for forty years ...I would be more  curious  as to why you think these men would create such stories  and would be willing to testify in front of congress under oath and with penalty of perjury ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you at all curious as to why Apollo crew members 2 ministers of defense ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology somehow forgot to pocket some space alien swag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would Imagine because they were honorable men with high level security clearance and smuggling swag out of area 51 was not how they rolled..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd have thought that at least one Apollo crew members 2 ministers of defense, (at least) ,5 congressmen 1 senator over 500 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET would  have thought this through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you find men like  Gordon cooper..Edgar Mitchell, Nick Pope. Paul Hellyer to be unintelligent individuals without the capacity to think things through ?
> lol...I am sure they would be devastated to know you feel this way
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

*Capt. Edgar Mitchell, U.S. Navy (ret), BS Industrial Management, BS Aeronautical Engineering, Doctor of Science, Aeronautics and Astronautics from MIT* &#8211; Pilot and Astronaut. * Sixth man to walk on the moon (Apollo 14 mission).*  Patrol bomber and attack plane pilot, U.S. Navy.  Test Pilot, Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 5 (VX-5).  Chief of Project Management Division, Navy Field Office for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Project.  *Graduated first in his class from the Aerospace Research Pilot School, and served as an instructor there.*  Recipient of many awards and honors including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the USN Distinguished Medal and three NASA Group Achievement Awards. Inducted to the Space Hall of Fame in 1979 and the Astronaut Hall of Fame in 1998.  Recipient of honorary doctorates in engineering from New Mexico State University, the University of Akron, Carnegie Mellon University, and a ScD from Embry-Riddle University


----------



## eots

Gordon Cooper was one of the original Mercury 7 astronauts, the first Americans chosen for space flight duty by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Cooper had flown jets in Europe and America as an Air Force pilot throughout the 1950s, finally becoming an engineer and test pilot at Edward Air Force Base in California. In 1959 he was chosen from among hundreds of pilots to join the NASA astronaut program. (The other Mercury 7 astronauts were John Glenn, Alan Shepard, Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Scott Carpenter, Wally Schirra, and Donald "Deke" Slayton.) On May 15th and 16th of 1963, Cooper orbited the Earth 22 times in Faith 7, the last of the Mercury flights. On August 21st of 1965, he and Pete Conrad were launched in Gemini 5. They orbited the Earth for eight days, proving that humans could live in space long enough to fly to the moon and back. 

Read more: Gordon Cooper Biography (Astronaut) | Infoplease.com Gordon Cooper Biography (Astronaut) | Infoplease.com


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl8lR69K7Zc]Creationists Laugh at Evolutionist Richard Dawkins - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> Creationists Laugh at Evolutionist Richard Dawkins - YouTube


laughter from the wilfully ignorant has the opposite effect of what's intended.


----------



## PMZ

Why would anyone think that God is incapable of thinking up evolution?


----------



## eots

oh come on its priceless..evolution is undeniable he says...unless of course there was alien DNA manipulation ..thats possible


----------



## daws101

PMZ said:


> Why would anyone think that God is incapable of thinking up evolution?


god do something non miraculous ..that's blasphemy !!!


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> oh come on its priceless..evolution is undeniable he says...unless of course there was alien DNA manipulation ..thats possible


nice story, too bad you have no proof it ever happened..


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh come on its priceless..evolution is undeniable he says...unless of course there was alien DNA manipulation ..thats possible
> 
> 
> 
> nice story, too bad you have no proof it ever happened..
Click to expand...


The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, a persistent critique most associated with Thomas Kuhn,[3] has argued that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data.

Empirical evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh come on its priceless..evolution is undeniable he says...unless of course there was alien DNA manipulation ..thats possible
> 
> 
> 
> nice story, too bad you have no proof it ever happened..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, a persistent critique most associated with Thomas Kuhn,[3] has argued that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data.
> 
> Empirical evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

wow! a fabulous job of self debunking there eot's....


----------



## UltimateReality

John West on the book _*Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False*_:

_"If the fundamental thesis isn't exactly new, why has it proved to be such a shock to the cultural establishment? One reason is undoubtedly that Nagel is an atheist, which preempts the usual invective against religious fundamentalists. More generally, our cultural elites are so parochial and inbred that many of them really cannot conceive that any thinking person could doubt Darwinism. When confronted with such an oddity -- from among their own class no less -- they are astounded.

One can hardly blame them. Darwinian theory forms the modern secularist's creation myth, a myth aided and abetted by a triumphalist rewrite of Western intellectual history. Western society, you see, was stuck back in the Dark Ages of flat-earthers, witch trials, and the Inquisition until Darwin embarked from the HMS Beagle like Moses from Mount Sinai to deliver his revelation that nature is the product of a blind, impersonal process. Everyone (or at least, all thinking persons) then supposedly became Darwinians."
_

It's Complicated: John West on the Long and Messy Evolution Debate - Evolution News & Views


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> John West on the book _*Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False*_:
> 
> _"If the fundamental thesis isn't exactly new, why has it proved to be such a shock to the cultural establishment? One reason is undoubtedly that Nagel is an atheist, which preempts the usual invective against religious fundamentalists. More generally, our cultural elites are so parochial and inbred that many of them really cannot conceive that any thinking person could doubt Darwinism. When confronted with such an oddity -- from among their own class no less -- they are astounded.
> 
> One can hardly blame them. Darwinian theory forms the modern secularist's creation myth, a myth aided and abetted by a triumphalist rewrite of Western intellectual history. Western society, you see, was stuck back in the Dark Ages of flat-earthers, witch trials, and the Inquisition until Darwin embarked from the HMS Beagle like Moses from Mount Sinai to deliver his revelation that nature is the product of a blind, impersonal process. Everyone (or at least, all thinking persons) then supposedly became Darwinians."
> _
> 
> It's Complicated: John West on the Long and Messy Evolution Debate - Evolution News & Views


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> John West on the book _*Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False*_:
> 
> _"If the fundamental thesis isn't exactly new, why has it proved to be such a shock to the cultural establishment? One reason is undoubtedly that Nagel is an atheist, which preempts the usual invective against religious fundamentalists. More generally, our cultural elites are so parochial and inbred that many of them really cannot conceive that any thinking person could doubt Darwinism. When confronted with such an oddity -- from among their own class no less -- they are astounded.
> 
> One can hardly blame them. Darwinian theory forms the modern secularist's creation myth, a myth aided and abetted by a triumphalist rewrite of Western intellectual history. Western society, you see, was stuck back in the Dark Ages of flat-earthers, witch trials, and the Inquisition until Darwin embarked from the HMS Beagle like Moses from Mount Sinai to deliver his revelation that nature is the product of a blind, impersonal process. Everyone (or at least, all thinking persons) then supposedly became Darwinians."
> _
> 
> It's Complicated: John West on the Long and Messy Evolution Debate - Evolution News & Views
Click to expand...


you need to find a new picture to spam...maybe go back to big hair tan guy or something..this chronic inane repetitve behavoir its making me feel sad for you


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> John West on the book _*Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False*_:
> 
> _"If the fundamental thesis isn't exactly new, why has it proved to be such a shock to the cultural establishment? One reason is undoubtedly that Nagel is an atheist, which preempts the usual invective against religious fundamentalists. More generally, our cultural elites are so parochial and inbred that many of them really cannot conceive that any thinking person could doubt Darwinism. When confronted with such an oddity -- from among their own class no less -- they are astounded.
> 
> One can hardly blame them. Darwinian theory forms the modern secularist's creation myth, a myth aided and abetted by a triumphalist rewrite of Western intellectual history. Western society, you see, was stuck back in the Dark Ages of flat-earthers, witch trials, and the Inquisition until Darwin embarked from the HMS Beagle like Moses from Mount Sinai to deliver his revelation that nature is the product of a blind, impersonal process. Everyone (or at least, all thinking persons) then supposedly became Darwinians."
> _
> 
> It's Complicated: John West on the Long and Messy Evolution Debate - Evolution News & Views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you need to find a new picture to spam...maybe go back to big hair tan guy or something..this chronic inane repetitve behavoir its making me feel sad for you
Click to expand...

then maybe you should quit trying to date me?


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> John West on the book "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False"



How pointless. More silliness from the snake oil salesmen at the Disco'tute.


----------



## YWN666

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists Laugh at Evolutionist Richard Dawkins - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> laughter from the wilfully ignorant has the opposite effect of what's intended.
Click to expand...


*Have you ever seen Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron's hilarious (however unintentional) bit on bananas?*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdLzK9rakW4]Crazy Creationists 21: Ray Comfort's Classic Clip on Bananas - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> John West on the book _*Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False*_:
> 
> _"If the fundamental thesis isn't exactly new, why has it proved to be such a shock to the cultural establishment? One reason is undoubtedly that Nagel is an atheist, which preempts the usual invective against religious fundamentalists. More generally, our cultural elites are so parochial and inbred that many of them really cannot conceive that any thinking person could doubt Darwinism. When confronted with such an oddity -- from among their own class no less -- they are astounded.
> 
> One can hardly blame them. Darwinian theory forms the modern secularist's creation myth, a myth aided and abetted by a triumphalist rewrite of Western intellectual history. Western society, you see, was stuck back in the Dark Ages of flat-earthers, witch trials, and the Inquisition until Darwin embarked from the HMS Beagle like Moses from Mount Sinai to deliver his revelation that nature is the product of a blind, impersonal process. Everyone (or at least, all thinking persons) then supposedly became Darwinians."
> _
> 
> It's Complicated: John West on the Long and Messy Evolution Debate - Evolution News & Views
Click to expand...


Bravo!! Thanks for another one of your insightful and well thought out rebuttals.


----------



## daws101

ultimatereality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultimatereality said:
> 
> 
> 
> john west on the book _*why the materialist neo-darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false*_:
> 
> _"if the fundamental thesis isn't exactly new, why has it proved to be such a shock to the cultural establishment? One reason is undoubtedly that nagel is an atheist, which preempts the usual invective against religious fundamentalists. More generally, our cultural elites are so parochial and inbred that many of them really cannot conceive that any thinking person could doubt darwinism. When confronted with such an oddity -- from among their own class no less -- they are astounded.
> 
> One can hardly blame them. Darwinian theory forms the modern secularist's creation myth, a myth aided and abetted by a triumphalist rewrite of western intellectual history. Western society, you see, was stuck back in the dark ages of flat-earthers, witch trials, and the inquisition until darwin embarked from the hms beagle like moses from mount sinai to deliver his revelation that nature is the product of a blind, impersonal process. Everyone (or at least, all thinking persons) then supposedly became darwinians."
> _
> 
> it's complicated: John west on the long and messy evolution debate - evolution news & views
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bravo!! Thanks for another one of your insightful and well thought out rebuttals.
Click to expand...

thanks ! It was concise and factual....


----------



## orogenicman

pinqy said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should do not believe liberals!
> 
> Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
> 
> Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
> 
> Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I didn't have to watch much.  When his first thing on how to determine the age of the earth he says "we go to the Bible."  Why?  Why not look at the physical evidence first?
> 
> And next he starts talking about "Evolutionists say the age of the earth is..." and "...the Big Bang theory, according to Evolution..."   Neither is part of the Theory of Evolution.  The first real theory of Evolution was Lamarkism, who published in 1800, 60 years before Darwin.  But even before that, geologists and Naturalists figured out the Earth was much older than 6,000 years, going back to Nicholas Steno in the late 1600s.
Click to expand...


I know these are old posts, but here is my two cents worth.

Even William Maclure, the father of American Geology, in 1812, was convinced the Earth was at least tens of millions of years old based on the thickness of the strata he had measured all across the Eastern U.S. and Europe.


----------



## orogenicman

cbirch2 said:


> "you should do not believe liberals"



You should taken an English class.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hawly and Daws fall into the dishonest doubter category. Theirs is NOT a search for truth. 

_"Writing in the third century, St. Augustine (354-430) made an observation about the doubters of his own day. In Confessions, Book 21, chapter 2, Augustine writes about doubters who refuse to accept the claims of Christianity unless a believer can "prove them by ocular demonstration." The skeptic's demand for "ocular demonstration" is heard to this day. The standard for "proof" becomes essentially this: "If Christianity cannot be physically demonstrated before my very eyes, in a way that I can watch on demand, touch, and verify by repetition, I will not believe."

So, our generation is not the first in which people have made empiricism the only test for truth. But the skeptic should be reminded that all people hold to beliefs that cannot be replicated on demand, or "proven" by observation. We accept on the authority of history that George Washington crossed the Delaware, though none of us was alive to see it. We cannot scientifically prove that our family members love us, though we take it for granted that they do. And (as has been pointed out by many an apologist), the skeptic has never visibly seen his own brain, but we know that he has one!

So, even the strictest empiricist accepts things that aren&#8217;t always empirically verified.
Two types of doubters

Having debated a number of atheists myself, and in my experiences sharing the gospel with many skeptics, I can relate to Augustine's observation. The late Adrian Rogers- a beloved pastor and prolific author- often talked about an honest doubter and a dishonest doubter. When a skeptic would confront the pastor with an objection, Rogers would sometimes ask a question of his own: "If I can sufficiently and factually answer your question," Rodgers would ask, "will you open your heart to Christ and to the Gospel?"

I have posed this same question to people at times. The responses given can be very interesting. An honest doubter will say, "yes", or in some way indicate that they are, indeed, trying to resolve the obstacles that lay between them and belief in God. Bottom line: An honest doubter really does want an answer to his question.

The response (and heart condition of) a dishonest doubter is different entirely. The dishonest doubter will respond negatively to questions like, "Are you asking this question in hopes of finding your way to God? If I answer your question would you be open to becoming a follower of Jesus Christ?" An atheist whom I interviewed last year said to me, "I am not so much against God, as I am against belief in God." When asked if there was anything that could ever convince this person to believe in God, he said, "no". The dishonest doubter may have a number of different motives for the issue(s) he is raising, but the search for truth is not one of them.
When the will says, "I will not"

Augustine of old could sympathize with anyone who has ever struggled to dialogue with a dishonest doubter. The dishonest doubter engages in conversation over spiritual issues, and as the Christian responds to the (supposed) "key issue" standing between the person and God, the information laid out is quickly dismissed. Augustine wrote of such persons who, "&#8230;content, with the same skepticism, that these facts are not examples of what we seek to prove."

The dishonest doubter is avoiding the reality of God and Christ by saying, a) You haven't proved your case sufficiently for me; or, b) You have proved your case (or something like it), but this wasn't what I was really asking.

Romans 1:18 talks about the universal human tendency to know God's truth but to suppress it. In John 3:19, *Jesus explained that people prefer darkness rather than light because of desire to keep their sins hidden.* Thus, apologetics and Christian worldview ministry is not a mental exercise only. Dialoguing fruitfully about spiritual questions and objections does require tact and preparation, but also prayer."_


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hawly and Daws fall into the dishonest doubter category. Theirs is NOT a search for truth.
> 
> _"Writing in the third century, St. Augustine (354-430) made an observation about the doubters of his own day. In Confessions, Book 21, chapter 2, Augustine writes about doubters who refuse to accept the claims of Christianity unless a believer can "prove them by ocular demonstration." The skeptic's demand for "ocular demonstration" is heard to this day. The standard for "proof" becomes essentially this: "If Christianity cannot be physically demonstrated before my very eyes, in a way that I can watch on demand, touch, and verify by repetition, I will not believe."
> 
> So, our generation is not the first in which people have made empiricism the only test for truth. But the skeptic should be reminded that all people hold to beliefs that cannot be replicated on demand, or "proven" by observation. We accept on the authority of history that George Washington crossed the Delaware, though none of us was alive to see it. We cannot scientifically prove that our family members love us, though we take it for granted that they do. And (as has been pointed out by many an apologist), the skeptic has never visibly seen his own brain, but we know that he has one!
> 
> So, even the strictest empiricist accepts things that arent always empirically verified.
> Two types of doubters
> 
> Having debated a number of atheists myself, and in my experiences sharing the gospel with many skeptics, I can relate to Augustine's observation. The late Adrian Rogers- a beloved pastor and prolific author- often talked about an honest doubter and a dishonest doubter. When a skeptic would confront the pastor with an objection, Rogers would sometimes ask a question of his own: "If I can sufficiently and factually answer your question," Rodgers would ask, "will you open your heart to Christ and to the Gospel?"
> 
> I have posed this same question to people at times. The responses given can be very interesting. An honest doubter will say, "yes", or in some way indicate that they are, indeed, trying to resolve the obstacles that lay between them and belief in God. Bottom line: An honest doubter really does want an answer to his question.
> 
> The response (and heart condition of) a dishonest doubter is different entirely. The dishonest doubter will respond negatively to questions like, "Are you asking this question in hopes of finding your way to God? If I answer your question would you be open to becoming a follower of Jesus Christ?" An atheist whom I interviewed last year said to me, "I am not so much against God, as I am against belief in God." When asked if there was anything that could ever convince this person to believe in God, he said, "no". The dishonest doubter may have a number of different motives for the issue(s) he is raising, but the search for truth is not one of them.
> When the will says, "I will not"
> 
> Augustine of old could sympathize with anyone who has ever struggled to dialogue with a dishonest doubter. The dishonest doubter engages in conversation over spiritual issues, and as the Christian responds to the (supposed) "key issue" standing between the person and God, the information laid out is quickly dismissed. Augustine wrote of such persons who, "content, with the same skepticism, that these facts are not examples of what we seek to prove."
> 
> The dishonest doubter is avoiding the reality of God and Christ by saying, a) You haven't proved your case sufficiently for me; or, b) You have proved your case (or something like it), but this wasn't what I was really asking.
> 
> Romans 1:18 talks about the universal human tendency to know God's truth but to suppress it. In John 3:19, *Jesus explained that people prefer darkness rather than light because of desire to keep their sins hidden.* Thus, apologetics and Christian worldview ministry is not a mental exercise only. Dialoguing fruitfully about spiritual questions and objections does require tact and preparation, but also prayer."_


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hawly and Daws fall into the dishonest doubter category. Theirs is NOT a search for truth.
> 
> _"Writing in the third century, St. Augustine (354-430) made an observation about the doubters of his own day. In Confessions, Book 21, chapter 2, Augustine writes about doubters who refuse to accept the claims of Christianity unless a believer can "prove them by ocular demonstration." The skeptic's demand for "ocular demonstration" is heard to this day. The standard for "proof" becomes essentially this: "If Christianity cannot be physically demonstrated before my very eyes, in a way that I can watch on demand, touch, and verify by repetition, I will not believe."
> 
> So, our generation is not the first in which people have made empiricism the only test for truth. But the skeptic should be reminded that all people hold to beliefs that cannot be replicated on demand, or "proven" by observation. We accept on the authority of history that George Washington crossed the Delaware, though none of us was alive to see it. We cannot scientifically prove that our family members love us, though we take it for granted that they do. And (as has been pointed out by many an apologist), the skeptic has never visibly seen his own brain, but we know that he has one!
> 
> So, even the strictest empiricist accepts things that arent always empirically verified.
> Two types of doubters
> 
> Having debated a number of atheists myself, and in my experiences sharing the gospel with many skeptics, I can relate to Augustine's observation. The late Adrian Rogers- a beloved pastor and prolific author- often talked about an honest doubter and a dishonest doubter. When a skeptic would confront the pastor with an objection, Rogers would sometimes ask a question of his own: "If I can sufficiently and factually answer your question," Rodgers would ask, "will you open your heart to Christ and to the Gospel?"
> 
> I have posed this same question to people at times. The responses given can be very interesting. An honest doubter will say, "yes", or in some way indicate that they are, indeed, trying to resolve the obstacles that lay between them and belief in God. Bottom line: An honest doubter really does want an answer to his question.
> 
> The response (and heart condition of) a dishonest doubter is different entirely. The dishonest doubter will respond negatively to questions like, "Are you asking this question in hopes of finding your way to God? If I answer your question would you be open to becoming a follower of Jesus Christ?" An atheist whom I interviewed last year said to me, "I am not so much against God, as I am against belief in God." When asked if there was anything that could ever convince this person to believe in God, he said, "no". The dishonest doubter may have a number of different motives for the issue(s) he is raising, but the search for truth is not one of them.
> When the will says, "I will not"
> 
> Augustine of old could sympathize with anyone who has ever struggled to dialogue with a dishonest doubter. The dishonest doubter engages in conversation over spiritual issues, and as the Christian responds to the (supposed) "key issue" standing between the person and God, the information laid out is quickly dismissed. Augustine wrote of such persons who, "content, with the same skepticism, that these facts are not examples of what we seek to prove."
> 
> The dishonest doubter is avoiding the reality of God and Christ by saying, a) You haven't proved your case sufficiently for me; or, b) You have proved your case (or something like it), but this wasn't what I was really asking.
> 
> Romans 1:18 talks about the universal human tendency to know God's truth but to suppress it. In John 3:19, *Jesus explained that people prefer darkness rather than light because of desire to keep their sins hidden.* Thus, apologetics and Christian worldview ministry is not a mental exercise only. Dialoguing fruitfully about spiritual questions and objections does require tact and preparation, but also prayer."_



John 3:19 (a) thouest shall not stalketh.

Really, dude. Stop trying to force your religion on others. It's really creepy and you have been told that many times in this thread.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hawly, Daws and Newspolitics real insidious agenda is to set up the artificial god government. Their propaganda is gaining a huge foothold in America today.

_"Theres many psychological components to all of those questions, but the central theme must be remembered of government as an artificial God. The concept of corrupt leaders as an artificial God.* Something that first requires the abolition of any God that is not the dictator himself. The result of such a system is ultimately the destruction of the entire society, usually lined with at least several millions deaths in the process.* In the case of Stalins Soveit Union, experts place the death toll at around 40 million  a number that is extremely conservative and factors in around 20 million deaths from non-combat related events like artificial famine and executions.

According to one expert breakdown carried by the International Business Times, the numbers break down as follows:

    1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the Great Terror of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various political crimes from 1946 to 1953."_

Prison Planet.com » Obama Plays God, and Political Correctness Is His Weapon

In their stupidity, they will be shocked when the full realization that when rights don't come from God, but instead the government, they can be easily taken away.

*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...*


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> Hawly, Daws and Newspolitics real insidious agenda is to set up the artificial god government. Their propaganda is gaining a huge foothold in America today.
> 
> _"Theres many psychological components to all of those questions, but the central theme must be remembered of government as an artificial God. The concept of corrupt leaders as an artificial God.* Something that first requires the abolition of any God that is not the dictator himself. The result of such a system is ultimately the destruction of the entire society, usually lined with at least several millions deaths in the process.* In the case of Stalins Soveit Union, experts place the death toll at around 40 million  a number that is extremely conservative and factors in around 20 million deaths from non-combat related events like artificial famine and executions.
> 
> According to one expert breakdown carried by the International Business Times, the numbers break down as follows:
> 
> 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the Great Terror of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various political crimes from 1946 to 1953."_
> 
> Prison Planet.com » Obama Plays God, and Political Correctness Is His Weapon



When we take over, we're coming for you first. 

Look and listen for the black helicopters.


----------



## UltimateReality

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly, Daws and Newspolitics real insidious agenda is to set up the artificial god government. Their propaganda is gaining a huge foothold in America today.
> 
> _"Theres many psychological components to all of those questions, but the central theme must be remembered of government as an artificial God. The concept of corrupt leaders as an artificial God.* Something that first requires the abolition of any God that is not the dictator himself. The result of such a system is ultimately the destruction of the entire society, usually lined with at least several millions deaths in the process.* In the case of Stalins Soveit Union, experts place the death toll at around 40 million  a number that is extremely conservative and factors in around 20 million deaths from non-combat related events like artificial famine and executions.
> 
> According to one expert breakdown carried by the International Business Times, the numbers break down as follows:
> 
> 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the Great Terror of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various political crimes from 1946 to 1953."_
> 
> Prison Planet.com » Obama Plays God, and Political Correctness Is His Weapon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we take over, we're coming for you first.
> 
> Look and listen for the black helicopters.
Click to expand...


Typical ingorance from you. I was at the Boeing facility in Mesa, AZ last week in the final assembly area for the Apache Helicopter. They also happen to do numerous test flights on the finished product all around that area so unmarked Black Helicopters can be readily observed just about any time during the week.


----------



## orogenicman

UltimateReality said:


> Hawly, Daws and Newspolitics real insidious agenda is to set up the artificial god government. Their propaganda is gaining a huge foothold in America today.



<snip>

Erm, you should see a shrink very soon, because - DAMN.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hawly, Daws and Newspolitics real insidious agenda is to set up the artificial god government. Their propaganda is gaining a huge foothold in America today.
> 
> _"Theres many psychological components to all of those questions, but the central theme must be remembered of government as an artificial God. The concept of corrupt leaders as an artificial God.* Something that first requires the abolition of any God that is not the dictator himself. The result of such a system is ultimately the destruction of the entire society, usually lined with at least several millions deaths in the process.* In the case of Stalins Soveit Union, experts place the death toll at around 40 million  a number that is extremely conservative and factors in around 20 million deaths from non-combat related events like artificial famine and executions.
> 
> According to one expert breakdown carried by the International Business Times, the numbers break down as follows:
> 
> 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the Great Terror of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various political crimes from 1946 to 1953."_
> 
> Prison Planet.com » Obama Plays God, and Political Correctness Is His Weapon
> 
> In their stupidity, they will be shocked when the full realization that when rights don't come from God, but instead the government, they can be easily taken away.
> 
> *We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...*


is it just me or does this come across as a version of the shit that jilted teenage boys say when they get dumped.?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly, Daws and Newspolitics real insidious agenda is to set up the artificial god government. Their propaganda is gaining a huge foothold in America today.
> 
> _"Theres many psychological components to all of those questions, but the central theme must be remembered of government as an artificial God. The concept of corrupt leaders as an artificial God.* Something that first requires the abolition of any God that is not the dictator himself. The result of such a system is ultimately the destruction of the entire society, usually lined with at least several millions deaths in the process.* In the case of Stalins Soveit Union, experts place the death toll at around 40 million  a number that is extremely conservative and factors in around 20 million deaths from non-combat related events like artificial famine and executions.
> 
> According to one expert breakdown carried by the International Business Times, the numbers break down as follows:
> 
> 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the Great Terror of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various political crimes from 1946 to 1953."_
> 
> Prison Planet.com » Obama Plays God, and Political Correctness Is His Weapon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we take over, we're coming for you first.
> 
> Look and listen for the black helicopters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical ingorance from you. I was at the Boeing facility in Mesa, AZ last week in the final assembly area for the Apache Helicopter. They also happen to do numerous test flights on the finished product all around that area so unmarked Black Helicopters can be readily observed just about any time during the week.
Click to expand...

now that's a dodge!


----------



## holston

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJoOhbf3_Ts]World's Most Famous Atheist Accepts Existence of God because of Science - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated

orogenicman said:


> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you should do not believe liberals"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should taken an English class.
Click to expand...


Funny, evolutionists insulting evolutionists 

You evidently didn't read much of what he wrote to say such a thing. He most certainly is educated, and can actually defend your religion better than yourself.


----------



## koshergrl

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly, Daws and Newspolitics real insidious agenda is to set up the artificial god government. Their propaganda is gaining a huge foothold in America today.
> 
> _"Theres many psychological components to all of those questions, but the central theme must be remembered of government as an artificial God. The concept of corrupt leaders as an artificial God.* Something that first requires the abolition of any God that is not the dictator himself. The result of such a system is ultimately the destruction of the entire society, usually lined with at least several millions deaths in the process.* In the case of Stalins Soveit Union, experts place the death toll at around 40 million  a number that is extremely conservative and factors in around 20 million deaths from non-combat related events like artificial famine and executions.
> 
> According to one expert breakdown carried by the International Business Times, the numbers break down as follows:
> 
> 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the Great Terror of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various political crimes from 1946 to 1953."_
> 
> Prison Planet.com » Obama Plays God, and Political Correctness Is His Weapon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we take over, we're coming for you first.
> 
> Look and listen for the black helicopters.
Click to expand...


Physical threat. Against the rules, reported.


----------



## orogenicman

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cbirch2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you should do not believe liberals"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should taken an English class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, evolutionists insulting evolutionists
> 
> You evidently didn't read much of what he wrote to say such a thing. He most certainly is educated, and can actually defend your religion better than yourself.
Click to expand...


What part of that post was grammatically correct?  For that matter, what part of that post was correct in any way?


----------



## Hollie

koshergrl said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly, Daws and Newspolitics real insidious agenda is to set up the artificial god government. Their propaganda is gaining a huge foothold in America today.
> 
> _"Theres many psychological components to all of those questions, but the central theme must be remembered of government as an artificial God. The concept of corrupt leaders as an artificial God.* Something that first requires the abolition of any God that is not the dictator himself. The result of such a system is ultimately the destruction of the entire society, usually lined with at least several millions deaths in the process.* In the case of Stalins Soveit Union, experts place the death toll at around 40 million  a number that is extremely conservative and factors in around 20 million deaths from non-combat related events like artificial famine and executions.
> 
> According to one expert breakdown carried by the International Business Times, the numbers break down as follows:
> 
> 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the Great Terror of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various political crimes from 1946 to 1953."_
> 
> Prison Planet.com » Obama Plays God, and Political Correctness Is His Weapon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we take over, we're coming for you first.
> 
> Look and listen for the black helicopters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Physical threat. Against the rules, reported.
Click to expand...

Stupidity. Reported, but alas, no cure for you.


----------



## YWN666

koshergrl said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly, Daws and Newspolitics real insidious agenda is to set up the artificial god government. Their propaganda is gaining a huge foothold in America today.
> 
> _"Theres many psychological components to all of those questions, but the central theme must be remembered of government as an artificial God. The concept of corrupt leaders as an artificial God.* Something that first requires the abolition of any God that is not the dictator himself. The result of such a system is ultimately the destruction of the entire society, usually lined with at least several millions deaths in the process.* In the case of Stalins Soveit Union, experts place the death toll at around 40 million  a number that is extremely conservative and factors in around 20 million deaths from non-combat related events like artificial famine and executions.
> 
> According to one expert breakdown carried by the International Business Times, the numbers break down as follows:
> 
> 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the Great Terror of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various political crimes from 1946 to 1953."_
> 
> Prison Planet.com » Obama Plays God, and Political Correctness Is His Weapon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we take over, we're coming for you first.
> 
> Look and listen for the black helicopters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Physical threat. Against the rules, reported.
Click to expand...


*You can't be serious.*


----------



## Youwerecreated

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should taken an English class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, evolutionists insulting evolutionists
> 
> You evidently didn't read much of what he wrote to say such a thing. He most certainly is educated, and can actually defend your religion better than yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of that post was grammatically correct?  For that matter, what part of that post was correct in any way?
Click to expand...


With people, sometimes they are in a hurry,and sometimes grammar errors occur.


----------



## koshergrl

YWN666 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we take over, we're coming for you first.
> 
> Look and listen for the black helicopters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Physical threat. Against the rules, reported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You can't be serious.*
Click to expand...

 
The mods take it very seriously. Trust me.


----------



## orogenicman

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, evolutionists insulting evolutionists
> 
> You evidently didn't read much of what he wrote to say such a thing. He most certainly is educated, and can actually defend your religion better than yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of that post was grammatically correct?  For that matter, what part of that post was correct in any way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With people, sometimes they are in a hurry,and sometimes grammar errors occur.
Click to expand...


Right.  Explain how pointing out errors is an insult.


----------



## YWN666

koshergrl said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Physical threat. Against the rules, reported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You can't be serious.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mods take it very seriously. Trust me.
Click to expand...


*Nonsense.  It was obvious to any thinking person that it was not intended as a threat and stop fighting your battles with negative rep, idiot.*


----------



## daws101

holston said:


> World's Most Famous Atheist Accepts Existence of God because of Science - YouTube


and ? it's only proof that  he changed his mind, he could've said santa claus belifew is not evidence..(cue buzzer)


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawly, Daws and Newspolitics real insidious agenda is to set up the artificial god government. Their propaganda is gaining a huge foothold in America today.
> 
> _"Theres many psychological components to all of those questions, but the central theme must be remembered of government as an artificial God. The concept of corrupt leaders as an artificial God.* Something that first requires the abolition of any God that is not the dictator himself. The result of such a system is ultimately the destruction of the entire society, usually lined with at least several millions deaths in the process.* In the case of Stalins Soveit Union, experts place the death toll at around 40 million  a number that is extremely conservative and factors in around 20 million deaths from non-combat related events like artificial famine and executions.
> 
> According to one expert breakdown carried by the International Business Times, the numbers break down as follows:
> 
> 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2  to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the Great Terror of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various political crimes from 1946 to 1953."_
> 
> Prison Planet.com » Obama Plays God, and Political Correctness Is His Weapon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we take over, we're coming for you first.
> 
> Look and listen for the black helicopters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Physical threat. Against the rules, reported.
Click to expand...

 false ....shut the fuck up!


----------



## daws101

YWN666 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we take over, we're coming for you first.
> 
> Look and listen for the black helicopters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Physical threat. Against the rules, reported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You can't be serious.*
Click to expand...

 jg is  seriously psycho..the mods on the other hand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of that post was grammatically correct?  For that matter, what part of that post was correct in any way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With people, sometimes they are in a hurry,and sometimes grammar errors occur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  Explain how pointing out errors is an insult.
Click to expand...


Probably by asking a person to take an English class that is clearly educated.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we take over, we're coming for you first.
> 
> Look and listen for the black helicopters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Physical threat. Against the rules, reported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false ....shut the fuck up!
Click to expand...


Anyone who takes you serious needs their head examined.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Physical threat. Against the rules, reported.
> 
> 
> 
> false ....shut the fuck up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who takes you serious needs their head examined.
Click to expand...


Oh, you poor dear. Angry about having your arguments promoting fear and superstition thwarted?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false ....shut the fuck up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who takes you serious needs their head examined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you poor dear. Angry about having your arguments promoting fear and superstition thwarted?
Click to expand...


Sure!


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who takes you serious needs their head examined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you poor dear. Angry about having your arguments promoting fear and superstition thwarted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure!
Click to expand...


We'te in agreement.

As you will accept what is in your bibles vs. "secular" science texts, the natural world must thoroughly confound you. Those atheistic, evilutionist science texts give us answers to naturally occurring events: lighting, thunder, tsunamis, ocean currents, etc.

Your bibles would leave to believe that sailing the oceans would cause you fall off the edge of the flat earth. Your bibles promote anti-gravity inasmuch as men can rise to "heaven".

Is the biblical "firmament" described accurately vs. the atheistic, evilutionist descriptions of the atmosphere?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you poor dear. Angry about having your arguments promoting fear and superstition thwarted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'te in agreement.
> 
> As you will accept what is in your bibles vs. "secular" science texts, the natural world must thoroughly confound you. Those atheistic, evilutionist science texts give us answers to naturally occurring events: lighting, thunder, tsunamis, ocean currents, etc.
> 
> Your bibles would leave to believe that sailing the oceans would cause you fall off the edge of the flat earth. Your bibles promote anti-gravity inasmuch as men can rise to "heaven".
> 
> Is the biblical "firmament" described accurately vs. the atheistic, evilutionist descriptions of the atmosphere?
Click to expand...


Why do you blatantly misinform and lie ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'te in agreement.
> 
> As you will accept what is in your bibles vs. "secular" science texts, the natural world must thoroughly confound you. Those atheistic, evilutionist science texts give us answers to naturally occurring events: lighting, thunder, tsunamis, ocean currents, etc.
> 
> Your bibles would leave to believe that sailing the oceans would cause you fall off the edge of the flat earth. Your bibles promote anti-gravity inasmuch as men can rise to "heaven".
> 
> Is the biblical "firmament" described accurately vs. the atheistic, evilutionist descriptions of the atmosphere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you blatantly misinform and lie ?
Click to expand...

Are you too befuddled to address challenges to your ideology?


----------



## Youwerecreated

hollie said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> we'te in agreement.
> 
> As you will accept what is in your bibles vs. "secular" science texts, the natural world must thoroughly confound you. Those atheistic, evilutionist science texts give us answers to naturally occurring events: Lighting, thunder, tsunamis, ocean currents, etc.
> 
> Your bibles would leave to believe that sailing the oceans would cause you fall off the edge of the flat earth. Your bibles promote anti-gravity inasmuch as men can rise to "heaven".
> 
> Is the biblical "firmament" described accurately vs. The atheistic, evilutionist descriptions of the atmosphere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why do you blatantly misinform and lie ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you too befuddled to address challenges to your ideology?
Click to expand...


au contraire !


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you blatantly misinform and lie ?
> 
> 
> 
> are you too befuddled to address challenges to your ideology?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> au contraire !
Click to expand...


I thought you would slither away.


----------



## PMZ

Everybody has Faith or faith.  We're compelled to wonder about what can't be known. 

But we don't need to explain what can be known. We just need to learn it. How could it be possible for knowledge and wonder to conflict?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> With people, sometimes they are in a hurry,and sometimes grammar errors occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Explain how pointing out errors is an insult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably by asking a person to take an English class that is clearly educated.
Click to expand...

that should read: "I'm not near as educated as I like people to think I am , being caught trying to bullshit my way around my lack of education pisses me off."


----------



## orogenicman

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> With people, sometimes they are in a hurry,and sometimes grammar errors occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Explain how pointing out errors is an insult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably by asking a person to take an English class that is clearly educated.
Click to expand...


Even if that were true, educated people still make mistakes, even grammatical ones.  That said, I am uncertain how the response in question is any indication that person is 'edumacated'.


----------



## Youwerecreated

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Explain how pointing out errors is an insult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably by asking a person to take an English class that is clearly educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if that were true, educated people still make mistakes, even grammatical ones.  That said, I am uncertain how the response in question is any indication that person is 'edumacated'.
Click to expand...


That is true you meant to insult the person but once it was pointed out he was on your side you retreat from the insult.


----------



## orogenicman

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably by asking a person to take an English class that is clearly educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that were true, educated people still make mistakes, even grammatical ones.  That said, I am uncertain how the response in question is any indication that person is 'edumacated'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true you meant to insult the person but once it was pointed out he was on your side you retreat from the insult.
Click to expand...


Being on my side is no excuse for being grammatically incorrect.


----------



## Youwerecreated

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that were true, educated people still make mistakes, even grammatical ones.  That said, I am uncertain how the response in question is any indication that person is 'edumacated'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true you meant to insult the person but once it was pointed out he was on your side you retreat from the insult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being on my side is no excuse for being grammatically incorrect.
Click to expand...


Oh my you are confused lol.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists.html#post4295914

He quoted someone else.


----------



## orogenicman

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true you meant to insult the person but once it was pointed out he was on your side you retreat from the insult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being on my side is no excuse for being grammatically incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my you are confused lol.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists.html#post4295914
> 
> He quoted someone else.
Click to expand...


So what?  What do you think that proves?


----------



## Youwerecreated

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being on my side is no excuse for being grammatically incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my you are confused lol.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists.html#post4295914
> 
> He quoted someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  What do you think that proves?
Click to expand...


You quoted him that was quoting someone else.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my you are confused lol.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists.html#post4295914
> 
> He quoted someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  What do you think that proves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You quoted him that was quoting someone else.
Click to expand...

speaking of being grammatically incorrect.


----------



## UltimateReality

I am curious to hear from Daws and Hawly:

What is your legacy?

What will have been the point of your life when you are pushing up daisies?

What type of positive influence are you having on the world around you?


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> I am curious to hear from Daws and Hawly:
> 
> What is your legacy?
> 
> What will have been the point of your life when you are pushing up daisies?
> 
> What type of positive influence are you having on the world around you?


to start with I will have avoided worrying about your nonsense..why ? the fact is life has no intrinsic meaning ,like all other life on this planet our purpose is to propagate the species.
this may come as a shock but we make meaning..
As to effect positive or negative I've effected and been effected by far more famous and not FAMOUS people the you could ever dream of .


----------



## YWN666

UltimateReality said:


> I am curious to hear from Daws and Hawly:
> 
> What is your legacy?
> 
> What will have been the point of your life when you are pushing up daisies?
> 
> What type of positive influence are you having on the world around you?




*
"The cosmos is a gigantic fly wheel making 10,000 revolutions a minute. Man is a sick fly taking a dizzy ride on it. Religion is the theory that the wheel was designed and set spinning to give him the ride." 
[H.L. Mencken] *

*Humans are inconsequential specs in an enormous universe.  I don't get why people need to think that we are put here to serve a purpose.  That sounds pretty harsh but reality can be harsh.  Everything can't be puppy dogs and rainbows just because we want them to be.*


----------



## daws101

YWN666 said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious to hear from Daws and Hawly:
> 
> What is your legacy?
> 
> What will have been the point of your life when you are pushing up daisies?
> 
> What type of positive influence are you having on the world around you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> "The cosmos is a gigantic fly wheel making 10,000 revolutions a minute. Man is a sick fly taking a dizzy ride on it. Religion is the theory that the wheel was designed and set spinning to give him the ride."
> [H.L. Mencken] *
> 
> *Humans are inconsequential specs in an enormous universe.  I don't get why people need to think that we are put here to serve a purpose.  That sounds pretty harsh but reality can be harsh.  Everything can't be puppy dogs and rainbows just because we want them to be.*
Click to expand...

if you hadn't already guessed UR has has an over inflated self image.


----------



## orogenicman

UltimateReality said:


> I am curious to hear from Daws and Hawly:
> 
> What is your legacy?
> 
> What will have been the point of your life when you are pushing up daisies?
> 
> What type of positive influence are you having on the world around you?



I am curious as to what you think the purpose of their lives is supposed to be?  All life forms have one thing in common - an innate urge to reproduce.  Many life forms do just that and then die, their purpose having been served.  Salmon are a good example.  They swim hundreds of miles upstream to lay their eggs, and then they die. So in that vein, one could say that the legacy of those gentlemen to whom you refer would be their offspring.  What is your legacy?  What other legacy need there be?


----------



## daws101

orogenicman said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious to hear from Daws and Hawly:
> 
> What is your legacy?
> 
> What will have been the point of your life when you are pushing up daisies?
> 
> What type of positive influence are you having on the world around you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious as to what you think the purpose of their lives is supposed to be?  All life forms have one thing in common - an innate urge to reproduce.  Many life forms do just that and then die, their purpose having been served.  Salmon are a good example.  They swim hundreds of miles upstream to lay their eggs, and then they die. So in that vein, one could say that the legacy of those gentlemen to whom you refer would be their offspring.  What is your legacy?  What other legacy need there be?
Click to expand...

as far as I know UR has no offspring....


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious to hear from Daws and Hawly:
> 
> What is your legacy?
> 
> What will have been the point of your life when you are pushing up daisies?
> 
> What type of positive influence are you having on the world around you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> "The cosmos is a gigantic fly wheel making 10,000 revolutions a minute. Man is a sick fly taking a dizzy ride on it. Religion is the theory that the wheel was designed and set spinning to give him the ride."
> [H.L. Mencken] *
> 
> *Humans are inconsequential specs in an enormous universe.  I don't get why people need to think that we are put here to serve a purpose.  That sounds pretty harsh but reality can be harsh.  Everything can't be puppy dogs and rainbows just because we want them to be.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you hadn't already guessed UR has has an over inflated self image.
Click to expand...


...says the guy that has effected famous people.


----------



## UltimateReality

daws101 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious to hear from Daws and Hawly:
> 
> What is your legacy?
> 
> What will have been the point of your life when you are pushing up daisies?
> 
> What type of positive influence are you having on the world around you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious as to what you think the purpose of their lives is supposed to be?  All life forms have one thing in common - an innate urge to reproduce.  Many life forms do just that and then die, their purpose having been served.  Salmon are a good example.  They swim hundreds of miles upstream to lay their eggs, and then they die. So in that vein, one could say that the legacy of those gentlemen to whom you refer would be their offspring.  What is your legacy?  What other legacy need there be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as far as I know UR has no offspring....
Click to expand...


Just add it to the list of things you are ignorant about. I have two children.


----------



## Hollie

UltimateReality said:


> I am curious to hear from Daws and Hawly:
> 
> What is your legacy?
> 
> What will have been the point of your life when you are pushing up daisies?
> 
> What type of positive influence are you having on the world around you?



How strange that the religious zealot asks these types of questions. This is the loon who spent his time stalking me through the thread pressing for personal information and was reduced to childish name-calling when his advances were refused. 

What a wonderful example of a positive influence.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious to hear from Daws and Hawly:
> 
> What is your legacy?
> 
> What will have been the point of your life when you are pushing up daisies?
> 
> What type of positive influence are you having on the world around you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that the religious zealot asks these types of questions. This is the loon who spent his time stalking me through the thread pressing for personal information and was reduced to childish name-calling when his advances were refused.
> 
> What a wonderful example of a positive influence.
Click to expand...


The reality is, that you are without an excuse. You've had every opportunity in this life. And the fact is that a person who calls someone a fool is in danger of hellfire --- according to the Bible. (see Matthew 5:22)


----------



## orogenicman

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UltimateReality said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious to hear from Daws and Hawly:
> 
> What is your legacy?
> 
> What will have been the point of your life when you are pushing up daisies?
> 
> What type of positive influence are you having on the world around you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that the religious zealot asks these types of questions. This is the loon who spent his time stalking me through the thread pressing for personal information and was reduced to childish name-calling when his advances were refused.
> 
> What a wonderful example of a positive influence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reality is, that you are without an excuse. You've had every opportunity in this life. And the fact is that a person who calls someone a fool is in danger of hellfire --- according to the Bible. (see Matthew 5:22)
Click to expand...


Oh my, what an arrogant prick you are.  And you can damn me to hellfire for calling you a prick, Mr. prick.  I don't mind.  I rather enjoy watching you Christians revel in your insanity.


----------



## Youwerecreated

orogenicman said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that the religious zealot asks these types of questions. This is the loon who spent his time stalking me through the thread pressing for personal information and was reduced to childish name-calling when his advances were refused.
> 
> What a wonderful example of a positive influence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is, that you are without an excuse. You've had every opportunity in this life. And the fact is that a person who calls someone a fool is in danger of hellfire --- according to the Bible. (see Matthew 5:22)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my, what an arrogant prick you are.  And you can damn me to hellfire for calling you a prick, Mr. prick.  I don't mind.  I rather enjoy watching you Christians revel in your insanity.
Click to expand...


Is that anything like you being related to apes with no evidence to prove it


----------



## orogenicman

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is, that you are without an excuse. You've had every opportunity in this life. And the fact is that a person who calls someone a fool is in danger of hellfire --- according to the Bible. (see Matthew 5:22)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, what an arrogant prick you are.  And you can damn me to hellfire for calling you a prick, Mr. prick.  I don't mind.  I rather enjoy watching you Christians revel in your insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that anything like you being related to apes with no evidence to prove it
Click to expand...


We aren't merely related to apes.  We ARE apes.

Characteristics of all primates, including human beings:

Forward-facing eyes for binocular vision (allowing depth perception) 
 Increased reliance on vision: reduced noses, snouts (smaller, flattened), loss of vibrissae (whiskers), and relatively small, hairless ears 
 Color vision 
 Opposable thumbs for power grip (holding on) and precision grip (picking up small objects) 
 Grasping fingers aid in power grip 
 Flattened nails for fingertip protection, development of very sensitive tactile pads on digits 
 Primitive limb structure, one upper limb bone, two lower limb bones, many mammalian orders have lost various bones, especially fusing of the two lower limb bones 
 Generalist teeth for an opportunistic, omnivorous diet; loss of some primitive mammalian dentition, humans have lost two premolars 
 Progressive expansion and elaboration of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex 
 Greater facial mobility and vocal repertoire 
 Progressive and increasingly efficient development of gestational processes 
 Prolongation of postnatal life periods 
 Reduced litter size&#8212;usually just one (allowing mobility with clinging young and more individual attention to young) 
 Most primates have one pair of mammae in the chest 
 Complicated social organization

So you are saying that there is no evidence for hell.  Wow, we agree on something.  There's a first time for everything after all.


----------



## daws101

UltimateReality said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> "The cosmos is a gigantic fly wheel making 10,000 revolutions a minute. Man is a sick fly taking a dizzy ride on it. Religion is the theory that the wheel was designed and set spinning to give him the ride."
> [H.L. Mencken] *
> 
> *Humans are inconsequential specs in an enormous universe.  I don't get why people need to think that we are put here to serve a purpose.  That sounds pretty harsh but reality can be harsh.  Everything can't be puppy dogs and rainbows just because we want them to be.*
> 
> 
> 
> if you hadn't already guessed UR has has an over inflated self image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...says the guy that has effected famous people.
Click to expand...

speaking of ignorant ..
Affect vs Effect

Diffen  English Language  Grammar
Affect and Effect are frequently used incorrectly because people don't realize the difference between the two words. In most common situations, affect is used as a verb and effect as a noun. However, both words have alternate meanings when used as different parts of speech.


----------



## Youwerecreated

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, what an arrogant prick you are.  And you can damn me to hellfire for calling you a prick, Mr. prick.  I don't mind.  I rather enjoy watching you Christians revel in your insanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that anything like you being related to apes with no evidence to prove it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We aren't merely related to apes.  We ARE apes.
> 
> Characteristics of all primates, including human beings:
> 
> Forward-facing eyes for binocular vision (allowing depth perception)
> Increased reliance on vision: reduced noses, snouts (smaller, flattened), loss of vibrissae (whiskers), and relatively small, hairless ears
> Color vision
> Opposable thumbs for power grip (holding on) and precision grip (picking up small objects)
> Grasping fingers aid in power grip
> Flattened nails for fingertip protection, development of very sensitive tactile pads on digits
> Primitive limb structure, one upper limb bone, two lower limb bones, many mammalian orders have lost various bones, especially fusing of the two lower limb bones
> Generalist teeth for an opportunistic, omnivorous diet; loss of some primitive mammalian dentition, humans have lost two premolars
> Progressive expansion and elaboration of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex
> Greater facial mobility and vocal repertoire
> Progressive and increasingly efficient development of gestational processes
> Prolongation of postnatal life periods
> Reduced litter sizeusually just one (allowing mobility with clinging young and more individual attention to young)
> Most primates have one pair of mammae in the chest
> Complicated social organization
> 
> So you are saying that there is no evidence for hell.  Wow, we agree on something.  There's a first time for everything after all.
Click to expand...


I just dismantled your argument in the other thread.


----------



## orogenicman

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that anything like you being related to apes with no evidence to prove it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't merely related to apes.  We ARE apes.
> 
> Characteristics of all primates, including human beings:
> 
> Forward-facing eyes for binocular vision (allowing depth perception)
> Increased reliance on vision: reduced noses, snouts (smaller, flattened), loss of vibrissae (whiskers), and relatively small, hairless ears
> Color vision
> Opposable thumbs for power grip (holding on) and precision grip (picking up small objects)
> Grasping fingers aid in power grip
> Flattened nails for fingertip protection, development of very sensitive tactile pads on digits
> Primitive limb structure, one upper limb bone, two lower limb bones, many mammalian orders have lost various bones, especially fusing of the two lower limb bones
> Generalist teeth for an opportunistic, omnivorous diet; loss of some primitive mammalian dentition, humans have lost two premolars
> Progressive expansion and elaboration of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex
> Greater facial mobility and vocal repertoire
> Progressive and increasingly efficient development of gestational processes
> Prolongation of postnatal life periods
> Reduced litter sizeusually just one (allowing mobility with clinging young and more individual attention to young)
> Most primates have one pair of mammae in the chest
> Complicated social organization
> 
> So you are saying that there is no evidence for hell.  Wow, we agree on something.  There's a first time for everything after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just dismantled your argument in the other thread.
Click to expand...


You'd have to be living in an alternate reality to come to that conclusion.  The fact that you live in denial of the most basic of biological realities is proof enough that that is true.


----------



## orogenicman




----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfdGbDpJhIY]Tweeter and the Monkey man - YouTube[/ame]


----------

